ML14136A289

14C4229-RPT-001, Revision 3, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Seismic Hazard and Screening Report.

ML14136A289
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	05/12/2014
From:	Young H Stevenson & Associates
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Xcel Energy
References
L-MT-14-045 14C4229-RPT-001, Rev. 3
Download: ML14136A289 (36)

Text

ENCLOSURE 14C4229-RPT-001 MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT SEISMIC HAZARD AND SCREENING REPORT REVISION 2 35 pages follow

SAL Stevenson & Associates EngineeringSolutionsfor Nuclear Energy Document No: 14C4229-RPT-001 Revision 3 May 12, 2014 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Seismic Hazard And Screening Report Prepared for:

Monticello Nuclear GeneratingPlant 2807 W. County Road 75 Monticello, MN 55362, USA Stevenson & Associates 1646 N Litchfield Rd, Suite 250 Goodyear, AZ 85395

14C4229-RPT-001 Rev. 3 pl&'11 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Seismic Hazard and Screening Report REVISION RECORD Initial Issue (Rev. 0) Date 3/7/14 Prepared by:

HunfEr Young, P.E.

Senior Engineer 3/7/14 Reviewed by:

Apostolos Karavoussianis Senior Consultant 3/7/14 Approved by:

Apostolos Karavoussianis Senior Consultant Revisions Revision Prepared by/ Reviewed by/ Approved by/ Description of Revision No. Date Date Date 1 H. Young A. Karavoussianis A. Karavoussianis Incorporated client comments 3/13/14 3/13/14 3/13/14 and additions to Section 5.0 as I *. ,*I4f well as editorial changes throughout the document.

2 H. Young A. Karavoussianis A. Karavoussianis Incorporated updates to Sections 4/22/14 4/22/14 4/22/14 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, and Appendix A

-'*--'-5--A/*

,'----- based upon revision to [Ref. 7.5],

added List of Acronyms and Abbreviations, and revised Sections 4.0 and 6.1 to state that risk evaluations will be performed.

3 H. Young A. Karavoussianis A. Karavoussianis Incorporated editorial changes to 5/12/14 5/12/14 5/12/14 subsection titles in Section 2.3.2.

1

SA 14C4229-RPT-001 Rev. 3 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Seismic Hazard and Screening Report List of Acronyms and Abbreviations Acronym Definition AEC Atomic Energy Commission AF Amplification Factor CEUS Central and Eastern United States CEUS-SSC Central and Eastern United States Seismic Source Characterization EFT Emergency Filtration Train EPRI Electric Power Research Institute FDSAR Facility Description and Safety Analysis Report GDC General Design Criteria GMM Ground Motion Model GMRS Ground Motion Response Spectrum IBEB Illinois Basin Extended Basement IPEEE Individual Plant Examination of External Events ISFSI Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation ISG Interim Staff Guidance LCI Lettis Consultants International LHT Low Hazard Threshold MESE-W Mesozoic and Younger Extended Prior - Wide MIDC_A Midcontinent-Craton Alternative A MIDCB Midcontinent-Craton Alternative B MIDC_C Midcontinent-Craton Alternative C MIDC_D Midcontinent-Craton Alternative D MNGP Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant NEI Nuclear Energy Institute NMESE-N Non-Mesozoic and Younger Extended Prior - Narrow NMESE-W Non-Mesozoic and Younger Extended Prior - Wide NMFS New Madrid Fault System NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission NSP Northern States Power Company NSPM Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota Corporation NTTF Near Term Task Force PGA Peak Ground Acceleration PR Peninsular Range PSHA Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis RLME Repeated Large Magnitude Earthquake RVT Random Vibration Theory SMA Seismic Margin Assessment SPID Screening, Prioritization, and Implementation Details SPRA Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment SSE Safe Shutdown Earthquake STUDY_R Study Region UHRS Uniform Hazard Response Spectrum USAR Updated Safety Analysis Report USGS United States Geological Survey Vs Shear-Wave Velocity 2

14C4229-RPT-001 Rev. 3 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Seismic Hazard and Screening Report 1.0 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 Commission established a Near Term Task Force (NTTF) to conduct a systematic review of NRC processes and regulations and to determine if the agency should make additional improvements to 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) 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 design 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 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP), located in Wright County, Minnesota. In providing this information, Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota Corporation (NSPM), d/b/a Xcel Energy, 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) [Ref. 7.3]. The Augmented Approach, Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1:

Seismic (EPRI 3002000704) [Ref. 7.2], has been developed as the process for evaluating critical plant equipment prior to performing the complete plant seismic risk evaluations.

Monticello is not generally licensed to the current GDC or the 1967 AEC proposed General Design Criteria. The applicable MNGP principal design criteria predate the 10 CFR 50 Appendix A General Design Criteria. The MNGP principal design criteria are listed in Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) Section 1.2, "Principal Design Criteria" [Ref. 7.13]. In 1967, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) published for public comment a revised set of proposed General Design Criteria (Federal Register 32FR102 13, July 11, 1967). Although not explicitly licensed to the AEC proposed General Design Criteria published in 1967, Northern States Power Company (NSP), the predecessor to NSPM, performed a comparative evaluation of the design basis of MNGP, with the AEC proposed General Design Criteria of 1967. The MNGP USAR, Appendix E, "Plant Comparative Evaluation with the Proposed AEC 70 Design Criteria,"

contains this comparative evaluation. The general design criteria utilized for MNGP's seismic design basis is contained in the MNGP USAR Appendix E under the draft GDC-2 subsection.

3

14C4229-RPT-001 Rev. 3 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Seismic Hazard and Screening Report In response to the 50.54(f) letter and following the guidance provided in the SPID [Ref. 7.3], a seismic hazard reevaluation was performed. For screening purposes, a Ground Motion Response Spectrum (GMRS) was developed.

Based on the results of the screening evaluation, MNGP screens in for an NRC SMA (JLD-ISG-2012-04), a Spent Fuel Pool evaluation, and a High Frequency Confirmation.

In this report, Sections 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, and Appendix A were prepared by Lettis Consultants International (LCI) on behalf of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) [Ref. 7.5].

Deviations from the LCI submitted text in this report are non-technical only.

4

14C4229-RPT-001 Rev. 3 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Seismic Hazard and Screening Report 2.0 Seismic Hazard Reevaluation Refer to MNGP USAR Sections 1.3, 2.5, 2.6, and 12.2 [Ref. 7.13]. MNGP is located within the city limits of Monticello, Minnesota, on the south bank of the Mississippi River. The principal structural feature in this part of Minnesota is a deep trough formed during Precambrian time in the granite and associated crystalline rocks. The site area is covered by unconsolidated deposits of dense soils underlain by Paleozoic sedimentary rock at about 75 to 122 feet below the ground surface. The principle plant structures are supported on mat foundations founded on sand and gravel except for the intake structure, which is founded on bedrock. Minor fault displacements occurred during the Paleozoic era, but faulting within the last few million years is not in evidence.

While there is no indication that faulting has affected the area of the site in the last few million years, earthquakes can and do occur in this region away from faults and probably result from residual stress due to recent glaciers. A quake similar to No. 12 and 24 in Table 2.6-1 of the USAR was postulated near the site and using the dynamic response data obtained in situ, the Taft Earthquake of July 21, 1952, North 69 West component with an applied factor of 0.33 was selected as best representative for the design earthquake. A Design Basis Earthquake of 0.12g serves as the Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE).

2.1 Regional and Local Geology Refer to USAR Section 2.5. Rocks dating as early as Precambrian time underlie the region of Minnesota which includes the plant site. The principal structural feature in this part of Minnesota is a deep trough formed during Precambrian time in the granite and associated crystalline rocks. This basin extended from Lake Superior into Iowa, and provided a site for the deposition of thick sequences of Precambrian and later Paleozic sediments and volcanics.

The site occupies a bluff which forms the southwest bank of the Mississippi River. Several flat alluvial terraces comprise the main topographical features on the property. A well in the town of Monticello about 2-3/4 miles east of the site which was drilled to a depth of 500 ft did not encounter granite. Other well information generally indicates that 150 to 200 ft of unconsolidated alluvium and drift overlies sandstone and red shale of unknown thickness at Monticello.

Decomposed granite and basic rocks of Precambrian age comprise the oldest formation at the site, within the depth investigated. This material lies below the ground surface at a depth of about 75 to 122 ft. Resting directly upon the weathered Precambrian crystalline rocks is approximately 10 to 15 ft of medium-grained quartz sandstone which, in general, is moderately well cemented. Above the sandstone is a series of alluvial strata about 50 ft thick which consists predominately of clean sands with gravel, as well as a few layers of clay and glacial till.

5

14C4229-RPT-001 Rev. 3 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Seismic Hazard and Screening Report The nearest known or inferred fault is the Douglas fault, located approximately 23 miles southeast of the site as shown on Figure 2.5-1a of the USAR. It is probable that the site has not experienced any activity within recent geologic times.

2.2 ProbabilisticSeismic Hazard Analysis (from [Ref. 7.5])

2.2.1 ProbabilisticSeismic Hazard Analysis Results In accordance with the 50.54(f) letter and following the guidance in the SPID [Ref. 7.3], 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 [Ref. 7.1] together with the updated EPRI Ground-Motion Model (GMM) for the CEUS

[Ref. 7.4]. 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 MNGP were included. This distance exceeds the 200 mile (320 km) recommendation contained in Reference 7.11 and was chosen for completeness. Background sources included in this site analysis are the following:

1. Illinois Basin Extended Basement (IBEB)

2. Mesozoic and younger extended prior - wide (MESE-W)

3. Midcontinent-Craton alternative A (MIDCA)

4. Midcontinent-Craton alternative B (MIDCB)

5. Midcontinent-Craton alternative C (MIDCC)

6. Midcontinent-Craton alternative D (MIDCD)

7. Non-Mesozoic and younger extended prior - narrow (NMESE-N)

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

9. Study region (STUDYR)

For sources of large magnitude earthquakes, designated Repeated Large Magnitude Earthquake (RLME) sources in Reference 7.1, the following sources lie within 1,000 km of the site and were included in the analysis:

1. Commerce

2. New Madrid Fault System (NMFS)

3. Wabash Valley For each of the above background and RLME sources, the mid-continent version of the updated CEUS EPRI GMM was used.

6

14C4229-RPT-001 Rev. 3 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Seismic Hazard and Screening Report 2.2.2 Base Rock Seismic Hazard Curves Consistent with the SPID [Ref. 7.3], 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 control point elevation.

2.3 Site Response Evaluation (from [Ref. 7.5])

Following the guidance contained in Seismic Enclosure 1 of the March 12, 2012 10 CFR 50.54(f) Request for Information and in the SPID [Ref. 7.3] 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 MNGP.

2.3.1 Descriptionof Subsurface Material The Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP) is located in Minnesota on a bluff that forms the southwest bank of the Mississippi River. The town of Monticello is located about 2.75 mi (4.4 km) east of the site. The site is about 30 mi (48 km) northwest of Minneapolis. Bedrock is estimated to be at a depth of about 110 ft (33.5 m) [Ref. 7.14].

The information used to create the site geologic profile at MNGP was taken from References 7.12, 7.13, 7.15, and 7.17. These references include boring logs that indicate about 60 ft (18 m) of mainly sands with gravels, with some silt boulders, and clay lenses overlying sandstone and weathered granite and diabase. The thickness of the firm sedimentary rock (sandstone) is 15 ft (4.6 m). The thickness of the deeper firm rock (weathered granite and diabase) is 35 ft (10.7 m). The total thickness of firm rock is 50 ft (15.2 m). There is a total of 110 ft (33.5 m) of soils and firm rock over bedrock at the site [Ref. 7.14].

Table 1 from Reference 7.14 indicates the site geotechnical profile for MNGP. As indicated in Reference 7.15, the SSE Control Point is at the surface (El 930 ft), and the profile was modeled up to the surface.

Table 2.3.1-1 shows the geotechnical properties for MNGP.

7

SA 14C4229-RPT-001 Rev. 3 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Seismic Hazard and Screening Report Table 2.3.1-1 [Ref. 7.14]

Summary of Geotechnical Profile Data for MNGP Shear Depth Wave Compressional Range Soil/Rock Dry Density Velocity Wave Velocity Poisson's (feet) Description (pcf) (fps) (fps) Ratio 0 (930') Ground Surface Elevation ---.........

0-10 Fine to coarse sand with gravel 119-127 NR1 NR NR 10-20 Fine to coarse sand with gravel 115-128 NR NR NR and occasion cobbles 20-40 Medium sand with gravel 112-128 NR NR NR 40-50 Fine to medium sand with fine 116 NR NR NR sandy clay lenses transitioning to medium to coarse sand and gravel and silt boulders 50-60 Yellowish-brown grading to gray 123 NR NR NR grading 60-75 Medium grained quartz NR NR NR NR sandstone (medium hard),

friable to moderately well cemented 75-90 Decomposed granitic rock NR NR NR NR (medium soft)90-105 Decomposed diabase (medium NR NR NR NR soft) 105-110 Weathered granite rock (hard) NR NR NR NR with secondary quartz 2.3.2 Development of Base Case Profilesand NonlinearMaterial Properties Table 2.3.1-1 [Ref. 7.14] shows the recommended unit weights along with depth ranges and corresponding stratigraphy for some of the units. As indicated in Reference 7.15, the SSE Control Point is located at the surface. While no velocity information was available underneath the MNGP power block, a single set of downhole and crosshole shear-wave velocity measurements were available at the nearby (about 500 ft, 152 m) Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) facility [Refs. 7.12, 7.17], which showed similar properties to those at MNGP. Because the crosshole and downhole shear-wave velocities showed considerable differences at comparable depths between the methods, the average shear-wave velocities were applied for the soil and firm rock sections based on the downhole measurements being more appropriate for site response applications at MNGP. Specifically, for the soils, a shear-wave velocity of 700 ft/s (213 m/s) was taken for the top 10 ft (3 m) with 1,400 ft/s (427 m/s) for 1 NR = No Record 8

Sf4 14C4229-RPT-001 Rev. 3 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Seismic Hazard and Screening Report the remainder of the soils (50 ft, 15 m). For the 50 ft (15 m) of underlying soft and firm rock, an average shear-wave velocity of 2,500 ft/s (762 m/s) was taken as appropriate for MNGP with Precambrian basement (hard rock with shear-wave velocity of 9,285 ft/s, 2,830 m/s) at a depth of 110 ft (33.5 m). Thus the ISFSI shear-wave velocity data [Refs. 7.12, 7.17] were used to characterize the 110' of the profile.

To accommodate epistemic uncertainty in shear-wave velocities a scale factor of 1.57 was used below 10 ft (3 m) based on both a single set of nearby measurements for the ISFSI facility

[Refs. 7.12, 7.17] as well as differences between types of measurements reflecting the assumed shear-wave velocities. For the top 10 ft (3 m) a smaller scale factor of 1.25 was used reflecting agreement in shear-wave velocities between the downhole and crosshole measurements at the nearby ISFSI [Refs. 7.12, 7.17]. Profiles extended to a depth (below the SSE) of 110 ft (33.5 m), randomized +/- 22 ft (+/- 6.7 m). The base-case profiles (P1, P2, and P3) are shown in Figure 2.3.2-1 and listed in Table 2.3.2-1. The depth randomization reflects +/- 20% of the shallow depth to bedrock and was included to provide a realistic broadening of the fundamental resonance at deep sites rather than reflect actual random variations to basement shear-wave velocities across a footprint. The scale factors of 1.57 and 1.25 reflect a "sigma In" of about 0.35 and 0.2 respectively based on the SPID [Ref. 7.3] 10 th and 9 0 th fractiles which implies a 1.28 scale factor on "sigma mu."

Vs profiles for Monticello Site Vs (ft/sec) 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 0

50 -- Profile 1

-Profile 2

-Profile 3 100 150 Figure 2.3.2-1. Shear-wave velocity profiles used in site response calculations for MNGP.

9

14C4229-RPT-001 Rev. 3 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Seismic Hazard and Screening Report Table 2.3.2-1 Layer thicknesses, depths, and shear-wave velocities (Vs) for 3 profiles, at MNGP 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) 0 700 0 560 0 875 5.0 5.0 700 5.0 5.0 560 5.0 5.0 875 5.0 10.0 700 5.0 10.0 560 5.0 10.0 875 5.0 15.0 1400 5.0 15.0 896 5.0 15.0 2198 5.0 20.0 1400 5.0 20.0 896 5.0 20.0 2198 5.0 25.0 1400 5.0 25.0 896 5.0 25.0 2198 5.0 30.0 1400 5.0 30.0 896 5.0 30.0 2198 5.0 35.0 1400 5.0 35.0 896 5.0 35.0 2198 5.0 40.0 1400 5.0 40.0 896 5.0 40.0 2198 5.0 45.0 1400 5.0 45.0 896 5.0 45.0 2198 5.0 50.0 1400 5.0 50.0 896 5.0 50.0 2198 5.0 55.0 1400 5.0 55.0 896 5.0 55.0 2198 5.0 60.0 1400 5.0 60.0 896 5.0 60.0 2198 5.0 65.0 2500 5.0 65.0 1600 5.0 65.0 3925 5.0 70.0 2500 5.0 70.0 1600 5.0 70.0 3925 5.0 75.0 2500 5.0 75.0 1600 5.0 75.0 3925 5.0 80.0 2500 5.0 80.0 1600 5.0 80.0 3925 5.0 85.0 2500 5.0 85.0 1600 5.0 85.0 3925 5.0 90.0 2500 5.0 90.0 1600 5.0 90.0 3925 5.0 95.0 2500 5.0 95.0 1600 5.0 95.0 3925 5.0 100.0 2500 5.0 100.0 1600 5.0 100.0 3925 5.0 105.0 2500 5.0 105.0 1600 5.0 105.0 3925 5.0 110.0 2500 5.0 110.0 1600 5.0 110.0 3925 3280.8 3390.8 9285 3280.8 3390.8 9285 3280.8 3390.8 9285 2.3.2.1 Shear Modulus and Damping Curves No site-specific nonlinear dynamic material properties were available for the MNGP for the soils or firm rock. The firm soil material over the upper 60 ft (18.3 m) was assumed to have behavior that could be modeled with either EPRI cohesionless soil or Peninsular Range G/Gmax and hysteretic damping curves [Ref. 7.3]. To reflect epistemic uncertainty in nonlinear dynamic material properties, the deeper firm rock material at the site was assumed to have behavior that could be modeled as either linear or non-linear. Consistent with the SPID [Ref. 7.3], the EPRI soil and rock curves (model M1) were considered to be appropriate to represent the upper range nonlinearity likely in the materials at the site and Peninsular Range (PR) curves for soils combined with linear analyses (model M2) for rock was assumed to represent an equally plausible, less nonlinear alternative response across loading level. For the linear firm rock analyses, the low strain damping from the EPRI rock curves were used as the constant damping values in the upper 50 ft (15m) in the profile.

10

14C4229-RPT-001 Rev. 3 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Seismic Hazard and Screening Report 2.3.2.2 Kappa For the MNGP profile of about 110 ft (33.5 m) of soils and firm rock over hard reference rock, the kappa value of 0.006s for hard rock [Ref. 7.3] dominates profile damping. The 110 ft (33.5 m) of soils and firm rock, based on the low strain damping from the EPRI soil and rock G/Gmax and hysteretic damping curves, reflects a contribution of only about 0.003s, with the addition of the hard basement rock value of 0.006s resulting in a total kappa for Profile P1 of 0.009s (Table 2.3.2.2-1). As a result, the dominant epistemic uncertainty in low strain kappa was assumed to be incorporated in the reference rock hazard. Additionally, at higher loading levels of significance to design, epistemic uncertainty in profile damping (kappa) is accommodated in the EPRI and PR G/Gmax and hysteretic damping curves.

Table 2.3.2.2-1 Kappa Values and Weights Used for Site Response Analyses Velocity Profile Kappa(s)

P1 0.009 P2 0.010 P3 0.008 Velocity Profile 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 MNGP site, 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 [Ref. 7.3], 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 Reference 7.7 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 [Ref. 7.3], correlation of shear wave velocity between layers was modeled using the footprint correlation model. In the correlation model, a 11

14C4229-RPT-001 Rev. 3 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Seismic Hazard and Screening Report limit of +/- 2 standard deviations about the median value in each layer was assumed for the limits on random velocity fluctuations.

2.3.4 Input Spectra Consistent with the guidance in Appendix B of the SPID [Ref. 7.3], 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 MNGP site were the same as those identified in Tables B-4, B-5, B-6 and B-7of the SPID [Ref.

7.3] as appropriate for typical CEUS sites.

2.3.5 Methodology To perform the site response analyses for MNGP, a random vibration theory (RVT) approach was employed. This process utilizes a simple, efficient approach for computing site-specific amplification functions and is consistent with existing NRC guidance and the SPID [Ref. 7.3].

The guidance contained in Appendix B of the SPID [Ref. 7.3] on incorporating epistemic uncertainty in shear-wave velocities, kappa, non-linear dynamic properties and source spectra for plants with limited at-site information was followed for the MNGP 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 [Ref. 7.3] 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 soil and 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 MNGP soil site, Figure 2.3.6-2 shows the corresponding amplification factors developed with PR G/Gmax and hysteretic damping curves for soil and linear response for firm rock (model M2). Figures 2.3.6-1 and Figure 2.3.6-2 respectively show significant differences at high frequency (greater than about 10 to 20 Hz) and high loading level (greater than about 0.5 g). Tabulated values of the amplification factors are provided in Appendix A.

12

SA'1 14C4229-RPT-001 Rev. 3 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Seismic Hazard and Screening Report C

4-,

0 INPUT MT*~ION' 0,05G 1 a-E INPUT MODTCr ION.LOG 0 INPUT MOTION 0.20G R

E Cr MNPTMOTION 0.30G INPUT NlOTION 0.40G I I II IQ - LO0 I ,0 2 IQ -I Fqn0 10(1 IQ Fr~cuency (Hz)

Frequency (Hz)

AMPLIFICATION, MONTICELLO, MIPIKI M 6.5, 1 CORNER PAGE 1 OF 2 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 soil and 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 [Ref. 7.3].

13

S4&- 14C4229-RPT-001 Rev. 3 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Seismic Hazard and Screening Report C - 0 C-)

INPUT MOTION 0.50G INPUT MOTION O.75G

, , , , ,, .. I I , . ., , , , , ., .,,I ,0 10~

3 o-f-=- C 3

Cc 0~

INPUT N*OTION 1.25G INPi MOIOwN I iOG . ý I I " ..l . I I I I

. II. .

I I. . 1I..

ý7ca C2

-I-CC INPU.NOTON. . 50G ... . .. ii 1 0 to -I tOa ID 1 2 Frequency (Hz)

AMPLIFICATION, MONTICELLO, MiPiKi M.6.5, 1 CORNER PAGE 2 OF 2 Figure 2.3.6-1 .(cont.)

14

SA 14C4229-RPT-001 Rev. 3 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Seismic Hazard and Screening Report C: -

4-1 C3 iC: ' INPUT MOTION 0.05G INPUT MOTION 0.01G (

a-aC C3 C I 4ý U - , , I,,,

0 INPUT MOTIGN 0. tOG " INPUT I9TIOt4 0.20G to C l i l I I I l l l l I I I l L)

CC C C {

C3 CE a:

C INPUT MOTION 0.20G C INPUT MOTION 0.40G io -' to 0 IQ 1 10 2 10 - 10 0 101 102 Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)

AMPLIFICATION, MONTICELLO, M2P1K1 M 6,5, 1 CORNER PAGE 1 OF 2 Figure 2.3.6-2.Example suite of amplification factors (5% damping pseudo absolute acceleration spectra) developed for the mean base-case profile (P1), Peninsular Range modulus reduction and hysteretic damping curves for soil and linear site response for rock (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 [Ref. 7.3].

15

14C4229-RPT-001 Rev. 3 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant wfl Seismic Hazard and Screening Report C

-'INa C3

• -C3 Q-E C , , , ° p i . . . ,

CC o

SII INPU*T MOTION 0.75G INPUT MOTIONI OSUG C

II II I i t!

4-7 INPUT MOTION 1.00G INPUT MOTION 1.25G 2 I I I - .1. . I I. I 44-C-

S CC INPUT MOTICN 1.50C 10 -3 wOO 10 1 10 2 Frequency (Hz)

AMPLIFICATION, MONTICELLO, M2P1K1 M 6.5, 1 CORNER PAGE 2 OF 2 Figure 2.3.6-2.(cont.)

16

14C4229-RPT-001 Rev. 3 P .41*48Z.1 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Seismic Hazard and Screening Report 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 [Ref. 7.3].

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 MNGP 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.

Total Mean Soil Hazard by Spectral Frequency at Monticello

... rT-~...- - I +-'-

..... * -b - "T 1E-2 ..........- 7- H--

41E S1E-4 0.

I J - Hz

-PGA rC=IE-5 444 1E __ _

1E-7__ _

0.10.1 1 10 Spectral acceleration (g)

Figure 2.3.7-1. Control point mean hazard curves for spectral frequencies of 0.5, 1, 2.5, 5, 10, 25 and 100 Hz at MNGP.

2.4 Control Point Response Spectrum (from [Ref. 7.5])

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-4 and 1E-5 per year hazard levels. Table 2.4-1 shows the UHRS and GMRS accelerations for each of the seven frequencies.

17

SA 14C4229-RPT-001 Rev. 3 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Seismic Hazard and Screening Report Table 2.4-1. UHRS and GMRS for MNGP.

Freq. (Hz) 10-4 UHRS (g) 10-5 UHRS (g) GMRS (g) 100 8.87E-02 3.32E-01 1.53E-01 90 8.92E-02 3.33E-01 1.54E-01 80 9.01 E-02 3.36E-01 1.55E-01 70 9.18E-02 3.44E-01 1.58E-01 60 9.57E-02 3.63E-01 1.67E-01 50 1.05E-01 4.09E-01 1.87E-01 40 1.23E-01 4.81 E-01 2.20E-01 35 1.33E-01 5.19E-01 2.37E-01 30 1.49E-01 5.62E-01 2.59E-01 25 1.67E-01 6.16E-01 2.84E-01 20 1.90E-01 6.92E-01 3.21E-01 15 2.01E-01 7.31E-01 3.39E-01 12.5 1.95E-01 7.04E-01 3.27E-01 10 1.94E-01 6.97E-01 3.24E-01 9 1.83E-01 6.78E-01 3.13E-01 8 1.82E-01 6.48E-01 3.02E-01 7 1.84E-01 6.24E-01 2.94E-01 6 1.63E-01 5.61 E-01 2.63E-01 5 1.39E-01 4.53E-01 2.15E-01 4 1.29E-01 3.81E-01 1.84E-01 3.5 1.17E-01 3.39E-01 1.64E-01 3 1.05E-01 2.93E-01 1.43E-01 2.5 8.90E-02 2.43E-01 1.19E-01 2 6.62E-02 1.87E-01 9.11E-02 1.5 4.66E-02 1.21E-01 6.01E-02 1.25 3.98E-02 9.59E-02 4.83E-02 1 3.32E-02 7.37E-02 3.77E-02 0.9 3.18E-02 7.08E-02 3.62E-02 0.8 3.09E-02 6.89E-02 3.52E-02 0.7 3.03E-02 6.78E-02 3.46E-02 0.6 2.96E-02 6.64E-02 3.39E-02 0.5 2.80E-02 6.31 E-02 3.22E-02 0.4 2.24E-02 5.05E-02 2.57E-02 0.35 1.96E-02 4.42E-02 2.25E-02 0.3 1.68E-02 3.79E-02 1.93E-02 0.25 1.40E-02 3.16E-02 1.61E-02 0.2 1.12E-02 2.53E-02 1.29E-02 0.15 8.39E-03 1.89E-02 9.66E-03 0.125 6.99E-03 1.58E-02 8.05E-03 0.1 5.59E-03 1.26E-02 6.44E-03 18

Sf4 14C4229-RPT-001 Rev. 3 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Seismic Hazard and Screening Report The 1 E-4 and 1 E-5 UHRS are used to compute the GMRS at the control point and are shown in Figure 2.4-1.

Mean Soil UHRS and GMRS at Monticello 0.8 77i I __ 1Ii' ,

0.6 _ S -IE-5UHRS

.2~

-GMRS

~0.4__4 IIE-4 UHRS 0.2 0.1 1 10 100 Spectral frequency, Hz Figure 2.4-1. Plots of 1 E-4 and 1 E-5 uniform hazard spectra and GMRS at control point for MNGP (5%-damped response spectra).

19

SA 14C4229-RPT-001 Rev. 3 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Seismic Hazard and Screening Report 3.0 Safe Shutdown Earthquake Ground Motion The design basis for Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant is identified in the USAR.

3.1 SSE Descriptionof Spectral Shape Refer to USAR Section 1.3.1.6 and 12.2 in addition to Amendment 6 to the MNGP Facility Description and Safety Analysis Report (FDSAR) [Ref. 7.6]. All Class I structures and equipment were analyzed to assure that a safe shutdown can be made with the structure subjected to ground accelerations of 0.06g (operating basis earthquake) and 0.12g (design basis or maximum earthquake).

The design earthquake established for this site is the North 690 West Component of the 1952 Taft earthquake. The Taft earthquake was selected on the concept that it fairly represents site conditions such as geology, seismology, magnitude and epicentral distance of the postulated design earthquake to the MNGP site. For the emergency filtration train (EFT) building, synthetic time-history associated with Regulatory Guide 1.60 normalized to a maximum ground acceleration of 0.06g was used as input to the seismic analysis. This spectra envelopes the ground motion spectra developed from the Taft earthquake.

Refer to USAR Section 12.2. The SSE is defined in terms of a PGA and two design response spectra. For all Class I structures except the EFT building, the North 690 West Component of the 1952 Taft earthquake comprises the SSE spectral shape. For the EFT building, the spectral shape is the Regulatory Guide 1.60 response spectrum. Since the ground motion spectra developed from the Taft earthquake is enveloped by the Regulatory Guide 1.60 spectrum, the spectrum from the Taft earthquake is used for the screening. The 5% damped horizontal SSE is shown in Table 3.1-1.

Table 3.1-1. SSE for Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant 2 [Ref. 7.9]

Freq (Hz) SSE (g) 0.5 0.059 1.0 0.142 1.67 0.217 2.5 0.272 3.3 0.297 5.0 0.300 10 0.229 25 0.127 33 0.126 2 Spectral accelerations converted from spectral velocities as published in Reference 7.9.

20

14C4229-RPT-001 Rev. 3 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Seismic Hazard and Screening Report 3.2 Control Point Elevation The SSE control point elevation is defined at the surface, Elevation 930 ft [Ref. 7.15].

The MNGP USAR does not explicitly define the SSE control point. Therefore, the MNGP SSE control point is defined per Section 2.4.2 of the SPID [Ref. 7.3]. As a soil site with generally uniform, horizontally layered stratigraphy and with soil-founded key structures (refer to Section 2.0 of this report), the control point at MNGP is defined as the highest point in the material where a safety-related structure is founded. The highest soil elevation where a safety-related structure is founded is at Elevation 930 ft.

21

14C4229-RPT-001 Rev. 3 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Seismic Hazard and Screening Report 4.0 Screening Evaluation In accordance with 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, MNGP screens in for the risk evaluation.

Based on the comparison of the SSE and GMRS, a risk evaluation is required for MNGP.

Section 6.2 of the SPID [Ref. 7.3] provides guidance as to whether an NRC SMA, as described in NRC Interim Staff Guidance (ISG 100), or an SPRA is the appropriate approach for the seismic risk evaluation. Even though the GMRS exceeds the SSE by more than a factor of 1.3 between 1 to 10 Hz, MNGP qualifies to utilize the NRC SMA since the GMRS does not exceed the Low Hazard Threshold (LHT) of 0.4g at any frequency. NSPM will perform a risk evaluation in response to March 12, 2012 10 CFR 50.54(f) letter.

4.2 High Frequency Screening (> 10 Hz)

For a portion of the range above 10 Hz, the GMRS exceeds the SSE. The high frequency exceedances will be addressed in the risk evaluation discussed in Section 4.1 above.

4.3 Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation Screening (1 to 10 Hz)

In the 1 to 10 Hz part of the response spectrum, the GMRS exceeds the SSE. Therefore, MNGP screens in for a spent fuel pool evaluation.

22

14C4229-RPT-001 Rev. 3 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Seismic Hazard and Screening Report 5.0 Interim Actions Based on the screening evaluation, the expedited seismic evaluation described in EPRI 3002000704 will be performed as proposed in a letter to NRC dated April 9, 2013 (ML13101A379) and agreed to by NRC in a letter dated May 7, 2013 (ML13106A331).

Consistent with NRC letter dated February 20, 2014, (ML14030A046) the seismic hazard reevaluations presented herein are distinct from the current design and licensing bases of Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. 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, 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 [Ref. 7.16], 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 comparisons documented in the March 12, 2014 letter show that there has not been an overall increase in seismic risk for the fleet of U.S. nuclear plants. In addition, all sixty-one of the CEUS sites have seismic core damage risk estimates below the 10 4/year threshold considered in the NRC 2010 Safety / Risk Assessment. MNGP is included in the March 12, 2014 risk estimates. Thus, it can be concluded that the current seismic design of MNGP continues to provide a safety margin to withstand potential earthquakes exceeding the seismic design basis, as was concluded in the NRC 2010 Safety / Risk Assessment.

23

14C4229-RPT-001 Rev. 3 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant SA Seismic Hazard and Screening Report 6.0 Conclusions In accordance with the 50.54(f) request for information, a seismic hazard and screening evaluation was performed for Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. 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, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant screens in for a risk evaluation, a Spent Fuel Pool evaluation, and a High Frequency Confirmation.

24

14C4229-RPT-001 Rev. 3 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Seismic Hazard and Screening Report 7.0 References 7.1 CEUS-SSC (2012). Centraland Eastern United States Seismic Source Characterization for NuclearFacilities,U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report, NUREG-2115; EPRI Report 1021097, 6 Volumes; DOE Report# DOE/NE-0140.

7.2 EPRI (2013). Seismic Evaluation Guidance, Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic, Elec. Power Res.

Inst. Rept. 3002000704, May.

7.3 EPRI (2013). 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.

7.4 EPRI (2013). EPRI (2004, 2006) Ground-Motion Model (GMM) Review Project, Elec.

Power Res. Inst, Palo Alto, CA, Rept. 3002000717, June, 2 volumes.

7.5 LCI (2014). "Monticello Seismic Hazard and Screening Report," Revision 1. April 2014.

7.6 NSP (1967). "Amendment 6 to the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant," March 1967.

7.7 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.

7.8 USNRC (1991). Procedural and Submittal Guidance for the Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities, NUREG-1407, June.

7.9 USNRC (1994). Revised Livermore Seismic Hazard Estimates for Sixty-Nine Nuclear Power Plant Sites East of the Rocky Mountains, P. Sobel, NUREG-1488, page C-11, April.

7.10 USNRC (2001). Perspectives Gained From the Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) Program, Final Report (ML021270070), NUREG-1742, September.

7.11 USNRC (2007). "A performance-based approach to define the site-specific earthquake ground motion," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Reg. Guide 1.208.

7.12 Xcel (2005). Geotechnical Report for the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, Rept. No. CA-07-033 dated 5/9/2005, Appendix D, Subsurface Profiles.

7.13 Xcel (2012). Excerpts from Monticello Updated Safety Analysis Report, Rev. 22.

7.14 Xcel (2012). Excerpt from Monticello Updated Safety Analysis Report, Rev. 22, Figure 2.5-4, sheet 1, Boring 1.

7.15 Xcel (2014). EC Eval 23472, Rev. 0. "Revised EPRI Monticello Site Description."

7.16 USNRC (2010). Implications of Updated Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Estimates In Central And Eastern United States On Existing Plants Generic Issue 199 (GI-199),

Safety Risk Assessment, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Aug.

7.17 Xcel (2005). Geotechnical Report for the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, Rept. No. CA-07-033 dated 5/9/2005.

25

SAIi 14C4229-RPT-001 Rev. 3 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Seismic Hazard and Screening Report Appendix A (from Ref. [7.5])

Table A-la. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for PGA at MNGP AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 1.65E-02 8.72E-03 1.25E-02 1.64E-02 2.07E-02 2.35E-02 0.001 1.36E-02 5.27E-03 9.51E-03 1.36E-02 1.79E-02 2.10E-02 0.005 4.79E-03 1.20E-03 2.25E-03 4.25E-03 7.45E-03 1.01E-02 0.01 2.31E-03 5.20E-04 9.11E-04 1.84E-03 3.68E-03 5.83E-03 0.015 1.40E-03 2.92E-04 5.12E-04 1.07E-03 2.19E-03 3.79E-03 0.03 5.28E-04 9.37E-05 1.72E-04 3.79E-04 8.23E-04 1.55E-03 0.05 2.44E-04 3.47E-05 6.73E-05 1.67E-04 3.84E-04 7.34E-04 0.075 1.30E-04 1.44E-05 3.01 E-05 8.35E-05 2.1OE-04 4.07E-04 0.1 8.28E-05 7.45E-06 1.67E-05 5.05E-05 1.32E-04 2.68E-04 0.15 4.27E-05 2.68E-06 7.03E-06 2.42E-05 6.83E-05 1.42E-04 0.3 1.23E-05 3.95E-07 1.51E-06 6.54E-06 2.01E-05 4.25E-05 0.5 4.33E-06 7.13E-08 3.90E-07 2.1OE-06 7.34E-06 1.51E-05 0.75 1.70E-06 1.42E-08 1.02E-07 7.03E-07 3.01 E-06 6.36E-06

1. 8.18E-07 3.84E-09 3.14E-08 2.96E-07 1.49E-06 3.23E-06 1.5 2.59E-07 4.63E-10 4.90E-09 7.34E-08 4.63E-07 1.13E-06

3. 2.60E-08 6.09E-11 1.82E-10 4.13E-09 4.01E-08 1.23E-07

5. 3.92E-09 5.05E-11 6.09E-11 3.68E-10 5.05E-09 1.87E-08 7.5 8.03E-10 5.05E-11 6.09E-11 8.12E-11 8.OOE-10 3.73E-09

10. 2.46E-10 5.05E-11 5.05E-11 6.09E-11 2.29E-10 1.1OE-09 Table A-i b. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 25 Hz at MNGP AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 1.75E-02 1.11E-02 1.36E-02 1.74E-02 2.13E-02 2.42E-02 0.001 1.53E-02 7.89E-03 1.16E-02 1.53E-02 1.92E-02 2.22E-02 0.005 6.86E-03 2.22E-03 3.90E-03 6.45E-03 9.93E-03 1.29E-02 0.01 3.78E-03 1.10E-03 1.82E-03 3.23E-03 5.66E-03 8.60E-03 0.015 2.52E-03 6.93E-04 1.11E-03 2.04E-03 3.79E-03 6.26E-03 0.03 1.15E-03 2.76E-04 4.56E-04 8.98E-04 1.72E-03 3.14E-03 0.05 6.03E-04 1.27E-04 2.16E-04 4.56E-04 9.11 E-04 1.64E-03 0.075 3.44E-04 6.09E-05 1.11E-04 2.53E-04 5.35E-04 9.37E-04 0.1 2.25E-04 3.42E-05 6.64E-05 1.62E-04 3.57E-04 6.17E-04 0.15 1.20E-04 1.40E-05 2.96E-05 8.23E-05 1.95E-04 3.42E-04 0.3 3.74E-05 2.42E-06 6.54E-06 2.29E-05 6.45E-05 1.16E-04 0.5 1.49E-05 5.66E-07 1.92E-06 8.12E-06 2.64E-05 4.98E-05 0.75 6.84E-06 1.67E-07 6.83E-07 3.42E-06 1.25E-05 2.39E-05

1. 3.79E-06 6.54E-08 3.33E-07 1.79E-06 7.03E-06 1.38E-05 1.5 1.52E-06 1.72E-08 1.15E-07 6.83E-07 2.84E-06 5.83E-06

3. 2.37E-07 1.46E-09 1.53E-08 9.79E-08 4.25E-07 9.93E-07

5. 4.63E-08 1.92E-10 2.16E-09 1.69E-08 8.47E-08 1.92E-07 7.5 1.21E-08 6.36E-11 3.19E-10 3.73E-09 2.32E-08 5.05E-08

10. 4.96E-09 6.09E-11 9.51E-11 1.13E-09 8.98E-09 2.22E-08 26

SA 14C4229-RPT-001 Rev. 3 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Seismic Hazard and Screening Report Table A-ic. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 10 Hz at MNGP AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 1.84E-02 1.29E-02 1.46E-02 1.82E-02 2.22E-02 2.49E-02 0.001 1.70E-02 1.15E-02 1.32E-02 1.67E-02 2.07E-02 2.35E-02 0.005 9.03E-03 3.95E-03 5.75E-03 8.72E-03 1.23E-02 1.51E-02 0.01 5.24E-03 1.82E-03 2.80E-03 4.83E-03 7.66E-03 1.01E-02 0.015 3.51E-03 1.10E-03 1.72E-03 3.09E-03 5.27E-03 7.34E-03 0.03 1.58E-03 4.25E-04 6.83E-04 1.31 E-03 2.39E-03 3.73E-03 0.05 8.08E-04 1.95E-04 3.19E-04 6.45E-04 1.23E-03 1.98E-03 0.075 4.53E-04 9.65E-05 1.67E-04 3.52E-04 7.03E-04 1.13E-03 0.1 2.93E-04 5.75E-05 1.02E-04 2.25E-04 4.70E-04 7.45E-04 0.15 1.54E-04 2.57E-05 4.83E-05 1.16E-04 2.49E-04 4.01E-04 0.3 4.77E-05 5.42E-06 1.18E-05 3.37E-05 8.12E-05 1.34E-04 0.5 1.90E-05 1.46E-06 3.79E-06 1.29E-05 3.28E-05 5.66E-05 0.75 8.69E-06 4.70E-07 1.44E-06 5.50E-06 1.55E-05 2.72E-05

1. 4.78E-06 1.95E-07 6.83E-07 2.92E-06 8.72E-06 1.55E-05 1.5 1.90E-06 4.70E-08 2.1OE-07 1.04E-06 3.52E-06 6.54E-06

3. 3.OOE-07 2.64E-09 1.72E-08 1.21E-07 5.66E-07 1.20E-06

5. 6.01E-08 2.42E-10 1.79E-09 1.82E-08 1.1OE-07 2.60E-07 7.5 1.44E-08 6.54E-11 2.76E-10 3.28E-09 2.46E-08 6.64E-08

10. 4.85E-09 6.09E-11 9.65E-11 8.98E-10 7.77E-09 2.29E-08 Table A-id. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 5 Hz at MNGP AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 1.84E-02 1.29E-02 1.46E-02 1.82E-02 2.22E-02 2.49E-02 0.001 1.71E-02 1.13E-02 1.32E-02 1.67E-02 2.10E-02 2.39E-02 0.005 9.21E-03 3.73E-03 5.50E-03 8.98E-03 1.29E-02 1.57E-02 0.01 5.26E-03 1.62E-03 2.60E-03 4.83E-03 8.OOE-03 1.02E-02 0.015 3.41E-03 8.98E-04 1.51E-03 3.01E-03 5.35E-03 7.34E-03 0.03 1.37E-03 3.01E-04 5.12E-04 1.10E-03 2.19E-03 3.33E-03 0.05 6.20E-04 1.20E-04 2.13E-04 4.77E-04 9.93E-04 1.57E-03 0.075 3.11E-04 5.50E-05 1.01E-04 2.35E-04 5.05E-04 8.OOE-04 0.1 1.85E-04 3.01 E-05 5.75E-05 1.38E-04 3.05E-04 4.83E-04 0.15 8.64E-05 1.23E-05 2.46E-05 6.45E-05 1.46E-04 2.32E-04 0.3 2.26E-05 2.25E-06 5.27E-06 1.62E-05 3.95E-05 6.45E-05 0.5 8.24E-06 5.75E-07 1.60E-06 5.66E-06 1.46E-05 2.46E-05 0.75 3.61E-06 1.74E-07 5.91E-07 2.39E-06 6.54E-06 1.11E-05

1. 1.96E-06 7.03E-08 2.84E-07 1.25E-06 3.57E-06 6.17E-06 1.5 7.91E-07 1.72E-08 9.24E-08 4.63E-07 1.49E-06 2.64E-06

3. 1.43E-07 1.23E-09 9.11E-09 6.09E-08 2.68E-07 5.58E-07

5. 3.44E-08 1.60E-10 1.07E-09 1.02E-08 6.26E-08 1.49E-07 7.5 9.82E-09 6.09E-11 1.79E-10 2.16E-09 1.64E-08 4.56E-08

10. 3.73E-09 5.83E-11 7.34E-11 6.54E-10 5.83E-09 1.77E-08 27

SAIi 14C4229-RPT-001 Rev. 3 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Seismic Hazard and Screening Report Table A-le. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 2.5 Hz at MNGP AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 1.61E-02 8.35E-03 1.13E-02 1.60E-02 2.10E-02 2.39E-02 0.001 1.39E-02 5.66E-03 8.23E-03 1.40E-02 1.92E-02 2.22E-02 0.005 6.44E-03 1.25E-03 2.19E-03 5.91E-03 1.05E-02 1.36E-02 0.01 3.59E-03 4.83E-04 8.98E-04 2.96E-03 6.36E-03 8.85E-03 0.015 2.31E-03 2.53E-04 4.83E-04 1.72E-03 4.31E-03 6.36E-03 0.03 8.68E-04 7.23E-05 1.42E-04 5.20E-04 1.64E-03 2.88E-03 0.05 3.43E-04 2.53E-05 5.05E-05 1.82E-04 6.26E-04 1.18E-03 0.075 1.47E-04 1.02E-05 2.07E-05 7.34E-05 2.64E-04 4.90E-04 0.1 7.70E-05 5.12E-06 1.07E-05 3.79E-05 1.38E-04 2.60E-04 0.15 3.03E-05 1.84E-06 4.01E-06 1.49E-05 5.42E-05 1.07E-04 0.3 6.13E-06 2.80E-07 6.93E-07 2.88E-06 1.11E-05 2.29E-05 0.5 1.87E-06 6.17E-08 1.79E-07 8.35E-07 3.37E-06 7.13E-06 0.75 6.99E-07 1.69E-08 5.75E-08 3.01E-07 1.25E-06 2.72E-06

1. 3.37E-07 6.17E-09 2.49E-08 1.40E-07 6.OOE-07 1.31E-06 1.5 1.13E-07 1.36E-09 7.03E-09 4.43E-08 1.98E-07 4.56E-07

3. 1.49E-08 1.20E-10 6.17E-10 4.63E-09 2.46E-08 6.36E-08

5. 2.95E-09 6.09E-11 1.08E-10 7.13E-10 4.43E-09 1.31E-08 7.5 7.53E-10 5.05E-11 6.09E-11 1.64E-10 1.02E-09 3.42E-09

10. 2.75E-10 5.05E-11 6.09E-11 7.89E-11 3.57E-10 1.25E-09 Table A-if. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 1 Hz at MNGP AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 1.09E-02 4.98E-03 7.03E-03 1.07E-02 1.46E-02 1.74E-02 0.001 7.32E-03 2.76E-03 4.31 E-03 7.03E-03 1.04E-02 1.27E-02 0.005 2.25E-03 3.14E-04 6.83E-04 1.90E-03 3.90E-03 5.50E-03 0.01 1.06E-03 7.55E-05 1.90E-04 6.93E-04 2.01 E-03 3.28E-03 0.015 5.72E-04 2.84E-05 7.66E-05 3.01E-04 1.08E-03 2.04E-03 0.03 1.32E-04 4.37E-06 1.25E-05 5.20E-05 2.22E-04 5.42E-04 0.05 3.28E-05 9.51E-07 2.76E-06 1.20E-05 4.90E-05 1.36E-04 0.075 9.48E-06 2.60E-07 7.77E-07 3.52E-06 1.38E-05 3.79E-05 0.1 3.86E-06 9.93E-08 3.19E-07 1.49E-06 5.91E-06 1.55E-05 0.15 1.16E-06 2.39E-08 8.72E-08 4.43E-07 1.87E-06 4.83E-06 0.3 2.06E-07 1.67E-09 8.47E-09 6.36E-08 3.33E-07 8.72E-07 0.5 6.86E-08 2.25E-10 1.38E-09 1.55E-08 1.04E-07 3.05E-07 0.75 2.89E-08 7.34E-11 3.23E-10 4.83E-09 4.07E-08 1.32E-07

1. 1.53E-08 6.09E-11 1.32E-10 2.04E-09 2.01E-08 7.13E-08 1.5 5.92E-09 6.09E-11 6.26E-11 5.75E-10 6.93E-09 2.72E-08

3. 9.52E-10 5.05E-11 6.09E-11 8.72E-11 8.72E-10 4.19E-09

5. 2.02E-10 5.05E-11 5.05E-11 6.09E-11 1.77E-10 8.35E-10 7.5 5.18E-11 5.05E-11 5.05E-11 6.09E-11 7.13E-11 2.25E-10

10. 1.83E-11 5.05E-11 5.05E-11 6.09E-11 6.09E-11 1.02E-10 28

SA 14C4229-RPT-001 Rev. 3 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Seismic Hazard and Screening Report Table A-1 . Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 0.5 Hz at MNGP AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 0.0005 6.17E-03 2.57E-03 3.79E-03 5.91E-03 8.60E-03 1.05E-02 0.001 4.09E-03 1.25E-03 2.07E-03 3.84E-03 6.09E-03 7.89E-03 0.005 1.48E-03 8.60E-05 2.35E-04 1.08E-03 2.80E-03 4.19E-03 0.01 7.02E-04 1.57E-05 5.42E-05 3.47E-04 1.40E-03 2.53E-03 0.015 3.74E-04 5.05E-06 1.98E-05 1.38E-04 7.55E-04 1.53E-03 0.03 8.62E-05 6.17E-07 2.68E-06 1.98E-05 1.40E-04 3.84E-04 0.05 2.11E-05 1.18E-07 5.12E-07 3.95E-06 2.88E-05 9.65E-05 0.075 5.76E-06 2.92E-08 1.25E-07 1.02E-06 6.93E-06 2.60E-05 0.1 2.13E-06 1.01E-08 4.37E-08 3.84E-07 2.46E-06 9.79E-06 0.15 5.01E-07 1.95E-09 9.93E-09 9.11E-08 6.OOE-07 2.42E-06 0.3 5.29E-08 1.16E-10 7.23E-10 7.45E-09 6.83E-08 2.53E-07 0.5 1.40E-08 6.09E-11 1.11E-10 1.29E-09 1.36E-08 6.36E-08 0.75 5.29E-09 6.09E-11 6.09E-11 3.19E-10 4.01E-09 2.29E-08

1. 2.63E-09 5.05E-11 6.09E-11 1.32E-10 1.64E-09 1.08E-08 1.5 9.38E-10 5.05E-11 6.09E-11 6.17E-11 4.50E-10 3.47E-09

3. 1.34E-10 5.05E-11 5.05E-11 6.09E-11 7.45E-11 4.19E-10

5. 2.65E-11 5.05E-11 5.05E-11 6.09E-11 6.09E-11 9.93E-11 7.5 6.39E-12 5.05E-11 5.05E-11 6.09E-11 6.09E-11 6.09E-11

10. 2.16E-12 5.05E-11 5.05E-11 6.09E-11 6.09E-11 6.09E-11 29

SA7&Ml 14C4229-RPT-001 Rev. 3 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Seismic Hazard and Screening Report Table A-2. Amplification Functions for MNGP Median Sigma Median Sigma Median Sigma Median Sigma PGA AF In(AF) 25 Hz AF In(AF) 10 Hz AF In(AF) 5 Hz AF In(AF) 1.OOE-02 2,60E+00 1.04E-01 1.30E-02 2.58E+00 1.13E-01 1.90E-02 2.75E+00 2.28E-01 2.09E-02 2.70E+00 2.12E-01 4.95E-02 2,49E+00 1.21E-01 1.02E-01 2.23E+00 1.81E-01 9.99E-02 2.69E+00 2.62E-01 8.24E-02 2.65E+00 2.34E-01 9.64E-02 2,30E+00 1.29E-01 2.13E-01 2.01E+00 2.02E-01 1.85E-01 2.61E+00 2.73E-01 1.44E-01 2.60E+00 2.52E-01 1.94E-01 2,04E+00 1.37E-01 4.43E-01 1.73E+00 2.31E-01 3.56E-01 2.40E+00 2.71E-01 2.65E-01 2.53E+00 2.80E-01 2.92E-01 1,87E+00 1.45E-01 6.76E-01 1.54E+00 2.54E-01 5.23E-01 2.23E+00 2.71 E-01 3.84E-01 2.48E+00 3.02E-01 3.91E-01 1,74E+00 1.51E-01 9.09E-01 1.39E+00 2.75E-01 6.90E-01 2.09E+00 2.71E-01 5.02E-01 2.44E+00 3.15E-01 4.93E-01 1,63E+00 1.59E-01 1.15E+00 1.27E+00 2.95E-01 8.61E-01 1.98E+00 2.77E-01 6.22E-01 2.40E+00 3.22E-01 7.41E-01 1,43E+00 1.78E-01 1.73E+00 1.05E+00 3.40E-01 1.27E+00 1.74E+00 2.97E-01 9.13E-01 2.29E+00 3.25E-01 1.01E+00 1,28E+00 2.02E-01 2.36E+00 8.90E-01 3.81E-01 1.72E+00 1.56E+00 3.26E-01 1.22E+00 2.15E+00 3.19E-01 1.28E+00 1,16E+00 2.29E-01 3.01E+00 7.72E-01 4.11E-01 2.17E+00 1.40E+00 3.55E-01 1.54E+00 2.OOE+00 3.24E-01 1.55E+00 1,06E+00 2.55E-01 3.63E+00 6.89E-01 4.36E-01 2.61E+00 1.27E+00 3.76E-01 1.85E+00 1.89E+00 3.42E-01 Median Sigma Median Sigma Median Sigma 2.5 Hz AF In(AF) 1 Hz AF In(AF) 0.5 Hz AF In(AF) 2.18E-02 2,08E+00 2.97E-01 1.27E-02 1.22E+00 1.51E-01 8.25E-03 1.23E+00 2.17E-01 7.05E-02 2,13E+00 2.53E-01 3.43E-02 1.27E+00 1.56E-01 1.96E-02 1.26E+00 2.13E-01 1.18E-01 2,11E+00 2.48E-01 5.51E-02 1.29E+00 1.63E-01 3.02E-02 1.27E+00 2.13E-01 2.12E-01 2 04E+00 2.57E-01 9.63E-02 1.32E+00 1.79E-01 5.11E-02 1.28E+00 2.15E-01 3.04E-01 1,99E+00 2.73E-01 1.36E-01 1.35E+00 2.OOE-01 7.1OE-02 1.29E+00 2.17E-01 3.94E-01 1,94E+00 2.86E-01 1.75E-01 1.39E+00 2.18E-01 9.06E-02 1.30E+00 2.20E-01 4.86E-01 1,90E+00 2.94E-01 2.14E-01 1.43E+00 2.32E-01 1.10E-01 1.31E+00 2.21E-01 7.09E-01 1.83E+00 3.12E-01 3.10E-01 1.49E+00 2.48E-01 1.58E-01 1.32E+00 2.31E-01 9.47E-01 1,75E+00 3.68E-01 4.12E-01 1.50E+00 2.93E-01 2.09E-01 1.33E+00 2.37E-01 1.19E+00 1.68E+00 4.23E-01 5.18E-01 1.49E+00 3.46E-01 2.62E-01 1.34E+00 2.71E-01 1.43E+00 1,62E+00 4.78E-01 6.19E-01 1.49E+00 3.66E-01 3.12E-o1 1.35E+00 2.69E-01 30

14C4229-RPT-001 Rev. 3 P411-til Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Seismic Hazard and Screening Report Table A2-bl. Median AFs and sigmas for Model 1, Profile 1, for two PGA levels.

M1P1K1 PGA=0.0495 (g) M1P1K1 PGA=0.194 (g)

Freq. Soil SA Median Freq. Soil SA Median (Hz) (g) AF sigma In(AF) (Hz) (g) AF sigma ln(AF) 100.0 0.126 2.551 0.104 100.0 0.384 1.977 0.137 87.1 0.127 2.536 0.105 87.1 0.387 1.944 0.139 75.9 0.129 2.507 0.105 75.9 0.392 1.884 0.141 66.1 0.132 2.450 0.107 66.1 0.402 1.771 0.146 57.5 0.138 2.336 0.108 57.5 0.421 1.586 0.154 50.1 0.147 2.201 0.115 50.1 0.453 1.420 0.165 43.7 0.161 2.094 0.136 43.7 0.496 1.317 0.186 38.0 0.177 2.051 0.140 38.0 0.546 1.316 0.212 33.1 0.192 2.035 0.118 33.1 0.594 1.353 0.195 28.8 0.211 2.162 0.146 28.8 0.652 1.484 0.180 25.1 0.229 2.252 0.157 25.1 0.693 1.563 0.206 21.9 0.240 2.383 0.197 21.9 0.741 1.754 0.215 19.1 0.262 2.550 0.207 19.1 0.771 1.849 0.252 16.6 0.286 2.795 0.229 16.6 0.835 2.082 0.234 14.5 0.292 2.901 0.266 14.5 0.883 2.304 0.244 12.6 0.310 3.076 0.279 12.6 0.896 2.403 0.272 11.0 0.320 3.182 0.274 11.0 0.934 2.567 0.267 9.5 0.278 2.826 0.246 9.5 0.946 2.720 0.266 8.3 0.231 2.482 0.216 8.3 0.821 2.557 0.243 7.2 0.211 2.367 0.199 7.2 0.694 2.307 0.226 6.3 0.217 2.549 0.239 6.3 0.641 2.267 0.244 5.5 0.246 2.967 0.256 5.5 0.665 2.463 0.293 4.8 0.286 3.469 0.223 4.8 0.732 2.771 0.286 4.2 0.304 3.745 0.201 4.2 0.798 3.113 0.235 3.6 0.268 3.349 0.258 3.6 0.793 3.178 0.192 3.2 0.201 2.631 0.338 3.2 0.674 2.869 0.275 2.8 0.149 2.034 0.283 2.8 0.526 2.356 0.312 2.4 0.114 1.662 0.223 2.4 0.391 1.901 0.276 2.1 0.093 1.474 0.191 2.1 0.307 1.638 0.235 1.8 0.079 1.384 0.183 1.8 0.251 1.499 0.212 1.6 0.067 1.337 0.170 1.6 0.207 1.423 0.189 1.4 0.056 1.300 0.155 1.4 0.171 1.365 0.164 1.2 0.049 1.268 0.162 1.2 0.145 1.319 0.168 1.0 0.043 1.232 0.157 1.0 0.126 1.273 0.163 0.91 0.039 1.201 0.120 0.91 0.112 1.235 0.125 0.79 0.036 1.192 0.118 0.79 0.100 1.221 0.120 0.69 0.032 1.202 0.143 0.69 0.090 1.229 0.142 0.60 0.029 1.220 0.168 0.60 0.079 1.246 0.166 0.52 0.026 1.237 0.188 0.52 0.068 1.261 0.187 0.46 0.022 1.244 0.203 0.46 0.057 1.268 0.201 0.10 0.001 1.115 0.057 0.10 0.002 1.129 0.059 31

SA 14C4229-RPT-001 Rev. 3 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant I Seismic Hazard and Screening Report Table A2-b2. Median AFs and sigmas for Model 2, Profile 1, for two PGA levels.

M2P1 K1 PGA=0.0495 (g) M2P1 K1 PGA=O.1 94 ()

Freq. Soil SA Median Freq. Soil SA Median (Hz) (g) AF sigma In(AF) (Hz) (9) AF sigma ln(AF) 100.0 0.134 2.708 0.104 100.0 0.456 2.350 0.147 87.1 0.135 2.694 0.104 87.1 0.461 2.318 0.149 75.9 0.137 2.669 0.106 75.9 0.471 2.261 0.152 66.1 0.141 2.617 0.107 66.1 0.489 2.153 0.160 57.5 0.148 2.513 0.109 57.5 0.522 1.968 0.168 50.1 0.160 2.394 0.119 50.1 0.579 1.814 0.184 43.7 0.178 2.316 0.142 43.7 0.653 1.732 0.212 38.0 0.197 2.282 0.146 38.0 0.738 1.779 0.229 33.1 0.212 2.250 0.134 33.1 0.791 1.801 0.205 28.8 0.233 2.392 0.158 28.8 0.857 1.950 0.227 25.1 0.252 2.480 0.164 25.1 0.905 2.042 0.230 21.9 0.262 2.601 0.211 21.9 0.934 2.212 0.249 19.1 0.288 2.800 0.210 19.1 0.974 2.336 0.252 16.6 0.309 3.020 0.244 16.6 1.071 2.671 0.261 14.5 0.316 3.138 0.283 14.5 1.069 2.789 0.261 12.6 0.336 3.341 0.301 12.6 1.113 2.985 0.305 11.0 0.333 3.311 0.271 11.0 1.135 3.119 0.292 9.5 0.279 2.833 0.247 9.5 1.008 2.900 0.278 8.3 0.231 2.483 0.210 8.3 0.816 2.544 0.246 7.2 0.215 2.412 0.201 7.2 0.708 2.354 0.221 6.3 0.226 2.658 0.249 6.3 0.702 2.483 0.277 5.5 0.261 3.149 0.264 5.5 0.773 2.864 0.325 4.8 0.304 3.685 0.220 4.8 0.874 3.307 0.304 4.2 0.314 3.869 0.202 4.2 0.906 3.535 0.221 3.6 0.268 3.342 0.282 3.6 0.812 3.253 0.211 3.2 0.195 2.550 0.333 3.2 0.640 2.722 0.329 2.8 0.144 1.966 0.262 2.8 0.481 2.154 0.313 2.4 0.111 1.621 0.200 2.4 0.360 1.751 0.241 2.1 0.091 1.447 0.177 2.1 0.287 1.535 0.203 1.8 0.078 1.366 0.174 1.8 0.240 1.431 0.190 1.6 0.066 1.324 0.164 1.6 0.200 1.375 0.171 1.4 0.056 1.291 0.151 1.4 0.166 1.332 0.152 1.2 0.049 1.262 0.157 1.2 0.143 1.297 0.157 1.0 0.043 1.228 0.152 1.0 0.125 1.258 0.150 0.91 0.039 1.198 0.118 0.91 0.111 1.225 0.118 0.79 0.035 1.190 0.119 0.79 0.100 1.216 0.120 0.69 0.032 1.202 0.145 0.69 0.089 1.227 0.145 0.60 0.029 1.220 0.169 0.60 0.079 1.246 0.168 0.52 0.026 1.237 0.189 0.52 0.068 1.262 0.187 0.46 0.022 1.245 0.203 0.46 0.057 1.270 0.200 0.10 0.001 1.115 0.055 0.10 0.002 1.132 0.055 32

"4&- 14C4229-RPT-001 Rev. 3 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Seismic Hazard and Screening Report MIPIK1 Rock PGA=0.0495 for Monticello 1E+1 C

.U 1E+0---------------

1E-1 1E-1 1E+O Frequecy1EHz 1E+2 Frequency (HZ)

Figure A2-bl. Amplification factors (median and median + sigma) plotted from Table A2-bl for PGA 0.0495 g.

MIPIK1 PGA=0.194 for Monticello 1E+1 1E-1 1E-1 IE+O Frequecy1EHz 1E+2 E2E+

Frequency (HZ)

Figure A2-b2. Amplification factors (median and median + sigma) plotted from Table A2-bl for PGA 0.194 g.

33

14C4229-RPT-001 Rev. 3 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Sh Seismic Hazard and Screening Report M2P1K1 PGA=0.0495 for Monticello 1E+1 4.-' - -. -- - - - - - -

1E+O 1E-1 1E-1 1E+O 1E+1 1E+2 Frequency (Hz)

Figure A2-b3. Amplification factors (median and median + sigma) plotted from Table A2-b2 for PGA 0.0495 g.

M2PIK1 PGA=0.194 for Monticello 1E+1 L*1E+----------------- ---

1E-1 1E-1 1E+O 1E+1 IE+2 Frequency (Hz)

Figure A2-b4. Amplification factors (median and median + sigma) plotted from Table A2-b2 for PGA 0.194 g.

34