Latest revision as of 17:25, 12 October 2018

Text

Firstenergy Nuclear Operating Co., Enclosure a to L-14-120 - 2734294-R-017, Rev. 1, NTTF 2.1 Seismic Hazard and Screening Report, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1, Beaver County, Pennsylvania.
	ML14090A146
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	03/20/2014
From:	; ABS Consulting
To:	; FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML14090A143	List: L-14-120, Firstenergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) Seismic Hazard and Screening Report (CEUS Sites), Response to NRC Request for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Review of In; ML14090A144; ML14090A145; ML14090A146; ML14090A148;
References
	L-14-120 2734294-R-017, Rev 1
	Download: ML14090A146 (86)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:Enclosure A L-14-120NTTF 2.1 Seismic Hazard and Screening Reportfor Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 1 Beaver County, Pennsylvania(85 pages follow) ABSGonsultingPaul C, Riz:o Aure-i*tes, lnc,EI\ 6tNftERS /Ct)NSUt_TA.a{TS tCM 2734294-R-017 Revision 1NTTF 2,1 Seismic Hazard and Screening ReportBeaver Valley Power Station Unit 1 Beaver Gounty, PennsylvaniaMarch 20,2014 Prepared for:FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating GompanyABSG Consulting Inc . 300 Commerce Drive. Suite 200 ' lrvine, California 92602 2734294-R-017 Reaision L March 20, 20L4 Page 2 of 56 REVISION l REPORT NTTF 2.1 SEISMIC H.AZARD AND SCREENING REPORT BEAVERVALLEY POWER STATION UNIT 1 BEAVER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIAABSG CONSULTING INC. RNPONT NO. 2734294.R.017 RnvrsroN 1 Pno.rncr No. R10 12-4735 M^q.ncH 2012014ABSG CoxsuLTrNG INc.P^Aur, C.Rlzzo AssocrATESo INC.AESGonsulting rct S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q ReportFile\R-O17\R1U7Y294-R417, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-0L7 Reaision 1, March 20, 2014Page 3 of 56Report Name: Date: Revision No.: Originators: Independent Technical Reviewer: Jeffrey K. Kimball Principal Seismologist I :r Jl-r , r ln\ {\ \--{ ill\r ,' ,,ll'.I li: L Digitally signed by Jose E Blanco Beltran DN: cn=Jose E Blanco Beltran, o=Paul C Rizzo Associates, ou=Seismic, srnsil=jsse.blanco@rizzoassoc.com, c=USDate: 201 4.03.20 1 6:30:10 -04'00'APPROVALS NTTF 2.1 SeismicHazard and Screening Report Beaver Valley Power Station Unit I Beaver County, Pennsylv anra March 20,2014 1Approval by the responsible man ager signifies that the document is complete, all requiredreviews are complete, and the document is released for use.Josd E. Blanco, Ph.D. Technical Director Digitally signed by Richard QuittmeyerDN: cn=Richard Quittmeyer, o=Paul C. Rizzo-- '- ' Associates, Inc., ou=Seismology, email=richard.quittmeyer@rizzoassoc'com, c=USDate: 201 4.03.20 I 6:l 9:40 -04'00'0312012014 Date 0312012014 Date 0312012014 Date a312012014 Date 0312012014 Date a312012014 Date Nishikant R. Vaidya, Ph.D., P.E.Vice President - Advanced Engineering Projects T{ I \r DigitallysignedbyNishikantvaidya j*1. 'r*t^ Y c*ay1- ll-;l Hlf.::1",f#::;:;1;:ff:^"*"'*' q ;:,1i;il#'iJ13,1'.,Tssocrem'c=us Digitally signed by Richard Quittmeyer DN: cn=Richard Quittmeyer, o=Paul C. Rizzo-' Associates, Inc., ou=Seismology, emai l=richard.quittmeyer@rizzoassoc.com, c=UsDate: 201 4.03.20 1 6:20:05 -04'00'Richard C. Quittmeyer, Ph.D.Vice President - Seismology Nr*t u*tT Project Manager: Nishikant R. Vaidya, Ph.D., P.E.Approver: Digitally signed by Nishikant VaidyaDN: cn=Nishikant Vaidya, o=Paul C. Rizzo Associates, ou=V.P. Advanced Engineering Projects, email=nish.vaidya@rizzoassoc.com, c=U5 Date: 2014.03.20 16:41:42 -04'00'Vice President - Advanced Engineering ProjectsR. Roche, Vice PresidentS:\Locaf\Pubs\2734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\3.1Q Report File\R-O17\R1\2734294-R417, Rev. 1.docx AESGonsulting 2734294-R-017 Reaision L March 20, 201.4 Page 4 of 56 Report Name: Revision No.: CHANGE MANAGEMBNT RECORI)NTTF 2.1 SeismrcHazard and Screening Report Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 1 Beaver County, Pennsylv anra 1 Rnvrsrolr No.D.q.rB DnscntprloNs oF CHlNcps/AnnncrnD P,q,cns PBNSON AUTUONIZING CH.tNcB AppRov^Ll,l 0March 6.2014 Orieinal lssue N/A N/A 1 March 20,2014 Incorporate NEI FinalTemplate, CDF Letterand FENOC Comments DEbrt qndry{tshk d va4.Nr;u v-'1r lliti#iiji;

l:!;,.".,",".,.,-*

Nishikant R.Vaidya.."-\,k-- i\'7._) 'Thomas R. Roche Note: tPerson authorizing change shall sign here for the latest revision.S:\Locaf\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-O17\R1\2734294-R417, Rev. 'l .docx lBsGonsrlting 2734294-R-017 Reaision 1 March 20, 20L4Pase 5 of 56 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE LIST OF TABLES .......7 LIST OF FIGURES ............8 LIST OF ACRONYMS .....9 I.O INTRODUCTION ........I31 .1 Surrlvnny oF Ltcr,NstNG BASIS. .-..141.2 Surrlvnny oF Gnouqo MorroN RpspoNsE SPECTRUM AND ScRnnNtNG RESULTS ....... .............14 2.0 1.3 ORcaNrzATIoN oF THts Rnponr. ........15 SEISMICHAZARD REEVALUATION .....162.I REctoNnL AND LocRt- cEoLocY ........... ..........162.2 PnogA.etLISTIC SEtstr,ttc HRznRn ANnlvsls .... ..-...........17 2.3 2.2.1 Probabilistic Seismic HazardAnalysis Results ...........-.17 2.2.2 Base Rock Seismic Hazard Curves .........18 Srrp RsspoNsp EvaluATIoN ......-........20

2.3.1 Description

of Subsurface Materials and Properties...........-.......21

2.3.2 Development

of Base Case Profiles and Non-Linear Material Properties ........... "'24 2.3.3 Randomization of Base Case Profiles ........-....31

2.3.4 Input

Fourier Amplitude Spectra........... ...............-32 2.3.5 Site Response Methodology .....""""'33

2.3.6 Amplification

Factors ....."..'33 4.0 2.4 CoNrnoL PoINr Sptsvttc Hnznno Cunvps .....39 2.5 CoNrnol Pomr RpspoNsE SPECTRUM ........ ...-41PLANT DESIGN BASIS GROLTND MOTION........ ................443.1 SSE DpscntprtoN oF SPECTRAL SHnps ..-...-...-44 3.2 SSE CoNrnol Ponr ElevRuoN........ ..-..45 SCREENING EVALUATION ................46 4.1 Rtsr EvaluarloN ScnssNINc (l ro l}Hz) -...46 4.2 HIcu FnBQuBNcY ScnnENING (> l0 Hz)...-... ...46 3.0 ABSGonsuEing rCR S:\Locaf\Pubs\2734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\3.1Q Report File\R417\R19734294-R417, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-01.7 Reaision 7 March 20, 201'4 5.0 4.3 SpeNr Fus,L Pool EvalunrloN ScnppNtNG (1 ro I }Hz) ...47INTERIM ACTIONS..... ........485.1 NTTF 2.3 War.KDowNS ........495.2 IPEEE DESCRIPTION AND CAPACITY RESPONSE SPECTRUM......... ........49 CONCLUSIONS .........52 REFERENCES ........53Pase 6 of 56 NTTF 2.I SITE RESPONSE ANALYSIS BVPS-I SITE EVALUATION OF BVPS-I IPEEE SUBMITTAL REACTOR BUILDING MEAN AND FRACTILE SEISMIC HAZARD CURVES - BVPS.I SITE 6.0 7.0 APPENDICES: APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C AF$Gonsulting rct S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-O17\R1\27U294-R417, Rev. 1.docx 734294-R-01.7 Reaision 1 March 20, 20L4 Page 7 of 56TABLB NO.TABLE 2.1TABLE 2.2TABLE 2-3TABLE 2.4 TABLE 2-5TABLE 2-6TABLE 2-7TABLE 3.I TABLE 5.1LIST OF TABLES TITLB PAGEMEAN SEISMICHAZARD AT HARD ROCK BVPS-I SITE ................20SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY AND UNITTHICKNESSES AT THE BVPS-I SITE ..............24 CHARACTERISTICS OF SUBSURFACESTRATIGRAPHIC UNITS . BVPS.I SITE .....26BASE CASE Vs PROFILES, BVPS-I SITE ....29KAPPA VALUES AND WEIGHTS USED IN SITERESPONSE ANALYSIS .......31BVPS.I MEAN CONTROL POINT SEISMICHAZARDAT SELECTED SPECTRAL FREQUENCIES...... ........40BVPS.I 5%-DAMPED UHRS AND GMRS AT THE SSE CONTROL POINT..... ....42SSE HORIZONTAL GROUND MOTION RESPONSESPECTRUM FOR BVPS-I ........... ......44HORIZONTAL IHS FOR BVPS-I ........... .,......50 ABSCottsulting rCR S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\3.1Q Report File\R-O17\R1t27U294-R417 , Rev. 1 .docx 2734294-R-0L7 Reoision L March 20,201.4 Page 8 of 56 FIGURE NO.FIGURE 2.1 FIGURE 2-2 FIGURE 2.3 FIGURE 2-4 FIGURE 2-5 FIGURE 2,6 FIGURE 2.7 FIGURE 3.IFIGURE 5.I LIST OF FIGURES TITLE PAGE BVPS-I MEAN SEISMICHAZARD AT HARD ROCK............19 STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN LINDERLYING THE BVPS-I SITE ...............23BASE CASE Vs PROFILES, BVPS-I SITE ....28BVPS.I SITE AMPLIFICATION FACTORS, BASE-CASE PROFILE (PI), EPRI ROCK G/GMAX AND DAMPING, KAPPA 1, l.CORNER SOURCE MODEL.............35 BVPS-I SITE AMPLIFICATION FACTORS, BASE.CASE PROFILE (PI), LINEAR ROCK G/GMAX AND DAMPING, KAPPA 1, I-CORNER SOURCE MODEL .............37 BVPS-I MEAN CONTROL POINT SEISMTCHAZARDAT SELECTED SPECTRAL FREQUENCIES........... ...40 CONTROL POINT UNIFORM HAZARD RESPONSE SPECTRA AT MEAN ANNUAL FREQUENCIES OFEXCEEDANCE OF 1XIO-4 AND IXIO-s, AND GROUND MOTION RESPONSE SPECTRUM AT BVPS.I........ ......43 BVPS-I SAFE SHUTDOWN EARTHQUAKE 5%-DAMPED RESPONSE SPECTRA .....45 BVPS-I SSE AND IPEEE HCLPF SPECTRA ...............51 fBBConsulting rc" S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.'lQ Report File\R417\R1\27U294-R417, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-017 Reuision 1 March 20, 201.4Page 9 of 56 2D AF AHEX BE BVPS BVPS-1 BVPS.2 CDF CEUS CEUS-SSC COV DBE DF ECC_AM EL EPRI ERM.N ERM.S FENOC FSAR ft ft/s g GMM GMRS HCLPF HZ LIST OFACRONYMS TWO-DIMENTIONAL AMPLIFICATION FACTOR ATLANTIC HIGHLY EXTENDED CRUST BEST ESTIMATE BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATIONBEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION UNIT I BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION UNIT 2 CORE DAMAGE FREQUENCY CENTRAL AND EASTERN UNITED STATES CENTRAL AND EASTERN UNITED STATES SEISMIC SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION COEFFICIENT OF VARIATIONDESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE DESIGN FACTOR EXTENDED CONTINENTAL CRUST - ATLANTIC MARGIN ELEVATION ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE EASTERN RIFT MARGIN FAULT NORTHERN SEGMENT EASTERN RIFT MARGIN FAULT SOUTHERN SEGMENTFIRSTENERGY NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANYFINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FEET FEET PER SECOND GRAVITY GROLIND MOTION MODEL GROLIND MOTION RESPONSE SPECTRUMHIGH CONFIDENCE OF LOW PROBABILITY OF FAILURE HERTZ ABSGotpulting rctS:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-O17\R1\2734294-R417, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-0L7 Reaision 1 March 20, 2014 Page 10 of 56 IBEB IEPRA IHS IPEEE ISRS km km/s LR M MAF'E MESE.N MESE-W MIDC_A MIDC-B MIDC-C MIDC-D MMI MWr NAP NEI NMESE.N NMESE-W NMFS NPP NRC NSSS NTTF NUREG NUREGiCRLIST OF ACRONYMS (coNTINUED) ILLINOIS BASIS EXTENDED BASEMENT INTERNAL EVENTS PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENTIPEEE HCLPF SPECTRUMINDIVIDUAL PLANT EXAMINATION OF E,XTERNAL EVENTS IN.STRUCTURE RESPONSE SPECTRA KILOMETERS KILOMETER PER SECOND LOWER RANGE MAGNITUDE MEAN ANNUAL FREQUENCY EXCEEDANCEMESOZOIC AND YOUNGER EXTENDED CRUST _NARROWMESOZOIC AND YOUNGER EXTENDED CRUST _ WIDE MIDCONTINENT-CRATON ALTERNATIVE A MIDCONTINENT.CRATON ALTERNATIVE B MIDCONTINENT-CRATON ALTERNATIVE C MIDCONTINENT-CRATON ALTERNATIVE DMODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITYMEGA WATTS THERMAL NORTHERN APPALACHIANS NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE NON-MESOZOIC AND YOUNGER EXTENDED CRUST _NARROW NON.MESOZOIC AND YOUNGER EXTENDED CRUST - WIDENEW MADRID FAULT SYSTEM NUCLEAR POWER PLANTUNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONNUCLEAR STEAM SUPPLY SYSTEMNEAR.TERM TASK FORCE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION TECHNICAL REPORT NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CONTRACTOR REPORT ABSConsulting rct S:\Local\Pubs\27A294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-O17\R1\2734294-R417, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-017 Reaision 7 March 2A, 20L4 Page 11 of 56 OBE PEZ-N PEZ_W PGA PRA PSHA RB RG RLE RLME RR RR.RCG RVT S SER SEWS SLR SMA SPID SPRA SPT SQUG SRSS SSC SSE SSEL SSI STUDY-R s&w LIST OF ACRONYMS (coNTTNUED) OPERATING BASIS EARTHQUAKEPALEOZOIC EXTENDED CRUST NARROW PALEOZOIC EXTENDED CRUST WIDE PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENTPROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSISREACTOR BUILDINGREGULATORY GUIDEREVIEW LEVEL EARTHQUAKEREPEAT LARGE MAGNITUDE EARTHQUAKEREELFOOT RIFTREELFOOT RIFT INCLUDING THE ROUGH CREEK GRABENRANDOM VIBRATION THEORY SECONDSSAFETY EVALUATION REPORT SEISMIC EVALUATION WORKSHEETS ST. LAWRENCE RIFT ZONESEISMIC MARGIN ASSESSMENTSCREENING, PRIORITIZATION, AND IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS SEISMIC PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SEISMIC QUALIFICATION UTILITY GROUPSQUARE.ROOT OF THE SUM OF THE SQUARESSYSTEM, STRUCTURE, AND COMPONENTSSAFE SHUTDOWN EARTHQUAKESAFE SHUTDOWN EQUIPMENT LISTSOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTIONSTUDY REGIONSTONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING COORPORATION AFSConsulting rce S:\Locaf\Pubs\2734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\3.1Q Report File\R417\R1\27U294-R417 , Rev. 1 .docx 2734294-R-017 Reaision'L March 20, 20'14 Page 1.2 of 56 UHRS UFSAR UR vp V,LIST OF ACRONYMS (coNTTNUED) UNIFORM HAZARD RESPONSE SPECTRA UPDATED SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT UPPER RANGE PRESSURE WAVE VELOCITY SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY fESGonsulting rCQ S:\Locaf\Pubs\2734294 FENOC EeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-O17\R1\27U294-R417, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-0L7 Reuision'1, March 20, 2014 Page 13 of 56 NTTF 2.1 SEISMIC IiIAZARD AND SCREENING REPORT BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION UNIT 1 BEAVER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Following the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) resulting from the March ll,20l 1, Great Tohoku Earthquake and subsequent tsunami, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) established a Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) to conduct asystematic review of NRC processes and regulations, and to determine if the agency shouldmake additional improvements to its regulatory system. The NTTF' developed a set ofrecommendations intended to clarify and strengthen the regulatory framework for protectionagainst natural phenomena. Subsequently, the NRC issued a 50.54(f) letter (NRC, 2012a) thatrequests information to assure that these recommendations are addressed by all United States NPPs. The 50.54(f) letter requests that licensees and holders of construction permits under 10 CFR Part 50 reevaluate the seismichazards at their sites against present-day NRC requirements. Depending on the comparison between the reevaluated seismic hazard and the current designbasis, the result is either no further risk evaluation or the performance of a seismic risk assessment. Risk assessment approaches acceptable to the NRC staff include a seismic probabilistic risk assessment (SPRA), or a seismic margin assessment (SMA). Based upon the risk assessment results. the NRC staff will determine whether additional regulatory actions are necessary. This Reportprovides the information requested in Items I throughT of the "Requested Information" section and Attachment 1 of the 50.54(f) letter (NRC, 2012a) pertaining to NTTF Recommendation 2.1 for the Beaver Valley Power Station Unit I (BVPS-l). The BVPS-I is located in Shippingport Borough on the south bank of the Ohio River in Beaver County. The Site is approximately one mile from Midland, Pennsylvania, five miles from East Liverpool, Ohio, and approximately 25 miles from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. BVPS-l includes a pressurized water reactor Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) and turbine generator furnished by Westinghouse Electric Corporation. The balance of the unit was designed and constructed by S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q ReportFile\R-017\R19734294-R417, Rev. 1.docx ABSGonsulting 2734294-R-0L7 Reaision 1March 20, 2014Page L4 of 56 the Licensee, with the assistance of their agent, Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (S&W). The nominal NSSS power level for BVPS-I is set at 2,910 Mega Watts Thermal (MWl. The initial fuel load commenced in February , 197 6 and commercial operation was achieved in September, 1976.In providing the information contained here, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC)has followed the guidance provided in the Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Screening, Prioritization, and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic (Electric Power Research Institute [EPRI]' 2013a).The Augmented Approach, Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Augmented Approachfor the Resolution of Fukushima Ir{TTF Recommendation 2.1: Seismic (EPRI, 2013b), has beendeveloped as the process for evaluating critical plant equipment as an interim action to demonstrate additional plant safety margin prior to performing the complete plant seismic riskevaluation, if required.Reference is made to FENOC's Partial Submittal (FENOC,2013a) summarizingthe Site geologic and geotechnical information. The "Description of Subsurface Materials and Properties," and the "Development of Base-Case Profiles and Nonlinear Material Properties" presented in FENOC, (2013a), are repeated here for completeness.

1.1 Sunnmnnv

oF LICENSING BlstsThe original geologic and seismic siting investigations for BVPS- 1 were performed in accordance with Appendix A to l0 CFR Part 100 and meet General Design Criterion 2 inAppendix A to 10 CFR Part 50. The Safe Shutdown Earthquake ground motion (SSE) wasdeveloped in accordance with Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 and used for the design of seismicCategory I systems, structures, and components (SSCs). The Category I SSCs are identified inTable 8.1-l of Appendix B of the Updated Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) (FENOC, 2011).1.2 Sunnnn,q.ny oF GRouND MorroN Rnspollsn SpECTRUM AND ScnnnnING RESULTSIn response to the 50.54(f) letter and following the guidance provided in the SPID (EPRI 1025287,2012), a seismic hazard reevaluation was performed. For screening pu{poses, a horizontal Ground Motion Response Spectrum (GMRS) was developed. Based on the results ofS:\Locaf\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-O17\R1\2734294-R417, Rev. 1.docx AB$Consulting 1.3 2734294-R-017 Reaision 1 March 20,201.4 Page 15 of 56the screening evaluation, BVPS- 1 screens in for risk evaluation, a Spent Fuel Pool evaluation, and a High Frequency Confirmation. In the I to l0Hertz(Ht) part of the response spectrum, the GMRS exceeds the horizontal SSE and above l0 Hzthe GMRS also exceeds the horizontal SSE.Onc,rNIzATIoN oF THIS Rnponr The remainder of this Report is organized as follows: Section 2 provides the Seismic Hazard Reevaluation that was performed for the BVPS Site, including the probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) for hard rock site conditions, the site response evaluation, seismichazard at the SSE control point, and the derivation of the horizontal GMRS. The discussion in Section 2 applies to both Units 1 and 2 ofthe BVPS. Section 3 provides a summary of the BVPS-I SSE ground motion. Section y' provides the screening evaluation, including a comparison between the GMRS and SSE, and the screening evaluation outcome. Section 5 describes interim actions completed for BVPS-I, and Section 6 provides conclusions. Gonsulting rC?S:\Locaf\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R417\R1\273/'294-R417, Rev. 1.docx ABS 2734294-R-0L7 Reaision 1, March 20, 20L4Page 16 of 56

2.0 SEISMIC

HAZARD REEVALUATIONThe BVPS-I is located in Shippingport Borough on the south bank of the Ohio River in BeaverCounty, Pennsylvania. The Ohio River Valley is an erosional, flat-bottomed, and steep-walledvalley. The bedrock of Pennsylvanian age is a sequence of flat-lying shale and sandstone strataoccasionally inter-bedded with coal seams. It is overlain by about 100 feet (ft) thick alluvial granular terraces that formed during the Pleistocene. Plant grade is elevation (EL) 735 ft and thetop of bedrock is at approximate EL 625 ft.The Site area is located in a region with a low rate of seismicity. Historically, no earthquake ofepicentral Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) V, or greater, has occurred within 80 miles of theSite. The Site has experienced vibratory ground motion as a result of regional and distantearthquakes, most notably the I 8 I I - 12 earthquake sequence at New Madrid, Missouri, and the 1886 earthquake at Charleston, South Carolina.Category I SSCs are designed for a safe shutdown following SSE ground motions associatedwith horizontal zero-period acceleration of 12.5 percent gravity (0.125g) at the rock surface at foundation level.RncIoNAL AND Locll GEoLocYThe Beaver Valley Power Station (BVPS) is located in an unglaciated area on sand and graveldeposits along the Ohio River, west of Pittsburgh and a few miles east of the Pennsylvania -Ohio border. Physiographically, the Site is located in the Appalachian Plateau Province. The bedrock in thearea is the Allegheny Formation of Pennsylvanian Age. It consists of approximately two-thirdsshale and one-third sandstone with several interbedded coal seams and a thin bed of fossiliferousVanport limestone.The stratigraphic materials underlying the bedrock are characterized by various sedimentary sequences of Mississippian, Devonian, Silurian, Ordovician, and Precambrian age, consisting of 2.1S:\Locaf\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-O17\R1\2734294-R417, Rev. 1.docx AESGonsuEing 2734294-R-01_7 Reaision 1, March 20, 2014 Page 1.7 of 56 shales, interbedded sandstones, siltstones and dolomites, and limestone. These rocks overlie thePrecambrian basement at a depth of approximately I 1,000 ft.Structurally, the bedrock is generally flat lying. It has a regional dip of approximately 15 to 20 feet per mile to the south and southeast with low amplitude anticlines and synclines. The regional dip and structure were imposed by orogenic movements that formed the Appalachian Mountains, about 100 miles southeast of the Site, at the close of the Paleozoic Era.2.2 PRon,q,n[rsrrc Susnnlc Hazann Annlvsls2.2.1 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analvsis ResultsIn accordance with the 50.54(f) letter (NRC, 2012a) and following the guidance in the SPID (EPRI, 2013a), a PSHA was completed using the recently developed Central and Eastern UnitedStates Seismic Source Characterization (CEUS-SSC) for Nuclear Facilities (EPRI/DOEAtrRC,2012). The PSHA uses a minimum moment magnitude cutoff of 5.0 forhazard integration, asspecified in the 50.54(0 letter (NRC, 2012a).The CEUS-SSC model consists of distributed seismicity sources and repeated large magnitude earthquake (RLME) sources. Distributed seismicity sources are characterized following two approaches: the M*u* approach and the seismotectonic approach.The BVPS-I PSHA accounts forthe CEUS-SSC distributed seismicity source zones out to atleast adistance of 400 miles (640 kilometers [km]) aroundthe BVPS-I. This distance exceeds the 200 mile (320 km) recommendation contained in NRC (2007) and was chosen for completeness. Distributed seismicity source zones included in this Site PSHA are the following: o Mesozoic and younger extended crust - naffow and wide (MESE-N and MESE-W). Non-Mesozoic and younger extended crust - narrow and wide (NMESE-Nand NMESE-W)Study Region (STUDY_R)Atlantic Highly Extended Crust (AHEX)Northern Appalachians (NAP)a o Gortsulting rctS:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC EeaverValley\3.1Q Repori File\R417\R1\27U294-R417, Rev. 1.docx rB$ 2734294-R-41.7Reaision 1 March 20, 2014 Page 18 of 56 St. Lawrence Rift, including the Ottawa and Saguenay grabens (SLR)Extended Continental Crust - Atlantic Margin (ECC_AM)Illinois Basin Extended Basement (IBEB)Midcontinent-Craton (MIDC_A, MIDC_B, MID_C, and MID-D)Paleozoic Extended Crust - naffow and wide (PEZ_N and PEZ-W)Reelfoot Rift (RR and RR-RCG)RLME seismic sources within or near 1.000 km from the Site are included in the PSHA as follows: Charlevoix CharlestonNew Madrid Fault System (NMFS)Eastern Rift Margin Fault - northern and southern segments (ERM-N and ERM_S)Marianna ZoneCommerce FaultWabash ValleyFor each of the above distributed seismicity and RLME sources, the mid-continent version of the updated EPRI Ground Motion Model (GMM) was used (EPRI, 2013c).2.2.2 Base Rock Seismic Hazard CurvesWhile the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) does not require that base rock seismic hazard curves be provided, they are included here as background information. These were developed by FENOC as part of an on-going SPRA effort. Figure 2-I and Table 2-I present the mean hard-rock hazard curves at the BVPS-I Site resulting from the PSHA. Thehazard curves show the meanannual frequency of exceedance (MAFE) for spectral acceleration at the seven response spectral frequencies (100 Hz, 25 Hz, l0 Hz, 5 H2,2.5 Hz, I Hz, and 0.5 Hz), for which the updated EPRI GMM (2013c) is defined. o o a a o ABSGonsulting rct S:\Local\PubsV7U294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-O17\R1\2734294-R417, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-017 Reaision L March 20, 2014 Page L9 of 561. E-01, L.E-021. E-031. E-04L. E-05 1. E-061. E-071. E-08 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 Spectral Acceleration (g)FIGURE 2-IBVPS.I MEAN SEISMIC HAZARD AT HARD ROCKConsistent with the SPID (EPRI,20I3a),Approach 3 ofNuclear Regulatory CommissionContractor Report (NUREG/CR-6728) (McGuire et a1.,2001) is used to calculate the seismichazardcurves at the SSE control point elevation (the base of the Reactor Building [RB]foundation). This method uses the median and log standard deviation of the site amplification factors (AF) developed as described in Section 2.3. The control point hazard curves are presented in Section 2.4.4.fr, tr o=CT o L U-o L'glU T'o o (, x UJ-lu=tr g g IU o ,r .0.5 HZ- . 1,.0 HZ ,re

2.5 Hz-'-5.0H2 rn ,n 10 HZiE {n {-. 25 HZ (- 100 Hz S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\3 1Q Report File\R-O17\R1U734294-R417, Rev 1 docx AE$

2734294-R-017Reaision 1 March 20, 201-4Page 20 of 56 TABLE 2-TMEAN SEISMICHAZARD AT HARD ROCK BVPS-I SITB 2.3Srrn RnspoNSE EvALUATToNCategory I structures of the BVPS-I are founded in the Pleistocene Upper and Lower Terraceunit at elevations varying from 680.9 ft for the RB to 703 ft for the Control Building to about 735 ft for the Diesel Generator Building. The Pleistocene Upper and Lower Terrace unit is characteizedby a shear-wave velocity (Vr) of about 1,100 to 1,200 feet per second (ft/s).Following the guidance contained in Seismic Enclosure l, of the March 12,2012,50.54(f) fFSGqreulting rce GnouNoMortoN LEvrL lsl ME.q.N AnNunl FRnounNcy oF ExcnnuANCE non SpncrRAL FnnQunNcv 0.5 Hz I}Iz 2.5IJ2 5IIzlA Hz 25Hz l00Hz 0.011.058-032.10E-03 4.678 -03 6.628-03 7.538-03 6.17F'03 3.01E-03 0.02 2.598 -04 5.58E-04 1.36E-03 2.38E-03 3.20E-03 2.848-03 l.l4E-03 0.03 9.178-05 2.09F,-04 5.91E-04 1.21F,-03 1.82E-03 1.73F.03 6.348-04 0.04 4.028-05 9.64E-05 3.178-04 1.28F,-04 l.l9E-03I . t 8E-03 4.168 -04 0.05 2.048-45 5.14E-05 1.948-04 4.868-04 8.41E-04 8.678-04 2.998-04 0.06 l.l5E-05 3.058-05 l.3lE-04 3.48E-04 6.30E-04 6.698-04 2.29E-04 0.07 7.0 r E-06 1.96E-05 9.338-05 2.628-04 4.918-04 5.358-04 l.g2E-040.084.57F-061.348-05 6.99E-05 2.05F,-04 3.948-04 4.408 -04 1.498-04 0.09 3.lsE-06 9.668-06 5.43E-05 t.648-04 3.258-04 3.70F,-04 r.258-04 0.10 2.27F-06 7.24E-06 4.33E-05 1.35E-04 2.728-043 .16E -04 1.06E-04 0.20 3.20F-07 1.278-06 1.00E-05 3.71E-05 8.46E-05I .l0E-04 3.57E-05 0.25 1.84E-07 7.49E-01 6.238-06 2.428 -05 5.17F-05 7.81E-05 2.458 -05 0.30 I.r9E-07 4.908-07 4.2tF-06 1.70E-05 4.21E -05 5.86E-05 1.78E-05 0.40 6.05E-08 2.508-07 2.238-06 9.628-06 2.538-05 3.69E-05 1.06E-05 0.50 3.57E-08 1.478-07 1.348-06 6.05E-06 1.68E-05 2.55E-05 6.87E-060.602.30E-089.39E-08 8.738-07 4.09E-06 1.19E-05 1.878-05 4.7 5E-060.701.58E-08 6.38E-08 6.028-07 2.918-06 8.78E-06 1.43E-05 3.428-06 0.80 l.l3E-08 4.548-08 4.338-07 2.14F,-06 6.728-06 l.l2E-05 2.558-06 0.90 8.36E-09 3.33E-08 3.228-07 1.628-06 s.278-06 9.03E-06 r.95E-06 1.00 6.36E-09 2.528 -08 2.458-07 1.268 -06 4.2t8-06I .398 -06 t.52F-062.009.20E- 10 3.41E-09 3.s4E-08 2.01F-07 8.268 -07 1.728-06 2.42E-07 3.00 2.61F-10 9.248-10 9.86E-09 5.93E-08 2.7 4F,-07 6.38E-07 6.8sE-08 5.00 4.60E-11 1.538-10 1.668-09 r.08E-08 5.67E-08 1.54F,-07 l.l3E-08S:\Local\Pubs\27%294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-O17\R1\2734294-R-O17, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-01-7 Reaision 1.March 20, 2014 Page 21. of 56 Request for Information (NRC, 2012a) and in the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) forNPPs that are not sitedon hard rock (defined as 2.83 kilometers per second [km/s]), a site response analysis was performed for BVPS-I Site. The following sections describe the various inputs to the site response analysis. These inputs are summarized in Appendix A.2.3.1 Description of Subsurface Materials and Properties The site stratigraphy presented here is based in part gn site-specific geotechnical investigations reported in the UFSAR (FENOC.,20ll, Section2.6.2 and Appendix 2E). Thirty-five dry sampleborings at the Shippingport Power Station were supplemented by 30 additional borings at theBVPS. These included 10 dry sample borings on the high tenace, and the remaining boringslocated in the intermediate and low terrace materials. All borings penetrated approximately 20 ftinto bedrock. The geologic profile below the reported subsurface investigation depth is based onthe analysis of formation tops and bottoms from available deep well logs in the vicinity of the Site (within about 7 miles), obtained from the Pennsylvania Geological Survey. This issupplemented by information from West Virginia and Ohio Geological Surveys, as well as the UFSAR.The terrace deposits in the Site areaare characterized by three levels: high, intermediate, and low. The low terrace is the most recent, where the upper alluvial deposit is composed of brown silty clay approximately 20to 30 ft thick. The intermediate terrace consists of medium clays extending to about EL 660 ft. The oldest, high terrace is the most abundant deposit at the plantlocation. The terrace materials in the plant area(high terrace deposits) consist of unconsolidatedand stratified sand and gravel outwash derived from the melting of glacial ice at the end ofPleistocene time. The surface sand and gravel layer is underlain by relatively dense andincompressible sand and gravel extending down to bedrock at approximately EL 625 ft. Majorstructures of the plant are founded in the high terrace sands and gravel either directly or oncompacted backfill. Thin deposits of mud, silt, and sand deposited by flood water on the Ohio River and tributary streams overlay the terrace sands and gravel.The subsurface materials properties summarized here are based on the geotechnicalinvestigations described in the UFSAR. The borings in the intermediate and low terrace materials retrieved undisturbed samples of surface clays and silts for physical testing. However,no samples were obtained in the high terrace materials. The properties for these materials are S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-017\R1\2734294-R4'17, Rev. 1.docx lBSGonsulting 2734294-R-0L7 Reaision 1, March 20, 20L4Page 22 of 56based on Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow counts and in-situ geophysical measurements. Properties of the bedrock material are based on both laboratory tests and in-situ geophysical measurements.Figure 2-2 presents the stratigraphic soil/rock column underlying the Site, and Table 2-2 presents the stratigraphy, identifying unit boundary elevations and depths as estimated from the subsurface investigations reported in the UFSAR and available well logs in the Site vicinity.Due to the relative proximity of the deep wells to the Site, the unit lithologies and depthsencountered in those wells can be reliablv assumed to be similar to those below the Site.AESGqrsulting rCRS:\Locaf\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q ReportFile\R417\R19734294-R417, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-017 Reuision L March 20, 2014Page 23 of 56 (1). Pleistocene: upperterrace: unconsolidated sand and gravel with varying amounts of clay and silt. Lowerterrace: 3G40'of silt and clay with sand and gravel overlying gravels (2). Middle Pennsylvanian Allegheny Group: gray shale with interbedded sandstones, coal seams, underclays and a limestone bed (3). Lower Pennsylvanian Pottsville Group: sandstoneand conglomerate ( ). Upper Mississippian Mauch Chunk Formation: redshale with sandstone '(5). Lower Mississippian Pocono Group: sandstone andconglomerate w/ shale (6). Upper Devonian undivided: interbedded shale,sandstone and siltstone, (Equivalent to the Ohio Shale)(7). Middle Devonian Tully Limestone (8). Middle Devonian Mahantango shale (9). Middle Devonian Marcellus Shale (10). Middle Devonian Onondaga Group (Eqv. to Needmore shale/ Selinsgrove Limestone ): limestonesand dolomites (11). Lower Devonian Ridgeley (Oriskany) sandstone (12). Lower Devonian Helderberg Formation: limestone/shaf e (13). Upper Silurian Bass lsland Group: dolomite and limestone (la). Upper Silurian Salina Group/Tonoloway Formation:dolomite and limestone (15). Upper Silurian Wells Creek Formation: shale (16). Middle Silurian Lockport dolomite (17). Middle Silurian Rochester Shale (18). Middle Silurian Rose Hill formation:shale with sandstone (19). Lower Silurian Tuscarora Formation: sandstone with conglomerate (20). Upper Ordovician Queenston Formation: shale, siltstone and sandstone (21). Upper Ordovician Reedsville Shale (22). Middle Ordovician Utica Shale (23). Middle Ordovician Trenton Group (Black River (24). Middle Ordovician Gull River and GlenwoodFormations: limestone and dolomite (25). Lower Ordovician Beekmantown Group: dolomite (26). Upper Cambrian Gatesburg Formation: dolomiteand dolomitic sandstone (27). Middle Cambrian Rome Formation: dolomite (28). Lower Cambrian Mt. Simon Formation: sandstone (29). Precambrian GraniteFIGURE 2.2 STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN UNDERLYING THE BVPS.I SITE S:\Local\PubsV734294 FENOC Beaver Vatley\3 1Q Report File\R-O17\R1U734294-R417, Rev 1 docx AF$ 2734294-R-01_7 Reuision 1.March 20, 201.4Page 24 of 56 TAB.LE2.2 SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY AND UNIT THICKNBSSESAT THE BVPS-I SITE Top EL tftl Borrovr EL lftl Lrruolocv Top Duprn lftl Borronn DnprH lftl 735 625Pleistocene: upper terrace: Unconsolidated sand and gravel with varying amounts of clay and silt.Irower terrace: 30 to 40 ft.of silt and clay with sand and sravel overlying gravels 0 110 625 550 Middle Pennsylvanian Allegheny Group: gray shale with interbedded sandstones. coal seams,underclays, and a limestone bed 110 185 550 350 Lower Pennsylvanian Pottsville Group: sandstoneand conglomerate 185 38s 350 300 Upper Mississippian Mauch Chunk Formation:red shale with sandstone 38s 435 300-120 Lower Mississippian Pocono Group: sandstoneand conglomerate with shale 435 855-120-3,700 Upper Devonian undivided: interbedded shale,sandstone. and siltstone. 855 4,435-3,700-3.820 Middle Devonian Tullv Limestone 4"435 4,555-3.820-3.900 Middle Devonian Mahantaneo Shale 4,555 4.63s-3,900-3,935 Middle Devonian Marcellus Shale 4.635 4.670-3,935-4,150 Middle Devonian Onondaga Group Shale/Sel inssrove Limestone 4,670 4,985-4,150-4,250 Lower Devonian Rideeley (Oriskany) Sandstone 4.885 4,985-4,250-4,450 Lower Devonian Helderberg Formation: limestone/shale 4,9855,1 852.3.2 Development of Base Case Profiles and Non-Linear Material PropertiesMost major structures of the BVPS-l are founded in the upper terrace sand and gravel layers.The RB is supported on in-situ soils at EL 680.9 ft. Other structures are supported on compacted backfill placed on the terrace sand and gravel at foundation elevations varying between EL 703 ftfor the Control Building to about EL 735 ft for the Diesel Generator Building. Based on the UFSAR (FENOC , 20ll ) description of the seismic analysis, the control point elevation forGMRS is taken to be the base of the RB foundation level (EL 680.9 ft).AB$Consulting rCRS:\Local\Pubs\279294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R417\R1\27U294-R417, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-01.7 Reaision'L March 20, 2014 Page 25 of 56 The shear and compression wave velocities of the overburden soils and the shale bedrock arebased on the subsurface investigations reported in the UFSAR (FENOC,20ll), particularly Appendix2G. Appendix 2G summarizes the geophysical investigations consisting of cross-hole,up-hole, and down-hole measurements in five drill holes located in the reactor area. Compression- and shear-wave velocities were measured from direct arrival times. A limitedamount of seismic refraction survey investigation was also performed to verify the elevation of bedrock, and to determine velocity layering.Variabilities in the Vs of the bedrock material and the overburden soil are estimated,respectively, from velocity measurements and lab tests, and the SPT data.The deep rock stratigraphy, as well as the seismic velocities of these strata, relies on sonic logsrecorded in wells in the Site vicinity (within 7 miles). The sonic data were converted to compression-wave velocities (Vp) and (Vs) based on published literature (Pickett, 1963:'Rafavich, 1984; Miller, 1990; and Castagna,l993) reflecting the material type (limestone anddolomite, anhydrites and salts), porosity and density, and to a lesser extent, the lithology. Additionally, based on published literature, VpA/s ratios for these types of geologic units wereused to define the epistemic uncertainty for Vs.Varying unit thicknesses, incomplete well logs, and non-standard lithologic descriptions presentsome challenges to reliably estimating contact locations. However, the lithologic units in theregion are generally flat lying and for the most part,laterally consistent. Consequently, the velocity structure in the wells examined is similar and consistent from well to well for similar depths. Due to the proximity of these deep wells to the Site and the general flat lying (low dip)nature of the geologic units, the unit lithologies and thicknesses can be reliably assumed to besimilar to those below the SiteTuhle 2-3 presents the sunmary geotechnical profile identifying the layer thicknesses, Vs andVp, and uncertainties inthese parameters. From Table 2-3,the SSE control point is at EL 680.9ft within the Pleistocene Upper and Lower Terrace unit with a best estimate (BE) Vs of 1,100 ft/s.S:\Local\Pubs979294 FENOC Beaver Valley\3. 1 Q Report File\R-017\R1U734294-R-O17 , Rev. 1 .docx 2734294-R-0L7 Reaision 1 March 20, 201,4 Page 26 of 56 TABLB 2-3CHARACTERISTICS OF SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHIC UNITS. BVPS-I SITB Elnvartoir,t lfq Llynn No.SoIURocx DESCRIPTION T,oruto lpcfl VsA lft/sl B trPlant Grade (Surface Elevation) 735Structural Fill/ Natural and Densified So t36 730+183'0.35 720Structural Fill/ Natural and Densified So I 136 tOl5*254 0.35'680.9 l(d)Pleistocene Upper and Lower Terrace 125 ll00+275'0.28 680.9 GMRS Elevation - SSE Control Point at Base of Nuclear Island Foundation 66s Ground Water E levation 66s l(e)Pleistocene Upper and Lower Terrace 136 1200+300 0.48'62s 2Middle Pennsylvanian Alleeheny Shale r60 5000+1000'0.39 " 550c^lJ Lower Pennsylvanian Pottsville Sandstone, conglomerate 160 6,026 0.30 350 4Upper Mississippian Mauch Chunk Shale 155 6.144 0.30 300 5 Lower Mississippian Pocono Sandstone conglomerate 155 6,744 0.30-120 6Upper Devonian lnterbedded Shale,Sandstone, Siltstone 155 7.112 0.30-2,994 155 6,416 0.30-3.700 7Middle Devonian Tullv Limestone 168 9.8s6 0.30-3,820 8 Middle Devonian Mahantaneo Shale 157 9,856 0.30-3,900 9Middle Devonian Marcellus Shale 157 9,856 0.30-3,935 10Middle Devonian Onondaga Limestone, Dolomite 170 9,856 0.30-4,150 1l Lower Devonian Rideeley Sandstone 160 9,856 0.30-4,250 t2Lower Devonian Helderberg Limestone, Shale 170 9,856 0.30-4,450 13 Upper Silurian Bass Island Dolomite, Limestone 170 8,352 0.30-4.540 I4Upper Silurian Salina Dolomite, Limestone 170 8.352 0.30-5,034 170 9,547 0.30-5.330 15Upper Silurian Wells Creek Shale r63 11,534 0.30-5,550 l6Middle Silurian Lockport Dolomite 170 9,015 0.30-5.900 l7Middle Silurian Rochester Shale r63 9.015 0.30-5,980 l8 Middle Silurian Rose Hill Shale 163 9,015 0.30-6.170 t9 Lower Silurian Tuscarora Sandstone 163 8"588 0.30-6,390 20 Upper Ordovician Queenston Shale, Siltstone, Sandstone r63 8,588 0.30-7.123 2l r63 7.835 0.30-7,455 2l(a\Upper Ordovician Reedsville Shale 163 7835 0.30-7.698 2t/b\r63 6834 0.30-8,265 22 M ddle Ordovican Utica Shale 163 6834 0.30-8.565 23 M ddle Ordovican Trenton Limestone 175 10,520 0.30-9,305 24 Middle Ordovician Gull River Limestone, Dolomite 175 10,520 0.30-9,455 25 Lower Ordovician Beekmantown Dolomite 175 10,520 0.30S:\Locaf\Pubs\27%294 FENOC Beaver Valley\3.1Q Report File\R{17\R1\27U294-R4'17, Rev. 1.docx fBSGonsultlng 2734294-R-017 Reaision 1.March 20, 2014 Page 27 of 56 TABLE 2-3 CHARACTERISTICS OF SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHIC UNITS - BVPS-I SITE (coNTINUED) Notes: A. Variability in Vs of soil is based on SPT-V. correlations (COV:25 percent). COV is assumed 20 percent as average of soil and rock for the rock at the top and for deeper rock units COV: l l percent is assumed based on theinformation from deep wells; B. Appendix 2D, 2G and 2H of BVPS-I UFSAR; C. From this elevation down, soil parameters are estimates from sonic velocities of deep wells except unit weight. Unit weights are typical values from the literature. Poisson's ratio is calculated by following formula: Poisson's Ratio : [(Vp/Vs)' - Zl I lz(VplVs)z - 2l;D. Unit weight; E. Poisson's ratio.2.3.2.1 Base-CaseShear-WaveVelocitvProfilesBased on the well characterizednature of the Site, the generally flat lying geologic units, and the geology-specific Vpto Vs conversions, a scale factor of 1.15 is used for developing upper and lower base-cases to reflect epistemic uncertainty in the Vs. The scale factor of 1.15 reflects arealistic range in Poisson's ratio for the type of geologic units found in the Paleozoic rocks underlying the site. The V, profiles determined using the scale factor represent the epistemic uncertainty in the soil and rock column from the Tully Limestone formation at EL -3,700 ft tothe top of the Pleistocene Upper and Lower Terrace unit underlying the base of the RBfoundation mat. Using the BE Vs specified in Table 2-3, tluee base-case profiles were developed using the scalefactor of 1.15. The specified Vs were taken as the mean or BE base-case profile (P1) and the scaled profiles as the lower and upper range (UR) base-cases profiles (P2 and P3), respectively.A11 three profiles extend to hard rock conditions below the RB foundation at a depth of 4,380.9ft. The base-case profiles (P I , P2, and P3) are shown on Figure 2-3 and liste d in Table 2-4.Elpvauon lftl L.q.vnR No.SoTURocx DnSCRIPTION Troruto lpcfl VsA[ftlsl E tr-9,645 26Upper Cambrian Gatesburg Dolomite Sandstone 170 10,520 0.30-9,995 27 Middle Cambrian Rome Dolomite 175 10,520 0.30-10.69s 28Lower Cambrian Mt. Simon Sandstone 170 10,520 0.30-10.865 29 Precambrian Granite 175 10,520 0.30S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R417\R1\2734294-R417, Rev. 1.docx AFSConsulting 2734294-R-017 Reaision L March 20, 2014 Page 28 of 56 2000 Vs (ft/sec)4000 6000 8000 1 0000 E s- 2500 CL o o 0 5001 0001 500 2000 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000*Depth 0 ft coffesponds to EL 680.9 ft FIGURE 2-3 BASE CASE Vs PROFILES, BVPS-I' SITE S:\Locat\PubsV734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\3 1Q Report File\R-O17\R1U734294-R417, Rev 1 docx 2734294-R-0L7 Reaision L March 20, 20L4 Page 29 of 56 TAB.LE.2-4BASE CASE Vs PROFILES, BVPS-I SITB Top on L^Lvnn ElnvluoN tffl Pnorrln Pl Pnoprln P2 Pnonn n P3 V" lftlsl DnprH tftl V" [ftlsl DnprH lfrl V" fftlsl DnprH tfrl 680.9I 100 0 957 0 1265 0 66sI 100 15.9 957 15.9 r265 t5.9 665 na0 15.9I 043 ls.9 1380 15.9 625 1200 55.9 1043 55.9 1380 5s.9 625 5000 55.9 4348 55.957 50 55.9 550 5000 130.9 4348 130.9s7 50 130.9 550 6026 130.9 5240 130.9 6930 130.9 350 6026 330.9 5240 330.9 6930 330.9 3s0 67 44 330.9 5864 330.977 56 330.9 300 6744 380.9 5864 380.9 77 56 380.9 300 6744 380.9 5864 380.977 56 380.9-120 67 44 800.9 5864 800.9 77 56 800.9-r20 7 tt2 800.96l 84 800.9 8179 800.9-2994 7ll2 3674.961 84 3674.9 8179 367 4.9-2994 6416367 4.9 5579 3674.9 7378 3674.9-3700 6416 4380.9 557943 80.9 7378 4380.9-3700 9200 4380.9 9200 4380.9 9200 4380.9 2.3,2.2 Shear Modulus and Damping Curves The site response analysis represents non-linear material properties by utilizing shear modulus degradation and material damping as functions of the seismic shear strain. Strain-dependent dynamic parameters for the overburden soils are reported in Appendix2D, Figure 2D-3 of BVPS-I UFSAR (FENOC,}}I l), and Figure 2.5.4-71 of the Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 2 (BVPS-2) UFSAR (FENOC,20L2). The material damping ratio is limited to a maximum of 15 percent in the calculations following guidance in NRC (2007) (Regulatory Guide [RG] 1.208).Consistent with the SPID (EPRI 2013a), uncertainty and variability in material dynamic properties are included in the site response analysis. For the rock material over the upper 500 ft,uncertainty is represented by modeling the material as either linear or non-linear in its dynamicbehavior. To represent the epistemic uncertainty in shear modulus and damping, two sets ofshear modulus reduction, and hysteretic damping curves were used. Consistent with the SPID Consulting rC?S:\Locaf\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-017\R1\2734294-R417, Rev. 1.docx ABT 2734294-R-017 Reaision 1 March 20, 20L4Page 30 of 56 (EPRI, 2013a),the EPRI rock curves (model Ml) were usedto representthe URnonlinearitylikely in the materials at this Site, and linear behavior (model M2) was assumed to represent an equally plausible alternative rock response across loading level. For the linear analyses, the lowstrain damping from the EPRI rock curyes was used as the constant damping values in the upper500 ft. Below a depth of 500 ft, linear material behavior is assumed for both models, with thedamping value specified consistent with the kappa estimates for the Site (values discussed in Section 2.3.2.3 and shown in Table 2-5).2.3.2.3 Kappa Near-surface site damping is often described in terms of the parameter kappa (EPRI, 2013a).Section B-5.1.3.1 of the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) recommends the following procedure forevaluating kappa: Kappa for a firm rock site with at least 3,000 ft ( I km) of sedimentary rock may beestimated from the time-averaged Vs over the upper 100 ft (Vrroo) of the subsurface profile.Kappa for a site with less than 3,000 ft (1 km) of firm rock may be estimated with Q' of40 below 500 ft combined with the low strain damping from the EPRI rock curves and anadditional kappa of 0.006s for the underlying hard rock.For the BVPS-I Site, kappa was estimated using the first of the above approaches because the thickness of the sedimentary rock overlying hard rock is 4,380.9 ft. There is sufficientconfidence, based on deep well data, that the hard-rock horizon is more than 3,000 ft below theelevation of the RB foundation. Including a kappa of 0.006s for the underlying hard rock, thetotal site kappa is estimated to be 0.0213s for profile Pl, 0.0237s for profile P2, and 0.0193s forProfile P3.To complete the representation of uncertainty in kappa and, at the same time, reduce computational demands, a 50 percent variation to the base-case kappa estimates was added for profiles P2 and P3. For profileP2,the softest profile, the base-case kappa estimate of 0.0237swas augmented with a 50 percent increase in kappa to a value of 0.0320s, resulting in two sets ofanalyses for profilePZ. Similarly, uncertainty in kappa for profile P3, the stiffest profile, wasaugmented with a 50 percent reduction in kappa, resulting in analyses with low strain kappa l.2.S:\Local\Pubs9734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\3.1Q Report File\R417\R1\2734294-R417 , Rev. 1.docx AESGottsulting 2734294-R-0L7Reaision 1, March 20, 201.4 Page 31 of 56 values of 0.0193s and 0.0152s. The suite of kappa estimates and associated weights is listed in Table 2-5. The base-case kappa estimates were judged to be the more likely (by 50 percent) withweights of 0.6 compared to the augmented values with weights of 0.4.To maintain consistency in the site response analyses, the low-strain damping values are adjusted consistent with the kappa value associated with each profile.. TABLE 2-5 KAPPA VALUES AND WEIGHTS USBD IN SITE RESPONSE ANALYSIS VrlocrrY PRoFTLEPnonrln WnrcHr Klpp,q. lsl Klpp.q. WntcHr PI Base-Case 0.4 0.0213 (Kappa 1)1.0 P2 Lower Range 0.3 0.An7 (Kappa l)0.6 0.0320 (Kappa2)4.4 P3 Upper Range 0.3 0.0193 (Kappa l)0.6 0.0152 (Kappa 2)0.4This unsymmetric approach results in an appropriate representation of the epistemic uncertainty in site response. It also significantly reduces computational demands relative to specifying three alternative kappa values for each velocity profile. When uncertainty and variability in otherinputs are also considered, it results in 6,600 site response analyses (5 combinations of profiles and kappa values , 2 material behavior models flinear and nonlinear for the upper 500 ft], 2 source models fsingle and double corner inputs], I I loading levels, and 30 soil profile realizations). The range of kappa values presente d in Table 2-5 is utilized in the site response analysis that is combined with the hard-rock seismic hazardto obtain the control point seismic hazard and the GMRS.

2.3.3 Randomnation

of Base Case ProfilesTo account for the aleatory variability in dynamic material properties that is expected to occur across a site at the scale of a typical nuclear facility, variability in the Vs profiles and shear-strain-dependent shear modulus reduction, and damping curves are incorporated in the site response calculations. Gonsultim rC?S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-O17\R1\2734294-R417, Rev. 1.docx AB$ 2734294-R-01.7 Reaision 1 March 20, 2014Page 32 of 562.3.3.1 Randomization of Shear-wave Velocitv ProfilesFor the BVPS-1 Site, aleatory variability in the Vs profile for the Site is represented by 30 randomized profiles developed from each of the base-case profiles shown on Figure 2-3 .These randomized Vs profiles were generated using a natural 1og standard deviation of 0.25 over the top 50 ft and 0.15 over the remaining soil column depth. As specified in the SPID (EPRI,2013a), correlation of Vs between layers was modeled usingthe footprint correlation model. Inthe correlation model, a limit of +/- 2 standard deviations, and a factor of 1.3 about the medianvalue in each layer was assumed for the limits on random velocity fluctuations. Additionally, profiles were constrained to not exceed a Vs of 9,200 ftls.2.3.3.2 Randomization of Modulus Reduction and Hysteretic Damping CurvesFor the BVPS-I Site, aleatory variability in dynamic material property curves is representedusing 30 randomizations derived from the base-case for each alternative model. The random generation of G/G*u,. and damping ratio values are limited to upper and lower bounds of the BE* two standard deviations, consistent with the SPID (EPRI, 2013a). The damping ratio values are limited to l5 percent. Also consistent with the SPID (EPRI, 2013a), a log normaldistribution is used with a natural log standard deviation of 0.15 and 0.30 for modulus reduction and hysteretic damping, respectively.2.3.4 Input Fourier Amplitude SpectraConsistent with the guidance in Appendix B of the SPID (EPRI, 2013a), input Fourier amplitudespectra were defined for a single representative earthquake magnitude (M 6.5) using twodifferent models for the shape of the seismic source spectrum (single-corner and double-corner). By selecting appropriate distances and depths, a suite of l1 different input amplitudes (median peak ground acceleration (PGA) ranging from 0.01 to 1.5 g) were modeled for use in the site response analyses. The characteristics of the seismic source and upper crustal attenuation properties assumed for the analysis of the BVPS-l Site were the same as those identified inTables B-4, B-5, 8-6, and B-7 of the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) as appropriate fortypical Central and Eastern United States (CEUS) Sites.S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R417\R1\:27U294-R417, Rev. 1.docx AEgGonsulting 2734294-R-0L7 Reaision 1, March 20, 2014Page 33 of 56 2.3.5 Site Response MethodologyThe site response analysis reported here implements an equivalent-linear method using the random vibration theory (RVT) approach. This process utilizes a simple, efficient method for computing site-specific amplification functions and is consistent with existing NRC guidanceand the SPID (EPRI, 2013a). The guidance contained in Appendix B of the SPID (EPRI, 2013a)on incorporating epistemic uncertainty in V5, kappa, dynamic material properties, and sourcespectra was followed for the BVPS-1 Site.2.3.6 Amplification FactorsThe results of the site response analysis consist of factors (S-percent damped pseudo absolute acceleration response spectra), that describe the amplification (or de-amplification) of reference hard-rock response spectra as a function of frequency and input reference hard-rock PGAamplitude. Amplification is determined for the SSE control point elevation at the base of the RBfoundation level. Because of the uncertainty and variability incorporated in the site responseanalysis, adistribution of AF is produced. The AF are represented by amedian (i.e., log-mean)amplification value and an associated log standard deviation (sigma-ln) for each oscillatorfrequency and input rock amplitude. Consistent with the SPID (EPRI, 2013a), median amplification was constrained to not fall below 0.5 to avoid extreme de-amplification that mayreflect limitations of the methodology.Figure 2-4 presents the median and +l- 1 standard deviation in the predicted AF developed for the 1 I loading levels paramet erized by the reference (hard rock) PGA (0.01 to I .50g) for profile Pl and EPRI rock G/Gn,,u*, and hysteretic damping curves (EPRI, 2003a). Further, the AF shown on Figure 2-4 are developed for the hard-rock input motion based on the single-corner frequencysource model. The variability in the AF results from variability in Vs and modulus reduction and hysteretic damping curves. Figure 2-5 presents similar information for profile Pl using the linear dynamic material property representation. Comparison of AF, including the effects of material nonlinearity in the BVPS-1 Site firm rock layers (model Ml),withthe corresponding AF developed with linear site response analyses (model l/r2) shows only minor effects of non-linearity for frequencies below about 20Hzand a S:\Local\Pubs\27%294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R417\R1\27U294-R417, Rev. 1.docx ABSCon*ulting 2734294-R-01.7 Reaision 1 March 20, 2014Page 34 of 56loading level less than about 0.5g. Above about the 0.5g loading level, the differences increase,but only for spectral frequencies in excess of about 20 Hz.Appendix,4 provides several tables that summaize the site response uncertainty analysis, including the development of the site response logic tree (Vs models, kappa, and dynamic properties) and a summary of the numerical values of the AF at seven spectral frequencies andI 1 input PGA values at hard-rock. Additionally, Appendix,4 provides tables of the AF for threeloading levels consistent with the information shown on Figures 2-4 and 2-5.Gon$tlting rCR S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q ReportFile\R-O17\R1\27U294-R-017, Rev. 1.docx AFS 2734294-R-01,7 Reaision 1March 20, 201,4Page 35 of 56 4.5 4 3.5*3 G l!5 2.s P S)e E l.s 7 0.5 0 01 4.5 4 3.5*3 o l!6 2.s.ra 8)-o, E 1.s 7 0.5 0 4.5 3.5 2.5 1.5 0 4 3.5 3 o'r)H z.s lt c.9 .!,PL o I t r.s E L 0.5 0 100 Frequency [HzJ 0.1 4 3.5 3 L o H z.s rl tr Ez o I CL I.)E t 0.5 0 100 Frequency [HzlFIGURE 2.4 BVPS.I SITE AMPLIFICATION FACTORS, BASE.CASE PROFILE G/GMAX AND DAMPING, KAPPA 1, I-CORNER SOURCE 10 1'10 4.5 4 3.5 L t3l!tl.E ,.t P gz c E 1.s 1 0.5 0 3 L o P lfr ltz rL c o tYl!r.t CLT E Frequency [Hzl Frequency [Hzl 0 10 Frequency [Hzl (Pl), EPRr ROCK MODEL Note: Quantities in the upper right hand corner represent the hard rock input 100 Hz spectral acceleration in g's.S:\Local\PubsV734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\3 1Q Report File\R-O17\R1U734294-R417, Rev 1 docx AFSGonsulting 273429+R-077 RatisionT March20,2074 Page 36 of 56/--t 1.03;Ft l, ,.lnt\ t 7 t\t , I l-\\l rli-_+i_i ]3.5 3 b 2.s U o tl^Cl.9.PllE r.s E rr1 0.5 0 4 3.5 3 L o iPH z.s t!C.9 .l.Pz G t{r-o. 1.5 E 1 0.5 0 3 b2 ulllr E.C C f;r o.E 3.5 3 s 2.5 o t o u'.'Cz o t)o E r.s c E 0.5 0 3 2.5 L O^tz o lt tr* r.s o c, b.;E1 0.5 0' 1oo Frequcncy [Hrl- Mean--- Mean + Stdv--- Mean-StdV r.42;'; "tt it.z]'r t , f-:\li,\:l\ l; , \'a\r I\il.5 3.5 2.5 1 Frequency [Hzf-Mean--- Mean + StdV--F Mean-StdV[.93 jtr , t nri i lt t I ,/\\, ,'- -,-'*t\r lr.i\ itr 1\i i,; !r;+{2a 0.5 0 Frcqucncy [Hzl ,"t-4, 2.23 ,t I I-4., , ,". !t/,a' \\t\i i\:\\\11-\\l\ -t'Freguency [Hzl Frcqucncy t;*FIGURE 2.4 (coNTTNUED) BVPS-I SITE AMPLIFICATION FACTORS, BASE-CASE PROF'ILE (Pl), EPRr ROCK G/GMAX AND DAMPING, KAppA 1, I-CORNER SOURCE MODEL Note: Quantities in the upper right hand corner represent the hard rock input 100 Hz spectral acceleration in g's.Colpufrlng Itt S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\3.1Q Report File\R417\R1\2734294-R{17, Rev. 1 docx 2734294-R-0L7 Reaision 1 March 20, 2014 Page 37 of 56-Mean--- Mean + StdV--3 Mean-Stdv?f onq i/\\I / ,*.\i llj I i: l,l ir- ri l','i\i li-t'-d i*ii 100 Frcqucncv lHzl Frequency [Hzl 100 Frcquency [Hzl Frequency [Hzl e't, i I (1)s2i tiill:j i ll'0 ,.tiii liii ia l lt ',/^\1 l;iii ilitiLJ IjJ-i:4 a'l a\i:iil 1l Jt f, tti rt1 i,i.,\\N i\.-100 Frcquency [Hzl Frequency [Hzl X'IGURE 2-5 BVPS-I SITE AMPLIX'ICATION FACTORS, BASE-CASE PROX'ILE (P1), LINEAR ROCK G/GMAX AND DAMPING, KAPPA 1, I-CORNER SOURCE MODEL Note: Quantities in the upper right hand coflier represent the hard rock input 100 Hz spectral acceleration in g's.4.5 4 3.5 L 93 at t!5 t't tP-92 E E 1.s 1 0.5 0 4.5 4 3.5 L.t3.!t!.E ,.s.H gz o, E 1.s t 0.5 0 0.4 3.5 3 b o E z.s lt C.9.tPl o t G E 1.s E 1 0.5 0 4.5 4 3.5 L t3lE lL.E ,.t.rt Cz c E 1.s 1 0.5 0 4 3.5 3 L o E z.s tt C.9.t l,,1l!t,ltr a 1.s E 1 0.5 0 4 3.5 3 L o E z.s lt tr*zl!t, r--o. 1.5 E 1 0.5 0 ,1\o.24 t , tl rl t il iiiii Mean - )tov r'lu:t at a :l I li t ,\\.-t l ;l.-orJ I t': i;)\\r s l-l--.F', I I i S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3 1Q Report File\R4lilR1U734294-R{17, Rey. 1.doo( 2734294-R-017 Reaision 7 March 20, 2014Page 38 of 56 4 3.5 3 L o P H z.s t!E*2 o (, s=o. 1.5 E 1 0.5 0 3.5 3. 2.5 o.P t t!lr.trz o ,yl!E r.s o, E 0.5 0 3 2.5 L tz o lr tr* r.s.U (, ra-=B E1 0.5 0 100 Frcqucncy [Hzl 100 Frcqucncy [Hzl 3.5 3 b 2.s U tl ll .CL o tP* t.t B E 0.5 0 3.5 3 b 2.s tll lrt c1 o tell E r.s-c E 0.5 0 100 Frequency [Hzl 100 Frequency [Hzl Frcgucncy [HzlFIGURE 2.5 (coNTTNUED) BVPS-I SITE AMPLIFICATION FACTORS, BASE-CASE PROFILE (P1), LINEAR ROCK G/GMAX AND DAMPING, KAppA 1, I-CORNER SOURCE MODEL Note: Quantities in the upper right hand corner represent the hard rock input 100 Hz spectral acceleration in g's.nA6!".va ryvl-' .^- \i/: . il-Mean--- Mean+StdV--- Mean-Stdv a L.42, 1,A',.,r-\ ,tr,i'I\\l'\l --Mean--- Mean+Stdv--- Mean-Stdv 1.83 il"'lr a: I ,' ' ii,l .rn t"-ir t t-\ '!,/ \'..ii tt-ta. \t- ,\,-r r I i l i i\\\:4\I-Mean--- Mean + Stdv--- Mean-Stdv 2.23^r-\.., I ,!t/t\\f r 'i\i\, i\;I r t\\a.-L-/\\\ , S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R417\R1U734294-R{17, Rey. 1.docx lISCffiulffttg 2734294-R-01.7 Reuision 7 March 20, 2014 Page 39 of 56 2.4 Collrnor, PoINT Sntsvttc H,tz.lnn Cunvns As presented inSection 3.2 below, the control point elevation is taken to be the base of the RB foundation level (EL 680.9 ft). The procedure to develop probabilistic site-specific control pointhazardcurves follows the methodology described in Section 8-6.0 of the SPID (EPRI, 2013a). This procedure (referred to as Approach 3) computes a site-specific control point hazard curve for a broad range of spectral accelerations given the site-specific bedrock hazard curve and site-specific estimates of soil or soft-rock response and associated uncertainties. This process isrepeated for each of the seven specified spectral frequencies, forwhichthe EPRI (2013c) GMM is defined.The dynamic response of the rock column below the control point elevation is represented by the frequency and amplitude-dependent amplification functions (median values and ln-standard deviations) developed and described in the previous section. The resulting control point mean hazard curves for the BVPS-1 Site are shown on Figure 2-6 and in Table 2-6 for the sevenspectral frequencies, for which the EPRI (2013c) GMM is defined. Tabulated values of the site response amplification functions and the control point hazard curves for various fractiles are provided in Appendirc C.S:\Locaf\Pubs\27%294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R417\R1\27U294-R417, Rev. 1.docx AESGonsulting 2734294-R-01,7 Reaision 1, March 20, 201.4 Page a0 of 56 IJ c o 5 C'o L t!o L'c (!T'o o I x UJl!t g C g G o=1.E-01 L.E-021. E-031. E-04 1.E-05 1. E-05 1. E-07 1.E .0.5H2 ,- . 1.0 Hp# .2.5 Hz,r . .5.0 HZ n : L0.0 Hz*o- 25.0H2 ,- 100.0 Hz 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 Spectral Acceleration (g)FIGURE 2.6BVPS.I MEAN CONTROL POINT SEISMIC HAZARD AT SELECTED SPECTRAL FREQUENCIES TABLE 2.6BVPS-I MEAN CONTROL POINT SEISMIC HAZARD AT SELECTED SPECTRAL FREQUENCIES GnouNn MorroN Lnvnl telMnlx AxxuAL FREeUENcY oF ExcnEDANCEFOR spnCrRAL FnEQUENCIES 0.5 Hz1,.0 Hz 2.5IJ2 5.0 Hz l0 Hz 25IJz 100 Hz 0.02 3.86E -04 9.168-04 4.59E-03 1.368-02 6.548-03 5.65E-03 3.498-03 0.03 1.55E-04 3.998-04 2.228-03 7.488-03 3.948-03 3.30E-03 1.83E-03 0.04 7.328-052.01E-041.30E-03 4.99E-03 2.678-03 2.148-03 I .13E-03 0.05 3.878-05 l.l3E-04 8.568-04 3.50E-03 1.928-03 1.50E-03 7.688-04 0.062.25E-056.948-05 6.028-04 2.65E-03 1.45E-03r . 10E-03 s.59E-04 0.07 1.40E-05 4.548-05 4.458-04 2.08E-03 1.13E-03 8.40E-04 4.26F-04 0.08 9.21E-06 3.13E-05 3.42E-04 1.68E-03 g.lrE-04 6.628-04 3.368-04 0.096.3 sE-062.268-052.708-04I .3 8E-03 7.498-04 5.348-04 2.698-04 0.10 4.56E-06 1.69E-05 2.198-04I .l5E-03 6.27E-04 4.408-04 2.198-04 0.20 6.21E-07 2.83E-06 5.468-05 3.268-04 1.868-04 t.208-04 5.03E-05 0.25 3 .41E-07 1.66E-06 3.49E-05 2.148-04 t.258-04 7.898-05 3.06E-05S:\Local\PubsV734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\3 1Q Report File\R-O17\R1U734294-R417, Rev 1 docx rE8 2734294-R-0L7 Reaision L March 20, 201.4Page 41, of 56 TABLE 2-6 BVPS.I MBAN CONTROL POTNT SBISMIC HAZARD AT SELECTBD SPBCTRAL FRBQUBNCIES (coNTINUED) 2.5Conrnol, PorNT RnspoNSE SPECTRUMThe control point hazard curves described above have been used to develop uniform hazard response spectra (UHRS) and the GMRS. To ensure that important site response frequencies are accurately modeled, the control point response spectra are based on smoothed UHRS developedat the hard-rock boundary using the approach described by NRC (2007a) and McGuire et al., (2001). The UHRS was obtained through linear interpolation in log-log space to estimate the spectral acceleration at each oscillator frequency for the 1E-4 and lE-5 per year hazard levels.The lE-4 and lE-5 UHRS, along with a design factor (DF) are used to compute the GMRS at the controlpointusingthecriteriainRG 1.208. Table2-Tpresentsthecontrolpoint lE-4 and 1E-5 UHRS and the GMRS, and Figure 2-7 graphically illustrates the GMRS relative to the UHRS.GnouNu MorroN Lnvu lslMn.q,N ANtrlu,tt, FnnqunNcy oF ExCEEDANCE rON SPrcCTRAL FNBQUNNCIES0.5 Hz1.0 Hz 2.5IJ2 5.0 Hz 10 Hz 25IJz 100 Hz0.302.18E-07 1.08E-06 2.428 -0s 1.50E-04 8.94E-05 5.54E-05 1.99E-05 0.40 t.l3E-07 5.698 -07 1.35E-05 8.498-05 5.248-45 3.10E-05 9.528-06 0.506.128-083.538-07 8.58E-06 5.39E-05 3.41E-05 1.92E-05 5.08E-06 0.60 4.37E-08 2.438 -07 5.89E-06 3.69E-05 2.378-05 1.268-05 2.908-06 0.70 3.038-08 1.798-07 4.268 -06 2.66F,-05 t.728-05 8.56E-06 t.738-060.802.19E-08 1.398-07 3.21F-06 1.99E-05 1.28E-05 6.00E-06 1.07E-06 0.90 1.64E-081 . 10E-07 2.49E-06 1.53E-05 9.698-06 4.308-06 6.89E-07 1.00 t.278-08 8.95E-08 1.988-06 1.20E-05 7.48E-06 3.14E-06 4.598-07 2.001.96E-091.87E-083.98E-07 1.928-06 9.25E-07 2.97F-07 3.64E-08 3.00 6.078-106. l9E-09 r.32E-07 5.158-07 2.28E-07 7.21F-08 8.88E-09 5.00 l.l7E-10 1.35E-09 2.89E-08 8.50E-08 4.478-08 1.07E-08 1.228 -09 S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R{17\R1\27U294-R417, Rev. 1.docx AEgGonsulting 2734294-R-01.7Reaision 1, March 20, 2014 Page 42 of 56 TABLE 2-7 BVPS-I s%-DAMPBD UHRS AND GMRS AT THB SSE CONTROL POINT FnngunNCY IHzICoNrnol Potnr HoruzoNTAL Spucrnq.L AccnlnRArroN [sl lxlo-a UHRS1X1O-5 UHRS GMRS 0.10 0.0021 0.0067 0.0033 0.13 0.0039 0.0096 0.0048 0.16 0.0057 0.0141 0.00710.200.0088 0.0213 0.0107 0.26 0.0136 0.032s 0.0164 0.33 0.0203 0.0473 0.02400.420.02840.0640 0.0326 0.50 0.0357 0.0782 0.0401 0.53 0.03s6 0.0786 0.0402 0.61 0.0375 0.0844 0.0431 0.85 0.0468 0.1081 0.0549 r.00 0.0s24 a.t2t7 0.0617 r.08 0.0563 0.13360.067 4 r.37 0.0688 0.t771 0.0879 1.740.08320.23730.1 I 54 2.210.1 1 89 0.37830.1 80 l 2.s0 0.r476 0.4650 0.22t8 2.810.18420.5725 0.2738 3.56 0.266r 0.8292 0.3964 4.52 0.350r 1.0356 0.50025.000.3691 r.0801 0.5228 5.74 0.3707 1.0691 0.5190 7.28 0.3180 0.929r 0.4499 9.24 0.2816 0.8816 0.4210 10.00 0.2824 0.8879 0.4237 11.12 0.2869 0.8895 0.4256 t4.870.28880.8880 0.42s6 18.87 0.2646 0.7877 0.3800 23.95 0.2255 0.6776 0.3263 2s.00 0.220s 0.6580 0.3r73 30.39 0.2027 4.5765 0.2847 38.51 0.1904 0.5267 0.2578 48.940. I 828 0.4871 0.2402 62.10 0.r704 0.4431 0.2196 78.80 0.1526 0.39380. l 955 100.00 0.1455 0.3929 0.1933 S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-Ol7\Rl\27U2U-R417, Rev. 1.docx AB$Gonsulting 2734294-R-01,7 Reaision 1 March 20, 2014 Page 43 of 56 1.000 19 F 0.800 tJ'tr o L g g 0.600 r:, (!L E o.4oo CL tn 0.200 0.000 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 Frequency (Hz)FIGURE 2.7 CONTROL POINT UNIFORM HAZARD RESPONSE SPECTRA AT MEAN ANNUAL F'REQUENCIES oF ExcEEDANcE oF txto-n AND 1x10-t, AND GRouND MorIoN RESPONSE SPECTRUM AT BVPS-I a\I\S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\3 1Q Report Fite\R-o17\R1U734294-RO17, Rev 1 docx 2734294-R-01.7 Reaision 1March 20, 20L4Pase 44 of 563.0 PLANT DESIGN BASIS GROUND MOTIONThe design basis for BVPS-I is identified in the UFSAR (FENOC ,2011).3.1 SSE DnscruprroN oF SpECTRAL Sulpn The SSE was developed in accordance with conservative deterministic principles through an evaluation of the maximum earthquake potential for the region surrounding the Site. Based on deterministic hazard analysis, the UFSAR (FENOC ,2011, Section2.5 and Appendix 2C) reportstwo design basis earthquakes, the SSE and the Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE). The purposeof the seismicity analysis is to evaluate earthquakes that have been recorded historically and instrumentally in order to determine the OBE and the SSE. The SSE ground motion accounts forthe soil conditions at the Site.The SSE response spectra forthe BVPS-I Site are anchored at PGA of 0.lZlghorizontal and0.0839 vertical (Section 2.5.3 of UFSAR [FENOC,20l1]). Dynamic AF used for these spectra give a maximum spectral acceleration of 0.449 for two percent damping, with appropriate relative values for other amounts of damping. The spectraare flat from 2to 5Hzandreduce toan amplification ratio of unity for frequency exceeding20Hz.The 5-percent-damped horizontal SSE, spectral accelerations are presented in Table 3-1. The corresponding vertical spectrum for the SSE is taken to be 213 of the horizontal. Figure 3-1 presents the SSE So/o-Damped Response Spectra.TABLE 3.1 SSE HORIZONTAL GROUND MOTION RESPONSE SPECTRUM FOR BVPS-I FnneuBNcY lHzl S pncrn r.L AccELERATIoN tsl 0.20 0.012 0.50 0.076 2.00 0.325 5.00 0.325 20.00 0.t25 100.00 0.t25 ABSGonsulting rce S:\Local\Pubs\27%294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-017\R19734294-R417, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-01,7 Reaision 1 March 20, 201,4 Page aS of 56 A u0= nE E V.L'o l-+,lu L o I o E 0.4-(!L+, I o t 0.2 0.10 1.00 1m.00 (-BV2 H-SSE, 0.1259 PGA r-.8V2 V-SSE. 0,0839 PGA FIGURE 3-1BVPS-I SAFE SHUTDOWI\ EARTHQUAKE s%-DAMPED RESPONSE SPECTRA 3.2 SSE CoNrRoL Ponr ElnvATIoNThe horizontal and vertical SSE response spectra shown on Figure 3--l represent the design basis ground motion input applied at the base of the foundation levels of the BVPS-I structures. At BVPS-1, the top of bedrock is at EL 625 ftand the foundation elevation of the RB and the Nuclear Island is 680.9 ft. The SSE control point elevation is taken to be the base of the RB foundation, and the SSE response spectra are, therefore, compared to the GMRS atEL 680.9 ft.10.00 Frequency (Hzl S.\Locaf\PubsV734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\3 1Q Report File\R-O17\R1U734294-R417, Rev 1 docx 2734294-R-017Reaision 1 March 20, 2074 Page 46 of 56 4.0 SCREBNING EVALUATION In accordance with the SPID (EPRI, 2013a, Section 3), a screening evaluation was performed as described below.The screening process determines if a seismic risk evaluation is needed. The horizontal GMRSdetermined from thehazard reevaluation is used to characterize the amplitude of the updated evaluation of seismic hazard atthe BVPS-I Site. The screening evaluation is based upon a comparison of the GMRS with the horizontal SSE ground motion spectrum.4.1 Rrsr Ev.uu,rrroN ScnnnNrNG (1 To 10 IJz)In the I to 10 Hz part of the response spectrum, the GMRS exceeds the horizontal SSE (at frequencies above about 6Hz). Therefore, the plant screens in for a risk evaluation. The GMRS exceedance relative to the SSE spectrum above about 3-4Hz is characterized as broad banded with spectral accelerations exceeding0.4gat some frequencies in the 1.0 to l0 Hz frequency range. However, the SSE spectrum envelops the GMRS below 3-4H2. Therefore, SSCs and failure modes associated with low frequency are not affected by the GMRS. Asdiscussed in the SPID (EPRI, 2013a), these SSCs and failure modes include flexible distribution systems, sliding and rocking of unanchored components, fuel assemblies inside the reactor vessel, soil liquefaction, and liquid sloshing in atmospheric pressure storage tanks. Accordingly,no new high confidence of low probability of failure (HCLPF) analysis of low frequency SSCsand failure modes is planned.4.2 HtcH FnneunNcy ScnnnnrNc (> 10 Hz)In the range of frequencies above l0 Hz, the GMRS exceeds the horizontal SSE. The high frequency exceedances will be addressed in the risk evaluation discussed in ,Section 4.1 above.Although safety equipment in BVPS-I was evaluated in the A-46 program, the SSE groundmotions used in this evaluation do not have significant frequency content above 10 Hz. The A-46 program verified the seismic adequacy of mechanical and electncal equipment for the plant S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\3. 1 Q Report File\R-O1 7\R1V734294-R417 , Rev. 1 .docx fFSGonsulting 2734294-R-01.7 Reaision 1 March 20, 2014Page 47 of 56SSE using the seismic criteria defined in the USI A-46 technical resolution Q.{RC Generic Letter87-02). The USI A-46 procedures make use of earthquake experience data supplemented by testdata to verify the seismic capability of equipment below specified earthquake motion bounds.Additionally, the consideration of high-frequency vulnerability of components in the Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) was focused on "bad actor" relays mutuallyagreed to by the industry and the NRC, with known earthquake or shock sensitivity. Thesespecific model relays, designated as low ruggedness relays, were identified in EPRI Report 7148 (EPRI, 1990). Rather than considering high frequency capacity versus demand screening, "bad actor" relays were considered program outliers and were evaluated using circuit analysis,operator actions, or component replacement.The response of components to the high frequency ground motion associated with the GMRSwill be addressed as part of the on-going SPRA. EPRI ReportNP-7498 (EPRI, l99l), as well as more recent studies related to licensing activities for new plants (EPRI, 2007aand2007b),summarize the basis and conclude that "...high-frequency vibratory motions above about l0 Hz are not damaging to the large majority of NPP structures, components, and equipment. Anexception to this is the functional performance of vibration sensitive components, such as relaysand other electrical and instrumentation devices whose output signals could be affected by high-frequency excitation."The SPRA will utilize the information from EPRI's on-going test program to develop estimates of fragility for potential high-frequency sensitive components. The test program is expected to"... use accelerations or spectral levels that are sufficiently high to address the anticipated high-frequency in-structure and in-cabinet responses of various plants." 4.3SpnNr Funl Pool Ev,tLu,q,TIoN ScnBnxING (1 ro 10 Hz') In the I to l0Hzpart of the response spectrum, the GMRS exceeds the horizontal SSE. Therefore, a spent fuel pool evaluation will be performed following the guidance in Section 7 ofthe SPID (EPRI, 2013a).S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R{17\R1\27U294-R417, Rev. 1.docx 273429+R-017Reaision L March 20, 20'14Page 48 of 56

5.0 INTERIM

ACTIONS Based on the screening evaluation, the expedited seismic evaluation described in EPRI (2013b)is being performed as proposed in a letter to NRC dated April 9,2013, Q*IEI, 2013), and agreedto by NRC in a letter dated May 7,2013, (MLl3l06A33l). Consistent with NRC letter dated February 20,2014, [ML14030A046] the seismic hazard reevaluations presented herein are distinct from the current design and licensing bases of the BVPS- l . Therefore, the results do not call into question the operability or functionality of SSCsand are not reportable pursuant tol0 CFR 50.72, "Immediate notification requirements foroperating nuclear power reactors," andl0 CFR 50.73, "Licensee event report system."The NRC letter also requests that licensees provide an interim evaluation or actions to demonstrate that the plant can cope with the reevaluated hazard while the expedited approach and risk evaluations are conducted. In response to that request, NEI letter dated March 12,20L4 (NEI, 2014), provides seismic core damage risk estimates using the updated seismic hazards forthe operating nuclear plants in the CEUS. These risk estimates continue to support the following conclusions of the NRC GI-199 Safety/Risk Assessment (NRC, 2010a):Overall seismic core damage risk estimates are consistent with the Commission's SafetyGoal Policy Statement because they are within the subsidiary objective of l0-a/year forCore Damage Frequency (CDF). The GI-l99 Safety/Risk Assessment, based in part on information from the NRC's Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE)program, indicates that no concern exists regarding adequate protection and that the current seismic design of operating reactors provides a safety margin to withstand potential earthquakes exceeding the original design basis. BVPS-I is included in the March 12,2014, risk estimates. Using the methodology described inthe NEI letter, all plants were shown to be below l}-a lyear; thus, the above conclusions apply.ConeuEing rcRS:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-O17\R1V7U294-R417, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-01.7 Reaision 1, March 20,2014Page 49 of 56 Additionally, as requested in Enclosure I of the 50.54(f) letter (Item 5), the following paragraphs provide insights from the NTTF Recommendation2.3 walkdowns, and the IPEEE program accomplished for BVPS-I. These programs further illustrate the plant seismic capacity.5.1 NTTF 2.3 W.Lt KDowNSIn response to NTTF Recommendation 2.3, FENOC completed the Seismic

2.3 walkdown

forBVPS-I in September 2012 (FENOC, 2013b). This walkdown identified no major anomalies. However, some potentially adverse seismic conditions were identified during the seismic walkdowns as documented in the 2.3 submittal report. The walkdown report summarizes these conditions. Condition reports were inititiated as appropriate. Justifications for findings, forwhich a Licensing Evaluation is not required, are provided in the Component's respective SWCs.Items that were not accessible during the initial walkdown were subsequently walked downduring the following refueling outage. The walkdown of these additional items identified no potentially adverse findings (FENOC, 201 3c).The 2.3 walkdown for the Beaver Valley Power Station was subsequently audited by NRC staff.The staff concurred with the process, as well as the findings and conclusions.

5.2 IPEBE

DESCRIPTION AND CAPACITY RESPONSB SPBCTRUMThe IPEEE for BVPS-1 accomplished a SPRA for selected plant SSCs (Duquesne Light Co,1995) in accordance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission Technical Report O{UREG-1407)(NRC, 1991). The seismic fragilities, developed in support of the SPRA , are based on the lE-4 return period UHRS developed in the EPRI SOG program (EPRI, 1989a, 1989b). The IPEEE did not identify any seismic vulnerabilities. Several submittals to the NRC addressed A-46 enhancements, as well as IPEEE enhancements. None of these was classified as potential vulnerabilitv.The IPEEE HCLPF spectrum (IHS) is not used for screening. However, it is provided here for reference and to document the level of the BDB seismic ground motion, for which the plantSSCs have been evaluated. Appendix B summarizes the elements of the IPEEE, following the IPEEE adequacy requirements in SPID Section 3.3.1 (EPRI, 2013a).S:\Local\Pubs\27il294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R417\R1\27U2U-R4'17, Rev. 1.docx ff$Gonsulting 2734294-R-0L7 Reaision 1, March 20, 2014Page 50 of 56The IPEEE reports a minimum HCLPF value of about 0.1g, associated with failure of the unrestrained station batteries. However, the supporting SPRA estimates a mean seismic-initiatedcore damage frequency (CDF) of 9.07E-6, and the plant level HCLPF of 0.2g PGA (NRC, 2010b). Accordingly, the 5-percent damped horizontal IHS spectral accelerations provided in Table 5-1 correspond to the 0.209 PGA UHRS. The SSE spectrum and the IHS in the horizontal direction are shown on Figure 5-1.TABLE 5.IHORIZONTAL IHS FOR BVPS.I FnneunNCY IHzl SpncrnAl, AccELERATIoN tel 1.0 0.015 2.5 0.r00 5.0 0.233 10.0 0.295 25.0 0.295 100.0 0.200 AFSConsultlng rce S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\3.1Q Report File\R417\R1\27U294-R417 , Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-017 Reuision 1, March 20, 2014Page 51 of 56-u0 Y tr o a-+f o tr o I o (, I-lU F IJ o c ln 1,0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 1.0 10.0 Frequency (Hzl-lHS, 0.209 PGA (-BVl H-SSE, 0"1259 PGA FIGURE 5-I BVPS-I SSE AND IPEEE HCLPF SPECTRA S:\Locaf\PubsV734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3 1Q Report File\R417\R1U7U294-R417, Rev. 1.docx fFCottslttttm 2734294-R-017 Reaision 1 March 20, 2014Page 52 of 56

6.0 CONCLUSION

S In accordance withthe 50.54(f) request for information letter (NRC, 2012a) a seismichazardandscreening evaluation was performed for BVPS-I. This reevaluation followed the guidance provided in the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) and developed the control point GMRS for the Site. Thescreening evaluation compares the horizontal SSE, spectrum to the control point GMRS.Based on the results of the screening evaluation, the plant screens in for risk evaluation, a SpentFuel Pool evaluation, and a High Frequency Confirmation. The GMRS exceeds the horizontalSSE both inthe I to l0Hzpart of the response spectrum and above 10 Hz.Although the BVPS-1 IPEEE is a focused scope SPRA, and is not used for screening, this Report (Appendix B) performs the evaluation of the completed IPEEE. It concludes that the IPEEE is of good quality and meets all other prerequisites and the adequacy requirements in accordancewith the SPID (EPRI, 2013a). The Report compares the GMRS to the IPEEE spectrum forreference and to illustrate the robustness in the plant design relative to the design basis for new plants.The SPRA for BVPS-l is currently on-going and is expected to be completed in accordance withthe schedule for CEUS nuclear plants provided in the April 9,2013, letter from industry to the NRC (NEI, 201 3) and agreed to by NRC in a letter dated May 7 , 2013, (MLl3 106433 1).S:\Local\Pubs\27%294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R{17\RlU7U294-R4'17, Rev. 1.docx fE$Con*ulting 2734294-R-01-7 Reuision 1.March 20, 201.4Page 53 of 5

67.0 REFERENCES

Castagna, J.P., and M.M. Backus,1993,, "Rock Physics - The Link Between Rock Properties and AVO Response," in Eds., Offset-dependent reflectivity - Theory and Practice of AVO Analysis, Castagna, J.P., Batzle, M.L., and Kan, T.K., Investigations in Geophysics (SEG)No. 8, p. 135 -17 l, 1993.Duquesne Light Company, 1995, "Beaver Valley Power Station Unit l, Probabilistic Risk Assessment, Individual Plant Examination Summary Report," June 1995.EPRI, 1989a, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Evaluation for Beaver Valley Power Station, Project RPl0l-53, Electric Power Research Institute, April 1989. EPRI, 1989b, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Evaluations at Nuclear Plant Sites in the Central and Eastern United States: Resolution of the Charleston Earthquake Issue, NP-6395-D, Electric Power Research Institute, April 1989. EPRI, 1990, "Procedure for Evaluating Nuclear Power Plant Relay Seismic Functionality," Report 7148, Electric Power Research Institute, December 1990.EPRI, 1991, "Industry Approach to Severe Accident Policy Implementation," Report EPRI NP-7498, Electric Power Research Institute, November 1991.EPRI, 1993, "Guidelines for Determining Design Basis Ground Motions," Electric Power Research Institute, Vol. 1-5, EPRI TR-102293, Electric Power Research Institute, 1993.EPRI, 2004, "CEUS Ground Motion Project Final Report: TR-1009684 2004," Electric Power Research Institute, December 2004. EPRI, 2006, "Program on Technology Innovation: Truncation of the Lognormal Distribution and Value of the Standard Deviation for Ground Motion Models in the Central and Eastern United States," TR-1014381, Electric Power Research Institute, August 2006. EPRI, 20A7a, "Program on Technology Innovation: The Effects of High-Frequency Ground Motion on Structures, Components, and Equipment in Nuclear Power Plants," EPRI 1015108, Electric Power Research Institute, June 2007 .EPRI, 2007b, "Program on Technology Innovation: Seismic Screening of Components Sensitiveto High-Frequency Vibratory," EPRI 101 5 I 09, Electric Power Research Institute, October 2007 .S:\Local\Pubsl27%294 FENOC Beaver Valley\3.1 Q Report File\R41 7\R1V73/,294-R417 , Rev. 1 .docx 273U94-R-017 Reaision 1March 20, 20L4 Page 54 of 56EPRI, 20l3a "Seismic Evaluation Guidance, Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1:Seismic," Electric Power Research Institute, February 2013.EPRI, 20l3b, "Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic," Report 3002000704, Electric Power Research Institute, April, 2013.EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute),2013c, "EPRI (2004,2006) Ground-Motion Model (GMM) Review Project, Report 3002000717," June 2013.EPRIIDOE/I.{RC, 2012, "Technical Report: Central and Eastern United States Seismic Source Characterization for Nuclear Facilities," EPRI Report # 1021097, U.S. DOE Report # DOEAIE-0140, U.S. NRC NUREG-2115, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, U.S. DOE,U.S. NRC, 2012.FENOC ,201l, Beaver Valley Power Station Unit I Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Revision 27 ,Docket No. 50-334, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company ,2011.FENOC ,2012, "Updated Final Safety Analysis Report," Revision 27 ,Beaver Valley PowerStation Unit 2, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company,2012. FENOC ,2013a, "Site Description for Beaver Valley Power Station, Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1Partial Submittal," FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, September 12,2013.FENOC ,2013b, "Beaver Valley Power Station Unit I Near-Term Task Force Recommendation

2.3 Seismic

Walkdown Report," Revision l, September 4,2013 (NRC ADAMS accession number MLI 3284A022), FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, 2013.FENOC,20l3c, "Addendum to Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 1 Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report, Rev 1, Dated September 4,2013" November 1,2013 G\fRC ADAMS accession number ML 14028A263), FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company,2013. Goldthwait, R., G. White, and J. Forsyth, 1961, "Glacial Map of Ohio," Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Div. of Geol Survey, 1961. Hough, J.L., 1958, "Geology of the Great Lakes," University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL, 1958.Miller, S.L.M., and R.R. Steward, 1990, "Effects of Lithology, Porosity and Shaliness on P- and S-Wave Velocities from Sonic Logs," Canadian Journal of Exploration Geophysics, Volume26, Nos. l &, 2, p. 94-1 03, 1990.AESConsuEing rct S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R417\R1\2734294-R417, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-4L7 Reuision 1,March 20, 20L4Page 55 of 56Norris, S.E,., 1975, Geologic Structure of Near-Surface Rocks in Western Ohio, Ohio Journal ofScience 75(5): 225, 1975. NEI, 2013, Letter from Pietrangelo (NEI) to Skeen (NRC) with Attachments, "Proposed Path Forward for NTTF Recommendation2.l: Seismic Reevaluations," Nuclear Energy Institute,April 9,2013. NEI, 2014, Letter from Pietrangelo (NEI) to Leeds (NRC) with Attachments, "Seismic Risk Evaluations for Plants in the Central and Eastern United States," Nuclear Energy Institute, March12, 2014.NRC, 1991, "Procedural and Submittal Guidelines for the Individual Plant Examination ofExternal Events for Severe Accident," NUREG-1407, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,Washington, D.C ., 1991.NRC, 2007 , "A Performance-Based Approach to Define the Site-Specific Earthquake GroundMotion," Regulatory Guide 1.208, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.,March 2007. NRC, 2009, "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 36, Regarding Beaver Valley Power Station, Units I and 2," NUREG-1437, Supplement 36, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., May 2009.NRC, 2010a, Memorandum, Hiland to Sheron, "safety/Risk Assessment Results for GenericIssue 199 'Implications of Updated Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Estimates in Central andEastern United States on Existing Plants,' u. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, WashinglonD.C., September 2,2010 [MLl 00270598ML]. NRC, 2010b, !'Resolution of Generic Safety Issues: Issue 199 Implications of Updated Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Estimates in Central and Eastern U.S. for Existing Plants," IJ.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington D.C., NUREG-0933. NRC, 20l2a, " Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(0 Regarding Recommendations 2.1,2.3 and 9.3 of the Near-Term Task Forces Review ofInsights from the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Accident, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., March 12 201 2 (ML12053A340).NRC, 2013, Letter from E.J. Leeds (NRC) to J.E. Pollock (NEI), "Electric PowerResearchInstitute Final Draft Report XXXXXX, 'seismic Evaluation Guidance: Augmented Approachfor the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic,' as an Acceptable Alternative to the March 12,2012, Information Request for Seismic Reevaluations,"U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., May 7,2013, (ML131064331). lFSCorculting rctS:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R{17\R19734294-R417, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-0L7 Reaision L March 20, 2014Page 56 of 56 NRC, 2014, Letter from E.J. Leeds (NRC) to All Power Reactor Licensees and Holders ofConstruction Permits in Active or Deferred Status, "supplemental Information Related to Request for Information Pursuant to Title l0 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(0 Regarding SeismicHazard Reevaluations for Recommendation2.l of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington D. C., February 20, 201 4.Pickett, G.R., (Pickett),1963, "Acoustic Character Logs and their Applications in Formation Evaluatior," Journal of Petroleum Technology, Volume 15, No. 6,p. 659-667, 1963.Rafavich, F., C.St. C.H. Kendall, and T.P. Todd, 1984, "The Relationship betweenAcoustic Properties and the Petrographic Character of Carbonate Rocks," Geophysics, Volume 49, No. 10, p. 1622-1636, 1984.RIZZO,2013, "Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis and Ground Motion Response Spectra, Beaver Valley Power Station, Seismic PRA Project," Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc., Pittsburgh,PA, April 19, 2013.Gsrsulting rctS:\Local\Pubs\27H294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-017\R1\2734294-R417, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-0L7Reaision 1. March 20, 20L4 APPENDIXA NTTR 2.I SITE RESPONSE ANALYSISBVPS-I SITE AESCorrulting rct S:\Local\Pubs\27%294 FENOC Beaver Valley\3. 1 Q Report File\R-O1 7\R1\27U294-R417 , Rev. 1 .docx 2734294-R-01_7Reaision L March 20,201.4 Page 42 of 1'10 1.2.a J.4.5.APPBNDIX A - NTTF 2.1 SITE RESPONSE ANALYSIS INPUTS AND RESULTSN BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION SITE Uncertainty and variability in inputs to the site response analysis are addressed as follows: Epistemic uncertainty in shear wave velocity (V.) is modeled using three V, profiles.The derivation of upper range (UR) and lower range (LR) V, profiles is based on using a factor of 1.15, which is derived from a range of reasonable VoN, ratios based on literature review for the type of Paleozoic rocks that exist at the Site.The randomized site profile realizations use the log standard deviation as the layer by layer coefficient of variation: 0.25 for the upper 50 ft and 0.15 at greater depths . Basedon the review of sonic log data from the three FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) Sites, an upper and lower V, limit is defined by a factor of 1.3 relative to thebase case Vs for each of the three V, profiles.The SPID (EPRI 2013a) specifies the use of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)rock degradation curves for rock units such as found at the FENOC Sites. These curves were used for the top 500 feet (ft) of rock. Below 500 ft, damping for the bedrock is derived consistent with kappa estimates. At the BVPS-1 Site strain-dependent properties for the soil overburden are based onUFSAR data for the Pleistocene Upper and Lower Terrace Units (1E).Consistent with the SPID (EPRI 2013a), kappa is estimated for each site profile. For both the lower and UR Vs profiles, uncertainty is represented using a secondary kappa valuebyapplyingafactorof 1.5 (multipliedby 1.5 forLRprofileanddividedby 1.5 for UR profile). For profiles greater than 3,000 ft the SPID (EPRI 2013a) specifies use of an equation between V. (30m) and kappa; all three profiles at BVPS-l are greater than 3,000ft thickness. The total kappa is based on adding the soil kappa, the rock kappa, and the hard rock kappa. For the secondary kappa profiles the rock damping in the top 500 ft is modified by thesame factor of 1.5 used to characterize uncertainty in kappa. Below 500 ft rock dampingwas adjusted to preserve the total kappa for the profile.Table A-1 provided below specifies the site response inputs consistent with these assessments of uncertainty and variability. Table,4-8 lists the resulting median AF and the related ln-sigma for seven selected frequencies and I 1 values of input hard rock peak ground acceleration (PGA).Tables A-9 to A-11 list the resulting median AF and the related ln-sigma for three loading levels associated with Figures 2-6 and 2-7.lESCotrculting rCR 6.7.8.9.S:\Locaf\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-O17\R1\2734294-R417, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-0L7 Reaision L March 20, 2014 Page A3 of A1.0 a ()P L c)U)q)L<o (D 1-()a g cg k o)F ()65.o a tu (D F;()Lr (l)o a+'r o (),!)q rrl rn c.).d O U)(,)t:-t<a (l)a F ,-A lil z ,i--trc R r/)dz io nQ Fr 4u)d t-l' fv.-F]t-{o}1 C)(H o P (),9)rn g 9.9 LA.9--oX hF# (l)(l)=*ao*ar,.ge trc);iP9t a'a o y0)z d*fF$Gonsulting rct r.1 p rl (.)a o--h[,q b[A ,F a c.)LlJ 8a 9\O (i ^l*ar A(*$I c)ct3 F ts (.)lt)!C)()t-<U7-o C,)(.)(n (t)!6)()L.o n ca C)bI tl.r C)CN d A rrtE-Gl^J .!m x'>.d HA^'\!-- g v^ttl C-i .9 o s{Err R*;> F N --H t+{ (g/Yl n co\o o\*.i o)oop cl .6J-+FO ca qf \O E go Qvrr&<ntl'338-<O lE ,,'g Lr ii ot r< C)ol lat o tl B r'- ()ooP 1c1 -CS*Fo (/) oSf tso tXtt:ilF (t3 rr F c.l.!z fr0) ol)\O**r 9ot\-F rnj\Ov j ral A tl F otE ao 00E EE la x+id Eo a.r u) .s J (,f r I L 0')ol-oo .o tar O tl Ets EBoo 3 s.E ra x 3S t UbFq& Q.E -F=Ss ilE fr 9or\vF rat.:\ov-i tal O tl-Hl-<(,)C)()o li b{J1 (.)b{U)(,)tr (t)d 0)-'l (t)(,)o (h F ral\o tl aa?9 ()^A*q>n(g N L ()OI-l-<c)F-l (r,)n'5 lar 6^i .S C-.1 r =U xo U^-.3 ca d dE?E*:E> E E-o o-r.\V I F\ =tV ca+o\":(u oo,o co ,cg'+Fo (, ()\O 8 gd Evtl.& rh tl:s>t- c!l-o E"'*tl g Lr ooI r<ool ra)A tl B talt?. I o\:()oo*co,(6 sFo U) ()+E gd Evrr&rntl:R>i- ca r-oE rr'F c.l g$r;i bo ctr rO\Ol<a\ CS+Lr 9ot rj (\v.-.j\n-i tl o\ (\3 6tE e?lJO oo*C) ^.La OS tl () fl^10 a-r U)E F J4 ()rrl r<ooI lal O tl F E+r oo Eluo 39.8J4 tr 3s 5 boHoq d orc+H^E F'F rQi7, r<9ot\vFl.nS.'.;tal-: tl B o\ (*ooE c.)!i 6a?9 (.) ^n*a>N(g (,)*(t)fr"l U)(,)(t)n*.s=Atv a.t \. H.-A-* tsE Eo v_6 tV co c.)o\^' (,)*!61 .tE.+F^rn aYE 9-q-ll E3>t- (\t<O E ,,'*tl J Uoto\ Gl Gt'o c.)Lrii or*rc rn-i tl F (,)*()a.z (.)s ()O.a z (,)()z ()I c)0 z r-H C.) x.QA 9t gca h0()ard t-J ()f r l fr c)olo\ cg ooE ral O tl F F F D z ()o t-<a ()a (.)a (,)c)c)!o c,)f-.1 t-<rt)o.o.(d^v!c)v a ral g F (")r:-g()^u!iJx lal bI (.)B o.o.ss'()-.E U)tf.!n a.F (l)r:-L<Q0)^u)Y(g:.o lrlbl (l)q-v oE={i EF ioo AC ()tr a/\d a-= bo c.{'= c_v*'E J- a-e> b.E*Af O a S:\Locaf\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-O17\R1\27U294-R417, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-0L7 Reuision 1, March 20, 2014 Page A4 of A1.0TABLE A-2SHBAR wAvE VELOCITY [ftlsl PROFILES TABLE A-3 KAPPA (K1) USED WITH BBST ESTIMATE PROFILE Pl AB$Consulting rCR LA,ynR ElnvlrroN tftl Pnorrln P1 tft/sl DnprH Iftl PRoprln P2 tftlsl Dnpur lfq Pnorrln P3 lftlsl DnprH lftl 680.9 I100 0 957 0 1265 0 665I 100 15.9 957 15.9 t265 r5.9 665 1200 15.9 1043 ts.9 1380 15.9 625 1200 55.9 r043 5s.9 1380 s5.9 625 5000 55.9 4348 55.9 5750 55.9 550 s000 130.9 4348 130.9 5750 130.9 550 6026 130.9 5240 130.9 6930 130.9 350 6026 330.9 5240 330.9 6930 330.9 350 6744 330.9 5864 330.9 7756 330.9 300 6744 380.9 5864 380.9 7756 380.9 300 6744 380.9 5864 380.9 7756 380.9-120 6744 800.9 5864 800.9 7756 800.9-120 7tt2 800.9 6184 800.9 8179 800.9-2994 7tt2 3674.9 6184 3674.9 8179 3674.9-2994 64163674.95579 3674.9 7378 3674.9-3700 6416 4380.9 5579 4380.9 7378 4380.9-3700 9200 4380.9 9200 4380.9 9200 4380.9 Klppl (nocx) Blspn oN: Loc (k) = 2.2189 - 1.093

Loc (Vsroo)Vstoo FoRBBnnocrc=

5222 ftls; K,q.ppn (Pl):.0143s K.lpp,l (sotl) Blsnn oN: K.q.nnl (ms) = .0605

H (m) = .0605
17.038 = .001sTor^Lt Klppl

.001 + .0143 + .006 (H.lnn Rocr) = .021,3s V, [ftls]P1 THrcxNnss lftl Dnprn ro Ton [ft]I 100 15.9 1200 40 15.9 5000 75 55.9 6026 200 130.9 6744 50 330.9 67 44 420 380.9 7 tt2 2874 800.9 6416 706 3674.9 920043 80.9S:\Locaf\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-O17\R1t273/,294-R417, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-0L7 Reuision 1, March 20, 20L4 Page A5 of AL0 TABLE A-4 KAPPA (kl) USED WrrH LOWER RANGB PROFILE P2 TABLB A-5 KAPPA (k2) USED \MrTH LOWER RANGE PROFILEPZ AFConsultlng rCQ K,tpp,{ (Rocr) B.q.snn ON: Loc (k) :2.2189 -

1.093

Loc (Vsroo)Vsroo FoR BEDRoCx

= 4541 ftls; K,tppA. (P2) = .0167s K,tpp,l (sorl) BASED on: K,q,ppA (ms) = .0605

H (m) : .0605
17.038 = .001sTor^Lt Knpp,r

= .001 + .0167 + .006 (H,rnn RocK) = .0237s V, [ftls]P2 Tnrcxxnss lftlDnpru ro Ton [ft]957 15.91 043 40 15.9 4348 75 55.9 5240 200 r30.9 5864 50 330.9 s864 420 380.961 84 2874 800.9 5579 706 3674.9 9200 4380.9 K,q,pp,l (nocr) BASED ox 1.5

k(1) : .025s K,lpp,l (sou,) BASED oN: KAppA (ms) = .0605
H (m) = .0605
17.038 = .001s Tor,Ar, K,q.ppA, = .001 + .025 + .006 (H,lnn nocx) = .032s V. [ftls] P2 Thickness Iftl DnprH ro Ton [ftl 957 15.9 r043 40 15.9 4348 75 55.9 5240 200 130.9 5864 50 330.9 5864 420 380.961 84 2874 800.9 5579 706 3674.9 9200 4380.9S:\Local\Pubs\27M294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-O17\R1\27U2U-R417, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-0L7 Reaision 1.March 20, 20L4 Pog, 4! of 49 K,q.pp,{ (nocr) BASED oN:

Loc (k) = 2.2189 - 1.093

Loc (Vsroo)Vsroo FoR BEDRocr - 6006 ftls; Klpp.l, (P3) : .0123sK,tpp,{(soll) BASEDoN:

Knrr.L (ms) =.0605

H (m):.0605
17.038 =.001sTor,Lt Knpp.q.

= .001 + .0123 + .006 (Hnnn Rocr) = .019!q_V. [ftlsl P3 THrcxxnss lfrl DnprH ro Ton [ftl 1265 15.9 I 380 40 15.957 50 75 5s.9 6930 200 r 30.9 77 56 50 330.977 56 420 380.9 8179 287 4 800.9 7378 706367 4.9 9200 4380.9 TABLE A.6 KAPPA (k1) USED WITH UPPER RANGE PROFILE P3 TABLE A-7 KAPPA (K2) USED WITH UPPER RANGB PROFILE P3 Gonsultlng rrc..'?Klppl (nocr) BASED ox K(1) l 1.5: .0082s Knppn (Sorl) Blsnn On: Klnr,l (ms) = .0605

H (m) : .0605
17.038 = .001s Tor.r.r, Klpp.a, = .001 + .0082 + .006 (H,tnn nocr) = .015?s V, [ftlsl P3 THrcxnBss lftl DnprH ro Ton [ftl t26s r 5.9 1380 40 15.9 5750 75 55.9 6930 200 130.977 56 50 330.977 56 420 380.9 8179 2874 800.9 7378 706 367 4.9 920043 80.9S:\Locaf\Pubs\279294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R{17\R'1V7U294-R417, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-0L7 Reuision 1 March 20, 2014 Page A7 of A10<b F<E3 If r'1 c-.1 q N If rl co aa;If r'1 N"a;Ir Y'l c"l cal I r!o\n co I frl U?co I fr)ca\ca I frl ro.+If r I\o+t fr.l o\cl!+I rr)-f, in+z E<+at;+oo q (t.l+frl

\o 00 oi+frl 9 c{-rr r'l oo n cn+rrl tar ca 6i-rf r I (\l cl C..l+frl c\q+r t'l o\9+f r"l ,1-r frl!+cl Nbi:<n, (t)c{t Trl lal.1 c-'l (\.1 If r'1 n Ol I frl+9 I frl (\t ct;I frl ral cl s If r'l 00 9 rrlI fr'l C-l F-+co+E]oo e?+rr'l s\+o\c.i gE I lrl(\tf r'l o\+6i I frl\o lal c.i I frl r-ral e.i I tll irt e.i I frl lar e.i I I'r)oo ta)c.i I rrl oo\q (\ar r'l o\o9 (\,f rl co o!co I rrl rar n ao<h E<=z (,l c-l Ir r'l q\o c.l If r'l Or r-ctt I rrl s c1 r-c.l I rrl oo.+t--(\.t I fr)00 ta)r'-C.l I fr)co F,-c.l If r'!oo 9 r-N I frl q t.-N I frl rrl od c{I frl\o<f O.I Trl\o-i z**E<+Trl\o\+Trl\o v?+Trl n+l-rl n+frl aO.1+frl\o cl+rr)c.!-r oo I rrl o\\o o\If r'l tal 9 oo If r'l\rr 00 r-z xtr E<-rf r'1 (\c]I T gl ao ol+trl t.l+r!tal cl-r rq r.lc.!-r lrl cl-r-l'r'1\o cl-r t-.l+g.]oo c]+frl o\c\l+frl a?a N;i (\l I ril tr-cti I frl co I frl c.i I r++I r!co q ra!I rrl co oq t.-I rrl tal\o\+f r I lal n+rq ral q+frl F-t e.i-rf r l F-q c.l o Ht U?co I rYl$n oo c-q I rr)tr*oe C-l Irr I=f oq c.l C-l I frl c-\s c.l I frl o\ral ,^N I rr'l o\ca od If r'l e.l-: I frl r-n If r )ca J I rI]ot n (\Ir r'l oo oo c'i< t-.z<9>aJ IT r'l o\If r'l c.i If r'l t--ral c.i I frl ca I frl e\!cn I El ca c.l ca I\o=r ca I frl\ca I frl C-l oq co I rrl C-l q a.l Ir rl r-q co< frr 4<E4 I rr)(\\I frl\o\I o\r-I trl\o oq If r'l co q 1 frl cti Ir r'l 6i I frl o\(")(\.l I frl ta)q c!I rr.l.1 co I Trl.+\ca z E<T tr-oq+rrl tr--+f rl J I frl la)od I frl c-t--I tr-Ir Y'l lal t\CJ If r'l=f la)If r l oo 9 s I rt)+If r'l oo 9 cr)*-E<+rYl*c.l+rrl a?+Trl.1-r frl 6l ao+trl+..'!-rf r'l lrlca-r frl\o ao l-l-r l=q+frl lir n+frl o\R!frl +,1 a Ni rn N c.l I frl c"l Iri l tr-.-;Ir r'l c-l c!I frl ao Fr+I rrl o\trr I rrl t-.oi-rf r I c!ol-r frl\o oq+r r'l ca U?(\+rr)ao cl co+f r I o\oq ao Nbl i<-a C-l I\o n (\l I c\\ro t\t I frl oq tal I fYl I rrl n If r'1 oq I lJ.,l (\c.l Ir r'1.,1 ao I frl co c.l.<r I r!("'!lrlIr r-l s.rl\o< t-r YZ If r'1\o cl I frl la)-.;I tr-If r'l o\ca If r'1$,.lI frl o\9 I lll ca oq I oo c.i I frl r-o.!ol I rI]\o n (\t I rrl o\ral c.i<tr F<E3 I rrl ca+I frl\o 9 v I rYl c.l++I IJ]r-+If r'l t-.\co 1 frl co ,q co I la)n c.)I frl 6 cl eO I frl lar cl ao If r I lal co If r I+c.;z E<+frl co cl C.l-rf r I F--T-frl o\aO+f r'1 J I frl=f, r-o\I r!N oo od I frl co od I trl co o\I trl s\o I frl C.l ul ra)I frl tal ,r;z E<E+f r)F--r rtl c-\-rf r l sf oq f rrl.+o\+r!..i+lrr c.i+frl o\cri+rrl r'-c'i-l-r rl r-c.i+tt1 6l c.i+rrl tr* c.i N-Fal=<=a c.l I C-l-: c-l I trl in n lal I lrl I frl c.l lal cti I Tr'l r'-a.;I oo n tal I lJ,]co t--+frl-+rrl ,1+f r'l h q-rr rl c-ctl 6l a Sa U?t\(\Ir r'1\o c,i c\I rrl\00\o I H.+I rr'l co c.i I rrl*oq (\.1 I frl co\eo I fYl tar+If Y ll.-\o I frl C-l q oo+f r'1 c-'l+Tr l!+cl rc F lrl 0 r-l I a er lil/1.-A v Fr^^a az<o-\ --F-I r\hA \J 2Z\r F-\?a z A v F Q-Frrl-t]A,-AffiGonsultlngS:\LocalIPubs\27U294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R{17\R1\27U294-R417, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-01_7Reaision L March 20,201.4 Page A8 of A10TABLE A-9 AMPLIFICATION FUNCTIONS AT SPECIFIC LOADING LEVELS FOR BVPS.I SITB100 Hz SPECTRAL ACCELERATION

0.119 Fnnqunncv IHZIPnoFn r Pl Klpra IEPRI RocK Nolr.nnln CuRvnsl-Conrunn GnouNn MorroN Monnl PRoru,B Pl K,q.PPl I Lwpln Rocx Cunvnsl-Connrn Gnounn MorIon MonnlMnnnN AF Srcul LN(AF)Mnonx AF Srcul Lrq(AF)0.1l. l5E+00 6.968-02l. l5E+00 7.058-02 0.13 l.l4E+00 6.928-02 l.l4E+00 6.988-02 0.16 1.16E+00 8.668-02 l.l7E+00 8.69E-02 0.2 1.228+00 1.188-01 1.22E+00 l.l8E-01 0.26 1.31E+00 1.53E-01 l.3lE+00 1.53E-01 0.33 1.37E+00 1.44E-01 1.37E+00 1.44F-01 0.42 1.32E+00 8.18E-02 1.32E+00 8.188-02 0.5 1.22E+00 5.708-02 1.228+A0 5.698-02 0.53l l9E+00 5.368-02 1.198+00 5.36E-02 0.67 Ll0E+00 4.80E-02 1.10E+00 4.88F-02 0.85 l.l9E+00 2.008-01 1.19E+00 2.028-0r I 1.30E+00 1.82E-01 1.30E+00 1.82E-01 1.08 l.32E+00 1.38E-01 1.338+00 1.39E-01 t.37 1.32E+00 1.48E-01 L33E+00 1.558-01 1.74 l.43E+00 2.028-01 1.43E+00 2.06E-01 2.21 1.62E+00 3.24E-01 1.63E+00 3.39E-01 2.5 1.75E+00 4.00E-01 1.75E+00 4.27F-01 2.81 1.928+00 4.738-01 1.928+00 4.85E,01 3.56 2.45E+00 3.71E-01 2.468+00 3.73E-01 4.52 2.88E+00 3.298-01 2.89E+00 3.31E-01 5 2.85E+00 2.878-01 2.86E+00 2.87F-0r 5.74 2.648+00 2.848-01 2.658+04 2.83E-01 7.28 2.04E+00 3.16E-01 2.05E+00 3.07E-01 9.24 1.59E+00 2.7t8-01 1.60E+00 2.69E-01 l0 l.5lE+00 2.268-01 l.5lE+00 2.238-01 tt.72 1.49E+00 2.238-01 1.50E+00 2.238-0r 14.87 1.428+00 2.368-01 1.43E+00 2.328-01 18.87 1.28E+00 2.37F-01 1.29E+00 2.21F-01 23.95 1.07E+00 1.948-01 1.07E+00 1.82E-01 25 1.04E+00 1.92E-01 1.04E+00 1.798-Al 30.39 9.64E-01 1.448-01 9.70E-01 1.38E-01 38.57 9.19E-01 9.20E-02 9.238-01 9.568-02 48.94 9.65E-01 8.38E-02 9.68E-01 8.84E-02 62.1 1.06E+00 7.058-02 1.07E+00 7.63E-02 78.8 1.20E+00 6.388-02 1.21E+00 7.158-02 100 1.40E+00 6.198-02 1.41E+00 7.038-02 S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-O17\R19734294-R417, Rev, 1.docx fBtGonsulting 2734294-R-0L7 Reaision L March 20, 201.4Page A9 of A10TABLB A-10AMPLIFICATION FUNCTIONS AT SPECIFIC LOADING LBVELS FOR BVPS.I SITE 100 Hz SPECTRAL ACCELERATION

0.379 FnneunNCY IHzIPnoru,n Pl K,q,ppA, IEPRI Rocr NoNr,rnnan Cunvnsl-Comwn GRouNr Morrox Monnl Pnortln Pl K,lPPl I Lmpnn Rocx CuRvnsl-ConNnR GRouNn Mouon Moonr.MnuIaN AF Stctrl.l Ltrl(AF)MnILq.N AF Srcun LN(AF)0.1I . 1 7E+00 7.368-02I .1 7E+00 7.45F'02 0.13I .1 5E+00 7.268-02I . I 5E+00 7.318-02 0.16 l.l8E+00 8.93E-021.1 8E+00 8.95E-02 0.2 1.23E+00I .21E-0 r 1.23E+00 1.21E-01 4.26 1.328+00 1.56E-01 1.32E+00 1.56E-01 0.331.38E+00I .46E-01 1.38E+00 1.46E-01 0.42 1.33E+00 8.418-02 1.33E+00 8.39E-02 0.5 1.238+00 5.788-02 1.23E+00 5.778-02 0.53 1.20E+00 5.40F.-02 1.20E+00 5.398-02 0.61 l.llE+005 .528 -02 1.1 lE+00 5.528-02 0.85 1.20E+00 2.t4E-0r 1.20E+00 2.14F-01 I 1.33E+00 1.93E-01 1.32E+00 1.93E-01 1.08 1.35E+00I .498-01 1.35E+001 .49E-01 r.37 1.37E+00 1.84E-01 1.368+00r .91E-0 r t.t4 1.50E+00 2.478 -01 1.50E+00 2.578-01 2.21 1.74E+00 3.92F-01 1.74E+004. l6E-01 2.5I .91E+003.97F-01 1.91E+00 4.428-01 2.81 2.09E+00 3.868-01 2.1 0E+00 3.91E-01 3.56 2.50E+00 3.49E-0r 2.528+00 3.57F-01 4.52 2.59E+00 2.988-01 2.62E+00 2.98E-01 5 2.50E+00 2.97E-01 2.53E+00 3.00E-01 5.74 2.298+00 3.54E-01 2328+40 3.50E-01 7.28 1.76E+00 3.278-0r 1.798+00 3.18E-01 9.24 1.39E+00 2.75E-01 1.43E+00 2.648-01 10 1.36E+00 2.33E-01 1.39E+00 2.258-01 r1.72 1.32E+00 2.348-01 1.36E+00 2.49F-01 t4.87I . I 7E+002.448-01I .21E+00 2.478 -01 18.87 1.04E+00 2.99E-01 1.08E+00 2.81E-01 23.95 8.27E -01 2.638-0r 8.578-0r 2.488-01 25 8.05E-0r 2.628-01 8.35E-01 2.528-01 30.39 7.248-01 2.258-01 1.468-01 2. l0E-01 38.57 6.71E-011 .60E-0 r 6.90E-01 1.51E-01 48.946.7 6E-01 1.35E-01 6.92F-01 1.30E-01 62.17 .26E -01I . I 7E-017 .4tE-01 I.t2E-01 78.8 8. 19E-01 1.03E-01 8.35E-01 9.938 -02 100 1.02E+00 9.68E-02 1.04E+00 9.398-02 AB$Gonsulting rC?S:\Local\Pubs\27A294 FENOC Beaver Valley\3.1 Q Report File\R-O'l7\R1\2734294-R417 , Rev. 1 .docx 2734294-R-0L7 Reaision 1, March 20,201'4 Page A1.0 of A10 TABLB A-11AMPLIFICATION FUNCTIONS AT SPECIFIC LOADING LEVELS FOR BVPS-I SITE100 Hz SPECTRAL ACCELBRATION

= 1.035 FnneunNCY IIJZI PRonrln Pl Klppl I EPRI Rocx NOXT,INnAR CURVESl-ConNnR GROUNN MOTION MODEL PRonln Pl K,tPP,t I Lnn^tn Rocx Cunvns l-Conrrlnn GRouNn MortoN Moonl MnuInN AF SIcrrl.L Ln(AF)MnUtnN AF Stcnn,q, Lr.l(AF)0.1 1.19E+00 7.828-02 l.l9E+00 7.758-02 0.13I . I 7E+00 7.698-02I . I 6E+00 7.628-42 0.16 1.19E+00 9.378-02I . I 9E+00 9.308-02 0.2 1.248+00 r.26E-01 1.24E+00 1.25E-01 0.26 1.33E+00 t.628-01 1.33E+00I .61E-0 1 0.33 1.39E+00 1.52E-01 1.39E+00 l.5lE-O1 0.42 1.35E+00 8.988-02 1.348+00 8.85E-02 0.5 1.25E+00 6.10E-02 1.24E+00 6.00E-02 0.53I .21E+00 5 .678 -02 l.2lE+00 s.58E-02 0.67 1.13E+00 t.798-02I . I 3E+00 7.408-02 0.85 1.24E+00 2.53E -01 1.23E+00 2.498 -01 1 1.39E+00 2.288-01 1.37E+00 2.268-01 1.08 1.428+00 1.85E-01 1.40E+001 .82E-01 1.31 1.47E+00 2.958-0r 1.45E+00 3.0sE-01l.74 1.67E+00 3 .44E -01 1.64E+00 3.49E-01 2.21 1.96E+00 3.50E-01 1.94E+00 3.628-01 2.5 2.09E+00 3.168-01 2.08E+00 3.23E-01 2.81 2. I 8E+00 3.38E-0r 2.19E+00 3.50E-01 3.56 2.268+00 3.10E-01 2.30E+00 3.09E-01 4.52 2.148+00 3.56E-01 2.208+00 3.64E-01 5 2.04E+00 3.96E-01 2. l 0E+00 3.96E-01 5.74 1.80E+00 3.98E-01 1.86E+00 3.89E-01 7.28 1.36E+00 3.758-01 1.428+003 .628 -01 9.241. I 7E+00 2.85E,01 1.248+00 2.738-01 t0I .12E+00 2.58E-01 1.19E+00 2.548-01lt.72 1.00E+00 2.678-01 1.07E+00 2.55E-01 t4.81 9.13E-01 3 .298 -01 9.90E-01 3.198-01 18.87 7.26E-01 3.55E-01 7.89E-01 3.278-01 23.9s 6.00E-01 3.50E-01 6.51E-01 3.428 -01 25 5.85E-01 3.41E-01 6.33E-01 3.328-01 30.39 5.17E-01 2.66E-0r 5.53E-01 2.578-41 38.57 4.89E-01 2.298-0r 5.18E-01 2.29F-01 48.94 4.898-01 1.88E-01 5. l4E-0 I 1.88E-01 62.1 5.21E-01I .69E-01 5.45E-01I .69E-01 78.8 5.86E-01 1.57E-01 6.1 1E-01 1.56E-01 100 7.458-01 1.52E-01 7.168-01I .50E-01 S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-017\R19734294-R417, Rev. 1.docx AFConsuEing 2734294-R-01,7 Reaision'1. March 20, 201-4Page 81. of 87APPENDIX B EVALUATION OF BVPS-I IPEEE SUBMITTAL AFSGonsulting rct S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-O17\R1\27U294-R4'17, Rev. 1.docx 273429+R-01,7 Reaision 1 March 20, 2014Page 82 of 87 APPENDIX B - EVALUATION OF BVPS-I IPEEB SUBMITTAL The Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) forthe BVPS-I accomplished a probabilistic risk assessment that included seismic initiating events (Duquesne Light Co, 1995).Although allowed by Seismic Evaluation Guidance, Screening, Prioritization, and Implementation Details (SPID)/or the Resolution of the Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic (EPRI,20l3a), this IPEEE is not utilized in the Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) 2.1 plant screening. Nevertheless, it is summarizedhere for information, and because, in combination with the .4-46 program, the IPEEE findings indicate that the plant design is seismically robust and exhibits significant margins in excess of the design basis. TheIPEEE was performed in accordance with the guidelines in Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Technical Report (NUREG)-1407 (NRC, 1991). The plant high confidence of low probability of failure (HCLPF) value estimated from the Core Damage Frequency (CDF) isreported to be O.Zgpeak ground acceleration (PGA). It is largely controlled by failure scenarios involving the station batteries.B.l IPEEE PrerequisitesThe SPID (EPRI,20l3a) guidelines require that the following prerequisites be documented priorto the possible use of the IPEEE for screening. Confirm that commitments made under the IPEEE, have been met. If not, address andclose those commitments.Confirm whether all of the modifications and other changes credited in the IPEEEanalysis are in place.Confirm that any identified deficiencies or weaknesses to NUREG-1407 (NRC, 1991) in the plant specific NRC Safety Evaluation Report (SER) are properly justified to ensure that the IPEEE conclusions remain valid. Confirm that major plant modifications since the completion of the IPEEE have not degraded/impacted the conclusions reached in the IPEEE.AEgGonsulting rce 1.2.., J.4.S:\Locaf\Pubs\27il294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R417\R1\27U294-R417, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-0L7 Reaision 1 March 20, 2014 Page 83 of 87 As part of the NTTF 2.3 Seismic walkdown effort for BVPS-I, the IPEEE was examined to verify that the corrective actions were implemented and documents closed. Available Seismic Evaluation Worksheets (SEWS) generated during the IPEEE walkdowns were included in theNTTF 2.3 Report (FENOC,20I3b). The NTTF 2.3 walkdowns identified no potential adverse seismic conditions. The BVPS-I IPEEE identified no seismic vulnerabilities for the Plant. This was recognized bythe NRC in NUREG-1437 Supplement 36 "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 36, Regarding Beaver Valley Power Station Units I and 2" (NRC,2009). Page G20 and2l states "The NRC staff also notes thatthe use of the integratedPSA to facilitate identification of SAMAs for external events, the prior implementation of plant modifications for seismic and fire events, and the absence of external event vulnerabilities ensure that the search for external event SAMAs was reasonably comprehensive." 8.2IPEEB Adequacy Demonstration Consistent with the guidelines in NUREG -1407 G\fRC, 1991), the BVPS-l IPEEE is based on a seismic PRA (SPRA), which extends the Internal Events Probabilistic Risk Assessment (IEPRA). The SPRA evaluates the risk contribution and significance of seismic initiated events to the total plant risk. The SPRA was selected to accomplish the IPEEE over the seismicmargins assessment based on the following considerations: The SPRA would be integrated with the IEPRA. The integrated PRA wouldconsistently treat all internal and external initiating events. This model rigorously accounts for all accident sequences resulting from any combination of internal and external events. The resulting risk information provided fromthis integrated approach was viewed as more useful to management to makedecisions about allocating resources to manage the risks of severe accidents. With the ability to link the Level I and Level 2 eventtrees as demonstrated inthe IPE submittal, the selected PRA approach was found to provide a more rigorous examination of potential containment vulnerabilities and seismic/systems interactions impacting containment effectiveness than was possible using the seismic margins approach. S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\3. 1 Q Report File\R-O1 7\R1U734294-R417 , Rev. 1 .docx AE$Consulting 2734294-R-01.7 Reaision 1 March 20, 20L4Page 84 of

87. With the previous decision to perform an internal events PRA for the IPE, the ability to utilize insights from the completed internal events PRA, and the external events capabilities of the software that was used, there was a higher confidence that the seismic PRA would be completed within the resourcesbudgeted for the IPEEE program in comparison with the seismic margins approach.The seismic PRA consisted of the following main steps:S ei smic Hazar d Analysi s Fragility AnalysisPlant Logic Analysis and development of logic models Integration of Level 1 seismic event tress with Level 2 containment event trees Risk Quantification Uncertainty Quantifrcati on Enhancements to the foregoing steps were made to be responsive to the requirements from NUREG-1407 (NRC, 1991). Seismic events below about 0.lg were found to have an insignificant chance of failing any equipment. Seismic events above 1.33g were of low enough hazards andwere ignored. The seismic PRA results showed that95o/o of the seismic CDF comes from earthquakes that are at least twice as severe as the peak ground acceleration of the SSE (0.125g).

Core damage sequences resulting from earthquakes between roughly one and twotimes the SSE mainly involved seismic failure of either emergency DC power or emergency AC power.The following paragraphs briefly summarize the IPEEE in accordance with the requirements ofthe SPID (EPRI 2013a) guidelines.8.2.1 Building Seismic AnalysisThe design seismic analysis of Category I structures of BVPS-I is based on the time history modal superposition method using simulated time histories representing the SSE spectra.Lumped mass models of the buildings were utilized in the seismic analysis. These modelsS:\Local\Pubs\27g294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R417\R1\27U294-R417, Rev. 1.docx ABSGonsulting 2734294-R-4L7Reaision 1 March 20, 20'14 Page 85 of 87 represent the building mass at floor elevations and include the floor system, a portion of the walls above, and the walls below the floor system, and major component and equipment loads.In addition, masses are located at elevations where any other response values are required. The lumped masses are connected by story stiffnesses.Most major structures of the BVPS-1 are founded on the dense gravel layer underlying the upperterrace deposits. The soil structure interaction (SSD effects on the seismic response are represented by soil springs representing the stiffness and damping characteristics of the supporting soil medium. The soil springs represent a range of shear moduli values to envelopethe variation of peak floor response periods. Additionally, the Containment Building seismic model considers uncracked and partially cracked reinforced concrete sections to account for normal and pressurized conditions.Modal responses from the dynamic model are combined using the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) method to establish Seismic Category I structure seismic loads. This is used even when modes have closely spaced frequencies, since no well-established criterion to combine modes under this condition was available. In-structure response spectra (ISRS) used as seismic inputs to Category I structural systems, components, and equipment is derived from the lumped mass dynamic models. The dynamic model is also used to determine forces and overturning moments on the building structure. Overturning moments are combined with vertical acceleration forces in order to check structure overturning stability and subgrade reactions.Seismic response forces and stresses are determined for simultaneous application of horizontal and vertical earthquake ground motions using the response spectrum technique. It is assumedthat the response in the vertical direction is uncoupled from the lateral motion. Accordingly, two dynamic models, one for horizontal and one for the vertical, are used to obtain the respective response. The responses obtained from the two-dimensional (2D) planar models are combined using the SRSS method.Gonsutting l{]..'e S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-ol7\R1\2734294-R417, Rev. 1.docx rs 2734294-R-0L7 Reaision L March 2A, 201.4Page 86 of 87 8.2.2 IPEBE Seismic ResponseISRS for use in the seismic IPEEE were developed using median based soil properties, structural properties, and the median lx10-4 uniform hazard spectrum. The best estimate (BE) structural models used for this analysis were based on the mathematical models used in the design seismic analysis.The design basis SSE floor response spectra for one percent damping are scaled by use of S&A in-house computer program PSDI 07 .1. Scaling of the spectra incorporated the following: Change PGA from 0.l25gto 0.l5lgChange Equipment Damping Ratio from lYo to 5o/oChange SSE response spectrum shape to the IPEEE Uniform Hazard Spectrum Shape The scaling assumes that the IPEEE analysis is based on the composite modal dampingdeveloped from the soil-structure interaction (SSf analysis performed in 1979,limited to 7Yo.The seismic floor response spectra developed as described above and used for the fragility evaluations are provided in the IPEEE report (Duquesne Light Co, 1995).8.2.3 Screening of ComponentsThe development of the Safe Shutdown Equipment List (SSEL) and the screening evaluations were performed following the SPRA guidelines and based on the plant systems models. Initial screening prior to the walkdowns was based on HCLPF levels estimated relative to the median spectral shape of NUREG/CR-0098 (Newmark and Hall, l97S) anchored to 0.3g. Thesubsequent fragility analysis used floor response spectra associated with the Review Level Earthquake (RLE) spectrum. This screening utilized the guidelines in EPRI NP-6041 (EPRI, teet).S:\Local\Pubs\27U294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-O17\R1\2734294-R417, Rev. 1.docx lB$Gonsulting 2734294-R-01,7Reaision 1 March 20, 20L4Page 87 of 87 8.2.4 Seismic Capability WalkdownsThe IPEEE walkdowns were performed to support the subsequent fragility analysis, and toscreen out components that have a high enough HCLPF value and the site hazard curves. The preparation activities reviewed the seismic design criteria and design specifications for equipment and components for all the items on the seismic equipment list.In general, the walkdown team evaluated equipment aspect ratios, equipment, and piping anchorages and supports, the potential seismic interactions. The walkdowns assessed potentialseismic vulnerabilities, assigned preliminary HCLPF values, and identified potentially seismic-vulnerable component(s) in each group of similar type components based on the preliminary HCLPF values and the importance of the component as determined in the IPE. Preliminary HCLPF values were assigned based on judgment and experience of the seismic reviewteam, andreferences from both the Seismic Qualification Utility Group (SQUG) and EPRI NP-6041 (EPRr, 1991).The seismic capacities for other components were conservatively assigned based on the more vulnerable components in each group. Upon completion of the initial sequence quantifications the fragilities of significant contributors were improved using component-specific analysis. A confirmatory walkdown of components verified that representative fragilities of each group arestill applicable after detailed study. 8.3 GMRS and IHS ComparisonThe IPEEE for BVPS-I is not used for the plant screening evaluation. However, comparison of the IPEEE HCLPF spectrum (IHS) and the ground motion response spectra (GMRS) at the baseof the Reactor Building (RB) foundation level shows that the GMRS exceeds the IHS in therange of frequencies of interest.S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\3. 1 Q Report File\R-O'l7\R1\2734294-R4'17 , Rev. 1 .docx ABSCon*utting 2734294-R-01,7 Reaision L March 20,201,4Page Cl. of C1.2 APPENDIX C REACTOR BUILDING MEAN AND FRACTILE SEISMIC IJ.AZARI)BVPS-I SITE AESConsulffng rCRS:\Locaf\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-017\R1\2734294-R417, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-01-7 Reaision 1.March 20, 2014 Page C2 of C1.2 APPENDIX C - REACTOR BUILDING MEAN AND FRACTILE SEISMIC IilAZARD FOR THE SSE CONTROL POINT TABLE C-l LOOIdIZ SPECTRAL ACCELERATION MEAN AND FRACTILE SBISMIC HAZARDAT BBAVER VALLBY 1 RB FOUNDATION LEVEL SpncrRal AccnInRATIoN lpl ANNu.u. FNNQUNNCY OF EXCNNNANCE MB,l,t,l 5rH 16rn 50ru 84ru 95rH 0.01 9.258-03 5.428-03 6.858-03 9.26E-03 1.228-02 I.4lE-02 0.02 3.498-03 1.56E-03 2.05E-03 3.16E-03 4.91E-03 6.778-03 0.03 1.838-03 6.83E-04 9.208-04 1.55E-03 2.70E-03 4.16E-03 0.04 1.13E-03 3.65E-04 5.028-04 9.05E-04 1.7 tE-03 2.88E-03 0.05 7.688-04 2.198-04 3.05E-04 5.88E-04 1.19E-03 2.148 -03 0.06 5.598-04I .41E-04 2.018 -04 4.llE'04 8.83E-04 1.67E-03 0.07 4.268-04 9.60E-05 1.408-04 3.03E-04 6.89E-04 1.33E-03 0.08 3.368-04 6.88E-05I .01 E-04 2.338-04 5.548-04 1.07E-03 0.09 2.698-04 5.08E-05 7.55E-05 1.83E-04 4.538-04 8.61E-04 0.10 2.198-04 3.84E-05 5.798-05 r.468-04 3.73F,-04 1.04E-04 0.20 5.03E-056.7 5E-06 l.l3E-05 3.248-05 8.97E-05 1.638-04 0.25 3.06E-05 3.91E-06 6.73F,-06 1.98E-05 5.468-05 9.678 -05 0.30 r.99E-05 2.458 -06 4.30E-06 1.28E-05 3.56E-05 6.128-05 0.40 9.52E-06 1.08E-06 1.99E-06 6.03E-06 1.73E-05 2.938-05 0.50 s.08E-06 5.16E-07 9.998-01 3.18E-06 9.268-06 1.59E-05 0.60 2.908-06 2.628-07 5.278 -07 1.78E,06 5.30E-06 9.24F-060.701.738-06 1.40E-07 2.94F-01 1.04E-06 3.19E-06 5.60E-06 0.80 1.07E-06 7.678-08 t.668-07 6.188-07 1.98E-06 3.53E-06 0.90 6.89E-07 4.35E-08 9.73E-08 3.81E-07 1.27E-06 2.328-06 1.00 4.598-07 2.548-08 5.90E-08 2.42E-07 8.478-01 1.58E-06 2.00 3.648-08 7.108-10 2.03E-09 1.34E-08 6.s3E-08 t.49E-07 3.00 8.88E-09 8.55E-l I 2.84F-10 2.51F'09 1.54E-08 3.89E-08 s.00 r.228-09 4.838-t2 2.00E-11 2.51E-10 2.048-09 5.70E-09 AESConsulting rcR S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R417\R1\27U294-R417, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-01,7 Reaision L March 20, 2014 Page C3 of C1-2TABLE C-2 25HZ SPECTRAL ACCELERATION MEAN AND FRACTILB SEISMIC HAZARDAT BEAVER VALLEY 1 RB FOUNDATION LEVEL SpncrRAI, ACCnInRATIoN tslANt'lu.Ll, FRnouBNCy oF ExcnnuANcn MnIN 5rH 16rH 50rH 84rH 95rH 0.01 t.238-02 7.298-03 8.738-03 I.r7E-02 1.608 -02 r.938-02 0.025.65E-032.88E-03 3.62E-03 5.21E-037 .7lE-03 9.948 -03 0.03 3.30E-03 l.5lE-03 1.978-03 2.98E-03 4.648-03 6.278-03 0.04 2.148-03 8.978 -04 1.198-031.89E-033.08E-03 4.33E-03 0.05 1.50E-03 s.8lE-04 7.80E-04 r.298-03 2.19E-03 3.20E-03 0.06 1.108-03 4.01E-04 5.448 -04 9.288-04 1.65E-03 2.478-03 0.07 8.408-042.898-043.968-04 696E -04 1.28E-03 1.96E-03 0.08 6.628-04 2.168-04 2.988 -04 5.4t8-04 r.03E-03 1.60E-03 0.09 5.348-04 1.65E-04 2.308-04 43tE-44 8.36E-04 1.32F,-03 0.104.408-041.29F-04 1.828-04 3.51E-04 6.968-04 1.1 lE-03 0.20 1.208-04 2.52E-05 3.86E-05 8.98E-0s 2.07E-04 3.258-04 0.25 7.89E-05 1.52E-05 2.408-05 5.82E-05 1.39E-04 2.158 -04 0.30 5.54E-05 l.0lE-05 1.64E-054.08E-059.83E-05 1.51E-04 0.40 3.10E-05 5.318-06 8.88E-06 2.30E-05 5.52E-05 8.41E-05 0.50 1.928 -053.148-065.348-06 1.428-05 3.41E-05 5.19E-05 0.60 1.26E-0s 1.99E-06 3 .428 -06 9.31E-06 2.248-05 3.428-05 0.70 8.568-06 l.3lE-06 2.28F,-06 6.31E-06 1.54E-05 2.348-05 0.80 6.00E-06 8.89E,07 1.56E-06 4.398 -06 1.08E-05 r.66E-05 0.90 4.308-06 6.t6F-07I .l0E-06 3.128-061 .788 -06 1.20E-05 1.003.148-064.358-07 7.82E-07 2.268-06 5.71E-06 8.86E-06 2.402.978-072.738-08 5.62E-08 I.glE-07 5.558-07 9.388-07 3.00 l.2tE-08 4.478-09 1.038-08 4.07E-08 1.36E-07 2.478 -07 5.00 1.07E-08 4.58E-10I .l 7E-09 5.38E-09 2.01E-08 3.89E-08S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-O17\R1\27U294-R417, Rev. 1.docx fEtGonsulting 2734294-R-0L7 Reoision 1 March 2A, 2014Page C4 of C1.2 TABLB C-3 IOIJZ SPECTRAL ACCLERATION MEAN AND FRACTILB SBISMIC HAZARD AT BEAVBR VALLEY 1 RB FOUNDATION LBVEL Spncrnll, AccnInRATIoN Isl Alqnu.l,l, FnneunNcy oF ExcEEDANcE Mn.lnr 5rH 16rn 50rH 84ru 95ru 0.01 t.548-029.77F.-03l.t6E-02I .51E-02 t.938-02 2.258-02 0.02 6.54E-03 3.61E-034.458-036.238 -03 8.678-03 1.05E-02 0.033 .948 -03 2.00E-03 2.528 -033.69E-035.408-03 6.748-03 0.04 2.678-031.26E-031.63E-03 2.418-03 3.14E-03 4.778-03 0.05 t.92E-03 8.55E-04I .l2E-03 t.76E-032.7 4E-03 3.578-03 0.06 1.45E-03 6.12E-04 8.10E-04 1.31E-03 2.ttE-03 2.798-03 0.07 1.13E-03 4.588-04 6.1 I E-04I .01E-03 r.678-03 2.2s8-03 0.089. I 1E-04 3.53E-044.7 5E -04 8.03E-04 r.36E-03 1.86E-03 0.09 7.498-04 2.80E-04 3.798-04 6.528-04 l.l3E-03 1.578-03 0.10 6.278-04 2.268-04 3.08E-04 5.408-04 9.55E-04 1.35E-03 0.20 1.86E-04 4.89E-05 7.258-05 1.50E-04 3.09E-04 4.518 -04 0.25 r.258-04 2.95F.-05 4.45E-05 9.77E-05 z.t2E-04 3.13E-04 0.30 8.94E-05 1.95E-05 2.998-05 6.88E-0s 1.55E-04 2.308-04 0.40 5.248-05 l.0lE-05 l.6lE-05 3.95E-05 9.258-05 1.398-04 0.50 3.41E-05 6.078 -06 9.97E-06 2.55E-05 6.05E-05 9.19E-05 0.60 2.378-05 3.978 -06 6.668-06l .7 6E-05 4.228-05 6.448-05 0.70 r .728 -052.7 4E-064.678-061.268-05 3.07E-05 4.698-05 0.80 1.28E-05 1.96E-06 3.38E-069.30E-062.30E-05 3.528-05 0.90 9.698-06 1.438-06 2.51E-06 7.00E-06 1.75E-05 2.708-05 1.00 7.48E-061.06E-061.908-06 5.36E-06 1.36E-05 2.ttB-05 2.00 9.258-07 9.35E-08 1.88E-07 6.05E-07 r.lzE-06 2.86E-06 3.00 2.288-07 1.67E-08 3.68E-08 1.35E-07 4.298-07 7.60F-07 5.00 4.478-08 2.038-09 4.998-09 2.238-08 8.62E-08 1.678-07 fBSGonsulting rct S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-O17\R1\27U294-R417, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-017 Reaision L March 20, 20L4 Page CS of C12TABLE C-4sHZ SPECTRAL ACCELERATION MBAN AND FRACTILE SEISMIC HAZARDAT BEAVER VALLEY 1 RB FOUNDATION LBVEL Spncrnal AccnInRATIoN lpl ANNUIT, FnNOUNNCY OF EXCNNUANCE MnaN 5ru l6rs 50rH 84rn 95ru 0.01 3.18F,-02 2.768 -02 3.05E-02 3.85E-02 4.578-02 4.948-02 0.02 1.368 -02 8.53E-03 9.99E-03 1.358-02 1.738 -02 t.96E-02 0.03 7.488-03 4.298-03 5.208-03 7.288-03 9.81E-03 r.148-02 0.04 4.89E-03 2.638-03 3.278-03 4.7lE-03 6.55E-03 7.748-03 0.05 3.508-03 1.80E-03 2.27F,-03 3.34E-03 4.78E-03 5.738 -03 0.06 2.658 -03l.3 r E-03 1.67F,-03 2.51F-03 3.678-03 4.458-03 0.07 2.088-03 9.90E-04 1.288-03 1.96E-03 2.92E-03 3.s88-03 0.081.688-037.718-04 1.01E-03 r.578-03 2.388-03 2.948-03 0.091.388-036.14F-04 8.08E-04 1.28E-03 1.98E-03 2.468-03 0.10 l.l5E-03 4.988-04 6.60E-04 1.06E-03 1.67E-03 2.09E-03 0.20 3.268-04 r.t2E-04 1.58E-04 2.86F,-04 5.078-04 6.778-44 0.25 2.t4E-04 6.61E-0s 9.63E-05 1.83E-04 3.40F-04 4.658-04 0.30 1.50E-04 4.268-05 6.33E-05 1.278-04 2.448 -04 3.398-04 0.40 8.49E-05 2.10E-05 3.238-05 6.96E-05 1.428-04 2.028-04 0.s0 s.39E-051.20E-051.90E-05 4.328-05 9.2t8-05 1.33E-04 0.60 3.69E-05 7.58E-06 t.228-05 2.90E-05 6.408-05 9.36E-05 0.70 2.668-05 5.1lE-06 8.37E-06 2.06E-05 4.66F.-05 6.88E-05 0.801.998-053.61E-06 6.008-06 1.528-05 3.528-05 5.248-05 0.90 1.53E-05 2.648-06 4.448-06 l.l6E-05 2.738-05 4.08E-05 1.00 1.20E-05 1.99E-06 3.38E-06 9.00E-06 2.168-05 3.258-05 2.00 t.928-06 2.32E-07 4.348-07 t.32E-06 3.s6E-06 5.628-06 3.00 5.15E-07 4.85E-08 9.758-08 3.29E-07 9.668-07 1.60E-06 5.00 8.50E-084.87E-09I .l I E-08 4.56E-08 t.6tE-01 2.968-07 S:\Locaf\Pubs\2734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\3.1 Q Report File\R-017\R1\27U294-R4'17 , Rev. 1 .docx fSConsutrlng 2734294-R-017 Reaision 1 March 20, 20L4 Page C6 of C12 TABLE C-52.5lil2 SPBCTRAL ACCBLBRATION MEAN AND FRACTILE SBISMIC HAZARI)AT BEAVBR VALLEY 1 RB FOUNDATION LEVBL GoncuEing rct Spncrnal AccnInRATION tql AnNunl FnnQunNCY or ExcnEDANCE Mnrurt 5rH 16rn 50rH 84rn 95rH 0.01 1.58E-02 1.09E-02 1.268-02 t.598-02 t.938-02 2.ttE-02 0.02 4.s9E-03 2.618-03 3.18E-03 4.468-03 6.06E-03 7.088-03 0.03 2.22F-03 l.l3E-03I .41E-03 2.108-03 3.05E-03 3.70E-030.041.30E-03 6.13E-047 .868 -04 1.228-03 1.85E-03 2.308-03 0.0s 8.56E-04 3.778-04 4.938-04 7.908-04 1.248-03 1.57E-03 0.06 6.028-04 2.5tF-04 3.348-04 5.50E-04 8.87E-04I . 14E-03 0.07 4.45F,-04 t.718-04 2.388-04 4.028-04 6.668-04 8.63E-04 0.08 3.42E -04 t.298-04 1.778-04 3.06E-04 5.18E-04 6.788-04 0.09 2.708-04 9.80E-05 1.36E-04 2.408-04 4.148 -04 5 .478 -04 0.102.198-047.628-05 1.07E-04 1.928-04 3.398-04 4.528-04 0.20 5.468-051.38E-052.10E-05 4.42E-05 9.09E-05 1.308-04 0.25 3.49E-05 7.828-06 1.23E-05 2.73F,-05 s.93E-05 8.76E-05 0.30 2.428-05 4.89E-06 7.878-06 1.84E-05 4.178-05 6.328 -05 0.40 1.35E-05 2.298-06 3.87E-06 9.79E-06 2.398-05 3.7 4E-05 0.50 8.58E-06 1.268-06 2.208 -06 5.99E-06 1.54E-05 2.488-05 0.60 s.89E-06 7.638-07 r.38E,06 3.998-06 1.07E-05 1.76E-05 0.70 4.268-06 4.938-07 9.248 -07 2.81E-06 7.848-06 1.31E-05 0.80 3.21E-06 3.35E-07 6.478-07 2.068 -06 5.95E-06 1.00E-05 0.90 2.498-06 2.368-07 4.t0F-07 1.56E-06 4.658-06 7.958-06 r.00 r.98E-061.7 tE-07 3 .528 -07 t.2tE-06 3.728-06 6.428-06 2.00 3.98E-07 r.69E-08 4.40E-08 2.008-07 7.778-07 1.45E-06 3.001 .328 -07 3.2sF-09 9.7lE-09 5.66E-08 2.548-07 5.1 1E-07 5.00 2.89E-08 2.868-10 1.05E-09 9. l9E-09 s.33E-08 t.2tE-07 S:\Local\Pubs\27il294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R417\R1\2734294-R417, Rev. 1.docx AB$ 2734294-R-01.7 Reaision L March 20, 20L4Page C7 of C12TABLE C-6 IHZ SPECTRAL ACCELERATION MEAN AND FRACTILB SBISMIC HAZARDAT BEAVER VALLBY 1 RB FOUNDATION LEVEL Spncrnlt, ACCELERATION lslAIqNu,q.L FRNOUNNCY OF EXCNNUANCE Mn,Ltrl 5rH 16ru 50rs 84rn 95rH 0.01 3.448-03 1.53E-03 2.00E-03 3.358-03 s.00E-03 s.908-03 0.02 9.16E-042.908-044.09E-04 1.838-04 1.46E-03 1.978-43 0.03 3.998-041.05E-041.54E-04 3.198 -04 6.648 -04 9.60E-04 0.04 2.018-04 4.t0F'05 7.088-05 1.548-04 3.418-04 5.15E-04 0.05 l.l3E-04 2.428-05 3.728 -05 8.44E-051 .95E -04 3.01E-04 0.06 6.948-05 1.37E-05 2.158-05 5.068-05 t.2tE-04 1.90E-04 0.074.54E-058.33E-06 1.33E-05 3.258-05 8.00E-051 .278 -04 0.08 3.13E-05 5.37E-06 8.71E-06 2.20F-05 5.58E-05 8.96E-05 0.09 2.268-05 3.628-06 5.97E-06 1.568-05 4.06E-05 6.598-05 0.10 1.69E-05 2.548-06 4.248 -06I . 14E-05 3.06E-0s 5.02E-05 0.20 2.83E-06 2.ttE-07 4.278 -07 1.50E-06 5.24F,-06 9.948-06 0.251.66E-069.28E-08 2.038-07 7.988-07 3.06E-06 6.158-06 0.30 1.08E-06 4.71E-08I .108-07 4.80E-07 1.99E-06 4.20F-06 0.40 5.69E-071.57E-084.168-08 2.228-07 1.04E-06 2.348-06 0.50 3.53E-07 6.65E-09 1.97E-08 1.24E-07 6.408-07 1.50E-06 0.60 2.43F,-07 3.348-09 1.088-08 7.88E-08 4.38E-07 1.05E-06 0.70 1.798-47 1.908-09 6.66E-09 5.428 -08 3.21F-07 7.868-07 0.801 .398 -07I .l8E-09 4.398 -09 3.928-08 2.468-07 6.128-07 0.90 t.l0E-07 7 .7 4E-10 3.05E-09 2.958-08 1.948-07 4.908-07 r.00 8.95E-08 5.31E-l0 2.198 -09 2.278-08 1.568-07 4.018 -07 2.00 1.87E-083.30E-l I 1.87E-10 3.028 -09 2.88E-08 8.538-08 3.00 6.19E-09 4.30E-12 3.068-l r 6.758-10 8.37E-09 2.178 -085.001.35E-090.00E+002.23F-12 7.86E-11 1.468-09 5.56E-09 ABtGonsuFing f?C"eS:\Local\Pubs\27%294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-O17\R1\2734294-R417, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-01_7 Reaision 1.March 20, 2A1-4 C8 of C1,2TABLE C-7O.1HZ SPECTRAL ACCELERATION MEAN AND FRACTILE SEISMIC HAZARI)AT BEAVER VALLEY 1 RB FOUNDATION LEVEL Spncrnu AcCnInRATIoN Isl Altrtu,tl, FnBounNcY oF ExcnnuANCE Mn^q,n 5rH 16ru 50rH 84rH 95ru 0.01 1.54E-03 4.208 -04 6.t68-04 1.338-03 2.$E-43 3.38E-03 0.02 3.86E-04 6.63E-05 t.05E-04 2.7lE-04 7.00E-04 1.08E-03 0.03 1.55E-042.05E-053.43E-05 9.70E-05 2.85E-04 4.848 -04 0.047 .328 -05 8.10E-06 1.41E-05 4.26E-05 t.348-04 2.41F-04 0.05 3.87E-05 3.19F-06 6.7 4E -06 2.138 -05 7.128-05 1.328-04 0.06 2.258-05 1.98E-06 3.61E-06 1.18E-05 4.17F-05 7.81E-05 a.a7 1.40E-05 t.t2E-06 2.09E-06 7.088-06 2.628-05 4.998 -05 0.08 9.218-46 6.778-07 1.298-06 4.53E-061.7 4E-05 3.378-05 0.09 6.358-064.3t8-018.328 -07 3.03E-06I .21E-05 2.398-05 0.10 4.568-06 2.858 -07 5.638-07 2.108 -06 8.66E-06 1.75E-05 0.20 6.218-07 1.50E-08 3.638-08I .91E-07 1.04E,06 2.70F.-06 0.253.418-075.72E-09 1.48E-08 9.02E-08 s.39E-07 1.558-06 0.302.188-072.5t8-09 6.91E-09 4.92E -08 3.30E-07I .01E-06 0.40 l.t3E-07 6.258 -10 1.98E-09 1.86E-08 1.58E-07 s.31E-07 0.s0 6.128-08 I .84E- l0 6.678-10 8.15E-09 8.59E-08 3.168-07 0.60 4.37F,-08 6.3 1E- l I 2.638-10 4.t4F-09 5.18E-08 2.05E-07 0.70 3.03E-08 2.428 -11 l.l6E-10 2.33E-09 3.35E-08 l.4lE-070.802.19E-08I .02E- l I 5.54E-l I 1.39E-09 2.268-48 1.00E-070.901.648-084.648-122.828-tl 8.67E-10 1.57E-08 7.38E-08 1.00 1.27E-08 2.24F-12 1.508-l l5.61E-10I . 12E-08 s.568-08 2.40 1.968-09 0.00E+00 1.648-13 2.318-11 9.61E- l0 6.938-093.006.078-10 0.008+00 8.348-15 3.048-12I .98E- 10 t.79E-09 5.00 1.17E-10 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.68E-13 2.038-11 2.33E-10S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R417\R1\2734294-R417, Rev. 1.docx AFConsulting 2734294-R-0L7 Reaision 1, March 20, 2014Page C9 of C1,2 1.E-01 t.E-02 1.E-03 1.E-04 1.E-05 1.E-06 r.E-o7 1.E-08 0.10 1.00 10.00- mean_fdn- . -50th fdn100 Hz Spectral Acceleration (g)---Sth_fdn --16th- .84th fdn - . 95th 1.E-01 L,E-Oz 1.E-03 1.E-04 1.E-05 1.E-06 L.E-07 1.E-08 0.10 1.0025 Hz Spectral Acceleration (S)-mean_fdn --- Sth_fdn - - l5th- . -Soth_fdn - -84th_fdn - .95th FIGURE C.l BVPS.I MEAN AND FRACTILE HAZARD CURVBS AT RB FOUNDATION LEVBL (sA AT r00H.Z AND 2sHZ)(, g o=ET o tl o I g (u T'o o ri'x ul t!5 g g-\:I (, c o 3 C'a, l!a, IJ cl!T'o o L'x UJ (E=c c 0.0r._fdn*fdn ABeGonsulting rcR.-.*'"_-*'"---

tl S->s\.il:::::.- \.ilss\ltl.*.s N.l-=\.N iti ii: t:.ili\S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-O17\R1\27U294-R4'17, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-4L7Reaision 1, March 20, 2AL4Page CL0 of C1.2-a\. I -'\.t\$.5r.__=-..} *a_r{i\o tilN trr. \, t.) l'i 1.E-02 1.E-03 1.E-04 1.E-05 1.E-06 1.E-07 1.E-08 0.01 0.L0 1.00 10.0010 Hz SpectralAcceleration (gl-mean_fdn ---

sth_fdn - - L6th_fdn- . -50th fdn - -84th fdn - .95th fdn 1.E-01 1.E-02 1.E-03 1.E-04 1.E-05 1.E-06 t.E-07 1.E-08 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.005 Hz SpectralAcceleration (g)-mean_fdn --o Sth_fdn o - 16th_fdn- . -50th fdn - .84th fdn - .95th fdnFIGURE C-2 BVPS.I MEAN AND FRACTILE HAZARD CURVES AT RB FOUNDATION LBVEL (sA AT I0IJZ AND 5.0H'2)g c o 5 C'o II o I g o E o o!, x UJ tu=g g I= o f E q, l-lr o I trlE!t o o (, x UJlE=tr tr fB$Gonsulting rct iE ii::--N\R S Ti N-o.\\is l" a\S-..'t+S N\r\, ': ri.l S:\Local\Pubs\27A294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-O17\R1\2734294-R417, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-017Reaision 7 March 20, 2014Page C1.1. of C1.2: ]-*,--:-_------i _\u]il;l r\.\r{i:]: ':-$Sa-._\s.i s\:\s>\r\'t\}}1.E-01 1.E-02 1.E-03 1.E-04 1.E-05 1.E-06 1.E-07 1.E-08 0.01 0.10 1_.00 2.5 Hz Spectral Acceleration (g)-mean_fdn --- Sth_fdn - - 16th_fdn- . .50th_fdn - o84th_fdn - .95th_fdn 1.E-01 L.E-Oz 1.E-03 1.E-04 1.E-05 1.E-06 t.E-o7 1.E-08 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00I Hz SpectralAcceleration (g)-mean_fdn --- Sth_fdn - - 16th_fdn-.Soth_fdn - -84th_fdn - o95th_fdnFIGURE C-3 BVPS-I MEAN AND FRACTILE HAZARD CURVES AT RB FOUNDATION LEVEL (sA AT 2.5lil2 AND l.0H.Z)(J g o 5 C'o t!o r.r glE'ct o o rJ x ul tu 5 E c r., c o J C'o L lr o I cl!.tt o o tf x UJ (!=c c fBSGonsulting rrce::: i:: ,:'i SIss\i,'::-;ll.:.: l:l Si\.\.i\S.--\-"i.. - -'S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R417\R1\2734294-R417, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-0L7 Reaision 1, March 20, 2014 Page C12 of C12 i]:i a::::i: t]: i*r rq\r t:-'\S\-.a::::i ,,\S-Yi:l li'\>a r\e:\..\ .\\li\I a\1_.E-01 t.E-02 1.E-03 1.E-04 1.E-05 1.E-06 t.E-07 L.E-08 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.000.5 Hz Spectral Acceleration (g)-mean_fdn --- Sth_fdn ,- - 16th_fdn- . -50th fdn - -84th fdn - .95th fdnFIGURE C.4 BVPS.I MEAN AND FRACTILE HAZARD CURVES AT RB FOUNDATION LBVBL (sA AT 0.5IJZ) t, g o=E o L t!o (, glu T'o o (J x ullE=c g fBSConsulting rCR S:\Locaf\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-O17\RlV73/.29E.R.0'17, Rev. 1.docx}}

ML14090A146: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 17:25, 12 October 2018

Contents

Text

2.3.1 Description

2.3.2 Development

2.3.4 Input

2.3.6 Amplification

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Sunnmnnv

2.0 SEISMIC

2.3.3 Randomnation

5.0 INTERIM

2.3 walkdown

5.2 IPEBE

6.0 CONCLUSION

67.0 REFERENCES

2.3 Seismic

Navigation menu

ML14090A146: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 17:25, 12 October 2018

Text

2.3.1 Description

2.3.2 Development

2.3.4 Input

2.3.6 Amplification

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Sunnmnnv

2.0 SEISMIC

2.3.3 Randomnation

5.0 INTERIM

2.3 walkdown

5.2 IPEBE

6.0 CONCLUSION

67.0 REFERENCES

2.3 Seismic

Navigation menu

Search