ML20054M753

Transcript of Nrc/Licensee 820525 Conference in Bethesda,Md Re Adequacy of NRC site-specific Spectra & Weston Geophysical Corp Rept

ML20054M753
Person / Time
Site:	Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png
Issue date:	05/25/1982
From:	CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), NRC
To:
Shared Package
ML20054M752	List: ML20054M751 ML20054M753
References
ISSUANCES-OLA, NUDOCS 8207140371
Download: ML20054M753 (111)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:. w Or' ~ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 3 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x 4 in the matter of

Docket No. 5 0 -15 5 -OI.A (Spent Fuel Pool CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Modification) 6

~ (Big RocP. Point Nuclear Power Plant) 7 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x 8 9 Conference Room 6110 10 Maryland National Bank Building Old Georgetown Road II Bethesda, Maryland 12 Tuesday, May 25, 1982 13 14 CONFERENCE BETWEEN STAFF AND LICENSEE 15 The conference between the NRC Staff and 16 the Licensee convened at 10:35 a.m., pursuant to 17 18 agreement. 19 20 e 21 22 s ss 8207140371 820710 PDR ADOCK 05000155 T PDR n

o 2 1 Present: Richard Emch 2 Leon Reiter 3 4 Jeff Kimball 4 Banad Jagannath g Raymond F. Scholl, Jr. ~ 6 Edward Levine 7 - - ~ ~. _ _... Robert Vincent 8 Richard Holt 9 10 11 12 g f 14 15 16 h 17 18 19 7 20 21 22 E e 6

3 ERQ((EQlEgg 1 MR. EMCH: Okay, I guess we are ready to get this thing started. 3 I don't know if you are all aware of it or not, 4 but this meeting is going to be recorded as a result of i instructions that I received yesterday morning from the Board for the Spent Fuel Pool Expansion hearing. 7 .. ~. Therefore, we need to try to speak clearly 8 and not have too many people talking at one time, so that 9 our reporter can keep track of what is going on. This transcript will be given to the Intervenor, 11 s (./ Semmel, Christa-Maria, O'Neill and company, Inte rvenor or Intervenors. Other than that, you know, we will just have a 1 meeting just like we normally would. We will have to furnish any kind of drawings 16 l or viewgraphs or anything that get used, or any documenta-tion that gets referred to, we will have to furnish. I guess everybody has a copy, which I don' t have, of the agenda, the questions or the information 20 that the Staff has indicated that they want to talk about. 21 So what's the hext step? 22 g v e

4 MR. REITER: I'd like to say a few words. MR. EMCH: Go ahead. 2 MR. REITER: I just want to again put everything in the context of what the meeting is, and what we are trying to accomplish.In the Systematic Evaluation Program when the Staf f identified and made its recommend.ations for particular sites, based upon recommendations from 7 --- - ~ ___... Lawrence Livermore, we indic5ted there were three sites 8 that might have possible anomalous conditions which should be examined as to whether these sites were such that their 10 spectra would have to be modified from generalized soil or .( / rock spectra, which the program recommended. The Big Rock Point was not one of these sites, l Since then, as an initial evaluation, we have u 4 14 l been informed by Lawrence Livermore that the evaluation 15 of Big Rock was overlooked, and that indeed there might E be some possible anomalous site conditions there. 17 Presently we are engaged in that assessment, 18 as to what are the conditions, and the bottom line is, i 19 again in context of the Systematic Evaluation Program recommendations, would we require some modification to 21 the recommended soil spectra; and if we do, what would .~ a a

5 that recommendation be. I would hope that the questions that we are trying to answer, the problems of anomalous site conditions within that context -- and it might serve us well to remember that context throughout the presentation. I think you have a copy, received a gopy of the work which we have done. We gave some questions on that. 8 Is it your idea you want to make some sort of presentation on what's been done and in that respond to some of the comments we have? 11 MR. VINCENT: Well, I'd like to say a few words, too. First, I'm sorry I'm so late. U.S. Air came through again. They're not very reliable these days. ( (Laughter.) I 16 About the third week or so of April, I guess, 17 which is just about a month ago, I guess now, we became l 18 I , aware of questions that had arisen about site soil l characteristics and possible~ anomalies at the site. At that point I talked with Bill Russell on the point a couple of times, and mentioned th'e f act that %ssF 6

t l 6 I we had an evaluation that we had put toge ther over the years in parallel with the site-specific spectra effort, 3 the TE RA-Live rmore e f f ort, totally independent of anything 4 the NRC had done. 5 At the time -- in fact, my intent then and I 6 guess still is, in bringing this up was that it-was 7 another_p_iece of,, evidence, another piece of information 8 that could be used by the Staf f to support certainly the 9 adequacy of Point 1 to Reg Guide 1.60 khich was used to solely for the purpose of initial limited analysis at 11 Big Rock, subject to final selection, final definition of 12 the site-specific spectra. 13 My intent was to give the Staf f the report at r g4 that point as quickly as possible, to try to resolve the 15 issue as quickly as possible, so this thing wouldn't drag on. So that was done. 16 4 I hand-carried copies in to Washington on the 17 18 6 th of May. That was a Thursday. Initially they were g 19 docketed. through normal process. We subsequently withdrew 20 that letter, and a few days later, roughly, the report 21 was given to the Hearing Board as a formal piece of 22 testimony or piece of evidence there, as opposed to a + h

7 0 standard piece of licensing correspondence. S my riginal intent was to ha. e a meeting 2 like this immediately af ter I hand-carried the copy of 3 the report to the Staf f, so that we could talk about the talk in general about the earthquake records that

report, were selected, try to assist the Staff in expediting the review of that report.

Now that initially was the sole intent of the mee ting, to try to expedite things and get it resolved. Since then, the meeting date, of course, has dragged on and you have now had a chance to review that report, and we got a few of your comments here. I was out of town most of last week. I received 13 your comments Friday morning, and immediately had part of them retyped and telecopied to Weston, so we really have only had them then for essentially one and a half or so working days. So I am not sure how much detail we can offer in response to the questions yet, but I think we . c an talk about them in general terms, at least. So I think rather than make a formal presentation, 20 r I think we can presuppone that you are f airly f amiliar with what is in the report right now, and I think -- I guess l ? v i I i i

8 there are a couple of things then that I would like to accomplish in the meeting. Rather than make a formal presentation on the report, I think we are best off in ~ '~ trying to discuss the questions that you have en the report and respond to them as we can. The other thing I would like to hear is where C *- 6 the Livermore eff ort stands right now on looking at the 1 local site conditions, amplification of the site. That's 8 C been an ef fort that we have not been involved in at all. 9 I understand there was a meeting yesterday 10 concerning that, and I am interested in finding out where that whole issue stands now and how much progress has been made, and I would ask the Staff, if possible, to sort of fill us in on that. g I guess if we address anything, those are the 15 two basic areas I'd like to touch on. 16 I guess there are a couple of items that I L 17 would sort of like to emphasize. I think it is important 18 to note that the Wes*.on report was a totally independent voluntary effort by Consumers, and we gave the report with the intent to be helpful, and it really didn' t go 21 beyond that point at all. s 4

p i 9 i ( The issue in the spent fuel pool hearings is, of course, specifically the crane analysis which was done with a.12 Reg Guide 1.60.I think we are raally addressing 3 C two problems: One is the question of whether the.12 Reg Guide 1.60 is acceptable for at least the limited purposes of the spent fuel hearings and, of course, the broader 7 question is really an SEP question: What is the appropriate C spectrum for the site that we should use for the balance-of-plant analyses that still remain to be done. So, certainly our discussions will cover both of the areas, but the time-sensitive one, in our opinion, or the most time-sensitive one, of course, is the spent fuel pool hearing issue. c MR. REITER: Let me ask a question: On the spent fuel pool, what was used ror analysis? MR. VINCENT: .12, Reg Guide 1.60. MR. REITER: So you did not use the site-specific spectra? MR. VINCENT: No, we didn't. 21 MR. EMCH: For the crane? 22 s_..

10 MR. VI5CEST: That's right. Ne submitted a report last August of an analysis done for us by D'Appolonia. That ef fort was started some time around '78. 4 In fact, the crosshole testing, which is a key 5 piece of information that we have on this whole issue, was done in '78. The report was received by us in January '79. So our work with D' Appolonia has been going on since '78. 9 The analyses that they did covered all of the major structures on site, including the containment bpild-ing, and it is really from that analysis that we are obtaining the floor response spectra used as input for 13 the crane analysis. We have three nodes from the computer model 15 of the concrete structures inside of containment that we 16 used. So back in that timeframe -- I wasn't around then, 17 but it is my understanding that the.12 Reg Guide 1.6 0 was basically settled on through some agreement between the Staf f and Consumers as an interim spectrum that was 20 acceptable for the ' analyses that we were getting into. The expectation at that time was that.12 Reg ,_) a

u 11 1 Guide 1.60 was conservative, and that most likely site-specific spectra would be less than that, so it was viewed 2 as a conservative approach to start. 3 I'm not sure I have fully answered your question. 4 Does that give you enough background on it? 5 MR. REITER: I would like to make a suggestion: ( 6 I know that I have never yet been in a meeting 7 where a short summary of what was done hasn't been useful, 8 and before you go on responding to the questions, would ? 9 it be possible just for a few minutes to summarize what to 11 you have done, and then try and respond to the questions, rather than just going to the questions? 12 MR. VINCENT: You mean summarize what Weston 13 has done? Sure. f g,4 MR. REITER: It's always useful to do that. 15 MR. HOLT: Let me add a copple of remarks in 16 i the beginning. 17 The first is that we did'not fine-tune 18 site-specific spectra. What we basically did is look at 19 site-specific spectra. If we used the same ground rules 20 that we used at Midland, and some of the same data set, 21 then the question is where would it come out with respect s 22

12 to.12 zero period acceleration and Reg Guide 1.60. S that I don' t think in any sense that we 2 would call -- and Ed can deny or confirm this -- whether 3 we would call the present spectra a final site-specific ~ spectra. Is that true, Ed, or is it not? MR. VINCENT: What's the question? 7 (Laughter. ) MR. HOLT: Let me add, too, that one of the 9 things we have gone around -- and I think we need to discuss Midland a little bit -- as to whether or not. the appropriate magnitude is 5, or whether or not we should be looking at something slightly higher. How much 13 we should consider amplification. 14-The very brief look that I've had at amplifica-15 tion would indicate that top column of ~ about 30 feet is 16 only going to need amplifying in the high frequency range, I 15 hertz or higher. So those are the things that I think are still 19 outstanding. I think one thing we have demonstrated is 21 certainly Reg Guide 1.60, anchored at.12 g, is probably the s 22 ~... 4

13 1 enveloping case. It's very high. 2 MR. REITER: I just want to again put it in the 3 context of what our review is. We don't want to get off 4 on tangen ts that relate to plants that are coming for OLs 5 or other kinds of things. Okay? We want to come up with a result which is consistent with the way we have -treated 6 7 the SEP_ plants and the other plants. 8 There, there were two bases. One was a 9 probabilistic basis, and in that probabilistic ba5is, we 10 had two general types of site conditions, one rock and one 11 soil. And the question is, do we -need to modify that 12 spectra to take into account conditions at Midland -- 13 I'm sorry, at Big Rock Point, as they would compare to the C. 14 type of conditions as were exemplified in the records which were chosen for the probabilistic part. 15 l The other part of the spectrum was that we felt 16 9 as a floor to these probabilistic spectrum, 17 a median representation of a magnitude 5. 3 should be 18 19 es tablished. And again, there we also used both g 20 generalized soil and rock conditions. And in that 21 context, should that be modified? That's the framework we tried to get into, in g 22 v

14 =9 the discussion about Midland, as the design value would I also have to take into account that when you are 2 using a median or a one plus sigma, that there are all 3 kinds of things bouncing back and forth. 4 Now anything you want to say, wa'd be 3 1 very happy to hear, but the kinds of things that are 6 going to help us reach a decision -- and we really are 7 i very interested in what you have to say, as we are very 8 interested in what Livermore has to say. There are no 9 final conclusions. Livermore is doing sensitivity tests 10 f r us. They are looking at the effect of soil conditions, 11 using various kinds of rock vs. soil, various actual 12 1 sites, and doing some computer runs, using shake on the 13 particular situations at Big Rock Point. They are coming up ? 14 l with various kinds of amplification ratios that might affect l 33 ar k site. And then they are also looking at estimates 16 n azard, the kinds of assumptions that we are assuming l 17 in those hazards, and the probabilistic estimations. 18 What kind of assumptions they make about ground motion and 19 soil conditions that were already built in. To what 20 21 . extent if you want to modify the spectra, how would you ( modify it. And there are no firm conclusions as of yet. 22 i I g 9 S

15 We expect to receive a report from Livermore -- 1 MR. KIMBALL: Wednesday. 2 MR. REITER: By next Wednesday, a week from 3 tomorrow. And there are going to be essentially some 4 sensitivity studies they had done to look at some of g those various problems. 6 So this is the kind of problem we are dealing 7 with, and we are really interested in what you have to say. 8 Jeff has listed some points here that.we are 9 interested in, and I think Banad -- there is one additional 10 point, which is they are not directly related to the site-33 specific spectra. 12 One of the points we had at the end, Point No. 5, ~ 13 is a more generalized question, not related to the problem. ( g I don't know if you are prepared to answer that 15 r n t. 16 MR. KIMBALL: I think the first two paragraphs ( - 37 in this attachment tried to put it in the frame that Leon 18 - is suggesting. 19 7 MR. HOLT: Leon, I t,hink your points are 20 well taken. I don' t think we are prepared today to 21 discuss the kind's of sensitivities and variations with 22 9 --.~s

16 ~ respect to the mean 84th percentile, with respect to 5 3 5.3 magnitude, with respect to relative hazard 2 vs. and amplification. I don't think we are prepared to 3 discuss any of those. 4 With respect to the data set Ed has used, I S think you are prepared to discuss that, so if that is 6 benefi_gia,1, we could go to that. 7 MR. REITER: As Jeff pointed out, these are 8 the things we are concerned with, and anything you can 9 help us with, we are very interested in hearing what you 10 have to say. jj So maybe the best thing is to let you go, 12 and the only thing I would request is to just go over 13 that in general before you go into the que.= tion in 14 specific. Give us a short general summary of what you 15 did, and then give us specific things that would be useful. 16 7 MR. LEVINE : All I am going to repeat is 37 ef fectively what is in the report. I can give you some 18 thinking of what went along with the selection of sites h 19 on the things Jef f is most concerned about. 20 (Slide.) 21 The shear wave velocity column for the Big Rocks 22 a

17 1 Point site is displayed on there. Again, we have a shear 2 velocity in feet per second, and a depth in varicus layers. 3 This was taken from the D' Appolonia 1979 report of the And what we have used here are the summary numbers 4 summary. for the two overburden layers as given in the text. 5 6 If you look at the plot of actual numbers, 7 there _is..a_f air _, amount of scatter. 8 MR. EMCH: Just a minute. Before you go any 9 further -- (Discussion of f the record. ) 10 11 MR. EMCH: When we put something up here, we need to indicate dhat this is the shear wave. ~ 12 l 13 MR. VINCENT: This is Figure 1 out of the report. t'. 14 Is that going to identify it? MR. EMCH: That's helpful. 15 MR. LEVINE: I guess this is the area of 16 concern in Question 5, if I'm not mistaken. 17 MR. KIMBALL: Yes, I believe so. 18 l 19 MR. LEVINE: Is this your area of concern? 20 MR. JAGANNATH: Yes., 21 MR. LEVINE: We can get into a discussion later on, but I'd just like to point out that the shear velocityg 22 v 1

N 's f 1 N s i s foot per second, which has cf that material is still 4000 I So cierything . 2 the rock-like material. to be conside.t 2 ; is considered rock-like, f rom th s point on down, 3

below, despite the variations up and down in the velocity range.

4 I will now go through the figures in order 5 in the report. Figures 2 through 9, which show a C 6 compa'rIsch~cf-the shear wave velocity profiles for the 7 with the shear wave velocity profiles for Big Rock Point, 8 the station selected for the data set. 9 (Slide.) 10 The overall data set consists of 11 records, 11 22 components from eight stations. 12 The first station we selected was the Cedar 13 I think the basis for its selection Springs pump house. 14 was the f act that we had the appropriate amount of low 15 with a velocity velocity material, approximately 40 feet, 16 impedance of about a f actor of 2 of velocity contrast, j7 We anticipate about a f actor of 2 at a depth of 40 feet. 18 rock at a depth of 2500 feet, this is now into rock site, 19 e so we sould anticipate that this velocity would continue 20 to increase with depth. 21 Something to point out, and you MR. VINCENT: 22 8

( 19 f I l are probably aware of it, but for analysis purposes, 2 anyway, the containment itself has an equivalent disc 3 at elevation 5 73, which is about 17 feet below the surf ace, ( 4 and the 40 foot level is roughly elevation 550. 5 So, for the analysis, anyway, we are talking f,- 6 slightly over 20 feet of glacial till between the rock 7 and the_e.quiva_le,nt dis c. In actuality, the base of the foundation is at 562, which means from the very bottom of 8 e the containment foundation to the rock is slightly over 10 9 10 fee t. 11 MR. KIMBALL: But we are under the understanding 7 12 that the soil structure interaction analysis must use 13 the way it was done, the free field at the top of the till 1 14 ma te rial. 15 MR. REITER: The embedment ef fects' are taken into account by soil structure interaction. What we are 16 f 17 talking about is free surface, top of the till. 18 MR. HOLT: So it is amplification considered 19 ~from -- 20 MR. REITER: ie are foing a free surface 21 calculation of the top of the surf ace and the effects of 22 the embedment, whatever they are, is supposed to be taken g

20 into account by the soil structure interaction. That's 1 what we have been informed by the SEP Branch. 2 MR. KIMBALL: So from structure to structure, 3 [. 4 it. takes it into account, how deep it is embedded. MR. HOLT: For input purposes, the amplification 5 from bedrock to the top of the free ground surf ace? h~ 6 ---._ MR.._ RE ITE R : The amplification we are after is 7 the difference between Big Rock and those soil conditions, 8 5 as's umed. in SEP site. We don't want -- that's what we 9 are trying to get at. That's the very important context. 10 MR. EMCH: Did you folks use a different method, the S".P me thod, to see what is the free field at the top 12 and to make some correction for that, for how much below g3 the surf ace it actually goes? That's what you' re saying; ( g4 I 15 right? Did they use a different method? MR. KIMBALL: No, that's what they used, and 16 ( that's why SEP is requesting that we look at it in the 17 context of the free field. 18 MR. EMCH: I kind of got the impression that 39 what you. guys did was calculate what the motion was, or 20 the spectra was, at this disc, at this equivalent disc, 21 and you never really went all the way to the surf ace. Is s 22 S

i"l 21 i l 1 1 1 that a true statement' 2 MR. VINCENT: I can ' t answer that. That is certainly a valid question that ought to be answered. 3 MR. EMCH: When I was talking with Bill Russell, 4 he sort of indicated to me that was one of the. problems, 5 that there was a slight difference in method between what, 6 SEP is_.normally_used to seeing, and what you folks did, 7 and he explained to me the SEP method which comes to the 8 surface and then calculates what happens as you go down. 9 And he said you folks just did the calculation right at 10 the surface. And it wasn't clear if he would calculate a 11 lower value up at the top or what. 12 MR. KIMBALL: All structures at Big Rock are not 13 founded as deep as the containment. There are some C 14 Category 1 structures that are essentially at the free 15 field. 16 C MR. VINCENT: That's true. The containment is 17 by far the deepest. But when you get outside of the 18 ~ containment, there is not a whole lot other than some of 19 the electrical equipment in the,other major buildings that 20 21 we need. Most things, including the spent fuel pool, are inside the containment itself. So that is certainly our 22

22 biggest area of concern. MR. REITER: Correct me if I'm wrono. The 2 profile that Ed presented, you are assuming 40 feet, so you are not taking in'to account any embedment or anything. You're working on the same assumption that we are. MR. VINCENT: For these purposes, yes. 6 MR. HOLT: And I gather from what you said, 7 if we could show that the site selected by Livermore 8 already had amplification that would account for this, the spectra wouldn't change. MR. KIMBALL: There were two aspects that. 11 ,I went into the Livermore analysis: One was the probabilistic aspect which used essentially the Trifunac and Brady data. set, made some 14 assumptions about uncertainties, and looked at various ranges of uncertainties with, you know, two or three I standard deviations. 17 And then the second data set is the real time 18 history. . So, looking at this in the context of both of those data sets. 20 MR. REITER: That's right. The question is, 21 should the soil spectra that we recommended -- are the .s S

23 conditions at Big Rock such rhat they are sufficienrly ancmalous for us to have those modified, or are the kinds of conditions that are at Big Rock included within the range of soil conditions which -- that's the question. And again, we are also trying to recommend to Livermore to not get of f on a whole problem o,f amplification studies, abstract amplification studies. 7 ..-..._.c That's a very important topic, but we want to try to put it in the context of that decision that we made. 9 MR. KIMBALL: I think the main thing about it 10 is you made the point before you went into that specific topic, you'd have to have a target to shoot for, and I don' t think there has really been a target magnitude or something like that set. MR. REITER: Except in the real spectra, the 15 target was median representation of a 5.3. But in terms of probabilistic spectra, there is no single earthquake. It's probabilistic evaluation. I'm sorry. Go ahead. MR. HOLT: I think that clarifies it. e 20 (Slide.) 21 This is Figure 3 out of the report. These

24 are measured shear wave velocity values in the Oroville and I believe it's 10 meters or approximately 35

area, feet of low velocity material overlying the rocks in the area which have a shear velocity of approximately 5000 --

4 MR. REITER: Maybe this is Banad's question. 5 A lot of these profiles don't have that low velocity zone. L,, 6 Are you going to address somewhere what impact that low velocity zone might have on these records? 1 MR. LEVINE: You mean this area here? My 9 own feeling is that it won't have any impact because this is still over 4000 foot protection.' This is still shear 11 n velocity of the rocks. ~ 12 MR. KIMBALL: Well, the impedance -- I guess 13 s k the question is, the impedance contrast 5 3 to 700 in the upper feet, or is the impedance contrast something less to 700 feet? Does that act as a reflector in any way? 16 MR. REITER: In some way reduce the effectiveness 17 of impedance contrast? MR. LEVINE: We don ' t know. 19 ( MR. KIMBALL: But it's a lot softer than this. 20 It's much more of a decrease at depth. 21 MR. LEVINE: Are you talking about the WPPS i s t 4

25 s tudie s? MR. HOLT: The impedance contrast with that 2 layer, I think I agree with that. My gut feeling would be that it's going to' probably be beyond 15 or 20 hertz. But we can ' t demonstrate that today. We just don't know. MR. REITER: I'm not talking about th_e period r 6 of the con trast, but the ef fect of the contrast, the 7 amplitude. In other words, the f act of a low velocity zone, does it serve to reduce the ef fect of the impedance contrast? MR. LEVINE: In other words, is there going 11 to be some energy reflected? Yeah, probably. 12 MR. HOLT: I think, as a matter of fact, you 13 could probably simulate it by taking an average velocity 14 s that's a little bit higher and then a little bit lower than the highest. But I don ' t know that. 16 (Slide. ) 17 i MR. LEVINE: The next station that we included 18 ,was Maiano. It's in Italy. This is now Figure 4 from i the report. The Maiano station has 20 meters of low velocity alleuvial material over sof t sedimentary rock, with a shear velocity of approximately 3500 foot per s.

I and once we are into the sedimentary rocks, you

second, e

can anticipate that they would slowly increase in velocity 2 with dep th. 3 ( Maiano is -- I believe these shear velocities 4 the site are based on compression wave velocities at 5 and measured shear wave velocitynvalues at other sites f' 6 in the region._,, 7 (Slide.) 8 The next site, Figure 5 from the report, is C These are measured 9 Gavilan College in Gilroy, California. 10 and you can see -- this is probably shear wave velocities, 11 the best fit you can probably get in terms of comparison 12 with the Big Rock Point profile. 13 I believe And here again, at depth we are into, 14 it's the Franciscan series of rocks and sedimentary sequence, which again should slowly increase in velocity with depth. (Slide. ) 18 Another California site which we included 19 This is now Figure in the data set is Golden Gate Park. 20 I think this has been discussed 6 out of the report. There is a lot of differing 21 previously a number of times. g 22 O

27 cpinion as to which set of shear wave velocity values is probably most representative at the site. I think the rocks near surface from observation at Golden Gate Park are quite broken. It's my feeling that probably the lower the velocity, the more representative near surf ace, and the higher velocities are more representatiye at 6 depth, especially since you get into the rock s equence 1 of the Franciscan series. 8 I think in view of that, there is probably a f airly good correspondence in terms of the velocities in the velocity contrast at the Big Rock Point site. 11 MR. HOLT: This is one you had concern about, 12 Jeff. 13 MR. REITER: And Cedar Springs also. I see. 14 MR. VINCENT: Did you ur.e both of those? 15 MR. LEVINE: We used the data and used the 16 judgment that it's probably lower velocity near surf ace, 17 and the higher velocity at depth. This is all rock, but it's a question that the rocks are observed to be quite broken. But once you get down 30 or 40 feet, you are going to get constant rock which has shear velocity. In the Franciscan' series they are measured here and other ~ e

28 I places generally between 3000 and 4000 foot per second. 2 MR. HOLT: Are you concerned with the unknown, Jeff? 3 MR. KIMBALL: During the past it's been stated 4 that the Silverstein profile is probably more representative 5 of the two. I guess there is an unknown. Is it the best, T. s 6 combination of both of those to fit this site? Or is 7 the combinations that have been used in the past that fit 8 othe r sites, I guess? 9 MR. REITER: Is Golden Gate at the top and 10 Silverstein at the bottom? 11 ~# MR. HOLT: Well, if you have been to Golden 12 Gate Park, the conditions vary. Th6re is no question g3 about that. The shear outcropping -- 14 MR. KIMBALL: That's close. That is a rock site. 15 MR. LEVINE: I don ' t think either one of those 16 sets of velocities would really classify as a rock site. 17 MR. REITER: If they pick up a chunk and throw 18 it at you,. does it hurt? 39 MR. LEVINE: Oh, yes. 20 (Laughter.) 21 MR. HOLT: But then I'm old. g 22 E

29 (Laugh te r. ) 3 (Slide.) 2 MR. LEVINE: There are other factors. How fast, and where it hits you. Figure 7 is the profile beneath the Oroville Medical Center up in the area where the Oroville earthquakes occurred. This is based on the shear wave -- measured 7 shear wave velocity values in the area, to determine that there is 40 feet of, I believe, tertiary gravels overlying the rocks in the area which have shear velocities 10 ranging from 4500 to 5500 foot per second. So this site was selected based on the appropriate thickness of exactly 40 feet and a velocity contrast of about 2-1/2 to 1, which fairly well matches the velocity contrast at Big Rock Point. 15 (Slide.) 16 The next site is the Tarcento site from Italy, l recorded again in the Friuli series of earthquakes. This 18 is Figure 8 from the report. Tarcento has measured s shear wave velocities, as shown,here, a low velocity layer of about 10 to 15 foot in thickness, and then shear velocity of approximately 3000 foot per second in

j 30 Il j

I sedimantary rocks. Again we are into the rock sequence, so it is anticipated that the shear wave velocity of the rocks will slowly increase at depth. 2 (Slide.) 5 The last site that was used in the data set 6 which is described in rigure 9 of the report is the 7 Tolmezzo site, again which was recorded in the Friuli series of earthquakes. I think here you can see what was a typical profile for the rock station, which just has a thin veneer of alleuvial material, but the shear velocity 12 starts at about 2000 foot per second and climbs rapidly to about 4000 foot per second at a depth of about 40 feet, and then the shear velocity stays high, as you would 15 expect in the sedimentary rock column. l l 16 MR. HOLT: Your concern here was that there 17 wasn ' t suf ficient low velocity? 18 MR. KIMBALL: I think in looking at the data set in total, one, there's not much data., You look at 20 things like Oroville and Oroville is not the simplest set of peak acceleration data to interpret, based upon the

31 '\\ entire data set, not just the data set for 5 to 5-1/2. There are a lot of recordings from Oroville between 4 and 2 5 af tershock sequence that have f airly high recorded 3 motions and not necessarily that small hypocentral depth -- ( 4 And I guess it's just an experience distance, excuse me. 5 in looking at the data set, looking at a small _ data se t, f 6 knowing _ various, other areas were recorded, both smaller 7 and moderate earthquakes for sites that are qualitatively 8 similar to Big Rock, and identifying the sites, which gave 9 us some concern. 10 This site would essentially be -- I don't see a 11 I characterize that as a stiff sharp impedance contrast. 12 site, not necessarily as a shallow soil site. 13 MR. LEVINE: Those are the eight sites which 14 We took went into making up the site-specific spectra. the 11 available, the 11 records, and combined them. I (Slide.) 17 And came out with the mean median 84th percentile 18 as shown here. 19 I don ' t have a 'ploj of the -- I don ' t have a 20 transparency of all the individual spectra, but I do have all the individual spectra with me, and they are all quite g 22 s

22 similar, really. They all have-- in fact, I guess if we haracterize them, they all pretty much look like this. 2 They are dropping off in the vicinity of three to four hertz. 3 They all decline sharply in this direction. 4 MR. REITER: What's the magnitude and distance? 5 MR. LEVINE: 5.3. The magnitudes range from P. 6 4.9 to 5.5. ML. And Jeff, what is the average distance? 7 MR. KIMBALL: 14.1. 8 C MR. REITER: So what range are you looking at, plus or minus a half unit? 10 MR. LEVINE: Yes, we went plus or minus a. half 11 a unit from the 5. 3. g MR. REITER: What's the largest record? 13 MR. LEVINE: In terms of acceleration? The c g largest record I believe is one from the Dee ' Johnson g Ranch which, as Jef f pointed out, is.19. There are a ( couple of -- 17 MR. REITER: Do you have transparencies? 18 MR. LEVINE: I don't have transparencies. I 19 c. can show you a plot of each one, if you want to look at 20 them. g MR. KIMBALL: We requested that they bring each ' (. c A

i 33 l. l h 1 individual ccmponent, below No. 1 and 2 on the questions. l MR. LEVINE: If you want, we can take the time 2 3 now. MR. REITER: In response to Question 1, have 4 you thought about a response to that? 5 1[

'j' MR. LEVINE

Well, I think my feeling is that 6 I think wa_have. a. f airly good data set. Needless t'e say, 7 t 2 if we took out those four stations, you 'd be down to c.7 y., 8 four stations left, and you ' d only have, I guess it',s 10 9 records -- excuse me 10 components, five records, and I 10 don' t think that's a statistically significan't quantity of 11 records on which to base the site-specific spectra. 12 MR. KIMBALL: Can I ask you a question on your 13 first comment? Do you think this is as fine-tuned as C g4 Dick quoted? 15 MR. LEVINE: No, it's not.-- I think th'e 16 C / question was fine-tuning from the standpoint of what was 37 the appropriate magnitude that we really 5.hould+ hone in on 18 "I think if he was fine-tuning it from a station characteristic, 39 at the time we did ..is, this was probably what was available, 20 and we did consider other stations, as we stated in the 21 22 report, and we checked it then for various reasons. s (

34 l MR. HOLT: The report is dated May -- what's i 2' the date of the last ene? MR. LEVINE: I think the history says that -- 3 it must have been a year ago that we transmitted preliminary ,4 l spectra to Bill Bekke at Consumers Power, and then our 3 b' pri rities with Consumers Power were to, needless to say,, 6 7 j work on_the, tiidland site, and when we did get some time s to complete our documentation of the Big Rock Point site, g it turned out we were in the process of doing that, that 10 j very item, when Bob called and expressed the need to get the report. 33 ,~ "i l. And, in fact, we had, I think, just before Bob's lf" 2 ..J b3 call gone through a complete in-house review which did u Af,' change the spectra a little bit. There was some discussion C , 34 about some stations. I think one station was added in 33' I and one station was deleted. t 16

1. d MR. HOLT:

Have there been any recordings 37 since the time of the submission that would be appropriate fIf < 18 for the data set? 39 MR. LEVINE: The only one would be Mammoth 20 l Lakes in California, and I don't know if we have the 21 details on the site conditions there on which to really s 22 / ( a

l 35 1 go out and match the Big Rock Point site. [ 2 MR. HOLT: I think in essence what we said in i l the beginning was that we think we have a sufficient lt 3 data set to certainly demonstrate the conservatism of A 4 .12 g in the reg guide. The fine-tuning is indeed with l 3 respect to magnitude and with respect to recordings that 6 might have_been.made since the data set was submitted. 7 MR. REITER: What about the -- I ' ll make a i 8 direct comparison. Is the comparison of this median f' l 9 with respect to the median used in our recommendations, 10 the SEP recommendations, the soil median -- how do you feel 11 with respect to that? 12 In other words, the high frequencies at Big 13 Rock Point are controlled by the Livermore 5. 3 median. I 14 (S lide. ) 15 How do you feel with -- 16 MR. LEVINE: Well, this overhead shows a 17 comparison of the Reg Guide 1.60 at.12 g with the 18 median mean 84th percentile from Big Rock Point spectra, l7 19 20 site-specific spectra vs. the ECP spectra for the Big Rock Point site in the letter of June 8, 1981, and I believe 21 from this point to the higher frequencies is the median, 22 i l l s.

36 is that part of the spectrum which is represented by the 1 2 median of the real time histories. As you can see, that median is falling anywhere 3 between the median on the site-specific spectra and the 4 5 84th percentile s'ite-specific spectra. One point that I've always been concbrned about I' 6 ths TERA spectra is dhe inclusion of those three very 7 on high acceleration Japanese earthquakes which nobody really 8 Cs 9 apparently knows much about. They are supposedly about 10 magnitude 5 with a.6 g acceleration. They are supposedly sof t soil sites, with epicentral distances of 11 r,., 12 4, 5 and 6 kilometers. And I just feel very uneasy about 13 including that. 14 In fact, we have taken -- we have expressed l this previously in addendum to Part 1 of the Midland l 15 i 16 docket, and we have also looked at the Lawrence Livermore C 17 data set deleting those three records. In other words, by constructing the spectra 18 19 without those records, I think the Lawrence Livermore l 20 data set comes down substantially.- .2 21 MR. REITER: I'm trying to ask a question. Dick made a comment he felt this was conservative with s 22 i a ~

37 l re spe ct to Reg Guide 1.60, and how do you feel your median 3 is with respect to -- how do you feel the median used by NRC of the 84th percentile is with respect to this data? Or how do you feel -- what does this data tell you about that? What do you feel you can say at this point tha t 5 that data tells you? 6 MR. HOLT: Certainly the median we have on ~~ ~ 7 the present data set falls both below the reg guide and the SEP ' spectrum from Lawrence Livermore. 9 MR. KIMBALL: A few comments: 10 One, we have always said the Livermore data set, 11 for either an OL or whatever we have used it for, we have 12 l always expressed the desire that Applicants go out and develop their own. Two, maybe those Japanese are shallow soil sites 15 and qualitatively I guess if Big Rock is a potential 16 high frequency amplifier, I guess then I question the median being lower than the high frequencies, that much 18 l - lower. Because that's a factor of two, it looks like. 19 MR. HOLT: It's basically.1 vs. .2, from almost 20 1 l .2. 21 MR. KIMBALL: At about 25 hertz. Yeah. t 22 l i

38 MR. REITER: The question I am trying to ask is 1 that based on some of the points raised here -- and maybe 2 we should discuss the other point also -- about given 3 the problems with this data set, we indicate some of the problems on the s ite s. Given the problem that I guess we feel that Cholame Shandon should be included, what do you - 6 think j(ou can tell us about the adequacy of the median y of the Livermore spectra with respect to this site? Not 8 Reg Guide --.12 g, I think you made that statement. What can you tell us -- how much can we rely 10 upon this study which may or may not be fine-tuned which has problems with it, to tell us something about the adequacy of the median of the Lawrence Livermore spectra for the site? 13 MR. HOLT: I think it's conservative. I think c the Lawrence Livermore spectra probably is conservative -- 15 are conservative. I think that's true, isn't it? 16 (Mr. Levine nodding.) 17 MR. RE7TER: Knowing what you know about 18 deriving site-specific spectra and knowing what you know about the problems with the spectra here, and the lack of matching site conditions -- see, what we are trying 21 to wrestle with here is hey, do we have to really take a 22 s. i

39 1 look at that spectra and because of particular site ccnditions, attach some sort of amplification factor on, 2 or something like that, and here you're coming up with 3 site-specific spectra which is less. But there are 4 problems associated with it. 5 k I am trying to get you guys -- 6 MR..KIMBALL: For an example, if you took 7 the Johnson Ranch and the Med Center data, which is lower 8 probably - 'and the af tershock data, which was a lower 9 magnitude at maybe 8 to 12 kilometer average distance, 10 you'd probably get a higher spectrum than th at. 33 MR. HOLT: If you threw in Station 8, you'd 12 probably get a higher spectra, but then the question 13 comes out, is Station 8 appropriate? It's above what S. g4 would be characteristic of a magnitude 5. 15 l So, in e s s ence, taking all those kinds of 16 'i dif ferences -- and I realize we don ' t have the data in 37 front of us, but taking all those differences into account, 18 l ' I think the Lawrence Livermore spectra is going to be 19 on the conservative side. 20 MR. REITER: Again, Dick, for the purpose of 21 this exercise, we are assuming 5.3, because it's not used g 22 s I

7 e 40 e 1 in the same context as a design earthquake. It's used as 2 some sort of estimate of a floor, so it's a little dif ferent. 3 I'm not saying that your comments are inappropriate, 4 maybe from a general risk point of view, but for this exercise, we are sort of taking an assumed 5. 3. 5 So notwithstanding our discussions in the past,. 6 our position.is that we think it is appropriate to include 7 8 it in the 5.3. data set. 9 MR. KIMBALL: But again th e 5. 3 in the context of the SEP was a generalized soil site also. 10 11 MR. REITER: Yes. 12 MR. KIMBALL: I guess it's not clear, would we be looking at this as a generalized soil profile comparison 13 or a specific soil profile comparison? L 14 MR. VINCENT: The purpose of SEP really wasn't 15 to -- for this exercise wasn' t really to create a design 16 spectrum that might be applied to a new plant, with all 17 the conservatisms inherent in new plant construction. It 18 19 was really to assess whether or not the plant could survive what you might expect on the site, some kind of a 20 realistic approach to find what the site might realistically 21 -3 22 be expected to be exposed to. Consider the 10 or 10-4 euer.t l 4

41 l as a different question. But you try to define what is l 3 t realistic for the site, and then judge whether or not -- 2 udge how much of a hazard that site would really exposed 3 to on that kind of acceleration. 4 So the SEP and standard new licensing are really 3 two different things, and they have different purposes. ^ 6 MR. REITER: I realize that. I'm not arguing 7 with you at'all. I'm just telling you in the context of g the SEP, we make two gross classifications, soil and 9 r ek. And the question here is that there are some to g . conditions here which are identified as anomalous or. Potentially anomalous, and we are trying to see should 12 we iterate or should we modify the generalized soil 13 recommendations of the SEP. And that's why I'm trying g to ask the questions. The minimum that was used was 15 generalized soil. Okay? On the basis of what you have g seen here, if you had done -- or maybe you have done, I 37 don ' t know -- based on what you see, is that adequate? 18 Was that a conservative representation or an adequate t 19 b representation of a median for the 5.3 on this kind of 20 site condition for the one that was used? Namely, the 21 ~ Liverm re spectra? Or is this data set enough to show 22 .s, 8

42 l -- looking at all the questions we have here, does that 1 say that i:'s not very -- you can ' t really match those i 2 i i i conditions? 3 I'm trying' to explore with you -- trying to put into context the decision that we have to make, and I don ' t want to go of f into the kinds of things that we are very carefully avoiding there. 7 MR. VINCENT: In other words, how mucn 8 credibility do we assign to the data set in the results of the report that we have put toge ther ? MR. REITER: Credibility., in light of the decision that we have to make. 12 MR. HOLT: Well, I think the data set is 13 sufficient to deinonstrate that the spectra produced by Lawrence Livermore is conservative. 15 MR. REITER: For these site conditions, for 16 the Big Rock Point site conditions? MR. HOLT: For the Big Rock Point site. MR. REITER: In spite of the kinds-of things that have been pointed out here, that would appear to be a deficiency or lack of correlation between many of the stations and Lawrence Livermore and the actual site 22 s

1 1 43 I conditions at Big Rock Point. 2 MR. HOLT: Yes, I think I would like to go back 3 and -- I think to answer your question directly, the 4 answer is yes, I still think that with respect to the site. 5 specific conditions at Big Rock Point, I still think the 6 Lawrence Livermore spectra are conservative, but we 7 haven't gone back and run the actual sensitivity of 8 leaving these in or taking them out and seeing how it 9 affects the spectra. 10 Clearly on the mean that we show with respect 11 to the data set we get, there are only a few points at 12 which we coincide in the acceleration range with the SEP 13 spectrum. Almost universally out of that range, we are 14 below it. 15 So, in general, the spectrum is quite a bit 16 lower, but in one point on the acceleration range -- 17 MR. REITER: We are interested in the median. 18 Are you talking about the mean or the median? 19 MR. HOLT: Basically I was talking about the 20 mean. 21 (Slide-) 22 You don ' t have the median on here. The median, g 4

44 1 of course, is everywhere below -- 2 MR. LEVINE: I think if you took that data set 3 and included this, I don' t think the median for this 4 spectra would exceed the median for that spectra. I believe the SEP spectra would -- 5 MR. REITER: The Japanese stations used by 6 7 Livermor_e,in the,ir soil set -- is there a possibility -- you said they might be shallow sites? 8 MR. KIMBALL: Well, I don ' t think -- the f act 9 that they are high, we can' t -- we don ' t know. 10 MR. LEVINE: We don ' t know what dbe sites are. 11 The magnitudes are estimated magnitudes of 5. So, in 12 other words, when they ran their five-eight soil spectra, 13 C 34 they didn ' t include it in their highest acceleration values. MR. REITER: In their soil sites? 15 MR. LEVINE: There are supposedly soil sites. 16 MR. HOLT: One of the things about the whole '17 site-specific approach is that it lends itself very nicely 18 to documentation. It's clear where you sit with respect 19 to almost everything, and that'; one of the things I 20 think that is troublesome about the Japanese site. We 21 are unable to document very much about them. g 22 1

I 45 l l I I iiR. REITER: Do we have the records of those, 1 Jeff? MR. KIMBALL: No. But I want to follow up on 3 what Dick said. I would agree the site-specific spectra -- 4 I find it a much better way to go than the standardized 5 spectra, but it still is qualitative in respect to the judgment that goes into picking the sites which should be 7 ~~- used, and I think the Staff is sensitive to that qualitative part of it, because of comments we have gotten from the outs ide, such as from ACRS. And I guess my concern goes to that qualitative aspect of judgment that needs to cg) into the first step essentially of which sites need to be picked, and the fact that there are small earthquakes at Johnson Ranch which have higher response. ( You know, I think to me that signals that you 15 have got to be more careful, I guess, in the judgment that goes into this when you are selecting it for possible sites that may have amplification. MR. HOLT: But however much judgment is involved, 19 the point in f act is that they are clearly documented. I mean at least there is the basis for agreement or disagreement out there, and that's the part about the Japanese data that s a

46 we don't have documentation :nat says we are work.ing g from a known cuantity. 2 MR. REITER: So the Livermore set included 3 Parkfield 8, and the Uapanese stations, but did not 4 include -- of the stations that you used, which were not 3 included in the Livermore study? 6 MR. LEVINE: Of the stations? 7 - - ~ MR. REITER: That you used. 8 MR. LEVINE: That were not included in the 9 emore sWdy? 10 MR. REITER: Tolmezzo was included as rock? gg I' MR. LEVINE: That's right. 12 of the rock stations that were listed by 13 Lawrence Livermore, the only one that was really -- that e g was included in this data set was Tolmezzo. 15 MR. KIMBALL: I'm not sure if they used all 16 of the Tarcento records. g MR. LEVINE: Yes, there is a Tarcento record 18 .in the soil set. g9 MR. REITER: There is,a Tarcento record? I see. 20 MR. LEVINE: We've got a listing of the numbers 3 that Don Walter used, in the 5. 3 soil, 5. 3 rock, 5.8 soil, 22

47

5. 8 rock, and there were some -- there were a couple of 3

err rs in that table, and -- you Paow, that table 2 only appeared in the early draf t of the report, and in 3 subsequent revisions was dropped. 4 MR. KIMBALL: It's in the NUREG. 5 s h in de N G? m.- 6 MR. REITER: I think so, yeah. 7 "Y* 8 MR. KIMBALL: But Livermore made a judgment 9 n some of the Italian records about late triggering that 10 were n t included. 11 c MR. LEVINE: At Midland they did not use g Maiano, they did not use -- in f act, most of the records 13 that we have used here were not used in their soils. C 34 MR. REITER: They did not use Johnson Ranch g l r the Oroville Medical Center? 16 MR. LEVINE: No, they used Oroville Station 7 37 and Oroville Airport, but they didn't use those others. 18 MR. REITER: They used Golden Gate Park as g, rock and they used it as soil; right? f 20 MR. LEVINE: Yes, they used it as soil, right. MR. REITER: Gavilan College they didn't use; is 22 l s.

48 1 that right? MR. LEVINE: Yes, that's right. 2 MR. REITER: So they used some of the records. 3 They used -- 4 MR. LEVrNE: If you recall, from the Midland 5 6 report, we went through and commented on there on the data sS_ts, for th,e 5. 3 soil and the 5. 3 rock, and I think 7 the 10 stations they used for the rock spectrum, there 8 Were only six that we considered to have rock characteristics, 9 and soils was really a mixture of stiff soils and soft 10 soils. And most of what they have used in soil spectra 11 are soft soils. So that's why I think the difference 12 you see in the sites having Big Rock spectra which are 13 basically much stiffer sites than what has been used in 34 Livermore. 15 MR. KIMBALL: That would tend to deamplify 16 the high frequencies. 17 MR. LEVINE: If it was stiffer? 18 MR. KIMBALL: No, softer. 19 MR. LEVINE: One of the-observations I've had 20 over the last six months is that in the high frequencies, 21 you don't see very much difference at all. 22 s.

49 MR. KIMBALL: Except for shallow soil? 1 MR. HOLT: When you are close to the resident 2 period of the soils column, I think those tend to amplify, but I think Ed is right, at the lowest strain 4 levels, somehow a great deal of it gets transmitted. At the higher strain levels, damping tends to take over, but at the lower strain levels, the damping doesn ' t take over, 7 and they do tend to be the same. MR. KIMBALL: I don't know if I would agree 9 with that. MR. LEVINE: As I said, Jeff, I agree with your 11 .\\./ thinking, but I am just reporting what I have observed over the last six months or so. It's a little surprising. MR. HOLT: When I say soft soils, I'm not e 14 talking about very deep soil sites. I'm talking about a f ew tens of feet. Obviously if it's a very deep soft 16 soil, then the higher frequencies just don't get transmitted MR. KIMBALL: I guess qualitatively I'd say 18 that peak. acceleration is not site-dependent,. except for shallow soil over rock, and based upon observation also, and that I guess is supported by some of the comments that the people a.t the survey made, just qualitatively. I s s. 8

u 50 don ' t know if they have documented it recently. And in g Ken Campbell's recent work, he went in and looked at the rock, what's classified typically as rock, and separated 3 T out what is clearly rock with what past investigators 4 said is only 10 feet of soil over rock, so it's probably close to rock, and he saw a significant dif fere_nce in the shallow soil over rock. I don' t remember the exact 7 number, being higher than rock. And the examples that might be used to support that, although they are a t smaller magnitude than we might be looking at here, would be -- from what we know about some of the Japanese stuff 'll from the volcanic sequence at Matsushiro, it seemed like some of those sites may be shallow soil over rock. 13 Some of the stuff from Oroville, from Ancona 14 may be the sort of thing that's maybe just a few meters g over rock, and possibly some of the Mammoth Lakes data 16 that was just gone through, some of the sites look like they have a few meters of till over rock. MR. HOLT: How big were the earthquakes? 19 ( MR. KIMBALL: Most of them, I'd say, were smalle r, they're in the 4 to 5 range. It would be interesting to see if MR. HOLT: e

51 the sa:ae holds true at the high strain level. MR. REITER: Shall we continue? So your statement in response to 1 essentially is that you don't think there is enough data available, or you have no idea what would happen if you removed those points? MR. LEVINE: Well, to follow your question 7 literally, I think if you removed those points, you'd have to.-- we'd have to update this data set for the latest available information, if there are indeed any sites which are going to match the Big Rock Point characteristics. But 11 c' if you took out those four stations, then the literal 12 answer to your question -- if you took out those four stations and the six associated records, you are down to a data set which has 10 components in it. 15 MR. HOLT: The other point, too, is whether or 16 not you're going to keep a half a magnitude on point 3. If we could broaden the -- I don' t know if we could broaden 18 the data set. We might make up those components. MR. REITER: In re spe ct. to 2 ? 20 MR. LEVINE: I think the reason we include 21 Station 2 is that is getting a little thick in terms of ~ w.

52 overburden material. It's almost 80 feet of low velocity 4 material -- Station 8, I'm sorry, and I did bring a 2 E' 3 (S lide. ) 4 This is a profile for Station 8, and here 5 I think we is the profile for the Big Rock Point site. c. 6 can look at what the natural frequency of this soil column 7 -~ -.-.. The It's substantial from that natural frequency. is. soil column is thicker. It's 76 fee t vs. 40, and I think the thickest site we had before was Maiano which is g 60 feet, or something like that. And then when you start computing the actual 12 frequency, I think it's about half of what the natural U and that was frequency is at the Big Rock Point site, ( really the basis for not including that station. MR. HOLT: We might have other bases, but 16 we have had that discussion so many times it's engrained 17 in your memory. Jeff, do you want to say anything MR. REITER: 19 about that? MR. KIMBALL: I guess my comments are on the 21 and probably my comments are engrained in Dick's

sheet, s

(

53 }( l I mind, too. 2 (S lide. ) 3 MR. LEVINE: There is the Figario I 4 profile. 5 MR. REITER: How different is Figario from [ 6 Tolme zzo? MR.._ LEVINE : Toimezzo is -- 7 MR. KIMBALL: Figario is a lot higher than San 8 9 Rocca. Why? 10 MR. LEVINE: Why? We've been looking at that, 11 we have for another site, in detail, and we are not exactly sure why.. Some of it is in site amplification, 12 but we think that there are other f actors involved in 13 L 14 terms of the -- 15 MR. HOLT: We took a look at the orientation of the valley vs. what we guessed might be the -- well, 16 with respect to the soils, to see any changes in the soils. 17 I'm not convinced it's explained by either the direction 18 19 of the soils or the valley. ( 20 MR. LEVINE: They are on a sloping, bedrock 21 surface. When you compare spectra, and you do some averaging of the San Rocca spectra and the Figario spectray 22 S

i 54 and you compare the peaks, you see -- and normalize one spectra level to another, you see factors of 1.4, 1.6 2 in spectral amplification between them. Figario is out of the San Rocca site. 4 MR. HOLT: There is a peak in both Figario and 5 San Rocca that is not explained by site conditions. 7-MR. KIMBALL: But both Figario and Cholame 8 7 would increase the median in the high frequencies, yet from a qtalitative look at it they are sof ter sites which 9 would go against that. MR. HOLT: The peak that sits in both Figario and San Rocca is not site-related, and is in the high g frequency range. MR. LEVINE: There's a peak of around 3 to 4 ( hertz which actually shows up in both the rock spectra at San Rocca and the soil spectra at Figario. MR. HOLT: It's something to do with the ( 17 transmission. MR. LEVINE: It does have a greater amplifica-( 19 tion than Figario, but it's de#initely on both spectra. g MR. KIMBALL: We took a look at both of them P.3 g yesterday, but around 2 to 3 hertz -- not on San Rocca, s g - m-.

55 but it was Figario. MR. LEVINE: Take a look at it carefully. It's 2 there. 3 MR. REITER: I think it's normalized spectra, 4 and there is a peak at around 3 on Figario for the -- the relative dif ference is really very large. 6 MR. LEVINE: There's no question the peak is 7 also there on San Rocca. Look at it carefully. 8 MR. REITER: The relative distance, whatever 9 it is, is much greater. In other words, the largest spectral amplification of Figario vs. San.Rocca is 3. hertz, a big thing coming up like that (indicating). MR. LEVINE: That's right. But the point we 13 have observed is that that peak is not just at Figario, g in which case you might attribute it all to soil amplification effects. It is also at San Rocca. I MR. REITER: How was that determined? 17 MR. LEVINE: At crosshole measurements. 18 MR. REITER: Is that pretty reliable? 19 (, MR. LEVINE: I wasn't there to see it, but I 20 did interpret the data. MR. REITE R: You don't trust anybody except (- 22 a v a

56 j i yourself? 1 (Laughter.) 2 MR. LEVINE: I'm not sure what technique they 3 used. 4 MR. HOLT: I think they are f airly reliable. 3 MR. REITER: Is that a low velocity zone 6 at about,80 fe,e ? t 7 MR. LEVINE: That's interesting. 8 (Laughte r. ) 9 MR. HOLT: If you are thinking in terms of a 10 peak, maybe the point is well taken, maybe there is j3 something down there. 12 MR. KIMBALL: I'm just trying to stress the 13 qualitative nature of it. You add the cholame data set, ( 34 and you are going to increase the high frequency. The 33 qualitative comments -- 16 't MR. LEVINE: You don't want to do that, do you, f 17 Leon? 18 (Laughte r. ) 39 MR. REITER: Maybe that's how they generated 20 it, they threw in a random number and got that little 21 P ck. The question is, should we rely on these more than i 22

57 the other estimates? MR. LEVINE: I think these are as reliable as 2 Y 9 3 Okay, where are we now? 4 MR. REITER: On 3. Are we finished with 2? 5 MR. KIMBALL: Essentially, yes. g.. Are we going to be left with the individual - - - ~ ~.. - 7 spectra? L MR. LEVINE: If you want to make copies of them, 9 they'll go into the record as well.

yes, 10 MR. KIMBALL:

I guess 3 says -- have you made a 11 Since one plot that shows the shear velocity? comparison that was made, although we tried to put into 13 total context in the first two paragraphs, one of the ( g things that was in the report is this and Midland aren't g too much different; that when you look at the shear 16 velocity profile, Midland doesn' t look that much necessarily ( like Big Rock. The question sort of says from the seisomologic 19 1 Viewpoint, if you had two sites, one looked like Midland 20 and one looked like Big Rock Point, would you expect 21 i similar results? s 22 4

58 MR. LEVINE: We have not made a plot of Midland. i MR. ECLT: Midland is a fairly stiff site, Jeff. 2 MR. KIMBALL: We can make copies of this, if 3 4 you want. MR. HOLT: The glacial till on Midland is 5 bordering on bedrock. 6 fir., _EMCH : Is that a comparison of Big Rock and 7 Midland? 8 MR. HOLT: I think the real problem is, I would 9 grant you that in absolute shear wave velocity measurements, 10 they are quite dif ferent. For the larger soil columns. 11 I think the real question is where the amplification is 12 and I would say going to occur up here in the top layer, 13 in this particular case, the impedance contrasts are 14 1 larger at Big Rock Point, but they are at about the same 15 P ace and depth. l 16 MR. KIMBALL: The site-specific spectrum for l 17 Big Rock Point is at or lower than the Midland point. At 18 ~ no frequencies -- I don 't think it's above at any li 19 f requen cies. l 20 MR. HOLT: At Big Rock Point? 21 MR. KIMBALL: Right. t 22 .,a'

59 1 MR. LEVINE: I'll just it up for comparison. 2 MR. KIMBALL: Do you have it? Oh, good. Off the top of my head, I was just qualitatively 3 4 looking at it. MR. LEVINE: I figured you had done it, Jeff, 5 because you are just about right. 6 MR m KIMB ALL : I have a good eye. 7 (Slide.) 8 MR. LEVINE: That's the Big Rock Point spectra. 9 (S lide. ) 10 And this is the Midland spectra. MR. KIMBALL: I actually have done it this way. 12 My scatter wasn' t exactly the same. 13 Again they compare in acceleration, MR. HOLT: ( 14 they are quite a bit different in the velocity range. 15 but But shouldn' t Big Rock be higher MR. KIMBALL: 16 in the high frequencies again? 17 Because of the difference in MR. HOLT: 18 19 impedance contrast? s Because of the difference in MR. KIMBALL: 20 the shear velocity profiles. 21 Basically the shear wave velocity MR. HOLT: No. s 22 4

60 1 at Big Rock jumps from 2 to about 5 3, occasionally 2-1/4 2 times, something like that. And the shear velocity at 3 Midland jumps from about 800 to about 2400. I don't know. 4 That's a good point. 5 MR. KIMBAL'L: I guess if we could divorce 6 ourselves from looking at anything that's been done, if I. 7 gave y.cu..that_ plpt and said do you think the response 8 at the top of the blue and the top of the red would be 9 the same, is my comment. 10 MR. HOLT: I'd say first off I want to run a 11 shake analysis before I made any guesses. The impedance 12 contrast is strong at both. It's a little bit bigger at 13 Big Rock Point. They 're at about the same depth. My i 14 guess is that the stronger impedance contrast isn' t going 15 to contribute that much more. 16 MR. KIMBALL: Would you like copies of that? '17 (Mr. Emch nodding.) 18 MR. REITER: Where are you getting h larger.5nd 19 " longer period? The question is that you really would s 20 expect the sharper impedance coatrast here, and you would 21 expect enhanced high frequency. 22 I don't see average velocity as 3000 feet per s

l 61 h second and 2000 feet per second at depth 40 feet and 50 I t 2 feet. MR. LEVINE: It's around 8 or 10 hertz. 3 MR. REITER: You would expect it to be higher. 4 MR. KIMBALL: The exercise, you know, at -- 5 not getting of f on a side track, but the exercise at 6 ~ Midland _w.ith the. fill and the till to using shake, and 7 ,o 8 looking at the data set and seeing the amplification, where the qualitative judgment showed us it's going to be, 9 and we looked at the fill and said if it 's going to 10 11 amplify at all, it's going to amplify in the mid to l'ow y ~ 12 frequency, something like 2 hertz. This, though, J l'. 13 qualitatively looking at it, you don' t see the amplif'ications where we expected them. L 14 MR. HOLT: This is going to ime vr.ry high 15 x frequencies. 16 e MR. REITER: What we are doing with Livermore 17 7 now is that since there is question.as to the interprc'ta-- / 18 tion of the Big Rock scil profi[e, we have asked-them to /. 19 q ja 20 interpret this as -- correct ne jif I '.n wrong, Eqn'ad -- j i, .j' 1 21 a s tep that -- and also' a varying step -- and'one of / the initial results' seems to be that it doesn't matter howg 22 1 ~, s 4 4 ,l 4 j /

t ) ? 62 much you interpret it in terms of amplification, whether it's one step or a jagged step, you're still going to get 1 { the amplification. Is that right? r MR. JAGANNATH: Yes. 4 MR. HOLT: I believe that. I would think the 5 (- amplification would be somewhat different', though. I me an as linear increase in velocity vs. a single step. 7 I' MR. REITER: At least the shake runs indicate f 8 1 that it's much less. Maybe the shake is wrong. But if you have a velocity, say -- f MR. LEVINE: Are you saying for the smooth 11 j in crease, there is much less ef fect than you might -- MR. REITER: There 's relatively ' little. In 13 other words, at 40 feet I have 4000 velocity rock, and ( g at the top of the surf ace I have, say, 800 feet. It really doesn't matter that much whether I go down smoothly or I go down in one step. Shake will p,redict essentially .g. the same input, peak acceleration amplification. 3, MR. HOLT: Well, see, these ditf_. .ces are not as great as at first glance. If you go into the top 10 feet at Big Rock Point, the ratio is about three to g one between the 2000 and 5500, and it's about three to i g a +d J

• /

t J

63 1 one between 800 and 2400. 2 MR. REITER: But taking it away is a big step. You are doubling the upper velocity, and that's going to 3 cause doubling over there. You can ' t do that. 4 MR. HOLT: But the answer to the question is I 5 don' t think I'd guess at it. I think I'd really want to 6 run that.throu.gh. 7 MR. REITER: That's what we have been doing, 8 and we are getting some numbers, and the question is 9 how much credibility can you attach to those numbers. 10 MR. LEVINE: In the shake program you havd to 11 12 divide it up in two discrete layers, and how are they doing that at the near surf ace? Do they have a lot of 13 ( 14 small layers? MR. JAGANNATH: Three layers in the top 10 feet 13 at five-foot increments. 16 MR. LEVINE: Okay. That's how they are 17 18 varying the profile. 19 MR. REITER: I guess the question is that g perhaps your spectra, given that we have what looks like a 20 21 large dif ference there - perhaps if you look at the 22 average data set you looked in Midland, and the average v a

64 I data set you used for Big Rock Point, that if you look at 2 the data set, then the average will be a lot closer than 3 that there. 4 I guess you don't have that kind of information. 5 MR. LEVINE: Look at the average of what? 6 MR. REITE R: Ta.ke the average of the profiles 7 used for. Midland and compare that to the average of the 8 profiles used for Big Rock Point, some representation ( 9 of the data set used at Midland vs. used at Big Rock 10 Point, and compare those profiles. I'd be willin'g to bet 11 that those profiles are a lot closer than these. The 12 average site condition in the records used for Midland, and 13 the average site conditions in the records used for Big 6 14 Rock Point. I'm willing to bet they'd be a lot closer, 15 or somewhat closer than what we see here. 16 MR. LEVINE: They may be somewhat closer, but 17 I think they'd be significantly different, just like those 1 18 two profiles are. 19 MR. REITE R: Are there any records used for 20 bo th ? e 21 MR. KIMBALL: Yes, Golden Gate, Gavilan, 22 Maiano, Tolmezzo and Tarcentc; almost the entire data set.s

65 I don' t remember Cedar Springs, whether it was or wasn' t. l 1 l I think Cedar Springs was. As a matter of f act, the only l 2 two that would be in this data set that would not be in 3 P this data set would be Med Center and Johnson Ranch. 4 MR. LEVINE: But now you have named off those 5 sites that you named of f for the Midland data set, or 6 the stif fer. sites that were included in the Midland data 7 8 set. In order to get that average line, we also included the softer set. 9 MR. KIMBALL: That's true. But I would 10 characterize Midland as a stif f site. The till is pretty 11 c_ damned hard once you get below that -- 12 MR. HOLT: I agree. That's why I think they 13 0 14 look alike. They are basically stiff sites. MR. KIMBALL: I guess I wouldn't characterize 15 Big Rock as a stif f site. 16 MR. LEVINE: Why not? 17 MR. KIMBALL: I'm not saying its till is not 18 stif f, but you.iave a varying-shallow 40 feet of somewhat 19 t stiff material over sort of hard rock, based upon this 20 21 profile. MR. HOLT: The shear wave velocity of that top, 22 a a

66 1 material is 9000 feet per second. 2 ./.R. RE ITER: Was Golden Gate Park used in 3 Midland? 4 MR. LEVINE: I don't have the Midland report 5 here. MR. REITER: Was Cedar Springs used in Midland? 6 --- - MR. LEVINE: I'm not sure. 7 8 MR. REITER: Was Gavilan used in Midland? MR. KIMBALL: The only two that would not be in 9 10 there, from my recollection, would be Johnson Ranch and 11 th e Med Cen te r. I think everything else was used. I'm 12 not 100 percent sure of each one. 13 MR. LEVINE: I do have the information. L 14 MR. REITER: It's really relevant here. 15 MR. LEVINE: Wait a minute. Let me just get a 16 table here. 1 17 MR. VINCENT: Is the Midland spectrum here on a 18 5.0, whereas Big Rock's is 5. 3? We used a lot of the same ~ 19 records. 20 MR. REITER: It depaids on who you ask. 21 (Laughter.) 22 Okay. Golden Gate Park? g

67 1 MR. LEVINE: Yes. 2 MR. REITER: Cedar Springs? 3 MR. LEVINE: Yes. 4 MR. REITER: Gavilan College? 5 MR. LEVINE: Yes. ~J ' 6 MR. REITER: Oroville Medical Center? 7 --- -MR.- LEVINE : No. 8 MR. REITER: Maiano? 9 MR. LEVINE: Yes. 10 MR. REITER: Tolmezzo? 11 MR. LEVINE: Yes. 12 MR. REITER:, Tarcento? 13 MR. LEVINE: Yes. E 14 MR. REITER: Just a simple compilation here would indicate that of the 11 records used for Big Rock, is 16 nine were used at Midland. So we see that the reason 17 why they are so similar is kind of obvious. Now the reason -- how many records were used in Midland altogether? 18 19 MR. KIMBALL: 44. 20 MR. LEVINE: So there is a substantial additional 21 qu antity. 22 MR. REITER: And those additions apparently seem S

i 68 g to have added in your long period stuff. MR. LEVINE: Yes, but did not change the high 2 3 frequency. MR. REITER: So for some reason Midland either 4 encompassed a wide range of conditions, including the Big 3 Ro ck Poin t, or else you had to use at Big Rock Point 6 things that weren't exactly as good as they were here. 7 See what I'm trying to get at? 8 MR. LEVINE: N2ll, I think the first is more 9 10 appropriate. I think that Midland did encompass a wider 11 range of conditions. MR. HOLT: Because what we basically took are 12 the stiff sites out of the Midland data set. On your 13 14 commen t, again, Jeff, I missed it. Did you say you would or would not consider Big Rock as a stiff site? ( 15 i MR. KIMBALL: I would not. l 16 MR. HOLT: You would not? g7 MR. KIMBALL: I didn't say it didn't have 18 stiff material. I think stiff material by definition is 19 something two to three thousand. feet per second of the 20 mate rial. The till is stiff. 21 l 22 MR. REITER: I think it's stiff, with respect tg E. I

!i ( 69 1 Calif ornia. You're not dealing with stuff down hundreds 2 of feet. MR. KIMBALL: I classified that shear velocity 3 profile for Big Rock as a shallow site over rock, soil l 4 l 5 over rock. t MR. REITER: What is the stuff made up of?. f" 6 Till?_.Till..is_,usually considered -- 7 MR. LEVINE: A shallow stiff site over rock. 8 r MR. HOLT: What you are saying is it's not a 9 rock site, basically. 10 MR. KIMBALL: Yeah, it's not a rock site.* 31 MR. HOLT: I'm sorry, Midland is not a rock site, 12 13 and Big Rock is. You' re impressed by ' the impedance 14 contrast, is what it's coming down to? I MR. KIMBALL: Right. 15 MR. HOLT: But just as a comment, if I strip l 16 away the first 10 feet of Big Rock, then the impedance 17 18 contrast, at least in ratio between the -- I don ' t know, 19 1800, 2000 shear vs. 5000 shear, is not that much different than the. increase in ratio at Midland between an 800 and a 20 21 2400. 22 MR. KIMBALL: Well, I don't know if you can stgip ~

70 off the first 10 fee t. g MR. HOLT: I dcn ' t know, either. My guess would 2 3 be that doesn ' t count, frankly, if you looked at the site but I don ' t know that for sure. 4 If you put that first 10 feet in the shake 5 Program, my, guess is it wouldn 't contribute very much at a,ll, 6 MR. REITER: I don't know, but we are over 7 the edge here of the ability. There are two things here: 8 How well can we fine-tune that stuff, and 9 we're getting some of this stuff mixed up and getting a 10 little confused here. We are trying to sort it all out. 11 You know, how well can we fine-tune this. 12 You know, I don't know whether the problem is .3 33 whether you really don't have the ability -- you don't 14 have data to fine-tune to the response that we would 15 expect at Big Rock. I don't know. A lot of the records 16 look -- I'm not saying you haven't done the best job you 17 could have done, but I'm just sort of raising questions 18 as to whether that really is the ability to represent 19 c the kind.of conditions -- fine-tune the kind of 20 conditions we have at Big Rock. 21 MR. KIMBALL: Just as an aside, why would you 22

71

l exclude all the lower earthquakes f rom Johnson Ranch?

MR. LEVINE: In the lower range? 2 MR. KIMBALL: It would be conservative to 3 include them. 4 MR. LEVINE: It might be, but we took the g literal translation of the magnitude range and the c' 6 7 distance, range, and that is what we came up with. MR. REITER: But that's a logical question to g ask somebody. 9 MR. HOLT: That's the kind of fine-tuning 10 we haven't done at all. The report was in response 33 basically to the criteria for Midland. 12 To go back to your other comment, Leon, where 33 the data set has gotten low with respect to number of 34 components or input, we have done shake analysis of 33 theoretical modeling to see whether or not the two are in 16 17 agreement. We haven't done that here, but you said that Livermore is doing this. 18 MR. REITER: They are doing some studies for 39 f 20 us, yes'. l MR. HOLT: I would prefer the site-specific 21 22 approach. f l

72 MR. REITER: We'd like to have the kind of study that was done for Midland, where we have both site-specific and shake, and they seem to support each o th er. That was a good way to go, and maybe the question is -- I don't know, maybe the question is there really does not exist an adequate data set, or as adequate a data set to model the Big Rock stations as there is for 7 Mid land. Maybe that's the bottom line. Maybe that I is the problem. I don ' t know. MR. HOLT: Well, I think to some degree it depends on the criteria set up. There are lower magnitudes, and it's a question of how -- but you may g be right. g i MR. KIMBALL: That has to be thought of in the framework of what the real time history target was. It was not set up as an individual site-by-site' target. It was set up as a generalized soil profile. MR. EMCH: Could we go on to the next one, . Jeff, Question 4? g MR. KIMBALL: Sure. I don't know if you have i 20 had time to look at this. MR. LEVINE: No, we haven't had time to look atg 2,.

73 1 Question 4, 2 MR. HOLT: We 've had time to look at it, we haven' t had time to do anything with it. 3 4 MR. REITER: That's what you get for planting 5 flowers on the weekend. 6 (Laughter.) 7 R1R.,L,EVINE: I get home for one Saturday, and I've been on a plane for seven of the nine previous days, 8 9 and I just did nothing Saturday. 10 4, we have no answers to. I think in f airness to Jef f, I think the only area -- well, certainly up 'in 11 the Oroville area there is enough -- I think there are ~ 12 enough of the site characteristics known that you could 13 14 Possibly -- that would afford you probably the best chance of that type of comparison. 15 I'm not sure about Friuli. I think Ancona is 16 almost all rock or very shallow rock stations. 17 MR. KIMBALL: I guess there if you have a rock 18 station, you compare it to a shallow rock station. I 19 don' t think there is any deep soil at Ancona. That 20 21 would be rock or -- 22 MR. LEVINE': Mammoth Lakes. I don't believe wqs m. 5

74 have any real detailed site information. We have had a lot of speculation as to certain conditions. MR. KIMBALL: I think CDMD has done some 3 crude refractions on some of those sites for Mammoth. 4 MR. LEVINE: I know there are also regional refraction profiles for the area which showed similar areas to be quite deep. I'm talking deep low velocity. MR. REITER: Okay, can we go on to the next issue? Has that been answered already, Banad? ~ 9 I'm sorry, Jeff, do we have any more on 4? MR. KIMBALL: I have nothing to add to 4, other than that which is there. 12 MR. HOLT: 5, we do not have an answer to, either. Outside of the opinion that I doubt it is going to affect it very much. MR. LEVINE: We are dealing with a velocity T contrast there which is 4000 vs. 5000, an,d yes, there 17 would be some loss of energy, but it would probably be a . fairly minimal loss of energy. It's not like the two to one contrast that you have up aj -- MR. HOLT: It will act like a wave guide and i take all the energy away. v } ( l

75 MR. LEVINE: I was just going to ask Leon I whether that philosophy has been submitted on the WPPS 2 3 docket. Have you commented on that? Do you agree with 4 that? MR. REITER: What, the wave guide? We really 5 have no view on the wave guide. 6 --- -_MR.,_KIMBALL: Some of us have looked at it, 7 and there are caveats in the report that say it's only 8 true for a certain epicentral distance or certain ~ 9 distances or certain depth earthquakes. 10 MR. LEVINE: I think we've said before we* 11 have some interesting -- I think this was discussed the 12 other day, but in order to do the surf ace refraction, 13 you needed f airly large shots in order to get the energy L 14 back to the surface, and from the same shots the energy 35 was recorded.out to 30 or 40 kilometers in the micro-16 C So there was obviously some trapping earthquake system. 17 of energy going on. The seismic stations are also on rock. 18 MR. HOLT: I know, but I don ' t think WPPS 19 has very.much to do with this site. 20 (Laughte r. ) 21 MR. LEVINE: I am just simply comm0nting on a 22 g s S

I 76 r I couple of activities. 2 MR. REITER: Push it out, get it out. 3 (Laughte r. ) (.- 4 MR. HOLT: They are separated by a great 5 dis tance. [' 6 MR. REITER: We just had a long discussion with our consnitants. yesterday, not to include various sites 7 8 and not to bring up others. C 9 Okay, let me make a sort of -- Banad, 'did you to want to add something? 11 MR. JAGANNATH: No. (,, 12 MR. REITER: Let me try and summarize and give 13 you sort of an idea of where we are. We have to come up with recommendations to the I'- 14 SEP branch, and that's going to be in the form of testimony 15 l in several weeks. 16 f 17 MR. KIMBALL: Or an af fidavit. l MR. REITER: Or an affidavit. And we have that f 18 19 'as a given, and we have to reach conclusions. Now, we have seen the work that you have done, 20 and you have received our comments and our discussions 21 22 here. If You want to add anything to what you have said s

77 I already, or if you want to -- I urge you to get it in as 2 soon as possible. If you want to leave it, that's fine, f 3 it's up to you. But we are going to have to reach a decision based on what we have. So in terms of your 4 g 5 priorities, in terms of how you feel you can answer, and I want to repeat in the context I said before, in the 6 7 con text-of_ tha. SEP, and as indicated in the first two 8 paragraphs there, I urge you to get that in as soon as 9 possible. 10 If you feel that you can add something, it 11 would help us. Now I don ' t know whether you will be' 12 writing something on this for yourselves. We are just 13 going to write an af fidavit. You can write your own 14 testimony. I don't know. 15 MR. HOLT: May I ask a question here? The affidavit will be based on information you presently have 16 i 17 from Lawrence Livermore, and in addition information that 18 is coming in two weeks, or -- 19 MR. REITER: It's based on what we have and in a 20 week we are going to get a report from them. That will be 21 one input. We have your report. If you have anything else you'd like to do -- it is our role to put this in that 22

78 1 context of the SEF, and there is a larger role by the 2 Staff and th e 3EP, because it is dif ferent than the OL 3 and CP kinds of plants. More responsibility is incumbent 4 upon the Staf f to reach a decision, and we will exercise 5 that. F.

• 6 And, therefore, we are looking at some of 7

the stuff-that_Livermore is doing, and as I say, we are 8 not going to agree or disagree with everything we have. And in the same way we'd like to look at the things you 9 10 guys are doing. But we have to reach a decision, and we 11 will do it, and if you have something to ' add that you'd 12 like to add in light of our comments, written and oral 13 comments, please try and get them in as soon as you can. 14 MR. HOLT: What is "as soon as you can"? 15 MR. REITER: We are getting the Livermore report 16 in a week. We have to write our affidavit. 17 MR. KIMBALL: Or testimony. It's not clear 18 what is going to happen. 19 MR. REITER: That's going to be in by the 21st. 20 So if you have something, I reatly would try within a 21 week or two weeks to get it. Two weeks. If you have 22 something coming in to us, if you decide to do some <L 9

79 additional work, please inform us, so we know that you are 1 gcing to do it, and what you are going to do. 2 MR. HOLT: Is the Livermore report going to be 3 available for review by the Applicant? 4 MR. REITE R: I hope you have copies of it. I'm 5 sure it's a public document, and I see no reason why 6 y u shouldn't ce,t that. 7 MR. VINCENT: So when you receive it in a week, g we should be able to get a copy? 9 MR. REITER: Yes. 10 MR. VINCENT: Is it your intent to come up with 11 a final site-specific spectra? 12 MR. R EITER: Right. 13 MR. VINCENT: Or is there a possible intermediate 14 step in there, of just finding the.12 Reg Guide 1.60 33 acceptable for limited purposes? Now we believe it is 16 conservative and certainly we 'll finalize the site-j7 specific spectra for 3EP additional analyses at some time 18 later? 19 MR. REITER: Certainly we'd like to finalize it. 20 I can' t rule out 100 percent that we might not come up 21 with an intermediate step. But certainly we'd like to s 22 s

80 i i i finalize it. That's wnat we are trying to co.

Anc, II, in i

i fact, it hasn't worked out along with the affidavit that j we wrote, there also would be a memorandum probably from our branch to the SEP as final recommendations taking that intc account. But we are really working as hard as we can to reach a final decision within the next few weeks. 6 Ag ain, I can' t repeat more than. the context. of how we take the SEP decision and, in other words, do the existing spectra have to be modified to take into account the conditions at Big Rock. MR. HOLT: These spectra being SEP and the Lawrence Livermore spectra, not the Reg Guide 1.60? g MR. REITER: Right, yes. g MR. VINCENT: If it has to be modified, are we talking about a modification of the .0 8 g spectrum that was derived initially, and then just increased essentially arbitrarily to the.105, or are we talking i .17 about an increase in.105? 18 MR. REITER: First of all, we don 't do things g arbitrarily. (Laughter. ) 21 It may appear that way. i 22

81 MR. VINCENT: It was a criteria that will go 3 belcw the reedian, so Big Rock was -- 2 MR. T,EITE R : We don' t know yet what form. If 3 indeed we do indicate that modifications are required, it is 4 not yet known what it will be. 3 MR. VINCENT: From our standpoint, certainly, 6 we didn,'t, start of f in the mode of developing site-7 specific spectrum like we would for Midland and like we 8 did for Midland. Frankly, we wouldn't do that now. How 9 much more we do with the report that exists, we 'll have 10 to talk about internally and decide where we go. gg MR. REITER: Right. 12 MR. VINCENT: Certainly we'll look at the 13 Lawrence Livermore report when it arrives, and we would 14 review that, I expect, pretty thoroughly and provide 15 comments on that, once we see it. 16 MR. KIMBALL: Maybe it's an important point to g7 make, there will be no decision in the Livermore report. 18 MR. REITER: Livermore is not going to make a g9 recommendation. In the past we have made decisions on 20 the SEP plan ts, and Livermore is doing some sensitivity 21 studies. I doubt very much whether there will be a g 22 ~. 8

82 1 recommendaticn saying that in order to account for this 2 spectra, you should multiply it by 6 or 1000 or.7 or 3 something like that. I doubt very much whether there 4 will be that kind of recommendation. 5 So, in other words, we are not going to have 6 some bit of recommendation to really operate on. So if 7 you are_ waiting,to see the Livermore studies, I don't know 8 if that would be important. It's probably useful to try 9 and address the issues on your own. 10 Again, it's up to you, if you want to address 11 it. 12 MR. VINCENT: All right. We will talk about 13 it internally and consider what additionally we might want 14 to do. We understand your questions about what exists, 15 so we'll see what we can reasonably do in a very short 16 timeframe and how much we want to do at this point, and 17 we 'll get back to you and tell you whether we'll do more 18 or not. 19 MR. REITE R.: Let us know what you're going to 20 do when you have an idea of wha'. you're going to do, if 21 you're going to do anything. And again, it's not a 22 requirement. You've come up with your idea, and we are s

83 I just saying we are going to make a decision. If you'd 2 like to contribute to that, that's fine. 3 MR. VINCENT: Fine. 4 MR. REITER: I think that's it. 5 MR. VINCENT: Do you have anything more to add, Ed or Dick? 6 7 .m(}R_. HOLT: No. 8 MR. EMCH: Before we all run off here, let's 9 make sure thac whatever documents we have referred to in 10 the course of this are available to our reporter, so they 11 can be part of this record. Everything we have been * '~' 12 talking about is docket material; is that right? The 13 Weston Geophysical, that's docket material, and the ~ 34 overheads you used, all come from that report? l 15 MR. LEVINE: There are a few additional onec l that do not. They are docketed in Midland, for example. 16 17 The Cholame 8 profile is in the Midland report. The 1 18 Midland spectra. l 19 MR. EMCH: Well, if it's in Midland, we need it, i 20 because that's a different PDR, and stuff like that. 21 (Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the meeting 22 was adjourned.) g 4

r '[ TOPICS OF DISCUSSION FOR 5/25/82 MEETING POSSIBLE GROUND MOTION AMPLIFICATION l AT BIG ROCK POINT AND ON SITE SPECIFIC r RESPONSE SPECTRUM FOR BIG ROCK POINT f. In reviewing the site conditions that exist at Big Rock Point'(40 feet of till over bedrock) discussions have been initiated regarding possible ground motion amplification which might exceed the recommended spectrum developed as part of the Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP). It is important to initially clan fy the issue which must be addressed in this review. This issue is: Are the site conditions at Big Rock Point (BRP) significantly different than the gound motion rs: rding sites used to develcp the raspcasa spa:tr= as part of the SEP7 Two different ground motion data sets were used by LLNL/ TERA in their analysis.- They were (1) the Trifunac Brady.(1975) data base used to develop the ground motionattenuation-relationships as part of the Uniform Hazard Spectrum and . (2) the real time histories used to develop' the 50th and 84th percentiles.of the M = 5.3 near source earthquake. The site conditions at BRP should thus be compared to !'s 1 and 2 above. c In reviewing the Weston report on the BRP site specific spectrum, the staff has identified various concerns. In general these are the s' parse data available which match the site conditions at BRP and given this, the sensitivity of this data set to additional data. In addition, the staff suggests that if possible multiple' approaches be investigated in order to make a better judgement regarding the BRP site conditions. Each of these topics are discussed below. (J[ In reviewing figures 2-9 of the Weston report, the staff has observed that the following sites do not appear to match the BRP shear velocity profile-particularly the sharp shear velocity increasein the upper 40 to 60 feet. These stations are Cedar Springs, Golden Gate Park,.Tarcento and Tolmezzo. C If these stations were removed, would there be enough data availaoie for the site specific spectrum? (gi Cholame station #8 from the 1966 Parkfield earthquake seems.to. qualitatively match the BRP site conditions as well as those listed in #1 above. Although the softer material goes to a depth of about 80 feet the shear velocity profile shows a sharp increase at 80 feet. What is the effect of adding this site to the entire data set? In answering #'s 1 and.2, the staff requests a copy of the individual station's response spectrum for the entire data set along with plots of original data composed to the LLNL M = 5.3 soil real time histories spectrum. The 50th and 84th percentiles of the BRP site specific spectrum are less g) than or equal to the Midland Nuclear Plant' site specific spectrum'although the shear velocity profile is quite different between the two sites. Justify (other than the site specific spectrum) that the free field response at Midland would be the same as BRP. c e. 9

2-I f f (4) The staff suggetts that if possible ratios of response spectra be provided comparing sites similar to BRP and those used in the SEP program. An example might be Johnson's Ranch and the Medical Center c =;arad to ?eepar soil sitesin the Oroville area. Other examples Twhich may need verification) might be strong motion stations from Friuli, Italy; Anc.ona, Italy; i Matsushiro, Japan; Maamoth Lakes, California; or other examples that you-feel are appropriate. (5) Geotechnical. data developed for the BRP site indicates that the bedrock is highly fractured between elevations 462.0 feet to 4.13.0 feet. The shear modulus of this. soft zone is nearly 50%'of that for the competent rock above, between elevations 538.0 feet to.462.0 feet.. How does.this anomalous condition effect the results of your study? 4 al** % 9 "w. w... t' e 9 e e S 4 0 9 6 e S e e G e 9 O e O e 49 h

.h?AF !!35 5.5JF '5a51 23.5 25.425.C.07CFDAR SP.INGS PUMC HOUSE'E '.,r.,,,.. s r;

c..,o -

• r~ -

e. e :: r.;. .s .u .e- -? 3 i 3 s N o i O7' i i i 5 4.4 b 1 4/ i i 4 6 r,tsi m C/ \\j/ \\ \\,U }'. / \\ / s t N / s/ / s. f / '[ \\ N . a / 'C \\ / .s \\ N sN e [ \\ N,.y \\ / s

. x.

Ns s., s., \\ s N / /N / / / N.. -/ j 5 S % G *] O'. 3 4 5 F, 7 S.1 ') g-J 3 ,1 a67$e j g' J-1. 3 4 u PERIGD (SEC)

bhbl e m g,; L. -~g_y 0.~. ~ L.. r. 7* p, e' r' s .v c :

• :.' :; ~~ p.-

7.. ::

.. v. 7. v:: L~. r... 3 -~ .~ .,. i,. :- (~.- i., ( ;.,- *. mn :: u ...m 7 S ' ' :-, (p ' i' 3 4 ; r 94 a j (j/ 3 .i 5 /.,'Ej ; pj i m '^.f./ c 3 4 \\ 'N/. v. / i r / f l 's .^ / \\, / i -.h - - +. / s / N / ,.i_- f. s

s

/ \\ y / /y i j ,/ / s. i y 1./ s \\ [,.'N \\ ,/ N / N. ./ \\ m / \\/. 4 v s. N -y / \\ N3 j/ }\\/

• ' ms i

s / N, ,d N, \\q/ ,/ '.,y/ j ~J ' \\ _ \\ / i .~ \\ N / \\ / ,.,/ / i / J,'/ ..\\. [/ / \\ j/ ~ 'g / .,i- ~ i N ,/ \\ h \\v/ / / / i / / .'\\,

,/

's.. \\ S f 7ssjj3-3 4 Sf.,7F,,3;g-4 S r. % 3j g' 3 4 3 3 '+ oppIlsg \\,r r. M o J. w.s - 's 4

22A-Ft ~ ii33 IIS i5550 7.5 li.725.0.80TARCENIO FRIUti ITALY Da.MCING RA iOS 0.050 ~; e, 3 "g x - ~........ p q / ~ ~ c / 'y N < / j / N x i/ 'N/ 'N/ '\\! j\\ / N ?, f t .'N / N x. 'N \\_ n i O' A A S SN5'l O~ A S A $ $

• Sill 0"'

$ $ $~*4 5 'i 0' PERIOD (SEC' ~'

J 2 1 e 1061 NS 15349 1i.7 22.325 1 lOTARCENIO FRIUul IT i. 0.050 /- DAMolNG RATIOS - i. .}.( 4 c. .~ o n t. Q cl., tq;)Q*s n e s s

• 1 415 6%n9, 1~

3 4 +* i 6 6 s e t g:- 2 3 4 56 1 2 3 s 's .,c e- >../ N ~ r o- ~ c v. w w / n- / .s ,,, ~ ", ~-~w. - m-J. e o ,f p 2 ul i .. y,- en o }, xz-I' =kb ' d c e- / ./ h tn-i y-g ,r-j \\. o o n- -_i w t > n-i / 3 i ? O s t a o g -,,y, a y- .y i fr e-n_ i ) n - o f n-a 1 i j. e7 4 2 '& 14 52676,910 ....3 i i, 3 g 5 6 789 10-2 2 3 5 6 < ms 10" 2 PERIOD (SEC) .s t } ,,r ' o ~ l i k l r

b2R-V I ~ y. 15349 11.7 22.325.1.10TARCENIO FRIUt.1 li '4 1061 EW 0.050 DAMPlNG RATIOS c "o o-o:i n/~ i $ A $sil i A $s '61 ^0/ 4 5 s '; , ^j f n.- p e-m- v-I;_ n-( m N- ~ ~ O g u, - N c z -- ,e, k~ ,e-Ln-p o o n-a w t > n-i- o l ao \\ $ a o EEi/ / 'N w-sy I e-l

• ~

w-j n-m- i .\\ .....0 5 s i s,91 ,,,,i i, 4 2 3 4 5678910 2 s e fcs s. h o. ,.i -- 10-2 2 3 4 i PERIOD (SEC) i s i 1 I

yO AA-W 15550 22 0 22 025 0.80TOLMEZZO FRIUul IT 1054 NS DAMPING RATIOS =0.050, r c b 4 4 g-2 3 4 56 2 3 4 56 1 2 3 4 56% ; a-i i e a. .4 C ~- 4 4 e e 4 4

e..

(n-l

1. ~

n-( n m- - + -.., _ mO Z ~E / N 'N N N = s O~ W ~ g. O L O n. J W > m-1 a ,\\ @O .n c w -_ - j m f w e k. D-sn - v-N i n - t m-I 1 A / S $ %'56 ' 0 ' 's A $ $f $6io i $4 $bs,610 O 10-2 2 1 PERIOD (SEC) i E. e s. a

12.ArI~ T 15550 22.0 22:025.0.80TOLMEZZO FRIUul I' 1054 EW DAMPlNG RATIOS =0.050. f '6 ,,.c i A ss 'S; d i $i$$ i, i A $ s 1 C o- ~ n_ ,m. o W - ~ - _..__, Q~a /* 2E/ N N N = o., ,D-in-p ~ v -. a n_ aw > m. S*o h f o e u-5 D-o- n-N- o 10'* i A'S bSS 10-' A I' S S f $$10 i A S S ? $,$ 1 PERIOD (SEC) s

OT GILROY,C9LIFORNIR,GRVILRN COLLEGE,11/25/74,2301GMT,S67W COM MS MSGNITUDE - 5.0 EPICENTRRL DISTANCE - 9.,0 kn 7 DRMDING RSTIOS- 0.050 s j g* ,.o a j / f E ~i/ \\ \\ \\ -o / en y-C u o o .Ju>o \\ o#' 5 I / 'o ..6 i i i 6.. 4 10 10 10 PERIOD (SEC) h

GILROY,CALIFORNIR,GRVILRN COLLEGE,11/2S/74,2301GMT,S23E COMP MB NRCNITUDE - 5.0 EPICENTRRL DISTRNCE - 9.0 km DRP?ING RRTICS- 0.050 ( c, * ,, s s 4-g n [ \\ \\ \\' * ' o-i's -~ - s r a \\ o9 ~ N E; / u

cns, w

w E-* ~ ooJ /\\ u>a \\ o# ~: N / ~ N r 4 g 6 4.., 10- ...,".4 6 i. 10 10 PERIOD (SEC)

OM-FT i 4,I G I IN 106C NS 15349 11.8 22 425.0.70PiAIANC C. o v, 6 \\ ' N N ~ - ~ ~ - r 3 3b \\ i / O 's ~ <.3 'o n_ _.J .a > n- \\ 7-a ~ "O ^ ~- N

p e

e-0 v M - ca-e O nn. bbIbIIO 2 4 $ "' . s a-g j j gk~tggj 2 $U l 4 ERIOD (SEC) e, 4

Daner i 16364 NS 15349 13.4 23 225.O.50TOLMEZZO 1063, 1064 AV 0 050 DAMPlNG RATIO s q. O, s t '\\ v, 7 C- [ m-v- n. r m-o l .o m._ o j s j 2_ .O c-i y m-l g o ,. ca n. _I w > m. Ia @ *o r .o _ N m-n - m. ^ s s 'o 2 3 4 5678910 2 3 4 Mes 10' s s a s s 6 s s s s s, ^ sMj j o-' s s s s s ~ 10-2 2 3 4 j PERIOD (SEC) O. E t

e 8035 N50E015658 34.1 35 225.0.07 CHOL AME SHANDON ARR AY DAMPlNG RATIOS 0 050, b 2 A P T~ ( "O o.e s.

• -N v>_

n-n c_ o C W Cn o zE N N;o s = .O c g v>- O o n_ w c > m_ I o $*o g_ C e-n_ n_ m_ -'o 1 0~.' S $A$S'fijl0-' S A $ $f $$10 S A $ $'f4$ 10' PERI 00 (SEC) e. 4 l

8035 N40WO15658 34.1 35.225.0.07CHOLAME SHANDON ARRAY 8 0.050 ~ b R A FT-DAMPING RATIOS e .e. 9 n. o_ m-V ~ ' - m c- .o ..n. n- ~ m. b e. n_ v n_ 'm_ o 10 i A' $ $ Ik$ 0 A A $ $f $$' 0 A $ $ f4510' 1 1 PERIOD (SEC) r m ,.h

u.

....+ -c...

kLA-t--I OJ0700N90E 4950 8.6 11.725.0.900. JOHNSON RANCH OR0" DAMPING RATIO 0.050 N D O ,n- $f f e-c. . ~ - n. c-N- o w U). gO <z-m-m- m s_ _4 e-3 _o n_ / 9, ~ r a o n_ a w > cy_ n a Ch o ~ = r:2 0 w_ w $ *e~ f _^$ 1 ~- 1 e-to - r_ m. lc o c:. ~ ^ 5 6 f4910' ,i 56f%y10.' 10-2 2 3 4 2 3 4 5678910 2 3 4 PERIOD (SEC) o a. l l l l l N

bR AFT-OM2059N24W 15253 10.5 11.625.0.900ROVILLE MEDICAL Ci DAMo!NG c!ATIOS =0.050, b c' .o. $~i 2 3 4 56< 91 2 3 4 56 1 0 2 3 4 56

g s-e.

o-w- n-l L n m-o W w0 s \\ y o., o-'- n-r oo n- _Jw N. i Ooo a o y-q- m cn- .s m-1 ] w-m- y-n- N-10-2 2 3 4 5 6 7G 910., 2 3 4 5678910 2 3 4 5 6 1...8910' ...i o PERIOD (SEC) I I E I*- 7 '7e%T,. 7 'N"*47"4 =-, = - ;% ,w-w- ,_._q.g---- ,,w- ,,u_-

QQI \\ t i I W336 S36W ;5452 23.8 25.425 0.07 CEDAR SPRINGS PUMP H D AMP 1 N G P. AT '. 0S 0.050 'b g, . 56h. 1 2 3 4 $ F., 7 $ 9, Q ^- 2 3 4 5f7 i ^'. 2 3 4 ,2-r4 e-x 0-N n-m C4-t O .a w.. c o s 7- / o e , c. e,- o~ l p. l oo n_ w l w: > ca_ ~

a a:

P.4 / l \\ $.e ' $. $j' q e ._\\ n N ( x n-rJ-t f s l o 4 5 F, 7 $,? j O' _I; c': i i ), s i. +.t s i c - ns4,567sF,10' 2 3 l PERIOD (SEC) O I

A015 N10E 15351 11.8 16.125.0.07 GOLDEN GATE PARK DAMPlNG RATIOS =0.040, '6 ..c '. kf '~ i i i 6 i e i ii

]

2 3 4 56 '91 2 3 4 56 ) 2 3 4 56 9i Qi w-m- v-n- - m-O w en.-o s e-', \\ 0.c y s m-g_ o o n_ 1w > OJ-s o Do o o .w - e-D- n-N- 'o e i i +i.i i i i ie i i e i ..i6 10 2 3 4 5 6 ?d910-' 2 3 4 5678910 2 3 4 5676,910' -2 PERIOD (SEC) C-a. -DAM > a - smnW A m n ets M MM'&%T4r'M Q." ' ^^

C4w hb Mo. % W (b/M ~ L.oo E.co 2000 1cCO 4D.CD M.O WO e g goco e i . i. .b . e e e,.i+... .. 4... e,.... ....... i , e . 4 ,. i, s .i i, 6 ...i. , i. g ii,....., e , t , 6. .. e t,,... ....i.6 .e e i. ( , e ..e e.... f.. l / .4 , ee i , e... 4 i e....... e 40 'J / , e t 3, , i.. ... 4 / ui e i ..i. t' .. ' e i

6. WM Mi.

. s. i.. e r./ k e&m uri. i A: .e e e e ... e....*. /

r. ' e..-.

.,.4 e i 6 .. t,..... I / bO. t~?"- ' U1' 8 ! ' ' ' ' .. 6 ./ ' y.' ., ',' ' i, ',, '..' e 6. 6 , e , i e \\ e 6 i / , a 4 . t. ee 4 i, t e. .i.... a...e . i, P! 6 i. 4 . e 6 4 6 6 6. ,.. i,. i. 4.. t 4 / 4 e i. i... 1/ /./ i......, e g e e...,

• /, /, /

, i.. .e r, i i.. i ( 6. . /,./. 6 i,,. ,,,e e.... .6 . i. e e .. i., i., .. e 4 / i/., . e e.. ....e s e ., i..... ... i e i. /s./,./ .. 6.... 4.. s.,,., 6 s i e .,, 6 ./ 6/ ,.. i i., ........ i /. /, e., ...,, e e i.... g i., e t e. * ' .,. t.., 6 e i /. 6/ s/ 6 6. .. I 4 t i .., e * *, .... 6 e i.. t. 6 6 ei e e.4. 6. 4 6 'i / / t,/ e e i . 6. t. , e ! 6 9 e e ., a... (g . e....... t . t...., . /,,. , e s, . e.,, e ., e a.. e a /!/. N .. i, e... i, e,. i e i. , e t, i /i./../ . i e 4.. .... e , e O ,_o .4..., ,j,j NO '. e. '.' ' ' l' / t e.',. ' 6 I 6 t 6 e e., es, 6 6 + l. 6 . 6 e / t /, t/ i 4. 6 i .,. e,... 6 . 6 a 6 e i eee 4 ., i, 6 l /l/ e i , s 4 g ... 6.e . e i ,,, i e e i. ./../,, 4 6 +. i s., i.,,. e.a, , i ei.t i e 4. 6 t e i, i

1. e

- i< ,s e.. i. 6, e. i et,, . e. , 6..... 6 I + e t ( , l e !. t 6 9 6 i eee e i t a#,,, a.. .t i . i. + . 6 ,, e e i,,., e t6 6 i 6. 4 e.... ..e p i e e e see.t .4 . a ,.,, i s s..

• , t.
• e, 6 t

. I et 6 e .t 6 4 6 e ,6 t i .. i i e 6... ,, e I,. i i 6 i e e,, e i t t e e ei e.., s 6, e e i ,,. I, 4 4 i. t 6 6 ei e t 4, t t.,, 4 6. . e , i. i.., e e i 6 i, et g 6. t ei,...., .. e 6 i 6. ,4 6.., i ,6 .....,, i e 6, a 4 6 e ,_e 6 4. 4

e i e t...

6, i 6 s, e t. ., 6 e e t i i. t a 6 e

1. , e.

,, e a, ,, e g 6 ee i, [ " g e.. -...,a . 4 s e e# e . e e t 6 e e i t 6 e t 6 6 e s... t 6 e.. s, e ,, e, ,...,e e... i e.. 4 . e 6 et i . I i 4 t, p 4 6 6 64 e , e, s 6,e , t 4 e. . e i. e i ,e i i e. 6 e e,. . 9. .. 4 e. e e.. . i.... ..., Ia, e a. e i, i 6 4 eiee,t , e ..e . i. i., ... e,i se, e i 6 e e t e s ., e e.. un e..... e. .. I e a. e 4 e. I 4 4, , i., e, e. I 6 s. e 8,.... ..,e i t6 e e, te, e e i 4 4. # e,,. w ....,,. e. i.. e i ae i i ,. +. 6, Z ..... i. 6. .. ee6.. i 6 i , #, e t, i,, i e,. y, 1%Q e; e i e. . e i, ,, i i i e . e....... 6 6 6.,.. 6 i,. i. i -y .4 e t. t n i...... i .. e..... si 4 .. e e G slo o I ' ' 3o 6 -, 6 6. . 6.. 6 i. i e ,,, i i i ti i i i i.e 4 i .6 i ei,, w e z. . i e. t ei. i. .,e F .. i. i. 6.. i,e... , t. 6 ,e i i6 i,.. p m e..., i t. .. i. r. . e t- . 6 t, 4.... .4 ,3 ,..., e.. ... i.... ........i ,.i i i,...,.,. . i.....e , t X3 . e..... 4. ..,e e e t ....., i. ......i, og . i, .i,...,,, ..i,.... .,..i.,. pJ , i. .,.6 6 ...,4 . i. 4 . i.. t i .. t.... e. . e e.i r. -l o, . i s .. r 4...,. c. .i m i.... . r r ,., 9 a i *. e e. b D .. g .g, t , e i .. e . i e......... { } g 4 s 6.. i e. ( e e i .. I i. s-Q e e a f, t d I 4 s e 3 syp. t t J s 6 t i g ~ 6 i 400- =

4 ./. o +,s 0 q o. i; yu sq f i 10' 6 j. s. ~ 84th CENTLE G LAJ MEDIA Eo ~10 / / t-o ~ O t4J ~ .m. .= - j s. l ~ 'r-a. t u ~~

3. y '.,.

.'; i'-{ ' ~ . ; :~, - ......o

• 10-8 10.'

1.0*..~ ~ ./ '10' PERK)O(SEC) ' ~ ; 8 + '. - ,s. EDI AM AND 84TH PERCENTILE RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR.THE ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE AT MIDLAND NUCLEAR POER PLANT ' (5% OF CRITICAL DNPING) I FIGudtE 3.1.1 Weston Geophysica

Y$ VIYG o toco zoco Socc yoco Seco Scoo i g i f f f 9 b ( sys. I C A, r, A \\2 /00 _ y____.._.. CU ^ / 20. n N M w 4 IW-i) e ISD - ~P 1 Ito 9 ico - 2.20 I y-

s 240 f

=, x3 ~ mj 'E 99: 260 _O

r..

4 a ~ Sy MO_ s-xs 22 9 3c0_ 3w - i 340 -- N n- -,r, t-H ./ 1

DUW OM2059S66W 15253

10. 5 11. 625.0. 900 ROV ILLE MEDIC AL C DAMPING RATIOS =0.050.

"o o.o 1 i i S $7 1 i i $ $ 1 i i $ 674 i6 @~ D-n-- ~ - m-o ( ~o \\ E5/ 'N / 'N s 0, e-s m-y_ oa n- _J w > m-Io So \\ w-f e-D- T-n- N- _'o 10 S A S $ ?'A S 1 0 S S A $AfA0 0 S A S $ 7 $,010' 1 PERIOD (SEC) s m._._.

k 1050 NS 15349 11.8 22.425.0.07MAIANC C. FRIUt_I I DAMPING RATICS =0.050, '6 / 5 6 M.,9 1 2 3 4 5SN9 ;3' 0:1 0_ ' 2 3 4 56 9 16 2 3 4 NV N N c-v f e_ n-m f4-u e LO.-O N 4 e r e-e> c n_ .J tu > c4 n ogh w-o c7 **- ~ .V G k-O- e-n- r4- .o ^ -2 ,...,1 ,.,,1 10 2 3 4 s s 715s 1 0 - 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0-2 3 4 5679,310' PERIOD (SEC) 8 A

~ D Q bs F \\ 1060 EW 15349 11.8 22.425.0.07MAIANC 0 FRIUt.1 1 DAMolNG RATICS =0.050, a 2 3 4 56 2 3 4 56 10-2 3 4 5s

a.

[ $\\ n- -.~. m_ ca-e %) w .c a. s a h/ 'N/' 'Nx' 'N g. e-'., .c 3 t, - o a n_ _J w > co-i a go o ?' e._ 67 - v-n- co-

O f

\\. jo: i s.4 6 hib lj o" b 3 4 $ i ? y 10' ~ Si,ts6 0 1 h 3 4 0 s PERIOD (SEC) a.

A=l 1052 NS 1555C 24.8 24.825.0.90MAIANCC. FRIUt1 IT DAM? LNG RATICS =0.050, 'b g-- 2 3 4 56 1.,. 2 3 4 36 3 4 ss ,a- <,-\\ g x v-n- m CJ-u a a c,- N N [7\\ ~ c p y-e> c n-w > cd-o a .?, (2 \\ EE.1/ E\\ \\ +- g".- e-T- n-CJ- \\ / O e 5 *. % G '1 0.. - . c.... ....1 ~. 2 3 4 5 r. 7 8 01 0-2 3 4 5676,310' 10-2 3 4 oERICD (SEC) S

4F" 1052 EW i 5550 24.S 24.S25.C.90MAlANCC. FRIUt.1 1? SA?P1!G RATIDE -0.050 ,,O / 2 3 4 56 i C 3 4 56 2 3 4 56 0-c.- y o-v- n-m CJ-o t: L7 a s / o. q' e.- n o a n- _.w > c4 - a $"O bk/ \\ W\\ \\ +- 4.- t9-l n-CJ-

O e

(.,. i I ~ 4 ... h I] O-2 3 4 5 6 7 S,9 ! C' 6 4 5678 ~, 3 1O-2 3 4 56719]O' 2 RERIOD (SEC) t e

A015 S80E 1$351 11.8 16.125.0.07 GOLDEN GATE PARK DAMRING RATIOS =0.040, m "O _.c '. D N /IP l ~* i x v Q.- D-y. n. e m N-O u.) f ~O ~/ \\ h 1 O. C-'4 W D-a, g_ O n- _J DJ> m-I 'h f O .g - .'Y O- <= n-N. O e ie 6 1 i 4 4 6 4 - l 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 s i s,91 O' 10~2 2 3 4 5 s f4910-' 2 3 4 5678910 2 3 4 PERIOD (SEC) ~ t}}