ML14090A145

Firstenergy Nuclear Operating Co., Enclosure D to L-14-120 - 2734298-R-009, Rev. 1, NTTF 2.1 Seismic Hazard and Screening Report for Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Lake County, Ohio

ML14090A145
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
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 2734298-R-009, Rev 1
Download: ML14090A145 (84)

Text

Enclosure D

L-14-120 NTTF 2.1 Seismic Hazard and Screening Report for Perry Nuclear Power Plant Lake County, Ohio (83 pages follow)

AE$Gonsulting NTTF 2.1 Seismic Hazard and Screening Report Perry Nuclear Power Plant Lake Gounty, Ohio March 20,2014 Preparedfor:

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Gompany 2734298-R-009 Revision I r]CR Paul C. Rizzo A*sociats. [nc.

EI\\iGINEERS

/CONSULTANTS

/CM ABSG Consulting Inc.. 300 Commerce Drive, Suite 200. lrvine, California 92602

2734298-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 201-4 PqK? of!1 REVISION l REPORT NTTF 2.1 SEISMIC IdIAZARD AND SCREENING REPORT PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT LAKE COUNTY, OHIO ABSG ConsuLrING INC. Rnponr No. 2734298-R-009 RnvrsroN I R'IZZO Rnponr No. Rf 0 n-4734 M^q,ncn 2012014 ABSG CowSULTING INC.

Pnur C.Rtzzo AssocrATES, INC.

fESGottsulting rct S:\\Local\\PubsV734298 FENOC Perry\\3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R1U734298-R409, Rev. 1.docx

2734298-R-009 Reaision 1.

March 20,201,4 PaKe 3 of 53 Approval by the responsible manager signifies that the document is complete, all required reviews are complete, and the document is released for use.

Report Name:

Date:

Revision No.:

Originators:

Independent Technical Reviewer:

Project Manager:

APPROVALS NTTF 2.1 Seismrc Hazard and Screening Report Perry Nuclear Power Plant Lake County, Ohio March 20,2014 I

( \\ r:;

(-r -[- -

f '. t -. ' 1 : t n ' ' t ' - - ' \\

Jeffrey K. Kimball Principal Seismologist t- ',' f.\\

i.\\ t_,J l,t

!. i,

1 t ) :

I t "

Josd E. Blanco, Ph.D.

Technical Director Jrjrat U*T Nishikant R. Vaidya, Ph.D., P.E.

Vice President - Advanced Engineering Projects Oiqitally signed by lose E Blanco Beltran ON: cn=Jose E Blanco Beltran, o=Paul C Rizzo Associates, ou=5eismic, email=jose.blanco@rizzoassoc.com, c=Us Oate: 2014.03.20 l700:42 -04'00' Digitally signed by Richard Quittmeyer DN: cn=Richard Quittmeyer, o=Paul C. Rizzo

--- Associates, Inc., ou=Seismology, email=richard.quittm ey er @tizzoassoc.com, c= US Date: 201 4.03.20 1 6:26:22 -04'00' 0312012014 Date 0312012014 Date 0312012014 Date 0312012014 Date 0312012014 Date 03120120t4 Date Digitally iignd by Nishikaht Vaidya il:.n=Niehilant Vaidya, FPaul C. ft 2m Assciatet, ou=V.P. Advancd tqi^in9 Proj<tr, 6ail=nishraidya@dzzoassft

{o0 c=U5 Digitally signed by Richard Quittmeyer DN: cn=Richard Quittmeyer, o=Paul C. Rizzo

'l-email=richard.quittmeyer@rizzoassoc.com, c=US

\\

Date: 2014.03.20 16:26:44 -a4'oo' Richard C. Quittmeyer, Ph.D.

Vice President - Seismology

{

t l,

DigitallysignedbyNishikantvaidya

-rV t=1^ Y a"ay-ix#;,lill1l,lJ",ii'*;,rli1i,l;*il,

\\

l Projects,email=nish.vaidya@rizzoasso(.com,c=US

\\

Date:2014.03.20 l7:07:24 {4'00' Approver:

Nishikant R. Vaidya, Ph.D., P.E.

ident - Adv Engineering Projects Thorhab R. Roche.

Vice President SlLocal\\Pubs\\2734298 FENOC Perry\\3.1Q Report File\\R-009\\R1U734298-R-009, Rev. 1.docx fFtGonsulting

2734298-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 201.4 Page 4 of 53 Report Name:

Revision No.:

CHANGE MANAGEMENT RECORI)

NTTF 2.1 Seismtc Hazard and Screening Report Perry Nuclear Power Plant Lake County, Ohio I

RnvIsIon No.

D,q,rn DnscRrprroNs oF CH.l,ncns/ArnncrEn P,q.cns Pnnson AurHonrzING CH^q,Ncn 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 Dqii0 rd ht Mhd vdYi

)Jp'1" Vr-47 ffi:frfi.H""^**'

V al-*-e'***'-

Nirhik;;;;

Vaidya Thomas R. Roche Note:

tPerson authorizing change shall sign here for the latest revision.

S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734298 FENOC Perry\\3.1Q Report File\\R-009\\R1U734298-R-009, Rev. 1.docx fE$Gonsulting

2734298-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 201.4 Page 5 of 53 TABLE OT CONTENTS PAGE LIST OF TABLES

...............7 LIST OF FIGURES

..............8 LIST OF ACRONYMS

.........9 1.0 TNTRODUCTION

..............12 1.1 Suvuany oF LrcENsrNc Bnsrs.

...............13 1.2 Suvvnny oF Gnounlp MorroN RpspoNsE SpECTRUM AND ScnpBNrNG RESULTs.......

.....13 2.0 1.3 OncauzAnoN oF rHrs Rpponr

.............14 SEISMICHAZARD RE.EVALUATION.

....I5 2.1 RncroxeI-AND Locnl cEoI-ocy....

...15 2.2 Pnoeaerlrsrrc SErsnarc Hnzano ANelvsrs....

1 6 2.3 2.2.1 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis Results

......16 2.2.2 Base Rock Seismic Hazard Curves

...18 SIre RsspoNse EvRr-uATroN

....20 2.3.1 Description of Subsurface Materials and Properties.........

..........21 2.3.2 Development of Base Case Profiles and Non-Linear Material Properties.........

.....24 2.3.3 Aleatory Variability in Dynamic Material Properties.................31 2.3.4 Input Spectra.

.............32 2.3.5 Site Response Methodology

..............32 2.3.6 Amplification Factors

..........33 4.0 2.4 CoNrnoL PorNr Sersvrc Hnznnp Cunvss

............38 2.5 CoNrnol PorNr RnspoNsp SpecrRUM

....39 PLANT DESIGN BASIS GROUND MOTION......

....43 3.1 SSE DpscnrprloN op SpecrRAL SHapp

...........43 3.2 SSE CoNrnol PorNr ElnvnrroN........

......44 SCREENING EVALUATION

.........45 4.1 Rrsr Ever-unrloN ScRpsNrwc (1 ro l}Hz)

.........45 4.2 HrcH FnequENcv ScnEENTNG

(> 10 Hz).......

...45 3.0 fBSConeulting rct S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27g298 FENOC Peny\\3.1Q Report File\\R-009\\R1U734298-R-0O9, Rev. 1.docx

2734298-R-009 Reuision 1, March 20, 2014 Page 6 of 53 5.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS (coNTINUED)

PAGE 4.3 SppNr Fupl Poor-EvnlunrroN ScnssNrNG (l ro l}Hz)

...........46 INTERTM ACTrONS....

................47 5.1 NTTF 2.3Wx-KDowNS

.............48 5.2 IPEEE DESCRIPTION AND CAPACITY RESPONSE SPECTRUM....

......48 CONCLUSTONS

..............50 REFERENCES

..........51 6.0

7.0 APPENDICES

APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C NTTF 2.I SITE RESPONSE ANALYSIS EVALUATION OF PNPP IPEEE SUBMITTAL REACTOR BUILDING MEAN AND FRACTILE HAZARD CURVES PNPP SITE fESGonsulting rce S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734298 FENOC Perry\\S.1Q Report File\\R-@g\\R1U734298-R409, Rev. 1.docx

27s4298-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 201-4 Page 7 of !7 TABLE NO.

TABLE 2.I TABLE2-2 TABLE 2.3 TABLE 2.4 TABLE 2-5 TABLE 2.6 TABLE2-7 TABLE 3-1 TABLE 5.1 LIST OF TABLES TITLE PAGE MEAN SEISMICHAZARD AT HARD ROCK PNPP SITE

....20 SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY AND UNIT THICKNESSES

...23 SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY AND UNIT THICKNESSES

- PNPP SITE....

.........26 BASE CASE Vs PROFILES, PNPP SITE

........29 KAPPA VALUES AND WEIGHTS USED IN SITE

RESPONSE

ANALYSIS

.......31 PNPP MEAN CONTROL POINT (RB FOUNDATION)

SEISMIC HAZARD AT SELECTED SPECTRAL FREQUENCTES

............39 PNPP 5-% DAMPED UHRS AND GMRS AT THE SSE CONTROL POrNT......

.....41 SSE HORIZONTAL GROUND MOTION RESPONSE SPECTRUM FOR PNPP

..............44 IPEEE HORIZONTAL GROUND MOTION RESPONSE SPECTRUM FOR PNPP

.......49 AEgConsulting rCR S:\\Locaf\\Pubs\\27$298 FENOC Perry\\3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R1U734298-R-009, Rev. 'l.docx

2734298-R-009 Reaision 1 Mqrch 20, 201,4 FIGURE NO.

FIGURE 2-I FIGURE 2-2 FIGURE 2-3 FIGURE 2-4 FIGURE 2.5 FIGURE 2-6 FIGURE 2.7 FIGURE 3.1 FIGURE 5.I LIST OF FIGURES TITLE PAGE PNPP MEAN SEISMICHAZARD AT HARD ROCK................18 STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN LINDERLYING THE PNPP SITE.....

.............22 BASE CASE Vs pROFILES, PNPP SITE

........28 PNPP SITE AMPLIFICATION FACTORS, BASE-CASE PROFILE (PI), EPRI ROCK G/GMAX AND DAMPING, KAPPA I, I-CORNER SOURCE MODEL

...,.....34 PNPP SITE AMPLIFICATION FACTORS, BASE-CASE PROFILE (P1), LINEAR ROCK GiGMAX AND DAMPING, KAPPA I, I.CORNER SOURCE MODEL.............36 PNPP MEAN CONTROL POINT (RB FOUNDATION)

SEISMIC HAZARD AT SELECTED SPECTRAL FREQUENCTES

....38 CONTROL POINT UNIFORM HAZARD RESPONSE SPECTRA AT MEAN ANNUAL FREQUENCIES OF EXCEEDANCE OF 1X1O'4 AND 1XIO-5, AND GROUND MOTION RESPONSE SPECTRA AT PNPP RB FOUNDATION

...42 SAFE SHUTDOWN EARTHQUAKE s%.DAMPED

RESPONSE

SPECTRUM

.....44 SSE AND IPEEE RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR PNPP................49 fFSConsulting rct S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734298 FENOC Perry\\3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R1U734298-R-009, Rev. 1.docx

2734298-R-009 Reaision L March 20, 20L4 Page 9 of 53 AHEX ASCE BDB BE CEUS CEUS-SSC COV DF ECC-AM EL EPRI ERM.N ERM-S FENOC ft ft/s ob GMM GMPE GMRS HCLPF HZ IBEB IHS IPEEE ISRS km km/s LIST OF ACRONYMS ATLANTIC HIGHLY EXTENDED CRUST AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING BEYOND DESIGN BASIS BEST ESTIMATE CENTRAL AND EASTERN UNITED STATES CENTRAL AND EASTERN LINITED STATES SEISMIC SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION DESIGN FACTOR EXTENDED CONTINENTAL CRUST _ ATLANTIC MARGIN ELEVATION ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE EASTERN RIFT MARGIN FAULT NORTHERN SEGMENT EASTERN RIFT MARGTN FAULT SOUTHERN SEGMENT FIRSTENERGY NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY FEET FEET PER SECOND GRAVITY GROUND MOTION MODEL GROLIND MOTION PREDICTION EQUATIONS GROUND MOTION RESPONSE SPECTRUM HIGH CONFIDENCE OF LOW PROBABILITY OF FAILURE HERTZ ILLINOIS BASIS EXTENDED BASEMENT IPEEE HCLPF SPECTRUM INDIVIDUAL PLANT EXAMINATION OF EXTERNAL EVENTS IN-STRUCTURE

RESPONSE

SPECTRA KILOMETERS KILOMETER PER SECOND fESConsulting t?c't S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27%298 FENOC Perry\\3.1Q Report File\\R-009\\R1\\2734298-R-009, Rev. 1.docx

2734298-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 201.4 Page 1,0 of 53 LR M

MAFE MESE.N MESE-W MIDC-A MIDC-B MIDC.C MIDC.D MMI NAP NEI NF'SM NMESE-N NMESE-W NPP NRC NTTF NUREG PEZ_N PEZ_W Pf PGA PNPP PSHA RB RG RLE RLME LIST OF ACRONYMS (coNTINUBD)

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 NORTHERN APPALACHIANS SEISMOTECTONIC SOURCE ZONE NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE NEW MADRID FAULT SYSTEM NON-MESOZOIC AND YOUNGER EXTENDED PRIOR _ NARROW NON.MESOZOIC AND YOUNGER EXTENDED PRIOR - WIDE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE NUCLEAR REGULATORY GUIDE PALEOZOIC EXTENDED CRUST NARROW PALEOZOIC EXTENDED CRUST WIDE TARGET PERFORMANCE LEVEL PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT PROBABILISTIC SEISMTC HAZARD ANALY SIS REACTOR BUILDING REGULATORY GUIDE REVIEW LEVEL EARTHQUAKE REPEAT LARGE MAGNITUDE EARTHQUAKE AESGonsulting rCR S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734298 FENOC Peny\\3.1 Q Report File\\R-009\\R1\\2734298-R-009, Rev. 1.docx

2734298-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 20L4 Page 1.1. of 53 RR.RCG RVT S

SER SEWS SI SLR SMA SPID SPRA SPT SQUG SRT SSCs SSE STUDY-R UB UHRS UR USAR vp V,

LIST OF ACRONYMS (coNTINUED)

REELFOOT RIFT INCLUDING THE ROUGH CREEK GRABEN RANDOM VIBRATION THEORY SECONDS SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT SEISMIC EVALUATION WORKSHEETS SYSTEM INTERACTION ST. LAWRENCE RIFT ZONE SEISMIC MARGIN ASSESSMENT SCREENING, PRIORITIZATION, AND IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS SEISMIC PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SEISMIC QUALIFICATION UTILITY GROUP SEISMIC REVIEW TEAM SYSTEM, STRUCTURE, AND COMPONENTS SAFE SHUTDOWN EARTHQUAKE STUDY REGION UPPER BOUND UNIFORM HAZARD RESPONSE SPECTRA UPPER RANGE UPDATED SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT COMPRESSION WAVE VELOCITY SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY fE$Consulting rCR S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734298 FENOC Perry\\3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R1\\2734298-R-009, Rev. 1.docx

2734298-R-009 Reaision L March 20, 201.4 Page 12 of 53 NTTF 2.1 SEISMIC IJAZARD AND SCREENING REPORT PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT LAKE COUNTY, OHIO

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Following the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) resulting from the March 11,2011, Great Tohoku Earthquake and subsequent tsunami, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) established a Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) to conduct a systematic review of NRC processes and regulations and to determine if the agency should make additional improvements to its regulatory system. The NTTF developed a set of recommendations intended to clarify and strengthen the regulatory framework for protection against natural phenomena. Subsequently, the NRC issued a 50.54(f) letter (NRC, 2012b) 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 seismichazards 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 information the NRC receives, they 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 pertaining to NTTF Recommendation 2.1 for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP). PNPP is located on Lake Erie in Lake County, Ohio. The plant consists of a 1,261 MWe BWR/6, with a Mark III containment.

The nuclear steam supply system was designed by General Electric and Gilbert Associates, Inc.,

Reading, Pennsylvania served as architect-engineer. The operating license for Unit I was issued in March 1986. Commercial operation of Unit I commenced in November 1987. The FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) is authorized to act as agent and has S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734298 FENOC Perry\\3.1Q Report File\\R-009\\R112734298-R-009, Rev. 1.docx fESConsulting

2734298-R-009 Reoision 1, March 20, 2014 Page 1.3 of 53 exclusive responsibility and control over the physical construction, operation, and maintenance ofthe facility.

In providing the information contained here, FENOC has followed the guidance provided in the Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Screening, Prioritization, and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Ir{ear-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic (Electric Power Research Institute [EPRI], 2013a). The Augmented Approach, Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fulanhima NTTF Recommendation 2. I :

Seismic (EPRI, 2013b), has been developed as the process for evaluating critical plant equipment prior to performing a complete plant seismic risk evaluation, if required.

Reference is made to FENOC's Partial Submittal (FENOC,L3) summarizingthe geologic and geotechnical information. The "Description of Subsurface Materials and Properties," and the "Development of Base Case Profiles and Nonlinear Material Properties" from FENOC, (2013a), are repeated here for completeness. 1.1 Sunnulny oF LICENSING B.q,sts The original geologic and seismic siting investigations for PNPP 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 (SSE) ground motion 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 (SSCs). The Category I SSCs are identified in Table 3.2-l of the Updated Safety Analysis Report (usAR) (FENOC,2011). 1.2 Suvrvrlny oF GRoUND Morlon RnspoxsE SpECTRUM AND ScnBnnING RESULTS ln response to the 50.54(f) letter and following the guidance provided in the SPID (EPRI, 2013a), a seismichazardreevaluation for PNPP was performed. For screening purposes, a Ground Motion Response Spectrum (GMRS) was developed. Based on the results of the screening evaluation, PNPP screens in for risk evaluation, a Spent Fuel Pool evaluation, and a fF$Consulting rCR S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27il298 FENOC Perry\\3.1Q Report File\\R-009\\R18734298-R-009, Rev. 1.docx

1.3 2734298-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 201-4 Page 14 of 51 High Frequency Confirmation. In the I to 10 Hertz (Hz) part of the response spectrum, the GMRS exceeds the horizontal SSE and above l0 Hz the GMRS also exceeds the horizontal SSE. OncnNrzATIoN oF THrs RnpoRr The remainder of this Report is organized as follows: Section 2.0provides the Seismic Hazard Reevaluation that was performed for the PNPP 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 GMRS. Section 3.0provides a summary of the PNPP 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 PNPP and Section 6.0 provides conclusions. S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734298 FENOC Peny\\3.1Q Report File\\R-009\\R1U734298-R-009, Rev. l docx AEtGonsutring

2734298-R-009 Reoision'L March 20, 2014 PaRe L5 of 53 2.0 SEISMIC HAZARD RE-EVALUATION The PNPP Site is located in the central part of the Eastern Stable Platform Tectonic Province. Based on the studies reported in the USAR, only two zones of moderate seismic activity are identified within a200 mile radius of the site. "...The first is located 160 miles away, in the same province, and is correlated to the Clarendon-Linden structure while the second, in the Central Province, about 185 miles away, near Anna, Ohio, is probably tied to local basement structures in that area." The review of regional seismicity (USAR, Sectio n 2.5.2.1) concludes that "... the historical record does not reveal the occurrence of large earthquakes in the PNPP site region..." Additionally, "...the shallow focal depths presently observed in the site region for moderate earthquakes (mb 5.0) such as at Leroy and St. Marys, Ohio, or for low level microseismicity (mb <1.5), do not match the greater focal depth range usually associated with large intraplate earthquakes. Within the above context the earthquake potenti al at the site is low. Based on the maximum earthquake, not correlated to structure, experienced in the site province, the USAR postulates a hypothetical occurrence of aModified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) VI. Category I SSCs are designed for SSE ground motions associated with a peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.159 at the top of bedrock. This PGA exceeds the mean value of intensity versus acceleration given by Trifunac and Brady for a MMI VII. 2.I RncroNAL AND Loc.q.l cEoLocY The centralpartof the Eastern Stable Platform Tectonic Province is a wide region characterized by an Upper Precambrian crystalline basement complex overlain unconformably by a sequence of Paleozoic sedimentary formations with little tectonic deformation. Basement rocks in the Site province are comprised largely of high-grade, regionally metamorphosed schists, gneisses, marbles, and calc-silicate granulites, which were consolidated to a discrete crustal block during the Grenvillian Orogeny, 950-150 million years ago. S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734298 FENOC Perry\\3.1Q Report File\\R-009\\R1\\2734298-R-009, Rev l.docx fE$Gonsulting

2734298-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 24L4 PtwUIE Bedrock directly beneath the Site belongs to the Ohio Shale Formation (Upper Devonian). In the Site region, the bedrock dips gently to the south at a gradient of approximately 20 to 40 feet (ft) per mile. This paleotopographic surface was eroded as a consequence of continental glaciation forming Lake Erie along with the other Great Lakes during the Pleistocene Epoch. Bedrock exposures are sparse particularly in proximity to the local areaof the PNPP Site since all of Ohio, except the southeastern part, has been extensively mantled by Pleistocene glacial deposits. Post-consolidation tectonic deformation in the Site province is of minor extent, limited to the development of broad northeast-trending arches of epeirogenic origin along the western portion during the early to middte Paleozoic Era, with localized faulting activity on or near the arches in the middle to late Paleozoic Era. The only tectonic structure within the Site province interpreted to be active is the Clarendon-Linden Fault Zone in western New York, about 160 miles northeast of the Site. Local geologic investigations revealed no faults in the bedrock beneath the foundations of the PNPP structures. The field and literature studies in the site area also did not reveal any faults in the Site vicinity. 2.2 PnogngILISTIC Susnnlc H,tztno Ax,q.lysts 2.2.1 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analvsis Results In accordance with the 50.54(f) letter 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 (NRC, 2012a). The PSHA uses a minimum moment magnitude cutoff of 5.0, as specified in the 50.54(f) letter. The CEUS-SSC model consists of distributed seismicity sources and repeated large magnitude earthquake (RLME) sources. Distributed seismicity sources are characteized following two approaches; the Mmax approach and the seismotectonic approach. The PNPP PSHA accounts for the CEUS-SSC distributed seismicity source zones out to a distance of at least 400 miles (640 kilometer [km]) around the PNPP. This distance exceeds the S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734298 FENOC Perry\\3. 1 Q Report File\\R-009\\R1U734298-R-009, Rev. 1.docx AESConsultlng

2734298-R-009 Reaision 1. March 20, 2014 Page 17gf 53 200 mile (320 km) recommendation contained in NRC (2007 a) and was chosen for completeness. Distributed seismicity source zones included in this Site PSHA are the following: Mesozoic and younger extended crust - narrow and wide (MESE-N and MESE-W) Non-Mesozoic and younger extended crust - naffow and wide (NMESE-N and NMESE-W) Study Region (STUDY_R) Atlantic Highly Extended Crust (AHEX) Extended Continental Crust-Atlantic Margin (ECC-AM) Illinois Basin Extended Basement (IBEB) Midcontinent-Craton (MidC-A, MidC-B, MidC-C, and MidC-D) Northern Appalachian (NAP) Paleozoic Extended Crust - narrow and wide (PEZ-N and PEZ-W) Reelfoot Rift (RR and RR-RCG) o St. Lawrence Rift, including the Ottawa and Saguenay grabens (SLR) RLME seismic sources within or near 1,000 km from the Site are included in the PSHA as follows: Charlevoix Charleston New Madrid Fault System CNFSM) Eastern Rift Margin Fault northern and southern segments (ERM-N and ERM-S) Marianna Zone Commerce Fault Wabash Vallev of the above distributed seismicity and RLME sources, the mid-continent version of the EPRI Ground Motion Model (GMM) was used (EPRI, 2013c). For each updated S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734298 FENOC Perry\\3.1Q Report File\\R-009\\R1U734298-R-009, Rev. 1.docx fBtGonsulting

2734298-R-009 Reaision L March 20, 201,4 Paqe 18 of 53 2.2.2 Base Rock Seismic Hazard Curves While the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) does not require that base rock seismichazard curves be provided, they are included here as background information. These were developed by FENOC as part of an on-going SPRA effort. Figure 2-1 and Table 2-1 present the mean hard rock hazardcurves at the PNPP Site resulting from the PSHA. The hazard curves show mean annual frequency ofexceedance for spectral acceleration at the seven response spectral frequencies (100 Hz,25 Hz, l0 Hz, 5.0 H2,2.5 Hz, l.0 Hz, and 0.5 Hz) for which the updated EPRI GMM (2013c) is defined.

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 10.00 SPectral Acceleration (g)

FIGURE 2-1 PNPP MEAN SEISMIC HAZARD AT HARD ROCK Consistent with the SPID (EPRI,20l3a),Approach 3 of NUREG/CR-6728 (McGuire etal., 2001) is used to calculate the seismic hazardcurves at the SSE control point elevation (EL) (the base of the Reactor Building [RB] Foundation). This method uses the mean and standard (, g o= Eo L t! oug (! T'oo Ixur-(E Jg g g(u o -. 0. 5 H 2 . L. 0 H Z ffitrG

• 2.5 HZ

". 5. 0 H Z ,m !r L0 Hz dnk dt& iEF 25 HZ (- 100 Hz S:\\Local\\PubsV734298 FENOC Perry\\3 1Q Report File\\R-009\\R1\\2734298-R-009, Rev 1 docx nB$Gonsulting

2734298-R-009 Reaision 1, March 20, 201-4 Page L9 of 53 deviations of the site amplification factors developed as described insection 2.3. The control point hazard curves are presented in Section 2.4,4. S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734298 FENOC Perry\\3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R1U734298-R409, Rev. 1.docx fESConsulting

2734298-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 201-4 Page 20 of 53 GnouNo Mouon Lnvnl lgl Mnln ANNU^Lr, FnEeupNCY oF ExcnnuANCE FoR Spncrnll FnnOUENCIES 0.5 Hz lIJz 2.5H2 5H:z l0Hz 25IIz 100 Hz 0.01 1.038-03 2.068 -03 4.378 -03 s.95E-036.68E-03 5.57E-03 2.918-03 0.02 2.58E-04 5.678-04 r.388-03 2.328 -03 3.05E-03 2.788-03 1.28E-03 0.03 9.428-05 2.268-04 6.668-04 1.298-03 1.87E-03 1.81E-038.01E-04 0.04 4.328-05 t.tzE-04 3.978-04 8.54E-04 l.3lE-03 1.32F,-03 5.78E-04 0.05 2.318-05 6.51E-05 2.688-04 6.198-04 9.89E-04 1.03E-03 4.498-04 0.06 1.38E-0s4.19E-0s1.958-04 4.768-04 7.86F,-04 8.428-04 3.668-04 0.07 9.00E-06 2.9tF-05 1.508-04 3.828-04 6.418 -04 7.08E-04 3.06E-04 0.08 6.258-06 2.13E -05 I. l9E-04 3.158-04 5.46F-04 6.08E-04 2.638-04 0.09 4.578-06 1.648-05 9.76E-05 2.66F-04 4.708-04 5.33E-04 2.298-04 0.10 3.498-06 1.30E-05 8.158-05 2.298-04 4.trB-04 4.72F-04 2.028-04 0.20 6.958-07 2.998-06 2.398 -05 8.108-05 t.668-04 2.ltE-04 8.228-05 0.25 4.288-07 1.87E-06 1.57E-05 5.65E-05 t.2lE-04 1.60E-04 5.94E-05 0.30 2.88E-07 r.268 -06 1.09E-05 4.15E-05 9.37F-0s r.278 -04 4.498-05 0.40 1.53E-076.708 -07 6.06E-06 2.488-05 6.068-05 8.638-05 2.80E-0s 0.50 9.21E-08 4.018-07 3.7 4E-06 r.628-05 4.238-05 6.28E-05 1.87E-05 0.60 6.02E-08 2.60F-07 2.488-06 1.12E-053.108-05 4.778-05 1.328-05 0.70 4.16E-08 l.l9F,-07 t.t3E-06 8.13E-06 2.35F-0s 3.748-05 9.7 4E-06 0.80 2.998-08 1.278-07 1.268-06 6.06E-06 1.83E-05 3.00E-05 7.33E-06 0.90 2.228-09 9.41E-08 9.38E-07 4.648-06 1.46E-05 2.468 -05 5.67E -06 1.00 1.69E-08 7.13E-08 7.188-01 3.63E-06 1.18E-052.048 -05 4.468-06 2.00 2.448-09 9.63E-09 1.058-07 6.00E-07 2.458 -06 5.06E-06 7.4s8-07 3.00 6.82E-10 2.578-09 2.91E-08 1.798-01 8.288-07 r.928 -06 2.t78-07 s.00 I. 16E-10 4.08E-10 4.80E-09 3.24F-08 t.748-07 4.14E -07 3.69E-08 TABLE 2-1 MEAN SEISMICHAZARD AT HARD ROCK PNPP SITE 2.3 Snn Rnspolrsn EvALUATToN Category I structures of the PNPP are founded in the Chagrin Shale bedrock (Section 3.7.2.6 of the USAR) at elevations varying from 561 ft forthe RB andthe Auxiliary Building,to 564 ft for the Intermediate Building and the Control Complex. The shale bedrock is characterized by V' (100 ft) of about 5,000 ft per second (fl/s). Following the guidance contained in Seismic Enclosure I of the 50.54(f) Request for Information and inthe SPID (EPRI, 2013a) fornuclear AB$Consulting rct S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734298 FENOC Perry\\3.1Q Report File\\R-0O9\\R1U734298-R-0O9, Rev. 1.docx

2734298-R-009 Reuision L March 20, 2014 Page 21. of 53 power plants that are not sited on hard rock (defined as 2.83 km/sec), a site response analysts was performed for the PNPP site. The following sections describe the various inputs to the site response analysis. These inputs are summarized in Appendix 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 USAR (Section 2.5.4.2 and Appendix 2E). Of the borings advanced as part of the site investigation, two deep borings penetrated to depths of 395 ft and 730 ft and were terminated in the Huron Shale formation. Other borings terminated in the overlying Chagrin Shale 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 4 miles), obtained from the Ohio Geological Survey. The geologic profile between 730 ft and 2,500 ft was estimated from the deep alkali Well No. 202, which provided information down to Middle Silurian Lockport Dolomite. The information down to the Precambrian Basement was obtained by deep wells located within seven miles of the Site. Due to the relative proximity of these deep wells to the site, and the flat lying (low dip) nature of the deposits, the unit lithologies and thicknesses can be reliablv assumed to be verv similar to those below the site. ' J The USAR does not make reference to the well data. However, the site stratigraphy constructed here on the basis of the well data is consistent with the Regional and Local Geology discussed in the USAR (Section2.5.l.2). Figure 2-2 presents the stratigraphic soil/rock column underlying the site, and Table 2-2 presents the stratigraphy extending to Precambrian age deposits, identifying unit thickness as estimated from the subsurface investigations reported in the USAR and available well logs in the site vicinity. Gonsulting rct S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734298 FENOC Perry\\3.1Q Report File\\R-009\\R1U734298-R-009, Rev. 1.docx rE$

2734298-R-009 Reuision 1 March 20, 2014 FIGURE 2.2 STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN UNDERLYING THE PNPP SITE Paqe 22 of 53 fB$Gonsulting rC? I-rgend Epoch or Period Lithology L] Pleistocene Lacustrine Deposits: Very fine sandy, clayey silt and silty clay Pleistoce ne : Glacial drift il crd o C)n Devonian Ohio Shale. Chagrin Shale: Gray silty to clayey shale with sand shale laminae. Devonian Ohio Shale. Heron Shale: Black to brown shale with silty and sandy laminae. Devonian Delaware and Columbus Formations: Hard, dense, cherty limestone, or a dolomitic limestone Devonian Oriskany Sandstone: Fine to medium-grained sandstone Lower Devonian to U. Silurian Helderberg Limestone. H d t-r q D Upper Silurian Bass lsland Group: argillaceous, dolomitic limestone and calcareous dolomite Upper Silurian Salina Group: interbedded evaporite q!4 carbonate rocks I I c1 d Lr) a^ : Z.l Midd e Silu r an Lockport Group: Dolomite Midd e Silu r an Rochester "Packer" Shale Midd e Silu r an Clinton Group: Dolomite, limestone and shale Midd e S i l u r an Medina Formation: Sandstone 4! d O 'o t-l^ Upper Ordivician Queenstown Formation: Shale, siltstone and sandstone Middle to Upper Ordovician Reedsville Formation: Fine -grained shale, limestones and lolomites M ddle Ordivican Trenton Limestone and Dof omite H Middle Ordivician Ch azy Formation (Black Rive r/Gull Rive r/ Glenwood) Limestone Lower Ordivician Copper Ridge Formation: Dolomite I I I F d Lr .o F d O E t1 Ig. Upper Cambrian Conasauga Formation: Limestone and sandstone Middle Cambrian Rome Formation: Dolomite Middle Cambrian Shady formation: Dolomite Middle Cambrian Mt. Simon Formation: Sandstone {ft Q c.) Lr n Precambrian regionally-metamorphosed

schists, gneisses, marbles, and calc-silicate granulites S:\\Local\\PubsV734298 FENOC Perry\\3 1Q Report File\\R-009\\R1\\2734298-R-009, Rev 1 docx

2734298-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 20L4 Page 2jgfl! TABLE2-2 SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY AND UNIT THICKNESSES AT THE PNPP SITE Top EL lftl Borrou EL tftl Lrruolocv Top DnprH lftl Borrowr DnprH lftl 62s s94 Pleistocene Lacustrine deposits: very fine sandy, clayey silt and siltv clav 0 3l 594 565 Pleistocene: glacial drift 3l 60 565 -135 Devonian Ohio Shale. Chagrin Shale: gray silty to clayey shale with sand shale laminae 60 760 -l3s -660 Devonian Ohio Shale. Huron Shale: black to brown shale with silty and sandy laminae 760 r285 -660 -970 Devonian Delaware and Columbus formations: hard, dense, chertv limestone. or a dolomitic limestone r285 I 595 -970 -980 Devonian Oriskanv Sandstone: fine-to medium-erained sandstone r595 1605 -980 -1030 Lower Devonian to Upper Silurian Helderberg Limestone 1605 1655 -1030 -1 130 Upper Silurian Bass Island Group: argillaceous, dolomitic limestone. and calcareous dolomite 1655 1755 I130 -l 830 Upper Silurian Salina Group: interbedded evaporite and carbonate rocks n55 2455 -1 830 -2080 Middle Silurian Lockport Group: dolomite 2455 2705 -2080 -2110 Middle Silurian Rochester "Packer" Shale 2705 2135 -2r10 -2290 Middle Silurian Clinton Group: dolomite, limestone, and shale 2735 29r5 -2290 -2305 Middle Silurian Medina Formation: sandstone 29r5 2930 -2305 -2505 Upper Ordivician Queenstown Formation: shale, siltstone, and sandstone 2930 3 130 -2505 -3945 Middle to Upper Ordovician Reedsville Formation: fine-grained shale, limestones, and dolomites 3 130 4570 -3945 -4435 Middle Ordivician Trenton Limestone and Dolomite 4570 5060 -4435 -4615 Middle Ordivician Chazy Formation (Black River/Gull River/ Glenwood): limestone 5060 5240 -4615 -47 t5 Lower Ordivician Copper Ridge Formation: dolomite 5240 5340 -4715 -4930 Upper Cambrian Conasauga Formation: limestone and sandstone 5340 5555 -4930 -4970 Middle Cambran Rome Formation: dolomite 5555 559s -4970 -5160 Middle Cambran Shady formation: dolomite 5595 5785 -5160 -5300 Middle Cambrian Mt. Simon Formation: sandstone 5785 5925 -5300 Precambrian regionally-metamorphosed schists, gneisses, marbles. and calc-silicate sranulites s925 S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734298 FENOC Perry\\3.1Q Report File\\R{Og\\RlU734298-R-009, Rev. 1.docx lESGonsultlng

2734298-R-009 Reoision 1. March 20, 2014 Page 24 of 53 The lacustrine deposits below surface soils average 25 ft in thickness of and are composed of a very fine sandy, clayey silt, and silty clay. The underlying soil layer is a very dense Pleistocene glacial drift till composed of native material with some ice-transported granitic erratics. Composition of the till varies from place to place, but in general is heterogeneous, dense, clay with interspersed rock fragments ranging from large boulders, cobbles, and pebbles down to sand size. This unit is an average of 30 ft thick and overlies the uppermost bedrock. The bedrock immediately beneath the site belongs to the Upper Devonian Ohio Shale Formation extending to a depth of about 1,250 ft. Because the Site sits on the northwestern flank of the Appalachian geosyncline, the rocks dip gently to the south atanangle of about 5 degrees. The members of the Ohio Shale are, from oldest to youngest, the Plum Brook, Huron, Chagrin, Cleveland, and Bedford shale members. In the PNPP Site area, the upper members have been eroded away to expose the Chagrin Shale. The Chagrin Shale member is about 700 ft thick and is composed of dark-gray to medium-gray silty or clayey shale occasionally containing light gray sandy shale laminae. The underlying Huron Shale is a black to dark brown shale with lesser amounts of thinly bedded light gtay silty and sandy laminae than the Chagrin Shale and is estimated to be about 525 ftthick below the site. The stratigraphy below the Huron Shale consists of an approximately 2,250 ft thick sequence of various sedimentary rocks, predominantly limestones and dolomites, with interbedded shales and sandstones of various thicknesses. These formations overlay the Precambrian granite basement located at approximate EL -5300 ft. 2.3.2 Development of Base Case Profiles and Non-Linear Material Properties Most major structures of the PNPP are founded in the Chagrin Shale bedrock at foundation elevations varying between 561 ft for the Reactor Building and the Auxiliary Building to 564 ft for the Intermediate Building and the Control Complex. Accordingly, the base of the RB foundation level (EL 561 ft) is defined as the control point elevation where the GMRS is developed. The shear and compression wave velocities of the overburden soils and the shale bedrock are based on the subsurface investigations reported in the USAR. The geophysical measurements included seven seismic refraction lines. in situ cross-hole velocity measurements in seven S:\\Local\\Pubs\\279298 FENOC Perry\\3.1Q Report File\\R-0O9\\R1\\2734298-R409, Rev. 1.docx AESGonsultlng

2734298-R-009 Reoision L March 20, 2014 borings, and one down-hole measurement in Boring l-33. Measured values of the compressional (Vp) and shear wave (Vr) velocities and unit weight values were then used to calculate the elastic moduli values. These measurements were substantiated and supplemented by dynamic testing of soil and rock samples to obtain the dynamic compression and shear modulus, damping, and Poisson's ratios. Variabilities in the Vs of the bedrock material and the overburden soil are estimated respectively, from velocity measurements and lab tests, and the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) data. In the Site area, the Vs and Vp of the bedrock are essentially uniform with the average Vo of about 10,500 ft/s and the average V5 of about 5,000 ft/s. Below the investigation depth, the deep rock stratigraphy and seismic velocities of the strata rely on sonic logs recorded in the wells in the Site vicinity (within 4 miles). The sonic data were converted to Vo V, 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, Vpff, ratios for these types of geologic units were used to define the epistemic uncertainty for Vs. Table 2-3 presents the summary geotechnical profile identifying the layer thicknesses, Vs, and uncertainties in these parameters. From Tahle 2-3 the SSE control point is about 5 ft below the top of bedrock, or atEL 561 ft within the Chagrin Shale bedrock with best-estimate (BE) V' of 4,772 ftls. S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734298 FENOC Perry\\3.1Q Report File\\R-009\\R1\\2734298-R409, Rev. 1.docx ABSGonsultlng

2734298-R-009 Reoision 1-March 20, 2014 PaKe 26 of 53 Elnvnuon lfrl Llvnn No. SoIURocr DnScRIPTIoN Ttotnt lp.qF V5 [ftlsl PG 620 Plant Grade (Ground Surface EL) 625 to 612 u l a Lacustrine Deposits 122' 927L207' 0.33 ^ 613 to 624 Ground Wa er EL 615 to 605 l b Lacustrine Denosits 122' g2l+207 " 0.49 ^ 605 to 594 l c Lacustrine Deposits l2g' 821+207' 0.47 ^ 594 to 586 2a Glacial Drift - Upper Till 132' 890+225 " 0.44 ^ 589 to 565 2b Glacial Drift - Lower Till l 4 l ' 17g5+446" 0.44 " 565 to 510 3a Devonian Chagrin Shale r52 4772+477 0.36 A 561 GMRS EL - SSE Control Point at Base of Nuclear I sland Foundation 565 to 510 3a Devonian Chasrin Shale r52 4172L4778 0.36 A 510 to 3g2E 3b Devonian Chagrin Shale r52 5273 0.32 510 to 392 3c Devonian Chagrin Shale t52 5203 0.30 392 to -135 4a Devonian Huron Shale t52 s203 0.30 -135 to -470 4b Devonian Huron Shale 152 6t87 0.28 -660 5a Devonian D&C Limestone 168 6187 0.28 -109 sb D&C Limestone 168 10540 0.30 -970 6 Devonian Oriskanv Sandstone 157 10540 0.30 -980 7 Dev-Sil Helderbers Limestone 168 10540 0.30 -1030 8 Silurian Limestone Dolomite 168 10540 0.30 I 130 9a Silurian Salina Carbonate Rocks 150 10540 0.30 I193 9b Silurian Salina Carbonate Rocks 150 8577 0.26 -1455 9c Silurian Salina Carbonate Rocks 150 7152 0.30 -1 830 l0a Silurian Lockport Croup 170 11784 0.30 -2015 r0b Silurian Lockport Group t70 1979 0.30 -21t0 l2 Silurian Dolomite, Limestone, Shale r70 7979 0.30 -2290 l3 Silurian Medina Sandstone 157 7979 0.30 -2305 t4 Ordivician Queenstown Shale-r57 7979 0.30 TABLE 2-3 SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY AND UNIT THICKNESSBS - PNPP SITB Notes: A. Crosshole test; B. Back-calculation from stiffness parameters adopted in USAR; C. In-situ test results. D. Table 2.5-61of the USAR; E. From this elevation down, soil parameters are estimates from sonic velocities of deep wells except unit weight. Unit weights are typical values from literature. Coefficient of variation (COV): 0.lfor seismic wave velocities. Poisson's ratio and G*u* are calculated by following formula: ([VpA/J' -2) l(2[Vp/V,]' -z). G.*: p V,2; F. Unit weight; G. Poisson's ratio. S:\\Local\\Pubs\\279298 FENOC Perry\\3.1Q Report File\\R-009\\R1\\2734298-R-009, Rev l.docx AESGonsulting

2734298-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 2014 Page 27 of 53 2.3.2.1 Base Case Shear Wave Velocitv Profiles Based on the well characterizednature of the site, the generally flat lying geologic units, and the geology-specific Vp-to-Vs coflversions, a scale factor of I.15 is used for developing upper and lower range base-cases to reflect epistemic uncertainty in V5. 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 inthe soil column from the D 8.C Limestone Formation atEL -709 ftto the top of the Chagrin Shale bedrock underlying the base of the RB foundation mat. Using the best estimate Vs specified in Table 2-3, tfuee base-profiles were developed using the scale factor of 1.15. The specified Vs profiles were taken as the mean or BE base-case profile (P I ) with lower and upper range base-case profiles P2 and P3 respectively. Consistent with the guidance in the SPID (EPRI, 20I3a), the upper range base-case profile is constrained to not exceed a Vs of 9,200 ft/s. Profiles Pl and P3 extend to hard rock conditions at a depth of 1,274 ft below the base of the RB foundation while Profile P2 extends to a depth of 2,395 ft, and includes possible lower velocity layers at a depth range of I,760 to 2,395 ft. The base-case profiles (P 1, P2, and P3) are shown on Figure 2-3 and liste d in Table 2-4. S:\\Local\\Pubs97H298 FENOC Peny\\3.1Q Report File\\R-009\\R1\\2734298-R-009, Rev. 'l.docx ABSCffisultlng

2734298-R-009 Reaision 1, March 20, 201.4 Page 28 of 53 Vs (ft/sec)

• Depth 0 ft coresponds to EL 561 ft FIGURE 2-3 BASE CASE VS PROFILES' PNPP SITE S:\\Locaf\\Pubs\\2734298 FENOC Perry\\3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R1\\27U2%-R409, Rev. 1.docx lllGornulthU

2734298-R-009 Reaision 1. March 20,201.4 Page 29 of 53 TABLE 2-4 BASE CASE VS PROFILES, PNPP SITE Llvnn ElnvlrroN tftl Pnouln Pl Pnorrln P2 Pnorrln P3 V" [ftlsl DnprH tftl V" Ift/sl Dnprn tftl V" lftlsl Dnpru lftl 561 4772 0 4l 50 0 5488 0 510 4772 55 4150 55 5488 55 510 5273 55 4585 55 6064 55 392 5273 173 4585 173 6064 173 392 5203 t73 4524 173 s983 173 -470 5203 1035 4524 1035 s983 1035 -470 6187 1035 5380 1035 7tt5 1035 -660 6187 r225 5380 r225 7ll5 1225 -660 6187 t225 5380 1225 7rI5 r225 -709 6r87 t274 5380 1274 7115 t274 -709 9200 t27 4 9r65 t27 4 9200 1274 -1 193 9r65 t7 58 -1 193 7 458 t7 58 -1455 7 458 2020 -1455 6219 2020 -l 830 6219 2395 9200 2395 2.3.2.2 Shear Modulus and Damping Curves 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. This material includes the Chagrin Shale Formation. 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 (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 value in the upper 500 ft. Below a depth of 500 ft linear material behavior is assumed for both models, with the damping value specified S:\\Local\\Pubs9734298 FENOC Perry\\3.1Q Report File\\R-009\\R1\\2734298-R-009, Rev. 1.docx ABtGonsulting

2734298-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 2014 Page 30 of 53 consistent with the kappa estimates for the site (values discusse d in Section 2.3.2.3 and shown on 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: I. Kappa for a firm rock site with at least 3,000 ft ( I km) of sedimentary rock may be estimated from the time averaged Vs over the upper 100 ft (Vrroo) of the subsurface profile.

2.

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 0.006 seconds(s) for the underlying hard rock. For the PNPP Site, kappa was estimated using the second of the above approaches because the thickness of the sedimentary rock overlying hard rock is less than 3000 ft. There is confidence, based on deep well sonic log data from the vicinity of the Site, that the hard rock horizon is no more than about 2,395 ft below the top of rock. For each V, profile, kappa was estimated using the low-strain damping from the EPRI rock curves in the top 500 ft and Q:40 below that depth to the base of the profile. Using the range of kappa values obtained for the three velocity profiles described above in Section 2.3.2.1, and including a kappa of 0.006s for the underlying hard rock the total site kappa is estimated to be 0.0157s for profile Pl,0.0209s for profile P2, and 0.0145s for profile P3. To complete the representation of the 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 profileP2,the softest profile, the base-case kappa estimate of 0.0209s was augmented with 50 percent increase in kappa to a value of 0.0314s, resulting in two sets of analyses for profile P2. 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 0.0145s and 0.0097s. The suite of kappa estimates and associated weights is listed in Table 2-5. The base-case kappa estimates were judged to be more likely (by 50 percent) and assessed weights of 0.6 compared to the augmented values with weights of 0.4. To maintain S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734298 FENOC Perry\\3.1Q Report File\\R{0g\\R1U734298-R-009, Rev. 1.docx ABSConsufring

27s4298-R-009 Reaision 1, March 20, 2014 Page 31. of 53 consistency in the site response analyses the low-strain damping values are adjusted consistent with the kappa value associated with each profile. TABLB 2.5 KAPPA VALUBS AND WEIGHTS USBD IN SITB RESPONSE ANALYSIS Vrcr,ocrrY PRoFILE Pnoprln Wprcur Klppl lsl Klppl Wnrcnr PI Base-Case 0.4 0.0157 (Kappa l) 1.0 P2 Lower Range 0.3 0.0209 (Kappa 1) 0.6 0.0314 (Kappa?) 0.4 P3 Upper Range 0.3 0.0145 (Kapoa l) 0.6 0.0097 (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 fiinear and nonlinear for the upper 500 ft],2 source models [single and double corner inputs], I I loading levels, and 30 soil profile realizations). The range of kappa values presente d in Table 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 Aleatory Variability in Dynamic Material Properties 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,varifuility in the Vs profiles and shear-strain-dependent shear modulus and damping curves are incorporated in the site response calculations. 2.3.3.1 Randomization of Shear-wave Velocitv Profile For the PNPP site, aleatory variability in the V, profile for the Site is represented by 30 randomized profiles developed from each of the base case profiles shown on Figure 2-3. Gonsulting rct S:\\Local\\Pubs97%298 FENOC Perry\\3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R1U734298-R-0O9, Rev. 1.docx

2734298-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 201.4 Page 32 of 53 These randomized V5 profiles were generated using a natural log standard deviation of 0.25 over the top 50 ft and a value of 0.15 below a depth of 50 ft. 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 about the median value in each layer was assumed for the limits on random velocity fluctuations. Additionally, the profiles were constrained to not exceed a V" of 9.200 ft/s. 2.3.3.2 Randomwation of Modulus Reduction and Hysteretic Damping Curves For the PNPP Site, aleatory variability in dynamic material property curves is represented using 30 randomizations based on the base-case for each alternative model. The random generation of G/Gmax and damping ratio values are limited to the upper and lower bounds of the best estimate

• two standard deviations, consistent with the SPID (EPRI, 2013a). The damping ratio values are limited to 15 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 Spectra Consistentwiththe 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 PGA ranging from 0.01 to 1.5g) were modeled for use inthe site response analyses. The characteristics of the seismic source and upper crustal attenuation properties used for the analysis of the PNPP site were the same as those identified in Tables B-4, B-5, 8-6, and B-7of the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) as appropriate for typical CEUS sites. 2.3.5 Site Response Methodolory The site response analysis reported here implements an equivalent linear method using the random vibration theory (RVT) approach. This approach 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) S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734298 FENOC Perry\\3.1Q Report File\\R-009\\R1\\2734298-R-009, Rev, 1.docx fEtGonsuEing

2734298-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 2014 Page 33 of 53 on incorporating epistemic uncertainty in Vs, kappa, dynamic material properties, and source spectra was followed for the PNPP 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 PGA amplitude. Amplification is determined for the SSE control point elevation at the base of the RB foundation level. Because of uncertainty and variability incorporated in the site response analysis, a distribution of amplification factors is produced. The amplification factors (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 not to 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 amplification factors developed for the I I loading levels parameteized by the reference (hard-rock) PGA (0.01 to 1.50g) forprofile Pl and EPRI rock G/G.u*, andhysteretic damping curves. Further, the amplification factors 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 amplification factors results from the variability in the V, and modulus reduction and hysteretic damping curves. Figure 2-5 presents similar information for profile P I using the linear dynamic material property assumptions. Comparison of amplification factors, including the effects of material nonlinearity in the PNPP Site firm rock layers (model Ml),with the corresponding amplification factors developed with linear site response analyses (model ly'r2) shows only minor effects of non-linearity for frequencies below about 20 Hz and a 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, provides several tables that summarize the site response uncertainty analysis including the development of the site response logic tree (V, models, kappa, dynamic properties) and a summary of the numerical values of the amplification factors at seven spectral frequencies S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27H298 FENOC Peny\\3.1Q Report Fib\\R409\\R1U734298-R-009, Rev. 1.docx fESConsulting

2734298-R-009 Reaision 1, March 20, 201,4 Page 3a of 53 and 1 1 input PGA values at hard-rock. Additionally, Appendix A provides examples of the amplification factors for three loading levels consistent with the information shown on Figares 2-4 and 2-5. .5 2 . 5 1 . 5 0 o .tt L' o lt co ly t! L' c E bo P(, t! t! g o ,bt t! Irtr o, E 2.5 2 o .Y G'I r.s co .rt o I tL E 0.5 0 100 Frequency [Hzl 100 Frequency [Hzl 100 Frequency [Hzl 100 Frequency [Hzl 100 Frequency [Hzl Lo .P L' t! tt g o P o f, e E 2.5 2 1.5 L 0.5 0 2.5 2 bo tI r.s g o ,e t! If t r a o, E 0.5 0 FIGURE 2.4 pNpp SITE AMPLIX'ICATION FACTORS, BASE-CASE PROFILE (P1), EPRI 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. 100 Frequency [Hzl fBConsultlng rC? ' 6 { Mean M e a n + S t d v Mean - Stdv 1 -t-1 0.11 Mean M e a n + S t d V Mean - Stdv o.37 Mean M e a n + S t d V Mean - Stdv S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734298 FENOC Perry\\3 1Q Report File\\R-009\\R1U7U298-R-009, Rev 1 docx

2734298-R-009 Reaision 1, March 20, 201,4 o P(, t! tl Co .y o(,, E o P TJ l! lt c .9 Plu r-t.; E 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Page 35 of 53 Frequency IHzl 0.1 1 i ti i i l 1 l i i Ir l ! i 4-****^--* -**-+-*-^"* 100 Frequency IHzl Eo P(, o l! C .9 lP l! I=c E bo P(, l! t! tro l! I ra-E E 2.5 2 1.5 L 0.5 0 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 100 Frequency IHzl Frequency IHzl 2.5 2 1.5 L 0.5 0 10 FrequencY IHzl X'IGURE 2.4 pNpp sIrE AM*LIFICATI'N.^[i3H:Tlt3f^sE 'R'FILE (pr), EpRr RocK G/GMAX AND DAMPING, KAPPA I, I-CORNER SOURCE MODEL Note: Quantities in the upper right hand corner represent the hard rock input 100 Hz spectral acceleration in g's' o .H(, o lt c o iy lB t, e E t -Mean M e a n + S t d V i t r \\ Mean - Stdv S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734298 FENOC Peny\\3 1Q Report File\\R-009\\R1U734298-R-009, Rev 1 docx fE$Gonsultlng

2734298-R-009 Reaision L March 20, 2014 Page 36 of 53 2.5 2 oUI r.s C .9 Pot, = 1 c E 0.5 o+, IJ o l! tr . 9 4 P I l! L' CL E 0.5 0.05 Frequency IHzl 1-0.1 2.5 2 Lo IJ3 r.s tro lP l! CL E 0.5 2 Lo P IJ3 r.s s0 f t!(, o, E 0.5 10 100 Frequency [Hzl Frequency [Hzl 2.5 0.5 100 Frequency [Hzl Frequency [Hzl X'IGURE 2.5 PNPP SITE AMPLIFICATION FACTORS, BASE.CASE PROFILE (PI), 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 2 otI r.s g .9 lH ot, o, E 0.5 2 o .Dt C'I r.s c .9 ,P ot, e E ' t t ; M e a n + S t d v & & a M e a n - S t d v M e a n + S t d v Mean - Stdv S:\\Locaf\\Pubs\\2734298 FENOC Perry\\3 1Q Report File\\R-009\\R1U7U298-R-009, Rev 1 docx

2734298-R-009 Reaision L March 20, 201,4 Page 37 of 53 0.66 o P t,3 r.s g .9 t! I e E o P I,f r.s tro (! I o E 0.5 100 Frequency IHzl Frequency IHz] 100 Frequency [Hzl Frequency IHz] Frequency Ir;oo FIGURE 2-5 (coNTINUED) PNPP SITE AMPLIFICATION FACTORS, BASE.CASE PROF'ILE (PI), 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. 0.1 10 o .rt(, 3 r.s g o Po(, o E 0.5 0.1 Mean M e a n + S t d V

1. & 4, Mean - Stdv M e a n + S t d V i

G # s M e a n - S t d v S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734298 FENOC Perry\\3 1Q Report File\\R-009\\R1U7U298-R-009, Rev 1 docx

2734298-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 2014 Page 38 of 53 2.4 coxrRol PorNr Srcrsnnrc HAZARD cuRvES As presentedin Section 3.2below, the control point elevation is taken to be the base of the RB foundation level (EL 561 ft). The procedure to develop probabilistic site-specific control point hazard curves follows the methodology described in Section 8-6.0 of the SPID (EPRI,20l3a). This procedure (referred to as Approach 3) computes a site-specific control point hazad curve for a broad range of spectral accelerations given the site-specific bedro ckhazard 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) ground motion model is defined. The dynamic response of the rock column below the control point elevation is represented by the frequency and amplitude-dependent amplification factors (median values and ln standard deviations) developed and described in the previous section. The resulting control point mean hazard curves for the PNPP Site are shown on Figure 2-6 and Tsble 2-6 for the seven spectral frequencies. Tabulated values of the site response amplification functions and control point hazard curves for various fractiles are provide d in Appendix C. 1.E-01 1,.E-02 1.E-03 1.E-04 1.E-05 1.E-06 7.E-07 1.E-08 0.01 0.10 10.00 Spectral Accelelation (g) FIGURE 2.6 PNPP MEAN CONTROL POINT (RB FOUNDATION) SEISMIC HAZARD AT SELECTED SPECTRAL FREQUENCIES !r C o= C' g Llt o(, g (E T' o o(, xu, (E

tc tr C(o o=

. 0. 5 H 2 -. L. 0 H Z f f i

• 2. 5 H z

' - 5. 0 H z ffi {* 10.0 Hz && &,# 25.0 HZ 100.0 Hz S:\\Local\\PubsV734298 FENOC Perry\\3 1Q Report FlIe\\R-009\\R1U7U29S-R-009, Rev 1 docx ABSColtsulting

2734298-R-009 Reaision 1, March 20, 2014 Page 39 of 53 GRounn Morrou Lnvnl lsl Mn,lN ANNull, FnneunNcy oF ExcnnnANCE FOR SPECTRAL FNBQUNNCIES 0.5 Hz 1.0 Hz 2.5H2 5.0 Hz l0 Hz 25Hz 100 Hz 0.02 4.44E-04 1.338-03 l.7lE-03 2.718-03 3.178-03 2.538-03 1.338-03 0.03 1.86E-04 6.19F-04 8.43E-04 1.56E-03 1.948-03 1.53E-03 7.688-04 0.04 9.18E-05 3.348 -04 5.018-04 1.03E-03 1.35E-03 1.06E-03 5.238-04 0.05 5.1rE-05 1.998 -04 3.36F-04 7.438-04 1.01E-037.94F,-04 3.86E-04 0.06 3.1r8-05 t.298-04 2.448-04 5.708-04 8.00E-04 6.27F,-04 2.98E-04 0.07 2.03E-05 8.83E-05 1.86E-04 4.568-04 6.55E-04 5.14E-04 2.388-04 0.08 1.40E-05 6.378-05 1.48E-04 3.7 6E-04 s.5lE-04 4.348-04 1.95E-04 0.09 r.01E-05 4.79E-05 t.2tE-04 3.17F,-04 4.738-04 3.738-04 1.638-04 0.10 7.51F-06 3.738 -05 I.01E-04 2.728-04 4.128-04 3.278-04 1.38E-04 0.20 1.36E-06 7.938-06 2.988-05 9.62F,-05 1.63E-04 1.348-04 4.298-05 0.25 8.16E-07 4.958-06 1.98E-05 6.78E-05 t.l9E-04 9.82E-05 2.78E-05 0.30 5.44E -07 3.38E-06 1.40E-05 5.018-05 9.13E-05 7.528-05 1.90E-05 0.40 2.918-07 1.85E-06 7.89E-06 3.028-05 5.848-05 4.81E-05 9.948-06 0.50 1.78E-07 l.l5E-06 4.96F-06 1.99E-05 4.03E-05 3.30E-05 5.14E-06 0.60 r.t9E-07 7.7 4E-07 3.348-06 1.38E-0s2.92E-05 2.36E-05 3.55E-06 0.70 8.34E-08 5.50E-07 2.368-06 9.998-06 2.19E-05 1.75E-05 2.318-06 0.80 6.1 lE-08 4.078-07 1.748-06 7.478-06 1.68E-05 1.34F-05 1.58E-06 0.90 4.628-08 3.10E-07 t.3l E-06 5.738-06 1.31E-05 1.04E-05 1.13E-06 1.00 3.58E-08 2.428-07 I.018-06 4.48E-06 1.048-05 8.2t8-06 8.348-07 2.00 5.14E-09 3.94E-08 r.578-07 7.128-07 1.90E-06 1.56E-06 1.028-07 3.00 t.79E-09 1.22E -08 4.66E-08 2.208-07 6.228-07 5.348-07 2.s8E-08 5.00 3.478 -10 2.378 -09 8.2sE-094.t78-08 t.3tE-07 t.2lE-07 3.528-09 TABLE2-6 PNPP MEAN CONTROL POINT (RB FOUNDATION) SEISMICHAZARD AT SELECTED SPBCTRAL FREQUENCIES 2.5 CoNrnoL PorNT Rnspoxsn SPECTRUM The control point hazard curves described above have been used to develop uniform hazard response spectra (UHRS) and the ground motion response spectrum (GMRS). 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., (2001). The UHRS were obtained through linear interpolation in log-log space to estimate the spectral acceleration at each oscillator frequency for the 1E-4 and lE-5 per year hazard levels. S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734298 FENOC Perry\\3.1Q Report File\\R-009\\R1U734298-R{09, Rev. 1.docx fE$Gonsulting

2734298-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 2014 Page 40 of 53 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 and Figure 2-7 present the control point IE-4 and lE-5 UHRS and the GMRS, and Figure 2-7 graphically illustrates the GMRS relative to the UHRS. S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734298 FENOC Perry\\3.1 Q Report File\\R-009\\R1U734298-R-009, Rev. 1.docx AESGonsulting

2734298-R-009 Reuision L March 20, 20L4 Page 41. of 53 TABLE 2-7 PNPP 5."h DAMPBD UHRS AND GMRS AT THE SSE CONTROL POINT FnnqunNCY IIJzI Honlzonr.u SpncrRAL AccnlnRATIoN [gl,rr rUB RB FOUUOATION 1X1O-" MAFE UHRS 1X1O'" MAFE UHRS GMRS 0.10 0.0027 0.0059 0.0030 0.13 0.0038 0.0087 0.0044 0.16 0.00s5 0.0128 0.0065 0.20 0.0079 0.0188 0.0095 0.26 0.01l6 0.027 6 0.0139 0.33 0.0174 0.04t4 0.0209 0.42 0.0270 0.0640 0.0323 0.50 0.0386 0.0906 0.04s8 0.53 0.0408 0.0968 0.0488 0.67 0.0498 0.1240 0.0620 0.8s 0.0601 0.r571 0.4778 1.00 0.0666 0.1801 0.0886 1.08 0.0723 0.1999 0.0978 1.37 0.0844 0.2498 0.1206 l.t4 0.0834 0.2650 0.1262 2.21 0.0907 0.3097 0.1453 2.50 0.1006 0.3551 0.16s6 2.81 0.1 l 79 0.4r72 0.1944 3.56

0. I 500 0.5336 0.2484 4.52 0.18 r 6 0.6471 0.3011 5.00 0.1950 0.6984 0.3247 5.74 0.2128 0.7 652 0.35s4 7.28 0.2406 0.8697 0.4036 9.24 0.2687 0.9731 0.45t4 10.00 0.2787 1.0092 0.4681 11.72 0.2796 1.0206 0.4726 14.87 0.2714 1.0070 0.4648 18.87 0.2658 0.9971 0.4s93 23.95 0.2467 0.9307 0.4282 25.00 0.2423 a.9t4s 0.4207 30.39 0.2252 0.8347 0.3854 38.s7 0.202s 0.7534 0.3476 48.94 0.1803 0.6948 0.3183 62.10

0. I 554 0.5764 0.266r 78.80 0.1300 0.4344 0.2048 100.00 0.12t1 0.3983

0. l 883 S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734298 FENOC Perry\\3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R1U734298-R-009, Rev. 1.docx AFSGonsulting

2734298-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 2014 Page a2 of 53 .Ab/0 Y E 0.800 fJ'tr l!b -gg 0.600 rJ -lu L E o.4oo CL vl 1.200 1.000 0.200 0.000 - - - 1X10-4 uHRs [el 1x10-5 UHRS [e] GMRS I \\ \\\\ ) t / I / ---t \\ I \\ a 7 r - - t t N \\ \\ \\ \\ s t II 0.10 1.00 10.00 100'00 Frequency (Hrf FIGURE 2.7 CONTROL POINT T]NIFORM HAZARD RESPONSE SPECTRA AT MEAN AI\\NUAL FREeuENcIES oF ExcEEDANcE ox' tx10t AND tx10-s, AI\\D cRouND MorIoN RESPONSE SPECTRA AT PNPP RB F'OUNDATION S:\\Locaf\\Pubs\\2734298 FENOC Perry\\3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R1\\27U298-R-009, Rev. 1.docx rlc

2734298-R-009 Reaision L March 20, 201.4 Page 43 of 53 3.0 PLANT DESIGN BASIS GROUND MOTION The design basis for PNPP is identified in the USAR (FENOC,2011). 3.1. SSE DnscnrprroN oF SpECTRAL SH,lpn The PNPP SSE was developed in accordance with 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A through an evaluation of the maximum earthquake potential for the region sunounding the Site. The PNPP USAR (Section 2.5.2.1 and Section 2.5.2.2) describes the local and regional seismicity, and provides the geologic basis for the tectonic provinces of the region. The deterministic analysis reported in the USAR identifies the maximum earthquake potential at the site from estimates of the highest seismic intensity experienced at the site based on historical data, and the maximum intensity at the site expected from the occuffence of maximum hypothetical earthquakes in controlling tectonic provinces. The largest intensity assessed using these two methods provides the basis for selecting the maximum earthquake potential for the site. Based on the reported studies, a Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) of VII is selected for the maximum earthquake potential. This Site Intensity corresponds to a PGA in the range of 0.079 to 0.139 using the intensity-acceleration relationships of Gutenberg and Richter, Neumann, arrd Trifunac and Bradv. The PNPP Site SSE ground motion is conservatively defined by a PGA of 0.159 and the RG 1.60 spectral shape. The So/o-damped horizontal SSE spectral accelerations are presented in Table 3-

1. The corresponding vertical spectrum for the SSE is as defined in RG 1.60. Figure 3-1 presents the horizontal and vertical SSE So/o-damped response spectrum.

S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734298 FENOC Perry\\3.1Q Report File\\R-009\\R1U734298-R-009, Rev l.docx AESGonsulting

2734298-R-009 Reaision L March 20, 20L4 Page 44 of 53 TABLE SSE HORIZONTAL GROUND MOTION 3-1 RESPONSE SPECTRUM FOR PNPP L.0 0.8 0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 Frequecy (Hzl inreHoriz SSE 0.159 PGA .r-Vert SSE 0.159 PGA FIGURE 3.I SAFE SHUTDOWN EARTHQUAKE s%-DAMPED RESPONSE SPECTRUM 3.2 SSE ConrRol Porxr Elnv.tuoN The horizontal and vertical SSE response spectra represent the design basis ground motion input applied at the base of the foundation levels of the PNPP structures. At PNPP, the top of bedrock is at EL 565 ft and the foundation elevation of the RB is 561 ft. Other major structures supported on rock are founded at somewhat higher elevations. The SSE control point elevation is taken to be the base of the RB foundation, and the SSE response spectra are, therefore, compared to the GMRS at EL 561 ft. A EO v E 0.6 l! LE 0.4 ogut 0.2 FnneuENCY lHzl SPE,CTRA L ACCNLBRATION Iel 0.10 0.013 0.25 0.070 2.50 0.47 0 9.00 0.390 33.00 0.1 50 100.00 0.1 50 I S:\\Local\\PubsP734298 FENOC Perry\\3 1Q Report File\\R-009\\R1\\2734298-R-009, Rev 1 docx

2734298-R-009 Reaision L March 20, 20L4 Page 45 of 53 4.0 SCREENING EVALUATION In accordance with SPID, Section 3 (EPRI,20l3a), 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 charactefize the amplitude of the updated evaluation of seismic hazard at the PNPP Site. The screening evaluation is based upon a comparison of the GMRS with the horizontal SSE ground motion spectrum. 4.1 Rtsr Ev,tLu,q,TIoN ScnnBxING (1 ro 10 Hz) In the 1 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 6.0 Hz is characterized as broad banded. Spectral accelerations at some frequencies in the 1.0 to l0Hz frequency range exceed 0.4g. Therefore the PNPP is not classified as a Low Hazard site. However, the SSE, spectrum envelops the GMRS below 6.0H2. Accordingly, failure modes associated with low frequencies 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 Hrcn FnBeunNCy ScnBnNrNG (> 10 Hz) For a portion of the range above l0 Hz, the GMRS exceeds the horizontal SSE. The high frequency exceedances can be addressed in the risk evaluation discussed in,Section 4.1 above. Although safety equipment in PNPP was evaluated in the IPEEE, program, the review level earthquake (RLE) ground motions considered in the IPEEE does not have significant frequency content above l0 Hz. Moreover, the consideration of high-frequency vulnerability of S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734298 FENOC Peny\\3.1Q Report File\\R-009\\R1\\2734298-R-009, Rev l.docx AESConsulting

2734298-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 20L4 Page 46 of 53 components in the IPEEE was focused on "bad actor" relays mutually agreed to by the industry and the NRC, with known earthquake or shock sensitivity. These specific model relays, designated as low ruggedness relays, were identified in EPRI Report 7148 (EPRI, 1990), and EPRI Report NP-7147-SL (EPRI, lggla).Rather than considering high frequency capacity vs. 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 Report NP-7498 (EPRI, l99l), as well as more recent studies related to licensing activities for new plants (EPRI, 2007a and2007b), 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-frequency 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 SpnNr Funr, Pool Ev,tlulTtoN ScnnnNrNG (1 To 10 H'z) Inthe 1 to l0Hzpart of the response spectrum, the GMRS exceeds the horizontal SSE. Therefore, the plant screens in for a spent fuel pool evaluation. S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734258 FENOC Peny\\3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R1U734298-R-009, Rev. 1.docx AE$Gonsulting

2734298-R-009 Reaision 1. March 20, 2014 Page 47 of 53 5.0 INTERIM ACTIONS Based on the screening evaluation, the expedited seismic evaluation described in EPRI (2013b) is being performed as proposed in a letter to NRC dated April 9,2013 (ML13l 014379) and agreed to by NRC in a letter dated May 7, 201 3 (MLl3 106433 1). 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 PNPP. Therefore, the results do not call into question the operability or functionality of SSCs and are not reportable pursuant tol0 CFR 50.72, "Immediate notification requirements for operating nuclear power reactors," andl0 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 SafetylRisk 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 l}a/year for core damage frequency. The GI-199 Safety/Risk Assessment, based in part on information from the NRC's Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) program, indicates that no concern exists regarding adequate protection and that the current seismic design of operating reactors provides a safety margin to withstand potential earthquakes exceeding the original design basis. PNPP is included in the March 12,2014 risk estimates. Using the methodology described in the NEI letter, all plants were shown to be below l}'a lyear; thus, the above conclusions apply. S:\\Local\\Pubs9734298 FENOC Perry\\3. 1 Q Report File\\R-009\\R1U734298-R-009, Rev. 1.docx AESGonsulting

5.1 2734298-R-009 Reaision L March 20, 201.4 Page 48 of 53 Additionally, as requested in Enclosure I of the 50.54(f) letter (Item 5) the followingparagraphs provide insights from the PNPP NTTF Recommendation 2.3 walkdowns, and the IPEEE program. These programs further illustrate the plant seismic capacity. NTTF 2.3 W,q.LKDowNS In response to NTTF Recommendation 2.3, FENOC completed Seismic 2.3 walkdowns in September 2012 (FENOC,20L2). This walkdown identified no major anomalies. Condition reports were initiated as appropriate. Items that were not accessible during the initial walkdown were subsequently walked down during the following refueling outage. The walkdown of these additional items identified no potentially adverse findings (FENOC, 2013b). The 2.3 walkdown at one of FENOC's plants (Beaver Valley) was subsequently audited by NRC staff. The staff concuffed with the process, as well as the findings and conclusions. 5.2 IPBEE DESCRIPTION AND CAPACITY RBSPONSE SPECTRUM The IPEEE for PNPP is characlerized as a focused-scope SMA using the EPRI approach. It is based on the RLE ground motion defined by the NUREG/CR-0098 median rock spectral shape anchored to a PGA of 0.3g. The RLE spectrum is taken to represent the input ground motion at the foundation levels of major structures. The IPEEE HCLPF spectrum (IHS) is not used for screening. However, it is provided here for reference and to document the level of the beyond design basis (BDB) seismic ground motion for whichthe plant SSCs have been evaluated. Appendix B summarizes the elements of the IPEEE, following the IPEEE adequacy requirements in the SPID (EPRI, 2013a). The IPEEE concludes that the plant level HCLPF, controlled by the Diesel Generator Auxiliary Module and the Emergency Service Water Pump anchorage, is 0.309 PGA. Table 3-2 presents the 5-percent damped horizontal IHS spectral accelerations. The SSE, spectrum and the IHS in the horizontal direction are shown on Figure 5-1. S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734298 FENOC Perry\\3,1Q Report File\\R-009\\R1\\2734298-R-009, Rev. 1.docx fESGonsulting

2734298-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 201,4 Page a9 of 53 TABLE 5.1 IPEEE HORIZONTAL GROUND MOTION RESPONSE SPECTRUM X'OR PNPP FnneuENCY llIzl SpncrRAL AccnLERATroN lgl 0.10 0.015 0.25 0.098 r.64 0.635 8.00 0.635 33.00 0.300 100.00 0.300 10 Frequency (Hzl FIGURE 5-I SSE AND IPEEE RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR PNPP A brO Y C f r f ^ . i l, n Po Lg o (J(, 6 0.4 S Pt,o CL tn S:\\Locaf\\PubsV734298 FENOC Perry\\3 1Q Report File\\R-009\\R1\\2734298-R-009, Rev 1 docx rEs

2734298-R-009 Reaision'1. March 20, 20'l-4 Page 50 of 53

6.0 CONCLUSION

S In accordance with the 50.54(f) request for information letter a seismichazard and screening evaluation was performed for PNPP. 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, PNPP screens in for risk evaluation, a Spent Fuel Pool evaluation, and a High Frequency Confirmation. The GMRS exceeds the horizontal SSE both inthe I to l0Hzpart of the response spectrum and above l0 Hz. Although the PNPP IPEEE is a focused scope SMA, and is not used for screening, this report (Appendix B) performs the evaluation of the completed IPEEE. As demonstrated inAppendix B,the evaluation concludes thatthe IPEEE is of good quality and meets all the pre-requisites and the adequacy requirements in accordance with the SPID. 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 is currently on-going and is expected to be completed in accordance with the schedule for CEUS nuclear plants provided in the April 9,2013, letter from industry to the NRC (NEI, 2013) and agreed to by NRC in a letter dated May 7,2013, (ML131064331). AEgGqrsulting rCR S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734298 FENOC Perry\\3.1Q Report File\\R-009\\R1\\2734298-R-009, Rev. 1.docx

2734298-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 20L4 Page 5L of 53

7.0 REFERENCES

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., Batz\\e, M.L., and Kan, T.K., Investigations in Geophysics (SEG) No. 8, p. 135 - 17 l, 1993. EPRI, 1990, "Procedure for Evaluating Nuclear Power Plant Relay Seismic Functionality," Report 7148, Electric Power Research Institute, December 1990. EPRI, l99la, "seismic Ruggedness of Relays," Report NP-7147-SL, and Addendums, Electric Power Research Institute, August 1991. EPRI, l99lb, "Industry Approach to Severe Accident Policy Implementation," Report NP-7498, Electric Power Research Institute, November 1 99I. EPRI, l99lc, "A Methodology for Assessment of Nuclear Power Plant Seismic Margin (Revision l)," Technical Report NP-6041-SLR1, August lggl Electric Power Research Institute (1993), "Guidelines for determining design basis ground motions," Electric Power Research Institute, vol. l-5, EPRI TR-102293,1993. 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 inNuclear 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 1015 109, Electric Power Research Institute, October 2007. EPRI, 20l3a "Seismic Evaluation Guidance, Screening, Prioritizationand 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. Cqrsulting rct S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734298 FENOC Perry\\3.1Q Report File\\R-009\\R1\\2734298-R-009, Rev. 1.docx

2734298-R-009 Reaision 1-March 20, 2014 Page 52 of 53 EPRI, 20l3c, "EPRI (2004,2006) Ground-Motion Model (GMM) Review Project, Report 3002000717," Electric Power Research Institute, June 2013. Esteva, L. and Rosenblueth, E. (March 1964), "Espectros de temblores a distancias moderadas y grandes," Boletin Saciedad Mexicana de Ingenieria Sismica, II, No. 1. FENOC,2011, "Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (USAR)," Revision 17, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, 2011. FENOC,2012, "Peny Nuclear Power Plant Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report," Revision 1, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, November, 2012. FENOC,20l3a "Site Description for Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1Partial Submittal," Perr)'Nuclear Power Plant, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, September 12, 2013. FENOC,2013b, ("Addendum to Perry Nuclear Power Plant Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report," April 5,2013 (NRC ADAMS Accession Number MLI 3169A266), 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, 1990, "Effects of Lithology, Porosity and Shaliness on P-and S-Wave Velocities from Sonic Logs," Canadian Journal of Exploration Geophysics, Volume26, Nos. l &2,p.94-103, 1990. McGuire et a1.,2001, "Technical Basis for Revision of Regulatory Guidance on Design Ground Motions:Hazard-and Risk-consistent Ground Motion Spectra Guidelines", N{JREG/CR-6728. Norris, S.E., 1975, Geologic Structure of Near-surface Rocks in Western Ohio, Ohio Journal of Science 75(5): 225, 1975. NEI, 2013, Letter from Pietrangelo (NEI) to Skeen (NRC) with Attachments, "Proposed Path Forward for NTTF Recommendation2.l: Seismic Reevaluations," Nuclear Energy Institute, April 9,2013. NEI, 2014, Letter from Pietrangelo (NEI) to Leeds (NRC) with Attachments, "Seismic Risk Evaluations for Plants in the Central and Eastern United States," Nuclear Energy Institute, March 12" 2014. AESGonsulting rCR S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27%298 FENOC Perry\\3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R1U734298-R-009, Rev. 1.docx

2734298-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 201.4 Page 53 of 53 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, 2007a, "A Performance-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, 2007b, "Standard Review Plan: Section 3.7.2, Seismic System Analysis," Revision 3, NUREG-0800, United States Regulatory Commission, Washinglon, D.C., March 2007. NRC, 2007c, "Standard Review Plan: Section 3.7.1, Seismic Design Parameters," Revision 0, NUREG-0800, United States Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., March 2007. NRC, 20l0a, "Generic Issue 199 (Gl-199),Implications of Updated Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Estimates in Central and Eastern United States on Existing Plants, Safety/Risk Assessment," U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., August 2010 [MLl0027063e1. NRC, 2012a, "Central and Eastern United States Seismic Source Characterization for Nuclear Facilities," Vols. 1-6, NUREG-2115, United States Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., February 2012. NRC, 2012b, " 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 12,2012. Pickett, G.R., (Pickett),1963, "Acoustic Character Logs and their Applications in Formation Evaluatior," 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 betweenAcoustic Properties and the Petrographic Character of Carbonate Rocks," Geophysics, Volume 49,No. 10,

p. 1622-1636, 1984.

RIZZO,2Ul2I, "Integrated Software Tool for Probabilistic Seismic HazardAnalysis and User Manual Version 1. 1," Rev. 2, Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, April 2012. RIZZO,2013, "Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis and Ground Motion Response Spectra, PerryNPP, Seismic PRA Project," Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, April 19, 2013. Seed, H. Bolton, Idriss, I.X., and Kiefer, F. W., 1969, "Characteristics of Rock Motions during during Earthquakes," ASCE, JSMFD, 95, No. SM5. S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734298 FENOC Perry\\3.1 Q Report File\\R409\\R1U734298-R-009, Rev. 1.docx fE$Consulting

APPENDIXA NTTF 2.I SITE RESPONSE ANALYSIS PNPP SITE AEtGolrsulting rct S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734298 FENOC Perry\\3.1Q Report File\\R-009\\R1\\2734298-R409, Rev 1.docx

2734298-R-009 Reaision L March 20, 201.4 Page A2 of A1.1. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. APPENDIX A - NTTF 2.1 SITE RESPONSE ANALYSIS INPUTS AND RESULTS, PERRY NPP 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, profrles. 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 a coefficient of variation of 0. I for the entire depth of the profile. 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 Screening, Prioritization, and Implementation Details (SPID) (EPRI, 2013a) specifies the use of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) (1993) rock degradation curves for rock units such as found at the FENOC Site. These curves are used for the top 500 ft of rock. Below 500 ft damping for the bedrock is derived consistent with kappa estimates. Consistent with the SPID, 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 less than 3,000 ft thick the SPID document specifies use of a Q of 40 to estimate kappa; all three profiles at Perry are less than 3,000 ft thickness. In the top 500 ft the kappa estimates are based on using the low strain damping values from the EPRI rock curyes. 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. Tables A-I to A-7 provide the site response inputs consistent with these assessments of uncertainty and variability. Table A-S lists the resulting median amplification factors and the related sigma for seven selected frequencies and I 1 values of input hard rock peak ground acceleration (PGAs). Tables A-9 to A-11 list the resulting median amplification factors and the related sigma for three loading levels associated with Figures 2-6 and 2-7. AE$Consultlng rce 7. B. S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734298 FENOC Perry\\3.1Q Report File\\R-009\\R1\\2734298-R-009, Rev. 1.docx

2734298-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 2014 Page A3 af All. tl Drl (.) U)()

bI v.) b{ /i a G) I Lr()(,) () o !bI &(,) bI u) (l) lr .t) d. () a(,) c) a = lal \\o il z 0 ) i i E a ? 9 () ar.t o.r n ( ! a +t () F F cq q) ot-tr() D a-r. 9 C ^ J . N X' >. cd t,-o o d2 ^ c c l F 4 ' i. 9 o c { E r r g

• Ets E E =

O - H v . F t4t 6 r n & co I , H < s 0 ) F - = c-l

• 3 ;

(, ) O ; i r n v j 4 - r l ( ) ' n " FS> o t l F ^ J/ li 0 ) o t k O r r r o F lar j ( \\ v in O tlts c-I ,ii <

r o) t - -

c {

• a '

Y c a (. ) S a ) O J J z - i l < ) 4 " FFB F O 6 t l F - a o.l l4 fr C ) o I ) \\v Li \\ O E L c ) o t O \\ d S E lal A tl F c-l E co L l-l 9 i \\ a x < f Td bo a) c r, q -v() ta L< 9 o r JE \\ v F \\n _: ( \\ v_ rn tl B U E d 5 b o B s. g ,v ;i 3s t x o F q d Q _ F t ! q l! u)

• r

( I ) o J lar j J A + E Ir LJ c ) F i 6 a ? 9 ( ). A

• q >

N C g C) 0) ()() t-r th C) d q) ct) (t) !q)(,) l-c-.1 C) b{ L()B J a d A i n d ^ i . N C-'l - = A l ve h =, 9 a { - ' : H dE?E a ) . i

• . 2 = E

- - ^ G 9 9 -. - \\ v-t ' l F TY arl s I lar O) 3 - r E (,) (.).{ E v > v J 4 - r l Q v ) " F3B F 6 l 3 ^ J fr c ) o t L 9 a r \\ - F tn j: N V ta) O = tal I ,tr< tat o,) o, = a - Y U ) o s 0,) (l)i . ! 4 - t l c ) c ) " F=F r< ao o t l . N Lt b0 c E . o E a\\ CE M A <f lr ( ) o r \\ v H c a ' O (\\l i.l A tl B 6 t E ca ( ) A l a o \\ r 1 l { ) / n 10 ar c / ) t F J(J t!

• r 9 o r r-1 0

r o F rar J in-; tl U E ( 5 b 0 9 o c ! ;r 3s x b 0 = o o J e d + F = ! s Hfr fr C ) o I la) j tl B ^ \\ t c o E t\\.l

0) i-r 6 a 9 \\ O ai "A q.r o

A C g c) ah f r'l (n O (t)-

R .N - = A L Vu 9. 9 (\\.1 H r, O rCj ' i l N g FE c t r 9 - E ../. ca c.) I q = < a.) i \\

• 3 ' q, o.

! ) ( ) - E U ),, J - r l ffF l -

• o t l F ^

J L o o I o\\ cd C \\ E ro r< 9 a r t * : ( \\ v-: rar A l l () () a Z (,) () O. z () (J a z (.) () o P z 6 = i a?v g c a b0 o) 4, 6 .54 C) f r l L< O x r tat ( \\ v-: in A tl B 3 Fp Z a ()() a() d a C) a () C,) oLr O C) c ) v U) rn F 0.) t.1 t< O c ) Y ( E rn b{(") B o-ss a r?, rn a. F C) , y '. Q ( l ) ^ o v c ! H lr) hI 0) = EE s >3! r E - EA 6 E 3 o o

'

c - l x = } 4 E v ,zA FE> a " Fp Az , E -TB dz ' i A l-,{ V E F r 1 u ) dP-rd F t-a AESConsulting S:\\Local\\Pubst2734298 FENOC Peny\\3.1Q Report File\\R-009\\R1U734298-R-0O9, Rev. 1.docx

2734298-R-009 Reaision 1, March 20, 201.4 Page Aa of All TABLE 4.2 SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY [ftlsl PROFILBS L.l,vnn ElnvlrroN lftl PRonu.n P1 Dnprn lftl Pnoprln P2 Dnprn lftl Pnoprln P3 DnprH lftl 56s 4172 0 4150 0 s488 0 510 4772 55 4150 55 5488 55 510 5273 55 4585 55 6064 55 392 5273 r73 4585 173 6064 173 392 5203 t73 4524 n3 5983 173 -470 5203 1035 4524 1035 s983 1035 -470 6187 I 035 5380 1035 7ll5 1035 -660 6r87 1225 s380 1225 7tt5 1225 -660 6r87 t225 s380 1225 7 lr5 r225 -109 6r87 1274 5380 1274 7tr5 t274 -709 9200 1274 9t65 t274 9200 1274 -970 9165 I 535 -970 9r65 I 535 -980 9165 1545 -980 9t65 t545 -1030 9165 1595 -1030 9165 I s95 -l 130 9165 1695 -l 130 9165 1695 - l 193 9165 1758 - l 193 7458 t758 -1455 7458 2020 -1455 62t9 2020 -l 830 6219 2395 9200 2395 S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734298 FENOC Perry\\3.1Q Report File\\R-009\\R1\\2734298-R-009, Rev. 1.docx AESCqrsulting

2734298-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 20L4 Page A5 of A1.1. TABLE A-3 KAPPA (K1) USED WITH BEST ESTIMATE PROFILE Pl TABLE A-4 KAPPA (k1) USBD WrrH LOWER RANGE PROFILF.PZ ABgConsulting rct V, [ftlsl Pl rlftl Dnpru ro Top tftl D,rur [%l k1 a k1 lsl 4772 55 0 3.20 15.63 0.000738 5273 118 55 3.20 15.63 0.001432 5243 327 t73 3.20 15.63 0.004022 5203 535 500 t.25 40.00 0.002s7 l 6187 190 1035 r.25 40.00 0.000768 6187 49 t225 t.25 40.00 0.000198 Halfspace t274 0.006000 Total kappa 0.01 57 V, [ftls] P2 rlfrl Dnprn ro Top tftl Dmrn [%] kl a kt [s] (0.6) 4150 55 0 3.20 15.63 0.000848 4585 118 55 3.20 t5.63 0.001647 4524 327 t73 3.20 15.63 0.004626 4524 535 500 t.25 40.00 0.002956 5380 190 1035 1.25 40.00 0.000883 5380 49 r225 1.25 40.00 0.000228 9t65 261 t27 4 1.25 40.00 0.0007 12 9165 l0 1 535 1.25 40.00 0.000027 9165 50 I 545 r.25 40.00 0.000 r 36 9t65 100 I 595 1.25 40.00 0.000273 9165 63 1695 t.25 40.00 0.000172 7458 262 I 758 1.25 40.00 0.000878 6219 375 2020 t.25 40.00 0.001507 Halfspace 2395 1.25 0.006000 Total kappa 0.0209 S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27%298 FENOC Perry\\3.1Q Report File\\R-0O9\\R1U734298-R-009, Rev. 1.docx

2734298-R-009 Reaision'l-March 20, 20L4 Page A6 of A1.1. TABLE A-5 KAPPA Oq USED WrTH LOWER RANGE PROFILEPZ TABLB A-6 KAPPA (K1) USED WITH UPPER RANGE PROFILE P3 AESContulting rCR Vs [ftlsl P2 rlftl DBprH ro Top [ftl Dmm[%] l{2 a k2 [sl (0.4) 4150 55 0 4.80 r0.42 0.001272 4585 118 55 4.80 r4.42 0.00247 l 4524 327 173 4.80 t0.42 0.006939 4524 535 500 2.30 21.7 4 0.005439 s380 190 l03s 2.30 21.7 4 0.001625 5380 49 1225 2.30 21.74 0.000419 9165 261 127 4 2.30 21.74 0.0013 10 9r65 10 I 535 2.30 21.74 0.000050 9t6s 50 1545 2.30 21.74 0.0002s 1 9165 100 1595 2.30 21.74 0.000502 9165 63 1695 2.30 21.74 0.0003 16 7458 262 1758 2.30 21.7 4 0.00 r 616 6219 375 2020 2.30 21.7 4 0.00277 4 Halfspace 239s 0.006000 Total kappa 0.03 10 V5 [ftlsl P3 rlftl DnprH ro Top lftl Dmrn [%l kl a kl [sl (0.6) 5488 55 0 3.20 15.63 0.000641 6064 118 55 3.20 1s.63 0.00 1245 5983 327 173 3.20 15.63 0.003498 5983 ) J ) s00 r.25 40.00 0.002235 7lr5 190 1035 r.25 40.00 0.000668 7tt5 49 t225 t.25 40.00 0.0a0fi2 Halfspace 1274 0.006000 Total kappa 0.0145 S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27il298 FENOC Perry\\3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R1U734298-R-009, Rev. 1.docx

2734298-R-009 Reaision 1. March 20, 2014 Page A7 of A1L TABLB A-7 KAPPA (k2) USED WrTH UppER RANGB PROFILB P3 V, [ftlsl P3 rlfrl DBpru ro Top [ftl Dmnr [%] k2 a k2 lsl (0.4) 5488 55 0 1.60 31.25 0.000321 6064 118 55 1.60 31.25 0.000623 5983 327 173 1.60 31.25 0.001749 s983 535 s00 0.40 125.00 0.00071s 7tts 190 1035 0.40 125.00 0.000214 7tt5 49 1225 0.40 125.00 5.5 I E-05 Halfspace 127 4 0.006000 Total kappa 0.0097 S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27%298 FENOC Perry\\3.1Q Report File\\R{0g\\R,lU734298-R-009, Rev. 1.docx fESGonsutrlng

2734298-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 201,4 Page A8 of All E? c\\l I f r l o\\ A I rr'l co I co I f r l la) J I f r l \\o J I f r l oo .J I f r l I f r l t-- I ca c.l I f r l co I f r l o\\ aO z X i r E < + r r l \\n -r f r I t+ + frl cr)- -r r! N-T fr.l c{- + T r'l + T r l -i + f !'l -i + f r l o\\ + r Y l r'- -r r!\\o s E in,; C.l I f r I 1.) c"l(\\ ol I f 1 l Ro\\ I f r l.+ 9 I f r " l t\\ c"; I lal co+ I a 9 ra) I rrl c-t tr- '1' Hco + f r l oo c.l -t-f r l.+\\ + r r ) o\\ c.i

• ?

EZ I rt'l I f r l svl I f r ' l oo U? I T r l o.l J I f r l f'- 9 t lJ.] \\ I tf.] t-\\ I o\\ I r r l \\o c.i I t\\.!(\\ I f r l o\\ ct) t\\ < tr. E< =u 0 e I r r ' ! caq I r r'l q I t r'l o\\ I r r l q I I r r'! c{ I f r l olq I r r l coq I + I f r " l\\o q I F] oo J z E < + T r l t J -r f r l I f r l C-l o\\ o\\ I f r'l oo c-oi I f r l t.- \\o o\\ I T r l \\o Lar O. I f r l \\o + oi I T r'1 c{ a-l o\\ I f r l o\\ I f r l o\\ r-od I Ho\\ rn od z E< -r f r lc.l + f r l oo q + f r l o\\ q + Tr "l Olc! + f r l .l + frl o\\ q + r r'1 o\\ ol + f r l a? + T r l a? + f r ) c.'l + f r l cl 0 sE c\\l I f r'l F-c.i I f 1 l ao-I f r'l 6i I + !+ I co (al I I'r'1 aO09 F-I r r l ral c-o\\ -r ril taln + r r l rrrq + r r l c-n c.l +r!t-c'i 0 N A U? co I f Y l $n (\\l I f r l c-oq c{ I f r l oo 6i c\\ I t!c-F-+ c\\ I r r l o\\ lrl \\Ci N I f r l o\\..) oo I frl C\\.l I frl trr.+ I f r I aaq I f r l c-ln (\\l I ril aoo c.i < I IF< il3 I co ao I f r l v.'! C-l I f r'l o\\ tr-e.i I f r l q C-l I f r l ca I f r l c{ cJ ca I (\\.lc? ca I lalv? co I 14 t'-\\co I + I f r l Nq + < EE< E3 Ir!o\\- I r r l oo-I f r l oo-t tLl I f r l oo-I f r l I f r l Iu.1 cl I f r l ol I f r l en cJ I sc..l z E < + f r'l I f r l sf ca tr-t trl o\\ \\CJ I f r ) o\\ lr) \\i I r r l o\\ c., I rr'l c.t cJ \\o I t!r'- \\ci I r r'l f'-\\ in I f r ' l a\\l v? lal I r r'l oo cJ \\n I f r l lrl z = t r E < + f r l 00v? + r r l oo at? + trl 00 v? + r r'l oo ,4 -r f r'l oo lal + r r l o\\ v1 + rr'l o\\ ,a? + f r l 9 -r f r'l 9 + r r l 9 + frl C-l 9 a s6 l,n N c\\ I f r I c.l I fr"l f-J I frl \\o cl c-t I r r l co F-+ I f r l o\\ trr I f r l t.- o\\ + rr) c\\t cl + f r'1 oq -l-rr'1 ao tal c.i + Hcoq c?) + f r'l o\\ oq ca N A I - 4 ?1 rii c..l Ir!\\on c.l I f r l C-l\\ cf) C.l I f r l \\o oq in Ir! J I f r l R I f r l oq I r r l cl c\\ Ir r ) el cr) I r r'l c.l.l s I f r ) (".! lal I f r l.tr cl \\o < h=< ilz N I f r l oo c.! o\\ IrI] n I f r l o\\ 9 I f r'l caq I t{ F-C-l I frl 00 c.i I f r l tr-c..l c.i 1 f r l.+n c\\ I r r l oo v?(\\ I f r l ao\\(\\ I f r l \\o oq c..l < t L E3 a3 I IJ.] .Av? I r r l +1,? I r i l co ,Q I f r I ,q I f r l oon I r r'l \\o + I f r l tal=q I f r l n Ir! n I f r'1 =q I f r l n z E < + f r'l in J Ir r l 00q oo Irrl c.)r'- tr-I t- \\o I f r l c{ ,. i I f r ' l oo oq in I r r l +9 rar Irr) \\o cl in Ir! in I T r ) c-t oq s I r r l \\o 9s z E < + f r l ca + co -r rq ao J + r t ) ra -r f r l ca + rr) ca j + l+{ ca T r r'l =f, f f r l +- + r r l s-T Ht-N - Irl o0 O 4 = u ) N I f r l c-t c..l I f r l ra! Rtrl I fr) tal-I tf.,l C.l ta) c'i Iu.] r-ct; I f r l oo =q tal I l'r) ao t- -T-f r I + f r l v? -r f r l talq + l r l t--.1 ot 0 H A uj (\\l ol l f r ' l \\o c.i (\\t I f r l lal oo 6 I f r l +- I rr"l ro e.i I f r I aoo c..i I f r l aO\\co I rr'1 o\\ i.)+ I f r l r'- I T r l c-lq + frl c.t + f r I .+ cl f-l F lrla Fr Frz Fr tl -lAv,= 0 6z I A<ts I-1 !-- il l, AZ

\\

\\s t r \\ r

, ' i \\ -Tt j: { t \\ \\ t. \\ S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734298 FENOC Peny\\3.'lQ Report File\\R-009\\R1U734298-R409, Rev. 1.docx 2734298-R-009 Reaision L March 20,201-4 Page CL2 of C1,2 -.*,.*..-i l-:::: \\l'.. \\ ir-N ! \\ 'i. \\ \\ ir \\ 1.E-01 1.E-02 1.E-03 1,. E-04 1.E-05 1.E-06 L.E-O7 1.E-08 0.01 0.10 1.00 L0.00 0.5 Hz Spectral Acceleration (g) -mean_fdn Sth_fdn - 16th . -50th fdn - .84th fdn - .95th FIGURE C-4 PNPP MEAN AND FRACTILE HAZARD CURVES AT RB FOUNDATION LEVEL (sA AT 0.5IJZ) (,co=Eo L II o (J g l!T'oo (Jx ul IE=trc _fdn _fdn fESGonsulting FC.e S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27%298 FENOC Perry\\3.1Q Report File\\R-009\\R1\\2734298-R-009, Rev. 1.docx}}