ML15212A955

(External_Sender) FW: Perry ESEP Clarification Questions

ML15212A955
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	07/22/2015
From:	Lashley P H First Energy Services
To:	DiFrancesco N J, Wyman S M Japan Lessons-Learned Division
References
Download: ML15212A955 (82)

Text

1 NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From: Lashley, Phil H. [phlashl ey@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.pdfResponses 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 27 th.

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

] 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

2 From: Lashley, Phil H. [mailto:phlashley@firstenergycorp.com

] 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 30 th 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 [mailto:Stephen.Wyman@nrc.gov

] 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", C I and D R are used in the equations but are not defined. Also, the term F K (= 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:

3 "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 AF C, 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 ta bulates 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.

4 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, Augm ented Approach (EPRI 3002000704) allows the development of ISRS calculated from new SSI models. The guidanc e 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 an alyses 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 5USNRC/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 intende d 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 notif y us immediatel y , 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 intende d 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.

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:

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 for:

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", C I and D R are used in the equations but are not defined. Also, the term F K (= 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: For Cabinet-Based test data: CTTRSc=TRS FK RRScRRSCC For Device-Based test data: CTTRSc=TRS FK A FCRRScRRSCCFMS Where: TRS C = CDFM test response spectrum RRS C = 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 387 1H13P0618 109 1E51A-K101 110 1E51Q7085 111 1E51A-K033 112 1E51Q7084 115 1E51A-K086 421 1H13P0621 106 1E51A-K002 107 1E51A-K003 108 1E51A-K024 113 1E51A-K015 114 1E51A-K066 116 1E51Q7064 117 1E51Q7065 422 1H13P0628 118 1B21C-K007A 120 1B21C-K008E 122 1B21C-K051A 124 1B21C-K051E 423 1H13P0631 119 1B21C-K007B 121 1B21C-K008F 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. CTTRScTRS FK A FCRRScRRSCCFMS TRSThe 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.

CTThe 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.

FKThe 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.

AFCThe 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.

FMSAs 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 , A m), 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

H:\ADMI N FA R PR O ABS G T EQE TEN E PR O Mr. B expe r man a pro je equi p Selec C F N U s p p M a n S w U S w N P a n e l u A s e H e n i n N\resume\2015\Bei gi FR RZIN R. B O FESSION A G Consultin g T echnical M a Internationa l E RA L.P., B e O FESSION A B ei g i has m rience. As ag ement a n ects. He ha s p ment, pipi n ted pro j ect a C urrentl y M r irstEnergy N N uclear Pow Units 1 and 2 p ectra with i erformin g s e M ost recentl y n al yses of w itzerland, U.S., Point L w itzerland, N uclear Pow P rovided ne w n d Kewau n l iminatin g csed criteria.

A t Salem Nu c e ismic adeq u H e also perf o ng ineerin g e n cluded d ynNuclear Standard 29 Apr i B EIGI, P.E A L HISTO Inc., Oakla n a na g er, 2001-l , Inc., Calif o e rkele y, Cali f AL EXPER I m ore than 3 a Senior C n d structur a s extensive e ng, seismic a ccomplish m r. Bei g i is m N uclear O per Station, P 2. This pro je i n those str u e ismic fra g i l y , Mr. Bei g i equipmen t Lun g men N L epreau N u Olkiluoto er Station i n w MOV seis m n ee nuclear p c onservatis m c lear Power u ac y of hea t o rmed field v e valuations d n amic anal ys il 2015.docx E. RY n d, Californ i-2004 o rnia, Princi p f ornia, Pro je I ENCE 3 2 years o fonsultant f o a l en g ineeri n experience icriteria de v m ents inclu d m ana g in g th e p eratin g Co P err y Nucle a ect involves u ctures, wal l it y evaluati ohas been in v t and stru N uclear Po w u clear Plan t Nuclear P o n German y. mic qualific a plants to m ms found i n Plant, Mr.

B t in g , ventila t v erification o d ocumenti n s es of select e 1 i a, Senior C o p al En g inee r e ct Mana g er , f professio n or ABS Co n ng service s i n the areas velopment, a d e the follo w e seismic p o mpan y's f o a r Power Pl a modellin g okdowns of a o ns for sele c v olved in p ectures at G wer Plant in t in Canad a o wer Plant ation (weak aximize th e n existin g q B ei g i develo p tion, and air o f as-install e ng seismic a d e d worst-cas o nsultant, 2 0 r, 1990-200 1 , 1982-1990 n al structur a n sultin g , M r s , primaril y of seismic and struct u w in g: ortion of th e o ur nuclear ant, and Be a of structure s all compon e c ted equip m e rformin g s e Gsgen N u Taiwan, O c a , Beznau N in Finlan d link) report e valve stru c qualification p ed desi g n v conditioni n e d HVAC s y d equac y of t h s e boundin g 004-Present 1 al and civi l r. Bei g i pro for seism i evaluation u ral anal y si s e seismic P Rreactors a t a ver Valle y P s , g eneratio n ents on the ment and str u e ismic and w u clear Po w c onee Nucl e N uclear Po w d, and Ne cs, for North c tural thrusreports a n v erification c ng (HVAC) d y stems and p h ese s y ste msamples. l en g ineeri n vides pro j e c i c evaluati oof structur e s and desi gn RA pro j ect f o t Davis-Bes s P ower Stati o n of respon sPRA list a n u ctures. wind fra g ili t w er Plant i e ar Station i w er Plant i c karwesthei m Anna, Surr y t capacit y b nd previous l c riteria for d uct s y stem s p rovided m s, which ng c t o n es, n. o r s e o n s e n d ty i n i n i n m y , by ly s.

H:\ADMI N M n i n s m a n s c p a n o f M D D o f M N r e M N Q B N C R (B t h P M t h o n M N o v s t p i s f l s e d A r a w T e n N\resume\2015\Bei gi FR M r. Bei g i h a uclear pow e n the devel o m all bore p i n al yses. A c reenin g an d ipin g s y ste n al yses. At f seismic in t M r. Bei gi per Department o D rain-2DX n o f these cran e M r. Bei g i ha s N ational La b esponse spe c M r. Bei g i ha s N uclear Re gu Q ualificatio n rowns Ferr y N uclear Plan C ompan y), C R obinson N u B ritish Ener g h e equipme n P lant. M r. Bei g i ha s h e new g en e n the seism i M r. Bei g i ma N uclear Po w v ersi g ht for tart-up sch e ipin g s y ste m s sues, struc l exibilit y of e ismic-indu c ata coupled A s a princip a a cewa y sup p w alkdown s c T he accepta n n sure cons iNuclear Standard 29 Apr i a s participa t er plants.

A opment of w i pin g and p a A t Oconee N d evaluatio n m and pe rBrowns Fe r t eraction ev a formed a st u o f Ener gy's (o n-linear st r e s as demo n s g enerated b and Coo p c tra conside s participate d u lator y Co m of Equipm e y Nuclear P o t (Duke Po w C alvert Cliff s u clear Powe r gy - Ontari o n t and com p s developed e ration o f li g c experienc e na ged EQE'w er Plant.

Hclosure of s e edule. Inte ms and oth tural failu r pipin g s ys ced spra y a n with anal yt a l en g ineer, p orts at the W c reenin g ev nce criteria f o istent desi gn il 2015.docx ted in seve r At Watts Bar w alkdown a articipated i n Nuclear St a n criteria fo r rformed w a r r y Nuclear a luation pro g u d y for the s (DOE) Pad u ructural pro g n strated in t hsimplified m p er Nuclea r r in g the eff e d as a Seis m m mission's U ent) and has o wer Plant (T w er Co.), Du s Nuclear P o r Plant (Car o o , Canada).

H p onents in t h standards f o ght water r e e database, t's on-site of f His responsi b e ismic s ysteraction iss uer plant fe a re and fall i s tems cross i n d floodin g t ical metho d Mr. Bei g i c Watts Bar P laluations a n o r the boun n mar gins. 2 r al pipin g aand Bellef ond evaluati o n plant wal k a tion, Mr.

B r seismic a d a lkdown ev a Plant, Mr.

B g ram for lar s tructural a d u cah Gaseou s g ram. The s he past eart h models of s t r Station f o e cts of soil-s t m ic Capabilit y U nresolved S performed S Tennessee V a ne Arnold o wer Plant (B o lina Power H e has perf o h e switch y ar o r desi g n of e actor powe r t estin g resul t fice at the T e bilities incl u ms interacti ues that rel a atures inclu d i n g of no n i n g betwee n concerns.

M d s to addres s conducted t h lant. The q u n d boundi n din g anal y s Mr. Bei gi F a dequac y v o nte Nuclea ron criteria f kdowns an d B ei g i was d equac y ver ialuations a s B ei gi was in v rge and sma l d equac y of b s Diffusion P s tud y focus e h quakes. tructures fo r o r use in d t ructure-int e y En g ineer i S afet y Issue A Seismic Ma r V alle y Auth o Ener gy Ce n B altimore G a& Li g ht), a n o rmed exte n r d at the Oc o distributiv er plants. T h ts, and anal y ennessee V a u ded staff s u i on issues in ated to qu a ded seismi c n-seismic C n ad j acent b Mr. Bei g i ut s these seis m he seismic q u alification m ng anal y sis ses utilized d i also pro v F ARZIN R.erification p r Plants, he w for seismic e d performed involved i n i fication of s s well as p v olved in t h ll bore pipi n b rid g e crane s P lant utilizi n e d on the vu l r facilities a t d evelopmen t e ractions.

i n resolutio n A-46 (i.e., S e rg in Assess m o rit y [TVA]), n ter (Iowa E l a s and Elect n d Bruce Po w n sive fra g ili t o nee Nuclea r e s y stems to hese standa r y tical meth o a lle y Autho r u pervision a support of t a lification f o c and ther m ate g or y I c b uildin g st r tilized seis m mic issues.

q ualificatio n m ethod inv oof critical c d uctility-ba s vided conc e. BEIGI, P.

E p ro g rams f o was involv e e valuation o pipin g stre s n developi n s ervice wat e p ipin g stre s he assessme n ng s ystems. s at ng l nerabilities t Los Alam o t of buildi n n of the U.S.

e ismic ment at the

, Oconee l ectric t ric), w er Plant ty studies of r Power be utilized i r ds are bas e o ds. r it y Watts B a and technic a t he Watts B a o r Cate g or y m al proximi t c ommoditi e r uctures, a n mic experien c n of electric a olved in-pla n c ase sampl e sed criteria t e ptual desi g E. o r e d o f s s ng e r s s n t o s ng i n e d a r a l a r y I ty es, n d c e a l n t e s. t o g n H:\ADMI N m m a n H p M p c o a d s u p d Mr. B stren refin e M D P s e d f a p d s a f o A C c o e s P p o f p t h p F a S e w F a n o f N\resume\2015\Bei gi FR modification s modification s n d support s H VAC ducti ower plant.

M r. Bei g i al s erformin g o mponents.

d ministere d upports; ev a ower plan t ocumentin g B ei gi has als g thenin g p r e ries, and o t M ost recentl y D iesel Powe P ro jects also e ismic supp o esi gnated b a cilit y. Seis m ipin g) invo lata and the a vin g s wer e o r seismic q u Assessment C alifornia.

T ontents, da s timates of P rovided re c rocedures, w f impleme n ipin g s y ste m h ose comp ohase of the p ault-tree m o satellite pr o e ismic eval u w ell as clean or LDS Ch u n d ranked o f retrofit priNuclear Standard 29 Apr i s and assi s s. Mr. Bei gi s at Watts B n g , cable t r so has exte n desi gn an d At the Te x d and sche d a luated g en e t s ystems a g these revie w o been invo r o grams for t her industr i y performe d r Plants S e included d e orts for con d y the Depa r mic qualific a l ved a com bapplication e achieved b u alification. of earthqu T he risk ass e ma ge to r e the perio d c ommendat i w ith compa r n tin g the u p ms that wer e onents as w e p ro j ect. o del and an a o duction fac i u ation and d room ceilin g u rch headqu a o ver 1,200 b u oritization.

il 2015.docx s ted in th e i utilized si m Bar, and as s r a ys, condu i nsive experi e d anal y sis o xas Utilit y C duled indivi eric desi g n c r and comp o ws. lved in a n u hi gh tech i n i al facilities.

d Seismic Q u e rvin g Fort e si gn of sei s d uit, cable t r rtment of D ation of eq u b ination of sof experie n by maximu m ake risk f o e ssments in c eg ional uti l of busine s i ons for b u risons of th e pgrade. Pr o e vulnerable ell as prov i a l ysis of crit i i lit y , in Palo d esi gn of ret r g s and raise d artered in U uildin g s of m 3 e assessme n m ilar meth o s isted criter i it and sup p e nce utilizi n o f heav y i n C omanche Pduals to e x riteria for t h onents and umber of sei s n dustr y, bi o Selected pr u alification o Greel y , an d s mic restrai n r a y , duct, a n Defense as a uipment and s tress comp u nce data fro m m applicatio n or Genente c cluded da m lities requi r s s interrupt u ildin g or e e cost benefi t oj ect includ e under seis m i din g const r i cal utilit y s y Alto, Calif o r ofits for eq u d floors at U U tah, perfor m m iscellaneo u F nt of the c o ds for qua l ia and pro c ports at the ng finite ele m ndustrial s t Peak Nucle a x ecute desi g h e desi g n a n authored s mic risk as otech indust r r o ject accom p of Critical E q d Clear Ai r nts for the e n d pipin g s y Seismic Us e d interconne c utations, c o m past eart h n of the ex p ch, Inc., i n m a ge to buil d red for Ge t ion followi n e quipment u t of the risk e d identific mic loadin g ruction ma n y stems serv i o rnia. u ipment, to o U MC FABs i n med seismic u s construct i F ARZIN R.c onstructabi l l ification of cedures dev TVA Belle f ment comp utructures, s a r Power Pl a g n reviews n d construct i en g ineerin gsessment a n ry, petroch e p lishments i quipment fo r r Force St a e quipment a ystems. Bot h er Group F o c tions (con d o mpilation o hquakes. S u p erience da t n South S a d in g struct u nentech o p ng a ma j o r u p g rades oreduction v eation of eq uand desi g n n a gement f o i n g Space S y ols and pro c n Taiwan. vulnerabili t ion t y pes fo r. BEIGI, P.

E l it y of the sHVAC duc telopment f o fonte nucle a u ter codes i systems, a n ant, Mr. Bei gof cable tr a ion of nucle a g evaluatio n nd equipme n e mical plan t i nclude: r the Stand b a tion, Alask a and desi g n o h facilities a r our (SUG-I V duit, duct a n of shake tab l u bstantial co s t a procedur e a n Francisc o ures and the p eration, a n r earthquak o r emer g en c ersus the co s uipment a nof retrofit f o o r installati o y stems/Lor a c ess pipin g a ty assessme n r the purpo s E. s e t s o r a r i n n d g i ay a r n s n t ts, by a. o f r e V) n d l e s t e s o , e ir n d e. cy st n d o r o n al, a s n t s e H:\ADMI N S e H A e v S e t h D i n E a t A t h D G D e q M a n S e U S e b S e t h E B E S a E s u S e n S o S e C ED U B.S., C N\resume\2015\Bei gi FR e ismic eval u Hillsborou gh Assessment o v aluation at e ismic eval u h e Col g ate-P D esi gn of sei s n Shizouka, J valuation a n t Ra y chem f Assessment o h e Borden C D esi gn of sei G oldman Sa c D esi gn of se i q uipment s t M ana ged th e n d stora g e t eismic eval u U DS AVON R e ismic asse s u ildin g loc a e ismic eval u h e San Fran cquipment suildin g in S aquipment a n Francisc oquipment s u bstations i n eismic evalumerous fa c o mar Corp o e ismic eval u C alifornia, i n U CATION Civil En g in eNuclear Standard 29 Apr i u ation and d h , Ore gon. of pro gram m an automa t u ation and d P almolive pl s mic ancho r Japan. n d desi g n o f acilities in R o f the seis m C hemical Pla n smic bracin g c hs facilities ismic retrof i t ren g thenin g e desi g n an d a nks at Coc a u ation and d R efiner y loc ssment and ted in the P h u ation and c c isco Fire D e s tren g theni n a n Francisc o stren g theni n o. s tren g theni n n the San Fr a uations an d cilities in Ja p o ration. uation of co n n accordance e erin g , San F il 2015.docx d esi gn of re t m able lo g ic t ic cannin g f a d esi gn of r e ant in Cali, C r a g e for equ i f seismic re t R edwood Ci t mic adequac y n t in Fremo n g for fire pr o in Tok y o, J a its for low r g schemes a t d constructi o a Cola Co. i n d esi gn of ret r ated in Ric h peer revie w hilippines.

c onceptual r e partment.

ng and det a o. ng and d e ng and det a a ncisco, Cal i d loss esti m pan, includi n ncrete and s t with the gu F rancisco St a 4 t rofits for cl econtrols a s a cilit y in St a e trofits for e q Colombia. ipment and t rofits for h e ty and Menl y of equip m n t, Californ i o tection an d a pan. r ise concret e t AVON Pro on of seismi c n Japan. rofit for eq u h mond, Cali f w of the IB M retrofit desi ailed retrofi etailed ret r ailed retrofi t i fornia, area mates (dam a ng Baxter P h teel buildin g u idelines pr o a te Universi t F ean room c e s part of y e a nislaus, Ca lquipment a n fiber g lass t a e av y equip m l o Park, Cali f m ent, struct u i a. d chilled wa e and steel o ducts Co. i n c retrofits f o u ipment, pi p f ornia. M Plaza Buil d g n for the h i t desi g n f o rofit desi gn t desi g n fo r. age and b u h armaceuti c gs at St. Jos e o vided in F E ty , San Fra n F ARZIN R.e ilin gs at Int ar 2000 (Y 2 l ifornia. nd steel sto anks at the A ment, and p i fornia. ures and sto ater pipin g s buildin g s a n Japan. or producti o p in g and str u d in g , a 31-s t h eadquarte r o r the Ban k n for Sutr o r Pacific G a u siness inte r c als, NCR Ja p eph Hospit a E MA 178. n cisco, Calif

o. BEIGI, P.

Eel facilities i 2K) turn ov e ra g e tanks a AMP faciliti e i pin g s y ste m ra ge tanks a ystems at t h and desi g n o o n equipme n uctures at t h t or y hi g h ri s rs buildin g o k of Ameri c o Tower i a s & Electr i r ruption) f o p an Ltd., a n a l in Stockto n o rnia, 1982 E. i n e r a t e s m s a t h e o f n t h e s e o f c a i n ic o r n d n ,

H:\ADMI N RE G Prof e Seis m Trai n AFF I Ame r SEL E Wak e Inter n (PS A Rich n Gain e Inter n (PS A Klap p Nec k Mec h Asfu r Tan k (SMi R"Seis Rep o Arro s Curr eof t h Dece m Bei gi Rela t Miti g Bei gi Expe S y m p N\resume\2015\Bei gi FR G ISTRATI O e ssional En g mic Qualific a n in g on Nea r I LIATION rican Societ y ECTED P U e field, D., F.

n ational T o A 2015), Sun V ner, M. Sen e e d from t h n ational T o A 2008), Kno x p , U., F. R k arwesthei m h anics in Re a ra, A. P., F k s," 17 th Int e R T 17), Pra g mic Evalua t o rt 1007896, p s, J., and F.

ent Issues R h e 6 th S y m p mber 1996. , F. R., and J ted HVAC g ation S y m p, F. R., a n rience Dat a p osium, De nNuclear Standard 29 Apr i O N ineer: Calif o ation Utiliti e r-Term Tas k S y of Civil E n U BLICATI O Bei g i, and R opical Mee t V alle y , Ida h er Tinic, M.

h e Beznau opical Mee t xville, Tenn e R. Bei g i, W m 1 Nuclear a ctor Techn

o. R. Beigi, a e rnational C g ue, Czech R t ion Guideli p ublished b y Bei g i, "Sei s Related to N u posium, p u J. O. Dizon, "Duct S y ste m p osium, Den v nd D. R. D a," presente d n ver, Colora d il 2015.docx ornia e s Group Ce r k Force Reco m ng ineers, Pr o ONS R. Fine, "A n t in g on P r ho, 2015. Ravindra, R Seismic P S t in g on P r essee, 2008. . Ton g , A. Power Pla n o lo gy (SMi R and B. N. S C onference o Republic, A unes for HV A y the Electri c s mic Desi gn uclear Plant ublished b y"Applicatio n m Evaluati o v er, Colora d D enton, "Ev a d at Fifth D do, Novem b 5 r tified Seis m m mendatio n o fessional M n Approach t r obabilistic R. Campbe l S A Includi n r obabilistic Strohm, a n n t," 19 th Int e R T 19), Toro n Sumodobila, o n Structur a ugust 17-22, AC Duct an d c Power Re s n of HVAC Structures, y North C n of Seismic o n," Fifth D do, Novemb e a luation of DOE Natur a ber 13-14, 1 9 F m ic Capabili t n 2.3 - Plan t M ember t o Seismic P Safet y As s ll, F. Bei g i, a ng Level 2 Safet y As snd W. Sc h e rnational C n to, Canada

, , "D y namic a l Mechanic s2003. d Damper S s earch Instit u Ducts base dEquipment C arolina St a c Experience DOE Natur aer 13-14, 19 9 Brid g e C r a l Phenome n 995. F ARZIN R.ty En g ineer t Seismic W aRA SSC Scr e sessment a and A. Asf u 2 Consider a sessment a h warz, "Sei s C onference o , Au g ust 12-Anal y sis o s in Reacto r Sy stems," E P u te, April 2 0 d on Exper i and Pipin g, ate Univer s Based Crit e a l Phenome n 9 5. ranes Usin g non Hazar d. BEIGI, P.

E a lkdowns e enin g ," 20 1 and Anal y s u ra, "Insi g h t a tions," 20 0 and Anal y s s mic PSA o on Structur a-17, 2007.

f Lar g e Ste e r Technolo g PRI Technic a 003. ienced Data

, , proceedin g s it y , Florid a e ria for Safe t non Hazar d g Earthqua k d s Miti g ati o E. 1 5 is t s 0 8 is o f a l e l gy a l ," g s a , ty d s k e o n A-31 A-20 A-21 A-22

A-37 Eddie M. Guerra, P.E.Senior Structural Engineer Skill Areas:Seismic Engineering Fragility Analysis Seismic PRA Finite Element Analysis Ductile Steel Design Advanced Structural Analysis Soil-Structure Interaction Project Management Reinforced Concrete Design Structural Steel Design Wind Aerodynamics Impact Engineering Seismic Walkdowns Nuclear Safety Systems Mr. Ed M. Guerra has served as a Senior Structural Engineer for RIZZO Associates (RIZZO) in the fields of seismic engineering, wind dynamics, impact engineering, and design of steel and concrete structures. Mr. Guerra has been involved in several Seismic, Wind and Aircraft Impact Risk Assessments for nuclear plants, both in the US and international. As part of his Seismic PRA experience, Mr. Guerra has been involved in all supporting aspects of the project, including SEL development, Seismic Walkdowns, Building Dynamic Analysis, SSI Analysis, Fragility Analysis of Equipment, Relays and Structures and External Peer Reviews. Mr.

Guerra has also worked closely with systems modelers and PRA analysts especially throughout the iterative process of identifying and reevaluating top contributors to the plant risk level. Mr. Guerra has performed fragility evaluations and seismic walkdowns in support of 2.3 and 2.1 NTTF Programs for several NPPs in the US.

Recently, Mr. Guerra has been appointed to the Joint Committee on Nuclear Risk Management (JCNRM) as a contributor for part 5 "Requirements for Seismic Events At-Power PRA" of the ASME/ANS PRA Standard. His main areas of interest in Seismic PRA are the effects of structural and soil non-linearity on components, wave-propagation effects 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 training. He is an active participant of EPRI Workshops currently held to provide lessons learned to US utilities currently undergoing Seismic PRAs. Watts Bar NPP Seismic PRA Tennessee Valley Authority l Rhea County, Tennessee 12/2014 - 01/2015 Mr. Guerra performed seismic fragility evaluations for Air Handling Units, Condensers and Cooler Units in support of Watts Bar Seismic PRA. In reference to EPRI 103959 and EPRI 6041, Mr. Guerra developed fragility parameters for functional and structural failure modes based on available test data and seismic qualifications for each of the aforementioned groups of equipment. The resulting fragility parameters, including potential spatial

interactions, were used as input to the PRA model for subsequent risk quantification. Years Experience 5 Level 6 Education M. Eng., Structural Engineering, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA - May 2010 B.S., Civil Engineering, University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, PR - Dec. 2008 Professional Registrations Professional Engineer: Puerto Rico - 2013 (PE24153)SQUG Certified Seismic Capability Engineer Professional Affiliations American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)Network for Earthquake and Engineering Simulation (NEES) Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers (SHPE) (Vice-President, Western Pennsylvania Region)

Honors and Awards 2010 Recipient of the Thornton Tomasetti Foundation Scholarship Golden Key International Honor Society Tau Beta Pi Engineering Honor Society

Dean's List University of Puerto Rico Academic Activities Adjunct Professor, Department of Mathematics, Community College of Allegheny County Guest Speaker - "Challenges for a New Generation of Structural Engineers," Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Lehigh University.

Eddie M. Guerra, P.E.

Page 2 of 7Tornado Screening Walkdowns for Genkai Units 3 & 4 Scientech l Kyushu Electric Power Company l Genkai, Japan 07/2014 - 08/2014 Mr. Guerra performed tornado walkdowns for Genkai Units 3 and 4 in order to identify and assess the effect of tornado-borne missiles against safety-related structures. During the 3-day walkdown period, the walkdown team focused on three main aspects: confirming that a sample of previously identified missiles comply with the findings documented in previous inspection reports, identifying and record detailed information for vulnerable critical targets, and recording detailed design characteristics and dimensions of critical potential missiles. The information collected by the team of walkdown engineers was subsequently used to reduce the 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 Computer Skills STAAD Pro, SASSI, PC-SPEC, ANSYS, AutoCAD, SAP2000, RAM, Mathcad, and Microsoft Project Publications Guerra, Eddie M., Impact Analysis of a Self-Centered Steel Concentrically Braced Frame," NEES Consortium, May-July 2007 LanguagesEnglish, Spanish Eddie M. Guerra, P.E.

Page 3 of 7this 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.

Eddie M. Guerra, P.E.

Page 4 of 7Beaver 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 Eddie M. Guerra, P.E.

Page 5 of 7including 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.

Eddie M. Guerra, P.E.

Page 6 of 7 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 Koeberg's 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.

Eddie M. Guerra, P.E.

Page 7 of 7Potash 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.

Brian A. Lucarelli, E.I.T.

Engineering Associate Skill Areas:Seismic Fragility Evaluations Roller Compacted Concrete Seismic Walkdown Inspection Construction Materials Testing Soil Mechanics Quality Assurance Mr. Lucarelli has experience in seismic walkdown inspections of operating nuclear plants and seismic fragility evaluations of structures, systems, and components. He has attended the 5-day SQUG Walkdown Screening and Seismic Evaluation Training Course and has also provided support during peer rev iews to the ASME/ANS PRA Standard. Mr. Lucarelli also has experience in geotechnical modeling, structural modeling, and quality control in support of applications for proposed nuclear plants.

Watts Barr NPP Seismic Scoping Study URS Consulting l TVA l Rhea County, Tennessee 3/2014 - 01/2015 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 and to perform walkdowns in support of the Expedited Seismic Evaluation Process (ESEP). Mr. Lucarelli also developed seismic fragilities for miscellaneous components such as the Polar Crane, Steel Containment Vessel Penetrations, and Control Room Ceiling. Perry NPP Seismic PRA ABS Consulting l FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company l Perry, 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 and walkdowns in support of the Expedited Seismic Evaluation Process (ESEP). Mr. Lucarelli managed the development of equipment fragilities for PNPP and acted as the point of contact between 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. Years Experience 5 Level 5 EducationB.S., Civil Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA - December

2009B.S., Mathematics, Waynesburg University, Waynesburg, PA - December 2009 Professional Certifications Engineer-in-Training - PA

1. ET013562 Continuing Education SQUG Walkdown Screening and Seismic

Evaluation Training Course, August 2012 Short Course on Computational Geotechnics and Dynamics, August 2011. ASDSO Estimating Permeability Webinar, December 2010. Computer Skills SAP2000, PLAXIS, SEEP/W, SLOPE/W, THERM, AutoCAD, ArcGIS, Phase 2 , Slide, MathCAD Professional Affiliations American Concrete Institute (ACI) ACI Committee 207 (Mass Concrete) -

Associate Member American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)Engineers Without Borders (EWB)

Brian A. Lucarelli, E.I.T.

Page 2 of 4Beaver 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-Brian A. Lucarelli, E.I.T.

Page 3 of 4site 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 RIZZO's 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 RIZZO's 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 RIZZOcompleted 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 reservoir's 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 Brian A. Lucarelli, E.I.T.

Page 4 of 4Aquaculture 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 CommissionPittsburgh, 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.

Bradley T. Yagla, E.I.T.

Engineering Associate Skill Areas:Structural Modeling Structural Analysis Nuclear Power Plants Structures Modular Construction Pipe Supports Embedment Plates Seismic Walkdowns Seismic Fragilities SSI Dynamic Analysis Mr. Yagla is an Engineering Associate with RIZZO Associates (RIZZO). Mr. Yagla has been involved primarily in the structural analysis of power generation structures. RIZZO's senior staff have recently completed the Seismic 2-Day NTTF 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Training. This training is being disseminated to others on RIZZO's staff, including Mr. Yagla. Perry NPP Seismic PRA ABS Consulting l FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company l Perry, Ohio06/2012 - Present Mr. Yagla, as an Engineering Associate, performed the following tasks in support of the Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment (SPRA) for the plant: Assessed existing seismic analyses of plant structures, systems, and components (SSCs). Developed Finite Element (FE) and Stick Models of plant structures for seismic analysis. Validated and verified FE models using 1-g push and modal analyses. Analyzed structure FE models for soil-structure interaction. Conducted in-plant seismic walkdowns of SSCs to identify potential failure modes. Performed fragility calculations for SSCs using probabilistic and deterministic approaches. 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: Assessed existing seismic analyses of plant structures, systems, and components (SSCs). Developed Finite Element (FE) and Stick Models of plant structures for seismic analysis. Validated and verified FE models using 1-g push and modal analyses. Analyzed structure FE models for soil-structure interaction. Conducted in-plant seismic walkdowns of SSCs to identify potential failure modes. Performed fragility calculations for SSCs using probabilistic and deterministic approaches. Originated and checked calculations and reports pertaining to seismic walkdowns and fragilities. Years Experience 2 Level 3 Education B.S. Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Pittsburgh - Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania - 2012 Professional Certifications Engineer-in-Training (EIT) -

Pennsylvania Computer Skills STAAD.Pro, AutoCAD, Revit, RISA-3D, SAP2000, SASSI, MathCad Bradley T. Yagla, E.I.T.Page 2 of 2 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: Assessed existing seismic analyses of plant structures, systems, and components (SSCs). Developed Finite Element (FE) and Stick Models of plant structures for seismic analysis. Validated and verified FE models using 1-g push and modal analyses. Analyzed structure FE models for soil-structure interaction. Conducted in-plant seismic walkdowns of SSCs to identify potential failure modes. Performed fragility calculations for SSCs using probabilistic and deterministic approaches. 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: Assessed existing seismic analyses of plant structures, systems, and components (SSCs). Developed Finite Element (FE) and Stick Models of plant structures for seismic analysis. Validated and verified FE models using 1-g push and modal analyses. Analyzed structure FE models for soil-structure interaction. Conducted in-plant seismic walkdowns of SSCs to identify potential failure modes. Performed fragility calculations for SSCs using probabilistic and deterministic approaches. 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 Coordinated pipe support and embedment plate issue resolution for Embedment Project Team. Created and maintained a spreadsheet that tracked 800 issues from detection to resolution. Verified embedment plate issues were rectified in the AP1000 computer model using NavisWorks. Provided vital embedment information to critical China AP1000 Projects in Weekly deliverables. 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 Provided input during formal design review for modular AP1000 Nuclear Power Plant Units. Developed process flowcharts for piping isometric drawing classification. Verified stress calculations for pipe hangers in mechanical modules. Located and documented discrepancies between AP1000 computer model and technical drawings. Participated in weekly Nuclear Technical and Human Performance training sessions.

Dom Drkulec, E.I.T. Project Engineering Associate Skill Areas:Structural Concrete Design Pre-stressed Concrete Design Steel & Masonry Design Seismic Response Analysis Structural Behavior Mr. Dom Drkulec is a Project Engineering Associate with RIZZO Associates (RIZZO). Mr. Drkulec has been involved primarily in the structural analysis of power generation structures and has also experience in research, material testing, and building inspections. RIZZO's senior staff have recently completed the Seismic 2-Day NTTF 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Training. This training is being disseminated to others on RIZZO's staff, including Mr. Drkulec. Perry NPP Seismic PRA ABS Consulting l FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company l Perry, Ohio 03/2013 - 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. 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. Years Experience 2 Level 4 Education M.S., Civil & Environmental Engineering, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA -

2011B.S., Civil Engineering, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia - 2004 Professional Registrations Engineer-In-Training (E.I.T.) Computer Skills SAP2000, ANSYS, ABAQUS, AutoCAD, MATLAB, Maple, MS Office Suite Languages English & Croatian Dom Drkulec, E.I.T.Page 2 of 2 Beaver Valley Unit 2 NPP Seismic PRA ABS Consulting l FirstEnergy OperatingCompany 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 plant's 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 EngineerIndustrogradnja d.d. l Zagreb, Croatia 01/2005 - 12/2005 Supervised the construction of residential buildings Arranged work and deliveries on the site, and verified plans compatibility with the design Interpreted contract design documents for subcontractors and monitored their work Worked with local authorities to ensure compatibility of the design with local construction regulations RESEARCH/TEACHING EXPERIENCE Teaching AssistantDrexel University l Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 12/2008 - 01/2012 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 Led project in which reinforced masonry walls were tested to predict structural seismic response and to evaluate current code strength expressions Prepared weekly reports, plans and schedule for ongoing projects Created user manual for SAP 2000 software as instructor of structural design and structural analysis courses Organized land survey and construction materials labs

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

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID

3552894-R-001 Revision 0 July 8, 2015 Page 2.2 of 2.26 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL 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 1M56S0021 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 248 1M56S0022 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 249 1M56S0023 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 250 1M56S0024 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 251 3552894-R-001 Revision 0 July 8, 2015 Page 2.3 of 2.26 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL 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 1M56S0043 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 270 1M56S0044 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 271 1M56S0045 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 272 3552894-R-001 Revision 0 July 8, 2015 Page 2.4 of 2.26 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL 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 1M56S0064 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 291 1M56S0065 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 292 1M56S0066 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 293 3552894-R-001 Revision 0 July 8, 2015 Page 2.5 of 2.26 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL 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 1M56S0085 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 312 1M56S0086 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 313 1M56S0087 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 314 3552894-R-001 Revision 0 July 8, 2015 Page 2.6 of 2.26 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL 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 IGNT 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 331 1M56S0103 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 332 1M56S0103-CNTR 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 333 1M56S0103-H2 IGNT 0.72 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.04 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 334 3552894-R-001 Revision 0 July 8, 2015 Page 2.7 of 2.26 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL 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 1E12C0002B 2.75 0.40 0.24 0.32 6.97 Anchorage Scaling based on Design Criteria 412 1B21F0041A 1.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.80 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 46 1B21F0041F 1.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.80 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 49 1B21F0410A 1.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.80 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 72 1B21F0410B 1.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.80 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 81 3552894-R-001 Revision 0 July 8, 2015 Page 2.8 of 2.26 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL 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 1B21F0442B 1.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.80 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 87 1B21F0443A 1.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.80 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 80 1B21F0443B 1.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.80 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 89 3552894-R-001 Revision 0 July 8, 2015 Page 2.9 of 2.26 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL 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 1M56S0202 0.63 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.60 Anchorage New Analysis 336 1R23S0015 0.95 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.41 Anchorage New Analysis 208 1E51C0001 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 1 3552894-R-001 Revision 0 July 8, 2015 Page 2.10 of 2.26 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL 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 1E51B0002 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component:

1E51C0002 4 1E51C0004 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component:

1E51C0002 3 1E51F0511 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component:

1E51C0002 12 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 1E12C0002A 2.75 0.40 0.24 0.32 6.97 Anchorage Scaling based on Design Criteria 411 1E22F0012 0.49 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.24 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 179 1E51F0022 0.49 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.24 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 19 1E51F0045 0.49 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.24 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 5 1E12F0053A 0.29 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.73 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 152 3552894-R-001 Revision 0 July 8, 2015 Page 2.11 of 2.26 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL 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 1E51F0019 0.87 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.21 Functional Component-specific Seismic Qualification 8 1E51F0077 0.87 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.21 Functional Component-specific Seismic Qualification 20 1E51F0078 0.87 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.21 Functional Component-specific Seismic Qualification 21 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 1P45F0130B 0.38 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.96 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 188 1E12F0064A 0.66 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.69 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 149 1E12F0064B 0.66 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.69 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 148 3552894-R-001 Revision 0 July 8, 2015 Page 2.12 of 2.26 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL 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 1E51F0068 0.44 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.11 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 17 1G42F0080 0.44 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.11 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 172 1E12F0024A 0.46 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.16 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 140 3552894-R-001 Revision 0 July 8, 2015 Page 2.13 of 2.26 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL 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 1R42S0002 0.41 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.03 Functional GERS 232 1R42S0003 0.41 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.03 Functional GERS 227 0R42S0011 0.70 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.79 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 225 3552894-R-001 Revision 0 July 8, 2015 Page 2.14 of 2.26 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL 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 1B21N0068A 0.37 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.95 Anchorage Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H22P0004A 93 1B21N0068B 0.37 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.95 Anchorage Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H22P0027 94 1B21N0068E 0.37 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.95 Anchorage Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H22P0004A 95 1B21N0068F 0.37 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.95 Anchorage Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H22P00027 96 1B21N0081A 0.37 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.95 Anchorage Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H22P0004A 90 1B21N0091A 0.37 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.95 Anchorage Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H22P0004A 97 3552894-R-001 Revision 0 July 8, 2015 Page 2.15 of 2.26 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL Item # 1B21N0091B 0.37 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.95 Anchorage Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H22P00027 98 1B21N0091E 0.37 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.95 Anchorage Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H22P0004A 99 1B21N0091F 0.37 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.95 Anchorage Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H22P00027 100 1B21N0095A 0.37 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.95 Anchorage Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H22P0004A 101 1B21N0095B 0.37 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.95 Anchorage Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H22P00027 102 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 1D23N0022A 0.54 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.55 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H51P0134A 388 1D23N0022B 0.54 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.55 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H51P0134B 389 1D23N0032A 0.54 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.55 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H51P0134A 390 3552894-R-001 Revision 0 July 8, 2015 Page 2.16 of 2.26 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL Item # 1D23N0032B 0.54 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.55 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H51P0134B 391 1D23N0042A 0.54 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.55 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H51P0134A 392 1D23N0042B 0.54 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.55 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H51P0134B 393 1D23N0043A 0.54 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.55 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H51P0134A 394 1D23N0043B 0.54 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.55 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H51P0134B 395 1D23N0230 0.54 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.55 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H51P0134A 396 1E51N0003 0.54 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.55 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H22P0017 22 1E51N0007 0.54 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.55 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H22P0017 23 1E51N0050 0.54 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.55 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H22P0017 41 3552894-R-001 Revision 0 July 8, 2015 Page 2.17 of 2.26 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL Item # 1E51N0051 0.54 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.55 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H22P0017 36 1E51N0052 0.54 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.55 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H22P0017 43 1E51N0053 0.54 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.55 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H22P0017 39 1E51N0055A 0.54 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.55 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H22P0017 34 1E51N0056A 0.54 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.55 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H22P0017 32 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 1D23N0270A 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H51P1344 397 1D23N0270B 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H51P1345 398 1G43N0020A 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H51P1045 160 3552894-R-001 Revision 0 July 8, 2015 Page 2.18 of 2.26 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL Item # 1G43N0020B 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H51P1043 161 1G43N0060A 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H51P1046 162 1G43N0060B 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H51P1111 163 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 1D23N0080B 0.53 0.35 0.24 0.26 1.20 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 352 1D23N0170A 0.53 0.35 0.24 0.26 1.20 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 353 1D23N0170B 0.53 0.35 0.24 0.26 1.20 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 354 1D23N0180A 0.53 0.35 0.24 0.26 1.20 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 355 3552894-R-001 Revision 0 July 8, 2015 Page 2.19 of 2.26 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL 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 1E51K0601 0.65 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.87 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H13P0601 24 1E51R0600 0.65 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.87 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H13P0601 25 1E51R0601 0.65 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.87 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H13P0601 29 1E51R0602 0.65 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.87 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H13P0601 26 1E51R0603 0.65 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.87 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H13P0601 30 3552894-R-001 Revision 0 July 8, 2015 Page 2.20 of 2.26 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL Item # 1E51R0606 0.65 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.87 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H13P0601 31 1E51R0607 0.65 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.87 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H13P0601 28 1G43R0022A 0.65 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.87 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H13P0601 156 1G43R0022B 0.65 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.87 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H13P0601 157 1G43R0062A 0.65 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.87 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H13P0601 158 1G43R0062B 0.65 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.87 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H13P0601 159 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 1H13P0868 0.86 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.47 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 384 1H13P0869 0.86 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.47 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 379 1B21N0681A 0.86 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.47 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H13P0691 91 3552894-R-001 Revision 0 July 8, 2015 Page 2.21 of 2.26 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL Item # 1B21N0682A 0.86 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.47 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H13P0691 92 1E51N0650 0.86 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.47 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H13P0629 42 1E51N0651 0.86 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.47 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H13P0629 37 1E51N0652 0.86 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.47 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H13P0629 44 1E51N0653 0.86 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.47 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H13P0629 40 1E51N0654 0.86 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.47 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H13P0629 45 1E51N0655A 0.86 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.47 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H13P0629 35 1E51N0656A 0.86 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.47 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H13P0629 33 1E51N0659 0.86 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.47 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H13P0629 38 1H13P0883 0.86 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.47 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 168 3552894-R-001 Revision 0 July 8, 2015 Page 2.22 of 2.26 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL Item # 1D23N0051A 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H51P0142 362 1D23N0051B 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H51P0143 364 1D23N0061A 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H51P0142 363 1D23N0061B 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H51P0143 365 1D23N0071A 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H51P0142 366 1D23N0071B 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H51P0143 368 1D23N0081A 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H51P0142 367 1D23N0081B 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H51P0143 369 1D23N0171A 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H51P0142 370 3552894-R-001 Revision 0 July 8, 2015 Page 2.23 of 2.26 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL Item # 1D23N0171B 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H51P0143 372 1D23N0181A 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H51P0142 371 1D23N0181B 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H51P0143 373 1D23N0191A 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H51P0142 374 1D23N0191B 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H51P0143 376 1D23N0201A 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H51P0142 375 1D23N0201B 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H51P0143 377 1E51K0702 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional Assigned based on rule of the box. Parent component: 1H51P0973 27 1H51P0142 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 381 1H51P0143 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 382 1M56P0003 0.38 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.08 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 337 3552894-R-001 Revision 0 July 8, 2015 Page 2.24 of 2.26 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL 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 1B21A0003P 1.46 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.70 Anchorage New Analysis 60 1B21A0003T 1.46 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.70 Anchorage New Analysis 61 1B21A0003V 1.46 0.40 0.24 0.32 3.70 Anchorage New Analysis 62 3552894-R-001 Revision 0 July 8, 2015 Page 2.25 of 2.26 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL 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 1P57F0015A 0.87 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.21 Functional Component-specific Seismic Qualification 405 1P57F0015B 0.87 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.21 Functional Component-specific Seismic Qualification 406 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 1E51A-K101 0.35 0.45 0.24 0.38 0.99 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 109 1E51Q7085 0.27 0.45 0.24 0.38 0.77 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 110 1E51A-K033 0.35 0.45 0.24 0.38 0.99 Functional Test Response Spectra (TRS) 111 3552894-R-001 Revision 0 July 8, 2015 Page 2.26 of 2.26 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL 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

ABSG CONSULTING INC. ABS GROUP OF COMPANIES, INC.

300 Commerce, Suite 20016855 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 2100 Space Park Drive, Suite 100 Houston, TX 77058 Telephone 713-929-6800 Energy Crossing II, E. Building 15011 Katy Freeway, Suite 100 Houston, TX 77094 505 14th Street, Suite 900 Oakland, CA 94612 1525 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 625 Arlington, VA 22209 Telephone 703-682-7373 FAX 703-682-7374 10301 Technology Drive Knoxville, TN 37932 Telephone 865-966-5232 FAX 865-966-5287 1745 Shea Center Drive, Suite 400 Highland Ranch, CO 80129 Telephone 303-674-2990 4 Research Place, Suite 200A Rockville, MD 20850 Telephone 301-907-9100 FAX 301-921-2632 1111 Brickyard Road, Suite 103 Salt Lake City, UT 84106 Telephone 801-333-7676 FAX 801-333-7677 140 Heimer Road, Suite 300 San Antonio, TX 78232 Telephone 210-495-5195 FAX 210-495-5134 823 Congress Avenue, Suite 1510 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone 512-732-2223 FAX 512-233-2210 77 Westport Plaza, Suite 210 St. Louis, Missouri 63146 Telephone 314-819-1550 FAX 314-819-1551 One Chelsea Street New London, CT 06320 Telephone 860-701-0608 100 Danbury Road, Suite 105 Ridgefield, CT 06877 Telephone 203-431-0281 FAX 203-431-3643 1360 Truxtun Avenue, Suite 103 North Charleston, SC 29405 Telephone 843-297-0690 152 Blades Lane, Suite N Glen Burnie, MD 21060 Telephone 410-514-0450 SOUTH AMERICA Macaé, Brazil Telephone 55-22-2763-7018 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Telephone 55-21-3179-3182 Sao Paulo, Brazil Telephone 55-11-3707-1055 Vina del Mar, Chile Telephone 56-32-2381780 Bogota, Colombia Telephone 571-2960718 SOUTH AMERICA (Continued) Chuao, Venezuela Telephone 58-212-959-7442 Lima, Peru Telephone 51-1-437-7430 Manaus, Brazil Telephone 55-92-3213-9511 Montevideo, Uruguay Telephone 5982-2-901-55-33 UNITED KINGDOM EQE House, The Beacons Warrington Road

Birchwood, Warrington Cheshire WA3 6WJ Telephone 44-1925-287300 3 Pride Place Pride Park

Derby DE24 8QR Telephone 44-0-1332-254-010 Unit 3b Damery Works Woodford, Berkley Gloucestershire GL13 9JR Telephone 44-0-1454-269-300 ABS House 1 Frying Pan Alley London E1 7HR Telephone 44-207-377-4422 Aberdeen AB25 1XQ Telephone 44-0-1224-392100 London W1T 4TQ Telephone 44-0-203-301-5900 MEXICOCiudad del Carmen, Mexico Telephone 52-938-382-4530 Mexico City, Mexico Telephone 52-55-5511-4240 Monterrey, Mexico Telephone 52-81-8319-0290 Reynosa, Mexico Telephone 52-899-920-2642 Veracruz, Mexico Telephone 52-229-980-8133 EUROPESofia, Bulgaria Telephone 359-2-9632049 Piraeus, Greece Telephone 30-210-429-4046 Genoa, Italy Telephone 39-010-2512090 Hamburg Germany Telephone 49-40-300-92-22-21 Las Arenas, Spain Telephone 34-94-464-0444 Rotterdam, The Netherlands Telephone 31-10-206-0778 Amsterdam, The Netherlands Telephone 31-205-207-947 Gteborg Sweden Telephone 46-70-283-0234 EUROPE (Continued)

Bergen Norway Telephone 47-55-55-10-90 Oslo Norway Telephone 47-67-57-27-00 Stavanger Norway Telephone 47-51-93-92-20 Trondheim Norway Telephone 47-73-900-500 MIDDLE EASTDhahran, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Telephone 966-3-868-9999 Ahmadi, Kuwait Telephone 965-3263886 Doha, State of Qatar Telephone 974-44-13106 Muscat, Sultanate of Oman Telephone 968-597950 Istanbul, Turkey Telephone 90-212-6614127 Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates Telephone 971-2-6912000 Dubai, United Arab Emirates Telephone 971-4-3306116 ASIA-PACIFIC Ahmedabad, India Telephone 079 4000 9595 Navi Mumbai, India Telephone 91-22-757-8780 New Delhi, India Telephone 91-11-45634738 Yokohama, Japan Telephone 81-45-450-1250 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Telephone 603-79822455 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Telephone 603-2161-5755 Beijing, PR China Telephone 86-10-58112921 Shanghai, PR China Telephone 86-21-6876-9266 Busan, Korea Telephone 82-51-852-4661 Seoul, Korea Telephone 82-2-552-4661 Alexandra Point, Singapore Telephone 65-6270-8663 Kaohsiung, Taiwan, Republic of China Telephone 886-7-271-3463 Bangkok, Thailand Telephone 662-399-2420 West Perth WA 6005 Telephone 61-8-9486-9909 INTERNET Additional office information can be found at: www.absconsulting.com