ML14090A447

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Callaway Energy, Seismic Hazard and Screening Report
ML14090A447
Person / Time
Site: Callaway Ameren icon.png
Issue date: 03/31/2014
From:
Ameren Missouri
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML14090A446 List:
References
ULNRC-06102
Download: ML14090A447 (36)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:1 Seismic Hazard and Screening Report for the Callaway Energy Center Contents Seismic Hazard and Screening Report for the Callaway Energy Center ................................................. 11Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 22Seismic Hazard Reevaluation .................................................................................................... 32.1Regional and Local Geology .......................................................................................... 32.2Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis ............................................................................ 42.2.1Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis Results .............................................................. 42.2.2Base Rock Seismic Hazard Curves .............................................................................. 52.3Site Response Evaluation .............................................................................................. 52.3.1Description of Subsurface Material .............................................................................. 52.3.2Development of Base Case Profiles and Nonlinear Material Properties ........................... 52.3.3Randomization of Base Case Profiles ......................................................................... 122.3.4Input Spectra ........................................................................................................... 132.3.5Methodology ........................................................................................................... 132.3.6Amplification Functions ........................................................................................... 132.3.7Control Point Seismic Hazard Curves ........................................................................ 182.4Control Point Response Spectrum ............................................................................... 183Plant Design Basis .................................................................................................................. 223.1SSE Description of Spectral Shape .............................................................................. 223.2Control Point Elevation ................................................................................................. 234Screening Evaluation .............................................................................................................. 244.1Risk Evaluation Screening (1 to 10 Hz) ........................................................................ 244.2High Frequency Screening (>10 Hz) ............................................................................ 244.3Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation Screening (1 to 10 Hz) ..................................................... 245Interim Actions ...................................................................................................................... 256Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 267References ............................................................................................................................. 27Appendix A .............................................................................................................................. .... 29 2 1 Introduction Following the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant resulting from the March 11, 2011, Great Tohoku Earthquake and subsequent tsunami, the NRC established a Near Term Task Force (NTTF) to conduct a systematic review of NRC processes and regulations and to determine if the agency should make additional improvements to its regulatory system. The NTTF developed a set of recommendations intended to clarify and strengthen the regulatory framework for protection against natural phenomena. Subsequently, the NRC issued a 50.54(f) (USNRC, 2012) letter that requests information to assure 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 50 reevaluate the seismic hazards at their sites against present-day NRC requirements. Depending on the comparison between the reevaluated seismic hazard and the current desi gn basis, the result is either no further risk evaluation or the performance of a seismic risk assessment. Risk assessment approaches acceptable to the staff include a seismic probabilistic risk assessment (SPRA), or a seismic margin assessment (SMA). Based upon this information, the NRC staff will determine whether additional regulatory actions are necessary.

This report provides the information requested in items (1) through (7) of the "Requested Information" section and Attachment 1 of the 50.54(f) letter pertaining to NTTF Recommendation 2.1 for the Callaway Energy Center (CEC), located in Callaway County, Missouri. In providing this information, Ameren Missouri followed the guidance provided in the Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Screening, Prioritization, and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic (EPRI 1025287, 2013a). The Augmented Approach, Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic (EPRI 3002000704, 2013c), has been developed as the process for evaluating critical plant equipment prior to performing the complete plant seismic risk evaluations. The original geologic and seismic siting investigations for the CEC were performed in accordance with Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 and meet General Design Criterion 2 in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50. The Safe Shutdown Earthquake Ground Motion (SSE) was developed in accordance with Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 and used for the design of seismic Category I systems, structures and components. In response to the 50.54(f) letter and following the guidance provided in the SPID (EPRI 1025287, 2013a), a seismic hazard reevaluation for the CEC was performed. For screening purposes, a Ground Motion Response Spectrum (GMRS) was developed. Based on the results of the screening evaluation, the CEC screens in for risk evaluation, a Spent Fuel Pool evaluation, and a High Frequency Confirmation (Relay Chatter).

3 2 Seismic Hazard Reevaluation Refer to Section 2.5 of the Callaway Final Safety Analysis Review Site Addendum (FSAR SA) (Callaway Energy, 2013). The CEC is approximately 10 miles southeast of Fulton, Missouri, and 80 miles west of the St. Louis metropolitan area. The CEC site is located in an area of the central United States which has been relatively stable seismically. No historic earthquake epicenter has been reported within about 40 miles of the plant site. Only four earthquakes have been reported within 60 miles of the Site since the beginning of the 19th century, none of which were greater than Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) V. The 1811-1812 New Madrid event occurred approximately 200 miles southeast from the site with a maximum intensity of MMI XI-XII. Based on seismic investigations which were conducted, a Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) has been determined for safety related structures. The SSE would generate a horizontal ground acceleration of 0.20g in above-average foundation supporting materials. The specified SSE is derived from consideration of the possible effects of an Intensity XII event occurring at the closest approach of the New Madrid Seismogenic Region to the site a distance of approximately 175 miles; an Intensity VII event occurring anywhere within the Chester-Dupo or Ste. Genevieve seismotectonic regions approximately 70 miles east-southeast of th e site; or an MMI V event occurring within the Missouri Random Region near the site.

The results of comprehensive geotechnical investigations at the site demonstrate that competent foundation materials are present for establishing conservative design and construction criteria for support of the Category I facilities. All major Category I structures are supported on comp etent rock. There are no geologic features at or near the site that would preclude its use for the construction and operation of the

nuclear power station. Due to the use of the Standardized Nuclear Unit Power Plant Systems (SNUPPS) standard design, the seismic responses of the major seismic Category I structures (containment, auxiliary/control, diesel generator, and fuel building) were originally generated for four sites (Callaway, Wolf Creek, Sterling, and Tyrone). The final geological and seismological design of the power block SSC is based on three sites (Callaway, Wolf Creek and Sterling) to ensure conservatism in the seismic design envelope. Certain items, whose final design was completed prior to the cancellation of Tyrone (the fourth site), are within the envelope for the four original sites. The site design response spectra in both the horizontal and vertical directions for the 0.20g SSE envelopes the SNUPPS sites and thus governs for both site-related non-power block and power block safety-related Systems, Structures and Components (SSC).

2.1 Regional

and Local Geology Refer to FSAR SA Section 2.5. The CEC site is located in Callaway County, Missouri, approximately 10 miles southeast of the town of Fulton. The site is located in the Central Stable Region a region which was subjected to gentle structural uparching and downwarping during the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras. The arches, basins, and other structures of the Central Stable Region were formed, with few exceptions, by vertical block tectonics during the Paleozoic Era. Geotechnical investigations conducted at the site and in the surrounding region have not identified the existence of any faults closer to the site than 12 miles.

4 Bedrock at the site is overlain by nonindurated glacial and postglacial deposits averaging 30 to 40 feet in thickness. These deposits consist of a modified loess accretion-gley, and glacial till. The uppermost bedrock unit at the CEC site is the Pennsylvanian Graydon chert conglomerate which consists of gravel- to boulder-size chert particles in a clay or silt matrix. The deposits are underlain by Mississippian limestone and sandstone of the Burlington and Bushberg formations respectively, and limestone, siltstone, and shale of the Devonian Snyder Creek and Callaway formations.

2.2 Probabilistic

Seismic Hazard Analysis

2.2.1 Probabilistic

Seismic Hazard Analysis Results In accordance with the 50.54(f) letter and following the guidance in the SPID (EPRI, 2013a), a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) was completed using the recently developed Central and Eastern United States Seismic Source Characterization (CEUS-SSC) for Nuclear Facilities (CEUS-SSC, 2012) together with the updated EPRI Ground-Motion Model (GMM) for the CEUS (EPRI, 2013b). For the PSHA, a lower-bound moment magnitude of 5.0 was used, as specified in the 50.54(f) letter. For the PSHA, the CEUS-SSC background seismic sources out to a distance of 400 miles (640 km) around the CEC were included. This distance exceeds the 200 mile (320 km) recommendation contained in USNRC (2007) and was chosen for completeness. Background sources included in this site analysis are the following:

1. Extended Continental Crust-Gulf Coast (ECC_GC)
2. Illinois Basin Extended Basement (IBEB)
3. Mesozoic and younger extended prior - narrow (MESE-N)
4. Mesozoic and younger extended prior - wide (MESE-W)
5. Midcontinent-Craton alternative A (MIDC_A)
6. Midcontinent-Craton alternative B (MIDC_B)
7. Midcontinent-Craton alternative C (MIDC_C)
8. Midcontinent-Craton alternative D (MIDC_D)
9. Non-Mesozoic and younger extended prior - narrow (NMESE-N)
10. Non-Mesozoic and younger extended prior - wide (NMESE-W)
11. Oklahoma Aulacogen (OKA)
12. Paleozoic Extended Crust wide (PEZ_W)
13. Reelfoot Rift (RR)
14. Reelfoot Rift including the Rough Creek Graben (RR-RCG)
15. Study region (STUDY_R)

For sources of large magnitude earthquakes, designated Repeated Large Magnitude Earthquake (RLME) sources in CEUS-SSC (2012), the following sources lie within 1,000 km of the site and were included in the analysis:

1. Cheraw 2. Commerce 5 3. Eastern Rift Margin Fault northern segment (ERM-N)
4. Eastern Rift Margin Fault southern segment (ERM-S)
5. Marianna 6. Meers 7. New Madrid Fault System (NMFS)
8. Wabash Valley For each of the above background and RLME sources, the mid-continent version of the updated CEUS EPRI GMM was used.

2.2.2 Base Rock Seismic Hazard Curves Consistent with the SPID (EPRI, 2013a), base rock seismic hazard curves are not provided as the site amplification approach referred to as Method 3 has been used. Seismic hazard curves are shown below in Section 3 at the SSE (Safe Shutdown Earthquake) 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 for Information and in the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) for nuclear power plant sites that are not founded on hard rock (defined as 2.83 km/sec), a site response analysis was performed for the CEC.

2.3.1 Description

of Subsurface Material The CEC is located in Callaway County, Missouri about 80 miles (130 km) west of St. Louis. The site geologic profile at the CEC is shown in Figure 2.3.2-1 and consists of about 30.5 ft (9 m) of soils overlying about 2,174 ft (662 m) of sedimentary rocks with Precambrian basement at a depth of about 2,204 ft (672 m). This information was documented in the Callaway FSAR Unit 2 (UniStar Nuclear Services, 2009) and in the Callaway FSAR Unit 1 (Callaway Energy, 2013). As indicated in Callaway Energy (2014a), the SSE Control Point is at the free field at finish grade. Finish grade is at an elevation of 840 ft (256 m) in the accretion gley soil layer (Figure 2.3.2-1) (Callaway Energy, 2014a).

2.3.2 Development

of Base Case Profiles and Nonlinear Material Properties The basic information used to create the site geologic profile at the CEC was taken from UniStar Nuclear Services (2009) and Callaway Energy (2014a). Figure 2.3.2-1 (Callaway Energy, 2014a) shows the recommended shear-wave velocities, unit weights along with depths and corresponding stratigraphy. The surface elevation of the boring in Figure 2.3.2-1 is at 851.3 ft (259.5 m). The SSE control point is at the free field at finish grade at elevation 840 ft (256 m). Velocities shown in Figure 2.3.2-1 are from compressional wave refraction surveys at the site (Callaway Energy, 2014a). The shear wave velocity was calculated using an assumed Poisson ratio and the compressional wave velocity. Similar velocities from downhole, cross hole, suspension and reflection surveys at the site ar e documented in UniStar Nuclear Services (2009) (Table 2.5-56). Velocity measurement extends to a depth below the SSE of 6 about 140 ft (43 m) (Callaway Energy, 2014a) and 330 ft (100 m) (UniStar Nuclear Services, 2009). Precambrian basement was estimated to be at a depth of about 2,204 ft (672 m). The mean base-case profile (P1) was based on the shear-wave velocities in Figure 2.3.2-1 and Table 2.5-56 (UniStar Nuclear Services, 2009) with the deepest velocity of 8,333 ft/s (2,540 m/s) extended to Precambrian basement. Profile P3, the stiffest profile, encountered hard rock shear-wave velocities (9,285 ft/s, 2,890 m/s) at a depth below the SSE of about 139 ft (42 m). Lower (P2) - and upper (P3) - range profiles were developed with scale factor of 1.25 for the entire profile. This assumption reflects the uncertainty in measured velocities to a depth of 330 ft (100 m) and also for the extension of the shear-wave velocity to Precambrian basement. The scale factor of 1.25 reflect a ln of about 0.2 based on the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) 10 th and 90 th fractiles which implies a scale factor of 1.28 on ln. Depth to Precambrian basement was taken at 2,204 ft (672 m). The depth to Precambrian basement was randomized from 1,673 to 2,733 ft (510 to 833 m) based on the range in formation thicknesses in Figure 2.3.2-2 (Table 2.5-10; UniStar Nuclear Services, 2009). This depth randomization provides a realistic broadening of the fundamental resonance that reflects actual variations of the depth at this site. The three shear-wave velocity profiles are shown in Figure 2.3.2-3 and listed in Table 2.3.2-1.

7 Figure 2.3.2-1. Summary of Stratigraphy and Shear-Wave Velocity for CEC (Callaway Energy, 2014a). 8 Figure 2.3.2-2. Site Stratigraphic Column for CEC (UniStar Nuclear Services, 2009). FSAR: Section 25 Geology, Seismology, and Geotechnical Engineering Figure 2.5-1 0-{Site Stratigraphic Column} ___ , .... :-1--"::::' -I-;:--I-;:-..:::::.. f--* --..*. ::::::.::-* " .. I I --*G*MI Il l .... --1-4l0 ..... , I -, ... "*" ..... r-*-I --, ... I 11 1<11 Dt IU I I "'-r-**.-.."':"'.:-

    • *-..... ,. ,,, .* ,J c::. = I -.. --*** *--.. "" -n-.....

'= I *------* '""""'--m-** ------.... -__ ...,. ___ .,.,.. ___

  • m -*-:::.---**-*----. --... -:::---* ---111*111 -:::.:--M----J

REFERENCES:

Mocllftad from Figure 2.5-20 In Pllnt U nJt 1 FSAR (AmenmlJE , 2004)

  • Gentile, 2004. Callaway Plant Unit 2 2-1166

.. Mdgtlb--..cLCCP"rHGHJ'I'IIIOTKlU) Rev. 0 9 Figure 2.3.2-3. Shear-wave velocity profiles for CEC site

0200400 6008001000120014001600 180020002200 2400010002000300040005000600070008000900010000Depth(ft)Vs(ft/sec)VsprofilesforCallawaySiteProfile1Profile2Profile3 10 Table 2.3.2-1 Layer thicknesses, depths, and shear-wave velocities (Vs) for 3 profiles, CEC site Profile 1 Profile 2 Profile 3 Thickness (ft) depth (ft) Vs (ft/s) Thickness (ft) depth (ft)Vs (ft/s) Thickness (ft) depth (ft) Vs (ft/s) 0 500 0 400 0 625 3.9 3.9 500 3.9 3.9 400 3.9 3.9 625 5.9 9.8 1045 5.9 9.8 836 5.9 9.8 1307 5.9 15.7 1045 5.9 15.7 836 5.9 15.7 1307 4.3 20.0 1045 4.3 20.0 836 4.3 20.0 1307 4.9 24.9 1045 4.9 24.9 836 4.9 24.9 1307 5.2 30.2 1045 5.2 30.2 836 5.2 30.2 1307 7.6 37.8 2502 7.6 37.8 2002 7.6 37.8 3127 7.6 45.4 2502 7.6 45.4 2002 7.6 45.4 3127 4.6 50.1 2502 4.6 50.1 2002 4.6 50.1 3127 3.0 53.1 2502 3.0 53.1 2002 3.0 53.1 3127 7.6 60.7 2502 7.6 60.7 2002 7.6 60.7 3127 9.7 70.4 3661 9.7 70.4 2929 9.7 70.4 4576 9.7 80.2 3661 9.7 80.2 2929 9.7 80.2 4576 9.7 89.9 3661 9.7 89.9 2929 9.7 89.9 4576 9.7 99.7 3661 9.7 99.7 2929 9.7 99.7 4576 9.8 109.4 3661 9.8 109.4 2929 9.8 109.4 4576 9.8 119.2 3661 9.8 119.2 2929 9.8 119.2 4576 9.8 129.0 3661 9.8 129.0 2929 9.8 129.0 4576 9.8 138.8 3661 9.8 138.8 2929 9.8 138.8 4576 16.4 155.2 7500 16.4 155.2 6000 16.4 155.2 9285 16.4 171.6 7500 16.4 171.6 6000 16.4 171.6 9285 26.1 197.7 8333 26.1 197.7 6667 26.1 197.7 9285 26.1 223.9 8333 26.1 223.9 6667 26.1 223.9 9285 26.1 250.0 8333 26.1 250.0 6667 26.1 250.0 9285 8.1 258.1 8333 8.1 258.1 6667 8.1 258.1 9285 48.4 306.5 8333 48.4 306.5 6667 48.4 306.5 9285 48.4 354.8 8333 48.4 354.8 6667 48.4 354.8 9285 48.4 403.2 8333 48.4 403.2 6667 48.4 403.2 9285 48.4 451.6 8333 48.4 451.6 6667 48.4 451.6 9285 48.4 500.0 8333 48.4 500.0 6667 48.4 500.0 9285 170.4 670.4 8333 170.4 670.4 6667 170.4 670.4 9285 170.4 840.8 8333 170.4 840.8 6667 170.4 840.8 9285 170.4 1011.2 8333 170.4 1011.2 6667 170.4 1011.2 9285 170.4 1181.5 8333 170.4 1181.5 6667 170.4 1181.5 9285 11 Profile 1 Profile 2 Profile 3 Thickness (ft) depth (ft) Vs (ft/s) Thickness (ft) depth (ft)Vs (ft/s) Thickness (ft) depth (ft) Vs (ft/s) 170.4 1351.9 8333 170.4 1351.9 6667 170.4 1351.9 9285 170.4 1522.3 8333 170.4 1522.3 6667 170.4 1522.3 9285 170.4 1692.7 8333 170.4 1692.7 6667 170.4 1692.7 9285 170.4 1863.1 8333 170.4 1863.1 6667 170.4 1863.1 9285 170.4 2033.5 8333 170.4 2033.5 6667 170.4 2033.5 9285 170.4 2203.9 8333 170.4 2203.9 6667 170.4 2203.9 9285 3280.8 5484.7 9285 3280.8 5484.7 9285 3280.8 5484.7 9285

2.3.2.1 Shear Modulus and Damping Curves No site-specific nonlinear dynamic material properties were available for the CEC for the soils and firm rock. The soil material over the upper 30.5 ft (9.3 m) was assumed to have behavior that could be modeled with either EPRI cohesionless soil or Peninsular Range G/Gmax and hysteretic damping curves while the firm rock was assumed to reflect either EPRI firm rock curves or linear response (EPRI, 2013a). Consistent with the SPID (EPRI, 2013a), the EPRI soil and firm rock curves (model M1) were considered to be appropriate to represent the more nonlinear response likely to occur in the materials at this site. The Peninsular Range (PR) curves for soils combined with linear analysis for firm rock (model M2) (EPRI, 2013a) were assumed to represent an equally plausible more linear alternative response across loading level. For the linear analyses, the low strain damping from the EPRI rock curves were used as the constant damping values in the upper 500 ft.

2.3.2.2 Kappa Base-case kappa estimates were determined using Section B-5.1.3.1 of the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) for a firm CEUS rock site. Kappa for a firm rock site with at least 3,000 ft (1 km) of sedimentary rock may be estimated from the average S-wave velocity over the upper 100 ft (Vs100) of the subsurface profile while for a site with less than 3,000 ft (1 km) of firm rock, kappa may be estimated with a Q s of 40 below 500 ft combined with the low strain damping from the EPRI soil and rock curves and an additional kappa of 0.006s for the underlying hard rock. For the CEC site, with about 2,174 ft (663 m) of firm rock, the kappa estimates from the three profiles were 0.010 s, 0.014 s, and 0.003 s. Adding the additional kappa from the underlying hard basement rock produces total kappa values of 0.016 s, 0.020 s and 0.009 s. The range in kappa about the best estimate base-case value of 0.016 s (profile P1) was considered sufficient to adequately reflect epistemic uncertainty in low strain damping (kappa) for the profile. Additional epistemic uncertainty in profile damping (kappa) was considered to be accommodated at design loading levels by the multiple (2) sets of G/Gmax and hysteretic damping curves for the soils and firm rock.

12 Table 2.3.2-2. Kappa Values and Weights Used for Site Response Analyses Velocity Profile Kappa(s) P1 0.016 P2 0.020 P3 0.009 Weights P1 0.4 P2 0.3 P3 0.3 G/Gmax and Hysteretic Damping Curves M1 0.5 M2 0.5 2.3.3 Randomization of Base Case Profiles To account for the aleatory variability in dynamic material properties that is expected to occur across a site at the scale of a typical nuclear facility, variability in the assumed shear-wave velocity profiles has been incorporated in the site response calculations. For the CEC, random shear wave velocity profiles were developed from the base case profiles shown in Figure 2.3.2-1. Consistent with the discussion in Appendix B of the SPID (EPRI, 2013a), the velocity randomization procedure made use of random field models which describe the statistical correlation between layering and shear wave velocity. The default randomization parameters developed in Toro (1997) for USGS "A" site conditions were used for this site. Thirty random velocity profiles were generated for each base case profile. These random velocity profiles were generated using a natural log standard deviation of 0.25 over the upper 50 ft and 0.15 below that depth. As specified in the SPID (EPRI, 2013a), corre lation of shear wave velocity between layers was modeled using the footprint correlation model. In the correlation model, a limit of +/- 2 standard deviations about the median value in each layer was assumed for the limits on random velocity fluctuations.

13 2.3.4 Input Spectra Consistent with the guidance in Appendix B of the SPID (EPRI, 2013a), input Fourier amplitude spectra were defined for a single representative earthquake magnitude (M 6.5) using two different assumptions regarding the shape of the seismic source spectrum (single-corner and double-corner). A range of 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 the CEC site were the same as those identified in Tables B-4, B-5, B-6 and B-7 of the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) as appropriate for typical CEUS site.

2.3.5 Methodology

To perform the site response analyses for the CEC 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 w ith existing NRC guidance and the SPID (EPRI, 2013a). The guidance contained in Appendix B of the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) on incorporating epistemic uncertainty in shear-wave velocities, kappa, non-linear dynamic properties and source spectra for plants was followed for the CEC site.

2.3.6 Amplification

Functions The results of the site response analysis consist of amplification factors (5% damped pseudo absolute response spectra) which describe the amplification (or de-amplification) of hard reference rock motion as a function of frequency and input reference rock amplitude. The amplification factors are represented in terms of a median amplification value and an associated standard deviation (sigma) for each oscillator frequency and input rock amplitude. Consistent with the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) a minimum median amplification value of 0.5 was employed in the present analysis. Figure 2.3.6-1 illustrates the median and +/- 1 standard deviation in the predicted amplification factors developed for the eleven loading levels parameterized by the median reference (hard rock) peak acceleration (0.01g to 1.50g) for profile P1 and EPRI (EPRI, 2013a) rock G/Gmax and hysteretic damping curves. The variability in the amplification factors results from variability in shear-wave velocity, depth to hard rock, and modulus reduction and hysteretic damping curves. To illustrate the effects of nonlinearity at the CEC firm rock site, Figure 2.3.6-2 shows the corresponding amplification factors developed with Peninsular Range G/Gmax and hysteretic damping curves for soil combined with linear analysis for firm rock (model M2). Between the linear and nonlinear (equivalent-linear) analyses, Fi gure 2.3.6-1 and Figure 2.3.6-2 respectively show some differences at all loading levels and frequencies. Above about the 0.5g loading level, the differences increase especially at frequencies greater than about 1 Hz. Tabulated values of the amplification factors are provided in Appendix A.

14 Figure 2.3.6-1. Example suite of amplification factors (5% damping pseudo absolute acceleration spectra) developed for the mean base-case profile (P1), EPRI rock modulus reduction and hysteretic damping curves (model M1), and base-case kappa (K1) at eleven loading levels of hard rock median peak acceleration values from 0.01g to 1.50g. M 6.5 and single-corner source model (EPRI, 2013a).

15 Figure 2.3.6-1. (cont.) +' "' u INPUT MOTION O.SUG II IIIII II IIIII INPUT MOTION 0.75G II I I IIIII I I II Ill I II 0 0 0 CL E a: ' INPUT MOTION 1.00G ' INPUT MOTION 1.25G ' ' ' s L--L-LLUUllL--L-LLUUllL--L-LLUULU s L__L_LLUUllL--L-LLUUUL--L-LLUULU c 0 D +' <0 u 0 CL E a: ' INPUT MOTION 1.50G ' ' ' S 10 -1 LO 0 10 10 2 (Hzl AMPLIFICATION, CALLAWAY, M1P1Kl M 6.5, 1 CORNER, PRGE Z OF Z 16 Figure 2.3.6-2. Example suite of amplification factors (5% damping pseudo absolute acceleration spectra) developed for the mean base-case profile (P1), linear site response (model M2), and base-case kappa (K1) at eleven loading levels of hard rock median peak acceleration values from 0.01g to 1.50g. M 6.5 and single-corner source model (EPRI, 2013a).

17 Figure 2.3.6-2. (cont.) 0 s +-' <0 u 0 Q_ E a: ' s 0 0 +' <0 u :.:o s Q_ E a: ' s c 0 0 +-' "' u 4-0 0 s ' ' __ , INPUT MOTION 0.50G ' INPUT MOTION 0.75G s I I IIIII I I IIIII I I IIIII I I IIIII I I INPUT MOTION l.OOG ' INPUT MOTION 1.25G g INPUT MOTION 1. SOG s 10 -1 tO 0 10 10 2 (Hzl AMPLIFICATION, CALLAWAY, M2P1K1 M 6.5, 1 CORNER, PRGE Z OF Z 18 2.3.7 Control Point Seismic Hazard Curves The procedure to develop probabilistic site-specific control point hazard curves used in the present analysis follows the methodology described in Section B-6.0 of the SPID (EPRI, 2013a). This procedure (referred to as Method 3) computes a site-specific control point hazard curve for a broad range of spectral accelerations given the site-specific bedrock hazard curve and site-specific estimates of soil or soft-rock response and associated uncertainties. This process is repeated for each of the seven spectral frequencies for which ground motion equations are available. The dynamic response of the materials below the control point was represented by the frequency- and amplitude-dependent amplification functions (median values and standard deviations) developed and described in the previous section. The resulting control point mean hazard curves for the CEC are shown in Figure 2.3.7-1 for the seven spectral frequencies for which ground motion equations are defined. Tabulated values of mean and fractile seismic hazard curves and site response amplification functions are provided in Appendix A. Figure 2.3.7-1. Control point mean hazard curves for spectral frequencies of 0.5, 1, 2.5, 5, 10, 25 and 100 Hz at CEC

2.4 Control

Point Response Spectrum The control point hazard curves described above have been used to develop uniform hazard response spectra (UHRS) and the ground motion response spectrum (GMRS). The UHRS were obtained through linear interpolation in log-log space to estimate the spectral acceleration at each spectral frequency for the 1E 7 1E 6 1E 5 1E 4 1E 3 1E 2 0.01 0.1 1 10AnnualfrequencyofexceedenceSpectralacceleration(g)TotalMeanSoilHazardbySpectralFrequencyatCallaway 25Hz 10Hz 5HzPGA 2.5Hz 1Hz 0.5Hz 19 1E-4 and 1E-5 per year hazard levels. Table 2.4-1 shows the UHRS and GMRS accelerations for a range of spectral frequencies.

20 Table 2.4-1: UHRS and GMRS for Callaway. Freq. (Hz) 10 -4 UHRS (g) 10 -5 UHRS (g) GMRS (g) 100 4.20E-01 9.88E-01 5.00E-01 90 4.24E-01 1.00E+00 5.06E-01 80 4.30E-01 1.02E+00 5.15E-01 70 4.40E-01 1.05E+00 5.30E-01 60 4.61E-01 1.11E+00 5.57E-01 50 5.12E-01 1.23E+00 6.17E-01 40 6.17E-01 1.45E+00 7.34E-01 35 6.83E-01 1.60E+00 8.12E-01 30 7.68E-01 1.82E+00 9.20E-01 25 8.70E-01 2.10E+00 1.06E+00 20 9.16E-01 2.21E+00 1.11E+00 15 9.02E-01 2.18E+00 1.10E+00 12.5 9.10E-01 2.16E+00 1.09E+00 10 9.54E-01 2.17E+00 1.11E+00 9 9.90E-01 2.21E+00 1.13E+00 8 1.02E+00 2.24E+00 1.15E+00 7 1.03E+00 2.24E+00 1.15E+00 6 1.01E+00 2.19E+00 1.12E+00 5 9.14E-01 2.00E+00 1.02E+00 4 6.74E-01 1.55E+00 7.85E-01 3.5 5.29E-01 1.25E+00 6.32E-01 3 4.00E-01 9.59E-01 4.83E-01 2.5 2.87E-01 6.81E-01 3.44E-01 2 2.31E-01 5.32E-01 2.70E-01 1.5 1.70E-01 3.75E-01 1.92E-01 1.25 1.58E-01 3.39E-01 1.75E-01 1 1.36E-01 2.86E-01 1.48E-01 0.9 1.24E-01 2.61E-01 1.35E-01 0.8 1.12E-01 2.38E-01 1.23E-01 0.7 1.02E-01 2.19E-01 1.13E-01 0.6 9.47E-02 2.04E-01 1.05E-01 0.5 8.64E-02 1.89E-01 9.68E-02 0.4 6.91E-02 1.51E-01 7.75E-02 0.35 6.05E-02 1.32E-01 6.78E-02 0.3 5.18E-02 1.13E-01 5.81E-02 0.25 4.32E-02 9.44E-02 4.84E-02 0.2 3.45E-02 7.55E-02 3.87E-02 0.15 2.59E-02 5.66E-02 2.91E-02 0.125 2.16E-02 4.72E-02 2.42E-02 0.1 1.73E-02 3.77E-02 1.94E-02

21 The 1E-4 and 1E-5 UHRS are used to compute the GMRS at the control point and are shown in Figure 2.4-1. Figure 2.4-1: Plots of 1E-4 and 1E-5 uniform hazard spectra and GMRS at control point for CEC (5%-damped response spectra) 0.0.5 1.1.5 2.2.50.1 1 10100Spectralacceleration,gSpectralfrequency,HzMeanSoilUHRSandGMRSatCallaway 1E 5UHRSGMRS 1E 4UHRS 22 3 Plant Design Basis The design basis for the CEC is identified in the Final Safety Analysis Report. 3.1 SSE Description of Spectral Shape

Refer to FSAR SA Sections 2.5 and 3.7 in addition to Section 3.7(B) of the Final Safety Analysis Report Standard Plant (FSAR SP) . The design event supersedi ng all other considerations is taken as a recurrence of the New Madrid event 175 miles from the site. In order to provide an appropriate degree of conservatism, the SSE is defined as a horizontal ground acceleration at foundation level of 0.20g. This is equivalent to an intensity approaching MMI VIII at foundation level. Due to the use of the SNUPPS standard design, the seismic responses of the major seismic Category I structures (containment, auxiliary/control, diesel generator, and fuel building) were originally generated for four sites (Callaway, Wolf Creek, Sterling, and Tyrone). The final geological and seismological design of the power block SSC is based on three sites (Callaway, Wolf Creek and Sterling) to ensure conservatism in the seismic design envelope. Certain items, whose final design was completed prior to the cancellation of Tyrone (the fourth site), are within the envelope for the four original sites. The site design response spectra in both the horizontal and vertical directions for the 0.20g SSE envelopes the SNUPPS sites and thus governs for both site-related non-power block and power block safety-related SSC.

The SSE is defined in terms of a PGA and a Regulatory Guide 1.60 design response spectral shape. The SSE is anchored to a 0.20g PGA. Table 3.1-1 and Figure 3.1-1 shows the spect ral acceleration values as a function of frequency for the 5% damped horizontal SSE. Table 3.1-1. SSE for CEC Freq (Hz) SA (g) 0.25 0.09 2.50 0.63 9.00 0.52 33.00 0.20 100.00 0.20

23 Figure 3.1-1: SSE for Callaway

3.2 Control

Point Elevation

The SSE control point is defined at the free field at finish grade (Callaway Energy, 2014a).

Refer to FSAR Sections 3.7(B)-1. The CEC design response spectra are stated to be applied in the free field at finished grade.

0.010.10 1.000.1110100 Acceleration(g)Frequency(Hz)CallawaySSESSE 24 4 Screening Evaluation Following completion of the seismic hazard reevaluation, as requested in the 50.54(f) letter, a screening process is needed to determine if a seismic risk evaluation is needed. The horizontal GMRS determined from the hazard reevaluation is used to characterize the amplitude of the new seismic hazard at each of the nuclear power plant sites. The screening evaluation is based upon a comparison of the GMRS with the 5% damped horizontal SSE. In accordance w ith SPID Section 3, a screening evaluation was performed as described below.

4.1 Risk Evaluation Screening (1 to 10 Hz) In the 1 to 10 Hz part of the response spectrum, the GMRS exceeds the SSE. Therefore, the CEC 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. Therefore, the CEC screens in for a high frequency confirmation (Relay Chatter).

4.3 Spent

Fuel Pool Evaluation Screening (1 to 10 Hz) In the 1 to 10 Hz part of the response spectrum, the GMRS exceeds the SSE. Therefore, the CEC screens in for a spent fuel pool evaluation.

25 5 Interim Actions Based on the screening evaluation, the expedited seismic evaluation described in the Augumented Approach guidance (EPRI 2013c) will be performed as proposed in a letter to NRC dated April 9, 2013 (NEI 2013) and agreed to by NRC in a letter dated May 7, 2013 (USNRC 2013). Consistent with NRC letter dated February 20, 2014 (USNRC 2014), the seismic hazard reevaluations presented herein are distinct from the current design and licensing bases of the CEC. Therefore, the results do not call into question the operability or functionality of SSCs and are not reportable pursuant to 10 CFR 50.72, "Immediate notification requirements for operating nuclear power reactors," and 10 CFR 50.73, "Licensee event report system. The NRC letter also requests that licensees provide an interim evaluation or actions to demonstrate that the plant can cope with the reevaluated hazard while the expedited approach and risk evaluations are conducted. In response to that request, NEI letter dated March 12, 2014 (NEI, 2014), provides seismic core damage risk estimates using the updated seismic hazards for the operating nuclear plants in the Central and Eastern United States. These risk estimates continue to support the following conclusions of the NRC GI-199 Safety/Risk Assessment:

Overall seismic core damage risk estimates are consistent with the Commission's Safety Goal Policy Statement because they are within the subsidiary objective of 10 -4/year for core damage frequency. The GI-199 Safety/Risk Assessment, based in part on information from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) program, indicates that no concern exists regarding adequate protection and that the current seismic design of operating reactors provides a safety margin to withstand potential earthquakes exceeding the original design basis.

The CEC is included in the March 12, 2014 risk estimates. Using the methodology described in the NEI letter, all plants were shown to be below 10 -4/year; thus, the above conclusions apply.

Callaway letter ULNRC-06065 (Callaway Energy, 2014b), dated January 14, 2014, documented the fully completed 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Program performed for the CEC. As a result of the walkdowns, it was reported to the NRC that there were no immediately implemented plant changes warranted as a result of the NTTF 2.3 Seismic Walkdown program. Resolutions of the Callaway Action Requests (CARs) for seismically insignificant unusual conditions and potentially adverse seismic conditions were identified in the CEC CAP. Current status and resolutions (where applicable and available) for CARs related to potentially adverse seismic conditions were noted in Attachment 1 of the letter referenced above.

26 6 Conclusions In accordance with the 50.54(f) request for information, a seismic hazard and screening evaluation was performed for the CEC. A GMRS was developed solely for purpose of screening for additional evaluations in accordance with the SPID. Based on the results of the screening evaluation, the CEC screens in for risk evaluation, a Spent Fuel Pool evaluation, and a High Frequency Confirmation (Relay

Chatter).

27 7 References Callaway Energy (2012a). Site Geologic Conditions for Ameren Missouri Callaway Energy Center Nuclear Power Plant , Report prepared by R. W. Wilson, June 27, 2012.Wilson, Design Engineer, Callaway Energy Center on June 27, 2012. Callaway Energy (2013). Callaway Energy Center Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), Rev. OL-20, December 2013. Callaway Energy (2014a). Callaway Nuclear Power Plant Summary of Seismic Design Inputs , Report prepared by R.W. Wilson and R.G. Eskens, February 11, 2014. Callaway Energy (2014b), Docket Number 50-483: Callaway Plant Unit 1 Union Electric Co. Facility Operating License NPF-30 Supplement to Ameren Missouri 180-day Seismic Walkdown Response to NRC Letter, "Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3 and 9.3, of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Accident", ML14015A021, January 14, 2014. CEUS-SSC (2012). Central and Eastern United States Seismic Source Characterization for Nuclear Facilities, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report, NUREG-2115; EPRI Report 1021097, 6 Volumes; DOE Report# DOE/NE-0140. EPRI (2013a). Seismic Evaluation Guidance Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic, Elec. Power Res. Inst. Rept 1025287, Feb. EPRI (2013b). EPRI (2004, 2006) Ground-Motion Model (GMM) Review Project, Elec. Power Res. Inst, Palo Alto, CA, Rept. 3002000717, June, 2 volumes. EPRI (2013c), Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1, EPRI 3002000704, March. EPRI (2014), e-mail from Robert P. Kassawara to David S. Hollabaugh, February 28, 2014.

NEI (2013a), Proposed Path Forward for NTTF Recommendation 2.1: Seismic Reevaluations, Accession number ML13101A379. NEI (2014), NEI letter to NRC. Anthony R. Pietrangelo to Eric J. Leeds. Seismic Risk Evaluations for Plants in the Central and Eastern United States. March 12, 2014. Toro (1997). Appendix of: Silva, W.J., Abrahamson, N., Toro, G., and Costantino, C. (1997). "Description and validation of the stochastic ground motion model", Report Submitted to Brookhaven National Laboratory, Associated Universities, Inc., Upton, New York 11973, Contract No. 770573. UniStar Nuclear Services (2009). FSAR Callaway Unit 2, Revision 2. USNRC (2007). "A performance-based approach to define the site-specific earthquake ground motion," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Reg. Guide 1.208. USNRC (2012). (E Leeds and M Johnson) Letter to All Power Reactor Licensees et al., "Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulati ons 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3 and 9.3 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Accident, ML12053A340, March 12, 2012. USNRC (2013), Electric Power Research Institute Final Draft Report XXXXXX, "Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic," As An Acceptable Alternative to the March 12, 2012, Information Request for Seismic Reevaluations, May 7, 2013. 28 USNRC (2014), "Supplemental Information Related to Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding Seismic-Hazard Reevaluations for Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Accident", ML14030A046, February 20, 2014.

29 Appendix A Table A-1a. Mean and Fractile Seismic H azard Curves for PGA at CEC AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 1.01E-01 7.34E-02 8.23E-02 9.93E-02 9.93E-02 9.93E-02 0.001 9.17E-02 5.91E-02 7.34E-02 9.24E-02 9.93E-02 9.93E-02 0.005 4.56E-02 1.95E-02 3.19E-02 4.43E-02 5.91E-02 7.45E-02 0.01 2.58E-02 1.02E-02 1.62E-02 2.42E-02 3.33E-02 5.05E-02 0.015 1.74E-02 6.64E-03 1.02E-02 1.60E-02 2.22E-02 3.84E-02 0.03 8.25E-03 2.68E-03 4.13E-03 7.03E-03 1.10E-02 2.19E-02 0.05 4.54E-03 1.04E-03 1.74E-03 3.63E-03 6.64E-03 1.31E-02 0.075 2.69E-03 4.07E-04 7.45E-04 1.90E-03 4.37E-03 8.35E-03 0.1 1.78E-03 1.95E-04 3.73E-04 1.07E-03 3.05E-03 6.17E-03 0.15 9.17E-04 6.45E-05 1.34E-04 4.25E-04 1.60E-03 3.68E-03 0.3 2.28E-04 1.05E-05 2.32E-05 8.35E-05 3.14E-04 9.79E-04 0.5 6.54E-05 2.84E-06 6.64E-06 2.49E-05 8.47E-05 2.32E-04 0.75 2.17E-05 8.98E-07 2.22E-06 8.98E-06 3.19E-05 7.34E-05 1. 9.66E-06 3.47E-07 9.37E-07 4.07E-06 1.55E-05 3.42E-05 1.5 2.97E-06 7.03E-08 2.29E-07 1.18E-06 5.20E-06 1.15E-05 3. 3.31E-07 2.29E-09 1.16E-08 9.37E-08 5.42E-07 1.42E-06 5. 5.53E-08 2.25E-10 8.98E-10 1.02E-08 8.12E-08 2.46E-07 7.5 1.21E-08 1.62E-10 2.01E-10 1.46E-09 1.51E-08 5.50E-08 10. 3.89E-09 1.32E-10 1.62E-10 4.19E-10 4.13E-09 1.77E-08 Table A-1b. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 25 Hz at CEC AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 1.04E-01 7.77E-02 8.60E-02 9.93E-02 9.93E-02 9.93E-02 0.001 9.76E-02 7.03E-02 7.89E-02 9.79E-02 9.93E-02 9.93E-02 0.005 6.11E-02 3.28E-02 4.56E-02 6.09E-02 7.55E-02 8.98E-02 0.01 4.01E-02 1.90E-02 2.76E-02 3.90E-02 5.12E-02 6.83E-02 0.015 2.93E-02 1.31E-02 1.92E-02 2.76E-02 3.79E-02 5.50E-02 0.03 1.56E-02 6.26E-03 9.11E-03 1.40E-02 2.04E-02 3.37E-02 0.05 9.09E-03 3.05E-03 4.63E-03 7.89E-03 1.25E-02 2.07E-02 0.075 5.69E-03 1.44E-03 2.39E-03 4.77E-03 8.35E-03 1.36E-02 0.1 3.98E-03 7.66E-04 1.36E-03 3.19E-03 6.26E-03 1.02E-02 0.15 2.33E-03 2.84E-04 5.66E-04 1.62E-03 4.01E-03 6.83E-03 0.3 8.19E-04 4.50E-05 1.11E-04 3.95E-04 1.46E-03 3.19E-03 0.5 3.28E-04 1.23E-05 3.19E-05 1.27E-04 5.20E-04 1.38E-03 0.75 1.41E-04 4.63E-06 1.20E-05 5.12E-05 2.01E-04 5.58E-04 1. 7.23E-05 2.25E-06 6.00E-06 2.60E-05 1.02E-04 2.68E-04 1.5 2.58E-05 8.12E-07 2.22E-06 9.79E-06 3.90E-05 9.11E-05 3. 3.66E-06 1.36E-07 3.52E-07 1.53E-06 6.17E-06 1.42E-05 5. 7.20E-07 2.60E-08 6.93E-08 3.09E-07 1.23E-06 2.88E-06 7.5 1.75E-07 4.70E-09 1.42E-08 7.03E-08 3.09E-07 6.93E-07 10. 6.26E-08 1.13E-09 3.68E-09 2.25E-08 1.16E-07 2.49E-07 30 Table A-1c. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 10 Hz at CEC AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 1.07E-01 8.12E-02 8.85E-02 9.93E-02 9.93E-02 9.93E-02 0.001 1.04E-01 7.77E-02 8.60E-02 9.93E-02 9.93E-02 9.93E-02 0.005 7.55E-02 4.90E-02 5.91E-02 7.55E-02 9.11E-02 9.93E-02 0.01 5.37E-02 3.01E-02 3.90E-02 5.35E-02 6.83E-02 7.89E-02 0.015 4.07E-02 2.10E-02 2.80E-02 4.01E-02 5.27E-02 6.36E-02 0.03 2.22E-02 1.04E-02 1.42E-02 2.13E-02 2.96E-02 3.90E-02 0.05 1.30E-02 5.58E-03 7.89E-03 1.21E-02 1.77E-02 2.42E-02 0.075 8.15E-03 3.14E-03 4.56E-03 7.45E-03 1.13E-02 1.60E-02 0.1 5.73E-03 1.92E-03 2.96E-03 5.12E-03 8.35E-03 1.18E-02 0.15 3.37E-03 8.60E-04 1.40E-03 2.84E-03 5.27E-03 7.77E-03 0.3 1.17E-03 1.55E-04 2.88E-04 7.66E-04 2.07E-03 3.63E-03 0.5 4.49E-04 3.73E-05 7.66E-05 2.29E-04 7.55E-04 1.67E-03 0.75 1.82E-04 1.16E-05 2.57E-05 8.35E-05 2.80E-04 6.93E-04 1. 8.90E-05 5.20E-06 1.16E-05 4.07E-05 1.31E-04 3.23E-04 1.5 2.95E-05 1.57E-06 3.79E-06 1.38E-05 4.50E-05 9.93E-05 3. 3.88E-06 1.49E-07 4.07E-07 1.77E-06 6.83E-06 1.40E-05 5. 8.05E-07 1.69E-08 5.50E-08 3.09E-07 1.44E-06 3.23E-06 7.5 2.15E-07 2.35E-09 9.24E-09 6.73E-08 3.73E-07 9.11E-07 10. 7.96E-08 5.75E-10 2.35E-09 2.04E-08 1.32E-07 3.52E-07 Table A-1d. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 5 Hz at CEC AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 1.07E-01 8.12E-02 8.98E-02 9.93E-02 9.93E-02 9.93E-02 0.001 1.04E-01 7.77E-02 8.60E-02 9.93E-02 9.93E-02 9.93E-02 0.005 7.63E-02 4.63E-02 5.75E-02 7.55E-02 9.51E-02 9.93E-02 0.01 5.39E-02 2.76E-02 3.68E-02 5.35E-02 7.13E-02 8.23E-02 0.015 4.05E-02 1.90E-02 2.60E-02 3.95E-02 5.50E-02 6.64E-02 0.03 2.14E-02 8.98E-03 1.27E-02 2.01E-02 3.05E-02 3.79E-02 0.05 1.22E-02 4.83E-03 6.93E-03 1.13E-02 1.74E-02 2.22E-02 0.075 7.47E-03 2.68E-03 4.07E-03 6.93E-03 1.08E-02 1.40E-02 0.1 5.22E-03 1.67E-03 2.64E-03 4.83E-03 7.77E-03 1.02E-02 0.15 3.08E-03 7.66E-04 1.31E-03 2.72E-03 4.83E-03 6.64E-03 0.3 1.08E-03 1.53E-04 2.88E-04 7.45E-04 1.84E-03 3.19E-03 0.5 4.13E-04 3.84E-05 7.77E-05 2.19E-04 6.73E-04 1.51E-03 0.75 1.66E-04 1.20E-05 2.53E-05 7.55E-05 2.39E-04 6.64E-04 1. 7.93E-05 5.12E-06 1.11E-05 3.42E-05 1.08E-04 3.14E-04 1.5 2.49E-05 1.53E-06 3.42E-06 1.11E-05 3.42E-05 9.24E-05 3. 2.74E-06 1.62E-07 3.84E-07 1.42E-06 4.56E-06 9.51E-06 5. 5.03E-07 2.29E-08 6.00E-08 2.49E-07 8.98E-07 1.84E-06 7.5 1.27E-07 3.68E-09 1.10E-08 5.27E-08 2.22E-07 4.98E-07 10. 4.66E-08 9.51E-10 2.88E-09 1.60E-08 7.77E-08 1.92E-07

31 Table A-1e. Mean and Fractile Seismic Haza rd Curves for 2.5 Hz at CEC AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 1.00E-01 7.34E-02 8.23E-02 9.93E-02 9.93E-02 9.93E-02 0.001 8.74E-02 5.91E-02 6.93E-02 8.72E-02 9.93E-02 9.93E-02 0.005 3.51E-02 1.67E-02 2.25E-02 3.37E-02 4.83E-02 5.83E-02 0.01 1.74E-02 7.66E-03 1.05E-02 1.62E-02 2.46E-02 3.05E-02 0.015 1.08E-02 4.56E-03 6.45E-03 1.01E-02 1.53E-02 1.92E-02 0.03 4.68E-03 1.55E-03 2.42E-03 4.37E-03 6.93E-03 8.85E-03 0.05 2.48E-03 5.58E-04 9.79E-04 2.16E-03 4.01E-03 5.50E-03 0.075 1.41E-03 2.10E-04 4.01E-04 1.07E-03 2.46E-03 3.79E-03 0.1 8.94E-04 9.65E-05 1.95E-04 5.75E-04 1.60E-03 2.76E-03 0.15 4.25E-04 2.88E-05 6.26E-05 2.07E-04 7.34E-04 1.62E-03 0.3 9.04E-05 3.09E-06 7.45E-06 2.72E-05 1.21E-04 4.01E-04 0.5 2.38E-05 5.83E-07 1.51E-06 6.17E-06 2.72E-05 9.37E-05 0.75 7.63E-06 1.57E-07 4.43E-07 2.04E-06 8.85E-06 2.64E-05 1. 3.35E-06 6.17E-08 1.92E-07 9.51E-07 4.25E-06 1.13E-05 1.5 1.07E-06 1.62E-08 5.75E-08 3.33E-07 1.55E-06 3.79E-06 3. 1.64E-07 1.40E-09 6.45E-09 4.83E-08 2.64E-07 6.83E-07 5. 4.00E-08 2.92E-10 1.15E-09 9.93E-09 6.26E-08 1.77E-07 7.5 1.20E-08 1.72E-10 3.33E-10 2.53E-09 1.77E-08 5.35E-08 10. 4.76E-09 1.62E-10 1.98E-10 9.51E-10 6.64E-09 2.13E-08 Table A-1f. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 1 Hz at CEC AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 7.25E-02 4.01E-02 5.20E-02 7.23E-02 9.24E-02 9.93E-02 0.001 4.99E-02 2.25E-02 3.23E-02 4.98E-02 6.64E-02 7.89E-02 0.005 1.23E-02 4.70E-03 7.13E-03 1.16E-02 1.72E-02 2.22E-02 0.01 6.02E-03 2.04E-03 3.19E-03 5.58E-03 8.72E-03 1.15E-02 0.015 3.97E-03 1.08E-03 1.87E-03 3.63E-03 6.09E-03 8.00E-03 0.03 1.86E-03 2.68E-04 5.58E-04 1.51E-03 3.19E-03 4.63E-03 0.05 9.06E-04 7.13E-05 1.72E-04 6.09E-04 1.67E-03 2.76E-03 0.075 4.28E-04 2.10E-05 5.42E-05 2.29E-04 7.89E-04 1.51E-03 0.1 2.25E-04 8.12E-06 2.19E-05 1.01E-04 3.95E-04 8.60E-04 0.15 7.76E-05 1.92E-06 5.50E-06 2.72E-05 1.29E-04 3.19E-04 0.3 8.57E-06 1.32E-07 4.07E-07 2.25E-06 1.18E-05 3.63E-05 0.5 1.42E-06 1.44E-08 5.35E-08 3.37E-07 1.90E-06 5.83E-06 0.75 3.65E-07 2.19E-09 9.65E-09 7.55E-08 5.05E-07 1.55E-06 1. 1.53E-07 6.00E-10 2.72E-09 2.64E-08 2.04E-07 6.83E-07 1.5 5.03E-08 1.92E-10 5.05E-10 5.83E-09 6.00E-08 2.29E-07 3. 7.63E-09 1.36E-10 1.62E-10 4.98E-10 6.73E-09 3.33E-08 5. 1.62E-09 1.29E-10 1.53E-10 1.77E-10 1.18E-09 6.36E-09 7.5 4.13E-10 1.21E-10 1.32E-10 1.62E-10 3.28E-10 1.53E-09 10. 1.44E-10 1.21E-10 1.32E-10 1.62E-10 1.95E-10 5.75E-10

32 Table A-1g. Mean and Fractile Seismic Haza rd Curves for 0.5 Hz at CEC AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 3.70E-02 1.84E-02 2.64E-02 3.57E-02 4.77E-02 5.66E-02 0.001 2.16E-02 9.79E-03 1.46E-02 2.04E-02 2.84E-02 3.63E-02 0.005 5.27E-03 1.79E-03 2.76E-03 4.83E-03 7.77E-03 1.02E-02 0.01 2.87E-03 5.83E-04 1.08E-03 2.53E-03 4.63E-03 6.36E-03 0.015 1.94E-03 2.49E-04 5.35E-04 1.57E-03 3.37E-03 4.90E-03 0.03 8.24E-04 4.13E-05 1.13E-04 4.90E-04 1.55E-03 2.72E-03 0.05 3.42E-04 8.23E-06 2.57E-05 1.44E-04 6.09E-04 1.36E-03 0.075 1.43E-04 1.98E-06 6.73E-06 4.37E-05 2.29E-04 6.45E-04 0.1 6.92E-05 6.83E-07 2.35E-06 1.69E-05 9.79E-05 3.23E-04 0.15 2.17E-05 1.38E-07 4.90E-07 3.84E-06 2.53E-05 1.01E-04 0.3 2.09E-06 6.73E-09 2.64E-08 2.42E-07 1.98E-06 8.98E-06 0.5 3.11E-07 6.09E-10 2.49E-09 2.64E-08 2.76E-07 1.31E-06 0.75 7.06E-08 1.82E-10 4.50E-10 4.19E-09 5.75E-08 3.05E-07 1. 2.67E-08 1.62E-10 2.04E-10 1.23E-09 1.84E-08 1.16E-07 1.5 7.57E-09 1.32E-10 1.62E-10 2.92E-10 3.79E-09 3.09E-08 3. 9.13E-10 1.21E-10 1.32E-10 1.62E-10 3.33E-10 2.72E-09 5. 1.65E-10 1.21E-10 1.32E-10 1.62E-10 1.72E-10 4.70E-10 7.5 3.71E-11 1.21E-10 1.32E-10 1.62E-10 1.72E-10 1.92E-10 10. 1.18E-11 1.21E-10 1.32E-10 1.62E-10 1.62E-10 1.72E-10

33 Table A-2. Amplification Functions for CEC PGA Median AF Sigma ln(AF) 25 Hz Median AF Sigma ln(AF) 10 Hz Median AF Sigma ln(AF) 5 Hz Median AF Sigma ln(AF) 1.00E-02 2.44E+00 1.22E-01 1.30E-02 2.42E+00 1.49E-01 1.90E-02 2.86E+00 1.73E-01 2.09E-02 3.18E+00 2.66E-01 4.95E-02 2.42E+00 1.13E-01 1.02E-01 2.17E+00 2.70E-01 9.99E-02 2.77E+00 2.09E-01 8.24E-02 3.29E+00 2.52E-01 9.64E-02 2.28E+00 1.28E-01 2.13E-01 2.02E+00 3.03E-01 1.85E-01 2.67E+00 2.28E-01 1.44E-01 3.29E+00 2.51E-01 1.94E-01 2.09E+00 1.52E-01 4.43E-01 1.80E+00 3.31E-01 3.56E-01 2.51E+00 2.59E-01 2.65E-01 3.24E+00 2.50E-01 2.92E-01 1.96E+00 1.71E-01 6.76E-01 1.65E+00 3.50E-01 5.23E-01 2.38E+00 2.79E-01 3.84E-01 3.16E+00 2.65E-01 3.91E-01 1.85E+00 1.86E-01 9.09E-01 1.52E+00 3.62E-01 6.90E-01 2.27E+00 2.90E-01 5.02E-01 3.08E+00 2.76E-01 4.93E-01 1.75E+00 2.01E-01 1.15E+00 1.41E+00 3.73E-01 8.61E-01 2.17E+00 2.98E-01 6.22E-01 2.99E+00 2.93E-01 7.41E-01 1.57E+00 2.36E-01 1.73E+00 1.19E+00 3.93E-01 1.27E+00 1.96E+00 3.27E-01 9.13E-01 2.79E+00 3.41E-01 1.01E+00 1.43E+00 2.69E-01 2.36E+00 1.02E+00 4.11E-01 1.72E+00 1.78E+00 3.45E-01 1.22E+00 2.57E+00 3.97E-01 1.28E+00 1.31E+00 2.98E-01 3.01E+00 8.90E-01 4.27E-01 2.17E+00 1.63E+00 3.83E-01 1.54E+00 2.35E+00 4.32E-01 1.55E+00 1.21E+00 3.27E-01 3.63E+00 7.92E-01 4.40E-01 2.61E+00 1.50E+00 4.18E-01 1.85E+00 2.19E+00 4.72E-01 2.5 Hz Median AF Sigma ln(AF) 1 Hz Median AF Sigma ln(AF) 0.5 Hz Median AF Sigma ln(AF) 2.18E-02 1.34E+00 1.38E-01 1.27E-02 1.30E+00 1.05E-01 8.25E-03 1.26E+00 7.53E-02 7.05E-02 1.42E+00 1.55E-01 3.43E-02 1.34E+00 1.05E-01 1.96E-02 1.29E+00 7.51E-02 1.18E-01 1.47E+00 1.71E-01 5.51E-02 1.35E+00 1.05E-01 3.02E-02 1.30E+00 7.55E-02 2.12E-01 1.54E+00 2.02E-01 9.63E-02 1.38E+00 1.07E-01 5.11E-02 1.31E+00 7.70E-02 3.04E-01 1.61E+00 2.26E-01 1.36E-01 1.40E+00 1.11E-01 7.10E-02 1.32E+00 7.85E-02 3.94E-01 1.68E+00 2.41E-01 1.75E-01 1.42E+00 1.17E-01 9.06E-02 1.34E+00 7.90E-02 4.86E-01 1.74E+00 2.53E-01 2.14E-01 1.45E+00 1.26E-01 1.10E-01 1.34E+00 7.93E-02 7.09E-01 1.85E+00 2.88E-01 3.10E-01 1.51E+00 1.51E-01 1.58E-01 1.35E+00 8.07E-02 9.47E-01 1.91E+00 3.57E-01 4.12E-01 1.55E+00 1.71E-01 2.09E-01 1.36E+00 8.36E-02 1.19E+00 1.92E+00 4.13E-01 5.18E-01 1.59E+00 1.82E-01 2.62E-01 1.37E+00 8.71E-02 1.43E+00 1.91E+00 4.31E-01 6.19E-01 1.61E+00 2.03E-01 3.12E-01 1.39E+00 1.03E-01

34 Tables A2-b1 and A2-b2 are tabular versions of the typical amplification factors provided in Figures 2.3.6-1 and 2.3.6-2. Values are provided for two input motion levels at approximately 10-4 and 10-5 mean annual frequency of exceedance (EPRI, 2014). These factors are unverified and are provided for information only. The figures should be considered the governing information.

35 Table A2-b1. Median AFs and sigmas for Model 1, Profile 1, for 2 PGA levels. M1P1K1 Rock PGA=0.292 M1P1K1 PGA=1.01 Freq. (Hz) Soil_SA med. AF sigma ln(AF) Freq. (Hz) Soil_SA med. AF sigma ln(AF) 100.0 0.463 1.583 0.165 100.0 1.044 1.038 0.323 87.1 0.465 1.546 0.166 87.1 1.046 1.006 0.323 75.9 0.468 1.482 0.168 75.9 1.048 0.951 0.324 66.1 0.473 1.361 0.170 66.1 1.052 0.853 0.325 57.5 0.482 1.172 0.175 57.5 1.058 0.709 0.326 50.1 0.498 1.001 0.183 50.1 1.067 0.585 0.329 43.7 0.524 0.890 0.195 43.7 1.083 0.503 0.333 38.0 0.564 0.875 0.215 38.0 1.107 0.475 0.340 33.1 0.616 0.909 0.246 33.1 1.146 0.473 0.348 28.8 0.668 0.991 0.293 28.8 1.197 0.503 0.361 25.1 0.738 1.092 0.344 25.1 1.269 0.538 0.391 21.9 0.833 1.303 0.368 21.9 1.359 0.616 0.415 19.1 0.916 1.459 0.359 19.1 1.470 0.687 0.425 16.6 0.931 1.553 0.312 16.6 1.604 0.792 0.445 14.5 0.945 1.657 0.289 14.5 1.726 0.904 0.468 12.6 0.970 1.755 0.307 12.6 1.805 0.984 0.456 11.0 0.978 1.822 0.297 11.0 1.897 1.072 0.438 9.5 1.019 1.994 0.305 9.5 2.009 1.202 0.436 8.3 1.058 2.251 0.303 8.3 2.149 1.408 0.425 7.2 1.083 2.469 0.279 7.2 2.286 1.613 0.417 6.3 1.106 2.690 0.251 6.3 2.382 1.805 0.441 5.5 1.145 2.924 0.227 5.5 2.417 1.933 0.488 4.8 1.151 3.014 0.230 4.8 2.444 2.013 0.537 4.2 1.065 2.881 0.278 4.2 2.456 2.101 0.540 3.6 0.886 2.469 0.285 3.6 2.431 2.150 0.491 3.2 0.700 2.074 0.266 3.2 2.313 2.186 0.418 2.8 0.563 1.762 0.244 2.8 2.162 2.166 0.356 2.4 0.451 1.534 0.211 2.4 1.892 2.065 0.317 2.1 0.375 1.405 0.156 2.1 1.596 1.926 0.273 1.8 0.315 1.319 0.142 1.8 1.312 1.780 0.246 1.6 0.258 1.249 0.108 1.6 1.042 1.640 0.224 1.4 0.233 1.317 0.093 1.4 0.902 1.658 0.214 1.2 0.221 1.420 0.070 1.2 0.813 1.708 0.186 1.0 0.194 1.383 0.062 1.0 0.684 1.603 0.155 0.91 0.160 1.254 0.071 0.91 0.544 1.412 0.127 0.79 0.134 1.167 0.080 0.79 0.443 1.283 0.105 0.69 0.117 1.150 0.082 0.69 0.378 1.241 0.090 0.60 0.105 1.185 0.068 0.60 0.332 1.260 0.072 0.52 0.094 1.243 0.051 0.52 0.291 1.310 0.056 0.46 0.082 1.299 0.052 0.46 0.250 1.359 0.059 0.10 0.003 1.132 0.029 0.10 0.009 1.149 0.036

36 Table A2-b2. Median AFs and sigmas for Model 2, Profile 1, for 2 PGA levels. M2P1K1 PGA=0.292 M2P1K1 PGA=1.01 Freq. (Hz) Soil_SA med. AF sigma ln(AF) Freq. (Hz) Soil_SA med. AF sigma ln(AF) 100.0 0.548 1.875 0.125 100.0 1.495 1.487 0.233 87.1 0.552 1.836 0.127 87.1 1.504 1.446 0.235 75.9 0.558 1.766 0.129 75.9 1.516 1.375 0.239 66.1 0.568 1.634 0.133 66.1 1.536 1.245 0.245 57.5 0.586 1.426 0.139 57.5 1.571 1.053 0.256 50.1 0.620 1.246 0.149 50.1 1.633 0.896 0.272 43.7 0.672 1.140 0.172 43.7 1.723 0.800 0.292 38.0 0.760 1.179 0.223 38.0 1.865 0.800 0.327 33.1 0.843 1.243 0.266 33.1 2.050 0.847 0.373 28.8 0.920 1.365 0.332 28.8 2.226 0.935 0.410 25.1 1.042 1.542 0.365 25.1 2.503 1.061 0.464 21.9 1.155 1.806 0.327 21.9 2.873 1.302 0.483 19.1 1.179 1.878 0.267 19.1 3.128 1.461 0.470 16.6 1.146 1.911 0.229 16.6 3.066 1.514 0.419 14.5 1.113 1.951 0.253 14.5 3.039 1.592 0.379 12.6 1.113 2.015 0.265 12.6 3.057 1.667 0.361 11.0 1.150 2.142 0.234 11.0 3.131 1.770 0.313 9.5 1.232 2.411 0.242 9.5 3.270 1.956 0.263 8.3 1.265 2.693 0.220 8.3 3.350 2.195 0.258 7.2 1.283 2.925 0.174 7.2 3.372 2.380 0.298 6.3 1.328 3.230 0.161 6.3 3.401 2.577 0.336 5.5 1.361 3.478 0.187 5.5 3.371 2.697 0.342 4.8 1.286 3.365 0.262 4.8 3.318 2.733 0.327 4.2 1.058 2.863 0.317 4.2 3.104 2.655 0.304 3.6 0.808 2.252 0.299 3.6 2.720 2.406 0.293 3.2 0.617 1.829 0.234 3.2 2.251 2.127 0.278 2.8 0.500 1.566 0.177 2.8 1.844 1.847 0.279 2.4 0.410 1.392 0.152 2.4 1.479 1.614 0.263 2.1 0.349 1.307 0.109 2.1 1.216 1.467 0.207 1.8 0.298 1.249 0.112 1.8 1.006 1.365 0.176 1.6 0.248 1.199 0.086 1.6 0.815 1.282 0.130 1.4 0.227 1.279 0.083 1.4 0.731 1.343 0.103 1.2 0.217 1.391 0.066 1.2 0.686 1.442 0.080 1.0 0.191 1.361 0.061 1.0 0.597 1.400 0.073 0.91 0.158 1.239 0.072 0.91 0.489 1.269 0.078 0.79 0.133 1.157 0.081 0.79 0.408 1.180 0.083 0.69 0.117 1.143 0.083 0.69 0.354 1.162 0.083 0.60 0.105 1.179 0.069 0.60 0.315 1.195 0.069 0.52 0.093 1.239 0.051 0.52 0.279 1.253 0.052 0.46 0.081 1.296 0.053 0.46 0.241 1.308 0.054 0.10 0.003 1.130 0.031 0.10 0.008 1.123 0.030}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML14090A447&oldid=1359437"