ML20140G488
| ML20140G488 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/15/1993 |
| From: | Remick F NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Curtiss J, De Planque G, Rogers K, Selin I, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20007G200 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-57FR47802, RULE-PR-100, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-52 AD93-1-040, AD93-1-40, COMFR-93-002, COMFR-93-2, NUDOCS 9705090184 | |
| Download: ML20140G488 (1) | |
Text
. .-. . . .. . . . . - . .
. .-- . -. . . . .- ., ~ _ . . - . . .
, [ ** *f oo ,D '
! ,e' f 't i ,
~ "' ~ ' h . . .
./ o UNITED STATES
~ ' ' ~ ~
8' ~ .
3
( .
n .
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 .. Ofv
\, ...../ DC w
coo ssio March 15, 1993 ( (
1
- CboEL}U l
' COMFR-93-002 -l Spels 4
Heltemes
- MEMORANDUM FOR
- 'The Chairman Minners J
Commissioner Rogers Ader i
Commissioner Curtiss Jamgochian '
- Commissio r e Planque :
i i .FROM: . emick (
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED RULE ON REACTOR SITE CRITERIA' 4
, In the attached letter from Newman & Holtzinger, P.C., the Commission was requested to extend the public comment period on the subject proposed rule and implementing regulatory guidance from March 24, 1993, to June 1, 1993.
l l
, The request identified the difference between the deadline we
- imposed on domestic comments (March 24, 1993) and'the deadline we i , imposed on international comments (June 1, 1993). I suggest that we extend the comment. period for domestic comments to be the same 2
as that imposed on international comments, that being J_u_pe 1, j 1993.
SECY'please track.
P i
Attachment:
- As stated '
l'. .
I cc: OGC 4 SECY .
ACRS 1
sei . -
t i
i q'
4 9705090184 970422 i PDR PR
. 50.5,7FR47902 P,DR
i NEwMAN & hoi;r2INGER. P.C. '$thd" I 16 t S L STR E ET. N.w.
WASHINGTON. O.C. 2 003 6 S 6 60 '93 twt -2 PS :30 202 0SS*66CO Villian 0. Doub IT ' ~.~,*'"r',-
! DIRECT DIAL llUMBus (202) 935 6742 61212 COP 1ER.: (2021'972 0541 .
l 4
February 26, 1993
! Secretary l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connaission Washington, D.C. 20555 j Attn: Docketing and Service Branch 1
l
- . Res Proposed Rule on Reactor Site.Criterir.; Including Seise.ic and Earthquake Engineering Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Proposed Denial of
~
- Petiti'on for Rulemaking From Free Environment, l Inc. et al. (57 Fed. Reg. 47,802 (October 20, 1992))
i
Dear Mr. Chilk:
The law firm of Newman & Roltzinger, P.C., on behalf of l
- its clients in the international nuclear community listed below, 5
hereby requests extension of the period for the public to comment
'on the proposed rule"and implementing regulatory guidance from i March 24, 1993,-to June 1, 1993 for the reasons set forth below.
l The clients, hereinafter called members of the International i Siting Group (ISG), on'who'se behalf weJare requesting the
- extension are as follows
l Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd.
I 1'
1 4
Elehtricits de France
- Taiwan Power Company 1
An extension is necessary and appropriate for several j reasons:
.i
- +3 m O- m
), '
l
! NEwM AN 6e Hot.Tz1NGEtt. RC.
i i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission February 26, 1993 Page 2 i
(1) The proposed rule presents difficult issues requiring
< thoughtful and careful. analysis if the comments are to be the greatest value to the Commission. In particular, preparation of 'such comments involves careful c.onsideration of the interplay between the proposed demographic and seismic criteria and the relationship of the proposed criteria to the Commission's Safety Goals,. severe accident requirements, and 10 C.F.R. Part 52, It asiswell as reasonable preparation of supporting analyses.
to extend.the public comment period to June 1, 1993, in order'to allow all interested persons (and not just members of the international community) adequate time for asch consideration.
(2) In its Staff Requirements, Memorandum of August 18, 1992, the Commission directed the NRC Staff to obtain the views of the international community by June 1,
~
1993. Extension of the public comment period until 4
June 1, 1993, will conform the deadline for filing public comments to th.e Commission's schedule for obtaining coinments from the ' international community and will ensure consideration of all comments received on the proposed rule. 'In~ light of the Commission's commitment to ' obtaining and considering the views of the international' community on the proposed rule, the extens. ion .would 'not impact the rulemaking schedule as a pract1 cal matter.and would enable ISG members (and any members of the international community) to make their views known to th'e Concission w,ithin the context of the publicl comment period. We believe having one deadline for domestic comments (March 24, 1993) and another for internatlonal comments (June 1,1993) is not desirable. 4 The two should be consistent.
(3). The ISG intends to file comments on the proposed rule.
Preparation of the comnpnts is requiring extensive cbbrdination among ISG members in order to develop the comments and supporting information for the views expressed [in the'Camments. Even with the use of f acsimile transmissions and courier services to ensure rapid ' exchanges and cootidination, the logistics of such extensive and' ongoing communications internationally means that.it will be difficult, if not impossible, to complete the ISG comment's by the end of the present comment period.
/
NEWMAN & IlOI.TZINGER. P.C.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission February 26, 1993 Page 3 1
l s ive urgent attention to this We ask th Commission
- request.
Sincerely, l . #
,^.
. /
..# 4 William O. Doub i ces Chairman Ivan Selin Commissioner Kenneth C. Rogers
~
Commissioner James R. Curtiss Commissioner Forrest J. Remick l
Commissioner E. Gail de Planque
.i J
1
- 1 i i
- . ., DOCKET NUMBERag g.gggo reco0 SED RULE f _
(5 7 FA ^/7 fro 1) y...
I t
NEWMAN & HOLTZINGER, P.C. " LilT l J
WAS HIN G TO N, D. C. 20036 5600
'O mR -2 PS :30 202 955 6600 j William O. Doub J; ' k t- '
DIRECT DIAL NUMBER: (202) 955-6742 'it2LEC0 PIER:
. (2
<>.,'02)hk2-0581 I 1
February 26, 1993 i
Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Re: Proposed Rule on Reactor Site Criteria; Including Seismic and Earthquake Engineering Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Proposed Denial of Petition for Rulemaking From Free Environment, Inc. et al. (57 Fed. Reg. 47,802 (October 20, 1992))
.i Dear Mr. Chilk
. The law firm of Newman & Holtzinger, P.C., on behalf of its clients in the international nuclear community listed below, hereby requests extension of the period for the public to comment in the proposed rule and implementing regulatory guidance from l
isrch 24, 1993, to June 1, 1993 for the reasons set forth below.
T.e clients, hereinafter called members of the International Siting Group (ISG), on whose behalf we are requesting the extension are as follows:
Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd.
Electricits de France I
Taiwan Power Company An extension is necessary and appropriate for several reasons:
$7~? 1t/ hJ v4 "vvv m nh /
J-
. . _ . .. -- -.- .__. . . - - . - . - . - _ . . - - - . - ~ . ~ _ . - . . - _ ~ .
. t l-i f
NewxAN & HOLT 21NOER, R C.
7- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission )
i February 26, 1993 j
[ Page 2
~
5 i
1 (1) The proposed rule presents difficult issues requiring
} thoughtful'and careful analysis if the comments are to j be_the greatest value'to the Commission. In particular, preparation of such comments involves careful consideration of the, interplay between the proposed demographic and seismic criteria and the.
relationship of the~ proposed criteria to the Commission's Safety Goals, severe accident requirements, and 10 C.F.R. Part 52, as well as i preparation of supporting analyses. It is reasonable j' to extend the public comment period to June 1, 1993, in order to allow all interested persons-(and not just members of the international community) adequate time for such consideration..
(2) In its Staff Requirements Memorandum of August 18, 1992, the Commission directed the NRC. Staff to obtain the views of the international community by June 1, 1993. Extension of the public comment period until June 1, 1993, will conform the deadline for filing- 1 public comments to the Commission's schedule for !
obtaining comments from the international community and ;
will ensure consideration of all comments received on the proposed rule. In light of the Commission's commitment to obtaining and considering the views of i the international community on the proposed rule, the extension would not impact the rulemaking schedule as a practical matter and would enable-ISG members (and any ;
members of the international community) to make their views known to the Commission within the context of the :
public comment period. We believe having one deadline l for domestic comments (March 24, 1993) and another for )
international comments (June 1, 1993) is not desirable.
The two should be consistent.
(3) The ISG intends to file comments on the proposed rule.
Preparation of the comments,is requiring extensive coordination among ISG members in order to develop the comments-and supporting information for the views expressed in the comments. Even with the use of facsimile transmissions and courier services to ensure rapid exchanges and coordination, the logistics of.such extensive and ongoing communications internationally means that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to complete the ISG comments by the end of the present comment period.
I
+
. i i
)
i I
- I NEWMAN & Hourz NGER RC. l 1
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission February 26, 1993 j Page 3 _
\
l We ask the Commission give urgent attention to this
, request.
Sincerely,
- . .. ?
W ,.
William O. Doub 1
. i cc: Chairman Ivan Selin i Commissioner Kenneth C. Rogers I
' Commissioner James R. Curtiss 4
Commissioner Forrest J. Remick
- Commissioner'E. Gail de Planque 4
1 1
i I
1 i
i I l i
5 W
4 I
. ., _. . . _ . __ =_m
gq i I f'P F-
/ocato\ U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION November 1992 1 l
! #'n OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH Division 1 I Draft DG-1016
- / DRAFT REGULATORY GUIDE
- e***
Contact:
R. M. Kenneally (301) 492-3893 DRAFT REGULATORY GUIDE DG-1016 (Second Proposed Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.12)
(Previously issued as Draft MS-140-5)
NUCLEAR POWER PLANT INSTRUMENTATION FOR EARTHQUAKES l
1 A. INTRODUCTION f 3 In 10 CFR Part 20, " Standards for Protection Ag ion,"
i 4 licensees are required to make every reasonable of ntain radiation 5 exposures as low as is reasonably achievable. [c)ofi50.36,
]
- 6 " Technical Specifications," to 10 CFR Part c Licensing of Pro-l 7 duction and Utilization Facilities," re echnical specifications 8 of a facility to include surveillance r s to ensure that the neces-9 sary quality of systems and compone tained, that facility opera-10 tion will be within safety lie the limiting conditions of 11 operation will be met. Paragr hI )(4) of Proposed Appendix S, " Earth-f 12 quake Engineering Criteri ' r Power Plants," to 10 CFR Part 50 l 13 would require that suita in rumentation be provided so that the seismic I
H response of nuclear power features important'to safety can be evalu-l 15 ated promptly. graph IV(a)(3) of Proposed Appendix S to 10 CFR Part 50 I
16 would require of the nuclear power plant if vibratory ground motion l 17 exceedin he operating basis earthquake ground motion (OBE)
- 18 occurs.*
I 19 4
20 *Gu iT5eing developed in Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1017, " Pre-i
~
21 Eart e Planning and Immediate Nuclear Power Plant Operator Post-22 Earthq e Actions," on plant shutdown criteria.
This regulatory guide is being issued in draft fem to involve the public in the early stages of the develop.
ment of a regulatory position in this area. It has not rer,eived complete staff review and does not represent an official NRC staff position.
Public comments are being solicited on the draft guide (including any implementation schedule) and its associ.
ated regulatory analysis or value/ impact statement. Comments should be accompanied by appropriate supporting da ta . Written comments may be submitted to the Regulatory Publications Branch, DFIPS, Office of Administra.
tion, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington. DC 20555. Copies of comments received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC. Comments will be most helpful if received by March 24,1993.
Requests for single copies of draft guides (which may be reproduced) or for placement on an automatic distri.
bution list for single copies of future draft guides in specific divisions should be made in writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Office of Administration, Distribution and Mail Services Section.
93OWVAW1
1 This guide is being developed to describe seismic instrumentation 2 acceptable to the NRC staff for satisfying the requirements of Parts 20 and 3 50 and the Proposed Appendix S to Part 50.
4 Any information collection activities mentioned in this draft regulatory 5 guide are contained as requirements in the proposed amendments to 10 CFR 6 Part 50 that would provide the regulatory basis for this guide. The proposed 7 amendments have been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for 8 clearance that may be appropriate under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Such 9 clearance, if obtained, would also apply to any information collection 10 activities mentioned in this guide.
11 12 B. DISCUSSION 13 14 When an earthquake occurs, it is important to immediately assess the 15 effects of the earthquake at the nuclear power plant. State-of-the-art solid-16 state digital time-history accelerographs installed at appropriate locations 17 will provide time-history data on the seismic response of the free-field, con-18 tainment structure, and other Category I structures. The instrumentation ,
19 should be located so that a comparison and evaluation of such response may be 20 made with the design basis and so that occupational radiation exposures are 21 maintained as low cs reasonably achievable (ALARA). !
22 Free-field instrumentation data would be used to determine whether the 23 OBE ground motion has been exceeded (see Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1017).
24 Foundation-level instrumentation would provide data on the actual seismic 25 input to the containment and other buildings and would quantify differences 26 between the vibratory ground motion at the free-field and foundation level.
27 Instrumentation is not located on equipment, piping, or supports since experi-28 ence has shown that data obtained at these locations are obscured by vibratory 29 motion associated with normal plant operation.
30 The guidance being developed in Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1017 is based 31 on the assumption that the nuclear power plant has operable seismic ir strumen- l 32 tation, including the equipment and software required to process the data 33 within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> after an earthquake. This is necessary because the decision to 34 shut down the plant will be made, in part, by comparing the recorded data 35 against OBE exceedance criteria. The decision to shut down the plant is also ;
36 based on the results of the operator walkdown inspections that take place !
37 within 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> of the event. l I
2 l
__-_-_______-__________________________-_J
'] 1 It may not be necessary for identical nuclear power units on a given site
,/ 2 to each be provided with seismic instrumentation if essentially the same 3 seismic response at each of the units is expected from a given earthquake.
4 An evaluation of seismic instrumentation operational experience noted 5 that instruments have been out of service during plant shutdown and sometimes 6 during plant operation. The instrumentation system should be operable at all 7 times. If the seismic instrumentation is inoperable, the guidelines in Appen-8 dix B to Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1017 would be used to determine whether the 9 OBE has been exceeded.
10 Instrumentation characteristics, installation, activation, remote indica-11 tion, and maintenance are described in this guide to help ensure (1) that the 12 data provided are comparable with the data used in the design of the nuclear 13 power plant, (2) that exceedence of the OBE can be determined, and (3) that 14 the equipment will perform as required.
15 The Appendix to this guide provides definitions to be used with this 16 guidance.
17 e N 18 C. EL@i.ATORY POSITION x,) 19 20 The type, locations, operability, characteristics, installation, 21 actuation, remote indication, and maintenance of seismic instrumentation 22 described below are acceptable to the NRC staff for satisfying the require-23 ments in 10 CFR Part 20, 10 CFR 50.36(c), and Paragraph IV(a)(4) of Proposed 24 Appendix S to 10 CFR Part 50 for ensuring the safety of r.uclear power plants.
25 26 1. SEISHIC INSTRUMENTATION TYPE AND LOCATION 27 28 M State-of-the-art solid-state digital instrumentation that will 29 enable the processing of data at the plant site within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> of the seismic 30 event should be used.
31 32 M A triaxial time-history accelerograph should be provided at each of 33 the following locations:
34
(]35 1. Free-field.
il36 37 2. Containment foundation.
3
1 3. Two elevations (excluding the foundation) on a structure 2 internal to the containment.
3 4 4. Two independent Category I structure foundations (for instance, 5 the diesel generator building and the auxiliary building) where 6 the response is different from that of the containment 7 structure.
8 9 5. An elevation (excluding the foundation) on each of the 10 independent Category I structures selected in 4 above.
11 12 6. If seismic isolators are used, instrumentation should be placed 13 on both the rigid and isolaten portions of the structures at 14 approximately the same elevations.
15 16 L3 The specific locations for instrumentation should be determined by 17 the nuclear plant designer to obtain the most pertinent information consistent 18 with maintaining occupational radiation exposures ALARA for the location, 19 installation, and maintenance of seismic instrumentation. In general:
20 21 1.3.1 A design review of the location, installation, and 22 maintenance of proposed instrumentation for maintaining exposures ALARA should 23 be performed by the facility in the planning stage in accordance with 24 Regulatory Guide 8.8, "Information Relevant to Ensuring that Occupational 25 Radiation Exposures at Nuclear Power Stations Will Be As low As Is Reasonably 26 Achievable."
27 28 1.3.2 Instrumentation should be placed in a location with as low 29 a dose rate as is practical, consistent with other requirements.
30 31 1.3.3 Instruments should be selected to require minimal 32 maintenance and in-service inspection, as well as minimal time and numbers of 33 personnel to conduct installation and maintenance.
34 0
4
l 1 2. INSTRUMENTATION AT MULTI-UNIT SITES 3 Instrumentation in addition to that installed for a single unit will not 4 be required if essentially the same seismic response is expected at the other i units based on the seismic analysis used in the seismic design of the plant.
6 However, if there are separate control rooms, annunciation should be provided 7 to both control rooms as specified in Regulatory Position 7.
8 9 3. SEISMIC INSTRUMENTATION OPERABILITY 10 11 The seismic instrumentation should operate during all modes of plant 12 operation, including periods of plant shutdown. The maintenance and repair 13 procedures should provide for keeping the maximum number of instruments in ,
14 service during plant operation and shutdown.
15 ,
16 4. INSTRUMENTATION CHARACTERISTICS 17 18 4.1 The design should include prov.sions for in-service testing. The 19 instruments should be capable of periodic channel checks during normal plant 20 operation.
21
?? M The instruments should have the capability for in-place functional ,
23 testing.
24 25 M The instrumentation on the foundation and at elevations within the 26 same building or structure should be interconnected for common starting and 27 common timing, and the instrumentation should contain provisions for an 28 external remote alarm to indicate actuation.
29 30 4.4 The pre-event memory of the instrumentation should be sufficient to 31 record the onset of the earthquake; for example, it should have the ability to 32 record the 3 seconds prior to seismic-trigger actuation. It should operate !
33 continuously during the period in which the earthquake exceeds the seismic-34- trigger threshold and for a minimum of 5 seconds beyond the last seismic- i 35 trigger signal. The instrumentation should be capable of a minimum of 25 minutes of continuous recording.
l Q 36 f 37 1
l 5
1 M Acceleration Sensors 2
3 4.5.1. The dynamic range should be 1000:1 zero to peak, for 4 example, 0.001g to 1.09 .
5 6 4.5.2. The frequency range should be 0.20 Hz to 50 Hz, or an 7 equivalent demonstrated to be adequate by computational techniques applied to 8 the resultant accelerogram.
9 10 4.6 Recorder 11 12 4.6.1. The sample rate should be at least 200 samples per second.
13 14 4.6.2. The bandwidth should be at least from 0.20 Hz to 50 Hz.
15 16 4.6.3. The dynamic range should be 1000:1.
'1 l
)8 4.7 Seismic Trigger. The actuating level should be adjustable for a .
19 minimum of 0.005g to 0.029 20 21 5. INSTRUMENTATION INSTALLATION 22 23 M The instrumentation should be designed and installed so that the i 24 vibratory transmissibility over the amplified region of the design spectral l 25 frequency range is essentially unity, that is, so that the mounting is rigid. I 26 ;
l 27 M The ' ncrumentation should be oriented so that the horizontal axes 28 are parallel to the orthogonal horizontal axes assumed in the seismic l 29 analysis. l 30 ;
31 5.3 Protection against accidental impacts should be provided. i 32 33 6. INSTRUMENTATION ACTUATION 34 35 M Both vertical and horizontal input vibratory ground motion should ;
36 actuate the same time-history accelerograph. One or more seismic triggers may l 37 be used to accomplish this, j 6
1 #_l Spurious triggering should be avoided.
O *
'J 3 6.3 The seismic trigger mechanisms of the time-history accelerograph 4 should be set for a threshold ground acceleration of not more than 0.02g.
5 6 7. REMOTE INDICATION ;
7 8 Activation of the free-field or any foundation-level time-history 9 accelerograph should be annunciated in the control room. if there are two or 10 more control rooms at the site, annunciat1on should be provided to each 11 control room.
12 13 8. MAINTENANCE 14 15 8.1 The purpose of the maintenance program is to ensure that the 16 equipment will perform as required. As stated in Regulatory Position 3, the 17 maintenance and repair procedures should provide for keeping the maximum 18 number of instruments in service during plant operation and shutdown.
f 19 l I
20 8_l Systems are to be given channel checks every 2 weeks for the first 3 21 months of service after startup. Failures of devices normally occur during 22 initial operation. After the initial 3-month period and 3 consecutive 23 successful checks, monthly channel checks are sufficient. The monthly channel 24 check is to include checking the batteries. The channel functional test 25 should be performed every 6 months. Channel calibration should be performed 26 during refueling.
27 l
28 D. JMPLEMENTATI0B 29 30 The purpose of this section is to provide guidance to applicants and 31 licensees regarding the NRC staff's plans for using this regulatory guide. i 32 This proposed revision has been released to encourage public 33 participation in its development. Except in those cases in which the 34 applicant proposrs an acceptable alternative method for complying with the 35 specified port. = of the Commission's regulations, the method to be described
(. in the active guide reflecting public comments will be used in the evaluation
( 36 37 of applications for construction permits, operating licenses, combined 7
I licenses, or design certification submitted after the implementation date to 2 be specified in the active guide. This guide would not be used in the 3 evaluation of an application for an operating license submitted after the 4 implementation date to be specified in the active guide if the construction 5 permit was issued prior to that date.
1 2
i O 4
i O'
8
'y 1 APPENDIX l 2 DEFINITIONS 3
4 Acceleration Sensor. An instrument capable of sensing absolute acceleration 5 and transmitting the data to a recorder.
6 7 Channel Calibration (Primary Calibration). The determination and adjustment, 8 if required, of an instrument, sensor, or system such that it responds within 9 a specific range and accuracy to an acceleration, velocity, or displacement 10 input, as applicable, traceable to the National Institute of Standards and 11 Technology (NIST), or responds to an acceptable physical constant.
12 13 Channel Check. The qualitative verification of the functional status of the 14 instrument sensor. This check is an "in-situ" test and may be the same as a 15 channel functional test.
16 17 Channel Functional Test (Secondary Calibration). The determination without
,-s
, 18 adjustment that an instrument, sensor, or system responds to a known input,
) 19 not necessarily traced to the National Institute of Standards and Technology
~
20 (NIST), of such character that it will verify the instrument, sensor, or 21 system is functioning in a manner that can be calibrated.
22 23 Containment - See Primary Containment and Secondary Containment.
24 25 Operatina Basis Earthouake Ground Motion (0BE). The vibratory ground motion 26 for which those features of the nuclear power plant necessary for continued 27 operation without undue risk to the health and safety of the public will 28 remain functional. The value of the OBE is set by the applicant.
29 30 Primary Containment. The principal structure of a unit that acts as the 31 barrier, after the fuel cladding and reactor pressure boundary, to control the 32 release of radioactive material. The primary containment includes (1) the 33 containment structure and its access openings, penetrations, and appurte-34 nances, (2) the valves, pipes, closed systems, and other components used to
,y 9
1 isolate the containment atmosphere from the environment, and (3) those systems 2
or portions of systems that, by their system functions, extend the containment 1 3
structure boundary (e.g., the connecting steam and feedwater piping) and j 4 provide effective isolation.
5 6
Recorder. An instrument capable of simultaneously recording the data versus 7
time from dn acceleration sensor or sensors.
1 8
9 Secondary Containment. The structure surrounding the primary containment that l 10 l acts as a further barrier to control the release of radioactive material. '
11 i 12 Seismic Isolator. A device (for instance, laminated elastomer and steel) 13 installed between the structure and its foundation to reduce the acceleration 14 of the isolated structure, as well as the attached equipment and components. 1 15 16 Seismic Triaaer. A device that starts the time-history accelerograph.
17 18 Time-History Acceleroaraoh. An instrument capable of measuring and '
19 permanently recording the absolute acceleration versus time. The components ,
20 of the time-history accelerograph (acce'eration sensor, recorder, seismic 21 trigger) may be assembled in a self-contained unit or may be separatc7y 22 located, 23 24 Triaxial. Describes the function of an instrument or group of instruments in 25 three mutually orthogonal directions, one of which is vertical.
26 l
O 10 l
1 REGULATORY ANALYSIS 3 A separate regulatory analysis was not prepared for this regulatory l 4 guide. The draft regulatory analysis, " Proposed Revision of 10 CFR Part 100
{ 5 and 10 CFR Part 50," provides the regulatory basis for this guide and examines
! 6 the costs and benefits of the rule as implemented by the guide. A copy of the l 7 draft regulatory analysis is available for inspection and copying for a fee at f 8 the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC, j 9 as Enclosure 2 to Secy 92-215.
j 10 1 j l 1 l i
O Printed on recycled paper Federal Recycling Program O
11 l
s t
i
? UNITED STATES FIRST CLASS Mall NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION POSTAGE AND FEES PAID WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 USNRC PERMIT NO. G-67 4
i OFFICIAL BUSINESS
! PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE. $300 1
i I
1 i
9 l
t .
- i I
l i
]
l e '
i i
l l
1 4
4 t
i i
4 8
5 9
d s
ww,-,,,,,.~..*,-.~._,_,,,,~,m ,,._.m._.,,,,m.,__.,m,,
AP03-1 PPR
[gm '
O.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION November 1992 y o 0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH Division 1 s
- si Draft DG-1017
~
- ,. # DRAFT REGULATORY GUIDE s
-J %*****/
Contact:
R. M. Kenneally (301) 492-3893 DRAFT REGULATORY GUIDE DG-1017 PRE-EARTHQUAKE PLANNING AND IMMEDIATE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT OPERATOR POSTEARTHQUAKE ACTIONS 1 A. INTRODUCTION f
, &g 4%
2 g 9, w L 3 Paragraph IV(a)(4) of Proposed Appendix S, "EarthquaketEngiiie,ering , g 4 Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants," to 10 CFR Part 50,yJDome'sticTicensing 9 w of 5 Production and Utilization Facilities," would require thal suitable instru-6 mentation' be provided so that the seismic responsk of nukihbr power plant m v ~~
7 features important to safety can be evaluated promptly? Paragraph IV(a)(3) of w
8 Proposed Appendix S to 10 CFR Part 50 would eqdite shutdown of the nuclear power plant if vibratory ground motion,exceedirig,that of the operating basis
-] 9 I j 10 earthquake ground motion (OBE) or significint) plant damage occurs. Proposed 11 Paragraph 50.54(ee) to 10 CFR Parf 50'would' require licensees of nuclear power 12 Y
plantsthathaveadoptedtheeartkugkeengineeringcriteriainProposed s
13 Appendix S to 10 CFR Part 50 to shut down the plant if the criteria in Para-n u 14 graph IV(a)(3) of Proposed A~pendix p S are exceeded.
15 This guide is _being developed to provide guidance acceptable to the 16 NRC staff for a timely evaluation after an earthquake of the recorded 17 ' Guidance' is; being developed in Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1016, the Second 18 Proposed. Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.12, " Nuclear Power Plant Instru-19 mentation for Earthquakes," to describe seismic instrumentation acceptable to 20 the NRC staff.
21 22 This regulatory guide is being issued in draft form to involve the public in the early stages of the develop-ment of a regulatory position in this area. It has not received complete staff review and does not represent an official NRC staff position.
Public comments are being solicited on the draft guide (including any implementation schedule) and its associ-ated regulatory analysis or value/ impact staterrent. Coments should be accompanied by appropriate supporting da ta. Written comments may be submitted to the Regulatory Publications Branch, DFIPs, Office of Administra-CN; tion, U.s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555. Copies of comments received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Roca, 2120 L street NW., Washington, DC, Comments will be most helpful if received
(
x _/ by March 24,1993.
Requests for single copies of draft guides (which may be reproduced) or for placement on an automatic distri-bution list for single copies of future draft guides in specific divisions should be made in writing to the U.s. Nuclear Regulatory Connissien, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Office of Administration. Distribution and Mail services section.
RO1 i l I n = -s nW
-- .av rI - U ou &
1 instrumentation data and for determining whether plant shutdown would be 2 required by the proposed amendments to 10 CFR Part 50. ,
3 Any information collection activities mentioned in this draft regulatory 4 guide are contained as requirements in the proposed amendments to 10 CFR Part 5 50 that would provide the regulatory basis for this guide. The proposed 6 amendments have been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for 7 clearance that may be appropriate under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Such 8 clearance, if obtained, would also apply to any information collection 9 activities mentioned in this guide.
10 11 8. DISCUSSION 12 13 When an earthquake occurs, ground motion data are recorded by the seismic 14 instrumentation.' These data are used to make an early determination of the 15 degree of severity of the ceismic event. The data from the seismic instrumen-16 tation, coupled with information obtained from a plant walkdown, are used to 17 make the initial determination of whether the plant should be shut down, if it 18 has not already been shut down by operational perturbations resulting from the 19 seismic event. If on the basis of these initial evaluations (instrumentation 20 data and walkdown) it is concluded that the plant shutdown criteria have not 21 been exceeded, it is presumed that the plant will not be shut down. Guidance 22 is being developed on postshutdown inspections and plant restart; see Draft 23 Regulatory Guide DG-1018, " Restart of a Nuclear Power Plant Shut Down by a 24 Seismic Event."
25 The Electric Power Research Institute has developed guidelines that will 26 enable licensees to quickly identify and assess earthquake effects on nuclear 27 power plants. These guidelines are in EPRI NP-5930, "A Criterion for Deter-28 mining Exceedance of the Operating Basis Earthquake," July 1988; EPRI NP-6695, 29 " Guidelines for Nuclear Plant Response to an Earthquake," December 19892; and 30 EPRI TR-100082, " Standardization of Cumulative Absolute Velocity," December 31 1991.2 32 This regulatory guide is based on the assumption that the nuclear power 33 plant has operable seismic instrumentation, including the equipment and soft-34 ware required to process the data within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> after an earthquake. This is 2
35 EPRI reports may be obtained from the Electric Power Research Institute, 36 Research Reports Center, P.O. Box 50490, Palo Alto, CA 94303 2
p 1 necessary because the decision to shut down the plant will be made, in part, 2 by comparing the recorded data against OBE exceedance criteria. The decision 3 to shut down the plant is also based on the results of the operator walkdown 4 inspect!ons that take place within 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> of the event. If the seismic 5 instrumentation is inoperable, the guidelines in Appendix A to this guide 6 would be used to determine whether the operating basis earthquake ground 7 motion (0BE) has been exceeded.
8 Shutdown of the nuclear power plant would be required if the vibratory 9 ground motion experienced exceeds that of the OBE. Two criteria for determin-10 ing exceedance of the OBE are provided in EPRI NP-5930: a threshold response 11 spectium ordinate criterion and a cumulative absolute velocity criterion 12 (CAV). A procedure !.o standardize the calculation of the CAV is provided in 13 EPRI TR-100082. A spectral velocity threshold has also been recommended by 14 EPRI since .some structures h:ve fundamental frequencies below the range speci-15 fied in EPRI NP-5930. The NRC staff now recommends 1.0 to 2.0 Hz for the 16 range of the spectral velocity limit since some structures have fundamental 17 frequencies below 1.5 Hz. The former range was 1.5 to 2.0 Hz.
l p 18 The NRC staff does not endorse the philosophy discussed in EPRI NP-6695,
)( / 19 Section 4.3.4 (first paragraph, last sentence), pertaining to plant shutdown considerations following an earthquake based on the need for continued power 20 f
21 generation in the region. If the licensee determines that plant shutdown is 22 required by the Commission's regulations, but the licensee does not consider 23 it prudent to do so, the licensee may ask for an emergency exemption from the 24 requirements of the regulation pursuant tt, 10 CFR Part 50.12 so that the plant 25 need not shut down if the exemption is granted.
26 Appendix B to this guide provides definitions to be used with this 27 guidance.
28 29 C. REGULATORY POSITION 30 31 1. BASE-LINE DATA 32 33 1.1 Information Related to Seismic Instrumentation 34 35 A file containing information on all the seismic instrumantation should
/
k 36 be kept at the plant. The file should include:
37 3
)
1 1. Information on each instrument type such as make, model, and serial 2
number; manufacturers' dat a sheet; list of special features or options; per- <
3 formance characteristics; examples of typical instrumentation readings and 4
interpretations; operations and maintenance manuals; repair procedures (manu-5 facturers' recommendations for repairing common problems); and a list of any 6
special requirements, e.g., maintenance, operational, installation.
7 8 2. Plan views and vertical sections showing the location of each 9
seismic instrument and the orientation of the instrument axis with respect to 10 a plant reference axis.
11 12 3. A complete service history of each seismic instrument. The service 13 history should include information such as dates of servicing, description of 14 completed work, and calibration records and data (where applicable).
15 16 4.
The response spectrum and cumulative absolute velocity (see Regula-17 tory Position 4).
These data should be obtained after the initial installa-18 tion and each servicing of the free-field instrumentation using a suitable 19 earthquake time-history (e.g., the October 1987 Whittier, California, 20 earthquake) or manufacture's calibration standard.
21 22 1.2 Plannina for Postearthauake Inspections 23 24 The selection of equipment and structures for inspections and the content 25 of the baseline inspections as described in Sections 5.3.1 and 5.3.2.1 of EPRI 26 NP-6695, " Guidelines for Nuclear Plant Response to an Earthquake," are accept-27 able to the NRC staff for satisfying the proposed requirements in Paragraph 28 IV(a)(3) of Proposed Appendix S to 10 CFR Part 50 for ensuring the safety of 29 nuclear power plants.
30 31 2. IMMEDIATE POSTEARTH0VAKE ACTIO.NS 32 33 The guidelines for immediate postearthquake actions specified in Sections 34 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 (including Section 5.3.2.1 and items 7 and 8 of Table 5-1) of 35 EPRI NP-6695 are acceptable to the NRC staff for satisfying the requirements 36 proposed in Paragraph IV(a)(3) of Proposed Appendix S to 10 CFR Part 50.
37 4
i I
i
h l
r .
{ l 3.- EVALUATION OF GROUND MOTION RECORDS !
2 3 3.1 Data Identification ;
4' 5 ~A record collection log should be maintained at the plant, and all data 6 should be identifiable and traceable with respect to: :
7 i 8 1. The-date and time of collection, 9
10 2. The make, model, serial number, location, and orientation of the f 11 instrument-(sensor) from which the record was collected. l 12 13 3.2 Data Collection .
14 15 3.2.1 Only personnel trained in the operation of the instrument should l 16 collect the data. c 17 18 R Z The steps for removing and storing records from each seismic l 19 instrument should be planned and performed in accordance with established 20 procedures.
21 22 3.2.3 Extreme caution should be exercised to prevent accidenta'l damage ,
23 to the recording media and instruments during data collection and subsequent ]
24 handling. l l
25 26 3.2,4 As data are' collected and~the instrumentation is inspected, notes 27 should be made regarding the condition of the instrument and its installation, 28 for example, instrument flooded, mounting surface tilted, fallen objects that 29 struck the instrument or the instrument mounting surface.
30 31 3,2,5 For validation of the collected data, a' reference signal (see
.32 Regulatory Position 1.l(4)) should be added to the record without affecting 33 the previously recorded data.
34
, 35 3.2,6 If the instrument's operation appears to have been normal, the 36 instrument should remain in service without readjustment or change that would 37 defeat attempts to obtain postevent calibration, j 5
1 3.3 Record Evaluation 2
3 Records should be analyzed according to the manufacturer's specifications 4 and the results of the analysis should be evaluated. Any record anomalies, 5 invalid data, and nonpertinent signals should be noted, along with any known 6 causes.
7 8 4. DETERMINING OBE EXCEEDANCE 9
10 The evaluation to determine whether the OBE was exceeded should be 11 performed using data obtained from the three components of the free-field 12 ground motion (i.e., two horizontal and one vertical). The evaluation may be 13 performed on uncorrected earthquake records. It was found in a study of 14 uncorrected versus corrected earthquake records (see EPRI NP-5930) that the 15 use of uncorrected records is conservative. The evaluation should consist of 16 a check of the response spectrum, cumulative absolute velocity limit, and the 17 operability of the instrumentation.
18 19 4.1 Resoonse Spectrum Check 20 21 The OBE response spectrum is exceeded if any one of the three components 22 (two horizontal and one vertical) of the 5 percent damped free-field ground 23 motion response spectra is larger than:
24 25 1. The corresponding design response spectral acceleration (0BE 26 spectrum if used, otherwise 1/3 of the safe shutdown earthquake 27 (SSE) spectrum) or 0.2g, whichever is greater, for frequencies 28 between 2 to 10 Hz, or 29 30 2. The corresponding design response spectral velocity (0BE spectrum if 31 used, otherwise 1/3 of the SSE spectrum) or a spectral velocity of 6 32 inches per second, whichever is greater, for frequencies between 1 33 to 2 Hz.
34 35 6
)
,s I (U )1 2 4.2 Cumulative Absolute Velocity (CAV) Limit 3
For each component of the free-field ground motion, the CAV should be 4 calculated as follows: (1) the absolute acceleration (g units) time-history 5 is divided into 1-second intervals, (2) each 1-second interval that has at 6
least 1 exceedance of 0.025g is integrated over time, (3) all the integrated 7 values are summed together to arrive at the CAV. The CAV limit is exceeded if 8 any CAV calculation is greater than 0.16 g-second. Additional information on 9 how to determine the CAV is provided in EPRI TR-100082.
10 11 4.3 Instrument Operability Check 12 1
13 After an earthquake at the plant site, the response spectrum and CAV 14 should be obtained using the calibration standard (see Regulatory Position 15 1.l(4)) to demonstrate that the system was functioning properly.
16 17 4.4 Inoperable Instrumentation b'/
i
's
\ 18 19 If the seismic instrumentation is inoperable, the criteria in Appendix A 20 to this guide should be used to determine whether the OBE has been exceeded.
21 22 5. CRITERIA FOR PLANT SHUTDOWN 23 24 If the OBE is exceeded or significant plant damage occurs, the plant must 25 be shut down.
26 27 5.1 OBE Exceedance 28 29 If the response spectrum check and the CAV limit (performed in accordance 30 with Regulatory Position 4.1 and 4.2) were exceeded, the OBE was exceeded and 31 plant shutdown is required. If either limit does not exceed the criterion, 32 the earthquake motion did not exceed the OBE. The determination of whether or 33 not the OBE has been exceeded should be performed even if the plant 34 automatically trips off-line as a result of the earthquake.
7
1 5.2 Damaae ,
2 3 The plant should be shut down if the walkdown inspections, performed in 4 accordance with Regulatory Position 2 (Section 4.3.2 of EPRI NP-6695),
5 discover damage.
6 7 6. PRE-SHUTDOWN INSPECTIONS 8 1 9 The pre-shutdown inspections described in Section 4.3.4 of EPRI NP-6695, 10 " Guidelines for Nuclear Plant Response to an Earthquake,"' with the last sen-11 tence in the first paragraph of Section 4.3.4 deleted, are acceptable to the 12 NRC staff for satisfying the requirements proposed in Paragraph IV(a)(3) of 13 Proposed Appendix S to 10 CFR Part 50 for ensuring the safety of nuclear power 14 plants.
15 The following paragraph in Section 4.3.4 of EPRI NP-6695 is repeated to 16 emphasize that the plant should shut down in an orderly manner.
17 18 " Prior to initiating plant shutdown following an earthquake, visual 19 inspections and control board checks of safe shutdown systems should 20 be performed by plant operations personnel, and the availability of 21 off-site and emergency power sources should be determined. The pur-22 pose of these inspections is to determine the effect of the earth-23 quake on essential safe shutdown equipment which is not normally in 24 use during power operation so that any resets or repairs required as 25 a result of the earthquake can be performed, or alternate equipment 26 can be readied, prior to initiating shutdown activities. In order 27 to ascertain possible fuel and reactor internal damage, the follow-28 ing checks should be made, if possible, before plant shutdown is 29 initiated . . . . "
30 31 If the OBE was not exceeded and the walkdown inspection indicates no a 32 damage to the nuclear power plant, shutdown of the plant is not required. The 33 plant may continue to operate (or restart following a post-trip review, if it 34 tripped off-line because of the earthquake).
O
1 D. IMPLEMENTATION 2
3 The purpose of this section is to provide guidance to applicants and 4
licensees regarding the NRC staff's plans for using this regulatory guide.
5 This draft guide has been released to encourage public participation in 6 its development.
Except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an 7
acceptable alternative method for complying with the specified portions of the 8
Commission's regulations, the method to be described in the active guide 9
reflecting public comments will be used in the evaluation of applications for 10 construction permits, operating licenses, combined licenses, or design certi-11 fication submitted after the implementation date to be specified in the active 12 guide.
This guide would not be used in the evaluation of an application for 13 an operating license submitted after the implementation date to be specified 14 in the active guide if the construction permit was issued prior to that date.
O D
i 9
l 1 APPENDIX A 2 INTERlH OPERATING BASIS EARTHQUAKE EXCEEDANCE GUIDELINES 3
4 This regulatory guide is based on the assumption that the nuclear power 5 plant has operable seismic instrumentation. If the seismic instrumentation is 6 inoperable, the following should be used to determine whether the operating 7 basis earthquake ground motion .(0BE) has been exceeded:
8 9 1. For plants at which instrumentally determined data are available only at
- 10. the foundation level, the cumulative absolute velocity (CAV) limit (see 11 Regulatory Position 4.2 of this guide) is not applicauie, and a deter-12 mination of OBE exceedance is based on the response spectrum check 13 described in Regulatory Position 4.1 of this regulatory guide. A com-14 parison is made between the foundation-level design response spectra and 15 data obtained from the foundation-level instruments. If the response 16 spectrum check at any foundation is exceeded, the OBE is exceeded and 17 shutdown is warranted.
18 19 2. For plants at which no instrumental data are available, the OBE will be 20 considered to have been exceeded and shutdown to be warranted if one of 21 the following applies:
22 23 1. The earthquake resulted in Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) VI or
~24 greater within 5 km of the plant, 25 26 2. The earthquake was felt within the plant and was of magnitude 6.0 or 27 greater, or 28 29 3. The earthquake was of magnitude 5.0 or greater and occurred within 30 200 km of the plant.
31 32 3. .A postearthquake plant walkdown should be conducted (see Regulatory 33 Position 2 of this guide).
O A-1
1 4. If plant shutdown is warranted under the above guidelines, the plant 2 should be shut down in an orderly manner (see Regulatory Position 6 of 3 this guide).
4 ,
1 5 Epft: ;
6 The determinations of epicentral location, magnitude, and intensity by 7 the U.S. Geological Survey, National Earthquake Information Center, will 8 usually take precedence over other estimates; however, regional and local 9 determinations will be used if they are considered to be more accurate, 10 Also, higher quality damage reports or a lack of damage reports from the
, 11 nuclear power plant site or its immediate vicinity will take precedence 12 over more distant reports.
i I
1 1
1 O
A-2
1 I APPENDIX B 2
DEFINITIONS 3
4 Desian Response Spectra.
Response spectra used to design Seismic Category I 5
structures, systems, and components.
6 7
Operatino Basis Earthouake Ground Motion (OBE). The vibratory ground motion 8
for which those features of the nuclear power plant necessary for continued 9
operation without undue risk to the health and safety of the public will 10 remain functional. The value of the OBE is set by the applicant.
11 12 Spectral Acceleration.
The acceleration response of a linear oscillator with 13 prescribed frequency and damping.
14 15 Spectral Velocity.
16 The velocity response of a linear oscillator with pre-scribed frequency and damping.
\
D B-1
1 REGULATORY ANALYSIS 2
3 A separate regulatory analysis was not prepared for this regulatory 4 guide. The draft regulatory analysis, Proposed Revisions of 10 CFR Part 100 5 and 10 CFR Part 50," provides the regulatory basis for this guide and examines 6 the costs and benefits of the rule as implemented by the guide. A copy of the 7 draft regulatory analysis is available for inspection and copying for a fee at 8 the NRC Public Doci:rnent Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC, 9 as Enclosure 2 to Secy 92-215.
O on recycled paper ,
Federal Recycling Program O
RA-1
W:
N U
WC P AL S A E E
N A
L H
I N R R _
T YO G EU FF F
T O GN I OIC
,NUT RI LE _
P A AD R L V B I
.D T _
U OS C. R T A
TI S EN E 2 YA T S
US 0CE _
E S 5OS 5M
$ 5 0I M 3 -
0 0 0S 0S 1 I O
N _
i _
P O
S F P TI E AR R G TS IM U E TSAC L NN N A RD S O. CFS G E
- EM 6
7 SA l Pl
_ A I
D I1i
Y' P (I~
November 1992 F
/ '
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH Division 1 Draft DG-1018 y
')
e, ! DRAFT REGULATORY GUIDE
)
s,*...*/
Contact:
R. M. Kenneally (301) 492-3893 DRAFT REGULATORY GUIDE DG-1018 RESTART OF A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SHUT DOWN BY A SEISMIC EVENT 1 A. INTRODUCTION 2 4 3 Paragraph IV(a)(3) of Proposed Appendix S, " Earthquake eEngifieering v Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants," to 10 CFR Part 50, "Domesfic Licensing of 4 m 5
Production and Utilization Facilities," would require shutdown % N the nuclear 6 power plant if vibratory ground motion exceeding thatjf jthe bperating basis earthquakegroundmotion(0BE)orsignificantplantedangeIccurs.' Prior to
( 7 ty lM
' resuming operations, the licensee must demonstrate to<the Commission that no functional damage has occurred to those feature (necbsary for continued 10 operation without undue risk to the health and: safety of the public, i 11 Thisguideisbeingdevelopedtop~royide)uidanceacceptabletotheNRC 12 staff for performing inspections and test's of5riuclear zt power plant equipment 13 and structures prior to restart of aillsnt that has been shut down by a 14 seismic event. (w" Anyinformationcollection#a_ctjvit'iesmentionedinthisdraftregulatory 15 16 guide are contained as requirements in the proposed amendments to 10 CFR Part 17 50 that would provide the regulatory basis for this guide. The proposed 18 19 . A 20 ' Guidance is being devAloped.in Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1017, " Pre-21 Earthquake Planning and'Immediate Nuclear Power Plant Operator Post-22 Earthquake Actions," to* provide criteria for plant shutdown.
23 This regulatory guide"is being issued in draf t form to involve the public in the early stages of the develop-ment of a regulatory position in this area. It has not received comolete staff review and does not represent an of ficial NRC staff position.
Public comments are being solicited on the draft guide (including any implementation schedule) and its associ.
ated regulatory analysis or value/ impact statement. Comments should be accompanied by appropriate supporting data. Written comments may be submitted to the Regulatory Publications Branch, DFIPS, Office of Administra-tion, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555. Copies of comments received may be examined f at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC. Comments will be most helpful if received
' by March 24,1993.
Requests for single copies of draft guides (which may be reproduced) or for placement on an automatic distri-bution list for single copies of future draft guides in specific divisions should be made in writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Office of Administration, Distribution and Mail Services Section.
-5 _
,I t Jl m "A N )
I C (/ 7 I T V V L/ f
1 amendments have been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for 2 ;
clearance that may be appropriate under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Such 3
clearance, if obtained, would also apply to any information collection 4
activities mentioned in this guide.
5 6
B. DISCUSSION 7
8 2 Data from seismic instrumentation and a walkdown of the nuclear power 9
plant are used to make the initial determination of whether the plant should 10 be shut down after an earthquake, if the plant has not already shut down from 11 operational perturbations resulting from the seismic event.'
12 The Electric Power Research Institute has developed guidelines that will 13 enable licensees to quickly identify and assess earthquake effects on nuclear 14 power plants in EPRI NP-6695, " Guidelines for Nuclear Plant Response to an 15 Earthquake,"3 December 1989. This regulatory guide addresses sections of EPRI l 16 NP-6695 that relate to postshutdown inspection and tests, inspection criteria, 17 inspection personnel, documentation, and long-term evaluations.
18 19 C. REGULATORY POSITION 20 21 After a plant has been shut down by an earthquake, the guidelines for 22 inspections and tests of nuclear power plant equipment and structures that are 23 specified in Sections 5.3.2 (including Tabl'es 2-1, 2-2, and 5-1), 5.3.3 24 (includes Table 5-1), 5.3.4, 5.3.5, and the long-term evaluations that are 25 specified in Section 6.3 (all sections and subsections) of EPRI NP-6695 would l
, 26 be acceptable to the NRC staff for satisfying the requirements proposed in 27 Paragraph IV(a)(3) of Proposed Appendix S to 10 CFR Part 50.
28 Coincident with the long-term evaluations, the plant should be restored 29 to its current licensing basis. Exceptions to this must be approved by the 30 Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
31 32 33 34
' Guidance is being developed in Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1016 , the second 35 Proposed Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.12, " Nuclear Power Plant 36 Instrumentation for Earthquakes," that will describe seismic instrumentation acceptable to the NRC staff.
37 3
38 1 39 EPRI reports may be cbtained from the Electric Power Research Institute, Research Reports Center, P.O. Box 50490, Palo Alto, CA 94303.
2 1
1
1 D. IMPLEMENTATION
?
I The purpose of this section is to provide guidance to applicants and 4 licensees regarding the NRC staff's plans for using this regulatory guide.
5' This draft guide has been released to encourage public participation in 6 its development. Except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an l 7 acceptable alternative method for complying with the specified portions of the 8 Commission's regulations, the method to be described in the active guide 9 reflecting public comments will be used in the evaluation of applications for 10 construction permits, operating licenses, combined licenses, or design 11 certification submitted after the implementation date to be specified in the 12 active guide. This guide would not be used in the evaluation of an 13 application for an operating license submitted after the implementation date 14 to be specified in the active guide if the construction permit was issued 15 prior to that date.
In
\
s_ / '
A U
3
- - -- . . - _ - -. . - . . . . _ . . _ = - - - . - . ..
I 1 REGULATORY ANALYSIS 2
3 A separate regulatory analysis was not prepared for this regulatory 4 guide. The draft regulatory analysis, " Proposed Revision of 10 CFR Part 100 5 and 10 CFR Part 50," provides the regulatory basis for this guide and examines 6 the costs and benefits of the rule as implemented by the guide. A copy of the i 7 draft regulatory analysis is available for inspection and copying for a fee at l
8 the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC, j 9 as Enclosure 2 to Secy 92-215.
l l
l Printed
- l 1
on recycled I paper !
Federal Recycling Program e
l 4
i 4
Ap9 3 -) l P.pA
'#Mg'o,, UNITED STATES
[ g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j g
)
E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 '
y .....
FEB 2 31993 MEMORANDUM FOR: Lawrence C. Shao, Director Division of Engineering, RES 1
FROM: Andrew J. Murphy, Chief l Structural & Seismic Engineering Branch l Division of Engineering, RES I
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF A PUBLIC MEETING ON THE REVISION OF APPENDIX A
" SEISMIC AND GEOLOGIC SITING CRITERIA FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS" TO 10CFR PART 100 A meeting was held on February 4,1993, among the NRC and its consultants, ;
members of the staff of the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC) j and other representatives from the nuclear industry. A list of attendees is 1 attached as Enclosure 1. The purpose of the meeting was to provide NUMARC the opportunity to present the results of applying its probabilistic seismic ;
hazard analysis (PSHA) methodology (Integrated Seismic Siting Process), a ;
proposed alternative to the NRC staff's revision of Appendix A, to selected sites. A public meeting notice appeared in the Federal Reaister on January 19, 1993, Vol. 58, No. 11, page 4946. Enclosure 2 is the meeting agenda.
This meeting, scheduled at the request of NUMARC, is a followup of four previous meetings: September 11, July 10, June 17, and April 23, 1992.
Dr. A. Murphy opened the meeting by stating its purpose and providing a summary of the status of the Appendix A Revision Package. Dr. N. Farukhi presented an outline of the presentations that were to be made and introduced the two speakers: Dr. M. McCann of J. Benjamin and Associates and l Dr. W. Savage of Pacific Gas and Electric Compary. l The presentation was divided into four parts: the goals, which from the l NUMARC perspective, are similar to those of the NRC staff; the bases for its 1 Integrated Seismic Siting Process; a summary of the NUMARC methodology, which I was described in considerable detail on September 11, 1992; and the ;
application of the NUMARC methodology to sites. Most of the presentation I cor.::isted of a discussion of the geological and seismological information '
about two test sites: a hypothetical site in the Wabash Valley near Vincennes, Indiana and the Department of Energy's Savannah River site in South Carolina; the way this information was incorporated into the decision process l of the NUMARC methodology; and the final results. The viewgraphs shown in the presentations are enclosed as Enclosure 3.
NUMARC concluded that these applications of its Integrated Seismic Siting Process demonstrate its stability. A large part of that stability is the result of the broad range of existing eastern U.S. seismic source 4393py2m
- .~
FEB 2 3 73y Lawrence C. Shao 2 interpretations of the LLNL and EPRI PSHA's. NUMARC feels that the exercise also demonstrates the applicability of its program to direct and formal consideration of site specific information in the assessment of the SSE.
The NRC staff will review the NUMARC procedure along with other comments formally submitted during the public comment period for the Appendix A revision package scheduled to end March 24, 1993.
' l i
Andrew J. Murphy, Chief Structural & Seismic Engineering Branch Division of Engineering, RES
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/ enclosures:
N. Farukhi, NUMARC G. Bagchi, NRR R. Rothman, NRR P. Sobel, NRR J. Craig, RES T. King, RES C. Ader, RES N. Chokshi, RES R. McMullen, RES R:tKenneally.:RESr A. Ibrahim, NMSS E. Igne, ACRS PDR
SDT BY: 2- 2-33 ; 5:12PM : SLEMC~ 432 3556; 2/ 2 l
. . l AGENDA FOR
- NUMARC/AHAC - NRC STAFF MEETING FEBRUARY 4,1993 8
- 30AM - 12:30 PM NICHOLSON LANE SOUm CONFERENCE ROOMS A&B i
INTRODUCHON A. MURPHY
! 8:30-8:45AM J
! 8 45-9:00AM PURPOSE OF MEETINO/
PRESENTATION OUTUNE N. FARUKHI 9M11:15AM INDUSTRY'S PROPOSED INTEGRATED PROCESS TO DETERMINE SSE M. McCANN/
GROUND MO' HON W. SAVAGE i
- PROPOSED PROCESS
' - PROCESS APPUCATION FOR 4
WABASH VALGY &
SAVANNAH RIVER SITE 11:1512:15PM QUESTIONS / DISCUSSION 12:15-12:30PM WRAPUP FARUKHl/
MURPHY i ,
P l
I l
l
j ATTENDEES PUBLIC MEETING REVISION OF SEISMIC AND GEOLOGIC SITING CRITERIA
, (Proposed Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 100 & Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1015)
February 4, 1993 NRC liusdquarters, NL/S Building (Conference Rooms A & B) ;
8:30 AM i
NAME AFFILIATION l A E ,- 10. On ne u QR C fiM.S
)
IJil$nk C. rLohsL,' rJRc lst&& 1 i
K nt M Y , l) k l, IP LI S
/i_ r,n ~j/
k\L CorneLI c Ac c->
Ri> u a r 7. h oain m% \
b L G r g o e t m i.i t Lt.N L I
'I> st v6E IV1 OT) E E N N O M ARC ,
Td> x Orkq k RC[ $65
< v
/A i /f &L d[I NtJMA/LG pus shsuk ne - r e <
9Mk.3dev 1 0 M b .. ores-Gouram Bac,e14-x NRb/N2l' HAG /f' S7~AMffth.I N&lNW lM c- [-n.=pP E PR. ~l~
kobpn$ $lphn elv S F w l N rch 6 niell-NwNis $obel' /wa /A/L4
~
\
/
& vi G /d16 - UcM. Uf4L-//JU2 -
ocau:Mj/( Lo - :
a tlst h}eeddJnid ~Clud#
Themx5 foncrs $,'?N $ e#:b i G, I %L/ vas mace sh_ bdMu r M s P. h rt s.a w L = 6 .c,e MGPM3Gu A l n m n , e 'lio I % k e o i s
i '.
I ATTENDEES
~h l PUBLIC MEETING l
REVISION OF SEISMIC AND GE0 LOGIC SITING CRITERIA (Proposed Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 100 & Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1015)
February 4, 1993 l NRC Headquarters #:/S Building (Conference Rooms A & B)
! 8:30 AM :
liA!iE AFFILIATION l h'~.I hX1b oft 44 Cyo hCCdi fowO/. bo .
Arraa Naac a.s. G ancaiuc- rax wr 9eah IM vtfl RyV L LAl(
J,. Gusers tuo d TAA.
Q9c
/
khd9 DOE ,
i J,, J .> ' C r n ~ ci i St/F -L '694 mig h;M77__ l Kw Admb snsta A wh 4/U hrnd Erflucts , N RC//?FC k Sar%mb occ . 'Mm u
_]J hk e . . .:
Ho Mi M iu ta ALLA O)2 cro n lJn?dnx tA n g.r lto h C c-A n M .I R TE>sA es l
l
- 9 /
r ;
- 1
! 1 i
l Seismic Siting Rulemaking L 10 CFR Part 100 l i
i e
l i
- i 9
l i
i Development and Demonstration of l l- Industry's Integrated Seismic Siting Decision Process i
I i
l
) -
i i
i i
l NUMARC/NRC Meeting Rockville, MD l February 4,1993 l
r l
SCOPE OF PRESENTATION 4
4 e
i e Goals l l
l
. e Foundation of the industry seismic siting .
process industry integrated Seismic Siting Process e
e Example Applications i
NUMARC l
l
l E
.s j GOALS 4
e Seismic siting process must be:
1 .
predictable and stable i able to account for uncertainty in the assessment of seismic hazards j acceptable to the scientific and i engineering community l flexible to support the regulatory process (use of existing, acceptable probabilistic seismic hazard !
methodologies and new informationD
-- able to provide an information base that facilitates an understanding and review of the assessment of the SSE NUMARC
b FOUNDATION OF THE INDUSTRY SEISMIC SITING PROCESS .
- Existing plants are acceptably safe and establish a stable Reference Probability level for determining seismic design motions ;
e Acceptable seismic hazard methodologies are available l
e Accepted seismic source interpretations and l parameters can be used to assess a site's SSE in the EUS, unless it is shown that they do not, on a site-by-site basis, accommodate new data i
e Integration of up-to-date, site-specific information and accepted seismic source interpretations and seismicity parameters is required e Establish a measure of the significance of new site-specific information e Stability of the median seismic hazard curve NUMARC
s-l6 t
! ACCEPTABLE SEISMIC HAZARD' I i
i METHODOLOGIES l
- Must permit determination of a Reference l Probability (based on existing plants) j 1
i e Must be generally applicable to determine hazard.
i at a new site
- i 1
l
- Seismic source interpretations and seismicity l parameters should be adequately documented i
) --
permits examination of data used in i developing seismic sources I
permits evaluation of new data and
! existing seismic source interpretations and seismicity parameters i
)
i l
d j
NUMARC i
l tl 4
- l lNTEGRATION OF SITE-SPECIFIC DATA !
4 a
i 1
l e Systematic framework to:
l --
examine site-specific data and information available at the time the acceptable j methodologies were performed s
-- evaluate new data and accepted seismic source interpretations i
assess the sensitivity of the site hazard to
- new information i I
1 l
9 i
i i 4
NUMARC 1
_ ... _. _ _ _...__. ..-~_ ___ _..____.._ _..__..__ __ _ __,
! - 7 i
!^
! ASSESSING SIGNIFICANCE OF NEW, SITE i SPECIFIC INFORMATION l
i i
i j e impact of new data on the determination of the
! SSE is the ultimate determinant i
L i
l e Changes (increases) in hazard that produce small
! changes in the SSE level can be accepted within l the framework of engineering evaluations, plant l margins, and the uncertainty in seismic hazard j assessments NUMARC
E' ,
L WHAT IS A SIGNIFICANT
. CHANGE IN HAZARD?
Alternative paths can be considered to establish significance:
- 1. Define a change / difference in the SSE, spectral acceleration, that is acceptable and determine the change in hazard that occurs Asse -* AHazard (Ap)?
- 2. Define a change in the hazard that is acceptable and determine the change in the l
SSE that occurs Ap
- Asse?
l NUMARC
. -. _ .~ . - - _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ = . - ~.- - - - . - . .- . . _ . .-
2 o i 2 0
ILLUSTRATION OF ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES i
W Asse - A,
\
Assa = 0.05g N
c \ A, = Py 5 N RP <----- -
[N 5 l N Median Hazard, Ps
, g
- b y l l %'% s I
a i '
ii l l
EPRI Median, Pera:
d' I l I I I SSE SSE+Assa 4
Spectral Acceleration Asss ~*av
\
\ A, = 2
- 8 hM' A Asse = SSE 3 -SSEuu l 5 j RP 8
_k i s 5 l N
N Median Hazard, P3
, g i l l N
.N
= I I 's~~ ~
3 I I
- 5 i I EPRI Median, Puu
, l .
] Asse I(--
+
+
- SSEunt SSE3 Spectral Acceleration i
/ O*
L Si fE Asse RESULTS Spectral Acceleration - 5 Hz Site Ag Asse Limerick 2.0 0.043 Seabrook 2.0 0.071 Zion 2.0 0.019 Millstone 2.0 0.043 Braidwood 2.0 0.023 Sequoyah 2.0 0.040 NUMARC
4 SITE A p RESULTS Spectral Acceleration - 5 Hz Site Ag Asse i
Limerick 2.32 .05 Seabrook 1.62 .05 Zion 4.44 .05 Millstone 2.20 .05 Braidwood 3.83 .05 Sequoyah 2.35 .05 NUMARC
v2 -
l i
ACCEPTABLE CHANGE IN THE SSE AND HAZARD e Median Ground Motion: ASSE < 0.05g (S, at 5 and 10 Hz) e Median Hazard: AP = P" < 2.0 (SSE)
P ow i
l l
l l
NUMARC 1
c
' /,I k
l ASSESSING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF
! NEW INFORMATION i
1 Y New data are not considered significant if:
1 1
after examination, require no further
! evaluation, i
l they require no altemative seismic sources
! or seismicity parameters, or i
5 result in maintaining or decreasing the site l seismic hazard NUMARC
/J '
i l
. FACTORS THAT MAY :
i SHIFT THE MEDIAN HAZARD l
l l
e Seismic activity rate
- Maximum magnitude recurrence rates size of the maximum event e Identification of new, active tectonic features NUMARC l
l
< i-l INTEGRATED SEISMIC SITING PROCESS e Accepted seismic source interpretations and seismicity parameters are the basis to determine the SSE
! l i e Given up-to-date, site-specific information, an integrated evaluation is required to determine whether there is a reasonable basis to require a modification of the accepted interpretations e /ntegrated: systematic evaluation of new geological, seismological and geophysical data within accepted seismic hazard methodologies and seismic source interpretations
- Seismic siting process incorporates advancements in siting technology in last 10 years e Efforts have focussed on the examination and l evaluation of earth sciences data and the !
consistency of the accepted seismic source interpretations with new detailed, site-specific '
information i
NUMARC 4
/d
- 1 l
. INTEGRATED SEISMIC SITING PROCESS ;
BUILDING BLOCKS 1
l
- L i
SSE Evaluation Site-Specific Data Accepted Hazard Methodology Accepted Earth Science Database i
(
- 7
, 4 l
t Site Speafic Regional and Site Geologeal. Seismological and Geophysmal Investigation ,
EUS WUS Perform integrated Develop Seismic Evaluation of Accepted Sources and Seismiaty Seismic Sources Parameters i Are Seismic Sources Consistent No RW@@ i With Site and S h Sou m Region Data?
i Yes i 1
Perform Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis Determine SSE Ground Motion l
I4 i
Determine
- Site-Response Spectrur.1 !
l l
4 I !
I Develop Site Spoofic Scale Standard Spectrum Spectrum i
/$
l Acceptable Seismic Hazard Methodology Earth Science Database l
v Reference Probability for Seismic Design Levels y
Acceptable Seismic Preliminary Assessment Seismic Hazard Source -+ Information Base of the Site SSE -
Interpretations I
y Site and Site Region Geological, Geophysical and .
Seismological Investigation I
y Integrated Evaluation .
New Information and Existing Seismic Sources Level 1, 2, 3
- NUMARC
1 .
1
/f
! SITE-SPECIFIC GEOLOGICAL, I i
SEISMOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL I
DATABASE
] l i
l 1
l
- Develop a comprehensive, state-of-the-art ;
database for the site I
i --
EPRI database I
Detailed investigations within 8 and J
! reconnaissance within 40 l
! kilometers of the site I i
Regional review and update within l 200 km of the site i I i
i i
i 4
i i
zo ,
INTEGRATED EVALUATION
- Assess the consistency of new site and site region data and interpretations with existing source characterizations Level 1: examine the consistency of each site-specific data set with existing data set Level 2: evaluate the consistency of new data with the range of interpretations incorporated in accepted multiple seismic source characterizations J
Level 3: evaluate the consistency of the accepted median hazard with an estirnate of the hazard based on seismic sources modified by new data or interpretation NUMARC
.a - .
l v EXAMPLE APPLICATIONS i
I e Objectives: Apply the industry seismic siting
- approach; develop guidance for its application e Sites:
Wabash Valley (Vincennes, Indiana)
Savannah River Site .
P NUMARC
2 e-WABASH VALLEY SEISMIC SITING EXAMPLE 1
1 l
l e Vincennes, Indiana l
- Not a plant site I l
- In an area of moderate historic earthquakes 1
e Use EPRI seismic source interpretations and seismicity parameters e Recent documentation of paleo-liquefaction is new information, not considered in the EPRI study e Compelling test due to implications regarding seismic sources and maximum magnitude 1
1 j
/
WABASH VALLEY - APPLICATION i I
- Level 1 - Examination of new, site-specific earth science information
- Summarize new data that requires further evaluation
-- Examine new information; check consistency with the existing data set
-- Determine which data requires further evaluation NUMARC
. . . . - . . . . . . . - .- _ . ~ . ~ _ - . - . - , . .= -. .. .-
+
EW 4
WABASH VALLEY i
1 m wn. m s.w.y eXPLANADCN m me==. aa= p a
oc u j
- s;i. num.n, i i. :s e.a n.
- Lesamen of seemn.e sene as g ;
+ L n .# .mn.e isne en sent n.n, k.a
- INDIANAi 1
4
~~ me .e i e mn .# amun p/ -
uommawn ehe =en: M. aos em: vt. so.as em:
L is-as em: u,5-i4 an: s. 4 em
) 1
~ "* m Nk t n j 4
~ue sr gf - -
v =*
)
a se, y, >
_._:p
"'k w ui ( L . e. me.a-- -
l#
~
, ' ) "
I""""
L i
scam
- I
\ ana5* ~
~
)
/
n r %
3 I
'Ng i
i
-r 9^
) " *"r'
. _ _ . , " ~y"" ... IA IN OM* .
t
- w.e.en vese,
\ seama
%4 s.no N m ,
(
I i
~ .
ks
~ ,
immes
- "% 'l 44 5. W6 III \ MO n s
'. r\ AA TN a
, , , , e-i i. s s 4 4 e soumam:
. H -
41.00 i e
o DD* '
'- +
i4 L+ * + -
O 9
~~
+ + + . '
O a 9 . o 7 = o O 7 .
o e o 6 3' " -
o
, + 4 +
o
( -
++
o
+ .
+Q O 5 ,,g # *
- * *= =
' I'0 o** t o 4 *
- 0 ,o
- , 4 * "
+
38.00 ; + + 4 ,o ,
.g .
0 =**
8,
% o ,k ,
o
- 1 m 9 .e o o e
N/A 0 oo . $ . -
37 00 - -
. + +
,p, +
+ +
o 1698-tH3 s% . .o , %* o ,
a.oo y + , te s.o ,
+ . . , . + .;
- o * . .. l
., . . o . .o -
O o ., ;
sc i:5.o =
t p ,...
,9 g
35.00 +o
. .. % 3 o
- oo o
. . t. .
y- ,
34.= o . ., , .
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 :
8 8 E
- : # i g g i i Earthquakes Recorded from 03/1698 to 01/01/83: Vincennes, indlano g D*
<a .
f t,
I k'
4 l
1 1
,' r j ,
w w w * =
i i.
$'Ql i - -
- j. j .
^%h~~ ys . kI . D '- w
\
, m . c ,.. - -
, .,S .'..-
o .P.*r;clk ' .
i 1
s'A o.-
-[+/- - '
I.s' y,.),,7 % ' /
~hg.%. . ;s \ m h., b- Q.st' v ,- % <f s a t
w.
.:l
(
Cg/
y r .
W '
w-A.a4.=fJ e' , . , } ,. c .,,,
l *%
- M i
l r.
- ?
-... *r-
'.~-
- y. h' f fj-}_._.. -+
a.. u ,.*
.. a
~. a ,
. ===
t w w . . . *
. .s . e
. @. .- - i.
gesn ]4. .u ;,,,,,,. .:
- / . / ::
,,, i
.f i asu m sas
, =
sem-seur g g----
see.
y.: t t. t y
se*
W 99 W W .
Figure 3-2. Map of inferred rift complex in the New Madrid Area.
(3raile,etal.1982) 8 9
b l
o I
- w. . - .- - . .__ . . _ _ ~ . __ . . . . . .-
DAMES AND MOORE OA I
'5 '3 '?' ~
~
N , .
12
' 13B $
(037 02)
+ 18 A (oc oz) 7 0- -o, I
L 4 yit (018 00 '
53 e
gC" 18)
/ 40 19 ,
os s ,,
$ _ 49 43 f
36 238 .A O 4 004 02) +
248 r 023_02L ' V ' ,- -
21
__ ioo4 on
[so y s roz4 oz -
o 24 21B
+
, 2 2rj.? (o2iom 4si 53 25 41 y \ #
04 SI4 to2s on , '
52
} ,
20 l
I r /
. o y
/
cy M. s.; \
, z 1
me
> va 3 \
i , '
> \ g
' 4 b
LAW ENGINEERING
( ' es m V
\
I f
1 os ,sc
~
d 2
'N " ' T
'38 'n oir 1 x. '> h+ "* '8' 't
- .ll6~ 11 5 o,-
7 A
+ 03 y as os a g k da 2,~
t, ;;g
., 06 /0 gogg,) : . es
~
~15 . ,J :,, fos'
[] -
e 24 os 2n
k Ic i
i
- JJ ' 04A
/
e (38 3n 08 as 28 }, ~
W e
y 18 U -;3 32, 3
- e2 j
cz, ll7 co4 ci. (SE ' t,
/ .. g g 7
s IO8 848 r'
+
4g ),$
, '8 34)
,",e* ; (04 02) g a 39
- \ca2e
,x- s yu o-,
co o,0, y c ) 10 8 g
/
N oo 4,,
-08 43,
'/. ,
l .$s <na _'18'58
,___ (33 433 ,,- l
(.' r
, j ' ~_ _ ~ p 3, 4, s
l j s 2
C
\ ] ef _
308x x e,dso,'s,-
/
2s y
2 ,1 e +
Np}%os ,s, \
f .
, ~
- t m 4 o -
z c%
BECHTEL
\ j'
/ /
/ _
"2 " g 27 00 ,, 9g 37 oo
'57 00 -
s-
+_
/y + _l /
I f, \
3S j oO i 71 0 A 34 00 N,_
'I l '
44 00 33 0 '
- s ,'
3' J .[ l 30 53 00 ,p j'_30 00 V
- i l j 50 00 -
t l5500
/ .[
e
- y
" g
[ ,
T
-f-
% L +
I
i, sioo c ',... (3 00 38 00 2s oc 7 S 00 r
50 00 s oo
,e
- 52 00 .
s' -
/
2 : .. 0 00
',, r
. ~~
o
~ s!
\
i
! + 1
%_ u ds4s !
g sm'% .
E . , -,'
..e /
\ ,
y ~
. %\
we .
y T
U s 'a ' -
U 3 2 i.
y j% 9 ~i 4
O z'
' + 2 D o ,/ ' \
\.
N e
e 8
2
< ~
6
,f - -
O .
2 R -
1 _x H. -
2' 5
'j 8 \s - 9 2
y
__Q
\-
l l -
4 p d' .
Oo-n So s .
- N-b y3 -
M 4
7 .8 1 u
M 6 -
~
~
r .
2' V 2 ,
o 2 /~~.
4 e 5 N s g,,
5 s-s N
' _[l h 7 5 ~
.' / . , ,h (Y\ '
J'
\
c\ r
,' \ :
[:
'lt i' i
\' m s
.I. i Y t + .
' ;3/ 8 1
6
/l ',l! .
/
~
I 3 x /
/ '.
,h>a o
WOODWARD CLYDE ,
\
l' )-
, ss
(
'36 63 .
56 7 si -
3 f i
f .
S i 61 s 3,
?
q 39
~# ------_
. 9 I )
x I
so 47 6 ;__c, l f' AA
. Y_, -
270 ;
- 43 I 42
- WATTS BAR 31 to3( o3, J
l .BACKGROUN _
e u __
> dHEARON HARRISl BACKGROUNO
.j------ j ,
l i
'03'02) '.,
I, 31 A- t-l(03:oir = l -}-
(029013[,
e
) .
\' 29A :
\ .
(029 03) 4l l 029 023 ,,,___f s
r 29 298 48 ) l_____________
- ~ ----- s--------,'. \ /
s
- .r
' s 29 z e l :
C : / .
E > r .
x '
. ks
. s. n
W WESTON GEOPHYSICAL v
02 a
~
/\
38
\
m t'
g's
'\, u 4 .v.3 LO5 . go/4 l
/ <re 021 _
, .\
4 '
a 7,
\ L j,33 22 35
'34
~
<[, 9 N / ar x , _
.. e 'za oa _.
, 24 og 10 6 : , 4 36 + >
/
/
j 26 '
w i ' 3 03 1 / ...-
/ ~~~ --- .
l ,.
j f,' ...., ' ' J. 'j, > . . . . -,'
2 _[L[.q ..
CVh y .,. >
5 g .
i \ '. N P
J.?
00'?B l
~ '
Tg. -
o j t
- 1 r//'+
- i
+ < o --
00'99
+
- O
../ I
't
+ , - * -
00*99 4
- o !
'.' c l o .9 1
' l 0 I
,, j + + + -'- - -
00'49 1 o . g s o . c 3
e
-p 4o --
00'99 5
.. + F, o o $
N-o o
+ %o + 4o + ,- --
00 69 o ogo a 2
+ + + * '
o o - ..
no.06 o
~
+ + + + + + -
00' L 6 .$
w .
+ +
e e .
i
+*
- W
+ --
00 26 *
- . t3 a o -r o a e
+
t
+o +
, h -
00'E6 1r j
. \ r "
00*t6 e , ,,
5 8 8 g
- n g ?
- $ 8 8 e
= x w
Os g
? -
1
- 4
- 3 LO 4 M N E0 c" 5 S
.e o
@Ooo e
- O l
i 1
1 I
- ,- - . ~ . . - _ _ . _ - _ - . . . _ _ . _ _ - . . . _ - _ .
__ =
00'F9 x
- o. .'
, o 1 0" o .
0 .
, , ;,o -
. . g
/
- % A 00*S9 J" _
+ + O'
../ +
. Y o 4 .. s - 00 99
,+ 4 *
+*.
- o
. . a o b c o' . * * *
.o
' * "c
,, j p . + + + ,
00*49 e o * % . a i
- o b . E eg o 5 j
g 4 -P 88 o F, 00'99 .
. . * . o .y o , n % g
- o. *
- . s
-- e. + ,% o * +"o >g .o * .- .
00 69 5
,0= p veo
- o N
.d, o.
- ~~
o
- po '
o? + .* :&s7oe . *+- , i... ..
oo.oo E o
- oI >
7 N o,.* oj ej .M , o. o oo S
.o E
+ *+ *+
8 ,
o
, +*. ,- 00 16 o .
0 0 . ol
/ +
+
+ +o o
+ o. o 00*Z6 2 g
. *o . %
+ 0
- 0 ooO ?,.
j
+
o
, , o +o -
+
A oo se m ,
I .
- b : N / r' . .k I 00*ys !
E E 8
$ e
- 8
- = n x n
4e ee .
< 7 7, t
. sZ $
m EO N e tr) T M N - % ari 6.Ooooo o o ..
oo 2
g
E S~
ArTrassocE.S OF THE 1987 SOUTHEAS*IERN JLia80ES EARTHQUAEE 425 18 7)
- ers (h00.) meer the apper huit of VJ. Waupect,.howewr, that catalogs will list the h0dI, as VH h shot louel afintensity was hadeed present.
the i
to Tat: Wasasu Yas2av hamme Zoeur 10 0 al The June 1987 earthquake was the esset cocent ma a series of magnitude 3 4.5 shocks to occur in the Wabash Valley s), asse af southeastern Dhnois
- s3 . and southwestern Indiana (Fig. 2). %e W.an==h Valier amme, as identired by sd Nuttii and Herrmann (1978) and Nuttli (1979), has a roamed of seismic activity e, dating back prior to 1800 that in the last 99 years ancindes seven ad==rir= with
,1
- h magnitude g 4.5 and hDdI, = VII. %ose earthsraalrac, wiuda ace rather large to for the central United States, occur on the average wery 16 z L6 yeens (see y Table 1). Nutili and Herrmann (1978) and Nutdi(187% based esir sdentiGca.
Lion of the some primarily on the hastancal seisenicity record, but they mise
} recognued the m of the north-northeaseeolytrendmg Wimbash Vaucy i fault system in the southern half of the 200hn-long zone. Additsemally. they i . acted that the -Wy data were too sparse to determine if esce was one
! I ' eentinuous zone present or a series of ht=aous smaller zones. TWo of the ,
largest historical earthquakes in the mid--antal United States have oc.
i curred in the Wabash Valley zone; the m = 5.8 (!OE, = VU) 1891 event i a 40' gg,, IN -
- - /.
'~ ~l WO .,, ,**,.
.- ,, a s f;4 a*
38' . . f * ,. j '
. A
. Ty r , t.* j V i j . *-
- 4. .
i wessy east asen g
- t, .
. e(y w:.fi g- .
L se. es' 9:k,.
g* -
sl AR .
- 4 ,
92* 90* ase se*
5 9 s9e en.==s 3 ,
t i
hs. L Map showing bo adanos of the Wabash Valley seissue some as esamed W heal asummusty (Nuttii and Hernmana.1978; Nettla.1979) and by seophyment N @senhaus.
1ss3). Also shown is the areal estana af the Wahesh Valley fault some. Byeshuis: Open careles are esp 5h== of M < 5.0. diamonds & ser%h= of M g 5.0,; the ser shshdy eastefe8*W p'"hae is the 10 Kusi I.NT " . -, a omreierdet indacates the GrifEn. Ma==
ste. (Histarumi ear H - hems essa Als sempiled by B. G. Reager sad C.
U.S. Geelegien! Survey.) . 8 sewer, YNf*** O h ,, p 0 4'
i l
1 ,
i
- 3G I .
AFTERSHOCKS OF THE 19e7 SOUTIEEASTERN ILLINOIS EARTHQUAKE 427 l
Reelfott riA NLra ledamme arm, reg. 4 em the basis of gravity and smag-j metic data. %e somehuest % et the eartbeast trending Wahaak VaHey zone was arEned geologicaay by esau
===*6-s as the east-sou*HW Cottage Geove-Rough Canek isent memes and geophysically as a procument east l =h trending t magnetic h. he northeast boimdary was est
' arbstrarDy at 39'N latitruc's, wesee the granty and magnetic expression of the sent M leet.
he Wabash Valley fault zone is in the aantharn half of the seismic zone and, e
i in tarsus of ies geology, is part at the D11mois Basin. The fault zone is about 100 i
km long, asends noenh northeast (Figs. 2 and 3), and is characterised by gener-ally paraBel, high angle asemal faults that bound horsts and grabens. The maximusa displacement em individual faults is as great as 146 ma, with most of the faulting poet. Pennsylvanian and pre Pleistocene in age (Bnstol and Tre-worgy,1979). Sixty eight kilometers of seismic reflectica profdes across the I so* se* se*
- 4 4 1 4 1 8 l
l \ l mo ILL 39*- N 4 -
l % 'a f 0
/ *
/
O '%
/l *>" ,,,(l
\ ',Y N ,,,
i b '% i d N N e%
g l 3I*~ \ ,\h 6: ,W ,
Cr. ,, s.M ~
i I
. y.
zy:my:
1 y .c.:..g ,
a .m. g
.,fPj;Mh"$biGy--- KY 4
gg9;. .. ,,,,
! ~ '"-"
! M J.S
} ).T $k$.h ~ '
se... .> ilf.2
- b. ~W N .cm'1- QW*:c-,v -
J'* ." n.. '-
. b#t $$1SSIPPIi
, p.' >
..:h:.45 "k.Mg,@NS$i*. TENN a e ,
s.; EMSAYMENT.i 5$ 5f
..s ) $Nj;n q4 2 j
3 5I jN. ;319.Vf.
'"' .v::::s.. .: '
-J'dh g?33
.y 2: w f9.tjh;
- ' ' ' " ^ ' '
r f).rg.
j '
S. 1Oo Ehera i
l Fic. 3. New Madnd rd caemples. After Brsile er et (1982a, W and * ' an
, Symbols: Star is epicoeser of 10 June Aase annagpamme, arcse4st shows Grikaa.d ladiana, panee-Keller(1981).
4 earthquakTTiquefincties site in Wahash Valley; epos carde es=sthwest er main shock epnematar is i location of Unase Otl Cesapeny Cisne Coenmunity e1 asup drill heae. Stippie pauera ma=
c Mississippi enheyment; rios: lines are regional faulte.
, desf er-
- /
l i--
, _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ - _ - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
~.
1 - ]
l I *-
1 '
I 3f l'~ -
. Arrrasaocxs eF THE 1967 SOUTHEAS*!BRN 2L120005 EARTHquAtz 425
! 18 7) (nGO ) meer the upper lasmit of W. Neupect, however. that catalogs wal list
, ;ers
! the nOE, as VII becomme that lennel ofintensity was desdeed present.
ths
, g, Tus WaaAser Vazar Summac2esas
- 10 0 The June 1987 earthquake was the most ==a==*
i w.1 .
t 4.5 shocks to occur in the Wabeah Valley an a sortes of magnitude I s), , asas ofsoubastern Ilhnois
- co and mouthwestern Indiana (Fig. 2). N Waheek Vauer some, as identined by 'i
! ed Nuttli and Herrmann (1978) and Nuttil (1979), bem a remord of seasssac activity j e, dating back prior to 1800 that in the last 99 years andades sevem shocks with '
! :n magnitude 3 4.5 and MMI, = VII. hee earthquakas, whack ase nether large for b central United States, occur on the average every 16 15 peers (see
, io j y 1 Table 1). Natill and Hemnana (1978) and Nuttii (19996 based their sesuminca.
tion of the some prumartly on b histance) i==e itsy c acord, but they eine recognized the presence of b north-northseseeoly4=adang Wabash Vahy fault syntesa in the samshern half of b 200-kan-long zone. Addrtaemally. they
. meted that the aussanety data were too sparse to decennine if these was one I ' eentinuous some peement or a series of d>=rmati==aus smaller zones. two <sf the largest historical earthquakes in the mid--tal United States have oe.
curred in the Wabash Vahy zone; h m, = 5.8 (!OG, = VU) 1891 event i
A l
40'
.~
- at IN -
. -/ *~~7
,een WO .,, .
=
A, 4
I!a*-
~*
i 38' . *
. , / /'t
- V
" . *Q# [wemmikWeSey Suset amme i ;
=# . ** . , 4..
. ~
- 4< ,
. xv
. M.. p = $ .
1 3.. ..t:i.* )k..
- I. .
.g;r
- 4 t -
5 02' 90' 88* 88*
9 oge no --.
r- ,
i
' Pen. L Map showing boundaries of the Wahamh Valley seissue asas as deemed try tusserical (Nuttii and Herrimana 1778; Mastk.1F79) and geophymami unasheds (Danbaus.
1983).
shown is the arsal estema of the Wabash Valley la It seen. Spushnes: Opse circles are earthquakes e( M <: 5.0. diamonds indisses # . % of M 5.0,: the star easte(48 W lies a the 10 JGan 1W7 * ^ . a suruledet casas the GriSm.
ste. (Hissarwat eerdupmaams beau desa Ans essapiled by B. G. Eseger and C. . Steams.
A Gamesgual Surwy.)
g_~
- 6.yw # N#"1*$ MI
.kNd -- --
I_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . _ _ _ -
l !
I i
! 3G i.
APTERSHOCKS OF THE 1987 SOUTEEASTERN ILLINOIS EARTHQUAKE 427 i
Beetfoot ridt (C==arW ladname ans, rig. 30 au the basis of gravity and aang.
metic data. h seashmast b===aany of the eartbeast trending Wabash VaHoy some was Mined geologicaBy hay these andeses as the east-sou*"eiking Cattage Grove-Rough Comek Asadt somes and geophysically as a premainent east ===*herending maspnetne h. h mortheast boundary was set arbstrarty as 33*N latitude, wases the granty and magnetic expression of the asme is nest.
i h 'Wabeek Valley femalt some is as the southern half of the seismic zone and, I e in ternas of iss geology, is part of the Blinois Basin. h fault none is about 100 l-km long, svends nonh nom (Figs. 2 and 3), and is characterised by gener-ally paranel, high engle aanmal faults that bound horsts and grabens, h maximusa sEsplacement om individual faults is as great as 146 an, with most of the faulting post Penaryhranian and pre Pleistocene in age (Bristol and Tre-worgy,1979), Sixty eight kilometers of seismic reflecties pre (sies across the i
l see se*
) 3
. . . s.e* i i
- IND I
' ILL
,, , ~. \/ -
l
{
.s % 4 o j 8
/
% % i g *S , j 88'
]s N % \ , ,c yN
~
~% s tt I s\ -%&
// 4 ' 1-N 37'- \
gk . .g, fq Crg % -
. N 3.iM !F'~ d.'.ib$f- KY f ;, Q "'J M[~2bb 7"- ~~ "'- ~
! i AAM , f gfh$
y,. .a
.:j..
- M!i$Ek{fal..Niff g
- ph L h &,
- ~ , -ncArc ml %..;.
JrF .. ' p.;-p' ..t#f gSISSIPPQ 'f.
i)v.iNJ R - ' .. . . .WM NN$$$NWf TENN
?. n _iyE. MS AYMENTJi..
a
.v.. m .,
t v.b.
- X?? ,,[W .hM'M o ecNUI , ,
8 '**""*'"***
Fic. 3. New Medrid riA seamplex AAer Braile er et (1982a b6 and " R an Symbola: Star is epecenser of 10 June Asa4 ann-enanea. aredet shows Griba,d ta=a Keller (1981).
eenhquahTTWien site in Wahash Valley; apse avde seushwest of snaan eM ar====panee- 'a* is location of Uname Osl r==rany Cimme Ceaunuaity el deep Mil hele. Stipple patters =d='""
Mississippi essborneemt; fine linee are resposal faulle.
da f h */
/
. o
] ~?
l o. ' l E)4PLANATION meanwuame W an.or .
d ene.g womesa so.w o i [ -
l e ses eenmining 1 to 3 dhas ,
j
,/ . Lesmoon ofremerened same pit l t Lassoon of wned smad mit containing dikee 2dD(ANA I
' -w magion of localized semen af sersam henks $\
__ _.,4 .B _e - .
$ 15-3.cmh 5-16 enc 1. d em
.. =
I. .N i.
- =~ --- . __- , -
i . -
,k ' ,/ l g
! l -
,/ F l
%,1 e-i
" t}
1 l
)
)
i, '
f u!)
I a'a* L w 4
( j- I -= -
i l
\ h I
/ -
I i t
/
! l i Y (
i i Ke O *'
i
~
! / iwNOIS l
,,,,, eg
, == i 1,
i j mmxxyg (
===.==d, -
l
= =
m 7 E' ohto
! )
- * = * = w 4,,,
l- ensumsc
= l i, , ,
3 wr- !
\ % '
/ e f
x h!, '
e
-/ xv s J.
'a-i J. =
v a ?,1
=
to a a 4 1848E85 Dharmers J 4/ /19t--
c l
o io m x
=m a asumares Frj' . /
y*
2,
(
' s c enue asascuen presulae one .
Gravity Model Profile C Shallow Lower Crust
- sE t -
4 a a .- .~
- 4
- d. .
o,. . . .
. o.
- +
1
- + -
- t. r. r- 4 ea + .
- - m- . & ,
. m
, - ==. mas 3 a++
. ======e, w , ,, c na r, e
+
9
- I 3[i . . . . .
~
. . . i
~
i
~ es . a,.>
+ i CC- '
a res.yes !
N ' I s a a to-w -
a
- 2 ses was ]
- sc- !
o .
I
.a
.c 3 250 agma 1
, I i Fn 19. Grsvity model along the ooritwess-eensheast prenne C C'iFigures I and 21 showing observed and calculated
,E gravity anomaly rammes der es model shown m the lower part of the diagram.
= / l J
d n \
, p- ,
5 a >
a NW SE 2 >.
! h3 % -=
N8 >-
a
~ Oa v/ . 's ,.- GRAVITY / vi000 oa 1
~
a: > '- - 900 W J - I o- / '<
y . / *- -MAGif. TICS /
-\ / .
- 800 i! r.,2 l
~
r -20 / N ~~ /
l I
n ,
}' m 4 3o u " - j k./
tass == ort 700 $ l o noe e i. massary m mn ==== *=r seeise men.gevum a===rr <
i
'seeru.ts enoacian ! 2 f i !
c 0 en l; am .mgrpa . , a::-c; t u se w: ^^-'.c'.'.*."re"s ~-
r - , .
. _, = e. . -
2 2 p we cameen.res_g. assem _
- su c h e-
! l . .! .- . r:-l: : .
!= +%.. . .,... , t,.
....:.n....
.~ . *.. .. ' ..'.....
, s- .
..7. . . .
i Q- .. ene ems.w asumme ". ..,
88- :.,";.
.' ..;. .. l ... *.
t
, go. .
. M. .-
M M CMr -.'.'.'.....e,'.
. . .r.
~
3
.:-. ,. ...,se nneene .- . . . .
.,. .'.. l I O 40 ' 80 '120 %b t./ ./) /f6 l OtSTANCE (KM)
Fic. 20. Schematic model alon the northwest southeast pro $le C-C* showin the locatioes of the seemsc renection sarttsgraphsc data interpeted profiles iprose .ed onto the C- linct gravny and magnetsc anomalv data, h=== ===* and pre Mt. Simon layered
~
from deep dnil hoies and the seismic redestion record sectsons and' faulted sequence rnaerred from the seismic redection and gravity data.
i wranch-fault assemblages, basement-block fruiting end 39 fau!-
. drape-folding, compound styles, and basement crchas able
!,, cnd sags" (N Ison,1988). More compinx localized -
Pen structures have been observed in the Paleozoic strata, Pe l detached from the basement tectonism. The surficial are s6nactures of this region can be coarsely divided into thici i
tune saajor types, fault systems that dominate the strue. men i basal style in southernmost Indiana and Illinois, and refle i
lange noid systems that 'are pronounced in central lili- gest j mois, ihm j evid may, e mul
'J l 98 a!on
! !; a oiawa e a ./> I a. 1 pies
~
l I
-f , \
. l.
gj
- .. 4 f
l nort of t w- g i / ,
[*/ /
\
- 5) f the Rou' d the is @ m ess w w s*is9 s *
% / I ) )ammmexy mid f 4L
- i ,
y 'e b. ' '
us e.
Into w, '
- , . . / eart w
j ,
w or w w w ,o, l w Vene o n " syst l Fig.1. Tectonic setting of the June 1987 southeastern app Illinois earthquake. Heavy lines denote major indi
- structural elements of the region, after Nelson Pale .
- and Bauer (1987); light numbered lines indicate gral
! structure contours (in feet) on the top of the nor Prairie du Chien Group (Lower Ordovician), Pral j from Student at af., (1981). East-west lines indi- t, 3 cate locations of cross sections shown in Figure
- 6. Asterisk dewes earthquake epicenter.
152 I
g f kuffe
w LEVEL 1: DATA EXAMINATION
SUMMARY
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT DATA AND INTERPRETATIONS Datalinterpretation impact References Large (seismically-induced) Source configuration Obermelr et al.,1991 liquefaction fee.tures along Source / tectonic feature activity Obermeir et al.,1990 Wabash River; associated Maximum magnitude with ~m 7.5; not New Recurrence (?)
Madrid source Occurrence of M,5 Source configuration Taylor et al.,1989 Southeastern 111. earthquake Recurrence (?) Langer and Bollinger,1991 10 June 1987 in Wabash Valley area; strike-slip Interpretation of Wabash Source configuration Bralle et al.,1982 Valley fault zone as northerly Source / tectonic feature activity Sexton et al.,1986 extension of New Madrid rift Maximum magnitude Sexton,1988 complex Recurrence (?)
New Madrid rift complex Source configuration Hamburger and Rupp, does not extend as far north Source / tectonic feature activity 1988 as 1987 epicenter Maximum magnitude Nelson,1990 Pre-1811 earthquakes not Recurrence for New Madrid Wasnousky,1992 found in Holocene record at l New Madrid NUMARC i
l l
J
vi i
l LEVEL 2: EVALUATION OF NEW DATA
- AND EXISTING SEISMIC l SOURCE INTERPRETATIONS i
i
, i
- Evaluate if new data or new interpretations are
- accommodated in the accepted seismic source l interpretations l
l
- Perform sensitivity evaluations that examine the i accepted seismic sources and estimated i occurrence rates I l 1
- j j
NUMARC l
gz LEVEL 2 PARAMETERS e seismic source boundaries e PA (probability of activity)
- Maximum magnitude distribution
- Earthquake occurrence rates (a- and b-values)
P 1
l NUMARC
e.r 1 l
SEISMIC SOURCE BOUNDARIES i-l e Teams provided alternative interpretations of the i
tectonic framework and active tectonic features 1
I e Conclusion - Accepted seismic source boundaries l accommodate the range of reasonable
! interpretations l
I I
i I
1 l
P a
4 j
i EPRI EARTH SCIENCE TEAMS - SEISMIC l
- SOURCE
SUMMARY
'T Webash Valley Site Team Host Source m.
No. t)escription Probabgity of Activity Magnitude P(m_)
18 Southem Illinois, Indiana 1.0 6.6 0.75 Dames & Moore 0.25 Fairfield Basin 7.2 -
7 Wabash Valley Arm 0.85 5.5 0.20 Law Engineering ,
6.0 0.50 6.8 0.30 34 Wabash Valley Fault 0.35 5.5 0.10 Bechtel 5.8 0.40 6.1 0.40 6.6 0.10 i 2 Southern Iliinois, Indiana 1.0 6.6 0.30 Rondout 6.8 0.60 !
7.0 0.10 '
Weston Geophysical 33 Indiana Arm of New 1.0 6.0 0.68 ,
Madrid Rift Complex 6.6 0.27 7.2 0.05 l Woodward Clyde 43 Southern Indiana Arm 1.0 5.8 0.33 '
6.6 0.34 i 7.4 0.33 ,
+ !
ti.;
I
. - - - . . . . _ . . . - - - . - . . - . _ . . - . . ~
WABASH VALLEY - LEVEL 2 EVALUATIONS Case Parameter Description Use EPRI Earth Science Team seismic sources, 1 NA etc.
2 Probability of activity Change team P, values for Wabash Valley (P,) seismic source to 1.0 + -. ' .- t ;-r 3 P, and mm ., Same as Case 2, plus team mm., values are revised to reflect paleoliquefaction data New m ,, Distribution for Wabash Seismic Source i L., Pin.J 6.0 0.05 6.6 0.65 7.2 0.30 o
D i
46 EPRI REGIONAL EARTHQUAKE OCCURRENCE RATES i
)
i e Determine team estimates of earthquake occurrence rates within the vicinity of the site e Occurrence rates are based on
-- team source combinations (i.e., source probability of activity) seismicity options maximum magnitude estimates i
1 e Rates are determined for selected distances from the site 1
- 7 EDURE TO EARTHOU gg o URRENCE RATES Tc f a,
~ h CIO
$biNk
/ asim}gh;NS- si g?
+i o
N-s] } p
,w W BZO NUMARC
n-i EPRI REGIONAL. EARTHQUAKE P MEDIAN OCCURRENCE RATES - 100 km l
1 i
l l 1
l l
1E-1 e i l l
=
W e _
u -
Z - _
4 _
Q -
w ..
l w 1E-2 =L _
=
o = A x :
w -
- u. -
1 0 -
! > 1 E-3 ;-
o _
_g z e
\ w -
r , _
a g
Distance = 100 km _
j w
t
^
EPRI -) '
- u. 1 E-4 -
=I -
3 i
Z
%-t [ EPRI, revised Pa and Mmax o -
w _
1 2 ' l ' l '
1 E-5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 MAGNITUDE l
NUMARC l l
l
Vf t
t l EPRI REGIONAL EARTHQUAKE l
OCCURRENCE RATES VERSUS DISTANCE 1 \
l l
1 E-1 -- , ,
1 w = 1 -
a r C O g - J a -
J w _
w -
o -
@ 1 E -
~
1 p 4 O r_
3 , , _
o -
M > 5.00 _
i Z
w _
D 1 E 3 -=- [ EPRI EPRt. revised Pa and Mmar
{, _
e g _
o _
i W
2 ' ' '
1 E-4 100 200 300 O
RADIAL DISTANCE (km) 1 E-3 :: 6 j
4 t d l
"- J ,
t 1
o -
g _
o _
@ 1 E-4 ,_
~
g-u -
C 2
O . .
3 - , -
o -
M > 6.50 -
D 1E 5 [ EPRI _
8 --
~'
[ EPRI, revised Pa and Mmax 2
l Q -
! w -
' l ' l '
1 E-6 0 100 200 300
- RADIAL DISTANCE (km)
NUMARC l
l
o l
! NPR EVALUATION AT THE SAVANNAH
! RIVER SITE i
1
)
! l l e NPR - New Production Reactor i i
e Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment being l conducted by LLNL for DOE I
l e NPR funding was suspended, work has not been completed (ongoing) l l
- i I
e Preliminary results are partially documented I
-. . - _=_ _ - - - - - - . - _ _._ .- - - - _ _ -
si ,
l l
e LLNL (1989) seismic hazard results for the l SRS are used
- Level 1 and Level 2 evaluations are not documented in .the Earth Science database and seismic source interpretations is not available l
8 NUMARC l
. 1
I t l l Sb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1
3 0 4 3 3 3 0 -
5 3 3 7 6 3 .
3 3
- i 8R
, 3 -
+ + .. 8R
. . +
. + . 4
- l
- 4 + ..
8i 4 , 4
. 4 S
- R S
8i 4 8
. + 4 ~
/1
- . 0 -
o /
g oy
- 1 0
8i t o
- + *
- . , . 8
- 9
- 5g 6
- 1
- . ,g. -
- /
_ , < 3
- 0 8d f.*A ,*
m o
r oo
=
, " . * # g** *%
8
- / ~
f d
e dr e
+ . .
n
'4 4 8d o
- c
- ". *
- e
,
- o =. R
= - s e
- . k a
+ , ,
f
- 4 u m.8i q
, . o.o* . h t
r
- $ a
- E i
+
.e ;
oo
- + +
y
- h. -.
88 8
g
=
-[ * -
88 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 6 0 0 0 3 5 4 3 0
3 3 2 3 3 3 1
0 3 3 3 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 A - 0
/ 8 0 e 2 y N 9 5:
d a 7 6 5 4 6 t
u 1 1
i e n
g l
a
=
M a O0OO 0 * . ,
O S
c
, t c
fr en
- rp/ v
.'s c* / /
\ ,6 .,' /,,I r
/l/./-
/ /j/
g
. c 2 gg ' ,.
/
l 1 ,'
3'
,4 g
4- ,
y i
~l j j
/ .
0
/
l j
" ' I ,' .,
-j a
l j,, '-
?." - ,
g" O" _
e /
/
I
/ I I \ j, ,w
/
/ .
' /- %
f #g ~
.b,,=l,p .
b r,
s , l
'~ -
(
~j '" 1
.f i.O.yN.N) -
n' / ~g s ,
f.' f/ /j g
A7n
-s /' . t..
/<
- , ,L.-
n
~s o
N f / / c 4 p l . /[ .
\ \j
~
- t.
f' ,.
O n'},Jq-
<I
/ '
- !l - .
/ .
/
/ Ig _
i, 1 ,
/ . /.
.' l
- ;
- / I .*s*'
/ T
/, ,-
/
p N M
/(..x.\
.. *R
- y ) .
o - / "'
as /.
< - / %
2-
- l , /
.> s -1 : /
J( yi :1
. ' R ' , * '):-.)
1y, >o <z i
t'T '
. .~
llfg:.
, ;l g . .1
(
. .I
(
. c, -
= - - \
K,n
\ glp
~
r.
,',/. . }z
- , i, iel.
\
\
A I
l ,- . . i
, ' 1 /
, 3< ,-
l ja s
~
,- ~ ,' a .
s ,- ,-
i
., c \
/
- ,- ' - - "'e n '
lj.
- - s' ,a-p'
- n U' i
I .f
~
4
'l 1
?
';+ ..
.% \l l'g s
.l \ ,
o \
)
,. _ . j[b \
s .
. \, {l- ,_
g \(., l
- h.#
a .
%L T
., + y f*s.
Y -
u m s .
a'-
. /
e.
+4,ff.
Y r.
- b. I s
9 s
/ . s8 y V , '
d i e
l+
l p .[ .
\
.JI
. a a
". , s.
l
.r y-SAVANNAH RIVER SITE, SOUTH CAROLINA i
DATAllNTERPRETATION POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANCE REFERENCES Paleoliquefaction not found Source configuration Amick,1990: 1991 outside of SC in coastal Source / tectonic feature activity Amick and Gelinas,1991 deposits from D.C. to Fla.
Multiple pre-1883 events Source configuration Taiwaini and Cox,1985 found in paleoseismic record Maximum magnitude Taiwani and in Charleston area Recurrence Collensworth,1988 Obermeir et al.,1990 Amick, et al.,1990 Evidence for post-Cretaceous Source configuration Behrendt and Yuan, reverse /SS reactivation of Source / tectonic feature activity 1986; 1987 Helc= 3anks fault zone Identification of Woodstock Source configuration Marple and Talwani, linament in 1886 Source / tectonic feature activity 1992 maisoseismal area Evidence for post-Cretaceous Source configuration Stieve et al.,1991 reverse reactivation of Source / tectonic feature activity DOE-SRS reports 1990-Dunbarton Basin border fault Maximum magnitude 1992 (Pen Branch fault) Recurrence Occurrence of small- Source / tectonic feature activity Talwalni et al.,1985 magnitude earthquakes within SRS -
Majority of CEUS focal Source / tectonic feature activity Zoback,1992 mechanisms suggest ,
i reactivation of preexisting faults in regional stress field l
NUMARC !
i l
I < ' ! , I '
0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3
0 0 4 3 3 3 6 5 3 3 7 3 3 3
NR
, 3-2
+ :
8R g
+ + g
_ g 4 4 ,
8R
_ . 4 4 4 .
8d 4
4 + 4 4 .-
s
_ , 4 ,
8d l, . .
+ 4 4 , 4 ,
8d A
/
- f. i 4 4 , 4 ,
8d o
4 ,.
4 4 4 4 8i g* o q
+ . o + 4 p ;
8e t,
j [ -
?E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 6 5 0 0 0 3 3 4 3 3 3 2 1 0
3 3 3 3
2 0 9 0 9 0, 1 0 0
p 4 0, e 8 5:
de 54 32 I u 9 1 t
t 1
_ i e n
g l
a 0oo * * . c a S
_ M O
37.00 Y
37.00 i . ,
r M F,M
- * =
- = ;
Magnitude ,
+ 36 00
- +-
~ -
36 00 . +
, ,j #+ + ,
O a ,
".'t 0 7
=
,=
.oo ..
O 6 , o. o 8. "
+
35.00 O 5 35.00 *? = , , , ,
- 3
, /. ?
. o Sv
- 6. .
34.00 34.00 -
[ _p _p 4 9= , ,
0
= ,
I4/A '
33.00 --
_p .p
- :=,k = ,';t .
g ,
9 , + .
33.00 O 1698-1983 y O 1984-1992 o .
32.00 32.00 --
p _p .p o _p _p .p + -
Scale 1:5,000,000 + -
31.0 31.00 + _p .p , .p +
. f 30.00 %; q ,
.g ;_ ,
30.0 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 0 $ R R 8 8 i d d i d 12 Earthquakes Recorded from 03/1608 to 10/1/92: SRS q
. b,
MM Ih I S7 2
i
. l l
l I
4 4
80 h,-
s ..
Jo a ,
R &-
N' - ~q Ewa .. ..' q h
= {
. s l jw - .
i N ,
x% *
\ __
h\\\ jN4*
,% sMs 6N3 ,
I I Qsr a
l iEt I \\ '
4
- ? ;;
W I \
I l
- i -
l ti 5 h '
1:1 ' ' . -
- - us = - - i.m um. 4 e
. --l l .. .. ,6 , .. ., ,,.
m.
i see .se
-m .. se e ins 5- a Distence from Charleston (km)
}
FIGURI 5. Distnbunon of pan =a=1 liquefacnon sims evalussed - ' l a-I along the wwh ==*en Atlantic See*eoord (top) and leana of pre-1886 liquefacuca sites (boaom) L'.-;\, : !
--8 area of the '
~~.I dsscovered. Sitas widda the _ /#.
1886 eenhquaks are labeled 'CH*. Oudying ,.,,,,.i .. j liquefacnon mass located to the south and north of/the : , ,--a 1886 epicemarsi area are labeled 'S' sad *N*. ,,. ./
f respeenvely, (also see insert at right that shows the ,. . / 4 ; a*
general locanon of outlying liquefacssos mass with, ~ ~ . . . ' 7 respect to Charimson). Tbs precise sunber of sitas ' "" . [-. '
evalussed in the Charlesson area has not been shown. g
- [- ='a __
However, the toad amnber of sises rimar Charleston ./ ~
evaluated during our sady was significandy less than
'.d ~C in the in other areas. No studies were *=<f ;* J- ;
Cape Fear area due to the general ah of suitable :
deposis over the Caps Fear Arch. (Froin Annck~..~ -
et . . _ 3.y[ , ,
al. 1989) .
c.
59 59a nomtnor Ano ruru, i117 The praent<isy teczonac strus Seid in intenor demonsumed a northema-atedmg comprunve style in this area immediately offshore to be sim.
Bar to that of the adjacent land aren. The obp North Amerum is one of east *oorthens com. stras field f uve of this study was to beuer define the presson (Zoback and Zoback.1980), ahhough razatly (in a compu onpaally Zoback and Zohadt (1980), Yang types of new data induding ser.muc focal mec
-), Zoback configurance and history of the HBFl. -. -
Figure 3 shows the locanon of a fault- and Asgarwal (1981), and Wearworth and asses and drGIhole bounded Triaanca) baan repor.ed on the tac. Marsner Kaefer (1983) favored that a northwen.
the mA.nce of (1983) evidence and now Zoback sup. and ot toaac map of Behrendt and Grim (1983) treading compressonal arms field along the Adaanc seaboard, decenamed larpsiy frees pore a northema-cending compreauve stress compued from the second verocal denvanve young northeast 4triking reverse fanks mapped field along the Atlanac interpretance of the aeromagnene survey on lead (Proweil,1987) and a few sesmase local interior. This change in interpmanoe rames (Behrendt and Klitsord,1979; Behrendt and Compante samac local machs- quasace of whether the nortscast-stnbng "re-hm others,1983)of the Atlanacconunentalmarpa. verse" fauhs desertened from r nama profiles Figure 3 also shows interpretanons from Behrendt naama (Tarr and others,1981: Taivasi,1982 and others (1983) of sermuc-r A-ma prodDes Tarr and Rhea,1983) 1981; fori t* remedad Hamatos and others,1983: in the Charlance Schat and ar (CH2 and CH5. Fig.1) over ihn baan. The siscz 1974 in che 1886 -at aren, al-odurs,1983) and mapped geolopcally eine-though giving poorly comaramed focal pinaca, HBF appears to lie along dus vend.
s0810'
-u - '
(KPLAN ATioN j o.
'g g o,.
. ..wn.a i.n..
... n .. i cener..e. a ya 1, n. ;
s 7,.. x .. .
. twin.un. ....ai., j
- N .
) g ,ee s... .. ..u g l
.g.d 'c y
- - - c>ei==. *'a== 1
/ .
m .. . $ l of B o asesion
- /
- o, l s'
~
.( 7. .
oo -
l
,a
- c. .y-
.ss s
/ 4
- ,J -
e c, ;
s o 5 m - s s
, ,a . ** '
4 f, L%
% r"
-W / f c3 ? "*" i ,.
?
1
m -
J9 l
- 1
% Elenen
- - . I h' .'
,. /
( r.- .
- . )' ..
PB .1
,s...........?
.p.
l 2
i ,.' ,
- w. "J
.- PBF8 4
f- .'
1
/ , % PBF.7 2. - -l *%
g _
i .'. f- [ .
/ ..
I, PBF-5 /
fi / , : . . .. . '
i F6 ,- .
if ,
~
- '~
Vegen Einses a k
) '
/.....-
'h.
l 4
N 'I$* 'k.
n ., -l .-
l ,8.
i e
,. / '
l I
Figure 1. f-Han of Pen Bmnch fault at SRS with PBF series sha I faults are thought to intamect the Pen Branch fault.
'jk Avs &f A., If
- I 1
, .___ _-._._.--._._._.-._ - ... - - --.__ _ .~ _.._ _ _ _..-._ _ ---
~.m._m. .._m _ _ m _ . - _ _
i -. . ,, -
i o
4
$0 1 1 m
!' v ,w mu ; "* :.x:w ., ~ . . . . . .m s . .,
n
....wnw.n....
. s y yp 79p{ s-
. e e. n,
- a, (a
, +,~u...
~ 7.. p;
~ 3 _ , .ejgQ.< . ..G:a;gs , .3 y.,4.y , .;;t.wo . %4 r.. .n r .w:n ,m . %. v . ,, L n : 1
45ht?hbd.,.1
.a, <
v.
2
' * $ $ h,. $v. . . a S:
.< y c : .::
, i N:l. * * " ION',: P4 a +1 s ,
! ~. ar ;./. ,' , i:w,4.$.:TQ;;f' W 'W,1*'p!,:%.W:! i,.5 "A. KQt .s
~ ',T emlirvm'"' ~ p 3} g^ m:ymy.".f w :: .
~~
~ ' :
1 M,'i N. &, hd. * " " 9,U . M...~; e .New ,. ,- . .
,! s. . n.u .
f '
Q:l: '
w ,. ^:p,.$W:.%"
'*h f'R:$.n%QW" . oW C, ..
. .%.l4**.,%n.::w.
%, n<.
g) + %q-n #i.yhCQ ry
. sh. b:' pn:<4/ .n ,
a";;e.r
~
- a. .
p-e. o 2 ,.
m.
( , .. :.- m.,: ,.H g 4,Ey. . cam.g
' A U AISUN
" j ', e
* ] , f., " >. M.. h.
(.. t .'
a
%X' .:L^iM;f
, e <" W+nh.3 hh# .L A :<.p,^,N . .
9 3glg(3yt 1
~
O, Q ,* o,OO '
s
..w
)
s s m m, .:en wwka n m L; %;;u.p;gf
-.* ;.v., /
o
- l '
....:.~.
"#* W j 4,r. " '
W ' 4W48,nWm, >
- e. 4 g' m.s:. n::.%m<::.,&" ,'
4 .t
.n., '..~..
,g ,
~ m
- q
) . Jacitsenf e~s~ i m, ,
,P, ,
i dn;!gg L- 5,2 4
) EMN + / / 3.y y$ppp4 1
ungm<x 1 y s .
. ; n, 4 >
>J.%, e m,. s,2 e. .. . .
.. .. r ~.4
- ~
4 v
.. ;f-91, / _.
l
.%.. y@n. .y.re.M* s ;.,
g ., a a
, g.W r.
j
-. g;m
, ,.;q,~
..l'l %.
t .,m %4 /
e's
- % q M' h
r ^j, ,
m ; >
, ~g .M* :e,$.J:;w ;kf'y-: n: ,/~~u.,,-,, - ~ a RD.
e.
n , as .w%. ,
. .c, o ,s,, . w,
- ~
es .
, o mg y" at:z fQQ.,
'ty; f':Q(,;.y >
,o* . y,r
^
g
' ' . r$syNh E
77'
<m YJ
.s (w.'j$
g ,
SM""ffy, n. ,,. .
g >
q
,,./
,.a
- g9
]
+= g; ) l,".,gggg' x acm,, .
gs 4. g. ,. ~
%:M
,i~~~' ,
~,,'
s o' y ~.e m.m ,
n.
npp;"fOi m, -
' o , ,
s} .
.' s.
% ys
_3 ryyQ)y i j 4 h '" j j'**
4
- .j h., w.- *
, h .%p
.-MW + l g l l gg$,g$5B h
&$$$%~An /
l %%Km. &
- t' f $
,, /
,4 l/
~
! u =gu $. Ah.un% u. %
l r W&A?M".kQfi
' i d;m-~M Eni
- Qp w:Mu ..
. %g# %,.n.<3 #u n
g
. .n.a
' 1.j #E .,M.m.,. A - / ,",SteeICreek faut - m.
w v, j - ..' .. - %
,.J; Q .':w,.4%.
yn%w .n
./g e '
/ w*%/- 5 t e.gp,.
- c
.gu.w
'."z u.rac< ..m W+ww #<
os
.- ~n -
- qpa. . .
y' +
W%.) V ws .+ . . g" . ^. V s
.v, &.wQ7 h.. f; s p
',/,/
1
-e' AQ*"- 4,:l.:c ::%;;.:yn q:ah
,_bgry Wew
- 2
%nd:;h
' h^N D
I
\
__ _ ;: D,< 8
,' s ' 1.. .Q kyyQ s g i
- MTL
, %> \ %
\
j *.
b3.M wq 4
2 m
dM" % N / . .
l1 ^Am f;.r.*%
j ea- .am #4 ove ee4 *j . ,., j,gq wee 4 <*
- l g. s.,. p; ,y
--' ., E?'My E
- l. .
% p^ q't i
trgy T- sst ,
,sw+. ?w. :.r. <
-I <, ..M
$b m.V,,
' m' 'p .4,*
i s' a ,. E'. . ,
..;; ?. .~.y.:3 Wi***du;r ;. ,;*'*?9lWl$
j 2" I t us v ,
[N A.
~w .@ e a, 3 #..qa 1 w -
t
.w.v.x . 'x , . b 4*A. Y H N.,3 d
4 > $, 4 Y? s. l? "
f4W3
/ w. Q j y
, :n" f ; +.u:MM' %,m .e i
y i MTQ .. #
u_ _
'u-Wsw
', p
} ~-m Tm L,.. \ n,m.m , y <3 g .. . ym sm,,,,,,,m
. %mn a,,
,,;,5C' .: -%;
n .n 4
4 i .dQy a ,' _ ey ..
g
- a. > e t ..
_ m.s i %..,.m % 4.. p j ^(j. wn. .: $.' w..o.o.e.p
-r 4
.,j m.;p g
- 9 9,<.p.wouyg _
- nyfqjQg+g. x~-~ 4.*.,sdj > y vYM%; w O-av 4
l yp a
4 m e.w som.,, m,
.< ~: yw. nix, m,- . . , .
$ , . .m.1 &:
1
.: &-k n h
~ m . w ., , .- .. m.
- >-~..
} ~com 4he.es,,a$.+#
Su .ot., e lg .
._a Y
4 1
1 i* ...v.,%,.,g.y.. ,,,,
, . , , e
..r . e.ggn, .n,- y;, y.gwy?;,ffg.tf;g , , .. , , _ .N?$k ? Yf,.f $/* ';"i i ,
,f 'YY Y
,. l- a , Q fffl)^~.
'~ . . fa
, 6di gM j%$ $ $b p D Mom'ew & g,g. ,
! 4Q%a@m$w. %j
- +1 h w .ycast gi .~. kgu u$n.[=g@.g~
A .6,.:.+w eWew De. t nm s,,p g_hfMfM J4 m,., aag Pr a.,w.p,FrwYS.q.'m". " 0
,.o*, .
Q Q5fS k, ,d.3st
' ue .
t e g $Wi & g a m e n'% Q Q f M ~ '
MtBYctV ~
I
.a i
i,4$@'is%$W
% 3 4%q' &
$$y*k.U -
%v4?W@M: %QW ;h il ; @%?8d :WQ5% W 9:
w~
. kpW $ Mik;M%n.a~
m t'[ .-'m~O$$$t M ,
., w w:a r -
s O d 5 M: a h$$*,d29 y ) / A1TA f aut '
f l YW *** .... . ,e .' e . e. ,
n I ,
b
- m. k yY /
- f. ' d&Q ,
J. .f .R.3.m
! ~
. -VAf~' ;*@,s%w Y -
% 1 i
.e i
e <
<p:ct '>
t /***** e
. .':;,t
- x
- .~.++ < s >M.*
, q.5
}
1
~#:
I l- .m gnl/;i
, ~m:::a v px.+
,, v ,a age,;y n-o n:
4ps
'?'^%"'
=
<, f,,J ,
pc.e
(
A,lf#3dw&g%%s.e;id.
l .
ht - '
.- sa.usm A*d*hu f ' , .
f
- 3 I %Tshh61pm, s .,~ , .
,g;Mw5 .
w N - , U$bv r i
?. ' e' ~~ w k9.
o u:y s.qww[rh[s?,h y ..
E s
l
'***'N*s*q?;;
e - -- Tlt. y '
! > f.s 1 m .:.J,v~Mx.am.i ,m.g., # .
N c .# .e ,' +
0,.9M
'i@'. e[D@k,jw:
d '
",Re., O An- :h.P.9*%***4.#,' I * /
"n V 'Q i,
fojM. YfTN M N.
j.Li'& .
,~~
'n a ' R ' N QMif7%
f
'..N qfl%
- ,, f',.*~ * ,
Q$ 7
- g@_.y #,,,Af.;.,-l % %_kQ)avengdy.p_QpqQ'.y a+A* Q.ge%
?fj% 47 g ....
- t. w .,
j ~ ' ?p^ /',. ' ,n
- l . g 8-
,rr m.w.m M*. w . .'Snelling
~ ,,o< *
, , u
}
,** l,9 u} %saQ
.% m:bn': k j
" i > x. ca a -
lEl
- 1 o,I '***w,,, ,
L*$ p.o d.y, enNg$f Q ,
wm tg o' /, ,
f ,f" i
. 6 s~ .
7%{f".q i$
.k;: ~. x 70kg; 2
- ~ ,e
/ I-/
o .,
,/
%_ 1.r.eu n.. .t.;
M.
sw w.
F* /
?
f:#.,t- ,.
{
l E "sp .S
,.P: g
- h f ,
-f 15 t
~i "ANukgn:a
$ FEY 50$h
<- *-* @W t
upyy;n .
f ,
- / , { ' yhmp'WQIE wpm .
h
/ ,"'Steescreek faut w%gEh
,,s[/
j *
,/'~,
MJ
(
l dk+-%%m;;k s. ~k 9 T 1 /
3 ;n$h'g; *
' ,w.,g*M 9 -
. a. s.
wh
, t, je' i 1 y,y . .m s
w l
f:hgbb? \ . t ^ "[D;'.d M M W3 k% \
i l t k!y!kih h
- wW ^
L%Wid.
j i N g\ tw #.y vi.w1
- ' n
- %
I I ,h.}L, II-
. ".w'do .+6 p
r-we
\g t
9((9.D',.X?l
%ATQ 03tc
- %I l
j
< sin .
g aw.7 ses e wa l *,.f,d. /
?
- . ).
- 4 m.c a.cdW Vf
-e p
- .M9*?!$j e +t -
\
i ~W ~ pg xq 1 H.T g $ yi++ n,L,;ca; .mm
[
g + mp.We ,.+pm w
. l Qff AW;n p@q q%% j jg.
i ;.y e w Rn
. ;j:q**"['*y h f
I% (
~.
- .YT.',f.J3fL g
1
-.mm M
!- W."
I'
! ..h cm.
w . ;;
~, -
i ~ ^ ' " "
?Qf&; +n vyc.w ~r$):t..
9 i,
w
'd;Q
<W" : b Nf4 e; kk,.
~
4
}
ajfm[g . -en N$s 5-) 6,p ??' M 2'; ' M y+ (. ' I : .$
~.N..
v4 "k%
.W.L.'N,yy 1 rpher
.7 = . mrum>e t gg.:J,,.
4 kuau umn ,
i
.:. t.g E a M,.M @.g ww%W Mi'
er~ > gg-n..N'
- . n.;w+.,.x,,',w .(,,gyhm sei. .t .t., ter l t
l l
~
(
SUMMARY
TO THIS POINT 1
i
- There does not appear to be new information that requires further evaluation at Level 2 or 3 L
- Nonetheless, new seismic source interpretations have been developed that are i very different from the interpretations i
, produced in the LLNL s.tudy
!
- The NPR becomes an interesting case to evaluate whether the site ground motion i hazard has changed l
l-h l
SUMMARY
TO THIS POINT
!
- There does not appear to be new information j that requires further evaluation at Level 2 or 3 i
t l e Nonetheless, new seismic source I interpretations have been developed that are j very different from the interpretations '
i produced in the LLNL study l
l 3
The NPR becomes an interesting case to j evaluate whether the site ground motion hazard has changed l
l 3
i ,
i i
- ^
u .Eh 4 M. m.4%m3__J._a.. ,4.s+44- 4- 44MAAEd 4 43h _.mJa-. .AS- A AA
- m. e- (--. J A -JE } 4 a 42A 4.ca4 m J M 4 4 Au.
3 e
l .
i (n # 4_.
t 3 f\
1
)
4 4 At N
U *
, j 9,A ^
~
+
p - -
) /.
bI N
~
z e
a -
g -
N L 7
d ,
N M
(
l N l R
Q\
~
NUMARC 1
. ~ . . . ~ , - . w- - ..w. ~_.u-.a_.--w. a . . . - . a.-~ .n. .n - . . . ~ ~ . . - ... - - . . . ., . _ . .
k 4
1 2
e E
v
' m e, to.
S
. v som .
W Q. '
Z .
{ **""*u, s -
s..
- s. .
.L. k '.* I
- &, h h' . -
.. .s .
..*gg ..**
jg ..*
".t,..*"a= .
- w , , ' . , - " ..
v ,.9 'e - ,
..... .6",. ,.e*
. y. .-
)
,s \ t...
. . i. .
. r .'
.. g ., .
- .# . s, .t .*
.....r,,,,, ,.........e.
. . .. r;, ,
r .
A ....e.. gg . ...a .'. .
1
..--e,,....
g i
r .. i s s
,, ..oi.S.v "t ...-
.1
.s s
L %.
+
1
-: - . v.
.,,e r%-r-c.~.- i i 9.. 1
-a .. -,\ . ~ .i . . .w - 4 . . . .. . - o ;/ .
-g
\ .: t i .
i.: ,
- g. i .
- r'
~*~~. i ..
I $
.e.i " -
1*""
' -f~,,,,,,.6- . .
~~%
- ~
k~ ,
I.
.~.r. ,
i ...:
y,;H ',, '5. 1 - - og, L. + i.-- (r ,, i ;
t y v~ . q ,
- ~
5 t ,. .
}, s ---- . .
}.
. e- ..---"**'
., i .
- 5- t .._, ==-
=t .
w}-
i
- .i 1 . ** e gg , , . . . .--*"*+'
i i
h ;-
p i " i -ar,*.;. W5 " .-
. -- i "d. ;
I g
} .
p-- -"
' - i ;
_, . . ; [ e . M"* *
.f '
- $ ; ; y 1 a . - - - - * -
1.d b .
e i.
- - h L
/i. 7-- ~g l N,g :1 .
j
! . ..' . ..i . .-.-
- a, -***T -
-.n. ,-
d .
. , -. ._ . / .- .-
-s .
'p* ,
.m , ,<.~~,~ a.- 7 , ue, ,- . . . . . . . . . . . - . .
-y; A r. r .
i --
~~ O{ - -- - i. . i,- 4
@~~.!f-- .{....-T)ap...
4 t-- +jr-36 l . .-..:. .- r- - .--
- w. i w
1 ...
- n. .
...**.~... .. ,,, ,, ; - ; .v- s.,
7 . . ... ..-- ,, . ..1 .?--)' -.d . . , ,,,,,- (,- %
. ~ . .
....a.....,.+ . ..;.-... .,
~"~~~........
A. 4144 e u.M a .4 eme .mi .b rInmm..meO&mE. e -> LMeaaa 4. .=m4,as.N en A =4.<a u.aMh-*.L- 24 2 .ip 44 5 4AA,a.M i t.4-hs 44. N 4.4 4 m.au A rar di JB 3M 44 w a- diaJu s A..a.metas 4;4,4-m atJ-.deazaam 4a._--hst,mk,Jie-as l
i 8
i
-l i
l
- t ,
. /
- i / '. + ,
M w ,\ 1 s %-
ge l e * / j l O*
W '
'y'
$ d'l, ,
f ,
~ - - ~ ~ -
zd_- '
! k
/ -
/ h .
j 1
s - / e\ - s, ,j 1 ,
I
/ '
!__)/_N _ _i I \
3
\ ;
l 1 4 i l
( i 1M l , s fnj# .
l l l j
- ,4~ l
_ _ _. _ _ _ _ _d I
._ _ _._ _ m ._ ~
l I / I ,
l / \
[
I 4 I
l r i
}
I -e. V, 1 4
/ .N ._ _ _I _._
~ ___4____ I-1 i
7I - ,
i l
l 1 l 8
i I
l N l l s
,1- - - - _ I __ _ _ _ _ . _'
!-i T. ! _
fv I i V ! E, e
ll NUMARC
dr l EVALUATION OF NPR SITE i
l Level 3: Evaluation of new data and
- interpretations in terms of the SSE i
j --
Evaluate whether expert j assessments in NPR study are l l consistent with original LLNL study 1 l results -
j ,
l Some difficulty in making
]
comparisons at PSV 5 and 10 hz :
i
- 1. Different attenuation models and soil factors
- 2. Lower-bound magnitude of 3.75 rather than 5.0 was used NUMARC
a' LLNL/USNRC - NPR COMPARISON FOR SRS i
i 4
i
) LLNL 104 Level
- Ground ;
Motion Average Std.. Dev. NPR Range l
Measure -
- PGA (g) 0.20 0.05 0.08 ~0.24 i !
l l l PSV - 5 Hz 11.2 4.6 2.8 -11.9 (cm/sec) ;
- PSV - 10 Hz 4.7 1.54 1.84 - 9.2 .
l (cm/sec) i
?
l I
NUMARC 1
i~
SUMMARY
l i
l i !
l 1
l
- Each expert represents an applicants assessment of the site SSE. Thus we have 9 trials
- Results - at the 95 percent confidence level PGA - 9 experts fall within study results PSV i5.0 Hz) - 9 experts fall within study i results PSV i:10 Hz? - 8 experts fall within study
- results
- Conclude - existing study is consistent with i new information i
- 2 j O
SUMMARY
l e Stability of the seismic siting process is derived from:
acceptance by the USNRC staff and the industry of the broad range of existing EUS seismic source interpretations use of the median hazard curve as the basis to determine the SSE e Direct, formal consideration of the significance of .,
site-specific information in the assessment of the SSE NUMARC
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _