ML20236A007
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:.. b-
- ww.
ou.m. ua.
- a. o tg-35y5 UNITED STATES GOVEKNMENT Memorandum To
- Harold L. Price DATE:
JAN 15 1968 Director of Regulation FROM
- Milton Shaw, Director Division of Reactor Development & Technology
SUBJECT:
COM2NIS ON REVISED DRAFI 0F " SEISMIC AND GE0IDGIC SITING AND DESIGN CRITERIA FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS", DATED OCTOBER 17, 1967 RDT:NS:094 This memorandum transmits our comments on the subject draft. Our principal comments with supporting discussion are presented in Attachment 1. These were summarized briefly for the ACRS Seismic Subcommittee on November 30, 1967. A list of additional suggestions for changes or clarifications of the text is included in Attachment 2. Although these latter items are generally desirable, they are not considered as vital to the final form of the criteria as those presented in Attachment 1. Our comments on earlier drafts have been communicated to the regulatory group by several staff discussions and by my memos of June 23, 1967 to E. G. Case and April 14, 1967 to you. Our main reservations concerning the feevious draft criteria were that (a) the general application of the limited data available on fault displacement / seismic magnitude relations derived from very specific geologic situations could result in overly restrictive requirements for displacement design being imposed upon many potential nuclear plant sites without necessarily contributing to the overall safety of a given plant or the conservation of its design. (b) the arbitrery procedure for defining a zone bordering faults beyond which reactor designs need not incorporate provisions for ground displacement due to faulting was unnecessarily restrictive. These comments are still applicable to the October 17 draft. In previous discussion be ween our staffs, we indicated that changes should be made to provide greater flexibility in application of the criteria to the varied but spec'fic conditions of the many possible sites. Although some changes 1 e been made along these lines, we are still of the opinion that furth-revisions or clarifications on these particular points and some others are necessary before the criteria can be adopted for completely general use without being overly restrictive in many situations, g4 gpqRe d 0ff D! f Fag. MNN Tim h - - ~ ~~ 9eth. ' Buy U.S. Savings Bonds Regularly fn the Payroll Savings Plan / 'of-1575 G710210331 871014 '-~ PDR FOIA SCHADRAG7-462 PDR sd i
r-q 4 Harold L. Price JAN 15 555 We recognize that the approach being taken in the proposed criteria is conservative on the basis that it may be necessary to compensate for presently incomplete understanding of many aspects of seismic behavior. Our concern is that the publication and application of criteria which are severely restrictive may well retard the reasonable development and application of nuclear power in certain areas of the United States. Related to this concern, a question might well be implied as to whether REG believes it reasonably possible at present to obtain sufficient in-formation at a specific site to demonstrate that the intent of the criteria are being met even though the detailed procedures and numbers included in the criteria are not specifically utilized. The complex nature of geo-scismic factors in the evaluation of nuclear plant siting, the present state of geo-seismic knowledge and its possible limited improvement in the near future, clearly emphasize, in our opinion, the essential need for flexibiliev in any criteria issued for. general appli-cation. Indeed, dev'elopment of guidelines, rather than criteria, would be more consistent with previous practices where such unknowns exist and with the present state of seismic and geologic knowledge. Accordingly before these criteria are published, I believe further steps must be taken to clarify key provisions as outlined in our comments and to include a stronger definition of the latitude and flexibility which will be per-missible in their application. This will also assist in assuring the proper use and application of the provisions of the criteria by the various parties that would be involved in the evaluation of a proposed-site. As suggested in my previous memorandum, I believe it important that the criteria be reviewed by several specially selected outside experts before they are released to the industry for comment, so that the total document will have the benefit of a range of expert, independent input. I under-stand such review is being considered. In this regard, as you know, we have taken some preliminary steps toward establishing a body of eminently qualified experts in the areas of geology, seismology, soils and structural design to perform certain advisory func-tions in connection with RDT's seismic R&D program. We would like to have members of this group assist in the continuing internal review of the proposed criteria. In any case, even if a panel of experts cannot be established early enough for a timely rev'ew, it appears essential that i individual outside experts be requested to evaluate the criteria prior to approval by the ACRS and prior to general publication for comment. As noted in my June 23 memo to Mr. Case, we would appreciate obtaining and being kept advised of REG's overall plan, and the opportunity to par'- ticipate in the further review and comment on the criteria, a k}
3 6' 11arold L. Price ' JAN l '5 --1338 : We are continuing to review the subject draf t and will.welcome the opportunity to discuss our comments with you. Attachments: 1. 11ajor RDT Comments 2. Additional Comments 1 l l l _l l l r ae
s... Attachment #1 l 1 Major RDT Comments on Provisions 'in the October 17, 1967 ) Draf t of " Seismic and Geologic Siting and Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants" 1. In defining the displacement-cone bordering a fault, the present draft pro-vides that the zone width be some arbitrary multiple of the maximum." fault-zone width" measured at any point along the fault trend within 25 miles of the nearest approach to the site. It appears that an attempt at providing flexibility in the draft is made by use of the words "unless definitive evidence proving a local departure from the characteristic habit of the fault system is demonstrated." However, we do not feel that this approach provides any effective flexibility. The wording of the entire section im-a plies that the maximum width (measured as described above) is in some way i the " characteristic habit", whereas it can be strongly argued that in many, l if not all cases, the actual local widths along the trend constitute the i characteristic habit. That is, the local width at any particular place on a fault zone is controlled by local conditions and is the characteristic ? habit of. chat particular part of the zone, whether wide or narrow. We be-I lieve that it would be more defensible to apply the multiplier to the local width rather than the maximum width. Otherwise, unnecessary restrictions l could be placed on the siting of reactors opposite portions of the fault zone that are narrow and relatively far removed from wider portions of the I zone. The multiplier values would, of course, ideally have to be chosen t by conservatively taking into abcount the variations or uniformity of the zone width, the uncertainties which can of ten arise in geologically defining l the basic fault zone itself, and the characteristic trends of the various individual faults and evidences of deformation (such as folds) within the l zone. The difficulty of choosing universally applicable multipliers which are not too restrictive is obvious, but whatever the value chosen it would more properly be applied to the local width. As an alternate approach to the draf t wording, we wou.ld suggest that the multipliers of Tabic 1 of the draf t be applied to the local width, provided that the resulting displacement-design zone is never less than either 1/4 mile or the maximum width of the fault zone within 25 miles of the sito (as described by the present draf t), whichever is larger. An applicant,would, of course, be required to perform definittve investigations to datormine and delineate the width of the zonc throughout the area of interest, as already required elsewhere in the criteria. This suggested approach would be consistent with the commonly held structural tenet that fault zones, once established in a particular regional stress field, are weak zones along and near which further movements, if any, will continue to be localized. Bonilla states concerning his survey of known faults: "Wtch one possible exception, the main faulting occurred. along faults that were or could have been identified beforehand by geologic means. The possible exception is the Sonora, Mexico faulting 1887, for which. data are incomplete." He states further, "One-third of the branch and secondary faulting covered in this l study is known to have occurred on pre-existing faults that could have been identified by simple geologic investigations; whether the other two-thirds l l l l .g
9 +.. 2 l I could have also is not known." These statements illustrate the likelihood that pertir.cnt faults can be detected and delineated by careful investiga-O tions. We believe that the provisions of Table 1, if'made applicable to .i the characteristics of a locaD segment o'f a fault, tempered by what has l been determined in detailed investigations, and with the minimums described above, will provide an effective, conservative and not unnecessarily restric-tive definition of the displacement design zone that is fully consistent with l recognized approaches to geologic investigation. It should be recognized that. these suggestions as well as chose of the draf t criteria involve certain somewhat arbitrary choices (e.g., the 25 mile ltmit) and other choices might just as reasonably be made in reaching a set of pro-visions which are defensible bue not overly roscrictive. For examplo, in areas where the fault zone is very clearly defined and any postulated fault l l extension can be confidently delineated, (a) lower multipliers than those in l l Table 1 might be justified or (b) the 25 mile limit for determining the maxi-j mum pertinent width of fault zone could be reduced so as to prevent the appli-l cation of maximum zone widths which might be' less defensibly relatable to the l
- site, j
l 2. We have been concerned that, once the magnitude of the design earthquake has j been determined, 'the maximum values of displac'ement for that magnitude (as indicated by Figure 1) would unavoidably be required as design conditions. Such usage could result in inappropri' ate application to an otherwise accept-able site, of known displacements which occurred in geologically dissimilar circumstances; the result might be the postulation of unnecessarily large l displacements which would also probably be unmanageable.from the design j i standpoint. In setting the value of displacement which must be' designed for within the displacement zone, p. 21 of the draf t now attempts to provide some flexibility for choosing other than the' maximum values indicated by Fig. 1, by permitting lower values to be used.if definitive regional and local data so indicate or if a demonstratable similarity exists bocween the site characteristics and those of specific cases,of lower displacement (presumably within the same magnitude rango) from Fig. l. However, as a practical matter, providing definitivo evidence of comparability of tho ' type required would appear an extremely difficult if not impossible task largely because it is difficult to completely define the geologic-seismologic conditions at the site in question as well as those of the localicios on which Fig.1 is based. ~ Consequently this attempt' to provide flexi.bility in the draf t could quite probably be without effect, unless specific'and reasonable standards defining the required degree of demonstration of comparability can also be included. Even if the required evidence could be supplied, it should be noted that, at best, flexibility will be limited by the fact that the lower displacements at a given magnitude are' generally exceeded by some cases of higher displace-ment at lower magnitude. Consequently, it would seem problematical that one could ever present completely convincing evidence. to justify use of the cases with the lowest displacements at any given magnitude. Even the. apparent flexibility to use the intermediate values of displacement for the higher earthquake magnitudes may not be significantly helpful, since these values migh't of ten require aseiscic designs which are.not economic (even though perhaps technically feasible). i 1 l
- 1
i . 6.1, ,f. s e s p. 3 Furthermore, any flexibility in using Fig. 1 might be limited by the pos-that sites with conditions similar to those of specific events sibility with displacement low enou'gh for relatively practical designs could well be located in areas where events of higher magnitude might be postulated For example, at a given site the from geologic and seismologic evidence. two events in dua 5-6 magnitude range might be considered unsuitable for ) design because of speculation about the possibility of events,of magnitude 6-7 occurring on "related" geologic systems. Thus, it could be difficult to justify the use of any of the lower displacement values by direct com-j parison with specific cases f rom Fig.1,_ even if suf ficient similarity could l Similarly, we question whether any flexibility which might l be established. have been provided by the new wording of Section III D.4 and D.5 is not im-l i l mediately overruled by the provisions of Section D.6 (not found in previous that interlock the fault-magnitude data with determination of the drafts), The data coints in Fig. I represent the only " design basis earthquake". information available now on faulting / magnitude relations and it is quite I likely that for a given site the required regional investigations could'so associate various related faults and tectonic structures that, by specula ' tive implications only, one would be forced to use the largest magnitudes as the " design basis earthquake" in choosing the multipliers from Table 1 Because of and the largest displacements for design purposes from Fig. L. the above uncertainties in the way the criteria are to be interpreted, some l clarification of the ficxibilities which are actually provided by the l criteria would appear desirable. It appears that what may be a confusion in terms is introduced by the cur-3. rent version of the criteria, (n that the words " design basis cartnquake", are used for both vibratory and faulting considerations but they may j (DBE), not necessarily be the same. For vibration, the DBE magnitude results from a survey and re-evaluation of historical _ quakes which have affected or la) may be construed to have af fected the site, (b) evaluation of related struc-tures and historical regional earthquake patterns and the assumed location l of epicenters of pertinent earthquakes at points on the structures nearest l the site, plus (c) regional evaluation of geologically active faults (it is if not clear whether only those f aults directly related to the local fault, l any, are to be considered and to what degree relocation of epicenters of l earthquakes related to distant regional faults must be relocated near the site if other or lesser f ault systems intervene or are nearer). For faulting, I on the other hand, the determination of DBE appears to depend mainly on the use of data in Fig.1 for only those faults which are directly structurally relatable to the local fault. Although both types of DBE utilize Fig. I data, it would seem that many situations caild arise in which the application of such data would result in different DBE values, for example, in terms of most adverse relocation of epicenters. Although it is not necessary that the DBE's for faulting and vibration be the same, the draf t criteria should make the distinction much more clearly. should be noted that for the faulting-related DBE, Section ill D.6 allows Itthe use of an estimated magnitude based on instrumental evidence if available. improvement over previous drafts where the worst This wording represene some imaginable event f rom the Pleistocene-Recent geologic history was potentially l j 1
v... f., d ',' 4
- s 1
of overriding importance. However,' the interlocking nature'of the provisions which are in the present draf t still. does not-necessarily rule out 'the potential I application of the larger and'perhaps unnecessarily severe' event. Most im-portantly, does'the apparent willingness ;to accept instrumental records in determining the DBE imply that only' historical' quakes. originating on the fault system in question need be consider.ed 'and that complex structural interrela. tions with or interpretations -of faulting; evidenced only by geologic, data. (particularly on distant features) is not required? Some clarification of the definitions. involved, any differences in the method of applying regional evaluations and structural relationships 'to determine .the DBE(s), and particularly the implications of the possible use of instru-mental evidence alone, is' desirable. 4. Because of the manner:in which the various sections of the criter' a are inter-i locked (via Fig.1 for instance), we believe that the intent and tone of the whole criteria would be considerably clarified if a single paragraph (s) were included to introduce Section III so as to summarize the steps used in deter-mining the DBE for both vibration and faulting. - Because of.the many diverse bits of descriptive or informational detail that are included in the text, l such a summary would be effective in making the nost important' points stand out more clearly. l 5. The criteria include' new provisions for assessing tsunamis. The stipulation 1 l of evaluating an offshore earthquake in terms of historical and geological. j l regional characteristics in a manner 'similar to that of Part III contains. . provisions that may be debatable f rom a practical point of view. The. geological structure offshore in any area is usually poorly known. Certainly, age relations are extremely. difficult to prove, even in areas of offshore drilling. Oceanographic work now in progress' may ultimately improve this situation, but probably not in the immediate future. l l 4
1 j 4 . 4.:/. ?,N-g .s I Attachment #2 l i Additional Comments on the Reviced j Draf t of Seismic Sicing Criteria Dated October 17, 1967 .l l 1 1. The criteria mention (p.1) the oscillatory characteristics of ground motion and the amplification characteristics (p.11) to be taken into account, but-the remainder of the draft does not discuss (a) which particular spectral l characteristics shall be assumed in determining amplification (this may be particularly required when the DBE is determined from faulting / magnitude rotations or the postulated relocation'of epicenters of historical quakes 4 into geologic situations which may be dif ferent from those in which the i pertinent vibration records have been obtained) or (b) the possible existence of other oscillatory or rotational characteristics such as undula-l tion (although there is admittedly some dispute about the reality of large l l l amplitude waves which have been "observad" in certain environments) which may have to be considered. l 2. The phrases "some risk..... accepted" and "The complexity of.... I certain limitations." could well be deleted from p. 3 of the " Background" i section. 3. On p. 3 of criteria proper, should not " changes in properties" apply to pre-pared fill as well as to natural soil? 4. On p.4, the pertinent data and extent of investigation are first said to'de-pend only on the nature of the region, whereas the following paragraph lists l several types of investigations which must _a_t least be.part of the minimum regional study. Are these consistent? i l The area in which the geologic studies are to be conducted is not clearly l l defined, and throughout*the text terms such as area, region, vicinity, { geographical area are used in an apparently interchangeable manner but the size of " area" to be covered is not bounded. Consistent usage should be l provided. l On p.17 the criteria given for determining the activity of a fault imply that considerable pre-examination of a site and a region is going to be re-quired in order to even determine if some previously undetected faulting l exists. Although it is agreed that a thorough site investigation is manda-tory, the applicant may legitimately wonder if he is not going to have to perform considerable geologic investigation that may turn out to be fruit-less because, say, the negative existence of active f aults has not been " proved". Can the criteria clarify these requirements in terms of the j applicant's responsibility for and extent of regional' investigation? l S. On p.6, the criteria imply that the DBE applies only to vibration, but Table j 1 relates the DBE (if it is indeed the same DBE) to faulting requirements. .l l 6. Although it is probably implicit in the criteria, it should be made clear j that the magnitude as well as the " intensity" of the historic and geologic l { i j 3
f ,3 .m _g, earthquakes surve3 ad to determine DBE should be assessed and surnarized as a part of the process outlined in Section III.B.3-6. Much of the wording in the first two paragraphs of III A and B could be revised and shortened. As a rough example of the lines along which possibly shorter wording could be attempted, one might say: "The DBE is that histori-cally recorded or geologically expected earthquake, Wether occurring near the site or in related regiot.a1 features, which causes the maximum intensity of ground motion at the site. All historically recorded e m hquakes shall be J examined as follows.'. Earthquakes inferred from geologic evidence, { with the following structural or regional relations to the site..., shall be examined as in Section B.4. \\ 7. It should be noted that from a practical standpoint of returning to service, af ter any quake, but particularly those greater than one-half DBE. it is essential that adequate instrumentation be required by the criteria to j l determine the local, free-field ground motion (as amplified), the vibra-l tional input at the foundations, and the t.cc structural metions (as modi-l ficd by soil / structure interactions) of major structures and critical com-ponents. Either the site criteria or,the structural criteria should specify I l these requirements. Otherwise the DBE definitions and provisions of Section l IIIA may be difficult to apply in determining whether to come back on line. 1 8. Does the footnote on p.7 really mean that a "different definition" of DBE I could be required or just a different value? 9. The phrase "from an empirical equation" could well be deleted. I l l 10. In the third footnote on p.9, what sort of " major zones" are referred to? l l i 11. On p.10, should reference to Section IV.D.1 and.2 be IV.D.37 12. It would appear worthwhile to clarify (p.10) how far afield the applicant must go in seeking " active" faults with which to associate a DBE magnitude. l Could this be merely a local instead of regional search? l l Does Item 7(b) refer to the Quaternary displacement for any one event. 13. On p.10, Item C, it seems redundant to specify that the DBE site intensity will be reduced to acceleration via correlation between the descriptive scales and instrumental measurements at the site (if any), since this should already have been done for all pertinent quakes in arriving at DBE. Relocation and rewording of this section are suggested. Note that p.8, Item C, already provides for computing Intensity at the site; if there is likely to develop any confusion between descriptive intensity and ground acceleration in describing DBE, the criteria should require a better distinction in the tabulation required:by Section B.3.d. Note that the foot-note permits use of correlations, which are developed for "other" (not even specifically "similar") sites. If such flexibility in required calculations
,' V, (. (' ~ is permitted in this regard, is it not reasonabic to permit similar ficxi-bility in 'the question of determining f ault zones, control zones, amount of displacement, etc. 14. P.11, clarify the meaning of last sentence in footnote. 15. P.11, Item D.1 requires examination of geologic substrata "under the site" but gives no guidance of the extent or depth required for study. This.is another example of the indefinite size of required geologic data-gathering which may cause concern among applicants as they try to use the criteria in I assessing sites prior to actually submitting applications. 16. Item D 2, suggests that amplification factor is.a function of frequency con-i tent but the criteria give no guidance for selecting spectral content as a l function of size of earthquake, distance from site, character of intervening soils, etc. 17. On p.12, the requirement for a minimum of 0.lg in design should perhaps be modified to permit use of lower values if well supported by' evidence. Although almost any structure adequately designed for its normal service should inherently withstand 0.1 g under the DBE conditions (including per-missible deformations), etc., this flexibility would be more consistent with the rest of the criteria. Obviously special attention will have to be given to mechanical components and their functions as opposed to structural' behavior. 18. P.13, Item VI. A.3, Reference should also be made to fill material. 19. P.14, in assessing the stability of slopes, the possibility of local slumps egg (as opposed to the total slope stability) should be assessed as should the possibility of flows of large extent which may require examinations beyond the immediate site vicinity or the examination of sloping nature of.subsur-face strata in addition to " surface" slopes. 20. P.15, wording under Item D.1 appears to need modification since location "near" a fault zone as well as "within" is important. 21. P.16, in describing the plan width of the fault zone and in developing multipliers of Table 1, are subsurface characteristics (inclined fault plane, horse-tail faults, etc.) taken into account? 22. P.16-17, the special distinction made between eastern and western sites could perhaps be deleted, since upon any evidence of an active fault (for which the criteria require regional studies) the same detailed investigations should probably be performed in both areas. 23. P.17, Item 3.d, the statement that "some faults may at present be revealed j only by instrumental measurements" could be interpreted to require the appli-to perform "long term" microseismicity, tilt meter, or other studies of j cant l potential attes before any site could be definitively judged free of active l faultc. The criteria should clarify these requirements.
,,.: n. ~ . i. '. Q, en o , 24. P.18, Item e, it is not clear why Item d (two moveuents in 500,000 years) is not also a part of the requirements for relating fault activity to other active structures. 25. P.18, in cases where deep alluvial deposits obscure bedrock indications, and where no "other evidence" exists to prove or disprove activity, must a fault which disappears under the alluvium be generally or absolutely considered active? 26. P.20, if there is something asymmetrical about the fault zone (for example, a dip slip zone) should the displacement zone be symmetrically located about the fault zone (as in Fig. 2) or should other values of multipliers be de-veloped (particularly for the lower values of multipliers where the outer boundary of displacement zone is very near the edge of the fault zone). 27. P.20, can the statement "In all cases... 1/4 mile from an active fault" be read to imply that reactors may be sited less than 1/4 mile from or even } on top of an " inactive" fault? 28. P.20, Does the statement "every historically observed.. is included" icply that all quakes greater than magnitude 6.5 have associated faulting? 29. P.21, Item 6. If the statements concerning use of this method for determining I the DBE remain in criteria (see previous comments on possible confusion w'ith the D3E for vibration conditions), the words "shall be based" should be changed to "shall take into account". As indicated earlier, some clarification between the use of Fig. I for displacement and vibrational DBE, and the extent l of regional or structural interactions to be taken into account should be clarified.
- 30. On p. 15, is there sufficient information to predict the rate of deformation to be expected? Is " rate" likely to be an important factor in site selection?
31. On p.18, Item 8, does this requirement in effect extend the " single movement" criterion back beyond 35,000 years to possibly 100,000 years or more? j 32. On p.19, could the requirement for delineation of all Quaternary tracco for any fault zone which comes within 25 miles of site impose excessive burdens on the applicant in some instances. 33. P.20, the statement that Fig. 1 is provided (and "shall be considered") for information and guidance in establishing a design basis seems superseded by the p.21 requirement that the " maximum value" be used unless definitive evidence shows otherwise. This possible confusion should be cleared up. a
' nc v o y.d ~. s s i is j ~ g ... ;r ** 3 .. 9 IfIWI'ES OF THE SURCO'tiITTEE ON DRAFT _ SEISMIC ACTI7ITY/TsmiutIs 2/1$/68 FEBRUARY 7, 1968 s Seismic and Geologic Siting and Design Criteria.'Ihe meeti Attendeest ACR$ _Reguintory Staff D. Okrent H. Etherington J. F. Devine, USC4GS A A. O' Kelly J. F. Newell, DRL W R. Stratton R. J. Bra:ce, USC&GS B. M. Page, consultant I. Spickler, DRL R. F. Scoct, consultant A. L. Cluckmann, DRL J. T. W! lien, corsultant W. M. Morrison, M S i S. S. Philbrick, consultant ,C. F. Hadlock, OGC M. W. Libarkin, staff H. H. Waldren, USGS N. M. lievnaik DRL, concultant E. W. Coulter, USGS .U3.253 R. B. Minogue, DRS J. Liebereun R. Ncvton 'E. Baltz, USGS 1 1 1 I l o,,,u, ..............y.g.g..p.gy 4,3 y g..g.5..... _ ....._.....J... om Num:e.ua,n __. ,m p
} ..,.g, .i s. r .3 ea F.necutive Sonnten d It vso agreed that the Subecemittec vould concern itself only with the latest draft of the Scismic and Gcologic Sitin3 and Decign Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants, dated January 29, 1968. Several questions were raised concerning the definitions, and several of the Subetrmittee e,c-bers and consultants asked that this section be expanded. j l } andl ~ .1 } both thought that there should bc some reorganization, in tems of the~13~clTio'n'of the discussion on the differences bet' teen earthquakes in the western and eactcen U. S. There was also discussion of thepsu geit.cd minimum value for hori: ental ground acceleration and of its use. / l / J questioned the magnitude of the minimum value. He noted that geolosists in the i United States have 1cr3cly concentrated on the west coast to the neglect of the mid-continent. The mid-continent is, therefore, more of an unknown quantity. Howev,er,, a map of epicentral locations in the continental United States, which f J ,l distributed to the Subco=nittee, indicates that earthquakes do, in fact, occur quito frequently cast of the Rockies. There are very f ew blank areas on j such a map. (The mop of epicentral locations referred to is availabic in the ACRS office.) [' I jpersonally suspected that the blank arca's which do appear represented a vasary of the reporting system and pointed out that sc=c of the earthquakes which have occurred within the mid-continent have been of destructive potential. In many cases, their origin is unknovu. That is, they can be associated only with inactive faults or are not con cceed with any kncwn geological structure. Since those are unknown quantitics,J J l felt.that it would be wise to estab-lish an arbitrary minimum which wou:.d 'cc reasonsbic ior any location. He added that the Charleston and Mov Ndrid earthquakes vould not be predicted by =ost scissologists today if they had not aircady pecurred. Nth occurred in normally relatively quiet areas and reproscne tuo of the cast severe earthquak2s uhtch have occurred within historical ti=cs anywhere in the conterminous United States. l 'l 'jfcit, therefore, that it would be vice to establish a minimum earthquake for design purposes and that this should, of necessity, be arbitrary. He felt that the French had taken the correct approach in choosing a fairly hirh arbitrary minimum, i.e., 0.3. The effcces on construction costs, etc., of the value chosen 3 should, of course, be c.qasidered; but it is also neccscary to have como conservative - assuranceofcafety.l }fcitalsothatthecpectrumasvollastheground acceleration vould have to be' stipulated. As additional, support for his arcu.cnt. [ J ]pointedout that, in addition to ignorance concerning the location of ear t.hquake s, there is also some ignorance about the accelerations which accenpany them. He noted that there have been surpris,cs with each set of measurement caic. There was ccme corrent to the effect that France is a small enou;h country that it m,y have been possible to reasonably c.v.trapolace the number representative of the cost highly ccic=ically active area. That' is, there may have been some rationale behind the choice of 0.33 in France. .2,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, cmcc > _ _ __... l.......... 1 l
===> l I
y .2 i j j.. r 7 =,. + .e -}pointedoutthai:,inadd'itiontoacceleration,- .f etc.', of an earthquake in order to In answer tof one' rust alsolTclf y duration,,,d, displacement,noted that the draft criteria point out 1 added that for some have character
- zed it fully.1 1
(page 13) that a spectru:s willle'li'stib ished. [' T he spectrum with reason the Division of Reactor Standards had chosen t If a complete Part 2 of the criteria which will discuss earthquake design.hsforPart2.[ / -] / package is desired, then one may have to wait sev 1 ~ ectrum,although Part f id it is not cicar what its 4 If it is intended now discusses only the establishment of some a value l to be the maxt=um g value, then the frequency should a so this g value will apply. way,of charac-There followed some discussion concerning the use of duration as,._a. m j J Jthought terizing earthquakes in addition to a g value and a spectru. duration, 'but pointe ~ that there was some point to including an estimate ofThe majority of reco from 10 to the lack of any applicable data.The Alaskan carthquake, however, may ~ / what duration to It is not cicar how one would decido in any reasonable way on 40 seconds. d dated' January 15, 1903 from Mr. Shav use. .l]then referred to the memoran umHa pointed 'p treicularly to paragraphs to the Xcector of ne;ulation. (below) on the first page and asked if there were any co::rnents. fault dis-the p,cncral applicatio'n of the li: sited data availabic on ific placement / seismic magnitude relations derived from very spec (a) geologic situations could result for displacement dcaigt being icoosed up f of a given plant or the conservatig its design. l beyond the arbitrary procedure for defining a zone bordering fau tsin (b) which reacter decicus need not displaccacnt due to faultin3 was unnececoarily restrictive. lnoted that he had not considered the fault-displac f the 'raf t criteria to be too restrictive with the possibic execption o [J l ithin 250 miles.: requirement that the applicant must account for all kno m f au t in the h-investi:;ation of a It was noted, however, that quake and the djap)gc.eme,nt can be cicarly established. difficult 1cscer scope. )E1 not'We an altern,tive sugcceton. While the major faults .I 3 position but d information which would be required is not now av have not. The propor. tie noted, as an c::ampic, the cr.peric.nce with t lthou; If one includes nn. area,$jagrec4 with his position. },,,. l.. not well studied. k, 1 .m hundreds of such faults,inclu.!cd. ........- c a u. e. u e m...n. ~.. s n =, -. ~ q .u h..An.ac..J;ho. ; f iojhetsv id..ccan..1 dant.ified. a..d..ptc hou s ly..dinu* cxd..ln.g in..y.M.c it is intenood tha suwu If, on the other hand
- d.
requiromant would not be quite so b .l... 3 ______ L, _........=._...a - " ~ " - -
- tc
( .s the applicant must identify 3, faults withid.k. 0 miles, this would be a horrendous 11 requirement. In answer to I jnoted that, without having studied Mr. Aav's coe:nonts previo7sif,~he felt at this time that the requirements concern-ing displacement were'not unduly restrictive. [ ~1 1.askeQL(_]could elaborate on the reservations in paragraph (a). J.e.askedi6 J kncv what specifically might be troubling 1fr. Shaw. l .1 suggested cTat the Bolsa Island situation might be involved.. The criteria as written vould impose rather severe restrictions and, in particular, the specific requirement to rp.?!. miles from the site in order to establish the width o f the displacement zone might seriously hamper the project. Apparently, DRD6T feels that the actual displace =ent zone of concern might be very much narrower at the site location. b J lasked if it was known where the numbers in the Eonilla report
- came free.j f
T sur,gested that Figure 6 on page 22 of the Bonilla report repre-i sents th~c basrs~for these nt=2bers. A ter some con 91deratienj J beated that, if it can in fact be she n that the fault zone is narrov at th'e'"si'tc, then it l probably would be unreasonable to bring in the width of the fault zona at same distant location. lie thought that in many places there would probably not be good enough infomation to establish this and noted, in particular, the Colorado plateau. He suggested that there might be many places where one pan be positive about the width of the f ault zone, however, so that these vould probably be included under the "escapo clause." .I hoined the meeting at this point and was acked to cournent on( j ' ) established as a design basis for the esstern Ur.ited States.that an arbitra suggesY on l \\ f Inoted that this had been one of his questions also, but only to the entent tn.Xh he felt that no one had any very good way to use g values to define an carthquake. He did not feel that g value alonc was a very goeddefinin; para =cter. With reseect to the mid-continent, there is a large arca which would be close to the point at which damage vould begin in a repetition of the Ncv Hadrid incident. Jhon some lover limit vaiue is chosen, one is really trying to ;u2rd assinst low frequency vibrations felt over exteccely lar7;o areas. T spectrem, miy be even eorc impor-tant than ground acceleration limits.) ~ ,f.
- 7. greed and added that, in fact, the Ucv Madrid earthquake might evea occur nescrthe cd c of the crest Plainn and 3
this would represent on even vorse situation. --k._..1 .lpointed out that, while the differer:co between castern and western U. S. is cet ~forth in the criteria, it was not cicar to him that r.uch a difference really exists. There is, in f act, evidence of extensive earthquake experience cast o'f t'ic R>ckier, even though there has been more frequent ev-thqucke experience within the last 10,000 years on the west cocrat. He noted the existence in several l locations of layered structures which have been buried by recent alluvia, chewing damage which can only be ex >1af ncd by the occurrence at s me time in the past of a relatively severe earthquake.
- " Historic Surface Faulting in Continental United States and Adjacent Parts of i.c4ACv 6.g
.4. V. wai & Ad. ~a > ....a.. ~~ MEAGn%u, L-- u. ,m,,,,,,,. m. _,...
I I .... ;. i ~.. r l j ..? [ ,1 5 k Heetinr.with the Reculator-r Staff i of the differ-l Dr. Okrent observed that during the executive session the quest ond be .I ences in seismicity in.the uestern and eastern U. S. hf ii earthquakes .and the establishment of 0.lg as a minimum va l in of the Rocky l Dr. Page noted that if' one draws the line at the eastern margd west is disp mountains, then the main difference between east an Such displaccennt is well kncvn in the weste 'f to fault.covenent. Mr. Coulter noted that relstively rare in the east. cast of the Rockies. ding the probability of l l earthquake activity is not present r the only dif ference which was intended was that regar This la based cosencially on the lack of experience of prim l l Although this might have occurred primary f aulting. bedrock f aulting east of the Docky ibuntains. h ffects in the uncon-in two cases, the Mcv 1hdrid and Charleston earthquakes, t e ed the effects I solidated deposits overlyin; the bedrock far outweighethe criteria do require co Mr. Case added that but noted tha* l f aultin; even in those events.investi;;ations to be arried out in the vester\\ this was related only to the detection of faults. betwec$ eastern and f Dr. Philbrick did not see why there should be'any' dif ferenc f 3 d States. It matericic which are belou the present alluvittu important an vestern U. S. show evidence of carth';ucke activity in the castern Uaite h t of surfacd j becemco necessary, therefore, to perform some itwestigation bcycad j in fact, Dr. Philbrick noted that t ', -f aultin ;.upon what was at the surf ace during the tir.c period o f interes.f e d vestern Mr. Coulter noted that the only difference intended becucen castern an It must bc j United States is for plants which are to be founded i In all other f Dr. Fhilbrick casc,, the Coundation criteria are independent of location. d d subsurface repented that there is evidence ubich indicates that the stan ar'or f investi3ntiona performed ites. come the concerns laid out in the critoria for east coact s(f), and (3) on page he problem. Mr. Mr. C ulter noted that sections (c), page 12 apply to all citec and pe: haps go more directly to tintended t which must be addressed Coulter added that the criteria a:e not I i tions should be carried out but only to lay out the po nts and satisfied. roblems frem ques-Dr. Ohrent felt that it was not casy to c:pWate dieplaccecnt pHe asked ifl those which are uced tions of chaking of overlying alluvia.out in the criteria for the c Mr. Coulter noted that u nitude, has earthquake of magnitude 6.5 and above, and several of lesser c g in the vestern U. S. b'drock displacemer.t. l ruptured the surf ace, L.c., has creatcd primary tectonic w 3 p I f 9 omet > l [ .m
d. m .s .q s. In.the eastern U. S., on the other hand, no earthquakes, with the possible .s, exception of the New Msdrid and Charleston events, have ever given evidence of fault rupture. The regions are, therefore, looked at soccwhat differently, Mr. Coulter asked if the Ca::mittee's consultants would agree that there is no need to design for displacement east of the Rocky Mountains if one restricts consideration only to plants sited on bedrock. Dr. Scott sug;;ested that the criteria in fact imply that foundations on alluvial deposits represent a soil mechanics problem and are handled elsewhere. Mr. Coulter agreed that an attempt was made to handle the esse of unconsolidated soil in the foundation specifica-tions. Dr. Philbrick felt, however, that these criteria vere not reisted to individual faults in the eastern U. S. and found this troublesome. j Mr. Coulter noted that generally the Design Basis Earthquake in the east has been related to the Isrgest such event which has occurred in the particular scological province involved. This evene is then considered possible anyahere within that province. Mr. Case pointed out that on page 6 the criteria indicate that historical earthquakes should be correlated to geological structures and considered to be possible anywhere along such a structure. Dr. Wfison suggested that perhaps.section c(1) on pages 6 and 7 does ad' dress l itself to the concerns raised by Dr. Ihilbrick but felt that it had not been clear to him. Mr. Coulter and Mr. Case agreed that it might in fact not be clear. Mr. Cvulter added that uhat.uas intended was that a geological evalustien be perforcred to determine the events with which one must deal. Dr. k'ilson sug-gested that, since in many cases castern scismic evcats are not related to any known geological structurcs, the criteria should really discuss geological regions when considering the eastern U. S. The structures which are involved are probsbly 1 very deep and have not been identified. It was not clear to r. Wilson exsetly k how the criterion should be worded. Dr. Page referred again to the epicentral l map which indicatos that there is. no rea, ion in the U. S. which can be considered j imune to carthr:uskes and cu:;7;csted that some minimum carthquake be established l vhich is seccwhat stronger than has bcon indicated on page 14, that is, 0.1. 3 Hr. Case thought it was cicar that, with respect to the castern U. S., one should not refer to geological structurcs but should consider regions, provinces, etc., i or whatever vord would make clear what is bein:; intended. Mr. C2ulter added that, ~ in his opinion, that is what had been done. The largest event in a geological region is to be chosen and movci t-~sl u : vithin the rc+,lon to n et:c its j effect on the site. He agreed, however, taac taue was not at presuat any clear 1 definition of "goological region." l There was additions 1 discussion in an attempt to clarify the approach which had been taken toward the specification of castern ~1csidn 2' sis E:rthqushes. Dr. Okrent asked how the approach now being considered would affect the Fort C alhoun j application. He asked if any different requirements than had previously besn j imposed might be needed. Me.,hldron noted that the largest historical event l of record had been moved along the appropriate geological structure to the l Fort Calhoun site. I, fact, thin has '>ecn the approach taken wherever a geologi-e,1 o.we,c.n h u k.m t w ei m i. ", fale t'-w tM a uns i lo~ical accro:ch j vhereco{centershavebeencunnectc1wchidentst:aciostructures. .4 acre r.u s i is nSE'ths easo; the regtonst"apprcich"should-be ur.ed. l i sunnaut > e qc.>_m... Wmmc.aime....w ,;,_,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,m,,,,_,,_
s s.y ~. c -) .s. g ~, f Mr. Case asked how one would decide, for example, that a particular ar ~ h conccen is not the region in which the New Madrid earthquake. mig t occu i h t the Several of the DRS and Ca:mittee consultants replied, indicat ng t a ~ l defined structures. j llev Madrid carthquake can casily be rotated to several cicar y J h directions along There seemed to be general agrec=ent among the c::perts as to t e d" It ocemed clear l l which the New Madrid carthquake could reasonably l 1 could be delineated. h there is no f Dr. Pg/re[ggd at the conclusion of this discussion that w should be used as j acton to carthquake history then an arbitrary eventHe fe l clear a minimum basis. minimum had not been set high enough. detailed (The following coe::ents were made during the discussion of spe cocnents which arc listed in the appendix. t 'specifically noted, however.) f j " The criteria were specifien11y intended to make a distinction be arthquakes arc l of the U. S. to the east.and west of the Rockies since weste l d those in ene cast arc characteriacd by bedrock displacement due to faulting an feel was Dr. Fhilbrick objected to the distinction, which he did for f not. which a good case can be made in support of the occurrence oIn appropriate. l tion l be anticipated at one or more of several castern locations and, if st g f ault displacement. d properly, it is r accolcrometers with appropriate recording devices were locateExamples are Y., i likely that valuabic data would be obtained. i Western Ohio, Ucw Madrid, and Charleston. i the i Af ter some further discussion, Dr. Wilson cuncated a footnote discu l if it is possibility of faulting in the cast. surface faulting be considered in the cast included a requirement i i of the site. Mr. Coulter l that ~ indicated by an evaluation of the geologic character st c f the country uith pointed out that W ich ocismic events have been associated. l rupture and are not expected to. dr. Page agreed that, while all of the parts of paragraph X'd.3 l f aults, not all .m, would be accepted by most geologists as definitions of active i in j faults so defined would be expected to break the surface a the event of an carthquako. ..displacc=cnt should be included. for any of Af ter further discussion, there seemed agreement that, if evidence f the critoria in paragraph mX.3(3), other than (g)(1), exist is located. The should acco::nodate ground displacement no matter where the sitethat t I. l originci disa3rcement had apparently artsen due to Pha 1 M "' " I '"L I '~1 ~~ "' t e n s'.e:c.' : "W > : f d t e" ' 911 - D aga k4 i.s,p.l.a..c.c..a..c..n..t. d. .7 / ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,i . m. $URNAMt> DATE > j. .."""""~.:.-: ~,. u1Govtnamef M@*'4 0'N M*-O'8'* 9 Forrn AEC.3tu uter.9-f4)
} ,{ 2 ~.. ] 1 1 7 East IXX.3(g)(1) throu;;h (6) do, in fact, define tectonically active f aults. h ound of the R7ckies, however, (1) alonc =ay not necessarily indicate t at gl i displacceent is of concern. l l probability of surface rupture. He noted that it Dr. Okrent referred to the AEC;s decision on the Malibu case. during a 10,000 l was considered by the C.mnission that the absence of displacement during the l year period was not sufficient to preclude concern over displac j i life of the plant. h to protect against events having a probability of Icss t anMr. Case thought that,if it l a 50 year life for nuclear facilitics). " years, then it is not l necessary to relate events to a probability of 1 in 10 r cost of the eastern cicar hov one can approach this in situations which occur ove One approach U. S. where no clear geological structurca have been identified.Dr. i k based on raight be to use a " floor." States might be considered one region and In addition, Dr. Uce2 ark the record of the last 100 years. i h 100 J applied on bedrock and something more on cediment. suggested that a probability of 10-4 might not be lov enough since w t b bility of reacters in operation at seme future ti=c there would be a 17. pro aDr. Okreni involved in a serious scismic event.in rupture of contair/ antj one of these bein3 for events which might result or 10-7 He pointed out that in several l one must assure probabilities of 10-0 hts years there will be bet-scen 100 and 1,000 reactors in operation and l l to one ccvere carthquake soccwhere in the United States is likely to be c ose \\ or more of these. i Survey to Dr. P3ac noted that an attempt had been rtade by the Coast and Goo i prepare scismic probability maps. f intensity S not enough history to provido ccaning.ful data on the frequcncy oHe sugscstod th earthquakes east of the Recky :buntains.necessary until enough c limit There followed some discussion on what might represent an accepta 3r. Ucumark noted that it is not only ground (flocr) for carthquake intensity.etc., which determines the destructiveness of an carth-velocity, dioplacccent, In the U 'ited Sectes, earthquakes have typically been earthquakes have not quake but also duration. of about 30 ceconds duration and while the most de i been recorded, it C.. Nessark also thou;ht it significant that d with it (the longer more destruction resulted. the Parkficid carthquake which ha t a 0.53 acceleration associate highest so f ar ceasured in any sciemic. cvent) was of very short ~ accompanied by very littic destruction. d the With respect to the establishment of some lover limit, Dr. Wilson note h can not nov existence of cevere earthquakes in the castern United Sta be explained. + they could occur anywhere. .g!,.vibrat gidsin...., (,. The 4f;l 1,oy ed_ a.,(i sc u,s% 1gg. o f,,ths,,{ !,k e l ihgg.d,,,o,f, ' gm.p,1.i f ic a.t ip,p e soil. suamc > i ..n.. .... :.:=...= ::= = : 4 e (
' j. c.; -.. / s. s d Dr. Scott pointed out that studies of motions in soils which have been ma e d was were of 'eusil esgnitude,and the energy absorption which was investigate It was not clear to him that amplification would occur in a large Dr. Wilson noted that records taken at seismic stations in also email. i howed worse indicated that for equidistant sites the ones on sof ter foundat ons s ev ent. effects. 0.lg The cose penalties involved in the establishment of a highe Mr. Levine reported that he hsd discussed the economics with Dr. Gluck were discussed. d to the view is that there will be only a minor difference in cost when relate 1 and 0.25g. total cost of a nucicar power f acility between a design for 0. Apparently the problem has been that applicants have aircady half-tire f acility their design work by the ti=c it is reviewed,and to redesign an enIf the requir designing does cost a great deal of money.ever, then Dr. Gluckmannfelt that there wil to 0.25g compared with 0.13 0.15g With respect to a lever limit, Dr. Newmark suggested ~that a floor of 0.1 o l 0.1 might might be appropriate dependin3 on the nature of the surf ace materia. This would be apply to competent roch and 0.15 to coil or sedimentary material.There was independent of the depth and quality of the catorial. t
- ial, that, if it is denf rabic to dif ferentiate between the' types of surface ma er h
ht that then one should establish only a bedrock criterion, but Mr. Levine t oug il amplifica-it would not be dentrabic to becc=c it.volved in an argument over so tion with each applicant. bedrock Dr. Ikvmark suggested that one perhaps should not apply amplifications to lly. neccleratton aereas the board since soil does not amnlify everything equa d d thesc the acceleration and surface velocity should be specifie,an7c. Okrent asked, if one Perhap4 relationships made dif ferent fer different materials. bedrock ne3 cceed the probicm of s:!.1 ar.plification, would a eet 1 In addi tion, Dr. all of the objections and concerns which had been expressed.the experts decide Okrent asked if, after due consideration,is of the same order of probability as dis future would this in effect char.go the decision which had been made of 0.23 in the cast reactora. Dr. Pn;c thoughtit will not enparicace dinplace=ent, but one vould of Dr. Okrent concluded, there-vich the assurance that to shaking. necessity be much icss sure with respectfore, that one should be e it would probably if 0.253 was used as a lower limit, Dr. Hewmstk felt that, cause more standardization in design. suggested that the Subcommittee connider Following a luncheon break, Dr. Okrent Dr. Scott noted that, those aspects of the criteria dc 211n3 with displacement. is approxi-for the displacement,'.iagram presented in the criteria, th
- . Case thoucht th1t mately 7 feet.CaliCornia nuch that displacces.t would not bo invgived.
t~ s.....,c a s, ae a as # .....,.;.a / 't"c w. '. :, .a ~ 'e xay,g,, L e,'..m i ch t._b c..d tg...i.. u 1.t.. _...................... fe t - ~ ~~~ 1-sumo. . =.=:==== l k
..7 - -. - ~ ~. - - - - ~ , j. hh %s s .y ,,,i ; ..' l giere was some discussion of the displacement-magnitude relationship. Mr. Coulter noted that the numbers in Table 1 are based on measuring the zone of faulted material at the videst point within 25 miles of the nearest approach of the fault to the site. The zero puint is the midline of the fault. ;Ar. Philbrick asked why it would not be possible to locate a facility closer to the fault zone itself. Mr. Coulter replied that the separation has been specified to avoid " fling" and to avoid the effects 'of additional branch f aulting. Dr. Okrent asked that those present address themselves to the objections raised in paragraphs identified as (a) and (b) on page 1 of the memorandum by Mr. Shew to the Director o C a.cgulation dated January 15, 1963 (see page 3). Dr. Page felt that the objections vero fairly well answered by the escape clauses on page 10 of the draf t criteria. The reservations addrecscd themselves to the undue-severity of the displacement : enc, etc., and page 10 allows so=c departure from l the criteria on the basis of definitive evidence.
- 07. Wilson noted that only l
secondary or branch faulting is of concern here. It is unlikely'that applicants would sc1cet a site directly over a well defined main fault. With respect to the comment on the relationship between displacement ard magnitude, Mr. Coulter agreed that this has been based on a relatively en211 s==ple. H:v-ever, these are the figures of concern..The situation under discussion vauld be an activo fcult under tha criteria. ..ith no evidence of displacement, the magni-tude of the hypothesized carthquake bust be used as a p'redictor. ilithin the l displacement zona itscif, the established magnitude must be used and an appropriate displacement determined by using figure 1. 1 u Dr. !!cumark discussed a design n2ainst displacement which he had presented to l the recent conference on ascirmic design in Japan. He noted that it is fairly simpic to isolate relatively.ompact buil'11n;s; but if one or more such buildings arc connected with one another, then the decign must include differential motion between such structurcs. j Detailed comments vore made and are attached as Appendix A. i The Subec=mittee was joir.ed-by representatives of DRD6T. Dr. Lieberman pointed out that DRS&T had only recently received the draf t criteria dated lar.uary 29, 1963 They would like some additional tJee to go over these criteria carefully and will offer comments in the 'uture. As exampics of como of the comncats which might be of fered, Sr. Lieberman noted that the definition of fault zone is described rather than adequately defired with respect to its use latcr in the docu=cnt. duch terms as arn used on page 4, i.e., "conoclinie I ficxure" are not defined, and it is not cicar how these are to be used in connec-tion with fLgure 2. In addition, the required investigations listed on page 6, ~ paragraph (b), seem to imply a precision of epicentral location which is not in fact prdeticA1. In connection with the desten bacis earthaur':n. the di f er-a-- aaa-aa-b-4 ^ d *- _ en t i t t _ .s. ...u aag ana or viecatory uotion enould be el rified. ' " ~ ~ ~ " .... - - ~ - ~ ~ * * " * * ~ ~ ~ ~ " * * " ~ " " " " " " " " " " omct > 10 - " " " * " ~ " ~ " ~ $URNAMC> .a.a~~~~3 9 L___-_-______-____-______--___-________.
.. '{ s Hr. Hewton added thst some of the provisions for detailed investigations involving r grene of radius up to 250 miles from the site may be difficult or impossible. The investigation of all significant geological structures within 250 miles scens an enormous task. Mr. Case noted that what was intended was the investiga-l tion of all tectonically active structures within 250 miles. j I There was some discussion of the determination of the fault width. Mr. Baltz noted that the most recent criteria do allow the actual' width to be used in l consolidated material where sufficient information is availabic. He felt, how-ever, that it might be a more positive approach if the criteria specified that l the maximum width appropriate-should be used where the fault is covered and l otherwise the actual width should be used. Mr. Coulter pointed out that the ~ wording was a matter of where the burden'of proof would icy. As precently worded, the criteria are intended to put the burden of prouf on the applicant. ~ Mr. Balt: also noted the subjectivity involved in detensining the intensity of historical earthquakes. In his opinion, this formed a rather vcak basis for the l elaborate scheme used in detcasining the Design Easis Earthquake and may in fact [ l go beyond what is scientifically reasonable. l Dr. Okrent asked if there were any suggestions concerning the independent review. l Mr. Case suggested that an introductory cecting be held with outside revicuers (lists of su3gested individuals had been distributed by both 023 and.7RD&T). The review itself would take place at a second meetint at which detailed discussions l would be held and co=ments would be requested in writing. At the conclusion of the meeting, D.. Okrent suggested that D2S attempt to develop a minimum surf ace ground acceleration and a basis for its position. In addition, l those AC23 consultants who may be willing to do so should develop their own ideas, l either singly or in groups, and the matter can be discussed again. Mr. Case noted finally that, in his opinion, the draft criteria s'hould be completely ready for publication before the independent " panel of experts" is asked to review it. Dr. titison agreed to investigate the seirmicity of the castern United States and attempt to establish some lower ibnit for earthquakes,and Dr. Page agreed to a similar attempt in terms of carthquake intensity and other characteristic pars =cters 0 1 omcc >
- ..g..............
SURNAME > ...t.... onE_> _4.. vm AEC.3tH (Iter,9 53) ,,,,,,,,,,t,,,,,,,,CyK,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I /- nu. ~ 0 k 6 q .-. L .t .T = MEETINC'0F THE SUPOOK4ITTEE ON I SEISMIC ACTI'!ITY/TOUMA.' TIS \\ FEBRUARY 7. 1963_ 4 j i 4 APPENDIX The following comments - and - suggestions were offered during the meeting and apply 9 to the January 29, 1968 version 'of "Scismic and Geologic Siting'and ' Design l Criteria for Nuclear Fever Plants."- Page 2 - line 7 - Change to read, "...'due to earthquakes,Efor- ' differentia'1 displacement....". Last paragraph - Indicate that the requirements vill be expanded' to provide engineering design. criteria. Page 3 . Paragraph XXX.3(a) ' - delete " elastic." l Paragraph XXX.3(d) - Change to avoid Laplying that earthquakes-l are expected. l Paragraph XXX.3(e) - Change to read "... the site-for which l all featurns of the facility necesssrv to conttrued'oneration are designed to function." Paragraph XXX.3(f) - The definition of faults nay not 'bc all-inclusive. (It was noted that the definition given is that used in the-Glossary of the American Coological Society.) Page 6 - Paragraph XXX.10(b)' - Change "Most. epicenters can be related ..." to '9tanv epicenters can be related..." Paragraph XXX.10(c) - delete "... for which geologic structures have been identified..." and "... if any part of such struc-I tures is within 10.mlics of the. site..." In general, this paragraph should not "oc so worded' as to excuse an applicant from the require. tent of. looking for evidence of differential ground displacement in' the castern U. S., even though nonc may have-yet been uncovered. .l P,a,ge_7, - Paragraph XXX.10(b) - Clarify to indicate 'that if latCe' structures. site, are obviouslylcontro111na it closer than 250 miles frem the,ll other smaller ones within 250 is not necessary to identify a miles. ( Page 8 - Paragraph nXX.10(') - Reword to indicate that the, general enginecr- ~ ~ - ' ing properties of -the underlying nacerial must be determined. l omer > 1 w ~
.. j ..J j 'f_ l ' -~ : ... -. / t.' D ff5 Pane 8 - Paragraph XXX.10(e), 'line 4 - Change to read '".... -if feasible, determine if the.re is anv evidence of adverse behavior under seimir conditions as shown'.by...". Generally, this paragraph should be rewordea so as to put the onus more clearly on the. l applicant., j Paragraph XXX.10(h) - Topography, as it affects tsunami formation, should be included in the list of characteristics. P. me 9 - Paragraph XXX.20(a) -' It was thought that acceleration alone' does I not sufficiently charactorir.e earthquakes. The synthetic spectrum being developed :by' Dr. Newmark should be referred to in this 'j l section. . '. ',
- Pane 10 - Tabic 1 - Include a reference to the. source, Figure 6 in the report on surf ace f aulting by M. C Bonilla. ~ (This report was I
distributed to Subececittee me:nbers on Oc tober 24, 1967.)- I First paragraph, line 5'- The use of' the word " definition" was questioned. Last para' graph - The question was raised of instances in which the centers of the displace:nent design and fault zones might not coincide. Page 11 - Paragraph X'(X.20(c) '- Change "... floods and waves..." to - ,( seimnicallv-induced floods and waves...",.throughout. Page 12 - Reinsert under "Other Design conditions" (XXX.20(d)), the concern over cooling water cupplies which appeared in the previous draf t. Pnge 11 - Paragraph XXX.30(a), line 3 - Change to read "This rewonse spectru:2 might be..." Also, include in this paragraph a requirc:nent for establishing the duration of the nesign Dasis Earthquake. Y 1 1 omcc, I suamc > ......a.,.=.u.___., our> .== uc.us (n1. sn, u. .,,mn u,,a o.o :9 3 '.5
g. b... q . 4 a s, d a ]~.k}?}' 1 o r .-> = e t s 34e a,. ( E E ..s b ' s 2 51 l]j.4 a a g :6 m.=.4 ., 2 s m.s I a f ,:.,h t .3 T., b $1 0'.u; .3.lsarg-}g]a, o= 5 au q a as e .. ?, 8 .g d j g j gq11. [ p )e.~4::p a s e m 1o n3 3 h h$.! ' hh f kN1 M.t. 2.. Q Q i @ h,t % % UYf
- f
.o ,,,e, y i a lYh. {.
- ./p. %
- 4.% A:'.),'.Q::. Njg-d .4 g 5 35>
E \\ i /qi,9.$,,.Ry'g {]s e5 3G jg34j g y a i.5 p.I e s [. . -9. ~.q v\\O.. &g4.4 - f. r,. w3.m I a. x 9 u ~)s' m v w $,d.- e 3.e n i 2 = 3., 11 .e2v=ws 4a-l1L e >gs/.l .g l 0 ?. f(m., e g.e. s.4. .s g .e f.4.cp/,,y.s. 4 g,,i ;.g.e 3 - l, y'3. : -ep..{3 b.E a' 3.s,31 a f 4 ra .s a -'~p...
- n....~;..j:?:.w, *q i, 4 s.
l 1 L 4r. .s ,i 3 a g131,n y u.. Mp g. g
- h= h a j,g:j j; e
[i. sy x .[*Yj/a.);S,N/y,/* .g. e ,g[jd j g e' j i I ,s ./ zy-p' g " ; a i(G.. c:s i <n e ; ; c. m'y %: V i. 1 1 T. i, yV p. ;.N. A,., Nr-(e k 5. kC... hMr.% ?' y P.'T-g%d, sk.4,.MP . { ti!!*WD )~ r \\ d. ^/
- 5
'\\! i y
- yv.
- m mye k.
6,':.gw,, 3, e e t l e i >k w 's =g 5.j '3 k..f". f-[ cN~,, '# $. 31.Ur)!.l*1.!..i l S.r Nl !j T G*
- 5 7 *-
./ g e M'* b...f.1 = *. *.5%.$9 I t w'C o q d.!q; >/.,.'f..g n'. -.. ~,,., ? . / C _n ? .v m nj 2 e.i L
- e.,.-v, :
y .a. ~ 1 *. I g 1., a 5 - \\ . t'N Y S l3',Tfit.q?C";9kr!.)5%.1{'t,W*i'qd7 q e . s lll9 V l l T T.M, 2x5}4 l .L i ,&,p,. H; :. c... A.,w;p:.-@3-m,. 5-z24 e - ^ ~; 9.
- };p
- ?s.~,,- *4 3
.o ' J. T e. a LE 5.s *\\ " ' eeg5yL ...s . b'.. *. cN-: K** ;f,5*~'>i.3 TA,$r.I&.:f., & a r s..s.n.p.v r.-.:.. n]-4*. n+%. D >. I' r n (* l
- i d::.9)n'.M7
-h:se3y,{,4 I,M "*
- s 4 :
l s., a 21 m.E l ggign.7,g$gggg@O. :$g[h'sp 7 -1 I.$N.sh$dNN bb8Ebh l' S 2 g2 i 3 ;e 42 og4 .S I.i qd.2X'-41%:ji'd fa ? e 3iE .%v%,.,s:f e.; v%y (b'!%.::.o@;+p@'Mb;:!g. g p, p iMi:i'. M' e. L il g ;= l #, a ;[ r 3 c .h*
- s
.c. R11 / r,Q w::,. C-- .'
- Sif y
~.. .,. a. g.g
- r. g. j c
U i*' ... h+. x. c s..?,.....p M... o s ' b c.o.f. :. c..q, np.s.. 1 !,p# j g jD.g.1= u W,. ~. t x a.u _.r.4,.s:.q:h:
- /
.A.'F.. #'4 s 4 i
- I.
% g \\'"*. ' b. g g.' . g:.,Js, - l 6* s .s l..
- r*. n u :u 13 Et '., ~ 4 ).. ;k 2 3
oI i i= g at
- o o 2 '5E3e9 4 *, ~} 1 6 =. G S.
3 - l L. e n e t8 EO 6.as 6 c. 6 J g $ ?. 7..S 3.E Tg.3g}[g. g, 3 lf.
- (
.? J o
S, y. [f.$-' 0 hh n,, .,-.m. ..--r: m,-ewv s e. .r. 'V t MEETING 0? AC"sS ""I'9"IC SU'CO?SITT'tE AT . ARC 0!D.'E ?
- TIO"AL L A7.c? ATo2y ARCO ll:i:., t1.L UMIrS lim'.C11 63 furoese This meeting was to review the proposed criteris for'Seiseie and G Siting and Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants (Tentative R eologic Criteria, draft dtd Pe ch 11, 1968).
egulatory The following additional documents were distributed and discusse meeting: e Attach =ent 1 +- Mecorandum from Milton Shaw, Director,LD3D&T to H. L. Price Direct Regulation dtd Fhech.18, 1968,
Subject:
or of Ceologic Siting and Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants" dtd JCo 1968. anuary 29, i Attach:sont 2 ~- Memorandum fecn Joseph A. Lieber=sa, Assistant Director for Saf t t to Director, Dr.S dtd }3rch 13,.19"33,
Subject:
e y, 0?.D&T "Scismic and Coolo31c Siting Criteria" dtd 23rch 11 Inter'im Cce=ents en Draf Independent Review Coc.ittce. 1963, and Proposed Errats for March 11, 1963, Draft of "Scismic and Geologie Siti Criteria for Nuclear Pcver Pladts"dtd Ibech ng and Design 18, 1963 (OUO). Tentativa Regulatory Criteria, dtd M. arch"Sciccic and Geo ovar Plants", 11, 1963 (CUO) (Marked-up version) Participants-l ACRS lm D. Ckrent, Subcocznittee Chairman AEC. Division of Rector Stendard E. G. Case t. F. A. Cifford B. O. Monson W. H. Merrison B. M. Pn c, Consultant R..p.liinogue 'C. P. Sie:s, Censultant K. V. Steinbru;;e, Consultant D.iy_in,ien of Rmeter tiennninn J. T. Wilson, Consultant J.-F. Neva11 R. F. Fraley. Staff' R. C. Ds Young. 'A. T. Cordono' i i gci.tA/87- +,. c,,,,, .- i y ag q .l~ ^ 3,; s. _... _ _ _. c a , ma er m
v-
- - ~ -
3,j q 4) -,_i__-- ~'~
- .,:.;. s 4
m c .m m -s..r. .. m,,..z e-r ----n wr. .r. - . Etn U. S. Conse and Ceodette Survsy. . y%*- U. S. Ceoloniest Survel L. Murphy j' 'E. W. Coulter J. Devine E. 5. Eckel
- 3..
Revsark. F.s11 & Hendron q N. W. Newmark u, .i - Executive Session 't -lexpressedconcernregardingtheimplicationth be'acco=plishedLvich any ~ f inteasity values from one location to another can ] .1 Ha attributed. 3 l ing values. confidence in.che J. -;..1. 5 accuracy of the resu th ds of extrapolation cec =only c the large inaccuracy to the fact that the ecc o "scooched spectrui ' being used hava limited applicability and th i m judgement rather that the analytical technique ~ d in the criteria. ]~ It was noted 'that a minicum value of 0.1g h l e=ent, duration, 'i d briefly. etc.. in addition to acceleration were discusse hich must be'consiJ noted that duration is identified as a-factor wJhas reco: subsurface investigation- .f [ ered. He also noted thael f criteria no.t..be approved until tha requirensne f ,~ }!eetint uith AEC tienresentatives f Dr..Licher=an Mr. Case noted that D1S does not agree with the coc=ents o (attachment 2). for scicmic.acceleratier There was some discussion of the 0.1g mini asonable valuc.. Pace J dded or improved During the meeting chore was considerabia sentiment for a d definitions of the folicwing phrases fault associated, differential ground displacement differential ground displacement-s. i b. design basis carthquake operatin*, basis carthquake c. 'w.d. .e.. geologie structure i j 4 f. fault zone lin.s1 fic:etre" f Pace A m--- Mr Shaw's cor.ent rer,ardin; var,ue wording such as "r.o ..Jw...; r a1 .* d W ...........,.................~1 ...6 O s 1. 6 6.. . h.Ij. .thend.,.a..tr.c a ca d..tho..s a.ne...as...a..fragx............. L d1 w ~ ............*nl 1 m.
o. t .v. -=.gE;yC- : '. ' r: -.- -. -..-.......... ~ -.. .2. J ::.. ] '4 t ~ in / (1) Dr. Page questioned the implication that fruit movement as outlined his will through.(4) vill result in surface movement in all cases since t i - probably not be true for sites east of the Rocky Mounta ns. i Specific wording changes.on page.4'are sho 18, 1963). to the changes on the attached errata dtd March Face 5 d' was ' The limiting of a tectonic province "to the North American continen A definition of the word " unity" was suggested. questionad. l-Specific wording changes are shown on the attached marked-up l Faec 6. See specific wording changes on the attached marke'd-up version. Panes 7 & 8 Dr.Philbrick'scoce'entregardingtheneedforuIoredefint.tivesubsurfac , investigation was discussed. Specific wording changes are shown on the atta,ched marked-up page [ l t La11 8 Mr. Steinbru te questioned the implication of item (4) that appropriate intensity i empirical relationships exist for catrapolstion of casnitude an / from one site to another. judgement involved in such an extrapolat I !j: See specific wording changes on the attached marked-up page. / Item (5) is to be revised accordingly. g.. [. Page 9_ Items (6) and (7) vill be revised to apply to active faults only. 4I t See, specific wording changes on attached marked-up version. 9 i Pane 10 See revisions to this page on the attached marked-up version. g ,.y 1 3-t .o m es > l......... ~' i4
o m D),.* ^
- a..
v y i b G u[.. J,- g> ~ s investigation, and face 17< The ecction on Tsunamis vill be expanded to require anfor seismic evaluation more comparable to those requireddistance feca fault to Considerat. ion should be given to a " design thods to correct for specific site configuration / location, etc. Pace 11 See specific wording changes on attached marked-up page. "In liS e of lieited data Pace 14 h vill be added to item (4) indicating that) through (3) should be cade available, a conservative evaluation of items (1 A sentence in designating the Design Basis Earthquake". Pane 15 the only basta for Mr. Steinbrugge questioned the use of Bonilla's report asHe su;g See specific wedin; the tabic of dicplacecent vs magnitude.shcald be cad changes on attached marked-up page. l Page 16 i M.10 (c) It was suggested that item (c) should be relocated to sect on l'equired Investigation for Tsuna:.i. See specific wording changes in marked-up page attached. Pngen 20. 21, 22, 23 i . 30 [ m ineerine D nien criter a racticca of 0"'. h This section is to be revised.to core clearly reficet t e p In aJJitim. f loads. vith respect to Class I cceponents and combina Inndslideo, etc.. to d addition to vibratory and displacement phenomena. S ked-up pa,es. See specific wording changes agreed to in the attoche,d mar Pate 22_ ble inotfCS#"'# I " ' There was some discussion of the requirc:'onto for "suita his tice. It was agreed that this cection be left indefinite at t ,gyggym. '.f. l -d~! s ema...........'................................................ j i i L j y
1 4 1 _. _.~.... ,. _.. f. ::... e.....'.'.... s.\\ %.* -- ! a.... - ~ ~ ~ { . c:--,mrw .n r... k \\ .4 s- ..s. '~ ..(.,. . '.... t.'.,, s., .e s Cennral y,, . There vas additional diccussion of the adequacy of 0.lg :sini=um acceleration vclue =ince this vould noe provido for.a New Madrid or charlooten type seismic -{ disturbance. Mr. Wilson noted that there is a strip of the eastern United States (section approximately 100 miles vida along the St. Lavrecce River and i dovs into Oklahoma) which could experience a New Madrid or Charleston type earthquake at aleost anyti=e. For example, a scetion of vestern Chio has a seismie history very similar to the New Madrid arcs before the 1815 quake. A seismic disturbance of this =agnitude could result in an acecleration greater than 0.53 over the fault with a value of 0.5 from the fault. 3 or 1cca at a distance 50 =ilca value related to this. record;It was noted that areas with seismic histories vould use a g provida a considerabic degree of. proceetion.In creas without seiccie histories 0.1g ve Attachmentat Itees 1 through 4 as '9 ' ' - -.- refercuced above 0 e 1 i i 1 l bw/ v/u &s. g .5 - i i omer > ...................L..... l.... $URNAMC > .g A t ____ _ _ i
..,.~.s ..c...... i.. - -... e .m.;,,.:.... -- - - ..n 1a. ~.
- f.,-
~ r ,......r err am..n...m_. n UNITED STATCS GO\\'ERN.NIENT 7 R7720TG2GW72 _c s
- n
-= D ATE : ". :. c p"o. %., n ... n To
- H. L. Price 6,"0 '. I co '"' oc.c Director of Regulation 1
.r.. i 4%m -o om Milton Shaw, Director '.I, t' m;d;;w 3: FROM i E Division of Reactor DUclopment & Technology
- m= m o
m CCEISTS ON DM.FT OF "SEISYIC.CD G20 LOGIC SITING AND DS$7f.'- CRINIA i
SUBJECT:
FOR NUCLEAR PC'.~dR PLCIS" DATED JANLARY 29, 1968 t .RDT:XS:R235 l l This memorandum transmits our co=ents on the subject draf t. The general nature of these com.cnts has already been discussed during meetings with your staff. Our major concerns were extensively dis-cussed during these =cetings and several areas of understanding were l reached. Houever, as requested by your staff, our to:al general and i detailed cc=ents are provided here in writt.ng, for any further review j and discussion uhich any be found desirable. l Although :he presen: draf: represents significant improvement in format j l and potential for appropriate and defensible fle:<ibility in interpreca-tion, we feel :: hat certain improvements in clarity of intent, internal l consistency of key procedures and definitions, and provisions outlining requirements for field investi;2:icns vould enhance the usefulness of the cri:eria. Despite che above-mentienad improvements in fle:<ibility, our concern stil". e:<is:s (as e:< pressed in my January 15, 1963 meco to you) that universal applica icn of fault displacement / seismic =agnitude relations uhich are based upon limited data sained from a few specific geologic situa:Lons could impose overly restrictive siting requirements in specific cases. We hope that some additional che.ngas in wording can be effected that would fully insure against unnecessarily restrictive interpretation and application of these criteria. My staff is continui.g to revieu this draft and would be glad to review our comments uith you. It wculd appear desirabic tha:' as many of our comments as possible be considered for incorporation into the draf t be-fore any release for comants by industry or to special restricted revicu pancis. We feel that outside reviou should be obtained as quickly as possible after such incorporation. 1 ACRS Committe* Me-b "* lT( 0&a l. %,. Y & SSB-s.: L
- ggy, jg j[g, [,,Mg/[3.y--r.-
y,, t Attachment-j!.gL.'t Pi L F-.6:~- H:;'.f- <, -- Comments on Su,ojact Drar,t t?.h, f,.lb.f.r u Y' L w. f Lu.. FA C., t - ) E. 'G. Casc, Director, ras O /C.D t-N6. 'h N' " 10f M- #~ '. Ato~~I~~ ec: 3o'"~~~~ R..'di 3ue, ORS 8 1-4 # fcC!:.L;-[ 0 N d-JI!H-D ~ -Qsb.s I W [ N [0I?' Q IDiiM.',' 2 N ?pd.8'-E-WS--= ~ n 7p~~'- /
- h i
- 1. P__. _..
l s* $~.b i Y e. s. 2.... :.~...:...i <r y i g 9 i s* Comments on knurirv 29 Draf t of Se'is-ic Critoria r'. This ihe intent of certain key definitions cnd provisions is not clear. I 'could cause significant misunderstanding of the requirements by app 1. 1 i which l who have not had the benefit of the detailed background discuss ons The intended (sometimes subtle) interrelations have lead to this draf t. ble amount among the provisions may be missed and require that a considera As mentioned of applicant and staff time be spent in an education process. he f.n comments on earlier draf ts, a single su.=tary paragraph descri~oing 3E, defi-sequence of required investigations, basic steps in selecting the D h the nition and use of control width, etc., would help guide the user throug ' detailed interlocked provisions. )) P.3, Section :CCC.3(f) describes certain characteristics of faults he' fault zone _which can and fault patecrns, but does not define t be crucial to all subsequent discussions 'of fault displacement re-It is recognized that no single universal or un,1que quire =ents. it scees that some broad definition of a fault zone exists, but j, description should be included in these criteria for guidance. Without a definition, the inexcetness of the present wording seems inappropriate when co= pared with the implied precision employed in other provisions (such as multipliers and distances along the fault trend) which are applied directly to the " fault zone" in determining " control width". l "The concept of zones cannot According'to Bonilla (1966, p.5): An exa=ple is f be applie'd to come episodes of historic f aulting. the Cedar Mountain, h*evada faulting of 1932 in which the surface ruptures were widely scattered and no single continuous fault pre-Another excmple is the Yakutat Bay, i dominated over the others. Alaska faulting of 1899 in which the observed minor faults were irregularly distributed cad, although,several large f aults have been postulated, the main fault has not yet been identified." u l The above illustrate the probicms inhorcat in defining universally J highly complex geologic- , applicable, precisc criteria relating to i Nt seismologic ccnditions that vary greatly from place to place, as i-I .y c y .f 0.7 ____-_-_m
l l o j ,_.,..w-.- <-,-,,., p __._ + _ a'. ( ..-ms .a -...sm c ;4'n,a.y..w.e.w \\ Q "~ l ' t.. I, reflected in the p:csent g2neralized descriptions and the use of i fault':ene, { so:cvhc t vague worfing such cs 'p.?(;)] "a f ault, I monoclinal flexure, or other similar geologic structure." This argues strongly for wording that allows a case-by-case evaluation l based upon actual geologic-seismologic conditions at and near a 9 i i site rather than arbitrarily defined distances, l P.4, Section XEC.3(g) and (i) introduce monoclinal flexures as and b) J structures whose activity is to be determined /co be used in de-fining " control width". How is the " width" of such a structure In Sec-l How is the " width" to be related to Figure 2? j defined? tion lCCC.20(b), p.9, the sama multipliers are used for all active '1 "scructures", as related in :CCs.10(d), in determining the dis-f It seems this implies displacements on-1 placement design zone. ~ monoclinsi flexures which will be derived ffom Figure 1 (via / magnitude), whereas Figure 1 is actually for f ault displacements. Likewise X:CC.3(g) refars to "other similar geologic features". ) What is maant by this and would questions similar to the above l arise for these features? P.5, Section :CC((i) specifies "centrol width" as the maximum c) width of " structure" withir. 25 miles of site but Section X:C<.20(b), p.10, states a lesser distance may be appropriate when the struc-tural characteristics are well defined for a "significant" part of What constitutes "significant"? Although the flext-the 25 miles. bility in application is definitely desirable, the two sets of guidance may be a little confusing since"significant" appears toIn our be a word that will be defined only on a case-by-case basis. view, this illustrates the necessity for general guidelines rather than precise criteria which might not be applicable in all cases. ft appea'rs that considerable judgment on a case-by-In any event, case basis will be necessary and this should be adequately reficceed I 4. ~ 3 in the documenc. P.'5, Section lCC< 3'(i) states that secondary f aults are considered d) This statement seems to deservo' mo're,ronincnt mention, separately. recognizing that classification of a ' f ault as " secondary" or " primary ,9.
- .7
e ,,, 3 I I { s. ^ \\ .: F <<s ~ l ~. . may be very difficult in certain instances. It might require a 'specisi interpretation cf the critaria for certain instances in which it desired to place a reacter ' otween two f aults (or two c '! structures") of indeterminable relationship even' though the dis-.y placement design zone provisions could be satisfied for either -s s ss. individually, e) P.6, XXX.10(b) requires a correlation of historic epicenters with j The intent j geologic structures out to 250 miles from the site. here is worthuhile but, in cany instances, this i= plies a preci-sion in locating epicenters which is beyond the capability of present instrumental techniques, much less that provided by,the older historical record which LIs most often subjective and quali-tative. Uncertainty in epicentral location may be as much as 25-msg I 50 km in many instances. Our concern is that this could 1* cad to spurious correlation of epicenters at great distances with struc-tures which then become " active" by the provisions of XXX.3(g) and then become involved in possible intericeking of magnitude, structural tectonic interrela:Lons, relocation of epicenters, ] determination of DEE, and ultimately of displace =ent ene and displacement magnitude requirements. It is quite conceivable ~ that undesirable or unduly restrictive conclusions could result l from this process. I f) P.10, Section XXX.20(b) describes the process for dctor=ination 1 l of displacc=cnt design zonc for "all" active structures as in-vestigated in XXX.10(d), which means out to 250 miles. This seems excessive since only those faults near the site are of likely concern for displace cat. The present draft appears to atte=pt to completely separate the DBE magnitudo from any connection wit,h etcher the displacement l zone or degtce'of displacement, which are based on' the magnitudes i associated uith the pertinent structure. This distinction should i l l be made more promir.cnt to preclude any misin'tcrpretation. For example, the D3E might be due to a relativel'y 1'arge distant quake, but which would not pertain to the local '!structura" which is governing displacement and might have only rela'tively small Ed P'j
Iw e 7.. _ _j 4 ;.. a.<./ :.. ;;f2.. _7 = -[ t. Q j '.'~'s j l,, M 1 s-s..s.~ ~4-h d' In view of the large displacements reac e ) Figure 1, such a distinction could associated magnitudes. N quickly as magnitude increases in. out to a 250 mile 1 be crucial. iderable investigation P.7, Section CCC.10(d) requires consh n 1000' plus additional del radium for all structures gecater t a This would appear.to be impractical ] j 2. (d)(2)(d), which i of these structures which are "act ve.. It would appear that Section X:cC.1 l 10 l in particular locales. l i ions requires certain detailed inve'stigat ent, with more distant invest gat r l miles, should be the initial requ remXXX.10(b) independently req i I only'as required (particularly since In.other words, beginnin.g intensive iles). central correlations out to 250 m king outward with further requirements investigations near the site and wor as necessary is the logical order. be required when areas covered by What special provisions, if any, will h ocean? i s mapping, either of these sections are under t e with Section XXX.10(a) which requ ), Another dif ficulty may be .l etc. for all historic quakes which cou ould include some very distant ?- i Without a definition of "affected", th s cll local effects at the site that earthquakes which involved such smaThis should be clarified. wer's not even reported locally al centistency_of procedures. There appear to be somo questions of intern ~ r 3. over a l gic investigation vhich require clarification. Secticn X:CC.10(d) appears. to requirepo o both indicate .l But XXX.10(d)(2)(d) and X'CC.1, p.1 a) 250 mile radius. b that all of the steps required. nee investigations of lesser scopo. 1 can be definitely characterized by " lessor investigation" 1 i Guidance as to what would be a' definit vehich s d one'is I interprocation and .is lacking (i.e., w forced back to a purhaps tedious case by-case'A h ~ .y 1 explanation'of intent. critoria may be the l .) ' case, considera' tion of guidelines rather than l t l ,.l, . logical result. b a. l ]b .di -~ ar:
) a j;~- i , o O i t 1 .S. In Sectica :CCC.10(c) and XIX.20(b), pp 6 and 9, the reasons for .-l b) apparently different treatment of structures in eastern and western ) Particularly, what is the meaning of deter-l
- U.S. are not clear.
] for eastern mination of previous ef fects on subsurf ace materials 1 i (Why is this one item singled out of 1 structures (Item X:C<.10(c) }. l Is there actually a parallel requirement for both sections l I all?) of the country implied in Section :CC'.10(3) where prior behavior Why should the active western of geologic substrata is mentioned? iles) structures be investigated in such detail (10 miles and 250 m If faulting is of concern in l if this is not necessary in the east? are the provisions of Table 1 and Figure 1 to be applied the east, to the east also? l Section :cCC.20(a) includes requirements for determining DSE via bedro the definition of DSS, Section :CCC.3(d), 4. accelerations spectra.. (Note that which refers to ground acceleration rather than bedrock accelera' tion, may 1 It seems that the complicated f require coordination with this section.) for calculation of magnitudes and epicenters processes implied by the draf t of historical quakes, association of structures, relocation of epicenters i f to most adverse locatien en structures, and.possible interrelat ons o structures to further' relocate. or reassess magnitudes (sometimes via geologic record), preclude any realistic assessment of bedrock motions in at the site, particularly since the original historie data vill be It appears unlikely that most cases surface rather than bedreck data. anything more than an arbitrarily assigned spectrum can be applied at It is any site, but the draf t does not make clear what this would be. our understanding that the El Centro spectrum, adjusted for the finally selected epicentral distance and magnitude, is implied or intended here. This may be as good a choice as any other one spectrum (although it is it might be worthwhile to considor use of not bedrock data either) but For exampic, Section :CCC.30(a), p.13, recomr. ends ' DBE usage more than one. for design; it would seem that some cdditional spectrum should also b sensitivity in analysis to make sure that equipment responso does not exhibit ) This need to characteristics of what was an arbitrarily imposed spectrum. not be another_ DEE, however. l l Il
.m h, d o' s
==. the bedrock spectrum might be a' combination of spectra The statement that Does this mean an average y from two or more fault systems is not clear. Should this draf t specify E-W and spccerum such as Housner has derived? N-S (plus vertical) spectra to be the sama and applied simultaneously tl arrive at the maximum vector motion in bedrock as a part of the DBE ap-i piteation (because of the apparently necessarily arbitrary applicat on ine of a spectrum anyway, thic would not affect the process for select the DBE). l Elimination of minimum exclusion distances, especially the 1/4 mile vall 5. is questionable. This draf t apparently includes tho ' possibility of more flexible appli-l 6. For l cation and interpretation than previous draf ts reviewed by RDT. I example, Section XXX.30(b), page 15, now says that Figure 1 shall be How-used for guidance in selecting the amount of ground displacement. J j + the maximum displacements shall be used unless ever p.16 states that is presented. As evidence to justify smallor displacement sufficient i d kind may ) indicated in comments on earlier drafts, proof of the requ re Hence, despite apparent ficxibility, some of ( I , be Lapossible to.obtain. ld our original concern that unnecessarily conservative displacements cou be applied by the complicated ' interlocking provisions of various secti (which are based on limited data) still exists.. Alaska." on p.15 now Note that the sentence "These earthquakes. ide variety . reads as though the available data is good because it covers a w there might be one univer-of conditions and locales (subtly implying that f sal earthquake mechanism which applies regardless of the great variety o Actually this geologic structure and earth-stress conditions involved). sentence originally was intended to indicate that the var'ioty of condi-data or to tions,made it unuise to attempt universal application of the The original neaning extrapolate to significantly dif ferent c'onditions.f should be restored. P.1, Although the cri'teria are termed " interim guides" and possibi '" clearly os t.cbi tshed and_ 4estified" departures is prasanted, the diffic 7. l tics of definitively establishing such justification has been previous y O * ,0 O g, gf g, e b.% b = 9 ~ I
[,, .. n-a w -w ~, 3.. 3 - j )Q. j p g / </ / ) N. 7 - N i Consequently,.the ability to. achieve. desired-commented upon by RDT. ~ s tens Lof, the. criteria . flexibility may depend upon the particular interpreta In-this context, many of these cor.,ents on of the reviewer-of-the-moment. d that applicants . desirable clarifications, etc., have been develope, so can better understand requirements and:any' intended uniform applicatio s of procedures. obab1'y a " standard"' definition. i .P.3, Item :CCC.3(a), Although this. s pr. ral' 8. perhaps deletion of " groups of" and " elastic" would provide a more ge definition for usage later in the criteria,, for. instance, in procedures for manipulating vibration data to obtain.the design basis earthqu . j. q h d' ~s gratification"? ,h. P.3, Item CCC.3(f), Should. " topography" read "topograp y an From the engineerin; standpoint of displacement design; ' defining faults involving movement. of adjacent =aterial parallel to thel fracture may not describe effects of horses or grabens. P.4, Item lC*:<.3(g)(1), Is " seismicity" to be determined only. from ex 10. If so, the~ 1atter.should in- ' records or util new field data be required? Is it clude both decoction of ground noise and location of.its source. also worthwhile to include a requirement that accampts be made to deter- + ) mine any accumulation of strain (e.g., by the reexamination of survey l as an indica'cor of seismicity. P.4, Item :CCC.3(g)(6), In the case of obscured evidence of f ault activ 11. it appears the burden of locating "other evidence" is placed on the. a cant without telling him what types of or minimum amounts of evidence to look for. is not clear how the effect of any.one P.7,. Item X:C(.10'(d)(2) (c), It 12. " earthquake" (i.e., movement) along the structure can bel separated out in most cases. f-P.7, Item X:C<.10(d)(c)(d),.Is the sentence "In cases..... shall be 13. determined" redundant relative to' the definition of CC<.3(1)? - ~ P.8, Item X:CC.10(f), Add " liquefaction potential". ,i ? 14. P.'8l Ieem :CCC.10(h), Add " coastal topography influcacing runup"., i 15. e se 3 ~,. _, + .a s;
} 1 + r. 4 'i ld ome sort
- 16..P.10, Item m.20(b), Would it also be desirable to inc u e sile,. or of minimum exclusica distanec (for example,1/4 m 23 mLloa free site)?
un-ul:Lpliad, :: be given particular
- 17. ' P.11, Section M.20(c), l'plif t or depression should design
' consideration '(for both waves and Section m.30, " engineering ~ f coolant supplies. l criteria") because of the possibilities of withdrawal ooff cooling water isl 4 Special mentios of distant slides which might cut l l also desirabic. d in the facility-l l'8. 'P.15, Section m.30(a), Instrumentation should be p ace -d componen and around it so as.co record free field,. foundation, an historically P.15, Section M.30(b), For clarity, the sentence "Everyi h was accom observed... included" should probably insert "wh c 19. I by fault movement".- e 1 / l 1 4 's e e 8 l t' I e g G. 1' 3 l g t ..,t.. ~ .4
/, Y b)~.,' <b,p X. w~ Acat vecmittes nemoorw ,t sas...c. acw..>c ,j f'.. ' .t,ia,g.u.g.Af ( I ?' Y.: A b 2 5 Y h.hT. $2: 5; O. %' N ~ yAc.4' AAo. 4.. MAR 'l 81908 D0. 4 has C(ag.$w x a. 4[.T m.4 ., U g Stid / >.e% z.. jf,/fMd .i l CW2.I.W.RS. 3 [ HSI
- n 1
ra . Director 'O .Divicion of Rocctor Standards Date Maile d..:.' L.S -(,, hl,, ,.3 n e v Joacph A. Licherman, Assistant Director M5 3 'E.' N for Huclect Safety RIM DATED Divicion of necetor Develop = cat & Technology HARCt111,1968, /ED PRO 2C:CD DiD::PC1 hgl ' ($ w.. RDI:US:n245 had
- 1. Since uc roccived the subject draf t on Marcis 14, ue have n d
leto enough tica to revicu it sufficiently so es to provi e comp Subco:;nittec written co=. ento prior to the March 20 ACRS Scismic b ittee meeting which you indicceed was requested by the S h particularly affecting cad perhaps further com Chairmen. i 9 1%C, for cated ret of interrelations in the draf t of Jcnuary.2, brief rovicu which uc had prepared detailed co=cnto.,. Since o i ents i t , arc, in our opinion, still pert nen, be accocced for conaictency of interrelations, it has not b:en f Ij ted pocsibic for uc to provide detciled uritten co.r.ents as reques without eine for a core thorou;h revicu. and tentative ;,cncral recctions cro that: f fcult a) This draf t see c to lecd to a tichter interlock lity to more restrictive siting requirements; core j Conocquently, our concern that over-restrictive iatorpretation vill be "rcquired", chich has previous droft. i bec'n reficeted in previous co=cnts, is increased by this , draft. h cology (such es .b) Thic draft introduces noti concepto or p ras "tcetonic provincoc") which cro dif ficult to define univer-sally and precicely; this could Iced to conf i of. epicenters with structures Chen "nay part of a provinecT is within 250 milca of the sito". worst carthquake in a ecctonic province (t.rcsu=cbly if not, associated with a ctructuro) chould be ecsumed directly under the site could air.o involve come difficulties in
- n... E '
$ )1,.wg daarec of-lg\\.Y Jginin ' Q,. torpec y a c.d m; m 7 44 %(ti 1 2 .a M dgg v go c at ~ 1 t r. J l4 &%) a .4 3 1
i I l t ,. 3, / \\- 0,. '^ 57 ,z.:.,--r .,y. s ./ -4 t i tieny inctanecc. In nodition previouc co= cats on Icek of definition in fcult ::enac, conoclinct fienuroc, etc. still i ) rc=ain to bc clected up. N .~ c) C:.:c.c p ctcctial inec-.cle tencica g p t..T to hcvc cricen which .f involve thu une of hic::oric vc cccio-ic recoric (cuch cc: (1) the provicloa thet a 250 cile scope of required " vibra- -s tory" invecticatienc for deter =inin: D",0 ccn be reduced if i leccer invecticationc util decor =i.no DD': or (2) the 10 mile l limit on faultin; invcatisationc vc uhat ceces to be requirc-cents for regional tectonic relationship studicc]. These l prob 1cuc nny have crictn fron ettcupte to put decirnbic ficnibility into the rc.,uirc= cats for investigr.tica but the l bacic intent of certain cuch provisions is difficult to ferret out of the nony potentici cecplicated crocc-refereneca l of individun11y complicated provicienc. Uc believe a cicpler set of interrelations could be developed that uould mche it cccier for the new user to undc.rstand the intent of tho criteria. d) Thcro cppcces to be otill conc lech of clarity in intent (cnd in caccific vo:: ding) of the coctienc declin; with the D30 definitica and ito use:c in decinn (f5r c::c-.plc, the j I grouc.d cction input spectruce as opposed to the structure.1 reopcaso cpectru:a). ,2. Uith record to 'the propoced lict of "outsido independent enpertn" for rovicu of the drcf t criterin, us feci that a crector repreccatatica of industry-oriented pcopic in rcquired. Uc uculd cu,0ccc that cnports such ac l'.ccon Hill (of Richficid 011) er Lloyd Cluff (of '..'codur.rd, Clyde & Sherrcrd) or Ie.n Cc=Atil (of the Califcznia Depcreecat of Conservation) be cdded. If thin meheu the list too ucuicidy, uc could suggest that D. 01c=onc could be dropped from the nc."..cc you have I sc1ceted froa our earlier lict. If it proven difficult for F.DT cnd DSS to reach a fully-acreed upon draft for precontation to thin group, it vould cppear desirabic thet the finally sciccted croup bc civcc a d:cf t for revico (as clocc to c;rce. cent as poc-sibic) cad that a r..ccting be held so thct both r33 cnd RDT hevo. equel opportunity to proccat the gecup their vicupoints on that draft before the croup cc:bcro perform their cuparate revicus. Theco comento have not been revicued uithin RDT. Further revicu vill likely ic.d to r.dditionni co=.cnta uhich uc vill pcsc on to you, but uo would cpp ccLeto ~ccuosing uith you,the.outco.-.c of your Ibrch 20 ccoting. in connection eith our continuing reviev offort. I .R. Minogeo, D?s3 l cc: Fralcy, ACRS l s. i i l h e
. t s,* ....t.... 4 ,,,.e .,&.L __ C c.';. . i....... -e =-- r . _ w _u.-BANf- --- i a j', ,,e w. s. e s, w' "s ,./ r- ) ,e 9 ERRATA FOR MARCH 11.'1968. DRAFT OF_' .o e ~ __ SEISMIC AND CE01.0CIC SITINC-J AND DESIGN CRITERIA FOR NUCLEAR PO'JER PLANTS e yy i r. h-s. c.*b 1,. / e M ^ k k k - 4.. ( - i s f t y. ~ 1 \\ March 18, 1968 d by brackets with a linc I Deletions made on the March 11 draft are indicate Notes 17he-reaeter-seeiHey]. 1, through the words; e.g., lining; e.g., N Additions to the March 11 draft are indicated by_under .2. reactor facility. Att- (2) to RFF memo 4/4/68. ~^ ~
h, 1 - .a........ j'..:...:....,2.-. gk g_.6M&.f H . ;, 4 y ) ) n s-l DRAFT M1}UIES OF ACRS SU3CCD11TTEE HEETIKG 12-8-67 ON SEIS:fIC DESI:13 CRITERLi I EASHINGTON, D. C. \\ - ETEMBER 30, 1967 '[ % K. N-Purposet q The purpose of this creating was to review and discuss the revised draft of ~~ the Solamic and Cooloete Sitine and Desien Critorio for Huelcar Pe.:cr Plents, _ J revised October 17, 1967, prepared by the Division of Reactor Standards. l Attendees: AN I.E { l D. Okrent E. G. Case j H. Etherington R. R. Hacesry i A. A. O' Kelly ,R. B. Hinogue E. D'Appolonia, Consultant W. M. Morrison R. F. Scott, Consultant E. W. Coulter, USGS, Consultant j- -1. V. Steinbru,qse, Consultant - L.-M. Murphy,-USGS,-Consultant M. P. White, Consultant E. B. Echel, USC3, Consultant
- 1. F. Fraley, Staf f J. C. McKinicy. Staff.
B.E. Waldron, USGS, Consultant 92.k R. C. DeToung J. F. Howell-A. L. Cluchaann R. J.,Coluar H. M. Newmark, Consultant Executive session L 2 joPened the meetins by reviewing the agenda and schedule. se enked si sue were any problems with the draft criteria that should be discussed - before the Regulatory Staff was brought in. ( I .1 expressed his concern over termo'nology and wondered if everyone was using the some terms for the sae:e~ meaning._ He suggested that the ACRS staff obtain a glossary of geologic and seismic terms. (copies of a Dictionary of Geological Terms have been ordered for Subcommittee members and consultants, g - and a copy of clossary of Geology and Related Science's has been ordered for the ACRS of fice.) ~-- ..nI x V o I A -.I B. h. M.2 - .c oma, l n 2.c :.2.' Id M3_. : .c) w.- i su== > r:. -. g g-
.a .i a } '. I . h. M<. b l-D ~ hsked how the seismic Design Criteria of Nuclear Power Plants daFAugust l5I 1967, prepared by R. H. Bryan, fitted.in with the Seismic '~ Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants revised - and Geologic Sitins,jn;,d.hi.3, explained that these represent Part I and Part Cctober 17, 1967. !
- j. _ _
11 respectively of ~the overall Criteria and that the. Division of Reactor Standa -erds vos prepared to discuss-only Part I-at this time - PartrII-is-in-a-very-r Jurther _reliminaryformandwasprovidedforinformationonly./ pacted that Newmark and Hall, consultants to the Regulatory starr. ate trying to develop synthetic response spectra based on ground' acceleration. velocity. . These spectra vill be included in Part II 4 displacement, and damping factors. of the Criteria. He also questioned if. one family of curves vas adequate. Since ~ the spectra are significant in any seismic consideration, he _ expressed -a his opinion.that Part I of the Criteria should at least mention them. [ _ f. '- ~ lexpressed his concern over the AEC establishing "g" values and He te'els the applicant should analyze the geology, hydrology and - spectra. siesmology of his proposed site and then establish-spectra and "g" values. for that specific site. ' He argued that.the proposed Criteria relieves the. applicant of the responsibility of establishing the seismic design basis and places.the l AEC in the position of setting design values.for sites of unknown seismic charac. l teristics. L .?.
- vointed out the inconsistent es' n se smic. design betveen Fort j
i i i He noted that in most cases. l Calhoun, cooper and (Quad Cities / Prairie Isisud?). the applicants prepare separate reports of geology, hydrology and seismology, He cautioned but then fati to integrate the information for seismic design. He against revieuing isolated enticios'and ignoring the integrated effects. questioned who should be responsible for integrating the studios.. [ L noted that the Coennissioners established's policy with the Malibu ite that tihe Criteria must be sensible but severe. s E' ] ) expressed his lack of understanding of horone went from a viggic 'on a seiscosTip5 chart to a point on the tri-partite chart in Part II of the Criteria. l ._)explainedthatfromtheseismographchart,onecanprepareachartof frequency' vs response from which you can enter the tri-partite chart. The. full extent of the explanation was lost on this transcriber. I Renulstory staff Mr. Coulter reviewed the results of an espetiment to measure the movement alons-a fault at the Nevada Test site incident to an underground nuclear detonation (Coexnodore test). A high speed motion pictura camera was located on one. side of the fault and aimed 'at a target on the other side of the fault. A trace of the time vs position plot of the target reintive to the comera is attached for h. i your information. Hotion along the fault lasted for about 2 8 seconds and-resulted in a nernanent reintivo duolnement of sout *.4" verc te.31 and 2.6" horizon;al. The toen1 amplitude.o! relative mo:: ion was coouc 21" vertica, omcc> .t......... suams >
- .4..,.
4 4 m. 4
'l .s, s. ,_ f & :N. . L '. '. t .m 4 ..) and 6" borizontal. f'i detonation to fault distance was about 1500'.The camera to carget distanc il shot would represent an equivalent of an earthquake of maguttude 5.5 ' that, the permanent ground movement occurred in Q It recorded sental and 3" vertient displacement. a 11/" hort-Mr. Steinbrugge inquired if the reistive vertical displacement c x attributed to settling of the alluvial overburden. i ould be think so. Mr. Coulter did not had now been relaxed and etiat they would have to find a location for further tests. another ~ Dr. Okrent aske.d if these detonations were true representati 'Mr. Coulter did not think so since they were essentially a p i distance free the fault. ons of earthquakes. o nt source some Dr. Okrent asked about the significance of the 0.05 seconds consider that ground displacement occurs in 0.05 seconds 0.35 second Should designers other value? He postulated a reactor built on a fault that can expect s or some 1 displacement. Hov does the 0.05 seconds affect the design? a 2 foot I near the fault than further away. cussed the "flin3" offect where the Mr. 'Coultor dis-e greater between compression velocity and shear velocity (6-9 ft/sec iMr.11evear n shear). Mr. Case pointed out that the Design Criteria defines two earthq ground acceleration of the Design Basis Earthquake. De uakes, the e ciaximum the Design Basis E:rthquake would be determined Dr. O' Kelly inquired hov l would be the largest that could occur at that siteMr. Case replied that it l his concern that an anticant cay be required to examine a siteMr. Steinbru 1 geologic conditions in a soiemically active area then apply the res l with si=1lar seismically inactive area. He feels that the second para 3raph on page 6 of the u ts to a clarified. i require core justification of the site characteristics. a should along or across a fault.out that the site would have different characteristic Mr. Coulter pointed position accelerations and response spectra.there was some concern over t o ground added to page 6 modifying the section on intensity.Mr. Namnark suggested that Mr. Caso replied that one was to be en upper limit of e defined. would be the limit of system intettrity. } and the other
- vant their plants to continue to operate after a coderate earthquake Itc pointed out that the operators I
want to assure no hazard to the public from a severe Dr. White ~~ c the omcc > O i 9
b j z. l + 6 S 3 t. ,. s i ..:l a plant for dem' age. This would~ imply a shutdown before operation continued. Mr. Case noted that this cay be a; time when the utility;would'particula want continuity of operation to provida power to any quake damaged areaa.. Dr. Okrent then suggested thaCttie utility may wish to d act affecting. safety _to 1/4..the Design Basis Earthquake,and, accept the eco esign the features-aceic asd reliabf.lity oenal&J "of shutting down (de earthquakes greater than that. The present' draft Csiteria do not permit this "econonic" risk. again inquired 'ith the intent of'the -lesseriquake. ~ He the plant systema and components.that this was a way of obcaining ~ of Dr. Okrent answeped! hat there are easier ways of obtaining more than one type of analycia. t 1 what action would be reqdirest if the pint experienced'aduske in excess o h y6 acted further into i the lower desige but lessi han.' the apper design limit. j t bow the quake,would be measuredt nrther, he asked beaddedto$be4eactosc0ntrolsystem. ant if e saismic scram function would { included ia s .i Mr. Case said that a requirement can of the lover' deign 1(eit is experivaced.nquire a plant shutdowogand inopectioj Newark could provide a ty numbers to be included.He doubted, however, that Mr. j N6 mark said that the plant would shst[down and in I s a. ' M r. on to say that applicants object to seismic scram devices and that it is He went basically an instrumentation probics. claim that they,would have very frequent shutdowns from a seismic sc Dr. Ohnac a :p\\ ing a plant shutdown and inspection. 3 Mr. Case replie Iwel c2 carf.quhe sh5$1d be permitted without requir-should be,reedires for a quif3 'Jf 1/d e design shutdown orderly shutdWrn etsbe be seversi hours @or days. quake. It was noted that an ~ asking the size of hucke required to require a shutdown in a very rapj (orderlybutnotprpionged). er 1 i y\\ Mr. Steinbruy;e asked how the'eperators would ecasure a quake and d 1 that it has 1/2 tiie design qua'de. time and interpretation.to analyze the seismograph record for speaj re some 1 I Dr. Ohredt then suggested that only those timetors in active seismic ar 4 i equipped with seismictserams. 1 eas be J Mr. Case said that this'should not be a part. of thy Criteria but should be handled on a case-by-case basis for ea cant. Dr. D'Appelonia stated that the additional construction cost requirement'is not' significant. 'to meet a 0.2 g make clear that the designer has the option to. design to higher v save shutdowns frum smaller quakes.^ Dr. Okrent aunested that the Ct;visfen of Reg orocedures reliefn t to cetion in'tho event of a, cutbgske. particular1v :tttion roactura WLtMut salsaic inattur.yatatun. T&%Br roccicular ditions requiring rplantmhutdownr-- -- -- ;.r.tontion sacuid i e geven
- summt >
U ,c.... *4-4 \\b ? - =----- f w--- A ^.- - - - -- ^- ~^ _- I
'< :.L s. / t ' ' ~ ..g. ,p t Dr. D'Appolonia asked if the design criteria required considerate i
- setticment and donaification of overburden due to ground shaking on of also include " delta loadings" and erros' ion. pointed out furth He ould
_____Dy_e_yhite' suggested that_the_ considerations listed on.pages listed in order of relative importance. Dr. D'Appolonia warned against confusing cause and effect i that the emphasis seemed to be on faulting and sugg He pointed out a e. He noted deeper should be considered.. He identified the sequence of at something (1) Cause '(earthquake), (2) Rupture. (3) Motion. events est Mr. Coulter replied that in certain areas the operators will be ' damage due to faulting rather than from vibrational effects watching for. Criteria as a first step in their development.Dr. D'Appolonia o issue these by. identifying these. Criteria, the AEC does not close the dHe expressed k siderations.. j oor on other con- \\ Dr. Okrent asked if the applicant uses'all of the studies av il bl .mina his seismic design values or does he look into a crystal ba 1 a a e to deter-standard chart and comes up with a number. Dr. D'Appolonia noted that the applicant makes all of the s but doesn't integrate the infomstion. eparate studies directly to Prof. Newmark's chart and picks off a numberIn some cases, the a Mr. Murphy remarked that it was easiest to go to the histori determine the maximum earthquake intensities. cal record to
- tensitics detemined in this manner have not varied by even onHe pointed o maximum situation.
so many s's then examine the geology close to and out as f e unit for the from the site. miles Dr. D'Appolonia asked if the AEC makes an independent analy i Hr. Case responded that in some cases the Utos makes a site surve s s of the site.. D'Appolonia then remarked that two different conclusions on sit i y. D r. were possible, one based on the information presented in the PSAR e suitability other based on other independent data. and the Mr. Steinbrugge pointed out that the discussions thus far were rel t d teria would apply east of the Rocky Mountains.to seismically a primarily I ae He asked what cri-Mr. Murphy sug3csted that it would be possible to prepare a map dettn ottne tho w Pe #..?." 5.**'".3.' t.*.:...nres wh re it muld-be oceeotAle t use P-wm u o l. _,.. a..-.._ -.d..... - 7 \\ 3,.;
i ,: I.L *' ' /* * %~ ~~ 'f yf..s .a====~~~~ .\\ s .s t ( Dr. Ohrent then noted that the applicant will be pre , proven guilty as to the frequency of movements along his fault. sumed innocent until Dr. D'Appolonia suggested that the first two itnes of p to read. "from mapped margins of an active fault "age 20 be revised --Dr. Okrent noted that a consultant that could not att N not understand.how the values in Table 1 were derive by Bonilla. meeting could e work presented Mr. Coulter referred to page 22. Figure 6 of the Bonill ) 1 that it implied a factor of 4. a report and said Mr. Case said that this section will be rewritten t i o clarify it. Dr. Okrent referred back to page 16. the last parag Reelfoot take. which was formed in the New Madrid raph, and asked about 1811-1812. . Missouri, earthquake of Mr. Coulter responded that this was the exception th 1 la why the term "in general" is used in the paragr l at proved the rule. This a ph. displacement.Dr. Okrent asked if all reactors in the U . S. should be designe'd for ground i Mr. Coulter responded that it was not necessary in th l e eastern U. S. Mr. Heseark remarked that designs to acco:codate u be provided without significant additional costs p to 6" of displacement can Mr. Case said that he was not so concerned about buil displacement as he use for the u=bilical piping and ng ds= age from ground structures. it should be treated on a case-by-case basisHe thcu;ht that grou accoccodate 1 DRD&T and Reculatqrv Staff Dr. Okrent asked to hear RDT's comments on the Octob Part I of the criteria. er 17. 1967 revision of Generally he felt thattDr. Lieberman noted that he had forwarded som i rough draft comments to DRS. The Urtteria do provide a useful guide for the anal 1. 2. The flexibility of the criteria is in the right dir i ysis of a site. need to be much.more flexible. ection but they j I. ) omet > ] 1 L.. 1 1 7- , SURNAME > ~ !.., 1 i i \\.'q s i _._____.___._.m
, a.* * ~ -R W 3. _.. j N ' ? '..__.. $2. s' ~ / e ~ ~ r .i Dr. D'Appolonia agreed that such a. map would be of great value to th . and the Regulatory Staff but he felt that each applicant should e ACRS to perform his own analysia. Mr. Newmark pointed out that the French have simplified the analy fying a minieum value of 0 3 g for any site. s a by spect-i Newmark replied that we probably could for comp { at. Mr. 'I em designs. Dr. Scott pointed cut the probices and uncertainties of water the geological conditions of the site. asturation and that a standard requirement for soil compaction might action. He suggested established. l Dr. D'Appolonia stated that soil liquefaction can and does occur j each site should be examined for conditions that could lead to liq , and that uefaction. Mr. Steinbrugge pointed out the uncertainties in predictins the d an earthquake. The Alaskan quako lasted longer than three times the tine uration of predicted. i Dr. D'Appolonia noted that placing pilings under the foundati the problem either. since the foundation could settle up t on' may not solve -liquefied and the pilings assumed the entire load. o 3/4" when the soil i Dr. Okrent pointed out that DRS intends to cover quake durati { spectra in Part II of the Criteria. on and response these paracieters should be included in Part I with a po siblHe then suq3cste Part II. He expressed concern that Part I night be accepted w s e refarence to } signers fully understanding that Part II will contain additional e. p cants or de-detailed requirements. Case replied that he expected Part II to be ready in two tHe asked and core M r. applicants to know what the AEC will require. Coulter thoug o four months. Mr. ossible to alert I I Mr. Coulter pointed out that Part I needs a section on soil me h c anics. ' Dr. Okrent suggested that since Part I strikes il faulting. that the discussion now addresses itself to the materialat a ma i on page 15 of the Critoria. e in the last 500.000 years. He asked how one could tell if a fault has c:oved i starting i i ,Mr. Coulty replied that this is sectatimes difficult. techniques, they can sa By rather round about years.y that the Diablo Canyon faulta have not moved once in .the last 500.000 cannot be separated by fault examination.He noted, however, that two events, clos{ i omen i _ ........_u..
.r . 3- ~. g Dr. Okrent sugges :nd that the analysis discuss certain events such as l faction duration, response spectra, the Parkfield pit, etc. Dr. Okrent then asked the ACRS consultants to provide him with their written comments and to send copies to the ACRS office. 4 6 6
- e B
e n e v OWICE > l .,_;( SURNAME > .._.w,.. . f.n '9
j'h Y{.g '. 90** of ,[f. ;l...........,,., l .A u l ~ \\ .r T t i-l < - ~ Es had trouble withs 1 ( ~ i 1. The genera'i application of the limited data available to Bonilla. 1 a 2. The use of a displacement zone around a fault, 3. Using the table and chart at the end of the Criteria. 1 1 i, Dr. Okrent asked for alternates to the Criteria proposed. %.N ~ Dr. Lieberman suggested site evaluation and assessment on a case-by-case bas'is. Basically,'" stay away from faults". Mr. Coulter pointed out the difficulty in establishing the f'ault width. Where there is good exposure and mapping the width could be readily determined. In any case, the burden of proof will rest on the applicant. The purpose of this section is to alert the applicant to what the AEC is going to look at. Dr. Lieberman said that site selection should be based on the best possible geological and seismic evaluations. He said he. suffered from some confusion relative to the Design Basis Earthquake and faulting. He felt that the tsunami considerations were unrealistic. He felt that coastal areas should be assessed for potential tsunami damage. He suggested the development of a model from wave mechanics to predict tsunami damage. He objected to looking at off-shore faults as being impracti' cal. Dr. Okrent suggested assuming an arbitrary tsunami source term and calculating the effects. Mr. Murphy advised that this approach would be grossly conserva-tive. Mr. Minogue recognized that examination of off-shore faults may be difficult but that it should be done "to the extent practical". l Dr. Lieberman expressed his opinion of a need for flexibility in the criteria. Mr. Newmark pointed out that Figure 1 includes all known western U. S. earth-quakes that ruptured the surface. Mr. Case inquired if Part I should be released before Part II or should be held so that the two could be released together. He also asked about how much of Part II should be included in Part I and what would be the advantage of including response spectra in Part I. Mr. Newmark replied that something besides "g" values has to be included. Mr. Steinbrugge objected to including a limited amount of precise values that would not be complete. Dr. Scott then suggested removing the "g" values. Mr. Newark numested that the requirements need not be specific but identify t par.smeters to bel considered spch as spectrpm anu 1 quezaction. l_...._.... J
Y '?., - - ~ l O 'D /,,Q j .- o , f '" ' !A" ]d
- h"j UNITED STATES
? DEPARTMENT OF THE lNTERIOR %,s GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Engineering Geology Branch I Geologic Division 345 Middlefield Road l Menlo Park, California 94025 August 13,'1968 Air Mail Mr. Henry W. Coulter, Deputy ACG s l Office of Engineering Geology I ( U.S. Geological Survey Washington, D. C. 20242
Dear Hank:
I I've put together some comments on " Seismic and geologic siting and design criteria for nuclear power plants" that represent my own ideas and those - of several others here in Menlo. Attempts to elicit constructive criticism from others were not completely successful, in part because the 'l places where help is needed most are where little is known. Much of what is said here assumes that the general and most of the detailed character of the criteria is now immutable, although there is not. unanimous agreement I that the present approach is the best one. The most important criticisms are these:
- 1) This document is more difficult to read than any I've previously encountered: due in part to organization (why not, at least, group all the a's, b's, and c's together?), in part to insufficient.t streamlining of the verbiage, and in part to gaps in the cook book and a writing style that never indicates where the reader is being led.
- 2) A fundamental requirement of the criteria is that the margins of fault zones be delineated on a map, yet there is no clear statement of what is meant by a fault zone (in terms of structural character or scale), how branch and secondary faults are to be handled, or how the applicant is supposed to decide what to include and exclude. Such guidance could be a general statement of philosophy, or a cook book description.
- 3) A minimum width for the displacement design zona along apparently single-stranded, capable faults is needed.
' 4) The requirement that all faults greater than.one mile long and. i within 250 miles of the site be studied to determine geologic history and j capability, is unfulfillable. There are more than 3,000 7 -minute quad-rangles within 250 miles of an inland site. But the requirement is t unnecessary, 3nd I don't understand why it is included. / Vo T A-ePT- %7- / MM l"I a4
s-I. .m p -}
- 5) Duration of seismic shaking is ' barely mentioned in the criteria, yet it is probably as impo::. ant as the other parameters. Means of1 establishing acceleration, response spectrum, and amount of fault dis-placement are at least partially spelled out. Shouldn't the same be done.
for duration? i
- 6) Although the criteria are organized as a cook book, there are some I
serious gaps in the recipes that seem to be glossed over. It's very nico l to say that an amplification factor shall be determined, an earthquake magnitude shall be assigned to capable. faults,. Quaternary fault displace-j 1 ment shall be separated into individual events, -etc., but hew are these to. 1 be done? If. no recipe-is to be given, at 'least make some general state-ment of approach or philosophy.'
- 7) The criteria seem to exclude by omission the use of-historic
~ .i seismicity in the recognition and delineation of faults and tectonic { provinces. Certainly seismicity should not.be used to the exclusion of ' geologic history, nor should the absence of seismic activity obviate l concern, but neither should presence of seismic activity be ignored., This is particularly so for deep fault structures and for " tectonic provinces."
- 8) Determination of individual slip events on a fault.from Quaternary structural-stratigraphic evidence is impossible,' even under_ the most favorable circumstances. And those circumstances can confidently be I
expected never to occur where neaded. i
- 9) The meaning of the introductory paragraph to Required Investiga-l tions, p. 7, xxx.10, is not entirely clear. In particular, does this mean
{ that in areas in California where the geology is'very poorly known, j adequate geologic mapping of the region must be acquired or no sites will be approved? Or will the practice be continued of.as'suming no significant geologic structures are present unless someone happens to demonstrate their existence? j
- 10) The definitions for the most part are not definitions at all, and
] serve more to confuse than anything else. Some important terms--for example, maximum expectable earthquake and geologic structure--are not j included at all. The definitions could be very useful if well written; and good definitions can be written.
- 11) The absence of even a bare mention of volcanic hn::ards acem foolich.
to me. Muut AEC vait for a volcanic equivalent of Dodega IIcad and ito attendant costs before considering the problem, albeit in only a general fashion? i
- 12) Numerous historic events of surface faulting have consisted of a primary or main break accompanied by branch and secondary breaks with
~ displacements less' than 307. of those on the main br.eaks (Banilla, TID 24124, figs.,,,7 and 8). Th' e preserit criteria take a very pessimistically ~. 9 f 9 ^ f 2
t n s c delineated fault zone (the displacement design zone) and assumed that the main break could occur anywhere within '.t. An alternative, of somewhat l smaller degree of safety, would be to recognize the. smaller likelihood of ' the main break migrating outside the presently existing fault zone, establish a second displacement zone around a reduced inner zone, and require design to protect against the smaller displacements of subsidiary faults therein. An additional possibility would be to require avoidance of all faults of some minimum size, regardless of age. This would greatly reduce risk of damage by fault rupture, since development of new faults is much 1 css likely than utilization of existing fractures in future fault movements. This avoidance could be applied to the subsidiary zonc suggested above in order to decrease risk, or could be applied to the area beyond a reduced displacement design zone in tectonically active regions in order to restore some of the safety lost by that reduction. j
- 13) The criteria totally lack any suggestion of what constitutes a good site for a reactor. ' If one purpose of the criteria is to stimulate careful consideration of geology and reduce the number of poor sites proposed, a general statement of good-site characteristics would be a valuable influence on applicant thinking.
I've sent you more detailed comments keyed to the criteria under separato 4 cover, and have a few others I'll pass on by phone. Although I tried to convince Gerry Hadlock by phone that the criteria deserve much greater clarity, efficiency, and elegance of expression than they presently exhibit, 18ve not placed much emphasis on that in this review. People here in Menlo involved in discussion about and contribution to the review are Bonilla, Eaton, Granta, Hank Moore, Nichols, Bob Sharp, Wentworth. Yerkes, and Ziony. Ziony is also sending you a short discussion of asymmetry of dip-slip fault zones. Sincerely, Carl M. Wentworth l s' J. OJ e t 1 / a
'I.' 4 - . - - -.., ;i ...m. y n. f/$5 l,/, / ,\\ ~ ' .j i Comments by C. M. Wentworth and others 1 on " Seismic and geologic siting and design 4 criteria - for' nuclear power plants"' 1 'l -) July, 1968 l I Initials in parentheses refer to source of comment,'most of which have l ..been modified by Wentworth: =Eaton, Grantz,.Nichols,' Wentworth,-Yerkes, l Ziony. Hank Moore and Bob Sharp also worked thru the maze,- but their comments are included in Wentworth's. a I Y d { P '*6 'f l t - i l- -/ .s l / 5 f j' .\\. s J 3 A
O ^ 1. (Z) (p. 1, (a), Lo) Do the criteria distinguish between sudden rupture and fault creep, or are both included in the category surface faulting? [See also p.- 2 (Z) L7 and p. 4 (f) L2).] (W) And, since creep is becoming recognized on numerous faults in California, might the simpic " instrumentation" needed to monitor possible slow horizontal and vertical distortion of the land surface at the site be required along with installation of seismometers? This might be appropriate at least in regions known to be subject to contemporary surface strain. Probably an observation schedule should be required as well. 2 (W) (p. 1, (a), L6) Does this mean those surface faults caused by earthquakes are of concern to the AEC (see also p. 2 (Z) L7)? Present consensus as I understand it is that faulting causes earthquakes in California, not the reverse. 3. (W) (p. 1, (b), L1, L5) "These criteria" certainly are not based soleiv "on the limited geophysical information available... ", although this seems implied. What is the antecedent of "these" in (b)L1 and L5? Not the whole of the criteria. Actually, a-similar statement can and probably should be made about the limited geologic information available, and the interior nature of the parts of the criteria based on that information. 3a (W6G)(p.1, (b), L3) Numerous severe earthquakes have.been observed and recorded relative to the few that have been carefully studied with modern techniques, and therefore provide useful information for building design. 4. (W) The procedures described have some immense gaps that must be filled by anyone trying to use the criteria-for example, means of assigning maximum expectable earthquake to a capable fault after geologic history and structural relations are understood as well as is possible. 5. (W) (p. 2, par. 2, L8) Is ;this meant to imply that all "other geologic and seismologic factors which should be taken into account in the siting and design of nucicar reactors are. iuentified?" I find no mention in the criteria, for example, of volcanic processes, several of which are probably capable of causing severe discom-fort to a reactor. 6. (E) (p. 3, (a), 11) The definitions of both magnitude and intensity leave a lot unsaid, but the definitions become sufficiently complex that this may be the best method. It might be desirable, however, to require consistency throughout' the cri~teria in tho particular kind of magnitude used, including figure 2. Or perhaps l conversion of all magnitudes to one standard, such as Richter's local magnitude, should be required. / 1 l l / / 3 t S
. -. - L.. a...:-...-
- .A i
rw I l (G) Also, magnitude determinations by different seismologists and seismologic stations may differ significantly for the same carth-quake. How is this to be resolved, especially where the difference l 1s between 2 and 7 feet, or 7 and 20 feet of displacement on fig. 27 (Y) More than one numerical value is commonly quoted for magnitude l (applies also to p. 15, Table 1). l 7. (Y) (p. 3, (b), L3) Since ' geologic effects are recognized'only in Richter's'1956 revision (Richter,1958, p.137-138) should " Intensity means the numerical value on the Modified Mercalli scale" perhaps.be modified by adding "as revised (Richter,1958)" or something similar? 8. (W) (p. 3, (c), L2) This is a pretty weak definition of the design basis earthquake, considering that in fact it is the largcst carth-quake that may reasonably be expected to affect the site (whatever j that may mean), I (W&G) (p. 3, (d), L4) Emerging information suggests that duration, dominant periods, and displacement may be more important than acceleration alone in determining amount of damage. 9. (Z) (p. 3, (e)L4) Perhaps use this opportunity to remove ambiguity by excluding zones of gouge and breccia along faults from that class - of features called fault zones, by restricting the latter to zones of faults. 10. (W) (p. 3, (e), L4) This statement that "a fault zone may consist of...or a group of closely-spaced related subparallel faults... " r constitutes a restriction on the character of fault zones. It sh intended that in delineation of the boundary envelep of fr-zones, used to establish the control width of capable ' only faults that are mutually sub' parallel need ba' (W) (p. 4, top of page) There is no consistent,.d detail presented in the criteria. This ' should be recognized for what it is ' of the complexities possible ip for example in discussion n l attenuation; amplification. 11. (W) (p. 4, (F)L4) Fault-associ 12. (W) (p. 4, (F)L4) Is the handset j official? It should;be. 13. (W) (p. 4, (f), L6) Fault or fault l (W) (p.4, (f) (1)) Fault creep (i.e. A across a fault unaccompanied by et t indicate fault capability, but how I 2 r i / / 4-AS
L... .,......m..-. .---~.--.-.c - - - +. - * *+-~~~~~' - --" i l strain across,a fault unaccompanied by recognized creep, faulting, or "well-determined seismicity?" There's a problem in deter-mining which faults in a block such strain should apply to, but l in some way it should be a factor in determining capability, j 14. (Y) (p. 4(f) (2) (3)- The Malibou Coast fault would probably by excluded by these criteria (thereby undercutting the Hearing Board). (W) This is true only if attention is restricted to the trace of the Malibu Coast fault itself in the central Santa Monica Mts. I However, late Pleistocene sediments are displaced by 'the fault to I the east, with perceptible though extremely subdued topographic [ expression. This displacement cannot be demonstrated to be older than 500,000 years, and in fact the displaced terrace deposition 3 most probably younger than that. If capability at this displace-3 ment locality (Potrero Canyon) must be extended along the length of the fault despite unfaulted young cover elsewhere, the whole i fault is capable. In addition, the available evidence indicates l a genetic structural relation with-the capable Newport-Inglewood l zone. ' i 15. (W) (p.4,(f)(4), L2) Perceptible evidence of surface warping j Add surface? Is there any difficulty posed by the possibility of I deep alluvium being older than 500,000 years? j In the listing of morphologic features (geomorphologic or geomorphic?), shouldn't terraces and erosion surfaces be added? ] 16. (W) (p.4,(f)(5),L1) ' Does " geologic structure" need definition? 17. (W) (p. 4, (f), (1) -(6)) There is no provision in the-definition of capable faults for the case in which there is no evidence one way or the other concerning youth of a fault. This applies particu-larly to smaller, separate faults that may or may not be young, and may or may not be part of an adjacent, capable fault zone. This leads me again to an old suggestion; that everywhere, or at least in regions of active tectonism, faults of some minimum size ought to be avoided. If a reduction in the widths of the displace-ment design zones becomes necessary, this might be a means of reincorporating some of the lost protection. 18 (Y) (p.5,(6),L1) Inference of a genetic relationship between structures is one step further along the chain of uncertainty than demonstra-tion of a structural relationship. Malibu Coast fault - Newport-Inglewood relations are a case in point. 19. (W) (p.5,(6),L8) In addition to deep alluvial cover, shallow alluvium, soil, vegetation, water, and missing or uncertain rock record due to erosion, non deposition, or lack of age control can all obscure geologic history of a particular structure. Missing rock record / is a particularly important case, and ought to be emphasized. I eJ 3 ,1 l / / s} .e
i l 'e .....~.-.:.:~..- - - ,m S, Other evidence, as used here, means (to me) other direct geologic evidence obtained elsewhere along the structure. What about information from trenching, drilling, and geophysical me thods ? (W) (p. 5, (6), par. 2) Although recognizing something of my own hand in this paragraph, I think the first sentence should be omitted and the second modified. It may be true that in some rare cases -faults capable by the criteria can be shown to be incapable. If s o',I fine. But this.is covered in the escape clause of p. 2, and its presence can only cause continuing problems. The specific case of volcanic collapse may be a bad one, anyway. The second sentence is also covered by the escape clause, and the argument presented has little bearing on the problem of capability. It is not that a fault is related to a larger structure that originated in precambrian time that is important, it is the evidence for and against young movement that counts. And that is where the emphasis should be. 20. (W) (p.5,(6)L18) Correlation' is an act of judgement on the part of the geologist whereas here the emphasis should be on the actual geologic relationship. Therefore I'd suggest using association. Could tectonic structure be used instead of orogenic system, to avoid introduction of an additional technical term? 21 (W) (p. 5, (g),L1, p.13, (2),L3) There is a scale problem with tectonic province, just as there is with fault zone. How big is a tectonic province? Does this mean Colorado Plateau, Great Basin, Rocky Mtn. type and sized provinces, or what? (W&G) Shouldn't the tectonic provinces have contemporary significance, and therefore be based on the youngest (er) structural character-1stics,. including historic seismicity? (W&G) (p. b, (h)) This " definition" is a prime example of the problems l we f1nd with most of the definitions - they don't define. Instead they tell a little about the word, and may be misleading. In this case "large scale" and " measured in miles" refer to the same thing, the difference between " dislocation" and " disruption" is uncicar whereas distortion is not included, the restriction to the earth's crust may be unfortunate, particularly when considering earthquake generators and the difference between this and geologic and orogenic structure is totally unclear. 22. (W) (p. 6, (j), L1) Maximum width measured along the fault 's trend is. l not very clear, except perhaps to those of us who already know what it-.means. Is the dimension to be measured one that is along the fault's trend, and therefore parallel to the fault? 23. (Z) (p.6,(j),LS) A minimum width of 'the control zone ought to be established for those faults which lack or appear to lack any-j branch or secondary faults. .0 4 / / l 4x k
aa ---a...-. O q J 24. (W) (p.6,(j),LS) "... fault zone sha11' include all fault traces which join... the main-fault trace" constitutes a further H restriction on the character of fault zones (see comment 10). Is it intended that in delineation.of the boundary envelop. of fault zones only those faults which join or probably join the main .1 fault need be included? 25. (Z) (p.6, (j), L8) The term " dipping limb" applied to monoclinal -flexures is ambiguous. Monoclines commonly have configurations more complex than' just step-like. bends in otherwise horizontal beds (see fig. 5 in Kelley, 1955, GSA Bull., v. <66, no. 7). Shouldn't the control width for monoclinal flexures be the width between the major _ antic 11nal and synclinal bends which separate more steeply inclined layers from.those less steeply inclined? 26. (Y) (p. 6, -(k),L2) Single-degree-of-freedom: add hypens? 26a (W&G) - (p. 7,- (a), (1) ; p. 9, (8),111; p. 10, (1) ; p.,11, (b), iii) The requirement in those four-places of the _ determination of geologic history or of geologic history'of fault displacement seems insufficiently specific, for many aspects of geologic history-and of the older history of faults will have no bearing on 'the problems at hand. Could something like these phases be used: " Late. Cenozoic and partinent' older geologic history"; " late Cenozoic and pertinent older history' of displacements"? 26b (W&G) (p.7,(a),(2). Should specific mention be made of offshore structures, and of the amount of offshore investigations required before the admonition of paragraph XXX.10, p. _7 is satisfied? - The amount of geologic information available, the ease of gathering 1 information, and the lik11 hood of correct understanding and portrayal of the geology changes drastically at the water's edge, yet the significance of the information changes not at all.. The criteria provide no guidance on thid point at all. Also applies to p. 5,(6), par. 2; and p.10(3). To what extent is the applicant expected to utilize geophysical methods in seeking existence, location, character,. and geologic history of faults and other structures that may occur beneath. younger cover? The criteria seem to imply that such work is not necessary, that extrapolation and intrapolation from exposed areas will be sufficient. But this may not be the case, especially for " zones" of dip slip faults, and would ignore a major source of information to satisfy the requirement of p. 7 par.. XXX.10. 27. (Y) (p. 7,(a),(3),L2) The surficial geologic materials: rearrange word order? 5 l sJ t 2
1 a ~ m. 1 1 28. (E) (p.8,(4),L4). ... capacity 'of the underlying material to transmit - earthquake energy to the foundations of ' the facility..." implies the possibility that the material may. not have much of a capacity or ability to transmit the energy from bedrock to the structurec l Suggest rewording: "... earthquakes ' and the characteristics of, the underlying material in transmf.tting earthquake induced bedrock l movements to the foundations..." Degree'of saturation-is an. ' important additional factor,' and others such as grain size and mineralogy can be important. .] 29. (Y) (p.8,(5),L2) Is'the use of " reasonably expected to" i'n (5)L8-consistent with "could have".in (5)L12? 30 (Z) (p. 8, (5),L8 ; p. 14, (4),L2 ; p.14, (5),L2 ; p.15, (3),L2 : and. p.19, (1), j par.2,L2) Is the use of well consolidated, without explanation, appropriate, considering its very different meanings in engineering and geologic usage? 31. (Y) (p.8,13,19, & 20) Duration is fully as. significant as. acceleration; shouldn't it be recognized earlier in the process than it now is? (W) And might it not be treated in a way similar to the criteria's treatment of amount of surface displacement by faulting; with a - bar graph;of durations, and stailar "use the maximum or justify otherwise" dictum? l I l l f-l l i / 6 1 /
m 'l - ~. rC g ) J { 31a (W & G) (p. 8, (6), L1) (and also
- p. 11(5)L1)
In some cases, earthquake hypocacers may themselves define i tectonic structures. Might such structures also' be I important, and introduce the additional factor of. vertical as well as horizontal distances to the earthquake origins.
- 32. (W & G) (p. 9, (7 ), L3 ; p.9,(8),L2;-p.13,(1),LS)
It does not seem sensible to require (par.(7) and(8$ that j the geometry and geologic history of all faults longer than one mile and within 250 miles of the site be determined within the spirit of par. XXX. 10 on p. 7. j In the.first place,the requirement cannot be met in the forseeable future. Recognition of most faults l a mile or more long'becomes attainable only upon-good geologic mapping at 1:62,500, or probably 1:24,000. l However, in much of California the available mapping is inadequate, thus requiring for each site a huge mapping effort involving (for a coastal site) some 1,500 7_1/2 quadrangles. l Secondly the requirement seems unnessary. How j large an earthquake can a one-mile-long fault generate? i Not a very large one, and certainly not one that l would produce more than 0.1 g acceleration at a distance of 250 miles. In fact what is needed here is i attention to the large faults capable of generating large earthquakes. A minimum length of 25 miles or more g night be adequate, or different lengths.at different distances from the site might be considered. 1(p.9.(8).L3b
- 33. (W)kAre there going to be dny cases in which a' review of 1
l the literature will be suffi~cient to establish geometry, I structural relations, and late Cenozoic history of a l fault? Very few', if any, I suspect. Therefore, { shouldn't this read " determination from [a} field investigation and review of the literature"? { . 9,_(8),iiih j
- 34. (W) Determination of the " estimated amount of the maximum i
uaternary dislocation related to any one earthquake along the structure" seems flatly impossible, even in j the most favorable cases. In an ideal case, Quaternary strat.igraphy wou1d be sufficiently detailed to allow { ~ 44W(@%MLon o f ea ch f a ul t movement, and the associated not slip. The more likely situation, if Quaternary I deposits were present at all,-would allow establishment of displacement of Quaternary deposits. Amount or l orientation of net slip could only be estimate; from / separation and character of the fault,& distinction of individual slip events would be impossible. Even i 1 .s l i / 7 l 2
\\ p where the stratigraphy provided some control ] tgming of displacement, the best that.could be on DOS 2h44 from the rock record would be that so many I feet of separation occurred prior to, and so many feet after,a particular depositional event or horizon. In all cases except where separation was j less than 40 feet, it would be necessary to assume that individual slip events were each the maximum possiblej or 40 feet or more according to figure 2 of the criteria. If this is the case, why not state it directly: " Quaternary slip events will be assumed to have occurred in 40 foot increments, except where other values can j be d emons tra t ed ' " The implication, of course, is that j most faults with Quaternary displacement will have q maximum expectable earthquakes of magnitude 8 or larger l assigned to them. { (p.9, footnote); i
- 35. (W). fhis qualification should not be permitted to alloV the i
presence of a nearby capable structure to obviate i consideration of more distant structures with larger j maximum expectable earthquakes.
- 36. (W)(p.10,L1)
In contrast to p. 10, L1, this earthquake (maximum expectable earthquake) is not used as the i design basis for surface faulting, as I understand the criteria, but rather is used in the determination of the design basis for surface faulting. In other words, j once the capability of a structure is established, and the displacement design zone is delineated, the amount of displacement that must be designed for within the 3 zone is, at least in part, dependent'on the magnitude of the largest earthquake reasonably ass noAk to based on considerat. ion of@ historic l l the structure, seis-l micity, regional structural relations, and geologic l history. l And why not call this earthquake the maximum { expectable earthquake, as is done on p. 22, L19, and l define it in the list of definitions. This would help resolve initial confusion over the difference between the maximum expectable and design basis earthquakes. 36a (Y)(p.10,L3) Suggest possible rewording: " Historically, i surface faulting has not been a characteristic..." g( p_.10, ( 2 ) ),' l 37 (G & W){sSuggest rewording of (2) to read: - " Determination of geologic evidence of fault offset at or near the ground I surface in or near the site." It is not clear whether'(2) is intended to apply j to all fault displacements, regardless of geologic age, l or just those displacements af f ecting both Yk surficial 1 mategials and underlying bedrock. Since this is j actually a facet of (1) that is being listed separately l l 8 l b d
I ,a 1 as well, older displacements are already covered, and the emphasis might well be placed on Quaternary displacements, whether er not surficial deposits are present, or faulted. Why restrict this requirement to carthquake-related faulting? Creep displacement is equally important in establishing capability of a f' ult, and a regardless, there's no wayHof determining after the fact whether or not fault movement was accompanied by an earthquake.
- 38. (W scions raised by readers in Menlo concerning the purpose of various steps and requirements in the criteria, including (4), suggest that the spirit as well as the letter of the criteria might better be served if a more. continuous logic were built into
.the criteria:
- 39. (W) (p.10,(4),L1) The verb to map, as used by geologists, implies field investigation, rather than just map representation of existing data.
Yet I suspect the latter is all that is meant here and on.p. 8 (5). (G) In addition, one plots earthquake, epicenters on maps, l not earthquakes. 4 0.~ (W) (p.10, (4), L 2) How does one establish this reasonableness? By using some minimum magnitude cutoff? I should think all historic seismicity should be represented on the map, then determine which, if cny, need not be considered associable with faults..This would further force the basis for elimination of consideration into the open, where it belongs. 40a (W & G) (p.10, (4), L3) Suggest deleting "and greater than 1,000 feet long," for if it's capable, who cares how long it is.
- 41. (W)IEhig0&hbO2E"Sof)be permitted to allow the presence of
'a nearby capable f ault of narrow control width to obviate consideration of a more distant, but much wider, capable structure.
- 42. (W) (P.11, L1; p. 4, (f ), (5) ; p.10,(4); p.11,(5))
A most important item in considering association of faults and earthquakes is radius of locat1on error. This is nowhere mentioned in the criteria, yet is seldom given l sufficient emphasis by either seismologists or geologists. I would urge consideration of explicitely requiring 'l assignment of epicenters to any or all faults within / the circle of error, subject to application of other evidence. This would be conservative, but as with other 7 g s l 9 e k' ,e
.. ~. -. -. -. ~ -.... ~, items in the criteria, could be by-passed in the face of superior arguments. For determination of capability, this consideration would apply to p. 4 (f) (5). For establishment of maximum expectable earthquake assignable to a capable structu:e in determining the design basis for surface faulting, it would apply to p. 10 and 11, (4) and (5). (W. & G. Suggest that focal depth is also significant. Should epicenters of intermediate and deep focus earthquakes receive the same treatment as shallow focus earthquakes? l
- 43. (W. & c)(p, 11,(iv),L1)
"The outer limits of the-width of the structure" seems redundant. L5)D( D (3)L8). and p.18 ~ #
- 44. (W & G) (p.12, (1), L1; p.18,(3), L8; p.12,(11),
it possible to have evidence regarding causes that have yet to occur? V " ~)" " (snd p.18(3)L8) Wouldn't withdrawal be a better term than drawndown, which refers to lowering of water levels in reservoirs and aquifers during pumping. , 4 5. (W & G) (p.12, (11), L1) (and p.12(ii)L5) How does hydrology apply to the problem?
- 46. (W & G)(p.12,(11),L4)
Add coastal (or submarine): "Similar topography" (p.12,(111),L3)
- 47. (W & G),Are distant offshore earthquakes of large magnitude of no concern?
Shouldn't this read somqRying like: "from local submarine faulting or from local offshore effects caused by more dis. tant ear thq ua' kes? (W & G) l
- 48. g(p.12,(111),L7) In addition to probable slip characteristics of faults, shouldn't. tectonic up-and down-warping be considered.
(W &G) 4 9. A(p'.12, (111), L8 ) Suggest that offshore slides are such an l important class of wave generators that they be listed separately, rather than being buried at the end of par. (111).
- 50. (W & G) (p.12, (2), L1)
Exposure to waves and floods from lakes and rivers is not restricted to non-coastal sites, as implied in (2). Coastal sites at river mouths or with lakes upstream or uphill from them are also exposed to such events.. Faulting or tectonic tilting can also produce floods or waves in lakes. I l l .a /' l / 1.0 \\ / / a l Ys
- I
'l 5 ._........~.1_.. 73 ^
- 51. (W) (p.13, (1), L 7 )
How is "The carthquake of greatest magnitude related to the structure" to be established? By fault length-magnitude relations, displacement-magnitude relations, or what? And suggest adding words to read: "The magnitude of this earthquake based on geologic evidence may be larger than..." t Sla (W & G) (p.13, (1),L9; p.19,(1),L3) Is it anywhere stated that the acceleration discussed is horizontal, or isn't that the case?
- 52. (p.13, (2 ), L3 )
See 21 Also, the criteria use geclogic structure (undefined), tectonic structure (poorly defined), orogenic structure (undefined), and tectonic prov1nce (poorly defined), as well as region, vicinity, nearby, i etc. l It would be nice to reduce the h J qF0 to a minimum, and make the definition")s as clear as possible. For example l geologic, tectonic, and orogenic structure 4 all mean the same thing, with the possible exception l of relative size. Why not make it easy for the reader. And if historic seismicity is included, the province i might better be called a tectonic-seismic province.
- 53. (W&G)(p.14, L4)
Suggest rewording: "... assuming that the ) epicenter of the earthquake lies at that point within its province [that is) closest to the site." t
- 54. (W&G) (p.14, (4 ), L1) Suggest rewording:
" earthquake producing the maximum" i
- 35. (W & G) (p.14, ( 4 ), L 5 )
Does limited data mean short seismic and historic record? If so, why not say so? i
- 56. (W & G) (p.14, (4), L6)
Is there any way for the reader to determine what " conservation judgement" means? Clearly it must be relative to some standard.
- 57. (W) (p.15, table 1, L4) One times the control width could \\
3 put the reactor dght at the active strand of a fault j'~ zone if that strand lies at the margin of.the zone.'
- 58. (W)(p.15,L9)
Shouldn't " maximum expectable earthquake" be l used here?
- 59. (W& G ) ( p.15, ( 2 ), L4) Suggest rewording "... structure'more than 25 miles from its point..."
l 11 i ~ ^
l _ ~. - t (% ,u A l l
- 60. (W&G) (p.16, (c),. LS)
For enclosed bays, lakes; and rivers, the level of conservat1sm here would require assuming some large stream flow figure, perhaps a 50 year flood.
- 61. (W&G ) (p.16, (1), L7)
Sugges. modifying something like this: "...can cause foundation instability from tilting or rupture of the ground unrelated to surface faulting, i but due to fissuring, lurching, differential compaction, 1 and cratering." Tilting as well as rupture has been j added, and lurching (lateral inertial movement of ) unconsolidated sediments without a gravitational com-I ponent) as distinct from one of its results, fissuring, I is also suggested. l 1
- 62. (p.17, ( 2 ), L1) (W)
No where 1s there mentioned the possible horizontal strains associated with subsidence. ' l
- 63. (W) (p.17, ( 3 ) )
Regional tectonic (?) warping. l i 64 (W) (p.17,(b), L1) A shear, joint, or fracture is hardly j a zone. This is the place where growing folds are dovered by the criteria, and even here not explicity. l 65. (W)(p.17,(c), L2) What i s. the difference between the zones of crushed or disturbed material in (c) and the deforma- { tional zones of (b)? j 66. (N) (p.17, ( e), L6) Is there any method by which potential I for fissuring can be determined in advance of the. event? 67. (p.17,(2),L4) What about littoral drift of sand along the coast and its potential effect on cooling water lines, either from burial of the 11nes or intake or by removal j l of support? See Corral Canyon rep' ort, p. 202. 68. (W6G)(p.17,(2)L2) Shouldn't rock falls and avalanches be l explicitely mentioned, and perhaps landslides as well? l Submarine topography? j Why does this section get such short shift, compared to faulting etc.? l ) 69. (Y ) ( p.18, ( 3 ), L 9 ) How about low tides combined with I unanticipated storm effects (i la Crescent Bay)? 1 Littoral drift also a factor? 1 i 70. (W) (p.18, (3 ), L10) Coastal uplift is mentioned here, but i coastal subsidence not mentioned on p. 16 under floods l l and waves. i i 12 l i (p. 12a follows) I . J
1 a ... ~. -.... i es s q { i 71. (W&G ) (p.18, ( 3), L 7 ) Shouldn't the DBE and the DB for l surface faulting be accompanied here-by design i bases for waves, for landslides, and for tilting and warping? 72. (W6 G) (p.19, (1), L 3 ) Suggese adding words: "... Maximum vibratory ground acceleration _a_t, the site determined..." Would a minimum of-0.5g acceleration be required for all reactors near the-San Andreas fault in central California? I l t I d 9 f l ) { l 1 l l f i i / i .i j \\ 12 a f f (p. 13 follows) / / .i ..g 1 3
,e + .... _ = _.._m .-4.-.-.-- O ,3 j 1 i i i How is the. transition'from maximum ground acceleration to response spectrum madeff_Is the maximum acceleration assumed to be.at the period of the structure, or the most sensitive period of-this structure, or what? 3 I
- 73. (w) (p.19, (1), L11)
Why not " caused by more.than~one earth. l q u a k e", for that's the significant point.,there. Or - n l perhaps " developed'from.an env& lope of spectraffrom-l measured vibratory -^H"aa of representative earth. l quakes." thofimJ
- 74.. (W&G) (p.19, (1)L16)
Any indication of~how: the amplifica- ]t tion factor is to be determined? .75. (W&G) (p. 20, L8) Landsliding.and other slope failures? t 76.-(W&G)(p.20,(2) Why is the' operating basis earthquake .l discussed in these criteria? .Is it involved in reactor ~ safety? ]
- 77. (W&G)(p.21,(3),L2)
Where relative to the reactor installation will the instruments be placed? If ^ termination of operation will"be imposed by the1AEC if shaking greater =than that anticipated actually. I occurs, then instruments might be situated to minimize. response to passing seismic wayes. L9 q%vil it be (me +t ana< $hP I?.).
- 78. (W&G)(p.2455) J.Tho plane of the fault, and'therefore to include this somehow rather than saying "in'any j
direction?" ((p.22 L13); (Y){buggest changed wording: "...the da_ta of fig. 2 shall..." 79. (W&G) And why.just consider fig. 2, why not follow it subject to exceptions?
- 80. (W) (p. 2 2, L19)
This is the first use of:" maximum expected earthquake," and nowhere is it' defined.
- 81. (W)(p.23, (2)) This exception seems totally out of place.1'n the context'of the criteria.
Why are the historic sur-face displacements to be considered maximum',or'even representative of the faults they o'ccurred on, much less-of faults w1th similar geologic settings? One way to read this is that if design for~ displacement will be required anyway, put the reactor on'a site of relatively small historic. surface. rupture, because there 2 instead of 40 feet of displacement can be justified..This is' nonsense,.and the paragraph ought / to be deleted forthwith! g 13 4 3 j.
e e
- \\
/
- 82. (W)(p.24, fig.1)
This figure scens too simplified, and. j isn't even clear as it stands. This is a strike-slip fault, whereas patterns of dip slip faults are the ones that will pose problems. It is not clear that the i positions of the margins of the displacement design 1 zone are determined by drawing lines parallel to and i on either side of the geometric centerline of the i fault zone (including branches), and one half the i width of the DDZ from that centerline. The case of a major branch fault is not included.' j (And how do you handle a long branch fault at a high j ~ angle to the main fault?-) Other problems relating to 1 fault zone definition include: ' policy on connection of faults that are unconnected on existing maps, either as branches or'to make a longer continuous fault, distinction of tectonic from other surface rupturing 1 (and how to handle ruptures due to subsidence?); dif-ferent types o,f faults as part of the same. fault zone. l l (W)
- 83. (p.25, fig.2)
Indicate what kind of magnitude used? 3 Ind i c'a t e Swd wh a t the numbers on the face of the graph l represent? I l. l a ed 14 .,'.,}}