ML14098A421: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Adams
#REDIRECT [[MNS-14-029, Seismic Hazard and Screening Report (CEUS Sites), Response to NRC 10 CFR 50.54(f) 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.]]
| number = ML14098A421
| issue date = 03/20/2014
| title = McGuire, Units 1 and 2 - Seismic Hazard and Screening Report (CEUS Sites), Response to NRC 10 CFR 50.54(f) 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 o
| author name = Capps S D
| author affiliation = Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
| addressee name =
| addressee affiliation = NRC/Document Control Desk, NRC/NRR
| docket = 05000369, 05000370
| license number = NPF-009, NPF-017
| contact person =
| case reference number = MNS-14-029
| document type = Letter, Report, Miscellaneous
| page count = 38
| project =
| stage = RAI
}}
 
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:Steven D. CappsVice President DUKE McGuire Nuclear StationV ENERGY, Duke EnergyMG01VP 112700 Hagers Ferry RoadHuntersville, NC 27078o: 980.875.4805 f: 980.875.4809 Steven.Capps@duke-energy.com 10 CFR 50.54(f)March 20, 2014Serial: MNS-14-029 ATTN: Document Control DeskU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke EnergyMcGuire Nuclear Station (MNS), Units 1 and 2Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370Renewed License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17
 
==Subject:==
 
Seismic Hazard and Screening Report (CEUS Sites), Response to NRC 10 CFR50.54(f)
Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of FederalRegulations 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
 
==References:==
: 1. NRC Letter, Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of FederalRegulations 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, datedMarch 12, 2012, ADAMS Accession No. ML12053A340
: 2. EPRI Report 1025287, Seismic Evaluation
: Guidance, Screening, Prioritization andImplementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task ForceRecommendation 2.1: Seismic, ADAMS Accession No. ML1 2333A1 703. NRC Letter, Endorsement of EPRI Final Draft Report 1025287, Seismic Evaluation
: Guidance, dated February 15, 2013, ADAMS Accession No. ML12319A074
: 4. NEI Letter, Proposed Path Forward for NTTF Recommendation 2.1: SeismicReevaluations, dated April 9, 2013, ADAMS Accession No. ML13101A379
: 5. NRC Letter, Electric Power Research Institute Final Draft Report XXXXXX, SeismicEvaluation Guidance:
Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Near-Term Task ForceRecommendation 2.1: Seismic, as an Acceptable Alternative to the March 12, 2012,Information Request for Seismic Reevaluations, dated May 7, 2013, ADAMS Accession No. ML 13106A331 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission March 20, 2014Page 2Ladies and Gentlemen:
On March 12, 2012, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued Reference 1 to all powerreactor licensees and holders of construction permits in active or deferred status. Enclosure 1of 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 thedate of Reference 1.The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) submitted Reference 4 requesting NRC agreement to delaysubmittal of the CEUS Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening Report so that an update tothe Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) ground motion attenuation model could becompleted 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 bySeptember 12, 2013, with the remaining seismic hazard and screening information submitted byMarch 31, 2014.Industry guidance and detailed information to be included in the Seismic Hazard Evaluation andScreening Report submittals is provided by Reference
: 2. The industry guidance was endorsedby the NRC in a letter dated February 15, 2013 (Reference 3).The attached report provides the Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening Report for MNS asdirected by Section 4 of Reference 2 and in accordance with the schedule provided inReference 4.There are no regulatory commitments associated with this letter.Should you have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact George Murphyat 980-875-5715.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed onMarch 20, 2014.Sincerely, Steven D. Capps
 
==Enclosure:==
 
MNS Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening Report United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission March 20, 2014Page 3xc:V.M. McCree, Region II Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Marquis One Tower245 Peachtree Center Avenue NE, Suite 1200Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1257 John Boska, Project Manager (ONS)U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North, Mailstop O-8G9A11555 Rockville PikeRockville, MD 20852-2738 G. E. Miller, Project Manager (CNS & MNS)U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville PikeMail Stop 8 G9ARockville, MD 20852-2738 J. ZeilerNRC Senior Resident Inspector McGuire Nuclear StationJustin FolkweinAmerican Nuclear Insurers95 Glastonbury Blvd., Suite 300Glastonbury, CT 06033-4453 Enclosure MNS Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening Report NO. DUKCORP042-PR-002 U-J EN ER CON PROJECT REPORT REV. 0... .,(ee,1 v~ COVER SHEETPage 1 of 34SEISMIC HAZARD AND SCREENING REPORTIN RESPONSE TO THE 50.54(f)
INFORMATION REQUEST REGARDING FUKUSHIMA NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION 2.1: SEISMICforMCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATIONDUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS Prepared by:Date:Shana GibbsReviewed by:Approved by:Mitchell Mrvt~ayBenjamin KosbabDate:Date:31[-
NO. DUKCORP042-PR-002 M ENERCON PROJECT REPORTFj EceeEe eREVISION STATUS SHEET REV. 0Excellen~ce--Every project.
Every doyPage 2 of 34PROJECT REPORT REVISION STATUSREVISION DATE DESCRIPTION 0 Initial issue.PAGE REVISION STATUSPAGE NO. REVISION PAGE NO. REVISIONAll 0APPENDIX REVISION STATUSPAGE PAGEAPPENDIX NO. NO. REVISION NO. APPENDIX NO. NO. REVISION NO.A All 0 1Introduction Following the accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant resulting from theMarch 11, 2011, Great Tohoku Earthquake and subsequent
: tsunami, the NuclearRegulatory Commission (NRC) established a Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) to conducta systematic review of NRC processes and regulations and to determine if the agencyshould make additional improvements to its regulatory system. The NTTF developed aset of recommendations intended to clarify and strengthen the regulatory framework forprotection against natural phenomena.
Subsequently, the NRC issued a 50.54(f) letter(Reference
: 1) that requests information to assure that these recommendations areaddressed by all U.S. nuclear power plants. The 50.54(f) letter (Reference
: 1) requeststhat 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 currentdesign basis, the result is either no further risk evaluation or the performance of aseismic risk assessment.
Risk assessment approaches acceptable to the staff include aseismic 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 in Attachment 1 of the 50.54(f) letter (Reference
: 1) pertaining toNTTF Recommendation 2.1: Seismic for the McGuire Nuclear Station (McGuire),
locatedin Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
In providing this information, Duke EnergyCarolinas (Duke) followed the guidance provided in the Seismic Evaluation Guidance:
Screening, Prioritization, and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution ofFukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic (Reference 3). TheAugmented
: Approach, Seismic Evaluation Guidance:
Augmented Approach for theResolution 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 safety margin, prior to performing the complete plant seismic risk evaluations.
The original geologic and seismic siting investigations for McGuire meet General DesignCriterion 2 in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50 (Reference 2). The Safe ShutdownEarthquake Ground Motion (SSE) was developed in accordance with General DesignCriterion 2 in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50 (Reference
: 2) and used for the design ofseismic Category I structures,
: systems, and components (SSC). (Reference 10, Section3.1)In response to the 50.54(f) letter (Reference
: 1) and following the guidance provided inthe SPID (Reference 3), a seismic hazard reevaluation was performed.
For screening
: purposes, a Ground Motion Response Spectrum (GMRS) was developed.
The GMRSdevelopment and supporting seismic hazard analysis (Sections 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 of thisreport) for McGuire was performed by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)(Reference 8). Based on the results of the screening evaluation, McGuire screens in fora risk evaluation and a spent fuel pool integrity evaluation.
McGuire Nuclear Station 3Report Number: DUKCORP042-PR-002 2Seismic Hazard Reevaluation McGuire is located in northwestern Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, 17 miles north-northwest of Charlotte, North Carolina (Reference 10, Section 2.1). It is bordered on thewest by the Catawba River and on the north by Lake Norman which is formed byCowans Ford Dam adjacent to the site. The site is located in the Charlotte Belt, one offive northeast trending rock belts within the Piedmont Geologic Province.
This beltconsists of metamorphosed sedimentary and volcanic rocks with igneous rocksemplaced by several intrusive episodes during its early history.
There is no evidence ofmovement along the regional faults since Triassic time or about 180 million years ago.Therefore, it is concluded that there are no identifiable active faults in the region of thesite. From an engineering geology standpoint there are no local geologic features whichadversely affect the station structures.
Where zones of irregular weathering of bedrockoccurred, the weathered material was excavated and fill concrete was used underfoundation structures, or piles were driven to suitable rock bearing for Category Istructures.
(Reference 10, Section 2.5)Historical records indicate that the maximum earthquake intensity experienced at the sitewas the Charleston earthquake of August 21, 1886 with an estimated site surfaceintensity between VI-VII Modified Mercalli Scale (MM). The maximum earthquake intensity which has occurred within the region is VII to VIII MM. The original investigation of historical seismic activity in the region estimated that the maximum expectedearthquake intensity is between VII and VIII MM. The SSE for foundations on jointedrock and slightly weathered rock is 0.15g (Reference 10, Section 2.5). This value is veryconservative, considering the observed surface intensities in the region and theoverburden amplification (Reference 10, Former Appendix 2E, Section 4.2).2.1 REGIONAL AND LOCAL GEOLOGYThe general site area lies near the center of a region known as the Piedmont GeologicProvince.
The Piedmont Geologic Province is bordered on the east by the Coastal PlainProvince and on the west by the Blue Ridge Province.
The Coastal Plain generally consists of poorly consolidated sediments which include gravels, sands, clays,limestones, and marls. The Blue Ridge is a belt of meta-sedimentary rocks of theamphibolite facies in which igneous rocks were emplaced.
Several Pre-Triassic faults orstructural belts were associated faults described in published literature are located within75 miles of the site. These structures probably occurred during or immediately following the Appalachian Orogeny at the close of the Paleozoic Era, and there is no evidence oftheir movement since Triassic time, or 180 million years ago. (Reference 10, Section2.5)The station site is located 17 miles northwest of Charlotte, North Carolina.
It is borderedon the west by the Catawba River and on the north by Lake Norman which is formed byCowans Ford Dam adjacent to the site. The site is underlain by metamorphosed sedimentary,
: volcanic, and intrusive igneous rocks ranging in age from Paleozoic Era tothe Triassic Period. There have been no known evidences of unrelieved residualstresses, such as "rock squeeze",
or "pop-ups",
or "rockbursts" in the Piedmont Region.McGuire Nuclear Station 4Report Number: DUKCORP042-PR-002 Furthermore, no evidence of such occurrences was seen in the construction excavations at the McGuire site. Therefore, if unrelieved stresses do exist in the bedrock, they are ofno consequence to the stability of the station structures.
(Reference 10, Section 2.5)2.2 PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS2.2.1 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis ResultsIn accordance with the 50.54(f) letter (Reference
: 1) and following the guidance in theSPID (Reference 3), a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) was completed using the recently developed Central and Eastern United States Seismic SourceCharacterization (CEUS-SSC) for Nuclear Facilities (Reference
: 5) together with theupdated EPRI Ground-Motion Model (GMM) for the CEUS (Reference 6). For thePSHA, 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 400miles (640 km) around McGuire were included.
This distance exceeds the 200 mile (320kin) recommendation contained in NRC Reg. Guide 1.208 (Reference
: 7) and waschosen for completeness.
Background sources included in this site analysis are thefollowing:
: 1. Atlantic Highly Extended Crust (AHEX)2. Extended Continental Crust-Atlantic Margin (ECCAM)3. Extended Continental Crust-Gulf Coast (ECCGC)4. Illinois Basin Extended Basement (IBEB)5. Mesozoic and younger extended prior -narrow (MESE-N)6. Mesozoic and younger extended prior -wide (MESE-W)7. Midcontinent-Craton alternative A (MIDCA)8. Midcontinent-Craton alternative B (MIDCB)9. Midcontinent-Craton alternative C (MIDCC)10. Midcontinent-Craton alternative D (MIDCD)11. Non-Mesozoic and younger extended prior -narrow (NMESE-N)
: 12. Non-Mesozoic and younger extended prior -wide (NMESE-W)
: 13. Paleozoic Extended Crust narrow (PEZN)14. Paleozoic Extended Crust wide (PEZW)15. Reelfoot Rift (RR)16. Reelfoot Rift including the Rough Creek Graben (RR-RCG)17. Study region (STUDYR)For sources of large magnitude earthquakes, designated as Repeated Large Magnitude Earthquake (RLME) sources in CEUS-SSC (Reference 5), the following sources liewithin 621 miles (1,000 km) of the site and were included in the analysis:
: 1. Charleston
: 2. Commerce3. Eastern Rift Margin Fault northern segment (ERM-N)4. Eastern Rift Margin Fault southern segment (ERM-S)5. Marianna6. New Madrid Fault System (NMFS)7. Wabash ValleyMcGuire Nuclear Station 5Report Number: DUKCORP042-PR-002 For each of the above background and RLME sources, the mid-continent version of theupdated CEUS EPRI GMM (Reference
: 6) was used.2.2.2 Base Rock Seismic Hazard CurvesConsistent with the SPID (Reference 3), base rock seismic hazard curves are notprovided as the site amplification approach referred to as Method 3 fromNUREG/CR-6728 (Reference
: 16) has been used. Seismic hazard curves are shownbelow in Section 2.3.7 at the SSE control point elevation (discussed below in Section3.2).2.3 SITE RESPONSE EVALUATION Following the guidance contained in Seismic Enclosure 1 of the 50.54(f) letter(Reference
: 1) and in the SPID (Reference
: 3) for nuclear power plant sites that are notfounded on hard rock (considered as having a shear-wave velocity of at least 9285 fps(2.83 km/sec),
or 9200 fps as approximated in the SPID (Reference 3)), a site responseanalysis was performed for McGuire.2.3.1 Description of Subsurface MaterialMcGuire is located in the Piedmont Physiographic Province of North Carolina.
Thegeneral site conditions consist of residual soils overlying partially weathered rock gradinginto hard metamorphic igneous rocks (Reference 9). As depth into partially weathered rock increases the degree of weathering decreases as sound rock, defined as rockquality designation (RQD) of 75% or greater, is encountered.
McGuire consists of two units (1 and 2) with both reactor buildings supported on soundrock. Table 2.3.1-1 shows the single suite of geotechnical properties appropriate forUnits 1 and 2.McGuire Nuclear Station 6Report Number: DUKCORP042-PR-002 Table 2.3.1-1 Summary of site geotechnical profile for McGuire (Reference 9)Depth SShear-wave Compressional eVelocity Wave Velocity Poisson's Range(f)
Description (pcf) Veoct Wave ratio__ft._______(fps) fs0-4 Stiff Sandy 105 800 1400 0.26Micaceous SiltStiff to Very Stiff4-10 Sandy Micaceous 105 1220 1900 0.15SiltFirm to Stiff10-26 Micacto Silt 105 1300 2500 0.50Micaceous Silt26-31 Very Dense Fine 135 1600 2950 0.50SandPartially Weathered 31-41 Rock and Very Soft 150 3250 5500 0.23GraniteVery Soft to41-50 Moderately Hard 172 4750 8900 0.30Diorite RQD = 15%to 80%Hard Diorite RQD =50-56.5 80% 172 7200 13400 0.3080%56.5-64(2)
See Note 2 172 7200 13400 0.3064+ See Note 2 172 9200 17212 0.30(1) Depth begins at Yard Grade Elevation 760 ft. This is the "Ground Surface Elevation".
(2) Note: Boring H-70 terminated at El. 703.4 ft. or 56.5 ft. below Yard Grade. Velocities beyond this depthare not confirmed by tests. Vs = 7,200 fps from 56.5 ft. -64 ft. is assumed from test at 54.5 ft. Vs = 9,200fps beginning at 64 ft. below Yard Grade is extrapolated from Measurements at 45.5 ft. and 54.5 ft. belowYard Grade.(3) The control point elevation is taken to be 43.5 ft. below the Yard Grade Elevation.
The following description of the general geology at the site is taken directly from AMECData for Site Amplifications (Reference 9):"The four major rock types appearing at the site are dark green meta-gabbro, light gray fine to medium grained granite, black and white fine grained diorite,and black and white coarse grained diorite.
The bedrock is generally covered bya soil profile that developed in place from weathering of the rock over geologictime. The general soil profile is typical of residual soils produced by weathering of crystalline rock. The profile shows clayey surface soils grading with depth intosandy micaceous silt (or in some locations micaceous silty sand). The soils areof low to medium plasticity and are primarily ML, MH and some SMclassifications in the United Soils Classification System. With increasing depth,the profile transitions to "partially weathered rock" having at least 100 blows perfoot standard penetration resistance.
The degree of weathering becomes less asthe sound rock is approached.
Sound rock has a rock quality designation (RQD)of 75 percent or more."McGuire Nuclear Station 7Report Number: DUKCORP042-PR-002 2.3.2 Development of Base Case Profiles and Nonlinear Material Properties Table 2.3.2-1 is not used. Table 2.3.1-1 shows the recommended shear-wave velocities and unit weights verses depth for the best estimate single profile accommodating Unit 1and Unit 2. In Table 2.3.1-1 depths begin at El. 760 ft. and the Deepest Foundation Elevation (SSE control point) was taken at El. 716.5 ft. El. 716.5 ft. reflects the top of thebase of the mat foundation of the reactor buildings.
Based on Table 2.3.1-1 and theadopted location of the SSE control point at a depth of 43.5 ft. (13.2 m), the profileconsists of 20.5 ft. (6.2 m) of firm rock overlying hard metamorphic basement rock.Shear-wave velocities for the materials below the bottom of the mat foundation to adepth of 56.5 ft. (17.2 m) were based on downhole measurements (Reference 9). Forthe material below a depth of 56.5 ft. (17.2 m), shear-wave velocities were based onextrapolations of measurements made in the "sound rock" with the recommended profilereaching hard reference rock conditions at an assumed depth of 64 ft. (19.5 m).Based on the specified shear-wave velocities reflecting a mixture of predominately measured values as well as assumed values, and considering the recommended shear-wave velocities follow the expected trend of increasing with depth, a scale factor of 1.25was adopted to reflect upper and lower range base-cases.
The scale factor of 1.25reflects a Orpln of about 0.2 based on the SPID (Reference
: 3) 10th and g0th fractiles whichimplies a 1.28 scale factor on a,.Using the shear-wave velocities specified in Table 2.3.1-1, three base-profiles weredeveloped using the scale factor of 1.25. The specified shear-wave velocities weretaken as the mean or best estimate base-case profile (P1) with lower and upper rangebase-cases profiles P2 and P3 respectively.
The three base-case profiles P1, P2, andP3, have a mean depth below the SSE control point at El. 716.5 ft. of 20.5 ft. (6.2 m) tohard reference rock, randomized
+/- 4 ft. (+/- 1.2 m). The base-case profiles (P1, P2, andP3) are shown in Figure 2.3.2-1 and listed in Table 2.3.2-2.
The depth randomization reflects
+/- 20% of the depth and was included to provide a realistic broadening of thefundamental resonance rather than reflect actual random variations to basement shear-wave velocities across a footprint.
McGuire Nuclear Station 8Report Number: DUKCORP042-PR-002 Vs profiles for McGuire SiteVs (ft/sec)4000 5000 60000 1000 2000 30007000 8000 9000 10000010203010 -Profile 1-Profile 2--.Profile 3Figure 2.3.2-1 Shear-wave velocity profiles for the McGuire siteTable 2.3.2-2 Layer thicknesses, depths, and shear-wave velocities (V,) for three profiles, 0 4750 0 3800 1 0 59376.5 6.5 4750 6.5 6.5 3800 6.5 6.5 59376.5 13.0 7200 6.5 13.0 5760 6.5 13.0 90007.0 20.0 7200 7.0 20.0 5760 7.0 20.0 90000.5 20.5 7200 0.5 20.5 5760 0.5 20.5 90003280.8 3301.3 9285 3280.8 3301.3 9285 3280.8 3301.3 92852.3.2.1 Shear Modulus and Damping CurvesNo site-specific nonlinear dynamic material properties were determined for the firm rockmaterials in the initial siting of McGuire.
The rock material over the upper 20.5 ft. (6.2 m)was assumed to have behavior that could be modeled as either linear or nonlinear.
Torepresent this potential for either case in the upper 20.5 ft. (6.2 m) of firm rock at theMcGuire site, two sets of shear modulus reduction and hysteretic damping curves wereused. Consistent with the SPID (Reference 3), the EPRI rock curves (model M1) wereconsidered to be appropriate to represent the upper range nonlinearity likely in thematerials at this site and linear analyses (model M2) was assumed to represent anequally plausible alternative rock response across loading level. For the linear analyses, the low strain damping from the EPRI rock curves was used as the constant dampingvalues in the upper 20.5 ft. (6.2 m).McGuire Nuclear Station 9Report Number: DUKCORP042-PR-002 2.3.2.2 KappaFor the McGuire profile of about 20.5 ft. (6.2 m) of firm rock over hard reference rock, thekappa value of 0.006s for hard rock (Reference
: 3) dominates profile damping.
The 20.5ft. (6.2 m) of firm rock, based on the low strain damping from the EPRI rock G/Gmax andhysteretic damping curves, reflects a contribution of only about 0.0003s (Table 2.3.2-3).
As a result, the dominant epistemic uncertainty in low strain kappa was assumed to beincorporated in the reference rock hazard.Table 2.3.2-3 Kappa values and weights used for site response analysesVelocity Profile Kappa (s) WeightsP1 0.0062 0.4P2 0.0063 0.3P3 0.0062 0.3G/Gmax and Hysteretic Damping CurvesM1 0.5M2 0.52.3.3 Randomization of Base Case ProfilesTo account for the aleatory variability in dynamic material properties that is expected tooccur across a site at the scale of a typical nuclear facility, variability in the assumedshear-wave velocity profiles has been incorporated in the site response calculations.
For the McGuire site, random shear-wave velocity profiles were developed from thebase case profiles shown in Figure 2.3.2-1.
Thirty random velocity profiles weregenerated 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 a natural logstandard deviation of 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 themedian value in each layer was assumed for the limits on random velocity fluctuations.
2.3.4 Input SpectraConsistent with the guidance in Appendix B of the SPID (Reference 3), input Fourieramplitude spectra were defined for a single representative earthquake magnitude (M 6.5) using two different assumptions regarding the shape of the seismic sourcespectrum (single-corner and double-corner).
A range of 11 different input amplitudes (median peak ground accelerations (PGA) ranging from 0.01g to 1.5g) was used in thesite response analyses.
The characteristics of the seismic source and upper crustalattenuation properties assumed for the analysis of the McGuire site were the same asthose identified in Tables B-4, B-5, B-6 and B-7 of the SPID (Reference
: 3) asappropriate for typical CEUS sites.2.3.5 Methodology To perform the site response analyses for the McGuire site, a random vibration theory(RVT) approach was employed.
This process utilizes a simple, efficient approach forcomputing site-specific amplification functions and is consistent with existing NRCguidance and the SPID (Reference 3). The guidance contained in Appendix B of theMcGuire Nuclear Station 10Report Number: DUKCORP042-PR-002 SPID (Reference
: 3) on incorporating epistemic uncertainty in shear-wave velocities, kappa, nonlinear dynamic properties and source spectra for plants with limited at-siteinformation was followed for the McGuire site.2.3.6 Amplification Functions The results of the site response analysis consist of amplification factors (5% of criticaldamping pseudo absolute response spectra) which describe the amplification (or de-amplification) of hard reference rock motion as a function of frequency and inputreference rock amplitude.
The amplification factors are represented in terms of amedian amplification value and an associated standard deviation (sigma) for eachoscillator frequency and input rock amplitude.
Consistent with the SPID (Reference
: 3) aminimum 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 themedian reference (hard rock) peak acceleration (0.01g to 1.50g) for profile P1 and EPRIrock G/Gmax and hysteretic damping curves (model M1). The variability in theamplification factors results from variability in shear-wave
: velocity, depth to hard rock,and modulus reduction and hysteretic damping curves. To illustrate the effects ofnonlinearity at the McGuire firm rock site, Figure 2.3.6-2 shows the corresponding amplification factors developed with linear site response analyses (model M2). Betweenthe linear and nonlinear (equivalent-linear)
: analyses, Figure 2.3.6-1 and Figure 2.3.6-2show only a minor difference across structural frequency as well as loading level.Tabulated values of the amplification factors are provided in Appendix A.McGuire Nuclear Station 11Report Number: DUKCORP042-PR-002 CCCUM~~0-C-ECEINPUT MOTION 0.01GINPUT MOTION 0.LUG, i l~,, k # ,, .i , ,1= -i -.~l , .E l L,, --, , , j,lINPUT NOTION 0.05GINPUT MOTION 0.20GINPUT NOTION 0.40CINPUT MOTION 0.30G10 210 21o -1  L o0  10 1Frequency (Hz)10 -110 0 10 1Frequency (Hz)10 2PMPLIFICflTION,
[CGUIRE, MiPIK1MI 6.5, 1 CORNER: PRGE 1 OF 2Figure 2.3.6-1 Example suite of amplification factors (5% of critical damping pseudoabsolute acceleration spectra) developed for the mean base-case profile (P1), EPRI rockmodulus reduction and hysteretic damping curves (model Ml), and base-case kappa(Ki) at eleven loading levels of hard rock median peak acceleration values from 0.01g to1.50g. M 6.5 and single-corner source model (Reference 3)McGuire Nuclear Station 12Report Number: DUKCORP042-PR-002 CLF9C-I0-4-)(aC-1C-)CDI PU T MO T I O N 0. 0 1G--CINPUT MOTION OLOG "CINPUT MtOTION 0.30GI ¢-nm.9-INPU IT l I I I III1l I II II1INPUT NOTICN 'J.05G)-INPU I 0.20G* IIIII ILIIIIl-MOTIIY' 0.20G.2.*oINPUT NIOTION 0.40G10 -1 LO 010 110 210 -110 0 10Frequency C(Hz)10 2Frequency (Hz)AMPLIFICATION,
: NCGUIRE, NiPIKIM 6.5, 1 CORNER: PAGE 1 OF 2Figure 2.3.6-1 continued McGuire Nuclear StationReport Number: DUKCORP042-PR-002 13 C -09C09UCC0 `EccI I INPUT I I I 1 I IIII1INPUT 0.01G0T INPUT MOTION 0.05G0 1 1 -I -, , ----I .--- I l ~ l -----I ---l- -l 1 1 11INPUT MOTION 0.10G-'"- vr .C000=0RJT OT------02 INPUT MOTION 0.30G10 2 i0 -17UT MOTION 0.40Gjo -i to 0to I10 0 10 1Frequency (Hz)10 2Frequency (Hz)ArMPLIFICATION,
: MCGUIRE, MEPIKIN 6.5, 1 CORNER: PAGE I OF 2Figure 2.3.6-2 Example suite of amplification factors (5% of critical damping pseudoabsolute acceleration spectra) developed for the mean base-case profile (P1), linear siteresponse (model M2), and base-case kappa (K1) at eleven loading levels of hard rockmedian peak acceleration values from 0.01g to 1.50g. M 6.5 and single-corner sourcemodel (Reference 3)McGuire Nuclear Station 14Report Number: DUKCORP042-PR-002 C)~0CC0INPUT MOTION 0.50C0INPUT NOTION 1.00GINPUT MOTION 1.506INPUT MOTION 0.75GINPUT MOTION 2.25G10 -1 tO 0 10Frequency 1(Hz)1O 2AMPLIFICATION,
: MCGUIRE, M2P1KIM 6.5, 1 CORNER: PAGE 2 OF 2Figure 2.3.6-2 continued McGuire Nuclear StationReport Number: DUKCORP042-PR-002 15 2.3.7 Control Point Seismic Hazard CurvesThe procedure to develop probabilistic site-specific control point hazard curves used inthe present analysis follows the methodology described in Section B-6.0 of the SPID(Reference 3). This procedure (referred to as Method 3 from NUREG/CR-6728 (Reference 16)) computes a site-specific control point hazard curve for a broad range ofspectral accelerations given the site-specific bedrock hazard curve and site-specific estimates of soil or soft-rock response and associated uncertainties.
This process isrepeated for each of the seven spectral frequencies for which ground motion equations are available.
The dynamic response of the materials below the control point wasrepresented by the frequency-and amplitude-dependent amplification functions (median values and standard deviations) developed and described in the previoussection.
The resulting control point mean hazard curves for McGuire are shown inFigure 2.3.7-1 for the seven spectral frequencies for which ground motion equations aredefined.
Tabulated values of mean and fractile seismic hazard curves and siteresponse amplification functions are provided in Appendix A.Total Mean Soil Hazard by Spectral Frequency at McGuireS 1E --- -i .......aJ -25 Hz0)G-10 Hz5Hz-PGAUGD-2.5 HWD -1 Hz1u -0.5 Hzr- 1E-6 -_ _1E-70.01 0.1 1 10Spectral 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 McGuire (5% of critical damping)McGuire Nuclear Station 16Report Number: DUKCORP042-PR-002 2.4 CONTROL POINT RESPONSE SPECTRAThe control point mean hazard curves described above have been used to developuniform hazard response spectra (UHRS) and the GMRS. The UHRS were obtainedthrough linear interpolation in log-log space to estimate the spectral acceleration at eachspectral frequency for the 1 E-4 and 1 E-5 per year hazard levels. The 1 E-4 and 1 E-5UHRS along with a design factor (DF) are used to compute the GMRS at the controlpoint using the criteria in NRC Reg. Guide 1.208 (Reference 7). Figure 2.4-1 shows thecontrol point UHRS and GMRS. Table 2.4-1 shows the UHRS and GMRS spectralaccelerations for each of the seven frequencies.
Mean Soil UHRS and GMRS at McGuire1.51.251-o 14..u 0.75U0.5C.0.250.-1E-5 UHRS1GMRS-1E-4 UHRS1000.11 10Spectral frequency, HzFigure 2.4-1 Plots of 1 E-4 and 1 E-5 uniform hazard spectra and GMRS at control pointfor McGuire (5% of critical damping response spectra)McGuire Nuclear Station 17Report Number: DUKCORP042-PR-002 Table 2.4-1 UHRS and GMRS at control point for McGuire (5% of critical dampingrespo se spectra)Freg (Hz) 1E-4 UHRS (g) 1E-5 UHRS (g) GMRS (g)100 1.92E-01 6.48E-01 3.05E-0190 1.95E-01 6.60E-01 3.10E-0180 2.01 E-01 6.86E-01 3.22E-0170 2.16E-01 7.50E-01 3.51E-0160 2.56E-01 9.10E-01 4.24E-0150 3.37E-01 1.22E+00 5.65E-0140 4.03E-01 1.44E+00 6.70E-0135 4.11E-01 1.45E+00 6.76E-0130 4.06E-01 1.41 E+00 6.60E-0125 3.93E-01 1.34E+00 6.29E-0120 3.84E-01 1.28E+00 6.03E-0115 3.65E-01 1.18E+00 5.59E-0112.5 3.49E-01 1.11E+00 5.28E-0110 3.26E-01 1.02E+00 4.86E-019 3.09E-01 9.50E-01 4.55E-018 2.90E-01 8.75E-01 4.21 E-017 2.68E-01 7.96E-01 3.84E-016 2.45E-01 7.11E-01 3.44E-015 2.17E-01 6.16E-01 3.OOE-014 1.80E-01 4.91E-01 2.41E-013.5 1.59E-01 4.24E-01 2.09E-013 1.37E-01 3.58E-01 1.77E-012.5 1.14E-01 2.88E-01 1.43E-012 1.05E-01 2.58E-01 1.29E-011.5 8.66E-02 2.06E-01 1.04E-011.25 7.49E-02 1.75E-01 8.86E-021 6.47E-02 1.47E-01 7.49E-020.9 6.25E-02 1.42E-01 7.24E-020.8 6.05E-02 1.38E-01 7.OOE-020.7 5.77E-02 1.31 E-01 6.69E-020.6 5.35E-02 1.22E-01 6.20E-020.5 4.70E-02 1.07E-01 5.44E-020.4 3.76E-02 8.55E-02 4.35E-020.35 3.29E-02 7.48E-02 3.81E-020.3 2.82E-02 6.41 E-02 3.26E-020.25 2.35E-02 5.35E-02 2.72E-020.2 1.88E-02 4.28E-02 2.18E-020.15 1.41E-02 3.21E-02 1.63E-020.125 1.1 7E-02 2.67E-02 1.36E-020.1 9.39E-03 2.14E-02 1.09E-02McGuire Nuclear StationReport Number: DUKCORP042-PR-002 18 3Plant Design Basis Ground MotionThe current licensing basis SSE is based on an evaluation of the maximum earthquake potential considering regional and local geology and seismic history (Reference 10,Former Appendix 2E). Historical records indicate that the maximum earthquake intensity experienced at the site was the Charleston earthquake of August 31, 1886 with anestimated site surface intensity between VI and VII MM (Reference 10, Former Appendix2E, Section 4.1). Since there is an absence of geologic structure that can be related toearthquakes, it is necessary to presume that the observed epicentral intensities ofhistorical earthquakes in the region could occur anywhere within the region or even in theimmediate vicinity of the site (Reference 10, Former Appendix 2E, Section 4.2).3.1 SSE DESCRIPTION OF SPECTRAL SHAPEThe McGuire SSE is defined in terms of a PGA and a design response spectrum shape.Considering a site design intensity between VII and VIII (7.5), the maximum horizontal ground acceleration is defined with 15% of gravity (0.15g) as the anchor point for theSSE (Reference 10, Section 2.5). The site design response spectrum for the McGuireSSE is based on a Newmark-type spectral shape (Reference 10, Former Appendix 2E,Section 4.4).For the purposes of NTTF 2.1: Seismic screening, the spectral acceleration values forthe McGuire horizontal SSE (5% of critical damping) are shown as a function offrequency in Table 3.1-1 and plotted in Figure 3.1-1. The SSE acceleration values arebased on data from Former Appendix 2E Figure 2E-4 of the McGuire Updated FinalSafety Analysis Report (UFSAR) (Reference 10).Table 3.1-1 Horizontal SSE for McGuire (5% of critical dampin9 response spectrum)
Frequency (Hz) I Spectral Acceleration (g)0.33 0.062 0.366 0.3635/PGA 0.15McGuire Nuclear StationReport Number: DUKCORP042-PR-002 19 Horizontal SSE for McGuire0.500.450.400.35.20.300.25"F 0.20L-U0.150.100.050.000.11 10Spectral frequency, Hz100Figure 3.1-1 Horizontal SSE for McGuire (5% of critical damping response spectrum) 3.2 CONTROL POINT ELEVATION The McGuire UFSAR defines the SSE control point at the top of sound rock (Reference 10, Section 3.7). Since the elevation at the top of sound rock varies throughout the site(Reference 9, page 8) and all major Category 1 structures are founded on sound rock(Reference 10, Section 3.7), the SSE control point elevation is taken to be at EL. 716.5,which is at the base of the mat foundation of the Reactor Buildings.
This definition of thecontrol point is consistent with the approach described in the SPID (Reference 3, Section2.4.2).McGuire Nuclear Station 20Report Number: DUKCORP042-PR-002 4Screening Evaluation In accordance with the SPID, Section 3 (Reference 3), a screening evaluation wasperformed for McGuire as described below.4.1 RISK EVALUATION SCREENING (1 TO 10 Hz)In the 1 to 10 Hz part of the response
: spectrum, the GMRS exceeds the SSE forMcGuire.
Therefore, McGuire screens in for a risk evaluation.
4.2 HIGH FREQUENCY SCREENING
(> 10 Hz)Above 10 Hz, the GMRS exceeds the SSE for McGuire.
The high frequency exceedances can be addressed in the risk evaluation discussed in Section 4.1 above.4.3 SPENT FUEL POOL EVALUATION SCREENING (1 TO 10 Hz)In the 1 to 10 Hz part of the response
: spectrum, the GMRS exceeds the SSE forMcGuire.
Therefore, McGuire screens in for a spent fuel pool integrity evaluation.
McGuire Nuclear Station 21Report Number: DUKCORP042-PR-002 5Interim Actions and Assessments As described in Section 4, the GMRS developed in response to the NTTF 2.1: Seismicportion of the 10 CFR 50.54(f)
Request for Information dated March 12, 2012 (Reference
: 1) exceeds the design basis SSE. The NRC 50.54(f) letter (Reference
: 1) requests:
"interim evaluation and actions taken or planned to address the higher seismic hazardrelative to the design basis, as appropriate, prior to completion of the risk evaluation."
These evaluations and actions are discussed below.Consistent with NRC letter dated February 20, 2014 (Reference 17), the seismic hazardreevaluations presented herein are distinct from the current design and licensing basesof McGuire.
Therefore, the results do not call into question the operability or functionality of SSCs and are not reportable pursuant to 10 CFR 50.72, "Immediate notification requirements for operating nuclear power reactors" (Reference 2, Section 50.72) and 10CFR 50.73, "Licensee event report system" (Reference 2, Section 50.73).5.1 EXPEDITED SEISMIC EVALUATION PROGRAMAn expedited seismic evaluation process (ESEP) is being performed at McGuire inaccordance with the methodology in EPRI 3002000704 (Reference
: 4) as proposed in aletter to the NRC dated April 9, 2013 (Reference
: 11) and agreed to by the NRC in aletter dated May 7, 2013 (Reference 12). Duke plans to submit a report on the ESEP tothe NRC in December 2014 (Reference 15), in accordance with the schedule in theNuclear Energy Institute (NEI) April 9, 2013 letter to the NRC (Reference 11).5.2 SEISMIC RISK ESTIMATES The NRC letter (Reference
: 17) also requests that licensees provide an interimevaluation or actions to address the higher seismic hazard relative to the design basiswhile the expedited approach and risk evaluations are conducted.
In response to thatrequest, the NEI letter dated March 12, 2014 (Reference
: 14) provides seismic coredamage risk estimates using the updated seismic hazards for the operating nuclearplants in the CEUS. These risk estimates continue to support the following conclusions of the NRC GI-199 Safety/Risk Assessment (Reference 13):"Overall seismic core damage risk estimates are consistent with the Commission's Safety Goal Policy Statement because they are within the subsidiary objective of104/year for core damage frequency.
The GI-1 99 Safety/Risk Assessment, based inpart on information from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's)Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) program, indicates that noconcern exists regarding adequate protection and that the current seismic design ofoperating reactors provides a safety margin to withstand potential earthquakes exceeding the original design basis."McGuire is included in the March 12, 2014 risk estimates (Reference 14). Using themethodology described in the NEI letter (Reference 14), the seismic core damage riskMcGuire Nuclear Station 22Report Number: DUKCORP042-PR-002 estimates for all plants were shown to be below 1 E-4/year; thus, the above conclusions apply.5.3 INDIVIDUAL PLANT EXAMINATION OF EXTERNAL EVENTSAn evaluation of beyond-design-basis ground motions was performed for McGuire aspart of the IPEEE program.
The SPRA methodology was utilized to perform the IPEEEseismic evaluation for McGuire (Reference 21). The results of the SPRA determined theSCDF for McGuire to be less than the Commission's Safety Goal subsidiary objective of1E-4/year (References 22 and 13). The McGuire IPEEE seismic evaluation (Reference
: 21) concluded that there are no fundamental weaknesses or vulnerabilities with regardto severe accident risk, including
: seismic, and confirmed that the plant poses no unduerisk to the public health and safety. Additionally, improvements were made to the plantbased on the McGuire IPEEE seismic evaluation, as confirmed in the NTTF 2.3 seismicwalkdown report (Reference 19), to enhance the McGuire seismic margin.5.4 WALKDOWNS TO ADDRESS NRC FUKUSHIMA NTTF RECOMMENDATION 2.3Walkdowns have been completed for McGuire in accordance with the EPRI seismicwalkdown guidance (Reference 18); including inaccessible items (References 19 and20). Potentially adverse seismic conditions (PASC) found were entered into thecorrective action program (CAP) for resolution.
None of the PASC items challenged operability of the plant. There were no vulnerabilities identified under IPEEE, however,previously identified IPEEE enhancements were reviewed and found to be complete.
Duke confirmed through the walkdowns that the existing monitoring and maintenance procedures keep the plant consistent with the licensing basis (References 19 and 20).McGuire Nuclear Station 23Report Number: DUKCORP042-PR-002 6Conclusions In accordance with the 50.54(f) letter (Reference 1), a seismic hazard and screening evaluation was performed for McGuire.
A GMRS was developed solely for the purposeof screening for additional evaluations in accordance with the SPID (Reference 3).Based on the results of the screening evaluation, McGuire screens in for a riskevaluation and a spent fuel pool integrity evaluation.
McGuire Nuclear Station 24Report Number: DUKCORP042-PR-002 7References
: 1. NRC (E. Leeds and M. Johnson)
Letter to All Power Reactor Licensees et al.,Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f)
Regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3 of the Near-Term TaskForce Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi
: Accident, dated March 12,2012, ADAMS Accession No. ML12053A340.
: 2. Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 50.3. EPRI 1025287, Seismic Evaluation Guidance:
Screening, Prioritization andImplementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term TaskForce Recommendation 2.1: Seismic, Palo Alto, CA, February 2013.4. EPRI 3002000704, Seismic Evaluation Guidance:
Augmented Approach for theResolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic,Palo Alto, CA, May 2013.5. EPRI 1021097 (NUREG-2115),
Central and Eastern United States Seismic SourceCharacterization for Nuclear Facilities, Palo Alto, CA, January 2012.6. EPRI 3002000717, EPRI (2004, 2006) Ground-Motion Model (GMM) ReviewProject, Palo Alto, CA, June 2013.7. NRC Regulatory Guide 1.208, A performance-based approach to define the site-specific earthquake ground motion, 2007.8. EPRI RSM-092513-030, McGuire Seismic Hazard and Screening Report, datedOctober 31, 2013.9. AMEC Project No. 6234-12-0031, Data for Site Amplifications
-McGuire Phase 2EPRI Seismic Attenuation and GMRS Project, McGuire Nuclear Station, dated July26, 2012.10. Duke Energy Company, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units I and 2, Updated FinalSafety Analysis Report (UFSAR),
Revision 17.11. NEI (A. R. Pietrangelo)
Letter to the NRC, Proposed Path Forward for NTTFRecommendation 2.1: Seismic Reevaluations, dated April 9, 2013, ADAMSAccession No. ML13101A379.
: 12. NRC (E. Leeds) Letter to NEI (J. Pollock),
Electric Power Research Institute FinalDraft Report XXXOX , "Seismic Evaluation Guidance:
Augmented Approach for theResolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic,"as an Acceptable Alternative to the March 12, 2012, Information Request for SeismicReevaluations, dated May 7, 2013, ADAMS Accession No. ML13106A331.
McGuire Nuclear Station 25Report Number: DUKCORP042-PR-002
: 13. NRC Memorandum (from P. Hiland to B. Sheron),
"Safety/Risk Assessment Resultsfor Generic Issue 199, Implications of Updated Probabilistic Seismic HazardEstimates in Central and Eastern United States on Existing Plants,"
datedSeptember 2, 2010, ADAMS Accession No. ML1 00270582.
: 14. NEI (A. R. Pietrangelo)
Letter to the NRC, Seismic Risk Evaluations for Plants in theCentral and Eastern United States, dated March 12, 2014.15. Duke Energy (B. Waldrep)
Letter to the NRC, Duke Energy Response to NRCRequest for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f)
Regarding the SeismicAspects of recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insightsfrom the Fukushima Dai-ichi
: Accident, dated April 26, 2013, ADAMS Accession No.ML13121A061.
: 16. NUREG/CR-6728, Technical Basis for Revision of Regulatory Guidance on DesignGround Motions:
Hazard- and Risk- Consistent Ground Motion Spectra Guidelines, October 2001.17. NRC (E. Leeds) Letter to All Power Reactor Licensees et al., Supplemental Information Related to Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code ofFederal Regulations 50.54(f)
Regarding Seismic Hazard Reevaluations forRecommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from theFukushima Dai-ichi
: Accident, dated February 20, 2014, ADAMS Accession No.ML14030A046.
: 18. EPRI 1025286, Seismic Walkdown Guidance for Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3: Seismic, Palo Alto, CA, June 2012.19. Duke Energy Carolinas (S. Capps) Letter to the NRC, McGuire Nuclear Station(MNS), Units I and 2, Seismic Walkdown Information Requested by 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 TaskForce Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi
: Accident, dated March 12,2012, dated November 26, 2012, ADAMS Accession No. ML13003A339.
: 20. Duke Energy Carolinas (S. Capps) Letter to the NRC, McGuire Nuclear Station(MNS), Unit 1, Response to NRC Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 Codeof Federal Regulations 50.54(f)
Regarding Seismic Aspects of Recommendation 2.3of the Near Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichiAccident, dated June 20, 2013, ADAMS Accession No. ML13190A272.
: 21. Duke Power Company (T. McMeekin)
Letter to the NRC, McGuire Nuclear Station,Units I and 2, Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) Submittal, dated June 1, 1994.22. NRC (F. Rinaldi)
Letter to Duke Energy Corporation (H. Barron),
Review of McGuireNuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 -Individual Plant Examination of External EventsSubmittal (TAC Nos. M83639 and M83640),
dated February 16, 1999.McGuire Nuclear Station 26Report Number: DUKCORP042-PR-002 A.-Additional TablesTable A-la Mean and fractile seismic hazardcurves for PGA at McGuire, 5% of criticaldampingAMPS(a)MEAN0.050.160.500.840.950.0005 5.21 E-02 3.33E-02 4.43E-02 5.27E-02 6.OOE-02 6.54E-020.001 4.15E-02 2.35E-02 3.42E-02 4.19E-02 4.98E-02 5.50E-020.005 1.58E-02 7.03E-03 1.08E-02 1.53E-02 1.95E-02 2.92E-020.01 8.18E-03 3.28E-03 4.77E-03 7.45E-03 1.04E-02 1.90E-020.015 5.16E-03 1.82E-03 2.64E-03 4.43E-03 6.83E-03 1.38E-020.03 2.07E-03 5.20E-04 7.77E-04 1.49E-03 2.96E-03 7.13E-030.05 9.66E-04 1.79E-04 2.80E-04 5.91E-04 1.40E-03 3.90E-030.075 5.06E-04 7.66E-05 1.27E-04 2.80E-04 7.13E-04 2.19E-030.1 3.14E-04 4.37E-05 7.45E-05 1.72E-04 4.31E-04 1.38E-030.15 1.56E-04 2.07E-05 3.79E-05 8.85E-05 2.16E-04 6.64E-040.3 4.50E-05 5.66E-06 1.16E-05 2.84E-05 6.73E-05 1.57E-040.5 1.70E-05 1.98E-06 4.31E-06 1.13E-05 2.72E-05 5.27E-050.75 7.41E-06 7.77E-07 1.72E-06 4.90E-06 1.21 E-05 2.25E-051. 3.92E-06 3.63E-07 8.23E-07 2.53E-06 6.54E-06 1.21 E-051.5 1.46E-06 1.07E-07 2.53E-07 8.72E-07 2.46E-06 4.83E-063. 2.03E-07 7.55E-09 2.1OE-08 9.79E-08 3.23E-07 7.77E-075. 3.50E-08 7.34E-10 2.22E-09 1.32E-08 5.20E-08 1.55E-077.5 7.02E-09 1.77E-10 3.63E-10 2.13E-09 9.51E-09 3.47E-0810. 1.99E-09 1.16E-10 1.64E-10 5.66E-10 2.57E-09 1.05E-08McGuire Nuclear StationReport Number: DUKCORP042-PR-002 27 Table A-lb Mean and fractile seismic hazard curves for 25 Hz at McGuire, 5% of criticaldampingAMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.950.0005 5.68E-02 4.13E-02 5.05E-02 5.75E-02 6.36E-02 6.83E-020.001 4.82E-02 3.19E-02 4.13E-02 4.83E-02 5.58E-02 6.09E-020.005 2.39E-02 1.27E-02 1.79E-02 2.35E-02 2.88E-02 3.84E-020.01 1.48E-02 7.03E-03 1.02E-02 1.40E-02 1.82E-02 2.76E-020.015 1.05E-02 4.70E-03 6.83E-03 9.79E-03 1.32E-02 2.13E-020.03 5.21E-03 2.01E-03 2.92E-03 4.56E-03 6.83E-03 1.25E-020.05 2.78E-03 9.11E-04 1.32E-03 2.29E-03 3.84E-03 7.55E-030.075 1.57E-03 4.37E-04 6.45E-04 1.20E-03 2.25E-03 4.77E-030.1 1.02E-03 2.49E-04 3.79E-04 7.34E-04 1.49E-03 3.28E-030.15 5.30E-04 1.11E-04 1.74E-04 3.63E-04 7.77E-04 1.79E-030.3 1.62E-04 2.88E-05 5.05E-05 1.11E-04 2.35E-04 5.27E-040.5 6.51E-05 1.13E-05 2.13E-05 4.77E-05 9.93E-05 1.87E-040.75 3.1OE-05 5.20E-06 1.02E-05 2.35E-05 4.98E-05 8.23E-051. 1.80E-05 2.88E-06 5.83E-06 1.38E-05 2.92E-05 4.70E-051.5 7.99E-06 1.15E-06 2.46E-06 6.09E-06 1.32E-05 2.1OE-053. 1.65E-06 1.87E-07 4.13E-07 1.18E-06 2.80E-06 4.77E-065. 4.19E-07 3.47E-08 8.OOE-08 2.72E-07 7.13E-07 1.34E-067.5 1.21 E-07 7.23E-09 1.77E-08 7.03E-08 2.07E-07 4.31E-0710. 4.56E-08 2.10E-09 5.42E-09 2.39E-08 7.77E-08 1.74E-07Table A-ic Mean and fractile seismic hazard curves for 10 Hz at McGuire, 5% of criticaldampingAMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.950.0005 6.1OE-02 4.98E-02 5.42E-02 6.09E-02 6.73E-02 7.13E-020.001 5.36E-02 4.07E-02 4.70E-02 5.42E-02 6.OOE-02 6.45E-020.005 2.80E-02 1.67E-02 2.16E-02 2.80E-02 3.42E-02 3.95E-020.01 1.72E-02 9.11E-03 1.23E-02 1.69E-02 2.16E-02 2.72E-020.015 1.20E-02 6.OOE-03 8.12E-03 1.16E-02 1.53E-02 2.04E-020.03 5.65E-03 2.49E-03 3.37E-03 5.27E-03 7.45E-03 1.11E-020.05 2.85E-03 1.07E-03 1.51 E-03 2.49E-03 3.95E-03 6.36E-030.075 1.52E-03 4.90E-04 7.13E-04 1.25E-03 2.19E-03 3.79E-030.1 9.36E-04 2.64E-04 4.01 E-04 7.34E-04 1.38E-03 2.49E-030.15 4.49E-04 1.07E-04 1.69E-04 3.37E-04 6.73E-04 1.29E-030.3 1.18E-04 2.22E-05 3.95E-05 8.60E-05 1.82E-04 3.37E-040.5 4.29E-05 7.34E-06 1.42E-05 3.23E-05 6.83E-05 1.16E-040.75 1.89E-05 3.01E-06 6.OOE-06 1.44E-05 3.09E-05 5.05E-051. 1.04E-05 1.53E-06 3.14E-06 7.89E-06 1.72E-05 2.80E-051.5 4.20E-06 5.42E-07 1.16E-06 3.09E-06 7.03E-06 1.16E-053. 7.19E-07 6.93E-08 1.53E-07 4.83E-07 1.21 E-06 2.25E-065. 1.55E-07 1.05E-08 2.46E-08 9.24E-08 2.60E-07 5.42E-077.5 3.89E-08 1.87E-09 4.63E-09 2.04E-08 6.45E-08 1.51 E-0710. 1.32E-08 5.42E-10 1.32E-09 6.17E-09 2.19E-08 5.42E-08McGuire Nuclear StationReport Number: DUKCORP042-PR-002 28 Table A-id Mean and fractile seismic hazard curves for 5 Hz at McGuire, 5% of critical dampingAMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.950.0005 6.14E-02 4.98E-02 5.50E-02 6.17E-02 6.83E-02 7.23E-020.001 5.41 E-02 4.01 E-02 4.63E-02 5.42E-02 6.17E-02 6.64E-020.005 2.63E-02 1.46E-02 1.98E-02 2.60E-02 3.33E-02 3.73E-020.01 1.49E-02 7.45E-03 1.05E-02 1.46E-02 1.95E-02 2.29E-020.015 9.77E-03 4.63E-03 6.64E-03 9.51 E-03 1.31 E-02 1.57E-020.03 4.04E-03 1.69E-03 2.42E-03 3.79E-03 5.58E-03 7.45E-030.05 1.84E-03 6.54E-04 9.65E-04 1.64E-03 2.68E-03 3.84E-030.075 9.OOE-04 2.72E-04 4.19E-04 7.55E-04 1.36E-03 2.1OE-030.1 5.17E-04 1.40E-04 2.19E-04 4.19E-04 7.89E-04 1.29E-030.15 2.24E-04 5.20E-05 8.60E-05 1.72E-04 3.47E-04 5.91 E-040.3 4.95E-05 9.37E-06 1.72E-05 3.73E-05 7.89E-05 1.32E-040.5 1.60E-05 2.64E-06 5.12E-06 1.23E-05 2.64E-05 4.25E-050.75 6.41 E-06 9.11 E-07 1.90E-06 4.83E-06 1.07E-05 1.74E-051. 3.25E-06 4.13E-07 8.85E-07 2.35E-06 5.50E-06 9.11 E-061.5 1.17E-06 1.23E-07 2.72E-07 8.OOE-07 1.98E-06 3.52E-063. 1.61 E-07 9.93E-09 2.49E-08 9.24E-08 2.76E-07 5.58E-075. 2.93E-08 1.15E-09 3.05E-09 1.38E-08 4.98E-08 1.13E-077.5 6.39E-09 2.42E-10 5.27E-10 2.46E-09 1.05E-08 2.64E-0810. 1.98E-09 1.53E-10 2.07E-10 7.03E-10 3.09E-09 8.60E-09Table A-le Mean and fractile seismic hazard curves for 2.5 Hz at McGuire, 5% of criticaldampingAMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.950.0005 5.71 E-02 4.37E-02 4.90E-02 5.75E-02 6.45E-02 6.93E-020.001 4.67E-02 3.19E-02 3.79E-02 4.63E-02 5.58E-02 6.09E-020.005 1.70E-02 8.98E-03 1.20E-02 1.64E-02 2.22E-02 2.60E-020.01 8.25E-03 3.90E-03 5.35E-03 7.89E-03 1.11 E-02 1.38E-020.015 4.90E-03 2.10E-03 2.96E-03 4.56E-03 6.73E-03 8.85E-030.03 1.68E-03 5.58E-04 8.47E-04 1.49E-03 2.49E-03 3.52E-030.05 6.42E-04 1.72E-04 2.72E-04 5.20E-04 1.01 E-03 1.53E-030.075 2.69E-04 5.91 E-05 9.93E-05 2.04E-04 4.31 E-04 7.03E-040.1 1.38E-04 2.68E-05 4.63E-05 9.79E-05 2.22E-04 3.84E-040.15 5.11 E-05 8.47E-06 1.55E-05 3.47E-05 8.23E-05 1.46E-040.3 9.01 E-06 1.11 E-06 2.25E-06 5.91 E-06 1.49E-05 2.64E-050.5 2.54E-06 2.32E-07 5.27E-07 1.57E-06 4.31 E-06 8.OOE-060.75 9.16E-07 6.09E-08 1.53E-07 5.27E-07 1.60E-06 3.09E-061. 4.30E-07 2.16E-08 5.83E-08 2.29E-07 7.55E-07 1.53E-061.5 1.38E-07 4.37E-09 1.34E-08 6.26E-08 2.42E-07 5.27E-073. 1.50E-08 2.80E-10 7.77E-10 4.56E-09 2.46E-08 6.45E-085. 2.26E-09 1.25E-10 1.64E-10 5.42E-10 3.33E-09 1.02E-087.5 4.23E-10 9.24E-11 1.16E-10 1.72E-10 6.26E-10 1.98E-0910. 1.17E-10 9.11E-11 1.01E-10 1.53E-10 2.42E-10 6.17E-10McGuire Nuclear StationReport Number: DUKCORP042-PR-002 29 Table A-if Mean and fractile seismic hazard curves for 1 Hz at McGuire, 5% of critical dampingAMPS(g)MEAN0.050.160.500.840.950.0005 4.08E-02 2.32E-02 3.05E-02 4.19E-02 5.05E-02 5.58E-020.001 2.79E-02 1.40E-02 1.95E-02 2.84E-02 3.52E-02 4.13E-020.005 7.74E-03 3.14E-03 4.70E-03 7.34E-03 1.07E-02 1.36E-020.01 3.73E-03 1.11E-03 1.82E-03 3.33E-03 5.58E-03 7.55E-030.015 2.16E-03 5.12E-04 8.98E-04 1.84E-03 3.37E-03 4.90E-030.03 6.29E-04 9.79E-05 1.87E-04 4.70E-04 1.02E-03 1.74E-030.05 1.96E-04 2.25E-05 4.63E-05 1.27E-04 3.33E-04 6.17E-040.075 6.79E-05 6.45E-06 1.38E-05 3.90E-05 1.16E-04 2.25E-040.1 3.03E-05 2.57E-06 5.58E-06 1.62E-05 5.20E-05 1.02E-040.15 9.44E-06 6.93E-07 1.53E-06 4.63E-06 1.60E-05 3.28E-050.3 1.38E-06 6.36E-08 1.62E-07 6.OOE-07 2.29E-06 5.35E-060.5 3.70E-07 9.65E-09 2.88E-08 1.32E-07 5.91E-07 1.55E-060.75 1.29E-07 1.92E-09 6.54E-09 3.68E-08 2.01 E-07 5.75E-071. 5.91E-08 6.26E-10 2.13E-09 1.36E-08 8.72E-08 2.72E-071.5 1.83E-08 1.90E-10 4.56E-10 3.05E-09 2.42E-08 8.60E-083. 1.93E-09 1.01 E-10 1.49E-10 2.53E-10 1.92E-09 8.72E-095. 2.91E-10 9.11E-11 1.01E-10 1.53E-10 3.05E-10 1.29E-097.5 5.53E-11 9.11E-11 1.01E-10 1.53E-10 1.55E-10 3.05E-1010. 1.56E-11 9.11E-11 9.11E-11 1.53E-10 1.53E-10 1.69E-10Table A-lg Mean and fractile seismic hazard curves for 0.5 Hz at McGuire, 5% of criticaldampingAMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.950.0005 2.30E-02 1.31 E-02 1.77E-02 2.25E-02 2.84E-02 3.33E-020.001 1.44E-02 7.66E-03 1.02E-02 1.38E-02 1.84E-02 2.29E-020.005 4.17E-03 1.16E-03 1.95E-03 3.79E-03 6.45E-03 8.35E-030.01 1.97E-03 3.09E-04 6.17E-04 1.57E-03 3.33E-03 4.90E-030.015 1.10E-03 1.20E-04 2.60E-04 7.77E-04 1.92E-03 3.14E-030.03 2.94E-04 1.77E-05 4.25E-05 1.62E-04 5.12E-04 1.05E-030.05 8.60E-05 3.57E-06 8.85E-06 3.73E-05 1.49E-04 3.37E-040.075 2.83E-05 9.24E-07 2.35E-06 9.93E-06 4.83E-05 1.15E-040.1 1.22E-05 3.47E-07 9.24E-07 3.68E-06 2.07E-05 4.98E-050.15 3.61E-06 8.47E-08 2.35E-07 9.24E-07 5.75E-06 1.53E-050.3 4.78E-07 6.45E-09 1.98E-08 9.65E-08 6.45E-07 2.35E-060.5 1.22E-07 8.60E-10 2.84E-09 1.79E-08 1.42E-07 6.45E-070.75 4.25E-08 2.32E-10 6.17E-10 4.31 E-09 4.25E-08 2.25E-071. 1.98E-08 1.53E-10 2.57E-10 1.51 E-09 1.72E-08 1.04E-071.5 6.46E-09 1.04E-10 1.53E-10 3.79E-10 4.37E-09 3.23E-083. 7.73E-10 9.11E-11 1.01E-10 1.53E-10 3.95E-10 3.33E-095. 1.31E-10 9.11E-11 1.01E-10 1.53E-10 1.57E-10 5.50E-107.5 2.78E-11 9.11E-11 9.11E-11 1.53E-10 1.53E-10 1.92E-1010. 8.48E-12 9.11E-11 9.11E-11 1.53E-10 1.53E-10 1.53E-10McGuire Nuclear StationReport Number: DUKCORP042-PR-002 30 Table A- 2 Amplification functions for McGuire, 5% of critical dampingPGA Median Sigma 25 Hz Median Sigma 10 Hz Median Sigma 5 Hz Median SigmaAF ln(AF) An Sg(AF) AF ln(AF) AF In(AF)1.OOE-02 9.89E-01 1.29E-01 1.30E-02 1.OOE+00 1.27E-01 1.90E-02 1.03E+00 1.29E-01 2.09E-02 1.04E+00 1.32E-014.95E-02 1.02E+00 1.23E-01 1.02E-01 1.04E+00 1.28E-01 9.99E-02 1.04E+00 1.29E-01 8.24E-02 1.05E+00 1.31 E-019.64E-02 1.04E+00 1.22E-01 2.13E-01 1.05E+00 1.28E-01 1.85E-01 1.05E+00 1.29E-01 1.44E-01 1.05E+00 1.31 E-011.94E-01 1.05E+00 1.22E-01 4.43E-01 1.05E+00 1.28E-01 3.56E-01 1.05E+00 1.28E-01 2.65E-01 1.05E+00 1.31 E-012.92E-01 1.05E+00 1.22E-01 6.76E-01 1.05E+00 1.29E-01 5.23E-01 1.05E+00 1.28E-01 3.84E-01 1.05E+00 1.31 E-013.91 E-01 1.06E+00 1.23E-01 9.09E-01 1.05E+00 1.29E-01 6.90E-01 1.05E+00 1.28E-01 5.02E-01 1.05E+00 1.31 E-014.93E-01 1.06E+00 1.23E-01 1.15E+00 1.05E+00 1.30E-01 8.61E-01 1.05E+00 1.28E-01 6.22E-01 1.05E+00 1.31 E-017.41 E-01 1.06E+00 1.23E-01 1.73E+00 1.05E+00 1.31 E-01 1.27E+00 1.05E+00 1.28E-01 9.13E-01 1.05E+00 1.31 E-011.01 E+00 1.06E+00 1.24E-01 2.36E+00 1.05E+00 1.32E-01 1.72E+00 1.05E+00 1.28E-01 1.22E+00 1.05E+00 1.31 E-011.28E+00 1.06E+00 1.24E-01 3.01EE+00 1.06E+00 1.34E-01 2.17E+00 1.05E+00 1.29E-01 1.54E+00 1.05E+00 1.31 E-011.55E+00 1.07E+00 1.24E-01 3.63E+00 1.06E+00 1.35E-01 2.61E+00 1.05E+00 1.29E-01 1.85E+00 1.05E+00 1.31 E-012.5 HzMedianAFSigmaln(AF)1 HzMedianAFSigmaWn(AFR0.5 HzMedianAFSigmaWn(AF)2.18E-02 8.90E-01 1.23E-01 1.27E-02 1.02E+00 9.81E-02 8.25E-03 1.10E+00 2.04E-017.05E-02 8.91E-01 1.23E-01 3.43E-02 1.01 E+00 9.82E-02 1.96E-02 1.10E+00 2.02E-011.18E-01 8.92E-01 1.22E-01 5.51E-02 1.01 E+00 9.82E-02 3.02E-02 1.10E+00 2.01E-012.12E-01 8.93E-01 1.22E-01 9.63E-02 1.01 E+00 9.82E-02 5.11E-02 1.09E+00 2.OOE-013.04E-01 8.93E-01 1.22E-01 1.36E-01 1.01 E+00 9.83E-02 7.10E-02 1.09E+00 2.OOE-013.94E-01 8.93E-01 1.22E-01 1.75E-01 1.01 E+00 9.83E-02 9.06E-02 1.09E+00 2.OOE-014.86E-01 8.93E-01 1.22E-01 2.14E-01 1.01 E+00 9.83E-02 1.10E-01 1.09E+00 2.OOE-017.09E-01 8.93E-01 1.22E-01 3.1OE-01 1.01 E+00 9.83E-02 1.58E-01 1.09E+00 2.0OE-019.47E-01 8.94E-01 1.22E-01 4.12E-01 1.01 E+00 9.83E-02 2.09E-01 1.09E+00 2.OOE-011.19E+00 8.94E-01 1.22E-01 5.18E-01 1.01 E+00 9.83E-02 2.62E-01 1.09E+00 2.OOE-011.43E+00 8.94E-01 1.22E-01 6.19E-01 1.01E+00 9.84E-02 3.12E-01 1.09E+00 2.O0E-01McGuire Nuclear StationReport Number: DUKCORP042-PR-002 31 Tables A2-bl and A2-b2 are tabular versions of the typical amplification factors provided inFigures 2.3.6-1 and 2.3.6-2.
Values are provided for two input motion levels at approximately 1E-5 and 1E-5 mean annual frequency of exceedance.
These tables concentrate on thefrequency range of 0.5 Hz to 25 Hz, with values up to 100 Hz included, and a single value at0.1 Hz included for completeness.
These factors are unverified and are provided for information only. The figures should be considered the governing information.
McGuire Nuclear Station 32Report Number: DUKCORP042-PR-002 Table A2-bl. Median AFs and sigmas for Model 1, Profile 1, for 2 PGA levelsM1 P1 K1 Rock PGA=0.194 M1 P1 Kt PGA=0.741 Freq Soil SA Median Sigma Freq Soil SA Median Sigma(Hz) AF ln(AF) (Hz) AF In(AF)100.0 0.201 1.037 0.137 100.0 0.779 1.051 0.13887.1 0.208 1.043 0.136 87.1 0.810 1.059 0.13775.9 0.220 1.057 0.134 75.9 0.871 1.075 0.13466.1 0.246 1.082 0.136 66.1 0.997 1.104 0.13657.5 0.296 1.117 0.149 57.5 1.239 1.138 0.15150.1 0.369 1.158 0.166 50.1 1.565 1.178 0.16943.7 0.430 1.141 0.170 43.7 1.814 1.155 0.17438.0 0.460 1.109 0.163 38.0 1.911 1.122 0.16733.1 0.469 1.068 0.153 33.1 1.913 1.079 0.15828.8 0.468 1.065 0.146 28.8 1.874 1.073 0.14925.1 0.462 1.043 0.141 25.1 1.818 1.049 0.14421.9 0.454 1.074 0.139 21.9 1.754 1.080 0.14019.1 0.443 1.062 0.136 19.1 1.686 1.067 0.13816.6 0.430 1.072 0.135 16.6 1.612 1.077 0.13614.5 0.415 1.084 0.135 14.5 1.537 1.088 0.13612.6 0.399 1.069 0.137 12.6 1.458 1.072 0.13711.0 0.381 1.048 0.137 11.0 1.379 1.050 0.1389.5 0.364 1.046 0.135 9.5 1.302 1.048 0.1358.3 0.344 1.070 0.140 8.3 1.218 1.072 0.1407.2 0.327 1.086 0.135 7.2 1.147 1.087 0.1356.3 0.308 1.091 0.142 6.3 1.074 1.092 0.1425.5 0.287 1.062 0.143 5.5 0.992 1.063 0.1434.8 0.270 1.021 0.128 4.8 0.927 1.022 0.1284.2 0.251 0.980 0.138 4.2 0.857 0.981 0.1383.6 0.233 0.936 0.150 3.6 0.792 0.936 0.1493.2 0.217 0.924 0.154 3.2 0.732 0.925 0.1542.8 0.197 0.885 0.141 2.8 0.662 0.885 0.1412.4 0.184 0.896 0.122 2.4 0.615 0.896 0.1222.1 0.176 0.941 0.153 2.1 0.585 0.942 0.1531.8 0.157 0.939 0.144 1.8 0.520 0.940 0.1441.6 0.138 0.951 0.144 1.6 0.454 0.952 0.1441.4 0.124 0.996 0.175 1.4 0.407 0.995 0.1741.2 0.113 1.023 0.175 1.2 0.366 1.022 0.1741.0 0.101 1.021 0.124 1.0 0.328 1.020 0.1240.91 0.093 1.023 0.117 0.91 0.297 1.023 0.1170.79 0.085 1.034 0.136 0.79 0.269 1.033 0.1350.69 0.076 1.049 0.154 0.69 0.241 1.048 0.1540.60 0.068 1.064 0.173 0.60 0.211 1.063 0.1720.52 0.058 1.077 0.193 0.52 0.181 1.075 0.1920.46 0.049 1.083 0.206 0.46 0.151 1.082 0.2060.10 0.002 1.018 0.059 0.10 0.006 1.017 0.051McGuire Nuclear StationReport Number: DUKCORP042-PR-002 33 Table A2-b2. Median AFs and sigmas for Model 2, Profile 1, for 2 PGA levelsM2P1 K1 PGA=0.194 M2P1K1 PGA=0.741 Freq Soil SA Median Sigma Freq Soil SA Median Sigma(Hz) AF ln(AF) (Hz) AF ln(AF)100.0 0.201 1.038 0.138 100.0 0.778 1.051 0.13987.1 0.208 1.044 0.137 87.1 0.810 1.059 0.13875.9 0.220 1.057 0.135 75.9 0.872 1.076 0.13666.1 0.246 1.082 0.137 66.1 1.000 1.107 0.14157.5 0.297 1.118 0.152 57.5 1.245 1.143 0.15850.1 0.370 1.159 0.169 50.1 1.569 1.181 0.17543.7 0.430 1.142 0.172 43.7 1.813 1.155 0.17538.0 0.460 1.110 0.164 38.0 1.906 1.120 0.16633.1 0.469 1.068 0.154 33.1 1.907 1.075 0.15528.8 0.468 1.065 0.146 28.8 1.868 1.070 0.14725.1 0.462 1.043 0.141 25.1 1.813 1.046 0.14221.9 0.454 1.074 0.139 21.9 1.750 1.077 0.13919.1 0.443 1.062 0.136 19.1 1.682 1.065 0.13716.6 0.430 1.072 0.135 16.6 1.609 1.075 0.13514.5 0.415 1.084 0.135 14.5 1.535 1.087 0.13512.6 0.399 1.069 0.137 12.6 1.456 1.071 0.13711.0 0.381 1.048 0.137 11.0 1.378 1.049 0.1379.5 0.364 1.046 0.135 9.5 1.301 1.047 0.1358.3 0.343 1.070 0.140 8.3 1.217 1.071 0.1407.2 0.327 1.086 0.135 7.2 1.147 1.087 0.1356.3 0.308 1.091 0.142 6.3 1.074 1.092 0.1425.5 0.287 1.062 0.143 5.5 0.991 1.063 0.1424.8 0.270 1.021 0.128 4.8 0.927 1.022 0.1284.2 0.251 0.980 0.138 4.2 0.857 0.981 0.1383.6 0.233 0.936 0.150 3.6 0.792 0.936 0.1493.2 0.217 0.924 0.154 3.2 0.732 0.925 0.1542.8 0.197 0.885 0.141 2.8 0.662 0.885 0.1412.4 0.184 0.896 0.122 2.4 0.615 0.896 0.1222.1 0.176 0.941 0.153 2.1 0.585 0.941 0.1531.8 0.157 0.939 0.144 1.8 0.520 0.940 0.1441.6 0.138 0.951 0.144 1.6 0.454 0.952 0.1441.4 0.124 0.996 0.175 1.4 0.407 0.995 0.1741.2 0.113 1.023 0.175 1.2 0.366 1.022 0.1741.0 0.101 1.021 0.124 1.0 0.328 1.020 0.1240.91 0.093 1.023 0.117 0.91 0.297 1.023 0.1170.79 0.085 1.034 0.136 0.79 0.269 1.033 0.1350.69 0.076 1.049 0.154 0.69 0.241 1.048 0.1540.60 0.068 1.064 0.173 0.60 0.211 1.063 0.1720.52 0.058 1.077 0.193 0.52 0.181 1.075 0.1920.46 0.049 1.083 0.206 0.46 0.151 1.082 0.2060.10 0.002 1.018 0.059 0.10 0.006 1.017 0.051McGuire Nuclear StationReport Number: DUKCORP042-PR-002 34}}

Latest revision as of 09:13, 11 April 2019

Redirect to:

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML14098A421&oldid=1435662"