ML20082D828
| ML20082D828 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 10/26/1983 |
| From: | DAMES & MOORE |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20082D823 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8311230068 | |
| Download: ML20082D828 (71) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:b i n LS T P R N L31T 3 Dames & Moore 1626 Cole Blvd.
- 1, a
~'
Golden, CO 80401
- October 26, 1983 3 gg P O 00 f =
4 TABLE OF CONTENTS
^
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION
. .. . . . ...... . ... .. .. ... . . . . . 1 - 2.0 SEISMIC liAZARD MODEL. . . . . . . . . ... . ... .. .. . . . . 3 3.0 SEISMOCENIC ZONES . . . .... . .. . .. . ...... . . . . . 7 3.1 GEOLOGIC PROVINCE ZONES. . . .. ... .... .. . . . . . . 7 3.2 TECTONIC PROVINCE ZONES. . .. . ... . ..... .. . . . . 8 3.3 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ZONES . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . . 8 3.4 NORTHERN APPALACHIAN ZONE. . . . ... . ...... . . . . . 9 3.5 DECOLLEMENT ZONE . . . .. . .. . ... ..... . . . . . . 9 3.6 MES0 ZOIC RIFT ZONES. .. . . . . ... .... ... . . . . . 10 l' 3.7 MES0 ZOIC INTERSECTION ZONES. . . .... ..... . . . . . . 11 - 3.8 MAFIC PLUT0N ZONES . . . . . . . . ......... . . . . . 12 3.9 SUBJECTIVE WEIGHTS ON ZONES. .. .... .. ..... . . . . 12 $ Y..: .
' s' .:, ~ -
4.0 SEISMICITY PARAMETERS . ....... ... .... ... . . . . . 15 H.T- - s- w; 4.1 RICHTER b-VALUE. . .. . . . . . .... ..... . . . . . . 15 M.c-; .. ~' 4.2 SEISMIC ACTIVITY RATE. . . .. . . .. . .... . . . . . . . 17 in%n.;-
- ~
7.,4.; 4.3 MAXIMUM MAGNITUDE. . . . . . . . . .. . .. .... . . . . . 17 5.a;,",,-
.,: ;;+.% .
5.0 ESTIMATION OF SEISMIC GROUND MOTION . . .. . ..... . . . . . . 19 4. p'.t. - fxI s p ., *, . . g. '$.
/
Ag f.. 6.0 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . ... ..... . . . . . . 23 .l f N .- c .. . jg.4 7.0
SUMMARY
, . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . .... .... . . . . . . 26 q .pp.(-
TABLES q)C 3 's
- 7. d^.3 .. 4 :;g ,
a FIGURES 3 ~i. ' 2>,.F.: iy .17.
- . y
..? APPENDIX A - HISTORICAL SEISMICITY WITHIN 322 km (200 mi) 0F SITE %p;^. . g.,-
- e .g , g: -: -
.a y, -
ff ~ -(, ;J,. %'* v 7 ' '
't . ' .^... . g. :7,y ,.,.
p g ~ , - e' ,. > .' j.
.-.d. . . . -
3 I $ 4
. . - - -. .... _, ._ . - , ~_ _ . _.. - .. . . . , . _ . . -
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study is to make a probabilistic assessment of the frequency of exceedance of various ground acceleration levels and of the Saf e Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) spectrum at the Millstone Nuclear Power Plant, Unit
- 3. This study looks at parameters and tectonic models originally examined in AFj.;d ;
.s- s# +
the Dames & Moore report prepared in January, 1983 in more detail. The results fyi ,.~g i of the present study will be used to assess, in a general way, the relative $l f requency with which the SSE spectrum might be exceeded by earthquakes T.OM J.'!
.. s y occurring in the northeastern U.S. The results on probabilities of exceedance Qh:m Ofe' %
7 [Q ,3
.s of ground acceleration levels can be used to assess the probability of various
- n. i .
damage levels for equipment and components in the plant as a result of earth- .ilW 4;:'; quakes. :g..W n. .. <[+ g [ Y _ '.' For this study, we rely heavily on our experience and judgment, both in [N.Q %
.;3! (?Q,w .
guiding seismic hazard calculations and in drawing conclusions. The formal <'l mathematical procedures used to calculate seismic hazard (described in Section -
- 2) are standard ones for seismic hazard assessment of nuclear power plant h[d,('
it%d
.. : 2
;4 . , , ..
safety, as documented in the TERA Corp. (1980) report of the Lawrence Livermore b/i n-V y .g. ., National Laboratory work, the USNRC Probabi'istic Risk Assessment guide 7%. w&; . nl' , ( American Nuclear Society,1981), and the Indian Point Probabilistic Safety N 4- 5 1; , e..y,4 . ~. Study (IPPSS,1982). 4.?f%.); id l:^';i. .
-g3. ; w In addition to our own expertise, the work of TERA Corp. (1980) summarizes . M .3 . %
a wide range of opinion and expertise on seismicity in the central and eastern b. g. U.S. Other studies of eastern U.S. seismicity include Hadley and Devine (1974) ',p.U[; %,.3,, and numerous other documents included in the list of references. The earth- b 4 ;' a. : quake catalogs of Chiburis (1981) and the U.S. Geological Survey are the .T' i.t .[
$ *5- '
sources of historical earthquake data used here. Figure 1 shows the seismicity .;
. .f. '-
in the vicinity of Millstone reported in the Chiburis catalog. The U.S.G.S. [(.;
* ^ ' *
.q[ . 4 catalog was used as the source of seismicity for states farther south.
h aS
- 2-Yankee Atomic Electric Company performed all of the computer analyses and -_
computer plotting of results for this rtudy. Dames & Moore was responsible for __ the general direction of the project and determined seismogenic zones, seismi- .. city parameters, attenuation functions, and subjective weights for use in the computer analyses. The specific f acility examined in this study is the Millstone Nuclear , Power Plant, Unit 3, New London County, Connecticut. The assumptions and ._ hypotheses examined are appropriate for this site, but may not be for other sites. As an example, certain alternate configurations of seismogenic zones in ' ; the eastet., J.S. may be appropriate for the evaluation of seismic hazard at These alternate configurations were not other sites in the eastern U.S.
~
examined here because they would have no appreciable effect on the conclusions - drawn for seismic hazard at the Millstone facility.
=-
- 'i
;f
~
4 )$i 3 > sb [(f I
= '
l$h
$( l. ^
2.0 SEISMIC HAZARD MODEL ..
'.45(i
= _ _ g.
To develop probabilistic seismic hazard spectra at Millstone, it is [ possible to implement two procedures. The most direct would be to estimate [~ k.a. < ~ < h spectral amplitudes at different f requencies directly, draw spectra corre- 5.. j;f.;) y .. sponding to preselected f requencies of exceedance, and use these to compare to .f - SSE spectra. However, because of the lack of strong motion data in the eastern
%7".?5
; pt >
U.S., the estimation of spectral amplitudes requires substantial judgment and % is subject to criticism. The alternative is to eeHmate seismic hazard for 5
..w, .
acceleration and to anchor appropriate spectral shapes to these accelerations. .d. a,. . r 3- 7 I This procedure has the advantage that numerous methods have been published to N%
.s ,\ y y estimate acceleration in the eastern U.S., and spectral shapes can be derived 71 ],j y from studies of west coast strong motion data. This second precedure is the *M one adopted for this study.
c The seismic hazard modd used in this study to estimate frequency-of-exceedance versus ground acaleration level has been described in detail c elsewhere (Cornell, 1968, 19/1; McGuire, 1976), and the steps involved are depicted in Figure 2. As shown in Figure 2a, the first step is to delineate ' l
'. zones of potential future earthquake occurrences, using seismicity, geology, i
) 1 and tectonic evidence. For each zone, data on historical earthquake occur-rences are gathered, earthquake magnitudes are estimated from historical g [
earthquake intensities using relationships proposed by Nuttli and Herrmann .. .y
. 9 , * (1978) and by Weston Geophysical Corp. (1982). The data are plotted to '
y 6 indicate the number of earthquakes per unit time occurring in specific mag-
., nitude intervals, as illustrated in Figure 2b. A truncated exponential
'[E distribution is assumed to adequately represent the relative frequency of
~
; earthquake magnitudes in each zone, and the rate of earthquake occurrence is j assumed to be accurately estimated by historical occurrences. l
? I Af ter delineating seismic zones and analyzing earthquake statistics, the
, thiri step is to adopt or derive an " attenuation function", shown in Figure 2c. .
This equation estimates peak acceleration as a function of earthquake magnitude i n- .s ,
=
h 9/ IMAG EVALUATION (([gj $ 1 s11 aee1 <m13> xxxxx 4, 4p777g,/e- '*%,ej$ 4*
#+ %
l.0 l!2E 5 9 ILE
;,i [!7 NE l.8 i.4 j.6 1.25 [
4 150mm >
< 6" #
%% +
> !kQ ////p $
- ?hhY>,///f' v
4#6* \WP (( IMAGE EVALUATION
/
\,Vp9v+ v p/ TEST TARGET (MT-3)
</r)$4#a(,4 y pg,N <
M+@g,,, #4 '4b" l.0 lf 82 2 5 u I"?.!t HE l,l M kN Ji 1.25 1.4 1.6 4 150mm # 4 6" #
%% ++/4
*? y ,y,,, ?
$<y<fgf4 h >///// f s
m Y _4_ W , g cad distance between the source of seismic energy and the site. It is assumed that the peak acceleration predicted by the attenuation function is a median ll peak acceleration, and that actual values are lognormally distributed. The final step in the analysis. consists of mathematically integrating over all possible earthquake magnitudes and locations, calculating for each magnitude
- cud location the distribution of peak horizontal acceleration at the site to evaluate the annual frequencies that various levels of acceleration will be h exceeded. A standard computer program (McGuire , 1976) is used for calcula-tions. The output from this program is frequency of exceedance (number per unit time) as a function of peak acceleration which can be plotted as illustra-i ted in Figure 2d.
Assumptions used in the seismic ground motion hazard analysis are listed in Table 1 for reference. The most basic assumptions are chat seismogenic zones can be drawn to represent occurrences of future earthquakes, and that those occurrences can be represented probabilistically using the statistics of historical earthquakes in those zones. These assumptions, while quite gross,
' yield quite accurate estimates of seismic hazard (see, for example, McGuire, 1979, and McGuire and Barnhard, 1981). These are standard assumptions for ceismic hazard analyses in regions where tectonic faults cannot be identified ct the surface.
There are several assumptions required to describe seismicity within each ceismogenic zone. First is that successive earthquakes are independent in time, location, and size. This means that the frequency of occurrence of an earthquake at a specific location in any year is not affected by seismicity (or lack of it) in prior years in the same general area. While this is physically l unrealistic (any physical explanation of seismic events would account for the l release of crustal stress, making future events at the same location unlikely
- in the short term), there are simply not enough data available in the short historical record to justify or calibrate more sophisticated models. Also, 6
comparisons in areas where longer historical records are available indicate
; these assumptions are accurate if we are interested in estimating seismic hazard for periods on the order of 50 years (see the aforementioned refer-o -
h d {M t.? b d
- O UIt?
1 1 be represented by a lognormal distribution with a logarithmic standard de-viation of 0.b. Both assumptions are standard for this type of analysis, and i i, are appropriate to characterize available earthquake ground motion data. On balance, the assumptions used in seismic hazard analyses provide realistic estimates for the f requency of occurrence of peak ground accelera-tion. Not considered explicitly here are conservatisms associated with assuming that damage to structures is well-related to peak acceleration. This ground motion parameter is used here to anchor standard spectral shapes, not as a measure of earthquake-induced damage. The spectral shapes anchored to accelerations developed by the above
- methodology are those derived by Bernreuter (1981) for magnitude 5.8 earth-quakes. These spectra are shown in Figure 3. Events less than this magnitude, at distances of 24 to 49 km, generally dominate the seismic hazard for -r SSE-level ground motions. That is, if an exceedance of the SSE were to occur, it is likely to be caused by an earthquake with magnitude less than 5.8 at a distance of 24 to 49 km. Thus the-representation of ground motion hazard with a magnitude 5.8 scaled spectrum is conservative but appropriate for the conclusions to be drawn in this study. This is discussed in more detail below.
J l 1
- i 4
gh b % b -
j . ences). Finally, we observe that derived ground motion levels are not very censitive to errors in f requencies of occurrence; an error in frequency of occurrence of a f actor of two implies an error in ground motion amplitude of cnly thirty percent. Thus, we can mis-estimate earthquake f requencies by a large amount and only expect a relatively small error in the associated ground motien amplitude. The typical probability distribution used to represent earthquake size is the double-truncated exponential distribution. This is an accurate represen-
. tation of historical seismicity; its use to characterits future seismicity is sppropriate if (as is the case in the eastern United States) no change in the character of tectonic strain accumulation or release is suspected. Parameters required to define this distribution are the lower bound, upper bound, and b-value. A lower-bound magnitude ab of 4.5 was used in this study, based on the observation that earthquakes less than this size are not known to cause damage to engineered structures. In fact, this may be a conservative as-gumption: if, for example, seismic events in the range of 4.5 to 5.0 could also be shown to cause no damage, regardless of the peak accelerations generated, they should also be excluded from consideration. At present, such a demon-stration is not possible quantitatively. The upper-bound magnitude is a realistic representation, based on all seismologic, geologic and geophysical data available. The method used in this study to examine the b-value is described below.
The random process used to represent earthquake occurrences in time is not critical to seismic hazard results. The levels of ground motion and their frequencies are such that only the mean rate of activity (number of earthquakes per year) is important. Thus the selection of a Poisson (or other) process does not scriously affect the results. Other assumptions required in the analysis are that the peak acceleration can be represented as a function only of earthquake magnitude and source-to-site distance, and that the uncertainty in predicted peak acceleration can Carn w , Moon
( ,
'E 3.0 SEISMOGENIC ZONES The seismic hazard analysis requires the delineation of seismogenic zones, within which earthquakes are considered to be of similar tectonic origin so
+
that future seismic events can be modeled by a single function describing g sarthquake occurrences in time, space, and size. Several sets of seismogenic zones were examined in this study, each set representing a different hypothesis ! cn the structural and stress mechanisms causing earthquake occurrences in the I ' vicinity of the site. These sets of seismogenic zones are discussed below. 3.1 GEOLOGIC PROVINCE ZONES The Geological Province zones, shown in Figure 4, are based on 3 detailed investigation by Dames & Moore (1976) that formed the basis for direct testi-i many in the 1976 Show Cause Hearing about the Indian Point Site of Consolidated Edison Co. of New York. The zones in this model were developed on the basis of plate tectonic concepts; the zones oucline those portions of the eastern United , States affected by many overlapping periods of deformation, that could be
'dif ferentiated on ~ the basis of similarity in tectcaic style and deformation.
These' zones were derived according to the NRC requirements for tectonic I , provinces ( Appendix A to ICCFR, Part 100), and were successfully defended in g public hearings as a valid design basis; they have relatively less credence l than alternatives (because of the unclear association of current seismicity i with Paleotectonic provinces) for the purpose of describing seismogenic zones for probabilistic seismic risk studies. The Millstone site is in the Central New England Geologic Province zone. u The largest historical earthquake in this zone was the ab = 5.5 event which
.; occurred on December 20, 1940 in New Hampshire.
l l t s Dames & Moore t _d-...-,...~._ _ , . , . . . . - . . _ _ . . . .
i , s 3.2 TECTONIC PROVINCE ZONES 1 This model was developed by Hadley and Devine (1974) of the U.S. Geologi-cal Survey in conjunction with the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (now NRC) as a reans of introducing the concept of tectonic provinces and their relationship to earthquake occurrence .in the eastern United States (see Figure 5). While basically similar to the Geologic Province model constructed by Dames & Moore, the Tectonic Province model is more generalized. For the purposes of this study, the Piedmont zone of Hadley and Devine (1974) was separated into a north cnd south Piedmont zone by dividing the original zone into two at Maryland. This is more representative of current scientific thinking on the extent of different effects in the northern and southern Piedmont during the various periods of divergent and convergent tectonism in the Piedmont. The Tectonic Province zones provide the least detail and the most generalization; in a sense they are the lowest common denominator among alternatives based on crustal geology. The Millstone site lies within the northern Piedmont, but only about 30 km from the border of the Coastal Plain. The largest historical seismic shock in the northern Piedmont zone was the 1755 Cape Ann, Massachusetts, earthquake (estimated mb = 5.8); the largest in the Coastal Plain is the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake (estimated trb
= 6.6 to 6.8).
3.3 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ZONES The seismic zones drawn by Algermissen et al. (1982) (Figure 6) are used to represent seismicity for the U.S. Geological Survey model. These zones were derived using a combination of geological data, historical earthquake occurrences , and expert j udgment , and represent one interpretation of tec-touics. The Millstone site lies near the boundary of USGS :one 103, which includes seismicity in western Connecticut, southern New York, and New Jersey, and USGS zone 107, which includes the Cape Ann seismicity. In the former, the largest i.IT71 U S ObUk i
historical event was the 1884 Brooklyn earthquake (MM intensity VII, estimated ed = 5.3). The largest Cape Ann earthquake was the 1755 event (MM intensity VIII, estimated ab = 5.8). These two zones contribute about equally to the geismic hazard at Millstone. 3.4 NORTHERN APPALACHIAN ZONE For this hypothesis , earthquakes in New York and New England are not assumed to be tied to identifiable structurea in that region (Figure 7). Rather, it is assumed that seismic events are caused by as-yet-unidentified geologic features, and that these features may occur anywhere in the earth's crust. One large zone comprising the Appalachians and Piedmont province north of New Jersey is used to represent this model. The Northern Appalachian zone is similar to the northern Piedmont of the Tectonic Province zones, and is examined separately here because it represents one zone considered reasonable by the NRC (Policy Issue memo from Dircks to Commissioners dated February 5, 1982). The largest historical earthquake in the Northern Appalachian zone was the 1755 Cape Ann event (maximum intensity VIII). 3.5 DECOLLEMENT ZONE This model hypothesizes that a crustal zone in the eastern United States is undergoing horizontal movements (Seeber and Armbruster,1981) . Large scale overthrusting has been inferred to occur from the New England Appalachians and perhaps even farther west. Movement is either consistent with overthrust of the crust (to the west) or backsliding (to the east) due to gravity. In addition, Behrendt et al. (1980) have interpreted northeast striking
- low-angle thrust faults at depths of 10 to 15 km near the Charleston S.C. area.
These depths are in the range of hypocentral depths for a cluster of recent earthquakes (1973-1978). It has been inferred that this low-angle thrust 1 coincides with the Decollement identified in the C0 CORP profiles. Earthquakes i DdITICS & M OOIO l l
9 l
}
l N U : il 3 in the Decollement model (up to ab, max of 7.0) are inferred, therefore, to l occur along the horizontal detached zone similar to the discussion by Behrendt, f et' a1. (1980) for the Charleston 1886 event. Because the _ eastern border of the Decollement zone, which is drawn at the boundary between the Central New England Province and the craton, is not well r defined, two versions of the model have been considered here. The first version is shown on Figure 8. The Millstone site lies outside of the zone in this. version, but within the zone considered as background. The Millstone site lies inside the Decollement Zone in Version 2 (Figure 9). t i 'Ihe I>.collement model itself has not received muc.. upport as an explana-tion f or earthquakes in the eastern U.S. While the existence of the detached curface is considered quite possible by many researchers, the conclusion that movement on this surface causes earthquakes, or that the detachment exists as a single widespread surface throughout the Appalachian Orogen, is not held except by a few. The model is a useful one to illustrate the implied hazard if i Charleston-size earthquakes are assumed to be possible anywhere on the east Coast. 3.6 MES0 ZOIC RIFT ZONES I , This model combines the argunsts posed by Diment et al. (1980) with those of Wentworth et al. (1981). Earthquakes are assumed to occur in northeast-trending Mesozoic rif t basins where they terminate northwest-trending crustal i
! block boundaries. The rif t basins are considered to represent the margin of crustal divergence af ter the last opening of the Atlantic. Earthquakes within the basins are inferred to occur along re-activated border f aults of Mesozoic origin, similar to the argument posited by Wentworth et al. (1981). The Ramapo j _l fault in New York is thought to be one example of a Mesozic Basin border fault, I i although there is concroversy over the relationship of this fault to earth-l h quakes.
- a l
- !
l a Dames 6 Moore
- l. a
;. 1 4
d
}
Two versions of this model were considered here because of the uncertainty q in the boundaries of the rift basins. Version 1 (Figure 10) is the case where the site lies outside of the Connecticut Valley Rif t structure. Version 2 (Figure 11) is the case where the site lies inside this structure. The maximum historical event in the Connecticut Valley Rif t zone is the 1884 Brooklyn carthquake (MM intensity VII, estimated ab = 5.3). 3.7 MES0 ZOIC INTERSECTION ZONES Earthquake occurrences for this model are assumed to be controlled by the intersection of Mesozoic rif t basins and northwest-trending crustal features. Most of these inferred features cross rift basins at their northeast or touthwest limits. These zones have necessarily been drawn in a broad f ashion to reflect uncertainty in the location of these features and in the epicentral location of historical seismicity. The development of the scientific basis for these zones has been rela-tively recent, although the idea of intersecting structures causing large earthquakes is not new. Such a structure is one proposed explanation of the Charleston earthquake. The intersection zones representing seismicity in Connecticut and southern New York are inferrad from offshore fracture zones and indirect gravity and magnetic data. Therefore these two zones are conjectural; they have been included in the hazard calculations as one possible interpretation of tectonics in the northeast, with an associated small confidence level. However, because the site lies near the Connecticut intersection zone, two versions of this 4 model were considered. In the first version (Figure 12), the site lies outside the Connecticut Intersection zone, but inside the area considered background. In the second version (Figure 13), the site lies inside the Connecticut Intersection zone. The largest historical event in this zone is the 1791 Moodus, Connecticut earthquake (MM intensity = VI, estimated mb = 4.8) . 1 h '*MO$ h bIC f31 !.
f 5 n i < i
, 3.8 MAFIC PLUTON ZONES This set of zones reflects the hypothesis that earthquakes are associated r with mafic plutons chiefly of Paleozoic age. These mafic plutons occur over regions in northern Ne.a England, as shown in Figure 14 (from The Final Safety _ '
i Analysis Report for Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3). Because the i site lies more then 180 km from these zones, this seismogenic model effectively ccts to restrict large earthquakes to locations far from Millstone. L The largest historical earthquake in the closest zone (White Mountains Pluton Zone) is the 1755 Cape Ann event (MM intensity VIII, estimated ab " 5.8). The site lies in the area considered background. 3.9 SUBJECTIVE WEIGHTS ON ZONES For the purpose of deriving the relative likelihood associated with hazard curves, subjective weights were assigned to the sets of seismogenic zones described above. These weights reflect the subjective judgment that each set of zones is the correct one for describing seismic hazard. The subjective weights were judged to be equally-likely for two categories of zones, and each category was assigned a weight of 0.50. The first category represents sonations based, in part, on crustal geology, and includes the f Geologic Province zones, the Tectonic Province zones, and the U.S. Geological ! Survey zones. Within this category, the Tectonic Provinces zones were con-cidered somewhat more likely, in that they are broader and were drawn using historical seismicity. They do not consider the Ramapo fault as a possible source of large earthquakes, a possibility which is currently unresolved but appears unlikely. This model was weighted 0.25. The Geologic Province zones were judged to be least likely, because they account only for geology and do not consider seismicity. This model was weight 0.10. The U.S. Geological l Survey zones, based on geology and seismicity, were assigned a weight of 0.15. I l Cames & Moore
? i
- ) '
I s i i i y i The second category of seismogenic zonations includes the Northern Appalachian zone, Mesozoic Rift zones, Mesozoic Intersection zones, the
, Decollemenc zone and Mafic Pluton zones. Within this category, the Mesozoic Rift zones were assigned a weight of 0.10. The Mesozoic Intersection zones, Decollement zone, and Mafic Pluton zones were considered unlikely and were essigned a weight of 0.05 each. The Mesozoic Intersection zones and Decolle-trent zone are ptesently questioned as to their validity in the Millstone area.
The Mafic Pluton zones have no effect on Millstone because of their distance i from the site. For all three of these models , the background contributes equally or greater to the seismic risk at the Millstone site than the modeled zones themselves. Therefore, these models are more aptly described by the Northern Appalachian zone, which treats seismicity as a broad, diffuse zone; this zone was assigned a weight of 0.25. The subjective weights assigned to each set of seismogenic zones are summarized as follows: Geologic Province zones 0.10 Tectonic Province zones 0.25 U.S. Geological Survey zones 0.15 Northern Appalachian zone 0.25 Decollement zone, Versions 1 & 2 0.05 Mesozoic Rif t zones, Versions 1 & 2 0.10 Mesozofe Intersection zones, Ver-sions 1 & 2 0.05 Mafic Pluton zones 0.05 TOTAL 1.00 For zones represented by two versioaa with Millstone inside and outside the dominant zone (the Mesozoic Rift, Mesozoic Intersection, and Decollement
! zones), the weight shown was divided equally between the two versions. There y is no one set of zones which stands out as being overwhelmingly credible. The
! final results to be presented are not heavily dependent on the exact weights assigned. The eleven sets of zones in Figures 4 through 14 represent the range D.une r Moore
- g. ._.
ll - 1 H d 1 of possible seismogenic zone interpretations in the northeastern U.S., and
, represent a reasonable range of hypotheses with which to investigate seismic hazard at the Millstone Nuclear Power Station.
J f a P g .. names a mome i
,n-.- .,- - -,.- - - , . ,, , . . . . , . - , . - - . , - , - . . . - - - , . - , . . - - . - ---1--.--
N !
- 4 s
4.0 SEISMICITY PARAMETERS J ' For the probabilistic calculation of seismic hazard, several parameters describing seismicity are required for each seismogenic zone. These para-meters, and the mettm. used to estimate mean values and to quantify uncer-tainty, are discussed below. The Chiburis (1981) catalog of historical
, carthquakes was used as the data base for New Englar.d, Canada, and east central U.S. The U.S. Geological Survey data base (published as state seismicity maps, for example Reagor et al., 1980) was used for the southeastern U.S. and was updated with data of Bollinger and Sibol (1983), and Dewey and Gordon (written communication, 1983). Listed in Appendix A are all earthquakes in the catalog within 322 km (200 miles) of the site, with MM intensity greater than 2 cr equal to V. For statistical data analysis, earthquakes with an epicentral MM intensity I ebut without a magnitude estimate (pre-instrumental seismicity) were converted to a body-wave magnitude mb using the two relationships:
mb = 1. 7 5 + 0. 5 I e (1) mb = 0.44 + 0.67 I. (2) Equation 1 was derived for the central U.S. (Nuttli and Herrmann,1978) and is considered reliable for the eastern U.S. as well (Bollinger, personal communi-cation, 1983). The second equation was der tved using New England data (Weston Geophysical Corp., 1982), and is considered a reasonable alternative. 4.1 RICHTER b-VALUE The Richter b-value describes the slope of the log-number versus magnitude relation: logio n(mb) = a- bmb (3) where n(mb) is the annual number of earthquakes of body-wave magnitude mb, and a and b are parameters fit to seismicity data. Parameter a is related to the seismic activity rate as discussed in Section 4.2. omt s a Mourn k __
< a -
l' i 4 1 i g Two values of b in equation 3 were calculated from historical earthquakes using the following procedure. Magnitudes, when not reported instrumentally , were estimated from MM intensities using first, equation 1 and second, equation
.c 2, and the number of events per decade were counted into magnitude intervals centered on magnitudes estimated f rom even MM Lt.ensity values. Periods of historical completeness were detarained in a manner designed to give the highest observed rate of occurrence. These periods were generally as follows:
Magnitude (ab) Magnitude (ab) (Equation 1) (Equation 2) MM Intensity Period h 3.8 3.1 IV 1970-present 4.3 3.8 V 1950-present 4.8 4.5 VI 1900-present 5.3 5.1 VII 1720-present 5.8 5.8 VIII 1720-present i: 6.3 6.5 IX 1720-present 6.8 7.1 X 1660 present For each zone and for each method of converting from intensity to magni-tude, the number of events in each magnitude interval was used as data and a b-value and its uncertainty were determined using the maximum likelihood method (Weichert, 1980).
- Uncertainty in the method of calculating the Richter b-value was incor-porated in the hazard calculations by using each of the two conversion methode I
(equation 1 and equation 2), and weighting each equally (with a weight of 0.5). Further, uncertainty in the b-value given the method of calculation was I examined by changing the b-values by + 15 percent in conjunction with the changes in maximum magnitude described below. This change reflects statistical i uncertainty in the b-value, given its chosen method of calculation; 15 percent is a typical one-standard-deviation uncertainty in b-value as determined by the stethod of Weichert (1980). Probabilities associated with these changes in b-value'are discussed below in the section on maximum magnitude.
-f Da > < !A Moore
jl i m
}
l i i
- 4.2 SEISMIC ACTIVITY RATE i
-f
'The rate of' earthquake occurrence was determined for each seismogenic zone b cud for each intensity-to-magnitude conversion equation by the maximum likeli- ,
g - hood method (Weichert,1980), using as data the historical earthquakes in that 1 zone. Activity rates were calculated for occurrences of earthquakes with ab>_ f 4.5, (where ab is body-wave magnitude) which corresponds to MM intensity V-VI.
- . This method was based on the observation that earthquakes of smaller magnitude rarely cause structural damage, even if peak accelerations are high, due to the chort- duration, impulsive-type ground motions associated with these small
- events. No uncertainty in activity rates was considered herein, because historical rates of saismic activity are relatively well-determined, even in the' eastern U.S. (McGuire, 1977). Important in this assumption is the con-sideration that calculated frequencies of exceedance are directly proportional I to activity rates , and ground motion amplitudes at levels of interest change relatively slowly with respect to frequency of exceedance.
4.3 MAXIMUM MAGNITUDE For the Geologic Provinces, Tectonic Provinces, U.S. Geological Survey i - zones, and Northern Appalachian zone, the best estimate of maximum possible cagnitude ab, max in each zone was taken to be 0.5 magnitude units above the magnitude of the largest historical earthquake. This corresponds to approxi-7 rately one MM intensity unit higher than the maximum historical MM intensity, and is consistent with, for example, a concensus of the experts polled in the
- TERA Corp. (1980) study. The only exception among these zones was for the Coastal . Plain zone of the Tectonic Provinces , where the 1886 Charleston aarthquake occurred and where ab, max = 7.0 was assumed.
i For the Decollement zone, the value of ab, max was chosen to be 7.0, , y consistent with the occurrence of the 1886 Charleston earthquake in that zone
] (estimated ab, max = 6.8). For the Mesozoic Rifc zones and the Mesozoic Y
1 i
,, names la Mooro y
- i i
J Intersection zones , two values of ab, max (6.0 and 7.0) were used to express
+
uncertainty in the values for these zones. The ab, max was not varied for the O Mafic Pluton zones because the background dominates _ the seismic hazard. l J For zones where the best estimate of mb, max was taken to be the maximum
-R historical magnitude + 0.5, alternative values of + 0.5 magnitude units from the best estimate were examined to determine the effect of uncertainty in
, maximum magnitude on the hazard calculations. The three values of maximum d tagnitude were weighted equally (i.e. , one-third each). In the hazard calcu-I lations, it was assumed that uncertainty in maximum magnitude was perfectly correlated with statistical uncertainty in the Richter b-value (described
, . tibove ) . The reason is that there is some suspected negative correlation between these two variables (small b-values tend to correlate with high maximum magnitudes, and vice versa). An accurate modeling of this negative correlation is beyond the level of sophistication required for this study; an assumption of perfect negative correlation gives accurate results in the mean and, if anything , over-emphasizes the effect sought. In the case of the Mesozoic Rift and Mesozoic Intersection zones (in which ab, max was varied between 6.0 and 7.0), the b-value was not varied. The lower value of maximum magnitude was
- assigned a weight of 0.8, while the higher value was assigned 0.2.
Table 2 presents the eleven hypotheses on seismogenic zones considered. Seismicity parameters are shown for the zone which dominates seismic hazard, for each hypothesis. In all cases, all zones shown in Figures 4 through 14
- were used in the hazard calculations to confirm that only the most active zone l closest to the site contributed to seismic hazard.
b i r i e Dames & Moore
- i .
3
- l Y,
5.0 ESTIMATION OF SEISMIC GROUND MOTION n' Estimates of peak single-component horizontal ground acceleration, a ,p . were made for this study using four methods. These are described in the; following paragraphs. The first attenuation equation used is that of Nuttli and Herrmann (1981): In ap = 1.265 + 1.15 mb - 0.0044 A - 0.833 in A (4) where A is epicentral distance and ap is in em/sec 2. This function is plotted i in Figure 15. For any given magnitude, accelerations in the near-field are f assumed to be constant (see the horizontal portion of the curves shown in . l Figure 15) and limited as a function of magnitude by the following relationship: (Nutt11 and Herrmann, 1981): F 1n ap (max) = 0.933 mb (5) The attenuation function published by Campbell (1981a) for stif f soil and rock sites in the central U.S. was clso used in this study: In ap = -4.39 + .922M - 1.27 in (A + 25.7) - YA (6) where Y = 0.023 - 0.0048M + 0.00028 M2 (7) and where M is moment magnitude, essentially equivalent to local magnitude for the range of interest in this study (magnitudes less than 7). Moment magnitude was converted to body wave magnitude (the scale used in this study to charac ' ! terize earthquakes) by the relation (Campbell, 1981a): i i Danes & Moore f
$l ~ .
n- i y ! i! a
- i i
dg l s
] M = 1.02 mb + 0.30 md < 5.6 (8)
M = 1.64 mb - 3.16 mb 1 5.6 Equation 6 was assumed to apply for all distances, and is plotted in Figure 16.' This equation and the Nuttli-Herrmann attenuation function (equation 4) were - derived primarily for the central U.S., and are adopted here as two estimates of ground motion for the northeastern U.S. j Two additional attenuation equations were derived from MM intensity I 6 attenuation observed during earthquakes in New England (G. Klimkiewicz,i personal communication, 1982). This intensity attenuation is:
! Is = -1.43 + 1.79 mb - 0.80 in A - 0.00184 4 (9) p where I s is MM intensity at a site located epicentral distance A from the:
o
;j - earthquake. Two methods of converting Is to ap were used (McGuire, 1977): ; in ap = 0.831 + 0.851 I s (10)
In ap = 1.45 - 0.359 in A + 0.68 I s (11) I
> The first of these equations represents a one-to-one transformation between site intensity and peak acceleration; the second recognizes that this trans-t formation may be a function of epicentral distance. Equations 10 and 11 were derived for stif f soil sites and are assumed here to apply to rock sites as -
well. Substicuting equation 9 into 10 and 11 gives: In ap = -2.05 + 1.523 ab - 0.68 in A - 0.00157 A (12)
; in ap = 0.478 + 1.22 mb - 0.90 in A - 0.00125 A (13) f Dames & fJoore 1
6 - -. .r --,-. ,,..m. . _ - _ . _ _ , _ _ _ _ - , __
y -- . I
~
1 Ni !
+3-l .a i
l , -k' _ The ' first of these is herein designated the "Al" (" Acceleration from Inten-b . . _ [a - city") attenuation; the second is designated. the " AID" (" Acceleration from , U Intensity with Distance-dependence") attenuation. These two functions are l l i: y plotted in Figures 17 and 18, respectively. f l In this study, all four attenuation equations were used. For the purposes j [ cf deriving best-estimate and fractile hazard curves, a subjective weight of ! one-fourth was used with each attenuation function (equations 4, 6,12, and 13). For calculations of seismic hazard, a lognormal distribution of accelera-i N tion about the mean value was assumed , with a value of cln a equal to 0.6, ; e corresponding to a factor of 1.8 uncertainty in the estimate. This distribu-i ] j! tion is widely used to represent uncertainty in ground motion estimates. The unce. tcinty modeled is typical of the scatter exhibited by strong motion data ' ;
, rets, as shown in Table 3, when the data are restricted to a specific area auch :
i 4 as the western U.S. Data from a specific earthquake may show a standard q deviation less than 0.6 (for example, the Donovan study of the San Fernando ,- sarthquake), but this is only representative of that one-event. When data from worldwide locations are used in the analysis , larger values of uncertainty 1.re ' 19 0 obtained because of different mean attenuations. In this study it is more
; appropriate to use an uncertainty typical of a specific geographic area.
n i
! The distribution of peak ground acceleration was truncated, to reflect the notion that, if MM intensities are limited, so must peak accelerations be i limited. Whether or not instrumental peak accclerations are limited is l
- prsblematic; the idea is that, if damage f rom earthquakes is bounded in a i .
region, the effective ground motion must also be bounded. The bounds used in
;I this analysis are shown in Table 4.
I j The third column of Table 4 shows upper bound values of sustained ac-l o. l , celeration, where this corresponds to the third highest peak. These upper [ bound values for MM intensity VI, VII, VIII, and IX were obtained from Kennedy (personal communication, 1981). The values of sustained acceleration shown in d y Dames & Moore 1 l1 . ~ . _ _ - _ , _ _ _ _ . . . _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ . , _ _ _ , _ s, , , , _
l_ r
' !l 1 -l i.-
t Table ' 4 for half values of MM intensity were derived by observing that a ' decrease of sustained acceleration of 20 percent for each half intensity unit , is consistent with the limits suggested by Kennedy. These limits on sustained c cceeleration must ~be multiplied by the factor 1.25 to convert to a peak
,1 ecceleration. The basis for this factor is experience with the relationship
( between sustained ground motion which causes damage by several cycles of l 9 induced motion, and the associated peak acceleration for earthquakes of large , j snough magnitude (>6) to cause long durations of strong shaking (Kennedy, n , [i personal communication, 1981). e t These limits were applied to all calculations of seismic hazard in this study. For example , in the numerical integration over magnitude , the oc-currence of magnitude 6 (corresponding to MM intensity VIII-IX) implies that 9 g the resulting distribution of peak accelerations was truncated at 0.8 g, as i y shown in Table 4. If mb, max is 6 for the zone dominating hazard at Millstone,
? the calculated annual frequencies of exceedance of peak accelerations greater than 0.8 g is zero. ;
S V d i h l i Dames & Moore l l J - - - . _ . - - - _
.g. _ - .
I
. y!! .. i 9
i l
! l 1 6.0 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS >
n 9 i i p Figure 19 shows the calculated annual f requency of exceedance for the n : Northern Appalachian zone using the Weston conversion, for the four attenuation ti j squations. The AI and AID attenuation equations indicate approximately the l h came hazard. For accelerations greater than 100. cm/sec2 , the Nuttli-Herrmann ! d and the Campbell attenuation equations indicate approximately three times -l [ higher hazard than the AI and AID equations. f u l
;j . .
} The sensitivity of hazard to the choice of seismogenic zonation is shown j in Figure 20. Using the Nuttli-Herrmann conversion and attenuation equation, l t
i; the total range in hazard (f requency for a given acceleration) is about a l n i p f actor of ten for the range of seismogenic zones at an acceleration of 100 : cm/sec2 and increases at higher accelerations.
'I The sensitivity of hazard from version 1 (site outside the designated v
4 zone) to version 2 (site inside the designated cone) in the case of the ! i; l l Decollement Zone, is shown in Figure 21. The curves shown represent results F [ using the Nutt11-Herrmann conversion, and both the Nuttli-Herrmann and AID
-c h attenuation equations. In both cases, version 1 is higher than version 2 by a l factor of about two , because the activity rate in the background area (Figure 9 8) exceeds that in the Decollement zone (Figure 9).
d
- 9
( Seismic hazard curves as a function of maximum magnitude (mb, max) are i athown in Figure 22. The curves shown are for the Northern Appalachian zone, using both the Nuttli-Herrmann and Weston conversions and the Nuttli-Herrmann l i attenuation. The uncertainty in ab, max (and simultaneous statistical uncerta- ' inty in the b-value, as described in Section 4.3 of this report) translates [ into uncertainty of + a f actor of two in annual frequency, from the best-g estimate value of ab, max
- l- 'i '
I-fi e-U 1 l Dames & Mooro 4 J _. ii _ _ _ . , _ _ . . __ , , _ . , _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . . , _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ , _ . - _ , _ . . _ _ _ , , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ , _ _ . . _
_ J -2 4 -
-.l t ; q t
1
;i i Figure 23 shows the effect of the method used to convert intensity to j_ magnitude. The curves for both the Nuttli-Herrmann and the Weston conversions i a !! cre shown for the Northern Appalachian zone using the Nuttli-Herrmann and AID a
3 cttenuation equations. - The difference between the two conversions is about ai f factor of two at accelerations greater than 100 cm/sec 2, d- l In all,184 seismic hazard curves were generated in this study: eleven , 1 cets of seismogenic zones times four attenuation functions , times two methods ! of converting intensity to magnitude, times three maximum magnitudes (two in i the cases of Rift and Intersection Zones and one in the cases of Decollement End Pluton zones). To synthesize and present these results, the curves were h eggregated into ten representative curves. Details of the aggregation pro-
!! cedure are discussed in Yankee Atomic Electric Co. (1982). One modification of this procedure was made, to ensure that all original hazard curves with +
'i truncations of about 0.6 g (see Table 4) were aggregated together and not mixed with curves with a higher truncation. The same procedure was followed for curves truncated at about 0.8 g, and at about 1.0 g and greater. Figure 24 y shows the ten aggregate hazard curves; Figure 25 shows the median,16% and 84%
- fractile curves. These two figures give an indication of the uncertainty in the hazard as a result of the combined uncertainty in seismogenic zones, attenuation functions, maximum magnitudes, and intensity-magnitude conversions.
From the sensitivities shown in Figures 19 through 23, no single uncertainty in input dominates the uncertainty in seismic hazard. Seismic hazard results for the ten aggregate curves are given in Table 5, in terms of annual frequencies of exceedance for various peak accelerations. As a result of the aggregation procedure, three curves are truncated at 0.6 g, three are truncated at 0.8 g, and four are untruncated. (The untruncated aggregate curves each represent several hazard curves which are truncated at 1 7 g and several which are-not.) Also shown on Table 5 is the probability associated with each curve, which is the combined probability of the original 3 4 hazard curves represented by each aggregate curve. 1 n r 4 I f Dames a Moore 3
, , . , . , .-r---.---r---rem-, , , ~ - - -yme---- ~- - - .
, , - - - -----,-3
a , 1
+ .
0 t 1
,; For all hazard calculations the average magnitude causing exceedances of cach acceleration level was calculated using the procedure described in McGuire
{ cad Shedlock (1981). These indicated that, for accelerations around 0.17 g, , magnitudes around 5.6 dominate the hazard (the average magnitude ranged from l 5.2 to 5.9, depending on the source area). The average distance at which these
+ svents occurred ranged from 24 to 49 km, with the closer distances associated '
~ with smaller average magnitudes and the larger distances with higher average magnitudes. Thus the results should not be interpreted to mean that the SSE
, will be caused by a magnitude 5.6 in the near-field; if such an event causes an exceedance of the SSE, it will most likely occur at 30 to 50 km. The choice of a magnitude 5.8 spectrum is made merely to obtain a conservative spectral shape which, when anchored to the peak acceleration, will give a general indication of the response spectrum associated with these events.
Figure 26 shows the Bernreuter (1981) spectrum (5% damping) of Figure 3!. ecaled to the 10-3 and 10-4 acceleration levels for the median curve shown in Figure 25. Also shown is the SSE spectrum for 5% damping for Millstone Unit 3. The latter spectrum lies approximately at the 10-4 level (or lower) throughout a the frequency range 25 to I hz. 1 I ) I Dames & Mooro E. . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . . _ . _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
a j j N i ll n' 7.0
SUMMARY
We present here a seismic hazard analysis for peak ground acceleration at fj ' the Millstone Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3. The analysis is primarily dependent i cn the spatial extent of any hypothesized seismic source which produces sarthquakes in the vicinity of the site, on the method of converting intensity to magnitude, on the attenuation equation used, and on the maximum magnitudes assumed. This is illustrated by the sensitivity of calculated seismic hazard shown in Figures 19 through 23. For the purposes of reporting, ten eggregate curves are obtained; these aggregate curves illustrate the range and uncertainty in results obtained from uncertainties in seismicity and attenua-tion. t The acceleration hazard at the SSE level (0.17 g) is represented by a frequency of exceedance of approximately 10-4 per year, and is dominated by earthquakes with a mean magnitude in the range 5.2 to 5.9. A site-specific, magnitude 5.8 near-source spectrum anchored to the peak accelerations indicates that the SSE spectrum for Millstone Unit 3 lies at about the 10-4 frequency-of-exceedance level throughout the frequency range of engineering interest. i l ChfMS & lAOOf C l
0 . i n 4
?
l < REFERENCES i Algeraissen, S.T. , D.M. Perkins , P.C. Thenhaus , S.L. Hanson, and B.L. Bender , (1982), "Probabilistic Estimates of Maximum Acceleration and Velocity in Rock in the Contiguous United States", U.S.G.S. Open-File Report 82-1033, ! 99 pp.
, American Nuclear Society (1981), "PRA Procedures Guide," USNRC, NUREG/CR-2300.
Behrendt, J.C. , R.M. Familton , H.D. Ackermann, J.V. Henry, and K.C. Sayer, (1980) " Seismic Reflection Evidence of Cenozoic Reactivation of Older Faults on land and Offshore in the area of Charleston, South Carolina 1886 1 Earthquake", GSA, Vol. 12, No. 7, ABS., 93rd An. Mtg, Atlanta, Georgia. Bernreuter, D.L. (1981), C.P. Mortgat, and L.H. Wright (1979), " Seismic Hazard Analysis: Site Specific Response Spectra Results", prepared for TERA Corp. Bollinger, G.A., and M.S. Sibol (1983), " Listing of Hypocenters from Southeastern U.S. Seismic Network", Virg. Poly. Inst. and State Univ., , Bull. No. 10A, April. Campbell, K.W. (1981a), "A Ground Motion Model for the Central United States Based on Near-Source Acceleration Data", Proc., Earthquakes and Earthquake Eng.: The Eastern U.S., Knoxville, Sept., pp. 213-232. Campbell, K.W. (1981b), "Near Source Attenuation of Peak Horizontal Accelera-tion", Bull. Seis. Soc. h., Vol. 71, No. 6, p 2039-2070. Chiburis, E. (1981), " Seismicity, Recurrence Rates, and Regionalization of the Northeastern United States and Adjacent Southeastern Canada", USNRC, NUREG/CR-2309. CSrnell, C. A. (1968), " Engineering Seismic Risk Analysis", Bull. Seis. Soc.
- h. , Vol. 58, p.1583-1606.
Cornell, C. A. (1971), "Probabilistic Analysis of Damage to Structures under Seismic Load", Chapter 27 in Dynamic Waves in Civil Engineering, D.A. Howells, I.P. Haigh, and C. Taylor, Editors, Wiley Interscience, London,
- p. 473-488.
n Cornell, C.A., H. Banon, and A.F. Shakal (1979), " Seismic Motion and Response Prediction Alternatives", Earthquake Eg. and Strue. Dyn. , Vol. 7, p. 295-315. ,' 'l Dames & Moore l
y ; 1 s - 0 l ii ik j ll 3
] REFERENCES (Continued) >
I Dames & Moore (1976), Testimony before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal ; Board in the matter of the Citizen's Committee on Protecting the t Environment vs. Consolidated Edison of New York, Inc. , and the Power ! L
. Authority of the State of New York, Issue 1, Tectonic Provinces (April).
Dimert, W.H. , 0.H. Muller , and P.M. Lavin, (1980), Basement Tectonics of New ' York and Pennsylvania as Revealed by Gravity and Magnetic Studies,Prec. , !
"The Caledonides in the U.S. A.", L.G.C.P. Project 27, Caledonide 0rogen, I p. 221-227.
l f Donovan, N.C. (1973), " Earthquake Haeards for Buildings", in Building Prac- i' 0 tices for Disaster Mitigation, Natl. Bur. Standards Building Sc. Series 46, p. 82-111. h Donovan, N.C. (1974), "A Statistical Evaluation of Strong Motion Data Includ-
]
ing the February 9,1971 San Fernando Earthquake", Proc., 5th World Conf. on Earthquake Eng., Rome, Vol. 1. p. 1252-1261. Esteva, L., and R. Villaverde (1974), " Seismic Risk, Design Spectra, and Structural Reliability", Proc., 5th World Conf. on Earthquake Eng., Rome Vol.2, p. 2586-2596. Hadley,~J.B., and J.F. Devine (1974), "Seismotectonic Map of the Eastern United States", Department of the Interior, U.S.G.S. , Misc. Field Studies Map MF-620. IPPSS (1982), " Indian Point Probabilistic Safety Study," Con. Ed. of N.Y. and Power Auth. of the State of N.Y., Docket Nos. 50-247-SP and 50-286-SP. Joyne r , W . B . , and D.M. Boore (1981), " Peak Horizontal Acceleration and Velocity from Strong Motion Records Including Records from the 1979 Imperial Valley , California, Earthquake", Bull. Seis. Soc. Am. , Vol. 71, No. 6, p 2011-2038. McGuire, R.K. (1974), " Seismic Structural Response Risk Analysis, Incorporating Peak Response Regressions on Earthquake Magnitude and Distance", Massachusetts Inst. Technology, Dept. Civil Eng., Research Rept. R74-51, p. 371. McGuir?, R.K. (1976), " Fortran Computer Program for Seismic Risk Analysis", y U.S.G.S., Open-File Report 76-67. i Dames & Moore
,J -, -- , _ . _ _ _ . _ _ - _ , , . . _ _ _ , . _ . _ _ . _ . . . - _ _ _ _ , . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _
-a!! l j- ,
?.l P 1; i
-H-O' O !
h REFERENCES (Continued)
. ii .
9 McGuire , R.K. (1977), "Ef fects of Uncertainty in Seismicity on Estimates of Seismic Hazard for the East Coast of the United States", Bull. Seis. Soc. _ Am.', Vol. 67, No. 3., June, p 827-848. Il h McGuire , R.K. (1978a), " Seismic Ground Motion Parameter Relations", Jour., 1 Geotech. Eng. Div., A.S.C.E., April, p 481-490. [ McGuire, R.K. (1978b), "A Simple Model for Estimating Fourier Amplitude I
'[ Spectra of Horizontal Ground Acceleration", Bull. Seis. Soc. Am., Voi. 68, +
No. 3, June, p 803-822. U McGuire , R.K. (1979), Adequacy of Simple Probability Models for Calculating l
; Felt-Shaking Hazard Using the Chinese Earthquake Catalog. Bull. Seis. Soc.
Am., Vol. 69, p 877-892. . b McGuire , R. K. , and T. P. Barnhard (1981), " Effects of Temporal Variations in h Seismicity on Seismic Hazard", Bull. Seis. Soc. Am., Vol. 71, p. 321-334. H j McGuire, R. K. and K. M. Shedlock (1981), " Statistical Uncertainties in Seismic Hazard Evaluations in the United States," Bull. Seis. Soc. Am. , Vol. 71, i: - No. 4, p. 1287-1308. a [ Nuttli, 0.W. , and R.B. Herrmann (1978), " Credible Earthquakes for the Central United States:, Report 12, Misc. Paper S-73-1, U.S. Army Eng. Waterways T.xp. Station (Vicksburg). d Nutt11, 0.W. , and R.B. Herrmann (1981), " Consequences of Earthquakes in the Mississippi Valley", Preprint 81-519, Amer. Soc. Civil Eng. Mtg, St. Louis, Oct. Patwardhan, A. , K. Sadigh, I.M. Idriss , and R. Youngs (1978), " Attenuation of Strong Ground Motion - Effect of Site Conditions, Transmission Path Characteristics, and Focal Depths", in preparation. See I.M. Idriss,
" Characteristics of Earthquake Ground Motion", Proc. , ASCE Specialty Conference of Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, Pasadena, June 1978.
Reagor, B.G., C.W. Stover, and S.T. Algermissen (1980), " Seismicity Map of the State of South Carolina", U.S.G.S., Misc. Field Map MF-1225. Sseber , '.. and S. Armbrus ter , (1981), "The 1886 Charleston, South Carolina Earthquake and the Appalachian Detachment", Jour. Geophys. Res. , 86, E9, Sept. 10, p. 7874-7894. Shannon and Wilson, Inc., and Agbabian Assoc. (1974), " Statistical analysis of
] Earthquake Ground Motion Parameters", USNRC, NUREG/CR-1175, Dec.
q
- t Darr,es & Moore 1
,c . ~ _ . . , . - _ . . . . - . _ . - , . _ . . . _ . _ . . , . - . . . _ . _ . _ . . . _ . - . . . . . - _ . _ _ _ _ . , _ _ - - _ . -
fi ' ! i it n d i h 4 i
- t -
!l-' 1 l
REFERENCES (Concluded) f
- i TERA Corp. (1980), " Seismic Hazard Analysis-Solicitation of Expert Opinion",
y USNRC, NUREG/CR-1582, Aeg. l
- Trifunac, M.D. , (1976), " Preliminary Analysis of the Peaks of Strong Earthquake i Ground Motion-Dependence of Peaks on Earthquake Magnitude. Epicentral 6 Distance , and Recording Site Conditions", Bull. Seis. Soc. Am. , Vol. 66, ,
, No. 1, Feb., p. 189-219. ,
Weichert, D.H. (1980), " Estimation of the Earthquake Recurrence Parameters for Unequal Observation Periods f or Different Magnitudes", Bull. Seis. Soc. Am., Vol. 70, No. 4, p. 1337-1346. Wintworth , C.M. and M. Mergner-Keef er , (1981), " Reverse Faulting along the Eastern Seaboard and the Potential for Large Earthquakes", in, Earthquakes
!, and Earthquake Engineering - Eastern United States, J.E. Beavers ed., Vol.
1, Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan, p. 109-128. W2ston Geophysical Corp. (1982), " Estimation of Seismicity Parameters for New England", Rept. Prepared for Yankee Atomic Electric Co., April. Ycnkee Atomic Electric Company (1982), " Supplemental Seismic Probabilistic Study " Report YAEC-1331. Dames & Moore e- , , - - , - - - , , - . . - -, , - . , .,, . ,,,,,n - , y m. , e ,n-
7 _q i l
\ \
f
?
S 1 0 TABLE 1 GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS USED IN SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS
,i !
- 1. Earthquake locations repre- 1. In general, realistic. Con-
!! sented by seismogenic zones servative for sites located
. , with a homogeneous location' away from active fault zones, a distribution. unconservative for sites , ! located near active fault zones. f L i
- 2. Earthquake magnitudes can be 2. Realistic i estimated for intensities.
- 3. Truncated exponential distri- 3. Realistic bution represents earchquake
~
i
. sizes.
U 4. mb, max represents largest 4. In general, realistic. Con-earthquakes, servative for zones with lower 8b, max; unconservative for , 3 renes with higher ab, max' ,
- 5. -Rate of activity represented by 5. Realistic historical rate of occurrence.
P 6. Peak acceleration estimated by 6. Realistic attenuation function as f(ab,D *
- 7. Uncertainty in peak acceleration 7. Realistic represented by lognormal distri-bution with aln a = 0.6.
i
-3 a
a Dames a Moore i
TA51.8 2 SEISHOCENIC ZONES AND ASSOCIATED SEISMICITY PARAMETERS Area Nuttli-Derrmann Conversion Weston Conversion Zone Hypothesis Dofulnant Zone (s)* (104 km2 ) sh .- Activity Rate ** Richter b-value Activity Rate ** Richter b-value Cenlogic Provinces Central New England 10.34 5.5/6.0/6.5 0.0443 1.39/1.21/I.03 0.0262 1.13/0.98/0.83 Tsetunic Provinces Northern Piedmont 30.74 5.8/6.3/6.8 0.1244 1.25/1.09/0.93 0.0622 1.25/I.08/0.92 U.S. Geological Survey 103 6.33 5.3/5.8/6.3 0.0712 1.20/1.04/0.88 0.0441 1.18/1.03/0.88 107 3.35 5.8/6.3/6.8 0.0205 1.30/1.13/0.96 0.0100 1.13/0.98/0.83 Corthern Appalachian Northern Appalachian 39.37 5.8/6.3/6.8 0.1376 1.25/1.08/0.92 0.0758 1.18/1.03/0.88 Decollement, Varelon 1 Background 9.41 6.3 0.0441 1.02 0.0300 1.03 Decollement. Vxrsion 2 Decollement 70.78 7.0 0.2312 1.16 0.2312*** 1.16*** He:ozoic Rift, Viralon 1 Connecticut Valley Rift 7.09 6.0/7.0 0.0350 1.14/1.14 0.0186 0.87/0.87 Herozoic Rift, Varaton 2 Connecticut Valley Rif t 7.39 6.0/7.0 0.0330 1.14/1.14 0.0186 0.87/0.87 Hetozoic Intersehtion, Connecticut Intersection 0.45 6.0/7.0 0.0056 1.42/I.42 0.0038 0.95/0.95 varston 1 Background 5.73 5.8 0.0319 1.36 0.0101 1.32 Herozoic Intersection, Connecticut Intersection 0.92 6.0/7.0 0.0056 1.42/1.42 0.0033 1.01/I.01 Vsrston 2 Background 5.67 5.8 0.0319 1.36 0.0101 1.32 Mafic Plutons Background 7.33 5.8 0.0319 1.36 0.0101 1.32 eZon:a(s) which dominate (s) seismic hazard at Millstone
**For "b 2_4.5
*** Values from Nuttli-Ilerrmann conversion used instead of those from Weston conversion because the zone extends into the southeastern U.S.
a , l l t ll I i 1 i
-{
q TABLE 3 UNCERTAINTIES REPORTED FOR ATTENUATION EQUATIONS
!i REFERENCE DATA BASE oln a ;l l a Campbell (1981b) Western U.S. 0.37 '
Cornell et al. (1979) Western U.S. 0.57 ! Donovan (1973) World-wide 0.84 Donovan (1974) San Fernando 0.481 Donovan (1974) World-wide 0.707 Esteva & Villaverde (1974) Western U.S. 0.64 [ Joyner and Boore (1981) Western U.S. 0.60 !
, McGuire (1974) Western U.S. 0.51 L McGuire (1978a) Western U.S. 0.62 Patwardhan et al. (1978) California, Japan, 0.58 Nicaragua, India (Shallow focus)
Shannon and Wilson, Inc., and Western U.S. 0.573 ! Agbabian Assoc. (1979) Trifunac (1976) Western U.S. 0.60*
!.
- Calculated using procedure discussed in McGuire (1978b).
t i Dames & Moorn
- u. .u . _ .. m. _ .._. -
z== -
- ====_====_=,m=2 TABLE 4 BOUNDS ON EFFECTIVE PEAK ACCELERATION i Corresponding Corresponding Value of Value of Upper Bound Upper Bound ab, max ab, max Sustained Peak MM Intensity (Equation 1****) (Equation 2****) Acceleration Acceleration (g)***
VI 4.8 4.5 0.20* 0.25 VI-VII 5.0 4.8 0. 25*
- 0.30 VII 5.3 5.1 0.30* 0.37 VII-VIII 5.5 5.5 0.40** 0.50 VIII 5.8 5.8 0.50* 0.62 VIII-IX 6.0 6.1 0. 6 5*
- 0.80 IX 6.3 6.5 0.80* 1.00
]
- From R. P. Kennedy, Personal Communication,1981
** Obtained by interpolation
*** Calculated as 1.25 times the Upper Bound Sustained Acceleration (see text) 4 **** See Section 4.1 i
U 9 W J in E s
- :=_ _ z -. -.== . . , - :. ,; 2.. - . . ~ :-_ =. =.: = - . - :. e . , = : =.= z: :=-._;_=.====_==~w:-
TABLE 5 I. l ANNUAL FREQUENCIES OF EXCEEDANCE i Aggregate Peak Acceleration (cm/sec2 ) Curve Probability 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 980 1 0.004 .48 x 10-3 .64 x 10-4 .14 x 10-4 .34 x 10-5 .83 x 10-6 .21 x 10-6 .73 x 30-7 .33 x 10-7 .12 x 10-7 .59 x 10-8 2 0.163 .29 x 10-3 .60 x 10-4 .21 x 10-4 .95 x 10-3 .47 x 10-5 .25 x 10-5 ,14 x 30-5 .84 x 10-6 .53 x 10-6 .38 x 10-6 3 0.127 .11 x 10-2 .23 x 10-3 .84 x 10-4 .37 x 10-4 .19 x 10-4 .10 x 10-4 .57 x 10-5 .33 x 30-5 .21 x 10-5 .15 x 10-5 4 0.084 .58 x 10-3 .14 x 10-3 .53 x 10-4 .25 x 10-4 .13 x 10-4 .69 x 10-5 .39 m 30-5 .23 x 10-5 .15 x 10-5 .g3 x 30-5 , 5 0.129 .14 F 10-3 .21 x 10-4 .57 x 10-5 ,19 x 10-5 .63 x 10-6 .20 x 10-6 .58 x 10-7 0 0 0 6 0.074 .85 x 10-3 .14 x 10-3 .37 x 10-4 .12 x 10-4 .41 x 10-5 .15 x 10-5 .55 m 10-6 0 0 0 3 7 0.074 .36 x 10-3 .64 x 10-4 .19 x 10-4 .62 x 10-5 .21 x 10-5 ,yg x 30-6 .21 x 10-6 0 0 0 8 0.168 .10 x 10-3 .13 x 10-4 .30 x 10-5 .71 x 10-6 .15 x 10-6 o o o o o 9 0.082 .59 x 10-3 .66 x 10-4 .11 x 10-4 .19 x 10-5 ,34 x 30-6 o o o o o 10 0.095 .33 x 10-3 .49 x 10-4 .11 x 10-4 .27 x 10-5 .62 x 10-6 0 0 0 0 0 I l . U * ! i
-s 1 i
- e 3'
M O S o 4
2
- R
= -
.d.' b .
M' - e,*
* /
x ,.=,s - g, .o .
*O @O , ...
z , y . n' = f n
, f .' .;.' ).
~
~
Y
.l.
~
- . o. .
0 9 1 _
' _. . (Y , .
g e , 9 x
*=
_, p x 3 ~<> .sx
;, y ',S IT E z
g . - . , O ' 3.5 % <4.0 2 ((, d p
.N
- 4.0%<4.5 -
R* ..
. , s- o 4.5 % <s.0 4 o 5.0%<5.5 O 5.5%4.0
~a. , r. Oe%
z.
,.- u
= g _ _ ,
b 80' W 79' M 78* H 7/* H 76* W 75' W 74* W 73' W 72' W 71 H 70' W 6 Figure 1 Seismicity in the Vicinity of the Site t i j
O O U
\
O 1.0 , , , , , , , O U *e, -* plog10 D(mb) = a-b(mb} Earthquake O p y 0.1 - gO Q c .
\ Faulth h
~ ~
OO O - m
,0 g o.oi - .
7 - Site g a O O - g f
\-
- U O o,coi ' ' ' ' ' ' '
O O 3 4 5 6 7 0 0 0 "b 0 C l l (B) l 1 (A)
-2 1000 . , , , ,
, 10 , g . , 6 g- o g . -
E
.
- i.
100 -
- 0) ,,
so - m tg3 _ _ 5 _ to _ o - - 1- C e 2 o h 10 - - 10 - -
< c . =
o- E 1 ' ' ' ' 10 ' ' ' ' ' 1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000 Epicentral Distance (km) Peak Accolaration (cm/sec2 ) (C) (D) Figure 2 Conceptual Representation of Steps Involved in Seismic Hazard Evaluation Cames& Moore
1000.0 b E 4 r- p o-100.0
- h. 5 5 .
s . .
//
e -
/ -
s 8 a - ,i s g. 5': S
/ xX :
y .-. c: . so0 y e i: . .
< g -
~
c: % l.0 - - r
.<o
. .eg 3
. .s*
.y 0.1 . Yb. -
- . , f . ..
~l 0.01 0.1 !.o io.o ROCK SOIL -
Figure 3 Mean and Mean + o Spectra for Near-Source Magnitude 5.8 Earthquakes (f rom Bernreuter,1981) . Dames & Moore l l J
4 _ e o .. . 2 . W s' . . o' t. ' 2 ,
..- ,s-g- ..
x
- . .o . . .
*O @o , ...
2 .
. t 9 .
, .,4 o L z . .
.,pl
,=' . .
. . 9 .
Q 4s **:* < , j j .O. fl
.. L .
g . c
.I central 2
4s
=n 0 *
- g . SIT " * * '? '! * "
+
g Zone z g
. O 3.5 % <4.0
.z.- .
- 4.0 % o.s R .. o 4.ssmb40 0 5.0Kmb4.5 2
~ . "
. O s.s'mb4.0 R . O 8.05=b
- z. .
H BO'M7YH 7YM 7Y 76*u 7Nu 7s*H 7Yu 7YH 71*M 7NH 6YH 6*'H 6 Figure 4 Geologic Province Zones namesa Moore _,
e 1
+ o ..-
z . D' S .
.k,* .
z . ,. ,s-
"g' 4 ..
2 .o,' 000 . ,. y- . n e =
'f .
o :. 2.
. . . a.
z .. , . V g . . . . j
. , o.
. N
.z g- ,
/ '
~ . .
Northern
** Piedmont Aa
.z. O .. > . ,
' SIT E Z "*
.z. ..*
- g __ . .
- o 3. 5%<t.0
- 4.0%<4.5 0* .. . , o 4.5 % 4.0
- o 5.0%4.5
, . O 5.5.1;a2bd0 -
~~
"l8 O 8 o%
. s .. ., )
. \
- z. .. .
% l '
g80*H 7yW 78*W 77 W 76 W 7YW 7UW 7YW 7NW 71 g 7few SN'W 68'W Bf W i b e Figure 5 Tectonic Province Zones Dames & Moore
*/
L
T h O **
- z e
/*
. o* L
- e v, ,
. e .
z e ,. ,& g- *
- o.
- z *O ,
@O . *
- e
.,'* o !.
e a
. ee
- z e *e .
,- i ,
o 9 o 2 9 *
*, , e
)'
. . . . )
S
- 1 *
. one 107 .=.
a = IM
.'O e
. . . e. I pg
- O ** N SITE e .
2 *
= .
=- Zone 103 g ., e ,
~
. O
- 3.snmb<t.0 2 .
- 4.0$mb= ,e_.
U ' 9 ')stTE
.z. .. .
g ., ,
. o s.s%<4.0 2 , 4.osab<4.s "g - ,, o 4.5Kab<5.0
, o s.csa b<s.s x
- 0 s.ssmb40
~K . O e.asub ,
~ .. u
=
M 80'W 7dy 78.g 7/g 7pg 7yy 7pg 7yg 7/g 71 H 7dW BNH 68'W b H D m Figure 8 Decollement Zone, Version 1
'I Dames & Moore ,
l co *
~
+ n ..
- 2 s', o* g .
g I 6 . t. v '
?
1 f ,., ,
,2, , ,.
** ,a*
- 4.-* .
2 .o , @O .
- 1
. ,.. ee o
.z.
9
.l. o@ o
,z **
Q' Qg *:* ( ,, t jf \ . Background 1-q , .y \__ .'h . 1
.. p,
.. O = ** , __
v
- s. .
SITE z . g-_ ., , O
- 3.s % <4.0
.=. . 4.c%o.s E* .. . , o 4.5 % <s.0 o s.0 % o.s
- 2. . o s.s%e.o E . e. O 8*o%
b 2 . s-h '
% ' 87'W b
80*W 7s H 70*H 77'W 76'W 7YW 74 W 73'W 72*H 71'W 7d'W 69 W 68 W Figure 9 Decollement Zone, Version 2 Dames & A4eore ,
,z
;p i
- e , -
- v a -
..n. .
1 , . s-g o. ..
.. *e. *
'O O, ...
z
- f ,
9-
. o '
9 ,
,z. ,.,
. 9 ,
Q Q * - :* / ~
.O
, . A.
Aa
.z- O a
*1 ,
l , SITE p. 2 . .
"g
- j O 3.5 % <4.0 Connecticut Valley
,2, ,
- 4. <4.5 O* ...
Rift Zone o 4.55mb<S.0 0 5.05mb<5.5 2
. o s.s5=b<8 0 )
! 8 .s O 8 c5=6
. ** 1D 2 + ,-
"A % -H 80'W7d*W7f*y7ps W 76'W 75'W 74 W 7YW 72'W 71'W 7d'W 69 W 68 W 67'N k l
l Figure 10 Me-sozoic Rif t Zones, Version 1
~
n
-._ u s.
1 l J
1
.S ' , ..
2 . W a
. . o' t . *
~$' ,,
4,- ,
'O O' *'*
z ., , Y '
- q o !.
2. l 9 . z .. .. . 9 , .
"Q ' q
- t- / ,
.O .
** ps
- 2. O * >*
W
- 3 .
2 .*
- SITE g p .
- Connecticut O 3. % <4.0
~-
- Valley Rif t Zone o 4.ssm.,c' *.0 2- ,,
O s.02nb<S.s 2 O s.sgo.0
$. , y Q 6.0Sas z.
.~b ,.
' ' h 80'W 79'W 78'W 77' yyH 7yH 7/W 7/H 72'W 71*H 7d'H 69 H 68 H 67 H Figure 11 Mesozoic Rif t Zones, Version 2 Dames & Moore
2
- R
~$ o .. .
z . Y a -
. . , 0 4. - ,
2 y.
... .s.
- . 4.. .
'O @O , ,.,
z , y- .
~
- f
- o .
, .,e 1 o 9 o z ., , .
b' q; .. . j "
. O 2
, / . =.- .
b sackground z O .. ,, i s - _2 o
- x. SITE g_ . ,
- 0 3.5%<4.0
- 4.0 % <4.5
~
' Connecticut 0 .. o 4.5 % <5.0 Intersection Zone O 5.0%d.5
. O 5.5%c.0 O e.%
8 . r.
~
z-
~ "80'W 79'W 7fsy 77 W 76'W 75 W 7t 's h W 7$'W 7NW 71*W 7d*W SNW 68*W 67*W Figure 12.
Mesozoic Intersection Zones, Version 1 Dames & Moore
v
. }
p
= - -
s
* .* o * .L *
@ . . *l ', , ,.
2 ** & e ,. . V . 4.- .
*O 0, , ** .
2
- u. .
- n. . f ,
W
- o
- e
.l'
. .l .
- 2. .
p,}s . .* z
.t.
9 -
% ns i - ,
o.
- 2. l x . - . *
* .k*'
\.
pj ,' Background
.. O t G , % SIITE
, *I .
.Z. e,*
- Connecticut intersection Zone
. O 3.5Kmb<4.0
,z. . 4.osm3<t.s o 4.ssmb<S.0 o s.05=b<s.s z O s.ssmb<8 0 ,
~f 15 .
' ~ .. y O 8.05=b .
- z. .- ,
b.tW "80'H 7yH 78'W 77 'a H 7du 7YH 7UH 7YH 72'W 71 b H 70'W 69*H 60'W l i l Figure 13 Mesozoic Intersection Zones, Version 2 6 ' Darriesa h
o
- z
- W a
. . o* t. '
1 g q ". .. p/ cno. 9
. o .;
'/
~
1 f
.g, pWhite Mounta[ns z ..
. 9 "
Pluton Zone l "Q ' q .. . *
Background
z g / - - m 1 e . o ng . , . P e 1 a *
\. SITE z *. .
g ., . ,
. o 3.5smt,<4.0 2
- 4.csat><i S 8,* .. . , o 4.5smt,<s.0 o S.osmt,<S.5 2
. O s.s'mt><8.0
- b. , t, 0 6.Osmy
.. ~ b z.
"s ' 80'H 7YH 78*H 7l*H 7Nu 7)u 7Nu 7)u 7NH 71*H 70*H BNg 65H 67' H Figure 14 Mafic Pluton Zones Dames & Moore
'~
8 I
' o s
1
/ ,
/ / /;
/ / .
q ^
/ / //E / c
/ / -
,o
/ / / / i ,
~
/ / / / / /5 E- -
,/ / , / < e;
/ / -
c
/
/
/ :
/ / 8 _
/
/ / : g
% e /w / : '
=
.F p? %
? F F/ : I m
y c A e [of - g g
/ / ./ / o !.,
o
= 5a .
/ / / / / -E c
/ / / / / :l
/ / / / /
R l<@ m
/ / / / /
5E= '
/ / / / / i 5 E
/ / /
1
/
/
/
) -
- 5
/
/ /
/
/
/
/
/ i a
ie
/ /
/
/ i :E 4
/ / 3
]
/ / a f
/
Y $-
/ -
- a Z
hIh h. gSOI $ hh h hI l ll f8 000 h NO 'I l 0 0 O ' C O C e , y..,m> d. Dames & Moore
0 0 h h
~ _
g r01 T b! k
._ \ T t
\' i N
b
' s
\ i i
.x x
\ s s
\
i s T
\ s T )
N X i T n 6 x i n x s-
\
x s x
\
N N m i T s i i t o a u k N x N s a E q N x N N s ( h a g-N o x s N
\
\ s i
e m o n
% x N h
i
*g. x S i k t c
'9Y i
+g- +g.A E x +gN i C n s *dx e N u x i A 6 F T 1
\ N s
\ x x e 0I 0 D S
e o n s x N x i 1 L r i u ta A x s x N i R T i g u x .' N N i N F n s E C t e N N x N i I P t s E A N i x . N N A r i s s
)
1 m i 8 ! s 9 N N x x N N - m m i ( l 1 l e h N x m x N n i i s b p m i a N
~
Nx
~
N r s n i i C m N _ i i
~ i x
i i II1.! N ! E N mx_ _
. i )I11 - Ei _.:_ii l } j .l 1
i i 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
;oIi n a ai,
Y
's . O il i I V i/ / -e .
3 l fl A / - l X \ / l / , l / l/ / / -
/ r
/ r
/ / ? =
f ; -
~
/ / / / .
j/
/ / g
, / / / .
/
/ /
/ / / i a 4
,/
/ / ,/ /
=
9/
/ / e m l
eI m
/ / i 3 i=
p p/ y y-e P e p - J E - e si e : 5 c 1/ / / / / - 05 m o o
/ / / / / -Eg [t - :
/ / / / / -
E -
; m
/ / / / / -
5 & u@. --
/ / / / '
/ -
!E g .
/
/ / / / / g
/ j r 7
/ :
- i. .
, / , s
/ / /
@ Q _
l / l
/ l E f _
_- ; h
/ . / / E
/ /! /
/
/ 3 j / _
/ -
3 - i 7 :
, , ! ,o.4. . . l .. . . . .........i,
/ , .,
/
.. . ; . . . . .....i......,,
d ,. . . . -,..... . . .. m m . - e 2 O O O " --
- ' 7__ '
O O " O " oes w ) d,
~
( s Dames & Moore - smuts
1
. 8 ii I i l t I liil i i i I I illi i ! I y 1/ rS ll ll l l l ili t l i ! I lill! I VI / /r lli l l l l illil ! I I Illl!VI !/ / -
lil l lllll l ll / i/i / / - ll l l ll / l/ /E -
! l / / / / 3 -
y I l
/ l -
l
/ / / E 3 l' L
./ / / 5 :
I /
/ l/ /
e is o e . -r P9 ,/ ie m 9/ 9 C - a t' ? - f 5 '
@,/ c c c,/ @? '
- : e lf $$
l / i - eE . I I i Ili fi l I/ I / /l.Il fi ! I F3 = [!! I l ! II / I/ /l / V I F $
'8
=
t i I l /i /l / l/ /1 I F 9 e
- u.
i I fl / / I/ l)11 1 I i .e - l / / l l/ / / l i E
~~
~
3 C
/
p l { ?
^
i ! - s- <
/ / <l ,/ a
/ / I/ E -
.j E:
/,' '
f ; g r
// /
/
/ $ .
4
/
,/ g ,
p -
, /. : ;
l / )
/
/,// . , I .
c
, y . . . . . , m,o u -, .. . m , . . . . . . . . p , u . . , . . . ~ .. .. . . , m m . . . ...,o..........~.....,*u"....i - .,
O O *- - ( DOS /W3) d e .
$774[
Dames & Moore
'lig?
- A ."
' i-[#2 ..
l 0 0 i 0 e
- 1 n i
o Z n i a l n N , ho ci N las , A , r , . M i ae pv , R \ i i pn R 1 s Ao., E L n Cm H L \ \ x i r n n
- E s \ i eo 1
B 1 s
\ i ht i a L P T
M '
\n ,
i tr s o o ee l D TU A 1 s
\\ i i
i NWu A A N C s N\ i i
- - -. \ s
\s %
s i i x ^
\\ s 1
[~
/ \\ ,
[, y
.v x\
t x ,
+
v m x N ,
)
i i v K \N , o'c i t
/
\\ ,
e s s n
/ x\ ,
/ e sx ,
m S v c w ,
\\
~ (
'~ , n N o k
, 0 O i s % 0 TI 9
1 t a
% ,1 A u N R e n
( N w , E L r u g t e x w E C i A t
\ F sx C T ,
A :
' d K
r A A
, a x , E z P
% x x
H a g
, c A ,
i m A , m i s . e N n, S
\x ,
\
N , X \ X \ s s X , x x X , s x m -
==:-
0
.__. _- ih : __ i3 ? :- ::3T lI
, - ::_1F 1 3 4 5 6
~
0 0 O 0 0 1 1 ' 1 1 woz<QW O w u.O > g zw o wf' r J<>zz< ue pf3
- 1 - n n 0 o 0 it io
~ i0 a sr 1 ue n v hi t t
en o hg\i AC nn
- A%N nn aa
- i 1 mm
- x sx\ :\ n r r .
Apw % qx Mh \ o r r eem HH
- - n b
q n a
= s x
\ Ap .
l l it t t ii t uu e d
\\Ak
\\
\
N x\ g s s\
\ x x
\
\ N
\
]\i n n
u n NNM NNh N S o n y MW \ x r N x__\< t
\
h k \\\\
' \ o i v
\
k i 2
)
i t
\ ^ \
c i s i x e
\
\ ,
i s n e VX i
._ /
W (\ i m S x n i c e f N ( 3 i 0
^ % n m
x N x_N
' , ' i 2
s o Nx s
' WN '
i 0 T O I e Z L wN N ' ' ' r i 10 A u N s' [ , '
~
R g d
%x x ' j ' ' ' ' ^ i E
L i F r a
- ~
E
' - x x ~_ z i
N %x N ' ' ~
~~ ~
C a s C x
' \ S 1 2 2 E 1 N N E N E N S 1 S 2 S E
i A H E N N N N N N N , c
~
x OOO ZO O O O O O K
\ O I I O n i A
I I I I N RS Z S RZ S R Z i x Z S S S m E s Y R E R E N EA V N E E E E n P s N \ x
' E V
R E ~ V V
, . , C V
U N N ES LA ES DLU S HI E ,T O V C V
,NI V S V
,I C
N i i i n i S e x N\ E O E O N S O O N A N N R N R
's \ \
oi L Z Z OP O O P OZ P n w A T T Z P A Z Z C C i C N N T N N I I E n N x N4 G M E F N O TF IG O N O o M R RE TI O l O I I E R L T T i
~
s ' L L E O L L C HT EC C O C C n whh\ w E O L G. C OORS I I O Z G E E E S T R i i N E C Z O R O E N S. D E O N E T S T x N D S mM i U E N E N I i CxN s M I M C i "s x CI . i O OI i u m' Z Z O O i s S R S , E E M M i
- 0 l- ih ]q1E !
- li l:
- : - aF , il3 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1
<OmwOX O #gZg3Cw[ a$ZZ<
D 8$ 3: ll'Ill
n i o s r e 0 v
- 0 n o
T01 I eC n n i o n Za t n m r
\ l er me
\$ i l
eH-
\\
l i i l oi t s ct
\
\ \\
i s eu DN N
\ \ i s
i O 1 2 I \ ~x i T A N N '. n U OO \ u W I N S SI \ ni E R R T E E T x \ m A V V NN s s i y s\
' s D
/ x s N s i
t i v f x s A , s
\ s i
)
i t t ' \ m 2 i s
/ s c s
/
/
\ s s
i e e s n e
/ N ' /
S
\
i
/ ' m
/ ,/ N i i (
c n x/ o
/,X i Kh i i
N 1 O 2 i s r x AN I N
- x e 0 T e O
I T m x s s
\ i 01 A R r E u e V A , :
U x N i L S Ei d r N E ' N e C F a T T A \A - s x i C A z a N 1 2 K H N N N ' i N\ A i A OO I x i
. E c MS S I i i P R R R s m R E E i s
EH V V NN\ s u i S e h t i L T T [ u n u U N x Y
~
NAW N m N i n s i NN i i
'x N n
i
' i c x i x
- ~ i
' i s
' i i
i i i o j _ ~ nE 2! _ : uF ;i -
'2 6 0
1
~0 1
"0 1
i( 1 0' 1 W <OWW@W @WU@g zz aip
e
' .i 0 n 0 on
. 0 Zo i t
, 1 na N
T
\ .
l aun h sn O I S '
\ \ .
ci laA R 8 3 8 : s \ . an E 8 0 5 , .\ pn V === ' pa N O x x x a a a y
\ \
\ .
Amr r C mmm \ \ n r e N , .
\
\ .
eH-O T b,b m"" b' N s s
\
\
\
\
\
h i tr it
\ ou t
'N\s \s\ \\
l'I8 S , E . NN N: \ \ \ OI S R E W
/ z' m /
x N N
\ \\
\ N\
s y s.
\
\ ..
V N [ xy \
' \
. y O
C 8 3 8 N e6 5 N =- . N
,A se s
N\ N u \
\Y
\
W .
. 2
)
c e t i i t v x * . i A M H H a m*""
\
hh s" x x s s
/
s m c s n e b s' E H m:n m" x \ . ( N S x
/
1 L N O a T T s x
%\\ .
. 0A I
T 2 m U N ' g%\ 0R 2 wa x
-/ .# Vv,x , m
. 1E L
e b r m E u
/ ,-
s N C g : Q 'hxN g C i d A F r
~' . a Nh ~ x N K
A z a
'h
^ s .
N ~
. E H x .
P c ANh i
~ .
m m
. i s
N
. e S
NNN A . xNN .
'x
'x AN NNW .
i,- ' xN' .
'~
' 'xAs Q"q .
0
- - =5 - : _I! i: : _ i: : 1 2 3 5 6 0 0 4_0 0 o 1 1 1 1 1
$z<OmWgX $ozW3 OWE snzy :
E n
0 e n 0 o T0 g1 Z n i l a h c i l a xa a m i p N p b, O i A N I S \' n n m N R \ i r n e E \ h ia
\ \\ \N i A x i M V \ i t
r oe d N NR N
\
i s s' \3.\ x i NM OR O O T E I C s s Y n N O A HS N Ul I R LE TO N' s x
\ n n
TI A N N TV E N \' < ' s i n U T TN S \ ' i y N O T UO E \ NN n t A NC W I E N S i
\N i
T N R s i v T A E ' A i i i A M V ' t
\ A \A fA )
D7e x s i i N RNN s i 2 s N ROO A , i c e n EI C x s \ e M HS i s R lR N \ N i
/
S R L E TV T E O 7 -x x i i m c n H TN S ( o
\
i UO E I L NC W \ i N i s T T U N ry ' N g x i i i0 0 A OI T R 3 2 e r r e v n
- N N N 1 E u o p L g C
/ N i E i
' C F :
/sj i
d x x K C A r i a 7 K z a i s s A
' x i E 1 h_
i 1 i P i c h \ i i s m s i n N n i s u e q x u i S n N i i i N , N
\
i A N , N , N , xN N , 2 N
' N x \ - 0
= uI f: I
__'! .j E
- ,J iE : :DF iI 1 2 4 5 6 3 -
0 ~0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
$z<OmW xm u.O >oZm3OE a$zz<
g8 , J
0 0 i 0 1
\h i
'h\ -
t \\ Nsx s' \ h
; K) i r
\\
\
i i u '
\
(
\ ,
s
,x i
\
\
QM . x \ g 1 - ' , i i\ W%' 0 N \ n _ i 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 1 x N\ n
. mn\\
s s x .\
' i E E E E E E E E E ,' .x N ' n V V V V V V V V V t R R R R R R R R R ., 3 x si N ' .
x U U U U CCC C U U U U U C C C C C
/ -
/ x' s
s x h\ h
\
N s s x
,f// ' /,[ .
\ .
s
,uw\ .
e
' // '
/
/
x, 2
)
v r u 7
/
/ m m
\\
. c e C y x .
s x \ v x
' . / d
/ '
s x m r
'n y i
v h 7'
,, m
' x
. (
C a z mmk N 4 a
' 0 0IO 2 H I
x s .
'1
. Cim t Q. 1 T A
e r c
, ~ rmm g R u i g~ E g m
; mN b .
L E i F i s e m w . C
,~ ( .
C A S b
~
xy . t e N %- . a
. g
,~ N e
A li r g
,e .
. x .
i g N . x n n A e hN k i i n i i mNM i i i bN l hxN iA sf i i
- -II u5-0
- 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
>tym<m
- $z$mmSW 2<
oeI> a , j , 1 < ) l;; j
~0 0
, 0 1
g S ,
\
\ ,
\
T , x , s ,
', \, ,
\ ,
t\ , N E \ , x , V s R \ , U C N \ i
\ ,
)
N O N x N \
\ ,
I A I N N s x , E T D s V A E '
\ , ,
\
I R U V E M
,N \ ,
)
C D
\ '
s N ,
- 2. s E D N c e
/ s L R '
e v
\
I T A , s r CD \ , / u A N N m R A F T x , ( c C S N s N d , 4 1 8 (+ x x
\ '
s 0 O I T 5 a z r
- ' 3 , 1 0
A 2 a p ' N 'N R E e H r c
< x N L
E C u i g m x C i
\ '
F s A i x g , e K S , N N A s E e x ) P l i N N s.i Il N O t c
' I a
N_' ET , s VA
, r N s RV U E I ,
F C D N f
\ ED
\
/ - L R .
x I TA
' CD .
N N AN . RA N FT . S x .
/
s \' % 8 1 ( 1 i i i A j , _ x i s i
' i A: gj - 2 mE 2! - : e : eE 0
E. 1 2 , ' 3
~
4 5 e . 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
,j $mW0XW O ). zmo01E 8
1 as$< 0m1> a i', !:: )
l 1000.0 ' '
! !p4f
.gd 100.0, N
a : : SSE - w t: - y ,, e a -
-4 g@%
10.0 Si . w - 7 -3 -
= -
0
./,
g - eg 4 s e ~o w I.0 , A / / N
.<o eg
' ,s 7
0.1 , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
- 0.01 0.1 1.0 10.0 l PERIOO(SEC)
Figure 26
-3' -4 10 and 10 Site Spectra Compared to SSE Spectra for Millstone, Unit 3 (5% Damping) o m a Moor.
b 1 a J-0 a l APPENDIX A ! 1 l HISTORICAL SEISMICITY WITHIN 322 km (200 mi) of SITE l (Only events with MM intensity > V are listed. Events shown with zero magnitude do not have an independently-determined magnitude.) DATE LONG. LAL g g DISTANCE (km) 0 1568 72.50 41.50 6.0 0.0 34.7 ! O 1574 72.50 41.50 5.0 0.0 34.7 0 1584 72.50 41.50 5.0 0.0 34.7 0 1592 72.50 41.50 5.0 0.0 34.7 0 1627 70.80 42.60 6.0 0.0 182.8 i 14APR1658 70.90 42.50 5.0 0.0 169.0 e 10NOV1727 70.60 42.80 7.0 0.0 210.4 19DEC1737 74.00 40.80 7.0 0.0 163.6 1 14JUN1744 70.90 42.50 6.0 0.0 169.0 18NOV1755 70.30 42.70 8.0 0.0 218.5 12 MAR 1761 70.90 42.50 5,0 0.0 169.0 3ONOV1783 74.50 41.00 6.0 0.0 198.1 16MAY1791 72.50 41.50 6.0 0.0 34.7 10NOV1810 70.80 43.00 5.0 0.0 219.2 29NOV1814 70.30 43.70 5.v O.0 306.8 50CT1817 71.20 42.50 6.0 0.0 154.8 23JUL1823 70.60 42.90 5.0 0.0 219.2 12APR1837 72.70 41.70 5.0 0.0 61.9 16JAN1840 75.00 43.00 6.0 0.0 299.6 9AUG1840 72.90 41.50 5.0 0.0 64.4 11NOV1840 75.20 39.80 7.0 0.0 306.1 260CT1845 73.30 41.20 5.0 0.0 95.3 25AUG1846 70.80 42.50 5.0 0.0 174.3 SAUG1847 70.10 41.70 6.0 0.0 177.7 29SEP1847 74.00 40.50 5.0 0.0 178.2 9SEP1848 74.00 40.40 5.0 0.0 184.2 28NOV1852 70.90 43.00 5.0 0.0 215.1 11DEC1854 70.80 43.00 5.0 0.0 219.2 16JAN1855 71.00 44.00 5.0 0.0 314.0 7FEB1855 74.00 42.00 6.0 0.0 170.3 18NOV1872 71.60 43.20 5.0 0.0 215.3 11DEC1874 73.80 40.90 5.0 0.0 144.0 28JUL1875 73.00 41.90 5.0 0.0 95.2 22SEP1876 71.30 41.50 5.0 0.0 75.6 10SEP1877 74.90 40.30 5.0 0.0 255.8 5FEB1878 73.80 40.00 5.0 0.0 200.3 40CT1878 74.00 41.50 5.0 0.0 154.1 12MAY1880 71.00 42.70 5.0 0.0 182.3 19DEC1882 71.40 43.20 5.0 0.0 219.5 28FEB1883 71.30 41.50 5.0 0.0 75.6 Damer. & Moore
3 ! d l 0 e d ! g l 0
, APPENDIX A (Continued) ,
d h i 4 DATE LONG. LAT. 4 g DISTANCE (km) 31MAY1884 75.50 40.60 5.0 0.0 290.6 10AUG1884 74.00 40.60 7.0 0.0 172.8 6 23NOV1884 71.70 43.20 5.0 0.0 213.7 2MAY1891 71.60 43.20 5.0 0.0 215.3 9 MAR 1893 74.00 40.60 5.0 0.0 172.8 1SEP1895 74.80 40.70 6.0 0.0 230.9 17MAY1899 72.60 41.60 5.0 0.0 48.2
- ! 21 DAN 1903 70.90 42.10 5.0 0.0 137.2 5 MAR 1905 72.30 43.60 5.0 0.0 254.9 30AUG1905 70.70 43.10 5.0 0.0 233.0 160CT1907 71.00 42.80 5.0 0.0 191.8 31MAY1908 75.50 40.60 6.0 0.0 290.6 4 5JAN1916 73.70 43.70 5.0 0.0 293.9 2FEB1916 74.00 42.90 5.0 0.0 232.5 3FEB1916 74.00 43.00 5.0 0.0 241.0 2NOV1916 73.70 43.30 5.0 0.0 254.5 26JAN1921 75.00 40.00 5.0 0.0 279.7 '
7JAN1925 70.60 42.60 5.0 0.0 193.5 24APR1925 70.80 41.70 5.0 0.0 122.0 90CT1925 71.10 43.70 6.0 0.0 279.9
; 14NOV1925 72.40 41.70 5.0 0.0 47.4 i
26JAN1926 75.00 40.00 5.0 0.0 279.7 18 MAR 1926 71.80 42.80 5.0 0.0 168.5 i 12MAY1926 73.90 40.90 5.0 0.0 152.0 1JUN1927 74.00 40.30 7.0 0.0 190.6
~,
20APR1931 73.70 43.40 7.0 3.8 264.2 25JAN1933 74.70 40.20 5.0 0.0 246.3 10NOV1936 71.40 43.60 5.0 0.0 262.4 23AUG1938 74.50 40.10 5.0 3.5 238.1 l 15NOV1939 75.20 39.60 5.0 0.0 319.2 t 28JAN1940 70.80 41.60 5.0 2.6 118.6 I . 20DEC1940 71.30 43.80 7.0 5.5 285.9 l 3SEP1951 74.30 41.20 5.0 3.4 178.5 I 25AUG1952 74.50 43.00 5.0 0.0 268.7 80CT1952 74.00 41.70 5.0 0.0 158.4 27 MAR 1953 73.50 41.10 5.0 0.0 113.7 31 MAR 1953 73.00 43.70 5.0 3.1 274.3 21FEB1954 75.90 41.20 7.0 0.0 312.0 29JUL1954 70.70 42.70 5.0 3.1 196.6 21JAN1955 73.70 43.00 5.0 0.0 226.3 23 MAR 1957 74.80 40.60 6.0 3.7 234.5 l 26APR1957 69.80 43.60 6.0 4.8 320.4 ? I 1 . Dames a Moore
e i i l APPENDIX A (Concluded) DATE LONG. LAT. g g DISTANCE (km) 19SEP1958 70.20 43.60 5.0 0.0 301.6 15SEP1961 75.50 40.80 5.0 0.0 284.9 27DEC1961 74.80 40.50 5.0 0.0 238.7
, 29DEC1962 71.70 -42.80 5.0 0.0 170.2 160CT1963 70.40 42.50 5.0 3.3 197.4 26JUN1964 71.50 43.30 5.0 3.5 228.0 17NOV1964 73.70 41.20 5.0 0.0 128.5 240CT1965 70.10 41.30 5.0 0.0 172.9 2FEB1967 71.20 41.60 5.0 3.1 87.0 22NOV1967 73.80 41.20 5.0 0.0 136.8 3NOV1968 72.50 41.40 5.0 3.3 29.3 10DEC1968 74.60 39.70 5.0 2.5 272.5 6AUG1969 71.40 43.80 5.0 2.6 284.0 210CT1971 71.20 42.70 5.0 2.3 174.1 7JUN1974 73.90 41.60 6.0 3.3 147.7 11 MAR 1976 71.20 41.60 5.0 2. 9 87.-O 11 MAR 1976 74.40 41.00 5.0 2.4 189.9 14 MAR 1976 70.00 41.70 5.0 2.8 185.8 13APR1976 74.00 40.80 6.0 3.1 163.6 onrnes a 13aoro l}}