ML14099A204

H.B. Robinson, Unit 2 - Seismic Hazard Evaluation, 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 Near-Term Task Forc

ML14099A204
Person / Time
Site:	Robinson
Issue date:	03/31/2014
From:	Gideon W R Duke Energy Progress
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
RNP-RA/14-0013
Download: ML14099A204 (42)

Text

W. R. GfdeonH. B. Robinson SteamElectric Plant Unit 2DUKESite Vice President ENERGYDuke Engy PogresENERG3581 West Entrance RomoHartsville, SC 295500: 843 857 1701F" 843 857 1319Rmndy.Gideon*duke-energy.com 10 CFR 50.54(f)Serial: RNP-RN14-0013 MAR 3 12014U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk11555 Rockville PikeRockville, MD 20852H. B. ROBINSON STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NO. 2DOCKET NO. 50-261 / RENEWED LICENSE NO. DPR-23

Subject:

Seismic Hazard Evaluation, Response to NRC 10 CFR 50.54(f)

Request forInformation Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f)Regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3 and 9.3 of the Near-Term Task Force Reviewof 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, datedMarch 12, 2012 (ADAMS Accession Number ML12056A046)

2. NRC letter, Endorsement of EPRI Final Draft Report 1025287, "Seismic Evaluation Guidance,"

dated February 15, 2013 (ADAMS Accession Number ML1 2319A074)

3. EPRI Report 1025287, Seismic Evaluation Guidance:

Screening, Prioritization andImplementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term TaskForce Recommendation 2.1: Seismic, dated February 2013 (ADAMS Accession Number ML1 2333A1 70)4. NEI letter, Proposed Path Forward for NTTF Recommendation 2.1: SeismicReevaluations, dated April 9, 2013 (ADAMS Accession Number ML13101A319)

5. NRC letter, 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 tothe March 12, 201Z Information Request for Seismic Reevaluations, dated May 7,2013 (ADAMS Accession Number ML13106A331)

6. NEI Letter, Seismic Evaluations for Plants in the Central and Eastern United States,dated March 12,2014 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML14083A584, ML14083A586 andML14083A587) 4A0o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Serial: RNP-RA/14-0013 Page 3 of 3Ladies 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 1 ofReference 1 requested each addressee in the Central and Eastern United States (CEUS) tosubmit a written response consistent with the requested seismic hazard evaluation information (items 1 through 7) by September 12, 2013. By letter dated February 15, 2013, the NRC issuedReference 2, endorsing the Reference 3 industry guidance for responding to the seismicevaluation in Reference

1. Section 4 of Reference 3 identifies the detailed information to beincluded in the seismic hazard evaluation submittals.

On April 9, 2013, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) submitted Reference 4 to the NRC,requesting NRC agreement to delay submittal of part of the CEUS seismic hazard evaluation information so that an update to the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) (2004, 2006)ground motion attenuation model could be completed and used to develop that information.

NEIproposed that descriptions of subsurface materials and properties and base case velocityprofiles (items 3a and 3b in Section 4 of Reference

3) be submitted to the NRC by September 12, 2013, with the remaining seismic hazard and screening information submitted to the NRC byMarch 31, 2014. In Reference 5, the NRC agreed with this recommendation.

Reference 3 contains industry guidance and detailed information to be included in the SeismicHazard Evaluation submittals.

The attached Seismic Hazard Evaluation for H. B. RobinsonSteam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2 provides the information described in Section 4 of Reference 3in accordance with the schedule identified in Reference

4. As discussed in the Enclosure to thisletter, seismic hazard curves and a Ground Motion Response Spectrum (GMRS) weredeveloped using current methodology.

This GMRS is compared to the design basis SafeShutdown Earthquake (SSE) response spectrum and the Individual Plant Examination ofExternal Events (IPEEE) High Confidence of Low Probability of Failure (HCLPF) spectrum in theEnclosure.

As discussed within Reference 1, NRC acknowledged that the current regulatory approach andthe resultant plant capabilities provides reasonable confidence that an accident withconsequences similar to the Fukushima event is unlikely with nuclear power plants located inthe United States. The NRC concluded that continued plant operation does not pose animminent risk to the public health and safety.By letter dated March 12, 2014 (Reference 9), NEI provided the NRC with seismic core damagerisk estimates based on updated seismic hazard information as it applies to operating nuclearreactors in the CEUS, which includes H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2. Theserisk assessments continue to support the conclusions of the NRC Generic Issue-1 99"Safety/Risk Assessment" and indicate that current seismic design of operating reactors provideadequate protection and safety margin to withstand potential earthquakes that exceed theoriginal design basis.In accordance with Enclosure 1 of Reference 1, H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2screens in for performing a seismic probabilistic risk assessment (SPRA).This letter contains no new regulatory commitments.

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Serial: RNP-RA/14-0013 Page 3 of 3If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Richard Hightower,

Manager, Nuclear Regulatory Affairs at (843)-857-1329.

I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.Executed on MAR 3 12014Sincerely, W. R. GideonSite Vice President WRG/shc

Enclosure:

Seismic Hazard Evaluation cc: Mr. K. M. Ellis, NRC Senior Resident Inspector Mr. S. P. Lingam, NRC Project Manager, NRRMr. V. M. McCree, NRC Region II Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Enclosure to Serial: RNP-RA/14-0013 39 Pages including this coverENCLOSURE SEISMIC HAZARD EVALUATION FORH. B. ROBINSON STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NO. 2DOCKET NO. 50-261 / RENEWED LICENSE NO. DPR-23 TABLE OF CONTENTSSection Page1.0 Introduction

........................................................................................

12.0 Seismic Hazard Reevaluation

................................................................

22.1 Regional and Local Geology ...............................................................

32.2 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis

..................................................

42.2.1 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis Results ....................................

42.2.2 Base Rock Seismic Hazard Curves ................................................

92.3 Site Response Evaluation

..................................................................

92.3.1 Description of Subsurface Material

...................................................

92.3.2 Development of Base Case Profiles and Nonlinear Material Properties

...... 112.3.3 Randomization of Base Case Profiles

..............................................

142.3.4 Input Spectra ..............................................................................

152.3.5 Methodology

...............................................................................

152.3.6 Amplification Functions

.................................................................

152.3.7 Control Point Seismic Hazard Curves ..............................................

222.4 Ground Motion Response Spectrum

....................................................

223.0 Safe Shutdown Earthquake Ground Motion ............................................

243.1 Description of Spectral Shape and Anchor Point .....................................

243.2 Control Point Elevation

......................................................................

254.0 Screening Evaluation

..........................................................................

254.1 Risk Evaluation Screening (1 to 10 Hz) ..................................................

264.2 High Frequency Screening

(> 10 Hz) ....................................................

264.3 Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation Screening (1 to 10 Hz) .....................

.265.0 Interim Actions and Assessments

..........................................................

265.1 Expedited Seismic Evaluation Program ................................................

265.2 Seismic Risk Estimates

.......................................................................

275.3 Individual Plant Examination of External Events ......................................

275.4 Walkdowns to Address NRC Fukushima NTTF Recommendation 2.3 ............

276.0 Conclusions

......................................................................................

287.0 References

................

...............................

29Appendix A ..................................................................................................

A-1i Seismic Hazard and Screening ReportH.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP)

Page 1 of 301.0 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), requesting information toassure that these recommendations are addressed by all U.S. nuclear power plants. The *50.54(f) letter requests that licensees and holders of construction permits under 10 CFR Part 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 H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP) site, located inDarlington County, South Carolina (SC). In providing this information, HBRSEP followed theguidance provided in the Seismic Evaluation Guidance:

Screening, Prioritization, andImplementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task ForceRecommendation 2.1: Seismic (EPRI 1025287, 2013) (Reference 2). The Augmented

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 an interim actionto demonstrate additional plant safety margin, prior to performing the complete plant seismicrisk evaluations.

The original geologic and seismic siting investigations for HBRSEP were performed using adetailed geologic study of the region and the site to establish the geologic suitability of the sitefor the nuclear unit. Additional data utilized in the geologic and seismic siting investigations wereobtained from the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission (USAEC) Savannah River Operations Office (Appendix 2.5A of Reference 7), Dr.'s J. L. Stuckey and L. L. Smith (Appendix 2.5C ofReference 7), and Perry Byerly (Appendix 2.5D of Reference 7).The Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) was developed based on evaluation of historicearthquake

activity, regional and local geology, and recommendation of Dr. G. W. Housner ofthe California Institute of Technology.

The SSE was used for the design of seismic Class Isystems, structures, and components.

Seismic Hazard and Screening ReportH.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP)

Page 2 of 30The General Design Criteria (GDC) in existence at the time HBRSEP was licensed (July, 1970)for operation were contained in Proposed Appendix A to 10CFR50, General Design Criteria forNuclear Power Plants, published in the Federal Register on July 11, 1967. (Appendix A to1 OCFR50, effective in 1971 and subsequently

amended, is somewhat different from theproposed 1967 criteria.)

HBRSEP was evaluated with respect to the proposed 1967 GDC andthe original Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) (Reference

7) contained a discussion of thecriteria as well as a summary of the criteria by groups. FSAR, Sections 3.1.1.2 and 3.1.2present that discussion without substantive change in order to preserve the original basis forlicensing.

In 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, HBRSEP screens in for risk evaluation, a Spent Fuel Pool evaluation, and a High Frequency Confirmation.

2.0 Seismic Hazard Reevaluation HBRSEP is located in northwest Darlington County, SC, approximately 3 miles west-northwest of Hartsville, SC; 25 miles northwest of Florence, SC; 35 miles north-northeast of Sumter, SC;and 56 miles east-northeast of Columbia, SC. The plant is on the southwest shore of LakeRobinson, a cooling impoundment of Black Creek. The site is located in the Coastal Plainphysiographic province about 15 miles southeast of the Piedmont province.

The Coastal Plain iscomposed of largely unconsolidated sediments above a slightly sloping surface of crystalline rock. The basement crystallines in the Piedmont and below the Coastal Plain are composedlargely of granite, gneiss, phyllite, and schist and dip to the southeast from 10 ft to 40 ft per mile.The normal regional dip of the Coastal Plain sediments is toward the southeast at about 8 ft to30 ft per mile, the greater dips being in the deeper strata.Only one earthquake with intensity of V or greater has ever been recorded within 50 miles of thesite. In 1959, an earthquake with intensity of V-VI (Modified Mercalli Scale) occurred about 15miles from the site in the vicinity of McBee, SC. No permanent effects of this shock are noted inthe literature or in a geologic reconnaissance, although it is presumed to have been felt at thelocation of the site. It is estimated that this shock had a magnitude no greater than 4.5 with anepicentral acceleration of well under 0.10 g.On the basis of the historical data, it is expected that the site area could experience a shock onthe order of the 1959 McBee shock once during the life of the plant. A Magnitude 4.5earthquake with an epicentral distance of less than ten miles was selected as the designearthquake.

Although the probable ground acceleration for this earthquake would be 0.07 g to0.09 g, a conservative value of 0.1 g is used for the Operational Basis Earthquake (OBE). AnSSE with a maximum ground acceleration of 0.2 g was selected to provide an adequate marginof safety.

Seismic Hazard and Screening ReportH.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP)

Page 3 of 302.1 Regional and Local GeologyRegional GeoloqgyIn South Carolina, the Coastal Plain is composed of largely unconsolidated sediments whichoverlie a slightly sloping surface of crystalline rock. These crystallines are of Precambrian andearly Paleozoic age with subordinate sandstones and intrusive diorities of Triassic age. Triassicsediments have been faulted into the ancient crystallines.

Faulted Triassic basins are evident inthe Piedmont province and deep wells have located Triassic rocks in widely divergent areasbeneath the Coastal Plain. Overlying the Precambrian, Paleozoic, and Triassic rocks, are thesediments of the Coastal Plain. These sediments are composed of sands, gravels, clays,shales, and limestones which range in age from Cretaceous to Pleistocene.

The Coastal Plain itself is divided into the upper Coastal Plain and the lower Coastal Plain bywhat has been termed the Orangeburg Scarp, an erosional feature representing a shoreline formed during Miocene times. The elevation of the Upper Coastal Plain ranges fromapproximately 210 ft above Mean Sea Level, (MSL) at the Orangeburg Scarp, and 450 ft to 500ft above MSL, at the Fall Zone. The Upper Coastal Plain is the outcrop zone of the Tuscaloosa (Middendorf)

Formation of late Cretaceous age, but most of the area is blanketed by morerecent alluvial deposits of sand and gravel. The elevation of the Lower Coastal Plain rangesfrom approximately 210 ft above MSL, at the Orangeburg Scarp to sea level at the coast. Themajor structural features of the region include Triassic grabens (downfaulted basins) and theCape Fear Arch, a basement ridge which trends southeastward from the Fall Line to the AtlanticCoast just northeast of the North Carolina-South Carolina boundary.

The Cape Fear Arch hascaused the overlying Coastal Plain sediments to dip away from its structure, thereby modifying the normal regional dips on its flanks.Local GeoloqyThe surficial materials at the HBRSEP site are recent sands or soils developed from theMiddendorf.

Because of the high quartz content of the sands and the climatic environment, thesurficial soils may not weather sufficiently to differ considerably from the parent material.

Froman engineering standpoint, the difference is minor.The subsurface materials encountered in the test holes drilled at the site are completely consistent with recent alluvium and Middendorf Formations encountered throughout the vicinity.

Discontinuities within the strata are sedimentary and no structural deformation is apparent in theMiddendorf Formation in the site area.Triassic basins are known in the area; however, it is believed that the likelihood of a Triassicbasin at the site is quite small. The basement rock at the site is considered to be Piedmontcrystalline since the results of the seismic surveys indicate a high velocity material at a depthconsistent with the depth of Piedmont crystallinesencountered in wells in the area.

Seismic Hazard and Screening ReportH.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP)

Page 4 of 30The upper alluvial sands and gravels are moderately compact.

Layers of compressible materialoccur in the upper 30 ft to 50 ft. Because of the quantity of fines in the sand and gravel, it cannotbe considered free-draining material.

The underlying Middendorf contains

compact, relatively incompressible sands and firm to hard clayey soils. Several strata of cemented sandstone wereencountered in the borings at depths of approximately 90 ft to 100 ft.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

4) together with the updated EPRI Ground-Motion Model (GMM) for theCEUS (Reference 5). A site-specific review of the CEUS-SSC earthquake catalog was alsoperformed as described below, and these results are incorporated into the PSHA for theHBRSEP site. For the PSHA, a lower-bound moment magnitude of 5.0 was used, as specified in the 50.54(f) letter.Site-Specific CEUS-SSC Catalog ReviewA site-specific review (Reference,

13) of the CEUS-SSC catalog published in the CEUS-SSCwas performed with regard to two issues: (1) identification of additional reservoir inducedseismicity (RIS) earthquakes in the southeastern US and (2): locations of earthquakes in SouthCarolina near the time of the 1886 Charleston, SC earthquake sequence.

In developing the CEUS-SSC

catalog, earthquakes identified as RIS were removed from thefinal earthquake listing.

The source for this identification in the southeastern US was the set ofavailable Southeast US Seismic Network (SEUSSN)

Bulletins.

The master list contained 120earthquakes.

Sixteen of these were large enough to be in the CEUS-SSC catalog.

Theseearthquakes occurred primarily near Monticello Reservoir and Lake Keowee. Theseearthquakes were removed from the final (Version

7) CEUS-SSC catalog published in NUREG-2115.Additional reviews were performed of available published information to identify potential additional RIS earthquakes that are in the CEUS-SSC catalog.

The basis for each of thepotential RIS records was reviewed, taking into consideration the magnitude of the earthquake and depth, proximity to a reservoir, timing of the earthquake versus the filling of the reservoir, and proximity to a nuclear plant.Thirty additional RI or potentially RI earthquakes were identified in the CEUS-SSC catalog.

Ofthese, thirteen were large enough (E[M] > 2.9) to potentially affect recurrence calculations.

Some of these were identified as dependent events of other earthquakes in the catalog.

After Seismic Hazard and Screening ReportH.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP)

Page 5 of 30review, it was determined that all thirty RI or potentially RI earthquakes should be removed fromthe catalog.

Table 2.2.1-1 lists the specific earthquake database records reviewed.

Seven additional earthquakes in the CEUS-SSC catalog from the time period 1799 to 1888 inSouth Carolina were also identified as being potentially mislocated (Table 2.2.1-2).

The majorityof these earthquakes have locations and times that come from the USGS's earthquake catalogused for seismic hazard mapping.

The primary source of the USGS catalog is the NCEER-91catalog.

The events in question have alternative locations in the SUSN catalog that place themat the location of the 1886 Charleston, SC main shock. A review was performed of theidentification of these earthquakes and assignment of these locations in the development of theCEUS-SSC catalog in light of additional information in the paper by W.H. Bakun and M.G.Hopper (2004, "Magnitudes and Locations of the 1811-1812 New Madrid, Missouri, and the1886 Charleston, South Carolina, Earthquakes,"

Bulletin of the Seismological Society ofAmerica, 94, 64-75) and recent information provided by Donald Stevenson and Dr. PradeepTalwani.The review identified another potential duplicate record. Bakun and Hopper (2004) also studiedthe Charleston aftershock on 1886/11/5 17:20 and found a location near Charleston, but slightlyinland from other locations.

Talwani and Sharma (1999) also concluded that this earthquake occurred at a slightly different location than other Charleston aftershocks.

This earthquake appears in the CEUS-SSC catalog as TMP02071.

There is also an event TMP02072 that islisted in the USGS catalog with time 12:25 with a location to the northwest of Charleston.

Bothevents were identified as Charleston aftershocks in the declustering, but the timing suggeststhat they may be duplicates.

The recommendation was to remove TMP02072 and use themagnitude and location given in Bakun and Hopper for TMP02071.

An additional review was performed of earthquake locations provided by Seeber andArmbruster (1987). These locations and size assessments were incorporated into the NCEER-91 catalog and then into the USGS catalog used as the primary source for the CEUS-SSCcatalog.

The original Seeber and Armbruster (1987) listing was also incorporated into theCEUS-SSC

catalog, along with their listed values of felt area. During the review, theclassification of nine additional earthquakes at locations distance from Charleston significant tohazard (EtM]>2.9) were changed from dependent to independent.

Previously, theseearthquakes had been classified as dependent earthquakes in clusters associated with theearthquakes identified above. The information for each of these earthquakes was reviewed, including additional information provided by Stevenson and Talwani.Table 2.2.1-3 summarizes the assessment of the larger events in the CEUS-SSC cataloglocated at sufficient distance from Charleston to not be identified as aftershocks of the1886/09/01 main shock.

Seismic Hazard and Screening ReportH.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP)Page 6 of 30Table 2.2.1-1Summary of RIS Earthquake ReviewComment ITMPID yr mo Dy hr mn sec lat Ion depth E[M] Disposition TMP07012 1969 12 13 10 19 29.7 35.04 -82.85 6 3.46 Retain as nonRISTMP07159 1971 7 13 11 42 26 34.8 -83 n/a 3.63 Possible RIS........................................

.....................

................

.............

o...........

..............

...... ..... ..........

............

..............

............................

... ...................

...........

....... .. .............

.........................................

Retain as nonTMP07565 1974 8 2 8 52 11.1 33.91 -82.53 4 3.91 RisRISTMP08078 1975 11 25 15 17 34.8 34.93 -82.9 10* 3.21 RISTMP08787 1977 9 7 14 41 32.7 34.982 -82.927 n/a 2.77 RISTMP08971 1978 1 25 8 29 39 34.301 -81.234 5** 2.6 RISTMP09354 1978 8 27 10 23 8 34.313 -81.337 2 2.93 RISTMP08998 1978 2 10 20 23 38.7 34.343 -81.348 1 2.77 Possible RISTMP08999 1978 2 11 0 19 0,7 34,343 -81.35 3 2 77 Possible RISTMP09000 1978 2 11 5 19 0.2 34.346 -81.349 1 2.93 Possible RISTMP09006 1978 2 14 12 45 72 34.342 -81.346 2 2.77 Possible RIS..................................

....................

................

........

....... ...................

.... ....... ..........

..................

........

...................

............

........................................................

TMP09006 1978 2 14 12 14 3.2 34.349 -81.346 2 2.77 Possible RIS............

.........

... ...................

..... ...............................

..........

.........

... ...... .1... .... ..... .... ...... ..... ..........

..........

....................

....... ... .... ....... ... .....................

....................

TMP09014 1978 2 16 2 14 33.4 34.332 -81.362 2 2.85 Possible RISTMP09023 1978 2 22 7 13 25.1 34.327 -81.35 1 2.85 Possible RISTMP09024 1978 2 22 12 13 24.3 34.339 -81.35 1 -3.00 Possible RISTMP09002 1978 2 22 13 4 59.2 34.356 -81.352 0 2 .77 Possible RIS1MP09027 1978 2 24 7 34 10.5 34.334 -81.348 1 2.93 Possible RISTMP09029 1978 2 25 4 2 42.7 34.345 -81.351 1 2.77 Possible RISTMP09031 1978 2 26 6 52 35.4 34.315 -81.297 1 2.85 Possible RISTMP09032 1978 2 26 11 52 33 34.391 -81.361 1 3.00 Possible RIS........

................................

...... .........

.. ....... ...... I .............

............. ..............

,... .. ....... ..........

...........................

.............................. ...... I...........

... .............

....... ........................................................

TMP09033 1978 2 26 18 17 48.8 34.321 -81.348 0 3.08 Possible RIS........

....... .......................

............

...... ..... * ........

..... b .........

.. .........

...... b .........

..... d ........

........ .... ....... ..........

I... ... 4 ...........................

.......................

.....................

n.........................................................

TMP09343 1978 8 24 10 23 7.6 34.311 -81.341 2 2.85 Possible RISTMP09355 1978 8 27 10 23 8 34.313 -81.337 7 2.77 Possible RISTMP09460 1978 10 27 16 27 18.1 34.302 -81.326 2 3.08 RISTMP09518 1978 11 24 11 54 40.9 34.296 -81.347 1 2.85 Possible RISTMP10034 1979 8 26 1 31 45 34.916 -82.956 1 3.64 RISTMP39374 1979 10 8 8 54 19.4 34.31 -81.33 2 2.85 RIS.... .............................

...............

.............

..... ....... ..............

...............

I...... ..............

.............

.............................

......................

....................

........................................

................

TMP10104 1979 10 8 23 20 11 34.306 -81.344 1 3.16 RIS.........

.................................................................

...............

........................................................................................................

TMP10506 1980 7 29 1 10 22.7 34.351 -81.364 1 3.31 Possible RISTMP16282 1988 1 27 22 5 42.9 34.189 -82.75 6.1 2.32 RIS* depth 17 km in RANDJ** depth 1 km in Stover & Coffman Seismic Hazard and Screening ReportH.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP)Page 7 of 30Table 2.2.1-2Potential Charleston SC Area Aftershocks from CEUS-SSC CatalogSource of CatalogTMPID yr Mo Dy hr mn sec Lat Ion E[M] LocationUSGSnd_000145 TMP00331 1799 4 11 8 20 0 33.95 -80.18 4.68 Revised by Jeff Munseyof TVA based on Bakunand Hopper Method

..... ...... .............

..... .... ...... .........

.........

...... ...... ..6 .................

................

..........

...... ....... ......... ... ...............

... .i n i 6 ; ....................................

TMP01089 1860 1 19 23 0 0 33.68 -80.57 4.21 USGSnd_000427

................

......................................

............

... .... ............

I .............

.. .. .................

... ................

I ............. ..........

.i ...................

.e~ ~ ; Y B 6 i; .............................

TMP01731 1886 9 1 6 0 0 33.91 -82.02 4.54 SeebArm87...000014 TMP01739 1886 9 1 9 45 0 34.3 -82.86 4.17 USGSnd_000771

........

.....f ..........

.........

8 .i- ........ .............

.' ............

.. ..............

-... .........

_:. i ..........

...................

... ................

-G n ; _ -- ..............................................

TMP02019 1886 10 22 5 0 0 34.71 -81.66 4.13 USGSnd_000805

.....i ...............

I ............

".......

........ .2 -i , "

...... ... ...... .-.. " .... .... ....... ...... ...... .........

I ..........

..... ..........

......................

TMP02025 1886 10 22 14 45 0 3.7 -81.01 4.5 UGnd_000807

...... .. ....... .... .. .. .... ...... .. ..................

.............

... ....... .. ........ ..............

........ ;. .. ... ...................

.... .............

...........

................

7 -... ...-4 -* * *..........

.............

-TMP02360 1888 1 12 9 55 0 34.18 -80.17 4.33 USGSnd_000860 Table 2.2.1-3Summary of Events Affected by the Charleston Aftershock ReviewTMPID yr Mo Dy Hr Mn sec lat Ion Comment / Disposition TMP00331 1799 4 11 8 20 0 33.95 -80.18 Retainasis

.............................................

....I........................

.................

..........................

.................

I............

...... ...........

...................

I.......................

.................... e i ~ :a i d ' a n i i a -........

...TMP01089 1860 1 19 23 0 0 33.68 -80.57 Mo o 10E[M] on 10..............

...............

....... .... ...............

.............

.............

..... .... ... ....... .t .... .. .... ........ ..... ..............

I ...........

.........

........

...... ................

........

...................................

..................................

Event removed from catalog asa duplicate of TMP01 732.TMP01731 1886 9 1 6 0 0 33.91 -82.02 Location and magnitude ofTMP01732.do not requiremodification Event removed from catalog asa duplicate of TMP01738.

TMP01739 1886 9 1 14* 45 0 34.04 -82.9 Location and magnitude ofTMP01738 do not requiremodification

..................................

...... ...........

..............

.........

........

....... ..... ..............

....... .... ...... ..... ....... .. ....... .................

.. .. ...............

... ......................

..........................

.... ......TMP01942 1886 9 28 3 0 0 34.7 -81.62 Consider as a false event..................................

... .........

....... ........

.... .. .........

............

.......................................

.. ...... .................

..................

..........

......................

.... .........

..............................

.....TMP02002 1886 10 12 11 0 I0 34.14 -81.33 Not use reported felt area, event1 0 0becomes

< E[M] 2.9TMP02019 1886 10 22. 5 0 0 34.71 -81.66 Event removed from catalog asa duplicate of TMP02023Magnitude taken from BakunTMP02023 1886 10 22 10 20 32.9 -80 and Hopper (2004)............................

.. , .;... ..... ..... ... ...........

.. ... ... ................................

............

.. ............

...d .H.° P r..2.. ° °... t)..... .........................................

TMP02024 1886 10 22 10* 25 I , 33.69 -81 Event removed from catalog asTMP0024 188 ' 10 2 1* 2 .3.69 -81 a duplicate of TM P02023.. ...... .. ...............

..........

..........

..........

...... .. ....... ....................

....... ......d.....of T M 0 2 20 33.87 Location moved to Charleston, TMP02025 1886 10 22 14 45 0 33.87 -81.01 magnitude taken from Bakun... .. .. ..... ...... .. .. .. .... ...... ..... .. ... .. ..... .. .. ... .. ....... .. .........

... ....... .........

....... .. .. ... ....... .. ....... ..................

Seismic Hazard and Screening ReportH.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP)Page 8 of 30TMPID yr Mo Dy Hr Mn sec lat Ion Comment / Disposition and Hopper (2004)TMP02068 1886 11 5 5 0 0 33.38 -82.49 Not use reported felt area, eventbecomes < E[M] 2.9TMP02071 1886 11 5 17 20 0 32.9 -80 Magnitude taken from Bakunand Hopper (2004)TMP02072 1886 11 5 12 25 33.4 -80.42 Event removed from catalog asa duplicate of TMP02071.

TMP02134 1886 12 8 10 25 0 34.039 -80.886 Revise 10 from 4.5 to 4TMP02136 1886 12 11 21 0 0 34.18 -82.06 Retain as isTMP02173 1887 1 12 11 0 0 34.35 -82.42 Retain as less than E[M] 2.9,remove felt areaTMP02210 1887 3 4 10 0 0 33.74 -81.5 Not use reported felt area, eventbecomes < E[M] 2.9TMP02360 1888 1 12 9 55 0 34.18 -80.17 Event removed from catalog asa duplicate of TMP39326.

TMP02393 1888 4 5 0 0 0 34.21 -81.534 Retain, reduce to 10 4, E[M] lessthan 2.9TMP02423 1888 8 15 23 30 0 34,37 -81.08 Retain as is* Change in hour.Probabilistic Seismic Hazard AnalysisFor the PSHA, the CEUS-SSC (Reference

4) background seismic sources out to a distance of400 miles (640 kin) around the site were included.

This distance exceeds the 200 mile (320 km)recommendation contained in Reg. Guide 1.208 (Reference

6) and was chosen forcompleteness.

Background sources included in this site analysis are the following:

1. Atlantic Highly Extended Crust (AHEX)2. Extended Continental Crust-Atlantic Margin (ECC.AM)3. Extended Continental Crust-Gulf Coast (ECC_GC)4. Mesozoic and younger extended prior -narrow (MESE-N)5. Mesozoic and younger extended prior -wide (MESE-W)6. Midcontinent-Craton alternative A (MIDCA)7. Midcontinent-Craton alternative B (MIDCB)8. Midcontinent-Craton alternative C (MIDCC)9. Midcontinent-Craton alternative D (MIDCD)10. Non-Mesozoic and younger extended prior -narrow (NMESE-N)

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

12. Paleozoic Extended Crust narrow (PEZN)13. Paleozoic Extended Crust wide (PEZW)14. Reelfoot Rift including the Rough Creek Graben (RR-RCG)15. Study region (STUDYR)

Seismic Hazard and Screening ReportH.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP)

Page 9 of 30For sources of large magnitude earthquakes, designated Repeated Large Magnitude Earthquake (RLME) sources in CEUS-SSC (Reference 4), the following sources lie within 1,000km 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 ValleyFor each of the above background and RLME sources, the mid-continent version of the updatedCEUS EPRI GMM was used.2.2.2 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 Following the guidance contained in Seismic Enclosure 1 of the 3/12/2012 50.54(f)

Request forInformation and in the SPID (CEUS-SSC, 2013a) for nuclear power plant sites that are not sitedon hard rock (defined as 2.83 km/sec),

a site response analysis was performed for HBRSEP.2.3.1 Description of Subsurface MaterialThe HBRSEP is located in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province of South Carolina.

Thegeneral site conditions consist of about 50 ft (15.2 m) of recent alluvium overlying about 400 ft(122 m) of stiff sands, sandstones, and mudstones.

Precambrian basement consisting ofPiedmont crystalline rocks lie below the sedimentary section (Reference 16).Table 2.3.1-1 shows the recommended geotechnical properties for the site.

Seismic Hazard and Screening ReportH.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP)

Page 10 of 30Table 2.3.1-1 (Reference 16)Summary of Site Geotechnical Profile for HBRSEPDepth* Shear Compressional AssumedRange Soil/Rock Density Wave Wave Velocity Poisson's (feet) Description (pcf) Velocity (fps) Ratio(fps)Recent Alluvium0' to 56' RScnt Alluvium 125 1000** 1500 0.33(Sand and Gravel)Cretaceous Middendorf 56' to 460' (Sands, Silty and Sandy 130 3600 7200 0.33Clay, Sandstone andMudstone)

Pre-Cambrian Crystalline

> 460' (Granite, Gneiss, Phyllite 170 11200 17500 0.15Schist)*Measured from EL. 226 ft."The original soil profile data obtained from Figure 2.5.1-2 of the HBR2 Updated FSAR hasbeen adjusted based on recommendations of MACTEC in EC54720-ZOO Attachment A. Figure2.5.1-2 had a shear wave velocity of 750 fps for the first 30ft of soil (measured from EL. 226 ft);whereas, MACTEC suggested an adjusted value of 1000 fps for the first 70ft of soil (measured from EL. 240 ft). All other soil profile data in Table 2 remains the same as given in Figure2.5.1-2 of the Updated FSAR.The following description of the general geology at the site is taken directly from URS(Reference 16):"The surficial materials at the HBRSEP site are recent sands or soils developed from theMiddendorf.

Because of the high quartz content of the sands and the climatic environment, thesurf icial soils may not weather sufficiently to differ considerably from the parent material.

Thus, it is nearly impossible to distinguish the recent alluvial soils from the parentMiddendorf sand since both the alluvial and weathered soils are derived from theMiddendorf.

Only their manner of placement would be different.

From an engineering standpoint, the difference is minor.The subsurface materials encountered in the test holes drilled at the site are completely consistent with recent alluvium and Middendorf Formations encountered throughout thevicinity.

Discontinuities within the strata are sedimentary and no structural deformation is apparent in the Middendorf Formation in the site area.The Middendorf is about 400 ft thick and overlies an eroded, slightly sloping surface ofPiedmont crystallines that may be somewhat weathered near the surface.Triassic basins are known in the area; however, it is believed that the likelihood of aTriassic basin at the site is quite small. The basement rock at the site is considered to Seismic Hazard and Screening ReportH.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP)

Page 11 of 30be Piedmont crystalline since the results of the seismic surveys indicate a high velocitymaterial at a depth consistent with the depth of Piedmont crystallines encountered inwells in the area.In general, the upper alluvial sands and gravels are moderately compact.

Layers ofcompressible material occur in the upper 30 to 50 ft. Because of the quantity of fines inthe sand and gravel, it could not be considered free-draining material.

The underlying Middendorf contains generally compact relatively incompressible sands and firm to hardclayey soils. Several strata of cemented sandstone were encountered in the borings atdepths of roughly 90 to 100 ft.From a geological standpoint, the Middendorf is considered to be an unconsolidated formation.

From an engineering point of view, however, the materials are firm andcompact and would provide good foundation support for the proposed construction.

Thematerials range in texture from a hard or compact soil to a soft rock."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 surface (Reference 16), theprofile consists of 460 ft (140.2 m) of soils and soft rock overlying hard crystalline basementrock.Shear-wave velocities for the profile were based on measurements of compressional-wave velocities (Reference 16), likely through refraction

surveys, and assumed Poisson ratios. Morerecent downhole testing at the nearby ISFSI revised the surf icial alluvium shear-wave velocityfrom 750 ft/s (228.6 m/s) to 1,000 ft/s (304.8 m/s) (Table 2.3.1-1) and confirmed the deepershear-wave velocities (Reference 16).For the stiff soils and soft rock of the Cretaceous Middendorf Formation (Table 2.3.1-1),

a depthdependent shear-wave velocity

gradient, rather than a constant velocity or constant gradientover a 400 ft depth range, was assumed to more accurately, reflect in-situ conditions.

To modela representative velocity gradient for the Middendorf Formation, a 760 m/s (Vs (30 m)) genericprofile (Reference

2) was adopted and adjusted to reflect the average shear-wave velocity forthe Middendorf Formation as specified in Table 2.3.1-1 (Reference 16). The adopted gradientprofile is shown 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 cr.1 of about 0.35 based on theSPID (Reference

2) 10& and 90th fractiles which implies a 1.28 scale factor on op.Using the shear-wave velocities specified in Table 2.3.2-1, three base-profiles were developed using the scale factor of 1.57. The specified shear-wave velocities were taken as the mean or Seismic Hazard and Screening ReportH.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP)Page 12 of 30best estimate base-case profile (P1) with lower and upper range base-cases profiles P2 and P3respectively.

The three base-case profiles P1, P2, and P3, have a mean depth below the SSEof 460 ft (140.2 m) to hard reference rock, randomized

+/- 93 ft (+/- 28.4 m). The base-case profiles (P1, P2, and P3) are shown in Figure 2.3.2-1 and listed in Table 2.3.2-2.

The depthrandomization reflects

+/- 20% of the depth and was based on both borehole and refraction confirmation as well as to provide a realistic broadening of the fundamental resonance ratherthan reflect actual random variations to basement shear-wave velocities across a footprint.

Vs profiles for Robinson SiteVs (ft/sec)0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 100000so501001502001250is300350400450500-Profile 1-Profile 2~ 250-Profile 3Figure 2.3.2-1.

Shear-wave velocity profiles for the HBRSEP site.Table 2.3.2-2Layer thicknesses, depths, and shear-wave velocities (Vs) for 3 profiles, the HBRSEP siteProfile 1 Profile 2 Profile 3thickness(ft) depth (ft) Vs(ftts) thickness(ft) depth (ft) Vs(ft/s) thickness(ft) depth (ft) Vs(if/s)0 1000 0 640 0 15705.6 5.6 1000 5.6 5.6 640 5.6 5.6 15705.6 11.2 1000 5.6 11.2 640 5.6 11.2 15705.6 16.8 1000 5.6 16.8 640 5.6 16.8 15705.6 22.4 1000 5.6 22.4 640 5.6 22.4 15705.6 28.1 1000 5.6 28.1 640 5.6 28.1 15705.6 33.7 1000 5.6 33.7 640 5.6 33.7 15705.6 39.3 1000 5.6 39.3 640 5.6 39.3 15705.6 44.9 1000 5.6 44.9 640 5.6 44.9 15705.6 50.5 1000 5.6 50.5 640 5.6 50.5 15705.6 56.1 1000 5.6 56.1 640 5.6 56.1 1570 Seismic Hazard and Screening ReportH.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP)Page 13 of 305.0 61.1 1566 5.0 61.1 1002 5.0 61.1 24584.0 65.1 1706 4.0 65.1 1092 4.0 65.1 26797.4 72.5 1914 7.4 72.5 1225 7.4 72.5 30057.5 80.1 2110 7.5 80.1 1350 7.5 80.1 331211.0 91.0 2312 11.0 91.0 1480 11.0 91.0 363015.0 106.0 2531 15.0 106.0 1620 15.0 106.0 397418.0 124.0 2815 18.0 124.0 1802 18.0 124.0 442022.0 146.1 3100 22.0 146.1 1984 22.0 146.1 486725.0 171.1 3380 25.0 171.1 2163 25.0 171.1 530633.0 204.1 3720 33.0 204.1 2381 33.0 204.1 584042.0 246.1 4150 42.0 246.1 2656 42.0 246.1 651535.0 281.1 4520 35.0 281.1 2893 35.0 281.1 709635.0 316.1 4520 35.0 316.1 2893 35.0 316.1 709633.3 349.4 4780 33.3 349.4 3059 33.3 349.4 750433.3 382.7 4780 33.3 382.7 3059 33.3 382.7 750433.3 416.1 4780 33.3 416.1 3059 33.3 416.1 750444.0 460.1 4780 44.0 460.1 3059 44.0 460.1 75043280.8 3740.9 9285 3280.8 3740.9 9285 3280.8 3740.9 92852.3.2.2 Shear Modulus and Damping CurvesNo site-specific nonlinear dynamic material properties were determined for the soil and soft rockmaterials in the initial siting of the HBRSEP. For both the shallow recent alluvium and the stiffsands and soft rock of the Middendorf Formation, EPRI cohesionless soil and Peninsular RangeG/Gm,, and hysteretic damping curves we considered appropriate (Reference 2). To moreadequately accommodate epistemic uncertainty in nonlinear dynamic material properties, sincethe relatively high shear-wave velocities coupled with Peninsular Range modulus reduction andhysteretic damping curves results in largely linear response in the Middendorf Formation, a thirdcase comprising a combination of EPRI soil and EPRI rock curves was added. The third case(model M3) consisted of EPRI soil curves for the shallow recent alluvium combined with EPRIrock curves for the Middendorf Formation.

The three cases of nonlinear dynamic materialproperties was considered to reflect a realistic range in response from largely linear withPeninsular Range curves throughout to significant nonlinearity with the use of EPRI (soil androck) curves throughout.

The three combinations of EPRI and Peninsular Range G/Gmrx andhysteretic damping curves with a depth distribution based on assuming the Middendorf Formation behaves either as all soil or all soft rock, were considered to equally reflect in-situconditions (Table 2.3.2-3).

2.3.2.3 KappaFor the HBRSEP profile of about 460 ft (140.2 m) of soil and soft rock over hard reference rock,the kappa value of 0.006s for hard rock (Reference

2) was combined with the low strain Seismic Hazard and Screening ReportH.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP)

Page 14 of 30damping in the hysteretic damping curves to give the values listed in Table 2.3.2-3.

The lowstrain kappa values range from 0.008s for the stiffest profile (P3) and EPRI or Peninsular Rangecurves to 0.019s for the softest profile (P2) combined with EPRI soil and rock curves (Table2.3.2-3).

The full epistemic uncertainty in overall profile damping has contributions from kappaat low strain in the soil and soft rock but also the wide range in hysteretic damping curves athigher loading levels of significance to design.Table 2.3.2-3Kappa Values and Weights Used for Site Response AnalysesKaploa(s)

Velocity Profile M1, M2 M3P1 0.009 0.014P2 0.011 0.019P3 0.008 0.011Weights MP1 0.4P2 0.3P3 0.3G/Gm, and Hysteretic Damping CurvesM1 0.3 F t'M2 0.3M3 0.32.3.3 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 HBRSEP site,random shear wave velocity profiles were developed from the base case profiles shown inFigure 2.3.2-1.

Consistent with the discussion in Appendix B of the SPID (Reference 2), thevelocity randomization procedure made use of random field models which describe thestatistical correlation between layering and shear wave velocity.

The default randomization parameters developed in Toro (1997) for USGS "A" site conditions were used for this site.Thirty random velocity profiles were generated for each base case profile.

These randomvelocity profiles were generated using a natural log standard deviation of 0.25 over the upper 50ft and 0.15 below that depth. As specified in the SPID (Reference 2), correlation of shear wavevelocity between layers was modeled using the footprint correlation model. In the correlation model, a limit of +/- 2 standard deviations about the median value in each layer was assumedfor the limits on random velocity fluctuations.

Seismic Hazard and Screening ReportH.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP)

Page 15 of 302.3.4 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 (M 6.5) using twodifferent assumptions regarding the shape of the seismic source spectrum (single-corner anddouble-corner).

A range of 11 different input amplitudes (median peak ground accelerations (PGA) ranging from 0.01 to 1.5 g) were used in the site response analyses.

The characteristics of the seismic source and upper crustal attenuation properties assumed for the analysis of theHBRSEP 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 HBRSEP 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 theHBRSEP 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 2.3.5-1 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 (0.01g to 1.50g) for profile P1 and EPRI soilG/Gm, and hysteretic damping curves. The variability in the amplification factors results fromvariability in shear-wave

velocity, depth to hard rock, and modulus reduction and hysteretic damping curves. To illustrate the effects of nonlinearity at the HBRSEP site, Figure 2.3.5-2shows the corresponding amplification factors developed with Peninsular Range G/Gmý, andhysteretic damping curves resulting in the most linear analyses.

Finally, Figure 2.3.5-3 showsthe effects of treating the shallow alluvium with EPRI soil curves and the Middendorf Formation with EPRI rock curves, reflecting the most nonlinear analyses.

Seismic Hazard and Screening ReportH.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP)Page 16 of 30C -UC'-U4"mca:SCCINPUT MiOTION 0.01GCýINPUT MOTION 0.05G0INPUT MOTION 0. LOG-1 1 1 .1 1C3INRiT NIOTION4 0.20GI 1 1II I I I T1INPUT MOTION INPUT 0.40Gw -1 0 1a 1Frequenci (Hz)O 210 1IGO in I1Frequency (Hz)a2AMPLIFICATION,

ROBINSON, MIPIKIM 6.5, 1 CORNER: PAGE I OF 2Figure 2.3.5-1 .Example suite of amplification factors (5% damping pseudo absolute acceleration spectra) developed for the mean base-case profile (P1), EPRI soil modulusreduction and hysteretic damping curves (model Ml), and base-case kappa ateleven loading levels of hard rock median peak acceleration values from 0.01 g to1.50g. M 6.5 and single-comer source model (Reference 2).

Seismic Hazard and Screening ReportH.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP)Page 17 of 30idUa-CC-i NPUT /rOTýýO Ný....3-d2o-INPUT NOTIONI.M6O 0C3000:030,-0INPUT MOTION M.SGINPUT MOTION' 1.25Gto -1 to 0 101Frequency (Hz)12AMPLIFICATION,

ROBINSON, MIPIKIM 6.5, 1 CORNER: PRGE 2 OF 2Figure 2.3.5-1 .(cont.)

Seismic Hazard and Screening ReportH.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP)Page 18 of 30Cl-a:C,4j* -I~RINPUT MOTIONI 0.OMGINP UT NOTlIr ON .tLOG[INPUT' MOT IICH 0.05GC0INPUT rIOT ICt4 O.20G0-aIjI.I,,.iIaIpIIuI,.iIII.

C -004-V-cc7.-".f~~*'*% *~~*~*--...-INPUT (IOTICH OIOGC2INPUT NOTIONI 0.40G10-q to ) o (Hz1Frequencyl ftz)1 210 -3IQ 0 10 1Frequency (Hz)10 2AMIPLIFICATION,

ROBINSON, M2PIKIM 6,5, 1 CORNER; PAGE 1 OF 2Figure 2.3.5-2.

Example suite of amplification factors (5% damping pseudo absolute acceleration spectra) developed for the mean base-case profile (P1), Peninsular RangeModulus reduction and hysteretic damping curves (model M2), and base-case kappa at eleven loading levels of hard rock median peak acceleration valuesfrom O.01g to 1.50g. M 6.5 and single-comer source model (Reference 2).

Seismic Hazard and Screening ReportH.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP)Page 19 of 30C-.illUci0~Ea:0C-ci~4-,Uci0~a:0C-4-iU* -. 00~a:a* K~\., '5-. '~S., 5 '~~5 5 -* --------~iNpur ~ori~ OSOG-S--* J,'\ 'S'55 -* -- 5-~%

• 4S /:Ifful NOT]CII lOOt;030ý031 11- 1 111'INU NTO 0,75INPUT M0TItN 1 .25C0vi-0to U 101Frequencgj (Hz)AMPLIFICATION,

ROBINSON, M2PIK1M 6.5, 1 CORNER; PAGE 2 OF 2Figure 2.3.5-2.(cont.)

Seismic Hazard and Screening ReportH.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP)Page 20 of 30C02U0.~ 00~Ca:C-4-,'aU0* .-. 00~~C0CaS'aU~2o0~Ea:0SINPUT MOTION' O0.G* *~, *-.---*'0030000)0~!NPUT MOTION0 LOAG-~ '. -~SINPUT NOTION 0,05GINPUT MiOTION4 0.20GINPUT iROTION 0.40GS2INPUT MOTION4 0.30GI IIfll I i IB J m1o -1 to 0 to 1Frequency (Hz)to-,o0 10w1Frequency (Hz)10 2AMPLIFICATION,

ROBINSON, M3PIK1M 6.5, 1 CORNER: PAGE 1 OF 2Figure 2.3.5-3.Example suite of amplification factors (5% damping pseudo absolute acceleration spectra) developed for the mean base-case profile (P1), EPRI soil (alluvium) androck (Middendorf Formation) modulus reduction and hysteretic damping curves(model M3), and base-case kappa at eleven loading levels of hard rock medianpeak acceleration values from O.01g to 1.50g. M 6.5 and single-corner sourcemodel (Reference 2).

Seismic Hazard and Screening ReportH.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP)Page 21 of 30C -0 C0~ZC)09L)C3-9CI-e,ccINPUT rIOTICNi 0.50GIN~PUT MOTION E1.00GG0}INPUT MOTICH O.75G0S0C3-2 to 0 I0 1Frequency (Hz)AMPLIFICATION,

ROBINSON, M3PIK1M 6.5, 1 CORNER; PAGE Z OF 2Figure 2.3.5-3:

(cont.)

Seismic Hazard and Screening ReportH.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP)Page 22 of 302.3.7 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 HBRSEP are shown in Figure 2.3.7-1 for the seven spectral frequencies forwhich ground motion equations are defined.

Tabulated values of mean and fractile seismichazard curves and site response amplification functions are provided in Appendix A.Total Mean Soil Hazard by Spectral Frequency at Robinson1E-21E-3 ----_____-25 Hz-10 Hz1E-4--5 Hza -PGA0 -2.5 Hz1E-5 ...~-1 Hz-0.5 Hz1E-61E-70.01 0.1 1 10Spectral acceleration (g)Figure 2.3.7-1.

Control point mean hazard curves for oscillator frequencies of 0.5, 1, 2.5, 5, 10,25 and 100 Hz at HBRSEP.2.4 Ground Motion Response SpectrumThe control point hazard curves described above have been used to develop uniform hazardresponse spectra (UHRS) and the ground motion response spectrum (GMRS). The UHRSwere obtained through linear interpolation in log-log space to estimate the spectral acceleration at each spectral frequency for the 1 E-4 and 1 E-5 per year hazard levels. Table 2.4-1 shows theUHRS and GMRS accelerations for each of the seven frequencies.

I Seismic Hazard and Screening ReportH.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP)Page 23 of 30Table 2.4-1. UHRS and GMRS for HBR2.Freq. (Hz) 10-4 UHRS (g) 10-5 UHRS (g) GMRS100 4.20E-01 9.17E-01 4.71 E-0190 4.23E-01 9.31 E-01 4.77E-0180 4.27E-01 9.48E-01 4.85E-0170 4.35E-01 9.73E-01 4.97E-0160 4.54E-01 1.02E+00 5.19E-0150 4.98E-01 1.11 E+00 5.66E-0140 5.74E-01 1.25E+00 6.43E-0135 6.21 E-01 1.35E+00 6.95E-0130 6.63E-01 1.46E+00 7.50E-0125 7.23E-01 1.61 E+00 8.21 E-0120 7.92E-01 1.75E+00 8.97E-0115 8.09E-01 1.82E+00 9.27E-0112.5 8.35E-01 1.82E+00 9.36E-0110 8.52E-61 1.86E+00 9.55E-019 8.40E-01 1.84E+00 9.42E-018 8.58E-01 1.84E+00 9.49E-017 8.98E-01 1.92E+00 9.88E-016 8.87E-01 1.95E+00 9.99E-015 8.57E-01 1.87E+00 9.61 E-014 8.40E-01 1.83E+00 9.39E-013.5 7.71 E-01 1.76E+00 8.94E-013 6.79E-01 1.59E+00 8.04E-012.5 6.08E-01 1.38E+00 7.04E-012 5.37E-01 1.30E+00 6.52E-011.5 3.97E-01 1.05E+00 5.20E-011.25 3.23E-01 8.58E-01 4.23E-011 2.26E-01 6.44E-01 3.13E-010.9 1.87E-01 5.52E-01 2.67E-010.8 1.56E-01 4.69E-01 2.26E-010.7 1.31 E-01 3.95E-01 1.90E-010.6 1.10E-01 3.25E-01 1.57E-010.5 8.86E-02 2.51 E-01 1.22E-010.4 7.09E-02 2.01 E-01 9.79E-020.35 6.20E-02 1.76E-01 8.57E-020.3 5.32E-02 1.51 E-01 7.34E-020.25 4.43E-02 1.26E-01 6.12E-020.2 3.55E-02 1.OOE-01 4.90E-020.15 2.66E-02 7.54E-02

• 3.67E-02 0.125 2.22E-02 6.28E-02 3.06E-020.1 1.77E-02 5.02E-02 2.45E-02 Seismic Hazard and Screening ReportH.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP)Page 24 of 30The 1 E-4 and 1 E-5 UHRS are used to compute the GMRS at the control point and are shown inFigure 2.4-1.Mean Soil UHRS and GMRS at Robinson2.52.1.51.5 --4A0'i0.50.1-1E-5 UHRS--GMRS-1E-4 UHRS1001 10Spectral frequency, HzFigure 2.4-1. Plots of 1 E-4 and 1 E-5 uniform hazard spectra and GMRS at control point forHBRSEP (5%-damped response spectra).

3.0 Safe Shutdown Earthquake Ground MotionThe design basis for HBRSEP is identified in the Updated Final Safely Analysis Report(Reference 7).3.1 Description of Spectral Shape and Anchor PointThe Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) was developed based on evaluation historic earthquake

activity, regional and local geology, and recommendation of Dr. G. W. Housner of the California Institute of Technology.

Only one earthquake of intensity V or greater has ever been recorded within 50 miles of the site.In 1959, an earthquake of intensity V-VI (Modified Mercalli Scale) occurred about 15 miles fromthe site in the vicinity of McBee, SC. No permanent effects of this shock are noted in theliterature or in a geologic reconnaissance, although it is presumed to have been felt at thelocation of the site. It is estimated that this shock had a magnitude no greater than 4.5 with anepicentral acceleration of well under 0.10 g.

Seismic Hazard and Screening ReportH.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP)Page 25 of 30On the basis of historical data, it is expected that the site area could experience a shock in theorder of the 1959 McBee shock once during the life of the plant. This shock could be as fardistant as in 1959, or perhaps closer. On a conservative basis, Magnitude 4.5 earthquake wasselected with an epicentral distance of less than ten miles. This earthquake is the designearthquake and although the probable ground acceleration would be .07 to .09g, a value of 0.1gis used. To provide an adequate margin of safety, a maximum earthquake ground acceleration of 0.2g was selected for the hypothetical SSE.The SSE is defined in terms of a PGA and a design response spectrum.

The SSE responsespectra used for the Seismic Class I SSCs for the HBRSEP site have a spectral shapeconforming to a Housner curve (Section 2.5 of Reference 7). The horizontal design responsespectrum for the SSE was normalized to 0.2g PGA as noted in HBRSEP UFSAR Figure 2.5.2-3(Reference 7). Table 3.1-1 shows the spectral acceleration values as a function of frequency for the 5% damped horizontal SSE.Table 3.1-i. SSE for HBRSEP (Reference 16)Frequency Spectral(Hz) Acceleration (g)100 0.233 0.213.33 0.210 0.238 0.265 0.34 0.323 0.31.641 0.240.33 0.073.2 Control Point Elevation Based on information in Table 1 from URS (Reference 16), the SSE control point elevation isdefined at the top of ground surface (i.e., El. 226 feet MSL-NGVD 29, 0 ft depth).4.0 Screening Evaluation In accordance with SPID (Reference

2) Section 3, a screening evaluation was performed asdescribed below.

Seismic Hazard and Screening ReportH.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP)

Page 26 of 304.1 Risk Evaluation Screening (1 to 10 Hz)In the 1 to 10 Hz part of the response

spectrum, the GMRS exceeds the SSE. Therefore, theplant screens in for a risk evaluation.

4.2 High Frequency Screening

(> 10 Hz)For a portion of the range above 10 Hz, the GMRS exceeds the SSE. The high frequency exceedances can be addressed in the risk evaluation discussed in 4.1 above.4.3 Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation Screening (1 to 10 Hz)In the 1 to 10 Hz range of the response

spectrum, the GMRS exceeds the SSE. Therefore, theplant screens in for a spent fuel pool evaluation.

5.0 Interim Actions and Assessments As described in Section 4, the GMRS developed in response to the NTTF 2.1: Seismic portionof the 10 CFR 50.54(f)

Request for Information of 3/12/2012 exceeds the design basis SSE.The NRC 50.54(f) letter requests:

"interim evaluation and actions taken or planned to addressthe higher seismic hazard relative to the design basis, as appropriate, prior to completion of therisk evaluation."

These evaluations and actions are discussed below.Consistent with NRC letter dated February 20, 2014 [Reference 10], the seismic hazardreevaluations presented herein are distinct from the current design and licensing bases ofHBRSEP. Therefore, the results do not call into question the operability or functionality of SSCsand are not reportable pursuant to 10 CFR 50.72, "Immediate notification requirements foroperating nuclear power reactors,"

and10 CFR 50.73, "Licensee event report system."5.1 Expedited Seismic Evaluation ProcessAn expedited seismic evaluation process (ESEP) is being performed at HBRSEP in accordance with the methodology in EPRI 3002000704 as proposed in a letter to NRC dated April 9, 2013(Reference

8) and agreed to by the NRC in a letter dated May 7, 2013 (Reference 9). DukeEnergy plans to submit a report on the ESEP to NRC in accordance with the schedule in theApril 9, 2013 letter (Reference 8)(prior to the end of December 2014).The ESEP is essentially complete.

An equipment list was developed, inspections werecompleted and evaluations were performed per EPRI Guidance as described in Reference 3.Insights from the process revealed one case where cabinet anchorage analysis warranted increased capacity for higher than design basis loading, and another case where the seismiccapacity of a group of instrument racks could be increased by relatively minor work scope.

Seismic Hazard and Screening ReportH.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP)

Page 27 of 30Modifications were implemented for two cabinets.

One cabinet (MCC 'A') required modification to achieve seismic capacity greater than two times SSE ( 2 X SSE). The second cabinet wasrelated to the first in configuration and function.

Therefore, a similar modification wasimplemented for the second electrical cabinet (MCC 'B') to add seismic margin above 2 X SSE.Seismic margin above 2 X SSE was also added to a group of instrument racks (Hagen Racks)by validating the bolting integrity of the top braces (a relatively minor scope of work).5.2 Seismic Risk Estimates The NRC letter (Reference

10) also requests that licensees provide an interim evaluation oractions to address the higher seismic hazard relative to the design basis while the expedited approach and risk evaluations are conducted.

In response to that request, NEI letter datedMarch 12, 2014 (Reference 11), provides seismic core damage risk estimates using theupdated seismic hazards for the operating nuclear plants in the Central and Eastern UnitedStates. These risk estimates continue to support the following conclusions of the NRC GI-199Safety/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 1 E-4/year for core damage frequency.

The GI-1 99 Safety/Risk Assessment, based in parton information from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Individual PlantExamination of Extemal Events (IPEEE) program, indicates that no concem existsregarding adequate protection and that the current seismic design of operating reactorsprovides a safety margin to withstand potential earthquakes exceeding the originaldesign basis."HBRSEP is included in the March 12, 2014 (Reference

11) risk estimates.

Using themethodology described in the NEI letter, the seismic core damage risk estimates for all plantswere shown to be below 1 E-4/year; thus, the above conclusions apply.5.3 Individual Plant Examination of External EventsThe IPEEE investigations for HBRSEP followed the methodology for a full scope SeismicMargins Assessment (SMA) presented in NUREG-1407 entitled "Procedural and Submittal Guidance for the Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) for Severe AccidentVulnerabilities,".

Methodology from EPRI NP-6041 -SL were applied.

Walkdown screening wasperformed using a 0.30g NUREG/CR-0098 median soil spectrum as a Review Level Earthquake (RLE). The plant level IPEEE High Confidence of Low Probability of Failure (HCLPF) was0.28g. The HCLPF was dependent on resolution of USI A-46 outlier conditions which havebeen completed.

Seismic Hazard and Screening ReportH.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP)

Page 28 of 305.4 Walkdowns to Address NRC Fukushima NTTF Recommendation 2.3Walkdowns have been completed for HBRSEP in accordance with the EPRI seismic walkdownguidance (Reference 17); including inaccessible items. Potentially adverse seismic conditions (PASC) found were entered into the corrective action program (CAP) and resolved.

None of thePASC items challenged the operability of the plant. There were no vulnerabilities identified under IPEEE, however, identified 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 design basis.6.0 Conclusions In accordance with the 50.54(f) request for information, a seismic hazard and screening evaluation was performed for HBRSEP. A GMRS was developed solely for the purpose ofscreening for additional evaluations in accordance with the SPID (Reference 2).Based on the results of the screening evaluation, HBRSEP screens in for risk evaluation, aspent fuel pool evaluation and a High Frequency Confirmation.

Seismic Hazard and Screening ReportH.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP)

Page 29 of 307.0 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),

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, 2012.5. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Final Report No. 3002000717, "EPRI (2004,2006) Ground-Motion Model (GMM) Review Project",

June 2013.6. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC),

Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.208,"A Performance-Based Approach to Define the Site-Specific Earthquake GroundMotion",

March 2007.7. Progress Energy, "H.B. Robinson Nuclear Power Plant Unit 2 Updated Final SafetyAnalysis Report",

Revision 24.8. 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 (ML13101 A379).9. 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, 2013.10. 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 2.1 Seismic Hazard and Screening ReportH.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP)

Page 30 of 30of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights From the Fukushima Dai-lchi Accident",

February 20, 2014 (ML14030A046).

11. Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), A. Pietrangelo, Letter to D. Skeen of the USNRC,"Seismic Core Damage Risk Estimates Using the Updated Seismic Hazards for theOperating Nuclear Plants in the Central and Eastern United States",

March 12, 2014.12. W.H. Bakun and M.G. Hopper (2004), "Magnitudes and Locations of the 1811-1812 NewMadrid, Missouri, and the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, Earthquakes,"

Bulletin of theSeismological Society of America, 94, 64-7513. Review of EPRI 1021097 Earthquake Catalog for RIS Earthquakes in the Southeastern U. S. and Earthquakes in South Carolina Near the Time of the 1886 Charleston Earthquake

Sequence, transmitted by letter from J. Richards to R. McGuire on March 5,2014.14. McGuire, R.K. (2004). Seismic Hazard and Risk Analysis, Earthquake Eng. Res. Inst.,Monograph MNO-10.15. Appendix of: Silva, W.J., Abrahamson, N., Toro, G., and Costantino, C. (1997)."Description and validation of the stochastic ground motion model", Report Submitted toBrookhaven National Laboratory, Associated Universities, Inc., Upton, New York 11973,Contract No. 770573.16. Site Geologic Conditions for H.B Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2, Letter Rept. PE-RNP-A07-12128 dated July 9, 2012, transmitted by letter from B. Alumbaugh to C.Albers dated July 9, 2012.17. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Final Report No. 1025286, "SeismicWalkdown Guidance for Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task ForceRecommendation 2.3: Seismic",

June 2012.

Seismic Hazard and Screening ReportH.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP)Page A-1Appendix A (Additional Tables)Table A-ia. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for PGA at RobinsonAMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.950.0005 4.87E-02 3.68E-02 4.31 E-02 4.90E-02 5.50E-02 5.83E-020.001 4.43E-02 2.92E-02 3.79E-02 4.50E-02 5.12E-02 5.50E-020.005 2.44E-02 1.21 E-02 1.82E-02 2.42E-02 3.09E-02 3.68E-020.01 1.56E-02 7.55E-03 1.07E-02 1.51 E-02 2.01 E-02 2.68E-020.015 1.15E-02 5.42E-03 7.45E-03 1.08E-02 1.46E-02 2.13E-020.03 6.20E-03 2.64E-03 3.68E-03 5.66E-03 8.12E-03 1.29E-020.05 3.72E-03 1.29E-03 1.92E-03 3.28E-03 5.27E-03 8.12E-030.075 2.38E-03 6.09E-04 1.02E-03 2.01 E-03 3.63E-03 5.66E-030.1 1.66E-03 3.28E-04 5.83E-04 1.31 E-03 2.68E-03 4.31E-030.15 9.09E-04 1.20E-04 2.22E-04 6.09E-04 1.60E-03 2.76E-030.3 2.33E-04 1.42E-05 2.96E-05 9.93E-05 4.01 E-04 9.24E-040.5 6.44E-05 1.95E-06 4.98E-06 2.13E-05 9.24E-05 2.68E-040.75 1.94E-05 3.33E-07 1.07E-06 6.17E-06 2.60E-05 7.45E-051. 7.51 E-06 9.93E-08 3.68E-07 2.32E-06 1.04E-05 2.80E-051.5 1.76E-06 1.82E-08 8.12E-08 5.05E-07 2.64E-06 6.73E-063. 1.29E-07 6.73E-10 3.28E-09 3.05E-08 2.07E-07 5.50E-075. 1.90E-08 1.32E-10 2.84E-10 3.19E-09 2.64E-08 8.35E-087.5 3.92E-09 1.01E-10 1.32E-10 5.27E-10 4.63E-09 1.77E-0810. 1.19E-09 9.37E-11 1.23E-10 2.01E-10 1.32E-09 5.58E-09Table A-lb. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 25 Hz at RobinsonAMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.950.0005 4.98E-02 3.95E-02 4.43E-02 5.05E-02 5.50E-02 5.83E-020.001 4.65E-02 3.42E-02 4.07E-02 4.70E-02 5.27E-02 5.58E-020.005 2.94E-02 1.69E-02 2.32E-02 2.92E-02 3.57E-02 4.13E-020.01 2.07E-02 1.13E-02 1.53E-02 2.01 E-02 2.53E-02 3.28E-020.015 1.62E-02 8.47E-03 1.16E-02 1.55E-02 1.98E-02 2.76E-020.03 9.73E-03 4.83E-03 6.54E-03 9.11 E-03 1.23E-02 1.79E-020.05 6.19E-03 2.80E-03 3.79E-03 5.75E-03 8.23E-03 1.18E-020.075 4.11E-03 1.55E-03 2.25E-03 3.73E-03 5.75E-03 8.12E-030.1 2.98E-03 9.24E-04 1.46E-03 2.68E-03 4.37E-03 6.26E-030.15 1.80E-03 3.84E-04 6.73E-04 1.51 E-03 2.88E-03 4.25E-030.3 6.20E-04 5.05E-05 1.11E-04 3.95E-04 1.11E-03 1.98E-030.5 2.33E-04 1.02E-05 2.46E-05 1.13E-04 4.13E-04 8.72E-040.75 9.18E-05 3.63E-06 8.47E-06 3.73E-05 1.51 E-04 3.63E-041. 4.30E-05 1.87E-06 4.13E-06 1.57E-05 6.64E-05 1.67E-041.5 1.27E-05 6.09E-07 1.38E-06 4.50E-06 1.95E-05 4.70E-053. 1.13E-06 2.60E-08 8.60E-08 4.77E-07 1.95E-06 4.13E-065. 2.10E-07 1.05E-09 6.45E-09 7.55E-08 3.95E-07 8.47E-077.5 7.50E-08 1.53E-10 7.55E-10 1.21 E-08 1.32E-07 3.57E-0710. 4.03E-08 1.32E-10 2.13E-10 2.84E-09 6.93E-08 2.07E-07 Seismic Hazard and Screening ReportH.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP)Page A-2Table A-ic. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 10 Hz at RobinsonAMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.950.0005 5.11E-02 4.25E-02 4.56E-02 5.12E-02 5.66E-02 5.91 E-020.001 4.91 E-02 4.01 E-02 4.37E-02 4.90E-02 5.42E-02 5.75E-020.005 3.40E-02 2.29E-02 2.76E-02 3.42E-02 4.01 E-02 4.43E-020.01 2.43E-02 1.46E-02 1.84E-02 2.42E-02 3.01 E-02 3.47E-020.015 1.89E-02 1.08E-02 1.38E-02 1.87E-02 2.35E-02 2.84E-020.03 1.13E-02 6.OOE-03 7.77E-03 1.08E-02 1.44E-02 1.84E-020.05 7.18E-03 3.57E-03 4.77E-03 6.83E-03 9.37E-03 1.21 E-020.075 4.85E-03 2.19E-03 3.01 E-03 4.56E-03 6.54E-03 8.60E-030.1 3.61 E-03 1.46E-03 2.1OE-03 3.37E-03 5.05E-03 6.64E-030.15 2.29E-03 7.34E-04 1.15E-03 2.07E-03 3.42E-03 4.63E-030.3 8.80E-04 1.64E-04 2.96E-04 6.93E-04 1.46E-03 2.25E-030.5 3.44E-04 3.90E-05 7.55E-05 2.22E-04 6.OOE-04 1.08E-030.75 1.38E-04 9.51 E-06 2.04E-05 7.23E-05 2.42E-04 4.90E-041. 6.63E-05 3.14E-06 7.23E-06 3.05E-05 1.11 E-04 2.49E-041.5 2.06E-05 6.45E-07 1.62E-06 8.12E-06 3.33E-05 7.89E-053. 2.01 E-06 4.98E-08 1.51 E-07 6.54E-07 3.28E-06 8.OOE-065. 3.02E-07 5.66E-09 1.84E-08 9.51 E-08 5.12E-07 1.23E-067.5 6.66E-08 6.00E-10 2.46E-09 2.07E-08 1.15E-07 2.76E-0710. 2.39E-08 1.74E-10 6.09E-10 6.93E-09 4.07E-08 1.05E-07Table A-id. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 5 Hz at RobinsonAMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.950.0005 5.15E-02 4.31E-02 4.63E-02 5.20E-02 5.66E-02 6.OOE-020.001 5.02E-02 4.13E-02 4.50E-02 5.05E-02 5.50E-02 5.83E-020.005 3.70E-02 2.49E-02 2.96E-02 3.73E-02 4.43E-02 4.83E-020.01 2.70E-02 1.60E-02 2.04E-02 2.68E-02 3.37E-02 3.73E-020.015 2.1OE-02 1.16E-02 1.53E-02 2.07E-02 2.68E-02 3.05E-020.03 1.20E-02 6.26E-03 8.35E-03 1.16E-02 1.57E-02 1.87E-020.05 7.36E-03 3.73E-03 4.98E-03 7.13E-03 9.79E-03 1.20E-020.075 4.85E-03 2.29E-03 3.09E-03 4.63E-03 6.54E-03 8.12E-030.1 3.56E-03 1.53E-03 2.16E-03 3.37E-03 4.98E-03 6.17E-030.15 2.26E-03 7.77E-04 1.20E-03 2.1OE-03 3.33E-03 4.31E-030.3 8.86E-04 1.82E-04 3.28E-04 7.34E-04 1.44E-03 2.13E-030.5 3.51 E-04 4.63E-05 8.85E-05 2.39E-04 6.09E-04 1.04E-030.75 1.41 E-04 1.21 E-05 2.46E-05 7.66E-05 2.42E-04 4.90E-041. 6.71E-05 3.90E-06 8.47E-06 3.09E-05 1.11E-04 2.53E-041.5 2.1OE-05 6.OOE-07 1.49E-06 7.66E-06 3.23E-05 8.35E-053. 2.09E-06 1.77E-08 6.73E-08 5.66E-07 3.09E-06 8.12E-065. 3.05E-07 1.46E-09 8.23E-09 6.54E-08 4.77E-07 1.27E-067.5 6.02E-08 2.84E-10 1.29E-09 1.11E-08 9.37E-08 2.68E-0710. 1.87E-08 1.42E-10 3.47E-10 3.01 E-09 2.76E-08 8.47E-08 Seismic Hazard and Screening ReportH.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP)Page A-3Table A-i e. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 2.5 Hz at RobinsonAMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.950.0005 5.05E-02 4.19E-02 4.50E-02 5.05E-02 5.58E-02 5.91 E-020.001 4.76E-02 3.68E-02 4.13E-02 4.77E-02 5.35E-02 5.75E-020.005 2.95E-02 1.60E-02 2.04E-02 2.92E-02 3.90E-02 4.43E-020.01 1.95E-02 8.85E-03 1.20E-02 1.87E-02 2.72E-02 3.23E-020.015 1.43E-02 5.91 E-03 8.12E-03 1.36E-02 2.04E-02 2.53E-020.03 7.49E-03 2.64E-03 3.84E-03 6.93E-03 1.11E-02 1.42E-020.05 4.36E-03 1.31 E-03 2.1OE-03 4.01E-03 6.64E-03 8.60E-030.075 2.79E-03 7.03E-04 1.23E-03 2.53E-03 4.31 E-03 5.75E-030.1 2.01 E-03 4.19E-04 7.89E-04 1.79E-03 3.23E-03 4.37E-030.15 1.23E-03 1.87E-04 3.84E-04 1.02E-03 2.07E-03 2.96E-030.3 4.36E-04 3.52E-05 8.OOE-05 2.84E-04 7.89E-04 1.38E-030.5 1.60E-04 8.12E-06 1.90E-05 7.55E-05 2.80E-04 6.OOE-040.75 6.03E-05 2.16E-06 5.20E-06 2.16E-05 9.51 E-05 2.49E-041. 2.73E-05 7.77E-07 1.90E-06 8.23E-06 3.79E-05 1.13E-041.5 7.79E-06 1.55E-07 4.13E-07 1.90E-06 9.11 E-06 3.05E-053. 6.43E-07 6.17E-09 2.07E-08 1.31 E-07 7.03E-07 2.19E-065. 8.57E-08 4.56E-10 1.64E-09 1.51E-08 1.04E-07 3.19E-077.5 1.73E-08 1.40E-10 2.68E-10 2.39E-09 2.07E-08 7.23E-0810. 5.66E-09 1.08E-10 1.42E-10 6.36E-10 6.54E-09 2.49E-08Table A-If. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 1 Hz at RobinsonAMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.950.0005 3.82E-02 2.16E-02 2.80E-02 3.90E-02 4.83E-02 5.27E-020.001 2.92E-02 1.38E-02 1.87E-02 2.88E-02 3.95E-02 4.50E-020.005 1.05E-02 3.47E-03 5.27E-03 9.93E-03 1.55E-02 1.95E-020.01 5.96E-03 1.53E-03 2.60E-03 5.42E-03 9.24E-03 1.21 E-020.015 4.14E-03 8.47E-04 1.57E-03 3.68E-03 6.73E-03 8.98E-030.03 2.02E-03 2.25E-04 5.20E-04 1.67E-03 3.52E-03 5.12E-030.05 1.09E-03 6.45E-05 1.77E-04 8.OOE-04 2.01 E-03 3.09E-030.075 6.30E-04 2.01 E-05 6.45E-05 4.07E-04 1.21 E-03 1.98E-030.1 4.12E-04 8.35E-06 2.88E-05 2.32E-04 8,12E-04 1.42E-030.15 2.15E-04 2.32E-06 8.60E-06 9.51E-05 4.19E-04 8.35E-040.3 5.87E-05 2.76E-07 1.10E-06 1.57E-05 1.01 E-04 2.64E-040.5 1.90E-05 6.64E-08 2.88E-07 3.52E-06 2.80E-05 8.85E-050.75 6.82E-06 2.22E-08 1.02E-07 1.04E-06 8.72E-06 3.14E-051. 3.07E-06 1.01 E-08 4.83E-08 4.31 E-07 3.63E-06 1.38E-051.5 8.99E-07 2.96E-09 1.49E-08 1.23E-07 1.01 E-06 3.90E-063. 8.93E-08 3.79E-10 1.62E-09 1.31 E-08 1.05E-07 3.95E-075. 1.57E-08 1.42E-10 3.19E-10 2.19E-09 1.84E-08 7.03E-087.5 4.08E-09 1.15E-10 1.44E-10 5.42E-10 4.37E-09 1.77E-0810. 1.56E-09 1.01E-10 1.32E-10 2.35E-10 1.60E-09 6.73E-09 Seismic Hazard and Screening ReportH.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP)Page A-4Table A-ig. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 0.5 Hz at RobinsonAMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.950.0005 2.14E-02 1.25E-02 1.60E-02 2.1OE-02 2.68E-02 3.09E-020.001 1.40E-02 7.45E-03 9.93E-03 1.36E-02 1.79E-02 2.16E-020.005 4.81 E-03 1.60E-03 2.53E-03 4.50E-03 7.13E-03 9.11E-030.01 2.72E-03 6.OOE-04 1.11 E-03 2.35E-03 4.37E-03 6.OOE-030.015 1.78E-03 2.84E-04 5.91E-04 1.44E-03 2.96E-03 4.37E-030.03 7.00E-04 5.75E-05 1.49E-04 4.77E-04 1.23E-03 2.13E-030.05 2.99E-04 1.36E-05 4.01E-05 1.57E-04 5.42E-04 1.08E-030.075 1.40E-04 3.90E-06 1.20E-05 5.66E-05 2.46E-04 5.66E-040.1 7.85E-05 1.55E-06 4.77E-06 2.46E-05 1.29E-04 3.42E-040.15 3.30E-05 3.84E-07 1.20E-06 6.93E-06 4.63E-05 1.53E-040.3 6.63E-06 2.76E-08 1.01 E-07 6.83E-07 6.26E-06 3.01 E-050.5 1.85E-06 3.05E-09 1.38E-08 1.25E-07 1.31 E-06 7.55E-060.75 6.36E-07 5.12E-10 2.60E-09 3.23E-08 3.79E-07 2.39E-061. 2.89E-07 2.01E-10 8.12E-10 1.23E-08 1.60E-07 1.08E-061.5 9.15E-08 1.32E-10 2.10E-10 3.01 E-09 4.77E-08 3.42E-073. 1.15E-08 1.01E-10 1.32E-10 3.09E-10 5.27E-09 4.37E-085. 2.25E-09 9.11E-11 1.011E-10 1.42E-10 9.79E-10 8.23E-097.5 5.70E-10 9.11E-11 1.01E-10 1.32E-10 2.92E-10 1.98E-0910. 2.04E-10 9.11E-11 1.01E-10 1.32E-10 1.67E-10 7.34E-10 Seismic Hazard and Screening ReportH.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP)Page A-5Table A-2. Amplification Functions for HBRSEPMedian 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 2.78E+00 1.01 E-01 1.30E-02 2.52E+00 1.05E-01 1.90E-02 2.58E+00 1.61 E-01 2.09E-02 3.27E+00 1.93E-014.95E-02 2.31E+00 1.13E-01 1.02E-01 1.83E+00 1.61E-01 9.99E-02 2.30E+00 1.84E-01 8.24E-02 3.07E+00 2.08E-019.64E-02 2.04E+00 1.20E-01 2.13E-01 1.59E+00 1.81 E-01 1.85E-01 2.15E+00 1.96E-01 1.44E-01 2.91 E+00 2.15E-011.94E-01 1.74E+00 1.37E-01 4.43E-01 1.30E+00 2.04E-01 3.56E-01 1.91 E+00 2.23E-01 2.65E-01 2.65E+00 2.33E-012.92E-01 1.56E+00 1.44E-01 6.76E-01 1.12E+00 2.19E-01 5.23E-01 1.73E+00 2.38E-01 3.84E-01 2.46E+00 2.38E-013.91 E-01 1.42E+00 1.56E-01 9.09E-01 9.94E-01 2.35E-01 6.90E-01 1.58E+00 2.49E-01 5.02E-01 2.30E+00 2.46E-014.93E-01 1.31 E+00 1.71 E-01 1.15E+00 8.93E-01 2.50E-01 8.61E-01 1.46E+00 2.59E-01 6.22E-01 2.17E+00 2.52E-017.41E-01 1.12E+00 1.97E-01 1.73E+00 7.19E-01 2.74E-01 1.27E+00 1.24E+00 2.78E-01 9.13E-01 1.92E+00 2.74E-011.01E+00 9.82E-01 2.16E-01 2.36E+00 6.01E-01 2.93E-01 1.72E+00 1.07E+00 2.98E-01 1.22E+00 1.70E+00 2.93E-011.28E+00 8.77E-01 2.45E-01 3.01E+00 5.14E-01 3.14E-01 2.17E+00 9.48E-01 3.36E-01 1.54E+00 1.52E+00 3.36E-011.55E+00 8.02E-01 2.63E-01 3.63E+00 5.OOE-01 3.30E-01 2.61 E+00 8.56E-01 3.58E-01 1.85E+00 1.39E+00 3.69E-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 2.94E+00 2.03E-01 1.27E-02 1.83E+00 1.54E-01 8.25E-03 1.43E+00 1.65E-017.05E-02 2.92E+00 1.95E-01 3.43E-02 1.95E+00 1.67E-01 1.96E-02 1.48E+00 1.66E-011.18E-01 2.83E+00 1.98E-01 5.51E-02 2.04E+00 1.86E-01 3.02E-02 1.50E+00 1.69E-012.12E-01 2.66E+00 2.30E-01 9.63E-02 2.15E+00 2.71 E-01 5.11E-02 1.54E+00 1.89E-013.04E-01 2.53E+00 2,37E-01 1.36E-01 2,18E+00 3.35E-01 7.1OE-02 1.58E+00 2.06E-013.94E-01 2.42E+00 2.55E-01 1.75E-01 2.17E+00 3.59E-01 9.06E-02 1.63E+00 2.38E-014.86E-01 2.30E+00 2.78E-01 2.14E-01 2.13E+00 3.85E-01 1.10E-01 1.64E+00 2.51 E-017.09E-01 2.11E+00 3.11E-01 3.1OE-01 2.09E+00 4.01E-01 1.58E-01 1.70E+00 2.87E-019.47E-01 1.96E+00 3.51E-01 4.12E-01 2.11E+00 4.03E-01 2.09E-01 1.74E+00 3.13E-011.19E+00 1.85E+00 3.81E-01 5,18E-01 2.12E+00 4.03E-01 2.62E-01 1.77E+00 3.25E-011.43E+00 1.81E+00 3.78E-01 6.19E-01 2.14E+00 3.96E-01 3.12E-01 1.80E+00 3.30E-01 Seismic Hazard and Screening ReportH.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP)Page A-6Table A2-bl. Median AFs and sigmas for Model 1, Profile 1, for 2 PGA levels.M1 P1 K1 Rock PGA=0.292 M1 P1 K1 PGA=1.28Freq. med. Freq. med.(Hz) SoilSA AF sigma ln(AF) (Hz) Soil SA AF sigma ln(AF)100.0 0.485 1.658 0.116 100.0 1.056 0.824 0.28187.1 0.487 1.620 0.117 87.1 1.057 0.797 0.28175.9 0.491 1.553 0.119 75.9 1.058 0.752 0.28166.1 0.497 1.429 0.122 66.1 1.060 0.672 0.28257.5 0.509 1.238 0.129 57.5 1.063 0.556 0.28350.1 0.531 1.067 0.141 50.1 1.068 0.457 0.28543.7 0.562 0.954 0.156 43.7 1.076 0.390 0.28938.0 0.601 0.932 0.173 38.0 1.088 0.365 0.29533.1 0.642 0.948 0.186 33.1 1.105 0.357 0.30028.8 0.688 1.021 0.203 28.8 1.129 0.371 0.30425.1 0.734 1.087 0.215 25.1 1.164 0.387 0.31521.9 0.778 1.216 0.221 21.9 1.207 0.429 0.33019.1 0.815 1.299 0.223 19.1 1.259 0.462 0.33516.6 0.846 1.410 0.213 16.6 1.308 0.508 0.33414.5 0.871 1.527 0.196 14.5 1.365 0.563 0.33812.6 0.916 1.658 0.226 12.6 1.433 0.616 0.33711.0 0.943 1.756 0.249 11.0 1.520 0.678 0.3439.5 0.992 1.941 0.253 9.5 1.613 0.762 0.3678.3 0.977 2.079 0.251 8.3 1.724 0.892 0.3797.2 0.999 2.277 0.228 7.2 1.821 1.016 0.3786.3 0.954 2.320 0.221 6.3 1.912 1.146 0.3955.5 0.902 2.303 0.217 5.5 1.939 1.227 0.3844.8 0.940 2.462 0.257 4.8 1.947 1.270 0.3704.2 1.028 2.780 0.276 4.2 1.986 1.346 0.3863.6 1.065 2.966 0.216 3.6 2.083 1.461 0.4063.2 1.041 3.085 0.160 3.2 2.199 1.648 0.4132.8 1.015 3.175 0.172 2.8 2.338 1.857 0.4002.4 1.007 3.422 0.148 2.4 2.380 2.062 0.4122.1 0.932 3.487 0.174 2.1 2.401 2.300 0.4161.8 0.772 3.236 0.180 1.8 2.429 2.617 0.4061.6 0.579 2.804 0.219 1.6 2.319 2.898 0.3581.4 0.432 2.437 0.188 1.4 2.096 3.062 0.3031.2 0.325 2.085 0.163 1.2 1.828 3.054 0.2451.0 0.247 1.759 0.114 1.0 1.465 2.734 0.2250.91 0.198 1.555 0.085 0.91 1.119 2.315 0.2330.79 0.168 1.463 0.098 0.79 0.870 2.008 0.2250.69 0.147 1.439 0.116 0.69 0.698 1.826 0.1960.60 0.128 1.448 0.138 0.60 0.571 1.732 0.1760.52 0.110 1.465 0.165 0.52 0.467 1.677 0.1770.46 0.092 1.468 0.187 0.46 0.376 1.629 0.1880.10 0.003 1.218 0.043 0.10 0.011 1.236 0.055 Seismic Hazard and Screening ReportH.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (HBRSEP)Page A-7Table A2-b2. Median AFs and sigmas for Model 2, Profile 1, for 2 PGA levels.M2PIK1 PGA=0.292 M2PIK1 PGA=1.28Freq. med. Freq. med.(Hz) SoilSA AF sigma In(AF) (Hz) Soil SA AF sigma In(AF)100.0 0.568 1.944 0.128 100.0 1.437 1.122 0.24287.1 0.573 1.905 0.130 87.1 1.441 1.087 0.24375.9 0.580 1.837 0.132 75.9 1.447 1.028 0.24566.1 0.594 1.710 0.137 66.1 1.456 0.923 0.24857.5 0.623 1.514 0.147 57.5 1.472 0.770 0.25350.1 0.673 1.353 0.168 50.1 1.502 0.643 0.26543.7 0.739 1.255 0.190 43.7 1.546 0.560 0.28038.0 0.809 1.256 0.206 38.0 1.602 0.537 0.29633.1 0.880 1.298 0.223 33.1 1.675 0.541 0.31128.8 0.935 1.387 0.240 28.8 1.764 0.580 0.32725.1 1.000 1.481 0.248 25.1 1.865 0.620 0.34821.9 1.049 1.641 0.262 21.9 1.975 0.703 0.36719.1 1.078 1.718 0.260 19.1 2.098 0.770 0.37316.6 1.104 1.841 0.240 16.6 2.233 0.867 0.37814.5 1.109 1.944 0.215 14.5 2.338 0.965 0.38112.6 1.142 2.066 0.224 12.6 2.456 1.055 0.37911.0 1.156 2.153 0.265 11.0 2.616 1.167 0.3709.5 1.160 2.270 0.254 9.5 2.679 1.265 0.3428.3 1.105 2.351 0.226 8.3 2.638 1.365 0.3517.2 1.127 2.568 0.184 7.2 2.765 1.543 0.3656.3 1.045 2.543 0.208 6.3 2.842 1.704 0.3285.5 1.012 2.584 0.211 5.5 2.828 1.790 0.2694.8 1.091 2.856 0.245 4.8 2.764 1.803 0.2894.2 1.180 3.194 0.248 4.2 2.809 1.904 0.3643.6 1.146 3.192 0.217 3.6 2.902 2.035 0.3713.2 1.089 3.227 0.197 3.2 2.982 2.234 0.3512.8 1.050 3.286 0.198 2.8 3.029 2.407 0.3162.4 1.021 3.471 0.163 2.4 3.116 2.699 0.2942.1 0.903 3.380 0.196 2.1 3.066 2.937 0.2691.8 0.718 3.011 0.195 1.8 2.927 3.153 0.2311.6 0.534 2.589 0.217 1.6 2.471 3.089 0.2341.4 0.403 2.274 0.184 1.4 1.989 2.907 0.2631.2 0.308 1.974 0.166 1.2 1.540 2.573 0.2701.0 0.237 1.688 0.116 1.0 1.136 2.120 0.2300.91 0.192 1.508 0.083 0.91 0.868 1.795 0.1810.79 0.164 1.431 0.096 0.79 0.705 1.626 0.1570.69 0.144 1.415 0.116 0.69 0.594 1.555 0.1520.60 0.127 1.431 0.138 0.60 0.506 1.535 0.1590.52 0.109 1.451 0.166 0.52 0.426 1.531 0.1790.46 0.091 1.457 0.188 0.46 0.350 1.518 0.1970.10 0.003 1.215 0.045 0.10 0.011 1.211 0.056Tables A2-bl and A2-b2 are tabular versions of the typical amplification factors provided inFigures 2.3.5-1 and 2.3.5-2.

Values are provided for two input motion levels at approximately 104 and 10- mean annual frequency of exceedance.