ML20141C175
| ML20141C175 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/28/1992 |
| From: | Shao L NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20007G200 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-57FR47802, RULE-PR-100, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-52 AD93-1-105, NUDOCS 9705160183 | |
| Download: ML20141C175 (3) | |
Text
. o- <
l
- ,- p ;
^
l 1
i j
[7590-01] l i
1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I 4
l Revision of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission j
8 ACi10N: Notice of meeting.
1
) SlHiARY: - The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with the staff of the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC) and other industry j representatives to discuss the revision of Appendix A, " Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants," to 10 CFR Part 100.
DATE: June 17, 1992 1:00 PM ADDRESS: 11555 Rockville Pike Room: IF7/9 Rockville, Maryland J FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Andrew J. Murphy, Chief, Structural and Seismic Engineering Branch, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Nuclear Regulatory Commission,. Washington, DC 20555. Telephone: (301) 492-3860.
n SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATI0ll:
t Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 describes the seismic and geologic siting 1
and earthquake engineering criteria for nuclear power plants. Because of the advances in the state-of-the-art since the publication of the regulation-(effective December 13,1973), a need for the revision has been established.
Staff progress in the revision of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 has been dis-cussed in public meetings with NUMARC and other industry representatives on February 4, 1992 and April 23, 1992, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safe- 1 guards, Subcommittee on Extreme External Phenomena on February 5,1992 and the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, Full Committee on February 7, 1992.
The purpose of this meeting is to meet with NUMARC and other industry i 183 970422 g5, '
50 57FR47802 PDR
l.
o
. 1 i
representatives to discuss industry recommended alternatives to the draft proposed revision of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 that was placed in the NRC l Public Document Room at 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC l (Memorandum from Lawrence C. Shao to Raymond F. Fraley, dated January 21, 1992,
Subject:
Revision of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 - Geological and Seismological Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants). No specific agenda l 1s being proposed.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28 day of May,1992, for the Nuclear :
Regulatory Commission.
l
~
Lawrence C. Shao, Director Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research l
i 1
1 8
k
y f;e.g28548 -
- Federal Register./W:1.47eNo.108 /Jhursd:y,:Jttn3. 4,1992, h Propose'd: Rules >
) f?:& . - ,
(* % insure that enimals intInded cr e ff; red t Vet:rinarh.n-in-Charge.informalE .NUCt.EARREGU1.ATORY5s.cVMM 'A f for export..to foreign countries are free , 'cbnferences may be held by telephop6.
- COMMISSION - */e WW N.h h from disease, the Administrator mayu (b) Prior to, during. or at therWm . m em 3 e w:@wC i Qm suspend the accreditation of such t., ,n M
conclusion of the informal coaference,%
. veterinadan pending final determination the Veterinarian-in-Charge may issue a .
10 CFR Part 100 n - e e. J e.f NM was.W j M_ ,
in the proceeding, effective upon oral or ' written warning to the accredited . C
~
Revision of Appendix A i'd NW
- p vrritica notification, whichever is veterinarian without further procedure r - '. o .~
p earlier,la the event of oral notification, after determining that a warning with > AGE 46CY: Nuclear Regulatory . , . " , -
6 'a written confirmation thereof shall be . appropriate inst.uctions will be * ' ' Commission. ? m -
t1 mwd (
. given to such veterinarian pursuant to adequate to attain compliance with the . AcTio#c Notice of meeting. '3-Q h ':. 11.147(blof the Uniform Rules of
- a Practice (7.CFR 1.147(b)) as promptly as standards.
"N5 ' *c " ' '
p fp; circumstances permit. Such suspension (c) If prior to,'d'u' ring'io' r atht' e " " ^ ' suassaARY: The Nuclear'Regulathry"-d".
conclusion of, the informal conference.- Commission staff will meet with the :
p,, shall have no relevance with respect t th the accredited veterinandconsents,in- staff of the Nuclear Management n'ndL?
J' nel determination in the , writing, to the issuance of an order Resources Council (NUMARC)'and p
h t .' ., . ' M ,, , ' f. revoking or sus'peiiding his or her ! ' . other industry representatives to gliscuss .
g ,
g g. wh.e.\ ggg , .. . , . . . accreditation for a specified period of the revision of Appendix A, Seismic;.
and Geologic Siting Criteria.for Nuclear
!4 time, in lieu of furtherprocedure, the L .
- C [.*INVeterinarian-in-Charge.s hall , . Veterinarian-in-Charge may issue such a Power Plants." to)0 CFR part 100. .gc .
an a ted eter
( ( J accr'ellited eterinarian has not.,
n when w:
consent order without further procedure. parss: June 17,1992.1 p.m.
(d) If prior to.' ApoRessss:, 11555 N.hi g L Rockville Pik'egddaf.'
ini nnal confere,during,'or nce, but WoHoafter the " the &
l[
.i
. complied with ths " Standards for ,
AccreditedVeterinarians" as contained . Issuance of a formal compliant, the * .1F7/0,Rockville,
, , ,,, g y T
Maryland.3 0'pg.S 9 d; . . , .in l 101.3 of this chapter. The accredited veterinarianis found not to "
Dr. Andrew J. Murphy, Chief, Stru'eturaI' '
y ~ notification shall be in writing. with a have violated the regulations, the tj and Seismic Engineering Branch. Office Veterinarian-in-Charge will issue a
- k. N ?5 ;l. copy Official. to the and State shallinclude Animala' Health statement of letter dismissing the case, and provide a of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Nuclear F Regulatory Commission. Washington,~'
M*'
i 'the basis for the belief that the copy of the letter to the accredited
' accredited veterinarian has failed to veterinarian and to the State Animal DC 20555. Telephone:(301) 492-3800, 'l ith ths standards and shall . Health Official. Prior to, during or after I#
. comply riotify th w'e' accredited veterinarian the if theinformal conference, the' suppt.anssNTARY Appendix A to 10 CFR part 100 WFORetATIOft C[N,',
,' Veterinarian-in-Charge has arranged to Veterinarian-in-Charge ma"y issue a describes the seismic and geologic siting hold an informal conference to discuss~
letteridentifying actions of the- and earthquake engineering criteria for the matter. accredited veterinarian that werem' inor nuclear power plants. Because of the I^ 4 '
violations of the standards, instructing advances in the state-of the-art since the 5 162 12 Informal conference. the accredited veterinarian in proper publication of the regulation (effqctive
, ' (a) The Veterinarian-in-Charge, in procedures. and admonishing the December 13.1973), a need for the' s consultation with the State Animal accredited veterinarian to use greater revision has been established. Staff o Health Official and the accredited care in performing these procedures in progress in the revision of appendix A to
.' veterinarian, shall designate the time the future. Issuance of three or more 10 CFR part 100 has been discussed in and place for the holding of an informal letters of dismissal citing incidents of public meetings with NUMARC and
[L conference to review the matter, unless minor violations by an accredited other industry representatives on k the Veterinarian-in-Charge determines veterinarian may be cause for more February 4.1992 and April 23.1992, the h Advisory Committee on Reactor that an informal conference is not severe action under this section and appropriate. An informal conference is l 161.4. Safeguards. Subcommittee on Extreme not appropriate only in the Veterinarian- External Phenomena on February 5,1992
!- in Charge decides to dismiss the case i 162.13 Format comptaint. and the Advisory Committee on Reactor based on available facts, or if civil or if a consent order has not been issued. Safeguards. Full Committee on February criminal charges based on the actions or 7. m2.
or if. after an informal conference, the II "
t da afor c re i e Veterinarian-in-Charge has not issued a ,The purpose of this meetingis to meet letter of dismissal or letter of warning to with NUMARC and other mdustry Veterinarians" contained in i 161.3 of the accredited veterinarian, a formal representatives to discuss industry this chapter are pending against the accredited veterinarian. An informal complaint may be issued by the recommended alternatives to the draft a
conference shallinclude the Administrator in accordance with proposed revision of appendix A to 10
- . Veterinarian-in-Charge or his or her i 1.135 of the Uniform Rules of Practice CFR part 100 that was placed in the representative, the accredited (7 CFR 1.135). NRC Public Document Room at 2120 L
{l Street NW. (Lower Level). Washington.
veterinarian, and any other persons the Done in washington. DC, this 1st day of Veterinarian-in-Charge requests to June 1992 DC (Memorandum from Lawrence C.
attend due to their involvement in or Shao to Raymond F. Fraley, dated Rot rt Melland* january 21.1992.
Subject:
Revision of
, knowledge of the possible violation.The State Animal Health Official will be Admin **. Anim I ndM nWealth appendix A to 10 CFR part 100- -
In8P*C'i n SCTVIC8- Geological and Seismological Siting invited to attend each informal conference held regarding activities in [FR Doc. 92-dog 8 Filed 6-3-92. 8.45 am) 6 Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants). No l his or her State. At the discretion of the sm.o coos u+uw specific agenda is being proposed.
3 5
p aso gjfd 9g UNITED STATES l+ *[;3 #[} ' p, E
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 Apoj 3 -)
8 iP P R l
/ l j
SEP 8 1992 l
)
l l
MEMORANDUM FOR: Lawrence C. Shao, Director Division of Engineering, RES 1 FROM: Andrew J. Murphy, Chief Structural & Seismic Engineering Branch
- Division of Engineering, RES
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF PUBLIC MEETING ON THE REVISION OF APPENDIX A,
" SEISMIC AND GE0 LOGIC SITING CRITERIA FOR NUCLEAR POWER ;
PLANTS," TO 10 CFR PART 100 l
On July 10, 1992, the NRC staff met with the staff of the Nuclear Management I and Resources. Council (NUMARC) and other industry representatives to discuss the proposed revision of Appendix A, " Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for ;
Nuclear Power Plants," to 10 CFR Part 100. A public meeting notice appeared !
l in the Federal Reaister on June 17, 1992, Vol 57, page 27006. Enclosure 1 is a list of attendees. l The meeting, scheduled at the request of NUMARC staff, was a follow-up to !
meetings held on April 23 and June 17, 1992. The discussion focused on l Proposed Appendix B, " Criteria for the Seismic and Geologic Siting of Nuclear
- Power Plants After [ Effective Date]," to Part 100 and the supporting draft <
l regulatory guide DG-1015.
I opened the meeting by stating that the staff had briefed the Comissioners i on June 24, 1992 on SECY-92-215, " Revision of 10 CFR part 100, Revisions to 10 CFR part 50, New Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 100 and New Appendix S to 10 CFR Part 50," dated June 12, 1992. The only staff guidance received to date was a staff requirements memorandum (SRM) pertaining to the briefing. The extension of the public coment period from 90 to 120 days was the only Appendix A related change. No guidance on other changes or coments pertaining to the letter from Byron Lee, Jr. (NUMARC) to the Chairman have been received. A SRM on SECY-92-215 will be issued later.
l The meeting was then turned over to Raymond Ng and John Butler, NUMARC, and Carl Stepp, EPRI, (member of the Ad Hoc Comittee) to present to the staff the integrated seismic siting approach recomended by industry. At the June 17 i
meeting the staff indicated that the approach introduced by industry represen-tatives had merit and encouraged its development. A more detailed description of the approach and example results were presented by Dr. Stepp. Their vugraphs are included as Enclosure 2. Attendees were informed that written documentation of their position would be required prior to obtaining formal staff comment.
d 9207E72736R
SEP 8 1992 ,
- l l
At the end of the meeting industry representatives indicated that they would ;
continue with their methodology development and perform additional calcula-tions. They also stated that another meeting would probably be warranted.
Andrew J. Murphy, Chief '
Structural & Seismic Engineering Branch
! Division of Engineering, RES
Enclosures:
As stated
! cc: R. Ng, NUMARC l R. Bosnak, RES l T. King, RES C. Ader, RES G. Bagchi, NRR o N. Chokshi, RES R. Rothman, NRR R. McMullen, RES 4'RrJKenneally',TRESW P. Sobel, NRR
, A. Ibrahim, NMSS
! PDR ;
1 1
i l
Endosm 1.
uY y )D 196'T
)
c V o Inc N e e 1% 9 Ssson d hve ky/ %l I o cHe A.- + 1 co.
l N% Afb }M o-Ser V, dene~lI'y miec. l rws M e Tk Clo./<Shi NPCf1265 AsJre v NuJL A/& c.//Pss G arc 0 3 vns-c , Ruae c k h AleLmtAL
%1 dw m aL srm aer aJ xm/k weyxa M u ro v>w ~e ma R bx. a g._
]Ina c. ]EMz WAl d C
]Cel Gyd c *1 kNN b 6NIAws.bl %$ -
Eve M4 Adar 4c 6w .setcszas1}c YmT /(
a_u u _ s u ,f ,m Joy /T Cm/ /VMC//1=3=.s Gourgst /3nGcN1 Mc/wg
, essecq seeed bass h m m k'c b w W */
- 4424a4 ha:/ges
Enc.los m 2.
l l
Seismic Siting Rulemaking 10 CFR Part 100 l Presentation on Development of Integrated Seismic Siting Decision Process i
l l
3
' NUMARC/NRC Meeting l
Washington, DC July 10,1992 4
i 1
4
l Scope of Presentation i
1 1
l l
l l e Overview of Intregrated Decision Process l
e Required Deterministic investigations and Evaluations i .
l l
e Preliminary Results from Test Calculations l
l I
.i I NUMARC 4 1 f
Operating Guidelines (
l i
j e Existing seismic sources and parameters are l an adequate basis for assessing SSE ground j motions in EUS i.
e On a site-by-site basis a confirmatory
- assessment must be performed given an l up-to-date site-specific earth science database i t
I i l j e Existing seismic sources are accepted for !
! determining a site's SSE ground motion
! unless shown to be inappropriate on a l
[ site-by-site basis
- l l
5 NUMARC 2
i .
4 Integrated Approach - Objective
[ i i
j l i
i
- Provide guidelines that assure a fully i up-to-date site-specific earth science data base will be obtained for each site 1
- Provide a fully integrated procedure to determine a site's SSE ground motion that uses recent advances and the site specific data base NUMARC 3
- a. .. - . . - . - . - . . - ~ - _ - _ . . _ ~ - - _ - . - ~ . _ . _ . .. . . . - - - - _ . . . . . . .
Sie and Sie Region '
Geologic. E_.;-A@ and Earth Science Datatme INTEGRATED APPROACil GQyM trweeligatien ;
i i 1f i
Up-to-Dete Earti Sdence naamh==. l i
f 1f EPFEALNI. Products f Integrated Evah*
Conermetion of EPFWAltA. Seismic Sources and Conduct Seismic Seistmc Hazard: M. D !
pnh, % > Parameters are n> Hazard Ame=== ment > For the Total Hazard and ;
N by Source-by-Source o Data '
o Seismic Source" 4_^ ' ' -
j o Median Site Hazeerd 1f i I ,
1r Determine Site SSE A
Ste-p Ground Motion Based Update of Salemic on the Reference Probatulity .
V ,
Sta.-- ;-#w Spectrum ;
i i
i OR l y Se spamum ,
I Scale RG.1.60 Scale Spectrum Shape Spedrum Based on EUS Ground .
Motion Model: PGA PGV j c
I m________ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___
1
!' Site-Specific Database I i 4
4 i
i e Develop a comprehensive, state-of-the-art
- data base for the site 4
i EPRI data base j-Detailed investigations within 8 and 40 kilometers of the site Regional review and update 1
NUMARC 5
INTEGRATED APPROACH TO EVALUATING SEISMIC l SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION
( ) f 3 SMs and Saa Regenal Geolood. Geoonyse and Earth Soonce l Se'smo*0ical imes*4abon Database
( i
) L i
J l
i f
l Lewee 1 i se Conduct EPRl/L1NL
$",,0*3 ,
Yes Seismic Hazard Assessment wwn semyLLNL Eare soonee %
OsanDase?
k A r , !
I EPRl/L1NL Seisme Sources, Seismicsty Parameters, and Mammum MaOnaude l J
=
o ,
CO
.--- Loves a g ==e.
The easie For. N0 1.Ll se.em.c souroos
- **?mWa~srumNSe O
M u g
- > f 1 Q Seismic Sourese J Seismecry Parameters O and Maximum Magnitude
,C Based on New Data M
(13 ( ) "
Q t y f 7 f l
~
C conduct Seismic Hazard EPRl/LLNL Seismic Assessment For tw Sne Hazard Assessment For tie Sao k J U J 4 1 f 7 I pm 3 Products Expert Median Hazard Median Hazard ResuRs ResuRs E D. Composhe u Q,D Compoone
- Souros 8y Source
! y . Source By-Source l
Q ) Level 3 k J Mazard seed on
.. E A We.i.. a,.L, 9 No r m l
Site M Update of S+itmc L =J 4
[ .
l~ Integrated Evaluation i
i l -
i e Assess consistency of new site and site region data and interpretations with existing source characterizations Level 1: consistency of each site-specific data set with existing data set Level 2: consistency of new data with the range of interpretations incorporated .
in existing multiple seismic source characteriza~tions Level 3: consistency of the EPRl/LLNL median hazard with an estimate of the hazard based on seismic sources modified by new data or interpretation NUMARC 7
3 Potential New Data 1
- t and Interpretations l l l i !
I l l
- Microearthquake data 1 i :
t l
- M > 5 Earthquake l
l
- Geologic Evidence of Quaternary Seismic l Activity I
- Geophysical or Seismological Evidence of l Active Faulting
- New Concepts of Tectonics and Earthquake i Source Characterization l
- Geodetic Measurements
- In-site Stress Measurements NUMARC 8
i Level 1 Evaluation of New Data i
l e Compare each new data set with equivalent data set from EPRI data base i
e Assess differences in spatial patterns, deformation rates, relationships to significant i earthquake activity, etc.
1 e Perform quantitative evaluations as appropriate e If no unexpected differences, use existing source characterizations
! NUMARC l
't Level 2 Evaluation of New Data and Interpretations l
l l
l
- Evaluate the implications of significant new data on existing interpretations of seismic source characterizations l
e Assess if implicaticas are adequately bracketed by the range of data or interpretations considered by existing alternative seismic source characterizations alternative seismic source boundaries
! -- alternative maximum magnitudes alternative recurrence rates or models perform quantitative evaluations as appropriate e If no significant implications to existing seismic source characterizations, use existing i sources i
NUMARC 10 l
l
j l
1 Level 3 Evaluation Of New Data
- and Interpretations !
i i
j e If new data and interpretations cannot be i shown to be adequately addressed by existing seismic source characterizations at Level 2,
! compare hazard computed using existing
! seismic sources to hazard based on :
i consideration of seismic sources based on '
new data or interpretation i
i
!
- Compare derived median hazard with median i hazard based on existing seismic sources i
i 4 t
l 4
! 1 l
1 l NUMARC l
i 11 l;
- . - - - - l
1 Example Results l 4 l b
4 s
- Site median hazard '
1 l
- Magnitude / distance distribution at SSE ground i motion i
- Composite and source-by-source M bar, !
i D bar l 4
l I
- Seismic source contribution to the composite i hazard i
i e SSE response spectrum i
i l
l l
i i
j NUMARC
. 12 4
~ .
SITE MEDIAN IIAZARD/SSE GROUND MOTION 0.1
/ 10 bz 5 hz Avg.
t O ---O-------G-----
0.01 --- --
I
.h 0.001
'e - -
- =
.O : ', ,
gg -
.O 0.0001 m O s
- ~'...-
0- k 'g - - - -
,c'...c 1E-05
=-
(O :
~ . .,' ' ,
3 ,
c _
-A ,
c 1E-06 - - .. ,M.'J -
u - - - -
( =
. . . . . , . . .g .
. . _ . .. - e... ..'
1E-07 - ,,
- ., -/s i
' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' t 1E-08 0 10 20 30 . 40 50 Spectral Velocity (cm/sec.) ,
- -~ - - - --~ - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
1 i
i PGA !
1
! 1
\ /
- //
\ 50- //
45-
\ //
l ? 40-l//
h 35-l//
\ 2 30- l//
- e l 2 25- ///
l h 20-l//
E 15-l//
0 M,M M I
$ 10' 5-
/l/M/
/ /M /M /M /M /M /M /5.5-6.0
/M /M A0-6.5
.0-5.5 l
C l*0-20! "50./M 20- 50-100 ' 100-150 /M /M ' />6.5
>150 j
Distance (km)
\
d Distance (km) i Maanitude 0-20 20-50 50-100 100-150 >150 All Dists.
j 5.0-5.5 79.1 20.4 , 0.2 0.0 0.0 99.7 5.5-6.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 l
! 6.0-6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
! <6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
! All Mags. 79.1 20.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 i
i i
I l
4
)
i l 1-Hz PSV i
! / .
$ //
//
I 100 !//
l 90-
!// -
k 80-f/ /
! h 707 //
9 60- !//
, .6 50-!//
b 40-!//
I O 30-!// .0-5.5 i
i F 'n0- // .5-6.0 i 10-
/ .0-6.5 i C
/ ' '
/ .
6.5 0-20 20-50 50-100 ' 100-150 ' >150 Distance (km) i Distance (km)
Magnitude 0-20 20 50 50 100 100-150 >150 All Dists.
l 5.0-5.5 . 3.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 5.5-6.0 0.0 0.0 O.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 6.0-6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.2 3.0
}
i <6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 92.5 92.8 i
! All Mags. 3.8 0.3 0.1 2.1 93.7 i
i 1
i l
l IS
Illustrative Application !
Midwest Site Ground Parameter M D (km) Motion Level PSV (5-10) 5.3 30 8.45 cm/sec PGV* 6.8 170 8 cm/sec I
PGA 5.3 20 0.22 g i
- PSV (1.0 hz) used 1
NUMARC lb
(
i SSE Response Spectrum i
i l
i i
- Scale Regulatory Guide 1.60 spectrum to PSV (5-10 nz) e Develop site-specific spectrum i
i NUMARC 11
I
?
- Comparison of Alternative Spectra at a NPP Site in the Midwest
100 _
o '
9 20 yy s,
- ' '~ :
E 10 -- .-
v C) :
[
5
....'-~
Q .t' o
~
O_ '
O 2 -- ------ - - -
>>.4
g j _
......_....'f......._........_...
w -
e -
O 0.5
^
m .
t Q- ~
0.2 --- ,
I l I ' l ' ' ' ' :
I ' ' ' '
0.1 0.03 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 1 0.02 Period (Seconds) i
Comparison of Alternative Spectra at a NPP .
Site in the Midwest
- 100 _
~
50 - - - - - - -- -
n -
O Spectrum based on PGA M,R 2.0E-5 UHS .
m 20 - scaled to PGA 2.0E-5 value s
m s.
E g 10 --
v : -
,s.
~
.e_
S
_...---,-7"g,[,,_...,,,..._...-...-~~~-.._,___,~'~~..~..'~'
~
o o i - *'. ~.
/
~
O - '.
3 g / ../.. ,,.
- r
//
/ ,.
E
/ Spectrum based on 1 hz M,R
'o /[__ scaled to 1 hz 2.0E-5 value m o*5
- / ,
Q. ~
@ I 0.2 - - -
9 I ' I ' ' ' ' I I ' I ' '- ' '
0.1 O.02 0.03 0.05 .I 01 0.2 0.3 0.5 1 t
Period (Seconds)
s v i M IO 15 $ 1
)
r3 LO n. Mee]% 9 .
15 s c., -
hfhhh / b /OCES h.~[ Iso:-
N% 4fAL J ,-
herW,bened1 mize l ran
'9
$ e 5' k C10kOi N Rc_. / $65 AsJre v A%pL, pp c.//pg s Ga<0 0 3vrec- Ru wn,i.t_ i AU intAf--
N!:, .
M Co. - mA l 6na Sree ener l o&A Mas ~, nyxa (h M i M ia u) A u A- w e m x)
.Tm bw u g,m fna c. ]Ev37 z. WAl 4.C "I
Gel Gyd c hNr4 biGNI AWSl(_.,1 %6 N Sk
- ckN A.dbnb5 ow Sfdd/bWsds YAva:r / .
D ~ a e tA m S x c , 3 ~:.. c .
fera /? C#EW /VMC/4'd= g G007A49 bWN E W N C,(2EEA.l D/#SE CUSSEth
& s \t h s & A) ksh 24a4 h RClRES
_