PNP 2014-033, Seismic Hazard and Screening Report (CEUS Sites), Response to NRC Request for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Regarding the Seismic Aspects of Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the

Seismic Hazard and Screening Report (CEUS Sites), Response to NRC Request for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Regarding the Seismic Aspects of Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the

ML14090A069
Person / Time
Site:	Palisades
Issue date:	03/31/2014
From:	Vitale A Entergy Nuclear Operations
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
PNP 2014-033
Download: ML14090A069 (43)

Text

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

JZiri #,i,rra, Palisades Nuclear Plant I_il 1L7Y 27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway Covert, Ml 49043-9530 Tel 269 764 2000 Anthony J. Vitale Site Vice President PNP 2014-033 March 31, 2014 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852

SUBJECT:

Palisades Nuclear Plant Seismic Hazard and Screening Report (CEUS Sites), Response to NRC Request for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Regarding the Seismic Aspects of Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident Palisades Nuclear Plant Docket No. 50-255 License No. DPR-20

REFERENCES:

1.

NRC letter, 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, dated March 12, 2012 (ADAMS Accession Number ML12056A046) 2.

NEI letter, Proposed Path Forward for NTTF Recommendation 2.1:

Seismic Reevaluations, dated April 9, 2013 (ADAMS Accession Number ML13101A379) 3.

NRC letter, 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, dated May 7, 2013 (ADAMS Accession Number ML13106A331) 4.

EPRI Report 1025287, Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic, dated February 2013 (ADAMS Accession Number ML12333A170) 5.

NRC letter, Endorsement of EPRI Final Draft Report 1025287, Seismic Evaluation Guidance, dated February 15, 2013 (ADAMS Accession Number ML12319A074) 6.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. letter, PNP 2013-069, Palisades Nuclear Plant Response to NRC Request for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Regarding the Seismic Aspects of Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima

~Entergy Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

Palisades Nuclear Plant 27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway Covert, MI 49043-9530 PNP 2014-033 March 31, 2014 Tel 269 764 2000 Anthony J. Vitale Site Vice President U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852

SUBJECT:

Palisades Nuclear Plant Seismic Hazard and Screening Report (CEUS Sites), Response to NRC Request for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Regarding the Seismic Aspects of Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident Palisades Nuclear Plant Docket No. 50-255 License No. DPR-20

REFERENCES:

1. NRC letter, 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, dated March 12, 2012 (ADAMS Accession Number ML12056A046)

2. NEI letter, Proposed Path Forward for NTTF Recommendation 2. 1:

Seismic Reevaluations, dated April 9, 2013 (ADAMS Accession Number ML13101A379)

3. NRC letter, 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, dated May 7,2013 (ADAMS Accession Number ML13106A331)

4. EPRI Report 1025287, Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic, dated February 2013 (ADAMS Accession Number ML12333A170)

5. NRC letter, Endorsement of EPRI Final Draft Report 1025287, "Seismic Evaluation Guidance," dated February 15, 2013 (ADAMS Accession Number ML12319A074)

6. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. letter, PNP 2013-069, Palisades Nuclear Plant Response to NRC Request for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Regarding the Seismic Aspects of Recommendation 2. 1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima

PLP 2014-033 Page 2 of 2 Dai-ichi Accident 1.5 Year Response for CEUS Sites, dated September 11, 2013 (ADAMS Accession Number ML13255A052)

Dear Sir or Madam:

On March 12, 2012, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued Reference 1 to all power reactor licensees and holders of construction permits in active or deferred status. of Reference 1 requested each addressee located in the Central and Eastern United States (CEUS) to submit a seismic hazard evaluation within 1.5 years from the date of Reference 1.

In Reference 2, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) requested NRC agreement to delay submittal of the final CEUS seismic hazard evaluation so that an update to the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) ground motion attenuation model could be completed and used to develop that information. NE) 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 information submitted by March 31, 2014. NRC agreed with that proposed path forward in Reference 3.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. submitted the descriptions of subsurface materials and properties, and base case velocity profiles, for Palisades Nuclear Plant in Reference 6.

Reference 4 contains industry guidance and detailed information to be included in the seismic hazard evaluation submittal. NRC endorsed this industry guidance in Reference 5.

The attached Seismic Hazard and Screening Report for Palisades Nuclear Plant provides the information described in Section 4 of Reference 4 in accordance with the schedule identified in Reference 2.

This letter contains no new commitments and no revised commitments.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct; executed on March 31, 2014.

Sincerely, ajv74

Attachment:

Seismic Hazard and Screening Report for Palisades Nuclear Plant cc:

Office Director, NRR, USNRC Administrator, Region Ill, USNRC Project Manager, Palisades, USNRC Resident Inspector, Palisades, USNRC PLP 2014-033 Page 2 of 2 Dai-ichi Accident - 1.5 Year Response for CEUS Sites, dated September 11, 2013 (ADAMS Accession Number ML13255A052)

Dear Sir or Madam:

On March 12, 2012, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued Reference 1 to all power reactor licensees and holders of construction permits in active or deferred status. of Reference 1 requested each addressee located in the Central and Eastern United States (CEUS) to submit a seismic hazard evaluation within 1.5 years from the date of Reference 1.

In Reference 2, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) requested NRC agreement to delay submittal of the final CEUS seismic hazard evaluation 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 information submitted by March 31, 2014. NRC agreed with that proposed path forward in Reference 3.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. submitted the descriptions of subsurface materials and properties, and base case velocity profiles, for Palisades Nuclear Plant in Reference 6.

Reference 4 contains industry guidance and detailed information to be included in the seismic hazard evaluation submittal. NRC endorsed this industry guidance in Reference 5.

The attached Seismic Hazard and Screening Report for Palisades Nuclear Plant provides the information described in Section 4 of Reference 4 in accordance with the schedule identified in Reference 2.

This letter contains no new commitments and no revised commitments.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct; executed on March 31,2014.

Sincerely, ajv/jse

Attachment:

Seismic Hazard and Screening Report for Palisades Nuclear Plant cc:

Office Director, NRR, USNRC Administrator, Region "I, USNRC Project Manager, Palisades, USNRC Resident Inspector, Palisades, USNRC

ATTACHMENT Seismic Hazard and Screening Report for Palisades Nuclear Plant 40 pages follow ATTACHMENT Seismic Hazard and Screening Report for Palisades Nuclear Plant 40 pages follow

(I)

CD Cl) 3 C)

-X Cfl 0

(DO) z.

cj) 00

CD(D CD CD 0

Seismic Hazard and Screening Report for Palisades Nuclear Plant 1

Table of Contents Page 1.0 Introduction

.3 2.0 Seismic Hazard Reevaluation 4

2.1 Regional and Local Geology 5

2.2 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis 5

2.2.1 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis Results 5

2.2.2 Base Rock Seismic Hazard Curves 6

2.3 Site Response Evaluation 6

2.3.1 Description of Subsurface Material 7

2.3.2 Development of Base Case Profiles and Nonlinear Material Properties 8

2.3.2.1 Shear Modulus and Damping Curves 14 2.3.2.2 Kappa 14 2.3.3 Randomization of Base Case Profiles 15 2.3.4 Input Spectra 16 2.3.5 Methodology 16 2.3.6 Amplification Functions 16 2.3.7 Control Point Seismic Hazard Curves 21 2.4 Control Point Response Spectrum 21 3.0 Plant Design Basis and Beyond Design Basis Evaluation Ground Motion 24 3.1 Safe Shutdown Earthquake Description of Spectral Shape 24 3.2 Control Point Elevation 25 3.3 IPEEE Description and Capacity Response Spectrum 25 4.0 Screening Evaluation 25 4.1 Risk Evaluation Screening (ito 10 Hz) 25 4.2 High Frequency Screening (> 10 Hz) 25 4.3 Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation Screening (ito 10 Hz) 26 5.0 Interim Actions 26 6.0 Conclusions 27 7.0 References 27 Appendix A 29 2

Table of Contents Page 1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................... 3 2.0 Seismic Hazard Reevaluation............................................................................................... 4 2.1 Regional and Local Geology.......................................................................................... 5 2.2 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis............................................................................ 5 2.2.1 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis Results...................................................... 5 2.2.2 Base Rock Seismic Hazard Curves....................................................................... 6 2.3 Site Response Evaluation.............................................................................................. 6 2.3.1 Description of Subsurface Material........................................................................ 7 2.3.2 Development of Base Case Profiles and Nonlinear Material Properties................. 8 2.3.2.1 Shear Modulus and Damping Curves...................................................... 14 2.3.2.2 Kappa...................................................................................................... 14 2.3.3 Randomization of Base Case Profiles.................................................................. 15 2.3.4 Input Spectra....................................................................................................... 16 2.3.5 Methodology........................................................................................................ 16 2.3.6 Amplification Functions........................................................................................ 16 2.3.7 Control Point Seismic Hazard Curves.................................................................. 21 2.4 Control Point Response Spectrum............................................................................... 21 3.0 Plant Design Basis and Beyond Design Basis Evaluation Ground Motion........................... 24 3.1 Safe Shutdown Earthquake Description of Spectral Shape.......................................... 24 3.2 Control Point Elevation................................................................................................. 25 3.3 IPEEE Description and Capacity Response Spectrum................................................. 25 4.0 Screening Evaluation.......................................................................................................... 25 4.1 Risk Evaluation Screening (1 to 10 Hz)........................................................................ 25 4.2 High Frequency Screening (> 10 Hz)........................................................................... 25 4.3 Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation Screening (1 to 10 Hz)...................................................... 26 5.0 Interim Actions.................................................................................................................... 26 6.0 Conclusions........................................................................................................................ 27 7.0 References.......................................................................................................................... 27 Appendix A............................................................................................................................... 29 2

1.0 Introduction Following the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant resulting from the March 11, 2011, Great Tohoku Earthquake and subsequent tsunami, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 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 (U.S. NRC, 2012) that requests information to assure that these recommendations are addressed by all U.S.

nuclear power plants. In Enclosure 1 of the 50.54(f) letter (U.S. NRC, 2012), the NRC 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 (U.S. NRC, 2012) pertaining to NTTF Recommendation 2.1 for the Palisades Nuclear Plant (PNP), located in Van Buren County, Michigan. In providing this information, Entergy 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, 201 3a). The Augmented Approach, Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic (EPRI, 2013c),

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 original geologic and seismic siting investigations for the Palisades Nuclear Plant were performed in accordance with accepted industry practices that existed at the time when the Construction Permit was issued in 1967. These methods pre-date the issuance of 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A. The Maximum Hypothetical Earthquake (Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE))

Ground Response Spectra were developed and used for the design of Safety Related Structures, Systems, and Components (i.e., Seismic Category 1). Appendix Ito the original Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) contained a comparison to 70 General Design Criteria (GDC) for Nuclear Power Plant Construction Permits issued by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) on July 10, 1967. These criteria had been released after the initiation of the plants design. In the Request for a Full Term Operating License, submitted to the NRC on January 22, 1974, Consumers Power Company (the Licensee at the time) provided an update to compare the PNP design with the GDCs as they appeared in 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix A on July 7, 3

1.0 Introduction Following the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant resulting from the March 11,2011, Great Tohoku Earthquake and subsequent tsunami, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 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 (U.S. NRC, 2012) that requests information to assure that these recommendations are addressed by all U.S.

nuclear power plants. In Enclosure 1 of the 50.54(f) letter (U.S. NRC, 2012), the NRC 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 (U.S. NRC, 2012) pertaining to NTTF Recommendation 2.1 for the Palisades Nuclear Plant (PNP), located in Van Buren County, Michigan. In providing this information, Entergy followed the guidance provided in the Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Screening, Prioritization, and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Tenn Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic (EPRI, 2013a). The Augmented Approach, Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Tenn Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic (EPRI, 2013c),

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 original geologic and seismic siting investigations for the Palisades Nuclear Plant were performed in accordance with accepted industry practices that existed at the time when the Construction Permit was issued in 1967. These methods pre-date the issuance of 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A. The Maximum Hypothetical Earthquake (Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE>>

Ground Response Spectra were developed and used for the design of Safety Related Structures, Systems, and Components (Le., Seismic Category 1). Appendix I to the original Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) contained a comparison to 70 General Design Criteria (GDC) for Nuclear Power Plant Construction Permits issued by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) on July 10, 1967. These criteria had been released after the initiation of the plant's design. In the Request for a Full Term Operating License, submitted to the NRC on January 22, 1974, Consumers Power Company (the Licensee at the time) provided an update to compare the PNP design with the GDC's as they appeared in 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix A on July 7, 3

1971. It was this updated discussion, including the identified exceptions, which formed the original plant Licensing Basis for future compliance with the GDCs.

In response to the 50.54(f) letter (U.S. NRC, 2012) and following the guidance provided in the SPID (EPRI, 2013a), 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, Palisades Nuclear Plant screens-in for a risk evaluation, a Spent Fuel Pool evaluation, and a High Frequency Confirmation.

2.0 Seismic Hazard Reevaluation The Palisades Nuclear Plant is located approximately four-and-one-half miles south of the southern city limits of South Haven, Michigan, on the Eastern shore of Lake Michigan, and is in the Eastern Lake Section of the Central Lowland Physiographic Province. The land surface is mantled by glacial drift that ranges from a few feet to several hundred feet in thickness. In the immediate vicinity of the Plant, sand dunes are the prevailing surface feature. Underlying the dunes are glacial deposits of various types. Coldwater shale of Mississippian age lies beneath the dunes and glacial deposits at the site. This bedrock consists of compact blue, gray or occasionally red clay shale. A geophysical study near the site indicated the top of the bedrock to be about 150 feet below the beach fronting Lake Michigan at an approximate elevation of 430 feet to 470 feet Mean Sea Level. (Entergy, 2012a)

The Palisades Nuclear Plant is located in Zone VIII on the seismic regionalization map of the United States (Richter, 1959). The maximum probable seismic intensity was consequently rated at VIII on the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale of 1931 (MMI). However, a detailed evaluation of historic epicenters, the regional geology and a study of actual foundation conditions at the site indicated that a Zone VIII assignment was too conservative for PNP. Only one epicenter had been reported within 50 miles of the site since 1804. Correlations made in the course of the original site investigations suggested a concentration of the major epicenters (Maximum Intensity VIII (MMI)) about 200 miles southeast from the site focused on the ancient regional structures termed the Cincinnati and Findlay Arches. These structural features are considered the foci of the historic earthquakes experienced along the arch lineation. The occurrence of a major earthquake (lntenity IX (MMI)) along the western end of the St Lawrence rift would result in the assignment of Intensity VIII (MMI) to areas of thick deposits of soft unconsolidated foundation materials. However, foundation conditions such as those reported below at the PNP site warranted a reduction in probable maximum intensity to between VI and VII (MMI). This intensity corresponded to a surface acceleration value of 0.05g. The horizontal ground design spectwm for PNP was generated by averaging several acceleration spectra from actual earthquake records, normalized to the same maximum ground acceleration. The average response spectrum thus obtained covers a variety of foundation conditions ranging from rock to deep alluvium. This spectrum is commonly referred to as the Housner spectrum. The recommended surface acceleration value of 0.05g was later doubled to a more conservative value of 0.lg, which became the Design Earthquake (i.e., the Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE)) and 0.2g was used as the SSE. (Entergy, 2012a) 4 1971. It was this updated discussion, including the identified exceptions, which formed the original plant Licensing Basis for future compliance with the GDC's.

In response to the 50.54(f) letter (U.S. NRC, 2012) and following the guidance provided in the SPID (EPRI, 2013a), 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, Palisades Nuclear Plant screens-in for a risk evaluation, a Spent Fuel Pool evaluation, and a High Frequency Confirmation.

2.0 Seismic Hazard Reevaluation The Palisades Nuclear Plant is located approximately four-and-one-half miles south of the southern city limits of South Haven, Michigan, on the Eastern shore of Lake Michigan, and is in the Eastern Lake Section of the Central Lowland Physiographic Province. The land surface is mantled by glacial drift that ranges from a few feet to several hundred feet in thickness. In the immediate vicinity of the Plant, sand dunes are the prevailing surface feature. Underlying the dunes are glacial deposits of various types. Coldwater shale of Mississippian age lies beneath the dunes and glacial deposits at the site. This bedrock consists of compact blue, gray or occasionally red clay shale. A geophysical study near the site indicated the top of the bedrock to be about 150 feet below the beach fronting Lake Michigan at an approximate elevation of 430 feet to 470 feet Mean Sea Level. (Entergy, 2012a)

The Palisades Nuclear Plant is located in Zone VIII on the seismic regionalization map of the United States (Richter, 1959). The maximum probable seismic intensity was consequently rated at VIII on the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale of 1931 (MMI). However, a detailed evaluation of historic epicenters, the regional geology and a study of actual foundation conditions at the site indicated that a Zone VIII assignment was too conservative for PNP. Only one epicenter had been reported within 50 miles of the site since 1804. Correlations made in the course of the original site investigations suggested a concentration of the major epicenters (Maximum Intensity VIII (MMI)) about 200 miles southeast from the site focused on the ancient regional structures termed the Cincinnati and Findlay Arches. These structural features are considered the foci of the historic earthquakes experienced along the arch lineation. The occurrence of a major earthquake (Intensity IX (MMI)) along the western end of the St Lawrence rift would result in the assignment of Intensity VIII (MMI) to areas of thick deposits of soft unconsolidated foundation materials. However, foundation conditions such as those reported below at the PNP site warranted a reduction in probable maximum intensity to between VI and VII (MMI). This intensity corresponded to a surface acceleration value of 0.05g. The horizontal ground design spectrum for PNP was generated by averaging several acceleration spectra from actual earthquake records, normalized to the same maximum ground acceleration. The average response spectrum thus obtained covers a variety of foundation conditions ranging from rock to deep alluvium. This spectrum is commonly referred to as the "Housner" spectrum. The recommended surface acceleration value of 0.05g was later doubled to a more conservative value of 0.1g, which became the Design Earthquake (Le., the Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE)) and 0.2g was used as the SSE. (Entergy, 2012a) 4

2.1 Regional and Local Geology Investigations of the geological conditions at the PNP Plant site were conducted in 1965 and 1966. The general geologic profile was disclosed by numerous borings in the areas of interest.

The sand dunes, which were excavated from the Plant site, rose steeply from elevation 582 ft Mean Sea Level (MSL) at the shore of Lake Michigan to about elevation 780 ft MSL at the site of the containment vessel. The dune sand extends down to a base elevation between 560 ft to 565 ft MSL. The dune sand is uniform in grain size and is generally loose above elevation 590 ft MSL and dense to very dense below this level. Beneath the dune sand is a stratum of gray sandy silt or silty sand extending to between elevation 518 ft MSL and elevation 530 ft MSL, which becomes finer with increasing depth with gray clay at the lower edge of the stratum.

Below this is dense glacial till down to bedrock which was encountered at elevation 440 ft MSL.

(Entergy, 2012a)

A geophysical investigation performed in 1966 revealed that the site and vicinity (below the upper dune material) is underlain by materials of three distinct compressional (P wave) seismic velocities. The uppermost zone (average P wave velocity of 5,400 ft per second) extends from about elevation 590 ft MSL down to elevation 545 ft MSL. This material is interpreted as the compact glacial lake deposits. The intermediate zone is generally found below elevation 545 ft MSL and extends downward to an average elevation of 430 ft MSL. This zone has an average P wave velocity of 6,700 ft per second and is probably composed of stiff lake clays and compact glacial till. Below about elevation 430 ft MSL in the vicinity of the Plant, the material has a P wave velocity of 10,000 ft per second. This material is interpreted as the bedrock sequence of Mississippian Coldwater shale. (Entergy, 2012a) 2.2 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis 2.2.1 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis Results In accordance with the 50.54(f) letter (U.S. NRC, 2012) and following the guidance in the SPID (EPRI, 2013a), 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 (CEUS-SSC, 2012) together with the updated Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Ground-Motion Model (GMM) for the Central and Eastern United States (CEUS) (EPRI, 201 3b). For the PSHA, a lower-bound moment magnitude of 5.0 was used, as specified in the 50.54(f) letter (U.S. NRC, 2012). (EPRI, 2014)

For the PSHA, the CEUS-SSC background seismic sources out to a distance of 400 miles (640 km) around PNP were included. This distance exceeds the 200 mile (320 km) recommendation contained in Reg. Guide 1.208 (U.S. NRC, 2007) and was chosen for completeness.

Background sources included in this site analysis are the following (EPRI, 2014):

1.

Illinois Basin Extended Basement (IBEB) 2.

Mesozoic and younger extended prior narrow (MESE-N) 5

2. 1 Regional and Local Geology Investigations of the geological conditions at the PNP Plant site were conducted in 1965 and 1966. The general geologic profile was disclosed by numerous borings in the areas of interest.

The sand dunes, which were excavated from the Plant site, rose steeply from elevation 582 ft Mean Sea Level (MSL) at the shore of Lake Michigan to about elevation 780 ft MSL at the site of the containment vessel. The dune sand extends down to a base elevation between 560 ft to 565 ft MSL. The dune sand is uniform in grain size and is generally loose above elevation 590 ft MSL and dense to very dense below this level. Beneath the dune sand is a stratum of gray sandy silt or silty sand extending to between elevation 518 ft MSL and elevation 530 ft MSL, which becomes finer with increasing depth with gray clay at the lower edge of the stratum.

Below this is dense glacial till down to bedrock which was encountered at elevation 440 ft MSL.

(Entergy,2012a)

A geophysical investigation performed in 1966 revealed that the site and vicinity (below the upper dune material) is underlain by materials of three distinct compressional (P wave) seismic velocities. The uppermost zone (average P wave velocity of 5,400 ft per secQnd) extends from about elevation 590 ft MSL down to elevation 545 ft MSL. This material is interpreted as the compact glacial lake deposits. The intermediate zone is generally found below elevation 545 ft MSL and extends downward to an average elevation of 430 ft MSL. This zone has an average P wave velocity of 6,700 ft per second and is probably composed of stiff lake clays and compact glacial till. Below about elevation 430 ft MSL in the vicinity of the Plant, the material has a P wave velocity of 10,000 ft per second. This material is interpreted as the bedrock sequence of Mississippian Coldwater shale. (Entergy, 2012a) 2.2 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis 2.2.1 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis Results In accordance with the 50.54(f) letter (U.S. NRC, 2012) and following the guidance in the SPID (EPRI, 2013a), a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) was completed using the recently developed Central and Eastern United States Seismic Source Characterization (CEUS-SSG) for Nuclear Facilities (CEUS-SSC, 2012) together with the updated Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Ground-Motion Model (GMM) for the Central and Eastern United States (CEUS) (EPRI, 2013b). For the PSHA, a lower-bound moment magnitude of 5.0 was used, as specified in the 50.54(f) letter (U.S. NRC, 2012). (EPRI, 2014)

For the PSHA, the CEUS-SSC background seismic sources out to a distance of 400 miles (640 km) around PNP were included. This distance exceeds the 200 mile (320 km) recommendation contained in Reg. Guide 1.208 (U.S. NRC, 2007) and was chosen for completeness.

Background sources included in this site analysis are the following (EPRI, 2014):

1. Illinois Basin Extended Basement (IBEB)

2. Mesozoic and younger extended prior - narrow (MESE-N) 5

3.

Mesozoic and younger extended prior wide (MESE-W) 4.

Midcontinent-Craton alternative A (MIDC_A) 5.

Midcontinent-Craton alternative B (MIDC_B) 6.

Midcontinent-Craton alternative C (MIDC_C) 7.

Midcontinent-Craton alternative D (MIDC_D) 8.

Non-Mesozoic and younger extended prior narrow (NMESE-N) 9.

Non-Mesozoic and younger extended prior wide (NMESE-W)

10. Paleozoic Extended Crust narrow (PEZ....N)

11. Paleozoic Extended Crust wide (PEZ..W)

12. Reelfoot Rift (RR)

13. Reelfoot Rift including the Rough Creek Graben (RR-RCG)

14. St. Lawrence Rift, including the Ottawa and Saguenay grabens (SLR)

15. Study region (STUDYR)

For sources of large magnitude earthquakes designated Repeated Large Magnitude Earthquake (RLME) sources in NUREG-2115 (CEUS-SSC, 2012) modeled for the CEUS-SSC, the following sources lie within 1,000 km of the site and were included in the analysis (EPRI, 2014):

1.

Commerce 2.

Eastern Rift Margin Fault northern segment (ERM-N) 3.

Eastern Rift Margin Fault southern segment (ERM-S) 4.

Marianna 5.

New Madrid Fault System (NMFS) 6.

Wabash Valley For each of the above background and RLME sources, the mid-continent version of the updated CEUS EPRI GMM was used. (EPRI, 2014) 2.2.2 Base Rock Seismic Hazard Curves Consistent with the SPID (EPRI, 2013a), 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 2.3.7 at the SSE control point elevation. (EPRI, 2014) 2.3 Site Response Evaluation Following the guidance contained in Seismic Enclosure 1 of the 50.54(f) Request for Information (U.S. NRC, 2012) and in the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) for nuclear power plant sites that are not founded on hard-rock (defined as 2.83 km/sec), a site response analysis was performed for PNP. (EPRI, 2014) 6

3. Mesozoic and younger extended prior - wide (MESE-W)

4. Midcontinent-Craton alternative A (MIDC_A)

5. Midcontinent-Craton alternative B (MIDC_B)

6. Midcontinent-Craton alternative C (MIDC_C)

7. Midcontinent-Craton alternative D (MIDC_D)

8. Non-Mesozoic and younger extended prior - narrow (NMESE-N)

9. Non-Mesozoic and younger extended prior - wide (NMESE-W)

10. Paleozoic Extended Crust narrow (PEZ_N)

11. Paleozoic Extended Crust wide (PEZ_W)

12. Reelfoot Rift (RR)

13. Reelfoot Rift including the Rough Creek Graben (RR-RCG)

14. St. Lawrence Rift, including the Ottawa and Saguenay grabens (SLR)

15. Study region (STUDY _R)

For sources of large magnitude earthquakes designated Repeated Large Magnitude Earthquake (RLME) sources in NUREG-2115 (CEUS-SSC, 2012) modeled for the CEUS-SSC, the following sources lie within 1,000 km of the site and were included in the analysis (EPRI, 2014):

1. Commerce

2. Eastern Rift Margin Fault northern segment (ERM-N)

3. Eastern Rift Margin Fault southern segment (ERM-S)

4. Marianna

5. New Madrid Fault System (NMFS)

6. Wabash Valley For each of the above background and RLME sources, the mid-continent version of the updated CEUS EPRI GMM was used. (EPRI, 2014) 2.2.2 Base Rock Seismic Hazard Curves Consistent with the SPID (EPRI, 2013a), 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 2.3.7 at the SSE control point elevation. (EPRI, 2014) 2.3 Site Response Evaluation Following the guidance contained in Seismic Enclosure 1 of the 50.54(f) Request for Information (U.S. NRC, 2012) and in the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) for nuclear power plant sites that are not founded on hard-rock (defined as 2.83 km/sec), a site response analysis was performed for PNP. (EPRI, 2014) 6

2.3.1 Description of Subsurface Material The information used to create the site geologic profile at PNP is shown in Table 2.3.1-1. Table 2.3.1-1 shows unit descriptions and estimated shear-wave velocities and densities. This profile was developed using information documented in Entergy (2012a). The SSE Control Point was taken to be at the top of Brown Dune Sand, very compact, and the profile was modeled up to this location (Entergy, 2012a). (EPRI, 2014)

The site consists of about 148 ft (45 m) of dune sand, clay, and glacial till overlying black massive shale. Due to uncertainty in the depth to reference rock conditions (shear-wave velocity of at least 9,285 ft/s, 2,830 mIs), six base-case shear-wave velocity profiles were developed to model amplification at the site. Profiles 1, 2, and 3 assume that hard basement rock occurs at a depth of 148 ft (45 m), and Profiles 4, 5, and 6 assume that hard rock is at a depth of 3238 ft (987 m). (EPRI, 2014)

The following description of the site geology is taken directly from Entergy (201 2a):

The Palisades Plant site is located in the Eastern Lake Section of the Central Lowland Physiographic Province. The land surface is mantled by glacial drift that ranges from a few feet to several hundred feet in thickness.

In the immediate vicinity of the Plant, sand dunes are the prevailing surface feature. [..] Underlying the dunes are glacial deposits of varying types which were deposited on bedrock consisting of Paleozoic Mississippian shale.

The dunes fronting Lake Michigan rise steeply from the shoreline (approximate elevation 582 feet MSL) to elevations ranging from elevation 820 feet MSL to elevation 780 feet MSL (near the site) and maintain an average width of about 5,000 feet for approximately two miles north to five miles south of the site. [..] Glacial lake deposits and ground moraine associated with the Covert Ridge terminal moraine are found within the basin.

The Coidwater shale of Mississippian age lies beneath the dunes and glacial deposits at the site. These sediments represent the last phase of marine deposition in the Paleozoic Michigan Basin. During subsequent Mesozoic and Cenozoic eras, the entire Great Lakes region apparently remained above sea level.

The bedrock, Coidwater shale, consists of compact blue, gray or occasionally red clay shale.

Drill Hole 21, located in the immediate vicinity of the containment building, established bedrock at elevation 440 feet MSL. A geophysical study near the site indicated top bedrock to be about 150 feet below the beach fronting Lake Michigan at an approximate elevation of 430 feet to 470 feet MSL.

7 2.3.1 Description of Subsurface Material The information used to create the site geologic profile at PNP is shown in Table 2.3.1-1. Table 2.3.1-1 shows unit descriptions and estimated shear-wave velocities and densities. This profile was developed using information documented in Entergy (2012a). The SSE Control Point was taken to be at the top of "Brown Dune Sand, very compact", and the profile was modeled up to this location (Entergy, 2012a). (EPRI, 2014)

The site consists of about 148 ft (45 m) of dune sand, clay, and glacial till overlying black massive shale. Due to uncertainty in the depth to reference rock conditions (shear-wave velocity of at least 9,285 ft/s, 2,830 m/s), six base-case shear-wave velocity profiles were developed to model amplification at the site. Profiles 1, 2, and 3 assume that hard basement rock occurs at a depth of 148 ft (45 m), and Profiles 4, 5, and 6 assume that hard rock is at a depth of 3238 ft (987 m). (EPRI, 2014)

The following description of the site geology is taken directly from Entergy (2012a):

"The Palisades Plant site is located in the Eastern Lake Section of the Central Lowland Physiographic Province. The land surface is mantled by glacial drift that ranges from a few feet to several hundred feet in thickness. In the immediate vicinity of the Plant, sand dunes are the prevailing surface feature. [.. ] Underlying the dunes are glacial deposits of varying types which were deposited on bedrock consisting of Paleozoic Mississippian shale."

"The dunes fronting Lake Michigan rise steeply from the shoreline (approximate elevation 582 feet MSL) to elevations ranging from elevation 820 feet MSL to elevation 780 feet MSL (near the site) and maintain an average width of about 5,000 feet for approximately two miles north to five miles south of the site. [.. ] Glacial lake deposits and ground moraine associated with the Covert Ridge terminal moraine are found within the basin."

"The Coldwater shale of Mississippian age lies beneath the dunes and glacial deposits at the site. These sediments represent the last phase of marine deposition in the Paleozoic Michigan Basin. During subsequent Mesozoic and Cenozoic eras, the entire Great Lakes region apparently remained above sea level. H "The bedrock, Coldwater shale, consists of compact blue, gray or occasionally red clay shale.

Drill Hole 21, located in the immediate vicinity of the containment building, established bedrock at elevation 440 feet MSL. A geophysical study near the site indicated top bedrock to be about 150 feet below the beach fronting Lake Michigan at an approximate elevation of 430 feet to 470 feet MSL. H 7

Table 2.3.1-1. Summary of Geotechnical Profile Data for PNP (Entergy, 2012a).

Shear Depth Wave Compressional Range Soil/Rock Density Velocity Wave Velocity Poissons (feet) a Description (pcf) e (fps)

(fps)h Ratio 9

Deepest Structure Foundation Elevation 564 ft (Portion of Auxiliary Bldg) 13 Ground Surface Elevation (589 ft MSL) 01O0c Brown DuneSand 115 100-Brown Dune Sand, very 130 750 0.30 to 1251 compact 0.48 125-Grey Fine-Grained Sand with 127 900 5400 0.48 148 trace of Silt 148-Grey Stiff Clay 135 1000 5400 0.48 170 170-Gray Very Stiff Gravelly Sandy 140 1600 6700 0.48 248 Clay (Glacial Till) 248+

Black Massive Shale (top 10 ft 170 9500 10000 weathered)

NOTES: Embedment depth for Containment (Reactor) Building is approximately 14-21 ft below plant grade at 589 ft. Water table varies between elevation 580 ft to 585 ft.

a Boring Log for hole nearest Containment Building (#21

- See FSAR (Entergy, 2012a) Figure 2.12 for variation in layer depth, use in conjunction with FSAR (Entergy, 2012a) Figures 2.10, 2.11 and 2.13).

13 Control Point was defined as being at the ground surface, in the free field (Elevation 575 ft to 600 ft).

C Dune sand from depth 0 ft to 100 ft was removed prior to plant construction.

d Plant Grade for the area of the Containment Building is at depth 100 ft, at elevation 589 ft.

e Estimated Densities (GEl Consultants, 1994).

Estimated Shear Wave Velocities (Best Estimate Values; GEl Consultants,1994).

Estimated Poisson Ratios. Best Estimate Values- 0.30 for dune sand above the water table (GEl Consultants,1994).

h See FSAR (Entergy, 2012a) Figure 2.15.

2.3.2 Development of Base Case Profiles and Nonlinear Material Properfies Table 2.3.1-1 (Entergy, 2012a) shows the recommended shear-wave velocities and unit weights along with depth ranges and corresponding stratigraphy. The SSE Control Point was taken to be at the top of Brown Dune Sand, very compact. (EPRI, 2014)

Shear-wave velocities listed on Table 2.3.1-1 were based on compressional-wave velocity measurements and estimated Poisson ratio (Entergy, 2012a). To develop the mean base-case profile, the listed shear-wave velocities and unit weights, which extend to a depth below the SSE of 148 ft (45 m), were used. To accommodate uncertainty in depth to hard rock conditions 8

Table 2.3.1-1. Summary of Geotechnical Profile Data for PNP (Entergy, 2012a).

Shear Depth Wave Compressional Range Soil/Rock Density Velocity Wave Velocity Poisson's (feet) a Description (pet) e (fps) f (fps)h Ratiog Deepest Structure Foundation Elevation - 564 ft (Portion of Auxiliary Bldg)

D Ground Surface Elevation (589 ft MSL) 0-100 c Brown Dune Sand 115 100-Brown Dune Sand, very 130 750 0.30 to 125 d compact 0.48 125-Grey Fine-Grained Sand with 127 900 5400 0.48 148 trace of Silt 148-Grey Stiff Clay 135 1000 5400 0.48 170 170-Gray Very Stiff Gravelly Sandy 140 1600 6700 0.48 248 Clay (Glacial Till) 248+

Black Massive Shale (top 10ft 170 9500 10000 weathered)

NOTES: Embedment depth for Containment (Reactor) Building is approximately 14-21 ft below plant grade at 589 ft. Water table varies between elevation 580 ft to 585 ft.

B Boring Log for hole nearest Containment Building (#21 - See FSAR (Entergy, 2012a) Figure 2.12 for variation in layer depth, use in conjunction with FSAR (Entergy, 2012a) Figures 2.10,2.11 and 2.13).

b Control Point was defined as being at the ground surface, in the free field (Elevation 575 ft to 600 ft).

C Dune sand from depth 0 ft to 100 ft was removed prior to plant construction.

d Plant Grade for the area of the Containment Building is at depth 100 ft, at elevation 589 ft.

e Estimated Densities (GEl Consultants, 1994).

f Estimated Shear Wave Velocities (Best Estimate Values; GEl Consultants,1994).

9 Estimated Poisson Ratios. Best Estimate Values- 0.30 for dune sand above the water table (GEl Consultants,1994).

h See FSAR (Entergy, 2012a) Figure 2.15.

2.3.2 Development of Base Case Profiles and Nonlinear Material Properties Table 2.3.1-1 (Entergy, 2012a) shows the recommended shear-wave velocities and unit weights along with depth ranges and corresponding stratigraphy. The SSE Control Point was taken to be at the top of "Brown Dune Sand, very compact". (EPRI, 2014)

Shear-wave velocities listed on Table 2.3.1-1 were based on compressional-wave velocity measurements and estimated Poisson ratio (Entergy, 2012a). To develop the mean base-case profile, the listed shear-wave velocities and unit weights, which extend to a depth below the SSE of 148 ft (45 m), were used. To accommodate uncertainty in depth to hard rock conditions 8

two depths were considered: 148 ft (45 m) (P1) (Table 2.3.2-1), and 3,238 ft (987 m) (P4)

(approximate depth to Precambnan basement rock from the nearest site (DC Cook)). For profile P4 the shear-wave velocity in the Paleozoic sedimentary rock (black massive shale) was assumed to be 5,000 ft/s (1,524 m/s) based on velocities in similar materials. The profiles were randomized +/-971 ft (+/-296 m). The depth randomization reflects +/-30% of the depth and was included to provide a realistic broadening of the fundamental resonance at deep sites rather than reflect actual random variations to basement shear-wave velocities across a footprint.

(EPRI, 2014)

Lower-and upper-range profiles, P2 and P3 respectively for shallow depths to Precambrian basement and P5 and P6 respectively for deep depths to hard reference rock were developed using a scale factor of 1.57 as the shear-wave velocities were inferred from compressional wave velocities and an estimated Poisson ratio. The scale factor of 1.57 reflect ai, of about 0.35 based on the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) 10 th and 90 th fractiles which implies a 1.28 scale factor on o. (EPRI, 2014)

The six base-case profiles are listed in Table 2.3.2-1, and shown in Figure 2.3.2-1. (EPRI, 2014) 9 two depths were considered: 148 ft (45 m) (P1) (Table 2.3.2-1), and 3,238 ft (987 m) (P4)

(approximate depth to Precambrian basement rock from the nearest site (DC Cook>>. For profile P4 the shear-wave velocity in the Paleozoic sedimentary rock (black massive shale) was assumed to be 5,000 ftls (1,524 m/s) based on velocities in similar materials. The profiles were randomized +/-971 ft (+/-296 m). The depth randomization reflects +/-30% of the depth and was included to provide a realistic broadening of the fundamental resonance at deep sites rather than reflect actual random variations to basement shear-wave velocities across a footprint.

(EPRI, 2014)

Lower-and upper-range profiles, P2 and P3 respectively for shallow depths to Precambrian basement and P5 and P6 respectively for deep depths to hard reference rock were developed using a scale factor of 1.57 as the shear-wave velocities were inferred from compressional-wave velocities and an estimated Poisson ratio. The scale factor of 1.57 reflect a~ln of about 0.35 based on the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) 10th and 90th fractiles which implies a 1.28 scale factor on a~. (EPRI, 2014)

The six base-case profiles are listed in Table 2.3.2-1, and shown in Figure 2.3.2-1. (EPRI, 2014) 9

Table 2.3.2-1. Layer thicknesses, depths, and shear-wave velocities (Vs) for 6 profiles, at PNP (EPRI. 2014) profile 1 profile 2 Profile 3 thickness depth Vs thickness depth Vs thickness depth Vs (ft)

(ft)

(ftls)

(ft)

(ft)

(ftls)

(ft)

(ft)

(ftls) 0 750 0

480 0

1177 5.0 5.0 750 5.0 5.0 480 5.0 5.0 1177 5.0 10.0 750 5.0 10.0 480 5.0 10.0 1177 5.0 15.0 750 5.0 15.0 480 5.0 15.0 1177 5.0 20.0 750 5.0 20.0 480 5.0 20.0 1177 5.0 25.0 750 5.0 25.0 480 5.0 25.0 1177 3.0 28.0 900 3.0 28.0 576 3.0 28.0 1413 5.0 33.0 900 5.0 33.0 576 5.0 33.0 1413 5.0 38.0 900 5.0 38.0 576 5.0 38.0 1413 5.0 43.0 900 5.0 43.0 576 5.0 43.0 1413 5.0 48.0 900 5.0 48.0 576 5.0 48.0 1413 2.0 50.0 1000 2.0 50.0 640 2.0 50.0 1570 5.0 55.0 1000 5.0 55.0 640 5.0 55.0 1570 5.0 60.0 1000 5.0 60.0 640 5.0 60.0 1570 5.0 65.0 1000 5.0 65.0 640 5.0 65.0 1570 5.0 70.0 1000 5.0 70.0 640 5.0 70.0 1570 5.0 75.0 1600 5.0 75.0 1024 5.0 75.0 2512 5.0 80.0 1600 5.0 80.0 1024 5.0 80.0 2512 5.0 85.0 1600 5.0 85.0 1024 5.0 85.0 2512 5.0 90.0 1600 5.0 90.0 1024 5.0 90.0 2512 5.0 95.0 1600 5.0 95.0 1024 5.0 95.0 2512 5.0 100.0 1600 5.0 100.0 1024 5.0 100.0 2512 5.0 105.0 1600 5.0 105.0 1024 5.0 105.0 2512 5.0 110.0 1600 5.0 110.0 1024 5.0 110.0 2512 5.0 115.0 1600 5.0 115.0 1024 5.0 115.0 2512 5.0 120.0 1600 5.0 120.0 1024 5.0 120.0 2512 5.0 125.0 1600 5.0 125.0 1024 5.0 125.0 2512 5.0 130.0 1600 5.0 130.0 1024 5.0 130.0 2512 5.0 135.0 1600 5.0 135.0 1024 5.0 135.0 2512 5.0 140.0 1600 5.0 140.0 1024 5.0 140.0 2512 5.0 145.0 1600 5.0 145.0 1024 5.0 145.0 2512 3.0 148.0 1600 3.0 148.0 1024 3.0 148.0 2512 6371.4 6519.4 9285 6371.4 6519.4 9285 6371.4 6519.4 9285 10 Table 2.3.2-1. Layer thicknesses, depths, and shear-wave velocities (Vs) for 6 profiles, at PNP (EPRI,2014)

Profile 1 Profile 2 Profile 3 thickness depth Vs thickness depth Vs thickness depth Vs (ft)

(ft)

(ft/s)

(ft)

(ft)

(ft/s)

(ft)

(ft)

(ft/s) 0 750 0

480 0

1177 5.0 5.0 750 5.0 5.0 480 5.0 5.0 1177 5.0 10.0 750 5.0 10.0 480 5.0 10.0 1177 5.0 15.0 750 5.0 15.0 480 5.0 15.0 1177 5.0 20.0 750 5.0 20.0 480 5.0 20.0 1177 5.0 25.0 750 5.0 25.0 480 5.0 25.0 1177 3.0 28.0 900 3.0 28.0 576 3.0 28.0 1413 5.0 33.0 900 5.0 33.0 576 5.0 33.0 1413 5.0 38.0 900 5.0 38.0 576 5.0 38.0 1413 5.0 43.0 900 5.0 43.0 576 5.0 43.0 1413 5.0 48.0 900 5.0 48.0 576 5.0 48.0 1413 2.0 50.0 1000 2.0 50.0 640 2.0 50.0 1570 5.0 55.0 1000 5.0 55.0 640 5.0 55.0 1570 5.0 60.0 1000 5.0 60.0 640 5.0 60.0 1570 5.0 65.0 1000 5.0 65.0 640 5.0 65.0 1570 5.0 70.0 1000 5.0 70.0 640 5.0 70.0 1570 5.0 75.0 1600 5.0 75.0 1024 5.0 75.0 2512 5.0 80.0 1600 5.0 80.0 1024 5.0 80.0 2512 5.0 85.0 1600 5.0 85.0 1024 5.0 85.0 2512 5.0 90.0 1600 5.0 90.0 1024 5.0 90.0 2512 5.0 95.0 1600 5.0 95.0 1024 5.0 95.0 2512 5.0 100.0 1600 5.0 100.0 1024 5.0 100.0 2512 5.0 105.0 1600 5.0 105.0 1024 5.0 105.0 2512 5.0 110.0 1600 5.0 110.0 1024 5.0 110.0 2512 5.0 115.0 1600 5.0 115.0 1024 5.0 115.0 2512 5.0 120.0 1600 5.0 120.0 1024 5.0 120.0 2512 5.0 125.0 1600 5.0 125.0 1024 5.0 125.0 2512 5.0 130.0 1600 5.0 130.0 1024 5.0 130.0 2512 5.0 135.0 1600 5.0 135.0 1024 5.0 135.0 2512 5.0 140.0 1600 5.0 140.0 1024 5.0 140.0 2512 5.0 145.0 1600 5.0 145.0 1024 5.0 145.0 2512 3.0 148.0 1600 3.0 148.0 1024 3.0 148.0 2512 6371.4 6519.4 9285 6371.4 6519.4 9285 6371.4 6519.4 9285 10

Table 2.3.2-1. Layer thicknesses, depths, and shear-wave velocities (Vs) for 6 profiles, at PNP (continued) (EPRI, 2014)

Profile 4 Drofile 5 Profile 6 thickness depth Vs thickness depth Vs thickness depth Vs (ft)

(ft)

(ftls)

(ft)

(ft)

(ft/s)

(ft)

(ft)

(ftls) 0 750 0

480 0

1177 5.0 5.0 750 5.0 5.0 480 5.0 5.0 1177 5.0 10.0 750 5.0 10.0 480 5.0 10.0 1177 5.0 15.0 750 5.0 15.0 480 5.0 15.0 1177 5.0 20.0 750 5.0 20.0 480 5.0 20.0 1177 5.0 25.0 750 5.0 25.0 480 5.0 25.0 1177 3.0 28.0 900 3.0 28.0 576 3.0 28.0 1413 5.0 33.0 900 5.0 33.0 576 5.0 33.0 1413 5.0 38.0 900 5.0 38.0 576 5.0 38.0 1413 5.0 43.0 900 5.0 43.0 576 5.0 43.0 1413 5.0 48.0 900 5.0 48.0 576 5.0 48.0 1413 2.0 50.0 1000 2.0 50.0 640 2.0 50.0 1570 5.0 55.0 1000 5.0 55.0 640 5.0 55.0 1570 5.0 60.0 1000 5.0 60.0 640 5.0 60.0 1570 5.0 65.0 1000 5.0 65.0 640 5.0 65.0 1570 5.0 70.0 1000 5.0 70.0 640 5.0 70.0 1570 5.0 75.0 1600 5.0 75.0 1024 5.0 75.0 2512 5.0 80.0 1600 5.0 80.0 1024 5.0 80.0 2512 5.0 85.0 1600 5.0 85.0 1024 5.0 85.0 2512 5.0 90.0 1600 5.0 90.0 1024 5.0 90.0 2512 5.0 95.0 1600 5.0 95.0 1024 5.0 95.0 2512 5.0 100.0 1600 5.0 100.0 1024 5.0 100.0 2512 5.0 105.0 1600 5.0 105.0 1024 5.0 105.0 2512 5.0 110.0 1600 5.0 110.0 1024 5.0 110.0 2512 5.0 115.0 1600 5.0 115.0 1024 5.0 115.0 2512 5.0 120.0 1600 5.0 120.0 1024 5.0 120.0 2512 5.0 125.0 1600 5.0 125.0 1024 5.0 125.0 2512 5.0 130.0 1600 5.0 130.0 1024 5.0 130.0 2512 5.0 135.0 1600 5.0 135.0 1024 5.0 135.0 2512 5.0 140.0 1600 5.0 140.0 1024 5.0 140.0 2512 5.0 145.0 1600 5.0 145.0 1024 5.0 145.0 2512 3.0 148.0 1600 3.0 148.0 1024 3.0 148.0 2512 20.4 168.4 5000 20.4 168.4 3200 20.4 168.4 7850 20.4 188.8 5000 20.4 188.8 3200 20.4 188.8 7850 20.4 209.2 5000 20.4 209.2 3200 20.4 209.2 7850 20.4 229.6 5000 20.4 229.6 3200 20.4 229.6 7850 20.4 250.0 5000 20.4 250.0 3200 20.4 250.0 7850 22.6 272.6 5000 22.6 272.6 3200 22.6 272.6 7850 22.6 295.2 5000 22.6 295.2 3200 22.6 295.2 7850 11 Table 2.3.2-1. Layer thicknesses, depths, and shear-wave velocities (Vs) for 6 profiles, at PNP (continued) (EPRI 20141 Profile 4 Profile 5 Profile 6 thickness depth Vs thickness depth Vs thickness depth Vs (ft)

(ft)

(ft/s)

(ft)

(ft)

(ft/s)

(ft)

(ft)

(ft/~

0 750 0

480 0

1177 5.0 5.0 750 5.0 5.0 480 5.0 5.0 1177 5.0 10.0 750 5.0 10.0 480 5.0 10.0 1177 5.0 15.0 750 5.0 15.0 480 5.0 15.0 1177 5.0 20.0 750 5.0 20.0 480 5.0 20.0 1177 5.0 25.0 750 5.0 25.0 480 5.0 25.0 1177 3.0 28.0 900 3.0 28.0 576 3.0 28.0 1413 5.0 33.0 900 5.0 33.0 576 5.0 33.0 1413 5.0 38.0 900 5.0 38.0 576 5.0 38.0 1413 5.0 43.0 900 5.0 43.0 576 5.0 43.0 1413 5.0 48.0 900 5.0 48.0 576 5.0 48.0 1413 2.0 50.0 1000 2.0 50.0 640 2.0 50.0 1570 5.0 55.0 1000 5.0 55.0 640 5.0 55.0 1570 5.0 60.0 1000 5.0 60.0 640 5.0 60.0 1570 5.0 65.0 1000 5.0 65.0 640 5.0 65.0 1570 5.0 70.0 1000 5.0 70.0 640 5.0 70.0 1570 5.0 75.0 1600 5.0 75.0 1024 5.0 75.0 2512 5.0 80.0 1600 5.0 80.0 1024 5.0 80.0 2512 5.0 85.0 1600 5.0 85.0 1024 5.0 85.0 2512 5.0 90.0 1600 5.0 90.0 1024 5.0 90.0 2512 5.0 95.0 1600 5.0 95.0 1024 5.0 95.0 2512 5.0 100.0 1600 5.0 100.0 1024 5.0 100.0 2512 5.0 105.0 1600 5.0 105.0 1024 5.0 105.0 2512 5.0

'110.0 1600 5.0 110.0 1024 5.0 110.0 2512 5.0 115.0 1600 5.0 115.0 1024 5.0 115.0 2512 5.0 120.0 1600 5.0 120.0 1024 5.0 120.0 2512 5.0 125.0 1600 5.0 125.0 1024 5.0 125.0 2512 5.0 130.0 1600 5.0 130.0 1024 5.0 130.0 2512 5.0 135.0 1600 5.0 135.0 1024 5.0 135.0 2512 5.0 140.0 1600 5.0 140.0 1024 5.0 140.0 2512 5.0 145.0 1600 5.0 145.0 1024 5.0 145.0 2512 3.0 148.0 1600 3.0 148.0 1024 3.0 148.0 2512 20.4 168.4 5000 20.4 168.4 3200 20.4 168.4 7850 20.4 188.8 5000 20.4 188.8 3200 20.4 188.8 7850 20.4 209.2 5000 20.4 209.2 3200 20.4 209.2 7850 20.4 229.6 5000 20.4 229.6 3200 20.4 229.6 7850 20.4 250.0 5000 20.4 250.0 3200 20.4 250.0 7850 22.6 272.6 5000 22.6 272.6 3200 22.6 272.6 7850 22.6 295.2 5000 22.6 295.2 3200 22.6 295.2 7850 11

Table 2.3.2-1. Layer thicknesses, depths, and shear-wave velocities (Vs) for 6 profiles, at PNP (continued) (EPRI, 2014) rofile 4 Profile 5 Profile 6 thickness depth Vs thickness depth Vs thickness depth Vs (ft)

(ft)

(ftls)

(ft)

(ft)

(ftls)

(ft)

(ft)

(ftls) 22.6 317.8 5000 22.6 317.8 3200 22.6 317.8 7850 22.6 340.5 5000 22.6 340.5 3200 22.6 340.5 7850 22.6 363.1 5000 22.6 363.1 3200 22.6 363.1 7850 22.6 385.7 5000 22.6 385.7 3200 22.6 385.7 7850 22.6 408.3 5000 22.6 408.3 3200 22.6 408.3 7850 22.6 430.9 5000 22.6 430.9 3200 22.6 430.9 7850 22.6 453.5 5000 22.6 453.5 3200 22.6 453.5 7850 22.6 476.1 5000 22.6 476.1 3200 22.6 476.1 7850 23.9 500.0 5000 23.9 500.0 3200 23.9 500.0 7850 152.1 652.1 5000 152.1 652.1 3200 152.1 652.1 7850 152.1 804.2 5000 152.1 804.2 3200 152.1 804.2 7850 164.0 968.2 5000 164.0 968.2 3200 164.0 968.2 7850 164.0 1132.3 5000 164.0 1132.3 3200 164.0 1132.3 7850 164.0 1296.3 5000 164.0 1296.3 3200 164.0 1296.3 7850 164.0 1460.3 5000 164.0 1460.3 3200 164.0 1460.3 7850 164.0 1624.4 5000 164.0 1624.4 3200 164.0 1624.4 7850 164.0 1788.4 5000 164.0 1788.4 3200 164.0 1788.4 7850 164.0 1952.5 5000 164.0 1952.5 3200 164.0 1952.5 7850 164.0 2116.5 5000 164.0 2116.5 3200 164.0 2116.5 7850 164.0 2280.6 5000 164.0 2280.6 3200 164.0 2280.6 7850 164.0 2444.6 5000 164.0 2444.6 3200 164.0 2444.6 7850 164.0 2608.6 5000 164.0 2608.6 3200 164.0 2608.6 7850 164.0 2772.7 5000 164.0 2772.7 3200 164.0 2772.7 7850 164.0 2936.7 5000 164.0 2936.7 3200 164.0 2936.7 7850 301.8 3238.6 5000 301.8 3238.6 3200 301.8 3238.6 7850 3280.8 6519.4 9285 3280.8 6519.4 9285 3280.8 6519.4 9285 12 Table 2.3.2-1. Layer thicknesses, depths, and shear-wave velocities (Vs) for 6 profiles, at PNP (continued) (EPRI, 2014)

Profile 4 Profile 5 Profile 6 thickness depth Vs thickness depth Vs thickness depth Vs (ft)

(ft)

(ft/s)

(ft)

(ft)

(ft/s)

(ft)

(ft)

(ft/s) 22.6 317.8 5000 22.6 317.8 3200 22.6 317.8 7850 22.6 340.5 5000 22.6 340.5 3200 22.6 340.5 7850 22.6 363.1 5000 22.6 363.1 3200 22.6 363.1 7850 22.6 385.7 5000 22.6 385.7 3200 22.6 385.7 7850 22.6 408.3 5000 22.6 408.3 3200 22.6 408.3 7850 22.6 430.9 5000 22.6 430.9 3200 22.6 430.9 7850 22.6 453.5 5000 22.6 453.5 3200 22.6 453.5 7850 22.6 476.1 5000 22.6 476.1 3200 22.6 476.1 7850 23.9 500.0 5000 23.9 500.0 3200 23.9 500.0 7850 152.1 652.1 5000 152.1 652.1 3200 152.1 652.1 7850 152.1 804.2 5000 152.1 804.2 3200 152.1 804.2 7850 164.0 968.2 5000 164.0 968.2 3200 164.0 968.2 7850 164.0 1132.3 5000 164.0 1132.3 3200 164.0 1132.3 7850 164.0 1296.3 5000 164.0 1296.3 3200 164.0 1296.3 7850 164.0 1460.3 5000 164.0 1460.3 3200 164.0 1460.3 7850 164.0 1624.4 5000 164.0 1624.4 3200 164.0 1624.4 7850 164.0 1788.4 5000 164.0 1788.4 3200 164.0 1788.4 7850 164.0 1952.5 5000 164.0 1952.5 3200 164.0 1952.5 7850 164.0 2116.5 5000 164.0 2116.5 3200 164.0 2116.5 7850 164.0 2280.6 5000 164.0 2280.6 3200 164.0 2280.6 7850 164.0 2444.6 5000 164.0 2444.6 3200 164.0 2444.6 7850 164.0 2608.6 5000 164.0 2608.6 3200 164.0 2608.6 7850 164.0 2772.7 5000 164.0 2772.7 3200 164.0 2772.7 7850 164.0 2936.7 5000 164.0 2936.7 3200 164.0 2936.7 7850 301.8 3238.6 5000 301.8 3238.6 3200 301.8 3238.6 7850 3280.8 6519.4 9285 3280.8 6519.4 9285 3280.8 6519.4 9285 12

0 Vs Profiles 1, 2, and 3 for Palisades site Vs (Wsec) 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 20 8000 40 9000 10000 60 80 100 120 140 Profile 1 Profile 2 Profile 3 160 Vs Profiles 4, 5, and 6 for Palisades site Vs (ftlsec) 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 0

I 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

1

Profile 4 Profile 5 Profile 6 Figure 2.3.2-1. Shear-wave velocity profiles for the PNP site (EPRI, 2014) 13 Vs Profiles 1, 2, and 3 for Palisades site V*lft/sec) 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 BOOO 7000 8000 9000 10000 0

1 20 40

-~---- -. ---- -----. ------ -------- -----_____ 0._----------- ---------. -._-------_.-

50 Protilel g

.c 80 a

I Protile2 100 I

Profile 3 120 140 160 I

Vs Profiles 4, 5, and 6 for Palisades site Va 1ft/sec) o 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 BOOO 7000 6000 9000 10000 o

500 I

Profile 4 1000 1500 g

t

.! 2000 Profile 5 2500 Profile S 3000 3500 I

Figure 2.3.2-1. Shear-wave velocity profiles for the PNP site (EPRI, 2014) 13

2.3.2.1 Shear Modulus and Damping Curves No site-specific nonlinear dynamic material properties were available for PNP for the soils or firm rock. The firm soil material over the upper 148 ft (45 m) was assumed to have behavior that could be modeled with either EPRI cohesionless soil or Peninsular Range GIGm< and hysteretic damping curves (EPRI, 2013a). To reflect epistemic uncertainty in non-linear dynamic material properties, the deeper firm rock material at the site was assumed to have behavior that could be modeled as either linear or non-linear. Consistent with the SPID (EPRI, 201 3a), the EPRI soil and rock curves (model Ml) were considered to be appropriate to represent the upper range nonlinearity likely in the materials at the site and Peninsular Range (PR) curves for soils combined with linear analyses (model M2) for firm rock was assumed to represent an equally plausible less nonlinear alternative response across loading level. For the linear firm rock analyses, the low strain damping from the EPRI rock curves were used as the constant damping values in the upper 500 ft (150 m) in the profile. (EPRI, 2014) 2.3.2.2 Kappa Because two base case profiles (median and upper range and the lower range) have been defined for the Palisades site, two sets of kappa values are required for the site response analyses. Base-case kappa estimates were determined using Section 8-5.1.3.1 of the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) 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

100

) 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 Q 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 PNP site, with about 3,000 ft (1 km) of firm rock, a Q 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 was considered appropriate for the deep profiles (P4, P5 and P6). (EPRI, 2014)

For the shallow PNP profiles (P1, P2 and P3) with about 148 ft (45m) of soils over hard reference rock, the kappa value of 0.006 s for hard rock (EPRI, 2013a) dominates profile damping. The 148 ft (45 m) of soils, based on the low-strain damping from the EPRI soil GIGmax and hysteretic damping curves, reflects a contribution of only about 0.003 s, with the addition of the hard basement rock value of 0.006 s resulting in a total kappa for Profile P1 of 0.009 s (SPID (EPRI, 201 3a)) (Table 2.3.2-2). As a result, the dominate source of epistemic uncertainty in low strain kappa was assumed to be incorporated in the reference rock hazard. Additionally, at higher loading levels of significance to design, epistemic uncertainty in profile damping (kappa) is accommodated in the EPRI and PR G/Gmax and hysteretic damping curves for these profiles. (EPRI, 2014)

For the deeper profiles (P4, P5 and P6), with about 3,000 ft (914 m) to hard rock site conditions, the estimates of kappa were based on the low-strain damping in the hysteretic damping curves over the top 500 ft (152 m) plus the assumption of a constant hysteretic damping of 1.25 (Qs of

40) for the remaining firm rock profile in addition to a kappa value of 0.006 s for hard-rock, 14 2.3.2.1 Shear Modulus and Damping Curves No site-specific nonlinear dynamic material properties were available for PNP for the soils or firm rock. The firm soil material over the upper 148 ft (45 m) was assumed to have behavior that could be modeled with either EPRI cohesion less soil or Peninsular Range G/Gmax and hysteretic damping curves (EPRI, 2013a). To reflect epistemic uncertainty in non-linear dynamic material properties, the deeper firm rock material at the site was assumed to have behavior that could be modeled as either linear or non-linear. Consistent with the SPIO (EPRI, 2013a), the EPRI soil and rock curves (model M1) were considered to be appropriate to represent the upper range nonlinearity likely in the materials at the site and Peninsular Range (PR) curves for soils combined with linear analyses (model M2) for firm rock was assumed to represent an equally plausible less nonlinear alternative response across loading level. For the linear firm rock analyses, the low strain damping from the EPRI rock curves were used as the constant damping values in the upper 500 ft (150 m) in the profile. (EPRI, 2014) 2.3.2.2 Kappa Because two base case profiles (median and upper range and the lower range) have been defined for the Palisades site, two sets of kappa values are required for the site response analyses. Base-case kappa estimates were determined using Section B-5.1.3.1 of the SPIO (EPRI, 2013a) 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 (VS100) 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 Os 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 PNP site, with about 3,000 ft (1 km) of firm rock, a Os 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 was considered appropriate for the deep profiles (P4, P5 and P6). (EPRI, 2014)

For the shallow PNP profiles (P1, P2 and P3) with about 148 ft (45m) of soils over hard reference rock, the kappa value of 0.006 s for hard rock (EPRI, 2013a) dominates profile damping. The 148 ft (45 m) of soils, based on the low-strain damping from the EPRI soil G/Gmax and hysteretic damping curves, reflects a contribution of only about 0.003 s, with the addition of the hard basement rock value of 0.006 s resulting in a total kappa for Profile P1 of 0.009 s (SPIO (EPRI, 2013a)) (Table 2.3.2-2). As a result, the dominate source of epistemic uncertainty in low strain kappa was assumed to be incorporated in the reference rock hazard. Additionally, at higher loading levels of significance to design, epistemic uncertainty in profile damping (kappa) is accommodated in the EPRI and PR G/Gmax and hysteretic damping curves for these profiles. (EPRI, 2014)

For the deeper profiles (P4, P5 and P6), with about 3,000 ft (914 m) to hard rock site conditions, the estimates of kappa were based on the low-strain damping in the hysteretic damping curves over the top 500 ft (152 m) plus the assumption of a constant hysteretic damping of 1.25 (Os of

40) for the remaining firm rock profile in addition to a kappa value of 0.006 s for hard-rock, 14

conditioned with an upper bound of 0.04 s (EPRI, 201 3a). For base-case profiles P4, P5, and P6 the kappa contributions from the profiles was 0.007 s, 0.032 s, and 0.013 s respectively.

The total kappa values, after adding the hard reference rock value of 0.006 s, were 0013 s, 0.038 s, and 0.019 s respectively (Table 2.3.2-2). The range in kappa from 0.007 s to 0.038 s was considered to reflect a sufficient characterization of epistemic uncertainty in damping for the profile (Table 2.3.2-2). (EPRI, 2014)

Table 2.3.2-2. Kappa Values and Weights Used for Site Response Analyses. (EPRI, 2014)

Velocity Profile Kaa(s)

GlGmax and Hysteretic Damping Weights Curves Ml 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 PNP site, random shear wave velocity profiles were developed from the base case profiles shown in Figure 2.3.2-1. Consistent with the discussion in Appendix B of the SPID (EPRI, 2013a), the velocity randomization procedure made use of random field models which describe the statistical correlation between layering and shear wave velocity. The default randomization parameters developed in the Description and Validation of the Stochastic Ground Motion Model (Toro, 1997) for United States Geological Survey (USGS) A site conditions were used for this site. 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 (EPRI, 2013a), correlation of shear wave velocity between layers was modeled using the USGS A correlation model.

In the correlation model, a limit of +/-2 standard deviations about the median value in each layer was assumed for P1 P2 P3 P4 PS P6 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 0.09 0.010 0.008 0.013 0.038 0.019 Weights 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.20 0.

0.

1 1

5 5

15 conditioned with an upper bound of 0.04 s (EPRI, 2013a). For base-case profiles P4, P5, and P6 the kappa contributions from the profiles was 0.007 s, 0.032 s, and 0.013 s respectively.

The total kappa values, after adding the hard reference rock value of 0.006 s, were 0.013 s, 0.038 s; and 0.019 s respectively (Table 2.3.2-2). The range in kappa from 0.007 s to 0.038 s was considered to reflect a sufficient characterization of epistemic uncertainty in damping for the profile (Table 2.3.2-2). (EPRI, 2014)

Table 2.3.2-2. Kappa Values and Weights Used for Site Response Analyses. (EPRI, 2014)

Velocity Profile Kappa(s)

P1 0.009 P2 0.010 P3 0.008 P4 0.013 P5 0.038 P6 0.019 Weights P1 0.20 P2 0.15 P3 0.15 P4 0.20 P5 0.15 P6 0.15 G/Gmax and Hysteretic Damping Weights 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 PNP site, random shear wave velocity profiles were developed from the base case profiles shown in Figure 2.3.2-1. Consistent with the discussion in Appendix B of the SPID (EPRI, 2013a), the velocity randomization procedure made use of random field models which describe the statistical correlation between layering and shear wave velocity. The default randomization parameters developed in the Description and Validation of the Stochastic Ground Motion Model (Toro, 1997) for United States Geological Survey (USGS) "An site conditions were used for this site. 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 (EPRI, 2013a), correlation of shear wave velocity between layers was modeled using the USGS A correlation model. In the correlation model, a limit of +/-2 standard deviations about the median value in each layer was assumed for 15

the limits on random velocity fluctuations. All random velocities were limited to be less than or equal to 9830 ft/s. (EPRI, 2014) 2.3.4 Input Spectra Consistent with the guidance in Appendix B of the SPID (EPRI, 2013a), input Fourier amplitude spectra were defined for a single representative earthquake magnitude (M 6.5) 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) ranging from 0.01 to 1.5g) were used in the site response analyses. The characteristics of the seismic source and upper crustal attenuation properties assumed for the analysis of the PNP site were the same as those identified in Tables B-4, B-5, B-6 and B-7 of the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) as appropriate for typical CEUS sites. (EPRI, 2014) 2.3.5 Methodology To perform the site response analyses for the PNP 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 (EPRI, 2013a). The guidance contained in Appendix B of the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) 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 PNP site. (EPRI, 2014) 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 (EPRI, 2013a) 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.Olg to 1.50g) for profile P1 and EPRI soil and rock G/Gmax and hysteretic damping curves. 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 in the soils at the PNP site, Figure 2.3.6-2 shows the corresponding amplification factors developed with Peninsular Range G/Gmax and hysteretic damping curves for soil (model M2). Figures 2.3.6-1 and Figure 2.3.6-2 respectively show only a relatively minor difference for the 0.3g loading level and below. Above about the 0.3g loading level, the differences increase mainly in frequencies above about 1 Hz.

Tabulated values of the amplification factors are provided in Appendix A, For Information Only.

(EPRI, 2014) 16 the limits on random velocity fluctuations. All random velocities were limited to be less than or equal to 9830 ftls. (EPRI, 2014) 2.3.4 Input Spectra Consistent with the guidance in Appendix 8 of the SPID (EPRI, 2013a), input Fourier amplitude spectra were defined for a single representative earthquake magnitude (M 6.5) using two different assumptions regarding the shape of the seismic source spectrum (single-comer and double-corner). A range of 11 different input amplitudes (median peak ground accelerations (PGA) ranging from 0.01 to 1.5g) were used in the site response analyses. The characteristics of the seismic source and upper crustal attenuation properties assumed for the analysis of the PNP site were the same as those identified in Tables 8-4, 8-5, 8-6 and 8-7 of the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) as appropriate for typical CEUS sites. (EPRI, 2014) 2.3.5 Methodology To perform the site response analyses for the PNP 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 (EPRI, 2013a). The guidance contained in Appendix 8 of the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) 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 PNP site. (EPRI, 2014) 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 (EPRI, 2013a) 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 (O.01g to 1.50g) for profile P1 and EPRI soil and rock GIG max and hysteretic damping curves. 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 in the soils at the PNP site, Figure 2.3.6-2 shows the corresponding amplification factors developed with Peninsular Range G/Gmax and hysteretic damping curves for soil (model M2). Figures 2.3.6-1 and Figure 2.3.6-2 respectively show only a relatively minor difference for the 0.3g loading level and below. Above about the 0.3g loading level, the differences increase mainly in frequencies above about 1 Hz.

Tabulated values of the amplification factors are provided in Appendix A, For Information Only.

(EPRI,2014) 16

C 4-,

Li a: U C

C Ea:

C 4-,

Li 44 C C

0 a:

0 C

fll1PLIFICflTION, PflL.ISflDES, N1P1KI M 65, 1 CORNER FGL I 0F 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 soil and 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.Olg to 1.50g.

M 6.5 and single-corner source model (EPRI, 2013a). (EPRI, 2014)

C IrIFIJT t10T1 0.01G INPUT *DTICI1 0.05G tNPUT N0TK1 O.LOG I

Iulilpil I

I 1111111 I

111111 tNPUT M0T11 O.20G INPUT N0TI1 C,0C INPUT P1OTICH 040G 101 1.00 C

101 in 2

Fre9uerlcH (Hz) 0 lOl 102 Frecjunc (Hz) 17 c-og M;'~ 1':\\

g 4J I\\:.~.\\.-.~--

otl I

u r

~o 0

f_ 9

~

a..

e a:

I INPUT MOTION O.OIG I

INPUT I'KlTION O. OSG g

~

c...

0°

~

4J otl U

0 0

t"" g g

a..

e a:...

I INPUT ~OTION a. lOG I

II'flUT ~OTIQi a.zaG g

s c-

.~ :!

g

+'

n::l U

~o

.~ 0 g

Cl...

e a:...

I II'FUT,""OTIai a. 30G I

INPUT I'()TION 0.4OG g

9 10 -1 to 0 10 1 10 2 10 -1 10 0 10 1 10 2 Freguenc~ (Hz)

Freguenc~ (Hz)

AMPLIFICATION 1 PALISADES 1 M1P1Kl M 6.5) 1 CORNER PAGE 1 OF Z 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 soil and rock modulus reduction and hysteretic damping curves (model M1), 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-comer source model (EPRI, 2013a). (EPRI, 2014) 17

cc9,

C) 40 0

0-E C

0 I[PJT MOTIcN 15IJG 0

0 0

0 Pi[1PLIFICTION, PflLIS1DES, M1P1K1 M 6.5, 1

CORNER PRGL OF ?

Figure 2.3.6-1.(cont.)

18 0

I 1111111 I

I IIIIILI I

INPUT nOT]ft 0500 0

0 J%

INPUT MDT)W 1.000 I

INPUT WJTIt 0.750 I

11111114 I

11111111 1111111

}

INPUT FIOTICH 1.250 C-,

-I-,

4-)

40 0

0-S C

C C02 44 In 1-)

40

• - 0 0-S C

0 0

ia io to 1

io 2

FrequencH (Hz) c....

0 0

.~....

Id u ::c

....... 0 Cl...

E a: -

I 9

c-OO 10 U

0

.,..... 9 Cl...

E a:

i 9

c-og 00 U ;:Q

....... 0 Cl...

E a: i' 0.....

INPUT I'IOTlOi O. SOC IIflUT "'Oll Oi 1. OOG ItPUT PIOTI Oi 1. 50G 10 -1 10 0 10 1 10 2 FrequE'nc~ (Hz) 0....

Q

~

CJ ItRlT I'klTIIl'! O.75G S

0

~

I INPUT I1OTIOi I. 2SG 9

AMPLIFICATION, PALISADES, M1P1Kl M 6.5, 1 CORNER PAGE Z OF Z Figure 2.3.6-1.(cont.)

18

I 11111111 I

11111111 I

III1IT INPUT IIOTICH 0,010 INPUT t10TI1 0.050 o

0 c*_

4 I

I Jill I

II1l1l

I 11111111 I

IIIII1J1 I

I INPUT MOTICH 0.LOG INPUT NOTIW O.2X o

0 I

11111111 11111111 illIlil

INPUT NOTIQI 0.300 INPUT MOTION 0.400 o

o to 1

toO 101 io2 101 100 io2 Frequency (Hz)

Frc9uencd (Hz)

PMPL1FICTI0N, PLISflDES, M2PIKI ri 6.5, 1 CORNER PFICE 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), Peninsular Range modulus reduction and hysteretic damping curves for soil and linear site response for rock (model M2), and base-case kappa (Ki) at eleven loading levels of hard-rock median peak acceleration values from 0.Olg to 1.50g.

M 6.5 and single-corner source model (EPRI, 2013a). (EPRI, 2014) 19 c-og

+'

Itl u

~c

.~ CJ -

c....

E cr: i' 5!

c-og

+'

0tI U

~o 11"""\\

Q..

E cr: -,

9 c-

.!2 ~

+'

0tI U

~CI

.~ CI a....

E a:....,

g c

5!

II'flUT !'lOTI Ctl O. 01 G INPUT I'IOTiCtl O.OSC g

g 0

g INPUT ~OTION a.LOG i'

II'RlT MOTION O. 2(};

g 9

'" 9 IN~JT "OTlON O.llG INPUT OOTION O.40G 9

10 -1 LOO 10 1 10 2 10 -1 100 10 I F requenc~ (Hz) rrE'9uE'nc~ (Hz )

AMPLIFICATION, PALISADES, M2P1K1 M 6.5, 1 CORNER PAGE 1 OF Z 10 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). Peninsular Range modulus reduction and hysteretic damping curves for soil and linear site response for rock (model M2). 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-comer source model (EPRI, 2013a). (EPRI. 2014) 19

C.-.

Li 40

• rl C

C S

C C

C 4-,

0 C

0 C

Sa:

0 C08 4-,

0 C) 4C I.-

C 0-C Frecjuericy (Hz)

PMPLIFICiTI0N, PflLISflDES, C

C C

C M 6.5, 1

CORNER PF4GL OF Figure 23.6-2.(cont.)

M2P1KI C

INPUT NOTIO1 0 SOC C

C

,s INPUT NOTICIl L(]JG E

INPUT MOTICH 1750 I

1(111111 I

I 1111111 I

111111

%.%i INPUT MOTICN 1.2%

C C\\.i INPUT NOTICII 1.500 C a 1

io 101 rn 2

20 c.....

I~ g to u

,+-0 1,-1 ~

a...

e

<J:

c-09

+J to U

~o

.~ 0.....

Cl..

e cr:...

I e I

ItRlT ItOTI<l'/ O. SIlG INPUT ItlTI(}f O. 7SG 9

/'0,

~

INPUT 1'I0TI<l'/ l.OOG I

INPUT /'IOTI<l'/ 1.25(;

INPUT !q0T! (1-1 1. 50G

~ ~~LL~~-L~~~~~"~

10 -}

to 0 10 1 10 2 FrE.'quE'nc~ (Hz)

AMPLIFICATION, PALISADES, M2P1Kl M 6.S, 1 CORNER PAGE Z Of Z Figure 2.3.6-2.(cont.)

20

2.3.7 Control Point Seismic Hazard Cuives 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 (EPRI, 2013a).

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 PNP are shown in Figure 2.3.7-1 for the seven spectral frequencies for which ground motion equations are defined. Tabulated values of mean and fractile seismic hazard curves and site response amplification functions are provided in Appendix A. (EPRI, 2014)

Figure 2.3.7-1. Control point mean hazard curves for spectral frequencies of 0.5, 1.0, 2.5, 5.0, 10, 25 and PGA (100 Hz) at PNP. (EPRI, 2014) 2.4 Control Point Response Spectrum The control point hazard curves described above have been used to develop uniform hazard response spectra (UHRS) and the GMRS. The UHRS were obtained through linear interpolation in log-log space to estimate the spectral acceleration at each spectral frequency for Total Mean Soil Hazard by Spectral Frequency at Palisades 1E-2 1E-3 U

w 25Hz a)a) 10Hz 1E-4 5Hz 0

PGA UC 2.5 Hz 1E-5 a) 1Hz 0.5 Hz C

1E-6 1E-7 0.01 10 Spectral acceleration (g) 0.1 1

21 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 8-6.0 of the SPID (EPRI, 2013a).

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 PNP are shown in Figure 2.3.7-1 for the seven spectral frequencies for which ground motion equations are defined. Tabulated values of mean and fractile seismic hazard curves and site response amplification functions are provided in Appendix A. (EPRI, 2014)

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

~-:"'~ ":.j:=t-:-:-j-'H-j-'

'1-"

• • • • i*-

~=

c----. r-- ----- C:.::F*

IU 1E-3 u c:

IU

'tS IU IU u

lE-4

)(

IU -

0 u c:

IU

~ 1E-5 0"

I!!

"::l'IIo. '

'r

~"'I ~

~

f--

-+- --t-

~

- h "I"

~~

~~

.~

I I---

~"~

-~. -.-~

1--

!~ --- -

1-'-

, '\\.

~

~~

c"X:

c:--:=:", "

, ~,

-25Hz 10Hz 5Hz PGA 2.5 Hz 1Hz 1'-

IU

~

c:

c:

1E-6 C[

c-

~'rr

~r\\

~

=~

'4"1 -

-," f-'\\.'

0.5 Hz

"..J.- I-i-l.

.~

" ~

~

~

-I-

~.

1E-7 0.01 0.1 1

10 Spectral acceleration (g)

Figure 2.3.7-1. Control point mean hazard curves for spectral frequencies of 0.5, 1.0,2.5,5.0, 10,25 and PGA (100 Hz) at PNP. (EPRI, 2014) 2.4 Control Point Response Spectrum The control point hazard curves described above have been used to develop uniform hazard response spectra (UHRS) and the GMRS. The UHRS were obtained through linear interpolation in log-log space to estimate the spectral acceleration at each spectral frequency for 21

the i0 4 and 1O per year hazard levels. Table 2.4-1 shows the UHRS and GMRS accelerations for a range of frequencies. (EPRI, 2014) 22 the 10-4 and 10.5 per year hazard levels. Table 2.4-1 shows the UHRS and GMRS accelerations for a range of frequencies. (EPRI, 2014) 22

Table 2.4-1. UHRS and GMRS for PNP. (EPRI, 2014)

Freq.

iO UHRS i0 UHRS GMRS (Hz)

(g)

(g)

(g) 100 2.02E-01 5.82E-01 2.83E-01 90 2.03E-01 5.91 E-01 2.87E-01 80 2.05E-01 6.03E-01 2.92E-01 70 2.09E-01 6.20E-01 2.99E-01 60 2.18E-01 6.50E-01 3.13E-01 50 2.38E-01 7.08E-01 3.41 E-01 40 2.71 E-01 8.02E-O1 3.87E-01 35 2.88E-01 8.55E-01 4.13E-01 30 3.I1E-01 9.24E-01 4.46E-01 25 3.41 E-01 1.03E+00 4.93E-01 20 3.52E-01 1.06E÷00 5.11E-01 15 3.92E-01 1.12E+00 5.46E-01 12.5 3.78E-01 1.13E+00 5.43E-01 10 4.03E-01 1.12E+00 5.49E-01 9

4.1OE-01 1.14E+00 5.59E-01 8

3.85E-01 1.13E+00 5.49E-01 7

3.51 E-01 1.06E+00 5.08E-01 6

3.51 E-01 9.87E-01 4.82E-01 5

3.46E-01 9.52E-01 4.66E-01 4

3.22E-01 8.96E-01 4.38E-01 3.5 3.12E-01 8.47E-01 4.16E-01 3

2.75E-01 7.47E-01 3.67E-01 2.5 2.41 E-01 6.17E-01 3.07E-01 2

2.28E-01 5.82E-01 2.90E-01 1.5 1.86E-01 4.47E-01 2.25E-01 1.25 1.63E-01 3.73E-01 1.90E-01 1

1.22E-01 2.96E-01 1.49E-01 0.9 1.04E-01 2.61E-01 1.30E-01 0.8 8.77E-02 2.24E-01 1.11E-01 0.7 7.50E-02 1.90E-01 9.47E-02 0.6 6.47E-02 1.59E-01 7.97E-02 0.5 5.52E-02 1.29E-01 6.51E-02 0.4 4.42E-02 1.03E-01 5.21 E-02 0.35 3.87E-02 9.OOE-02 4.56E-02 0.3 3.31E-02 7.71E-02 3.91E-02 0.25 2.76E-02 6.43E-02 3.26E-02 0.2 2.21 E-02 5.14E-02 2.60E-02 0.15 1.66E-02 3.86E-02 1.95E-02 0.125 1.38E-02 3.21E-02 1.63E-02 0.1 1.1OE-02 2.57E-02 1.30E-02 23 Table 2.4-1. UHRS and GMRS for PNP. (EPRI, 2014)

Freq.

10-4 UHRS 10-::' UHRS GMRS (Hz)

(g)

(g)

(g) 100 2.02E-01 5.B2E-01 2.B3E-01 90 2.03E-01 5.91E-01 2.B7E-01 BO 2.05E-01 S.03E-01 2.92E-01 70 2.09E-01 S.20E-01 2.99E-01 SO 2.18E-01 S.50E-01 3.13E-01 50 2.3BE-01 7.0BE-01 3.41 E-01 40 2.71E-01 B.02E-01 3.B7E-01 35 2.BBE-01 B.55E-01 4.13E-01 30 3.11 E-01 9.24E-01 4.4SE-01 25 3.41E-01 1.03E+00 4.93E-01 20 3.52E-01 1.0SE+00 5.11 E-01 15 3.92E-01 1.12E+00 5.4SE-01 12.5 3.78E-01 1.13E+00 5.43E-01 10 4.03E-01 1.12E+00 5.49E-01 9

4.10E-01 1.14E+00 5.59E-01 B

3.B5E-01 1.13E+00 5.49E-01 7

3.51 E-01 1.0SE+00 5.0BE-01 S

3.51E-01 9.B7E-01 4.B2E-01 5

3.4SE-01 9.52E-01 4.S6E-01 4

3.22E-01 B.96E-01 4.38E-01 3.5 3.12E-01 B.47E-01 4.16E-01 3

2.75E-01 7.47E-01 3.67E-01 2.5 2.41 E-01 S.17E-01 3.07E-01 2

2.2BE-01 5.B2E-01 2.90E-01 1.5 1.BSE-01 4.47E-01 2.25E-01 1.25 1.63E-01 3.73E-01 1.90E-01 1

1.22E-01 2.9SE-01 1.49E-01 0.9 1.04E-01 2.S1E-01 1.30E-01 0.8 B.77E-02 2.24E-01 1.11 E-01 0.7 7.50E-02 1.90E-01 9.47E-02 0.6 6.47E-02 1.59E-01 7.97E-02 0.5 5.52E-02 1.29E-01 6.51E-02 0.4

. 4.42E-02 1.03E-01 5.21E-02 0.35 3.B7E-02 9.00E-02 4.56E-02 0.3 3.31E-02 7.71E-02 3.91E-02 0.25 2.7SE-02 6.43E-02 3.26E-02 0.2 2.21E-02 5.14E-02 2.60E-02 0.15 1.66E-02 3.86E-02 1.95E-02 0.125 1.38E-02 3.21E-02 1.63E-02 0.1 1.10E-02 2.57E-02 1.30E-02 23

The i0 4 and UHRS are used to compute the GMRS at the control point and are shown in Figure 2.4-1. (EPRI, 2014)

Mean Soil UHRS and GMRS at Palisades Figure 2.4-1. UHRS for io and i0 5 and GMRS at control point for PNP (5%-damped response spectra). (EPRI, 2014) 3.0 Plant Design Basis and Beyond Design Basis Evaluation Ground Motion The seismic design basis for PNP is discussed in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (Entergy, 2012a). An evaluation for Beyond Design Basis (BDB) ground motions was performed for the resolution of Generic Letter 88-20, Supplement 4, for the Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) (U.S. NRC, 1991).

3.1 Safe Shutdown Earthquake Description of Spectral Shape The SSE was developed through an evaluation of the maximum earthquake potential for the region surrounding the site. Considering the historic seismicity of the site region, PNP is located in Zone VIII on the Richter seismic regionalization map (Richter, 1959) with a maximum probable seismic intensity of VIII (MMI). A detailed evaluation of historic epicenters, the regional geology, and a study of actual foundation conditions at the site indicated that a Zone VIII assignment was too conservative for PNP. It was determined, based on the foundation conditions at the PNP site, that a reduction in probable maximum intensity to between VI and VII 1.4 1.2 1.

C0 O.8 O.6 n

0.4 0.2 0.

1E-5 UHRS GM RS 1E-4 UHRS 0.1 1

10 Spectral frequency, Hz 100 24 The 10-4 and 10-5 UHRS are used to compute the GMRS at the control point and are shown in Figure 2.4-1. (EPRI, 2014)

QO c'

0

'.f;O I!

cu Gi u

U IV I!...

u cu Q.

I/)

Mean Soil UHRS and GMRS at Palisades 1.4 1.2

1.

lE-SUHRS 0.8

-GMRS lE-4UHRS 0.6 0.4 0.2

o.

0.1 1

10 100 Spectral frequency, Hz Figure 2.4-1. UHRS for 10-4 and 10-5 and GMRS at control point for PNP (5%-damped response spectra). (EPRI, 2014) 3.0 Plant Design Basis and Beyond Design Basis Evaluation Ground Motion The seismic design basis for PNP is discussed in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (Entergy, 2012a). An evaluation for Beyond Design Basis (BOB) ground motions was performed for the resolution of Generic Letter 88-20, Supplement 4, for the Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) (U.S. NRC, 1991).

3.1 Safe Shutdown Earthquake Description of Spectral Shape The SSE was developed through an evaluation of the maximum earthquake potential for the region surrounding the site. ConSidering the historic seismicity of the site region, PNP is located in Zone VIII on the Richter seismic regionalization map (Richter, 1959) with a maximum probable seismic intensity of VIII (MMI). A detailed evaluation of historic epicenters, the regional geology, and a study of actual foundation conditions at the site indicated that a Zone VIII assignment was too conservative for PNP. It was determined, based on the foundation conditions at the PNP site, that a reduction in probable maximum intensity to between VI and VII 24

(MMI) was warranted. However, because of the uncertainties involved in associating regional activity with specific geologic structures, a conservative value of O.2g PGA was used as the SSE. (Entergy, 2012a)

The SSE is defined in terms of a PGA and a design response spectrum. The horizontal ground design spectrum was generated by averaging several acceleration spectra from actual earthquake records, normalized to the same maximum ground acceleration. The average response spectrum thus obtained covers a variety of foundation conditions ranging from rock to deep alluvium. This spectrum is commonly referred to as the Housner spectrum. Table 3.1-1 shows the spectral acceleration (SA) values as a function of frequency for the 5% damped horizontal SSE. (Entergy, 2012a)

Table 3.1-1. SSE for PNP (Entergy, 2012a).

Freq.(Hz) 100 25 10 5

2.5 1

0.5 SA (g) 0.2 0.206 0.24 0.310 0.285 0.16 0.096 3.2 Control Point Elevation The SSE control point elevation is defined at the ground surface, in the free field (Entergy, 2012a).

3.3 IPEEE Description and Capacity Response Spectrum A Level I Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) with a Containment Performance Analysis was performed during the scope of the IPEEE assessment, however this assessment was not reviewed in detail as PNP will not be screening-out based on the revised GMRS. (Entergy, 1996) 4.0 Screening Evaluation In accordance with SPID (EPRI, 2013a) Section 3, a screening evaluation was performed as described below.

4.1 Risk Evaluation Screening (1 to 10 Hz)

In the ito 10 Hz part of the response spectrum, the GMRS exceeds the SSE. Therefore, the Palisades Nuclear Plant screens-in for a risk evaluation.

4.2 High Frequency Screening (> 10 Hz)

In the frequency range greater than 10 Hz, the GMRS exceeds the SSE. The high frequency exceedances can be addressed in the risk evaluation discussed in 4.1 above.

25 (MMI) was warranted. However, because of the uncertainties involved in associating regional activity with specific geologic structures, a conservative value of 0.2g PGA was used as the SSE. (Entergy, 2012a)

The SSE is defined in terms of a PGA and a design response spectrum. The horizontal ground design spectrum was generated by averaging several acceleration spectra from actual earthquake records, normalized to the same maximum ground acceleration. The average response spectrum thus obtained covers a variety of foundation conditions ranging from rock to deep alluvium. This spectrum is commonly referred to as the "Housner" spectrum. Table 3.1-1 shows the spectral acceleration (SA) values as a function of frequency for the 5% damped horizontal SSE. (Entergy, 2012a)

Table 3.1-1. SSE for PNP (Entergy, 2012a).

Freq. (Hz) 100 25 10 5

2.5 1

0.5 SA (g) 0.2 0.206 0.24 0.310 0.285 0.16 0.096 3.2 Control Point Elevation The SSE control point elevation is defined at the ground surface, in the free field (Entergy, 2012a).

3.3IPEEE Description and Capacity Response Spectrum A Level 1 Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) with a Containment Performance Analysis was performed during the scope of the IPEEE assessment, however this assessment was not reviewed in detail as PNP will not be screening-out based on the revised GMRS. (Entergy, 1996) 4.0 Screening Evaluation In accordance with SPID (EPRI, 2013a) Section 3, a screening evaluation was performed as described below.

4.1 Risk Evaluation Screening (1 to 10 Hz)

In the 1 to 10Hz part of the response spectrum, the GMRS exceeds the SSE. Therefore, the Palisades Nuclear Plant screens-in for a risk evaluation.

4.2 High Frequency Screening (> 10 Hz)

In the frequency range greater than 10 Hz, the GMRS exceeds the SSE. The high frequency exceedances can be addressed in the risk evaluation discussed in 4.1 above.

25

4.3 Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation Screening (1 to 10 Hz)

In the ito 10 Hz part of the response spectrum, the GMRS exceeds the SSE. Therefore, the Palisades Nuclear Plant screens-in for a Spent Fuel Pool evaluation.

5.0 Interim Actions Based on the screening evaluation, the expedited seismic evaluation described in EPRI 3002000704 (EPRI, 2013c) will be performed as proposed in a letter to the NRC (ML13101A379) dated April 9, 2013 (NEI, 2013) and agreed to by the NRC (ML13106A331) in a letter dated May 7, 2013 (U.S. NRC, 2013).

Consistent with NRC letter (ML14030A046) dated February 20, 2014 (U.S. NRC, 2014), the seismic hazard reevaluations presented herein are distinct from the current design and licensing bases of PNP. Therefore, the results do not call into question the operability or functionality of SSCs and are not reportable pursuant to 10 CFR 50.72, Immediate notification requirements for operating nuclear power reactors, and 10 CFR 50.73, Licensee event report system.

The NRC letter also requests that licensees provide an interim evaluation or actions to demonstrate that the plant can cope with the reevaluated hazard while the expedited approach and risk evaluations are conducted.

In response to that request, NEI letter dated March 12, 2014 (NEI, 2014), 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 (U.S. NRC, 2010):

Overall seismic core damage risk estimates are consistent with the Commissions Safety Goal Policy Statement because they are within the subsidiary objective of I0 4

/year for core damage frequency. The GI-i99 Safety/Risk Assessment, based in part on information from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRCs) 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.

PNP is included in the March 12, 2014 risk estimates. Using the methodology described in the NFl letter, all plants were shown to be below 10 4

/year; thus, the above conclusions apply (NEI, 2014).

In accordance with the Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3, PNP performed seismic walkdowns using the guidance in EPRI Report 1025286 (EPRI, 2012). The seismic walkdowns were completed and captured in Fukushima Seismic Walkdown Report PNP-RPT-12-00141 (Entergy, 201 2b). The goal of the walkdowns was to verify current plant configuration with the existing licensing basis, to verify the current maintenance plans, and to identify any 26 4.3 Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation Screening (1 to 10 Hz)

In the 1 to 10Hz part of the response spectrum, the GMRS exceeds the SSE. Therefore, the Palisades Nuclear Plant screens-in for a Spent Fuel Pool evaluation.

5.0 Interim Actions Based on the screening evaluation, the expedited seismic evaluation described in EPRI 3002000704 (EPRI, 2013c) will be performed as proposed in a letter to the NRC (ML13101A379) dated April 9, 2013 (NEI, 2013) and agreed to by the NRC (ML13106A331) in a letter dated May 7,2013 (U.S. NRC, 2013).

Consistent with NRC letter (ML14030A046) dated February 20,2014 (U.S. NRC, 2014), the seismic hazard reevaluations presented herein are distinct from the current design and licensing bases of PNP. Therefore, the results do not call into question the operability or functionality of SSCs and are not reportable pursuant to 10 CFR 50.72, "Immediate notification requirements for operating nuclear power reactors," and 10 CFR 50.73, "Licensee event report system".

The NRC letter also requests that licensees provide an interim evaluation or actions to demonstrate that the plant can cope with the reevaluated hazard while the expedited approach and risk evaluations are conducted. In response to that request, NElletter dated March 12, 2014 (NEI, 2014), 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-199 Safety/Risk Assessment (U.S. NRC, 2010):

Overall seismic core damage risk estimates are consistent with the Commission's Safety Goal Policy Statement because they are within the subsidiary objective of 1 0-4/year for core damage frequency. The GI-199 Safety/Risk Assessment, based in part on information from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Individual Plant Examination of Extemal 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.

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

In accordance with the Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3, PNP performed seismic walkdowns using the guidance in EPRI Report 1025286 (EPRI, 2012). The seismic walkdowns were completed and captured in Fukushima Seismic Walkdown Report PNP-RPT-12-00141 (Entergy, 2012b). The goal of the walkdowns was to verify current plant configuration with the existing licensing basis, to verify the current maintenance plans, and to identify any 26

vulnerabilities. The walkdown also verified that any vulnerabilities identified in the IPEEE (Entergy, 1996) are adequately addressed. The results of the walkdown, including any identified corrective actions, confirm that PNP can adequately respond to a seismic event.

6.0 Conclusions In accordance with the 50.54(f) request for information (U.S. NRC, 2012), a seismic hazard and screening evaluation was performed for PNP. A GMRS was developed solely for purpose of screening for additional evaluations in accordance with the SPID (EPRI, 2013a). Based on the results of the screening evaluation, the Palisades Nuclear Plant screens-in for a risk evaluation, a Spent Fuel Pool evaluation, and a High Frequency Confirmation.

7.0 References 10 CFR Part 50. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50, Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC.

10 CFR Part 50.72. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50.72, Immediate Notification Requirements for Operating Nuclear Power Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC.

10 CFR Part 50.73. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50.73, Licensee Event Report System, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC.

10 CFR Part 100. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 100, Reactor Site Criteria, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC.

CEUS-SSC (2012). Central and Eastern United States Seismic Source Characterization for Nuclear Facilities, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report, NUREG-21 15; EPRI Report 1021097, 6 Volumes; DOE Report# DOE/NE-0140.

Entergy (1996). Consumers Power Co. letter to NRC, Submittal of Revised IPEEE Report Based on Reanalysis of Internal Fires, May 31, 1996.

Entergy (2012a). Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. letter, PNP 2012-067, Palisades Nuclear Power Plant Final Safety Analysis Report Update Revision 30, Docket 50-255, October 18, 2012.

Entergy (2012b). Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. letter, PNP 2012-102, Seismic Walkdown Report Response to NRC Request for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f)

Regarding the Seismic Aspects of Recommendation 2.3 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-lchi Accident, dated November 27, 2012.

(ADMAS Accession Number ML12334A093)

EPRI (2012). EPRI 1025286, Seismic Walkdown Guidance for Resolution of Fukushima Near Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3: Seismic, June 2012.

EPRI (2013a). EPRI 1025287, Seismic Evaluation Guidance Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic, Feb. 2013.

EPRI (2013b). EPRI 3002000707, EPRI (2004, 2006) Ground-Motion Model (GMM) Review Project, 2 Volumes, June 2013.

27 vulnerabilities. The walkdown also verified that any vulnerabilities identified in the IPEEE (Entergy, 1996) are adequately addressed. The results of the walkdown, including any identified corrective actions, confirm that PNP can adequately respond to a seismic event.

6.0 Conclusions In accordance with the 50.54(f) request for information (U.S. NRC, 2012), a seismic hazard and screening evaluation was performed for PNP. A GMRS was developed solely for purpose of screening for additional evaluations in accordance with the SPID (EPRI, 2013a). Based on the results of the screening evaluation, the Palisades Nuclear Plant screens-in for a risk evaluation, a Spent Fuel Pool evaluation, and a High Frequency Confirmation.

7.0 References 10 CFR Part 50. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC.

10 CFR Part 50.72. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50.72, "Immediate Notification Requirements for Operating Nuclear Power Reactors," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC.

10 CFR Part 50.73. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50.73, "Licensee Event Report System," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC.

10 CFR Part 100. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 100, "Reactor Site Criteria," U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC.

CEUS-SSC (2012). "Central and Eastern United States Seismic Source Characterization for Nuclear Facilities," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report, NUREG-2115; EPRI Report 1021097,6 Volumes; DOE Report# DOE/NE-0140.

Entergy (1996). Consumers Power Co. letter to NRC, "Submittal of Revised IPEEE Report Based on Reanalysis of Internal Fires," May 31, 1996.

Entergy (2012a). Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. letter, PNP 2012-067, "Palisades Nuclear Power Plant Final Safety Analysis Report Update - Revision 30," Docket 50-255, October 18, 2012.

Entergy (2012b). Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. letter, PNP 2012-102, "Seismic Walkdown Report - Response to NRC Request for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f)

Regarding the Seismic Aspects of Recommendation 2.3 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Accident," dated November 27, 2012.

(ADMAS Accession Number ML12334A093)

EPRI (2012). EPRI 1025286, "Seismic Walkdown Guidance for Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3: Seismic," June 2012.

EPRI (2013a). EPR11025287, "Seismic Evaluation Guidance Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic," Feb. 2013.

EPRI (2013b). EPR13002000707, "EPRI (2004, 2006) Ground-Motion Model (GMM) Review Project," 2 Volumes, June 2013.

27

EPRI (2013c). EPRI 3002000704, Seismic Evaluation Guidance, Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic, May 2013.

EPRI (2014). Palisades Seismic Hazard and Screening Report, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, dated February 7, 2014.

GEl Consultants (1994). Soils Report for IPEEE, Revision 1, March 1994.

Toro (1997). Appendix of: Silva, W.J., Abrahamson, N., Toro, G., and Costantino, C. (1997).

Description and Validation of the Stochastic Ground Motion Model, Report Submitted to Brookhaven National Laboratory, Associated Universities, Inc., Upton, New York 11973, Contract No. 770573.

NEI (2013). NEI Letter to NRC, Proposed Path Forward for NTTF Recommendation 2.1:

Seismic Reevaluations, April 9, 2013.

NEI (2014).

NEI Letter to NRC, Seismic Risk Evaluations for Plants in the Central and Eastern United States, March 12, 2014.

Richter (1959). Seismic Regionalization, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Volume 49, No. 2, 1959.

U.S. NRC (1991). Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities

- 10CFR 50.54(f) (Generic Letter No. 88-20, Supplement 4),

June28, 1991.

U.S. NRC (2007). A Performance-Based Approach to Define the Site-Specific Earthquake Ground Motion, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Reg. Guide 1.208.

U.S. NRC (2010). Implications of Updated Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Estimates in Central and Eastern United States on Existing Plants, Gl-199, September 2, 2010.

U.S. NRC (2012). NRC (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-lchi Accident, March 12, 2012.

U.S. NRC (2013). NRC Letter, Eric J. Leeds to Joseph E. Pollock, NEI Electric Power Research Institute Final Draft Report X)O(XXX, 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 Reevaluation, dated May 7, 2013.

U.S. NRC (2014). NRC Letter, Eric J. Leeds to All Power Reactor Licensees, 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-Ichi Accident, dated February 20, 2014.

28 EPRI (2013c). EPRI 3002000704, "Seismic Evaluation Guidance, Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic," May 2013.

EPRI (2014). "Palisades Seismic Hazard and Screening Report," Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, dated February 7, 2014.

GEl Consultants (1994). "Soils Report for IPEEE," Revision 1, March 1994.

Toro (1997). Appendix of: Silva, W.J., Abrahamson, N., Toro, G., and Costantino, C. (1997).

"Description and Validation of the Stochastic Ground Motion Model," Report Submitted to Brookhaven National Laboratory, Associated Universities, Inc., Upton, New York 11973, Contract No. 770573.

NEI (2013). NEI Letter to NRC, "Proposed Path Forward for NTTF Recommendation 2.1:

Seismic Reevaluations," April 9, 2013.

NEI (2014). NEI Letter to NRC, "Seismic Risk Evaluations for Plants in the Central and Eastern United States," March 12,2014.

Richter (1959). "Seismic Regionalization," Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Volume 49, No.2, 1959.

U.S. NRC (1991). "Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities - 10CFR 50.54(f) (Generic Letter No. 88-20, Supplement 4),"

June 28, 1991.

U.S. NRC (2007). "A Performance-Based Approach to Define the Site-Specific Earthquake Ground Motion," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Reg. Guide 1.208.

U.S. NRC (2010). "Implications of Updated Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Estimates in Central and Eastern United States on Existing Plants," GI-199, September 2,2010.

U.S. NRC (2012). NRC (E Leeds and M Johnson) Letter to All Power Reactor Licensees et aI.,

"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.

U.S. NRC (2013). NRC Letter, Eric J. Leeds to Joseph E. Pollock, 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 Reevaluation," dated May 7,2013.

U.S. NRC (2014). NRC Letter, Eric J. Leeds to All Power Reactor Licensees, "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-Ichi Accident," dated February 20,2014.

28

Appendix A Tabulated Data 29 Appendix A Tabulated Data 29

Table A-la. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 100 Hz (PGA) at PNP (EPRI, 2014)

AMPS(g)

MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 5.92E-02 3.37E-02 4.31E-02 6.OOE-02 7.55E-02 8.47E-02 0.001 4.96E-02 2.32E-02 3.42E-02 4.90E-02 6.54E-02 7.66E-02 0.005 l.89E-02 6.64E-03 1.1IE-02 l.77E-02 2.68E-02 3.52E-02 0.01 l.03E-02 3.19E-03 5.42E-03 9.24E-03 l.46E-02 2.13E-02 0.015 6.83E-03 1.92E-03 3.23E-03 5.91E-03 9.93E-03 1.51E-02 0.03 2.87E-03 6.73E-04 1.1OE-03 2.22E-03 4.31E-03 7.66E-03 0.05 1.29E-03 2.49E-04 4.13E-04 8.98E-04 1.92E-03 3.84E-03 0.075 6.34E-04 9.79E-05 1.74E-04 4.07E-04 9.65E-04 1.95E-03 0.1 3.77E-04 5.12E-05 9.37E-05 2.29E-04 5.83E-04 1.18E-03 0.15 1.78E-04 1.90E-05 3.84E-05 1.04E-04 2.80E-04 5.75E-04 0.3 4.61E-05 2.76E-06 6.64E-06 2.57E-05 7.45E-05 1.57E-04 0.5 1.48E-05 4.50E-07 I.44E-06 7.77E-06 2.49E-05 5.20E-05 0.75 5.18E-06 9.24E-08 3.90E-07 2.35E-06 9.11E-06 1.90E-05 1.

2.21E-06 2.76E-08 1.40E-07 8.72E-07 3.95E-06 8.47E-06 1.5 5.75E-07 4.31E-09 2.53E-08 1.82E-07 1.04E-06 2.39E-06 3.

4.37E-08 1.53E-10 6.17E-10 8.47E-09 6.83E-08 1.92E-07 5.

5.91E-09 9.51E-11 1.21E-10 6.64E-10 7.13E-09 2.57E-08 7.5 1.09E-09 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 1.51E-10 1.04E-09 4.63E-09 10.

3.OIE-10 8.12E-11 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 2.92E-10 1.32E-09 30 Table A-1a. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 100 Hz (PGA) at PNP (EPRI 2014)

AMPS(91 MEAN O.OS 0.16 O.SO 0.84 0.9S O.OOOS S.92E-02 3.37E-02 4.31E-02 6.00E-02 7.SSE-02 B.47E-02 0.001 4.96E-02 2.32E-02 3.42E-02 4.90E-02 6.54E-02 7.66E-02 O.OOS 1.B9E-02 6.64E-03 1.11E-02 1.77E-02 2.6BE-02 3.S2E-02 0.01 1.03E-02 3.19E-03 S.42E-03 9.24E-03 1.46E-02 2.13E-02 0.01S 6.B3E-03 1.92E-03 3.23E-03 S.91E-03 9.93E-03 1.S1 E-02 0.03 2.B7E-03 6.73E-04 1.10E-03 2.22E-03 4.31E-03 7.66E-03 O.OS 1.29E-03 2.49E-04 4.13E-04 B.9BE-04 1.92E-03 3.84E-03 0.07S 6.34E-04 9.79E-OS 1.74E-04 4.07E-04 9.6SE-04 1.9SE-03 0.1 3.77E-04 S.12E-OS 9.37E-OS 2.29E-04 S.B3E-04 1.1BE-03 0.1S 1.7BE-04 1.90E-OS 3.B4E-OS 1.04E-04 2.BOE-04 S.7SE-04 0.3 4.61E-OS 2.76E-06 6.64E-06 2.S7E-OS 7.4SE-OS 1.S7E-04 O.S 1.4BE-OS 4.S0E-07 1.44E-06 7.77E-06 2.49E-OS S.20E-OS 0.7S S.1BE-06 9.24E-OB 3.90E-07 2.3SE-06 9.11 E-06 1.90E-OS

1.

2.21E-06 2.76E-OB 1.40E-07 B.72E-07 3.9SE-06 B.47E-06 1.S S.7SE-07 4.31E-09 2.S3E-OB 1.B2E-07 1.04E-06 2.39E-06

3.

4.37E-OB 1.S3E-10 6.17E-10 B.47E-09 6.B3E-OB 1.92E-07 S.

S.91E-09 9.S1E-11 1.21E-10 6.64E-10 7.13E-09 2.S7E-OB 7.S 1.09E-09 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 1.S1E-10 1.04E-09 4.63E-09

10.

3.01 E-10 B.12E-11 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 2.92E-10 1.32E-09 30

Table A-lb. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 25 Hz at PNP (EPRI, 20l4 AMPS(g)

MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 6.14E-02 3.84E-02 4.50E-02 6.17E-02 7.77E-02 8.60E-02 0.001 5.34E-02 2.92E-02 3.79E-02 5.35E-02 6.93E-02 7.89E-02 0.005 2.40E-02 9.93E-03 1.46E-02 2.25E-02 3.33E-02 4.31E-02 0.01 l.43E-02 5.12E-03 7.89E-03 l.31E-02 2.O1E-02 2.84E-02 0.015 l.OIE-02 3.33E-03 5.20E-03 8.98E-03 l.44E-02 2.1OE-02 0.03 4.92E-03 l.27E-03 2.04E-03 4.07E-03 7.55E-03 l.16E-02 0.05 2.51E-03 4.43E-04 7.66E-04 l.90E-03 4.OIE-03 6.73E-03 0.075 1.36E-03 1.57E-04 3.05E-04 9.65E-04 2.19E-03 3.95E-03 0.1 8.52E-04 7.77E-05 l.60E-04 5.66E-04 1.40E-03 2.60E-03 0.15 4.30E-04 3.28E-05 6.83E-05 2.68E-04 7.23E-04 1.34E-03 0.3 1.27E-04 9.65E-06 2.IOE-05 7.45E-05 2.13E-04 4.25E-04 0.5 4.86E-05 4.07E-06 9.I1E-06 2.76E-05 8.23E-05 l.62E-04 0.75 2.09E-05 1.74E-06 4.25E-06 l.13E-05 3.63E-05 7.13E-05 1.

1.07E-05 8.35E-07 2.13E-06 5.66E-06 1.90E-05 3.68E-05 1.5 3.67E-06 2.04E-07 5.83E-07 2.O1E-06 6.64E-06 1.27E-05 3.

4.74E-07 5.75E-09 3.05E-08 2.39E-07 9.24E-07 l.74E-06 5.

1.34E-07 2.88E-10 2.19E-09 2.32E-08 2.80E-07 6.45E-07 7.5 5.82E-08 l.21E-10 2.35E-l0 3.O1E-09 l.21E-07 3.14E-07 10.

3.27E-08 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 7.66E-10 6.73E-08 1.82E-07 31 Table A-1b. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 25 Hz at PNP

~EPRI, 2014 AMPS(g)

MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 6.14E-02 3.84E-02 4.S0E-02 6.17E-02 7.77E-02 B.60E-02 0.001 S.34E-02 2.92E-02 3.79E-02 S.3SE-02 6.93E-02 7.B9E-02 0.005 2.40E-02 9.93E-03 1.46E-02 2.2SE-02 3.33E-02 4.31E-02 0.01 1.43E-02 S.12E-03 7.B9E-03 1.31E-02 2.01E-02 2.B4E-02 0.015 1.01 E-02 3.33E-03 S.20E-03 B.9BE-03 1.44E-02 2.10E-02 0.03 4.92E-03 1.27E-03 2.04E-03 4.07E-03 7.SSE-03 1.16E-02 0.05 2.S1E-03 4.43E-04 7.66E-04 1.90E-03 4.01E-03 6.73E-03 0.075 1.36E-03 1.S7E-04 3.0SE-04 9.6SE-04 2.19E-03 3.9SE-03 0.1 B.S2E-04 7.77E-OS 1.60E-04 S.66E-04 1.40E-03 2.60E-03 0.15 4.30E-04 3.2BE-OS 6.B3E-OS 2.6BE-04 7.23E-04 1.34E-03 0.3 1.27E-04 9.6SE-06 2.10E-OS 7.4SE-OS 2.13E-04 4.2SE-04 0.5 4.B6E-OS 4.07E-06 9.11E-06 2.76E-OS B.23E-OS 1.62E-04 0.75 2.09E-OS 1.74E-06 4.2SE-06 1.13E-OS 3.63E-OS 7.13E-OS

1.

1.07E-OS B.3SE-07 2.13E-06 S.66E-06 1.90E-OS 3.6BE-OS 1.5 3.67E-06 2.04E-07 S.B3E-07 2.01E-06 6.64E-06 1.27E-OS

3.

4.74E-07 S.7SE-09 3.0SE-OB 2.39E-07 9.24E-07 1.74E-06

5.

1.34E-07 2.BBE-10 2.19E-09 2.32E-OB 2.BOE-07 6.4SE-07 7.5 S.B2E-OB 1.21E-10 2.3SE-10 3.01E-09 1.21E-07 3.14E-07

10.

3.27E-OB 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 7.66E-10 6.73E-OB 1.B2E-07 31

Table A-ic. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 10 Hz at PNP (EPRI, 2014)

AMPS(g)

MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 6.49E-02 4.37E-02 4.83E-02 6.45E-02 8.12E-02 8.85E-02 0.001 5.98E-02 3.84E-02 4.43E-02 6.OOE-02 7.55E-02 8.35E-02 0.005 3.i7E-02 i.53E-02 2.04E-02 3.05E-02 4.31E-02 5.20E-02 0.01 1.93E-02 8.23E-03 i.15E-02 1.82E-02 2.72E-02 3.42E-02 0.015 1.37E-02 5.35E-03 7.66E-03 1.27E-02 i.95E-02 2.57E-02 0.03 6.89E-03 2.i9E-03 3.33E-03 6.09E-03 i.04E-02 1.42E-02 0.05 3.72E-03 i.OiE-03 1.55E-03 3.09E-03 5.83E-03 8.47E-03 0.075 2.1OE-03 4.90E-04 7.77E-04 1.67E-03 3.37E-03 5.20E-03 0.1 1.34E-03 2.80E-04 4.63E-04 1.02E-03 2.16E-03 3.47E-03 0.15 6.70E-04 1.i6E-04 2.07E-04 4.83E-04 i.08E-03 1.82E-03 0.3 1.82E-04 2.i6E-05 4.31E-05 i.21E-04 3.05E-04 5.42E-04 0.5 6.45E-05 5.12E-06 1.13E-05 4.07E-05 1.13E-04 2.04E-04 0.75 2.67E-05 1.46E-06 3.57E-06 1.60E-05 4.83E-05 8.85E-05 1.

1.36E-05 5.91E-07 1.57E-06 7.55E-06 2.49E-05 4.70E-05 1.5 4.68E-06 1.57E-07 4.98E-07 2.19E-06 8.72E-06 1.74E-05 3.

5.27E-07 i.2iE-08 4.13E-08 1.82E-07 9.93E-07 2.22E-06 5.

8.23E-08 7.03E-10 2.88E-09 2.72E-08 1.49E-07 3.47E-07 7.5 1.88E-08 1.27E-iO 2.96E-10 4.90E-09 3.23E-08 8.35E-08 10.

7.1OE-09 1.05E-i0 1.27E-10 1.31E-09 i.15E-08 3.42E-08 32 Table A-1c. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 10 Hz at PNP jEPRI,2014 AMPS(g)

MEAN O.OS 0.1S O.SO 0.S4 0.9S O.OOOS S.49E-02 4.37E-02 4.S3E-02 S.4SE-02 S.12E-02 S.SSE-02 0.001 S.9SE-02 3.B4E-02 4.43E-02 S.00E-02 7.SSE-02 S.3SE-02 O.OOS 3.17E-02 1.S3E-02 2.04E-02 3.0SE-02 4.31E-02 S.20E-02 0.01 1.93E-02 S.23E-03 1.1SE-02 1.S2E-02 2.72E-02 3.42E-02 0.01S 1.37E-02 S.3SE-03 7.SSE-03 1.27E-02 1.9SE-02 2.S7E-02 0.03 S.S9E-03 2.19E-03 3.33E-03 S.09E-03 1.04E-02 1.42E-02 O.OS 3.72E-03 1.01E-03 1.SSE-03 3.09E-03 S.S3E-03 S.47E-03 0.07S 2.10E-03 4.90E-04 7.77E-04 1.S7E-03 3.37E-03 S.20E-03 0.1 1.34E-03 2.S0E-04 4.S3E-04 1.02E-03 2.1SE-03 3.47E-03 0.1S S.70E-04 1.1SE-04 2.07E-04 4.S3E-04 1.0SE-03 1.S2E-03 0.3 1.S2E-04 2.1SE-OS 4.31E-OS 1.21 E-04 3.0SE-04 S.42E-04 O.S S.4SE-OS S.12E-OS 1.13E-OS 4.07E-OS 1.13E-04 2.04E-04 0.7S 2.S7E-OS 1.4SE-OS 3.S7E-OS 1.S0E-OS 4.S3E-OS S.SSE-OS

1.

1.3SE-OS S.91E-07 1.S7E-OS 7.SSE-OS 2.49E-OS 4.70E-OS 1.S 4.SSE-OS 1.S7E-07 4.9SE-07 2.19E-OS S.72E-OS 1.74E-OS

3.

S.27E-07 1.21E-OS 4.13E-OS 1.S2E-07 9.93E-07 2.22E-OS S.

S.23E-OS 7.03E-10 2.SSE-09 2.72E-OS 1.49E-07 3.47E-07 7.S 1.SSE-OS 1.27E-10 2.9SE-10 4.90E-09 3.23E-OS S.3SE-OS

10.

7.10E-09 1.0SE-10 1.27E-10 1.31 E-09 1.1SE-OS 3.42E-OS 32

Table A-Id. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 5.0 Hz at PNP (EPRI. 2014)

AMPS(g)

MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 6.56E-02 4.43E-02 4.83E-02 6.54E-02 8.12E-02 8.98E-02 0.001 6.13E-02 4.O1E-02 4.56E-02 6.09E-02 7.66E-02 8.60E-02 0.005 3.42E-02 1.64E-02 2.19E-02 3.28E-02 4.70E-02 5.66E-02 0.01 2.07E-02 8.85E-03 1.23E-02 1.95E-02 2.92E-02 3.63E-02 0.015 1.44E-02 5.66E-03 8.23E-03 I.34E-02 2.07E-02 2.60E-02 0.03 6.83E-03 2.29E-03 3.52E-03 6.26E-03 1.O1E-02 1.32E-02 0.05 3.47E-03 1.02E-03 1.60E-03 3.05E-03 5.35E-03 7.45E-03 0.075 1.85E-03 4.98E-04 7.77E-04 l.53E-03 2.88E-03 4.31E-03 0.1 1.13E-03 2.88E-04 4.50E-04 8.98E-04 1.77E-03 2.80E-03 0.15 5.36E-04 1.23E-04 1.95E-04 4.07E-04 8.35E-04 1.38E-03 0.3 1.35E-04 2.35E-05 4.25E-05 9.79E-05 2.19E-04 3.63E-04 0.5 4.57E-05 5.83E-06 1.21E-05 3.19E-05 7.66E-05 1.31E-04 0.75 I.81E-05 1.57E-06 3.57E-06 1.18E-05 3.14E-05 5.50E-05 1.

8.85E-06 5.20E-07 1.31E-06 5.42E-06 1.62E-05 2.84E-05 1.5 2.95E-06 7.77E-08 2.39E-07 1.55E-06 5.50E-06 I.05E-05 3.

3.37E-07 1.40E-09 8.60E-09 1.07E-07 6.36E-07 1.46E-06 5.

5.43E-08 1.38E-10 6.64E-10 9.65E-09 9.37E-08 2.57E-07 7.5 l.14E-08 1.21E-10 1.51E-10 1.29E-09 1.64E-08 5.50E-08 10.

3.59E-09 9.I1E-11 1.21E-10 3.33E-l0 4.37E-09 I.69E-08 33 Table A-1d. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 5.0 Hz at PNP EPRI,2014)

AMPS(g)

MEAN 0.05 0.1S 0.50 0.B4 0.95 0.0005 S.5SE-02 4.43E-02 4.B3E-02 S.54E-02 B.12E-02 B.9BE-02 0.001 S.13E-02 4.01E-02 4.5SE-02 S.09E-02 7.SSE-02 B.SOE-02 0.005 3.42E-02 1.64E-02 2.19E-02 3.2BE-02 4.70E-02 5.SSE-02 0.01 2.07E-02 B.B5E-03 1.23E-02 1.95E-02 2.92E-02 3.S3E-02 0.015 1.44E-02 5.SSE-03 B.23E-03 1.34E-02 2.07E-02 2.S0E-02 0.03 S.B3E-03 2.29E-03 3.52E-03 S.2SE-03 1.01 E-02 1.32E-02 0.05 3.47E-03 1.02E-03 1.S0E-03 3.05E-03 5.35E-03 7.45E-03 0.075 1.B5E-03 4.9BE-04 7.77E-04 1.53E-03 2.BBE-03 4.31E-03 0.1 1.13E-03 2.BBE-04 4.50E-04 B.9BE-04 1.77E-03 2.BOE-03 0.15 5.3SE-04 1.23E-04 1.95E-04 4.07E-04 B.35E-04 1.3BE-03 0.3 1.35E-04 2.35E-05 4.25E-05 9.79E-05 2.19E-04 3.S3E-04 0.5 4.57E-05 5.B3E-OS 1.21 E-05 3.19E-05 7.SSE-05 1.31 E-04 0.75 1.81 E-05 1.57E-OS 3.57E-OS 1.1BE-05

3. 14E-05 5.50E-05

1.

B.B5E-OS 5.20E-07 1.31E-OS 5.42E-OS 1.S2E-05 2.B4E-05 1.5 2.95E-OS 7.77E-OB 2.39E-07 1.55E-OS 5.50E-OS 1.05E-05

3.

3.37E-07 1.40E-09 B.SOE-09 1.07E-07 S.3SE-07 1.4SE-OS

5.

5.43E-OB 1.3BE-10 S.S4E-10 9.S5E-09 9.37E-OB 2.57E-07 7.5 1.14E-OB 1.21E-10 1.51E-10 1.29E-09 1.S4E-OB 5.50E-OB

10.

3.59E-09 9.11E-11 1.21 E-10 3.33E-10 4.37E-09 1.S9E-OB 33

Table A-le. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 2.5 Hz at PNP (EPRI, 2014)

AMPS(g)

MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 6.42E-02 4.31E-02 4.77E-02 6.45E-02 8.OOE-02 8.85E-02 0.001 5.82E-02 3.52E-02 4.25E-02 5.75E-02 7.45E-02 8.35E-02 0.005 2.91E-02 1.13E-02 1.62E-02 2.72E-02 4.25E-02 5.35E-02 0.01 1.67E-02 5.58E-03 8.35E-03 1.51E-02 2.53E-02 3.37E-02 0.015 1.13E-02 3.33E-03 5.27E-03 1.O1E-02 1.74E-02 2.35E-02 0.03 5.13E-03 1.1OE-03 1.92E-03 4.43E-03 8.35E-03 1.15E-02 0.05 2.52E-03 4.07E-04 7.45E-04 2.O1E-03 4.37E-03 6.45E-03 0.075 1.28E-03 1.69E-04 3.19E-04 9.37E-04 2.25E-03 3.63E-03 0.1 7.41E-04 8.98E-05 1.69E-04 5.05E-04 1.29E-03 2.22E-03 0.15 3.1OE-04 3.47E-05 6.64E-05 2.O1E-04 5.35E-04 9.51E-04 0.3 5.92E-05 6.36E-06 1.32E-05 3.79E-05 1.O1E-04 1.82E-04 0.5 1.69E-05 1.60E-06 3.68E-06 1.1OE-05 2.88E-05 5.27E-05 0.75 6.13E-06 4.56E-07 1.18E-06 3.84E-06 1.07E-05 1.95E-05 1.

2.88E-06 1.67E-07 4.77E-07 1.69E-06 5.05E-06 9.65E-06 1.5 9.33E-07 3.47E-08 1.08E-07 4.63E-07 1.64E-06 3.37E-06 3.

1.15E-07 1.38E-09 4.50E-09 3.19E-08 1.92E-07 4.98E-07 5.

2.19E-08 1.67E-10 3.33E-10 3.O1E-09 3.14E-08 1.05E-07 7.5 5.44E-09 9.65E-11 1.21E-10 4.43E-10 6.26E-09 2.60E-08 10.

1.91E-09 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 1.60E-10 1.82E-09 9.1IE-09 34 Table A-1e. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 2.S Hz at PNP (EPRI,2014 AMPS(g)

MEAN O.OS 0.1S O.SO 0.84 0.9S O.OOOS S.42E-02 4.31E-02 4.77E-02 S.4SE-02 B.00E-02 B.BSE-02 0.001 S.B2E-02 3.S2E-02 4.2SE-02 S.7SE-02 7.4SE-02 B.3SE-02 O.OOS 2.91E-02 1.13E-02 1.S2E-02 2.72E-02 4.2SE-02 S.3SE-02 0.01 1.S7E-02 S.SBE-03 B.3SE-03 1.S1 E-02 2.S3E-02 3.37E-02 0.01S 1.13E-02 3.33E-03 S.27E-03 1.01 E-02 1.74E-02 2.3SE-02 0.03 S.13E-03 1.10E-03 1.92E-03 4.43E-03 B.3SE-03 1.1SE-02 O.OS 2.S2E-03 4.07E-04 7.4SE-04 2.01E-03 4.37E-03 S.4SE-03 0.07S 1.2BE-03 1.S9E-04 3.19E-04 9.37E-04 2.2SE-03 3.S3E-03 0.1 7.41E-04 B.9BE-OS 1.S9E-04 S.OSE-04 1.29E-03 2.22E-03 0.1S

3. 1 OE-04 3.47E-OS S.S4E-OS 2.01E-04 S.3SE-04 9.S1E-04 0.3 S.92E-OS S.3SE-OS 1.32E-OS 3.79E-OS 1.01 E-04 1.B2E-04 O.S 1.S9E-OS 1.S0E-OS 3.SBE-OS 1.10E-OS 2.BBE-OS S.27E-OS 0.7S S.13E-OS 4.SSE-07 1.1BE-OS 3.84E-OS 1.07E-OS 1.9SE-OS

1.

2.BBE-OS 1.S7E-07 4.77E-07 1.S9E-OS S.OSE-OS 9.SSE-OS 1.S 9.33E-07 3.47E-OB 1.0BE-07 4.S3E-07 1.64E-OS 3.37E-OS

3.

1.1SE-07 1.3BE-09 4.S0E-09 3.19E-OB 1.92E-07 4.9BE-07 S.

2.19E-OB 1.S7E-10 3.33E-10 3.01E-09 3.14E-OB 1.0SE-07 7.S S.44E-09 9.SSE-11 1.21E-10 4.43E-10 S.2SE-09 2.S0E-OB

10.

1.91 E-09 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 1.S0E-10 1.B2E-09 9.11 E-09 34

Table A-if. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 1.0 Hz at PNP (EPRI, 2014 AMPS(g)

MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 4.57E-02 2.OIE-02 2.84E-02 4.43E-02 6.26E-02 7.45E-02 0.001 3.30E-02 1.20E-02 i.77E-02 3.09E-02 4.83E-02 6.OOE-02 0.005 9.76E-03 2.46E-03 4.13E-03 8.60E-03 1.53E-02 2.iOE-02 0.01 5.OOE-03 8.72E-04 1.74E-03 4.37E-03 8.23E-03 i.i3E-02 0.015 3.25E-03 4.13E-04 9.ilE-04 2.72E-03 5.58E-03 8.OOE-03 0.03 i.39E-03 8.98E-05 2.19E-04 9.iiE-04 2.64E-03 4.19E-03 0.05 6.29E-04 2.39E-05 6.36E-05 3.i4E-04 i.20E-03 2.32E-03 0.075 2.95E-04 7.66E-06 2.i6E-05 1.20E-04 5.27E-04 i.20E-03 0.1 1.59E-04 3.33E-06 9.93E-06 5.83E-05 2.72E-04 6.64E-04 0.15 6.07E-05 1.04E-06 3.19E-06 2.O1E-05 9.65E-05 2.53E-04 0.3 9.65E-06 1.32E-07 4.77E-07 3.05E-06 i.53E-05 3.84E-05 0.5 2.43E-06 2.64E-08 i.20E-07 7.77E-07 3.79E-06 i.OiE-05 0.75 8.41E-07 7.23E-09 3.47E-08 2.60E-07 1.34E-06 3.63E-06 1.

4.03E-07 2.64E-09 1.40E-08 i.16E-07 6.45E-07 i.72E-06 1.5 i.42E-07 6.45E-10 3.57E-09 3.42E-08 2.i3E-07 6.26E-07 3.

2.i8E-08 1.31E-i0 3.19E-10 3.O1E-09 2.68E-08 9.93E-08 5.

4.85E-09 i.2iE-10 1.23E-10 4.77E-10 4.70E-09 2.13E-08 7.5 1.33E-09 9.liE-11 i.21E-10 1.60E-10 i.08E-09 5.42E-09 10.

5.OOE-iO 8.72E-11 9.79E-11 i.21E-iO 3.84E-10 i.87E-09 35 Table A-1f. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 1.0 Hz at PNP (EPRI, 2014)

AMPS(g)

MEAN O.OS 0.1S O.SO 0.84 0.9S O.OOOS 4.S7E-02 2.01E-02 2.B4E-02 4.43E-02 S.2SE-02 7.4SE-02 0.001 3.30E-02 1.20E-02 1.77E-02 3.09E-02 4.B3E-02 S.00E-02 O.OOS 9.7SE-03 2.4SE-03 4.13E-03 B.SOE-03 1.S3E-02 2.10E-02 0.01 S.00E-03 B.72E-04 1.74E-03 4.37E-03 B.23E-03 1.13E-02 0.01S 3.2SE-03 4.13E-04 9.11E-04 2.72E-03 S.SBE-03 B.00E-03 0.03 1.39E-03 B.9BE-OS 2.19E-04 9.11 E-04 2.64E-03 4.19E-03 O.OS S.29E-04 2.39E-OS S.3SE-OS 3.14E-04 1.20E-03 2.32E-03 0.07S 2.9SE-04 7.SSE-OS 2.1SE-OS 1.20E-04 S.27E-04 1.20E-03 0.1 1.S9E-04 3.33E-OS 9.93E-OS S.B3E-OS 2.72E-04 S.S4E-04 0.1S S.07E-OS 1.04E-OS 3.19E-OS 2.01E-OS 9.SSE-OS 2.S3E-04 0.3 9.SSE-OS 1.32E-07 4.77E-07 3.0SE-OS 1.S3E-OS 3.B4E-OS O.S 2.43E-OS 2.64E-OB 1.20E-07 7.77E-07 3.79E-OS 1.01 E-OS 0.7S B.41E-07 7.23E-09 3.47E-OB 2.S0E-07 1.34E-OS 3.S3E-OS

1.

4.03E-07 2.64E-09 1.40E-OB 1.1SE-07 S.4SE-07 1.72E-OS 1.S 1.42E-07 S.4SE-10 3.S7E-09 3.42E-OB 2.13E-07 S.2SE-07

3.

2. 1 BE-OB 1.31E-10 3.19E-10 3.01E-09 2.SBE-OB 9.93E-OB S.

4.BSE-09 1.21E-10 1.23E-10 4.77E-10 4.70E-09 2.13E-OB 7.S 1.33E-09 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 1.S0E-10 1.0BE-09 S.42E-09

10.

S.00E-10 B.72E-11 9.79E-11 1.21E-10 3.B4E-10 1.B7E-09 3S

Table A-lg. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 0.5 Hz at PNP (EPRI, 2014 AMPS(g)

MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 2.19E-02 1.O1E-02 1.40E-02 2.1OE-02 2.96E-02 3.68E-02 0.001 1.31E-02 5.58E-03 8.OOE-03 1.23E-02 1.79E-02 2.32E-02 0.005 3.52E-03 8.OOE-04 1.46E-03 3.14E-03 5.58E-03 7.55E-03 0.01 1.82E-03 2.IOE-04 4.63E-04 1.42E-03 3.23E-03 4.77E-03 0.015 1.13E-03 8.12E-05 1.98E-04 7.34E-04 2.13E-03 3.47E-03 0.03 3.77E-04 1.23E-05 3.47E-05 1.64E-04 7.13E-04 1.44E-03 0.05 1.28E-04 2.64E-06 7.66E-06 4.13E-05 2.16E-04 5.50E-04 0.075 4.64E-05 7.03E-07 2.1OE-06 1.21E-05 6.93E-05 2.07E-04 0.1 2.09E-05 2.53E-07 8.12E-07 4.83E-06 2.88E-05 9.24E-05 0.15 6.35E-06 5.35E-08 2.04E-07 1.31E-06 8.OOE-06 2.80E-05 0.3 8.42E-07 2.64E-09 1.53E-08 1.44E-07 1.05E-06 3.84E-06 0.5 2.34E-07 3.O1E-10 1.82E-09 2.84E-08 2.68E-07 1.08E-06 0.75 9.45E-08 1.25E-10 3.63E-10 7.89E-09 9.37E-08 4.37E-07 1.

5.04E-08 1.21E-10 1.64E-10 3.O1E-09 4.37E-08 2.25E-07 1.5 2.02E-08 1.04E-10 1.21E-10 7.77E-10 1.42E-08 8.47E-08 3.

3.58E-09 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 1.36E-10 1.64E-09 1.27E-08 5.

8.27E-10 8.12E-11 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 3.33E-10 2.42E-09 7.5 2.27E-10 8.12E-11 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 1.44E-10 6.09E-10 10.

8.39E-11 8.12E-11 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 1.21E-10 2.53E-10 36 Table A-1g. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 0.5 Hz at PNP (EPRI,2014)

AMPS(g)

MEAN 0.05 0.1S 0.50 0.B4 0.95 0.0005 2.19E-02 1.01 E-02 1.40E-02 2.10E-02 2.9SE-02 3.SBE-02 0.001 1.31E-02 S.SBE-03 B.00E-03 1.23E-02 1.79E-02 2.32E-02 0.005 3.S2E-03 B.00E-04 1.4SE-03 3.14E-03 S.SBE-03 7.SSE-03 0.01 1.B2E-03 2.10E-04 4.S3E-04 1.42E-03 3.23E-03 4.77E-03 0.015 1.13E-03 B.12E-OS 1.9BE-04 7.34E-04 2.13E-03 3.47E-03 0.03 3.77E-04 1.23E-OS 3.47E-OS 1.S4E-04 7.13E-04 1.44E-03 0.05 1.2BE-04 2.64E-OS 7.SSE-OS

4. 13E-OS 2.1SE-04 S.SOE-04 0.075 4.64E-OS 7.03E-07 2.10E-06 1.21 E-OS S.93E-OS 2.07E-04 0.1 2.09E-OS 2.S3E-07 B.12E-07 4.B3E-OS 2.BBE-OS 9.24E-OS 0.15 S.3SE-OS S.3SE-OB 2.04E-07 1.31 E-OS B.OOE-OS 2.BOE-OS 0.3 B.42E-07 2.64E-09 1.S3E-OB 1.44E-07 1.0SE-OS 3.B4E-OS 0.5 2.34E-07 3.01E-10 1.B2E-09 2.B4E-OB 2.SBE-07 1.0BE-OS 0.75 9.4SE-OB 1.2SE-10 3.S3E-10 7.B9E-09 9.37E-OB 4.37E-07

1.

S.04E-OB 1.21E-10 1.S4E-10 3.01E-09 4.37E-OB 2.2SE-07 1.5 2.02E-OB 1.04E-10 1.21E-10 7.77E-10 1.42E-OB B.47E-OB

3.

3.SBE-09 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 1.3SE-10 1.S4E-09 1.27E-OB

5.

B.27E-10 B.12E-11 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 3.33E-10 2.42E-09 7.5 2.27E-10 B.12E-11 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 1.44E-10 S.09E-10

10.

B.39E-11 B.12E-11 9.11 E-11 1.21E-10 1.21E-10 2.S3E-10 3S

Table A-2. AmDlification Functions for PNP (EPRI, 2014)

Median Sigma Median Sigma Median Sigma Median Sigma PGA AF ln(AF) 25 Hz AF ln(AF) 10 Hz AF ln(AF) 5 Hz AF ln(AF) 1.OOE-02 2.80E+OO 1.O1E-01 1.30E-02 2.48E+00 1.11E-O1 1.90E-02 2.67E+O0 1.90E-O1 2.09E-02 2.88E+00 2.38E-O1 4.95E-02 2.17E+O0 1.13E-O1 1.02E-O1 1.63E+O0 1.80E-O1 9.99E-02 2.22E+O0 2.17E-O1 8.24E-02 2.70E+OO 2.20E-O1 9.64E-02 1.87E+O0 1.21E-O1 2.13E-01 1.37E+O0 2.O1E-O1 1.85E-O1 1.99E+O0 2.19E-O1 1.44E-O1 2.56E+OO 2.16E-01 1.94E-O1 1.56E+O0 1.28E-O1 4.43E-01 1.09E+OO 2.16E-O1 3.56E-01 1.70E+OO 2.20E-O1 2.65E-01 2.31E+00 2.13E-01 2.92E-O1 1.39E+0O 1.35E-O1 6.76E-01 9.36E-O1 2.27E-O1 5.23E-01 1.51E+0O 2.25E-01 3.84E-01 2.13E+00 2.20E-O1 3.91E-O1 1.26E-i-0O 1.43E-O1 9.09E-O1 8.25E-O1 2.36E-01 6.90E-01 1.37E+0O 2.28E-01 5.02E-O1 1.97E+00 2.31E-O1 4.93E-O1 1.16E+OO 1.48E-O1 1.15E+0O 7.39E-O1 2.42E-O1 8.61E-O1 1.26E+OO 2.29E-01 6.22E-01 1.85E+OO 2.36E-O1 7.41E-O1 9.91E-O1 1.59E-O1 1.73E+0O 5.94E-O1 2.57E-O1 1.27E+00 1.06E+OO 2.40E-01 9.13E-01 1.61E+0O 2.46E-01 1.O1E+00 8.71E-O1 1.68E-O1 2.36E+0O 5.OOE-O1 2.73E-01 1.72E+00 9.13E-O1 2.52E-01 1.22E+00 1.44E+OO 2.51E-01 1.28E+0O 7.85E-O1 1.76E-O1 3.O1E+OO 5.OOE-O1 2.82E-01 2.17E+OO 8.05E-O1 2.65E-O1 1.54E+OO 1.31E+00 2.52E-O1 1.55E+OO 7.24E-O1 1.83E-O1 3.63E+OO 500E-O1 2.87E-O1 2.61E+OO 7.25E-01 2.80E-O1 1.85E+OO 1.21E+00 2.48E-O1 Median Sigma Median Sigma Median Sigma 2.5 Hz AF ln(AF) 1 Hz AF In(AF) 0.5 Hz AF ln(AF) 2.18E-02 3.04E+O0 1.69E-01 1.27E-02 2.IIE+00 2.07E-O1 8.25E-03 1.52E+O0 1.26E-O1 7.05E-02 2.92E+O0 1.95E-O1 3.43E-02 2.25E+OO 2.28E-O1 1.96E-02 1.57E+O0 1.29E-O1 1.18E-O1 2.81E÷OO 2.04E-O1 5.51E-02 2.34E+OO 2.31E-O1 3.02E-02 1.59E+OO 1.37E-O1 2.12E-O1 2.64E+OO 2.13E-O1 9.63E-02 2.43E+OO 2.08E-O1 5.11E-02 1.65E+OO 1.65E-O1 3.04E-O1 2.51E+OO 2.21E-01 1.36E-O1 2.44E+00 2.19E-01 7.1OE-02 1.70E+00 1.91E-O1 3.94E-O1 2.39E+O0 2.30E-O1 1.75E-O1 2.43E+00 2.41E-O1 9.06E-02 1.76E+00 2.IOE-O1 4.86E-O1 2.29E+OO 2.36E-O1 2.14E-01 2.42E--OO 2.55E-O1 1.1OE-01 1.79E+OO 2.19E-O1 7.O9EO1 2.1OE+0O 2.40E-O1 3.1OE-01 2.41E+OO 2.62E-O1 1.58E-01 1.85E+OO 2.29E-01 9.47E-O1 1.95E+0O 2.48E-O1 4.12E-O1 2.41E+OO 2.58E-01 2.09E-O1 1.90E+OO 2.40E-01 1.19E--OO 1.84E--OO 2.58E-01 5.18E-O1 2.41E+00 2.56E-01 2.62E-01 1.94E--OO 2.43E-O1 1.43E+OO 1.80E+OO 2.67E-O1 6.19E-O1 2.42E+OO 2.55E-O1 3.12E-01 1.97E+O0 2.40E-O1 37 Table A-2. Amplification Functions for PNP (EPRI, 2014)

Median Sigma Median Sigma Median Sigma Median Sigma PGA AF In(AF) 25Hz AF In(AF) 10 Hz AF In(AF) 5Hz AF In(AF) 1.00E-02 2.BOE+00 1.01E-01 1.30E-02 2.4BE+00 1.11 E-01 1.90E-02 2.67E+00 1.90E-01 2.09E-02 2.BBE+00 2.3BE-01 4.9SE-02 2.17E+00 1.13E-01 1.02E-01 1.63E+00 1.BOE-01 9.99E-02 2.22E+00 2.17E-01 B.24E-02 2.70E+00 2.20E-01 9.64E-02 1.B7E+00 1.21E-01 2.13E-01 1.37E+00 2.01 E-01 1.BSE-01 1.99E+00 2.19E-01 1.44E-01 2.S6E+00 2.16E-01 1.94E-01 1.56E+OO 1.2BE-01 4.43E-01 1.09E+00 2.16E-01 3.S6E-01 1.70E+00 2.20E-01 2.6SE-01 2.31E+00 2.13E-01 2.92E-01 1.39E+00 1.3SE-01 6.76E-01 9.36E-01 2.27E-01 S.23E-01 1.S1E+00 2.2SE-01 3.B4E-01 2.13E+00 2.20E-01 3.91 E-01 1.26E+00 1.43E-01 9.09E-01 B.2SE-01 2.36E-01 6.90E-01 1.37E+00 2.2BE-01 S.02E-01 1.97E+00 2.31 E-01 4.93E-01 1.16E+00 1.4BE-01 1.1SE+OO 7.39E-01 2.42E-01 B.61E-01 1.26E+OO 2.29E-01 6.22E-01 1.BSE+OO 2.36E-01 7.41E-01 9.91 E-01 1.S9E-01 1.73E+00 S.94E-01 2.S7E-01 1.27E+00 1.06E+00 2.40E-01 9.13E-01 1.61E+00 2.46E-01 1.01E+00 B.71 E-01 1.6BE-01 2.36E+OO S.00E-01 2.73E-01 1.72E+00 9.13E-01 2.S2E-01 1.22E+00 1.44E+00 2.S1 E-01 1.2BE+OO 7.BSE-01 1.76E-01 3.01E+OO S.00E-01 2.B2E-01 2.17E+00 B.OSE-01 2.6SE-01 1.54E+00 1.31E+OO 2.S2E-01 1.SSE+00 7.24E-01 1.B3E-01 3.63E+00 S.00E-01 2.B7E-01 2.61E+OO 7.2SE-01 2.BOE-01 1.BSE+00 1.21E+00 2.4BE-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. 1 BE-02 3.04E+00 1.69E-01 1.27E-02 2.11E+00 2.07E-01 B.2SE-03 1.S2E+00 1.26E-01 7.0SE-02 2.92E+OO 1.9SE-01 3.43E-02 2.2SE+00 2.2BE-01

1. 96E-02 1.S7E+00 1.29E-01 1.1BE-01 2.B1E+00 2.04E-01 S.S1E-02 2.34E+00 2.31E-01 3.02E-02 1.S9E+00 1.37E-01 2.12E-01 2.64E+00 2.13E-01 9.63E-02 2.43E+00 2.0BE-01 S.11E-02 1.6SE+00 1.6SE-01 3.04E-01 2.S1 E+OO 2.21E-01 1.36E-01 2.44E+00 2.19E-01 7.10E-02 1.70E+00 1.91E-01 3.94E-01 2.39E+OO 2.30E-01 1.7SE-01 2.43E+00 2.41E-01 9.06E-02 1.76E+OO 2.10E-01 4.B6E-01 2.29E+OO 2.36E-01 2.14E-01 2.42E+00 2.SSE-01 1.10E-01 1.79E+00 2.19E-01 7.09E-01 2.10E+00 2.40E-01 3.10E-01 2.41E+00 2.62E-01 1.SBE-01 1.BSE+00 2.29E-01 9.47E-01 1.9SE+00 2.48E-01 4.12E-01 2.41E+00 2.S8E-01 2.09E-01 1.90E+00 2.40E-01 1.19E+00 1.B4E+00 2.S8E-01 S.18E-01 2.41E+00 2.S6E-01 2.62E-01 1.94E+00 2.43E-01 1.43E+OO 1.80E+OO 2.67E-01 6.19E-01 2.42E+00 2.SSE-01 3.12E-01 1.97E+OO 2.40E-01 37

Tables A-3a and A-3b 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 1o and Io mean annual frequency of exceedance. These factors are unverified and are provided for information only. The figures should be considered the governing information.

38 Tables A-3a and A-3b 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 I~vels at approximately 10-4 and 10-5 mean annual frequency of exceedance. These factors are unverified and are provided for information only. The figures should be considered the governing information.

38

Table A-3a. Median AFs and sigmas for Model 1, Profile 1, for 2 PGA levels (For Information Only)

MIP1K1 Rock_PGA=0.0964 M1P1K1 PGA=0.493 Freq.

med.

sigma Freq.

med.

sigma (Hz)

S0iLSA AF In(AF)

(Hz)

SoiLSA AF ln(AF) 100.0 0.204 2.115 0.131 100.0 0.541 1.099 0.205 87.1 0.205 2.085 0.132 87.1 0.542 1.067 0.206 75.9 0.207 2.032 0.135 75.9 0.543 1.013 0.207 66.1 0.211 1.930 0.140 66.1 0.546 0.916 0.209 57.5 0.218 1.756 0.150 57.5 0.549 0.770 0.212 50.1 0.229 1.568 0.166 50.1 0.555 0.640 0.218 43.7 0.245 1.426 0.182 43.7 0.565 0.551 0.227 38.0 0.261 1.367 0.201 38.0 0.578 0.518 0.237 33.1 0.278 1.358 0.216 33.1 0.595 0.510 0.248 28.8 0.301 1.444 0.245 28.8 0.616 0.535 0.267 25.1 0.325 0.259 25.1 0.648 0.564 0.287 21.9 0.339 0.267 21.9 0.688 0.637 0.316 19.1 0.353 1.711 0.229 19.1 0.719 0.682 0.327 16.6 0.379 1.885 0.209 16.6 0.773 0.772 0.341 14.5 0.400 2.059 0.194 14.5 0.829 0.874 0.339 12.6 0.405 2.122 0.209 12.6 0.866 0.947 0.329 11.0 0.375 1.992 0.218 11.0 0.898 1.015 0.330 9.5 0.406 2.235 0.259 9.5 0.927 1.104 0.312 8.3 0.406 2.401 0.240 8.3 0.967 1.258 0.323 7.2 0.387 2.421 0.237 7.2 0.993 1.387 0.315 6.3 0.404 2.670 0.291 6.3 1.002 1.499 0.333 5.5 0.452 3.106 0.296 5.5 1.039 1.637 0.350 4.8 0.442 3.086 0.238 4.8 1.105 1.788 0.377 4.2 0.386 2.760 0.185 4.2 1.148 1.926 0.353 3.6 0.332 2.427 0.172 3.6 1.139 1.972 0.305 3.2 0.324 2.503 0.157 3.2 1.124 2.074 0.274 2.8 0.361 2.922 0.241 2.8 1.093 2.133 0.289 2.4 0.426 3.720 0.231 2.4 1.089 2.314 0.305 2.1 0.439 4.192 0.122 2.1 1.171 2.744 0.324 1.8 0.353 3.758 0.214 1.8 1.210 3.184 0.260 1.6 0.241 2.947 0.248 1.6 1.109 3.378 0.221 1.4 0.165 2.332 0.189 1.4 0.895 3.178 0.238 1.2 0.126 2.009 0.160 1.2 0.685 2.774 0.258 1.0 0.103 1.817 0.135 1.0 0.527 2.378 0.250 0.91 0.086 1.661 0.106 0.91 0.410 2.044 0.202 0.79 0.073 1.535 0.112 0.79 0.324 1.795 0.163 0.69 0.061 1.447 0.118 0.69 0.260 1.628 0.140 0.60 0.052 1.395 0.104 0.60 0.211 1.525 0.116 0.52 0.044 1.372 0.083 0.52 0.172 1.468 0.095 0.46 0.037 1.364 0.072 0.46 0.140 1.436 0.084 0.10 0.001 1.226 0.030 0.10 0.005 1.229 0.041 39 Table A-3a. Median AFs and sigmas for Model 1, Profile 1, for 2 PGA levels (For Information Only)

M1P1K1 Rock PGA=0.0964 M1P1K1 PGA=0.493 Freq.

med.

sigma Freq.

med.

sigma (Hz)

Soil SA AF In(AF)

(Hz)

Soil SA AF In(AF) 100.0 0.204 2.115 0.131 100.0 0.541 1.099 0.205 87.1 0.205 2.085 0.132 87.1 0.542 1.067 0.206 75.9 0.207 2.032 0.135 75.9 0.543 1.013 0.207 66.1 0.211 1.930 0.140 66.1 0.546 0.916 0.209 57.5 0.218 1.756 0.150 57.5 0.549 0.770 0.212 50.1 0.229 1.568 0.166 50.1 0.555 0.640 0.218 43.7 0.245 1.426 0.182 43.7 0.565 0.551 0.227 38.0 0.261 1.367 0.201 38.0 0.578 0.518 0.237 33.1 0.278 1.358 0.216 33.1 0.595 0.510 0.248 28.8 0.301 1.444 0.245 28.8 0.616 0.535 0.267 25.1 0.325 1.529 0.259 25.1 0.648 0.564 0.287 21.9 0.339 1.648 0.267 21.9 0.688 0.637 0.316 19.1 0.353 1.711 0.229 19.1 0.719 0.682 0.327 16.6 0.379 1.885 0.209 16.6 0.773 0.772 0.341 14.5 0.400 2.059 0.194 14.5 0.829 0.874 0.339 12.6 0.405 2.122 0.209 12.6 0.866 0.947 0.329 11.0 0.375 1.992 0.218 11.0 0.898 1.015 0.330 9.5 0.406 2.235 0.259 9.5 0.927 1.104 0.312 8.3 0.406 2.401 0.240 8.3 0.967 1.258 0.323 7.2 0.387 2.421 0.237 7.2 0.993 1.387 0.315 6.3 0.404 2.670 0.291 6.3 1.002 1.499 0.333 5.5 0.452 3.106 0.296 5.5 1.039 1.637 0.350 4.8 0.442 3.086 0.238 4.8 1.105 1.788 0.377 4.2 0.386 2.760 0.185 4.2 1.148 1.926 0.353 3.6 0.332 2.427 0.172 3.6 1.139 1.972 0.305 3.2 0.324 2.503 0.157 3.2 1.124 2.074 0.274 2.8 0.361 2.922 0.241 2.8 1.093 2.133 0.289 2.4 0.426 3.720 0.231 2.4 1.089 2.314 0.305 2.1 0.439 4.192 0.122 2.1 1.171 2.744 0.324 1.8 0.353 3.758 0.214 1.8 1.210 3.184 0.260 1.6 0.241 2.947 0.248 1.6 1.109 3.378 0.221 1.4 0.165 2.332 0.189 1.4 0.895 3.178 0.238 1.2 0.126 2.009 0.160 1.2 0.685 2.774 0.258 1.0 0.103 1.817 0.135 1.0 0.527 2.378 0.250 0.91 0.086 1.661 0.106 0.91 0.410 2.044 0.202 0.79 0.073 1.535 0.112 0.79 0.324 1.795 0.163 0.69 0.061 1.447 0.118 0.69 0.260 1.628 0.140 0.60 0.052 1.395 0.104 0.60 0.211 1.525 0.116 0.52 0.044 1.372 0.083 0.52 0.172 1.468 0.095 0.46 0.037 1.364 0.072 0.46 0.140 1.436 0.084 0.10 0.001 1.226 0.030 0.10 0.005 1.229 0.041 39

Table A-3b. Median AFs and sigmas for Model 2, Profile 1, for 2 PGA levels (For Information Only)

M2P1 Ki PGA=0.0964 M2P1 Ki PGA=0.493 Freq.

med.

sigma Freq.

med.

sigma (Hz)

S0iLSA AF ln(AF)

(Hz)

S0iLSA AF ln(AF) 100.0 0.243 2.519 0.107 100.0 0.736 1.493 0.143 87.1 0.245 2.493 0.109 87.1 0.739 1.455 0.145 75.9 0.250 2.448 0.111 75.9 0.745 1.389 0.148 66.1 0.257 2.359 0.117 66.1 0.755 1.269 0.154 57.5 0.273 2.203 0.128 57.5 0.775 1.087 0.166 50.1 0.299 2.046 0.153 50.1 0.808 0.932 0.187 43.7 0.330 1.920 0.181 43.7 0.859 0.838 0.222 38.0 0.359 1.880 0.190 38.0 0.908 0.814 0.238 33.1 0.393 1.916 0.216 33.1 0.969 0.831 0.250 28.8 0.420 2.016 0.212 28.8 1.037 0.899 0.260 25.1 0.443 2.084 0.183 25.1 1.119 0.974 0.268 21.9 0.447 2.172 0.188 21.9 1.172 1.084 0.266 19.1 0.462 2.240 0.174 19.1 1.213 1.151 0.258 16.6 0.485 2.413 0.168 16.6 1.286 1.283 0.252 14.5 0.504 2.595 0.154 14.5 1.366 1.441 0.230 12.6 0.494 2.582 0.213 12.6 1.393 1.523 0.199 11.0 0.479 2.542 0.197 11.0 1.397 1.578 0.212 9.5 0.512 2.818 0.258 9.5 1.458 1.737 0.221 8.3 0.458 2.709 0.239 8.3 1.497 1.948 0.261 7.2 0.422 2.641 0.194 7.2 1.408 1.968 0.218 6.3 0.469 3.101 0.210 6.3 1.390 2.080 0.184 5.5 0.517 3.555 0.196 5.5 1.480 2.332 0.216 4.8 0.472 3.293 0.247 4.8 1.603 2.595 0.182 4.2 0.382 2.734 0.223 4.2 1.547 2.594 0.189 3.6 0.340 2.484 0.148 3.6 1.362 2.358 0.178 3.2 0.350 2.699 0.147 3.2 1.225 2.261 0.167 2.8 0.423 3.426 0.195 2.8 1.266 2.473 0.212 2.4 0.508 4.433 0.155 2.4 1.439 3.056 0.254 2.1 0.456 4.358 0.182 2.1 1.581 3.705 0.213 1.8 0.325 3.462 0.249 1.8 1.411 3.712 0.170 16 0.215 2.631 0.234 1.6 1.035 3.152 0.212 1A 0.153 2.167 0.176 1.4 0.729 2.590 0.232 12 0.123 1.964 0.130 1.2 0.557 2.256 0.193 1.0 0.102 1.792 0.100 1.0 0.441 1.988 0.148 0.91 0.082 1.581 0.093 0.91 0.343 1.711 0.122 0.79 0.067 1.407 0.085 0.79 0.270 1.495 0.103 0.69 0.056 1.319 0.082 0.69 0.221 1.382 0.092 0.60 0.049 1.306 0.074 0.60 0.187 1.354 0.081 0.52 0.043 1.339 0.057 0.52 0.161 1.375 0.063 0.46 0.037 1.386 0.041 0.46 0.138 1.413 0.046 0.10 0.001 1.251 0.028 0.10 0.005 1.242 0.025 40 Table A-3b. Median AFs and sigmas for Model 2, Profile 1, for 2 PGA levels (For Information Only)

M2P1K1 PGA=0.0964 M2P1K1 PGA=0.493 Freq.

med.

sigma Freq.

med.

sigma (Hz)

Soil SA AF In(AF)

(Hz)

Soil SA AF In(AF) 100.0 0.243 2.519 0.107 100.0 0.736 1.493 0.143 87.1 0.245 2.493 0.109 87.1 0.739 1.455 0.145 75.9 0.250 2.448 0.111 75.9 0.745 1.389 0.148 66.1 0.257 2.359 0.117 66.1 0.755 1.269 0.154 57.5 0.273 2.203 0.128 57.5 0.775 1.087 0.166 50.1 0.299 2.046 0.153 50.1 0.808 0.932 0.187 43.7 0.330 1.920 0.181 43.7 0.859 0.838 0.222 38.0 0.359 1.880 0.190 38.0 0.908 0.814 0.238 33.1 0.393 1.916 0.216 33.1 0.969 0.831 0.250 28.8 0.420 2.016 0.212 28.8 1.037 0.899 0.260 25.1 0.443 2.084 0.183 25.1 1.119 0.974 0.268 21.9 0.447 2.172 0.188 21.9 1.172 1.084 0.266 19.1 0.462 2.240 0.174 19.1 1.213 1.151 0.258 16.6 0.485 2.413 0.168 16.6 1.286 1.283 0.252 14.5 0.504 2.595 0.154 14.5 1.366 1.441 0.230 12.6 0.494 2.582 0.213 12.6 1.393 1.523 0.199 11.0 0.479 2.542 0.197 11.0 1.397 1.578 0.212 9.5 0.512 2.818 0.258 9.5 1.458 1.737 0.221 8.3 0.458 2.709 0.239 8.3 1.497 1.948 0.261 7.2 0.422 2.641 0.194 7.2 1.408 1.968 0.218 6.3 0.469 3.101 0.210 6.3 1.390 2.080 0.184 5.5 0.517 3.555 0.196 5.5 1.480 2.332 0.216 4.8 0.472 3.293 0.247 4.8 1.603 2.595 0.182 4.2 0.382 2.734 0.223 4.2 1.547 2.594 0.189 3.6 0.340 2.484 0.148 3.6 1.362 2.358 0.178 3.2 0.350 2.699 0.147 3.2 1.225 2.261 0.167 2.8 0.423 3.426 0.195 2.8 1.266 2.473 0.212 2.4 0.508 4.433 0.1 55 2.4 1.439 3.056 0.254 2.1 0.456 4.358 0.182 2.1 1.581 3.705 0.213 1.8 0.325 3.462 0.249 1.8 1.411 3.712 0.170 1.6 0.215 2.631 0.234 1.6 1.035 3.152 0.212 1.4 0.153 2.167 0.176 1.4 0.729 2.590 0.232 1.2 0.123 1.964 0.130 1.2 0.557 2.256 0.193 1.0 0.102 1.792 0.100 1.0 0.441 1.988 0.148 0.91 0.082 1.581 0.093 0.91 0.343 1.711 0.122 0.79 0.067 1.407 0.085 0.79 0.270 1.495 0.103 0.69 0.056 1.319 0.082 0.69 0.221 1.382 0.092 0.60 0.049 1.306 0.074 0.60 0.187 1.354 0.081 0.52 0.043 1.339 0.057 0.52 0.161 1.375 0.063 0.46 0.037 1.386 0.041 0.46 0.138 1.413 0.046 0.10 0.001 1.251 0.028 0.10 0.005 1.242 0.025 40