ML15212A955

NRR E-mail Capture - (External_Sender) FW: Perry ESEP Clarification Questions

ML15212A955
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	07/22/2015
From:	Lashley P First Energy Services
To:	Nicholas Difrancesco, Steve Wyman Japan Lessons-Learned Division
References
Download: ML15212A955 (82)

Text

NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From: Lashley, Phil H. [phlashley@firstenergycorp.com]

Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 7:58 AM To: Wyman, Stephen; DiFrancesco, Nicholas Cc: Lentz, Thomas A. (Licensing); Nevins, Kathleen J.

Subject:

[External_Sender] FW: Perry ESEP Clarification Questions Attachments: PNPP ESEP Clarification Question Response.pdf Responses to the Perry ESEP clarification questions are included in the attachment to this email.

Respectfully, Phil H. Lashley Fleet Licensing Supervisor Cell: (330) 696-7208 Office: (330) 315-6808 Mail Stop: A-WAC-B1 From: Lashley, Phil H.

Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 7:17 AM To: 'Wyman, Stephen' Cc: DiFrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

RE: Perry ESEP Clarification Questions

Steve, We expect to be able to provide an email response no later than July 27th.

Respectfully, Phil H. Lashley Fleet Licensing Supervisor Cell: (330) 696-7208 Office: (330) 315-6808 Mail Stop: A-WAC-B1 From: Wyman, Stephen [1]

Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 9:07 AM To: Lashley, Phil H.

Cc: DiFrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

RE: Perry ESEP Clarification Questions Thanks, Phil. Understand and standing by for schedule update from contractor.

Stephen M. Wyman USNRC/NRR/JLD/HMB Office: O-13G9 MS: O-13C5 301-415-3041 (Voice) 301-415-8333 (Fax)

Stephen.Wyman@nrc.gov 1

From: Lashley, Phil H. [2]

Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 7:20 AM To: Wyman, Stephen Cc: Devlin-Gill, Stephanie; DiFrancesco, Nicholas; Nevins, Kathleen J.

Subject:

RE: Perry ESEP Clarification Questions

Steve, We believe that we understand the questions and do not require a clarification call at this time.

We will have to go through our contractor in order to provide answers to these questions. Therefore, a response date of June 30th is not going to be practicable. We are working through the schedule and will let you know when we have an expected response date.

Respectfully, Phil H. Lashley Fleet Licensing Supervisor Cell: (330) 696-7208 Office: (330) 315-6808 Mail Stop: A-WAC-B1 From: Wyman, Stephen [3]

Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 5:04 PM To: Lashley, Phil H.

Cc: Devlin-Gill, Stephanie; DiFrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

Perry ESEP Clarification Questions Mr. Lashley, In follow-up to our phone message today, as part of the NRC review of the Perry ESEP report, the staff would appreciate clarification on the following technical items:

The following clarification questions are raised in the context of the NRC evaluation of the ESEP submittals only and licensees responses will be reviewed by NRC staff only to the extent the use of this information affects the elements and outcomes of the ESEP evaluation. As many licensees have used information from their ongoing SPRA analyses, the current review will not evaluate methods or results as they pertain to the SPRA. They will be reviewed later at the time of SPRA review.

1. The licensee did not state whether the walkdown personnel were trained in seismic walkdown. Please confirm that the walkdowns were conducted by trained engineers that successfully completed the Seismic Qualification Utility Group (SQUG) Walkdown Screening and Seismic Evaluation Training Course in accordance with the guidance document.

2. In the equations for HCLPF presented in Section 6.5 FUNCTIONAL EVALUATIONS OF RELAYS, CI and DR are used in the equations but are not defined. Also, the term FK (= TRS knockdown factor) is defined, but is not used in the equations. Confirm or correct the equations in Section 6.5, and define all terms used in the equations.

3. ESEP Report Section 6.5 states:

2

Twenty relays in the ESEL associated with the FLEX Phase 1 response required functional evaluations. The relays evaluated are housed within panels 1H13P0628, 1H13P063l, 1H13P0618, and 1H13P0621 located in the CC at EL 654.

A search of the ESEL table (Attachment A) identified 18 relays and 2 timers (Items 106 through 125 in the ESEL). Six (6) panels are identified in the ESEL as containing relays: 1H13P0628, 1H13P063l, 1H13P0618, 1H13P0621, 1H13P0625, and 1H13P0629 (Items 422, 423, 387, 421, 385, and 386, respectively, in the ESEL). From a search of the HCLPF table (Attachment B), the HCLPF value for all 6 panels is 0.86g; the Fragility Method is identified as earthquake experience. All HCLPF values for the relays and timers are determined using TRS as the Fragility Method: 0.35g for 16 items, and 0.27g for 4 items. Confirm that the above staff assessment is correct. Correlate the relays and timers to the panel they are housed within. Demonstrate the use of the equations in ESEP Section 6.5 in determining the HCLPF capacities for the relays, including values assumed for AFC, if applicable.

4. ESEP Report Section 6.3.3 indicates the walkdowns identified 6 valves that did not meet the valve operator caveats necessary to use a generic approach for estimating HCLPF capacity. ESEP Report Section 6.3.1 indicates that no significant concerns were noted which could lead to an increase in sample size. Are the 6 valves representative of a larger population that do not meet the caveat, or are these the only 6 valves, within the scope of the ESEP, not meeting the caveat (i.e., 100% of the population)? What is the estimated HCLPF capacity of these valves, relative to the RLGM (GMRS)?

5. ESEP Report Section 6.6 states that Attachment B tabulates the HCLPF values for all components on the ESEL.

Attachment A, the ESEL, contains 423 items on 23 pages. Attachment B contains 14 pages of HCLPF values, with no cross reference back to the ESEL Table items. The staff cannot confirm that all ESEL items are included in Attachment B. For clarification, provide a roadmap from the ESEL Table (Attachment A) to the HCLPF Table (Attachment B).

6. Section 3.1.5 of the ESEP Reports states:

Critical indicators and recorders are typically physically located on panels/cabinets and are included as separate components; however, seismic evaluation of the instrument indication may be included in the panel/cabinet seismic evaluation (rule-of-the-box).

Section 6.1 of the ESEP Reports states:

A number of components on the ESEL are breakers and switches that are housed in a parent component, such as a motor control center (MCC) or switchgear. For the purpose of this evaluation, calculations are not explicitly performed for these housed components. Instead, their HCLPF is assigned based on the parent component.

The information provided in both paragraphs is not clear. Please provide a more detailed description of both approaches, how they are different, when would each approach be applied, and examples for both approaches to show how the HCLPF values of the devices were determined, including consideration of cabinet amplification, if applicable. Also, describe whether any of these devices are sensitive to vibration as are relays and other devices with contacts, and if so, how they were evaluated. Lastly, if the qualification of the devices is based on the cabinet/panel they are housed in, which have been previously qualified as part of an equipment class (parent component), how is it known/confirmed that the parent component normally contains the particular device.

3

7. Section 5.2 of the ESEP Report for Perry states the following:

Subsequent equipment HCLPF calculations and fragility evaluations are based on the conservative deterministic failure margin (CDFM) approach. In accordance with EPRI 1019200 [10] "Seismic Fragility Applications Guide Update," the seismic analyses are performed using BE structure stiffness, mass and damping characteristics, and the BE subsurface Vs profile compatible with the expected seismic shear strains.

The resulting ISRS approximately represent the 84th percentile response suitable for use in the CDFM calculations.

Section 4 of the Seismic Evaluation Guidance, Augmented Approach (EPRI 3002000704) allows the development of ISRS calculated from new SSI models. The guidance document indicates that: EPRI 1025287 (SPID) and the ASME/ANS PRA Standard give guidance on acceptable methods to compute both the GMRS and the associated ISRS. Table 6-5 in the SPID document, under the SFR-C6 entry, indicates that ASME/ANS PRA Standard (Addendums A and B) requires consideration of the variation of soil properties (Vs profile). Also, the SFR-C5 entry indicates that if the median-centered response analysis is performed, the evaluation should estimate the median response (i.e., structural loads and ISRS) and variability in the response using established methods.

Based on EPRI 1019200, which was referenced by the ESEP Reports, parameter variation should be incorporated into SSI analyses in order to characterize the uncertainty in the SSI demands. EPRI 1019200 indicates that the SSI analyses in ASCE 4 be followed, which require that SSI evaluations include lower bound and upper bound soil profiles to account for parameter variation in SSI. EPRI 1019200 also indicates that for the structural model, the best estimate (median) and uncertainty variation in the frequency should be considered.

Therefore, please describe how parameter variation is incorporated into the SSI analyses for the structural model and subsurface while using only the best estimate (BE) structure stiffness, mass and damping characteristics, and the BE subsurface Vs profile. Related to the above discussion, if only the BE is used for the structural model and soil profile, explain how the ISRS would approximately represent the 84th percentile response, as stated in the ESEP report.

8. Section 6.4 of the ESEP Reports states that all HCLPF calculations were performed using the CDFM methodology.

Table 7-1 states that Fragility is calculated. In addition, Appendix B provides information for C, R, and U, which would indicate that a fragility analyses has been performed.

The licensee is requested to confirm that only the CDFM methodology has been used, or to identify that fragility analysis has also been performed. If fragility analyses have been performed, then the description of the methods used to estimate HCLPF values should be updated to include a description of the fragility analyses methods used.

An email response will likely be sufficient to support the ESEP report review, however, please be aware that your email response will be made publicly available in ADAMS. A response around June 30, if practicable, would be greatly appreciated to support the planned review schedule.

Please let me or Nick DiFrancesco (at 301-415-1115) know if you would like to schedule a clarification call or have any questions and concerns.

Thanks, Steve Stephen M. Wyman 4

USNRC/NRR/JLD/HMB Office: O-13G9 MS: O-13C5 301-415-3041 (Voice) 301-415-8333 (Fax)

Stephen.Wyman@nrc.gov The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete the original message.

The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete the original message.

5

Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 2266 Mail Envelope Properties (CY1PR0501MB154784DFEE0875894F896EC4BD830)

Subject:

[External_Sender] FW: Perry ESEP Clarification Questions Sent Date: 7/22/2015 7:58:25 AM Received Date: 7/22/2015 7:59:04 AM From: Lashley, Phil H.

Created By: phlashley@firstenergycorp.com Recipients:

"Lentz, Thomas A. (Licensing)" <talentz@firstenergycorp.com>

Tracking Status: None "Nevins, Kathleen J." <kjnevins@firstenergycorp.com>

Tracking Status: None "Wyman, Stephen" <Stephen.Wyman@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "DiFrancesco, Nicholas" <Nicholas.DiFrancesco@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None Post Office: CY1PR0501MB1547.namprd05.prod.outlook.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 12016 7/22/2015 7:59:04 AM PNPP ESEP Clarification Question Response.pdf 1968019 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received:

3552894-R-001 Revision 0 Response to Perry Nuclear Power Plant Expedited Seismic Evaluation Process Report Clarification Questions July 8, 2015 Prepared for:

ABSG Consulting Inc.

• 300 Commerce Drive, Suite 200

• Irvine, California 92602

3552894-R-001 Revision 0 Response to Perry Nuclear Power Plant Expedited Seismic Evaluation Process Report Clarification Questions July 8, 2015 Prepared by:

ABSG Consulting Inc.

Prepared for:

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Perry Nuclear Power Plant 10 Center Road Perry, OH 44081

3552894-R-001 Revision 0 July 8, 2015 Page 4 of 19 Table of Revisions Revision No. Date Description of Revision 0 7/8/15 Original Issue

3552894-R-001 Revision 0 July 8, 2015 Page 5 of 19 Nuclear Regulatory Commission e-mail from Stephen Wyman to Phil Lashley dated June 16, 2015.

Clarification Question #1 The licensee did not state whether the walkdown personnel were trained in seismic walkdown.

Please confirm that the walkdowns were conducted by trained engineers that successfully completed the Seismic Qualification Utility Group (SQUG) Walkdown Screening and Seismic Evaluation Training Course in accordance with the guidance document.

FENOC Response The walkdown team for ESEP components consisted of Mr. Eddie Guerra, P.E, Mr. Brian Lucarelli, and Mr. John Reddington, P.E. As discussed in Section 6.3.2 of the ESEP Report, recent SPRA walkdowns were credited for some components on the ESEL. The SPRA walkdown team consisted of Mr. Guerra, Mr. Lucarelli, Mr. Bradley Yagla, and Mr. Dom Drkulec. Additionally, Mr. Farzin Beigi, P.E. provided support and expert input to the walkdown teams throughout the full extent of the plant walkdowns as well as post-walkdown discussions.

All six of these individuals are trained engineers that have successfully completed the SQUG Walkdown Screening and Seismic Evaluation Training Course or equivalent training. Resumes and SQUG certificates for these individuals are provided in Attachment 1.

3552894-R-001 Revision 0 July 8, 2015 Page 6 of 19 Clarification Question #2 In the equations for high confidence low probability of failure (HCLPF) presented in Section 6.5 FUNCTIONAL EVALUATIONS OF RELAYS, CI and DR are used in the equations but are not defined. Also, the term FK (= TRS knockdown factor) is defined, but is not used in the equations.

Confirm or correct the equations in Section 6.5, and define all terms used in the equations.

FENOC Response The HCLPF capacity for relays included in the expedited seismic equipment list (ESEL) is calculated following the guidelines provided in Appendix Q of Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) 6041. The equations for relay chatter evaluation, as defined in EPRI 6041, are the following:

x For Cabinet-Based test data:

CT TRSc=TRS FK RRSc RRS CC x For Device-Based test data:

CT TRSc=TRS FK AFC RRSc RRS CC FMS Where:

TRSC = CDFM test response spectrum RRSC = CDFM required response spectrum TRS = Equipment Test Response Spectrum Capacity CT= Clipping Factor for narrow-banded TRS FK = TRS Knockdown Factor RRS = Required Response Spectrum CC = Clipping Factor for narrow RRS AFC = Cabinet Amplification Factor FMS = Multi-axis to Single-axis conservatism factor

3552894-R-001 Revision 0 July 8, 2015 Page 7 of 19 The formulas shown in Section 6.5 of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant Expedited Seismic Evaluation Process (ESEP) Report are applicable to the separation of variables methodology, which was not used for the relays in the Perry ESEP. The conservative deterministic failure margin (CDFM) methodology and formulas cited above are used in the relay capacity evaluations.

3552894-R-001 Revision 0 July 8, 2015 Page 8 of 19 Clarification Question #3 Perry ESEP Report Section 6.5 states:

Twenty relays in the ESEL associated with the FLEX Phase 1 response required functional evaluations. The relays evaluated are housed within panels 1H13P0628, 1H13P063l, 1H13P0618, and 1H13P0621 located in the CC at EL 654.

A search of the ESEL table (Attachment A) identified 18 relays and 2 timers (Items 106 through 125 in the ESEL). Six (6) panels are identified in the ESEL as containing relays:

1H13P0628, 1H13P063l, 1H13P0618, 1H13P0621, 1H13P0625, and 1H13P0629 (Items 422, 423, 387, 421, 385, and 386, respectively, in the ESEL). From a search of the HCLPF table (Attachment B), the HCLPF value for all 6 panels is 0.86g; the Fragility Method is identified as earthquake experience. All HCLPF values for the relays and timers are determined using TRS as the Fragility Method: 0.35g for 16 items, and 0.27g for 4 items. Confirm that the above staff assessment is correct. Correlate the relays and timers to the panel they are housed within. Demonstrate the use of the equations in ESEP Section 6.5 in determining the HCLPF capacities for the relays, including values assumed for AFC, if applicable.

FENOC Response The twenty relays referenced in Section 6.5 of the Perry ESEP Report correspond to the 18 relays and 2 timers identified by the Staff as ESEL items 106 through 125. In this response, relays should be considered to encompass both relays and timers.

These twenty components are housed within the four panels listed in Section 6.5 of the Perry ESEP Report. Table 1 provides a correlation between these four panels and the relays housed within them. The other two panels identified by the Staff (1H13P0625 and 1H13P0629) are relay panels, but they do not house any relays that are identified as ESEL items requiring specific functional evaluation.

3552894-R-001 Revision 0 July 8, 2015 Page 9 of 19 Table 1. Perry Panels and Relays/Timers PANEL RELAYS/TIMERS IN PANEL ESEL ID COMPONENT ID ESEL ID COMPONENT ID 109 1E51A-K101 110 1E51Q7085 387 1H13P0618 111 1E51A-K033 112 1E51Q7084 115 1E51A-K086 106 1E51A-K002 107 1E51A-K003 108 1E51A-K024 421 1H13P0621 113 1E51A-K015 114 1E51A-K066 116 1E51Q7064 117 1E51Q7065 118 1B21C-K007A 120 1B21C-K008E 422 1H13P0628 122 1B21C-K051A 124 1B21C-K051E 119 1B21C-K007B 121 1B21C-K008F 423 1H13P0631 123 1B21C-K051B 125 1B21C-K051F The panels are evaluated generically for their functional capacity using earthquake experience data to establish a capacity at the component mounting level in accordance EPRI 1019200.

This process is described in Section 6.4 of the ESEP Report. The HCLPF capacity for the panels (0.86g) does not address vibration-sensitive components such as relays, as those are evaluated separately.

The relays are evaluated based on TRS for the specific relay models. Relay evaluations use the equations in EPRI NP-6041, as provided in the response to Clarification Question #2 in this document. The process for relay evaluation and the basis for each term in the equation are described in more detail below.

3552894-R-001 Revision 0 July 8, 2015 Page 10 of 19 Relay Evaluation Equations Relay capacity is established based on test reports for the specific relay models. Therefore the equations for device-based test data are used.

CT TRSc TRS FK AFC RRSc RRS CC FMS TRS The TRS term is obtained from the relay test report and is taken as the minimum acceleration level for the TRS in the frequency range of 4Hz - 20Hz.

Note that some relay models present different capacities for energized vs. de-energized or for normally open vs. normally closed. In these cases, all configurations for the relay are evaluated, and the lowest HCLPF is presented as the HCLPF capacity for the relay model.

CT The CT term is a clipping factor for narrow banded TRS. Since all relay TRS for the PY ESEP are wide banded, this term is taken as unity.

FK The TRS knockdown factor is used to obtain an approximately 99% exceedance level capacity, as described in Appendix Q of EPRI NP-6041. Table Q-2 of EPRI NP-6041 provides appropriate knockdown factors based on the type of TRS used for capacity.

RRS The RRS term is the in-structure response spectra (ISRS) at the base of the cabinet/panel. All panels containing relays for the Perry ESEP are located in the main control room, therefore, the ISRS for EL. 654 of the Control Complex is used.

CC The CC term is a clipping factor for narrow banded RRS. Clipping is performed as described in Appendix Q of EPRI NP-6041.

AFC The effective cabinet amplification factor is used to capture amplification of the response between the cabinet base and the relay mounting location. Table Q-1 of EPRI NP-6041 provides representative amplification factors based on the type of panel.

3552894-R-001 Revision 0 July 8, 2015 Page 11 of 19 All Perry ESEP relays are mounted in control room electrical panels; and therefore an amplification factor of 4.5 is used.

FMS As described in Section 6.5 of the ESEP Report, the multi-axis to single-axis correction factor is taken as 1.2 to remove unnecessary conservatism.

3552894-R-001 Revision 0 July 8, 2015 Page 12 of 19 Clarification Question #4 ESEP Report Section 6.3.3 indicates the walkdowns identified 6 valves that did not meet the valve operator caveats necessary to use a generic approach for estimating HCLPF capacity.

ESEP Report Section 6.3.1 indicates that no significant concerns were noted which could lead to an increase in sample size. Are the 6 valves representative of a larger population that do not meet the caveat, or are these the only 6 valves, within the scope of the ESEP, not meeting the caveat (i.e., 100% of the population)? What is the estimated HCLPF capacity of these valves, relative to the review level ground motion (RLGM) (Ground Motion Response Spectra [GMRS])?

FENOC Response Observing valves that do not meet operator caveats for the generic approach does not constitute a significant concern. Rather, it requires a more detailed HCLPF calculation than is provided by the generic approach.

Additionally, a thorough review of plant documentation was conducted for all ESEP valves that were inaccessible or difficult to view during plant walkdowns. Between the walkdown and the documentation review, 100% of ESEP valves were evaluated for operator caveats.

After walkdowns and a review of plant documentation, a total of 15 valves on the ESEL exceeded operator caveats. For HCLPF calculations, these valves were grouped based on similar seismic characteristics (operator height, operator weight, line diameter, and seismic demand). The six valves listed in Section 6.3.3 of the ESEP Report focus on the bounding valve cases that represent the valve groups. The full list of valves that exceed operator caveats is provided in Table 2 below.

The HCLPFs for these valves range from 0.29 g to 0.87g, which exceed the RLGM of 0.24g.

3552894-R-001 Revision 0 July 8, 2015 Page 13 of 19 Table 2. Perry ESEP Valves Exceeding Operator Caveats ESEL ID VALVE ID 179 1E22F0012 19 1E51F0022 5 1E51F0045 152 1E12F0053A 153 1E12F0053B 138 1E12F0008 139 1E12F0009 8 1E51F0019 20 1E51F0077 21 1E51F0078 405 1P57F0015A 406 1P57F0015B 16 1E51F0076 407 1P57F0020A 408 1P57F0020B

3552894-R-001 Revision 0 July 8, 2015 Page 14 of 19 Clarification Question #5 ESEP Report Section 6.6 states that Attachment B tabulates the HCLPF values for all components on the ESEL. Attachment A, the ESEL, contains 423 items on 23 pages.

Attachment B contains 14 pages of HCLPF values, with no cross reference back to the ESEL Table items. The staff cannot confirm that all ESEL items are included in Attachment B. For clarification, provide a roadmap from the ESEL Table (Attachment A) to the HCLPF Table (Attachment B).

FENOC Response Attachment A of the ESEP report contains the ESEL with a total of 423 components with their description, position, location and current seismic class. Attachment B of the ESEP report contains the Tabulated HCLPF values with the same 423 components, reordered according to their defined component groups, with the fragility results (HCLPF, C, R and U, Am), the failure mode and fragility method used. For clarification, an additional column identifying the ESEL item number is added to Attachment B, and presented in Attachment 2 of this response.

3552894-R-001 Revision 0 July 8, 2015 Page 15 of 19 Clarification Question #6 Section 3.1.5 of the ESEP Reports states:

Critical indicators and recorders are typically physically located on panels/cabinets and are included as separate components; however, seismic evaluation of the instrument indication may be included in the panel/cabinet seismic evaluation (rule-of-the-box).

Section 6.1 of the ESEP Reports states:

A number of components on the ESEL are breakers and switches that are housed in a parent component, such as a motor control center (MCC) or switchgear. For the purpose of this evaluation, calculations are not explicitly performed for these housed components. Instead, their HCLPF is assigned based on the parent component.

The information provided in both paragraphs is not clear. Please provide a more detailed description of both approaches, how they are different, when would each approach be applied, and examples for both approaches to show how the HCLPF values of the devices were determined, including consideration of cabinet amplification, if applicable. Also, describe whether any of these devices are sensitive to vibration as are relays and other devices with contacts, and if so, how they were evaluated. Lastly, if the qualification of the devices is based on the cabinet/panel they are housed in, which have been previously qualified as part of an equipment class (parent component), how is it known/confirmed that the parent component normally contains the particular device.

FENOC Response The above referenced sections of the ESEP Report describe the approach to the rule-of-the-box. Section 3.1.5 states that indicators and recorders are listed on the ESEL as distinct items, but that their seismic evaluation is based on the evaluation of the parent component.

Section 6.1 reiterates that when an ESEL item is identified to be mounted on a parent component, the HCLPF of the parent component is assigned to the item.

Twenty relays in the ESEL associated with the FLEX Phase 1 response required functional evaluations. The relays evaluated are housed within panels 1H13P0628, 1H13P0631, 1H13P0618, and 1H13P0621 located in the CC at EL 654. The seismic fragility for the relay chatter mode is developed based on the applicable TRS and including cabinet amplification. For the relay chatter evaluation, the CDFM methodology is followed as described in EPRI NP-6041.

All other housed items on the ESEL are addressed on the basis of the rule-of-the-box. The HCLPF calculations are based on the guidance provided in EPRI TR-1002988, in which a generic capacity of 1.8g or use of GERS is endorsed for functional capacity. The anchorage capacity for the parent component is also evaluated. The HCLPF developed for the parent component is assigned as the HCLPF value to all ESEL components housed therein, as documented in Attachment B of the ESEP report.

For example, transmitter 1G43N0060B was walked down to confirm its location and mounting on rack 1H51P1111. This component is therefore assigned the HCLPF of 1H51P1111.

Similarly, a walkdown confirmed that the Lube Oil Cooler 1E51B0002 and the Reactor Core

3552894-R-001 Revision 0 July 8, 2015 Page 16 of 19 Isolation Cooling (RCIC) Turbine Governor Valve 1E51F0511 are mounted on the RCIC Turbine 1E51C0002. As the generic HCLPF calculation for 1E51C0002 considers everything within the boundary of the skid, 1E51B0002 and 1E51F0511 are assigned the HCLPF of 1E51C0002.

3552894-R-001 Revision 0 July 8, 2015 Page 17 of 19 Clarification Question #7 Section 5.2 of the ESEP Report for Perry states the following:

Subsequent equipment HCLPF calculations and fragility evaluations are based on the conservative deterministic failure margin (CDFM) approach. In accordance with EPRI 1019200 [10] "Seismic Fragility Applications Guide Update," the seismic analyses are performed using BE structure stiffness, mass and damping characteristics, and the BE subsurface Vs profile compatible with the expected seismic shear strains. The resulting ISRS approximately represent the 84th percentile response suitable for use in the CDFM calculations.

Section 4 of the Seismic Evaluation Guidance, Augmented Approach (EPRI 3002000704) allows the development of ISRS calculated from new soil structure interaction (SSI) models. The guidance document indicates that: EPRI 1025287 (screening, prioritization and implementation details [SPID]) and the ASME/ANS PRA Standard give guidance on acceptable methods to compute both the GMRS and the associated ISRS. Table 6-5 in the SPID document, under the SFR-C6 entry, indicates that ASME/ANS PRA Standard (Addendums A and B) requires consideration of the variation of soil properties (Vs profile). Also, the SFR-C5 entry indicates that if the median-centered response analysis is performed, the evaluation should estimate the median response (i.e., structural loads and ISRS) and variability in the response using established methods.

Based on EPRI 1019200, which was referenced by the ESEP Reports, parameter variation should be incorporated into SSI analyses in order to characterize the uncertainty in the SSI demands. EPRI 1019200 indicates that the SSI analyses in ASCE 4 be followed, which require that SSI evaluations include lower bound and upper bound soil profiles to account for parameter variation in SSI. EPRI 1019200 also indicates that for the structural model, the best estimate (median) and uncertainty variation in the frequency should be considered.

Therefore, please describe how parameter variation is incorporated into the SSI analyses for the structural model and subsurface while using only the best estimate (BE) structure stiffness, mass and damping characteristics, and the BE subsurface Vs profile. Related to the above discussion, if only the BE is used for the structural model and soil profile, explain how the ISRS would approximately represent the 84th percentile response, as stated in the ESEP report.

FENOC Response The recommended guidelines (EPRI 1019200) are used to obtain a deterministic response for the given shape of the foundation input response spectrum (FIRS), and using best estimate structure and soil stiffness and conservative estimate of median damping. This response approximates the 84th percentile relative to the statistical distribution that would result from say a set of 30 calculations randomly varying stiffness and damping parameters and using a set of 30 time histories. The deterministic response is suitable for use in the CDFM calculation of fragilities of plant SSCs.

EPRI 1019200 further states that the SSI analysis should address best estimate + parameter variation, and that the peak shifting should be used instead of peak broadening recommended in ASCE 4-98. However, the reported analysis uses only the result from the BE soil column

3552894-R-001 Revision 0 July 8, 2015 Page 18 of 19 (stiffness and damping), and median structure stiffness and damping. The effects of variability of the soil column stiffness and damping are considered using the approach in EPRI NP-6041.

This approach estimates the upper and lower bound SSI frequencies based on the fixed base frequency, the best estimate SSI frequency and a CV factor in the soil column stiffness.

Considering the depth to rock and the overlying basal gravel and engineered fill, the upper and lower bound SSI frequencies are estimated to be in the range of +/- 15% of the best estimate SSI frequency.

Therefore, the upper and lower bound seismic responses are not expected to be significantly different from the best estimate response. Nevertheless, the variability in the SSI stiffness is accommodated in the CDFM method for calculating fragilities by peak shifting of at least +/- 20%.

3552894-R-001 Revision 0 July 8, 2015 Page 19 of 19 Clarification Question #8 Section 6.4 of the ESEP Reports states that all HCLPF calculations were performed using the CDFM methodology. Table 7-1 states that Fragility is calculated. In addition, Appendix B provides information for C, R and U, which would indicate that a fragility analyses has been performed.

The licensee is requested to confirm that only the CDFM methodology has been used, or to identify that fragility analysis has also been performed. If fragility analyses have been performed, then the description of the methods used to estimate HCLPF values should be updated to include a description of the fragility analyses methods used.

FENOC Response CDFM methodology has been used for all calculations as stated in Section 6.4 of the ESEP Report. The use of the word fragility in this context refers to the hybrid approach for fragilities where the HCLPF capacity is calculated first using CDFM methodology and the median capacity is then determined with an assumed composite variability (C). The hybrid approach to fragilities and the associated variabilities are described in Section 6.4.1 of EPRI 1025287. It is noted that reporting the median capacity is not required for the ESEP, and are only provided as additional information.

3552894-R-001 Revision 0 July 8, 2015 Page 1.1 of 1.30 Attachment 1.

Walkdown Team Member Resumes

FAR RZIN R. BEIGI, B P.E E.

PRO OFESSIONA AL HISTORY ABSG G Consulting Inc., Oaklan nd, Californiia, Senior Co onsultant, 20004-Present Technical T Ma anager, 2001- -2004 EQE Internationall, Inc., Califo ornia, Princip pal Engineerr, 1990-20011 TENE ERA L.P., Beerkeley, Califfornia, Projeect Manager,, 1982-1990 PRO OFESSIONA AL EXPERIIENCE Mr. Beigi B has more m than 32 3 years off profession nal structuraal and civill engineerin ng experrience. As a Senior Consultant fo or ABS Con nsulting, Mrr. Beigi provides projecct mana agement an nd structura al engineerin ng servicess, primarily for seismiic evaluatio on projeects. He hass extensive experience e i the areas of seismic evaluation of structurees, in equip pment, pipin ng, seismic criteria dev velopment, aand structu ural analysiss and design n.

Selected project accomplishma ments includ de the follow wing:

x Currently C Mrr. Beigi is managing m thee seismic poortion of thee seismic PR RA project fo or FirstEnergy Nuclear N Op perating Companys fo our nuclear reactors att Davis-Bessse Nuclear N Power Station, Perry P Nuclea ar Power Plaant, and Beaaver Valley P Power Statio on Units U 1 and 2. 2 This projeect involves modelling o of structuress, generationn of responsse sppectra withiin those stru uctures, walkdowns of aall componeents on the PRA list an nd performing seeismic fragillity evaluatio ons for seleccted equipmment and stru uctures.

x Most M recently y, Mr. Beigi has been inv volved in peerforming seeismic and w wind fragilitty annalyses of equipmentt and structures at G Gsgen Nu uclear Pow wer Plant iin Swwitzerland, Lungmen Nuclear N Powwer Plant in Taiwan, Occonee Nucleear Station iin U.S.,

U Point Lepreau L Nu uclear Plantt in Canadaa, Beznau N Nuclear Pow wer Plant iin Swwitzerland, Olkiluoto Nuclear Po ower Plant in Finland d, and Necckarwestheim m Nuclear N Power Station in n Germany.

x Provided P new w MOV seism mic qualifica ation (weak link) reports, for North Anna, Surry y, annd Kewaun nee nuclear plants p to maximize thee valve strucctural thrust capacity b by elliminating conservatism c ms found in n existing q qualification reports an nd previouslly used criteria.

x At A Salem Nucclear Power Plant, Mr. Beigi B developped design v verification ccriteria for seeismic adequ uacy of heatting, ventilattion, and air conditionin ng (HVAC) d duct systemss.

He H also perfo ormed field verification v of o as-installeed HVAC sy ystems and p provided enngineering evaluations e documentin d ng seismic ad dequacy of th hese systemms, which in ncluded dyn namic analysses of selecteed worst-casse bounding samples.

H:\ADMIN N\resume\2015\Beigi FR Nuclear Standard 29 Apriil 2015.docx 1

F FARZIN R.. BEIGI, P.E E.

x Mr.

M Beigi ha as participatted in severral piping aadequacy verification p programs fo or nuclear poweer plants. At A Watts Bar and Bellefo onte Nuclearr Plants, he w was involveed in n the develo opment of walkdown w and evaluatio on criteria ffor seismic eevaluation o of smmall bore piiping and pa articipated in n plant walk kdowns and d performed piping stresss an nalyses. At A Oconee Nuclear N Sta ation, Mr. B Beigi was involved in n developin ng sccreening and d evaluation n criteria forr seismic ad dequacy veriification of sservice wateer piping system and perrformed wa alkdown evaaluations ass well as p piping stresss an nalyses. At Browns Ferrry Nuclear Plant, Mr. B Beigi was inv volved in th he assessmen nt off seismic intteraction eva aluation prog gram for larrge and smalll bore pipin ng systems.

x Mr.

M Beigi performed a stu udy for the structural s addequacy of b bridge craness at Department D of o Energys (DOE) ( Paduucah Gaseouss Diffusion P Plant utilizinng Drain-2DX D no on-linear strructural prog gram. The sstudy focuseed on the vullnerabilities off these cranees as demon nstrated in th he past earth hquakes.

x Mr.

M Beigi hass generated simplified models m of sttructures forr facilities att Los Alamo os National N Lab b and Coop per Nuclearr Station fo or use in d developmentt of buildin ng reesponse specctra considering the effeects of soil-sttructure-inteeractions.

x Mr.

M Beigi hass participated d as a Seism mic Capability y Engineer iin resolution n of the U.S.

Nuclear N Regu ulatory Com mmissions UnresolvedU SSafety Issue A A-46 (i.e., Seeismic Qualification Q of Equipmeent) and has performed SSeismic Marrgin Assessm ment at the Browns Ferry y Nuclear Po ower Plant (T Tennessee V Valley Autho ority [TVA]),, Oconee Nuclear N Plant (Duke Pow wer Co.), Duane Arnold Energy Cen nter (Iowa Ellectric Company),

C Calvert C Cliffss Nuclear Po ower Plant (B Baltimore Gaas and Electtric),

Robinson R Nu uclear Powerr Plant (Caro olina Power & Light), an nd Bruce Pow wer Plant (BBritish Energ gy - Ontario o, Canada). He H has perfo ormed exten nsive fragilitty studies of thhe equipmen nt and comp ponents in th he switchyarrd at the Oco onee Nuclearr Power Plant.

P x Mr.

M Beigi hass developed standards fo or design of distributivee systems to be utilized iin thhe new geneeration of lig ght water reeactor powerr plants. Th hese standarrds are baseed on n the seismic experiencee database, testing t resultts, and analy ytical metho ods.

x Mr.

M Beigi managed EQEs on-site offfice at the Teennessee Vaalley Authorrity Watts Baar Nuclear N Pow wer Plant. His H responsib bilities inclu uded staff su upervision aand technicaal ov versight for closure of seeismic systems interactiion issues in support of tthe Watts Baar sttart-up scheedule. Interaction issu ues that relaated to quaalification fo or Category yI piping system ms and other plant fea atures includ ded seismicc and therm mal proximitty isssues, structural failurre and falliing of non n-seismic Category I ccommoditiees, fllexibility of piping sysstems crossiing between n adjacent b building strructures, an nd seeismic-inducced spray an nd flooding concerns. M Mr. Beigi uttilized seism mic experiencce data coupled with analyttical method ds to addresss these seism mic issues.

x As A a principa al engineer, Mr. Beigi conducted c thhe seismic q qualification n of electricaal raaceway supp ports at the Watts W Bar Pllant. The qu ualification mmethod invo olved in-plannt walkdown w sccreening evaluations an nd boundin ng analysis of critical ccase samplees.

The T acceptan nce criteria fo or the bounding analysses utilized d ductility-bassed criteria tto en nsure consiistent design n margins. Mr. Beigii also prov vided conceeptual desig gn H:\ADMIN N\resume\2015\Beigi FR Nuclear Standard 29 Apriil 2015.docx 2

F FARZIN R.. BEIGI, P.E E.

modifications m s and assissted in thee assessmen nt of the cconstructabillity of thesse modifications m s. Mr. Beigii utilized sim milar metho ods for quallification of HVAC ductts annd supportss at Watts Bar, B and asssisted criteriia and proccedures development fo or HVAC H ducting, cable trrays, conduiit and supp ports at the TVA Belleffonte nucleaar power plant.

x Mr.

M Beigi alsso has exten nsive experieence utilizin ng finite elemment compu uter codes iin performing design and d analysis of o heavy in ndustrial sttructures, ssystems, an nd coomponents. At the Tex xas Utility Comanche C PPeak Nucleaar Power Plaant, Mr. Beig gi addministered d and sched duled individuals to exxecute desig gn reviews of cable traay suupports; eva aluated geneeric design crriteria for th he design an nd constructiion of nucleaar power plantt systems and a compo onents and authored engineering g evaluation ns documenting g these review ws.

Mr. Beigi B has also been involved in a nu umber of seissmic risk assessment an nd equipmen nt strengthening prrograms for high tech in ndustry, bio otech industrry, petrocheemical plantts, refineeries, and otther industriial facilities. Selected prroject accomp plishments iinclude:

x Most M recently y performed d Seismic Qu ualification o of Critical Eq quipment forr the Standb by Diesel D Power Plants Seerving Fort Greely, and d Clear Airr Force Staation, Alaskaa.

Projects P also included deesign of seissmic restrain nts for the eequipment aand design o of seeismic suppo orts for cond duit, cable trray, duct, an nd piping sy ystems. Bothh facilities arre designated by the Deparrtment of Defense D as a Seismic Useer Group Fo our (SUG-IV V) fa acility. Seism mic qualifica ation of equ uipment and d interconnecctions (cond duit, duct annd piping) invollved a comb bination of stress s compu utations, coompilation oof shake tablle data and the application of experien nce data from m past earth hquakes. Su ubstantial cosst saavings weree achieved by b maximum m application n of the expperience datta procedurees fo or seismic qu ualification.

x Assessment A of earthquake risk fo or Genentecch, Inc., in n South Saan Francisco o, California.

C The T risk asseessments inccluded dam mage to build ding structu ures and theeir coontents, damage to reegional utillities requirred for Ge nentech op peration, an nd esstimates of the period of businesss interrupttion followin ng a majorr earthquake.

Provided P reccommendatiions for bu uilding or eequipment u upgrades o or emergenccy procedures, with w comparrisons of thee cost benefitt of the risk reduction veersus the cosst off implemen nting the up pgrade. Pro oject includeed identification of equ uipment an nd piping system ms that weree vulnerable under seism mic loading and design of retrofit fo or hose compo th onents as weell as proviiding constrruction man nagement fo or installatioon phase of the project. p x Fault-tree mo odel and ana alysis of critiical utility sy ystems serviing Space Sy ystems/Loraal, a satellite pro oduction faciility, in Palo Alto, Califo ornia.

x Seeismic evalu uation and design d of retrrofits for equuipment, too ols and proccess piping aas well w as clean room ceiling gs and raised d floors at U UMC FABs in n Taiwan.

x For LDS Chu urch headqua artered in Utah, U perform med seismic vulnerabilitty assessmen nt annd ranked over o 1,200 bu uildings of miscellaneou m us constructiion types forr the purposse off retrofit prioritization.

H:\ADMIN N\resume\2015\Beigi FR Nuclear Standard 29 Apriil 2015.docx 3

F FARZIN R.. BEIGI, P.E E.

x Seeismic evalu uation and design d of rettrofits for cleean room ceeilings at Intel facilities iin Hillsborough H h, Oregon.

x Assessment A of o programm mable logic controls ass part of year 2000 (Y22K) turn oveer evvaluation at an automattic canning fa acility in Staanislaus, Callifornia.

x Seeismic evalu uation and design d of reetrofits for eq quipment an nd steel storage tanks aat th he Colgate-P Palmolive plant in Cali, Colombia. C x Design D of seissmic anchorrage for equiipment and fiberglass taanks at the A AMP facilitiees in n Shizouka, Japan. J x Evaluation an nd design off seismic rettrofits for heeavy equipm ment, and piiping system ms att Raychem facilities in Redwood R Citty and Menllo Park, Califfornia.

x Assessment A of o the seism mic adequacy y of equipm ment, structu ures and storage tanks aat th he Borden Chemical C Plan nt in Fremon nt, Californiia.

x Design D of seismic bracing g for fire pro otection and d chilled waater piping systems at th he Goldman G Sacchs facilities in Tokyo, Ja apan.

x Design D of seiismic retrofiits for low rise r concretee and steel buildings aand design o of eqquipment sttrengthening g schemes att AVON Pro oducts Co. in n Japan.

x Managed M thee design and d constructio on of seismicc retrofits fo or productio on equipmen nt annd storage tanks at Coca a Cola Co. in n Japan.

x Seeismic evalu uation and design d of retrrofit for equuipment, pip ping and stru uctures at th he UDS U AVON Refinery R located in Rich hmond, Califfornia.

x Seeismic assesssment and peer review w of the IBM M Plaza Build ding, a 31-sttory high risse building located in the Ph hilippines.

x Seeismic evalu uation and conceptual c retrofit r design for the h headquarterrs building o of th he San Franccisco Fire Deepartment.

x Equipment strengthenin s ng and deta ailed retrofiit design fo or the Bank k of Americca Building in Sa an Francisco o.

x Equipment strengthenin ng and deetailed retrrofit design n for Sutro o Tower iin Saan Francisco o.

x Equipment strengthenin s ng and deta ailed retrofitt design forr Pacific Gaas & Electriic suubstations in n the San Fra ancisco, Caliifornia, area .

x Seeismic evaluations and d loss estim mates (damaage and bu usiness interrruption) fo or numerous faccilities in Jap pan, includin ng Baxter Ph harmaceuticcals, NCR Jap pan Ltd., annd Soomar Corpo oration.

x Seeismic evalu uation of con ncrete and stteel building gs at St. Joseeph Hospitaal in Stockton n, California, C inn accordance with the gu uidelines pro ovided in FE EMA 178.

EDU UCATION B.S., Civil C Engineeering, San Francisco F Staate Universitty, San Fran ncisco, Califoornia, 1982 H:\ADMIN N\resume\2015\Beigi FR Nuclear Standard 29 Apriil 2015.docx 4

F FARZIN R.. BEIGI, P.E E.

REG GISTRATIO ON Profeessional Engineer: Califo ornia Seism mic Qualifica ation Utilitiees Group Cerrtified Seism mic Capabilitty Engineer Train ning on Nearr-Term Task k Force Recom mmendation n 2.3 - Plantt Seismic Waalkdowns AFFIILIATIONS Amerrican Society y of Civil En ngineers, Pro ofessional M Member SELE ECTED PU UBLICATIO ONS Wakeefield, D., F. Beigi, and R. R Fine, An n Approach tto Seismic PRA SSC Screeening, 20115 Intern national To opical Meetting on Prrobabilistic Safety Asssessment aand Analysis (PSA A 2015), Sun Valley, V Idah ho, 2015.

Richn ner, M. Seneer Tinic, M. Ravindra, R. R Campbelll, F. Beigi, aand A. Asfu ura, Insightts Gaineed from th he Beznau Seismic PS SA Includin ng Level 2 Consideraations, 20008 Intern national To opical Meetting on Prrobabilistic Safety Asssessment aand Analysis (PSA A 2008), Knox xville, Tenneessee, 2008.

Klapp p, U., F. R. R Beigi, W. Tong, A. Strohm, an nd W. Sch hwarz, Seissmic PSA o of Neck karwestheim m 1 Nuclear Power Plan nt, 19 Inteernational C th Conference o on Structuraal Mech hanics in Rea actor Techno ology (SMiR RT 19), Toron nto, Canada,, August 12--17, 2007.

Asfurra, A. P., F. R. Beigi, and a B. N. Sumodobila, S , Dynamic Analysis of Large Steeel Tank ks, 17 Inteernational Conference th C on o Structuraal Mechanicss in Reactorr Technolog gy (SMiR RT 17), Prag gue, Czech Republic, R Auugust 17-22, 2003.

Seismic Evaluattion Guidelines for HVA AC Duct and d Damper S Systems, EP PRI Technicaal Repo ort 1007896, published p byy the Electricc Power Ressearch Institu ute, April 20003.

Arross, J., and F. Beigi, Seissmic Design n of HVAC Ducts based d on Experiienced Data,,

Curreent Issues Related R to Nu uclear Plant Structures, Equipment and Piping,, proceeding gs of th he 6th Symp posium, pu ublished by y North C Carolina Staate Universsity, Floridaa, Decem mber 1996.

Beigi, F. R., and J. J O. Dizon, Application n of Seismicc Experience Based Criteeria for Safetty Relatted HVAC Duct System m Evaluatio on, Fifth DDOE Naturaal Phenomen non Hazard ds Mitig gation Symp posium, Denv ver, Colorad do, Novembeer 13-14, 19995.

Beigi, F. R., an nd D. R. Denton, D Evaaluation of Bridge Crranes Using g Earthquak ke Experience Data a, presented d at Fifth DOE D Naturaal Phenomen non Hazard ds Mitigatioon Symp posium, Den nver, Colorad do, Novemb ber 13-14, 19995.

H:\ADMIN N\resume\2015\Beigi FR Nuclear Standard 29 Apriil 2015.docx 5

A-31 A-20 A-21 A-22 A-37 Eddie M. Guerra, P.E.

Senior Structural Engineer Years Experience Skill Areas:

5 Seismic Engineering Fragility Analysis Level Seismic PRA Finite Element Analysis 6 Ductile Steel Design Advanced Structural Analysis Soil-Structure Interaction Project Management Reinforced Concrete Design Structural Steel Design Education Wind Aerodynamics Impact Engineering M. Eng., Structural Engineering, Lehigh Seismic Walkdowns Nuclear Safety Systems University, Bethlehem, PA - May 2010 Mr. Ed M. Guerra has served as a Senior Structural Engineer for RIZZO B.S., Civil Engineering, University of Puerto Associates (RIZZO) in the fields of seismic engineering, wind dynamics, Rico, Mayaguez, PR - Dec. 2008 impact engineering, and design of steel and concrete structures. Mr.

Guerra has been involved in several Seismic, Wind and Aircraft Impact Professional Registrations Risk Assessments for nuclear plants, both in the US and international. As Professional Engineer: Puerto Rico - 2013 part of his Seismic PRA experience, Mr. Guerra has been involved in all (PE24153) supporting aspects of the project, including SEL development, Seismic Walkdowns, Building Dynamic Analysis, SSI Analysis, Fragility Analysis of SQUG Certified Seismic Capability Equipment, Relays and Structures and External Peer Reviews. Mr.

Engineer Guerra has also worked closely with systems modelers and PRA analysts especially throughout the iterative process of identifying and reevaluating Professional Affiliations top contributors to the plant risk level.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Mr. Guerra has performed fragility evaluations and seismic walkdowns in American Society of Mechanical Engineers support of 2.3 and 2.1 NTTF Programs for several NPPs in the US.

(ASME) Recently, Mr. Guerra has been appointed to the Joint Committee on Network for Earthquake and Engineering Nuclear Risk Management (JCNRM) as a contributor for part 5 Simulation (NEES) Requirements for Seismic Events At-Power PRA of the ASME/ANS PRA Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers Standard. His main areas of interest in Seismic PRA are the effects of (SHPE) (Vice-President, Western structural and soil non-linearity on components, wave-propagation effects Pennsylvania Region) on structures, the correlation of PRA failure modes and structural failure mechanisms, and smart data management and logistics. Mr. Guerra is SQUG-certified and has completed the EPRI-sponsored Seismic PRA Honors and Awards training. He is an active participant of EPRI Workshops currently held to 2010 Recipient of the Thornton Tomasetti provide lessons learned to US utilities currently undergoing Seismic Foundation Scholarship PRAs.

Golden Key International Honor Society Tau Beta Pi Engineering Honor Society Watts Bar NPP Seismic PRA Deans List University of Puerto Rico Tennessee Valley Authorityl Rhea County, Tennessee Academic Activities 12/2014 - 01/2015 Adjunct Professor, Department of Mathematics, Community College of Mr. Guerra performed seismic fragility evaluations for Air Handling Units, Allegheny County Condensers and Cooler Units in support of Watts Bar Seismic PRA. In reference to EPRI 103959 and EPRI 6041, Mr. Guerra developed fragility Guest Speaker - Challenges for a New parameters for functional and structural failure modes based on available test Generation of Structural Engineers, data and seismic qualifications for each of the aforementioned groups of Department of Civil and Environmental equipment. The resulting fragility parameters, including potential spatial Engineering, Lehigh University.

interactions, were used as input to the PRA model for subsequent risk quantification.

Eddie M. Guerra, P.E.

Computer Skills Tornado Screening Walkdowns for Genkai Units 3 & 4 Scientech l Kyushu Electric Power Company l Genkai, Japan STAAD Pro, SASSI, PC-SPEC, ANSYS, 07/2014 - 08/2014 AutoCAD, SAP2000, RAM, Mathcad, and Microsoft Project Mr. Guerra performed tornado walkdowns for Genkai Units 3 and 4 in order to identify and assess the effect of tornado-borne missiles against Publications safety-related structures. During the 3-day walkdown period, the Guerra, Eddie M., Impact Analysis of a Self- walkdown team focused on three main aspects: confirming that a sample Centered Steel Concentrically Braced of previously identified missiles comply with the findings documented in Frame, NEES Consortium, May-July 2007 previous inspection reports, identifying and record detailed information for vulnerable critical targets, and recording detailed design characteristics Languages and dimensions of critical potential missiles. The information collected by the team of walkdown engineers was subsequently used to reduce the English, Spanish number of potential missiles within the specified radius for Units 3 and 4.

In addition, the walkdown team assessed the condition of existing counter measures as well as provided expert opinion on alternate countermeasures to sustain tornado effects.

Perry NPP Seismic PRA ABS Consulting l FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company l Perry, Ohio 08/2012 - Present Mr. Guerra serves as the Senior Project Engineer for the calculation of Seismic Fragilities for mechanical and electrical equipment in support of the Seismic PRA for the plant. In his role as a structural analyst, Mr. Guerra has implemented both FA and CDFM methodologies in order to develop fragility curves for components to be credited in the plant logic model. In addition to mechanical and electrical equipment as defined in the EPRI 21 Classes, Mr. Guerra is performing fragility analyses for NSSS components and plant distributions systems.

Parameters necessary for the development of fragility curves are being calculated following EPRI guidelines including EPRI 103959, EPRI 6041, EPRI 1002988 and the EPRI Update 1019200. Results from the Seismic PRA will comply with the ASME ANS RA-Sa-2009 Standard and the NTTF 2.1 Recommendation.

As Senior Project Engineer he engaged in performing seismic fragilities for reinforced concrete shear walls in support of the Seismic PRA for the plant. Mr. Guerra has implemented the use of SAP2000 models and Mathcad calculations in order to evaluate the shear walls seismic capacity and their associated building structural responses. Fragility curves for shear walls were developed based on median, HCLPF and variability parameters estimated from EPRI guidelines. Shear wall fragilities associated with the plant's safety-related buildings have been incorporated into the plant logic model for quantification of CDF contribution.

Mr. Guerra served as the Project Engineering Associate for the Seismic Walkdowns of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant in support of its Seismic PRA and 2.1 NTTF Fukushima Resolution. Mr. Guerra was part of the team of Seismic Walkdown Engineers responsible for the walkdown of electrical and mechanical components as well as piping and electrical distribution systems. Mr. Guerra implemented the use of computer tablets to expedite the data management process prior, during and after the walkdowns. Inclusion rules, or caveats, as depicted in EPRI 6041 and EPRI 5223, were implemented when performing the walkdowns in order to reduce the level of detailed fragility calculations to be subsequently performed. Successful completion of plant walkdowns led to the reduction in the number of systems and components to be evaluated as part of the fragility calculation effort.

Mr. Guerra also served as the Project Engineering Associate for the Seismic Walkdowns of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant in support of the 2.3 NTTF Fukushima Resolution. As part of the 2.3 Walkdowns, Mr. Guerra performed visual inspections in order to identify un-analyzed, non-conforming, and degraded conditions related to Systems, Structures, and Components. Mr. Guerra implemented the use of computer tablets to expedite the data management process prior, during and after the walkdowns. The Seismic Walkdown Team adhered to the EPRI 2.3 NTTF Guidance in order to identify Potentially Adverse Seismic Conditions and efficiently implement the plant's Licensing Basis Evaluation and Corrective Action Program.

Mr. Guerra has served as the point of contact between systems modelers and PRA analysts especially throughout the iterative process of identifying and refining top contributors to the plant risk level. The objective of Page 2 of 7

Eddie M. Guerra, P.E.

this iterative process was to refine seismic fragilities to assess unintended conservatism in the fragility parameters to subsequently achieve an acceptable risk level quantified in terms of CDF or LERF.

Mr. Guerra participated in the Peer Review of the PNPP Seismic PRA in support of the work related to walkdowns, building evaluations and equipment fragilities. As part of the PNPP Peer Review, Mr. Guerra engaged in the direct response of comments from peer reviewers as well as technical discussions regarding compliance with the ASME Standard.

Beaver Valley Unit 1 NPP Seismic PRA ABS Consulting l FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company l Shippingport, Pennsylvania 09/2012 - Present Mr. Guerra serves as the Senior Project Engineer for the calculation of Seismic Fragilities for mechanical and electrical equipment in support of the Seismic PRA for the plant. In his role as a structural analyst, Mr. Guerra has implemented both FA and CDFM methodologies in order to develop fragility curves for components to be credited in the plant logic model. In addition to mechanical and electrical equipment as defined in the EPRI 21 Classes, Mr. Guerra is performing fragility analyses for NSSS components and plant distributions systems.

Parameters necessary for the development of fragility curves are being calculated following EPRI guidelines including EPRI 103959, EPRI 6041, EPRI 1002988, and the EPRI Update 1019200. Results from the Seismic PRA will comply with the ASME ANS RA-Sa-2009 Standard and the NTTF 2.1 Recommendation.

As Project Engineer he engaged in performing seismic fragilities for reinforced concrete shear walls in support of the Seismic PRA for the plant. Mr. Guerra has implemented the use of SAP2000 models and Mathcad calculations in order to evaluate the shear walls seismic capacity and their associated building structural responses. Fragility curves for shear walls were developed based on median, HCLPF and variability parameters estimated from EPRI guidelines. Shear wall fragilities associated with the plant's safety-related buildings have been incorporated into the plant logic model for quantification of CDF contribution.

Mr. Guerra served as the Project Engineering Associate for the Seismic Walkdowns of the Beaver Valley Unit 1 Nuclear Power Station in support of its Seismic PRA and 2.1 NTTF Fukushima Resolution. He was part of the team of Seismic Walkdown Engineers responsible for the walkdown of electrical and mechanical components as well as piping and electrical distribution systems. Mr. Guerra implemented the use of computer tablets to expedite the data management process prior, during and after the walkdowns. Inclusion rules, or caveats, as depicted in EPRI 6041 and EPRI 5223, were implemented when performing the walkdowns in order to reduce the level of detailed fragility calculations to be subsequently performed. Successful completion of plant walkdowns led to the reduction in the number of systems and components to be evaluated as part of the fragility calculation effort.

He also served as the Project Engineering Associate for the Seismic Walkdowns of the Beaver Valley Unit 1 Nuclear Power Station in support of the 2.3 NTTF Fukushima Resolution. As part of the 2.3 Walkdowns, Mr.

Guerra performed visual inspections in order to identify un-analyzed, non-conforming, and degraded conditions related to Systems, Structures, and Components. Mr. Guerra implemented the use of computer tablets to expedite the data management process prior, during and after the walkdowns. The Seismic Walkdown Team adhered to the EPRI 2.3 NTTF Guidance in order to identify Potentially Adverse Seismic Conditions and efficiently implement the plant's Licensing Basis Evaluation and Corrective Action Program.

Mr. Guerra has served as the point of contact between systems modelers and PRA analysts especially throughout the iterative process of identifying and refining top contributors to the plant risk level. The objective of this iterative process was to refine seismic fragilities to assess unintended conservatism in the fragility parameters to subsequently achieve an acceptable risk level quantified in terms of CDF or LERF.

Mr. Guerra participated in the Peer Review of the BVPS-1 Seismic PRA in support of the work related to walkdowns, building evaluations and equipment fragilities. As part of the BVPS-1 Peer Review, Mr. Guerra engaged in the direct response of comments from peer reviewers as well as technical discussions regarding compliance with the ASME Standard.

Page 3 of 7

Eddie M. Guerra, P.E.

Beaver Valley Unit 2 NPP Seismic PRA ABS Consulting l FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company l Shippingport, Pennsylvania 09/2012 - Present Mr. Guerra serves as the Senior Project Engineer for the calculation of Seismic Fragilities for mechanical and electrical equipment in support of the Seismic PRA for the plant. In his role as a structural analyst, Mr. Guerra has implemented both FA and CDFM methodologies in order to develop fragility curves for components to be credited in the plant logic model. In addition to mechanical and electrical equipment as defined in the EPRI 21 Classes, Mr. Guerra is performing fragility analyses for NSSS components and plant distributions systems.

Parameters necessary for the development of fragility curves are being calculated following EPRI guidelines including EPRI 103959, EPRI 6041, EPRI 1002988, and the EPRI Update 1019200. Results from the Seismic PRA will comply with the ASME ANS RA-Sa-2009 Standard and the NTTF 2.1 Recommendation.

As Project Engineer he engaged in performing seismic fragilities for reinforced concrete shear walls in support of the Seismic PRA for the plant. Mr. Guerra has implemented the use of SAP2000 models and Mathcad calculations in order to evaluate the shear walls seismic capacity and their associated building structural responses. Fragility curves for shear walls were developed based on median, HCLPF and variability parameters estimated from EPRI guidelines. Shear wall fragilities associated with the plant's safety-related buildings have been incorporated into the plant logic model for quantification of CDF contribution.

In addition, Mr. Guerra served as the Project Engineer Associate for the Seismic Walkdowns of the Beaver Valley Unit 2 Nuclear Power Station in support of its Seismic PRA and 2.1 NTTF Fukushima Resolution. He was part of the team of Seismic Walkdown Engineers responsible for the walkdown of electrical and mechanical components as well as piping and electrical distribution systems. Mr. Guerra implemented the use of computer tablets to expedite the data management process prior, during and after the walkdowns. Inclusion rules, or caveats, as depicted in EPRI 6041 and EPRI 5223, were implemented when performing the walkdowns in order to reduce the level of detailed fragility calculations to be subsequently performed. Successful completion of plant walkdowns led to the reduction in the number of systems and components to be evaluated as part of the fragility calculation effort.

Mr. Guerra also served as the Project Engineer Associate for the Seismic Walkdowns of the Beaver Valley Unit 2 Nuclear Power Station in support of the 2.3 NTTF Fukushima Resolution. As part of the 2.3 Walkdowns, Mr.

Guerra performed visual inspections in order to identify un-analyzed, non-conforming, and degraded conditions related to Systems, Structures, and Components. Mr. Guerra implemented the use of computer tablets to expedite the data management process prior, during and after the walkdowns. The Seismic Walkdown Team adhered to the EPRI 2.3 NTTF Guidance in order to identify Potentially Adverse Seismic Conditions and efficiently implement the plant's Licensing Basis Evaluation and Corrective Action Program.

Mr. Guerra has served as the point of contact between systems modelers and PRA analysts especially throughout the iterative process of identifying and refining top contributors to the plant risk level. The objective of this iterative process was to refine seismic fragilities to assess unintended conservatism in the fragility parameters to subsequently achieve an acceptable risk level quantified in terms of CDF or LERF.

Mr. Guerra participated in the Peer Review of the BVPS-2 Seismic PRA in support of the work related to walkdowns, building evaluations and equipment fragilities. As part of the BVPS-2 Peer Review, Mr. Guerra engaged in the direct response of comments from peer reviewers as well as technical discussions regarding compliance with the ASME Standard.

Davis-Besse NPP Seismic PRA ABS Consulting l FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company l Oak Harbor, Ohio 03/2012 - Present Mr. Guerra serves as the Senior Project Engineer for the calculation of Seismic Fragilities for mechanical and electrical equipment in support of the Seismic PRA for the plant. In his role as a structural analyst, Mr. Guerra has implemented both FA and CDFM methodologies in order to develop fragility curves for components to be credited in the plant logic model. In addition to mechanical and electrical equipment as defined in the EPRI 21 Classes, Mr. Guerra is performing fragility analyses for NSSS components and plant distributions systems.

Parameters necessary for the development of fragility curves are being calculated following EPRI guidelines Page 4 of 7

Eddie M. Guerra, P.E.

including EPRI 103959, EPRI 6041, EPRI 1002988, and the EPRI Update 1019200. Results from the Seismic PRA will comply with the ASME ANS RA-Sa-2009 Standard and the NTTF 2.1 Recommendation.

As Project Engineer he engaged in performing seismic fragilities for reinforced concrete shear walls in support of the Seismic PRA for the plant. Mr. Guerra has implemented the use of SAP2000 models and Mathcad calculations in order to evaluate the shear walls seismic capacity and their associated building structural responses. Fragility curves for shear walls were developed based on median, HCLPF and variability parameters estimated from EPRI guidelines. Shear wall fragilities associated with the plant's safety-related buildings have been incorporated into the plant logic model for quantification of CDF contribution.

Mr. Guerra served as the Project Engineering Associate for the Seismic Walkdowns of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station in support of its Seismic PRA and 2.1 NTTF Fukushima Resolution. He was part of the team of Seismic Walkdown Engineers responsible for the walkdown of electrical and mechanical components as well as piping and electrical distribution systems. Mr. Guerra implemented the use of computer tablets to expedite the data management process prior, during and after the walkdowns. Inclusion rules, or caveats, as depicted in EPRI 6041 and EPRI 5223, were implemented when performing the walkdowns in order to reduce the level of detailed fragility calculations to be subsequently performed. Successful completion of plant walkdowns led to the reduction in the number of systems and components to be evaluated as part of the fragility calculation effort.

In addition, he served as the Project Engineering Associate for the Seismic Walkdowns of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station in support of the 2.3 NTTF Fukushima Resolution. As part of the 2.3 Walkdowns, Mr.

Guerra performed visual inspections in order to identify un-analyzed, non-conforming, and degraded conditions related to Systems, Structures, and Components. Mr. Guerra implemented the use of computer tablets to expedite the data management process prior, during and after the walkdowns. The Seismic Walkdown Team adhered to the EPRI 2.3 NTTF Guidance in order to identify Potentially Adverse Seismic Conditions and efficiently implement the plant's Licensing Basis Evaluation and Corrective Action Program.

Mr. Guerra, as a Project Engineering Associate, engaged in the Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis for the Davis-Besse Auxiliary Building. Mr. Guerra developed FE computer models for the Auxiliary Building using AutoCAD, ANSYS, and SAP2000. Mr. Guerra then performed both fixed-base and Soil-Structure Interaction Analyses of the Auxiliary Building using SAP2000 and SASSI programs. Input ground motion was derived from the Site-Specific Seismic-Hazard Analysis performed in support of the Seismic PRA. Seismic input was defined at the Reactor Foundation Level and subsequently, In-Structure Response Spectra, or ISRS, were developed at several floor elevations of the Auxiliary Building. The final plots for ISRS at varying locations in the structure were used as the median-centered seismic demand for the fragility analysis of structures and equipment in the Auxiliary Building.

He also served as the Project Engineering Associate engaged in a seismic analysis of the Auxiliary Building-Area 7 of the Davis Besse Nuclear Power Station. As part the analysis, Mr. Guerra was responsible for developing Finite Element and Stick Models using ANSYS and SAP2000. Mr. Guerra developed graphical In-Structure Response Spectra comparisons denoting the dynamic responses arising from both Stick and FE models subjected to the same ground input motion. Results of the analysis provided the basis for validating the use of existing IPEEE stick models for the seismic re-evaluation of plant structures to support the SPRA and the NTTF 2.1 submittals.

Mr. Guerra has served as the point of contact between systems modelers and PRA analysts especially throughout the iterative process of identifying and refining top contributors to the plant risk level. The objective of this iterative process was to refine seismic fragilities to assess unintended conservatism in the fragility parameters to subsequently achieve an acceptable risk level quantified in terms of CDF or LERF.

Mr. Guerra participated in the Peer Review of the DBNPS Seismic PRA in support of the work related to walkdowns, building evaluations and equipment fragilities. As part of the DBNPS Peer Review, Mr. Guerra engaged in the direct response of comments from peer reviewers as well as technical discussions regarding compliance with the ASME Standard.

Page 5 of 7

Eddie M. Guerra, P.E.

Duane Arnold NPP - Seismic & Wind Qualification of Louvered Panel Modules Duane Arnold l Cedar Rapids, Iowa 01/2012 - 03/2012 Mr. Guerra, Project Engineer Associate, assisted with the qualification of a tornado Louvered Panel Module assembly for a Chiller Unit Enclosure to be erected for the Duane Arnold Nuclear Power Plant. The extent of the qualification included the assessment of tornado wind loading effects, impact effects of air-borne missiles, seismic loading and inner-structure ventilation criteria. In addition to the performed linear elastic analyses, the qualification process included the application of plastic design and energy balance concepts in order to assess impact effects and inner-structure ventilation criteria respectively.

Y-Loop Testing Facility Inspection of Shenyang Turbo Machinery Shenyang Turbo Machinery l Shenyang, P. R. of China 11/2011 - 12/2011 Mr. Guerra, Engineer Associate II, was part of the team in charge of performing the inspection of the Y-Loop Testing Facility for the Cooling System of the AP1000 Nuclear Power Plant. The inspection procedures focused primarily on welded connections, steel structural members and bolted connections. Final recommendations were provided which led to the approval of the design and installation of the Y-Loop Testing Facility Steel Structure.

Koeberg NPP Seismic Evaluation ESKOM l Cape Town, South Africa 09/2011 - 11/2011 Mr. Guerra, Engineer Associate II, performed the structural assessment of reinforced concrete shear walls in the Koeberg NPP subjected to the effects from Aircraft Impact Loading. Semi-empirical relations associated to perfectly plastic collisions were implemented for the evaluation of local, global and secondary effects resulting from a missile impact on concrete walls. Results from the analysis provided the basis for risk informed assessments in relation to Aircraft Impact on Koebergs Safety-Related Structures.

Mr. Guerra served as the Engineer Associate II for the calculation of Seismic Fragilities for mechanical and structural components in support of the Seismic Margin Assessment of the Koeberg Nuclear Power Plant. In his role as a structural analyst, Mr. Guerra implemented CDFM methodologies in order to determine seismic fragilities for components falling within the Review Level Earthquake screening threshold. Parameters necessary for the development of seismic fragilities were calculated following EPRI guidelines including EPRI 103959, EPRI 6041, and EPRI 1002988. Results from the seismic evaluation of screened-in components were implemented as the basis for more detailed analyses and minor modifications.

Mr. Guerra, Engineer Associate II, was part of the Seismic Walkdown Team responsible for the walkdown of electrical and mechanical components as well as piping and electrical distribution systems in support of the SMA for the Koeberg NPP. Mr. Guerra followed GIP walkdown guidelines in order to determine if components and systems were below the Review Level Earthquake margin level. Successful completion of plant walkdowns led to the reduction in the number of systems and components to be evaluated as part of the fragility calculation effort.

Santa Isabel Wind Turbine Tower Analysis and Design Revision Siemens l Santa Isabel, Puerto Rico 10/2010 - 09/2011 Mr. Guerra, Engineer Associate I, was in charge of the analysis and design revision of a wind turbine tower to be constructed in Santa Isabel, Puerto Rico. He developed design criteria based on local building code requirements and the International Electro technical Commission (IEC) provisions for wind turbine design. The analysis encompassed the suitability of the tower against regional extreme seismic and wind demands.

General Electric Peer Review for Mechanical Equipment Qualification General Electric l Chilca, Peru 06/2010 - 09/2011 Mr. Guerra, Engineer Associate I, provided structural revision services for General Electric Power and Water Division regarding the seismic qualification of electrical equipment to be installed in the Fenix Power Plant located in Chilca, Peru. Equipment and surrounding structures were verified following Peruvian structural standards.

Page 6 of 7

Eddie M. Guerra, P.E.

Potash Fertilizer Plant Seismic Analysis Rivers Consulting l Province of Mendoza, Argentina 06/2010 - 08/2011 Mr. Guerra, Engineer Associate I, assisted in the analysis and design revision of a Potash Fertilizer Plant to be constructed in the Mendoza Province, Argentina. He performed dynamic analysis and structural design revision of the main steel structure by complying with Local Argentinean Structural Codes.

Structural Analysis of Steel Floor Framing System Curtiss-Wright l Cheswick, Pennsylvania 05/2011 - 06/2011 Mr. Guerra, Engineer Associate I, performed a structural analysis addressing the structural adequacy of a steel floor framing system in order to sustain heavy equipment weights. Structural revision included computer modeling of the steel framing and revision of code criteria involving both Chinese and American steel shape properties.

AP1000 HVAC Duct System Seismic Qualification SSM l Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC l Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 10/2010 - 05/2011 Mr. Guerra, Engineer Associate I, was part of the team responsible for the seismic qualification of the AP1000 HVAC Duct System project. He performed structural dynamic analysis of all mayor steel platforms inside steel containment vessel; investigated the interaction of steel vessel and HVAC system displacements due to normal operational and severe thermal effects; and performed finite element modeling of HVAC access doors under static equivalent seismic loads. Mr. Guerra followed AISC, ASCE and SMACNA standards for the qualification of steel duct supports.

Page 7 of 7

Brian A. Lucarelli, E.I.T.

Engineering Associate Skill Areas:

Years Experience 5

Seismic Fragility Evaluations Roller Compacted Concrete Seismic Walkdown Inspection Construction Materials Testing Level Soil Mechanics Quality Assurance 5

Mr. Lucarelli has experience in seismic walkdown inspections of Education operating nuclear plants and seismic fragility evaluations of structures, B.S., Civil Engineering, University of systems, and components. He has attended the 5-day SQUG Walkdown Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA - December Screening and Seismic Evaluation Training Course and has also 2009 provided support during peer reviews to the ASME/ANS PRA Standard.

B.S., Mathematics, Waynesburg University, Mr. Lucarelli also has experience in geotechnical modeling, structural Waynesburg, PA - December 2009 modeling, and quality control in support of applications for proposed nuclear plants.

Professional Certifications Engineer-in-Training - PA Watts Barr NPP Seismic Scoping Study

1. ET013562 URS Consulting l TVA l Rhea County, Tennessee 3/2014 - 01/2015 Continuing Education As an Engineering Associate, Mr. Lucarelli has been engaged in SQUG Walkdown Screening and Seismic performing seismic evaluations of plant structures and components in Evaluation Training Course, August 2012 support of developing seismic fragilities for the seismic PRA. As part of this effort, Mr. Lucarelli was part of the Seismic Walkdown Team. He was Short Course on Computational responsible to perform the NTTF 2.1 Seismic Walkdown and Equipment Geotechnics and Dynamics, August 2011. Screening and to perform walkdowns in support of the Expedited Seismic Evaluation Process (ESEP). Mr. Lucarelli also developed ASDSO Estimating Permeability Webinar, seismic fragilities for miscellaneous components such as the Polar December 2010. Crane, Steel Containment Vessel Penetrations, and Control Room Ceiling.

Computer Skills SAP2000, PLAXIS, SEEP/W, SLOPE/W, Perry NPP Seismic PRA ABS Consulting l FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company l Perry, Ohio THERM, AutoCAD, ArcGIS, Phase2, Slide, 6/2012 - Present MathCAD As an Engineering Associate, Mr. Lucarelli has been engaged in performing seismic evaluations of plant structures and components in Professional Affiliations support of developing seismic fragilities for the seismic PRA. As part of American Concrete Institute (ACI) this effort, Mr. Lucarelli was part of the Seismic Walkdown Team. He was ACI Committee 207 (Mass Concrete) - responsible to perform the NTTF 2.1 Seismic Walkdown and Equipment Associate Member Screening. He was also responsible to perform the NTTF 2.3 Seismic American Society of Civil Engineers Walkdown and walkdowns in support of the Expedited Seismic (ASCE) Evaluation Process (ESEP). Mr. Lucarelli managed the development of equipment fragilities for PNPP and acted as the point of contact between Engineers Without Borders (EWB) the team of fragility analysts and the PRA analyst developing the logic model.

Mr. Lucarelli participated in the Peer Review of the PNPP Seismic PRA in support of the work related to walkdowns and equipment fragilities. As part of the PNPP Peer Review, Mr. Lucarelli engaged in the direct response of comments from peer reviewers as well as technical discussions regarding compliance with the ASME Standard.

Brian A. Lucarelli, E.I.T.

Beaver Valley Unit 1 NPP Seismic PRA ABS Consulting l FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company l Shippingport, Pennsylvania 6/2012 - Present As an Engineering Associate, Mr. Lucarelli has been engaged in performing seismic evaluations of plant structures and components in support of developing seismic fragilities for the seismic PRA. As part of this effort, Mr. Lucarelli was part of the Seismic Walkdown Team and was responsible to perform the NTTF 2.1 Seismic Walkdown and Equipment Screening. Mr. Lucarelli performed walkdowns in support of the Expedited Seismic Evaluation Process (ESEP).

Beaver Valley Unit 2 NPP Seismic PRA ABS Consulting l FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company l Shippingport, Pennsylvania 6/2012 - Present As an Engineering Associate, Mr. Lucarelli has been engaged in performing seismic evaluations of plant structures and components in support of developing seismic fragilities for the seismic PRA. As part of this effort, Mr. Lucarelli was part of the Seismic Walkdown Team. He was responsible to perform the NTTF 2.1 Seismic Walkdown and Equipment Screening. He was also responsible to perform the NTTF 2.3 Seismic Walkdown. Mr. Lucarelli performed walkdowns in support of the Expedited Seismic Evaluation Process (ESEP).

Davis-Besse NPP Seismic PRA ABS Consulting l FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company l Oak Harbor, Ohio 6/2012 - Present As an Engineering Associate, Mr. Lucarelli has been engaged in performing seismic evaluations of plant structures and components in support of developing seismic fragilities for the seismic PRA. As part of this effort, Mr. Lucarelli was part of the Seismic Walkdown Team. He was responsible to perform the NTTF 2.1 Seismic Walkdown and Equipment Screening. He was also responsible to perform the NTTF 2.3 Seismic Walkdown. Mr. Lucarelli performed walkdowns in support of the Expedited Seismic Evaluation Process (ESEP).

Visaginas NPP Units 3 and 4 Visagino Atomine Elektrine UAB l Villnius, Lithuania 10/2012 - 12/2012 As an Engineering Associate, Mr. Lucarelli Evaluated cone penetration test (CPT) data to evaluate site uniformity, provide recommended elastic modulus values for geologic layers, and evaluate dissipation test results to determine the coefficient of consolidation for geologic layers.

Vogtle NPP Geotechnical Investigation Westinghouse Electric Company l Burke County, Georgia 2/2012 - 7/2012 RIZZO conducted a settlement analysis to predict the total and differential settlements expected during construction of the Vogtle Units. Mr. Lucarelli was responsible for reviewing on-site heave and settlement data and the excavation sequence to calibrate the material properties in the settlement model. He was also responsible for creating a settlement model that implemented the expected AP1000 construction sequence and presenting the results in a report.

Levy County NPP Foundation Considerations Sargent & Lundy/Progress Energy l Crystal River, Florida 1/2010 - 6/2012 Mr. Lucarelli has been extensively involved in the design and specification of the Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Bridging Mat that will support the Nuclear Island foundation. He authored numerous calculations and reports related to the work for this project, including responding to Requests for Additional Information from the NRC. He performed finite element analyses of the stresses within the Bridging Mat under static and dynamic loading conditions, evaluation of whether the stresses in the Bridging Mat met the applicable requirements of ACI 349 and ACI 318, and the determination of long-term settlement. As part of laboratory testing program for RCC, Mr. Lucarelli assisted in the evaluation, selection, and testing specification for the concrete materials to ensure they met the applicable ASTM material standards. He also authored the Work Plan and served as on-Page 2 of 4

Brian A. Lucarelli, E.I.T.

site quality control during laboratory testing of RCC block samples in direct tension and biaxial direct shear. His responsibilities included inspection of the testing being performed, control of documentation related to testing activities, and ensuring subcontractors fulfilled the requirements of RIZZOs NQA-1 Quality Assurance Program.

Blue Ridge Dam Rehab Tennessee Valley Authority l Fannin County, Georgia 3/2012 - 4/2012 RIZZO conducted a deformation analysis of the downstream side of the Blue Ridge Dam to assess the observed movement in the Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) wall. Mr. Lucarelli prepared a two dimensional finite element model of the dam, which included reviewing construction documentation and instrument readings to determine cross sectional dimensions and material properties.

Akkuyu NPP Site Investigation WorleyParsons l Mersin Province, Turkey 9/2011 - 3/2012 RIZZO conducted a geotechnical and hydrogeological investigation of the proposed site for four Russian VVER-1200 reactors. This investigation entailed geotechnical and hydrogeological drilling and sampling, geophysical testing, and geologic mapping. Mr. Lucarelli served as on-site quality control for this project. His responsibilities included controlling all records generated on site, interfacing with TAEK (Turkish Regulatory Agency) auditors, and tracking nonconformance observed during the field investigation in accordance with RIZZOs NQA-1 Quality Assurance Program. Mr. Lucarelli also assisted in the preparation of the report summarizing the findings of the field investigation.

Calvert Cliffs NPP Unit 3 Unistar l Calvert County, Maryland 7/2011 - 1/2012 5/2010 - 11/2010 RIZZO completed a COLA-level design of the Ultimate Heat Sink Makeup Water Intake Structure at the Calvert Cliffs site. Mr. Lucarelli authored and checked calculations to determine the design loads, as prescribed by ASCE 7, to be used in a Finite Element model of the structure. Mr. Lucarelli was also responsible for ensuring that the design met the requirements of the Design Control Document.

Mr. Lucarelli also performed a settlement analysis for the Makeup Water Intake Structure.

Areva RAI Support Services for U.S. EPR Design Certification AREVA 8/2011 - 9/2011 (10-4435)

Mr. Lucarelli assisted in the calculation of the subgrade modulus distribution for the foundation of the Nuclear Auxiliary Building (NAB) for the U.S. Evolutionary Power Reactor (U.S. EPR). This iterative process included modeling subsurface profiles in DAPSET to obtain a soil spring distribution under the basemat. The soil spring distribution was then modeled in GTSTRUDL as the basemat support.

C.W. Bill Young Regional Reservoir Forensic Investigation Confidential Client l Tampa, Florida 2/2010 - 3/2010 RIZZO conducted a forensic investigation into the cause of soil-cement cracking on the reservoirs upstream slope. This investigation involved a thorough review of construction testing results and documentation to determine inputs for seepage and slope stability analyses. Mr. Lucarelli reviewed construction documentation and conducted quality control checks on the data used for the analyses. Mr. Lucarelli also prepared a number of drawings and figures that presented the results of the forensic investigation.

PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE Page 3 of 4

Brian A. Lucarelli, E.I.T.

Aquaculture Development Makili l Mali, Africa 9/2007 - 12/2009 As the project coordinator, his primary responsibilities included maintaining a project schedule, developing a budget for project implementation, and coordinating technical reviews of project documentation with a Technical Advisory Committee.

The University Of Pittsburgh Chapter Of Engineers Without Borders designed and constructed an aquaculture pond in rural Mali, Africa with a capacity of 3.6 million gallons. This pond is designed to maintain enough water through a prolonged dry season to allow for year-round cultivation of tilapia. As the project technical lead, Mr.

Lucarelli was involved in developing conceptual design alternatives and planning two site assessment trips.

These scope of these site assessment trips included topographic surveying, the installation of climate monitoring instrumentation, soil sampling and characterization, and laboratory soils testing.

Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 05/2008 - 08/2008 As a transportation intern, Mr. Lucarelli analyzed data in support of various studies dealing with traffic forecasting, transit use, and highway use. He also completed fieldwork to assess the utilization of regional park-and-ride facilities.

Page 4 of 4

Bradley T. Yagla, E.I.T.

Engineering Associate Skill Areas:

Years Experience 2 Structural Modeling Structural Analysis Nuclear Power Plants Structures Level Modular Construction Pipe Supports 3 Embedment Plates Seismic Walkdowns Seismic Fragilities SSI Dynamic Analysis Education B.S. Civil & Environmental Engineering, Mr. Yagla is an Engineering Associate with RIZZO Associates (RIZZO).

University of Pittsburgh - Pittsburgh, Mr. Yagla has been involved primarily in the structural analysis of power Pennsylvania - 2012 generation structures.

Professional Certifications RIZZOs senior staff have recently completed the Seismic 2-Day NTTF 2.3 Engineer-in-Training (EIT) - Seismic Walkdown Training. This training is being disseminated to others Pennsylvania on RIZZOs staff, including Mr. Yagla.

Computer Skills Perry NPP Seismic PRA STAAD.Pro, AutoCAD, Revit, RISA-3D, ABS Consulting l FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company l Perry, Ohio SAP2000, SASSI, MathCad 06/2012 - Present Mr. Yagla, as an Engineering Associate, performed the following tasks in support of the Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment (SPRA) for the plant:

x Assessed existing seismic analyses of plant structures, systems, and components (SSCs).

x Developed Finite Element (FE) and Stick Models of plant structures for seismic analysis.

x Validated and verified FE models using 1-g push and modal analyses.

x Analyzed structure FE models for soil-structure interaction.

x Conducted in-plant seismic walkdowns of SSCs to identify potential failure modes.

x Performed fragility calculations for SSCs using probabilistic and deterministic approaches.

x Originated and checked calculations and reports pertaining to seismic walkdowns and fragilities.

Beaver Valley Unit 1 NPP Seismic PRA ABS Consulting l FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company l Shippingport, Pennsylvania 06/2012 - Present Mr. Yagla, as an Engineering Associate, performed the following tasks in support of the Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment (SPRA) for the plant:

x Assessed existing seismic analyses of plant structures, systems, and components (SSCs).

x Developed Finite Element (FE) and Stick Models of plant structures for seismic analysis.

x Validated and verified FE models using 1-g push and modal analyses.

x Analyzed structure FE models for soil-structure interaction.

x Conducted in-plant seismic walkdowns of SSCs to identify potential failure modes.

x Performed fragility calculations for SSCs using probabilistic and deterministic approaches.

x Originated and checked calculations and reports pertaining to seismic walkdowns and fragilities.

Bradley T. Yagla, E.I.T.

Beaver Valley Unit 2 NPP Seismic PRA ABS Consulting l FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company l Shippingport, Pennsylvania 06/2012 - Present Mr. Yagla, as an Engineering Associate, performed the following tasks in support of the Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment (SPRA) for the plant:

x Assessed existing seismic analyses of plant structures, systems, and components (SSCs).

x Developed Finite Element (FE) and Stick Models of plant structures for seismic analysis.

x Validated and verified FE models using 1-g push and modal analyses.

x Analyzed structure FE models for soil-structure interaction.

x Conducted in-plant seismic walkdowns of SSCs to identify potential failure modes.

x Performed fragility calculations for SSCs using probabilistic and deterministic approaches.

x Originated and checked calculations and reports pertaining to seismic walkdowns and fragilities.

Davis-Besse NPP Seismic PRA ABS Consulting l FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company l Oak Harbor, Ohio 06/2012 - Present Mr. Yagla, as an Engineering Associate, performed the following tasks in support of the Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment (SPRA) for the plant:

x Assessed existing seismic analyses of plant structures, systems, and components (SSCs).

x Developed Finite Element (FE) and Stick Models of plant structures for seismic analysis.

x Validated and verified FE models using 1-g push and modal analyses.

x Analyzed structure FE models for soil-structure interaction.

x Conducted in-plant seismic walkdowns of SSCs to identify potential failure modes.

x Performed fragility calculations for SSCs using probabilistic and deterministic approaches.

x Originated and checked calculations and reports pertaining to seismic walkdowns and fragilities.

PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE Intern - Piping and Supports Integration Westinghouse Electric Company l Cranberry Township, Pennsylvania 05/2011 - 08/2011 x Coordinated pipe support and embedment plate issue resolution for Embedment Project Team.

x Created and maintained a spreadsheet that tracked 800 issues from detection to resolution.

x Verified embedment plate issues were rectified in the AP1000 computer model using NavisWorks.

x Provided vital embedment information to critical China AP1000 Projects in Weekly deliverables.

x Presented qualitative and statistical issue - related data to management on a daily basis.

Intern - Modules and Construction Interface Westinghouse Electric Company l Cranberry Township, Pennsylvania 05/2010 - 08/2010 x Provided input during formal design review for modular AP1000 Nuclear Power Plant Units.

x Developed process flowcharts for piping isometric drawing classification.

x Verified stress calculations for pipe hangers in mechanical modules.

x Located and documented discrepancies between AP1000 computer model and technical drawings.

x Participated in weekly Nuclear Technical and Human Performance training sessions.

Page 2 of 2

Dom Drkulec, E.I.T.

Project Engineering Associate Skill Areas:

Years Experience 2 Structural Concrete Design Pre-stressed Concrete Design Steel & Masonry Design Seismic Response Analysis Level Structural Behavior 4

Mr. Dom Drkulec is a Project Engineering Associate with RIZZO Education Associates (RIZZO). Mr. Drkulec has been involved primarily in the M.S., Civil & Environmental Engineering, structural analysis of power generation structures and has also experience Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA - in research, material testing, and building inspections.

2011 RIZZOs senior staff have recently completed the Seismic 2-Day NTTF 2.3 B.S., Civil Engineering, University of Seismic Walkdown Training. This training is being disseminated to others Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia - 2004 on RIZZOs staff, including Mr. Drkulec.

Professional Registrations Perry NPP Seismic PRA ABS Consulting l FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company l Engineer-In-Training (E.I.T.)

Perry, Ohio 03/2013 - Present Computer Skills Mr. Drkulec, as a Project Engineering Associate, was a member of the SAP2000, ANSYS, ABAQUS, AutoCAD, seismic walkdown team in support of the seismic probabilistic risk MATLAB, Maple, MS Office Suite assessment (SPRA) being performed at the plant. Walkdown procedures were in accordance with 2.1 NTTF Recommendation and EPRI NP-6041 Languages guidelines. Walkdown data was recorded using digital photographs and English & Croatian Screening Evaluation Work Sheets (SEWS). Focus of the walkdown was on the evaluation of existing condition, agreement with screening caveats, anchorage, and possible seismic spatial systems interactions of selected mechanical and electrical components.

He is also participating in development of seismic fragility curves of structures and components for the plant. Defined failure modes for selected Structures, Systems, and Components are associated with fragility curves for a given level of seismic ground motion. Seismic fragility calculations are being performed in accordance with EPRI 103959, EPRI 1002988, and EPRI 1019200 documents.

Beaver Valley Unit 1 NPP Seismic PRA ABS Consulting l FirstEnergy Operating Company l Shippingport, Pennsylvania 02/2013 - Present Mr. Drkulec, as a Project Engineering Associate, was a member of the seismic walkdown team in support of the seismic probabilistic risk assessment (SPRA) being performed at the plant. Walkdown procedures were in accordance with 2.1 NTTF Recommendation and EPRI NP-6041 guidelines. Walkdown data was recorded using digital photographs and Screening Evaluation Work Sheets (SEWS). Focus of the walkdown was on the evaluation of existing condition, agreement with screening caveats, anchorage, and possible seismic spatial systems interactions of selected mechanical and electrical components.

He is also participating in development of seismic fragility curves of structures and components for the plant. Defined failure modes for selected Structures, Systems, and Components are associated with fragility curves for a given level of seismic ground motion. Seismic fragility calculations are being performed in accordance with EPRI 103959, EPRI 1002988, and EPRI 1019200 documents.

Dom Drkulec, E.I.T.

Beaver Valley Unit 2 NPP Seismic PRA ABS Consulting l FirstEnergy Operating Company l Shippingport, Pennsylvania 01/2013 - Present Mr. Drkulec, as a Project Engineering Associate, was a member of the seismic walkdown team in support of the seismic probabilistic risk assessment (SPRA) being performed at the plant. Walkdown procedures were in accordance with 2.1 NTTF Recommendation and EPRI NP-6041 guidelines. Walkdown data was recorded using digital photographs and Screening Evaluation Work Sheets (SEWS). Focus of the walkdown was on the evaluation of existing condition, agreement with screening caveats, anchorage, and possible seismic spatial systems interactions of selected mechanical and electrical components.

He is also participating in development of seismic fragility curves of structures and components for the plant.

Defined failure modes for selected Structures, Systems, and Components are associated with fragility curves for a given level of seismic ground motion. Seismic fragility calculations are being performed in accordance with EPRI 103959, EPRI 1002988, and EPRI 1019200 documents.

Davis-Besse NPP Seismic PRA ABS Consulting l FirstEnergy Operating Company l Oak Harbor, Ohio 12/2012 - Present Mr. Drkulec, as a Project Engineering Associate, was involved in development of in-structure response spectra and other structural response parameters utilizing SAP2000 for the plants Auxiliary 6 Building and Intake Structure. Seismic modeling was done by seismic design criteria of ASCE 43-05 and ASCE 4-98 for Structures, Systems, and Components in Nuclear facilities. The program ANSYS was used to define model properties and for automatic meshing of the overall mode. The program SASSI was employed for modeling soil-structure interaction.

He was also involved in Seismic Analysis Report preparation for both of the above mentioned buildings. The goal of the analyses is to obtain Floor Response Spectra and other structural response parameters for the Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment of the plant.

PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE Site Engineer Industrogradnja d.d. l Zagreb, Croatia 01/2005 - 12/2005 x Supervised the construction of residential buildings x Arranged work and deliveries on the site, and verified plans compatibility with the design x Interpreted contract design documents for subcontractors and monitored their work x Worked with local authorities to ensure compatibility of the design with local construction regulations RESEARCH/TEACHING EXPERIENCE Teaching Assistant Drexel University l Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 12/2008 - 01/2012 x Partnered with structural engineers in investigations and studies related to reconstruction of steel structures, and in modeling, analysis and design of bridges and industrial buildings x Led project in which reinforced masonry walls were tested to predict structural seismic response and to evaluate current code strength expressions x Prepared weekly reports, plans and schedule for ongoing projects x Created user manual for SAP 2000 software as instructor of structural design and structural analysis courses x Organized land survey and construction materials labs Page 2 of 2

3552894-R-001 Revision 0 July 8, 2015 Page 2.1 of 2.26 Attachment 2.

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Failure ESEL Equipment ID HCLPF C R U Am Fragility Method Mode Item #

0P49D0001A 0.40 0.35 0.24 0.26 0.91 Anchorage New Analysis 196 0P49D0001B 0.40 0.35 0.24 0.26 0.91 Anchorage New Analysis 197 1M56S0001 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 233 1M56S0002 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 234 1M56S0003 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 235 1M56S0009 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 236 1M56S0010 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 237 1M56S0011 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 238 1M56S0012 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 239 1M56S0013 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 240 1M56S0014 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 241 1M56S0015 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 242 1M56S0016 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 243 1M56S0017 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 244 1M56S0018 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 245 1M56S0019 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 246 1M56S0020 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 247 3552894-R-001 1M56S0021 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 248 Revision 0 1M56S0022 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 249 July 8, 2015 1M56S0023 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 250 Page 2.2 of 2.26 1M56S0024 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 251

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Failure ESEL Equipment ID HCLPF C R U Am Fragility Method Mode Item #

1M56S0025 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 252 1M56S0026 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 253 1M56S0027 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 254 1M56S0028 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 255 1M56S0029 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 256 1M56S0030 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 257 1M56S0031 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 258 1M56S0032 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 259 1M56S0033 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 260 1M56S0034 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 261 1M56S0035 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 262 1M56S0036 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 263 1M56S0037 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 264 1M56S0038 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 265 1M56S0039 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 266 1M56S0040 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 267 1M56S0041 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 268 1M56S0042 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 269 3552894-R-001 1M56S0043 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 270 Revision 0 1M56S0044 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 271 July 8, 2015 1M56S0045 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 272 Page 2.3 of 2.26

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Failure ESEL Equipment ID HCLPF C R U Am Fragility Method Mode Item #

1M56S0046 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 273 1M56S0047 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 274 1M56S0048 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 275 1M56S0049 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 276 1M56S0050 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 277 1M56S0051 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 278 1M56S0052 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 279 1M56S0053 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 280 1M56S0054 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 281 1M56S0055 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 282 1M56S0056 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 283 1M56S0057 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 284 1M56S0058 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 285 1M56S0059 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 286 1M56S0060 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 287 1M56S0061 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 288 1M56S0062 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 289 1M56S0063 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 290 3552894-R-001 1M56S0064 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 291 Revision 0 1M56S0065 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 292 July 8, 2015 1M56S0066 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 293 Page 2.4 of 2.26

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Failure ESEL Equipment ID HCLPF C R U Am Fragility Method Mode Item #

1M56S0067 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 294 1M56S0068 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 295 1M56S0069 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 296 1M56S0070 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 297 1M56S0071 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 298 1M56S0072 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 299 1M56S0073 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 300 1M56S0074 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 301 1M56S0075 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 302 1M56S0076 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 303 1M56S0077 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 304 1M56S0078 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 305 1M56S0079 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 306 1M56S0080 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 307 1M56S0081 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 308 1M56S0082 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 309 1M56S0083 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 310 1M56S0084 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 311 3552894-R-001 1M56S0085 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 312 Revision 0 1M56S0086 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 313 July 8, 2015 1M56S0087 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 314 Page 2.5 of 2.26

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Failure ESEL Equipment ID HCLPF C R U Am Fragility Method Mode Item #

1M56S0088 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 315 1M56S0089 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 316 1M56S0090 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 317 1M56S0091 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 318 1M56S0092 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 319 1M56S0093 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 320 1M56S0094 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 321 1M56S0095 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 322 1M56S0096 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 323 1M56S0097 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 324 1M56S0098 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 325 1M56S0099 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 326 1M56S0100 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 327 1M56S0101 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 328 1M56S0102 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 329 1M56S0102-CNTR 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 330 1M56S0102-H2 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 331 IGNT 3552894-R-001 1M56S0103 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 332 Revision 0 1M56S0103-CNTR 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 333 July 8, 2015 1M56S0103-H2 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 334 Page 2.6 of 2.26 IGNT

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Failure ESEL Equipment ID HCLPF C R U Am Fragility Method Mode Item #

0R24S0020 0.47 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.20 Anchorage New Analysis 211 0R24S0025 0.47 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.20 Anchorage New Analysis 218 0R24S0035 0.47 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.20 Anchorage New Analysis 216 0R24S0036 0.47 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.20 Anchorage New Analysis 222 1R24S0018 0.47 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.20 Anchorage New Analysis 210 1R24S0019 0.47 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.20 Anchorage New Analysis 343 1R24S0021 0.47 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.20 Anchorage New Analysis 214 1R24S0022 0.47 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.20 Anchorage New Analysis 215 1R24S0023 0.47 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.20 Anchorage New Analysis 217 1R24S0024 0.47 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.20 Anchorage New Analysis 344 1R24S0026 0.47 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.20 Anchorage New Analysis 220 1R24S0028 0.47 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.20 Anchorage New Analysis 221 1R24S0029 0.47 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.20 Anchorage New Analysis 402 1R24S0030 0.25 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.63 Anchorage New Analysis 223 1R24S0031 0.25 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.63 Anchorage New Analysis 212 1R24S0032 0.25 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.63 Anchorage New Analysis 219 Scaling based on Design 1E12C0002B 2.75 0.40 0.24 0.32 6.97 Anchorage 412 Criteria 3552894-R-001 1B21F0041A 1.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.80 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 46 Revision 0 1B21F0041F 1.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.80 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 49 July 8, 2015 1B21F0410A 1.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.80 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 72 Page 2.7 of 2.26 1B21F0410B 1.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.80 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 81

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Failure ESEL Equipment ID HCLPF C R U Am Fragility Method Mode Item #

1B21F0415A 1.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.80 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 74 1B21F0415B 1.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.80 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 83 1B21F0041B 1.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.80 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 47 1B21F0041E 1.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.80 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 48 1B21F0047D 1.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.80 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 50 1B21F0047H 1.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.80 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 51 1B21F0051C 1.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.80 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 52 1B21F0051D 1.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.80 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 53 1B21F0051G 1.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.80 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 54 1B21F0411A 1.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.80 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 79 1B21F0411B 1.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.80 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 88 1B21F0414A 1.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.80 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 73 1B21F0414B 1.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.80 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 82 1B21F0422A 1.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.80 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 76 1B21F0422B 1.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.80 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 85 1B21F0425A 1.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.80 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 75 1B21F0425B 1.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.80 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 84 1B21F0442A 1.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.80 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 78 3552894-R-001 1B21F0442B 1.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.80 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 87 Revision 0 1B21F0443A 1.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.80 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 80 July 8, 2015 1B21F0443B 1.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.80 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 89 Page 2.8 of 2.26

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Failure ESEL Equipment ID HCLPF C R U Am Fragility Method Mode Item #

1B21F0444A 1.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.80 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 77 1B21F0444B 1.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.80 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 86 1E51F0017 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.66 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 10 1E51F0015 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.66 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 15 1R42S0015 0.46 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.17 Functional GERS 231 1R42S0024 0.35 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.89 Anchorage Test Response Spectra (TRS) 103 1R23S0009 0.29 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.73 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 209 1R23S0010 0.29 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.73 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 213 1R23S0011 0.29 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.73 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 404 1R23S0012 0.29 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.73 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 403 2R23S0009 0.29 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.73 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 195 2R23S0010 0.29 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.73 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 199 1R22S0006 0.61 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.55 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 399 1R22S0007 0.61 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.55 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 400 1R22S0009 0.61 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.55 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 401 2R22S0007 0.61 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.55 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 198 0R71S0083 0.60 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.52 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 204 1M56S0201 0.63 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.60 Anchorage New Analysis 335 3552894-R-001 1M56S0202 0.63 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.60 Anchorage New Analysis 336 Revision 0 1R23S0015 0.95 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.41 Anchorage New Analysis 208 July 8, 2015 1E51C0001 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 1 Page 2.9 of 2.26

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Failure ESEL Equipment ID HCLPF C R U Am Fragility Method Mode Item #

1E51C0002 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 2 1G40C0005 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 180 1G42C0001 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 169 Assigned based on rule of the 1E51B0002 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional box. Parent component: 4 1E51C0002 Assigned based on rule of the 1E51C0004 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional box. Parent component: 3 1E51C0002 Assigned based on rule of the 1E51F0511 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional box. Parent component: 12 1E51C0002 1R45C0001A 0.38 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.96 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 190 1R45C0001B 0.38 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.96 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 192 1R45C0001C 0.38 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.96 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 194 1R45C0002A 0.38 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.96 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 189 1R45C0002B 0.38 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.96 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 191 1R45C0002C 0.38 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.96 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 193 Scaling based on Design 1E12C0002A 2.75 0.40 0.24 0.32 6.97 Anchorage 411 Criteria 3552894-R-001 1E22F0012 0.49 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.24 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 179 Revision 0 1E51F0022 0.49 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.24 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 19 July 8, 2015 1E51F0045 0.49 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.24 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 5 Page 2.10 of 2.26 1E12F0053A 0.29 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.73 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 152

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Failure ESEL Equipment ID HCLPF C R U Am Fragility Method Mode Item #

1E12F0053B 0.29 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.73 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 153 1E12F0009 0.29 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.73 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 139 1E12F0008 0.29 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.73 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 138 Component-specific Seismic 1E51F0019 0.87 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.21 Functional 8 Qualification Component-specific Seismic 1E51F0077 0.87 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.21 Functional 20 Qualification Component-specific Seismic 1E51F0078 0.87 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.21 Functional 21 Qualification 1E51F0076 0.47 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.20 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 16 1E12F0042A 0.46 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.16 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 146 1E12F0042B 0.46 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.16 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 147 1E51F0063 0.46 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.16 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 13 1G41F0140 0.46 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.16 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 155 1E12F0028A 0.40 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.00 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 142 1E12F0028B 0.40 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.00 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 143 1E12F0537A 0.26 0.45 0.24 0.38 0.75 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 144 1E12F0537B 0.26 0.45 0.24 0.38 0.75 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 145 1P45F0130A 0.38 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.96 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 187 3552894-R-001 1P45F0130B 0.38 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.96 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 188 Revision 0 1E12F0064A 0.66 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.69 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 149 July 8, 2015 1E12F0064B 0.66 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.69 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 148 Page 2.11 of 2.26

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Failure ESEL Equipment ID HCLPF C R U Am Fragility Method Mode Item #

1E51F0010 0.66 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.69 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 7 1E51F0031 0.66 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.69 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 9 1E51F0059 0.66 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.69 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 18 1E51F0510 0.66 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.69 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 11 1E22F0010 0.67 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.71 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 177 1E22F0011 0.67 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.71 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 178 1G42F0010 0.67 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.71 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 170 1G42F0020 0.67 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.71 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 171 1G42F0060 0.67 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.71 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 173 1E12F0004A 0.66 0.40 1.66 0.32 1.71 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 133 1E12F0004B 0.66 0.40 1.66 0.32 1.71 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 136 1E21F0001 0.66 0.40 1.66 0.32 1.71 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 184 1E22F0001 0.66 0.40 1.66 0.32 1.71 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 175 1E22F0015 0.66 0.40 1.66 0.32 1.71 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 174 1E12F0006A 0.66 0.40 1.66 0.32 1.71 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 134 1E12F0006B 0.67 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.71 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 137 1E21F0011 0.44 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.11 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 186 1E21F0012 0.44 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.11 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 185 3552894-R-001 1E51F0068 0.44 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.11 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 17 Revision 0 1G42F0080 0.44 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.11 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 172 July 8, 2015 1E12F0024A 0.46 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.16 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 140 Page 2.12 of 2.26

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Failure ESEL Equipment ID HCLPF C R U Am Fragility Method Mode Item #

1E12F0024B 0.46 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.16 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 141 1E12F0048A 0.46 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.16 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 132 1E12F0048B 0.46 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.16 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 135 1E51F0013 0.32 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.82 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 6 1E12F0027A 0.30 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.77 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 150 1E12F0027B 0.30 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.77 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 151 1E21F0005 0.30 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.77 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 126 1E22F0023 0.30 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.77 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 176 1E51F0064 0.30 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.77 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 14 1G41F0145 0.30 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.77 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 154 1E22F0004 0.31 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.79 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 127 0M23C0001A 0.70 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.01 Anchorage New Analysis 200 0M23C0001B 0.70 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.01 Anchorage New Analysis 201 1R42S0012 0.32 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.80 Anchorage New Analysis 228 1R42S0013 0.32 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.80 Anchorage New Analysis 229 1R42S0014 0.32 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.80 Anchorage New Analysis 230 0R71P0083 0.86 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.47 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 205 1R25S0170 0.74 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.89 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 182 3552894-R-001 1R42S0002 0.41 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.03 Functional GERS 232 Revision 0 1R42S0003 0.41 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.03 Functional GERS 227 July 8, 2015 0R42S0011 0.70 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.79 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 225 Page 2.13 of 2.26

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Failure ESEL Equipment ID HCLPF C R U Am Fragility Method Mode Item #

1E22S0006 0.70 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.79 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 224 1R42S0005 0.29 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.73 Anchorage New Analysis 226 0R42S0007 0.41 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.01 Anchorage New Analysis 202 0R42S0009 0.41 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.01 Anchorage New Analysis 206 1R42S0006 0.41 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.01 Anchorage New Analysis 203 1R42S0008 0.41 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.01 Anchorage New Analysis 207 1H22P0004A 0.37 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.95 Anchorage New Analysis 104 1H22P0027 0.37 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.95 Anchorage New Analysis 105 Assigned based on rule of the 1B21N0068A 0.37 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.95 Anchorage box. Parent component: 93 1H22P0004A Assigned based on rule of the 1B21N0068B 0.37 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.95 Anchorage box. Parent component: 94 1H22P0027 Assigned based on rule of the 1B21N0068E 0.37 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.95 Anchorage box. Parent component: 95 1H22P0004A Assigned based on rule of the 1B21N0068F 0.37 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.95 Anchorage box. Parent component: 96 1H22P00027 Assigned based on rule of the 3552894-R-001 1B21N0081A 0.37 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.95 Anchorage box. Parent component: 90 Revision 0 1H22P0004A July 8, 2015 Assigned based on rule of the 1B21N0091A 0.37 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.95 Anchorage box. Parent component: 97 Page 2.14 of 2.26 1H22P0004A

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Failure ESEL Equipment ID HCLPF C R U Am Fragility Method Mode Item #

Assigned based on rule of the 1B21N0091B 0.37 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.95 Anchorage box. Parent component: 98 1H22P00027 Assigned based on rule of the 1B21N0091E 0.37 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.95 Anchorage box. Parent component: 99 1H22P0004A Assigned based on rule of the 1B21N0091F 0.37 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.95 Anchorage box. Parent component: 100 1H22P00027 Assigned based on rule of the 1B21N0095A 0.37 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.95 Anchorage box. Parent component: 101 1H22P0004A Assigned based on rule of the 1B21N0095B 0.37 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.95 Anchorage box. Parent component: 102 1H22P00027 1H51P0134B 0.54 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.55 Functional GERS 413 1H51P0134A 0.54 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.55 Functional GERS 415 1H22P0017 0.54 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.55 Functional GERS 416 Assigned based on rule of the 1D23N0022A 0.54 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.55 Functional box. Parent component: 388 1H51P0134A Assigned based on rule of the 1D23N0022B 0.54 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.55 Functional box. Parent component: 389 3552894-R-001 1H51P0134B Revision 0 Assigned based on rule of the July 8, 2015 1D23N0032A 0.54 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.55 Functional box. Parent component: 390 1H51P0134A Page 2.15 of 2.26

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Failure ESEL Equipment ID HCLPF C R U Am Fragility Method Mode Item #

Assigned based on rule of the 1D23N0032B 0.54 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.55 Functional box. Parent component: 391 1H51P0134B Assigned based on rule of the 1D23N0042A 0.54 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.55 Functional box. Parent component: 392 1H51P0134A Assigned based on rule of the 1D23N0042B 0.54 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.55 Functional box. Parent component: 393 1H51P0134B Assigned based on rule of the 1D23N0043A 0.54 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.55 Functional box. Parent component: 394 1H51P0134A Assigned based on rule of the 1D23N0043B 0.54 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.55 Functional box. Parent component: 395 1H51P0134B Assigned based on rule of the 1D23N0230 0.54 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.55 Functional box. Parent component: 396 1H51P0134A Assigned based on rule of the 1E51N0003 0.54 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.55 Functional box. Parent component: 22 1H22P0017 Assigned based on rule of the 1E51N0007 0.54 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.55 Functional box. Parent component: 23 1H22P0017 3552894-R-001 Assigned based on rule of the Revision 0 1E51N0050 0.54 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.55 Functional box. Parent component: 41 July 8, 2015 1H22P0017 Page 2.16 of 2.26

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Failure ESEL Equipment ID HCLPF C R U Am Fragility Method Mode Item #

Assigned based on rule of the 1E51N0051 0.54 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.55 Functional box. Parent component: 36 1H22P0017 Assigned based on rule of the 1E51N0052 0.54 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.55 Functional box. Parent component: 43 1H22P0017 Assigned based on rule of the 1E51N0053 0.54 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.55 Functional box. Parent component: 39 1H22P0017 Assigned based on rule of the 1E51N0055A 0.54 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.55 Functional box. Parent component: 34 1H22P0017 Assigned based on rule of the 1E51N0056A 0.54 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.55 Functional box. Parent component: 32 1H22P0017 1H51P1046 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 166 1H51P1111 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 167 Assigned based on rule of the 1D23N0270A 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional box. Parent component: 397 1H51P1344 Assigned based on rule of the 1D23N0270B 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional box. Parent component: 398 1H51P1345 3552894-R-001 Assigned based on rule of the Revision 0 1G43N0020A 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional box. Parent component: 160 1H51P1045 July 8, 2015 Page 2.17 of 2.26

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Failure ESEL Equipment ID HCLPF C R U Am Fragility Method Mode Item #

Assigned based on rule of the 1G43N0020B 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional box. Parent component: 161 1H51P1043 Assigned based on rule of the 1G43N0060A 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional box. Parent component: 162 1H51P1046 Assigned based on rule of the 1G43N0060B 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional box. Parent component: 163 1H51P1111 1H51P1043 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 165 1H51P1344 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 417 1H51P1345 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 418 1H51P1045 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 164 1D23N0050A 0.53 0.35 0.24 0.26 1.20 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 345 1D23N0050B 0.53 0.35 0.24 0.26 1.20 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 346 1D23N0060A 0.53 0.35 0.24 0.26 1.20 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 347 1D23N0060B 0.53 0.35 0.24 0.26 1.20 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 348 1D23N0070A 0.53 0.35 0.24 0.26 1.20 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 349 1D23N0070B 0.53 0.35 0.24 0.26 1.20 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 350 1D23N0080A 0.53 0.35 0.24 0.26 1.20 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 351 3552894-R-001 1D23N0080B 0.53 0.35 0.24 0.26 1.20 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 352 Revision 0 1D23N0170A 0.53 0.35 0.24 0.26 1.20 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 353 July 8, 2015 1D23N0170B 0.53 0.35 0.24 0.26 1.20 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 354 Page 2.18 of 2.26 1D23N0180A 0.53 0.35 0.24 0.26 1.20 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 355

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Failure ESEL Equipment ID HCLPF C R U Am Fragility Method Mode Item #

1D23N0180B 0.53 0.35 0.24 0.26 1.20 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 356 1D23N0190A 0.53 0.35 0.24 0.26 1.20 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 357 1D23N0190B 0.53 0.35 0.24 0.26 1.20 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 358 1D23N0200A 0.53 0.35 0.24 0.26 1.20 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 359 1D23N0200B 0.53 0.35 0.24 0.26 1.20 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 360 1D23N0220 0.53 0.35 0.24 0.26 1.20 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 361 1D23N0221 0.39 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.99 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 378 1H13P0740 0.86 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.47 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 383 1H13P0741 0.86 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.47 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 380 1H13P0601 0.65 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.87 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 414 Assigned based on rule of the 1E51K0601 0.65 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.87 Functional box. Parent component: 24 1H13P0601 Assigned based on rule of the 1E51R0600 0.65 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.87 Functional box. Parent component: 25 1H13P0601 Assigned based on rule of the 1E51R0601 0.65 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.87 Functional box. Parent component: 29 1H13P0601 Assigned based on rule of the 3552894-R-001 1E51R0602 0.65 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.87 Functional box. Parent component: 26 1H13P0601 Revision 0 Assigned based on rule of the July 8, 2015 1E51R0603 0.65 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.87 Functional box. Parent component: 30 Page 2.19 of 2.26 1H13P0601

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Failure ESEL Equipment ID HCLPF C R U Am Fragility Method Mode Item #

Assigned based on rule of the 1E51R0606 0.65 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.87 Functional box. Parent component: 31 1H13P0601 Assigned based on rule of the 1E51R0607 0.65 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.87 Functional box. Parent component: 28 1H13P0601 Assigned based on rule of the 1G43R0022A 0.65 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.87 Functional box. Parent component: 156 1H13P0601 Assigned based on rule of the 1G43R0022B 0.65 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.87 Functional box. Parent component: 157 1H13P0601 Assigned based on rule of the 1G43R0062A 0.65 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.87 Functional box. Parent component: 158 1H13P0601 Assigned based on rule of the 1G43R0062B 0.65 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.87 Functional box. Parent component: 159 1H13P0601 1H13P0618 0.86 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.47 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 387 1H13P0625 0.86 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.47 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 385 1H13P0629 0.86 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.47 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 386 1H13P0691 0.86 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.47 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 419 3552894-R-001 1H13P0868 0.86 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.47 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 384 Revision 0 1H13P0869 0.86 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.47 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 379 July 8, 2015 Assigned based on rule of the Page 2.20 of 2.26 1B21N0681A 0.86 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.47 Functional box. Parent component: 91 1H13P0691

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Failure ESEL Equipment ID HCLPF C R U Am Fragility Method Mode Item #

Assigned based on rule of the 1B21N0682A 0.86 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.47 Functional box. Parent component: 92 1H13P0691 Assigned based on rule of the 1E51N0650 0.86 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.47 Functional box. Parent component: 42 1H13P0629 Assigned based on rule of the 1E51N0651 0.86 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.47 Functional box. Parent component: 37 1H13P0629 Assigned based on rule of the 1E51N0652 0.86 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.47 Functional box. Parent component: 44 1H13P0629 Assigned based on rule of the 1E51N0653 0.86 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.47 Functional box. Parent component: 40 1H13P0629 Assigned based on rule of the 1E51N0654 0.86 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.47 Functional box. Parent component: 45 1H13P0629 Assigned based on rule of the 1E51N0655A 0.86 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.47 Functional box. Parent component: 35 1H13P0629 Assigned based on rule of the 1E51N0656A 0.86 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.47 Functional box. Parent component: 33 1H13P0629 3552894-R-001 Assigned based on rule of the Revision 0 1E51N0659 0.86 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.47 Functional box. Parent component: 38 July 8, 2015 1H13P0629 Page 2.21 of 2.26 1H13P0883 0.86 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.47 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 168

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Failure ESEL Equipment ID HCLPF C R U Am Fragility Method Mode Item #

Assigned based on rule of the 1D23N0051A 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional box. Parent component: 362 1H51P0142 Assigned based on rule of the 1D23N0051B 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional box. Parent component: 364 1H51P0143 Assigned based on rule of the 1D23N0061A 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional box. Parent component: 363 1H51P0142 Assigned based on rule of the 1D23N0061B 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional box. Parent component: 365 1H51P0143 Assigned based on rule of the 1D23N0071A 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional box. Parent component: 366 1H51P0142 Assigned based on rule of the 1D23N0071B 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional box. Parent component: 368 1H51P0143 Assigned based on rule of the 1D23N0081A 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional box. Parent component: 367 1H51P0142 Assigned based on rule of the 1D23N0081B 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional box. Parent component: 369 1H51P0143 3552894-R-001 Assigned based on rule of the Revision 0 1D23N0171A 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional box. Parent component: 370 July 8, 2015 1H51P0142 Page 2.22 of 2.26

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Failure ESEL Equipment ID HCLPF C R U Am Fragility Method Mode Item #

Assigned based on rule of the 1D23N0171B 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional box. Parent component: 372 1H51P0143 Assigned based on rule of the 1D23N0181A 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional box. Parent component: 371 1H51P0142 Assigned based on rule of the 1D23N0181B 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional box. Parent component: 373 1H51P0143 Assigned based on rule of the 1D23N0191A 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional box. Parent component: 374 1H51P0142 Assigned based on rule of the 1D23N0191B 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional box. Parent component: 376 1H51P0143 Assigned based on rule of the 1D23N0201A 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional box. Parent component: 375 1H51P0142 Assigned based on rule of the 1D23N0201B 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional box. Parent component: 377 1H51P0143 Assigned based on rule of the 1E51K0702 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional box. Parent component: 27 1H51P0973 3552894-R-001 1H51P0142 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 381 Revision 0 1H51P0143 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 382 July 8, 2015 1M56P0003 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 337 Page 2.23 of 2.26

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Failure ESEL Equipment ID HCLPF C R U Am Fragility Method Mode Item #

1M56P0004 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 338 1M56P0005 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 339 1M56P0006 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 340 1H51P0973 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 420 1M56P0007 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 341 1M56P0008 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 342 1R25S0174 0.44 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.11 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 181 1R74S0070 0.74 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.89 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 183 1E12B0001A 0.77 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.95 Anchorage New Analysis 128 1E12B0001B 0.77 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.95 Anchorage New Analysis 130 1E12B0001C 0.77 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.95 Anchorage New Analysis 129 1E12B0001D 0.77 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.95 Anchorage New Analysis 131 1B21A0003A 1.46 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.70 Anchorage New Analysis 55 1B21A0004F 1.46 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.70 Anchorage New Analysis 67 1B21A0003B 1.46 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.70 Anchorage New Analysis 56 1B21A0003E 1.46 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.70 Anchorage New Analysis 57 1B21A0003F 1.46 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.70 Anchorage New Analysis 58 1B21A0003L 1.46 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.70 Anchorage New Analysis 59 3552894-R-001 1B21A0003P 1.46 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.70 Anchorage New Analysis 60 Revision 0 1B21A0003T 1.46 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.70 Anchorage New Analysis 61 July 8, 2015 1B21A0003V 1.46 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.70 Anchorage New Analysis 62 Page 2.24 of 2.26

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Failure ESEL Equipment ID HCLPF C R U Am Fragility Method Mode Item #

1B21A0004A 1.46 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.70 Anchorage New Analysis 64 1B21A0004B 1.46 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.70 Anchorage New Analysis 65 1B21A0004E 1.46 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.70 Anchorage New Analysis 66 1B21A0004L 1.46 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.70 Anchorage New Analysis 68 1B21A0004P 1.46 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.70 Anchorage New Analysis 69 1B21A0004T 1.46 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.70 Anchorage New Analysis 70 1B21A0004V 1.46 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.70 Anchorage New Analysis 71 1B21A0005U 1.46 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.70 Anchorage New Analysis 63 Component-specific Seismic 1P57F0015A 0.87 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.21 Functional 405 Qualification Component-specific Seismic 1P57F0015B 0.87 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.21 Functional 406 Qualification 1P57F0020A 0.47 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.20 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 407 1P57F0020B 0.47 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.20 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 408 1P57A0003A 0.56 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.42 Anchorage New Analysis 409 1P57A0003B 0.56 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.42 Anchorage New Analysis 410 1E51A-K002 0.35 0.45 0.24 0.38 0.99 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 106 1E51A-K003 0.35 0.45 0.24 0.38 0.99 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 107 1E51A-K024 0.35 0.45 0.24 0.38 0.99 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 108 3552894-R-001 1E51A-K101 0.35 0.45 0.24 0.38 0.99 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 109 Revision 0 July 8, 2015 1E51Q7085 0.27 0.45 0.24 0.38 0.77 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 110 Page 2.25 of 2.26 1E51A-K033 0.35 0.45 0.24 0.38 0.99 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 111

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Failure ESEL Equipment ID HCLPF C R U Am Fragility Method Mode Item #

1E51Q7084 0.27 0.45 0.24 0.38 0.77 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 112 1E51A-K015 0.35 0.45 0.24 0.38 0.99 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 113 1E51A-K066 0.35 0.45 0.24 0.38 0.99 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 114 1E51A-K086 0.35 0.45 0.24 0.38 0.99 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 115 1E51Q7064 0.27 0.45 0.24 0.38 0.77 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 116 1E51Q7065 0.27 0.45 0.24 0.38 0.77 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 117 1H13P0621 0.86 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.47 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 421 1B21C-K007A 0.35 0.45 0.24 0.38 0.99 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 118 1B21C-K007B 0.35 0.45 0.24 0.38 0.99 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 119 1B21C-K008E 0.35 0.45 0.24 0.38 0.99 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 120 1B21C-K008F 0.35 0.45 0.24 0.38 0.99 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 121 1B21C-K051A 0.35 0.45 0.24 0.38 0.99 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 122 1B21C-K051B 0.35 0.45 0.24 0.38 0.99 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 123 1B21C-K051E 0.35 0.45 0.24 0.38 0.99 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 124 1B21C-K051F 0.35 0.45 0.24 0.38 0.99 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 125 1H13P0628 0.86 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.47 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 422 1H13P0631 0.86 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.47 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 423 3552894-R-001 Revision 0 July 8, 2015 Page 2.26 of 2.26

ABSG CONSULTING INC. ABS GROUP OF COMPANIES, INC.

300 Commerce, Suite 200 16855 Northchase Drive Irvine, CA 92602 Houston, TX 77060 Telephone (714) 734-4242 Telephone (281) 673-2800 FAX (714) 734-4252 Fax (281) 673-2801 NORTH AMERICA SOUTH AMERICA (Continued) EUROPE (Continued) 2100 Space Park Drive, Suite 100 Houston, TX 77058 Chuao, Venezuela Bergen Norway Telephone 713-929-6800 Telephone 58-212-959-7442 Telephone 47-55-55-10-90 Oslo Norway Lima, Peru Telephone 47-67-57-27-00 Energy Crossing II, E. Building 15011 Katy Freeway, Suite 100 Telephone 51-1-437-7430 Stavanger Norway Houston, TX 77094 Manaus, Brazil Telephone 47-51-93-92-20 505 14th Street, Suite 900 Telephone 55-92-3213-9511 Trondheim Norway Oakland, CA 94612 Montevideo, Uruguay Telephone 47-73-900-500 1525 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 625 Telephone 5982-2-901-55-33 Arlington, VA 22209 UNITED KINGDOM MIDDLE EAST Telephone 703-682-7373 EQE House, The Beacons Dhahran, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia FAX 703-682-7374 Warrington Road Telephone 966-3-868-9999 10301 Technology Drive Knoxville, TN 37932 Birchwood, Warrington Ahmadi, Kuwait Telephone 865-966-5232 Cheshire WA3 6WJ Telephone 965-3263886 FAX 865-966-5287 Telephone 44-1925-287300 Doha, State of Qatar 1745 Shea Center Drive, Suite 400 3 Pride Place Telephone 974-44-13106 Highland Ranch, CO 80129 Pride Park Derby DE24 8QR Muscat, Sultanate of Oman Telephone 303-674-2990 Telephone 968-597950 Telephone 44-0-1332-254-010 4 Research Place, Suite 200A Rockville, MD 20850 Unit 3b Damery Works Istanbul, Turkey Telephone 301-907-9100 Woodford, Berkley Telephone 90-212-6614127 FAX 301-921-2632 Gloucestershire GL13 9JR Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates Telephone 44-0-1454-269-300 Telephone 971-2-6912000 1111 Brickyard Road, Suite 103 Salt Lake City, UT 84106 ABS House 1 Frying Pan Alley Dubai, United Arab Emirates Telephone 801-333-7676 Telephone 971-4-3306116 FAX 801-333-7677 London E1 7HR Telephone 44-207-377-4422 140 Heimer Road, Suite 300 ASIA-PACIFIC San Antonio, TX 78232 Aberdeen AB25 1XQ Telephone 210-495-5195 Telephone 44-0-1224-392100 Ahmedabad, India FAX 210-495-5134 London W1T 4TQ Telephone 079 4000 9595 823 Congress Avenue, Suite 1510 Telephone 44-0-203-301-5900 Navi Mumbai, India Austin, TX 78701 Telephone 91-22-757-8780 MEXICO Telephone 512-732-2223 New Delhi, India FAX 512-233-2210 Ciudad del Carmen, Mexico Telephone 91-11-45634738 77 Westport Plaza, Suite 210 Telephone 52-938-382-4530 Yokohama, Japan St. Louis, Missouri 63146 Mexico City, Mexico Telephone 81-45-450-1250 Telephone 314-819-1550 Telephone 52-55-5511-4240 FAX 314-819-1551 Monterrey, Mexico Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia One Chelsea Street Telephone 52-81-8319-0290 Telephone 603-79822455 New London, CT 06320 Reynosa, Mexico Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Telephone 860-701-0608 Telephone 52-899-920-2642 Telephone 603-2161-5755 100 Danbury Road, Suite 105 Veracruz, Mexico Beijing, PR China Ridgefield, CT 06877 Telephone 52-229-980-8133 Telephone 86-10-58112921 Telephone 203-431-0281 FAX 203-431-3643 EUROPE Shanghai, PR China 1360 Truxtun Avenue, Suite 103 Telephone 86-21-6876-9266 Sofia, Bulgaria North Charleston, SC 29405 Telephone 359-2-9632049 Busan, Korea Telephone 843-297-0690 Telephone 82-51-852-4661 Piraeus, Greece 152 Blades Lane, Suite N Telephone 30-210-429-4046 Seoul, Korea Glen Burnie, MD 21060 Telephone 82-2-552-4661 Telephone 410-514-0450 Genoa, Italy Telephone 39-010-2512090 Alexandra Point, Singapore SOUTH AMERICA Hamburg Germany Telephone 65-6270-8663 Telephone 49-40-300-92-22-21 Kaohsiung, Taiwan, Republic of China Macaé, Brazil Telephone 55-22-2763-7018 Las Arenas, Spain Telephone 886-7-271-3463 Telephone 34-94-464-0444 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Bangkok, Thailand Telephone 55-21-3179-3182 Rotterdam, The Netherlands Telephone 662-399-2420 Telephone 31-10-206-0778 Sao Paulo, Brazil West Perth WA 6005 Telephone 55-11-3707-1055 Amsterdam, The Netherlands Telephone 61-8-9486-9909 Telephone 31-205-207-947 Gteborg Sweden Vina del Mar, Chile Telephone 46-70-283-0234 Telephone 56-32-2381780 INTERNET Bogota, Colombia Additional office information can be found at:

Telephone 571-2960718 www.absconsulting.com