ML14090A441: 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 [[HNP-14-035, 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]]
| number = ML14090A441
| issue date = 03/27/2014
| title = Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 - 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 Recommendation
| author name = Kapopoulos E J
| author affiliation = Duke Energy Progress, Inc
| addressee name =
| addressee affiliation = NRC/Document Control Desk, NRC/NRR
| docket = 05000400
| license number =
| contact person =
| case reference number = HNP-14-035
| document type = Letter, Report, Miscellaneous
| page count = 36
| project =
| stage = RAI
}}
 
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:Ernest J. Kapopoulos, Jr.DUKE Vice President Harris Nuclear PlantENERGY. 5413 Shearon Harris RdNew Hill NC 27562-9300 919-362-2502 10 CFR 50.54(f)March 27, 2014Serial: HNP-14-035 ATTN: Document Control DeskU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555Duke Energy Progress, Inc. (Duke Energy)Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1Docket No. 50-400
 
==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(o Regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3, of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi
: Accident, dated March 12,2012, ADAMS Accession No. ML12053A340
: 2. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Report 1025287, Seismic Evaluation
: Guidance, Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic, ADAMS Accession No. ML12333A170
: 3. 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. ML13106A331
: 6. EPRI Final Report No. 3002000704, "Seismic Evaluation Guidance:
Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1:Seismic",
May 2013Ladies and Gentlemen:
On March 12, 2012, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff issued Reference 1 to allpower reactor licensees and holders of construction permits in active or deferred status.Acl D U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035 Page 2Enclosure 1, of Reference 1, requested each addressee located in the Central and EasternUnited States (CEUS) to submit a Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening Report within 1.5years from the date 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 by September 12, 2013, with the remaining seismic hazard and screening information submitted by March 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 attachment provides the Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening Report for ShearonHarris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, as directed by Section 4 of Reference 2 and in accordance with the schedule provided in Reference 4.Based on the results documented in the attachment, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant,Unit 1, screens in for only a High Frequency Confirmation per Section 3.2 of Reference 2 andscreens out of the Expedited Seismic Evaluation Process (ESEP) per Section 2.2 ofReference 6.There are no regulatory commitments associated with this letter.If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact Dave Corlett, Regulatory AffairsManager, at (919) 362-3137.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.Executed on March 27, 2014.Sincerely, Ernest J. Kapopoulos, Jr.
 
==Attachment:==
 
Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening Report, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant,Unit 1, Docket No. 50-400cc: Mr. J. D. Austin, NRC Sr. Resident Inspector, HNPMr. A. Hon, NRC Project Manager, HNPMr. V. M. McCree, NRC Regional Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Attachment Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening ReportShearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1Docket No. 50-400 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 1 of 33Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening ReportforShearon Harris Nuclear Plant (HNP) Unit 11.0 Introduction Following the accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant resulting from the March11, 2011, Great Tohoku Earthquake and subsequent
: tsunami, the NRC Commission established a Near Term Task Force (NTTF) to conduct a systematic review of NRC processes and regulations and to determine if the agency should make additional improvements to itsregulatory system. The NTTF developed a set of recommendations intended to clarify andstrengthen the regulatory framework for protection against natural phenomena.
Subsequently, the NRC issued a 50.54(f) letter on March 12, 2012 (Reference
: 1) that requests information toassure that these recommendations are addressed by all U.S. nuclear power plants. The50.54(f) letter requests that licensees and holders of construction permits under 10 CFR Part 50reevaluate 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, theresult is either no further risk evaluation or the performance of a seismic risk assessment.
Riskassessment approaches acceptable to the staff include a seismic probabilistic risk assessment (SPRA), or a seismic margin assessment (SMA). Based upon the risk assessment
: results, theNRC staff will determine whether additional regulatory actions are necessary.
This report provides the information requested in items (1) through (7) of the "Requested Information" section and Attachment 1 of the 50.54(f) letter pertaining to NTTFRecommendation 2.1 for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant (HNP) site, located in southwest Wake County and southeast Chatham County, North Carolina.
In providing this information, HNP followed the guidance provided in the Seismic Evaluation Guidance:
Screening, Prioritization, and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near- TermTask Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic (EPRI 1025287, 2013) (Reference 2). TheAugmented
: Approach, Seismic Evaluation Guidance:
Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic (EPRI 3002000704, 2013)(Reference 3), has been developed as the process for evaluating critical plant equipment as aninterim action to demonstrate additional plant safety margin, prior to performing the completeplant seismic risk evaluations.
The design response spectra used for all Seismic Category I structures,
: systems, andcomponents (SSCs), except dams and dikes, were developed in accordance with Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.60 (Reference 4). Those SSCs, including their foundations and supports, that aredesigned to remain functional in the event of a safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) are designated Seismic Category I and are listed in Table 3.2.1-1 of the HNP Updated Final Safety AnalysisReport (UFSAR) (Reference 5). The applicable codes, standards and specifications used in thedesign of seismic Category I SSCs are listed in Section 3.8.1 of the HNP UFSAR (Reference 5).
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 2 of 33In response to the 50.54(f) letter and following the guidance provided in the SPID (Reference 2),a seismic hazard reevaluation was performed.
For screening
: purposes, a Ground MotionResponse Spectrum (GMRS) was developed.
Based on the results of the screening evaluation, HNP screens in for only a High Frequency Confirmation.
2.0 Seismic Hazard Reevaluation The HNP site is located in southwest Wake County and southeast Chatham County, NorthCarolina.
The site is approximately 35 miles southwest of Raleigh, North Carolina and is locatednear the eastern edge of the Cape Fear River drainage basin. The site is underlain by gentlydipping rocks of the Upper Triassic Sanford formation.
The bedrock is mostly siltstone and fine-grained sandstone interbedded with subordinate shale, claystone, and conglomerate.
Bedsrange in thickness from less than an inch to a maximum of 20 ft. They interfinger and overlapinto compact masses with no structural weakness.
A minor fault uncovered in the plantexcavation trends nearly east-west across the site. The fault is a minor tensional normal faultwith downthrow on the south and the last movement was more than 150 million years ago.Since the Late Jurassic, the site area has been remarkably stable. The Triassic rocks have notbeen further faulted, and no faults offsetting strata younger than Miocene have been found inthe site region.The plant site lies in an aseismic area; and no earthquakes have been reported within 40 milesof the site. The original investigation of historical seismic activity in the region indicated that adesign intensity of VII (Modified Mercalli Scale) is adequately conservative for the site. HNPdetermined that the Intensity VII, with margin added, corresponds to peak ground acceleration of 0.150 g for the SSE.2. 1 Regional and Local GeologyRegional GeologyThe HNP site is located in the Deep River Triassic Basin, a trough-like topographic lowlandlocated mostly within the Piedmont Plateau Physiographic Province.
The upland area elevations of the Piedmont Plateau range from 300 ft to 600 ft above sea level along the eastern border ofthe plateau and increase to about 1500 ft above sea level at the bottom of the Blue RidgeScarp. The lowland elevations in the Plateau are 50 ft to 200 ft lower than the upland regions.Elevations along the Cape Fear River range from less than 160 ft above sea level to more than500 ft in the northern part of the basin. Underlying the Piedmont Plateau is igneous andmetamorphic rock. This rock can be divided into several broad northeast-southwest trendingbelts on the basis of the differences in metamorphic rock grade. The Deep River Triassic Basinis a sediment-filled trough located between the Carolina Slate Belt on the west and the RaleighBelt on the east. The Carolina Slate Belt rocks form a section that is believed to be at least30,000 ft thick in North Carolina.
This section of the belt consists mostly of metavolcanic rocksand metasediments, of Late Precambrian and Cambrian age with intrusions of granitic plutons.The geologic history of the central and eastern Piedmont region is poorly known because fossil-bearing strata are extremely rare and geochronology is based largely on radiometric dating of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 3 of 33igneous events. The geologic record suggests that island arc volcanism was the dominantactivity from Late Precambrian through Cambrian time. A period of major deformation of earlyvolcanogenic deposits around 600 million years ago formed the major folds of the Carolina SlateBelt.In the Deep River Basin, normal fault movement along segments of the Jonesboro fault systemand the resulting differential subsidence caused eastward tilting of sedimentary strata.Accumulation of the sedimentary wedge was followed by continued movements in theJonesboro fault zone and development of cross-basin faults. Emplacement of diabase sills anddikes followed formation of the cross faults and continued into Jurassic time. Final movement ofthe Jonesboro fault during late Triassic-early Jurassic time was followed by widespread zeolitemineralization related either to low-grade burial metamorphism or to high heat flow andhydrothermal activity.
Little is known of late Mesozoic and Tertiary history.
The regionapparently has been relatively stable tectonically since late Mesozoic time. Crustal movementhas largely been limited to vertical isostatic adjustments possibly related to periodic uplift of theAppalachians to the west and subsidence of the Coastal Plain to the east.Local GeologyThe HNP site is located near the eastern edge of the Cape Fear River drainage basin. Elevation of hill tops and ridge crests are mostly between 250 ft and 275 ft and local relief is generally lessthan 60 ft. Drainage from the site is southeast through Tom Jack Creek and Thomas Creek toWhiteoak Creek, which flows southwestward into Buckhorn Creek, which in turn flowssouthward and empties into the Cape Fear River about a quarter mile below Buckhorn Dam.The soils around the site are mostly residual soils derived from sedimentary rocks and diabasedikes underlying the area. Soil depth ranges from 0 to 15 ft., but is commonly between 5 ft and10 ft. The soil is generally thinnest over sandstone and thickest over diabase dikes. Mostresidual soil is silty clay in texture, but silty sand may be found along streams and in limitedareas overlying sandstone.
Residual soils observed in trench excavations were medium stiff tohard. Permeability values of most soils are extremely low, resulting in rapid precipitation runoff.The site is underlain by gently dipping rocks of the Upper Triassic Sanford formation.
Thebedrock is mostly siltstone and fine-grained sandstone interbedded with subordinate shale,claystone, and conglomerate.
These rocks consist mostly of alluvial fan, stream channel andfloodplain deposits and are characterized by abrupt changes in composition and texture, bothhorizontally and vertically.
A minor fault uncovered in the plant excavation trends nearly east-west across the site. The fault is a normal fault with downthrow on the south. The fault surface issomewhat undulatory with dips ranging from vertical to 550 southward.
Drag folding of Triassicbeds is present on the hanging wall of the fault. Investigation has determined that the fault is aminor tensional normal fault whose last movement was prior to 150 million years ago. Severalsmall, non-capable faults were found in the foundations of Main Dam structures.
No othersignificant structural features were found.Historical records of earthquake activity indicate that the site is aseismic.
There is little history offelt earthquakes in the site area and no historical accounts of the behavior of the site during thefew earthquakes which have been felt. The geologic history of the site through Paleozoic time is U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 4 of 33poorly known, since the only Paleozoic rocks exposed in the plant area are Raleigh Beltgneisses and schists exposed in the Main Dam foundation south of the plant.2.2 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis2.2. 1 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis ResultsIn accordance with the 50.54(f) letter and following the guidance in the SPID (Reference 2), aprobabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) was completed using the recently developed Central and Eastern United States Seismic Source Characterization (CEUS-SSC) for NuclearFacilities (Reference
: 6) together with the updated EPRI Ground-Motion Model (GMM) for theCEUS (Reference 7). For the PSHA, a lower-bound (minimum) moment magnitude of 5.0 wasused, as specified in the 50.54(f) letter.For the PSHA, the CEUS-SSC background seismic source zones out to a distance of 400 miles(640 km) around the HNP site were included.
This distance exceeds the 200 mile (320 km)recommendation.
Background sources included in this site analysis are the following:
: 1. Atlantic Highly Extended Crust2. Extended Continental Crust-Atlantic Margin3. Extended Continental Crust-Gulf Coast4. Mesozoic and younger extended prior -narrow5. Mesozoic and younger extended prior -wide6. Midcontinent-Craton alternative A7. Midcontinent-Craton alternative B8. Midcontinent-Craton alternative C9. Midcontinent-Craton alternative D10. Non-Mesozoic and younger extended prior -narrow11. Non-Mesozoic and younger extended prior -wide12. Paleozoic Extended Crust narrow13. Paleozoic Extended Crust wide14. Reelfoot Rift including the Rough Creek Graben15. Study regionFor sources of large magnitude earthquakes, designated Repeated Large Magnitude Earthquake (RLME) sources in CEUS-SSC (Reference 6), the following sources lie within 625miles (1,000 km) of the site and were included in the analysis:
: 1. Charleston
: 2. Commerce3. Eastern Rift Margin Fault northern segment4. Eastern Rift Margin Fault southern segment5. New Madrid Fault System6. Wabash ValleyFor each of the above background and RLME sources, the mid-continent version of the updatedCEUS EPRI GMM was used.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 5 of 332.2.2 Base Rock Seismic Hazard CurvesConsistent with the SPID (Reference 2), base rock seismic hazard curves are not provided asthe site amplification approach referred to as Method 3 has been used. Seismic hazard curvesare shown below in Section 3 at the SSE control point elevation.
2.3 Site Response Evaluation A site response analysis was performed for HNP following the guidance contained in SeismicEnclosure 1 of the March 12, 2012 50.54(f)
Request for Information (Reference
: 1) and in theSPID (Reference
: 2) for nuclear power plant sites that are not sited on hard rock (defined as 2.83km/sec).2.3. 1 Description of Subsurface MaterialThe HNP site is located in the Deep River Triassic Basin of North Carolina.
The general siteconditions consist of about 15 ft (4.6 m) of residual soils and weathered rock overlying about5,000 ft of sound Triassic sedimentary rocks with a basement of hard crystalline rocks.Table 2.3.1-1 provides a brief description of the subsurface material in terms of the geologicunits and layer thicknesses.
Table 2.3.1-1.
Geologic profile and estimated layer thicknesses for HNP.Depth Shear Compressional ephDensity Wave CmesinlPoisson's Range SoillRock Description Rati vel Wave Velocity Raio(feet) (pcf) Velocity (fv VeloRatiy (fps) (fps)0-8 Residual Soil 130 500" 1500 0.448-16 Weathered and Fractured 160 2500 5500 0.37RockBelow 16 Sound Bedrock 160 5600 12000 0.35(SSE Control Point)* Estimated values.2.3.2 Development of Base Case Profiles and Nonlinear Material Properties Table 2.3.1-1 shows the recommended shear-wave velocities and unit weights verses depth forthe profile.
Based on Table 2.3.1-1 and the location of the SSE at a depth of 16 ft (4.9 m), theprofile consists of 5,000 ft (1524 m) of firm rock overlying hard crystalline basement rock.Shear-wave velocities for the profile were based on measurements of compressional-wave velocities and assumed Poisson ratios. More recent downhole testing at the nearby proposednew nuclear plant site generally confirmed the firm rock shear-wave velocities (Reference 8).
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 6 of 33To develop the mean or best-estimate base-case firm rock profile, the shear-wave velocity of5,600 ft/s (1,707 m/s) was assumed to reflect the shallow portion of the profile.
Provided thematerials to basement depth reflect similar sedimentary rocks and age, the shear-wave velocitygradient for sedimentary rock of 0.5m/m/s (Reference
: 2) was assumed to be appropriate for thesite. The shallow shear-wave velocity of 5,600 ft/s (1,707 m/s) was taken at the surface of theprofile with the velocity gradient applied at that point, resulting in a mean base-case shear-wave velocity of about 8,000 ft/s (2,438 m/s) at a depth of 5,000 ft (1,524 m). The mean or bestestimate base-case profile is shown as profile P1 in Figure 2.3.2-1.Based on the specified shear-wave velocities, reflecting measured compressional-wave velocities and assumed Poisson ratios, a scale factor of 1.57 was adopted to reflect upper andlower range base-cases.
The scale factor of 1.57 reflects a Opn of about 0.35 based on the SPID(Reference
: 2) 10h and 90" fractiles which implies a 1.28 scale factor on aC.Using the best-estimate or mean base-case profile (P1), the depth independent scale factor of1.57 was applied to develop lower and upper range base-case profiles P2 and P3 respectively, with the stiffest profile (P3) reaching reference rock velocities at a depth of about 600 ft (183 m).Base-case profiles P1 and P2 have a mean depth below the SSE of 5,000 ft (1,524 m) to hardreference rock, randomized
+/- 1,500 ft (+/- 457 m). The base-case profiles (P1, P2, and P3) areshown in Figure 2.3.2-1 and listed in Table 2.3.2-1.
The depth randomization reflects
+/- 30% ofthe depth to provide a realistic broadening of the fundamental resonance rather than reflectactual random variations to basement shear-wave velocities across a footprint.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 7 of 33Vs profiles for Shearon Harris Site05001000150020003000035004000450050005500Vs (ft/sec)0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000... .....i ..-1 ---Profile 1-Profile 2.Profile 32Figure 2.3.2-1.
Shear-wave velocity profiles for the HNP Site.Table 2.3.2-1.
Geologic profile and estimated layer thicknesses for the HNP Site.Profile 1 Profile 2 Profile 3Thicknes Depth Vs Thickness Depth Vs Thickness Depth Vss (ft) .(ft) -I/S) (ft) (ft) (if/s) (ft) (ft) (if/s)0 5600 0 3567 0 87925.0 5.0 5600 5.0 5.0 3567 5.0 5.0 87925.0 10.0 5601 5.0 10.0 3568 5.0 10.0 87945.0 15.0 5603 5.0 15.0 3569 5.0 15.0 87975.0 20.0 5606 5.0 20.0 3571 5.0 20.0 88015.0 25.0 5608 5.0 25.0 3573 5.0 25.0 88055.0 30.0 5611 5.0 30.0 3574 5.0 30.0 88095.0 35.0 5613 5.0 35.0 3576 5.0 35.0 88135.0 40.0 5616 5.0 40.0 3577 5.0 40.0 88175.0 45.0 5618 5.0 45.0 3579 5.0 45.0 88215.0 50.0 5621 5.0 50.0 3581 5.0 50.0 88255.0 55.0 5623 5.0 55.0 3582 5.0 55.0 88295.0 60.0 5626 5.0 60.0 3584 5.0 60.0 88335.0 65.0 5628 5.0 65.0 3585 5.0 65.0 88373.0 68.0 5630 3.0 68.0 3586 3.0 68.0 88396.0 74.0 5631 6.0 74.0 3587 6.0 74.0 8841 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Table 2.3.2-1.
(cont.)Page 8 of 336.0 80.0 5632 6.0 80.0 3588 6.0 80.0 88436.0 86.0 5634 6.0 86.0 3589 6.0 86.0 88456.0 92.0 5635 6.0 92.0 3589 6.0 92.0 88477.0 99.0 5639 7.0 99.0 3592 7.0 99.0 88527.0 106.0 5642 7.0 106.0 3594 7.0 106.0 88587.0 113.0 5645 7.0 113.0 3596 7.0 113.0 88637.0 120.0 5649 7.0 120.0 3598 7.0 120.0 88696.0 126.0 5652 6.0 126.0 3600 6.0 126.0 88744.0 130.0 5654 4.0 130.0 3602 4.0 130.0 88775.0 135.0 5657 5.0 135.0 3603 5.0 135.0 88815.0 140.0 5659 5.0 140.0 3605 5.0 140.0 88855.0 145.0 5662 5.0 145.0 3606 5.0 145.0 88895.0 150.0 5664 5.0 150.0 3608 5.0 150.0 88925.0 155.0 5667 5.0 155.0 3610 5.0 155.0 88965.0 160.0 5669 5.0 160.0 3611 5.0 160.0 89004.0 164.0 5671 4.0 164.0 3612 4.0 164.0 89035.0 169.0 5672 5.0 169.0 3613 5.0 169.0 89055.0 174.0 5675 5.0 174.0 3615 5.0 174.0 89095.0 179.0 5677 5.0 179.0 3616 5.0 179.0 89135.0 184.0 5680 5.0 184.0 3618 5.0 184.0 89175.0 189.0 5682 5.0 189.0 3620 5.0 189.0 89215.0 194.0 5685 5.0 194.0 3621 5.0 194.0 89255.0 199.0 5687 5.0 199.0 3623 5.0 199.0 89295.0 204.0 5690 5.0 204.0 3624 5.0 204.0 89335.0 209.0 5692 5.0 209.0 3626 5.0 209.0 89375.0 214.0 5695 5.0 214.0 3628 5.0 214.0 89415.0 219.0 5697 5.0 219.0 3629 5.0 219.0 89455.0 224.0 5700 5.0 224.0 3631 5.0 224.0 89495.0 229.0 5702 5.0 229.0 3632 5.0 229.0 89535.0 234.0 5705 5.0 234.0 3634 5.0 234.0 89565.0 239.0 5707 5.0 239.0 3636 5.0 239.0 89605.0 244.0 5710 5.0 244.0 3637 5.0 244.0 89646.0 250.0 5713 6.0 250.0 3639 6.0 250.0 89696.3 256.3 5716 6.3 256.3 3641 6.3 256.3 89746.3 262.7 5719 6.3 262.7 3643 6.3 262.7 89796.3 269.0 5722 6.3 269.0 3645 6.3 269.0 898410.0 279.0 5727 10.0 279.0 3648 10.0 279.0 899210.0 289.0 5732 10.0 289.0 3651 10.0 289.0 900010.0 299.0 5737 10.0 299.0 3655 10.0 299.0 900710.0 309.0 5742 10.0 309.0 3658 10.0 309.0 9015 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 9 of 33Table 2.3.2-1.
(cont.)10.0 319.0 5747 10.0 319.0 3661 10.0 319.0 902312.0 331.0 5753 12.0 331.0 3665 12.0 331.0 903310.0 341.0 5758 10.0 341.0 3668 10.0 341.0 904010.0 351.0 5763 10.0 351.0 3671 10.0 351.0 904810.0 361.0 5768 10.0 361.0 3674 10.0 361.0 905610.0 371.0 5773 10.0 371.0 3678 10.0 371.0 906410.0 381.0 5778 10.0 381.0 3681 10.0 381.0 907212.0 393.0 5784 12.0 393.0 3685 12.0 393.0 90817.0 400.0 5788 7.0 400.0 3687 7.0 400.0 908710.0 410.0 5790 10.0 410.0 3688 10.0 410.0 909110.0 420.0 5795 10.0 420.0 3692 10.0 420.0 909910.0 430.0 5800 10.0 430.0 3695 10.0 430.0 910610.0 440.0 5805 10.0 440.0 3698 10.0 440.0 911410.0 450.0 5810 10.0 450.0 3701 10.0 450.0 912210.0 460.0 5815 10.0 460.0 3704 10.0 460.0 913010.0 470.0 5820 10.0 470.0 3707 10.0 470.0 913810.0 480.0 5825 10.0 480.0 3711 10.0 480.0 914610.0 490.0 5830 10.0 490.0 3714 10.0 490.0 915310.0 500.0 5837 10.0 500.0 3718 10.0 500.0 9164104.7 604.7 5863 104.7 604.7 3735 104.7 604.7 9205104.7 709.5 5916 104.7 709.5 3768 104.7 709.5 9285104.7 814.2 5968 104.7 814.2 3802 104.7 814.2 9285104.7 919.0 6020 104.7 919.0 3835 104.7 919.0 9285104.7 1023.7 6073 104.7 1023.7 3868 104.7 1023.7 9285104.7 1128.4 6125 104.7 1128.4 3902 104.7 1128.4 9285104.7 1233.2 6177 104.7 1233.2 3935 104.7 1233.2 9285104.7 1337.9 6230 104.7 1337.9 3968 104.7 1337.9 9285104.7 1442.7 6282 104.7 1442.7 4002 104.7 1442.7 9285104.7 1547.4 6335 104.7 1547.4 4035 104.7 1547.4 9285104.7 1652.2 6387 104.7 1652.2 4068 104.7 1652.2 9285104.7 1756.9 6439 104.7 1756.9 4102 104.7 1756.9 9285104.7 1861.7 6492 104.7 1861.7 4135 104.7 1861.7 9285104.7 1966.4 6544 104.7 1966.4 4169 104.7 1966.4 9285104.7 2071.1 6596 104.7 2071.1 4202 104.7 2071.1 9285104.7 2175.9 6649 104.7 2175.9 4235 104.7 2175.9 9285104.7 2280.6 6701 104.7 2280.6 4269 104.7 2280.6 9285104.7 2385.4 6754 104.7 2385.4 4302 104.7 2385.4 9285104.7 2490.1 6806 104.7 2490.1 4335 104.7 2490.1 9285104.7 2594.9 6858 104.7 2594.9 4369 104.7 2594.9 9285135.2 2730.1 6918 135.2 2730.1 4407 135.2 2730.1 9285 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 10 of 33Table 2.3.2-1.
(cont.)135.2 2865.3 6986 135.2 2865.3 4450 135.2 2865.3 9285135.2 3000.6 7054 135.2 3000.6 4493 135.2 3000.6 9285135.2 3135.8 7121 135.2 3135.8 4536 135.2 3135.8 9285135.2 3271.1 7189 135.2 3271.1 4579 135.2 3271.1 9285135.2 3406.3 7256 135.2 3406.3 4622 135.2 3406.3 9285135.2 3541.6 7324 135.2 3541.6 4665 135.2 3541.6 9285135.2 3676.8 7392 135.2 3676.8 4708 135.2 3676.8 9285135.2 3812.0 7459 135.2 3812.0 4752 135.2 3812.0 9285135.2 3947.3 7527 135.2 3947.3 4795 135.2 3947.3 9285135.2 4082.5 7594 135.2 4082.5 4838 135.2 4082.5 9285135.2 4217.8 7662 135.2 4217.8 4881 135.2 4217.8 9285135.2 4353.0 7730 135.2 4353.0 4924 135.2 4353.0 9285135.2 4488.3 7797 135.2 4488.3 4967 135.2 4488.3 9285135.2 4623.5 7865 135.2 4623.5 5010 135.2 4623.5 9285135.2 4758.7 7933 135.2 4758.7 5053 135.2 4758.7 9285135.2 4894.0 8000 135.2 4894.0 5096 135.2 4894.0 9285105.8 4999.7 8053 105.8 4999.7 5130 105.8 4999.7 92853280.8 8280.6 9285 3280.8 8280.6 9285 3280.8 8280.6 92852.3.2.1 Shear Modulus and Damping CurvesNo site-specific nonlinear dynamic material properties were determined in the initial siting of theHNP site for sedimentary rocks. The rock material over the upper 500 ft (150 m) was assumedto have behavior that could be modeled as either linear or non-linear.
To represent this potential for either case in the upper 500 ft of sedimentary rock at the HNP site, two sets of shearmodulus reduction and hysteretic damping curves were used. Consistent with the SPID(Reference 2), the EPRI rock curves (model M1) were considered to be appropriate to represent the upper range nonlinearity likely in the materials at this site and linear analyses (model M2)were assumed to represent an equally plausible alternative rock response across loading level.For the linear analyses, the low strain damping values from the EPRI rock curves were used asthe constant damping values in the upper 500 ft (150 m).2.3.2.2 KappaFor the HNP site, kappa estimates were determined using Section B-5.1.3.1 of the SPID(Reference
: 2) for a firm CEUS rock site. Kappa for a firm rock site with at least 3,000 ft (1 km) ofsedimentary rock may be estimated from the average S-wave velocity over the upper 100 ft(V,10o) of the subsurface profile while for a site with less than 3,000 ft (1 km) of firm rock, kappamay be estimated with a Qs of 40 below 500 ft combined with the low strain damping from theEPRI rock curves, and an additional kappa of 0.006 s for the underlying hard rock. For the HNPsite, with 5,000 ft (1,524 m) of firm sedimentary rock below the SSE, kappa estimates were U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 11 of 33based on the average shear-wave velocity over the top 100 ft (30 m) of the three base-case profiles P1, P2, and P3. For the three profiles the corresponding shear-wave velocities were:5,620 ft/s (1,713 m/s), 3,567 ft/s (1,087 m/s), and 8,792 ft/s (2,680 m/s) with corresponding kappa estimates of 0.013 s, 0.022 s, and 0.008 s. The range in kappa about the best estimatebase-case value of 0.013 s (profile P1) is roughly 1.6 and was considered to adequately reflectepistemic uncertainty in low strain damping (kappa) for the profile.
Table 2.3.2-2 shows thekappa values and weights used for HNP site response analyses.
Table 2.3.2-2.
Kappa Values and Weights Used for HNP Site Response Analyses.
Velocity Profile Kappa(s)P1 0.013P2 0.022P3 0.008WeightsP1 0.4P2 0.3P3 0.3GIGmax 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 to occuracross a site at the scale of a typical nuclear facility, variability in the assumed shear-wave velocity profiles has been incorporated in the site response calculations.
For the HNP site,random shear wave velocity profiles were developed from the base case profiles shown inFigure 2.3.2-1.
Thirty random velocity profiles were generated for each base case profile.
Theserandom velocity profiles were generated using a natural log standard deviation of 0.25 over theupper 50 ft and 0.15 below that depth. As specified in the SPID (Reference 2), correlation ofshear wave velocity between layers was modeled using the footprint correlation model. In thecorrelation model, a limit of +/- 2 standard deviations about the median value in each layer wasassumed for the limits on random velocity fluctuations.
2.3.4 Input SpectraConsistent with the guidance in Appendix B of the SPID (Reference 2), input Fourier amplitude spectra were defined for a single representative earthquake magnitude using two different assumptions regarding the shape of the seismic source spectrum (single-corner and double-corner).
A range of 11 different input amplitudes (median peak ground accelerations (PGA)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 12 of 33ranging from 0.01 g to 1.50 g) were used in the site response analyses.
The characteristics ofthe seismic source and upper crustal attenuation properties assumed for the analysis of theHNP site were the same as those identified in Tables B-4, B-5, B-6 and B-7 of the SPID(Reference
: 2) as appropriate for typical CEUS sites.2.3.5 Methodology To perform the site response analyses for the HNP site, a random vibration theory (RVT)approach was employed.
This process utilizes a simple, efficient approach for computing site-specific amplification functions and is consistent with existing NRC guidance and the SPID(Reference 2). The guidance contained in Appendix B of the SPID (Reference
: 2) onincorporating epistemic uncertainty in shear-wave velocities, kappa, non-linear dynamicproperties and source spectra for plants with limited at-site information was followed for theHNP site.2.3.6 Amplification Functions The results of the site response analysis consist of amplification factors (5% damped pseudoabsolute response spectra) which describe the amplification (or de-amplification) of hardreference rock motion as a function of frequency and input reference rock amplitude.
Theamplification factors are represented in terms of a median amplification value and an associated standard deviation (sigma) for each oscillator frequency and input rock amplitude.
Consistent with the SPID (Reference
: 2) a minimum median amplification value of 0.5 was employed in thepresent analysis.
Figure 2.3.6-1 illustrates the median and +/- 1 standard deviation in thepredicted amplification factors developed for the eleven loading levels parameterized by themedian reference (hard rock) peak acceleration (0.01 g to 1.50 g) for profile P1 and EPRI rockG/Gmax and hysteretic damping curves (Reference 9). The variability in the amplification factorsresults from variability in shear-wave
: velocity, depth to hard rock, and modulus reduction andhysteretic damping curves. To illustrate the effects of nonlinearity at the HNP site, Figure 2.3.6-2shows the corresponding amplification factors developed with linear analyses (model M2).Tabulated values of the amplification factors are provided in Appendix A.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 13 of 330-'a0~U1NPUT M0110H 0.01G1NFU1 NOT]CM O.LOGS3I11 PUT VOTIUH 0.05G114RJr rJT1014 0.40C1N)UT MOI0TJG 0.30G..?113 -to 0 10 1Frequency (Hz)10 -I0 c) C j10Frequency (Hz),0 2AMPLIFICATION, SHEARON HPARRIS, MIPIKIN 6.5, 1 CORNER: PFGE I OF 2Figure 2.3.6-1.
Example suite of amplification factors (5% damping pseudo absolute acceleration spectra) developed for the mean base-case profile (P1), EPRI rock modulusreduction and hysteretic damping curves (model Ml), and base-case kappa (K1)at eleven loading levels of hard rock median peak acceleration values from 0.01gto 1.50g. M 6.5 and single-corner source model (Reference 2). Curves showmedian and +/- 1 standard deviation.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 14 of 33C:0902CLCc120Ff -f:!! -INPUT MOTICN 0.50GI I I I till I I I: vnýINPUT MOTICN 1.00GcaC30INPUT MOTIOI 0.75GINPUT MOTIG4 1.25Gi i I l ll 1 " .11 l l l .... I ll .Ia -1  to 0 to'Frequency (Hz),a 2AMPLIFICATION, SHEARON HARRIS, MIPIKiN 6.5, 1 CORNER: PRGE 2 OF 2Figure 2.3.6-1.(cont.)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 15 of 33nlrrrmTo 04-)U'-pe4~O ---.n 00~Sa:IrFur MorIc__rTrTrrri 000N 0.O1GQ :C2Q0" INPUT MOTION O.LOGU02INPUT MOTIO M0.31Ga000en0IN IPUT WOTION 0.05GINPUT MOTION 0.20;INRUT POTION 0.406to-1 to a 1Frequency (Hz)lad io -10 u 10Frequency
((Hz)10LAMPLIFICATION, SHEARON HARRIS, M2PIKIM 6.5, 1 CORNER: PAGE 1 OF 2Figure 2.3.6-2.
Example suite of amplification factors (5% damping pseudo absolute acceleration spectra) developed for the mean base-case profile (P1), linear site response(model M2), and base-case kappa (K1) at eleven loading levels of hard rockmedian peak acceleration values from 0.01 g to 1.50 g. M 6.5 and single-corner source model (Reference 2). Curves show median and +/- 1 standard deviation.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 16 of 33CCo3G-4-CZ0~d:INPUT MOTION 0.50GINPUT MOTION 1.0I GIPUT M iQIII 6lilINPUT MOTION I.,MJG10 -2 to a IQ I IQ0C0CINPUT MOTION 0.75GINPUT MOTION 1.25CFrequency (Hz)AMPLIFICATION, SHEARON HARRIS, M12P1K1M 6.5, 1 CORNER: PAGE Z OF 2Figure 2.3.6-2.(cont.)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 17 of 332.3.7 Control Point Seismic Hazard CurvesThe procedure to develop probabilistic site-specific control point hazard curves used in thepresent analysis follows the methodology described in Section B-6.0 of the SPID (Reference 2).This procedure (referred to as Method 3) computes a site-specific control point hazard curve fora 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 isrepeated for each of the seven spectral frequencies for which ground motion equations areavailable.
The dynamic response of the materials below the control point was represented bythe frequency and amplitude-dependent amplification functions (median values and standarddeviations) developed and described in the previous section.
The resulting control point meanhazard curves for HNP are shown in Figure 2.3.7-1 for the seven spectral frequencies for whichground motion equations are defined.
Tabulated values of the control point hazard curves areprovided in Appendix A.Total Mean Soil Hazard by Spectral Frequency at Shearon Harris1E-2-1W 25 Hzlow -2. 0Hz-1 0Hz05 Hz0.0 -2.5 Hz1Spectral 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 PGA (100 Hz) at the HNP site.2.4 Control Point Response SpectraThe control point hazard curves described above were used to develop uniform hazardresponse spectra (UHRS) and the ground motion response spectrum (GMRS). The UHRS wereobtained through linear interpolation in log-log space to estimate the spectral acceleration at U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 18 of 33each spectral frequency for the 1 E-4 and 1 E-5 per year hazard levels. The 1 E-4 and 1 E-5UHRS along with the design factor (DF) are used to compute the GMRS at the control pointusing the criteria in Regulatory Guide 1.208 (Reference 10). Table 2.4-1 and Figure 2.4-1 showthe UHRS and GMRS spectral accelerations.
Table 2.4-1. UHRS and GMRS at control point for HNP.Freq, Hz IE-4 UHRS (g) 1E-5 UHRS (g) GMRS100 8.58E-02 2.21E-01 1.10E-0190 8.56E-02 2.21E-01 1.10E-0180 8.58E-02 2.23E-01 1.11E-0170 8.69E-02 2.28E-01 1.13E-0160 9.03E-02 2.41E-01 1.19E-0150 1.01E-01 2.78E-01 1.36E-0140 1.18E-01 3.32E-01 1.62E-0135 1.26E-01 3.55E-01 1.73E-0130 1.37E-01 3.82E-01 1.87E-0125 1.45E-01 4.OOE-01 1.96E-0120 1.60E-01 4.31E-01 2.12E-0115 1.73E-01 4.53E-01 2.24E-0112.5 1.79E-01 4.61E-01 2.29E-0110 1.79E-01 4.51E-01 2.25E-019 1.78E-01 4.43E-01 2.22E-018 1.76E-01 4.32E-01 2.16E-017 1.71E-01 4.15E-01 2.09E-016 1.65E-01 3.92E-01 1.98E-015 1.56E-01 3.64E-01 1.84E-01 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Table 2.4-1. (cont.)Page 19 of 334 1.37E-01 3.13E-01 1.59E-013.5 1.28E-01 2.90E-01 1.48E-013 1.16E-01 2.59E-01 1.32E-012.5 1.02E-01 2.25E-01 1.15E-012 9.74E-02 2.14E-01 1.10E-011.5 8.57E-02 1.88E-01 9.65E-021.25 8.04E-02 1.76E-01 9.02E-021 7.04E-02 1.53E-01 7.86E-020.9 6.58E-02 1.44E-01 7.37E-020.8 6.22E-02 1.36E-01 7.OOE-020.7 5.84E-02 1.29E-01 6.60E-020.6 5.22E-02 1.16E-01 5.93E-020.5 4.56E-02 1.02E-01 5.21E-020.4 3.65E-02 8.17E-02 4.17E-020.35 3.19E-02 7.15E-02 3.65E-020.3 2.74E-02 6.13E-02 3.13E-020.25 2.28E-02 5.11E-02 2.61E-020.2 1.83E-02 4.08E-02 2.09E-020.15 1.37E-02 3.06E-02 1.56E-020.125 1. 14E-02 2.55E-02 1.30E-020.1 9.13E-03 2.04E-02 1.04E-02 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 20 of 33Mean Soil UHRS and GMRS at Shearon Harris0.60.5btoo 0.40.3w 0.2C.0.10.-1E-5 UHRS-GMRS-1E-4 UHRS1000.11 10Spectral frequency, HzFigure 2.4-1. UHRS for 1 E-4 and 1 E-5 and GMRS at control point for HNP (5%-damped response spectra).
3.0 Plant Design BasisThe design basis for HNP is identified in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (Reference
: 5) and other pertinent documents.
3.1 SSE Description of Spectral ShapeThe SSE for the purpose of seismic hazard screening is defined in terms of a Peak GroundAcceleration (PGA) at 5% critical damping.
The horizontal and vertical response spectra for theSSE were prepared in accordance with NRC Regulatory Guide 1.60 (Reference 4). Considering the historic seismicity of the site region, the maximum potential earthquake selected was anintensity VII (Modified Mercalli Scale) event. Table 3.1-1 presents the tabulated horizontal SSEspectra that are used for the purposes of the seismic hazard screening.
The points in Table 3.1-1 represent the log-linearly interpolated accelerations between the control points listed in Table1 of Regulatory Guide 1.60. The control points are taken at 0.25, 2.5, 9, and 33 Hz and they arecalculated by scaling the amplification factors from Table 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.60 to the SSEearthquake of 0.15 g. The frequencies that are used are the same frequencies as in Table 2.4-1, except for the use of 33 Hz instead of 35 Hz. Figure 3.1-1 shows the SSE for HNP.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 21 of 33Table 3.1-1. SSE for HNP at 5% Damping.Freq. (Hz) SSE (g)0.1 0.01130.125 0.01770.15 0.02540.2 0.04520.25 0.07070.3 0.08210.35 0.09320.4 0.10410.5 0.12500.6 0.14520.7 0.16480.8 0.18400.9 0.20271 0.22101.25 0.26551.5 0.30852 0.39082.5 0.46953 0.45753.5 0.44764 0.43925 0.42556 0.41477 0.40578 0.39819 0.391510 0.362212.5 0.307215 0.268520 0.217125 0.184130 0.160933 0.150040 0.150050 0.150060 0.150070 0.150080 0.150090 0.1500100 0.1500 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 22 of 33HNPRes~ponse
.24-@10.500.450.400.350.300.250.200.150.100.050.0001 10100Frequency (Hz)Figure 3.2-1. SSE for HNP.3.2 Control Point Elevation Based on the information presented in Table 2.3.1-1, the SSE control point elevation is definedat a depth of 16 ft at the top of sound bedrock.
The control point was selected following guidance of Section 2.4.2 of the SPID (Reference 2).4.0 Screening Evaluation In accordance with SPID (Reference
: 2) Section 3, a screening evaluation was performed andthe results are as described below.4.1 Risk Evaluation Screening (1 to 10 Hz)In the 1 to 10 Hz part of the response
: spectrum, the SSE exceeds the GMRS. Therefore, a riskevaluation is not required.
4.2 High Frequency Screening
(> 10 Hz)For a portion of the range above 10 Hz, the GMRS exceeds the SSE. Therefore, the plantscreens in for a High Frequency Confirmation.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 23 of 334.3 Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation Screening (I to 10 Hz)In the 1 to 10 Hz range of the response
: spectrum, the SSE exceeds the GMRS. Therefore, aspent fuel pool evaluation is not required.
5.0 Interim ActionsAs discussed in Section 4.2, the GMRS only exceeds the SSE for high frequencies.
Thismotion is considered to be non-damaging to components and structures that have strain orstress based potential failures modes. NRC letter dated February 15, 2013 (Reference 15)endorses a program to provide guidance for identifying and evaluating potentially high-frequency sensitive components.
This High Frequency Confirmation is expected to address theexceedance described in Section 4.2.Consistent with NRC letter dated February 20, 2014, (Reference
: 13) the seismic hazardreevaluations presented herein are distinct from the current design and licensing bases of HNP.Therefore, the results do not call into question the operability or functionality of SSCs and arenot reportable pursuant to10 CFR 50.72, "Immediate notification requirements for operating nuclear power reactors,"
and10 CFR 50.73, "Licensee event report system".The NRC letter also requests that licensees provide an interim evaluation or actions to addressthe higher seismic hazard relative to the design basis while the expedited approach and riskevaluations are conducted.
In response to that request, NEI letter dated March 12, 2014,(Reference
: 14) provides seismic core damage risk estimates using the updated seismic hazardsfor the operating nuclear plants in the Central and Eastern United States. These risk estimates continue to support the following conclusions of the NRC GI-1 99 Safety/Risk Assessment:
Overall seismic core damage risk estimates are consistent with the Commission's Safety Goal Policy Statement because they are within the subsidiary objective of 10-4/year for core damage frequency.
The G1-199 Safety/Risk Assessment, based in part oninformation from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Individual PlantExamination of External Events (IPEEE) program, indicates that no concern existsregarding adequate protection and that the current seismic design of operating reactorsprovides a safety margin to withstand potential earthquakes exceeding the originaldesign basis.HNP is included in the March 12, 2014 risk estimates.
Using the methodology described in theNEI letter, all plants were shown to be below 104/year; thus, the above conclusions apply.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 24 of 336.0 Conclusions In accordance with the 50.54(f) request for information, a seismic hazard and screening evaluation was performed for HNP. A GMRS was developed solely for the purpose of screening for additional evaluations in accordance with the SPID (Reference 2).Based on the results of the screening evaluation, HNP screens in for a High Frequency Confirmation.
Based on the results of the screening evaluation, and in accordance with the criteria in theexpedited seismic evaluation described in EPRI 3002000704 (Reference
: 3) proposed in a letterto the NRC dated April 9, 2013 (Reference
: 11) and agreed to by the NRC in a letter dated May7, 2013 (Reference 12), HNP screens out of the expedited seismic evaluation under EPRI30020000704 (Reference 3).7.0 References
: 1. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC),
E. Leeds and M. Johnson,Letter to All Power Reactor Licensees et al., "Request for Information Pursuant to Title10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f)
Regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3,and 9.3, of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichiAccident",
March 12, 2012.2. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Final Report 1025287, "Seismic Evaluation Guidance:
Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic",
February 2013.3. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Final Report No. 3002000704, "SeismicEvaluation Guidance:
Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic",
May 2013.4. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC),
Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.60,"Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants",
Revision 1,December 1973.5. Progress Energy, "Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Updated Final Safety AnalysisReport",
through Amendment No. 59.6. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC),
NUREG-2115, Department ofEnergy/Office of Nuclear Energy (DOE/NE)-0140, EPRI 1021097, "Central and EasternUnited States Seismic Source Characterization for Nuclear Facilities",
6 Volumes, 2012.7. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Final Report No. 3002000717, "EPRI (2004,2006) Ground-Motion Model (GMM) Review Project",
June 2013.8. Progress Energy Harris Nuclear Units 2 & 3 COLA (Final Safety Analysis Report),
Rev.4, September 12, 2012 (ML12122A656).
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment Page 25 of 339. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) (1993). "Guidelines for determining designbasis ground motions."
Palo Alto, Calif: Electric Power Research Institute, vol. 1-5, EPRITR-102293.
: 10. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC),
Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.208,"A Performance-Based Approach to Define the Site-Specific Earthquake GroundMotion",
March 2007.11. Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), A. Pietrangelo, Letter to D. Skeen of the USNRC,"Proposed Path Forward for NTTF Recommendation 2.1: Seismic Reevaluations",
April9, 2013 (ML13101A379).
: 12. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC),
E. Leeds, Letter to J. Pollockof NEI, "Electric Power Research Institute Final Draft Report XXXXXX, 'SeismicEvaluation Guidance:
Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic,'
as an Acceptable Alternative to the March12, 2012, Information Request for Seismic Reevaluations",
May 7, 2013.13. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC),
E. Leeds, Letter to All PowerReactor Licensees and Holders of Construction
: Permits, "Supplemental Information Related to Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of FederalRegulations 50.54(f)
Regarding Seismic Hazard Reevaluations for Recommendation 2.1of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights From the Fukushima Dai-lchi Accident",
February 20, 2014 (ML14030A046).
: 14. Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), A. Pietrangelo, Letter to Mr. Eric J. Leeds of the USNRC,"Seismic Risk Evaluations for Plants in the Central and Eastern United States",
March12, 2014.15. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC),
E. Leeds, Letter to All Power,Reactor Licensees and Holders of Construction
: Permits, "Endorsement of Electric PowerResearch Institute Final Draft Report 1025287, Seismic Evaluation Guidance",
February15, 2013 (ML 12319A074).
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment
-Appendix APage 26 of 33Table A-la. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for PGA at HNP.AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.950.0005 4.35E-02 2.42E-02 3.68E-02 4.43E-02 5.12E-02 5.50E-020.001 3.38E-02 1.57E-02 2.68E-02 3.37E-02 4.19E-02 4.70E-020.005 1.05E-02 3.79E-03 6.45E-03 9.65E-03 1.36E-02 2.19E-020.01 4.84E-03 1.42E-03 2.42E-03 4.25E-03 6.54E-03 1.25E-020.015 2.81E-03 6.54E-04 1.15E-03 2.29E-03 4.01E-03 8.23E-030.03 9.03E-04 1.08E-04 2.07E-04 5.58E-04 1.38E-03 3.52E-030.05 3.31E-04 2.13E-05 4.37E-05 1.44E-04 4.83E-04 1.55E-030.075 1.37E-04 5.50E-06 1.21E-05 4.70E-05 1.84E-04 6.93E-040.1 6.99E-05 2.07E-06 5.20E-06 2.13E-05 8.98E-05 3.47E-040.15 2.60E-05 5.50E-07 1.79E-06 7.77E-06 3.37E-05 1.20E-040.3 4.70E-06 4.98E-08 3.33E-07 1.57E-06 7.34E-06 1.92E-050.5 1.37E-06 8.47E-09 8.47E-08 4.83E-07 2.25E-06 5.58E-060.75 5.01E-07 1.92E-09 2.42E-08 1.67E-07 8.OOE-07 2.07E-061 2.36E-07 7.23E-10 8.60E-09 7.23E-08 3.68E-07 9.79E-071.5 7.51E-08 2.16E-10 1.69E-09 1.90E-08 1.11E-07 3.19E-073 8.01E-09 1.21E-10 1.55E-10 1.27E-09 1.04E-08 3.47E-085 1.15E-09 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 1.92E-10 1.32E-09 5.05E-097.5 2.01E-10 8.12E-11 9.11E-11 1.23E-10 2.72E-10 9.51E-1010 5.21E-11 8.12E-11 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 1.40E-10 3.09E-10Table A-lb. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 25 Hz at HNP.AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.950.0005 4.65E-02 3.05E-02 4.07E-02 4.70E-02 5.27E-02 5.66E-020.001 3.84E-02 2.16E-02 3.23E-02 3.90E-02 4.50E-02 5.05E-020.005 1.54E-02 6.73E-03 1.07E-02 1.46E-02 1.92E-02 2.88E-020.01 8.19E-03 3.14E-03 4.90E-03 7.45E-03 1.05E-02 1.84E-020.015 5.21E-03 1.72E-03 2.76E-03 4.56E-03 6.93E-03 1.29E-020.03 2.01E-03 4.25E-04 7.34E-04 1.55E-03 3.01E-03 5.75E-030.05 8.53E-04 1.08E-04 2.04E-04 5.50E-04 1.38E-03 2.88E-030.075 3.98E-04 3.14E-05 6.54E-05 2.07E-04 6.54E-04 1.53E-030.1 2.22E-04 1.25E-05 2.80E-05 9.93E-05 3.57E-04 8.98E-040.15 9.31E-05 3.52E-06 8.72E-06 3.52E-05 1.42E-04 3.90E-040.3 1.93E-05 4.77E-07 1.57E-06 6.73E-06 2.92E-05 7.66E-050.5 6.00E-06 9.65E-08 4.90E-07 2.25E-06 9.65E-06 2.39E-050.75 2.40E-06 2.49E-08 1.87E-07 9.37E-07 4.01E-06 9.65E-061 1.25E-06 9.79E-09 8.98E-08 4.90E-07 2.13E-06 5.05E-061.5 4.81E-07 2.64E-09 2.96E-08 1.79E-07 8.12E-07 2.01E-063 7.78E-08 3.01E-10 3.09E-09 2.35E-08 1.25E-07 3.28E-075 1.64E-08 1.34E-10 4.83E-10 4.01E-09 2.39E-08 6.93E-087.5 4.12E-09 1.21E-10 1.62E-10 8.60E-10 5.58E-09 1.77E-0810 1.42E-09 1.08E-10 1.23E-10 3.01E-10 1.84E-09 6.26E-09 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment
-Appendix APage 27 of 33Table A-ic. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 10 Hz at HNP.AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.950.0005 5.06E-02 4.01E-02 4.50E-02 5.12E-02 5.58E-02 6.OOE-020.001 4.42E-02 3.19E-02 3.79E-02 4.43E-02 5.05E-02 5.42E-020.005 1.98E-02 1.02E-02 1.44E-02 1.95E-02 2.49E-02 3.05E-020.01 1.08E-02 4.90E-03 7.13E-03 1.04E-02 1.40E-02 1.90E-020.015 7.03E-03 2.92E-03 4.31E-03 6.64E-03 9.37E-03 1.34E-020.03 2.94E-03 9.51E-04 1.49E-03 2.60E-03 4.19E-03 6.45E-030.05 1.34E-03 3.23E-04 5.35E-04 1.1OE-03 2.07E-03 3.42E-030.075 6.54E-04 1.16E-04 2.07E-04 4.77E-04 1.05E-03 1.90E-030.1 3.70E-04 5.12E-05 9.65E-05 2.42E-04 6.OOE-04 1.20E-030.15 1.53E-04 1.51E-05 3.01E-05 8.72E-05 2.49E-04 5.42E-040.3 2.83E-05 1.67E-06 3.79E-06 1.32E-05 4.63E-05 1.08E-040.5 7.68E-06 2.96E-07 8.72E-07 3.47E-06 1.31 E-05 2.96E-050.75 2.78E-06 6.73E-08 2.84E-07 1.21 E-06 4.83E-06 1.07E-051 1.36E-06 2.16E-08 1.25E-07 5.83E-07 2.39E-06 5.27E-061.5 4.90E-07 4.31E-09 3.52E-08 2.01E-07 8.35E-07 1.95E-063 7.31E-08 3.33E-10 2.92E-09 2.39E-08 1.20E-07 3.05E-075 1.50E-08 1.32E-10 4.07E-10 3.68E-09 2.25E-08 6.45E-087.5 3.70E-09 1.21E-10 1.40E-10 7.34E-10 5.20E-09 1.64E-0810 1.26E-09 9.24E-11 1.21E-10 2.64E-10 1.69E-09 5.66E-09Table A-Id. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 5 Hz at HNP.AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.950.0005 5.14E-02 4.13E-02 4.56E-02 5.20E-02 5.75E-02 6.09E-020.001 4.56E-02 3.28E-02 3.84E-02 4.63E-02 5.27E-02 5.66E-020.005 2.04E-02 9.93E-03 1.42E-02 2.01E-02 2.68E-02 3.09E-020.01 1.06E-02 4.56E-03 6.83E-03 1.02E-02 1.46E-02 1.77E-020.015 6.66E-03 2.68E-03 4.07E-03 6.36E-03 9.37E-03 1.16E-020.03 2.61E-03 8.35E-04 1.34E-03 2.39E-03 3.84E-03 5.12E-030.05 1.14E-03 2.72E-04 4.77E-04 9.79E-04 1.79E-03 2.60E-030.075 5.31 E-04 9.37E-05 1.77E-04 4.07E-04 8.72E-04 1.40E-030.1 2.88E-04 4.07E-05 8.OOE-05 2.01E-04 4.77E-04 8.47E-040.15 1.1OE-04 1.13E-05 2.35E-05 6.54E-05 1.82E-04 3.68E-040.3 1.72E-05 1.07E-06 2.49E-06 8.23E-06 2.80E-05 6.26E-050.5 4.08E-06 1.67E-07 4.77E-07 1.84E-06 6.83E-06 1.53E-050.75 1.35E-06 3.33E-08 1.36E-07 5.83E-07 2.32E-06 5.27E-061 6.26E-07 9.93E-09 5.58E-08 2.64E-07 1.08E-06 2.49E-061.5 2.1OE-07 1.79E-09 1.42E-08 8.35E-08 3.57E-07 8.35E-073 2.78E-08 1.92E-10 1.18E-09 8.85E-09 4.37E-08 1.16E-075 5.16E-09 1.21E-10 2.07E-10 1.29E-09 7.55E-09 2.22E-087.5 1.17E-09 1.05E-10 1.21E-10 2.84E-10 1.55E-09 5.12E-0910 3.77E-10 8.98E-11 1.11E-10 1.42E-10 5.12E-10 1.69E-09 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment
-Appendix APage 28 of 33Table A-le. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 2.5 Hz at HNP.AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.950.0005 4.85E-02 3.68E-02 4.19E-02 4.90E-02 5.50E-02 5.91E-020.001 4.01E-02 2.64E-02 3.19E-02 4.01E-02 4.83E-02 5.27E-020.005 1.40E-02 6.54E-03 8.98E-03 1.34E-02 1.92E-02 2.32E-020.01 6.57E-03 2.64E-03 3.84E-03 6.17E-03 9.37E-03 1.18E-020.015 3.88E-03 1.36E-03 2.1OE-03 3.57E-03 5.66E-03 7.45E-030.03 1.35E-03 3.23E-04 5.66E-04 1.16E-03 2.13E-03 3.01E-030.05 5.24E-04 8.47E-05 1.64E-04 4.01E-04 8.85E-04 1.38E-030.075 2.15E-04 2.42E-05 5.05E-05 1.42E-04 3.68E-04 6.64E-040.1 1.06E-04 9.24E-06 2.01E-05 6.09E-05 1.79E-04 3.52E-040.15 3.46E-05 2.1OE-06 4.98E-06 1.67E-05 5.58E-05 1.25E-040.3 4.15E-06 1.44E-07 3.90E-07 1.55E-06 6.17E-06 1.53E-050.5 8.49E-07 1.69E-08 6.09E-08 2.92E-07 1.29E-06 3.23E-060.75 2.58E-07 2.80E-09 1.42E-08 8.47E-08 4.07E-07 1.05E-061 1.15E-07 8.12E-10 4.98E-09 3.52E-08 1.79E-07 4.83E-071.5 3.65E-08 2.13E-10 1.13E-09 9.65E-09 5.50E-08 1.55E-073 4.40E-09 1.21E-10 1.53E-10 8.23E-10 5.83E-09 1.92E-085 7.37E-10 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 1.72E-10 8.98E-10 3.23E-097.5 1.51E-10 8.12E-11 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 2.29E-10 7.03E-1010 4.48E-11 8.12E-11 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 1.34E-10 2.68E-10Table A-if. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 1 Hz at HNP.AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.950.0005 3.61E-02 2.01E-02 2.64E-02 3.68E-02 4.50E-02 5.05E-020.001 2.52E-02 1.20E-02 1.69E-02 2.49E-02 3.33E-02 3.90E-020.005 7.31E-03 2.64E-03 4.13E-03 6.93E-03 1.05E-02 1.32E-020.01 3.66E-03 9.65E-04 1.67E-03 3.28E-03 5.66E-03 7.66E-030.015 2.20E-03 4.37E-04 8.35E-04 1.84E-03 3.57E-03 5.12E-030.03 7.07E-04 7.89E-05 1.79E-04 5.12E-04 1.21E-03 2.01E-030.05 2.37E-04 1.64E-05 4.19E-05 1.44E-04 4.19E-04 7.89E-040.075 8.51E-05 3.95E-06 1.08E-05 4.31E-05 1.49E-04 3.09E-040.1 3.77E-05 1.32E-06 3.84E-06 1.67E-05 6.45E-05 1.44E-040.15 1.07E-05 2.64E-07 8.OOE-07 3.90E-06 1.72E-05 4.25E-050.3 1.OOE-06 1.40E-08 4.90E-08 2.80E-07 1.44E-06 4.13E-060.5 1.82E-07 1.46E-09 6.09E-09 4.19E-08 2.53E-07 7.77E-070.75 5.42E-08 2.88E-10 1.20E-09 9.93E-09 7.03E-08 2.39E-071 2.43E-08 1.46E-10 4.01E-10 3.57E-09 2.96E-08 1.08E-071.5 7.96E-09 1.21E-10 1.49E-10 8.72E-10 8.47E-09 3.42E-083 1.02E-09 8.47E-11 1.11E-10 1.42E-10 8.47E-10 4.01E-095 1.82E-10 8.12E-11 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 1.92E-10 7.34E-107.5 4.03E-11 8.12E-11 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 1.32E-10 2.13E-1010 1.27E-11 8.12E-11 8.12E-11 1.21E-10 1.32E-10 1.34E-10 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment
-Appendix APage 29 of 33Table A-lg. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 0.5 Hz at HNP.AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.950.0005 1.97E-02 1.05E-02 1.44E-02 1.92E-02 2.49E-02 2.92E-020.001 1.24E-02 6.09E-03 8.47E-03 1.20E-02 1.62E-02 1.98E-020.005 3.77E-03 8.98E-04 1.62E-03 3.42E-03 5.91E-03 7.89E-030.01 1.81E-03 2.29E-04 5.05E-04 1.42E-03 3.14E-03 4.70E-030.015 1.02E-03 8.47E-05 2.07E-04 7.03E-04 1.84E-03 3.01E-030.03 2.75E-04 1.04E-05 3.05E-05 1.40E-04 4.90E-04 1.02E-030.05 8.02E-05 1.62E-06 5.50E-06 3.01E-05 1.36E-04 3.37E-040.075 2.58E-05 3.28E-07 1.20E-06 7.34E-06 4.07E-05 1.13E-040.1 1.07E-05 9.93E-08 3.84E-07 2.46E-06 1.57E-05 4.70E-050.15 2.84E-06 1.79E-08 7.23E-08 4.77E-07 3.68E-06 1.23E-050.3 2.54E-07 8.85E-10 3.68E-09 2.84E-08 2.64E-07 1.11E-060.5 4.63E-08 1.57E-10 4.50E-10 3.84E-09 4.13E-08 2.07E-070.75 1.37E-08 1.21E-10 1.51E-10 8.60E-10 1.02E-08 6.OOE-081. 6.1OE-09 9.65E-11 1.21E-10 3.23E-10 3.84E-09 2.53E-081.5 1.98E-09 8.35E-11 1.10E-10 1.42E-10 9.93E-10 7.55E-093. 2.53E-10 8.12E-11 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 1.60E-10 8.35E-105. 4.58E-11 8.12E-11 8.35E-11 1.21E-10 1.32E-10 2.01E-107.5 1.02E-11 8.12E-11 8.12E-11 1.21E-10 1.32E-10 1.32E-1010 3.25E-12 8.12E-11 8.12E-11 1.21E-10 1.32E-10 1.32E-10 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment
-Appendix APage 30 of 33Table A-2. Amplification Functions for HNP.Median Sigma Median Sigma Median Sigma Median SigmaPGA AF In(AF) 25 Hz AF In(AF) 10 Hz AF In(AF) 5 Hz AF In(AF)1.OOE-02 1.08E+00 4.59E-02 1.30E-02 9.66E-01 6.08E-02 1.90E-02 1.05E+00 8.97E-02 2.09E-02 1.17E+00 1.01E-014.95E-02 9.36E-01 6.20E-02 1.02E-01 7.67E-01 1.15E-01 9.99E-02 1.02E+00 1.04E-01 8.24E-02 1.16E+00 1.05E-019.64E-02 8.82E-01 6.72E-02 2.13E-01 7.32E-01 1.27E-01 1.85E-01 1.01E+00 1.05E-01 1.44E-01 1.16E+00 1.06E-011.94E-01 8.37E-01 7.15E-02 4.43E-01 7.04E-01 1.33E-01 3.56E-01 9.95E-01 1.07E-01 2.65E-01 1.15E+00 1.08E-012.92E-01 8.12E-01 7.39E-02 6.76E-01 6.87E-01 1.36E-01 5.23E-01 9.82E-01 1.08E-01 3.84E-01 1.14E+00 1.08E-013.91E-01 7.95E-01 7.54E-02 9.09E-01 6.74E-01 1.38E-01 6.90E-01 9.71 E-01 1.09E-01 5.02E-01 1.14E+00 1.08E-014.93E-01 7.82E-01 7.66E-02 1.15E+00 6.62E-01 1.39E-01 8.61 E-01 9.62E-01 1.10E-01 6.22E-01 1.13E+00 1.08E-017.41E-01 7.58E-01 7.78E-02 1.73E+00 6.40E-01 1.42E-01 1.27E+00 9.41E-01 1.11E-01 9.13E-01 1.12E+00 1.05E-011.01E+00 7.40E-01 7.87E-02 2.36E+00 6.22E-01 1.44E-01 1.72E+00 9.24E-01 1.14E-01 1.22E+00 1.10E+00 1.03E-011.28E+00 7.25E-01 7.90E-02 3.01E+00 6.07E-01 1.46E-01 2.17E+00 9.08E-01 1.15E-01 1.54E+00 1.09E+00 1.03E-011.55E+00 7.12E-01 7.97E-02 3.63E+00 5.94E-01 1.47E-01 2.61E+00 8.94E-01 1.17E-01 1.85E+00 1.08E+00 1.03E-01Median Sigma Median Sigma Median Sigma2.5 Hz AF In(AF) 1 Hz AF In(AF) 0.5 Hz AF In(AF)2.18E-02 1.07E+00 9.15E-02 1.27E-02 1.31E+00 1.22E-01 8.25E-03 1.29E+00 1.30E-017.05E-02 1.06E+00 9.12E-02 3.43E-02 1.31E+00 1.18E-01 1.96E-02 1.28E+00 1.26E-011.18E-01 1.06E+00 9.09E-02 5.51E-02 1.30E+00 1.16E-01 3.02E-02 1.28E+00 1.24E-012.12E-01 1.06E+00 9.1OE-02 9.63E-02 1.30E+00 1.15E-01 5.11E-02 1.28E+00 1.23E-013.04E-01 1.05E+00 9.12E-02 1.36E-01 1.30E+00 1.14E-01 7.10E-02 1.28E+00 1.22E-013.94E-01 1.05E+00 9.13E-02 1.75E-01 1.31E+00 1.13E-01 9.06E-02 1.28E+00 1.22E-014.86E-01 1.05E+00 9.15E-02 2.14E-01 1.31E+00 1.12E-01 1.10E-01 1.28E+00 1.22E-017.09E-01 1.05E+00 9.16E-02 3.10E-01 1.31E+00 1.12E-01 1.58E-01 1.28E+00 1.22E-019.47E-01 1.05E+00 9.24E-02 4.12E-01 1.31E+00 1.11E-01 2.09E-01 1.28E+00 1.22E-011.19E+00 1.05E+00 9.36E-02 5.18E-01 1.32E+00 1.11E-01 2.62E-01 1.28E+00 1.22E-011.43E+00 1.04E+00 9.42E-02 6.19E-01 1.32E+00 1.10E-01 3.12E-01 1.28E+00 1.22E-01 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment
-Appendix APage 31 of 33Table A2-bl. Median AFs and sigmas for Model 1, Profile 1, for 2 PGA levels.MIPIKI Rock PGA=0.0964 MIP1K1 PGA=0.292 Freq. med. sigma Freq. med. sigma(Hz) Soil SA AF In(AF) (Hz) Soil SA AF In(AF)100.0 0.088 0.917 0.050 100.0 0.240 0.821 0.05787.1 0.089 0.906 0.051 87.1 0.242 0.806 0.05875.9 0.090 0.887 0.051 75.9 0.246 0.779 0.05966.1 0.093 0.848 0.052 66.1 0.253 0.728 0.06257.5 0.097 0.782 0.055 57.5 0.267 0.650 0.07050.1 0.105 0.719 0.069 50.1 0.294 0.591 0.09343.7 0.116 0.678 0.084 43.7 0.330 0.561 0.11338.0 0.126 0.661 0.088 38.0 0.359 0.558 0.11233.1 0.138 0.671 0.105 33.1 0.391 0.577 0.12328.8 0.150 0.722 0.115 28.8 0.427 0.634 0.12925.1 0.161 0.759 0.125 25.1 0.457 0.677 0.13421.9 0.171 0.829 0.121 21.9 0.479 0.748 0.12519.1 0.184 0.891 0.127 19.1 0.511 0.815 0.12716.6 0.190 0.944 0.129 16.6 0.526 0.878 0.12814.5 0.194 0.999 0.127 14.5 0.536 0.939 0.12812.6 0.196 1.025 0.107 12.6 0.536 0.970 0.11111.0 0.193 1.025 0.098 11.0 0.522 0.972 0.1029.5 0.193 1.063 0.085 9.5 0.517 1.011 0.0888.3 0.195 1.155 0.067 8.3 0.522 1.110 0.0717.2 0.189 1.186 0.083 7.2 0.505 1.151 0.0856.3 0.181 1.199 0.069 6.3 0.480 1.169 0.0675.5 0.176 1.211 0.086 5.5 0.463 1.182 0.0864.8 0.166 1.156 0.098 4.8 0.433 1.133 0.0974.2 0.158 1.127 0.086 4.2 0.410 1.111 0.0863.6 0.150 1.099 0.092 3.6 0.391 1.088 0.0923.2 0.142 1.094 0.098 3.2 0.367 1.088 0.0992.8 0.135 1.091 0.077 2.8 0.348 1.089 0.0772.4 0.123 1.075 0.088 2.4 0.317 1.076 0.0892.1 0.118 1.125 0.082 2.1 0.301 1.126 0.0811.8 0.109 1.164 0.078 1.8 0.278 1.166 0.0761.6 0.101 1.238 0.112 1.6 0.256 1.239 0.1111.4 0.091 1.282 0.085 1.4 0.228 1.283 0.0821.2 0.084 1.348 0.113 1.2 0.210 1.347 0.1111.0 0.076 1.347 0.097 1.0 0.189 1.346 0.0950.91 0.065 1.255 0.094 0.91 0.160 1.255 0.0920.79 0.059 1.255 0.105 0.79 0.144 1.254 0.1020.69 0.055 1.298 0.091 0.69 0.132 1.296 0.0890.60 0.048 1.290 0.072 0.60 0.114 1.288 0.0710.52 0.040 1.259 0.062 0.52 0.095 1.258 0.0600.46 0.034 1.273 0.087 0.46 0.080 1.271 0.0850.10 0.001 1.198 0.026 0.10 0.003 1.192 0.027 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-14-035, Attachment
-Appendix APage 32 of 33Table A2-b2, Median AFs and sigmas for Model 2, Profile 1, for 2 PGA levels.M2PIK1 PGA=0.0964 M2PIKI PGA=0.292 Freq. med. sigma Freq. med. sigma(Hz) Soil SA AF In(AF) (Hz) Soil SA AF In(AF)100.0 0.089 0.924 0.055 100.0 0.255 0.871 0.06087.1 0.090 0.913 0.056 87.1 0.258 0.857 0.06175.9 0.091 0.894 0.056 75.9 0.263 0.831 0.06166.1 0.093 0.856 0.056 66.1 0.272 0.782 0.06157.5 0.098 0.790 0.056 57.5 0.291 0.707 0.06150.1 0.107 0.730 0.058 50.1 0.327 0.657 0.06543.7 0.118 0.690 0.061 43.7 0.373 0.633 0.06838.0 0.129 0.675 0.081 38.0 0.408 0.634 0.09133.1 0.140 0.684 0.098 33.1 0.443 0.653 0.11028.8 0.153 0.736 0.113 28.8 0.481 0.713 0.12525.1 0.161 0.757 0.109 25.1 0.498 0.737 0.11721.9 0.171 0.831 0.121 21.9 0.523 0.817 0.12819.1 0.183 0.886 0.128 19.1 0.550 0.877 0.13316.6 0.191 0.951 0.127 16.6 0.566 0.944 0.13114.5 0.198 1.017 0.119 14.5 0.578 1.013 0.12212.6 0.201 1.051 0.125 12.6 0.579 1.048 0.12711.0 0.197 1.047 0.122 11.0 0.560 1.044 0.1249.5 0.196 1.077 0.103 9.5 0.549 1.074 0.1048.3 0.194 1.147 0.099 8.3 0.538 1.144 0.1007.2 0.192 1.205 0.092 7.2 0.528 1.203 0.0936.3 0.183 1.213 0.076 6.3 0.498 1.211 0.0765.5 0.174 1.195 0.083 5.5 0.467 1.193 0.0844.8 0.166 1.162 0.093 4.8 0.443 1.160 0.0934.2 0.155 1.107 0.096 4.2 0.409 1.106 0.0963.6 0.149 1.090 0.069 3.6 0.391 1.089 0.0693.2 0.139 1.076 0.100 3.2 0.363 1.075 0.1002.8 0.134 1.081 0.083 2.8 0.345 1.080 0.0832.4 0.123 1.074 0.080 2.4 0.316 1.073 0.0802.1 0.118 1.127 0.080 2.1 0.301 1.125 0.0791.8 0.111 1.180 0.081 1.8 0.281 1.178 0.0811.6 0.099 1.205 0.121 1.6 0.248 1.202 0.1201.4 0.088 1.244 0.106 1.4 0.220 1.241 0.1041.2 0.084 1.350 0.152 1.2 0.210 1.345 0.1501.0 0.079 1.393 0.104 1.0 0.195 1.388 0.1030.91 0.069 1.319 0.121 0.91 0.168 1.315 0.1190.79 0.059 1.237 0.120 0.79 0.142 1.235 0.1180.69 0.052 1.217 0.118 0.69 0.124 1.216 0.1160.60 0.046 1.230 0.078 0.60 0.109 1.228 0.0770.52 0.041 1.275 0.071 0.52 0.096 1.272 0.0690.46 0.036 1.348 0.098 0.46 0.084 1.345 0.0970.10 0.001 1.177 0.035 0.10 0.003 1.171 0.035 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission HNP-1 4-035, Attachment
-Appendix A Page 33 of 33Tables 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 10-4 and 10-5 mean annual frequency of exceedance.}}

Latest revision as of 09:34, 11 April 2019

Redirect to:

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML14090A441&oldid=1435934"