ML20036A413

From kanterella
Revision as of 03:28, 20 December 2024 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Response to NRC Questions on Palo Verde Seismic Hazard Analysis
ML20036A413
Person / Time
Site: Palo Verde  Arizona Public Service icon.png
Issue date: 04/07/1993
From:
RISK ENGINEERING, INC.
To:
Shared Package
ML17310A277 List:
References
NUDOCS 9305110189
Download: ML20036A413 (67)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:- l 1 i l l I RESPONSE TO NRC QUESTIONS ON PALO VERDE l SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS i l 1 l i i f 4 l Prepared for i / Arizona Public Service Company Phoenix, Arizona i [ E 1 i I I l. i i by I Risk Engineering, Inc. Golden, Colorado April 7,1993 I l r 1 l l 9305110189 930506 PDR ADOCK 05000528 P PDR i

P e i I The repon responds to questions raised by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory. Commission staff regarding seismic hazard estimates prepared by Risk Engineering, Inc., and documented in Reference A and B. The format followed is to restate each question individually, and to follow that with the response. C r 1 D [ 'I i )

t f I i i Question I-1: "What frequency mnges were used to evaluate ground I motion and soil amplification (Ref. 3, Supplemental Report, P.11,1-3)? It is stated that frequency content of ground motions in the wt. stern and eastern U.S. l is different." j i A very broad frequency range was used to evaluate ground motion and soil amplification, specifically 0.001 Hz to 140 Hz. After the Fourier Spectrum of soil response was computed, the j response spectra for soil motion were computed using a frequency range of 0.1 Hz to 100 Hz. The use of these frequency ranges ensures that responses in the frequency band of interest (I Hz to 25 Hz) is accurate. r The lowest frequencies of earthquake motion depend on the magnitude of the earthquake. The highest frequencies of the motions depend on the region. In the eastern U.S. there often is t energy up to 40 Hz, while in the westem U.S. the highest frequencies with significant energy are { ordinarily 10 to 15 Hz. This upper limit on the frequency content depends on soil conditions, j distance from the causative fault, characteristics of the recording instrument, and other factors, of course. J 1 [ l i t t E i r E l l 3 k E k r

t .i I l Question I-2: What is the reason for using DuBois et al. as a default catalog (Ref. 3, Supplemental Report, p. 4-1)?. Some of the other references are more recent." t All available references on Arizona earthquakes were consulted and cross-checked to determme j the most valid catalog to use for the analysis. This included canhquakes listed in the FSAR for l Palo Verde, and the following references: E.R. Engdahl and W.A. Rinehan. " Seismicity Map of Nonh America." In Observatory Scismology, ed. by JJ. Litchiser, Univ. of Calif. Press, Berkeley, Calif.,1989. l C.W. Stover, B.G. Reagor, and S.T. Algermissen, Scismicity Map of the State of Arizona. 1 Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-1852, US Geological Survey,1986. i S.M. Dubois, A.W. Smith, N.K. Nye, and T.A. Novak. Ari:ona Earthquakes, 1776-1980. t Bulletin 193, Arizona Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology,1982. S.M. DuBois, M.L. Sbar, and T.A. Novak. Historical Scismicity in Arirona. Open-File Rept. 82-2, Arizona Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology,1982. In addition, Prof. David Brumbaugh was retained as a consultant to Arizona Public Service Co. Prof. Brumbaugh, of Nonhem Arizona University, has studied the seismicity of Arizona over a 1 period of years. He provided his best interpretations on sizes and locations of historical .l canhquakes, where ambiguities existed. l i n f i l i h 1

i Question I-3: "What indication is there that the Stokoe measurements at l Treasme Island (the damping and modulus-reduction curves for the clay layers) are valid at Palo Verde (Ref. 3, Supplemental Report, p. 5-11)?" The current estimates of soil response at Palo Verde use damping and modulus reduction cmves taken from Vucetic and Dobry, "Effect of Soil Plasticity on Cyclic Response," Journal of Geotechnical Encineerine. Amer. Soc. of Civil Engrs.,1991. 'Ihe Vucetic/Dobry study related damping and modulus reduction in clay to the plasticity index (PI) using a range of results fmm clay sites. In the opinion of Dr. Walter Silva, the Vucetic/Dobry curves shown in Figure.5-2 of the Revised Palo Verde Seismic Hazard Report (Reference C) are the best representation of material properties for the clay layers at Palo Verde. i i i i t F (Revised 4/12/93)

~ i Question I-4: "Should values other than logarithmic mean be considered j (Ref. 3, Supplemental Report, p. 5-15, 5-16)?" It has been observed empirically that ground motions (Fourier spectra, response spectra, and peak - t motions), when normalized by magnitude and distance are lognormally distributed (see for example, McGuire, June 1978 BSSA, p. 809; Campbell, Dec.1981 BSSA, p. 2054). Therefore it is natural to plot predictions of response spectra (p 5-15. Figure 5-3) on a logarithmic scale, and to indicate the logarithmic mean. The plus or minus one standard deviation spectra in Figure 5-3 thus represent multiplicative and divisive factors applied to the logarithmic mean, and correspond l approximately with the 15% and 850/o fractile values. It is also natural to plot the ratio of the two _ spectra (e.g., a soil spectra divided by a rock spectra) as is done in Figures 5-4 through 5-9 of the t Palo Verde Seismic Hazard Repon. i l I i I 1 i ) i 4

l ~ t ? j Sensitivity Study II-I (Seismic Zonation): "In the staff's review (Ref. 2) i of the original probabilistic seismic hazard study, submitted by the licensee (Ref. 1), the staff stated that the seismic zonation used in the hazard analysis were not considered to be adequate. (The seismic source zones exclude higher seismicity - to the southwest and nonheast.) The supplemental hazard analysis submitted by the licensee on August 4,1992 (Ref. 3), did not consider any additional seismic zonation. We have consulted studies published by the U.S. Geological Survey i (USGS) and other investigators and we conclude that there are enough differences in expert opinion, with respect to the seismicity and zonation of the Palo Verde site region, to wanant additional sensitivity studies. To ascertain the sensitivity of the seismic hazard to variations in seismic zonation and activity rates we request that the licensee do an additional calculation using the zonation and [ activity rates specified in Table 1 and Figure 1 and include in this calculation, faults identified by the Geomatrix team together with their activity rates (Ref. 3, i Supplemental Report, Table 4-2)." i I ) ) i 4 1 4 f i i i i i j i f s

i t Table 1 Seismicity Parameters for the Palo Verde Site Recommended by NRC Type N o. Source Range of Range of Range of Act. Rates

  • b-values Max. Mags.

Zone Z1 Zone 1 0.0085-0.016 0.67-0.75 5.0-5.5 i i Zone Z2 Zone 2 0.7000-1.110 0.80-1.20 6.5-8.0 Zone Z3 Zone 3 0.0310-0.0670 0.70-0.85 5.5-6.0 'l l t

  • ActJvity rates shown are annual rates of M,2 5 for each zurce.

I i i i

l I f }"[ % N r i Z3 f N(w PALO VERE + h STE ~ \\ )N u \\ / i / x 116W I14W %112W' 110W r Figure 1. Selwnic Source Zones (350 km radius) for the PALO VERDE Site recommanded by NRC l I h i l f k i P

t iq l The NRC sources and parameters were used to calculate seismic hazard at Palo Verde. In this calculation, the range indicated for the b-values was divided into thme equally spaced i npresentative values, each value being weighted equally. Table 2-1 summarizes the parameter values used and associated weights. Similarly, the range of activity rates was divided into four representative values, and the range of maximum magnitudes was divided into five representative values, all values being weighted equally. The base-case site amplification factors were used. The Geomatrix faults were not included in the calculation, in order not to obscure the comparison of hazard results. The calculated hazard from the NRC sources is shown in Figures 2-1 through 2-6 for PGA and the five frequencies considered. Specific hazard values are shown in Table 2-2, i I and the percent change in hazard (NRC sources divided by base case) is shown in T.ble 2-3. The NRC soumes indicated lower hazard than the median base-case results at all frequencies, and the addition of the Geomatrix faults would not change this conclusion. This follaws because the ~ Geomatrix faults do not contribute significantly to the hazard for frequencies of 2.5 Hz and higher (see Figures 6-1 and 6-3 of the Revised Palo Verde Seismic Hazard Report: Reference C). At the frequency of I Hz (Figure 6-2 of Reference C) the Cerro Prieto fault and Laguna Salada faults are important contributors, but the combined mean hazard from the NRC sources and the Geomatrix faults is below the mean base-case hazard presented in Figure 6-27 of Reference C, for all amplitudes of interest. Therefore, we conclude that the use of the NRC sources and Geomatrix faults would lead to lower estimates of seismic hazard than have already been calculated in the Revised Palo Verde Seismic Hazard Repor: (Reference C). l Table 2-1 Seismicity Parameters Used with NRC Zonation Zone Activity Rates (wt. = 1/4) b Values (wt = 1/3) Maximum Marnitudes (wt. = 1/5) ne 21 0.0094,0.0113.0.0132,0.0151 0.67,0.71,0.75 5.1.5.2.53.5.4.5.5 22 0.75,0.S5.0.96,1.06 0.80,1.00.1.20 6.5.6.875,7.25,7.625.8.0 Z3 0.036.0.045.0.054,0 053 0.70.0.77.0.E5 5.5.5.625.5.75.5.875.6.0 I

i Table 2-2 i SPECTRAL VELOCITIES (cm/sec) FOR 4 VARIOUS EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITIES: [ PALO VERDE SITE (SOIL) (NRC SOURCES) Frequency (Hz) i 25 10 5 - 2.5 1 Exceedance Period (sec) Probability Percentile 0.04 0.1 0.2 0.4 1 15 0.08 0.22 0.76 0.87 0.93 1 1.E-03 50 0.22 0.80 2.08 2.61 3.89 85 0.33 1.34 3.39 5.63 9.54 j 15 0.32 1.13 3.17 2.48 2.15 I 2.E-04 50 0.49 1.95 4.87 5.25 6.73 I 85 0.69 3.09 6.84 9.42 15.60 'I 15 0.53 1.93 5.29 3.73 3.24 1.E-04 50 0.72 2.86 7.09 7.68 8.66 85 0.98 4.39 10.10 12.80 18.70 l 15 1.35 4.70 14.10 7.84 9.69 l 1.E-05 50 1.84 7.48 19.40 22.00 19.50 85 2.34 9.74 26.20 35.10 35.00 I I l i ? i i (Revised 4/12/93)-

Table 2-3 PERCENT CHANGE IN SPECTRAL VELOCITIES FOR PALO VERDE SITE (SOIL) (NRC SOURCES ) Frequency (Hz) 25 10 5'. 2.5 1 Exceedance Period (sec) Probability Percentile 0.04 0.1 0.2 0.4 .1 15 37 40 -48 l 1.E-03 50 26 -27 --4 0 -44 85 28 31 -29 15 21 49 -54 1 2.E-04 50 23 45.-47 85 34 47 -34 15 -9 -9 -7 54 l 1.E-04 50 19 44 -48 85 29 49 -40 15 -4 -5 -1 -49 1.E-05 50 -14 -2 -8 49 85 .-23 25 48 i x (Revised 4/12/931 =

? o I i t NRC - SOIL (PGA) 10-2 i --- - 85th fractile 3 w median o $ 10-15th fractile 1 a ,i t a y --- mean j w i o 10-a.t

\\ t, i

l M

s ss I

w o 10-4 t s. s's s cd N'~ 3 i s o 's.'s's, Z s, N a 10-5 .s 3 3 = s, a s' s s s

D z 10-8 s

's'..- s = s. z i s s 's, ' s, ' \\,' I 10-7 0. 250.' 500. 750.- 1000. ACCELERATION (cm/sec ) P 4 i Figure 2-1: Hazard results using NRC sources; PGA t P 1 ' I i

a - t i i t i -l t 1 t NRC. - SOIL (25-Hz PSV) 10-1 85th fractile ! a e median o $10-15th fractile ~. o M mean M i \\s 0 10-3 64 - s - i a g. , s., -i g., o 10-4 s N s. ss., ca s~ o s '.. ct: 's' a 10-s s. x., 3 s. s ._a s. NJ s, N D z 10-s s. N s. _3 i s 3 2 s. N: N I' - 10-7 O. 1. 2. 3. 4.' 5. 25-Hz SPECTRAL VELOCITY (cm/sec) l 1 i l -i i I Figure 2-2: Hazard results using NRC sources; 25-Hz spectral velocity - 1 I l 1 I

O t e i t t NRC - SOIL (10-Hz PSV) i 10-2 ;. ta 4

85th fractile !

l o i median .i $10-* l a

\\'.

_._.- - 15th fractile l ~ i ce

4,

mean ta i

- 0 10-3,i \\'s x i'. %,. 1 CO -s,\\s a s. N s, o 10-4 '., ' s, s s ci N' - s o s s ~ cta 10-5. s s. 's N = N a s s s s s. 3 z 10-8 ~ ' ' ~ - I s i z g ~'~J s 10-7 ( 0. 5.

10. '

15. 20. 10-Hz SPECTRAL VELOCITY (cm/sec) i t Figure 2-3: Hazard results using NRC sources; 10-Hz spectral velocity i 1 v

u a 1 .i i NRC - SOIL (5-Hz PSV) l t 10-t u

85th fractile m

median o i g10-8 a, _._.- 15th fractile 1 l a a

\\\\

--- mean 010-3 A. (\\'s e s i

s

\\. i g -. t. w '. g.. n o10-4 N' -= s. s s s~ aa s s s o s. N-m s. c.,10_s s s s .s s s s s ,_a s s 4 N g @-10-6 7 's 's s [', ~ ~..] z s. ~.: s. s 10-7 0. 10. 20. 3 0.' ' ' '4 0. 50. 5-Hz SPECTRAL VELOCITY (cm/sec) s Figure 2-4: Hazani results using NRC sources; 5-Hz spectral velocity; I f h

t i i NRC - SOIL (2.5-Hz PSV) l 10-1 i L'. -- -- 85th fractile w w o - n median i z 10-2 igs 15th fractile ] o , \\ '. m vs --- mean ] m a'.y.\\'. O10-x \\'. 4 m - 5 n. - r g o 10-4 N s xq, 5 co s o . s.c ZO.,10-5 s ~ ~ ~.. :.. ~, *- S ~ ~. ~ s %~ $10-8 x i, 1 t 10-7 ' ' '. ' ' ' 4 0. O. 10.

20. '

30 50. 2.5-Hz SPECTRAL VELOCITY (em/sec) e Figure 2-5: Hazard results using NRC. sources; 2.5-Hz spectral velocity I p i i P s ~t h

-t hi .1 i -i 1 i NRC - S0lb (1-Hz PSV) L 10-1 i a i e .1 i -- -- 85th fractile ! < p-median w o

\\'\\

gf z 10- [s - --- 15th fractile ! q .g. ( Q i -i .s. 1 --- mean w g s 0 10-4 \\ 's x N-5 1 g N' Ns .g s, A s s o 10-4 N %^ m .. x. s o ' ~ ? ' ~ ~ s ~; t Za 10-5 s. ~ ;:: s a s o s D 10-8 sc g s. 5 i 10-7 ~40. 50. 0. 10. 20. 30. 1-Hz SPECTRAL VELOCITY (cm/sec) i i i Figure 2-6: Hazard results using NRC sources; 1-Hz spectral ~ velocity _j j

Question II-2 (Seismic Wave Attenuation): "The supplemental study incorporated ground motion moaels proposed by K. Campbell and W. Joyner and D. Boore. These models are inappropdate in the form presented because they I were derived from southern California (deep soil) ground motion records and do not reflect the seismic attenuation expected in southem Arizona. During a telephone conversation, Dr. Campbell said that he had recently revised his model and that of Joyner and Boore in an effort to simulate the southern Arizona geologic characteristics, Dr. Campbell believer that the resulting modified -[ Campbell and modified Joyner and Boore ground motion models are more appropriate for the Palo Verde site, assuming a soil depth to basement rock of 250

m. Also the revised (supplemental) study utilizes the same ground motion model weighting scheme as the original study did. The staff recommends that a

'I sensitivity analysis be performed using the modified Campbell model, the i modified Joyner and Boore model, and the McGuire model with equal weights applied to all the models." [ t The Campbell (1991) attenuation equations are based on data that were considered representative [ of both soil and soft rock (see Campbell, Emitirical Prediction of Near-Source Ground Motion for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant Site. San Luis Obimo. Califomia, repon to LLNL, September, 1990). The Joyner-Boore attenuation equations have a term that accounts for soil effects. This term was set to zero in order to predict outcrop ground motions. Differences m, anelastic attenuation were accommodated by using y terms appropriate for the Basin and Range Province. Therefore the Campbell and Joyner-Boore equations, as applied in the Palo Verde seismic hazard study, are appropriate methods for the prediction of outcrop ground motions at Palo Verde. The Revised Palo Verde Seismic.Hazani Report (Reference C) utilizes Dr. Campbell as a consultant in ground motion estimation, along with Dr. N. Abrahamson (consultant) and Dr. G.R. Toro of Risk Engineedng, Inc. The resulting nine attenuation equations re.flect the thinking of these attenuation experts on what might be reasonable ground motions for the Palo Verde study, and reflect the range of interpretations that are available. The sensitivity to choice of attenuation equation is presented in Figures 6-39 to 6-44 of Reference C. As described in Section 5 of Reference C, five of the nine attenuation equations provide ground-motion estimates for rock conditions. These are then modified using the site-specific soil . amplification factors. Four of the nine attenuation equations provide ground-motion estimates for generic soil sites, without explicitly considering the effect of the sit > specific soil column on ground motions. It was the collective opinion of all ground-motion contributors that it was appropriate to assign a weight of 0.67 to the five attenuation equations that use site-specific amplification factors, and a weight of 0.33 to the generic-soil attenuation equations. Within each group, the attenuation equations are given approximately equal weights, as shown in Table 2-4. Although it is possible to propose various combinations and weighting schemes, it was not considered appropriate to arbitrarily neglect certain models or weighting factors, because the - purpose of the base-case results is to obtain robust estimates that can be meaningfully compared to the EPRI results for plant sites in the central and eastern United States. Questions of sensitivity to the various attenuation functions are addressed in Figures 6-39 through 6-44 of Reference C. r i

t 1

i l

l t: l i t Table 2-4 i Attenuation Functions, Associated Weights, and Treatment of Site Effects i Attenuation-Function Tvoe Name Weicht Applicable to soft rock; Joyner-Boore (1982) 0.1333 used with site-specific Joyner-Boore (1982; alternative Q) 0.1333 amplification factors CampbcIl(1991) 0.1333-(combined weight: 2/3) Campbell (1991; altemative Q) 0.1333 Abrahamson (Model 3) 0.1333 Applicable to generic Abrahamson (Model 1) 0.0952 soil (combined weight 1/3) Abrahamson (Model 2) 0.0476 Campbell Model 1/2 0.0952 Campbell Model 3/4 0.0952 1 k 5

Question II-3 (Soil Characteristics): "The supplemental study (Ref. 3) uses the modulus reduction and damping curves developed by Seed and Idriss and a " Standard Soil Profile." The staff recommends that a sensitivity study be performed using the range of shear degradation models shown in Figure 2 and that it assesses the influence of using the upper range and lower range of the soil profiles shown in the supplemental report (Ref. 3, Supplemental Repon. Figure 2-2)." Neither the supplemental study (NRC's Reference 3, our Reference B) nor the Revised Palo Verde Seismic Hazard Report (Reference C) use the Seed-Idriss curves or a standard velocity. profile. In particular, Reference C uses the recently developed EPRI curves for sand and Vucetic-Dobry curves for clay, and a median velocity profile based on PVNGS Unit 2. To investigate the effects of different assumptions on soil material properties, we have undertaken a number of sensitivity studies. These are described as follows. To determine the effect of different modulus and damping curves, the soil / rock amplification was computed for the range of frequencies and amplitudes used in this study. Figures 3-1 through 3-6 compare these amplification factors. The solid line (labelled "EPRI") is the base case amplification used in the Revised Palo Verde Seismic Hazard Report (it makes use of soil material properties developed during a recent EPRI study, ard uses the Unit-2 velocity profile as described in Reference C; Revised Palo Verde Seismic Hazard Repon). The dashed curve uses the Geomatdx material properties; these amplifications are below or very close to the base case values at all frequencies, meaning that the use of the Geomatrix curves would not substantially change the results presented in the Revised Palo Verde Seismic Hazard Report. The curves labeled EPRI/SOG Category IV in Figures 3-1 through 3-6 indicate the amplifications from the EPRI/SOG Category IV araplification factors (i.e., using the 1988 EPRI/SOG profiles, modulus, curve, and damping curve shown in Figures 2-2 and 2-3 of Reference D). The EPRI/SOG amplification factors are generally below the base case except for 2.5 and 5 Hz, where they indicate higher amplification (this is the profile referred to in Question II-3). To determine the effect on hazard, these amplification factors were used to compute hazards at Palo Verde, and the results are shown in Figures 3-7 through 3-12 for PGA and the five frequencies. Quantitative probabilities are presented in Table 3-1, and percent changes in hazard (probability) are presented in Table 3-2. Additional analyses were made as requested, using the lower-and upper-bound EPRI/SOG shear wave profiles, together with the EPRI/SOG modulus and damping curves. Summary hazard results are presented in Tables 3-3 and 3-5 for the two profiles, and percent changes in hazard are pr:sented in Tables 3-4 and 3-6. For these analyses, no uncertainty on shear wave velocity was assumed, as the intent was to examine the effects of lower-bound and upper-bound assumptions.

As a result of a further NRC requested sensitivity, the Unit 2 shear wave profile was used with an assumed 30% coefficient-of-variation in shear wave velocity and full correlation among velocities at different depths. The base-case modulus-reduction and damping curves were used. The resulting hazards are presented in Table 3-7, with percent changes in hazards from the base case presented in Table 3-8. Some of these sensitivity studies indicate increases in hazard, but these results should not be viewed as realistic. He EPRI-SOG shear wave profile was developed as a generic model for deep soil sites in the eastern United States. The results from this model (Tables 3-1 and 3-2) are not appropriate to use at Palo Verde where site-specific velocities are available. In particular, the upper-bound EPRI/SOG velocity results (Tables 3-5 and 3-6) are not appropriate to use, to characterize the hazard at Palo Verde. The sensitivity study that assumed a 30% coefficient of variation is also not appropriate (Tables 3-7 and 3-8). Shear wave velocities do not vary in a perfectly-correlated way with depth, and the EPRI model of velocity correlation (which was used for the base case results, Reference C) is a more accurate and realistic model to determine soil response. Funhermore, it will be shown in pages 47 and 48 of this report that the conclusion of a 0.3g RLE would not be affected by the use of any of the site amplification factors considered in this sensitivity study. l As a final sensitivity, Figures 3-13 through 3-18 show the soil amplification factors for the three units at Palo Verde. He base case results used only the ampli5 cation factors for Unit 2, which are conservative (higher amplification) with respect to application at the other two units. I j l i

t r ? r Table 3-1 } SPECTRAL VELOCITIES (cm/sec) FOR [ VARIOUS EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITIES: PALO VERDE SITE (SOIL) ) (EPRI/SOG PROFILE, MODULUS CURVE, AND DAMPING CURVE) Frequency (Hz) 25 10 5 2.5 1 Exceedance Period (sec) Probability Percentile 0.04 0.1 0.2 0.4 1 15 0.12 0.33 1.15 1.90 1.21 1.E-03 50 0.27 1.08 3.02 5.16 5.00 85 0.47 2.00 5.22 9.07 11.60 ~ 15 0.37 1.47 4.18 6.10 3.07 2.E-04 50 0.64 2.56 7.0S 10.80 9.34 i 85 1.10-5.04 13.10 18.90 20.60 15 0.56 2.17 6.19 9.00 4.66 1.E-04 50 0.94 3.60 10.10 15.20 12.40 i 85 1.49 6.53 18.40 27.20 25.80 l 15 1.30 4.84 15.20 23.10 13.30 1.E-05 50 2.06 7.97 23.40 37.60 30.40 S5 2.93 12.50 37.90 62.20 '58.00 'i I [ I i f p

i;! r i Table 3-2 l PERCENT CHANGE IN SPECTRAL VELOCITIES FOR PALO VERDE SITE (SOIL) (EPRI/SOG PROFILE, MODULUS CURVE, AND DAMPING CURVE)_ l i Frequency (Hz) f 25 10 5 2.5 1 Exceedance Period (sec) f Probability Percentile 0.04 0.1 0.2 0.4 1 15 -8 -6 7 31 -32 1.E-03 50 -4 0 6 19 -29 85 0 8 8 12 -13 j 15 -5 3 14 27 -34 j 2.E-04 50 -2 1 8 14 -26 1 85 0 8 13 6 -13 -) 15 -3 2 9 22 -34 .l 1.E-04 50 0 2 10 12 -26 ~ i 85 1 5 14 8 l 15 -7 - -2 _7 5 -30 1 1.E-05 50 -4 4 10 6 -21 i 85 -3 -2 9 8 -14 i I a m

.~ -

l w

i Table 3-3 e SPECTRAL VELOCITIES (cm/sec) FOR-l VARIOUS EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITIES: l PALO VERDE SITE (SOIL)- j (EPRI/SOG - LOWER DOUND) Frequency (Hz) 25 10 5 2.5. I Exceedance Period (sec) Probability Percentik 0.04 0.1 0.2 0.4 1 ~ I 15 0.16 0.53 1.59 1.49 1.48 1.E-03 50 0.31 1.31 3.33 4.35 5.98 l 85 0.48 2.15-5.46 7.71 11.90 15 0.44 1.72. 4.85 5.06 3.73 2.E-04 50 0.71 2.95 7.54 9.08 10.60 i 85 '1.12 5.04 12.20 16.30 21.10 ~I 15 0.64 2.37' 6.04 7.61 5.52 ~ - 1.E-04 50 1.03 4.05 10.40 13.10 14.00 85 1.47 6.53 iti.00' 22.70 26.40 f 15 1.54: 5.48 15.70 20.70 10.90 1.2 - 05 50 2.21 8.04 21.90 32.20 35.00 i 85 2.95 11.80 31.20 '50.60 62.50 [ { d: l I 1 I i 1 l n-1 i I

t i l i i Table 3-4 i PERCENT CIIANGE IN SPECTRAL VELOCITIES FOR l PALO_ VERDE SITE (SOIL) . (EPRI/SOG - LOWER BOUND ) ] i t Frequency (Hz) t 25 10 5 2.5 1 l L Exceedance Period (sec) Probability Percentile 0.04 0.1 ; 0.2 0.4 .1 15 23 51- - 49 3 -17 4 1.E-03 50 11 21 17 1 -15 j 85 2 16 13 -5. -11 l 15 13 20 32 5 -20 t 2.E-04 50 9 1G 15 .-5 -17 85 2 8 5 - 9. - 15 10 12 21 -3 -22 1.E-04 50 10 15-13 -4 -17 85 0 5 -1 15 15 10 10 11 .-6 -11 1.E-05 50 3 5 3 -10' -9 1' 85 -3 -8 -2 -12 -7 i I t I i i l r e R1

Table 3 5 SPECTRAL VELOCITIES (cm/sec) FOR l VARIOUS EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITIES: -l PALO VERDE SITE (SOIL) (EPRI/SOG - UPPER BOUND) Frequency (Hz) 25 10 5 2.5 1 Exceedance Period (sec) Probability Percentile 0.04 0.1 0.2 - 0.4 1 15 0.14 0.39 0.87 2.31 0.96 f 1.E-03 50. 0.29 1.0S 2.44 5.59 4.20 85 0.48 1.85 4.39 9.07 11.10 t 15 0.43 1.47 3.06 7.09 2.64 2.E-04 50 0.66 2.61 5.74 12.00 7.54 85 1.10 4.67 10.50 19.60 18.70 15 0.62 2.13 4.85 10.80 3.88 1.E-04 50 0.98 3.77 8.32 16.70 10.40 85 1.47 6.83 15.10 29.20' 23.80 l 15 1.56 5.31 13.60 29.00 10.90 I 1.E-05 50 2.30 9.49 20.30 43.90 24.60 85 3.11 15.70 34.40 68.20 51.60 i t i r n .i )

' I E i ~ Table 3-0 [ PERCENT CHANGE IN SPECTRAL VELOCITIES FOR I PALO VERDE SITE (SOIL) i (EPRl/SOG - UPPER BOUND)_ j 25 10 5 2.5 1 Frequency (Hz). Exceedance Period (sec) Probability Percentile 0.04 0.1 0.2 0.4 1 t i 15 8 11 -19. 59 -46 1.E-03 50 4 0 -14 29 40 85 2 -1 -9 12 -17 15 10 3 -17 47 -43 2.E-04 50 2 3 -13.26 -41 85 0 0 -9 10 -21 15 7 0 -14.46 -45 1.E-04 50 4 7 -9 23 -38 85 0 10 -7

16. -23

+ 15 11 7 -4 31 l 1.E-05 50 7 24 -4 _23 -36 l 85 3 23' -11 18 -23 i ia l I .R1 l l i--.. .,rr

P l i Table 3-7 SPECTRAL VELOCITIES (cm/sec) FOR VARIOUS EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITIES: PALO VERDE SITE (SOIL) (UNIT-2 FULLY CORRELATED VELOCITIES - 30% COV ) Frequency (Hz) i 25 10 5 2.5 1 ] Exceedance Period (sec) Probability Percentile 0.04 0.1 0.2 0.4 1 15 0.14 0.36 1.07 1.62 1.86 1.E-03 50 0.29 1.12 2.89 4.59 6.84 85 0.47 1.92 4.84 8.12 12.80 15 0.41 1.51 3.99 5.28 .4.67 2.E-04 50 0.66 2.56 6.61 9.77 12.00 85 1.10 4.86 11.90 17.50 22.20 i 15 0.60 2.19 5.98 7.99 6.83 i 1.E-04 50 0.98 3.60 9.74 14.10 15.90 85 1.47 6.65 17.20 24.60 28.20 15 1.48 5.27 15.60 22.40 17.60 1.E-05 50 2.20 8.15 23.20 36.40 35.00 85 3.06 12.60 36.00 58.00 64.90 l I ? I f i !j i } f (Revised 4/12/93).

i. Table 3-8 PERCENT CH.ANGE IN SPECTRAL VELOCITIES FOR PALO VERDE SITE (SOIL) (UNIT-2 FULLY CORRELATED VELOCITIES - 30% COV ) Frequency. (Hz) 25 10 5 2.5 1 Exceedance Period (sec) Probability Percentile 0.04 0.1 0.2 0.4 1 15 8 3 0 12 4 1.E-03 50 4 4 2 6 -2 85 0 3 0 0 -4 15 5 6 8 10 0 2.E-04 50 2 1 1 3 -6 85 0 4 3 -2 -6 i 15 3 3 6 8 -4 1.E-04 50 4 2 6 4 -5 85 0 7 6 -2 -9 15 6 6 10 1 -7 1.E-05 50 3 6 9 2 -9 85 1 -2 3 1 -4 t i i i I l i i l (Revised 4/12/93) j (

i COMPARISON OF MEDIAN VALUES SOIL / ROCK AMPLIFICATION FACTORS (PGA) 3.0 2.5 x 9 &U< 2.0 g s Z \\

N '

z L o 1.5 ~ ~._.Lz_._.__.__._.__.__.__._.__._.__.__.__.-- [ ~ ~ - o ~, k 3 1.0 a 2 Unit 2. EPRI curves O.5 --- Unit 2, Geomatrix curves- - - - Unit 2, Full Correlation

EPRI/SOG Category 4 0~0 D.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION (g)

Figure 3-1: Soil amplification for various soil-propeny models; PGA I

f COMPARISON OF MEDIAN VALUES SOIL / ROCK AMPLIFICATION FACTORS -(25 Hz) 3.0 2.5 c: O 9 O < 2.0 t a., Z 's i o 1.5

~..
u*4 O

g 3 1.0 ..,,,~~~. o2 Unit 2, EPRI curves 0.5 --- Unit 2, Geomatrix curves- - - - -Unit 2, Full Correlation --- - EPRI/SOG Category 4 0'0 O. 5. 10. 15. 25-Hz SPECTRAL VELOCITY (cm/sec) Figure 3-2: Soil amplification for various soil-property models; 25-Hz spectral velocity

COMPARISON OF MEDIAN VALUES SOIL / ROCK AMPLIFICATION FACTORS (10 Hz) 3.0 2.5 m O E- ~ O< 2.0 's:s

z; h1.5 f s['g,,

s . ~...~ ~. o b .0 " b'h s. 1 aa 2 Unit 2, EPRI curves 0.5 - --- Unit 2, Geomatrix curves - - - Unit 2, Full Correlation --- - EPRl/SOG Category 4 0.0 O. ' 5. 10. 15. 20. 25. 10-Hz SPECTRAL VELOCITY (em/sec) Figure 3-3: Soil amplification for vadous soil-propeny models,10-Hz spectral velocity I l El I i J

t i t COMPARISON OF MEDIAN VALUES SOIL / ROCK AMPLIFICATION FACTORS (5 Hz) 3.0 2.5 c: O E- > 5$ 2.0 I~~, ~ z ~ ?::... 8 1.5 ~~ ~,U'f'.:;...__.5 E l v b 1.0 A CL l A Unit 2, EPRI curves 0.5 --- Unit 2, Geomatrix curves - - - Unit 2, Full Correlation - - - EPRI/SOG Category 4 ...i 0.0 0. 5. 10. 15. 20. 25. 30. 35. 5-Hz SPECTRAL VELOCITY (cm/sec) i I Figure 3-4: Soil amplification for various soil-property models; 5-Hz spectral velocity i l i

COMPARISON OF MEDIAN VALUES SOIL / ROCK AMPLIFICATION FACTORS (2.5 Hz) 3.0 2.5 c:: ~~ o s o < 2.0 ~~~_ w -:.... ~.~..' g _________.___u= = = h - - -..::: w.. o -- = - _ 1.o- -s O N 10 ..2 c., 2 Unit 2, EPRI curves 0.5 --- Unit 2, Geomatrix curves ~ - - - Unit 2, Full Correlation --- - EPRI/SOG Category 4 0'0 O.' 5. 10.' 15. 20. 25. 30. 35. 2.5-Hz SPECTRAL VELOCITY (cm/sec) Figure 3-5: Soil amplification for various soil-property models; 2.5-Hz spectral velocity P

t l l l l l COMPARISON OF MEDIAN VALUES SOIL / ROCK AMPLIFICATION FACTORS (1 Hz) 3.0 ~ 2.5 t x L. =- O ~. 9 o t < 2.0 k ZOr 1.5 e O ~ k3 1.0 cL 2< Unit 2 EPRI curves 0.5 --- Unit 2 Geomatrix curves- - - - Unit 2, Full Correlation - - - EPRI/SOG Category 4 i 0.0 O. 5. 10. 15. 20. 25. 30. 1-Hz SPECTRAL VELOCITY (cm/se'c) f Figure 3-6: Soil amplification for vanous soil-propeny models; 1-Hz spectral velocity I i t

EPRI/SOG CATEGORY 4 PALO VERDE - SOIL (PGA) j 10-2

85th fractile i

m 1 o-median i-Z 10-o -?', --- - 15th fractile 1 ca \\i --- mean 3 ca ib 0 10-3 e i'. x ca _ s \\s t - ' \\ %,, A s o 10-4 s s. s, N m ss o s -

  • 10~5

',\\- a N = (L s g N s <D 's.~~ ' U ~;., z 10-s = s s, z 5 N q <- s o 10-7 O. 250.' 500.' 750. 1000. 1 ACCELERATION (cm/sec ) 8 Figure 3-7: Hazard results using EPRI/SOG shear-wave velocity pmfile; PGA 3 - - - - ' ~ ~ ' - ~ ^ ' ' ^ ~ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

e 1 i r EPRI/SOG CATEGORY 4 PALO VERDE - SOIL (25'-Hz PSV) 10-1 c

85th fractile !

ca median o $10-p's 15th fractile '! o ! \\'. --- mean ca , g s. w0 10-3 '. \\. x .s \\.-s-i m ,ss x, g s, g., o 10-4 'sN.. s s s s ca s ~ o ~ N

  • 10-5

's'~ cL s ' s 'c.. ,_a< ~c ] P 10-8 t z 7 z ) s ,l 10-7 - 3. 4 5 1 0. 1. 2. 25-Hz SPECTRAL VELOCITY (cm/sec). Figure 3-8: Hazarti results using EPRI/SOG shear-wave velocity profile; 25-Hz spectral velocity

e EPRI/SOG CATEGORY 4 PALO VERDE - SOIL (10-Hz PSV) 10-2 85th fractile ! m 1 o median $10- j( _._.- - 15th fractile 'i o y a ,, \\r. i -- mean e s,. o 10-3 s x i s s 3 N, ' s,, M - s s a s s o 10-4 ' s' s s s o 's. ' s '.. ce 10-5 's cL s ~. s s a ' s'

  • s

$10 's., z s., 10 -'O. 5. 10.

15. '

20. 10-Hz SPECTRAL VELOCITY (em/sec) l f i l Figure 3-9: Hazard results using EPRI/SOG shear-wave velocity profile; 10-Hz spectral velocity f i )

EPRI/SOG CATEGORY 4 PALO VERDE - SOIL (5-Hz PSV) 10-2 1

85th fractile a

_ i median o z 10-2 - --- 15th fractile

gi r

a . \\.s --- mean 2 Ea -i Ea \\. >< 10-3 0 4 y. s', i s a x-s w \\ ;.. o 10-4 s, s.s s, s. 's 5 ca s. N'~~ s O s ~ ' F10-5 ~ = ~ ~ s .~; ~q a s 's Dz 10--6 s, z E -s 10-7 O. 10. 20. 30. 40. 50. 5-Hz SPECTRAL VELOCITY (cm/sec) l l, l Figure 3-10: Hazard results using EPRI/SOG shear-wave velocity profile; 5-Hz spectral velocity,

i e P EPRI/SOG CATEGORY 4 PALO VERDE - SOIL (2.5-Hz PSV) '[ 10-2 ~ 85th fractile e i o \\\\ median sc4g-a t g. <1 15th fractile 1 . \\s 4 a m i \\ s. mean m \\~. ~* o10-3 N s x s x.. e s s s s N c., s o 10-4 s. 's n i. s s s ' _ ca - i o ce ~ ~ ~ ~ ' - w 10_3 ~ = A D sc10-8 .3 PC q 10-7 O. 10. 20.'30. 40.'50. 2.5-Hz SPECTRAL VELOCITY (cm/sec) r h Figure 3-11: Hazard results using EPRI/SOG shear-wave velocity profile; 2.5-Hz spectral velocity i i

t i EPRI/SOG CATEGORY 4 i PALO VERDE - SOIL (1-Hz PSV) j 10-1 \\,. 85th fractile. ! w \\ '.i median o r $10-2 7 s's, 15th fractile ~; a 3 \\,s m -i .x, mean m 1 s. 010-d N' s X

i N.

1 m

i s N ~.

i ~ m s, N' ~ ~ o 10-4 s. ~.s E s, s '* 5 N m '~~'. o c:10-5 ~ 0- 'i. a j D 10-8 s. 3 2 s.

z; E

I ~. ~ 10-7 20.'30. 40. 50. 0. 10 1Hz SPECTRAL VELOCITY (cm/sec) i 'I i Figure 3-12: Hazard results using EPRI/SOG shear-wave velocity profile;' l-Hz spectral velocity - i i i l l

M m MEDIAN FACTORS UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 SOIL / ROCK AMPLIFICATION FACTORS (PGA) 3.0 2.5 g O ~ g ~ S 2.0 s 2 - s O N 1.5 's' E- ..~~s 's'- <og{ ~..._,__*e....-. ct - 2 Unit 1 - 0.5 : Unit 2 : Unit 3 'b.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 I f f i PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION (g) Figure 3-13: Soil amplification, Units 1,2, and 3; PGA

i i t I f r 9 1 MEDIAN FACTORS UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 SOIL / ROCK AMPLIFICATION FACTORS (25 Hz) g 3.0 I f 2.5 c i C) [ E~ ~ 5$ 2.0 tw 2: o -\\ - 1.5 s .s ?. N i o s. s i M w3 1.0 ~ j r-1 2

Unit 1 -

t < 0.5 Unit 2 : - - - - Unit 3 - l 0.0 O. 5. 10. 15. 25-Hz SPECTRAL VELOCITY (cm/sec) j l t Figure 3-14: Soil amplification, Units 1,2, and 3; 25-Hz spectral velocity f 1 ? h

u P i MEDIAN FACTORS UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 SOIL / ROCK AMPLIFICATION FACTORS (10 Hz) 3.0 t 2.5 m o g O 2.0 c-2; o s 1.5 E-- s s .N $1.0 -[ w M

Unit 1 -

0.o_ Unit. 2 - .... _.. Unit 3 ~ 0'0 O.

5. '

10.

15. '

20. 25. 10-Hz SPECTRAL VELOCITY (em/sec) i Figure 3-15: Soil amplification, Units 1,2, and 3; 10-Hz spectral velocity =

t MEDIAN FACTORS UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 SOIL / ROCK AMPLIFICATION FACTORS (5 Hz) 3.0 2.5 i x o E- ~ i O 2.0 f f ~ r= t Z o _~~~' 1.5 E~ ~~' ~~ - - - -.-.-......._,_,~ ~ ~ ~ ~. o g ~; 1.0 _,*-*--.3 EL 2 - - - - Unit. 1 - 0.5 Unit 2 - _... _. _. Unit 3 0.0 O.' 5. 10.' - 15. 20. 25. 30'. 5. 3 5-Hz SPECTRAL VELOCITY (cm/sec) l i l i Figure 3-16: Soil amplification, Units 1,2, and 3; 5-Hz spectral velocity i i i k

5 i i i I i MEDIAN FACTORS UNITS 1, 2 AND 3 SOIL / ROCK AMPLIFICATION ' FACTORS (2.5 Hz) 3.0 2.5 g o g i U < 2.0 w N 7o Q .5 ~~~~~~-~~~------- - - ~ 1 t 1 o -w-1.0 a cL 2 I

Unit 1 -

0.5 Unit 2 - ........ Unit. 3 0'0 O.'

5. ' '

10. 15.

20. '
25. '

30. 35. 2.5-Hz SPECTRAL VELOCITY (cm/sec) i l t P h i Figure 3-17: Soil amplification, Units 1,2, and 3: 2.5-Hz spectral velocity I t [ i l -m.e

1 f MEDIAN FACTORS UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 i SOIL / ROCK AMPLIFICATION FACTORS (1 Hz) 3.0 2.5 e g 2.0 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-j 0 z 1.5 -.-.- - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - -l O E-' O r= 1.0 -a ct 2

Unit 1 -

< 0.5 Unit 2 - I -... -... Unit 3 0.0 O. 5. 10. 15. 20. 25. 30. 1-Hz SPECTRAL VELOCITY (cm/sec) l i

-r i

Figure 3-18: Soil amplification, Units 1,2, and 3; 1-Hz spectral velocity 3

t Question U-4 (Comparison with Selected Sites in the Eastern United States): "In the original probabilistic seismic hazard study submitted by the i licensee (Ref.1), a comparison of the seismic hazard results with a selected site in the Eastern Unites States (Pilgrim) was provided (Ref.1, Sec. 6.1). However, this comparison was deleted in the Supplemental Report (Ref. 3). It is important that such a comparison, to compare the seismic hazard results obtained for PVNGS to results obtained for sites in the Central and Eastem United States (GUS), be provided for staff review. This comparison should use the results obtained from the above sensitivity studies which will enable the staff to verify that the site seismic hazard, in terms of fTequencies and amplitudes of interest, is indeed, similar to that at sites in the GUS." Any earlier compadsons of seismic hazard measures for Palo Verde with GUS plants have been superceded by results presented in Reference D. NUREG-1407 characterizes Palo Verde as "a i site in the Western United States whose default bin is 0.5g, unless the licensee can demonstrate l - that the site hazard is similar to that at sites east of the Rocky Mountains that are found in the O.3g bin." Reference D focuses on such compadsons among 0.3g plants, using the composite probability of exceeding the NUREG/CR-0098 spectrum (median,55o-damped) as the key hazard L parameter. To demonstrate the robustness of the study conclusions, Reference D also provides compadsons of seismic hazard among the two GUS plants in the 0.5g bin (i.e., those plants where licensees have committed to performing a seismic PRA); these results (shown in both i Appendix D and Tables 5-4 to 5-15 of Reference D) demonstrate that the hazard at Palo Verde is low with respect to that at the 0.5g (PRA) CEUS sites, and hence, that Palo Verde does not belong in the 0.5g bin. Reference D is based on the base-case hazard results and presents the most appropriate comparisons for evaluating the RLE for Palo Verde. 1 r For informational purposes, as requested by the Staff, we have here developed comparisons of the seismic hazard results at Palo Verde, for the sensitivity cases previously discussed, with seismic hazard results at CEUS sites in the 0.3g and 0.5g (PRA) bins. These comparisons are similar in format to those presented in Section 5 of Reference D; results are ordered and tabulated separately for the mean, median and 85th-fractile statistics of hazard. ~ Results of comparisons for the sensitivity variations are provided in the following Tables 4-1 to 4-15. Tables 4-1 to 4-3 provide comparisons for Palo Verde hazard based on EPRI/SOG soil amplification factors; Tables 4-4 to 4-6 provide comparisons for Palo Verde hazard based on the lower-bound EPRI/SOG shear wave velocity profile: Tables 4-7 to 4-9 present comparisons for i Palo Verde hazard based on the upper bound EPRI/SOG shear wave velocity profile; Tables 4-10 i to 4-12 present compadsons for Palo Verde hazard based on the Unit-2 shear wave velocity-profile with 307o coef5cient of variation in shear wave velocity and full correlation among velocities; and Tables 4-13 to 4-15 present comparisons for Palo Verde hazard based on the NRC model of seismic sotuces and parameters. (Revised 4/12/93) 2

1 Each sensitivity variation, if substituted for the base-case hazard, would not alter the RLE conclusion developed in Reference D. However, being the most appropriate, representative, and realistic result for the seismic hazard at Palo Verde, the base case seismic hazard should be used l in developing RLE conclusions, consistent with the marmer in which plant binning was undertaken for NUREG-1407. Consequently, Reference D presents the most appropriate comparisons and RLE conclusion for the Palo Verde site. The results in Reference D show both that Palo Verde belongs with the 0.3g CEUS plants and that Palo Verde does not belong with the 0.5g (PRA) CEUS sites. 1 j l l l l l l 1 l l l 1 f l ) l l L l l l

l i l i Table 4-1 l Sensitivity Case: EPRI/SOG Shear-Wave Velocity Profile, Modulus Curve, and Damping Curve. g .t RANKINGS, INDICATING PLANT NAMES, OF COMPOSITE MEAN PROBABILITY OF - EXCEEDING NUREG/CR-0098 SPECTRUM ANCHORED TO 0.3G; 50 0.3G SITES, TWO .j 0.5G SITES, AND THE PVNGS SITE Plant Name Review Type Hazard - Plant Name Review Type Hazard PILGRLM 0.5g (PRA) 1.01E-04 MONTICELLO 0.3g Focused 9.39E-06 YANKEE ROWE 0.3g Full '4.33505 POINT BEACH 0.3g Focused 9.37E.06 SEABROOK 0.5g (PRA) 3.41E-05 CALVERT CLIFFS 0.3g Focused 8.40E-06 PALO VERDE 2.86E-05 BEAVER VALLEY 0.3g Focused 8.36E 06 { INDIAN POINT 0.3g Full 2.55E-05 MCGUIRE 0.3g Focused ' 7.99E-06 i SEQUOYAH 0.3g Full 2.54E-05 BELLEFONTE 0.3g Focused 7.84E-06 WATTS BAR 0.3g Focused 2.18E-05 .THREE MILE ISLAND 0.3g Focused 7.44E-06 [ HADDAM NECK 0.3g Focused 2.18E-05 HATCH 0.3g Focused - 5.76E-06 CLINTON 0.3g Focused 2.12LO5 FERMI 0.3g Focused - 5.62E 06 l NORTH ANNA 0.3g Focused 2.11E-05 VERMONT YANKEE 0.3g Focused 5.23E-06 VOGTLE 0.3g Focused 2.08E-05 GINNA 0.3g Focused - 4.85LO6 l BRUNSWICK 0.3g Focused 2.02E-05 ARKANSAS 0.3g Full. 4.06E-06 i HOPE CREEK ~ 0.3g Focused 1.96E-05 BROWNS FERRY 0.3g Focused 3.88 & O6 ( SALEM 0.3g Focused 1.96E-05 DAVIS BESSE _0.3g Focused 3.87E-06 j LA SALLE 0.3g Focused 1.96E.05 PRAIRIE ISLAND 0.3g Focused c 3.66E-06 i ROBINSON 0.3g FuH 1.77E-05 SUSQUEHANNA 0.3g Focused. 3.14E-06 j OCONEE 0.3g Full 1.72E-05 PERRY 0.3g Focused 2.99E-06 l OYSTER CREEK 0.3g Focused 1.68E-05 BYRON _ 0.3g Focused 2.58E-06 j ZION 0.3g Focused 1.67E-05 SHEARON. HARRIS 0.3g Focused - 2.37E-06 SURRY-0.3g Focused 1.42E-05 DRESDEN 0.3g Focused. ~ 2.33E-06 -i MILLSTONE 0.3g Focused 1.42LO5 BRAIDWOOD ~ 0.3g Focused 2.05E-06 i CATAWBA 0.3g Focused. 1.32E-05 WOLF CREEK 0.3g Focused ' -- 1.94E-06 MAINE YANKEE 0.3g Full 1.26E-05 _ QUAD CITIES 0.3g Focused ~ 1.73E-06 ll LIMERICK 0.3g Focused 1.22E-05 NINE MILE POINT 0.3g Focused s 1.66E-06 j SUMMER 0.3g Focused 1.12L05 FITZPATRICK 0.3g Focused 1.66E-06 KEWAUNEE 0.3g Focused 9.73E-06 FARLEY 0.3g Focused 6.95E-07 j PEACH BOTTOM -0.3g Focused 9.42E-06 i i - i .j i .. ~.. m

Table 4-2 l Sensitivity Case: EPRI/SOG Shear-Wave Velocity Profile, Modulus Curve, and [ Damping Curve. RANKINGS, INDICATING PLANT NAMES, OF COMPOSITE MEDIAN PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDING NUREG/CR-0098 SPECTRUM ANCHORED TO 0.3G; 50 0.3G SITES, TWO 0.5G SITES, AND THE PVNGS SITE Plant Name Review Type Hazard Plant Name Review Type Hazard PILGRIM 0.5g (PRA) 3.42E-05 BELLEFONTE 0.3g Focused 2.62E-06 SEABROOK 0.5g (PRA) 1.75E-05 MONTICELLO 0.3g Focused 2.41E-06 YANKEE ROWE 0.3g Full 1.21L05 PEACH BOTTOM 0.3g Focused 2.28E-06 SEQUOYAH 0.3g Full 1.21E-05 OYSTER CREEK 0.3g Focused 2.18E-06 i PALO VERDE 1.11E-05 VERMONT YANKEE 0.3g Focused 2.05E-06 i NORTH ANNA 0.3g Focused 9.60E-06 BEAVER VALLEY 0.3g Focused 1.95E-06 WATTS BAR 0.3g Focused 9.45E-06 DAVIS BESSE 0.3g Focused 1.50E-06 j INDIAN POINT 0.3g Full 7.73E-06 ARKANSAS 0.3g Full 1.49E-06 ~ HADDAM NECK 0.3g Focused 7.19L06 GINNA 0.3g Focused 1.41E.06 MAINE YANKEE 0.3g Full 7.00E-06 FERMI 0.3g Focused 1.37E-06 OCONEE 0.3g Full 6.82506 SURRY 0.3g Focused 1.24E-06 LA SALLE 0.3g Focused 5.59 & O6 BROWNS FERRY 0.3g Focused 1.04E-06 9 MILLSTONE 0.3g Foc ised 5.29E.06 SUSQUEHANNA 0.3g Focused 9.98E-07 CATAWBA 0.3g Focused 5.22E-06 BYRON-0.3g Focused 9.19LO7 LIMERICK 0.3g Focused 5.05E-06 PERRY 0.3g Focused 8.74LO7 ZION 0.3g Focused 4.93E-06 WOLF CREEK 0.3g Focused. 8.50E.07 l SUMMER 0.3g Focused 4.58E-06 CALVERT CLIFFS 0.3g Focused 8.18E-07 BRUNSWICK 0.3g Focused 4.56E-06 DRESDEN 0.3g Focused 7.78E-07 VOGTLE 0.3g Focused 3.67L06 BRAIDWOOD 0.3g Focused - 7.34E.07 HOPE CREEK 0.3g Focused 3.43E-06 PRAIRIE ISLAND 0.3g Focused 6.75E-07 j SALEM 0.3g Focused 3.43L06 NINE MILE POINT 0.3g Focused ' 6.44E-07 MCGUIRE 0.3g Focused 3.34E-06 FITZPATRICK 0.3g Focused _ 6.44E-07 ROBINSON 0.3g Full 3.27L06 HATCH 0.3g Focused ' 6.03E-07 i CLINTON - 0.3g Focused 3.00E-06 SHEARON HARRIS 0.3g Focused 5.51LO7 THREE MILE ISLAND 0.3g Focused 2.96 LOG QUAD CITIES 0.3g Focused-4.19E-07 i KEWAUNEE 0.3g Focused 2.95E-06 FARLEY 0.3g Focused 1.21E.07 POINT BEACH 0.3g Focused 2.63L06 j i

Table 4-3 Sensitivity Case: EPRI/SOG Shear-Wave Velocity Profile, Modulus Curve, and Damping Curve. RANKINGS, INDICATING PLANT NAMES, OF COMPOSITE 85TH-FRACTILE PROBA-BILITY OF EXCEEDING NUREG/CR-0098 SPECTRUM ANCHORED TO 0.3G; 50 0.3G SITES, TWO 0.5G SITES, AND THE PVNGS SITE Plant Name Review Type Huard Plant Name Review Type Hazard i PILGRIM 0.5g (PRA) 1.72E-04 KEWAUNEE 0.3g Focused 1.50LOS YANKEE ROWE 0.3g Full 7.09E-05 POINT BEACH 0.3g Focused 1.42605 SEABROOK 0.5g (PRA) 6.68E-05 MONTICELLO 0.3g Focused 1.39 & O5 PALO VERDE 5.48 & O5 THREE MILE ISLAND 0.3g Focused 1.33E-05 INDIAN POINT 0.3g Full 4.86E-05 BELLEFONTE 0.3g Focused 1.23E-05 SEQUOYAH 0.3g Full 4.74LOS BEAVER VALLEY 0.3g Focused 1.18L05 WATTS BAR 0.3g Focused 4.30E.05 CALVERT CLIFFS 0.3g Focused 9.41LOS { NORTH ANNA 0.3g Focused 3.82E-05 VERMONT YANKEE 0.3g Focused 9.08L06 HADDAM NECK 0.3g Focused 3.14E.05 GINNA 0.3g Focused 7.58E.06 ROBINSON 0.3g Full 3.10E.05 FERMI 0.3g Focused 6.71LO6 VOGTLE 0.3g Focused 3.10E.05 HATCH 0.3g Focused 6.34 E.06 I LA SALLE 0.3g Focused 2.90505 DAVIS BESSE 0.3g Focused 6.28E.06 BRUNSWICK 0.3g Focused 2.78E.05 ARKANSAS 0.3g Full 5.89 & O6 OCONEE 0.3g Full 2.76L05 BROWNS FERRY 0.3g Focused 5.21E-06 CLINTON 0.3g Focused 2.66E.05 SUSQUEHANNA 0.3g Focused 5.12E-06 CATAWBA 0.3g Focused 2.66E-05 PERRY 0.3g Focused 4.71E-06 MAINE YANKEE 0.3g Full 2.52E-05 PRAIRIE ISLAND 0.3g Focused 4.12LO6 HOPE CREEK 0.3g Focused 2.27E.05 SHEARON HARRIS 0.3g Focused 3.82E-06 SALEM 0.3g Focused 2.27E-05 BYRON 0.3g Focused 3.72E.06 ZION 0.3g Focused 2.26E-05 DRESDEN 0.3g Focused 3.56LO6 MILLSTONE 0.3g Focused 2.11E.05 BRAIDWOOD 0.3g Focused 3.42E-06 SUMMER 0.3g Focused 2.08E-05 WOLF CREEK 0.3g Focused 3.39E-06 OYSTER CREEK 0.3g Focused 1.93E-05 FITZPATRICK 0.3g Focused 3.15E-06 I LIMERICK 0.3g Focused 1.92E.05 NINE M2E POINT 0.3g Focused 3.15E-06 PEACH BOTTOM 0.3g Focused 1.63E-05 QUAD CITIES 0.3g Focused 2.56E-06 MCGUIRE 0.3g Focused 1.61LD5 FARLEY 0.3g Focused 8.06LD7 SURRY 0.3g Focused 1.52LO5

i ) I Table 4-4 Sensitivity Case: Lower-Bound EPRI/SOG Shear Wave Velocity Profile. l l RANKINGS, INDICATING PLANT NAMES, OF COMPOSITE MEAN PROBABILITY OF i EXCEEDING NUREG/CR-0098 SPECTRUM ANCHORED TO 0.3G; 50 0.3G SITES, TWO 0.5G SITES, AND TIIE PVNGS SITE l i Plant Name Review Type llazard Plant Name Review Type llazard j i PILGRIM 0.5g (PRA) 1.01LO4 MONTICELLO 0.3g Focused 9.39E-06 YANKEE ROWE 0.3g Full 4.33L05 POINT DEACII 0.3g Focused 9.37E-06 SEADROOK 0.5g (PRA) 3.41E-05 CALVERT CLIFFS 0.3g Focused 8.40E-06 INDIAN POINT 0.3g Full 2.55E-05 DEAVER VALLEY 0.3g Focused - 8.36E-06 SEQUOYAII 0.3g Full 2.54 E-05 MCGUIRE 03g Focused 7.99 & O6 PALO VERDE 2.23E-05 DELLEFONTE 0.3g Focused 7.84E-06 WATTS DAR 0.3g Focused 2.18L05 TIIREE MILE ISLAND 0.3g Focused 7.44E-06 IIADDAM NECK 0 3g Focused 2.18 & O5 IIATCII 0.3g Focused. 5.76E-06 CLINTON 0.3g Focused 2.12LOS FERMI 0.3g Focused 5.62E-06 NORTII' ANNA 0.3g Focused 2.11E-05 VERMONT YANKEE 02g Focused S.23E-06 l VOGTLE 0.3g Focused 2.08E-05 GINNA-0.3g Focused 4.85E-06 DRUNSWICK 0.3g Focused 2.02LD5 ARKANSAS 0.3g Full 4.06E-06 IlOPE CREEK 0.3g Focused 1.96E-05 BROWNS FERRY 0.3g Focused 3.88E-06 SALEM 0.3g Focused 1.9GLO5 DAVIS DESSE 03g Focused 3.87L06 LA SALLE 03g Focused 1.90E-05 PRAIRIE ISLAND 0.3g Focused 3.6GE-06 l ROBINSON 0.3g Full 1.77E-05 SUSQUEIIANNA. 0.3g Focused 3.14 LOG OCONEE 0.3g Full 1.72LD5 PERRY-0.3g Focused 2.99E.0G OYSTER CREEK 0.3g Focused 1.68E-05 DYRON 0.3g Focused 2.58L06 ) ZION 0.3g Focused 1.67E-05 SIIEARON IIARRIS 0.3g Focused 237E-0G SURRY 0.3g Focused 1.42L05 DRESDEN DJg Focused 2.33L06 1 MILLSTONE 0.3g Focused 1.42E-05 DRAIDWOOD 0.3g Focused 2.05LO6 CATAWDA - 0.3g Focused 1.32505 WOLF CREEK 0.3g Focused ' 1.94 E-00 MAINE YANKEE 0.3g Full 1.2 GLOS QUAD CITIES 0.3g Focused 1.73506 LIMERICK 0.3g Focused 1.22LO5 NINE MILE POINT 0.3g Focused 1.06E-0G j SUMMER 0.3g Focused 1.12LO5 FITZPATRICI 0.3g Focused 1.66 LOG j KEWAUNEE 0.3g Focused 9.73E-06 FARLEY 0.3g Focused 6.95E-07 PEACII DOTTOM 0.3g Focused 9.42 LOG 4 J

i i r Table 44 Sensitivity Case: Lower-Bound EPIU/SOG Shear Wave Velocity Profile. RANKINGS, INDICATING PLANT NAMES, OF COMPOSITE MEDIAN PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDING NUREG/CR-0098 SPECTRUM ANCIlORED TO 0.3G; 50 0.3G SITES, TWO l 0.5G SITES AND TIIE PVNGS SITE i Plant Name Review Type llazard Plant Name Review Type Hazard i PILGRIM 0.5g (PRA) 3.42E.05 DELLEFONTE 0.3g Focused 2.02 LOG i SEABROOK 0.5g (PRA) 1.75E.05 MONTICELLO 0.3g Focused 2.41 LOG YANKEE ROWE 0.3g Full 1.21LOS PEACH DOTTOM 0.3g Focused 2.28E-06 i SEQUOYAII 0.3g Full 1.21E.05 CYSTER CREEK 0.3g Focused 2.18E.06 l PALO VERDE 9.98L06 VERMONT YANKEE 0.3g Focused 2.05E-06 i NORTII ANNA 0.3g Focused 9.00E-0G DEAVER VALLEY 0.3g Focused 1.95 LOG l WATTS DAR 0.3g Focused 9.45E.06 DAVIS DESSE 0.3g Focused 1.50D06 INDIAN POINT 0.3g Full 7.73E-06 ARKANSAS 0.3g Full 1.49E.00 l 11ADDAM NECK 0.3g Focused 7.10E-06 ' GINNA 0.3g Focused 1.41 LOG i MAINE YANKEE 0.3g Full 7.00E.06 FERMI 0.3g Focused 1.37E-06 OCONEE 0.3g Full G.82E.0G SURRY 0.3g Focused 1.24E.06 LA SALI E 0.3g Focused 5.59 LOG DROWNS FERRY 0.3g Focused 1.04 LOG MILLSTONE 0.3g Focused 5.29&OG SUSQUEIIANNA 0.3g Focused 9.98E.07 i CATAWDA 0.3g Focesed 5.22 LOG DYRON 0.3g Focused 9.19E.07 LIMERICK 0.3g Focused 5.05E.0G PERRY 0.3g Focused 8.7tLO7 ZION 0.3g Focused 4.93E-06 WOLF CREEK 0.3g Focused 8.50LO7 j SUMMER 0.3g Focused 4.58E-06 CALVERT CLIFFS 0.3g Focused 8.18LO7 DRUNSWICK 0.3g Focused 4.5G E-0G-DRESDEN 0.3g Focused 7.78L07 t VOGTLE 0.3g Focused 3.07 LOG DRAIDWOOD 0.3g Focused 7.34LD7 110PE CREEK 0.3g Focused 3.43E-0G PRAIRIE ISLAND 0.3g Focused 6.75E.07 i SALEM 0.3g Focused 3.43E.06 NINE MILE POINT 0.3g Focused G MCGUIRE 0.3g Focused 3.34 LOG FITZPATRICK 0.3g Focused G.44E-07 ROBINSON 0.3g Full 3.27 LOG IIATCII 0.3g Focused 6.03L07 l CLINTON 0.3g Focused 3.00E-0G SIIEARON IIARRIS 0.3g Focused 5.51LO7 T]IREE MILE ISLAND 0.3g Focused 2.96 LOG _ QUAD CITIES 0.3g Focused 4.19E-07 KEWAUNEE 0.3g Focused 2.95E-06 FARLEY 0.3g Focused 1.21LO7 l POINT BEACll 0.3g Focused 2.G3 DOG l i l t

4 ,=. a n am.a a n i i Table 4-G Sensitivity Case: Lower-Bound EPRI/SOG Shear Wave Velocity Profile. RANKINGS, INDICATING PLANT NAMES, OF COMPOSITE 85TII.FRACTILE PROBA-BILITY OF EXCEEDING NUREG/CR-0098 SPECTRUM ANCllORED TO 0.3G; 50 0.3G SITES, TWO 0.5G SITES, AND TIIE PVNGS SITE f Plant Name Review Type llazard Plant Name Review Type IIazard l PILGRIM 0.5g (PRA) 1.72604 KEWAUNEE 0.3g Focused 1.50E-05 YANKEE ROWE 0.3g Full 7.09E-05 POINT BEACII 0.3g Focused 1.42E-05 SEADROOK 0.5g (PRA) 0.08 & O5 MONTICELLO 0.3g Focused 1.39E-05 ~ ' INDIAN POINT 0.3g Full 4.8GLO5 TIIREE MILE ISLAND 0.3g Focused 1.33E-05 [ SEQUOYAll 0.3g Full 4.74E-05 BELLEFONTE 0.3g Focused 1.23L05 l WATTS DAR 0.3g Focused 4.30E-05 DEAVER VALLEY 0.3g Focused 1.18E-05 4.03 DOS CALVERT CLIFFS. 0.3g Focused 9.41E-00 [ PALO VERDE NORT]! ANNA 0.3g Focused 3.82E-05 VERMONT YANKEE 0.3g Focused 9.08&OG II ADDAM NECK 0.3g Focused 3.14 E-05 GINNA 0.3g Focused 7.58E-06 RODINSON 0.3g Full 3.10LD5' FERMI 0.3g Focused 0.71 LOG l VOGTLE 0.3g Focused 3.10E.05 IIATCII OJg Focused G.34E 06 LA SALLE 0.3g Focused 2.00E-05 DAVIS DESSE 0.3g Focused 0.28 LOG DRUNSWICK 0.3g Focused 2.78L05 ARKANSAS-0.3g Full 5.89E-0G OCONEE 0.3g Full 2.70D05 DROWNS FERRY 0.3g Focused 5.21 LOG t CLINTON 0.3g Focused 2.GGE-05 SUSQUEIIANNA 0.3g Focused 5.12606 CATAWDA 0.3g Focused 2.GGLOS PERRY 0.3g Focused 4.71 LOG MAINE YANKEE 0.3g Full 2.52LOS PRAIRIE ISLAND 0.3g Focused 4.12 LOG IIOPE CREEK 03g Focused 2.27E-05 SilEARON IIARRIS OJg Focused 3.82 LOG SALEM 0.3g Focused 2.27 DOS DYRON 0 'g Focused 3.72E-06 ZION 0.3g Focused 2.2GE-05 DRESDEN DJg Focused - 3.5GE-0G MILLSTONE 0.3g Focused 2.11E-05 BRAIDWOOD 0.3g Focused 3.42E-06 CUMMER 0.3g Focused 2.08L05 WOLF CREEK 0.3g Focused 3.39E.0G . 5 OYSTER CREEK 0.3g Focused 1.93E-05 FITZPATRICK 0.3g Focused 3.15E-06 LIMERICK 0.3g Focused 1.92E-05 NINE MILE POINT 03g Focused 3.15 LOG PEACII BOTTOM 02g Focused 1.03L05 QUAD CITIES 0.3g Focused - 2.5GE-06 MCGUIRE -0.3g Focused 1.01LD5 FARLEY 0.3g Focused 8.00607 l SURRY 0.3g Focused 1.52L05 l l i

Table 4-7 Sensitivity Case: Upper-Bound EPRI/SOG Shear Wave Velocity Profile. RANKINGS, INDICATING PLANT NAMES, OF COMPOSITE MEAN PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDING NUREG/CR-0098 SPECTRUM ANCHORED TO 0.3G; 50 0.3G SITES, TWO 0.5G SITES, AND THE PVNGS SITE Plant Name Review Type Ilazard Plant Name Review Type IIazard PILGRIM 0.5g (PRA) 1.01LO4 MONTICELLO 0.3g Focused 9.39 LOG YANKEE ROWE 0.3g Full 4.33L05 POINT DEACII 0.3g Focused 9.37E.00 SEADROOK 0.5g (PRA) 3.41 E-05 CALVERT CLIFFS 0.3g Focused 8.40 LOG PALO VERDE 2.81 E.05 BEAVER VALLEY 0.3g Focused 8.3GE.06 INDIAN POINT 0.3g Full 2.55E-05 MCGUIRE 0.3g Focused 7.99E.06 SEQUOYAH 0.3g Full 2.54 E.05 DELLEFONTE 0.3g Focused 7.84E.00 WATTS DAR 0.3g Focused 2.18E-05 Tl!REE MILE ISLAND 0.3g Focused 7.44E-06 IIADDAM NECK 0.3g Focused 2.18 & O5 IIATCl! 0.3g Focused 5.76 LOG CLINTON 0.3g Focused 2.12LOS FERMI 0.3g Focused 5.62 LOG NORTII ANNA 0.3g Focused 2.11E-05 VERMONT YANKEE 0.3g Focused 5.23&OG VOGTLE 0.3g Focused 2.08L05 GINNA 0.3g Focused 4.85 LOG DRUNSWICK 0.3g Focused 2.02E-05 ARKANSAS 0.3g Full 4.06E-06 IIOPE CREEK 0.3g Focused 1.90E-05 BROWNS FERRY 0.3g Focused 3.88E-06 SALEM 0.3g Focused 1.90LD5 DAVIS DESSE 0.3g Focused 3.87L06 LA SALLE 0.3g Focused 1.96LO5 PRAIRIE ISLAND 0.3g Focused 3.66 LOG ROBINSON 0.3g Full 1.77E-05 SUSQUEHANNA 0.3g Focused 3.14 LOG OCONEE 0.3g Full 1.72E-05 PERRY-0.3g Focused 2.99E-06 OYSTER CREEK 0.3g Focused. 1.08E.05 DYRON 0.3g Focused 2.58 LOG ZION 0.3g Focused 1.07E-05 SIIEARON IIARRIS 0.3g Focused 2.37 LOG SURRY 0.3g focused 1.42E-05 DRESDEN 0.3g Focused 2.33 LOG MILLSTONE 0.3g Focused 1.42E.05 BRAIDWOOD 0.3g Focused 2.05E-06 CATAWBA 0.3g Focused 1.32L05 WOLF CREEK 0.3g Focused - 1.94 LOG MAINE YANKEE 0.3g Full 1.2 GLOS QUAD CITIES 0.3g Focused 1.73E-06 LIMERICK 0.3g Fccused 1.22E-05 NINE MILE POINT 0.3g Focused 1.GGLOG SUMMER 0.3g Focused 1.12LD5 FITZPATRICK 0.3g Focused 1.GGLOG KEWAUNEE 0.3g Focused 9.73 DOG FARLEY 0.3g Focused G.95E.07 PEACII BOTTOM 0.3g Focused 9.42E.06

.[ e i l Table 4-8 ] t Sensitivity Case: Upper-Bound EPIU/SOG Shear Wave Velocity Profile. ~ RANKINGS, INDICATING PLANT NAMES, OF COMPOSITE MEDIAN PROBABILITY OF t EXCEEDING NUREG/CR-0098 SPECTRUM ANCIIORED TO 0.3G; 50 0.3G SITES, TWO { 0.5G SITES. AND THE PVNGS SITE Plant Name Review Type llazard Plant Name Review Type Hazard PILGRIM 0.5g (PRA) 3.42LO5 BELLEFONTE 02g Focused 2.62E-06 SEABROOK 0.5g (PRA) 1.75E-05 MONTICELLO 0.3g Focused. 2.41 LOG PALO VERDE 131E-05 PEACH BOTTOM 0.3g Focused 2.28E-06 i YANKEE ROWE 0.3g Full 1.21E 05 OYSTER CREEK 0.3g Focused 2.18&OG SEQUOYAII 0.3g Full 1.21L D5 VERMONT YANKEE 0.3g Focused 2.05 LOG f NORTII ANNA 0.3g Focused 9.00E-00 BEAVER VALLEY 0.3g Focused 1.95E-06 1 WATTS BAR 0.3g Focused 0.45 LOG DAVIS BESSE - 0.3g Focused 1.50E-00 i INDIAN POINT 0.3g Full 7.73E-0G ARKANSAS 0.3g Full 1.49E-06 HADDAM NECK 0.3g Focused 7.19E 06 GINNA 0.3g Focused ' 1.41E-06 MAINE YANKEE 03g Full 7.00 LOG FERMI 0.3g Focused 127E-00 l OCONEE 0.3g Full G.82 LOG SURRY 0.3g Focused 1.24E-0G LA SALLE 0.3g Focused 5.59600 BROWNS FERRY 0.3g Focused 1.04 LOG l MILLSTONE 0.3g Focused 5.29&OG SUSQUEHANNA 0.3g Focused 9.98E-07 CATAWBA 0.3g Focused 5.22 LOG BYRON 0.3g Focused 9.19E-07 LIMERICK 02g Focused S05L OG PERRY 03g Focused 8.74E-07 ZION 03g Focused 4.931906 WOLF CREEK 0.3g Focused. 8.50LD7 SUMMER 0.3g Focused 4.5 SLOG CALVERT CLIFFS 0.3g Focused 8.18L07 l DRUNSWICK 0.3g Focused 4.5GLOG .DRESDEN 0.3g Focused 7.78LO7 i VOGTLE 0.3g Focused 3.67L06 BRAIDWOOD 0.3g Focused 7.34LO7 q HOPE CREEK 0.3g Focused - 3.43L00 PRAIRIE ISLAND 03g Focused G.75LO7 } f SALEM 0.3g Focused 3.43&OG NINE MILE POINT 0.3g Focused 0.44LO7 MCGUIRE 0.3g Focused 3.34 LOG FITZPATRICK 0.3g Focused - G.44E-07 i ROBINSON 03g Full 3.27&OG UATCH 0.3g Focused G.03L07 CLINTON 0.3g Focused 3.00 LOG SHEARON HARRIS 0.3g Focused 5.51E-07 TIIREE MILE ISLAND DJg Focused 2.90 LOG QUAD CITIES 0.3g Focused 4.19 & O7 KEWAUNEE 0.3g Focused 2.95600 FARLEY. . 03g Focused 1.21LO7 3 POINT BEACll 0.3g Focused 2.G3 LOG i i

i Table 4-9 Sensitivity Case: Upper-Bound EPRI/SOG Shear Wave Velocity Profile. RANKINGS, INDICATING PLANT NAMES, OF COMPOSITE 85TH-FRACTILE PROBA-i BILITY OF EXCEEDING NUREG/CR-0098 SPECTRUM ANCHORED TO 0.3G; 50 0.3G SITES, TWO 0.5G SITES. AND THE PVNGS SITE Plant Name Review Type Hazard Plant Name Review Type Hazard PILGRIM 0.5g (PRA) 1.72E-04 KEWAUNEE 0.3g Focused 1.50E-05 i YANKEE ROWE 0.3g Full 7.09E-05 POINT BEACH 0.3g Focused 1.42E-05 SEABROOK 0.5g (PRA) 6 68E.05 MONTICELLO 0.3g Focused 1.39E-05 PALO VERDE 5.28E-05 THREE MILE ISLAND 0.3g Focused 1.33E-05 INDIAN POINT 0.3g Full 4.86E-05 BELLEFONTE 0.3g Focused 1.23 DOS SEQUOYAH 0.3g Full 4.74E.05 BEAVER VALLEY 0.3g Focused 1.18E.05 WATTS BAR 0.3g Focused 4.30E-05 CALVERT CLIFFS 0.3g Focused 9.41LO6 NORTH ANNA 0.3g Focused 3.82E-05 VERMONT YANKEE 0.3g Focused 9.08E-06 HADDAM NECK 0.3g Focused 3.14 E-05 GINNA 0.3g Focused 7.58 & O6 ROBINSON 0.3g Full 3.10E-05 FERMI 0.3g Focused 6.71E-06 VOGTLE 0.3g Focused 3.10E-05 HATCH 0.3g Focused 6.34LOS LA SALLE 0.3g Focused 2.90E-05 DAVIS BESSE 0.3g Focused 6.28L06 BRUNSWICK 0.3g Focused 2.78 & O5 ARKANSAS 0.3g Full 5.89 & O6 OCONEE 0.3g Full 2.76E-05 BROWNS FERRY 0.3g Focused 5.21E.06 CLINTON 0.3g Focused 2.66LOS SUSQUEHANNA 0.3g Focused 5.12LO6 CATAWBA 0.3g Focused 2.66LOS PERRY 0.3g Focused 4.71LO6 MAINE YANKEE 0.3g Full 2.52505 PRAIRIE ISLAND 0.3g Focused - 4.12E-06 HOPE CREEK 0.3g Focused 2.27 & O5 SHEARON HARRIS 0.3g Focused 3.82E-06 SALEM 0.3g Focused 2.27 & O5 BYRON 0.3g Focused 3.72E-06 ZION 0.3g Focused 2.26E-05 DRESDEN 0.3g Focused 3.56E-06 MILLSTONE 0.3g Focused 2.11LOS BRAIDWOOD 0.3g Focused 3.42E-06 SUMMER 0.3g Focused 2.08L05 WOLF CREEK 0.3g Focused 3.39E-06 OYSTER CREEK 0.3g Focused 1.93L05 FITZPATRICK 0.3g Focused 3.15LO6 LIMERICK 0.3g Focused 1.92E-05 NINE MILE POINT 0.3g Focused 3.15Er 06 PEACH BOTTOM 0.3g Focused 1.63E-05 QUAD CITIES 0.3g Focused 2.56E-06 MCGUIRE 0.3g Focused 1.61E-05 FARLEY 0.3g Focused 8.06E-07 l SURRY 0.3g Focused 1.52E.05 i h

V W i Table 4-10 i Sensitivity Case: Unit-2 Fully Correlated Velocities - 30% Coefficient of Variation. RANKINGS, INDICATING PLANT NAMES, OF COMPOSITE MEAN PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDING NUREG/CR-0098 SPECTRUM ANCHORED TO 0.3G; 50 0.3G SITES,~ TWO 0.5G SITES, AND THE PVNGS SITE Plant Name Review Type Hazard Plant Name Review Type Hazard i i PILGRIM 0.5g (PRA) 1.01E-04 MONTICELLO 0.3g Focused 9.39E-06 YANKEE ROWE 0.3g Full 4.33E-05 POINT BEACH 0.3g Focused 9.37E-06 SEABROOK 0.5g (PRA) 3.41E-05 CALVERT CLIFFS 0.3g Focused 8.40E-06 PALO VERDE 2.59E.05 BEAVER VALLEY 0.3g Focused 8.36E-06 i INDIAN POINT 0.3g Full 2.55E-05 MCGUIRE 0.3g Focused 7.99E-06 i SEQUOYAH 0.3g Full 2.54E-05 BELLEFONTE 0.3g Focused' 7.84 E-06 i HADDAM NECK 0.3g Focused 2.18E-05 THREE MILE ISLAND 0.3g Focused. 7.44E-06 WATTS BAR 0.3g Focused 2.18E-05 HATCH 0.3g Focused. 5.76LO6 CLINTON 0.3g Focused 2.12E-05 FERMI 0.3g Focused 5.62LO6 NORTH ANNA 0.3g Focused-. 2.11LD5 VERMONT YANKEE 0.3g Focused 5.23E-06 VOGTLE 0.3g Focused 2.08 DOS GINNA - 0.3g Focused 4.85LOS BRUNSWICK 0.3g Focused 2.02E-05 ARKANSAS 0.3g Full 4.06E-06 LA SALLE 0.3g Focused 1.96E-05 BROWNS FERRY 0.3g Focused 3.88E-06 SALEM 0.3g Focused 1.96E-05 DAVIS BESSE 0.3g Focused. 3.87E-06 HOPE CREEK 0.3g Focused 1.96E-05 PRAIRIE ISLAND 0.3g Focused 3.66E-06 l ROBINSON 0.3g Full 1.77E-05 SUSQUEHANNA 0.3g Focused 3.14E-06 OCONEE 0.3g Full 1.72LOS PERRY 0.3g Focused 2.99E-06 e OYSTER CREEK 0.3g Focused 1.68L05 BYRON 0.3g Focused 2.58E-06 ZION 0.3g Focused 1.67E-05 SHEARON HARRIS 0.3g Focused 2.37E-06 MILLSTONE 0.3g Focused 1.42E-05 DRESDEN 0.3g Focused 2.33E-06 SURRY 0.3g Focused 1.42E-05 BRAIDWOOD 0.3g Focused 2.05E-06 l CATAWBA 0.3g Focused 1.32E-05 WOLF CREEK 0.3g Focused 1.94E-06 MAINE YANKEE 0.3g Full 1.26E-05 QUAD CITIES 0.3g Focused 1.73E-06 LIMERICK 02; Focused 1.22E-05 FITZPATRICK 0.3g Focused 1.66LO6 SUMMER 0.3g Focused 1.12E-05 NINE MILE POINT 0.3g Focused 1.66E-06 KEWAUNEE 0.3g Focused 9.73L06 FARLEY 0.3g Focused 6.95LO7 PEACH BOTTOM 0.3g Focused 9.42E-06 [

f i Table 4-11 Sensitivity Case: Unit-2 Fully Correlated Velocities - 30% Coefficient of Variation. I RANKINGS, INDICATING PLANT NAMES, OF COMPOSITE MEDIAN PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDING NUREG/CR-0098 SPECTRUM ANCHORED TO 0.3G; 50 0.3G SITES, TWO 0.5G SITES, AND THE PVNGS SITE Plant Name Review Type Hazard Plant Name Review Type Hazard PILGRIM 0.5g (PRA) 3.42E-05 BELLEFONTE 0.3g Focused 2.62E-06 SEABROOK 0.5g (PRA) 1.75E-05 MONTICELLO 0.3g Focused 2.41E-06 YANKEE ROWE 0.3g Full 1.21E-05 PEACH BOTTOM 0.3g Focused 2.28E-06 SEQUOYAH 0.3g Full 1.21L D5 OYSTER CREEK 0.3g Focused 2.18E-06 PALO VERDE 1.18E-05 VERMONT YANKEE 0.3g Focused 2.05E-06 NORTH ANNA 0.3g Focused 9.60E-06 BEAVER VALLEY 0.3g Focused 1.95E-06 WATTS BAR 0.3g Focused 9.45E-06 DAVIS BESSE 0.3g Focused 1.50LOS i INDIAN POINT 0.3g Full 7.73L06 ARKANSAS 0.3g Full 1.49E-06 HADDAM NECK 0.3g Focused 7.19E-06 GINNA 0.3g Focused 1.41E-06 MAINE YANKEE 0.3g Full 7.00LO6 FERMI 0.3g Focused 1.37E-06 OCONEE 0.3g Full 6.82E-06 SURRY 0.3g Focused 1.24E-06 LA SALLE 0.3g Focused 5.59E-06 BROWNS FERRY 0.3g Focused 1.04E-06 MILLSTONE 0.3g Focused 5.29L06 SUSQUEHANNA 0.3g Focused 9.98E-07 CATAWBA 0.3g Focused 5.22E-06 BYRON 0.3g Focused 9.19E-07 LIMERICK 0.3g Focused 5.05E-06 PERRY 0.3g Focused 8.74E-07 ZION 0.3g Focused 4.93E-06 WOLF CREEK 0.3g Focused 8.50E-07 SUMMER 0.3g Focused 4.58E-06 CALVERT CLIFFS 0.3g Focused 3.18E-07 i BRUNSWICK 0.3g Focused 4.56E-06 DRESDEN 0.3g Focused 7.78 & O7 YOGTLE 0.3g Focused 3.67E-06 BRAIDWOOD 0.3g Focused 7.34LO7 HOPE CREEK 0.3g Focused 3.43E-06 PRAIRIE ISLAND 0.3g Focused 6.75E-07 SALEM 0.3g Focused 3.43E-06 NINE MILE POINT 0.3g Focused 6.44E-07 MCGUIRE 0.3g Focused 3.34LO6 FITZPATRICK 0.3g Focused 6.44E-07 ROBINSON 0.3g Full 3.27E-06 HATCH 0.3g Focused 6.03E-07 CLINTON 0.3g Focused 3.00LO6 - SHEARON HARRIS 0.3g Focused ~ 5.51E-07 THREE MILE ISLAND 0.3g Focused 2.96E-06 _ UAD CITIES 0.3g Focused 4.19 & O7 Q KEWAUNEE 0.3g Focused 2.95E-06 FARLEY 0.3g Focused 1.21LO7 POINT BEACH 0.3g Focused 2.63E-06 l

P Table 4-12 l Sensitivity Case: Unit-2 Fully Correlated Velocities - 30% Coeflicient of Variation. i RANKINGS, INDICATING PLANT NAMES, OF COMPOSITE 85TH-FRACTILE PROBA-BILITY OF EXCEEDING NUREG/CR-0098 SPECTRUM ANCHORED TO 0.3G; 50 0.3G SITES. TWO 0.5G SITES, AND THE PVNGS SITE Plant Name Review Type Hazard Plant Name Review Type Hazard PILGRIM 0.5g (PRA) 1.72E-04 KEWAUNEE 0.3g Focused 1.50E-05 YANKEE ROWE 0.3g Full 7.09E-05 POINT BEACH 0.3g Focused 1.42E-05 SEABROOK 0.5g (PRA) 6.68E-05 MONTICELLO 0.3g Focused 1.39E-05 PALO VERDE 4.86E-05 THREE MILE ISLAND 0.3g Focused 1.33E-05 INDIAN POINT 0.3g FuH 4.86E-05 BELLEFONTE 0.3g Focused 1.23E-05 SEQUOYAH 0.3g Full 4.74L05 BEAVER VALLEY 0.3g Focused 1.18E-05 WATTS BAR 0.3g Focused 4.30E-05 CALVERT CLIFFS 0.3g Focused 9.41E-06 NORTH ANNA 0.3g Focused 3.82LOS VERMONT YANKEE 0.3g Focused 9.08E-06 HADDAM NECK 0.3g Focused 3.14E-05 GINNA 0.3g Focused 7.58E-06 ROBINSON 0.3g Full 3.10E-05 FERMI 0.3g Focused 6.71E-06 e VOGTLE 0.3g Focused 3.10E-05 HATCH 0.3g Focused 6.34E-06 LA SALLE 0.3g Focused 2.90E-05 DAVIS BESSE 0.3g Focused 6.28E-06 BRUNSWICK 0.3g Focused 2.78 & O5 ARKANSAS 0.3g Full 5.89L06 OCONEE 0.3g Full 2.76E-05 BROWNS FERRY 0.3g Focused 5.21E-06 CLINTON 0.3g Focused 2.66E-05 SUSQUEHANNA 0.3g Focused 5.12E-06 CATAWBA 0.3g Focused 2.66E-05 PERRY 0.3g Focused 4.71E-06 MAINE YANKEE 0.3g Full 2.52E-05 PRAIRIE ISLAND 0.3g Focused 4.12E-06 i HOPE CREEK 0.3g Focused 2.27E-05 SHEARON HARRIS 0.3g Focused 3.82E-06 SALEM 0.3g Focused 2.27E-05 BYRON 0.3g Focused 3.72E-06 ) ZION 0.3g Focused 2;26E-05 DRESDEN 0.3g Focused 3.56E-06 MILLSTONE 0.3g Focused. 2.11E-05 BRAIDWOOD - 0.3g Focused 3.42E-06 SUMMER 0.3g Focused 2.08L05 WOLF CREEK 0.3g Focused 3.39E-06 OYSTER CREEK 0.3g Focused - 1.93E-05 FITZPATRICK 0.3g Focused 3.15E-06 LIMERICK 0.3g Focused 192LOS NINE MILE POINT 0.3g Focused 3.15E.06 PEACH BOTTOM 0.3g Focused 1.63E-05 QUAD CITIES 0.3g Focused 2.56E-06 MCGUIRE 0.3g Focused 1.61E-05 FARLEY 0.3g Focused 8.06E-07 SURRY 0.3g Focused 1.52LOS

I m 5 Table 4-13 Sensitivity Case: NRC Model of Sources and Parameters. RANKINGS, INDICATING PLANT NAMES, OF COMPOSITE MEAN PROBABILITY OF ' EXCEEDING NUREG/CR-0098 SPECTRUM ANCIIORED TO 0.3G; 50 0.3G SITES, TWO 0.5G SITES, AND THE PVNGS SITE Plant Narne Review Type Ilazard Plant Name Review Type Hazard PILGRIM 0.5g (PRA) 1.01E-04 POINT DEACH 0.3g Focused 9.37L06 YANKEE ROWE 0.3g Full 4.33E-05 PALO VERDE 8.76 LOG SEADROOK 0.5g (PRA) 3.41LOS CALVERT CLIFFS 0.3g Focused 8.40E-06 INDIAN POINT 0.3g Full 2.55E-05 DEAVER VALLEY-0.3g Focused 8.36E-06 SEQUOYAH 0.3g Full 2.54E-05 MCGUIRE 0.3g Focused 7.99E-06 i WATTS DAR 0.3g Focused 2.18E-05 DELLEFONTE 0.3g Focused 7.84LOS 4 HADDAM NECK 0.3g Focused 2.I8&O5 TIIREE MILE ISLAND 0.3g Focused 7.44E.06 CLINTON 0.3g Focused 2.12E.05 IIATCH 0.3g Focused 5.70E-06 NORTD ANNA 0.3g Focused 2.11L05 FERMI 0.3g Focused 5.62E.06 .j VOGTLE 0.3g Focused 2.08E.05 VERMONT YANKEE 0.3g Focused 5.23 DOS t DRUNSWICK 0.3g Focused 2.02E.05 GINNA 0.3g Focused 4.85E.06 SALEM 0.3g Focused 1.90E.05 ARKANSAS 0.3g Full 4.06E.06 HOPE CREEK 0.3g Focused 1.0GE.05 DROWNS FERRY 0.3g Focused 3.88E.06 [ LA SALLE - 0.3g Focused 1.96E-05 DAVIS DESSE 0.3g Focused-3.87E.06 RODINSON 0.3g Full 1.77E.05 PRAIRIE ISLAND 0.3g Focused 3.66LO6 OCONEE 0.3g Full 1.72E-05 SUSQUEHANNA 0.3g Focused ' 3.14 E-06 OYSTER CREEK 0.3g Focused 1.68L05 PERRY 0.3g Focused. 2.99E-06 ZION 0.3g Focused 1.67L05 DYRON 0.3g Focused 2.58E-06 SURRY 0.3g Focused 1.42E.05 SHEARON IIARRIS 0.3g Focused 2.37E 06 MILLSTONE 0.3g Focused 'I.42E 05 DRESDEN 0.3g Focused 2.33 DOG CATAWDA 0.3g Focused 132E-05 DRAIDWOOD 0.3g Focused 2.05LOS MAINE YANKEE 0.3g Full 1.2 GLOS WOLF CREEK 0.3g Focused 1.94LOS I,IMERICK 0.3g Focused 1.22E.05 QUAD CITIES 0.3g Focused 1.73E-06 4 SUMMER 0.3g Focused 1.12E-05 NINE MILE POINT 0.3g Fecused 1.66E 00 KEWAUNEE 0.3g Focused 9.73L06 FITZPATRICK 0.3g Focused 1.66E.06 PEACH DOTTOM 0.3g Focused 9.42 LOG FARLEY 0.3g Focused 6.95LO7 MONTICELLO 0.3g Focused 9.39&OG r [ k

s

  • l i

i I I i Table 4-14 i i Sensitivity Case: NRC Model of Sources and Parameters. I RANKINGS, INDICATING PLANT NAMES, OF COMPOSITE MEDIAN PROBABILITY OF l EXCEEDING NUREG/CR-009S SPECTRUM ANCIIORED TO 0.3G; 50 0.3G SITES, TWO 0.5G SITES. AND TIIE PVNGS SITE f Plant Name Review Type llazard Plant Name Review Type Hazard PILGRIM 0.5g (PRA) 3.42E.05 BELLEFONTE 0.3g Focused 2.62E.00 SEADROOK 0.5g (PRA) 1.75LOS MONTICELLO 0.3g Focused 2.41E.06 YANKEE ROWE 0.3g Full 1.21E.05 PEACH BOTTOai 0.3g Focused 2.28E.00 l SEQUOYAII 0.3g Full 1.21E.05 OYSTER CREEK 0.3g Focused 2.18E.00 NORTII ANNA 0.3g Focused 9.GOLOG VERMONT YANKEE 0.3g Focused 2.05E 00 l WATTS BAR 0.3g Focusei 9.45E.00 DEAVER VALLEY 0.3g Focused 1.95 LOG INDIAN POINT 0.3g Full 7.73E.06 DAVIS DESSE 0.3g Focused 1.50E.06 IIADDAM NECK 0.3g Focused 7.19&OG ARKANSAS 0.3g Full 1.49&OG MAINE YANKEE 0.3g Full 7.00 LOG GINNA - 0.3g Focused 1.41E.06 OCONEE 0.3g Full G.82E.00 FERMI 0.3g Focused 1.37E.06 j LA SALLE 0.3g Focused 5.59E-06 SURRY 0.3g Focused 1.24 LOG. l MILLSTONE 0.3g Focused 5.29&OG BROWNS FERRY 0.3g Focused 1.04 LOG j PALO VERDE 5.28L00 SUSQUEHANNA 0.3g Focused 9.98E-07 CATAWDA 0.3g Focused 5.22E.00 BYRON 0.3g Focused 9.19 & O7 LIMERICK 0.3g Focused. 5.05 LOG PERRY 0.3g Focused 8.74 E-07 ZION 0.3g Focused - 4.93 LOG WOLF CREEK 0.3g Focused 8.50E.07 i SUMMER 0.3g Focused 4.5 SLOG CALVERT CLIFFS - 0.3g Focused - 8.18&O7 BRUNSWICK 0.3g Focused. 4.5GE-0G DRESDEN 0.3g Focused 7.78 & O7 1 VOGTLE 0.3g Focused 3.G7E-0G DRAIDWOOD 0.3g Focused 7.34LO7 IIOPE CREEK 0.3g Focused 3.43E.00 PRAIRIE ISLAND 0.3g Focused G.75E.07 SALEM 0.3g Focused 3.43 LOG NINE MILE POINT 0.3g Focused - G.44E.07 MCGUIRE 0.3g Focused-3.34 LOG FITZPATRICK 0.3g Focused G.44E.07 RODINSON 0.3g Full. 3.27L06 HATCll 0.3g Focused 6.03E.07 j CLINTON 0.3g Focused 3.00E-0G SIIEARON liARRIS 0.3g Focused 5.51E-07 i TIIREE MILE ISLAND 0.3g Focused 2.96 LOG QUAD CITIES 0.3g Focused 4.19E-07 j KEWAUNEE 0.3g Focused 2.95 LOG FARLEY 0.3g Focused 1.21LO7 POINT DEACll 0.3g Focused 2.G3D0G j i l i s 'f

Table 4-15 Sensitivity Case: NRC Model of Sources and Parameters. RANKINGS, INDICATING PLANT NAMES, OF COMPOSITE 85TH-FRACTILE PROBA-BILITY OF EXCEEDING NUREG/CR-0098 SPECTRUM ANCHORED TO 0.3G; 50 0.3G SITES, TWO 0.5G SITES, AND TIIE PVNGS SITE Plant Name Review Type llazard Plant Name Review Type llazard PILGRIM 0.5g (PRA) 1.72E-04 KEWAUNEE 0.3g Focused 1.50E-05 i YANKEE ROWE 0.3g Full 7.09E-05 POINT DEACl! 0.3g Focused 1.42E-05 SEABROOK 0.5g (PRA) 6.68 E-05 MONTICELLO 0.3g Focused. 1.39E-05 INDIAN POINT 0.3g Full 4.86E-05 TIIREE MILE ISLAND 0.3g Focused 1.33L05 { SEQUOYAII 0.3g Full 4.74 E-05 DELLEFONTE 0.3g Focused 1.23E-05 i WATTS DAR 0.3g Focused 4.30E-05 DEAVER VALLEY 0.3g Focused. 1.18E-05 NORTII ANNA 0.3g Focused 3.82LOS CALVERT CLIFFS 0.3g Focused 9.41E-06 IIADDAM NECK 0.3g Focused 3.14 E-05 VERMONT YANKEE 0.3g Focused 9.08E-06 VOGTLE 0.3g Focused 3.10E-05 GINNA 0.3g Focused 7.58E-06 [ ROBINSON 0.3g Full 3.10LOS FERMI 0.3g Focused 6.71LOS LA SALLE 0.3g Focused 2.90E-05 liATCII 0.3g Focused 6.34E-06 BRUNSWICK 0.3g Focused 2.78E-05 DAVIS DESSE 0.3g Focused 6.28E-06 i OCONEE 0.3g Full 2.76LOS ARKANSAS 0.3g Full 5.89E-06 CLINTON 0.3g Focused 2.66E-05 BROWNS FERRY 0.3g Focused 5.21 LOG CATAWBA 0.3g Focused 2.66L05 SUSQUEllANNA = 0.3g Focused 5.12LOS MAINE YANKEE 0.3g Full 2.52E-05 PERRY-0.3g Focused 4.71E-06 IIOPE CREEK 0.3g Focused 2.27L05 PRAIRIE ISLAND 0.3g Focused 4.12E-06 SALEM 0.3g Focused 2.27E-05 SIIEARON HARRIS 0.3g Focused 3.82606 ZION 0.3g Focused 2.26E.05 BYRON 0.3g Focused 3.72E-06 l MILLSTONE 0.3g Focused 2.11E-05 DRESDEN 0.3g Focused 3.56E-06 SUMMER 0.3g Focused 2.08E-05 BRAIDWOOD 0.3g Focused - 3.42LO6 OYSTER CREEK 0.3g Focused 1.93E-05 WOLF CREEK 0.3g Focused 3.39E-06 LIMERICK 0.3g Focused 1.92E-05 FITZPATRICK 0.3g Focused 3.15E-06 PEACII DOTTOM 0.3g Focused 1.63L05 NINE MILE POINT 0.3g Focused 3.15E-06 MCGUIRE 0.3g Focused 1.61LOS QUAD CITIES 0.3g Focused 2.56E-06 PALO VERDE 1.58L05 FARLEY 0.3g Focused 8.06LO7 j SURRY 0.3g Focused 1.52E-05 r

1 i REFERENCES \\ A. Risk Engineering, Inc., " Seismic Hazard Evaluation for the Palo Verde Nuclear Generndng Station, Wintersburg, Adzona," Rept. to Arizona Public Service Co., December 1991. B. Risk Engineering, Inc., " Updated Seismic Hazard Evalurtion for the Palo Verde Nuclear - Generadng Station, Wintersburg, Arizona, Phase 2, Final Repon," Rept. to Arizona Public 4 Service Co., June 1992. t i C. Risk Engineering, Inc., " Seismic Hazan! Evaluation for the Palo Verde Nuclear Generanng Station, Wintersburg, Arizona, Phase 2, Final Repon," Rept. to Arizona Public Service Co., April 1993 D. Risk Engineering, Inc., " Review-Level Eanhquake Evaluation: Recommendations for IPEEE Implementation at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Stadon near Wintersburg, Arizona, Final Repon, Revision 2," Rept. to Arizona Public Service Co., April 1993. -{ i i ) i ~. .}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20036A413&oldid=4573256"