L-2014-089, Florida Power & Light (FPL) Seismic Hazard & Screening Report (CEUS Sites), Response NRC Request for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Acc

Florida Power & Light (FPL) Seismic Hazard & Screening Report (CEUS Sites), Response NRC Request for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accid

ML14099A106
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	03/31/2014
From:	Jensen J Florida Power & Light Co
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
L-2014-089
Download: ML14099A106 (34)

Text

0 FPL. PL. March 31, 2014 L-2014-089 10 CFR 50.54(f)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville. MD 20852

Subject:

Florida Power & Light (FPL) Seismic Hazard and Screening Report (CEUS Sites), Response NRC Request for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident

References:

1. NRC Letter, Request for Information Pursuantto Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f Regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3, of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichiAccident, dated March 12, 2012, ADAMS Accession No. ML12073A348

2. NEI Letter, ProposedPath Forwardfor NTTF Recommendation 2.1: Seismic Reevaluations, dated April 9, 2013, ADAMS Accession No. ML13101A379

3. NRC Letter, Electric Power Research Institute FinalDraft 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 No. 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, ADAMS Accession No. ML12333A170

5. NRC Letter, Endorsement of EPRI FinalDraft Report 1025287, "Seismic Evaluation Guidance," dated February 15, 2013, ADAMS Accession No. ML12319A074 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. Enclosure 1 of Reference 1 requested each addressee located in the Central and Eastern United States (CEUS) to submit a"Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening Report within 1.5 years from the date of Reference 1.

~AD~

Florida Power & Light Company 6501 S. Ocean Drive, Jensen Beach, FL 34957

L-2014-089 Page 2 In Reference 2, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) requested NRC agreement to delay submittal of the final CEUS Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening Reports so that an update to the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) ground motion attenuation model could be completed and used to develop that information. NEI proposed that descriptions of subsurface materials and properties and base case velocity profiles be submitted to the NRC by September 12, 2013, with the remaining seismic hazard and screening information submitted by March 31, 2014. NRC agreed with that proposed path forward in Reference 3.

Reference 4 contains industry guidance and detailed information to be included in the Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening Report submittals. NRC endorsed this industry guidance in Reference 5.

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

This letter contains no new regulatory commitments.

If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact Ken Frehafer at (772) 467-7748.

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

Executed on March IS1 ,2014.

-"Keph Jensen Site Vice President St. Lucie Plant Attachment

L-2014-089 Enclosure Page 1 of 32 Florida Power & Light (FPL), St. Lucie Nuclear station Units 1 & 2 Seismic Hazard and Screening Report (CEUS Sites), Response to NRC Request for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights form the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident.

L-2014-089 Enclosure Page 2 of 32 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 that requests information to assure that these recommendations are addressed by all U.S. nuclear power plants. The 50.54(f) letter requests that licensees and holders of construction permits under 10 CFR Part 50 reevaluate the seismic hazards at their sites against present-day NRC requirements. Depending on the comparison between the reevaluated seismic hazard and the current design basis, the result is either no further risk evaluation or the performance of a seismic risk assessment. Risk assessment approaches acceptable to the staff include a seismic probabilistic risk assessment (SPRA), or a seismic margin assessment (SMA). Based upon the risk assessment results, the NRC staff will determine whether additional regulatory actions are necessary.

This report provides the information requested in items (1) through (7) of the "Requested Information" section and Attachment 1 of the 50.54(f) letter pertaining to NTTF Recommendation 2.1 for the Florida Power & Light St. Lucie (PSL) Nuclear Station, located on Hutchinson Island in St. Lucie County, Florida. In providing this information, St. Lucie Nuclear Station followed the guidance provided in the Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Screening, Prioritization,and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic (EPRI 1025287, 2013a). The Augmented Approach, Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic (EPRI 3002000704, 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 St. Lucie Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) seismic design is based on acceleration ground response spectrum curves that were derived from Regulatory Guide 1.60 spectra normalized to 0.10g. The Final Safety Analysis Report commitment for an SSE of 0.1Og was determined at a time when probabilistic definition of seismic input had not been developed with any degree of consistency or confidence. Therefore the 0.10g Peak Ground Acceleration was conservatively estimated and set at the legal minimum specified by 10CFR 100 Appendix A.

(FPL, 2012a)

In response to the 50.54(f) letter and following the guidance provided in the SPID (EPRI 1025287, 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, no further evaluations will be performed.

L-2014-089 Enclosure Page 3 of 32 2.0 Seismic Hazard Reevaluation St. Lucie Nuclear Station is located approximately 10 miles south of Fort Pierce, Florida, adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean. The Station is located on an offshore sandbar, Hutchinson Island, along the east coast of peninsular Florida. Hutchinson Island is separated from the mainland by the Indian River, a shallow (approximately 6 ft) body of water. Land surface on the island ranges from mean sea level to 19 feet above, but is generally less than 10 feet. Lake Okeechobee is located approximately 30 miles to the west-southwest of the site. Florida lies entirely within the Coastal Plain physiographic province and is the emergent part of a much larger feature called the Floridan Plateau. The St. Lucie station is situated on the southern portions of this Floridan Plateau, a stable carbonate platform on which thick sequences of Creataceous and Tertiary limestones, dolomites, evaporites and comparatively small amounts of clastic sediments have accumulated. (FPL, 2012b)

The entire state of Florida is by all accounts a low seismicity region of the United States having been a Zone 0 area by the Uniform Building Code which means no seismic design loads for "conventional" buildings. However, in order to comply with the minimum accepted acceleration as stipulated by 10 CFR 100, Appendix A, the St. Lucie nuclear plant is designed for a maximum horizontal ground surface acceleration of 0.10 g. This conservative surface design acceleration exceeds the maximum acceleration appropriate for the maximum earthquake which has occurred in the sites seismotectonic province during the past 200 years. The maximum vertical acceleration for the postulated SSE is the same as the peak horizontal acceleration.

(FPL, 2012b) 2.1 Regional and Local Geology The St. Lucie Nuclear Station is in the Coastal Plain physiographic province and is the emergent part of a much larger feature called the Floridan Plateau. The St. Lucie site is situated on the southern portions of this Floridan Plateau, a stable carbonate platform on which thick sequences of Creataceous and Tertiary limestones, dolomites, evaporites and comparatively small amounts of clastic sediments have accumulated. (FPL, 2012b)

Prior to construction the site was covered with a mangrove swamp, consisting of about one foot of standing salt water. Underlying this water covered surface is from four to six feet of peat and roots. This material is a dark brown or black residuum produced by the partial decomposition and disintegration of trees, mangrove roots and other vegetation. In the immediate site power block area, this material and the underlying formation have been excavated to elevation minus 60 ft. and replaced with an engineered fill. (FPL, 2012b)

L-2014-089 Enclosure Page 4 of 32 2.2 ProbabilisticSeismic HazardAnalysis 2.2.1 ProbabilisticSeismic HazardAnalysis Results In accordance with the 50.54(f) letter and following the guidance in the SPID (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 EPRI Ground-Motion Model (GMM) for the CEUS (EPRI, 2013b). For the PSHA, a lower-bound moment magnitude of 5.0 was used, as specified in the 50.54(f) letter.

For the PSHA, the CEUS-SSC background seismic sources out to a distance of 400 miles (640 km) around St. Lucie were included. This distance exceeds the 200 mile (320 km) recommendation contained in USNRC (USNRC, 2007) and was chosen for completeness.

Background sources included in this site analysis are the following:

Atlantic Highly Extended Crust (AHEX)

Extended Continental Crust-Atlantic Margin (ECCAM)

Extended Continental Crust-Gulf Coast (ECCGC)

Gulf Highly Extended Crust (GHEX)

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

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

Study region (STUDYR)

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

Charleston For each of the above background sources, the Gulf versions of the updated CEUS EPRI GMMs are used to model the seismic wave travel path. For the Charleston RLME source, a combination of Gulf (66%) and mid-continent (34%) GMMs are created based on the relative fraction of the seismic wave travel path through these regions from the center of the Charleston Local zone to the site.

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 3 at the Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) control point elevation.

L-2014-089 Enclosure Page 5 of 32 2.3 Site Response Evaluation Following the guidance contained in Enclosure 1 of the 3/12/2012 50.54(f) Request for Information 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 St. Lucie.

2.3. 1 Description of Subsurface Material The St. Lucie Nuclear Power Station (NPS) site is located on an offshore sandbar, Hutchinson Island along the east coast of Florida. Hutchinson Island is separated from the mainland by the Indian River. The site is located within the Floridian Plateau of the Coastal Plain physiographic province. Lake Okeechobee is about 30 miles (48 km) west-southwest of the site. The ground surface is at an elevation of 18.5 ft (5.6 m).

The information used to create the site geologic profile at the St. Lucie NPS is shown in Table 2.3.1-1. This profile was developed using information documented in FPL (FPL, 2012a) and EPRI (EPRI, 2014). As indicated in EPRI (EPRI, 2014) the SSE Control Point is defined at the top of the ground surface at elevation of 18.5 ft. The profile consists of about 80 ft (24 m) of fill overlying about 700 ft (213 m) of soils. Underlying the soils is about 13,000 ft (3,960 m) of Jurassic through Tertiary Age carbonate rocks above Paleozoic crystalline basement.

L-2014-089 Enclosure Page 6 of 32 Table 2.3.1-1 (Table 2)

Summary of Geotechnical Profile for St. Lucie NPS SOIL DESCRIPTION ELEVATION SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY IN

.BORING 115-1 1000 FEET/SECOND =

-,, ._,:*

• _ +19 FILL.-

+9

`VERY DENSE GRAY VERY SLIGHTLY SILTY

' FINE-ME DIUM SAN D.WITH SiSHELL FRAGMENTSAND -1 "SCATTERED CEMENTED SAND PARTICLES

-11

ý-21

-31

-41 FILL -

VERY HARD GARY-TAN SILTY FINESAND WITH.

LIMESTONE FRAGMENTS -51

-61 VERY FIRM - VERY DENSE, GRAY SILTY FINE-"

MEDIUM SAND WITH SHE LL.FRAGMENTS -71.

.-81

-91.

-101

_VERY. DENSE DARK'GRAY AND BLACK SILTY FINEf MEDIUM SANDOWITH SHELL FRAGMENTS -111 FIRM GRAY-BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH SHELL

-121 FRAGMENTS LOOSE LIGHT GRAY-TAN VERY SILTY FINE SAND WITH SHELL AND LIMESTONE FRAGMENTS

-131 DENSE GRAY SLIGHTLY SILTY.

FINE.MEDIUM SAND WITH LIME-,

STONE"FRAGMENTS AND SHELL FRAGMENTS

-141 FIRM DARK GREEN VERY FINE SANDY SILT

-151 B.T.

Source: FPL (FPL, 2012b), Unit 2 UFSAR Figure 2.5-57

L-2014-089 Enclosure Page 7 of 32 The following description of the general geology of the site is taken directly from FPL (FPL, 2012b):

St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant (Units 1 and 2) is located on an offshore sandbar, Hutchinson Island, along the east coast of peninsular Florida. Hutchinson Island is separated from the mainland by the Indian River, a shallow (approximately 6 ft) body of water. Land surface on the island ranges from mean sea level to 19 feet above, but is generally less than 10 feet. Lake Okeechobee is located approximately 30 miles to the west-southwest of the site.

Florida lies entirely within the Coastal Plain physiographic province and is the emergent part of a much larger feature called the Floridan Plateau. The St. Lucie site is situated on the southern portions of this Floridan Plateau, a stable carbonate platform on which thick sequences of Creataceous and Tertiary limestones, dolomites, evaporites and comparatively small amounts of clastic sediments have accumulated.

Prior to construction the site was covered with a mangrove swamp, consisting of about one foot of standing salt water. Underlying this water covered surface is from four to six feet of peat and roots. This material is a dark brown or black residuum produced by the partial decomposition and disintegration of trees, mangrove roots and other vegetation.

In the immediate site power block area, this material and the underlying formation have been excavated to elevation minus 60 ft. and replaced with an engineered fill. Borings have identified two major formations underlying the plant site.

The Anastasia Formation (of Pleistocene age) underlies the original layer of peat. This gray slightly clayey silty, fine to medium sand with fragmented shells; and in places, fragmented shell beds wit slightly clayey and silty fine sands extend to about elevation minus 135 to minus 155 ft. There also discontinuous pockets of cemented sand with shells and sandy limestone. These discontinuous cemented pockets are generally found between elevation minus 35 and minus 60 ft. Discontinuous plastic clay lenses were also found in the upper portion of the formation.

The Hawthorn formation (of Miocene age) of partially cemented and sands clays and sandy limestone underlies the Anastasia formation and extends to about elevation minus 600 ft to minus 700ft in the site area. The upper 100 to 150 ft of the Hawthorne formation consists of green, slightly clayey and silty, very fine sand. The lower part becomes generally more clayey. The formation changes slightly to a gray white, phosphatic, sandy clay in the site area below elevation minus 450 ft. The clays of the Hawthorne are unusual in their content of the mineral atapugite. There is also a high fraction of calcite and dolomite, indicative of a marine environment.

Underlying the Hawthorne formation is about 13,000 ft of Jurassic through Tertiary Age carbonate rocks.

The geological structure is relatively simple with Anastasia and Hawthorne formations are nearly flat, dipping very slightly to the southeast at about 5 to 10 ft. per mile. The contact between the Anastasia formation and the underlying Hawthorne is undulating contact having minor irregularities. All of the formations overlie a Paleozoic crystalline basement."

L-2014-089 Enclosure Page 8 of 32 2.3.2 Development of Base Case Profiles and NonlinearMaterial Properties Table 2.3.1-1 shows the recommended shear-wave velocities, depths, and soil description to elevation -151 ft. As indicated in EPRI (EPRI, 2014), the SSE Control Point is at the ground surface at elevation 18.5 ft. Based on Table 2.3.1-1, reflecting the only measured shear-wave velocities at Units 1 and 2, the linear gradient extends to elevation 9 ft with a shear-wave velocity of about 800 ft/s (244 m/s). To approximate the linear gradient extended to the surface, the 78.5 ft (24 m) of material above the Anastasia Formation was divided into two layers each of thickness 39.2 ft (12 m). Constant shear-wave velocities were taken as 1005 ft/s (306 m/s), the top-of-Anastasia Formation velocity, for the deeper layer and 800 ft/s (244 m/s) for the surficial layer. The linear gradient was continued to a depth of about 178 ft (54 m) where the 270 m/s profile template (EPRI, 2013a) was added for the soils of the underlying Hawthorne formation.

At a depth of about 740 ft (226 m), shear-wave velocities were increased to 5,000 ft/s (1,524 m/s) to accommodate the underlying carbonate rocks.

To develop the mean or best-estimate base-case firm carbonate rock profile from a depth of 740 ft to 5,079 ft (226 m to 1,548 m), the shear-wave velocity of 5,000 ft/s (1,524 m/s) was assumed to reflect the top portion of the firm rock profile. Provided the materials to basement depth reflect similar sedimentary rocks and age, the shear-wave velocity gradient for sedimentary rock of 0.5 m/m/s (EPRI, 2013a) was assumed to be appropriate for the site. An assumed shear-wave velocity of 5,000 ft/s (1,548 m/s) was taken at a depth of about 740 ft (226 m) in the profile with the velocity gradient applied at that point, resulting in a base-case shear-wave velocity of about 7,400 ft/s (2,255 m/s) at a depth of 5,079 ft (1,548 m). The depth of 5,079 ft (1,548 m) to hard reference rock was considered adequate to reflect amplification over the lowest frequency of interest, about 0.5 Hz (EPRI, 2013a). 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 2,323 ft (708 m). The mean or best estimate base-case profile is shown as profile P1 in Figure 2.3.2-1.

To accommodate epistemic uncertainty in shear-wave velocities a scale factor of 1.57 was chosen, reflecting the both the age and sparse shear-wave velocity measurements at the site.

Profiles extended to a depth below the SSE of 5,079 ft (1,548 m), randomized +/- 1,522 ft (+/- 464 m). The base-case profiles (P1, P2, and P3) are shown in Figure 2.3.2-1 and listed in Table 2.3.2-1. The depth randomization reflects +/- 30% of the depth 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. The scale factor of 1.57 reflect a Gin of about 0.35, based on the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) 1 0 th and 9 0 th fractiles which implies a 1.28 scale factor on GP.

L-2014-089 Enclosure Page 9 of 32 Vs profiles for St Lucie Site Vs (ft/sec) 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 1000 1500 2000

- Profile 1

/- Profile 2 S2500

-Profile 3 w 3000 3500 4000 4500 I_

5000 5500 Figure 2.3.2-1. Shear-wave velocity profiles for the St. Lucie site. (EPRI, 2014)

Table 2.3.2-1 (EPRI, 2014)

Layer thicknesses, depths, and shear-wave velocities (Vs) for 3 profiles, the St. Lucie site Profile 1 Profile 2 Profile 3 thickness(ft) depth (ft) Vs(ftds) thickness(ft) depth (if) Vs(ft/s) thickness(ft) depth (if) Vs(ft/s) 0 800 0 512 0 1256 3.9 3.9 800 3.9 3.9 512 3.9 3.9 1256 3.9 7.9 800 3.9 7.9 512 3.9 7.9 1256 3.9 11.8 800 3.9 11.8 512 3.9 11.8 1256 3.9 15.7 800 3.9 15.7 512 3.9 15.7 1256 3.9 19.7 800 3.9 19.7 512 3.9 19.7 1256 3.9 23.6 800 3.9 23.6 512 3.9 23.6 1256 3.9 27.6 800 3.9 27.6 512 3.9 27.6 1256 3.9 31.5 800 3.9 31.5 512 3.9 31.5 1256 3.9 35.4 800 3.9 35.4 512 3.9 35.4 1256 3.9 39.4 800 3.9 39.4 512 3.9 39.4 1256 3.9 43.3 1005 3.9 43.3 643 3.9 43.3 1578 3.9 47.2 1005 3.9 47.2 643 3.9 47.2 1578 3.9 51.2 1005 3.9 51.2 643 3.9 51.2 1578 3.9 55.1 1005 3.9 55.1 643 3.9 55.1 1578

L-2014-089 Enclosure Page 10 of 32 3.9 59.1 1005 3.9 59.1 643 3.9 59.1 1578 3.9 63.0 1005 3.9 63.0 643 3.9 63.0 1578 3.9 66.9 1005 3.9 66.9 643 3.9 66.9 1578 3.9 70.9 1005 3.9 70.9 643 3.9 70.9 1578 3.9 74.8 1005 3.9 74.8 643 3.9 74.8 1578 3.9 78.7 1005 3.9 78.7 643 3.9 78.7 1578 3.3 82.0 1005 3.3 82.0 643 3.3 82.0 1578 3.3 85.3 1015 3.3 85.3 649 3.3 85.3 1593 3.3 88.6 1025 3.3 88.6 656 3.3 88.6 1609 3.3 91.9 1034 3.3 91.9 662 3.3 91.9 1624 3.3 95.1 1044 3.3 95.1 668 3.3 95.1 1640 3.3 98.4 1054 3.3 98.4 675 3.3 98.4 1655 3.3 101.7 1064 3.3 101.7 681 3.3 101.7 1670 3.3 105.0 1074 3.3 105.0 687 3.3 105.0 1686 3.3 108.3 1084 3.3 108.3 694 3.3 108.3 1701 3.3 111.5 1094 3.3 111.5 700 3.3 111.5 1717 3.3 114.8 1103 3.3 114.8 706 3.3 114.8 1732 3.3 118.1 1113 3.3 118.1 712 3.3 118.1 1748 3.3 121.4 1123 3.3 121.4 719 3.3 121.4 1763 3.3 124.7 1133 3.3 124.7 725 3.3 124.7 1779 3.3 128.0 1143 3.3 128.0 731 3.3 128.0 1794 3.3 131.2 1153 3.3 131.2 738 3.3 131.2 1810 3.3 134.5 1162 3.3 134.5 744 3.3 134.5 1825 3.3 137.8 1172 3.3 137.8 750 3.3 137.8 1840 3.3 141.1 1182 3.3 141.1 757 3.3 141.1 1856 3.3 144.4 1192 3.3 144.4 763 3.3 144.4 1871 3.3 147.6 1202 3.3 147.6 769 3.3 147.6 1887 3.3 150.9 1212 3.3 150.9 775 3.3 150.9 1902 3.3 154.2 1221 3.3 154.2 782 3.3 154.2 1918 3.3 157.5 1231 3.3 157.5 788 3.3 157.5 1933 3.3 160.8 1241 3.3 160.8 794 3.3 160.8 1949 3.3 164.0 1251 3.3 164.0 801 3.3 164.0 1964 3.3 167.3 1261 3.3 167.3 807 3.3 167.3 1979 3.3 170.6 1271 3.3 170.6 813 3.3 170.6 1995 3.3 173.9 1281 3.3 173.9 820 3.3 173.9 2010 3.3 177.2 1290 3.3 177.2 826 3.3 177.2 2026 3.3 180.4 1300 3.3 180.4 832 3.3 180.4 2041 3.3 183.7 1310 3.3 183.7 838 3.3 183.7 2057 3.3 187.0 1320 3.3 187.0 845 3.3 187.0 2072 3.3 190.3 1330 3.3 190.3 851 3.3 190.3 2088

L-2014-089 Enclosure Page 11 of 32 3.3 193.6 1340 3.3 193.6 857 3.3 193.6 2103 3.3 196.8 1349 3.3 196.8 864 3.3 196.8 2119 3.3 200.1 1359 3.3 200.1 870 3.3 200.1 2134 3.3 203.4 1369 3.3 203.4 876 3.3 203.4 2149 3.3 206.7 1379 3.3 206.7 883 3.3 206.7 2165 3.3 210.0 1389 3.3 210.0 889 3.3 210.0 2180 3.3 213.3 1399 3.3 213.3 895 3.3 213.3 2196 3.3 216.5 1408 3.3 216.5 901 3.3 216.5 2211 3.3 219.8 1418 3.3 219.8 908 3.3 219.8 2227 3.3 223.1 1428 3.3 223.1 914 3.3 223.1 2242 8.6 231.7 1482 8.6 231.7 948 8.6 231.7 2327 8.6 240.3 1482 8.6 240.3 948 8.6 240.3 2327 9.4 249.6 1537 9.4 249.6 984 9.4 249.6 2413 9.4 259.0 1537 9.4 259.0 984 9.4 259.0 2413 9.4 268.4 1582 9.4 268.4 1012 9.4 268.4 2484 9.4 277.8 1582 9.4 277.8 1012 9.4 277.8 2484 9.4 287.1 1627 9.4 287.1 1041 9.4 287.1 2554 9.4 296.5 1627 9.4 296.5 1041 9.4 296.5 2554 10.0 306.5 1687 10.0 306.5 1080 10.0 306.5 2649 10.0 316.5 1687 10.0 316.5 1080 10.0 316.5 2649 10.0 326.5 1727 10.0 326.5 1105 10.0 326.5 2711 2.2 328.7 1727 2.2 328.7 1105 2.2 328.7 2711 17.8 346.5 1777 17.8 346.5 1137 17.8 346.5 2790 10.0 356.5 1777 10.0 356.5 1137 10.0 356.5 2790 10.6 367.1 1817 10.6 367.1 1163 10.6 367.1 2853 10.6 377.7 1817 10.6 377.7 1163 10.6 377.7 2853 11.5 389.2 1837 11.5 389.2 1176 11.5 389.2 2884 11.5 400.7 1837 11.5 400.7 1176 11.5 400.7 2884 17.7 418.4 1857 17.7 418.4 1188 17.7 418.4 2915 17.7 436.0 1857 17.7 436.0 1188 17.7 436.0 2915 17.7 453.7 1857 17.7 453.7 1188 17.7 453.7 2915 18.2 471.9 1917 18.2 471.9 1227 18.2 471.9 3010 28.0 500.0 1917 28.0 500.0 1227 28.0 500.0 3010 8.5 508.4 1917 8.5 508.4 1227 8.5 508.4 3010 18.2 526.7 1917 18.2 526.7 1227 18.2 526.7 3010 20.0 546.7 1977 20.0 546.7 1265 20.0 546.7 3104 20.0 566.7 1977 20.0 566.7 1265 20.0 566.7 3104 12.0 578.7 1977 12.0 578.7 1265 12.0 578.7 3104 28.0 606.7 1977 28.0 606.7 1265 28.0 606.7 3104 20.0 626.7 1977 20.0 626.7 1265 20.0 626.7 3104

L-2014-089 Enclosure Page 12 of 32 20.0 646.7 2047 20.0 646.7 1310 20.0 646.7 3214 20.0 666.7 2047 20.0 666.7 1310 20.0 666.7 3214 20.0 686.7 2047 20.0 686.7 1310 20.0 686.7 3214 20.0 706.7 2047 20.0 706.7 1310 20.0 706.7 3214 19.3 726.0 2137 19.3 726.0 1368 19.3 726.0 3355 19.3 745.4 2137 19.3 745.4 1368 19.3 745.4 3355 98.6 843.9 5028 98.6 843.9 3218 98.6 843.9 7894 98.6 942.5 5085 98.6 942.5 3254 98.6 942.5 7983 98.6 1041.1 5142 98.6 1041.1 3291 98.6 1041.1 8073 98.6 1139.7 5199 98.6 1139.7 3327 98.6 1139.7 8162 98.6 1238.3 5256 98.6 1238.3 3364 98.6 1238.3 8251 98.6 1336.9 5312 98.6 1336.9 3400 98.6 1336.9 8341 98.6 1435.4 5369 98.6 1435.4 3436 98.6 1435.4 8430 98.6 1534.0 5426 98.6 1534.0 3473 98.6 1534.0 8519 98.6 1632.6 5483 98.6 1632.6 3509 98.6 1632.6 8608 98.6 1731.2 5540 98.6 1731.2 3546 98.6 1731.2 8698 98.6 1829.8 5597 98.6 1829.8 3582 98.6 1829.8 8787 98.6 1928.3 5654 98.6 1928.3 3618 98.6 1928.3 8876 98.6 2026.9 5711 98.6 2026.9 3655 98.6 2026.9 8966 98.6 2125.5 5767 98.6 2125.5 3691 98.6 2125.5 9055 98.6 2224.1 5824 98.6 2224.1 3728 98.6 2224.1 9144 98.6 2322.7 5881 98.6 2322.7 3764 98.6 2322.7 9233 98.6 2421.3 5938 98.6 2421.3 3800 98.6 2421.3 9285 98.6 2519.8 5995 98.6 2519.8 3837 98.6 2519.8 9285 98.6 2618.4 6052 98.6 2618.4 3873 98.6 2618.4 9285 98.6 2717.0 6109 98.6 2717.0 3910 98.6 2717.0 9285 98.6 2815.6 6166 98.6 2815.6 3946 98.6 2815.6 9285 98.6 2914.2 6222 98.6 2914.2 3982 98.6 2914.2 9285 98.6 3012.8 6279 98.6 3012.8 4019 98.6 3012.8 9285 98.6 3111.3 6336 98.6 3111.3 4055 98.6 3111.3 9285 98.6 3209.9 6393 98.6 3209.9 4092 98.6 3209.9 9285 98.6 3308.5 6450 98.6 3308.5 4128 98.6 3308.5 9285 98.6 3407.1 6507 98.6 3407.1 4164 98.6 3407.1 9285 98.6 3505.7 6564 98.6 3505.7 4201 98.6 3505.7 9285 98.6 3604.3 6620 98.6 3604.3 4237 98.6 3604.3 9285 98.6 3702.8 6677 98.6 3702.8 4273 98.6 3702.8 9285 98.6 3801.4 6734 98.6 3801.4 4310 98.6 3801.4 9285 98.6 3900.0 6791 98.6 3900.0 4346 98.6 3900.0 9285 98.6 3998.6 6848 98.6 3998.6 4383 98.6 3998.6 9285 98.6 4097.2 6905 98.6 4097.2 4419 98.6 4097.2 9285

L-2014-089 Enclosure Page 13 of 32 98.6 4195.7 6962 98.6 4195.7 4455 98.6 4195.7 9285 98.6 4294.3 7019 98.6 4294.3 4492 98.6 4294.3 9285 98.6 4392.9 7075 98.6 4392.9 4528 98.6 4392.9 9285 98.6 4491.5 7132 98.6 4491.5 4565 98.6 4491.5 9285 98.6 4590.1 7189 98.6 4590.1 4601 98.6 4590.1 9285 98.6 4688.7 7246 98.6 4688.7 4637 98.6 4688.7 9285 98.6 4787.2 7303 98.6 4787.2 4674 98.6 4787.2 9285 98.6 4885.8 7360 98.6 4885.8 4710 98.6 4885.8 9285 192.8 5078.7 7417 192.8 5078.7 4747 192.8 5078.7 9285 3280.8 8359.5 9285 3280.8 8359.5 9285 3280.8 8359.5 9285 2.3.2.1 Shear Modulus and Damping Curves Results of recent laboratory testing for nonlinear dynamic material properties were not available for the soils or firm rock materials for the St. Lucie NPS. To reflect epistemic uncertainty in nonlinear dynamic material properties, over the top 500 ft (152 m) a realistic range in soil nonlinearity was accommodated with two sets of modulus reduction and hysteretic damping curves. Consistent with the SPID (EPRI, 2013a), the EPRI soil 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 (model M2) was assumed to represent an equally plausible less nonlinear alternative response across loading level. For the linear analyses, the low strain damping from the EPRI soil curves were used as the constant damping values in the upper 500 ft (152 m) of the profile.

2.3.2.2 Kappa Base-case kappa estimates were determined using Section B-5.1.3.1 of the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) for a 740 ft (226 m) of soil over firm CEUS rock site. Kappa for a deep soil over firm rock site may be estimated from the contributions of the soil and firm rock in the top 500 ft (152 m), plus the contribution of the deeper firm rock assuming Qs equal to 40 and the contribution of the reference rock profile of 0.006s. The corresponding kappa estimates were 0.033s, 0.040s (maximum), and 0.017s for profiles P1, P2, and P3 respectively. The range of kappa from 0.017s to 0.040s reflects a reasonable assessment of epistemic uncertainty. The suite of kappa estimates and associated weights are listed in Table 2.3.2-2.

L-2014-089 Enclosure Page 14 of 32 Table 2.3.2-2 Kappa Values and Weights Used for Site Response Analyses Velocity Profile Kappa(s)

P1 0.033 P2 0.040 P3 0.017 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 St. Lucie NPS 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 Toro (Toro, 1997) 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 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 footprint correlation model. In the correlation model, a limit of +/- 2 standard deviations about the median value in each layer was assumed for the limits on random velocity fluctuations.

2.3.4 Input Spectra Consistent with the guidance in Appendix B of the SPID (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 1.5 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 St. Lucie NPS 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.

L-2014-089 Enclosure Page 15 of 32 2.3.5 Methodology To perform the site response analyses for the St. Lucie 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 St.

Lucie NPS site.

2.3.6 Amplification Functions The results of the site response analysis consist of amplification factors (5% damped pseudo absolute response spectra) which describe the amplification (or de-amplification) of hard reference rock motion as a function of frequency and input reference rock amplitude. The amplification factors are represented in terms of a median amplification value and an associated standard deviation (sigma) for each oscillator frequency and input rock amplitude. Consistent with the SPID a minimum median amplification value of 0.5 was employed in the present analysis. Figure 2.3.5-1 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 soil G/Gmrax and hysteretic damping curves (EPRI, 2013a). 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 more linear response at the St. Lucie NPS site, Figure 2.3.5-2 shows the corresponding amplification factors developed with PR curves for soil (model M2). Between the linear and nonlinear (equivalent-linear) analyses, Figures 2.3.5-1 and Figure 2.3.5-2 respectively show only minor difference for 0.4g loading level and below. Above about the 0.4g loading level, the differences increase but only above about 1 Hz.

L-2014-089 Enclosure Page 16 of 32 C

03 4-,

- - SI -

1 Iwo 5,~

0

[INPUTMOTION 0.01G [

INPUTrOIN .5 a2- C E

cc 0

C£ C

0C2' INPUT MOTION GtOG -i 0

L3 INPTMTO0.2 I ' 5-.-- I I II f I I I~ l M

CE a

INPUT MOTION 0.30G PUTMOTI'N 0.40G I0 -

1 tO 0

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

AMPLIFICATION, ST. LUCIE, MiPIKI M 6.5, 1 CORNER: PAGE 1 OF 2 Figure 2.3.5-1. 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 at eleven loading levels of hard .rock median peak acceleration values from 0.01g to 1.50g. M 6.5 and single-corner source model (EPRI, 2013a).

L-2014-089 Enclosure Page 17 of 32 U

09~

INPUT MOTIONtO.5(JG 0

0 0

C3 FNU MOIN .S E-0 0

C:

'0 0 INPUT MOTION' 1.25G INPUT MOTION~ 1.50G CC 10 -1 to 0 10 1 Frequency (Hz)

AMPLIFICATION, ST. LUCIE, MIPIKi M 6.5, 1 CORNER; PAGE 2 OF 2 Figure 2.3.5-1.(cont.)

L-2014-089 Enclosure Page 18 of 32 o - 0 0~

"~ -,-,--

C -

INPUT MOTION 0.01G 0

[INPUT MOT0TI4t0.05G o Cý C 0 C3 0x_

E CE INPUT MOTION O LOG 3 LINPUT MOTION4 0.20 00 C-I- - < 7'li~l iii~lt

,\ ,II* 0 0 C CD CC INPUT MOTION~ 0.30G INPUT M¶OTION 0O40G

-2 102 io - 1 to 0 101 10 -1 Jo 0 10 1 ,a 2 Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)

AMPLIFICATION, ST. LUCIE, M2P1K1 M 6.5, 1 CORNER: PA4GE 1 OF 2 Figure 2.3.5-2.Example suite of amplification factors (5% damping pseudo absolute acceleration spectra) developed for the mean base-case profile (P1), Peninsular Range curves for soil and linear site response for firm rock (model M2), and base-case kappa at eleven loading levels of hard rock median peak acceleration values from O.01g to 1.50g. M 6.5 and single-corner source model (EPRI, 2013a).

L-2014-089 Enclosure Page 19 of 32 CC 113 INPUT MOTION O.5OC INPUT MOTION 0.75G 0

0(3 E)

C3 INPUT MOTIONI 1.OIJG INPUT MOTION 1.25G INPUT NOTION 1.OOG 0 10 2 to -a to 1o 1 Frequency (Hz)

AMPLIFICATION, ST. LUCIE, M2P1K1 M 6.5, 1 CORNER: PAGE 2 OF 2 Figure 2.3.5-2.(cont.)

L-2014-089 Enclosure Page 20 of 32 2.3.7 Control Point Seismic HazardCurves 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 St. Lucie 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.

Total Mean Soil Hazard by Spectral Frequency at St. Lucie 1E-2 1E-3 -

a--25 Hz I -- 10 Hz a).. IE-4 *] -5 Hz 0

,-PGA U

W -2.5 Hz

(-U

r. 1E-5 -1i Hz

"* -- I -0.5 Hz

&1E-6 -

0.1 . 11 1E-7 -

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 St. Lucie.

2,4 Ground Motion Response Spectrum The control point hazard curves described above have been used to develop uniform hazard response spectra (UHRS) and the ground motion response spectrum (GMRS). The UHRS were obtained through linear interpolation in log-log space to estimate the spectral acceleration at each spectral frequency for the 1E-4 and 1E-5 per year hazard levels. Table 2.4-1 shows the UHRS and GMRS accelerations for a range of frequencies.

L-2014-089 Enclosure Page 21 of 32 Table 2.4-1. UHRS and GMRS for St. Lucie.

Freq. (Hz) 10-4 UHRS (g) 10- UHRS (g) GMRS (g) 100 3.56E-02 1.19E-01 5.60E-02 90 3.61E-02 1.19E-01 5.61E-02 80 3.68E-02 1.18E-01 5.63E-02 70 3.76E-02 1.19E-01 5.66E-02 60 3.86E-02 1.19E-01 5.72E-02 50 3.99E-02 1.22E-01 5.84E-02 40 4.18E-02 1.27E-01 6.11E-02 35 4.32E-02 1.32E-01 6.34E-02 30 4.51E-02 1.39E-01 6.64E-02 25 4.80E-02 1.50E-01 7.16E-02 20 4.92E-02 1.64E-01 7.72E-02 15 5.33E-02 1.85E-01 8.66E-02 12.5 5.70E-02 2.OOE-01 9.34E-02 10 6.25E-02 2.17E-01 1.02E-01 9 6.44E-02 2.20E-01 1.03E-01 8 6.62E-02 2.23E-01 1.05E-01 7 6.80E-02 2.25E-01 1.06E-01 6 6.89E-02 2.20E-01 1.05E-01 5 6.79E-02 2.16E-01 1.03E-01 4 7.14E-02 2.07E-01 1.OOE-01 3.5 6.98E-02 1.95E-01 9.52E-02 3 6.20E-02 1.68E-01 8.25E-02 2.5 6.61E-02 1.71E-01 8.48E-02 2 5.83E-02 1.55E-01 7.64E-02 1.5 7.09E-02 1.73E-01 8.67E-02 1.25 6.09E-02 1.59E-01 7.87E-02 1 6.69E-02 1.55E-01 7.87E-02 0.9 6.41E-02 1.55E-01 7.81E-02 0.8 5.81E-02 1.49E-01 7.42E-02 0.7 5.25E-02 1.37E-01 6.78E-02 0.6 4.57E-02 1.20E-01 5.93E-02 0.5 3.81 E-02 9.87E-02 4.90E-02 0.4 3.05E-02 7.90E-02 3.92E-02 0.35 2.67E-02 6.91 E-02 3.43E-02 0.3 2.28E-02 5.92E-02 2.94E-02 0.25 1.90E-02 4.94E-02 2.45E-02 0.2 1.52E-02 3.95E-02 1.96E-02 0.15 1.14E-02 2.96E-02 1.47E-02 0.125 9.52E-03 2.47E-02 1.22E-02 0.1 7.62E-03 1.97E-02 9.79E-03

L-2014-089 Enclosure Page 22 of 32 The 1 E-4 and 1 E-5 UHRS are used to compute the GMRS at the control point and are shown in Figure 2.4-1.

Mean Soil UHRS and GMRS at St. Lucie 0.15 -- lE-5 UHRS 0 0.2 _

I -GMRS 0.1 K

~0.15

_ __ -E-4 UHRS 0.05 1T00

0. ___

0.1 1 10 100 Spectral frequency, Hz Figure 2.4-1. Plots of 1 E-4 and 1E-5 uniform hazard spectra and GMRS at control point for St.

Lucie (5%-damped response spectra).

3.0 Safe Shutdown Earthquake Ground Motion The design basis for St. Lucie Nuclear Station is identified in the Updated Final Safely Evaluation Reports (UFSAR) Chapter 3, Figures 3.7-3 & 3.7-4. The curves were derived from Regulatory Guide 1.60 spectra normalized to 0.10g. The UFSAR commitment for an SSE of 0.1Og was determined at a time when probabilistic definition of seismic input had not been developed with any degree of consistency or confidence. Therefore, the 0.10g Peak ground Acceleration (PGA) was conservatively estimated and set at the legal minimum specified by 10CFR 100 Appendix A. (FPL, 2012a) 3.1 SSE Description of Spectral Shape In order to comply with the minimum accepted acceleration as stipulated by 10 CFR 100, Appendix A, the St. Lucie nuclear station is designed for a maximum horizontal ground surface acceleration of 0.10 g. This conservative surface design acceleration exceeds the maximum acceleration appropriate for the maximum earthquake which has occurred in the site's seismotectonic province during the past 200 years. The maximum vertical acceleration for the postulated SSE is the same as the peak horizontal acceleration. (FPL, 2012b)

The SSE is defined in terms of a PGA and a design response spectrum. Table 3.1-1 shows the spectral acceleration values as a function of frequency for the 5% damped horizontal SSE.

L-2014-089 Enclosure Page 23 of 32 Table 3.1-1. SSE for St. Lucie (FPL, 2012a)

Freq. (Hz) 2.5 5 9 1 15 20 25 33 SA (g) 0.31 0.28 0.26 0.19 0.15 0.13 0.10 3.2 Control Point Elevation The SSE control point elevation is defined at the top of the ground surface at elevation of 18.5 ft (EPRI, 2014).

3.3 IPEEE Description and Capacity Response Spectrum St. Lucie 1 & 2 were classified as a reduced-scope in NUREG 1407 and were only required to conduct a walkdown to ensure compliance with the design basis. St. Lucie, Unit 1 was evaluated as a USI A-46 plant. As a reduced-scope plant, completion of the A-46 requirements satisfied the other requirements for the Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) program for St. Lucie, Unit 1. Significant anchorage improvements were made to Unit 1. A reduced scope IPEEE walkdown inspection was conducted for St. Lucie, Unit 2. As an outcome of the walkdown inspections both units of St. Lucie were subjected to maintenance actions and implementation of a strict seismic housekeeping policy.

4.0 Screening Evaluation In accordance with SPID Section 3 (EPRI, 2013a), a screening evaluation was performed as described below.

4.1 Risk Evaluation Screening (1 to 10 Hz)

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

4.2 High Frequency Screening (> 10 Hz)

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

4.3 Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation Screening (I 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.

L-2014-089 Enclosure Page 24 of 32 4.4 Screening Evaluation Outcome Based on the comparison of the SSE and GMRS, as described above, a risk evaluation is not required for St. Lucie Station Units 1 & 2.

The GMRS is also less than the SSE above 10 Hz so the "High Frequency Confirmation" is not required.

A seismic assessment of the spent fuel pool seismic integrity is also not required.

In conclusion, St. Lucie is screened out based on comparison of the SSE and GMRS, and elects not to perform a seismic risk evaluation in response to NTTF 2.1.

5.0 Interim Actions Based on the screening evaluation described above, there are no Interim Actions required to be performed at St. Lucie Nuclear Station.

6.0 Conclusions In accordance with the 50.54(f) request for information, a seismic hazard and screening evaluation was performed for St. Lucie Nuclear Power Station. A GMRS was developed solely for purpose of screening for additional evaluations in accordance with the SPID.

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

L-2014-089 Enclosure Page 25 of 32 References CEUS-SSC (2012). Central and Eastern United States Seismic Source Characterizationfor Nuclear Facilities,U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report, NUREG-2115; EPRI Report 1021097, 6 Volumes; DOE Report# DOE/NE-0140.

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

Seismic, Elec. Power Res. Inst. Rept 1025287, Feb.

EPRI (2013b). EPRI (2004, 2006) Ground-Motion Model (GMM) Review Project, Elec. Power Res. Inst, Palo Alto, CA, Rept. 3002000717, June, 2 volumes.

EPRI (2013c). Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2. 1: Seismic (EPRI 3002000704, 2013)

FPL (2012a). FPL St. Lucie Unit 2 UFSAR, Amendment No 21, Section 3.7, "Seismic Design" FPL (2012b). FPL St. Lucie Unit 2 UFSAR, Amendment No 21, Section 2.5, "Geology, Seismology" 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.

USNRC (2007). "A performance-based approach to define the site-specific earthquake ground motion," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Reg. Guide 1.208.

S&A (2014). Stevenson & Associates DOC-002 - "Section 4 of St. Lucie Seismic Hazard and Screening Report and Certificate of Conformance", Document submitted to Florida Power and Light, March 7, 2014, Letter number 4187.02-LSC-009.

EPRI (2014). Letter RSM-012414-078, "St. Lucie Seismic Hazard and Screening Report Revision 1", Project 073272, dated March 28, 2014.

SPID (2012). Seismic Evaluation Guidance Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1:

Seismic, Elec. Power Res. Inst. Report 1025287, November 2012, ML12333A170

L-2014-089 Enclosure Page 26 of 32 Appendix A (EPRI, 2014)

Table A-ia. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for PGA at St. Lucie AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 6.47E-03 3.01E-03 4.19E-03 6.26E-03 8.72E-03 1.07E-02 0.001 4.69E-03 1.87E-03 2.80E-03 4.50E-03 6.54E-03 8.23E-03 0.005 1.69E-03 3.23E-04 6.83E-04 1.51 E-03 2.64E-03 3.68E-03 0.01 7.89E-04 1.20E-04 2.53E-04 6.17E-04 1.27E-03 2.1OE-03 0.015 4.46E-04 6.26E-05 1.31 E-04 3.23E-04 6.83E-04 1.32E-03 0.03 1.38E-04 1.67E-05 3.42E-05 9.24E-05 2.07E-04 4.13E-04 0.05 5.21E-05 4.77E-06 1.13E-05 3.37E-05 8.35E-05 1.57E-04 0.075 2.40E-05 1.40E-06 4.50E-06 1.46E-05 4.01 E-05 7.66E-05 0.1 1.40E-05 5.58E-07 2.35E-06 8.12E-06 2.35E-05 4.56E-05 0.15 6.36E-06 1.29E-07 8.98E-07 3.47E-06 1.08E-05 2.16E-05 0.3 1.43E-06 7.13E-09 1.36E-07 6.83E-07 2.46E-06 5.27E-06 0.5 3.82E-07 7.13E-10 2.88E-08 1.67E-07 6.54E-07 1.49E-06 0.75 1.12E-07 1.10E-10 6.54E-09 4.37E-08 1.87E-07 4.50E-07

1. 4.32E-08 3.37E-11 1.87E-09 1.53E-08 7.23E-08 1.79E-07 1.5 1.03E-08 3.01E-11 2.72E-10 2.96E-09 1.67E-08 4.43E-08

3. 7.75E-10 3.01E-11 3.68E-11 1.46E-10 1.07E-09 3.68E-09 5 9.49E-11 2.01E-11 3.01E-11 6.09E-11 1.34E-10 5.05E-10 7.5 1.50E-11 2.01E-11 3.01E-11 5.05E-11 6.09E-11 1.13E-10

10. 3.64E-12 2.01E-11 3.01E-11 5.05E-11 6.09E-11 6.09E-11 Table A-i b. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 25 Hz at St. Lucie AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 6.86E-03 3.52E-03 4.70E-03 6.64E-03 8.98E-03 1.11E-02 0.001 5.08E-03 2.25E-03 3.19E-03 4.83E-03 6.93E-03 8.72E-03 0.005 2.02E-03 4.83E-04 8.98E-04 1.84E-03 3.09E-03 4.25E-03 0.01 1.10E-03 1.95E-04 3.90E-04 8.85E-04 1.77E-03 2.76E-03 0.015 6.95E-04 1.10E-04 2.22E-04 5.27E-04 1.10E-03 1.95E-03 0.03 2.51 E-04 3.42E-05 6.83E-05 1.77E-04 3.79E-04 7.34E-04 0.05 9.24E-05 9.93E-06 2.19E-05 6.17E-05 1.49E-04 2.64E-04 0.075 3.93E-05 2.80E-06 7.66E-06 2.53E-05 6.83E-05 1.18E-04 0.1 2.19E-05 1.11E-06 3.84E-06 1.34E-05 3.84E-05 6.83E-05 0.15 9.96E-06 3.33E-07 1.64E-06 5.91E-06 1.77E-05 3.33E-05 0.3 2.62E-06 3.23E-08 4.19E-07 1.60E-06 4.56E-06 8.72E-06 0.5 8.89E-07 5.66E-09 1.42E-07 5.58E-07 1.57E-06 2.84E-06 0.75 3.43E-07 1.23E-09 5.50E-08 2.22E-07 6.26E-07 1.08E-06

1. 1.68E-07 4.07E-10 2.46E-08 1.07E-07 3.05E-07 5.35E-07 1.5 5.95E-08 8.12E-11 6.83E-09 3.47E-08 1.08E-07 2.04E-07

3. 8.80E-09 3.01E-11 5.50E-10 4.13E-09 1.60E-08 3.37E-08

5. 1.75E-09 3.01E-11 8.85E-11 6.73E-10 3.09E-09 7.34E-09 7.5 4.17E-10 3.01E-11 4.43E-11 1.55E-10 7.34E-10 1.90E-09

10. 1.38E-10 2.01E-11 3.01E-11 7.13E-11 2.57E-10 6.64E-10

L-2014-089 Enclosure Page 27 of 32 Table A-ic. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 10 Hz at St. Lucie AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 7.76E-03 4.37E-03 5.58E-03 7.45E-03 9.93E-03 1.21 E-02 0.001 5.98E-03 2.96E-03 3.95E-03 5.75E-03 8.OOE-03 9.79E-03 0.005 2.47E-03 7.66E-04 1.27E-03 2.29E-03 3.68E-03 4.77E-03 0.01 1.38E-03 3.23E-04 5.83E-04 1.20E-03 2.16E-03 3.05E-03 0.015 8.84E-04 1.77E-04 3.28E-04 7.23E-04 1.40E-03 2.16E-03 0.03 3.43E-04 5.58E-05 1.07E-04 2.60E-04 5.42E-04 9.24E-04 0.05 1.49E-04 2.13E-05 4.19E-05 1.10E-04 2.35E-04 4.01E-04 0.075 7.21E-05 8.60E-06 1.84E-05 5.20E-05 1.20E-04 1.98E-04 0.1 4.24E-05 3.95E-06 9.65E-06 2.88E-05 7.34E-05 1.21E-04 0.15 2.OOE-05 1.11E-06 3.57E-06 1.25E-05 3.57E-05 6.17E-05 0.3 5.48E-06 1.13E-07 6.09E-07 2.88E-06 1.02E-05 1.95E-05 0.5 1.94E-06 2.13E-08 1.92E-07 9.37E-07 3.47E-06 7.23E-06 0.75 7.53E-07 4.77E-09 7.23E-08 3.42E-07 1.31 E-06 3.01E-06

1. 3.51E-07 1.51 E-09 3.14E-08 1.51 E-07 6.OOE-07 1.44E-06 1.5 1.03E-07 2.35E-10 6.83E-09 4.19E-08 1.84E-07 4.13E-07

3. 1.06E-08 3.01 E-11 2.68E-10 3.52E-09 1.95E-08 4.43E-08

5. 2.70E-09 3.01 E-11 5.66E-11 3.47E-10 4.43E-09 1.32E-08 7.5 1.02E-09 2.01E-11 3.01E-11 7.66E-11 1.53E-09 5.35E-09

10. 5.10E-10 2.01E-11 3.01E-11 6.09E-11 7.23E-10 2.76E-09 Table A-id. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 5 Hz at St. Lucie AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 8.62E-03 5.20E-03 6.36E-03 8.35E-03 1.08E-02 1.31 E-02 0.001 7.05E-03 3.68E-03 4.83E-03 6.83E-03 9.24E-03 1.13E-02 0.005 3.08E-03 1.08E-03 1.72E-03 2.92E-03 4.43E-03 5.58E-03 0.01 1.79E-03 4.83E-04 8.35E-04 1.64E-03 2.72E-03 3.63E-03 0.015 1.17E-03 2.64E-04 4.90E-04 1.02E-03 1.84E-03 2.57E-03 0.03 4.43E-04 8.OOE-05 1.55E-04 3.52E-04 7.03E-04 1.11E-03 0.05 1.80E-04 2.96E-05 5.75E-05 1.40E-04 2.84E-04 4.77E-04 0.075 8.25E-05 1.23E-05 2.46E-05 6.26E-05 1.32E-04 2.16E-04 0.1 4.67E-05 6.36E-06 1.31 E-05 3.52E-05 7.66E-05 1.23E-04 0.15 2.09E-05 2.19E-06 5.27E-06 1.53E-05 3.57E-05 5.83E-05 0.3 5.12E-06 2.32E-07 9.11E-07 3.23E-06 9.24E-06 1.60E-05 0.5 1.69E-06 2.88E-08 1.69E-07 8.85E-07 3.19E-06 6.OOE-06 0.75 6.47E-07 4.56E-09 3.84E-08 2.84E-07 1.23E-06 2.49E-06

1. 3.05E-07 1.18E-09 1.49E-08 1.18E-07 5.58E-07 1.29E-06 1.5 9.27E-08 1.90E-10 3.84E-09 2.80E-08 1.60E-07 4.19E-07

3. 8.36E-09 3.01E-11 1.98E-10 1.90E-09 1.40E-08 3.84E-08

5. 1.21E-09 3.01E-11 5.05E-11 2.60E-10 .1.92E-09 5.50E-09 7.5 2.86E-10 2.01E-11 3.01E-11 6.93E-11 4.37E-10 1.38E-09

10. 1.11E-10 2.01E-11 3.01E-11 6.09E-11 1.74E-10 5.75E-10

L-2014-089 Enclosure Page 28 of 32 Table A-le. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 2.5 Hz at St. Lucie AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 8.81E-03 5.42E-03 6.54E-03 8.47E-03 1.10E-02 1.32E-02 0.001 7.31E-03 3.95E-03 5.05E-03 7.03E-03 9.51E-03 1.16E-02 0.005 3.28E-03 1.21 E-03 1.87E-03 3.14E-03 4.70E-03 5.83E-03 0.01 1.97E-03 5.35E-04 9.51E-04 1.82E-03 2.96E-03 3.90E-03 0.015 1.32E-03 2.92E-04 5.50E-04 1.16E-03 2.07E-03 2.84E-03 0.03 5.01E-04 8.23E-05 1.64E-04 3.95E-04 8.35E-04 1.29E-03 0.05 1.89E-04 2.76E-05 5.50E-05 1.36E-04 3.09E-04 5.35E-04 0.075 7.52E-05 1.04E-05 2.07E-05 5.35E-05 1.20E-04 2.19E-04 0.1 3.73E-05 4.90E-06 1.01E-05 2.68E-05 6.OOE-05 1.08E-04 0.15 1.37E-05 1.57E-06 3.47E-06 9.65E-06 2.29E-05 3.95E-05 0.3 2.60E-06 1.62E-07 5.12E-07 1.72E-06 4.56E-06 8.OOE-06 0.5 7.36E-07 1.98E-08 9.79E-08 4.07E-07 1.32E-06 2.53E-06 0.75 2.50E-07 2.68E-09 1.82E-08 1.1OE-07 4.56E-07 9.51E-07

1. 1.11E-07 4.98E-10 4.19E-09 4.01 E-08 2.01E-07 4.50E-07 1.5 3.26E-08 5.20E-11 4.01 E-10 8.23E-09 5.75E-08 1.42E-07

3. 3.22E-09 3.01E-11 5.05E- 11 3.84E-10 4.63E-09 1.55E-08

5. 5.06E-10 2.01E-11 3.01E-11 6.09E-11 5.66E-10 2.39E-09 7.5 1.09E-10 2.01E-11 3.01E-11 6.09E-11 1.16E-10 5.12E-10

10. 3.55E-11 2.01E-11 3.01E-11 5.42E-11 6.09E-11 1.74E-10 Table A-if. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 1 Hz at St. Lucie AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 7.64E-03 4.01E-03 5.27E-03 7.45E-03 9.93E-03 1.20E-02 0.001 5.96E-03 2.72E-03 3.79E-03 5.75E-03 8.12E-03 9.93E-03 0.005 2.57E-03 6.83E-04 1.25E-03 2.42E-03 3.90E-03 4.98E-03 0.01 1.59E-03 2.49E-04 5.42E-04 1.40E-03 2.60E-03 3.57E-03 0.015 1.10E-03 1.21E-04 2.84E-04 9.11E-04 1.92E-03 2.76E-03 0.03 4.66E-04 2.84E-05 7.23E-05 3.05E-04 8.72E-04 1.46E-03 0.05 1.90E-04 8.35E-06 2.22E-05 9.79E-05 3.52E-04 6.83E-04 0.075 7.76E-05 2.92E-06 7.77E-06 3.47E-05 1.40E-04 2.96E-04 0.1 3.68E-05 1.32E-06 3.52E-06 1.53E-05 6.26E-05 1.44E-04 0.15 1.12E-05 4.13E-07 1.11E-06 4.56E-06 1.82E-05 4.37E-05 0.3 1.19E-06 4.56E-08 1.36E-07 5.50E-07 1.98E-06 4.50E-06 0.5 2.63E-07 7.13E-09 2.68E-08 1.20E-07 4.37E-07 1.01 E-06 0.75 9.30E-08 1.36E-09 6.83E-09 3.68E-08 1.51 E-07 3.79E-07

1. 4.64E-08 3.73E-10 2.49E-09 1.60E-08 7.34E-08 1.95E-07 1.5 1.75E-08 7.03 E-11 5.66E-10 4.63E-09 2.64E-08 7.66E-08

3. 3.05E-09 3.01E-11 6.09E-11 4.50E-10 4.01E-09 1.40E-08

5. 7.33E-10 2.57E-11 3.01E-11 8.98E-11 8.12E-10 3.33E-09 7.5 2.11E-10 2.01E-11 3.01E-11 6.09E-11 2.10E-10 9.24E-10

10. 8.15E-11 2.01E-11 3.01E-11 6.09E-11 9.37E-11 3.63E-10

L-2014-089 Enclosure Page 29 of 32 Table A-ig. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 0.5 Hz at St. Lucie AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 4.72E-03 2.04E-03 2.92E-03 4.56E-03 6.45E-03 8.00E-03 0.001 3.41E-03 1.20E-03 1.92E-03 3.28E-03 4.90E-03 6.09E-03 0.005 1.40E-03 1.49E-04 3.84E-04 1.21 E-03 2.42E-03 3.33E-03 0.01 7.69E-04 3.84E-05 1.15E-04 5.50E-04 1.44E-03 2.25E-03 0.015 4.79E-04 1.51 E-05 4.83E-05 2.84E-04 9.37E-04 1.62E-03 0.03 1.63E-04 2.53E-06 8.85E-06 6.09E-05 3.14E-04 6.54E-04 0.05 5.73E-05 5.83E-07 2.1OE-06 1.53E-05 9.79E-05 2.53E-04 0.075 2.12E-05 1.74E-07 6.26E-07 4.63E-06 3.19E-05 9.65E-05 0.1 9.65E-06 7.03E-08 2.60E-07 1.87E-06 1.34E-05 4.37E-05 0.15 2.88E-06 1.92E-08 7.55E-08 5.27E-07 3.63E-06 1.23E-05 0.3 3.34E-07 1.79E-09 9.11E-09 6.64E-08 4.31E-07 1.44E-06 0.5 8.36E-08 2.53E-10 1.82E-09 1.57E-08 1.08E-07 3.79E-07 0.75 3.31 E-08 6.83E-11 4.77E-10 5.20E-09 4.07E-08 1.53E-07

1. 1.79E-08 4.37E-11 1.90E-10 2.32E-09 2.01E-08 8.35E-08 1.5 7.45E-09 3.01E-11 6.73E-11 7.23E-10 7.45E-09 3.47E-08

3. 1.47E-09 3.01E-11 3.23E-11 1.02E-10 1.1OE-09 6.36E-09

5. 3.83E-10 2.01E-11 3.01E-11 6.09E-11 2.35E-10 1.46E-09 7.5 1.19E-10 2.01E-11 3.01E-11 6.09E-11 8.23E-11 4.25E-10

10. 4.86E-11 2.01E-11 3.01E-11 5.05E-11 6.09E-11 1.77E-10

L-2014-089 Enclosure Page 30 of 32 Table A-2. Amplification Functions for St. Lucie Median Sigma Median Sigma Median Sigma PGA AF In(AF) 25 Hz AF In(AF) 10 Hz AF In(AF) 1.OOE-02 2.45E+00 9.OOE-02 1.30E-02 1.98E+00 9.29E-02 1.90E-02 2.01E+00 1.31E-01 4.95E-02 1.65E+00 1.OOE-01 1.02E-01 9.77E-01 1.28E-01 9.99E-02 1.56E+00 1.60E-01 9.64E-02 1.37E+00 1.01E-01 2.13E-01 7.68E-01 1.39E-01 1.85E-01 1.37E+00 1.65E-01 1.94E-01 1.11E+00 1.08E-01 4.43E-01 5.93E-01 1.47E-01 3.56E-01 1.13E+00 1.78E-01 2.92E-01 9.65E-01 1.09E-01 6.76E-01 5.O0E-01 1.52E-01 5.23E-01 9.81E-01 1.91 E-01 3.91E-01 8.66E-01 1.12E-01 9.09E-01 5.OOE-01 1.56E-01 6.90E-01 8.72E-01 2.01E-01 4.93E-01 7.93E-01 1.17E-01 1.15E+00 5.OOE-01 1.61E-01 8.61E-01 7.85E-01 2.15E-01 7.41E-01 6.71E-01 1.22E-01 1.73E+00 5.OOE-01 1.63E-01 1.27E+00 6.32E-01 2.39E-01 1.01E+00 5.91E-01 1.32E-01 2.36E+00 5.OOE-01 1.67E-01 1.72E+00 5.26E-01 2.58E-01 1.28E+00 5.34E-01 1.42E-01 3.01E+00 5.OOE-01 1.69E-01 2.17E+00 5.OOE-01 2.66E-01 1.55E+00 5.OOE-01 1.50E-01 3.63E+00 5.OOE-01 1.72E-01 2.61E+00 5.OQE-01 2.74E-01 Median Sigma Median Sigma Median Sigma 5 Hz AF In(AF) 2.5 Hz AF In(AF) 1 Hz AF In(AF) 2.09E-02 2.49E+00 1.69E-01 2.18E-02 2.90E+00 1.50E-01 1.27E-02 3.83E+00 1.03E-01 8.24E-02 2.21E+00 1.83E-01 7.05E-02 2.70E+00 1.45E-01 3.43E-02 3.63E+00 1.23E-01 1.44E-01 2.03E+00 1.78E-01 1.18E-01 2.52E+00 1.46E-01 5.51E-02 3.52E+00 1.34E-01 2.65E-01 1.77E+00 1.74E-01 2.12E-01 2.25E+00 1.60E-01 9.63E-02 3.37E+00 1.43E-01 3.84E-01 1.59E+00 1.75E-01 3.04E-01 2.05E+00 1.72E-01 1.36E-01 3.30E+00 1.64E-01 5.02E-01 1.45E+00 1.81 E-01 3.94E-01 1.89E+00 1.84E-01 1.75E-01 3.25E+00 1.74E-01 6.22E-01 1.34E+00 1.92E-01 4.86E-01 1.76E+00 1.92E-01 2.14E-01 3.19E+00 1.76E-01 9.13E-01 1.12E+00 2.12E-01 7.09E-01 1.51E+00 1.99E-01 3.10E-01 3.12E+00 1.84E-01 1.22E+00 9.55E-01 2.40E-01 9.47E-01 1.34E+00 2.19E-01 4.12E-01 3.06E+00 1.91E-01 1.54E+00 8.31E-01 2.65E-01 1.19E+00 1.23E+00 2.41E-01 5.18E-01 3.01E+00 1.98E-01 1.85E+00 7.49E-01 2.77E-01 1.43E+00 1.19E+00 2.48E-01 6.19E-01 2.96E+00 2.01E-01 Median Sigma 0.5 Hz AF In(AF) 8.25E-03 3.20E+00 9.36E-02 1.96E-02 3.20E+00 9.94E-02 3.02E-02 3.21E+00 1.12E-01 5.11E-02 3.27E+00 1.44E-01 7.1OE-02 3.35E+00 1.69E-01 9.06E-02 3.43E+00 1.74E-01 1.10E-01 3.48E+00 1.81E-01 1.58E-01 3.57E+00 1.86E-01 2.09E-01 3.59E+00 1.84E-01 2.62E-01 3.56E+00 1.92E-01 3.12E-01 3.52E+00 1.99E-01

L-2014-089 Enclosure Page 31 of 32 Table A2-bl. Median AFs and sigmas for Model 1, Profile 1, for 2 PGA levels.

M1P1K1 Rock PGA=0.01 M1P1K1 PGA=0.0964 Freq. med. sigma Freq. med. sigma (Hz) Soil SA AF In(AF) (Hz) Soil SA AF ln(AF) 100.0 0.026 2.635 0.076 100.0 0.137 1.419 0.077 87.1 0.026 2.630 0.076 87.1 0.137 1.392 0.077 75.9 0.027 2.622 0.076 75.9 0.137 1.345 0.077 66.1 0.027 2.609 0.076 66.1 0.137 1.259 0.077 57.5 0.027 2.584 0.076 57.5 0.138 1.110 0.077 50.1 0.027 2.538 0.077 50.1 0.138 0.945 0.077 43.7 0.027 2.474 0.077 43.7 0.139 0.810 0.078 38.0 0.027 2.396 0.077 38.0 0.140 0.736 0.079 33.1 0.027 2.305 0.078 33.1 0.143 0.696 0.082 28.8 0.027 2.232 0.079 28.8 0.146 0.701 0.086 25.1 0.028 2.147 0.080 25.1 0.150 0.705 0.088 21.9 0.029 2.094 0.080 21.9 0.156 0.755 0.095 19.1 0.029 2.013 0.080 19.1 0.164 0.793 0.099 16.6 0.031 1.991 0.080 16.6 0.174 0.867 0.107 14.5 0.032 1.991 0.091 14.5 0.188 0.968 0.125 12.6 0.034 1.990 0.097 12.6 0.201 1.054 0.148 11.0 0.037 2.004 0.120 11.0 0.216 1.149 0.158 9.5 0.039 2.064 0.122 9.5 0.232 1.280 0.152 8.3 0.043 2.214 0.122 8.3 0.248 1.467 0.150 7.2 0.045 2.306 0.105 7.2 0.258 1.615 0.131 6.3 0.049 2.476 0.107 6.3 0.271 1.792 0.107 5.5 0.053 2.613 0.138 5.5 0.291 2.002 0.132 4.8 0.056 2.626 0.146 4.8 0.296 2.068 0.145 4.2 0.057 2.600 0.142 4.2 0.307 2.195 0.144 3.6 0.066 2.934 0.132 3.6 0.314 2.294 0.160 3.2 0.060 2.708 0.174 3.2 0.321 2.475 0.153 2.8 0.064 2.870 0.152 2.8 0.301 2.435 0.153 2.4 0.062 2.871 0.187 2.4 0.313 2.733 0.135 2.1 0.049 2.406 0.166 2.1 0.261 2.491 0.223 1.8 0.054 2.857 0.148 1.8 0.240 2.558 0.177 1.6 0.068 4.016 0.123 1.6 0.280 3.428 0.147 1.4 0.061 3.999 0.138 1.4 0.281 3.971 0.133 1.2 0.045 3.265 0.136 1.2 0.220 3.520 0.172 1.0 0.039 3.034 0.098 1.0 0.179 3.163 0.135 0.91 0.039 3.149 0.095 0.91 0.164 3.155 0.110 0.79 0.042 3.684 0.108 0.79 0.169 3.563 0.110 0.69 0.045 4.227 0.060 0.69 0.175 4.129 0.084 0.60 0.041 4.214 0.084 0.60 0.159 4.266 0.078 0.52 0.032 3.755 0.086 0.52 0.125 3.931 0.088 0.46 0.024 3.183 0.081 0.46 0.090 3.367 0.079 0.10 0.001 1.621 .045 0.10 0.002 1.740 0.044

L-2014-089 Enclosure Page 32 of 32 Table A2-b2. Median AFs and sigmas for Model 2, Profile 1, for 2 PGA levels.

M2P1K1 PGA=0.01 M2P1K1 PGA=0.0964 med. sigma med. sigma Freq. (Hz) Soil SA AF ln(AF) Freq. (Hz) Soil SA AF ln(AF) 100.0 0.027 2.694 0.081 100.0 0.147 1.521 0.096 87.1 0.027 2.689 0.081 87.1 0.147 1.492 0.096 75.9 0.027 2.681 0.081 75.9 0.147 1.443 0.096 66.1 0.027 2.668 0.081 66.1 0.147 1.351 0.096 57.5 0.027 2.643 0.081 57.5 0.148 1.193 0.097 50.1 0.027 2.597 0.081 50.1 0.149 1.018 0.098 43.7 0.027 2.532 0.082 43.7 0.150 0.876 0.100 38.0 0.028 2.455 0.083 38.0 0.153 0.801 0.103 33.1 0.028 2.365 0.084 33.1 0.157 0.764 0.108 28.8 0.028 2.294 0.085 28.8 0.162 0.776 0.114 25.1 0.029 2.209 0.087 25.1 0.167 0.785 0.118 21.9 0.029 2.160 0.088 21.9 0.175 0.851 0.129 19.1 0.031 2.082 0.088 19.1 0.187 0.906 0.128 16.6 0.032 2.068 0.091 16.6 0.202 1.004 0.139 14.5 0.034 2.074 0.104 14.5 0.217 1.117 0.161 12.6 0.036 2.075 0.109 12.6 0.233 1.220 0.180 11.0 0.038 2.093 0.138 11.0 0.250 1.326 0.188 9.5 0.041 2.163 0.146 9.5 0.264 1.456 0.175 8.3 0.045 2.315 0.130 8.3 0.283 1.673 0.176 7.2 0.047 2.406 0.112 7.2 0.291 1,821 0.159 6.3 0.051 2.578 0.113 6.3 0.302 1.995 0.124 5.5 0.055 2.696 0.137 5.5 0.319 2.195 0.120 4.8 0.057 2.701 0.144 4.8 0.319 2.228 0.150 4.2 0.058 2.652 0.149 4.2 0.322 2.302 0.153 3.6 0.068 3.009 0.142 3.6 0.334 2.440 0.167 3.2 0.061 2.726 0.179 3.2 0,327 2.521 0.174 2.8 0.065 2.917 0.163 2.8 0.309 2.498 0.165 2.4 0.062 2.885 0.184 2.4 0.317 2.765 0.154 2.1 0.049 2.427 0.162 2.1 0.258 2.465 0.215 1.8 0.055 2.915 0.144 1.8 0.248 2.640 0.168 1.6 0.070 4.112 0.118 1.6 0.297 3.635 0.135 1.4 0.061 4.040 0.141 1.4 0.289 4.088 0.137 1.2 0.045 3.269 0.133 1.2 0.220 3.517 0.172 1.0 0.039 3.040 0.098 1.0 0.180 3.171 0.134 0.91 0.039 3.161 0.098 0.91 0.166 3.190 0.115 0.79 0.043 3.704 0.108 0.79 0.172 3.633 0.113 0.69 0.045 4.241 0.059 0.69 0.177 4.166 0.079 0.60 0.041 4.219 0.086 0.60 0.158 4.244 0.084 0.52 0.032 3.752 0.086 0.52 0.123 3.867 0.087 0.46 0.024 3.178 0.081 1 0.46 0.089 3.305 0.082 0.10 0.001 1.622 0.045 1 0.10 0.002 1.736 0.041