3rd International Structural Specialty Conference

ième
3 conférence internationale spécialisée sur le génie des structures

Edmonton, Alberta
June 6-9, 2012 / 6 au 9 juin 2012

Seismic Qualification of Structures, Systems and Components

in a Canadian Nuclear Power Plant

Amitabh Dar 1, Brian McKinnon2, Dimitrios Konstantinidis3

1
Technical Advisor, Bruce Power, 123 Front Street, Toronto, ON, Canada, M5J 2M2
Email: dara@mcmaster.ca
2
Senior Technical Engineer, Bruce Power, Tiverton, ON, Canada, N0G 2T0
E-mail: brian.mckinnon@brucepower.com
3
Ph.D., Assistant Professor, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
Email: konstant@mcmaster.ca

Abstract: The seismic qualification of a Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) is a complex subject where
the structural response to the ground motion leads to the floor vibrations transferred to a system
(pipe lines or electrical cabinets mounted on the floor) which in turn propagates its own shaking to
its components (a valve or a electric switch). Such components and their parent systems are
classified in different categories depending on their required functionality or integrity (or both)
during and/or after a seismic event. Canadian nuclear standards mandate the process of seismic
qualification, incorporating the requirements of the American standards, guidelines and reports
from organizations such as Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI), Seismic Qualification Utility Group (SQUG) etc. providing enormous amount of
information on the seismic input, experience database and test reports from various sources
recognized by the regulator. Some of the NPPs in Canada were constructed to the seismic
demand known as Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) based on the west coast (near the Pacific
Ocean) earthquake records whereas some relatively older NPPs, designed with limited seismic
requirements, have been assessed in the recent past for an event known as Review Level
Earthquake (RLE) based on the east coast records (closer to the Atlantic Ocean in comparison to
Pacific). The entire process of seismic qualification becomes challenging with references to a
plethora of documents, catering to different categories subject to varieties of seismic input. This
paper presents a road map to navigate a seismic engineer through the seismic qualification
process of NPPs in Canada and investigates the areas for improvement in the existing standards.

1. Introduction

The work on the design and the subsequent construction of the CANDU (Canada Deuterium
Uranium) NPPs began in Canada in the early 50s (Jiyun and Hedges, 1999). Canadian Nuclear
Standards came into existence after some time. This paper focuses only on the standards
pertaining to the seismic qualification and their subsequent revisions. Some of the NPPs were
designed and constructed with limited seismic requirements whereas some others were designed
for the DBE. The plants not designed for a DBE have been assessed for RLE in the recent past.

CSA N289.3 (1981) outlines the design procedures for the seismic qualification of CANDU NPP
for the DBE and the Site Design Earthquake (SDE) but it allows the seismic qualification of some
of the conventional structures in accordance with the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC).
This results in three categories of the seismic qualification in a NPP whose design is primarily
based on the DBE. The plants not having a DBE and assessed on the basis of the RLE limit their

STR-1062-1
qualification to the Structures, Systems and Components (SSCs) required to initiate and maintain
the safe shut down state of such plants during and after the seismic event. Such selected SSCs
follow a shut down path known as the success path. Assessment of such plants is based on the
Seismic Margin Assessment (SMA) methodology outlined in the EPRI report NP-6041 (1991)
incorporating several other reports and publications by EPRI and other agencies such as SQUG.
Due to the recent “beyond design basis” seismic events outside Canada, it has become essential
to evaluate the margin between the capacity of an existing plant and it’s DBE. This requirement
leads to the capacity evaluation process which according to Ghobarah, Heiderbrecht & Tso
(1992) is quite different from the design methodology mandated by various design codes. Further
details in this regard are discussed in the companion paper by Dar and Hanna (2012). The
seismic qualification of a NPP is subject to the requirements of many standards, design guides
and reports, resulting in various combinations of rules and regulations, challenging to
professionals. This paper presents a road map through the complex network of requirements for
seismic qualification of a NPP and provides the scope for improving the existing standards.

2. Structures, Systems and Components (SSCs) in a NPP

A NPP is an intricate arrangement of various systems and components which can be broadly
divided into two main categories depending on their location: 1. inside containment; and 2.
outside containment. The former applies to the high radiation areas inside the containment
structures (Reactor Building, Vacuum Building etc. with very thick concrete walls) generally not
accessible during operation, and the latter to the areas open to human access unless otherwise
restricted. The term “systems” largely refers to the mechanical or electrical systems such as
piping, cable trays, cabinets etc whereas equipment such as valve and electrical switches are
referred to as components. The systems and components outside the containment structures are
housed in the steel framed structures such as powerhouse, standby generator building etc.

2.1 Seismic Events and their Effect on the SSCs

The ground motion due to the seismic event results in shaking of the structure. For the purpose of
this paper, it is assumed that the structures would respond to the ground shaking at least to some
extent. The frequency content of the ground shaking and its effect on the SSCs can be found in
the companion paper (Dar and Hanna, 2012) and elsewhere (Dar and El-Dakhakhni, 2011).
Resonance of the structure to the ground motion would transfer the effect of the movement at the
base of the structure to the various floor elevations, amplifying or attenuating the ground
response. The vibration of a particular floor is considered as the seismic input for various systems
and components mounted or situated on the floor. The response of such systems and
components to the floor motion (floor response spectra) would depend on their own dynamic
characteristics. A piping system may resonate to the floor frequency but a valve connected to
such piping may not respond to the pipe vibrations. Thus a seismic event leads to multiple
scenarios having various combinations of resonances among ground, structures, systems and
components.

2.2 Seismically Designed NPPs for the DBE

The DBE for the NPPs designed for the seismic event was based on the response spectrum
similar to the one given by Newmark, Blume and Kapoor (1973), popularly known as the NBK
spectrum, adopted by the USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.60 (1973). The NBK spectrum is derived
from the west coast earthquake records. A detailed discussion on the difference between the
west coast and the east coast spectra can be found elsewhere (Atkinson and Elgohary, 2007).
The DBE provided by the Canadian standard CSA N289.3 (1981 and 2010) is very similar to the
NBK spectrum. Figure 1 depicts the status of the NPPs based on seismic qualification. Some of
the conventional SSCs not required to be seismically qualified to the DBE are subject to the
seismic requirements mandated by the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC). Some
systems and components are required to be qualified for the SDE which (being half of DBE) in

STR-1062-2
turn depends on the DBE. Thus in a DBE based NPP, two types of seismic events are
considered, DBE, and NBCC earthquake.

Nuclear Power Plants

Seismically Qualified Limited Seismic Qualification

Tested or Analyzed to DBE (and/or Designed without a DBE
NBCC)

Capacity assessed for RLE > DBE

Seismically qualified for RLE by SMA.

Figure 1: Categories of Nuclear Power Plants on the Basis of the Seismic Qualification.

2.3 RLE as the Assessment Basis

There are some plants in Canada which were originally designed for very limited seismic
requirements with no DBE. Such plants have been assessed for the RLE established to be
stronger and less probable than the DBE in order to identify the weak links in the success path
(Alexander, Baughman and Brown, 2007 and EPRI NP-6041, 1991). This assessment is based
on the Seismic Margin Assessment (SMA) Methodology given in EPRI NP-6041 (1991). The SMA
aims at the capacity assessment rather than the design evaluation mandated by various
standards and followed by the design engineers. CSA N289.1 (2008) and CSA N289.3 (2010)
recognize this method by referring to the RLE as the Checking Level Earthquake (CLE). A
summary of this method is given in Figure 2.

Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment (SPRA) involves establishment of various probabilistic

hazard curves and fragility analysis of various SSCs leading to the fragility curves of the entire
NPP. A detailed discussion on the SPRA and fragility analysis can be found elsewhere (EPRI
Report TR-103959, 1994). Engineers are generally well conversant with the deterministic hazard
and with the pass-fail design criteria as recommended by many design standards and hence find
themselves uncomfortable with the probabilistic analysis. The Conservative Deterministic Failure
Margin (CDFM) method recommended by the SMA is similar to the design process incorporating
higher level of allowable stresses for a hazard curve derived from a probabilistic analysis. Thus
the CDFM method is well understood by the professionals more conversant with the traditional
design standards involving pass-fail criteria.

2.4 Beyond DBE Requirement

This is a fairly recent requirement introduced in CSA N289.1 (2008) which recognizes and
mandates an additional seismic input known as Checking Level Earthquake (CLE) applicable to
the capacity assessment for the “beyond design basis” requirement. The discussion on the
capacity assessment and the design methodologies can be found elsewhere (Ghobarah et.al
1992). Some of the recent earthquakes in the world exceeding the DBE have created a
requirement for the beyond DBE assessment of the existing NPPs in Canada.

STR-1062-3
 Systems and Components Other
than Buildings / Civil Structures

Compare with experience data

subject to caveats.

Further
No
screening by Capacity > Seismic Demand*?
analysis - CDFM
Method
Yes

Yes Seismically
Capacity > Qualified
Seismic Demand ? System /
Components

No
Modify the
system /
component –
CDFM method *Seismic Demand = RLE

Figure 2: Summary of Seismic Margin Assessment Methodolgy

Seismic Qualification of a NPP

CSA N289.1 -1980 CSA N289.1 - 2008

1. Qualification by analysis 1. Qualification by analysis

2. Qualification by testing
3. Qualification by analysis and
testing
2. Qualification by testing
3. Qualification by analysis and
testing
4. Qualification by similarity,
experience data, etc.

Figure 3: Major Differences between 1980 and 2008 Versions of CSA N289.1.

STR-1062-4
3. Methods of Seismic Qualification and Applicable Standards

CSA N289.1-1980 mandates three methods of seismic qualification; by analysis, by testing and
by both analysis and testing. In addition to the above CSA N289.1-2008 adds seismic
qualification by similarity including the use of experience data. Figure 3 provides the summary of
the broad difference between 1980 and 2008 versions of CSA N289.1. The main difference
between the two versions is the inclusion of the experience based methods such as qualification
by similarity, SMA, Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment (SPRA) etc.

3.1 Governing Standards, Reports, Methodologies and Guidelines

ASME Section III- Division 1 – This standard governs the design and construction of pressure
retaining components and is referenced by the CSA standards.

CDFM method - Conservative Deterministic Failure Margin (CDFM) method is a part of EPRI NP-
6041 (1991). This method is a good alternative to fragility analysis since it is easily understood
and followed by engineers used to deterministic method. This method incorporates higher level of
hazards with stresses higher than what are allowed by the governing Canadian standards. CDFM
method has the advantages of the probabilistic methods with the convenience of the deterministic
methods.

Nuclear Power Plant

Pressure – Retaining Systems and Non - Pressure – Retaining

Components Systems and Components

Applicable Canadian Standards – Applicable Canadian Standards –

CSA N285.0 – 2008
CSA N289.1 – 2008
Refers to
CSA N289.1 – 1980 CSA N289.3 - 2010
CSA N289.3 - 1981
Both the above versions recognize
Both the above versions DO NOT experience based seismic
recognize experience based qualification
seismic qualification
Figure 4: Classification of Seismic Qualification on the Basis of Pressure – Retaining
Requirements

CSA N285.0 - The Canadian Standard CSA N285-08 mandates the requirements for pressure-
retaining systems and components. Clause 14.5.2.3 references older standards CSA N289.1-
1980 and CSA N289.3-1981. Both these standards have been revised in 2008 and 2010
respectively. The reference to the older version of these standards creates two types of seismic
qualification requirements; one for the pressure-retaining systems and components and two for
the non pressure-retaining ones. Figure 4 notes the version of the standard used for pressure and
non-pressure retaining systems and clarifies the difference between the standards. This leads to
different requirements used in the same plant depending on the pressure retaining requirements
of the system. A revision in N285.0-2008 is warranted in this regard.

STR-1062-5
CSA N289.1 – This standard mandates the general requirements for the seismic design and
qualification of CANDU NPPs. The current (2008) version of this standard recognizes the
experience based methods of seismic qualification.

CSA N289.3 – This standard governs the design procedures for seismic qualification of NPPs. It
provides the seismic input as DBE in form of a generic ground response spectrum similar to the
NBK spectrum. The current version (2010) of this standard, in Clause 8, recognizes CLE (or RLE)
as the seismic input but only in the context of beyond DBE event.

Clause 7.3.4 of CSA N289.3 (2010) mandates the load combinations and the acceptance
criteria. However this clause addresses the load combination of DBE with ASME Service
Level C stresses. The load combination of RLE with Service Level D stress is addressed
only in the context of beyond DBE evaluation in Clause 8. Hence the design of new
system and component inside a NPP without a DBE but assessed for RLE is not
addressed.

CSA N289.4 – This standard governs the testing procedures for the seismic qualification of
CANDU NPPs.

EPRI NP-6041 (1991) – This EPRI report provides the details of the Seismic Margin Assessment
methodology and is referred world wide. It incorporates RLE as the seismic hazard with ASME
Service Level D allowable stresses for vessels and piping.

IEEE 344 (2004) – This is an American standard referred in many Canadian standards. Apart
from analysis and testing, this standard recognizes the experience data as one of the methods of
the seismic qualification.

GSTERI guidelines - Generic Seismic Technical Evaluation of Replacement Items (GSTERI) –

This is a generic list of seismically rugged items subject to some caveats. This list is useful in
qualification of replacement items.

SQUG GIP (2001) – Generic Implementation Procedure (GIP) was developed by SQUG to
establish seismic qualification of various in-stalled equipment.

SQURTS – The Seismic Qualification Reporting and Testing Standardization (SQURTS) was
established by EPRI to test various equipment and maintain a library of the shake table test
records. This database is very useful to avoid un-necessary testing of equipment already tested
by SQURTS. It can be used as a supplement to the GSTERI reports for equipment common to
both.

Further discussion on the experience based methods and their comparison to one another can be
found elsewhere (Eder and Dizon, 2007).

3.2 NPPs with no DBE but Assessed for RLE

Two versions of standards in the same plant –

There are various occasions where confusion arises from the overlapping requirements of the
existing standards. The plants without a DBE have been assessed and qualified for the RLE (and
ASME Service Level D stresses for vessels and piping) in accordance with EPRI–NP-6041 since
it applies to the qualification of the existing plants and equipment. This method incorporates the
use of experience data available in SQUG GIP (2001). The problem arises when a new system is
to be designed and qualified in plants in accordance with CSA N285.0 for a seismic event. CSA
N285.0 references older standards CSA N289.1-1980 and CSA N289.3-1981. Both of these
versions do not recognize SMA. Hence for pressure retaining components and systems, the use
of experience data is ruled out. For non-pressure retaining items, the current versions of N289.1

STR-1062-6
and 289.3 can be used whereby experience data can be the basis of qualification for the items
not requiring the design; new and replacement items can be qualified on the basis of the
experience data available in various reports and documents mentioned above. This results in two
versions of the same standard being used in the same plant.

Two types of allowable stresses –

The NPPs without a DBE have been assessed for the RLE. The existing components and
systems in such NPPs have been seismically qualified for the RLE with ASME Service Level D
stresses in accordance with SMA methodology. However, for the design of new components in
such plants, CSA N289.3 (2010) is applicable which recognizes the RLE loads with ASME
Service Level D stresses only in the beyond-DBE context. Since the load combination and
acceptance criteria of CSA N289.3 (2010), applicable at the design stage, do not address the
RLE, the designers are forced to consider RLE as the DBE and design the systems for the
service level C stresses leading to the over conservatism. This results in the new systems being
more rigid than the existing ones leading to two different types of dynamic characteristics in the
same plant. This also leads to un-necessary complications in the design of the connections
between two such systems.

In the probabilistic space two different types of design philosophies in the same plant may result
in the increased uncertainty adversely affecting the High Confidence Low Probability of Failure
(HCLPF) capacity. Fragility analysis results in higher (HCLPF) capacities than what is given by
the CDFM method considering service level D stresses since it is the highest level of stress
allowed by the ASME code. USNRC publication NUREG-0800 (2007) in its Table 1 associates
service level D stresses with the Safe Shut down Earthquake (SSE). Cho, Kim, Yoon and Park
(1999) conclude the piping design should be based only on the SSE and the Operating Basis
Earthquake (OBE) as design basis can be eliminated. USNRC Regulations (10 CFR), Appendix S
to Part 50, (2007) allow the plants to have their own OBE.

Since the RLE is generally chosen at a higher level than the SSE and USNRC regulations ((10
CFR), Appendix S to Part 50, 2007) allow the combination of SSE with Service Level D stresses,
it will be conservative to consider the RLE loads with the service level D acceptance criterion. In
the authors’ opinion, the above is applicable for both, the pressure-retaining and non-pressure-
retaining systems. The desired path of seismic qualification is described in Figure 5.

3.3 NPPs with DBE

The systems and components of NPPs with DBE have been analyzed and designed for the DBE.
Any modification or a new addition to the existing system is designed for the DBE. However,
there are situations where an existing unqualified system needs to be seismically qualified or the
seismic qualification of an existing system is required to be verified. In such situations the
experience based method provided by CSA N289.3 (2010) can be used. Since CSA N285 (2008)
refers to the 1980 and 1981 versions of CSA N289.1 and CSA N289.3 respectively and both
these versions do not recognize the experience data, such systems and components cannot be
seismically qualified without analysis.

There are situations where such systems and components are the same in each unit (one unit
corresponding to one reactor) in a multiple unit NPP but with different configuration. In such
situation, multiple analyses may have to be carried out for essentially the same system. On the
other hand, the experience data can be used for such systems for the seismic qualification in
accordance with the current version of CSA N289.3 and CSA N2891 for both, pressure-retaining
and non-pressure-retaining systems.

The SQUG GIP provides the experience data subject to the seismic input of approximately 0.8g
Peak Spectral Acceleration (PSA) and 0.33g Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA). This seismic input
envelopes the ENA spectrum (conservatively anchored at 0.15g) completely except between 20

STR-1062-7
to 50 Hz frequencies where it falls short by approximately 0.07g. This implies that it is highly
unlikely that the application of seismic experience data to the existing systems and component
would result in an un-conservative seismic qualification for the frequency range of interest which
is generally below 20 Hz and especially in cases where the local seismic hazard of a NPP
according to the SPRA is anchored at less than 0.15g PGA.. As a result of the SPRA, the new
hazard for an existing plant is expected to be similar to the ENA spectrum which would be
different from the DBE spectrum. Further details can be found in the companion paper (Dar and
Hanna, 2012).

CSA N285.0 – 2008 Pressure-

Retaining Components Standard
Alternative – SMA –
NP 6041 but only for
the existing SSCs

Existing path Desired path

CSA N289 Series - 1981 CSA N289 Series– 2008-2010

Does not recognize Recognizes experience data,

experience data, SMA, SMA, SPRA etc
SPRA etc.

This is the series based on The new series allows both.

design. Capacity evaluation of Design of a new plant and the
an existing plant is not covered. capacity assessment of an
existing plant.

In order to know the capacity and the

The design hazard (DBE) is low deficiencies/vulnerabilities in the success
with lower allowables – Service path, the assessment seismic hazard
Level C. (RLE) is set at higher level than the
design hazard (DBE).

The hazard is set at a high level to

assess the capacity. The capacity is
always > design. Hence higher
allowables – Service Level D

RLE with Service Level D envelopes DBE with Service Level C.

Figure 5: Summary of the Existing and Desired Paths of Seismic Qualification in a NPP

STR-1062-8
The SQUG spectrum envelopes the CSA N289.3 spectrum (anchored at 0.05g) completely which
is similar to the DBE spectra of some NPPs in Canada. Figure 6 shows the comparison between
these spectra.

Comparison Between SQUG, CSA and ENA

Spectra

0.9
0.8 SQUG
ENA
0.7 CSA
0.6
Acc (g)

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 10 100
Freq (Hz)

Figure 6: Comparison of the SQUG Bounding Spectrum, CSA (anchored at 0.05g) and ENA
Spectrum (anchored at 0.15g)

4. Conclusions

It is concluded that the NPPs in Canada can be categorized into two categories on the basis of
the seismic qualification; DBE and RLE.

The SSCs in the NPPs designed on the basis of the DBE are seismically qualified by testing
and/or analysis. For some existing systems and components, the experience data in accordance
with SQUG GIP can be applied. There are two versions of the existing standards applicable to
such NPPs where the current versions recognize the applicability of experience data as a means
of seismic qualification. The reference to the older versions not recognizing the experience data
cannot be eliminated since they are referenced in CSA N285.0 (2008). Revision of CSA N285.0 is
warranted in this regard.

The SSCs in the NPPs without a DBE but assessed for the RLE are seismically qualified on the
basis of their capacity (with ASME service level D stresses for vessels and piping) by the SMA
methodology. Revision in CSA N285.0 (2008) is warranted to refer to the current versions of CSA
N289.3 and CSA N289.1 which recognize SMA as a means of seismic qualification. For the
design of new systems and components in such plants, the load combination and acceptability
criterion based on RLE with ASME service level D stresses is required to be included in clause
7.3.4 of CSA N289.3. A minimum level of RLE can be prescribed in this regard.

Acknowledgements

The authors express their sincere thanks to Mr. Paul Baughman (Senior Consultant, ARES
Corporation, USA) for reviewing the transcript and providing his valuable suggestions.

STR-1062-9
References

Alexander, C.M., Baughman, P.D. and Brown, G.N. 2007. Seismic Margin Assessment
Applications in Ontario Nuclear Power Plants, Transactions of the 19th International Conference
on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology (SMiRT 19), Toronto, Canada.
ASME 2010. Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Section III, Division 1-Subsection NB, Class 1
Components. Rules for Construction of Nuclear Facility Components. American Society of
Mechanical Engineers
Atkinson, G.M., and Elgohary, M. 2007. Typical Uniform Hazard Spectra for Eastern North
American Sites at Low Probability Levels. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 34: 12-18.
Canadian Standards Association. CSA N285.0-08/N285.6 Series-08. General Requirements for
Pressure-Retaining Systems and Components in CANDU Nuclear Power Plants/Material
Standards for Reactor Components for CANDU Nuclear Power Plants. CSA, Rexdale, Ontario,
Canada.
Canadian Standards Association. CSA N289.1. 1980, 2008. – General Requirements for Seismic
Design and Qualification of CANDU Nuclear Power Plants. CSA, Rexdale, Ontario, Canada.
Canadian Standards Association. CSA N289.3. 1981, 2010. Design Procedures for Seismic
Qualification of CANDU Nuclear Power Plants, CSA, Rexdale, Ontario, Canada.
Canadian Standards Association. CSA N289.4. 1986. Testing Procedures for Seismic
Qualification of CANDU Nuclear Power Plants. CSA, Rexdale, Ontario, Canada.
Cho, H., Kim, I., Yoon, S. and Park, K. 1999. The OBE Elimination in Piping Design, Transactions
of the 15th International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology (SMiRT-
15), Seoul, Korea.
Dar, A. and El-Dakhakhni, W. 2011. Ductility of Masonry Construction in Nuclear Power Plants
Under Seismic Loading, Transactions of the 21st International Conference on Structural
Mechanics in Reactor Technology (SMiRT 21), New Delhi, India.
Dar, A. and Hanna J. D. 2012. Beyond Design Basis Seismic Evaluation of Nuclear Power Plants
at Bruce Site. 3rd International Structural Specialty Conference, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Eder, S.J. and Dizon, J.O. 2007. Seismic Qualification Case Study for New Inverter,
Transactions of the 19th International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor
Technology ( SMiRT 19), Toronto, Canada.
EPRI, 1991. NP-6041-SL-Revision 1. A Methodology for Assessment of Nuclear Power Plant
Seismic Margin. Electric Power Research Institute, USA.
EPRI, 1994. TR-103959. Methodology for Developing Seismic Fragilities. Electric Power
Research Institute, USA.
Ghobarah, A., Heiderbrecht, A.C. and Tso, W.K. 1992. Pickering Seismic Safety Margin –
Methodology, AECB Project No. 2.209.1. Atomic Energy Control Board, Canada.
IEEE Std 344-2004. IEEE Recommended Practice of Seismic Qualification of Class 1E
Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations.
Jiun, X. and Hedges, K.R. 1999, Development of CANDU, China Journal of Nuclear Power
Engineering, October Vol. 20 No. 6
Newmark, N. M., Blume, J. H., and Kapur, K. K. 1973. Seismic Design Spectra for Nuclear Power
Plants. Journal of the Power Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers,
Vol. 99, No PO2.
Seismic Qualification Utility Group (SQUG) 2001. Generic Implementation Procedure (GIP) for
Seismic Verification of Nuclear Plant Equipment. Revision 3A.
USNRC 1973. Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants, Atomic
Energy Commission Regulatory Guide 1.60 Rev. 1. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
USNRC NUREG-0800. 2007. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
USNRC. 2007. Earthquake Engineering Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants, Regulations (10 CFR),
Appendix S to Part 50, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

STR-1062-10