Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

JZ’iri #,i,’rra, Palisades Nuclear Plant

I_il 1L7Y 27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway

Covert, Ml 49043-9530

Tel 269 764 2000

Anthony J. Vitale

Site Vice President

PNP 2014-033

March 31, 2014

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

ATTN: Document Control Desk

11555 Rockville Pike

Rockville, MD 20852

SUBJECT: Palisades Nuclear Plant Seismic Hazard and Screening Report (CEUS

Sites), Response to NRC Request for Information Pursuant to

10 CFR 50.54(f) Regarding the Seismic Aspects of Recommendation 2.1 of

the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi

Accident

Palisades Nuclear Plant

Docket No. 50-255

License No. DPR-20

REFERENCES: 1. 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, dated March 12, 2012 (ADAMS Accession Number

ML1 2056A046)

2. NEI letter, Proposed Path Forward for NTTF Recommendation 2.1:

Seismic Reevaluations, dated April 9, 2013 (ADAMS Accession Number

ML13101A379)

3. NRC letter, 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, dated May 7, 2013

(ADAMS Accession Number ML1 31 06A331)

4. EPRI Report 1025287, Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Screening,

Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of

Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic, dated

February 2013 (ADAMS Accession Number ML12333A170)

5. NRC letter, Endorsement of EPRI Final Draft Report 1025287, “Seismic

Evaluation Guidance,” dated February 15, 2013 (ADAMS Accession

Number ML1 231 9A074)

6. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. letter, PNP 2013-069, Palisades

Nuclear Plant Response to NRC Request for Information Pursuant to

10 CFR 50.54(f) Regarding the Seismic Aspects of Recommendation 2.1

of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima

• Entergy 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 

Palisades Nuclear Plant 

27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway 

Covert, MI 49043-9530 

PNP 2014-033 

March 31, 2014 

Tel 269 764 2000 

Anthony J. Vitale 

Site Vice President 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

ATTN: Document Control Desk 

11555 Rockville Pike 

Rockville, MD 20852 

SUBJECT: Palisades Nuclear Plant Seismic Hazard and Screening Report (CEUS 

Sites), Response to NRC Request for Information Pursuant to 

10 CFR 50.54(f) Regarding the Seismic Aspects of Recommendation 2.1 of 

the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi 

Accident 

Palisades Nuclear Plant 

Docket No. 50-255 

License No. DPR-20 

REFERENCES: 1. 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, dated March 12, 2012 (ADAMS Accession Number 

ML 12056A046) 

2. NEI letter, Proposed Path Forward for NTTF Recommendation 2. 1: 

Seismic Reevaluations, dated April 9, 2013 (ADAMS Accession Number 

ML 13101A379) 

3. NRC letter, 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, dated May 7,2013 

(ADAMS Accession Number ML 13106A331) 

4. EPRI Report 1025287, Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Screening, 

Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of 

Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic, dated 

February 2013 (ADAMS Accession Number ML 12333A170) 

5. NRC letter, Endorsement of EPRI Final Draft Report 1025287, "Seismic 

Evaluation Guidance," dated February 15, 2013 (ADAMS Accession 

Number ML 12319A074) 

6. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. letter, PNP 2013-069, Palisades 

Nuclear Plant Response to NRC Request for Information Pursuant to 

10 CFR 50.54(f) Regarding the Seismic Aspects of Recommendation 2. 1 

of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima 
PLP 2014-033

Page 2 of 2

Dai-ichi Accident — 1.5 Year Response for CEUS Sites, dated September

11, 2013 (ADAMS Accession Number ML1 3255A052)

Dear Sir or Madam:

On March 12, 2012, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued Reference 1 to all

power reactor licensees and holders of construction permits in active or deferred status.

Enclosure 1 of Reference 1 requested each addressee located in the Central and Eastern

United States (CEUS) to submit a seismic hazard evaluation within 1.5 years from the date of

Reference 1.

In Reference 2, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) requested NRC agreement to delay

submittal of the final CEUS seismic hazard evaluation so that an update to the Electric Power

Research Institute (EPRI) ground motion attenuation model could be completed and used to

develop that information. NE) proposed that descriptions of subsurface materials and

properties and base case velocity profiles be submitted to the NRC by September 12, 2013,

with the remaining seismic hazard information submitted by March 31, 2014. NRC agreed with

that proposed path forward in Reference 3.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. submitted the descriptions of subsurface materials and

properties, and base case velocity profiles, for Palisades Nuclear Plant in Reference 6.

Reference 4 contains industry guidance and detailed information to be included in the seismic

hazard evaluation submittal. NRC endorsed this industry guidance in Reference 5.

The attached Seismic Hazard and Screening Report for Palisades Nuclear Plant provides the

information described in Section 4 of Reference 4 in accordance with the schedule identified in

Reference 2.

This letter contains no new commitments and no revised commitments.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct; executed on

March 31, 2014.

Sincerely,

ajv7

4

Attachment: Seismic Hazard and Screening Report for Palisades Nuclear Plant

cc: Office Director, NRR, USNRC

Administrator, Region Ill, USNRC

Project Manager, Palisades, USNRC

Resident Inspector, Palisades, USNRC

PLP 2014-033 

Page 2 of 2 

, 

Dai-ichi Accident - 1.5 Year Response for CEUS Sites, dated September 

11, 2013 (ADAMS Accession Number ML 13255A052) 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

On March 12, 2012, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued Reference 1 to all 

power reactor licensees and holders of construction permits in active or deferred status. 

Enclosure 1 of Reference 1 requested each addressee located in the Central and Eastern 

United States (CEUS) to submit a seismic hazard evaluation within 1.5 years from the date of 

Reference 1. 

In Reference 2, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) requested NRC agreement to delay 

submittal of the final CEUS seismic hazard evaluation so that an update to the Electric Power 

Research Institute (EPRI) ground motion attenuation model could be completed and used to 

develop that information. NEI proposed that descriptions of subsurface materials and 

properties and base case velocity profiles be submitted to the NRC by September 12, 2013, 

with the remaining seismic hazard information submitted by March 31, 2014. NRC agreed with 

that proposed path forward in Reference 3. 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. submitted the descriptions of subsurface materials and 

properties, and base case velocity profiles, for Palisades Nuclear Plant in Reference 6. 

Reference 4 contains industry guidance and detailed information to be included in the seismic 

hazard evaluation submittal. NRC endorsed this industry guidance in Reference 5. 

The attached Seismic Hazard and Screening Report for Palisades Nuclear Plant provides the 

information described in Section 4 of Reference 4 in accordance with the schedule identified in 

Reference 2. 

This letter contains no new commitments and no revised commitments. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct; executed on 

March 31,2014. 

Sincerely, 

ajv/jse 

Attachment: Seismic Hazard and Screening Report for Palisades Nuclear Plant 

cc: Office Director, NRR, USNRC 

Administrator, Region "I, USNRC 

Project Manager, Palisades, USNRC 

Resident Inspector, Palisades, USNRC 
ATTACHMENT

Seismic Hazard and Screening Report for

Palisades Nuclear Plant

40 pages follow

ATTACHMENT 

Seismic Hazard and Screening Report for 

Palisades Nuclear Plant 

40 pages follow 
(I) CD

Cl)3C)

-X

Cfl 0(DO)

z. cj) 00—

CD(DCD

Seismic Hazard and Screening Report CD

0

for 

Palisades Nuclear Plant 

1 
Table of Contents

Page

1 .0 Introduction .3

2.0 Seismic Hazard Reevaluation 4

2.1 Regional and Local Geology 5

2.2 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis 5

2.2.1 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis Results 5

2.2.2 Base Rock Seismic Hazard Curves 6

2.3 Site Response Evaluation 6

2.3.1 Description of Subsurface Material 7

2.3.2 Development of Base Case Profiles and Nonlinear Material Properties 8

2.3.2.1 Shear Modulus and Damping Curves 14

2.3.2.2 Kappa 14

2.3.3 Randomization of Base Case Profiles 15

2.3.4 Input Spectra 16

2.3.5 Methodology 16

2.3.6 Amplification Functions 16

2.3.7 Control Point Seismic Hazard Curves 21

2.4 Control Point Response Spectrum 21

3.0 Plant Design Basis and Beyond Design Basis Evaluation Ground Motion 24

3.1 Safe Shutdown Earthquake Description of Spectral Shape 24

3.2 Control Point Elevation 25

3.3 IPEEE Description and Capacity Response Spectrum 25

4.0 Screening Evaluation 25

4.1 Risk Evaluation Screening (ito 10 Hz) 25

4.2 High Frequency Screening (> 10 Hz) 25

4.3 Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation Screening (ito 10 Hz) 26

5.0 Interim Actions 26

6.0 Conclusions 27

7.0 References 27

Appendix A 29

2

Table of Contents 

Page 

1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 3 

2.0 Seismic Hazard Reevaluation ............................................................................................... 4 

2.1 Regional and Local Geology .................................................................................. ........ 5 

2.2 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis ................................ ............................................ 5 

2.2.1 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis Results .......................... ............................ 5 

2.2.2 Base Rock Seismic Hazard Curves .................................... ................................... 6 

2.3 Site Response Evaluation .............................................................................................. 6 

2.3.1 Description of Subsurface Material ........................................................................ 7 

2.3.2 Development of Base Case Profiles and Nonlinear Material Properties .. ............... 8 

2.3.2.1 Shear Modulus and Damping Curves ...................................................... 14 

2.3.2.2 Kappa ...................................................................................................... 14 

2.3.3 Randomization of Base Case Profiles .................................................................. 15 

2.3.4 Input Spectra ............................... ........................................................................ 16 

2.3.5 Methodology ........................................................................................................ 16 

2.3.6 Amplification Functions ........ ................................................................................ 16 

2.3.7 Control Point Seismic Hazard Curves .................................................................. 21 

2.4 Control Point Response Spectrum .............................. .. ....... .................................. ... ... 21 

3.0 Plant Design Basis and Beyond Design Basis Evaluation Ground Motion ...... ..................... 24 

3.1 Safe Shutdown Earthquake Description of Spectral Shape .......................................... 24 

3.2 Control Point Elevation .................... ... .......................................................................... 25 

3.3 IPEEE Description and Capacity Response Spectrum ................................................. 25 

4.0 Screening Evaluation .......................................................................................................... 25 

4.1 Risk Evaluation Screening (1 to 10 Hz) ........................ ................................................ 25 

4.2 High Frequency Screening (> 10 Hz) .......... .. ....................................... ..................... ... 25 

4.3 Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation Screening (1 to 10 Hz) ......... .. ..... ...................................... 26 

5.0 Interim Actions .................................................................................................................... 26 

6.0 Conclusions ................................................ ........................................................................ 27 

7.0 References .......................................................................................... ................................ 27 

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

2 
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 Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (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) letter (U.S. NRC, 2012)

that requests information to assure that these recommendations are addressed by all U.S.

nuclear power plants. In Enclosure 1 of the 50.54(f) letter (U.S. NRC, 2012), the NRC 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 the risk assessment results, 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 (U.S. NRC, 2012) pertaining to

NTTF Recommendation 2.1 for the Palisades Nuclear Plant (PNP), located in Van Buren

County, Michigan. In providing this information, Entergy 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,

201 3a). The Augmented Approach, Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Augmented Approach for the

Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic (EPRI, 2013c),

has been developed as the process for evaluating critical plant equipment as an interim action

to demonstrate additional plant safety margin prior to performing the complete plant seismic risk

evaluations.

The original geologic and seismic siting investigations for the Palisades Nuclear Plant were

performed in accordance with accepted industry practices that existed at the time when the

Construction Permit was issued in 1967. These methods pre-date the issuance of 10 CFR Part

100, Appendix A. The Maximum Hypothetical Earthquake (Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE))

Ground Response Spectra were developed and used for the design of Safety Related

Structures, Systems, and Components (i.e., Seismic Category 1). Appendix Ito the original

Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) contained a comparison to 70 General Design Criteria

(GDC) for Nuclear Power Plant Construction Permits issued by the Atomic Energy Commission

(AEC) on July 10, 1967. These criteria had been released after the initiation of the plant’s

design. In the Request for a Full Term Operating License, submitted to the NRC on January 22,

1974, Consumers Power Company (the Licensee at the time) provided an update to compare

the PNP design with the GDC’s as they appeared in 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix A on July 7,

3

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 Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (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) letter (U.S. NRC, 2012) 

that requests information to assure that these recommendations are addressed by all U.S. 

nuclear power plants. In Enclosure 1 of the 50.54(f) letter (U.S. NRC, 2012), the NRC 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 the risk assessment results, 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 (U.S. NRC, 2012) pertaining to 

NTTF Recommendation 2.1 for the Palisades Nuclear Plant (PNP), located in Van Buren 

County, Michigan. In providing this information, Entergy followed the guidance provided in the 

Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Screening, Prioritization, and Implementation Details (SPID) for 

the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Tenn Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic (EPRI, 

2013a). The Augmented Approach, Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Augmented Approach for the 

Resolution of Fukushima Near-Tenn Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic (EPRI, 2013c), 

has been developed as the process for evaluating critical plant equipment as an interim action 

to demonstrate additional plant safety margin prior to performing the complete plant seismic risk 

evaluations. 

The original geologic and seismic siting investigations for the Palisades Nuclear Plant were 

performed in accordance with accepted industry practices that existed at the time when the 

Construction Permit was issued in 1967. These methods pre-date the issuance of 10 CFR Part 

100, Appendix A. The Maximum Hypothetical Earthquake (Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE» 

Ground Response Spectra were developed and used for the design of Safety Related 

Structures, Systems, and Components (Le., Seismic Category 1). Appendix I to the original 

Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) contained a comparison to 70 General Design Criteria 

(GDC) for Nuclear Power Plant Construction Permits issued by the Atomic Energy Commission 

(AEC) on July 10, 1967. These criteria had been released after the initiation of the plant's 

design. In the Request for a Full Term Operating License, submitted to the NRC on January 22, 

1974, Consumers Power Company (the Licensee at the time) provided an update to compare 

the PNP design with the GDC's as they appeared in 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix A on July 7, 

3 
1971. It was this updated discussion, including the identified exceptions, which formed the

original plant Licensing Basis for future compliance with the GDC’s.

In response to the 50.54(f) letter (U.S. NRC, 2012) and following the guidance provided in the

SPID (EPRI, 2013a), 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, Palisades Nuclear Plant screens-in for a risk evaluation, a Spent Fuel

Pool evaluation, and a High Frequency Confirmation.

2.0 Seismic Hazard Reevaluation

The Palisades Nuclear Plant is located approximately four-and-one-half miles south of the

southern city limits of South Haven, Michigan, on the Eastern shore of Lake Michigan, and is in

the Eastern Lake Section of the Central Lowland Physiographic Province. The land surface is

mantled by glacial drift that ranges from a few feet to several hundred feet in thickness. In the

immediate vicinity of the Plant, sand dunes are the prevailing surface feature. Underlying the

dunes are glacial deposits of various types. Coldwater shale of Mississippian age lies beneath

the dunes and glacial deposits at the site. This bedrock consists of compact blue, gray or

occasionally red clay shale. A geophysical study near the site indicated the top of the bedrock

to be about 150 feet below the beach fronting Lake Michigan at an approximate elevation of 430

feet to 470 feet Mean Sea Level. (Entergy, 2012a)

The Palisades Nuclear Plant is located in Zone VIII on the seismic regionalization map of the

United States (Richter, 1959). The maximum probable seismic intensity was consequently rated

at VIII on the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale of 1931 (MMI). However, a detailed evaluation of

historic epicenters, the regional geology and a study of actual foundation conditions at the site

indicated that a Zone VIII assignment was too conservative for PNP. Only one epicenter had

been reported within 50 miles of the site since 1804. Correlations made in the course of the

original site investigations suggested a concentration of the major epicenters (Maximum

Intensity VIII (MMI)) about 200 miles southeast from the site focused on the ancient regional

structures termed the Cincinnati and Findlay Arches. These structural features are considered

the foci of the historic earthquakes experienced along the arch lineation. The occurrence of a

major earthquake (lntenity IX (MMI)) along the western end of the St Lawrence rift would result

in the assignment of Intensity VIII (MMI) to areas of thick deposits of soft unconsolidated

foundation materials. However, foundation conditions such as those reported below at the PNP

site warranted a reduction in probable maximum intensity to between VI and VII (MMI). This

intensity corresponded to a surface acceleration value of 0.05g. The horizontal ground design

spectwm for PNP was generated by averaging several acceleration spectra from actual

earthquake records, normalized to the same maximum ground acceleration. The average

response spectrum thus obtained covers a variety of foundation conditions ranging from rock to

deep alluvium. This spectrum is commonly referred to as the “Housner” spectrum. The

recommended surface acceleration value of 0.05g was later doubled to a more conservative

value of 0.lg, which became the Design Earthquake (i.e., the Operating Basis Earthquake

(OBE)) and 0.2g was used as the SSE. (Entergy, 2012a)

4

1971 . It was this updated discussion, including the identified exceptions, which formed the 

original plant Licensing Basis for future compliance with the GDC's. 

In response to the 50.54(f) letter (U.S. NRC, 2012) and following the guidance provided in the 

SPID (EPRI, 2013a), 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, Palisades Nuclear Plant screens-in for a risk evaluation, a Spent Fuel 

Pool evaluation, and a High Frequency Confirmation. 

2.0 Seismic Hazard Reevaluation 

The Palisades Nuclear Plant is located approximately four-and-one-half miles south of the 

southern city limits of South Haven, Michigan, on the Eastern shore of Lake Michigan, and is in 

the Eastern Lake Section of the Central Lowland Physiographic Province. The land surface is 

mantled by glacial drift that ranges from a few feet to several hundred feet in thickness. In the 

immediate vicinity of the Plant, sand dunes are the prevailing surface feature. Underlying the 

dunes are glacial deposits of various types. Coldwater shale of Mississippian age lies beneath 

the dunes and glacial deposits at the site. This bedrock consists of compact blue, gray or 

occasionally red clay shale. A geophysical study near the site indicated the top of the bedrock 

to be about 150 feet below the beach fronting Lake Michigan at an approximate elevation of 430 

feet to 470 feet Mean Sea Level. (Entergy, 2012a) 

The Palisades Nuclear Plant is located in Zone VIII on the seismic regionalization map of the 

United States (Richter, 1959). The maximum probable seismic intensity was consequently rated 

at VIII on the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale of 1931 (MMI). However, a detailed evaluation of 

historic epicenters, the regional geology and a study of actual foundation conditions at the site 

indicated that a Zone VIII assignment was too conservative for PNP. Only one epicenter had 

been reported within 50 miles of the site since 1804. Correlations made in the course of the 

original site investigations suggested a concentration of the major epicenters (Maximum 

Intensity VIII (MMI)) about 200 miles southeast from the site focused on the ancient regional 

structures termed the Cincinnati and Findlay Arches. These structural features are considered 

the foci of the historic earthquakes experienced along the arch lineation. The occurrence of a 

major earthquake (Intensity IX (MMI)) along the western end of the St Lawrence rift would result 

in the assignment of Intensity VIII (MMI) to areas of thick deposits of soft unconsolidated 

foundation materials. However, foundation conditions such as those reported below at the PNP 

site warranted a reduction in probable maximum intensity to between VI and VII (MMI). This 

intensity corresponded to a surface acceleration value of 0.05g. The horizontal ground design 

spectrum for PNP was generated by averaging several acceleration spectra from actual 

earthquake records, normalized to the same maximum ground acceleration. The average 

response spectrum thus obtained covers a variety of foundation conditions ranging from rock to 

deep alluvium. This spectrum is commonly referred to as the "Housner" spectrum. The 

recommended surface acceleration value of 0.05g was later doubled to a more conservative 

value of 0.1g, which became the Design Earthquake (Le., the Operating Basis Earthquake 

(OBE)) and 0.2g was used as the SSE. (Entergy, 2012a) 

4 
2.1 Regional and Local Geology

Investigations of the geological conditions at the PNP Plant site were conducted in 1965 and

1966. The general geologic profile was disclosed by numerous borings in the areas of interest.

The sand dunes, which were excavated from the Plant site, rose steeply from elevation 582 ft

Mean Sea Level (MSL) at the shore of Lake Michigan to about elevation 780 ft MSL at the site

of the containment vessel. The dune sand extends down to a base elevation between 560 ft to

565 ft MSL. The dune sand is uniform in grain size and is generally loose above elevation 590 ft

MSL and dense to very dense below this level. Beneath the dune sand is a stratum of gray

sandy silt or silty sand extending to between elevation 518 ft MSL and elevation 530 ft MSL,

which becomes finer with increasing depth with gray clay at the lower edge of the stratum.

Below this is dense glacial till down to bedrock which was encountered at elevation 440 ft MSL.

(Entergy, 2012a)

A geophysical investigation performed in 1966 revealed that the site and vicinity (below the

upper dune material) is underlain by materials of three distinct compressional (P wave) seismic

velocities. The uppermost zone (average P wave velocity of 5,400 ft per second) extends from

about elevation 590 ft MSL down to elevation 545 ft MSL. This material is interpreted as the

compact glacial lake deposits. The intermediate zone is generally found below elevation 545 ft

MSL and extends downward to an average elevation of 430 ft MSL. This zone has an average P

wave velocity of 6,700 ft per second and is probably composed of stiff lake clays and compact

glacial till. Below about elevation 430 ft MSL in the vicinity of the Plant, the material has a P

wave velocity of 10,000 ft per second. This material is interpreted as the bedrock sequence of

Mississippian Coldwater shale. (Entergy, 2012a)

2.2 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis

2.2.1 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis Results

In accordance with the 50.54(f) letter (U.S. NRC, 2012) 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 Electric Power

Research Institute (EPRI) Ground-Motion Model (GMM) for the Central and Eastern United

States (CEUS) (EPRI, 201 3b). For the PSHA, a lower-bound moment magnitude of 5.0 was

used, as specified in the 50.54(f) letter (U.S. NRC, 2012). (EPRI, 2014)

For the PSHA, the CEUS-SSC background seismic sources out to a distance of 400 miles (640

km) around PNP were included. This distance exceeds the 200 mile (320 km) recommendation

contained in Reg. Guide 1.208 (U.S. NRC, 2007) and was chosen for completeness.

Background sources included in this site analysis are the following (EPRI, 2014):

1. Illinois Basin Extended Basement (IBEB)

2. Mesozoic and younger extended prior— narrow (MESE-N)

5

2. 1 Regional and Local Geology 

Investigations of the geological conditions at the PNP Plant site were conducted in 1965 and 

1966. The general geologic profile was disclosed by numerous borings in the areas of interest. 

The sand dunes, which were excavated from the Plant site, rose steeply from elevation 582 ft 

Mean Sea Level (MSL) at the shore of Lake Michigan to about elevation 780 ft MSL at the site 

of the containment vessel. The dune sand extends down to a base elevation between 560 ft to 

565 ft MSL. The dune sand is uniform in grain size and is generally loose above elevation 590 ft 

MSL and dense to very dense below this level. Beneath the dune sand is a stratum of gray 

sandy silt or silty sand extending to between elevation 518 ft MSL and elevation 530 ft MSL, 

which becomes finer with increasing depth with gray clay at the lower edge of the stratum. 

Below this is dense glacial till down to bedrock which was encountered at elevation 440 ft MSL. 

(Entergy,2012a) 

A geophysical investigation performed in 1966 revealed that the site and vicinity (below the 

upper dune material) is underlain by materials of three distinct compressional (P wave) seismic 

velocities. The uppermost zone (average P wave velocity of 5,400 ft per secQnd) extends from 

about elevation 590 ft MSL down to elevation 545 ft MSL. This material is interpreted as the 

compact glacial lake deposits. The intermediate zone is generally found below elevation 545 ft 

MSL and extends downward to an average elevation of 430 ft MSL. This zone has an average P 

wave velocity of 6,700 ft per second and is probably composed of stiff lake clays and compact 

glacial till. Below about elevation 430 ft MSL in the vicinity of the Plant, the material has a P 

wave velocity of 10,000 ft per second. This material is interpreted as the bedrock sequence of 

Mississippian Coldwater shale. (Entergy, 2012a) 

2.2 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis 

2.2.1 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis Results 

In accordance with the 50.54(f) letter (U.S. NRC, 2012) 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 (CEUSSSG) for Nuclear Facilities (CEUS-SSC, 2012) together with the updated Electric Power 

Research Institute (EPRI) Ground-Motion Model (GMM) for the Central and Eastern United 

States (CEUS) (EPRI, 2013b). For the PSHA, a lower-bound moment magnitude of 5.0 was 

used, as specified in the 50.54(f) letter (U.S. NRC, 2012). (EPRI, 2014) 

For the PSHA, the CEUS-SSC background seismic sources out to a distance of 400 miles (640 

km) around PNP were included. This distance exceeds the 200 mile (320 km) recommendation 

contained in Reg. Guide 1.208 (U.S. NRC, 2007) and was chosen for completeness. 

Background sources included in this site analysis are the following (EPRI, 2014): 

1. Illinois Basin Extended Basement (IBEB) 

2. Mesozoic and younger extended prior - narrow (MESE-N) 

5 
3. Mesozoic and younger extended prior — wide (MESE-W)

4. Midcontinent-Craton alternative A (MIDC_A)

5. Midcontinent-Craton alternative B (MIDC_B)

6. Midcontinent-Craton alternative C (MIDC_C)

7. Midcontinent-Craton alternative D (MIDC_D)

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

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

10. Paleozoic Extended Crust narrow (PEZ....N)

11. Paleozoic Extended Crust wide (PEZ..W)

12. Reelfoot Rift (RR)

13. Reelfoot Rift including the Rough Creek Graben (RR-RCG)

14. St. Lawrence Rift, including the Ottawa and Saguenay grabens (SLR)

15. Study region (STUDYR)

For sources of large magnitude earthquakes designated Repeated Large Magnitude

Earthquake (RLME) sources in NUREG-2115 (CEUS-SSC, 2012) modeled for the CEUS-SSC,

the following sources lie within 1,000 km of the site and were included in the analysis (EPRI,

2014):

1. Commerce

2. Eastern Rift Margin Fault northern segment (ERM-N)

3. Eastern Rift Margin Fault southern segment (ERM-S)

4. Marianna

5. New Madrid Fault System (NMFS)

6. Wabash Valley

For each of the above background and RLME sources, the mid-continent version of the updated

CEUS EPRI GMM was used. (EPRI, 2014)

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 2.3.7 at the SSE control point elevation. (EPRI, 2014)

2.3 Site Response Evaluation

Following the guidance contained in Seismic Enclosure 1 of the 50.54(f) Request for Information

(U.S. NRC, 2012) 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

PNP. (EPRI, 2014)

6

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

4. Midcontinent-Craton alternative A (MIDC_A) 

5. Midcontinent-Craton alternative B (MIDC_B) 

6. Midcontinent-Craton alternative C (MIDC_C) 

7. Midcontinent-Craton alternative D (MIDC_D) 

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

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

10. Paleozoic Extended Crust narrow (PEZ_N) 

11. Paleozoic Extended Crust wide (PEZ_W) 

12. Reelfoot Rift (RR) 

13. Reelfoot Rift including the Rough Creek Graben (RR-RCG) 

14. St. Lawrence Rift, including the Ottawa and Saguenay grabens (SLR) 

15. Study region (STUDY _R) 

For sources of large magnitude earthquakes designated Repeated Large Magnitude 

Earthquake (RLME) sources in NUREG-2115 (CEUS-SSC, 2012) modeled for the CEUS-SSC, 

the following sources lie within 1,000 km of the site and were included in the analysis (EPRI, 

2014): 

1. Commerce 

2. Eastern Rift Margin Fault northern segment (ERM-N) 

3. Eastern Rift Margin Fault southern segment (ERM-S) 

4. Marianna 

5. New Madrid Fault System (NMFS) 

6. Wabash Valley 

For each of the above background and RLME sources, the mid-continent version of the updated 

CEUS EPRI GMM was used. (EPRI, 2014) 

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 2.3.7 at the SSE control point elevation. (EPRI, 2014) 

2.3 Site Response Evaluation 

Following the guidance contained in Seismic Enclosure 1 of the 50.54(f) Request for Information 

(U.S. NRC, 2012) 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 

PNP. (EPRI, 2014) 

6 
2.3.1 Description of Subsurface Material

The information used to create the site geologic profile at PNP is shown in Table 2.3.1-1. Table

2.3.1-1 shows unit descriptions and estimated shear-wave velocities and densities. This profile

was developed using information documented in Entergy (2012a). The SSE Control Point was

taken to be at the top of “Brown Dune Sand, very compact”, and the profile was modeled up to

this location (Entergy, 2012a). (EPRI, 2014)

The site consists of about 148 ft (45 m) of dune sand, clay, and glacial till overlying black

massive shale. Due to uncertainty in the depth to reference rock conditions (shear-wave velocity

of at least 9,285 ft/s, 2,830 mIs), six base-case shear-wave velocity profiles were developed to

model amplification at the site. Profiles 1, 2, and 3 assume that hard basement rock occurs at a

depth of 148 ft (45 m), and Profiles 4, 5, and 6 assume that hard rock is at a depth of 3238 ft

(987 m). (EPRI, 2014)

The following description of the site geology is taken directly from Entergy (201 2a):

“The Palisades Plant site is located in the Eastern Lake Section of the Central Lowland

Physiographic Province. The land surface is mantled by glacial drift that ranges from a few

feet to several hundred feet in thickness. In the immediate vicinity of the Plant, sand dunes

are the prevailing surface feature. [..] Underlying the dunes are glacial deposits of varying

types which were deposited on bedrock consisting of Paleozoic Mississippian shale.”

“The dunes fronting Lake Michigan rise steeply from the shoreline (approximate elevation

582 feet MSL) to elevations ranging from elevation 820 feet MSL to elevation 780 feet MSL

(near the site) and maintain an average width of about 5,000 feet for approximately two miles

north to five miles south of the site. [..] Glacial lake deposits and ground moraine associated

with the Covert Ridge terminal moraine are found within the basin.”

“The Coidwater shale of Mississippian age lies beneath the dunes and glacial deposits at the

site. These sediments represent the last phase of marine deposition in the Paleozoic

Michigan Basin. During subsequent Mesozoic and Cenozoic eras, the entire Great Lakes

region apparently remained above sea level.”

“The bedrock, Coidwater shale, consists of compact blue, gray or occasionally red clay shale.

Drill Hole 21, located in the immediate vicinity of the containment building, established

bedrock at elevation 440 feet MSL. A geophysical study near the site indicated top bedrock

to be about 150 feet below the beach fronting Lake Michigan at an approximate elevation of

430 feet to 470 feet MSL.”

7

2.3.1 Description of Subsurface Material 

The information used to create the site geologic profile at PNP is shown in Table 2.3.1-1. Table 

2.3.1-1 shows unit descriptions and estimated shear-wave velocities and densities. This profile 

was developed using information documented in Entergy (2012a). The SSE Control Point was 

taken to be at the top of "Brown Dune Sand, very compact", and the profile was modeled up to 

this location (Entergy, 2012a). (EPRI, 2014) 

The site consists of about 148 ft (45 m) of dune sand, clay, and glacial till overlying black 

massive shale. Due to uncertainty in the depth to reference rock conditions (shear-wave velocity 

of at least 9,285 ft/s, 2,830 m/s), six base-case shear-wave velocity profiles were developed to 

model amplification at the site. Profiles 1, 2, and 3 assume that hard basement rock occurs at a 

depth of 148 ft (45 m), and Profiles 4, 5, and 6 assume that hard rock is at a depth of 3238 ft 

(987 m). (EPRI, 2014) 

The following description of the site geology is taken directly from Entergy (2012a): 

"The Palisades Plant site is located in the Eastern Lake Section of the Central Lowland 

Physiographic Province. The land surface is mantled by glacial drift that ranges from a few 

feet to several hundred feet in thickness. In the immediate vicinity of the Plant, sand dunes 

are the prevailing surface feature. [ .. ] Underlying the dunes are glacial deposits of varying 

types which were deposited on bedrock consisting of Paleozoic Mississippian shale." 

"The dunes fronting Lake Michigan rise steeply from the shoreline (approximate elevation 

582 feet MSL) to elevations ranging from elevation 820 feet MSL to elevation 780 feet MSL 

(near the site) and maintain an average width of about 5,000 feet for approximately two miles 

north to five miles south of the site. [ .. ] Glacial lake deposits and ground moraine associated 

with the Covert Ridge terminal moraine are found within the basin." 

"The Coldwater shale of Mississippian age lies beneath the dunes and glacial deposits at the 

site. These sediments represent the last phase of marine deposition in the Paleozoic 

Michigan Basin. During subsequent Mesozoic and Cenozoic eras, the entire Great Lakes 

region apparently remained above sea level. H 

"The bedrock, Coldwater shale, consists of compact blue, gray or occasionally red clay shale. 

Drill Hole 21, located in the immediate vicinity of the containment building, established 

bedrock at elevation 440 feet MSL. A geophysical study near the site indicated top bedrock 

to be about 150 feet below the beach fronting Lake Michigan at an approximate elevation of 

430 feet to 470 feet MSL. H 

7 
Table 2.3.1-1. Summary of Geotechnical Profile Data for PNP (Entergy, 2012a).

Shear

Depth Wave Compressional

Range Soil/Rock Density Velocity Wave Velocity Poisson’s

(feet) a Description (pcf) e (fps) (fps)h Ratio 9

Deepest Structure Foundation -—

Elevation — 564 ft (Portion of

Auxiliary Bldg) 13 Ground Surface Elevation (589 ft ---

MSL)

01O0c Brown DuneSand 115

100- Brown Dune Sand, very 130 750 --- 0.30 to

1251 compact 0.48

125- Grey Fine-Grained Sand with 127 900 5400 0.48

148 trace of Silt

148- Grey Stiff Clay 135 1000 5400 0.48

170

170- Gray Very Stiff Gravelly Sandy 140 1600 6700 0.48

248 Clay (Glacial Till)

248+ Black Massive Shale (top 10 ft 170 9500 10000

weathered)

NOTES: Embedment depth for Containment (Reactor) Building is approximately 14-21 ft below

plant grade at 589 ft. Water table varies between elevation 580 ft to 585 ft.

a Boring Log for hole nearest Containment Building (#21 -See FSAR (Entergy, 2012a) Figure

2.12 for variation in layer depth, use in conjunction with FSAR (Entergy, 2012a) Figures

2.10, 2.11 and 2.13).

13 Control Point was defined as being at the ground surface, in the free field (Elevation 575 ft to

600 ft). C Dune sand from depth 0 ft to 100 ft was removed prior to plant construction.

d Plant Grade for the area of the Containment Building is at depth 100 ft, at elevation 589 ft. e Estimated Densities (GEl Consultants, 1994).

Estimated Shear Wave Velocities (Best Estimate Values; GEl Consultants,1994).

Estimated Poisson Ratios. Best Estimate Values- 0.30 for dune sand above the water table

(GEl Consultants,1994).

h See FSAR (Entergy, 2012a) Figure 2.15.

2.3.2 Development of Base Case Profiles and Nonlinear Material Properfies

Table 2.3.1-1 (Entergy, 2012a) shows the recommended shear-wave velocities and unit weights

along with depth ranges and corresponding stratigraphy. The SSE Control Point was taken to

be at the top of “Brown Dune Sand, very compact”. (EPRI, 2014)

Shear-wave velocities listed on Table 2.3.1-1 were based on compressional-wave velocity

measurements and estimated Poisson ratio (Entergy, 2012a). To develop the mean base-case

profile, the listed shear-wave velocities and unit weights, which extend to a depth below the

SSE of 148 ft (45 m), were used. To accommodate uncertainty in depth to hard rock conditions

8

Table 2.3.1-1. Summary of Geotechnical Profile Data for PNP (Entergy, 2012a). 

Shear 

Depth Wave Compressional 

Range Soil/Rock Density Velocity Wave Velocity Poisson's 

(feet) a Description (pet) e (fps) f (fps)h Ratiog 

Deepest Structure Foundation -- -- -- -- Elevation - 564 ft (Portion of 

Auxiliary Bldg) D Ground Surface Elevation (589 ft - -- -- -- MSL) 

0-100 c Brown Dune Sand 115 --- --- --- 100- Brown Dune Sand, very 130 750 --- 0.30 to 

125 d compact 0.48 

125- Grey Fine-Grained Sand with 127 900 5400 0.48 

148 trace of Silt 

148- Grey Stiff Clay 135 1000 5400 0.48 

170 

170- Gray Very Stiff Gravelly Sandy 140 1600 6700 0.48 

248 Clay (Glacial Till) 

248+ Black Massive Shale (top 10ft 170 9500 10000 -- weathered) 

NOTES: Embedment depth for Containment (Reactor) Building is approximately 14-21 ft below 

plant grade at 589 ft. Water table varies between elevation 580 ft to 585 ft. 

B Boring Log for hole nearest Containment Building (#21 - See FSAR (Entergy, 2012a) Figure 

2.12 for variation in layer depth, use in conjunction with FSAR (Entergy, 2012a) Figures 

2.10,2.11 and 2.13). 

b Control Point was defined as being at the ground surface, in the free field (Elevation 575 ft to 

600 ft). 

C Dune sand from depth 0 ft to 100 ft was removed prior to plant construction. 

d Plant Grade for the area of the Containment Building is at depth 100 ft, at elevation 589 ft. 

e Estimated Densities (GEl Consultants, 1994). 

f Estimated Shear Wave Velocities (Best Estimate Values; GEl Consultants,1994). 

9 Estimated Poisson Ratios. Best Estimate Values- 0.30 for dune sand above the water table 

(GEl Consultants,1994). 

h See FSAR (Entergy, 2012a) Figure 2.15. 

2.3.2 Development of Base Case Profiles and Nonlinear Material Properties 

Table 2.3.1-1 (Entergy, 2012a) shows the recommended shear-wave velocities and unit weights 

along with depth ranges and corresponding stratigraphy. The SSE Control Point was taken to 

be at the top of "Brown Dune Sand, very compact". (EPRI, 2014) 

Shear-wave velocities listed on Table 2.3.1-1 were based on compressional-wave velocity 

measurements and estimated Poisson ratio (Entergy, 2012a). To develop the mean base-case 

profile, the listed shear-wave velocities and unit weights, which extend to a depth below the 

SSE of 148 ft (45 m), were used. To accommodate uncertainty in depth to hard rock conditions 

8 
two depths were considered: 148 ft (45 m) (P1) (Table 2.3.2-1), and 3,238 ft (987 m) (P4)

(approximate depth to Precambnan basement rock from the nearest site (DC Cook)). For

profile P4 the shear-wave velocity in the Paleozoic sedimentary rock (black massive shale) was

assumed to be 5,000 ft/s (1,524 m/s) based on velocities in similar materials. The profiles were

randomized ±971 ft (±296 m). The depth randomization reflects ±30% of the depth 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.

(EPRI, 2014)

Lower- and upper-range profiles, P2 and P3 respectively for shallow depths to Precambrian

basement and P5 and P6 respectively for deep depths to hard reference rock were developed

using a scale factor of 1 .57 as the shear-wave velocities were inferred from compressional

wave velocities and an estimated Poisson ratio. The scale factor of 1.57 reflect ai, of about

0.35 based on the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) 10th and 90th fractiles which implies a 1.28 scale factor

on o. (EPRI, 2014)

The six base-case profiles are listed in Table 2.3.2-1, and shown in Figure 2.3.2-1. (EPRI, 2014)

9

two depths were considered: 148 ft (45 m) (P1) (Table 2.3.2-1), and 3,238 ft (987 m) (P4) 

(approximate depth to Precambrian basement rock from the nearest site (DC Cook». For 

profile P4 the shear-wave velocity in the Paleozoic sedimentary rock (black massive shale) was 

assumed to be 5,000 ftls (1,524 m/s) based on velocities in similar materials. The profiles were 

randomized ±971 ft (±296 m). The depth randomization reflects ±30% of the depth 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. 

(EPRI, 2014) 

Lower- and upper-range profiles, P2 and P3 respectively for shallow depths to Precambrian 

basement and P5 and P6 respectively for deep depths to hard reference rock were developed 

using a scale factor of 1.57 as the shear-wave velocities were inferred from compressionalwave velocities and an estimated Poisson ratio. The scale factor of 1.57 reflect a~ln of about 

0.35 based on the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) 10th and 90th fractiles which implies a 1.28 scale factor 

on a~. (EPRI, 2014) 

The six base-case profiles are listed in Table 2.3.2-1, and shown in Figure 2.3.2-1. (EPRI, 2014) 

9 
Table 2.3.2-1. Layer thicknesses, depths, and shear-wave velocities (Vs) for 6 profiles, at PNP

(EPRI. 2014)

profile 1 profile 2 Profile 3

thickness depth Vs thickness depth Vs thickness depth Vs

(ft) (ft) (ftls) (ft) (ft) (ftls) (ft) (ft) (ftls)

0 750 0 480 0 1177

5.0 5.0 750 5.0 5.0 480 5.0 5.0 1177

5.0 10.0 750 5.0 10.0 480 5.0 10.0 1177

5.0 15.0 750 5.0 15.0 480 5.0 15.0 1177

5.0 20.0 750 5.0 20.0 480 5.0 20.0 1177

5.0 25.0 750 5.0 25.0 480 5.0 25.0 1177

3.0 28.0 900 3.0 28.0 576 3.0 28.0 1413

5.0 33.0 900 5.0 33.0 576 5.0 33.0 1413

5.0 38.0 900 5.0 38.0 576 5.0 38.0 1413

5.0 43.0 900 5.0 43.0 576 5.0 43.0 1413

5.0 48.0 900 5.0 48.0 576 5.0 48.0 1413

2.0 50.0 1000 2.0 50.0 640 2.0 50.0 1570

5.0 55.0 1000 5.0 55.0 640 5.0 55.0 1570

5.0 60.0 1000 5.0 60.0 640 5.0 60.0 1570

5.0 65.0 1000 5.0 65.0 640 5.0 65.0 1570

5.0 70.0 1000 5.0 70.0 640 5.0 70.0 1570

5.0 75.0 1600 5.0 75.0 1024 5.0 75.0 2512

5.0 80.0 1600 5.0 80.0 1024 5.0 80.0 2512

5.0 85.0 1600 5.0 85.0 1024 5.0 85.0 2512

5.0 90.0 1600 5.0 90.0 1024 5.0 90.0 2512

5.0 95.0 1600 5.0 95.0 1024 5.0 95.0 2512

5.0 100.0 1600 5.0 100.0 1024 5.0 100.0 2512

5.0 105.0 1600 5.0 105.0 1024 5.0 105.0 2512

5.0 110.0 1600 5.0 110.0 1024 5.0 110.0 2512

5.0 115.0 1600 5.0 115.0 1024 5.0 115.0 2512

5.0 120.0 1600 5.0 120.0 1024 5.0 120.0 2512

5.0 125.0 1600 5.0 125.0 1024 5.0 125.0 2512

5.0 130.0 1600 5.0 130.0 1024 5.0 130.0 2512

5.0 135.0 1600 5.0 135.0 1024 5.0 135.0 2512

5.0 140.0 1600 5.0 140.0 1024 5.0 140.0 2512

5.0 145.0 1600 5.0 145.0 1024 5.0 145.0 2512

3.0 148.0 1600 3.0 148.0 1024 3.0 148.0 2512

6371.4 6519.4 9285 6371.4 6519.4 9285 6371.4 6519.4 9285

10

Table 2.3.2-1. Layer thicknesses, depths, and shear-wave velocities (Vs) for 6 profiles, at PNP 

(EPRI,2014) 

Profile 1 Profile 2 Profile 3 

thickness depth Vs thickness depth Vs thickness depth Vs 

(ft) (ft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (ft/s) 

0 750 0 480 0 1177 

5.0 5.0 750 5.0 5.0 480 5.0 5.0 1177 

5.0 10.0 750 5.0 10.0 480 5.0 10.0 1177 

5.0 15.0 750 5.0 15.0 480 5.0 15.0 1177 

5.0 20.0 750 5.0 20.0 480 5.0 20.0 1177 

5.0 25.0 750 5.0 25.0 480 5.0 25.0 1177 

3.0 28.0 900 3.0 28.0 576 3.0 28.0 1413 

5.0 33.0 900 5.0 33.0 576 5.0 33.0 1413 

5.0 38.0 900 5.0 38.0 576 5.0 38.0 1413 

5.0 43.0 900 5.0 43.0 576 5.0 43.0 1413 

5.0 48.0 900 5.0 48.0 576 5.0 48.0 1413 

2.0 50.0 1000 2.0 50.0 640 2.0 50.0 1570 

5.0 55.0 1000 5.0 55.0 640 5.0 55.0 1570 

5.0 60.0 1000 5.0 60.0 640 5.0 60.0 1570 

5.0 65.0 1000 5.0 65.0 640 5.0 65.0 1570 

5.0 70.0 1000 5.0 70.0 640 5.0 70.0 1570 

5.0 75.0 1600 5.0 75.0 1024 5.0 75.0 2512 

5.0 80.0 1600 5.0 80.0 1024 5.0 80.0 2512 

5.0 85.0 1600 5.0 85.0 1024 5.0 85.0 2512 

5.0 90.0 1600 5.0 90.0 1024 5.0 90.0 2512 

5.0 95.0 1600 5.0 95.0 1024 5.0 95.0 2512 

5.0 100.0 1600 5.0 100.0 1024 5.0 100.0 2512 

5.0 105.0 1600 5.0 105.0 1024 5.0 105.0 2512 

5.0 110.0 1600 5.0 110.0 1024 5.0 110.0 2512 

5.0 115.0 1600 5.0 115.0 1024 5.0 115.0 2512 

5.0 120.0 1600 5.0 120.0 1024 5.0 120.0 2512 

5.0 125.0 1600 5.0 125.0 1024 5.0 125.0 2512 

5.0 130.0 1600 5.0 130.0 1024 5.0 130.0 2512 

5.0 135.0 1600 5.0 135.0 1024 5.0 135.0 2512 

5.0 140.0 1600 5.0 140.0 1024 5.0 140.0 2512 

5.0 145.0 1600 5.0 145.0 1024 5.0 145.0 2512 

3.0 148.0 1600 3.0 148.0 1024 3.0 148.0 2512 

6371.4 6519.4 9285 6371.4 6519.4 9285 6371.4 6519.4 9285 

10 
Table 2.3.2-1. Layer thicknesses, depths, and shear-wave velocities (Vs) for 6 profiles, at PNP

(continued) (EPRI, 2014)

Profile 4 Drofile 5 Profile 6

thickness depth Vs thickness depth Vs thickness depth Vs

(ft) (ft) (ftls) (ft) (ft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (ftls)

0 750 0 480 0 1177

5.0 5.0 750 5.0 5.0 480 5.0 5.0 1177

5.0 10.0 750 5.0 10.0 480 5.0 10.0 1177

5.0 15.0 750 5.0 15.0 480 5.0 15.0 1177

5.0 20.0 750 5.0 20.0 480 5.0 20.0 1177

5.0 25.0 750 5.0 25.0 480 5.0 25.0 1177

3.0 28.0 900 3.0 28.0 576 3.0 28.0 1413

5.0 33.0 900 5.0 33.0 576 5.0 33.0 1413

5.0 38.0 900 5.0 38.0 576 5.0 38.0 1413

5.0 43.0 900 5.0 43.0 576 5.0 43.0 1413

5.0 48.0 900 5.0 48.0 576 5.0 48.0 1413

2.0 50.0 1000 2.0 50.0 640 2.0 50.0 1570

5.0 55.0 1000 5.0 55.0 640 5.0 55.0 1570

5.0 60.0 1000 5.0 60.0 640 5.0 60.0 1570

5.0 65.0 1000 5.0 65.0 640 5.0 65.0 1570

5.0 70.0 1000 5.0 70.0 640 5.0 70.0 1570

5.0 75.0 1600 5.0 75.0 1024 5.0 75.0 2512

5.0 80.0 1600 5.0 80.0 1024 5.0 80.0 2512

5.0 85.0 1600 5.0 85.0 1024 5.0 85.0 2512

5.0 90.0 1600 5.0 90.0 1024 5.0 90.0 2512

5.0 95.0 1600 5.0 95.0 1024 5.0 95.0 2512

5.0 100.0 1600 5.0 100.0 1024 5.0 100.0 2512

5.0 105.0 1600 5.0 105.0 1024 5.0 105.0 2512

5.0 110.0 1600 5.0 110.0 1024 5.0 110.0 2512

5.0 115.0 1600 5.0 115.0 1024 5.0 115.0 2512

5.0 120.0 1600 5.0 120.0 1024 5.0 120.0 2512

5.0 125.0 1600 5.0 125.0 1024 5.0 125.0 2512

5.0 130.0 1600 5.0 130.0 1024 5.0 130.0 2512

5.0 135.0 1600 5.0 135.0 1024 5.0 135.0 2512

5.0 140.0 1600 5.0 140.0 1024 5.0 140.0 2512

5.0 145.0 1600 5.0 145.0 1024 5.0 145.0 2512

3.0 148.0 1600 3.0 148.0 1024 3.0 148.0 2512

20.4 168.4 5000 20.4 168.4 3200 20.4 168.4 7850

20.4 188.8 5000 20.4 188.8 3200 20.4 188.8 7850

20.4 209.2 5000 20.4 209.2 3200 20.4 209.2 7850

20.4 229.6 5000 20.4 229.6 3200 20.4 229.6 7850

20.4 250.0 5000 20.4 250.0 3200 20.4 250.0 7850

22.6 272.6 5000 22.6 272.6 3200 22.6 272.6 7850

22.6 295.2 5000 22.6 295.2 3200 22.6 295.2 7850

11

Table 2.3.2-1. Layer thicknesses, depths, and shear-wave velocities (Vs) for 6 profiles, at PNP 

(continued) (EPRI 20141 

Profile 4 Profile 5 Profile 6 

thickness depth Vs thickness depth Vs thickness depth Vs 

(ft) (ft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (ft/~ 

0 750 0 480 0 1177 

5.0 5.0 750 5.0 5.0 480 5.0 5.0 1177 

5.0 10.0 750 5.0 10.0 480 5.0 10.0 1177 

5.0 15.0 750 5.0 15.0 480 5.0 15.0 1177 

5.0 20.0 750 5.0 20.0 480 5.0 20.0 1177 

5.0 25.0 750 5.0 25.0 480 5.0 25.0 1177 

3.0 28.0 900 3.0 28.0 576 3.0 28.0 1413 

5.0 33.0 900 5.0 33.0 576 5.0 33.0 1413 

5.0 38.0 900 5.0 38.0 576 5.0 38.0 1413 

5.0 43.0 900 5.0 43.0 576 5.0 43.0 1413 

5.0 48.0 900 5.0 48.0 576 5.0 48.0 1413 

2.0 50.0 1000 2.0 50.0 640 2.0 50.0 1570 

5.0 55.0 1000 5.0 55.0 640 5.0 55.0 1570 

5.0 60.0 1000 5.0 60.0 640 5.0 60.0 1570 

5.0 65.0 1000 5.0 65.0 640 5.0 65.0 1570 

5.0 70.0 1000 5.0 70.0 640 5.0 70.0 1570 

5.0 75.0 1600 5.0 75.0 1024 5.0 75.0 2512 

5.0 80.0 1600 5.0 80.0 1024 5.0 80.0 2512 

5.0 85.0 1600 5.0 85.0 1024 5.0 85.0 2512 

5.0 90.0 1600 5.0 90.0 1024 5.0 90.0 2512 

5.0 95.0 1600 5.0 95.0 1024 5.0 95.0 2512 

5.0 100.0 1600 5.0 100.0 1024 5.0 100.0 2512 

5.0 105.0 1600 5.0 105.0 1024 5.0 105.0 2512 

5.0 '110.0 1600 5.0 110.0 1024 5.0 110.0 2512 

5.0 115.0 1600 5.0 115.0 1024 5.0 115.0 2512 

5.0 120.0 1600 5.0 120.0 1024 5.0 120.0 2512 

5.0 125.0 1600 5.0 125.0 1024 5.0 125.0 2512 

5.0 130.0 1600 5.0 130.0 1024 5.0 130.0 2512 

5.0 135.0 1600 5.0 135.0 1024 5.0 135.0 2512 

5.0 140.0 1600 5.0 140.0 1024 5.0 140.0 2512 

5.0 145.0 1600 5.0 145.0 1024 5.0 145.0 2512 

3.0 148.0 1600 3.0 148.0 1024 3.0 148.0 2512 

20.4 168.4 5000 20.4 168.4 3200 20.4 168.4 7850 

20.4 188.8 5000 20.4 188.8 3200 20.4 188.8 7850 

20.4 209.2 5000 20.4 209.2 3200 20.4 209.2 7850 

20.4 229.6 5000 20.4 229.6 3200 20.4 229.6 7850 

20.4 250.0 5000 20.4 250.0 3200 20.4 250.0 7850 

22.6 272.6 5000 22.6 272.6 3200 22.6 272.6 7850 

22.6 295.2 5000 22.6 295.2 3200 22.6 295.2 7850 

11 
Table 2.3.2-1. Layer thicknesses, depths, and shear-wave velocities (Vs) for 6 profiles, at PNP

(continued) (EPRI, 2014)

rofile 4 Profile 5 Profile 6

thickness depth Vs thickness depth Vs thickness depth Vs

(ft) (ft) (ftls) (ft) (ft) (ftls) (ft) (ft) (ftls)

22.6 317.8 5000 22.6 317.8 3200 22.6 317.8 7850

22.6 340.5 5000 22.6 340.5 3200 22.6 340.5 7850

22.6 363.1 5000 22.6 363.1 3200 22.6 363.1 7850

22.6 385.7 5000 22.6 385.7 3200 22.6 385.7 7850

22.6 408.3 5000 22.6 408.3 3200 22.6 408.3 7850

22.6 430.9 5000 22.6 430.9 3200 22.6 430.9 7850

22.6 453.5 5000 22.6 453.5 3200 22.6 453.5 7850

22.6 476.1 5000 22.6 476.1 3200 22.6 476.1 7850

23.9 500.0 5000 23.9 500.0 3200 23.9 500.0 7850

152.1 652.1 5000 152.1 652.1 3200 152.1 652.1 7850

152.1 804.2 5000 152.1 804.2 3200 152.1 804.2 7850

164.0 968.2 5000 164.0 968.2 3200 164.0 968.2 7850

164.0 1132.3 5000 164.0 1132.3 3200 164.0 1132.3 7850

164.0 1296.3 5000 164.0 1296.3 3200 164.0 1296.3 7850

164.0 1460.3 5000 164.0 1460.3 3200 164.0 1460.3 7850

164.0 1624.4 5000 164.0 1624.4 3200 164.0 1624.4 7850

164.0 1788.4 5000 164.0 1788.4 3200 164.0 1788.4 7850

164.0 1952.5 5000 164.0 1952.5 3200 164.0 1952.5 7850

164.0 2116.5 5000 164.0 2116.5 3200 164.0 2116.5 7850

164.0 2280.6 5000 164.0 2280.6 3200 164.0 2280.6 7850

164.0 2444.6 5000 164.0 2444.6 3200 164.0 2444.6 7850

164.0 2608.6 5000 164.0 2608.6 3200 164.0 2608.6 7850

164.0 2772.7 5000 164.0 2772.7 3200 164.0 2772.7 7850

164.0 2936.7 5000 164.0 2936.7 3200 164.0 2936.7 7850

301.8 3238.6 5000 301.8 3238.6 3200 301.8 3238.6 7850

3280.8 6519.4 9285 3280.8 6519.4 9285 3280.8 6519.4 9285

12

Table 2.3.2-1. Layer thicknesses, depths, and shear-wave velocities (Vs) for 6 profiles, at PNP 

(continued) (EPRI, 2014) 

Profile 4 Profile 5 Profile 6 

thickness depth Vs thickness depth Vs thickness depth Vs 

(ft) (ft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (ft/s) 

22.6 317.8 5000 22.6 317.8 3200 22.6 317.8 7850 

22.6 340.5 5000 22.6 340.5 3200 22.6 340.5 7850 

22.6 363.1 5000 22.6 363.1 3200 22.6 363.1 7850 

22.6 385.7 5000 22.6 385.7 3200 22.6 385.7 7850 

22.6 408.3 5000 22.6 408.3 3200 22.6 408.3 7850 

22.6 430.9 5000 22.6 430.9 3200 22.6 430.9 7850 

22.6 453.5 5000 22.6 453.5 3200 22.6 453.5 7850 

22.6 476.1 5000 22.6 476.1 3200 22.6 476.1 7850 

23.9 500.0 5000 23.9 500.0 3200 23.9 500.0 7850 

152.1 652.1 5000 152.1 652.1 3200 152.1 652.1 7850 

152.1 804.2 5000 152.1 804.2 3200 152.1 804.2 7850 

164.0 968.2 5000 164.0 968.2 3200 164.0 968.2 7850 

164.0 1132.3 5000 164.0 1132.3 3200 164.0 1132.3 7850 

164.0 1296.3 5000 164.0 1296.3 3200 164.0 1296.3 7850 

164.0 1460.3 5000 164.0 1460.3 3200 164.0 1460.3 7850 

164.0 1624.4 5000 164.0 1624.4 3200 164.0 1624.4 7850 

164.0 1788.4 5000 164.0 1788.4 3200 164.0 1788.4 7850 

164.0 1952.5 5000 164.0 1952.5 3200 164.0 1952.5 7850 

164.0 2116.5 5000 164.0 2116.5 3200 164.0 2116.5 7850 

164.0 2280.6 5000 164.0 2280.6 3200 164.0 2280.6 7850 

164.0 2444.6 5000 164.0 2444.6 3200 164.0 2444.6 7850 

164.0 2608.6 5000 164.0 2608.6 3200 164.0 2608.6 7850 

164.0 2772.7 5000 164.0 2772.7 3200 164.0 2772.7 7850 

164.0 2936.7 5000 164.0 2936.7 3200 164.0 2936.7 7850 

301.8 3238.6 5000 301 .8 3238.6 3200 301.8 3238.6 7850 

3280.8 6519.4 9285 3280.8 6519.4 9285 3280.8 6519.4 9285 

12 
0

Vs Profiles 1, 2, and 3 for Palisades site

Vs (Wsec)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

20

8000

40

9000 10000

60

80

100

120

140

—Profile 1

—Profile 2

—Profile 3

160

Vs Profiles 4, 5, and 6 for Palisades site

Vs (ftlsec)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

0 I

500

1000

1500

2000

2500 -- -

-------.-.——-— — —

— —1— —

—Profile 4

—Profile 5

—Profile 6 -

Figure 2.3.2-1. Shear-wave velocity profiles for the PNP site (EPRI, 2014) -

13

Vs Profiles 1, 2, and 3 for Palisades site 

V·lft/sec) 

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 BOOO 7000 8000 9000 10000 

0 

1 

20 

40 -~---- - . ---- ----- . ------ -------- -----_____ 0 ._----------- ---------. -._-------_.- ---

50 - Protilel 

g 

.c 80 a I .! - Protile2 

100 

I - Profile 3 

120 

140 

160 I 

Vs Profiles 4, 5, and 6 for Palisades site 

Va 1ft/sec) 

o 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 BOOO 7000 6000 9000 10000 

o 

500 

I - Profile 4 

1000 

1500 

g 

t 

.! 2000 - Profile 5 

2500 - Profile S 

3000 

3500 I 

Figure 2.3.2-1. Shear-wave velocity profiles for the PNP site (EPRI, 2014) 

13 
2.3.2.1 Shear Modulus and Damping Curves

No site-specific nonlinear dynamic material properties were available for PNP for the soils or

firm rock. The firm soil material over the upper 148 ft (45 m) was assumed to have behavior

that could be modeled with either EPRI cohesionless soil or Peninsular Range GIGm< and

hysteretic damping curves (EPRI, 2013a). To reflect epistemic uncertainty in non-linear

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 (EPRI,

201 3a), the EPRI soil and rock curves (model Ml) 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 firm 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 500 ft (150 m) in the profile. (EPRI, 2014)

2.3.2.2 Kappa

Because two base case profiles (median and upper range and the lower range) have been

defined for the Palisades site, two sets of kappa values are required for the site response

analyses. Base-case kappa estimates were determined using Section 8-5.1.3.1 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

(V100 )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 of 40 below 500 ft combined with the low strain damping from the

EPRI rock curves and an additional kappa of 0.006 s for the underlying hard rock. For the PNP

site, with about 3,000 ft (1 km) of firm rock, a Q of 40 below 500 ft combined with the low-strain

damping from the EPRI rock curves and an additional kappa of 0.006 s for the underlying hardrock was considered appropriate for the deep profiles (P4, P5 and P6). (EPRI, 2014)

For the shallow PNP profiles (P1, P2 and P3) with about 148 ft (45m) of soils over hard

reference rock, the kappa value of 0.006 s for hard rock (EPRI, 2013a) dominates profile

damping. The 148 ft (45 m) of soils, based on the low-strain damping from the EPRI soil GIGmax

and hysteretic damping curves, reflects a contribution of only about 0.003 s, with the addition of

the hard basement rock value of 0.006 s resulting in a total kappa for Profile P1 of 0.009 s

(SPID (EPRI, 201 3a)) (Table 2.3.2-2). As a result, the dominate source of 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 for these

profiles. (EPRI, 2014)

For the deeper profiles (P4, P5 and P6), with about 3,000 ft (914 m) to hard rock site conditions,

the estimates of kappa were based on the low-strain damping in the hysteretic damping curves

over the top 500 ft (152 m) plus the assumption of a constant hysteretic damping of 1 .25 (Qs of

40) for the remaining firm rock profile in addition to a kappa value of 0.006 s for hard-rock,

14

2.3.2.1 Shear Modulus and Damping Curves 

No site-specific nonlinear dynamic material properties were available for PNP for the soils or 

firm rock. The firm soil material over the upper 148 ft (45 m) was assumed to have behavior 

that could be modeled with either EPRI cohesion less soil or Peninsular Range G/Gmax and 

hysteretic damping curves (EPRI, 2013a). To reflect epistemic uncertainty in non-linear 

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 SPIO (EPRI, 

2013a), 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 firm 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 500 ft (150 m) in the profile. (EPRI, 2014) 

2.3.2.2 Kappa 

Because two base case profiles (median and upper range and the lower range) have been 

defined for the Palisades site, two sets of kappa values are required for the site response 

analyses. Base-case kappa estimates were determined using Section B-5.1.3.1 of the SPIO 

(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 Os of 40 below 500 ft combined with the low strain damping from the 

EPRI rock curves and an additional kappa of 0.006 s for the underlying hard rock. For the PNP 

site, with about 3,000 ft (1 km) of firm rock, a Os of 40 below 500 ft combined with the low-strain 

damping from the EPRI rock curves and an additional kappa of 0.006 s for the underlying hardrock was considered appropriate for the deep profiles (P4, P5 and P6). (EPRI, 2014) 

For the shallow PNP profiles (P1, P2 and P3) with about 148 ft (45m) of soils over hard 

reference rock, the kappa value of 0.006 s for hard rock (EPRI, 2013a) dominates profile 

damping. The 148 ft (45 m) of soils, based on the low-strain damping from the EPRI soil G/Gmax 

and hysteretic damping curves, reflects a contribution of only about 0.003 s, with the addition of 

the hard basement rock value of 0.006 s resulting in a total kappa for Profile P1 of 0.009 s 

(SPIO (EPRI, 2013a)) (Table 2.3.2-2). As a result, the dominate source of 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 for these 

profiles. (EPRI, 2014) 

For the deeper profiles (P4, P5 and P6), with about 3,000 ft (914 m) to hard rock site conditions, 

the estimates of kappa were based on the low-strain damping in the hysteretic damping curves 

over the top 500 ft (152 m) plus the assumption of a constant hysteretic damping of 1.25 (Os of 

40) for the remaining firm rock profile in addition to a kappa value of 0.006 s for hard-rock, 

14 
conditioned with an upper bound of 0.04 s (EPRI, 201 3a). For base-case profiles P4, P5, and

P6 the kappa contributions from the profiles was 0.007 s, 0.032 s, and 0.013 s respectively.

The total kappa values, after adding the hard reference rock value of 0.006 s, were 0013 s,

0.038 s, and 0.019 s respectively (Table 2.3.2-2). The range in kappa from 0.007 s to 0.038 s

was considered to reflect a sufficient characterization of epistemic uncertainty in damping for the

profile (Table 2.3.2-2). (EPRI, 2014)

Table 2.3.2-2. Kappa Values and Weights Used for Site Response Analyses. (EPRI, 2014)

Velocity Profile Kaa(s)

GlGmax and Hysteretic Damping Weights

Curves

Ml 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 PNP 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 (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 the Description and Validation of the Stochastic Ground Motion Model

(Toro, 1997) for United States Geological Survey (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), correlation of shear wave

velocity between layers was modeled using the USGS A correlation model. In the correlation

model, a limit of ±2 standard deviations about the median value in each layer was assumed for

P1

P2

P3

P4

PS

P6

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

0.Ô09

0.010

0.008

0.013

0.038

0.019

Weights

0.20

0.15

0.15

0.20

0.

0.

1

1

5

5

15

conditioned with an upper bound of 0.04 s (EPRI, 2013a). For base-case profiles P4, P5, and 

P6 the kappa contributions from the profiles was 0.007 s, 0.032 s, and 0.013 s respectively. 

The total kappa values, after adding the hard reference rock value of 0.006 s, were 0.013 s, 

0.038 s; and 0.019 s respectively (Table 2.3.2-2). The range in kappa from 0.007 s to 0.038 s 

was considered to reflect a sufficient characterization of epistemic uncertainty in damping for the 

profile (Table 2.3.2-2). (EPRI, 2014) 

Table 2.3.2-2. Kappa Values and Weights Used for Site Response Analyses. (EPRI, 2014) 

Velocity Profile Kappa(s) 

P1 0.009 

P2 0.010 

P3 0.008 

P4 0.013 

P5 0.038 

P6 0.019 

Weights 

P1 0.20 

P2 0.15 

P3 0.15 

P4 0.20 

P5 0.15 

P6 0.15 

G/Gmax and Hysteretic Damping Weights 

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 PNP 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 (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 the Description and Validation of the Stochastic Ground Motion Model 

(Toro, 1997) for United States Geological Survey (USGS) "An 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), correlation of shear wave 

velocity between layers was modeled using the USGS A correlation model. In the correlation 

model, a limit of ±2 standard deviations about the median value in each layer was assumed for 

15 
the limits on random velocity fluctuations. All random velocities were limited to be less than or

equal to 9830 ft/s. (EPRI, 2014)

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 .5g) were used in the site response analyses. The characteristics

of the seismic source and upper crustal attenuation properties assumed for the analysis of the

PNP 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 sites. (EPRI, 2014)

2.3.5 Methodology

To perform the site response analyses for the PNP site, a random vibration theory (RVT)

approach was employed. This process utilizes a simple, efficient approach for computing sitespecific amplification functions and is consistent with 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 with limited at-site information was followed for the PNP

site. (EPRI, 2014)

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.Olg 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 in the soils at the PNP site,

Figure 2.3.6-2 shows the corresponding amplification factors developed with Peninsular Range

G/Gmax and hysteretic damping curves for soil (model M2). Figures 2.3.6-1 and Figure 2.3.6-2

respectively show only a relatively minor difference for the 0.3g loading level and below. Above

about the 0.3g loading level, the differences increase mainly in frequencies above about 1 Hz.

Tabulated values of the amplification factors are provided in Appendix A, For Information Only.

(EPRI, 2014)

16

the limits on random velocity fluctuations. All random velocities were limited to be less than or 

equal to 9830 ftls. (EPRI, 2014) 

2.3.4 Input Spectra 

Consistent with the guidance in Appendix 8 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-comer and 

double-corner). A range of 11 different input amplitudes (median peak ground accelerations 

(PGA) ranging from 0.01 to 1.5g) were used in the site response analyses. The characteristics 

of the seismic source and upper crustal attenuation properties assumed for the analysis of the 

PNP site were the same as those identified in Tables 8-4, 8-5, 8-6 and 8-7 of the SPID (EPRI, 

2013a) as appropriate for typical CEUS sites. (EPRI, 2014) 

2.3.5 Methodology 

To perform the site response analyses for the PNP site, a random vibration theory (RVT) 

approach was employed. This process utilizes a simple, efficient approach for computing sitespecific amplification functions and is consistent with existing NRC guidance and the SPID 

(EPRI, 2013a). The guidance contained in Appendix 8 of the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) 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 PNP 

site. (EPRI, 2014) 

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 (O.01g to 1.50g) for profile P1 and EPRI soil 

and rock GIG max 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 in the soils at the PNP site, 

Figure 2.3.6-2 shows the corresponding amplification factors developed with Peninsular Range 

G/Gmax and hysteretic damping curves for soil (model M2). Figures 2.3.6-1 and Figure 2.3.6-2 

respectively show only a relatively minor difference for the 0.3g loading level and below. Above 

about the 0.3g loading level, the differences increase mainly in frequencies above about 1 Hz. 

Tabulated values of the amplification factors are provided in Appendix A, For Information Only. 

(EPRI,2014) 

16 
C—

4-,

Li

a:

-1-’

U

C

C

E

a:

C

4-,

Li

44 C

C

0

a:

0

C

fll1PLIFICflTION, PflL.ISflDES, N1P1KI

M 65, 1 CORNER FGL I 0F

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 Ml), and

base-case kappa (K1) at eleven loading levels of hard-rock median peak

acceleration values from 0.Olg to 1.50g. M 6.5 and single-corner source model

(EPRI, 2013a). (EPRI, 2014)

C

IrIFIJT t10T1 0.01G INPUT *DTICI1 0.05G

• tNPUT N0TK’1 O.LOG

I Iulilpil I I 1111111 I 111111

tNPUT M0T11 O.20G

• INPUT N0TI1 C,0C

.-

INPUT P1OTICH 040G

10—1 1.00

C

101 in2

Fre9uerlcH (Hz)

0 lOl 102

Frecjunc (Hz)

17

cog 

M;'~ 1':\ 

g 

4J I\: .~.\.-.~-- otl I "'_' , - -,----

u r , 

~o 0 

f_ 9 ~ 

a.. 

e 

a: I INPUT MOTION O.OIG I INPUT I'KlTION O. OSG 

g ~ 

c ... 

0° ... ~ 

4J 

otl 

U 

;::0 0 

t"" g g 

a.. 

e 

a: ... .... I INPUT ~OTION a . lOG I II'flUT ~OTIQi a.zaG 

g s 

c-

.~ :! g 

+' 

n::l 

U 

~o 

.~ 0 g 

Cl... 

e 

a: ... .... I II'FUT ,""OTIai a. 30G I INPUT I'()TION 0.4OG 

g 9 

10 -1 to 0 10 1 10 2 10 - 1 10 0 10 1 10 2 

Freguenc~ (Hz) Freguenc~ (Hz) 

AMPLIFICATION1 PALISADES1 M1P1Kl 

M 6.5) 1 CORNER PAGE 1 OF Z 

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-comer source model 

(EPRI, 2013a). (EPRI, 2014) 

17 
c

c9

-4-,

C)

40

0

0-

E

C

0

I[PJT MOTIcN 15IJG

0

0

0

0

Pi[1PLIFICTION, PflLIS1DES, M1P1K1

M 6.5, 1 CORNER PRGL OF ?

Figure 2.3.6-1 .(cont.)

18

0

• I 1111111 I I IIIIILI I

‘:

• INPUT nOT]ft 0500 0

0

J%

INPUT MDT)W 1.000

I

INPUT WJTIt 0.750

I 11111114 I 11111111 1111111—

INPUT FIOTICH 1.250

}

C-,

-I-,

4-)

40

• 0

0-

S

C

C

C

02

44

In

1-)

40

• - 0

0-

S

C

0

0

ia io to1 io2

FrequencH (Hz)

c .... 0 0 .~ .... ...., 

Id 

u 

::c 

....... 0 ,..., 

Cl... 

E 

a: -I 

9 

cOO .... ....... 

...., 

10 

U 

;:0 

.,..... 9 ,...., 

Cl... 

E 

a: i 

9 

cog 

...., 

00 

U ;:Q 

....... 0 

Cl... 

E 

a: i' 

0 

..... 

. 

INPUT I'IOTlOi O. SOC 

IIflUT "'Oll Oi 1. OOG 

ItPUT PIOTI Oi 1. 50G 

10 -1 10 0 10 1 10 2 

FrequE'nc~ (Hz) 

0 

.... 

Q 

~ 

., 

CJ ItRlT I'klTIIl'! O.75G .... 

S 

0 

~ 

-I INPUT I1OTIOi I. 2SG 

9 

AMPLIFICATION, PALISADES, M1P1Kl 

M 6.5, 1 CORNER PAGE Z OF Z 

Figure 2.3.6-1 .(cont.) 

18 
I 11111111 I 11111111 I III1IT

INPUT IIOTICH 0,010 INPUT t10TI1 0.050 o 0

c•_ 4 I I ‘Jill’’ I II1l1l — I 11111111 I IIIII1J1 I I

INPUT MOTICH 0.LOG INPUT NOTIW O.2X o 0

I 11111111 ‘11111111 illIlil —

INPUT NOTIQI 0.300 INPUT MOTION 0.400 o o

to—1 toO 101 io2 10—1 100 io2

Frequency (Hz) Frc9uencd (Hz)

PMPL1FICTI0N, PLISflDES, M2PIKI

ri 6.5, 1 CORNER PFICE 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 (Ki) at eleven loading

levels of hard-rock median peak acceleration values from 0.Olg to 1.50g. M 6.5

and single-corner source model (EPRI, 2013a). (EPRI, 2014)

19

cog 

+' 

Itl 

u 

~c 

.~ CJ 

....., - c.... 

E 

cr: 

i' 

5! 

cog 

+' 

0tI 

U 

~o 

11"""\ :: 

Q.. 

E 

cr: -, 

9 

c-

.!2 ~ 

+' 

0tI 

U 

~CI 

.~ CI 

a.... 

E 

a: .... , 

g 

c 

5! 

II'flUT !'lOTI Ctl O. 01 G -; INPUT I'IOTiCtl O.OSC 

g 

g 

0 

g 

INPUT ~OTION a.LOG i' II'RlT MOTION O. 2(}; g 

9 

'" 9 

.... IN~JT "OTlON O.llG , INPUT OOTION O.40G 

9 

10 -1 LOO 10 1 10 2 10 -1 100 10 I 

F requenc~ (Hz) rrE'9uE'nc~ (Hz ) 

AMPLIFICATION, PALISADES, M2P1K1 

M 6.5, 1 CORNER PAGE 1 OF Z 

10 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-comer source model (EPRI, 2013a). (EPRI. 2014) 

19 
C.-.

Li

40

•rl C

C

S

C

C

C

4-,

0

C

0

C

S

a:

0

C

08

4-,

‘0

C)

4C

I.- C

0-

C

Frecjuericy (Hz)

PMPLIFICiTI0N, PflLISflDES,

C

C

C

C

M 6.5, 1 CORNER PF4GL OF

Figure 23.6-2.(cont.)

M2P1KI

C

‘

INPUT NOTIO’1 0 SOC C

C

,‘s

INPUT NOTICIl L(]JG

‘E

INPUT MOTICH 1750

I 1(111111 I I 1111111 I 111111

%.

%i

INPUT MOTICN 1.2% C

C\

‘.i

INPUT NOTICII 1.500 C

a1 io 101 rn2

20

c ..... 

I~ g ..., 

to 

u 

...... 

,+-0 

1,-1 ~ 

a... 

e 

<J: 

c09 

...... 

+J 

to 

U 

~o 

.~ 0 

..... 

Cl.. 

e 

cr: ... I 

e 

... I 

ItRlT ItOTI<l'/ O. SIlG INPUT ItlTI(}f O. 7SG 

9 /'0, 

~ 

.... INPUT 1'I0TI<l'/ l .OOG I INPUT /'IOTI<l'/ 1.25(; :! 

INPUT !q0T! (1-1 1. 50G ~ ~~LL~~-L~~~~~"~ 

10 -} to 0 10 1 10 2 

FrE.'quE'nc~ (Hz) 

AMPLIFICATION, PALISADES, M2P1Kl 

M 6.S, 1 CORNER PAGE Z Of Z 

Figure 2.3.6-2.(cont.) 

20 
2.3.7 Control Point Seismic Hazard Cuives

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 sitespecific 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 PNP 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. (EPRI, 2014)

Figure 2.3.7-1. Control point mean hazard curves for spectral frequencies of 0.5, 1.0, 2.5, 5.0,

10, 25 and PGA (100 Hz) at PNP. (EPRI, 2014)

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 GMRS. The UHRS were obtained through linear

interpolation in log-log space to estimate the spectral acceleration at each spectral frequency for

Total Mean Soil Hazard by Spectral Frequency at Palisades

1E-2

1E-3

U

w —25Hz

a) a) —10Hz

1E-4

5Hz

0

PGA U

C

—2.5 Hz 1E-5

a) —1Hz

—0.5 Hz

C

1E-6

1E-7

0.01 10

Spectral acceleration (g)

0.1 1

21

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 8-6.0 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 sitespecific 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 PNP 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. (EPRI, 2014) 

Total Mean Soil Hazard by Spectral Frequency at Palisades 

1E-2 -:"' ":.j:=t-:-:-j-'H-j-' '1-" ····i·- - ~= c----. r------- C:.::F· 

IU 1E-3 

u 

c: 

IU 

'tS 

IU 

IU 

u lE-4 )( 

IU 

-

0 

> u 

c: 

IU 

~ 1E-5 0" 

I!! 

"::l'IIo. ' 'r 

"' ~ ~ f-- -+- --t- - . ..... ~ 

-

- h "I" ~ -

~ -

~ I -

I--- ., - 1-- ~ -.--'-

~ .. ~ ~ ---- 1-'- _. -

, '\. "- ~ ~~ 

- -._, c"X: c:--:=:" , " , ,_ . .. .. . - -

-25Hz 

- 10Hz 

- 5Hz 

- PGA 

- 2.5 Hz 

- 1Hz 

- '- 1'- - '-'-, IU 

~ 

c: 

c: 1E-6 C[ 

c- " - -' - ~r\ 

~ ~ rr . - -. '4"1 - -," f-'\.' 

- 0.5 Hz 

" ..J.- I-i-l. ~ .'-

.-'-- " - " 

~ ~ ~ -I-

. 

'" 1E-7 

0.01 0.1 1 10 

Spectral acceleration (g) 

Figure 2.3.7-1. Control point mean hazard curves for spectral frequencies of 0.5, 1.0,2.5,5.0, 

10,25 and PGA (100 Hz) at PNP. (EPRI, 2014) 

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 GMRS. The UHRS were obtained through linear 

interpolation in log-log space to estimate the spectral acceleration at each spectral frequency for 

21 
the i04and 1O per year hazard levels. Table 2.4-1 shows the UHRS and GMRS accelerations

for a range of frequencies. (EPRI, 2014)

22

the 10-4 and 10.5 per year hazard levels. Table 2.4-1 shows the UHRS and GMRS accelerations 

for a range of frequencies. (EPRI, 2014) 

22 
Table 2.4-1. UHRS and GMRS for PNP. (EPRI, 2014)

Freq. iO UHRS i0 UHRS GMRS

(Hz) (g) (g) (g)

100 2.02E-01 5.82E-01 2.83E-01

90 2.03E-01 5.91 E-01 2.87E-01

80 2.05E-01 6.03E-01 2.92E-01

70 2.09E-01 6.20E-01 2.99E-01

60 2.18E-01 6.50E-01 3.13E-01

50 2.38E-01 7.08E-01 3.41 E-01

40 2.71 E-01 8.02E-O1 3.87E-01

35 2.88E-01 8.55E-01 4.13E-01

30 3.I1E-01 9.24E-01 4.46E-01

25 3.41 E-01 1.03E+00 4.93E-01

20 3.52E-01 1.06E÷00 5.11E-01

15 3.92E-01 1.12E+00 5.46E-01

12.5 3.78E-01 1.13E+00 5.43E-01

10 4.03E-01 1.12E+00 5.49E-01

9 4.1OE-01 1.14E+00 5.59E-01

8 3.85E-01 1.13E+00 5.49E-01

7 3.51 E-01 1.06E+00 5.08E-01

6 3.51 E-01 9.87E-01 4.82E-01

5 3.46E-01 9.52E-01 4.66E-01

4 3.22E-01 8.96E-01 4.38E-01

3.5 3.12E-01 8.47E-01 4.16E-01

3 2.75E-01 7.47E-01 3.67E-01

2.5 2.41 E-01 6.17E-01 3.07E-01

2 2.28E-01 5.82E-01 2.90E-01

1.5 1.86E-01 4.47E-01 2.25E-01

1.25 1.63E-01 3.73E-01 1.90E-01

1 1.22E-01 2.96E-01 1.49E-01

0.9 1.04E-01 2.61E-01 1.30E-01

0.8 8.77E-02 2.24E-01 1.11E-01

0.7 7.50E-02 1.90E-01 9.47E-02

0.6 6.47E-02 1.59E-01 7.97E-02

0.5 5.52E-02 1.29E-01 6.51E-02

0.4 4.42E-02 1.03E-01 5.21 E-02

0.35 3.87E-02 9.OOE-02 4.56E-02

0.3 3.31E-02 7.71E-02 3.91E-02

0.25 2.76E-02 6.43E-02 3.26E-02

0.2 2.21 E-02 5.14E-02 2.60E-02

0.15 1.66E-02 3.86E-02 1.95E-02

0.125 1.38E-02 3.21E-02 1.63E-02

0.1 1.1OE-02 2.57E-02 1.30E-02

23

Table 2.4-1. UHRS and GMRS for PNP. (EPRI, 2014) 

Freq. 10-4 UHRS 10-::' UHRS GMRS 

(Hz) (g) (g) (g) 

100 2.02E-01 5.B2E-01 2.B3E-01 

90 2.03E-01 5.91E-01 2.B7E-01 

BO 2.05E-01 S.03E-01 2.92E-01 

70 2.09E-01 S.20E-01 2.99E-01 

SO 2.18E-01 S.50E-01 3.13E-01 

50 2.3BE-01 7.0BE-01 3.41 E-01 

40 2.71E-01 B.02E-01 3.B7E-01 

35 2.BBE-01 B.55E-01 4.13E-01 

30 3.11 E-01 9.24E-01 4.4SE-01 

25 3.41E-01 1.03E+00 4.93E-01 

20 3.52E-01 1.0SE+00 5.11 E-01 

15 3.92E-01 1.12E+00 5.4SE-01 

12.5 3.78E-01 1.13E+00 5.43E-01 

10 4.03E-01 1.12E+00 5.49E-01 

9 4.10E-01 1.14E+00 5.59E-01 

B 3.B5E-01 1.13E+00 5.49E-01 

7 3.51 E-01 1.0SE+00 5.0BE-01 

S 3.51E-01 9.B7E-01 4.B2E-01 

5 3.4SE-01 9.52E-01 4.S6E-01 

4 3.22E-01 B.96E-01 4.38E-01 

3.5 3.12E-01 B.47E-01 4.16E-01 

3 2.75E-01 7.47E-01 3.67E-01 

2.5 2.41 E-01 S.17E-01 3.07E-01 

2 2.2BE-01 5.B2E-01 2.90E-01 

1.5 1.BSE-01 4.47E-01 2.25E-01 

1.25 1.63E-01 3.73E-01 1.90E-01 

1 1.22E-01 2.9SE-01 1.49E-01 

0.9 1.04E-01 2.S1E-01 1.30E-01 

0.8 B.77E-02 2.24E-01 1.11 E-01 

0.7 7.50E-02 1.90E-01 9.47E-02 

0.6 6.47E-02 1.59E-01 7.97E-02 

0.5 5.52E-02 1.29E-01 6.51E-02 

0.4 . 4.42E-02 1.03E-01 5.21E-02 

0.35 3.B7E-02 9.00E-02 4.56E-02 

0.3 3.31E-02 7.71E-02 3.91E-02 

0.25 2.7SE-02 6.43E-02 3.26E-02 

0.2 2.21E-02 5.14E-02 2.60E-02 

0.15 1.66E-02 3.86E-02 1.95E-02 

0.125 1.38E-02 3.21E-02 1.63E-02 

0.1 1.10E-02 2.57E-02 1.30E-02 

23 
The i04and UHRS are used to compute the GMRS at the control point and are shown in

Figure 2.4-1. (EPRI, 2014)

Mean Soil UHRS and GMRS at Palisades

Figure 2.4-1. UHRS for io and i05and GMRS at control point for PNP (5%-damped

response spectra). (EPRI, 2014)

3.0 Plant Design Basis and Beyond Design Basis Evaluation Ground Motion

The seismic design basis for PNP is discussed in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report

(Entergy, 2012a). An evaluation for Beyond Design Basis (BDB) ground motions was performed

for the resolution of Generic Letter 88-20, Supplement 4, for the Individual Plant Examination of

External Events (IPEEE) (U.S. NRC, 1991).

3.1 Safe Shutdown Earthquake Description of Spectral Shape

The SSE was developed through an evaluation of the maximum earthquake potential for the

region surrounding the site. Considering the historic seismicity of the site region, PNP is located

in Zone VIII on the Richter seismic regionalization map (Richter, 1959) with a maximum

probable seismic intensity of VIII (MMI). A detailed evaluation of historic epicenters, the regional

geology, and a study of actual foundation conditions at the site indicated that a Zone VIII

assignment was too conservative for PNP. It was determined, based on the foundation

conditions at the PNP site, that a reduction in probable maximum intensity to between VI and VII

1.4

1.2

1.

C

0

O.8

O.6

n 0.4

0.2

0.

—1E-5 UHRS

—GMRS

—1E-4 UHRS

0.1 1 10

Spectral frequency, Hz

100

24

The 10-4 and 10-5 UHRS are used to compute the GMRS at the control point and are shown in 

Figure 2.4-1. (EPRI, 2014) 

QO 

c' 

0 

'.f;O 

I! 

cu 

Gi 

u 

U 

IV 

I! 

... 

u 

cu 

Q. 

I/) 

Mean Soil UHRS and GMRS at Palisades 

1.4 

1.2 

1. - lE-SUHRS 

0.8 -GMRS 

- lE-4UHRS 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

o. 

0.1 1 10 100 

Spectral frequency, Hz 

Figure 2.4-1. UHRS for 10-4 and 10-5 and GMRS at control point for PNP (5%-damped 

response spectra). (EPRI, 2014) 

3.0 Plant Design Basis and Beyond Design Basis Evaluation Ground Motion 

The seismic design basis for PNP is discussed in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 

(Entergy, 2012a). An evaluation for Beyond Design Basis (BOB) ground motions was performed 

for the resolution of Generic Letter 88-20, Supplement 4, for the Individual Plant Examination of 

External Events (IPEEE) (U.S. NRC, 1991). 

3.1 Safe Shutdown Earthquake Description of Spectral Shape 

The SSE was developed through an evaluation of the maximum earthquake potential for the 

region surrounding the site. ConSidering the historic seismicity of the site region, PNP is located 

in Zone VIII on the Richter seismic regionalization map (Richter, 1959) with a maximum 

probable seismic intensity of VIII (MMI). A detailed evaluation of historic epicenters, the regional 

geology, and a study of actual foundation conditions at the site indicated that a Zone VIII 

assignment was too conservative for PNP. It was determined, based on the foundation 

conditions at the PNP site, that a reduction in probable maximum intensity to between VI and VII 

24 
(MMI) was warranted. However, because of the uncertainties involved in associating regional

activity with specific geologic structures, a conservative value of O.2g PGA was used as the

SSE. (Entergy, 2012a)

The SSE is defined in terms of a PGA and a design response spectrum. The horizontal ground

design spectrum was generated by averaging several acceleration spectra from actual

earthquake records, normalized to the same maximum ground acceleration. The average

response spectrum thus obtained covers a variety of foundation conditions ranging from rock to

deep alluvium. This spectrum is commonly referred to as the “Housner” spectrum. Table 3.1-1

shows the spectral acceleration (SA) values as a function of frequency for the 5% damped

horizontal SSE. (Entergy, 2012a)

Table 3.1-1. SSE for PNP (Entergy, 2012a).

Freq.(Hz) 100 25 10 5 2.5 1 0.5

SA (g) 0.2 0.206 0.24 0.310 0.285 0.16 0.096

3.2 Control Point Elevation

The SSE control point elevation is defined at the ground surface, in the free field (Entergy,

2012a).

3.3 IPEEE Description and Capacity Response Spectrum

A Level I Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) with a Containment Performance Analysis was

performed during the scope of the IPEEE assessment, however this assessment was not

reviewed in detail as PNP will not be screening-out based on the revised GMRS. (Entergy,

1996)

4.0 Screening Evaluation

In accordance with SPID (EPRI, 2013a) Section 3, a screening evaluation was performed as

described below.

4.1 Risk Evaluation Screening (1 to 10 Hz)

In the ito 10 Hz part of the response spectrum, the GMRS exceeds the SSE. Therefore, the

Palisades Nuclear Plant screens-in for a risk evaluation.

4.2 High Frequency Screening (> 10 Hz)

In the frequency range greater than 10 Hz, the GMRS exceeds the SSE. The high frequency

exceedances can be addressed in the risk evaluation discussed in 4.1 above.

25

(MMI) was warranted. However, because of the uncertainties involved in associating regional 

activity with specific geologic structures, a conservative value of 0.2g PGA was used as the 

SSE. (Entergy, 2012a) 

The SSE is defined in terms of a PGA and a design response spectrum. The horizontal ground 

design spectrum was generated by averaging several acceleration spectra from actual 

earthquake records, normalized to the same maximum ground acceleration. The average 

response spectrum thus obtained covers a variety of foundation conditions ranging from rock to 

deep alluvium. This spectrum is commonly referred to as the "Housner" spectrum. Table 3.1-1 

shows the spectral acceleration (SA) values as a function of frequency for the 5% damped 

horizontal SSE. (Entergy, 2012a) 

Table 3.1-1. SSE for PNP (Entergy, 2012a). 

Freq. (Hz) 100 25 10 5 2.5 1 0.5 

SA (g) 0.2 0.206 0.24 0.310 0.285 0.16 0.096 

3.2 Control Point Elevation 

The SSE control point elevation is defined at the ground surface, in the free field (Entergy, 

2012a). 

3.3IPEEE Description and Capacity Response Spectrum 

A Level 1 Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) with a Containment Performance Analysis was 

performed during the scope of the IPEEE assessment, however this assessment was not 

reviewed in detail as PNP will not be screening-out based on the revised GMRS. (Entergy, 

1996) 

4.0 Screening Evaluation 

In accordance with SPID (EPRI, 2013a) Section 3, a screening evaluation was performed as 

described below. 

4.1 Risk Evaluation Screening (1 to 10 Hz) 

In the 1 to 10Hz part of the response spectrum, the GMRS exceeds the SSE. Therefore, the 

Palisades Nuclear Plant screens-in for a risk evaluation. 

4.2 High Frequency Screening (> 10 Hz) 

In the frequency range greater than 10 Hz, the GMRS exceeds the SSE. The high frequency 

exceedances can be addressed in the risk evaluation discussed in 4.1 above. 

25 
4.3 Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation Screening (1 to 10 Hz)

In the ito 10 Hz part of the response spectrum, the GMRS exceeds the SSE. Therefore, the

Palisades Nuclear Plant screens-in for a Spent Fuel Pool evaluation.

5.0 Interim Actions

Based on the screening evaluation, the expedited seismic evaluation described in EPRI

3002000704 (EPRI, 2013c) will be performed as proposed in a letter to the NRC

(ML13101A379) dated April 9, 2013 (NEI, 2013) and agreed to by the NRC (ML13106A331) in a

letter dated May 7, 2013 (U.S. NRC, 2013).

Consistent with NRC letter (ML14030A046) dated February 20, 2014 (U.S. NRC, 2014), the

seismic hazard reevaluations presented herein are distinct from the current design and licensing

bases of PNP. 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-1 99 Safety/Risk

Assessment (U.S. NRC, 2010):

Overall seismic core damage risk estimates are consistent with the Commission’s Safety

Goal Policy Statement because they are within the subsidiary objective of I04/year for

core damage frequency. The GI-i99 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.

PNP is included in the March 12, 2014 risk estimates. Using the methodology described in the

NFl letter, all plants were shown to be below 104/year; thus, the above conclusions apply (NEI,

2014).

In accordance with the Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3, PNP performed seismic

walkdowns using the guidance in EPRI Report 1025286 (EPRI, 2012). The seismic walkdowns

were completed and captured in Fukushima Seismic Walkdown Report PNP-RPT-12-00141

(Entergy, 201 2b). The goal of the walkdowns was to verify current plant configuration with the

existing licensing basis, to verify the current maintenance plans, and to identify any

26

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

In the 1 to 10Hz part of the response spectrum, the GMRS exceeds the SSE. Therefore, the 

Palisades Nuclear Plant screens-in for a Spent Fuel Pool evaluation. 

5.0 Interim Actions 

Based on the screening evaluation, the expedited seismic evaluation described in EPRI 

3002000704 (EPRI, 2013c) will be performed as proposed in a letter to the NRC 

(ML 13101A379) dated April 9, 2013 (NEI, 2013) and agreed to by the NRC (ML 13106A331) in a 

letter dated May 7,2013 (U.S. NRC, 2013). 

Consistent with NRC letter (ML 14030A046) dated February 20,2014 (U.S. NRC, 2014), the 

seismic hazard reevaluations presented herein are distinct from the current design and licensing 

bases of PNP. 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, NElletter 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 (U.S. NRC, 2010): 

Overall seismic core damage risk estimates are consistent with the Commission's Safety 

Goal Policy Statement because they are within the subsidiary objective of 1 0-4/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 Extemal 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. 

PNP is included in the March 12,2014 risk estimates. Using the methodology described in the 

NElletter, all plants were shown to be below 10-4/year; thus, the above conclusions apply (NEI, 

2014). 

In accordance with the Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3, PNP performed seismic 

walkdowns using the guidance in EPRI Report 1025286 (EPRI, 2012). The seismic walkdowns 

were completed and captured in Fukushima Seismic Walkdown Report PNP-RPT-12-00141 

(Entergy, 2012b). The goal of the walkdowns was to verify current plant configuration with the 

existing licensing basis, to verify the current maintenance plans, and to identify any 

26 
vulnerabilities. The walkdown also verified that any vulnerabilities identified in the IPEEE

(Entergy, 1996) are adequately addressed. The results of the walkdown, including any identified

corrective actions, confirm that PNP can adequately respond to a seismic event.

6.0 Conclusions

In accordance with the 50.54(f) request for information (U.S. NRC, 2012), a seismic hazard and

screening evaluation was performed for PNP. A GMRS was developed solely for purpose of

screening for additional evaluations in accordance with the SPID (EPRI, 2013a). Based on the

results of the screening evaluation, the Palisades Nuclear Plant screens-in for a risk evaluation,

a Spent Fuel Pool evaluation, and a High Frequency Confirmation.

7.0 References

10 CFR Part 50. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of

Production and Utilization Facilities,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington

DC.

10 CFR Part 50.72. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50.72, “Immediate Notification

Requirements for Operating Nuclear Power Reactors,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington DC.

10 CFR Part 50.73. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50.73, “Licensee Event Report

System,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC.

10 CFR Part 100. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 100, “Reactor Site Criteria,” U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC.

CEUS-SSC (2012). “Central and Eastern United States Seismic Source Characterization for

Nuclear Facilities,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report, NUREG-21 15; EPRI

Report 1021097, 6 Volumes; DOE Report# DOE/NE-0140.

Entergy (1996). Consumers Power Co. letter to NRC, “Submittal of Revised IPEEE Report

Based on Reanalysis of Internal Fires,” May 31, 1996.

Entergy (2012a). Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. letter, PNP 2012-067, “Palisades Nuclear

Power Plant Final Safety Analysis Report Update — Revision 30,” Docket 50-255,

October 18, 2012.

Entergy (2012b). Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. letter, PNP 2012-102, “Seismic Walkdown

Report — Response to NRC Request for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f)

Regarding the Seismic Aspects of Recommendation 2.3 of the Near-Term Task Force

Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-lchi Accident,” dated November 27, 2012.

(ADMAS Accession Number ML 1 2334A093)

EPRI (2012). EPRI 1025286, “Seismic Walkdown Guidance for Resolution of Fukushima Near

Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3: Seismic,” June 2012.

EPRI (2013a). EPRI 1025287, “Seismic Evaluation Guidance Screening, Prioritization and

Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force

Recommendation 2.1: Seismic,” Feb. 2013.

EPRI (2013b). EPRI 3002000707, “EPRI (2004, 2006) Ground-Motion Model (GMM) Review

Project,” 2 Volumes, June 2013.

27

vulnerabilities. The walkdown also verified that any vulnerabilities identified in the IPEEE 

(Entergy, 1996) are adequately addressed. The results of the walkdown, including any identified 

corrective actions, confirm that PNP can adequately respond to a seismic event. 

6.0 Conclusions 

In accordance with the 50.54(f) request for information (U.S. NRC, 2012), a seismic hazard and 

screening evaluation was performed for PNP. A GMRS was developed solely for purpose of 

screening for additional evaluations in accordance with the SPID (EPRI, 2013a). Based on the 

results of the screening evaluation, the Palisades Nuclear Plant screens-in for a risk evaluation, 

a Spent Fuel Pool evaluation, and a High Frequency Confirmation. 

7.0 References 

10 CFR Part 50. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of 

Production and Utilization Facilities," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington 

DC. 

10 CFR Part 50.72. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50.72, "Immediate Notification 

Requirements for Operating Nuclear Power Reactors," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington DC. 

10 CFR Part 50.73. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50.73, "Licensee Event Report 

System," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC. 

10 CFR Part 100. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 100, "Reactor Site Criteria," U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC. 

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. 

Entergy (1996). Consumers Power Co. letter to NRC, "Submittal of Revised IPEEE Report 

Based on Reanalysis of Internal Fires," May 31, 1996. 

Entergy (2012a). Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. letter, PNP 2012-067, "Palisades Nuclear 

Power Plant Final Safety Analysis Report Update - Revision 30," Docket 50-255, 

October 18, 2012. 

Entergy (2012b). Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. letter, PNP 2012-102, "Seismic Walkdown 

Report - Response to NRC Request for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) 

Regarding the Seismic Aspects of Recommendation 2.3 of the Near-Term Task Force 

Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Accident," dated November 27, 2012. 

(ADMAS Accession Number ML 12334A093) 

EPRI (2012). EPRI 1025286, "Seismic Walkdown Guidance for Resolution of Fukushima NearTerm Task Force Recommendation 2.3: Seismic," June 2012. 

EPRI (2013a). EPR11025287, "Seismic Evaluation Guidance Screening, Prioritization and 

Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force 

Recommendation 2.1: Seismic," Feb. 2013. 

EPRI (2013b). EPR13002000707, "EPRI (2004, 2006) Ground-Motion Model (GMM) Review 

Project," 2 Volumes, June 2013. 

27 
EPRI (2013c). EPRI 3002000704, “Seismic Evaluation Guidance, Augmented Approach for the

Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic,” May

2013.

EPRI (2014). “Palisades Seismic Hazard and Screening Report,” Electric Power Research

Institute, Palo Alto, CA, dated February 7, 2014.

GEl Consultants (1994). “Soils Report for IPEEE,” Revision 1, March 1994.

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.

NEI (2013). NEI Letter to NRC, “Proposed Path Forward for NTTF Recommendation 2.1:

Seismic Reevaluations,” April 9, 2013.

NEI (2014). NEI Letter to NRC, “Seismic Risk Evaluations for Plants in the Central and Eastern

United States,” March 12, 2014.

Richter (1959). “Seismic Regionalization,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,

Volume 49, No. 2, 1959.

U.S. NRC (1991). “Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) for Severe

Accident Vulnerabilities - 1OCFR 50.54(f) (Generic Letter No. 88-20, Supplement 4),”

June28, 1991.

U.S. NRC (2007). “A Performance-Based Approach to Define the Site-Specific Earthquake

Ground Motion,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Reg. Guide 1.208.

U.S. NRC (2010). “Implications of Updated Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Estimates in Central

and Eastern United States on Existing Plants,” Gl-199, September 2, 2010.

U.S. NRC (2012). NRC (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 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-lchi Accident,” March 12, 2012.

U.S. NRC (2013). NRC Letter, Eric J. Leeds to Joseph E. Pollock, NEI “Electric Power

Research Institute Final Draft Report X)O(XXX, 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 Reevaluation,” dated May 7, 2013.

U.S. NRC (2014). NRC Letter, Eric J. Leeds to All Power Reactor Licensees, “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,” dated February 20, 2014.

28

EPRI (2013c). EPRI 3002000704, "Seismic Evaluation Guidance, Augmented Approach for the 

Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic," May 

2013. 

EPRI (2014). "Palisades Seismic Hazard and Screening Report," Electric Power Research 

Institute, Palo Alto, CA, dated February 7, 2014. 

GEl Consultants (1994). "Soils Report for IPEEE," Revision 1, March 1994. 

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. 

NEI (2013). NEI Letter to NRC, "Proposed Path Forward for NTTF Recommendation 2.1: 

Seismic Reevaluations," April 9, 2013. 

NEI (2014). NEI Letter to NRC, "Seismic Risk Evaluations for Plants in the Central and Eastern 

United States," March 12,2014. 

Richter (1959). "Seismic Regionalization," Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 

Volume 49, No.2, 1959. 

U.S. NRC (1991). "Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) for Severe 

Accident Vulnerabilities - 10CFR 50.54(f) (Generic Letter No. 88-20, Supplement 4)," 

June 28, 1991. 

U.S. NRC (2007). "A Performance-Based Approach to Define the Site-Specific Earthquake 

Ground Motion," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Reg. Guide 1.208. 

U.S. NRC (2010). "Implications of Updated Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Estimates in Central 

and Eastern United States on Existing Plants," GI-199, September 2,2010. 

U.S. NRC (2012). NRC (E Leeds and M Johnson) Letter to All Power Reactor Licensees et aI., 

"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," March 12,2012. 

U.S. NRC (2013). NRC Letter, Eric J. Leeds to Joseph E. Pollock, NEI "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 Reevaluation," dated May 7,2013. 

U.S. NRC (2014). NRC Letter, Eric J. Leeds to All Power Reactor Licensees, "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," dated February 20,2014. 

28 
Appendix A

Tabulated Data

29

Appendix A 

Tabulated Data 

29 
Table A-la. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 100 Hz (PGA) at PNP

(EPRI, 2014)

AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95

0.0005 5.92E-02 3.37E-02 4.31E-02 6.OOE-02 7.55E-02 8.47E-02

0.001 4.96E-02 2.32E-02 3.42E-02 4.90E-02 6.54E-02 7.66E-02

0.005 l.89E-02 6.64E-03 1.1IE-02 l.77E-02 2.68E-02 3.52E-02

0.01 l.03E-02 3.19E-03 5.42E-03 9.24E-03 l.46E-02 2.13E-02

0.015 6.83E-03 1.92E-03 3.23E-03 5.91E-03 9.93E-03 1.51E-02

0.03 2.87E-03 6.73E-04 1.1OE-03 2.22E-03 4.31E-03 7.66E-03

0.05 1.29E-03 2.49E-04 4.13E-04 8.98E-04 1.92E-03 3.84E-03

0.075 6.34E-04 9.79E-05 1.74E-04 4.07E-04 9.65E-04 1.95E-03

0.1 3.77E-04 5.12E-05 9.37E-05 2.29E-04 5.83E-04 1.18E-03

0.15 1.78E-04 1.90E-05 3.84E-05 1.04E-04 2.80E-04 5.75E-04

0.3 4.61E-05 2.76E-06 6.64E-06 2.57E-05 7.45E-05 1.57E-04

0.5 1 .48E-05 4.50E-07 I .44E-06 7.77E-06 2.49E-05 5.20E-05

0.75 5.18E-06 9.24E-08 3.90E-07 2.35E-06 9.11E-06 1.90E-05

1. 2.21E-06 2.76E-08 1.40E-07 8.72E-07 3.95E-06 8.47E-06

1.5 5.75E-07 4.31E-09 2.53E-08 1.82E-07 1.04E-06 2.39E-06

3. 4.37E-08 1.53E-10 6.17E-10 8.47E-09 6.83E-08 1.92E-07

5. 5.91E-09 9.51E-11 1.21E-10 6.64E-10 7.13E-09 2.57E-08

7.5 1.09E-09 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 1.51E-10 1.04E-09 4.63E-09

10. 3.OIE-10 8.12E-11 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 2.92E-10 1.32E-09

30

Table A-1a. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 100 Hz (PGA) at PNP 

(EPRI 2014) 

AMPS(91 MEAN O.OS 0.16 O.SO 0.84 0.9S 

O.OOOS S.92E-02 3.37E-02 4.31E-02 6.00E-02 7.SSE-02 B.47E-02 

0.001 4.96E-02 2.32E-02 3.42E-02 4.90E-02 6.54E-02 7.66E-02 

O.OOS 1.B9E-02 6.64E-03 1.11E-02 1.77E-02 2.6BE-02 3.S2E-02 

0.01 1.03E-02 3.19E-03 S.42E-03 9.24E-03 1.46E-02 2.13E-02 

0.01S 6.B3E-03 1.92E-03 3.23E-03 S.91E-03 9.93E-03 1.S1 E-02 

0.03 2.B7E-03 6.73E-04 1.10E-03 2.22E-03 4.31E-03 7.66E-03 

O.OS 1.29E-03 2.49E-04 4.13E-04 B.9BE-04 1.92E-03 3.84E-03 

0.07S 6.34E-04 9.79E-OS 1.74E-04 4.07E-04 9.6SE-04 1.9SE-03 

0.1 3.77E-04 S.12E-OS 9.37E-OS 2.29E-04 S.B3E-04 1.1BE-03 

0.1S 1.7BE-04 1.90E-OS 3.B4E-OS 1.04E-04 2.BOE-04 S.7SE-04 

0.3 4.61E-OS 2.76E-06 6.64E-06 2.S7E-OS 7.4SE-OS 1.S7E-04 

O.S 1.4BE-OS 4.S0E-07 1.44E-06 7.77E-06 2.49E-OS S.20E-OS 

0.7S S.1BE-06 9.24E-OB 3.90E-07 2.3SE-06 9.11 E-06 1.90E-OS 

1. 2.21E-06 2.76E-OB 1.40E-07 B.72E-07 3.9SE-06 B.47E-06 

1.S S.7SE-07 4.31E-09 2.S3E-OB 1.B2E-07 1.04E-06 2.39E-06 

3. 4.37E-OB 1.S3E-10 6.17E-10 B.47E-09 6.B3E-OB 1.92E-07 

S. S.91E-09 9.S1E-11 1.21E-10 6.64E-10 7.13E-09 2.S7E-OB 

7.S 1.09E-09 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 1.S1E-10 1.04E-09 4.63E-09 

10. 3.01 E-10 B.12E-11 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 2.92E-10 1.32E-09 

30 
Table A-lb. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 25 Hz at PNP

(EPRI, 20l4

AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95

0.0005 6.14E-02 3.84E-02 4.50E-02 6.17E-02 7.77E-02 8.60E-02

0.001 5.34E-02 2.92E-02 3.79E-02 5.35E-02 6.93E-02 7.89E-02

0.005 2.40E-02 9.93E-03 1.46E-02 2.25E-02 3.33E-02 4.31E-02

0.01 l.43E-02 5.12E-03 7.89E-03 l.31E-02 2.O1E-02 2.84E-02

0.015 l.OIE-02 3.33E-03 5.20E-03 8.98E-03 l.44E-02 2.1OE-02

0.03 4.92E-03 l.27E-03 2.04E-03 4.07E-03 7.55E-03 l.16E-02

0.05 2.51E-03 4.43E-04 7.66E-04 l.90E-03 4.OIE-03 6.73E-03

0.075 1.36E-03 1.57E-04 3.05E-04 9.65E-04 2.19E-03 3.95E-03

0.1 8.52E-04 7.77E-05 l.60E-04 5.66E-04 1.40E-03 2.60E-03

0.15 4.30E-04 3.28E-05 6.83E-05 2.68E-04 7.23E-04 1.34E-03

0.3 1.27E-04 9.65E-06 2.IOE-05 7.45E-05 2.13E-04 4.25E-04

0.5 4.86E-05 4.07E-06 9.I1E-06 2.76E-05 8.23E-05 l.62E-04

0.75 2.09E-05 1.74E-06 4.25E-06 l.13E-05 3.63E-05 7.13E-05

1. 1.07E-05 8.35E-07 2.13E-06 5.66E-06 1.90E-05 3.68E-05

1.5 3.67E-06 2.04E-07 5.83E-07 2.O1E-06 6.64E-06 1.27E-05

3. 4.74E-07 5.75E-09 3.05E-08 2.39E-07 9.24E-07 l.74E-06

5. 1.34E-07 2.88E-10 2.19E-09 2.32E-08 2.80E-07 6.45E-07

7.5 5.82E-08 l.21E-10 2.35E-l0 3.O1E-09 l.21E-07 3.14E-07

10. 3.27E-08 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 7.66E-10 6.73E-08 1.82E-07

31

Table A-1b. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 25 Hz at PNP 

~EPRI , 2014 

AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95 

0.0005 6.14E-02 3.84E-02 4.S0E-02 6.17E-02 7.77E-02 B.60E-02 

0.001 S.34E-02 2.92E-02 3.79E-02 S.3SE-02 6.93E-02 7.B9E-02 

0.005 2.40E-02 9.93E-03 1.46E-02 2.2SE-02 3.33E-02 4.31E-02 

0.01 1.43E-02 S.12E-03 7.B9E-03 1.31E-02 2.01E-02 2.B4E-02 

0.015 1.01 E-02 3.33E-03 S.20E-03 B.9BE-03 1.44E-02 2.10E-02 

0.03 4.92E-03 1.27E-03 2.04E-03 4.07E-03 7.SSE-03 1.16E-02 

0.05 2.S1E-03 4.43E-04 7.66E-04 1.90E-03 4.01E-03 6.73E-03 

0.075 1.36E-03 1.S7E-04 3.0SE-04 9.6SE-04 2.19E-03 3.9SE-03 

0.1 B.S2E-04 7.77E-OS 1.60E-04 S.66E-04 1.40E-03 2.60E-03 

0.15 4.30E-04 3.2BE-OS 6.B3E-OS 2.6BE-04 7.23E-04 1.34E-03 

0.3 1.27E-04 9.6SE-06 2.10E-OS 7.4SE-OS 2.13E-04 4.2SE-04 

0.5 4.B6E-OS 4.07E-06 9.11E-06 2.76E-OS B.23E-OS 1.62E-04 

0.75 2.09E-OS 1.74E-06 4.2SE-06 1.13E-OS 3.63E-OS 7.13E-OS 

1. 1.07E-OS B.3SE-07 2.13E-06 S.66E-06 1.90E-OS 3.6BE-OS 

1.5 3.67E-06 2.04E-07 S.B3E-07 2.01E-06 6.64E-06 1.27E-OS 

3. 4.74E-07 S.7SE-09 3.0SE-OB 2.39E-07 9.24E-07 1.74E-06 

5. 1.34E-07 2.BBE-10 2.19E-09 2.32E-OB 2.BOE-07 6.4SE-07 

7.5 S.B2E-OB 1.21E-10 2.3SE-10 3.01E-09 1.21E-07 3.14E-07 

10. 3.27E-OB 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 7.66E-10 6.73E-OB 1.B2E-07 

31 
Table A-ic. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 10 Hz at PNP

(EPRI, 2014)

AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95

0.0005 6.49E-02 4.37E-02 4.83E-02 6.45E-02 8.12E-02 8.85E-02

0.001 5.98E-02 3.84E-02 4.43E-02 6.OOE-02 7.55E-02 8.35E-02

0.005 3.i7E-02 i.53E-02 2.04E-02 3.05E-02 4.31E-02 5.20E-02

0.01 1.93E-02 8.23E-03 i.15E-02 1.82E-02 2.72E-02 3.42E-02

0.015 1.37E-02 5.35E-03 7.66E-03 1.27E-02 i.95E-02 2.57E-02

0.03 6.89E-03 2.i9E-03 3.33E-03 6.09E-03 i.04E-02 1.42E-02

0.05 3.72E-03 i.OiE-03 1.55E-03 3.09E-03 5.83E-03 8.47E-03

0.075 2.1OE-03 4.90E-04 7.77E-04 1.67E-03 3.37E-03 5.20E-03

0.1 1.34E-03 2.80E-04 4.63E-04 1.02E-03 2.16E-03 3.47E-03

0.15 6.70E-04 1.i6E-04 2.07E-04 4.83E-04 i.08E-03 1.82E-03

0.3 1.82E-04 2.i6E-05 4.31E-05 i.21E-04 3.05E-04 5.42E-04

0.5 6.45E-05 5.12E-06 1.13E-05 4.07E-05 1.13E-04 2.04E-04

0.75 2.67E-05 1.46E-06 3.57E-06 1.60E-05 4.83E-05 8.85E-05

1. 1.36E-05 5.91E-07 1.57E-06 7.55E-06 2.49E-05 4.70E-05

1.5 4.68E-06 1.57E-07 4.98E-07 2.19E-06 8.72E-06 1.74E-05

3. 5.27E-07 i.2iE-08 4.13E-08 1.82E-07 9.93E-07 2.22E-06

5. 8.23E-08 7.03E-10 2.88E-09 2.72E-08 1.49E-07 3.47E-07

7.5 1.88E-08 1.27E-iO 2.96E-10 4.90E-09 3.23E-08 8.35E-08

10. 7.1OE-09 1.05E-i0 1.27E-10 1.31E-09 i.15E-08 3.42E-08

32

Table A-1c. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 10 Hz at PNP 

jEPRI,2014 

AMPS(g) MEAN O.OS 0.1S O.SO 0.S4 0.9S 

O.OOOS S.49E-02 4.37E-02 4.S3E-02 S.4SE-02 S.12E-02 S.SSE-02 

0.001 S.9SE-02 3.B4E-02 4.43E-02 S.00E-02 7.SSE-02 S.3SE-02 

O.OOS 3.17E-02 1.S3E-02 2.04E-02 3.0SE-02 4.31E-02 S.20E-02 

0.01 1.93E-02 S.23E-03 1.1SE-02 1.S2E-02 2.72E-02 3.42E-02 

0.01S 1.37E-02 S.3SE-03 7.SSE-03 1.27E-02 1.9SE-02 2.S7E-02 

0.03 S.S9E-03 2.19E-03 3.33E-03 S.09E-03 1.04E-02 1.42E-02 

O.OS 3.72E-03 1.01E-03 1.SSE-03 3.09E-03 S.S3E-03 S.47E-03 

0.07S 2.10E-03 4.90E-04 7.77E-04 1.S7E-03 3.37E-03 S.20E-03 

0.1 1.34E-03 2.S0E-04 4.S3E-04 1.02E-03 2.1SE-03 3.47E-03 

0.1S S.70E-04 1.1SE-04 2.07E-04 4.S3E-04 1.0SE-03 1.S2E-03 

0.3 1.S2E-04 2.1SE-OS 4.31E-OS 1.21 E-04 3.0SE-04 S.42E-04 

O.S S.4SE-OS S.12E-OS 1.13E-OS 4.07E-OS 1.13E-04 2.04E-04 

0.7S 2.S7E-OS 1.4SE-OS 3.S7E-OS 1.S0E-OS 4.S3E-OS S.SSE-OS 

1. 1.3SE-OS S.91E-07 1.S7E-OS 7.SSE-OS 2.49E-OS 4.70E-OS 

1.S 4.SSE-OS 1.S7E-07 4.9SE-07 2.19E-OS S.72E-OS 1.74E-OS 

3. S.27E-07 1.21E-OS 4.13E-OS 1.S2E-07 9.93E-07 2.22E-OS 

S. S.23E-OS 7.03E-10 2.SSE-09 2.72E-OS 1.49E-07 3.47E-07 

7.S 1.SSE-OS 1.27E-10 2.9SE-10 4.90E-09 3.23E-OS S.3SE-OS 

10. 7.10E-09 1.0SE-10 1.27E-10 1.31 E-09 1.1SE-OS 3.42E-OS 

32 
Table A-Id. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 5.0 Hz at PNP

(EPRI. 2014)

AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95

0.0005 6.56E-02 4.43E-02 4.83E-02 6.54E-02 8.12E-02 8.98E-02

0.001 6.13E-02 4.O1E-02 4.56E-02 6.09E-02 7.66E-02 8.60E-02

0.005 3.42E-02 1.64E-02 2.19E-02 3.28E-02 4.70E-02 5.66E-02

0.01 2.07E-02 8.85E-03 1 .23E-02 1 .95E-02 2.92E-02 3.63E-02

0.015 1.44E-02 5.66E-03 8.23E-03 I.34E-02 2.07E-02 2.60E-02

0.03 6.83E-03 2.29E-03 3.52E-03 6.26E-03 1.O1E-02 1.32E-02

0.05 3.47E-03 1.02E-03 1.60E-03 3.05E-03 5.35E-03 7.45E-03

0.075 1.85E-03 4.98E-04 7.77E-04 l.53E-03 2.88E-03 4.31E-03

0.1 1.13E-03 2.88E-04 4.50E-04 8.98E-04 1.77E-03 2.80E-03

0.15 5.36E-04 1.23E-04 1.95E-04 4.07E-04 8.35E-04 1.38E-03

0.3 1.35E-04 2.35E-05 4.25E-05 9.79E-05 2.19E-04 3.63E-04

0.5 4.57E-05 5.83E-06 1.21E-05 3.19E-05 7.66E-05 1.31E-04

0.75 I.81E-05 1.57E-06 3.57E-06 1.18E-05 3.14E-05 5.50E-05

1. 8.85E-06 5.20E-07 1.31E-06 5.42E-06 1.62E-05 2.84E-05

1.5 2.95E-06 7.77E-08 2.39E-07 1.55E-06 5.50E-06 I.05E-05

3. 3.37E-07 1.40E-09 8.60E-09 1.07E-07 6.36E-07 1.46E-06

5. 5.43E-08 1.38E-10 6.64E-10 9.65E-09 9.37E-08 2.57E-07

7.5 l.14E-08 1.21E-10 1.51E-10 1.29E-09 1.64E-08 5.50E-08

10. 3.59E-09 9.I1E-11 1.21E-10 3.33E-l0 4.37E-09 I.69E-08

33

Table A-1d. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 5.0 Hz at PNP 

EPRI,2014) 

AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.1S 0.50 0.B4 0.95 

0.0005 S.5SE-02 4.43E-02 4.B3E-02 S.54E-02 B.12E-02 B.9BE-02 

0.001 S.13E-02 4.01E-02 4.5SE-02 S.09E-02 7.SSE-02 B.SOE-02 

0.005 3.42E-02 1.64E-02 2.19E-02 3.2BE-02 4.70E-02 5.SSE-02 

0.01 2.07E-02 B.B5E-03 1.23E-02 1.95E-02 2.92E-02 3.S3E-02 

0.015 1.44E-02 5.SSE-03 B.23E-03 1.34E-02 2.07E-02 2.S0E-02 

0.03 S.B3E-03 2.29E-03 3.52E-03 S.2SE-03 1.01 E-02 1.32E-02 

0.05 3.47E-03 1.02E-03 1.S0E-03 3.05E-03 5.35E-03 7.45E-03 

0.075 1.B5E-03 4.9BE-04 7.77E-04 1.53E-03 2.BBE-03 4.31E-03 

0.1 1.13E-03 2.BBE-04 4.50E-04 B.9BE-04 1.77E-03 2.BOE-03 

0.15 5.3SE-04 1.23E-04 1.95E-04 4.07E-04 B.35E-04 1.3BE-03 

0.3 1.35E-04 2.35E-05 4.25E-05 9.79E-05 2.19E-04 3.S3E-04 

0.5 4.57E-05 5.B3E-OS 1.21 E-05 3.19E-05 7.SSE-05 1.31 E-04 

0.75 1.81 E-05 1.57E-OS 3.57E-OS 1.1BE-05 3. 14E-05 5.50E-05 

1. B.B5E-OS 5.20E-07 1.31E-OS 5.42E-OS 1.S2E-05 2.B4E-05 

1.5 2.95E-OS 7.77E-OB 2.39E-07 1.55E-OS 5.50E-OS 1.05E-05 

3. 3.37E-07 1.40E-09 B.SOE-09 1.07E-07 S.3SE-07 1.4SE-OS 

5. 5.43E-OB 1.3BE-10 S.S4E-10 9.S5E-09 9.37E-OB 2.57E-07 

7.5 1.14E-OB 1.21E-10 1.51E-10 1.29E-09 1.S4E-OB 5.50E-OB 

10. 3.59E-09 9.11E-11 1.21 E-10 3.33E-10 4.37E-09 1.S9E-OB 

33 
Table A-le. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 2.5 Hz at PNP

(EPRI, 2014)

AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95

0.0005 6.42E-02 4.31E-02 4.77E-02 6.45E-02 8.OOE-02 8.85E-02

0.001 5.82E-02 3.52E-02 4.25E-02 5.75E-02 7.45E-02 8.35E-02

0.005 2.91E-02 1.13E-02 1.62E-02 2.72E-02 4.25E-02 5.35E-02

0.01 1.67E-02 5.58E-03 8.35E-03 1.51E-02 2.53E-02 3.37E-02

0.015 1.13E-02 3.33E-03 5.27E-03 1.O1E-02 1.74E-02 2.35E-02

0.03 5.13E-03 1.1OE-03 1.92E-03 4.43E-03 8.35E-03 1.15E-02

0.05 2.52E-03 4.07E-04 7.45E-04 2.O1E-03 4.37E-03 6.45E-03

0.075 1.28E-03 1.69E-04 3.19E-04 9.37E-04 2.25E-03 3.63E-03

0.1 7.41E-04 8.98E-05 1.69E-04 5.05E-04 1.29E-03 2.22E-03

0.15 3.1OE-04 3.47E-05 6.64E-05 2.O1E-04 5.35E-04 9.51E-04

0.3 5.92E-05 6.36E-06 1.32E-05 3.79E-05 1.O1E-04 1.82E-04

0.5 1.69E-05 1.60E-06 3.68E-06 1.1OE-05 2.88E-05 5.27E-05

0.75 6.13E-06 4.56E-07 1.18E-06 3.84E-06 1.07E-05 1.95E-05

1. 2.88E-06 1.67E-07 4.77E-07 1.69E-06 5.05E-06 9.65E-06

1.5 9.33E-07 3.47E-08 1.08E-07 4.63E-07 1.64E-06 3.37E-06

3. 1.15E-07 1.38E-09 4.50E-09 3.19E-08 1.92E-07 4.98E-07

5. 2.19E-08 1.67E-10 3.33E-10 3.O1E-09 3.14E-08 1.05E-07

7.5 5.44E-09 9.65E-11 1.21E-10 4.43E-10 6.26E-09 2.60E-08

10. 1.91E-09 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 1.60E-10 1.82E-09 9.1IE-09

34

Table A-1e. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 2.S Hz at PNP 

(EPRI,2014 

AMPS(g) MEAN O.OS 0.1S O.SO 0.84 0.9S 

O.OOOS S.42E-02 4.31E-02 4.77E-02 S.4SE-02 B.00E-02 B.BSE-02 

0.001 S.B2E-02 3.S2E-02 4.2SE-02 S.7SE-02 7.4SE-02 B.3SE-02 

O.OOS 2.91E-02 1.13E-02 1.S2E-02 2.72E-02 4.2SE-02 S.3SE-02 

0.01 1.S7E-02 S.SBE-03 B.3SE-03 1.S1 E-02 2.S3E-02 3.37E-02 

0.01S 1.13E-02 3.33E-03 S.27E-03 1.01 E-02 1.74E-02 2.3SE-02 

0.03 S.13E-03 1.10E-03 1.92E-03 4.43E-03 B.3SE-03 1.1SE-02 

O.OS 2.S2E-03 4.07E-04 7.4SE-04 2.01E-03 4.37E-03 S.4SE-03 

0.07S 1.2BE-03 1.S9E-04 3.19E-04 9.37E-04 2.2SE-03 3.S3E-03 

0.1 7.41E-04 B.9BE-OS 1.S9E-04 S.OSE-04 1.29E-03 2.22E-03 

0.1S 3. 1 OE-04 3.47E-OS S.S4E-OS 2.01E-04 S.3SE-04 9.S1E-04 

0.3 S.92E-OS S.3SE-OS 1.32E-OS 3.79E-OS 1.01 E-04 1.B2E-04 

O.S 1.S9E-OS 1.S0E-OS 3.SBE-OS 1.10E-OS 2.BBE-OS S.27E-OS 

0.7S S.13E-OS 4.SSE-07 1.1BE-OS 3.84E-OS 1.07E-OS 1.9SE-OS 

1. 2.BBE-OS 1.S7E-07 4.77E-07 1.S9E-OS S.OSE-OS 9.SSE-OS 

1.S 9.33E-07 3.47E-OB 1.0BE-07 4.S3E-07 1.64E-OS 3.37E-OS 

3. 1.1SE-07 1.3BE-09 4.S0E-09 3.19E-OB 1.92E-07 4.9BE-07 

S. 2.19E-OB 1.S7E-10 3.33E-10 3.01E-09 3.14E-OB 1.0SE-07 

7.S S.44E-09 9.SSE-11 1.21E-10 4.43E-10 S.2SE-09 2.S0E-OB 

10. 1.91 E-09 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 1.S0E-10 1.B2E-09 9.11 E-09 

34 
Table A-if. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 1.0 Hz at PNP

(EPRI, 2014’

AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95

0.0005 4.57E-02 2.OIE-02 2.84E-02 4.43E-02 6.26E-02 7.45E-02

0.001 3.30E-02 1.20E-02 i.77E-02 3.09E-02 4.83E-02 6.OOE-02

0.005 9.76E-03 2.46E-03 4.13E-03 8.60E-03 1.53E-02 2.iOE-02

0.01 5.OOE-03 8.72E-04 1.74E-03 4.37E-03 8.23E-03 i.i3E-02

0.015 3.25E-03 4.13E-04 9.ilE-04 2.72E-03 5.58E-03 8.OOE-03

0.03 i.39E-03 8.98E-05 2.19E-04 9.iiE-04 2.64E-03 4.19E-03

0.05 6.29E-04 2.39E-05 6.36E-05 3.i4E-04 i.20E-03 2.32E-03

0.075 2.95E-04 7.66E-06 2.i6E-05 1.20E-04 5.27E-04 i.20E-03

0.1 1.59E-04 3.33E-06 9.93E-06 5.83E-05 2.72E-04 6.64E-04

0.15 6.07E-05 1.04E-06 3.19E-06 2.O1E-05 9.65E-05 2.53E-04

0.3 9.65E-06 1.32E-07 4.77E-07 3.05E-06 i.53E-05 3.84E-05

0.5 2.43E-06 2.64E-08 i.20E-07 7.77E-07 3.79E-06 i.OiE-05

0.75 8.41E-07 7.23E-09 3.47E-08 2.60E-07 1.34E-06 3.63E-06

1. 4.03E-07 2.64E-09 1.40E-08 i.16E-07 6.45E-07 i.72E-06

1.5 i.42E-07 6.45E-10 3.57E-09 3.42E-08 2.i3E-07 6.26E-07

3. 2.i8E-08 1.31E-i0 3.19E-10 3.O1E-09 2.68E-08 9.93E-08

5. 4.85E-09 i.2iE-10 1.23E-10 4.77E-10 4.70E-09 2.13E-08

7.5 1.33E-09 9.liE-11 i.21E-10 1.60E-10 i.08E-09 5.42E-09

10. 5.OOE-iO 8.72E-11 9.79E-11 i.21E-iO 3.84E-10 i.87E-09

35

Table A-1f. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 1.0 Hz at PNP 

(EPRI, 2014) 

AMPS(g) MEAN O.OS 0.1S O.SO 0.84 0.9S 

O.OOOS 4.S7E-02 2.01E-02 2.B4E-02 4.43E-02 S.2SE-02 7.4SE-02 

0.001 3.30E-02 1.20E-02 1.77E-02 3.09E-02 4.B3E-02 S.00E-02 

O.OOS 9.7SE-03 2.4SE-03 4.13E-03 B.SOE-03 1.S3E-02 2.10E-02 

0.01 S.00E-03 B.72E-04 1.74E-03 4.37E-03 B.23E-03 1.13E-02 

0.01S 3.2SE-03 4.13E-04 9.11E-04 2.72E-03 S.SBE-03 B.00E-03 

0.03 1.39E-03 B.9BE-OS 2.19E-04 9.11 E-04 2.64E-03 4.19E-03 

O.OS S.29E-04 2.39E-OS S.3SE-OS 3.14E-04 1.20E-03 2.32E-03 

0.07S 2.9SE-04 7.SSE-OS 2.1SE-OS 1.20E-04 S.27E-04 1.20E-03 

0.1 1.S9E-04 3.33E-OS 9.93E-OS S.B3E-OS 2.72E-04 S.S4E-04 

0.1S S.07E-OS 1.04E-OS 3.19E-OS 2.01E-OS 9.SSE-OS 2.S3E-04 

0.3 9.SSE-OS 1.32E-07 4.77E-07 3.0SE-OS 1.S3E-OS 3.B4E-OS 

O.S 2.43E-OS 2.64E-OB 1.20E-07 7.77E-07 3.79E-OS 1.01 E-OS 

0.7S B.41E-07 7.23E-09 3.47E-OB 2.S0E-07 1.34E-OS 3.S3E-OS 

1. 4.03E-07 2.64E-09 1.40E-OB 1.1SE-07 S.4SE-07 1.72E-OS 

1.S 1.42E-07 S.4SE-10 3.S7E-09 3.42E-OB 2.13E-07 S.2SE-07 

3. 2. 1 BE-OB 1.31E-10 3.19E-10 3.01E-09 2.SBE-OB 9.93E-OB 

S. 4.BSE-09 1.21E-10 1.23E-10 4.77E-10 4.70E-09 2.13E-OB 

7.S 1.33E-09 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 1.S0E-10 1.0BE-09 S.42E-09 

10. S.00E-10 B.72E-11 9.79E-11 1.21E-10 3.B4E-10 1.B7E-09 

3S 
Table A-lg. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 0.5 Hz at PNP

(EPRI, 2014

AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.16 0.50 0.84 0.95

0.0005 2.19E-02 1.O1E-02 1.40E-02 2.1OE-02 2.96E-02 3.68E-02

0.001 1.31E-02 5.58E-03 8.OOE-03 1.23E-02 1.79E-02 2.32E-02

0.005 3.52E-03 8.OOE-04 1.46E-03 3.14E-03 5.58E-03 7.55E-03

0.01 1.82E-03 2.IOE-04 4.63E-04 1.42E-03 3.23E-03 4.77E-03

0.015 1.13E-03 8.12E-05 1.98E-04 7.34E-04 2.13E-03 3.47E-03

0.03 3.77E-04 1.23E-05 3.47E-05 1.64E-04 7.13E-04 1.44E-03

0.05 1.28E-04 2.64E-06 7.66E-06 4.13E-05 2.16E-04 5.50E-04

0.075 4.64E-05 7.03E-07 2.1OE-06 1.21E-05 6.93E-05 2.07E-04

0.1 2.09E-05 2.53E-07 8.12E-07 4.83E-06 2.88E-05 9.24E-05

0.15 6.35E-06 5.35E-08 2.04E-07 1.31E-06 8.OOE-06 2.80E-05

0.3 8.42E-07 2.64E-09 1.53E-08 1.44E-07 1.05E-06 3.84E-06

0.5 2.34E-07 3.O1E-10 1.82E-09 2.84E-08 2.68E-07 1.08E-06

0.75 9.45E-08 1.25E-10 3.63E-10 7.89E-09 9.37E-08 4.37E-07

1. 5.04E-08 1.21E-10 1.64E-10 3.O1E-09 4.37E-08 2.25E-07

1.5 2.02E-08 1.04E-10 1.21E-10 7.77E-10 1.42E-08 8.47E-08

3. 3.58E-09 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 1.36E-10 1.64E-09 1.27E-08

5. 8.27E-10 8.12E-11 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 3.33E-10 2.42E-09

7.5 2.27E-10 8.12E-11 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 1.44E-10 6.09E-10

10. 8.39E-11 8.12E-11 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 1.21E-10 2.53E-10

36

Table A-1g. Mean and Fractile Seismic Hazard Curves for 0.5 Hz at PNP 

(EPRI,2014) 

AMPS(g) MEAN 0.05 0.1S 0.50 0.B4 0.95 

0.0005 2.19E-02 1.01 E-02 1.40E-02 2.10E-02 2.9SE-02 3.SBE-02 

0.001 1.31E-02 S.SBE-03 B.00E-03 1.23E-02 1.79E-02 2.32E-02 

0.005 3.S2E-03 B.00E-04 1.4SE-03 3.14E-03 S.SBE-03 7.SSE-03 

0.01 1.B2E-03 2.10E-04 4.S3E-04 1.42E-03 3.23E-03 4.77E-03 

0.015 1.13E-03 B.12E-OS 1.9BE-04 7.34E-04 2.13E-03 3.47E-03 

0.03 3.77E-04 1.23E-OS 3.47E-OS 1.S4E-04 7.13E-04 1.44E-03 

0.05 1.2BE-04 2.64E-OS 7.SSE-OS 4. 13E-OS 2.1SE-04 S.SOE-04 

0.075 4.64E-OS 7.03E-07 2.10E-06 1.21 E-OS S.93E-OS 2.07E-04 

0.1 2.09E-OS 2.S3E-07 B.12E-07 4.B3E-OS 2.BBE-OS 9.24E-OS 

0.15 S.3SE-OS S.3SE-OB 2.04E-07 1.31 E-OS B.OOE-OS 2.BOE-OS 

0.3 B.42E-07 2.64E-09 1.S3E-OB 1.44E-07 1.0SE-OS 3.B4E-OS 

0.5 2.34E-07 3.01E-10 1.B2E-09 2.B4E-OB 2.SBE-07 1.0BE-OS 

0.75 9.4SE-OB 1.2SE-10 3.S3E-10 7.B9E-09 9.37E-OB 4.37E-07 

1. S.04E-OB 1.21E-10 1.S4E-10 3.01E-09 4.37E-OB 2.2SE-07 

1.5 2.02E-OB 1.04E-10 1.21E-10 7.77E-10 1.42E-OB B.47E-OB 

3. 3.SBE-09 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 1.3SE-10 1.S4E-09 1.27E-OB 

5. B.27E-10 B.12E-11 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 3.33E-10 2.42E-09 

7.5 2.27E-10 B.12E-11 9.11E-11 1.21E-10 1.44E-10 S.09E-10 

10. B.39E-11 B.12E-11 9.11 E-11 1.21E-10 1.21E-10 2.S3E-10 

3S 
Table A-2. AmDlification Functions for PNP (EPRI, 2014)

Median Sigma Median Sigma Median Sigma 

PGA AF ln(AF) 25 Hz AF ln(AF) 10 Hz AF ln(AF) 5 Hz 

1.OOE-02 2.80E+OO 1.O1E-01 1.30E-02 2.48E+00 1.11E-O1 1.90E-02 2.67E+O0 1.90E-O1 2.09E-02 

4.95E-02 2.17E+O0 1.13E-O1 1.02E-O1 1.63E+O0 1.80E-O1 9.99E-02 2.22E+O0 2.17E-O1 8.24E-02 

9.64E-02 1.87E+O0 1.21E-O1 2.13E-01 1.37E+O0 2.O1E-O1 1.85E-O1 1.99E+O0 2.19E-O1 1.44E-O1 

1.94E-O1 1.56E+O0 1.28E-O1 4.43E-01 1.09E+OO 2.16E-O1 3.56E-01 1.70E+OO 2.20E-O1 2.65E-01 

2.92E-O1 1.39E+0O 1.35E-O1 6.76E-01 9.36E-O1 2.27E-O1 5.23E-01 1.51E+0O 2.25E-01 3.84E-01 3.91E-O1 1.26E-i-0O 1.43E-O1 9.09E-O1 8.25E-O1 2.36E-01 6.90E-01 1.37E+0O 2.28E-01 5.02E-O1 

4.93E-O1 1.16E+OO 1.48E-O1 1.15E+0O 7.39E-O1 2.42E-O1 8.61E-O1 1.26E+OO 2.29E-01 6.22E-01 

7.41E-O1 9.91E-O1 1.59E-O1 1.73E+0O 5.94E-O1 2.57E-O1 1.27E+00 1.06E+OO 2.40E-01 9.13E-01 

1.O1E+00 8.71E-O1 1.68E-O1 2.36E+0O 5.OOE-O1 2.73E-01 1.72E+00 9.13E-O1 2.52E-01 1.22E+00 1.28E+0O 7.85E-O1 1.76E-O1 3.O1E+OO 5.OOE-O1 2.82E-01 2.17E+OO 8.05E-O1 2.65E-O1 1.54E+OO 1.55E+OO 7.24E-O1 1.83E-O1 3.63E+OO 500E-O1 2.87E-O1 2.61E+OO 7.25E-01 2.80E-O1 1.85E+OO 

Median Sigma Median Sigma Median Sigma

2.5 Hz AF ln(AF) 1 Hz AF In(AF) 0.5 Hz AF ln(AF)

2.18E-02 3.04E+O0 1.69E-01 1.27E-02 2.IIE+00 2.07E-O1 8.25E-03 1.52E+O0 1.26E-O1

7.05E-02 2.92E+O0 1.95E-O1 3.43E-02 2.25E+OO 2.28E-O1 1.96E-02 1.57E+O0 1.29E-O1

1.18E-O1 2.81E÷OO 2.04E-O1 5.51E-02 2.34E+OO 2.31E-O1 3.02E-02 1.59E+OO 1.37E-O1

2.12E-O1 2.64E+OO 2.13E-O1 9.63E-02 2.43E+OO 2.08E-O1 5.11E-02 1.65E+OO 1.65E-O1

3.04E-O1 2.51E+OO 2.21E-01 1.36E-O1 2.44E+00 2.19E-01 7.1OE-02 1.70E+00 1.91E-O13.94E-O1 2.39E+O0 2.30E-O1 1.75E-O1 2.43E+00 2.41E-O1 9.06E-02 1.76E+00 2.IOE-O1

4.86E-O1 2.29E+OO 2.36E-O1 2.14E-01 2.42E-’-OO 2.55E-O1 1.1OE-01 1.79E+OO 2.19E-O1

7.O9EO1 2.1OE+0O 2.40E-O1 3.1OE-01 2.41E+OO 2.62E-O1 1.58E-01 1.85E+OO 2.29E-019.47E-O1 1.95E+0O 2.48E-O1 4.12E-O1 2.41E+OO 2.58E-01 2.09E-O1 1.90E+OO 2.40E-01

1.19E-’-OO 1.84E-’-OO 2.58E-01 5.18E-O1 2.41E+00 2.56E-01 2.62E-01 1.94E-’-OO 2.43E-O11.43E+OO 1.80E+OO 2.67E-O1 6.19E-O1 2.42E+OO 2.55E-O1 3.12E-01 1.97E+O0 2.40E-O1

37

Table A-2. Amplification Functions for PNP (EPRI, 2014) 

Median Sigma Median Sigma Median Sigma 

PGA AF In(AF) 25Hz AF In(AF) 10 Hz AF In(AF) 5Hz 

1.00E-02 2.BOE+00 1.01E-01 1.30E-02 2.4BE+00 1.11 E-01 1.90E-02 2.67E+00 1.90E-01 2.09E-02 

4.9SE-02 2.17E+00 1.13E-01 1.02E-01 1.63E+00 1.BOE-01 9.99E-02 2.22E+00 2.17E-01 B.24E-02 

9.64E-02 1.B7E+00 1.21E-01 2.13E-01 1.37E+00 2.01 E-01 1.BSE-01 1.99E+00 2.19E-01 1.44E-01 

1.94E-01 1.56E+OO 1.2BE-01 4.43E-01 1.09E+00 2.16E-01 3.S6E-01 1.70E+00 2.20E-01 2.6SE-01 

2.92E-01 1.39E+00 1.3SE-01 6.76E-01 9.36E-01 2.27E-01 S.23E-01 1.S1E+00 2.2SE-01 3.B4E-01 

3.91 E-01 1.26E+00 1.43E-01 9.09E-01 B.2SE-01 2.36E-01 6.90E-01 1.37E+00 2.2BE-01 S.02E-01 

4.93E-01 1.16E+00 1.4BE-01 1.1SE+OO 7.39E-01 2.42E-01 B.61E-01 1.26E+OO 2.29E-01 6.22E-01 

7.41E-01 9.91 E-01 1.S9E-01 1.73E+00 S.94E-01 2.S7E-01 1.27E+00 1.06E+00 2.40E-01 9.13E-01 

1.01E+00 B.71 E-01 1.6BE-01 2.36E+OO S.00E-01 2.73E-01 1.72E+00 9.13E-01 2.S2E-01 1.22E+00 

1.2BE+OO 7.BSE-01 1.76E-01 3.01E+OO S.00E-01 2.B2E-01 2.17E+00 B.OSE-01 2.6SE-01 1.54E+00 

1.SSE+00 7.24E-01 1.B3E-01 3.63E+00 S.00E-01 2.B7E-01 2.61E+OO 7.2SE-01 2.BOE-01 1.BSE+00 

Median Sigma Median Sigma Median Sigma 

2.5 Hz AF In(AF) 1 Hz AF In(AF) 0.5 Hz AF In(AF) 

2. 1 BE-02 3.04E+00 1.69E-01 1.27E-02 2.11E+00 2.07E-01 B.2SE-03 1.S2E+00 1.26E-01 

7.0SE-02 2.92E+OO 1.9SE-01 3.43E-02 2.2SE+00 2.2BE-01 1. 96E-02 1.S7E+00 1.29E-01 

1.1BE-01 2.B1E+00 2.04E-01 S.S1E-02 2.34E+00 2.31E-01 3.02E-02 1.S9E+00 1.37E-01 

2.12E-01 2.64E+00 2.13E-01 9.63E-02 2.43E+00 2.0BE-01 S.11E-02 1.6SE+00 1.6SE-01 

3.04E-01 2.S1 E+OO 2.21E-01 1.36E-01 2.44E+00 2.19E-01 7.10E-02 1.70E+00 1.91E-01 

3.94E-01 2.39E+OO 2.30E-01 1.7SE-01 2.43E+00 2.41E-01 9.06E-02 1.76E+OO 2.10E-01 

4.B6E-01 2.29E+OO 2.36E-01 2.14E-01 2.42E+00 2.SSE-01 1.10E-01 1.79E+00 2.19E-01 

7.09E-01 2.10E+00 2.40E-01 3.10E-01 2.41E+00 2.62E-01 1.SBE-01 1.BSE+00 2.29E-01 

9.47E-01 1.9SE+00 2.48E-01 4.12E-01 2.41E+00 2.S8E-01 2.09E-01 1.90E+00 2.40E-01 

1.19E+00 1.B4E+00 2.S8E-01 S.18E-01 2.41E+00 2.S6E-01 2.62E-01 1.94E+00 2.43E-01 

1.43E+OO 1.80E+OO 2.67E-01 6.19E-01 2.42E+00 2.SSE-01 3.12E-01 1.97E+OO 2.40E-01 

-- -

37 
Tables A-3a and A-3b 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

1 o and I o mean annual frequency of exceedance. These factors are unverified and are

provided for information only. The figures should be considered the governing information.

38

Tables A-3a and A-3b 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 I~vels at approximately 

10-4 and 10-5 mean annual frequency of exceedance. These factors are unverified and are 

provided for information only. The figures should be considered the governing information. 

38 
Table A-3a. Median AFs and sigmas for Model 1, Profile 1, for 2 PGA levels

(For Information Only)

MIP1K1 Rock_PGA=0.0964 M1P1K1 PGA=0.493

Freq. med. sigma Freq. med. sigma

(Hz) S0iLSA AF In(AF) (Hz) SoiLSA AF ln(AF)

100.0 0.204 2.115 0.131 100.0 0.541 1.099 0.205

87.1 0.205 2.085 0.132 87.1 0.542 1.067 0.206

75.9 0.207 2.032 0.135 75.9 0.543 1.013 0.207

66.1 0.211 1.930 0.140 66.1 0.546 0.916 0.209

57.5 0.218 1.756 0.150 57.5 0.549 0.770 0.212

50.1 0.229 1.568 0.166 50.1 0.555 0.640 0.218

43.7 0.245 1.426 0.182 43.7 0.565 0.551 0.227

38.0 0.261 1.367 0.201 38.0 0.578 0.518 0.237

33.1 0.278 1.358 0.216 33.1 0.595 0.510 0.248

28.8 0.301 1.444 0.245 28.8 0.616 0.535 0.267

25.1 0.325 0.259 25.1 0.648 0.564 0.287

21.9 0.339 0.267 21.9 0.688 0.637 0.316

19.1 0.353 1.711 0.229 19.1 0.719 0.682 0.327

16.6 0.379 1.885 0.209 16.6 0.773 0.772 0.341

14.5 0.400 2.059 0.194 14.5 0.829 0.874 0.339

12.6 0.405 2.122 0.209 12.6 0.866 0.947 0.329

11.0 0.375 1.992 0.218 11.0 0.898 1.015 0.330

9.5 0.406 2.235 0.259 9.5 0.927 1.104 0.312

8.3 0.406 2.401 0.240 8.3 0.967 1.258 0.323

7.2 0.387 2.421 0.237 7.2 0.993 1.387 0.315

6.3 0.404 2.670 0.291 6.3 1.002 1.499 0.333

5.5 0.452 3.106 0.296 5.5 1.039 1.637 0.350

4.8 0.442 3.086 0.238 4.8 1.105 1.788 0.377

4.2 0.386 2.760 0.185 4.2 1.148 1.926 0.353

3.6 0.332 2.427 0.172 3.6 1.139 1.972 0.305

3.2 0.324 2.503 0.157 3.2 1.124 2.074 0.274

2.8 0.361 2.922 0.241 2.8 1.093 2.133 0.289

2.4 0.426 3.720 0.231 2.4 1.089 2.314 0.305

2.1 0.439 4.192 0.122 2.1 1.171 2.744 0.324

1.8 0.353 3.758 0.214 1.8 1.210 3.184 0.260

1.6 0.241 2.947 0.248 1.6 1.109 3.378 0.221

1.4 0.165 2.332 0.189 1.4 0.895 3.178 0.238

1.2 0.126 2.009 0.160 1.2 0.685 2.774 0.258

1.0 0.103 1.817 0.135 1.0 0.527 2.378 0.250

0.91 0.086 1.661 0.106 0.91 0.410 2.044 0.202

0.79 0.073 1.535 0.112 0.79 0.324 1.795 0.163

0.69 0.061 1.447 0.118 0.69 0.260 1.628 0.140

0.60 0.052 1.395 0.104 0.60 0.211 1.525 0.116

0.52 0.044 1.372 0.083 0.52 0.172 1.468 0.095

0.46 0.037 1.364 0.072 0.46 0.140 1.436 0.084

0.10 0.001 1.226 0.030 0.10 0.005 1.229 0.041

39

Table A-3a. Median AFs and sigmas for Model 1, Profile 1, for 2 PGA levels 

(For Information Only) 

M1P1K1 Rock PGA=0.0964 M1P1K1 PGA=0.493 

Freq. med. sigma Freq. med. sigma 

(Hz) Soil SA AF In(AF) (Hz) Soil SA AF In(AF) 

100.0 0.204 2.115 0.131 100.0 0.541 1.099 0.205 

87.1 0.205 2.085 0.132 87.1 0.542 1.067 0.206 

75.9 0.207 2.032 0.135 75.9 0.543 1.013 0.207 

66.1 0.211 1.930 0.140 66.1 0.546 0.916 0.209 

57.5 0.218 1.756 0.150 57.5 0.549 0.770 0.212 

50.1 0.229 1.568 0.166 50.1 0.555 0.640 0.218 

43.7 0.245 1.426 0.182 43.7 0.565 0.551 0.227 

38.0 0.261 1.367 0.201 38.0 0.578 0.518 0.237 

33.1 0.278 1.358 0.216 33.1 0.595 0.510 0.248 

28.8 0.301 1.444 0.245 28.8 0.616 0.535 0.267 

25.1 0.325 1.529 0.259 25.1 0.648 0.564 0.287 

21.9 0.339 1.648 0.267 21.9 0.688 0.637 0.316 

19.1 0.353 1.711 0.229 19.1 0.719 0.682 0.327 

16.6 0.379 1.885 0.209 16.6 0.773 0.772 0.341 

14.5 0.400 2.059 0.194 14.5 0.829 0.874 0.339 

12.6 0.405 2.122 0.209 12.6 0.866 0.947 0.329 

11.0 0.375 1.992 0.218 11.0 0.898 1.015 0.330 

9.5 0.406 2.235 0.259 9.5 0.927 1.104 0.312 

8.3 0.406 2.401 0.240 8.3 0.967 1.258 0.323 

7.2 0.387 2.421 0.237 7.2 0.993 1.387 0.315 

6.3 0.404 2.670 0.291 6.3 1.002 1.499 0.333 

5.5 0.452 3.106 0.296 5.5 1.039 1.637 0.350 

4.8 0.442 3.086 0.238 4.8 1.105 1.788 0.377 

4.2 0.386 2.760 0.185 4.2 1.148 1.926 0.353 

3.6 0.332 2.427 0.172 3.6 1.139 1.972 0.305 

3.2 0.324 2.503 0.157 3.2 1.124 2.074 0.274 

2.8 0.361 2.922 0.241 2.8 1.093 2.133 0.289 

2.4 0.426 3.720 0.231 2.4 1.089 2.314 0.305 

2.1 0.439 4.192 0.122 2.1 1.171 2.744 0.324 

1.8 0.353 3.758 0.214 1.8 1.210 3.184 0.260 

1.6 0.241 2.947 0.248 1.6 1.109 3.378 0.221 

1.4 0.165 2.332 0.189 1.4 0.895 3.178 0.238 

1.2 0.126 2.009 0.160 1.2 0.685 2.774 0.258 

1.0 0.103 1.817 0.135 1.0 0.527 2.378 0.250 

0.91 0.086 1.661 0.106 0.91 0.410 2.044 0.202 

0.79 0.073 1.535 0.112 0.79 0.324 1.795 0.163 

0.69 0.061 1.447 0.118 0.69 0.260 1.628 0.140 

0.60 0.052 1.395 0.104 0.60 0.211 1.525 0.116 

0.52 0.044 1.372 0.083 0.52 0.172 1.468 0.095 

0.46 0.037 1.364 0.072 0.46 0.140 1.436 0.084 

0.10 0.001 1.226 0.030 0.10 0.005 1.229 0.041 

39 
Table A-3b. Median AFs and sigmas for Model 2, Profile 1, for 2 PGA levels

(For Information Only)

M2P1 Ki PGA=0.0964 M2P1 Ki PGA=0.493

Freq. med. sigma Freq. med. sigma

(Hz) S0iLSA AF ln(AF) (Hz) S0iLSA AF ln(AF)

100.0 0.243 2.519 0.107 100.0 0.736 1.493 0.143

87.1 0.245 2.493 0.109 87.1 0.739 1.455 0.145

75.9 0.250 2.448 0.111 75.9 0.745 1.389 0.148

66.1 0.257 2.359 0.117 66.1 0.755 1.269 0.154

57.5 0.273 2.203 0.128 57.5 0.775 1.087 0.166

50.1 0.299 2.046 0.153 50.1 0.808 0.932 0.187

43.7 0.330 1.920 0.181 43.7 0.859 0.838 0.222

38.0 0.359 1.880 0.190 38.0 0.908 0.814 0.238

33.1 0.393 1.916 0.216 33.1 0.969 0.831 0.250

28.8 0.420 2.016 0.212 28.8 1.037 0.899 0.260

25.1 0.443 2.084 0.183 25.1 1.119 0.974 0.268

21.9 0.447 2.172 0.188 21.9 1.172 1.084 0.266

19.1 0.462 2.240 0.174 19.1 1.213 1.151 0.258

16.6 0.485 2.413 0.168 16.6 1.286 1.283 0.252

14.5 0.504 2.595 0.154 14.5 1.366 1.441 0.230

12.6 0.494 2.582 0.213 12.6 1.393 1.523 0.199

11.0 0.479 2.542 0.197 11.0 1.397 1.578 0.212

9.5 0.512 2.818 0.258 9.5 1.458 1.737 0.221

8.3 0.458 2.709 0.239 8.3 1.497 1.948 0.261

7.2 0.422 2.641 0.194 7.2 1.408 1.968 0.218

6.3 0.469 3.101 0.210 6.3 1.390 2.080 0.184

5.5 0.517 3.555 0.196 5.5 1.480 2.332 0.216

4.8 0.472 3.293 0.247 4.8 1.603 2.595 0.182

4.2 0.382 2.734 0.223 4.2 1.547 2.594 0.189

3.6 0.340 2.484 0.148 3.6 1.362 2.358 0.178

3.2 0.350 2.699 0.147 3.2 1.225 2.261 0.167

2.8 0.423 3.426 0.195 2.8 1.266 2.473 0.212

2.4 0.508 4.433 0.155 2.4 1.439 3.056 0.254

2.1 0.456 4.358 0.182 2.1 1.581 3.705 0.213

1.8 0.325 3.462 0.249 1.8 1.411 3.712 0.170

16 0.215 2.631 0.234 1.6 1.035 3.152 0.212

1A 0.153 2.167 0.176 1.4 0.729 2.590 0.232

12 0.123 1.964 0.130 1.2 0.557 2.256 0.193

1.0 0.102 1.792 0.100 1.0 0.441 1.988 0.148

0.91 0.082 1.581 0.093 0.91 0.343 1.711 0.122

0.79 0.067 1.407 0.085 0.79 0.270 1.495 0.103

0.69 0.056 1.319 0.082 0.69 0.221 1.382 0.092

0.60 0.049 1.306 0.074 0.60 0.187 1.354 0.081

0.52 0.043 1.339 0.057 0.52 0.161 1.375 0.063

0.46 0.037 1.386 0.041 0.46 0.138 1.413 0.046

0.10 0.001 1.251 0.028 0.10 0.005 1.242 0.025

40

Table A-3b. Median AFs and sigmas for Model 2, Profile 1, for 2 PGA levels 

(For Information Only) 

M2P1K1 PGA=0.0964 M2P1K1 PGA=0.493 

Freq. med. sigma Freq. med. sigma 

(Hz) Soil SA AF In(AF) (Hz) Soil SA AF In(AF) 

100.0 0.243 2.519 0.107 100.0 0.736 1.493 0.143 

87.1 0.245 2.493 0.109 87.1 0.739 1.455 0.145 

75.9 0.250 2.448 0.111 75.9 0.745 1.389 0.148 

66.1 0.257 2.359 0.117 66.1 0.755 1.269 0.154 

57.5 0.273 2.203 0.128 57.5 0.775 1.087 0.166 

50.1 0.299 2.046 0.153 50.1 0.808 0.932 0.187 

43.7 0.330 1.920 0.181 43.7 0.859 0.838 0.222 

38.0 0.359 1.880 0.190 38.0 0.908 0.814 0.238 

33.1 0.393 1.916 0.216 33.1 0.969 0.831 0.250 

28.8 0.420 2.016 0.212 28.8 1.037 0.899 0.260 

25.1 0.443 2.084 0.183 25.1 1.119 0.974 0.268 

21.9 0.447 2.172 0.188 21.9 1.172 1.084 0.266 

19.1 0.462 2.240 0.174 19.1 1.213 1.151 0.258 

16.6 0.485 2.413 0.1 68 16.6 1.286 1.283 0.252 

14.5 0.504 2.595 0.154 14.5 1.366 1.441 0.230 

12.6 0.494 2.582 0.213 12.6 1.393 1.523 0.199 

11.0 0.479 2.542 0.197 11.0 1.397 1.578 0.212 

9.5 0.512 2.818 0.258 9.5 1.458 1.737 0.221 

8.3 0.458 2.709 0.239 8.3 1.497 1.948 0.261 

7.2 0.422 2.641 0.194 7.2 1.408 1.968 0.218 

6.3 0.469 3.101 0.210 6.3 1.390 2.080 0.184 

5.5 0.517 3.555 0.196 5.5 1.480 2.332 0.216 

4.8 0.472 3.293 0.247 4.8 1.603 2.595 0.182 

4.2 0.382 2.734 0.223 4.2 1.547 2.594 0.189 

3.6 0.340 2.484 0.148 3.6 1.362 2.358 0.178 

3.2 0.350 2.699 0.147 3.2 1.225 2.261 0.167 

2.8 0.423 3.426 0.195 2.8 1.266 2.473 0.212 

2.4 0.508 4.433 0.1 55 2.4 1.439 3.056 0.254 

2.1 0.456 4.358 0.182 2.1 1.581 3.705 0.213 

1.8 0.325 3.462 0.249 1.8 1.411 3.712 0.170 

1.6 0.215 2.631 0.234 1.6 1.035 3.152 0.212 

1.4 0.153 2.167 0.176 1.4 0.729 2.590 0.232 

1.2 0.123 1.964 0.130 1.2 0.557 2.256 0.193 

1.0 0.102 1.792 0.100 1.0 0.441 1.988 0.148 

0.91 0.082 1.581 0.093 0.91 0.343 1.711 0.122 

0.79 0.067 1.407 0.085 0.79 0.270 1.495 0.103 

0.69 0.056 1.319 0.082 0.69 0.221 1.382 0.092 

0.60 0.049 1.306 0.074 0.60 0.187 1.354 0.081 

0.52 0.043 1.339 0.057 0.52 0.161 1.375 0.063 

0.46 0.037 1.386 0.041 0.46 0.138 1.413 0.046 

0.10 0.001 1.251 0.028 0.10 0.005 1.242 0.025 

40