ML14090A144

Firstenergy Nuclear Operating Co., Enclosure B to L-14-120 - 2734294-R-018, Rev. 1, NTTF 2.1 Seismic Hazard and Screening Report, Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 2, Beaver County, Pennsylvania

ML14090A144
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	03/20/2014
From:	ABS Consulting
To:	FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML14090A143	List: L-14-120, Firstenergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) Seismic Hazard and Screening Report (CEUS Sites), Response to NRC Request for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Review of in ML14090A144 ML14090A145 ML14090A146 ML14090A148
References
L-14-120 2734294-R-018, Rev 1
Download: ML14090A144 (85)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:Enclosure B L-14-120 NTTF 2.1 Seismic Hazard and Screening Report for Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 2 Beaver County, Pennsylvania (84 pages follow)

ABSGonsulting 2734294-R-018 Revision I I"CR Filiml;ffiffii"r*;fi; ENGIN'E[,RS IC'ONSLII.TANTS i CM NTTF 2.1 Seismic Hazard and Screening Report Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 2 Beaver Gounty, Pennsylvania March 20,2014 Preparedfor: FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company ABSG Consulting Inc.. 300 Commerce Drive, Suite 200. lrvine, California 92602

2734294-R-018 Reaision L March 20,201.4 Page 2 of 55 REVISION l REPORT NTTF 2.1 SEISMIC H.AZARD AND SCREENING REPORT BEAVERVALLEY POWER STATION UNIT 2 BEAVER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ABSG CONSULTING INC. REPONT NO. 2734294-R.018 RrvrsroN I Pno.rncr No. R10 12-4736 M.lncn 2012014 ABSG CoNSuLTING INc. P^lur C.Rrzzo AssocrATES, INC. AFSGonsulting rat S:\\Local\\Pubs12734294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R-O18\\R1\\2734294-RO18, Rev. 1.docx

2734294-R-0L8 Reaision 1, March 20,20L4 Page 3 of 55 Report Name: Date: Revision No.: Originators: Independent Technical Reviewer: Project Manager: Jeffrey K. Kimball Principal Seismologist ii.i fi) "'tlr " \\li l r ' \\ - - - Digitally signed by Jose E Blanco Beltran DN: cn=Jose E Blanco Beltran, o=Paul C Rizzo Associates, ou=Seismic, email=jose.blanco@rizzoassoc.com, c=U5 Date: 2014.03.20 l6:32:1 1 -04'00' 0312012014 Date 0312012014 Date 0312012014 Date 0312012014 Date 0312012014 Date 0312012014 Date APPROVALS NTTF 2.1 SeismicHazard and Screening Report Beaver Valley Power Station Untt 2 Beaver County, Pennsylvania March 20,2014 I Approval by the responsible manager signifies that the document is complete, all required reviews are complete, and the document is released for use. Digitally signed by Richard Quittmeyer DN: cn=Richard Quittmeyer, o=Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc., ou=Seismology, r'i-email=richard.quittmeyer@rizzoassoc.com, c=Us Date: 201 4.03.20 1 6:20:50 -04'00' Jos6 E. Blanco, Ph.D. Technical Director -r\\rv; \\a" Digitally 5i9ned by Nishikant Vaidya DN: cn=Nithikant Vaidya, o=Paul C. Rizo Associates, ou=V.P. Advan(ed Engineering Projects, email=nirh.vaidya@rizoasfi .com, c=U5 Date: 2014.03.20 I6:45:32 -O4',00', ( ).. " -, l l < l Nishikant R. Vaidya, Ph.D., P.E. Vice President - Advanced Engineering Projects Digitally signed by Richard Quittmeyer DN: cn=Richard Quittmeyer, o=Paul C. Rizo Associates, Inc., ou=SeismologY, f:- email=richard.quittmeyer@rizzoassoc.com, c=US Date: 2014.03.20 16:21:19 -(X'00' Richard C. Quittmeyer, Ph.D. Vice President - Seismology Nr=rr^ Va, Digitally siqned by Nithikant Vaidya DN: cn=Nishikant Vaidya, o=Paul C. Rizo Atsociates, ou=V.P. Advanced Engineering Projects, email=nish.vaidya@rizoatsoc.com, c=Us Date; 201 4.03.20 I6:46:29 -04'00' Nishikant R. Vaidya, Ph.D., P.E. Vice President - Advanced Engineering Projects Approver: R. Roche. Vice President S:\\Local\\Pubst2734294 FENOC BeaverValleyp.lQ Report File\\R-018\\R112734294-R-018, Rev. l.docx AF@nsulting

2734294-R-01.8 Reaision L March 20, 20L4 Pnge 4 of 55 Report Name: Revision No.: CHANGE MANAGEMENT RECORI) NTTF 2.1 SeismicHazard and Screening Report Beaver Valley Power Station Unrt 2 Beaver County, Pennsylv anra I RnvrsroN No. D,q,rn DnscRrprloNs oF CHnNcns/AnpncrED Pacns PnnsoN AUTHonlZING CHnNcn AppRov^q.Ll 0 March 6.2014 Orieinal Issue N/A N/A I March 20,2014 Incorporate NEI Final Template, CDF Letter and FENOC Comments ,\\t:,ts Y(L?r t;:J..- * *- -,,"--",", \\l ;r:;fJlfiriiir:t;-'^ Nishikant R. Vaidva Thomas R. Roche Note: tPerson authorizing change shall sign here for the latest revision. S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\\3.1Q Report File\\R-O18\\R1\\2734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx

2734294-R-0L8 Reuision 1, March 20, 20L4 Page 5 of 55 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE LIST OF TABLES .............7 LrsT oF FTGURES ..................8 LIST OF ACRONYMS ...............9 I.O INTRODUCTION .....12 1.1 Suuunny oF LrcpNsrNc BASrs. ..........13 1.2 Suuunny oF GnouNo MorroN RsspoNsE SpECTRUM AND ScnppNrNG RESULTS ............13 2.0 1.3 Onc,q.NrzATIoN oF THIS Rpponr. ........14 SEISMICHAZARD REEVALUATION .............I5 2.1 RpctoNal AND Locnl cEot.ocy........... ..........15 2.2 Pnoeaert-rsrrc SEtsnarc HnznRn ANRr-vsrs ...16 2.3 2.2.1 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis Results .............16 2.2.2 Base Rock Seismic Hazard Curves ...17 Srrp RespoNsp EvRr-uArroN .............19 2.3.1 Description of Subsurface Materials and Properties...................20 2.3.2 Development of Base Case Profiles and Non-Linear Material Properties......... .....23 2.3.3 Randomization of Base Case Profiles .............31 2.3.4 Input Fourier Amplitude Spectra.......... ...........32 2.3.5 Site Response Methodology ..............33 2.3.6 Amplification Factors ..........33 4.0 2.4 CoNrnol Pomr Sprsrr,rrc HnznRn CuRvns .....39 2.5 CoNrnoL porNT RESpoNSE spECTRUM........ .......40 PLANT DESIGN BASIS GROUND MOTION........ ................43 3.1 SSE DpscnrpuoN op Sppcrnnl SHnpE ................43 3.2 SSE CoNrnor. Pomr ElnvauoN........ .........44 SCREENING EVALUATION ........46 4.1 Rtst< Evnr.uerroN ScnppurNc (1 ro 1}Hz) ....46 4.2 HrcH FnequnNcv ScnpENrNc (> 10 Hz)....... ...46 ABSGonsulting rCR 3.0 S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\\3.1Q Report File\\R-018\\R1V734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx

2734294-R-01.8 Reuision L March 20, 2014 Page 6 of 55 5.0 TABLB OF CONTENTS PAGE 4.3 SpnNr Fupr-Poor-EvnlunrroN ScnEeNrNG (1 ro l0 Hz) ...........47 INTERIM ACTIONS... ..........48 5.1 NTTF 2.3 WalKDowNS .......49 5.2 IPEEE DESCRIPTION AND CAPACITY RESPONSE SPECTRUM......... .......49 CONCLUSIONS .............51 REFERENCES ...52 6.0

7.0 APPENDICES

APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C NTTF 2.1 SITE RESPONSE ANALYSIS EVALUATION OF BVPS-2 IPEEE SUBMITTAL REACTOR BUILDING MEAN AND FRACTILE HAZARD CURVES BVPS-2 SITE fBgGonsuElng FCE S:\\Local\\Pubs97%294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R-O18\\R1\\2734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx

2734294-R-018 Reaision 1' March 20, 2014 Page 7 of 55 TABLE NO. TABLE 2-I TABLE2.2 TABLE 2-3 TABLE2-4 TABLE 2-5 TABLE 2-6 TABLE 2-7 TABLE 3-1 TABLE 5-1 LIST OF TABLES TITLE PAGB MEAN SEISMICHAZARD AT HARD ROCK BVPS.2 SITE ............19 SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY AND LINIT THICKNESSES AT THE BVPS-2 SITE .............23 CHARACTERISTICS OF SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHIC T]NITS. BVPS-2 SITE .....25 BASE CASE Vs PROFILES, BVPS-2 SITE ....29 KAPPA VALUES AND WEIGHTS USED IN SITE

RESPONSE, ANALYSIS

........3I BVPS.2 MEAN CONTROL POINT SEISMTCHAZARD AT SELECTED SPECTRAL FREQUENCIES........... ...40 BVPS.2 CONTROL POINT s%.DAMPED UHRS AND GMRS ........41 SSE HORIZONTAL GROUND MOTION RESPONSE SPECTRUM FOR BVPS-2 ...............44 HORIZONTAL IHS FOR BVPS-2 .....50 lESGonsutting rae S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R-O18\\R1\\27U294-R418, Rev, 1.docx

2734294-R-01.8 Reaisiott 1 March 20, 2014 Page 8 of 55 FIGURB NO. FIGURE 2-1 FIGURE 2-2 F'IGURE 2-3 FIGURE 2-4 FIGURE 2.5 F'IGURE 2.6 F'IGURE 2.7 FIGURE 3-1 FIGURE 5-1 LIST OF FIGURES TITLE PAGE BVPS-2 MEAN SEISMICHAZARD AT HARD ROCK ...18 STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN LINDERLYING THE BVPS.2 SITE ...22 BASE CASE Vs PROFILES, BVPS-2 SITE, ....28 BVPS.2 SITE AMPLIFICATION F'ACTORS, BASE. CASE PROFILE (P1), EPRI ROCK G/GMAX AND

DAMPTNG, KAPPA 1, I.CORNER SOURCE MODEL.............35 BVPS.2 SITE AMPLIFICATION FACTORS, BASE-CASE PROFILE (PI), LINEAR ROCK G/GMAX AND DAMPING, KAPPA I, I-CORNER SOURCE MODEL.............37 BVPS-2 MEAN CONTROL POINT SEISMICHAZARD AT SELECTED SPECTRAL FREQUENCIES...........

...39 CONTROL POINT LINIFORM HAZARD RESPONSE SPECTRA AT MEAN ANNUAL FREQUENCIES OF EXCEEDANCE OF IX1O-4 AND IX1O.5, AND GROLIND MOTION RESPONSE SPECTRUM AT BVPS. 2............ ...............42 BVPS-2 SAFE, SHUTDOWN EARTHQUAKE 5%- DAMPED RESPONSE SPECTRA .......44 BVPS-2 SSE AND IPEEE HCLPF SPECTRA ...............50 ff]tConsulting rct S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\\3.1Q Report File\\R-O18\\R19734294-R418, R6v. 1.docx

2734294-R-018 Reaision 1 March 20, 20'l-4 Page 9 of 55 AF AHEX BDB BE BVPS BVPS.I BVPS.2 CDF CEUS CEUS.SSC COV DBE DF ECC-AM EL EPRI ERM.N ERM-S FENOC FSAR ft ft/s g GMM GMRS HCLPF HZ IBEB IEPRA IHS LIST OF ACRONYMS AMPLIFICATION FACTOR ATLANTIC HIGHLY EXTENDED CRUST BEYOND DESIGN BASIS BEST ESTIMATE BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION LI-NIT I BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION LINIT 2 CORE DAMAGE FREQUENCY CENTRAL AND EASTERN LINITED STATES CENTRAL AND EASTERN UNITED STATES SEISMIC SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE DESIGN FACTOR EXTENDED CONTINENTAL CRUST - ATLANTIC MARGTN ELEVATION ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE EASTERN RIFT MARGIN FAULT NORTHERN SEGMENT EASTERN RIFT MARGIN FAULT SOUTHERN SEGMENT FIRSTENERGY NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FEET FEET PER SECOND GRAVITY GROUND MOTION MODEL GROUND MOTION RESPONSE SPECTRUM HIGH CONFIDENCE OF LOW PROBABILITY OF FAILURE HERTZ ILLINOIS BASIS EXTENDED BASEMENT INTERNAL EVENTS PRA IPEEE HCLPF SPECTRUM AESConsulting rce S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R-O18\\R1\\2734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx

2734294-R-AL8 Reaision L March 20, 20L4 Page 1.0 of 55 IPEEE ISRS km km/s LR M MAFE MESE.N MESE-W MIDC-A MIDC-B MIDC-C MIDC_D MMI MWr NAP NEI NMESE.N NMESE-W NMFS NPP NRC NSSS NTTF NUREG NUREG/CR OBE PEZ-N PEZ-W PGA LIST OF ACRONYMS (coNTINUED) INDIVIDUAL PLANT EXAMINATION OF EXTERNAL EVENTS IN-STRUCTURE

RESPONSE

SPECTRA KILOMETERS KILOMETER PER SECOND LOWER RANGE MAGNITUDE MEAN ANNUAL FREQUENCY EXCEEDANCE MESOZOIC AND YOUNGER EXTENDED PRIOR _ NARROW MESOZOIC AND YOUNGER EXTENDED PRIOR _ WIDE MIDCONTINENT.CRATON ALTERNATIVE A MIDCONTINENT-CRATON ALTERNATIVE B MIDCONTINENT-CRATON ALTERNATIVE C MIDCONTINENT.CRATON ALTERNATIVE D MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY MEGA WATTS THERMAL NORTHERN APPALACHIANS NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE NON-MESOZOIC AND YOUNGER EXTENDED CRUST _NARROW NON-MESOZOIC AND YOLINGER EXTENDED CRUST - WIDE NEW MADRID FAULT SYSTEM NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NUCLEAR STEAM SUPPLY SYSTEM NEAR.TERM TASK FORCE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION TECHNICAL REPORT NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CONTRACTOR REPORT OPERATING BASIS EARTHQUAKE PALEOZOIC EXTENDED CRUST NARROW PALEOZOIC EXTENDED CRUST WIDE PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION AFSConsulting raR S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27M294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Repori File\\R-O18\\R1t2734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx

2734294-R-01,8 Reaision L March 20, 20L4 Page 11. of 55 PSHA PRA RB RG RLE RLME RR-RCG RVT S SER SEWS SLR SMA SPID SPRA SPT SQUG SRSS SSCs SSE SSEL SSI STUDY_R s&w UHRS UFSAR UR USI vp Vs LIST OF ACRONYMS (coNTTNUED) PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT REACTOR BUILDING REGULATORY GUIDE REVIEW LEVEL EARTHQUAKE REPEAT LARGE MAGNITUDE EARTHQUAKE REELFOOT RIFT INCLUDING THE ROUGH CREEK GRABEN RANDOM VIBRATION THEORY SECONDS SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT SEISMIC EVALUATION WORKSHEETS ST. LAWRENCE RIFT ZONE SEISMIC MARGIN AS SES SMENT SCREENING, PRIORITIZATION, AND IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS SEISMIC PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SEISMIC QUALIFICATION UTILITY GROUP SQUARE ROOT OF THE SUM OF THE SQUARES SYSTEM, STRUCTURE, AND COMPONENTS SAFE SHUTDOWN EARTHQUAKE SAFE SHUTDOWN EQUIPMENT LIST SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION STUDY REGION STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING COORPORATION LTNIFORM HAZARD RESPONSE SPECTRA UPDATED SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT UPPER RANGE UNRESOLVED SAFETY ISSUE

PRESSURE, WAVE VELOCITY SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY AESGonsulting rce S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\\3.1Q Report File\\R418\\R,lV734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx

2734294-R-018 Reaision 1. March 20, 20L4 Page L2 of 55 NTTF 2.1 SEISMIC H.AZARD AND SCREENING REPORT BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION UNIT 2 BEAVER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Following the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) resulting from the March 11,201 l, Great Tohoku Earthquake and subsequent tsunami, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) established a Near-Term Task Force (I.{TTF) 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 (NRC, 2012a) that requests information to assure that these recommendations are addressed by all United States NPPs. The 50.54(f) letter requests that licensees and holders of construction permits under 10 CFR Part 50 reevaluate the seismic hazards at their sites against present-day NRC requirements. Depending on the comparison between the reevaluated seismic hazard and the current design basis, the result is either no further risk evaluation or the performance of a seismic risk assessment. Risk assessment approaches acceptable to the NRC 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 I throughT of the "Requested Information" section and Attachment I of the 50.54(0 letter (NRC, 2012a) pertaining to NTTF Recommendation 2.1 for the Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 2 (BVPS-2). The BVPS-2 is located in Shippingport Borough on the south bank of the Ohio River in Beaver County. The Site is approximately one mile from Midland, Pennsylvania, five miles from East Liverpool, Ohio, and approximately 25 miles from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. BVPS-2 includes a pressurized water reactor Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) and turbine generator furnished by Westinghouse Electric Corporation. The balance of the unit was designed and constructed by the Licensee, with the assistance of their agent, Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R418\\R1\\2734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx fESConsultlng

2734294-R-018 Reaision 7 March 20, 20L4 Page 1.3 of 55 (S&W). The nominal NSSS power level for BVPS-2 is set at 2,910 Mega Watts Thermal (MWl. The operating license was issued in August of 1987. In providing the information contained here, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) has 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.I : Seismic (Electric Power Research Institute [EPRI], 2013a). The Augmented Approach, Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fulrushima NTTF Recommendation 2.1 : Seismic (EPRI, 2013b), has been developed as the process, if required, for evaluating critical plant equipment as an interim action to demonstrate additional plant safety margin prior to performing the complete plant seismic risk evaluations. Reference is made to FENOC's Partial Submittal (FENOC,20l3a) summarizingthe Site geologic and geotechnical information. The "Description of Subsurface Materials and Properties," and the "Development of Base-Case Profiles and Nonlinear Material Properties" presented in FENOC, (2013a), are repeated here for completeness. l.L SunnuanY oF LrcnnsrNc BASrs The original geologic and seismic siting investigations for BVPS-2 were performed in accordance with Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 and meet General Design Criterion 2 in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50. The Safe Shutdown Earthquake ground motion (SSE) was developed in accordance with Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 and used for the design of seismic Category I systems, structures, and components. The Category I SSCs are identified in Table 3-l of the Updated Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) (FENOC,20I2). 1.2 Sunnu,lnv oF GRoUND MortoN Rnspoxsn SpECTRUM AND ScRTnNING RESULTS In response to the 50.54(f) letter and following the guidance provided in the SPID (EPRI 1025287, 2012), a seismi c hazard reevaluation was performed. For screening pu{poses, a horizontal Ground Motion Response Spectrum (GMRS) was developed. Based on the results of the screening evaluation, BVPS-2 screens in for risk evaluation, a Spent Fuel Pool evaluation, S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27il294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R418\\R1\\2734294-R41e, Rev. 1.docx AESGoneultlng

1.3 2734294-R-018 Reuision 1, March 20, 2014 Page L4 of 55 and a High Frequency Confirmation. In the I to I 0 Hertz (Hz) part of the response spectrum, the GMRS exceeds the SSE and above 10 Hzthe GMRS also exceeds the SSE. Onc,q,NIZATIoN oF THIS Rnponr The remainder of this Report is organized as follows: Section 2.0 provides the Seismic Hazard Reevaluation that was performed for the BVPS Site, including the probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) for hard rock site conditions, the site response evaluation, seismichazard at the SSE control point, and the derivation of the horizontal GMRS. The discussion in Section 2.0 applies to both Units 1 and 2 ofthe BVPS. Section 3.0 provides a summary of the BVPS-2 SSE ground motion. Section 4.0 provides the screening evaluation, including a comparison between the GMRS and SSE, and the screening evaluation outcome. Section 5.0 describes interim actions completed for BVPS-2, and Section 6.0 provides conclusions. AB$Gonsulting rce S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R-O18\\R1\\2734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx

2734294-R-01,8 Reaision 1 March 20, 2014 Page 1-S of 55 2.0 SEISMIC HAZARD REEVALUATION The BVPS-2 is located in Shippingport Borough on the south bank of the Ohio River in Beaver County, Pennsylvania. The Ohio River Valley is an erosional, flat-bottomed, and steep-walled valley. The bedrock of Pennsylvanian age is a sequence of flat-lying shale and sandstone strata occasionally inter-bedded with coal seams. It is overlain by about 100 feet (ft) thick alluvial granular terraces that formed during the Pleistocene. Plant grade is elevation (EL) 735 ft and the top of bedrock is at approximate EL 625 ft. The Site area is located in a region with a low rate of seismicity. Historically, no earthquake of epicentral Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) V, or greater, has occurred within 80 miles of the Site. The Site has experienced vibratory ground motion as a result of regional and distant earthquakes, most notably the 181 l - 12 earthquake sequence at New Madrid, Missouri, and the 1886 earthquake at Charleston, South Carolina. Category I SSCs are designed for a safe shutdown following SSE ground motions associated with horizontal peak ground acceleration of 12.5 percent of gravity (0.125g) at the rock surface at the base of the foundation level. 2.1 RnctotrlAt, AND Locnl cEoLocY The Beaver Valley Power Station (BVPS) is located in an unglaciated area on sand and gravel deposits along the Ohio River, west of Pittsburgh and a few miles east of the Pennsylvania - Ohio border. Physiographically, the Site is located in the Appalachian Plateau Province. The bedrock in the areais the Allegheny Formation of Pennsylvanian Age. It consists of approximately two-thirds shale and one-third sandstone with several interbedded coal seams and a thin bed of fossiliferous Vanport limestone. The stratigraphic materials underlying the bedrock are characteized by various sedimentary sequences of Mississippian, Devonian, Silurian, Ordovician, and Precambrian age, consisting of S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R-018\\R1\\2734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx AESGonsulting

2734294-R-0L8 Reaision 1. March 20, 2014 Page L6 of 55 shales, interbedded sandstones, siltstones and dolomites, and limestone. These rocks overlie the Precambrian basement at a depth of approximately I 1,000 ft. Structurally, the bedrock is generally flat lying. It has a regional dip of approximately 15 to 20 feet per mile to the south and southeast with low amplitude anticlines and synclines. The regional dip and structure were imposed by orogenic movements that formed the Appalachian Mountains, about 100 miles southeast of the Site, at the close of the Paleozoic Era. 2.2 Pnon,q.g[ISTIC Sntsu tc H,qz,tnu Ax,q,lysIs 2.2.1 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analvsis Results J In accordance with the 50.54(f) letter (NRC, 2012a) and following the guidance in the SPID (EPRI, 2013a), a PSHA was completed using the recently developed Central and Eastern United States Seismic Source Characterization (CEUS-SSC) for Nuclear Facilities (EPRI/DOEAtrRC, 2012). The PSHA uses a minimum moment magnitude cutoff of 5.0 forhazard integration, as specified in the 50.54(f) letter (NRC, 2012a). The CEUS-SSC model consists of distributed seismicity sources and repeated earthquake (RLME) sources. Distributed seismicity sources are characterized approaches: the M,nu* approach and the seismotectonic approach. large magnitude following two The BVPS-2 PSHA accounts for the CEUS-SSC distributed seismicity source zones out to at least a distance of 400 miles (640 kilometers [km]) around the BVPS-2. This distance exceeds the 200 mile (320 km) recommendation contained in NRC (2007) and was chosen for completeness. Distributed seismicity source zones included in this Site PSHA are the following: o Mesozoic and younger extended crust - naffow and wide (MESE-N and MESE-W) Non-Mesozoic and younger extended crust - narrow and wide (I'{MESE-N and NMESE-W) Study Region (STUDY_R) Atlantic Highly Extended Crust (AHEX) Northern Appalachians (NAP) S:\\Local\\Pubs\\279294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R-O18\\R1\\2734294-R{18, Rev. 1.docx AB$Consulting

2734294-R-018 Reoision L March 20, 20L4 Page 1,7 of 55 o St. Lawrence Rift Zone, including the Ottawa and Saguenay grabens Zone (sLR) Extended Continental Crust - Atlantic Margin (ECC_AM) Illinois Basin Extended Basement (IBEB) Midcontinent-Craton alternative A to D (MIDC_A, MIDC_ MrDC_D) B, MIDC_C, and Paleozoic Extended Crust naffow and wide (PEZ_N and PEZ_W) Reelfoot Rift (RR and RR-RCG) RLME seismic sources within or near 1000 km from the Site are included in the PSHA as follows: Charlevoix Charleston New Madrid Fault System (NMFS) Eastern Rift Margin Fault northern segment (ERM-N) Eastern Rift Margin Fault southern segment (ERM-S) Marianna Zone Commerce Fault Wabash Valley For each of the above distributed seismicity and RLME sources, the mid-continent version of the updated EPRI Ground Motion Model (GMM) was used (EPRI, 2013c). 2,2.2 Base Rock Seismic Hazard Curves While the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) does not require that base rock seismic hazard curves be provided, they are included here as background information. These were developed by FENOC as part of an on-going SPRA effon. Figure 2-I and Table 2-1 present the mean hard-rock hazard curves at the BVPS-2 Site resulting from the PSHA. Thehazard curves showthe mean annual frequency of exceedance (MAFE) for spectral acceleration at the seven response spectral frequencies (100 Hz, 25 Hz, l0 Hz, 5 H2,2.5 H4 l Hz, and 0.5 Hz), for which the updated EPRI GMM (2013c) is defined. a a a a ASSGonsulting rC? S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R-O18\\R1\\2734294-R{18, Rev. 1.docx

2734294-R-018 Reaision 1, March 20, 2014 Page 18 of 55

1. E-01 L,E-02

1. E-03

1. E-04

1. E-05

1. E-06 L,E-07

1. E-08 0.01 0.10 1.00 L0.00 Spectral Acceleration (g)

FIGURE 2.1 BVPS.2 MEAN SEISMIC HAZARD AT HARD ROCK Consistent with the SPID (EPRI,20l3a), Approach 3 of Nuclear Regulatory Commission Contractor Report (NUREG/CR)-6728 (McGuire et al., 2001) is used to calculate the seismic hazard curves at the SSE control point elevation (the base of the Reactor Building [RB] Foundation). This method uses the median and log standard deviation of the site amplification factors (AF) developed as described in Section 2.3. The control point hazard curves are presented in Section 2.4.4. ug o5CT o t-U-o C'tro T'ooTJx ul-lU J trg tr.u o .0.5 HZ -. L. 0 H Z

• 2.5H2

..5.0 Hz (n - 10Hz r (r,.' 25 HZ 100 Hz S:\\Local\\PubsV734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\\3 1 Q Report File\\R418\\R1U734294-R{1 8, Rev 1 docx

2734294-R-01"8 Reaision L March 20, 2A1.4 Page 79 of 55 GnouNu MorroN Lnvnl tel Mn,tN ANT,IUIT. FRnounNCY oF ExcnnoANCE FOR SPECTRAL FNNQUN,NCY 0.5 Hz lIJz 2.5H2 5Hz l0}Jz 25IJz 100 Hz 0.01 1.05E-032.10E-034.67E-03 6.628-03 7.53E-03 6.178-03 3.01E-03 0.02 2.59E-04 5,58E-04 1.36E-03 2.38E-03 3.20E-03 2.848-03 1.148-03 0.03 9.178-05 2.098-04 5.918-04 1.21E-03 1.82E-03 r.73E-03 6.34F-04 0.04 4.028 -05 9.648 -05 3.178-04 7.288-04 I. l9E-03 1.18E-034.168-04 0.05 2.048 -05 5.14E-05 1.948-04 4.868-04 8.41E-04 8.67E-04 2.998-04 0.06 I.l5E-05 3.05E-05 r.3lE-04 3.48E-04 6.308-04 6.698-04 2.298 -04 0.07 7.01E-06 1.968-0s9.338-05 2.628-04 491F'04 5.35E-04 1.828-04 0.08 4.578-06 1.34E-056.99E-05 2.05E-04 3.94E-04 4.408-04 1.498 -04 0.09 3.15E-069.66E-06 5.43E-05 1.648-04 3.258-04 3.708-04 1.258 -04 0.1 2.27E-06 7.248-06 4.338 -05 1.35E-04 2.728-04 3.16E-04 1.068-04 0.2 3.208-07 1.278 -06 r.00E-05 3.71E-05 8.46E-05 I.l0E-04 3.57E-05 0.25 1.84E-07 7.498-07 6.238-06 2.428-05 5.77E-05 7.81E-05 2.458-45 0.3 I. l9E-07 4.908 -07 4.2rE-06 1.70E-05 4.21F-05 5.86E-05 1.78E-05 0.4 6.0sE-08 2.508 -07 2.238 -06 9.628-06 2.538 -05 3.69E-05 1.06E-05 0.5 3.57E-08 1.478-07 1.34E-06 6.05E-06 1.68E-05 2.55E-05 6.87E-06 0.6 2.30E-08 9.39E-08 8.738-07 4.09E-06 I. l9E-05 1.878-05 4.7 5F,-06 0.7 1.58E-086.388-08 6.028-07 2.918-06 8.78E-06 1.43E-05 3.428-06 0.8 1.13E-084.s4E-084.33E -07 2.14E-06 6.728 -06 1.12E-052.558-06 0.9 8.368-09 3.33E-083.228 -07 1.628 -06 5.278-06 9.038-06 1.958-06 1.0 6.36E-09 2.s28-08 2.45F,-07 r.268-06 4.2t8-06 7.398-06 1.528-46 2.0 9.208-10 3.418-09 3.54E,08 2.018 -07 8.268-07 1.72E-06 2.428-07 3.0 2.61E-10 9.248-10 9.868-09 5.93E-08 2.7 4F.-07 6.38E-07 6.85E-08 5.0 4.60E-l I 1.53E-101.66E-09 1.08E-08 5.67E-08 t.548-01 1.13E-08 TABLE 2.1 MEAN SBISMICH.AZARD AT HARD ROCK BVPS.2 SITE 2,3 SIrn RnspoNsE EvALUATToN Category I structures of the BVPS-2 are founded in the Pleistocene Upper and Lower Terrace unit at elevations varying from 680.9 ft for the RB to 703 ft for the Control Building to about 735 ft for the Diesel Generator Building. The Pleistocene Upper and Lower Terrace unit is characterizedby a shear-wave velocity (Vr) of about 1,100 to 1,200 feet per second (ft/s). Following the guidance contained in Seismic Enclosure l, of the March 12,2012,50.54(f) S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R-O18\\R1\\2734294-R{18, Rev. 1.docx AE$Consulting

2734294-R-018 Reaision 1 March 20, 20L4 Page 20 of 55 Request for Information (NRC, 2012a) and in the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) for NPPs that are not sited on hard rock (defined as 2.83 kilometers per second [km/s]), a site response analysis was performed for BVPS-2 Site. The following sections describe the various inputs to the site response analysis. These inputs are summarized in Appendbc A. 2.3.1 Description of Subsurface Materials and Properties The site stratigraphy presented here is based in part on site-specific geotechnical investigations reported in the UFSAR (FENOC,2012, Section2.5.4). Thirty-five dry sample borings at the Shippingport Power Station were supplemented by 30 additional borings at the BVPS. These included 10 dry sample borings on the high terrace, and the remaining borings located in the intermediate and low terrace materials. All borings penetrated approximately 20 ft into bedrock. The geologic profile below the reported subsurface investigation depth is based on the analysis of formation tops and bottoms from available deep well logs in the vicinity of the Site (within about 7 miles), obtained from the Pennsylvania Geological Survey. This is supplemented by information from West Virginia and Ohio Geological Surveys, as well as the UFSAR. The terrace deposits in the Site area are characterized by three levels: high, intermediate, and low. The low tenace is the most recent, where the upper alluvial deposit is composed of brown silty clay approximately 20to 30 ft thick. The intermediate terrace consists of medium clays extending to about EL 660 ft. The oldest, high terrace is the most abundant deposit atthe plant location. The terrace materials in the plant area(high terrace deposits) consist of unconsolidated and stratified sand and gravel outwash derived from the melting of glacial ice at the end of Pleistocene time. The surface sand and gravel layer is underlain by relatively dense and incompressible sand and gravel extending down to bedrock at approximately EL 625 ft. Major structures of the plant are founded in the high terrace sands and gravel either directly or on compacted backfill. Thin deposits of mud, silt, and sand deposited by flood water on the Ohio River and tributary streams overlay the terrace sands and gravel. The subsurface materials properties summarized here are based on the geotechnical investigations described in the UFSAR. The borings in the intermediate and low terrace materials retrieved undisturbed samples of surface clays and silts for physical testing. However, no samples were obtained in the high terrace materials. The properties for these materials are based on Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow counts and in-situ geophysical measurements. S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27A294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R-O18\\R1\\2734294-R{18, Rev. 1.docx ABSConanlting

2734294-R-018 Reaision 1 March 20, 20'14 Page 21. of 55 Properties of the bedrock material are based on both laboratory tests and in-situ geophysical measurements. Figure 2-2 presents the stratigraphic soil/rock column underlying the Site, and Table 2-2 presents the stratigraphy, identifying unit boundary elevations and depths as estimated from the subsurface investigations reported in the UFSAR and available well logs in the Site vicinity. Due to the relative proximity of the deep wells to the Site, the unit lithologies and depths encountered in those wells can be reliablv assumed to be similar to those below the Site. S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R-O18\\R1\\2734294-R{18, Rev. 1.docx AFSGonsufting

2734294-R-01,8 Reaision 1, March 20, 2014 (1). Pleistocene: upperterrace: unconsolidated sand and gravel with varying amounts of clay and silt. Lower terrace: 3G40'of silt and clay with sand and gravel overlying gravels (2). Middle Pennsylvanian Allegheny Group: gray shale with interbedded sandstones, coal seams, underclays and a limestone bed (3). Lower Pennsylvanian Pottsville Group: sandstone and conglomerate (a). Upper Mississippian Mauch Chunk Formation: red shale with sandstone (5). Lower Mississippian Pocono Group: sandstone and conglomerate w/ shale (6). Upper Devonian undivided: interbedded shale, sandstone and siltstone. (Equivalent to the Ohio Shale) (7). Middle Devonian Tully Limestone (8). Middle Devonian Mahantango shale (9). Middle Devonian Marcellus Shale (10). Middle Devonian Onondaga Group (Eqv. to Needmore shale/ Selinsgrove Limestone ): limestones and dolomites (11). Lower Devonian Ridgeley (Oriskany) sandstone (12). Lower Devonian Helderberg Formation: limestone/shale (13). Upper Silurian Bass lsland Group: dolomite and limestone (14). Upper Silurian Salina Group/Tonoloway Formation: dolornite and limestone (15). Upper Silurian Wells Creek Formation: shale (15). Middle Silurian Lockport dolomite (17). Middle Silurian Rochester Shale (18). Middle Silurian Rose Hill formation: shale with sandstone (19). Lower Silurian Tuscarora Formation: sandstone with conglomerate (20). Upper Ordovician Queenston Formation: shale, si ltstone and sandstone (21). Upper Ordovician Reedsville Shale (22). Middle Ordovician Utica Shale (23). Middle Ordovician Trenton Group (Black River (24). Middle Ordovician Gull River and Glenwood Formations: limestone and dolomite (25). Lower Ordovician Beekmantown Group: dolomite (26). Upper Cambrian Gatesburg Formation: dolomite and dolomitic sandstone (27). Middle Cambrian Rome Formation: dolomite (28). Lower Cambrian Mt. Simon Formation: sandstone (29). Precambrian Granite FIGURE 2.2 STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN UNDERLYING THE BVPS-2 SITE Page 22 of 55 S:\\Local\\PubsV734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\\3 1Q Report File\\R-O18\\R1U734294-R{18, Rev 1 docx AB$Gonsulting

2734294-R-0L8 Reaision 1 March 20, 20L4 Page 23 of 55 TABLE2-2 SUBSURFACB STRATIGRAPHY AND UNIT THICKNBSSES AT THE BVPS-2 SITB Top EL lffl Borrovr EL tfrl Lmsolocv Top DnprH lftl Borrou Dnprn lftl 735 625 Pleistocene: upper terrace: Unconsolidated sand and gravel with varying amounts of clay and silt. Lower terrace: 30 to 40 ft of silt and clay with sand and gravel overlvins sravels 0 l l 0 62s 550 Middle Pennsylvanian Allegheny Group: gray shale with interbedded sandstones. coal seams. underclavs. and a limestone bed l l 0 185 550 3s0 Lower Pennsylvanian Poffsville Group: sandstone and conglomerate 185 385 350 300 Upper Mississippian Mauch Chunk Formation: red shale with sandstone 385 435 300 -120 Lower Mississippian Pocono Group: sandstone and conglomerate with shale 435 8s5 -120 -3,700 Upper Devonian undivided: interbedded shale, sandstone. and siltstone. 855 4,435 -3,700 -3.820 Middle Devonian Tullv Limestone 4,435 4.555 -3.820 -3,900 Middle Devonian Mahantaneo Shale 4,555 4,635 -3,900 -3.93s Middle Devonian Marcellus Shale 4.635 4.670 -3,935 -4,150 Middle Devonian Onondaga Group Shale/Sel inssrove Limestone 4,670 4,885 -4,150 -4.250 Lower Devonian Rideeley (Oriskany) Sandstone 4.885 4.985 -4,250 -4,450 Lower Devonian Helderberg Formation: limestone/shale 4,985 5,1 85 2.3.2 Development of Base Case Profiles and Non-Linear Material Properties Most major structures of the BVPS-2 are founded in the upper terrace sand and gravel layers. The RB is supported on in-situ soils at EL 680.9 ft. Other structures are supported on compacted backfrll placed on the terrace sand and gravel at foundation elevations varying between EL 703 ft for the Control Building to about EL 735 ft for the Diesel Generator Building. Based on the UFSAR (FENOC,2012) description of the seismic analysis, the control point elevation for GMRS is taken to be the base of the RB foundation level (EL 6S0.9 ft). S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27M294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R-O18\\R1\\2734294-R{18, Rev. 1.docx AESGonsulting

2734294-R-0L8 Reaision L March 20, 2014 Page 24 of 55 The shear and compression wave velocities of the overburden soils and the shale bedrock are based on the subsurface investigations reported in the UFSAR (FENOC,2012),particularly Appendix 2G. Appendix2G summarizes the geophysical investigations consisting of cross-hole, up-hole, and down-hole measurements in five drill holes located in the reactor area. Compression-and shear-wave velocities were measured from direct arrival times. A limited amount of seismic refraction survey investigation was also performed to verify the elevation of bedrock, and to determine velocity layering. Variabilities in the V, of the bedrock material and the overburden soil are estimated respectively, from velocity measurements and lab tests. and the SPT data. The deep rock stratigraphy, as well as the seismic velocities of these strata relies on sonic logs recorded in wells in the site vicinity (within 7 miles). The sonic data were converted to compression-wave velocities (Vo) and shear-wave velocities (Vr) based on published literature (Pickett, 1963; Rafavich, 1984; Miller, 1990; and Castagna, 1993) reflecting the material type (limestone and dolomite, anhydrites and salts), porosity and density, and to a lesser extent, the lithology. Additionally, based on published literature, VpAy', ratios for these types of geologic units were used to define the epistemic uncertainty for Vr. Varying unit thicknesses, incomplete well logs, and non-standard lithologic descriptions present some challenges to reliably estimating contact locations. However, the lithologic units in the region are generally flat lying and for the most pafi,laterally consistent. Consequently, the velocity structure in the wells examined is similar and consistent from well to well for similar depths. Due to the proximity of these deep wells to the Site and the general flat lying (low dip) nature of the geologic units, the unit lithologies and thicknesses can be reliably assumed to be similar to those below the Site Table 2-3 presents the summary geotechnical profile identifying the layer thicknesses, Vr, and uncertainties in these parameters. From Table 2-3,the SSE control point is at EL 680.9 ft within the Pleistocene Upper and Lower Terrace unit with a best-estimate (BE) V, of 1,100 ft/s. S:\\Local\\Pubsl27H294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R-018\\R1\\2734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx ABSGonsulting

2734294-R-0L8 Reaision 1 March 2A, 201.4 Page 25 of 55 TABLE 2-3 CHARACTERISTICS OF SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHIC UNITS - BVPS-2 SITE Elnv,luoN lftl L.tynn No. SOTURoCK DESCRIPTION T,o,",D lpcfl VsA Iftlsl pt Plant Grade (Surface Elevation 735 Structural Fill/ Natural and Densified Soil 136 730+183" 0.35 " 720 Structural Fill/ Natural and Densified Soil 136 r0l5+254" 0.35 " 680.9 1(d) Pleistocene Upper and Lower Terrace r25 l 100+27 5 ' 0.29" 680.9 GMRS Elevation - SSE Control Point at Base of Nuclear Island Foundation 66s Ground Water Elevation 665 l(e) Pleistocene Unper and Lower Terrace 136 1200+300 0.49 " 625 2 Middle Pennsylvanian Alleeheny Shale 160 5000+1000 0.39' 550c J Lower Pennsylvanian Pottsville Sandstone, conqlomerate 160 6,026 0.30 3s0 4 Upper Mississippian Mauch Chunk Shale 155 6.744 0.30 300 5 Lower Mississippian Pocono Sandstone conglomerate 155 6,744 0.30 -t20 6 Upper Devonian Interbedded Shale, Sandstone. Siltstone ts5 7,112 0.30 -2.994 155 6,416 0.30 -3,700 7 Middle Devonian Tullv Limestone 168 9.856 0.30 -3,820 8 Middle Devonian Mahantaneo Shale r57 9,856 0.30 -3,900 9 Middle Devonian Marcellus Shale 157 9,856 0.30 -3,935 t0 Middle Devonian Onondaga Limestone, Dolomite 170 9,856 0.30 -4,150 1l Lower Devonian Ridselev Sandstone 160 9,856 0.30 -4,250 t2 Lower Devonian Helderberg Limestone, Shale 170 9,856 0.30 -4,450 l3 Upper Silurian Bass Island Dolomite, Limestone r70 8,352 0.30 -4"540 t4 Upper Silurian Salina Dolomite, Limestone 170 8.352 0.30 -5,034 t70 9.547 0.30 -5,330 15 Upper Silurian Wells Creek Shale r63 11,534 0.30 -5.550 16 Middle Silurian Lockport Dolomite 170 9.015 0.30 -5,900 t7 Middle Silurian Rochester Shale r63 9.015 0.30 -5,980 l 8 Middle Silurian Rose Hill Shale r63 9,015 0.30 -6,170 I 9 Lower Si lurian Tuscarora Sandstone t63 8,588 0.30 -6,390 20 Upper Ordovician Queenston Shale, Siltstone, Sandstone r63 8,588 0.30 -7.123 21 t63 7,835 0.30 -7,455 2l(a\\ Upper Ordovician Reedsville Shale 163 7835 0.30 -7,698 2l(b) r63 6834 0.30 -8,265 22 Middle Ordovician Utica Shale r63 6834 0.30 -8.565 23 Middle Ordovician Trenton Limestone 175 10.520 0.30 S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27%294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R418\\R,lV734294-R4'18, Rev. 1.docx AESConsulting

2734294-R-018 Reaision 1 March 20, 2014 Page 26 of 55 TABLE 2.3 SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY AND UNIT THICKNESSES - BVPS-2 SITB (coNTTNUBD) Notes: A. Variability in Vs of soil is based on SPT-V, correlations (COV:25 percent). COV is assumed 20 percent as average of soil and rock for the rock at the top and for deeper rock units COV : I I percent is assumed based on the information from deep wells; B. Appendix 2D, 2G and 2H of BVPS-I UFSAR (FENOC, 201l); C. From this elevation down, soil parameters are estimates from sonic velocities of deep wells except unit weight. Unit weights are typical values from the literature. Poisson's ratio is calculated by following formula: Poisson's Ratio : [(Vpivs)2 - 2] I [ 2(Vp/Vs)' - z]; D. Unit weight; E. Poisson's ratio. 2.3.2.1 Base-CaseShear-WaveVelocitvProfiles Based on the well characterizednature of the Site, the generally flat lying geologic units, and the geology-specific compressional-to-shear-wave velocity conversions, a scale factor of l.l5 is used for developing upper and lower base-cases to reflect epistemic uncertainty in the V'. The scale factor of 1. 15 reflects a realistic range in Poisson's ratio for the type of geologic units found in the Paleozoic rocks underlying the site. The V, profiles determined using the scale factor represent the epistemic uncertainty in the soil and rock column from the Tully Limestone formation at EL -3,700 ft to the top of the Pleistocene Upper and Lower Terrace unit underlying the base of the RB foundation mat. Using the best-estimate Vs specified in Table 2-3,t\\vee base-case profiles were developed using the scale factor of 1.15. The specified Vs were taken as the mean or BE base-case profile (Pl) and the scaled profiles as the lower and upper range base-cases (profiles P2 and P3), respectively. Elnv^lrtoN lftl Lnvnn No. SOIilROCK DESCRIPTION T,or"lD lpcfl V s A IfUs] lP -9,305 24 Middle Ordovician Gull River Limestone. Dolomite 175 10,520 0.30 -9,455 25 Lower Ordovician Beekmantown Dolomite t75 10,520 0.30 -9,645 26 Upper Cambrian Gatesburg Dolomite Sandstone 170 10,520 0.30 -9.99s 27 Middle Cambrian Rome Dolomite n5 10.520 0.30 -10,695 28 Lower Cambrian Mt. Simon Sandstone 110 10,520 0.30 -10,865 29 Precambrian Granite t75 10,520 0.30 S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R418\\R1\\2734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx AlSGonsulting

2734294-R-018 Reoision 1. March 20, 2014 Page 27 of 55 All three profiles extend to hard rock conditions below the RB foundation at a depth of 4,380.9. The base-case profiles (P1, P2, and P3) are shown onFigure 2-3 and listedinTable 2-4. S:\\Local\\Pubs9734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\\3.1Q Report File\\R-O18\\R1U734294-R-018, Rev. 1,docx fFSGonsultlng

273429+R-01,8 Reaision 1, March 20, 20L4 Page 28 of 55 2000 vs (ft/secl 4000 6000 8000 10000 e fr 2soo CL oo 0 500 1 000 1 500 2000 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

• Depth 0 ft coresponds to EL 680.9 ft FIGURE 2-3 BASE CASE VS PROFILES' BVPS-2 SITE ffinS rffi L

L I I ONle Fl ofile P2 ofile P3 L S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734294 FENOC BEaver Valley\\3.1Q Report Filc\\R{l8\\R1\\2734294-R418, Rev. l.docx tlc

2734294-R-018 Reaision'L March 20, 20L4 Page 29 of 55 TABLE 2-4 BASE CASB VS PROFILES, BVPS'2 SITE Top on Lnynn ElnvlttoN Iftl Pnorrln Pl Pnonrln P2 PnoFu,n P3 V. [ftlsl DnprH lftl V. [ftlsl Dnprn tftl V, [ftlsl DBpTH lftl 680.9 I 100 0 957 0 t265 0 665 I 100 15.9 957 15.9 1265 15.9 66s I 200 15.9 1 043 15.9 1380 15.9 625 1200 55.9 1043 55.9 1380 5s.9 62s s000 55.9 4348 5s.9 57 50 55.9 550 5000 130.9 4348 130.9 5750 130.9 550 6026 130.9 5240 130.9 6930 130.9 350 6026 330.9 5240 330.9 6930 330.9 350 6744 330.9 5864 330.9 77 56 330.9 300 67 44 380.9 5864 380.9 77 s6 380.9 300 6744 380.9 5864 380.9 77 56 380.9 -r20 6744 800.9 5864 800.9 77 56 800.9 -120 7 tt2 800.9 61 84 800.9 8r79 800.9 -2994 7 ttz 367 4.9 6184 367 4.9 8179 367 4.9 -2994 6416 367 4.9 5579 3674.9 7378 3674.9 -3700 6416 4380.9 5579 $84.9 7378 4380.9 -3700 9200 4380.9 9200 4380.9 9200 4380.9 2,3.2.2 Shear Modulus and Damping Cur-ves The site response analysis represents non-linear material properties by utilizing shear modulus degradation and material damping as functions of the seismic shear strain. Strain-dependent dynamic parameters for the overburden soils are reported in Appendix2D, Figure 2D-3 of Beaver Valley Power Station Unit I [BVPS-I] UFSAR (FENOC,20I1), and Figure 2.5.4-71 of the BVPS-2 UFSAR (FENOC,20L2). The material damping ratio is limited to a maximum of 15 percent in the calculations following guidance in NRC (2007) (RG 1.208). Consistent with the SPID (EPRI 2013a), uncertainty and variability in material dynamic properties are included in the site response analysis. For the rock material over the upper 500 ft, uncertainty is represented by modeling the material as either linear or non-linear in its dynamic behavior. To represent the epistemic uncertainty in shear modulus and damping, two sets of shear modulus reduction, and hysteretic damping curves were used. Consistent with the SPID S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\\3. 1 Q Report File\\R-O18\\R112734294-R41 8, Rev. 1.docx fESConsuEing

l. 2. 2734294-R-01_8 Reaision L March 20, 20L4 Page 30 of 55 (EPRI, 2013a), the EPRI rock curves (model Ml) were used to represent the upper range nonlinearity likely in the materials at this Site, and linear behavior (model M2) was assumed to represent an equally plausible alternative rock response across loading level. For the linear analyses, the low strain damping from the EPRI rock curves was used as the constant damping values in the upper 500 ft. Below a depth of 500 ft, linear material behavior is assumed for both models, with the damping value specified consistent with the kappa estimates for the Site (values discussed in Section 2.3.2.3 and shown in Table 2-5). 2.3.2.3 Kappa Near-surface site damping is often described in terms of the parameter kappa (EPRI, 2013a). Section B-5.1.3.1 of the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) recommends the following procedure for evaluating kappa: Kappa for a firm rock site with at least 3,000 ft (1 km) of sedimentary rock may be estimated from the average Vs over the upper 100 ft (Vrroo) of the subsurface profile. Kappa for a site with less than 3,000 ft (l km) of firm rock may be estimated with Q' of 40 below 500 ft combined with the low strain damping from the EPRI rock curves and an additional kappa of 0.006s for the underlying hard rock. For the BVPS-2 Site, kappa was estimated using the first of the above approaches because the thickness of the sedimentary rock overlying hard rock is 4,380.9 ft. There is sufficient confidence, based on deep well data,that the hard-rock horizon is more than 3,000 ft below the elevation of the RB foundation. Including a kappa of 0.006s for the underlying hard rock, the total site kappa is estimated to be 0.0213s for profile Pl, 0.0237s for profile P2, and 0.0193s for Profile P3. To complete the representation of uncertainty in kappa and, at the same time, reduce computational demands, a 50 percent variation to the base-case kappa estimates was added for profiles P2 and P3. For profilePZ, the softest profile, the base-case kappa estimate of 0.0237s was augmented with a 50 percent increase in kappa to a value of 0.032s, resulting in two sets of analyses for profileP2. Similarly, uncertainty in kappa for profile P3, the stiffest profile, was augmented with a 50 percent reduction in kappa, resulting in analyses with low strain kappa values of 0.0193s and 0.0152s. The suite of kappa estimates and associated weights is listed in AFSGonsultlng rce S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R418\\R1\\2734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx

2734294-R-01.8 Reaision L March 20, 2014 Page 31. of 55 Table 2-5. The base-case kappa estimates were judged to be the more likely (by 50 percent) with weights of 0.6 compared to the augmented values with weights of 0.4. To maintain consistency in the site response analyses, the low-strain damping values are adjusted consistent with the kappa value associated with each profile. TABLE 2.5 KAPPA VALUBS AND WEIGHTS USED IN SITB RESPONSE ANALYSIS Vnl.,ocrry PRorrr,n PRorrln Wnrcnr KappA, lsl K.Lpp.l, WnrcHr P I Base-Case 0.4 0.0213 (Kappa I ) 1.0 P2 Lower Range 0.3 0.0237 (Kappa l) 0.6 0.0320 (Kappa 2) 0.4 P3 Upper Range 0.3 0.0193 (Kappa 1) 0.6 0.0152 (Kappa 2) 0.4 This unsymmetric approach results in an appropriate representation of the epistemic uncertainty in site response. It also significantly reduces computational demands relative to specifying three alternative kappa values for each velocity profile. When uncertainty and variability in other inputs are also considered, it results in 6,600 site response analyses (5 combinations of profiles and kappa values,2 material behavior models flinear and nonlinear for the upper 500 ft], 2 source models (single and double corner inputs), 1 I loading levels, and 30 soil profile realizations). The range of kappa values presente d in Tuhle 2-5 is utilized in the site response analysis that is combined with the hard-rock seismic hazard to obtain the control point seismic hazard and the GMRS. 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 V5 profiles and shear-strain-degradation shear modulus reduction, and damping curves are incorporated in the site response calculations. S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27%294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R418\\R1\\2734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx AEtGonsultlng

2734294-R-01,8 Reaision 7 March 20, 2014 Page 32 of 55 2.3.3.1 Randomization of Shear-wave Velocitv Profiles For the BVPS-2 Site, aleatory variability in the Vs profile for the Site is presented by 30 randomized profiles developed from each of the base-case profiles shown on Figure 2-3. These randomized Vs profiles were generated using a natural log standard deviation of 0.25 over the top 50 ft and 0.15 over the remaining soil column depth. As specified in the SPID (EPRI, 2013a), correlation of Vs between layers was modeled using the footprint correlation model. In the correlation model, a limit of +/- 2 standard deviations, and a factor of I.3 about the median value in each layer was assumed for the limits on random velocity fluctuations. Additionally, profiles were constrained to not exceed a Vs of 9,200 ftls. 2.3.3.2 Randomization of Modulus Reduction and Hysteretic Damping Curves For the BVPS-2 Site, aleatory variability in dynamic material property curves is represented using 30 randomizations derived from the base-case for each alternative model. The random generation of G/cn,u* and damping ratio values are limited to upper and lower bounds of the BE + two standard deviations, consistent with the SPID (EPRI, 2013a). The damping ratio values are limited to l5 percent. Also consistent with the SPID (EPRI, 2013a), a log normal distribution is used with a natural log standard deviation of 0.15 and 0.30 for modulus reduction and hysteretic damping, respectively. 2.3.4 Input Fourier Amplitude 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 models for the shape of the seismic source spectrum (single-corner and double-corner). By selecting appropriate distances and depths, a suite of I I different input amplitudes (median peak ground acceleration [PGA] ranging from 0.01 to 1.5g) were modeled foruse in the site response analyses. The characteristics of the seismic source and upper crustal attenuation properties used forthe analysis of the BVPS-2 Site were the same as those identified in Tables B-4, B-5, 8-6, and B-7 of the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) as appropriate fortypical Central and Eastern United States (CEUS) Sites. ABSGonsultlng rct S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27il294 FENOC Beaver Valley\\3. 1 Q Report File\\R41 8\\R19734294-R41 I, Rev. 1.docx

2734294-R-0L8 Reaision 1 March 20,2014 Page 33 of 55 2.3.5 Site Response Methodology The site response analysis reported here implements an equivalent-linear method using the random vibration theory (RVT) approach. This process utilizes a simple, efficient method for computing site-specific 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 Vs, kappa, dynamic material properties, and source spectra was followed for the BVPS-2 Site. 2.3.6 Amplification Factors The results of the site response analysis consist of factors (5 percent damped pseudo absolute acceleration response spectra), that describe the amplification (or de-amplification) of reference hard-rock response spectra as a function of frequency and input reference hard-rock PGS amplitude. Amplification is determined for the SSE control point elevation at the base of the RB foundation level. Because of the uncertainty and variability incorporated in the site response analysis, a distribution of AFs is produced. The AFs are represented by a median (i.e., log-mean) amplification value and an associated log standard deviation (sigma-ln) for each oscillator frequency and input rock amplitude. Consistent with the SPID (EPRI, 2013a), median amplification was constrained to not fall below 0.5 to avoid extreme de-amplification that may reflect limitations of the methodology. Figure 2-4 presents the median and +l-I standard deviation in the predicted AFs developed for the I 1 loading levels parameterized by the reference (hard rock) PGA (0.01 to 1.50g) for profile Pl and EPRI rock G/G.*, and hysteretic damping curves (EPRI, 2013a). Further, the AFs shown on Figure 2-4 are developed for the hard-rock input motion based on the single-corner frequency source model. The variability in the AFs results from variability in Vs and modulus reduction and hysteretic damping curves. Figure 2-5 presents similar information for profile Pl using the linear dynamic material property representation. Comparison of AFs, including the effects of material nonlinearity in the BVPS-2 Site firm rock layers (model Ml),with the coffesponding AFs developed with linear site response analyses (model M2) shows only minor effects of non-linearity for frequencies below about 20Hz and a S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27%294 FENOC Beaver Valley\\3.1Q Report File\\R418\\R1\\2734294-R{18, Rev. 1.docx AEtConsulting

2734294-R-018 Reaision L March 20, 2014 Page 34 of 55 loading level less than about 0.5g. Above about the 0.5g loading level, the differences increase, but only for spectral frequencies in excess of about 20 Hz. Appendix,4 provides several tables that summarize the site response uncertainty analysis, including the development of the site response logic tree (V. models, kappa, and dynamic properties) and a summary of the numerical values of the AFs at seven spectral frequencies and 1l input PGA values at hard-rock. Additionally, Appendix,4 provides tables of the AFs for three loading levels consistent with the information shown on Figures 2-4 and 2-5. S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27%294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R-018\\R1\\2734294-R{18, Rev. 1.docx ABSGonsultlng

2734294-R-018 Reuision L March 20, 2014 Page 35 of 55 4.5 4 3.5 3 o t! E 2.s . E z eE 1.s 1 0.5 0 10 100 Frequency IHz] 4 3.5 3 o 1yH z s tt= . 9. a. z o t, -o. 1.5 E 7 0.5 0 100 Frequency IHz] 100 Frequency IHzl F'IGURE 2.4 BVPS-2 SITE AMPLIFICATION FACTORS, BASE.CASE PROF'ILE G/GMAX AND DAMPING, KAPPA 1, I.CORNER SOURCE 4.5 4 3.5 3 o t! 5 2.s )ra3 ' ) CLE 1.s 1 0.5 0 4.5 4 3.5 3 (! t! . E, t P . 8 2 CL E 1.s 1 0.5 0 Frequency IHz] Frequency [Hzl 10 0.1 4 3.5 4 3.5 3 o H z s l! g .9 -r P Z tu(, -o 1.5 E 1 0.5 0 3 Lo H z.s lt tr .9 1 1 P Z o(,= ^ - C L I. ) E L 0.5 Frequency [Hz] (P1), EPRr ROCK MODEL Note: Quantities in the upper right hand corner represent the hard rock input 100 Hz spectral acceleration in g's nFSGottsulting rce /l' ,t'-i S:\\Local\\PubsV734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\\3 1 Q Report File\\R-O18\\R1\\2734294-R41 8, Rev 1 docx

2734294-R-0L8 Reaision 1 March21,201.4 Page 36 of 55 Frequency IHzl Frequency IHz] E Mean M e a n + S t d v Mean - Stdv 1.83 , ? \\ ^ r, i t r i / A rr\\-

• . w 4 F

- \\ *,': 3.5 3 - 2.5 o t l! l !. g z o +to t't c E 0.5 0 4 3.5 3 Lo rYH z.s t! c . 9. tt a. o(,=. -

o. r.)

E 1 0.5 0 3.5 3 - 2.5 o E o

2

.9 .H l! r.s 0. E 0.5 o o P IJ olr c o ,y o IJ= o. E 100 Frequency IHz] Frequency IHzl frequcncy [Hzl X'IGURE 2.4 Bvps-2 sIrE AMpLrFrcArroN.^3JftNH;-cASE pRoFrLE (pr), EpRr RocK G/GMAX AND DAMPING, KAppA 1, I-CORNER SOURCE MODEL Note: Quantities in the upper right hand corner represent the hard rock input 100 Hz spectral acceleration in g's Lo P(, G t! g .9 1Y oI.; E 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 L 0.5 0 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\\3 1Q Report File\\R-O18\\R1U734294-R418, Rev 1 docx tESGonsulting

2734294-R-01,8 Reaision 1 March 20, 201'4 Page 37 of 55 4.5 4 3.5 L 3 l! t! t 2.s a. 8 ) CL E 1.5 1 0.5 0 4.5 4 3.5 3 o ll 5 2.s 3 ) =o. E 1.s L 0 5 0 Frequency [Hzl T 0.5 0 4.5 4 3.5 3 o l! E 2.s P . E z e E l.s L 0.5 0 4 3.5 3 Lo tPH z.s t! C .9 I (! I E 1.5 E 4 3.5 3 o PH z.s It C . 9 r Y L o I -o 1.5 E L 0.5 0 4 3.5 3 o PH z.s t! c .9 1 a ) z l! t -o 1.5 E 1 0.5 0 100 Frequency [Hzl Frequency [Hz] FIGURE 2.5 BVPS-2 SITE AMPLIFICATION FACTORS, BASE-CASE PROFILE (Pl)' LINEAR ROCK G/GMAX AND DAMPING, KAPPA 1, I-CORNER SOURCE MODEL a f f i M e a n M e a n + S t d v " Mean - Stdv Frequency [Hzl S:\\Local\\P ubsV734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\\3 1 Q Report File\\R-O1 8\\R1U734294-R418, Rev 1 docx fF$Gonsulting

2734294-R-018 Reaision 1 March 20, 201'4 3.5 3 - 2.5 o IP L' o ll C Z o tt(! E r.s c E 0.5 0 4 3.5 3 o .PH z.s t! tr .9 .l P Z o I

i. r.s E

1 0.5 0 Pase 38 of 55 100 Frequency [HzJ 100 Frequency [Hzl 3.5 3 .. 2.5 o ,tt t, o lL .r C L 0 .rt (!

1. r.s CL E

0.5 0 3.5 3 - 2.5 o P i, o* = 2 .9 ay G E t.t o, E 0.5 0 Frequency [Hzl 100 Frequency [Hz] 100 Frequency [Hzl FIGURE 2-5 (coNTINUED) BVPS.2 SITE AMPLIFICATION FACTORS, BASE.CASE PROFILE (P1)' LINEAR ROCK G/GMAX AND DAMPING, KAPPA 1, I-CORNER SOURCE MODEL Note: Quantities in the upper right hand corner represent the hard rock input 100 Hz spectral acceleration in g's. 2.5 t O t . P Z L' t! t! g E r.s t! I t-o. E 1 0.5 Mean M e a n + S t d v +h vj\\ Ae Mean - Stdv \\ t I{---- Mean M e a n + S t d V Mean - Stdv S:\\Local\\PubsV734294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3 1Q Report File\\R-018\\R1U734294-R418, Rev 1 docx AE$

2734294-R-01.8 Reaision 1-March 20, 201.4 Page 39 of 55 2.4 CoNrRoL PorNr Snrsvrrc HnzARD CunvBs As presented"in Section 3.2below, the control point elevation is taken to be the base of the RB foundation level (EL 680.9 ft). The procedure to develop probabilistic site-specific control point hazardcurves follows the methodology described in Section 8-6.0 of the SPID (EPRI,20I3a). This procedure (referred to as Approach 3) computes a site-specific control point hazard curve for a broad range ofspectral accelerations given the site-specific bedrock hazard curve and site-specific estimates of soil or soft-rock response and associated uncertainties. This process is repeated for each of the seven specified spectral frequencies, for which the EPRI (2013c) GMM is defined. The dynamic response of the rock column below the control point elevation is represented by the frequency and amplitude-dependent amplification function (median values and ln-standard deviations) developed and described in the previous section. The resulting control point mean hazafi curves for the BVPS-2 Site are shown on Figure 2-6 and in Table 2-6 for the seven spectral frequencies, for which the EPRI (2013c) GMM is defined. Tabulated values of the site response amplification functions and the control point hazard curves for various fractiles are provided inAppendLx C. 1.E-01 t.E-02 1.E-03 1.E-04 1.E-05 1.E-05 L.E-07 1.E-08 0.01 0.10 10.00 Spectral Accclention (g) FIGURE 2-6 BVPS.2 MEAN CONTROL POINT SEISMIC HAZARD AT SELECTED SPECTRAL FREQUENCIES (., g ot C' o Llt o C' g (! rE oo 1.,x UJ (E 5 tr c troo= -. 0. 5 H 2 . 1.0 HZ - 2. 5 H z ' ' 5. 0 H z G - 10.0 Hz n =D 25.0 HZ l-) 100.0 HZ S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\\3 1Q Report File\\R-O18\\R1U734294-R418, Rev 1 docx

2734294-R-01.8 Reaision L March 20, 201,4 Page 40 of 55 TABLB 2.6 BVPS.2 MBAN CONTROL POINT SEISMIC HAZARD AT SELBCTED SPBCTRAL FREQUENCIES 2.5 Conrnol PorNT RESPoNSE SPECTRUM The control point hazard curves described above have been used to develop uniformhazard response spectra (UHRS) and the GMRS. To ensure that important site response frequencies are accurately modeled, the control point response spectra are based on smoothed UHRS developed at the hard-rock boundary using the approach described by NRC (2007a) and McGuire et al., GRouNn MorIoN Lnvnl Iql Mnln ANNulr, FnneunNcy oF ExcnntANCE non SpnCTRAL FnnQUnNCIES 0.5 Hz 1.0 Hz 2.5Hz 5.0 Hz 10 Hz 25Hlz 100 Hz 0.02 3.868-04 9.168-04 4.598 -03 t.368-02 6.54E-03 5.65E-03 3.49E -03 0.03 1.55E-04 3.99E-04 2.22E-03 7.488-03 3.948 -43 3.30E-03 1.83E-03 0.04 7.328-05 2.018-04 1.30E-03 4.89E-03 2.67F-03 2.148-03 1.13E-03 0.05 3.87E-05 1.13E-048.568-04 3.508-03 r.92F,-031.508-03 7.688 -04 0.06 2.258-05 6.94E-0s 6.028 -04 2.658-03 1.45E-03 t.l0E-03 5.598 -04 0.07 1.40E-05 4.548-05 4.458-04 2.08E-03 1.138-03 8.408-04 4.26F,04 0.08 9.2t8-06 3.13E-05 3.428-04 1.68E-03 9. l 1E-04 6.628-04 3.36E-04 0.09 6.35E-06 2.268 -05 2.708-04 1.388-03 7.498 -04 5.34F'04 2.698-04 0.10 4.56E-06 1.69E-05 2.t98-04 r.l5E-03 6.278 -04 4.408-44 2.198-04 0.20 6.218 -01 2.83E-06 5.46E-05 3.268-04 1.86E-04 1.208-04 5.03E-05 0.25 3.4tE-07 1.66E-06 3.49E-05 2.148-04 t.258-04 7.89E-05 3.06E-05 0.30 2.188 -07 1.08E-06 2.428-05 r.s0E-04 8.94E-05 5.54E-05 1.99E-0s 0.40 1.138-07 5.698-07 1.35E-05 8.49E-05 5.248-05 3.10E-05 9.52E-06 0.50 6.72E-08 3.s3E-078.58E-06 5.39E-05 3.41E-05 1.928-05 5.08E-06 0.60 4.37E-08 2.438-07 5.89E-06 3.69E-05 2..378-05 t.268-05 2.908-06 0.70 3.03E-08 1.798-07 4.26E -06 2.668-05 t.12E-05 8.56E-06 1.73E-06 0.80 2.198-08 1.39F,-07 3.218-06 1.99E-05 1.28E-05 6.00E-06 1.07E-06 0.90 1.64E-08 1.10E-072.498-06 1.53E-05 9.69E-06 4.30E-06 6.89E-07 1.00 1.218-08 8.95E-08 1.98E-06 1.20E-05 7.488-06 3.148-06 4.598-07 2.00 1.96E-09 1.87E-08 3.988-07 r.928-06 9.258-07 2.978-01 3.64E-08 3.00 6.078-10 6.198 -09 1.328-07 5.t58-07 2.288-07 7.218 -08 8.88E-09 5.00 I.I7E-10 1.35E-09 2.89E-08 8.50E-08 4.418-08 1.07E-08 t.228-09 S:\\Local\\Pubs9734294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report Fite\\R{18\\R1\\2734294.-R-0'18, Rev. 1.docx fBSGonsultlng

2734294-R-018 Reuision 1 March 20,201.4 Page 41, of 55 (2001). The UHRS were obtained through linear interpolation in log-log space to estimate the spectral acceleration at each oscillator frequency for the lE-4 and lE-5 per year hazard levels. The lE-4 and lE-5 UHRS, along with a design factor (DF), are used to compute the GMRS at the control point using the criteria in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.208. Table 2-7 presents the control point lE-4 and 1E-5 UHRS, the GMRS, and Figure 2-7 graphically illustrates the GMRS relative to the UHRS. TABLE2-7 BVPS-2 CONTROL POINT s%.DAMPBD UHRS AND GMRS FnneueNcY lHzl HonrzoNur. SpncrRAL Accsr,nRATroN lgl lr rnn RB FouNolrroN 1xl0-" UHRS IXIO-'UHRS GMRS 0.10 0.0027 0.0067 0.0033 0.13 0.0039 0.0096 0.0048 0.16 0.0057 0.0141 0.0071 0.20 0.0088 0.0213 0.0r07 0.26 0.0136 0.0325 0.0164 0.33 0.0203 0.0473 0.0240 4.42 0.0284 0.0640 0.0326 0.s0 0.0357 0.0782 0.0401 0.53 0.0356 0.0786 0.0402 0.67 0.0375 0.0844 0.0431 0.85 0.0468

0. l08l 0.0549 r.00 0.0524 0.12t7 0.0617 1.08 0.0563 0.1336 0.0674 1.37 0.0688 0.1771 0.0879 1.74 0.0832 0.2373 0.1154 2.21 0.1r89 0.3783

0. I 801 2.50 0.t476 0.46s0 0.2218 2.81 0.t842 0.5725 0.2738 3.56 0.2661 0.8292 0.3964 4.52 0.3s01 1.0356 05042 s.00 0.3691 1.0801 0.5228 5.74 0.3707 1.0691 0.5190 7.28 0.3180 0.9291 0.4499 9.24 0.2816 0.8816 0.4210 10.00 0.2824 0.8879 0.4237 r1.72 0.2869 0.8895 a.4256 t4.87 0.2888 0.8880 0.4256 18.87 0.2646 0.7877 0.3800 23.95 0.2255 0.6776 0.3263 25.00 0.2205 0.6580 0.3r73 30.39 0.2027 0.5765 0.2807 S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\\3. 1 Q Report File\\R41 8\\R1\\2734294-R-01 8, Rev. 1.docx AEBConsultlng

2734294-R-018 Reuision 1, March 20, 20L4 Page a2 of 55 -ruo Y g o a -P IE Lo-o L' I lE L tD) Io CL ltl 1.200 1.000 0.800 0.600 0.400 0.200 0.000 -,- - 1X10-4 UHRS [c] Lx10-5 UH RS [e] s=n GMRS / I I 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 Frequency (Hzl FIGURE 2.7 CONTROL POINT UNIFORM HAZARD RESPONSE SPECTRA AT MEAN ANNUAL FREQUENCIES OF EXCEEDANCE OF 1X10-4 AND 1X10-5, AND GROUND MOTION RESPONSE SPECTRUM AT BVPS.2 fE$Gonsulting rCQ TABLE2-7 BVPS.2 CONTROL POINT s%-DAMPED UHRS AND GMRS (coNTINUED) FnEQTIENCY lHzl HontzoNTAL SpecrRAL AccnlERATIoN lgl Ar THE RB FOTIXUATION IXIO'4 UHRS 1XlO-5 UHRS GMRS 38.57

0. I 904 0.5267 0.2s78 48.94

0. r 828 0.487 l 0.2402 62.10 0.1704 0.443r 0.2196 78.80 0.1526 0.3 93 8

0. l 955 100.00

0. l 455 0.3929 0.t933 t

S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\\3 1Q Report File\\R-O18\\R1U734294-R418, Rev 1 docx

2734294-R-01_8 Reaision L March 20, 2014 Page 43 of 55 3.0 PLANT DESIGN BASIS GROUND MOTION The design basis for BVPS-2 is identified in the UFSAR (FENOC,2012). 3.1 SSE DnscruprroN oF SpECTRAL SHl,pn The SSE was developed in accordance with conservative deterministic principles through an evaluation of the maximum earthquake potential for the region suffounding the Site. Based on deterministic hazard analysis, the UFSAR (FENOC,2012, Sections 2.5 and 3.7) reports two design basis earthquakes, the SSE and the Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE). The purpose of the seismicity analysis is to evaluate earthquakes that have been recorded historically and instrumentally in order to determine the OBE and the SSE. The SSE ground motion accounts for the soil conditions at the Site. The SSE response spectra for the BVPS-2 Site are anchored atzero period accelerations of O.l2lghorizontal and 0.0839 vertical (Section 2.5.4.9 of UFSAR [FENOC,2012]). Dynamic AFs used for these spectra give a maximum spectral acceleration of 0.449 for two percent damping, with appropriate relative values for other amounts of damping. The spectra arc flat from 2to 6Hzandreduce to an amplification ratio of unity for frequency exceeding20Hz. The So/o-damped horizontal SSE spectral accelerations are presented in Table 3-1. The coffesponding vertical ground motion spectrum forthe SSE is taken as2l3 of the horizontal spectrum. Figare 3-1 presents the SSE So/o-Damped Response Spectra. AESGonsultlng rct S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R418\\R1\\2734294-R18, Rev. 1.docx

2734294-R-018 Reaision 1 March 20, 2014 Page aa of 55 TABLE 3-I SSE HORIZONTAL GROUND MOTION RESPONSE SPECTRUM FOR BVPS.2 FnneuENCY IHzl SppcrRAL AccnLERATIoN tel 0.2 0.012 0.5 0.07 6 2 0.325 6 0.325 20 0.125 100 0.125 0.10 1.00 10.00 1m.00 Frequency (Hz) -BV2

H_SSE, 0.1259 PGA

-BV2

V_SSE, 0.0839 PGA FIGURE 3.1 BVPS-2 SAFE SHUTDOWN EARTHQUAKE 5%-DAMPED RESPONSE SPECTRA 3.2 SSE Conrnol PorNr Er,ov,lrron The horizontal and vertical SSE response spectra shown on Figure 3-1 represent the design basis ground motion input applied at the base of the foundation levels of the BVPS-2 structures. At Ao0 0.6 o

. I+, (! bo- !'f 0.4 (J -lU L+, L' a 0.2 vl S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3 1Q Report File\\R-O18\\R1\\2734294-R418, Rev 1 docx AES

2734294-R-0L8 Reaision 1 March 2A,20'L4 Page 45 of 55 BVPS-2, the top of bedrock is at EL 625 ft and the foundation elevation of the RB and the Nuclear Island is 680.9 ft. The SSE control point elevation is taken to be the base of the RB foundation, andthe SSE response spectraare, therefore, comparedto the GMRS atEL 680.9 ft. S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27M294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R-O18\\R19734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx AESGonsultlng

2734294-R-018 Reaision 1 March 20, 2014 Page 46 of 55 4.0 SCREENING EVALUATION In accordance with the SPID, (EPRI, 2013a, Section 3), a screening evaluation was performed as described below. The screening process determines if a seismic risk evaluation is needed. The horizontal GMRS determined from thehazard reevaluation is used to characterize the amplitude of the updated evaluation of seismic hazard at the BVPS-2 Site. The screening evaluation is based upon a comparison of the GMRS with the horizontal SSE ground motion spectrum. 4.1 Rtsr Ev,q.r-u.q.TroN ScnnBNrNG (1 To 10 IJz) Inthe I to l0Hzpart of the response spectrum, the GMRS exceeds the horizontal SSE (at frequencies above about 6Hz). Therefore, the plant screens in for a risk evaluation. The GMRS exceedance relative to the SSE spectrum above about 3-4 Hz is characterized as broad banded with spectral accelerations exceedin10.4g at some frequencies in the 1.0 to l0Hz frequency range. However, the SSE spectrum envelops the GMRS below 3-4 Hz. Therefore, SSCs and failure modes associated with low frequency are not affected by the GMRS. As discussed in the SPID (EPRI, 2013a), these SSCs and failure modes include flexible distribution systems, sliding and rocking of unanchored components, fuel assemblies inside the reactor vessel, soil liquefaction, and liquid sloshing in atmospheric pressure storage tanks. Accordingly, no new high confidence of low probability of failure (HCLPF) analysis of low frequency SSCs and failure modes is planned. 4.2 Hrcu FnneunNcy ScnnnNrNG (> 10 Hz) In the range of frequencies above l0 Hz, the GMRS exceeds the horizontal SSE. The high frequency exceedances will be addressed in the risk evaluation discussed in,Section 4.1above. The BVPS-2 SSE ground motions do nothave significant frequency content above l0 Hz. Moreover, the consideration of high-frequency vulnerability of components in the IPEEE was focused on "bad actor" relays mutually agreed to by the industry and the NRC, with known S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\\3.1Q Report File\\R-O18\\R19734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx ABSGonsultlng

2734294-R-018 Reaision L March 20, 201.4 Page 47 of 55 earthquake or shock sensitivity. These specific model relays, designated as low ruggedness relays, were identified in EPRI Report 7148 (EPRI, 1990). Rather than considering high frequency capacity versus demand screening, "bad actor" relays were considered program outliers and were evaluated using circuit analysis, operator actions, or component replacement. The response of components to the high frequency ground motion associated with the GMRS will be addressed as part of the on-going SPRA. EPRI ReportNP-7498 (EPRI, l99l), as well as more recent studies related to licensing activities for new plants (EPRI, 2007aand2007b), summarize the basis and conclude that "...high-frequency vibratory motions above about 10 Hz are not damaging to the large majority of NPP structures, components, and equipment. An exception to this is the functional performance of vibration sensitive components, such as relays and other electrical and instrumentation devices whose output signals could be affected by high-frequenc y excitation. " The SPRA will utilizethe information from EPRI's on-going test program to develop estimates of fragility for potential high-frequency sensitive components. The test program is expected to "... use accelerations or spectral levels that are sufficiently high to address the anticipated high-frequency in-structure and in-cabinet responses of various plants." 4.3 Spnxr Funl Pool Ev,Ll,u.q,TloN ScnnnxING (1 ro 10 IJ.z) In the I to I 0 Hz part of the response spectrum, the GMRS exceeds the horizontal SSE. Therefore, a spent fuel pool evaluation will be performed following the guidance in SectionT of the SPID (EPRI, 2013a). S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27%294 FENOC Beaver Valley\\3.1Q Report File\\R-018\\R1\\2734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx AESGonsultlng

2734294-R-018 Reaision L March 20, 2014 Page 48 of 55 5.0 INTERIM ACTIONS Based onthe screening evaluation, the expedited seismic evaluation described in EPRI (2013b) is being performed as proposed in a letter to NRC dated April 9,2013, (l{EI,2013), and agreed to by NRC in a letter dated May 7,2013, (ML131064331). Consistent with NRC letter dated February 20,2014, [ML14030A046]the seismic hazard reevaluations presented herein are distinct from the current design and licensing bases of the BVPS-2. Therefore, the results do not call into question the operability or functionality of SSCs and are not reportable pursuant to10 CFR 50.72, "Immediate notification requirements for operating nuclear power reactors," andlO 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 CEUS. These risk estimates continue to support the following conclusions of the NRC GI-1 99 Safety/Risk Assessment (NRC, 2010a): Overall seismic core damage risk estimates are consistent with the Commission's Safety Goal Policy Statement because they are within the subsidiary objective of 104/year for core damage frequency. The GI-199 Safety/Risk Assessment, based in part on information from the NRC's 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. BVPS-2 is included in the Marchl2,20l4, risk estimates. Using the methodology described in the NEI letter, all plants were shown to be below 70'a lyeau thus, the above conclusions apply. Additionally, as requested in Enclosure 1 of the 50.54(f) letter (Item 5) the followingparagraphs provide insights from the NTTF Recommendati on 2.3 walkdowns, and the IPEEE program accomplished for BVPS-2. These programs further illustrate the plant seismic capacity. S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R{18\\R1\\2734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx AFSConsulting

2734294-R-0L8 Reuision L March 20, 20'l-4 Page 49 of 55 5.1 NTTF 2.3 W,q.LKDowNs In response to NTTF Recommendation 2.3, FENOC completed the Seismic 2.3 walkdown for BVPS-2 in September 2012 (FENOC,20l3b). This walkdown identified no major anomalies. However, some potentially adverse seismic conditions were identified during the Seismic Walkdown. The walkdown report summarizes these conditions. Condition reports were inititiated as appropriate. Justifications for findings, for which a Licensing Evaluation is not required, are provided in the Component's respective SWCs. The 2.3 walkdown for the Beaver Valley Power Station was subsequently audited by NRC staff. The staff concurred with the process, as well as the findings and conclusions. IPEEE DESCRIPTION AND CAPACITY RESPONSE SPECTRUM The IPEEE for BVPS-2 accomplished a SPRA for selected plant SSCs (Duquesne Light Co, 1995) in accordance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission Technical Report (NUREG)-1407 (NRC, 1991). The seismic fragilities, developed in support of the SPRA,are based onthe lE-4 return period UHRS developed in the EPRI SOG program (EPRI, 1989a, 1989b). The IPEEE HCLPF spectrum (IHS) is not used for screening. However, it is provided here for reference and to document the level of the BDB seismic ground motion, for which the plant SSCs have been evaluated. Appendix,B summarizes the elements of the IPEEE, following the IPEEE adequacy requirements in SPID Section 3.3.1 (EPRI, 2013a). The IPEEE reports aminimum HCLPF value of about 0.1259, associated with failure of the unrestrained station batteries. However, the supporting SPRA estimates a mean seismic-initiated CDF of 5.338-6, andthe plant level HCLPF of 0.259 PGA (NRC, 2010b). Accordingly, the 5-percent damped horizontal IHS spectral accelerations provided in Table 5-1 corcespond to the 0.259 PGA UHRS. The SSE spectrum and the IHS in the horizontal direction are shown on Figure 5-1. ABSGonsulting rce S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27%294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R-O18\\R1\\2734294-R-018, Rev. 1.docx

2734294-R-018 Reuision L March 20, 201,4 Page 50 of 55 0.8 TABLE 5-1 HORIZONTAL IHS FOR BVPS-2 Frequency (Hzl -BV2 IHS 0.259 -BV2 H-SSE, 0.L25g PGA FIGURE 5-1 BVPS-2 SSE AND IPEEE HCLPF SPECTRA ,Aa0 V s 0.6 o'tr (u Lg o t ^A E L P(,ot o.z AESGonsultlng rce FnneuENCY lHzl SpncrRAL AccnLERATIoN tgl 1.0 0.019 2.5 0.125 5.0 0.292 10.0 0.369 25.0 0.369 100.0 0.250 S:\\Local\\PubsV734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\\3 1Q Report File\\R{18\\R1U734294-R418, Rev 1 docx

273429+R-018 Reaision 1 March 20, 2014 Page 51, of 55

6.0 CONCLUSION

S In accordance withthe 50.54(f) request for information letter (NRC, 2012a) a seismichazardand screening evaluation was performed for BVPS-2. This reevaluation followed the guidance provided in the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) and developed the control point GMRS for the Site. The screening evaluation compares the horizontal SSE spectrum to the control point GMRS. Based on the results of the screening evaluation, the plant screens in for risk evaluation, a Spent Fuel Pool evaluation, and a High Frequency Confirmation. The GMRS exceeds the horizontal SSE both in the I to 1 0 Hzpart of the response spectrum and above l0 Hz. Although the BVPS-2 IPEEE is a focused scope SPRA and is not used for screening, this Report Q4ppendix B) performs the evaluation of the completed IPEEE. It concludes thatthe IPEEE is of good quality and meets all other prerequisites and the adequacy requirements in accordance with the SPID (EPRI, 2013a). The Report compares the GMRS to the IPEEE spectrum for reference and to illustrate the robustness in the plant design relative to the design basis for new plants. The SPRA for BVPS-2 is currently on-going and is expected to be completed consistent with the schedule proposed in the industry letter to NRC dated April 9,2013, (f{EI, 2013), and agreed to by NRC in a letter dated May 7, 2013, (MLl3106A33l). Gonsultlng rce S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27H294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R-018\\R1\\2734294-R-018, Rev. 1.docx

2734294-R-41.8 Reaision 1 March 20, 2074 Page 52 of 55 7.0 REFBRENCES Castagna, J.P., and M.M. Backus,1993, "Rock Physics - The Link Between Rock Properties and AVO Response," in Eds., Offset-dependent reflectivity - Theory and Practice of AVO Analysis, Castagna, J.P., Batzle,M.L., and Kan, T.K., Investigations in Geophysics (SEG)No. 8, p. 135 - l7 t, 1993. Duquesne Light Company, 1995, "Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 1, Probabilistic Risk Assessment, Individual Plant Examination Summary Report," June 1995. EPRI, 1989a, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Evaluation for Beaver Valley Power Station, Project RPl0l-53, Electric Power Research Institute, April 1989. EPRI, 1989b, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Evaluations at Nuclear Plant Sites in the Central and Eastern United States: Resolution of the Charleston Earthquake Issue, NP-6395-D, Electric Power Research Institute, April 1989. EPRI, 1990, "Procedure for Evaluating Nuclear Power Plant Relay Seismic Functionality," Report 7148, Electric Power Research Institute, December 1990. EPRI, 1991, "Industry Approach to Severe Accident Policy Implementation," Report EPRI NP-7498, Electric Power Research Institute, November 1991. EPRI, 1993, "Guidelines for Determining Design Basis Ground Motions," Electric Power Research Institute, Vol. l-5, EPRI TR-102293, Electric Power Research Institute, 1993. EPRI, 2004, "CEUS Ground Motion Project Final Report: TR-1009684 2004," Electric Power Research Institute, December 2004. EPRI, 2006, "Program on Technology Innovation: Truncation of the Lognormal Distribution and Value of the Standard Deviation for Ground Motion Models in the Central and Eastern United States," TR-1014381, Electric Power Research Institute, August 2006. EPRI, 2007a, "Program on Technology Innovation: The Effects of High-Frequency Ground Motion on Structures, Components, and Equipment in Nuclear Power Plants," EPRI 1015108, Electric Power Research Institute, June 2007. EPRI, 2007b, "Program on Technology Innovation: Seismic Screening of Components Sensitive to High-Frequency Vibratory," EPRI 1015109, Electric Power Research Institute, October 2007. ABSGonsultlng rCR S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R418\\R1\\2734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx

2734294-R-41.8 Reaision 1 March 20, 2014 Page 53 of 55 EPRI, 20l3a "Seismic Evaluation Guidance, Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic," Electric Power Research Institute, February 2013. EPRI, 20l3b, "Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic," Report 3002000704,, Electric Power Research Institute, April, 2013. EPRI, 20l3c, "EPRI (2004,2006) Ground-Motion Model (GMM) Review Project, Report 3002000717," Electric Power Research Institute, June 2013. EPRI/DOEA{RC, 2012, "Technical Report: Central and Eastern United States Seismic Source Characterization for Nuclear Facilities," EPRI Report # 1021097, U.S. DOE Report # DOEA{E-0140, U.S. NRC NUREG-2115, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, U.S. DOE, U.S. NRC, 2012. FENOC, 2011, Beaver Valley Power Station Unit I Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Revision 27,Docket No. 50-334, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company,20ll. FENOC,2012,"lJpdated Final Safety Analysis Report," Revision 27,Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 2, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company,2\\l2. FENOC,2013a "Site Description for Beaver Valley Power Station, Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1Partial Submittal", FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, September 12,2013. FENOC,2013b, "Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 2 Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report," Revision 1, September 4,2An NRC ADAMS accession number MLI 3284A025), FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, 2013. Goldthwait, R., G. White, and J. Forsyth, 1961, "Glacial Map of Ohio," Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Div. of Geol Survey, 1961. Hough, J.L., 1958, "Geology of the Great Lakes," University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL, 1958. Miller, S.L.M., and R.R. Steward, l990, "Effects of Lithology, Porosity and Shaliness on P-and S-Wave Velocities from Sonic Logs," Canadian Journal of Exploration Geophysics, Volume 26, Nos. l & 2, p. 94-103, 1990. NEI, 2013, Letter from Pietrangelo (NEI) to Skeen (NRC) with Attachments, "Proposed Path Forward for NTTF Recommendation 2.1: Seismic Reevaluations," Nuclear Energy Institute, April 9, 2013. Gonsultlng rae S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27M294 FENOC Beaver Valley\\3.1Q Report File\\R-O't8\\R1\\2734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx

2734294-R-018 Reaision 1 March 20, 201.4 Page 54 of 55 NEI, 2014, Letter from Pietrangelo QI{EI) to Leeds (NRC) with Attachments, "Seismic Risk Evaluations for Plants in the Central and Eastern United States," Nuclear Energy Institute, March 12,2014. Norris, S.E., 1975, Geologic Structure of Near-Surface Rocks in Western Ohio, Ohio Journal of Science 75(5): 225, 1975. NRC, 1991, "Procedural and Submittal Guidelines for the Individual Plant Examination of External Events for Severe Accident," NUREG-1407, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., 1991. NRC, 2007, "A Perfornance-Based Approach to Define the Site-Specific Earthquake Ground Motion," Regulatory Guide 1.208, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., March 2007. NRC, 2009, "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 36, Regarding Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2," NUREG-1437, Supplement 36, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., May 2009. NRC, 2010a, Memorandum, Hiland to Sheron, "safety/Risk Assessment Results for Generic Issue 199 'Implications of Updated Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Estimates in Central and Eastern United States on Existing Plants,' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., Septemb er 2, 2010 [MLl 0027 0598ML]. NRC, 2010b, "Resolution of Generic Safety Issues: Issue 199: Implications of Updated Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Estimates in Central and Eastern U.S. for Existing Plants, NUREG-0933, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., 2010. NRC, 20l2a, " Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(0 Regarding Recommendations 2.1,2.3 and 9.3 of the Near-Term Task Forces Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Accident, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C., March 12, 201 2 (ML I 2053 A3 40). NRC, 2013, Letter from E.J. Leeds (NRC) to J.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 Reevaluations," U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., May 7,2013, (ML13 106A33 l). AESConcultlng rct S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\\3.1 Q Report File\\R{1 8\\R1\\2734294-R-01 8, Rev. 1.docx

2734294-R-0L8 Reaision 1 March 20, 201.4 Page 55 of 55 NRC, 2014, Letter from E.J. Leeds [NRC) to All Power Reactor Licensees and Holders of Construction Permits in Active or Deferred Status, "supplemental Information Related to Request for Information Pursuantto Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding SeismicHazard Reevaluations for Recommendation2.l of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident," U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., February 20, 2014. Pickett, G.R., (Pickett), 1963, "Acoustic Character Logs and their Applications in Formation Evaluatiofl," Journal of Petroleum Technology, Volume 15, No. 6, p. 659-667, 1963. Rafavich, F., C. St. C.H. Kendall, and T.P. Todd, 1984, "The Relationship between Acoustic Properties and the Petrographic Character of Carbonate Rocks," Geophysics, Volume 49, No. 10,

p. 1622-1636,1984.

RlZZO,2}l3, "Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis and Ground Motion Response Spectra, Beaver Valley Power Station, Seismic PRA Project," Paul C.Ptizzo Associates, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, April 19, 2013. S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R418\\R1\\2734294-R{18, Rev. 1.docx AESGonsultlng

2734294-R-018 Reaision 1. March 20, 201.4 Page A1 of A10 APPENDIXA NTTF 2.I SITE RESPONSE ANALYSIS BVPS-2 SITE AE$Csrcultlng rrct S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27U2U FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R418\\R'l\\2734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx

2734294-R-01.8 Reaision 1 March 20, 201.4 Page A2 of A10 l. 2. J. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. APPENDIX A - NTTF 2.1 SITE RESPONSE ANALYSIS INPUTS AND RESULTS, BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION SITE Uncertainty and variability in inputs to the site response analysis are addressed as follows: Epistemic uncertainty in shear wave velocity (Vr) is modeled using three V, profiles. The derivation of upper range (UR) and lower range (LR) V, profiles is based on using a factor of 1.15, which is derived from a range of reasonable Voff, ratios based on literature review for the type of Paleozoic rocks that exist at the Site. The randomized site profile realizations use the log standard deviation as the layer by layer coefficient of variation 0.25 for the upper 50 ft and 0.15 at greater depths. Based on the review of sonic log data from the three FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) Sites, an upper and lower V, limit is defined by a factor of 1.3 relative to the base case V, for each of the three V, profiles. The SPID (EPRI,20l3a) specifies the use of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) rock degradation curves for rock units such as found at the FENOC Sites. These curves were used forthe top 500 feet (ft) of rock. Below 500 ft, damping forthe bedrock is derived consistent with kappa estimates. At the BVPS-2 Site strain-dependent properties for the soil overburden are based on FSAR data for the Pleistocene Upper and Lower Terrace Units (1E). Consistent with the SPID (EPRI, 2013a), kappa is estimated for each site profile. For both the lower and upper range V, profiles, uncertainty is represented using a secondary kappa value by applying a factor of 1.5 (multiplied by 1.5 for LR profile and divided by 1.5 for UR profile). For profiles greater than 3,000 ft the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) specifies use of an equation between V, (30m) and kappa; allthree profiles at BVPS-Z arc greater than 3,000 ft thickness. The total kappa is based on adding the soil kappa, the rock kappa, and the hard rock kappa. For the secondary kappa profiles the rock damping in the top 500 ft is modified by the same factor of 1.5 used to characterize uncertainty in kappa. Below 500 ft rock damping was adjusted to preserve the total kappa for the profile. Table A-1 provided below specifies the site response inputs consistent with these assessment of uncertainty and variability. Table,4-8 lists the resulting median AFs and the related ln-sigma for seven selected frequencies and 1 I values of input hard rock peak ground acceleration (PGA). Tables A-9 to A-11 list the resulting median AFs and the related ln-sigma for three loading levels associated with Figures 2-6 and 2-7. S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27%294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report Fib\\R-018\\R1\\2734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx AEgGonsulting

2734294-R-0L8 Reaision'L March 20, 2014 Page A3 of A1.0 O +) a (D (t) 0.) t< c) u) (.) l.r rt) (l) li (D q trg (B l.{ c) GItr (J F E a (.) F .\\1 (J t< (D a(+r q ral lr) (l) () U) (l) o g c) a -v() I.r (rr 'H lr) q o P t< .9 (l) Cg,; v u ) !2 >' a a a F .9 c.r ! i a ( l ) = y u ) A' 9) t! fJ (u Etn o -c .P P(o qo 4 rl o bo rlq o Eo Lr* 1r,(u f (o c .9 (o L(u o {Ju(o -o c fo Lbo -Y(o oo-rl F{ (o .= brO c = .tl(u L .a -c o-(u E-o c(o ra(u L) c(o P.2 E -cv-3 tn d l l b o c o _ e$ 0 J c o = < uEE st Ico (u -o(o F 3o(u -o Eg

to (F

T EoE c,c, fo ttl Pc'o o_ o -c P .g T'(u at f v, (u +r(u E (I, L(o o-Ec .9.= E E (n g (U o0 c(o oo-o- l ?o '/) 'F F ( E ^. j rn

E g d.e?E

• s"i E

. ( E ) o r - r p HE o tY)

• r 9

- i oFi s l r - o t t O l 6 t I 3 c ; 9 ; r l En= i-Fi - o E'i o ^ F ! 3E '-i o. e \\ O C l ^ (Y') 3E '-j o. \\ O C Q o o 4o l l = ET

- o m. r o s t r - o v t ( I l +

E 8 o c - r r En= i-rl l - o E,i o ^*g Ps '-'i cL \\ O t r E rl (U o b I c c = ' d > R E u r ) ( o q E o orn d t l = sa o s f ? 6 tg" i ; f l -v, (Jo& E o-IJ.J Cs '-'i o.

O E Q

o oul o tl 3 t; $ i s Hu Y o = - t F 3E u r u. (o ( u q ! g c = ' d } R E r n ( o . ? E o o 4o l l = b o c o -eq 0 J c o = c,EF Ng L(u uo c(E t L(u 3o J .ll co .F r n ( E F I N !.1 F{ E = > o ( u , \\. a c t l E I. E O E <. ( u,, ( U

• E; E

. ( o E t O F u r P 0 0 8 t o (i) Eg gF s f r - o t / r ( u ( O 3 9 c ; 9 7 " Eh= tr3 Er F ! 3 E '-i o. \\ o t r l ^ (n S E '-'i o \\ O C Q o o 4o tl = -q' ai+ SF s l r - o v r o s l 3 9 c ; 5 ; r l Ea= i c n r - o E'i o ^ F ! bP .= 'a \\ O LQ3 sf L(o ( U h t c c = ' d b R E r n ( o c ! E rl orn ci t l 3 L o 9 d t (, 8* d r o E o o c _ o i; ,(1J J(J o E E o-UJ Pe '-'i o.

O E Q

o o 4o il 3 s - O O tE s i e Hu o E $ F 3E uJ -^ (o ( u a ! c c = ' d

R E r n ( o r!

.tJ Fl orn c; t l 3 b o g o - eq o l O = < uEE rlo-(u P(o E 'F vl IJ.J tt1 a) m vl co F(o N G - 4 0 ( u $ E d ?E ,, N 3 E ( o O F E c(o t o(n -o d 9s5 lIe t ' a ( u F { ge,, t,fr= '= Fl - c \\ l - o E,i o ^ F ! 3E '-1 0. \\ O C il (n L 3 E '-1 0.- \\ O C Q o oa o tl = o -o(o .9 E-o- Poz o -o (E .9 E-o- oz (u -o(It .9 E. o. oz o, lt(o .9 E-o oz g O 9 a = (/) 8 T d r d T o a, c - c l i ; g .Y tJo E a o-ul gg '-1 o' \\ O C Q o orn c; l l = c,trl FtrJ oc 4 F loz

to-c (u

(J fo .J) .9 E .9c) ,Jl o E o (u (J 5o .'1 o o Lo-(! o-a ^ i E F { Y. -}/. o.t - .e u ) fi oot.r') o oF (u o o-q1 i J g Florn P -c .go (u 3 (o o-o ^ g ! o - v-tn ooIn o-o F (u o L o 6.1 E R F{o lrl +, -c.9p a)3 9 e ( o = ttt E f PE= sry ! a _ 3 E - c ( o (, O Eg (o ( / ) d Ps 5 ' a Y Ets i83 (U(u -c rll F A --z H ti L t d <i crl Q Z ' i A t i v E F { 4 4 4 d k l E-lV-F l t-0 fBSConsulting rct S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R-018\\R1\\2734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx

2734294-R-018 Reaision 1 March 20, 20L4 Page Aa of A10 L,rynn ElnvlrloN tftl Pnoprln P1 DnprH lftl PRonLn P2 Dnprn lftl PnoprlB P3 Dnprn lftl 680.9 I 100 0 9s7 0 1265 0 66s l 100 r5.9 957 t5.9 1265 ts.9 665 1200 15.9 1043 1s.9 1380 15.9 625 1200 55.9 r043 55.9 1380 55.9 625 s000 55.9 4348 55.9 5750 55.9 550 5000 130.9 4348 r30.9 5750 130.9 550 6026 130.9 5240 130.9 6%A 130.9 3s0 6026 330.9 5240 330.9 6930 330.9 350 6744 330.9 5864 330.9 7756 330.9 300 6744 380.9 5864 380.9 7756 380.9 300 6744 380.9 5864 380.9 7756 380.9 -r20 6744 800.9 5864 800.9 7756 800.9 -t20 7tt2 800.9 6l 84 800.9 8t79 800.9 -2994 1ttz 3674.9 6t84 3674.9 8179 3674.9 -2994 6416 3674.9 5579 3674.9 7378 3614.9 -3700 6416 4380.9 5579 4380.9 7378 4380.9 -3700 9200 4380.9 9200 4380.9 9200 4380.9 TABLE A.2 SHBAR WAVE VELOCITY [ftls] PROFILES TABLE A-3 KAPPA (K1) USBD WITH BEST ESTIMATE PROFILE Pl Klppn (nocx) Bnsno oN: LoG (k) : 2.2189 - 1.093

• Loc (Vsroo)

Vsroo ron BnoRocK - 5222 ftls; K.lppa (Pl) :.0143s K.qpp.{ (sott ) Blsnn oN: K.tppA (ms) :.0605

• H (m) :.0605
• 17.038 :.001s Tor^Lr, K.q,ppl :.001 +.0143 +.006 (H,q,nn RocK) =.0213s V, [ftlsf Pl T lftl Depth to Top [ft]

I 100 15.9 1200 40 r5.9 5000 75 s5.9 6026 200 130.9 6744 50 330.9 6744 420 380.9 7ttz 287 4 800.9 6416 706 367 4.9 9200 4380.9 S:tLocaf\\Pubs\\27M294 FENOC BeaverValtey\\3.1Q Report File\\R{18\\R1\\27U294-R418, Rev. 1.docx

2734294-R-01,8 Reaision L March 20, 20L4 Page A5 of A1.0 TABLE A.4 KAPPA (k1) USED WITH LOWER RANGE PROFILEP2 TABLB A.5 KAPPA (k2) USED WrTH LOWER RANGE PROFILEP2 K,q.pp.q, (Rocr) Bnsnn On: Loc (k) = 2.2189 - 1.093

• Loc (Vsroo)

Vsroo FoR BEDRoCT = 4541 ftls; K,q.pp,{ (P2) =.0167s KApp,q, (sott ) BAsED oN: K.q,ppA (ms) =.0605

• H (m) =.0605
• 17.038 =.001s Tor.ql K.q,pp.q.

=.001 +.0167 +.006 (uanu RocK) =.0237s V. [ftls] P2 T lftl Dnprn ro Tor [ft] 957 15.9 t043 40 15.9 4348 75 5s.9 5240 200 130.9 s864 50 330.9 5864 420 380.9 6184 2874 800.9 5579 706 3674.9 9200 43 80.9 Klppl (nocr) BAsED oN 1.5

• k(1) =.025 K,tppl (soIl) BASED oN: KAPPA (ms) =.0605
• H (m) =.0605
• 17.038 :.001s Toru, Kapp,l =.001 +.025 +.006 (H.q,nn nocr) :.032s V. [ftlsl P2 r lftl Dnpur ro Ton [ft]

957 15.9 t043 40 15.9 4348 75 s5.9 5240 200 130.9 5864 50 330.9 5864 420 380.9 61 84 287 4 800.9 5579 706 3674.9 9200 43 80.9 S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R-o18\\R1\\2734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx fESGonsuhing

2734294-R-01.8 Reaision 1 March 20, 2014 Page A6 of A1.0 TABLE A-6 KAPPA (K1) USED WITH UPPER RANGE PROFILE P3 TABLE A-7 KAPPA (K2) USED WITH UPPER RANGE PROFILB P3 AESConsulting rCR Knpp,l (nocr) BASED oN: Loc (k) = 2.2189 - 1.093

• Loc (Vsroo)

Vsroo FoR BEDRoCx = 6006 ftls; Klppl (P3) =.0123s Kapp.q. (sou,) BASED oN: K.q,rn,t (ms) =.0605

• H (m) =.0605
• L7.038 :.001s Tornl K,q.pp.L

=.001 +.0123 +.006 (H,ann Rocx) =.0193s V. [ftlsl P3 T tftl Depth to Top lftl 1265 I 5.9 1 380 40 15.9 57 50 75 55.9 6930 200 130.9 77 56 50 330.9 77 56 420 380.9 8179 2874 800.9 7378 706 367 4.9 9200 43 80.9 Knpp.q, (nocr) BASED oN K(1) l 1.5:.0082s K,q.pp,l (Sou,) B,qsnn ON: Knn,l, (ms) =.0605

• H (m) =.0605
• 17.038 =.00Ls Tornl K.q,ppn =.001 +.0082 +.006 (glnn nocr) =.0152s V. [ftlsl P3 T tftl Dnpru ro Top lftl 1265 15.9 I 380 40 15.9 57 50 75 55.9 6930 200 130.9 77 56 50 330.9 77 56 420 380.9 8179 287 4 800.9 7378 706 367 4.9 9200 4380.9 S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R{18\\R1\\2734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx

2734294-R-018 Reaision 1-March 20, 2014 Page A7 of A10 x? il3 I r r-l c..l q(\\ I r r l co ct; If rl (\\l c.; I f rl cr) co I T r l o\\= co I T r'1 v? co I T r l co tr-co I ca =f, I H + I f r l c-l v I

• ,Q s

z E < + f r l aa; + T r l aq 6l + T r'1 \\o oo c.i l-f r'l\\o 9 c-l + f T l 00n ol -T f r I la) c.l N + frl C-l cJ N + C-lq + 9 + f r l v? + trl se.l N A 0 ol I r r l tal."'l (\\.l c-'l I f r l sf o\\ I f r l + ..,j I f r l C-l ca; I f r l tat ao+ I oo 9rn I (\\ tr-f f r l c.t + trl oo .1 + f r I s\\ -t-r r l o\\ c'i E? I f r ' l in c-l I f r l o\\= ol I r r l \\o(.) c.i I f r l t-- lrl c'i I f r l ,1 c-'l I T r'l lal e.i I f r'l 00 in c.i I 00 9 c.l I f r l o\\ ao cri I r r'l aOcl cA I f r'l r,aln cO < b 2z (.f) t (\\ I o\\ \\o c-l Ir!o\\ t-- (\\ I f r l sf cA r.- t\\t I r r ) oon tr* c{ I oo tar t-'r C.l I tt,t ao 9 f.- c-'l,u.] 00 tr-c.l I f r"1 o\\ trr N, f r l ,Q oo (\\l frl n Or I \\o z E < -t-f r l c-T r r I rn + rrl O,=q + f r l .+ + co..1 + f r'l \\o c.l -r f r l c.l +r! oo J I r r l o\\ 9 Or I r r l tal\\q a I f r l ioo r'- z E < + Tr l c-lcl -r co c! + I!+c.l + f r l talc.l + f r l inc'l + rr I ra, + f r l \\o c] IT f r ll'- cl + r r'1 oocl T r r l o\\ o! + f r l .1 a s6 c.l I rr e.l I tf.,t ao I f r l c.i I f r l.+ + I T r'l c.l ,r; I f r l ao oo F-I tf.,l lrl c- + lrl + f r l larq -r f r l t-- Rcl + f r ) c-o\\ c.i 0 H A u1 ao Itrl tn 00 t\\.1 I r r) r-oq (\\ IrI] Ie(\\ c-l I f r'l c-\\ c-l I f r l o\\ ir, \\cj ot I f r l o\\ eo od I (\\{ I t4 tr-= I f r'l cq J Irr) o{1 c-l I frl 00 00 c.i < b =3 a3 I r r l o\\- I f r l c.i I f r l F-v') o.l I f !'l ro I f r'1 C.l to I f r'1 ca, c? ao I f r l \\on ro f r l \\ ca I f r I c\\l oq co I r r'l c-lq ao I r-q c.) < t r=s ii3 I (\\l\\ Ir!\\o\\ I f r l o\\\\ I r r l \\o a. I f r l coq I f r ' l c.i T r l o\\ ei I f r'l o\\ cO ..i I f r llrl q c-'l I f r l\\o .1 ca IH.<r \\co z E < -r f r lr'- oo -r f r I tr*- -T-f r'1 I f r ) \\n od Ir r l F-\\q r-I f r l t-- I f r I lal+\\o I f r l R lrl I r r'l oo 9+ I f r l + 1 f r ' l oo 9 cr) z = I r E < + r r l ael + ..) + f r "l c? + Trl c.l.1 + r r'l.+ c1 + f r ) trl c.l + f r'l \\o..) +trl =q + f r l r+n + f r l o\\n + r r ) +v? U) S E in FI (\\ I f r'1 c1 If r'l F- -i I r r l \\o cl ol I f r l cn f-+ I f r l t-- I r-oi + C-l c.l + f r l \\o oq +r! cA v1 6l + r r ) a.tol ao -r ttl o\\ oq ar1 N 6 i < - a (\\.l I f r l \\o R (\\t I r r'l(\\\\co c.t I \\o oq ral I f t l I lJ.] R I r r'1 oq I f r l c{(\\ I c'l ca I r ! ' l co c].+ I u.1 co lt.r I l ' r ' l v ao g? EZ < bE< il3 I f r ) \\o c.) s t f r l \\o \\o+ Ir r l C.ln <f I r r l t- + I t.-\\co I f r'l aa ,Q ao I f r l r, R cr) I rrl oo c? co I f r l larcJ c.) I f r l in co Irr) + a"; I T r'l \\o cl I f t ' l lal I r r l F-- I f r l o\\ c1 I f r l s,q I f r l \\o I f r'l co oq I oo c.i Irr) c-- o! t\\ I rr'l \\on C-l I o\\ tal 6i z E < t f r ) cacl c! -r-frl r'- + o\\ c1 +r! I +t,- o\\ I frl C-l 00 od Ifrl ao 00 I co o\\ \\o I \\o I (\\l .Q tal I f r l trl lal z

• r "

i l < -r f r l \\ + r r l c-\\ + rrl $oq + f r l .fq + rrl c'i + rrl tal cri -r frl o\\ c'i + rI] t.r c.i + f r lr-c'i + f r'l ol c.i + f r l Fr e'i F A 0 =< = a c.l I r{ t\\.l (\\t If r'1 lrln lrl I lal I F] cl(.r c.i Ifrl F-q ca Ir! oon tal I r r'1 ra tt- + + r r l vl r r l lalq + f r"l c-r.'!(\\ o N A rti 6l c\\l I f r l \\o c.i (\\l I r r l lal oo \\Ci I r r'\\ rf, J I f r l e.} c'i I f r'l oo oq C-l I f r l co\\co I f r l o\\ in+ I t! \\\\o I f r l c-l od + rrl N J T f r l.+ c"j rd F i-a ol Ia Fr ,+t- /1.- Av F= -oaz <c r r E E t-'. H T \\ ^ d v 2Z dP Ez Av f-t F-l I f-t= t-'.1 A,- fESConsultittg S:\\Locaf\\Pubs\\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R-O'l8\\R1\\27U294-R418, Rev. 1.docx

2734294-R-018 Reoision L March 20, 20L4 Page A8 of A10 TABLE A-9 AMPLIFICATION FUNCTIONS AT SPECIFIC LOADING LEVBLS FOR BVPS.2 SITE 100 Hz SPECTRAL ACCELERATION = O.Llg FnseuBNcy IHzI PRopu,n Pl K.tppn 1 (Kl) EPRI RocK NoNuxnan CuRvns (M1) l-ConNnn Gnouno Morron Monnl Pnornu Pl K,tppa I (Kf) LmpnR Rocx Cunvns (M2) l-ConNBn Gnouun MonoN MoDEL Mnonx AF Srcun Lt'v(AF) MnnnN AF SrcM.q, LN(AF) 0.1 1.158+00 6.968 -02 1.15E+00 7.058-02 0.13 l.l4E+00 6.92E -02 1.14E+00 6.98E-02 0.16 I. I 6E+00 8.66E-02 1.17E+00 8.69E-02 0.2 1.228+00 I.l8E-01 t.228+00 I.1 8E-01 0.26 1.31E+00 1.53E-01 1.31E+00 1.53E-01 0.33 1.37E+00 t.44F-01 1.378+00 1.44E-01 0.42 1.32E+00 8.18E-02 1.32E+00 8.18E-02 0.5 1.228+00 s.708-02 1.228+00 5.698-02 0.53 1.1 9E+00 5.368 -02 I. I 9E+00 5.368-02 0.67 I. I 0E+00 4.80E-02 I. I 0E+00 4.88E-02 0.85 I. 1 9E+00 2.00E-01 I. 1 9E+00 2.02E-01 I 1.30E+00 1.828-0r 1.30E+00 1.82E-01 1.08 1.32E+00 1.38E-01 1.33E+00 1.39E-01 t.37 1.32E+00 1.48E-01 1.33E+00 1.55E-01 1.74 1.43E+00 2.02E-01 1.43E+00 2.068 -01 2.21 1.62E+00 3.248-0r 1.63E+00 3.39E-01 2.5 1.75E+00 4.008-01 1.75E+00 4.27E-01 2.81 1.928+00 4.738-01 1.92E+00 4.858-01 3.56 2.458+00 3.71E-01 2.468+00 3.73F-0r 4.52 2.88E+00 3.298-01 2.89E+00 3.31E-01 5 2.85E+00 2.878-01 2.86E+00 2.878-01 5.74 2.64E+00 2.848-01 2.65E+00 2.83E-01 7.28 2.048+00 3.16E-01 2.05E+00 3.07E-01 9.24 1.59E+00 2.71F-0r 1.60E+00 2.69F.-01 l 0 1.51E+00 2.268 -01 1.51E+00 2.nE-Ar tI.72 1.498+00 2.238-01 1.50E+00 2.23E -01 t4.87 1.428+00 2.36F-01 1.43E+00 2.328 -01 18.87 1.28E+00 2.378-01 1.29E+00 2.21F-01 23.95 1.07E+00 1.94E-01 1.07E+00 1.82E-01 25 1.04E+00 1.928-0r 1.04E+00 1.798-01 30.39 9.64F-01 t.44E-01 9.70F-01 1.38E-01 38.57 9.19E-01 9.208-02 9.238 -01 9.568-02 48.94 9.65E-01 8.388-02 9.68E-01 8.84E-02 62.1 1.06E+00 7.058 -02 1.07E+00 7.638-02 78.8 1.20E+00 6.38E-02 1.21E+00 7.158-02 100 1.40E+00 6.198 -02 1.41E+00 7.038-02 S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R-O18\\R1\\2734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx ABSGonsultlng

2734294-R-018 Reaision 1. March 20, 20L4 Page A9 of A1-0 TABLE A-10 AMPLIFICATION FUNCTIONS AT SPECIFIC LOADING LEVELS FOR BVPS.2 SITE 100 Hz SPECTRAL ACCELERATION = 0.378 Fnneunncy IH.zI PRonLn Pl Kaprn I (K1) EPRI Rocx NoNr,rrunaR CuRvos (Mf) l-COru.WR GROTIND MOTION MOUNI PRorrln Pl K,tppa I (K1) LrunnR RocK Cunvns (M2) l-Conxnn GnouNn MorroN Monu Mnonn AF Srcua Lu(AF) Mnnltx AF Srcnnn LN(AF) 0.1 1.17E+00 7.368-02 1.1 7E+00 7.458 -02

0. r3 l.l5E+00 7.268-02 1.15E+00 7.318-02 0.16 I. I 8E+00 8.938 -02

1. I 8E+00 8.958-02 0.2 1.23E+00 1.21E-01 1.23E+00 I.2 1E-01 0.26 1.32E+00 1.568-01 1.32E+00 1.56E-01 0.33 1.38E+00 1.46E-01 1.38E+00 1.46E-01 0.42 1.33E+00 8.418 -02 1.338+00 8.39E-02 0.5 1.23E+00 5.78E-02 1.23E+00 5.778-02 0.53 1.20E+00 5.40E -02 1.20E+00 5.398-02 0.67 1.1 1E+00 5.528 -02 l.llE+00 5.528 -02 0.85 1.20E+00 2.148-0r t.20E+00 2.148-01 I

1.33E+00 1.93E-01 1.32E+00 1.93E-01 1.08 1.35E+00 1.49E-01 1.35E+00 1.49E-01 1.37 1.37E+00 1.84E-01 1.36E+00 1.91E-01 r.74 1.50E+00 2.478-01 1.50E+00 2.578-01 2.21 1.748+04 3.928-01 1.748+00 4.16E-01 2.5 1.91E+00 3.97E-01 I.91E+00 4.02E-01 2.81 2.09E+00 3.86E-01 2.1 0E+00 3.91E-01 3.56 2.50E+00 3.49E-01 2.528+00 3.57E-01 4.52 2.59E+00 2.988-01 2.628+00 2.98F.-01 5 2.50E+00 2.97E-01 2.53E+00 3.00E-01 5.74 2.298+00 3.54E-01 2.32E+00 3.50E-01 7.28 1.76E+00 3.278-01 1.79E+00 3.18E-01 9.24 1.39E+00 2.7 5E-01 1.43E+00 2.648-01 t0 1.36E+00 2.338 -01 1.39E+00 2.258-01 r1.72 1.32E+00 2.348-01 1.36E+00 2.498 -01 14.87 I. I 7E+00 2.44E-01 I.21E+00 2.47F-01 18.87 1.04E+00 2.998-01 1.08E+00 2.81E-01 23.9s 8.278-01 2.638-0t 8,578-01 2.48E-01 25 8.05E-01 2.628-0r 8.35E-01 2.528-01 30.39 7.24E-01 2.258 -01 7.468-01 2.10E-01 38.57 6.718-01 1.60E-01 6.90E-01 1.51E-01 48.94 6.76E-0r 1.35E-01 6.928 -01 1.30E-01 62.1 7.268-0r 1.17E-01 7.41E-01 1.12E-01 78.8 8.19E-01 1.03E-01 8.35E-01 9.938-42 100 1.02E+00 9.688 -02 1.04E+00 9.398-02 fBSGonsulting rct S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27%294 FENOC Beaver Valley\\3.1Q Report File\\R-O18\\R.l127U294-R418, Rev. l.docx

2734294-R-018 Reaision L March 20, 201.4 Page AL0 of 1'L0 AMpLIFTcATIoN FUNCrroNs Ar ffi%lftt-lt^DrNc LEVELS FoR BVps-2 sIrE 100 Hz SPECTRAL ACCELERATION = 1.039 F'nreuot[cy IHZI PRorrlE Pl Kappa I (K1) EPRI Rocr NoNlrnnnR CuRvEs (Ml) l-ConNnR Gnouxn Morron Monnr, Pnonnn Pl Kappa 1 (K1) Ln{nan Rocx Cunvns (M2) l-Conxnn GRouNu MorIoN Moorl MnuhN AF Srcmn LN{(AF) MnnTnN AF Srcvrl LN(AF) 0.1

l. I 9E+00 7.828-02

l. I 9E+00 7.758-02 0. 1 3 1. 1 7E+00 7.698 -02 1.16E+00 7.628-02 0.r6

1. I 9E+00 9.378 -02 I. I 9E+00 9.30E-02 0.2 1.24E+00 1.268-01 1.248+00 1.25E-01 0.26 1.33E+00 1.628-01 1.33E+00 1.61E-01 0.33 1.39E+00 1.528-01 1.398+00 1.51E-01 0.42 1.35E+00 8.98E-02 1.34E+00 8.858-02 0.5 1.25E+00 6.10E,02 1.24E+00 6.00E-02 0.s3 I.21E+00 5.678-02 I.21E+00 5.58E-02 0.67 I.1 3E+00 7.79E-02 1.1 3E+00 7.40F-02 0.85 1.248+00 2.538 -01 1.23E+00 2.498-01 1

1.398+00 2.288 -01 1.37E+00 2.268-01 L08 1.42E+00 1.85E-01 1.40E+00 1.82E-01 r.37 1.478+00 2.95E-01 1.45E+00 3.05E-01 1.74 1.67E+00 3.448-0r 1.64E+00 3.498-01 2.21 1.96E+00 3.50E-01 1.94E+00 3.628-01 2.5 2.09E+00 3.168-01 2.088+00 3.238-01 2.81 2.188+00 3.388-01 2.19E+00 3.50E-01 3.56 2.26E+00 3.10E-01 2.30E+00 3.09E-01 4.52 2.148+00 3.56E-01 2.20E+00 3.64E-01 5 2.04E+00 3.96E-01 2.10E+00 3.96E-01 5.74 1.80E+00 3.98E-01 1.86E+00 3.89E-01 7.28 1.36E+00 3.758-01 1.428+00 3.62E-01 9.24

l. l7E+00 2.85E-01 1.248+00 2.738-01 l 0 1.12E+00 2.58E-01 I. I 9E+00 2.54E-01 11.72 1.00E+00 2.678-01 1.07E+00 2.55E-01 14.87 9.13E-01 3.298-01 9.90E-0r 3.19E-01 18.87 7.268-01 3.55E-01 7.89E-01 3.278-01 23.95 6.00E-01 3.50E-0r 6.51E-01 3.428-0r 25 5.8sE-01 3.41E-01 6.338-01 3.32F-01 30.39 5.17E-01 2.668-01 5.53E-01 2.578-Al 38.57 4.89E-01 2.29E-01 5.18E-01 2.298-01 48.94 4.89E-01 1.88E-01 5.148-01 1.88E-01 62.1 5.21E-01 1.698-0r 5.4sE-01 1.69E-01 78.8 5.86E-01 1.57E-01 6.1lE-01 1.56E-01 100 7.458-01 l.s2E-01 7.76E 01 1.50E-01 S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R-O18\\R1\\27y294-R418, Rev. 1.docx fBSGonsultlng

APPENDIX B EVALUATION OF BVPS-2 IPEEE SUBMITTAL ABgGonsulting r{c.,t S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\\3. 1 Q Report File\\R-O1 8\\R 1U734294-R41 8, Rev. 1.docx

734294-R-0L8 Reaision 1, March 20, 20L4 Page 82 of 87 APPENDIX B - EVALUATION OF BVPS.2 IPEEE SUBMITTAL The Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) for the BVPS-2 accomplished a probabilistic risk assessment that included seismic initiating events (Duquesne Light Co, 1995). Although allowed by Seismic Evaluation Guidance, Screening, Prioritization, and Implementation Details (SPID)/or the Resolution of the Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic (EPRI,20l3a), this IPEEE is not utilized in the Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) 2.1 plant screening. Nevertheless, it is summarized here for information, and because the IPEEE findings indicate that the plant design is seismically robust and exhibits significantmargins in excess of the designbasis. The IPEEE, was performed in accordance with the guidelines in Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Technical Report (NUREG)-I4I7 (NRC, 1991). The plant high confidences of low probability of failure (HCLPF) value estimated from the Core Damage Frequency (CDF) is reported to be 0.259 peak ground acceleration (PGA). It is largely controlled by failure scenarios involving the station batteries. B.L IPEEE Prerequisites The SPID (EPRI 2013a) guidelines require that the following prerequisites be documented prior to the possible use of the IPEEE, for screening. Confirm that commitments made under the IPEEE have been met. If not. address and close those commitments. Confirm whether all of the modifications and other changes credited in the IPEEE analysis are in place. Confirm that any identified deficiencies or weaknesses to NUREG-1407 (NRC, 1991) in the plant specific NRC Safety Evaluation Report (SER) are properly justified to ensure that the IPEEE conclusions remain valid. Confirm that major plant modifications since the completion of the IPEEE have not degraded limpacted the conclusions reached in the IPEEE. As part of the NTTF 2.3 Seismic walkdown effort for BVPS-2, the IPEEE was examined to verify that the corrective actions were implemented and documents closed. Available Seismic AESGonsultlng rce 1. 2. a J. 4. S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R418\\R1\\2734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx

2734294-R-018 Reaision 1 March 20, 201-4 Page 83 of 87 Evaluation Worksheets (SEWS) generated during the IPEEE walkdowns were included in the NTTF 2.3 Report (FENOC, 2013b). The NTTF 2.3 walkdowns identified no potential adverse seismic conditions. The BVPS-2 IPEEE identified no seismic vulnerabilities for the Plant. This was recognized by the NRC in NUREG-1437 Supplement 36 "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 36, Regarding Beaver Valley Power Station Units 1 and 2" (NRC, 20A9) Page G20 and 21 states "The NRC staff also notes that the use of the integrated PSA to facilitate identification of SAMAs for external events, the prior implementation of plant modifications for seismic and fire events, and the absence of external event vulnerabilities ensure that the search for external event SAMAs was reasonably comprehensive." 8.2 IPEEE Adequacy Demonstration Consistent with the guidelines in NUREG -1407 (NRC, l99l), the BVPS-2 IPEEE is based on a seismic PRA (SPRA), which extends the internal events PRA (IEPRA). The SPRA evaluates the risk contribution and significance of seismic initiated events to the total plant risk. The SPRA was selected to accomplish the IPEEE over the seismic margins assessment based on the following considerations The SPRA would be integrated with the IEPRA. The integrated PRA would consistently treat all internal and external initiating events. This model rigorously accounts for all accident sequences resulting from any combination of internal and external events. The resulting risk information provided from this integrated approach was viewed as more useful to management to make decisions about allocating resources to manage the risks of severe accidents. With the ability to link the Level 1 and Level 2 event trees as demonstrated in the IPE submittal, the selected PRA approach was found to provide a more rigorous examination of potential containment vulnerabilities and seismic/systems interactions impacting containment effectiveness than was possible using the seismic margins approach. With the previous decision to perform an internal events PRA for the IPE, the ability to utilize insights from the completed internal events PRA, and the external events capabilities of the software that was used, there was a higher confidence that the seismic PRA would be completed within the resources S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R418\\R1\\2734294-R-018, Rev. 1.docx AESConsulting

2734294-R-0L8 Reaision 1 March 20, 2A14 Page Ba of 87 budgeted for the IPEEE program in comparison with the seismic margins approach. The seismic PRA consisted of the following main steps: S eismic Hazar d Analysis Fragility Analysis Plant Logic Analysis and development of logic models Integration of Level I seismic event tress with Level 2 containment event trees Risk Quantification Uncertainty Quantifi cation Enhancements to the foregoing steps were made to be responsive to the requirements from NUREG-1407 (NRC, 1991). Seismic events below about 0.1g were found to have an insignificant chance of failing any equipment. Seismic events above 1.33g were of low enough hazard and were ignored. The seismic PRA results showed that95 percent of the seismic CDF comes from earthquakes that arc at least twice as severe as the peak ground acceleration of the SSE (0.125g). Core damage sequences resulting from earthquakes between roughly one and two times the SSE, mainly involved seismic failure of either emergency DC power or emergency AC power. The following paragraphs briefly summarize the IPEEE in accordance with the guidelines of the SPID (EPRI 20r3a). 8.2.1 Building Seismic Analysis The design seismic analysis of Category I structures of BVPS-2 is based onthe time history modal supe{position method using simulated time histories representing the SSE spectra. Lumped mass models of the buildings were utilized in the seismic analysis. These models represent the building mass at floor elevations and include the floor system, a portion of the walls above, and the walls below the floor system, and major component and equipment loads. S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R-O18\\R1\\2734294-R-018, Rev. 1.docx AESGonsutrlng

2734294-R-01.8 Reaision 1 March 20, 20L4 Page 85 of 87 In addition, masses are located at elevations where any other response values are required. The lumped masses are connected by story stiffnesses. Most major structures of the BVPS-2 are founded on the dense gravel layer underlying the upper terrace deposits. The soil structure interaction (SSD effects on the seismic response are represented by soil springs representing the stiffness and damping characteristics of the supporting soil medium. The soil springs represent a range of shear moduli values to envelope the variation of peak floor response periods. Additionally, the Containment Building seismic model considers uncracked and partially cracked reinforced concrete sections to account for normal and pressurized conditions. Modal responses from the dynamic model are combined using the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) method to establish Seismic Category I structure seismic loads. This is used even when modes have closely spaced frequencies, since no well-established criterion to combine modes under this condition was available. In-structure response spectra used as seismic inputs to Category I structural systems, components, and equipment are derived from the lumped mass dynamic models. The dynamic model is also used to determine forces and overturning moments on the building structure, Overturning moments are combined with vertical acceleration forces in order to check structure overturning stability and subgrade reactions. Seismic response forces and stresses are determined for simultaneous application of horizontal and vertical earthquake ground motions using the response spectrum technique. It is assumed that the response in the vertical direction is uncoupled from the lateral motion. Accordingly, two dynamic models, one for horizontal and one for the vertical, are used to obtain the respective response. The responses obtained from the two-dimensional planar models are combined using the SRSS method. 8.2.2 IPEEE Seismic Response In-structure response spectra (ISRS) for use in the seismic IPEEE were developed using median based soil properties, structural properties, and the median 1x10-4 uniformhazard spectrum. S:\\Local\\PubsV7U294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R-o18\\R1\\2734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx fFGonculting

2734294-R-01.8 Reaision 1 March 2A, 201.4 Page 86 of 87 The best estimate (BE) structural models used for this analysis were based on the mathem atical models used in the design seismic analysis. The design basis SSE floor response spectra for one percent damping are scaled by use of S&A in-house computer program PSD 107.1. Scaling of the spectra incorporated the following: Change PGA from 0.l25gto 0.1519 Change Equipment Damping Ratio from I percent to 5 percent Change SSE response spectrum shape to the IPEEE Uniform Hazard Spectrum Shape The scaling assumes that the IPEEE analysis is based on the composite modal damping developed from the soil-structure interaction (SSf analysis performed in 1979,limited to 7 percent. The seismic floor response spectra developed as described above and used for the fragility evaluations are provided in the IPEEE Report (Duquesne Light Co, 1995). 8.2.3 Screening of Components The development of the Safe Shutdown Equipment List (SSEL) and the screening evaluations were performed following the SPRA guidelines and based on the plant systems models. Initial screening prior to the walkdowns was based on HCLPF levels estimated relative to the median spectral shape of NUREG/CR-0098 (Newmark and Hall,1978) anchored to 0.3g. The subsequent fragility analysis used floor response spectra associated with the Review Level Earthquake (RLE) spectrum. This screening utilized the guidelines in EPRI NP-6041 (EPRI, Ieel). 8.2.4 Seismic Capability Walkdowns The IPEEE walkdowns were performed to support the subsequent fragility analysis, and to screen out components that have a high enough HCLPF value and the site hazard curves. The S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27il294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R418\\R112734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx fSGonsulting

2734294-R-018 Reaision 1 March 20, 20L4 Page 87 of 87 preparation activities reviewed the seismic design criteria and design specifications for equipment and components for all the items on the seismic equipment list. In general, the walkdown team evaluated equipment aspect ratios, equipment, and piping anchorages and supports, the potential seismic interactions. The walkdowns assessed potential seismic vulnerabilities, assigned preliminary HCLPF values, and identified potentially seismic-vulnerable component(s) in each group of similar type components based on the preliminary HCLPF values andthe importance of the component as determined inthe IPE. Preliminary HCLPF values were assigned based on judgment and experience of the seismic reviewteam, and references from both the Seismic Qualification Utility Group (SQUG) and EPRI NP-6041 (EPRI leer). The seismic capacities for other components were conservatively assigned based on the more vulnerable components in each group. Upon completion of the initial sequence quantifications the fragilities of significant contributors were improved using component-specific analysis. A confirmatory walkdown of components verified that representative fragilities of each group are still applicable after detailed study. B.3 GMRS and IHS Comparison The IPEEE for BVPS-2 is not used for the plant screening evaluation. However, comparison of the IPEEE HCLPF spectrum (IHS) and the horizontal ground motion response spectra (GMRS) at the base of the Reactor Building (RB) foundation level shows that the GMRS exceeds the IHS in the range of frequencies of interest. S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R418\\R1V734294-R{18, Rev. 1.docx AEgCortsultlng

APPENDIX C REACTOR BUILDING MEAN AND FRACTILE SEISMIC HAZARD CURVES BVPS-2 SITE fE$Gonsultlng ]-Ct S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27%294 FENOC Beaver Valley\\3. 1 Q Report File\\R4l8\\R1\\2734294-R41 8, Rev. 1.docx

2734294-R-41.8 Reaision 1 March 20, 201.4 Page C2 of C1-2 APPENDIX C. REACTOR BUILDING MEAN AND FRACTILE SEISMIC IJAZARD FOR THE SSE CONTROL POINT TABLE C.l TOOIJZ SPECTRAL ACCELBRATION MEAN AND FRACTILE SBISMIC HAZARI) AT BEAVER VALLEY 2 RB FOUNDATION LEVEL AE$GonsuEing rce Spncrrul ACCELERATION lsl ANNunI FnnOUNNCY OF EXCNNNANCE Mnm{ 5rs 16rs 50rH 84rH 95rn 0.01 9.258 -43 5.428-03 6.85E-03 9.268-03 t.228-02 t.4tE-02 0.02 3.498-03 1.56E-03 2.05E-03 3.16E-03 4.91E-03 6.778-03 0.03 1.83E-03 6.83E-04 9.208-04 1.55E-03 2.708-03 4.168-03 0.04 l.l3E-03 3.65E-04 5.02E-04 9.0sE-04 1.71E-03 2.88E-03 0.05 7.688-04 2.198 -04 3.058-04 5.88E-04 1.19E-03 2.14E-03 0.06 5.59E-04 l.4l E-04 2.01E-04 4.1 1E-04 8.83E-04 1.678-03 0.07 4.268 -04 9.60E-05 1.40E-04 3.03E-04 6.89E-04 1.33E-03 0.08 3.368-04 6.88E-0s l.0l E-04 2.338-04 s.54E-04 1.07E-03 0.09 2.69E-04 5.08E-05 7.55E-05 1.83E-04 4.538 -04 8.618-04 0.10 2.198-04 3.84E-05 5.79E-05 t.468-04 3.738 -04 7.048-04 0.20 5.03E-05 6.7 5E-06 I.l3E-05 3.248-05 8.97E-05 1.638-04 0.25 3.06E-05 3.91E-06 6.738-06 1.98E-05 5.468-05 9.61E -05 0.30 1.99E-05 2.45E -06 4.30E-06 1.28E-05 3.56E-05 6.12E-05 0.40 9.s28-06 1.08E-06 1.998-06 6.03E-06 1.738-05 2.938-05 0.50 5.08E-06 5.16E-07 9.998 -07 3.18E-06 9.26F,-06 1.59E-05 0.60 2.908-06 2.628 -07 5.278-07 1.78E-06 5.30E-06 9.248-06 0.70 t.738-06 1.408-07 2.90E-07 1.04E-06 3.19E-06 5.60E-06 0.80 1.07E-06 7.678-08 1.66F-07 6.18E-07 1.98E-06 3.53E-06 0.90 6.898-07 4.3sE-08 9.738-08 3.81E-07 1.278-06 2.32E-06 1.00 4.598-07 2.548-08 5.90E-08 2.428-07 8.478 -07 1.58E-06 2.00 3.64E-08 7.10E-10 2.03F'09 1.348-08 6.538-08 1.498-07 3.00 8.88E-09 8.55E-11 2.848-10 2.51E-09 1.54E-08 3.89E-08 s.00 1.22E-49 4.83F-12 2.00E-11 2.518-10 2.04E-09 5.70E-09 S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R-018\\R1t2734294-R{18, Rev. 1.docx

734294-R-018 Reaision 1 March20,201-4 Page C3 of C1.2 TABLE C-2 25HZ SPECTRAL ACCELERATION MEAN AND FRACTILE SEISMIC HAZARI) AT BBAVER VALLEY 2 RB FOUNDATION LEVBL SpncrRnl AccnInRATIoN lsl AXNuI,T, FnnQUNNCY OF EXCNNOANCE MEAI,l 5rH 16rH 50rH 84rn 95rn 0.01 1.238 -02 7.298-03 8.73E-03 t.17E-02 1.60E-02 1.93E-02 0.02 5.65E-03 2.88E-03 3.628 -03 5.21F-03 7.1lE-03 9.94E-03 0.03 3.30E-03 l.5lE-03 1.978-03 2.988 -03 4.648-03 6.278-03 0.04 2.148-03 8.97E-04 r.l9E-03 1.89E-03 3.08E-03 4.33E-03 0.05 t.50E-03 5.81E-04 7.80E-04 1.298-03 2.19F'03 3.20E-03 0.06 1.10E-03 4.018-04 5.448-04 9.288-04 1.65E-03 2.478-43 0.07 8.40E-04 2.89F'04 3.968-04 6.96F-04 1.288-03 1.96E-03 0.08 6.628-04 2.t6E-04 2.988-04 5.418-04 1.038-03 1.60E-03 0.09 5.34F,-04 1.65E-04 2.308-04 4.318-04 8.368-04 l.32F,-03 0.10 4.408-04 1.29F,04 1.82F,-04 3.51E-04 6.968-04 1.1 lE-03 0.20 t.20E-04 2.528-05 3.86E-05 8.98E-05 2.018-04 3.258-04 0.25 7.89E-05 1.52E-05 2.408 -05 5.82E-05 t.398-04 2.15E-04 0.30 5.548-05 1.01E-05 1.648-05 4.08E-0s 9.83E-05 1.51E-04 0.40 3.10E-0s 5.31E-06 8.88E-06 2.30E-05 5.528-05 8.41E-05 0.50 1.928-A5 3.14E-06 5.348 -06 1.428-05 3.41E-05 5.19E-05 0.60 1.268-05 1.99E-06 3.42F,-06 9.31E-06 2.248 -05 3.42E-05 0.70 8.56E-06 1.3 I E-06 2.28E-06 6.318-06 1.548-05 2.348 -05 0.80 6.00E-06 8.89E-07 r.56E-06 4.398-06 1.08E-05 1.66E-05 0.90 4.30E-06 6.168-07 I.l0E-06 3.128 -06 7.788-06 1.20E,05 1.00 3.14E-06 4.358-07 7.82E -07 2.268-06 5.71E-06 8.86E-06 2.00 2.978-07 2.738 -09 5.62E-08 t.9tE-07 s.55E-07 9.388-07 3.00 7.21E-08 4.478-09 1.03E-08 4.07E-08 t.368-01 2.478-07 5.00 1.07E-08 4.58E-10 I.t7E-09 s.38E-09 2.01E-08 3.89E-08 S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\\3. 1 Q Report File\\R-018\\R1\\2734294-R{18, Rev. 1.docx AE$Gonsulting

734294-R-018 Reaision 1 March 20, 2014 Page C4 of C12 TABLE C.3 fiHZ SPBCTRAL ACCELBRATION MEAN AND FRACTILB SEISMIC HAZARD AT BEAVER VALLEY 2 RB FOUNDATION LBVEL Spncrnll AccBInRATIoN lsl ANNu,I.I, FRnOUnNCY OF EXCNNUANCE Mn,rN 5rs 16ru 50rn 84rH 95rn 0.01 1.548 -02 9.778-03 I.l6E -02 1.51E-02 1.938-02 2.258 -02 0.02 6.54E-03 3.61E-03 4.458-03 6.23E -03 8.67E-03 1.05E-02 0.03 3.94E-03 2.00E-03 2.528-03 3.69E-03 5.40E-03 6.7 4E-03 0.04 2.618-43 1.268-03 1.63E-03 2.47F-03 3.74E-03 4.778-03 0.05 1.928-03 8.55E-04 l.l2E-03 1.76E-03 2.748-03 3.578-03 0.06 r.45E-03 6.128-04 8.10E-04 1.31E-03 2.ttB-03 2.798-03 0.07 l.l3E-03 4.58E-04 6.118-04 1.018-03 r.678-03 2.25E-03 0.08 9.118-04 3.538-04 4.758-04 8.03E-04 r.368 -43 1.86E-03 0.09 7.498-04 2.80E-04 3.798-04 6.528-04 t.l3E-03 1.57E-03 0.10 6.278-04 2.268-04 3.08E-04 5.40E-04 9.55E-04 1.35E-03 0.20 1.86E-04 4.89E-05 7.258-05 1.50E-04 3.09E-04 4.518-04 0.2s 1.258 -04 2.95E-05 4.45E-05 937E-05 2.12F,-04 3.13E-04 0.30 8.94E-05 1.95E-05 2.998 -05 6.88E-05 1.55E-04 2.308-04 0.40 5.24F,-05 1.01E-05 1.61E-05 3.95E-05 9.25F,-05 1.39E-04 0.50 3.41E-05 6.078-06 9.978-06 2.558 -05 6.05E-05 9.19E-05 0.60 2.378-05 3.978 -06 6.668-06 1368-05 4.228 -05 6.44E -05 0.70 1.728-05 2.7 48 -06 4.678-06 1.268-A5 3.07E-05 4.698-05 0.80 1.28E-05 1.96E-06 3.38E-06 9.30E-06 2.30E-05 3.528-05 0.90 9.698-06 1.438-06 2.518-06 7.00E-06 1.758-05 2.708-05 1.00 7.48F,-06 1.06E-06 1.90E-06 5.36E-06 1.36E-05

2. I 1E-05 2.00 9.25E-07 9.35E-08 1.88E-07 6.058-07 1.728-06 2.868-06 3.00 2.28F.-01 1.67E-08 3.688-08 1.35E-07 4.29F-07 7.608-07 5.00 4.478-08 2.038-09 4.99F-09 2.238-08 8.62E-08 1.67E-07 AESGonsultlng rce S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27A294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R418\\R1\\:2734294-R-018, Rev. 1.docx

734294-R-018 Reoision L March 20, 2014 Page CS of C12 TABLB C-4 jHZ SPBCTRAL ACCELBRATION MEAN AND FRACTILE SBISMIC HAZARD AT BEAVBR VALLEY 2 RB FOUNDATION LEVBL

SpncrRlt, ACCELERATION tsl ANNUnI FnnounNCY or ExcnEDANCE Mnln 5rn 16rn 50rn 84rH 95rn 0.01 3.78E-02 2.768-02 3.05E-02 3.85E-02 4.578-02 4.94E-02 0.02 t.368-02 8.538-03 9.99E-03 1.35E-02 1.73E-02 1.96E-02 0.03 7.488-03 4.298-03 5.20E-03 7.288-03 9.81E-03 t.t4E-02 0.04 4.89E-03 2.638 -03 3.278-03 4.t rE-03 6.55E-03 7.748-03 0.05 3.50E-03 1.80E-03 2.278-03 3.348 -03 4.788-03 5.738-03 0.06 2.658 -03 1.318-03 1.67E-03 2.51E-03 3.678-03 4.45E-03 0.07 2.08E-03 9.90E-04 1.28E-03 1.96E-03 2.928-03 3.s8E-03 0.08 1.688-03 7.7tF-04 I.01E-03 1.57E-03 2.38E-03 2.948-03 0.09 1.38E-03 6.t48-04 8.08E-04 1.28E-03 1.98E-03 2.468-03 0.10 1.15E-03 4.988-04 6.60E-04 1.068-03 t.67E-43 2.098-03 0.20 3.268-04 t.t2E-04 1.58E-04 2.868-04 5.078-04 6.778-04 0.25 2.14F,-04 6.61E-0s 9.638-05 1.83E-04 3.408-04 4.658-04 0.30 1.50E-04 4.268-05 6.33E-05 1.278-04 2.448-04 3.398-04 0.40 8.49E-05 2.10E-05 3.238-05 6.968-05 1.42F,04 2.028-04 0.50 5.39E-05 1.20E-05 1.90E-05 4.32F,-05 9.21E -05 1.33E-04 0.60 3.69E-0s 7.58E-06 1.228-05 2.90E-05 6.40E-05 9.36E-05 0.70 2.668-05 5.1lE-06 8.378-06 2.06E-05 4.668 -05 6.88E-05 0.80 1.99E-05 3.61E-06 6.00E-06 1.52E-05 3.528-05 5.248-05 0.90 1.53E-05 2.648-06 4.448-06 I. 16E-05 2.738-05 4.08E-05 1.00 1.20E-05 1.99E-06 3.38E-06 9.00E-06 2.16E-05 3.25E-05 2.00 1.92F,-06 2.32F,-07 4.348-07 r.328-06 3.56E-06 5.628-06 3.00 5.15E-07 4.85E-08 9.758-08 3.298-07 9.668-07 1.60E-06 5.00 8.50E-08 4.87E-09 I.l I E-08 4.56E-08 t.6tE-07 2.968-07 S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R418\\R1\\2734294-R{18, Rev. 1.docx ASConsultlng

734294-R-018 Reaision L March 20, 201.4 Page C6 of C12 TABLE C.5 2.5IJ2 SPECTRAL ACCBLERATION MEAN AND FRACTILE SEISMIC HAZARD AT BEAVBR VALLEY 2 RB FOUNDATION LBVBL

SpncrRrr, AcCBInRATIoN lpl ANIIU.I,T, FRnOUnNCY OF EXCEEDANCE Mn.q,N 5rH 16rn 50rH 84rH 95ru 0.01 1.58E-02 1.098-02 t.268-02 1.598-42 t.938-02 2.llE -02 0.02 4.s9E-03 2.6rE-03

3. r8E-03 4.468-03 6.A68-03 7.08E-03 0.03 2.228-03 l.l3E-03 l.4l E-03 2.r0E-03 3.0sE-03 3.70E-03 0.04 1.30E-03 6.138-04 7.868-04 1.228-03 r.85E-03 2.30E-03 0.05 8.56E-04 3.778-04 4.938-04 7.908-04 1.248-03 1.57E-03 0.06 6.028-04 2.5t8-04 3.348-04 5.50E-04 8.87E-04 I. l4E-03 0.07 4.458 -04 r.778-04 2.388-04 4.028-04 6.668-04 8.63E-04 0.08 3.428-04 t.298-04 r.77F,-04 3.06E-04 5.18E-04 6.78E-04 0.09 2.708-04 9.80E-05 1.36E-04 2.408-04 4.14F,-04 5.478-04 0.10 2.t9F-04 7.628-05 1.078-04 t.928-04 3.398-04 4.52E-04 0.20 5.46E-05 1.38E-05 2.108-05 4.428-05 9.098-05 1.30E-04 0.25 3.498-05 7.828-06 1.23E-05 2]38 -05 5.93E-05 8.76E-05 0.30 2.428-05 4.89E-06 7.878-06 1.84E-05 4.178-05 6.328-05 0.40 1.35E-05 2.298-06 3.878-06 9.79E-06 2.39E-05 3.74F-05 0.50 8.588-06 r.268-06 2.208-06 5.99E-06 1.54E-05 2.488-05 0.60 5.89E-06 7.638-07 1.38E-06 3.998 -06 1.07E-05 1.768-05 0.70 4.268-06 4.938-07 9.248-07 2.818-06 7.848-06 t.3lE-05 0.80 3.21E-06 3.358-07 6.478-07 2.068-06 5.95E-06 1.00E-05 0.90 2.498 -06 2.368 -07 4.708 -07 1.56E-06 4.658-06 7.958-06 1.00 1.98E-06 1.718-07 3.528-07 t.2tE-06 3.728-06 6.42E -06 2.00 3.98E-07 1.69E-08 4.40E-08 2.008 -07 7.778-07 T.458-06 3.00 1.328-07 3.258-09 9.7lF,-09 s.66E-08 2.54E-07 5.11E-07 5.00 2.89E-08 2.86E-10 1.05E-09 9.19E-09 5.33E-08 t.2lE-07 S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27%294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R-O18\\R1\\2734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx fSConsulting

734294-R-018 Reaision 1 March 20, 20-L4 Page C7 of C12 TABLE C.6 IHZ SPBCTRAL ACCELERATION MEAN AND FRACTILE SEISMIC HAZARI) AT BEAVER VALLBY 2 RB FOUNDATION LEVEL Spncrn,ll Accnr,BRATIoN Ipl ANllull, FnnounNcY oF ExcnnoANCE MnIN 5rH 16rH 50rH 84rH 95rH 0.01 3.448-03 1.538-03 2.008-03 3.35E-03 5.00E-03 5.90E-03 0.02 9.16F.-04 2.90E -04 4.098 -04 I.838 -04 1.46E-03 1.978 -03 0.03 3.99E-04 r.058-04 1.54E-04 3.t98-04 6.64E-04 9.60E-04 0.04 2.0t8-04 4.708-05 7.08E-05 t.548-04 3.41F-04 5.15E-04 0.05 l.l3E-04 2.428-05 3.728 -05 8.44E-05 1.95E-04 3.01E-04 0.06 6.948-05 1.37E-05 2.15E-05 5.06E-05 l.zlE -04 1.90E-04 0.07 4.548-05 8.33E-06 1.33E-05 3.258-05 8.00E-0s t.27E-04 0.08 3.13E-05 s.3tE-06 8.71E-06 2.208-05 5.588-05 8.96E-05 0.09 2.268-05 3.62E-06 5.97F,-06 1.56E-05 4.06E-05 6.59E-05 0.10 1.69E-05 2.548 -06 4.248-06 t.l4E-05 3.06E-0s 5.02E-05 0.20 2.83E-06 2.1lE-07 4.278 -07 1.50E-06 5.248-06 9.948-06 0.2s 1.66E-06 9.28E-08 2.038-01 7.988-07 3.06E-06 6.15E-06 0.30 1.08E-06 4.7lE-09 I. t 0E-07 4.808-07 1.99E-06 4.208-06 0.40 5.698-07 1.578-08 4.16E-08 2.228-07 1.048-06 2.348-06 0.50 3.53E -07 6.65E-09 1.97E-08 r.248 -01 6.408-07 1.50E-06 0.60 2.438-07 3.348 -09 1.08E-08 7.88E-08 4.38E-07 1.05E-06 0.70 1.798-07 1.90E-09 6.668-09 5.42E-08 3.218-07 7.86E-07 0.80 1.39E-07 l.l8E-09 4.398-09 3.928-08 2.468-07 6.128-07 0.90 I. 10E-07 7.74F,10 3.05E-09 2.95E-08 1.948-07 4.90E-07 1.00 8,95E-08 5.31E-10 2.19E-09 2.27E-08 1.56E-07 4.01E-07 2.00 1.87E-08 3.30E-l I 1.87E-10 3.028-09 2.888-08 8.53E-08 3.00

6. l9E-09 4.308 -12 3.06E-11 6.758-10 8.37E-09 2.778-08 5.00 1.35E-09 0.00E+00 2.238-12 7.86E-l I r.46E-09 5.56E-09 fEConsultlng rCR S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27H294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R418\\R1\\2734294-R-018, Rev. 1.docx

734294-R-018 Reaision 1 March 20, 2014 Page C8 of C12 TABLE C.7 O.;HZ SPECTRAL ACCELERATION MEAN AND FRACTILE SEISMIC HAZARI) AT BEAVBR VALLEY 2 RB FOUNDATION LEVEL Gqrsulting lrc'e Spncrrul AcCnInRATIoN tsl ANNuu, FnnOUNNCY Or. EXCNEDANCE Mn,At,l 5rH 16rn 50rH 84rn 95rs 0.01 1.54E-03 4.208 -04 6.168 -04 1.33E-03 2.63E-03 3.38E-03 0.02 3.86E-04 6.63E-05 1.05E-04 23 tE-04 7.00E-04 1.08E-03 0.03 1.55E-04 2.05E-05 3.43E-05 9.70E-05 2.858-04 4.848-04 0.04 7.328-05 8.108-06 r.4l E-05 4.268-05 r.348 -04 2.418-04 0.05 3.87E-05 3.798-06 6.7 4F,-06 2.138 -05 7.128-05 1.32E-04 0.06 2.258-05 1.98E-06 3.61E-06 l.l8E-05 4.17E-05 7.81E-05 0.07 1.40E-05 r.r2E-06 2.098-06 7.08E-06 2.628 -05 4.998-05 0.08 9.21F.-06 6.778-07 1.298-06 4.53E-06 1.748-05 3.37E-05 0.09 6.35E-06 4.3tF-07 8.32E-07 3.03E-06 1.21F,-05 2.398-05 0.10 4.s6F-06 2.858-07 5.638-07 2.10E-06 8.66E-06 1.75E-05 0.20 6.218-07 1.50E-08 3.63E-08 I.91E-07 1.04E-06 2.70F-06 0.25 3.418 -07 5.728-09 1.48E-08 9.02E-08 5.39E -07 1.558-06 0.30 2.188 -07 2.518 -09 6.91E-09 4.92E-08 3.30E-07 I.01E-06 0.40 1.13E-07 6.25E-10 1.98E-09 r.86E-08 1.58E-07 5.31E-07 0.50 6.728-08 1.848-10 6.67F-10 8.15E-09 8.59E-08 3.r6E-07 0.60 4.378-08 6.31E-l r 2.638-10 4.148 -09 5.18E-08 2.05E-07 0.70 3.03E-08 2.428-11 l. l 6 E - 1 0 2.33E -09 3.35E-08 l.4lE-07 0.80 2.19E-08 I.028-l I 5.54E,1I 1.39E-09 2.26F-08 1.00E-07 0.90 1.64E-08 4.648-12 2.828-tl 8.678-10 1.578-08 7.38E-08 1.00 1.278-08 2.24E-t2 I.50E-I I 5.61E-10 l.l2E-08 5.56E-08 2.00 1.96E-09 0.00E+00 1.648-13 2.3t8-11 9.61E-10 6.93F-09 3.00 6.07E-10 0.00E+00 8.348-15 3.048-12 1.98E-l0 t.79F-09 5.00 I.l7E-10 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.68E-13 2.03E-11 2.33E-10 S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R418\\R1\\27U294-R4'18, Rev. 1.docx

734294-R-018 Reuision 1, March 20, 20L4 Page C9 of C1.2 g o= Eo lr orJ g lE Eoo IJx UJ (E=cc 1.E-01 1_.E-02 1.E-03 1.E-04 1.E-05 1.E-06 1.E-07 1.E-08 r\\$q3i-5 -4 _-:-S:: 0.10 L.00 100 Hz Spectral Acceleration (g) -mean_fdn -o-Sth_fdn 16th_fdn -.. s o t h _ f d n -. 8 4 t h _ f d n -. 9 5 t h _ f d n L0.00 1.E-01 1.E-02 1.E-03 1.E-04 1.E-05 1.E-06 t.E-o7 1.E-08 0.10 1.00 25 Hz Spectral Acceleration (e) -mean_fdn Sth_fdn 16th_fdn . -50th fdn .84th fdn o 95th fdn 1_0.00 FIGURE C-l BVPS-2 MEAN AND FRACTILE HAZARD CURVES AT RB FOUNDATION LEVEL (sA AT r$Oltz AND 2sHZ) ug 0,= Eo L l! o (J g l!T'oo IJx UJ lE J E E AESGmsulting rce S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R-O18\\R1\\2734294-R{18, Rev. 1.docx

734294-R-0L8 Reaision 1-March 20, 20'14 Page C10 of C12 1.E-02 1.E-03 1.E-04 1.E-05 1.E-06 t.E-07 1.E-08 10.00 10 Hz SpectralAcceleration (e) -mean_fdn Sth_fdn 16th_fdn ..50th fdn - .84th fdn - .95th fdn 1_.E-01 t.E-02 1.E-03 1.E-04 1.E-05 1.E-06 1.E-07 1.E-08 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 5 Hz SpectralAcceleration (g) -mean_fdn Sth_fdn 16th_fdn r ..50th fdn .84th fdn o 95th fdn FIGURE C.2 BVPS-2 MEAN AND FRACTILE HAZARD CURVES AT RB FOUNDATION LBVEL (sA AT t0 HZ AND 5.0 HZ) Icq,= Eo tl o t lc(E

too(,x ul IU

g g rr, g o= Eo L l! o(, g lE T'oo IJxul (u= g s fBSGonsulting rce -El -\\*

l r l r l

,*-:--*-l r l -Ro.N

\\ -

• i\\

\\

l

'r\\ \\i\\ \\ lr\\: \\ a \\ S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R-O18\\R1\\2734294-R{18, Rev. 1.docx

734294-R-01.8 Reaision 1 March 20, 2014 Page C1I of C12 -a\\S E iS{ . t l

, t l

l

=iS::T\\*

- l

\\ - -. l \\- -\\ \\\\

l:

\\r \\s.i. 'i. I l\\ rl, co5Eo Lu. o(,co 'ct oo IJx UJ lE 5 c c 1.E-0L 1.E-02 1.E-03 1.E-04 1.E-05 1.E-06 r.E-o7 1.E-08 0.01 0.10 1.00 2.5 Hz SpectralAcceleration (g) -mean_fdn Sth_fdn 16th_fdn ..50th fdn -84th fdn o 95th fdn L0.00 AESConeulting rct (Jco= C'o t! o Iclu -too Ix UJ IE Jg g 1.E-01 t.E-o2 1.E-03 1.E-04 1.E-05 1.E-06 t.E-o7 1.E-08 ' S --i \\NO t\\r\\ . \\r\\ \\. \\ l\\S._ '\\ls \\ \\ \\- \\ \\ : , \\ r ' \\r \\ : r \\: 0.01 0.10 1.00 1.0.00 1 Hz SpectralAcceleration (g) mean_fdn --- sth_fdn 16th_fdn soth_fdn o .84th_fdn .95th_fdn FIGURE C.3 BVPS-2 MEAN AND FRACTILE HAZARD CURVBS AT RB FOUNDATION LBVEL (sA AT 2.5It2 AND t.0HZ) S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27%294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report Fite\\R-O18\\R1\\2734294-R{18, Rev. 1.docx

734294-R-0L8 Reoision 1 March 20, 201.4 Page C12 of CL2 a

; 1 i ; :

!.ig -{}\\.-.\\,'s \\ -. \\:\\. \\ r I riN.> TJN 1.E-0L L.E-O2 1.E-03

1. E-04 1.E-05 1.E-06 L.E-07 L.E-08 0.0L

0. L0 1.00 10.00 0.5 Hz Spectral Acceleration (g)

-mean_fdn Sth_fdn L6th_fdn . -50th fdn - -84th fdn - .95th fdn FIGURE C-4 BVPS-2 MEAN AND FRACTILE HAZARD CURVES AT RB FOUNDATION LBVBL (sA AT 0.5 HZ) Ig o=ET o t-lL o 1.,tro TIoo Ix ul lE= g c AE$Gonsulting rct S:\\Local\\Pubs97M294 FENOC BeaverValley\\3.1Q Report File\\R-O18\\R19734294-R-018, Rev. 1.docx}}