ML15212A713

(External_Sender) Davis Besse ESEP Clarification Questions

ML15212A713
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	07/22/2015
From:	Lashley P H First Energy Services
To:	Wyman S M Japan Lessons-Learned Division
References
Download: ML15212A713 (76)

Text

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

Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 11:31 AM To: Wyman, Stephen Cc: DiFrancesco, Nicholas; Devlin-Gill, Stephanie; Lentz, Thomas A. (Licensing); Nevins, Kathleen J.

Subject:

[External_Sender] RE: Davis Besse ESEP Clarification Questions Attachments:

DBNPS ESEP Clarification Question Response.pdfResponses to the Davis-Besse 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: Wyman, Stephen [1] Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 5:39 PM To: Lashley, Phil H.

Cc: DiFrancesco, Nicholas; Devlin-Gill, Stephanie

Subject:

Davis Besse ESEP Clarification Questions

Mr. Lashley, As part of the NRC review of the Davis Besse 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. ESEP Report Section 6.6 states that "Attachment B tabulates the HCLPF values for all components on the ESEL." Attachment A, the ESEL, contains 382 items on 19 pages. Attachment B contains 11 pages of HCLPF values, with no cross reference back to the ESEL Table items. There appears to be fewer items in the HCLPF Table than items in the ESEL. Please confirm that the HCLPF Table only includes the ESEL items that Attachment A identifies as "Screened In". For clarification, provide a roadmap from the ESEL Table (Attachment A) to the HCLPF Table (Attachment B).

3. Section 3.1.5 of the ESEP Report 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)."

2 Section 6.1 of the ESEP Report 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. Section 5.2 of the ESEP Report 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.

5. Section 6.4 of the ESEP Reports states that all HCLPF calculations were performed using the CDFM methodology. However, Appendix B provides information for C, R, and U, which would indicate that fragility analyses have been performed.

The licensee is requested to confirm that only the CDFM methodology has been used for HCLPF calculations, or to identify that fragility analysis has also been used to estimate HCLPF capacity. If fragility analyses have also been used, then include a description of the fragility analyses methods used, and describe the procedure used to estimate HCLPF capacity from the fragility data.

3 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 July 22, 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 USNRC/NRR/JLD/HMB Office: O-13G9 MS: O-13C5 301-415-3041 (Voice) 301-415-8333 (Fax)

Stephen.Wyman@nrc.gov The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the 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: 2265 Mail Envelope Properties (CY1PR0501MB15472BA3AD40F80DC34ED75ABD830)

Subject:

[External_Sender] RE: Davis Besse ESEP Clarification Questions Sent Date: 7/22/2015 11:31:03 AM Received Date: 7/22/2015 11:32:23 AM From: Lashley, Phil H.

Created By: phlashley@firstenergycorp.com Recipients: "DiFrancesco, Nicholas" <Nicholas.DiFrancesco@nrc.gov> Tracking Status: None "Devlin-Gill, Stephanie" <Stephanie.Devlin-Gill@nrc.gov> Tracking Status: None "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 Post Office: CY1PR0501MB1547.namprd05.prod.outlook.com

Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 7716 7/22/2015 11:32:23 AM DBNPS ESEP Clarification Question Response.pdf 1525903 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 3562533-R-001 Revision 0 Response to Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Expedited Seismic Evaluation Process Report Clarification Questions

July 14, 2015

Prepared for:

3562533-R-001 Revision 0 Response to Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Expedited Seismic Evaluation Process Report Clarification Questions

July 14, 2015

Prepared by:

ABSG Consulting Inc.

Prepared for:

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company

Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station

5501 Ohio 2

Oak Harbor, OH 43449

3562533-R-001 Revision 0 July 14, 2015 Page 4 of 10 Table of Revisions Revision No. Date Description of Revision 0 July 14, 2015 Original Issue 3562533-R-001 Revision 0 July 14, 2015 Page 5 of 10 Nuclear Regulatory Commission e-mail from Stephen Wyman to Phil Lashley dated July 1, 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 seismic probabilistic risk assessment (SPRA) walkdowns were credited for some components on the ESEL. The SPRA walkdown team consisted of Mr. Guerra, Mr. Lucarelli, Mr. Jason Dimaria, P.E., and Mr. Bradley Yagla. 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.

3562533-R-001 Revision 0 July 14, 2015 Page 6 of 10 Clarification Question #2 ESEP Report Section 6.6 states that "Attachment B tabulates the HCLPF values for all components on the ESEL." Attachment A, the ESEL, contains 382 items on 19 pages.

Attachment B contains 11 pages of high confidence, low probability of failure (HCLPF) values, with no cross reference back to the ESEL table items. There appears to be fewer items in the HCLPF table than items in the ESEL. Please confirm that the HCLPF table only includes the ESEL items that Attachment A identifies as "Screened In". For clarification, provide a roadmap

from the ESEL table (Attachment A) to the HCLPF table (Attachment B). FENOC Response Based on the guidance in EPRI 3002000704, 382 items were identified as potential ESEL items. Following the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) screening process, described in Section 3.1 of the ESEP Report, 109 of these items were screened out. The final ESEL contains 273 screened in components. Attachment A of the ESEP report summarizes and documents this screening process, and Attachment B of the ESEP report presents HCLPF values only for the screened in items. For clarification, Attachment 2 of this response provides the Attachment B HCLPF table with an additional column identifying the ESEL item number to provide a roadmap to the ESEL table in Attachment A of the ESEP report.

3562533-R-001 Revision 0 July 14, 2015 Page 7 of 10 Clarification Question #3 Section 3.1.5 of the ESEP Report 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 Report 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. All the HCLPF calculations are based on the guidance provided in EPRI TR-1002988 and EPRI TR-1019200, 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. Plant's component management system was utilized to locate all "housed-in" components on the ESEL. All "housed-in" components were subsequently walked down as part of the "parent" component. For example, HPI Converters FYHP3C1 and FYHP3C2 (ESEL Items 201 and 202) were walked down to confirm their location and mounting inside Cabinet C3628 (ESEL Item 205). These components are therefore assigned the HCLPF of C3628. Similarly, a walkdown confirmed that Motor MP42-1 (ESEL Item 325) is mounted on Decay Heat Pump P42-1 (ESEL Item 324). As the HCLPF calculation for P42-1 considers everything within the boundary of the skid, MP42-1 is assigned the HCLPF of P42-1. As stated in Section 6.5 of the ESEP Report, there are no relays included in the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station ESEL. Therefore no specific evaluations for devices sensitive to vibration were performed.

3562533-R-001 Revision 0 July 14, 2015 Page 8 of 10 Clarification Question #4 Section 5.2 of the ESEP Report 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 (SPID) and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)/American Nuclear Society (ANS) probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) Standard give guidance on acceptable methods to compute both the ground motion response spectra and the associated in-structure response spectra (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 84 th 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, and using best estimate structure and soil stiffness and conservative estimate of median damping. This response approximates

the 84 th 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 3562533-R-001 Revision 0 July 14, 2015 Page 9 of 10 in ASCE 4-98. However, the reported analysis uses only the result from the BE soil column (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%.

3562533-R-001 Revision 0 July 14, 2015 Page 10 of 10 Clarification Question #5 Section 6.4 of the ESEP Reports states that all HCLPF calculations were performed using the CDFM methodology.However, Appendix B provides information for C , R , and U , which would indicate that fragility analyses have been performed. The licensee is requested to confirm that only the CDFM methodology has been used for HCLPF calculations, or to identify that fragility analysis has also been used to estimate HCLPF capacity. If fragility analyses have also been used, then include a description of the fragility analyses methods used, and describe the procedure used to estimate HCLPF capacity from the

fragility data. 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.

3562533-R-001 Revision 0 July 14, 2015 Page 1.1 of 1.33 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. 3562533-R-001, Revision 0 J uly 14, 2015 Page 1.2 of 1.33 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 3562533-R-001, Revision 0 J uly 14, 2015 Page 1.3 of 1.33 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 3562533-R-001, Revision 0 J uly 14, 2015 Page 1.4 of 1.33 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 , 3562533-R-001, Revision 0 J uly 14, 2015 Page 1.5 of 1.33 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 3562533-R-001, Revision 0 J uly 14, 2015 Page 1.6 of 1.33 A-31 3562533-R-001, Revision 0 J uly 14, 2015 Page 1.7 of 1.33 John E. Reddington Work Experience March 2013 to Present:

CJR Engineering and Rolls-Royce Consultant

Technical lead on seismic PRA for several units; assist in fire PRA; work on Small Modular Reactor initial PRA.

January 2007 to March 2013:

First Energy, FENOC Principal Consultant, Probabilistic Risk Analysis

Technical lead for seismic PRA for FENOC fleet; SQUG qualified- performed oversight of NRC's 50.54f task 2.3 and 2.1. mentor to junior and co-op engineers Lead fire PRA for the Davis-Besse fire PRA, including contractor

oversight and coordination; specialization in HRA, including operations interface, model integration, dependency analysis and PWROG HRA Subcommittee; participant in several fire PRA peer reviews and one

seismic PRA peer review.

August 2004- January 2007:

Principal Programs Engineer , Fleet office Akron, OH: responsible for the fire protection program for the FENOC fleet August 2003 to August 2004: Davis Besse Nuclear Station Oak Harbor, OH Training Manager

Responsible for direction and implementation of site's accredited training programs. Heavily involved with high intensity

training required to get Davis Besse back on line following a two year

outage replacing the reactor head.

January 2001 to August 2003 : Davis Besse Nuclear Station Oak Harbor, OH Supervisor Quality Assurance Oversight for Maintenance:

Responsible for value added assessments based on performance as well as compliance. Ensure industry best practices are used as

standards for performance in maintenance, outage planning, and

scheduling.1996 to January 2001, Superintendent Mechanical Maintenance Manage the short and long term direction of the Mechanical and Services Maintenance Departments. Responsible for 80 to 90 person department with a budget between 7 and 15 million dollars a year. Direct the planning, engineering, and field maintenance activities. Direct oversight of outage preparations and implementation. One year assignment working with

Technical Skills Training preparing for accreditation. 279 Dorchester Rd, Akron Ohio 44313Phone 330-612-9579 E-mail jereddington@gmail.com 3562533-R-001, Revision 0 J uly 14, 2015 Page 1.8 of 1.33 1993 - 1996 Shift Manager Act as the on-shift representative of the Plant Manager. Responsible for providing continuous management support for all Station activities to ensure safe and efficient plant operation. Establish short term objectives for plant control and provide recommendations to the Shift Supervisor. Monitor core reactivity and thermal hydraulic performance, containment isolation capability, and plant radiological conditions during transients and advise the operating crew on the actions required to maintain adequate shutdown

margin, core cooling capability, and minimize radiological releases.

1991 - 1993 Senior System and Maintenance Engineer Provide Operations with system specific technical expertise. Responsible for maintaining and optimizing the extraction steam and feedwater heaters, the fuel handling equipment and all station cranes.

Acted as Fuel Handling Director during refueling outages. Responsibilities Included maintaining the safe and analyzed core configuration, directing operation personnel on fuel moves, directing maintenance personnel on equipment repair and preventative maintenance.

1986 - 1991 Senior Design Engineer and Senior Reactor Operator student Activities included modification design work and plant representative on the Seismic Qualification Utilities Group and the Seismic Issues subcommittee.

Licensed as a Senior Reactor Operator following extensive classroom, simulator, shift training, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission examination.

1984 - 1986 Sargent & Lundy Engineers Chicago, IL Senior Structural Engineer Responsible for a design team of engineers for the steel design and layout to support the addition of three baghouses on a coal fired plant in Texas.

Investigated and prepared both remedial and long term solutions to

structural problems associated with a hot side precipitator.

1980 - 1984 Structural Engineer Responsible for steel and concrete design and analysis for LaSalle and Fermi Nuclear Power plants. Performed vibrational load and stability analysis for numerous piping systems. Member of the on-site team of engineers responsbile for timely in-place modifications to the plant structure at LaSalle.1979 - 1980 Wagner Martin Mechanical Contractors Richmond, IN Engineer/Project Manager Responsible for sprinkler system design through approval by appropriate underwriter. Estimator and Project Manager on numerous mechanical

projects up to 1.8 million dollars.

3562533-R-001, Revision 0 J uly 14, 2015 Page 1.9 of 1.33 Education1975 - 1979 Purdue University West Lafayette, IN Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering 1990- 1995 University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, OH Master of Science in Nuclear Engineering Professional Memberships Professional Engineer, State of Illinois, 1984 Professional Engineer, State of Ohio, 1986

Senior Reactor Operator, Davis Besse Nuclear Power Plant, 1990

Qualified Lead Auditor, 2003

Seismic Qualification Utility Group- SQUG qualified 3562533-R-001, Revision 0 J uly 14, 2015 Page 1.10 of 1.33 A-37 3562533-R-001, Revision 0 J uly 14, 2015 Page 1.11 of 1.33 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 lRhea 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.

3562533-R-001, Revision 0 J uly 14, 2015 Page 1.12 of 1.33 Eddie M. Guerra, P.E.

Page 2 of 7Tornado Screening Walkdowns for Genkai Units 3 & 4 Scientech l Kyushu Electric Power Company lGenkai, 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 3562533-R-001, Revision 0 J uly 14, 2015 Page 1.13 of 1.33 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 lShippingport, 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.

3562533-R-001, Revision 0 J uly 14, 2015 Page 1.14 of 1.33 Eddie M. Guerra, P.E.

Page 4 of 7Beaver Valley Unit 2 NPP Seismic PRA ABS Consulting l FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company lShippingport, 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 lOak 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 3562533-R-001, Revision 0 J uly 14, 2015 Page 1.15 of 1.33 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.

3562533-R-001, Revision 0 J uly 14, 2015 Page 1.16 of 1.33 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.

3562533-R-001, Revision 0 J uly 14, 2015 Page 1.17 of 1.33 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 inv olving 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.

3562533-R-001, Revision 0 J uly 14, 2015 Page 1.18 of 1.33 3562533-R-001, Revision 0 J uly 14, 2015 Page 1.19 of 1.33 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 reviews 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) 3562533-R-001, Revision 0 J uly 14, 2015 Page 1.20 of 1.33 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-3562533-R-001, Revision 0 J uly 14, 2015 Page 1.21 of 1.33 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 3562533-R-001, Revision 0 J uly 14, 2015 Page 1.22 of 1.33 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.

3562533-R-001, Revision 0 J uly 14, 2015 Page 1.23 of 1.33 3562533-R-001, Revision 0 J uly 14, 2015 Page 1.24 of 1.33 Jason M. Dimaria, P.E.

Project Engineer Skill Areas: Steel Connection Design Finite Element Analysis Steel Framing Design Existing Structure Evaluation Reinforced Concrete Design Constructability Design/Evaluation Heavy Lift and Rigging Design Advanced Structural Analysis Response Spectra Analysis Seismic Evaluation Time History Analysis Structural Dynamics Monte Carlo Simulation Fragility Analysis Probabilistic Structural Analysis HCLPF/CDFM Analysis Concrete Design (ACI 318) ACI 349 Mr. Dimaria is a Project Engineer with Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc. (RIZZO). He has developed an extensive background in industrial and commercial facilities. In addition to new designs, Mr. Dimaria has worked on the evaluation of existing structures for retrofit. His experience includes 3D computer modeling of structures for static and dynamic analysis, response spectra analysis for mechanical, and wind vibrations or earthquakes. Mr. Dimaria also has experience modeling linear and non-linear finite element model stress evaluation of various structures and structural details. Before joining RIZZO, Mr. Dimaria functioned as a Staff Engineer at Ruby+Associates Inc. in Farmington Hills, Michigan. His main areas of responsibility included structural steel building design, structural steel connection design, reinforced concrete design and constructability review. From this experience Mr. Dimaria has a unique perspective of structural systems and applies knowledge of constructability design to ensuring that the structure is able to be efficiently erected in the field. In addition to his experience with steel and reinforced concrete design, Mr. Dimaria also has experience with heavy lift and rigging design. Mr. Dimaria has completed the Seismic Qualification Utilities Group (SQUG) 5-Day 2.1 Seismic Walkdown Training Course. This training course includes certification of Near Term Task Force (NTTF) 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Training. June 2013 - PresentCA01 Module Evaluation - Westinghouse, Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania:Mr. Dimaria, as Project Engineer, is responsible for the review and implementation of corrective actions. He will also analyze any required updates to the structural drawings of the CA01 structure and assess the impact these updates will have on the analytical model.

November 2012 - Present FERMI 2 NPP SPRA Upgrade Fragility Analysis -

URS/DTEEnergy Plant, Newport, Michigan: Mr. Dimaria is engaged in performing seismic evaluations of plant structures and components in support of developing seismic fragilities and the seismic PRA. As part of this effort, Mr. Dimaria is part of the team responsible for the Years Experience 6 Level 4 Education M.S., Civil Engineering, Wayne State University - 2008 B.S., Civil Engineering, Wayne State University - 2005, Cum Laude B.A., Physics, Albion College - 2003 Professional Affiliations American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), Member Structural Engineers Association of Michigan (SEAMi), Associate Member Chi Epsilon - Civil Engineering Honor Society Professional Registration Professional Engineer - P.E. - Michigan: License No. 6201059422 Software RAM, STAAD.pro, Sap 2000, RISA 3D, RISA Floor, Math Cad, Auto Cad, REVIT, Hypermesh, Abaqus, ANSYS, TNO Diana, Nastran, MATLAB, MS Office Suite PublicationsMichigan Department of Transportation RC-1490 - Bridge Deck Corner Cracking on Skewed Structures Sep. 2007, by Gongkang Fu, Jihang Feng, Jason Dimaria and Yizhou Zhuang, WSU 3562533-R-001, Revision 0 J uly 14, 2015 Page 1.25 of 1.33 Jason M. Dimaria, P.E.Jason M. Dimaria, P.E. SPRA Walk downs to be performed in compliance with the ASME ANS RA-Sa-2009 Standard and the NTTF 2.1 Recommendations.

April 2012 - Present Perry NPP - Seismic Fragility Evaluation -FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Perry, Ohio: Mr. Dimaria is engaged in performing seismic evaluations of plant structures and components in support of developing seismic fragilities and the seismic PRA. As part of this effort, Mr. Dimaria is part of the team responsible for the SPRA Walk downs to be performed in compliance with the ASME ANS RA-Sa-2009 Standard and the NTTF 2.1 Recommendations.

April 2012- Present Beaver Valley Unit 1, NPP - Seismic Fragility Evaluation -

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Shippingport, PA: Mr. Dimaria is engaged in performing seismic evaluations of plant structures and components in support of developing seismic fragilities and the seismic PRA. As part of this effort, Mr. Dimaria is part of the team responsible for the SPRA walk downs to be performed in compliance with the ASME ANS RA-Sa-2009 Standard and the NTTF 2.1 Recommendations.

April 2012- Present Beaver Valley Unit 2 NPP - Seismic Fragility Evaluation -

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Shippingport, Pennsylvania: Mr. Dimaria is engaged in performing seismic evaluations of plant structures and components in support of developing seismic fragilities and the seismic PRA. As part of this effort, Mr. Dimaria is part of the team responsible for the SPRA Walk downs to be performed in compliance with the ASME ANS RA-Sa-2009 Standard and the NTTF 2.1 Recommendations.

April 2012- PresentDavis-Besse NPP - Seismic Fragility Evaluation - FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, NPP, Oak Harbor, Ohio:Mr. Dimaria is engaged in performing seismic evaluations of plant structures and components in support of developing seismic fragilities and the seismic PRA. As part of this effort, Mr. Dimaria is part of the team responsible for the SPRA Walk downs to be performed in compliance with the ASME ANS RA-Sa-2009 Standard and the NTTF 2.1 Recommendations.

April 2009 - Present AP1000 VCS Duct System Engineering Analysis and HVAC

Design - SSM Industries:Mr. Dimaria is a Project Engineer for this ongoing project. RIZZO is providing seismic design support for VCS Duct System for AP1000 Containment. Mr. Dimaria created several models to determine the reaction loads on different containment modules due to the duct runs associated with the VCS System inside the AP1000 Containment. The duct runs mainly conduct chilled air from the ring header to various lower regions of the containment space. Mr. Dimaria performed mode-frequency analysis using the Global Models and extract frequencies and mode shapes for specific VCS duct segments by using STAAD.pro. The frequencies represent thecombined frequency of the duct beams and supports. Mr. Dimaria also utilized MathCAD to calculate the 3562533-R-001, Revision 0 J uly 14, 2015 Page 1.26 of 1.33 Jason M. Dimaria, P.E.Jason M. Dimaria, P.E. composite fundamental Frequency of specific duct systems combining the Global Beam Model frequency, the panel frequency and the stiffener frequency. He demonstrated that the fundamental frequency is in excess of 33 Hz, which is the threshold frequency for ZPA associated with the support point ISRS. The final analysis will evaluate the dynamic interaction of the duct systems with various miscellaneous platform structures which are used to support the duct runs inside containment. This analysis will develop composite modal frequencies that include the stiffness and mass of the platforms. The combined platforms and duct system will be analyzed using the appropriate spectral acceleration in the In-Structure Response Spectra (ISRS) at the locations where the platforms are attached. August 2009 - Present Geotechnical Evaluation of Layered Soils and Dynamic Analysis of STM Test Facility for AP1000 RC Pump - Shenyang Turbo-Machinery Corporation (STM): Mr. Dimaria is a Project Engineer for this project. RIZZO is providing geotechnical, structural, and mechanical engineering services for the Shenyang Turbo-Machinery (STM) Company in mainland China. RIZZO is developing the design of a Test Loop Facility used for manufacturing the AP 1000 Reactor Cooling Pump. The design is similar to a design developed by RIZZO for a facility in the United States. Due to the multi-layered soils at the Chinese site and the low bearing capacity of several layers, RIZZO is developing a soil remediation plan for the facility. The excavation methodology plan will remove the weaker, saturated clay deposits directly below the mat and pit foundations that are settlement prone. These soils will be replaced with compacted, granular engineered fill. The dewatering of the site and the design of a deep, braced excavation for the pit construction is also part of the plan. For this project Mr. Dimaria reviewed the Structural Steel Drawings and Details for completeness, accuracy and compliance with Chinese Steel Design and Welding Codes. Since the project involved the conversion from Rolled U.S. Steel Shapes to Chinese Welded Shapes, Mr. Dimaria Reviewed these alterations of the design, additionally the welding symbols used in China are different than those in the U.S. Mr. Dimaria reviewed the original U.S. Test Loop Drawings and ensured that the welding procedures and steel design used at the Chinese Test Loop facility were in compliance.August 2011 - November 2011 Koeberg Nuclear Power Plant Seismic Evaluation, Cape Town, South Africa -

ESCOM:Mr. Dimaria was an Assistant Project Engineer for this project. RIZZO provided structural, and tsunami engineering services for this project along with Nuclear Structural Engineering of Johannesburg South Africa. For this project Mr. Dimaria was responsible for evaluating the capacities of structural and mechanical elements as part of an analysis of High Confidence Low Probability of Failure (HCLPF) study for the plant.

April 2011 - March 2012 Kallpa Seismic Calculation Review -

POSCO:Mr. Dimaria is an Assistant Project Engineer for this project. RIZZO is providing, structural analysis and design calculation peer review for the Combined Cycle Power Plant in Peru. Mr. Dimaria reviewed client 3562533-R-001, Revision 0 J uly 14, 2015 Page 1.27 of 1.33 Jason M. Dimaria, P.E.Jason M. Dimaria, P.E. calculations and drawings and provided comments to the originator to ensure consistency and proper structural design and analysis methodologies were employed on the project. As part of the design review Mr. Dimaria was support field engineer for the inspection of the Kallpa Combined Cycle Power Plant to verify that the as built condition of the structures was in line with the design calculations and drawings reviewed and approved by RIZZO.

April 2011 - Present Chilca Uno Seismic Calculation Review - POSCO:Mr. Dimaria is a Project Engineer for this project. RIZZO is providing, structural analsis and design calculation peer review for the Combined Cycle Power Plant in Peru currently under construction. Mr. Dimaria reviewed client calculations and drawings and provided comments to the originator to ensure consistency and proper structural design and analysis methodologies were employed on the project. As part of the design review Mr. Dimaria was lead field engineer for the inspection of the Chilca Uno Combined Cycle Power Plant to verify that the as built condition of the structures was in line with the design calculations and drawings reviewed and approved by RIZZO. PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE:December 2006 - June 2009 Staff Engineer II - RubyAssociates, Inc. Farmington Hills, Michigan: Developed innovative calculations for various engineering problems for time critical projects. Created and analyzed Finite Element models of complex structural systems. Developed computational spreadsheets to design structural elements more efficiently and with greater accuracy. Collaborated with engineering staff to provide solutions for structural problems. Coordinated efforts with clients and field personnel concerning problem solutions, development, and repair methods, including:

-Revel Casino, Atlantic City, NJ -Connection design services for time critical project. Provided designs that enabled simplified detailing and reduced construction time in the field.

-TXU - Oak Grove Electric Station, Robertson Co., TX -Review of existing structure connections for retro-fit. Critical role to improve the safety and long term viability of structure

.-Downstream Casino and Resort, Quapaw, OK - Provided connection design services for $301 million casino and twelve story 222 room hotel tower. Maintained contact and quality control with detailer concerning problems that arose during detailing.

-Horizontal Life Line Safety System Review - Provided technical field support and testing to ongoing research project for steel fabrication company regarding proprietary fall arrest system. Also provided engineering evaluation of various iron worker tie off methods.

3562533-R-001, Revision 0 J uly 14, 2015 Page 1.28 of 1.33 Jason M. Dimaria, P.E.Jason M. Dimaria, P.E. May 2005 - December 2006 Graduate Research Assistant - Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan: Worked with Michigan and Georgia DOT's on several original sensor instrumentation projects, maintained systems, and compiled data for computer analysis. Assumed leadership role on system design and field instrumentation, coordinated efforts with DOT's and contractors to keep project on schedule. Teaching Assistant - Worked with students as a teacher to mentor and improve understanding of design and analysis process.

3562533-R-001, Revision 0 J uly 14, 2015 Page 1.29 of 1.33 3562533-R-001, Revision 0 J uly 14, 2015 Page 1.30 of 1.33 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 3562533-R-001, Revision 0 J uly 14, 2015 Page 1.31 of 1.33 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.

3562533-R-001, Revision 0 J uly 14, 2015 Page 1.32 of 1.33 3562533-R-001, Revision 0 J uly 14, 2015 Page 1.33 of 1.33 3562533-R-001 Revision 0 July 14, 2015 Page 2.1 of 2.28 Attachment 2.

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID

3562533-R-001 Revision 0 July 14 14 , 2015 Page 2.2 of 2.28 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL Item # HV5301A 1.02 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.90 Functional Analysis Qualification Data 300 HV5301B 1.02 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.90 Functional Analysis Qualification Data 301 HV5301C 1.02 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.90 Functional Analysis Qualification Data 302 HV5301D 1.02 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.90 Functional Analysis Qualification Data 303 HV5301E 1.02 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.90 Functional Analysis Qualification Data 304 HV5301F 1.02 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.90 Functional Analysis Qualification Data 305 HV5301G 0.42 0.40 0.26 0.30 1.07 Block Wall New Analysis 306 HV5301H 1.02 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.90 Functional Analysis Qualification Data 307 SV5301 1.02 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.90 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component HV-5301E. 310 SV5301A 1.02 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.90 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component HV-5301E. 311 HV5443A 0.57 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.62 AnchorageAnalysis Based on Existing Seismic Analysis 379 HV5443C 0.57 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.62 AnchorageAnalysis Based on Existing Seismic Analysis 380 HV5261 0.57 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.62 AnchorageAnalysis Based on Existing Seismic Analysis 375 HV5305 0.57 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.62 AnchorageAnalysis Based on Existing Seismic Analysis 376 3562533-R-001 Revision 0 July 14 14 , 2015 Page 2.3 of 2.28 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued) Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL Item # HV5305A 0.57 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.62 AnchorageAnalysis Based on Existing Seismic Analysis 377 HV5305B 0.57 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.62 AnchorageAnalysis Based on Existing Seismic Analysis 378 HV5361A 0.50 0.40 0.26 0.30 1.27 Block Wall New Analysis 308 HV5361B 0.57 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.62 AnchorageAnalysis Based on Existing Seismic Analysis 309 HV5597 0.57 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.62 AnchorageAnalysis Based on Existing Seismic Analysis 381 MV5443A 0.57 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.62 AnchorageAssigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component HV5443A. 353 MV5443C 0.57 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.62 AnchorageAssigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component HV5443C. 354 MV5261A 0.57 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.62 AnchorageAssigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component HV5261. 297 MV5305 0.57 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.62 AnchorageAssigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component HV5305. 280 MV5305A 0.57 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.62 AnchorageAssigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component HV5305A. 278 3562533-R-001 Revision 0 July 14 14 , 2015 Page 2.4 of 2.28 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued) Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL Item # MV5305B 0.57 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.62 AnchorageAssigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component HV5305B. 279 MV5597 0.57 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.62 AnchorageAssigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component HV5597. 281 F15-3 1.26 0.35 0.24 0.26 2.85 AnchorageNew Analysis 158 E12B 1.06 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.70 Functional GERS 253 E12F 1.06 0.40 0.26 0.30 2.69 Block Wall New Analysis 256 YE1 1.06 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.70 Functional GERS 258 BE1259 1.06 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.70 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component E12B. 257 BE1273 1.06 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.70 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component E12B. 254 BE1285 1.06 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.70 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component E12B. 275 BE1297 1.06 0.40 0.26 0.30 2.69 Block Wall Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component E12F. 255 BE1298 1.06 0.40 0.26 0.30 2.69 Block Wall Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component E12F. 268 3562533-R-001 Revision 0 July 14 14 , 2015 Page 2.5 of 2.28 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued) Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL Item # BE1208A 1.06 0.40 0.26 0.30 2.69 Block Wall Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component E12F. 274 YE104 1.06 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.70 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component YE1. 284 F11A 0.26 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.67 AnchorageNew Analysis 212 BF1130 0.26 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.67 AnchorageAssigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component F11A. 317 BF1120 0.26 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.67 AnchorageAssigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component F11A. 211 E11E 0.29 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.73 AnchorageNew Analysis 374 YE2 0.29 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.73 AnchorageNew Analysis 262 BE1151 0.29 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.73 AnchorageAssigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component E11E. 246 BE1149 0.29 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.73 AnchorageAssigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component E11E. 295 YE208 0.29 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.73 AnchorageAssigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component YE2. 260 3562533-R-001 Revision 0 July 14 14 , 2015 Page 2.6 of 2.28 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued) Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL Item # YE209 0.29 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.73 AnchorageAssigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component YE2. 361 YE210 0.29 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.73 AnchorageAssigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component YE2. 362 YE212 0.29 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.73 AnchorageAssigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component YE2. 363 YE2A 0.29 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.73 AnchorageAssigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component YE2. 259 YE2B 0.29 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.73 AnchorageAssigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component YE2. 261 E12E 0.68 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.73 AnchorageNew Analysis 252 BE1291 0.68 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.73 AnchorageAssigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component E12E. 251 BE1292 0.68 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.73 AnchorageAssigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component E12E. 348 E12A 1.15 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.92 Functional GERS 216 D1_ED 1.15 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.92 Functional GERS 373 E14 1.15 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.92 Functional GERS 155 3562533-R-001 Revision 0 July 14 14 , 2015 Page 2.7 of 2.28 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued) Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL Item # BE1201 1.15 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.92 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component E12A. 291 BE1202 1.15 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.92 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component E12A. 247 BE1208 1.15 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.92 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component E12A. 273 BE1209 1.15 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.92 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component E12A. 293 BE1216 1.15 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.92 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component E12A. 292 BE1223 1.15 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.92 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component E12A. 217 BE1226 1.15 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.92 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component E12A. 343 BE1234 1.15 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.92 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component E12A. 250 3562533-R-001 Revision 0 July 14 14 , 2015 Page 2.8 of 2.28 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued) Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL Item # BE1240 1.15 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.92 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component E12A. 276 BE1241 1.15 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.92 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component E12A. 277 BE1401 1.15 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.92 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component E14. 154 D101 1.15 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.92 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component D1_ED. 65 D103 1.15 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.92 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component D1_ED. 74 D104 1.15 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.92 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component D1_ED. 67 D131 1.15 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.92 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component D1_ED. 68 D132 1.15 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.92 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component D1_ED. 72 3562533-R-001 Revision 0 July 14 14 , 2015 Page 2.9 of 2.28 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued) Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL Item # D134 1.15 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.92 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component D1_ED. 75 D111 1.15 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.92 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component D1_ED. 69 D112 1.15 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.92 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component D1_ED. 70 D116 1.15 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.92 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component D1_ED. 71 E11D 0.32 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.81 AnchorageNew Analysis 242 BE1126 0.32 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.81 AnchorageAssigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component E11D. 320 BE1196 0.32 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.81 AnchorageAssigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component E11D. 240 E11A 0.49 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.24 AnchorageNew Analysis 239 E11B 0.49 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.24 AnchorageNew Analysis 241 E11C 0.49 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.24 AnchorageNew Analysis 244 BE1120 0.49 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.24 AnchorageAssigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component E11A. 237 3562533-R-001 Revision 0 July 14 14 , 2015 Page 2.10 of 2.28 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued) Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL Item # BE1121 0.49 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.24 AnchorageAssigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component E11A. 323 BE1162 0.49 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.24 AnchorageAssigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component E11B. 213 BE1166 0.49 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.24 AnchorageAssigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component E11B. 238 BE1180 0.49 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.24 AnchorageAssigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component E11B. 243 BE1183 0.49 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.24 AnchorageAssigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component E11B. 316 BE1144 0.49 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.24 AnchorageAssigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component E11C. 294 BE1150 0.49 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.24 AnchorageAssigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component E11C. 245 BE1154 0.49 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.24 AnchorageAssigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component E11C. 360 3562533-R-001 Revision 0 July 14 14 , 2015 Page 2.11 of 2.28 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued) Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL Item # BE1142 0.49 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.24 AnchorageAssigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component E11C. 163 E12C 0.42 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.06 Functional GERS 249 EF12C 0.42 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.06 Functional GERS 160 BE1284 0.42 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.06 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component E12C. 248 BEF124 0.42 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.06 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component EF12C. 159 BEF125 0.42 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.06 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component EF12C. 166 E1 0.70 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.77 AnchorageNew Analysis 230 BCE11 0.70 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.77 AnchorageAssigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component E1. 232 BE106 0.70 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.77 AnchorageAssigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component E1. 236 BE107 0.70 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.77 AnchorageAssigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component E1. 235 3562533-R-001 Revision 0 July 14 14 , 2015 Page 2.12 of 2.28 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued) Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL Item # BE110 0.70 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.77 AnchorageAssigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component E1. 234 C1 0.38 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.97 AnchorageNew Analysis 367 ABDC1 0.38 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.97 AnchorageAssigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component C1. 364 AC110 0.38 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.97 AnchorageAssigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component C1. 365 AC112 0.38 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.97 AnchorageAssigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component C1. 326 AC113 0.38 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.97 AnchorageAssigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component C1. 340 AC1CE11 0.38 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.97 AnchorageAssigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component C1. 366 XCE1-1 0.43 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.08 AnchorageNew Analysis 368 P42-1 0.49 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.24 AnchorageNew Analysis 324 P43-1 0.49 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.24 AnchorageNew Analysis 335 MP42-1 0.49 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.24 AnchorageAssigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component P42-1. 325 3562533-R-001 Revision 0 July 14 14 , 2015 Page 2.13 of 2.28 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued) Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL Item # P195-1 0.76 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.93 AnchorageNew Analysis 269 CC1467 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.66 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 338 SV1467 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.66 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component CC1467. 339 SS607 3.85 0.40 0.24 0.32 9.78 Functional Analysis Based on Existing Seismic Analysis 14 SV607 3.85 0.40 0.24 0.32 9.78 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component SS607. 15 HP2C 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.66 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 197 DH1517 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.66 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 318 DH2733 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.66 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 321 MV1517 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.66 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component DH1517. 319 MV2733 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.66 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component DH2733. 322 SW1366 0.41 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.05 Functional Analysis Based on Existing Seismic Analysis 161 3562533-R-001 Revision 0 July 14 14 , 2015 Page 2.14 of 2.28 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued) Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL Item # CC5095 0.41 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.05 Functional Analysis Based on Existing Seismic Analysis 341 MV1366 0.41 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.05 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component SW1366. 162 MV5095 0.41 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.05 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component CC5095. 342 MU3 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.66 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 22 MU38 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.66 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 17 SVMU3 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.66 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component MU3. 23 SVMU38 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.66 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component MU38. 18 SV4823 0.31 0.45 0.24 0.38 0.90 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 298 SV4824 0.31 0.45 0.24 0.38 0.90 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 299 DH11 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.66 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 312 3562533-R-001 Revision 0 July 14 14 , 2015 Page 2.15 of 2.28 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued) Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL Item # DH12 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.66 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 313 CF1A 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.66 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 207 CF1B 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.66 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 208 MVDH11 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.66 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component DH11. 314 MVDH12 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.66 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component DH12. 315 MVCF1A 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.66 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component CF1A. 209 MVCF1B 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.66 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component CF1B. 210 SW1381 0.47 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.20 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 165 C31-4 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.66 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component E42-4. 347 3562533-R-001 Revision 0 July 14 14 , 2015 Page 2.16 of 2.28 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued) Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL Item # MC31-4 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.66 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component C31-4. 349 C71-1 0.92 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.34 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 271 C75-1 0.75 0.40 0.26 0.30 1.90 Block Wall New Analysis 352 C78-1 0.75 0.40 0.26 0.30 1.90 Block Wall New Analysis 272 C21-1 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.12 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 285 MC21-1 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.12 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component C21-1. 286 S61-1 0.22 0.45 0.24 0.38 0.63 Functional Analysis Based on Existing Seismic Analysis 288 MS3311 0.22 0.45 0.24 0.38 0.63 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component S61-1. 290 MS61-1 0.22 0.45 0.24 0.38 0.63 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component S61-1. 289 E42-4 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.66 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 346 S33-1 0.61 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.74 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 287 3562533-R-001 Revision 0 July 14 14 , 2015 Page 2.17 of 2.28 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued) Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL Item # MP43-1 0.61 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.74 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component S33-1. 336 C1-1 0.36 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.91 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 157 E37-1 0.36 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.91 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component C1-1. 149 L5701 0.30 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.76 Functional GERS 56 L57D1 0.30 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.76 Functional GERS 57 Y1 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional GERS 103 Y3 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional GERS 105 D1P 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional GERS 84 D1N 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional GERS 94 Y1A 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional GERS 109 D1N01 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component D1N. 95 D1N03 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component D1N. 97 D1N04 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component D1N. 98 3562533-R-001 Revision 0 July 14 14 , 2015 Page 2.18 of 2.28 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued) Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL Item # D1P01 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component D1P. 85 D1P03 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component D1P. 87 D1P07 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component D1P. 89 D1P11 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component D1P. 90 D1P13 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component D1P. 91 D1P20 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component D1P. 92 D1P24 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component D1P. 93 Y101 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component Y1. 107 3562533-R-001 Revision 0 July 14 14 , 2015 Page 2.19 of 2.28 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued) Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL Item # Y108 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component Y1. 110 Y301 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component Y3. 115 Y101A 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component Y1A. 108 Y109A 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component Y1A. 111 YAR 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional GERS 76 YAU 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional GERS 82 YAR04 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component YAR. 77 YAR05 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component YAR. 78 YAR06 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component YAR. 79 3562533-R-001 Revision 0 July 14 14 , 2015 Page 2.20 of 2.28 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued) Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL Item # YAU01 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component YAU. 83 1N 0.76 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.94 Functional GERS 62 1P 0.76 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.94 Functional GERS 61 DBC1N 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.64 Functional GERS 219 DBC1P 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.64 Functional GERS 218 DBC1NA 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.64 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component DBC1N. 222 BBC1NB 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.64 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component DBC1N. 223 DBC1PA 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.64 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component DBC1P. 224 BBC1PB 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.64 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component DBC1P. 225 YV1 0.95 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.42 Functional GERS 99 YV3 0.95 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.42 Functional GERS 101 YVA 0.95 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.42 Functional GERS 81 LTSP9B3 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on Seismic Ruggedness 33 3562533-R-001 Revision 0 July 14 14 , 2015 Page 2.21 of 2.28 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued) Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL Item # FIS1422D 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on Seismic Ruggedness 344 FTHP3C 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on Seismic Ruggedness 200 TS-5261 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on Seismic Ruggedness 296 TS5318 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on Seismic Ruggedness 283 TS5443 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on Seismic Ruggedness 358 TS-5597 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on Seismic Ruggedness 282 TSH5421 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on Seismic Ruggedness 350 TSL5421 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on Seismic Ruggedness 351 TT5443 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on Seismic Ruggedness 356 LSH 1128 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on Seismic Ruggedness 267 LSL 1128 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on Seismic Ruggedness 266 LT1525A 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on Seismic Ruggedness 183 3562533-R-001 Revision 0 July 14 14 , 2015 Page 2.22 of 2.28 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued) Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL Item # PT2000 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on Seismic Ruggedness 181 PTRC2B4 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on Seismic Ruggedness 43 TSH 1483 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on Seismic Ruggedness 345 FTDH2B 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on Seismic Ruggedness 332 LT2787 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on Seismic Ruggedness 264 TT1356 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on Seismic Ruggedness 153 PTSP12B1 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on Seismic Ruggedness 31 TY5443 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on Seismic Ruggedness 359 LTRC14-2 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on Seismic Ruggedness 45 TESP11B1 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on Seismic Ruggedness 26 TIC5443 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on Seismic Ruggedness 357 TE-5443 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on Seismic Ruggedness 355 3562533-R-001 Revision 0 July 14 14 , 2015 Page 2.23 of 2.28 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued) Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL Item # TE-1356 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on Seismic Ruggedness 151 TEIM07M 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on Seismic Ruggedness 41 TE-RC3B5 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on Seismic Ruggedness 38 TE-RC4B2 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on Seismic Ruggedness 35 C3630 1.09 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.77 AnchorageEarthquake Experience Data 47 LIRC14-2 1.09 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.77 AnchorageAssigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component C3630. 46 FYIHP3C1 1.09 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.77 AnchorageAssigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component C3630. 204 C5762 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.10 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 48 C5763 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.10 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 51 C5759 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.10 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 50 C5752 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.10 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 54 3562533-R-001 Revision 0 July 14 14 , 2015 Page 2.24 of 2.28 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued) Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL Item # C5753 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.10 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 206 C5799 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.10 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 52 C5727 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.10 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 60 C5712 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.10 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 53 C5705 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.10 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 369 C5706 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.10 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 370 C5708 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.10 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 371 PISP12B 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.10 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component C5708. 32 TTRC3B5 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.10 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component C5706. 37 TTRC4B2 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.10 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component C5706. 36 3562533-R-001 Revision 0 July 14 14 , 2015 Page 2.25 of 2.28 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued) Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL Item # LISP9B1 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.10 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component C5712. 34 TDI4951 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.10 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component C5799. 40 TI4627 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.10 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component C5799. 39 HISRC2-1 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.10 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component C5705. 214 TTIM7M 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.10 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component C5763. 42 C5752E 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.10 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component C5752. 156 C5752F 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.10 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component C5752. 49 PY2000B 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.10 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component C5762. 178 C5716 0.42 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.19 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 58 3562533-R-001 Revision 0 July 14 14 , 2015 Page 2.26 of 2.28 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued) Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL Item # C5717 0.42 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.19 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 59 C5720 0.42 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.19 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 372 FYIHP3C 0.42 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.19 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component C5716. 203 PI2000 0.42 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.19 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component C5716. 179 PIRC2B4 0.42 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.19 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component C5716. 44 LI1525A 0.42 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.19 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component C5716. 184 TI1356 0.42 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.19 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component C5716. 152 FYIDH2B 0.42 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.19 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component C5716. 333 JY1525A 0.42 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.19 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component C5716. 185 3562533-R-001 Revision 0 July 14 14 , 2015 Page 2.27 of 2.28 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued) Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL Item # JY2000 0.42 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.19 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component C5716. 180 LI2787B 0.42 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.19 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component C5720. 265 C4601 0.28 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.71 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 55 C3628 1.16 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.95 Functional Earthquake Experience Data 205 FYHP3C1 1.16 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.95 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component C3628. 201 FYHP3C2 1.16 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.95 Functional Assigned by Rule of the Box. Parent Component C3628. 202 C4607 0.27 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.67 AnchorageNew Analysis 215 C3019 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on Seismic Ruggedness 164 E22-1 0.30 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.76 AnchorageAnalysis Based on Existing Seismic Analysis 337 E27-1 0.40 0.35 0.24 0.26 0.90 AnchorageAnalysis Based on Existing Seismic Analysis 331 T10 0.34 0.35 0.24 0.26 0.77 AnchorageNew Analysis 182 3562533-R-001 Revision 0 July 14 14 , 2015 Page 2.28 of 2.28 Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued) Equipment ID HCLPF C R U A m Failure Mode Fragility Method ESEL Item # T12 0.44 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.12 AnchorageNew Analysis 334 T46-1 0.57 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.45 AnchorageNew Analysis 263 T153-1 0.91 0.35 0.24 0.26 2.07 AnchorageNew Analysis 270 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