Levy Nuclear Plant Revised 07/02/12 Draft RAI Response For … · 2012. 7. 20. · 1.E-07 1.E-06...
Transcript of Levy Nuclear Plant Revised 07/02/12 Draft RAI Response For … · 2012. 7. 20. · 1.E-07 1.E-06...
Figure 2.5.2-322: CEUS SSC model logic tree for the Charleston RLME source
DRAFT
NRC Letter 108 RAI (CEUS SSC) Response L-0998 July 02, 2012 Draft
Figure 2.5.2-323: Alternative Charleston source geometries for the Charleston source.
Figure 2.5.2-324: Location of seven demonstration sites used for hazard calculations in NUREG-2115 and the location of the LNP site. Approximate location of the LNP site is shown by the red star.
DRAFT
NRC Letter 108 RAI (CEUS SSC) Response L-0998 July 02, 2012 Draft
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
0.1 1 10
An
nu
al E
xcee
dan
ce F
req
uen
cy
Peak Ground Acceleration (g)
Central Illinois This StudyMean
15th%
50th%
85th%
CEUS SSCMean
15th%
50th%
85th%
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
0.1 1 10
An
nu
al E
xcee
dan
ce F
req
uen
cy
10 Hz Spectral Acceleration (g)
Central Illinois This StudyMean
15th%
50th%
85th%
CEUS SSCMean
15th%
50th%
85th%
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
0.01 0.1 1
An
nu
al E
xcee
dan
ce F
req
uen
cy
1 Hz Spectral Acceleration (g)
Central Illinois This StudyMean
15th%
50th%
85th%
CEUS SSCMean
15th%
50th%
85th%
Figure 2.5.2-325: Comparison of hazard curves computed using AMEC E&I software with those listed in Chapter 8 of NUREG-2115 for the Central Illinois demonstration site DRAFT
NRC Letter 108 RAI (CEUS SSC) Response L-0998 July 02, 2012 Draft
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
0.1 1 10
An
nu
al E
xcee
dan
ce F
req
uen
cy
Peak Ground Acceleration (g)
ChattanoogaThis Study
Mean
15th%
50th%
85th%
CEUS SSC
Mean
15th%
50th%
85th%
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
0.1 1 10
An
nu
al E
xcee
dan
ce F
req
uen
cy
10 Hz Spectral Acceleration (g)
ChattanoogaThis Study
Mean
15th%
50th%
85th%
CEUS SSC
Mean
15th%
50th%
85th%
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
0.01 0.1 1
An
nu
al E
xcee
dan
ce F
req
uen
cy
1 Hz Spectral Acceleration (g)
ChattanoogaThis Study
Mean
15th%
50th%
85th%
CEUS SSC
Mean
15th%
50th%
85th%
Figure 2.5.2-326: Comparison of hazard curves computed using AMEC E&I software with those listed in Chapter 8 of NUREG-2115 for the Chattanooga demonstration site DRAFT
NRC Letter 108 RAI (CEUS SSC) Response L-0998 July 02, 2012 Draft
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
0.01 0.1 1
An
nu
al E
xcee
dan
ce F
req
uen
cy
Peak Ground Acceleration (g)
Houston This StudyMean
15th%
50th%
85th%
CEUS SSCMean
15th%
50th%
85th%
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
0.01 0.1 1
An
nu
al E
xcee
dan
ce F
req
uen
cy
10 Hz Spectral Acceleration (g)
Houston This StudyMean
15th%
50th%
85th%
CEUS SSCMean
15th%
50th%
85th%
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
0.01 0.1 1
An
nu
al E
xcee
dan
ce F
req
uen
cy
1 Hz Spectral Acceleration (g)
Houston This StudyMean
15th%
50th%
85th%
CEUS SSCMean
15th%
50th%
85th%
Figure 2.5.2-327: Comparison of hazard curves computed using AMEC E&I software with those listed in Chapter 8 of NUREG-2115 for the Houston demonstration site DRAFT
NRC Letter 108 RAI (CEUS SSC) Response L-0998 July 02, 2012 Draft
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
0.01 0.1 1
An
nu
al E
xcee
dan
ce F
req
uen
cy
Peak Ground Acceleration (g)
JacksonThis Study
Mean
15th%
50th%
85th%
CEUS SSC
Mean
15th%
50th%
85th%
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
0.1 1 10
An
nu
al E
xcee
dan
ce F
req
uen
cy
10 Hz Spectral Acceleration (g)
JacksonThis Study
Mean
15th%
50th%
85th%
CEUS SSC
Mean
15th%
50th%
85th%
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
0.01 0.1 1
An
nu
al E
xcee
dan
ce F
req
uen
cy
1 Hz Spectral Acceleration (g)
JacksonThis Study
Mean
15th%
50th%
85th%
CEUS SSC
Mean
15th%
50th%
85th%
Figure 2.5.2-328: Comparison of hazard curves computed using AMEC E&I software with those listed in Chapter 8 of NUREG-2115 for the Jackson demonstration site DRAFT
NRC Letter 108 RAI (CEUS SSC) Response L-0998 July 02, 2012 Draft
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
0.1 1 10
An
nu
al E
xcee
dan
ce F
req
uen
cy
Peak Ground Acceleration (g)
ManchesterThis Study
Mean
15th%
50th%
85th%
CEUS SSC
Mean
15th%
50th%
85th%
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
0.1 1 10
An
nu
al E
xcee
dan
ce F
req
uen
cy
10 Hz Spectral Acceleration (g)
ManchesterThis Study
Mean
15th%
50th%
85th%
CEUS SSC
Mean
15th%
50th%
85th%
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
0.01 0.1 1
An
nu
al E
xcee
dan
ce F
req
uen
cy
1 Hz Spectral Acceleration (g)
ManchesterThis Study
Mean
15th%
50th%
85th%
CEUS SSC
Mean
15th%
50th%
85th%
Figure 2.5.2-329: Comparison of hazard curves computed using AMEC E&I software with those listed in Chapter 8 of NUREG-2115 for the Manchester demonstration site DRAFT
NRC Letter 108 RAI (CEUS SSC) Response L-0998 July 02, 2012 Draft
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
0.1 1 10
An
nu
al E
xcee
dan
ce F
req
uen
cy
Peak Ground Acceleration (g)
SavannahThis Study
Mean
15th%
50th%
85th%
CEUS SSC
Mean
15th%
50th%
85th%
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
0.1 1 10
An
nu
al E
xcee
dan
ce F
req
uen
cy
10 Hz Spectral Acceleration (g)
SavannahThis Study
Mean
15th%
50th%
85th%
CEUS SSC
Mean
15th%
50th%
85th%
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
0.01 0.1 1
An
nu
al E
xcee
dan
ce F
req
uen
cy
1 Hz Spectral Acceleration (g)
SavannahThis Study
Mean
15th%
50th%
85th%
CEUS SSC
Mean
15th%
50th%
85th%
Figure 2.5.2-330: Comparison of hazard curves computed using AMEC E&I software with those listed in Chapter 8 of NUREG-2115 for the Savannah demonstration site DRAFT
NRC Letter 108 RAI (CEUS SSC) Response L-0998 July 02, 2012 Draft
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
0.01 0.1 1
An
nu
al E
xcee
dan
ce F
req
uen
cy
Peak Ground Acceleration (g)
Topeka This StudyMean
15th%
50th%
85th%
CEUS SSCMean
15th%
50th%
85th%
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
0.1 1 10
An
nu
al E
xcee
dan
ce F
req
uen
cy
10 Hz Spectral Acceleration (g)
Topeka This StudyMean
15th%
50th%
85th%
CEUS SSCMean
15th%
50th%
85th%
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
0.01 0.1 1
An
nu
al E
xcee
dan
ce F
req
uen
cy
1 Hz Spectral Acceleration (g)
Topeka This StudyMean
15th%
50th%
85th%
CEUS SSCMean
15th%
50th%
85th%
Figure 2.5.2-331: Comparison of hazard curves computed using AMEC E&I software with those listed in Chapter 8 of NUREG-2115 for the Topeka demonstration site DRAFT
NRC Letter 108 RAI (CEUS SSC) Response L-0998 July 02, 2012 Draft
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
1.E+00
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Ex
ce
ed
an
ce
Fre
qu
en
cy
0.5 Hz Spectral Acceleration (g)
Updated EPRI-SOG Mean
Updated EPRI-SOG 5th%
Updated EPRI-SOG 16th%
Updated EPRI-SOG 50th%
Updated EPRI-SOG 84th%
Updated EPRI-SOG 95th%
CEUS SSC Mean
CEUS SSC 5th%
CEUS SSC 16th%
CEUS SSC 50th%
CEUS SSC 84th%
CEUS SSC 95th%
Figure 2.5.2-332: Comparison of hard rock hazard for 0.5 Hz spectral accelerations for the LNP Site computed using updated EPRI-SOG model with those obtained using the CEUS SSC model.
DRAFT
NRC Letter 108 RAI (CEUS SSC) Response L-0998 July 02, 2012 Draft
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
1.E+00
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Ex
ce
ed
an
ce
Fre
qu
en
cy
1 Hz Spectral Acceleration (g)
Updated EPRI-SOG Mean
Updated EPRI-SOG 5th%
Updated EPRI-SOG 16th%
Updated EPRI-SOG 50th%
Updated EPRI-SOG 84th%
Updated EPRI-SOG 95th%
CEUS SSC Mean
CEUS SSC 5th%
CEUS SSC 16th%
CEUS SSC 50th%
CEUS SSC 84th%
CEUS SSC 95th%
Figure 2.5.2-333: Comparison of hard rock hazard for 1 Hz spectral accelerations for the LNP Site computed using updated EPRI-SOG model with those obtained using the CEUS SSC model.
DRAFT
NRC Letter 108 RAI (CEUS SSC) Response L-0998 July 02, 2012 Draft
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
1.E+00
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Ex
ce
ed
an
ce
Fre
qu
en
cy
2.5 Hz Spectral Acceleration (g)
Updated EPRI-SOG Mean
Updated EPRI-SOG 5th%
Updated EPRI-SOG 16th%
Updated EPRI-SOG 50th%
Updated EPRI-SOG 84th%
Updated EPRI-SOG 95th%
CEUS SSC Mean
CEUS SSC 5th%
CEUS SSC 16th%
CEUS SSC 50th%
CEUS SSC 84th%
CEUS SSC 95th%
Figure 2.5.2-334: Comparison of hard rock hazard for 2.5 Hz spectral accelerations for the LNP Site computed using updated EPRI-SOG model with those obtained using the CEUS SSC model.
DRAFT
NRC Letter 108 RAI (CEUS SSC) Response L-0998 July 02, 2012 Draft
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
1.E+00
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Ex
ce
ed
an
ce
Fre
qu
en
cy
5 Hz Spectral Acceleration (g)
Updated EPRI-SOG Mean
Updated EPRI-SOG 5th%
Updated EPRI-SOG 16th%
Updated EPRI-SOG 50th%
Updated EPRI-SOG 84th%
Updated EPRI-SOG 95th%
CEUS SSC Mean
CEUS SSC 5th%
CEUS SSC 16th%
CEUS SSC 50th%
CEUS SSC 84th%
CEUS SSC 95th%
Figure 2.5.2-335: Comparison of hard rock hazard for 5 Hz spectral accelerations for the LNP Site computed using updated EPRI-SOG model with those obtained using the CEUS SSC model.
DRAFT
NRC Letter 108 RAI (CEUS SSC) Response L-0998 July 02, 2012 Draft
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
1.E+00
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Ex
ce
ed
an
ce
Fre
qu
en
cy
10 Hz Spectral Acceleration (g)
Updated EPRI-SOG Mean
Updated EPRI-SOG 5th%
Updated EPRI-SOG 16th%
Updated EPRI-SOG 50th%
Updated EPRI-SOG 84th%
Updated EPRI-SOG 95th%
CEUS SSC Mean
CEUS SSC 5th%
CEUS SSC 16th%
CEUS SSC 50th%
CEUS SSC 84th%
CEUS SSC 95th%
Figure 2.5.2-336: Comparison of hard rock hazard for 10 Hz spectral accelerations for the LNP Site computed using updated EPRI-SOG model with those obtained using the CEUS SSC model.
DRAFT
NRC Letter 108 RAI (CEUS SSC) Response L-0998 July 02, 2012 Draft
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
1.E+00
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Ex
ce
ed
an
ce
Fre
qu
en
cy
25 Hz Spectral Acceleration (g)
Updated EPRI-SOG Mean
Updated EPRI-SOG 5th%
Updated EPRI-SOG 16th%
Updated EPRI-SOG 50th%
Updated EPRI-SOG 84th%
Updated EPRI-SOG 95th%
CEUS SSC Mean
CEUS SSC 5th%
CEUS SSC 16th%
CEUS SSC 50th%
CEUS SSC 84th%
CEUS SSC 95th%
Figure 2.5.2-337: Comparison of hard rock hazard for 25 Hz spectral accelerations for the LNP Site computed using updated EPRI-SOG model with those obtained using the CEUS SSC model.
DRAFT
NRC Letter 108 RAI (CEUS SSC) Response L-0998 July 02, 2012 Draft
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
1.E+00
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Ex
ce
ed
an
ce
Fre
qu
en
cy
100 Hz Spectral Acceleration (g)
Updated EPRI-SOG Mean
Updated EPRI-SOG 5th%
Updated EPRI-SOG 16th%
Updated EPRI-SOG 50th%
Updated EPRI-SOG 84th%
Updated EPRI-SOG 95th%
CEUS SSC Mean
CEUS SSC 5th%
CEUS SSC 16th%
CEUS SSC 50th%
CEUS SSC 84th%
CEUS SSC 95th%
Figure 2.5.2-338: Comparison of hard rock hazard for 100 Hz spectral accelerations (PGA) for the LNP Site computed using updated EPRI-SOG model with those obtained using the CEUS SSC model.
DRAFT
NRC Letter 108 RAI (CEUS SSC) Response L-0998 July 02, 2012 Draft
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
1.E+00
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Ex
ce
ed
an
ce
Fre
qu
en
cy
10 Hz Spectral Acceleration (g)
Total Updated EPRI-SOG
EPRI-SOG
UCSS
Total CEUS SSC
Distributed CEUS SSC
Charleston RLME
NMF RLME
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
1.E+00
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Ex
ce
ed
an
ce
Fre
qu
en
cy
1 Hz Spectral Acceleration (g)
Total Updated EPRI-SOG
EPRI-SOG
UCSS
Total CEUS SSC
Distributed CEUS SSC
Charleston RLME
NMF RLME
Figure 2.5.2-339: Contribution of the various source types to the total mean hazard at the LNP Site. DRAFT
NRC Letter 108 RAI (CEUS SSC) Response L-0998 July 02, 2012 Draft
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
0.1 1 10 100
Sp
ec
tra
l A
cc
ele
rati
on
(g
)
Frequency (Hz)
Updated EPRI-SOG Mean 10-3Updated EPRI-SOG Mean 10-4Updated EPRI-SOG Mean 10-5Updated EPRI-SOG Mean 10-6CEUS SSC Mean 10-3CEUS SSC Mean 10-4CEUS SSC Mean 10-5CEUS SSC Mean 10-6
Figure 2.5.2-340: Comparison of hard rock UHRS based on updated EPRI-SOG model with results computed using the CEUS SSC model.
DRAFT
NRC Letter 108 RAI (CEUS SSC) Response L-0998 July 02, 2012 Draft
0
10
20
30
40
Magnitude Interval
Per
cen
t C
on
trib
uti
on
Distance Interval
5 and 10 Hz
0
10
20
30
40
50
Magnitude Interval
Per
cen
t C
on
trib
uti
on
Distance Interval
1 and 2.5 Hz
Figure 2.5.2-341: Deaggregation of mean 10-3 hazard from CEUS SSC model calculations.
DRAFT
NRC Letter 108 RAI (CEUS SSC) Response L-0998 July 02, 2012 Draft
0
10
20
30
40
Magnitude Interval
Per
cen
t C
on
trib
uti
on
Distance Interval
5 and 10 Hz
0
10
20
30
40
50
Magnitude Interval
Per
cen
t C
on
trib
uti
on
Distance Interval
1 and 2.5 Hz
Figure 2.5.2-342: Deaggregation of mean 10-4 hazard from CEUS SSC model calculations.
DRAFT
NRC Letter 108 RAI (CEUS SSC) Response L-0998 July 02, 2012 Draft
0
5
10
15
20
Magnitude Interval
Pe
rce
nt C
on
trib
uti
on
Distance Interval
5 and 10 Hz
0
10
20
30
40
Magnitude Interval
Pe
rce
nt C
on
trib
uti
on
Distance Interval
1 and 2.5 Hz
Figure 2.5.2-343: Deaggregation of mean 10-5 hazard from CEUS SSC model calculations.
DRAFT
NRC Letter 108 RAI (CEUS SSC) Response L-0998 July 02, 2012 Draft
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Magnitude Interval
Pe
rce
nt C
on
trib
uti
on
Distance Interval
5 and 10 Hz
0
5
10
15
20
Magnitude Interval
Pe
rce
nt C
on
trib
uti
on
Distance Interval
1 and 2.5 Hz
Figure 2.5.2-344: Deaggregation of mean 10-6 hazard from CEUS SSC model calculations.
DRAFT
NRC Letter 108 RAI (CEUS SSC) Response L-0998 July 02, 2012 Draft
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Ex
ce
ed
an
ce
Fre
qu
en
cy
0.5 Hz Spectral Acceleration (g)
Updated EPRI-SOG with CAV
Hard Rock (no CAV)
FG 500 fps Fill
FG 850 fps Fill
FG 1000 fps Fill
Weighted Average
CEUS SSC plus modif ied CAV
Hard Rock (no CAV)
FG 500 fps Fill
FG 850 fps Fill
FG 1000 fps Fill
Weighted Average1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Ex
ce
ed
an
ce
Fre
qu
en
cy
0.5 Hz Spectral Acceleration (g)
Updated EPRI-SOG with CAV
Hard Rock (no CAV)
GMRS Elevation
CEUS SSC plus modif ied CAV
Hard Rock (no CAV)
GMRS Elevation
Figure 2.5.2-345: Comparison of mean hazard curves for 0.5 Hz spectral acceleration computed with CAV for the finished grade elevation (left) and the GMRS elevation (right). Solid lines are results for the updated EPRI-SOG model with CAV applied to all magnitudes and dashed lines are for the CEUS SSC model with CAV applies only to magnitudes < M 5.5.
DRAFT
NRC Letter 108 RAI (CEUS SSC) Response L-0998 July 02, 2012 Draft
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Ex
ce
ed
an
ce
Fre
qu
en
cy
1 Hz Spectral Acceleration (g)
Updated EPRI-SOG with CAV
Hard Rock (no CAV)
FG 500 fps Fill
FG 850 fps Fill
FG 1000 fps Fill
Weighted Average
CEUS SSC plus modif ied CAV
Hard Rock (no CAV)
FG 500 fps Fill
FG 850 fps Fill
FG 1000 fps Fill
Weighted Average1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Ex
ce
ed
an
ce
Fre
qu
en
cy
1 Hz Spectral Acceleration (g)
Updated EPRI-SOG with CAV
Hard Rock (no CAV)
GMRS Elevation
CEUS SSC plus modif ied CAV
Hard Rock (no CAV)
GMRS Elevation
Figure 2.5.2-346: Comparison of mean hazard curves for 1 Hz spectral acceleration computed with CAV for the finished grade elevation (left) and the GMRS elevation (right). Solid lines are results for the updated EPRI-SOG model with CAV applied to all magnitudes and dashed lines are for the CEUS SSC model with CAV applies only to magnitudes < M 5.5.
DRAFT
NRC Letter 108 RAI (CEUS SSC) Response L-0998 July 02, 2012 Draft
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
0.01 0.1 1 10
Ex
ce
ed
an
ce
Fre
qu
en
cy
2.5 Hz Spectral Acceleration (g)
Updated EPRI-SOG with CAV
Hard Rock (no CAV)
FG 500 fps Fill
FG 850 fps Fill
FG 1000 fps Fill
Weighted Average
CEUS SSC plus modif ied CAV
Hard Rock (no CAV)
FG 500 fps Fill
FG 850 fps Fill
FG 1000 fps Fill
Weighted Average
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
0.01 0.1 1 10
Ex
ce
ed
an
ce
Fre
qu
en
cy
2.5 Hz Spectral Acceleration (g)
Updated EPRI-SOG with CAV
Hard Rock (no CAV)
GMRS Elevation
CEUS SSC plus modif ied CAV
Hard Rock (no CAV)
GMRS Elevation
Figure 2.5.2-347: Comparison of mean hazard curves for 2.5 Hz spectral acceleration computed with CAV for the finished grade elevation (left) and the GMRS elevation (right). Solid lines are results for the updated EPRI-SOG model with CAV applied to all magnitudes and dashed lines are for the CEUS SSC model with CAV applies only to magnitudes < M 5.5.
DRAFT
NRC Letter 108 RAI (CEUS SSC) Response L-0998 July 02, 2012 Draft
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
0.01 0.1 1 10
Ex
ce
ed
an
ce
Fre
qu
en
cy
5 Hz Spectral Acceleration (g)
Updated EPRI-SOG with CAV
Hard Rock (no CAV)
FG 500 fps Fill
FG 850 fps Fill
FG 1000 fps Fill
Weighted Average
CEUS SSC plus modif ied CAV
Hard Rock (no CAV)
FG 500 fps Fill
FG 850 fps Fill
FG 1000 fps Fill
Weighted Average
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
0.01 0.1 1 10
Ex
ce
ed
an
ce
Fre
qu
en
cy
5 Hz Spectral Acceleration (g)
Updated EPRI-SOG with CAV
Hard Rock (no CAV)
GMRS Elevation
CEUS SSC plus modif ied CAV
Hard Rock (no CAV)
GMRS Elevation
Figure 2.5.2-348: Comparison of mean hazard curves for 5 Hz spectral acceleration computed with CAV for the finished grade elevation (left) and the GMRS elevation (right). Solid lines are results for the updated EPRI-SOG model with CAV applied to all magnitudes and dashed lines are for the CEUS SSC model with CAV applies only to magnitudes < M 5.5.
DRAFT
NRC Letter 108 RAI (CEUS SSC) Response L-0998 July 02, 2012 Draft
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
0.01 0.1 1 10
Ex
ce
ed
an
ce
Fre
qu
en
cy
10 Hz Spectral Acceleration (g)
Updated EPRI-SOG with CAV
Hard Rock (no CAV)
FG 500 fps Fill
FG 850 fps Fill
FG 1000 fps Fill
Weighted Average
CEUS SSC plus modif ied CAV
Hard Rock (no CAV)
FG 500 fps Fill
FG 850 fps Fill
FG 1000 fps Fill
Weighted Average
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
0.01 0.1 1 10
Ex
ce
ed
an
ce
Fre
qu
en
cy
10 Hz Spectral Acceleration (g)
Updated EPRI-SOG with CAV
Hard Rock (no CAV)
GMRS Elevation
CEUS SSC plus modif ied CAV
Hard Rock (no CAV)
GMRS Elevation
Figure 2.5.2-349: Comparison of mean hazard curves for 10 Hz spectral acceleration computed with CAV for the finished grade elevation (left) and the GMRS elevation (right). Solid lines are results for the updated EPRI-SOG model with CAV applied to all magnitudes and dashed lines are for the CEUS SSC model with CAV applies only to magnitudes < M 5.5.
DRAFT
NRC Letter 108 RAI (CEUS SSC) Response L-0998 July 02, 2012 Draft
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
0.01 0.1 1 10
Ex
cee
da
nc
e F
req
ue
nc
y
25 Hz Spectral Acceleration) (g)
Updated EPRI-SOG with CAV
Hard Rock (no CAV)
FG 500 fps Fill
FG 850 fps Fill
FG 1000 fps Fill
Weighted Average
CEUS SSC plus modif ied CAV
Hard Rock (no CAV)
FG 500 fps Fill
FG 850 fps Fill
FG 1000 fps Fill
Weighted Average
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
0.01 0.1 1 10
Ex
cee
da
nc
e F
req
ue
nc
y
25 Hz Spectral Acceleration (g)
Updated EPRI-SOG with CAV
Hard Rock (no CAV)
GMRS Elevation
CEUS SSC plus modif ied CAV
Hard Rock (no CAV)
GMRS Elevation
Figure 2.5.2-350: Comparison of mean hazard curves for 25 Hz spectral acceleration computed with CAV for the finished grade elevation (left) and the GMRS elevation (right). Solid lines are results for the updated EPRI-SOG model with CAV applied to all magnitudes and dashed lines are for the CEUS SSC model with CAV applies only to magnitudes < M 5.5.
DRAFT
NRC Letter 108 RAI (CEUS SSC) Response L-0998 July 02, 2012 Draft
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
0.01 0.1 1 10
Ex
ce
ed
an
ce
Fre
qu
en
cy
100 Hz Spectral Acceleration (PGA) (g)
Updated EPRI-SOG with CAV
Hard Rock (no CAV)
FG 500 fps Fill
FG 850 fps Fill
FG 1000 fps Fill
Weighted Average
CEUS SSC plus modif ied CAV
Hard Rock (no CAV)
FG 500 fps Fill
FG 850 fps Fill
FG 1000 fps Fill
Weighted Average
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
0.01 0.1 1 10
Ex
ce
ed
an
ce
Fre
qu
en
cy
100 Hz Spectral Acceleration (PGA) (g)
Updated EPRI-SOG with CAV
Hard Rock (no CAV)
GMRS Elevation
CEUS SSC plus modif ied CAV
Hard Rock (no CAV)
GMRS Elevation
Figure 2.5.2-351: Comparison of mean hazard curves for 100 Hz spectral acceleration computed with CAV for the finished grade elevation (left) and the GMRS elevation (right). Solid lines are results for the updated EPRI-SOG model with CAV applied to all magnitudes and dashed lines are for the CEUS SSC model with CAV applies only to magnitudes < M 5.5.
DRAFT
NRC Letter 108 RAI (CEUS SSC) Response L-0998 July 02, 2012 Draft
0.01
0.1
1
10
0.1 1 10 100
Sp
ectr
al A
ccel
erat
ion
(H
z)
Frequency (Hz)
GMRS Elevation
Updated EPRI-SOG with full CAV10-4 UHRS
10-5 UHRS
10-6 UHRS
CEUS SSC with modif ied CAV
10-4 UHRS
10-5 UHRS
10-6 UHRS
Figure 2.5.2-352: Comparison of UHRS for the GMRS elevation based on updated EPRI-SOG model with full CAV and the CEUS SSC model with modified CAV.
DRAFT
NRC Letter 108 RAI (CEUS SSC) Response L-0998 July 02, 2012 Draft
0.01
0.1
1
10
0.1 1 10 100
Sp
ectr
al A
ccel
erat
ion
(H
z)
Frequency (Hz)
PBSRS Elevation
Updated EPRI-SOG with full CAV10-4 UHRS
10-5 UHRS
10-6 UHRS
CEUS SSC with modif ied CAV
10-4 UHRS
10-5 UHRS
10-6 UHRS
Figure 2.5.2-353: Comparison of UHRS for the PBSRS elevation based on the updated EPRI-SOG model with full CAV and the CEUS SSC model with modified CAV.
DRAFT
NRC Letter 108 RAI (CEUS SSC) Response L-0998 July 02, 2012 Draft
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
0.1 1 10 100
Sp
ectr
al A
ccel
erat
ion
(g
)
Frequency (Hz)
10-4 UHRS
10-5 UHRS
GMRS=10-4 UHRS x DF2
GMRS=10-5 UHRS x 0.45
Figure 2.5.2-354: Development of horizontal GMRS based on the CEUS SSC model with modified CAV.
DRAFT
NRC Letter 108 RAI (CEUS SSC) Response L-0998 July 02, 2012 Draft
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0.1 1 10 100
Sp
ectr
al A
ccel
erat
ion
(g)
Frequency (Hz)
Westinghouse 0.3g horizontal CSDRS
Horizontal Scaled GMRS - Updated EPRI-SOG with Full CAV
Horizontal GMRS - CEUS with Modified CAV
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0.1 1 10 100
Sp
ectr
al A
ccel
erat
ion
(g)
Frequency (Hz)
Westinghouse 0.3g vertical CSDRS
Vertical Scaled GMRS - Updated EPRI-SOG with Full CAV
Vertical GMRS - CEUS with Modified CAV
Figure 2.5.2-355 Comparison of GMRS based on updated EPRI-SOG and CEUS SSC models
DRAFT
NRC Letter 108 RAI (CEUS SSC) Response L-0998 July 02, 2012 Draft
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
0.1 1 10 100
Sp
ectr
al A
ccel
erat
ion
(g
)
Frequency (Hz)
10-4 UHRS
10-5 UHRS
PBSRS=10-4 UHRS x DF2
PBSRS=10-5 UHRS x 0.45
Figure 2.5.2-356: Development of horizontal PBSRS based on the CEUS SSC model with modified CAV.
DRAFT
NRC Letter 108 RAI (CEUS SSC) Response L-0998 July 02, 2012 Draft