Text

Firstenergy Nuclear Operating Co., Enclosure C to L-14-120 - 2734296-R-009, Rev. 1, NTTF 2.1 Seismic Hazard for Screening Report, Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Ottawa County, Ohio
	ML14090A148
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
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 2734296-R-009, Rev 1
	Download: ML14090A148 (86)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:Enclosure C L-14-120 NTTF 2.1 Seismic Hazard and Screening Report for Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Ottawa County, Ohio (85 pages follow)

ABSConsulting Paul C. Rizzo Ax.xiates. Inc. EIiGINEERS /CONS(JI-TANTS / CM NTTF 2.1 Seismic Hazard and Screening Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Ottawa Gounty, Ohio March 20,2014 Preparedfor: FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Gompany 2734296-R-009 Revision 1 Report ABSG Consulting lnc.. 300 Commerce Drive, Suite 200. lrvine, California 92602

2734296-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 20L4 Page 2 of 57 REVISION l REPORT NTTF 2.1 SEISMIC IJ.AZARD AND SCREENING REPORT DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION OTTAWA COUNTY, OHIO ABSG ConsulrrNc INC. Rnponr No. 2734296-R-009 RnvrsroN I RIZZO Rnponr No. R10 12-4737 MlncH 20,2014 ABSG CousuLTrNG INC. P,q.ur C.Rirzzo AssocIATES, INC. ABSGottsulting rct S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R1\\2734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx

2734296-R-009 Rnision 1. March 20, 2014 Page 3 of 57 Report Name: Date: Revision No.: Independent Technical Reviewer: APPROVALS NTTF 2.1 SeismicHazard and Screening Report Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Ottawa County, Ohio March 20,2014 I Approval by the responsible manager signifies that the document is complete, all required reviews are complete, and the document is released for use. Originators: 0312012014 Date Digitally signed by Richard Quittmeyer DN: cn=Richard Quittmeyer, o=Paul C. Rizzo -' Assocaates. Inc., ou=Seismology, email=richard.quittmeyer@rizzoassoc.com, c=Us Date: 2014.03.20 16:25:17 {4'00' Jeffrey K. Kimball Principal Seismologist A.j fr \\.1,,,,\\rl l ' \\ - Digitally signed by Jose E Blanco Beltran DN: cn=Jose E Blanco Beltran. o=Paul C Rizzo Associates, ou=5eismic, email=jose.blanco@rizzoassoc.com, c=us Date: 2014.03.20 l7:01 :25 -04'00' 0312012014 Date 0312012014 Date 0312012014 Date 0312012014 Date 0312012014 Date Josd E. Blanco, Ph.D. Technical Director )rJr=* Va, Oigitally signed by Nishikant Vaidya ON: cn=Nishikant Vaidya, o=Paul C, Rizo Associates, ou=V.P. Advanced Engineering Proiectt email=nish.vaidya@rizoassoc.com, c=U5 Date: 2014.03.20 1 7:06:02 -04'00' Nishikant R. Vaidya, Ph.D., P.E. Vice President - Advanced Engineering Projects Richard C. Quittmeyer, Ph.D. Vice President - Seismology Nr*U Va" Digitally signed by Richard Quittmeyer DN: cn=Richard Quittmeyer, o=Paul C. Rizzo ' Associates, lnc., ou=Seismology, email=richard.quittmeyer@rizzoassoc.com, c=US Date: 20 I 4.03.20 I 6:25:zl4 -(X'00' Project Manager: Approver: Oigitally signed by Nishikant Vaidya ON: cn=Nishikant Vaidya, o=Paul C. Rizzo Associates, ou=V.P. Advanced Engineering Prcjtrts, emaif =nish-vaidya@rizoassoc.c om, c=US Date: 20 1 4.03.20 1 7 ;06122 -O4' OO' Nishikant R. Vaidya, Ph.D., P.E. ident - Ad ed Engineering Projects R. Roche. Vice President S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R4O9\\R1\\2734296-R-0O9, Rev. 1.docx AF$GonsuEing

2734296-R-009 Reaision 1, March 20, 2014 Pnge 4 of 57 Report Name: Revision No.: CHANGE MANAGEMENT RECORI) NTTF 2.1 Seismic Hazard and Screening Report Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Ottawa County, Ohio I RBvrsroN No. Dlrn DBscnrprroNs oF CH,q,Ncns/AnFncrno Pacns PnRsoN AUTUORIZING 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 Diqniry!{dbvMdhni vri4. Nr<{. !u4rc h,e ( l &vf.4hdtur4hF^. ffi 'i1,.",,,,,,,,, Nishikant R. Vaidya 6\\'t---' \\..\\u -ahomas R. Roche Note: tPerson authorizing change shall sign here for the latest revision. S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R112734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx AESConsulting

2734296-R-009 Reaision L March 20,201.4 Page 5 of 57 TABLB OF CONTENTS PAGE LIST OF TABLES ...............7 LIST OF FIGURES ..............8 LIST OF ACRONYMS ................9 I.O INTRODUCTION ......I3 l.l Suvrr,rany oF LrceNstNc Bnsrs. .........14 1.2 SulruaRy oF GnorrNn MouoN RespoNsE SpECTRUM AND Scns,pNrNG RESULTS ............14 2.0 1.3 OncaNtzATIoN oF THrs Rpponr. ..,...........15 SEISMICHAZARD REEVALUATION .....16 2.1 REcroNnL AND Locnl cEot-ocy........... ..........16 2.2 Pnoenert-rsrrc Sersvrc Hnznnn ANnlysrs.... .....17 2.3 2.2.1 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis Results .............17 2.2.2 Base-Rock SeismicHazardCurves ...19 Strp RpspoNsn Evnr-uArroN .............21 2.3.L Description of Subsurface Materials and Properties...................22 2.3.2 Development of Base-Case Profiles and Nonlinear Material Properties........... ...25 2.3.3 Randomization of Base Case Profiles .............32 2.3.4 Input Fourier Amplitude Spectra........ .............33 2.3.5 Site Response Methodology ..............34 2.3.6 Amplification Factors ..........34 3.0 2.4 CoNrnol Pomr Sersl,rrc HnznRn Cunvps .....40 2.5 CoNrnol Porur RespoNss SppcrnA........... ....42 PLANT DESIGN BASIS GROUND MOTION..... .....,45 3.1 SSE DescntprloN or SpecrRAL Suapp ............45 3.2 SSE CoNrnol PorNr ElpvnrroN........ .............47 SCREENING EVALUATION ........48 4.1 Rrsr EvaluarroN ScnnrNrnc (l ro 1}Hz) ....48 4.2 HtcH FnEquENcv ScnpENrNG (> 10 Hz)....... ...48 4.0 AE$Gonsrtting rCR S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R{O9\\R1\\2734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx

2734296-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 2014 Page 6 of 57 5.0 6.0 7.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 4.3 SppNr Fupr-Poor-EvaluRrtoN ScnEpNrNG (1 ro lOHz) ...........49 INTERIM ACTIONS. ..............50 5.1 NTTF 2.3 WelKDowNS .................51 5.2 IPEEE DESCRIPTION AND CAPACITY RESPONSE SPECTRUM ...............51 CONCLUSIONS .......53 REFERENCES ....54 APPENDICES: APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C NTTF 2.I SITE RESPONSE ANALYSIS EVALUATION OF DBNPS IPEEE SUBMITTAL REACTOR BUILDING MEAN AND FRACTILE HAZARD CURVES DBNPS SITE AESConsulting rC? S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27%296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R{O9\\R1\\2734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx

2734296-R-009 Reaision L March 20, 20L4 Page 7 of 57 TABLE NO. TABLE 2-I TABLE2-2 TABLE 2-3 TABLF,2.4 TABLE 2-5 TABLE 2-6 TABLE2-7 TABLE 3-1 TABLE 5-I LIST OF TABLES TITLE PAGE MEAN SEISMICHAZARD AT HARD ROCK DBNPS SITE ..............21 SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY AND UNIT ELEVATIONS AND DEPTHS........... ..............24 SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY AND UNIT THICKNESSES . DBNPS SITE .........27 BASE-CASE Vs PROFILES, DBNPS SITE ....30 KAPPA VALUES AND WEIGHTS USED IN SITE

RESPONSE

ANALYSIS ..........32 DBNPS MEAN CONTROL POINT (RB FOUNDATION) SEISMIC HAZARD AT SELECTED SPECTRAL FREQUENCTES ..............4r DBNPS s%.DAMPED UNIFORM HAZARD RESPONSE SPECTRA AND GMRS AT CONTROL POINT ..........43 SSE HORIZONTAL GROLIND MOTION RESPONSE SPECTRUM FOR DBNPS ....46 IPEEE HORIZONTAL GROUND MOTION RESPONSE SPECTRUM FOR DBNPS ................52 AB$Gottsulting rCR S:\\Local\\Pubs\\279296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R{O9\\R1\\2734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx

2734296-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 201.4 Page I of 57 FIGURB 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 DBNPS MEAN SEISMICHAZARD AT HARD ROCK.............20 STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN LINDERLYING THE DBNPS SITE .........23 BASE-CASE Vs PROFILES, DBNPS SITE .....29 DBNPS SITE AMPLIFTCATION FACTORS, BASE. CASE PROFILE (PI), EPRI ROCK G/GMAX AND DAMPING, KAPPA I, I-CORNER SOURCE MODEL.............36 DBNPS SITE AMPLIFICATION FACTORS, BASE. CASE PROFILE (PI), LINEAR ROCK G/GMAX AND DAMPING, KAPPA I, 1-CORNER SOURCE MODEL.............38 DBNPS MEAN CONTROL POINT (RB FOUNDATION) SEISMI C HAZARD AT SELECTED SPECTRAL FREQUENCTES .........4r CONTROL POINT LINIFORM HAZARD RESPONSE SPECTRA AT MEAN ANNUAL FREQUENCIES OF E,XCEEDANCE OF 1X1O-4 AND 1XIO-5, AND GROLTND MOTION RESPONSE SPECTRUM AT DBNPS ..........44 SAFE SHUTDOWN EARTHQUAKE GROUND MOTTON SPECTRA ................47 SSE AND IPEEE RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR DBNPS.............52 fEtGonsulting rC? S:\\Local\\Pubs\\279296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R1\\2734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx

2734296-R-009 Reaision 1, March 20, 201-4 Page 9 of 57 ACI AHEX AISC ANSI API ASCE ASME ASTM AWWA BDB BE CEUS CEUS.SSC COV DBNPS DF DRS ECC_AM EL EPRI ERM-N ERM-S ESEP FENOC FLEX ft ft/s g LIST OF ACRONYMS AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE ATLANTIC HIGHLY EXTENDED CRUST AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD INSTITUTE AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVI ENGINEER AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATED BEYOND DESIGN BASIS BEST ESTIMATE CENTRAL AND EASTERN UNITED STATES CENTRAL AND EASTERN UNITED STATES SEISMIC SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION DAVIS BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION DESIGN FACTOR DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRA EXTENDED CONTINENTAL CRUST _ ATLANTIC MARGIN ELEVATION ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE EASTERN RIFT MARGIN FAULT NORTHERN SEGMENT EASTERN RIFT MARGIN FAULT SOUTHERN SEGMENT EXPEDITED SEISMIC EVALUATION PROCESS FIRSTENERGY NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY DIVERSE AND FLEXIBLE COPING STRATEGIES FEET FEET PER SECOND GRAVITY fE$Cqrsulting rce S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27342% FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R1t2734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx

2734296-R-009 Reaision L March 20,201,4 Page'L0 of 57 GIP GMM GMPE GMRS HCLPF HZ IBEB ICBO IHS IPEEE ISG ISRS km km/s LB LMSM M MAFE MESE.N MESE.W MIDC-A MIDC_B MIDC-C MIDC-D MMI MYA NAP NEI LIST OF ACRONYMS (coNTINUBD) GENERIC IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM GROUND MOTION MODEL GROTJND MOTION PREDICTION EQUATIONS GROUND MOTION RESPONSE SPECTRUM HIGH CONFIDENCE OF LOW PROBABILITY OF FAILURE HERTZ ILLINOIS BASIS EXTENDED BASEMENT INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFICIALS IPEEE HCLPF SPECTRUM INDIVIDUAL PLANT EXAMINATION OF EXTERNAL EVENTS INTERIM STAFF GUIDANCE IN-STRUCTURE

RESPONSE

SPECTRA KILOMETERS KILOMETER PER SECOND LOWER BOUND LUMPED MASS STICK MODELS MAGNITUDE MEAN ANNUAL FREQUENCY EXCEEDANCE MESOZOIC AND YOTINGER EXTENDED CRUST - NARROW MESOZOIC AND YOUNGER EXTENDED CRUST _ WIDE MIDCONTINENT.CRATON ALTERNATIVE A MIDCONTINENT-CRATON ALTERNATIVE B MIDCONTINENT-CRATON ALTERNATIVE C MIDCONTINENT-CRATON ALTERNATIVE D MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY MILLION YEARS NORTHERN APPALACHIANS NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE fF$Gonsulting rCR S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27%296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R-009\\R1\\2734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx

2734296-R-009 Reaision L March 20, 2014 Page 17. of 57 NEP NFSM NMESE-N NMESE.W NPP NRC NTTF NUREG NUREG/CR PEZ_N PEZ-W Pf PGA PSHA RB RG RLE RLME RR RR-RCG RVT S SDC SER SEWS SLR SMA SPID SPRA LIST OF ACRONYMS (coNTTNUED) NON-EXCEEDANCE S PROBABILITY NEW MADRID FAULT SYSTEM NON-MESOZOIC AND YOUNGER EXTENDED CRUST _NARROW NON-MESOZOIC AND YOUNGER EXTENDED CRUST _ WIDE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT LTNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION TECHNICAL REPORT NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CONTRACTOR REPORT PALEOZOIC EXTENDED CRUST NARROW PALEOZOIC EXTENDED CRUST WIDE TARGET PERFORMANCE LEVEL PEAK GROLIND ACCELERATION PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS REACTOR BUILDING REGULATORY GUIDE REVIEW LEVEL EARTHQUAKE REPEAT LARGE MAGNITUDE EARTHQUAKE REELFOOT RIFT REELFOOT RIFT INCLUDING THE ROUGH CREEK GRABEN RANDOM VIBRATION THEORY SECONDS SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORIES SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT SEISMIC EVALUATION WORKSHEETS ST. LAWRENCE RIFT ZONE SEISMIC MARGIN ASSESSMENT SCREENING, PRIORITIZATION, AND IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS SEISMIC PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT AESGonsuEing rct S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R1\\2734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx

2734296-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20,20L4 Page 12 of 57 SPT SQUG SRSS SSC SSE SSEL SSI STUDY-R UB UHRS USAR USI vp V, LIST OF ACRONYMS (coNTTNUED) STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SEISMIC QUALIFICATION UTILITY GROUP SQUARE ROOT OF THE SUM OF THE SQUARES SYSTEM, STRUCTURE, AND COMPONENTS SAFE SHUTDOWN EARTHQUAKE SAFE SHUTDOWN EQUIPMENT LIST SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION STUDY REGION UPPER BOUND UNIFORM HAZARD RESPONSE SPECTRA UPDATED SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT UNRESOLVED SAFETY ISSUE PRESSURE WAVE VELOCITY SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY fBgConsuEing rCR S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27342% FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R1\\2734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx

2734296-R-009 Reaision 1, March 20, 2014 Page 13 of 57 NTTF 2.1 SEISMIC IJAZARD AND SCREENING REPORT DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION OTTAWA COUNTY, OHIO

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Following the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) resulting from the March lI,20l l, 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, 2012a) that requests information to assure that these recommendations are addressed by all United States NPPs. The 50.54(f) letter requests that licensees and holders of construction permits under 10 CFR Part 50 reevaluate the seismic hazards at their sites against present-day NRC requirements. Depending on the comparison between the reevaluated seismic hazard and the current design basis, the result is either no further risk evaluation or the performance of a seismic risk assessment. Risk assessment approaches acceptable to the NRC staff include a seismic probabilistic risk assessment (SPRA), or a seismic margin assessment (SMA). Based upon the risk assessment results, the NRC staff will determine whether additional regulatory actions are necessary. This Report provides the information requested in Items I throughT of the "Requested Information," section and Attachment I of the 50.54(0 letter (NRC, Z}L}a)pertaining to NTTF Recommendation 2.1 for the Davis Besse Nuclear Power Station (DBNPS). DBNPS is located on Lake Erie in Ottawa County, Ohio. It consists of one, 925 megawatt (MW) pressurized water reactor unit. The Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) was designed by Babcock and Wilcox. Bechtel Power Corporation designed the balance of plant and served as the construction manager. The plant began commercial operation in July 1978, as stated in the Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR), (Toledo Edison, 2012). S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R1\\2734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx ABSGonsulting

2734296-R-009 Renision 1. March 20, 2014 Page 1.4 of 57 In providing the information contained here, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) has followed the guidance provided in the Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Screening, Prioritization, and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.l: Seismic (Electric Power Research Institute [EPRI], 2013a). The Augmented Approach, Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima NTTF Recommendation 2. I : Seismic (EPRI, 201 3b), has been developed as the process for evaluating, if required, critical plant equipment as an interim action to demonstrate additional plant safety margin prior to performing the complete plant seismic risk evaluations. Reference is made to FENOC's Partial Submittal (FENOC,2Al3a) summarizingthe site geologic and geotechnical information. The "Description of Subsurface Materials and Properties," and the "Development of Base-Case Profiles and Nonlinear Material Properties" presented in FENOC, (2013a) are repeated here for completeness. 1.1 Suunn,tRy oF LICENSING B,rsts The original geologic and seismic siting investigations for DBNPS were performed in accordance with Appendix A to I 0 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 (SSC). The Category I SSCs are identified in Table 3.2-l of the USAR (Toledo Edison, 2012). 1.2 Surrrpr^a.ny oF GRoUND Morrox RnspoxsE SpECTRUM AND ScnnnnING RESULTS In response to the 50.54(f) letter (NRC, 2012a) and following the guidance provided in the SPID (EPRI, 2013a), a seismichazard reevaluation for DBNPS was performed. For screening purposes, a Ground Motion Response Spectrum (GMRS) was developed. Based on the results of the screening evaluation, DBNPS screens in for risk evaluation, a Spent Fuel Pool evaluation, and a High Frequency Confirmation. In the 1 to l0 Hertz (Ht) part of the response spectrum, the GMRS exceeds the horizontal SSE and above 10 Hzthe GMRS also exceeds the horizontal SSE. AESConculting rct S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27%2% FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R{09\\R1\\2734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx

2734296-R-009 Reaision L March 20, 201-4 Page 1.5 of 57 1.3 Onc.lNtzATIoN oF THrs Rnponr The remainder of this Report is organized as follows: Section 2,0provides the Seismic Hazard Reevaluation that was performed for the DBNPS Site, including the probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) for hard-rock site conditions, the site response evaluation, seismichazard at the SSE control point, andthe derivation ofthe GMRS. Section 3.0provides a summary of the DBNPS 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 DBNPS and Section 6.0 provides conclusions. S:\\Locat\\Pubs\\27A2% FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\RQO9\\R1\\2734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx ABSGonsulting

2734296-R-009 Reaision 1, March 20, 2014 Page 1"6 of 57 2.0 SEISMIC HAZARD REEVALUATION The DBNPS Site is located on the southwestern shore of Lake Erie in Ottawa County, Ohio. It lies inthe Lake Plains sub-province of the Central Low Land Physiographic province. The Lake Plains sub-province is nearly flat and has poor surface drainage characteristics. The Site bedrock consists of horizontally stratified, sedimentary, argillaceous dolomite containing interbedded gypsum, anhydrite, and shale of the Tymochtee Formation. Approximately 15 feet (ft) of glacial tills and glaciolacustrine deposits overlie the Site bedrock. The USAR (Toledo Edison,2012, Appendix 2C) states that, based on historic records, the intensity felt at the Site is less than Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) V. Additionally, no earthquakes of epicentral intensity greater than MMI V have occurred within 50 miles of the Site. The study of the historic regional and local earthquakes concludes thata site intensity of "...MM VI should be considered to have a small probability of occurring, and that it is improbable, but possible,that earthquakes be felt at the Site with the intensity of a medium MM VII (7.5)...". Further, based on the analysis of regional and local geologic structural features, the USAR concludes that with the exception of the Findlay Arch, the Site is not affected by other regional or by local geologic structural features. Category I SSCs are designed for a safe shutdown due to horizontal PGA at the rock surface at the base of the foundation level of l5 percent of gravity (0.15g). 2.1 RncroNAL AND Local cnoI,ocy The geologic strata in the region result from alternating episodes of deposition and erosion during the Paleozoic and the subsequent glacial stages during the Pleistocene. The glaciolacustrine deposits overlie glacial till deposits, Pale ozoic sedimentary rocks, and deep basement igneous and metamorphic rocks of the Precambrian. The nominal plant grade elevation (EL) is 583 ft. The bedrock at the Site is a soft to hard, thinly bedded to massive, laminated, and argillaceous dolomite of the Tymochtee Formation. The top of bedrock varies from EL 560 to 540 ft. The local sedimentary bedrock exposures have a very slight dip. The base of the Reactor Building (RB) is founded in the bedrock at EL 540 ft. S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R1\\2734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx tE$Gonsulting

2734296-R-009 Reaision L March 20, 2A1.4 Page L7 of 57 Based on the pre-glacial geologic history of the region described by Hough (1958), during the Paleozoic Era more than 10,000 ft of sediments accumulated in the Michigan and the Illinois basins. These sediments consisted of sands, calcareous material, and clays deposited by advancing and receding seas during the Late Cambrian, and continuing into the Ordovician (about 500 Million Years [MYa]), characterizedby widespread flooding. Partial isolation of the Michigan basin in the Late Silurian resulted in extensive evaporitic deposits of salt and gypsum. Toward the end of the Silurian, re-transgression of the seas deposited the usual marine calcareous sediments, which were subsequently lithified to dolomite. The duration from the Devonian to the Permian periods was characterized by diminishing flooding episodes as the seas alternately transgressed and regressed. The Paleozoic Era ended with the Appalachian Orogeny. The predominant geologic processes in the subsequent Meso zoic and Cen ozoic eras, during which the region apparently remained above water, were erosion and glaciations. Glacial till deposited during the Pleistocene Epoch by advancing glaciers varies in thickness from a few feet to over 400 ft (Goldthwait et a1., l96l). The surficial glaciolacustrine deposits formed when the ice sheets retreated and outlets for lakes were considerably higher than at present. The major structural features in the region are the Findlay Arch, the Michigan Basin, the Appalachian Geosyncline, the Ohio-Indiana Platform, and three faults: the Bowling Green Fault, the Electric Fault, and the Osborn Fault. These features are described in Appendix 2C of the USAR (Toledo Edison, 2012). Of these regional features, the USAR identifies only the Findlay Arch as of significance to the site seismicity. Local geologic investigations revealed no faults in the bedrock beneath the foundations of the station. The field and literature studies in the Site area also did not reveal anv faults in the Site vicinitv. 2.2 Pnon.tgILISTIc Sntsmlc Haznnn An,q,lysrs 2.2.1 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analvsis Results In accordance with the 50.54(f) letter (NRC, 2012a) and following the guidance in the SPID (EPRI, 2013a), a PSHA was completed using the recently developed Central and Eastern United States Seismic Source Characterization (CEUS-SSC) for Nuclear Facilities (EPRI/DOEA{RC, S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27il296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R1\\2734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx ASSGonsulting

2734296-R-009 Reaision L March 20, 2014 Page 18 of 57 2012). The PSHA uses a minimum moment magnitude cutoff of 5.0 forhazard integration, 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 characterized following two approaches; the Mmax approach and the seismotectonic approach. The DBNPS PSHA accounts for the CEUS-SSC distributed seismicity source zones out to at least a distance of 400 mi (640 km) around the DBNPS. This distance exceeds the 200 mile (320 km) recommendation contained in NRC (2007) and was chosen for completeness. Distributed seismicity sources included in this Site PSHA are the following: Mesozoic and younger extended crust - naffow and wide (MESE-N and MESE-W) Non-Mesozoic and younger extended crust - narrow and wide CNMESE-N and NMESE-W) Study Region (STUDY_R) o Atlantic Highly Extended Crust (AHEX) o Northern Appalachians (NAP) o St. Lawrence Rift Zone, including the Ottawa and Saguenay grabens (SLR) o Extended Continental Crust - Atlantic Margin (ECC_AM) o Illinois Basin Extended Basement (IBEB) Midcontinent-Craton alternatives A to D (MIDC_A, MID_B, MID_C, ffid MrD_D) Paleozoic Extended Crust naffow and wide (PEZ_N and PEZ_W) Reelfoot Rift (RR and RR-RCG) RLME seismic sources within or near 1.000 km from the Site are included in the PSHA as follows: o Charlevoix o Charleston o New Madrid Fault System (NMFS) AESGonsulting rce S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27342% FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R{09\\R1V734296-R{09, Rev. 1.docx

2734296-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 2014 Page 19 of 57 Eastern Rift Margin Fault northern and southern segments (ERM-N and ERM-S) MariannaZone Commerce Fault Wabash Valley For each of the above distributed seismicity and RLME sources, the mid-continentversion of the updated EPRI Ground Motion Model (GMM) was used (EPRI, 2013c). 2.2.2 Base-Rock Seismic Hazard Curves While the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) does not require that base-rock 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-I and Table 2-1 present the mean hard-rock hazard curves at the DBNPS Site resulting from the PSHA. The hazard curves show the mean annual frequency of exceedance (MAFE) for spectral acceleration at the seven response spectral frequencies (100 Hz, 25 Hz, l0 Hz, 5 Hz, 2.5 Hz, l Hz, and 0.5 Hz) for which the updated EPRI GMM (2013c) is defined. AESConsultlng FC'T S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27H296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R1\\2734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx

2734296-R'009 Reaision 1 March 20, 2014 Page 20 of 57 L. E-01 L.E-02

1. E-03

1. E-04

1. E-05 L. E-06 L.E-07

1. E-08 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 Spectral Acceleration (g)

FIGURE 2.1 DBNPS MEAN SEISMIC HAZARD AT HARD ROCK Consistent with the SPID (EPRI,20l3a), Approach 3 of NUREGICR-6728 (McGuire et al., 2001) is used to calculate the seismic hazard curves at the SSE control point elevation (the base of the RB foundation). This method uses the median and log standard deviations of the site amplification factors (AFs) developed as describe d in Section 2.3. The control point hazard curves are presented in Section 2.4.4. I g o J ET o t-lJ-oL'g lE Eoo L,x 1!-lU= g g g l!o .0.5 HZ . 1,.0 Hz ffi .2.5 Hz . - 5. 0 H 2 (n,c 10 HZ c, n c 2 5 H Z 100 Hz S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R{O9\\R1\\2734296-R-009, Rev 1 docx

2734296-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 20L4 Page 21 of 57 GnouNu Mouon Lnvnl tgl MnlN ANNu,tt, FnneunNcy oF ExcnnoANCE FoR Spncrnll FnnOUENCIES 0.5 Hz 1.0 Hz 2.5IJ2 5.0 Hz l0IJz 25Hz 100 Hz 0.01 1.20E-03 2.348 -03 s.208-03 7.31E-03 8.26E-03 7.01E-03 3.708-03 0.02 3.30E-04 7.078 -04 1.748-03 2.928-03 3.87E-03 3.53E-03 1.50E-03 0.03 t.25E-04 2.878 -04 8.048-04 1.568-03 2.318-03 2.228-03 8.54E-04 0.04 5.14E-05 1.388-04 4.448 -04 9.72E-04 1.55E-03 1.55E-03 5.70E-04 0.05 3.01E-0s7.58E-0s2.17E-04 6.638-04 r.t2E-03 l. 16E-03 4.t68-04 0.06 r.73E-054.58E-05 1.87E-04 4.828-04 8.53E-04 9.09E-04 3.218-04 0.07 1.08E-05 2.97E -05 r.348-04 3.68E-04 6.138-04 7.348-04 2.58E-04 0.08 7.078-06 2.048-05 I.01E-04 2.908-04 5.468 -04 6.09E-04 2.13E-04 0.09 4.90E-06 r.47E-05 7.858-05 2.358-04 4.538-04 5.15E-04 r.t9E-04 0.10 3.54E-06 l.l0E-05 6.28E-05 t.948-04 3.83E-04 4.438-04 r.548-04 0.20 4.898-07 1.88E-06 1.46E-05 5.43E-05 1.248-04 1.61E-04 5.21E-05 0.25 2.798-07 I.l I E-06 9.088-06 3.55E-05 8.47E-05 I. r 5E-04 3.578-05 0.30 1.80E-07 7.218-07 6.1 I E-06 2.498-05 6.18E-05 8.628-05 2.598-05 0.40 9.12E-08 3.68E-07 3.23F,-06 1.40E-05 3.71E-05 5.448-05 1.53E-05 0.50 s.38E-082.168-07 1.948 -06 8.77E-06 2.458-05 3.75E-05 9.86E-06 0.60 3.48E-08 1.38E-07 t.268-06 5.90E-06 1.73E-05 2.738-05 6.178-06 0.70 2.39E-08 9.448-08 8.678 -07 4.188-06 1.278-05 2.08E-05 4.878-06 0.80 1.72E-08 6.71E-08 6.238-07 3.07E-06 9.7 rE-06 1.628-05 3.63E-06 0.90 1.28E-08 4.958-08 4.63F-07 2.32F-06 7.58E-06 1.30E-05 2.778-06 1.00 9.72F,-09 3.748-08 3.53E-07 r.80E-06 6.04E-06 1.06E-05 2.168-06 2.00 1.43E-09 5.16E-09 5.1lE-08 2.868-07 l.l8E-06 2.44F,-06 3.598-07 3.00 4.l lE-10 t.428-09 1.44E-08 8.50E-08 3.94E-07 9.ttB-07 1.09E-07 5.00 7.348-tl 2.398-10 2.488-09 1.578-08 8.36E-08 2.268-07 2.03E-08 TABLE 2.1 MBAN SEISMICHAZARD AT HARD ROCK DBNPS SITE 2.3 SIrn RnspoNsn EvALUATToN Category I structures of the DBNPS are founded in the dolomite bedrock (Toledo Edison, 2012, Section 3.7.2.6) at elevations varying from 540 ft for the RB to 555 ft for the Auxiliary Building Area 8. The dolomite bedrock is characterizedby a shear wave velocity (Vr) of about 5,000 ft/s. Following the guidance contained in Seismic Enclosure I of the 50.54(f) Request for Information (NRC, 2012a) and in the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) for NPP sites that are not sited on hard rock lBtCorrculting rCE S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27342% FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R{0g\\R1U734296-R-009. Rev. 1.docx

2734296-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 201-4 Page 22 of 57 (defined as 2.83 km/s), a site response analysis was performed for DBNPS Site. The following sections describe the various inputs to the site response analysis. These inputs are summarizedrn 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 (Toledo Edison, 2012, Section 2.5.4 and Appendix 2C). Of the 51 rock core borings, four borings penetrated to a depth of about 195 ft from the surface and were terminated in the Upper Silurian Greenfield Formation underlying the dolomite bedrock of the Tymochtee Formation. The remaining rock cores were terminated at a depth of about Il5 ft, a few feet below the Tvmochtee. 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, obtained fromthe Ohio Geological Survey. The units andthicknesses downto rock of Middle Ordovician age were obtained from deep wells located about 2-3 miles west of the Site in Ottawa County, while the units and thicknesses below rock of Middle Ordovician age are interpreted from deeper wells located about 15-20 miles to the south of the Site in Sandusky County, along with some wells about 35 miles southwest of the Site in Wood County. Due to the relative proximity of these deep wells to the Site and the general flat lying (low dip) nature of the geologic units, the unit lithologies and thicknesses can be reliably assumed to be similar to those below the Site. The USAR (Toledo Edison,2012) 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 Appendix 2C of the USAR. 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 boundary elevations and depths as estimated from the subsurface investigations reported in the USAR and available well logs in the Site vicinity. Gonsulting rCR S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27%296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\.3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R1\\2734296-R-009. Rev. 1.docx

2734296-R-009 Reuision 1. March 20, 201,4 Page 23 of 57 lithology Pleistocene

glaciolacustri ne; stiff, fissured, desiccated, gray and brown silty clay Pleistocene:

Glacial till; hard, fissured, desiccated, gray to brown sandy clay Uppe r Si lurian Tymochtee formation: argillaceous Dolomite Upper Si lurian Greenfield formation: Dolomite Middle Silurian Lockport Dolomite Middle Silurian Rochester (Niagrian) Shale Middle Silurian Clinton/Cataract Group: interbedded dolomite, limestone and shale Uppe r Ordovici an Quee nston formation : shale, siltstone and sandstone Upper Ordovician Eden formation: shales and limestones (includes Utica shale) Middle Ordovician Trenton formation: Limestone Middle Ordovician Black River (Gull River) Formation: limestone and dolomite Middle Ordovician Glenwood (Wells Creek) Formation

sandstones, carbonates and shales Middle Ordovician St. Peter (Wells Creek)

Formation: Sandstone Lower Ordovician to Upper Cambrian Knox Formation: Dolomite Upper Cambrian Franconia Formation (or Kerbel and Conasauga fms): sandstone and dolomitic sandstone Middle Cambrian Eau Claire Formation: Shale, Siltstone, Sandstone and Dolomite Lowerto Middle Cambrian Mt. Simon formation: Sandstone Precambrian Granite FIGURE 2.2 STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN UNDERLYING THE DBNPS SITE S:\\Local\\PubsV734296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3 1Q Report File\\R409\\R1\\2734296-R-009, Rev 1 docx nF$Gonsulting

2734296-R-009 Reoision 1 March 20, 201.4 Page 24 of 57 TABLE2.2 SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY AND UNIT ELEVATIONS AND DBPTHS {T THE DBNPS SITE Top ET, tftl Bor. EI tftl LttHoLocy Top Dnprn lftl BoT. DnprH tftl 575 565 Pleistocene: glaciolacustrine; stiff, fissured, desiccated. sray and brown silff clay 0.0 l0 565 555 Pleistocene: Glacial till; hard, fissured, desiccated, gray to brown sandy clay l0 20 555 460 Upper Silurian Tymochtee formation: argillaceous dolomite 20 l15 460 370 Upper Silurian Greenfield formation: Dolomite I l 5 20s 370 30 Middle Silurian Lockport Dolomite 20s 545 30 -20 Middle Silurian Rochester (Niaerian) Shale 545 s95 -20 -105 Middle Si lurian Clinton/C ataract Group: interbedded dolomite, limestone and shale 595 680 -105 -68s Upper Ordovician Queenston formation: shale, siltstone. and sandstone 680 1260 -68s -850 Upper Ordovician Eden formation: shales and limestones 1260 1425 -850 -1 630 Middle Ordovician Trenton formation: Limestone t425 2205 -1630 -1680 Middle Ordovician Black River (Gull River) formation: limestone and dolomite 2205 2255 -1680 -1690 Middle Ordovician Glenwood (Willis Creek) formation: sandstones, carbonates and shales 2255 2265 -1690 -1750 Middle Ordovician St. Peter (Willis Creek) formation: Sandstone 226s 232s -1750 -l 835 Lower Ordovician to Upper Cambrian Knox formation: Dolomite 2325 2410 -l 835 -1915 Middle Cambrian Conasauga Group/I(erbel formation: sandstone 24t0 2550 -1975 -2115 Middle Cambrian Rome formation: Dolomite 2550 2150 -2T75 -2285 Lower to Middle Cambrian Mt. Simon formation: Sandstone 27 50 2860 -2285 Precambrian Granite 2860 Surface soils consisting of marsh organic and beach sediments overlie the glacial deposits. The upper glaciolacustrine deposit in this stratigraphy is composed of stiff, fissured, desiccated, gray, and brown silty clay. The lower till deposit is composed of hard, fissured, desiccated, and gray to brown sandy clay. The thickness of glacial deposits in Ottawa County averages 25 ft. Consultlng rCR S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R1\\2734296-R-009, Rev. '1.docx rEs

2734296-R-009 Reaision L March 20, 201.4 Page 25 of 57 Below the glacial deposits, the Upper Silurian Tymochtee Formation is reported to be about 80 to 100 ft thick. The Tymochtee Formation is a soft to hard, thinly bedded to massive, laminated, argillaceous dolomite. The lithology of the Greenfield Formation underlying the Tymochtee is similar to the Tymochtee Formation. Consequently, the contact between the Tymochtee and Greenfield Formations is difficult to detect, but based on results of the borings, it is located at an approximate EL 460 ft at the Site. The stratigraphy below the Tymochtee and the Greenfield Formations 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 overlie the Precambrian granite basement located at approximately EL -2,300 ft. 2.3.2 Development of Base-Case Profiles and Nonlinear Material Properties Most major structures of the DBNPS are founded in the dolomite bedrock at elevations varying between 540 ft forthe RB to 555 ft forthe Auxiliary Building Area 8. The base of the RB foundation level (EL 540 ft) is defined as the control point elevation, where the GMRS is developed. The velocity profiles presented here are based on results of site investigations reported in the USAR (Toledo Edison, 2012) to the investigated depths. Twenty-six seismic refraction shot points and 140 seismic recordings were obtained to determine the in-situ shear-wave (Vs) and compression-wave (Vp) velocities of the Site bedrock material and the soil overburden. These measurements were substantiated by dynamic testing of soil and rock samples reported in the USAR. 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 velocities of the bedrock are essentially uniform with the average Vp of 12,700 ft/s and the average Vs of 6,700 fl/s. Below the investigation depth, the deep rock stratigraphy is derived from well logs within about 2-3 miles of the Site, as well as sonic logs recorded in the wells in Sandusky County,15-24 miles from the Site, and Wood County about 35 miles from the Site (FENOC,2013). The sonic data were converted to Vp and Vs based on published literature (Pickett, 1963; Rafavich,1984; Miller, 1990; and Castagna,l993) reflecting the material type (limestone and dolomite, S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R1\\2734296-R-009. Rev. 1.docx

2734296-R-009 Reaision 1, March 20, 20L4 Page 26 of 57 anhydrites and salts), porosity and density, and to a lesser extent, the lithology. Additionally, based on published literature, VpA/s ratios for these types of geologic units were used to define the epistemic uncertainty for Vs. Tsble 2-3 presents the summary geotechnical profile identifyitrg the layer elevation ranges, V5, and uncertainties in these parameters. lnTable 2-3 the SSE control point is 15 ft below the top of bedrock (EL 540 ft) within the massive dolomite bedrock with best-estimate (BE) Vs of 4948 ftls. fBSGutsutring rCR S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27342% FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R{09\\R1\\2734296-R-009, Rev. 1,docx

2734296-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 20L4 Page 27 of 57 TABLE 2.3 SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY AND UNIT THICKNESSES. DBNPS SITE Notes: A. Velocity data between 8L503 ft and EL 482.5 ft is unavailable. Available parameters for stratum 3 are assumed applicable throughout the entire layer. Above EL 482.5 ft, a COV of 0. l8 is used for the velocity variability estimates; B. Beginning from EL 482.5 ft and below, the Poisson's ratio, and dry unit weight values are based on literature data and engineering judgment. A 5% water content is assumed for the materials in the soil column; C. Unless otherwise noted, V, presented here is the best estimate weighted average values based on the Well Log P-wave velocity and the values used for Poisson's ratio; D. Based on SPT-N values from32 boreholes in Units 2 and 3; E. Obtained from cross-hole measurements in Units 2 and 3; F. Assumption based on Unit I data. Water table EL is approximately 575; G. 10 ft of Compacted Backfill, consisting of lacustrine soils and till is assumed to have the same velocities as In-Situ; H. Unit weight; I. Poisson's ratio. Gonsulting rC? ELnv,trroN tftl LlvBn No. SOTUROCK DEScRIPTION Ttot"l lncflH V, tft/slc pt 585 Plant Grade 585 to 565" I G laciolacustrine Deposits t25 5ll+92\\u) 0.4(") 565 to 555 2 Glacial Till t32-136 643+116\\u) 0.4(o) 555 to 548 J Bedded Dolomite 150-1523860+695("/0.31(F) 548 to 540 Massive Dolomite 4g4g+ggl\\") 540 GMRS Elevation - SSE Control Point at Base of Reactor Building 540-528 a J Massive Dolomite 150-1524948+891(', 528 to 518 .l J Bedded Dolomite t50-152 3970+lI5\\") 0.31(F) 5 l8 to 508 5790+1042\\") 508 to 460(^r 4071 460 to 370\\") 4 Greenfield Dolomite (Uoper Silurian) 176 5.672 0.31 370 to 30 5 Lockport Dolomite (Middle Silurian) 176 8.782 0.31 30 to -20 6 Shale 138 8.682 0.21 -20 to -105 l Interbedded Dolomite, Limestone, and Shale 176 8,615 0.27 -105 to -685 8 Shale. Siltstone and Sandstone r42 6,514 0.3 -685 to -850 9 Shale and Limestone 176 5,996 0.29 -850 to -1530 l0 Limestone r76 r0.894 0.29 -1530 to -1580 l l Limestone and Dolomite 176 r0,712 0.31 -1580 to -1590 t2 Sandstones. Carbonates. and Shales 142 IO,2T2 0.3 -1590 to -1650 13 Sandstone r45 r0.2t2 0.3 -1650 to -1750 l4 Dolomite 176 9,049 0.34 -1750 to -1875 l5 Sandstone and Dolomite Sandstone 145 7,676 0.3 -1875 to -2075 l6 Shale, Siltstone, Sandstone, and Dolomite 176 9,483 0.34 -2075 to -2185 t7 Sandstone 145 7 "337 0.3 S:\\Local\\Pubs9734296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R{09\\R1\\2734296-R-009. Rev. 1.docx AEs

2734296-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 2014 Page 28 of 57 2.3.2.1 Base-CaseShear-WaveVelocitvProfiles Based on the well charucterizednature of the site, the generally flat lying geologic units, and the geology-specific VpA/s conversions, a scale factor of l.l5 is used for developing upper and lower base-cases to reflect epistemic uncertainty in V5. The scale factor of l.l5 reflects a realistic range in Poisson's ratio for the type of geologic units found in the Paleozoic rocks underlying the site. The Vs profiles determined using the scale factor represent the epistemic uncertainty in the soil column from the Limestone FormationatEL -850 ft to the top of the massive dolomite bedrock underlying the base of the RB foundation mat. Using the best-estimate Vs specified in Table 2-3,tlvee base-case profiles were developed using the scale factor of 1.15. The specified Vs were taken as the mean or BE base-case profile (Pl) with lower and upper range base-case profiles P2 and P3, respectively. Consistent with the guidance in the SPID (EPRI, 2013a), the upper range base-case profile is constrained to not exceed a Vs of 9200 ft/sec. All three profiles extend to hard-rock at a depth of 1,390 ft below the base of the RB foundation. The base-case profiles (Pl,P2, and P3) are shown on Figure 2-3 and liste d in Tahle 2-4. S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27342% FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R{O9\\R1\\2734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx AESConsultlng

2734296-R-009 Reaision 1. March 20, 2014 Page 29 of 57 Vs (ft/sec)

Depth 0 ft coresponds to EL 540 ft FIGURE 2.3 BASE-CASE Vs PROFILES' DBNPS SITE S:\\Locaf\\Pubs\\2734296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3 1Q Report File\\R4O9\\R1UlU2*R{X)9, Rev. 1.docx ll3Consultlltg

2734296-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 201,4 Page 30 of 57 TABLE2.4 BASE.CASE VS PROFILES, DBNPS SITE 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 massive and bedded dolomite layers. 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 altemative rock response across loading level. For the linear analyses, the low strain damping from the EPRI rock curves was used as the constant damping values in the upper 500 ft. Below a L.Lvnn Elnvnrron lftl Pnonrln Pl Pnonrln P2 Pnoprln P3 V" [ftlsl Dnpru [ftl V" lftlsl Dnpru lftl V" Iftlsl Dnpru [ftl 540 4948 0 4303 0 s690 0 s28 4948 12 4303 t2 s690 t2 528 3970 t2 3452 T2 4566 l2 518 3970 22 3452 22 4566 22 518 5790 22 5035 22 66s9 22 s08 5190 32 5035 32 6659 32 508 4071 32 3540 32 4682 32 460 4077 80 3540 80 4682 80 460 5672 80 4932 80 6523 80 370 5672 t70 4932 170 6523 170 370 8782 170 7637 170 9200 170 30 8782 510 7637 510 9200 510 30 8682 510 7550 510 9200 510 -20 8682 560 7550 560 9200 560 -20 861 5 s60 749r 560 9200 560 -105 8615 645 7491 645 9200 645 -105 6514 645 5664 645 7491 645 -685 6514 1225 5664 1225 t49l 1225 -68s s996 t225 5214 1225 689s t225 -850 5996 l 390 5214 1390 689s 1390 -850 9200 l 390 9200 1390 9200 1390 S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27$296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R1\\2734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx fESGqtsutring

l. 2. 2734296-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 201.4 Page 31. of 57 depth of 500 ft, linear material behavior is assumed for both models, with the damping value specified consistent with the kappa estimates for the site (values discussedinSection 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: Kappa for a firm rock site with at least 3,000 ft (l km) of sedimentary rock may be estimated from the time-averaged S-wave velocity over the upper 100 ft (Vsroo) of the subsurface profile. Kappa for a site with less than 3,000 ft (l km) of firm rock may be estimated with Q' of 40 below 500 ft combined with the low strain damping from the EPRI rock curves and an additional kappa of 0.006 seconds(s) for the underlying hard rock. For the DBNPS site, kappa was estimated using the second of the above approaches because the thickness of the sedimentary rock overlying hard rock is 1,390 ft. There is confidence in the depth to hard rock, based on the available deep well sonic log data from the vicinity of the Site and the fact that geologic layers are generally flat lying. For each Vs profile, kappa was estimated using the low-strain damping from the EPRI rock curves in the top 500 ft and a 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 0.0140s for profile Pl, 0.0152 for profile P2, and 0.01 32s for profile P3. To complete the representation of uncertainty in kappa and, at the same time, reduce computational demands, a 50 percent variation to the base-case kappa estimates was added for profiles P2, and P3. For profileP2,the softest profile, the base-case kappa estimate of 0.0152s was augmented with 50 percent increase in kappa to a value of 0.0227s, resulting in two sets of analyses for profileP2. Similarly uncertainty in kappa for profile P3, the stiffest profile, was augmented with a 50 percent reduction in kappa, resulting in kappa values of 0.0132s and 0.0088s. The suite of kappa estimates and associated weights is listed inTable 2-5. The base-S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27342% FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R1\\2734296-R{09, Rev. 1.docx AB$Gonsulting

2734296-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 20L4 Page 32 of 57 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 consistency in the site response analyses the low-strain damping values are adjusted consistent with the kappa value associated with each profile. TABLE 2-5 KAPPA VALUBS AND WEIGHTS USED IN SITE RBSPONSE ANALYSIS VrcIoctrY PRoFILE PRopIr,n Wntcnr Klnrl [sl Kappl WucHr P1 Base-Case 0.4 0.0140 (Kappa I ) 1.0 P2 Lower Range 0.3 0.01 52 (Kappa I ) 0.6 0.0227 (Kappa 2) 0.4 P3 Upper Range 0.3 0.0132 (Kappa 1) 0.6 0.0088 (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 sets of material behavior models flinear and nonlinear for the upper 500 ft], 2 seismic source models [single and double corner inputs], 1l 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 Randomization of Base Case Profiles To account for the aleatory variability in dynamic material properties that is expected to occur across a site at the scale of a typical nuclear facility, variability in the Vs profiles and shear-strain dependent shear modulus and damping curves are incorporated in the site response calculations. For the DBNPS site, random Vs profiles were developed from the base case profiles shown on Figure 2-3. S:\\Local\\Pubs\\279296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1 Q Report File\\R409\\R1\\2734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx AESConsulting

2734296-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 20'l-4 Page 33 of 57 2.3.3.1 Randomnation of Shear-wave Velocitv Profiles For the DBNPS 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. These randomized velocity 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 +i-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 Vs of 9,200 ftls. 2,3.3.2 Randomnation of Modulus Reduction and Hysteretic Damping Curves For the DBNPS Site, aleatory variability in dynamic material property curves is represented using 30 randomizations derived from the base-case for each alternative model. The random generation of G/Gmax and damping ratio values are limited to upper and lower bounds of the BE + two standard deviations, consistent with the SPID (EPRI, 2103a). 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 Fourier Amplitude Spectra Consistent with the guidance in Appendix B of the SPID (EPRI, 2013a), input Fourier amplitude spectra were defined for a single representative earthquake magnitude (M 6.5) using two different models for the shape of the seismic source spectrum (single-corner and double-corner). By selecting appropriate distances and depths, a suite of 1l different input amplitudes (median PGA ranging from 0.01 to 1.5 g) were modeled for use in the site response analyses. The characteristics of the seismic source and upper crustal attenuation properties assumed for the analysis of the DBNPS site were the same as those identified in Tables B-4, B-5, 8-6, and B-7 of the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) as appropriate for typical CEUS sites. AESGonsulting rCR S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27H296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R{09\\R1\\2734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx

2734296-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 201.4 Page 34 of 57 2,3.5 Site Response Methodology The site response analysis reported here implements an equivalent-linear method using the random vibration theory (RVT) approach. This 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) on incorporating epistemic uncertainty in V5, kappa, dynamic material properties, and source spectra was followed for the DBNPS 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 forthe SSE control point elevation atthe base of the RB foundation level. Because of uncertainty and variability incorporated in the site response analysis, a distribution of amplification factors (AFs) is produced. The AFs are represented by a median (i.e., log-mean) amplification value and an associated log standard deviation (sigma ln) for each spectral frequency and input rock amplitude. Consistent with the SPID (EPRI, 2013a), median amplification was constrained to not fall below 0.5 to avoid extreme de-amplification that may reflect limitations of the methodology. Figure 2-4 presents the median and +l-I standard deviation in the predicted amplification factors developed for the 11 loading levels parameterized by the reference (hard-rock) PGA (0.01 to 1.50g) for profile Pl and EPRI rock G/Gn'u*, and hysteretic damping curves (EPRI, 2013a). 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 variability in Vs and modulus reduction and hysteretic damping curves. Figure 2-5 presents similar information for profile Pl using the linear dynamic material property representation. Comparison of amplification factors, including the effects of material nonlinearity in the DNNPS Site firm rock layers (model Ml), with the corresponding amplification factors developed with S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R{09\\R1\\2734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx lESGqrsulting

2734296-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 2014 Page 35 of 57 linear site response analyses (model M2) shows only minor effects of nonlinearity 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,4 provides several tables that summarrze 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 and 1 1 input PGA values at hard rock. Additionally, Appendix,4 provides tables of the amplification factors for three loading levels consistent with the information shown on Figures 2-4 und 2-5. S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27%2% FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\ROOg\\R1\\2734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx AFgCottsulting

2734296-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 2014 Page 36 of 57 o P(, o lt c o .la I oI= c E 100 Frequency IHzl 100 Frequency [Hzf 0 2 0.1 o Pt-t tu l! Co P I l! (J -q. E Frequency [Hz] Lo .P f, o lt C .9 1 +. r oI:= o. E t \\, r t_ o.37 Mean M e a n + S t d v M e a n - S t d v 100 Frequency IHzl Frequency [Hzl FIGURE 2.4 DBNPS SrTE AMPLIF'ICATION FACTORS, BASE-CASE PROX'ILE (P1), EPRI 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. - M e a n M e a n + S t d V

sil s* Mean - StdV Mean M e a n + S t d V F: s,# Mean - Stdv Mean M e a n + S t d V

s, # Mean - Stdv S:\\Locaf\\PubsV734296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3 1Q Report File\\R409\\R1U734296-R409, Rev 1 docx

2734296-R-009 Reaision 1, March 20, 201,4 Page 37 of 57 Frequency IHzl f o /i 0.1 100 Frequency IHzl Frequency [Hzl Frequency IHzl FIGURE 2-4 (coNTINUED) DBNPS SITE AMPLIFICATION X'ACTORS, BASE.CASE PROF'ILE (P1), EPRI 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. 0 2 1.5 L0 ,H t l! l! tr'9 1 t! L' rF o, E 0.5 Lo +t I l! It c t oI I.; E Lo t t t, o It c .9 I P I o(J -e E Mean M e a n + S t d v

* *. Mean - StdV Mean M e a n + S t d V

+ 4

M e a n - S t d v S:\\Locaf\\PubsV734296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3 1Q Report File\\R409\\R1U734296-R-009, Rev 1 docx

2734296-R-009 Reoision 1, March20,201.4 Page 38 of 57 Frequency IHzl 0.1 100 Frequency [Hzl 100 Frequency IHzl Frequency IHzl FIGURE 2.5 DBNPS SITE AMPLIFICATION X'ACTORS, BASE-CASE PROFILE (p1), LINEAR ROCK G/GMAX AND DAMPING, KAPPA 1, I.CORNER SOURCE MODEL Note: Quantities in the upper right hand corner represent the hard rock input 100 Hz spectral acceleration in g's. \\ \\ r z - / 4 Mean M e a n + S t d V 66 *ne r+ Mean - StdV Mean M e a n + S t d V e r y & M e a n _ S t d v Frequency IHzl tf-l t 2. / e ', q L l I t r \\ \\ Mean M e a n + S t d v Mean - Stdv S:\\Local\\PubsV734296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3 1Q Report File\\R{09\\R1U734296-R-009, Rev 1 docx

2734296-R-009 Reoision 1. March2l,2014 Page 39 of 57 Frequency [Hzl 100 Frequency [Hzl o .P t, o tt tro .1. J, ot= cE 1.5 Lo PC' l! lt g .9 I , H I l!(, o, E Frequency [Hzl tE$Consultlng rCR 10 Frequency tr;oo FIGURE 2-5 (coNTTNUED) DBNPS SITE AMPLIFICATION FACTORS, BASE-CASE PROFILE (P1), LINEAR ROCK G/GMAX AND DAMPING, KAPPA 1, I.CORNER SOURCE MODEL Note: Quantities in the upper right hand comer represent the hard rock input 100 Hz spectral acceleration in g's. 0.5 " ""rlr\\1 re Mean M e a n + S t d v

c # # M e a n - S t d v

-*,:z*^F:

Frequency [Hzl Mean Mean + StdV Mean - Stdv 2,23 -Mean M e a n + S t d v Mean - Stdv _

r \\. ;,.

S:\\Locaf\\PubsV7342% FENOC Davis-Besse\\3 1Q Report File\\RO9\\RlU234296-R-009, Rev 1 docx

2734296-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 2014 Page 40 of 57 2.4 CoNrnoL PorNT Snrsnarc Hlzlnn Cunvns As presented inSection 3.2 below, the control point elevation is taken to be the base of the RB foundation level (EL 540 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, 2013a). This procedure (referred to as Approach 3) computes a site-specific control point hazardcurve for a broad range of spectral accelerations given the site-specific bedrock hazard curve and site-specific estimates of soil or soft-rock response and associated uncertainties. This process is repeated for each of the seven specified oscillator frequencies. The dynamic response of the rock column below the control point elevation is represented by the frequency-and amplitude-dependent amplification functions (median values and ln-standard deviations) developed and described in the previous section. The resulting control point mean hazard curves forthe DBNPS Site are shown onFigure 2-6 and Table 2-6for the seven oscillator frequencies for whichthe EPRI(2013c) GMM is defined. Tabulated values of the site response amplification functions and control point hazard curves for various fractiles are provided in Appendix C. S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27%296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R{09\\R1\\2734296-R-009. Rev. 1.docx fBtCoNrsulting

2734296-R-009 Reaision 1. March 20, 2014 PaKe 41 of 57 lr, g o= ET o L tt o(., g (U Itoo L'x ut (u 5g g g(u o

1. E-01 L.E-02

1. E-03

1. E-04

1. E-05

1. E-06 L.E-07

1. E-08 rrm

. 0.5 Hz . L.0 HZ

ws**
2.5 HZ

- ' - 5. 0 H z r

10.0 Hz
ffi, rdrk {H* 25.0 HZ

,r-L00.0 Hz 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 Spectral Acceferation (g) FIGURE 2-6 DBNPS MEAN CONTROL POINT (RB FOUNDATION) SEISMIC HAZARD AT SELECTED SPECTRAL FREQUENCIES TABLE2.6 DBNPS MEAN CONTROL POINT (RB FOUNDATION) SEISMIC HAZARD AT SELECTED SPECTRAL F'REQUENCIES GnouNn MorroN Lnvnl tel MBnN ANNuAL FREQUENCY OF EXCNEDANCE FOR SpECTRAL FnEQUENCIES: 0.5 Hz 1. 0 H z 2.5 Hz 5.0 Hz 10 Hz 25 Hz 100 Hz 0.02 4.278-04 l. r 9E-03 l. r 8E-03 3.69E-03 5.3 I E-03 3.3 I E-03 1.678 -03 0.03 l.t 6E-04 5.59E-04 5.24E-04 2.018-03 3.33E-03 1.95E-03 9.1 I E-04 0.04 8.47E-05 2.94E-04 2.86E-04 1.328 -03 2.31E-03 1.298-03 5.878-04 0.05 4.578 -05 1.698 -04 t.77 E-04 9.17F-04 1.7lE-03 9.218-04 4.148-04 0.06 2.698-05 1.05E-04 t.20E-04 6.7 4E-04 t.328-03 6.948-04 3.06E -04 0.07 1.69E-05 6.93E-05 8.628-05

5. l 8E-04 1.05E-03 5.448-04 2.35E-04 S:\\Local\\PubsV734296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3 1Q Report File\\R409\\R1\\2734296-R-009, Rev 1 docx

2734296-R-009 Reaision L March 20, 2014 Page 42 of 57 GnouNu Morron

Lnvnr, tel Mn,q,N Atrlnunl FnneunNcy oF ExcnnoANCE noR SpncrRAL FnneunNCIES:

0.5 Hz 1.0 Hz 2.5 Hz 5.0 Hz 10 Hz 25 Hz 100 Hz 0.08 I.t2E-05 4.798-05 6.498-0s 4.tlE-04 8.648-04 4.4t8-04 1.86E-04 0.09 I.7 5E-06 3.45E-Os5.06E-05 3.348-04 7.238-04 3.668-04 1.51E-04 0.10 5.598-06 2.57E-05 4.06E-05 2.718 -04 6.t5F-04 3.10E-04 1.258-04 0.20 1.47F,-07 4.078-06 9.428-06 7.91E-05 2.038-04 1.03E-04 3.37E-0s 0.25 4.068-07 2.318 -06 5.83E-06 5.24E-05 1.40E-04 7.t4F-05 2.128-05 0.30 2.578-07 1.48E-06 3.91E-06 3.728-05 1.03E-04 5.248-05 1.43E-05 0.40 1.298-07 7.50E-07 2.068-06 2.148-05 6.298-05 3.15E-05 7.408-06 0.s0 7.648-08 4.46E-07 t.23E-06 t.378-05 4.228-05 2.08E-05 4.31F-06 0.60 4.968-08 2.918-01 8.00E-07 9.448 -06 3.028-05 1.46E-05 2.708-06 0.70 3.42E-08 2.0t8-07 5.518-07 6.84E-06 2.258-05 1.06E-05 1.78E-06 0.80 2.478-08 1.468-07 3.968 -07 5.14E-06 t.148-05 8.018-06 1.228 -06 0.90 1.8sE-081.09E-07 2.948 -07 3.98E-06 1.37E-05 6.18E-06 8.728-07 1.00 1.42E-08 8.38E-08 2.248-07 3.15E-06 1.10E-05 4.878-06 6.428-07 2.00 2.168-09 1.26E-08 3.278-08 5.86E-07 2.21F-06 8.828-07 8.12E-08 3.00 6.54E-10 3.858-09 8.9s8-09 1.998-07 7.688-07 2.978-07 2.20F-08 5.00 1.23E-107.218-10 1.56E-09 4.208-08 1.80E-07 6.84E-08 3.778-09 TABLE 2.6 DBNPS MEAN CONTROL POINT (RB FOUNDATION) SEISMTCHAZARD AT SELBCTBD SPECTRAL FREQUENCIES (coNTINUED) 2.5 CorvrRot, PorNT RnspoNSE SPEcTRA The control point hazard curves described above have been used to develop uniform hazard response spectra (UHRS) and the GMRS. To ensure that important site response frequencies are accurately modeled, the control point response spectra are based on smoothed UHRS developed at the hard-rock boundary using the approach described by NRC (2007a) and McGuire et al., (2001). The UHRS were obtained through linear interpolation in log-log space to estimate the spectral acceleration at each oscillator frequency for the lE-4 and 1E-5 per year hazard levels. The lE-4 and 1E-5 UHRS, along with a design factor (DF) are used to compute the GMRS at the control point using the criteria in Regulatory Guide 1.208. Tuble 2-7 presents the control point 1E-4 and lE-5 UHRS and the GMRS, and Figure 2-7 graphically illustrates the GMRS relative to the UHRS. ASGonsulting rCR S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R1\\2734296-R-009. Rev. 1.docx

2734296-R-009 Reaision 1. March 20, 2014 Page 43 of 57 TABLE 2-7 DBNPS s%.DAMPED UNIFORM HAZARD RESPONSE SPBCTRA AND GMRS AT CONTROL POINT FnneunNCY IIJzI HoRtzoNul SpncrRAL AccnlnRATIoN [gl lr rHn RB FouNn,q.TION 1X1O-" MAFE UHRS IXIO MAFE UHRS GMRS 0.10 0.0027 0.0063 0.0032 0.13 0.0039 0.0092 0.0046 0.16 0.0056 0.0133 0.0067 0.20 0.0081 0.0192 0.0097 0.26 0.01 18 0.0278 0.0141 0.33 0.0176 0.0406 0.0206 0.42 0.0266 0.0605 0.0308 0.s0 0.0372 0.0832 0.0425 0.53 0.0390 0.087 4 0.0446 0.67 0.0475 0.1 078 0.0549 0.85 0.0570 0.1310 0.0666 1.00 0.061l 0.r4t6 0.0718 1.08 0.0640 0.1513 0.07 64 t.37 0.0663 0.1673 0.0834 t.74 0.0616 0.1658 0.0816 2.21 0.0623

0. l 789 0.0869 2.50 0.0655 0.1948 0.0940 2.81 0.0751 0.227 5

0.1094 3.56 0.t072 0.3373 0.1609 4.52 0.1500 0.4892 0.2317 5.00 0.1759 0.5824 0.27 50 5.74 0.21s0 0.7181 0.338s 7.28 0.2648 0.8969 0.4216 9.24 0.2960 r.0t26 0.4751 10.00 0.3042 r.0424 0.4889 It.72 0.2937 1.0146 0.4751 14.81 0.2627 0.9233 0.4308 18.87 0.2436 0.8609 0.4013 23.95 0.2094 0.1414 0.3455 2s.00 0.203r 0.7190 0.3350 30.39 0.1908 0.6667 0.3115 38.57

0. l 876 0.6446 0.3022 48.94 0.1746 0.s840 0.2152 62.10 0.r477 0.4700 0.2237 78.80 0.1221 0.3722 0.1787 100.00 0.r125 0.3507 0.1676 S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27U2% FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R1\\2734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx fESConsulting

2734296-R-009 Rwision 1, March 20, 2014 Page aa of 57 L.200 1.000 0.800 0.200 0.000 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 Frequency (Hz) FIGURE 2-7 CONTROL POINT UNIFORM HAZARD RESPONSE SPECTRA AT MEAN AI\\NUAL x'REeuENcIEs oF ExcEEDANcE otr'txt0{ AND lxt0-t, AI\\[D GRoIIND MorIoN RESPONSE SPECTRUM AT DBNPS 0.600 0.400 .Aa0 Y Co a - PlU Lg o I t, lU L P lJo CL tn i l i. i ' l i 1 i

: l

- - - 1x10-4 UHRS [g] T 1x10-5 UHRS lel I f i GMRS

r i ;

l t l; i ' i i i l i:iiil I I II -1: I Jl'i j I i i I I 7 \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ I I / 1t{ \\ \\ It / / / / / ? t;) t ' a \\ I \\ l. \\ L 4 7: T t lrt \\ rt S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report Filo\\R409\\R1\\27U2*R409, Rev. 1.docx fBGonsuttlq

2734296-R-009 Reuision L March 20, 20L4 Page 45 of 57 3.0 PLANT DESIGN BASIS GROUND MOTION The design basis for DBNPS is identified in the USAR (Toledo Edison, 2012). 3.L SSE DnscnrprroN oF SpECTRAL SHnpn The SSE was developed in accordance with 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A through an evaluation of the maximum earthquake potential for the region suffounding the Site. Based on deterministic hazard analysis, the USAR (Toledo Edison, 2012, Appendix2C, Section 2C.3.4, Table 2C.3-4) reports two design basis earthquakes. A Maximum Possible Earthquake (larger) is postulated primarily on the basis of structural geologic features. The ground motion associated with the Maximum Possible Earthquake is taken to represent the SSE ground motion. SSCs important to safety are designed to remain functional subject to the ground motion from the Maximum Possible Earthquake. A second, Maximum Probable Earthquake (smaller) is postulated primarily on the basis of the historic earthquakes with qualitative consideration of the probability of occuffence. This earthquake produces vibratory ground motions used in the design of structures and equipment, whose failure would not result in the release of significant radioactivity and would not prevent reactor shutdown. The Maximum Probable Earthquake is similar to the Operating Basis Earthquake. The SSE ground motion was developed on the basis of two postulated events; (l) a MMI VI occurring close to the site, representing the maximum possible for Lake Erie and South Central Michigan earthquakes, and (2) an MMI VII (7.5) occurring close to the site representing an event similar to the Anna, Ohio earthquake of 1937. Using several correlations between MMI and PGA developed, for example, by Esteva et al., (1964) and Seed et al., (1969), a maximum PGA of 0.159 was estimated. The shape of the SSE horizontal spectrum derives from the Soh-damped average response spectra of several acceleration records. This shape is similar to that suggested by Newmark, et al, (1969). This PGA is taken to anchor the horizontal SSE spectrum at 5-percent damping defined by the following amplifi c ation factors : AFGonsulting IC? S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27A2% FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R1V734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx

2734296-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 20L4 Page 46 of 57 Acceleration region (f : 5 Hz) : 2.5 Velocity region (f : I Hz):2.0 Displacement region (f : 0.2 Hz) -- 1.3 The S-percent damped horizontal SSE spectral accelerations are presented in Table 3-1. The coffesponding vertical spectrum for the SSE is taken to be two-thirds the horizontal across the entire range of frequency. Figure 3-l presents the SSE S%-Dwttped Response Spectra. TABLB 3-1 SSE HORIZONTAL GROUND MOTION RESPONSE SPECTRUM FOR DBNPS FnneunNCY lHrzl SpncrnAl AccELERATIoN lsl 0.10 0.004 0.37 0.060 2.31 0.37 4 8.00 0.37 4 33.00 0.1 50 100.00 0.1 50 o a AISGonsulting rCR S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27342% FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R1\\2734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx

2734296-R-009 Reaision L March 20, 2014 Page 47 of 57 AEO y tr _o 0.6 Po Lo-ol Cl I = 0.4 tu L lb,(,o g Jt 0.2 1.0 0.8 o.o 0.1 I to -Horizontal SSE 0.159 PGA -Vertical SSE O.1g PGA FIGURE 3-1 sAx'E SHUTDOWTY EARTHQUAKE GROUND MOTTON SPECTRA SSE Conrnor, Porxr Er,nv.lrrox 3.2 The horizontal and vertical SSE response spectra represent the design basis ground rnotion input applied at the base of the foundation levels of the DBNPS sffuctures. At DBNPS, the top of bedrock is at EL 555 ft and the foundation elevation of the RB is 540 ft. Other major sftuctures 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 atEL 540 ft. Stnr I i i ctural I I )atnl)l ii ng=5% i i i l ! i i l ii l i l I 1\\ E TT F \\ \\ / .1 // / I 4 I \\\\ \\ S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report Fllo\\R-0G)\\R1U7342SR09, Rev. 1.docx ff0Cffiultlm

2734296-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 201.4 Page 48 of 57 4.0 SCREENING EVALUATION In accordance with the SPID, (EPRI, 2013a, Section 3), a screening evaluation was performed as described below. The screening process determines if a seismic risk evaluation is needed. The horizontal GMRS determined from thehazard reevaluation is used to characterize the amplitude of the updated evaluation of the seismichazard at the DBNPS Site. The screening evaluation is based upon a comparison of the GMRS with the horizontal SSE, ground motion spectrum. 4.I Rrsr Ev.q.lu,rrroN ScnnnnrNc (1 ro 10 Hz) Inthe 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 6.0H2 is characterized as broad banded with spectral accelerations exceeding 0.4g at some frequencies in the 1.0 to 10 Hz frequency range. However, the SSE spectrum envelops the GMRS below 6.0Hz Therefore, SSCs and failure modes associated with low frequency are not affected by the GMRS. As discussed in the SPID (EPRI, 2013a), these SSCs and failure modes include flexible distribution systems, sliding and rocking of unanchored components, fuel assemblies inside the reactor vessel, soil liquefaction, and liquid sloshing in atmospheric pressure storage tanks. Accordingly, no new high confidence of low probability of Failure (HCLPF) analysis of low frequency failure modes is planned. 4,2 Hrcn FnneunNcy ScnnnxrNc (> 10 Hz) For aportion of the range above l0Hz,the GMRS exceeds the horizontal SSE. The high frequency exceedances will be addressed in the risk evaluation discussed in Section 4.1above. Although safety equipment in DBNPS was evaluated in the A-46 program, the SSE ground motions used in this evaluation do not have significant frequency content above l0 Hz. The A-46 program verified the seismic adequacy of mechanical and electrical equipment for the plant SSE using the seismic criteria defined in the USI,{-46 technical resolution (NRC Generic Letter S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27342% FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R{09\\R1\\2734296-R{09, Rev. 1.docx AESGoltsutring

2734296-R-009 Reaision 1, March 20, 20L4 Page 49 of 57 87-02). The USI A-46 procedures make use of earthquake experience data supplemented by test data to verify the seismic capability of equipment below specified earthquake motion bounds. Additionally, the consideration of high-frequency vulnerability of components in the IPEEE was focused on "bad actor" relays mutually agreed to by the industry and the NRC, with known earthquake or shock sensitivity. These specific model relays, designated as low ruggedness relays, were identified in EPRI Report 7148 (EPRI, 1990). Ratherthan considering high frequency capacity versus demand screening, "bad actor" relays were considered program outliers and were evaluated using circuit analysis, operator actions, or component replacement. The response of components to the high frequency ground motion associated with the GMRS will be addressed as part of the on-going SPRA. EPRI ReportNP-7498 (EPRI, l99l), as well as more recent studies related licensing activities for new plants (EPRI, 2007a and 2007b), summarizethe basis and conclude that "...high-frequency vibratory motions above about l0 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 Funl Poor, Ev,uunrroN ScnnnNrNG (1 ro 10 Hz) Inthe 1 to l0Hzpart of the response spectrum, the GMRS exceeds thehorizontal SSE. Therefore, the plant screens in for a spent fuel pool evaluation. S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27g296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R{o9\\R1\\2734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx AFSGonsulting

2734296-R-009 Reaision 1" March 20, 20L4 Page 50 of 57 5.0 INTERIM ACTIONS Based onthe screening evaluation, the expedited seismic evaluation described in EPRI (2013b) is being performed as proposed in a letter to NRC dated April 9,2013 (NEI, 2013), and agreed to by NRC in a letter dated May 7, 2013 (ML 13 106433 I ). 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 Plant. Therefore, the results do not call into question the operability or functionality of SSCs and arc not reportable pursuant to10 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-199 Safety/Risk Assessment (NRC,20l0a): Overall seismic core damage risk estimates are consistent with the Commission's Safety Goal Policy Statement because they are within the subsidiary objective of I}-alyear 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 0PEEE) 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. DBNPS 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\\Pubs\\27342% FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R{09\\R1\\2734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx ABtConsulting

5.1 2734296-R-009 Reuision'L March 20, 20L4 Page 51. of 57 Additionally, as requested in Enclosure I of the 50.54(f) letter (Item 5) the following paragraphs provide insights from the DBNPS NTTF RecommendationZ.3 walkdowns, and the IPEEE program. These programs funher illustrate the plant seismic capacity. NTTF 2.3 WnlKDowNS In response to NTTF Recommendation 2.3, FENOC completed the Seismic 2.3 walkdown for DBNPS in September 2012 (FENOC,2012b). This walkdown identified no major anomalies. Of the IPEEE vulnerabilities identified in the report (FENOC,20l2),the walkdown sampled several and verified that they were addressed and closed. 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. 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 IPEEE DESCRIPTION AND CAPACITY RESPONSE SPECTRUM The IPEEE for DBNPS is characterized as a reduced scope SMA using the EPRI approach. The IPEEE evaluation is based on the review level earthquake (RLE) ground motion defined by the NUREG/CR-0098 (Newmark and Hall, 1978) 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 BDB seismic ground motion for which the plant SSCs have been evaluate d. Appendix B summarizes the elements of the IPEEE, following the IPEEE adequacy requirements in SPID Section 3.3.1 (EPRI, 2013a). The IPEEE concludes that the plant level HCLPF, controlled by insufficient freeboard in the Borate Water Storage Tank, is 0.269 PGA. Accordingly, the 5-percent damped horizontal IHS spectral accelerations provided in Table 3-2 conespond to the 0.26gPGA RLE spectrum. The SSE spectrum and the IHS in the horizontal direction are shown on Figure 5-1. AE$Consulting rc" S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27342% FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R1V734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx

2734296-R-009 Rwision 1. March 20, 201.4 Page 52 of 57 TABLE 5-1 IPEEE HORIZONTAL GROI.TND MOTION RESPONSE SPECTRUM X'OR DBNPS FnBQUENCY [Hzl SpncrRAL AccnLERATIoN tgl 0.10 0.013 0.25 0.085 1.64 0.550 8.00 0.550 33.00 0.260 100.00 0.260 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.1 Frequency (Hz) FIGURE 5-1 SSE AND IPEEE RESPONSE SPECTRA FORDBNPS J9 0.4 go . I P lE Lo-o 0.3 (, I -lU L PE o.z o, tn GorHtlSru ICR T \\ \\ {10.26 HCLPF Spectrum e$sE 0.15 g I / \\ I / / ) - t \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ I / / / \\ lL / ./ / ( I / \\ / S:\\Locaf\\Pubs\\2734296 FENOC Davis-BesseB.lQ Report Fllo\\R40SR1V734'2$R409, Rev 1.docx

2734296-R-009 Reuision 1 March 20,201,4 Page 53 of 57

6.0 CONCLUSION

S In accordance withthe 50.54(f) request for information letter (NRC, 2012a) a seismichazardand screening evaluation was performed for DBNPS. This reevaluation followed the guidance provided in the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) and developed the control point GMRS for the Site. The screening evaluation compares the horizontal SSE spectrum to the control point GMRS. Based on the results of the screening evaluation, the plant screens in for risk evaluation, a Spent Fuel Pool evaluation, and a High Frequency Confirmation. The GMRS exceeds the horizontal SSE both inthe I to l0Hzpart of the response spectrum and above l0Hz. Although the DBNPS IPEEE is a reduced scope SMA, and is not used for screening, this report (Appendix B) performs the evaluation of the completed IPEEE. It concludes that the IPEEE is of good quality and meets all other prerequisites 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 byNRC in a letter dated May 7,2A13, (MLl3l06A331). AESGoncuElng rCR S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27A2% FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R19734296-R-009. Rev. 1.docx

2734296-R-009 Reoision 1-March 20, 2014 Page 54 of 57

7.0 REFERENCES

Castagn a, J.P., and M.M. Backus, 1993, "Rock Physics - The Link Between Rock Properties and AVO Response," in Eds., Offset-dependent reflectivity - Theory and Practice of AVO Analysis, Castagna, J.P., Batzle, M.L., and Kan, T.K., Investigations in Geophysics (SEG) No. 8, p. 135 - t7 t, 1993. EPRI, NP-7148, "Procedure for Evaluating Nuclear Power Plant Relay Seismic Functionality," Electric Power Research Institute, December 1 990. EPRI, NP-7147-SL, "Seismic Ruggedness of Relays," and Addendums, Electric Power Research Institute, August 1991. EPRI, NP-7498, "Industry Approach to Severe Accident Policy Implementation," Electric Power Research Institute, November I 991. EPRI, 1991e,"A Methodology for Assessment of Nuclear Power Plant Seismic Margin (Revisiotr 1)," Technical Report NP-6041-SLRI, Electric Power Research Institute, August 1991. EPRI, 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 in Nuclear Power Plants," EPRI l0l 5 I 08, Electric Power Research Institute, June 2007. EPRI, 2007b, "Program on Technology Innovation: Seismic Screening of Components Sensitive to High-Frequency Vibratorl," EPRI 1015109, Electric Power Research Institute, October 2007. EPRI, Z}l3a"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. S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R1\\2734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx AESGottsultlng

2734296-R-009 Reaision L March 20, 20'1-4 Page 55 of 57 EPRI, 20l3b, "Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic," Report 3002000704, Electric Power Research Institute, April, 2013. EPRI, 2013c, "EPRI (2004,2006) Ground-Motion Model (GMM) Review Project, Report 3002000717," Electric Power Research Institute, June 2013. EPRI/DOEA{RC, 2012, "Technical Report: Central and Eastern United States Seismic Source Characterization for Nuclear Facilities," EPRI Report # 1021097, U.S. DOE Report # DOEAIE-0140, U.S. NRC NUREG-2115, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, U.S. DOE, U.S. NRC, 2012. 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,2012 "Final Report Geology and Geotechnical Information for Site Amplification Calculations Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company," Rev. 0, July 2,2012. FENOC,20l2b, "Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report," FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, August I0,2012 (NRC ADAMS accession number MLl3l35A242). FENOC,2013 "Site Description for Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1Partial Submittal", Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, September 12, 2013. Goldthwait, R., G. White, and J. Forsyth, 1961, "Glacial Map of Ohio," Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Div. of Geol Survey, l96l. Hough, J.L., 1958, "Geology of the Great Lakes," University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL, 1958. McGuire et al., 2001, "Technical Basis for Revision of Regulatory Guidance on Design Ground Motions: Hazard-and Risk-consistent Ground Motion Spectra Guidelines", NTIREG/CR-6728. 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. Newmark, N. H. and Hall, W. J, 1969 "seismic Design Criteria for Nuclear Reactor Facilities," Proceedings,4th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Santiago, Chile, 14 Jan1969. Newmark, N.H. and W.J. Hall, lgTS, "Development of Criteria for Seismic Review of Selected Nuclear Power Plants," NUREG/CR-0098. AFSConsultlng rct S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27342% FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R{O9\\R1\\2734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx

2734296-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20,2014 Page 56 of 57 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 Qr{RC) with Attachments, "Seismic Risk Evaluations for Plants in the Central and Eastern United States," Nuclear Energy Institute, March 12,2014. NRC, 1991, "Procedural and Submittal Guidelines for the Individual Plant Examination of External Events for Severe Accident," NUREG-1407, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington D.C, 1991. NRC, 2007, "A Perfoffnance-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, 20l0a, "Generic Issue 199 (GI-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 IML10027063e]. NRC, 20l2a," Request for Information Pursuantto Title l0 Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendations

2. 1,2.3 and 9.3 of the Near-Term Task Forces Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Accident, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington D.C., March 12, 201 2 (MLl 2053 A340).

NRC, 2013, Letter from E,.J. Leeds (NRC) to J.E. Pollock (NEI), "Electric Power Research Institute Final Draft Report XXXXXX, 'seismic Evaluation Guidance: Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic,' as an Acceptable Alternative to the March 12,2012, Information Request for Seismic Reevaluations," U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.,May 7,2013, (ML131064331). NRC, 2014, Letter from E.J. Leeds (NRC) to All Power Reactor Licensees and Holders of Construction Permits in Active or Deferred Status, "supplemental Information Related to Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(0 Regarding SeismicHazard Reevaluations for Recommendation2.l of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident," U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., February 20, 2014. AESGonsultlng rce S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report Fale\\R{0g\\R112734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx

2734296-R-009 Reuision'L March 20, 2014 Page 57 of 57 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 between Acoustic Properties and the Petrographic Character of Carbonate Rocks," Geophysics, Volume 49, No. 10,

p. 1622-1636, 1984.

R.IZZO,20l2c, "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,}OI3, "Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis and Ground Motion Response Spectra, Davis-Besse NPP, 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 RockMotions During Earthquakes," ASCE, JSMFD, 95, No. SM5. Toledo Edison, 2012 "Updated Safety Analysis Report," Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station No. 1, Docket No : 50-346, License No: npf-3, Revis ion 29, Decemb er 2012. S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R{09\\R1\\2734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx AESConsultlng

2734296-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 20L4 Page A1. of A1.1' APPENDIXA NTTR 2.I SITE RESPONSE ANALYSIS DBNPS SITE fBtConsultlng rCT S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R1\\2734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx

2734296-R-009 Reaision 1, March 20, 2014 Page A2 of A1 APPBNDIX A - NTTF 2.1 SITE RESPONSB ANALYS$ INPUTS AND RESULTS, DAVIS BESSE NPS SITE The following assumptions are used to develop inputs to the site response assessment:

l.

Epistemic uncertainty in shear wave velocity (Vr) is modeled using three V, profiles. The derivation of upper range (UR) and lower range (LR) V, profiles is based on using a factor of 1.15 which is derived from arange of reasonable Voff, ratios based on literature review for the type of Paleozoic rocks that exist at the site.

2.

The randomized site profile realizations were generated using a natural log standard deviation of 0.25 over the top 50 ft andavalue of 0.15 below a depth of 50 ft.

3.

The Screening, Prioritization, and Implementation Details (SPID) (EPRI, 2013a) specifies the use of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) rock degradation curves for rock units such as found at the FENOC Sites (EPRI, 20I3a). These curves are used for the top 500 ft of rock. Below 500 ft, damping for the bedrock is derived consistent with kappa estimates.

4.

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 Davis Besse are less than 3000 ft thickness. In the top 500 ft the kappa estimates are based on using the low strain damping values from the EPRI rock curves.

5.

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.

6.

Tables A-1 to A-7 provide the site response inputs consistent with these assessments of uncertainty and variability.

7.

Table.4-8 lists the resulting median amplification factors and the related ln-sigma for seven selected frequencies and I 1 values of input hard rock peak ground acceleration (PGAs).

8.

Tables A-9 to A-11 list the resulting median amplification factors and the related ln-sigma for three loading levels associated with Figures 2-6 and 2-7. AESGonsulting riCR S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27%296 FENOC Davis-BesseB-1Q Report File\\R409\\R1U734296-R409, Rev. 1.docx

2734296-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 2014 Page A3 of A1.1. j () a() bI U? ol . t th 0) H !o() Q O lr bl }1 C,)

ot-(n(.) Lr (t) o(.) tt) 0)() a B [n \\o tl t ) i i F H 6 a ? 9 () rY'\\ 0., r a ( i, a + I C,) F F co C) OI-l-{ C)o r-l a F .9 C ^ J . N A _ i' >r CS i:ts o q ^ r c " 1 0 ( ' L. 9 o r { E r r S E> F t v - F H V lr1 ( c a & ro \\o I ,tr< O a ) O \\ = 3 ' c r E (,) q; -{ c ( r v J z - t l c ) U ) " ' = c \\ > F ^ J f-ii or ' - ' F o\\ cg c - l ' O co Lr 9 o r il o \\ ' F rn,: ( \\ v lal O tl F c-I ,tr< O o ) t h ' (, o v C ) ( ) ; d a v () (h

Eg>

F O o t l F - a - o n .V fr ( ) o o \\o '<, l-( ) o t ra,,{ tl F J A \\ - - c o. o r< Ft ET \\ a X. + id Ee 771,en J() r r'1 Lr 9 o r - o \\ v H rat j ( \\ v-: ral o tl 'O qr ( ) o 6 3 5 h O 3 9. S v e Q r O x b 0 b \\ o Q - C 5 - - ^ E ' l = S s H n El 6

r

( ) o l \\ v i c a. O in -i tl r O rD i-.i 8 a 9 \\ O l r (l) ,yr A c g (,) (.) d (.) () L (/) (.) (.) rt a*c) o

r c\\l

{.) bI L() F J u)- 5 r n d ^ i . s N - G 3 h ?, 9 r - J - ' : H dE?E n ' ' Y. "

. = =

E - 6 3 E O ' t 4 t d r i = rY rV co =f I O ( D c o

3 - r U o (,),i c ) ( n "

' = c ! > F ^ J L( U o t J O C.l eO Lr 9 o r f-.. O '.o F i - : N V-; ral i tl B lat I O ( ) U 7 ' Y c a 0 ) S 0 ) (. ) - i E t h v j d - t l < ) t h " FFF F (\\.l F < a c..l J L E o o o\\ (tr o q Q s L P o r F.l O lat o o v e.i lrl A tl 0 ) a tr(, o s t lo l. n 10 q-r ul -6 t-x (J f r l l-9 o r l. E r E H ( N v (n o tl ( J o c C S b D g s. g i :r +s t E b F 4 O d Q $

l = F r ! 6

r 9 o r

'.o F r,n

o o v c.i rn A

tl F c) i-r E U ) 9 \\ O d. A 0., n ( ! (.) atr! Cho (r.) 6 H =3 g^U 6 l L O { r t ( ) - i l N fi >E Y v cA co I ,tr< O C )

o Y

( l ) l l ) H Qt tt) J 4 - t l

8>

i r s F ^ J1 h E o r lr 9 o r J ' 6 o\\ 11 r n j Lal -i B o O ao. z (,) () z (,) s() z a) -o o o z o\\ ct c-l E co lr r-t = a8v , ? d bo c)

7).(!

Jo rI] r< P o r r ' 6 rat -= ( \\ v J (n A tl B F tit F f-z o. c)() Lr a C) a4 (h c.) a d) (,) O L. U) q) f - a o. o. ( B ^ \\ 4 ! O. v a rn F c),:- L<g (. ) ^ a Y ( g tal bI OB o.Ee' a in a F c) L Q o ) ^ u l V t?. lal ol(,) d F

b o 5F

k F - ga aP iE = ' = r \\ , - = E v >Ae H;> F -Frz -L F i { (, raz - A - v00 er <2 tr l-t lv.- Fl F lr{a ng AE$Gonsu S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27A2% FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Reoort File\\R409\\R112734296-R-009. Rev. 1.docx

2734296-R-009 Reztision 1. March 20, 2014 Page A4 of A1 TABLB A.2 SHBAR WAVE VBLOCTTY (Vs) PROFTLES Llynn Elnv^lrtoN lftl PRonrln P1 tftlsl DnprH lftl Pnonn n P2 Iftlsl DnprH lftl Pnonrln P3 lftlsl DnprH lftl 540 4948 0 4303 0 5690 0 528 4948 l2 4303 l2 s690 I2 528 3970 t2 3452 I2 4566 t2 sl8 3970 22 34s2 22 4566 22 518 5790 22 5035 22 6659 22 508 5790 32 5035 32 6659 32 508 4071 32 3540 32 4682 32 460 4071 80 3540 80 4682 80 460 5672 80 4932 80 6523 80 370 5672 170 4932 170 6523 170 370 8782 170 7637 r70 9200 170 30 8782 510 7637 510 9200 s10 30 8682 510 7550 510 9200 510 -20 8682 560 7550 560 9200 560 -20 86r5 s60 7491 560 9200 560 -105 8615 645 7491 645 9200 645 -105 6514 645 5664 645 7491 645 -68s 6514 t225 5664 t225 7491 1225 -685 s996 t225 5214 t225 6895 1225 -850 5996 1390 5214 1390 6895 1390 -8s0 9200 1390 9200 1390 9200 1390 S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R1\\2734296-R409, Rev. 1.docx

2734296-R-009 Reaision 1, March 20, 201,4 Page A5 of A1L TABLE A.3 KAPPA (K1) USED WITH BEST ESTIMATE PROFILE Pl TABLB A-4 KAPPA (kl) USED WITH LOWBR RANGE PROFILEP2 AEtco"roqs V, [ftlsl Pl THrcxNnss tftl Dnprn ro Ton [ftl Dmrr [%] kl a k1 lsl 4948 t2 0 3.20 15.63 0.000155 3970 10 t2 3.20 15.63 0.000161 5790 10 22 3.20 ts.63 0.000111 407 l 48 32 3.20 15.63 0.0007ss 5672 90 80 3.20 15.63 0.001 0l 6 8782 340 170 3.20 15.63 0.002478 8682 50 510 t.25 40.00 0.000144 8615 85 s60 1.25 40.00 0.000247 6514 580 645 1.25 40.00 0.002226 5996 165 1225 1.25 40.00 0.000688 Half space 1390 0.006000 Total kappa 0.0140 V, [ftlsl P2 Tnrcxnnss lnrl DnprH ro Ton [ftl D,rur [%] k1 a kl [s] (Wt=0.6) 4303 t2 0 3.20 15.63 0.000178 3452 l0 t2 3.20 1s.63 0.000185 5035 10 22 3.20 1s.63 0.000127 3540 48 32 3.20 15.63 0.000868 4932 90 80 3.20 15.63 0.001 I 68 7637 340 170 3.20 15.63 0.002849 7550 50 510 1.25 40.00 0.000166 7491 85 560 t.25 40.00 0.000284 5664 580 645 t.25 40.00 0.00256 5214 165 1225 1.25 40.00 0.000791 Half space I 390 0.006000 Total kappa 0.0152 S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734296 FENOC Davis-BesseL3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R1\\2734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx

273U96-R-009 Reaision L March 20, 201.4 Page 46 of All TABLE A-5 KAPPA (k2) USED WrTH LOWBR RANGE PROFTLEP? TABLE A.6 KAPPA (K1) USED WITH UPPER RANGE PROFILE P3 Gonsulting rCR V5 [ftlsl P2 TrucxNnss lftl Dnprs ro Tor [ft] D*rr [%l k2 a k2 [sl (Wr-0.4) 4303 t2 0 4.80 10.42 0.000268 3452 10 t2 4.80 10.42 0.000278 5035 10 22 4.80 t0.42 0.000191 3540 48 32 4.80 10.42 0.001302 4932 90 80 4.80 r0.42 0.04n52 7637 340 170 4.80 10.42 0.00427 4 7 550 50 510 2.8s 17.54 0.000378 7491 85 560 2.8s t7.54 0.000647 5664 580 645 2.85 t7.54 0.00s837 52r4 165 t225 2.85 17.54 0.001804 Half space l 390 0.006000 Total kappa 0.0227 V' [ftlsl P3 TnrcxNnss lftl Dnprn ro Ton [ftl D,q.urp [%l kl a kl [sf (Wr-0.6) 5690 T2 0 3.20 15.63 0.0001 3 5 4566 t0 l2 3.20 15.63 0.00014 6659 10 22 3.20 15.63 9.61E-05 4682 48 32 3.20 15.63 0.000656 6523 90 80 3.20 1s.63 0.000883 9200 340 t70 3.20 15.63 0.00236s 9200 50 510 1.25 40.00 0.0001 3 6 9200 85 560 1.25 40.00 0.000231 7491 s80 645 1.25 40.00 0.001936 6895 r65 t225 t.25 40.00 0.000598 Half space I 390 0.006000 Total kappa 0.0132 S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R-009\\R19734296-R-009. Rev. 1,docx

2734296-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 2014 Page A7 of A1,1, TABLE A-7 KAPPA (K2) USED WITH UPPER RANGE PROFILE P3 rlsconffigs V5 [ftlsl P3 TnrcxNrcss lftl DBprH ro Ton [ftl D,q*rp l%lkz a k2 [sl (Wr=0.4) 5690 t2 0 1.60 31.25 6.758-0s 4566 10 I2 1.60 31.25 7.01E-05 6659 10 22 1.60 31.25 4.81E-05 4682 48 32 1.60 3t.25 0.000328 6523 90 80 1.60 3r.25 0.004442 9200 340 170 1.60 31.25 0.001183 9200 50 510 0.30 166.67 3.268-05 9200 85 s60 0.30 166.67 5.54E-05 7491 580 64s 0.30 166.67 0.00046s 6895 165 1225 0.30 166.67 0.000 r 44 Half space 1 390 0.006000 Total kappa 0.0088 S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27342% FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R1V734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx

l/J+lyo-K-uuv Reaision 1 March 20, 2014 Page A8 of All

?

E3 I f r l a-l I f r l =F c.i I frl s c.i I r i l 6i I rrl oo ..i I r i l c.i I r r l o{ c.i I f r l \\f cti It! lal oi I r r'l \\o c-.1 I cl z X t r E< + + lr.l (\\ + cl T r r'l ol + r l l o! + r i l c'l -r f r l (\\lol + f r l ao cl -r f r I tar c\\ -r f r I (\\l + f r ) t--q N b a c'l If r'1 tal c.l c-'l C-l I r r l .+ o\\ I f r l +q I f r I C-l co I f r I i.t co+ I lr] oo q in Ifrl C-l tr- + f r ' l co J + t!oo a? + trl s\\ + o\\ c.i

?

E3 I F] lal IT r l (\\lcl I r r l +c..l I f r'1 \\o C-l I H cn l f r l co c"j t f r l t'-.1 I f r l o\\n I co \\o I \\ I f r l q E? GI I f r ' l \\o (\\l o. e.l I Ho\\ cl o. e.l t f r 1 c.) O. (\\ I ao ao o\\ t\\.l IT r'! lrl .rl Ot N I f r lr-a.) oi N I r r'l o\\ ao o\\ (\\l tul sn o\\ c.l I f r ' l o\\ =q c{ I f r l + lal o\\ N I r r l oi z

tE <

t f r l +a? + f r'l \\o (".! -r f r l trl crl +u.] lrl..) + frl +c1 + T r l cO cl + f r l co crl + t! a? + r r l 00cl + r r l \\o o! -r .+ c\\l z x l r E < E + f r l \\o -t-r r l \\o- -t- \\o + r r l \\o + f r l -r f r l \\o + f r ) \\o + frl + f r l -r f r'l \\o + f r l \\oa a s6 N ITr'1 F-6i Ifrl ao-I f r ) 6i I f r'1 sf + I f r'1 raq tat I f r l co oo F-IrI] ral t'- o\\ -t-f r l lal=q + r r'l lalq -r f r l c-n c! -t r! c-Or cri rt) H M ui cA I f r ' l sn oo c..l I fr.l tr-oq C-l I f r l <f oo 6i C..l I f r lr-\\s C-l I f r'l o\\ lar 6 c{ IF.] o\\ .1 oo I lrJ c\\ J I r r l t--n I T r'l co I f r l oln c-l I f r l oo 00 c.i 3a i <E3 I f r l \\o -i I ot o\\ I f r l + c.i t tflo\\ c.l c.l I ttj oo co c.i I f r l i.)n(\\ I r i l lal c.i If r) in\\? c\\ 1 fr.l o\\\\ C.l I f r l <fq (\\l I f r l o\\ r; E? I r r l I r r l I r r'l I f r l I a Itq I f Y l I f r l I frl (\\l If r'l ao J I rrl ca-zl. - E < + T r l c{ I f r l o\\ 00 t-- I f r ' ! \\n =f, F-I r r l ral tr-I r r l trrq \\o I f r l +oo \\o I Trl cnr'- \\o I rr'l oon \\o I r r l oo o! \\o I \\CJ I rrl $q ral z E < E + r r l \\o el + r r l ra).1 -r-rr I rnc1 + r r l lrl..1 + r r l laln + r r l r.l c1 + tal or') -r f r l \\o c1 + f r ' l \\o r"'! -r f r l co + r r l \\o .r'! ra N i ; ln FI (\\ I fr"l r"l I tr-J I f r l \\o c..l c.i I f r ' l co\\.tr I r r l o\\ r,.- I f r l r'- o\\ + f r "l Nc.l -t-f r l oo + r Y l co lal c.i + f r l co o! ra + frl o\\ oq c?) N U 0 a< - a c.l I r Y l \\on C-l I r r l t\\\\ co (\\ I rrl \\o oq la) Ir! J I lr,] n I t+{ 00 t f r l o.l c\\ I r r'1 el ao I f r l ca ol s I r Y l e? la) I T r I.+ cf) \\o

?

Y Y a e c.l Ifrl 00 oo o\\ I f r ' l o\\- I f r l trr co 1 f r l talv? I f r l \\o 9 I f r'l ca\\ t f r l oq I tJl c.lq Ir! C.l c.i I T r l c.i I r r'l c..l c.i *? E3 I f r l o\\- I frl c.l cl I r r l co ol I f r'1 in C-l I frlr'- c! l f r l o\\ c.l I ro I f r l oo crl ITrl F-n I f r l @U? I \\ z E < -r f r l \\o J + f r'1 J Z

tE <

= I r r l ra) od IF1 od I H oo I o.l od I f r'l.+ oo I frl \\o od Irrl 00 od I f r l co o.l oo I r r'l ra oo I frl ao co I f r l co =l: 00 I f r l oo od Ir!o\\ trr tr- [loo cl t-I f r l laro\\ \\o I tr] C-l t-- \\CJ Ir r ) lrl(".! \\o I r Y l ro Itrl q in l f r ) c-c- ,r; F O D =< J A 6l I (\\ (\\.1 I lr] rnn in I r r l la) I at u') C-l I r r'lr-q co I f t l oan tal I f r l eo t-r -r f r l + r i l ,t? -r f r l talq IT f r'l t-c1 c.l a N A vl(\\ e.l I r r l \\o c,i C.l I l r ) rn a \\o I =t If r I co c.i I f r l oo a c.i I r r'l co\\ aa I T r l o\\ r.,+ I r r'1 f- \\o I f r l (\\lq oo + frl o{ + f r'1 .+ a? Fi F a a A l-lz 'al-A- fr/ -l A vt= _o 3Z 1r /^ \\ v . r H EF HL) =z r]P ' l = z v F U f-t= t-F] A,- A3$Consulting S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R1\\2734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx

2734296-R-009 Reaision 1, March 20, 2014 Page A9 of A1 TABLE A.9 AMPLIFICATION FUNCTIONS AT SPECIFIC LOADING LBVELS FOR DBNPS SITB 100 Hz SPECTRAL ACCELERATION : 0.119 FnneunNCY IIJZI PRorrln Pl Knppl I EPRI ROCT NONInnAR CURVES l-Connnn GnounD MorroN MoDEL PRorIln Pl Klpp,t I Lnr.lR Rocr CuRvns l-Connnn Gnounn Mouon Monnl MnnLq,N AF Srcnnl LN(AF) MnuLq,N AF SrcM.q, LN(AF) 0.1 1.04E+00 t.438-02 1.04E+00 1.438-02 0.r3 1.03E+00 1.078-02 1.03E+00 1.06E-02 0.16 1.03E+00 1.04E-02 1.03E+00 1.038-02 0.2 1.03E+00 1.228-02 1.03E+00 t.228-02 0.26 1.05E+00 1.668 -02 1.05E+00 r.668-02 0.33 1.07E+00 2.468-02 1.07E+00 2.458-02 0.42 1.1 I E+00 3.7 5E-02 1.1 1E+00 3.148-02 0.5 1.1 5E+00 5.188-02 1.1 5E+00 5.18E-02 0.53 I. I 6E+00 5.148-02 1.16E+00 5.74E-02 0.61 1.25E+00 8.35E-02 1.25E+00 8.35E-02 0.8s 1.35E+00 9.86E-02 1.35E+00 9.878-02 I 1.39E+00 8.35E-02 1.39E+00 8.368-02 1.08 1.3 8E+00 6.87F.-02 I.3 8E+00 6.878-02 t.37 1.23E+00 4.56F-02 1.238+00 4.598-02 1.74 9.90E-0 r 6.4t8-02 9.90E-01 6.448-02 2.21 8.23E-01 4.098-02 8.23E-01 4.T38-02 2.5 7.918-01 4.168-02 7.918-01 4.23F-02 2.81 8.05E-01 9.88E-02 8.04E-01 9.978-02 3.56 9.70E-01 I.60E-01 9.69E-01 I.60E-01 4.52 l.l2E+00 1.30E-01 I. l 2E+00 I.34E-01 5 I. I 9E+00 1.81E-01 I. l 9E+00 I.91E-01 5.74 1.37E+00 1.738-01 1.37E+00 1.7 4E-01 1.28 1.51E+00 7.408-02 l.5lE+00 8.8sE-02 9.24 1.428+00 7.438-02 1.428+00 8.30E-02 t0 1.39E+00 6.808-02 1.39E+00 8.218-02 tl.72 1.278+00 6.7lE -02 1.28E+00 7.828-02 14.87 1.09E+00 7.988 -02 1.09E+00 1.00E-01 18.87 9.60E-01 8.188-02 9.66E-01 9.90E-02 23.95 7.758-01 9.448-02 7.788-01 l.07E-01 25 7.498-01 1.038-01 7.528-0r I.l5E-01 30.39 6.95E-01 1.27F-01 6.99E-01 1.45E-01 38.57 7.06E-01 I.08E-01 7.16E-01 I.608-01 48.94 7.078-01 9.348 -02 7.12F,-01 I.28E-01 62.r 7.258-01 8.10E-02 7.3lB-0r 1.15E-01 78.8 7.84E-01 7.208-02 7.88E-01 9.668-02 100 8.928-01 7.058-02 8.968-01 9.168-02 S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27342% FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R1\\2734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx

2734296-R-009 Reaision L March 20, 20L4 Page A10 of A1,1 TABLE A-10 AMPLIFICATION FUNCTIONS AT SPECIFIC LOADING LBVELS FOR DBNPS SITE 100 Hz SPECTRAL ACCELERATION : 0.379 FnneuBwcy llJzl Pnop[E Pl Knppa I EPRI Rocx Nolr,rNnnn CuRvBs l-ConNnR Gnouln Monorv Monpl PRoprlr Pl Knppa 1 LrnnaR Rocr Cunvns l-ConNnn GnouwD MorIoN Mounr Mnotnn AF Srcua LN(AF) Mnnnn AF Srcrra LN(AF) 0.1 1.05E+00 1.64E-02 1.05E+00 1.60E-02 0.13 1.03E+00 t.2tE-02 1.038+00 1.18E-02 0. 1 6 1.03E+00 1.158-02 1.038+00 l.l2E-02 0.2 1.04E+00 t.3tE-02 1.04E+00 1.288,02 0.26 1.05E+00 l.738-02 1.058+00 t.708-02 0.33 1.07E+00 2.518-02 1.07E+00 2.488-02 0.42 I.1 I E+00 3.80E-02 I.1 I E+00 3.778-02 0.5 1.15E+00 5.248 -02 1.15E+00 5.208-02 0.s3 I. I 7E+00 5.80E-02 1.17E+00 5.75E-02 0.67 1.25E+00 8.42E-02 1.258+00 8.368-02 0.85 1.35E+00 9.93E-02 1.35E+00 9.868-02 I 1.39E+00 8.41E-02 1.39E+00 8.358-02 1.08 1.38E+00 6.918 -02 1.38E+00 6.868-02 1.37 1.23E+00 4.548-02 1.23E+00 4.608-02 r.74 9.91E-01 6.318-02 9.89E-01 6.478-02 2.21 8.25E-01 4.02E-02 8.21E-01 4.138-02 2.5 7.948-0r 4.808 -02 7.90E-01 4.298-02 2.8r 8.09E-01 1.09E-01 8.04E-01 1.01E-01 3.56 9.798-01 1.68E-01 9.70E-01 1.61E-01 4.52 I. 1 4E+00 1.46E-01

t. I 2E+00 1.34E-01 5

1.20E+00 1.90E-01 1.1 9E+00 1.91E-01 5.74 1.39E+00 1.75E-01 1.37E+00 1.74F-01 7.28 1.51E+00 7.7 5E-02 l.5l E+00 8.83E-02 9.24 1.40E+00 6.648-02 1.428+00 8.28E-02 l 0 1.37E+00 6.798 -02 1.39E+00 8.238-02 lt.72 1.24E+00 7.398 -02 1.27E+00 7.928-02 14.87 1.05E+00 7.958-02 1.09E+00 L01E-01 18.87 9.04E-01 9.1 I E-02 9.538-01 1.02E-01 23.9s 7.13E-01 l.l0E-01 7.50E-01 l.l5E-01 25 6.87E-01 l.lsE-01 7.218-01 1.248-0t 30.39 6.268-01 1.28E-01 6.57E-01 1.59E-01 38.57 6.19E-01 1.138-01 6.608-01 1.83E-01 48.94 5.928-01 I.l0E-01 6.28E-01 1.51E-01 62.1 5.78E-01 9.t9F-02 6.08E-01 1.40E-01 78.8 6.11E-01 7.69E-02 6.33E-01 I. 10E-01 100 7.31F-01 7.18E-02 7.538-01 1.00E-01 S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R1\\2734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx ABSGonsulting

2734296-R-009 Reuision'L March 20, 20'14 Page A'1-1 of A1.1 TABLE A-11 AMPLIFICATION FUNCTIONS AT SPECIFIC LOADING LEVELS FOR DBNPS SITE 100 Hz SPECTRAL ACCELERATION = 1.039 Fnneunncv lHzl PRoru,n Pl K,lppl I EPRI ROcT NoNI,TnnAR CURVES l-Connnn GRouNn MorroN Moonl PROTN,N Pl KAPPA 1 LINn,q.n Rocx Cunvns l-ConNnn GnouNn Mouol Monnl Montlx AF Srcnn.q. Lx(AF) Mnulq,N AF Srcvr.l LN(AF) 0.1 1.05E+00 t.828-02 1.05E+00 1.698-02 0.13 1.04E+00 t.3sE-02 1.04E+00 1.248-02 0.16 1.04E+00 t.278-02 1.03E+00 l.l7E -02 0.2 1.04E+00 t.4lE-02 1.04E+00 1.3 l E-02 0.26 1.05E+00 t.828-02 1.05E+00 t.72F-02 0.33 1.07E+00 2.608-02 1.07E+00 2.498-02 0.42 1.1 lE+00 3.90E-02 1.1 1E+00 3.788-02 0.5 I.l5E+00 5.35E-02

l. I 5E+00 5.218-02 0.53 I. I 7E+00 5.928-02 I. I 7E+00 5.t68-02 0.67 1.26E+00 8.58E-02 1.25E+00 8.378-02 0.85 1.36E+00 l.0lE-01 1.35E+00 9.878-42 I

1.39E+00 8.59E-02 1.39E+00 8.34E-02 r.08 1.39E+00 7.088-02 1.38E+00 6.85E-02 r.37 1.24E+00 4.508 -02 1.23E+00 4.6tF-02 t.74 9.998-01 6.00E-02 9.88E-0r 6.48E-02 2.21 8.37E-01 4.178-02 8.21E-01 4.T38-02 2.5

8. l0E-01 6.768-02 7.89E-01 4.318-02 2.81 8.30E-01 1.37E-01 8.04E-01 I.01E-0 I

3.56 1.02E+00 I.91 E-01 9.70E-01 I.61E-01 4.s2 I. I 9E+00 1.84E-01 1.12E+00 1.35E-01 5 1.26E+00 I.99E-01 1.19E+00 1.928-01 5.74 1.43E+00 1.75E-01 1.37E+00 1.748-01 7.28 1.49E+00 7.558-02 1.51E+00 8.83E-02 9.24 1.358+00 6.908-02 t.428+00 8.28E-02 l0 1.30E+00 7.628-02 1.39E+00 8.258-02 tL.72

1. I 5E+00 8.96E-02 1.278+00 7.968-02 t4.87 9.70E-01 8.728 -02 1.08E+00 I.02E-01 18.87 8.02E-01 l.l5E-01 9.48E-01 I.04E-01 23.95 6.298-01 r.278-01 7.398-01 I. 19E-01 25 6.09E-01 1.278-01 7.09E-01 1.278-0r 30.39 5.55E-01 I. I 7E-01 6.418-01 I.658-01 38.57 5.31E-01 l.l0E-01 6.40E-01 1.93E-01 48.94 4.97F-01 I.20E-01 5.96E-01 1.628-01 62.1 4.81E-01 9.648-02 5.59E-01 1.55E-01 78.8 5.06E-01 7.968-02 5.65E-01 I. 19E-01 100 6.228-01 7.nE-02 6.80E-01 1.06E-01 S:\\Local\\Pubst27342%

FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R{O9\\R1\\2734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx fFGonsultlng

2734296-R-009 Reoision 1 March 20, 20L4 Page 81 of 85 APPENDIX B EVALUATION OF DBNPS IPEEE SUBMITTAL AISGonsulting rce S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R{O9\\R1\\2734296-R-m9, Rev. 1.docx

2734296-R-009 Reaision 1. March 20, 20L4 Page 82 of BS APPENDIX B _ EVALUATION OF DBNPS IPEEE SUBMITTAL The Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) performed for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (DBNPS) was a reduced-scope Electric Power Research Institute (EPzu) Seismic Margin Assessment (SMA). Therefore, in accordance with Seismic Evaluation Guidance, Screening Prioritizqtion, and Implementation Details (SPID)/or the Resolution of the Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.l: Seismic (EPRI,20l3a), it is not eligible for use in screening associated with EPRI's SPID (EPRI, 2013a). Nevertheless, it is summarizedhere for information, and because, in combination with the A-46 program, the IPEEE findings indicate that the plant design is seismically robust and exhibits significant margins in excess of the design basis. The IPEEE was performed in accordance with the guidelines in Nuclear Regulatory Commission Technical Report, NUREG-I4A7 (NRC, 1991). The plant HCLPF value is reported to be 0.269 and is controlled by insufficient freeboard in the Borated Water Storage Tank. 8.1 IPBEE Prerequisites The SPID (EPRI,20l3a) guidelines require that the following prerequisites be documented prior to the possible use of the IPEEE for screening. Confirm that commitments made under the IPEEE have been met. If not, address and close those commitments. Confirm whether all of the modifications and other changes credited in the IPEEE analysis are in place. Confirm that any identified deficiencies or weaknesses to NUREG-1407 (NRC, 1991) in the plant specific U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Safety Evaluation Report (SER) are properly justified to ensure that the IPEEE conclusions remain valid. Confirm that major plant modifications since the completion of the IPEEE have not degraded/impacted the conclusions reached in the IPEEE. In response to Generic Letter 87-02, "Verification of Seismic Adequacy of Mechanical and Electrical Equipment in Operating Reactors, IJnresolved Safety Issue A-46." Toledo Edison submitted Report Number 2316 (August 29,1995). The Report identified several vulnerabilities which were subsequently corrected. l. 2. 3. 4. S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27342% FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R4O9\\R1\\2734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx ABSGonsulting

2734296-R-009 Reuision L March 20, 2014 Page 83 of 85 As part of the Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) 2.3 Seismic walkdown effort, a sample of these vulnerabilities was examined to verify that the corrective actions were implemented and documents closed. The resulting Report (FENOC,2012) presents in Appendix G, & summary of the vulnerabilities identified in the A-46/IPEEE programs and their respective disposition. Available Seismic Evaluation Worksheets (SEWS) generated during the IPEEE walkdowns were included in the NTTF 2.3 report (FENOC,20l2b). The NTTF 2.3 walkdowns identified no potential adverse seismic conditions. 8.2 IPBBE Adequacy Demonstration Consistent with the guidelines in NUREG -1407 (NRC, 1991), the DBNPS IPEEE accomplished areduced scope SMA for the 0.3g Review Level Earthquake (RLE). The followingparugraphs briefly summari ze the IPEEE in accordance with the requirements of the SPID guidelines (EPRI, 2013a). 8.2.1 Building Seismic Analysis The design of DBNPS is based on conservative engineering practices, which generally result in higher seismic capacity than the design peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.1 5g. Some of these factors include: conservative modeling techniques, which were based upon the limitations of the analysis performed and the "state of the art" at the time; and applying the free field seismic input motion at the base of the foundation (bedrock) without using a reduction factor. The degree of conservatism in the design basis analysis is illustrated by subsequent seismic evaluations performed at DBNPS. These include: Reevaluation of the seismic input motion from 0.159 to 0.209 Generic Letter 87 -02 "Verification of Seismic Adequacy of Equipment in Older Operating Nuclear Plants." The seismic reevaluation was based on the upgraded Maximum Possible Earthquake PGA of 0.209 in conjunction with the design basis criteria. The reevaluation determined that the systems required for safe shutdown of the DBNPS, as well as systems required for continued shutdown o a S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R1\\2734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx AEtConsllting

2734296-R-009 Reaision L March 20, 2014 Page 84 of 85 heat removal, exhibit seismic margins in excess of the 0.2gPGA. NRC's SER related to the seismic reevaluation concluded that there is sufficient conservatism and margin in the piping systems, components, and supports at Davis-Besse to ensure safe shutdown and continued heat removal in the event of an earthquake having a PGA of 0.209. 8.2.2 IPEEE Seismic Response In-structure response spectra for use in the seismic IPEEE and Unresolved Safety Issue (USI) A-46 have been developed using median based soil properties, structural properties, and analysis assumptions. The best estimate (BE) structural models used for this analysis were based on the mathematical models used in the design seismic analysis. The two-dimensional planar models used in the design analysis were upgraded to three dimensional models to better represent stiffiress offsets and mass eccentricities. These 3-D models utilized the information from the design basis models and supporting calculations as well as as-built drawings of the different structures. The raw spectra were then broadened+l - l5 percent. The broadened spectra for each mass point degree of freedom were then enveloped for all three soil conditions. The in-structure response spectra, as described above, are then scaled following the guidance of the Generic Implementation Program (GIP) in order to develop the 84th percentile non-exceedance spectra for use in the USI A-46. The scale factor was obtained on the basis of comparing the NUREG/CR-0098 (Newmark and Hall, 1978) 84 percent non-exceedance probability (NEP) shape anchored to the site SSE PGA of 0.l5gandthe IPEEE RLE spectrum. The resulting scale factor is 0.697. The same scale factor was applied to all IPEEE spectral values in order to develop ISRS for use in the A-46. 8.2.3 Screening of Components The development of the Safe Shutdown Equipment List (SSEL) and the screening evaluations were performed following the guidelines in the GIP and EPRI NP-6041 (EPRI, 1991c). Based on the GIP, the capacity of the equipment located below about 40 ft above grade and with a natural frequency of about 8 Hz or greater is defined by a "Bounding Spectrum" characterized by a PGA of 0.339. At building elevations in excess of 40 ft, the equipment capacities were developed based on comparing the IPEEE ISRS with amplified GIP bounding spectra. S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27A2% FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R19734296-R-009. Rev. 1.docx AEgConsulting

2734296-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 2014 Page 85 of BS Additionally, the IPEEE also evaluated low ruggedness relays not addressed in the A-46 program and containment performance. 8.2.4 Seismic CapabilityWalkdowns The IPEEE walkdowns were combined with the A-46 walkdowns. The walkdowns were performed in accordance withthe guidelines inthe GIP and EPRINP-6041 (EPRI, 1991c). The walkdowns and the subsequent seismic evaluation of active mechanical and electrical components of DBNPS confirm with ahigh degree of confidence that equipment included inthe scope of,{-46 is similar to the equipment identified in the Seismic Qualification Utility Group (SQUG) Seismic Data Base. 8.3 GMRS and IHS Comparison The IPEEE for DBNPS is not used for plant screening evaluation. However, comparison of the IPEEE HCLPF spectrum (IHS) and the GMRS at the Reactor Building (RB) foundation level shows that the IHS substantially envelops the GMRS is the entire range of frequencies of interest. AFtGonsulting rce S:\\Local\\Pubs\\:27%2% FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R1\\2734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx

2734296-R-409 Reaision 1, March 20, 2014 Page Cl. of C1,2 APPENDIX C REACTOR BUILDING MEAN AND FRACTILE SEISMIC IJ.AZARI) DBNPS SITE AfSConsulting rC? S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27%296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\ROog\\R1U734296-R{09, Rev. 1.docx

2734296-R-009 Reuision 1. March 20, 2014 Page C2 of C1.2 APPENDIX C - RBACTOR BUILDING MEAN AND FRACTILE SEISMIC H.AZ,ARD TABLE C-l lOO HZ SPBCTRAL ACCELERATION MEAN AND FRACTILE SBISMIC HAZARD AT DBNPS RB FOUNDATION LBVEL

SpucrRtl, ACCBInRlTIoN lsl ANNuu, FnnOUNNCY OF EXCTNUANCE MnaN 5rH 16rH 50rH 84rn 95rH 0.01 4.448-03 2.06E-03 2.65F,-03 4.028-03 6.288-03 8.28E-03 0.02 t.678-03 5.93E-04 7.878-04 I.3 8E-03 2.458-03 3.99E-03 0.03 9.1 1E-04 2.698 -04 3.698-04 6.82E-04 1.40E-03 2.528-03 0.04 5.87E-04 1.50E-04 2.128-04 4.128-04

9. 1 I E-04 1.78E-03 0.05 4.14F-04 9.28E-05 t.378-04 2.80E-04 6.51E-04 1.34E-03 0.06 3.06E-04 6.278-05 9.48E-05 2.028-04 4.878-04 I.01E-03 0.07 2.35E-04 4.57E-05 6.998-05 1.53E-04 3.788-04 7.788-04 0.08 1.86E-04 3.5 I E-05 5.428 -05 t.208-04 3.028-04 6.16F-04 0.09 I.5 I E-04 2.788-05 4.36E-05 9.61E-05 2.478-04 5.00E-04 0.r0 1.258-04 2.268-05 3.60E-05 7.90E-05 2.048-04 4.138-04 0.20 3.37E-05 5.61E-06 9.68E-06 2.238-05 5.46E-05 1.08E-04 0.2s 2.12F'05 3.41E-06 5.89E-06 1.43E-05 3.468-05 6.57E-05 0.30 1.43E-05 2.2rE-06 3.84E-06 9.708-06 2.368 -05 4.368-05 0.40 7.408-06 1.02E-06 1.86E-06 5.028-06 1.25E-05 2.248-05 0.50 4.318-06 5.288-07 1.00E-06 2.898-06 7.37E-06 I.3 I E-05 0.60 2.708-06 2.95E-07 5.7 4E -07 1.78E-06 4.688-06 8.30E-06 0.70 1.78E-06 1.728 -07 3.438-07 1.15E-06 3. I 1E-06 5.61E-06 0.80 1.228-06 1.048-07 2.138-07 7.67F,-07 2.158-06 3.98E-06 0.90 8.728-07 6.49E-08 t.378-07 5.298-07 1.54E-06 2.938 -06 1.00 6.42F,-07 4.2tE-08 9.17E-08 3.778 -07 1.14E-06 2.228-06 2.00 8.12E-08 1.93E-09 5.08E-09 3.3 8E-08 r.408-07 3.548-07 3.00 2.20E-08 2.3 1E-I 0 6.95E-10 6.50E-09 3.50E-08 t.r4E-07 s.00 3.778-09 1.32E -ll 4.7 6B-ll 6.98E-l0 s.30E-09 2.438 -08 AESConsultlng rCR S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R{09\\R1\\2734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx

2734296-R-009 Reuision 1 March 20, 201-4 Page C3 of C1,2 TABLE C-2 25HZ SPECTRAL ACCELBRATION MEAN AND FRACTILB SBISMIC HAZARI) AT DBNPS RB FOUNDATION LEVEL

SpncrRll, AccBInRATIoN tsl AuxunI FnBOUNNCY OF EXCBNNANCE MnnN 5rH l6rH 50ru 84rn 95ru 0.01 7.128-03 3.75E-03 4.65E-03 6.60E-03 9.64E-03 l.2tE-02 0.02 3.3 1E-03 1.50E-03 1.948 -03 2.978-03 4.738-03 6.328-03 0.03 1.95E-03 7.89E-04 1.048-03 1.70E-03 2.838-03 4.03E-03 0.04 1.298-03 4.83E-04 6.398-04 1.09E-03 r.90E-03 2.86E-03 0.0s 9.21E-04 3.228-04 4.32E -04 7.578-44 1.388-03 2.r7E-03 0.06 6.948-04 2.278-04

3. r I E-04 5.58E-04 1.05E-03 1.72F,-03 0.07 5.448 -04 1.68E-04 2.348 -04 4.308-04 8.28E-04 1.40E-03 0.08 4.418-04 1.30E-04 1.83E-04 3.448-04 6.76E-04 I.16E-03 0.09 3.668-04 1.04E-04 1.48E-04 2.838-04 5.668 -04 9.768-04 0.10 3.10E-04 8.48E-05 r.228-04 2.39E-04 4.84F,-04 8.34E-04 0.20 1.03E-04 2.398 -05 3.68E-05 7.74F-05 1.68E-04 2.81E-04 0.25 7.l4E -05 1.62E-05 2.558-05 s.39E-05 I.l6E-04 1.92F,-04 0.30 5.248-05 1.18E-05 1.87E-05 4.01E-05 8.47E-05 1.39E-04 0.40

3. 15E-05 6.89E-06 1.13E,05 2.478-05

5. 10E-05 8.1 lE-05 0.50 2.08E-05 4.448 -06 7.35F,-06 1.658-05 3.40E-05 5.278-05 0.60 1.46E-05 3.03E-06 s.07E-06 I. 16E-05 2.41E-05 3.678 -05 0.70 1.06E-05 2.158-06 3.63E-06 8.49E-06 1.78E-05 2.698-05 0.80 8.0 r E-06 1.578-06 2.678 -06 6.368-06 1.35E-05 2.03E-05 0.90 6.18E-06 1.178-06 2.01F-06 4.88E-06 1.05E-05 1.58E-05 1.00 4.878-06 8.89E-07 1.54E -06 3.83E-06 8.30E-06 t.268-05 2.00 8.82E-07 1.15E-07 2.t9F-07 6.49E-07 1.56E-06 2.538-06 3.00 2.97F'07 2.848-08 5.778-08 2.028 -07 5.428 -07 9.308-07 5.00 6.84E-08 4.248-09 9.33E-09 4.22E-08 1.298-07 2.378-07 S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27342%

FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R19734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx fE$Gonsulting

2734296-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 201.4 Page C4 of C12 TABLE C-3 LOH.Z SPECTRAL ACCBLERATION MEAN AND FRACTILE SEISMIC HAZARD AT DBNPS RB FOUNDATION LEVEL

SpncrRlr, ACCBInRATIoN tel ATvT,{u,A I, FnNQUNNCY OF EXCNNNANCE Mn,tN 5rH 16ru 50rn 84rn 95rH 0.01 t.l3E-02 6.738 -03 8.07E-03 1.08E-02 t.47F-02 t.748-02 0.02 5.31E-03 2.778-03 3.428-03 4.978-03 7.298-03 8.97E-03 0.03 3.33E-03 1.59E-03 2.03E-03 3.07E-03 4.728-03 5.978-03 0.04 2.3t8-03 1.028 -03 t.348-03 2.r0E-03 3.348-03 4.33E-03 0.05 1.71E-03 7.l6E-04 9.408-04 1.54E-03 2.stE-03 3.34E-03 0.06 1.32E-03 5.298-04 6.96E -04 1.178 -03 1.96E-03 2.68E-03 0.07 1.05E-03 4.06E-04 5.38E-04 9.15E-04 1.58E-03 2.218-03 0.08 8.64E-04 3.208-04 4.288-04 7.428-04 1.30E-03 r.87E-03 0.09 7.238-04 2.588-04 3.49F-04 6.158-04 1.09E-03 I.61E-03

0. 10 6.15E-04 2.128-04 2.898-04 5.19E-04 9.278-04 1.40E-03 0.20 2.038 -04 5.40E-05 7.978-05 1.60E-04 3.228-04 4.998-04 0.2s 1.40E-04 3.43E-0s 5.22E-05 1.09E-04 2.288-04 3.55E-04 0.30 1.038-04 2.398-05 3.728-05 7.938-05 1.70F,-04 2.668-04 0.40 6.298-05 1.39E-05 2.228-05 4.83E-05 1.06E-04 1.63E-04 0.50 4.22F,-05 8.96E-06 1.48E-05 3.278-05 7.058-05 1.08E-04 0.60 3.02E-05 6.17F-06 1.03E-05 2.368-05 5.00E-05 7.678-05 0.70 2.258-05 4.478-06 7.50E-06 t.t7E-05 3.75E-05 5.75E-05 0.80 l.7 4E-05 3.36E-06 5.69E-06 1.37E-05 2.9rE-O5 4.458 -05 0.90 1.37E-05 2.608-06 4.458-06 1.07E-05 2.32E-05 3.54E-05 1.00

1. 108-05 2.068-06 3.548 -06 8.55E-06 1.88E-05 2.878-05 2.00 2.21F'06 3.178 -07 5.8 I E-07 t.628-06 3.91E-06 6.238-06 3.00 7.68E-07 8.67E-08 1.68E-07 5.36F,-07 1.388-06 2.318-06 5.00 1.80E-07 1.30E-08 2.768-08 l.l2F,-07 3.30E-07 6.098-07 S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27342% FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Reporl File\\R{09\\R'l\\2734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx AEOGonsulting

2734296-R-009 Reaision L March 20, 201-4 Page C5 of C1,2 TABLE C.4 1HZ SPECTRAL ACCELERATION MBAN AND FRACTILE SEISMIC HAZARI) AT DBNPS RB FOUNDATION LEVEL Spncrnal ACCELERATION tel ANNUU FNNOUNNCY OF EXCEEDANCE MnnN 5rs 16rH 50rrt 84rH 95rn 0.01 9.278-03 5.438-03 6.5 1E-03 8.97E-03 1.21F,-02 1.42F.-02 0.02 3.69E-03 1.86E-03 2.348-03 3.49F-03 5.t2E-03 6.238 -03 0.03 2.078-03 9.40E-04 1.22F,-03 1.928-03 2.98E-03 3.728-03 0.04 t.328-03 5.5 3E-04 7.31E-04 1.20E-03 1.95E-03 2.50E-03 0.05 9.178 -04 3.61E-04 4.85E-04 8.218-04 1.38E-03 1.81E-03 0.06 6.7 4E -04 2.5tE-04 3.448-04 5.98E-04 1.02E-03 1.378 -03 0.07 5.18E-04 1.84E-04 2.56E-04 4.55F,-04 7.918-04 1.08E-03 0.08 4.llE -04 1.39E-04 1.96E-04 3.58E-04 6.328-04 8.728-04 0.09 3.348 -04 1.08E-04 1.55E-04 2.898-04 5.t78-04 7.228-04 0.10 2.778-04 8.60E-05 t.25E-04 2.38E-04 4.328 -04 6.09E-04 0.20 7.918-05 1.94E-05 3.00E-05 6.448-05 1.28E-04 1.93E-04 0.25 5.248-05 1.20E-05 I.91E-05 4.228-05 8.56E-05 1.31E-04 0.30 3.728-05 8.05E-06 1.32E-05 2.98E-05 6.14E-05 9.36E-05 0.40 2.148-05 4.25E-06 7.18E-06 I.71E-05 3.59E-05 5.44E -05 0.50 1.37E-05 2.57E-06 4.40E-06 1.09E-05 2.348-05 3.54E-05 0.60 9.448-06 t.678-06 2.928-06 7.408 -06 1.648-45 2.478-05 0.70 6.84E-06 I. l4E-06 2.048-06 5.28E-06 1.20E-05 1.82E-05 0.80 5.14E-06 8.08E-07 1.48E-06 3.92E-06 9.05E-06 1.38E-05 0.90 3.98E-06 5.91E-07 I.l0E-06 3.00E-06 7.028-06 1.08E-05 1.00 3.1 5E-06 4.448-07 8.378 -07 2.358-06 5.578-06 8.66E-06 2.00 5.86E-07 5.12E-08 r.078 -07 3.90E-07 1.08E-06 1.81E-06 3.00 1.998-07 1.18E-08 2.68E-08 t.t7E-07 3.768 -07 6.748-07 5.00 4.208 -08 1.248-09 3.31E-09 1.88E-08 7.97E-08 l.6lE -07 S:\\Local\\PubsV7342% FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R-009\\R1\\2734296-R-009. Rev. 1.docx fESConsulting

2734296-R-009 Reaision 1-March 20, 20'14 Page C6 of C12 TABLE C.5 2.5IJ2 SPECTRAL ACCELERATION MBAN AND FRACTILB SBISMIC HAZARD AT DBNPS RB FOUNDATION LEVEL Spncrrul ACcnInRATIoN lql ANNUIT, FNNQUNNCY OF EXCNNUANCE Mn,q.N 5tn 16rH 50rn 84rn 95rH 0.0 r 3.75E-03 1.94E-03 2.43E-03 3.5 8E-03

5. I I E-03 6.13E-03 0.02 l.l8E-03 4.82E-04 6.44E-04 1.07E-03 r.748-03 2.228-03 0.03 5.24E-04 r.86E-04 2.628-04 4.648-04 8.05E-04 1.07E-03 0.04 2.86F.-04 8.95E-05 1.31E-04 2.49F,-04 4.50E-04

6. 10E-04 0.05 1.77F,-04 5.02E-05 7.5 I E-05 1.528 -04 2.85E-04 3.948-04 0.06 r.208-04

3. l4E-05 4.7 6E -05 I.01E-04 1.978 -04 2.768-04 0.07 8.62E-05 2.12F.-05 3.258-05 7.06E-05 1.458 -04 2.058-04 0.08 6.498-05 1.50E-05 2.348-05 5.228-05 l.l 1E-04 1.59E-04 0.09 5.06E-05 I. l0E-05 l.7 4E-05 4.028-05 8.73E-05 1.278-04

0. l0 4.068-05 8.34E-06 1.34E-05 3. t 9E-05 7.048 -05 1.03E-04 0.20 9.428 -06 1.298-06 2.378-06 6.70E -06 I.71E-05 2.688-05 0.25 5.83E,06 6.778-07 1.348 -06 3.998 -06 1.08E-05 1.71E-05 0.30 3.91E-06 3.968-07 8.13E-07 2.60E-06 7.238-06

1. r 8E-05 0.40 2.068-06 t.648-07 3.628-07 1.30E-06 3.84E-06 6.468-06 0.50 1.23E-06 7.83E-08 1.878-07 7.328-07 2.35E-06 4.03E-06 0.60 8.00E-07 4.15E-08 1.03E-07 4.528-07 1.55E-06 2.728-06 0.70 5.51E-07 2.40E-08 6.1 I E-08 2.98E-07 1.07E-06 1.95E-06 0.80 3 968 -07 1.46E-08 3.82E-08 2.058-07 7.678 -07 r.448-06 0.90 2.948-07 9.238-09 2.498-08 t.45E-07 5.668 -07 I. 108-06 1.00 2.248-07 6.01E-09 1.68E-08 1.05E-07 4.308-07 8.53E-07 2.00 3.278-08 2.56E-I 0 9.3 5E-10 9.85E-09 5.98E-08 t.4tE-07 3.00 8.95E-09 2.7 4E.-ll I.12E-10 1.78E-09 r.51E-08 4.058-08 s.00 1.56E-09 t.l6B-t2 6.048-12 1.63E-10 2.20E-09 7.428 -09 S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27342%

FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R1t2734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx

2734296-R-009 Reaision L March 20, 2014 Page C7 of C1,2 TABLE C-6 IHZ SPBCTRAL ACCELBRATION MEAN AND FRACTILE SEISMIC HAZARI) AT DBNPS RB FOUNDATION LBVEL Spncrn,tl AcCBInRATIoN tsl ANnunI FRNOUNNCY OF EXCBNOANCE Mnlt,l 5t" l6rH 50ru 84rn 95rn 0.01 3.948-03 1.96E-03 2.558-03 4.00E-03 5.298-03 6.05E-03 0.02 l.19E-03 4.00E-04 5.62E-04 1.07E-03 1.85E-03 2.378-03 0.03 5.59E-04 1.50E-04 2.21E-04 4.678-04 9.34F,-04 1.298-03 0.04 2.948-04 6.798 -05 1.03E-04 2.328-04 5.06E-04 7.36E-04 0.0s t.698-04 3.52E-05 5.48E-05 1.28E-04 2.978-04 4.498-04 0.06 1.05E-04 2.0tE-05 3.21F'05 7.728-05 1.878-04 2.88E-04 0.07 6.93E-05 1.23E-05 2.01E-05 4.97F,-05 1.24E-04 1.948-04 0.08 4.798-05 7.968-06 1.328-05 3.37E-05 8.68E-05 r.378-04 0.09 3.45E-05 5.40E-06 9.10E-06 2.38E-05 6.30E-0s 9.98E-05 0.10 2.578-05 3.80E-06 6.478 -06 1.738-05 4.728-05 7.52E-05 0.24 4.078-06 2.998-07 6.24F,-07 2.208-06 7.458-06 1.40E-05 0.25 2.31F-06 1.268-07 2.878-07 1.14E-06 4.228 -06 8.45E-06 0.30 1.48E-06 6. I I E-08 1.50E-07 6.75E-07 2.708-06 5.67F,-06 0.40 7.508-07 1.82E-08 5. 17E-08 3.00E-07 1.39E-06 3.08E-06 0.s0 4.468 -07 6.65E-09

2. t 9E-08 r.598-07 8.15E-07 1.90E-06 0.60 2.918-07 2.81E-09 1.05E-08 9.178 -08 5.238-07 1.278-06 0.70 2.01F-07 t.328-09 5.48E-09 5.62E-08 3.598-07 8.90E-07 0.80 t.468-07 6.68E-10

3. r 0E-09 3.66E-08 2.578-07 6.54E -07 0.90 1.09E-07 3.628-t0 1.85E-09 2.498 -08 1.90E-07 4.978-07 1.00 8.3 8E-08 2.07E-10 1.15E-09 1.74E-08 1.448-07 3.87E -07 2.00 1.26E-08 3.268-12 3.29E-tl 1.10E-09 1.71E-08 5.59E-08 3.00 3.85E-09 2.288 -I3 3.27F,12 1.82E-10 4.368-09 1.s6E-08 5.00 7.2r8 -10 0.00E+00 1.09E-13 1.28E-l 1

5.99E-10 2.398-09 S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27342% FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R1\\2734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx AESGonsuEing

2734296-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 20L4 Page C8 of C12 TABLE C-7 O.'HZ SPECTRAL ACCELBRATION MEAN AND FRACTILE SEISMIC HAZARI) AT DBNPS RB FOUNDATION LEVEL Gsrsulting rCR

SpncrnlI, ACCnInRATIoN lel AT'INu,q.L FnNQUBNCY OF EXCNNNANCE Mn^lN 5rH 16rn 50ru 84rH 95rn 0.01 1.55E-03 4.648-04 6.83E-04 1.428-03 2.51E-03 3.03E-03 0.02 4.278-04 7.60E-05 l.2lF'04 3.20F,-04 7.7 4F,-04 I. 13E-03 0.03 1.768-04 2.338-0s 3.91 E-05 l.l7E -04 3.328-04 5.348-04 0.04 8.47E-05 9.268 -06 I.61E-05

5. I 8E-05 1.628-A4 2.748-04 0.05 4.578 -05 4.348-06 7.7 5F,-06 2.628-05 8.76E-05 1.53E-04 0.06 2.698-05 2.278 -06 4.208-06 1.46E-05 5. I 9E-05 9.258-05 0.07 1.69E-05 1.298-06 2.468 -06 8.728-06 3.298-05 5.95E-05 0.08 I. 12E-05 7.788-07 1.53E-06 5.548 -06 2.19F-0s 4.04E-05 0.09 7.758-46 4.958 -07 9.948-07 3.708-06 1.52E-05 2.88E-05

0. 10 5.59E-06 3.278-07 6.748-07 2.578-06 1.09E-05 2.138 -05 0.20 7.478-07 1.58E-08 4.15E-08 2.33E-07 t.238-06 3.3 r E-06 0.25 4.068-07 5.67F.-09 1.60E-08 1.06E-07 6.238-07 1.89E-06 0.30 2.578-07 2.31F,-09 6.91E-09 5.50E-08 3.708-07 1.238 -06 0.40 r.298 -07 5.01E-10 1.66E-09 1.91E-08 1.678-07 6.22E-07 0.50 7.648-08 1.42E-10 5. I 3E,10 8.178-09 8.94E-08 3.708-07 0.60 4.96E-08 4.67F-tl 1.86E-10 3.98E-09 5.20E-08 2.398-07 0.70 3.42E-08 I.71E-l 1 7.6tF-ll 2.15E-09 3.28E-08 r.638 -07 0.80 2.478-08 6.548-12 3.40E-1 I 1.248-09 2.19E-08 1. r 5E-07 0.90 1.85E-08 2.488-12 1.62F,-ll 7.48E-10 1.5 I E-08 8.34E-08 1.00 1.42E-08 9.39E-13 8.148 -12 4.72E-r0 1.07E-08 6. r 9E-08 2.00 2.168-09 0.00E+00 6.948-r4 r.73F-lr 8.62E-l0 6.76E-09 3.00 6.54E-10 0.00E+00 2.448-t5 2.05F'12 I.68E-10 1.588-09 5.00 1.23E -10 0.008+00 0.00E+00 9.598-14 1.628 -ll 1.93E-10 S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R1\\2734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx

2734296-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 2014 Page C9 of C12 (,co= C'o II o 9co -too(,x UJ (u=ctr 1.E-01 L.E-02 1.E-03 1.E-04 1.E-05 1.E-06 t.E-o7 1.E-08 iS

\\\\.r*ds

\\

r 0.1_0 1.00 10.00 mean_fdn

. -50th fdn 100 Hz SpectralAcceleration (g) Sth_fdn 16th_fdn - 84th fdn . 95th fdn 1.E-0L 1.E-02 1.E-03 1.E-04 1.E-05 1.E-06 1..E-O7 1.E-08 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 25 Hz SpectralAcceleration (g) -mean_fdn -r-Sth_fdn 16th - 5 0 t h _ f d n -. 8 4 t h _ f d n -. 9 5 t h FIGURE C-l DBNPS MBAN AND FRACTILE HAZARD CURVBS AT RB FOUNDATION LBVEL (sA AT r00 HZ AND 2s HZ) Itro= CF o l! o Ico T'oo fr,x UI (U==tr Consulting rCR ] : i l : r t l l r, 1***--*r-..-*l ]. :. i r t t t r i i t i _-__t- _\\r!

.=.

':*$$5- -.ti s \\ i \\.( 1 : il --t.)\\\\ \\ \\ \\ t.t t S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R4O9\\R1\\2734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx

2734296-R-009 Reaision 1 March 20, 241.4 Page C10 of C1-2 'Sl* a l l i 1 l : : j I ^^*l.-**-;-- ";, *,1--:, ;;

lll:.,

:, j. : : l l

'-\\--.'ss l l ' : l : 'tr\\ )rt t !

\\ 1 r.,

co5Eo l! o(,= (E T'oo (J xul tu= cc t.E-oz 1.E-03 1.E-04 1.E-05 1.E-06 t.E-o7 1.E-08 0.01_ 0.10 1.00 10 Hz SpectralAcceleration (g) -mean_fdn Sth_fdn 16th_ -50th_fdn - o84th_fdn -.95th_ 1.00 10.00 ABSGonsulting rct fdn fdn 1.E-01 1.E-02 1.E-03 1.E-04 1.E-05 1.E-06 1.E-07 1.E-08 0.01 0.10 rJ g o=ET o It o Ico T'oo(., x ul (E Jcc 5 Hz SpectralAcceleration (g) -meanJdn Sth_fdn 16th ..Soth_fdn - o84th_fdn -.95th FIGURE C.2 DBNPS MBAN AND FRACTILB HAZARD CURVES AT RB FOUNDATION LEVEL (sA AT L0IJZ AND 5.0 HZ) _fdn _fdn '\\-l S\\\\si

l

.1-,--t_ -l-1\\.. j-i$ Ni= ! l i l t t i i l : \\:\\ \\: t,

;. l

'il-\\ S:\\Local\\Pubs\\27%2% FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R{09\\R1\\2734296-R409. Rev. 1.docx

2734296-R-009 Reaision 1, March 20, 2014 Page C1.1. of C1.2 }RS t, : i : . l : l " **-*:-t:*l ] : : r,, : ,. : l . 1 -=\\ rSs l \\iL,-.i-, , -:rl\\ i r I i r i \\ I i i t : '\\(- 1.E-01_ t.E-oz 1.E-03 1.E-04 1.E-05 1.E-06 t.E-07 1.E-08 0.01 0.10 L.00 10.00 2.5 Hz Spectral Acceleration (C) -mean_fdn Sth_fdn 16th_fdn ..50th fdn - -84th fdn - .95th fdn 1.E-01 t.E-02 1.E-03 1.E-04 1_.E-05 1.E-06 L.E-07 1.E-08 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 1 Hz SpectralAcceleration (g) mean fdn - - - 5th fdn 16th fdn o50th fdn -84th fdn .95th fdn FIGURE C.3 DBNPS MEAN AND FRACTILE HAZARD CURVES AT RB FOUNDATION LEVEL (sA AT 2.5H.2 AND l.0H.Z) tco= C'o L II o(, glu -too rtlx UJ l!= g s C'co=cr o tt o Ig .u =too Ix IrI to Jg E Gonsulting rC?

l

. j

-\\\\s.

a a a. :

a 1 r l. -\\iN \\Ss l {i t 'l-^SSi-. \\ ' \\. - \\ - S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R409\\R1t2734296-R-009, Rev. 't.docx

2734296-R-009 Reoision 1^ March 20, 20'1-4 Page C1.2 of C12 ug o= Eo Lt! o (J g o T'oo(, x EI (E = g tr 1.E-01 L.E-02 1.E-03 1_. E-04 1_.E-05 1.E-06 L.E-07 1_. E-08 a

.IRs.

l:::

RN*'rs \\S. I I , \\ a ls'\\> a \\ \\ '\\r\\ \\ \\ I a \\ 0.01

0. L0 1_.00 r.0.00 0.5 Hz Spectral Acceleration (g)

-mean_fdn Sth_fdn - L5th_fdn . - 50th fdn - .84th fdn - . 95th fdn FIGURE C-4 DBNPS MEAN AND FRACTILE HAZARD CURVES AT RB FOUNDATION LEVEL (sA AT 0.5 HZ) Gonsultlng FCT? S:\\Local\\Pubs\\2734296 FENOC Davis-Besse\\3.1Q Report File\\R{09\\R1\\2734296-R-009, Rev. 1.docx AES}}

ML14090A148

Contents

Text

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

6.0 CONCLUSION

7.0 REFERENCES

b o 5F

Navigation menu

ML14090A148

Text

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

6.0 CONCLUSION

7.0 REFERENCES

b o 5F

Navigation menu

Search