UCRL-53582, Rev. IDistribution Category UC-11

Natural Phenomena HazardsModeling Project: Seismic

Hazard Models forDepartment of Energy Sites

D. W. Coats

R. C. Murray

Manuscript date: November 1984

Prepared for the US. Department of Energy Officeof Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety, andHealth, Office of Nuclear Safety

LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY aUniversity of California * Livermore, California * 94550

Available from: National Technical Information Service * U.S. Department of Commerce5285 Port Royal Road * Springfield, VA 22161 * $1130 per copy * (Microfiche $4.50

"I 8912140219 891212PDR WASTEWM-I 0C PDC

-

PREFACE

The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) under contract to the

Office of Nuclear Safety (OKS), Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety,

and Health, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), J. R. Hill, Project Manager, is

developing uniform design criteria for critical facilities at DOE sites

throughout the United States. The criteria in question relate to a

structure's ability to withstand earthquakes and strong winds from both

tornadoes and other storms.

Work began on the project in September 1975, when representatives of

LLNL's Structural Mechanics Group met with James Hill of DOE's Division of

Operational and Environmental Safety to discuss the project's goals. In other

mettings in late 1975 and early 1976, it was decided that a three-phase

approach to the project was best. The first phase, completed in late 1978,

involved information gathering. Sites were selected, their critical

facilities were identified, and information about the facilities was gathered

and summarized (Coats and Murray, 1978).

In the second phase, experts in seismic and wind hazards were asked to

develop hazard models for each site. TERA Corporation, Berkeley, California,

was selected to develop the seismic hazard models. McDonald, Mehta, and-

Minor, consulting Engineers, Lubbock, Texas, and T. T. Fujita of the

University of Chicago were both contracted to independently develop hazard

models for tornadoes and high winds.

Once all the hazard models are developed, LLNL will support ONS in

developing uniform hazard criteria for the DOE to use in evaluating the

existing design criteria at the various sites and upgrading or modifying

critical facilities.

The purpose of this report is to present the final wind/tornado hazard

models and recommended response spectra for design and analysis, and the

methodology used to develop them. The final hazard models presented in this

report are based on the site-specific studies produced by TERA Corporation, as

part of the Natural Phenomena Hazards Study. Final seismic hazard models have

been published separately by TERA and were distributed to DOE Headquarters and

DOE Field Ofices for review and comment. The final wind/tornado hazard models

were published by LLNL in UCRL 53526 (Coats, 1984).

-iii-

CONTENTS

Seismic Hazard Analysis Methodology ...... 00000000000000...... 00.. 5

Ip................................................g00.o.g. 6

Methodology .......o..o.o.o..o...o.....e.o....oe.....o...o.e. 6

Source Regionse.......................... o. 0 o ............... .07

Source Region ........................................ 10

Magnitude and Intensity Relationship.................................11

Attenuation Relationships........................ ................... 11

Hazard Calculations...o.0000.00 00000000 000000000000000000 .......... 13

Response Spectra .............. .15

Summary and Conclusions. geg.... ................. ooooo*0o 000e000 e.19

References ~~oooeooeoeoo~ooooo~oosoososeoo21

Bibliography.. .23

Albuquerque Field Office Sites..............e............o....o.o .27

Chicago Field Office Sites..o......o... .........oo .....e.......... 45

Idaho Field Office Site 55

Oak Ridge Field Office Sites 59

Nevada Field Office Sie .69

Richland Field Office Site 73

San Francisco Field Office Sites..o.....................0..0..0.... 77

Savannah River Field Office 89

ABSTRACT

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) has developed seismic and

wind hazard models for the Office of Nuclear Safety (ONS), Department of

Energy (DOE). The work is part of a three-phase effort aimed at establishing

uniform building design criteria for seismic and wind hazards at DOE sites

throughout the United States. In Phase 1, LLNL gathered information on the

sites and their critical facilities, including nuclear reactors, fuel-

reprocessing plants, high-level waste storage and treatment facilities, and

special nuclear material facilities. In Phase 2, development of seismic and

wind hazard models, was initiated. These hazard models express the annual

probability that the site will experience an earthquake or wind speed greater

than some specified magnitude. This report summarizes the final seismic

hazard models and response spectra recommended for each site and the

methodology used to develop these models. Wind/tornado hazard models have

been published separately by LLNL in UCRL 53526 (Coats, 1984).

In the final phase, it is anticipated that the DOE will use the hazard

models to establish uniform criteria for the design and evaluation of critical

facilities.

)1 -vii-

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank James R. Hill (DOE), the technical

monitor for the Office of Nuclear Safety for his support and assistance. The

support and assistance of the Office of Nuclear Safety, Assistant Secretary

for Policy, Safety, and Environment, US Department of Energy, is also

gratefully acknowledged. Special thanks go to Mr. Lawrence H. Wight, Vice

President, TERA Corporation, and to Dr. Christian P. ortgat, Project Manager,

TERA Corporation, for their valued technical contributions throughout the

course of this project. The seismic hazard studies performed by TERA

Corporation, provided the material for this summary report (see Bibliography).

Finally, thanks go to members of the DOE community, and DOE contractors

for their critical reviews of TERA's work. Thanks also go to Carol Meier

(LLNL) for typing the original manuscript and for publications support.

INTRODUCTION

The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory LLNL) has been providing

technical assistance to the Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Safety

(ONS), Assistant Secretary for Policy, Safety, and Environment to develop

seismic, extreme wind and tornado hazard curves for Department of Energy (DOE)

sites throughout the country. (See Table for a list of sites included in

this study and Fig. I for their geographic distribution.) Experts in seismic

and wind hazards were asked to develop the hazard models for each site. TERA

Corporation, Berkeley, California, was selected to develop the seismic hazard

models. McDonald, Mehta, and Minor, Consulting Engineers, Lubbock, Texas, and

T. T. Fujita of the University of Chicago were contracted to independently

develop hazard models for tornadoes and high winds. These consultants were

selected based upon their nationally recognized expertise and their previous

experience in hazard model development.

The hazard models produced have received widespread distribution for

review and comment. This distribution included: DOE Field Offices; DOE site

contractors; DOE headquarters; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA); the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC); and the United States

Geological Survey (USGS).

After review comments were evaluated and acted upon, final hazard model

reports were issued. TERA Corporation has issued their final seismic hazard

model reports in the form of individual binders for each DOE Field Office.

These binders contain the final seismic hazard models developed, as well as a

brief description of the methodology used to develop the hazard curves.

The draft wind/tornado hazard models produced by McDonald and Fujita were

updated to reflect review comments and reissued. A summary of the final

wind/tornado hazard models and the methodology used in their development has

been published by LLNL in UCRL 53526 (Coats, 1984).

The purpose of this report is to consolidate all of the seismic hazard

models and response spectra developed for the sites listed in Table 1. A

brief description of the seismic hazard analysis methodology is also included.

Earthquakes present a unique challenge in the design and evaluation of

-1-

structures. Host people in the US view earthquakes as being a threat only in

the western United States, although the historical record would contradict

this view, for damaging earthquakes have been widely distributed across the

US. In 1811-12 a series of earthquakes in New Madrid, Missouri, was felt from

New York to Florida, and was the largest series of earthquakes in recorded US

history. If seismic design requirements were based upon historical data

alone, then design requirements for the Mid-West and the East would be as

severe as those for the West. However, in addition to the maximum earthquake

size possible, the frequency of seismic events is also an important

consideration in establishing seismic design requirements.

The hazard curves contained in this report characterize the earthquake

hazard at a given DOE site by a frequency plot which gives the return period

or annual probability of exceedance of different peak ground accelerations of

the site. These curves have been derived from a combination of recorded

earthquake data, estimated earthquake magnitudes of known events for which

recorded data is not available, review of local geological investigations, and

use of expert judgment from seismologists and geologists familiar with the

region in question. A more detailed description of this procedure is

contained in the next section.

-2-

TABLE 1. Project sites, with DOE field offices.

DOE field office Sites

Albuquerque, NM

Chicago, IL

Idaho

Oak Ridge, TN

Nevada

Richland, WA

San Francisco, CA

Savannah, GA

Bendix Plant

Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratory

Hound Laboratory

Pantex Plant

Rocky Flats Plant

Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque

Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore CA

Pinellas Plant, Florida

Argonne National Laboratory-East

Argonne National Laboratory-West

Brookhaven National Laboratory

Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

Feed Materials Production Center

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, X-1O, K-25, and Y-12

Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant

Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant

Nevada Test Site

Hanford Project Site

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Site 300

Energy Technology and Engineering Center

Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

Savannah River Plant

I.

-3-

.4

Figure 1. DOE sites for seismic hazard analysis.

-4-

SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

There are two distinctly different approaches to seismic hazard

characterization-deterministic and probabilistic. In the deterministic

approach, the analyst:

* Estimates that an earthquake of a given magnitude or intensity can

occur at a certain location.

* Attenuates the ground motion from the earthquake source to the site.

* Determines the effects of the earthquake at the site.

With this approach, it is difficult to define the margin of safety in the

resulting design parameters. As a result, the analyst generally uses upper-

bound estimates of ground motion, which are typically overly conservative.

In a probabilistic approach, on the other hand, the analyst quantifies

the uncertainty in the number, size, and location of possible earthquakes and

can thus present a trade-off between more costly designs or retrofits and the

economic or social impact of a failure.

Although the probabilistic approach requires significantly more effort

than does the deterministic approach, TERA used it to develop seismic hazard

characterizations that would make it possible to:

* Quantify the hazard in terms of Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) return

period, which is defined as the inverse of the annual probability of

exceedance of a specific PGA.

* Rigorously incorporate the complete historical seismic record.

* Incorporate the judgment and experience of seismic experts.

* Account for incomplete knowledge about the locations of faults.

* Assess the hazard at the site in terms of spectral acceleration.

In fact, the method is particularly appropriate for eastern facilities where

the seismicity is diffuse and cannot be correlated with surface faulting, as

it can be in the western United States. The locations of the Safe Shutdown

Earthquakes (the maximum credible earthquake at a given site) in the eastern

United States are particularly uncertain, and the probabilistic approach can

quantify these uncertainties. Its major weakness is the lack of plentiful

statistical data from which to characterize the various input parameters in

probabilistic terms. Nevertheless, the credibility of the probabilistic

-5-

approach has been established through detailed technical review of its

application to several important projects and areas. Applications include

assessments of the seismic risk in Boston (Cornell, 1975), the San Francisco

Bay Area (Vagliente, 1973), the Puget Sound Area (Stepp, 1974), the country of

Nicaragua (Shah, et al., 1975), the continental United States (Algermissen and

Perkins, 1976), the country of Costa Rica (Mortgat, et al., 1977) and the

Nuclear Regulatory funded Seismic Evaluation of Commercial Plutonium

Fabrication Plants (Bernreuter, et al., 1979), the Systematic Evaluation

Program (SEP) (Bernreuter, 1981), and the Seismic Safety Margins Research

Program (Bohn, et al., 1983). Results of these studies have been applied to,

among other areas:

* Development of long-range earthquake engineering research goals.

* Planning decisions for urban development.

* Environmental hazards associated with the milling of uranium.

* Design considerations for radioactive waste repositories.

* Licensing decisions for plutonium fabrication facilities and commercial

nuclear reactors.

This diversity of application demonstrates the inherent flexibility of

the probabilistic approach.

INPUT

TERA used the probabilistic approach to characterize the seismic hazard

for each site in this study. The input to a probabilistic hazard assessment

comprises specification of local seismic sources, earthquake frequency

relations and attenuation functions. Because hazard assessment calculations

are very sensitive to the particular composition of the input, experts in

local and regional seismology were consulted during the preparation of input

for each facility.

METHODOLOGY STEPS

The product of a probabilistic approach is a measure of the seismic

-6-

hazard expressed in terms of return period, or reciprocal annual

probability. The methodology used to determine seismic hazard at a site is

usually divided into the following steps:

* Specify the geometry of local seismic regions. Based on the geology

and historic seismicity of the region, sources are identified as line

sources (faults) r area sources (Fig. 2a). The largest magnitude

earthquake associated with each source is established.

* Describe past seismicity in terms of earthquake occurrence. The

recurrence of earthquakes of various magnitudes is based primarily on

historical seismicity. A straight line or a set of straight lines is

fitted onto the data, using regression analysis to develop these

relationships (Fig. 2b).

* Develop an earthquake recurrence model. The model assumes that the

earthquake occurrence follows a Poisson distribution in time. This is

a standard assumption.

* Derive or select a transfer function (attenuation relationship) to

mathematically carry information from the epicenter to the site in

terms of structurally relevant parameters (Fig. 2c). Most attenuation

relationships are empirically derived, at times modified by theory, and

express PGA as a function of earthquake magnitude and distances from

the epicenter. Different attenuation relationships are used in the

western and eastern United States because their ground motion

characteristics vary significantly.

* Combine the potential activity of all sources for all earthquake

magnitudes to determine the probability that a certain acceleration

will not be exceeded within a given time period (Fig. 2d). This

completes the seismic hazard model.

SOURCE REGIONS

A basic assumption in any seismic hazard analysis is that seismic source

zones can be defined within which the future seismicity is homogeneous and

stationary.

The seismic zone about each site can significantly influence the site

-7-

hazard; therefore, particular care was taken in the zone definitions for this

project. The zones prepared by Algermissen and Perkins were a starting point

in the definition of source regions. Their zones were generally considered

inadequate for the site-specific results sought by the program because their

objective was regional seismic hazard assessment. TRA critically examined

the Algermissen and Perkins zones from the perspective of their seismic data

base, as well as from various geologic, geophysical, and tectonic data. In

the eastern and central United States, TERA relied heavily on the results of

the Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP). As part of this project a panel of

10 seismologists was formed to provide expert opinion related to the seismic

zonation, earthquake occurrence, upper magnitude cutoff and ground motion in

the eastern and central United States (TERA, 1980). The zones were modified

as needed to capture the site-specific assessment required.

Where the hazard at a site was sensitive to the zonation, sensitivity

studies were performed on that parameter.

-8-

I s Maximum-Z *m agnitudeSite ~ ~ ~~~~~~~*earthquake

9)~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ II

\ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Magnitude- MA_ fi~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~b)

(a)

loI I/ Besi

^ relationship ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~etia01 10 - 2 0 0

o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ EL

Disetaince' Pekhrznaaclrto-Area 8np

specifies the geometry of mportant seismic regions; (b) characterizes the

relative frequency of earthquakes of various sizes; develops an earthquake

recurrence model (usually a Poisson distribution in time, not shown); and (c)

selects transfer function that transforms information about the earthquake

at the epicenter into information at the site, such as ground acceleration,

that a structural engineer can use. The result of such an assessment is a

plot of return priod s peak horizontal ground acceleration (d).

4

-9-

SOURCE REGION SEISHICITY

TERA updated the earthquake data base to 1977 and found that, for many

source regions, there was little change in the earthquake statistics from the

1974 data used by Algermissen and Perkins to calculate the rates at which

earthquakes occur in each source region. TERA carefully compared the

seismicity model calculated with their data against the model prepared by

Algermissen and Perkins and reconciled any differences. Where applicable, the

results of the SEP survey were also heavily relied upon. TERA often

researched data points that were crucial to the statistics, and always

compared their model with all appropriate previous models.

Consistent with conventional practice, the resulting seismicity model for

all cases was characterized by

log N - a + bm, (1)

where

Nc - the cumulative number of earthquakes greater than mb s

a, b - parameters of a straight line, and

mb - the measure of the earthquake severity (magnitude or intensity).

The upper magnitude cutoff (Mu) is a rather uncertain parameter, particularly

in the less seismic areas which were considered. For each source, Mu was

obtained from reviews of expert opinion conducted by TERA. The values used

were intended to maximize the agreement among experts. Both the recurrence

relationship and the upper magnitude cutoff were considered uncertain and

sensitivity studies were performed on them.

-10-

MAGNITUDE AND INTENSITY RELATIONSHIP

Although most data are already available in terms of magnitude, an

important part of the data is described in terms of intensity. In general,

the subjective nature and the wide range of uncertainty of the Modified

Mercalli intensity scale are such that they cannot be easily compared to the

Richter magnitude. This has led to the use of empirical relationships between

magnitude and intensity. TERA used a widely accepted linear relationship in

the form:

mb a + b I (2)

where

mb ' Body Wave Magnitude

10 = Epicentral MM intensity

with the values

a - 1.75

b .50.

This relation has been derived separately for the central United States by

Nuttli (1974) and is used by TERA to estimate magnitudes when only intensity

is given.

ATTENUATION RELATIONSHIPS

Once the seismic activity has been determined within a source region,

attention focuses on the effect of such activity at the site. Attenuation

relationships are transfer functions that carry the information from the

source to the site in terms of parameters structural engineers can use (i.e.,

acceleration, velocity, spectral acceleration). These attenuation

relationships are inexact because of the lack of understanding of earthquake-

-11-

generation phenomena, variations in travel paths, variable site conditions,

and the limited descriptive capability of the parameters used. Probabilistic

models consider the whole spectrum of uncertainties associated with these

relationships for any event at any location. Thus, all possible outcomes at

the site are covered, from the most favorable to the most adverse, each

expressed in terms of how likely it is to occur.

The attenuation relationships were derived empirically. Because data are

widely available in the West, but practically nonexistent in the eastern,

central, and southern United States, two approaches were used.

The attenuation relations used for the eastern, central, and southern

states were developed in two steps. Given the paucity of strong motion data

and availability of intensity data, a model for the attenuation of site

intensity was first developed.. The site intensity was then converted into

ground motion parameter, namely, peak ground acceleration, by using existing

eastern United States strong motion data in conjunction with data from the

western states. The epicentral intensity as a parameter in the attenuation

model is changed to body wave magnitude by using Eq. (2). The local magnitude

can be transformed to body wave magnitude by the relation:

mb 0.98 H - 0.29 (3)

Attenuation relationships for the western United States were obtained directly

from the abundant strong motion data, by regression analysis of the PGA versus

magnitude and distance.

It is very important to consider the data dispersion around the mean

recurrence relationship. The statistical properties of peak acceleration are

usually characterized by the natural logarithm of acceleration, thus,

dispersions are expressed in terms of the standard deviation of In PGA where

PGA - Peak Ground Acceleration (cmlsec2). TERA has computed values for this

parameter on a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, data dispersion is truncated

at three sigmas to eliminate nonplausible accelerations.

-12-

HAZARD CALCULATIONS

TERA used the total probability theorem to calculate the probability that

peak ground acceleration, A, will be exceeded in a given period of time. This

is calculated by multiplying the conditional probability of A, given

earthquake magnitude, m, and epicentral distance, r, times the probabilities

of m and r, and integrating over all possible values of m and r:

PEA] - ff PA/m and r] fM(m)fR(r) dmdr

where P indicates probability,.A is the parameter whose probability is sought,

and M and R are continuous, independent random variables which influence A.

In TERA's assessments, A is taken as maximum acceleration and is related

by the attenuation relationship to epicentral distance and earthquake

magnitude. The distribution on earthquake magnitude, fm(m), is readily

derived from frequency relationships of the form of Eq. (1). The distribution

on distance, fR(r), depends on the geometry of the source region. For simple

geometries, the distributions can often be integrated analytically. Realistic

geometries, however, require numerical evaluation of the integral.

TERA used versatile computer programs that incorporated the theory

presented above with a numerical integration scheme to evaluate complex

source-site geometries. For small areas within each source region, the

computer code calculated the annual expected number of earthquakes causing

accelerations greater than a specified acceleration. The expected number for

each source region was obtained by integrating over the whole source. This

process was repeated for each source region, and the total expected number was

obtained by summation. The resulting annual hazard was calculated as:

annual hazard - 1.0 - exp(- total annual expected number).

This expression results from the conventional assumption that earthquake

occurrences follow a Poisson process in time.

The return period associated with the specified acceleration can than be

-13-

approximated by the reciprocal of the annual hazard. It follows from the

definition of return period that accelerations with a particular return period

have a 63% probability of being exceded within a period of time equal to the

return period.

TERA's estimate of the seismic hazard represents the weighted reuslts

from individual calculations for a base case (best estimate) and perturbations

on input parameters about this base. The parameters that were considered

uncertain and included in sensitivity analysis are:

* The boundaries of the source regions.

* The intercept annd slope of the recurrence relationships.

* The maximum earthquake n each source region.

* The attenuation relationship and the uncertainty associated with it.

The sensitivity analyses resulted in a family of hazard curves at the

site. Each curve was weighted by subjective estimates Of its probability of

occurrence.

Results of the probabilistic seismic characterization are presented as

three plots of return period vs. peak acceleration: the best estimate

together with the estimate of the lower and upper limits. These limits can be

taken in a loose sense as the one standard deviation with respect to the best

estimate.

These plots are presented in the Appendix of this report.

-14-

RESPONSE SPECTRA

TERA also determined appropriate response spectra for the sites because

some structures and equipment have fundamental frequencies in the range of

spectral amplification of the ground motion. The response spectrum for a site

clearly cannot be developed in association with a specified earthquake, since

the return period accelerations represent a wide variety of earthquakes having

an integrated effect at the site, and the response spectrum must reflect this.

The hazard at most sites is generated by one of two types of events:

near-field earthquakes of small to moderate magnitudes in the host region, and

large earthquake motion from distant sources. The energy of near-field events

is released at the site mainly in the high frequency range, and their response

spectra are governed by body waves. On the other hand, large earthquake

motions from distant sources are transmitted by surface waves and contribute

to the low frequency side of the spectrum.

These considerations, as well as the site soil conditions, are used to

develop response spectra for each site. The resulting spectra are, in

general, a conservative envelope of the broad frequency range that may be

expected to occur at a given site, and are also presented in the Appendix of

this report. These spectra may be considered as median centered spectra for

conducting seismic analyses.

Two alternatives are also provided for selection of response spectra.

These are the use of the median Newmark and Hall spectra (Newmark and Hall,

1978) or the use of median centered site specific spectra developed by a local

site study. Formulas for the control points needed to define median centered

Newmark and Hall spectra are given in Table 2. These control points are shown

in Fig. 3.

-15-

TABLE 2. Formulas for determination of control points for median centeredNewmark and Hall spectra.

1. Select soil type

Competent soil V < 3500 ft/sec Rock V > 3500 ft/sec

ag - PGA (g) ag - PGA (g)

vg - 48 ag (in/sec) vg M 36 ag (in/sec)

dg - 36 ag (in) dg - 20 ag (in)

where: PGA - Peak ground acceleration (horizontal motion), andVs - Shear wave velocity of soil at site.

2. Determine maximum values

amax - ag(3.21 - 0.68 n B)

vmax - vg(2.31 - 0.41 n B)

dmax - dg(1.8 2 - 0.27 n B)

where: - Damping

3. Determine control points

Horizontal spectraFor a peak horizontal ground motion

Control Frequency Spectral AccelerationPoint (Hz) (g)

E 0.1 0.395 dmaxg

vmax v2 max27r dmax g dmax

g amax

2w vmax amax

B 8.0 amax

A 33.0 ag

A' 100.0 ag

where: g - acceleration of gravity

Vertical spectra

Sa (vertical control) - 2/3 Sa(horizontal control) at horizontal controlpoint point point frequency

where: Sa - spectral acceleration

-16-

IsI

.a

0.1 fc 8 33 100

Frequency, Hz (log scale)

Figure 3. Controland Hall spectra.log-log paper.

points for horizontal and vertical median centered NewmarkUse linear Interpolation between control points plotted on

-17-

A

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This report has presented a summary of the methodology used by TERA

Corporation to develop seismic hazard models and response spectra as part of a

DOE, Office of Nuclear Safety project to evaluate natural phenomena hazards at

DOE sites throughout the country.

The seismic hazard curves and response spectra shapes presented in the

Appendix are the curves recommended for use in the design of new facilities

and in the analysis of existing facilities. We believe these curves represent

the most realistic evaluation of seismic hazards at DOE sites currently

available, and we strongly recommend their use in analysis and design

applications.

-1 9-

-

REFERENCES

Algermissen, S. T. and Perkins, D. M., A Probabilistic Estimate of MaximumAcceleration in Rock in the Contiguous United States, U.S. Geological Survey,Open File Report 76-5416 (1976).

Bernreuter, D. L., et al., Seismic Evaluation of Commercial PlutoniumFabrication Plants In the United States, Lawrence Livermore NationalLaboratory, Livermore, CA, UCRL-52705 (October, 1979).

Bernreuter, D. L., Seismic Hazard Analysis--Application of Methodology,Results, and Sensitivity Studies, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission report,NUREG/CR-1582, Vol. 4 (1981).

Bohn, M. P., et al., Application of the SSMRP Methodology to the Seismic Riskat the Zion Nuclear Power Plant, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission report,NUREG/CR-3428 1983).

Coats, D. W. and Murray, R. C., Natural Phenomena Hazards for Department ofEnergy Critical Facilities: Phase 1 - Site and Facility Information, LawrenceLivermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, UCRL-52599-Draft (1978).

Coats, D. W. and Murray, R. C., Natural Phenomena Hazards Modeling Project:Extreme Wind/Tornado Hazard Models for Department of Energy Sites, LawrenceLivermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, UCRL-53526, Rev. 1 (August,1985).

Cornell, C. A. and Merz, H. A., "A Seismic Risk Analysis of Boston," Journalof the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 101, No. STIO, Proc. Paper 11617, pp.2027-2043 (1975).

Mortgat, C. P., et al., A Study of Seismic Risk for Costa Rica, Report 25,John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, Stanford,.California (1977).

Newmark, N. M. and Hall, W. J., Development of Criteria for Seismic Review ofSelected Nuclear Power Plants, US. Nuclear Regulatory Commission report,NUREG/CR-0098 (May 1978)

Nuttli, 0. W. and Zollweg, J. E., "The Relation between Felt Area andMagnitude for Central United States Earthquakes," Bull. Seismol. Soc. America,Vol. 64, p. 73-85 (1974).

Shah, H. C., et al., A Study of Seismic Risk for Nicaragua, Report II, Part I,John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University (1975).

Stepp, J. C., "Analysis of Completeness of the Earthquake Sample in the PugetSound Area and Its Effect on Statistical Estimates of Earthquake Hazard,"Proceedings, Conference on Microzonation, Seattle (1974).

-21-

TERA Corporation, Seismic Hazard Analysis: Solicitation of Expert Opinion,prepared for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1980).

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, The Correlation of Peak GroundAcceleration Amplitude with Seismic Intensity and Other Physical Parameters,U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission report, NUREG-0143 (1977).

Vagliente, V., "Forecasting the Risk Inherent in Earthquake Resistant Design,"Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University,Stanford, California (1973).

-22-

BIBLIOGRAPHY

TERA Corporation, Influence of Seismicity Modeling on Seismic HazardAnalysis," report prepared for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,Livermore, CA (June 1978).

TERA Corporation, "Draft Report-Seismic Hazard Analysis for the Bendix KansasCity Plant," report prepared for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,Livermore, CA (October 1981).

TERA Corporation, Draft Report-Seismic Hazard Analysis for Los AlamosScientific Laboratory and Sandia Laboratories, New Mexico," report preparedfor the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA (Hay 1981).

TERA Corporation, Draft Report-Seismic Hazard Analysis for the Paducah,Portsmouth, Mound and FPC DOE Sites," report prepared for the LawrenceLivermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA (June 1980).

TERA Corporation, "Draft Report-Seismic Hazard Analysis Pantex Ordnance PlantAmarillo, Texas," report prepared for the Lawrence Livermore NationalLaboratory, Livermore, CA (April 1978).

TERA Corporation, "Seismic Hazard Analysis for Lawrence Livermore NationalLaboratory and Site 300," report prepared for the Lawrence Livermore NationalLaboratory, Livermore, CA (May 1983).

TERA Corporation, "Draft-Seismic Hazard Analysis for the Pinellas Plant,Florida," report prepared for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,Livermore, CA (October 1982).

TERA Corporation, Seismic Risk Analysis for Argonne National Laboratory EastArea," report prepared for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,Livermore, CA (May 1978).

TERA Corporation, "Draft-Seismic Risk Analysis for Argonne NationalLaboratory, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory," report prepared for theLawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA (June 1978).

TERA Corporation, Draft Report-Seismic Hazard Analysis for BrookhavenNational Laboratory and Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory," report preparedfor the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA (July 1981).

TERA Corporation, "Draft-Seismic Hazard Analysis for Oak Ridge NationalLaboratory," report prepared for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,Livermore, CA (September 1978).

TERA Corporation, Draft Report-Seismic Hazard Analysis for Area 410, NevadaTest Site," report prepared for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,Livermore, CA (October 1981).

-23-

TERA Corporation, Seismic Risk Analysis for the Hanford Reservation Richland,Washington," report prepared for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,Livermore, CA (September 1978).

TERA Corporation, Draft-Seismic Hazard Analysis for the Lawrence BerkeleyLaboratory and Stanford Linear Accelerator Center," report prepared for theLawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA (October 1981).

TERA Corporation, Draft-Seismic Hazard Analysis for the Liquid MetalEngineering Center Santa Susana, California," report prepared for the LawrenceLivermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA (March 1982).

TERA Corporation, Draft Report-Seismic Hazard Analysis for the SavannahRiver Plant, South Carolina," report prepared for the Lawrence LivermoreNational Laboratory, Livermore, CA (August 1980).

TERA Corporation, Seismic Hazard Analysis of Department of Energy-Sites, DOEField Office-Albuquerque," report prepared for the Lawrence LivermoreNational Laboratory, Livermore, CA (September 1982).

TERA Corporation, "Seismic Hazard Analysis of Department of Energy Sites, DOEField Office-Chicago," report prepared for the Lawrence Livermore NationalLaboratory, Livermore, CA (January 1983).

TERA Corporation, "Seismic Hazard.Analysis of Department of Energy Sites, DOEField Office-Idaho," report prepared for the Lawrence Livermore NationalLaboratory, Livermore, CA (October 1984).

TERA Corporation, "Seismic Hazard Analysis of Department of Energy Sites, DOEField Office-Oak Ridge," report prepared for the Lawrence Livermore NationalLaboratory, Livermore, CA (February 1981).

TERA Corporation, Seismic Hazard Analysis of Department of Energy Sites, DOEField Office-Nevada," report prepared for the Lawrence Livermore NationalLaboratory, Livermore, CA (February 1984).

TERA Corporation, "Seismic Hazard Analysis of Department of Energy Sites, DOEField Office--Richland," report prepared for the Lawrence Livermore NationalLaboratory, Livermore, CA (September 1982).

TERA Corporation, Seismic Hazard Analysis of Department of Energy Sites, DOEField Office-San Francisco," report prepared for the Lawrence LivermoreNational Laboratory, Livermore, CA (March 1984).

TERA Corporation, "Seismic Hazard Analysis of Department of Energy Sites, DOEField Office-Savannah," report prepared for the Lawrence Livermore NationalLaboratory, Livermore, CA (September 1982).

-24-

-

APPENDIX

Earthquake Hazard Curves and Response Spectrafor DOE Sites

This appendix contains hazard model curves and design response spectrafor all DOE sites considered in this study.

The hazard curves on either side of the best estimates represent lowerand upper bound confidence limits; they can roughly be considered the onestandard deviation with respect to the best estimates. These curves provide abasis for selecting seismic design criteria for these sites in terms of free-field peak ground acceleration.

For those structures and equipment that could experience structuralamplification, we have included the design response spectral shapes which webelieve to be most appropriate for the sites. These spectral shapes arescaled to 1.0 g.

-25-

Albuquerque Field Office Sites

Earthquake Hazard Curves and Response Spectra

-27,

104'

a;

I

uJ

A:

-- ~~~~- - -0'

-_ S

7~~~~~~- = -

- ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - F~ A k---

-- - -

. - S

_ _ _ / I_ _ I_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I- S

- -I--- I___ I =,~~~~~

___ IX~~~~

o2

100 so 00 '50 200 250 300 350

PEAK ACCELERATION (cmnlsec2)

Earthquake Hazard at the Bendix,Kansas City Plant, Missouri

-28-

400400

200

100Us

60

4

.2

.04 .04 .03 .1 .2 .4 .6 .3 1 2 4

PERIOD sec)

Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g(22, 5, and 102 of Critical Dauping)Bendix, Kansas City Plant, Missouri

6 a 10 20

-29-

10000.

C - ____s ll

bI - 0I

10. I___

0 1OO 200 300 400 500 60

PEAK ACCELERATION (cm/3=

Earthquake Hazard at the Los Alamos National Laboratory,New Mexico

D

-30-

400~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0

2W 1 < i tx¢3; 200

100 1 t M oAQ0 so Al ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~so

60 N0, 60

20 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~20

C 10

- M- I £o

O 6

2 2

_ N 2 t t-A N A 7 , 7-1Z *0,4.6~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A .4

.2 .2

04 6.6.1 .2 .4 .6 1 2 4 6 10 20

PERIOD (sec)

Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g(2%, 5, and 10% of Critical Damping)

Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico

-31-

S02

'a

1 0 ' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~~~~~~~~~~~0 / 1 00

103

102~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

. 1 101/

Aa 50 lug 1sO 250 300 35u

PEAK ACCELERATION (a s2)

Earthquake Hazard at the Mound Laboratory, Ohio

-32-

400400

200

100 tooso

160

40

20

10a

I

0'U

w

PERIOD (seC)

Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g(2%, 5%, and 10% of Critical Damping)

Mound Laboratory, Ohio

-33-

104

VwCAP&M02w

0

z£,.

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. I 1 /F - - -

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ E / Z &I

/ ,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ / _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __If_04

-a' 4 /

II/// I

IX I

102

100 40 80 120 160

PEAK ACCELERATION

200

(cm/sec2 )

240 280

Earthquake Hazard at the Pantex Plant, Texas

-34-

400400

z~~~~ -# riJL r X 'kAj12W = e '\ 1 N= 200

100 100

30 £0

40 40

§ < ro <y <n <~~~~~X <M 20 20

C w- . NF12

)> 10 1 0

I. I 'Y/ PIA Z N X Y/9

.4Ct5 I I'N /,%A' /\ " > I

0 6 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~6

4

2 E B \ 12

.6 ~

.4

.2 .-002

.04 6 .01.1 .2 .4 .6 . 2 4 6 10 20

PERIOD (sec)

Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g(2%, 5, and 10% of Critical Damping)

Pantex Plant, Texas.

-35-

104

io3

a2

I

w

_ -7' I__

-A--I-- -_

-/-

-q/$� /_____ _____ � _____ _____ _____

-A l _______ _______ _______ _______

___ I / ___

II / I___ I ___ I ___ ___

___ -I

102

lo,00 200 300

PEAK ACCELERATION (cm/see2)

Earthquake Hazard at the Rocky Flats Plant, Colorado

-36-

400400

200

I0so60

200

t00t0

60

40

20

S

C

0-I

'I

10

6

.04 06 . .1 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 2 4 6 a 10 20

PERIOD (sec)

Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g(2%, 5, and 10% of Critical Damping)

Rocky Flats Plant, Colorado

-37-

I0000.1

1000._

0 100 200 300 400 500

PEAK ACCELERATION (cm/se 2 )

Earthquake Hazard at the Sandia National Laboratory,-New Mexico

-38-

600

400400

200

300s0

60

200

300so

60

40

20S

0-I

tu'I

10

£

6

A*:.0

.4

.04 06 .0o .2 .4 .6 .1 2 4 6 5 10 20

PERIOD (sec

Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g(2%, 5, and 10% of Critical Damping)Sandia National Laboratory, New Hexico

-39-

10,000

1000

0%

4n

8.0U

w

100

100 200 300 400 500 600PEAK ACCELERATION (cm/sec2)

Earthquake Hazard at the Sandia National Laboratory,California

700

-40-

400 400

200 C o-e d 2 0 I . V A. E x As N I 0 2

100 10030 By 060 60

40 4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0

*) 20

>0- 10

O S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.64

.2 z a,

.04 .06.0.1 .2 .4 .6 . 2 4 63 10 20

PERIOD sec)

Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g(2%, 5%, and 10% of Critical Damping)Sandia National Laboratory, California

-41-

l,

l0

lo,2S SO 7S 100 125 ISO 17S

PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION (cmsmc2)

Earthquake Hazard at the Pinellas Plant, Florida

-42-

400 400

200 lop, I . x1 x NZv x OFX Ix x x z

100E so40

20

10 E VY/

.6

.4

.2

.04 .068 .2 A .6 .81 2 4

PERIOD (sec)

Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g(2?, 5%, and 10% of Critical Damping)

Pinellas Plant, Florida

6 5 1o 20

-43-

Chicago Field Office Sites

Earthquake Hazard Curves and Response Spectra

-45-

lo4

LU L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ i I _/l _ _LI

101

LU I 02

I-

~ i l_ __

_ l l__ _

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

PEAK ACCELERATION (cm/sec2)

Earthquake Hazard at the Argonne National Laboratory, Illinois

-46-

400 400

,_ago I'k v xV VI % A I 1% t 1 IF 1 ,- 200

oo 100

60 6

~20 20

>- 1 10

- SAaU

4

.4 X/N .4

.2 2 V 79 2

.1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*.4 .06 .1 .2 .4 .6.1 2 4 6610 20

PERIOD (sec)

Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g(2%, 5%, and 10% of Critical Damping)Argonne National Laboratory, Illinois

-47-

104

0C

2

w.ZI-

I 'At= p

X~~~~~ T

I~~ 7 f

! I 1/1

ff I_______- -

= == =-7' I _____-_~~~~

1010 s0 100 150 200 250 300 350

PEAK ACCELERATION (cm/sec2 )

Earthquake Hazard at the Argonne Natlonal Laboratory, Idaho

-48-

400 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~400

200 '\200

100 100so go60 60

20t4C

> X0 to eH' _ \ % t > X > ~~~~NA Y/->-*

PE 610 D 6-a.'a

> 44

2 2

.6 N6

4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

.2 X 2

*1 -1

.04 .06 .08 .1 .2 .4 .6.81I 2 4 6810 20

PERIOD (sec)

Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g(0.5%, 2%, 5%, and 10% of Critical Damping)

Argonne National Laboratory, Idahq

-49-

to1W00

a

zUr

1 7 1 7 1 / rF §~~~~~~7

102 _ / L =

__________________ _____________ _____________ _____________ l____________ I

l0~ ___ _, 7__1___

0 50 100 150 200 250 * 300

PEAK ACCELERATION (cm/sec2 )

Earthquake Hazard at the Brookhaven National Laboratory,New York

350

-50-

400400

200

tooso

60

40

C

0-U'I

20

t0

3

6

4

2

.3

.6

.4

.2

.04 .06.09.1 .2 .4 . . 1 2 4 6 6 10 2C

PERIOD Isec)

Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g(22, 5, and 10% of Critical Damping)

Brookhaven National Laboratory, New York

-51-

o

0

z

I-Iw

'e''''

/ 7/

/~ a If4

Io . 4 K / P

I / C

i

o~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ,I ._

-o so o

PEAK

Earthquake Hazard at the

ISO 200 2W 300

ACCELERATION (cm/sec 2)

Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory,New Jersey

350

-52-

400400

200 'k 'O L0 20

Too lO

so so 717

60 60

40 4

20 20

> l A..a dI- \ N _1fl A A Nx

0

.1w

2 2

1 I

.6 )<N 47 ~.8

.04 .06.08.1 .2 .4 .6 . 1 2 4 6 6 10 20

PERIOD (sec)

Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g(2%, 5%, and 10% of Critical Damping)

Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, New Jersey

-53-

Idaho Field Office Site

Earthquake Hazard Curve and Response Spectrum

-55-

Cn

4

w

00

w

0:

_ _ _ _ _ _ / _ __X

I T 1, Z d 1

__ I i/ . 1

= /1 i r

1010 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

PEAK ACCELERATION (cm/sec2 )Earthquake Hazard-at the Idaho National Engineering

Laboratory, Idaho

-56-

400400

200

00

200

100so

60

U

C

50-aw)

40

20

t0

a

.04 .06 .08 .1 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 2 4 6 5 10 20

PERIOD (sec)

Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g(0.5%, 2%, 5%, and 10% of Critical Damping)Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho

-57-

Oak Ridge Field Office Sites

Earthquake Hazard Curves and Response Spectra

-59-

lo' _ _____ e _

I0~~ ________l_

1 7 1_ / 7 / A/ 7 _~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1

!_________________________________________ ___________________ I ______________________ ___________________

w

I I I I __ I

IO10

I I I A -�

so 100 I50 200 250 300 350

PEAK ACCELERATION (t/s2)

Earthquake Hazard at the Feed Materials Production Center, Ohio

-60-

400400

200

toos0

60

200

100to

> 0 s4

.6 CIO.4

.2

.04 .06.08.1 .2 .4 . . 1 2 4 6

PERIOD (sec)

Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g

(2%, 5%, and 10% of Critical Damping)Feed Materials Production Center, Ohio

10 20

-61-

02 $X1 1a I ~ I II.

*0 I

0 -I ISO lo 200 250 300 350

PEAK ROUND ACCELERATION (n/s2)

Earthquake Hazard at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory,X-10, X-25, and Y-12 Sites, Tennessee

-62-

400 400

200 I

100 tOOso to60 6

4°~~~~~~~~h 404

40\ 20

> I 10

W _ I Am1 eS A 0 6 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~6

> 4 4

2 2

.04 .06 .08.1 .2 .4 .6 .3 1 2 4 6 .10 20

PERIOD sec)

Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g(2%, 5%, and 10% of Critical Damping)

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, X-1O, K-25,and Y-12 Sites, Tennessee

-63-

i .

I ~ T :I--7I

103 1 {k

- lt I I

_2_

zF-

II.

i

lotLl i

I 100 200 * 300 400

PEAK ACCELERATION (Cm/se 2 )

So5 600 ?on

Earthquake Hazard at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Kentucky

-64- .

400

200

100to

60

40

q'~C 'V

S

400 * - . we mq *Wfl � 400.

$ K / K/ K '-

I - m -a � a -a r. a � a

40Q

~0C>x, AS

N 6~t \ A i

~~x <4

ISs"$4A el

~~LXz

n- U - -& 4 - - '- I -

p'9YAtK -4- _l7VA

I _, C _ ,%7 - 3' - aim

47 _M -6-&.- 54--~S

U

C,

0wj

nV

I036

4

S ~/Y A~t YN A A X°e-A'N

\'M /I / r, \ Aoo Y/

X'V/4 ^qI>>SX>~

XsS V S

f s > M! °9XM AtA > _ A A Y\ \l 5 O&> NS 1 X

200

100J0

60

40

20

l0

6

4

2

.3

.6

.4

.2

.1

2

*8

.6

.4

.2

.1

.04 .06 .08 .1 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 2 4 6 10 20

PERIOD Isec)

Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g(2%, 5%, and 10% of Critical Damping)

Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Kentucky

-65-

I

a

0.z

1 0 * _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ r _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ 1 i' I I

I ~ ~ I 7_ I I_ 1_ 1_ 1

T I , I 11

_ _ .1 .i/_ I _ _ 1 1_ 1_

_ _ I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ -"4

IC: -- -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --- --- --~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

U so 1o 150 200 Z50 300 J50

PEAK ACCELERATION (cmsac2 )

Earthquake Hazard at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Ohio

-66-

400

200

100

s0

60NV6

K CLW I - 1 9.W1 -t� � 'I !

I 1 - i - d � 9-4 � 6 4

-1 M

& i'co

) 6'07

/ %

N

400

w _ . _ _ - ~ / -5~~ A--.N

�r iam �i at �-�r -'t- I

40

on

9-Er- P � S I � 9- U -4 .d � - I - b * � 9h 9q1 -

U4)

0

-a'a

I/K

S I r -w _r -_ _-

'1%

/ K/_ *, fl yy & K

200

100s0

60

40

20

10

a

4

p- -' I '_ P -S Xto7 A ~N\A/

10

8

6

4

_ A_ - _ - 9 ,*- -4 _ .F -

K A tKA AK Ns t\/K NYU_ P P _ _ L _ . r.'� I. A �. &a haN - a

N X#A/XM Y\_ __ W w _. _ 0_, lo,

/F9 n . ,

\ /< K1.40

.IV

* 4'~~~~~~4<O"

lAI -1 . . I-

: o-tI'N MNN&•x

2

.8

.6

.4

.2

.1

- I y4 ; In - Ie In

10% K* lk 4- -x 2

A 0

N 6X IIcn 4- i, 4\ 4 -a

;/15�/A/K N Y'A/\ZK N ,NO

_ � . , , A F \

/N )4NN77>x_ _ Sf _ | _ _ _ - e e Ail

N\5 WA/I- 4. �-9 - I w.-9 *�. 4-. -�. 4

\ /

2<IK K~jN

.8

.6

.4

.2

.1E SzBEX/.04 .06 .08 .1 .2 .4 .6 .6 I 2 4 6 10 20

PERIOD (see)

Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g

(2%, 5, and 10% of Critical Damping)Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Ohio

-67-

Nevada Field Office Site

Earthquake Hazard Curve and Response Spectrum

-69-

le

103

aI

-~~~~~~,

/~ /

___ _ , ___ ___ __

__ __ __ _ __ _ I l _ _ __ _ I _ _

102

100 t00 2Xo 300 500 600 700

PEAK ACCELERATION (cms2)

Earthquake Hazard at the Nevada Test Site,Area 410, Nevada

-70-

400400

100 100

10 60

U

9 40 40Ear

1 20 20

U0

10 10

w * 6

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~6

W 4

0

D 2 2

'I,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 1 > a.6

.4 *4

.2 ;2

*1

.04 .06.08.1 .2 .4 .6 . 1 2 4 4 10 20

PERIOD (sec)

Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g

(2%, 5, and 10% of Critical Damping)

Nevada Test Site, Area 410, Nevada

-71-

Richland Field Office Sitek,

Earthquake Hazard Curve and Response Spectrum

-73-

ao,ooo I__I___ ,1 _ 1___

/f /

- /|!W~~f =, /

1000 -1. / __ _

si- / __ ____ _

__go / __ _

V

o /, I ./1I00j_ _ __ __

z ili___Iw _ _

10 .:I _ _ _

0 50 100 150 200 250PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION (cm/sec2 )

Earthquake Hazard at the Hanford Site, Washington

300

-74-

400

200

100

s0

60

40

U

C

-

w

400

200

I00

30

60

40

20

10

8

6

4

2

A

.6

.4

.2

.1

.04 .06 .08 .1 .2 .4 .6 . 1 2 4 6 8 10 20

PERIOD (sec)

Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g

(0.5%, 2, 5%, and 10% of Critical Damping)

Hanford Site, Washington

-75-

San Francisco Field Office Sites

Earthquake Hazard Curves and Response Spectra

-77- .

0

0.zw

200 4oo coo goo lo0 1201

PEAK ACCELERATON (cmls=2 )

Earthquake Hazard at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory,California

-78-

400 400

200

100so

60

C

.0-j'U

200

100so

60

40

20

to1

6

4

2

.8

.6

.4

.2

.04 6.08.1 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 2 4 6 6 10 20

PERIO0 (sec)

Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g

(2%, 5%, and 10% of Critical Damping)Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, California

-79-

10,000 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

/~' I

1000 _ __ __ _

0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0

0

w

0

z ,_ _ ,_ _ ,__.

0 100 200 300 .400 S00 600 700PEAK ACCELERATION (cmlSec2)

Earthquake Hazard at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,Livermore Site, California

-80-

400 400

SOo IfC.

60 60

jO \20

c? toa IC

. aaCAD ''C

- £

> 4

2

.6

.4

.2

.04 .06.0.1 .2 .4 .6 . 1 2 4 6 0 20

PERIOD (sec)

Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g(22, 5, and 10% of Critical Damping)

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,Livermore Site, California

-81-

0,o0

1000

U800

.z

U - U IIF A

I I I I I 'S -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~J

C 1 11 ' / a

X1 1 1 1,t'--I'

C7/0%iA.1j /+, . , . .

I I 17

10C

- T r , T V 7

I ~I / /

j~ ,r X,1;- IH_ -A__ -_i

_ -I- -_ _

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

PEAK ACCELERATION (cmsec2 )

Earthquake Hazard at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory-Site 300, 854 Complex, California

-82-

10,OOC

I nn

-A. Ar A'

- -

-q d

Is / l

=~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I I" ', F 'ile= ==-n E I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

/4A '/

vw .9 4. -- .9 Y.A , 0

0.t2

w

C.z

I.-wU

1 A

-/~~~~~~~ / I

/.l w

.9 4* ��-9 U *9-� -& .& L

4 4. .9 I 4 4.

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

PEAK ACCELERATION (cmlsec2)

Earthquake Hazard at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory-Site 300, 834 and 836 Complex, California

-83-

400 400

200 P l.qNV IX xxx 0

100 100

60 ,

40 40

> l20 20

> 10

I- Y

'LI> 4 se A~ 1/St,

2 2

N N1

.6 .

.4

.04 .0.08.1 .2 .4 .6 . 1 2 4 8 3 10 20

PERIOD see)

Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g(22, 5%, and 102 of Critical Damping)

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory-Site 300, Entire Site, California

-84-

8 102

101

=~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ C

3 . / /~~~~~4

BEST~~~~~~~ESTIMATE...

lno0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Earthquake Hazard at the Energy Technology andEngineering Center, California

-85-

400 400

2002W-n_,*x10 N( !\\/ V 00

o W" I z 0 so °

40 8 0

4)20 \ _ 20

C

>C tO> 10 10

C)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~)

-$9<i b \L

Si

* 4~al 2eDSv.4

.2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

.04 .06.08.1 .2 .4 .6 . 1 2 4 6 8 10 20

PERIOD (sec)

Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g(0.5%, 2%, 5, and 10% of Critical Damping)

Energy Technology and Engineering Center, California

-86-

12

1

2Irt!Z

5w

to"~-7

103 z / t7 X ,'T / ~/ +0

_ ____=

I 2

55/ __ _

IC-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

a Z00 400 600 1000 1200

PEAK ACCELERATION (cm/s 2 )

Earthquake Hazard at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center,California

-87-

400

200 'PNN OFx '

100 +L N 1

60

40 or @ f i

20 N

> aI-

4

4 4

2

I4Il

.4

.2 f R

.04 .06.0 J .2 .4 . . 1 2 4 6

PERIOD (sec)

Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g(2%, 5, and 10% of Critical Damping)

Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, California

-88-

Savannah River Field Office

Earthquake Hazard Curve and Response Spectrum

-89-

I .I .. ,,

- _ 1_ _ IISO 200 250 3

EartqaI Haar at th SaanhRvrPanSuhCrln

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ l _ I _ _ I i_ _

50. 100 150 200 250 300 35CPEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION (cm/sec 2)

Earthquake Hazard at the Savannah River Plant, South Carolina

-90-

400

60 O

520E5 a + X\

106

w* 4

O | ~~~~~~X Y ~wNA

.6

.4 e0

4 A6 0.06 .1 .2 .4 .6 . 1 2 4.

PERIOD (ec)

Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g(2%, 5%, and 10% of Critical Damping)Savannah River Plant, South Carolina

6 10 20

-91-