HNP-14-035, Seismic Hazard and Screening Report (CEUS Sites), Response to NRC 10 CFR 50.54(f) Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Seismic Hazard and Screening Report (CEUS Sites), Response to NRC 10 CFR 50.54(f) Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3
ML14090A441
Person / Time
Site: Harris Duke energy icon.png
Issue date: 03/27/2014
From: Kapopoulos E
Duke Energy Progress
To:
Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
HNP-14-035
Download: ML14090A441 (36)
v • d • e


Text

Ernest J. Kapopoulos, Jr.

DUKE Vice President Harris Nuclear Plant ENERGY. 5413 Shearon Harris Rd New Hill NC 27562-9300 919-362-2502 10 CFR 50.54(f)

March 27, 2014 Serial: HNP-14-035 ATTN: Document Control Desk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Duke Energy Progress, Inc. (Duke Energy)

Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 Docket No. 50-400

Subject:

Seismic Hazard and Screening Report (CEUS Sites), Response to NRC 10 CFR 50.54(f) Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3 and 9.3 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident

References:

1. NRC Letter, Request for Information Pursuantto Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(o RegardingRecommendations 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3, of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichiAccident, dated March 12, 2012, ADAMS Accession No. ML12053A340
2. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Report 1025287, Seismic Evaluation Guidance, Screening, Prioritizationand Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic, ADAMS Accession No. ML12333A170
3. NRC Letter, Endorsementof EPRI FinalDraft Report 1025287, "Seismic Evaluation Guidance," dated February 15, 2013, ADAMS Accession No. ML12319A074
4. NEI Letter, ProposedPath Forwardfor NTTF Recommendation 2.1: Seismic Reevaluations, dated April 9, 2013, ADAMS Accession No. ML13101A379
5. NRC Letter, Electric Power Research Institute Final Draft Report XXXXXX, "Seismic Evaluation Guidance:Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic," as an Acceptable Alternative to the March 12, 2012, Information Request for Seismic Reevaluations, dated May 7, 2013, ADAMS Accession No. ML13106A331
6. EPRI Final Report No. 3002000704, "Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1:

Seismic", May 2013 Ladies and Gentlemen:

On March 12, 2012, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff issued Reference 1 to all power reactor licensees and holders of construction permits in active or deferred status.

Acl D

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035 Page 2 , of Reference 1, requested each addressee located in the Central and Eastern United States (CEUS) to submit a Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening Report within 1.5 years from the date of Reference 1.

The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) submitted Reference 4 requesting NRC agreement to delay submittal of the CEUS Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening Report so that an update to the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) ground motion attenuation model could be completed and used to develop that information. NEI proposed that descriptions of subsurface materials and properties and base case velocity profiles be submitted to the NRC by September 12, 2013, with the remaining seismic hazard and screening information submitted by March 31, 2014.

Industry guidance and detailed information to be included in the Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening Report submittals is provided by Reference 2. The industry guidance was endorsed by the NRC in a letter dated February 15, 2013, (Reference 3).

The attachment provides the Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening Report for Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, as directed by Section 4 of Reference 2 and in accordance with the schedule provided in Reference 4.

Based on the results documented in the attachment, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, screens in for only a High Frequency Confirmation per Section 3.2 of Reference 2 and screens out of the Expedited Seismic Evaluation Process (ESEP) per Section 2.2 of Reference 6.

There are no regulatory commitments associated with this letter.

If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact Dave Corlett, Regulatory Affairs Manager, at (919) 362-3137.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on March 27, 2014.

Sincerely, Ernest J. Kapopoulos, Jr.

Attachment:

Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening Report, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Docket No. 50-400 cc: Mr. J. D. Austin, NRC Sr. Resident Inspector, HNP Mr. A. Hon, NRC Project Manager, HNP Mr. V. M. McCree, NRC Regional Administrator, Region II

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Attachment Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening Report Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 Docket No. 50-400

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 1 of 33 Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening Report for Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant (HNP) Unit 1 1.0 Introduction Following the accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant resulting from the March 11, 2011, Great Tohoku Earthquake and subsequent tsunami, the NRC Commission established a Near Term Task Force (NTTF) to conduct a systematic review of NRC processes and regulations and to determine if the agency should make additional improvements to its regulatory system. The NTTF developed a set of recommendations intended to clarify and strengthen the regulatory framework for protection against natural phenomena. Subsequently, the NRC issued a 50.54(f) letter on March 12, 2012 (Reference 1) that requests information to assure that these recommendations are addressed by all U.S. nuclear power plants. The 50.54(f) letter requests that licensees and holders of construction permits under 10 CFR Part 50 reevaluate the seismic hazards at their sites against present-day NRC requirements. Depending on the comparison between the reevaluated seismic hazard and the current design basis, the result is either no further risk evaluation or the performance of a seismic risk assessment. Risk assessment approaches acceptable to the staff include a seismic probabilistic risk assessment (SPRA), or a seismic margin assessment (SMA). Based upon the risk assessment results, the NRC staff will determine whether additional regulatory actions are necessary.

This report provides the information requested in items (1) through (7) of the "Requested Information" section and Attachment 1 of the 50.54(f) letter pertaining to NTTF Recommendation 2.1 for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant (HNP) site, located in southwest Wake County and southeast Chatham County, North Carolina. In providing this information, HNP followed the guidance provided in the Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Screening, Prioritization,and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic (EPRI 1025287, 2013) (Reference 2). The Augmented Approach, Seismic Evaluation Guidance:Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic (EPRI 3002000704, 2013)

(Reference 3), has been developed as the process for evaluating critical plant equipment as an interim action to demonstrate additional plant safety margin, prior to performing the complete plant seismic risk evaluations.

The design response spectra used for all Seismic Category I structures, systems, and components (SSCs), except dams and dikes, were developed in accordance with Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.60 (Reference 4). Those SSCs, including their foundations and supports, that are designed to remain functional in the event of a safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) are designated Seismic Category I and are listed in Table 3.2.1-1 of the HNP Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) (Reference 5). The applicable codes, standards and specifications used in the design of seismic Category I SSCs are listed in Section 3.8.1 of the HNP UFSAR (Reference 5).

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 2 of 33 In response to the 50.54(f) letter and following the guidance provided in the SPID (Reference 2),

a seismic hazard reevaluation was performed. For screening purposes, a Ground Motion Response Spectrum (GMRS) was developed. Based on the results of the screening evaluation, HNP screens in for only a High Frequency Confirmation.

2.0 Seismic Hazard Reevaluation The HNP site is located in southwest Wake County and southeast Chatham County, North Carolina. The site is approximately 35 miles southwest of Raleigh, North Carolina and is located near the eastern edge of the Cape Fear River drainage basin. The site is underlain by gently dipping rocks of the Upper Triassic Sanford formation. The bedrock is mostly siltstone and fine-grained sandstone interbedded with subordinate shale, claystone, and conglomerate. Beds range in thickness from less than an inch to a maximum of 20 ft. They interfinger and overlap into compact masses with no structural weakness. A minor fault uncovered in the plant excavation trends nearly east-west across the site. The fault is a minor tensional normal fault with downthrow on the south and the last movement was more than 150 million years ago.

Since the Late Jurassic, the site area has been remarkably stable. The Triassic rocks have not been further faulted, and no faults offsetting strata younger than Miocene have been found in the site region.

The plant site lies in an aseismic area; and no earthquakes have been reported within 40 miles of the site. The original investigation of historical seismic activity in the region indicated that a design intensity of VII (Modified Mercalli Scale) is adequately conservative for the site. HNP determined that the Intensity VII, with margin added, corresponds to peak ground acceleration of 0.150 g for the SSE.

2. 1 Regional and Local Geology Regional Geology The HNP site is located in the Deep River Triassic Basin, a trough-like topographic lowland located mostly within the Piedmont Plateau Physiographic Province. The upland area elevations of the Piedmont Plateau range from 300 ft to 600 ft above sea level along the eastern border of the plateau and increase to about 1500 ft above sea level at the bottom of the Blue Ridge Scarp. The lowland elevations in the Plateau are 50 ft to 200 ft lower than the upland regions.

Elevations along the Cape Fear River range from less than 160 ft above sea level to more than 500 ft in the northern part of the basin. Underlying the Piedmont Plateau is igneous and metamorphic rock. This rock can be divided into several broad northeast-southwest trending belts on the basis of the differences in metamorphic rock grade. The Deep River Triassic Basin is a sediment-filled trough located between the Carolina Slate Belt on the west and the Raleigh Belt on the east. The Carolina Slate Belt rocks form a section that is believed to be at least 30,000 ft thick in North Carolina. This section of the belt consists mostly of metavolcanic rocks and metasediments, of Late Precambrian and Cambrian age with intrusions of granitic plutons.

The geologic history of the central and eastern Piedmont region is poorly known because fossil-bearing strata are extremely rare and geochronology is based largely on radiometric dating of

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 3 of 33 igneous events. The geologic record suggests that island arc volcanism was the dominant activity from Late Precambrian through Cambrian time. A period of major deformation of early volcanogenic deposits around 600 million years ago formed the major folds of the Carolina Slate Belt.

In the Deep River Basin, normal fault movement along segments of the Jonesboro fault system and the resulting differential subsidence caused eastward tilting of sedimentary strata.

Accumulation of the sedimentary wedge was followed by continued movements in the Jonesboro fault zone and development of cross-basin faults. Emplacement of diabase sills and dikes followed formation of the cross faults and continued into Jurassic time. Final movement of the Jonesboro fault during late Triassic-early Jurassic time was followed by widespread zeolite mineralization related either to low-grade burial metamorphism or to high heat flow and hydrothermal activity. Little is known of late Mesozoic and Tertiary history. The region apparently has been relatively stable tectonically since late Mesozoic time. Crustal movement has largely been limited to vertical isostatic adjustments possibly related to periodic uplift of the Appalachians to the west and subsidence of the Coastal Plain to the east.

Local Geology The HNP site is located near the eastern edge of the Cape Fear River drainage basin. Elevation of hill tops and ridge crests are mostly between 250 ft and 275 ft and local relief is generally less than 60 ft. Drainage from the site is southeast through Tom Jack Creek and Thomas Creek to Whiteoak Creek, which flows southwestward into Buckhorn Creek, which in turn flows southward and empties into the Cape Fear River about a quarter mile below Buckhorn Dam.

The soils around the site are mostly residual soils derived from sedimentary rocks and diabase dikes underlying the area. Soil depth ranges from 0 to 15 ft., but is commonly between 5 ft and 10 ft. The soil is generally thinnest over sandstone and thickest over diabase dikes. Most residual soil is silty clay in texture, but silty sand may be found along streams and in limited areas overlying sandstone. Residual soils observed in trench excavations were medium stiff to hard. Permeability values of most soils are extremely low, resulting in rapid precipitation runoff.

The site is underlain by gently dipping rocks of the Upper Triassic Sanford formation. The bedrock is mostly siltstone and fine-grained sandstone interbedded with subordinate shale, claystone, and conglomerate. These rocks consist mostly of alluvial fan, stream channel and floodplain deposits and are characterized by abrupt changes in composition and texture, both horizontally and vertically. A minor fault uncovered in the plant excavation trends nearly east-west across the site. The fault is a normal fault with downthrow on the south. The fault surface is somewhat undulatory with dips ranging from vertical to 550 southward. Drag folding of Triassic beds is present on the hanging wall of the fault. Investigation has determined that the fault is a minor tensional normal fault whose last movement was prior to 150 million years ago. Several small, non-capable faults were found in the foundations of Main Dam structures. No other significant structural features were found.

Historical records of earthquake activity indicate that the site is aseismic. There is little history of felt earthquakes in the site area and no historical accounts of the behavior of the site during the few earthquakes which have been felt. The geologic history of the site through Paleozoic time is

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 4 of 33 poorly known, since the only Paleozoic rocks exposed in the plant area are Raleigh Belt gneisses and schists exposed in the Main Dam foundation south of the plant.

2.2 ProbabilisticSeismic HazardAnalysis 2.2. 1 ProbabilisticSeismic HazardAnalysis Results In accordance with the 50.54(f) letter and following the guidance in the SPID (Reference 2), a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) was completed using the recently developed Central and Eastern United States Seismic Source Characterization (CEUS-SSC) for Nuclear Facilities (Reference 6) together with the updated EPRI Ground-Motion Model (GMM) for the CEUS (Reference 7). For the PSHA, a lower-bound (minimum) moment magnitude of 5.0 was used, as specified in the 50.54(f) letter.

For the PSHA, the CEUS-SSC background seismic source zones out to a distance of 400 miles (640 km) around the HNP site were included. This distance exceeds the 200 mile (320 km) recommendation. Background sources included in this site analysis are the following:

1. Atlantic Highly Extended Crust
2. Extended Continental Crust-Atlantic Margin
3. Extended Continental Crust-Gulf Coast
4. Mesozoic and younger extended prior - narrow
5. Mesozoic and younger extended prior - wide
6. Midcontinent-Craton alternative A
7. Midcontinent-Craton alternative B
8. Midcontinent-Craton alternative C
9. Midcontinent-Craton alternative D
10. Non-Mesozoic and younger extended prior - narrow
11. Non-Mesozoic and younger extended prior - wide
12. Paleozoic Extended Crust narrow
13. Paleozoic Extended Crust wide
14. Reelfoot Rift including the Rough Creek Graben
15. Study region For sources of large magnitude earthquakes, designated Repeated Large Magnitude Earthquake (RLME) sources in CEUS-SSC (Reference 6), the following sources lie within 625 miles (1,000 km) of the site and were included in the analysis:
1. Charleston
2. Commerce
3. Eastern Rift Margin Fault northern segment
4. Eastern Rift Margin Fault southern segment
5. New Madrid Fault System
6. Wabash Valley For each of the above background and RLME sources, the mid-continent version of the updated CEUS EPRI GMM was used.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 5 of 33 2.2.2 Base Rock Seismic Hazard Curves Consistent with the SPID (Reference 2), base rock seismic hazard curves are not provided as the site amplification approach referred to as Method 3 has been used. Seismic hazard curves are shown below in Section 3 at the SSE control point elevation.

2.3 Site Response Evaluation A site response analysis was performed for HNP following the guidance contained in Seismic of the March 12, 2012 50.54(f) Request for Information (Reference 1) and in the SPID (Reference 2) for nuclear power plant sites that are not sited on hard rock (defined as 2.83 km/sec).

2.3. 1 Description of Subsurface Material The HNP site is located in the Deep River Triassic Basin of North Carolina. The general site conditions consist of about 15 ft (4.6 m) of residual soils and weathered rock overlying about 5,000 ft of sound Triassic sedimentary rocks with a basement of hard crystalline rocks.

Table 2.3.1-1 provides a brief description of the subsurface material in terms of the geologic units and layer thicknesses.

Table 2.3.1-1. Geologic profile and estimated layer thicknesses for HNP.

Depth ephDensity Wave Shear CmesinlPoisson's Compressional Range SoillRock Description (pcf) vel Velocity Wave(fv Velocity VeloRatiy Raio Rati (feet)

(fps) (fps) 0-8 Residual Soil 130 500" 1500 0.44 8-16 Weathered and Fractured 160 2500 5500 0.37 Rock Below 16 Sound Bedrock 160 5600 12000 0.35 (SSE Control Point)

  • Estimated values.

2.3.2 Development of Base Case Profiles and NonlinearMaterialProperties Table 2.3.1-1 shows the recommended shear-wave velocities and unit weights verses depth for the profile. Based on Table 2.3.1-1 and the location of the SSE at a depth of 16 ft (4.9 m), the profile consists of 5,000 ft (1524 m) of firm rock overlying hard crystalline basement rock.

Shear-wave velocities for the profile were based on measurements of compressional-wave velocities and assumed Poisson ratios. More recent downhole testing at the nearby proposed new nuclear plant site generally confirmed the firm rock shear-wave velocities (Reference 8).

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 6 of 33 To develop the mean or best-estimate base-case firm rock profile, the shear-wave velocity of 5,600 ft/s (1,707 m/s) was assumed to reflect the shallow portion of the profile. Provided the materials to basement depth reflect similar sedimentary rocks and age, the shear-wave velocity gradient for sedimentary rock of 0.5m/m/s (Reference 2) was assumed to be appropriate for the site. The shallow shear-wave velocity of 5,600 ft/s (1,707 m/s) was taken at the surface of the profile with the velocity gradient applied at that point, resulting in a mean base-case shear-wave velocity of about 8,000 ft/s (2,438 m/s) at a depth of 5,000 ft (1,524 m). The mean or best estimate base-case profile is shown as profile P1 in Figure 2.3.2-1.

Based on the specified shear-wave velocities, reflecting measured compressional-wave velocities and assumed Poisson ratios, a scale factor of 1.57 was adopted to reflect upper and lower range base-cases. The scale factor of 1.57 reflects a Opn of about 0.35 based on the SPID (Reference 2) 10h and 90" fractiles which implies a 1.28 scale factor on aC.

Using the best-estimate or mean base-case profile (P1), the depth independent scale factor of 1.57 was applied to develop lower and upper range base-case profiles P2 and P3 respectively, with the stiffest profile (P3) reaching reference rock velocities at a depth of about 600 ft (183 m).

Base-case profiles P1 and P2 have a mean depth below the SSE of 5,000 ft (1,524 m) to hard reference rock, randomized +/- 1,500 ft (+/- 457 m). The base-case profiles (P1, P2, and P3) are shown in Figure 2.3.2-1 and listed in Table 2.3.2-1. The depth randomization reflects +/- 30% of the depth to provide a realistic broadening of the fundamental resonance rather than reflect actual random variations to basement shear-wave velocities across a footprint.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 7 of 33 Vs profiles for Shearon Harris Site Vs (ft/sec) 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 0 ... .... i.. . -

500 1000 1500 2000 -Profile 1

  • .2500 -Profile 2

. Profile 3

  • 0 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 2 5500 Figure 2.3.2-1. Shear-wave velocity profiles for the HNP Site.

Table 2.3.2-1. Geologic profile and estimated layer thicknesses for the HNP Site.

Profile 1 Profile 2 Profile 3 Thicknes Depth Vs Thickness Depth Vs Thickness Depth Vs s (ft) . (ft) - I/S) (ft) (ft) (if/s) (ft) (ft) (if/s) 0 5600 0 3567 0 8792 5.0 5.0 5600 5.0 5.0 3567 5.0 5.0 8792 5.0 10.0 5601 5.0 10.0 3568 5.0 10.0 8794 5.0 15.0 5603 5.0 15.0 3569 5.0 15.0 8797 5.0 20.0 5606 5.0 20.0 3571 5.0 20.0 8801 5.0 25.0 5608 5.0 25.0 3573 5.0 25.0 8805 5.0 30.0 5611 5.0 30.0 3574 5.0 30.0 8809 5.0 35.0 5613 5.0 35.0 3576 5.0 35.0 8813 5.0 40.0 5616 5.0 40.0 3577 5.0 40.0 8817 5.0 45.0 5618 5.0 45.0 3579 5.0 45.0 8821 5.0 50.0 5621 5.0 50.0 3581 5.0 50.0 8825 5.0 55.0 5623 5.0 55.0 3582 5.0 55.0 8829 5.0 60.0 5626 5.0 60.0 3584 5.0 60.0 8833 5.0 65.0 5628 5.0 65.0 3585 5.0 65.0 8837 3.0 68.0 5630 3.0 68.0 3586 3.0 68.0 8839 6.0 74.0 5631 6.0 74.0 3587 6.0 74.0 8841

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 8 of 33 Table 2.3.2-1. (cont.)

6.0 80.0 5632 6.0 80.0 3588 6.0 80.0 8843 6.0 86.0 5634 6.0 86.0 3589 6.0 86.0 8845 6.0 92.0 5635 6.0 92.0 3589 6.0 92.0 8847 7.0 99.0 5639 7.0 99.0 3592 7.0 99.0 8852 7.0 106.0 5642 7.0 106.0 3594 7.0 106.0 8858 7.0 113.0 5645 7.0 113.0 3596 7.0 113.0 8863 7.0 120.0 5649 7.0 120.0 3598 7.0 120.0 8869 6.0 126.0 5652 6.0 126.0 3600 6.0 126.0 8874 4.0 130.0 5654 4.0 130.0 3602 4.0 130.0 8877 5.0 135.0 5657 5.0 135.0 3603 5.0 135.0 8881 5.0 140.0 5659 5.0 140.0 3605 5.0 140.0 8885 5.0 145.0 5662 5.0 145.0 3606 5.0 145.0 8889 5.0 150.0 5664 5.0 150.0 3608 5.0 150.0 8892 5.0 155.0 5667 5.0 155.0 3610 5.0 155.0 8896 5.0 160.0 5669 5.0 160.0 3611 5.0 160.0 8900 4.0 164.0 5671 4.0 164.0 3612 4.0 164.0 8903 5.0 169.0 5672 5.0 169.0 3613 5.0 169.0 8905 5.0 174.0 5675 5.0 174.0 3615 5.0 174.0 8909 5.0 179.0 5677 5.0 179.0 3616 5.0 179.0 8913 5.0 184.0 5680 5.0 184.0 3618 5.0 184.0 8917 5.0 189.0 5682 5.0 189.0 3620 5.0 189.0 8921 5.0 194.0 5685 5.0 194.0 3621 5.0 194.0 8925 5.0 199.0 5687 5.0 199.0 3623 5.0 199.0 8929 5.0 204.0 5690 5.0 204.0 3624 5.0 204.0 8933 5.0 209.0 5692 5.0 209.0 3626 5.0 209.0 8937 5.0 214.0 5695 5.0 214.0 3628 5.0 214.0 8941 5.0 219.0 5697 5.0 219.0 3629 5.0 219.0 8945 5.0 224.0 5700 5.0 224.0 3631 5.0 224.0 8949 5.0 229.0 5702 5.0 229.0 3632 5.0 229.0 8953 5.0 234.0 5705 5.0 234.0 3634 5.0 234.0 8956 5.0 239.0 5707 5.0 239.0 3636 5.0 239.0 8960 5.0 244.0 5710 5.0 244.0 3637 5.0 244.0 8964 6.0 250.0 5713 6.0 250.0 3639 6.0 250.0 8969 6.3 256.3 5716 6.3 256.3 3641 6.3 256.3 8974 6.3 262.7 5719 6.3 262.7 3643 6.3 262.7 8979 6.3 269.0 5722 6.3 269.0 3645 6.3 269.0 8984 10.0 279.0 5727 10.0 279.0 3648 10.0 279.0 8992 10.0 289.0 5732 10.0 289.0 3651 10.0 289.0 9000 10.0 299.0 5737 10.0 299.0 3655 10.0 299.0 9007 10.0 309.0 5742 10.0 309.0 3658 10.0 309.0 9015

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 9 of 33 Table 2.3.2-1. (cont.)

10.0 319.0 5747 10.0 319.0 3661 10.0 319.0 9023 12.0 331.0 5753 12.0 331.0 3665 12.0 331.0 9033 10.0 341.0 5758 10.0 341.0 3668 10.0 341.0 9040 10.0 351.0 5763 10.0 351.0 3671 10.0 351.0 9048 10.0 361.0 5768 10.0 361.0 3674 10.0 361.0 9056 10.0 371.0 5773 10.0 371.0 3678 10.0 371.0 9064 10.0 381.0 5778 10.0 381.0 3681 10.0 381.0 9072 12.0 393.0 5784 12.0 393.0 3685 12.0 393.0 9081 7.0 400.0 5788 7.0 400.0 3687 7.0 400.0 9087 10.0 410.0 5790 10.0 410.0 3688 10.0 410.0 9091 10.0 420.0 5795 10.0 420.0 3692 10.0 420.0 9099 10.0 430.0 5800 10.0 430.0 3695 10.0 430.0 9106 10.0 440.0 5805 10.0 440.0 3698 10.0 440.0 9114 10.0 450.0 5810 10.0 450.0 3701 10.0 450.0 9122 10.0 460.0 5815 10.0 460.0 3704 10.0 460.0 9130 10.0 470.0 5820 10.0 470.0 3707 10.0 470.0 9138 10.0 480.0 5825 10.0 480.0 3711 10.0 480.0 9146 10.0 490.0 5830 10.0 490.0 3714 10.0 490.0 9153 10.0 500.0 5837 10.0 500.0 3718 10.0 500.0 9164 104.7 604.7 5863 104.7 604.7 3735 104.7 604.7 9205 104.7 709.5 5916 104.7 709.5 3768 104.7 709.5 9285 104.7 814.2 5968 104.7 814.2 3802 104.7 814.2 9285 104.7 919.0 6020 104.7 919.0 3835 104.7 919.0 9285 104.7 1023.7 6073 104.7 1023.7 3868 104.7 1023.7 9285 104.7 1128.4 6125 104.7 1128.4 3902 104.7 1128.4 9285 104.7 1233.2 6177 104.7 1233.2 3935 104.7 1233.2 9285 104.7 1337.9 6230 104.7 1337.9 3968 104.7 1337.9 9285 104.7 1442.7 6282 104.7 1442.7 4002 104.7 1442.7 9285 104.7 1547.4 6335 104.7 1547.4 4035 104.7 1547.4 9285 104.7 1652.2 6387 104.7 1652.2 4068 104.7 1652.2 9285 104.7 1756.9 6439 104.7 1756.9 4102 104.7 1756.9 9285 104.7 1861.7 6492 104.7 1861.7 4135 104.7 1861.7 9285 104.7 1966.4 6544 104.7 1966.4 4169 104.7 1966.4 9285 104.7 2071.1 6596 104.7 2071.1 4202 104.7 2071.1 9285 104.7 2175.9 6649 104.7 2175.9 4235 104.7 2175.9 9285 104.7 2280.6 6701 104.7 2280.6 4269 104.7 2280.6 9285 104.7 2385.4 6754 104.7 2385.4 4302 104.7 2385.4 9285 104.7 2490.1 6806 104.7 2490.1 4335 104.7 2490.1 9285 104.7 2594.9 6858 104.7 2594.9 4369 104.7 2594.9 9285 135.2 2730.1 6918 135.2 2730.1 4407 135.2 2730.1 9285

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 10 of 33 Table 2.3.2-1. (cont.)

135.2 2865.3 6986 135.2 2865.3 4450 135.2 2865.3 9285 135.2 3000.6 7054 135.2 3000.6 4493 135.2 3000.6 9285 135.2 3135.8 7121 135.2 3135.8 4536 135.2 3135.8 9285 135.2 3271.1 7189 135.2 3271.1 4579 135.2 3271.1 9285 135.2 3406.3 7256 135.2 3406.3 4622 135.2 3406.3 9285 135.2 3541.6 7324 135.2 3541.6 4665 135.2 3541.6 9285 135.2 3676.8 7392 135.2 3676.8 4708 135.2 3676.8 9285 135.2 3812.0 7459 135.2 3812.0 4752 135.2 3812.0 9285 135.2 3947.3 7527 135.2 3947.3 4795 135.2 3947.3 9285 135.2 4082.5 7594 135.2 4082.5 4838 135.2 4082.5 9285 135.2 4217.8 7662 135.2 4217.8 4881 135.2 4217.8 9285 135.2 4353.0 7730 135.2 4353.0 4924 135.2 4353.0 9285 135.2 4488.3 7797 135.2 4488.3 4967 135.2 4488.3 9285 135.2 4623.5 7865 135.2 4623.5 5010 135.2 4623.5 9285 135.2 4758.7 7933 135.2 4758.7 5053 135.2 4758.7 9285 135.2 4894.0 8000 135.2 4894.0 5096 135.2 4894.0 9285 105.8 4999.7 8053 105.8 4999.7 5130 105.8 4999.7 9285 3280.8 8280.6 9285 3280.8 8280.6 9285 3280.8 8280.6 9285 2.3.2.1 Shear Modulus and Damping Curves No site-specific nonlinear dynamic material properties were determined in the initial siting of the HNP site for sedimentary rocks. The rock material over the upper 500 ft (150 m) was assumed to have behavior that could be modeled as either linear or non-linear. To represent this potential for either case in the upper 500 ft of sedimentary rock at the HNP site, two sets of shear modulus reduction and hysteretic damping curves were used. Consistent with the SPID (Reference 2), the EPRI rock curves (model M1) were considered to be appropriate to represent the upper range nonlinearity likely in the materials at this site and linear analyses (model M2) were assumed to represent an equally plausible alternative rock response across loading level.

For the linear analyses, the low strain damping values from the EPRI rock curves were used as the constant damping values in the upper 500 ft (150 m).

2.3.2.2 Kappa For the HNP site, kappa estimates were determined using Section B-5.1.3.1 of the SPID (Reference 2) for a firm CEUS rock site. Kappa for a firm rock site with at least 3,000 ft (1 km) of sedimentary rock may be estimated from the average S-wave velocity over the upper 100 ft (V, 10o) of the subsurface profile while for a site with less than 3,000 ft (1 km) of firm rock, kappa may be estimated with a Qs of 40 below 500 ft combined with the low strain damping from the EPRI rock curves, and an additional kappa of 0.006 s for the underlying hard rock. For the HNP site, with 5,000 ft (1,524 m) of firm sedimentary rock below the SSE, kappa estimates were

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 11 of 33 based on the average shear-wave velocity over the top 100 ft (30 m) of the three base-case profiles P1, P2, and P3. For the three profiles the corresponding shear-wave velocities were:

5,620 ft/s (1,713 m/s), 3,567 ft/s (1,087 m/s), and 8,792 ft/s (2,680 m/s) with corresponding kappa estimates of 0.013 s, 0.022 s, and 0.008 s. The range in kappa about the best estimate base-case value of 0.013 s (profile P1) is roughly 1.6 and was considered to adequately reflect epistemic uncertainty in low strain damping (kappa) for the profile. Table 2.3.2-2 shows the kappa values and weights used for HNP site response analyses.

Table 2.3.2-2. Kappa Values and Weights Used for HNP Site Response Analyses.

Velocity Profile Kappa(s)

P1 0.013 P2 0.022 P3 0.008 Weights P1 0.4 P2 0.3 P3 0.3 GIGmax and Hysteretic Damping Curves M1 0.5 M2 0.5 2.3.3 Randomization of Base Case Profiles To account for the aleatory variability in dynamic material properties that is expected to occur across a site at the scale of a typical nuclear facility, variability in the assumed shear-wave velocity profiles has been incorporated in the site response calculations. For the HNP site, random shear wave velocity profiles were developed from the base case profiles shown in Figure 2.3.2-1. Thirty random velocity profiles were generated for each base case profile. These random velocity profiles were generated using a natural log standard deviation of 0.25 over the upper 50 ft and 0.15 below that depth. As specified in the SPID (Reference 2), correlation of shear wave velocity between layers was modeled using the footprint correlation model. In the correlation model, a limit of +/- 2 standard deviations about the median value in each layer was assumed for the limits on random velocity fluctuations.

2.3.4 Input Spectra Consistent with the guidance in Appendix B of the SPID (Reference 2), input Fourier amplitude spectra were defined for a single representative earthquake magnitude using two different assumptions regarding the shape of the seismic source spectrum (single-corner and double-corner). A range of 11 different input amplitudes (median peak ground accelerations (PGA)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 12 of 33 ranging from 0.01 g to 1.50 g) were used in the site response analyses. The characteristics of the seismic source and upper crustal attenuation properties assumed for the analysis of the HNP site were the same as those identified in Tables B-4, B-5, B-6 and B-7 of the SPID (Reference 2) as appropriate for typical CEUS sites.

2.3.5 Methodology To perform the site response analyses for the HNP site, a random vibration theory (RVT) approach was employed. This process utilizes a simple, efficient approach for computing site-specific amplification functions and is consistent with existing NRC guidance and the SPID (Reference 2). The guidance contained in Appendix B of the SPID (Reference 2) on incorporating epistemic uncertainty in shear-wave velocities, kappa, non-linear dynamic properties and source spectra for plants with limited at-site information was followed for the HNP site.

2.3.6 Amplification Functions The results of the site response analysis consist of amplification factors (5% damped pseudo absolute response spectra) which describe the amplification (or de-amplification) of hard reference rock motion as a function of frequency and input reference rock amplitude. The amplification factors are represented in terms of a median amplification value and an associated standard deviation (sigma) for each oscillator frequency and input rock amplitude. Consistent with the SPID (Reference 2) a minimum median amplification value of 0.5 was employed in the present analysis. Figure 2.3.6-1 illustrates the median and +/- 1 standard deviation in the predicted amplification factors developed for the eleven loading levels parameterized by the median reference (hard rock) peak acceleration (0.01 g to 1.50 g) for profile P1 and EPRI rock G/Gmax and hysteretic damping curves (Reference 9). The variability in the amplification factors results from variability in shear-wave velocity, depth to hard rock, and modulus reduction and hysteretic damping curves. To illustrate the effects of nonlinearity at the HNP site, Figure 2.3.6-2 shows the corresponding amplification factors developed with linear analyses (model M2).

Tabulated values of the amplification factors are provided in Appendix A.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 13 of 33 1NPUT M0110H 0.01G S3 11 PUT VOTIUH0.05G 0-I

'a 1NFU1 NOT]CM O.LOG 0~

U

..?

1N)UT MOI0TJG 0.30G 114RJr rJT1014 0.40C 113 -

to 0 10 1 10 -I c)0 C j10 ,0 2 Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)

AMPLIFICATION, SHEARON HPARRIS, MIPIKI N 6.5, 1 CORNER: PFGE I OF 2 Figure 2.3.6-1. Example suite of amplification factors (5% damping pseudo absolute acceleration spectra) developed for the mean base-case profile (P1), EPRI rock modulus reduction and hysteretic damping curves (model Ml), and base-case kappa (K1) at eleven loading levels of hard rock median peak acceleration values from 0.01g to 1.50g. M 6.5 and single-corner source model (Reference 2). Curves show median and +/- 1 standard deviation.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 14 of 33 C:

ca 09 Ff-f:!!-

INPUT MOTICN 0.50G INPUT MOTIOI 0.75G 02 I I I I till I I I

vný C3 0

INPUT MOTICN 1.00G INPUT MOTIG4 1.25G

.I ll CL i i I l "

1 ll . 11 .l . ..l l Cc 120 Ia -1 to 0 to' ,a 2 Frequency (Hz)

AMPLIFICATION, SHEARON HARRIS, MIPIKi N 6.5, 1 CORNER: PRGE 2 OF 2 Figure 2.3.6-1.(cont.)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 15 of 33 nlrrrmT __rTrTrrri o 0 0 4-)

U

'-p e4~O - --

0

.n 0 0 0~

S a:

N 0.O1G INIPUT WOTION 0.05G IrFur MorIc Q  :

a Q0 0

C2 U

" INPUT MOTION O.LOG 0 INPUT MOTION 0.20; 02 0

en 0

INPUT MOTIO M0.31G INRUT POTION 0.406 to-1 to a 1 lad io - 10 u 10 ( 10L Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)

AMPLIFICATION, SHEARON HARRIS, M2PIKI M 6.5, 1 CORNER: PAGE 1 OF 2 Figure 2.3.6-2. Example suite of amplification factors (5% damping pseudo absolute acceleration spectra) developed for the mean base-case profile (P1), linear site response (model M2), and base-case kappa (K1) at eleven loading levels of hard rock median peak acceleration values from 0.01 g to 1.50 g. M 6.5 and single-corner source model (Reference 2). Curves show median and +/- 1 standard deviation.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 16 of 33 0

CC o3 C INPUT MOTION 0.50G INPUT MOTION 0.75G G CZ 0

0~

C d:

INPUT MOTION 1.0I G INPUT MOTION 1.25C IPUT MiQIII 6lil INPUT MOTION I.,MJG 10 -2 to a IQ I IQ Frequency (Hz)

AMPLIFICATION, SHEARON HARRIS, M12P1K1 M 6.5, 1 CORNER: PAGE Z OF 2 Figure 2.3.6-2.(cont.)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 17 of 33 2.3.7 Control Point Seismic Hazard Curves The procedure to develop probabilistic site-specific control point hazard curves used in the present analysis follows the methodology described in Section B-6.0 of the SPID (Reference 2).

This procedure (referred to as Method 3) computes a site-specific control point hazard curve for a broad range of spectral accelerations given the site-specific bedrock hazard curve and site-specific estimates of soil or soft-rock response and associated uncertainties. This process is repeated for each of the seven spectral frequencies for which ground motion equations are available. The dynamic response of the materials below the control point was represented by the frequency and amplitude-dependent amplification functions (median values and standard deviations) developed and described in the previous section. The resulting control point mean hazard curves for HNP are shown in Figure 2.3.7-1 for the seven spectral frequencies for which ground motion equations are defined. Tabulated values of the control point hazard curves are provided in Appendix A.

Total Mean Soil Hazard by Spectral Frequency at Shearon Harris 1E-2

-1 W 25 Hz low -2.0Hz 05 Hz

-1 0Hz 0.0 -2.5 Hz1 Spectral acceleration (g)

Figure 2.3.7-1. Control point mean hazard curves for spectral frequencies of 0.5, 1, 2.5, 5, 10, 25 and PGA (100 Hz) at the HNP site.

2.4 Control Point Response Spectra The control point hazard curves described above were used to develop uniform hazard response spectra (UHRS) and the ground motion response spectrum (GMRS). The UHRS were obtained through linear interpolation in log-log space to estimate the spectral acceleration at

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 18 of 33 each spectral frequency for the 1E-4 and 1E-5 per year hazard levels. The 1 E-4 and 1E-5 UHRS along with the design factor (DF) are used to compute the GMRS at the control point using the criteria in Regulatory Guide 1.208 (Reference 10). Table 2.4-1 and Figure 2.4-1 show the UHRS and GMRS spectral accelerations.

Table 2.4-1. UHRS and GMRS at control point for HNP.

Freq, Hz IE-4 UHRS (g) 1E-5 UHRS (g) GMRS 100 8.58E-02 2.21E-01 1.10E-01 90 8.56E-02 2.21E-01 1.10E-01 80 8.58E-02 2.23E-01 1.11E-01 70 8.69E-02 2.28E-01 1.13E-01 60 9.03E-02 2.41E-01 1.19E-01 50 1.01E-01 2.78E-01 1.36E-01 40 1.18E-01 3.32E-01 1.62E-01 35 1.26E-01 3.55E-01 1.73E-01 30 1.37E-01 3.82E-01 1.87E-01 25 1.45E-01 4.OOE-01 1.96E-01 20 1.60E-01 4.31E-01 2.12E-01 15 1.73E-01 4.53E-01 2.24E-01 12.5 1.79E-01 4.61E-01 2.29E-01 10 1.79E-01 4.51E-01 2.25E-01 9 1.78E-01 4.43E-01 2.22E-01 8 1.76E-01 4.32E-01 2.16E-01 7 1.71E-01 4.15E-01 2.09E-01 6 1.65E-01 3.92E-01 1.98E-01 5 1.56E-01 3.64E-01 1.84E-01

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 19 of 33 Table 2.4-1. (cont.)

4 1.37E-01 3.13E-01 1.59E-01 3.5 1.28E-01 2.90E-01 1.48E-01 3 1.16E-01 2.59E-01 1.32E-01 2.5 1.02E-01 2.25E-01 1.15E-01 2 9.74E-02 2.14E-01 1.10E-01 1.5 8.57E-02 1.88E-01 9.65E-02 1.25 8.04E-02 1.76E-01 9.02E-02 1 7.04E-02 1.53E-01 7.86E-02 0.9 6.58E-02 1.44E-01 7.37E-02 0.8 6.22E-02 1.36E-01 7.OOE-02 0.7 5.84E-02 1.29E-01 6.60E-02 0.6 5.22E-02 1.16E-01 5.93E-02 0.5 4.56E-02 1.02E-01 5.21E-02 0.4 3.65E-02 8.17E-02 4.17E-02 0.35 3.19E-02 7.15E-02 3.65E-02 0.3 2.74E-02 6.13E-02 3.13E-02 0.25 2.28E-02 5.11E-02 2.61E-02 0.2 1.83E-02 4.08E-02 2.09E-02 0.15 1.37E-02 3.06E-02 1.56E-02 0.125 1. 14E-02 2.55E-02 1.30E-02 0.1 9.13E-03 2.04E-02 1.04E-02

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 20 of 33 Mean Soil UHRS and GMRS at Shearon Harris 0.6 0.5 bto -1E-5 UHRS o 0.4

-GMRS 0.3

-1E-4 UHRS w 0.2 C.

0.1 0.

0.1 1 10 100 Spectral frequency, Hz Figure 2.4-1. UHRS for 1 E-4 and 1 E-5 and GMRS at control point for HNP (5%-damped response spectra).

3.0 Plant Design Basis The design basis for HNP is identified in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (Reference

5) and other pertinent documents.

3.1 SSE Descriptionof Spectral Shape The SSE for the purpose of seismic hazard screening is defined in terms of a Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) at 5% critical damping. The horizontal and vertical response spectra for the SSE were prepared in accordance with NRC Regulatory Guide 1.60 (Reference 4). Considering the historic seismicity of the site region, the maximum potential earthquake selected was an intensity VII (Modified Mercalli Scale) event. Table 3.1-1 presents the tabulated horizontal SSE spectra that are used for the purposes of the seismic hazard screening. The points in Table 3.1-1 represent the log-linearly interpolated accelerations between the control points listed in Table 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.60. The control points are taken at 0.25, 2.5, 9, and 33 Hz and they are calculated by scaling the amplification factors from Table 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.60 to the SSE earthquake of 0.15 g. The frequencies that are used are the same frequencies as in Table 2.4-1, except for the use of 33 Hz instead of 35 Hz. Figure 3.1-1 shows the SSE for HNP.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 21 of 33 Table 3.1-1. SSE for HNP at 5% Damping.

Freq. (Hz) SSE (g) 0.1 0.0113 0.125 0.0177 0.15 0.0254 0.2 0.0452 0.25 0.0707 0.3 0.0821 0.35 0.0932 0.4 0.1041 0.5 0.1250 0.6 0.1452 0.7 0.1648 0.8 0.1840 0.9 0.2027 1 0.2210 1.25 0.2655 1.5 0.3085 2 0.3908 2.5 0.4695 3 0.4575 3.5 0.4476 4 0.4392 5 0.4255 6 0.4147 7 0.4057 8 0.3981 9 0.3915 10 0.3622 12.5 0.3072 15 0.2685 20 0.2171 25 0.1841 30 0.1609 33 0.1500 40 0.1500 50 0.1500 60 0.1500 70 0.1500 80 0.1500 90 0.1500 100 0.1500

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 22 of 33 0.50 HNP Res~ponse 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30

.2 4-

@1 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 0 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

Figure 3.2-1. SSE for HNP.

3.2 ControlPoint Elevation Based on the information presented in Table 2.3.1-1, the SSE control point elevation is defined at a depth of 16 ft at the top of sound bedrock. The control point was selected following guidance of Section 2.4.2 of the SPID (Reference 2).

4.0 Screening Evaluation In accordance with SPID (Reference 2) Section 3, a screening evaluation was performed and the results are as described below.

4.1 Risk Evaluation Screening (1 to 10 Hz)

In the 1 to 10 Hz part of the response spectrum, the SSE exceeds the GMRS. Therefore, a risk evaluation is not required.

4.2 High Frequency Screening (> 10 Hz)

For a portion of the range above 10 Hz, the GMRS exceeds the SSE. Therefore, the plant screens in for a High Frequency Confirmation.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 23 of 33 4.3 Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation Screening (I to 10 Hz)

In the 1 to 10 Hz range of the response spectrum, the SSE exceeds the GMRS. Therefore, a spent fuel pool evaluation is not required.

5.0 Interim Actions As discussed in Section 4.2, the GMRS only exceeds the SSE for high frequencies. This motion is considered to be non-damaging to components and structures that have strain or stress based potential failures modes. NRC letter dated February 15, 2013 (Reference 15) endorses a program to provide guidance for identifying and evaluating potentially high-frequency sensitive components. This High Frequency Confirmation is expected to address the exceedance described in Section 4.2.

Consistent with NRC letter dated February 20, 2014, (Reference 13) the seismic hazard reevaluations presented herein are distinct from the current design and licensing bases of HNP.

Therefore, the results do not call into question the operability or functionality of SSCs and are not reportable pursuant to10 CFR 50.72, "Immediate notification requirements for operating nuclear power reactors," and10 CFR 50.73, "Licensee event report system".

The NRC letter also requests that licensees provide an interim evaluation or actions to address the higher seismic hazard relative to the design basis while the expedited approach and risk evaluations are conducted. In response to that request, NEI letter dated March 12, 2014, (Reference 14) provides seismic core damage risk estimates using the updated seismic hazards for the operating nuclear plants in the Central and Eastern United States. These risk estimates continue to support the following conclusions of the NRC GI-1 99 Safety/Risk Assessment:

Overall seismic core damage risk estimates are consistent with the Commission's Safety Goal Policy Statement because they are within the subsidiary objective of 10-4

/year for core damage frequency. The G1-199 Safety/Risk Assessment, based in part on information from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) program, indicates that no concern exists regarding adequate protection and that the current seismic design of operating reactors provides a safety margin to withstand potential earthquakes exceeding the original design basis.

HNP is included in the March 12, 2014 risk estimates. Using the methodology described in the NEI letter, all plants were shown to be below 10 4/year; thus, the above conclusions apply.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 24 of 33 6.0 Conclusions In accordance with the 50.54(f) request for information, a seismic hazard and screening evaluation was performed for HNP. A GMRS was developed solely for the purpose of screening for additional evaluations in accordance with the SPID (Reference 2).

Based on the results of the screening evaluation, HNP screens in for a High Frequency Confirmation.

Based on the results of the screening evaluation, and in accordance with the criteria in the expedited seismic evaluation described in EPRI 3002000704 (Reference 3) proposed in a letter to the NRC dated April 9, 2013 (Reference 11) and agreed to by the NRC in a letter dated May 7, 2013 (Reference 12), HNP screens out of the expedited seismic evaluation under EPRI 30020000704 (Reference 3).

7.0 References

1. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC), E. Leeds and M. Johnson, Letter to All Power Reactor Licensees et al., "Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3, of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident", March 12, 2012.
2. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Final Report 1025287, "Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic", February 2013.
3. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Final Report No. 3002000704, "Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic", May 2013.
4. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC), Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.60, "Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants", Revision 1, December 1973.
5. Progress Energy, "Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Updated Final Safety Analysis Report", through Amendment No. 59.
6. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC), NUREG-2115, Department of Energy/Office of Nuclear Energy (DOE/NE)-0140, EPRI 1021097, "Central and Eastern United States Seismic Source Characterization for Nuclear Facilities", 6 Volumes, 2012.
7. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Final Report No. 3002000717, "EPRI (2004, 2006) Ground-Motion Model (GMM) Review Project", June 2013.
8. Progress Energy Harris Nuclear Units 2 & 3 COLA (Final Safety Analysis Report), Rev.

4, September 12, 2012 (ML12122A656).

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 25 of 33

9. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) (1993). "Guidelines for determining design basis ground motions." Palo Alto, Calif: Electric Power Research Institute, vol. 1-5, EPRI TR-102293.
10. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC), Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.208, "A Performance-Based Approach to Define the Site-Specific Earthquake Ground Motion", March 2007.
11. Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), A. Pietrangelo, Letter to D. Skeen of the USNRC, "Proposed Path Forward for NTTF Recommendation 2.1: Seismic Reevaluations", April 9, 2013 (ML13101A379).
12. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC), E. Leeds, Letter to J. Pollock of NEI, "Electric Power Research Institute Final Draft Report XXXXXX, 'Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic,' as an Acceptable Alternative to the March 12, 2012, Information Request for Seismic Reevaluations", May 7, 2013.
13. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC), E. Leeds, Letter to All Power Reactor Licensees and Holders of Construction Permits, "Supplemental Information Related to Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding Seismic Hazard Reevaluations for Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights From the Fukushima Dai-lchi Accident",

February 20, 2014 (ML14030A046).

14. Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), A. Pietrangelo, Letter to Mr. Eric J. Leeds of the USNRC, "Seismic Risk Evaluations for Plants in the Central and Eastern United States", March 12, 2014.
15. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC), E. Leeds, Letter to All Power, Reactor Licensees and Holders of Construction Permits, "Endorsement of Electric Power Research Institute Final Draft Report 1025287, Seismic Evaluation Guidance", February 15, 2013 (ML12319A074).

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment - Appendix A Page 26 of 33 Table A-la. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for PGA at HNP.

AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 4.35E-02 2.42E-02 3.68E-02 4.43E-02 5.12E-02 5.50E-02 0.001 3.38E-02 1.57E-02 2.68E-02 3.37E-02 4.19E-02 4.70E-02 0.005 1.05E-02 3.79E-03 6.45E-03 9.65E-03 1.36E-02 2.19E-02 0.01 4.84E-03 1.42E-03 2.42E-03 4.25E-03 6.54E-03 1.25E-02 0.015 2.81E-03 6.54E-04 1.15E-03 2.29E-03 4.01E-03 8.23E-03 0.03 9.03E-04 1.08E-04 2.07E-04 5.58E-04 1.38E-03 3.52E-03 0.05 3.31E-04 2.13E-05 4.37E-05 1.44E-04 4.83E-04 1.55E-03 0.075 1.37E-04 5.50E-06 1.21E-05 4.70E-05 1.84E-04 6.93E-04 0.1 6.99E-05 2.07E-06 5.20E-06 2.13E-05 8.98E-05 3.47E-04 0.15 2.60E-05 5.50E-07 1.79E-06 7.77E-06 3.37E-05 1.20E-04 0.3 4.70E-06 4.98E-08 3.33E-07 1.57E-06 7.34E-06 1.92E-05 0.5 1.37E-06 8.47E-09 8.47E-08 4.83E-07 2.25E-06 5.58E-06 0.75 5.01E-07 1.92E-09 2.42E-08 1.67E-07 8.OOE-07 2.07E-06 1 2.36E-07 7.23E-10 8.60E-09 7.23E-08 3.68E-07 9.79E-07 1.5 7.51E-08 2.16E-10 1.69E-09 1.90E-08 1.11E-07 3.19E-07 3 8.01E-09 1.21E-10 1.55E-10 1.27E-09 1.04E-08 3.47E-08 5 1.15E-09 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 1.92E-10 1.32E-09 5.05E-09 7.5 2.01E-10 8.12E-11 9.11E-11 1.23E-10 2.72E-10 9.51E-10 10 5.21E-11 8.12E-11 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 1.40E-10 3.09E-10 Table A-lb. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 25 Hz at HNP.

AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 4.65E-02 3.05E-02 4.07E-02 4.70E-02 5.27E-02 5.66E-02 0.001 3.84E-02 2.16E-02 3.23E-02 3.90E-02 4.50E-02 5.05E-02 0.005 1.54E-02 6.73E-03 1.07E-02 1.46E-02 1.92E-02 2.88E-02 0.01 8.19E-03 3.14E-03 4.90E-03 7.45E-03 1.05E-02 1.84E-02 0.015 5.21E-03 1.72E-03 2.76E-03 4.56E-03 6.93E-03 1.29E-02 0.03 2.01E-03 4.25E-04 7.34E-04 1.55E-03 3.01E-03 5.75E-03 0.05 8.53E-04 1.08E-04 2.04E-04 5.50E-04 1.38E-03 2.88E-03 0.075 3.98E-04 3.14E-05 6.54E-05 2.07E-04 6.54E-04 1.53E-03 0.1 2.22E-04 1.25E-05 2.80E-05 9.93E-05 3.57E-04 8.98E-04 0.15 9.31E-05 3.52E-06 8.72E-06 3.52E-05 1.42E-04 3.90E-04 0.3 1.93E-05 4.77E-07 1.57E-06 6.73E-06 2.92E-05 7.66E-05 0.5 6.00E-06 9.65E-08 4.90E-07 2.25E-06 9.65E-06 2.39E-05 0.75 2.40E-06 2.49E-08 1.87E-07 9.37E-07 4.01E-06 9.65E-06 1 1.25E-06 9.79E-09 8.98E-08 4.90E-07 2.13E-06 5.05E-06 1.5 4.81E-07 2.64E-09 2.96E-08 1.79E-07 8.12E-07 2.01E-06 3 7.78E-08 3.01E-10 3.09E-09 2.35E-08 1.25E-07 3.28E-07 5 1.64E-08 1.34E-10 4.83E-10 4.01E-09 2.39E-08 6.93E-08 7.5 4.12E-09 1.21E-10 1.62E-10 8.60E-10 5.58E-09 1.77E-08 10 1.42E-09 1.08E-10 1.23E-10 3.01E-10 1.84E-09 6.26E-09

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment - Appendix A Page 27 of 33 Table A-ic. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 10 Hz at HNP.

AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 5.06E-02 4.01E-02 4.50E-02 5.12E-02 5.58E-02 6.OOE-02 0.001 4.42E-02 3.19E-02 3.79E-02 4.43E-02 5.05E-02 5.42E-02 0.005 1.98E-02 1.02E-02 1.44E-02 1.95E-02 2.49E-02 3.05E-02 0.01 1.08E-02 4.90E-03 7.13E-03 1.04E-02 1.40E-02 1.90E-02 0.015 7.03E-03 2.92E-03 4.31E-03 6.64E-03 9.37E-03 1.34E-02 0.03 2.94E-03 9.51E-04 1.49E-03 2.60E-03 4.19E-03 6.45E-03 0.05 1.34E-03 3.23E-04 5.35E-04 1.1OE-03 2.07E-03 3.42E-03 0.075 6.54E-04 1.16E-04 2.07E-04 4.77E-04 1.05E-03 1.90E-03 0.1 3.70E-04 5.12E-05 9.65E-05 2.42E-04 6.OOE-04 1.20E-03 0.15 1.53E-04 1.51E-05 3.01E-05 8.72E-05 2.49E-04 5.42E-04 0.3 2.83E-05 1.67E-06 3.79E-06 1.32E-05 4.63E-05 1.08E-04 0.5 7.68E-06 2.96E-07 8.72E-07 3.47E-06 1.31 E-05 2.96E-05 0.75 2.78E-06 6.73E-08 2.84E-07 1.21 E-06 4.83E-06 1.07E-05 1 1.36E-06 2.16E-08 1.25E-07 5.83E-07 2.39E-06 5.27E-06 1.5 4.90E-07 4.31E-09 3.52E-08 2.01E-07 8.35E-07 1.95E-06 3 7.31E-08 3.33E-10 2.92E-09 2.39E-08 1.20E-07 3.05E-07 5 1.50E-08 1.32E-10 4.07E-10 3.68E-09 2.25E-08 6.45E-08 7.5 3.70E-09 1.21E-10 1.40E-10 7.34E-10 5.20E-09 1.64E-08 10 1.26E-09 9.24E-11 1.21E-10 2.64E-10 1.69E-09 5.66E-09 Table A-Id. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 5 Hz at HNP.

AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 5.14E-02 4.13E-02 4.56E-02 5.20E-02 5.75E-02 6.09E-02 0.001 4.56E-02 3.28E-02 3.84E-02 4.63E-02 5.27E-02 5.66E-02 0.005 2.04E-02 9.93E-03 1.42E-02 2.01E-02 2.68E-02 3.09E-02 0.01 1.06E-02 4.56E-03 6.83E-03 1.02E-02 1.46E-02 1.77E-02 0.015 6.66E-03 2.68E-03 4.07E-03 6.36E-03 9.37E-03 1.16E-02 0.03 2.61E-03 8.35E-04 1.34E-03 2.39E-03 3.84E-03 5.12E-03 0.05 1.14E-03 2.72E-04 4.77E-04 9.79E-04 1.79E-03 2.60E-03 0.075 5.31 E-04 9.37E-05 1.77E-04 4.07E-04 8.72E-04 1.40E-03 0.1 2.88E-04 4.07E-05 8.OOE-05 2.01E-04 4.77E-04 8.47E-04 0.15 1.1OE-04 1.13E-05 2.35E-05 6.54E-05 1.82E-04 3.68E-04 0.3 1.72E-05 1.07E-06 2.49E-06 8.23E-06 2.80E-05 6.26E-05 0.5 4.08E-06 1.67E-07 4.77E-07 1.84E-06 6.83E-06 1.53E-05 0.75 1.35E-06 3.33E-08 1.36E-07 5.83E-07 2.32E-06 5.27E-06 1 6.26E-07 9.93E-09 5.58E-08 2.64E-07 1.08E-06 2.49E-06 1.5 2.1OE-07 1.79E-09 1.42E-08 8.35E-08 3.57E-07 8.35E-07 3 2.78E-08 1.92E-10 1.18E-09 8.85E-09 4.37E-08 1.16E-07 5 5.16E-09 1.21E-10 2.07E-10 1.29E-09 7.55E-09 2.22E-08 7.5 1.17E-09 1.05E-10 1.21E-10 2.84E-10 1.55E-09 5.12E-09 10 3.77E-10 8.98E-11 1.11E-10 1.42E-10 5.12E-10 1.69E-09

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment - Appendix A Page 28 of 33 Table A-le. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 2.5 Hz at HNP.

AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 4.85E-02 3.68E-02 4.19E-02 4.90E-02 5.50E-02 5.91E-02 0.001 4.01E-02 2.64E-02 3.19E-02 4.01E-02 4.83E-02 5.27E-02 0.005 1.40E-02 6.54E-03 8.98E-03 1.34E-02 1.92E-02 2.32E-02 0.01 6.57E-03 2.64E-03 3.84E-03 6.17E-03 9.37E-03 1.18E-02 0.015 3.88E-03 1.36E-03 2.1OE-03 3.57E-03 5.66E-03 7.45E-03 0.03 1.35E-03 3.23E-04 5.66E-04 1.16E-03 2.13E-03 3.01E-03 0.05 5.24E-04 8.47E-05 1.64E-04 4.01E-04 8.85E-04 1.38E-03 0.075 2.15E-04 2.42E-05 5.05E-05 1.42E-04 3.68E-04 6.64E-04 0.1 1.06E-04 9.24E-06 2.01E-05 6.09E-05 1.79E-04 3.52E-04 0.15 3.46E-05 2.1OE-06 4.98E-06 1.67E-05 5.58E-05 1.25E-04 0.3 4.15E-06 1.44E-07 3.90E-07 1.55E-06 6.17E-06 1.53E-05 0.5 8.49E-07 1.69E-08 6.09E-08 2.92E-07 1.29E-06 3.23E-06 0.75 2.58E-07 2.80E-09 1.42E-08 8.47E-08 4.07E-07 1.05E-06 1 1.15E-07 8.12E-10 4.98E-09 3.52E-08 1.79E-07 4.83E-07 1.5 3.65E-08 2.13E-10 1.13E-09 9.65E-09 5.50E-08 1.55E-07 3 4.40E-09 1.21E-10 1.53E-10 8.23E-10 5.83E-09 1.92E-08 5 7.37E-10 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 1.72E-10 8.98E-10 3.23E-09 7.5 1.51E-10 8.12E-11 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 2.29E-10 7.03E-10 10 4.48E-11 8.12E-11 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 1.34E-10 2.68E-10 Table A-if. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 1 Hz at HNP.

AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 3.61E-02 2.01E-02 2.64E-02 3.68E-02 4.50E-02 5.05E-02 0.001 2.52E-02 1.20E-02 1.69E-02 2.49E-02 3.33E-02 3.90E-02 0.005 7.31E-03 2.64E-03 4.13E-03 6.93E-03 1.05E-02 1.32E-02 0.01 3.66E-03 9.65E-04 1.67E-03 3.28E-03 5.66E-03 7.66E-03 0.015 2.20E-03 4.37E-04 8.35E-04 1.84E-03 3.57E-03 5.12E-03 0.03 7.07E-04 7.89E-05 1.79E-04 5.12E-04 1.21E-03 2.01E-03 0.05 2.37E-04 1.64E-05 4.19E-05 1.44E-04 4.19E-04 7.89E-04 0.075 8.51E-05 3.95E-06 1.08E-05 4.31E-05 1.49E-04 3.09E-04 0.1 3.77E-05 1.32E-06 3.84E-06 1.67E-05 6.45E-05 1.44E-04 0.15 1.07E-05 2.64E-07 8.OOE-07 3.90E-06 1.72E-05 4.25E-05 0.3 1.OOE-06 1.40E-08 4.90E-08 2.80E-07 1.44E-06 4.13E-06 0.5 1.82E-07 1.46E-09 6.09E-09 4.19E-08 2.53E-07 7.77E-07 0.75 5.42E-08 2.88E-10 1.20E-09 9.93E-09 7.03E-08 2.39E-07 1 2.43E-08 1.46E-10 4.01E-10 3.57E-09 2.96E-08 1.08E-07 1.5 7.96E-09 1.21E-10 1.49E-10 8.72E-10 8.47E-09 3.42E-08 3 1.02E-09 8.47E-11 1.11E-10 1.42E-10 8.47E-10 4.01E-09 5 1.82E-10 8.12E-11 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 1.92E-10 7.34E-10 7.5 4.03E-11 8.12E-11 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 1.32E-10 2.13E-10 10 1.27E-11 8.12E-11 8.12E-11 1.21E-10 1.32E-10 1.34E-10

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment - Appendix A Page 29 of 33 Table A-lg. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 0.5 Hz at HNP.

AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 1.97E-02 1.05E-02 1.44E-02 1.92E-02 2.49E-02 2.92E-02 0.001 1.24E-02 6.09E-03 8.47E-03 1.20E-02 1.62E-02 1.98E-02 0.005 3.77E-03 8.98E-04 1.62E-03 3.42E-03 5.91E-03 7.89E-03 0.01 1.81E-03 2.29E-04 5.05E-04 1.42E-03 3.14E-03 4.70E-03 0.015 1.02E-03 8.47E-05 2.07E-04 7.03E-04 1.84E-03 3.01E-03 0.03 2.75E-04 1.04E-05 3.05E-05 1.40E-04 4.90E-04 1.02E-03 0.05 8.02E-05 1.62E-06 5.50E-06 3.01E-05 1.36E-04 3.37E-04 0.075 2.58E-05 3.28E-07 1.20E-06 7.34E-06 4.07E-05 1.13E-04 0.1 1.07E-05 9.93E-08 3.84E-07 2.46E-06 1.57E-05 4.70E-05 0.15 2.84E-06 1.79E-08 7.23E-08 4.77E-07 3.68E-06 1.23E-05 0.3 2.54E-07 8.85E-10 3.68E-09 2.84E-08 2.64E-07 1.11E-06 0.5 4.63E-08 1.57E-10 4.50E-10 3.84E-09 4.13E-08 2.07E-07 0.75 1.37E-08 1.21E-10 1.51E-10 8.60E-10 1.02E-08 6.OOE-08

1. 6.1OE-09 9.65E-11 1.21E-10 3.23E-10 3.84E-09 2.53E-08 1.5 1.98E-09 8.35E-11 1.10E-10 1.42E-10 9.93E-10 7.55E-09
3. 2.53E-10 8.12E-11 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 1.60E-10 8.35E-10
5. 4.58E-11 8.12E-11 8.35E-11 1.21E-10 1.32E-10 2.01E-10 7.5 1.02E-11 8.12E-11 8.12E-11 1.21E-10 1.32E-10 1.32E-10 10 3.25E-12 8.12E-11 8.12E-11 1.21E-10 1.32E-10 1.32E-10

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment - Appendix A Page 30 of 33 Table A-2. Amplification Functions for HNP.

Median Sigma Median Sigma Median Sigma Median Sigma PGA AF In(AF) 25 Hz AF In(AF) 10 Hz AF In(AF) 5 Hz AF In(AF) 1.OOE-02 1.08E+00 4.59E-02 1.30E-02 9.66E-01 6.08E-02 1.90E-02 1.05E+00 8.97E-02 2.09E-02 1.17E+00 1.01E-01 4.95E-02 9.36E-01 6.20E-02 1.02E-01 7.67E-01 1.15E-01 9.99E-02 1.02E+00 1.04E-01 8.24E-02 1.16E+00 1.05E-01 9.64E-02 8.82E-01 6.72E-02 2.13E-01 7.32E-01 1.27E-01 1.85E-01 1.01E+00 1.05E-01 1.44E-01 1.16E+00 1.06E-01 1.94E-01 8.37E-01 7.15E-02 4.43E-01 7.04E-01 1.33E-01 3.56E-01 9.95E-01 1.07E-01 2.65E-01 1.15E+00 1.08E-01 2.92E-01 8.12E-01 7.39E-02 6.76E-01 6.87E-01 1.36E-01 5.23E-01 9.82E-01 1.08E-01 3.84E-01 1.14E+00 1.08E-01 3.91E-01 7.95E-01 7.54E-02 9.09E-01 6.74E-01 1.38E-01 6.90E-01 9.71 E-01 1.09E-01 5.02E-01 1.14E+00 1.08E-01 4.93E-01 7.82E-01 7.66E-02 1.15E+00 6.62E-01 1.39E-01 8.61 E-01 9.62E-01 1.10E-01 6.22E-01 1.13E+00 1.08E-01 7.41E-01 7.58E-01 7.78E-02 1.73E+00 6.40E-01 1.42E-01 1.27E+00 9.41E-01 1.11E-01 9.13E-01 1.12E+00 1.05E-01 1.01E+00 7.40E-01 7.87E-02 2.36E+00 6.22E-01 1.44E-01 1.72E+00 9.24E-01 1.14E-01 1.22E+00 1.10E+00 1.03E-01 1.28E+00 7.25E-01 7.90E-02 3.01E+00 6.07E-01 1.46E-01 2.17E+00 9.08E-01 1.15E-01 1.54E+00 1.09E+00 1.03E-01 1.55E+00 7.12E-01 7.97E-02 3.63E+00 5.94E-01 1.47E-01 2.61E+00 8.94E-01 1.17E-01 1.85E+00 1.08E+00 1.03E-01 Median Sigma Median Sigma Median Sigma 2.5 Hz AF In(AF) 1 Hz AF In(AF) 0.5 Hz AF In(AF) 2.18E-02 1.07E+00 9.15E-02 1.27E-02 1.31E+00 1.22E-01 8.25E-03 1.29E+00 1.30E-01 7.05E-02 1.06E+00 9.12E-02 3.43E-02 1.31E+00 1.18E-01 1.96E-02 1.28E+00 1.26E-01 1.18E-01 1.06E+00 9.09E-02 5.51E-02 1.30E+00 1.16E-01 3.02E-02 1.28E+00 1.24E-01 2.12E-01 1.06E+00 9.1OE-02 9.63E-02 1.30E+00 1.15E-01 5.11E-02 1.28E+00 1.23E-01 3.04E-01 1.05E+00 9.12E-02 1.36E-01 1.30E+00 1.14E-01 7.10E-02 1.28E+00 1.22E-01 3.94E-01 1.05E+00 9.13E-02 1.75E-01 1.31E+00 1.13E-01 9.06E-02 1.28E+00 1.22E-01 4.86E-01 1.05E+00 9.15E-02 2.14E-01 1.31E+00 1.12E-01 1.10E-01 1.28E+00 1.22E-01 7.09E-01 1.05E+00 9.16E-02 3.10E-01 1.31E+00 1.12E-01 1.58E-01 1.28E+00 1.22E-01 9.47E-01 1.05E+00 9.24E-02 4.12E-01 1.31E+00 1.11E-01 2.09E-01 1.28E+00 1.22E-01 1.19E+00 1.05E+00 9.36E-02 5.18E-01 1.32E+00 1.11E-01 2.62E-01 1.28E+00 1.22E-01 1.43E+00 1.04E+00 9.42E-02 6.19E-01 1.32E+00 1.10E-01 3.12E-01 1.28E+00 1.22E-01

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment - Appendix A Page 31 of 33 Table A2-bl. Median AFs and sigmas for Model 1, Profile 1, for 2 PGA levels.

MIPIKI Rock PGA=0.0964 MIP1K1 PGA=0.292 Freq. med. sigma Freq. med. sigma (Hz) Soil SA AF In(AF) (Hz) Soil SA AF In(AF) 100.0 0.088 0.917 0.050 100.0 0.240 0.821 0.057 87.1 0.089 0.906 0.051 87.1 0.242 0.806 0.058 75.9 0.090 0.887 0.051 75.9 0.246 0.779 0.059 66.1 0.093 0.848 0.052 66.1 0.253 0.728 0.062 57.5 0.097 0.782 0.055 57.5 0.267 0.650 0.070 50.1 0.105 0.719 0.069 50.1 0.294 0.591 0.093 43.7 0.116 0.678 0.084 43.7 0.330 0.561 0.113 38.0 0.126 0.661 0.088 38.0 0.359 0.558 0.112 33.1 0.138 0.671 0.105 33.1 0.391 0.577 0.123 28.8 0.150 0.722 0.115 28.8 0.427 0.634 0.129 25.1 0.161 0.759 0.125 25.1 0.457 0.677 0.134 21.9 0.171 0.829 0.121 21.9 0.479 0.748 0.125 19.1 0.184 0.891 0.127 19.1 0.511 0.815 0.127 16.6 0.190 0.944 0.129 16.6 0.526 0.878 0.128 14.5 0.194 0.999 0.127 14.5 0.536 0.939 0.128 12.6 0.196 1.025 0.107 12.6 0.536 0.970 0.111 11.0 0.193 1.025 0.098 11.0 0.522 0.972 0.102 9.5 0.193 1.063 0.085 9.5 0.517 1.011 0.088 8.3 0.195 1.155 0.067 8.3 0.522 1.110 0.071 7.2 0.189 1.186 0.083 7.2 0.505 1.151 0.085 6.3 0.181 1.199 0.069 6.3 0.480 1.169 0.067 5.5 0.176 1.211 0.086 5.5 0.463 1.182 0.086 4.8 0.166 1.156 0.098 4.8 0.433 1.133 0.097 4.2 0.158 1.127 0.086 4.2 0.410 1.111 0.086 3.6 0.150 1.099 0.092 3.6 0.391 1.088 0.092 3.2 0.142 1.094 0.098 3.2 0.367 1.088 0.099 2.8 0.135 1.091 0.077 2.8 0.348 1.089 0.077 2.4 0.123 1.075 0.088 2.4 0.317 1.076 0.089 2.1 0.118 1.125 0.082 2.1 0.301 1.126 0.081 1.8 0.109 1.164 0.078 1.8 0.278 1.166 0.076 1.6 0.101 1.238 0.112 1.6 0.256 1.239 0.111 1.4 0.091 1.282 0.085 1.4 0.228 1.283 0.082 1.2 0.084 1.348 0.113 1.2 0.210 1.347 0.111 1.0 0.076 1.347 0.097 1.0 0.189 1.346 0.095 0.91 0.065 1.255 0.094 0.91 0.160 1.255 0.092 0.79 0.059 1.255 0.105 0.79 0.144 1.254 0.102 0.69 0.055 1.298 0.091 0.69 0.132 1.296 0.089 0.60 0.048 1.290 0.072 0.60 0.114 1.288 0.071 0.52 0.040 1.259 0.062 0.52 0.095 1.258 0.060 0.46 0.034 1.273 0.087 0.46 0.080 1.271 0.085 0.10 0.001 1.198 0.026 0.10 0.003 1.192 0.027

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment - Appendix A Page 32 of 33 Table A2-b2, Median AFs and sigmas for Model 2, Profile 1, for 2 PGA levels.

M2PIK1 PGA=0.0964 M2PIKI PGA=0.292 Freq. med. sigma Freq. med. sigma (Hz) Soil SA AF In(AF) (Hz) Soil SA AF In(AF) 100.0 0.089 0.924 0.055 100.0 0.255 0.871 0.060 87.1 0.090 0.913 0.056 87.1 0.258 0.857 0.061 75.9 0.091 0.894 0.056 75.9 0.263 0.831 0.061 66.1 0.093 0.856 0.056 66.1 0.272 0.782 0.061 57.5 0.098 0.790 0.056 57.5 0.291 0.707 0.061 50.1 0.107 0.730 0.058 50.1 0.327 0.657 0.065 43.7 0.118 0.690 0.061 43.7 0.373 0.633 0.068 38.0 0.129 0.675 0.081 38.0 0.408 0.634 0.091 33.1 0.140 0.684 0.098 33.1 0.443 0.653 0.110 28.8 0.153 0.736 0.113 28.8 0.481 0.713 0.125 25.1 0.161 0.757 0.109 25.1 0.498 0.737 0.117 21.9 0.171 0.831 0.121 21.9 0.523 0.817 0.128 19.1 0.183 0.886 0.128 19.1 0.550 0.877 0.133 16.6 0.191 0.951 0.127 16.6 0.566 0.944 0.131 14.5 0.198 1.017 0.119 14.5 0.578 1.013 0.122 12.6 0.201 1.051 0.125 12.6 0.579 1.048 0.127 11.0 0.197 1.047 0.122 11.0 0.560 1.044 0.124 9.5 0.196 1.077 0.103 9.5 0.549 1.074 0.104 8.3 0.194 1.147 0.099 8.3 0.538 1.144 0.100 7.2 0.192 1.205 0.092 7.2 0.528 1.203 0.093 6.3 0.183 1.213 0.076 6.3 0.498 1.211 0.076 5.5 0.174 1.195 0.083 5.5 0.467 1.193 0.084 4.8 0.166 1.162 0.093 4.8 0.443 1.160 0.093 4.2 0.155 1.107 0.096 4.2 0.409 1.106 0.096 3.6 0.149 1.090 0.069 3.6 0.391 1.089 0.069 3.2 0.139 1.076 0.100 3.2 0.363 1.075 0.100 2.8 0.134 1.081 0.083 2.8 0.345 1.080 0.083 2.4 0.123 1.074 0.080 2.4 0.316 1.073 0.080 2.1 0.118 1.127 0.080 2.1 0.301 1.125 0.079 1.8 0.111 1.180 0.081 1.8 0.281 1.178 0.081 1.6 0.099 1.205 0.121 1.6 0.248 1.202 0.120 1.4 0.088 1.244 0.106 1.4 0.220 1.241 0.104 1.2 0.084 1.350 0.152 1.2 0.210 1.345 0.150 1.0 0.079 1.393 0.104 1.0 0.195 1.388 0.103 0.91 0.069 1.319 0.121 0.91 0.168 1.315 0.119 0.79 0.059 1.237 0.120 0.79 0.142 1.235 0.118 0.69 0.052 1.217 0.118 0.69 0.124 1.216 0.116 0.60 0.046 1.230 0.078 0.60 0.109 1.228 0.077 0.52 0.041 1.275 0.071 0.52 0.096 1.272 0.069 0.46 0.036 1.348 0.098 0.46 0.084 1.345 0.097 0.10 0.001 1.177 0.035 0.10 0.003 1.171 0.035

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-1 4-035, Attachment - Appendix A Page 33 of 33 Tables A2-bl and A2-b2 are tabular versions of the typical amplification factors provided in Figures 2.3.6-1 and 2.3.6-2. Values are provided for two input motion levels at approximately 10-4 and 10-5 mean annual frequency of exceedance.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=HNP-14-035,_Seismic_Hazard_and_Screening_Report_(CEUS_Sites),_Response_to_NRC_10_CFR_50.54(f)_Request_for_Information_Pursuant_to_Title_10_of_the_Code_of_Federal_Regulations_50.54(f)_Regarding_Recommendations_2.1,_2.3&oldid=2050901"