W3F1-2014-0023, Entergy Seismic Hazard and Screening Report (CEUS Sites), Response to NRC Request for Information Per 10 CFR 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident, Wa

From kanterella
(Redirected from W3F1-2014-0023)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Entergy Seismic Hazard and Screening Report (CEUS Sites), Response to NRC Request for Information Per 10 CFR 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident, Waterfor
ML14086A427
Person / Time
Site: Waterford Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 03/27/2014
From: Chisum M
Entergy Operations
To:
Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
W3F1-2014-0023
Download: ML14086A427 (39)
v • d • e


Text

Entergy Operations, Inc.

_w___ .

17265 River Road

zz-

],, terg)

Fax 504 739 6698 mchisumentergy.com Michael Chisum Site Vice President Waterford 3 W3FI -2014-0023 March 27, 2014 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001

SUBJECT:

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

Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 (Waterlord 3)

Docket No. 50-382 License No. NPF-38

REFERENCES:

I . NRC Letter, Request for Information Pursuant to Title I 0 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendations 2.1 2.3, and, 9.3, of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident, dated March 12, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. MLI 2053A340)

2. NEI Letter, Proposed Path Forward for NTTF Recommendation 2.1:

Seismic Reevaluations, dated April 9, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13101A379)

3. NRC Letter, Electric Power Research Institute Final Draft Report xxxxxx, Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1:

Seismic, as an Acceptable Alternative to the March 12, 2012, Information Request for Seismic Reevaluations, dated May 7, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13106A331)

4. EPRI Report 1025287, Seismic Evaluation Guidance, Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic, (ADAMS Accession No. MLI 2333A1 70)
5. NRC Letter, Endorsement of EPRI Final Draft Report 1025287, Seismic Evaluation Guidance, dated February 15, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12319A074)

W3FI -2014-0023 Page 2 of 3

Dear Sir or Madam:

on March 12, 2012, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued Reference I to all power reactor licensees and holders of construction permits in active or deferred status. Enclosure I 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. The NRC agreed with that proposed path forward in Reference 3.

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

The attached Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening Report for Waterford 3 provides the information described in Section 4 of Reference 4 in accordance with the schedule identified in Reference 2.

This letter contains no new regulatory commitments.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact John P.

Jarrell at (504) 739-6685.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 27, 2014.

Sincerely, MC/LEM

Attachment:

Waterford 3 Seismic Hazard and Screening Report

W3FI -2014-0023 Page 3 of 3 cc: Attn: Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation u S. NRC RidsN rrMailCenter©nrcgov Mr. Mark L. Dapas, Regional Administrator U. S. NRC, Region IV RidsRgn4MaiICenternrc.gov NRC Project Manager for Waterford 3 Alan .Wang©nrc.gov Michael.Orenak©nrc.gov NRC Resident Inspectors for Waterford 3 Marlone. Davis@nrc.gov Chris. Speernrc.gov

Attachment to W3FI -2014-0023 Waterford 3 Seismic Hazard and Screening Report

,1

Cl)

CD Cl) 3 C.)

I N

CD CD Co CD

  • 0 0

Attachment to W3FI-2014-0023 Page 2 of 35 Table of Contents Page 1.0 Introduction 3 2.0 Seismic Hazard Reevaluation 4 2.1 Regional and Local Geology 4 2.2 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis 5 2.2.1 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis Results 5 2.2.2 Base Rock Seismic Hazard Curves 6 2.3 Site Response Evaluation 6 2.3.1 Description of Subsurface Material 7 2.3.2 Development of Base Case Profiles and Nonlinear Material Properties 8 2.3.2.1 Shear Modulus and Damping Curves II 2.3.2.2Kappa 11 2.3.3 Randomization of Base Case Profiles 12 2.3.4 Input Spectra 12 2.3.5 Methodology 13 2.3.6Amplification Functions 13 2.3.7 Control Point Seismic Hazard Curves 18 2.4 Control Point Response Spectrum 19 3.0 Plant Design Basis and Beyond Design Basis Evaluation Ground Motion 20 3.1 SSE Description of Spectral Shape 21 3.2 Control Point Elevation 22 3.3 IPEEE Description and Capacity Response Spectrum 22 4.0 Screening Evaluation 22 4.1 Risk Evaluation Screening (1 to 10 Hz) 22 4.2 High Frequency Screening (> 10 Hz) 23 4.3 Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation Screening (1 to 10 Hz) 24 5.0 Interim Actions 24 6.0 Conclusions 25 7.0 References 25 AppendixA 27

Attachment to W3FI-2014-0023 Page 3 of 35 1.0 Introduction Following the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant resulting from the March I I 201 1 Great Tohoku Earthquake and subsequent tsunami, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) established a Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) to conduct a systematic review of NRC processes and regulations and to determine if the agency should make additional improvements to its regulatory system. The NTTF developed a set of recommendations intended to clarify and strengthen the regulatory framework for protection against natural phenomena. Subsequently, the NRC issued a 50.54(f) letter (U.S. NRC, 2012) that requests information to assure that these recommendations are addressed by all U.S.

nuclear power plants. The 50.54(f) letter requests (U.S. NRC, 2012) that licensees and holders of construction permits under I 0 CFR Part 50 reevaluate the seismic hazards at their sites against present-day NRC requirements. Depending on the comparison between the reevaluated seismic hazard and the current design basis, the result is either no further risk evaluation or the performance of a seismic risk assessment. Risk assessment approaches acceptable to the staff include a Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment (SPRA), or a Seismic Margin Assessment (SMA). Based upon the risk assessment results, the NRC staff will determine whether additional regulatory actions are necessary.

This report provides the information requested in items (1 ) through (7) of the Requested Information section and Attachment I ofthe 50.54(f) letter (U.S. NRC, 2012) pertaining to NTTF Recommendation 2.1 for the Waterford Steam Electric Station 3 (WSES-3), located in St.

Charles Parish, Louisiana. In providing this information, Entergy followed the guidance provided in the Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Screening, Prioritization, and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1 : Seismic (EPRI, 2013a). The Augmented Approach, Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1:

Seismic (EPRI, 2013b), has been developed as the process for evaluating critical plant equipment as an interim action to demonstrate additional plant safety margin prior to performing the complete plant seismic risk evaluations.

The original geologic and seismic siting investigations for WSES-3 were performed in accordance with Appendix A to I 0 CFR Part I 00 and meet General Design Criterion 2 in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50. The Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) Ground Motion was developed in accordance with Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 and used for the design of seismic Category I systems, structures and components.

In response to the 50.54(f) letter (U.S. NRC, 2012) and following the guidance provided in the SPID (EPRI, 2013a), a seismic hazard reevaluation was performed. For screening purposes, a Ground Motion Response Spectrum (GMRS) was developed. Based on the results of the screening evaluation, no further evaluations will be performed.

Attachment to W3FI-2014-0023 Page 4 of 35 2.0 Seismic Hazard Reevaluation The Waterford Steam Electric Station 3 is situated along the west (right descending) bank of the Mississippi River in Killona, Louisiana, about 25 miles west of New Orleans, Louisiana. It is located in the southern portion of the Gulf Coastal Plain geologic province. The southern portion of the Gulf Coastal Plain is the Mississippi River deltaic plain physiographic province.

The site is underlain by sediments consisting of marine shales, sandstones and clays, and recent alluvium deposits which are described as soft clays and silty clays with occasional sand lenses or pockets. There is no cavernous or karst terrain in the site area. The sediments are not subject to stress build-up with formation of deformational zones or other structural weaknesses. With the exception of the recent alluvium, which was removed and replaced with compacted sand backfill, unstable conditions of the subsurface materials at the site due to mineralogy, lack of consolidation, or water content do not exist. The regional geologic structures in the deltaic plain consist of salt structures, their overlying attendant faults, and growth faults. The growth faults represent previously unstable areas which were at the leading slope of sediment accumulation. The subsurface data demonstrate that such regional structures cannot affectthe WSES-3 site. (Entergy, 2013)

Earthquake activity in historic time within 200 miles of the plant side has been minor. The New Madrid series of earthquakes of epicentral Intensity XII on the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale of 1931 and the Donaldsonville earthquake are probably the only seismic events that have been felt in the site and surrounding area during the past 250 years. The greatest intensity experienced at the site during the historic record was Intensity V on the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale of 1931 or less. There is no physical evidence to indicate any earthquake effects at the site. In considering conditions in the selection of the SSE in Amendment to 10 CFR Part I 00, Appendix A, the Licensee has concluded that they are not applicable to the WSES-3 site. Therefore, the SSE for the site is based on a hypothetical earthquake with epicentral Intensity VI on the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale of 1931 occurring adjacentto the site. In order to comply with the minimum accepted acceleration as stipulated by Appendix A in I 0 CFR Part I 00, WSES-3 was designed for a maximum horizontal ground surface acceleration of 0.10g. This very conservative surface acceleration is double the maximum acceleration appropriate for the maximum earthquake which has occurred in the sites tectonic province during the past 250 years. The peak vertical acceleration for the postulated SSE is 2/3 peak horizontal acceleration. (Entergy, 2013) 2.1 Regional and Local Geology The Waterford Steam Electric Station 3 is located in the southern portion of the Gulf Coastal Plain geologic province. The southern portion of the Gulf Coastal Plain is the Mississippi River deltaic plain physiographic province. The Mississippi River has dominated the development of geologic and physiographic features in the deltaic plain since the beginning of Neogene. The site is characterized by flat topography near sea level, with extensive areas covered by water, swamp, or marsh. In the site and surrounding area, the physiography is dominated by the present Mississippi River. (Entergy, 2013)

Attachment to W3FI-2014-0023 Page 5 of 35 The Waterford Steam Electric Station 3 is located almost entirely upon the natural levee of the Mississippi River. The upper 500 feet of sediments within the site boundaries is characterized by nearly flat lying sediments which can be traced laterally by stratigraphic horizons. All seismic Category I structures are founded at elevation -47 ft Mean Sea Level (MSL) on a one foot thick compacted shell filter blanket on top of the Pleistocene clay. The excavation for the WSES-3 seismic Category I structural mat was cut 60 ft deep and exposed several feet of the Pleistocene Prairie formation. In the excavation, the Prairie formation at foundation level consists of horizontally bedded layers of silts and clays. Mapping of the excavation disclosed no anomalies or discontinuities which might indicate conditions which could adversely affect the integrity of the foundation materials. The contours of the surface of the Pleistocene show very little variation in a north-south direction where displacements would be expected if faulting were present. In addition to the relatively subdued contours of the top of the Pleistocene, contours of individual strata down to about -5000 ft show no indication of faulting. No zones of alteration or irregular weathering exist in the site area. Over 40,000 ft of mostly unconsolidated sediments lie above the crystalline basement rock beneath the site. No unrelieved residual stresses exist in the unconsolidated foundation materials. (Entergy, 2013) 2.2 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis 2.2.1 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis Results In accordance with the 50.54(f) letter (U.S. NRC, 2012) and following the guidance in the SPID (EPRI, 2013a), a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) was completed using the recently developed Central and Eastern United States Seismic Source Characterization (CEUS SSC) for Nuclear Facilities (CEUS-SSC, 2012) togetherwith the updated Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Ground Motion Model (GMM) for the Central and Eastern United States (CEUS) (EPRI, 2013c). For the PSHA, a lower-bound moment magnitude of 5.0 was used, as specified in the 50.54(f) letter (U.S. NRC, 2012). (EPRI, 2014)

For the PSHA, the CEUS-SSC background seismic sources out to a distance of 400 miles (640 km) around WSES-3 were included. This distance exceeds the 200 mile (320 km) recommendation contained in Reg. Guide 1 .208 (U.S. NRC, 2007) and was chosen for completeness. Background sources included in this site analysis are the following (EPRI, 2014):

I . Extended Continental CrustAtlantic Margin (ECC_AM)

2. Extended Continental CrustGulf Coast (ECC_GC)
3. Gulf Highly Extended Crust (GHEX)
4. Mesozoic and younger extended prior narrow (MESE-N)
5. Mesozoic and younger extended prior wide (MESE-W)
6. Midcontinent-Craton alternative A (MIDC_A)
7. Midcontinent-Craton alternative B (MIDCB)
8. Midcontinent-Craton alternative C (MIDC_C)

Attachment to W3F1-2014-0023 Page 6 of 35

9. Midcontinent-Craton alternative D (MIDC_D)
10. Non-Mesozoic and younger extended prior narrow (NMESE-N) 11 . Non-Mesozoic and younger extended prior wide (NMESE-W)
12. Oklahoma Aulacogen (OKA)
13. Paleozoic Extended Crust narrow (PEZ_N)
14. Paleozoic Extended Crust wide (PEZ_W) 1 5. Reelfoot Rift (RR)
16. Reelfoot Rift including the Rough Creek Graben (RR-RCG)
17. Study region (STUDY_R)

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

1 . Charleston

2. Commerce
3. Eastern Rift Margin Fault northern segment (ERM-N)
4. Eastern Rift Margin Fault southern segment (ERM-S)
5. Marianna
6. Meers
7. New Madrid Fault System (NMFS)
8. Wabash Valley The Gulf version of the updated CEUS EPRI GMM was used to model the seismic wave travel path from source to site for each of the above background sources. For RLME sources, a combination of Gulf and mid-continent GMMs was created to represent the relative fraction of the seismic wave travel path through these regions. To approximate the aerage path from each source, the relative fractions used were 60% for Gulf GMMs and 40% for mid-continent GMMs. (EPRI, 2014) 2.2.2 Base Rock Seismic Hazard Curves Consistent with the SPID (EPRI, 2013a), base rock seismic hazard curves are not provided as the site amplification approach referred to as Method 3 has been used. Seismic hazard curves are shown below in Section 2.3.7 atthe SSE control point elevation. (EPRI, 2014) 2.3 Site Response Evaluation Following the guidance contained in Seismic Enclosure I of the 50.54(f) Request for Information (U.S. NRC, 2012) and in the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) for nuclear power plant sites that are not founded on hard rock (defined as 2.83 km/sec), a site response analysis was performed for WSES-3. (EPRI, 2014)

Attachment to W3FI-2014-0023 Page 7 of 35 2.3.1 Description of Subsurface Material The Waterford Steam Electric Station 3 is located along the west (right descending) bank of the Mississippi River about 25 miles (40 km) west of New Orleans, Louisiana. It is located in the southern portion of the Gulf Coastal Plain geomorphic province which is the Mississippi River deltaic physiographic province. The site is located almost entirely upon the natural levee for the Mississippi River. The upper 500 ft (152 m) of sediments are flat lying and consist of interbedded sands and clays with varying amounts of silt (Entergy, 2013). (EPRI, 2014)

The information used to create the site geologic profile at WSES-3 is shown in Table 2.3.1-1.

This profile was developed using information documented in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) (Entergy, 2013). As indicated in Table 2.3.1-1, the SSE Control Point is defined at elevation -47 ft with Precambrian basement at a depth of greater than 40,000 ft (12,200m). The profile consists of about 4,900 ft (1 500 m) of soil overlying about 35,100 ft (10,700 m) of firm sedimentary rock. (EPRI, 2014)

Table 2.3.1-1 Summary of Geotechnical Profile for WSES-3. (Entergy, 2013)

Depth Shear Elev. Density Wave Compressional .

Range .

Soil Description Wave Velocity

. Poisson s (ft) (pcf) Velocity Ratio ft 1 psi\1 (fps) 0 55 +1 5 to Clay and silty clay with III N.A. 3,000 +/- 500 0.48

-40 silt and sand lenses (recent material)

(included for information_only)

SSE -47 - - - - -

control point 55 -4Oto Stifftanandgray 119 850 5,700+/-700 0.49 92 -77 fissured clay 92 -77 to Very dense tan silty 125 925 5,700 +/- 700 0.48 107 -92 sand 107 -92to Mediumstiffgrayclay 119 925 5,700+/-700 0.49 123 -108 with silt lenses I 23 -1 08 to Stiff dark gray clay I 04 1 ,000 5,700 +/- 700 0.49 131 -116 organic 131 -ll6to Softtomediumstifftan 119 1,000 5,700+/-700 0.49 142 -127 and grayclaywith sand_lenses 142 -127 to Very stiff clays with I 19 1 ,100 NA. 0.48 332 -317 siltsandsands 1,150 332 -317to Verydensesandsand ll9to 1,600 N.A 0.45 515 -500 siltysands 125 1,650 1

Uphole Seismic Survey.

NOTES: Foundation for nuclear island is at elevation -47 ft, MSL, at the top of the Pleistocene material. Top of grade is considered to be at elevation +15 ft, MSL.

Attachment to W3FI-2014-0023 Page 8 of 35 The general geology of the site consists of the Pleistocene Prairie Formation interbe dded with sands and clays with varying amounts of silt and extends to a depth of about I 1 00 , ft. The Pliocene Pleistocene deposits consist of the Citronelle Formation of interbedded sands and clays that extend to about I 900 ft. Beneath these strata are about 3,000 ft. of Plioce ne clays with relatively thin sand layers. Between 7,500 and 10,500 ft. is a sequence of shale alternating with thin sandstone layers. This unit overlies a continuous sequence of shale rangin g in age from middle to upper Jurassic. The lower Jurassic Louann salt beds are the deepes t sediments known to occur above crystalline bedrock. Precambrian crystalline basement rock was estimated to be at a depth greater than 40,000 ft (Entergy, 2013).

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 weight versus s depth and elevation for the best estimate single profile to a depth of 515 ft (157 m). Veloci ty measurements consist of compressional-wave uphole velocity surveys at the site to a depth below the SSE of about I 73 ft (53 m) (Entergy, 201 3). Recommended shear-w ave velocities listed in Table 2.3.1-1 were taken as the mean base-case profile (P1) in the top 460 ft (140 m).

Beneath this depth the profile was extended to a depth of 4,000 ft (1 ,21 9 m) using the average S-wave velocity over the upper 30 m (Vs3O) of 270m/sec (886 ftls) profile templa te from the SPID (EPRI, 2013a). The depth of4,000 ft (1,219 m) was considered adequate to reflect amplification over the lowest frequency of interest, about 0.5 Hz (EPRI, 2013a) (EPRI,

. 2014)

Lower (P2)- and upper (P3)- range profiles were developed with scale factors of 1

.25 reflecting uncertainty in measured velocities to a depth of 173 ft (53 m). Below this depth shear-w ave velocities reflect assumed values and increased epistemic uncertainty with an increas ed scale factor of I .57. To avoid development of a low-velocity zone at the transition depth of I 73 ft (53 m) in profile P2, the increase in the scale factor was applied at a depth of 276 ft (84 m),

coincidentwith an increase in the mean base-case profile (elevation -317 ft in Table 2.3.1-1).

The scale factors of I .25 and 1 .57 reflect a a 1 of about 0.2 and about 0.35 respectively based on the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) 10 th and 90 th fractiles which implies a scale factor of 1.28 on Depth to Precambrian basement was taken at 4,000 ft (1 ,21 9 m) randomized +/-1 ,200 ft (366 m).

The three shear-wave velocity profiles are shown in Figure 2.3.2-1 and listed in Table 2.3.2-1.

(EPRI, 2014)

Attachment to W3FI-2014-0023 Page 9 of 35 Vs profiles for Waterford Site Vs (ft/sec) 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 0

500 c-1___

1000 1500 Profile 1

. 2000 Profile 2

0. Profile 3 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 Figure 2.3.2-1 . Shear-wave velocity profiles for WSES-3. (EPRI, 2014)

Table 2.3.2-1 Layer thicknesses, depths, and shear-wave velocities (Vs) for 3 profiles, WSES

3. (EPRI, 2014)

Profile 1 Profile 2 Profile 3 thickness depth Vs thickness depth Vs thickness depth Vs (ft) (ft) (ftls) (ft) (ft) (ftls) (ft) (ft) (ftls) 0 850 0 680 0 1062 9.2 9.2 850 9.2 9.2 680 9.2 9.2 1062 9.2 18.5 850 9U2 18U5 680 9U2 18.5 1062 1.5 20.0 850 1.5 20.0 680 1.5 20.0 1062 8.5 28.5 850 8.5 28.5 680 8.5 28.5 1062 8.5 37.0 850 8.5 37.0 680 8.5 37.0 1062 7.5 44.5 925 7.5 44U5 740 7.5 44U5 1156 7.5 52.0 925 7.5 52.0 740 7.5 52U0 1156 8.0 60.0 925 8U0 60.0 740 8.0 60.0 1156 8.0 68.0 925 8.0 68.0 740 8.0 68.0 1156 80 76.0 1000 8.0 76.0 800 8.0 76.0 1250 11.0 87.0 1000 11.0 87.0 800 11.0 87.0 1250 12.7 99.7 1125 12.7 99.7 900 12.7 99.7 1406 12.7 112.3 1125 12.7 112.3 900 12.7 112.3 1406 7.7 120.0 1125 7.7 120.0 900 7.7 120.0 1406 8.8 128.8 1125 8.8 128.8 900 8.8 128.8 1406 8.8 137.7 1125 8.8 137.7 900 8.8 137U7 1406

Attachment to W3FI-2014-0023 Page 10 of 35 Table 2.3.2-1 Layer thicknesses, depths, and shear-wave velocities (Vs) for 3 profiles, WSES 3 (EPRI, 2014)

Profile I Profile 2 Profile 3 thickness depth Vs thickness depth Vs thickness depth Vs (ft) (ft) (ftls) (ft) (ft) (ft1s) (ft) (ft) Cft/s) 1_L 150.3 1125 12.7 150.3 900 12.7 150.3 1406 12.7 163.0 1125 12.7 163.0 900 12.7 1630 1406 1L 175.7 1125 121_ 175.7 900 12.7 175.7 1406 12.7 188.3 1125 12.7 18&3 900 12.7 188.3 1406 12.7 201.0 1125 12.7 201.0 900 12.7 201.0 1406 11_ 213.7 1125 127 213.7 900 12.7 213.7 1406 1L 226.3 1125 12.7 226.3 900 12.7 226.3 1406 12.7 239.0 1125 12.7 239.0 900 12.7 239.0 1406 12.7 251.7 1125 12.7 2517 900 12.7 251.7 1406 12.7 264.3 1125 12.7 264.3 900 12.7 2643 1406 12.7 277.0 1125 12.7 2770 900 12.7 277.0 1406 1__;3__ 295.3 1625 18.3 295.3 1040 18.3 295.3 2551 18.3 313.6 1625 18.3 313.6 1040 18.3 313.6 2551 18.3 331.9 1625 18.3 331.9 1040 18.3 331.9 2551 18.3 350.2 1625 18.3 350.2 1040 183 350.2 2551 18.3 368.5 1625 18.3 36&5 1040 18.3 368.5 2551 183 386.8 1625 18.3 386.8 1040 18.3 386.8 2551 18.3 405.1 1625 183 405.1 1040 18.3 405.1 2551 18.3 423.4 1625 18.3 423.4 1040 18.3 423.4 2551 18.3 441.7 1625 18.3 441.7 1040 18.3 441.7 2551 18.3 460.0 1625 18.3 460.0 1040 18.3 460.0 2551 40.0 500.0 2005 40.0 500.0 1283 40.0 500.0 3147 400 540.1 2005 40.0 540.1 1283 40.0 540.1 3147 40.0 580.1 2005 40.0 580.1 1283 40.0 5801 3147 40.0 620.1 2005 40.0 620.1 1283 40.0 620.1 3147 40.0 660.1 2005 40.0 660.1 1283 40.0 660.1 3147 42.7 702.8 2005 427 702.8 1283 42.7 702.8 3147 42.7 745.4 2005 42.7 745.4 1283 42.7 745.4 3147 42.7 788.1 2005 42.7 788.1 1283 42.7 788.1 3147 65.6 853.7 2182 65.6 853.7 1396 65.6 853.7 3425 65.6 919.3 2182 65.6 919.3 1396 65.6 919.3 3425 65.6 984.9 2182 65.6 984.9 1396 65.6 984.9 3425 65.6 1050.6 2182 65.6 1050.6 1396 65.6 1050.6 3425 656 1116.2 2182 65.6 1116.2 1396 65.6 1116.2 3425 65.6 1181.8 2359 65.6 1181.8 1510 65.6 1181.8 3704 65.6 1247.4 2359 65.6 1247.4 1510 65.6 1247.4 3704 65.6 1313.0 2359 65.6 1313.0 1510 65.6 1313.0 3704 65.6 1378.6 2359 65.6 1378.6 1510 65.6 1378.6 3704 L 65.6 1444.3 2359 65.6 1444.3 1510 65.6 1444.3 3704

Attachment to W3FI-2014-0023 Page 11 of 35 Table 2.3.2-1 Layer thicknesses, depths, and shear-wave velocities (Vs) for 3 profiles, WSES

3. (EPRI. 2014 Profile I Profile 2 Profile 3 thickness depth Vs thickness depth Vs thickness depth Vs (ft) (ft) (ftls) (ft) (ft) (ftls) (ft) (ft) (ftls) 131.2 1575.5 2552 131.2 1575.5 1634 131.2 1575.5 4007 131.2 17067 2552 131.2 1706.7 1634 131.2 1706.7 4007 131.2 1838.0 2552 131.2 1838.0 1634 131.2 1838.0 4007 131.2 1969.2 2552 131.2 1969.2 1634 131.2 1969.2 4007 131.2 2100.4 2552 131.2 2100.4 1634 131.2 2100.4 4007 131.2 2231.7 2871 131.2 2231.7 1837 131.2 2231.7 4507 131.2 2362.9 2871 131.2 2362.9 1837 131.2 2362.9 4507 131.2 2494.1 2871 131.2 2494.1 1837 131.2 2494.1 4507 131.2 2625.4 2871 131.2 2625.4 1837 131.2 2625.4 4507 131.2 2756.6 2871 131.2 2756.6 1837 131.2 2756.6 4507 1246.5 4003.1 3054 1246.5 4003.1 1955 1246.5 4003.1 4795 3280.8 7283.9 9285 3280.8 7283.9 9285 3280.8 7283.9 9285 2.3.2.1 Shear Modulus and Damping Curves Site-specific nonlinear dynamic material properties were not available for WSES-3 soils. The soil material over the upper 500 ft (1 50 m) was assumed to have behavior that could be modeled with either EPRI cohesionless soil or Peninsular Range (PR) GIGmax and hysteretic damping curves (EPRI, 2013a). Consistentwith the SPID (EPRI, 2013a), the EPRI soil curves (model Ml) were considered to be appropriate to representthe more nonlinear response likely to occur in the materials at this site. The PR curves (EPRI, 201 3a) for soils (model M2) was assumed to represent an equally plausible alternative more linear response across loading level. (EPRI, 2014) 2.3.2.2 Kappa Base-case kappa estimates were determined using Section B-5.1 .3.1 of the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) for a deep greater than 3000 ft (1000 m) CEUS soil site. Kappa for a soil site with greater than 3,000 ft (1 km) is assumed to have the maximum kappa value of 0.04 s (Table 2.3.2-2). Epistemic uncertainty in profile damping (kappa) was considered to be accommodated at design loading levels by the multiple (2) sets of GIGmax and hysteretic damping curves. (EPRI, 2014)

Attachment to W3FI-2014-0023 Page 12 of 35 Table 23.2-2. Kappa Values and Weights Used for Site Response Analyses. (EPRI, 2014)

Velocity Profile Kappa(s)

P1 0.040 P2 0.040 P3 0.040 Velocity Profile Weiqhts P1 0.4 P2 0.3 P3 0.3 GiGmax and Hysteretic Damping Curves Ml 0.5 M2 0.5 2.3.3 Randomization of Base Case Profiles To account for the aleatory variability in dynamic material properties that is expected to occur across a site at the scale of a typical nuclear facility, variability in the assumed shear-wave velocity profiles has been incorporated in the site response calculations. For WSES-3 random shear wave velocity profiles were developed from the base case profiles shown in Figure 2.3.2-I Consistent with the discussion in Appendix B of the SPID (EPRI, 201 3a), 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, 1997) for United States Geological Survey A site conditions were used for this site. Thirty random velocity profiles were generated for each base case profile. These random velocity profiles were generated using a natural log standard deviation of 0.25 over the upper 50 ft and 0.15 below that depth. As specified in the SPID (EPRI, 2013a), correlation of shear wave velocity between layers was modeled using the footprint correlation model. In the correlation model, a limit of +/-2 standard deviations about the median value in each layer was assumed for the limits on random velocity fluctuations. (EPRI, 2014) 2.3.4 Input Spectra Consistent with the guidance in Appendix B ofthe SPID (EPRI, 2013a), input Fourier amplitude spectra were defined for a single representative earthquake magnitude (M 6.5) using two different assumptions regarding the shape of the seismic source spectrum (single-corner and double-corner). A range of I 1 different input amplitudes (median Peak Ground Accelerations (PGAs) ranging from 0.01 to I .5g) were used in the site response analyses. The characteristics of the seismic source and upper crustal attenuation properties assumed for the analysis of the WSES-3 were the same as those identified in Tables B-4, B-5, B-6 and B-7 of the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) as appropriate for typical CEUS sites. (EPRI, 2014)

Attachment to W3FI-2014-0023 Page 13 of 35 2.3.5 Methodology To perform the site response analyses for WSES-3, a random vibration theory 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 SP1D (EPRI, 2013a). The guidance contained in Appendix B ofthe SPID (EPRI, 2013a) on incorporating epistemic uncertainty in shear-wave velocities, kappa, non-linear dynamic properties and source spectra for plants with limited at-site information was followed for WSES-3. (EPRI, 2014) 2.3.6 Amplification Functions The results of the site response analysis consist of amplification factors (5% damped pseudo absolute response spectra) which describe the amplification (or de-amplification) of hard reference rock motion as a function of frequency and input reference rock amplitude. The amplification factors are represented in terms of a median amplification value and an associated standard deviation (sigma) for each oscillator frequency and input rock amplitude. Consistent with the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) a minimum median amplification value of 0.5 was employed in the present analysis. Figure 2.3.6-1 illustrates the median and +/-1 standard deviation in the predicted amplification factors developed for the eleven loading levels parameterized by the median reference (hard rock) peak acceleration (0.Olg to I .50g) for profile P1 and EPRI soil GiGmax and hysteretic damping curves (EPRI, 2013a). The variability in the amplification factors results from variability in shear-wave velocity, depth to hard rock, and modulus reduction and hysteretic damping curves. To illustrate the effects of more linear response at WSES-3 deep soil site, Figure 2.3.6-2 shows the corresponding amplification factors developed with PR curves for soil (model M2). Between the more nonlinear and more linear analyses, Figures 2.3.6-1 and Figure 2.3.6-2 respectively show little difference below about 10 Hz across loading level.

Tabular data for Figures 2.3.6-1 and Figure 2.3.6-2 is provided For Information Only in Appendix A. (EPRI, 2014)

Attachment to W3FI-2014-0023 Page 14 of 35

T 1111111 1 IIIIIT1 T 0

(Ti C-)

0

. 0 INPUT MOTKtt CO1G INPUT MOTI OOSC 0

4 c-C C-)

.. C C

C E:%\

C-E INPUT MOT1O QtQ INPUT MOTIN Q2OG C

0 n:i C-]

.. ci C-

\/

C INPUT F1OT1X1 OOG INPUT HOTIL* IJ40G to -1 1_a U 1 1 0 a 2 Freuenc (Hz) FruencH (Hz)

MPLIFICflTION, NTERFORD, M1P1KI M 65, 1 CQRNE: PAGE 1 OF Figure 2.3.6-1 .Example suite of amplification factors (5% damping pseudo absolute acceleration spectra) developed for the mean base-case profile (P1 ), EPRI soil modulus reduction and hysteretic damping curves (model Ml), and base-case kappa (KI) at eleven loading levels of hard rock median peak acceleration values from OO1g to 1.50g. M 6.5 and single-cornersource model (EPRI, 2013a). (EPRI, 2014)

m 0>

cc cc 0 C 00 CD N)

9) Amp] ification iThpl ification Amp] if icat ion i

10 100 ini 100 101 i 10 1011 1 to 01 0 LU C) 0 Ci) 0 cmm -9 D -

r 1

1 0

-i 0

0

>00 C f-ri -

71D ci

.. LIZ 2: 0

-u--I rm cm;u N rn-ri 0

rNJ;n 0

O 0- Ri 1

-U

Attachment to W3FI-2014-0023 Page 16 of 35

  • _I IIIIIII 11111111 I 111111 4-)

0

+-

0 a:

INPUT MDTIOI O.IJ1G INIPUT [OTIct O05G D

1 I I I 1 1111 I 1-rii fit 4

c- I I I 1I[F ii ------

(a 0

/

L4

=

a:

INPUT MOTXII OJOG ThPUT MOTION Q2$2 0 D C-,

C (t,

Li 44 C-

. =

a:

INPUT 11OT]ON O.30G INPUT MOTIcN 04CC C C i too i1 10 2 10 10 101 2 i0 FrunoH (Hz) Fr-eciuEi1c! (Hz)

PMPLIFICTION, NATERFORD) M2P1KI ri 65, 1 CQRNLR; PAGE 1 OF Z Figure 2.3.6-2.Example suite of amplification factors (5% damping pseudo absolute acceleration spectra) developed for the mean base-case profile (P1 ), Peninsular Range curves for soil (model M2), and base-case kappa (KI ) at eleven loading levels of hard rock median peak acceleration values from OO1g to I .50g. M 6.5 and single-corner source model (EPRI, 2013a). (EPRI, 2014)

Attachment to W3FI-2014-0023 Page 17of35 L 1111111 I I iiii[i huh u i J u uuuuu i u u u uuuiu I I h 08 C tO C-)

0 C 4-

, 0 C 0

S a:

tNPUT MOTI@4 O.50G rNPUT MOTKI1 O.7SG C C u u uuuuuue u u u u u 1 I huh u IlTILu u rrruuu cI I hihhhhi C

I 1

  • i 08 tO C-)

?2$\ c:

4° C

. .. C C C

0 S N$;,i/: N%/:

INPUT MOTION 10CC INPUT FIOTIOl 12%

C u u u uuii u u u u iiiiu I I ijjj_i C

C 09

-h-i C

U

., C C-S a:

C Fre9uencd (Hz)

PMPLIFICRITIUN, NATERFORD, M2P1KI N 65, 1 CORNER: PPGE 2 OF Figure 2.3.6-2(cont.)

Attachment to W3FI-2014-0023 Page 18 of 35 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.O ofthe SPID (EPRI, 2013a).

This procedure (referred to as Method 3) computes a site-specific control point hazard curve for a broad range of spectral accelerations given the site-specific bedrock hazard curve and site-specific estimates of soil or soft-rock response and associated uncertainties. This process is repeated for each of the seven spectral frequencies for which ground motion equations are available. The dynamic response of the materials below the control point was represented by the frequency- and amplitude-dependent amplification functions (median values and standard deviations) developed and described in the previous section. The resulting control point mean hazard curves for WSES-3 are shown in Figure 2.3.7-1 for the seven spectral frequencies for which ground motion equations are defined. Tabulated values of mean and fractile seismic hazard curves and site response amplification functions are provided in Appendix A. (EPRI, 2014)

Total Mean Soil Hazard by Spectral Frequency at Waterford 1E-2 1E-3 U

C) 25 Hz C)

C) 10 Hz U

1E-4 C) 5 Hz 0

U

-PGA C) 2.5 Hz 1E-5 C) .1 Hz I-I Cu 0.5 Hz C

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

Figure 2.3.7-1 . Control point mean hazard curves for spectral frequencies of 05, I .0, 2.5, 5.0, 10, 25 and PGA (100) Hz at WSES-3. (EPRI, 2014)

Attachment to W3FI-2014-0023 Page 19 of 35 2.4 Control Point Response Spectrum The control point hazard curves described above have been used to develop Uniform Hazard Response Spectra (UHRS) and the GMRS. The UHRS were obtained through linear interpolation in log-log space to estimate the spectral acceleration at each spectral frequency for the I and I O per year hazard levels. Table 2.4-1 shows the UHRS and GMRS accelerations for a range of frequencies. (EPRI, 2014)

Table 2.4-1 UHRS and GMRS for WSES-3. (EPRI, 2014) io UHRS 10 UHRS GMRS Frequency(Hz) (g) (g) (g)

I 00 7.75E-02 2.27E-01 I 1 OE-01 90 7U75E-02 2.32E-01 I .12E01 80 7.76E-02 2.37E-01 1.14E-01 70 7U77E-02 2.44E-01 1 .16E-01 60 7.80E-02 2.51 E-01 I .1 9E-01 50 7.83E-02 2.61 E-01 I .23E-01 40 7.91E-02 2.74E-01 1.28E-01 35 7.99E-02 2.84E-01 I U32E01 30 8. 1 4E-02 2.96E-01 I .37E01 25 8.44E-02 3. 1 5E-01 I 45E01 20 888E-02 3. 1 2E-01 1 .45E-01 15 9.94E-02 3.20E-01 1.52E-01 12.5 1.1OE-01 3.36E-01 1.61E-01 10 1.25E-01 361E-01 1.75E-01 9 1.31E-01 3.77E-01 1.83E-01 8 1.37E-01 3.92E-01 1.91E-01 7 1 .42E-01 399E-01 1 .95E-01 6 1.50E-01 4.13E-01 2.02E-01 5 1.53E01 4.23E-01 2.07E-01 4 IU5OE-01 4.06E-01 2.OOE-01 3.5 1.47E-01 3.89E-01 1.92E-01 3 1 .42E-01 3.70E-01 I .83E-01 2.5 1.23E-01 3.28E-01 162E-01 2 125E-01 3IOE-01 1.55E-01 1.5 1.27E-01 2.99E-01 1.51E-01 1 25 1 25E01 2.83E-01 I .44E-01 I 1.22E01 2.64E-01 1.36E-01 0.9 1.20E-01 2.60E-01 1.34E-01 0.8 1.16E-01 2.53E-01 1.30E-01 0.7 1.07E-01 2.38E-01 1.22E-01 0.6 9.75E-02 2.14E-01 1.1OE-01 0.5 8.64E-02 1.92E-01 9.84E-02

Attachment to W3FI-2014-0023 Page 20 of 35 Table 2.4-1 UHRS and GMRS for WSES3. (EPRI, 2014)

I U H RS I 0 U H RS GM RS Freguency(Hz) (g) (g) (g) 0.4 6.91 E-02 I 54E-01 7.87E-02 0.35 605E-02 I .35E-01 6.89E-02 0 .3 5. 1 8E-02 I I 5E-0 1

. 590E-02 0.25 4.32E-02 9.62E-02 4.92E-02 0.2 3.46E-02 7.70E-02 3.93E-02 0 15

. 2 .59E-02 5.77E-02 2.95E-02 0.125 2.16E-02 4.81E-02 2.46E-02 0.1 1 .73E-02 3.85E-02 I .97E-02 The i0 4 and i0 5 UHRS are used to compute the GMRS atthe control point and are shown in Figure 2.4-1.

Mean Soil UHRS and GMRS at Waterford 0.5 l

0.4 b.O 1E-5UHRS C

0 0.3 GMRS 1E-4UHRS 0.2 4-I U

a) 0.

0.1 0.

0.1 1 10 100 Spectral frequency, Hz Figure 2.4-1 . UHRS for I 0 and I 0 and GMRS at control point for WSES-3 (5%-damped response spectra). (EPRI, 2014) 3.0 Plant Design Basis and Beyond Design Basis Evaluation Ground Motion The design basis for WSES-3 is identified in the Final Safety Analysis Report (Entergy, 2013) and other pertinent documents.

Attachment to W3FI-2014-0023 Page2l of35 3.1 SSE Description of Spectral Shape The SSE for WSES-3 was set at the legal minimum specified by 1 0 CFR Part I 00, Appendix A.

This very conservative surface acceleration is double the maximum acceleration appropriate for the maximum earthquake which has occurred in the sites tectonic province during the past 250 years. (Entergy, 2013)

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

(EPRI, 2014)

Table 3.1-1. SSE forWSES-3 (Entergy, 2013)

Frequency (Hz) 25 5.6 2 0.33 SA(g) 0.1 0.25 0.25 0.04 In order to better define the SSE spectrum over the frequency range of interest, additional spectral acceleration points were developed based on the 5% design basis earthquake plot shown in the WSES-3 FSAR Figure 3.7-2 (Entergy, 2013). It was also observed that the entire nuclear island at WSES-3, including all safety related Structures, Systems, and Components (SSC), was analyzed in a Soil Structure Interaction Analysis (SSIA) represented as a mat on springs using a time history having spectral accelerations that enveloped the SSE spectrum. In accordance with design basis documents, SSIA were also conducted via Stardyne 3 analyses that modeled the mat and side walls of the nuclear island and also derived vertical and lateral soil pressure. The initial model used for the SSIA is shown in the WSES-3 FSAR Figure 3.7-9 (Entergy, 2013).

The response spectrum of the time history used to represent the SSE, or design basis earthquake, for the SSIA envelopes the SSE spectrum, as shown in the WSES-3 FSAR Figure 3.7-2 (Entergy, 201 3).The spectral accelerations of the SSE Time History (TIH) spectrum for 5%

damping are also tabulated in Table 3.1-2.

Attachment to W3FI-2014-0023 Page22 of 35 Table 31-2. Revised SSE Tabulation for WSES-3 SSE SSE Time Period Frequency Spectrum History (Sec) (Hz) Acc. Spectrum (g) Acc.

(g) 0.01 100.00 0.1 0.135 0.04 25.00 0.125 0.135 0.1 10.00 0.175 0.23 0.2 5.00 0.245 0.3 0.4 2.50 0.245 0.32 0.5 2.00 0.245 0.28 0.67 1.50 0.19 0.24 0.8 1.35 0.18 0.235 0.9 1.10 0.135 0.17 1.0 1.00 0.12 0.155 2.0 0.50 0.062 0.088 3.2 Control Point Elevation The entire WSES-3 nuclear island is supported on a common mat. As shown in the WSES-3 FSAR Figure 3.7-9 (Entergy, 201 3), the bottom of the mat is at elevation -47 ft MSL. Therefore, the SSE control point elevation is defined at elevation -47 ft MSL.

3.3 IPEEE Description and Capacity Response Spectrum The Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) was performed as a reduced scope. As discussed below, WSES-3 screens-out from performing further risk evaluations.

Therefore, the IPEEE was not reviewed.

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

4.1 Risk Evaluation Screening (1 to 10 Hz)

In the I to I 0 Hz part of the response spectrum, the SSE exceeds the GMRS when using the reduced number of frequency points shown in Table 3.1-1 However, when the revised SSE tabulation shown in Table 3.1-2 is used, there is an approximately 10% or less exceedance of the SSE spectral values by the GMRS around I .0 Hz. In accordance with Section 3.2.1 .1 of the SPID (EPRI, 2013a), for the low seismic hazard WSES-3 site, it would be necessary to identify all safety related SSCs that may be susceptible to damage from the GMRS accelerations at the

Attachment to W3FI-2014-0023 Page 23 of 35 point where they exceed the SSE accelerations, and then derive High Confidence in Low Probability of Failure (HCLPF) estimates for these components based on the GMRS to show that the HCLPF is greater than the GMRS.

In lieu of identifying susceptible SSCs and developing HCLPF estimates, it is noted that all safety-related SSCs were designed based on responses obtained using an SSE time history that has a spectrum that envelopes the GMRS over the entire I Hz to I 0 Hz range.

Furthermore, all design work using floor response spectra derived from the time history Soil Structure Interaction Analyses (SSIA) conservatively assumed the spectral peak at about I .66 Hz or higher extends over the lower frequency range, as shown in FSAR Figures 3.7-1 1 through 3.7-20 (Entergy, 2013). Thus, the response spectra derived from a time history analysis, with the time history having a spectrum that envelopes the GMRS in the I Hz to 10 Hz range, were conservatively used via a design envelope that extended the 1 .66 Hz or higher spectra peaks to frequencies less than 1 .66 Hz. As such, it is demonstrated that all safety related SSCs were designed for seismic accelerations higher than the GMRS accelerations in the I Hz to 1 0 Hz part of the response spectrum.

Therefore, no further risk evaluation will be performed.

Additionally, based on the SSE and GMRS comparison, WSES-3 will screen-out of the expedited seismic evaluation described in EPRI 3002000704 (EPRI, 2013b) as proposed in a letter to the NRC (ML13101A379) dated April 9, 2013 (NEI, 2013) and agreed to by the NRC (ML13106A331) in a letter dated May 7, 2013 (U.S. NRC, 2013).

4.2 High Frequency Screening (> 10 Hz)

For a portion of the range above I 0 Hz, the 5% damping GMRS exceeds the 5% damping SSE spectrum by less than 15%. The maximum accelerations in the GMRS exceedance range are 0.15g or less. Furthermore, the 5% damping spectrum of the time history used to derive seismic responses for all safety related SSCs is within less than 8% of the GMRS accelerations in the exceedance range. It is also noted that the WSES-3 soil-spring system has a natural frequency in the I .5 Hz range, with the highest mode participating in the response being at 1 0 Hz or less.

As shown in the WSES-3 FSAR (Entergy, 201 3) Figures 3.7-1 1 through 3.7-20, the floor response spectra become quasi-steady state above 10 Hz. Thus, the seismic high frequency content is filtered out by the soil-structure system.

Considering the very low accelerations in the high frequency range, the fact that high frequency susceptible components were designed/assessed for acceleration levels within 8% of the GMRS accelerations in the high frequency range and frequency content above 10 Hz is filtered out by the soil-structure system, no further considerations are considered to be required.

Therefore, a High Frequency Confirmation will not be performed.

Attachment to W3FI-2014-0023 Page 24 of 35 4.3 Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation Screening (1 to 10 Hz)

In the I to 10 Hz part ofthe response spectrum, the SSE exceeds the GMRS. Therefore, a Spent Fuel Pool evaluation will not be performed.

5.0 Interim Actions Based on the screening evaluation, the expedited seismic evaluation described in EPRI 3002000704 (EPRI, 2013b) will not be performed.

Consistent with NRC letter (ML14030A046) dated February 20, 2014 (U.S. NRC, 2014), the seismic hazard reevaluations presented herein are distinct from the current design and licensing bases of WSES-3. Therefore, the results do not call into question the operability or functionality of SSCs and are not reportable pursuant to I 0 CFR 50.72, Immediate notification requirements for operating nuclear power reactors, and 10 CFR 50.73, Licensee event report system.

The NRC letter also requests that licensees provide an interim evaluation or actions to demonstrate that the plant can cope with the reevaluated hazard while the expedited approach and risk evaluations are conducted. In response to that request, NEI letter dated March 12, 2014 (NEI, 2014), provides seismic core damage risk estimates using the updated seismic hazards for the operating nuclear plants in the Central and Eastern United States. These risk estimates continue to support the following conclusions of the NRC Gl-1 99 Safety/Risk Assessment (U.S. NRC, 2010):

Overall seismic core damage risk estimates are consistent with the Commissions Safety Goal Policy Statement because they are within the subsidiary objective of I 0 /year for 4

core damage frequency. The Gl-1 99 Safety/Risk Assessment, based in part on information from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRCs) Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) program, indicates that no concern exists regarding adequate protection and that the current seismic design of operating reactors provides a safety margin to withstand potential earthquakes exceeding the original design basis.

WSES-3 is included in the March 12, 2014 risk estimates (NEI, 2014). Using the methodology described in the NEI letter, all plants were shown to be below 10 /year; thus, the above 4

conclusions apply.

In accordance with the Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3, WSES-3 performed seismic walkdowns using the guidance in EPRI Report 1025286 (EPRI, 2012). The seismic walkdowns were completed and captured in Fukushima Seismic Walkdown Report WF3-CS 00003 Rev 2 (Entergy, 2014). The goal of the walkdowns was to verify current plant configuration with the existing licensing basis, to verify the current maintenance plans, and to identify any vulnerabilities. The walkdown also verified that any vulnerabilities identified in the

Attachment to W3FI-2014-0023 Page 25 of 35 IPEEE (Entergy, 2012) were adequately addressed. The results ofthe walkdown, including any identified corrective actions, confirm that WSES-3 can adequately respond to a seismic event.

6.0 Conclusions In accordance with the 50.54(f) request for information (U.S. NRC, 2012), a seismic hazard and screening evaluation was performed for WSES-3. A GMRS was developed solely for the purpose of screening for additional evaluations in accordance with the SPID (EPRI, 2013a).

Based on the results of the screening evaluation, WSES-3 screens-out for a seismic risk evaluation, a High Frequency Confirmation, and a Spent Fuel Pool evaluation.

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

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

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

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

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.

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

Entergy (2012), Waterford 3 Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) Reduced Scope Seismic Margin Assessment (SMA). Report No. WF3-CS-12-00001, 02 2012/Revision, 0.

Entergy (2013). Waterford Steam Electric Station Final Safety Analysis Report Unit 3, Revision 307, Docket No. 50-382, 2013.

Entergy (2014), Waterford Steam Electric Station Unit 3 Seismic Walkdown Report for Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3: Seismic.

Engineering Report WF3-CS-12-00003, Rev. 2, 2013.

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

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

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

EPRI (2013c). EPRI (2004, 2006) Ground-Motion Model (GMM) Review Project, EPRI 3002000717, 2 volumes, June 2013.

Attachment to W3FI-2014-0023 Page 26 of 35 EPRI (2014). Waterford Seismic Hazard and Screening Report, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, February 14, 2014.

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

Seismic Reevalations, April 9, 2013.

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

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

Description and Validation of the Stochastic Ground Motion Model, Report Submitted to Brookhaven National Laboratory, Associated Universities, Inc., Upton, New York I 1 973, Contract No. 770573.

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

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

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

Request for Information Pursuant to Title 1 0 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f)

Regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3 and 9.3 ofthe Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident, March 12, 2012.

U.S. NRC (2013). NRC Letter from E. Leeds to J. Pollock, Electric Power Research Institute Final Draft Report XXXXXX, Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1 : Seismic, as an Acceptable Alternative to the March 12, 2012, Information Requestfor Seismic Reevaluations, May 7, 2013.

U.S. NRC (2014). NRC Letter, Eric J. Leeds to All Power Reactor Licensees, Supplemental Information Related to Request for Information Pursuantto Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding Seismic Hazard Reevaluations for Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Accident, dated February 20, 2014.

0>

(Q )

(DC)

N)D H

Q) c E -

D) CD CD =

0 ID X

Attachment to W3F1-2014-0023 Page 28 of 35 Table A-I a. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for PGA at WSES-3.

(EPRI, 2014)

AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 2.72E-02 I .42E-02 I .90E-02 2.68E-02 3.52E-02 4.19E-02 0.001 2.OOE-02 9.24E-03 I .29E-02 1 .92E-02 2.72E-02 3.33E-02 0.005 7.06E-03 2.19E-03 3.63E-03 6.45E-03 1 .04E-02 I .38E-02 0.01 3.67E-03 9.51E-04 I.60E-03 3.14E-03 5.58E-03 8.23E-03 0.01 5 2.22E-03 5.50E-04 8.98E-04 1 .77E-03 3.33E-03 5.58E-03 0.03 7.04E-04 I .60E-04 2.53E-04 4.98E-04 I .01 E-03 2.04E-03 0.05 2.47E-04 4.56E-05 7.89E-05 I .67E-04 3.63E-04 7.45E-04 0.075 1 .07E-04 I .55E-05 3.01 E-05 7.03E-05 1 .67E-04 3.28E-04 0.1 5.95E-05 7.34E-06 I .55E-05 3.90E-05 9.51 E-05 I .84E-04 0.15 2.57E-05 2.72E-06 6.17E-06 1.67E-05 4.I9E-05 8.OOE-05 0.3 5.28E-06 4.01 E-07 I .07E-06 3.37E-06 8.85E-06 1 .64E-05 0.5 1 .36E-06 7.77E-08 2.35E-07 8.35E-07 2.32E-06 4.37E-06 0.75 4.15E-07 I.72E-08 5.75E-08 2.39E-07 7.03E-07 I.44E-06 I . I .71 E-07 4.98E-09 I .84E-08 8.98E-08 2.84E-07 6.36E-07 1.5 4.59E-08 7.66E-I0 3.O1E-09 1.98E-08 7.23E-08 l.98E-07

3. 3.76E-09 I.49E-10 2.04E-10 I.02E-09 5.27E-09 I.98E-08
5. 4.37E-I0 I.IIE-10 1.32E-10 2.OIE-10 6.64E-I0 2.64E-09 7.5 6.41E-11 1.IIE-I0 1.21E-10 1.72E-10 2.13E-10 5.12E-I0
10. I.48E-11 I.IIE-10 I.20E-10 I.72E-I0 1.72E-10 2.29E-10 Table A-I b. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 25 Hz at WSES-3.

(EPRI, 2014)

AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 2.84E-02 I.62E-02 2.IOE-02 2.76E-02 3.63E-02 4.25E-02 0.001 2.14E-02 I .08E-02 I .44E-02 2.04E-02 2.88E-02 3.42E-02 0.005 8.63E-03 3.05E-03 4.63E-03 7.89E-03 1.25E-02 1.64E-02 0.01 5.OOE-03 1.49E-03 2.35E-03 4.37E-03 7.55E-03 1.05E-02 0.01 5 3.30E-03 9.1 I E-04 I .44E-03 2.76E-03 5.05E-03 7.55E-03 0.03 I .12E-03 2.80E-04 4.37E-04 8.47E-04 I .64E-03 2.92E-03 0.05 3.42E-04 7.66E-05 I .25E-04 2.53E-04 5.12E-04 9.24E-04 0.075 1 .28E-04 2.49E-05 4.50E-05 9.65E-05 2.01 E-04 3.37E-04 0.1 7.01 E-05 1 .20E-05 2.32E-05 5.27E-05 I .1 1 E-04 I .84E-04 0.1 5 3.38E-05 5.05E-06 I .1 1 E-05 2.64E-05 5.50E-05 8.85E-05 0.3 I .09E-05 1 .42E-06 3.42E-06 8.72E-06 1 .79E-05 2.80 E-05 0.5 4.50E-06 5.27E-07 I.31E-06 3.63E-06 7.66E-06 1.16E-05 0.75 2.06E-06 2.07E-07 5.58E-07 1 .62E-06 3.52E-06 5.35E-06 I . I .12E-06 9.79E-08 2.88E-07 8.47E-07 I .95E-06 2.96E-06 I .5 4.29E-07 3.14E-08 9.51 E-08 3.09E-07 7.55E-07 1 .23E-06

3. 6.27E-08 2.88E-09 9.37E-09 3.84E-08 I I OE-07

. 2. 1 6E-07

5. I .17E-08 4.43E-10 I .25E-09 5.83E-09 2.01 E-08 4.63E-08 7.5 2.61E-09 1.74E-l0 2.96E-10 I.15E-09 4.43E-09 I.I5E-08
10. 8.20E-10 I.31E-I0 I.77E-10 3.90E-I0 I.42E-09 3.79E-09

Attachment to W3FI-2014-0023 Page 29 of 35 Table A-Ic. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 10 Hz at WSES-3.

(EPRI, 2014)

AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 3.1 2E-02 I .95E-02 2.39QL.01 E-02 3..90 E-0j 46E-02 0.001 2.40E-02 t34E-02 1.72E-02 2.32E-02 3.14E-02 3.73E-02 0.005 9.77E-03 4.01 E-03 5.66E-03 9.1 1 E-03 I .38E-02 I .77E-02 0.01 5.59E-03 1.95E-03 2.92E-03 5.05E-03 8.23E-03 1.08E-02 0.01 5 3.70E-03 I .1 8E-03 I .79E-03 3.28E-03 5.58E-03 7.66E-03 0.03 1 .49E-03 4.37E-04 6.64E-04 I .21 E-03 2.22E-03 3.47E-03 0.05 6.27E-04 1 .74E-04 2.68E-04 4.98E-04 9.24E-04 I .53E-03 0.075 2.86E-04 7.1 3E-05 I .1 5E-04 2.22E-04 4.31 E-04 7.03E-04 0.1 1 .59E-04 3.47E-05 5.91 E-05 I .23E-04 2.46E-04 4.01 E-04 0.1 5 6.90E-05 I .1 5E-05 2.22E-05 5.20E-05 I .1 3E-04 I .82E-04 0.3 1 .56E-05 I .72E-06 3.95E-06 I bE-OS 2.68E-05 4.50E-05 0.5 4.56E-06 4.19E-07 I .05E-06 3.14E-06 7.89E-06 I .34E-05 0.75 1 .51 E-06 1 .21 E-07 333E-07 I .04E-06 2.60E-06 4.50E-06 I . 6.47E-07 4.63E-08 1 .36E-07 4.50E-07 I .1 3E-06 I .95E-06 I .5 1 .89E-07 I .01 E-08 3.23E-08 I .23E-07 3.33E-07 6.09E-07

3. 2.1 9E-08 4.25E-1 0 1 .60E-09 I .01 E-08 3.90E-08 8.60E-08
5. 3.80E-09 I .69E-10 253E-10 I .40E-09 6.54E-09 I .69E-08 7.5 I 8.14E-10 1.21E-10 1.72E-10 3.33E-10 1.40E-09 3.95E-09
10. 2.49E-10 I .1 1 E-10 I 1.36E-09 Table A-Id. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 5.0 Hz at WSES-3.

(EPRI, 2014)

AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 3.57E-02 2.39E-02 2.80E-02 3.47E-02 4.37E-02 5.05E-02 0.001 2.93E-02 1.74E-02 2.16E-02 2.84E-02 3.73E-02 4.37E-02 0.005 1 .25E-02 5.58E-03 7.66E-03 I .18E-02 I .74E-02 2.19E-02 0.01 7.30E-03 2.80E-03 4.07E-03 6.83E-03 I .05E-02 I .34E-02 0.015 4.91E-03 1.69E-03__2.53QL49E-03 7.23E-03 9.51E-03 0.03 2.04E-03 6.09E-04 9.51 E-04 I .77E-03 3.09E-03 4.43E-03 0.05 8.93E-04 2.60E-04 3.95E-04 7.34E-04 I .31E-03 2.IOE-03 0.075 4.22E-04 I .20E-04 I .84E-04 3.37E-04 6.09E-04 I .01 E-03 0.1 2.39E-04 6.36E-05 I .02E-04 I .90E-04 3.52E-04 5.75E-04 0.15 1 .04E-04 2.42E-05 4.13E-05 8.23E-05 I .60E-04 2.53E-04 0.3 2.30E-05 3.52E-06 7.13E-06 I .74E-05 3.79E-05 6.09E-05 0.5 6.66E-06 5.75E-07 1.38E-06 4.43E-06 1.18E-05 2.O1E-05 0.75 2.17E-06 1.04E-07 2.88E-07 I .23E-06 3.95E-06 7.34E-06 I . 8.80E-07 2.84E-08 9.24E-08 4.31 E-07 I .62E-06 3.28E-06 I .5 2.IOE-07 4.43E-09 1.64E-08 8.OOE-08 3.84E-07 8.72E-07

3. 1 .31 E-08 2.01 E-10 46E-10 3.68E-09 2.22E-08 5.66E-08
5. I .71 E-09 1.21E-10 I .72E-10 4.07E-10 2.49E-09 8.12E-09 7.5 3.56E-10 1.IIE-10 1.21E-10 1.72E-10 5.27E-10 1.82E-09
10. I.13E-10 1.I1E-10 1.21E-10 1.72E-10 2.49E-10 6.73E-10

Attachment to W3FI-2014-0023 Page 30 of 35 Table A-le. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 2.5 Hz at WSES-3.

(EPRI, 20j4)

AkPs(q)

MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 Qqqj62E-O2 Z46E-02 Z84E-02 3.52E-02 4A3E-02 5.12E-02 0.001 2.99E-02 1.79E-02 2.19E-02 2.92E-02 3.79E-02 50E-02 0.005 1 .23E-02 5.66E-03 66E-03 1 .16E-02 I .72E-02 2.13E-02 6.86E-03 Z68E-03 3.90E-03 6.45E-03 9.79E-03 I .25E-02j i015 4.54E-03 1.55E-03 2.35E-03 4.19E-03 673E-03 8.72E-03J 0.03 1 .84E-03 4.90E-04 7.77E-04 I .53E-03 2.88E-03 4.19E-0J 0.05 7.47E-04 I .79E-04 2.84E-04 5.75E-04 I .16E-03 I .92E-03J J075 3 I 8E-04 7 .23E-05 1.1 6E-04 2 .39E-04 4 .83E-04 &60E-04J L

o.i 1.64E-04 3.63E-05 00E-05 1.23E-04 2.49E-04 4A3E-04 L

0.15 6.28E-05 2.25E-05 4.70E-05 9.93E-05 1.67E-04 L

0.3 1.24E- 05 1.90E- 06 3.73E-06 9.IIE-06 2.07E-05 i37E-05 0.5 3.61 E-06 3.73E-07 8.60E-07 2.46E-06 6ri 7E06 I .07E-05 0.75 1 .24E-06 7.77E-08 2.04E-07 7.23E-07 2.16E-06 4.13E-06 I . 5A2E-07 201 E-08 5.66E-08 2.68E-07 9.65E-07 2.01 E-06 I .5 1.56E-07 1 .87E-09 6.09E-09 5.50E-08 2.80E-07 6A5E-07

3.

i.46E-08 1.31E-10 1.87E-10 2.22E-09 Z25E-08 TO3E-08

5. 2. 1 5E-09 I I 1 E-10 I .44E-1 0 2.49E-1 0 2.57E-09 I .04E-08 7.5 4.35E-10 1.IIE-10 1.21E-10 1.72E-10 4.77E-10 2.OIE-09 1.34E-10 1.IIE-1O 1.21E-10 1.72E-10 2.13E-10 6.45E-10 Table A-If. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for I .0 Hz at WSES-3.

(EPRI, 2014)

LAMPS(gL MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 3.23E-02 1.92E-02 Z39E-02 3.19E-02 4f7E-02 477E-02 2.52E-02 1.32E-02 I .74E-02 2.46E-02 3.28E-02 3.95E-02 9.59E-03 3.90E-03 515E-03 9.1IE-03 1.32E-02 i.67E-02 5.49E-03 I .77E-03 Z88E-03 5.12E-03 8.12E-03 I.04E-02 0.015 3.79E-03 9.65E-04 I.69E-03 3.47E-03 5.83E-03 7.77E-03 0.03 1 .75E-03 2.68E-04 520E-04 I .36E-03 05E-03 4.56E-03 7.93E-04 8.72E-05 1.77E-04 5.12E-04 1.44E-03 2.39E-03 i075 3.50E-04 3.19E-05 6.54E-05 1.92E-04 617E-04 I.16E-03 0.1 1.75E-04 I.46E-05 3.05E-05 8.98E-05 2.92E-04 6.09E-04 0.15 5.69E-05 4.63E-06 9.51 E-06 2.84E-05 8.85E-05 2.07E-04 0.3 6.73E-06 5.27E-07 I.I5E-06 3.52E-06 I .08E-05 2.42E-05 0.5 I.49E-06 9.24E-08 225E-07 7.45E-07 153E-06 5A2E-06 5.02E-07 2.07E-08 5.66E-08 2.25E-07 8.35E-07 I.92E-06 I . 2.38E-07 6.64E-09 2.04E-08 9.37E-08 3.90E-07 9.65E-07 1.5 8.26E-08 1.27E-09 4.37E-09 2.53E-08 1.31 E-07 3.57E-07

3. I .24E-08 I .72E-1 0 3.09E-1 0 2.01 E-09 I .69E-08 5.91 E-08 2.72E-09 I.2IE-10 I.72E-10 3.33E-10 2.96E-09 I.32E-08 7.41E-I0 1.I1E-I0 I.21E-10 1.72E-10 7.13E-I0 3.42E-09
10. I 2.77E-10 I.IIE-10 I.2IE-I0 I.72E-10 3.05E-I0 I.31E-09

Attachment to W3FI-2014-0023 Page3l of 35 Table A-lg. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for O5 Hz at WSES-3.

(EPRI, 2014 AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 c184 0.95 J 0.000jQQ I .08E 02 I .40E-0 2 I .95E-02 2.64E-02 3.19E-02 1.39E-02 83E-03 9.24E-03 1.32E-02 1.84E-02 2.25E-02 1.36E-03 Z39E-03 4.63E-03 7A5E-03 65E-03 0.0i_____ 286E-0 3 4.43E- 04 9.51 E-04 2.49E-03 417E-03 6.64E-03 L----

1.95E-03 1.98E-04 4.70E-04 i.53E-03 3.47E-03 55E-03 L 0.03 8.22E-04 4.01 E-05 I .05E-04 463E-04 I .60E-03 2.76E-03 L 0.05 3.42E-04 I .04E-05 2.84E-05 1.40E-04 6.45E-04 1.34 E-03 L 0.075 .43E-04 233E-06 8.98E-06 4.63E-05 2.42E-04 09E-04 0.1 _

6.93E-05 1.42E-06 3.84E-06 1.98E-05 1.IOE-04 3.O1E-04 0.15 2.20E-05 425E-07 i.I1E-06 5.58E-06 3.14E-05 9.51E-05 0.3 2.46E-06 410E-08 i.36E-07 6.26E-07 3.47E-06 I .05E-05 0.5 5.18E-07 8.35E-09 2.72E-08 1.32E-07 7.66E-07 2.32E-06 01_5___ I .77E-07 1.95E-09 7.1 3E-09 3.95E-08 2.46E-07 8.47E-07

1. 8.87E-08 7.23E-10 2.64E-09 1.67E-08 1.13E-07 443E-07 1.5 3.45E-08 2.35E-10 6.83E-10 4.63E-09 3.90E-08 1.79E-07
3. 6.37E-09 1.23E-10 1.72E-10 5.05E-10 5.20E-09 3.33EQ
5. 1.60E-09 i.IIE-10 1.23E-10 1.90E-10 1.04E-09 7.77EQJ 7.5 &80E-10 1.1IE-10 1.21E-10 1.72E-10 3.19E-10 2.16E-09J 1.91E-10 jj0 1.21E-10 I .72E-10 1.98E-10 8.85E-1 oj

/

Attachment to W3FI-2014-0023 Page 32 of 35 Table A-2. Amplification Functions for WSES-3. (EPRI, 2014)

Median Sigma Median Sigma Median Sigma Median Sigma PGA AF ln(AF) 25 Hz AF ln(AF) 10 Hz AF In(AF) 5 Hz AF ln(AF)

I .OOE-02 2.02E+00 9.54E-02 I .30E-02 I .56E+00 9.47E-02 I .90E-02 I .47E+00 I .09E-01 2.09E-02 2.04E+00 I .65E-01 4.95E-02 1.27E+00 1.09E-01 1.02E-01 6.59E-01 1.IOE-01 9.99E-02 1.07E+00 131E-01 8.24E-02 1.77E+00 1.82E-01 9.64E-02 1.04E+00 1.13E-01 2.13E-01 5.02E-01 1.14E-01 185E-01 9.27E-01 1.35E-01 1.44E-01 1.62E+00 1.85E-01 194E-01 8.41E-01 tl7E-01 4.43E-01 5.OOE-01 119E-01 3.56E-01 7.60E-01 1.42E-01 2.65E-01 1.41E+00 1.85E-01 2.92E-01 7.37E-01 1.21E-01 6.76E-01 5.OOE-01 1.23E-01 5.23E-01 6.57E-01 1.48E-01 3.84E-01 1.26E+00 1.86E-01 3.91E-01 668E-01 1.24E-01 9.09E-01 5.OOE-01 1.26E-01 690E-01 5.83E-01 1.54E-01 502E-01 1.14E+00 1.90E-01 493E-01 6.15E-01 126E-01 1.15E+00 5.OOE-01 1.28E-01 8.61E-01 5.25E-01 1.59E-01 6.22E-01 1.05E+00 1.96E-01 7.41E-01 5.28E-01 1.32E-01 t73E+00 5.OOE-01 134E-01 1.27E+00 5.OOE-01 1.65E-01 9.13E-01 8.71E-01 2.07E-01 1.OIE+00 5.OOE-01 1.38E-01 2.36E+00 5.OOE-01 1.40E-01 172E+00 5OOE-01 171E-01 1.22E+00 7.40E-01 2.15E-01 128E+00 5.OOE-01 t48E-01 3.OIE--OO 5.OOE-01 1.49E-01 2.17E+00 5.OOE-01 1.78E-01 1.54E÷00 641E-01 2.27E-01 1.55E+00 5.OOE-01 159E-01 3.63E÷00 5.OOE-01 1.60E-01 2.61E+00 5.OOE-01 1.85E-01 t85E-i-00 577E-01 2.35E-01 Median Sigma Median Sigma Median Sigma 2.5 Hz AF ln(AF) I Hz AF ln(AF) 0.5 Hz AF ln(AF)

2. 1 8E-02 2.33E+00 I 58E-01 I 27E-02 3.42E+00 I .46E-01 8.25E-03 3.09E+00 I .66E-01 7.05E-02 2. 1 6E+00 I .70E-01 3.43E-02 3.27E+00 I .42E-01 I .96E-02 3.08E÷00 1 .57E-01 1.18E-01 206E+00 1.73E-01 5.51E-02 3.18E+00 141E-01 3.02E-02 307E+00 153E-01 2.12E-01 1.92E+00 1.74E-01 9.63E-02 304E+00 143E-01 5.11E-02 306E÷00 1.49E-01 3.04E-01 I .80E+00 I .76E-01 I .36E-01 2.93E+00 I 49E-01 7. 1 OE-02 3.05E+00 I .48E-01 3.94E-01 1.70E+00 L8OE-01 1.75E-01 2.84E+00 1.58E-01 9.06E-02 3.05E+00 1.51E-01 4.86E-01 1.60E+00 L84E-01 214E-01 2.76E+00 1.69E-01 1.IOE-01 305E+00 1.54E-01 7.09E-01 1.39E+00 1.90E-01 3.IOE-01 2.63E+00 1.86E-01 1.58E-01 3.05E+00 170E-01 9.47E-01 1.23E+00 2.02E-01 4.12E-01 2.55E+00 1.98E-01 2.09E-01 3.06E+00 1.89E-01 I .19E+00 I i I E+00 2.12E-01 518E-01 2.49E+00 2.09E-01 262E-01 307E+00 2.05E-01 143E+00 106E+00 2.19E-01 6.19E-01 2.44E+00 2.21E-01 3.12E-01 307E+00 2.16E-01 32

Attachment to W3FI-2014-0023 Page33 of 35 Tables A-3a and A-3b are tabular versions of the typical amplification factors provided in Figures 236-1 and 2.3.6-2. Values are provided for two input motion levels at approximately I ü- and 1 O mean annual frequency of exceedance. These factors are unverified and are provided for information only. The figures should be considered the governing information.

33

Attachment to W3FI-2014-0023 Page 34 of 35 Table A-3a. Median AFs and sigmas for Model I Profile I for 2 PGA levels.

For Information Only MIPIKI Rock_PGA=O.0495 MIPIKI PGA=O.292 Freq. med. Freq. med.

(Hz) Soil_SA AF sigma In(AF) (Hz) Soil_SA AF sigma In(AF) 100.0 0.068 1.374 0.108 100.0 0.220 0.753 0.127 87.1 0.068 1.356 0.108 87.1 0.220 0733 0.127 75.9 0.068 1.325 0.108 75.9 0.220 0.698 0.127 66.1 0.068 1.267 0.108 66.1 0.220 0.634 0.127 57.5 0.068 1.161 0.108 57.5 0.221 0.536 0.127 50.1 0.069 1.024 0.108 50.1 0.221 0.444 0.127 43.7 0.069 0.892 0.108 43.7 0.221 0.376 0.127 38.0 0.069 0.800 0.108 38.0 0.222 0.344 0.128 33.1 0.070 0.739 0.108 33.1 0.222 0.328 0.128 28.8 0.070 0.722 0.109 28.8 0.223 0.331 0.128 25.1 0.072 0.706 0.109 25.1 0.224 0332 0.128 21.9 0.074 0.732 0.111 21.9 0.227 0354 0.129 19.1 0.076 0.742 0.113 19.1 0.230 0.367 0.131 16.6 0.080 0.780 0.116 16.6 0.235 0.393 0.133 14.5 0.084 0.834 0.126 14.5 0.243 0.426 0.136 12.6 0.091 0.900 0.139 12.6 0.253 0457 0.142 11.0 0.097 0.967 0.131 11.0 0.266 0.495 0.147 9.5 0.106 1.076 0.129 9.5 0.282 0.553 0.146 8.3 0.116 1.248 0.146 8.3 0.306 0.651 0.152 7.2 0.124 1.398 0.180 7.2 0.333 0.758 0.173 6.3 0.133 1.556 0.169 6.3 0.363 0.882 0.194 5.5 0.136 1.640 0.174 5.5 0.389 0.992 0.185 4.8 0.142 1.719 0.159 4.8 0.409 1.071 0.183 4.2 0.150 1.846 0.169 4.2 0.430 1.164 0.184 3.6 0.146 1.824 0.189 3.6 0.448 1.249 0.172 3.2 0.159 2.077 0.171 3.2 0.457 1.355 0.182 2.8 0.166 2.256 0.167 2.8 0.486 1.522 0.188 2.4 0.158 2.302 0.177 2.4 0.523 1.777 0.170 2.1 0.151 2.388 0.169 2.1 0.516 1.931 0.198 1.8 0.142 2.492 0.162 1.8 0.508 2.131 0.207 1.6 0.134 2.680 0.167 1.6 0.483 2.342 0.226 1.4 0.120 2.765 0.130 1.4 0.450 2.540 0.199 1.2 0.116 3.013 0.134 1.2 0.415 2.661 0.211 1.0 0.113 3.214 0.148 1.0 0.388 2.769 0.169 0.91 0.110 3.401 0.136 0.91 0.370 2.902 0.192 0.79 0.105 3.512 0.151 0.79 0.356 3.096 0.158 0.69 0.094 3.507 0.127 0.69 0.344 3.371 0.132 0.60 0.080 3.341 0.152 0.60 0.302 3.410 0.158 0.52 0.070 3.379 0.160 0.52 0.262 3.476 0.147 0.46 0.058 3.335 0.166 0.46 0.226 3.595 0.157 0.10 0.002 2.537 0.137 0.10 0.007 2.561 0.138 34

Attachment to W3F1-2014-0023 Page 35 of 35 Table A-3b. Median AFs and sigmas for Model 2, Profile I for 2 PGA levels.

For Information Only M2PI KI PGA=O.0495 M2PI KI PGA=O292 Freq. med. Freq. med.

(Hz) Soil_SA AF sigma In(AF) (Hz) Soil_SA AF sigma In(AF) 100.0 0073 1.474 0.096 100.0 0260 0.889 0108 87.1 0.073 1454 0.096 87.1 0.260 0.865 0.108 75.9 0.073 1.421 0.096 75.9 0.260 0.824 0.108 66.1 0.073 1.360 0.096 66.1 0.260 0.749 0.108 57.5 0.073 1.247 0.096 57.5 0.261 0.634 0.108 50.1 0.074 1.100 0.096 50.1 0.261 0.525 0.108 43.7 0.074 0.959 0.096 43.7 0.262 0.445 0.109 38.0 0.074 0.862 0.097 38.0 0.263 0.408 0.109 33.1 0.075 0.798 0.097 33.1 0.264 0.390 0.110 28.8 0.076 0.783 0.098 28.8 0.267 0.396 0.111 25.1 0.078 0.770 0.099 25.1 0.271 0.401 0.113 21.9 0.081 0.803 0.101 21.9 0.277 0.433 0.116 19.1 0.084 0.818 0.106 19.1 0.286 0.455 0.121 16.6 0.089 0.867 0.111 16.6 0.297 0.495 0.128 14.5 0.094 0.935 0.126 14.5 0.312 0.547 0.136 12.6 0.102 1.017 0.132 12.6 0.332 0.601 0.149 11.0 0.110 1.093 0.128 11.0 0.356 0.663 0.151 9.5 0.120 1.223 0.140 9.5 0.387 0.757 0.154 8.3 0.131 1.412 0.165 8.3 0.423 0.900 0.175 7.2 0.140 1.572 0.185 7.2 0.453 1.033 0.201 6.3 0.147 1.721 0.158 6.3 0.486 1.182 0.201 5.5 0.150 1.808 0.167 5.5 0.506 1.292 0.173 4.8 0.156 1.898 0.154 4.8 0.522 1.365 0.168 4.2 0.164 2.017 0.169 4.2 0.553 1.497 0.167 3.6 0.161 2.012 0.177 3.6 0.566 1.578 0.168 3.2 0.178 2.334 0.162 3.2 0.586 1.738 0.172 2.8 0.175 2.377 0.156 2.8 0.626 1.960 0.171 2.4 0.164 2.392 0.138 2.4 0.622 2.113 0.156 2.1 0.157 2.485 0.129 2.1 0.583 2.181 0.162 1.8 0.144 2.535 0.153 1.8 0.551 2.309 0.157 1.6 0.138 2.758 0.127 1.6 0.524 2.537 0.153 1.4 0.123 2.837 0.119 1.4 0.467 2.633 0.133 1.2 0.120 3.107 0.119 1.2 0.432 2.772 0.128 1.0 0.117 3.312 0.161 1.0 0.412 2.939 0.139 0.91 0.114 3.503 0.120 0.91 0.392 3.076 0.123 0.79 0.107 3.575 0.163 0.79 0.382 3.324 0.141 0.69 0.094 3.483 0.139 0.69 0.345 3.378 0.128 0.60 0.079 3.334 0.159 0.60 0.299 3.369 0.149 0.52 0.069 3.363 0.161 0.52 0.259 3.439 0.160 0.46 0.058 3.297 0.174 0.46 0.215 3.434 0.177 0.10 0.002 2.533 0.136 0.10 0.007 2.539 0.136 35

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=W3F1-2014-0023,_Entergy_Seismic_Hazard_and_Screening_Report_(CEUS_Sites),_Response_to_NRC_Request_for_Information_Per_10_CFR_50.54(f)_Regarding_Recommendation_2.1_of_the_Near-Term_Task_Force_Review_of_Insights_from_the_Fukushima_Dai-ichi_Accident,_Wa&oldid=2453299"