|
|
Line 25: |
Line 25: |
| large shock during Quaternary time throughout the entire province in which the site is location.1 Thus while surface f aulting cannot be categorically precluded the evidence indicates that it is minor or absent throughout most of the province and that there is no reason to anticipate major release of seismic energy in a near-surface environment. . | | large shock during Quaternary time throughout the entire province in which the site is location.1 Thus while surface f aulting cannot be categorically precluded the evidence indicates that it is minor or absent throughout most of the province and that there is no reason to anticipate major release of seismic energy in a near-surface environment. . |
| The staff considers the Skagit site to be in the tectonic province formed by the overriding co:cinental lithosphere and bounded on the north by an extension through Vancouver Island of the zone of decoupling between the Explorer and Juan de Fuca plates, e the south by the zone of transition associated with the Mendocino triple junction, on the cast by the volcanic chain and on the west by oceanic lithosphere of the Pacific plate. T province. 1258 3 Dbounds are not included in th 7911 n20 /d f | | The staff considers the Skagit site to be in the tectonic province formed by the overriding co:cinental lithosphere and bounded on the north by an extension through Vancouver Island of the zone of decoupling between the Explorer and Juan de Fuca plates, e the south by the zone of transition associated with the Mendocino triple junction, on the cast by the volcanic chain and on the west by oceanic lithosphere of the Pacific plate. T province. 1258 3 Dbounds are not included in th 7911 n20 /d f |
| __
| |
|
| |
|
| -
| | J Woodward Clyde Consultants Page 2 By way of contrast, major carthquakes in central or southern California commonly are accompanied by surface faulting; major energy release has typically occurred at depths of 10 km or less. |
| .
| |
| J Woodward Clyde Consultants Page 2 | |
| .
| |
| By way of contrast, major carthquakes in central or southern California commonly are accompanied by surface faulting; major energy release has typically occurred at depths of 10 km or less. | |
| The significance of this tectonic feature is that earthquakes of given magnitudes which have caused the most serious destruction have been extremely shallow earthquakes usually accompanied by sur f ace f aulting. For example the Tangshan, China earthquake of 1976 (M =7. 6 ) and the Managua, Nicaragua earthquake of 1972 (M=6.4) caused great devasta-tion. These earthquakes had major seismic energy release at extremely shallow depths as evidenced by the surf ace rupturing in the central part of the respective cities. | | The significance of this tectonic feature is that earthquakes of given magnitudes which have caused the most serious destruction have been extremely shallow earthquakes usually accompanied by sur f ace f aulting. For example the Tangshan, China earthquake of 1976 (M =7. 6 ) and the Managua, Nicaragua earthquake of 1972 (M=6.4) caused great devasta-tion. These earthquakes had major seismic energy release at extremely shallow depths as evidenced by the surf ace rupturing in the central part of the respective cities. |
| By contrast the largest earthquakes of the tectonic prov-inces of the northwest have consistently occurred at the base of the crust or below. Even for the largest earthquakes of the northwest no single observation of intensity has ever exceeded MM VIII. A key consideration, therefore, in the site specific evaluation of the proposed Skagit facil-ity is the absence of any evidence suggesting the likelihood that large earthquakes would be accompanied by surf ace f ault-ing and by inference by major seismic energy release in | | By contrast the largest earthquakes of the tectonic prov-inces of the northwest have consistently occurred at the base of the crust or below. Even for the largest earthquakes of the northwest no single observation of intensity has ever exceeded MM VIII. A key consideration, therefore, in the site specific evaluation of the proposed Skagit facil-ity is the absence of any evidence suggesting the likelihood that large earthquakes would be accompanied by surf ace f ault-ing and by inference by major seismic energy release in the near surface environment. |
| '.
| | : 2. Some studies have estimated relationships among earth-quake magnitude, distance and peak horizontal ground acceler-ation. Such studies include Schnabel and Seed (1973), Tri-funac and Brady (1976), and U.S. Geological Survey Circular 795. Other studies have provided correlations between peak ground accelerations and seismic intensity. These include Trifunac and Brady (1975) and Murphy and O'Brien (1977). |
| the near surface environment. | |
| >-
| |
| : 2. Some studies have estimated relationships among earth-quake magnitude, distance and peak horizontal ground acceler-ation. Such studies include Schnabel and Seed (1973), Tri-funac and Brady (1976), and U.S. Geological Survey Circular 795. Other studies have provided correlations between peak | |
| '
| |
| ground accelerations and seismic intensity. These include Trifunac and Brady (1975) and Murphy and O'Brien (1977). | |
| .
| |
| %
| |
|
| |
|
| '
| | Woodward Clyde Consultants Page 3 These latter sources are used if only intensity information is available, while the other studies are useful if esti-mates can be made of source parameters such as magnitude, focal depth and distance to generating structure. |
| . .
| |
| .. .
| |
| Woodward Clyde Consultants Page 3 | |
| .
| |
| These latter sources are used if only intensity information is available, while the other studies are useful if esti-mates can be made of source parameters such as magnitude, focal depth and distance to generating structure. | |
| If instrumental de termina tions of magnitude exist, then estimates of strong ground motion relationships should be used such as Schnabel and Seed (1973), Trifunac and Brady (1976) or U.S. Geological Survey Circular 795. If no instru-mental determination of magnitude exists for earlier earth-quakes, then intensity estimat 2s are the most direct kind of information. In such cases intensity-ground motion rela-tionships such as Trifunac and Brady (1975) or Murphy and O'Brien (1977) should be used. | | If instrumental de termina tions of magnitude exist, then estimates of strong ground motion relationships should be used such as Schnabel and Seed (1973), Trifunac and Brady (1976) or U.S. Geological Survey Circular 795. If no instru-mental determination of magnitude exists for earlier earth-quakes, then intensity estimat 2s are the most direct kind of information. In such cases intensity-ground motion rela-tionships such as Trifunac and Brady (1975) or Murphy and O'Brien (1977) should be used. |
| .
| |
| No instrumental determination of magnitude is avail-able for the 1872 earthquake of the Pacific Northwest. | | No instrumental determination of magnitude is avail-able for the 1872 earthquake of the Pacific Northwest. |
| Only intensity estimates are available and these are gen-erally sparse. The staff concluded that the maximum inten-sity associated with the 1872 earthquake was intensity VIII MM. For reasons discussed below, the estimate of Trifunac and Brady (1975) of .25 g for intensity VIII MM would pro-vide a conservative reference for the specific purpose of bounding the ground motion associated with the 1872 earth-quake in accordance with Reg. Guide 1.60. , | | Only intensity estimates are available and these are gen-erally sparse. The staff concluded that the maximum inten-sity associated with the 1872 earthquake was intensity VIII MM. For reasons discussed below, the estimate of Trifunac and Brady (1975) of .25 g for intensity VIII MM would pro-vide a conservative reference for the specific purpose of bounding the ground motion associated with the 1872 earth-quake in accordance with Reg. Guide 1.60. , |
Line 58: |
Line 40: |
| 9 | | 9 |
|
| |
|
| ,
| | Woodward Clyde Consultants Page 4 quakes of magnitude 7.5. Thus even though the magnitude of 7.5 was larger than any estimated for the 1872 earthquake, the completeness of the set of curves justified some ccmpar-ison. At no time, however, did the staff make a determin-ation that the 1872 earthquake was of magnitude 7.5 and this fact was so stated in the SER. |
| * Woodward Clyde Consultants Page 4
| |
| .
| |
| quakes of magnitude 7.5. Thus even though the magnitude of 7.5 was larger than any estimated for the 1872 earthquake, the completeness of the set of curves justified some ccmpar-ison. At no time, however, did the staff make a determin-ation that the 1872 earthquake was of magnitude 7.5 and this fact was so stated in the SER. | |
| The study by Murphy and O'Brien (1977) probably pro-vides better estinates of actual peak acceleration at var-ious intensities than does the study by Trif unac and Brady (1975). The reason is that Murphy and O'Brien (1977) had a larger data set and improved statistical techniques. | | The study by Murphy and O'Brien (1977) probably pro-vides better estinates of actual peak acceleration at var-ious intensities than does the study by Trif unac and Brady (1975). The reason is that Murphy and O'Brien (1977) had a larger data set and improved statistical techniques. |
| Nevertheless, the more conservative relationship of Trifunac and Brady (1975) is considered more appropriate for setting reference accelerations because at intensities V, VI and VII the Reg. Guide 1.60 spec tra determined by the mean of the peaks (i.e., the method of Trifunac and Brady) falls between the mean and 84 th percentile soectrum for the fre-quencies of interest (Agbabian Associates, 1977). For inten-sity VIII, Trifunac and Brady (1975) appears to be conser-vative for their cited data set, in that the mean of observed peak accelerations is .167 g whcteas their relationship predicts .256 g. | | Nevertheless, the more conservative relationship of Trifunac and Brady (1975) is considered more appropriate for setting reference accelerations because at intensities V, VI and VII the Reg. Guide 1.60 spec tra determined by the mean of the peaks (i.e., the method of Trifunac and Brady) falls between the mean and 84 th percentile soectrum for the fre-quencies of interest (Agbabian Associates, 1977). For inten-sity VIII, Trifunac and Brady (1975) appears to be conser-vative for their cited data set, in that the mean of observed peak accelerations is .167 g whcteas their relationship predicts .256 g. |
| <
| |
| : 3. For near field location of earthquakes (within about , | | : 3. For near field location of earthquakes (within about , |
| 10 km for M=6 and within about 20 km for M=7), there is no generally accepted method for estimating strong ground motion. Each such situation requires an extensive and speci-fic examination. For earthquake locations between approx-imately 20 or 30 km to 100 km there is reasonable agreement on estimates of strong ground mot ion among many recent studies including Schnabel and Seed (1973), Trifunac and Brady (1976) and the U. S. Geological Survey Circular 795. | | 10 km for M=6 and within about 20 km for M=7), there is no generally accepted method for estimating strong ground motion. Each such situation requires an extensive and speci-fic examination. For earthquake locations between approx-imately 20 or 30 km to 100 km there is reasonable agreement on estimates of strong ground mot ion among many recent studies including Schnabel and Seed (1973), Trifunac and Brady (1976) and the U. S. Geological Survey Circular 795. |
| ~ | | ~ |
| @
| |
| _}} | | _}} |
|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20082F7771983-11-23023 November 1983 Motion for Order Approving Encl Withdrawal of Application & Terminating Proceeding ML20082F7881983-11-23023 November 1983 Withdrawal of OL Application.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080L9431983-09-28028 September 1983 Second Request for Addl Extension Until 840115 to Answer Intervenor Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 1. Portland General Electric Co Expects to Decide on Plant Termination by End of 1983.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080G0731983-09-13013 September 1983 Request for Extension Until 831014 to Answer Intervenor Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 1.Motion May Be Moot If Other Owners Concur W/Util Decision to Terminate Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20071Q7201983-06-0303 June 1983 Response Opposing Applicant 830525 Request for Extension Until 830930 to Answer Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 1.No Good Cause Demonstrated.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20071M0781983-05-25025 May 1983 Request for Extension Until 830930 to Answer NRDC Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 1.Time Needed to Consider Implications of Final Northwest Conservation Electric Power Plan & Licensing Alternatives.Certificates of Svc Encl ML20023C4571983-05-12012 May 1983 Memorandum of Points & Authorities Supporting Intervenor Motion for Summary Disposition Since Contention 1 No Longer Controversial Issue.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20023C6971983-05-12012 May 1983 Affidavit of DB Goldstein Supporting NRDC Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 1 Re Need for Power.Four Forecasts for Energy Needs Refute Need for Power Justification Developed by Util.Prof Qualifications Encl ML20023C3741983-05-12012 May 1983 Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue Re Contention 1 ML20023C3691983-05-12012 May 1983 Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 1 Re Calculation of Demand for Electrical Energy Negating Need for Plant.No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists ML20064N6681983-02-10010 February 1983 Motion to Suspend Health & Safety Prehearing Schedule Pending Adoption of Final Regional Energy Plan or Until Conclusion of Evidentiary Hearings on Need for Power. Applicant Appears Ready to Absorb Facility Costs ML20071A6671983-02-10010 February 1983 Certifies Svc of Intervenor Motion to Suspend Safety & Health Schedule on 830210 ML20070T0661983-02-0404 February 1983 Motion for Order Suspending Health & Safety Prehearing Schedule,Pending Adoption of Final Regional Power Plan & Further Order of Aslb.Suspension Would Be in Best Interest of All Concerned.W/Certificate of Svc ML20083N8101983-01-31031 January 1983 New Contentions Based on New Info in SER Suppl.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20083N1991983-01-26026 January 1983 Notice of Appeal & Exceptions to ASLB 830118 Memorandum & Order.Memorandum & Order Fails to Recognize Yakima Indian Nation Sovereignty & Treaty Rights Which Are Supreme Law of Land.Affidavit of Svc Encl ML20028F1831983-01-25025 January 1983 Notification of Intent to File New Contentions Based on New Info in SER Suppl.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20028E9701983-01-19019 January 1983 Reply to NRC & Applicant Response to Natl Wildlife Federation/Or Environ Council,Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission & Coalition for Safe Power 821213 Motion to Clarify & Amend Certain Contentions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20072A6731983-01-18018 January 1983 Motion for Extension of Time Until 830210 to File Answer to Natl Wildlife Federation/Or Environ Council 830105 Motion to Compel Discovery.Parties Attempting to Settle Matter by Informal Agreement.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20028C9581983-01-0505 January 1983 Memorandum Supporting Natl Wildlife Federation/Or Environ Council 830105 Motion to Compel Discovery.Applicants Misinterpreted 10CFR2.740(b)(1) Relevancy Std.Discovery Requests Are Relevant.W/Certificate of Svc ML20028C9501983-01-0505 January 1983 Motion to Compel Applicants to Respond in Full to Natl Wildlife Federation/Or Environ Council 821201 Interrogatories & Request for Production of Documents ML20028C3221983-01-0303 January 1983 Suppl to DOE 821126 Limited Appearance Statement.Doe Position Is That Hanford Site Is Not Open,Unclaimed Land as Defined in 1855 Treaty W/Yakima Indian Nation,Article Iii. ASLB Is Wrong Forum for Resolving Issue ML20070L5411982-12-27027 December 1982 Answer Opposing Yakima Indian Nation 821210 Motion for Reconsideration of ASLB 821029 Memorandum & Order Re Suppl to Petition to Intervene.Aslb Rejection of Contentions 7,8 & 9 Well Founded ML20070L4901982-12-27027 December 1982 Affidavit of Mv Stimac Supporting Applicant Answer to Yakima Indian Nation Motion for Reconsideration.Describes Plant Site & Location of Casements.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20079J6021982-12-23023 December 1982 Response Supporting Intervenor 821213 Motion to Clarify & Amend Contentions 7 & 8.Quantification of Environ Impacts Not Practicable Due to Subjective Nature.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20023B3081982-12-20020 December 1982 Response to 821201 Discovery Requests.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20079H3711982-12-13013 December 1982 Motion to Clarify & Amend Contentions 7 & 8.Contentions Should Be Reorganized to Facilitate Coordinated Evidentiary Presentations for Environ Matters ASLB Set Out as Contentions 4,7 & 8.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20070D1181982-12-10010 December 1982 Affidavit of R Jim Supporting Yakima Indian Nation Brief on Admissibility of Nation Reworded Proposed Contention 10 & Motion for Reconsideration.Nation Has Right to Pasture Horses & Gather Roots Even Though Us Holds Title to Land ML20070C9121982-12-10010 December 1982 Notice of Counsel New Law Firm Affiliation,As of 820901 ML20070C8181982-12-10010 December 1982 Motion for Reconsideration of ASLB 821029 Memorandum & Order Re Yakima Indian Nation Contentions 7,8 & 9.Nation Right to Enjoy Reservation Peacefully Given by 1855 Treaty Should Be Protected by ASLB ML20070C7691982-12-10010 December 1982 Certifies Svc of Brief on Admissibility of Reworded Proposed Contention 10,motion for Reconsideration of ASLB 821029 Memorandum & Order,R Jim Affidavit & Notice of Counsel Law Firm Change on 821210 ML20070C7981982-12-10010 December 1982 Brief Supporting Admissibility of Yakima Indian Nation Reworded Proposed Contention 10.Attempt to Terminate Reserved Rights of Yakima Indian Nation Violates Fifth Amend.Land Cannot Be Taken by Inverse Condemnation ML20028B9251982-12-0101 December 1982 Brief Re Admissibility of Yaking Indian Nation Proposed Contention 10.Clarification Needed on Procedural Rule of Commission & Scope of Contention.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20028B8971982-12-0101 December 1982 Request for Production of Documents & Interrogatories,Per 10CFR2.740(b) & 10CFR2.741.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20028B2631982-11-26026 November 1982 Limited Appearance Statement.Hanford Site Is Not Part of Yakima Indian Nation Reservation Established by 1855 Treaty. Indian Privilege of Hunting,Gathering Roots & Berries & Grazing Animals Does Not Extend to Hanford Site ML20066K9761982-11-22022 November 1982 Motion to Alter Lead Party Designation Established for Contention 3 in ASLB 821102 Memorandum & Order.All Intervenors Concur That NRDC Should Be Designated Lead Party,Since NRDC Demonstrated Greatest Expertise on Issue ML20066L0101982-11-22022 November 1982 Motion to Amend Accepted Contention 3.Proposed Amends Would Conform Contention 3 to Earlier Admitted NRDC Contention on Which Contention 3 Is Partially Based.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20023A8301982-10-15015 October 1982 Response to 820910 First Set of Production Requests. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20023A8141982-10-14014 October 1982 Response to Yakima Indian Nation 820930 Suppl to Petition to Intervene,Containing List of Contentions.Objects to Contentions 4-10.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20027C1591982-10-0606 October 1982 Response to 820917 First Set of Interrogatories ML20063P4011982-10-0606 October 1982 Response to Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission 820923 Notice of Appeal of ASLB 820903 Memorandum & Order Denying Intervention.Applicants Will Not Oppose Appeal in Order to Maintain Schedule for Proceeding ML20071N3791982-10-0404 October 1982 Response to First Set of Interrogatories.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20065H5451982-09-29029 September 1982 Supplement to Petition to Intervene,Consisting of Contentions & Bases for Contentions ML20065H5481982-09-29029 September 1982 Applicant Response to Coalition for Safe Power 820910 First Set of Interrogatories.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20065J1601982-09-28028 September 1982 Responds to Util 820917 First Set of Interrogatories. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20069F9541982-09-23023 September 1982 Memorandum Supporting Appeal of ASLB 820908 Memorandum & Order Denying 820505 Petition to Intervene or Alternatively, to Remand Petition to ASLB for Further Clarification on Question of Standing.Certificate of Svc & Exhibit Encl ML20069F9491982-09-23023 September 1982 Notice of Appeal of ASLB 820908 Memorandum & Order Denying 820505 Petition to Intervene.Supporting Brief Encl ML20027B5661982-09-17017 September 1982 Response to First Set of Interrogatories.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20137F8001982-09-17017 September 1982 Amended Subagreement 2 Between State of Wa Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council & NRC Re Protocol for Conduct of Joint Hearings on Facility Project ML20027B5631982-09-17017 September 1982 First Set of Interrogatories ML20027B5571982-09-15015 September 1982 Motion for Extension of Time Until 821004 to Respond to Applicant Interrogatories.Counsel Was Unavailable When Interrogatories Arrived. Certificate of Svc Encl 1983-09-28
[Table view] Category:TRANSCRIPTS
MONTHYEARML19210E1281979-10-18018 October 1979 Prefiled Testimony.Bechtel 1979 Geology Map Cannot Be Used as Tool for Seismic Evaluation of Area.Supporting Documentation,Prof Qualifications & Certificate of Svc Encl ML19276H5781979-10-18018 October 1979 Prefiled Testimony.Applicants' Inference That No Significant Northwesterly Trending Fault Exists Between Lummi Island & Clark & Matia Islands Cannot Be Substantiated.Prof Qualifications Encl ML19276H5801979-10-18018 October 1979 Prefiled Testimony.Two east-west Trending Faults Can Be Found Along Plant Site Vicinity ML19276H5831979-10-18018 October 1979 Prefiled testimony.Auger-Hole Investigation Conducted by Bechtel Did Not Provide Sufficient Evidence Approving or Disapproving Origins of Sediments Deformation ML19276H5751979-10-17017 October 1979 Prefiled Testimony.High Frequency Seismic Methods Inadequate to Locate Fault Traces Existing in Area.Interpolation Between Spaced Seismic Lines Is Speculative ML19210C1631979-10-0808 October 1979 Testimony of Nm Newmark Re Conservatism of Seismic Design Criteria & Seismic Design Provisions for Facility.Biography Encl ML19210C1601979-10-0808 October 1979 Testimony of Ba Bolt Re Correlation Between Peak Acceleration & Magnitude & Intensity.Biography,Publication List & Supporting Documentation Encl ML19256E3281979-10-0303 October 1979 Supplemental Testimony of J Kelleher Re NRC Methods Used to Estimate Strong Ground Motion ML20136C5211979-08-30030 August 1979 Transcript of 790830 Hearing in Seattle,Wa. Pp 14,802-15,048 ML20136C5271979-08-27027 August 1979 Transcript of 790827 Hearing in Seattle,Wa. Pp 14,388-14,573.Exhibits 213-15 Encl ML19249E1561979-08-0808 August 1979 Testimony Re Financial Qualifications Submitted by J Lazar on Behalf of Intervenor Skagitonians Concerned About Nuclear Power.Asserts Applicant Will Be Unable to Secure Financing. Certificate of Svc Encl ML19207B4771979-07-12012 July 1979 Supplemental Testimony of Es Cheney Re Alternative Site Comparison,Submitted on Behalf of Skagitonians Concerned About Nuclear Power.Goshen,Hanford & Pebble Springs Are Better Sites than Skagit ML19209B0681979-07-10010 July 1979 Testimony of ML Darland on Behalf of Intervenor Skagitonians Concerned About Nuclear Power,Re Evacuation Planning.Professional Qualifications Encl ML19209B0691979-07-10010 July 1979 Testimony of Pr Weber on Behalf of Intervenor Skagitonians Concerned About Nuclear Power,Re Ranney Wells.Prof Qualifications & Bibliography Encl ML19209B0721979-07-10010 July 1979 Testimony of J Lazar on Behalf of Intervenors Skagitonians Concerned About Nuclear Power,Re Financial Qualifications. W/Supporting Documentation ML19247B2871979-07-0202 July 1979 Testimony of RB Eastvedt Re Bulk Transmission Sys Requirements Associated W/Alternate Sites ML19207B4841979-06-29029 June 1979 Testimony of JW Ellis Re QA Program.Util Has Implemented QA Program That Fully Complies with All State & Federal Regulations ML19207B4811979-06-29029 June 1979 Testimony of Je Mecca Re Amended License Application & Complete Psar.Verifies Application as Amended Through Amend 4 & PSAR as Amended Through Amend 20 & Suppl 18 ML19207B4851979-06-29029 June 1979 Testimony of Wj Ferguson Re Engineering,Qa & Const Project Organizations.Qa Program Is Autonomous & Objective.Bechtel Has Primary Responsibility for Review of Design & Procurement Documents ML19207B4901979-06-29029 June 1979 Testimony of Ev Padgett Re QA Program.Qa Program Was Developed to Meet Requirements of 10CFR50,App B & ANSI N45.2 as Set Forth in Chapter 17 ML19207B4911979-06-29029 June 1979 Testimony of Rn Hettinger Re QA Program.Describes Current Level of QA Activities.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19246C4681979-06-0101 June 1979 Submits Joint Testimony of Re Olson,Me Coberley,Ls Pack & Jm Coombs.Util Does Not Have Reasonable Assurance of Obtaining Funds for Const & Fuel Cycle Costs.Prof Qualifications & Certificate of Svc Encl ML19242D2021979-06-0101 June 1979 Supplements Testimony Presented at 780217 Proceeding Re Util Use of Piping Test Data to Predict Yield of Proposed Ranney Collector Sys & Drawdown Effects of Ranney Collectors on Nearby Red Cabin & Muddy Creeks ML19241A6171979-06-0101 June 1979 Testimony Re Ranney Collector Sys.Sys Is Sufficient to Provide Plant Water Needs Under Varying Conditions W/Minimal Impact on Water Resources 1979-08-08
[Table view] Category:DEPOSITIONS
MONTHYEARML19210E1281979-10-18018 October 1979 Prefiled Testimony.Bechtel 1979 Geology Map Cannot Be Used as Tool for Seismic Evaluation of Area.Supporting Documentation,Prof Qualifications & Certificate of Svc Encl ML19276H5781979-10-18018 October 1979 Prefiled Testimony.Applicants' Inference That No Significant Northwesterly Trending Fault Exists Between Lummi Island & Clark & Matia Islands Cannot Be Substantiated.Prof Qualifications Encl ML19276H5801979-10-18018 October 1979 Prefiled Testimony.Two east-west Trending Faults Can Be Found Along Plant Site Vicinity ML19276H5831979-10-18018 October 1979 Prefiled testimony.Auger-Hole Investigation Conducted by Bechtel Did Not Provide Sufficient Evidence Approving or Disapproving Origins of Sediments Deformation ML19276H5751979-10-17017 October 1979 Prefiled Testimony.High Frequency Seismic Methods Inadequate to Locate Fault Traces Existing in Area.Interpolation Between Spaced Seismic Lines Is Speculative ML19210C1631979-10-0808 October 1979 Testimony of Nm Newmark Re Conservatism of Seismic Design Criteria & Seismic Design Provisions for Facility.Biography Encl ML19210C1601979-10-0808 October 1979 Testimony of Ba Bolt Re Correlation Between Peak Acceleration & Magnitude & Intensity.Biography,Publication List & Supporting Documentation Encl ML19256E3281979-10-0303 October 1979 Supplemental Testimony of J Kelleher Re NRC Methods Used to Estimate Strong Ground Motion ML20136C5211979-08-30030 August 1979 Transcript of 790830 Hearing in Seattle,Wa. Pp 14,802-15,048 ML20136C5271979-08-27027 August 1979 Transcript of 790827 Hearing in Seattle,Wa. Pp 14,388-14,573.Exhibits 213-15 Encl ML19249E1561979-08-0808 August 1979 Testimony Re Financial Qualifications Submitted by J Lazar on Behalf of Intervenor Skagitonians Concerned About Nuclear Power.Asserts Applicant Will Be Unable to Secure Financing. Certificate of Svc Encl ML19207B4771979-07-12012 July 1979 Supplemental Testimony of Es Cheney Re Alternative Site Comparison,Submitted on Behalf of Skagitonians Concerned About Nuclear Power.Goshen,Hanford & Pebble Springs Are Better Sites than Skagit ML19209B0681979-07-10010 July 1979 Testimony of ML Darland on Behalf of Intervenor Skagitonians Concerned About Nuclear Power,Re Evacuation Planning.Professional Qualifications Encl ML19209B0691979-07-10010 July 1979 Testimony of Pr Weber on Behalf of Intervenor Skagitonians Concerned About Nuclear Power,Re Ranney Wells.Prof Qualifications & Bibliography Encl ML19209B0721979-07-10010 July 1979 Testimony of J Lazar on Behalf of Intervenors Skagitonians Concerned About Nuclear Power,Re Financial Qualifications. W/Supporting Documentation ML19247B2871979-07-0202 July 1979 Testimony of RB Eastvedt Re Bulk Transmission Sys Requirements Associated W/Alternate Sites ML19207B4841979-06-29029 June 1979 Testimony of JW Ellis Re QA Program.Util Has Implemented QA Program That Fully Complies with All State & Federal Regulations ML19207B4811979-06-29029 June 1979 Testimony of Je Mecca Re Amended License Application & Complete Psar.Verifies Application as Amended Through Amend 4 & PSAR as Amended Through Amend 20 & Suppl 18 ML19207B4851979-06-29029 June 1979 Testimony of Wj Ferguson Re Engineering,Qa & Const Project Organizations.Qa Program Is Autonomous & Objective.Bechtel Has Primary Responsibility for Review of Design & Procurement Documents ML19207B4901979-06-29029 June 1979 Testimony of Ev Padgett Re QA Program.Qa Program Was Developed to Meet Requirements of 10CFR50,App B & ANSI N45.2 as Set Forth in Chapter 17 ML19207B4911979-06-29029 June 1979 Testimony of Rn Hettinger Re QA Program.Describes Current Level of QA Activities.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19246C4681979-06-0101 June 1979 Submits Joint Testimony of Re Olson,Me Coberley,Ls Pack & Jm Coombs.Util Does Not Have Reasonable Assurance of Obtaining Funds for Const & Fuel Cycle Costs.Prof Qualifications & Certificate of Svc Encl ML19242D2021979-06-0101 June 1979 Supplements Testimony Presented at 780217 Proceeding Re Util Use of Piping Test Data to Predict Yield of Proposed Ranney Collector Sys & Drawdown Effects of Ranney Collectors on Nearby Red Cabin & Muddy Creeks ML19241A6171979-06-0101 June 1979 Testimony Re Ranney Collector Sys.Sys Is Sufficient to Provide Plant Water Needs Under Varying Conditions W/Minimal Impact on Water Resources 1979-08-08
[Table view] Category:NARRATIVE TESTIMONY
MONTHYEARML19210E1281979-10-18018 October 1979 Prefiled Testimony.Bechtel 1979 Geology Map Cannot Be Used as Tool for Seismic Evaluation of Area.Supporting Documentation,Prof Qualifications & Certificate of Svc Encl ML19276H5781979-10-18018 October 1979 Prefiled Testimony.Applicants' Inference That No Significant Northwesterly Trending Fault Exists Between Lummi Island & Clark & Matia Islands Cannot Be Substantiated.Prof Qualifications Encl ML19276H5801979-10-18018 October 1979 Prefiled Testimony.Two east-west Trending Faults Can Be Found Along Plant Site Vicinity ML19276H5831979-10-18018 October 1979 Prefiled testimony.Auger-Hole Investigation Conducted by Bechtel Did Not Provide Sufficient Evidence Approving or Disapproving Origins of Sediments Deformation ML19276H5751979-10-17017 October 1979 Prefiled Testimony.High Frequency Seismic Methods Inadequate to Locate Fault Traces Existing in Area.Interpolation Between Spaced Seismic Lines Is Speculative ML19210C1631979-10-0808 October 1979 Testimony of Nm Newmark Re Conservatism of Seismic Design Criteria & Seismic Design Provisions for Facility.Biography Encl ML19210C1601979-10-0808 October 1979 Testimony of Ba Bolt Re Correlation Between Peak Acceleration & Magnitude & Intensity.Biography,Publication List & Supporting Documentation Encl ML19256E3281979-10-0303 October 1979 Supplemental Testimony of J Kelleher Re NRC Methods Used to Estimate Strong Ground Motion ML20136C5211979-08-30030 August 1979 Transcript of 790830 Hearing in Seattle,Wa. Pp 14,802-15,048 ML20136C5271979-08-27027 August 1979 Transcript of 790827 Hearing in Seattle,Wa. Pp 14,388-14,573.Exhibits 213-15 Encl ML19249E1561979-08-0808 August 1979 Testimony Re Financial Qualifications Submitted by J Lazar on Behalf of Intervenor Skagitonians Concerned About Nuclear Power.Asserts Applicant Will Be Unable to Secure Financing. Certificate of Svc Encl ML19207B4771979-07-12012 July 1979 Supplemental Testimony of Es Cheney Re Alternative Site Comparison,Submitted on Behalf of Skagitonians Concerned About Nuclear Power.Goshen,Hanford & Pebble Springs Are Better Sites than Skagit ML19209B0681979-07-10010 July 1979 Testimony of ML Darland on Behalf of Intervenor Skagitonians Concerned About Nuclear Power,Re Evacuation Planning.Professional Qualifications Encl ML19209B0691979-07-10010 July 1979 Testimony of Pr Weber on Behalf of Intervenor Skagitonians Concerned About Nuclear Power,Re Ranney Wells.Prof Qualifications & Bibliography Encl ML19209B0721979-07-10010 July 1979 Testimony of J Lazar on Behalf of Intervenors Skagitonians Concerned About Nuclear Power,Re Financial Qualifications. W/Supporting Documentation ML19247B2871979-07-0202 July 1979 Testimony of RB Eastvedt Re Bulk Transmission Sys Requirements Associated W/Alternate Sites ML19207B4841979-06-29029 June 1979 Testimony of JW Ellis Re QA Program.Util Has Implemented QA Program That Fully Complies with All State & Federal Regulations ML19207B4811979-06-29029 June 1979 Testimony of Je Mecca Re Amended License Application & Complete Psar.Verifies Application as Amended Through Amend 4 & PSAR as Amended Through Amend 20 & Suppl 18 ML19207B4851979-06-29029 June 1979 Testimony of Wj Ferguson Re Engineering,Qa & Const Project Organizations.Qa Program Is Autonomous & Objective.Bechtel Has Primary Responsibility for Review of Design & Procurement Documents ML19207B4901979-06-29029 June 1979 Testimony of Ev Padgett Re QA Program.Qa Program Was Developed to Meet Requirements of 10CFR50,App B & ANSI N45.2 as Set Forth in Chapter 17 ML19207B4911979-06-29029 June 1979 Testimony of Rn Hettinger Re QA Program.Describes Current Level of QA Activities.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19246C4681979-06-0101 June 1979 Submits Joint Testimony of Re Olson,Me Coberley,Ls Pack & Jm Coombs.Util Does Not Have Reasonable Assurance of Obtaining Funds for Const & Fuel Cycle Costs.Prof Qualifications & Certificate of Svc Encl ML19242D2021979-06-0101 June 1979 Supplements Testimony Presented at 780217 Proceeding Re Util Use of Piping Test Data to Predict Yield of Proposed Ranney Collector Sys & Drawdown Effects of Ranney Collectors on Nearby Red Cabin & Muddy Creeks ML19241A6171979-06-0101 June 1979 Testimony Re Ranney Collector Sys.Sys Is Sufficient to Provide Plant Water Needs Under Varying Conditions W/Minimal Impact on Water Resources 1979-08-08
[Table view] |
Text
, ...
.? ,
Woodward Clyde Consultants
SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY CF JOHN KELLEHER RELATING TO ESTIMATES OF STRONG GROUND MOTION This supplemental testimony is to respond to the request of the Board for additional information on methods of determining ground motion parameters. Initially the staff would note that no technique for estimating strong ground motion is clearly superior to other methods under all conditions. The choice of method is usually determined by the type of information available for the specific seismic hazard or by site specific considerations. However, to help the Board in its understanding of the dif ferent tech-niques to estimate ground motion, wc provide some site speci-fic remarks on the Skagit site and some general remarks describing the position of the staff on techniques of esti-mating ground motion.
- 1. Large earthquakes occurring within the near surface environment (H <_ 15KM) are typically accompanied by surface rupture or sur f ace f aulting. For the specific evaluation of the SKAGIT site for potential sources of st rong motion an important consideration is the virtual absence of evi-dence inferring surface faulting. Indeed with the possible exception of a location on the Olympic Peninsula there JLs no evidence that surface rupture has ever accompanied a -
large shock during Quaternary time throughout the entire province in which the site is location.1 Thus while surface f aulting cannot be categorically precluded the evidence indicates that it is minor or absent throughout most of the province and that there is no reason to anticipate major release of seismic energy in a near-surface environment. .
The staff considers the Skagit site to be in the tectonic province formed by the overriding co:cinental lithosphere and bounded on the north by an extension through Vancouver Island of the zone of decoupling between the Explorer and Juan de Fuca plates, e the south by the zone of transition associated with the Mendocino triple junction, on the cast by the volcanic chain and on the west by oceanic lithosphere of the Pacific plate. T province. 1258 3 Dbounds are not included in th 7911 n20 /d f
J Woodward Clyde Consultants Page 2 By way of contrast, major carthquakes in central or southern California commonly are accompanied by surface faulting; major energy release has typically occurred at depths of 10 km or less.
The significance of this tectonic feature is that earthquakes of given magnitudes which have caused the most serious destruction have been extremely shallow earthquakes usually accompanied by sur f ace f aulting. For example the Tangshan, China earthquake of 1976 (M =7. 6 ) and the Managua, Nicaragua earthquake of 1972 (M=6.4) caused great devasta-tion. These earthquakes had major seismic energy release at extremely shallow depths as evidenced by the surf ace rupturing in the central part of the respective cities.
By contrast the largest earthquakes of the tectonic prov-inces of the northwest have consistently occurred at the base of the crust or below. Even for the largest earthquakes of the northwest no single observation of intensity has ever exceeded MM VIII. A key consideration, therefore, in the site specific evaluation of the proposed Skagit facil-ity is the absence of any evidence suggesting the likelihood that large earthquakes would be accompanied by surf ace f ault-ing and by inference by major seismic energy release in the near surface environment.
- 2. Some studies have estimated relationships among earth-quake magnitude, distance and peak horizontal ground acceler-ation. Such studies include Schnabel and Seed (1973), Tri-funac and Brady (1976), and U.S. Geological Survey Circular 795. Other studies have provided correlations between peak ground accelerations and seismic intensity. These include Trifunac and Brady (1975) and Murphy and O'Brien (1977).
Woodward Clyde Consultants Page 3 These latter sources are used if only intensity information is available, while the other studies are useful if esti-mates can be made of source parameters such as magnitude, focal depth and distance to generating structure.
If instrumental de termina tions of magnitude exist, then estimates of strong ground motion relationships should be used such as Schnabel and Seed (1973), Trifunac and Brady (1976) or U.S. Geological Survey Circular 795. If no instru-mental determination of magnitude exists for earlier earth-quakes, then intensity estimat 2s are the most direct kind of information. In such cases intensity-ground motion rela-tionships such as Trifunac and Brady (1975) or Murphy and O'Brien (1977) should be used.
No instrumental determination of magnitude is avail-able for the 1872 earthquake of the Pacific Northwest.
Only intensity estimates are available and these are gen-erally sparse. The staff concluded that the maximum inten-sity associated with the 1872 earthquake was intensity VIII MM. For reasons discussed below, the estimate of Trifunac and Brady (1975) of .25 g for intensity VIII MM would pro-vide a conservative reference for the specific purpose of bounding the ground motion associated with the 1872 earth-quake in accordance with Reg. Guide 1.60. ,
In the original Safety Evaluation Report (SER) the staff compared the 1872 earthquake to a se ies of attenua-tion curves for an earthquake of magnitude 7.5. This was done because at that time the series of attenuation curves (PSAR for WPPSS No. 3 Figure 2-5-57b) was the most complete '
set available. The set of curves was compiled for earth-
~
9
Woodward Clyde Consultants Page 4 quakes of magnitude 7.5. Thus even though the magnitude of 7.5 was larger than any estimated for the 1872 earthquake, the completeness of the set of curves justified some ccmpar-ison. At no time, however, did the staff make a determin-ation that the 1872 earthquake was of magnitude 7.5 and this fact was so stated in the SER.
The study by Murphy and O'Brien (1977) probably pro-vides better estinates of actual peak acceleration at var-ious intensities than does the study by Trif unac and Brady (1975). The reason is that Murphy and O'Brien (1977) had a larger data set and improved statistical techniques.
Nevertheless, the more conservative relationship of Trifunac and Brady (1975) is considered more appropriate for setting reference accelerations because at intensities V, VI and VII the Reg. Guide 1.60 spec tra determined by the mean of the peaks (i.e., the method of Trifunac and Brady) falls between the mean and 84 th percentile soectrum for the fre-quencies of interest (Agbabian Associates, 1977). For inten-sity VIII, Trifunac and Brady (1975) appears to be conser-vative for their cited data set, in that the mean of observed peak accelerations is .167 g whcteas their relationship predicts .256 g.
- 3. For near field location of earthquakes (within about ,
10 km for M=6 and within about 20 km for M=7), there is no generally accepted method for estimating strong ground motion. Each such situation requires an extensive and speci-fic examination. For earthquake locations between approx-imately 20 or 30 km to 100 km there is reasonable agreement on estimates of strong ground mot ion among many recent studies including Schnabel and Seed (1973), Trifunac and Brady (1976) and the U. S. Geological Survey Circular 795.
~
_