NLS2014027, Enclosure - Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening Report for Cooper Nuclear Station

Enclosure - Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening Report for Cooper Nuclear Station

ML14094A042
Person / Time
Site:	Cooper
Issue date:	03/20/2014
From:	Black & Veatch, Entergy Nuclear Operations
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML14094A048	List: ML14094A040 NLS2014027, Enclosure - Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening Report for Cooper Nuclear Station
References
NLS2014027 3-EN-DC-147, Rev. 5CO
Download: ML14094A042 (49)

Text

NLS2014027 Enclosure NLS2014027 ENCLOSURE Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening Report for Cooper Nuclear Station

ATAHMENT 19OF1 ENGINEERING REPORT COVER SHEET& INSTRUCTIONS SHEET 1 OF 2 Engineering Report No.14-003 Rev 0

Page 1

of 4

Engineering Report Cover Sheet Engineering Report

Title:

50.54(t) Section 2.1 Seismic -

Black & Veatch Seismic Hazard and Screening Report Cooper Nuclear Station Acceptance Engineering Report Type:

New ER Revision

[E Cancelled

[E Superseded Superseded by:

El EC No. N/A - Exempt (Admin)

(4) Report Origin:

[] CNS 0

Vendor Vendor Document No.: 180333.50.0001 (5) Quality-Related:

E] Yes 0

No Prepared by:

Black & Veatch Respon Design Verified:

Date:

sible Engineer (Print Name/Sign)

N/A e ign Veifier (ij*ured) (Pr NmSi)

Reviewed by:

~

~

(~in Mitchell Marotz-Micha4 A-e?{

Reviewer (Print Name/Sign)

Ap prove/

bt I/e Date:

Date:

3/20/2014 Date:

3 -z2 -Iq Supervisor / Manager (Print Name/Sign)

1. Scope and Objective In responding to the Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1 Seismic; Cooper Nuclear Station (CNS) contracted Black & Veatch Corporation as a subject matter expert to develop the Seismic Hazard and Screening Report in accordance with EPRI Report Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) [Reference 2].

The information within this report is intended for use in responding to the Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic.

This Engineering Report accepts the Seismic Hazard and Screening Report which was developed by Black & Veatch for CNS.

2. Design Inputs The design inputs are as listed:

1. CNS Letter NLS2013085, "Nebraska Public Power District's Response to Nuclear Regulatory Commission 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-1.5 Year Response for CEUS Sites Cooper Nuclear Station", NRC Docket No. 50-298, License No. DPR-46.

3. Assumptions No assumptions were made by CNS in the development of this Engineering Report.

4. Detailed Discussion 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. NTTF Recommendation 2.1 for seismic hazards, as amended by the SRMs associated with SECY-11-0124 and SECY-11-0137, instructed the NRC staff to issue requests for information to licensees pursuant to Sections 161.c, 103.b, and 182.a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 10 CFR 50.54(f). This information Engineering Report 14-003 Rev. 0 PAGE 2 of 4

request was for licensees under 10 CFR 50 to reevaluate the seismic hazards at their sites against present-day NRC requirements and guidance. Based upon this information, the NRC staff will determine whether additional regulatory actions are necessary (e.g., update the design basis and SSCs important to safety) to protect against the updated hazards. In developing Recommendation 2.1, the NTTF recognized that the state of knowledge of seismic hazard within the United States (U.S.) has evolved and the level of conservatism in the determination of the original seismic design bases should be reexamined.

The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) took the responsibility of developing new Ground Motion Response Spectra (GMRS) for each site in the industry. The new GMRS that was generated utilizes newly developed methodology.

EPRI, in conjunction with the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), developed the Seismic Evaluation Guidance (SPID) [Reference 2] for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic and the Template for the Seismic Hazard and Screening Reports for Central and Eastern United States (CEUS) Plants (Attachment 2).

The final Black & Veatch Seismic Hazard and Screening Report, as it is accepted at CNS, is included as Attachment A to this Report. All comments have been resolved and no further changes are necessary.

5. Summary of Results The results presented by Black and Veatch in CNS Seismic Hazard and Screening Report can be found in Attachment A. Discussion of the methodology used in the development of the Seismic Hazard and Screening Report is specifically addressed within EPRI Report 1025287 and will not be discussed in this report.

Review of Seismic Hazard and Screening Report resulted in comments that were resolved accordingly. No further review is necessary.

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

1. The final Black & Veatch Seismic Hazard and Screening Report Cooper Nuclear Station Report (Attachment A) is acceptable for adoption at CNS.

Engineering Report 14-003 Rev. 0 PAGE 3 of 4

7. References

1. CNS Engineering Report 14-002, "LCI GMRS Report Acceptance"

2. EPRI Report 1025287 "Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1:

Seismic" Dated February 2013

8. Attachments A. Black & Veatch "Seismic Hazard and Screening Report Cooper Nuclear Station -

Final" March 19, 2014 B. EPRI Final Template for "Seismic Hazard and Screening Report (Example Submittal for CEUS Site)" February 25, 2014 Engineering Report 14-003 Rev. 0 PAGE 4 of 4

ER 2014-003 Attachment A Page 1 of 44 ENGINEERING REPORT ER 2014-003 Attachment A Black & Veatch "Seismic Hazard and Screening Report Cooper Nuclear Station - Final" March 19, 2014

ER 2014-003 Attachment A BLACK1VETC

• Page 2 6144 BLACKu&VEATCH REVIEW AND APPROVAL RECORD 0* Building a world of difference:

Client/Dept.

Nebraska Public Power District Record No.

RAR-0002 Project Cooper Nuclear Station File No.

180333.19.9260 Subject Seismic Hazard and Screening Report Date March 19,2014 Document No./Title:

180333.50.0001/Seismic Hazard and Revision No.:

1 Screening Report Enter the titles of the required Approvers in accordance with the controlling NP. The Review and Approval Record should be recorded on the approved document. If a Request for Review or Design Verification Review was completed, enter the record numbers below:

Request for Review (NF-6.4-1) No.:

NA Design Verification Review (NF-3.1-1) No.:

DVR-0003 Reason for Revision (include a complete summary and reference applicable engineering records such as an Engineering Change Notice): Corrected reference numbers to tables and figures.

APPROVAL Title Print/Sign Date Preparer:

S4-r*+eot.f.2 Il/I Z

/

/Z Approver:

4. P. SgAeLAc J

"?w I

I NF-6.4-2D Page I of 1

ER 2014-003 Attachment A Page 3 of 44 Nebraska Public Power District Cooper Nuclear Station Contract No. TA4700001660 Seismic Hazard and Screening Report CLIENT APP.:

NA BLACK & VEATCH Overland Park, KS 1

03/19/2014 Minor Revisions (RAR-0002)

SES SES DVR-0003 ADB 0

03/17/2014 Issued for Use (RAR-0001)

SES SES DVR-0002 ADB NO.

DATE DESCRIPTION DWN DGN CHK APP FILE NUMBER 180333.50.0000 REVIEW LEVEL: N/A THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS SAFETY-RELATED ITEMS SEISMIC CATEGORY I ITEMS E] YES E NO E] YES E NO CLIENT DOCUMENT REFERENCE NUMBER SHEET NO.

PROJECT DOCUMENT NUMBER NA 1/42 180333.50.0001

ER 2014-003 Attachment A Page 4 of 44 Cooper Nuclear SEISMIC HAZARD AND SCREENING REPORT Station Seismic Hazard and Screening Report Cooper Nuclear Station Final March 31, 2014

ER 2014-003 Attachment A Page 5 of 44 Cooper Nuclear Station [ Seismic Hazard and Screening Report Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction..............................................................................................................................................

1 2.0 Seism ic H azard Reevaluation........................................................................................................

2 2.1 Regional and Local Geology..................................................................................................................

2 2.1.1 Regional Geology....................................................................................................................

2 2.1.2 Local Geology...........................................................................................................................

3 2.2 Probabilistic Seism ic Hazard Analysis......................................................................................

4 2.2.1 Probabilistic Seism ic Hazard Analysis Results...................................................

4 2.2.2 Base Rock Seism ic Hazard Curves..........................................................................

5 2.3 Site Response Evaluation.......................................................................................................................

5 2.3.1 Description of Subsurface M aterial..........................................................................

5 2.3.2 Development of Base Case Profiles and Nonlinear Material Properties..................................................................................................................................

9 2.3.2.1 Shear M odulus and Dam ping Curves.....................................................................

12 2.3.2.2 Kappa.......................................................................................................................................

13 2.3.3 Random ization of Base Case Profiles..................................................................

14 2.3.4 Input Spectra.........................................................................................................................

15 2.3.5 M ethodology.........................................................................................................................

15 2.3.6 Am plification Functions............................................................................................

15 2.3.7 Control Point Seism ic Hazard Curves..................................................................

20 2.4 Control Point Response Spectra...............................................................................................

21 3.0 Plant D esign Basis.................................................................................................................................

24 3.1 SSE Description of Spectral Shape............................................................................................

24 3.2 Control Point Elevation(s)..................................................................................................................

24 4.0 Screening Evaluation...........................................................................................................................

25 4.1 Risk Evaluation (1 to 10 Hz).............................................................................................................

25 4.2 H igh Frequency Screening (> 10Hz)......................................................................................

25 4.3 Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation Screening (1 to 10 Hz)............................................................

25 5.0 Interim Actions......................................................................................................................................

26 5.1 NTTF 2.3 - Seism ic W alkdow ns...............................................................................................

26 6.0 Conclusions..............................................................................................................................................

27 7.0 References...............................................................................................................................................

28 Appendix A.............................................................................................................................................................

30 List of Tables Table 2.3.1-1a Geologic Profile for Estimated Layer Thickness for CNS - Shallow Profile...............

7 Table 2.3.1-1b Geologic Profile for Estimated Layer Thickness CNS - Deep Bedrock Stratigraphy................................................................................................................................................

8 Table 2.3.2-1 Not Used BLACK & VEATCH I REV. I TC-1

ER 2014-003 Attachment A Page 6 of 44 Cooper Nuclear Station I Seismic Hazard and Screening Report Table 2.3.2-2 Table 2.3.2-3 Table 2.4-1 Table 3.1-1 Table A-la.

Table A-lb.

Table A-ic.

Table A-id.

Table A-le.

Table A-if.

Table A-ig.

Table A-2a.

Table A2-bl.

Table A2-b2.

List of Figures Figure 2.3.2-1 Figure 2.3.6-1 Figure 2.3.6-2 Figure 2.3.7-1 Figure 2.4-1 Geologic Profile and Estimated Layer Thickness for CNS................................................

10 Kappa Values Used for Site Response Analyses..................................................................

14 UHRS for 10-4 and 10-5 and GMRS at Control Point for CNS...........................................

22 SSE for CNS (5 Percent Damping)............................................................................................

24 Mean and Fractiles for PGA Hazard at CNS..........................................................................

30 0.5 Hz Seismic Hazard Curves at CNS......................................................................................

30 1 Hz Seismic Hazard Curves at CNS..........................................................................................

31 2.5 Hz Seismic Hazard Curves at CNS......................................................................................

31 5Hz Seismic Hazard Curves at CNS..........................................................................................

32 10 Hz Seismic Hazard Curves at CNS......................................................................................

32 25 Hz Seismic Hazard Curves at CNS......................................................................................

33 Medians and Logarithmic Sigmas of Amplification Factors for CNS...........................

34 Median AFs and Sigmas for Model 1, 2 PGA Levels.............................................................

36 Median AFs and Sigmas for Model 2, 2 PGA Levels.............................................................

37 Shear Wave Velocity Profile Used in Site Response Calculations for Cooper N u clear Statio n........................................................................................................................................

12 Example Suite of Amplification Factors (5 percent damping pseudo absolute acceleration spectra) developed for the mean base case profile (P1), EPRI rock modulus reduction and hysteretic damping curves (model M1), and base-case kappa (K1) at 11 loading levels of hard rock median peak acceleration values from 0.01g to 1.50g. M 6.5 and single-corner sou rce m odel (SPID ).............................................................................................................................

16 Example Suite of Amplification Factors (5 percent damping pseudo absolute acceleration spectra) developed for the mean base case profile (P1), linear site response (model M2), and base case kappa (K1) at 11 loading levels of hard rock median peak acceleration values from 0.01g to 1.50g. M 6.5 and single-corner source model (SPID)......................................................

18 Control Point Mean Hazard Curves for Spectral Frequencies of 0.5, 1, 2.5, 5, 10, 25 and 100 H z at CN S....................................................................................................................

20 UHRS for 1E-4 and 1E-5 and GMRS at Control Point for CNS........................................

23 BLACK & VEATCH I REV. 1 TC-2

ER 2014-003 Attachment A Page 7 of 44 Cooper Nuclear Station I Seismic Hazard and Screening Report Acronym List CEUS SSC Central and Eastern United States Seismic Source Characterization CNS Cooper Nuclear Station CFR Code of Federal Regulations EPRI Electric Power Research Institute GMM Ground Motion Model GMRS Ground Motion Response Spectra IPEEE Individual Plant Examination of External Events MM Modified Mercalli MSL Mean Sea Level NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission NTTF Near Term Task Force PGA Peak Ground Acceleration PSHA Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis RG Regulatory Guide RLE Review Level Earthquake RLME Repeated Large Magnitude Earthquake RVT Random Vibration Theory SMA Seismic Margin Assessment SPID Screening, Prioritization, and Implementation Details SPRA Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment SSC Structures, Systems, and Components SSE Safe Shutdown Earthquake SSI Soil-Structure Interaction UHRS Uniform Hazard Response Spectra USAR Updated Safety Analysis Report BLACK & VEATCH I REV. 1 AL-1

ER 2014-003 Attachment A Page 8 of 44 Cooper Nuclear Station I Seismic Hazard and Screening Report 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. The NTTF was also tasked with determining whether the NRC 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(') that requests information to assure these recommendations are addressed by all U.S. nuclear plants. The 50.54(0 letterM' requests that licensees and holders of construction permits under Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

Part 50 reevaluate the seismic hazards at their sites against present-day NRC requirements and guidance. 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 that are 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(o letter(l) pertaining to NTTF Recommendation 2.1 for the Cooper Nuclear Station (CNS), located in Nemaha County, Nebraska. In providing this information, CNS 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(3). The Augmented Approach, Seismic Evaluation Guidance:

Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic( 17), 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 CNS were performed in accordance with Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 as it existed prior to the construction permits. To the extent discussed in the USAR, CNS meets the General Design Criterion 2 in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50 which was not part of the original licensing basis. The Safe Shutdown Earthquake Ground Motion (SSE) was subsequently evaluated against criteria in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 and found to be acceptable. This SSE was used for the design of seismic Category I systems, structures and components.

In response to the 50.54(o letter(') and following the guidance provided in the (SPID)( 3), 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, no further evaluations will be performed.

BLACK & VEATCH I REV. 1 1

ER 2014-003 Attachment A Page 9 of 44 Cooper Nuclear Station I Seismic Hazard and Screening Report 2.0 Seismic Hazard Reevaluation Section 11-5 of the CNS USAR(4) contains the following description of the site:

"Cooper Nuclear Station (CNS) is located in Nemaha County, Southeastern Nebraska, on the west bank of the Missouri River. It is situated on the first bottomland of the broad, nearly level, flood plain which is approximately six miles wide at the site. The natural relief is about ten feet."

Section 11-5 of the CNS USAR(4) contains the following description of seismicity:

"The earthquakes most significant for the evaluation of the seismicity of the site are the New Madrid earthquakes of 1811 and 1812; the Lincoln, Nebraska, earthquake of 1877; the Tecumseh, Nebraska, earthquake of 1935; and the El Reno, Oklahoma, earthquake of 1952.

On the basis of the historical earthquake records, it is concluded that:

There is a reasonable chance that during the life of the nuclear power station, earthquakes would affect the site with an intensity Modified Mercalli (MM) VII.

The hypothetical maximum possible intensity of ground motion at the site would result from a local earthquake smaller than the New Madrid earthquakes of 1811 and 1812.

"Small slips appear to occur along the Humboldt Fault and many of the regional earthquakes had epicenters in the vicinity of the Nemaha Anticline and Humboldt Fault. However, important displacements of the Humboldt Fault have not occurred for 200 million years and it is improbable that future earthquakes with epicenters located in the vicinity of the Humboldt Fault will have epicentral intensities greater than MM VII.

"There is no evidence at the site of either a fault or other bedrock discontinuity which would tend to increase the seismicity of the site as compared to nearby sites."

2.1 Regional and Local Geology 2.1.1 Regional Geology Section 11-5 of the CNS USAR(4) contains the following description of the regional geology:

"The principal geologic strata in the region in order of increasing depth are soil deposits, sedimentary rocks, and deep basement igneous rocks. The soil deposits consist of loess and till in the uplands, and either stratified or heterogeneous alluvium in the flood plains.

Thickness of deposits varies from a few feet to about 100 feet for loess, none to several feet for till, and less than 10 feet to more than 100 feet for alluvium. The rock strata are gently dipping sedimentary rocks mainly Paleozoic in age. Alternating beds of shale, limestone, sandstone, and occasional thin beds of coal are present. The total thickness varies from over 3,500 feet near the site to about 500 feet, 30 miles west. The deep basement igneous rocks are Precambrian in origin, chiefly primary granite or granitoid rocks.

"The major geologic structures in the region are the Nemaha Anticline, Forest City Basin, Humboldt Fault, and Thurman-Wilson Fault. Except for the Forest City Basin, none of these structures is in the immediate vicinity of the site. The closest one, 20 miles to the west, is the Nemaha Anticline and its associated Humboldt Fault.

BLACK & VEATCH I REV. 1 2

ER 2014-003 Attachment A Page 10 of 44 Cooper Nuclear Station I Seismic Hazard and Screening Report "The Nemaha Anticline is a major structural feature of the midcontinent which separates two depositional basins, the Forest City Basin on its east flank and the northern extension of the Salina Basin on the west. It is a sharp uplift of Precambrian granite. The anticline is believed to have first come into existence by folding and faulting at the close of the Proterozoic. Its development of near orogenic proportions occurred near the end of the Mississippian and continued through Pennsylvanian into early Permian. By early Permian, major tectonic movements appear to have ceased. The anticline trends southward from Omaha, through Nebraska, across Kansas, and into northern Oklahoma. The crest of the buried mountain range is irregular; its depth below ground surface varies from 400 feet at the Nebraska-Kansas line to 3,000 feet at the Kansas-Oklahoma line. The anticline has a very steep eastern front which is faulted in several areas. The most notable fault is the Humboldt Fault, principally a normal fault striking in a general north-south direction.

Vertical displacement of 1,000 to 1,500 feet in Nebraska and in the vicinity of Nebraska City, Nebraska, are reported.

"The Forest City Basin underlies the site. Its basinal axis in Nebraska lies close to and roughly parallels the Nemaha Anticline on the east. Its west flank shares a common front with the steep eastern flank of the Nemaha Anticline.

"The Thurman-Wilson Fault is associated with the Redfield Anticline which strikes southwest from approximately Des Moines, Iowa, toward Lincoln, Nebraska. The fault is about 40 miles north of the site and is located south of the crest of the anticlinal axis. The fault has a southward displacement of about ten feet."

2.1.2 Local Geology Section 11-5 of the CNS USAR(4) contains the following description of the local geology:

"Locally, the stratigraphy is best represented by a section through the bluffs along the western boundary of the site. It shows Peorian loess, Kansas till, limestone and shale of the Permian system, and limestone, shale, sandstone, and occasional thin beds of coal of the Pennsylvanian system. The contact between the two systems is unconformable and occurs in the bluff at approximately elevation 930 feet mean sea level (MSL).

"Detailed classification of rock cores obtained in borings at the site show excellent correlation with published regional stratigraphic columns in both sequence and thickness.

"The geologic structures occurring within the rocks at the site are minor. Field observations suggest the possibility of minor plains-type folding resulting from differential compaction of underlying sediments. No faults have been found at the site or in the local area, nor are any known of or suspected.

"Locally, three principal types of soils are found, each of different geologic origin; loess and till in the bluffs and alluvial and glacial deposits in the flood plains.

"The loess are wind-blown silts. The topography of the loess reflects the surface configuration of the underlying till or rock. Its ability to maintain steep faces is responsible for the near vertical slopes in the upper portion of the bluffs.

BLACK & VEATCH I REV. 1 3

ER 2014-003 Attachment A Page 11 of 44 Cooper Nuclear Station I Seismic Hazard and Screening Report "The Kansan till underlies the loess. It is a heterogeneous mixture of clay, silt, sand, gravel, cobble, and boulder, and is five to ten feet thick. In an unleached and unoxidized condition, it is commonly a dark gray silty clay which contains erratics and locally derived cobbles and boulders. Sand lenses are distributed throughout the deposit. Complete removal of calcareous minerals in the upper limits of the till produces the highly tenacious gumbotil.

"The alluvial deposits in the flood plain at the site vary in thickness from 62 to 71 feet.

Two major subtypes of different geologic origin are present; the surficial fine-grained soils and the underlying sands.

"The surficial fine-grained soils are recent alluvial deposits derived from the meandering Missouri River. Evidences of the meander were analyzed by a stereoscopic study of aerial photographs. The surficial soils consist of meander-belt and back-swamp deposits, ranging in thickness from 10 to 25 feet. For the most part, these deposits are silty sand, sandy silt, silty clay, and clay, and may be encountered in localized pockets or in complex combinations.

"The underlying sands appear to be either fluvial or glacial outwash deposits or both. The amount of silt and clay size particles is generally small. They grade from fine to coarse with increasing depth. Lenses of clay, coarse sand, and fine gravel are distributed irregularly throughout the deposit."

2.2 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis 2.2.1 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis Results In accordance with the 50.54(f) letter(1 ) and following the guidance in the SPID(3), 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(5) together with the updated Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Ground Motion Model (GMM) for the CEUS(6). For the PSHA, a lower-bound moment magnitude of 5.0 was used, as specified in the 50.54(f) letter(M.

For the PSHA, the CEUS SSC background seismic sources out to a distance of 400 miles (640 km) around CNS were included. This distance exceeds the 200 mile (320 kmi) recommendation contained in USNRC Reg Guide 1.208(7) and was chosen for completeness. Background sources included in this site analysis are the following:

1.

Extended Continental Crust-Gulf Coast (ECC.GC)

2.

Illinois Basin Extended Basement (IBEB)

3.

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

4.

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

S.

Midcontinent-Craton alternative A (MIDCA)

6.

Midcontinent-Craton alternative B (MIDCB)

7.

Midcontinent-Craton alternative C (MIDCC)

8.

Midcontinent-Craton alternative D (MIDC-D)

9.

Non-Mesozoic and younger extended prior - narrow (NM ESE-N)

10.

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

11.

Oklahoma Aulacogen (OKA)

BLACK& VEATCH IREV. 14 4

ER 2014-003 Attachment A Page 12 of 44 Cooper Nuclear Station I Seismic Hazard and Screening Report

12.

Reelfoot Rift (RR)

13.

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

14.

Study region (STUDYR)

For sources of large magnitude earthquakes, designated repeated large magnitude earthquake (RLME) sources in CEUS SSC(5), the following sources lie within 1,000 km of the site and were included in the analysis:

1.

Cheraw

2.

Commerce

3.

Eastern Rift Margin Fault northern segment (ERM-N)

4.

Eastern Rift Margin Fault southern segment (ERM-S)

5.

Marianna

6.

Meers

7.

New Madrid Fault System (NMFS)

8.

Wabash Valley For each of the above background and RLME sources, the mid-continent version of the updated CEUS EPRI GMM(6) was used.

2.2.2 Base Rock Seismic Hazard Curves Consistent with the SPID(3) Subsection 2.5.3, base rock seismic hazard curves are not provided, because the site amplification approach referred to as Method 3 has been used. Seismic hazard curves are shown in Section 3.0 at the SSE control point elevation (869.5'), which is the base of the Control Building.

2.3 Site Response Evaluation Following the guidance contained in Seismic Enclosure I of the March 12, 2012, 50.54(f) Request for Information(') and in the SPID(3) for nuclear power plant sites that are not sited on hard rock (defined as shear wave velocity of 9,300 feet per second [ft/s] [2.83 km/sec]), a site response analysis was performed for CNS('5).

2.3.1 Description of Subsurface Material The CNS is located in Nemaha County, Southeastern Nebraska on the west bank of the Missouri River. It is situated on the first bottomland of the broad, nearly level, flood plain which is about 6 miles (20 km) wide at the site. The basic information used to create the site geologic profile at CNS is shown in Table 2.3.1-1a (for shallow stratigraphy) and Table 2.3.1-1b (for deep stratigraphy). This profile was developed using information documented in utility communications and CNS Engineering Report ER 14-002(1s). As indicated in utility communications, the SSE Control Point is defined at elevation 869.5 feet, and the profile was modeled up to this elevation. The profile consists of about 49.5 feet (15m) of fill and compacted alluvium overlying about 3,450 feet (1,052m) of firm sedimentary rock. Precambrian basement rock is estimated to be at a depth of about 3,500 feet (1,067m).

BLACK & VEATCH I REV. 1 5

ER 2014-003 Attachment A Page 13 of 44 Cooper Nuclear Station I Seismic Hazard and Screening Report Table 2.3.1-1b provides elevations for the four deepest bedrock stratigraphic units - Silurian, Ordovician, Cambrian, and Precambrian. The Precambrian basement rock in Table 2.3.1-1b is estimated to be approximately 700 feet higher than the elevation provided previously in a letter to the NRC( 12). This difference is due to variations in the interpretation of the regional geology near the site. However, a Precambrian basement rock depth of about 3,500 feet (1,067m) is consistent with the thickness of Paleozoic sedimentary rocks reported in USAR Section 11-5.1(4) and by utility communications and CNS Engineering Report ER 2014-02(15). There are no differences between Tables 2.3.1-1a or the three shear wave velocity profiles (Table 2.3.2-2 and Figure 2.3.2-1) and the corresponding tables and figure presented previously in the letter to the NRC.(12)

BLACK & VEATCH I REV. 1 6

ER 2014-003 Attachment A Page 14 of 44 Cooper Nuclear Station I Seismic Hazard and Screening Report Table 2.3.1-1a Geologic Profile for Estimated Layer Thickness for CNS(8J* - Shallow Profile Elevation Shear Depth (feet Wave Compressional Range above Density Velocity Wave Velocity Poisson's (feet)

MSL)

Soil/Rock Description (pcf)

(fps)

(fps)

Ratio 0-5 902/903-Type I or Type II Fill 134 600 1600 0.27 898 5-8 898-895 Type I or Type II Fill 134 750 1600 0.27 8-13 895-890 Type I or Type II Fill 134 750 1600 0.27 13-23 890-880 Type I Fill/In-Situ 134 850 1600 0.27 Compacted Alluvium 23-30 880-873 Type I Fill/In-Situ 134 920 3295 0.42 Compacted Alluvium 30-33 873-870 Type I Fill/In-Situ 133 920 5505 0.48 Compacted Alluvium 33-48 870-855 Type I Fill/In-Situ 133 1020 5505 0.48 Compacted Alluvium 48-58 855-845 Type I Fill/In-Situ 133 1030 5505 0.48 Compacted Alluvium 58-68 845-835 Type I Fill/In-Situ 133 1040 5505 0.48 Compacted Alluvium 68-74 835-829 Type I Fill/In-Situ 132 1040 2535 0.38 Compacted Alluvium 74-83 829-820 Type I Fill/In-Situ 132 1120 6100 0.48 Compacted Alluvium 83-93 820-810 Soft Bedrock 140 1620 6420 0.47 93-118 810-785 Soft Bedrock 140 1760 6600 0.47 118-128 785-775 Harder Bedrock 160 2750 9970 0.45

>128

<775 Per Table B.5 NEDC 13-019

• From Table B.1, Soil Profile 1-Recommended Dynamic Soil and Rock Profiles Lower Bound, Best Fit, and Upper Bound [page 39 of NEDC (13-019)](9)

BLACK & VEATCH I REV. 1 7

ER 2014-003 Attachment A Page 15 of 44 Cooper Nuclear Station I Seismic Hazard and Screening Report Table 2.3.1-1b Geologic Profile for Estimated Layer Thickness CNS - Deep Bedrock Stratigraphy(4)(8 )

Elevation of Bottom of Unit (feet, MSL)

System Series Group(s)

Rock Types 600 Pennsylvanian Virgil Wabaunsee Shale, Limestone, Sandstone, Coal 300 Pennsylvanian Virgil Shawnee Limestone, Shale 150 Pennsylvanian Virgil Douglas Shale, Sandstone, Limestone 100 Pennsylvanian Missouri Lansing Limestone, Shale

-100 Pennsylvanian Missouri Kansas City Shale, Limestone

-150 Pennsylvanian Missouri Pleasanton Limestone, Shale

-350 Pennsylvanian Missouri, Des Marmaton Shale, Limestone, Moines Coal

-1050 Pennsylvanian, Des Moines Cherokee Shale, Coal, Mississippian Sandstone

-1350 Mississippian Meramec, Osage, Kinderhook Limestone, Chert, Shale

-1750 Devonian Shale, Limestone

-2150 Silurian Dolomite unknown Ordovician Maquoketa, Galena (Viola),

Shale, Dolomite, Decorah-Platteville, St. Peter, Limestone, Oneoto (Up. Arbuckle)

Sandstone

-2600 Cambrian Bonneterre (Lr. Arbuckle), La Sandstone, Shale, (3500fft deep)

Motte Glauconite, Granite Unknown Precambrian Metamorphic, Granite

1.

Elevations, systems, series, and groups were interpreted from USAR Figure I1-5-3(4).

2.

Elevations are in feet and were rounded to the nearest 50 feet.

3.

Rock types are from Condra (1935)(11).

BLACK & VEATCH I REV. 1 8

ER 2014-003 Attachment A Page 16 of 44 Cooper Nuclear Station I Seismic Hazard and Screening Report 2.3.2 Development of Base Case Profiles and Nonlinear Material Properties Table 2.3.1-1a shows the recommended shear wave velocities and unit weights along with elevations and corresponding stratigraphy. As indicated in utility communications and CNS Engineering Report ER 2014-002(15), the SSE control point is at elevation 869.5 feet (2655 m) within Type I fill/in-situ compacted alluvium.

Shear wave velocity estimates shown in Table 2.3.1-1a considered recent measurements made using a suspension logging system and downhole seismic measurements presented in NEDC (13-019)(9). For the firm rock below a depth of 128 feet (39m), 97 feet (30m) below the SSE, a shear wave velocity of 7,292 ft/s (2,222 m/s) was considered reasonable for the highest elevation of the firm rock units, based on the geologic description (Table 2.3.1-1b). The mean base case profile (P1) was based on the recommended densities and shear wave velocities listed in Table 2.3.1-1a along with a shear wave velocity of 7,292 ft/s (2,222m/s) for the underlying firm rock. Lower-and upper-range profiles were developed with scale factors of 1.25 for the top 49.5 feet (15m) and 1.57 below to reflect increased epistemic uncertainty for assumed shear wave velocities. The scale factors of 1.25 and 1.57 reflect a Upi. of about 0.2 and 0.35, respectively, based on the SPID(3) 10th and 90th fractiles, which implies a scale factor of 1.28 on

. Depth to Precambrian basement was taken at 3,500 feet (1,067m) randomized +/- 1,050 feet (320m). Profile P3, the stiffest profile, encountered hard rock shear wave velocities (9,285 ft/s, 2,890 m/s) at a depth below the SSE of about 97 feet (30m). The three shear wave velocity profiles are shown on Figure 2.3.2-1 and listed in Table 2.3.2-2.

BLACK & VEATCH I REV. 1 9

ER 2014-003 Attachment A Page 17 of 44 Cooper Nuclear Station I Seismic Hazard and Screening Report Table 2.3.2-2 Geologic Profile and Estimated Layer Thickness for CNS

_______Profile 1

______Profile 2

______Profile 3

Thickness Depth Vs Thickness Depth Vs Thickness Depth Vs (f)(ft)

(ft/s)

(11)

(11)

(ft/s)

(ft)

(11)

(ft/s) 0 1020 0

816 0

1275 10.0 10.0 1020 10.0 10.0 816 1

10.0 10.0 1275 4.5 14.5 1020 4.5 14.5 816 4.5 14.5 1275 10.0 24.5 1030 10.0 24.5 824 10.0 24.5 1288 10.0 34.5 1040 10.0 34.5 832 10.0 34.5 1300 6.0 40.5 1040 6.0 40.5 832 6.0 40.5 1300 9.0 49.5 1120 9.0 49.5 896 9.0 49.5 1400 10.0 59.5 1620 10.0 59.5 1032 10.0 59.5 2543 10.0 69.5 1760 10.0 69.5 1121 10.0 69.5 2763 10.0 79.5 1760 10.0 79.5 1121 10.0 79.5 2763 5.0 84.5 1760 5.0 84.5 1121 5.0 84.5 2763 10.0 94.5 2750 10.0 94.5 1752 10.0 94.5 4318 2.5 97.0 7292 2.5 97.0 4645 2.5 97.0 19285 10.0 107.0 7294 10.0 107.0 4647 10.0 107.0 9285 10.0 117.0 7299 10.0 117.0 4650 10.0 117.0 9285 10.0 127.0 7304 10.0 127.0 4653 10.0 127.0 9285 10.0 137.0 7309 10.0 137.0 4656 10.0 137.0 9285 10.0 147.0 7314 10.0 147.0 4659 10.0 147.0 9285 10.0 157.0 7319 10.0 157.0 4662 10.0 157.0 9285 10.0 167.0 7324 10.0 167.0 4666 10.0 167.0 9285 10.0 177.0 7329 10.0 177.0 4669 10.0 177.0 9285 10.0 187.0 7334 10.0 187.0 4672 10.0 187.0 9285 10.0 197.0 7339 10.0 197.0 4675 10.0 197.0 9285 10.0 207.0 7344 10.0 207.0 4678 10.0 207.0 9285 10.0 217.0 7349 10.0 217.0 4682 10.0 217.0 9285 10.0 227.0 7354 10.0 227.0 4685 10.0 227.0 9285 10.0 237.0 7359 10.0 237.0 4688 10.0 237.0 9285 10.0 247.0 7364 10.0 247.0 4691 10.0 247.0 9285 10.0 257.0 7369 10.0 257.0 4694 10.0 257.0 9285 10.0 267.0 7374 10.0 267.0 4698 10.0 267.0 9285 10.0 277.0 7379 10.0 277.0 4701 10.0 277.0 9285 10.0 287.0 7384 10.0 287.0 4704 10.0 287.0 9285 10.0 297.0 7389 10.0 297.0 4707 10.0 297.0 9285 10.0 307.0 7394 10.0 307.0 4710 10.0 307.0 9285 10.0 317.0 7399 10.0 317.0 4713 10.0 317.0 9285 10.0 327.0 7404 10.0 327.0 4717 10.0 327.0 9285 10.0 337.0 7409 10.0 337.0 4720 10.0 337.0 9285 10.0 347.0 7414 1

10.0 347.0 14723 10.0 347.0 9285 10.0 1357.0 17419 1

10.0 1357.0 14726 1

10.0 357.0 9285 BLACK & VEATCH I REV. 1 110

ER 2014-003 Attachment A Page 18 of 44 Cooper Nuclear Station I Seismic Hazard and Screening Report Profile 1 Profile 2 Profile 3 Thickness Depth Vs Thickness Depth Vs Thickness Depth Vs (f)(11)

(ft/s)

(ft)

(11)

(ft/s)

(ft)

(ft)

(ft/s) 10.0 367.0 7424 10.0 367.0 4729 10.0 367.0 9285 10.0 377.0 7429 10.0 377.0 4733 10.0 377.0 9285 10.0 387.0 7434 10.0 387.0 4736 10.0 387.0 9285 10.0 397.0 7439 10.0 397.0 4739 10.0 397.0 9285 10.0 407.0 7444 10.0 407.0 4742 10.0 407.0 9285 10.0 417.0 7449 10.0 417.0 4745 10.0 417.0 9285 10.0 427.0 7454 10.0 427.0 4748 10.0 427.0 9285 10.0 437.0 7459 10.0 437.0 4752 10.0 437.0 9285 10.0 447.0 7464 10.0 447.0 4755 10.0 447.0 9285 10.0 457.0 7469 10.0 457.0 4758 10.0 457.0 9285 10.0 467.0 7474 10.0 467.0 4761 10.0 467.0 9285 10.0 477.0 7479 10.0 477.0 4764 10.0 477.0 9285 10.0 487.0 7484 10.0 487.0 4768 10.0 487.0 9285 10.0 497.0 7489 10.0 497.0 4771 10.0 497.0 9285 10.0 507.0 7494 10.0 507.0 4774 10.0 507.0 9285 10.0 517.0 7499 10.0 517.0 4777 10.0 517.0 9285 10.0 527.0 7504 10.0 527.0 4780 10.0 527.0 9285 10.0 537.0 7509 10.0 537.0 4784 10.0 537.0 9285 10.0 547.0 7514 10.0 547.0 4787 10.0 547.0 9285 10.0 557.0 7519 10.0 557.0 4790 10.0 557.0 9285 10.0 567.0 7524 10.0 567.0 4793 10.0 567.0 9285 100.0 667.0 7549 100.0 667.0 4809 100.0 667.0 9285 100.0 767.0 7599 100.0 767.0 4841 100.0 767.0 9285 100.0 867.0 7649 100.0 867.0 4873 100.0 867.0 9285 100.0 967.0 7699 100.0 967.0 4905 100.0 967.0 9285 100.0 1067.0 7749 100.0 1067.0 4936 100.0 1067.0 9285 100.0 1167.0 7799 100.0 1167.0 4968 100.0 1167.0 9285 100.0 1266.9 7849 100.0 1266.9 5000 100.0 1266.9 9285 100.0 1366.9 7899 100.0 1366.9 5032 100.0 1366.9 9285 100.0 1466.9 7949 100.0 1466.9 5064 100.0 1466.9 9285 100.0 1566.9 7999 100.0 1566.9 5096 100.0 1566.9 9285 100.0 1666.9 8049 100.0 1666.9 5127 100.0 1666.9 9285 100.0 1766.9 8099 100.0 1766.9 5159 100.0 1766.9 9285 100.0 1866.9 8149 100.0 1866.9 5191 100.0 1866.9 19285 100.0 1966.9 8199 100.0 1966.9 5223 100.0 1966.9 9285 100.0.

2066.9 8249 100.0 2066.9 5255 100.0 2066.9 9285 100.0 2166.9 8299 100.0 2166.9 5287 100.0 2166.9 9285 100.0 2266.9 8349 100.0 2266.9 5319 100.0 2266.9 9285 100.0 2366.9 8399 100.0 2366.9 5350 100.0 2366.9 9285 100.0 2466.9 8449 100.0 2466.9 5382 100.0 2466.9 9285 100.0 2566.9 8499 100.0 2566.9 5414 100.0 2566.9 9285 BLACK & VEATCH I REV. 1I1 11

ER 2014-003 Attachment A Page 19 of 44 Cooper Nuclear Station I Seismic Hazard and Screening Report Profile I Profile 2 Profile 3 Thickness Depth Vs Thickness Depth Vs Thickness Depth Vs (ft)

(ft)

(ft/s)

(ft)

(ft)

(ft/s)

(1t)

(1t)

(ft/s) 100.0 2666.9 8549 100.0 2666.9 5446 100.0 2666.9 9285 100.0 2766.9 8599 100.0 2766.9 5478 100.0 2766.9 9285 100.0 2866.9 8649 100.0 2866.9 5510 100.0 2866.9 9285 100.0 2966.9 8699 100.0 2966.9 5541 100.0 2966.9 9285 100.0 3066.9 8749 100.0 3066.9 5573 100.0 3066.9 9285 100.0 3166.9 8799 100.0 3166.9 5605 100.0 3166.9 9285 100.0 3266.8 8849 100.0 3266.8 5637 100.0 3266.8 9285 100.0 3366.8 8899 100.0 3366.8 5669 100.0 3366.8 9285 100.0 3466.8 8949 100.0 3466.8 5701 100.0 3466.8 9285 80.2 3547.1 8999 80.2 3547.1 5733 80.2 3547.1 9285 3280.8 6827.9 9285 3280.8 6827.9 9285 3280.8 6827.9 9285 Vs profiles for Cooper Site Vs (ft/sec) 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 0

200 400 6 0 0 800 1000--

1200-Profile 1

1400 T

~.1600

-Profile 2

CL80 Profile 3 0 2000

. I 200 2200 2600

.T...... -

2800 4-...-

3000 4--

340011 3600 Figure 2.3.2-1 Shear Wave Velocity Profile Used in Site Response Calculations for Cooper Nuclear Station 2.3.2.1 Shear Modulus and Damping Curves Recent nonlinear dynamic material properties were not available for the CNS soils and sedimentary rocks. To accommodate epistemic uncertainty in nonlinear dynamic material properties for the soils, two sets of shear modulus reduction and hysteretic damping curves were used. The rock material over the upper 500 feet (150 m) was assumed to have behavior that could be modeled as either linear or nonlinear. To represent this potential for either case in the upper 500 feet of sedimentary rock at the CNS site, two sets of shear modulus reduction and hysteretic damping BLACK & VEATCH I REV, 1 12

ER 2014-003 Attachment A Page 20 of 44 Cooper Nuclear Station I Seismic Hazard and Screening Report curves were used. Consistent with the SPID(3), the EPRI soil and rock curves (model M1) were considered to be appropriate to represent the upper range nonlinearity likely in the materials at this site and linear analyses for firm rock along with Peninsular Range curves for soils (model M2) was assumed to represent an equally plausible alternative soil and firm rock response across loading level. For the linear analyses, the low strain damping from the EPRI rock curves were used as the constant damping values in the upper 500 feet.

2.3.2.2 Kappa Base case kappa estimates were determined using Section B-5.1.3.1 of the SPID(3) for a firm CEUS rock site. Kappa for a firm rock site with at least 3,000 feet (1 kin) of sedimentary rock may be estimated from the average S-wave velocity over the upper 100 feet (Vioo) of the subsurface profile while for a site with less than 3,000 feet (1 kin) of firm rock, kappa may be estimated with a Q, of 40 below 500 feet combined with the low strain damping from the EPRI rock curves and an additional kappa of 0.006s for the underlying hard rock. For the CNS site, with about 50 feet of soils overlying about 3,450 feet (1,052m) of firm rock, kappa was estimated with the low strain damping over the top 500 feet (152m) combined with a Qs of 40 below and 0.006s for the underlying hard rock. The resulting kappa values were 0.02 Is, 0.030s, and 0.008s for base case profiles P1, P2, and P3, respectively. Refer to Table 2.3.2-3.

BLACK & VEATCH I REV.

13 13

ER 2014-003 Attachment A Page 21 of 44 Cooper Nuclear Station I Seismic Hazard and Screening Report Table 2.3.2-3 Kappa Values Used for Site Response Analyses Velocity Profile Kappa(s)

P1 0.021 P2 0.030 P3 0.008 Weights P1 0.4 P2 0.3 P3 0.3 G/Gmax and Hysteretic Damping Curves M1 0.5 M2 0.5 2.3.3 Randomization of Base Case Profiles To account for the aleatory variability in dynamic material properties that is expected to occur across a site at the scale of a typical nuclear facility, variability in the assumed shear wave velocity profiles has been incorporated in the site response calculations. For the CNS site, randomized shear wave velocity profiles were developed from the base case profiles shown on Figure 2.3.2-1.

Consistent with the discussion in Appendix B of the SPID(3), the velocity randomization procedure made use of random field models that describe the statistical correlation between layering and shear wave velocity. The default randomization parameters developed in Toro (1997)(10) for 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 feet and 0.15 below that depth. As specified in the SPID(3),

correlation of shear wave velocity between layers was modeled using the footprint correlation model. In the correlation model, a limit of +/-2 standard deviations about the median value in each layer was assumed for the limits on random velocity fluctuations. All random velocities were limited to be less than or equal to 9830 ft/sec.

BLACK & VEATCH I REV. 1 14

ER 2014-003 Attachment A Page 22 of 44 Cooper Nuclear Station I Seismic Hazard and Screening Report 2.3.4 Input Spectra Consistent with the guidance in Appendix B of the SPID(3), 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 (peak ground acceleration [PGA] ranging from 0.01 to 1.5 g) were used in the site response analyses. The characteristics of the seismic source and upper crustal attenuation properties assumed for the analysis of the CNS site were the same as those identified in Tables B-4, B-5, B-6 and B-7 of the SPID(3) as appropriate for typical CEUS sites.

2.3.5 Methodology To perform the site response analyses for the CNS 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(3). The guidance contained in Appendix B of the SPID(3) on incorporating epistemic uncertainty in shear wave velocities, kappa, nonlinear dynamic properties and source spectra for plants with limited at-site information was followed for the CNS site.

2.3.6 Amplification Functions The results of the site response analysis consist of amplification factors (5 percent damped pseudo absolute response spectra) that 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(3), 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 (0.01g to 1.50g) for profile P1 and EPRI(8) 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 at the CNS firm rock site, Figure 2.3.6-2 shows the corresponding amplification factors developed with linear site response analyses ( model M2). Tabulated values of the amplification factors are provided in Appendix A.

BLACK & VEATCH IREV. I5 is

ER 2014-003 Attachment A Page 23 of 44 Cooper Nuclear Station I Seismic Hazard and Screening Report o_

C-a-E

• -C_

0 2

'S C

n-o= '-a-. -

INrPUT MOTION

',CtiG 13 CD 9

-7 co INPUT MOTlCt 0.05C INPUT MOTION 0.20C 4

, H,.

C Co

-I-,

'a

'-3 C

C-S

'S 1I'WUT MOTICI4 0.3CC C

TNPUTr fIOTTC#N fl4fl 10 -

LeO 0

i0 1 Frequeiicy (Hz)

]

2J 3 L_-

10oZ 1 i-I uT MOTION 0 40C 10 0 101 Frequercy (Hz)

In Z AMPLIFICATIOH,

COOPER, M1PiK1 M 6.5., 1 CORNER: PAGE 1 OF Z Figure 2.3.6-1 Example Suite of Amplification Factors (5 percent damping pseudo absolute acceleration spectra) developed for the mean base case profile (P1), EPRI rock modulus reduction and hysteretic damping curves (model M1), and base-case kappa (KI) at 11 loading levels of hard rock median peak acceleration values from 0.01g to 1.50g. M 6.5 and single-corner source model (SPID(3)).

BLACK & VEATCH I REV. 1 16

ER 2014-003 Attachment A Page 24 of 44 Cooper Nuclear Station I Seismic Hazard and Screening Report C-

°O

".0 12 0

U Cr 0

o)

C-Cr C INPUT MOTION 0.50G C

C3 C

INPUT MOTION 1.a-C INPUT NOTION 1.50C "1

INPUT MOTION 0.7-'5G

,a 4

)

INPUT MiOTION4 1.25G

~

to-1 to 0 ao 1

Frequenicy (Hz) 10 2 ANPLIFICATION,

COOPER, MiPIKI M 6.5, 1 CORNER:

PAGE 2 OF 2 Figure 2.3.6-1.

(continued)

BLACK & VEATCH I REV. 1 17

ER 2014-003 Attachment A Page 25 of 44 Cooper Nuclear Station I Seismic Hazard and Screening Report C -

L3 a2-E 4=

Cc

~0(

'4-a-

Cc iiiii I

! 1 rll;*

INRfJT MOTION 0.0GG 1rNPuT MOTI(rI LOAG 10 -

toG 0

I 1 10n2 INUTMOIIN0.5 a

In1 Z

10 -1 UT MIOT[I*N 0.40G Frequency (Hz)

IQ0 a 10 Frequericý (Hz) 10 ý AMPLIFICATION,

COOPER, M2121K1 M 6.5, 1 CORNER; PAGE 1 OF 2 Figure 2.3.6-2 Example Suite of Amplification Factors (5 percent damping pseudo absolute acceleration spectra) developed for the mean base case profile (Pt), linear site response (model M2), and base case kappa (KI) at 11 loading levels of hard rock median peak acceleration values from 0.01g to 1.50g. M 6.5 and single-corner source model (SPID(3)).

/. 1 18 BLACK& VEATCH I RE*

ER 2014-003 Attachment A Page 26 of 44 Cooper Nuclear Station I Seismic Hazard and Screening Report C-o 4-C3 E

~40 CO C3 CC INRJT OT ION 0.50G C

-0 0

INPUT MOTION 0.75G INPUT MOTIONt 1.25C FINPUT MOT 1.O INPUT MOTION 1.500G C

C::

0 1o -I to 0) to 1 10 2 Frequency (Hz)

AMPLIFICATION,

COOPER, M2P1K1 M 6.5, 1 CORNER; PAGE 2 OF 2 Figure 2.3.6-2.

(continued)

BLACK & VEATCH I REV. 1 19

ER 2014-003 Attachment A Page 27 of 44 Cooper Nuclear Station I Seismic Hazard and Screening Report 2.3.7 Control Point Seismic Hazard Curves The procedure to develop probabilistic site-specific control point hazard curves used in the present analysis follows the methodology described in Section B-6.0 of the SPID(3). 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 oscillator frequencies. 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 CNS are shown on Figure 2.3.7-1 for the seven oscillator frequencies for which GMM is defined. Tabulated values of the control point hazard curves are provided in Appendix A.

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

-25 Hz

-10 Hz

~.-5 Hz 011PGA 0

-2.5 Hz rC 1E-5 ai

-1 Hz eu

-0.5 Hz 1E-6 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, 2.5, 5, 10, 25 and 100 Hz at CNS BLACK & VEATCH REVM 12 20

ER 2014-003 Attachment A Page 28 of 44 Cooper Nuclear Station I Seismic Hazard and Screening Report 2.4 Control Point Response Spectra 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 oscillator frequency for the 1E-4 and 1E-5 per year hazard levels.

The 1E-4 and 1E-5 UHRS, along with the design factor (DF) are used to compute the GMRS at the control point using the criteria in Regulatory Guide 1.208(7). Table 2.4-1 shows the UHRS and GMRS spectral accelerations.

Table 2.4-1 shows the UHRS and GMRS accelerations for a range of spectral frequencies.

Figure 2.4-1 shows the control point UHRS and GMRS.

BLACK & VEATCH I REV. 1 21

ER 2014-003 Attachment A Page 29 of 44 Cooper Nuclear Station I Seismic Hazard and Screening Report Table 2.4-1 UHRS for 10 and 10.s and GMRS at Control Point for CNS Freq. (Hz) 10-4 UHRS (g) 10-s UHRS (g)

GMRS (g) 100 8.94E-02 2.88E-01 1.37E-01 90 8.93E-02 2.91E-01 1.38E-01 80 8.93E-02 2.96E-01 1.40E-01 70 8.92E-02 3.02E-01 1.42E-01 60 8.93E-02 3.08E-01 1.44E-01 50 8.95E-02 3.17E-01 1.48E-01 40 9.06E-02 3.31E-01 1.53E-01 35 9.17E-02 3.42E-01 1.58E-01 30 9.39E-02 3.57E-01 1.64E-01 25 9.83E-02 3.83E-01 1.75E-01 20 1.06E-01 3.98E-01 1.83E-01 15 1.26E-01 4.38E-01 2.05E-01 12.5 1.40E-01 4.79E-01 2.25E-01 10 1.52E-01 4.88E-01 2.32E-01 9

1.55E-01 4.96E-01 2.36E-01 8

1.58E-01 5.05E-01 2.40E-01 7

1.65E-01 5.26E-01 2.50E-01 6

1.83E-01 5.69E-01 2.72E-01 5

2.11E-01 6.31E-01 3.04E-01 4

2.09E-01 5.89E-01 2.87E-01 3.5 1.94E-01 5.35E-01 2.62E-01 3

1.63E-01 4.51E-01 2.21E-01 2.5 1.18E-01 3.40E-01 1.65E-01 2

9.57E-02 2.75E-01 1.34E-01 1.5 7.69E-02 2.01E-01 9.95E-02 1.25 6.93E-02 1.67E-01 8.42E-02 1

6.48E-02 1.43E-01 7.31E-02 0.9 6.08E-02 1.34E-01 6.86E-02 0.8 5.62E-02 1.24E-01 6.35E-02 0.7 5.28E-02 1.17E-01 5.97E-02 0.6 5.02E-02 1.11E-01 5.69E-02 0.5 4.65E-02 1.04E-01 5.29E-02 0.4 3.72E-02 8.28E-02 4.23E-02 0.35 3.25E-02 7.25E-02 3.70E-02 0.3 2.79E-02 6.21E-02 3.17E-02 0.25 2.32E-02 5.18E-02 2.65E-02 0.2 1.86E-02 4.14E-02 2.12E-02 0.15 1.39E-02 3.11E-02 1.59E-02 0.125 1.16E-02 2.59E-02 1.32E-02 0.1 9.29E-03 2.07E-02 1.06E-02 BLACK & VEATCH I REV. 1 22

ER 2014-003 Attachment A Page 30 of 44 Cooper Nuclear Station I Seismic Hazard and Screening Report Mean Soil UHRS and GMRS at Cooper 0.8 0.6

.400 0.4 L.

0.

0.2 I

-1E-5 UHRS

-GMRS

-1E-4 UHRS 0.

0.1 Figure 2.4-1 1

10 100 Spectral frequency, Hz UHRS for 1E-4 and 1E-5 and GMRS at Control Point for CNS BLACK & VEATCH REV. 1 23

ER 2014-003 Attachment A Page 31 of 44 Cooper Nuclear Station I Seismic Hazard and Screening Report 3.0 Plant Design Basis The design basis for CNS is identified in the USAR(4).

3.1 SSE Description of Spectral Shape The SSE was developed in accordance with 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A that existed at the time of the construction permit through an evaluation of the maximum earthquake potential for the region surrounding the site. The SSE for CNS was developed based on the U.S. Coast & Geodetic Survey (USC&GS) Seismic-Probability Map, the records of historical earthquakes, and the regional and local geologic structural features according to CNS USAR, Section 11-5.204). Considering the historical seismicity of the site region, CNS determined that an earthquake with an intensity of VII on the Modified Mercalli Scale (MM) would affect the site during the life of the nuclear power station. The hypothetical maximum possible intensity of ground motion at the site would likely result from a local earthquake smaller than the New Madrid earthquakes of 1811 and 1812. CNS USAR, Section 11-5.2(4), considered it improbable that future local earthquakes (e.g., the Humboldt Fault) would have epicentral intensities greater than MM VII.

Considering the regional and local geology and seismology at the CNS as stated the CNS USAR, Chapter 11(4), a hypothetical maximum possible design earthquake, i.e., SSE of 0.2g, was selected for structural analysis. The 0.2g value was chosen for the horizontal component of the acceleration at both the rock surface, approximate elevation of 820 feet MSL, and the base of the structures. The application of the SSE at the base of each Class I structure is based on the assumption that the structures are founded on a dense structural fill.

Also from the USAR(4), the SSE response spectrum was developed using the accelerogram of the N69W component of the July 21, 1952, Kern County earthquake recorded at Taft, California. This accelerogram was selected for reasons of geology, geometry, seismology, and comparison with other spectra. The SSE response spectrum developed for the CNS is shown on Table 3.1-1 and is similar to the average spectrum recommended by the US Atomic Energy Commission T]D-7024(13).

The SSE response spectrum is provided in the following table.

Table 3.1-1 SSE for CNS (5 Percent Damping)

Frequency 100/PGA 33 25 9

5 3

2.5 1.8 1

0.5 (Hz)

Spectral 0.20 0.20 0.26 0.34 0.42 0.53 0.50 0.41 0.19 0.13 Acc. (g) 3.2 Control Point Elevation(s)

A single SSE control point is defined at elevation 869.5 of the Control Building.(8)

The CNS SSE has multiple control points described in the CNS USAR(4). For the original CNS Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) evaluation, a soil-structure interaction (SSI) analysis was performed for both the Reactor Building and Control Building(14). For the comparison of the GMRS and SSE, the Control Building control point elevation (869.5') is used since it is at a higher elevation than the Reactor Building foundation elevation. This is consistent with the SPID(3) guidance.

BLACK & VEATCH I REV. 1 24

ER 2014-003 Attachment A Page 32 of 44 Cooper Nuclear Station I Seismic Hazard and Screening Report 4.0 Screening Evaluation In accordance with SPID Section 3, a screening evaluation was performed as described below.

4.1 Risk Evaluation (1 to 10 Hz)

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

4.2 High Frequency Screening (> 10Hz)

Above 10 Hz, the SSE exceeds the GMRS. Therefore, the high frequency confirmation will not be performed.

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

In the 1 to 10 Hz part of the response spectrum, the SSE exceeds the GMRS. Therefore, a spent fuel pool evaluation will not be performed.

BLACK & VEATCH I REV. 1 25

ER 2014-003 Attachment A Page 33 of 44 Cooper Nuclear Station I Seismic Hazard and Screening Report 5.0 Interim Actions Based on the screening evaluation, the expedited seismic evaluation described in EPRI 3002000704(17) will not be performed. CNS screens from this activity since its GMRS is less than the SSE between 1 and 10 Hz.

Consistent with NRC letter(18 ) dated February 20, 2014, [ML14030A046] the seismic hazard reevaluations presented herein are distinct from the current design and licensing bases of CNS.

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

The NRC letter also requests that licensees provide an interim evaluation or actions to 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(19) to the NRC dated March 12, 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:

Overall seismic core damage risk estimates are consistent with the Commission's Safety Goal Policy Statement because they are within the subsidiary objective of 10-4/year for core damage frequency. The GI-199 Safety/Risk Assessment, based in part on information from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) program, indicates that no concern exists regarding adequate protection and that the current seismic design of operating reactors provides a safety margin to withstand potential earthquakes exceeding the original design basis.

CNS is included in the March 12, 2014 risk estimates(19). Using the methodology described in the NEI letter(19), all plants were shown to be below 10-4/year; thus, the above conclusions apply.

5.1 NTrF 2.3 - Seismic Walkdowns CNS performed seismic walkdowns to meet Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3. As part of this program a total of 104 seismic walkdowns and 60 area walk-bys were conducted resulting in 53 Condition Reports (CR). A summary of these CR's is available in the Cooper Nuclear Station Seismic Walkdown Report for Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3: Seismic(16). These CR's are documented in a table in the seismic walkdown report along with the categorization of the action to have them resolved.

Also as part of the 2.3 walkdown, IPEEE vulnerabilities were reviewed and evaluated. This evaluation concluded that there are no IPEEE vulnerabilities at CNS. Details of these evaluations are available for review in Seismic Walkdown Report(16).

The Seismic Walkdown project is open pending three additional walkdowns that will be performed in accordance with commitments identified in a letter to the NRC (NLS2012125)( 20).

BLACK & VEATCH I REV. 1 26

ER 2014-003 Attachment A Page 34 of 44 Cooper Nuclear Station I Seismic Hazard and Screening Report 6.0 Conclusions In accordance with the 50.54(f) request for information letter a seismic hazard and screening evaluation was performed for CNS. A GMRS was developed solely for the purpose of screening for additional evaluation in accordance with the SPID.

Based on the results of the screening evaluation, no further evaluations will be performed.

BLACK & VEATCH I REV. I 27

ER 2014-003 Attachment A Page 35 of 44 Cooper Nuclear Station I Seismic Hazard and Screening Report 7.0 References

1.

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Eric 1. Leeds and Michael R. Johnson), Letter to All Power Reactor Licensees et al., "Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(o Regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3 and 9.3, of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident", March 12, 2012.

2.

Nebraska Public Power District, CNS USAR Appendix C - Structural Loading Criteria."

3.

Electric Power Research Institute, Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic, 1025287, EPRI, Palo Alto, California, February 2013.

4.

Nebraska Public Power District, CNS USAR Chapter II, "Station Site and Environs."

5.

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.

6.

EPRI (2004, 2006) Ground-Motion Model (GMM) Review Project, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California, Rept. 3002000717, June, 2 volumes.

7.

"A performance-based approach to define the site-specific earthquake ground motion," US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Reg. Guide 1.208.

8.

EPRI Data Request Report Revision 3 August 2013, Informal report transmitted to EPRI in August 2013, dated August 19, 2013.

9.

NEDC (13-019). Review of ZNE Calculation 12-366, Determination of Dynamic Soil and Rock Properties for Class I Structures at the CNS Site, Rev. 0

10.

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.

11.

G. E. Condra, Geologic Cross-Section, Forest City, Missouri to Du Bois, Nebraska, Nebraska Geologic Survey, 1935.

12.

Patrick L. Pope, Nebraska Public Power District, Letter NLS2013085 to U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Document Control Desk), "Nebraska Public Power District's Response to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Request for Additional Information Pursuant to 10CFR 50.54(0 Regarding Seismic Aspects of Recommendation 2.1 of the Near Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident - 1.5 Year Response for CEUS Sites Cooper Nuclear Station, Docket 50-928, DPR-46", September 12, 2013.

13.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Nuclear Reactors and Earthquakes, TID-7024, US Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C., August 1963.

14.

NEDC (87-162), Attachment K, Generation of Conservtaive Design and Median-Centered In-Structure Response Spectra for the Cooper Nuclear Plant Control and Reactor Buildings, July 1994.

BLACK & VEATCH I REV. 1 28

ER 2014-003 Attachment A Page 36 of 44 Cooper Nuclear Station I Seismic Hazard and Screening Report

15.

CNS Engineering Report ER 2014-002 50.54(0 Section 2.1 Seismic - LCI GMRS Report Acceptance, March 18, 2014.

16.

CNS Memo DED 12-0003, Response to 10 CFR 50.54(0 Section 2.3 Seismic, November 27, 2012.

17.

Electric Power Research Institute, Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic, 3002000704, EPRI, Palo Alto, California May 2013.

18.

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Eric J. Leeds), Letter to All Power Reactor Licensees et al., "Supplemental Information Related to Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(0 Regarding Seismic Hazard Reevaluations for Recommendation of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Accident", February 20, 2014.

19.

Nuclear Energy Institute (Anthony R. Pietrangelo) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Eric J. Leeds) "Seismic Risk Evaluations for Plants in the Central and Eastern United States",

March 12, 2014.

20.

Brian 1. O'Grady, Nebraska Public Power District, Letter NLS2012125 to U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Document Control Desk), "Seismic Walkdown Report - Nebraska Public Power District's Response to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Request for Additional Information Pursuant to 10CFR 50.54(0 Regarding Seismic Aspects of Recommendation 2.3 of the Near Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident Cooper Nuclear Station, Docket No. 50-298, DPR-46", November 27, 2012.

BLACK & VEATCH I REV. 1 29

ER 2014-003 Attachment A Page 37 of 44 Cooper Nuclear Station I Seismic Hazard and Screening Report Appendix A PGA Seismic Hazard Curves at CNS Table A-la. Mean and Fractiles for PGA Hazard at CNS PGA (g)

MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 4.46E-02 1.79E-02 3.33E-02 4.50E-02 5.75E-02 6.36E-02 0.001 3.12E-02 1.11E-02 2.13E-02 3.05E-02 4.19E-02 4.98E-02 0.005 8.46E-03 2.60E-03 4.90E-03 7.77E-03 1.18E-02 1.72E-02 0.01 4.14E-03 1.18E-03 2.01E-03 3.52E-03 6.OOE-03 9.79E-03 0.015 2.44E-03 6.83E-04 L.05E-03 1.95E-03 3.52E-03 6.54E-03 0.03 7.73E-04 1.87E-04 2.88E-04 5.42E-04 1.05E-03 2.42E-03 0.05 2.94E-04 5.75E-05 9.65E-05 1.92E-04 4.25E-04 1.01E-03 0.075 1.38E-04 2.29E-05 4.25E-05 8.72E-05 2.10E-04 4.70E-04 0.1 8.15E-05 1.27E-05 2.49E-05 5.20E-05 1.25E-04 2.68E-04 0.15 3.83E-05 5.50E-06 1.18E-05 2.53E-05 5.83E-05 1.21E-04 0.3 9.16E-06 1.05E-06 2.57E-06 6.26E-06 1.42E-05 2.68E-05 0.5 2.67E-06 2.04E-07 5.83E-07 1.74E-06 4.37E-06 8.12E-06 0.75 8.85E-07 3.84E-08 1.38E-07 5.27E-07 1.49E-06 2.92E-06

1.

3.79E-07 9.93E-09 4.31E-08 2.01E-07 6.54E-07 1.34E-06 1.5 1.05E-07 1.18E-09 6.54E-09 4.37E-08 1.77E-07 4.19E-07

3.

8.99E-09 1.62E-10 2.53E-10 2.10E-09 1.32E-08 4.37E-08

5.

1.13E-09 1.32E-10 1.62E-10 2.60E-10 1.42E-09 6.17E-09 7.5 1.78E-10 1.21E-10 1.32E-10 1.62E-10 2.92E-10 1.11E-09

10.

4.27E-11 1.21E-10 1.32E-10 1.62E-10 1.72E-10 3.68E-10 Table A-lb. 0.5 Hz Seismic Hazard Curves at CNS PGA (g)

MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 1.78E-02 8.OOE-03 1.16E-02 1.72E-02 2.39E-02 2.92E-02 0.001 1.07E-02 4.37E-03 6.45E-03 1.01E-02 1.46E-02 1.87E-02 0.005 3.OOE-03 4.90E-04 1.05E-03 2.64E-03 4.90E-03 6.73E-03 0.01 1.52E-03 L.05E-04 2.88E-04 1.10E-03 2.80E-03 4.31E-03 0.015 9.12E-04 3.63E-05 1.11E-04 5.27E-04 1.77E-03 3.01E-03 0.03 2.76E-04 4.70E-06 1.57E-05 9.93E-05 5.20E-04 1.13E-03 0.05 8.43E-05 9.37E-07 3.14E-06 2.13E-05 1.36E-04 3.79E-04 0.075 2.72E-05 2.39E-07 8.23E-07 5.66E-06 3.84E-05 1.23E-04 0.1 1.12E-05 8.35E-08 3.14E-07 2.10E-06 1.44E-05 4.90E-05 0.15 2.94E-06 1.64E-08 7.55E-08 5.35E-07 3.63E-06 1.29E-05 0.3 3.14E-07 8.47E-10 5.20E-09 5.12E-08 3.90E-07 1.46E-06 0.5 8.04E-08 1.92E-10 6.64E-10 8.47E-09 8.601-08 3.84E-07 0.75 3.09E-08 1.62E-10 2.13E-10 1.98E-09 2.64E-08 1.42E-07

1.

1.59E-08 1.62E-10 1.62E-10 7.13E-10 1.15E-08 7.03E-08 1.5 6.04E-09 1.32E-10 1.62E-10 2.35E-10 3.19E-09 2.46E-08

3.

9.74E-10 1.21E-10 1.32E-10 1.62E-10 3.841-10 3.19E-09

5.

2.09E-10 1.21E-10 1.32E-10 1.62E-10 1.69E-10 6.26E-10 7.5 5.35E-11 1.21E-10 1.32E-10 1.62E-10 1.62E-10 2.35E-10

10.

1.88E-11 1.21E-10 1.32E-10 1.62E-10 1.62E-10 1.69E-10 BLACK & VEATCH I REV. 1 30

ER 2014-003 Attachment A Page 38 of 44 Cooper Nuclear Station I Seismic Hazard and Screening Report Table A-ic. 1 Hz Seismic Hazard Curves at CNS PGA (g)

MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 3.54E-02 1.64E-02 2.35E-02 3.52E-02 4.70E-02 5.42E-02 0.001 2.30E-02 9.37E-03 1.42E-02 2.22E-02 3.19E-02 3.84E-02 0.005 5.86E-03 1.79E-03 3.01E-03 5.50E-03 8.72E-03 1.11E-02 0.01 2.93E-03 5.42E-04 1.08E-03 2.57E-03 4.77E-03 6.54E-03 0.015 1.81E-03 2.29E-04 4.98E-04 1.42E-03 3.19E-03 4.70E-03 0.03 6.02E-04 4.07E-05 9.79E-05 3.47E-04 1.13E-03 2.01E-03 0.05 1.98E-04 9.93E-06 2.42E-05 8.98E-05 3.42E-04 7.45E-04 0.075 6.79E-05 3.05E-06 7.45E-06 2.84E-05 1.08E-04 2.60E-04 0.1 2.94E-05 1.27E-06 3.14E-06 1.20E-05 4.50E-05 1.15E-04 0.15 8.59E-06 3.42E-07 9.51E-07 3.63E-06 1.32E-05 3.28E-05 0.3 1.25E-06 2.84E-08 1.07E-07 5.20E-07 2.07E-06 4.98E-06 0.5 3.86E-07 3.52E-09 1.84E-08 1.32E-07 6.26E-07 1.62E-06 0.75 1.60E-07 6.83E-10 4.07E-09 4.31E-08 2.49E-07 7.13E-07

1.

8.50E-08 2.84E-10 1.36E-09 1.84E-08 1.27E-07 3.84E-07 1.5 3.33E-08 1.64E-10 3.47E-10 5.20E-09 4.56E-08 1.55E-07

3.

5.57E-09 1.44E-10 1.62E-10 5.35E-10 6.17E-09 2.60E-08

5.

1.23E-09 1.32E-10 1.62E-10 1.84E-10 1.18E-09 5.50E-09 7.5 3.25E-10 1.21E-10 1.32E-10 1.62E-10 3.52E-10 1.42E-09

10.

1.17E-10 1.21E-10 1.32E-10 1.62E-10 2.01E-10 5.58E-10 Table A-id. 2.5 Hz Seismic Hazard Curves at CNS PGA (g)

MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 5.33E-02 3.52E-02 4.25E-02 5.35E-02 6.45E-02 7.03E-02 0.001 4.26E-02 2.32E-02 2.96E-02 4.25E-02 5.50E-02 6.36E-02 0.005 1.42E-02 5.27E-03 7.66E-03 1.31E-02 2.10E-02 2.68E-02 0.01 7.02E-03 2.07E-03 3.33E-03 6.36E-03 1.08E-02 1.40E-02 0.015 4.37E-03 1.04E-03 1.79E-03 3.84E-03 7.03E-03 9.37E-03 0.03 1.63E-03 2.49E-04 4.63E-04 1.23E-03 2.84E-03 4.31E-03 0.05 6.46E-04 7.77E-05 1.51E-04 4.19E-04 1.11E-03 1.98E-03 0.075 2.75E-04 2.96E-05 5.91E-05 1.69E-04 4.56E-04 8.85E-04 0.1 1.44E-04 1.51E-05 3.01E-05 8.85E-05 2.35E-04 4.56E-04 0.15 5.75E-05 5.75E-06 1.23E-05 3.57E-05 9.51E-05 1.79E-04 0.3 1.30E-05 1.11E-06 2.72E-06 8.23E-06 2.22E-05 4.07E-05 0.5 4.50E-06 2.92E-07 8.35E-07 2.80E-06 7.77E-06 1.44E-05 0.75 1.85E-06 9.37E-08 2.96E-07 1.10E-06 3.23E-06 6.09E-06

1.

9.36E-07 3.73E-08 1.31E-07 5.27E-07 1.64E-06 3.19E-06 1.5 3.26E-07 9.24E-09 3.57E-08 1.64E-07 5.75E-07 1.18E-06

3.

4.09E-08 6.64E-10 2.53E-09 1.49E-08 6.93E-08 1.67E-07

5.

7.35E-09 1.87E-10 3.47E-10 1.74E-09 1.11E-08 3.28E-08 7.5 1.72E-09 1.55E-10 1.67E-10 3.57E-10 2.25E-09 8.OOE-09

10.

5.85E-10 1.32E-10 1.62E-10 1.87E-10 7.34E-10 2.76E-09 BLACK & VEATCH I REV. 1 31

ER 2014-003 Attachment A Page 39 of 44 Cooper Nuclear Station I Seismic Hazard and Screening Report Table A-le. 5Hz Seismic Hazard Curves at CNS PGA(g)

MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 5.89E-02 4.43E-02 4.90E-02 5.83E-02 6.83E-02 7.34E-02 0.001 5.17E-02 3.37E-02 4.07E-02 5.20E-02 6.26E-02 6.93E-02 0.005 2.19E-02 9.79E-03 1.36E-02 2.10E-02 3.05E-02 3.68E-02 0.01 1.18E-02 4.70E-03 6.83E-03 1.11E-02 1.69E-02 2.10E-02 0.015 7.77E-03 2.76E-03 4.25E-03 7.23E-03 1.13E-02 1.44E-02 0.03 3.32E-03 9.37E-04 1.51E-03 2.92E-03 5.20E-03 7.13E-03 0.05 1.53E-03 3.79E-04 6.09E-04 1.21E-03 2.42E-03 3.73E-03 0.075 7.53E-04 1.67E-04 2.76E-04 5.66E-04 1.16E-03 1.98E-03 0.1 4.39E-04 8.98E-05 1.51E-04 3.23E-04 6.73E-04 1.16E-03 0.15 1.99E-04 3.52E-05 6.36E-05 1.44E-04 3.05E-04 5.35E-04 0.3 4.91E-05 6.73E-06 1.36E-05 3.52E-05 8.OOE-05 1.36E-04 0.5 1.69E-05 1.69E-06 3.90E-06 1.16E-05 2.88E-05 4.90E-05 0.75 6.79E-06 4.56E-07 1.21E-06 4.43E-06 1.21E-05 2.10E-05

1.

3.38E-06 1.55E-07 4.77E-07 2.04E-06 6.17E-06 1.10E-05 1.5 1.14E-06 2.72E-08 1.07E-07 6.09E-07 2.16E-06 4.01E-06

3.

1.34E-07 8.60E-10 5.83E-09 4.90E-08 2.49E-07 5.42E-07 S.

2.19E-08 1.72E-10 5.66E-10 5.50E-09 3.73E-08 9.65E-08 7.5 4.73E-09 1.62E-10 1.82E-10 8.85E-10 7.03E-09 2.16E-08

10.

1.53E-09 1.32E-10 1.62E-10 2.96E-10 2.04E-09 7.03E-09 Table A-if. 10 Hz Seismic Hazard Curves at CNS PGA (g)

MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 5.25E-02 3.57E-02 4.25E-02 5.27E-02 6.26E-02 6.83E-02 0.001 4.06E-02 2.35E-02 3.14E-02 4.07E-02 4.98E-02 5.66E-02 0.005 1.29E-02 5.91E-03 8.35E-03 1.23E-02 1.72E-02 2.25E-02 0.01 6.71E-03 2.60E-03 3.84E-03 6.17E-03 9.37E-03 1.29E-02 0.015 4.31E-03 1.53E-03 2.25E-03 3.84E-03 6.26E-03 8.98E-03 0.03 1.72E-03 5.50E-04 8.OOE-04 1.40E-03 2.49E-03 4.13E-03 0.05 7.56E-04 2.22E-04 3.33E-04 5.91E-04 1.07E-03 1.92E-03 0.075 3.68E-04 9.93E-05 1.55E-04 2.84E-04 5.20E-04 9.65E-04 0.1 2.17E-04 5.35E-05 8.85E-05 1.67E-04 3.19E-04 5.75E-04 0.15 1.02E-04 2.19E-05 3.95E-05 7.89E-05 1.57E-04 2.64E-04 0.3 2.74E-05 4.77E-06 9.93E-06 2.16E-05 4.37E-05 7.03E-05 0.5 9.52E-06 1.34E-06 3.09E-06 7.34E-06 1.55E-05 2.49E-05 0.75 3.75E-06 4.07E-07 1.04E-06 2.76E-06 6.26E-06 1.04E-05

1.

1.83E-06 1.51E-07 4.25E-07 1.27E-06 3.14E-06 5.35E-06 1.5 6.05E-07 3.09E-08 1.07E-07 3.68E-07 1.07E-06 1.92E-06

3.

6.91E-08 1.34E-09 6.OOE-09 3.09E-08 1.27E-07 2.53E-07

5.

1.11E-08 2.04E-10 5.42E-10 3.63E-09 1.95E-08 4.63E-08 7.5 2.29E-09 1.62E-10 1.77E-10 6.36E-10 3.73E-09 1.05E-08

10.

6.96E-10 1.32E-10 1.62E-10 2.49E-10 1.11E-09 3.42E-09 BLACK & VEATCH I REV. 1 32

ER 2014-003 Attachment A Page 40 of 44 Cooper Nuclear Station I Seismic Hazard and Screening Report Table A-lg. 25 Hz Seismic Hazard Curves at CNS PGA (g)

MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 4.64E-02 2.19E-02 3.68E-02 4.63E-02 5.75E-02 6.45E-02 0.001 3.36E-02 1.42E-02 2.49E-02 3.28E-02 4.31E-02 5.27E-02 0.005 1.04E-02 3.79E-03 6.17E-03 9.51E-03 1.40E-02 2.16E-02 0.01 5.60E-03 1.84E-03 2.92E-03 4.90E-03 7.89E-03 1.27E-02 0.015 3.54E-03 1.13E-03 1.74E-03 2.92E-03 5.12E-03 8.60E-03 0.03 1.15E-03 3.37E-04 4.98E-04 8.85E-04 1.57E-03 3.23E-03 0.05 3.89E-04 9.65E-05 1.55E-04 2.88E-04 5.50E-04 1.13E-03 0.075 1.66E-04 3.52E-05 6.26E-05 1.23E-04 2.53E-04 4.70E-04 0.1 9.69E-05 1.90E-05 3.57E-05 7.34E-05 1.49E-04 2.64E-04 0.15 4.85E-05 9.11E-06 1.84E-05 3.79E-05 7.45E-05 1.27E-04 0.3 1.5SE-05 2.72E-06 6.09E-06 1.27E-05 2.39E-05 3.84E-05 0.5 6.24E-06 9.93E-07 2.32E-06 S.12E-06 9.65E-06 1.5lE-05 0.75 2.80E-06 3.95E-07 9.65E-07 2.29E-06 4.43E-06 7.13E-06

1.

1.50E-06 1.87E-07 4.70E-07 1.20E-06 2.39E-06 4.01E-06 1.5 5.72E-07 5.35E-08 1.51E-07 4.31E-07 9.37E-07 1.67E-06

3.

8.30E-08 3.95E-09 1.36E-08 5.27E-08 1.40E-07 2.88E-07

5.

1.55E-08 4.98E-10 1.64E-09 8.OOE-09 2.64E-08 6.09E-08 7.5 3.47E-09 1.84E-10 3.42E-10 1.49E-09 5.91E-09 1.51E-08

10.

1.09E-09 1.62E-10 1.84E-10 4.77E-10 1.87E-09 5.05E-09 BLACK & VEATCH I REV. 1 33

ER 2014-003 Attachment A Page 41 of 44 Cooper Nuclear Station I Seismic Hazard and Screening Report Table A-2a. Medians and Logarithmic Sigmas of Amplification Factors for CNS Median Sigma Median Sigma Median Sigma Median Sigma PGA AF In(AF) 25 Hz AF In(AF) 10 Hz AF In(AF) 5 Hz AF ln(AF) 1.OOE-02 1.52E+00 1.04E-01 1.30E-02 1.18E+00 1.03E-01 1.90E-02 1.14E+00 1.44E-01 2.09E-02 2.07E+00 1.44E-01 4.95E-02 1.11E+00 9.99E-02 1.02E-01 5.89E-01 9.78E-02 9.99E-02 9.64E-01 1.72E-01 8.24E-02 1.95E+00 1.50E-01 9.64E-02 9.73E-01 9.80E-02 2.13E-01 5.OOE-01 9.56E-02 1.85E-01 9.13E-01 1.75E-01 1.44E-01 1.86E+00 1.56E-01 1.94E-01 8.61E-01 9.34E-02 4.43E-01 5.OOE-01 9.17E-02 3.56E-01 8.53E-01 1.70E-01 2.65E-01 1.75E+00 1.75E-01 2.92E-01 8.02E-01 9.23E-02 6.76E-01 5.OOE-01 9.21E-02 5.23E-01 8.12E-01 1.72E-01 3.84E-01 1.65E+00 1.92E-01 3.91E-01 7.60E-01 9.40E-02 9.09E-01 5.OOE-01 9.S1E-02 6.90E-01 7.80E-01 1.75E-01 5.02E-01 1.57E+00 2.07E-01 4.93E-01 7.28E-01 9.84E-02 1.15E+00 5.OOE-01 1.OOE-01 8.61E-01 7.51E-01 1.80E-01 6.22E-01 1.SOE+00 2.24E-01 7.41E-01 6.63E-01 1.52E-01 1.73E+00 5.00E-01 1.51E-01 1.27E+00 6.89E-01 2.14E-01 9.13E-01 1.35E+00 2.77E-01 1.01E+00 6.13E-01 1.85E-01 2.36E+00 5.00E-01 1.85E-01 1.72E+00 6.34E-01 2.41E-01 1.22E+00 1.22E+00 3.21E-01 1.28E+00 5.74E-01 1.91E-01 3.01E+00 5.OOE-01 1.92E-01 2.17E+00 5.86E-01 2.50E-01 1.54E+00 1.11E+00 3.45E-01 1.55E+00 5.43E-01 2.04E-01 3.63E+00 5.00E-01 2.OSE-01 2.61E+00 5.47E-01 2.60E-01 1.85E+00 1.03E+00 3.67E-01 Median Sigma Median Sigma Median Sigma 2.5 Hz AF In(AF) 1 Hz AF In(AF) 0.5 Hz AF in(AF) 2.18E-02 1.56E+00 1.92E-01 1.27E-02 1.41E+00 1.11E-01 8.25E-03 1.35E+00 1.05E-01 7.05E-02 1.63E+00 2.06E-01 3.43E-02 1.43E+00 1.09E-01 1.96E-02 1.36E+00 1.03E-O1 1.18E-01 1.68E+00 2.12E-01 5.51E-02 1.44E+00 1.10E-01 3.02E-02 1.36E+00 1.03E-O1 2.12E-01 1.73E+00 2.11E-01 9.63E-02 1.47E+00 1.12E-01 5.11E-02 1.38E+00 1.03E-01 3.04E-01 1.74E+00 2.OBE-01 1.36E-01 1.50E+00 1.18E-01 7.10E-02 1.39E+00 1.04E-01 3.94E-01 1.72E+00 2.07E-01 1.75E-01 1.53E+00 1.28E-01 9.06E-02 1.40E+00 1.06E-01 4.86E-01 1.69E+00 2.26E-01 2.14E-01 1.57E+00 1.44E-01 1.10E-01 1.41E+00 1.07E-01 7.09E-01 1.59E+00 3.28E-01 3.10E-01 1.60E+00 2.61E-01 1.58E-01 1.42E+00 1.26E-01 9.47E-01 1.50E+00 3.92E-01 4.12E-01 1.61E+00 3.20E-01 2.09E-01 1.44E+00 1.56E-01 1.19E+00 1.42E+00 3.97E-01 5.18E-01 1.61E+00 3.40E-01 2.62E-01 1.46E+00 2.03E-01 1.43E+00 1.39E+00 3.82E-01 6.19E-01 1.63E+00 3.53E-01 3.12E-01 1.47E+00 2.60E-01 BLACK & VEATCH I REV. 1 34

ER 2014-003 Attachment A Page 42 of 44 Cooper Nuclear Station I Seismic Hazard and Screening Report Appendix A (Continued)

Median Amplification Factors and Uncertainties Tables A2-bl and A2-b2 are tabular versions of the typical amplification factors provided in Figures 2.3.6-1 and 2.3.6-2. Values are provided for two input motion levels at approximately 10-4 and 10-5 mean annual frequency of exceedence. These factors are unverified and are provided for information only. These figures should be considered the governing information.

BLACK & VEATCH I REV. 1 35

ER 2014-003 Attachment A Page 43 of 44 Cooper Nuclear Station I Seismic Hazard and Screening Report Table A2-bl. Median AFs and Sigmas for Model 1, 2 PGA Levels MIPIKI Rock PGA=0.0964 MIPIKI PGA=0.391 PGA Sigma PGA Sigma Freq. (Hz)

SoilSA Med. AF ln(AF)

Freq. (Hz)

SoiLISA Med. AF ln(AF) 100.0 0.095 0.982 0.102 100.0 0.286 0.732 0.105 87.1 0.095 0.963 0.102 87.1 0.287 0.711 0.105 75.9 0.095 0.931 0.102 75.9 0.287 0.676 0.105 66.1 0.095 0.871 0.102 66.1 0.287 0.612 0.105 57.5 0.095 0.769 0.102 57.5 0.288 0.514 0.105 50.1 0.096 0.654 0.102 50.1 0.289 0.425 0.106 43.7 0.096 0.560 0.102 43.7 0.290 0.361 0.106 38.0 0.097 0.508 0.102 38.0 0.292 0.333 0.107 33.1 0.098 0.480 0.102 33.1 0.295 0.321 0.108 28.8 0.100 0.482 0.102 28.8 0.300 0.329 0.110 25.1 0.103 0.484 0.103 25.1 0.307 0.338 0.112 21.9 0.107 0.519 0.101 21.9 0.316 0.368 0.114 19.1 0.113 0.549 0.102 19.1 0.330 0.393 0.117 16.6 0.121 0.602 0.117 16.6 0.350 0.439 0.132 14.5 0.131 0.676 0.121 14.5 0.373 0.492 0.146 12.6 0.146 0.764 0.132 12.6 0.408 0.558 0.159 11.0 0.163 0.864 0.136 11.0 0.458 0.646 0.182 9.5 0.175 0.967 0.196 9.5 0.498 0.739 0.200 8.3 0.171 1.011 0.223 8.3 0.517 0.837 0.198 7.2 0.168 1.053 0.180 7.2 0.526 0.913 0.200 6.3 0.176 1.163 0.146 6.3 0.524 0.973 0.214 5.5 0.206 1.414 0.175 5.5 0.548 1.071 0.225 4.8 0.252 1.759 0.187 4.8 0.607 1.216 0.261 4.2 0.305 2.180 0.172 4.2 0.690 1.431 0.310 3.6 0.323 2.362 0.153 3.6 0.802 1.717 0.309 3.2 0.294 2.269 0.232 3.2 0.857 1.953 0.239 2.8 0.236 1.913 0.241 2.8 0.827 1.993 0.177 2.4 0.185 1.615 0.209 2.4 0.736 1.929 0.222 2.1 0.146 1.399 0.175 2.1 0.602 1.738 0.260 1.8 0.124 1.324 0.141 1.8 0.491 1.592 0.235 1.6 0.108 1.322 0.128 1.6 0.406 1.523 0.197 1.4 0.093 1.320 0.119 1.4 0.337 1.470 0.163 1.2 0.083 1.320 0.083 1.2 0.288 1.431 0.117 1.0 0.077 1.349 0.093 1.0 0.259 1.431 0.115 0.91 0.071 1.373 0.099 0.91 0.235 1.436 0.113 0.79 0.065 1.375 0.101 0.79 0.210 1.425 0.109 0.69 0.058 1.360 0.091 0.69 0.183 1.401 0.097 0.60 0.050 1.340 0.074 0.60 0.156 1.374 0.078 0.52 0.042 1.318 0.061 0.52 0.129 1.347 0.063 0.46 0.035 1.294 0.060 0.46 0.105 1.319 0.061 0.10 0.001 1.100

.0.024 0.10 0.004 1.104 0.026 BLACK & VEATCH I REV. 1 36

ER 2014-003 Attachment A Page 44 of 44 Cooper Nuclear Station I Seismic Hazard and Screening Report Table A2-b2. Median AFs and Sigmas for Model 2, 2 PGA Levels M2PIK1 PGA=0.0964 M2P1K1 PGA=0.391 PGA Sigma PGA Sigma Freq. (Hz)

SoilSA Med. AF ln(AF)

Freq. (Hz)

SoilISA Med. AF In(AF) 100.0 0.095 0.981 0.093 100.0 0.322 0.824 0.092 87.1 0.095 0.962 0.093 87.1 0.323 0.801 0.092 75.9 0.095 0.930 0.092 75.9 0.323 0.761 0.092 66.1 0.095 0.871 0.092 66.1 0.324 0.690 0.092 57.5 0.095 0.768 0.092 57.5 0.325 0.580 0.092 50.1 0.096 0.655 0.092 50.1 0.326 0.480 0.092 43.7 0.096 0.561 0.092 43.7 0.329 0.409 0.091 38.0 0.097 0.509 0.092 38.0 0.332 0.379 0.091 33.1 0.099 0.482 0.091 33.1 0.338 0.368 0.090 28.8 0.101 0.486 0.091 28.8 0.346 0.380 0.091 25.1 0.104 0.490 0.093 25.1 0.358 0.394 0.093 21.9 0.109 0.531 0.085 21.9 0.375 0.437 0.088 19.1 0.116 0.562 0.086 19.1 0.398 0.475 0.084 16.6 0.124 0.619 0.117 16.6 0.426 0.534 0.108 14.5 0.134 0.689 0.099 14.5 0.468 0.618 0.112 12.6 0.154 0.807 0.127 12.6 0.533 0.729 0.122 11.0 0.167 0.887 0.158 11.0 0.584 0.823 0.165 9.5 0.169 0.930 0.205 9.5 0.593 0.880 0.200 8.3 0.166 0.983 0.202 8.3 0.575 0.931 0.213 7.2 0.175 1.094 0.139 7.2 0.591 1.027 0.171 6.3 0.198 1.311 0.131 6.3 0.646 1.200 0.166 5.5 0.248 1.708 0.156 5.5 0.779 1.521 0.200 4.8 0.307 2.143 0.151 4.8 0.947 1.899 0.219 4.2 0.334 2.392 0.134 4.2 1.057 2.194 0.186 3.6 0.298 2.177 0.241 3.6 1.011 2.163 0.201 3.2 0.247 1.906 0.251 3.2 0.885 2.016 0.251 2.8 0.195 1.579 0.197 2.8 0.714 1.719 0.255 2.4 0.158 1.381 0.155 2.4 0.567 1.484 0.210 2.1 0.129 1.235 0.122 2.1 0.452 1.306 0.167 1.8 0.112 1.188 0.118 1.8 0.382 1.238 0.149 1.6 0.102 1.251 0.104 1.6 0.344 1.290 0.124 1.4 0.090 1.274 0.089 1.4 0.299 1.304 0.096 1.2 0.082 1.306 0.078 1.2 0.267 1.330 0.085 1.0 0.078 1.381 0.084 1.0 0.253 1.400 0.090 0.91 0.071 1.361 0.060 0.91 0.226 1.378 0.065 0.79 0.059 1.249 0.068 0.79 0.186 1.264 0.069 0.69 0.049 1.166 0.088 0.69 0.154 1.180 0.088 0.60 0.043 1.150 0.095 0.60 0.132 1.163 0.095 0.52 0.038 1.185 0.084 0.52 0.115 1.197 0.085 0.46 0.033 1.240 0.062 0.46 0.100 1.251 0.065 0.10 0.001 1.118 0.023 0.10 0.004 1.116 0.025 BLACK & VEATCH I REV. 1 37