RS-14-068, Seismic Hazard and Screening Report (Central and Eastern United States (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.

Seismic Hazard and Screening Report (Central and Eastern United States (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.

ML14091A013
Person / Time
Site:	LaSalle
Issue date:	03/31/2014
From:	Kaegi G Exelon Generation Co
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
RS-14-068
Download: ML14091A013 (58)

Text

e ti RS-14-068 10 CFR 50.54(f)

March 31, 2014 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852 LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2 Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-11 and NPF-18 NRC Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-37 4

Subject:

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Seismic Hazard and Screening Report (Central and Eastern United States (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 from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident

References:

1. NRC Letter, Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3, of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident, dated March 12, 2012

2. NEI Letter, Proposed Path Forward for NTIF Recommendation 2.1: Seismic Reevaluations, dated April 9, 2013

3. NRC Letter, Electric Power Research Institute Final Draft Report XXXXXX, "Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic, 11 as an Acceptable Alternative to the March 12, 2012, Information Request for Seismic Reevaluations, dated May 7, 2013

4. Exelon Generation Company, LLC letter to the NRC, Response to NRC Request for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Regarding the Seismic Aspects of Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident- 1.5 Year Response for CEUS Sites, dated September 12, 2013

5. 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

6. NRC Letter, Endorsement of Electric Power Research Institute Final Draft Report 1025287, "Seismic Evaluation Guidance," dated February 15, 2013

7. EPRI Technical Report 3002000704, "Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1:

Seismic," dated May 2013

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NTTF 2.1 Seismic Response for CEUS Sites March 31, 2014 Page2 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 .

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. In Reference 4, Exelon Generation Company, LLC (EGC) provided the description of subsurface materials and properties and base case velocity profiles for LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2.

Reference 5 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 6.

The enclosed Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening Report for LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2, provides the information described in Section 4 of Reference 5 in accordance with the schedule identified in Reference 2. As described in Enclosure 1, LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2, do not meet the requirements of SPID Sections 3.2 and 7 (Reference 5) and therefore screen in and a Risk Evaluation and Spent Fuel Pool evaluation will be performed as determined by NRC prioritization following submittal of all nuclear power plant Seismic Hazard Re-evaluations per Reference 1. Additionally, LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2, will prepare an Expedited Seismic Evaluation Process (ESEP) Report in accordance with Reference 7, by December 31, 2014.

A list of regulatory commitments contained in this letter is provided in Enclosure 2. If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact Ron Gaston at (630) 657-3359.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on the 31st day of March 2014.

Respectfully submitted, AA-r&j Gien T. Kaegi Director - Licensing & Regulatory Affairs Exelon Generation Company, LLC

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NTTF 2.1 Seismic Response for CEUS Sites March 31, 2014 Page3

Enclosures:

1. LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2, Seismic Hazard and Screening Report

2. Summary of Regulatory Commitments cc: Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Regional Administrator- NRC Region Ill NRC Senior Resident Inspector- LaSalle County Station NRC Project Manager, NRR- LaSalle County Station Ms. Jessica A. Kratchman, NRR/JLD/PMB, NRC Mr. Eric E. Bowman, NRR/DPR/PGCB, NRC or Ms. Eileen M. McKenna, NRO/DSRA/BPTS, NRC Illinois Emergency Management Agency- Division of Nuclear Safety

Enclosure 1 LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2 Seismic Hazard and Screening Report (53 pages)

SEISMIC HAZARD AND SCREENING REPORT IN RESPONSE TO THE 50.54(f) INFORMATION REQUEST REGARDING FUKUSHIMA NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION 2.1: SEISMIC for the LaSalle County Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 2601 North 21st Road Marseilles, Illinois 61341-9757 Facility Operating License Nos. NFP-11 and NFP-18 NRC Docket Nos. 50~73 and 50-374 Correspondence No.: RS-14-068 At!? Exelon .

Exeton Generation Company, LLC (Exefon)

PO Box 809398 Chicago, IL 60680-5398 Prepared by:

Sargent & Lundy LLC 55 East Monroe Street, Chicago, IL 60603 Report Number: Sl-012194, Revision 1 Printed Name Preparer: Ryan Fotey Ronald Boehm

xl n Lundyt\c Seismic Hazard and Screening Report- LaSalle Units 1 and 2 Report No.: SL-012194 Revision 0 -Initial Issue S&L Project No.: 11332-185 Nuclear Non-Safety Related Sections: Cover Page, Executive Summary, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, 7.0, and Appendix A Sections: 4.2 Reviewed by: 3, S 4;J-*

Brent Starks All Sections

• ---*-**------~

Seismic Hazard and Screening Reporl- LaSalle Units 1 and 2 Report No.: SL-012194 Revision 1- Revised Pages (see below)

S&L Project No.: 11332-185 Nuclear Non-Safety Related Pages: vi, 4-1, 5-1, 6-1 Section: 4.2 Reviewed by: JS S <:f27 Brent Starks All Revisions

RECORD OF REVISIONS Revision Affected Pages Description 0 All Initial Issue 1 vi, 4-1, 5-1, 6-1 Replace pages vi, 4-1, 5-1, and 6-1. All other pages have been revised to reflect Revision 1 as the current revision.

I LaSalle County Generating Station Report No.: SL-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14..068

Contents Contents***********"*************************************************************************************************************************** i Tables.................................................. ,u.,u, ....................................................... , ***************************** iii Figures ......................................................................................,.................................................... iv Executive Summary.................................................................................................................... v 1 lntroduction ..................................................................................................................... 1-1 2 Seismic Hazard Reevaluation ........................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Regional and Local Geology ................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis .................................................................... 2-2 2.2.1 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis Results .............................................. 2-2 2.2.2 Base Rock Seismic Hazard Curves ............................................................... 2-3 2.3 Site Response Evaluation ....................................................................................... 2-3 2.3.1 Description of Subsurface Material... ............................................................. 2-3 2.3.2 Development of Base Case Profiles and Nonlinear Material Properties ....... 2-6 2.3.3 Randomization of Base Case Profiles ........................................................... 2-9 2.3.4 Input Spectra ............................................................................................... 2-10 2.3.5 Methodology ................................................................................................ 2-10 2.3.6 Amplification Functions ................................................................................ 2-10 2.3.7 Control Point Seismic Hazard Curves ......................................................... 2-15 2.4 Control Point Response Spectra ........................................................................... 2-16 3 Plant Design Basis Ground Motion .............................................................................. 3-1 3.1 SSE Description of Spectral Shape ........................................................................ 3-1 3.2 Control Point Elevation ............................................................................................ 3-3 4 Screening Evaluation .....................................................................................................4-1 4.1 Risk Evaluation Screening (1 to 10Hz) .................................................................. 4-1 4.2 High Frequency Screening (> 10 Hz) ...................................................................... 4-1 4.3 Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation Screening (1 to 10 Hz) ................................................ 4-2 LaSalle County Generating Station Report No.: SL-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14-068

Contents (cont'd.)

5 Interim Actions ............................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Expedited Seismic Evaluation Process ................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Interim Evaluation of Seismic Hazard ..................................................................... 5-1 5.3 Seismic Walkdown Insights ..................................................................................... 5-2 5.4 Beyond-Design-Basis Seismic Insights ................................................................... 5-3 6 Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 6-1 7 References ...................................................................................................................... 7-1 A Additional Tables ........................................................................................................... A-1 ii LaSalle County Generating Station Report No.: SL-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14-068

Tables Table 2.3.1-1: Summary of geotechnical profile data for LaSalle County station ..................... 2-5 Table 2.3.2-1: Layer thicknesses, depths, and shear-wave velocity (Vs) for 3 profiles, LaSalle County station site ............................................................................................ 2-7 Table 2.3.2-2: Kappa values and weights used for site response analyses ............................ 2-9 Table 2.4-1: UHRS and GMRS for LaSalle County station ................................................. 2-16 Table 3.1-1: LaSalle County station Safe Shutdown Earthquake horizontal ground response spectrum, 5% critical damping .......................................................................... 3-2 Table A-1a: Mean and fractile seismic hazard curves for 100 Hz (PGA) at LaSalle, 5% of critical damping ................................................................................................ A-1 Table A-1 b: Mean and fractile seismic hazard curves for 25 Hz at LaSalle, 5% of critical damping ........................................................................................................... A-2 Table A-1c: Mean and fractile seismic hazard curves for 10 Hz at LaSalle, 5% of critical damping ........................................................................................................... A-3 Table A-1d: Mean and fractile seismic hazard curves for 5 Hz at LaSalle, 5% of critical damping ........................................................................................................... A-4 Table A-1e: Mean and fractile seismic hazard curves for 2.5 Hz at LaSalle, 5% of critical damping ........................................................................................................... A-5 Table A-1f: Mean and fractile seismic hazard curves for 1 Hz at LaSalle, 5% of critical damping ........................................................................................................... A-6 Table A-1g: Mean and fractile seismic hazard curves for 0.5 Hz at LaSalle, 5% of critical damping ........................................................................................................... A-7 Table A-2a: Amplification functions for LaSalle, 5% of critical damping .............................. A-8 Table A-2b1: Median AFs and sigmas for Model1, Profile 1, for 2 PGA levels .................... A-9 Table A-2b2: Median AFs and sigmas for Model2, Profile 1, for 2 PGA levels .................. A-10 iii LaSalle County Generating Station Report No.: SL-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14-068

Figures Figure 2.3.2-1: Shear-wave velocity (Vs) profiles for LaSalle County station site .............. 2-6 Figure 2.3.6-1: Example suite of amplification factors (5% critical damping pseudo absolute acceleration spectra) developed for the mean base-case profile (P1 ), EPRI soil and rock modulus reduction and hysteretic damping curves (model M1 ),

and base-case kappa 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 ....................................................................................................... 2-11 Figure 2.3.6-2: Example suite of amplification factors (5% critical 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 0.01 g to 1.50g. M 6.5 and single-corner source model ............................................................................... 2-13 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 (PGA) at the LaSalle County station (5% critical damping) .................................................................................................. 2-15 Figure 2.4-1: Plots of 1E-4 and 1E-5 UHRS and GMRS at the control point for LaSalle County station (5% critical damping) ....................................................... 2-17 Figure 3.1-1: LaSalle County station Safe Shutdown Earthquake horizontal ground response spectrum (5% critical damping) ................................................ 3-3 iv LaSalle County Generating Station Report No.: SL-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14-068

Executive Summary PURPOSE 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) issued a 50.54(f) letter (Reference 1) requesting information in response to NRC Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) recommendations intended to clarify and strengthen the regulatory framework for protection against natural phenomena. The 50.54(f) letter (Reference 1) requests that licensees and holders of construction permits under Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 50 (Reference 2) reevaluate the seismic hazards at their sites against present-day NRC requirements.

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 (Reference 1) pertaining to NTTF Recommendation 2.1 for LaSalle County Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, in accordance with the documented intention of Exelon Generating Company transmitted to the NRC via letter dated April 29, 2013 (Reference 22).

SCOPE In response to the 50.54(f) letter (Reference 1) and following the Screening, Prioritization, and Implementation Details (SPID) industry guidance document (Reference 3), a seismic hazard reevaluation for LaSalle County station was performed to develop a Ground Motion Response Spectrum (GMRS) for comparison with the Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE). The new GMRS represents a beyond-design-basis seismic demand developed by more modern techniques than were used for plant licensing. Consistent with NRC letter dated February 20, 2014, (Reference 36) the seismic hazard reevaluations performed in response to the 50.54(f) letter (Reference 1) are distinct from the current design or licensing bases of operating plants. Therefore, the results generally do not call into question the operability or functionality of SSCs and are not expected to be reportable pursuant to 10 CFR 50.72, "Immediate notification requirements for operating nuclear power reactors," and 10 CFR 50. 73, "Licensee event report system."

Section 2 provides a summary of the regional and local geology, seismicity, other major inputs to the seismic hazard reevaluation, and detailed seismic hazard results including definition of the GMRS. Seismic hazard analysis for LaSalle County station, including site response evaluation and GMRS development (Sections 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 of this report) was performed by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) (Reference 23).

A more in-depth discussion of the calculation methods used in the seismic hazard reevaluation can be found in References 3, 7, 8, 14, and 17. Section 3 describes the characteristics of the appropriate plant-level SSE. Section 4 provides a comparison of the GMRS to the SSE. Sections 5 and 6 discuss interim actions and conclusions, respectively.

LaSalle County Generating Station v

Report No.: SL-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14..068

CONCLUSIONS The GMRS exceeds the SSE for a portion of the frequency range from 1 Hz to 10 Hz.

Therefore, LaSalle County station screens in for a risk evaluation and a spent fuel pool integrity evaluation in response to NTTF 2.1: Seismic. Due to the GMRS exceeding the SSE in the frequency range above 10 Hz, high frequency exceedances can be addressed in the risk evaluation process. LaSalle County station will also perform interim actions in accordance with the Expedited Seismic Evaluation Process (ESEP) guidance (Reference 4 ). These actions will be performed in accordance with the schedule for central and eastern United States (CEUS) nuclear plants provided via letter from the industry to the NRC dated April 9, 2013 (Reference 6), as agreed to by the NRC in the May 7, 20131etter to the industry (Reference 32).

vi LaSalle County Generating Station Report No.: SL-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14-068

1 Introduction Following the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant resulting from the March 11, 2011, Great Tohoku Earthquake and subsequent tsunami, the NRC Commission established a Near Term Task Force (NTTF) to conduct a systematic review of NRC processes and regulations and to determine if the agency should make additional improvements to its regulatory system. The NTTF developed a set of recommendations intended to clarify and strengthen the regulatory framework for protection against natural phenomena. Subsequently, the NRC issued a 50.54(f) letter that requests information to assure that these recommendations are addressed by all U. S. nuclear power plants (Reference 1). The 50.54(f) letter requests that licensees and holders of construction permits under 10 CFR Part 50 (Reference 2) 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 (Reference 1) pertaining to NTTF Recommendation 2.1 for LaSalle County Generating Station (LaSalle County station), located in LaSalle County, Illinois, in accordance with the documented intention of Exelon Generating Company (Exelon) transmitted to the NRC via letter dated April 29, 2013 (Reference 22). In providing this information, Exelon 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 (Reference 3). The Augmented Approach, Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic (Reference 4), has been developed as the process for evaluating critical plant equipment as an interim action to demonstrate additional plant seismic margin, prior to performing the complete plant seismic risk evaluations. The SPID (Reference 3) and the Augmented Approach (Reference 4) have been endorsed by the NRC in letters to NEI according to Reference 31 and Reference 32 respectively.

1-1 LaSalle County Generating Station Report No.: SL-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14-068

The original geologic and seismic siting investigations for the LaSalle County station were performed in accordance with Appendix A of Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 100 (Reference 5) and meet General Design Criterion 2 in Appendix A of Reference 2. The Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) ground motion was developed in accordance with Appendix A of Reference 5 and is used for the design of seismic Category I systems, structures and components.

In response to the 50.54(f) letter (Reference 1) and following the guidance provided in the SPID (Reference 3), a seismic hazard reevaluation for LaSalle County station was performed. For screening purposes, a Ground Motion Response Spectrum (GMRS) was developed.

1-2 LaSalle County Generating Station Report No.: SL-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14-068

2 Seismic Hazard Reevaluation The LaSalle County station site is located at the north end of the Illinois Basin, in eastern LaSalle County, Illinois, approximately 5 miles south of the Illinois River. The plant power block structures are located in the upland portion of the site. The main power block structures are founded on soil, approximately 150 feet deep from the surface, overlying Pennsylvanian bedrock. This is followed by approximately 3500 feet of sedimentary rock overlying the Precambrian basement (Reference 9).

The LaSalle site is located in an area of relative seismic stability. An evaluation of the seismic and tectonic characteristics of the site and surrounding 200 miles was conducted for the plant design. At the time of licensing, within the past 200 years, maximum reported earthquake intensity felt at the site had not exceeded VI on the Modified Mercalli Scale (MM). The earthquake nearest the site had an epicentral intensity of VI (MM). The assumption was made that an Intensity VII (MM) event could occur near the site. Therefore, the maximum horizontal ground acceleration at the foundation level is 20% gravity (0.2g peak ground acceleration). (Reference 9) 2.1 REGIONAL AND LOCAL GEOLOGY LaSalle County station is located in the Bloomington Ridged Plain Subsection of the Till Plains section of the Central Lowland Physiographic Province. The Bloomington Ridged Plain is a region of relatively flat, undissected uplands of Wisconsinan till and terminal moraines that are cut by steep-sided valleys of major through streams. Topography is largely controlled by glacial deposition. Over most of the regional area, bedrock is covered with Quaternary surficial deposits consisting of Pleistocene glacial drift, loess, lake sediments, and residual soils. The bedrock stratigraphic sequence in the regional area consists primarily of Paleozoic sedimentary rocks ranging in age from Pennsylvanian to Cambrian, with a major hiatus between Pennsylvanian and Ordovician in the site vicinity. (Reference 9)

Soil deposits in the upland portion of the LaSalle County station site where the main power block structures are located consist predominantly of 120 to 140 feet of Pleistocene till resting on Pennsylvanian bedrock. The till is locally interbedded with outwash deposits and locally covered by alluvium and colluvium, generally thinner than 10 feet, and by loess 0 to 4 feet thick. The bedrock units at the LaSalle County station site include nearly flat-lying Pennsylvanian cyclothem sequences (limestones, shales, sandstones, coals) overlying Ordovician limestones, shales, dolomites, and sandstones.

(Reference 9) 2-1 LaSalle County Generating Station Report No.: SL-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14-068

2.2 PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS 2.2.1 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis Results In accordance with the 50.54(f) letter (Reference 1) and. following the guidance in the SPID (Reference 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 (Reference 7) together with the updated EPRI Ground-Motion Model (GMM) for the CEUS (Reference 8). For the PSHA, a lower-bound moment magnitude of 5.0 was used, as specified in the 50.54(f) letter (Reference 1).

For the PSHA, the CEUS-SSC background seismic sources out to a distance of 400 miles around LaSalle were included. This distance exceeds the 200 mile recommendation contained in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.208 (Reference 17) and was chosen for completeness. Background sources included in this site analysis are the following:

1. Illinois Basin Extended Basement (IBEB)

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

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

4. Midcontinent-Craton alternative A (MIOC_A)

5. Midcontinent-Craton alternative B (MIDC_B)

6. Midcontinent-Craton alternative C (MIDC_C)

7. Midcontinent-Craton alternative 0 (MIDC_D)

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

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

10. Paleozoic Extended Crust narrow (PEZ_N)

11. Paleozoic Extended Crust wide (PEZ_W)

12. Reelfoot Rift (RR)

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

14. Study region (STUDY_R)

For sources of large magnitude earthquakes, designated Repeated Large Magnitude Earthquake (RLME) sources in CEUS-SSC (Reference 7), the following sources lie within 621 miles (1000 km) of the site and were included in the analysis:

1. Commerce

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

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

4. Marianna

5. New Madrid Fault System (NMFS)

6. Wabash Valley For each of the above background and RLME sources, the mid-continent version of the updated CEUS EPRI GMM (Reference 8) was used.

2-2 LaSalle County Generating Station Report No.: SL-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14-068

2.2.2 Base Rock Seismic Hazard Curves Consistent with the SPID (Reference 3), base rock seismic hazard curves are not provided as the site amplification approach, referred to as Method 3, has been used.

Seismic hazard curves are shown below in Section 2.3.7 at the SSE control point elevation.

2.3 SITE RESPONSE EVALUATION Following the guidance contained in Seismic Enclosure 1 of the 50.54(f) Request for Information (Reference 1) and in the SPID (Reference 3) for nuclear power plant sites that are not founded on hard rock (defined as having a shear wave velocity of at least 9285 ft/sec), a site response analysis was performed for LaSalle County station.

2.3.1 Description of Subsurface Material The LaSalle County station is located in northeastern Illinois at the north end of the Illinois Basin, 5 miles south of the Illinois River. The general site conditions consist of about 170 feet of soils overlying about 4,200 feet of firm to hard sedimentary rock with Precambrian basement at a depth of about 4,400 feet. As illustrated in Table 2.3.1-1, the SSE is specified at an elevation of 666 feet.

The Category I structures are founded entirely on soil. The soil in the vicinity of the main power block is generally Wisconsinian in age {Reference 9). The soil deposits consist predominantly of 90 to 140 feet of Pleistocene silty clay till overlying 45 to 60 feet of clayey silt till resting on Pennsylvanian bedrock. The till is locally interbedded with outwash deposits and locally covered by alluvium and colluvium, generally thinner than 10 feet and by loess 0 to 4 feet thick. The predominant soil unit in the vicinity of the main power block is known as the Wedron Formation.

The bedrock units include nearly flat-lying Pennsylvanian cyclothem sequences (limestones, shales, sandstones, coals) unconformably overlying Ordovician limestones, shales, dolomites and sandstones. Site stratigraphy features the Pennsylvanian Carbondale Formation and Spoon Formation overlying various Ordovician strata.

(Reference 9)

The Carbondale Formation forms the erosional bedrock surface for most of the site and is composed of alternating strata of shale, sandstone, clay, coal, limestone, siltstone, and many intergradational types. (Reference 9)

The Spoon Formation exists throughout the site as a continuous subsurface unit. It consists of about 5 feet of underclay (greenish to brownish, soft, nonbedded) of the Colchester No. 2 Coal overlying about 20 feet of gray shale (gray to green, massive, calcareous, fissile, organic, somewhat soft, and silty). In the site area, the Spoon Formation rests unconformably on Ordovician limestone of the Platteville Group.

(Reference 9) 2-3 LaSalle County Generating Station Report No.: SL-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14-068

The Platteville Group exists throughout the site as a continuous subsurface unit. It is composed of mottled light gray to dark gray limestones and dolomites of Ordovician age.

The rocks are dense and fine-to medium-grained with a small amount of clay and chert.

The depth to the Platteville Group in Boring 2 was 341 feet (EL 367 feet MSL); the thickness penetrated was only 19 feet; data suggests the thickness of the Platteville Group is on the order of 50 to 100 feet (Reference 9)

The contact with the underlying Ordovician Ancell Group is unconformable and at approximately El. 250 to 300 feet MSL (Reference 9). This overlies the Cambrian System of dolomite and sandstone, which in turn overlies the Precambrian Basement Complex (igneous and metamorphic rocks, including granite and granodiorites) at approximately 3,500 feet below MSL (Reference 9) 2-4 LaSalle County Generating Station Report No.: SL-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14-068

Table 2.3.1-1: Summary of geotechnical profile data for LaSalle County station (Reference 30)

Elevations of Layer Range In Compressional Boundaries At Thickness Density Shear Wave Poisson's Soil/Rock Description and Age Wave Velocity Reactor Buildings Across Site (pcf) Velocity (fps) Ratio (fps)

(ft, MSL) (ft)

I Pleistocene Wisconsinan Wedron 710" to BOOb 90-140 Formation, stiff to hard silty clay with 129-139 400-1100 1100 0.38-0.46 some sand and gravel Pleistocene Wisconsinan Wedron 600 to 540 45-60 Formation, very dense, very hard to hard 134-153 1640-1750 5000-5680 0.41-0.49 clayey silt with some sand and gravel Pennsylvanian Carbondale Formation, 540 to 395 145-175 shale, limestone, sandstone, siltstone, 135-177 4800 9400-10700 0.1-0.37 and coal Pennsylvanian Spoon Formation, shale, 395 to 370 25 150 4800 9800 0.34 limestone, sandstone, siltstone, and coal 370 to 300 50-100 Ordovician Platteville Group, dolomite 150 4800 9800 0.34 300 to 50 235-250 Ordovician Ancell Group, sandstone 150 4800 9800 0.34 Ordovician and Cambrian dolomite and 50 to -3690 3740 155 11000 18300 0.22 sandstone Precambrian igneous and metamorphic

-3690 and below N/A 162 12000 19000 0.18 rocks

• Surface of finish grade is nominally at El. 710 feet MSL in the vicinity of the main power block. The control point elevation for the SSE is located at the base of the reactor buHding, EL 666 feet MSL (see Section 3.2).

b Bottom of the deepest foundation is at El. 656 feel MSL, within the Wedron Formation.

2-5 LaSalle County GeneraUng Station Report No .. SL-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14-066

2.3.2 Development of Base Case Profiles and Nonlinear Material Properties Table 2.3.1-1 shows the recommended shear-wave velocities and unit weights verses depth for the best estimate single profile. From Table 2.3.1-1 hard reference rock shear-wave velocities (at or exceeding 9,285 fVs) were reached at the elevation 50 feet MSL.

Recommended shear-wave velocities listed in Table 2.3.1-1 were used to develop the mean base-case profile (Profile 1). Lower- and upper-range profiles (Profile 2 and Profile 3 respectively) were developed with a scale factor of 1.57 (Reference 3) as the measurement method and vintage of the recommended shear-wave velocities at the site was unclear. To accommodate uncertainty in depth to hard rock, 616 feet below the SSE in Table 2.3.1-1, the shear-wave velocity of 4,800 fVs at the Ancell Group sandstone was extended to Precambrian basement resulting in the profiles shown in Figure 2.3.2-1 (Table 2.3.2-1). Profile P3 accommodates shallow hard rock conditions with an increase to reference site conditions at a shear-wave velocity of 9,285 fVs at a depth of 616 feet. Profiles P1 and P2 have a mean depth to Precambrian basement of 4,356 feet randomized +/-1307 feet. Profile P3 has a mean depth to Precambrian basement of 616 feet with layers randomized following the description in Section 2.3.3.

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.

Vs 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 0

500 1000 1500 -Profile1

-Proflle2 g 2000

.sa. -Profile3 g 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 Figure 2.3.2-1: Shear-wave velocity (Vs) profiles for LaSalle County station site

{Reference 23) 2-6 LaSalle County Generating Station Report No.: SL-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14-068

Table 2.3.2-1a: Layer thicknesses, depths, and shear-wave velocity (Vs) for 3 profiles, LaSalle County station site (Reference 23)

Profile 1 (P1 Profile 2 (P2) Profile 3 (P3)

Thickness Depth Thickness Depth Thickness Depth Vs (ft/s) Vs (ft/s) (ft)

Vs (ft/s)

(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 0 663 0 424 0 1041 5.5 5.5 663 5.5 5.5 424 5.5 5.5 1041 5.5 11.0 663 5.5 11.0 424 5.5 11.0 1041 5.5 16.5 16.5 424 5.5 16.5 1041 5.5 22.0 663 5.5 22.0 424 5.5 22.0 1041 5.5 27.6 663 5.5 27.6 424 5.5 27.6 1041 5.5 33.1 663 5.5 33.1 424 5.5 33.1 1041 5.5 38.6 663 5.5 38.6 424 5.5 38.6 1041 5.5 44.1 663 5.5 44.1 424 5.5 44.1 1041 5.5 49.6 663 5.5 49.6 I 424 5.5 49.6 1041 5.5 55.1 663 5.5 55.1 5.5 55.1 1041 5.5 60.6 663 5.5 60.6 424 5.5 60.6 1041 5.5 66.1 1041

~

5.5 66.1 663 6.0 72.1 1694 6.0 72.1 2660 6.0 78.1 1694 6.0 0 78.1 2660 6.0 84.2 1694 6.0 84.2 1084 6.0 84.2 2660 6.0 90.2 1694 6.0 90.2 1084 6.0 90.2 2660 6.0 96.2 1694 6.0 96.2 1084 6.0 96.2 2660 6.0 i 102 1694 6.0 102 1084 6.0 102 2660 6.0 108 1694 6.0 108 1084 6.0 108 2660 6.0 114 1694 6.0 114 1084 6.0 114 2660 6.0 120 1694 6.0 120 1084 6.0 120 2660 6.0 1694 6.0 126 1084 6.0 126 2660 29.0 29.0 d= 184 4800 4800 29.0 29.0 155 184 3072 3072 29.0 29.0 155 184 7536 7536 29.0 213 4800 29.0 213 3072 29.0 213 7536 29.0 242 4800 29.0 242 3072 29.0 242 7536 7.8 250 4800 7.8 250 3072 7.8 250 7536 25.0 275 4800 25.0 275 3072 25.0 275 7536 25.0 300 4800 25.0 300 3072 25.0 300 7536 25.0 325 4800 25.0 325 3072 25.0 325 7536 25.0 350 4800 25.0 350 3072 25.0 350 7536 25.0 375 4800 25.0 375 I 3072 25.0 375 7536 25.0 400 4800 25.0 400 3072 25.0 400 7536 25.0 425 4800 25.0 425 3072 25.0 425 7536 25.0 450 4800 25.0 I 450 3072 25.0 450 7536 25.0 475 4800 25.0 475 3072 475 7536 25.0 500 4800 25.0 500 3072 25.0 500 7536 115.8 616 4800 115.8 616 3072 115.8 616 7536 268.1 884 4800 268.1 884 3072 268.1 884 9285 204.2 1088 4800 204.2 1088 3072 204.2 1088 9285 2-7 LaSalle County Generating Station Report No.: SL-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14-068

Table 2.3.2-1 8 : (Continued)

Profile 1 (P1) Profile 2 (P2} Profile 3 (P3)

Thickness Depth Thickness Depth Thickness Depth Vs (ft/s} Vs (ft/s) Vs (ft/s)

(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 204.2 1292 4800 204.2 1292 3072 204.2 1292 9285 204.2 1497 4800 204.2 1497 3072 204.2 1497 9285 204.2 1701 4800 204.2 1701 3072 204.2 1701 9285 204.2 1905 4800 204.2 Hl05 3072 204.2 1905 9285 204.2 2109 4800 204.2 2109 3072 204.2 2109 9285 204.2 2314 4800 204.2 2314 3072 204.2 2314 9285 204.2 2518 4800 204.2 2518 3072 204.2 2518 9285 204.2 2722 4800 204.2 2722 3072 204.2 2722 9285 204.2 29 4800 204.2 2926 3072 204.2 2926 9285 204.2 3130 4800 204.2 3130 3072 204.2 3130 9285 204.2 3335 4800 204.2 3335 3072 204.2 3335 9285 204.2 i 3539 4800 204.2 3539 3072 204.2 3539 9285 204.2 3743 4800 204.2 3743 3072 204.2 3743 9285 204.2 0 204.2 3947 3072 204.2 3947 9285 204.2 4152 4800 204.2 4152 3072 204.2 4152 9285 204.0 4356 4800 204.0 4356 3072 204.0 4356 9285 3280.8 7636 9285 3280.8 7636 9285 3280.8 7636 9285

• Table 2.3.2-1 is modified from the table presented in Reference 30. The control point elevation was modified from EL. 710 feet MSL to EL. 666 feet MSL as discussed in Section 3.2. Therefore, due to the revision in the control point elevation, the soil layers do not match those presented in Reference 30.

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 LaSalle County station. To reflect epistemic uncertainty in nonlinear dynamic material properties, the firm rock material at the site was assumed 1 to have behavior that could be modeled as either linear or non-linear and a realistic range in soil nonlinearity was accommodated with two sets of modulus reduction and hysteretic damping curves. Consistent with the SPID (Reference 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 the site; and Peninsular Range (PR) curves for soils combined with linear analyses (model M2) for rock was assumed 1 to represent an equally plausible less nonlinear alternative response across loading level. For the linear firm rock analyses, the low strain damping from the EPRI soil and rock curves were used as the constant damping values in the upper 500 feet of the profile.

1 Assumptions discussed in Section 2 are provided by EPRI engineers (Reference 23) in accordance with implementation of the SPID (Reference 3) methodology.

2-8 LaSalle County Generating Station Report No.: SL-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14-068

2.3.2.2 Kappa For the LaSalle County station profile of about 4,400 feet of soils and firm rock over hard reference rock, the estimates of kappa were based on the low-strain damping in the hysteretic damping curves over the top 500 feet plus the assumption 1 of a constant hysteretic damping of 1.25 (Q 5 of 40) for the remaining firm rock profile in addition to a kappa value of 0.006s for hard rock (Reference 3). For base-case profiles P1, P2, and P3 the kappa contributions from the profiles was 0.028s, 0.043s, and 0.006s respectively. The total kappa values, after adding the hard reference rock value of 0.006s, were 0.034s, 0.040s (maximum of 0.04s, Reference 3), and 0.012s respectively (Table 2.3.2-2). Additional epistemic uncertainty in profile damping (kappa) is accommodated at design loading levels through multiple sets of modulus reduction and hysteretic damping curves for the soils.

Table 2.3.2-2: Kappa values and weights used for site response analyses (Reference 23)

Velocity Profile Kappa(s)

P1 0.034 P2 0.040 P3 0.012 Weights P1 0.4 P2 0.3 P3 0.3 G/Gmax and Hysteretic Damping Curves M1, EPRI Soil, EPRI Rock 0.5 M2, PR Soil, Linear Rock 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 1 shear-wave velocity profiles has been incorporated in the site response calculations.

For the LaSalle County station 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 (Reference 3), 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 (Reference 14) 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 (Reference 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 1

each layer was assumed for the limits on random velocity fluctuations.

1 Assumptions discussed in Section 2 are provided by EPRI engineers (Reference 23) in accordance with implementation of the SPID (Reference 3) methodology.

2-9 LaSalle County Generating Station Report No.: SL-012194. Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14-068

2.3.4 Input Spectra Consistent with the guidance in Appendix B of the SPID (Reference 3), input Fourier amplitude spectra were defined for a single representative earthquake magnitude (M 6.5) using two different assumptions 1 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 0.01g to 1.50 g) were used in the site response analyses. The characteristics of the seismic source and upper crustal attenuation properties assumed 1 for the analysis of the LaSalle County station were the same as those identified in Tables B-4, B-5, B-6 and B-7 of the SPID (Reference 3) as appropriate for typical CEUS sites.

2.3.5 Methodology To perform the site response analyses for the LaSalle County station site, a random vibration theory (RVT) approach was employed. This process utilizes a simple, efficient approach for computing site-specific amplification functions and is consistent with existing NRC guidance and the SPID (Reference 3). The guidance contained in Appendix B of the SPID (Reference 3) 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 LaSalle County station.

2.3.6 Amplification Functions The results of the site response analysis consist of amplification factors (5% damped pseudo absolute response spectra) which describe the amplification (or de-amplification) of hard reference rock motion as a function of frequency and input reference rock amplitude. The amplification factors are represented in terms of a median amplification value and an associated standard deviation (sigma) for each oscillator frequency and input rock amplitude. Consistent with the SPID (Reference 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 soil and firm rock G/Gmax and hysteretic damping curves (Reference 3). 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 LaSalle County station firm rock site, Figure 2.3.6-2 shows the corresponding amplification factors developed with PR curves for soil and linear site response analyses for firm rock (model M2). Between the more nonlinear and more linear analyses, Figure 2.3.6-1 and Figure 2.3.6-2 respectively show a significant difference at high structural frequency (~ 10 Hz) at very high loading level. Tabulated values of amplification factors are provided in Tables A-2b1 and A-2b2 in Appendix A.

1 Assumptions discussed in Section 2 are provided by EPRI engineers {Reference 23) in accordance with implementation of the SPID {Reference 3) methodology.

2-10 LaSalle County Generating Station Report No.: SL-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14-068

t:: .....

ao

..... ...1 Ill

(.)

~0 0

....... 0

,......, - ~------------------------~ 0 ~----------------~~~~~

~

~

I o-

-a I

~~~~~--~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~--~~~~_.~~ww c- ....

0~

(cJ (J

l.t-0

....... 0 c..

e a:

....I Cl INPUT MOTION O.LOG

- ~~~~~--~-W~~~~~~

c: ....

ao

+'

10 0

(.)

.~0. . ....0~--------------~~------~

0 0

~

~----------~~~r-------~

c..

E a: ..... ~

I Ilf!UT MOTICtl 0. 30G I 0 Cl

- ~~~~~--~~~~~_.~~ ..... ~~~~~--~~~ll--L~~~

10 -1 LO 0 10 1 10 2 10 -1 10 0 10 lO 2 F requenc~ (Hz) Frequenc~ (Hz)

AMPLIFICATION} LASALLE, M1P1K1 M 6.5, 1 CORNER; PAGE 1 OF Z Figure 2.3.6-1: Example suite of amplification factors (5% critical damping pseudo absolute acceleration spectra) developed for the mean base-case profile (P1 ), EPRI soil and rock modulus reduction and hysteretic damping curves (model M1), and base-case kappa at eleven loading levels of hard rock median peak acceleration values from 0.01g to 1.50g. M 6.5 and single-corner source model (Reference 3) (Reference 23) 2-11 LaSalle County Generating Station Report No.: SL-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14-068

c..-<

oo ......

a_

E a:

-I 0

I 0

...... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

c ....

.....0 0.....

+'

itl u

~0 0

• ~ 0 a...

E

~----------~~~------------~ 0

- ~--------~~~r-------------~

c.c ....

"""I I INPUT MOTICN 1. 25G D D

- ~-L-L~UU~~~~~~~_LJj~~ ...-< ~~-L~~~~~~~U-~~~~~

c-oo CL.

E a: ....

I li'PUT PIOTl t)l 1. 5()(;

0

..... ~~~~~.__.~

10 -1 tO 0

.. 10 1

~~_.~~~~

10 2 Frequenc~ (Hz)

AMPLIFICATION 1 LASALLE, M1P1K1 M 6.5, 1 CORNER; PRGE Z OF Z Figure 2.3.6-1: (Continued) 2-12 LaSalle County Generating Station Report No.: SL-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14..068

c-0 0 .....

-J.-l' a:!

u 4-.0 0

Q_

E a:

-l D

I INPUT MOTI<l'l O.OSG

.... ~~~~~--~~~a-~~wu~

Cl

- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

c--

0 CJ

..;J 10 u

4-0

,,..., c Q_

e.

a: ....I ......

I Cl

~~~~~--~~~~~~~~

Cl

~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

c::~

0

..;J 0

tO

(.J 4-0 0

~--------------~~-----,~ ~--------------~~------~

,,... 0

,...., .... CJ Q_

E a: _, .....I I

INPUT JroTI<l'l 0.40G 0

... ~~~~~--~~~~~~~~

0

- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~llU 10 -1 to a to 1 10 2 10 -l 10 0 10 l 10 2 Frequenc~ (Hz) Frequenc~ (Hz)

AMPLIFICATION, LASALLEJ M2P1K1 M 6.5 1 1 CORNER: PAGE 1 Of Z Figure 2.3.6-2: Example suite of amplification factors (5% critical 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 0.01g to 1.50g. M 6.5 and single-corner source model (Reference 3) (Reference 23) 2-13 LaSalle County Generating Station Report No.: SL-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14-068

c ....

.....o:;:

I'd u

~0

,,.., 0 CL E

- ~----------------~~--------~ 0 0

- ~------------~~~~--------~

a: .....

I 0

- ~~-L~~ll-~~~~~--~~~~

--I 0

INPUT MOTia-1 0. 75G

~~_.~~~--~~~~--~~~~

10 u

~ 1:::---------"--=.,.....-:l~--------::1

• ~ 00 CL

- 1:::------~~~~~------~ 00 E

a: .... ....I l

0 a

..... L--L-L~~~-~~~~-~~wu~ - ~~_.~~~--~~~~--~~~u.u c:-'

oo 10 u

~0

....... 0 CL E

a: .....

1 INPUT MOTI~ 1. 50(;

0

~ ~~~~~~--~~~~--~~~~

10 -1 tO 0 10 1 10 2 Freguenc~ (Hz)

AMPLIFICATION, LASALLE, M2P1K1 M 6.5, 1 CORNER~ PRGE Z OF 2 Figure 2.3.6-2: (Continued) 2-14 LaSalle County Generating Station Report No.: Sl-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14-068

2.3.7 Control Point Seismic Hazard Curves The procedure to develop probabilistic site-specific control point hazard curves used in the present analysis follows the methodology described in Section B-6.0 of the SPID (Reference 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 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 LaSalle County station 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 LaSalle QJ 1E-3 u

,c:

QJ QJ

-25Hz QJ -10Hz to! 1E-4

....0 QJ

-5Hz

-PGA

~

c:

QJ -2.5Hz

=

1:7" 1E-5

-1Hz

....1!!

iii -0.5Hz

=

c 'l

':I j

c 1E-6 c(

1E-7 +----~-'----'--'-'-l-----~-----'-'--+----'"'---'-'

O.Ql 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 (PGA) at the LaSalle County station (5% critical damping) (Reference 23) 2-15 LaSalle County Generating Station Report No.: SL-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No .. RS-14..068

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 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.

The 1E-4 and 1E-5 UHRS, along with a Design Factor (DF), are used to compute the GMRS at the control point using the criteria in Regulatory Guide 1.208 (Reference 17).

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

Table 2.4-1: UHRS and GMRS for LaSalle County station (Reference 23)

Freq. (Hz) 10-4 UHRS (g) 10-5 UHRS (g) GMRS (g) 100 2.44E-01 6.41E-01 3.17E-01 90 2.45E-01 6.57E-01 3.24E-01 80 2.47E-01 6.75E-01 3.31 E-01 70 2.51E-01 6.98E-01 3.41 E-01 60 2.56E-01 7.27E-01 3.54E-01 50 2.68E-01 7.67E-01 3.73E-01 40 2.89E-01 8.31 E-01 4.04E-01 35 3.06E-01 8.76E-01 4.26E-01 30 3.23E-01 9.36E-01 4.54E-01 25 3.38E-01 1.01E+OO 4.86E-01 20 3.62E-01 1.04E+OO 5.07E-01 15 4.17E-01 1.18E+OO 5.74E-01 12.5 4.62E-01 1.30E+OO 6.35E-01 10 5.11 E-01 1.42E+OO 6.95E-01 9 5.14E-01 1.40E+OO 6.86E-01 8 4.94E-01 1.35E+OO 6.64E-01 7 4.61 E-01 1.28E+OO 6.27E-01 6 4.26E-01 1.16E+OO 5.72E-01 5 4.09E-01 1.04E+OO 5.17E-01 4 4.05E-01 9.75E-01 4.91 E-01 3.5 4.04E-01 9.50E-01 4.80E-01 3 3.88E-01 9.12E-01 4.61 E-01 2.5 3.38E-01 8.61 E-01 4.28E-01 2 3.18E-01 8.10E-01 4.03E-01 1.5 2.74E-01 6.55E-01 3.30E-01 1.25 2.42E-01 5.61 E-01 2.84E-01 1 2.01 E-01 4.55E-01 2.32E-01 0.9 1.82E-01 4.21 E-01 2.14E-01 2-16 LaSalle County Generating Station Report No.: SL-012194 *.Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14-068

Table 2.4-1: (Continued)

Freq. (Hz) 1o"" UHRS (g) 10-5 UHRS (g) GMRS (g) 0.8 1.61 E-01 3.82E-01 1.93E-01 0.7 1.38E-01 3.36E-01 1.69E-01 0.6 1.13E-01 2.86E-01 1.43E-01 0.5 9.05E-02 2.38E-01 1.18E-01 0.4 7.24E-02 1.90E-01 9.41E-02 0.35 6.33E-02 1.67E-01 8.23E-02 0.3 5.43E-02 1.43E-01 7.06E-02 0.25 4.52E-02 1.19E-01 5.88E-02 0.2 3.62E-02 9.52E-02 4.71E-02 0.15 2.71E-02 7.14E-02 3.53E-02 0.125 2.26E-02 5.95E-02 2.94E-02 0.1 1.81 E-02 4.76E-02 2.35E-02 The 1E-4 and 1E-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 LaSalle bD -1E-5 UHR5 r:

0 1. +-----------~~--------~--------~~--~--~

I!! -GMR5 Ql Qj

~ 0.75 +-----------,-------1------,---'------""""""---'

Ill -1E-4UHR5

~....

~ 0.5 +-------+-~~----=~---'~~--~~~~~~

a.

Ill 0.1 1 10 100 Spectral frequency, Hz Figure 2.4-1: Plots of 1E-4 and 1E-5 UHRS and GMRS at the control point for LaSalle County station (5% critical damping). (Reference 23) 2-17 LaSalle County Generating StaUon Report No.: SL-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14-068

3 Plant Design Basis Ground Motion The design basis for LaSalle County station is identified in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) (Reference 9). The SSE for the site is based on the assumption that an Intensity VII (MM) event could occur in the vicinity of the site.

Seismic Category I structures are designed for safe shutdown due to maximum horizontal ground accelerations at the foundation level of 20% of gravity. The response spectrum for the safe shutdown earthquake is shown in Table 3.1-1.

3.1 SSE DESCRIPTION OF SPECTRAL SHAPE The SSE is defined in terms of a PGA and a design response spectrum. The PGA for the site is 20% of gravity for the SSE. The 5% critical damping horizontal SSE for LaSalle County station is shown in UFSAR Figure 2.5-39 (Reference 9). This spectra shape is based on the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC, now NRC) criteria in effect at the time of the LaSalle construction permit (Reference 12). The SSE was recreated using the control points from UFSAR Figure 2.5-39. Table 3.1-1 shows the spectral acceleration values as a function of frequency for the 5% critically damped horizontal SSE. Figure 3.1-1 shows a plot of the same information.

3-1 LaSalle County Generating Station Report No.: SL-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14-068

Table 3.1-1: LaSalle County station Safe Shutdown Earthquake horizontal ground response spectrum, 5% critical damping Frequency 5% Damped Spectral 0.10 0.01 0.13 0.01 0.15 0.02 0.20 0.03 0.25 0.05 0.30 0.07 0.35 0.09 0.38 0.10 0.40 0.11 0.50 0.14 0.60 0.16 0.70 0.19 0.80 0.22 0.90 0.24 1.00 0.27 1.25 0.34 1.50 0.41 2 0.54 3 0.54 4 0.54 5 0.54 6 0.54 6.4 0.54 7 0.50 8 0.46 9 0.42 10 0.38 12.5 0.32 15 0.28 20 0.23 23.5 0.20 25 0.20 30 0.20 50 0.20 100 0.20 3-2 LaSalle County Generating Station Report No.: SL-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14-068

LaSalle Safe Shutdown Earthquake Horizontal Response Spectra

- 0.500 +------'---+~...,......r-+--'i------1----'--~~-+-'~'-f----+-__...----'+-~--+-+-l li

~

Jl!

§ 0.400

<(

1 0.300 +-----+--++-+-...,.-++1---i--...,.-+~---'-+-H-'-f--~-+---+-+-...;_;..+-l

"'c li 0.200

• c u

~ 0.100 +-------#'f-...,.-+...,.-++-+---+------,.---++---+------"---1-1 0.1 10 100 Frequency (Hz}

Figure 3.1-1: LaSalle County station Safe Shutdown Earthquake horizontal ground response spectrum (5% critical damping) 3.2 CONTROL POINT ELEVATION Section 3. 7.1.1 of the UFSAR (Reference 9) states that the site response spectra are defined at the free field foundation level for the SSE. The foundation elevation is not explicitly stated in section 3. 7.1.1. Review of the station design basis soil structure interaction analysis calculation (Reference 25) and UFSAR Figure 3.7-39 (Reference 9) show that the elevation considered as the SSE control point is elevation 666 feet MSL, which is approximately the bottom of the reactor building basemat (located in the concrete mud mat under the foundation). The SSE control point elevation of elevation 666 feet MSL differs from the control point reported in Reference 30, which reported the control point as elevation 710 feet MSL (surface grade). Elevation 666 feet MSL is the appropriate SSE control point based on the previous discussion.

3-3 LaSalle County Generating Station Report No.: SL-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14-068

4 Screening Evaluation Following completion of the seismic hazard reevaluation, as requested in the 50.54(f) letter (Reference 1), a screening process is needed to determine if a risk evaluation is needed. The horizontal GMRS determined from the hazard reevaluation is used to characterize the amplitude of the new seismic hazard at each of the nuclear power plant sites. The screening evaluation compares the GMRS with the 5% critical damping horizontal SSE, in accordance with the SPlD (Reference 3).

4.1 RISK EVALUATION SCREENING (1 TO 10Hz)

In the 1 Hz to 10 Hz part of the response spectrum, the GMRS (Table 2.4-1) exceeds the SSE (Table 3.1-1}. Therefore, LaSalle station screens in for a risk evaluation.

Further, in accordance with the screening requirements in the ESEP guidance (Reference 4), LaSalle County station will perform "Augmented Approach" near-term seismic evaluations. The ESEP will be performed as an interim assessment for LaSalle County station. See Section 5.1 for further details on the ESEP.

4.2 HIGH FREQUENCY SCREENING (> 10 Hz)

In the frequency range above 10 Hz, the GMRS exceeds the SSE. Therefore, high frequency exceedances can be addressed in the risk evaluation process discussed in Section 4.1.

Section 3.4 of the SPID (Reference 3) discusses high-frequency exceedances. It discusses the impact of high-frequency ground motion on plant components and identifies the component groups that are sensitive to high-frequency vibration. A two-phase test program is described, which is currently ongoing, that will develop data to support the high-frequency evaluation.

The SPID concludes that high-frequency vibration is not damaging, in general, to components with strain- or stress-based failure modes, based on EPRI Report NP-7498 (Reference 28). But components, such as relays, subject to electrical functionality failure modes have unknown acceleration sensitivity for frequencies above 16Hz.

4-1 LaSalle County Generating Station Report No .. SL-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14-068

EPRI Report 1015108 (Reference 26) provides evidence that supports the conclusion that high-frequency motions are not damaging to the majority of nuclear plant components, excluding relays and other electrical devices whose output signals may be affected by high-frequency vibration. EPRI Report 1015109 (Reference 27) provides guidance for identifying and evaluating potentially high-frequency sensitive components.

Guidance from these documents is considered in the SPID (Reference 3) report for identifying components that are sensitive to high-frequency vibration. Component types listed in Table 2-1 of EPRI Report 3002000706 (Reference 29) will require high -frequency evaluation. Those component types are:

• Electro-mechanical relays

• Circuit breakers

• Control switches

• Process switches and sensors

• Electro-mechanical contactors

• Auxiliary contacts

• Transfer switches

• Potentiometers 4.3 SPENT FUEL POOL EVALUATION SCREENING (1 TO 10Hz)

In the 1 Hz to 10 Hz part of the response spectrum, the GMRS exceeds the SSE.

Therefore, a spent fuel pool evaluation will be performed.

4-2 LaSalle County Generating Station Report No.: SL-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14-068

5 Interim Actions Based on the screening evaluation outcome described in Section 4, the GMRS exceeds the SSE at frequencies from 1 Hz to 10 Hz and greater than 10 Hz. Therefore, LaSalle County station screens in for a risk evaluation in response to the 50.54(f) letter request for information (Reference 1). Prior to completion of the risk evaluation, LaSalle County station is implementing certain interim actions to ensure continued and improved seismic safety of the plant, namely the execution of the Expedited Seismic Evaluation Process (ESEP).

5.1 EXPEDITED SEISMIC EVALUATION PROCESS Based on the screening evaluation, the expedited seismic evaluation described in EPRI Report 3002000704 (Reference 4) will be performed as proposed in the NEI letter to the NRC dated April 9, 2013 (Reference 6), and agreed to by the NRC in the letter dated May 7, 2013 (Reference 32).

The ESEP addresses the 50.54(f) letter (Reference 1) request for "interim evaluations and actions taken or planned to address the higher seismic hazard relative to the design basis, as appropriate, prior to completion of the risk evaluation." Specifically, the ESEP focuses initial industry efforts on short term evaluations that will lead to prompt modifications to some of the most important components that could improve plant seismic safety.

5.2 INTERIM EVALUATION OF SEISMIC HAZARD Consistent with the NRC letter dated February 20, 2014 (Reference 36), the seismic hazard reevaluations presented herein are distinct from the current design and licensing bases of LaSalle County station. Therefore, the results do not call into question the operability or functionality of SSCs and are not reportable pursuant to 10 C FR 50. 72, "Immediate notification requirements for operating nuclear power reactors" (Reference 37), and 10 CFR 50.73, "Licensee event report system" (Reference 38).

The NRC letter also requests that licensees provide an* interim evaluation or actions to demonstrate that the plant can cope with the reevaluated hazard while the expedited approach and risk evaluations are conducted. In response to that request, NEI letter dated March 12, 2014 (Reference 33) 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 Gl-199 Safety/Risk Assessment (Reference 34):

5-1 LaSalle County Generating Station Report No.: SL-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14-068

Overall seismic core damage risk estimates are consistent with the Commission's Safety Goal Policy Statement because they are within the subsidiary objective of 104 /year for core damage frequency. The Gl-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.

LaSalle County station is included in the March 12, 2014 risk estimates (Reference 33).

Using the methodology described in the NEI letter, all plants were shown to be below 104 /year; thus, the above conclusions apply.

5.3 SEISMIC WALKDOWN INSIGHTS In response to NTTF Recommendation 2.3, the 50.54(f) letter (Reference 1) also requested licensees to perform seismic walkdowns in order to, in the context of seismic response: 1) verify that the current plant configuration is consistent with the licensing basis, 2) verify the adequacy of current strategies, monitoring, and maintenance programs, and 3) identify degraded, nonconforming, or unanalyzed conditions. Seismic walkdown guidance (EPRI 1025286, Reference 16) was developed by NEI and endorsed by the NRC as a means for all plants to provide a uniform and acceptable industry response to NTIF 2.3 seismic walkdowns.

Seismic walkdowns in response to NTIF 2.3 for LaSalle County station have been performed and documented in References 10 and 11. The seismic walkdowns for LaSalle County station concluded that none of the equipment items included in the walkdowns had adverse anchorage conditions, adverse seismic spatial interactions, or other adverse seismic conditions. Any potentially degraded, non-conforming, or unanalyzed conditions identified during the seismic walkdown program were assessed in accordance with the plant corrective action program, and were identified as being minor issues.

A review of the LaSalle County station Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) submittal (Reference 15 and 24) along with the NRC Staff Evaluation Report (SER) {Reference 18) was conducted during the seismic walkdowns to confirm IPEEE seismic vulnerabilities had been addressed (References 10 and 11 ). The seismic IPEEE reviews found that no vulnerabilities were identified in the submittal and no plant improvements resulted from the IPEEE program (References 10 and 11 ).

5-2 LaSalle County Generating Station Report No.: SL-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14-068

5.4 BEYOND-DESIGN-BASIS SEISMIC INSIGHTS A beyond-design-basis SPRA was performed for the seismic portion of the LaSalle County station IPEEE (Reference 15 and 24). LaSalle County station is defined as a 0.3g focused scope plant in accordance with NUREG 1407 (Reference 19). The IPEEE submittal (Reference 15 and 24) is based on an SPRA developed for Unit 2 as part of the NRCs Risk Methods Integration and Evaluation Program (RMIEP). Volume 8 of NUREG/CR-4832 contains the plant specific analysis for LaSalle Unit 2 titled, Analysis of the LaSalle Unit 2 Nuclear Power Plant: Risk Methods Integration and Evaluation Program (RMIEP) (Reference 20). The SPRA consisted of the development of a seismic risk model, a seismic hazard analysis, seismic response of structures and equipment, development of seismic fragilities, and computation of seismic core damage frequency. The resulting seismically induced CDF was 6.0E-7/year (mean point estimate) (Reference 20).

The NRC SER of the LaSalle County station IPEEE submittal was performed by Sandia National Laboratories (Reference 18). No major weaknesses were identified in the IPEEE submittal. Minor weaknesses were reported in the SER along with additional factors which may impact the reported seismically induced CDF. The SER findings report that the seismic risk assessment for the LaSalle County station IPEEE constitutes a detailed, defendable analysis using state-of-the-art approaches and a detailed evaluation of component and structure responses and fragilities (Reference 18).

Therefore, considering the low seismically induced CDF reported in Reference 20, the IPEEE SPRA for LaSalle County station has shown that the plant has significant seismic safety for beyond-design-basis earthquakes.

• 5-3 LaSalle County Generating Station Report No.: SL-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14-068

6 Conclusions In accordance with the 50.54{1) letter {Reference 1}, a seismic hazard and screening evaluation was performed for LaSalle County station. This reevaluation followed the SPID guidance {Reference 3} in order to develop a GMRS for the site. The GMRS was developed solely for the purpose of screening for additional evaluation requirements in accordance with the SPID {Reference 3}. The new GMRS represents a beyond-design-basis seismic demand and does not constitute a change in the plant design or licensing basis.

The screening evaluation comparison demonstrates that the GMRS exceeds the SSE in the 1 Hz to 10 Hz range of the response spectrum and also above 10 Hz. Based on the screening evaluation, LaSalle County station screens in for a risk evaluation and a spent fuel pool integrity evaluation. The risk evaluation process can also evaluate components for high frequency exceedances {> 10 Hz}. The risk evaluation will be performed on a schedule in accordance with NRC prioritization and the NEI letter dated April 9, 2013

{Reference 6) as endorsed by the NRC in the letter to NEI dated May 7, 2013 (Reference 32).

The near-term ESEP interim evaluations will be performed following the ESEP guidance

{Reference 4). This is an interim action to establish beyond-design-basis seismic margin prior to completion of the risk evaluation. ESEP evaluations will be performed and modifications (if required) will be implemented on a schedule in accordance with the NEI letter dated April 9, 2013 (Reference 6) as endorsed by the NRC in the letter to NEI dated May 7, 2013 {Reference 32).

6-1 LaSalle County Generating Station Report No.: SL-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14-068

7 References

1. NRC Letter (E. J. Leeds) to All Power Reactor Licensees and Holders of Construction Permits in Active or Deferred Status, Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3, of the Near- Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident, March 2012

2. NRC Regulations Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50, Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities

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

4. EPRI Technical Report 3002000704, Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near- Term Task Force Recommendation 2. 1: Seismic, dated May 2013

5. NRC Regulations Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 100, Reactor Site Criteria

6. NEI Letter (A. R. Pietrangelo) to the NRC, Proposed Path Forward for NTTF Recommendation 2.1: Seismic Reevaluations, April2013

7. EPRI Technical Report 1021097 (NUREG-2115), Central and Eastern United States Seismic Source Characterization for Nuclear Facilities, dated January 2012

8. EPRI Technical Report 3002000717, EPRI (2004, 2006) Ground-Motion Model (GMM) Review Project, dated June 2013

9. LaSalle County Generating Station, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR),

Revision 19

10. Seismic Walkdown Report in Response to the 50.54(f) Information Request Regarding Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3: Seismic for the LaSalle County Generating Station Unit 1, November 2012 (Exelon Correspondence No. RS-12-163, Enclosure 1) 7-1 LaSalle County Generating Station Report No.: SL-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14-068

11. Seismic Walkdown Report in Response to the 50.54(f) Information Request Regarding Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3: Seismic for the LaSalle County Generating Station Unit 2, November 2012 (Exelon Correspondence No. RS-12-163, Enclosure 2)

12. Exelon Generation Company, Topical Design Basis Document DBD-LS-SOO, LaSalle Units 1 & 2, Seismic and Hydrodynamic Loads, Revision C, March 2013

13. Review of Existing Site Response Parameter Data for the Exelon Nuclear Fleet-Revision 1, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Rept. No. 128018-R-01, dated July 17, 2012, transmitted* by letter from J. Clark to J. Hamel on July 18, 2012

14. Silva, W.J., N. A. Abrahamson, G.R. Tore, and C. Costantino (1996). Description and Validation of the Stochastic Ground Motion Model, Rept. submitted to Brookhaven Natl. Lab., Assoc. Universities Inc., Upton NY 11973, Contract No. 770573, 1997

15. LaSalle County Nuclear Power Station Individual Plant Examination and Individual Plant Examination (External Events), NRC Dockets 50-373 and 50-374, April 28, 1994

16. EPRI Technical Report 1025286, Seismic Walkdown Guidance for Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3: Seismic, dated June 2012

17. NRC Regulatory Guide 1.208, A Performance-Based Approach to Define the Site-Specific Earthquake Ground Motion, March 2007

18. NRC Letter (D. M. Skay) to Commonwealth Edison Company (0. D. Kingsley),

LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2, NRC Staff Evaluation of the Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) Submittal (TAG NOS. M83634 and M83635), dated December 8, 2000

19. NRC NUREG/CR-1407, Procedural and Submittal Guidance for the Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities, June 1991

20. NRC NUREG/CR-4832, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Analysis of the LaSalle Unit 2 Nuclear Power Plant: Risk Methods Integration and Evaluation Program (RMIEP) Seismic Analysis, Vol. 8, November 1993

21. SGH Report No. 128118-R-01, Review and Assessment of Existing Seismic Fragility and Structure Response Analyses for the Exelon Nuclear Power Plant Fleet, Revision 0, March 2013 7-2 LaSalle County Generating Station Report No.: SL-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14-068

22. Exelon Generation Company letter to the NRC, Response to NRC Request for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Regarding the Seismic Aspects of Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident, RS-13-1 02, dated April 29, 2013

23. EPRI Letter RSM-022714-063, LCI Report, LaSalle Seismic Hazard and Screening Report Rev 1, dated February 27, 2014

24. LaSalle County Power Station Individual Plant Examination and Individual Plant Evaluati<;m (External Events) Submittal, NRC Dockets 50-373 and 50-374, December 12, 1994 (Revised Pages)

25. LaSalle Design Analysis Calc 67A, Soil Structure Interaction I Horizontal Excitation, Revision 0

26. EPRI Report 1015108, Program on Technology Innovation: The Effects of High-Frequency Ground Motion on Structures, Components and Equipment in Nuclear Power Plants, June 2007

27. EPRI Report 1015109, Program on Technology Innovation: Seismic Screening of Components Sensitive to High-Frequency Vibratory Motions, October 2007

28. EPRI NP-7498, Industry Approach to Severe Accident Policy Implementation, November, 1991

29. EPRI Report 3002000706, High Frequency Program, Phase 1 Seismic Test Summary, September 2013

30. Attachment 5 to Letter from Glen T. Kaegi of Exelon to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2, Descriptions of Subsurface Materials and Properties and Base Case Velocity Profiles, dated September 12, 2013 (Exelon Correspondence Nos. RS-13-205, RA-13-075, and TMI-13-104)

31. NRC Letter, Endorsement of EPRI Final Draft Report 1025287, Seismic Evaluation Guidance, dated February 15, 2013

32. NRC Letter, EPRI Final Draft Report XXXXXX, Seismic Evaluation Guidance:

Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Near- Term Task Force Recommendation 2. 1: Seismic, as an Acceptable Alternative to the March 12, 2012, Information Request for Seismic Reevaluations, dated May 7, 2013

33. NEI Letter (A. R. Pietrangelo) to the NRC, Seismic Risk Evaluations for Plants in the Central and Eastern United States, March 12, 2014 7-3 LaSalle County Generating Station Report No.: SL-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14-068

34. NUREG-0933, A Prioritization of Generic Safety Issues, Supplement 34, Resolution of Generic Safety Issues: Issue 199: Implication of Updated Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Estimates in Central and Eastern United States on Existing Plants, Revision 1, September, 2011

35. E-mail from R. Kassawara (EPRI) to J. Clark (Exelon) dated February 27, 2014,

Subject:

Amp Tables

36. NRC Letter (E. J. Leeds) to All Power Reactor Licensees and Holders of Construction Permits in Active or Deferred Status, Supplemental Information Related to Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding Seismic Hazard Reevaluations for Recommendation 2. 1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-lchi Accident, dated February 20, 2014

37. Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 50 Section 72, Immediate notification requirements for operating nuclear power reactors

38. Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 50 Section 73, Licensee event reporl system 7-4 LaSalle County Generating Station Report No.. SL-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14-068

A Additional Tables Table A-1a: Mean and fractile seismic hazard curves for 100Hz (PGA) at LaSalle, 5% of critical damping (Reference 23) 0~

AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.0005 8.53E-02 6.54E-02 E-02 9.93 0.001 7.24E-02 3.63E-02 5.27E-02 7.34E-02 9.24E-02 9.93 0.005 2.80E-02 1.08E-02 1.72E-02 2.64E-02 3.84E-02 5.12 0.01 1.52E-02 5.75E-03 8.85E-03 1.38E-02 2.07E-02 3.09E-02 0.015 1.03E-02 3.63E-03 5.66E-03 9.24E-03 1.38E-02 2.22E-02 0.03 4.52E-03 1.34E-03 2.01E~03 1.13E-02 4.56E-04 7.13E-04 1.44E-03 2.96E-03 5.75E-03

~

1.98E-03 9.50E-04 1.60E-04 2.80E-04 6.26E-04 1.44E-03 2.88E-03 0.1 5.57E-04 7.55E-05 1.42E-04 3~8.60E-04 1.67E-03 0.15 2.61E-04 2.60E-05 5.42E-05 1. 4.19E-04 8.23E-04 0.3 6.66E-05 4.31E-06 1.08E-05 3.79E-05 1.13E-04 2.25E-04 0.5 2.01 E-05 1.11E-06 3.01E-06 1.02E-05 3.47E-05 6.93E-05 0.75 6.42E-06 2.88E-07 8.35E-07 3.09E-06 1.10E-05 2.29E-05

1. 2.59E-06 8.60E-08 2.84E-07 1.18E-06 4.50E-06 9.37E-06 1.5 6.60E-07 1.02E-08 4.90E-08 2.76E-07 1.13E-06 2.53E-06

3. 6.03E-08 1.82E-10 1.32E-09 1~9.24E-OB 2.68E-07

5. 9.37E-09 9.11E-11 1.29E-10 1. 1.31 E-08 4.56E-08 7.5 1~11 1.11 E-10 2. 2.32E-09 9.79E-09

10. 5.42E-10 8.12E-11 9.11E-11 1.20E-10 6.93E-10 2.96E-09 A-1 LaSalle County Generating Station Report No.: SL-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14-068

Table A-1b: Mean and fractile seismic hazard curves for 25Hz at LaSalle, 5% of critical damping (Reference 23)

AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 8.73E-02 5.83E-02 6.73E-02 8.85E-02 9.93E-02 9.93E-02 0.001 7.60E-02 4.43E-02 5.66E-02 7.66E-02 9.51E-02 9.93E-02 0.005 3.40E-02 1.49E-02 2.16E-02 3.23E-02 4.50E-02 6.00E-02 0.01 2.00E-02 8.23E-03 1.18E-02 1.84E-02 2.68E-02 3.95E-02 0.015 1.41E-02 5.50E-03 7.89E-03 1.27E-02 1.90E-02 2.92E-02 0.03 6.51E-03 2.01E-03 3.01E-03 5.50E-03 9.51E-03 1.44E-02 0.05 3.00E-03 5.66E-04 9.51 E-04 2.32E-03 4.77E-03 7.89E-03 0.075 1.51 E-03 2.10E-04 3.90E-04 1.07E-03 2.42E-03 4.37E-03 0.1 9.05E-04 1.21 E-04 2.29E-04 6.09E-04 1.44E-03 2.68E-03 0.15 4.38E-04 6.09E-05 1.13E-04 2.84E-04 6.93E-04 1.25E-03 0.3 1.25E-04 1.82E-05 3.52E-05 8.35E-05 2.07E-04 3.63E-04 0.5 4.72E-05 6.26E-06 1.31 E-05 3.23E-05 7.89E-05 1.36E-04 0.75 1.98E-05 2.35E-06 5.42E-06 1.42E-05 3.33E-05 5.58E-05

1. 1.02E-05 1.07E-06 2.76E-06 7.45E-06 1.74E-05 2.84E-05 1.5 3.91E-06 3.05E-07 8.60E-07 2.57E-06 6.73E-06 1.16E-05

3. 7.89E-07 1.57E-08 6.93E-08 3.42E-07 1.46E-06 3.01 E-06

5. 2.34E-07 1.04E-09 8.12E-09 6.45E-08 4.50E-07 1.01 E-06 7.5 8.42E-08 1.69E-10 1.29E-09 1.42E-08 1.60E-07 3.90E-07

10. 3.93E-08 1.11 E-1 0 3.57E-10 4.43E-09 7.45E-08 1.92E-07 A-2 LaSalle County Generating Station Report No.: SL-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14-068

Table A-1c: Mean and fractile seismic hazard curves for 10Hz at LaSalle, 5% of critical damping (Reference 23)

AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 9.14E-02 6.45E-02 7.23E-02 9.11E-02 9.93E-02 9.93E-02 0.001 8.33E-02 5.50E-02 6.45E-02 8.35E-02 9.93E-02 9.93E-02 0.005 4.26E-02 2.04E-02 2.72E-02 4.13E-02 5.83E-02 7.03E-02 0.01 2.54E-02 1.08E-02 1.51E-02 2.39E-02 3.57E-02 4.56E-02 0.015 1.78E-02 7.13E-03 1.01E-02 1.64E-02 2.53E-02 3.28E-02 0.03 8.75E-03 2.84E-03 4.31E-03 7.77E-03 1.31E 7E-02 0.05 4.66E-03 1.10E-03 1.79E-03 4.01E-03 7.45E-03 1.07E-02 0.075 2.64E-03 4.25E-04 7.45E-04 2.10E-03 4.43E-03 6.83E-03 0.1 1.70E-03 2.10E-04 3.90E-04 1.29E-03 2.88E-03 4.77E-03 0.15 8.83E-04 8.23E-05 1.64E-04 6.17E-04 1.49E-03 2.60E-03 0.3 2.69E-04 2.29E-05 4.83E-05 1.72E-04 4.63E-04 8.12E-04 0.5 1.05E-04 9.51E-06 2.01E-05 6.17E-05 1.82E-04 3.33E-04 0.75 4.57E-05 4.37E-06 9.24E-06 2.53E-05 8.12E-05 1.55E-04

1. 2.39E-05 2.10E-06 4.50E-06 1.27E-05 4.19E-05 8.35E-05 1.5 8.75E-06 4.63E- E-06 4.63E-06 1.60E-05 3.05E-05

3. 1.54E-06 1.16E-08 4.90E-08 6.09E-07 3.01E-06 6.00E-06

5. 6.08E-07 4.56E-10 3.47E-09 6.54E-08 1.23E-06 3.01E-06 7.5 3.45E-07 1.11E-10 4.07E-10 8.47E*23E-07 1.84E-06

10. 2.37E-07 9.79E-11 1.34E-10 1.92E-09 4.98E-07 1.29E-06 A-3 LaSalle County Generating Station Report No.: SL-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14-068

Table A-1d: Mean and fractile seismic hazard curves for 5Hz at LaSalle, 5% of critical damping (Reference 23)

AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 9.33E-02 6.64E-02 7.45E-02 9.24E-02 9.93E-02 9.93E-02 0.001 8.76E-02 6.0 6.83E-02 8.72E-02 9.93E-02 9.93E-02 0.005 4.90E-02 2.49E-02 3.23E-02 4.77E-02 6.64E-02 7.66E-02 0.01 2.92E-02 1.34E-02 1.79E-02 2.80E-02 4.07E-02~

0.015 2.01E-02 8.98E-03 1.21E-02 1.90E-02 2. 2E-0.03 9.63E-03 4.07E-03 5.75E-03 9.11E-03 1.36E-02 1.69E-02 0.05 5.14E-03 1.98E-03 2.84E-03 4.77E-03 7.34E-03 9.65E-03 0.075 2.86E-03 1.01E-03 1.46E-03 2.53E-03 4.25E-03~

0.1 1.78E-03 5.83E-04 8.60E-04 1.51 E-03 2.64E-03 3.95E-03 0.15 8.48E-04 2.49E-04 3.73E-04 6.83E-04 1.25E-03 2.04E-03 0.3 2.02E-04 4.25E-05 7.23E-05 1.53E-04 3.14E-04 5.35E-04 0.5 6.34E-05 8.35E-06 1.67E-05 4.50E-05 1.07E-04 1.82E-04 0.75 2.36E-05 1.82E-06 4.25E-06 1.53E~ 4.19E-05 7.45E-05

1. 1.12E-05 5.83E-07 1.55E-06 6.45E-06 2.01E-05 3.73E-05 1.5 3.53E-06 1.18E-07 3.79E-07 1.69E-06 6.45E-06 1.29E-05 3.

~07 08 6.54E-09 2.53E-08 1.31E-07 6.64E-07 1.~~

5. 4.70E-10 2.19E-09 1.82E-08 1.02E-07 2.6 7.5 1.48E-08 1.15E-10 3.14E-10 3.33E-09 2.16E-08 6.45E-08

10. 5.29E-09 9.37E-11 1.31E-10 9.24E-10 7.23E-09 2.42E-08 A-4 LaSalle County Generating Station Report No.: SL-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14-068

Table A-1e: Mean and fractile seismic hazard curves for 2.5 Hz at LaSalle, 5% of critical damping (Reference 23)

AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 9.24E-02 6.54E-02 7.34E-02 9.24E-02 9.93E-02 9.93E-02 0.001 8.50E-02 5.75E-02 6.64E-02 8.47E-02 9.93E-02 9.93E-02 0.005 4.38E-02 2.07E-02 2.76E-02 4.19E-02 6.09E-02 7.34E-02 0.01 2.51E-02 1.08E-02 1.49E-02 2.32E-02 3.57E-02 4.50E-02 0.015 1.69E-02 7.13E-03 9.79E-03 1.55E-02 2.42E-02 3.09E-02 0.03 7.88E-03 3.05E-03 4.43E-03 7.34E-03 1.13E-02 1.46E-02 0.05 4.19E-03 1.38E-03 2.10E-03 3.79E-03 6.26E-03 8.35E-03 0.075 2.35E-03 6.54E-04 1.02E-03 1.98E-03 3.68E-03 5.27E-03 0.1 1.45E*3.57E-04 5.66E-04 1.16E-03 2.35E-03 3.57E-03 0.15 6.62E- 1.38E-04 -04 4.90E-04 1.07E-03 1.77E-03 0.3 1.34E-04 2.04E-05 3.73E-05 9.24E-05 2.19E-04 3.90E-04 0.5 3.81E-05 3.57E-06 7.55E-06 2.42E-05 6.64E-05 1.21 E-04 0.75 1.41 E-05 7.03E-07 1.74E-06 S.OOE-06 2.53E-05 4.83E-05

1. 6.88E-06 1.95E-07 5.66E-07 3.42E-06 1.23E-05 2.49E-05 1.5 2.33E-06 2.84E-08 1.10E-07 9.11 E-07 I 4.13E-06 9.24E-06

3. 2.64E-07 9.51 E-1 0 5.91E-09 6.36E-08 4.43E-07 1.18E-06

5. 3.98E-08 1.40E-10 5.12E-10 ~5.75E-08 1.82E-07 7.5 8.13E-09 9.51E-11 1.29E-10 9.24E-09 3.63E-08

10. 2.62E-09 9.11E-11 1.11E-10 2.49E-10 2.42E-09 1.08E-08 A-5 LaSalle County Generating Station Report No.: SL-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14-068

Table A-1f: Mean and fractile seismic hazard curves for 1 Hz at LaSalle, 5% of critical damping (Reference 23)

AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 6.84E-02 2.92E-02 4.25E-02 6.83E-02 9.37E-02 9.93E-02 0.001 5.23E-02 1.77E-02 2.68E-02 5.12E-02 7.77E-02 9.24E-02 0.005 1.74E-02 4.07E-03 6.45E-03 1.53E-02 2.84E-02 3.90E-02 0.01 9.18E-03 1.77E-03 3.14E-03 7.89E-03 1.51 E-02 2.10E-02 0.015 6.14E-03 1.01 E-03 1.95E-03 5.27E-03 1.02E-02 1.42E-02 0.03 2.95E-03 3.33E-04 7.23E-04 2.35E-03 5.20E-03 7.55E-03 0.05 1.58E-03 1.32E-04 2.96E-04 1.10E-03 2.92E-03 4.63E-03 0.075 8.63E-04 5.91E-05 1.34E-04 5.12E-04 1.62E-03 2.88E-03 0.1 5.16E-04 3.23E-05 7.23E-05 2.72E-04 9.37E-04 1.84E-03 0.15 2.17E-04 1.29E-05 2.84E-05 1.04E-04 3.73E-04 8.12E-04 0.3 3.41E-05 2.25E-06 4.90E-06 1.64E-05 5.58E-05 1.20E-04 0.5 7.55E-06 5.05E-07 1.15E-06 3.73E-06 1.25E-05 2.68E-05 0.75 2.40E-06 1.34E-07 3.28E-07 1.13E-06 4.07E-06 8.85E-06

1. 1.12E-06 4.83E-08 1.25E-07 4.77E-07 1.87E-06 4.31E-06 1.5 3.96E-07 9.93E-09 2.92E-08 1.34E-07 6.36E-07 1.64E-06

3. 6.33E-08 5.27E-10 1.84E-09 1.21 E-08 8.60E-08 2.88E-07

5. 1.45E-08 1.21E-10 2.49E-10 1.60E-09 1.60E-08 6.64E-08 7.5 4.04E-09 9.11E-11 1.11 E-1 0 3.28E-10 3.57E-09 1.79E-08

10. 1.52E-09 8.35E-11 9.79E-11 1.51E-10 1.18E-09 6.54E-09 A-6 LaSalle County Generating Station Report No.: SL-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14-068

Table A-1g: Mean and fractile seismic hazard curves for 0.5 Hz at LaSalle, 5% of critical damping (Reference 23)

AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 3.36E-02 1.46E-02 2.07E-02 3.23E-02 4.63E-02 5.75E-02 0.001 2.01E-02 B.OOE-03 1.15E-02 1.87E-02 2.84E-02 3.63E-02 0.005 5.13E-03 1.34E-03 2.35E-03 4.63E-03 7.77E-03 1.07E-02 0.01 0.015 2.72E-03 1.79E-03 4.19E-04 1.79E-04 8.85E-04 4.19E-04 2.29E-O~=

1.36E-03 t4.56E-03 3.23E-03 6.54E-03 4.83E-03 0.03 7.40E-04 3.33E-05 8.60E-05 3.90E-04 1.44E-03 2.64E-03 0.05 3.23E-04 B.OOE-06 2.16E-05 1.16E-04 5.83E-04 1.36E-03 0.075 1.49E-04 2.42E-06 6.93E-06 -05 2.42E-04 6.54E-04 0.1 B.OBE-05 1.02E-06 3.14E-06 1.92E-05 1.21E-04 3.63E-04 0.15 3.17E-05 3.09E-07 1.01 E-06 6.73E-06 4.43E-05 1.34E-04 0.3 5.60E-06 4.07E-08 1.53E-07 1.10E-06 7.23E-06 2.39E-05 0.5 1.54E-06 8.85E-09 3.90E-08 2.92E-07 1.92E-06 7.03E-06 0.75 5.76E-07 2.49E-09 1.20E-08 9.93E-08 7.23E-07 2.72E-06

1. 2.92E-07 1.01 E-09 4.90E-09 4.31E-08 3.57E-07 1.38E-06 1.5 1.13E-07 3.01 E-10 1.34E-09 1.23E-08 1.18E-07 5.35E-07

3. 2.06E-08 1.11E-10 1.77E-10 1.16E-09

• 1.46E-08 9.37E-08

5. 5.12E-09 9.11E-11 1.11E-10 2.25E-10 2.53E-09 2.04E-08 7.5 1.51 E-09 8.12E-11 9.11 E-11 1.16E-10 5.91 E-10 5.35E-09

10. 5.91E-10 8.12E-11 9.11E-11 1.11E-10 2.42E-10 1.87E-09 A-7 LaSalle County Generating Station Report No.: SL-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14-068

Table A-2a: Amplification functions for LaSalle, 5% of critical damping (Reference 23) 100Hz Median Sigma 26Hz Median Sigma 10Hz Median Sigma 6Hz Median Sigma (PGA) AF ln(AF) AF ln(AF) AF ln(AF) AF ln(AF) 1.00E-02 2.53E+OO 9.17E-02 1.30E-02 2.05E+OO 9.54E-02 1.90E-02 2.08E+OO 1.79E-01 2.09E-02 2.51E+OO 2.02E-01 4.95E-02 1.73E+OO 1.12E-01 1.02E-01 1.03E+OO 1.54E-01 9.99E-02 1.64E+OO 2.29E-01 8.24E-02 2.19E+OO 2.17E-01 9.64E-02 1.44E+OO 1.27E-01 2.13E-01 8.14E-01 1.82E-01 1.85E-01 1.46E+OO 2.37E-01 1.44E-01 2.00E+OO 2.21 E-01 1.94E-01 1.17E+OO 1.52E-01 4.43E-01 6.35E-01 2.17E-01 3.56E-01 1.24E+OO 2.39E-01 2.65E-01 1.73E+OO 2.28E-01 2.92E-01 1.02E+OO 1.69E-01 6.76E-01 5.39E-01 2.38E-01 5.23E-01 1.09E+OO 2.49E-01 3.84E-01 1.56E+OO 2.41 E-01 3.91E-01 9.14E-01 1.82E-01 9.09E-01 S.OOE-01 2.46E-01 6.90E-01 9.71 E-01 2.62E-01 5.02E-01 1.42E+OO 2.56E-01 4.93E-01 8.31 E-01 1.91 E-01 1.15E+OO S.OOE-01 2.53E-01 8.61 E-01 8.82E-01 2.72E-01 6.22E-01 1.32E+OO 2.69E-01 7.41E-01 6.97E-01 2.10E-01 1.73E+OO S.OOE-01 2.70E-01 1.27E+OO 7.25E-01 2.95E-01 9.13E-01 1.12E+OO 2.88E-01 1.01E+OO 6.05E-01 2.25E-01 2.36E+OO S.OOE-01 2.83E-01 1.72E+OO 6.11E-01 3.17E-01 1.22E+OO 9.83E-01 3.01E-01 1.28E+OO 5.39E-01 2.35E-01 3.01E+OO S.OOE-01 2.89E-01 2.17E+OO 5.27E-01 3.32E-01 1.54E+OO 8.77E-01 3.27E-01 1.55E+OO S.OOE-01 2.40E-01 3.63E+OO S.OOE-01 2.89E-01 2.61E+OO S.OOE-01 3.46E-01 1.85E+OO 8.07E-01 3.43E-01 Median Sigma Median Sigma Median Sigma 2.6 Hz AF ln(AF) 1Hz AF ln(AF) 0.6 Hz AF ln(AF) 2.18E-02 2.90E+OO 2.36E-01 1.27E-02 2.60E+OO 3.11 E-01 8.25E-03 1.65E+OO 1.68E-01 7.05E-02 2.70E+OO 2.51E-01 3.43E-02 2.63E+OO 2.40E-01 1.96E-02 1.73E+OO 1.89E-01 1.18E-01 2.55E+OO 2.49E-01 5.51E-02 2.58E+OO 2.49E-01 3.02E-02 1.79E+OO 2.28E-01 2.12E-01 2.34E 9E-01 9.63E-02 2.45E+OO 2.79E-01 5.11 E-02 1.92E+OO 2.45E-01 3.04E-01 2.19E+OO 2.50E-01 1.36E-01 2.39E+OO 2.92E-01 7.10E-02 1.98E+OO 2.60E-01 3.94E-01 2.05E+OO 2.57E-01 1.75E-01 2.33E+OO 2.92E-01 9.06E-02 2.00E+OO 2.67E-01 4.86E-01 1.92E+OO 2.68E-01 2.14E-01 2.28E+OO 2.95E-01 1.10E-01 2.01 E+OO 2.69E-01 7.09E-01 1.66E+OO 2.99E-01 3.10E-01 2.17E+OO 2.92E-01 1.58E-01 2.04E+OO 2.86E-01 9.47E-01 1.44E+OO 3.32E-01 4.12E-01 2.14E+OO 2.87E-01 2.09E-01 2.07E+OO 2.89E-01 1.19E+OO 1.30E+OO 3.60E-01 5.18E-01 2.14E+OO 2.88E-01 2.62E-01 2.10E+OO 2.91E-01 1.43E+OO 1.25E+OO 3.65E-01 6.19E-01 2.15E+OO 2.86E-01 3.12E-01 2.14E+OO 2.92E-01 LaSalle County Generating Station A-8 Report No .. SL-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14-068

Tables A-2b1 and A-2b2 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 104 and 1o-5 mean annual frequency of exceedance. These tables concentrate on the frequency range of 0.5 Hz to 25 Hz, with values up to 100 Hz included, with a single value at 0.1 Hz included for completeness. These factors are unverified and are provided for information only. The figures should be considered the governing information.

Table A-2b1: Median AFs and sigmas for Model 1, Profile 1, for 2 PGA levels {Reference 35)

M1P1K1 Rock PGA=0.292 M1P1K1 Freq. med.

SA AF 100.0 0.259 0.888 87.1 0.260 0.863 0.164 87.1 0.385 0.229 75.9 0.260 0.822 0.164 75.9 0.616 0.362 0.229 66.1 0.260 0.748 0.165 66.1 0.616 0.323 0.229 57.5 0.260 0.633 0.165 57.5 0.616 0.266 0.229 50.1 0.261 0.524 0.166 50.1 0.616 0.218 43.7 0.167 43.7 0.617 38.0 0.169 38.0 .230 33.1 0.172 33.1 28.8 0.176 28.8 0.230 25.1 0.271 0.402 0.182 25.1 0.619 0.171 0.231 21.9 0.278 0.434 0.193 21.9 0.621 0.183 0.232 19.1 0.286 0.456 0.204 19.1 0.623 0.190 0.233 16.6 0.296 0.493 0.210 16.6 0.626 0.202 0.235 14.5 0.307 0.538 0.224 14.5 0.630 0.216 0.237 12.6 0.322 0.582 0.240 12.6 0.636 0.227 0.240 11.0 0.348 0.647 0.273 11.0 0.645 0.239 0.245 9.5 0.384 0.752 0.298 9.5 0.660 0.259 0.254 8.3 0.426 0.908 0.316 8.3 0.683 0.294 0.271 7.2 0.469 1.069 0.314 7.2 0.718 0.334 0.298 6.3 0.511 1.243 0.308 6.3 0.767 0.383 0.333 5.5 0.536 1.368 0.278 5.5 0.827 0.436 0.357 4.8 0.546 1.428 0.228 4.8 0.898 0.488 0.210 4.2 0.969 0.548 0.210 3.6 1.024 0.235 3.2 1.8 2.362 1.276 1.148 0.273 1.6 0.573 2.779 1.241 1.297 0.271 1.4 0.561 3.166 1.237 1.511 0.320 1.2 0.505 3.242 1.226 1.712 0.318 1.0 0.425 3.032 0.283 1.0 1.195 1.866 0.331 A-9 LaSalle County Generating Station Report No.: SL-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14-068

Table A-2b1: {Continued)

M1P1K1 Rock PGA=0.292 M1P1K1 PGA=1.55 Soil ~

Freq. Freq. med.

Hz) med AF sigma ln(AF) (Hz} Soil SA AF sigma ln(AF) 91 o.3 2.693 I o.26o 0.91 1.144 1.980 0.352 0.79 0.266 I 2.312

• 0.267 0.79 1.118 2.160 0.354 0.69 0.205 2.013 0.272 0.69 1.093 2.395 0.315 0.60 0.163 1.839 0.231 0.60 1.053 2.675 0.311 0.52 0.130 1.729 0.160 0.52 0.967 2.912 0.295 0.46 0.106 1.696 0.150 0.46 0.828 3.010 0.302 0.10 0.004 1.613 0.106 0.10 0.020 1.765 0.119 Table A-2b2: Median AFs and sigmas for Model2, Profile 1, for 2 PGA levels {Reference 35)

M2P1K1 PGA=0.292 M2P1K1 PGA=1.55 Freq. med. Freq. med.

(Hz) Soil SA AF sigma ln(AF) (Hz) Soil SA AF sigma ln(AF) 100.0 0.309 1.056 0.136 100.0 0.861 0.557 0.225 87.1 0.309 1.028 0.137 87.1 0.861 0.538 0.226 75.9 0.309 0.979 0.137 75.9 0.862 0.507 0.226 66.1 0.310 0.891 0.138 66.1 0.862 0.452 0.226 57.5 0.311 0.755 0.138 57.5 0.863 0.373 0.226 50.1 0.312 0.626 0.140 50.1 0.864 0.305 0.227 43.7 0.313 0.532 0.142 43.7 0.865 0.258 0.227 38.0 0.316 0.491 0.147 38.0 0.866 0.240 0.228 33.1 0.321 0.473 0.153 33.1 0.869 0.232 0.230 28.8 0.327 0.485 0.161 28.8 0.872 0.238 0.232 25.1 0.336 0.497 0.171 25.1 0.878 0.242 0.236 21.9 0.350 0.548 0.190 21.9 0.887 0.262 0.242 19.1 0.365 0.582 0.196 19.1 0.900 0.274 0.251 16.6 0.381 0.635 0.207 16.6 0.917 0.296 0.260 14.5 0.396 0.694 0.216 14.5 0.938 0.322 0.272 12.6 0.421 0.763 0.246 12.6 0.965 0.345 0.286 11.0 0.462 0.861 0.255 11.0 1.007 0.373 0.308 9.5 0.521 1.020 0.281 9.5 1.070 0.421 0.334 8.3 0.587 1.250 0.261 8.3 1.164 0.502 0.361 7.2 0.660 1.505 0.254 7.2 1.284 0.596 0.372 6.3 0.686 1.669 0.212 6.3 1.436 0.717 0.374 5.5 0.696 1.779 0.180 5.5 1.593 0.841 0.361 4.8 0.695 1.819 0.212 ' 4.8 1.733 0.942 0.348 4.2 0.650 1.760 0.193 4.2 1.809 1.022 0.312 3.6 0.615 1.713 0.159 3.6 1.842 1.078 0.276 3.2 0.592 1.756 0.191 3.2 1.851 . 1.158 0.269 2.8 0.604 1.891 0.268 2.8 1.798 1.193 0.267 2.4 0.649 2.207 0.327 2.4 1.722 1.245 0.276 2.1 0.692 2.589 0.344 2.1 1.635 1.308 0.303 A-10 LaSalle County Generating Station Report No.: SL-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14-068

Table A-2b2: (Continued)

M2P1K1 PGA=0.292 M2P1K1 PGA=1.55

~

Freq. med. Freq.

(Hz) Soil SA AF sigma ln(AF) (Hz) Soil SA AF . rna ln(AF) 1.8 0.711 2.982 0.299 1.8 1.622 1. 0.3'>"7 1.6 0.639 3.096 0.258 1.6 1.603 1.674 0.404 1.4 0.548 3.091 0.223 1.4 1.592 1.944 0.419 1.2 0.449 2.885 0.254 1.2 1.588 2.218 0.381 1.0 0.363 2.586 0.289 1.0 1.556 2.430 0.348 0.91 0.289 2.267 0.243 0.91 1.497 2.590 0.302 0.79 0.228 1.983 0.221 0.79 1.346 2.600 0.245 0.69 0.182 1.783 0.221 0.69 1.125 2.465 0.278 0.60 0.148 1. .195 0.60 0.912 2.318 0.304 0.52 0.121 1.607 0.138 0.52 0.721 2.171 0.277 0.46 0.101 1.604 0.141 0.46 0.564 2.050 0.262 0.10 0.004 1.589 i 0.106 0.10 0.018 1.618 0.114 A-11 LaSalle County Generating Station Report No.: SL-012194, Revision 1 Correspondence No.: RS-14-068

Enclosure 2

SUMMARY

OF REGULATORY COMMITMENTS The following table identifies commitments made in this document. (Any other actions discussed in the submittal represent intended or planned actions. They are described to the NRC for the NRC's information and are not regulatory commitments.)

COMMITMENT TYPE COMMITTED COMMITMENT DATE OR ONE-TIME ACTION PROGRAMMATIC "OUTAGE" (Yes/No) (Yes/No)

1. LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2, will As determined by Yes No perform a Risk Evaluation including a High NRC prioritization Frequency Confirmation evaluation. following submittal of all nuclear power plant Seismic Hazard Re-evaluations, but no later than December 31, 2019.

2. LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2, will As determined by Yes No perform a Spent Fuel Pool evaluation in NRC prioritization accordance with EPRI Report 1025287, following submittal Section 7. of all nuclear power plant Seismic Hazard Re-evaluations, but no later than December 31, 2019.

3. LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2, will December 31, Yes No prepare an Expedited Seismic Evaluation 2014 Process (ESEP) Report in accordance with EPRI Report 3002000704.