ML16054A008: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older editNewer edit →
VisualWikitext
Created page by program invented by StriderTol
Created page by program invented by StriderTol
Line 415: Line 415:


==SUBJECT:==
==SUBJECT:==
SCREENING AND PRIORITIZATION RESULTS FOR THE WESTERN UNITED STATES SITES REGARDING INFORMATION PURSUANT TO T I TLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 50.54 (f). REGARDING SEISMIC HAZARD RE-EVALUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDATION 2.1 OF THE TERM TASK FORCE REVIEW OF INSIGHTS FROM THE FUKUSHIMA ICHI ACCIDENT On March 12 , 2012 , the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRG) issued a request for information pursuant to Title 1 O of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50 (1 O CFR), Section 50.54(f). (hereafter referred to as the 50.54. (f). letter) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML 12053A340). The purpose of that request was to gather information concerning , in part , the seismic hazards at operating reactor sites and to enable the NRC staff to determine. whether licenses.
SCREENING AND PRIORITIZATION RESULTS FOR THE WESTERN UNITED STATES SITES REGARDING INFORMATION PURSUANT TO T I TLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 50.54 (f). REGARDING SEISMIC HAZARD RE-EVALUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDATION 2.1 OF THE TERM TASK FORCE REVIEW OF INSIGHTS FROM THE FUKUSHIMA ICHI ACCIDENT On March 12 , 2012 , the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRG) issued a request for information pursuant to Title 1 O of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50 (1 O CFR), Section 50.54(f). (hereafter referred to as the 50.54. (f). letter) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML12053A340). The purpose of that request was to gather information concerning , in part , the seismic hazards at operating reactor sites and to enable the NRC staff to determine. whether licenses.
should be. modified, suspended , or revoked. The "Required Response" section of Enclosure 1 indicated that licensees and construction permit holders should provide a Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening report within 3 years from the date of the. letter for Western United States (WUS) plants (i.e., Columbia Generating Station (Columbia), Diablo Canyon Power Plant (Diablo Canyon), and Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (Palo Verde)). Further , the 50.54(f) letter stated that NRG would provide the results of the screening and prioritization indicating dead lines for individual plants to complete seismic risk evaluations to assess the total plant response to the re-evaluated seismic hazard. Additionally, by letter 1 dated February 20, 2014, the NRG provided supplemental information on the content of the seismic re-evaluated hazard submittals including guidance on reportability and operability.
should be. modified, suspended , or revoked. The "Required Response" section of Enclosure 1 indicated that licensees and construction permit holders should provide a Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening report within 3 years from the date of the. letter for Western United States (WUS) plants (i.e., Columbia Generating Station (Columbia), Diablo Canyon Power Plant (Diablo Canyon), and Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (Palo Verde)). Further , the 50.54(f) letter stated that NRG would provide the results of the screening and prioritization indicating dead lines for individual plants to complete seismic risk evaluations to assess the total plant response to the re-evaluated seismic hazard. Additionally, by letter 1 dated February 20, 2014, the NRG provided supplemental information on the content of the seismic re-evaluated hazard submittals including guidance on reportability and operability.
The purpose of this letter is to inform WUS licensees of the. NRC's screening and prioritization and to allow licensees to appropriately plan the completion of further seismic r isk evaluations described in Enc losure 1 of the 50.54(f) letter. To respond to the 50.54(f) letter , all addressees committed to. follow the Electric Power. Research Institute (EPRI) Report , "Seismic Evaluation Guidance:
The purpose of this letter is to inform WUS licensees of the. NRC's screening and prioritization and to allow licensees to appropriately plan the completion of further seismic r isk evaluations described in Enc losure 1 of the 50.54(f) letter. To respond to the 50.54(f) letter , all addressees committed to. follow the Electric Power. Research Institute (EPRI) Report , "Seismic Evaluation Guidance:
Screening, Prioritization and Implementat ion Deta ils (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic ," 2 as. supplemented , by the EPRI Report , " Seismic Evaluation Guidance:
Screening, Prioritization and Implementat ion Deta ils (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic ," 2 as. supplemented , by the EPRI Report , " Seismic Evaluation Guidance:
Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Recommendation 2.1: Seismic" 3 (referre d to as the Exped ited Approach). The NRC held multiple public meetings and teleconferences with industry and the public leading to the development of the guidance documents supporting review of re-ev aluated seismic hazards. I The February 20, 2014, supplemental in format ion letter is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML 14030A046. T h e SPID gu ida nce document is found in ADAMS u nde r Accession No. ML 12333A 170. The staff endorsement letter for the SPID guidance is found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML 12319A074.
Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Recommendation 2.1: Seismic" 3 (referre d to as the Exped ited Approach). The NRC held multiple public meetings and teleconferences with industry and the public leading to the development of the guidance documents supporting review of re-ev aluated seismic hazards. I The February 20, 2014, supplemental in format ion letter is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14030A046. T h e SPID gu ida nce document is found in ADAMS u nde r Accession No. ML12333A170. The staff endorsement letter for the SPID guidance is found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML12319A074.
I T h e Expedited Approach gu i dance document is found in ADAMS under Access ion No. ML 13102A 142. The WUS l i censees submitted the re-evaluated seismic hazards. by letters dated March 12, 2015 (references are provided i n Enclosure 3 of this letter). The NRG staff conducted the screening and prioritization r ev i ew of the submitta l s by assessing each l icensee's screening evaluation and hazard analys i s uti li zing the. endorsed SPID guidance .. INTERIM EVALUAT I ONS 4 The 50.54(f) letter requested that l icensees provide " interim evaluations and actions taken o r planned to address the higher se i smic hazard relative to the design-bas i s , as appropriate, prior to completion of the risk evaluation." For those plants where the re-evaluated seismic hazard exceeds t he seismic design-basis, licensees stated they w i ll provide inter i m evaluat i ons to demonstrate that the plant can cope with the higher re-evaluated se i sm i c. hazard while the longer-term se i smic r i sk evaluations are ongoing. In support of the requested interim evaluations for licensees , WUS p l ants provided i nformat i on related to margin evalua t ions or insights from Individual Plant Exam i nat i on of External Events (I PEEE) eva l uat i ons including estimated seismic risk. Additionally , the. subm i ttals discussed completing p l ant seismic walkdowns as part of NTIF Recommendation 2.3 in order to verify that the current p l ant configuration is cons i stent with the licens i ng basis. The NRG staff rev i ew of WUS reports found that li censees have demonstrated add i tional p l ant seism i c. margins. supportive of cont i nued plan t operation wh i le additiona l risk evaluations are conducted. The licensees for Diab l o. Canyon and Palo. Verde provided inter i m evaluations i n lieu. of completing of the Exped i ted Approach. These l i censees have demonstrated seism i c margins that met the intent of the Exped i ted Approach review. For Columbia , the inter i m evaluation prov i ded i n March 2015 is a first step in assessing the plant's capacity to withstand the re-evaluated hazard. In the near-term, by January 2016 ,. Columb i a will complete an " Expedited Approach" t o evaluate. and identify reinforcemen t s ,. if necessary , for certain equipment to ensure a safe shutdown pathway can withstand a higher se i smic ground motion. SCREENING PROCESS As defined in the 50.54(f) letter and the SPID gu i dance , the seismic hazard re-evaluations were conducted using current analys i s methods and guidance. The licensees' responses to the 50.54 (f) l etter provided se i sm i c hazard re-evaluation results , which were the focus of the NRG staff's i nitial screening and prioritization review. Although the safe shutdown earthquake. (SSE) is commonly referred to as a single number, this number represents a distr i but i on of ground motions that occur over a range of spectral frequencies. This resu l ts in a curve of ground acce l e r ation ove r frequency.
I T h e Expedited Approach gu i dance document is found in ADAMS under Access ion No. ML13102A142. The WUS l i censees submitted the re-evaluated seismic hazards. by letters dated March 12, 2015 (references are provided i n Enclosure 3 of this letter). The NRG staff conducted the screening and prioritization r ev i ew of the submitta l s by assessing each l icensee's screening evaluation and hazard analys i s uti li zing the. endorsed SPID guidance .. INTERIM EVALUAT I ONS 4 The 50.54(f) letter requested that l icensees provide " interim evaluations and actions taken o r planned to address the higher se i smic hazard relative to the design-bas i s , as appropriate, prior to completion of the risk evaluation." For those plants where the re-evaluated seismic hazard exceeds t he seismic design-basis, licensees stated they w i ll provide inter i m evaluat i ons to demonstrate that the plant can cope with the higher re-evaluated se i sm i c. hazard while the longer-term se i smic r i sk evaluations are ongoing. In support of the requested interim evaluations for licensees , WUS p l ants provided i nformat i on related to margin evalua t ions or insights from Individual Plant Exam i nat i on of External Events (I PEEE) eva l uat i ons including estimated seismic risk. Additionally , the. subm i ttals discussed completing p l ant seismic walkdowns as part of NTIF Recommendation 2.3 in order to verify that the current p l ant configuration is cons i stent with the licens i ng basis. The NRG staff rev i ew of WUS reports found that li censees have demonstrated add i tional p l ant seism i c. margins. supportive of cont i nued plan t operation wh i le additiona l risk evaluations are conducted. The licensees for Diab l o. Canyon and Palo. Verde provided inter i m evaluations i n lieu. of completing of the Exped i ted Approach. These l i censees have demonstrated seism i c margins that met the intent of the Exped i ted Approach review. For Columbia , the inter i m evaluation prov i ded i n March 2015 is a first step in assessing the plant's capacity to withstand the re-evaluated hazard. In the near-term, by January 2016 ,. Columb i a will complete an " Expedited Approach" t o evaluate. and identify reinforcemen t s ,. if necessary , for certain equipment to ensure a safe shutdown pathway can withstand a higher se i smic ground motion. SCREENING PROCESS As defined in the 50.54(f) letter and the SPID gu i dance , the seismic hazard re-evaluations were conducted using current analys i s methods and guidance. The licensees' responses to the 50.54 (f) l etter provided se i sm i c hazard re-evaluation results , which were the focus of the NRG staff's i nitial screening and prioritization review. Although the safe shutdown earthquake. (SSE) is commonly referred to as a single number, this number represents a distr i but i on of ground motions that occur over a range of spectral frequencies. This resu l ts in a curve of ground acce l e r ation ove r frequency.
The ability of equipment and structures i n the p l ant to withstand the effects of ground motions is frequency specif i c. For the purposes of the licensees' ana l yses and NRG staff's review , the SPID gu i dance identif i es three frequency ranges that are of particular interest:
The ability of equipment and structures i n the p l ant to withstand the effects of ground motions is frequency specif i c. For the purposes of the licensees' ana l yses and NRG staff's review , the SPID gu i dance identif i es three frequency ranges that are of particular interest:
1-10 Hertz (Hz), a low frequency range of <2.5 Hz , and a high frequency range of > 1 O Hz. The different ranges have been identified due to the different types of structures and equipment that may be impacted by 4 E nc l o s u re 1 o f t h i s l e tt er p r o v ides a Gl ossary o f Se i s m i c Eval uat i o ns   
1-10 Hertz (Hz), a low frequency range of <2.5 Hz , and a high frequency range of > 1 O Hz. The different ranges have been identified due to the different types of structures and equipment that may be impacted by 4 E nc l o s u re 1 o f t h i s l e tt er p r o v ides a Gl ossary o f Se i s m i c Eval uat i o ns   
Line 434: Line 434:
Accordingly , during the. NRC screening and pr i orit i zation process , the staff identified that for Palo. Verde additional time and inte rac tions. will be. required to better understandthe. seismic hazard for the plant. As such , the staff determined that Palo Verde " conditionally screens-in" for the purposes of prioritizing and conduct i ng additional evaluations  
Accordingly , during the. NRC screening and pr i orit i zation process , the staff identified that for Palo. Verde additional time and inte rac tions. will be. required to better understandthe. seismic hazard for the plant. As such , the staff determined that Palo Verde " conditionally screens-in" for the purposes of prioritizing and conduct i ng additional evaluations  
.. Palo Verde has. been prioritized to complete a seismic risk evaluation in Group 3. After interactions have occurred , the staff will make a final screening and prioritization determination and provide a letter to the licensee.
.. Palo Verde has. been prioritized to complete a seismic risk evaluation in Group 3. After interactions have occurred , the staff will make a final screening and prioritization determination and provide a letter to the licensee.
I f the plant remains screened-in , the final screening l etter will affirm the plant priority 5 Discuss i o n as part o f public meetings dated December 4 , 2014 , February 11, 2015, a n d Ma r ch 30 , 2015 (ADAMS Access i on Nos. M L 14342A901, ML15104A065 and ML151 1 1A031 , respec t i vely). for further evaluations and establish. schedu l e. for an Expedited Approach, if. necessary.
I f the plant remains screened-in , the final screening l etter will affirm the plant priority 5 Discuss i o n as part o f public meetings dated December 4 , 2014 , February 11, 2015, a n d Ma r ch 30 , 2015 (ADAMS Access i on Nos. M L 14342A901, ML15104A065 and ML15111A031 , respec t i vely). for further evaluations and establish. schedu l e. for an Expedited Approach, if. necessary.
If the plant screens out , the final screening letter also will determine if the Pa l o Verde needs to complete limited-scope evaluations (i.e., spent fuel pool, high frequency, or low frequency).
If the plant screens out , the final screening letter also will determine if the Pa l o Verde needs to complete limited-scope evaluations (i.e., spent fuel pool, high frequency, or low frequency).
PLANT PRIOR I TIZATION The NRC grouped the " screened-i n" pla n ts into three. groups 6 , which (i) reflects the. relative priority for conduct i ng a seismic risk evaluation that compares each plant's current capabilities to the re-evaluated seismic hazard , and (ii) accounts for the approp r iate allocation of limited staff and available expertise for r eviewing. and conducting seismic risk evaluations.
PLANT PRIOR I TIZATION The NRC grouped the " screened-i n" pla n ts into three. groups 6 , which (i) reflects the. relative priority for conduct i ng a seismic risk evaluation that compares each plant's current capabilities to the re-evaluated seismic hazard , and (ii) accounts for the approp r iate allocation of limited staff and available expertise for r eviewing. and conducting seismic risk evaluations.
Line 442: Line 442:
Group 1 plants including Columbia and D iablo Canyon are expected to conduct a se i smic risk evaluation and submit it by June 30 , 2017. Group 3 plants have GMRS to SSE rat i os tha t are greater than 1 , but the amount of exceedance in t he. 1-1 O Hz range is relatively small, and the maximum ground mot i on in the 1-1 O Hz range is also not high. Given the limited level of exceedance of the Group 3 plants including Palo Verde , staff is evaluating the need for licensees to conduct a seismic risk evaluation in order for the staff to complete its regulatory decision making. After. f urther review , the staff will decide which Group 3 plants need to comp l ete a risk evaluation.
Group 1 plants including Columbia and D iablo Canyon are expected to conduct a se i smic risk evaluation and submit it by June 30 , 2017. Group 3 plants have GMRS to SSE rat i os tha t are greater than 1 , but the amount of exceedance in t he. 1-1 O Hz range is relatively small, and the maximum ground mot i on in the 1-1 O Hz range is also not high. Given the limited level of exceedance of the Group 3 plants including Palo Verde , staff is evaluating the need for licensees to conduct a seismic risk evaluation in order for the staff to complete its regulatory decision making. After. f urther review , the staff will decide which Group 3 plants need to comp l ete a risk evaluation.
Risk evaluations for Group 3 plants are due by D ecember 31, 2020. NEX T S T EPS Based on the. staffs screening review the licensee for Columbia should. final i ze and submit an Expedited Approach Report no later than January 2016. I n accordance with the endorsed guidance, the staff acknowledges that the January 2016 Expedited Approach submittal will focus on plant equipment (i.e. safe shutdown pathway 7) evaluations and modifications , as necessary, prior to submitting the plant seismic risk eva l uations. The content of limited-scope evaluations or confirmations and their associated schedule milestones remain under development with NRC staff and stakeholders to assess acceptable alternatives for conducting these evaluat i ons. The NRC staff has conducted a number of public meetings to reach alignment on the implementation details of these evaluations.
Risk evaluations for Group 3 plants are due by D ecember 31, 2020. NEX T S T EPS Based on the. staffs screening review the licensee for Columbia should. final i ze and submit an Expedited Approach Report no later than January 2016. I n accordance with the endorsed guidance, the staff acknowledges that the January 2016 Expedited Approach submittal will focus on plant equipment (i.e. safe shutdown pathway 7) evaluations and modifications , as necessary, prior to submitting the plant seismic risk eva l uations. The content of limited-scope evaluations or confirmations and their associated schedule milestones remain under development with NRC staff and stakeholders to assess acceptable alternatives for conducting these evaluat i ons. The NRC staff has conducted a number of public meetings to reach alignment on the implementation details of these evaluations.
The staff expects that implementing guidance should be established by summer 2015 and fall 2015 for high frequency and spent fuel pool eva l uations, respectively. It is expected that WUS l i censees 6 Central and Eastern l i censees seismic hazard screening and pr i or i ty rev i ews were completed i n 2014. 7 Section 3 of the Expedited Approach guidance (ADAMS Access i on No. ML 13102A142) prov i des a process to identify a sing l e seismically rob ust success path us ing a subset o f installed plant equipme n t , FLEX eq ui pme n t and connection points. can. comp l ete these evaluat i ons in parallel with completion of SPRAs for Group 1. plants by June 2017. This letter transmits the NRC staff's results of the. seismic. hazard submittals for the. purposes of screening and prioritizing the p l ants. It does not convey the staff's final determination regarding the adequacy of any plant's calculated hazard. As such , the NRG staff w i ll continue its review of the. submitted seismic hazard re-evaluations , and may request addit i onal. plant-specific information to support th i s review .. The. staff has. placed a high priority on this review for the early i dentification of issues that m i ght adversely affect each licensee's seismic risk evaluations. Initial i nteractions. with l icensees. will occur as soon as. practicable. The NRG staff plans to issue a staff assessment on the re-evaluated seismic. hazard once each rev i ew i s completed in approximately 1 2 to 18 months. If you have any questions regard i ng th i s letter , please contact Nicho l as DiFrancesco at 301-415-1115 or via emai l at Nicholas.Difrancesco@nrc
The staff expects that implementing guidance should be established by summer 2015 and fall 2015 for high frequency and spent fuel pool eva l uations, respectively. It is expected that WUS l i censees 6 Central and Eastern l i censees seismic hazard screening and pr i or i ty rev i ews were completed i n 2014. 7 Section 3 of the Expedited Approach guidance (ADAMS Access i on No. ML13102A142) prov i des a process to identify a sing l e seismically rob ust success path us ing a subset o f installed plant equipme n t , FLEX eq ui pme n t and connection points. can. comp l ete these evaluat i ons in parallel with completion of SPRAs for Group 1. plants by June 2017. This letter transmits the NRC staff's results of the. seismic. hazard submittals for the. purposes of screening and prioritizing the p l ants. It does not convey the staff's final determination regarding the adequacy of any plant's calculated hazard. As such , the NRG staff w i ll continue its review of the. submitted seismic hazard re-evaluations , and may request addit i onal. plant-specific information to support th i s review .. The. staff has. placed a high priority on this review for the early i dentification of issues that m i ght adversely affect each licensee's seismic risk evaluations. Initial i nteractions. with l icensees. will occur as soon as. practicable. The NRG staff plans to issue a staff assessment on the re-evaluated seismic. hazard once each rev i ew i s completed in approximately 1 2 to 18 months. If you have any questions regard i ng th i s letter , please contact Nicho l as DiFrancesco at 301-415-1115 or via emai l at Nicholas.Difrancesco@nrc
.gov. S i ncerely, Wi lli am M. Dean , Director Off i ce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation  
.gov. S i ncerely, Wi lli am M. Dean , Director Off i ce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation  


Line 454: Line 454:
: 1. Glossary of Evaluations
: 1. Glossary of Evaluations
: 2. Screening and Prior i t i zation Results 3. List of Licensee March 2015 Re-eva l uated Seismic . Hazard Subm i ttals. 4. List of Licensees cc w/encls: Listserv DISTR I BUTION: PUBLIC LPL4-1 R/F LP L 4-2 R/F R i dsNroOd RidsNrrDorl R i dsNrrDorllpl4
: 2. Screening and Prior i t i zation Results 3. List of Licensee March 2015 Re-eva l uated Seismic . Hazard Subm i ttals. 4. List of Licensees cc w/encls: Listserv DISTR I BUTION: PUBLIC LPL4-1 R/F LP L 4-2 R/F R i dsNroOd RidsNrrDorl R i dsNrrDorllpl4
-1 Rids N r r Dorllpl4-2 R i dsNrrOd R i dsNs i rOd R i dsOeMa il Center R i dsOgcMa i lCen t er MMark l ey , NRR MKhanna , NRR MShams , NRR NDiF r ancesco , NRA ADAMS Accession No.: ML 15 1 13B344 OFFI C E NR R/J LD/P MB/PM NR R/J L D/LA N RR/JLD/HMB/BC NAME ND i F r ancesc o S l e n t MS ha ms D A TE 04/22/15 I /1 5 I /15 OFFIC E NRO/D S E A/D OG C NRR/J LD/D NAME SFl a nd ers BH a r ris JD a v is DATE I /1 5 I. /15 . I. /15 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY AKock , NRO DJackson , NRO RidsNrrPM Diab l oCanyon RidsNrrPMCo l umb i a RidsNrrPaloVerde  
-1 Rids N r r Dorllpl4-2 R i dsNrrOd R i dsNs i rOd R i dsOeMa il Center R i dsOgcMa i lCen t er MMark l ey , NRR MKhanna , NRR MShams , NRR NDiF r ancesco , NRA ADAMS Accession No.: ML15113B344 OFFI C E NR R/J LD/P MB/PM NR R/J L D/LA N RR/JLD/HMB/BC NAME ND i F r ancesc o S l e n t MS ha ms D A TE 04/22/15 I /1 5 I /15 OFFIC E NRO/D S E A/D OG C NRR/J LD/D NAME SFl a nd ers BH a r ris JD a v is DATE I /1 5 I. /15 . I. /15 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY AKock , NRO DJackson , NRO RidsNrrPM Diab l oCanyon RidsNrrPMCo l umb i a RidsNrrPaloVerde  


RidsOgcRp Resource R i dsRgn4Ma il Center Reso ur ce RidsEdoMai l Center Resou r ce *v i a ema il N R O/DS ENR GS 2/B C N R R/DOR U D. D J ac ks o n Llu nd I /1 5 I /15 NRR/D WD ean I .. /15 Glossary of Evaluations Associated with Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1 Seismic Hazard Re-eva l uations Interim Evaluation or Actions -An immediate licensee and NRC review of the re-evaluate d hazard to determine whether actions are needed to assure plant safety while further evaluations are ongoing. The staff has completed its review and concluded that , based on the licensees' interim evaluations and actions , Western United States (WUS) plants are safe for continued operations.
RidsOgcRp Resource R i dsRgn4Ma il Center Reso ur ce RidsEdoMai l Center Resou r ce *v i a ema il N R O/DS ENR GS 2/B C N R R/DOR U D. D J ac ks o n Llu nd I /1 5 I /15 NRR/D WD ean I .. /15 Glossary of Evaluations Associated with Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1 Seismic Hazard Re-eva l uations Interim Evaluation or Actions -An immediate licensee and NRC review of the re-evaluate d hazard to determine whether actions are needed to assure plant safety while further evaluations are ongoing. The staff has completed its review and concluded that , based on the licensees' interim evaluations and actions , Western United States (WUS) plants are safe for continued operations.
Line 466: Line 466:
i) spent fuel pool components and systems capable of draining water inventory to the level of the spent fuel, ii) a review of components susceptible to high frequency accelerations (e.g. electrical relays), and ii i) a review of components susceptible to low frequency accelerations (e.g. water storage tanks). Enclosure 1
i) spent fuel pool components and systems capable of draining water inventory to the level of the spent fuel, ii) a review of components susceptible to high frequency accelerations (e.g. electrical relays), and ii i) a review of components susceptible to low frequency accelerations (e.g. water storage tanks). Enclosure 1
Near-Term Task Force Review of Ins i ghts from the. Fukushima Dai-l chi Accident Seism i c Risk Evaluations Screening and Pr i oritizat i on Resu l ts for Western Un i ted States (WUS) Reactor Sites Seism i c Risk Lim i ted-scope Evaluations. S c reen i ng Exped i ted Evaluation H igh Low Spent Fue l Plant Name Resu l t App r oach (Priori ti zat i on Frequency Frequency Pool Eva l uation Group) Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Columbia Generat i ng Station I n x 1 x x Diablo Canyon Power Plant , U nit In 1 x x Nos. 1 and 2 Palo Verde Nuclear Generat i ng Conditional Stat i on , Units. 1 , 2 , a n d 3 i n 3 x x Enclosure 2
Near-Term Task Force Review of Ins i ghts from the. Fukushima Dai-l chi Accident Seism i c Risk Evaluations Screening and Pr i oritizat i on Resu l ts for Western Un i ted States (WUS) Reactor Sites Seism i c Risk Lim i ted-scope Evaluations. S c reen i ng Exped i ted Evaluation H igh Low Spent Fue l Plant Name Resu l t App r oach (Priori ti zat i on Frequency Frequency Pool Eva l uation Group) Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Columbia Generat i ng Station I n x 1 x x Diablo Canyon Power Plant , U nit In 1 x x Nos. 1 and 2 Palo Verde Nuclear Generat i ng Conditional Stat i on , Units. 1 , 2 , a n d 3 i n 3 x x Enclosure 2
March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals for Western United States Reactor Sites Licensee Facility Date of letter (ADAMS Accession Nos.) Columbia Generating Station March 12, 2015. (ML 15078A243)
March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals for Western United States Reactor Sites Licensee Facility Date of letter (ADAMS Accession Nos.) Columbia Generating Station March 12, 2015. (ML15078A243)
Diab lo Canyon Power Plant , Unit Nos. 1 and 2 March 11 , 2015 (ML 15071 A046) Pa lo Verde Nuclear Generating Station , Units March 10 , 2015 (ML 15076A073) and 1, 2 , and 3 April 1O .. 2015 (ML 15105A076)
Diab lo Canyon Power Plant , Unit Nos. 1 and 2 March 11 , 2015 (ML15071A046) Pa lo Verde Nuclear Generating Station , Units March 10 , 2015 (ML15076A073) and 1, 2 , and 3 April 1O .. 2015 (ML15105A076)
Enclosure 3
Enclosure 3
LIST OF APPLICABLE POWER REACTOR LICENSEES Columbia Generating Station Energy Northwest Docket No .. 50-397 License No. NPF-2 1 Mr. Mark E. Reddemann Chief Executive Officer Energy Northwest MD 1023 76 North Power Plant L oop P.O. Box 968 Richland , WA 99352 Diablo Canyon Power. P l ant. Unit Nos .. l and 2. Pacific Gas & Electric Company Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82 Mr. Edward D. Halpin Senior Vice President and Ch i ef Nuclear Officer Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 56 Mail Code 104/6 Avila Beach, CA 93424 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Arizona Public Service Company Docket Nos. STN 50-528 , STN 50-529 , and STN 50-530 License Nos. NPF-41 , NPF-51 and NPF-74 Mr. Randall K. Edington Executive Vice Pres i dent Nuclear/CNO Arizona Public Service Company P.O. Box 52034 , MS 7602. Phoenix , AZ 85072-2034 Enclosure 4
LIST OF APPLICABLE POWER REACTOR LICENSEES Columbia Generating Station Energy Northwest Docket No .. 50-397 License No. NPF-2 1 Mr. Mark E. Reddemann Chief Executive Officer Energy Northwest MD 1023 76 North Power Plant L oop P.O. Box 968 Richland , WA 99352 Diablo Canyon Power. P l ant. Unit Nos .. l and 2. Pacific Gas & Electric Company Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82 Mr. Edward D. Halpin Senior Vice President and Ch i ef Nuclear Officer Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 56 Mail Code 104/6 Avila Beach, CA 93424 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Arizona Public Service Company Docket Nos. STN 50-528 , STN 50-529 , and STN 50-530 License Nos. NPF-41 , NPF-51 and NPF-74 Mr. Randall K. Edington Executive Vice Pres i dent Nuclear/CNO Arizona Public Service Company P.O. Box 52034 , MS 7602. Phoenix , AZ 85072-2034 Enclosure 4
DiFr ancesco, Ni c h o l as F ro m:DiFr ancesco, N i c h o la s Sent: 21 M ay 2 01 52 1:1 4: 05 +00 00 T o: Burn e ll , Sco tt;M aie r , B i ll;U se ldin g, La ra;M o r e n o, An ge l C c:A l exa nd e r , Ry a n;W a lk e r , W ay n e;Lin ga m , Siv a;V ega, Fr a nki e;Ja c k so n , Di a n e;S ha m s, M o h a m e d;Hip sc hman , Th o m as;M ark l ey, Mi c ha e l;Hill , Britt ai n Subj ec t:FYI: Fu t ur e I ss u a n ce of Di ab l o C a ny on R2. l S e i s mi c M eeti n g Summ ary Att ac h me n ts:S um mary of A pr il 28 th M ee ti ng w i th P G E_5.d ocx Meeting summary i s pub li c l y ava il ab l e as Folks , ML 15 1 25A 1 86. FYI: The following meeting summary will be i ssued regard i ng the Apri l 28 -D i ablo Canyon R2.1 Se i smic pub li c mee t ing COB Wednesday May 27 , 2015. The summary closes two public comments received related t o the webcast. Open ADAMS P8 Document (Summary of Apri l 28, 2015, Category 1 P ubl ic Meeting with Pacific Gas and Electric Company to Discuss Diablo Canyon's Seismic Haza rd Reevaluation Associated with Implementation of Japan Lessons-Learned Nea r-T erm Task Force Recommendation 2.1, Seismic) Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
DiFr ancesco, Ni c h o l as F ro m:DiFr ancesco, N i c h o la s Sent: 21 M ay 2 01 52 1:1 4: 05 +00 00 T o: Burn e ll , Sco tt;M aie r , B i ll;U se ldin g, La ra;M o r e n o, An ge l C c:A l exa nd e r , Ry a n;W a lk e r , W ay n e;Lin ga m , Siv a;V ega, Fr a nki e;Ja c k so n , Di a n e;S ha m s, M o h a m e d;Hip sc hman , Th o m as;M ark l ey, Mi c ha e l;Hill , Britt ai n Subj ec t:FYI: Fu t ur e I ss u a n ce of Di ab l o C a ny on R2. l S e i s mi c M eeti n g Summ ary Att ac h me n ts:S um mary of A pr il 28 th M ee ti ng w i th P G E_5.d ocx Meeting summary i s pub li c l y ava il ab l e as Folks , ML15125A186. FYI: The following meeting summary will be i ssued regard i ng the Apri l 28 -D i ablo Canyon R2.1 Se i smic pub li c mee t ing COB Wednesday May 27 , 2015. The summary closes two public comments received related t o the webcast. Open ADAMS P8 Document (Summary of Apri l 28, 2015, Category 1 P ubl ic Meeting with Pacific Gas and Electric Company to Discuss Diablo Canyon's Seismic Haza rd Reevaluation Associated with Implementation of Japan Lessons-Learned Nea r-T erm Task Force Recommendation 2.1, Seismic) Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Thanks , Nick Sen i or Project Manager -Se i smic Reevaluation Activ i t i es U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm i ssion Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Div i s i on nicholas.difrancesco@nrc.gov I Tel: (301) 415-1115 DiFran cesco. Ni c h o l as From:DiFrance sco, Nicholas Sent: 19 May 2 015 19:05:51 +0000 T o:'Gene N e l so n , Ph.D.' C c: Vega, F ra nki e Subj ec t:Incorporation of Public C o mm e nt Or. Nelson , Appreciate the public comment. Apologizes in the delay i n response , the staff has rece i ved a number of public comments for review as part of the meeting. Below is the staff summary of your comment: The staff rece i ved a comment from Dr. Gene Nelson (Cal i fornians for Green Nuclear Power) via email dur i ng the meeting. The NRG staff inadvertent l y missed the opportunity to acknowledge Dr. Nelson's. comment during the meeting. According to Dr. Nelson , Diablo Canyon has favorable site conditions , which attenuate or d i ssipate earthquake energy over relat i vely short distances.
Thanks , Nick Sen i or Project Manager -Se i smic Reevaluation Activ i t i es U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm i ssion Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Div i s i on nicholas.difrancesco@nrc.gov I Tel: (301) 415-1115 DiFran cesco. Ni c h o l as From:DiFrance sco, Nicholas Sent: 19 May 2 015 19:05:51 +0000 T o:'Gene N e l so n , Ph.D.' C c: Vega, F ra nki e Subj ec t:Incorporation of Public C o mm e nt Or. Nelson , Appreciate the public comment. Apologizes in the delay i n response , the staff has rece i ved a number of public comments for review as part of the meeting. Below is the staff summary of your comment: The staff rece i ved a comment from Dr. Gene Nelson (Cal i fornians for Green Nuclear Power) via email dur i ng the meeting. The NRG staff inadvertent l y missed the opportunity to acknowledge Dr. Nelson's. comment during the meeting. According to Dr. Nelson , Diablo Canyon has favorable site conditions , which attenuate or d i ssipate earthquake energy over relat i vely short distances.
Due to this favorable condition , the primary earthquake forces seen by the plant would be dom i nated by nearby earthquake sources and energy transmitted to the plant would be dominated by the small section of the earthquake rupture closest to the plant. Dr. Nelson stated that when cons i dering the i nformation presented at the meeting of overall plant ruggedness and the seismic hazard i nsights discussed above , Diablo Canyon continues to operate safely. Please let Frankie and I know if you have proposed correction by May 21 , 2015. Thanks , Nick -----Original Message-----
Due to this favorable condition , the primary earthquake forces seen by the plant would be dom i nated by nearby earthquake sources and energy transmitted to the plant would be dominated by the small section of the earthquake rupture closest to the plant. Dr. Nelson stated that when cons i dering the i nformation presented at the meeting of overall plant ruggedness and the seismic hazard i nsights discussed above , Diablo Canyon continues to operate safely. Please let Frankie and I know if you have proposed correction by May 21 , 2015. Thanks , Nick -----Original Message-----
Line 623: Line 623:
* Licensee Integrated Plan (due February 28, 2013) (report page 8 has a statement about will enter reevaluated hazard into CAPs If warranted  
* Licensee Integrated Plan (due February 28, 2013) (report page 8 has a statement about will enter reevaluated hazard into CAPs If warranted  
-designed to CLB)
-designed to CLB)
* NRC letter regarding Seismic Screening and Prioritization Results for WUS Licensees (May 13, 2015) Reference and Background from Br i tt: NRC's. review of the L TSP , and conclusion of its acceptability , are documented in the Diablo Canyon SER rev 34 (1991), which is publically available in ADAMS as ML 14279A 1 30. SSER34 documents NRC staff's thorough review o f the L TSP , which includes the margins assessment cited by PG&E in their March 2015 submittal.
* NRC letter regarding Seismic Screening and Prioritization Results for WUS Licensees (May 13, 2015) Reference and Background from Br i tt: NRC's. review of the L TSP , and conclusion of its acceptability , are documented in the Diablo Canyon SER rev 34 (1991), which is publically available in ADAMS as ML14279A130. SSER34 documents NRC staff's thorough review o f the L TSP , which includes the margins assessment cited by PG&E in their March 2015 submittal.
Thanks , Nick Sen i or Project Manager -Se i smic Reevaluation Act i vities U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of. Nuclear Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Divis i on n ic h olas.d i fra n cesco@nrc.gov I Tel: (30 1) 415-1115 Sent: 15 May 2015 2 1 :02:25 +0000 To: L indell , Joseph;OGCMai l Center Re s ource Cc:Roth(OGC), David;Ut tal , Susan  
Thanks , Nick Sen i or Project Manager -Se i smic Reevaluation Act i vities U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of. Nuclear Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Divis i on n ic h olas.d i fra n cesco@nrc.gov I Tel: (30 1) 415-1115 Sent: 15 May 2015 2 1 :02:25 +0000 To: L indell , Joseph;OGCMai l Center Re s ource Cc:Roth(OGC), David;Ut tal , Susan  


Line 767: Line 767:
: 1. Request for Add i tional Info r mat i on cc w/encls: Distribution via Listserv ADAM S Ac ee NAME DATE OFFICE OGG NAME DATE RidsNrrDorllpl4
: 1. Request for Add i tional Info r mat i on cc w/encls: Distribution via Listserv ADAM S Ac ee NAME DATE OFFICE OGG NAME DATE RidsNrrDorllpl4
-2 NDiF r ancesco, NRR RidsNrrPM RidsRgn2MailCenter R i dsN r rOd Slingam , NRR *via mail NRR/J L D/JHMB/L A* NRO/DSEA/RGS1
-2 NDiF r ancesco, NRR RidsNrrPM RidsRgn2MailCenter R i dsN r rOd Slingam , NRR *via mail NRR/J L D/JHMB/L A* NRO/DSEA/RGS1
* NRR/JLD/JHMB/BC Slent DJa c kson MS hams NRR/JLD/JHMB/PM ND i Francesco OFFICIAL RECORD COPY REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION 2.1 SEISMIC HAZARD AND SCREENING REPORT FOR D I ABLO CANYON POWER PLANT Review of Alternative Emp irical Site Response Evaluation By letter dated March 12, 2012 (Agencywide Documents Access and M (ADAMS) Accession No. ML 12053A340), the NRC staff requested that specific hazard curves that capture. the variability i n soil depth (including. d agement System sees submit site conditions), shear-wave velocities , laye r th icknesses , damping , train de to generic rock ent nonlinear f the March range of material properties at the site. Specifically, Attachment 1 to "Seis closur 12 , 2012 , letter stated that " site amplification curves should be dev r ab annual exceedance frequencies to facilitate estimation o qu By letter dated February 15 , 2013 (ADAMS Accessio Electric Power Research Institute
* NRR/JLD/JHMB/BC Slent DJa c kson MS hams NRR/JLD/JHMB/PM ND i Francesco OFFICIAL RECORD COPY REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION 2.1 SEISMIC HAZARD AND SCREENING REPORT FOR D I ABLO CANYON POWER PLANT Review of Alternative Emp irical Site Response Evaluation By letter dated March 12, 2012 (Agencywide Documents Access and M (ADAMS) Accession No. ML12053A340), the NRC staff requested that specific hazard curves that capture. the variability i n soil depth (including. d agement System sees submit site conditions), shear-wave velocities , laye r th icknesses , damping , train de to generic rock ent nonlinear f the March range of material properties at the site. Specifically, Attachment 1 to "Seis closur 12 , 2012 , letter stated that " site amplification curves should be dev r ab annual exceedance frequencies to facilitate estimation o qu By letter dated February 15 , 2013 (ADAMS Accessio Electric Power Research Institute
[E PR I] Fin al Draft Re Guidance:
[E PR I] Fin al Draft Re Guidance:
Screening , Prioritization and lmple tation De using the SPID guidance.
Screening , Prioritization and lmple tation De using the SPID guidance.
Rega rding the development of site. a seismic hazard reeva luat ions , Seer As r rock uncertainties should be. incorporated into site amplification and thei r uncertainties through the hazard curves. The control-point elevation hazard curves should By lette . (ADAMS Accession No. ML 15071 A046), the licensee for the Diablo Ca nt ( P) submitted an alternative site response evaluation, referred to as the empir which uses the observed ground motions at the site from two earthquakes to he site amplification rather than analytical models." While the staff considers the em te response approach as a viable alternative to the analytical approach , the method as imple nted by the licensee was able to use only three site recordings from two earthquakes to constrain the local site amplification.
Rega rding the development of site. a seismic hazard reeva luat ions , Seer As r rock uncertainties should be. incorporated into site amplification and thei r uncertainties through the hazard curves. The control-point elevation hazard curves should By lette . (ADAMS Accession No. ML15071A046), the licensee for the Diablo Ca nt ( P) submitted an alternative site response evaluation, referred to as the empir which uses the observed ground motions at the site from two earthquakes to he site amplification rather than analytical models." While the staff considers the em te response approach as a viable alternative to the analytical approach , the method as imple nted by the licensee was able to use only three site recordings from two earthquakes to constrain the local site amplification.
As such, the licensee's estimate of the uncertainty in the local site term is potentia lly impacted by the limited amount of data. In addition, the. site. term developed by the licensee using the empirical approach shows a significant amount of deviat ion in the negative direction over an important frequency range from the NGA-West2 ground motion models for a Vs 3o=760 m/s site. Enclosure. l Request for Additional Information Consistent with the request for information issued pursuant to Tit le 1 O of the Code of Federal regulations, Part 50 , Section 50.54(f) and the SPID guidance, please provide a supplemental response to the March 2015 seismic hazard reevaluation that develops site amplification factors as recommended in Section 2.4 and Appendix B of the SPID. Please provide (1) a detailed description of the subsurface profile properties including uncertainties , (2) potent i al for nonlinear behavior at the strain levels produced by the scenario earthquakes of interes t , and (3) the control point elevation.
As such, the licensee's estimate of the uncertainty in the local site term is potentia lly impacted by the limited amount of data. In addition, the. site. term developed by the licensee using the empirical approach shows a significant amount of deviat ion in the negative direction over an important frequency range from the NGA-West2 ground motion models for a Vs 3o=760 m/s site. Enclosure. l Request for Additional Information Consistent with the request for information issued pursuant to Tit le 1 O of the Code of Federal regulations, Part 50 , Section 50.54(f) and the SPID guidance, please provide a supplemental response to the March 2015 seismic hazard reevaluation that develops site amplification factors as recommended in Section 2.4 and Appendix B of the SPID. Please provide (1) a detailed description of the subsurface profile properties including uncertainties , (2) potent i al for nonlinear behavior at the strain levels produced by the scenario earthquakes of interes t , and (3) the control point elevation.
In addition , prov ide the adjustment factors (Vs-kappa c rections) needed to modify the median ground motion models for the selected reference or rock elevation and velocity.
In addition , prov ide the adjustment factors (Vs-kappa c rections) needed to modify the median ground motion models for the selected reference or rock elevation and velocity.
Line 879: Line 879:
: 4. List of Licensees cc w/encls: Listserv DISTRIBUTION
: 4. List of Licensees cc w/encls: Listserv DISTRIBUTION
: PUBLIC LPL4-1 R/F LPL4-2 R/F RidsNroOd RidsNrrDorl RidsNrrDorllpl4
: PUBLIC LPL4-1 R/F LPL4-2 R/F RidsNroOd RidsNrrDorl RidsNrrDorllpl4
-1 Rids N rrDorllpl4-2 RidsNrrOd RidsNs i rOd RidsOeMailCenter RidsOgcMa i lCenter MMarkley, NRR MKhanna , NRR MShams , NRR NDiFrancesco , NRR ADAMS Accession No.: ML 15113B344 OFFICE NRR/J LD/PMB/PM NRR/JLD/LA NRR/JLD/HMB/BC NAME ND i Francesco Slent MShams DATE 04/22/15 I /15 I /15 OFFICE NRO/DSEA/D OGC NRR/JLD/D NAME SFlanders BHar ri s JDavis DATE I /15. I ./15. . I /15 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY AKock , NRO DJackson , NRO RidsNrrPM DiabloCanyon RidsNrrPMColumbia RidsNrrPaloVerde  
-1 Rids N rrDorllpl4-2 RidsNrrOd RidsNs i rOd RidsOeMailCenter RidsOgcMa i lCenter MMarkley, NRR MKhanna , NRR MShams , NRR NDiFrancesco , NRR ADAMS Accession No.: ML15113B344 OFFICE NRR/J LD/PMB/PM NRR/JLD/LA NRR/JLD/HMB/BC NAME ND i Francesco Slent MShams DATE 04/22/15 I /15 I /15 OFFICE NRO/DSEA/D OGC NRR/JLD/D NAME SFlanders BHar ri s JDavis DATE I /15. I ./15. . I /15 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY AKock , NRO DJackson , NRO RidsNrrPM DiabloCanyon RidsNrrPMColumbia RidsNrrPaloVerde  


RidsOgcRp Resource RidsRgn4MailCenter Resource RidsEdoMailCenter Resource *via email NRO/DSENRGS 2/BC NRR/DORUO DJackson Llund I /15 I /1 5 NRR/.D WDean . I. /15 Glossary of Evaluations Associated with Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1 Seismic Hazard Re-evaluations (b)(5) Enclosure 1
RidsOgcRp Resource RidsRgn4MailCenter Resource RidsEdoMailCenter Resource *via email NRO/DSENRGS 2/BC NRR/DORUO DJackson Llund I /15 I /1 5 NRR/.D WDean . I. /15 Glossary of Evaluations Associated with Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1 Seismic Hazard Re-evaluations (b)(5) Enclosure 1
(b)(S) Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the. Fukushima Dai-l chi Accident Seism i c Risk Eva l uations Screening and Pr i oritization Results for Western United States (WUS) Reactor S i tes Enclosure 2
(b)(S) Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the. Fukushima Dai-l chi Accident Seism i c Risk Eva l uations Screening and Pr i oritization Results for Western United States (WUS) Reactor S i tes Enclosure 2
March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals for Western United States Reactor S i tes Licensee Facility Date of letter (ADAMS Accession Nos.) Columb i a Genera t ing Station March 12 , 2015. (ML 15078A243) Diab l o Canyon Power P l ant , Unit Nos. 1 and 2 March 11 , 2015 (ML 15071 A046) Pa l o Verde Nuclear Generating Stat i on , Units March 10 , 2015 (ML 15076A073) and 1, 2 , and 3 Apr i l 10 ,. 2015 (ML 15105A076) Enclosure 3
March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals for Western United States Reactor S i tes Licensee Facility Date of letter (ADAMS Accession Nos.) Columb i a Genera t ing Station March 12 , 2015. (ML15078A243) Diab l o Canyon Power P l ant , Unit Nos. 1 and 2 March 11 , 2015 (ML15071A046) Pa l o Verde Nuclear Generating Stat i on , Units March 10 , 2015 (ML15076A073) and 1, 2 , and 3 Apr i l 10 ,. 2015 (ML15105A076) Enclosure 3
LIST OF APPLICABLE POWER REACTOR LICENSEES Columbia Generating Station Energy Northwest Docket No .. 50-397 License No. NPF-2 1 Mr. Mark E. Reddemann Chief Executive Officer Energy Northwest MD 1023 76 North Power Plant L oop P.O. Box 968 Richland , WA 99352 Diablo Canyon Power. P l ant. Unit Nos .. l and 2. Pacific Gas & Electric Company Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82 Mr. Edward D. Halpin Senior Vice President and Ch i ef Nuclear Officer Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 56 Mail Code 104/6 Avila Beach, CA 93424 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Arizona Public Service Company Docket Nos. STN 50-528 , STN 50-529 , and STN 50-530 License Nos. NPF-41 , NPF-51 and NPF-74 Mr. Randall K. Edington Executive Vice President Nuclear/CNO Arizona Public Service Company P.O. Box 52034 , MS 7602. Phoenix , AZ 85072-2034 Enclosure 4
LIST OF APPLICABLE POWER REACTOR LICENSEES Columbia Generating Station Energy Northwest Docket No .. 50-397 License No. NPF-2 1 Mr. Mark E. Reddemann Chief Executive Officer Energy Northwest MD 1023 76 North Power Plant L oop P.O. Box 968 Richland , WA 99352 Diablo Canyon Power. P l ant. Unit Nos .. l and 2. Pacific Gas & Electric Company Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82 Mr. Edward D. Halpin Senior Vice President and Ch i ef Nuclear Officer Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 56 Mail Code 104/6 Avila Beach, CA 93424 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Arizona Public Service Company Docket Nos. STN 50-528 , STN 50-529 , and STN 50-530 License Nos. NPF-41 , NPF-51 and NPF-74 Mr. Randall K. Edington Executive Vice President Nuclear/CNO Arizona Public Service Company P.O. Box 52034 , MS 7602. Phoenix , AZ 85072-2034 Enclosure 4
DiFrance s co , Nichola s From:DiFrance sc o, Nicholas Sent:4 M ay 2 015 18:34:12 +0000 To:Jack so n , Diane Cc:Sham s, Moh a med;Kock , Andrea  
DiFrance s co , Nichola s From:DiFrance sc o, Nicholas Sent:4 M ay 2 015 18:34:12 +0000 To:Jack so n , Diane Cc:Sham s, Moh a med;Kock , Andrea  
Line 904: Line 904:
==SUBJECT:==
==SUBJECT:==
SCREENING AND PRIORITIZATION RESULTS FOR THE WESTERN UNITED STATES SITES REGARDING INFORMATION PURSUANT TO T I TLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 50.54 (f). REGARDING SEISMIC HAZARD RE-EVALUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDATION 2.1 OF THE NEARTERM TASK FORCE REVIEW OF I NSIGHTS FROM THE FUKUSHIMA ICHI ACCIDENT On March 12 , 2012 , the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a request for information pursuant to Ti tle 1 O of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50 (1 O CFR), Section 50.54(f). (hereafter referred.
SCREENING AND PRIORITIZATION RESULTS FOR THE WESTERN UNITED STATES SITES REGARDING INFORMATION PURSUANT TO T I TLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 50.54 (f). REGARDING SEISMIC HAZARD RE-EVALUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDATION 2.1 OF THE NEARTERM TASK FORCE REVIEW OF I NSIGHTS FROM THE FUKUSHIMA ICHI ACCIDENT On March 12 , 2012 , the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a request for information pursuant to Ti tle 1 O of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50 (1 O CFR), Section 50.54(f). (hereafter referred.
to as the 50.54. (f). letter) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (A DAMS) Accession No. ML 12053A340). The purpose of that request was to gather information concerning , in part , the seismic hazards at operating reactor sites and to enable the NRC staff to determine. whether licenses.
to as the 50.54. (f). letter) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (A DAMS) Accession No. ML12053A340). The purpose of that request was to gather information concerning , in part , the seismic hazards at operating reactor sites and to enable the NRC staff to determine. whether licenses.
should. be. mod if ied , suspended , or revoked. The "Required Response" section of Enclosure 1 indicated that licensees and construction permit holders should provide a Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening report within 3 years from the date of the. letter for Western United States (WUS) plants (i.e., Columbia Generating Station (Columbia), Diablo Canyon Powe r Plant (Diablo Canyon), and Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (Pa lo Verde)). Further , the 50.54(f) letter stated that NRC would provide the results of the screening and. prioritization indica ting dead lines for individual plants to complete seismic risk evaluations to assess the total plant res ponse to the re-evaluated seismic hazard. Additionally, by letter 1 dated February 20 , 2014, the NRC provided supplemental information on the content of the seismic re-evaluated hazard submittals i ncluding guidance on reportabil ity and operability.
should. be. mod if ied , suspended , or revoked. The "Required Response" section of Enclosure 1 indicated that licensees and construction permit holders should provide a Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening report within 3 years from the date of the. letter for Western United States (WUS) plants (i.e., Columbia Generating Station (Columbia), Diablo Canyon Powe r Plant (Diablo Canyon), and Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (Pa lo Verde)). Further , the 50.54(f) letter stated that NRC would provide the results of the screening and. prioritization indica ting dead lines for individual plants to complete seismic risk evaluations to assess the total plant res ponse to the re-evaluated seismic hazard. Additionally, by letter 1 dated February 20 , 2014, the NRC provided supplemental information on the content of the seismic re-evaluated hazard submittals i ncluding guidance on reportabil ity and operability.
The purpose of this letter is to inform WUS l icensees of the. NRC's screening and prioritization and to allow licensees to appropriately plan the completion of further seismic r isk evaluations described in Enclosure 1 of the 50.54(f) letter. To respond to the 50.54(f) letter , all addressees committed to. follow the E lect ric Power. Research Institute (EP RI) Report , "Seismic Evaluation Guidance:
The purpose of this letter is to inform WUS l icensees of the. NRC's screening and prioritization and to allow licensees to appropriately plan the completion of further seismic r isk evaluations described in Enclosure 1 of the 50.54(f) letter. To respond to the 50.54(f) letter , all addressees committed to. follow the E lect ric Power. Research Institute (EP RI) Report , "Seismic Evaluation Guidance:
Screening, Prioritization and Implementat ion Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic ," 2 as. supplemented , by the EPRI Report , " Seismic Evaluation Guidance:
Screening, Prioritization and Implementat ion Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic ," 2 as. supplemented , by the EPRI Report , " Seismic Evaluation Guidance:
Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Recommendation 2.1: Seismic" 3 (referre d to as the Exped ited Approach).
Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Recommendation 2.1: Seismic" 3 (referre d to as the Exped ited Approach).
The NRC held multiple public meetings and teleconferences with industry and the public leading to the development of the guidance documents supporting review of re-evaluated se ismic hazards. 1 The February 20, 2014 , supplemental information letter is available i n ADAMS under Accession No. ML 14030A046. 2 The SPID gu ida nce document is found in ADAMS u nde r Accession No. ML 12333A 170. The staff endo r seme n t letter for the SPID guidance is found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML 12319A074.
The NRC held multiple public meetings and teleconferences with industry and the public leading to the development of the guidance documents supporting review of re-evaluated se ismic hazards. 1 The February 20, 2014 , supplemental information letter is available i n ADAMS under Accession No. ML14030A046. 2 The SPID gu ida nce document is found in ADAMS u nde r Accession No. ML12333A170. The staff endo r seme n t letter for the SPID guidance is found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML12319A074.
3 The Exped ited Approach g uid ance document is found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML 13102A 142. The WUS l i censees submitted the re-evaluated seismic hazards. by letters dated on. or before. March 12 , 2015 (references are provided in Enclosure 3 of th i s letter). The NRC staff conducted the screening and prioritization review of the subm i ttals by assess i ng each licensee's sc r eening evaluation and hazard analysis utilizing the endorsed SPID gu i dance. INTERIM EVALUAT I ONS 4 The 50.54(f) letter requested that licensees provide " interim evaluations and actions taken or planned to address the higher se i smic hazard relative to the design-bas i s , as appropriate, prior to completion of the risk evaluation." For those plants where the re-evaluated seismic hazard exceeds t he seismic design-basis, licensees stated they w i ll provide inter i m evaluat i ons to demonstrate that the plant can cope with the higher re-evaluated se i sm i c. hazard while the longer-term se i smic r i sk evaluations are ongoing. In support of the requested interim evaluations for licensees , WUS p l ants provided i nformat i on related to margin evalua t ions or insights from Individual Plant Exam i nat i on of External Events (I PEEE) eva l uat i ons included est i mated seismic risk. Additionally
3 The Exped ited Approach g uid ance document is found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13102A142. The WUS l i censees submitted the re-evaluated seismic hazards. by letters dated on. or before. March 12 , 2015 (references are provided in Enclosure 3 of th i s letter). The NRC staff conducted the screening and prioritization review of the subm i ttals by assess i ng each licensee's sc r eening evaluation and hazard analysis utilizing the endorsed SPID gu i dance. INTERIM EVALUAT I ONS 4 The 50.54(f) letter requested that licensees provide " interim evaluations and actions taken or planned to address the higher se i smic hazard relative to the design-bas i s , as appropriate, prior to completion of the risk evaluation." For those plants where the re-evaluated seismic hazard exceeds t he seismic design-basis, licensees stated they w i ll provide inter i m evaluat i ons to demonstrate that the plant can cope with the higher re-evaluated se i sm i c. hazard while the longer-term se i smic r i sk evaluations are ongoing. In support of the requested interim evaluations for licensees , WUS p l ants provided i nformat i on related to margin evalua t ions or insights from Individual Plant Exam i nat i on of External Events (I PEEE) eva l uat i ons included est i mated seismic risk. Additionally
,. the submittals discussed completing p l ant se i smic walkdowns as part of NTIF Recommendation 2.3 in order to verify that the current p l ant configuration is cons i stent with the licens i ng basis. The NRC staff rev i ew of WUS reports found that li censees have demonstrated add i tional p l ant seism i c margins supportive of cont i nued plan t operation wh i le additiona l risk evaluations are conducted. The i nterim eva l uat i on provided in March. 2015 is a first step in. assessing the plant's capacity to withstand the re-evaluated hazard. In the near-term , by January 2016 , l icensees will comp l ete an " Expedited Approach" to evaluate and iden t ify reinforcements , if necessary , for certain equipment to. ensure a safe shutdown pathway can w i thstand a higher se i sm i c. ground motion. For Diablo Canyon and Palo Verde, the NRC staff is continuing to assess seism i c evaluat i ons completed by the licensees to determine if they meet the intent of the Expedited Approach review and. will response under a seperate letter. SCREENING PROCESS As defined in the 50.54(f) letter and the SPID gu i dance , the seismic hazard re-evaluations were conducted using current analys i s methods and guidance. The l icensees' responses to the 50.54 (f) l etter prov i ded se i sm i c hazard re-evaluation results , which were the focus of the NRC staffs initial screening and prioritization r ev i ew. Although the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) is commonly referred to as a single number, this number represents a distr i but i on of ground motions that occu r over a range of spectral frequencies.
,. the submittals discussed completing p l ant se i smic walkdowns as part of NTIF Recommendation 2.3 in order to verify that the current p l ant configuration is cons i stent with the licens i ng basis. The NRC staff rev i ew of WUS reports found that li censees have demonstrated add i tional p l ant seism i c margins supportive of cont i nued plan t operation wh i le additiona l risk evaluations are conducted. The i nterim eva l uat i on provided in March. 2015 is a first step in. assessing the plant's capacity to withstand the re-evaluated hazard. In the near-term , by January 2016 , l icensees will comp l ete an " Expedited Approach" to evaluate and iden t ify reinforcements , if necessary , for certain equipment to. ensure a safe shutdown pathway can w i thstand a higher se i sm i c. ground motion. For Diablo Canyon and Palo Verde, the NRC staff is continuing to assess seism i c evaluat i ons completed by the licensees to determine if they meet the intent of the Expedited Approach review and. will response under a seperate letter. SCREENING PROCESS As defined in the 50.54(f) letter and the SPID gu i dance , the seismic hazard re-evaluations were conducted using current analys i s methods and guidance. The l icensees' responses to the 50.54 (f) l etter prov i ded se i sm i c hazard re-evaluation results , which were the focus of the NRC staffs initial screening and prioritization r ev i ew. Although the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) is commonly referred to as a single number, this number represents a distr i but i on of ground motions that occu r over a range of spectral frequencies.
This. resu l ts in a curve of. ground acce l eration over frequency.
This. resu l ts in a curve of. ground acce l eration over frequency.
Line 935: Line 935:
In accordance with the endorsed guidance, the staff acknowledges that the January 2016 Expedited Approach submittal will focus on plant equipment (i.e. safe shutdown pathway 7) evaluations and modifications, as necessary, prior to submitting the plant seismic risk evaluations.
In accordance with the endorsed guidance, the staff acknowledges that the January 2016 Expedited Approach submittal will focus on plant equipment (i.e. safe shutdown pathway 7) evaluations and modifications, as necessary, prior to submitting the plant seismic risk evaluations.
The content of limited-scope evaluations or confirmations and their associated schedule milestones remain under development with NRG staff and stakeholders.
The content of limited-scope evaluations or confirmations and their associated schedule milestones remain under development with NRG staff and stakeholders.
The NRC staff has conducted a number of pub lic meetings to r each alignment on the implementation details of these evaluations , inc lud ing the development of alternatives approaches for conducting these evaluations The staf f expects that implementing guidance should be established by summer 6 Central and Eastern l i censees seismic hazard screening and priority rev i ews were completed in 2014. 7 Section 3 of the Expedi ted Approach guidance (ADAMS Accession No. ML 13102A142) p rov i des a process t o identify a single seismically r obust success path using a subset of installed p l ant equipment , FLEX equipment and connection points. 2015. and fall 2015 for high frequency and spent fuel pool evaluations, respectively.
The NRC staff has conducted a number of pub lic meetings to r each alignment on the implementation details of these evaluations , inc lud ing the development of alternatives approaches for conducting these evaluations The staf f expects that implementing guidance should be established by summer 6 Central and Eastern l i censees seismic hazard screening and priority rev i ews were completed in 2014. 7 Section 3 of the Expedi ted Approach guidance (ADAMS Accession No. ML13102A142) p rov i des a process t o identify a single seismically r obust success path using a subset of installed p l ant equipment , FLEX equipment and connection points. 2015. and fall 2015 for high frequency and spent fuel pool evaluations, respectively.
It is expected that WUS licensees can complete these evaluations in parallel with completion of SPRAs for Group 1 plants by J une 2017. This letter transmits the NRC staff's results of the seismic hazard submittals for the purposes of screening and prioritizing the plants. It does not convey the staff's final determination regarding the adequacy of any plant's calculated hazard. As such , the NRC staff will continue. its review of the. submitted seismic hazard re-evaluations , and may request additional.
It is expected that WUS licensees can complete these evaluations in parallel with completion of SPRAs for Group 1 plants by J une 2017. This letter transmits the NRC staff's results of the seismic hazard submittals for the purposes of screening and prioritizing the plants. It does not convey the staff's final determination regarding the adequacy of any plant's calculated hazard. As such , the NRC staff will continue. its review of the. submitted seismic hazard re-evaluations , and may request additional.
plant-specific information to support this review through the summer of 2015. The staff has placed a high priority on this review for the early identification of issues that might adversely affect each licensee's seismic risk evaluations.
plant-specific information to support this review through the summer of 2015. The staff has placed a high priority on this review for the early identification of issues that might adversely affect each licensee's seismic risk evaluations.
Line 950: Line 950:
: 2. Screening and Prioritization Results 3. List of Licensee March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals
: 2. Screening and Prioritization Results 3. List of Licensee March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals
: 4. List of Licensees cc w/encls: Listserv DISTRIBUTION
: 4. List of Licensees cc w/encls: Listserv DISTRIBUTION
: PUBLIC LPL4-1 R/F LPL4-2 R/F RidsNroOd RidsNrrDorl RidsNrrDorllpl4-1 RidsNrrDorllpl4-2 RidsNrrOd RidsNs i rOd RidsOeMailCenter RidsOgcMailCenter MMarkley, NRR MKhanna , NRR MShams , NRR NDiF rancesco, NRR ADAM S A ccession N o.: ML 15113B344 OF F ICE NRR/J LD/PMB/PM NRR/JLD/LA N RR/JLD/HMB/BC NAME NDiFrancesco Slent MShams D A TE 04/22/15 I /15 I /15 OF F ICE NRO/DSEA/D OGC NRR/JLD/D N AM E SFlanders SCI ark JDavis (MFranovich for) DAT E I /1 5 05/04/15 I /15 OFFI C I A L RE CO RD COP Y AKock , NRO DJackson , NRO RidsNrrPM DiabloCanyon RidsNrrPMColumbia RidsNrrPaloVerde  
: PUBLIC LPL4-1 R/F LPL4-2 R/F RidsNroOd RidsNrrDorl RidsNrrDorllpl4-1 RidsNrrDorllpl4-2 RidsNrrOd RidsNs i rOd RidsOeMailCenter RidsOgcMailCenter MMarkley, NRR MKhanna , NRR MShams , NRR NDiF rancesco, NRR ADAM S A ccession N o.: ML15113B344 OF F ICE NRR/J LD/PMB/PM NRR/JLD/LA N RR/JLD/HMB/BC NAME NDiFrancesco Slent MShams D A TE 04/22/15 I /15 I /15 OF F ICE NRO/DSEA/D OGC NRR/JLD/D N AM E SFlanders SCI ark JDavis (MFranovich for) DAT E I /1 5 05/04/15 I /15 OFFI C I A L RE CO RD COP Y AKock , NRO DJackson , NRO RidsNrrPM DiabloCanyon RidsNrrPMColumbia RidsNrrPaloVerde  


RidsOgcRp Resource RidsRgn4MailCenter Resource RidsEdoMailCenter Resource *via email NRO/DSENRGS2/BC NRR/DORUO DJackson Llund I /15 I /15 NRR/.D WDean I /15 Glossary of Evaluations Associated with Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1 Seismic Hazard Re-eva l uations Interim Evaluation or Actions -An immediate licensee and NRG review of the re-evaluate d hazard to determine whether actions are needed to assure plant safety while further evaluations are ongoing. The staff has completed its review and concluded that , based on the licensees' interim evaluations and actions , Western United States (WUS) plants are safe for continued operations.
RidsOgcRp Resource RidsRgn4MailCenter Resource RidsEdoMailCenter Resource *via email NRO/DSENRGS2/BC NRR/DORUO DJackson Llund I /15 I /15 NRR/.D WDean I /15 Glossary of Evaluations Associated with Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1 Seismic Hazard Re-eva l uations Interim Evaluation or Actions -An immediate licensee and NRG review of the re-evaluate d hazard to determine whether actions are needed to assure plant safety while further evaluations are ongoing. The staff has completed its review and concluded that , based on the licensees' interim evaluations and actions , Western United States (WUS) plants are safe for continued operations.
Line 964: Line 964:
...... 0 0 o ..... .,,.. -..J ;;><;-...... 3  
...... 0 0 o ..... .,,.. -..J ;;><;-...... 3  
!ll ...... c:.n c:.n c:.n ,,. :::::i O::!: 0 ,-... 0 :::!. 0 "O 3 (/) 3 !ll 'O ::r 'O _([) ro co ([) a. <D co o q; CJ) a. ::r a. ([) (/) -* (") C. ;;><;-(") Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the. Fukushima Da i-l chi Accident I ([) -* <D :::i :::i =.co ([) :;* :::i Seism i c Risk Eva l uations Screening and Pr i oritization Results for -Q Ql -0 _o Western United States (WUS) Reactor S i tes 0 O". (5" :::i 0 ([) -g_ :::i (/) en* 5* ([) Lim i ted-scope Evaluations. Q ([) Se i smic Risk a. 5* Expedite d c 3 0 Pl ant Name Screening Approach Evaluation High Low Spent Fue l "O 3 Resul t (Pr i or i t i zat i on Frequency Frequency Pool ff 5* Evaluation  
!ll ...... c:.n c:.n c:.n ,,. :::::i O::!: 0 ,-... 0 :::!. 0 "O 3 (/) 3 !ll 'O ::r 'O _([) ro co ([) a. <D co o q; CJ) a. ::r a. ([) (/) -* (") C. ;;><;-(") Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the. Fukushima Da i-l chi Accident I ([) -* <D :::i :::i =.co ([) :;* :::i Seism i c Risk Eva l uations Screening and Pr i oritization Results for -Q Ql -0 _o Western United States (WUS) Reactor S i tes 0 O". (5" :::i 0 ([) -g_ :::i (/) en* 5* ([) Lim i ted-scope Evaluations. Q ([) Se i smic Risk a. 5* Expedite d c 3 0 Pl ant Name Screening Approach Evaluation High Low Spent Fue l "O 3 Resul t (Pr i or i t i zat i on Frequency Frequency Pool ff 5* Evaluation  
!ll :::i Group) Evaluation Evaluation Evaluat i on ...... Ql 6' <D (/) :::i ..., :T !ll ([) Columbia Generat i ng Station In :::::i ro x 1 x x a. Ql u;* (/) "O _ro :::i c a. &#xa3; O" 0 0 Diablo Canyon Power Plant , U nit ff :::i :::> I n x 1 x x g, :T Nos. 1 and 2 '< ..., ([) ([) !ll ro a. < Ql 0 (/) (") _ro ;;><;-P alo Verde Nuclear Generat i ng Condit i onal x 3 x x !ll Station , U nits 1 , 2 , and 3 i n O" 0 <D 0 :::i s. ([) -g_ ..... 0 (/) 3 3 (") 0 0 )> 'O c ([) :::i o* a. )> Ql :::i a. (/) (/) ([) < ([) ..., 0 :T ([) ..., (/) :E ([) ..., ([) -E n closure 2 March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals for Western United States Reactor Sites Licensee Facility Date of letter (ADAMS Accession Nos.) Columbia Generating Station March 12 , 2015 (ML 15078A243)
!ll :::i Group) Evaluation Evaluation Evaluat i on ...... Ql 6' <D (/) :::i ..., :T !ll ([) Columbia Generat i ng Station In :::::i ro x 1 x x a. Ql u;* (/) "O _ro :::i c a. &#xa3; O" 0 0 Diablo Canyon Power Plant , U nit ff :::i :::> I n x 1 x x g, :T Nos. 1 and 2 '< ..., ([) ([) !ll ro a. < Ql 0 (/) (") _ro ;;><;-P alo Verde Nuclear Generat i ng Condit i onal x 3 x x !ll Station , U nits 1 , 2 , and 3 i n O" 0 <D 0 :::i s. ([) -g_ ..... 0 (/) 3 3 (") 0 0 )> 'O c ([) :::i o* a. )> Ql :::i a. (/) (/) ([) < ([) ..., 0 :T ([) ..., (/) :E ([) ..., ([) -E n closure 2 March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals for Western United States Reactor Sites Licensee Facility Date of letter (ADAMS Accession Nos.) Columbia Generating Station March 12 , 2015 (ML15078A243)
Diab lo Canyon Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 March 11, 20 15 (M L 15071 A046) Pa lo Verde Nuclear Generating Station , Units March 1 O, 2015(ML15076A073) and 1 , 2 , and 3 April 10 , 2015 (ML 15105A076)
Diab lo Canyon Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 March 11, 20 15 (M L 15071 A046) Pa lo Verde Nuclear Generating Station , Units March 1 O, 2015(ML15076A073) and 1 , 2 , and 3 April 10 , 2015 (ML15105A076)
Enclosure 3
Enclosure 3
LIST OF APPLICABLE POWER REACTOR LICENSEES Columbia Generating Station Energy Northwest Docket No .. 50-397 License No. NPF-2 1 Mr. Mark E. Reddemann Chief Executive Officer Energy Northwest MD 1023 76 North Power Plant L oop P.O. Box 968 Richland , WA 99352 Diablo Canyon Power. P l ant. Unit Nos .. l and 2. Pacific Gas & Electric Company Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82 Mr. Edward D. Halpin Senior Vice Pres i dent and Ch i ef Nuclear Officer Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 56 Ma il Code 104/6 Avila Beach, CA 93424 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2 , and 3 Arizona Public Service Company Docket Nos. STN 50-528 , STN 50-529 , and STN 50-530 License Nos. NPF-41 , NPF-51 andNPF-74 Mr. Randall K. Edington Executive V i ce Pres i dent Nuclear/CNO Arizona Public Service Company P.O. Box 52034 , MS 7602. Phoenix , AZ 85072-2034 Enclosure 4
LIST OF APPLICABLE POWER REACTOR LICENSEES Columbia Generating Station Energy Northwest Docket No .. 50-397 License No. NPF-2 1 Mr. Mark E. Reddemann Chief Executive Officer Energy Northwest MD 1023 76 North Power Plant L oop P.O. Box 968 Richland , WA 99352 Diablo Canyon Power. P l ant. Unit Nos .. l and 2. Pacific Gas & Electric Company Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82 Mr. Edward D. Halpin Senior Vice Pres i dent and Ch i ef Nuclear Officer Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 56 Ma il Code 104/6 Avila Beach, CA 93424 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2 , and 3 Arizona Public Service Company Docket Nos. STN 50-528 , STN 50-529 , and STN 50-530 License Nos. NPF-41 , NPF-51 andNPF-74 Mr. Randall K. Edington Executive V i ce Pres i dent Nuclear/CNO Arizona Public Service Company P.O. Box 52034 , MS 7602. Phoenix , AZ 85072-2034 Enclosure 4
Line 979: Line 979:
==SUBJECT:==
==SUBJECT:==
SCREENING AND PRIORITIZATION RESULTS FOR THE WESTERN UNITED STATES SITES REGARDING INFORMATION PURSUANT TO T I TLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 50.54 (f). REGARDING SEISMIC HAZARD RE-EVALUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDATION 2.1 OF THE NEARTERM TASK FORCE REVIEW OF I NSIGHTS FROM THE FUKUSHIMA ICHI ACCIDENT On March 12 , 2012 , the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a request for information pursuant to Ti tle 1 O of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50 (1 O CFR), Section 50.54(f). (hereafter referred.
SCREENING AND PRIORITIZATION RESULTS FOR THE WESTERN UNITED STATES SITES REGARDING INFORMATION PURSUANT TO T I TLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 50.54 (f). REGARDING SEISMIC HAZARD RE-EVALUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDATION 2.1 OF THE NEARTERM TASK FORCE REVIEW OF I NSIGHTS FROM THE FUKUSHIMA ICHI ACCIDENT On March 12 , 2012 , the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a request for information pursuant to Ti tle 1 O of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50 (1 O CFR), Section 50.54(f). (hereafter referred.
to as the 50.54. (f). letter) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (A DAMS) Accession No. ML 12053A340). The purpose of that request was to gather information concerning , in part , the seismic hazards at operating reactor sites and to enable the NRC staff to determine. whether licenses.
to as the 50.54. (f). letter) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (A DAMS) Accession No. ML12053A340). The purpose of that request was to gather information concerning , in part , the seismic hazards at operating reactor sites and to enable the NRC staff to determine. whether licenses.
should. be. mod if ied , suspended , or revoked. The "Required Response" section of Enclosure 1 indicated that licensees and construction permit holders should provide a Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening report within 3 years from the date of the. letter for Western United States (WUS) plants (i.e., Columbia Generating Station (Columbia), Diablo Canyon Powe r Plant (Diablo Canyon), and Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (Pa lo Verde)). Further , the 50.54(f) letter stated that NRC would provide the results of the screening and. prioritization indica ting dead lines for individual plants to complete seismic risk evaluations to assess the total plant res ponse to the re-evaluated seismic hazard. Additionally, by letter 1 dated February 20 , 2014, the NRC provided supplemental information on the content of the seismic re-evaluated hazard submittals i ncluding guidance on reportabil ity and operability.
should. be. mod if ied , suspended , or revoked. The "Required Response" section of Enclosure 1 indicated that licensees and construction permit holders should provide a Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening report within 3 years from the date of the. letter for Western United States (WUS) plants (i.e., Columbia Generating Station (Columbia), Diablo Canyon Powe r Plant (Diablo Canyon), and Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (Pa lo Verde)). Further , the 50.54(f) letter stated that NRC would provide the results of the screening and. prioritization indica ting dead lines for individual plants to complete seismic risk evaluations to assess the total plant res ponse to the re-evaluated seismic hazard. Additionally, by letter 1 dated February 20 , 2014, the NRC provided supplemental information on the content of the seismic re-evaluated hazard submittals i ncluding guidance on reportabil ity and operability.
The purpose of this letter is to inform WUS l icensees of the. NRC's screening and prioritization and to allow licensees to appropriately plan the completion of further seismic r isk evaluations described in Enclosure 1 of the 50.54(f) letter. To respond to the 50.54(f) letter , all addressees committed to. follow the E lect ric Power. Research Institute (EP RI) Report , "Seismic Evaluation Guidance:
The purpose of this letter is to inform WUS l icensees of the. NRC's screening and prioritization and to allow licensees to appropriately plan the completion of further seismic r isk evaluations described in Enclosure 1 of the 50.54(f) letter. To respond to the 50.54(f) letter , all addressees committed to. follow the E lect ric Power. Research Institute (EP RI) Report , "Seismic Evaluation Guidance:
Screening, Prioritization and Implementat ion Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic ," 2 as. supplemented , by the EPRI Report , " Seismic Evaluation Guidance:
Screening, Prioritization and Implementat ion Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic ," 2 as. supplemented , by the EPRI Report , " Seismic Evaluation Guidance:
Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Recommendation 2.1: Seismic" 3 (referre d to as the Exped ited Approach).
Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Recommendation 2.1: Seismic" 3 (referre d to as the Exped ited Approach).
The NRC held multiple public meetings and teleconferences with industry and the public leading to the development of the guidance documents supporting review of re-evaluated se ismic hazards. 1 The February 20 , 2014 , supplemental information letter is availab l e i n ADAMS under Accession No. ML 14030A046. 2 The SPID gu ida nce document is found in ADAMS u nde r Accession No. ML 12333A 170. The staff endo r seme n t letter for the SPID guidance is found in ADAMS under Access i on No. ML 12319A074.
The NRC held multiple public meetings and teleconferences with industry and the public leading to the development of the guidance documents supporting review of re-evaluated se ismic hazards. 1 The February 20 , 2014 , supplemental information letter is availab l e i n ADAMS under Accession No. ML14030A046. 2 The SPID gu ida nce document is found in ADAMS u nde r Accession No. ML12333A170. The staff endo r seme n t letter for the SPID guidance is found in ADAMS under Access i on No. ML12319A074.
3 The Exped ited Approach g uid ance document is found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML 13102A 142. The WUS l i censees submitted the re-evaluated seismic hazards. by letters dated on. or before. March 12 , 2015 (references are provided in Enclosure 3 of th i s letter). The NRC staff conducted the screening and prioritization review of the subm i ttals by assess i ng each licensee's sc r eening evaluation and hazard analysis utilizing the endorsed SPID guidance.
3 The Exped ited Approach g uid ance document is found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13102A142. The WUS l i censees submitted the re-evaluated seismic hazards. by letters dated on. or before. March 12 , 2015 (references are provided in Enclosure 3 of th i s letter). The NRC staff conducted the screening and prioritization review of the subm i ttals by assess i ng each licensee's sc r eening evaluation and hazard analysis utilizing the endorsed SPID guidance.
INTERIM EVALUATIONS 4 The 50.54(f) letter requested that licensees provide " interim evaluations and actions taken or planned to address the higher se i smic hazard relative to the design-bas i s , as appropriate, prior to completion of the risk evaluation." For those plants where the re-evaluated seismic hazard exceeds t he seismic design-basis , licensees stated they w i ll provide inter i m evaluat i ons to demonstrate that the plant can cope with the higher re-evaluated se i sm i c. hazard while the longer-term se i smic r i sk evaluations are ongoing. In support of the requested interim evaluations for licensees , WUS p l ants provided i nformat i on related to margin evalua t ions or insights from Individual Plant Exam i nat i on of External Events (I PEEE) eva l uat i ons included est i mated se i sm i c risk. Additionally
INTERIM EVALUATIONS 4 The 50.54(f) letter requested that licensees provide " interim evaluations and actions taken or planned to address the higher se i smic hazard relative to the design-bas i s , as appropriate, prior to completion of the risk evaluation." For those plants where the re-evaluated seismic hazard exceeds t he seismic design-basis , licensees stated they w i ll provide inter i m evaluat i ons to demonstrate that the plant can cope with the higher re-evaluated se i sm i c. hazard while the longer-term se i smic r i sk evaluations are ongoing. In support of the requested interim evaluations for licensees , WUS p l ants provided i nformat i on related to margin evalua t ions or insights from Individual Plant Exam i nat i on of External Events (I PEEE) eva l uat i ons included est i mated se i sm i c risk. Additionally
,. the submittals discussed completing p l ant se i sm i c walkdowns as part of NTIF Recommendation 2.3 in order to verify that the current p l ant configuration is cons i stent with the licens i ng basis. The NRC staff rev i ew of WUS reports found that li censees have demonstrated add i tional p l ant seism i c margins supportive of cont i nued plan t operation wh i le additiona l risk evaluations are conducted. The i nterim eva l uat i on provided in March. 2015 is a first step in. assessing the plant's capacity to withstand the re-evaluated hazard. In the near-term , by January 2016 , l icensees will complete an " Expedited Approach" to evaluate and iden t ify reinforcements , if necessary , for certain equipment to. ensure a safe shutdown pathway can w i thstand a higher se i sm i c. ground motion. For Diablo Canyon and Palo Verde sites , the NRC staff is continuing to assess se i smic evaluations completed by the licensees to determ i ne i f they meet the i ntent of the Exped i ted Approach review and wi ll respond under. a seperate letter. SCREENING PROCESS As described in the 50.54 (f) letter and the SPID guidance , the se i smic hazard re-evaluat i ons were to be conducted us i ng current analysis me t hods and gu i dance. The licensees' responses to the 50.54(f) letter prov i ded seismic haza r d re-evaluation results , which were the focus of the NRC staff's in i tial screen i ng and prior i tization review. Although the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) is commonly referred to as a single number, this number represents a distr i but i on of ground motions that occu r over a range of spectral frequencies.
,. the submittals discussed completing p l ant se i sm i c walkdowns as part of NTIF Recommendation 2.3 in order to verify that the current p l ant configuration is cons i stent with the licens i ng basis. The NRC staff rev i ew of WUS reports found that li censees have demonstrated add i tional p l ant seism i c margins supportive of cont i nued plan t operation wh i le additiona l risk evaluations are conducted. The i nterim eva l uat i on provided in March. 2015 is a first step in. assessing the plant's capacity to withstand the re-evaluated hazard. In the near-term , by January 2016 , l icensees will complete an " Expedited Approach" to evaluate and iden t ify reinforcements , if necessary , for certain equipment to. ensure a safe shutdown pathway can w i thstand a higher se i sm i c. ground motion. For Diablo Canyon and Palo Verde sites , the NRC staff is continuing to assess se i smic evaluations completed by the licensees to determ i ne i f they meet the i ntent of the Exped i ted Approach review and wi ll respond under. a seperate letter. SCREENING PROCESS As described in the 50.54 (f) letter and the SPID guidance , the se i smic hazard re-evaluat i ons were to be conducted us i ng current analysis me t hods and gu i dance. The licensees' responses to the 50.54(f) letter prov i ded seismic haza r d re-evaluation results , which were the focus of the NRC staff's in i tial screen i ng and prior i tization review. Although the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) is commonly referred to as a single number, this number represents a distr i but i on of ground motions that occu r over a range of spectral frequencies.
Line 1,011: Line 1,011:
Risk evaluations for Group 3 plants are due by December 3 1 , 2020. NEX T STEPS Based on t he s t aff's screening review the licensee for Columbia should final i ze and submit an Expedited Approach Report no later than J anuary 3 1 , 2016. The NRC staff is continuing to review the licensee provided information for Diab l o Canyon and Palo Verde related to the Expedited Approach.
Risk evaluations for Group 3 plants are due by December 3 1 , 2020. NEX T STEPS Based on t he s t aff's screening review the licensee for Columbia should final i ze and submit an Expedited Approach Report no later than J anuary 3 1 , 2016. The NRC staff is continuing to review the licensee provided information for Diab l o Canyon and Palo Verde related to the Expedited Approach.
In accordance. with. the endorsed guidance , the staff acknowledges that the January 2016 Expedited Approach submittal will focus on plant equipment (i.e. safe shutdown pathway 7) evaluations and modifications, as necessary , prior to submitting the plant seismic risk evaluations. The content of limi t ed-scope evaluations or confirmations and their associated schedule milestones remain under development with NRC staff and stakeholders.
In accordance. with. the endorsed guidance , the staff acknowledges that the January 2016 Expedited Approach submittal will focus on plant equipment (i.e. safe shutdown pathway 7) evaluations and modifications, as necessary , prior to submitting the plant seismic risk evaluations. The content of limi t ed-scope evaluations or confirmations and their associated schedule milestones remain under development with NRC staff and stakeholders.
The N RC staff has 6 Central and Eastern l i censees seismic hazard screening and pr i or i ty rev i ews were completed i n 2014. 7 Section 3 of the Expedited Approach guidance (ADAMS Access i on No. ML 13102A142) prov i des a process to identify a sing l e seismically rob ust success path using a subset of ins talled plant equipment , FLEX equ i pment and connection points. conducted.
The N RC staff has 6 Central and Eastern l i censees seismic hazard screening and pr i or i ty rev i ews were completed i n 2014. 7 Section 3 of the Expedited Approach guidance (ADAMS Access i on No. ML13102A142) prov i des a process to identify a sing l e seismically rob ust success path using a subset of ins talled plant equipment , FLEX equ i pment and connection points. conducted.
a number of public meetings on. the implementation detai ls of these evaluations, includ in g the development of alternatives approaches for conducting these evaluations The staff expects that implementing gu i dance should be established by summer 2015 and fall 2015 for high frequency and. spent fuel pool evaluations, respectively.
a number of public meetings on. the implementation detai ls of these evaluations, includ in g the development of alternatives approaches for conducting these evaluations The staff expects that implementing gu i dance should be established by summer 2015 and fall 2015 for high frequency and. spent fuel pool evaluations, respectively.
I t is expected.
I t is expected.
Line 1,035: Line 1,035:
i) spent fuel pool components and systems capable of draining water inventory to the level of the spent fuel, ii) a review of components susceptible to high frequency accelerations (e.g. electrical relays), and ii i) a review of components susceptible to low frequency accelerations (e.g. water storage tanks). Enclosure 1
i) spent fuel pool components and systems capable of draining water inventory to the level of the spent fuel, ii) a review of components susceptible to high frequency accelerations (e.g. electrical relays), and ii i) a review of components susceptible to low frequency accelerations (e.g. water storage tanks). Enclosure 1
Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the. Fukushima Dai-l chi Accident Seismic Risk Eva l uations Screening and Prioritization Results for Western United States (WUS) Reactor Sites Seismic Risk Limited-scope Evaluations. Screening Expedited Evaluation H igh Low Spent Fue l Plant Name Resul t Approach (Priorit i zat i on Frequency Frequency Pool Evaluation Group) Evaluation Evaluation Evaluat i on Columbia Generating Station In x 1 x x Diablo Canyon Power Plant , U nit In x 1 x x Nos. 1 and 2 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Conditional 3 Station , Units 1 , 2, and 3 in x x x Enclosure 2
Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the. Fukushima Dai-l chi Accident Seismic Risk Eva l uations Screening and Prioritization Results for Western United States (WUS) Reactor Sites Seismic Risk Limited-scope Evaluations. Screening Expedited Evaluation H igh Low Spent Fue l Plant Name Resul t Approach (Priorit i zat i on Frequency Frequency Pool Evaluation Group) Evaluation Evaluation Evaluat i on Columbia Generating Station In x 1 x x Diablo Canyon Power Plant , U nit In x 1 x x Nos. 1 and 2 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Conditional 3 Station , Units 1 , 2, and 3 in x x x Enclosure 2
March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals for Western United States Reactor Sites Licensee Facility Date of letter (ADAMS Accession Nos.) Columbia Generating Station March 12 , 2015 (ML 15078A243)
March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals for Western United States Reactor Sites Licensee Facility Date of letter (ADAMS Accession Nos.) Columbia Generating Station March 12 , 2015 (ML15078A243)
Diab lo Canyon Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 March 11, 20 15 (M L 15071 A046) Pa lo Verde Nuclear Generating Station , Units March 1 O, 2015(ML15076A073) and 1 , 2 , and 3 April 10 , 2015 (ML 15105A076)
Diab lo Canyon Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 March 11, 20 15 (M L 15071 A046) Pa lo Verde Nuclear Generating Station , Units March 1 O, 2015(ML15076A073) and 1 , 2 , and 3 April 10 , 2015 (ML15105A076)
Enclosure 3
Enclosure 3
LIST OF APPLICABLE POWER REACTOR LICENSEES Columbia Generating Station Energy Northwest Docket No .. 50-397 License No. NPF-2 1 Mr. Mark E. Reddemann Chief Executive Officer Energy Northwest MD 1023 76 North Power Plant L oop P.O. Box 968 Richland , WA 99352 Diablo Canyon Power. P l ant. Unit Nos .. l and 2. Pacific Gas & Electric Company Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82 Mr. Edward D. Halpin Senior Vice President and Ch i ef Nuclear Officer Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 56 Mail Code 104/6 Avila Beach, CA 93424 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Arizona Public Service Company Docket Nos. STN 50-528 , STN 50-529 , and STN 50-530 License Nos. NPF-41 , NPF-51 and NPF-74 Mr. Randall K. Edington Executive Vice President Nuclear/CNO Arizona Public Service Company P.O. Box 52034 , MS 7602. Phoenix , AZ 85072-2034 Enclosure 4
LIST OF APPLICABLE POWER REACTOR LICENSEES Columbia Generating Station Energy Northwest Docket No .. 50-397 License No. NPF-2 1 Mr. Mark E. Reddemann Chief Executive Officer Energy Northwest MD 1023 76 North Power Plant L oop P.O. Box 968 Richland , WA 99352 Diablo Canyon Power. P l ant. Unit Nos .. l and 2. Pacific Gas & Electric Company Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82 Mr. Edward D. Halpin Senior Vice President and Ch i ef Nuclear Officer Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 56 Mail Code 104/6 Avila Beach, CA 93424 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Arizona Public Service Company Docket Nos. STN 50-528 , STN 50-529 , and STN 50-530 License Nos. NPF-41 , NPF-51 and NPF-74 Mr. Randall K. Edington Executive Vice President Nuclear/CNO Arizona Public Service Company P.O. Box 52034 , MS 7602. Phoenix , AZ 85072-2034 Enclosure 4
Line 1,044: Line 1,044:
==Subject:==
==Subject:==
Pr e ss Release on WUS Seismic Sc r een i ng Lette r Scott, We. briefed the DEDO, NRR, and R-IV management on the content of the. WUS Screening letter during the JLD status weekly. Mentioned that we are working towards a press release. We received no realignment on the letter or communication plan approach.
Pr e ss Release on WUS Seismic Sc r een i ng Lette r Scott, We. briefed the DEDO, NRR, and R-IV management on the content of the. WUS Screening letter during the JLD status weekly. Mentioned that we are working towards a press release. We received no realignment on the letter or communication plan approach.
View ADAMS P8 Prope rties ML 151 1 38344 Open ADAMS P8 Document (Screen i ng and Pr i or i tization Results for the Western United States S i tes Regard i ng I nformat i on Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Rega r ding Se i sm i c Hazard Re-Evaluat i ons for Recommendat ion 2.1 of the. NTTF Rev iew) Current working towards issuance on Tuesday May 12 (that can always slip with NRR/ET review) .. Happy to. support a limited accuracy review as needed .. Please let me know if there are any questions or concerns.
View ADAMS P8 Prope rties ML151138344 Open ADAMS P8 Document (Screen i ng and Pr i or i tization Results for the Western United States S i tes Regard i ng I nformat i on Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Rega r ding Se i sm i c Hazard Re-Evaluat i ons for Recommendat ion 2.1 of the. NTTF Rev iew) Current working towards issuance on Tuesday May 12 (that can always slip with NRR/ET review) .. Happy to. support a limited accuracy review as needed .. Please let me know if there are any questions or concerns.
Thanks , Nick Senior Project Manager -Seismic Reevaluation Activities U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiss i on Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Division nicho l as.difrancesco@nrc.gov I Tel: (301) 415-1115 Communicat i on Plan Timeline (A DAMS ML14083A619)
Thanks , Nick Senior Project Manager -Seismic Reevaluation Activities U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiss i on Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Division nicho l as.difrancesco@nrc.gov I Tel: (301) 415-1115 Communicat i on Plan Timeline (A DAMS ML14083A619)
Date Act ivi ty (responsible organization)
Date Act ivi ty (responsible organization)
SignitJ.cant Historic Actions Completed (2/20/14}
SignitJ.cant Historic Actions Completed (2/20/14}
Issued letter to all licensees Re: Operability , Reportability, Interim Evaluation and Actions (ML 14030A046)
Issued letter to all licensees Re: Operability , Reportability, Interim Evaluation and Actions (ML14030A046)
Completed (5/9/14) Issued Central and Eastern US (CEUS) Seismic Screening Letter (ML14111A147)
Completed (5/9/14) Issued Central and Eastern US (CEUS) Seismic Screening Letter (ML14111A147)
WUS Seismic Hazard Screening Review Completed (3/12/15)
WUS Seismic Hazard Screening Review Completed (3/12/15)
Line 1,108: Line 1,108:
* Guidance to address scc)pe and performance requirements
* Guidance to address scc)pe and performance requirements
* Draft DG 1301 -
* Draft DG 1301 -
No. ML 15072A 171. 11 U.S.NRC UNrt'l!D NUCLEAR RJ!CUl..ATORY CO M MISSION Protecnng Peop l e and the Environment Proposed Rule Scope
No. ML15072A171. 11 U.S.NRC UNrt'l!D NUCLEAR RJ!CUl..ATORY CO M MISSION Protecnng Peop l e and the Environment Proposed Rule Scope
* All phases of FLEX equipment, including portable and installed
* All phases of FLEX equipment, including portable and installed
* FLEX equipment must perform its intended function
* FLEX equipment must perform its intended function
Line 1,139: Line 1,139:
RECUl..ATO R Y OO M MISSIOl'I Prot ecting Peop l e and the Environment Opportunity for Public Questions. or. Comments Additional Questions?
RECUl..ATO R Y OO M MISSIOl'I Prot ecting Peop l e and the Environment Opportunity for Public Questions. or. Comments Additional Questions?
Please ask us at: JLD _ PublicResource@nrc.gov 20 U.S.NRC lMTl:O SUCLEA!l RECt.'UTOllY OOMMJSSIOl\
Please ask us at: JLD _ PublicResource@nrc.gov 20 U.S.NRC lMTl:O SUCLEA!l RECt.'UTOllY OOMMJSSIOl\
ProkctinK People and the Enviromnent Backup Slides 21 ji nformat i o n (pages 52-6 1/1000) i s ava il ab l e from ADAMS ML 151138344. The Power Reactor Licensees and Holder of Construction Permits in Deferred Status on the Enclosed List UBJECT: SUSPENSION OF SEISMIC RISK EVALUTION INFORMATION REQUES PURSUANT TO TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATI N .54(f). REGARDING SEISMIC HAZARD RE-EVALUATIONS FO , ECOMMENDATION 2.1 OF THE NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE N I FR THE F K HI A DAI-HI A IDEN fie purpose of tfits letter i s to i nform enc ose lcensees tflat certain Group 2 a Group 3 s i t ay suspend respond i n to the seismic risk evaluation informa ti on r; uest based on a revie a vaj lable inf *o [This letter discussions the analysis approach of this decisions and expectations for completion of limit-scope evaluation (i.e. spent fuel pool , high-frequency, and/or low fre quency evaluations
ProkctinK People and the Enviromnent Backup Slides 21 ji nformat i o n (pages 52-6 1/1000) i s ava il ab l e from ADAMS ML151138344. The Power Reactor Licensees and Holder of Construction Permits in Deferred Status on the Enclosed List UBJECT: SUSPENSION OF SEISMIC RISK EVALUTION INFORMATION REQUES PURSUANT TO TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATI N .54(f). REGARDING SEISMIC HAZARD RE-EVALUATIONS FO , ECOMMENDATION 2.1 OF THE NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE N I FR THE F K HI A DAI-HI A IDEN fie purpose of tfits letter i s to i nform enc ose lcensees tflat certain Group 2 a Group 3 s i t ay suspend respond i n to the seismic risk evaluation informa ti on r; uest based on a revie a vaj lable inf *o [This letter discussions the analysis approach of this decisions and expectations for completion of limit-scope evaluation (i.e. spent fuel pool , high-frequency, and/or low fre quency evaluations
).] Does not prov i de relief from other licens ing requirements for informed technical specifications or plant licensing.]
).] Does not prov i de relief from other licens ing requirements for informed technical specifications or plant licensing.]
B A CRG ROON ll On Marcfl 12 , 2012 , the NRC issued a request for informat i on pursuant to Title 10 of the Cod of Federal Regulations , Part 50 (1 O CFR), Section 50.54(f) (hereafter referred to as the 50.54 etter) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System {ADAMS) Accession No L 12053A340). The purpose of that r equest was to gather information concern i ng , i n part , th i smic hazards at ope r ating reacto r s i tes and to enable the NRC staff to determine whethe icenses should be modified , s us pended, o r revoked. The "Required R esponse" sect i on o
B A CRG ROON ll On Marcfl 12 , 2012 , the NRC issued a request for informat i on pursuant to Title 10 of the Cod of Federal Regulations , Part 50 (1 O CFR), Section 50.54(f) (hereafter referred to as the 50.54 etter) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System {ADAMS) Accession No L 12053A340). The purpose of that r equest was to gather information concern i ng , i n part , th i smic hazards at ope r ating reacto r s i tes and to enable the NRC staff to determine whethe icenses should be modified , s us pended, o r revoked. The "Required R esponse" sect i on o
Line 1,725: Line 1,725:
PUBLIC. JLD R/F R i dsOeMai l Center R i dsNrrPMOconee R i dsNrrDorllp l 2-1 RidsNrrLASLen t RidsNrrPMSummer  
PUBLIC. JLD R/F R i dsOeMai l Center R i dsNrrPMOconee R i dsNrrDorllp l 2-1 RidsNrrLASLen t RidsNrrPMSummer  


RidsRgn1 Ma i lCenter ADAMS Accession No: ML 14268A516 Sincerely , I RA/ Nicholas J. DiFrancesco , Senior Project Manager Hazards Management Branch Japan Lessons-Learned Division Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation RidsNrrDorllpl2-2 NDiFrancesco, NRA RidsNrrPMRobinson RidsRgn2MailCenter R i dsNrrOd *via mail OFFICE NRR/J L D/JHMB/PM NRR/J LD/JHMB/LA* NRR/DORU L PL2-2/PM* NRR/DORULPL2
RidsRgn1 Ma i lCenter ADAMS Accession No: ML14268A516 Sincerely , I RA/ Nicholas J. DiFrancesco , Senior Project Manager Hazards Management Branch Japan Lessons-Learned Division Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation RidsNrrDorllpl2-2 NDiFrancesco, NRA RidsNrrPMRobinson RidsRgn2MailCenter R i dsNrrOd *via mail OFFICE NRR/J L D/JHMB/PM NRR/J LD/JHMB/LA* NRR/DORU L PL2-2/PM* NRR/DORULPL2
-1 /PM* NAME NDiFrancesco Slent MBari ll as SWill i ams DATE 09/29/14 09/29/14 1 0/15/14 09/30/1 4 OFFICE NRR/DORULPL2-1/PM* NRO/DSEA/RGS1
-1 /PM* NAME NDiFrancesco Slent MBari ll as SWill i ams DATE 09/29/14 09/29/14 1 0/15/14 09/30/1 4 OFFICE NRR/DORULPL2-1/PM* NRO/DSEA/RGS1
* NRR/JLD/JHMB/BC NRR/J L D/J HMB/PM NAME RHall (w/comments)
* NRR/JLD/JHMB/BC NRR/J L D/J HMB/PM NAME RHall (w/comments)
DJa c kson SWhalev. NDiF r ancesco DATE 09/30/14 10/15/14 10/23/14 10/23/14 OFFICIAL RE CO RD COPY REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL I NFORMATION NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION 2.1 SEISMIC HAZARD AND SCREENING REPORT FOR DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT Review of Alternative Empirical Site Response Evaluation By letter dated March 12, 2012 (Agencyw i de Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML12053A340), the NRG staff requested that licensees submit site specific hazard curves that capture the variability in soil depth (including depth to generic rock conditions
DJa c kson SWhalev. NDiF r ancesco DATE 09/30/14 10/15/14 10/23/14 10/23/14 OFFICIAL RE CO RD COPY REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL I NFORMATION NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION 2.1 SEISMIC HAZARD AND SCREENING REPORT FOR DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT Review of Alternative Empirical Site Response Evaluation By letter dated March 12, 2012 (Agencyw i de Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML12053A340), the NRG staff requested that licensees submit site specific hazard curves that capture the variability in soil depth (including depth to generic rock conditions
), shear-wave velocities, layer thicknesses , damping, and strain dependent nonlinear material properties at the site. Specifically, Attachment 1 to " Seismic" Enclosure 1 of the March 12, 2012 , letter stated that " site amplification curves should be developed over a broad range of annual exceedance frequencies to facilitate estimation of seismic core damage frequency.". By letter dated February 15 , 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML 12319A074), " Endorsement of Elec tric Power Research Institute
), shear-wave velocities, layer thicknesses , damping, and strain dependent nonlinear material properties at the site. Specifically, Attachment 1 to " Seismic" Enclosure 1 of the March 12, 2012 , letter stated that " site amplification curves should be developed over a broad range of annual exceedance frequencies to facilitate estimation of seismic core damage frequency.". By letter dated February 15 , 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12319A074), " Endorsement of Elec tric Power Research Institute
[EPRI] Final Draft Report 1025287 , 'Seismic Evaluation Guidance:
[EPRI] Final Draft Report 1025287 , 'Seismic Evaluation Guidance:
Screening , Prioritization and Implementation Detai l s (S PID),' the NRG staff endorsed using the SP I D guidance.
Screening , Prioritization and Implementation Detai l s (S PID),' the NRG staff endorsed using the SP I D guidance.
Line 2,217: Line 2,217:


==SUBJECT:==
==SUBJECT:==
SCREENING AND PRIORITIZATION RESULTS FOR THE WESTERN UNITED STATES SITES REGARDING INFORMATION PURSUANT TO T I TLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 50.54 (f). REGARDING SEISMIC HAZARD RE-EVALUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDATION 2.1 OF THE TERM TASK FORCE REVIEW OF INSIGHTS FROM THE FUKUSHIMA ICHI ACCIDENT On March 12 , 2012 , the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRG) issued a request for information pursuant to Title 1 O of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50 (1 O CFR), Section 50.54(f). (hereafter referred to as the 50.54. (f). letter) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML 12053A340). The purpose of that request was to gather information concerning , in part , the seismic hazards at operating reactor sites and to enable the NRC staff to determine. whether licenses.
SCREENING AND PRIORITIZATION RESULTS FOR THE WESTERN UNITED STATES SITES REGARDING INFORMATION PURSUANT TO T I TLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 50.54 (f). REGARDING SEISMIC HAZARD RE-EVALUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDATION 2.1 OF THE TERM TASK FORCE REVIEW OF INSIGHTS FROM THE FUKUSHIMA ICHI ACCIDENT On March 12 , 2012 , the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRG) issued a request for information pursuant to Title 1 O of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50 (1 O CFR), Section 50.54(f). (hereafter referred to as the 50.54. (f). letter) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML12053A340). The purpose of that request was to gather information concerning , in part , the seismic hazards at operating reactor sites and to enable the NRC staff to determine. whether licenses.
should be. modified, suspended , or revoked. The "Required Response" section of Enclosure 1 indicated that licensees and construction permit holders should provide a Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening report within 3 years from the date of the. letter for Western United States (WUS) plants (i.e., Columbia Generating Station (Columbia), Diablo Canyon Power Plant (Diablo Canyon), and Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (Palo Verde)). Further , the 50.54(f) letter stated that NRG would provide the results of the screening and prioritization indicating dead lines for individual plants to complete seismic risk evaluations to assess the total plant response to the re-evaluated seismic hazard. Additionally, by letter 1 dated February 20, 2014, the NRG provided supplemental information on the content of the seismic re-evaluated hazard submittals including guidance on reportability and operability.
should be. modified, suspended , or revoked. The "Required Response" section of Enclosure 1 indicated that licensees and construction permit holders should provide a Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening report within 3 years from the date of the. letter for Western United States (WUS) plants (i.e., Columbia Generating Station (Columbia), Diablo Canyon Power Plant (Diablo Canyon), and Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (Palo Verde)). Further , the 50.54(f) letter stated that NRG would provide the results of the screening and prioritization indicating dead lines for individual plants to complete seismic risk evaluations to assess the total plant response to the re-evaluated seismic hazard. Additionally, by letter 1 dated February 20, 2014, the NRG provided supplemental information on the content of the seismic re-evaluated hazard submittals including guidance on reportability and operability.
The purpose of this letter is to inform WUS licensees of the. NRC's screening and prioritization and to allow licensees to appropriately plan the completion of further seismic r isk evaluations described in Enc losure 1 of the 50.54(f) letter. To respond to the 50.54(f) letter , all addressees committed to. follow the Electric Power. Research Institute (EPRI) Report , "Seismic Evaluation Guidance:
The purpose of this letter is to inform WUS licensees of the. NRC's screening and prioritization and to allow licensees to appropriately plan the completion of further seismic r isk evaluations described in Enc losure 1 of the 50.54(f) letter. To respond to the 50.54(f) letter , all addressees committed to. follow the Electric Power. Research Institute (EPRI) Report , "Seismic Evaluation Guidance:
Screening, Prioritization and Implementat ion Deta ils (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic ," 2 as. supplemented , by the EPRI Report , " Seismic Evaluation Guidance:
Screening, Prioritization and Implementat ion Deta ils (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic ," 2 as. supplemented , by the EPRI Report , " Seismic Evaluation Guidance:
Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Recommendation 2.1: Seismic" 3 (referre d to as the Exped ited Approach). The NRC held multiple public meetings and teleconferences with industry and the public leading to the development of the guidance documents supporting review of re-ev aluated seismic hazards. I The February 20, 2014, supplemental in format ion letter is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML 14030A046. T h e SPID gu ida nce document is found in ADAMS u nde r Accession No. ML 12333A 170. The staff endorsement letter for the SPID guidance is found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML 12319A074.
Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Recommendation 2.1: Seismic" 3 (referre d to as the Exped ited Approach). The NRC held multiple public meetings and teleconferences with industry and the public leading to the development of the guidance documents supporting review of re-ev aluated seismic hazards. I The February 20, 2014, supplemental in format ion letter is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14030A046. T h e SPID gu ida nce document is found in ADAMS u nde r Accession No. ML12333A170. The staff endorsement letter for the SPID guidance is found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML12319A074.
I T h e Expedited Approach gu i dance document is found in ADAMS under Access ion No. ML 13102A 142. The WUS l i censees submitted the re-evaluated seismic hazards. by letters dated March 12, 2015 (references are provided i n Enclosure 3 of this letter). The NRG staff conducted the screening and prioritization r ev i ew of the submitta l s by assessing each l icensee's screening evaluation and hazard analys i s uti li zing the. endorsed SPID guidance .. INTERIM EVALUAT I ONS 4 The 50.54(f) letter requested that l icensees provide " interim evaluations and actions taken o r planned to address the higher se i smic hazard relative to the design-bas i s , as appropriate, prior to completion of the risk evaluation." For those plants where the re-evaluated seismic hazard exceeds t he seismic design-basis, licensees stated they w i ll provide inter i m evaluat i ons to demonstrate that the plant can cope with the higher re-evaluated se i sm i c. hazard while the longer-term se i smic r i sk evaluations are ongoing. In support of the requested interim evaluations for licensees , WUS p l ants provided i nformat i on related to margin evalua t ions or insights from Individual Plant Exam i nat i on of External Events (I PEEE) eva l uat i ons including estimated seismic risk. Additionally , the. subm i ttals discussed completing p l ant seismic walkdowns as part of NTIF Recommendation 2.3 in order to verify that the current p l ant configuration is cons i stent with the licens i ng basis. The NRG staff rev i ew of WUS reports found that li censees have demonstrated add i tional p l ant seism i c. margins. supportive of cont i nued plan t operation wh i le additiona l risk evaluations are conducted. The licensees for Diab l o. Canyon and Palo. Verde provided inter i m evaluations i n lieu. of completing of the Exped i ted Approach. These l i censees have demonstrated seism i c margins that met the intent of the Exped i ted Approach review. For Columbia , the inter i m evaluation prov i ded i n March 2015 is a first step in assessing the plant's capacity to withstand the re-evaluated hazard. In the near-term, by January 2016 ,. Columb i a will complete an " Expedited Approach" t o evaluate. and identify reinforcemen t s ,. if necessary , for certain equipment to ensure a safe shutdown pathway can withstand a higher se i smic ground motion. SCREENING PROCESS As defined in the 50.54(f) letter and the SPID gu i dance , the seismic hazard re-evaluations were conducted using current analys i s methods and guidance. The licensees' responses to the 50.54 (f) l etter provided se i sm i c hazard re-evaluation results , which were the focus of the NRG staff's i nitial screening and prioritization review. Although the safe shutdown earthquake. (SSE) is commonly referred to as a single number, this number represents a distr i but i on of ground motions that occur over a range of spectral frequencies. This resu l ts in a curve of ground acce l e r ation ove r frequency.
I T h e Expedited Approach gu i dance document is found in ADAMS under Access ion No. ML13102A142. The WUS l i censees submitted the re-evaluated seismic hazards. by letters dated March 12, 2015 (references are provided i n Enclosure 3 of this letter). The NRG staff conducted the screening and prioritization r ev i ew of the submitta l s by assessing each l icensee's screening evaluation and hazard analys i s uti li zing the. endorsed SPID guidance .. INTERIM EVALUAT I ONS 4 The 50.54(f) letter requested that l icensees provide " interim evaluations and actions taken o r planned to address the higher se i smic hazard relative to the design-bas i s , as appropriate, prior to completion of the risk evaluation." For those plants where the re-evaluated seismic hazard exceeds t he seismic design-basis, licensees stated they w i ll provide inter i m evaluat i ons to demonstrate that the plant can cope with the higher re-evaluated se i sm i c. hazard while the longer-term se i smic r i sk evaluations are ongoing. In support of the requested interim evaluations for licensees , WUS p l ants provided i nformat i on related to margin evalua t ions or insights from Individual Plant Exam i nat i on of External Events (I PEEE) eva l uat i ons including estimated seismic risk. Additionally , the. subm i ttals discussed completing p l ant seismic walkdowns as part of NTIF Recommendation 2.3 in order to verify that the current p l ant configuration is cons i stent with the licens i ng basis. The NRG staff rev i ew of WUS reports found that li censees have demonstrated add i tional p l ant seism i c. margins. supportive of cont i nued plan t operation wh i le additiona l risk evaluations are conducted. The licensees for Diab l o. Canyon and Palo. Verde provided inter i m evaluations i n lieu. of completing of the Exped i ted Approach. These l i censees have demonstrated seism i c margins that met the intent of the Exped i ted Approach review. For Columbia , the inter i m evaluation prov i ded i n March 2015 is a first step in assessing the plant's capacity to withstand the re-evaluated hazard. In the near-term, by January 2016 ,. Columb i a will complete an " Expedited Approach" t o evaluate. and identify reinforcemen t s ,. if necessary , for certain equipment to ensure a safe shutdown pathway can withstand a higher se i smic ground motion. SCREENING PROCESS As defined in the 50.54(f) letter and the SPID gu i dance , the seismic hazard re-evaluations were conducted using current analys i s methods and guidance. The licensees' responses to the 50.54 (f) l etter provided se i sm i c hazard re-evaluation results , which were the focus of the NRG staff's i nitial screening and prioritization review. Although the safe shutdown earthquake. (SSE) is commonly referred to as a single number, this number represents a distr i but i on of ground motions that occur over a range of spectral frequencies. This resu l ts in a curve of ground acce l e r ation ove r frequency.
The ability of equipment and structures i n the p l ant to withstand the effects of ground motions is frequency specif i c. For the purposes of the licensees' ana l yses and NRG staff's review , the SPID gu i dance identif i es three frequency ranges that are of particular interest:
The ability of equipment and structures i n the p l ant to withstand the effects of ground motions is frequency specif i c. For the purposes of the licensees' ana l yses and NRG staff's review , the SPID gu i dance identif i es three frequency ranges that are of particular interest:
1-10 Hertz (Hz), a low frequency range of <2.5 Hz , and a high frequency range of > 1 O Hz. The different ranges have been identified due to the different types of structures and equipment that may be impacted by 4 E nc l o s u re 1 o f t h i s l e tt er p r o v ides a Gl ossary o f Se i s m i c Eval uat i o ns   
1-10 Hertz (Hz), a low frequency range of <2.5 Hz , and a high frequency range of > 1 O Hz. The different ranges have been identified due to the different types of structures and equipment that may be impacted by 4 E nc l o s u re 1 o f t h i s l e tt er p r o v ides a Gl ossary o f Se i s m i c Eval uat i o ns   
Line 2,236: Line 2,236:
Accordingly , during the. NRC screening and pr i orit i zation process , the staff identified that for Palo. Verde additional time and inte rac tions. will be. required to better understandthe. seismic hazard for the plant. As such , the staff determined that Palo Verde " conditionally screens-in" for the purposes of prioritizing and conduct i ng additional evaluations  
Accordingly , during the. NRC screening and pr i orit i zation process , the staff identified that for Palo. Verde additional time and inte rac tions. will be. required to better understandthe. seismic hazard for the plant. As such , the staff determined that Palo Verde " conditionally screens-in" for the purposes of prioritizing and conduct i ng additional evaluations  
.. Palo Verde has. been prioritized to complete a seismic risk evaluation in Group 3. After interactions have occurred , the staff will make a final screening and prioritization determination and provide a letter to the licensee.
.. Palo Verde has. been prioritized to complete a seismic risk evaluation in Group 3. After interactions have occurred , the staff will make a final screening and prioritization determination and provide a letter to the licensee.
I f the plant remains screened-in , the final screening l etter will affirm the plant priority 5 Discuss i o n as part o f public meetings dated December 4 , 2014 , February 11, 2015, a n d Ma r ch 30 , 2015 (ADAMS Access i on Nos. M L 14342A901, ML15104A065 and ML151 1 1A031 , respec t i vely). for further evaluations and establish. schedu l e. for an Expedited Approach, if. necessary.
I f the plant remains screened-in , the final screening l etter will affirm the plant priority 5 Discuss i o n as part o f public meetings dated December 4 , 2014 , February 11, 2015, a n d Ma r ch 30 , 2015 (ADAMS Access i on Nos. M L 14342A901, ML15104A065 and ML15111A031 , respec t i vely). for further evaluations and establish. schedu l e. for an Expedited Approach, if. necessary.
If the plant screens out , the final screening letter also will determine if the Pa l o Verde needs to complete limited-scope evaluations (i.e., spent fuel pool, high frequency, or low frequency).
If the plant screens out , the final screening letter also will determine if the Pa l o Verde needs to complete limited-scope evaluations (i.e., spent fuel pool, high frequency, or low frequency).
PLANT PRIOR I TIZATION The NRC grouped the " screened-i n" pla n ts into three. groups 6 , which (i) reflects the. relative priority for conduct i ng a seismic risk evaluation that compares each plant's current capabilities to the re-evaluated seismic hazard , and (ii) accounts for the approp r iate allocation of limited staff and available expertise for r eviewing. and conducting seismic risk evaluations.
PLANT PRIOR I TIZATION The NRC grouped the " screened-i n" pla n ts into three. groups 6 , which (i) reflects the. relative priority for conduct i ng a seismic risk evaluation that compares each plant's current capabilities to the re-evaluated seismic hazard , and (ii) accounts for the approp r iate allocation of limited staff and available expertise for r eviewing. and conducting seismic risk evaluations.
Line 2,244: Line 2,244:
Group 1 plants including Columbia and D iablo Canyon are expected to conduct a se i smic risk evaluation and submit it by June 30 , 2017. Group 3 plants have GMRS to SSE rat i os tha t are greater than 1 , but the amount of exceedance in t he. 1-1 O Hz range is relatively small, and the maximum ground mot i on in the 1-1 O Hz range is also not high. Given the limited level of exceedance of the Group 3 plants including Palo Verde , staff is evaluating the need for licensees to conduct a seismic risk evaluation in order for the staff to complete its regulatory decision making. After. f urther review , the staff will decide which Group 3 plants need to comp l ete a risk evaluation.
Group 1 plants including Columbia and D iablo Canyon are expected to conduct a se i smic risk evaluation and submit it by June 30 , 2017. Group 3 plants have GMRS to SSE rat i os tha t are greater than 1 , but the amount of exceedance in t he. 1-1 O Hz range is relatively small, and the maximum ground mot i on in the 1-1 O Hz range is also not high. Given the limited level of exceedance of the Group 3 plants including Palo Verde , staff is evaluating the need for licensees to conduct a seismic risk evaluation in order for the staff to complete its regulatory decision making. After. f urther review , the staff will decide which Group 3 plants need to comp l ete a risk evaluation.
Risk evaluations for Group 3 plants are due by D ecember 31, 2020. NEX T S T EPS Based on the. staffs screening review the licensee for Columbia should. final i ze and submit an Expedited Approach Report no later than January 2016. I n accordance with the endorsed guidance, the staff acknowledges that the January 2016 Expedited Approach submittal will focus on plant equipment (i.e. safe shutdown pathway 7) evaluations and modifications , as necessary, prior to submitting the plant seismic risk eva l uations. The content of limited-scope evaluations or confirmations and their associated schedule milestones remain under development with NRC staff and stakeholders to assess acceptable alternatives for conducting these evaluat i ons. The NRC staff has conducted a number of public meetings to reach alignment on the implementation details of these evaluations.
Risk evaluations for Group 3 plants are due by D ecember 31, 2020. NEX T S T EPS Based on the. staffs screening review the licensee for Columbia should. final i ze and submit an Expedited Approach Report no later than January 2016. I n accordance with the endorsed guidance, the staff acknowledges that the January 2016 Expedited Approach submittal will focus on plant equipment (i.e. safe shutdown pathway 7) evaluations and modifications , as necessary, prior to submitting the plant seismic risk eva l uations. The content of limited-scope evaluations or confirmations and their associated schedule milestones remain under development with NRC staff and stakeholders to assess acceptable alternatives for conducting these evaluat i ons. The NRC staff has conducted a number of public meetings to reach alignment on the implementation details of these evaluations.
The staff expects that implementing guidance should be established by summer 2015 and fall 2015 for high frequency and spent fuel pool eva l uations, respectively. It is expected that WUS l i censees 6 Central and Eastern l i censees seismic hazard screening and pr i or i ty rev i ews were completed i n 2014. 7 Section 3 of the Expedited Approach guidance (ADAMS Access i on No. ML 13102A142) prov i des a process to identify a sing l e seismically rob ust success path us ing a subset o f installed plant equipme n t , FLEX eq ui pme n t and connection points. can. comp l ete these evaluat i ons in parallel with completion of SPRAs for Group 1. plants by June 2017. This letter transmits the NRC staff's results of the. seismic. hazard submittals for the. purposes of screening and prioritizing the p l ants. It does not convey the staff's final determination regarding the adequacy of any plant's calculated hazard. As such , the NRG staff w i ll continue its review of the. submitted seismic hazard re-evaluations , and may request addit i onal. plant-specific information to support th i s review .. The. staff has. placed a high priority on this review for the early i dentification of issues that m i ght adversely affect each licensee's seismic risk evaluations. Initial i nteractions. with l icensees. will occur as soon as. practicable. The NRG staff plans to issue a staff assessment on the re-evaluated seismic. hazard once each rev i ew i s completed in approximately 1 2 to 18 months. If you have any questions regard i ng th i s letter , please contact Nicho l as DiFrancesco at 301-415-1115 or via emai l at Nicholas.Difrancesco@nrc
The staff expects that implementing guidance should be established by summer 2015 and fall 2015 for high frequency and spent fuel pool eva l uations, respectively. It is expected that WUS l i censees 6 Central and Eastern l i censees seismic hazard screening and pr i or i ty rev i ews were completed i n 2014. 7 Section 3 of the Expedited Approach guidance (ADAMS Access i on No. ML13102A142) prov i des a process to identify a sing l e seismically rob ust success path us ing a subset o f installed plant equipme n t , FLEX eq ui pme n t and connection points. can. comp l ete these evaluat i ons in parallel with completion of SPRAs for Group 1. plants by June 2017. This letter transmits the NRC staff's results of the. seismic. hazard submittals for the. purposes of screening and prioritizing the p l ants. It does not convey the staff's final determination regarding the adequacy of any plant's calculated hazard. As such , the NRG staff w i ll continue its review of the. submitted seismic hazard re-evaluations , and may request addit i onal. plant-specific information to support th i s review .. The. staff has. placed a high priority on this review for the early i dentification of issues that m i ght adversely affect each licensee's seismic risk evaluations. Initial i nteractions. with l icensees. will occur as soon as. practicable. The NRG staff plans to issue a staff assessment on the re-evaluated seismic. hazard once each rev i ew i s completed in approximately 1 2 to 18 months. If you have any questions regard i ng th i s letter , please contact Nicho l as DiFrancesco at 301-415-1115 or via emai l at Nicholas.Difrancesco@nrc
.gov. S i ncerely, Wi lli am M. Dean , Director Off i ce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation  
.gov. S i ncerely, Wi lli am M. Dean , Director Off i ce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation  


Line 2,256: Line 2,256:
: 1. Glossary of Evaluations
: 1. Glossary of Evaluations
: 2. Screening and Prior i t i zation Results 3. List of Licensee March 2015 Re-eva l uated Seismic . Hazard Subm i ttals. 4. List of Licensees cc w/encls: Listserv DISTR I BUTION: PUBLIC LPL4-1 R/F LP L 4-2 R/F R i dsNroOd RidsNrrDorl R i dsNrrDorllpl4
: 2. Screening and Prior i t i zation Results 3. List of Licensee March 2015 Re-eva l uated Seismic . Hazard Subm i ttals. 4. List of Licensees cc w/encls: Listserv DISTR I BUTION: PUBLIC LPL4-1 R/F LP L 4-2 R/F R i dsNroOd RidsNrrDorl R i dsNrrDorllpl4
-1 Rids N r r Dorllpl4-2 R i dsNrrOd R i dsNs i rOd R i dsOeMa il Center R i dsOgcMa i lCen t er MMark l ey , NRR MKhanna , NRR MShams , NRR NDiF r ancesco , NRA ADAMS Accession No.: ML 15 1 13B344 OFFI C E NR R/J LD/P MB/PM NR R/J L D/LA N RR/JLD/HMB/BC NAME ND i F r ancesc o S l e n t MS ha ms D A TE 04/22/15 I /1 5 I /15 OFFIC E NRO/D S E A/D OG C NRR/J LD/D NAME SFl a nd ers BH a r ris JD a v is DATE I /1 5 I. /15 . I. /15 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY AKock , NRO DJackson , NRO RidsNrrPM Diab l oCanyon RidsNrrPMCo l umb i a RidsNrrPaloVerde  
-1 Rids N r r Dorllpl4-2 R i dsNrrOd R i dsNs i rOd R i dsOeMa il Center R i dsOgcMa i lCen t er MMark l ey , NRR MKhanna , NRR MShams , NRR NDiF r ancesco , NRA ADAMS Accession No.: ML15113B344 OFFI C E NR R/J LD/P MB/PM NR R/J L D/LA N RR/JLD/HMB/BC NAME ND i F r ancesc o S l e n t MS ha ms D A TE 04/22/15 I /1 5 I /15 OFFIC E NRO/D S E A/D OG C NRR/J LD/D NAME SFl a nd ers BH a r ris JD a v is DATE I /1 5 I. /15 . I. /15 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY AKock , NRO DJackson , NRO RidsNrrPM Diab l oCanyon RidsNrrPMCo l umb i a RidsNrrPaloVerde  


RidsOgcRp Resource R i dsRgn4Ma il Center Reso ur ce RidsEdoMai l Center Resou r ce *v i a ema il N R O/DS ENR GS 2/B C N R R/DOR U D. D J ac ks o n Llu nd I /1 5 I /15 NRR/D WD ean I .. /15 Glossary of Evaluations Associated with Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1 Seismic Hazard Re-eva l uations Interim Evaluation or Actions -An immediate licensee and NRC review of the re-evaluate d hazard to determine whether actions are needed to assure plant safety while further evaluations are ongoing. The staff has completed its review and concluded that , based on the licensees' interim evaluations and actions , Western United States (WUS) plants are safe for continued operations.
RidsOgcRp Resource R i dsRgn4Ma il Center Reso ur ce RidsEdoMai l Center Resou r ce *v i a ema il N R O/DS ENR GS 2/B C N R R/DOR U D. D J ac ks o n Llu nd I /1 5 I /15 NRR/D WD ean I .. /15 Glossary of Evaluations Associated with Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1 Seismic Hazard Re-eva l uations Interim Evaluation or Actions -An immediate licensee and NRC review of the re-evaluate d hazard to determine whether actions are needed to assure plant safety while further evaluations are ongoing. The staff has completed its review and concluded that , based on the licensees' interim evaluations and actions , Western United States (WUS) plants are safe for continued operations.
Line 2,268: Line 2,268:
i) spent fuel pool components and systems capable of draining water inventory to the level of the spent fuel, ii) a review of components susceptible to high frequency accelerations (e.g. electrical relays), and ii i) a review of components susceptible to low frequency accelerations (e.g. water storage tanks). Enclosure 1
i) spent fuel pool components and systems capable of draining water inventory to the level of the spent fuel, ii) a review of components susceptible to high frequency accelerations (e.g. electrical relays), and ii i) a review of components susceptible to low frequency accelerations (e.g. water storage tanks). Enclosure 1
Near-Term Task Force Review of Ins i ghts from the. Fukushima Dai-l chi Accident Seism i c Risk Evaluations Screening and Pr i oritizat i on Resu l ts for Western Un i ted States (WUS) Reactor Sites Seism i c Risk Lim i ted-scope Evaluations. S c reen i ng Exped i ted Evaluation H igh Low Spent Fue l Plant Name Resu l t App r oach (Priori ti zat i on Frequency Frequency Pool Eva l uation Group) Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Columbia Generat i ng Station I n x 1 x x Diablo Canyon Power Plant , U nit In 1 x x Nos. 1 and 2 Palo Verde Nuclear Generat i ng Conditional Stat i on , Units. 1 , 2 , a n d 3 i n 3 x x Enclosure 2
Near-Term Task Force Review of Ins i ghts from the. Fukushima Dai-l chi Accident Seism i c Risk Evaluations Screening and Pr i oritizat i on Resu l ts for Western Un i ted States (WUS) Reactor Sites Seism i c Risk Lim i ted-scope Evaluations. S c reen i ng Exped i ted Evaluation H igh Low Spent Fue l Plant Name Resu l t App r oach (Priori ti zat i on Frequency Frequency Pool Eva l uation Group) Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Columbia Generat i ng Station I n x 1 x x Diablo Canyon Power Plant , U nit In 1 x x Nos. 1 and 2 Palo Verde Nuclear Generat i ng Conditional Stat i on , Units. 1 , 2 , a n d 3 i n 3 x x Enclosure 2
March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals for Western United States Reactor Sites Licensee Facility Date of letter (ADAMS Accession Nos.) Columbia Generating Station March 12, 2015. (ML 15078A243)
March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals for Western United States Reactor Sites Licensee Facility Date of letter (ADAMS Accession Nos.) Columbia Generating Station March 12, 2015. (ML15078A243)
Diab lo Canyon Power Plant , Unit Nos. 1 and 2 March 11 , 2015 (ML 15071 A046) Pa lo Verde Nuclear Generating Station , Units March 10 , 2015 (ML 15076A073) and 1, 2 , and 3 April 1O .. 2015 (ML 15105A076)
Diab lo Canyon Power Plant , Unit Nos. 1 and 2 March 11 , 2015 (ML15071A046) Pa lo Verde Nuclear Generating Station , Units March 10 , 2015 (ML15076A073) and 1, 2 , and 3 April 1O .. 2015 (ML15105A076)
Enclosure 3
Enclosure 3
LIST OF APPLICABLE POWER REACTOR LICENSEES Columbia Generating Station Energy Northwest Docket No .. 50-397 License No. NPF-2 1 Mr. Mark E. Reddemann Chief Executive Officer Energy Northwest MD 1023 76 North Power Plant L oop P.O. Box 968 Richland , WA 99352 Diablo Canyon Power. P l ant. Unit Nos .. l and 2. Pacific Gas & Electric Company Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82 Mr. Edward D. Halpin Senior Vice President and Ch i ef Nuclear Officer Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 56 Mail Code 104/6 Avila Beach, CA 93424 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Arizona Public Service Company Docket Nos. STN 50-528 , STN 50-529 , and STN 50-530 License Nos. NPF-41 , NPF-51 and NPF-74 Mr. Randall K. Edington Executive Vice Pres i dent Nuclear/CNO Arizona Public Service Company P.O. Box 52034 , MS 7602. Phoenix , AZ 85072-2034 Enclosure 4
LIST OF APPLICABLE POWER REACTOR LICENSEES Columbia Generating Station Energy Northwest Docket No .. 50-397 License No. NPF-2 1 Mr. Mark E. Reddemann Chief Executive Officer Energy Northwest MD 1023 76 North Power Plant L oop P.O. Box 968 Richland , WA 99352 Diablo Canyon Power. P l ant. Unit Nos .. l and 2. Pacific Gas & Electric Company Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82 Mr. Edward D. Halpin Senior Vice President and Ch i ef Nuclear Officer Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 56 Mail Code 104/6 Avila Beach, CA 93424 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Arizona Public Service Company Docket Nos. STN 50-528 , STN 50-529 , and STN 50-530 License Nos. NPF-41 , NPF-51 and NPF-74 Mr. Randall K. Edington Executive Vice Pres i dent Nuclear/CNO Arizona Public Service Company P.O. Box 52034 , MS 7602. Phoenix , AZ 85072-2034 Enclosure 4
DiFr ancesco, Ni c h o l as F ro m:DiFr ancesco, N i c h o la s Sent: 21 M ay 2 01 52 1:1 4: 05 +00 00 T o: Burn e ll , Sco tt;M aie r , B i ll;U se ldin g, La ra;M o r e n o, An ge l C c:A l exa nd e r , Ry a n;W a lk e r , W ay n e;Lin ga m , Siv a;V ega, Fr a nki e;Ja c k so n , Di a n e;S ha m s, M o h a m e d;Hip sc hman , Th o m as;M ark l ey, Mi c ha e l;Hill , Britt ai n Subj ec t:FYI: Fu t ur e I ss u a n ce of Di ab l o C a ny on R2. l S e i s mi c M eeti n g Summ ary Att ac h me n ts:S um mary of A pr il 28 th M ee ti ng w i th P G E_5.d ocx Meeting summary i s pub li c l y ava il ab l e as Folks , ML 15 1 25A 1 86. FYI: The following meeting summary will be i ssued regard i ng the Apri l 28 -D i ablo Canyon R2.1 Se i smic pub li c mee t ing COB Wednesday May 27 , 2015. The summary closes two public comments received related t o the webcast. Open ADAMS P8 Document (Summary of Apri l 28, 2015, Category 1 P ubl ic Meeting with Pacific Gas and Electric Company to Discuss Diablo Canyon's Seismic Haza rd Reevaluation Associated with Implementation of Japan Lessons-Learned Nea r-T erm Task Force Recommendation 2.1, Seismic) Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
DiFr ancesco, Ni c h o l as F ro m:DiFr ancesco, N i c h o la s Sent: 21 M ay 2 01 52 1:1 4: 05 +00 00 T o: Burn e ll , Sco tt;M aie r , B i ll;U se ldin g, La ra;M o r e n o, An ge l C c:A l exa nd e r , Ry a n;W a lk e r , W ay n e;Lin ga m , Siv a;V ega, Fr a nki e;Ja c k so n , Di a n e;S ha m s, M o h a m e d;Hip sc hman , Th o m as;M ark l ey, Mi c ha e l;Hill , Britt ai n Subj ec t:FYI: Fu t ur e I ss u a n ce of Di ab l o C a ny on R2. l S e i s mi c M eeti n g Summ ary Att ac h me n ts:S um mary of A pr il 28 th M ee ti ng w i th P G E_5.d ocx Meeting summary i s pub li c l y ava il ab l e as Folks , ML15125A186. FYI: The following meeting summary will be i ssued regard i ng the Apri l 28 -D i ablo Canyon R2.1 Se i smic pub li c mee t ing COB Wednesday May 27 , 2015. The summary closes two public comments received related t o the webcast. Open ADAMS P8 Document (Summary of Apri l 28, 2015, Category 1 P ubl ic Meeting with Pacific Gas and Electric Company to Discuss Diablo Canyon's Seismic Haza rd Reevaluation Associated with Implementation of Japan Lessons-Learned Nea r-T erm Task Force Recommendation 2.1, Seismic) Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Thanks , Nick Sen i or Project Manager -Se i smic Reevaluation Activ i t i es U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm i ssion Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Div i s i on nicholas.difrancesco@nrc.gov I Tel: (301) 415-1115 DiFran cesco. Ni c h o l as From:DiFrance sco, Nicholas Sent: 19 May 2 015 19:05:51 +0000 T o:'Gene N e l so n , Ph.D.' C c: Vega, F ra nki e Subj ec t:Incorporation of Public C o mm e nt Or. Nelson , Appreciate the public comment. Apologizes in the delay i n response , the staff has rece i ved a number of public comments for review as part of the meeting. Below is the staff summary of your comment: The staff rece i ved a comment from Dr. Gene Nelson (Cal i fornians for Green Nuclear Power) via email dur i ng the meeting. The NRG staff inadvertent l y missed the opportunity to acknowledge Dr. Nelson's. comment during the meeting. According to Dr. Nelson , Diablo Canyon has favorable site conditions , which attenuate or d i ssipate earthquake energy over relat i vely short distances.
Thanks , Nick Sen i or Project Manager -Se i smic Reevaluation Activ i t i es U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm i ssion Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Div i s i on nicholas.difrancesco@nrc.gov I Tel: (301) 415-1115 DiFran cesco. Ni c h o l as From:DiFrance sco, Nicholas Sent: 19 May 2 015 19:05:51 +0000 T o:'Gene N e l so n , Ph.D.' C c: Vega, F ra nki e Subj ec t:Incorporation of Public C o mm e nt Or. Nelson , Appreciate the public comment. Apologizes in the delay i n response , the staff has rece i ved a number of public comments for review as part of the meeting. Below is the staff summary of your comment: The staff rece i ved a comment from Dr. Gene Nelson (Cal i fornians for Green Nuclear Power) via email dur i ng the meeting. The NRG staff inadvertent l y missed the opportunity to acknowledge Dr. Nelson's. comment during the meeting. According to Dr. Nelson , Diablo Canyon has favorable site conditions , which attenuate or d i ssipate earthquake energy over relat i vely short distances.
Due to this favorable condition , the primary earthquake forces seen by the plant would be dom i nated by nearby earthquake sources and energy transmitted to the plant would be dominated by the small section of the earthquake rupture closest to the plant. Dr. Nelson stated that when cons i dering the i nformation presented at the meeting of overall plant ruggedness and the seismic hazard i nsights discussed above , Diablo Canyon continues to operate safely. Please let Frankie and I know if you have proposed correction by May 21 , 2015. Thanks , Nick -----Original Message-----
Due to this favorable condition , the primary earthquake forces seen by the plant would be dom i nated by nearby earthquake sources and energy transmitted to the plant would be dominated by the small section of the earthquake rupture closest to the plant. Dr. Nelson stated that when cons i dering the i nformation presented at the meeting of overall plant ruggedness and the seismic hazard i nsights discussed above , Diablo Canyon continues to operate safely. Please let Frankie and I know if you have proposed correction by May 21 , 2015. Thanks , Nick -----Original Message-----
Line 2,425: Line 2,425:
* Licensee Integrated Plan (due February 28, 2013) (report page 8 has a statement about will enter reevaluated hazard into CAPs If warranted  
* Licensee Integrated Plan (due February 28, 2013) (report page 8 has a statement about will enter reevaluated hazard into CAPs If warranted  
-designed to CLB)
-designed to CLB)
* NRC letter regarding Seismic Screening and Prioritization Results for WUS Licensees (May 13, 2015) Reference and Background from Br i tt: NRC's. review of the L TSP , and conclusion of its acceptability , are documented in the Diablo Canyon SER rev 34 (1991), which is publically available in ADAMS as ML 14279A 1 30. SSER34 documents NRC staff's thorough review o f the L TSP , which includes the margins assessment cited by PG&E in their March 2015 submittal.
* NRC letter regarding Seismic Screening and Prioritization Results for WUS Licensees (May 13, 2015) Reference and Background from Br i tt: NRC's. review of the L TSP , and conclusion of its acceptability , are documented in the Diablo Canyon SER rev 34 (1991), which is publically available in ADAMS as ML14279A130. SSER34 documents NRC staff's thorough review o f the L TSP , which includes the margins assessment cited by PG&E in their March 2015 submittal.
Thanks , Nick Sen i or Project Manager -Se i smic Reevaluation Act i vities U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of. Nuclear Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Divis i on n ic h olas.d i fra n cesco@nrc.gov I Tel: (30 1) 415-1115 Sent: 15 May 2015 2 1 :02:25 +0000 To: L indell , Joseph;OGCMai l Center Re s ource Cc:Roth(OGC), David;Ut tal , Susan  
Thanks , Nick Sen i or Project Manager -Se i smic Reevaluation Act i vities U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of. Nuclear Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Divis i on n ic h olas.d i fra n cesco@nrc.gov I Tel: (30 1) 415-1115 Sent: 15 May 2015 2 1 :02:25 +0000 To: L indell , Joseph;OGCMai l Center Re s ource Cc:Roth(OGC), David;Ut tal , Susan  


Line 2,569: Line 2,569:
: 1. Request for Add i tional Info r mat i on cc w/encls: Distribution via Listserv ADAM S Ac ee NAME DATE OFFICE OGG NAME DATE RidsNrrDorllpl4
: 1. Request for Add i tional Info r mat i on cc w/encls: Distribution via Listserv ADAM S Ac ee NAME DATE OFFICE OGG NAME DATE RidsNrrDorllpl4
-2 NDiF r ancesco, NRR RidsNrrPM RidsRgn2MailCenter R i dsN r rOd Slingam , NRR *via mail NRR/J L D/JHMB/L A* NRO/DSEA/RGS1
-2 NDiF r ancesco, NRR RidsNrrPM RidsRgn2MailCenter R i dsN r rOd Slingam , NRR *via mail NRR/J L D/JHMB/L A* NRO/DSEA/RGS1
* NRR/JLD/JHMB/BC Slent DJa c kson MS hams NRR/JLD/JHMB/PM ND i Francesco OFFICIAL RECORD COPY REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION 2.1 SEISMIC HAZARD AND SCREENING REPORT FOR D I ABLO CANYON POWER PLANT Review of Alternative Emp irical Site Response Evaluation By letter dated March 12, 2012 (Agencywide Documents Access and M (ADAMS) Accession No. ML 12053A340), the NRC staff requested that specific hazard curves that capture. the variability i n soil depth (including. d agement System sees submit site conditions), shear-wave velocities , laye r th icknesses , damping , train de to generic rock ent nonlinear f the March range of material properties at the site. Specifically, Attachment 1 to "Seis closur 12 , 2012 , letter stated that " site amplification curves should be dev r ab annual exceedance frequencies to facilitate estimation o qu By letter dated February 15 , 2013 (ADAMS Accessio Electric Power Research Institute
* NRR/JLD/JHMB/BC Slent DJa c kson MS hams NRR/JLD/JHMB/PM ND i Francesco OFFICIAL RECORD COPY REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION 2.1 SEISMIC HAZARD AND SCREENING REPORT FOR D I ABLO CANYON POWER PLANT Review of Alternative Emp irical Site Response Evaluation By letter dated March 12, 2012 (Agencywide Documents Access and M (ADAMS) Accession No. ML12053A340), the NRC staff requested that specific hazard curves that capture. the variability i n soil depth (including. d agement System sees submit site conditions), shear-wave velocities , laye r th icknesses , damping , train de to generic rock ent nonlinear f the March range of material properties at the site. Specifically, Attachment 1 to "Seis closur 12 , 2012 , letter stated that " site amplification curves should be dev r ab annual exceedance frequencies to facilitate estimation o qu By letter dated February 15 , 2013 (ADAMS Accessio Electric Power Research Institute
[E PR I] Fin al Draft Re Guidance:
[E PR I] Fin al Draft Re Guidance:
Screening , Prioritization and lmple tation De using the SPID guidance.
Screening , Prioritization and lmple tation De using the SPID guidance.
Rega rding the development of site. a seismic hazard reeva luat ions , Seer As r rock uncertainties should be. incorporated into site amplification and thei r uncertainties through the hazard curves. The control-point elevation hazard curves should By lette . (ADAMS Accession No. ML 15071 A046), the licensee for the Diablo Ca nt ( P) submitted an alternative site response evaluation, referred to as the empir which uses the observed ground motions at the site from two earthquakes to he site amplification rather than analytical models." While the staff considers the em te response approach as a viable alternative to the analytical approach , the method as imple nted by the licensee was able to use only three site recordings from two earthquakes to constrain the local site amplification.
Rega rding the development of site. a seismic hazard reeva luat ions , Seer As r rock uncertainties should be. incorporated into site amplification and thei r uncertainties through the hazard curves. The control-point elevation hazard curves should By lette . (ADAMS Accession No. ML15071A046), the licensee for the Diablo Ca nt ( P) submitted an alternative site response evaluation, referred to as the empir which uses the observed ground motions at the site from two earthquakes to he site amplification rather than analytical models." While the staff considers the em te response approach as a viable alternative to the analytical approach , the method as imple nted by the licensee was able to use only three site recordings from two earthquakes to constrain the local site amplification.
As such, the licensee's estimate of the uncertainty in the local site term is potentia lly impacted by the limited amount of data. In addition, the. site. term developed by the licensee using the empirical approach shows a significant amount of deviat ion in the negative direction over an important frequency range from the NGA-West2 ground motion models for a Vs 3o=760 m/s site. Enclosure. l Request for Additional Information Consistent with the request for information issued pursuant to Tit le 1 O of the Code of Federal regulations, Part 50 , Section 50.54(f) and the SPID guidance, please provide a supplemental response to the March 2015 seismic hazard reevaluation that develops site amplification factors as recommended in Section 2.4 and Appendix B of the SPID. Please provide (1) a detailed description of the subsurface profile properties including uncertainties , (2) potent i al for nonlinear behavior at the strain levels produced by the scenario earthquakes of interes t , and (3) the control point elevation.
As such, the licensee's estimate of the uncertainty in the local site term is potentia lly impacted by the limited amount of data. In addition, the. site. term developed by the licensee using the empirical approach shows a significant amount of deviat ion in the negative direction over an important frequency range from the NGA-West2 ground motion models for a Vs 3o=760 m/s site. Enclosure. l Request for Additional Information Consistent with the request for information issued pursuant to Tit le 1 O of the Code of Federal regulations, Part 50 , Section 50.54(f) and the SPID guidance, please provide a supplemental response to the March 2015 seismic hazard reevaluation that develops site amplification factors as recommended in Section 2.4 and Appendix B of the SPID. Please provide (1) a detailed description of the subsurface profile properties including uncertainties , (2) potent i al for nonlinear behavior at the strain levels produced by the scenario earthquakes of interes t , and (3) the control point elevation.
In addition , prov ide the adjustment factors (Vs-kappa c rections) needed to modify the median ground motion models for the selected reference or rock elevation and velocity.
In addition , prov ide the adjustment factors (Vs-kappa c rections) needed to modify the median ground motion models for the selected reference or rock elevation and velocity.
Line 2,681: Line 2,681:
: 4. List of Licensees cc w/encls: Listserv DISTRIBUTION
: 4. List of Licensees cc w/encls: Listserv DISTRIBUTION
: PUBLIC LPL4-1 R/F LPL4-2 R/F RidsNroOd RidsNrrDorl RidsNrrDorllpl4
: PUBLIC LPL4-1 R/F LPL4-2 R/F RidsNroOd RidsNrrDorl RidsNrrDorllpl4
-1 Rids N rrDorllpl4-2 RidsNrrOd RidsNs i rOd RidsOeMailCenter RidsOgcMa i lCenter MMarkley, NRR MKhanna , NRR MShams , NRR NDiFrancesco , NRR ADAMS Accession No.: ML 15113B344 OFFICE NRR/J LD/PMB/PM NRR/JLD/LA NRR/JLD/HMB/BC NAME ND i Francesco Slent MShams DATE 04/22/15 I /15 I /15 OFFICE NRO/DSEA/D OGC NRR/JLD/D NAME SFlanders BHar ri s JDavis DATE I /15. I ./15. . I /15 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY AKock , NRO DJackson , NRO RidsNrrPM DiabloCanyon RidsNrrPMColumbia RidsNrrPaloVerde  
-1 Rids N rrDorllpl4-2 RidsNrrOd RidsNs i rOd RidsOeMailCenter RidsOgcMa i lCenter MMarkley, NRR MKhanna , NRR MShams , NRR NDiFrancesco , NRR ADAMS Accession No.: ML15113B344 OFFICE NRR/J LD/PMB/PM NRR/JLD/LA NRR/JLD/HMB/BC NAME ND i Francesco Slent MShams DATE 04/22/15 I /15 I /15 OFFICE NRO/DSEA/D OGC NRR/JLD/D NAME SFlanders BHar ri s JDavis DATE I /15. I ./15. . I /15 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY AKock , NRO DJackson , NRO RidsNrrPM DiabloCanyon RidsNrrPMColumbia RidsNrrPaloVerde  


RidsOgcRp Resource RidsRgn4MailCenter Resource RidsEdoMailCenter Resource *via email NRO/DSENRGS 2/BC NRR/DORUO DJackson Llund I /15 I /1 5 NRR/.D WDean . I. /15 Glossary of Evaluations Associated with Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1 Seismic Hazard Re-evaluations (b)(5) Enclosure 1
RidsOgcRp Resource RidsRgn4MailCenter Resource RidsEdoMailCenter Resource *via email NRO/DSENRGS 2/BC NRR/DORUO DJackson Llund I /15 I /1 5 NRR/.D WDean . I. /15 Glossary of Evaluations Associated with Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1 Seismic Hazard Re-evaluations (b)(5) Enclosure 1
(b)(S) Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the. Fukushima Dai-l chi Accident Seism i c Risk Eva l uations Screening and Pr i oritization Results for Western United States (WUS) Reactor S i tes Enclosure 2
(b)(S) Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the. Fukushima Dai-l chi Accident Seism i c Risk Eva l uations Screening and Pr i oritization Results for Western United States (WUS) Reactor S i tes Enclosure 2
March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals for Western United States Reactor S i tes Licensee Facility Date of letter (ADAMS Accession Nos.) Columb i a Genera t ing Station March 12 , 2015. (ML 15078A243) Diab l o Canyon Power P l ant , Unit Nos. 1 and 2 March 11 , 2015 (ML 15071 A046) Pa l o Verde Nuclear Generating Stat i on , Units March 10 , 2015 (ML 15076A073) and 1, 2 , and 3 Apr i l 10 ,. 2015 (ML 15105A076) Enclosure 3
March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals for Western United States Reactor S i tes Licensee Facility Date of letter (ADAMS Accession Nos.) Columb i a Genera t ing Station March 12 , 2015. (ML15078A243) Diab l o Canyon Power P l ant , Unit Nos. 1 and 2 March 11 , 2015 (ML15071A046) Pa l o Verde Nuclear Generating Stat i on , Units March 10 , 2015 (ML15076A073) and 1, 2 , and 3 Apr i l 10 ,. 2015 (ML15105A076) Enclosure 3
LIST OF APPLICABLE POWER REACTOR LICENSEES Columbia Generating Station Energy Northwest Docket No .. 50-397 License No. NPF-2 1 Mr. Mark E. Reddemann Chief Executive Officer Energy Northwest MD 1023 76 North Power Plant L oop P.O. Box 968 Richland , WA 99352 Diablo Canyon Power. P l ant. Unit Nos .. l and 2. Pacific Gas & Electric Company Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82 Mr. Edward D. Halpin Senior Vice President and Ch i ef Nuclear Officer Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 56 Mail Code 104/6 Avila Beach, CA 93424 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Arizona Public Service Company Docket Nos. STN 50-528 , STN 50-529 , and STN 50-530 License Nos. NPF-41 , NPF-51 and NPF-74 Mr. Randall K. Edington Executive Vice President Nuclear/CNO Arizona Public Service Company P.O. Box 52034 , MS 7602. Phoenix , AZ 85072-2034 Enclosure 4
LIST OF APPLICABLE POWER REACTOR LICENSEES Columbia Generating Station Energy Northwest Docket No .. 50-397 License No. NPF-2 1 Mr. Mark E. Reddemann Chief Executive Officer Energy Northwest MD 1023 76 North Power Plant L oop P.O. Box 968 Richland , WA 99352 Diablo Canyon Power. P l ant. Unit Nos .. l and 2. Pacific Gas & Electric Company Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82 Mr. Edward D. Halpin Senior Vice President and Ch i ef Nuclear Officer Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 56 Mail Code 104/6 Avila Beach, CA 93424 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Arizona Public Service Company Docket Nos. STN 50-528 , STN 50-529 , and STN 50-530 License Nos. NPF-41 , NPF-51 and NPF-74 Mr. Randall K. Edington Executive Vice President Nuclear/CNO Arizona Public Service Company P.O. Box 52034 , MS 7602. Phoenix , AZ 85072-2034 Enclosure 4
DiFrance s co , Nichola s From:DiFrance sc o, Nicholas Sent:4 M ay 2 015 18:34:12 +0000 To:Jack so n , Diane Cc:Sham s, Moh a med;Kock , Andrea  
DiFrance s co , Nichola s From:DiFrance sc o, Nicholas Sent:4 M ay 2 015 18:34:12 +0000 To:Jack so n , Diane Cc:Sham s, Moh a med;Kock , Andrea  
Line 2,706: Line 2,706:
==SUBJECT:==
==SUBJECT:==
SCREENING AND PRIORITIZATION RESULTS FOR THE WESTERN UNITED STATES SITES REGARDING INFORMATION PURSUANT TO T I TLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 50.54 (f). REGARDING SEISMIC HAZARD RE-EVALUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDATION 2.1 OF THE NEARTERM TASK FORCE REVIEW OF I NSIGHTS FROM THE FUKUSHIMA ICHI ACCIDENT On March 12 , 2012 , the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a request for information pursuant to Ti tle 1 O of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50 (1 O CFR), Section 50.54(f). (hereafter referred.
SCREENING AND PRIORITIZATION RESULTS FOR THE WESTERN UNITED STATES SITES REGARDING INFORMATION PURSUANT TO T I TLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 50.54 (f). REGARDING SEISMIC HAZARD RE-EVALUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDATION 2.1 OF THE NEARTERM TASK FORCE REVIEW OF I NSIGHTS FROM THE FUKUSHIMA ICHI ACCIDENT On March 12 , 2012 , the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a request for information pursuant to Ti tle 1 O of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50 (1 O CFR), Section 50.54(f). (hereafter referred.
to as the 50.54. (f). letter) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (A DAMS) Accession No. ML 12053A340). The purpose of that request was to gather information concerning , in part , the seismic hazards at operating reactor sites and to enable the NRC staff to determine. whether licenses.
to as the 50.54. (f). letter) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (A DAMS) Accession No. ML12053A340). The purpose of that request was to gather information concerning , in part , the seismic hazards at operating reactor sites and to enable the NRC staff to determine. whether licenses.
should. be. mod if ied , suspended , or revoked. The "Required Response" section of Enclosure 1 indicated that licensees and construction permit holders should provide a Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening report within 3 years from the date of the. letter for Western United States (WUS) plants (i.e., Columbia Generating Station (Columbia), Diablo Canyon Powe r Plant (Diablo Canyon), and Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (Pa lo Verde)). Further , the 50.54(f) letter stated that NRC would provide the results of the screening and. prioritization indica ting dead lines for individual plants to complete seismic risk evaluations to assess the total plant res ponse to the re-evaluated seismic hazard. Additionally, by letter 1 dated February 20 , 2014, the NRC provided supplemental information on the content of the seismic re-evaluated hazard submittals i ncluding guidance on reportabil ity and operability.
should. be. mod if ied , suspended , or revoked. The "Required Response" section of Enclosure 1 indicated that licensees and construction permit holders should provide a Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening report within 3 years from the date of the. letter for Western United States (WUS) plants (i.e., Columbia Generating Station (Columbia), Diablo Canyon Powe r Plant (Diablo Canyon), and Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (Pa lo Verde)). Further , the 50.54(f) letter stated that NRC would provide the results of the screening and. prioritization indica ting dead lines for individual plants to complete seismic risk evaluations to assess the total plant res ponse to the re-evaluated seismic hazard. Additionally, by letter 1 dated February 20 , 2014, the NRC provided supplemental information on the content of the seismic re-evaluated hazard submittals i ncluding guidance on reportabil ity and operability.
The purpose of this letter is to inform WUS l icensees of the. NRC's screening and prioritization and to allow licensees to appropriately plan the completion of further seismic r isk evaluations described in Enclosure 1 of the 50.54(f) letter. To respond to the 50.54(f) letter , all addressees committed to. follow the E lect ric Power. Research Institute (EP RI) Report , "Seismic Evaluation Guidance:
The purpose of this letter is to inform WUS l icensees of the. NRC's screening and prioritization and to allow licensees to appropriately plan the completion of further seismic r isk evaluations described in Enclosure 1 of the 50.54(f) letter. To respond to the 50.54(f) letter , all addressees committed to. follow the E lect ric Power. Research Institute (EP RI) Report , "Seismic Evaluation Guidance:
Screening, Prioritization and Implementat ion Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic ," 2 as. supplemented , by the EPRI Report , " Seismic Evaluation Guidance:
Screening, Prioritization and Implementat ion Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic ," 2 as. supplemented , by the EPRI Report , " Seismic Evaluation Guidance:
Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Recommendation 2.1: Seismic" 3 (referre d to as the Exped ited Approach).
Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Recommendation 2.1: Seismic" 3 (referre d to as the Exped ited Approach).
The NRC held multiple public meetings and teleconferences with industry and the public leading to the development of the guidance documents supporting review of re-evaluated se ismic hazards. 1 The February 20, 2014 , supplemental information letter is available i n ADAMS under Accession No. ML 14030A046. 2 The SPID gu ida nce document is found in ADAMS u nde r Accession No. ML 12333A 170. The staff endo r seme n t letter for the SPID guidance is found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML 12319A074.
The NRC held multiple public meetings and teleconferences with industry and the public leading to the development of the guidance documents supporting review of re-evaluated se ismic hazards. 1 The February 20, 2014 , supplemental information letter is available i n ADAMS under Accession No. ML14030A046. 2 The SPID gu ida nce document is found in ADAMS u nde r Accession No. ML12333A170. The staff endo r seme n t letter for the SPID guidance is found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML12319A074.
3 The Exped ited Approach g uid ance document is found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML 13102A 142. The WUS l i censees submitted the re-evaluated seismic hazards. by letters dated on. or before. March 12 , 2015 (references are provided in Enclosure 3 of th i s letter). The NRC staff conducted the screening and prioritization review of the subm i ttals by assess i ng each licensee's sc r eening evaluation and hazard analysis utilizing the endorsed SPID gu i dance. INTERIM EVALUAT I ONS 4 The 50.54(f) letter requested that licensees provide " interim evaluations and actions taken or planned to address the higher se i smic hazard relative to the design-bas i s , as appropriate, prior to completion of the risk evaluation." For those plants where the re-evaluated seismic hazard exceeds t he seismic design-basis, licensees stated they w i ll provide inter i m evaluat i ons to demonstrate that the plant can cope with the higher re-evaluated se i sm i c. hazard while the longer-term se i smic r i sk evaluations are ongoing. In support of the requested interim evaluations for licensees , WUS p l ants provided i nformat i on related to margin evalua t ions or insights from Individual Plant Exam i nat i on of External Events (I PEEE) eva l uat i ons included est i mated seismic risk. Additionally
3 The Exped ited Approach g uid ance document is found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13102A142. The WUS l i censees submitted the re-evaluated seismic hazards. by letters dated on. or before. March 12 , 2015 (references are provided in Enclosure 3 of th i s letter). The NRC staff conducted the screening and prioritization review of the subm i ttals by assess i ng each licensee's sc r eening evaluation and hazard analysis utilizing the endorsed SPID gu i dance. INTERIM EVALUAT I ONS 4 The 50.54(f) letter requested that licensees provide " interim evaluations and actions taken or planned to address the higher se i smic hazard relative to the design-bas i s , as appropriate, prior to completion of the risk evaluation." For those plants where the re-evaluated seismic hazard exceeds t he seismic design-basis, licensees stated they w i ll provide inter i m evaluat i ons to demonstrate that the plant can cope with the higher re-evaluated se i sm i c. hazard while the longer-term se i smic r i sk evaluations are ongoing. In support of the requested interim evaluations for licensees , WUS p l ants provided i nformat i on related to margin evalua t ions or insights from Individual Plant Exam i nat i on of External Events (I PEEE) eva l uat i ons included est i mated seismic risk. Additionally
,. the submittals discussed completing p l ant se i smic walkdowns as part of NTIF Recommendation 2.3 in order to verify that the current p l ant configuration is cons i stent with the licens i ng basis. The NRC staff rev i ew of WUS reports found that li censees have demonstrated add i tional p l ant seism i c margins supportive of cont i nued plan t operation wh i le additiona l risk evaluations are conducted. The i nterim eva l uat i on provided in March. 2015 is a first step in. assessing the plant's capacity to withstand the re-evaluated hazard. In the near-term , by January 2016 , l icensees will comp l ete an " Expedited Approach" to evaluate and iden t ify reinforcements , if necessary , for certain equipment to. ensure a safe shutdown pathway can w i thstand a higher se i sm i c. ground motion. For Diablo Canyon and Palo Verde, the NRC staff is continuing to assess seism i c evaluat i ons completed by the licensees to determine if they meet the intent of the Expedited Approach review and. will response under a seperate letter. SCREENING PROCESS As defined in the 50.54(f) letter and the SPID gu i dance , the seismic hazard re-evaluations were conducted using current analys i s methods and guidance. The l icensees' responses to the 50.54 (f) l etter prov i ded se i sm i c hazard re-evaluation results , which were the focus of the NRC staffs initial screening and prioritization r ev i ew. Although the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) is commonly referred to as a single number, this number represents a distr i but i on of ground motions that occu r over a range of spectral frequencies.
,. the submittals discussed completing p l ant se i smic walkdowns as part of NTIF Recommendation 2.3 in order to verify that the current p l ant configuration is cons i stent with the licens i ng basis. The NRC staff rev i ew of WUS reports found that li censees have demonstrated add i tional p l ant seism i c margins supportive of cont i nued plan t operation wh i le additiona l risk evaluations are conducted. The i nterim eva l uat i on provided in March. 2015 is a first step in. assessing the plant's capacity to withstand the re-evaluated hazard. In the near-term , by January 2016 , l icensees will comp l ete an " Expedited Approach" to evaluate and iden t ify reinforcements , if necessary , for certain equipment to. ensure a safe shutdown pathway can w i thstand a higher se i sm i c. ground motion. For Diablo Canyon and Palo Verde, the NRC staff is continuing to assess seism i c evaluat i ons completed by the licensees to determine if they meet the intent of the Expedited Approach review and. will response under a seperate letter. SCREENING PROCESS As defined in the 50.54(f) letter and the SPID gu i dance , the seismic hazard re-evaluations were conducted using current analys i s methods and guidance. The l icensees' responses to the 50.54 (f) l etter prov i ded se i sm i c hazard re-evaluation results , which were the focus of the NRC staffs initial screening and prioritization r ev i ew. Although the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) is commonly referred to as a single number, this number represents a distr i but i on of ground motions that occu r over a range of spectral frequencies.
This. resu l ts in a curve of. ground acce l eration over frequency.
This. resu l ts in a curve of. ground acce l eration over frequency.
Line 2,737: Line 2,737:
In accordance with the endorsed guidance, the staff acknowledges that the January 2016 Expedited Approach submittal will focus on plant equipment (i.e. safe shutdown pathway 7) evaluations and modifications, as necessary, prior to submitting the plant seismic risk evaluations.
In accordance with the endorsed guidance, the staff acknowledges that the January 2016 Expedited Approach submittal will focus on plant equipment (i.e. safe shutdown pathway 7) evaluations and modifications, as necessary, prior to submitting the plant seismic risk evaluations.
The content of limited-scope evaluations or confirmations and their associated schedule milestones remain under development with NRG staff and stakeholders.
The content of limited-scope evaluations or confirmations and their associated schedule milestones remain under development with NRG staff and stakeholders.
The NRC staff has conducted a number of pub lic meetings to r each alignment on the implementation details of these evaluations , inc lud ing the development of alternatives approaches for conducting these evaluations The staf f expects that implementing guidance should be established by summer 6 Central and Eastern l i censees seismic hazard screening and priority rev i ews were completed in 2014. 7 Section 3 of the Expedi ted Approach guidance (ADAMS Accession No. ML 13102A142) p rov i des a process t o identify a single seismically r obust success path using a subset of installed p l ant equipment , FLEX equipment and connection points. 2015. and fall 2015 for high frequency and spent fuel pool evaluations, respectively.
The NRC staff has conducted a number of pub lic meetings to r each alignment on the implementation details of these evaluations , inc lud ing the development of alternatives approaches for conducting these evaluations The staf f expects that implementing guidance should be established by summer 6 Central and Eastern l i censees seismic hazard screening and priority rev i ews were completed in 2014. 7 Section 3 of the Expedi ted Approach guidance (ADAMS Accession No. ML13102A142) p rov i des a process t o identify a single seismically r obust success path using a subset of installed p l ant equipment , FLEX equipment and connection points. 2015. and fall 2015 for high frequency and spent fuel pool evaluations, respectively.
It is expected that WUS licensees can complete these evaluations in parallel with completion of SPRAs for Group 1 plants by J une 2017. This letter transmits the NRC staff's results of the seismic hazard submittals for the purposes of screening and prioritizing the plants. It does not convey the staff's final determination regarding the adequacy of any plant's calculated hazard. As such , the NRC staff will continue. its review of the. submitted seismic hazard re-evaluations , and may request additional.
It is expected that WUS licensees can complete these evaluations in parallel with completion of SPRAs for Group 1 plants by J une 2017. This letter transmits the NRC staff's results of the seismic hazard submittals for the purposes of screening and prioritizing the plants. It does not convey the staff's final determination regarding the adequacy of any plant's calculated hazard. As such , the NRC staff will continue. its review of the. submitted seismic hazard re-evaluations , and may request additional.
plant-specific information to support this review through the summer of 2015. The staff has placed a high priority on this review for the early identification of issues that might adversely affect each licensee's seismic risk evaluations.
plant-specific information to support this review through the summer of 2015. The staff has placed a high priority on this review for the early identification of issues that might adversely affect each licensee's seismic risk evaluations.
Line 2,752: Line 2,752:
: 2. Screening and Prioritization Results 3. List of Licensee March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals
: 2. Screening and Prioritization Results 3. List of Licensee March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals
: 4. List of Licensees cc w/encls: Listserv DISTRIBUTION
: 4. List of Licensees cc w/encls: Listserv DISTRIBUTION
: PUBLIC LPL4-1 R/F LPL4-2 R/F RidsNroOd RidsNrrDorl RidsNrrDorllpl4-1 RidsNrrDorllpl4-2 RidsNrrOd RidsNs i rOd RidsOeMailCenter RidsOgcMailCenter MMarkley, NRR MKhanna , NRR MShams , NRR NDiF rancesco, NRR ADAM S A ccession N o.: ML 15113B344 OF F ICE NRR/J LD/PMB/PM NRR/JLD/LA N RR/JLD/HMB/BC NAME NDiFrancesco Slent MShams D A TE 04/22/15 I /15 I /15 OF F ICE NRO/DSEA/D OGC NRR/JLD/D N AM E SFlanders SCI ark JDavis (MFranovich for) DAT E I /1 5 05/04/15 I /15 OFFI C I A L RE CO RD COP Y AKock , NRO DJackson , NRO RidsNrrPM DiabloCanyon RidsNrrPMColumbia RidsNrrPaloVerde  
: PUBLIC LPL4-1 R/F LPL4-2 R/F RidsNroOd RidsNrrDorl RidsNrrDorllpl4-1 RidsNrrDorllpl4-2 RidsNrrOd RidsNs i rOd RidsOeMailCenter RidsOgcMailCenter MMarkley, NRR MKhanna , NRR MShams , NRR NDiF rancesco, NRR ADAM S A ccession N o.: ML15113B344 OF F ICE NRR/J LD/PMB/PM NRR/JLD/LA N RR/JLD/HMB/BC NAME NDiFrancesco Slent MShams D A TE 04/22/15 I /15 I /15 OF F ICE NRO/DSEA/D OGC NRR/JLD/D N AM E SFlanders SCI ark JDavis (MFranovich for) DAT E I /1 5 05/04/15 I /15 OFFI C I A L RE CO RD COP Y AKock , NRO DJackson , NRO RidsNrrPM DiabloCanyon RidsNrrPMColumbia RidsNrrPaloVerde  


RidsOgcRp Resource RidsRgn4MailCenter Resource RidsEdoMailCenter Resource *via email NRO/DSENRGS2/BC NRR/DORUO DJackson Llund I /15 I /15 NRR/.D WDean I /15 Glossary of Evaluations Associated with Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1 Seismic Hazard Re-eva l uations Interim Evaluation or Actions -An immediate licensee and NRG review of the re-evaluate d hazard to determine whether actions are needed to assure plant safety while further evaluations are ongoing. The staff has completed its review and concluded that , based on the licensees' interim evaluations and actions , Western United States (WUS) plants are safe for continued operations.
RidsOgcRp Resource RidsRgn4MailCenter Resource RidsEdoMailCenter Resource *via email NRO/DSENRGS2/BC NRR/DORUO DJackson Llund I /15 I /15 NRR/.D WDean I /15 Glossary of Evaluations Associated with Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1 Seismic Hazard Re-eva l uations Interim Evaluation or Actions -An immediate licensee and NRG review of the re-evaluate d hazard to determine whether actions are needed to assure plant safety while further evaluations are ongoing. The staff has completed its review and concluded that , based on the licensees' interim evaluations and actions , Western United States (WUS) plants are safe for continued operations.
Line 2,766: Line 2,766:
...... 0 0 o ..... .,,.. -..J ;;><;-...... 3  
...... 0 0 o ..... .,,.. -..J ;;><;-...... 3  
!ll ...... c:.n c:.n c:.n ,,. :::::i O::!: 0 ,-... 0 :::!. 0 "O 3 (/) 3 !ll 'O ::r 'O _([) ro co ([) a. <D co o q; CJ) a. ::r a. ([) (/) -* (") C. ;;><;-(") Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the. Fukushima Da i-l chi Accident I ([) -* <D :::i :::i =.co ([) :;* :::i Seism i c Risk Eva l uations Screening and Pr i oritization Results for -Q Ql -0 _o Western United States (WUS) Reactor S i tes 0 O". (5" :::i 0 ([) -g_ :::i (/) en* 5* ([) Lim i ted-scope Evaluations. Q ([) Se i smic Risk a. 5* Expedite d c 3 0 Pl ant Name Screening Approach Evaluation High Low Spent Fue l "O 3 Resul t (Pr i or i t i zat i on Frequency Frequency Pool ff 5* Evaluation  
!ll ...... c:.n c:.n c:.n ,,. :::::i O::!: 0 ,-... 0 :::!. 0 "O 3 (/) 3 !ll 'O ::r 'O _([) ro co ([) a. <D co o q; CJ) a. ::r a. ([) (/) -* (") C. ;;><;-(") Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the. Fukushima Da i-l chi Accident I ([) -* <D :::i :::i =.co ([) :;* :::i Seism i c Risk Eva l uations Screening and Pr i oritization Results for -Q Ql -0 _o Western United States (WUS) Reactor S i tes 0 O". (5" :::i 0 ([) -g_ :::i (/) en* 5* ([) Lim i ted-scope Evaluations. Q ([) Se i smic Risk a. 5* Expedite d c 3 0 Pl ant Name Screening Approach Evaluation High Low Spent Fue l "O 3 Resul t (Pr i or i t i zat i on Frequency Frequency Pool ff 5* Evaluation  
!ll :::i Group) Evaluation Evaluation Evaluat i on ...... Ql 6' <D (/) :::i ..., :T !ll ([) Columbia Generat i ng Station In :::::i ro x 1 x x a. Ql u;* (/) "O _ro :::i c a. &#xa3; O" 0 0 Diablo Canyon Power Plant , U nit ff :::i :::> I n x 1 x x g, :T Nos. 1 and 2 '< ..., ([) ([) !ll ro a. < Ql 0 (/) (") _ro ;;><;-P alo Verde Nuclear Generat i ng Condit i onal x 3 x x !ll Station , U nits 1 , 2 , and 3 i n O" 0 <D 0 :::i s. ([) -g_ ..... 0 (/) 3 3 (") 0 0 )> 'O c ([) :::i o* a. )> Ql :::i a. (/) (/) ([) < ([) ..., 0 :T ([) ..., (/) :E ([) ..., ([) -E n closure 2 March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals for Western United States Reactor Sites Licensee Facility Date of letter (ADAMS Accession Nos.) Columbia Generating Station March 12 , 2015 (ML 15078A243)
!ll :::i Group) Evaluation Evaluation Evaluat i on ...... Ql 6' <D (/) :::i ..., :T !ll ([) Columbia Generat i ng Station In :::::i ro x 1 x x a. Ql u;* (/) "O _ro :::i c a. &#xa3; O" 0 0 Diablo Canyon Power Plant , U nit ff :::i :::> I n x 1 x x g, :T Nos. 1 and 2 '< ..., ([) ([) !ll ro a. < Ql 0 (/) (") _ro ;;><;-P alo Verde Nuclear Generat i ng Condit i onal x 3 x x !ll Station , U nits 1 , 2 , and 3 i n O" 0 <D 0 :::i s. ([) -g_ ..... 0 (/) 3 3 (") 0 0 )> 'O c ([) :::i o* a. )> Ql :::i a. (/) (/) ([) < ([) ..., 0 :T ([) ..., (/) :E ([) ..., ([) -E n closure 2 March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals for Western United States Reactor Sites Licensee Facility Date of letter (ADAMS Accession Nos.) Columbia Generating Station March 12 , 2015 (ML15078A243)
Diab lo Canyon Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 March 11, 20 15 (M L 15071 A046) Pa lo Verde Nuclear Generating Station , Units March 1 O, 2015(ML15076A073) and 1 , 2 , and 3 April 10 , 2015 (ML 15105A076)
Diab lo Canyon Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 March 11, 20 15 (M L 15071 A046) Pa lo Verde Nuclear Generating Station , Units March 1 O, 2015(ML15076A073) and 1 , 2 , and 3 April 10 , 2015 (ML15105A076)
Enclosure 3
Enclosure 3
LIST OF APPLICABLE POWER REACTOR LICENSEES Columbia Generating Station Energy Northwest Docket No .. 50-397 License No. NPF-2 1 Mr. Mark E. Reddemann Chief Executive Officer Energy Northwest MD 1023 76 North Power Plant L oop P.O. Box 968 Richland , WA 99352 Diablo Canyon Power. P l ant. Unit Nos .. l and 2. Pacific Gas & Electric Company Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82 Mr. Edward D. Halpin Senior Vice Pres i dent and Ch i ef Nuclear Officer Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 56 Ma il Code 104/6 Avila Beach, CA 93424 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2 , and 3 Arizona Public Service Company Docket Nos. STN 50-528 , STN 50-529 , and STN 50-530 License Nos. NPF-41 , NPF-51 andNPF-74 Mr. Randall K. Edington Executive V i ce Pres i dent Nuclear/CNO Arizona Public Service Company P.O. Box 52034 , MS 7602. Phoenix , AZ 85072-2034 Enclosure 4
LIST OF APPLICABLE POWER REACTOR LICENSEES Columbia Generating Station Energy Northwest Docket No .. 50-397 License No. NPF-2 1 Mr. Mark E. Reddemann Chief Executive Officer Energy Northwest MD 1023 76 North Power Plant L oop P.O. Box 968 Richland , WA 99352 Diablo Canyon Power. P l ant. Unit Nos .. l and 2. Pacific Gas & Electric Company Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82 Mr. Edward D. Halpin Senior Vice Pres i dent and Ch i ef Nuclear Officer Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 56 Ma il Code 104/6 Avila Beach, CA 93424 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2 , and 3 Arizona Public Service Company Docket Nos. STN 50-528 , STN 50-529 , and STN 50-530 License Nos. NPF-41 , NPF-51 andNPF-74 Mr. Randall K. Edington Executive V i ce Pres i dent Nuclear/CNO Arizona Public Service Company P.O. Box 52034 , MS 7602. Phoenix , AZ 85072-2034 Enclosure 4
Line 2,781: Line 2,781:
==SUBJECT:==
==SUBJECT:==
SCREENING AND PRIORITIZATION RESULTS FOR THE WESTERN UNITED STATES SITES REGARDING INFORMATION PURSUANT TO T I TLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 50.54 (f). REGARDING SEISMIC HAZARD RE-EVALUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDATION 2.1 OF THE NEARTERM TASK FORCE REVIEW OF I NSIGHTS FROM THE FUKUSHIMA ICHI ACCIDENT On March 12 , 2012 , the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a request for information pursuant to Ti tle 1 O of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50 (1 O CFR), Section 50.54(f). (hereafter referred.
SCREENING AND PRIORITIZATION RESULTS FOR THE WESTERN UNITED STATES SITES REGARDING INFORMATION PURSUANT TO T I TLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 50.54 (f). REGARDING SEISMIC HAZARD RE-EVALUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDATION 2.1 OF THE NEARTERM TASK FORCE REVIEW OF I NSIGHTS FROM THE FUKUSHIMA ICHI ACCIDENT On March 12 , 2012 , the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a request for information pursuant to Ti tle 1 O of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50 (1 O CFR), Section 50.54(f). (hereafter referred.
to as the 50.54. (f). letter) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (A DAMS) Accession No. ML 12053A340). The purpose of that request was to gather information concerning , in part , the seismic hazards at operating reactor sites and to enable the NRC staff to determine. whether licenses.
to as the 50.54. (f). letter) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (A DAMS) Accession No. ML12053A340). The purpose of that request was to gather information concerning , in part , the seismic hazards at operating reactor sites and to enable the NRC staff to determine. whether licenses.
should. be. mod if ied , suspended , or revoked. The "Required Response" section of Enclosure 1 indicated that licensees and construction permit holders should provide a Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening report within 3 years from the date of the. letter for Western United States (WUS) plants (i.e., Columbia Generating Station (Columbia), Diablo Canyon Powe r Plant (Diablo Canyon), and Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (Pa lo Verde)). Further , the 50.54(f) letter stated that NRC would provide the results of the screening and. prioritization indica ting dead lines for individual plants to complete seismic risk evaluations to assess the total plant res ponse to the re-evaluated seismic hazard. Additionally, by letter 1 dated February 20 , 2014, the NRC provided supplemental information on the content of the seismic re-evaluated hazard submittals i ncluding guidance on reportabil ity and operability.
should. be. mod if ied , suspended , or revoked. The "Required Response" section of Enclosure 1 indicated that licensees and construction permit holders should provide a Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening report within 3 years from the date of the. letter for Western United States (WUS) plants (i.e., Columbia Generating Station (Columbia), Diablo Canyon Powe r Plant (Diablo Canyon), and Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (Pa lo Verde)). Further , the 50.54(f) letter stated that NRC would provide the results of the screening and. prioritization indica ting dead lines for individual plants to complete seismic risk evaluations to assess the total plant res ponse to the re-evaluated seismic hazard. Additionally, by letter 1 dated February 20 , 2014, the NRC provided supplemental information on the content of the seismic re-evaluated hazard submittals i ncluding guidance on reportabil ity and operability.
The purpose of this letter is to inform WUS l icensees of the. NRC's screening and prioritization and to allow licensees to appropriately plan the completion of further seismic r isk evaluations described in Enclosure 1 of the 50.54(f) letter. To respond to the 50.54(f) letter , all addressees committed to. follow the E lect ric Power. Research Institute (EP RI) Report , "Seismic Evaluation Guidance:
The purpose of this letter is to inform WUS l icensees of the. NRC's screening and prioritization and to allow licensees to appropriately plan the completion of further seismic r isk evaluations described in Enclosure 1 of the 50.54(f) letter. To respond to the 50.54(f) letter , all addressees committed to. follow the E lect ric Power. Research Institute (EP RI) Report , "Seismic Evaluation Guidance:
Screening, Prioritization and Implementat ion Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic ," 2 as. supplemented , by the EPRI Report , " Seismic Evaluation Guidance:
Screening, Prioritization and Implementat ion Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic ," 2 as. supplemented , by the EPRI Report , " Seismic Evaluation Guidance:
Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Recommendation 2.1: Seismic" 3 (referre d to as the Exped ited Approach).
Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Recommendation 2.1: Seismic" 3 (referre d to as the Exped ited Approach).
The NRC held multiple public meetings and teleconferences with industry and the public leading to the development of the guidance documents supporting review of re-evaluated se ismic hazards. 1 The February 20 , 2014 , supplemental information letter is availab l e i n ADAMS under Accession No. ML 14030A046. 2 The SPID gu ida nce document is found in ADAMS u nde r Accession No. ML 12333A 170. The staff endo r seme n t letter for the SPID guidance is found in ADAMS under Access i on No. ML 12319A074.
The NRC held multiple public meetings and teleconferences with industry and the public leading to the development of the guidance documents supporting review of re-evaluated se ismic hazards. 1 The February 20 , 2014 , supplemental information letter is availab l e i n ADAMS under Accession No. ML14030A046. 2 The SPID gu ida nce document is found in ADAMS u nde r Accession No. ML12333A170. The staff endo r seme n t letter for the SPID guidance is found in ADAMS under Access i on No. ML12319A074.
3 The Exped ited Approach g uid ance document is found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML 13102A 142. The WUS l i censees submitted the re-evaluated seismic hazards. by letters dated on. or before. March 12 , 2015 (references are provided in Enclosure 3 of th i s letter). The NRC staff conducted the screening and prioritization review of the subm i ttals by assess i ng each licensee's sc r eening evaluation and hazard analysis utilizing the endorsed SPID guidance.
3 The Exped ited Approach g uid ance document is found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13102A142. The WUS l i censees submitted the re-evaluated seismic hazards. by letters dated on. or before. March 12 , 2015 (references are provided in Enclosure 3 of th i s letter). The NRC staff conducted the screening and prioritization review of the subm i ttals by assess i ng each licensee's sc r eening evaluation and hazard analysis utilizing the endorsed SPID guidance.
INTERIM EVALUATIONS 4 The 50.54(f) letter requested that licensees provide " interim evaluations and actions taken or planned to address the higher se i smic hazard relative to the design-bas i s , as appropriate, prior to completion of the risk evaluation." For those plants where the re-evaluated seismic hazard exceeds t he seismic design-basis , licensees stated they w i ll provide inter i m evaluat i ons to demonstrate that the plant can cope with the higher re-evaluated se i sm i c. hazard while the longer-term se i smic r i sk evaluations are ongoing. In support of the requested interim evaluations for licensees , WUS p l ants provided i nformat i on related to margin evalua t ions or insights from Individual Plant Exam i nat i on of External Events (I PEEE) eva l uat i ons included est i mated se i sm i c risk. Additionally
INTERIM EVALUATIONS 4 The 50.54(f) letter requested that licensees provide " interim evaluations and actions taken or planned to address the higher se i smic hazard relative to the design-bas i s , as appropriate, prior to completion of the risk evaluation." For those plants where the re-evaluated seismic hazard exceeds t he seismic design-basis , licensees stated they w i ll provide inter i m evaluat i ons to demonstrate that the plant can cope with the higher re-evaluated se i sm i c. hazard while the longer-term se i smic r i sk evaluations are ongoing. In support of the requested interim evaluations for licensees , WUS p l ants provided i nformat i on related to margin evalua t ions or insights from Individual Plant Exam i nat i on of External Events (I PEEE) eva l uat i ons included est i mated se i sm i c risk. Additionally
,. the submittals discussed completing p l ant se i sm i c walkdowns as part of NTIF Recommendation 2.3 in order to verify that the current p l ant configuration is cons i stent with the licens i ng basis. The NRC staff rev i ew of WUS reports found that li censees have demonstrated add i tional p l ant seism i c margins supportive of cont i nued plan t operation wh i le additiona l risk evaluations are conducted. The i nterim eva l uat i on provided in March. 2015 is a first step in. assessing the plant's capacity to withstand the re-evaluated hazard. In the near-term , by January 2016 , l icensees will complete an " Expedited Approach" to evaluate and iden t ify reinforcements , if necessary , for certain equipment to. ensure a safe shutdown pathway can w i thstand a higher se i sm i c. ground motion. For Diablo Canyon and Palo Verde sites , the NRC staff is continuing to assess se i smic evaluations completed by the licensees to determ i ne i f they meet the i ntent of the Exped i ted Approach review and wi ll respond under. a seperate letter. SCREENING PROCESS As described in the 50.54 (f) letter and the SPID guidance , the se i smic hazard re-evaluat i ons were to be conducted us i ng current analysis me t hods and gu i dance. The licensees' responses to the 50.54(f) letter prov i ded seismic haza r d re-evaluation results , which were the focus of the NRC staff's in i tial screen i ng and prior i tization review. Although the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) is commonly referred to as a single number, this number represents a distr i but i on of ground motions that occu r over a range of spectral frequencies.
,. the submittals discussed completing p l ant se i sm i c walkdowns as part of NTIF Recommendation 2.3 in order to verify that the current p l ant configuration is cons i stent with the licens i ng basis. The NRC staff rev i ew of WUS reports found that li censees have demonstrated add i tional p l ant seism i c margins supportive of cont i nued plan t operation wh i le additiona l risk evaluations are conducted. The i nterim eva l uat i on provided in March. 2015 is a first step in. assessing the plant's capacity to withstand the re-evaluated hazard. In the near-term , by January 2016 , l icensees will complete an " Expedited Approach" to evaluate and iden t ify reinforcements , if necessary , for certain equipment to. ensure a safe shutdown pathway can w i thstand a higher se i sm i c. ground motion. For Diablo Canyon and Palo Verde sites , the NRC staff is continuing to assess se i smic evaluations completed by the licensees to determ i ne i f they meet the i ntent of the Exped i ted Approach review and wi ll respond under. a seperate letter. SCREENING PROCESS As described in the 50.54 (f) letter and the SPID guidance , the se i smic hazard re-evaluat i ons were to be conducted us i ng current analysis me t hods and gu i dance. The licensees' responses to the 50.54(f) letter prov i ded seismic haza r d re-evaluation results , which were the focus of the NRC staff's in i tial screen i ng and prior i tization review. Although the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) is commonly referred to as a single number, this number represents a distr i but i on of ground motions that occu r over a range of spectral frequencies.
Line 2,813: Line 2,813:
Risk evaluations for Group 3 plants are due by December 3 1 , 2020. NEX T STEPS Based on t he s t aff's screening review the licensee for Columbia should final i ze and submit an Expedited Approach Report no later than J anuary 3 1 , 2016. The NRC staff is continuing to review the licensee provided information for Diab l o Canyon and Palo Verde related to the Expedited Approach.
Risk evaluations for Group 3 plants are due by December 3 1 , 2020. NEX T STEPS Based on t he s t aff's screening review the licensee for Columbia should final i ze and submit an Expedited Approach Report no later than J anuary 3 1 , 2016. The NRC staff is continuing to review the licensee provided information for Diab l o Canyon and Palo Verde related to the Expedited Approach.
In accordance. with. the endorsed guidance , the staff acknowledges that the January 2016 Expedited Approach submittal will focus on plant equipment (i.e. safe shutdown pathway 7) evaluations and modifications, as necessary , prior to submitting the plant seismic risk evaluations. The content of limi t ed-scope evaluations or confirmations and their associated schedule milestones remain under development with NRC staff and stakeholders.
In accordance. with. the endorsed guidance , the staff acknowledges that the January 2016 Expedited Approach submittal will focus on plant equipment (i.e. safe shutdown pathway 7) evaluations and modifications, as necessary , prior to submitting the plant seismic risk evaluations. The content of limi t ed-scope evaluations or confirmations and their associated schedule milestones remain under development with NRC staff and stakeholders.
The N RC staff has 6 Central and Eastern l i censees seismic hazard screening and pr i or i ty rev i ews were completed i n 2014. 7 Section 3 of the Expedited Approach guidance (ADAMS Access i on No. ML 13102A142) prov i des a process to identify a sing l e seismically rob ust success path using a subset of ins talled plant equipment , FLEX equ i pment and connection points. conducted.
The N RC staff has 6 Central and Eastern l i censees seismic hazard screening and pr i or i ty rev i ews were completed i n 2014. 7 Section 3 of the Expedited Approach guidance (ADAMS Access i on No. ML13102A142) prov i des a process to identify a sing l e seismically rob ust success path using a subset of ins talled plant equipment , FLEX equ i pment and connection points. conducted.
a number of public meetings on. the implementation detai ls of these evaluations, includ in g the development of alternatives approaches for conducting these evaluations The staff expects that implementing gu i dance should be established by summer 2015 and fall 2015 for high frequency and. spent fuel pool evaluations, respectively.
a number of public meetings on. the implementation detai ls of these evaluations, includ in g the development of alternatives approaches for conducting these evaluations The staff expects that implementing gu i dance should be established by summer 2015 and fall 2015 for high frequency and. spent fuel pool evaluations, respectively.
I t is expected.
I t is expected.
Line 2,837: Line 2,837:
i) spent fuel pool components and systems capable of draining water inventory to the level of the spent fuel, ii) a review of components susceptible to high frequency accelerations (e.g. electrical relays), and ii i) a review of components susceptible to low frequency accelerations (e.g. water storage tanks). Enclosure 1
i) spent fuel pool components and systems capable of draining water inventory to the level of the spent fuel, ii) a review of components susceptible to high frequency accelerations (e.g. electrical relays), and ii i) a review of components susceptible to low frequency accelerations (e.g. water storage tanks). Enclosure 1
Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the. Fukushima Dai-l chi Accident Seismic Risk Eva l uations Screening and Prioritization Results for Western United States (WUS) Reactor Sites Seismic Risk Limited-scope Evaluations. Screening Expedited Evaluation H igh Low Spent Fue l Plant Name Resul t Approach (Priorit i zat i on Frequency Frequency Pool Evaluation Group) Evaluation Evaluation Evaluat i on Columbia Generating Station In x 1 x x Diablo Canyon Power Plant , U nit In x 1 x x Nos. 1 and 2 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Conditional 3 Station , Units 1 , 2, and 3 in x x x Enclosure 2
Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the. Fukushima Dai-l chi Accident Seismic Risk Eva l uations Screening and Prioritization Results for Western United States (WUS) Reactor Sites Seismic Risk Limited-scope Evaluations. Screening Expedited Evaluation H igh Low Spent Fue l Plant Name Resul t Approach (Priorit i zat i on Frequency Frequency Pool Evaluation Group) Evaluation Evaluation Evaluat i on Columbia Generating Station In x 1 x x Diablo Canyon Power Plant , U nit In x 1 x x Nos. 1 and 2 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Conditional 3 Station , Units 1 , 2, and 3 in x x x Enclosure 2
March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals for Western United States Reactor Sites Licensee Facility Date of letter (ADAMS Accession Nos.) Columbia Generating Station March 12 , 2015 (ML 15078A243)
March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals for Western United States Reactor Sites Licensee Facility Date of letter (ADAMS Accession Nos.) Columbia Generating Station March 12 , 2015 (ML15078A243)
Diab lo Canyon Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 March 11, 20 15 (M L 15071 A046) Pa lo Verde Nuclear Generating Station , Units March 1 O, 2015(ML15076A073) and 1 , 2 , and 3 April 10 , 2015 (ML 15105A076)
Diab lo Canyon Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 March 11, 20 15 (M L 15071 A046) Pa lo Verde Nuclear Generating Station , Units March 1 O, 2015(ML15076A073) and 1 , 2 , and 3 April 10 , 2015 (ML15105A076)
Enclosure 3
Enclosure 3
LIST OF APPLICABLE POWER REACTOR LICENSEES Columbia Generating Station Energy Northwest Docket No .. 50-397 License No. NPF-2 1 Mr. Mark E. Reddemann Chief Executive Officer Energy Northwest MD 1023 76 North Power Plant L oop P.O. Box 968 Richland , WA 99352 Diablo Canyon Power. P l ant. Unit Nos .. l and 2. Pacific Gas & Electric Company Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82 Mr. Edward D. Halpin Senior Vice President and Ch i ef Nuclear Officer Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 56 Mail Code 104/6 Avila Beach, CA 93424 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Arizona Public Service Company Docket Nos. STN 50-528 , STN 50-529 , and STN 50-530 License Nos. NPF-41 , NPF-51 and NPF-74 Mr. Randall K. Edington Executive Vice President Nuclear/CNO Arizona Public Service Company P.O. Box 52034 , MS 7602. Phoenix , AZ 85072-2034 Enclosure 4
LIST OF APPLICABLE POWER REACTOR LICENSEES Columbia Generating Station Energy Northwest Docket No .. 50-397 License No. NPF-2 1 Mr. Mark E. Reddemann Chief Executive Officer Energy Northwest MD 1023 76 North Power Plant L oop P.O. Box 968 Richland , WA 99352 Diablo Canyon Power. P l ant. Unit Nos .. l and 2. Pacific Gas & Electric Company Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82 Mr. Edward D. Halpin Senior Vice President and Ch i ef Nuclear Officer Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 56 Mail Code 104/6 Avila Beach, CA 93424 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Arizona Public Service Company Docket Nos. STN 50-528 , STN 50-529 , and STN 50-530 License Nos. NPF-41 , NPF-51 and NPF-74 Mr. Randall K. Edington Executive Vice President Nuclear/CNO Arizona Public Service Company P.O. Box 52034 , MS 7602. Phoenix , AZ 85072-2034 Enclosure 4
Line 2,846: Line 2,846:
==Subject:==
==Subject:==
Pr e ss Release on WUS Seismic Sc r een i ng Lette r Scott, We. briefed the DEDO, NRR, and R-IV management on the content of the. WUS Screening letter during the JLD status weekly. Mentioned that we are working towards a press release. We received no realignment on the letter or communication plan approach.
Pr e ss Release on WUS Seismic Sc r een i ng Lette r Scott, We. briefed the DEDO, NRR, and R-IV management on the content of the. WUS Screening letter during the JLD status weekly. Mentioned that we are working towards a press release. We received no realignment on the letter or communication plan approach.
View ADAMS P8 Prope rties ML 151 1 38344 Open ADAMS P8 Document (Screen i ng and Pr i or i tization Results for the Western United States S i tes Regard i ng I nformat i on Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Rega r ding Se i sm i c Hazard Re-Evaluat i ons for Recommendat ion 2.1 of the. NTTF Rev iew) Current working towards issuance on Tuesday May 12 (that can always slip with NRR/ET review) .. Happy to. support a limited accuracy review as needed .. Please let me know if there are any questions or concerns.
View ADAMS P8 Prope rties ML151138344 Open ADAMS P8 Document (Screen i ng and Pr i or i tization Results for the Western United States S i tes Regard i ng I nformat i on Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Rega r ding Se i sm i c Hazard Re-Evaluat i ons for Recommendat ion 2.1 of the. NTTF Rev iew) Current working towards issuance on Tuesday May 12 (that can always slip with NRR/ET review) .. Happy to. support a limited accuracy review as needed .. Please let me know if there are any questions or concerns.
Thanks , Nick Senior Project Manager -Seismic Reevaluation Activities U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiss i on Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Division nicho l as.difrancesco@nrc.gov I Tel: (301) 415-1115 Communicat i on Plan Timeline (A DAMS ML14083A619)
Thanks , Nick Senior Project Manager -Seismic Reevaluation Activities U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiss i on Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Division nicho l as.difrancesco@nrc.gov I Tel: (301) 415-1115 Communicat i on Plan Timeline (A DAMS ML14083A619)
Date Act ivi ty (responsible organization)
Date Act ivi ty (responsible organization)
SignitJ.cant Historic Actions Completed (2/20/14}
SignitJ.cant Historic Actions Completed (2/20/14}
Issued letter to all licensees Re: Operability , Reportability, Interim Evaluation and Actions (ML 14030A046)
Issued letter to all licensees Re: Operability , Reportability, Interim Evaluation and Actions (ML14030A046)
Completed (5/9/14) Issued Central and Eastern US (CEUS) Seismic Screening Letter (ML14111A147)
Completed (5/9/14) Issued Central and Eastern US (CEUS) Seismic Screening Letter (ML14111A147)
WUS Seismic Hazard Screening Review Completed (3/12/15)
WUS Seismic Hazard Screening Review Completed (3/12/15)
Line 2,910: Line 2,910:
* Guidance to address scc)pe and performance requirements
* Guidance to address scc)pe and performance requirements
* Draft DG 1301 -
* Draft DG 1301 -
No. ML 15072A 171. 11 U.S.NRC UNrt'l!D NUCLEAR RJ!CUl..ATORY CO M MISSION Protecnng Peop l e and the Environment Proposed Rule Scope
No. ML15072A171. 11 U.S.NRC UNrt'l!D NUCLEAR RJ!CUl..ATORY CO M MISSION Protecnng Peop l e and the Environment Proposed Rule Scope
* All phases of FLEX equipment, including portable and installed
* All phases of FLEX equipment, including portable and installed
* FLEX equipment must perform its intended function
* FLEX equipment must perform its intended function
Line 2,941: Line 2,941:
RECUl..ATO R Y OO M MISSIOl'I Prot ecting Peop l e and the Environment Opportunity for Public Questions. or. Comments Additional Questions?
RECUl..ATO R Y OO M MISSIOl'I Prot ecting Peop l e and the Environment Opportunity for Public Questions. or. Comments Additional Questions?
Please ask us at: JLD _ PublicResource@nrc.gov 20 U.S.NRC lMTl:O SUCLEA!l RECt.'UTOllY OOMMJSSIOl\
Please ask us at: JLD _ PublicResource@nrc.gov 20 U.S.NRC lMTl:O SUCLEA!l RECt.'UTOllY OOMMJSSIOl\
ProkctinK People and the Enviromnent Backup Slides 21 ji nformat i o n (pages 52-6 1/1000) i s ava il ab l e from ADAMS ML 151138344. The Power Reactor Licensees and Holder of Construction Permits in Deferred Status on the Enclosed List UBJECT: SUSPENSION OF SEISMIC RISK EVALUTION INFORMATION REQUES PURSUANT TO TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATI N .54(f). REGARDING SEISMIC HAZARD RE-EVALUATIONS FO , ECOMMENDATION 2.1 OF THE NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE N I FR THE F K HI A DAI-HI A IDEN fie purpose of tfits letter i s to i nform enc ose lcensees tflat certain Group 2 a Group 3 s i t ay suspend respond i n to the seismic risk evaluation informa ti on r; uest based on a revie a vaj lable inf *o [This letter discussions the analysis approach of this decisions and expectations for completion of limit-scope evaluation (i.e. spent fuel pool , high-frequency, and/or low fre quency evaluations
ProkctinK People and the Enviromnent Backup Slides 21 ji nformat i o n (pages 52-6 1/1000) i s ava il ab l e from ADAMS ML151138344. The Power Reactor Licensees and Holder of Construction Permits in Deferred Status on the Enclosed List UBJECT: SUSPENSION OF SEISMIC RISK EVALUTION INFORMATION REQUES PURSUANT TO TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATI N .54(f). REGARDING SEISMIC HAZARD RE-EVALUATIONS FO , ECOMMENDATION 2.1 OF THE NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE N I FR THE F K HI A DAI-HI A IDEN fie purpose of tfits letter i s to i nform enc ose lcensees tflat certain Group 2 a Group 3 s i t ay suspend respond i n to the seismic risk evaluation informa ti on r; uest based on a revie a vaj lable inf *o [This letter discussions the analysis approach of this decisions and expectations for completion of limit-scope evaluation (i.e. spent fuel pool , high-frequency, and/or low fre quency evaluations
).] Does not prov i de relief from other licens ing requirements for informed technical specifications or plant licensing.]
).] Does not prov i de relief from other licens ing requirements for informed technical specifications or plant licensing.]
B A CRG ROON ll On Marcfl 12 , 2012 , the NRC issued a request for informat i on pursuant to Title 10 of the Cod of Federal Regulations , Part 50 (1 O CFR), Section 50.54(f) (hereafter referred to as the 50.54 etter) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System {ADAMS) Accession No L 12053A340). The purpose of that r equest was to gather information concern i ng , i n part , th i smic hazards at ope r ating reacto r s i tes and to enable the NRC staff to determine whethe icenses should be modified , s us pended, o r revoked. The "Required R esponse" sect i on o
B A CRG ROON ll On Marcfl 12 , 2012 , the NRC issued a request for informat i on pursuant to Title 10 of the Cod of Federal Regulations , Part 50 (1 O CFR), Section 50.54(f) (hereafter referred to as the 50.54 etter) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System {ADAMS) Accession No L 12053A340). The purpose of that r equest was to gather information concern i ng , i n part , th i smic hazards at ope r ating reacto r s i tes and to enable the NRC staff to determine whethe icenses should be modified , s us pended, o r revoked. The "Required R esponse" sect i on o
Line 3,527: Line 3,527:
PUBLIC. JLD R/F R i dsOeMai l Center R i dsNrrPMOconee R i dsNrrDorllp l 2-1 RidsNrrLASLen t RidsNrrPMSummer  
PUBLIC. JLD R/F R i dsOeMai l Center R i dsNrrPMOconee R i dsNrrDorllp l 2-1 RidsNrrLASLen t RidsNrrPMSummer  


RidsRgn1 Ma i lCenter ADAMS Accession No: ML 14268A516 Sincerely , I RA/ Nicholas J. DiFrancesco , Senior Project Manager Hazards Management Branch Japan Lessons-Learned Division Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation RidsNrrDorllpl2-2 NDiFrancesco, NRA RidsNrrPMRobinson RidsRgn2MailCenter R i dsNrrOd *via mail OFFICE NRR/J L D/JHMB/PM NRR/J LD/JHMB/LA* NRR/DORU L PL2-2/PM* NRR/DORULPL2
RidsRgn1 Ma i lCenter ADAMS Accession No: ML14268A516 Sincerely , I RA/ Nicholas J. DiFrancesco , Senior Project Manager Hazards Management Branch Japan Lessons-Learned Division Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation RidsNrrDorllpl2-2 NDiFrancesco, NRA RidsNrrPMRobinson RidsRgn2MailCenter R i dsNrrOd *via mail OFFICE NRR/J L D/JHMB/PM NRR/J LD/JHMB/LA* NRR/DORU L PL2-2/PM* NRR/DORULPL2
-1 /PM* NAME NDiFrancesco Slent MBari ll as SWill i ams DATE 09/29/14 09/29/14 1 0/15/14 09/30/1 4 OFFICE NRR/DORULPL2-1/PM* NRO/DSEA/RGS1
-1 /PM* NAME NDiFrancesco Slent MBari ll as SWill i ams DATE 09/29/14 09/29/14 1 0/15/14 09/30/1 4 OFFICE NRR/DORULPL2-1/PM* NRO/DSEA/RGS1
* NRR/JLD/JHMB/BC NRR/J L D/J HMB/PM NAME RHall (w/comments)
* NRR/JLD/JHMB/BC NRR/J L D/J HMB/PM NAME RHall (w/comments)
DJa c kson SWhalev. NDiF r ancesco DATE 09/30/14 10/15/14 10/23/14 10/23/14 OFFICIAL RE CO RD COPY REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL I NFORMATION NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION 2.1 SEISMIC HAZARD AND SCREENING REPORT FOR DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT Review of Alternative Empirical Site Response Evaluation By letter dated March 12, 2012 (Agencyw i de Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML12053A340), the NRG staff requested that licensees submit site specific hazard curves that capture the variability in soil depth (including depth to generic rock conditions
DJa c kson SWhalev. NDiF r ancesco DATE 09/30/14 10/15/14 10/23/14 10/23/14 OFFICIAL RE CO RD COPY REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL I NFORMATION NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION 2.1 SEISMIC HAZARD AND SCREENING REPORT FOR DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT Review of Alternative Empirical Site Response Evaluation By letter dated March 12, 2012 (Agencyw i de Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML12053A340), the NRG staff requested that licensees submit site specific hazard curves that capture the variability in soil depth (including depth to generic rock conditions
), shear-wave velocities, layer thicknesses , damping, and strain dependent nonlinear material properties at the site. Specifically, Attachment 1 to " Seismic" Enclosure 1 of the March 12, 2012 , letter stated that " site amplification curves should be developed over a broad range of annual exceedance frequencies to facilitate estimation of seismic core damage frequency.". By letter dated February 15 , 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML 12319A074), " Endorsement of Elec tric Power Research Institute
), shear-wave velocities, layer thicknesses , damping, and strain dependent nonlinear material properties at the site. Specifically, Attachment 1 to " Seismic" Enclosure 1 of the March 12, 2012 , letter stated that " site amplification curves should be developed over a broad range of annual exceedance frequencies to facilitate estimation of seismic core damage frequency.". By letter dated February 15 , 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12319A074), " Endorsement of Elec tric Power Research Institute
[EPRI] Final Draft Report 1025287 , 'Seismic Evaluation Guidance:
[EPRI] Final Draft Report 1025287 , 'Seismic Evaluation Guidance:
Screening , Prioritization and Implementation Detai l s (S PID),' the NRG staff endorsed using the SP I D guidance.
Screening , Prioritization and Implementation Detai l s (S PID),' the NRG staff endorsed using the SP I D guidance.

Revision as of 08:37, 20 June 2019

FOIA/PA-2015-0294 - Resp 2 - Final, Agency Records Subject to the Request Are Enclosed. Part 1 of 8
ML16054A008
Person / Time
Site: Palo Verde, Columbia, Diablo Canyon  
Issue date: 02/12/2016
From:
NRC/OCIO
To:
References
FOIA/PA-2015-0294
Download: ML16054A008 (426)
v • d • e


Text

Sent:l7 Apr2015 19:55:15 +0000 To:Munson, Cliffo rd

Subject:

Focus Area Questions for DCPP Public Meeting_jpa.docx Attachments:

Focus Area Qu es ti ons for DCPP Publi c Meeting_jpa.docx Cliff-Here is a shot at adding some additional language to 2 of the questions. We can discuss Monday-Jon Sent:28 May 2015 19: 10:07 +0000 To:Brock, Kathryn;Thornas , Brian

Subject:

FW:

t -C:LH!.ln'

--A vai l ability to s upport Diablo Canyon Oral Argument s FYl-1. have. not been asked to support yet, but the potential exists (unfortunately

). Jon From: Markley, Michael Sent: Wednesday, May 27 , 2015 3:41 PM To: Kock, Andrea; Fland ers, Scott; Ake, Jon; Munson, Clifford Cc: Lingam, Siva; Wilson, George; Lund, Louise

Subject:

FW: Ai I ORIQEY-CdENt --Availab i lity to support Diablo Canyon Oral Arguments Andrea , Scott, et.al Heads-up. It is like l y that you and/or your will soon rece i ve requests to support the hear i ngs. Mike From: Lindell , Joseph Sent: Wednesday, May 27 , 2015 11:53 AM To: Wentzel, Michael; Cook, Christopher; Hill, Brittain; Rikhoff, Jeffrey; Dozier, Jerry; Oesterle, Eric; Lingam, Siva; Sebrosky, Joseph; Bamford, Peter; Markley, Michael; Manoly, Kamal; Li, Yong Cc: Roth(OGC), David; Young, Mitzi; Straus, Dan i el; Kanatas, Catherine; Mizuno, Beth; Wachutka, Jeremy; Uttal, Susan

Subject:

Affe"'l41!

1 eetrn I --Ava i lability to support D i ab l o Canyon Ora l Arguments All , The Atomic Safety & Licens i ng Board is plann ing on holding oral arguments for several pending Diablo Canyon contentions, including:

1) License renewal contentions A and B -analysis of alternat i ves to license renewal 2) License renewal contentions C and D -SAMA contentions
3) The de facto license amendment issues referred by the Comm i ssion to the Board in CLl-15-14 The Board plans on holding the arguments all together , one after the other. The proposed dates are July 8 , 9 , or 10. It is possible all the arguments will only take one day , but they may take more. than one day. The Board i s considering either holding the. arguments here in Rockville or in San Luis Obispo. W e are looking. for Staff support, both in preparing for. arguments , as well. as. Staff members who are able to attend the argument.

Please note that not everyone on this list needs to be available to attend the argument.

If we end up going to San Luis Obispo , we will probably only bring a limi ted number of Staff to support.

What is your availability on July a. 9 , and 10 , and what is your availability regarding Rockville vs .. San Luis Obispo? Sincerel y , Yosef Lindell Attorney U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiss i on Office of the General Counsel OWFN 15 015 301-415-14 7 4 N&*l&&i. l"lstie e: ::a il a: :8 etR)

,._8)' HRl8iR 08Rfi"8Rl i 81 °M 8FR8)' *I i i Al is 0 tli5Ri)' '0'wrk Plddbtt 111are11a1.

OU 1101 dlsclose outs i de 141"18 n i tl wot 8011::: :ieeie:: etf51ue s 81:

Sent:22 May 2015 20:07:34 +0000 To l (b J(5 l I

Subject:

FW:

Code Attachme n ts:Point Source Mode l.zip jjj From:. W eave r , Th omas S e nt: Frida y, Ma y 22. 2015 I : 0 I PM To: Ak e, Jon

Subject:

RE: Code J on, Auach e d is a GU1 ve rsion. J can se nd a n on-GUI version if yo u would lik e. Th e r e i s a draft us e r manual includ e d with the fil es I am se nding. Call if y ou hav e any questi o n s. Th o ma s ----Ori ginal M F rom: Ake , Jon S e nt: F r i day, Ma y 22. 2015 11 :58 AM T o: Wea ve r , Th omas Subj ec t: Cod e Thom as-Do you have a matlab script for producing an FAS w ith Boore's s imple se i sm olo g ical mode l? Including which unit s for input s? l s so ca n you shoo t me a co p y? T h x J o n S e nt from NRC Bla c kB e rry Jon Ak e l (b)(6)

User Manual: NRC Seismologic Model Software by The SGSEB Three Stooges Thomas W eaver, Scott Stova ll & .Jon Ake Scptembrr 1 4, 2012 Contents 1 U s i ng NRC Se i smo l ogic Mode l Softwar e 1.1 File . . . . . . . . 1.2 Wo r ks h eets . . . . . 1.2.1 Project Information 1.2.2 Input .. 1.2.2.1 Earthquake l\fagnitude 1.2.2.2 Somce to Sit e Di sta nc e 1.2.2.3 1.2.2.4 1.2.2.5 1.2.2.6 1.2.2.7 1.2.2.8 1.2.2.9 Frequency R ange . R es pon se Spcctruru So u r ce Param eters . . . Geometr i cal Sp r eading Si t e Amplification Diminution . . . . Seismic Attenuat i on 1.2.2.10 Somcc D uration 1.2.2.11 Pa t h Duration .. 1.2.3 P a t.h and Site Effects G raphs 1.2.4 Simulated Tim e Hi s tori es 1.3 Ca l c u late 1.4 Resu l ts . 1.5 H e lp 2 Poin t Sourc e Mode l 3 Random Vibration Th eo r y 4 Tim e Hi s tory Simu l ation A NRC SMS Validation 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 9 10 11 12 List of Figures 1.1 In p ut w orks h ee t ................ . 1.2 G eo m et ri ca l s pr ea din g: eas t e rn Nor th A me r i ca. 1.3 G e n e ric s i te am plifi cat i on ............ . 1.4 Thr ee seg m e nt a t te nua t i o n fun c ti o n an d ass o c i ated input for N RC SMS. 1.5 P at h dur a tiou for easte rn No r t h Am e ri ca fr o m 13 oo r e (200 5). . ..... ii 2 4 5 6 7 Chapter 1 Using NRC Seismologic Model Software The NRC Seismologic Model Software (N RC SMS) i s based on the work published by Bo ore (2003) on the s imulation of ground motion u s ing the stoc h astic method. In addit ion, SMS IM , t h e DOS based For tran program developed by Boore (2005) was used to assist in development of NRC SlVIS. NRC SMS uses a menu and too l ba r structure to navigate through the program as you input and view data used for computing Fourier amp litud e spectra (FAS) and structural response spectra (RS), calculate FAS and RS, and view results from calc ulation s. Each menu option i s decribecl below. 1.1 File The File menu contains options for open i ng a previously created *.mat fi l e, savi ng your input and results as a *.mat file. or export ing your input and r esults to a text file (*.txt) or Exce l fi l e (*.xis). Corresponding bu ttons are located in the toolbar for opening and saving *.mat files. 1.2 Worksheets The Worksheets menu i s used to access worksheets for inputing proj ect data requ ir ed for calculation of Fourier am plitud e and response spectra, and data r eq uir ed to calculate sim ulat ed time hi sto rie s. In addition, this menu option allows you to see t h e path and s i te effects funct i ons that will be used for calculat in g the FAS based on th e input you have provided.

1.2.1 Proj ec t Inform at ion The Pr o j ect Information worksheet a llow s you to document important project details such as the proj ect n ame , project i dent i ficat i on, and addit i onal information you find u sefu l for i dentifying the assoc i ated calc ul at i ons. 1.2.2 Input Th e I np u t worksheet i s used to define parameters r eq uir ed for calculat iu g Fouri er amplitude and r esponse spectra. This worksheet is s hown in Fi g ur e 1.1. Th e Input worksheet is d i v id e d into 1 11 sec tions s u c h as E ar thq u a k e Magni t ud e, Som ce to Sit e Di st a n ce , Fr e quenc y R a n ge , e t c. Input p a r a m et er s fo r eac h of t h ese sec t i on s a r e d i sc u ss ed b e l ow. ) ffRC SMS_ v01 file W oricsheets c.la.lat<

ResU.IS Helo ..J .... -

E.arthqu.a ke M.agnitu de---M i nimum f6o 1.1ax 1 m u m. l"""6.'Q No of Magnit u des: 11 r-Source to Site Dlstance>-Minimum: l10 k m Maximum j1o km Number of Dista n ces. 11 Frequency R.ange Minimum Jo:o1 H;,; Maximum: j100 H z Response Spectrum r Ca l culate Response Spect r um Co rr ecti o n* je o o r e and J oy n e r (1984) ::J Damping I 0.05 Source Spectral Shape j&n g l a Com et -B r u n e :::J Stress D r o p* j100 b ars De n s rt r. g k c V elocity , Vs: 136 kmls Geometrical Spreading 1No of IJne Segme r¥s lower ":lower , n Sour°' IDS<:!! (loo) 1 1 70 0 3 130 0.5 0 0 0 Site Ampflfic.atlon I Genenc Ha r d Rock Dinlnutlon Type of Fiher jkappa J kap pa. J 0.006 sec fmax lsQ.O Hz ::J Seismic Attenu.atio No of Line Segment s-n Fre q uency S l ope Alten u ation r1 IT1 I -2.0 3 ITs6 11 !"02 12: r-°-6 12: !To' lo:92 l8a S eis mic Ve l oc ity f'35 kml s Du r a ti on Weigh t , w_a f1o l Source Duration Du r ation Wei g ht , w_b lO r Path Duration No. o f l ine S egmem s l4 0 0 1 0 70 1 30 0 9.6 000 7.8 00 0 Slope of last Segment J004 F i gur e 1.1: I nput workshe e t u s e d to d e fin e param e t e r s r e quir e d for calcu l a ting fou r ier a mp l itude and respon s e sp e c t ra 1.2.2.1 Earthquake Magn itud e Earthq u ak e !\.fa n gitude allows you to calcu l at e F AS and R S for a range of e art h quak e magnitude s. F A S and R S are c alcula te d at the mi n imum m a gnitude when the numb e r o f ma g nitu d es is s e t equa l t o 1. Wh e n t h e numb e r of ma g ni t ud e s i s set equal to 2 , F AS and R S will b e c a lcu l a t e d a t the s p e cifi e d minimum an d maximum m a gnitude s. FAS and RS will b e ca lc u la te d at e v e nly s pa ce d m a gn i t ud es wh e n th e numb e r o f m ag n i t ud es i s se t e qu a l to 3 o r g r eate r. Thu s , if t h e m i n i mum m ag n i t ud e i s 5 , t h e m ax i mum m a gni t u d e i s 7 and t h e numb e r of ma g ni t ud es i s 3> FAS a nd RS will b e c a lcul a t e d fo r m a g n itud es of 5 , 6, a ud 7. 1.2.2.2 Sou r ce to Site Distance Simil a r to E a rthqu a k e M ag ui t ucl c, FAS a ud RS ca n b e ob t ai n ed for a raug e of Sour ce t o S i t e Di s tanc es. 2 1.2.2.3 Fr e qu e ncy Range Frequency Rang e is used to defin e the m i nimum and maximum frequency for which F AS and RS a r e calcu l ated. FAS and RS va l ues are caclutcd at 340 poi n ts per log cycle. \i\T h en the m i n i mum frequency i s set eq u al to 0.1 and the maximum frequenc y is set equa l to 100 , FAS an RS will be calcu l aLcd at 1020 points. 1.2.2.4 R e spons e Sp e ctrum Calculation of a response spectrum i s optional and cons i sts of three parts. the option c h ec k box, t h e oscillator correction option , and t h e decimal damping va l ue, ( (t ypica ll y 0.05 for 5% damping).

If you desire to obtain a response spectrum, the checkbox for " Calculate Response Spectrum" must be checked. Th e response spectrum or spectra will then be calculated for each magnitude and source to site d i stance specified us i ng ra.nclom vibration theory (RVT). *w hen using RVT to compute response spectra, a shaking durat i on va l ue , T r ms, is used to comput e the root mean square (rms) spectra l accelcratiou values. T herms dura t i on i s equa l to t h e gTotmd mot i on durat i on plus a corrected osc ill ator du ration as expressed in Equat i on 1.1. ( /'n ) T rms = Tg m +To --'Yn +a (1.1) W here T, 9111 is t he ground motion duration, T 0 is th e oscillator duration with T 0 = 1/(21T f r(), / = T 9 m/T 0 , and n and a arc constants.

The values used for the constants n and a a.re det e rm i ned based on the oscillato r correct i on option c h os e n. Whe n c h oosing the Boore and Joyner {1994) co rr ect i on n = 3 and a = 1/3. If the L iu an d Pezes hk (1999) osc i llator correct i on i s chosen, n = 2 and a= [271" (i -1 1 2 mom2 (1.2) where mo , m 1 and m2 are moments of the squared spectra l amplitude.

Additional details on RVT are p r ov i de d in Chapter 3. 1.2.2.5 Source Paramet e r s The Source Paramet e r s sect i on allows you to specify the type o f spectral shape to be used in calculating th e FAS (e.g. s i ngle corner model or two corner mode l), the st r ess drop for the single corn e r mode l , so urc e d e nsi ty, and source s h ea r wave v e loc i ty. Wh e n selecting a two corner model, the earthquake magnitude is soley used to determine t h e corner frequencie

s. Additiona l details on each spectra.I shape are provided in Chapter 2. 1.2.2.6 Geometrical Spreading The Geom e trical Spreading sec tion defines the function we use for describiug how wav e amp l itude dec r eases with dista n ce from the source. The funct i on may cons i st of mu l t i p l e segments as shown i n Equat i on 1.3. 3

R$R2 Z(R2) (!ff f 2 R2 $ R $ R 3 Z(R) = (1.3) Z(f4) ('Ji r; f4 R. In eastern North America , Atkinson and Boore (1995) and Frankel ct, a l. (1996) s ugg est uin g the three segment, function s h own in Figure 1.2. To implement t,he eastern North America geometrical s preading relation.ship, we e nt e r a value of 3 for the number of lin e segme nt s. The values Ri, R2 , R J, nlo n2 and n3 for Equation 1.3 which correspond to the lin e segme nts shown in Fi gure 1.2 are 1 km , 70 km, 130 km, 1 , 0, 0.5 , respectively.

O> c: "O co (I) 0.1 0. 0.03 Cf) ro .g 0.02 (i) E 0 (I) (9 0.01 10 1/70 1/70 (130/R)o.s 20 30 100 200 300 Distance (km) Figure 1.2: Geometrical s pr ead ing function for eastern North Am e ric a (Boore 2003). 1.2.2. 7 S i te A mplifi cat ion The Site Amplification section requires yo u to select a site ampli fi cation function used t o quantify site effects. The opt ions cons i st of "Gener i c H a rd Rock" , "Generic Soft Rock", "No Amplification

", and "User D efined". Th e " G eneric H ard R ock" and *'Generic Soft Ro ck" ampl ifi cation functions are s hown in Fi gures 1.3. \i\lh en "No Amplification" is selected , the amplification valu e is 1 at all frequencies.

When select in g "Use r D efi n ed" , you will be prompted to se l ect a *.mat file that contains data used to define t h e amplification function.

This file must h ave frequency val u es in column 1 and amp lifi cat i on va lu es in column 2. o headings should be placed above the frequency and ampflicat io n values. 4 c: 0 *;:; 4 3 Q. E <t 2 0.01 1.2.2.8 Di m inution -G eneric Soft Rock -G eneric Hard Rock 0.1 1 Frequency (Hz) 10 Figure 1.3: Generic s it e amplification.

100 You have two options for implementing the diminution function (high frequency filter). Th e first option is to utilize kappa, " and the second option is to use a !max filter. Equatious that define the diminution function are provided below. D(J) = (1.4) D(f) = [l + (f I !ma x)8 r 1 1 2 (1.5) A "'va lu e of 0.04 has been used for coas tal California sites (Boor e and J oyner 1997, RC 2012), and a va l ue o f 0.006 may be appropriate for sites i n eastern No r th America. 1.2.2.9 Se ismic Attenuation Attenuation can be modeled as a three segment piecewise function. An examp l e of this th r ee ment fw1ction is shown in Figure 1.4 a l ong with the correspond in g frequ e ncy, s l ope , and atten u ation values that are used to define the function in NRC SMS. Often, suffic i ent data is only availab l e to define the third segment (slope 2 segment) of the function.

For this case , a single function is u sed to define t h e attenuation r e l ationship. A sing l e attenuation function i s implemented in NRC SMS by selecting a value of 1 for t h e number of segments in the drop down menu. B oore {2003) plott e d a n umber of atten u ation functions for the slope 2 segment and two of these functions are provided in Equation 1.6. These two equation were obtained t h ro u gh best fit equations to the data presented by Boore (2003). vVh en impl ement in g a function show n in Equation 1.6 , the number of lin e segments is c ho sen to be 1, Lrl = 1 Hz , the s l ope i s eq ual to the expone n t (e.g. s lop e= 0.45) and Q i s equal to t h e coefficient (e.g. Q = 180). 5 10 3 { 1430J 0*35 Q(f) = 1 80/0.4 5 208!0.78 Cen t ra l U.S. (Boore 2003) C aliforn i a Californ i a (Boore 2003) 111 ft 2 a Se ilmlc A ttenua tion {fr 1, Qr 1) No of L!ne Segmerts 133 FiequeACy Slope Atl&!Klatlofl 102 r1 ro;-I -2 03 [2a6 **************-

........ 11 l"0"2 12 ros . , , , ,\ lo92 ITs , \ Setsmic Veloc it y 135' km's 10 1 , , 10*2 10*1 1 0° 10 1 10 2 Fre q Figure 1.4: Three segment attenuation func t ion and associated input for NRC Sl\1S. 1.2.2.10 Sour ce Dur at i o n (1.6) The source duration is a fw1c t ion of the corner frequen c y or corn e r frequencies , depending on the poin t so urc e model u sed. Equation 1.7 i s u sed to calc u late the so urc e duration.

For the si n g le corn e r model , Wa = 1 and l a is the corn e r frequen cy. When Wa = 1. Wb = 0. (1.7) 1.2.2.11 P ath Du ration Th e pa t h duration can b e modeled u s ing a multi seg ment e d lin e. F or eastern North America, B oore h as us e d a p at h duration fun ct i on w i t h four segments as shown in Fi gure 1.5. A single p at h duration begining a t t h e source l ocation ha ving a s l op e of 0.05 i s generally con s idered approp ri ate 6 for so ur ces in C a liforni a. Gi ve n a. s in g l e seg m e n t, th e numb e r o f lin e se gm e n ts i s se t e qu a l t o 1 a.nd a n ini t ial s our ce to s i te di sta n ce a nd dur at i o n of 0 i s input into t h e fir st row of t h e t a bl e. 15 -10 (..) Q) (/) -c 0 :;::; ro :::I 0 5 0 0 50 100 150 Path Duration No of line Segments r-4 SMu*S..Ollirce hfl!Ju' ..... --1----.-;;c.r. C-) 200 250 0 0 10 70 0 96000 130 7 8000 300 D istance (km) Fi g ur e 1.5: P a th dur a tion for eas t e rn N orth Am e ric a from B o or e (2005). 1.2.3 P at h a nd Sit e Eff ects Graph s Th e P at h a nd Sit e Eff ects \iVork s h eet s how s pl ot s of t h e ge om et ri c al s pr ea din g func t i on , s i te amplifi c a t i on fun ct ion, diminution fun ct i o n a nd se i s mic a t te nu a tion fun c tion u se d in ca lcul at ing t h e FAS. Th ese pl o t s a.re upd ate d as c h a ng es to th e Input W o rk s h ee t a r e ma d e. 1.2.4 Simu l ated T im e Hi sto ri es The Simulat e d Tim e Hi st ori es vVork s h ee t is c urrently no t fun c tional. U pon i mplem e ntation , this worksh eet will b e u s ed t o provid e inpu t for d e v e loping tim e hist o ri es t h at sp ect rall y m a t c h a given FAS. 7 1.3 Calculate Th e Calculate menu opt i on is u sed to initiate calcu l ation of FAS a nd RS as well as s imul ated time hist o ri es. 1.4 Results Th e R es ult s m e nu opt i on i s u sed to v i ew FAS and RS or s i mula ted t i me histor i es which h ave been calcu l ated. 1.5 Help Th e H el p menu o ption provid es access t o this us e r manual. 8 Chapt er 2 Point Source Model 9 Chapt er 3 Random Vibration Theory 10 Chapter 4 Time History Simulation 11 App en dix A NRC SMS Validation 12 MATLAB 5.0 MAT-file , P l atform: PCWIN , Created on: Fri Jan 04 12: 03: 27 2013 OMCi xilc " O'd" CJD

CH!?<-? !DD@* *

  • P>
  • oL*u
  • u
  • tt./\ * '1C3 *
  • I*>@-'\* '/DD!
  • o * 'JH
  • I * &O

{-1 *

  • 0 * -FbD Sent:22 May 201520:07:14

+0000 To:Hee sze l , D av id;Seber, Do ga n;Mun so n , Clifford Cc: J ackson , Diane.

Subject:

RE: Columbia GMM codes Thank s Da v i d From: H eesze l , Da vid Sent: Friday. May 22, 2015 2:29 PM To: Seber , Dogan: Munson, Clifford Cc: Ake, Jon; Jackson , Diane

Subject:

Columbia GMM codes Hi All, Attached are two file s that contain some r esu lt s from my Columbia GMM software.

Both fi l es are for a s ingle fau l t at 8 mag11itude s from 5 (fa ult 1 )-8(fault8). ln t hi s case the fau lt is a vertica l strike-slip l oca t ed with lOkm away that comes to the s urface. Th e r ed dot s a r e individual rea l ization s of the SA at th e branch l e v e l. Th e so lid b l ack curve i s th e weighted mean SA , and th e da s hed line s are the mean+/-s igma. F or thi s code , we are s impl y u s in g th e middle branch of the normal distributi o n of s igma. The next step i s to get a set of scenario earthquakes that are reali s tic and important to hazard. Perhap s we can discu ss at the Columbia weekly meeting on Thursday.

Thanks, David David He esze l Geophysici s t U.S. NRC , NRO/DSEA/RGS2 Offic e: T-7E28 Mail Stop: T-7F3 Ph o n e: 30 1-415-5066 Sent:25 Mar 2015 20:32: l 8 +0000 To: H eeszel, David

Subject:

Re:

Columbia Ground Motion Model Thanks David looking forward to looking at it next week Jon Sent from NRC BlackBerry Jon Ake l (b)(6) From: Heeszel, David Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 09:26 PM To: Munson, Clifford Cc: Ake, Jon; Jackson, Diane

Subject:

Co l umbia Ground Motion Mode l H i Cliff, I've fin i shed coding up the ground motion model for t he Columbia SS H AC. I can walk you through the program in abou t 20 min if your interested.

Cheers, D avid David Heeszel Geophysicist U.S. NRC, NRO/DSEA/RGS2 Office: T-7E28 Mail Stop: T-7F3 Phone: 301-415-5066 Sent:3 Jun 2015 21:53:57 +0000 To:Seber , D ogan;J ackson, Diane;Munson , Clifford

Subject:

RE:

Columbia Sei s mic. Public Meeting Slides l agree. We should gen tly suggest the SSHAC di sc u ssion be very brief. From: Seber, D ogan Sent: Wednesday , Ju ne 03, 2015 2:41 P M To: Jack son. Diane; Mun son, Clifford Cc: Ak e, Jon

Subject:

F W: Columbia Seismic Public Meeting Slides Quick l y went over the sl ide s. I n SSC , Focu s #2 is mi ss ing (!?). IL is to m e more important to discuss #2 than fau lt s lip rates (#1 ). I wonder why th ey chose t o not prepare s lide s for that. Als o , ca n we t e ll th em to sk ip SS HA C s lid es t o save so me time for more meaningfu l discuss i o ns o n technica l topics. There a r e about 20 s lid es di sc u ssing what SSHAC process i s. -----Ori g inal M From: Difran cesco, Ni c h o la s Sent: W ed n es d ay. Jun e03, 20 15 1:0 1 PM To: Mun so n. Clifford; Seber, Do ga n; Jackson, Dian e Cc: V ega, Franki e; Cho, Esth e r; Ak e, Jon; Shams, Mohamed; Singal. Balwant; Alexander, Ryan; Maier, Bill; Use ldi ng, Lara; Walk e r , Wayne; Burn e ll, Scott; Walsh , Li sa; Kock, Andrea; Monarqu e, Stephen

Subject:

Columbia Seismic Pub l ic Meeting Slides Folks, CGS S e i smic Slid es. For awareness, the Stat e of W ashington a nd D efe n se Nuclear Fa ci li ties Safety Board p l an lo l isten t o th e mee t ing or attend. I nterim ac ti on adds informat i o n about Flex Strategy. Esther, Please add to public ADAMS. Tha nk s, Nick -----O ri ginal M essage-----

From: Wi ll iams, Li sa L. [ma i lto: ll wi ll iams@energy-110rthwes t.com] Sen t: Wedn es d ay, June 03, 2015 1 1:54 AM To: DiF rancesco, Nicholas Cc: Rich Ro ga l s ki

Subject:

M eet ing s lid es Nick. Her e is Energy Northwest's pre se ntation. I have made 20 copies of the s lide s (2 per page) that ram bring1ng with me for handout s. Li sa Sent:20 Apr 2015 15:22:26 +0000 To:DiFrancesco , Nicho l as;Munson, Clifford Cc:Jackson , Diane;De v lin-Gill, Stephanie;Vega , Frankie

Subject:

RE:

Inquiry: Palo Verde P ublic Meetings Dat es I will be on travel the 16-18. Jon. From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 10:24 AM To: Munson, Clifford Cc: Jackson , Diane; Ake, Jon; Devlin-Gill, Stephanie; Vega, Frankie

Subject:

Inquiry: Palo Verde Publ i c Meet i ngs Dates C l iff , et. al. Any preferences or l i mitations for p l ann i ng the Pa l o Verde public meet i ng in m i d-June. Thanks , Nick From: Difrancesco , Nicholas Sent:. Thursday , Apri l 16 , 2015 10:07. AM To:. Munson , Clifford Cc: Ake, Jon; Jackson, Diane; Vega, Frankie; Hill, Brittain; Shams , Mohamed

Subject:

Planning Items -DC Focus Areas and PV Meetings Dates C l iff , I am out PM today and Friday. PG&E Licensing Coordination and NRG Public Meet i ng Prep Frankie is PM backup and has a licensing call with PG&E Friday at 1 pm to discuss NRG technical focus areas as part of the April 28 public meet i ng. For Friday I would like to communicate a few topics for them to begin work on. Perhaps the 1 . ergodic method vs. single-station correction weighting.

Early next week I plan to email a formal request for i ncorporation i nto the meeting notice. Please let us know a couple of focus areas by noon Friday. PV Meeting Date Coordination The l i censee (APS) cannot support meeting unti l the 2 nd week of June. As I recall, I thought we had conflicts starting then with NGA-East Working Group. Let me know i f I can propose any dates in the 2 nd an d 3 r d week of June. Thanks, Nick Senic',i Pro j ect Manage r -Seism i c R eevaluat i on Activities U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuc l ea r. Reacto r Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Divis i on nicholas.difrancesco@nrc

.gov I Tel: (301) 415-1115 Sent:l3Apr201513:59:10+0000 To:Munson, Clifford

Subject:

RE:

Overview of SWUS for PVNGS and DCPP Cliff-L ooks good Jon From: Munson, Clifford Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 3:09 PM To: Graizer, Vladimir Cc: Ake, Jon

Subject:

Overview of SWUS for PVNGS and DCPP Vlad, Here is my slide set for overview of SWUS GMC. Cliff Sent:2 Apr2015 17:03:24 +0000 To: H eeszel, D avid

Subject:

RE:

Pal o Verde Catalog Thanks David From: Heeszel, David Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 10:56 AM To:. Devlin-Gill, Stephanie; Stieve, Alice; Munson,. Clifford; Ake,. Jon; Hill, Brittain Cc: Miriam R .. Juckett (mjuckett@swri.org)

John Stamatakos

Subject:

Palo Verde Catalog Attached is an excel version of the Palo Verde Catalog (Appendix E of the report). Events highlighted in gray can be linked to a specific fault. T he other columns should be relatively self explanatory.

--D avid David Heeszel Geophysicist U.S. NRC, NRO/DSEA/RGS2 Office: T-7E28 Mail Stop: T-7F3 Phon e: 301-415-5066 Sent:28 Apr 2015 1 3:44:04 +0000 To:Stieve, Alice

Subject:

RE:

Pal o Verde Source Information for: SSHAC Documentation from PPRP-IT Team Thanks Alice-1 hadn't seen this yet Jon From: Stieve, Alice Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 8:43 AM To: John Stamatkos; Li, Yong; Ake, Jon; Graizer, Vladimir

Subject:

FW: Palo Verde Source Informat i on for: SSHAC Documentation from PPRP-IT Team You may already have through others but you were not on distribution so I am sending. From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 10:33 AM To: Munson, Clifford; Stieve, Alice Cc: Jackson, Diane; Devlin-Gill, Stephanie; Hill, Brittain

Subject:

Palo Verde Source Information for: SSHAC Documentation from PPRP-IT Team C l iff. Alice, Stephanie, Please let me know if this is the missing piece. They have this one file on the SSC in the reading room. Thanks , Nick From: Munson, Clifford Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 20154:14 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas; Ake, Jon Cc: Jackson, Diane; Shams, Mohamed; Vega, Frankie; Graizer, V l adimir; John Stamatakos

<jstam@swr i.o r g> (j stam@swr i.org); Hill, Brittain; Seber, Dogan; Vega, Frankie; Stirewalt, Gerry

Subject:

RE: DCPP, Palo Ve r de, and Columbia Audit Information:

SSHAC Documentation from PPRP-IT Team Importance:

High Nick , We took a quick l ook at the conten t s of the. information for DCPP and PVNGS. The DCPP folder contains the PP RP-Tl correspondence and interactions on the source. model and ground motion model SSHACs. However, t he PVNGS only has the ground motion model SSHAC PPRP-T I team mater i al and not for the Source model. Please let us know when we can get the source model PPRP-TI team documentation.

Thanks , C li f f From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Tuesday, April 2 1 , 2015 1:25 PM To: Munson, Clifford; Ake, Jon Cc: Jackson, Diane; Shams, Mohamed; Vega, Frank i e; Graizer, Vladimir; John Stamatakos

<jstam@swri.org> (jstam@swri.org

); Hill, Brittain;.

Seber, Dogan;. Vega, Frankie; Stirewalt,. Gerry

Subject:

DCPP, Palo Verde, and Columbia Aud i t Information:

SSHAC Documenta t ion from PPRP-IT Team Folks, Please control distribution to the designated review team member for the following references.

Following your audit review, please advise if information reviewed should be docketed to support development of the hazard staff assessment or RAls. DC Aud i t Information S:\Diablo Canyon R2.1 Seismic lnformation\SSHAC Documentation of PPRP-TI Team Palo Verde Audit Information S:\Palo Verde R2.1 Seism i c l nformation

\SSHAC Documentation of PPRP-T I Team Co l umbia Information i s on ePortal (PM action to work through access controls). Also , licensee plans to work with PNNL to post information on public website. Thanks , Nick From: Soenen , Ph i lippe R [mailto:PNS3@pge.com

] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 10:49 AM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas Cc: Jahangir, Nozar

Subject:

DCPP information on Certrec Nick, We have uploaded the PPRP i nfo r mation onto Certrec IMS and granted access to Vladimir Grazier , John Stamatakos , and yourself.

Here is how yo u get to the PPRP information in Certrec:

  • Login to ims.certrec.com
  • Click on "Inspect i ons"
  • Set status to "In Progress" and Plant to "Diab l o Canyon"
  • Click " Search" button.
  • Click link to "Self-Assessment I Audit-Revi e w of PPRP Comments and TIT Reso l ution"
  • Click on t he "NRC Requests" tab
  • Click on what you would l ike to see. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Regards , Philippe Soenen Regu l a t ory Services Office -805.545.6984 Cel l -j<bJ (6) I PG&E is committed to protecting our customers' privacy. To learn more, please visit http://www.pge.com/about/company/privacy/customer/

Devlin-Gill, Stephanie Fr om: De v l in-G i ll , S t ephanie Sent:26 May 2015 19:24:02 +0000 T o:C l ifford Mun son (C l ifford.Mun s on@nrc.gov);Alice S ti eve (Al i ce.S t ieve@nrc.gov);Heeszel, D avid; Vlad im ir Gra i zer (V l ad imir.G ra i zer@n r c.gov);H eesze l , D avid; Yong Li (Y ong.Li@nrc.gov

);J ackson, Diane

Subject:

PVNGS

-Focus Area T opics for June-9 Pub l ic Meeting Attacbments:Focus Area Topics for PYNGS Public Meeting (draft 2).docx Attached are the edited questions from our meeting today. Attachment w as r e l ease d i n f ull in in ter im stephanie Geophysicist 301-415-5301 T-7D10 U.S. NRC, NRO, DSEA, RGS2 r espo n se #1 D e vlin-Gill,. St e phani e From:De v lin-Gill , St e phanie Sent: 2 0 May 2 015 17: 16: 56 +0000 To: Graiz e r , Yladimir;Sti eve, Ali ce;Mun so n ,. Cliff o rd;H eesze l ,. David;Ak e. Jon;John St a m a tk os;'Miri am R. Ju c k e tt (mju c k e tt@s wri.or g)';Hill , Brittain;Li , Y o n g Subj ec t:PVNGS Publi c M ee tin g Qu es tion s Palo V e rd e t e am, For furth e r di s cus si on, below are t he e di ted q u e s tion s about the area l zon e s: Because the PVNGS host zones , SBA and East, contribute significantly to the hazard at the PVNGS site , the NRC staff is i nterested in hearing d i scussion , beyond what is presented in the PVNGS SSC SSHAC report, on the follow i ng topics regarding areal sources. Please discuss. the rational and analyses used for: a. Choos i ng to model the spatia l var i ation of recurrence rate per unit area using variab l e , but continuous and relat i ve l y smooth seismicity. Please also d i scuss the rationale for not considering the use of unifo r m spatial recurrence rates in the. SSC areal sources. Although text in SSC Sect i on 8.2.4.1 mentions that uniform rates are often inappropr i ate, t he text does not elaborate on cond i tions where uniform rates might be appropriate or i f such cond i tions occur for the SSC. areal sources. Additiona ll y , please d i scuss this in the context of the prev i ously completed PVNGS SSC SSHAC 2 , since decisions made for that model led to the use of the constant rate model for the area l sources , and what i nformation informed the recent SSC SSHAC 3 to not use the constant rate model for any of the areal sources. b. Not using a " floor" during the smoothing analysis of recurrence parameters

.. Please also discuss this i n the context of the. PVNGS host zones and the WEST and GULF zones , which all show in SSC Figures 9-30 through 9-33 cells of zero rate (M>5.0)/deg 2/yr. c. Not using earthquakes lower than M4.67 to determine the recurrence parameters for the Eastern source zones, as shown in SSC Table 9-4. Please d i scuss th i s in the context of there be i ng so few events with i n the host zones that have magnitudes greater than to equal to M4.67 and inclusion of earthquakes lower than M4.67 despite the earthquake record below M4.67 not be complete. I also updated the file on Sha r ePoint: http://epm.nrc.gov/environmentalfilltq/wussshac/Shared%20Documents/Forms/Allitems

.aspx (Click on the Palo Verde fo l der icon after the link opens) stepha nie Geophysicist 301-415-5301.

T-7010 U.S. NRC, NRO, DSEA,RGS2 From: Devlin-Gill, Stephanie Sent: Monday, May 18 , 2015 4: 38 PM To: Graizer, Vladimir; Stieve, Alice; Munson, Clifford; Heeszel, Da vid; Ake, Jon; John Stamatkos; Miriam R. Juckett (mjuckett@swri.org);

Hill, Br ittain; Li, Yong

Subject:

RE: PV team meeting tomorrow I added 2 questions, attached.

I also updated the fi l e on SharePoint:

http: II epm. nrc.gov I environ menta l/illtq/wus

-sshac/Shared%20 Documents/Forms/A l llt ems.aspx (Clic k on the Palo Verde folder icon after the link opens) stephanie Geophysicist 301-415-5301 T-7010 U.S. NRC, NRO, DSEA, RGS2 From: Graizer, Vladimir Sent: Monday, May 18 , 2015 1:47 PM To: Stieve, Alice; Munson, Clifford; Devlin-Gill, Stephan i e; Heeszel, David; Ake , Jon; John Stamatkos; Miriam R. Juckett (mj u c k ett@sw ri.or g); Hill, Brittain; Li, Yong

Subject:

RE: PV team meeting tomorrow I. have. more observation

/questions. that I can present tomorrow.

From: Stieve, Alice. Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 1:43 PM To: Munson, Clifford; Dev l in-Gill, Stephanie; Heeszel, David; Ake, Jon; John Stamatkos; Miriam R. Juckett (m j ucke tt@sw ri.org); Hill, Brittain; Li, Yong; Graizer, Vladimir

Subject:

RE: PV team meeting tomorrow Pa lo Verde SharePoint FOLDER: http://epm.nrc.gov

/environmental

/jlltg/wus-sshac/Shared%20Documents

/Forms/A l lltems.aspx Click on the Palo Verde fo l der icon after the link opens. My dra f t focus areas file is i n that folder. The attached file are Vlad's draft top i cs. From: Munson, Clifford Sent: Monday,. May 18 , 2015 1:02 PM To: Stieve,. Alice; Devl i n-Gill, Stephanie; Heeszel, David;. Ake, Jon;. John Stamatkos; Miriam R. Juckett (mjuckett@swr i.org); Hill, B r ittai n; Li, Yong; Graizer, V ladimir

Subject:

RE: PV team meeting tomorrow Alice , Can you send us the link to the topics/quest i ons you've developed for the public meeting. Thanks , Cliff From: Stieve, Alice Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 10:22 AM To: Devlin-Gill, Stephanie; Heeszel, David; Mu n son, C l ifford; Ake, Jon; John Stamatkos; Miriam R. Juckett (mjuckett@swr i.org); Hill, Brittain; Li, Yong; Graizer, Vladimir

Subject:

PV team meeting tomorrow I w i ll not be at work all day tomorrow , therefore , I w i ll not be at the PV team meeting_ Don't cry. You will just have to carry on without me.@. Let me know what happens.

Devlin-Gill, Stephanie From:Devlin

-G i ll , S t ephanie Sent: 13 May 2015 15:44:07 +0000 T o:C l ifford Munson (C l ifford.Mun s on@nrc.gov) Cc:Alice Stieve (Alice.Stieve

@nrc.g ov);H eesze l , David

Subject:

PVNGS R e qu est Cliff, Please review and forward the following request on to JLD for Pa l o Verde: For the staff to preform confirmatory analysis, please have the l icensee send the NRC the PVNGS composite earthquake catalog prior to the declustering ana l ysis, meaning t he catalog with 1,941 events in it as mentioned in "Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Seismic Source Characterization" report on page 6-7 and 6-10. The staff requests the catalog be prov i ded in the tabular fo r m. stephanie Geophysicist 301-415-5301 T-7010 U.S. NRC, NRO, DSEA, RGS2 D ev lin-Gill, St ep hani e From:De v lin-Gill , S t e phanie Sent:26 May 2 015 18: 15:50 +0000 T o:Mun so n , Cl iff o rd Cc:Alice Stieve (Alice.Stieve

@nr c.gov)

Subject:

RE

l ates t versio n Attachments:Focus Area T o pi cs fo r PVNGS Publi c Meeting (draft 2).docx Cliff, OK. Alice and I spoke, we'll have a computer & laptop. stephanie Geophysicist 301-415-5301 T-7010 U.S.NRC, NRO, DSEA, RGS2 From: Munson,. Clifford . Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 1:39 PM To: Devlin-Gill, Stephanie

Subject:

l atest version Stephanie , I made edits to the first draft. Let's use th i s one for the meeting discussion. Alice i s getting a projector and laptop? Thanks , Cliff Focus Area Ques t ions!Topics for Palo Verde P ub l ic M eeting 5/9 I n addi t ion to providing a general overview of the SSC and GMC SSHAC Reports and Ma r ch 2015 50.54(f) response for D CP P , please provide additional clarification on the following topics. Seismic Source Characterization

1. Provide additional detail on the PPR P and Tl interaction documentation for the SSC model, specifically

....... T BD .... I am wo r king through that documentation t his week (April 27). 2. Clarify how uncerta i nty derived from the difference in cumulat i ve slip rates on Quaternary faults in AZ in comparison to the geodetic slip rates in southern AZ were evaluated and incorporated into model. 3. Clarify how uncertainty of the potential for the existence of unknown Quaternary faults in Southern Bas i n and Range prov i nce we r e eva l uated and captured in model , in particular in the area W and NW of the PV site, and outside the geologic mapping project area. 4.. Geo l ogic. mapping project. Provide. additional deta il on the. invo l vement of. the PPRP. in the fie l d review of the Quaternary geo l ogy mapping project of the PV site area and vicinity 5.. Geo l ogic. mapping project. Provide additional. detail regard i ng verification and character i zation of the 3 faults of interest in the site vicinity (Sand Tank , unnamed fault (Gilbert), unnamed fau l t (Pearthree)).

6.. Geo l ogic. mapping project. Provide add i tional detail regarding the very simpl i stic geologic cross section of the PV site to rule out existence of unnamed fault (Pearthree). 7. Geo l ogic mapping project. Provide additional detai l s regarding stratigraphic corre l ation of Quaternary units in the s i te area and vicinity , in particular the stand alone rive r te r race unit (Qorh) mismatch with the Q i 1 alluvial fan surface. 8. Regarding i nformation in PVNGS SSC T able 9-4 , because the Eastern sources have so few events a t please discuss how and why the Tl team chose to not use the events. lower. than M4.67 to determine the recurrence parameters.

Also, please justify not using a " floor" during the recurrence pa r ameters ana l ysis. 9. Please talk about the SS H AC presentations , discussions , and/or analyses that l ed the Tl team to. use variab l e , continuous , and relatively. smooth seis m icity when dete r mining recurrence parameters for host zones, as opposed t o constant rate values , particularly since there are so few recorded events in the PVNGS host zones. Ground Motion Characterization Sit e Response Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Site Response Evaluation Section 2.3 of the "Seismlic Hazard and Screening Report for the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units1, 2, and 3, March 2015" ...--. "O A> cc CD (/) I\) " _._ I I\) <D _._ -_._ 0 0 0 ..__. 1 Focus Area Topics for PVNGS Public Meeting on June-9 SITE RESPONSE Provide additional detail regarding the Vs-kappa adjustment factors. Specifically, provide the bases for -the host Vs profile, -the target deep Vs profile (including the use of a logarithmic standard deviation of 0.35 to develop the upper and lower profiles), -the target kappa value used for the kappa adjustments and whether the input FAS were corrected to the site kappa of 0.033 sec or a lower baserock kappa value, -use of a logarithmic standard deviation of 0.5 to determine the upper and lower site kappa values, -the scenario events (magnitudes and distances) used to develop the input spectra for the Vs-kappa adjustment factors, -not including the Vs-kappa adjustment factors as additional epistemic uncertainty on the median GM 1\11s instead of capturing this variability as part of the variability in the site amplification functions.

2 Description of Subsurface Material

  • Subsurface at PVNGS consists of about 350 ft of basin sediments overlyi11g bedrock, with a crystalline basement co1mplex at a depth of about 1,200 feet below the grcJund surface.
  • Basin sediments:

stratigraphic subdivisions of sands, gravels, clays, silts, and fanglomerate.

  • Bedrock: Miocene volcanic and interbedded sedimentary rocks.
  • Materials are divided into 2 site profiles, a shallow site profile and deep site profile, that are separated at the bottorr1 of the basin sediments.

3 Development of Base Case Profiles and Nonlinear Material Properties Shallow Site Profile:

  • UFSAR and PSAR lithologic descriptions and natural gamma logs
  • Control point elevation is defined at the ground surface
  • Vs values are estimated from suspension logs, downhole and crosshole surveys from the UFSAR and Spectral Analysis of Surface Waves (SASW) surveys.
  • Epistemic uncertainty (alnVs) was e*stimated for shear wave velocities in the base-case (BC) profile from the different measurements that were used to develop best-estimate valu 1 es
  • Upper-range (UR) and lower-range (LR) profiles were. developed by multiplying and dividing the BC profile by exp(1.28*alnVs), following guidance in the SPID to achieve 10th and 90th percentile values.
  • Note. that the UR profile does not include a lithologic layer of fanglomerate to account for its possible non-existence.

4 850 ...J 800 w ...J <( w en z <( w 750 g ..J w er ! z 0 Gj ..J w 500 DIS T ANCE 8E1WEEN RELATIVE TO Ul-81 \fcell 0 1111!> U1-B1 U2-B1 (tleV. 1&3") (tlev. 15'1 * .. .. ... 2390 U3-B1 (*ltv. t50 1 Figure 34: Sh a llow pro fi le boring logs from beneath each of the three reactors LmfOLOGIC UNITS SA"I> II CIAY Ill SAl<O IV cu.* v 5""111 VI CIAY VII IAl<D \Ill Ct.AV IX ..... ;o x GENERALIZED UTHll.OGJC DESCRIPTIONS D&o'° oay...., .....,_ .. _ .. DCUIY-SAOfD_...., ...........

D Cl>* .. , .. ,,-.ai.; -* D fA.HGt.Olll£'tATE. , .. "'""' ..a ....., IO ___ ........ """ __ 0-run ... cv.v..-.. _.,......_

D IHlUll.A*-DFlOWlllt(CCIASo

... '1.CW\ ___

.. -DNClUCTE----

Figure 35: Composite s hallow profile Depth (ft) 0 Unit contact Uthologlc Description (deptlllelev

.) 60 880 80 100 120 820 140 15917114 780 1661788 190 16817157 'l<Y5/748 11/fJ >-220 < no 2-<<> 230l723 ..J 2371715 () w 700 Q 260 0: w 880 > 280 0 ..J 300 < a. 640 3111642 320 IX* 620 I *SANO yellow t o red to brown wrtll trwn becls or Slit clayey-sin and S11ty-clay II

  • CLAY yetlOw to red to brown olayey.sll!

and Silty-clay w<th lenses Of fine-grained sand and silty-sand Ill SANO brown, uody..ilt sflty &and and &allC1f..cloy tv -CLAY blown. S1lty-clay.

ctayey-s.n low to med plaSilclty noncalcaleous to SbghlJy very sbn to hard v. SAND brown to red-brown 111ty sand 111ndy*Slll and cteyey sand vecy &I fl to hard nonptnbc to ION plashc1ly paraco11lorm11y V1 -CLAY yeltON to red-brown.

S<l!y-clay very stdf to haJd distinct uppe1 cori8cl stigttly to hlgl'fy calcareous med lo h91 plasbelly VII* SANO uody-MI and silty 111nd btoWn non1)lHllC VIII Cl..AY to red-Crown.

llify*cley Ancly-... 1, silly-sand sandy.clay, ctayey.gand calcareous verystl!f 10 hard, high plalbcty IX -SANO llrlJwn 10 re<J.brown, $11nd. silty-sand and Clayiry-sand oc:c:asional (jfavel Cla&tli 6Ubaf1glllar to subroooded dense to very dense Vf!fY S11n to hard 340 341/612 u nc0n form *iY 600 580 560 3951558 GENERALIZED LITHOLOGY Saod Clay LITHOt..OGIC UNIT X

  • FANGLOMERATE brown to gay rroderately 10 wel cemened 1/0tcanic e1asts c:lenved from und<<lying bedtock in a matnl< of sand soil and occaitiooaJfy tlAlaoeous sand. el!M!1to11 of and thlckne!.6 ol tnt vary ectoss the site major uncontorm11y XI
  • BEDROCK see deep prolile ll(µe 5 Dynamic properties of shallow site profile (base case profile) Str ati-l:nit S igma B ase s igma D eprh Thickne ss Case L anr graphic "*e ight Depth y., , . ., (ln) . lithology (ft) (ft) Y s {;nit (pd) (ft) (f t/s) (In) (SP ID] 1 I Sand 0 21 110 0.0 101 7 0.0 7 0 0.13 2 I Sand 21 14 120 1041 0.0&8 0.1 9 3 I Sand 35 10 120 5A U50 0.0 7 5 0.1 7 4 I Sand 45 7 120 6.9 1181 0.063 0.1 5 5 II Clay 52 60 115 1 8.0 1208 0.08 7 0.1 5 6 II Clav 112 25 12S l 3.5 1293 0.0 7 3 0.1 5 7 II Cl av 137 22 1 25 1 4.3 1391 0.0 7 3 0.1 5 8 m Sand 159 8 126* 5.0 1431 0.055 0.1 5 9 I\' Clay 167 19 ns 1 8.0 1+46 0.049 0.1 5 10 \ ... Sand 186 19 1 26-' 2.0 1459 0.050 0.1 5 11 VI Clay 205 5 125 t 5.0 1510 0.1 03 0.1 5 12 VI Clay 2 1 0 20 125 1 1.8 1 7 42 0.1 45 0.1 5 13 vn Sand 230 8 126-2.0 1829 0.160 0.1 5 14 VIII Clay ns 52 125 1 LO 2094 0.12 7 0.15 15 \Till Clay 290 21 1 25 1 15.9 1094 0.12 7 0.1 5 16 IX Sand 311 30 130 17.0 2094 0.1 2 7 0.1 5 17 x F ane:lomerate 341 86 140 60.0 3262 0.1 7 6 0.1 5 B ed-A.n desite XI basal fl ow 42 7 140 83 4485 N'A 1 NA 3 rock brecc1a/mff Note s: 1 125 pcf is the a\*erage urut weight of all day unrts. The unit weights for all clay ooits are averaged for the s ake of s implicity ill me response anal ys is. '11_6 pcfi s. the average urut \\'eight of Sand {;rut s Ill\'. and VIl. The average is used fur the s ake of s implicity in the site response an.al y ill. 3 In the s ite response analysis for s hallow pr ofile , Unit XI 1 s cons.idered as die half space.. 6 Vs (tt/scc) 0 1000 2000 3000 400Cl -LR so -BC 100 La*r e r '" 1 bO l :; 200 4 ---.c ) -Q. 11> (.) 6 250 7 s 300 9 1 0 11 3SO 1 2 1 3 1 4 400 1.5 1 6 4.'.>0 1 7 Layer depths, thicknesses, and shear wave velocities (Vs) for lower-range (LR), base-case (BC), and upper-range (UR) profiles for the shallow site profile at PVNGS. Depth Tlt:ickne ss ,.-:s (ft) (ft) LR B C ml 0 21 929 101 7 11 1 3 2 1 1 5 ]041 1165 35 r o 1 046 ]1 50 1266 4-) 7 lUtl 12,80 52 60 1 08 1 ]208 135 1 1 12 25 1 17S ]293 14 1 9 1 37 2'.!

]391 t5Q8 1 59 8 13 34 . .:>-1536 1 67 1 9 1 359 l446 1540 1 86 1 9 1359 ]459 1555 205 5 , l324 ]j 1[0 1 723 210 20 1 448 2098 2]1] 8 i4gg ].829 2245 2:1S 52 1 7 80 2094 2462 290 21 2094 2462 311 30 1 550 2094 2462 341 86 2603 32:62 2 -0 0 100 200 300 400 £ 500 Q. Q 600 700 800 900 bear \Vave Velocity (f t/ ec) 1000 A WArra y -L C ll --L 12 -L 1 3 -L C 14 -L C IS -L 1 6 --L C I 7 2000 3000 4000 50( ED lhts H 81 bonnvs @)

  • PVNGS -llorlngl -SASW"'-1*7 0 1.000 2.000 II l 1 1 i I I I '

__ .............

o 250 500 m Figure 1. Locat i ons of SASW li nes SASW-LCl-1 through SAS W-LCl-7 (sho w n m red as l i nes 1-7) at the P V NGS s i te. 200 250 1000 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 hear Wave Velocity (m/ ec) F igu re 4.1 Co mpa nso n of th e Seve n. h e ar W ave Veloci t y Pr ofi l cs D e t e rmin ed ai lh e P a l o V e rd e N PP Si t e 8 PVNGS Borehole

  • Drill and. log 2 borehole s. (one deep[B-2, 423. ft], one s h a llow [B-1, 45. ft]) at the site , collec downhole geophysical data from the deep borehole , and preparation of each borehole fo r installation of borehole s eismometer equipment.
  • P-S Su s pension Logging
  • Induction/Natural Gamma
  • Caliper/Natural Gamma
  • Acoustic Televiewer/Boring Deviation 411250 LCl*B-1 ., 0 80 i -=-" -=-m 0 :!ID No\OQ FIPS fl GOOQ18 Elflll -.ef!illgia 50 100 150 g 200 J: Ii: w c 250 300 PA L O VERDE BOREHOLE B-2 R ecei v er t o R e c eiver V s a nd V P A na ly sis 450 F i gure 1. Locat ions of boreholes LCl*B*1 and LCl*B*2 a t the P VNGS site. Note: north arro w shows true north. as opposed to " plant north." 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 VELOCITY (ft/s) 1 0000 12000 9 F igu re 5. B oring LC l-B-2 , S u spension R1-R2 P-and Swwave velocities 14000 Geologic cross-section showing the shallow and deep stratigraphy at the PVNGS site 0 SCRJPTION I I E 6AS.En&an

...... _ ,,., *

  • I J * -10 Development of Base Case Profiles and Nonlinear Material Properties Deep Site Profile:
  • Developed from data presented in the UFSAR and Geological Society of America Bulletin A seismic-refraction survey of crustal structure in central Arizona (Warren, 1969)
  • No borings underneath the. three units that reach the top of the basement complex, so the upper. contact is estimated using a. geologic cross-section from the UFSAR that shows. the shallow and deep stratigraphy at the si1te
  • Control point elevation for this. profile is defined at the bottom of the shallow site profile.
  • Vs values were estimated from suspension (LCI,. 2015f) for bedrock. Vs for the basement complex was determined using typical seisn1ic wave velocities for granodiorite.
  • Uncertainty in the thickness of each layer vi1as accounted for in the LR and UR deep site profiles.
  • For the volcanics, this uncertainty was determined from boring logs as described in LCI (LCI, 2015d). For the upper basement layers, this uncertainty was taken as 10 percent of each respective mean thickness.
  • Consistent with SPI D: -UR and LR Vs values were developed by multiplying and dividing the BC profile value by exp(1.28*alnVs), respectively, like for the shallow site profile -Epistemic uncertainty was estimated for Vs in the BC profile using a logarithmic standard deviation of 0.35 as -The LR and UR profiles were constructed by pairing 90th percentile Vs with 10th percentile thickness (and vice versa) in order to maximize the varia1tion in travel time 11 Dynamic properties of deep site profile (base case profile) T bl 5 D a e . 1 y nallllc properae s o fil s f d ee p s ire pro 1 e. ourc e: T b l 1 6 fr L C I (LCI ?O l -d) a e om . -) Depth rmt
\Jean Vs Poisson's Elevatio u S igma , Strat. Gt'neraU zed to top weight Vs Vp Sig ma Ratio Thickne ss Tbicklles s of la yer unit XI xn xn xn litholog y Mean , Top Sigma , Range+, Range-, (ft) (pct) (ft/sec) (ft/sec) (lo) (ft m s l) Top (ft) 3 Top Top (ft) (ft m s l) (ft msl) Andesire l basa l t/ flow 395 140 44 85 9863 0.35 0.370 558 83 641 475 808 breccia/ ruff Weat h ered g r anodio ri re/ 120 3 146 1 5438 10 786 0.3 5 0.330 -250 N I A N I A N I A 20 mera-gran i ce (top) Weathered g r anodio ri te l 1223 152 1 7343 12632 0.35 0.245 -270 N IA N I A NA 20 mera-grani r e (middle) Wearhered g:ranodio 1 ite/ 1243 157 1 9248 14477 0.35 0.155 -290 N I A N I A N I A 20 mera-grn nir e (bonom) Gra n odiorire/ 1263 171 2 10200 15400 0.35 0.1 09 -310 N I A N I A N I A N I A Note s: 1 Unir weight for the weathered basement complex i s deremlined from V p. 1 Unit weight for wnveathered basement complex i s detemii ue d from Wan-e n (WatTen. 1969). 3 S i gma rop i s o nl y calcu l ated fo r Ande s ite XI for u se in s hallow s ite profile s it e respo n se calcu l ations. S i gma i s calcu l ated u s in g rop elevation contact of bedrock from U ni t s 1-3 Bl bo r eho l es (Figure 34). (ft) 145 10 10 10 N I A 12 PVNGS deep site profile Lowtr R:mg t P ro fil t (low n l oci d ts. thi l'ker la yer s. d e n si t y): m ight= 0.3 Desc:riptton Tbicbiess (m) V s (m s) Vokanic bedrock 324.2 873_4 Basement (s hall o w; weafherul top) 10_0 l , 059_0 Basement (shallov.r: wealhered middle) 10_0 1.430_0 Basement (shallo w: weathered bottom) 10.0 l.800_9 Basement (s hall o w) 1.784.2 1.986-3 Basemeru (deep) 12.5 60_0 3.680.0 B:iw Case Pr o fil t (m t d fan Ynlues :i ll p ar:une r ers): we iebt=OA Description Thicknes s (m) V s (m s) \'olcanic bedrotl: 2 6 7.6 1.36 7.0 Basement (shallow; weathered top) 6.1 l.6 57.5 Basement (shallow; vteatheted middle) 6.1 2.238_1 Basement weathered bottom) 6.1 1.8 1 8..8 (shallow) 1 , 581.7 3 , 109.0 Basement (dttp) 1 0.0000 3.680.0 t: p per Range Pro fil e (h i gh ,*e l ocitlts, rhi wt er la yers. b.-se cue d ensity): wei_eb t = 0.3 Description Ttucl.."ness (m) Vs (m s) \'olcanic bedrock sequence 211.0 2.139.6 Basement (shallow; weathered top) 2.2 2.594 3 Basement (s h3.llow; weathered middle) 2.'.! 3.503.1 Basement (shallow: weathered bottom) ..,.., 3.680.0 Basement (s hallow) 1.3 7 9.3 3.680 0 Basemen t (deep) 1 7 ,.i40.0 3.680.0 0 5 00 -QI t6: 1 000 Q. 3 0 t1I J:. "' ... 0 1 500 :t: 0 .D E 0 ..c ... E -.z 2000 Q. QI 0 2 5 00 3000 0 -. . -. . -. . -. . --1 000 .,. -,. , I V r, (m/'>) 2000 : 1 . I , ,, 300 0 . .. ,_ --............ I 1 I-"" I l .. I l -I I I I L 1 I I I . --I UR Prctile . I ' Base Case P ro f i l e I .. I LR P rctil e I W a rr en (1 969) I I S'N U S Re f e re nce I Pro fil e I . 4 000 -13 PVNGS Shear Modulus & Damping Curves Tab l e .

CW\"eS for each stratigraphic unit at PVNG S. Source: Table 14 from LCI (I.CI 20 1 5d' -Strntigna pbic Gtnendized Depth Thickne ss Degrndatlon DtgradatioJl Layer Curns Cnit (ft) (ft} (..\l terna c h'e n l . .Uternntin

2) 1 I Sand 0 2 1 EPRI Soil Peninsular Cun-es 0-20 ft 0-50 ft 2 I Sand 2 1 14 EPRI Sou Peninsular 20-50 ft 0-50 ft 3 I Sand 35 10 EPRI Soil Peni.nsular Curves 20-50 ft 0-50 ft 4 I Sand 45 7 EPRI Sou Penin sul ar Curves 20-50 ft 0-50 ft 5 n Clay 52 60 Vucetic and Dobry Vuce-tic and Dobry (1 991)-PI=30 (1 991}Pl=30 6 II Clay 112 25 Vucetic and Dobry Vucetic and Dobry (1991)-PI=JO (1991)-Pl=30 7 II Clay 137 22 \*oce llc and Dobry Vucetic and D obry (1991)-Pl=

30 (1991)-PI=3 0 8 m Sand 159 8 EPRI Soil Peninsular Cw.-es 120-250 ft 51-500 ft 9 I\" Clay 167 1 9 Vucetic and Dobry Vucrtic and D obry (1 991 )-PI=30 (1991}P l=30 10 \ San d 1 86 19 EPRI Soil Peninsular Curves 1 20-250 ft 51-500 ft 11 VI Oay 205 5 \"ucebc and Dobry Vucettc and Dobry (1991)-PI=JO (199l}Pl=30 12 VI Clay 210 20 \"uceti c and Dobry Vucetic and D obry (1991)-PI=30 (199l}PI=30 13 VII Sand 230 8 EPRI Soil Peninsulnr Cw...-es 1 20-250 ft 51-500 ft u VIII aa y 238 51 Vucebc and Dobry Vucetic and Dobty 099l)-PI=30 (1991)-PI=30 1 5 \'III Clay 290 21 Vucellc and Dobry Vucetic and D obry 0991)-Pl=30 (1991)-Pl=30 16 IX Sand 311 30 EPRI Soil Peninsular Cun:es 150-500 ft 5 1-500 ft 1 7 x Fanglomernte 3-U 86 EPRI Soil Peninsular Cwve!. 250-500 ft 51-500 ft

  • Shallow profile alte r native were given equal weights
  • Deep profile linear 14 PVNGS Kappa
  • Adjustment factors were developed to convert ground motions. from the reference rock associated with the GMPEs from the SWUS. GMC to site s pecific rock cond i tions at PVNGS corresponding to the deep site profile ..
  • Vs-kappa adjustments consist of 2 parts. 1. Accou nt for impedance diffe r ences, calcu l ate d using the Quarter-wavelength approach (Boore and Joyner, 1 997; Boore, 2003, 2013} and affects all frequencies.
2. Account for the differences in kappa (kappa-zero). I t has an exponential fo rm and affects mainly the hi gh frequencies.
  • Host kappa value fo r SWUS GMPEs i s 0.041 sec and the ta r get kappa value at PVNGS is 0.033 sec with a logarithmic standard deviation of 0.5.
  • BC , LR , and UR target kappas were combined with each of the BC, LR, and UR deep s ite profiles to get 9 sets of adj u stment factors appl i ed to the {BC, LR , UR} kappa alternatives and Vs profile alternatives.
  • Alt h oug h some of these adjustment factors become very large at HF , the SWUS GMC rock motion s have ze ro o r no e n ergy at the se frequencies (say, above 20 H z). Th erefore, the effect on spectral accele r ations i s expected to be much smaller than the effect s hown here. e 2 ti l "' .... .... :l if c 0 -.... 0 ... ..... .-c cu E ... =6' < 1 0 . ' . , , , I I i < t , Z-!--+-I -' I I 'I I j I 1 ' ' '= f= *= -,_,,_ A l/ r/} . I l * ? -lJ;,? I I I Ti ......_ ' . I I _. I ---!.

I * .,.. __ I:__... .. ---_,. .:: -..._ .. .. L . __, r ' "' _. I ...... """ """ "I" . r ' '--l lo.. I ' ', ' *---,_ ..... k I -0.1 0.1 1 10 100 Freq ue ncy (Hz) -LB P r of il e , LB kappa (0.09) -LB Profile , Med i a n kappa (0.11) LB Profile , UB kappa (0.09) -Media n P rofile, LB ka p pa (0.12) -Medi.1n Prof i le , Med i an kappa {0.16) -Med ian P rofile , UB kappa (0.12} UB Prof i le, LB kappa (0.09) -UB P rofi le. Med ian kappa (O.U) UB Pro fi l e, UB kappa (0.09) Net factors to convert ground motions from SWUS reference rock to PVNGS rock cond ffi ons.

PVNGS Randomizcition of Vs Profiles

  • Shear wave velocity in each SPID (EPRI, 2013) guidance was followed -shear wave velocities were truncated to +/-2 alnVs. USGS site class "A" pararr1eters, for hard rock.
  • Material properties.

SPID guidance was followed and realizations were. truncated at +/-2 aln for both G/Gmax and. damping curves.

  • Profile layer depths and thicknesses.

Depth to the top of each layer was modeled using a Norrnal distribution, each realization of depth to the top of a given layer was limited to +/-2a.

  • Depth to bedrock was modeled using a Normal distribution, each realization of depth to the top c,f bedrock was limited to +/-2a.
  • 60 random velocity profiles were generated for each combination of profile (BC, LR, and UR), material model (EPRI or Peninsular values), input spectrum, and set of adjustment factors. 16 PVNGS Input Spectra
  • Obtained using reference-rock hazard for PVNGS
  • Following guidance from the SPID, HF (5 and.10 Hz) and. LF (1. and 2.5 Hz) spectra at mean annual frequencies of exceedence (MAFEs) of 10-4, 10-5, and 10-6 were scaled to 11 different PGA amplitudes between 0.01 g and 1.5 g for a total of 22 input control motions.
  • Input response spectra were converted to Fourier amplitude spectra (FAS) using IRVT , which requires an estimate of ground motion duration for each input control motion, which was calculated according to the method in Rathje et al. (2005). Tabl e 8. Deaggregated magnitude s and distances for reference rock and as s ociated durations.

Source: LCI (LCL 2015a). :\lotion (l\1 w) Di tance (km) Duration ( ec) 10 4 F req. 7.5 2 1 0 26.3 10 4 High Freq. 6.1 1 8 4.06 I 0-5 Low F req. 7.6 200 27.7 10-5 High Freq. 6.2 8.0 3.9 4 10-6 Low Freq. 6.8 8.0 .46 10-6 High Freq. 6.4 6.0 4.76 17 PVNGS Site Response Methodology

  • RVT. was used to perform the site response analyses, consistent with SPID.
  • For the BC, LR, and UR shallow site profiles, site amplification factors (SAF) are developed for seven spectral frequencies (0.5 Hz SA, 1.0 Hz SA, 2.5 Hz SA, 5.0 Hz SA, 10 Hz SA, 20 Hz SA, and 100 Hz SA or PGA) over the range of spectral amplitudes represented by the input contnol motions (refer to Section 2.3.4). Each set of SAF incorporates the various types of variability in profile and material properties and uncertainty in kappa and deep shear wave vellocities as represented by the nine sets of adjustment factors.
  • To include the deep site profile effect on SAF, the IRVT-derived input FAS was multiplied. by the set of Vs-kappa adjustment factors prior to using that input spectrum to drive the shallow site profile. 18 PVNGS Amplification Function 10 1 -10 * --10* 10' Frequency , (Hz) BC.10-4 ti/ 10' 10' 10' to* 10' Freqa>>ney (Hz]

-H a. PVNGS BC s.udaa and SAf for 10-4 HF i.npuc molion 11$Uig the EPRl soil marerial olOdel and a SUlgle rock ro local rock adjustmen1 fuoc.tion.

Green Imes are for 60 indi\idual randomiud profiles Median (blade solid line) and :::lo1o (blaclc dashed linH) abo shown. Souru: Figure 46 from LCI (l..CI.1015d).

10' 10' 810 I ; J 10' l10* 10 1 10' -;o* --"i°o' Fi gure 4l b. PVNGS spectra and SAF for 10-4 LF mput motion using !he EPRI soi.I matenal modtl and a slQ!le rock t o local rod: adju5tmrnt func ti on. Gtttn Imes are spectra for 60 111dmdual nmdoouz.ed pr-ofiles.

Median (black sohd hne) and +/-loi. (blad: dashed lines) are also shown. Soun:e: Figure 4 7 from LCI (I.CI. 2015d) J 1cr' 10 1 10' 10' Frequency. (Hz) BC 10-5 10' to' 10' (Hz) UT -H e. PVNGS BC mr£l<< r6ponsc spectra mid SAF for 10*1 HF input motion ming the EPRI soil mataial model and 1 sin.git refet-mce rock ro loc&l rock adj11stmeo1 function..

Green lio.es are spectra for 60 1.0dmdual randomized profiles. (blad: sohd lio.e) and =loi. (black dashed 11.0es) also shown. SoutN: F1gur-e 48 fromlCI (l..CL ::WlSd). 10' l(f' 10' 10' --,o* --, rf Fniquency. (Hz) 10' f i ptt 4 1d. PVNGS BC surfuce response spectta. aod SAF for 10*1 l.F 111put motton usuig EPRI soil matmal model. and a smgle reftteoce rock to local rocl.:

fimctton.

Grett are for 60 1.odm.dual rmdomu.ed profiles.

'.\ledian (black sohd !me) and "'lo 11 {black dashed hoes) shown. Source: Figure 49 from LCI (l..Cl.1015d)

PVNGS BC median amplification factors c nl 2.5 1.5 1 0.5 -... l --"W: I*--I; -: ,,.,. II II . 0 0.001 0.6 0.5 0.1 0 0.00 1 . 0.01 0.1 1 10 SpectraJ acce l eration, (g) " .. ' c_c I ,. -u. l l I I ,...,. *r "-J" ,_J I '!"!' . -. -i 1 "" ' .... "', l -, ' -[J I . -0.01 0.1 1 10 Spectral aue l eration , (g) -+-PGA -.20Hz -e-10Hz -*-S H_z 2.5 Hz 1 H z -0.5 Hz -+-PGA ... 20Hz -10Hz 2.5 Hz 1 Hz -0.5 H z 20 Devlin-Gill, Stephanie From:Devlin

-G i ll , S t ephanie Sent:2 Jun 2015 17:35:50 +0000 T o:Graizer , Yladimi r;Munson , Clifford;Ak e, Jon;H eeszel,. A l ic e;John Stamatko s;Weaver , Thoma s;Stovall , Scott;H i ll , Brittain;Chok s hi , Nilesh Cc: L i , Yong;Jack s on , Diane;Miriam Juckett (mjuck e tt@s wri.org)

Subject:

RE

PVNGS: Site Re s pon se Attachments:PVNGS Site Re s ponse -S D G.pptx. Site response overview slides attached.

stephanie Geophysicist 301-415-5301 T-7010 U.S. NRC, NRO, DSEA, RGS2 From: Graizer, Vladimir Sent: Tuesday, J une 02, 2015 11:57 AM To:. Devlin-Gill, Stephanie; Munson,. Clifford; Ake, Jon; Heeszel, David; Stieve, Alice; John Stamatkos; Weaver, Thomas;. Stovall, Scott; Hill, Britta i n; Chokshi, Nilesh Cc: Li, Yong; Jackson, Diane; Mi r iam Juckett (mjuckett@swri.o r g)

Subject:

RE: PVNGS: Site Response I put togethe r few slides about GMRS and can show them. From: Devlin-Gil l , Step h anie Sent: Tuesday, J une 02, 2015 1 0: 07 A M To: Munson, Clifford; Ake, Jon; Heeszel, David; Stieve, Alice; Graizer, Vladimir; John Stamatkos; Weaver, Thomas; Stova ll , Scott; Hill,. B r ittain; Choksh i , Ni l es h. Cc: Li, Yong; Jackson, Diane; Miriam Juckett (mjuckett@swri.o r g)

Subject:

PVNGS: Site Response Palo Verde Team , I put together a few sl i des on the PV site response to generate discussion at today's meeting. I know there has been ongoing work by others regarding PV site response, p l ease come prepared to discuss your work and knowledge of the PV site response with the whole team. Tuesday, June 2 (TODAY), 2:30PM ET TWFN-07A03 Phone: (877) 927-0419 Passcode l (b)(6) j# stephanie Geophysicist 301-415-5301 T-7010 U.S. NRC, NRO, DSEA, RGS2 TSCHIL TZ , Michae l From:TSCHILTZ , Mich ae l Sent:29 Apr2015 19: 14:30 +0000 T o: DiFranc esco, Nicholas Cc:MAUER , Andrew

Subject:

DIABLO CANYON MEETING Nick in the staff slide presentation for the. subject meeting .. specifically, s lide 15 shows l date for Group 1 SPRAs ... as has been discussed with NRC upper management our understanding is that Diablo (if it is in group 1) will be given the. same amount of time as others. to. complete SPRA which pushes it out beyond the date shown on the slide ..... was this just an oversight or is t his an issue t ha t needs further discussion?

Thanks. Mik e Tschiltz.

Dir ecto r ,. Risk Assessment Nuclear Energy Institute 1201 F Street NW , Suite 1100 Washington , DC 20004 www.nei.org P: 202.739.8083.

M f{b){6) I E: mdt@nei.org NUCUAR ENERGY INSTITUTE TA KE TH E NE/ FUTURE OF ENE RGY QUIZ, www.NEl.org/futureofene rgy WORLD NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE CONFERENCE (CO-ORGANIZED WITH WNA) J 21-23 APRIL 2015, PRAGUE, CZECH REPUBLIC J RE GISTER TODAY FOLLOW US ON

  • essage transmission contains information.from the Nuclear Energy. Inst it ute, Inc. The. information is intended solely.for the addressee.and its. use
  • not authorized.

If y ou are no t t h e intended recipient,. you have received

  • ion m error, and any. review, use, disclosure, cop y ing or di st r i bution o mmunication is strict u ave received this electronic tr a nsmiss ion in error, please notify the sender Immediately by telephone or by elect dele t e the orig/no/ message. IR S Circular 230 disdosure: Ta ensure compliance with requirements im as other rax l ng author ities, we inform you
  • conta ined in this communication (i ncludi is nor intended or written to be used, and cannot be u sed, far the purpose of (i} avai m y taxpayer or (ii) promoting , marketing or recommending ta another porty any transaction or matter addressed herein.

Sent through www.lntermedia.c om DiFrance s co , Nicholas From:DiFrancesco, Nicholas Sent:27 Apr 2015 15: 1 2:36 +0000 T o:Gibson , Lauren

Subject:

FW:

PG&E: Diablo Canyon Pu blic Meeting on April 28 Attachments:NRC Public Meeting 4-28 Seismic Final.p d f FYI. ... slide 54 has a summary of licensee and regulatory actions. From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2015 10:42 PM To: Munson, Clifford; Ake, Jon; 'John Stamatakos

<jstam@swri.org> (jstam@swri.org)';

Hill, Brittain; Graizer, Vladimir Cc: Jackson, Diane; Shams, Mohamed; Vega, Frankie; Walker, Wayne; Alexander, Ryan; Moreno, Angel; Use l ding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; Kock, Andrea; Flanders, Scott; Maier, Bill; Roth(OGC), David; Lindell, Joseph; Uttal, Susan; Markley, Michael; Lingam, Siva; Hipschman, Thomas; Wyman, Stephen

Subject:

PG&E: Diablo Canyon Public Meeting on April 28 Folks, Attached are the. PG&E sl i des in support of the Tuesday public meeting. NRG sl i des. will be avai l able tomorrow morning. Please forward to those I may have. missed. Thanks , Nick From: Jahangir, Nozar [mai l to: NxJl@oge.com] Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2015 7:58 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas; Soenen, Philippe R Cc: Strickland, Jea r l

Subject:

Diablo Canyon Public Meeting on April 28 Ph i l i ppe; Attached is the DCPP p r esentation for the subject meeting. I will also take 30 hardcopies with me , as well. I w i ll be travelling on Monday and will be in Rockville on Monday n i ght. We also need the Web access number and passcode for Techn i cal PG&E staff that w i ll be calling in support of the presentat i on. Thanks N oza r Juh a n g ir P.E. M a nag er, T ec hni c al Servic es D ia blo Can yo n Sei s mi c En g in eer in g 80 5-5 4 5-6512 l<b )(6) I (ce ll) n x jl@p ge.co m From: Difrancesco, Nicholas [mai l to:N ic h olas.D i Francesco@nrc.gov] S e nt: Thursday , April 23, 2015 10:33 AM To: Soenen, Philippe R Cc: Jahangir, Nozar;. Vega, Frankie; Shams,. Mohamed; Jackson, Diane

Subject:

NRC Technical Focus Areas for Support of Public Meeting on April 28 Mr. Soenen , In support of the public meeting scheduled for Ap ril 28, 2015, the NRG staff wou l d like to gain additional technical understanding in several areas to support productive public meeting discussions.

I n addition to providing a general overview of the SSC and GMC SSHAC Reports and March 2015 50.54(f) response for DCPP, please provide additional clarification on the following topics. Seismic Source Characterization

1. Summarize the key data used to constrain the slip rate of the Hosgr i fault, including associated uncertainties.
2. Clarify how elements of the thrust/reverse inter pretation for the San Luis Range Thrust are incorporated into the SSC. 3. Clarify how the rupture models are derived from the fault source geometry models. 4. Summarize the methodology used to define the equivalent Poisson rates. Ground Motion Characterization
1. Pro vide additional detail on the criteria used for the selection of the candidate ground motion prediction equations (GM PEs) for development of the common form median ground motion models for DCPP. Specifically, please elaborate on the basis for inc ludi ng GMPEs based on datasets other than NGA-West2.
2. Provide additional detail on development of the common functional form used to fi t the candidate GMPEs. Specifically, please discuss how model parameters such as depth to Vs=1 km/sand 2.5 km/s (which are present in some of the candidate GMPEs) are accounted for in the functiona l form. 3. Provide additional detail on the approach for weighting the selected common form models as well as the criteria used to verify the physicality of the final models. 4. Provide additional detai l on how the continuous distribution for total sigma (crss) was developed by combining the between-event and within-event aleatory variabilities.

Site Response 1. Section 2.3.2.1 of the 50.54(f) submittal states that shear modu l us and damping curves are not directly applicab l e to DCPP since ana l ytica l mode l ing i s not used and that li near s i te effects are implic i tly included in the emp i rical GMPEs for Vs30=760 m/s. However , the NGA-West2 database has a limited amount of data for s i tes with Vs30 near 760 m/s and for earthquakes w i th magn i tudes and source-to-site d i stances similar to those dom i nat i ng the hazard for DCPP. Please provide add i tional information on how these lim i tations in the NGA-West2 database are accounted for in t he site response model for DCPP. 2. Section 2.3.6 of the 50.54(f) subm i ttal desc r i bes the deve l opment of the site te r m for DCPP. F o r the ca l culations of between-event res i dua l s , prov i de addit i ona l information on the criteria used to determine the appropriate distance r ange(+ and -R rup) to the sample station. Please d i scuss the sens i tivity of this distance range on between-event res i dual values. Please prov i de an example ca l culation that uses site-specific values to determine the values for $s 2 s, includ i ng the ep i stemic uncerta i nty in the s i te term. Please l et me know if you have any questions on the above focus areas. Thanks , Nick Di f rancesco Senior Pro j ect Manager -Seism i c R eevaluat i on Activities U.S. N uc l ear R egulatory Commission Office of Nucle a r R eacto r R egulation Japan Lesson Learned P roject Division nicholas.d i francesco@nrc.gov I T el: (301) 4 15-1115 PG&E is committed to pro t ect i ng our customers' p r ivacy. To learn mo r e , please vis i t http://www.pge.com/about/company/privacy/customer/

AIL 09-00 1

  • The NRC's first assessment of the Shoreline fault was detailed in RIL 09-001 and was based on i nformation available at the time. The NRC found the Shoreline fault's maximum predicted shaking is less than what the p lan t was prev i ously analyzed for. AIL 12-001
  • R IL 12-01 , " Confirmatory Analysis of Seismic Hazard at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant from the Shoreline Fau lt Zone ," updates the NRC's evaluation based on information PG&E prov i ded in January 2011 , as well as a staff v isit to Diablo Can y on.
  • T he NRC continues to conclu d e that ground shaking from the Shoreline fault's earthquake scena r ios are l ess than the HE and L T SP ground motion levels fo r which the plant was previously evaluated and demonstrated to have reasonable assurance of sat ety --. -10 § i u j '° l .. Co m par i so n of H osg ri a nd L T S P S p ect r a t o NR C D etermi n istic Ev a l uation R esu lt s JAPAN LESSONS LEARNED
  • The NRG staff issued a request for additional information to all nuclear power plants on March 12 , 2012 , to in it iate several actions as a result of lessons learned from the F ukushima Da i-ichi accident in Japan: -Conduct "walkdowns" of all n uclear power plants to verify flooding and seismic protection features -Reevaluate flooding and seismic hazard and design using prese nt day methods and guidance
  • The DCPP se i smic hazard reevaluat i on , submitted in M arch 20 1 5,. assesses all known faults in the area (i.e., not limited to just the Sho r eline fault) using a process similar to what i s done for siting new reactors. T he licensee r eported that the ground shaking from the known fault's earthquake scenario exceeds the Double De sign Earthquake in the 1-1 O Hz range and that there was reasonable assurance that the plant could achieve sate shutdown at the higher level. The NRC i s currently evaluating the licensee's report
  • The NRC performed a screening and priorit izat ion r eview of this report and th::it niabln r.anyo n screens in to do n me '"' 'l'l r.-J*e se ismic probablis
r ii 3
mf .ts is due -----* ua$0V VI I (he li cens ee's reported interin actions , the NRC determined that the plant is safe to operate while the further analysis is being comp l eted. NR C REvlEW OF S EISMIC HAZ'ARDATTH E D IABLO C ,AJ\J'V P ONERPLANT Th is brochure pro vides an overview o the NRC's review of the Shoreline f au zone. near D iablo Canyon .. It also places the Shoreline fault review i n context with the NRC's r equest that al U.S. nuclear power plants reana lyze seismic hazards based on l essons learned from the Fukushima Dai-i chi accident in J a p an. (Prepared April 2015) For additional information con t act th Office of Public Affairs. (30 415-8200 or email: opa@nrc.gov _.. :J -00 I -, _.. PJ _.. --* 6" CJ) :J PJ -< "O PJ -co PJ CD Q: CJ) CD -_.. 0 0 -I ::; CD _.. "O (JI c: 0-0 =o 0o -u;* 0 c: -CJ) CD 0 --::; CD CJ) () 0 "O CD 0 --:::; CD ,, 0 )> .., CD .0 c: CD -i ::; CD "O PJ <O CD CJ)

DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT SEISMIC BACKGROUND

  • Nuclear power plant designs consider earthquake effects by prov i ding marg i ns against ground motion levels at the plant s i te. -The ground motion levels show how much energy (measured in 'g ,' or percent of Earth's gravity) is transmitted at different shak i ng frequencies Designers use ground motion levels to analyze how structures and equipment respond during an earthquake
  • Diablo Canyon is licensed to three earthquake. ground motions (most plants have two) -Design Earthquake (DE) ground motion is the b i ggest earthquake the plant is allowed to continue operating through );;>. The DE ground motion level is 0.2g anchored at 100 Hz Double Design Earthquake (ODE), ground motion is the shaking level at. which all safety related equipment must remain functional The ODE ground motion level is double the amplitude of the DE (0.4g peak ground acceleration.

anchored at 100 Hz) -Hosgri Earthquake (HE} ground motion level,. which is based on an earthquake from the Hosgri fault , which was discovered in 1971 . );;>. The HE ground motion level is 0.75g peak ground acceleration anchored at 100 Hz based on a 7.5 magnitude earthquake 5 kilometers from the s i te >-Diablo Canyon's design was mod i fied so that sufficient equipment survives the. HE to safely shutdown the plant and keep the nuclear fuel cool

  • Long Term Seismic Program (LTS P} -The plant's original license required seismic reevaluation in 1 O years The L TSP was i nitiated to meet this license condition

-The L TSP spectrum has been used to evaluate seismic margins 00 DI f rfqUen<)'

(H 7) 10 100 SHORELINE FAULT * *

  • In November of 2008 , plant owner Pacific Gas and Electr i c (PG&E) informed the NRG it had i dentified a previously unknown fault during collaborative research. w i th the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS} The Shoreline fault i s approximately 600. meters from the reactor and 300 meters off shore The NRC's first assessment of the Shoreline fault was detailed in Research Information Letter (R I L)09-001 .. "Preliminary Deterministic Analysis of Seismic Hazard at Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant from Newly Identified

'Shorel i ne. Fault""

DiFran ce s co, Ni c h o l as From:DiFrance sco, Nicholas Sent: 2 7 Apr 2 015 1 2: 45: 57 +0000 T o:Jackson , Dian e

Subject:

FY T: Comm e nt on th e Diab l o Ca nyon se i s mic brochure Attachments:diablo canyon bro c hur e r ev i s i on 6.docx Fyi. .. From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 8:34 AM To: Gibson, Lauren Cc: Hill, Brittain; Vega, Frankie

Subject:

Comment on the Diablo Canyon seismic brochure Lauren , Br i tt Hill had a new graphic with additional curves on it. We will probably need to add the GMRS and cons i der incorporation of the LSTP margin assessment.

Scott Flanders , Mohamed Shams , Yong Li , and Kama l Manoly are planning to travel for the end-of-cycle meeting June 24. Ahead of the meet i ng we should share with them for comment. SPRA report w i ll be due June 2017. Thanks , Nick From: Gibson , Lauren Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 8:21 AM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

FW: question:

how to help RIV with request regarding Diablo canyon seismic brochure Nick , Have you been able to look a t this yet? I th i nk the time has come. Thanks , Lauren From: Gibson, Lauren Sent: Monday, March 23 , 2015 4:56 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

RE: question:

how to he lp RIV with request regarding Diablo Canyon seismic brochure Nick , I took the liberty of updating this brochure as if the screening and prioritization rev i ew were already completed. All that's needed is to put in the due date for SPRA. There seems to be quite a large number of people to coordinate with i n t his: your branch , DORL , Region 4 , and NRO, so it should probably go into circulation for comment soon. We don't want to get ahead of the sc r eening and prioritization , but I want to be ready to go so we can use this tool as soon as the initia l rev i ew is completed. When do you think I should send it to the others? I thought you should get the first crack at it. Thanks , Lauren From: Uselding, Lara . Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 9:32 AM T o: Bowman, Gregory C c: Burnell, Scott; Williams , Megan; A lexander, Ryan; Wha l ey, Sheena; Difrancesco, Nicholas; Jackson, Diane; Oesterle, Eric; Markley, Michael; Lingam , Siva; Sebrosky, Joseph; Gibson, L auren

Subject:

RE: question:

how to help RIV with request regarding Diablo Canyon seism i c brochure Great news Greg , thanks and we appreciate the support. L ara F r om: Bowman, Gregory Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 7:29 AM T o: Uselding, Lara C c: Burnell, Scott; Williams, Megan; A lexan der, Ryan; Whaley, Sheena; Difrancesco, Nicholas; Jackson, Diane; Oesterle, Eric; Markley, Michael; Lingam, Siva; Sebrosky, Joseph; Gibson, L auren

Subject:

RE: question:

how to help RIV with request regarding Diablo Canyon seismic brochure Lara , L auren will take the lead for helping out with prepar i ng for the meeting and pu ll ing together the communication tools to support it. She'll coordinate w i th NRO , JHMB , DORL , and Region I V on that. I asked her to get in touch with you to discuss specifics , inc l ud i ng timing of the meeting, so. you should be hea r i ng from her shortly. Greg From: Sebrosky, Joseph Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 6:53 AM To: Bowman, Gregory; Gibson, Lauren; Difrancesco, Nicholas; Lingam, Siva; Markley, Michael; Oesterle, Eric; Jackson, Diane Cc: Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; Williams, Megan; Alexander, Ryan; Whaley, Sheena

Subject:

question:

how to he lp RIV with request regarding Diablo Canyon seismic brochure Greg, Lauren , Nick , Mike , Siva , Eric , and Diane , The purpose of th i s email is to i nform you of a request from RIV regarding possibly updating the attached brochure that we used in the past to commun i cate Diablo Canyon seismic issues. T he i nquiry for possibly updating the brochure can be found in the ema i l below. A second purpose is to provide a proposal for updating the brochure that wou l d involve JLD, NRO and RIV resources. Any insights you m i ght have on the best way of updating the brochure (if it i s deemed appropriate to do so) based on the information below on how the brochure was put together would be helpful. The attached brochure was developed by me as the Diablo PM with help from Annie Kammerer, Cliff Munson , Chris Cook, RIV staff (including Neil O'Keefe , Christie Hale , Megan Williams and Lara Useld i ng), and the JLD (Barry Miller). It was. part of a broader effort to communicate seismic information to the public at a Fall 2012 public meeting. Barry , Annie , and Chris , all had poster boards that they developed along with the attached brochure and they attended the Fall 2012 public meeting. The. brochure and several poster boards from the Fall 2012 meeting are still available on the RIV sharepoint link (see http://fusion.nrc.gov/r eg i ons/r iv/Pub l i c%20Meetings

/Forms/A l lltems.aspx) From my perspective , I understand the request below is limited to updating the attached brochure , I just wanted to give everyone that was not involved with the Fall 2012 public meeting an idea of how the seismic communication tools were developed (it was truly a team effort). For what it is worth my suggestion to update the brochure would include the following (the 4 megabyte word file is available on the RIV sharepoint link):

  • Me or Lauren Gibson work with Megan Williams to take a first crack at updating the brochure based on the Diablo's March 2015 seismic reevaluation information o Megan has the technical background on Diablo seismic issues and is an outstanding source of information
  • Have the revised brochure. reviewed for technical.

content by Nick DiFrancesco (JLD seismic reevaluation lead PM), D i ane Jackson (NRO seismic branch chief-Diane can determine which NRO staff , if any , need to review the updated brochure for technical content) and RIV projects staff o Revise the brochure as appropriate based on comments from JLD , NRO , and RIV projects staff Please let me know if you have any questions about the above and feedback on the proposal if it is determined that updating the brochure is appropriate.

Thanks , Joe Sebrosky Senior Project Manager: Japan Lessons-Learned Division Off ice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation joseph.sebrosky@nrc

.gov 301-415-1132 From: OPA4 Resource Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 5:34 PM To: Gibson, Lauren; Sebrosky, Joseph Cc: Burnell, Scott

Subject:

Hello Lauren and Joe-Back in 2012 when we issued the RIL , we handed out the attached brochure.

I forget who there at HQ put i t together but it's been a super handy resource to pass out to public and the media. I thought it would be useful i f we update it with 1) verbiage once the March submittals come 2)any necessary updates and take. i t with. us this year to our meeting. Can you assist with this or point me to right pe rson to work with? I am no longer pursuing a video so this would provide a helpful overview of O iab l o Canyon seismic .. Thanks , Lara Uselding S e nt: 2 4 Apr 2015 1 8: 3 9: 4 6 +0000 To: Al ex ander , Ry a n; Walk e r, Wayn e;U se ldin g, Lar a;Mai e r , Bill Subj ec t:FYI: Dr aft of WUS S c r ee nin g and Pdori t i za tion Letter W es t e rn U S Scr een in g and Prio1it iz ation l e tt e r.do cx, l n fo POP W es t e rn US S cr ee nin g L e tt er r e v5.do cx Folks , Current WUS seismic screening letter. Beginning management review in NRR and NRO. It generally mirrors the CEUS screening letter from May 9, 2014. Attached is the current POP that will be updated for senior management briefings.

I plan to schedu l e in the near future a NRR E T and i nc l ude the R-I V managemen t brief. Thanks , Nick From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 7:08 PM To: Shams, Mohamed; Jackson, D i ane; Cho, Esthe r Cc: Hill, B r itta i n; Munson , Cl i fford; Vega , Frank i e; Burnell, Scott; Lent, Susan Draft of WUS Screening and P r ior i tizatiOll Letter Folks, Esther , Attached is the WUS Screening and Pr i o r ization Letter. Along with Frankie's and technica l staff efforts the letter i s ready for management review. Attachment 2 -redline markup shows changes from the CEUS May 9 , 2014 letter. Items for Management Awareness:

  • Discusses acceptabil i ty of Oiab l o Canyon and Palo Verde inter i m actions in l ieu of ESEP
  • Discusses limi t ed scope evaluation schedule for Group 1 WUS Sites only
  • No discussion of SPRA schedule relaxation (suggest to discuss with l icensees when results are commun i cated) Attachment 4 -Current Management POP and Commun i cation Plan Timeline Attachment 1 is ready for ADAMS add. Thanks , Nick Sen i or Project Manager -Se i smic Reevaluation Act i vit i es U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project D i v i s i on nicho l as.d i francesco@nrc.gov I Tel: (301) 415-1 115 The Power Reactor Licensees on the Enclosed List

SUBJECT:

SCREENING AND PRIORITIZATION RESULTS FOR THE WESTERN UNITED STATES SITES REGARDING INFORMATION PURSUANT TO T I TLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 50.54 (f). REGARDING SEISMIC HAZARD RE-EVALUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDATION 2.1 OF THE TERM TASK FORCE REVIEW OF INSIGHTS FROM THE FUKUSHIMA ICHI ACCIDENT On March 12 , 2012 , the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRG) issued a request for information pursuant to Title 1 O of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50 (1 O CFR), Section 50.54(f). (hereafter referred to as the 50.54. (f). letter) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML12053A340). The purpose of that request was to gather information concerning , in part , the seismic hazards at operating reactor sites and to enable the NRC staff to determine. whether licenses.

should be. modified, suspended , or revoked. The "Required Response" section of Enclosure 1 indicated that licensees and construction permit holders should provide a Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening report within 3 years from the date of the. letter for Western United States (WUS) plants (i.e., Columbia Generating Station (Columbia), Diablo Canyon Power Plant (Diablo Canyon), and Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (Palo Verde)). Further , the 50.54(f) letter stated that NRG would provide the results of the screening and prioritization indicating dead lines for individual plants to complete seismic risk evaluations to assess the total plant response to the re-evaluated seismic hazard. Additionally, by letter 1 dated February 20, 2014, the NRG provided supplemental information on the content of the seismic re-evaluated hazard submittals including guidance on reportability and operability.

The purpose of this letter is to inform WUS licensees of the. NRC's screening and prioritization and to allow licensees to appropriately plan the completion of further seismic r isk evaluations described in Enc losure 1 of the 50.54(f) letter. To respond to the 50.54(f) letter , all addressees committed to. follow the Electric Power. Research Institute (EPRI) Report , "Seismic Evaluation Guidance:

Screening, Prioritization and Implementat ion Deta ils (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic ," 2 as. supplemented , by the EPRI Report , " Seismic Evaluation Guidance:

Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Recommendation 2.1: Seismic" 3 (referre d to as the Exped ited Approach). The NRC held multiple public meetings and teleconferences with industry and the public leading to the development of the guidance documents supporting review of re-ev aluated seismic hazards. I The February 20, 2014, supplemental in format ion letter is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14030A046. T h e SPID gu ida nce document is found in ADAMS u nde r Accession No. ML12333A170. The staff endorsement letter for the SPID guidance is found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML12319A074.

I T h e Expedited Approach gu i dance document is found in ADAMS under Access ion No. ML13102A142. The WUS l i censees submitted the re-evaluated seismic hazards. by letters dated March 12, 2015 (references are provided i n Enclosure 3 of this letter). The NRG staff conducted the screening and prioritization r ev i ew of the submitta l s by assessing each l icensee's screening evaluation and hazard analys i s uti li zing the. endorsed SPID guidance .. INTERIM EVALUAT I ONS 4 The 50.54(f) letter requested that l icensees provide " interim evaluations and actions taken o r planned to address the higher se i smic hazard relative to the design-bas i s , as appropriate, prior to completion of the risk evaluation." For those plants where the re-evaluated seismic hazard exceeds t he seismic design-basis, licensees stated they w i ll provide inter i m evaluat i ons to demonstrate that the plant can cope with the higher re-evaluated se i sm i c. hazard while the longer-term se i smic r i sk evaluations are ongoing. In support of the requested interim evaluations for licensees , WUS p l ants provided i nformat i on related to margin evalua t ions or insights from Individual Plant Exam i nat i on of External Events (I PEEE) eva l uat i ons including estimated seismic risk. Additionally , the. subm i ttals discussed completing p l ant seismic walkdowns as part of NTIF Recommendation 2.3 in order to verify that the current p l ant configuration is cons i stent with the licens i ng basis. The NRG staff rev i ew of WUS reports found that li censees have demonstrated add i tional p l ant seism i c. margins. supportive of cont i nued plan t operation wh i le additiona l risk evaluations are conducted. The licensees for Diab l o. Canyon and Palo. Verde provided inter i m evaluations i n lieu. of completing of the Exped i ted Approach. These l i censees have demonstrated seism i c margins that met the intent of the Exped i ted Approach review. For Columbia , the inter i m evaluation prov i ded i n March 2015 is a first step in assessing the plant's capacity to withstand the re-evaluated hazard. In the near-term, by January 2016 ,. Columb i a will complete an " Expedited Approach" t o evaluate. and identify reinforcemen t s ,. if necessary , for certain equipment to ensure a safe shutdown pathway can withstand a higher se i smic ground motion. SCREENING PROCESS As defined in the 50.54(f) letter and the SPID gu i dance , the seismic hazard re-evaluations were conducted using current analys i s methods and guidance. The licensees' responses to the 50.54 (f) l etter provided se i sm i c hazard re-evaluation results , which were the focus of the NRG staff's i nitial screening and prioritization review. Although the safe shutdown earthquake. (SSE) is commonly referred to as a single number, this number represents a distr i but i on of ground motions that occur over a range of spectral frequencies. This resu l ts in a curve of ground acce l e r ation ove r frequency.

The ability of equipment and structures i n the p l ant to withstand the effects of ground motions is frequency specif i c. For the purposes of the licensees' ana l yses and NRG staff's review , the SPID gu i dance identif i es three frequency ranges that are of particular interest:

1-10 Hertz (Hz), a low frequency range of <2.5 Hz , and a high frequency range of > 1 O Hz. The different ranges have been identified due to the different types of structures and equipment that may be impacted by 4 E nc l o s u re 1 o f t h i s l e tt er p r o v ides a Gl ossary o f Se i s m i c Eval uat i o ns

-. 3 -. ground motions in that range. For example, large components generally are not affected significantly by high frequencies (i.e., > 1 O Hz). The frequency range 1-1 O Hz is. the focus for this portion of the risk evaluation , as this range has the greatest potential effect on the performance of equipment and structures important to safety. For other frequency ranges, discussed below, limited-scope evaluations will be conducted, when appropriate.

In accordance with the SPID and Expedited Approach guidance, the re-evaluated seismic hazard determines if additional seismic risk evaluations are warranted for a plant. Specifically, the re-evaluated ground motion response spectra (GMRS) in the 1-10 Hz frequency range is compared to the existing SSE:

  • If the re-evaluated GMRS, in the 1-10 Hz range, is less than the plant's existing SSE, then the plant screens out of conducting further. seismic risk evaluations.
  • If th e GMRS, in the 1-1 O Hz range, is greater than the existing SSE , then the plant will complete the Expedited Approach (including the. Interim Evaluation)

.. Most plants that meet this criterion also screen in to conduc t a seismic risk evaluation and have comm itted to conduct high frequency and spent fuel pool evaluations.

I n addition,. if the. GMRS meets the. low hazard threshold , which is described in the SPID ,. and only exceeds the SSE below 2.5 Hz , the licensee will perform a limited evaluation of equipment potentially susceptible to low frequency motions. Similarly , if the GMRS exceeds the SSE only above. 10. Hz , then the. licensee will perform an evaluation of the equipment or structures susceptible. to that specific range of ground motion. Enclosure

2. provides the s t a f fs determination of priority for plants that screen-in to conduct a se i smic risk evaluation , and identification of plants to complete limited-scope evaluations (i.e., spent fuel pool , high frequency, or low frequency).

CONDITIONAL SCREENING As discussed in public meetings 5 and by letter dated February 20, 2014, the staff anticipated the possibility of not being able to complete the determination for conducting a seismic risk evaluation for some plants in the. 30-day review period under certain circumstances

.. For example, if a l icensee provided a unique submittal or deviated from the SPID gu i dance , additional time for the review might be. needed. In general, WUS submittals contain extensive site specific information including site specific source models. and ground-motion models which could affect the final screening decisions.

Accordingly , during the. NRC screening and pr i orit i zation process , the staff identified that for Palo. Verde additional time and inte rac tions. will be. required to better understandthe. seismic hazard for the plant. As such , the staff determined that Palo Verde " conditionally screens-in" for the purposes of prioritizing and conduct i ng additional evaluations

.. Palo Verde has. been prioritized to complete a seismic risk evaluation in Group 3. After interactions have occurred , the staff will make a final screening and prioritization determination and provide a letter to the licensee.

I f the plant remains screened-in , the final screening l etter will affirm the plant priority 5 Discuss i o n as part o f public meetings dated December 4 , 2014 , February 11, 2015, a n d Ma r ch 30 , 2015 (ADAMS Access i on Nos. M L 14342A901, ML15104A065 and ML15111A031 , respec t i vely). for further evaluations and establish. schedu l e. for an Expedited Approach, if. necessary.

If the plant screens out , the final screening letter also will determine if the Pa l o Verde needs to complete limited-scope evaluations (i.e., spent fuel pool, high frequency, or low frequency).

PLANT PRIOR I TIZATION The NRC grouped the " screened-i n" pla n ts into three. groups 6 , which (i) reflects the. relative priority for conduct i ng a seismic risk evaluation that compares each plant's current capabilities to the re-evaluated seismic hazard , and (ii) accounts for the approp r iate allocation of limited staff and available expertise for r eviewing. and conducting seismic risk evaluations.

During the priori t ization review , the staff considered each l i censee's re-evaluated hazard submittals , p l ant specific seismic and risk insights , and prev i ous des i gn-basis ground motion estimates.

To prioritize the plants for completing seismic risk eva l uations , s t aff examined certain key parameters such as (1) the max i mum ratio of the. new re-evalua t ed hazard (GM R S). to the. SSE i n the 1-1 0 Hz range; (2) the maximum ground motion in the 1-10 Hz range; and (3) insights from previous seismic risk evaluations.

As such, Group 1 plants are generally those that have the highest r e-evaluated hazard relat i ve to. the original plant seismic design-basis (GMRS to SSE), as well as ground motions in the 1-10 Hz range that are generally higher in absolute magnitude.

Group 1 plants including Columbia and D iablo Canyon are expected to conduct a se i smic risk evaluation and submit it by June 30 , 2017. Group 3 plants have GMRS to SSE rat i os tha t are greater than 1 , but the amount of exceedance in t he. 1-1 O Hz range is relatively small, and the maximum ground mot i on in the 1-1 O Hz range is also not high. Given the limited level of exceedance of the Group 3 plants including Palo Verde , staff is evaluating the need for licensees to conduct a seismic risk evaluation in order for the staff to complete its regulatory decision making. After. f urther review , the staff will decide which Group 3 plants need to comp l ete a risk evaluation.

Risk evaluations for Group 3 plants are due by D ecember 31, 2020. NEX T S T EPS Based on the. staffs screening review the licensee for Columbia should. final i ze and submit an Expedited Approach Report no later than January 2016. I n accordance with the endorsed guidance, the staff acknowledges that the January 2016 Expedited Approach submittal will focus on plant equipment (i.e. safe shutdown pathway 7) evaluations and modifications , as necessary, prior to submitting the plant seismic risk eva l uations. The content of limited-scope evaluations or confirmations and their associated schedule milestones remain under development with NRC staff and stakeholders to assess acceptable alternatives for conducting these evaluat i ons. The NRC staff has conducted a number of public meetings to reach alignment on the implementation details of these evaluations.

The staff expects that implementing guidance should be established by summer 2015 and fall 2015 for high frequency and spent fuel pool eva l uations, respectively. It is expected that WUS l i censees 6 Central and Eastern l i censees seismic hazard screening and pr i or i ty rev i ews were completed i n 2014. 7 Section 3 of the Expedited Approach guidance (ADAMS Access i on No. ML13102A142) prov i des a process to identify a sing l e seismically rob ust success path us ing a subset o f installed plant equipme n t , FLEX eq ui pme n t and connection points. can. comp l ete these evaluat i ons in parallel with completion of SPRAs for Group 1. plants by June 2017. This letter transmits the NRC staff's results of the. seismic. hazard submittals for the. purposes of screening and prioritizing the p l ants. It does not convey the staff's final determination regarding the adequacy of any plant's calculated hazard. As such , the NRG staff w i ll continue its review of the. submitted seismic hazard re-evaluations , and may request addit i onal. plant-specific information to support th i s review .. The. staff has. placed a high priority on this review for the early i dentification of issues that m i ght adversely affect each licensee's seismic risk evaluations. Initial i nteractions. with l icensees. will occur as soon as. practicable. The NRG staff plans to issue a staff assessment on the re-evaluated seismic. hazard once each rev i ew i s completed in approximately 1 2 to 18 months. If you have any questions regard i ng th i s letter , please contact Nicho l as DiFrancesco at 301-415-1115 or via emai l at Nicholas.Difrancesco@nrc

.gov. S i ncerely, Wi lli am M. Dean , Director Off i ce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

1. Glossary of Evaluations
2. Screening and Prior i ti z ation Resu l ts 3. List of Licensees March 2015 Re-eva l uated Se i sm i c Hazard Submittals
4. List of Licensees cc w/encls: Listserv can comp l ete these evaluat i ons in parallel with completion of SPRAs for Group 1 plants by June 2017. This letter transmits t he NR C staff's results of the se i smic hazard submitta l s for the pu r poses of screening and prioritizing the p l ants. It does not convey the staffs final determ i nat i on regard i ng t he adequacy of any p l ant's ca l culated haza r d. As such , the NRC staff will continue its r eview of t he submitted seismic hazard re-evaluations , and may request addit i onal plant-specific information to support th i s review .. The. staff has. placed a h i gh priori t y on this rev i ew for. the early iden t ification of issues that might adversely affect each licensee's seismic risk evaluations. Initial i nteractions with l icensees w i ll occur as soon as practicable. The NRC staff plans to issue a staff assessment on the re-evaluated seismic. hazard once each rev i ew i s comp l eted in approximately. 1 2. to 18 months. If you have any questions regarding this letter , please contact Nicholas D i Francesco at 30 1-415-1115 or via email at Nicholas.Difrancesco@nrc

.gov. Sincerely, Wi lli am M. Dean , Director Off i ce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

1. Glossary of Evaluations
2. Screening and Prior i t i zation Results 3. List of Licensee March 2015 Re-eva l uated Seismic . Hazard Subm i ttals. 4. List of Licensees cc w/encls: Listserv DISTR I BUTION: PUBLIC LPL4-1 R/F LP L 4-2 R/F R i dsNroOd RidsNrrDorl R i dsNrrDorllpl4

-1 Rids N r r Dorllpl4-2 R i dsNrrOd R i dsNs i rOd R i dsOeMa il Center R i dsOgcMa i lCen t er MMark l ey , NRR MKhanna , NRR MShams , NRR NDiF r ancesco , NRA ADAMS Accession No.: ML15113B344 OFFI C E NR R/J LD/P MB/PM NR R/J L D/LA N RR/JLD/HMB/BC NAME ND i F r ancesc o S l e n t MS ha ms D A TE 04/22/15 I /1 5 I /15 OFFIC E NRO/D S E A/D OG C NRR/J LD/D NAME SFl a nd ers BH a r ris JD a v is DATE I /1 5 I. /15 . I. /15 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY AKock , NRO DJackson , NRO RidsNrrPM Diab l oCanyon RidsNrrPMCo l umb i a RidsNrrPaloVerde

RidsOgcRp Resource R i dsRgn4Ma il Center Reso ur ce RidsEdoMai l Center Resou r ce *v i a ema il N R O/DS ENR GS 2/B C N R R/DOR U D. D J ac ks o n Llu nd I /1 5 I /15 NRR/D WD ean I .. /15 Glossary of Evaluations Associated with Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1 Seismic Hazard Re-eva l uations Interim Evaluation or Actions -An immediate licensee and NRC review of the re-evaluate d hazard to determine whether actions are needed to assure plant safety while further evaluations are ongoing. The staff has completed its review and concluded that , based on the licensees' interim evaluations and actions , Western United States (WUS) plants are safe for continued operations.

Interim evaluations and actions are provided in Section 5.0, "Interim Act i ons ," of the licensee submittals.

Expedit e d Appro ac h -A near-term licensee evaluation to be completed by January 31 , 2016 , for WUS plants whose re-evaluated hazard exceeds the current des ign-ba sis for the safe shutdown earthquake hazard level. The evaluation looks at the systems and components that can be used to safely shut down a plant under the conditions of a station blackout (i.e., no alternating current power is available) and loss of ultimate heat sink. The expedited approach will either confirm that a plant has sufficient margin to continue w ith a longer-ter m evaluation without any modificat ions, or confirm the need to enhance the seismic capacity to assure they can withstand the re-evaluated hazard. The Expedited Approach guidance document is found in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System under No. Accession No. ML13102A142.

S e ismi c Ri s k Evaluation

-L onger-term seismic risk evaluation provides the most comprehensive information to make regulatory decisions, such as whether to amend a plant's design or licensing basis or make additional safety enhancements.

These evaluations provide information to make r isk-informed decis ions. The staff will use this information in conjunction with the existing regulatory tools, such as backfit analysis , to decide on further regulatory actions. The longer-term seismic risk evaluations could be either a Seismic Margins Analys is or a Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment , depending on the magnitude of the exceedance.

Limit e d-S c op e Ev a luation s -These include i) Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation , ii) High Frequency Evaluation , and iii) Low Frequency Evaluation.

Respect i vely , these evaluations are focused on the following:

i) spent fuel pool components and systems capable of draining water inventory to the level of the spent fuel, ii) a review of components susceptible to high frequency accelerations (e.g. electrical relays), and ii i) a review of components susceptible to low frequency accelerations (e.g. water storage tanks). Enclosure 1

Near-Term Task Force Review of Ins i ghts from the. Fukushima Dai-l chi Accident Seism i c Risk Evaluations Screening and Pr i oritizat i on Resu l ts for Western Un i ted States (WUS) Reactor Sites Seism i c Risk Lim i ted-scope Evaluations. S c reen i ng Exped i ted Evaluation H igh Low Spent Fue l Plant Name Resu l t App r oach (Priori ti zat i on Frequency Frequency Pool Eva l uation Group) Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Columbia Generat i ng Station I n x 1 x x Diablo Canyon Power Plant , U nit In 1 x x Nos. 1 and 2 Palo Verde Nuclear Generat i ng Conditional Stat i on , Units. 1 , 2 , a n d 3 i n 3 x x Enclosure 2

March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals for Western United States Reactor Sites Licensee Facility Date of letter (ADAMS Accession Nos.) Columbia Generating Station March 12, 2015. (ML15078A243)

Diab lo Canyon Power Plant , Unit Nos. 1 and 2 March 11 , 2015 (ML15071A046) Pa lo Verde Nuclear Generating Station , Units March 10 , 2015 (ML15076A073) and 1, 2 , and 3 April 1O .. 2015 (ML15105A076)

Enclosure 3

LIST OF APPLICABLE POWER REACTOR LICENSEES Columbia Generating Station Energy Northwest Docket No .. 50-397 License No. NPF-2 1 Mr. Mark E. Reddemann Chief Executive Officer Energy Northwest MD 1023 76 North Power Plant L oop P.O. Box 968 Richland , WA 99352 Diablo Canyon Power. P l ant. Unit Nos .. l and 2. Pacific Gas & Electric Company Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82 Mr. Edward D. Halpin Senior Vice President and Ch i ef Nuclear Officer Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 56 Mail Code 104/6 Avila Beach, CA 93424 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Arizona Public Service Company Docket Nos. STN 50-528 , STN 50-529 , and STN 50-530 License Nos. NPF-41 , NPF-51 and NPF-74 Mr. Randall K. Edington Executive Vice Pres i dent Nuclear/CNO Arizona Public Service Company P.O. Box 52034 , MS 7602. Phoenix , AZ 85072-2034 Enclosure 4

DiFr ancesco, Ni c h o l as F ro m:DiFr ancesco, N i c h o la s Sent: 21 M ay 2 01 52 1:1 4: 05 +00 00 T o: Burn e ll , Sco tt;M aie r , B i ll;U se ldin g, La ra;M o r e n o, An ge l C c:A l exa nd e r , Ry a n;W a lk e r , W ay n e;Lin ga m , Siv a;V ega, Fr a nki e;Ja c k so n , Di a n e;S ha m s, M o h a m e d;Hip sc hman , Th o m as;M ark l ey, Mi c ha e l;Hill , Britt ai n Subj ec t:FYI: Fu t ur e I ss u a n ce of Di ab l o C a ny on R2. l S e i s mi c M eeti n g Summ ary Att ac h me n ts:S um mary of A pr il 28 th M ee ti ng w i th P G E_5.d ocx Meeting summary i s pub li c l y ava il ab l e as Folks , ML15125A186. FYI: The following meeting summary will be i ssued regard i ng the Apri l 28 -D i ablo Canyon R2.1 Se i smic pub li c mee t ing COB Wednesday May 27 , 2015. The summary closes two public comments received related t o the webcast. Open ADAMS P8 Document (Summary of Apri l 28, 2015, Category 1 P ubl ic Meeting with Pacific Gas and Electric Company to Discuss Diablo Canyon's Seismic Haza rd Reevaluation Associated with Implementation of Japan Lessons-Learned Nea r-T erm Task Force Recommendation 2.1, Seismic) Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Thanks , Nick Sen i or Project Manager -Se i smic Reevaluation Activ i t i es U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm i ssion Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Div i s i on nicholas.difrancesco@nrc.gov I Tel: (301) 415-1115 DiFran cesco. Ni c h o l as From:DiFrance sco, Nicholas Sent: 19 May 2 015 19:05:51 +0000 T o:'Gene N e l so n , Ph.D.' C c: Vega, F ra nki e Subj ec t:Incorporation of Public C o mm e nt Or. Nelson , Appreciate the public comment. Apologizes in the delay i n response , the staff has rece i ved a number of public comments for review as part of the meeting. Below is the staff summary of your comment: The staff rece i ved a comment from Dr. Gene Nelson (Cal i fornians for Green Nuclear Power) via email dur i ng the meeting. The NRG staff inadvertent l y missed the opportunity to acknowledge Dr. Nelson's. comment during the meeting. According to Dr. Nelson , Diablo Canyon has favorable site conditions , which attenuate or d i ssipate earthquake energy over relat i vely short distances.

Due to this favorable condition , the primary earthquake forces seen by the plant would be dom i nated by nearby earthquake sources and energy transmitted to the plant would be dominated by the small section of the earthquake rupture closest to the plant. Dr. Nelson stated that when cons i dering the i nformation presented at the meeting of overall plant ruggedness and the seismic hazard i nsights discussed above , Diablo Canyon continues to operate safely. Please let Frankie and I know if you have proposed correction by May 21 , 2015. Thanks , Nick -----Original Message-----

From: Gene Nelson , Ph.D. [mailto l (b l(5 l h Sent: Saturday, May 16 , 2015 7:39 PM To: DiFrancesco , Nicholas

Subject:

Reminder:

Gene Nelson , Ph.D. is still awaiting the summary of the 28 April 2015 NRG meeting on DCPP Importance:

H i gh Dea r Nicholas:

I'm still awaiting the summary for my review of the 28 April 2015 NRG meeting on DCPP that documents my participation in the meeting. Do you know when I will be able to review that document?

You may also be i nterested i n the 231 pages of submissions as of 11 May 2015 to the Cal i fornia Energy Commission (CEC) docket 15-IEPR-12 regarding Diablo Canyon Power Plant. I wrote or assembled about 99% of the written exhibits.

Upon request , I'll email you a 5-page summary of those exhibits. Thanks! Gene Nelson , Ph.D. San Luis Obispo, CA >Date: Thu , 30 Apr 2015 08: 55: 27 -0700

>To: "DiFrancesco, Nicholas" <Nicholas.DiFrancesco@nrc.gov>

>From: "Gene Nelson , Ph.D." 1<0><6> >Sub ft(t* Exa mnle D CPP N11 f lear Safety Discuss ions by Gene Nelson , Ph.D. >Bee t >><5) _ > >Nicholas DeFrancesco

>US Nuclear Regula tory Commission

>NRR/DORULPL4

>(301) 415-1 115 >njd2@nrc.gov

> >30 April 2015 > >I appreciate your telephone call to me yesterday regarding my not being >a telephonic participant in the NRC DCPP seismic safety review on 28 >April 2015. I look forward to reviewing a draft of my contributions to >the 28 April 2015 DCPP seismic safety review in the upcoming NRC >re port. > >I sincerely hope there will be more effort focused on public outreach >to help interested non-expert part ici pants understand future NRC >reviews of DCPP safety. As a physical sciences professor at Cuesta >College -and recently an engineering professor at California. >Polytechnic State University at San Lu is Obispo , I recognize the >importance of public outreach.

As a consequence , I have provided >citizen testimony at NRC field hearings, D iablo Canyon Independent

>Safety Committee hearings, California Coastal Commission hearings , >California State Water Resources Contro l Board hearings, and California

>Energy Commission hearings.

A Google search of both phrases "Diablo. >Canyon Power Plant" and " Gene Nelson" shows 19 results , " DCPP" and >"Gene Nelson" shows 13 results , and "CGNP" and " Gen e Nelson" showed 12 >results.

> >As an example of my outreach, please see my current exchange with Rod >Deyo, Ph.D. in the attachment.

His Ph.D. is in mathematics. >https://www.linkedin.co m/in/roddeyo Rod and I both graduated from >Harvey. Mudd College. in 1973. > >I'm interested in your perspectives.

> >Gene Nelson , Ph.D. https://www.linkedin.com

/in/geneanelson San >Luis Obispo , CA 1<0><6> !cell Sent:24 Apr 2015 20:01:37 +0000 To:Lindell , J ose ph

Subject:

Many t hank s! RE: For OP A and OGC R ev i ew: Near-final DCPP Slides Yosef , Have a good weekend. Appreciate the prompt rev i ew. Sincerely , Nick From: Lindell , Joseph Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 3:59 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicho l as

Subject:

RE: For OPA and OGC Rev i ew: Nea r-final DCPP Slides Nick. Yosef. Lindell. Attorney U.S. Nuc l ea r Regulatory Commiss i on Office of the General Counse l OWFN 15 015 301-4 15-14 7 4 MOTI C E* Th is iWil il illi'Q ilRf i\tiil6RQ2ifilt8 M!!i)' Hfill!i i fil 88FlfiieF1tie J ;0:M9Ff19) elie1 :t er 1 9 1410 1 I :CJ Wo:lc

11te1 i 11l. Qu ::ct aisclosc oats i ac tJAS :: i tlibal 80111111issia11 app1oeal.

From: Difrancesco, Nicholas S e nt: Friday, April 24, 2015 2:31 PM To: Uselding, Lara; Burnell , Scott; OGCMai l Center Resou rce Cc: Vega, Frankie; Linde ll , Joseph; Ro t h(OGC), Da v id; Uttal , Susan; Alexande r , Ryan; Wa l ker , Wayne; Shams , Mohamed; Jackson, Diane

Subject:

For OPA and OGC Rev iew: Near-final DCPP Slides Scott , Lara , OGG , Current working draft of slides. Let me know if have questions with messages.

I plan to start processing for public release about 9:30 am Monday. OGG , I don't see items that should impact ongoing hearings. -content relates to NTTF 2.1 Seismic. only. Mostly from information from the public domain. Thanks , Nick From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 12:58 PM To: Kock, Andrea; Jackson, Diane; Flanders, Scott; Hill, Brittain; Chokshi, Nilesh; Harr ison, Donnie; Shams, Mohamed Cc: Spence, Jane

Subject:

Comments on DCPP slides Folks, I added a slide 16 based on the bullets be l ow. Written to avoid getting ahead of senior management and public affairs. Proposed Bullets are: Forthcom in g Sei s mic Screening Lett e r

  • Issuan ce of letter for WUS sites in -2 weeks
  • Diablo Canyon has sc r eened-in for furth er r i sk evaluations and is a review priority
  • No immed i ate safety issues identified
  • Informat i on supports safety assurance allowing addit i onal time to complete the seismic risk evaluat i on Thanks , Nick From: Kock , Andrea Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 11:56 AM To: Jackson, Diane; Difrancesco, Nicholas; Flanders, Scott; Hill, Brittain; Chokshi, Nilesh; Harrison, Donnie; Shams, Mohamed Cc: Spence, Jane

Subject:

RE: For comme nt: Preliminary Slides for DCPP meeting Slides look good to me. I wou l d be sure to clarify a few things in your talking points if you have not already: (1) Where are we in the process for Diablo-they screened themselves in and we are eva l uating their hazard (2) They submitted an interim eva l uation and based on th i s and other. information we. have, there is no immediate safety issue. This information provide additional safety assurance for us to take additional time to evaluate the ir r i sk evaluation and determine what regulatory act i ons. are needed if any Andrea Kock, Deputy D i rector, Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis Office of New Reactors United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville, MD 301-415-2368 From: Jackson, Diane Sent:. Friday, April 24, 2015 8:56 AM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas; Kock, Andrea; Flanders, Scott; Hill, Brittain; Chokshi, Nilesh; Harrison, Donnie; Shams, Mohamed Cc: Spence, Jane

Subject:

For comment: Preliminary Slides for DCPP meeting Good morning all -Please find attached , for your review and comment , the staff introductory slides. Right now , I am giving these. Mohamed and Nick , your review and comment are reques ted as well. Once we have comments back, then we can send to the licensee. I am also thinking on additional/alternative context. We don't want this part to be too long. The talking points are not updated. I will be working on them to day. If you want to add bullets or ideas as suggestions for me to work into the slide message , please add them. Diane fi>imie Chief Geosciences and Geotechnical Engineering Branch 2 (RGS2) Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis (DSEA), Office of New Reactors (NRO) US Nuclear Regulatory Commission

+1301-415-5641; office: T-7 03; mail stop: T-7 F3 NRC -One Te a m -One M is sion Sent:23 Apr 2015 1 3:50:37 +0000 To:Munson, Clifford;Ake , J on;Jack s on, Diane;Shams , Mohamed;Manoly , Kamal;L i, Yong;Walke r, Wayne;Lingarn , Siva;Use ldin g, Lara;Alexander , Ryan;Roth(OGC), D avid;L ind e ll , Jo se ph;Utta l , S u sa n;Mo r e no , An ge l Cc:Kock , Andrea;Fland e r s, S co tt;Bow e n , J e remy;MarkJey , Mich a el;Riv e ra-Lu go, Ri chard;Hayes, B a r bara;Hill, Brittain;NTTF R 2.1_2.3 CAL R esource Bc c: HQ-TWFN-07C0 1-15p

Subject:

Prep me e ting for Diablo Canyon Webca s t (888-8 1 7-9392 PC l (b l(5 l I) Attachments:

PG&E Email.do cx, 4-28-1 5 Public Notice.pdf, Potential Q As for April 3020 1 5 COM_BEH.DOCX Purpose: Prep Meeting to support D i ablo Canyon Webcast on Apr i l 28 (888-817-9392 PC: l (b l(5 J Background

  • a:-*I I Agenda: 1. Meeting Notice Agenda -a. Bridge l ine Setup i. 1 ass i sted b ridge l ine -queue for one question or comment ii. 1 open bridgeline for. licensee and R-I V b. Attached Agenda c. NRC Planned. I ntrod uction to 2.1 and DC Seismic. Hazard Rev ie ws 2. NRC T echnica l Questions (PGE Emai l to be Pub li c Apr i l 23 , 2015) 3. Publ i c.Ava i labi l ity of Sl i des on Monday Apr i l 27 , 2015 d. Licensee Slides to NRC Sunday Apri l 26, 2015. e. Sl i d es to OCA and RSLO (Angel and Mai e r) -Apr i l 27. 4. Awareness of Open Contentions

[OGC] f. Conten t i on related t o SSHAC g. Contention related. to CLB. h. Contention r elated to renewa l 5. Discussion of Roles and Respons i bility for Public Quest i ons ITopic s Primar y R esponsibil i ty Curren t Li cens ing and D es i gn B asis, USFAR I n s p ec ti o n or C o mpliance R e n ewal G e n e r al R 2. l Pr oces Que s t ion s Sei mic Qu e tion Off Topi c Que s t io n s Th anks, Nick M. M arkley, [B. Hill Y. Li], N. D i France sco M. M arkley or R-I V over bridge lin e NA -No renewal s taff N. DiFran cesco or DSEA C. Mun so n , J Ake , B Hi ll N. Dif rancesco A p r il 22 , 20 1 5 Potential Commission Q&As April 30, 2015, Update on NTTF Recommendation 2.1 Seismic 1. Are there plants that exceed 2X SSE? Why does the expedited approach only consider ground motions up to two times higher than the plant's des i gn? Yes, there are several plants that exceed the i r Safe Shutdown E arthquake by m o r e than two t i mes. If. a re-eva l uated se i smic hazard is greater than the p l ant's design basis , comp l etion of the exped i ted approach provided additiona l confidence that a plant can cope with the h i gher hazard. This informat i on bui l ds on the i nter i m eva l uat i ons that were submitted to NRC i n March 20 1 4 , wh i ch. showed that the plants were very unlike l y. to exper i ence core-damage at the h i gher hazard levels. T he expedited approach i s designed to show that important equ i pment used t o safe l y shut-down a plant w i ll funct i on as i ntended if a large earthquake occurs .. The expedited.

approaches were comp l eted by licensees in Dec e mber 2014 , and the NRC staff is reviewing these submittals.

In general , li censees used a s i mplified method to ana l yze how safe down equ i pment responds to the. re-evaluated ground motions. This method scales the p l ant's original engineering analyses to a h i gher level of ground motion, up to two times the p l ant's des i gn bas i s. By using th i s sca l ing method, l i censees could promptly determ i ne i f i mportant safe-shutdown equipment i s safe or needs add i tional mod if icat i on. If a plant's r e-eval u ated haza r d exceeds two times its design basis , the plant i s categorized as e i the r. Prior i ty Group 1 o r Group 2 for completion, of a se i smic probabil i st i c risk assessment.

For these r i sk assessments, l i censees w ill use detailed eng i neering models that are based directly on the re-evaluated levels of ground motion for the plant. H owever , the first o f these deta il ed risk ass e ssments aren't expected unt il June , 2017. T he NRC determined that the s i m pli fi ed metho d used in the exped i ted approach was appropriate , because it provided near-term info r mat i on on the. functionality of impo r tant safety equipment at a higher haza r d level years before the longe r-term risk assessments could be completed. 2. If ESEP assures safety , what additional insights do we need from a PRA? How many sites provided modifications in the ESEP submittals?

Does that give us insights regarding wh i ch sites need to do PRAs? T he longer-t er m seismi c risk eva l uations provide the most c omprehensive in f ormation to make regulatory decisions, such as whether to amend design or l icensing bas i s or make add i tional sat ety enhancements.

These evaluat i ons prov i de i nformation to make risk-informed decisions. The staff will use this information i n conjunction with the existing regulatory tools, such as backfit analysis, to decide on f urther regulatory actions. In contrast, the ESEP analyses provide an important int ermediate step in demonstrat ing plant safety for the re-evaluated seismic hazard. The interim analyses provided an overall plant-level assessment of seismic safety. T he ESEP analyses give a more focused assessment of the ability of safe-shutdown equipment to withstand the higher seismic hazards. Although some plant modifications have resulted from the ESEP analyses, the NRG staff does not expect the results of these analyses to modify the need for plants to conduct a se i smic PRA. 3. How does ESSP re l ate to the mitigation strategies rule? H ow can l i censees leverage work on the ESEP for the purposes of mitigation strategies?

4. What are the staff's views on R2.2?. May just. ask what is your personal view. The staff will use the ongoing 2.1 activities and insight gained to inform our decis ion on augmenting the curren t regulatory process with a periodic review of external hazards. Recommendation 2.2 is a Tier 3 activity and a future decision.
5. How many plants need to do additional risk evaluations in response to the newly calculated seismic hazards? Update to indicate that the staff is working with industry to further. refine. which plants. will require. a PRA consistent with our May 9 2013 letter. Based on the results of the NRC staffs rev i ew of the March 31, 2014 submitta l s, at least 20 CEUS sites will need to conduct the detailed seism i c risk evaluations (either the seismic probabilistic risk assessment or the seismic margins analysis) du ring the next several years MAY 2014 Letter Count: 10. plants screened i nto pr iority Group 1 , 11. plants total screened into Group 2 , including 1 conditional screen-in , 22.5 plants screened into Group 3 , including 13.5 plants that conditionally screened in. 16.5 plants screened out of performing additional risk seismic eva luations Updated as of September 2014 1 O plants screened into priority Group 1 , 11 plants total screened in to Group 2 , including 1 conditional screen-in, 13.5 plants screened into Group 3 , inc luding 2.5 plants that conditionally screened i n. 24.5 plants screened out of performing additional risk seismic evaluations 1 deferred -Vermont Yankee (permanent shutdown in 4 th quarter 2014) We will determine where the remaining conditional sites will screen very soon.
6. How can we be sure that the i nformation provided in 2014 on seismic haza r ds r e mains applicable when PRAs are submitt e d clos e to 2020? The information submitted to the NRG in March of 2014 was a request for information

[(50.54(f) request)]

linked to Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1 .. T hese reevaluations provide the cur r ent site-specific seismic hazard informat i on to the NRG. The NRG staff will rev i ew and issue assess m ents on the licensee's. reevaluated seismic hazard by the mid-year 2015. P r iority Group 1 plants are performing risk evaluations , which. a r e due. in J une of 201 7 .. Risk evaluations. for Group 2 p l ants are due at the end o f 2019 and Group 3 evaluations , if needed, are due a t the end of 2020. The sta ff will also r eview the insigh t s gained from Recommenda t ion 2 activities inform our decision on Recommendation 2.2 to determine if licensees need to confirm seismic hazard information on a periodic basis .. 7. Since the hazard information is always changing , what regulatory assurance do licensees have that the hazard they are using for their PRAs will be acceptable?

N RG unde r stands that the seismic P R As a r e. complex investigations that will take. licensees several years to complete, and that the reevaluated seismic hazards are an intrins i c part of these anal y ses. L ate last year, the NRG staff i nforme d l i censees that if there were no ou t stand i ng questions

{i.e., RAls) on their March 20 1 4 subm i ttals, the licensees should move forward with using their seismic hazards in their PRA ca l cu l ations. The staff i s beg i nning to make final revie w determinations on the March 2014 seismic haza r d submittals, with Group l plants having highest priority for completion.

T he s t a f f expects that t hese review determinations w i ll be com pl eted in late 20 1 5. 8. Will the schedule for review of the WUS allow PRAs to be completed on time? The NRG staff will use the same approach as for CE U S plants and will communicate to W U S licensees as soon as practicable about using their March 2015 seismic hazards in the i r seismic PR A s. I f a WU S plant screen-in as p r iority Group 1 , the plant will need to complete the seismic PRA no l a t er than June 2017. Licensees for both the Diablo Canyon Power P lant and Co l umb i a Generating Station have seismic PR A programs ongoing, and have not indicated that they would be unab l e to meet com pl etion deadlines.

9. Why are plants in the western United States (WUS) on a different and longer schedule than plants in the central and eastern United States? T he Co l u m b i a , D iablo Canyon , and Palo Verde plants required additional time to develop an updated , site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard analysis due to the West C oast's compl e x seism i c fea t ures. I n develop i ng pro b abilis t ic seis m ic hazard analyses, CEUS sites were able to use the same recently developed seismic source m odel and a common ground motion model (see Attachment 3). As a result , CEUS plants needed less time to. co m p l ete their seismic hazard r e-evaluations.

West Coast s i te-spec i f i c se i smic sou r ces and ground mo t i on models i nvolve a Sen i o r Seismic Hazard Analysis Comm i ttee (SSHAC) study , as descr i bed i n NUREG/CR-6372 , " Recommendations for Probabil i stic Seismic H azard Ana l ysis: Gu i dance on Uncerta i nty and Use of Experts." The SSHAC is a group of i ndependent seismic experts who were convened in the 1990's to deve l op gu i dance on the conduct of major seism i c studies , and ensure that se i sm i c act i vities are conducted properly and docume n ted completely.

T he SS H AC p r ocess is independent of the NRC's se i smic experts. The NRC must approve any stud i es , models , methodolog i es , analyses e t c. used by nuclear power plants i f they form the. basis for safety assessments and where the. N RG needs to make regulatory dec i sions affecting their operating l i cense. Fur t her , although the NRC does carefully consider comments and r ecommendat i ons from the SSHAC , as an independent r egulatory body , NRC i s not held to any dec i sions made by the SSHAC. 10. Will the staff compl e te it's review of the WUS reevaluated hazards in time to support implem e ntation of mitigative strategies?

Why or why not? 11. The CEUS screening process was completed in 30 days. Why is screening for the WUS taking longer? The screen i ng and pr i orit i zat i on rev i ew for t he WUS hazard reeva l uat i ons will likely take 30-60 days to accomp li sh , because there is substantia ll y more new informat i on i n these reports than was subm i tted for the CEUS plants i n March 20 1 4. Compared to the CEUS submitta l s , the WUS submittals contain a lot more new i nformat ion on s i te geology , earthquake sou r ces , and ground mot i on model i ng. As a r esult , the WUS subm i ttals are much more complex to review than the CEUS reevaluations. In addit i on to all the new i nformation , each W U S plant also had to do a complex probab i l i st i c se i smic hazard ass e ssment (PSHA), using a very deta i led , mu l t i-year p r ocess. In cont r ast, a ll the CEUS plants used essentially t h e same PS H A, wh i ch was extens i vely r eviewed by NRC before. the seismic hazard reevaluations. were. submitted. 12. The staff sent a CA note to the Commission this. fall indicating. that the SFP evaluations wou l d continue to be conducted.

Why is this evaluation needed given the ex t ent of previous study in this area and the findings from the recent RES. s coping study?

As discussed in the CA note, the p lanned SFP evaluation provides an addit ional plant-specific , systematic , and traceable investigation of the significance of the newly evaluated seismic hazard. The staff concluded that availab l e risk insights were insufficient to support modification or elimination of the SFP evaluation, in large part because it was not possible to relate plant-specific changes in seismic hazard to changes in SFP risk. As a result of the SFP evaluation, licensees are expected to confirm the applicability of available generic analyses to their plant-specific conditions, and enhance the technical basis used by NRC for decisions on the seismic safety of SFP storage systems. 13. Why didn't the CEUS licensee's submit new SCDF numbers? How can the industry say that nobody is above 10-4/year? What does 10" 4/year mean for plant safety? Seismic core damage frequency (SCDF) is a numerical estimate of risk and provides a represen tative indication of plant safety. The March 12, 2012, 50.54(f) requested information stated that p l ant's where the re-evaluated hazard exceeds the design basis should submit and inter im evaluation or actions. To support plant responses to the 50.54(f) request , industry independen t ly assessed SCDF for all of the CEUS plants and provided the results to NRC in a March 12 , 2014 letter. This assessment is similar to the NRC's preliminary seismic r isk assessments for Gl-199. The 10*4/year value demonstrates that current understandings of seismic hazard do not represent an immediate concern to plant safety , and that plants should continue to operate while more rigorous risk evaluations are completed.

T he CEUS licensees , as part of the March 31 , 2014 , submittals, confirmed that the in dustry conclusions for their fa cility are accurate.

The NRC reviewed this information as part of the staffs assessment of licensee inte rim actions and eva l uations, and agrees that the re-evaluated seismic hazards do not represen t an immediate concern to plant safety. 14. Do we have similar risk information for WUS as was submitted for the CEUS (as indicated in #13) interim evaluation to demonstrate that WUS plants are safe while risk evaluations are completed?

The Ma rch 2015 WUS submittals included interim evaluations for the Diablo Canyon and Columbia plants. Diablo Canyon used the results of previously completed seismic margin analyses to show that the plant was. designed with sufficient margin to cope with the higher seismic hazard levels. Similar to CEUS plants , Columbia used updated core-damage frequency calculations to demonstrate the plant could cope with the higher seismic hazard. The Palo Verde submittal did not identify seismic haza rd exceedances with the plant's design basis, and provided additional information showing the reevaluated seismic hazard did not exceed a 1.25 fac tor of safety above the plant's SSE. For all 3 WUS plants , the NRC staff believes that sufficient info rmation has been provided to demonstrate that these plants are safe to operate while additional r isk evaluations are completed.

15. What i s the likelihood of the design basis earthquake or "SSE" ground motions being exceeded over the life of a nuclear plant? The ground motion response spectra forming the seismic design bases at U.S. n u clear plants are called the Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE). SSEs for operat i ng nuclear powe r plants were established many years ago. Today's understanding of seismic hazard tells us there is some l ikel i hood that a plant's SSE may be. exceeded by an earthquake ground motion. However , each plant was designed different l y according to different l icensing SSEs. Therefore , the likel i hood of exceedance i s plant specific. Meanwh il e , systems , structures and components typ i cally have marg i n, meaning that they often can w i thstand shak i ng levels t hat are above the p l ant's design bas i s. 16. SEP Plants and Enhancements Background URI 156 -Systematic Eva l uat i on Program, considered the rev i ew of 51 plants receiving operating licenses before 1976. A samp l e review of 1 O of the older p l ants were completed as a part of SEP effort. Seve r al of the 137 SEP iden ti fied issues were subsumed i nto A-46 and I PEEE. Standard review p l an before 1975. 10 SEP Plants Operating Un i ts Palisades , Ginna , Oyster Creek , Dresden 2 , Un i ts in Decommiss i oning Mi l estone Un i t 1 , Yankee Rowe , Haddam Neck , La Crosse , Big Rock Point , and San Onofre Ginna , SONG-1 , and Yankee Rowe identified for plant enhancements 41 Non-SEP Plants Vermont Yankee , Maine Yankee , Kewaunee , Fort Calhoun , Zion 1/2 , Browns Ferry 1/2 , Indian Point 2/3 , Peach Bottom 2/3 , Prairie Island 1/2, Duane Arnold, Cooper, Arkansas 1 , Calvert Cliffs 1 , Cook 1, Hatch 1 , Fitzpatrick, Three Mile Island 1 , Brunswick 2, Tro j an , M il estone 2 17. Has there been an operating U.S. reactor site that has experienced exceedance of. its. seismic design basis during an earthquake?. The August 2011 earthquake at North Anna plant in V i rgin i a was the first instance of an operating reactor in the United States where recorded ground motion exceeded its des i gn basis in some frequency range. The plant shut down safely, and extensive inspections showed that there was no discernable damage to safety systems. After thorough review of the inspect i on information , NRC authorized the restart of North Anna in November 2011. I n 1986 , earthquake motions at the Perry p l ant in Ohio exceeded its SSE i n limited frequenc i es during construction, but the plant was found acceptable for operation and i ts license was i ssued. I n 1979 , the V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina a l so exceeded its SSE while under construction, but was found acceptable for operation and its license was issued. In all of these cases , the exceedance o f ground motion by itself was not an in dicator of whe t her the plant's design lim its were exceeded.

Also, the plants had much higher capacity than the design basis. As expected , there was no damage to these plants from the earthquakes. 18. Why isn't the NRC immediately shutting down priority 1 plants/plants with higher seismic hazards? T he. prior i tization is. not a risk ranking -. more analysis is needed to. determ i ne actual changes in a plant's seismic accident risk. The NRC continues to have confidence, based on our unders t anding of both reac t or design and construction and the resu l ts of the plants' seismic " walkdowns ," that plants can ope r ate safely while more analyses are done. Nuclear power plant manufacturing and construction methods typically result in a plant having the capacity to withstand earthquakes larger than their design basis earthquake.

This is because nuclear power plants are des i gned to withstand the force of different internal and external events. Many of these events create larger forces on a plant t han an earthquake. Plan t s exam ine d this capaci t y and demonstrated thei r safety systems can still perform properly a f ter seismic hazards. larger than those the plant was designed to withstand.

The. NRC is satisfied the systems will perform their safety functions at the higher seismic hazard levels, and that the plant can continue operating.

NRC staff's initia l review of an industry sc r eening ana l ysis and the i nte r im evaluations provided confidence. that none of the plants showed a preliminary change in r isk that would cause concern. Consequently, int er im actions were not necessary to ensure the sys t ems can function.

In addition to the design margins and interim actions , all plants recently underwent detai led seismic walkdowns.

T hese walkdowns identified and addressed degraded , nonconforming , or unanalyzed cond i tions through the corrective action program, and verified the adequacy of the. monitoring and maintenance procedures.

NRC reviewed licensee actions to:

  • verify the plant configuration with the current seismic licensing basis;
  • address degraded , nonconforming , or unanalyzed seismic conditions; and
  • verify the adequacy of mon i toring and maintenance programs for protective features.

The results of these walkdowns provide additional conf id ence that plants can continue to operate safe l y while longer-te r m r isk assessments progress. 19. How would you characterize the reevaluated hazards of the western sites. in comparison to the CEUS sites? How much has the " needle moved" with regard to the reevlauated WUS hazards?

20. There. are many more earthquakes and active f a ults in the WUS than in the CEUS , and WUS plants have been designed to withstand.

these higher seismic. hazards. Seismic hazards changed. for WUS p l ants similar to the way hazards changed for CEUS plants. For P a lo Verde , the licensee reports that the reevaluated seismic hazard is smaller than the design basis SSE for the plant. For Diablo Canyon and Co l umbia , the reevaluated hazards can be up to about 2.5x the SSE , which is comparable to some CEUS Group 2 plants. Are there seismic mon itors on site? Yes. The NRC requires nuclear power plants to maintain operating seismic monitors on site. 21. Are th e re seismic trips installed on US plants? As required by the i r Technical Specifications , D i ab l o Canyon has an installed seismic trip. No other US operating nuclear plant has i nsta ll ed seism i c tr i ps , 22. How does the U.S approach and timelines for response to seismic Fukushima issues align with othe r countries?

2 3. How will we u s e the inform a tion f r om risk evaluations to make r egulatory decisions on plant modifications or any necessary changes to plant licensing bases? Once the SPRA analyses are completed , t he NRC wi ll use these results a l ong w i th other ava il able risk information to determine if add i tiona l regu l atory act i ons are needed t o provide additional protect i on against the updated se i smic hazards. The NRC staff expects that the resu l ts of the SPRA analyses w i ll provide a transparent basis to support backfit decisions for. potent i a l safety enhancements. DIABLO CANYON Q&As-1. Why is Diablo Canyon safe t o opera t e today? In support of the requested interim eva l uation for Diablo Canyon , PG&E provided a comparison of the reevaluated GMRS to ground motions based on the 1 988 Long Term Seismic Program (L TSP). As part of the LTSP , PG&E determined that structures , systems and components at D i ablo Canyon can safely withstand ground motions that are at least 1.35 t i mes l arger than the L T SP med i an ground motion. The NRC staff had prev i ously reviewed the L TSP analyses and determined they were acceptable.

A l though the reevaluated GMRS exceeds Diablo. Canyon's. SSE , these ground motions do not exceed the minimum 1.35 factor of safety" in Diablo Canyon's design. After review i ng this i nformation , NRC determ i ned that the D CPP rema i ns safe to operate while addit i onal seismic risk evaluat i ons are being conducted.

Diablo Canyon has been screened-in as a priority Group 1 plant and a deta iled risk evaluation is expected to be submitted to the NRC by June 30, 2017. 2. Have seismic hazards been increasing or decreasing when new analyses are done at DCPP? In 2011, information from the Shoreline and other faults was used in deterministic analyses of seismic hazard at DCPP , which showed ground motions were bounded by the previous Hosgri design-basis and L TSP ground motions .. PG&E updated these determin istic analyses with new information (AB 1632) in 2014. The 2014 seismic hazards were higher than calculated in 2011, but still bounded by Hosgri and LTSP. The latest probabilist ic. analyses. are even higher than calculated in 20 1 4 , and slightly exceed the Hosgri ground motions at some low (1.5 H z) and high (>25 Hz) frequencies.

Nevertheless , DCPP has a well-established margin in its design that can cope with such small i ncreases in seismic hazard above the plant's design basis. T he science o f seismic hazards analysis have advanced considerably since Diablo Canyon was fi r st designed.

The 20 1 5 analyses use current l y available science , along with current NRC regulat i ons and gu i dance, to characterize potential seismic hazards at this site. The 2015 analyses now consider, for example, the l ikelihood that earthquakes could occur on seismic sources and the poss i bil ity that slip on one fault might trigger s l ip on nearby faults. T hese considerations appear to contribute to the observed increase in calculated se i smic. hazard for the DCPP site. 3. What is the impact of this new information on seismic design and licensing of DCPP? Has the licensee entered this new information into the corrective action program and performed an operability evaluation?

Needs to be updated As stated in the March 12, 2012 50.54(f) lette r, the seismic hazard reevaluations conducted in Phase 1 do not rev ise the design basis of the plant. Based upon the results of Phase 1 , the. NRC staff w ill determine whether additiona l regulatory actions are necessary (e.g., update the design basis and SSCs important to safety) to provide additional protection against the updated hazards. In their March 2015 submittal, PG&E provided an interim evaluation that shows the plant can cope with the reeva l uated seismic hazards. Th is inter im evaluation documents the specific seismic design characteristics of the DCPP , and summarizes analyses that demonstrate the p lant has a sufficien t design margin to safely cope with the reevaluated hazards. The March 12, 2012 50.54(f) letter considered the requested seismic hazard reevaluations to be outside the design bas is of t he plant, and the reevaluations were not expected to initia te an additional operability evaluation.

4. How will the AB 1632 seismic report be coord i nated with the 50.54(f) required submittal in March 2015? What does. Diablo's submitted reevaluated hazard
5. state? Much of the new information on site geology, earthquake sources , and ground motion modeling from the AB 1632 report was used to develop the March 2015 submittal.

To consider how this new information affects seism i c hazard, PG&E had to do a complex probabilist i c seism i c hazard assessment (PSHA) us i ng a very detailed , mult i-year process. This process, from the Senior Seismic Hazards Analys is Committee (SSHAC, NUREG/CR-6372), evaluates the center , body and range of available information to rigorously calculate seismic hazards at a site. (I f asked what things the plant has done since Fukushima: I t is i mportant to note that OCPP is an industry leader in i mplement ing FLEX which was a post-Fukushima industry initiative to have extra equipment available remotely i n the event of a beyond design basis event). 6. Why didn't the NRC discover the length of the faults when it did its seismic review of. the Shoreline fault in 2011 prior to issuing the AIL?. California Assembly Bill 1632 (Blakeslee , Chapter 722 , Statutes of 2006) d i rects the California Ene r gy Commission to assess the potential vulnerab i lity of California

's largest base-l oad power plants, Oiablo Canyon Power Pl ant and San Onofre Nu clear Generating Station, to a major disruption due to a seismic event or plant aging; to assess the i mpacts of such a disrupt ion on system reliability , public safety , and the economy; to assess the costs and impacts from nuclear waste accumulating at these plants; and to evaluate other major issues re l ated to the future role of these plants in the state's energy portfo l io. The licensee has used the most state-of-the-art 20 and 30 geophysical mapping techniques , which are commonly used i n offshore petroleum resource exploration. These techniques provide higher-resolution data than what was available to characterize the Shoreline Fault in the 2011 report. T he NRG has requested licensees of operating nuclea r power reactors to submit a seismic hazard reevaluation using up-to-date methodologies and analyses wh i ch i s due for OCPP in March 2015. 7. There i s high public interest in the reevaluated seismic hazard at O i ablo Canyon. How have we ensured that this complicated topic is clearly communicated to the public surrounding the p l ant?

Sent: l May 2015 18:49:27 +0000 To:Proffitt, Andrew

Subject:

RE:

Diablo Public Meeting It was a straight forward meeting .. Great meeting for staff technical exchange and understanding of the submittal.

Diablo Seismic analysis is at least a decade ahead of everyone else in the fleet. -Nick From: Proffitt, Andrew Se n t: Friday, May 01, 2015 2:38 PM T o: DiF r ancesco, Nicholas Subj ec t: Diablo Public Meeting Any key insights or take-aways from the Diab l o public meeting earlier this week?. J. Andrew Proffitt U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission T echnical.

Assistant NRR/JLD (301) 415-1418 Sent:29 May 2015 17:26:55 +0000 To: Ve ga, Frankie

Subject:

RE:

FYI. ... FW: Proposed 2.1 Sei s mic Ta s k Tracker Call or send an email to Diane and Stephanie to schedu l e some SRB time to review the letter and the request. I'll review the MS Order Alignment Section and back revisions. From: Vega, Frankie Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 1:19 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

RE: FYl....FW: Proposed 2.1 Seismic Task Tracker more interest from management ahhh! Have you heard from Diane on this and i f they are plann i ng to engage the SRB? If you haven't heard from her , I'll follow up with her early next week. Thanks From:. Difrancesco, Nicholas.

Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 1:07 PM To: Vega, Frankie

Subject:

FYI.. .. FW: Proposed 2.1 Seism i c Task Tracker FYI .. only your letter made the cut. Diab lo Canyon Acknowledge on ESEP (June 19) [Owner: Vega) (I nterest N RR/ET Commission) From: Shams, Mohamed Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 1:06 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas Cc: Proffitt, Andrew

Subject:

RE: Proposed 2.1 Seismic Task Tracke r Let us go with the Diablo Canyon one only for now. The August dates are too far out for now. Thx From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 10: 12 AM To: Shams, Mohamed Cc: Proffitt, Andrew

Subject:

Proposed 2.1 Seismic Task Tracker Mohamed, I f you approve , I propose the following be added to the action tracker. Issue SPRA Relief or A lternatives Letter (August 30) [Owner: DiFrancesco

] (I nterest NRR ET) Issue. HF Endorsement Letter (August 30). [Owner:Wyman] (Interest NRR. ET)

Diablo Canyon Acknowledge on ESEP (June 19) [Owner: Vega] (Interest NRR/ET Commission)

Watts Bar 2 JLD OL Append i x Input (June 5) [Owne r: D i Francesco] (Interest NRR/ET Commiss i on) Thanks , Nick From:. Shams, Mohamed. Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 9:55 AM To: Uribe, Juan; NRR_JLD_JHMB D i stribution

Subject:

RE: REQUEST -Update Task Tracker Juan -thanks very much for the background. That was very he l pful. All -I spoke with Andrew and he sa i d just send h i m an email w i th the action and he will update the tracker. That is what other branches do. The description Juan had below i s perfect to defining the type of informat i on to send to t r acker. Thx Mohamed From:. Uribe, Juan Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 9: 33 AM To: Shams, Mohamed Subj e ct: RE: REQUES T -Update Task Tracker Mo , My $0.02 on this for background purposes was that this table (if it's the one I think it is) and the items within were added and ma i nta i ned by the previous TA Billy Jessup. To my knowledge , he was. the only one who updated/maintained the. list so that the rest of the div i sion wasn't try i ng to access and modify i t. It was basically his own activity tracker that he then used to keep the directors up to speed. Your item #1 below suggests we may need to start doing i t ourselves?

My understanding is that he fed the list based on the discussions from Monday morn i ngs between BCs and JLD management as well as other meetings he attended with i n the Division and L T I ET. He would then do the rounds with his l ist ask i ng for updates to prepare for the fo ll owing Monday. It basically captured h i gh level items that had a divis i onal impact. Below is a excerpt from one of the TA docs that details what the tracker (again , if it's the one Im th i nking it is) is for: o Focus is pr i marily on the JLD Task Tracker (http://fusion.nrc.gov/nrr/team

/jld/Lists/Tasks

/All l tems.aspx)

  • The Task Tracker is used to maintain awareness of due dates for level actions and act i v i t i es in the div i s i on including con t rolled correspondence , EDO and Comm i ssion-leve l i nformation requests , assistance to internal and external stakeholders (i.e., presentat i on requests), meeting preparations , and other i tems added a t the request of JLD management.

From: Shams, Mohamed Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 9:14 AM To: NRR_JLD_JHMB Distribution

Subject:

REQUEST -Update Task Tracker All -I n the management meeting on Monday mornings, we go over the task tracker assessing the status of upcoming tasks for the division.

I have noticed , and was also told , that our branch does not have any tasks on the list. Or at a minimum , our tasks are not up-to-date.

I don't know t o what degree you are aware o f that task tracker and have updated it in the past. I also don't know the threshold of the tasks that go on the tracker-a l though I have a feel tor it. T wo request: (1) p l ease start/continue to update the tracker with our tasks, and (2) if you need clarification on the type of tasks to add to the list, please reach ou t to Andrew Proffitt.

The examp l es that come to my mind that shou l d have been tracked include: COMS E CY on flooding action plan , WUS screening l etter, VY 2.1/2.3/9.3 closure letter , and I A extension letter. No worries ... everything was t racked regardless.

Many thanks , Mohamed DiFran cesco, Nichola s From: DiFran cesco, Nic hola s Sent:l4 May 2015 18:24:2 9 +0000 T o:Vega, F rankie Cc: Hill ,. Brittain

Subject:

Referen ces fo r Di a bl o Letter Pr ep o n Expe dit ed Ap p roach R es ponse Frankie, To start the Diablo Letter and confirm technical ass i gnment, I think we general l y need the following references.

We probably should handle Palo Verde separately (in a screening letter).

  • NRC response letter to licensees related to expedited approach commitment change (December 15, 2014)
  • Licensee Integrated Plan (due February 28, 2013) (report page 8 has a statement about will enter reevaluated hazard into CAPs If warranted

-designed to CLB)

  • NRC letter regarding Seismic Screening and Prioritization Results for WUS Licensees (May 13, 2015) Reference and Background from Br i tt: NRC's. review of the L TSP , and conclusion of its acceptability , are documented in the Diablo Canyon SER rev 34 (1991), which is publically available in ADAMS as ML14279A130. SSER34 documents NRC staff's thorough review o f the L TSP , which includes the margins assessment cited by PG&E in their March 2015 submittal.

Thanks , Nick Sen i or Project Manager -Se i smic Reevaluation Act i vities U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of. Nuclear Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Divis i on n ic h olas.d i fra n cesco@nrc.gov I Tel: (30 1) 415-1115 Sent: 15 May 2015 2 1 :02:25 +0000 To: L indell , Joseph;OGCMai l Center Re s ource Cc:Roth(OGC), David;Ut tal , Susan

Subject:

Thank s ! RE: 'rn:TO' -OGC R ev i ew? P ublic Comment on April 28th, 2015 webcast meeting with P G&E -

P roduct Thank you! Have a great weekend. -N i ck From: Lindell, Joseph Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 5:02 PM To: Dif r ancesco, Nicholas; OGCMailCenter Resource Cc: Roth(OGC), David; Utta l , Susan

Subject:

-OGC Review? Public Comment on Apri l 28th, 2015 webcast meeting with PG&E -OUO Work Product Nick , Yosef Yosef Lindell Attorney U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiss i on Office of the Gener a l Counse l OWFN 15 015 30 1-4 15-14 7 4 14eTleE. Tliis Cll mil u::c:l a: 19 atl!iel 11 ;;e11te 1118)' BBJiil8iJii iiOPfid o rtiil:I °Uc may qj 02+ gr WmkP1 eeJtsot Jtt&lc: ial. Bo ::ct disclose outside fJfil8 ooitl 1oat 60111111issio11 app1ova1.

From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 2:37 PM To: OGCMailCenter Resource Cc: Lindell, Joseph; Roth(OGC), David; Uttal, Susan

Subject:

-OGC Rev i ew? Public Comment on April 28th, 2015 webcast meeting wi t h PG&E -OUO Work Product OUO VVOIR PIOOOCt OGC , Don't think this needs review. However , t he response below is to Ms. Rochelle Becker, Executive Director, Alliance. for Nuclear Responsibility.

H er concerns relate in part to the fidelity of the Diablo Canyon SSHAC and engineering methods.

The propose response is fact based , consistent w i th the public meeting , and our public staff review plan. Thanks , Nick From: Hill, Brittain Sent: Thursday , May. 14, 2015 1:15 PM 01::10 Wrnk f'1odott To: Burnell, Scott; Difrancesco, Nicholas; Gibson, Lauren Cc: Shams, Mohamed; Uselding, Lara; Jackson, Dian e; Vega, Frankie; Lingam, S i va

Subject:

RE: Comments on Draft Response?::::::

Written concerns -Apr i l 28th, 2015 webcast meeting with PG&E One small clarif i cation in green. Rest looks good. Britt From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Thursday , May 14, 2015 12:42 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas; Hill, Brittain; Gibson, Lauren C c: Shams, Mohamed; Uselding, Lara; Jackson, Diane; Vega, Frankie; Lingam, Siva

Subject:

. RE: Comments on Draft Response?:::::: Written concerns -April 28th, 2015 webcast meeting with PG&E Minor grammar tweak below. F r om: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 12:35 PM To: Hi ll, Brittain; Gibson, Lauren Cc: Shams, Mohamed; Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; Jackson, Diane; Vega, Frankie; Lingam, Siva

Subject:

Comments on Draft Response?::::::

Written concerns -April 28th, 2015 webcast meeting with PG&E Britt , Lauren , Comments???

Ms. Becker , Thank you for the publ i c comment related to the April 28 , 2015 , webcast. The staff is aware and following the California Public Utilities Commission's Independent Peer Review Panel activities. The staff review for the D i ablo Canyon Se i smic Hazard Screening Report is ongoing in support of Near-Term Task Force -Recommendation 2.1: Seismic. We are independently reviewing PG&E's probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, which was developed using the Senior Se i smic Hazard Analysis Committee results and process. As you may be aware, on May 13 , 2015, NRG placed Diablo Canyon into the highest priority group for the reevaluated Seismic Hazard rev i ew along with 11 other reactor sites. For awareness , I have placed our emails in NRC agency document access and management system (ADAMS) as a public record. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best regards , Nick DiFrancesco Project Manager -Seismic Reevaluation.

Activities U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Div ision n ic h olas.difrancesco@nrc

.gov I Tel: (301) 415-1115 Non Responsive Sent:24 Apr 2015 14: 32:36 +0000 To:Munson, Clifford;Stieve , Alice Cc:Jackson , Diane;Devlin-Gill , Stephanie;Hill , Brittain

Subject:

Palo Verde Source I nformation for: SSHAC Documentation from P PRP-IT T eam Attachments:SSC SSH AC D ocumentat i on of PPRP-TT-Team lnteraction.pdf Cliff , Alice, Stephanie, Please let me know if this. is. the missing piece. They have this one file on the. SSC in the. reading room. Thanks ,. Nick From: Munson, Clifford Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 4:14 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas; Ake, Jon Cc: Jackson, Diane; Shams, Mohamed; Vega, Frankie; Graizer, Vladimir; John Stamatakos

<jstam@swri.org>

Ustam@swri.org);

Hill, Brittain; Seber, Dogan; Vega, Frankie; Stirewalt, Gerry

Subject:

RE: DCPP, Palo Verde, and Columbia Audit Information:

SSHAC Documentation from PPRP-IT Team Importance:

High Nick , We took a quick look at the contents of the information for DCPP and PVNGS. The DCPP folder con t ains the PPRP-TI correspondence and interactions on the source model and ground motion model SSHACs. However , the PVNGS only has the ground motion model SSHAC PPRP-T I team material and not for the Source model. Please let us know when we can get the source model PPRP-TI team documentation.

Thanks , C l iff From: Di f rancesco, Nicholas Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 1:25 PM To: Munson, Clifford; Ake, Jon Cc: Jackson, Diane; Shams, Mohamed; Vega, Frankie; Graizer, Vladimir; John Stamatakos

<jstam@sw r i.o r g> (j stam@swr i.org); Hill, Brittain; Seber, Dogan; Vega, Frankie; Stirewalt, Gerry

Subject:

DCPP, Palo Verde, and Columbia Audit Information:

SSHAC Documentation from PPRP-IT Team Folks , Please control distribution to the designated review team member for the following references.

Following your audit review, please advise if information reviewed should be docketed to support development of the hazard staff assessment or RAls. DC Audi t Information S:\Diablo Canyon R2.1 Seismic lnformation

\SSHAC Documentat i on of PPRP-T I Team Palo Verde Audit Information S:\Palo Verde R2.1 Seism i c l nformation

\SSHAC D ocumentat i on of PPRP-T I Team Columbia Information i s on ePortal (PM action to work through access controls). Also, licensee plans to work with PNNL to post information on public website. Thanks , Nick From: Soenen, Philippe R [mailto:PNS3@pge

.com] S e nt: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 10:49 AM To: DiFrancesco, Nicholas Cc: Jahangir, Nozar

Subject:

DCPP information on Certrec Nick, We have uploaded the PPRP information onto Certrec IMS and granted access to Vladimir Grazier , John Stamatakos , and yourself.

Here is. how you get to the PPRP information in Certrec:

  • Login to ims.certrec.com
  • Click on " I nspections"
  • Set status to "In Progress" and Plant te. "Diab l o Canyon"
  • Click "Search" button.
  • Click link to "Self-Assessment I Audit-Review of PPRP Comments and TIT Resolution"
  • Click on the "NRC Requests" tab
  • Click on what you would l ike to see. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Regards , Ph i lippe Soenen Regulatory Services Office -805.545.6984 Cell j (b)(GJ I PG&E is committed to protecting our customers' privacy. To learn more , please vis i t http://www.pge

.com/about/company/privacy/customer/

DiFrance s co, Nicholas From:DiFrancesco, Nicholas Sent:7 Apr2015 19:13:56 +0000 T o:S h ams, Mohamed

Subject:

RE:

Inquiry: P a l o Verde Supplemen t al Letter Agreed , I spoke with Kamal and Yong , they have the same concern. Not worried about this issue.. the technical staff will work i t out. The se i smic guys are wo r ried the hazard could move. From: Shams, Mohamed Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 2:49 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

RE: Inquiry: Palo Verde Supplemental Letter Why are we still going after these fo l ks for+/-1 t o 2% from the SSE? Is that making sense to you? From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 9:57 AM To: Hi ll , Brittain; Shams, Mohamed; Munson, Clifford; Manoly, Kamal; Devlin-Gill, Stephanie Cc: Vega, Frankie; Jackson, Diane; Li, Yong

Subject:

Inquiry: Pa l o Verde Supplemental Letter Folks , Any addit i onal comments?

I intend to follow-up w i th the. licensee today. The licensee stated that they did not pass the. 0.2 g licensing basis SSE around 3 Hz. Received a staff comment that you get a different answering depending on how you transform the. SSE from a log plot to a l inear p l ot. Thanks , Nick From: Hill, Brittain Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 7:07 AM To: Vega, Frankie; Jackson, Diane; Shams, Mohamed; Munson, Clifford; Manoly, Kamal Cc: Difrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

RE: Preview of upcoming Palo Verde seismic hazard supplement letter Frankie -it's not clear i f APS intends to screen-out based on I PEEE , following the process outlined in the SPID. Please emphasize to APS that the screening process allows for screenout based on IPEEE. results , provided the I PEEE analyses meet the criteria out l ined in the. SP I D. A l though "background informat i on" on IPEEE appears use f u l , APS should focus on addressing the IPEEE acceptability cr i ter i a if they w i sh to use these analyses in screen i ng decisions.

ThanksBr i tt From: Vega , Frankie Sent: Friday, April 03 , 2015 8:18 AM To: Jackson , Diane;. Shams , Mohamed; Hill, Brittain;. Munson, C li fford; M anoly, Kamal Cc: Difrancesco , Nicho l as

Subject:

Preview of upcom i ng Pa l o Verde seism i c hazard supp l ement l ette r Hi all; Nick and I met with APS (licensee for Palo Verde) and discussed details on the supplemental letter they are planning to submit next week regarding their seismic hazard reevaluation.

Also , a preliminary agenda for the public kick-off meeting next month was discussed.

Regarding the supplement , I've provided a short summary of the information APS is planning to submit to provide additional clarity for the staff's review: 1. APS will be adding a graph overlaying the .2g (licensing basis). IPEEE and .25g (des i gn basis) spectral responses all t ogether. This would add some clarity on the plant's margin. 2. APS will provide additional background information on their IPEEE curve. This will document the basis for selecting

.3g instead of .5g PGA. The 84 1 h percen t ile and median curves w i ll be provided.

3. APS will provide a short d i scussion on why the ESEP will not add additional value to their seismic evaluation.
4. APS will clarify and p r ovide additional background , referencing F SAR information, on the licensing

(.20g) and design (.25g) basis responses.

5. Regard i ng P PRP discussions (comments and t h eir resolutions). APS belief this information was provided as part of the SS H AC report. APS committed to verify this and will get back to us. APS agreed that having this information will greatly help the staffs review. APS intends to submit th i s letter by April 8 , 2015. Nick i s planning to have one additional call before this subm i ttal to make su r e they'll provide the i nformation the staff is requesting. Please let us know if something is missing so we can communicate it to APS before the subm i ttal. Thanks. F ranki e G. Vega, P .E. Project Manager NR R/JLD/JHMB 30l-4 15-1 617 Lo cat i o n: 0-13H1 0 DiFrance s co , Nicholas.

From:DiFrancesco, Nicholas Sent: l Apr 2015 12:41:54 +0000 T o:Jackson , Diane

Subject:

RE:

publ i ca ll y available PV SSHAC Diane , I spoke with the licensee , the Palo Verde SSHAC is effectively decontrolled (e.g. pr i nting and sending are ok). Licensee stated that the eRoom was send i ng the files due to the size. Only restr i ction would be purge copies when the review is completed. If the staff assessment r elies on the SSHAC we may need to look at docket i ng i nformation.

The licensee also understands it is sub j ect to FOIA. -Nick From: Jackson, Diane. Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 7:17 AM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

publically available PV SSHAC Nick-The PV reviewers expressed the concern about the PV SSHAC reports not be public. They are allowed to down load and print i t right? They 9at least one reviewers) believes it will take them more time , if they have to write questions to identify what needs to be on the docket. I'd like to discuss further. Any chance PV is going to change their mind on the public vs non public? Diane 9>iane J.adLHm, Chief Geosciences and Geotechnical Engineering Branch 2 (RGS2) Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis (DSEA), Office of New Reactors (NRO) US Nuclear Regulatory Commission

+1301-415-5641; office: T-7 D3; mail stop: T-7 F3 NRC -One Team -One Mission Sent:28 Apr 20 1 5 20:08:36 +0000 To:Ake , Jon

Subject:

FW:

28 April 2015 Meeting -D CPP Seismic Ha zar d Re-evaluat ion From: Gene Nelson , Ph.D. l (b)(6) IJ Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 3:59 PM To: DiPr ancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

RE: 28 April 2015 Meeting -DCPP Sei s mic Hazard Re-evaluation Nicho l as Defrance s co US Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRR/DORL/LPLA (30 I) 415-11 15 njd2@nrc.go v 28 Ap r i l 2 015 Hello, Ni c hola s: As a Ph.D. phy s i cal sc i e nti s t, I not e that tod ay's PG&E presentation provid ed a lar ge body of technical information r egard in g th e lates t update r egar d ing DCPP se ismic s afety. I appre c i ate that as a conseq u e n ce of how earthquake energy is sttongly attenuated by the distance betw ee n the earthquake ruptur e and a measurement point, th e earthquake forces seen by the compact DCPP s ite are dominated b y the small section of the eanhquake rupture clo ses t to the plant. Toda y's data con t inue t o confirm th a t DCPP can safely withstand any ear thquak e in th e r egio n near DCPP wit h a s ub s t a ntial safe t y margin. Sin ce I hav e a sc h e dul e co nfli c t that will lik e l y prev e nt my parlicipation in th e public que s tion a nd a n swer period , I'm r eq ue st ing that you a s k th e NRC s t a ff attend in g thi s m ee ting t o confirm my s ummary. (P l ease confinn r eceipt of thi s me ssage.) Sincerely Gene Nelson , Ph.D. Phy s ical Science Facult y, Cue s ta Co ll ege, San Lui s Obispo , CA .. r_)_(5_l ----'ce ll Soenen, Philippe R From:Soenen , Philippe R Sent: 1 Jun 2015 20:15:29 +0000 T o:Munson, Cl iff o rd;Jackson , Di ane

Subject:

FW:

Advanced Draft RAI on Geophysical Site Prop e rti es Attachments:June 2015 DCPP RAJ.DOCX I -----Original Appointment-----

From: Soenen, Ph i lippe R [mailto:PNS3

@pge.com] Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 4:14 PM To: Soenen, Philippe R; Difrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

FW: Advanced Draft RAI on Geophysical Site Properties When: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 1:00 PM-1:30 PM (U TC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). Where: Bridgeline:

1.866.652.7690, pass code: l (b)(6J I -----Original Appo From: Soenen, Ph il ippe R Sent: Friday , May 29, 2015 1:33 PM To: Soenen, Philippe R; Jahangir, Nozar; Ferre, Kent S; thompson@l ett i sci.com; Abrahamson, Norman; abrahamson

@berkeley.edu Cc: Nicholas.Difrancesco

@nrc.gov; Strickland, Jearl

Subject:

Advanced Draft RAI on Geophysical Site Properties When: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 10:00 AM-10:30 AM UTC-08:00)

Pacific Time (US & Canada). Where: Bridgeline:

1.866.652.7690, pass code: (b)(6 l All, This phon e call is proposed to discuss the advanced draft RAI related to geophysical site properties. The meet i ng is proposed.

for Tuesda y June 2, 2015 from 1000 to 1030 Pacific Time. P l ease call in to Bridge l i ne: 1.866.652. 7690, pass code: l (b)(6) l lf this date or time. does not work please propose any alternative.

Regards, Ph il ippe Soenen Regulatory Services Office -805.545.6984 Ce ll f b)(6J I PG&E is committed to. protecting our customers' privacy. To learn more, please visit http://www.pge.com/about/company/pr i vacy/customer/

Mr. Edward D. Halp in Senior Vice Pres ident and Chief Nuclear Officer Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 56 Mail Code 1 04/6 Avila Beach , CA 93424 June XX , 2015

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL I NFO RE-EVALUATIONS RELAT 0 SITE POWER PLANT (TAC NO 5275 AND By letter dated March 11 , 2015 1 , tot mission (N RC), Pacific Gas and Electric , submitted for N,...,.._" ic H azard an creening Report, Pu rsuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federa ection 50.54(f), Response for Information Regarding Recommen

  • n 2.1 erm Task Force Review of Ins i ghts from the Fukushima Dai-i c
  • Acc iden Can Power Plant. Included in the seismic hazard reevaluatiCJP18lQ luation of the site response for Diablo Canyon using an alternative empirical

........ ro ed for D iab lo Canyon and has determined co te i ts review. Enclosed is a request for addit i onal sponse evaluation. As discussed with your staff on June to the RAI would be provided no later than July 30, 1 The letter can be found under Agen c yw i de Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) No. ML15071A046 If you have any questions related to. the enclosed RAls or the requested submission date, please contact me at 301-415-1115 or via e-mail at Nicholas.Difrancesco@nrc

.gov.

Enclosures:

1 . Request for Additional Info r mation 2. Addressee List cc w/encls: Distribution via Listserv 1 Sincerely , I RA/ ior Projec t Manager

-. 2. -. I f you have any questions related to the enclosed RAls or the requested subm i ssion date , please contact me at 301-415-11 1 5 or via e-mail at Nicholas.Difrancesco@nrc

.gov. Sincerely , I RA! i or Project M anager

Enclosures:

1. Request for Add i tional Info r mat i on cc w/encls: Distribution via Listserv ADAM S Ac ee NAME DATE OFFICE OGG NAME DATE RidsNrrDorllpl4

-2 NDiF r ancesco, NRR RidsNrrPM RidsRgn2MailCenter R i dsN r rOd Slingam , NRR *via mail NRR/J L D/JHMB/L A* NRO/DSEA/RGS1

  • NRR/JLD/JHMB/BC Slent DJa c kson MS hams NRR/JLD/JHMB/PM ND i Francesco OFFICIAL RECORD COPY REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION 2.1 SEISMIC HAZARD AND SCREENING REPORT FOR D I ABLO CANYON POWER PLANT Review of Alternative Emp irical Site Response Evaluation By letter dated March 12, 2012 (Agencywide Documents Access and M (ADAMS) Accession No. ML12053A340), the NRC staff requested that specific hazard curves that capture. the variability i n soil depth (including. d agement System sees submit site conditions), shear-wave velocities , laye r th icknesses , damping , train de to generic rock ent nonlinear f the March range of material properties at the site. Specifically, Attachment 1 to "Seis closur 12 , 2012 , letter stated that " site amplification curves should be dev r ab annual exceedance frequencies to facilitate estimation o qu By letter dated February 15 , 2013 (ADAMS Accessio Electric Power Research Institute

[E PR I] Fin al Draft Re Guidance:

Screening , Prioritization and lmple tation De using the SPID guidance.

Rega rding the development of site. a seismic hazard reeva luat ions , Seer As r rock uncertainties should be. incorporated into site amplification and thei r uncertainties through the hazard curves. The control-point elevation hazard curves should By lette . (ADAMS Accession No. ML15071A046), the licensee for the Diablo Ca nt ( P) submitted an alternative site response evaluation, referred to as the empir which uses the observed ground motions at the site from two earthquakes to he site amplification rather than analytical models." While the staff considers the em te response approach as a viable alternative to the analytical approach , the method as imple nted by the licensee was able to use only three site recordings from two earthquakes to constrain the local site amplification.

As such, the licensee's estimate of the uncertainty in the local site term is potentia lly impacted by the limited amount of data. In addition, the. site. term developed by the licensee using the empirical approach shows a significant amount of deviat ion in the negative direction over an important frequency range from the NGA-West2 ground motion models for a Vs 3o=760 m/s site. Enclosure. l Request for Additional Information Consistent with the request for information issued pursuant to Tit le 1 O of the Code of Federal regulations, Part 50 , Section 50.54(f) and the SPID guidance, please provide a supplemental response to the March 2015 seismic hazard reevaluation that develops site amplification factors as recommended in Section 2.4 and Appendix B of the SPID. Please provide (1) a detailed description of the subsurface profile properties including uncertainties , (2) potent i al for nonlinear behavior at the strain levels produced by the scenario earthquakes of interes t , and (3) the control point elevation.

In addition , prov ide the adjustment factors (Vs-kappa c rections) needed to modify the median ground motion models for the selected reference or rock elevation and velocity.

Also include in the response as a figure and a table control point mic hazard curves developed using the site amplification factors and their uncertai hrough azard integral as recommended in Appendix B of the SPID. Enclosure 1

Sent:20 Mar 2015 17 :47: l 7 +0000 To:Munson, Clifford;Jackson , Diane;Ake , Jon Cc:Wba l ey , Sheena;Sham s , Mohamed;Kock , Andrea;Bowen , J eremy

Subject:

FW:

P G&E Drop-in Attendee s on M arch 26 FYl. .. Attendees.

Also, Philippe meant Thursday March 26. DC p l ans to cover a number of topics regarding their submittal and next steps with R2.1 activities.

-Nick From: Soenen , Ph i lippe R [1]

Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 12:28 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

PG&E Drop-i n Attendees Nick, The following are the people from PG&E that w i ll be present for the drop-in on 3/28: Jearl St r ickland -Director , Techn i cal Services N azar Jahangir -Manager, N uclear Seismic Engineering N orm Abrahamson

-Chief Geosciences Consu l tant Bill Horstman -Senior Consulting Eng i neer All of these individuals are PG&E employees.

I will be provid i ng t h ese indiv i duals your co n tact information to contact you o n ce they are down in the lobby on 3/28. Regards , Ph i lippe Soenen Regulatory Services Offic f -805 545 6984 Cell (bJ(5 l ] PG&E is committed to protecting our customers' privacy. To learn more , please visit http://www

.pge.com/about/company/p ri va c y/customer/

I n format i on (pages 948-960/1 000) is o u ts i de of t h e scope of t he F O I A request. The i nfo r mat i o n co n cern li ce n see p r ess re l ease -n ot the NRC's fo r rev i ew reeva lu ated h aza r d. DiFrance s co , Nicholas From:DiFrancesco, Nicholas Sent:lO Mar 20 15 20:01:43 +0000 To:Li , Yong;Manoly , Karnal;Oesterle , Eric;Lingarn , Siva

Subject:

FW:

PG&E Summary Sheet Attachments:Final Fact s heet -March 1 2 , 2015 NRC Updates.pdf , New s Relea s e_A lt.d ocx Im portance: Hi gh FYI.. Attachment l may be o f interest.

From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 12:53 PM To: DiFrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

Importance:

High Lara Use l d i ng NRC Region 4 Public A f fa i rs 817-200-1519 From: Hipschman, Thomas Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 03:23 PM To: Uselding, Lara; Walker, Wayne; Maier, Bill

Subject:

FW: Pending Press Release FYI From: Jones, Thomas P. [ma i lto:TPJ2@pge.com

] Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 12:04 PM To: Hipschman , Thomas Cc: Baldwin, Thomas (DCPP)

Subject:

Pending Press Release Importance:

High Good Morning Tom, P lease find attached the press release PG&E intends to issue today at 3PM local time regarding completing the March 12 hazard updates for the NRC. We offer some highlights about plant safety and will make t h e filing this week. I have also attached a small fact sheet we will be using to help explain some of these complex topics. Please fee l free to reach out if you have any questions.

Regards, Tom Jones Director, Government Relations Pacific Gas & Electric Company Office: 805 595 6340 Mobile 1 ... (b-J (-6 l ____ _. PG&E is committed to protecting our customers' privacy. To l earn more, please visit http://www

.pge.com/about/company/p ri vacy/customer/

Quick Facts on

  • Performed at direction of Nuclear Regulatory Commiss i on (NRC) *Continue to show Diablo Canyon can w i thstand earthquakes , tsunamis and flooding
  • Performed with i ndependent experts us i ng latest scientific methodologies and site-specific information
  • NRC will independently review " . " I i ** .. Seismic & Flooding Hazards Re-evaluation New and extensive analyses performed at the direction.

of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) re-confirm that Diablo Canyon Power Plant can. safely withstand extreme natural events , including potential earthquakes , tsunamis and flooding .. The hazard re-evaluations used the l atest regulatory guidance , scientific methods and models , site-specific information and independent expertise to re-eva l uate the impacts that earthquakes , large waves and flood i ng could have on the facility. Seismic Hazard Re-eva l uation Represents a more extens i ve evaluat i on of the se i smic hazard than previously performed. Using the NRC's Senior Seismic Hazard Analys i s Committee (SSHAC) process , independent seismic experts publically reana l yzed existing and new seismic information.

includ i ng data acqu i red during the advanced seism i c studies. to evaluate. how earthquakes could. potentially impact the facility. The. probab i lity of earthquakes occurring on individual and mu l tiple geologic faults was also determined.

Key Results:

  • Confirms plant's design can withstand earthquakes from all regional fau l ts ..
  • 0.0001 annual chance of an earthquake produc i ng ground mo t ions of .8g. * .8g does not exceed the robust seismic. design. margin of the plant.
  • The p l ant has at least 35% design margin beyond .8g (left graph).
  • A minor exceedance (approx. 7%) in the Hosgri earthquake design in a specific, low frequency range (1.33 Hz) that does not impact safety (right graph).
  • No safety structures , systems and components requ i red for safe shutdown are sensitive to ground motions at a frequency below 2. 7 Hz. . --** I i .. --Comparison of Ground Motion Response Spectrum (GMRS) and Long Term Seismic Program Seismic Marg i ns Spectrum for D i ab l o Canyon Power Plant Comparison of GMRS and. 1977 Hosgri Design Spectrum for Diablo Canyon Power Plant March 2015 r r "'

March 2015 Tsunami/Flooding Hazard Re-evaluation Used the latest NRC gu i dance , methodolog i es and independent expertise to determine the maximum waves and rainfall that could impact the site. Key Results:

  • Plant continues to be safe from tsunam i s , includ i ng those generated from underwater lands l ides and earthquakes.
  • Design can withstand expected storm flooding.
  • Measures were identified

-and have already been implemented

--to address a rare , theoret i cal event of excess i ve rainfall.

What's Next? PG&E will subm i t the re-evaluations to the NRC for independent review on March 12 , 2015. The NRC w i ll later provide guidance on how and when PG&E should perform an additional risk assessment that examines the probab i lity of earthquakes potent i ally damaging plant safety equipment.

The same eva l uation is being asked of other U.S. commercial nuclear power facil i ties. The NRC will also review the flood i ng re-evaluation to determine if additiona l act i ons might be requ i red to further enhance safe t y.

March 9 , 2015 NE W ANALYSES SHOW DIABLO CANYON SAFE FROM EXTREME NATURAL EVENTS R e-evaluations Demonstrate Earthquake, Flooding and Tsunami Safety A VILA BEACH , Calif. -New an d extens i ve a n alyses perfo rm ed at the direction of the N u clea r R egu l atory Commissio n (NR C) re-confirm t h at P acific Ga s a nd Electr i c Company's (PG&E) Di ab l o Canyon P ower P lant (Diablo Canyon) ca n safe ly wi t h sta nd ext r e m e n atura l eve n ts, in clu din g pote n t i a l ea 1 t h quak es , t s un am i s a nd flooding .. Th e new ana l yses, know n as haza rd re-e valuation s, will be s ub m itt e d to th e NRC t his week for in depende nt r eview. Th e agency called on all U.S. commercial n u c l ear power p l a nt s to perfonn s uch work fo l lowing the even t s that occurred in 2 011 at the Fuku shima D aiichi p l ant in Japan. "Safe t y is an d alwa ys will be th e t op priorit y for PG&E and Diablo Ca n yon. Tha t's why se i s mic, flooding and tsunami safe t y was at th e forefro nt in the d esig n of t he facility. Th ese. updated fi ndin gs a r e the. culmination of yea r s of st udy a n d analysis, an d further confirm t h e safe ty of the p l ant's design," sai d Ed Halpin , PG&E's Senior Vice P residen t and Chief Nuclear O fficer. The ha za rd re-eval u atio n s u se d the l atest re gulato ry g u i d a nc e, sc ienti fic me t h ods and mod els, s ite-specific information and independent experti se to re-eva lua te the impact s that eart h q u akes, l arge waves and floo din g could have on the Di ablo Canyon facility. T h e updat e d se i s mic assess m en t repre se nts a more exte n s i ve eva l uat i on of the seis mic hazard t ha n previou s ly p e rform e d. P rior eva luation s d e t e 1m ined th e grou nd s h aking from an ear thquak e on a pa1ticular fa ult i n t h e region , b ased o n h istorical record s an d geological ev i de n ce, a nd t h e n co mp a r e d thi s i nformation a g ain s t s tructu res, systems and componen t s a t the faci Ut y to ensu r e t hey could withs t a nd se i s mic groun d s h ak in g .. U s ing the NRC's S e nior Se i sm i c H aza rd Analys i s Comm i tte e (SSHAC) proc ess, i nd epe n de nt se i s mic expe rt s publicaJly r e-eva lua t e d ex i s tin g and n ew se i s mic in fo rm a ti on, includi n g data a c quir e d durin g t h e a d va n ce d seis mi c st udi es r ece n t l y p e rformed near. D i a blo. Ca n yo n , to r e-eva lua te h ow. ea rthq u a k es cou l d potentially imp act the faci l it y. Th i s process in cl u ded exa minin g t h e probabi li ty of eart hqu akes occur rin g o n indi vi du al an d multipl e geologic faults. Th e r es ult i s a mor e th oro u gh assessment of t he se i s mic h aza rd , prov i d in g add i t i o n a l confi rm at i o n that the plant i s se i s mically safe. T h e NRC will review t he r e-evalua tion in order t o provide g uid a n ce on h ow and when PG&E s hould perfo rm an a d ditional risk eva lu ation tha t exami n es the probabilit y of earthquakes potentially damaging pla n t sa fety eq u ip ment. T h e s ame eval u atio n is be i ng as ked of other U.S. co mmer c ial nucle ar p ower facili ti es. "The updated se i sm ic sou rc e model for Di ab l o Canyon incorporat es an ex t e n s i ve body of n ew on s h ore a n d offsho r e data a nd e m e r gi n g new sc i ent i fic co n cep t s to c h arac t e r ize ear thqu ake sources. F o r exa mpl e , it i s th e first eart h quake mod el d eveloped fo r a nuc l ea r si te t hat a ll ows for mu l ti-fa u l t link ed rupture s t o produc e larg e ma x im um ear th quakes. Thro ugh t h e ex t ens i ve u se of ex p e rt s in th e fi e ld of se ismic geo l ogy a nd in depe nd e n t peer r e view , th e model was deve l oped to ca pture. t he full r ange o f po ss ibiliti es re g ard j ng the l ocatio n , s iz e an d fr eq u e ncy of large ma g nitud e erut hqu akes in the v i cini t y of Di ab l o Canyon. In m y opinion, the model d e v e l o p ed for Diablo Canyon will set th e sta nd a rd for how fut u re eaithquake so ur ce mode l s are deve l oped," sa id B ill Le t t i s, who se rv es as o n e th e k ey t ec hnical l ea d s for th e SSHAC proc ess. PG&E's flooding and t s unami hazard update invol v ed the u se o f the l atest NRC guidance and methodologie s t o dete r mine the maximum potential waves and rainfall that could im pact Di a blo Can yo n. T h e re-evaluation , u t iliz i ng i ndependent expertise, dete n ni_ned t hat the plant's key safety systems and components continue to be safe fr om t su namj s, i n clud in g th ose ge nerated from underwater land s lide s and eait h quake s. The plant's de sign is a l so deemed appropriate to withstand ex p ec t e d s torm floodin g. In addit i on, mea s ur es we r e identifi e d a nd implement e d to address a rar e, t h eo r e tic a l eve nt of excess i ve rainfal l and a quick b u ild-up of w ate r in some p l a nt lo cat i o n s that greatly exceeds a ny known pr ec ipitati o n eve nt recorded in th e site's hi sto ry. Th e NRC will review the r e-e v a luation t o d eterm in e if a dditional actions might b e req u ir ed t o f u rther enhance safe ty. " Thes e important update s. pro v ide an in depth look at the seismic, tsunam i and flooding hazards i n our regio n , and most importantly , demonstrate the plant's de s i gn is s afe. Our work in these areas, however , will never cea<;e. Ou r commitment to s afe operations and protecting public health and sa fety w ill co ntinue to b e refl ec t e d in our ongoing st udy and evaluation o f the. a r e a s. Our customers expect no less," said P G&E's Halpin. N R C Ha za rd s A ssess m e n t B ac k g round A s part of i t s response to the F uku s hima eve nt in Jap a n i n 2 011 , the N R C dir ec t e d all U.S. comme r c ial n u clear pow e r pl a nt s to p erfo rm upd ated assess m en ts o f the se i s mic and flooding ha zards for th e ir facilit i es. P l a nt s l oca t ed in the eas t e rn an d Cen t ral U.S. completed s u c h analyses and provid ed th em t o the N R C in 20 1 4. We s t ern plant s, inc l uding D i a blo Canyon , were di r ected to complete and s ubmit t h e i r assessments by March 2 0 1 5. About Diablo C a n y on Pow e r Pl a nt D iablo Can yon P owe r Plant is a nucle a r power facility owned and operated by PG&E. I t s two unit s togethe r produc e approx i m a t e l y 2,30 0 n et m egawatts of ca rbon-fr ee pow e r. It p r ov id es n ea r ly 10 p e r ce nt of a ll e le ctr i c i ty generated in California , and e n o ugh e n e r gy to me et th e n eeds o f mor e th a n three mjJlion Northern a nd Central Californian

s. Di a blo Can yon h as a $9 20 mill i on annual l oca l economic impact a nd i s th e la r ges t p 1 iva t e e mploy e r in San Lui s Obi s p o County. A bout P G&E P acific Ga s and Electric Company , a s ubsidiary o f PG&E Co r porat i on (N YSE:PCG), i s one o f th e largest comb i ned natural gas and electric uti l ities in the United S t ates. Ba s ed in San Francisco, with 20,000 em plo yees, the company d e liv e rs s om e of th e nation's cl ea n es t en e r gy to 16 million p eo p l e in Northern a n d Ce n tral California. For more info r mation, v i s it www.pge.com/ and www.pge.com/en/about/newsroom/

i ndex.page. ###

Sent:8 May 2015 1 3:01:42 +0000 To:Graizer , Vladimir;Mun s on , Clifford;Jack s on , Diane;Ake , Jon Cc:Sham s, Moh a med Subj ec t:FW: Pub l ic M ee tin g ann o un ce m e nt by "PEER" on Dire c ti v ity di sc u ss ion. F Y I. .. From: Jahangir, Nozar [mailto:NxJl

@pge.com] Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 6:44 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas; Soenen, Philippe R C c: Strickland, Jearl

Subject:

Public Meeting announcement by "PEER" on D i rectiv i ty discussion Nick; In the Diablo Canyon public meeting on April 28t h , we stated that there will be an industry expert panel meeting , sponsored by PEER , on the topic of "Directivity" that the staff may be interested in participating. This was an area that the SSC SSHAC requested D i ablo Canyon to provide additional documentation and PG&E made a commitment in our March 11 s ubmittal to provide such documentation to the NRC once we. have greater clarity on the approach.

This. is a link to the recently posted public announcement by the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) regard i ng the expert pane l discussion on treatment of "D i rectivity" in Ground Motion models. PG&E w i ll be an observer. in the proceedings.

http://peer.be r keley.edu/ngawest2/2015/05/ground-motion-d i r ectivity-mode l ing-pane l-meeting-may-22-2015/ Thanks Nazar Jahangir P.E. Manager, Technica l Services Diablo Canyon Seismic Engineering S-'i -(ce ll) nx.1 pge.com PG&E is c ommitted to protect i ng our customers' privacy. To learn more, please vis i t http://www.pge.com/about/company/privacy/customer/

Sent:25 Mar 2015 21 :20:08 +0000 To:Markle y, Michael Cc:Bowen , J eremy;Shams , Mohamed Subj ec t: RE: Did you notic e. t h e PG&E dr o p-in? Mike , Thank you for the recommendat i on and support. The PG&E drop-in is schedu l ed for tomorrow morning. The level-h i gh t opics are cons i s t ent with discuss i ons allowed by COM-203. I will prepare a summary as appropriate.

I have advised my management and the licensee that technical discuss i ons are inappropriate.

At present, we are work i ng to have a public meeting discussing technical issues with PG&E on Apr i l 28 , 2015 , to better understand the ir se i sm i c analyses and assumptions. Our current target i s to not i ce the meet i ng around April 2 follow i ng confirmation o f the agenda topics with staff and the licensee. Ve r y respectfully , Nick Sr. Pro j ect Manage r -Se i sm i c Reevalua t io n Ac t ivit i es U.S. Nuc l ea r Regulatory Commiss i on Office of Nuclear Rea c to r Regu l at i on Japan Lesson Learned Project Division n i cho l as.d i francesco@nrc

.gov I Tel: (301) 415-1115 From: Markley, Michael Sent: Wednesday, March 25 ,. 2015 11:14.AM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

Did you notice the PG&E drop-in? Nick , I did not hear back from you on the drop-in tomorrow. It would be better to notice it now and take your beating on not meeting the 10-day noticing requ i rement , than to have to answer all the stakeholder inqu ir ies and accusations.

Michael T. Markley , Chief Plant Licensing Branch IV-1 (LPL4-1) Division of Operating Reactor Licensing (DORL) Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 301-415-5723 (Office) l<b l(6 l Michael.Mar k ey@nrc.gov Wha t information is NRC e x pecting in the. March 12 ,. 2015 WUS plant subm i ttals? NRC expects that the March 12, 2015 submitta l s will contain substantially more information than was submitted for CEUS plants in March 2014. This is because each of the WUS plants had to develop site-specific source models and ground-motion models , using the Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee (SS H AC) approach.

In contrast , the CEUS plants all used a common set of models (see Attachment 3). In addition to the information that was included for the CEUS plants , NRC expects that the important deta i ls of the site-specific SS H AC studies will be included in the March 12 , 2015 submittals.

NRC also expects that the complete SSHAC study report will be available for the NRC staff to review, as needed. If the reevaluated hazard exceeded the plant's seismic des i gn basis , NRC expects t he WUS plants to follow the same approach as used for CEUS plants and also submit an inter im evaluation of the p l ant's. capacity to. withstand the higher ground motions. Because nuc l ear power plants generally have significant margin beyond their design capacity to withstand earthquake motions , the interim evaluation uses the actual capacities and new hazard information to see if the preliminary understanding o f seismic risk is still within acceptable li m its while the plant does more detailed evaluations.

Will NRC conduct a screening and prio r itization review for western United States (WUS) plant submittals?

Yes. NRC staff will conduct a screening and prioritization review for the WUS hazard reevaluations after the complete hazard reports are submitted.

T his review will likely take two months to accomplish, because there is substantially more new information in these reports than was submitted for the CEUS plants in March 2014. If the reevaluated hazard is within the plant's design basis , the NRC staff will need to determine if sufficient information is available to support that conclusion.

However, i f the reevaluated seismic hazard exceeds the plant's design basis , NRC will need to determine: (1) i f the plant's inte r im evaluations and actions demonstrate the plant can continue to operate safely at the reevaluated hazard level , whi l e longer-term risk assessments are ongoing. (2) the priority for WUS plants to complete the additional risk eva l uations (3) the schedu l e for completion o f the expedited approach and seismic risk evaluation.

NRC's review of the interim evaluations. and actions will determined if there is an immediate safety concern that warrants immediate regulatory action for WUS plants. The NRC's l ongerterm review will examine i n detail licensees' reevaluated hazard submittals and related seismic risk assessments. Will NRC prioritize WUS plants for completion of seismic risk assessments?

Yes. As part of the initial review , WUS plants that have "screen in". for more detailed risk assessments will be prioritized to ensure the plants of most interest are reviewed first. T his prioritization is not a risk ranking -more analysis is needed to determine actual changes in a plant's seismic accident risk. Using the same approach as for the CEUS plants , the NRC staff will consider several factors in prioritizing (or screening) the WUS risk assessments:

(1) the extent to which the reevaluated hazard exceeds the current design basis; (2) the site's overall seismic hazard. based on an examination of the reevaluation; and (3) previous estimates of plant capacity (e.g., IPEEE insights).

Does NRC expect to review the WUS submittals the same way as the CEUS submittals?

Compared to the CEUS subm i ttals , NRC expects that the WUS submittals w i ll be much longer and contain a l ot more new information on site geology , earthquake sources , and ground mot i on modeling.

As a result, NRC expects that the WUS subm i ttals will be much more comp l ex to review than the CEUS reevaluations. I n add i tion to all the new i nformation , each WUS p l ant also had to do a complex probab i listic seismic hazard assessment (PSHA), using a very deta i led , mu l ti-year process. In contrast , all the CEUS p l ants used essentially the same PSHA , which was extensively reviewed by NRC before the seism i c hazard reevaluations were submitted. After the screen i ng and prioritizat i on review is completed, NRC s t aff will conduct a thorough review of the WUS seismic hazard reevaluations. To review each of these site-specific hazard reevaluat i ons , the NRC staff will need to exam i ne important details of each p l ant-specific source characterization and ground motion model. The NRC staff expects to conduct conf i rmatory analyses of key parts of these models , to determine if the reevaluated seismic hazards are reasonab l e. I n addit i on to examin i ng the deta il ed technical information that supports the hazard reeva l uat i on , the NRC staff also will rev i ew the lengthy documentation about the SSHAC process that licensees used to deve l op the source characterization and ground motion models. Will NRC. produce its. own version of the WUS plant's reevaluated seismic hazard? To support the initial review of CEUS plant submittals , the NRC developed a computer model that could calculate se i smic hazards for each CEUS plant. These calcu l ations were possible because all the CEUS plants used the same seismic hazard model , and the model was deve l oped seve r al years before the CEUS hazard reevaluat i ons were submitted.

However , the WUS plants completed thei r site-specific hazard analyses less than a year before the f i nal reports were submitted to NRC , and each p l ant used different types of se i smic hazard models. The NRC staff determ i ned that they could conduct an appropriate , r i sk-informed review of the WUS hazard reevaluat i ons without expending considerable resources to develop three new , site-specific computer mode l s. The NRC staff expects to do site-specific conf i rmatory analyses on key parts of the hazard analyses, including independent evaluations of the earthquake source mode l s, ground motion models , and site response models. Will WUS plants have to do additional risk assessments if their reevaluated hazard is larger than the plant's safe shutdown earthquake?

Yes , the same criteria used for CEUS plants applies to WUS plants for determ i n i ng if additional risk assessments are needed. WUS plants that screen-in for the r i sk assessments will need to complete the exped i ted approach (see question #4) and e i ther a seismic marg i ns assessment or a probabilistic risk assessment.

Plants that screen-out from the risk assessment might st i ll meet the criteria for conduct i ng focused-scope evaluations of low frequency exceedances , high f requency exceedances , or spent fuel pool performance. The need for conduct i ng add i tional analyses will be determ i ned during NRC's screen i ng and priorit i zation review.

Sent:5 May 2015 14:49:05 +0000 To:Shams, Mohamed Cc: J ackson , Diane;Hill.

B1ittain

Subject:

Awarenes s of OGC. NLO on WUS Seismic. Reevaluation Letter Attachme n ts:WUS Sei s mic Reeva l uation s Letter 4-20 1 5 LSC.docx Mohamed, Awareness only. We continue to make progress on concurrences for the WUS lette r. The letter will go to DORL and JLD senior management COB today. Thanks , Nick From: Clark, She l don Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 5: 07 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas Cc: Spencer, M ary; Biggins, James

Subject:

WUS Seismic Reevaluation Letter N i ck , (b)(5) Shel d on L. Sheldon Clark Attorney Office of the General Counsel U.S. N uclear Regulatory Commission Email: Sheldon.Clark@nrc.gov Phone: 301-415-2189 Page 1 35 o f 739 W ithh e l d p u rs u a nt t o exemp ti o n (b)(5) o f th e Freedo m o f I nf or mati o n a n d Pr i v a cy Act P a ge 1 36 o f 73 9 W ithh e l d pursuant t o exe m p ti o n (b)(5) o f th e F reedo m o f I nf o rmati o n an d P ri v a cy Act P a ge 1 37 o f 73 9 W ithh e l d pursuant t o exe m p ti o n (b)(5) o f th e Fr eedo m o f I nf o rmati o n an d Pri v a cy A ct P a ge 1 38 o f 73 9 W ithh e l d pursuant t o exe m p ti o n (b)(5) o f th e Fr eedo m o f I nf o rmati o n an d Pri v a cy A ct (b)(S) If you have any questions regarding this letter , please contact Nicholas DiFrancesco at 301-415-1115 or via email at Nicholas.Difrancesco@nrc

.gov. Sincerely, Wi lliam M , Dean , Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Enclosures

1. Glossary of Evaluations
2. Screening and Prioritization Results 3. List of Licensees March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals
4. List of Licensees cc w/encls: Listserv (b)(5) If you have any questions regarding this letter , please contact Nicholas D i Francesco at 301-415-1115 or via email at Nicholas.Difrancesco@nrc.gov. Sincerely, Will iam M. Dean , Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulat io n

Enclosures:

1. Glossary of Evaluations
2. Screening and Prior it i zation Results 3. List of Licensee March 2015 Re-eva l uated Seismic Hazard Submittals
4. List of Licensees cc w/encls: Listserv DISTRIBUTION
PUBLIC LPL4-1 R/F LPL4-2 R/F RidsNroOd RidsNrrDorl RidsNrrDorllpl4

-1 Rids N rrDorllpl4-2 RidsNrrOd RidsNs i rOd RidsOeMailCenter RidsOgcMa i lCenter MMarkley, NRR MKhanna , NRR MShams , NRR NDiFrancesco , NRR ADAMS Accession No.: ML15113B344 OFFICE NRR/J LD/PMB/PM NRR/JLD/LA NRR/JLD/HMB/BC NAME ND i Francesco Slent MShams DATE 04/22/15 I /15 I /15 OFFICE NRO/DSEA/D OGC NRR/JLD/D NAME SFlanders BHar ri s JDavis DATE I /15. I ./15. . I /15 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY AKock , NRO DJackson , NRO RidsNrrPM DiabloCanyon RidsNrrPMColumbia RidsNrrPaloVerde

RidsOgcRp Resource RidsRgn4MailCenter Resource RidsEdoMailCenter Resource *via email NRO/DSENRGS 2/BC NRR/DORUO DJackson Llund I /15 I /1 5 NRR/.D WDean . I. /15 Glossary of Evaluations Associated with Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1 Seismic Hazard Re-evaluations (b)(5) Enclosure 1

(b)(S) Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the. Fukushima Dai-l chi Accident Seism i c Risk Eva l uations Screening and Pr i oritization Results for Western United States (WUS) Reactor S i tes Enclosure 2

March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals for Western United States Reactor S i tes Licensee Facility Date of letter (ADAMS Accession Nos.) Columb i a Genera t ing Station March 12 , 2015. (ML15078A243) Diab l o Canyon Power P l ant , Unit Nos. 1 and 2 March 11 , 2015 (ML15071A046) Pa l o Verde Nuclear Generating Stat i on , Units March 10 , 2015 (ML15076A073) and 1, 2 , and 3 Apr i l 10 ,. 2015 (ML15105A076) Enclosure 3

LIST OF APPLICABLE POWER REACTOR LICENSEES Columbia Generating Station Energy Northwest Docket No .. 50-397 License No. NPF-2 1 Mr. Mark E. Reddemann Chief Executive Officer Energy Northwest MD 1023 76 North Power Plant L oop P.O. Box 968 Richland , WA 99352 Diablo Canyon Power. P l ant. Unit Nos .. l and 2. Pacific Gas & Electric Company Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82 Mr. Edward D. Halpin Senior Vice President and Ch i ef Nuclear Officer Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 56 Mail Code 104/6 Avila Beach, CA 93424 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Arizona Public Service Company Docket Nos. STN 50-528 , STN 50-529 , and STN 50-530 License Nos. NPF-41 , NPF-51 and NPF-74 Mr. Randall K. Edington Executive Vice President Nuclear/CNO Arizona Public Service Company P.O. Box 52034 , MS 7602. Phoenix , AZ 85072-2034 Enclosure 4

DiFrance s co , Nichola s From:DiFrance sc o, Nicholas Sent:4 M ay 2 015 18:34:12 +0000 To:Jack so n , Diane Cc:Sham s, Moh a med;Kock , Andrea

Subject:

FYI:

POP JLD Status (05.05.15).d ocx Atta c hm e nt s: POP -JLD Statu s (05.05.15).do cx Diane , POP for DEDO brief tomorrow for awareness.

Thanks , Nick From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 2:29 PM To: Bowen, Jeremy Cc: Shams, Mohamed

Subject:

One Change ---POP -JLD Status (05.05.15).docx Jeremy , One change from the current plan for D i ablo Canyon. Technical staff i s pushing to provide additiona l basis documenting the decision that no ESEP is needed for Diablo. We have a letter template from l ast year that I plan to use {lette r. dated Dece m ber 15. 201 4). Thanks , Nick PURPOSE. JAPAN LESSONS LEARNED DIVISION STATUS UPDATE -05/05/2015 Update NRR ET on status of J L D activities EXPECTED OUTCOMES Prov i de current status and address any questions Outsid e of Sc ope

  • wus o Screening

& prioritization letter -targeting 05/12/15 o All 3 plants screen in for sPRA; no immediate safety issues o Columbia & Diablo Canyon -Group 1

  • sPRA due 06/30/17
  • Diablo Canyon -Separate letter on no ESEP; LTSP provides safety basis
  • Public Meetings o Diablo Canyon (04/28/15 o Co l umbia (9 6/04/15) o Palo Verde -Group 3
  • sPRA due 12/31 /20
  • Non Responsi v e The Power Reactor Licensees on the Enclosed List

SUBJECT:

SCREENING AND PRIORITIZATION RESULTS FOR THE WESTERN UNITED STATES SITES REGARDING INFORMATION PURSUANT TO T I TLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 50.54 (f). REGARDING SEISMIC HAZARD RE-EVALUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDATION 2.1 OF THE NEARTERM TASK FORCE REVIEW OF I NSIGHTS FROM THE FUKUSHIMA ICHI ACCIDENT On March 12 , 2012 , the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a request for information pursuant to Ti tle 1 O of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50 (1 O CFR), Section 50.54(f). (hereafter referred.

to as the 50.54. (f). letter) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (A DAMS) Accession No. ML12053A340). The purpose of that request was to gather information concerning , in part , the seismic hazards at operating reactor sites and to enable the NRC staff to determine. whether licenses.

should. be. mod if ied , suspended , or revoked. The "Required Response" section of Enclosure 1 indicated that licensees and construction permit holders should provide a Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening report within 3 years from the date of the. letter for Western United States (WUS) plants (i.e., Columbia Generating Station (Columbia), Diablo Canyon Powe r Plant (Diablo Canyon), and Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (Pa lo Verde)). Further , the 50.54(f) letter stated that NRC would provide the results of the screening and. prioritization indica ting dead lines for individual plants to complete seismic risk evaluations to assess the total plant res ponse to the re-evaluated seismic hazard. Additionally, by letter 1 dated February 20 , 2014, the NRC provided supplemental information on the content of the seismic re-evaluated hazard submittals i ncluding guidance on reportabil ity and operability.

The purpose of this letter is to inform WUS l icensees of the. NRC's screening and prioritization and to allow licensees to appropriately plan the completion of further seismic r isk evaluations described in Enclosure 1 of the 50.54(f) letter. To respond to the 50.54(f) letter , all addressees committed to. follow the E lect ric Power. Research Institute (EP RI) Report , "Seismic Evaluation Guidance:

Screening, Prioritization and Implementat ion Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic ," 2 as. supplemented , by the EPRI Report , " Seismic Evaluation Guidance:

Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Recommendation 2.1: Seismic" 3 (referre d to as the Exped ited Approach).

The NRC held multiple public meetings and teleconferences with industry and the public leading to the development of the guidance documents supporting review of re-evaluated se ismic hazards. 1 The February 20, 2014 , supplemental information letter is available i n ADAMS under Accession No. ML14030A046. 2 The SPID gu ida nce document is found in ADAMS u nde r Accession No. ML12333A170. The staff endo r seme n t letter for the SPID guidance is found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML12319A074.

3 The Exped ited Approach g uid ance document is found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13102A142. The WUS l i censees submitted the re-evaluated seismic hazards. by letters dated on. or before. March 12 , 2015 (references are provided in Enclosure 3 of th i s letter). The NRC staff conducted the screening and prioritization review of the subm i ttals by assess i ng each licensee's sc r eening evaluation and hazard analysis utilizing the endorsed SPID gu i dance. INTERIM EVALUAT I ONS 4 The 50.54(f) letter requested that licensees provide " interim evaluations and actions taken or planned to address the higher se i smic hazard relative to the design-bas i s , as appropriate, prior to completion of the risk evaluation." For those plants where the re-evaluated seismic hazard exceeds t he seismic design-basis, licensees stated they w i ll provide inter i m evaluat i ons to demonstrate that the plant can cope with the higher re-evaluated se i sm i c. hazard while the longer-term se i smic r i sk evaluations are ongoing. In support of the requested interim evaluations for licensees , WUS p l ants provided i nformat i on related to margin evalua t ions or insights from Individual Plant Exam i nat i on of External Events (I PEEE) eva l uat i ons included est i mated seismic risk. Additionally

,. the submittals discussed completing p l ant se i smic walkdowns as part of NTIF Recommendation 2.3 in order to verify that the current p l ant configuration is cons i stent with the licens i ng basis. The NRC staff rev i ew of WUS reports found that li censees have demonstrated add i tional p l ant seism i c margins supportive of cont i nued plan t operation wh i le additiona l risk evaluations are conducted. The i nterim eva l uat i on provided in March. 2015 is a first step in. assessing the plant's capacity to withstand the re-evaluated hazard. In the near-term , by January 2016 , l icensees will comp l ete an " Expedited Approach" to evaluate and iden t ify reinforcements , if necessary , for certain equipment to. ensure a safe shutdown pathway can w i thstand a higher se i sm i c. ground motion. For Diablo Canyon and Palo Verde, the NRC staff is continuing to assess seism i c evaluat i ons completed by the licensees to determine if they meet the intent of the Expedited Approach review and. will response under a seperate letter. SCREENING PROCESS As defined in the 50.54(f) letter and the SPID gu i dance , the seismic hazard re-evaluations were conducted using current analys i s methods and guidance. The l icensees' responses to the 50.54 (f) l etter prov i ded se i sm i c hazard re-evaluation results , which were the focus of the NRC staffs initial screening and prioritization r ev i ew. Although the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) is commonly referred to as a single number, this number represents a distr i but i on of ground motions that occu r over a range of spectral frequencies.

This. resu l ts in a curve of. ground acce l eration over frequency.

The ability of equipment and structures i n the p l ant to withstand the effects of ground motions is frequency specif i c. For the purposes of the licensees' ana l yses and NRC staff's rev i ew , the SPID gu i dance iden t if i es three frequency r anges that are of part i cular interest:

1-1 O Hertz (Hz), a low frequency range of <2.5 Hz , and a high frequency range o f > 1 O Hz. The different ranges have been identified due to the different types of structures and equipment that may be impacted by ground mo t ions in that range. For example , l a r ge components generally are not affected sign i ficantly by high frequencies (i.e., >10 Hz). The frequency range 1-10 Hz i s the focus for 4 E nclos u re 1 o f t h i s l e tt er p r o vi d es a Gl ossary o f S eism i c Eval uat i o n s

-. 3 -. this portion of the risk evaluation , as this range has the greatest potentia l effect on the performance of equipment and structures important to safety. For other. frequency ranges, discussed below, limited-scope evaluations will be conducted, when appropriate.

I n accordance with the SPID and Expedited Approach guidance, the re-evaluated seismic hazard determ in es if additional seismic risk evaluat ions are warranted for a plant. Specifically, the re-evaluated ground motion response spectra (GMRS) in the 1-10 Hz frequency range is compared to the existing SSE:

  • If the re-evaluated GMRS, in the 1-10 Hz range, is less than the plant's existing SSE, then the plant screens out of conducting further seismic risk evaluations.
  • If the GMRS, in the. 1-1 0 Hz range, is greater than the. ex istin g SSE , then the. plant will complete the Expedited Approach (including the Interim Evaluation).

Most plants that meet this criterion also screen in to conduct a seismic risk evaluation and have committed to conduct high frequency and spent fuel pool evaluations.

In addition, if the GMRS meets the low hazard threshold, which is described in the SP I D , and only exceeds the SSE below 2.5 Hz, the licensee will perform a limited evaluation of equipment potentially susceptible to low frequency motions .. Similarly , if. the. GMRS. exceeds. the SSE only above 10 Hz, then the licensee will perform an evaluation of t he equipment or structures susceptible to that specific range of ground motion. Enclosure 2 provides the staffs determination of priority for plants that screen-in to conduct a seismic risk evaluation , and identification of plants to complete limited-scope evaluations (i.e., spent fuel pool, high frequency, or low f re quency) .. CONDITIONAL SCREENING As discussed in public meetings 5 , the staff anticipated the. possibility of not being able to complete the determ ination for conducting a seismic risk evaluation for some plants in the 30 to 60 day re v ie w period under certain circumstances.

For example, if a licensee provided a unique submittal or deviated from the. SP I D guidance, additional time for the review m ight be needed. I n general, WUS submittals contain extensive site specific information including site specific source models and ground-motion models which could affect the f ina l screening decisions.

Accordingly , during. the NRG screening. and pr ior it ization process , the staff identif ied that for Pa lo Verde additional time and interactions will be required to better understand the seismic hazard for the p lant. As such , the staff determined that Palo Verde "con d itionally screens-in" for the purposes of prioritizing and conducting additional.

evaluat ions .. Pa lo Verde has been prior i tized to comp l ete a seismic risk evaluation in Group 3. After interactions have occurred, the staff will make a final screening and prioritization determination and prov ide a letter to the licensee.

I f the plant remains screened-in,. the final screening letter will affirm the plant priority for further evaluations and establish schedule for an Expedited Approach , if necessary.

If the plant screens out , the final screening letter also will determine if the Palo Verde needs to complete limited-scope evaluations (i.e.,. spent fuel pool, high frequency , or low frequency).

5 Discuss i on as part of public meetings dated December 4 , 2014 , February 11, 2015, and March 30, 2015 (ADAMS Access i on Nos. ML14342A901, ML15104A065 and ML15111A031 , respective l y). PLANT PRIORITIZATION The NRC grouped the " screened-in" plants into three groups 6 , which (i) reflects the relative priority for conducting a seismic risk evaluation that compares each plant's current capabilities to the re-evaluated seismic hazard, and (ii) accounts for the appropriate allocation of limi ted staff and available expertise for reviewing and conduct ing seismic risk evaluations.

During the prioritization review , the staff considered each licensee's re-evaluated hazard submittals , plant specific seismic and risk insights , and prev i ous des i gn-basis ground motion estimates.

To prior i tize the plants for completing seismic risk evaluations , staff examined certain key parameters such as (1) the maximum ratio of the new re-evaluated hazard (GM RS) to the SSE in the 1-10. Hz range; (2). the maximum ground motion in the. 1-10 Hz range; and (3) insights from previous seismic risk evaluations.

As such , Group 1 plants are generally those that have the highest re-eva luated hazard relative to the original plant seismic design-basis (GMRS to SSE), as. well as ground motions in. the 1-10 Hz range that are. generally. higher in absolute magnitude.

Based on these criteria, Columb ia and Diablo Canyon are prioritized as Group 1 plants. Group 1 plants, including Columbia and Diablo Canyon are expected to conduct a seismic risk evaluation and submit it by June. 30 , 2017 .. Group 3 plants have GMRS to SSE ratios that are greater than 1 , but the amount of exceedance.

in the 1-10 Hz. range is relatively small , and the maximum. ground motion in. the 1-1 O Hz range is also not high. Based on these criteria, Palo Verde is prioritized as a Group 3 plant. Given the limited level of exceedance of the Group 3 plants including Palo Verde, staff is evaluating the need for licensees to conduct a seismic risk evaluation in order for the staff to complete its regulatory decision making. After further review, the staff will decide which Group 3 plants need to complete a risk evaluation.

Risk evaluations for Group 3 plants are due by December 31, 2020. NEXT STEPS Based on. the staffs screening review the licensee. for Columbia should finalize and submit an Expedited Approach Report no later than. January 31 , 2016. The NRC staff is continuing to review the licensee provided information for D iab lo Canyon and Palo Verde related to the Expedited Approach.

In accordance with the endorsed guidance, the staff acknowledges that the January 2016 Expedited Approach submittal will focus on plant equipment (i.e. safe shutdown pathway 7) evaluations and modifications, as necessary, prior to submitting the plant seismic risk evaluations.

The content of limited-scope evaluations or confirmations and their associated schedule milestones remain under development with NRG staff and stakeholders.

The NRC staff has conducted a number of pub lic meetings to r each alignment on the implementation details of these evaluations , inc lud ing the development of alternatives approaches for conducting these evaluations The staf f expects that implementing guidance should be established by summer 6 Central and Eastern l i censees seismic hazard screening and priority rev i ews were completed in 2014. 7 Section 3 of the Expedi ted Approach guidance (ADAMS Accession No. ML13102A142) p rov i des a process t o identify a single seismically r obust success path using a subset of installed p l ant equipment , FLEX equipment and connection points. 2015. and fall 2015 for high frequency and spent fuel pool evaluations, respectively.

It is expected that WUS licensees can complete these evaluations in parallel with completion of SPRAs for Group 1 plants by J une 2017. This letter transmits the NRC staff's results of the seismic hazard submittals for the purposes of screening and prioritizing the plants. It does not convey the staff's final determination regarding the adequacy of any plant's calculated hazard. As such , the NRC staff will continue. its review of the. submitted seismic hazard re-evaluations , and may request additional.

plant-specific information to support this review through the summer of 2015. The staff has placed a high priority on this review for the early identification of issues that might adversely affect each licensee's seismic risk evaluations.

Interactions with licensees will occur. as soon. as practicable , including NRC staff plans to acknowledge the whether seismic hazard curves are suitability for use in SPRA development by late 20 1 5. The NRC staff plans to issue a staff assessment on the re-evaluated seismic hazard once each review is completed in approximately 1 2 to 18. months .. If you have any questions regard i ng this letter, please contact N i cholas DiFrancesco at 301-415-1115 or via email at Nicholas.Difrancesco@nrc.gov

., Sincerely, William M. Dean, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

1. Glossary of Evaluations
2. Screening and Prioritization Results 3. List of Licensees March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals
4. List of Licensees cc w/encls: Listserv can comp l ete these evaluat io ns in parallel with completion of SPRAs for Group 1 plants by June 2017. This letter transmits the NRC staff's results of the seismic hazard submitta l s for the purposes of screening and prio r itizing the plants. It does not convey the staff's final determination regarding the adequacy of any plant's calculated hazard. As such , the NRG staff will continue its review of the submitted seismic hazard re-evaluations, and may request additional plant-specific information to support this review .. The staff has placed a high priority. on this. review for the early iden tification of issues that might adversely affect each licensee's seismic risk evaluations.

Initial interactions with licensees will occur as soon as practicable.

The NRG staff plans to issue a staff assessment on the. re-evaluated seismic. hazard once each review is completed in approximately 1 2 to 18 months. If you have any questions regarding this letter , please contact Nicholas DiFrancesco at 301-415-1115 or via email at Nicholas.Difrancesco@nrc.gov. Sincerely, William M. Dean, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulat ion Enclosures

1. Glossary of Evaluations
2. Screening and Prioritization Results 3. List of Licensee March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals
4. List of Licensees cc w/encls: Listserv DISTRIBUTION
PUBLIC LPL4-1 R/F LPL4-2 R/F RidsNroOd RidsNrrDorl RidsNrrDorllpl4-1 RidsNrrDorllpl4-2 RidsNrrOd RidsNs i rOd RidsOeMailCenter RidsOgcMailCenter MMarkley, NRR MKhanna , NRR MShams , NRR NDiF rancesco, NRR ADAM S A ccession N o.: ML15113B344 OF F ICE NRR/J LD/PMB/PM NRR/JLD/LA N RR/JLD/HMB/BC NAME NDiFrancesco Slent MShams D A TE 04/22/15 I /15 I /15 OF F ICE NRO/DSEA/D OGC NRR/JLD/D N AM E SFlanders SCI ark JDavis (MFranovich for) DAT E I /1 5 05/04/15 I /15 OFFI C I A L RE CO RD COP Y AKock , NRO DJackson , NRO RidsNrrPM DiabloCanyon RidsNrrPMColumbia RidsNrrPaloVerde

RidsOgcRp Resource RidsRgn4MailCenter Resource RidsEdoMailCenter Resource *via email NRO/DSENRGS2/BC NRR/DORUO DJackson Llund I /15 I /15 NRR/.D WDean I /15 Glossary of Evaluations Associated with Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1 Seismic Hazard Re-eva l uations Interim Evaluation or Actions -An immediate licensee and NRG review of the re-evaluate d hazard to determine whether actions are needed to assure plant safety while further evaluations are ongoing. The staff has completed its review and concluded that , based on the licensees' interim evaluations and actions , Western United States (WUS) plants are safe for continued operations.

Interim evaluations and actions are provided in Section 5.0, "Interim Act i ons ," of the licensee submittals.

Expedit e d Appro ac h -A near-term licensee evaluation to be completed by January 31 , 2016 , for WUS plants whose re-evaluated hazard exceeds the current des ign-ba sis for the safe shutdown earthquake hazard level. The evaluation looks at the systems and components that can be used to safely shut down a plant under the conditions of a station blackout (i.e., no alternating current power is available) and loss of ultimate heat sink. The expedited approach will either confirm that a plant has sufficient margin to continue w i th a longer-ter m evaluation without any modificat ions, or confirm the need to enhance the seismic capacity to assure they can withstand the re-evaluated hazard. The Expedited Approach guidance document is found in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System under Accession No. ML13102A142.

S e ismi c Ri s k Evaluation

-L onger-term seismic risk evaluation provides the most comprehensive information to make regulatory decisions, such as whether to amend a plant's design or licensing basis or make additional safety enhancements.

These evaluations provide information to make r isk-informed decis ions. The staff will use this information in conjunction with the existing regulatory tools, such as backfit analysis, to decide on further regulatory actions. The longer-term seismic risk evaluations could be either a Seismic Margins Analys is or a Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment , depending on the magnitude of the exceedance.

Limit e d-S c op e Ev a luation s -These include i) Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation , ii) High Frequency Evaluation , and iii) Low Frequency Evaluation.

Respect i vely , these evaluations are focused on the following:

i) spent fuel pool components and systems capable of draining water inventory to the level of the spent fuel, ii) a review of components susceptible to high frequency accelerations (e.g. electrical relays), and ii i) a review of components susceptible to low frequency accelerations (e.g. water storage tanks). Enclosure 1

-:::::i _.. _... 0 __... -I\) I\) ::r I\) 0 .._ .._ (1) .........

...... 0 0 o ..... .,,.. -..J ;;><;-...... 3

!ll ...... c:.n c:.n c:.n ,,. :::::i O::!: 0 ,-... 0 :::!. 0 "O 3 (/) 3 !ll 'O ::r 'O _([) ro co ([) a. <D co o q; CJ) a. ::r a. ([) (/) -* (") C. ;;><;-(") Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the. Fukushima Da i-l chi Accident I ([) -* <D :::i :::i =.co ([) :;* :::i Seism i c Risk Eva l uations Screening and Pr i oritization Results for -Q Ql -0 _o Western United States (WUS) Reactor S i tes 0 O". (5" :::i 0 ([) -g_ :::i (/) en* 5* ([) Lim i ted-scope Evaluations. Q ([) Se i smic Risk a. 5* Expedite d c 3 0 Pl ant Name Screening Approach Evaluation High Low Spent Fue l "O 3 Resul t (Pr i or i t i zat i on Frequency Frequency Pool ff 5* Evaluation

!ll :::i Group) Evaluation Evaluation Evaluat i on ...... Ql 6' <D (/) :::i ..., :T !ll ([) Columbia Generat i ng Station In :::::i ro x 1 x x a. Ql u;* (/) "O _ro :::i c a. £ O" 0 0 Diablo Canyon Power Plant , U nit ff :::i :::> I n x 1 x x g, :T Nos. 1 and 2 '< ..., ([) ([) !ll ro a. < Ql 0 (/) (") _ro ;;><;-P alo Verde Nuclear Generat i ng Condit i onal x 3 x x !ll Station , U nits 1 , 2 , and 3 i n O" 0 <D 0 :::i s. ([) -g_ ..... 0 (/) 3 3 (") 0 0 )> 'O c ([) :::i o* a. )> Ql :::i a. (/) (/) ([) < ([) ..., 0 :T ([) ..., (/) :E ([) ..., ([) -E n closure 2 March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals for Western United States Reactor Sites Licensee Facility Date of letter (ADAMS Accession Nos.) Columbia Generating Station March 12 , 2015 (ML15078A243)

Diab lo Canyon Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 March 11, 20 15 (M L 15071 A046) Pa lo Verde Nuclear Generating Station , Units March 1 O, 2015(ML15076A073) and 1 , 2 , and 3 April 10 , 2015 (ML15105A076)

Enclosure 3

LIST OF APPLICABLE POWER REACTOR LICENSEES Columbia Generating Station Energy Northwest Docket No .. 50-397 License No. NPF-2 1 Mr. Mark E. Reddemann Chief Executive Officer Energy Northwest MD 1023 76 North Power Plant L oop P.O. Box 968 Richland , WA 99352 Diablo Canyon Power. P l ant. Unit Nos .. l and 2. Pacific Gas & Electric Company Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82 Mr. Edward D. Halpin Senior Vice Pres i dent and Ch i ef Nuclear Officer Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 56 Ma il Code 104/6 Avila Beach, CA 93424 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2 , and 3 Arizona Public Service Company Docket Nos. STN 50-528 , STN 50-529 , and STN 50-530 License Nos. NPF-41 , NPF-51 andNPF-74 Mr. Randall K. Edington Executive V i ce Pres i dent Nuclear/CNO Arizona Public Service Company P.O. Box 52034 , MS 7602. Phoenix , AZ 85072-2034 Enclosure 4

Sent:5 May 2015 16:04: 18 +0000 To:Hill , Brittain Cc:Jackson , Diane

Subject:

Western US Screening and Prioritization letter Attachments:

Western US Screenin g and Prior i t i zation letter.docx Britt , Still working on the letter. However , I think that. I have resolved the primary comments supporting DSEA concurrence. 1. ESEP. assessment tor DC and PV will be a separate letter 2. GMRS agreement will come late 2015 trom the NRC. 3. Most editorial changes have been incorporated Thanks , Nick From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 11:58 AM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

Western US Screening and Prioritization letter The Power Reactor Licensees on the Enclosed List

SUBJECT:

SCREENING AND PRIORITIZATION RESULTS FOR THE WESTERN UNITED STATES SITES REGARDING INFORMATION PURSUANT TO T I TLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 50.54 (f). REGARDING SEISMIC HAZARD RE-EVALUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDATION 2.1 OF THE NEARTERM TASK FORCE REVIEW OF I NSIGHTS FROM THE FUKUSHIMA ICHI ACCIDENT On March 12 , 2012 , the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a request for information pursuant to Ti tle 1 O of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50 (1 O CFR), Section 50.54(f). (hereafter referred.

to as the 50.54. (f). letter) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (A DAMS) Accession No. ML12053A340). The purpose of that request was to gather information concerning , in part , the seismic hazards at operating reactor sites and to enable the NRC staff to determine. whether licenses.

should. be. mod if ied , suspended , or revoked. The "Required Response" section of Enclosure 1 indicated that licensees and construction permit holders should provide a Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening report within 3 years from the date of the. letter for Western United States (WUS) plants (i.e., Columbia Generating Station (Columbia), Diablo Canyon Powe r Plant (Diablo Canyon), and Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (Pa lo Verde)). Further , the 50.54(f) letter stated that NRC would provide the results of the screening and. prioritization indica ting dead lines for individual plants to complete seismic risk evaluations to assess the total plant res ponse to the re-evaluated seismic hazard. Additionally, by letter 1 dated February 20 , 2014, the NRC provided supplemental information on the content of the seismic re-evaluated hazard submittals i ncluding guidance on reportabil ity and operability.

The purpose of this letter is to inform WUS l icensees of the. NRC's screening and prioritization and to allow licensees to appropriately plan the completion of further seismic r isk evaluations described in Enclosure 1 of the 50.54(f) letter. To respond to the 50.54(f) letter , all addressees committed to. follow the E lect ric Power. Research Institute (EP RI) Report , "Seismic Evaluation Guidance:

Screening, Prioritization and Implementat ion Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic ," 2 as. supplemented , by the EPRI Report , " Seismic Evaluation Guidance:

Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Recommendation 2.1: Seismic" 3 (referre d to as the Exped ited Approach).

The NRC held multiple public meetings and teleconferences with industry and the public leading to the development of the guidance documents supporting review of re-evaluated se ismic hazards. 1 The February 20 , 2014 , supplemental information letter is availab l e i n ADAMS under Accession No. ML14030A046. 2 The SPID gu ida nce document is found in ADAMS u nde r Accession No. ML12333A170. The staff endo r seme n t letter for the SPID guidance is found in ADAMS under Access i on No. ML12319A074.

3 The Exped ited Approach g uid ance document is found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13102A142. The WUS l i censees submitted the re-evaluated seismic hazards. by letters dated on. or before. March 12 , 2015 (references are provided in Enclosure 3 of th i s letter). The NRC staff conducted the screening and prioritization review of the subm i ttals by assess i ng each licensee's sc r eening evaluation and hazard analysis utilizing the endorsed SPID guidance.

INTERIM EVALUATIONS 4 The 50.54(f) letter requested that licensees provide " interim evaluations and actions taken or planned to address the higher se i smic hazard relative to the design-bas i s , as appropriate, prior to completion of the risk evaluation." For those plants where the re-evaluated seismic hazard exceeds t he seismic design-basis , licensees stated they w i ll provide inter i m evaluat i ons to demonstrate that the plant can cope with the higher re-evaluated se i sm i c. hazard while the longer-term se i smic r i sk evaluations are ongoing. In support of the requested interim evaluations for licensees , WUS p l ants provided i nformat i on related to margin evalua t ions or insights from Individual Plant Exam i nat i on of External Events (I PEEE) eva l uat i ons included est i mated se i sm i c risk. Additionally

,. the submittals discussed completing p l ant se i sm i c walkdowns as part of NTIF Recommendation 2.3 in order to verify that the current p l ant configuration is cons i stent with the licens i ng basis. The NRC staff rev i ew of WUS reports found that li censees have demonstrated add i tional p l ant seism i c margins supportive of cont i nued plan t operation wh i le additiona l risk evaluations are conducted. The i nterim eva l uat i on provided in March. 2015 is a first step in. assessing the plant's capacity to withstand the re-evaluated hazard. In the near-term , by January 2016 , l icensees will complete an " Expedited Approach" to evaluate and iden t ify reinforcements , if necessary , for certain equipment to. ensure a safe shutdown pathway can w i thstand a higher se i sm i c. ground motion. For Diablo Canyon and Palo Verde sites , the NRC staff is continuing to assess se i smic evaluations completed by the licensees to determ i ne i f they meet the i ntent of the Exped i ted Approach review and wi ll respond under. a seperate letter. SCREENING PROCESS As described in the 50.54 (f) letter and the SPID guidance , the se i smic hazard re-evaluat i ons were to be conducted us i ng current analysis me t hods and gu i dance. The licensees' responses to the 50.54(f) letter prov i ded seismic haza r d re-evaluation results , which were the focus of the NRC staff's in i tial screen i ng and prior i tization review. Although the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) is commonly referred to as a single number, this number represents a distr i but i on of ground motions that occu r over a range of spectral frequencies.

This. resu l ts in a curve of. ground acce l eration over. frequency.

The ability of t he equipment and structures i n the plant to withstand the effects of ground motions is frequency specif i c. For the purposes of the licensees' ana l yses and NRC staff's rev i ew , the SPID gu i dance iden t if i es three frequency r anges that are of part i cular interest:

1-1 O Hertz (Hz), a low frequency range of <2.5 Hz , and a high frequency range o f > 1 O Hz. The different ranges have been identified due to the different types of structures and equipment that may be impacted by ground mo t ions in that range. For example, l a r ge components generally are not affected 4 E nc l osure 1 o f t h is letter p rov ides a Glossa ry o f Se i s m ic E v a l uat i o ns , ex p la in i ng each of t he e v a lu ati o ns t hat a r e pa rt of t he o v e r a ll s e i s m ic reevalu ati on.

-. 3 -. significantly by high frequencies (i.e., > 1 o Hz). The frequency range 1-1 O Hz is the focus for this portion of the. risk evaluation , as this range has the. greatest potential effect on the performance of equ i pment and structures important to safety. For other frequency ranges , discussed below, limited-scope evaluations will be conducted , when appropriate.

In accordance with the SPID and Expedited Approach guidance , the re-evaluated seismic hazard determines if add i tional seismic risk evaluations are warranted for a plant (i.e., the plant screens in for further evaluation).

Specifically , the re-eva l uated ground motion response spectra (GMRS) in the 1-10 Hz frequency range is compared to the existing SSE:

  • If the re-evaluated GMRS, in the 1-10 Hz range, is less than the plant's exist i ng SSE, then the plant screens out of conducting further seismic risk evaluations

..

  • If the GMRS, in the 1-1 O Hz range, is greater than the existing SSE , then the plant will complete the Expedited Approach (including the Interim Evaluat ion). Most plants that meet this criterion also screen in to conduct a seismic risk evaluation and have committed to conduct high frequency.

and spent fuel poo l. evaluations. I n addition, if the GMRS meets the low hazard threshold , which is described in the SP ID , and only exceeds. the SSE below 2.5 Hz ,. the licensee will perform a limited evaluation of equipment potentially susceptible to low frequency motions. Similarly , if the GMRS exceeds the SSE only above 10 Hz , then the licensee will perform an evaluation of the equipment or structures susceptible to that specific.

range of ground motion. Enclosure 2 provides the staffs determinat ion of priority for plants that screen-in to conduct a seismic risk evaluation , and iden ti f ica tion of plants to complete limited-scope. evaluations (i.e., spent fuel pool , high frequency , or low frequency)

.. CONDITIONAL SCREENING As discussed in public meetings 5 , the staff anticipated the possibility of not being able to complete the determination for conducting a seismic risk evaluation for some plants in the 30 to 60 day review period under certain circumstances.

For example , if a l icensee provided a unique submittal or deviated from the SP ID guidance, additional t ime for the review might be needed .. In general, WUS submittals contain extensive site specific informat ion including site specific source models and ground-motion models which could affect the f ina l screening decisions.

Accordingly , during the NRC screening and pr ior it i zation process , the staff identif ied that for Pa l o Verde add i tiona l t im e and interactions will be required to better understand the seismic hazard for the. plant. As. such , the staff determined that Palo Verde " conditionally screens-in" for the purposes of prioritizing and conducting additional.

evaluations

.. After interactions have occurred , the staff will make a final screening and prior iti zat ion determination and prov id e a letter to. the licensee .. If the plant remains screened-in , the final screening letter will affirm the plant priority for further evaluations and establish schedule for an Expedited Approach , if necessary.

If the plant screens out, the final screening letter also will determ ine if the Palo ...................... 5 Discuss i o n as part o f public meetings dated December 4 , 2014 , February 11, 2015, a n d Ma rch 30 , 2015 (ADAMS Access i on Nos. ML14342A901, ML15104A065 and ML15111A031 , respect i ve l y). Verde needs to. complete limited-scope evaluations. (i.e., spent fuel pool , high frequency, or low frequency).

PLANT PRIORITIZATION The NRC grouped the " screened-in" plants into three groups 6 , which (i) reflects the relative priority for conducting a seismic risk evaluation that compares each plant's current capabilities to the re-evaluated seismic hazard , and (ii) accounts for the appropriate allocation of limited staff and available expert i se for reviewing and conducting seism i c risk evaluations. Dur i ng the prioritization.

review , the staff conside r ed each l i censee's re-evaluated hazard submittals , p l ant specific seismic and risk insights , and prev i ous des i gn basis ground motion est i mates. To prioritize the plants for completing seismic risk eva l uations, staff examined certain key parameters such as (1) the max i mum ratio of the new re-evaluated hazard (GMRS) to the SSE i n the 1-1 0 Hz ra n ge; (2) the maximum ground motion in the. 1-10 Hz range; and (3) insights from previous se i smic risk evaluations.

As such , Group 1 plants are gene r ally those that have the highest re-evaluated hazard relat i ve to the original plant seismic design-basis (GMRS to SSE), as well as ground mot i ons in. the 1-10 Hz range that are. generally higher in absolute magnitude.

Based on these criteria , Columbia and Diablo Canyon are prioritized as Group 1 plants. Group 1 plants , including Columbia and Diablo Canyon are expected to conduc t a se i smic risk evaluation and submit it by June. 30 , 2017 .. Group 3 plants have GMRS to SSE rat i os tha t are greater than 1 , but the amount of exceedance. in t he 1-1 O Hz range is relatively small , and the maximum ground mot i on in. the 1-10 Hz range is also not high. As described above, Pa l o Verde has conditionally screened in; based on current information Palo Verde has been assigned to pr i oritization Group 3. Given the limi t ed level. of exceedance of the Group 3 plants including. Palo Verde , staff is eva l uating the need for l i censees to conduct a seismic risk evaluation in order for the staff to complete its regulatory decision making. After further review , the staff will decide which Group 3 plants need to complete a risk evaluation.

Risk evaluations for Group 3 plants are due by December 3 1 , 2020. NEX T STEPS Based on t he s t aff's screening review the licensee for Columbia should final i ze and submit an Expedited Approach Report no later than J anuary 3 1 , 2016. The NRC staff is continuing to review the licensee provided information for Diab l o Canyon and Palo Verde related to the Expedited Approach.

In accordance. with. the endorsed guidance , the staff acknowledges that the January 2016 Expedited Approach submittal will focus on plant equipment (i.e. safe shutdown pathway 7) evaluations and modifications, as necessary , prior to submitting the plant seismic risk evaluations. The content of limi t ed-scope evaluations or confirmations and their associated schedule milestones remain under development with NRC staff and stakeholders.

The N RC staff has 6 Central and Eastern l i censees seismic hazard screening and pr i or i ty rev i ews were completed i n 2014. 7 Section 3 of the Expedited Approach guidance (ADAMS Access i on No. ML13102A142) prov i des a process to identify a sing l e seismically rob ust success path using a subset of ins talled plant equipment , FLEX equ i pment and connection points. conducted.

a number of public meetings on. the implementation detai ls of these evaluations, includ in g the development of alternatives approaches for conducting these evaluations The staff expects that implementing gu i dance should be established by summer 2015 and fall 2015 for high frequency and. spent fuel pool evaluations, respectively.

I t is expected.

that WUS licensees can complete these evaluations in parallel with completion of SPRAs for Group 1 plants by June 2017. This letter transmits the NRC staff's results of the seismic hazard submittals for the purposes of screening and prioritizing the plants. It does not convey the staff's final dete r mination regarding the adequacy of any plant's. calculated hazard. As such .. the NRC staff. w i ll continue. its review of the submitted seismic hazard re-evaluations , and may request additional plant-specific information to support this review through the summer of 2015. The staff has placed a high priority on this review for the early iden tification of issues that might adversely affect each licensee's seismic risk evaluations. Interactions with licensees will occur as soon as p racticable, including NRC staff plans to acknowledge the whether seismic hazard curves are suitability for use in SPRA development by late 2015. The NRC staff plans to issue a staff assessment on the re-evaluated seismic hazard once each review is completed in approximately 1 2 to 18 months .. I f you have any questions regarding this letter , please contact Nicholas DiFrancesco at 301-415-1115 or via email at Nicholas.Difrancesco@nrc

.gov. Sincerely, William M. Dean, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

1. Glossary of Evaluations
2. Screening and Prioritization Resu lts 3. List of Licensees March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic. Hazard Submittals
4. List of Licensees cc w/encls: Listserv conducted a number of pub lic meetings on the imple mentation detai l s o f these evaluations, i n cluding the development of a lt ernatives approaches for conducting these evaluations The staff expects that implementing guidance should be established by summe r 2015 and fall 2015 for high frequency and spent fuel pool evaluations, respectively.

It is expected that WUS licensees can complete these evaluations in parallel with completion of SPRAs for Group 1 plants by June 2017. Th is letter transmits the NRC staff's results of the. seismic hazard submittals for the. purposes of screening and prioritizing the plants. It does not convey the staff's final determination regard ing the adequacy of any plant's calculated hazard .. As. such , the NRC staff will continue. its review of the. submitted seismic hazard re-evaluations , and may request additional. plant-specific information to support this review through the summer of 2015. The staff has placed a high priority on this rev ie w for the early identification of issues that might adversely affect each licensee's seismic risk evaluations. Interact ions with licensees will occur as soon as practicab l e , including NRC staff plans to acknow ledge the whether seismic hazard curves are su i tability for use i n SPRA development by late 2015. The NRC sta ff plans to i ssue a staff assessment on the re-evaluated seism ic hazard once each review is completed in approximately 12 to 18 months. I f you have any questions regarding this letter , please contact Nicho las DiFrancesco at 301-415-1115 or via email at Nicholas.Difrancesco@nrc.gov.

Sincerely, William M. Dean , Director Office of Nuclear Re actor Regulat i on Enclosures

1. Glossary of Evaluations
2. Screening and Prioritization Results 3. List of Li censee March 2015 Re-e valuated Seismic Hazard Subm i ttals 4. List of Licensees cc w/encls: Listserv DISTR IBU T I ON: PUBLIC LPL4-1 R/F L P L 4-2 R/F R ids NroOd R ids NrrDorl R i dsNrrDorllpl4

-1 R i dsNrrDo rl lpl4-2 R idsNrrOd R idsNsirOd RidsOeMailCenter RidsOgcMa il Ce n ter MMarkley , NRA MKhanna, NRR MShams , NRR NDiFr ancesco , NRR ADA MS A ccess i on N o.: Ml151138344 AK ock, NRO D J ackson , NRO RidsNrrPMD i abloCanyon R ids Nr r PM Co l u mbla R ids NrrPa l oVerde R idsOgc R p Resource RidsRgn 4 MailC e n te r Resource R idsEdoMailCenler Resource *via ema il OFFICE NR R/JLD/PMB/PM NRR/JLD/LA NRR/JLD/H MB/BC NRO/DSEA/RGS2/BC NRR/D OR UD NAME ND iFr ances c o. SLent MS ha ms D Jac kso n Llund DATE 04/22/15 04/24/1 5 04/2 3/1 5 .. /. /15. . I. /15 OFFICE NRO/DSEA/D OGC NRR/J LD/D NRR/ D NAME SFlanders SC lar k JDavis IMFranov i ch for l WDea n DA T E I /1 5 05/0 4/1 5 I /15 I /15 O FFI C I AL R ECO RD CO P Y Glossary of Evaluations Associated with Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1 Seismic Hazard Re-eva l uations Interim Evaluation or Actions -An immediate licensee and NRC review of the re-evaluate d hazard to determine whether actions are needed to assure plant safety while further evaluations are ongoing. The staff has completed its review and concluded that , based on the licensees' interim evaluations and actions , Western United States (WUS) plants are safe for continued operations.

Interim evaluations and actions are provided in Section 5.0, "Interim Act i ons ," of the licensee submittals.

Expedit e d Appro ac h -A near-term licensee evaluation to be completed by January 31 , 2016 , for WUS plants whose re-evaluated hazard exceeds the current des ign-ba sis for the safe shutdown earthquake hazard level. The evaluation looks at the systems and components that can be used to safely shut down a plant under the conditions of a station blackout (i.e., no alternating current power is available) and loss of ultimate heat sink. The expedited approach will either confirm that a plant has sufficient margin to continue w ith a longer-ter m evaluation without any modificat ions, or confirm the need to enhance the seismic capacity to assure they can withstand the re-evaluated hazard. The Expedited Approach guidance document is found in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System under Accession No. ML13102A142.

S e ismi c Ri s k Evaluation

-L onger-term seismic risk evaluation provides the most comprehensive information to make regulatory decisions, such as whether to amend a plant's design or licensing basis or make additional safety enhancements.

These evaluations provide information to make r isk-informed decis ions. The staff will use this information in conjunction with the existing regulatory tools, such as backfit analysis, to decide on further regulatory actions. The longer-term seismic risk evaluations could be either a Seismic Margins Analys is or a Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment , depending on the magnitude of the exceedance.

Limit e d-S c op e Ev a luation s -These include i) Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation , ii) High Frequency Evaluation , and iii) Low Frequency Evaluation.

Respect i vely , these evaluations are focused on the following:

i) spent fuel pool components and systems capable of draining water inventory to the level of the spent fuel, ii) a review of components susceptible to high frequency accelerations (e.g. electrical relays), and ii i) a review of components susceptible to low frequency accelerations (e.g. water storage tanks). Enclosure 1

Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the. Fukushima Dai-l chi Accident Seismic Risk Eva l uations Screening and Prioritization Results for Western United States (WUS) Reactor Sites Seismic Risk Limited-scope Evaluations. Screening Expedited Evaluation H igh Low Spent Fue l Plant Name Resul t Approach (Priorit i zat i on Frequency Frequency Pool Evaluation Group) Evaluation Evaluation Evaluat i on Columbia Generating Station In x 1 x x Diablo Canyon Power Plant , U nit In x 1 x x Nos. 1 and 2 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Conditional 3 Station , Units 1 , 2, and 3 in x x x Enclosure 2

March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals for Western United States Reactor Sites Licensee Facility Date of letter (ADAMS Accession Nos.) Columbia Generating Station March 12 , 2015 (ML15078A243)

Diab lo Canyon Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 March 11, 20 15 (M L 15071 A046) Pa lo Verde Nuclear Generating Station , Units March 1 O, 2015(ML15076A073) and 1 , 2 , and 3 April 10 , 2015 (ML15105A076)

Enclosure 3

LIST OF APPLICABLE POWER REACTOR LICENSEES Columbia Generating Station Energy Northwest Docket No .. 50-397 License No. NPF-2 1 Mr. Mark E. Reddemann Chief Executive Officer Energy Northwest MD 1023 76 North Power Plant L oop P.O. Box 968 Richland , WA 99352 Diablo Canyon Power. P l ant. Unit Nos .. l and 2. Pacific Gas & Electric Company Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82 Mr. Edward D. Halpin Senior Vice President and Ch i ef Nuclear Officer Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 56 Mail Code 104/6 Avila Beach, CA 93424 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Arizona Public Service Company Docket Nos. STN 50-528 , STN 50-529 , and STN 50-530 License Nos. NPF-41 , NPF-51 and NPF-74 Mr. Randall K. Edington Executive Vice President Nuclear/CNO Arizona Public Service Company P.O. Box 52034 , MS 7602. Phoenix , AZ 85072-2034 Enclosure 4

DiFr ance s co , Ni c h o l as F ro m:DiFr ancesco, N i c h o la s Sent: 5 M ay 20 1 521: 18:3 6 +00 0 0 T o: Ja c k so n , Di a n e C c: Hill , Br i t ta in Sub jec t: W o rkin g V e r s i o n o f WUS S e i s mi c S c r ee nin g Le t t e r A tt ac hm e n ts: W este rn US S c r ee n i n g an d Pri o riti zat i o n l etter R ev l 5-5-15 5p m.d ocx Diane , For awareness, attached is the working version of the letter .. This. includes incorporating limited OGC comments.

There was one OGG comment regarding providing additional background that I maintained for consideration and discussion. Still considering a small update to support transition to the. interim evaluations section. Thanks , Nick From: Difrancesco , Nicholas Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 4: 15 PM To: Burn ell , S c ott

Subject:

Pr e ss Release on WUS Seismic Sc r een i ng Lette r Scott, We. briefed the DEDO, NRR, and R-IV management on the content of the. WUS Screening letter during the JLD status weekly. Mentioned that we are working towards a press release. We received no realignment on the letter or communication plan approach.

View ADAMS P8 Prope rties ML151138344 Open ADAMS P8 Document (Screen i ng and Pr i or i tization Results for the Western United States S i tes Regard i ng I nformat i on Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Rega r ding Se i sm i c Hazard Re-Evaluat i ons for Recommendat ion 2.1 of the. NTTF Rev iew) Current working towards issuance on Tuesday May 12 (that can always slip with NRR/ET review) .. Happy to. support a limited accuracy review as needed .. Please let me know if there are any questions or concerns.

Thanks , Nick Senior Project Manager -Seismic Reevaluation Activities U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiss i on Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Division nicho l as.difrancesco@nrc.gov I Tel: (301) 415-1115 Communicat i on Plan Timeline (A DAMS ML14083A619)

Date Act ivi ty (responsible organization)

SignitJ.cant Historic Actions Completed (2/20/14}

Issued letter to all licensees Re: Operability , Reportability, Interim Evaluation and Actions (ML14030A046)

Completed (5/9/14) Issued Central and Eastern US (CEUS) Seismic Screening Letter (ML14111A147)

WUS Seismic Hazard Screening Review Completed (3/12/15)

NRC Receipt of WUS Hazard Reports (JLD/licensees)

Completed (3/30/15)

NRC/NEI Seismic Public Meeting w/ Discussion of WUS Review P roce ss Completed (4/15/15)

Target for public meeting notice of April 28 Diablo Seismic Meeting (JLD-DiFrancesco)

Completed 4/27/15 Public availability of NRC and licensee slides for April 28 meeting (JLD -Di Fr ancesco) Completed 4/28/15 Diab l o Canyon Public Meeting on 2.1 Seismic (NRR/JLD, N RO/DSEA, Licensee)

Completed 4/29/15 Comp l ete WUS screening

& prior i tization technical review (NRO/DSEA) 5/7/2015 Distribute WUS screening

& prioritization letter to R-IV, OPA, OCA, OEDO (NRR/JLD liaison team) 5/11/2015 Notice to states, congressional, licensee issuance, and NGO s of pending issuance (RSLO, OCA, JLD) 5/12/2015. Issue WUS screening

& prioritization letter licensees including review of interim evaluation and actions (NRR/JLD) Issue Press Release on prioritization review (OPA) 6/4/15 Columbia Public Meeting on Methods (NRR/JLD, NRO/DSEA , Licensee) 6/9/15 Palo Verde Public Meeting on Methods (NRR/JLD, NRO/DSEA, Licensee) 6/23/15 Diablo End of Cycle Meeting and Open House (R-IV) Late.Summer Columbia End of Cycle Meeting (R-IV) Continuing Staff assessment of the reevaluated seismic hazard (NRO/DSEA , NRR/JLD) Points-of-contact

TSO DiFr ance s co, Ni c h o l as F ro m:DiFr ancesco, N i c h o la s Sent: 20 M ay 2 01 5 1 5:2 6: 4 8 +00 00 T o: R ose nb e r g , S t acey C c: L a ur , S t eve n;H a n-i s on , D o nni e;Sh a m s , M o h a m ed;Ja ckso n , Di a n e Sub jec t:Aw are n ess o f Publi c M ee tin g Slid e s o n SPRA R e li ef a nd W o rkin g L e t te r Outlin e A tt ac hm e n ts: R 2.l S eis m ic -M a y 2 1 2 015 Publi c M ee tin g R ev 7.pp tx, SPR A R e l ief Le tt e r fo r Group 2 a nd Group 3 Sit es.d ocx Stacey, As men t ioned i n the May 4 NRR/DRA brief. The staff i s moving forward to provide re l ief to certain priority Group 2 and Group 3 s i tes from comp l eting an SPRA. The May 21 pub li c mee t ing. tomorrow.

(Attachment 1 ). i s. a step, a l ong the wa y. were we consider. external. stakeholder i nsights. F ollowing the May 21 public meet i ng we wi ll have one addit i ona l publ i c mee t ing to cons i der stakeholder input. NRR ET has asked us to target August 20 1 5 (Attachment

2) for issue of the letter response to licensee.

The working draft con t a i ns my i nitial ou tli ne. I p l an seek NRR/DRA concurrence sometime t h i s summer and communicate awareness of SPRA act i vities. Steve , Donn i e , During an NE I call this morning the technical background about ice condensers containment f ailure probability. Tomorrow I expect an industry question on this top i c. Please l et me know if you have questions or concerns.

Sincere l y , Nick Sen i or Project Manager -Seismic Reevaluation Activit i es U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Div i s i on nicholas.d i f rancesco@nrc

.gov I Tel: (301) 415-1115 U.S.NRC UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS I ON Prot e ct i ng People and the En v ironm e nt NTTF Recommendation 2.1 Seismic May 21 , 2015. Andrea Kock, Diane Jackson, Mohamed Shams , Nick DiFrancesco Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Office of New Reactors ::::J -0 ..... 3 OJ -O" ::::J --"O OJ co CD (/) w _. I 01 _. ....._ _. 0 0 0 ---..... 0 3 )> 0 )> (/) --r _. 01 _. .i::.. 0 )> en I\) CX> --

U.S.NRC llNTTllD STATES NUCLl!AI\

IU!CllUTORY CO M MISSION Proucnng Peop l e and tlu En v ironment Today's Agenda NRC

  • Discussion of SPRA for Groups 2 and 3
  • Development of Guidance fair Proposed Rulemaking Related to Mitigation Strategies
  • Public Questions or Comments NEI
  • Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation l)evelopment
  • High Frequency Guidance Updates
  • Public Questions or Comments NRC
  • Key Messages I Actions SPRA -Sei s m i c Probab i l i stic Risk Assessmen 1 t 2 U.S.NRC llNlTl!D h'UCLEAI\

IU!CUl.ATORY COMMISSION Protecting Peop l e aruJ the Environment Assessment of SPRAs for Group 2 and Group 3 plants Diane ,Jackson 3 Seismic 2.1 Process Ensures Clarity, Consistency, and Risk-Informed Regulatory Decisions

PHASE 1 INFORMATION GATHERING STAGE 1 Interact with Industry on Ha z ard and Risk Evaluation Guidance CEUS Licensees submit Site Response (9/2013 & 3/2014) STAGE 2 S c reened-i n plants c omp le te E x pedited Interim Evalu a tion CEUS: 12/2014; WUS: 1 /2016 a nd R i sk E val u a tion (Group. 1: 201 7) NRC review Seismic Ris k Evaluation , as needed L-----------------------------

PHASE 2 DECISION-MAKING NRC makes Regulatory Decisions, as needed

  • Safety Enhancements
  • Modify Plant License 4 U.S.NRC UNITED NUCLEAR Rl!CUl..ATORY CO MMISSION Pl'Otecting PeQJJ l e and tJu Environment R2.1 Seismic lnforn1ation Needs for Regulatory Decisions
  • 50.54(f) letter gathers information to support regulatory decision to modify, revoke or suspend license
  • SPRA are an important tool to identify safety enhancements and assess plant capacity
  • May 9, 2014 , letter that SPRAs for some Group 3 plants with limited exceedan i ces may not be needed to make regulatory 50.54(f) decision
  • Presently the staff is evaluating 50.54(f) responses and available information to potential SPRA relief for some Group 2 and Group 3 1plants 5 U.S.NRC UmTllD STATES 1\JCLEAR IU!CUl..ATORY CO M MISSION Prot"'cnng P"'opl"' an.d tlu Ett v i ronmen t Available Information Supporting Limited SPRA Relie1f
  • R2.1 seismic reevaluated hazard I interim actions
  • R2.3 walkdown review:s and inspections
  • Gl-199, CEUS seismic hazard insights
  • IPEEE seismic plant Ccipacity insights
  • Expedited Approach Eivaluations 6

U.S.NRC UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Proucting Pet>pl e 1uul th e Environmen t Evaluation Approach for SPRA Relief

  • Staff built on Gl-199, IF>EEE, and reevaluated hazard risk insights for its review
  • Considered exceedanc:e above SSE, hazard peak, area between curves between 1 to 10 Hz, and reactor design
  • Assessed if SPRA insights would likely identified plant specific enhances 7 U.S.NRC Ul'o'l'l'ED NUCLEAR RllCUl..ATORY COMMISSION A-otectmg P eQJJ l e an.d t lu En.v i ron.m en.t SPRA Relief Letter. and Target Timeline
  • Engagement of stakeholder planned today and as part of next R2.1 public meeting
  • May -June 2015 -Sta.ff is continuing to develop inputs and decisions
  • Late Summer -Letter Issuance -Documents staff decisic>n providing SPRA relief for potential some Group 2 and Group 3 plants -Limited Scope Evaluati<)ns are expected from licensees provided SPFtA relief 8 U.S.NRC UNITED NUCLEAR R£CU1..ATORY OO MJ\t!SSION Protecting Peqp l e and th e Environ m en t NRC Guidance Development for Proposed Rule on Mitigation of Design-Basis Events (MBDBE) Incorporating Reevaluated Seismic Hazard 9 U.S.NRC UNrt'l!D NUCLEAR lll!CUl..ATORY CO M MISSION Protecnng P eop l e and the En v i ronmen t Overview of Topics for Discussion
  • Background on propose of MBDBE rule and guidance
  • Scope of proposed rule
  • Reasonable Protectiion
  • Deployment and interactions
  • Use of existing engineering insights 10 U.S.NRC Ul'o1TED STATES NUCLEAR R£CU1..ATORY OO M 1'fiSSION Protecting P eop l e and the Environment Guidance Development
  • Agency priority to support MBDBE proposed rulemaking (i.e. proposed 1 O CFR 50.155)
  • Proposed rulemaking extends Mitigation Strategies to met the reevaluated hazard level
  • Draft Regulatory Guide [)G-1301 under development to support issuance for public comment by early
  • Guidance to address scc)pe and performance requirements
  • Draft DG 1301 -

No. ML15072A171. 11 U.S.NRC UNrt'l!D NUCLEAR RJ!CUl..ATORY CO M MISSION Protecnng Peop l e and the Environment Proposed Rule Scope

  • All phases of FLEX equipment, including portable and installed
  • FLEX equipment must perform its intended function
  • Reasonable protection of equipment and strategies against the reevaluated hazard 12 U.S.NRC UKITllD STATES NUCLEAR RECULATORY CO M MISSION Protecnng P eop l e and tlu En v ironment Reasonable Protection

-Equipment

  • Equipment must ren1ain functional

-Components retain or fuel -Structures allow access for deployment

-Supporting equipment remains functional

  • Evaluation of equiprnent for robustness at the reevaluated seis , mic hazard -Analysis, testing, earthquake

_ experience, and generic test data. 1 3 U.S.NRC UNITED NUCLEAJ\ RJ!CUl..ATORY CO M MISSION Protecnng P eop l e and the Environmen t Reasonable Protection

-Buildings

  • Reasonable protection of equipment and strategies against the reevaluated hazard -Inelastic deformatior1 is permitted so long as strategy can be implemented

-Deformation limit co111mensurate with intended function 14 U.S.NRC TATES NUCLEAR RJ!CUl..ATORY OO M MlSSION Protecnng People and the Environment Deployment and Interactions

  • Secure and protect, equipment and strategies from seismic interactions
  • Seismically induced flooding
  • Feasible deployment routes -Potential soil liquefac:tion or non-safety building failures -Confirm access throLJgh robust structures 1 5 U.S.NRC U1'Tl'ED 1\JCLl!AR R£CUl..ATORY CO MMJSSION Pw>tecting P eop l e and t he Environment Existing Engineering Framework
  • IPEEE A-46, capacity cind risk insights
  • R2.1 Seismic ESEP interim evaluation

-capacity insights

  • Seismic probabilistic assessment

-capacities and risk

  • Industry codes and standards (e.g. ASCE 43-05) ESEP -Expedited Seismic Ev;aluation Process ASCE -American Society of C:ivil Engineers 16 U.S.NRC UNITED STATES 1\JCLEAJ\

RECUl..ATO R Y OO M MISSIOl'I Prot ecting Peop l e and the Environment Opportunity for Public Questions. or. Comments Additional Questions?

Please ask us at: JLD _ PublicResource@nrc.gov 17 U.S.NRC l!NtTBD STATES NUCLEAR R£CUl..ATORY O O M AUSSION Prou c nng Peop l e and t h e En v ironment Key Messages and Next Steps 1 8 U.S.NRC UNITllD STATES NUCLEAR RJ!CULATORY CO M MISSION Protecnng P eop l e and th e En v i ronment NTTF 2.1. Seismic Next Steps

  • Discussion of dates for r1ext meeting (late June)
  • Interaction on guidance *for proposed rulemaking (June -August 2015)
  • Discuss and finalize SRf)A decision for Groups 2 and 3 (August 2015)
  • Finalize high-frequency fevaluation implementing guidance (June/July 2015)
  • Spent fuel pool evaluatic>n implementing Guidance (Summer/Fall 2015) 19 U.S.NRC UNITED STATES 1\JCLEAJ\

RECUl..ATO R Y OO M MISSIOl'I Prot ecting Peop l e and the Environment Opportunity for Public Questions. or. Comments Additional Questions?

Please ask us at: JLD _ PublicResource@nrc.gov 20 U.S.NRC lMTl:O SUCLEA!l RECt.'UTOllY OOMMJSSIOl\

ProkctinK People and the Enviromnent Backup Slides 21 ji nformat i o n (pages 52-6 1/1000) i s ava il ab l e from ADAMS ML151138344. The Power Reactor Licensees and Holder of Construction Permits in Deferred Status on the Enclosed List UBJECT: SUSPENSION OF SEISMIC RISK EVALUTION INFORMATION REQUES PURSUANT TO TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATI N .54(f). REGARDING SEISMIC HAZARD RE-EVALUATIONS FO , ECOMMENDATION 2.1 OF THE NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE N I FR THE F K HI A DAI-HI A IDEN fie purpose of tfits letter i s to i nform enc ose lcensees tflat certain Group 2 a Group 3 s i t ay suspend respond i n to the seismic risk evaluation informa ti on r; uest based on a revie a vaj lable inf *o [This letter discussions the analysis approach of this decisions and expectations for completion of limit-scope evaluation (i.e. spent fuel pool , high-frequency, and/or low fre quency evaluations

).] Does not prov i de relief from other licens ing requirements for informed technical specifications or plant licensing.]

B A CRG ROON ll On Marcfl 12 , 2012 , the NRC issued a request for informat i on pursuant to Title 10 of the Cod of Federal Regulations , Part 50 (1 O CFR), Section 50.54(f) (hereafter referred to as the 50.54 etter) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System {ADAMS) Accession No L 12053A340). The purpose of that r equest was to gather information concern i ng , i n part , th i smic hazards at ope r ating reacto r s i tes and to enable the NRC staff to determine whethe icenses should be modified , s us pended, o r revoked. The "Required R esponse" sect i on o

  • nclosure 1 indicated that licensees and ns i n rm* h I d r h r v i i m i azaro Evaluation and Screenin re . The 50.54(f) letter stated that NRC would provide the results of the screening and prior i tizat ion indicating deadlines for individual plants to complete seismic risk evaluations to assess the total plant response to the re-evaluated seismic hazard. By (five] letters NRC completed its screening and p rio ritization review wh ich places 34 reactor sites into three review groups based on relative priority and resource constraints to complete seismic risk evaluations.

Prev iously , in accordance with the SPID and Expedited Approach guidance, the re-evaluated seismic hazard determ ines if additional seismic r isk evaluations.

I f the re-evaluated ground motion response spectra (GMRS), in the 1-1 O Hz range , is greater than the existing SSE, then the plant complete an Expedited Approach , screen in to conduct a seismic risk evaluat ion , committed to conduct high frequency, and a spent fuel pool evaluation.

The seismic screening letters dated in 2014 and 2015 also discussed that relief from the request was under consideration for some Group 3 sites. Based on further review , the staff found it prudent to also review Group 2 sites .. In tota l the staff identified that seismic risk evaluations fo r approximately (12.5] sites are not required [footnote Hatch unit CLB difference]

to complete regulatory decision mak ing. [This letter discussion the rationale]. AVAILIBLE I NFORMATION The NRC staff as part of. its 50.54(f) r equest sought information to support regulatory decisions related to the seismic reevaluated hazard for operating reactor sites. The 50.54 (f) letter discusses that this information would be used i n Phase 2 decis i ons. Although seismic risk evaluations are an important tool to. assess plant sat ety and ruggedness. Based on the. staff review of licensee hazard , r i sk i nsights, and plant design , substant i a l safety benefits are not expected for a number of previously screened Group 2 and Group 3 rev i ew sites. The NRC staff in coming to this dec i sion considered , the reevaluated hazard screening reports ,. Gl-199 risk insights , R2.1 hazard updates , probabilistic r i sk assessment guidance and standards , and 1 O CFR 50.109 backfit criteria. EVALUATION PROCESS AND ANALYSIS Enclosure 2 , documents p l ants identified i n Group 2 and Group 3 where low t o moderate se i sm i c hazard exceedance and risk insigh t s provided sufficient safety basis to not r equire a se i sm i c risk eva l uation. In otherwords , the seismic hazard was. reasonable small to. not require plant speci f ic imp r ovements. The staff found that Calvert Cliffs , Units 1 and 2 , GMRS hazard slightly exceedance. the SSE, its spectral peak was low, and previous se i smic probabilistic risk assessment (SPRA) found plant risk to be very l ow. The staff found that Cooper , Perry , Seabrook , and Three M il e I sland , U n it 1 , hazard slightly exceeded the SSE, and p r eviously risk evaluations demonstrated p l ant risk to be l ow. The staff f ound that Davis-Besse , Wo l f Creek, Po i nt Beach , Fermi , and LaSa ll e, GMRS hazard exceedance was moderately above the SSE , its spectral peak was low , and recent risk estimates. are l ow. The sta f f found that Hatch Un i t 2 and Mont i ce ll o , GMRS hazard exceedance was moderately above the SSE, its spectral peak was l ow , and recent r i sk est i mates are moderate. I I If you have any questions regarding this letter , please contact Nicho las DiFrancesco at 301-415-1115 or via email at N icho l as.Di francesco@nrc.gov.

Sincerely, William M. Dean , Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulat ion

Enclosures:

1. Glossary of Evaluations
2. Screening and Prioritization Re sults 3. List of Licensees' March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals
4. List of Licensees cc w/encls: Lis tse rv DISTR I BUTION: See n e x t pag e ADAMS Accession No.: ML151138344
  • via ema il OFFIC E NRR/J LD/PMB/PM NA R/JLD/LA NRR/JLD/HMB/BC NRO/DSEA/RGS2/

BC NR R/DOAU D NAME NDiFr ancesc o Slent MShams DJackson Ll und DATE OFFICE NRO/DSEA/D OGG NRR/JLDID NRR/D NAME SFlanders JDav i s WDe a n DATE OFFICIAL RECORD COPY RidsNrrPMSa l em RidsNrrPMSeabrook RidsNrrPMSequoyah RidsNrrPMShearonHa r ris RidsNrrPMSummer RidsNrrPMSurry RidsNrrPMSusquehanna RidsNrrPMTh r eeMi l els l and RidsNrrPMTu r keyPo i nt RidsNrrPMVogtle RidsNrrPMWaterford RidsNrrPMWattsBar1 RidsNrrPMWattsBar2 RidsNrrPMWo l fCreek RidsOgcRp Resource RidsRgn 1 Ma il Center Resource RidsRgn2Mai l Center Resource RidsRgn3Ma il Center Resource RidsRgn4Ma il Center Resource RidsEdoMailCenter Resou r ce. PUBLIC RidsNroOd R i dsNrrOd RidsNsirOd. MMarkley , NRR MKhanna , NRR MShams, NRR NDiFrancesco , NRR AKock , NAO DJackson , NRO RidsNrrPMDiabloCanyon RidsNrrPMCo l umbia RidsNrrPa l oVerde RidsOgcRp Resou r ce RidsRgn4Ma il Center Resou r ce RidsEdoMailCente r Resou r ce

Glossary of Evaluation

?G'Sociat Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1 Seismic Hazard Re-evaluations ntenm Evaluat on or Actions -An immediate lice nse e an(j NBC revi ew of the re-evaluat azard t o determine whether actions are needed to assure plant safety while further evaluation e ongoing. The staff has completed I ts review and concluded that , based on the l icensees nterim evaluations and actions , Western Un ited States (WUS) plants are safe for continu operations. Interim evaluatio s and actions are rovided In Section 5.0 " Inte rim Actions " of th . h-A near-term l ice nsee evaluation to be completed in December 2014 f CEUS plant s and by January 31 , 2016, for WUS plants whose re-e valuated haza rd exceeds r.urrent design-basis for the safe shutdown earthquake hazard level. The evaluation looks a he systems and components that can be used to safely s hut down a plant under the conditi fa stat i on blackout (i.e., no a lt ernating current power i s available) and l oss of ultimate hea ink. The expedited approach wi ll either co nfirm that a plan t has sufficient margin to contin ith a longer-ter m evaluation without any modifications , or confirm the need to enhance capacity to assure they can withstand the re-evaluated hazar d. T he Expedite gu i dance document is found in the A enc

  • e Document s Access and Mana emen S stem under Accession No. ML13102A142

_,__,_,.,_, comprehensive information to make regulatory dec isi o ns, such as whether to amena a plant's esign or l icensing basis or make additional safety enhancements.

These evaluations provid nforma t ion to make risk-info rmed decis i ons. The staff will use t his in fonna tion in ith the exist i ng regulatory tools , such as backfit analysis, to d ecide on f urther regulato ctions. T he longe r-term se i smic risk evaluations could be either a Seismic Margins A nalY,sis o * *

  • s e Enclosure 1

Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from. the Fukusn i ma Dai-lch i Acciden1 Seism i c Screen i ng UDdated Based on Review of Available lnformatio Umited-scooe Evaluation

!i P l ant Name *Evaluatio esu en nc al a 0 Bellefonte Nuclea r Plant , Un i ts 1 and 2i Ou Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. Units 1 and Du Coooer Nuclear Stat i o n Ou , Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station. Unit 1] Ou t EdWin I. Ratcfi Nuclea r Plant. Un i t 2 1 QYj I =ermi , Un i t 2! Ou 1 LaSalle Countv Station. Units 1 and 2! Ou I Mont i cello Nuclear Generatina

ou Dvster Creek Nu cl ear Generatina Statio ri bu' I> Palo Verde Nuclear Station Units 1. 2, and 3 Ou ) Perry Nuclear Power Plan t, Unit 1J Du i>oint Beach Nuclear Plant. Units 1 and 2 Pu Seabrook , Unit 1 1 Pu Nuclear Plant .. Units 1 and 2 '.Ou , ' jfhree Mi l e Island Nuclear Station , Un it 11 Pu Wolf Creek Genera ti na Station Unit 1 l Ou Enclosure 2

arch 2015 Re-evatuated Seismic Hazard and Screen i ng Repo dwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Units 1 and Salle Coun Station , Units 1 and rch 27 2014 ML14092A413 Station Unit 1 rch 31 2014 ML14097A020 Enclosure 3

LIST OF APPLICABLE POWER REACTOR LICENSEES Enclosure 4

DiFran cesco, Nicholas From:DiFrance sco, Nicholas Sent: 13 May 2015 18:34:49 +0000 To: Witt , K ev in;Yal e ntin , Milton Cc: B owman, Gregory;Sham s, Mohamed

Subject:

Comment R e: SFP Commitm e nt s to Commis s i on Attachments:20 l 3-0030comscy.

pd f W e n ee d to confirm with the t echn i cal expert s but , l think the only plant we need t o under stand b e tt er i s C ol umbi a. DC and Pal o V e rd e genera l appear t o b e within their C LB. Mi g ht be a good item t o co n si d e r as we develop th e SPF eva luat io n implementing details. -Nick -----Ori g in a l M Fr o m: Witt. K ev in Sent: W ed n es d ay, May 1 3, 2 015 12:15 PM To: Val e ntin , Milt o n Cc: B owma n. Gregor y; Difran cesco, Nichola s

Subject:

Commi tm ents to Commission Hi Milton, s inc e we were talking about co mmitm e nt s thi s m o rning , 1 wa s ju st r e mind e d of one. ln th e ex pedit e d tr a n sfe r paper (attached-footnote on pg 10), we co mmitt ed t o go ba c k and verify that the we s t e rn US Plant s SFPs are b o und ed by thi s analy s i s w h en we g a in s uffi c i ent in formation a bout s eismi c ha zar d s. W e m ay b e ab l e t o utili ze th e work th a t JHMB i s doin g on the SFP se i s mi c ha z ard re eval uation s to clo s e thi s it em o ut. -K e vin Ol'FICIAL USE ONLY SENSI I IVE IN I ERNAL INFoRMAllON March XX , 2015 MEMORANDUM TO: Chairman Burns Commissioner Svinicki Comm i ssioner Ostendorff Comm i ssioner Baran FROM:

SUBJECT:

Non Responsive M i chael R. Johnson Deputy Execut i ve. D ir ector for Reactor and Preparedness Programs Off i ce of the Execut i ve D i rector for Operations PERIODIC COMMISSION UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF TIER 1 AND TIER 2 NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTACT: Gregory Bowman , NRR/JLD (301) 415-2939 Enclosures

As stated cc: SECY OGC OCA OPA CFO Ol'l'lelAL t:l!I! 014L I !1!14SITI O I!! ii"l!!l'\14AL 114FORMA I ION 9FFl81AL 8HL'/ SElf!"IY!

llfT!PU*At IHFOl'tl!A I ION MEMORANDUM TO: FROM:

SUBJECT:

No n Re sp o nsi ve March XX , 2015 Chairman Burns Comm i ssioner Svinicki Commissioner Ostendorff Comm i ssioner Baran Michael R.. Johnson Deputy Execut i ve Director for Reactor and Preparedness Programs Office of the Execut i ve. Director for Operations PERIODIC COMMISSION UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF T I ER 1 AND TIER 2 NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTACT: Gregory Bowman , NRR/JLD (301) 415-2939 Enclosures

As s t ated cc: SECY OGC OCA OPA CFO DISTR I BUTION: See next page ADA MS A ccess i on No.: OFFICE NRR/JLD NAME LKG i bson* DATE 3/12/15 *v i a ema il NRR/JLD/JPSB: BC OEDO/TCCM DEDR GBowman*. MDudek MJohnson.

3/12/15 OFF I CIAL RECORD COPY QFFIQIAb 1!1812 9Hb\' 8EP481ll'/E lf4lEAHAL IHF8AMA"ef4 OFFICIAL USE ONLY SENSI I Iv E IN I ERNAL IHFORIOIM'IOl4

-2 (6) On March 12 , 2015 , the NRC staff received the seismic hazard reevaluation reports for the. plants in the Western United States (Columbia Generating Station; Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; and Pa lo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2 , and 3). Along with their submittals, licensees whose reevaluated seismic hazard is higher than their design basis are expected to provide an interim evaluation to demonstrate that the plant can cope with the reevaluated seismic hazard while the longer-t erm seismic risk eva l uations are ongoing. The NRC staff will review the licensee submittals and establ ish a prioritization schedule for the seismic r isk evaluations for those plants where the reevaluated seis mi c hazard exceeds that in the facility's design basis. T he staff w i ll a l so review the l i censee's inter im evaluation and actions,.

if applicable

.. This review , which will be documented in a letter. will like ly take between 30-60 days to accomplish.

With the submittal of these report , seismic hazard reevaluation have been submitted for all plants. O utsi de of Scope 8FFl81AI::

l:ISE IHl'liRHP:b 0 TIQH 8FFl81AL 8HLV SEHSl"flVE lftifEfilHAL lt4F8filMAll8H Regulator}'

' I ' Future Milestones Tier 1 NRG to document review of Expedited Approach.

for GEUS by RFI i ssued December 31, 2015 March 12, 2012 NRG to issue seismic Seismic Hazard Reevaluation hazard staff assessments NRG to issue review NTTF 2.1 Request for Information Licensees for Western U.S. for GEUS licensees by letters on Expedited (RFI) facil i ties submitted site September.30, 2015 Approach for GEUS by seismic hazard February 28 , 20 1 6 reevaluations by March 12, 2015 Licensee(s) for Western U.S. facilities to subm i t Expedited Approach by January 31 , 20 1 6 No n Re sp o nsi v e Enc l osure 2 QFFIGhl:b l!ISi: 8ttl'/ 8EHSl'flV!

IH'l'! .. HAL 1m*onlUIA I ION Sent:20 May 2015 19:43: 18 +0000 To:Stieve, Alice;Munson, Clifford Cc:Ake , Jon;Stephanie Dev lin;Hee szel, David

Subject:

Palo Verde questions Attachments:Questions for PVNG S.docx Attached are my draft questions based on their use of GMM. They supersede couple of my questions send to you 10 days ago.

Provide more rational for the choice of subset of GMPEs for PVNGS. What is the reason for deviation from approach chosen by DCPP? What is the reason for not using I driss and Zhao GMPEs for Greater Arizona sources (Table EX-2)? Section 5.5.1.1 justifies use of Zhao models for California and they are used fo r Diablo. I n mean time Table 5.5.1-1 (p.5-46) says that Zhao tectonics and attenuation are not relevant to California/West Arizona. DCPP. and PVNGS seem to contradict each other's .. **********************************************

Section 6.2.2 is including Bindi 2014 model, but limits its use to M=7 because of magnitude scaling which is d ifferent from others (Fig. 6.2.2-1) 1.50 1 1.00 0.70 ,........, El <( 0.50 en CL 0.30 0.20 5.0 T=0.2 SS Rx=S 5.5 6.0 6.5 M 7.0 *ASK14 *AS814 *Bi14 BSSAt4 *C814 7.5 ' l . 8.0 In mean time for DCPP the use of different scaling (strong saturation) by Zhao is considered to be useful representing alternative approach. I t looks like when alternative scaling results in lower GM i t is acceptable to Tl team , but when it results in higher GM it is not acceptable.

Page 6-6 states: " Based on the evaluation of the candidate GMPEs for application to earthquakes in Cal i fornia and Mexico recorded in central Ar i zona given in Kishida et a l. (2014), the Tl Team judged that the. NGA-West2 GMPEs are suitab l e for estimating path terms. for the paths from California and Mexico to central Arizona." In mean time existing publications Phill ips (2013) demonstrate higher Q for Arizona (also F ig. 5.5 , p.107). ************************************************

                      • Kish ida et al.,. 2014 report states. (Abstract):

" The compar i son showed that overall the recorded 5% damped response spectral ordinates were. over predicted by the NGA-West2 models by a range of 0-0.35 natural l og units for events occurr i ng in Central California , and by a range of 0.2-0.7 natural l og units for events occurring in Sou t hern California and the Gulf of California." Th i s conclusion looks inconsistent w i th: 1. Ar i zona Q at least same or higher than that of California

2. Kappa same or lower than that of California This conclusion is based on compa r isons with records from mostly small. magnitude even t s (Table 2.2 , p.6) and data hav i ng e x treme l y limited frequency range of 0.5 to 8 Hz (may be actua ll y up to 5 Hz). Figure 2.18 (p.19) conf i rms that (/) 150 ---...--.---

.................

--.--.-...-.-

......... -n--.....-

........ @ 100 -------------

... -... -Ari z ona Events \ ---NGA-W est2 E vents \ \ 0 ....... .1....1....:..u..u....

-..1.-..1-1...i..:iu.u.i 0.1 1 10 100 Pe ri od (s) ******************************************************

                                                                • Are the r e any consideration of bas i n effect i n applying GMPEs fo r Arizona consider i ng tha t basin effec t in NGA-West2 re l a t ions depends upon the depth to Vs=1 km/s or 2.5 km/s? ******************************************************************************* Use of such a subset of data actually questions est i ma t es of kappa. Fig. 4.17-4.37 a l so don't look conv i ncing.

Sent: 10 Apr 20 1 5 21 :24:07 +0000 To:John Stamatakos;Stirewa l t, Gerry;PJaza

-Toledo, Meralis;Miriam R. Juckett Cc:Ake , Jon;Hill, Brittain;Munson.

Clifford;lisa.

walsch@nrc.gov;Li , Yong

Subject:

RE:

Monday D iablo Meeti n g That is very good. T hanks! From: John Stamatakos

[jstam@swri.org].

Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 4:01 PM To: Gra i zer, Vladimir; St i rewa l t, Ge r ry; Plaza-To l edo, Meralis; Miriam R. Juckett Cc: Ake, Jon; Hill, Brittain; Munson, Clifford; lisa.walsch@nrc.gov; Li, Yong

Subject:

Monday Diab l o Meeting Vlad, For Monday, I can walk everyone through the draft summary report we have on the seismic imagining data and searchable image table. John Dr. John Stamatakos Direc t o r ofTechnical Programs Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Ana l yses (CNWRA) Southwest Research I nstitu t e 1801 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852 301-881-0290 j stamatakos@swr i.org I I n formation (pages 282-283/1000) i s .......... . Graizer , Vladimir From:Grai zer, V l adimir Sent:28 May 2015 13:53:52 +0000 T o:Jackson , Diane;Munson , Clifford Cc:John Stamatako s;Ake , Jon;Plaza-Tol edo, Merali s;Giacinto , Jo s eph;Stovall, Scott;H111 , Britlain;Li , Yong

Subject:

RE:

R eminder s ent to Diablo for Information Reque s t Diane and Cliff, I don't know if it is considered an RAI, but as I mentioned at one of the Diablo meetings I need the following info: Section 8.4.1 of the SWUS report discusses evaluation of median base models and their range. Please provide Excel files of the plots shown on Figures 8.4-17 and 8.4-18 showing comparisons of hazard curves for frequencies of 5 and 0.5 Hz. In addition , please provide similar files for the frequencies of 1 O and 1 Hz. Vlad i mir Graizer , Ph.D. Se i smologist Office of New Reactors Mail Stop: T-7F3 Washington , DC 20555-0001 From: Jackson,. Diane Sent: Thursday , May 28, 2015 9:43 AM To: Munson, Clifford Cc: Graizer, Vladimir; John Stamatakos; Ake, Jon; Plaza-To l edo, Meralis; Giacinto, Joseph; Stovall, Scott; Hill, Brittain; Li, Yong

Subject:

FYI: Rem inder sent to Diablo for Information Request Nick sent a reminder. Diane From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Thursday , May 28, 2015 9: 16 AM To: Philippe Soenen (Pns3@oge.com); Jahangir, Nozar Cc: Michae l Richardson (mjrm@pge.com

); Str i ckland, Jearl; Shams, Mohamed; Jackson, D i ane; Vega, Frankie

Subject:

Reminder on Diablo Information Request Ph ilip pe , et , al Just a reminder that the staff is interested i n the following references to support NRC review: 1) Benchmark fi les for SWUS-DCPP median ground motion models. 2) EST A 27 and 28 recordings of Parkfield and San Simeon earthquakes

a. Time histories
b. Response spectra c. Response spectra adjusted for Vs30 3) Engineering reports describing development of velocity profiles for stations ESTA 27. and 28. 4) Paper describing WAACY Magnitude PDF by Wooddell and others. Please let me know when the references will be availab l e. Thanks , Nick Senior Pro j ect Manager -Seism i c Reevaluat i on Activities U.S. Nuc l ear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Division nicholas.difrancesco@nrc.gov I Tel: (30 1) 415-1115 H eesze l , D av id From:Heeszel , David Sent:22 May 2 015 18:29:2 7 +0000 To:Sebe r , D oga n;Mun son, Clifford Cc:Ake , Jon;Jack so n , Di a n e

Subject:

Columbia GMM codes Attachments:s s_90_0_10_10_10_ye s kappa.pdf, ss_90_0_10_10_10_nokappa.pdf Hi All , Attached are two files that contain some results from my Columbia GMM software.

Both files are for a single fault at 8 magnitudes from 5(fault1 )-8 (fault8). In this case the fault is a vertical strike-s li p located w i th 1 Okm away that comes to the surface. The red dots are individual realizat i ons of the SA at the branch l evel. The solid black curve is the. weighted mean SA , and the dashed lines are. the mean+/-sigma. For this code , we are simply using the middle branch of the normal distr i bution of sigma. The next step is to get a set of. scenar i o. earthquakes that are realistic and importan t to hazard. Perhaps we can discuss at the Columbia weekly meeting on Thursday.

Thanks , David David Heeszel Geophy s icist U.S. NRC , NRO/DSEA/RGS2 Offic e: T-7E28 Mail Stop: T-7F3 Phone: 301-415-5066

<( CJ) fault1 0. 001 ;--____,....--,....-r--T'"...,.....,.....,........--____,....----..-.....,--,...........,....,.-----r----..-......--.-...,....,......--

0 .1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) fault2 1 ..-.. 0) ..._... <( 0.1 (j) 0.0 1 0. 00 1 0 .1 1 1 0 100 Frequency (Hz)

<( CJ) fault3 0.001 0 .1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

..-.. 0) ..._... <( (j) 1 0.1 0.0 1 .. ,. / fault4 .,,.,..,.

__..-*-*1*---. __ _,,____.__

i i -=*-:--*-*-*-* ' . ' ' ' i t * .. " . : : ... 0. 00 1 -------.---.-...,.....,....,...,....,...;-----.-----..--...--.-.,.............,...;---.....----.----.-..,........,.............. 0 .1 1 1 0 10 0 Frequency (Hz) fault5 1 ...-.. O> ..._.. / <( 0.1 . ... . ....... / . I / I I (j) ! . . . 0.0 1 I I ,, 0.00 1 0.1 1 1 0 100 Frequency (Hz)

<( (j) fault6 ..

  • 0.001

...............

....,...,...;--.,....----,.__,........,....,....,....,....-r 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) fault? 1 ...-.. O> ..._... <( 0.1 (j) _.,,,,,. * ' t I ! * , ...___. *

  • t I 1 I I * -. .V
  • I t t I I
  • I I ' -*-*-* / I t t I I t t I t i * / t
  • I I I t t 1 I '1 1 II '11 , 1: I : t ! t : I t I t i ---...;l;_--1 ...... * .... . .. , .. t I I ... ., ' .
  • I ......... 0.0 1 0. 00 1 0.1 1 1 0 100 Frequency (Hz) faults 0. 0 01 0 .1 1 1 0 10 0 Frequency (Hz)

<( CJ) fault1 0.01 ---t-' I ** . i . 0. 001 ------.---.--.--.-........-'T'1--.....----r---r--l""""l""°T'"'l'-----r-

' ---.* -.,........,.....,....,....,'T"'l-0 .1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

<( (j) fault2 1 -,:1------1 ...... 0 .1 .. t . . . . . . ..... : . 0.01 --+------+-'

'--1---1 i j I j 0. 001 --t-"----r---.---r"""T""'T""T

..........-------r----r-

...............

"""T""T'"T'"T

--+--,_;......,.....-r""P""r'".,..+-0. 1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) fault3 10 1 . **-* -* -. -I I . . ,..-I I -* A' *-...-.. O> ..._... <( 0.1 (j) 0.0 1 !..-'. ----. -*-*---/ .,...,,,----

/ . . . .. ,, ./ v I *, .. ......... ...... / / /*v ..... . . . // *" I . . . I / .* ; . . . . I . / / I I I I I I / . . 0.00 1 ! ' 0.1 1 1 0 100 Frequency (Hz)

<( CJ) fault4 : : ' ' 0. 001 ....---.---.--.......-r-r

-0 .1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

<( CJ) fault5 1 .-*-*i-* ... -..... t' . : / / --------.. -*-*-*-/ / . / -v . .*. . . . . . . . . . -.-, -+-, ___,____, 01 ..,. .,,,,.-.** *. * ... . . ... .. .. .. -... v*/ / ......... j * / ... ** : , .. 0.01 / * *

  • I : i : i .
  • I . 0. 001 ------.-----.--.--.--.-.,...,......;--......----.---r--T

...............

,..----.-* ,.........,......,....,....,..

0.1 1 10 1 0 0 Frequency (Hz) fault6 ..-.. 0) ..._.. <( 0.1 (j) *. I .

  • r ....... ..... . I I I t I I 0. 00 1 0.1 1 1 0 100 Frequency (Hz)

..-.. 0) ..._... <( (j) 1 ..... ..... 0.1 0.0 1 fault? .-*-* -**-.. . . . -* --........ . ... : . *J-*-*-*-...__ T-+--+.---r-I .. *:* . : .. ! ... ..... . t I * ' ' ' ; * * . ' I I I ' . I I ' . 0. 00 1 ..,........,_"T""'"T"'T""'T'"t-0 .1 1 1 0 100 Frequency (Hz) fault8 1 -.---..-.. / -O> / -*""*I ...._.. ,,.*"" / <( 0.1 / (j) / / 0.01 . . . -*-. ---.. . .... . I . I I . -... I I -......_ 1 * -. -. -. -* ....... *,.. .. . . : ....

  • l * . : .... ! ..... . I . : . * *
  • I * *
  • I I I t * *
  • t I I I .. a a a 0. 001 0 .1 1 1 0 100 Frequency (Hz)

H eesze l , D av id From:Heeszel , David Sent:26 Mar 2015 20:17:38 +0000 To:Sebe r , Do ga n;Mun son, Clifford Cc:Graizer , Vladimir

Subject:

Columbia GMM Impl eme ntation Attachments:Columbia Ground Motion B ackgro und.pptx Attached is a brief PowerPoint detail in g the implementat i on of the Columbia GMM. I focused primarily on Appendix 02 of the SSHAC report and so am not intimately familiar with the technica l bases used to develop the GMM. Let me know if you have any questions I may be able to answer. Please forward to anyone who may have a use or need for th i s. --Dav i d David Heeszel Geophysicist U.S. NRC , NRO/DSEA/RGS2 Office: T-7E28 Mail Stop: T-7F3 Phone: 301-415-5066 Hanford SSHAC Ground Motion and 43N 50 100 -=-=--Kilometers 1 22'W t20W 118W Hanford Ground Motion Model

  • Defined at 20 Periods
  • Divided into two pieces -GMM for background and fault sources (crustal model) -GMM for subduction sources (subduction model)
  • Independent Logic Trees
  • Single Sigma Logic Tree -Different parameters for crustal and subduction earthquakes
  • V 530 is 760 m/s throughout Crustal Model (189 branches)

Backbone GMPE CY14 (1.0) V s-K Ad j ustment Factors V K-7 s (0.055) V K-6 s {0.136) V K-5 s (0.198) (0.222) V K-3 s (0.198) V K-2 s (0.055) Inh erent Uncertainty in Backbone Adjustments I M)9 (0.0625) I M)8 (0.0625) I Mh (0.0625) [61n (Y) I M)6 (0.0625) [fl ln(Y) I M]5 (0.50) [61 n (Y) I M]4 (0.0625) [61n (Y) I Mh (0.0625) I Mh {0.0625) I M]1 (0.0625) Host-to-Target Uncertainty Facto r s x1.3 (0.3} xl.O (0.6) x0.8 (0.1)

Backbone Model

  • Modification of Chiou and Youngs, 2014
  • Can be broken into "'10 subcomponents Some parameters fall out b/c not considered by this PSHA
  • E.g. directivity component
  • Included in software for completeness
  • Necessary Inputs Frequency (f) Magnitude (m) -Rupture Distance (RRuP) Joyner-Boore Distance (RJs) Fault Dip (6) Reverse Faulting Flag (FRv) Normal Faulting Flag (FNM) (I should remove this) Depth to top of rupture (ZroR)

Subsequent Adjustment Factors

  • V 5-kappa factors -Table lookup
  • Period Dependent Uncertainty

-Required Inputs

  • Hanging Wall Factor (FH w) -Depend s on R x and fault type
  • Joyner-Boo r e Distance (R J 8)
  • Dip (6)
  • R x
  • Magnitude (M)
  • Host-to-Target Uncertaint\l

-Constant Implementation in SSC

  • Same GMM used for fault sources and background sources All earthquakes are faults
  • Yakima Fold and Thrust treated Discretely
  • Zones treated generally

-Randomly Distributed

-Sometimes randomly oriented -All Boundaries are Leaky Need to consider fault type

  • Sources have styles of faulting and dips associated with them -Necessary to calculate the parameters R x and Z tor
  • Fault scaling relations. become important particularly for determining ztor -Calculate width based on scaling relations and determine >> If Z tor <0 then this realization is not considered in PSHA Subduction Model (72 branches)

Backbone GMPE Back-arc {1.0) ? Magnitude Scal i ng

+ 0.2 (0.2) [6C1]med (0.6) [tiCl]med

-0.2 (0.2) Scaling on An elastic Attenuation Term 0.5 05 ( 0.4) 05 ( 0.6) Implemented Within GMPE Epi stemic Uncerta i nty in Med i an x1 .62 (0.2) x1.0 ( 0.6) x 0.62 ( 0.2) Host-to-Ta r get V s Adjustment Fa ctor* V s factor-4 (0.335) V s factor-3 (0.165) V 5 factor-2 (0.335) V 5 facto r-1 (0.165)

Backbone Model

  • Modification of BC Hydro Model.
  • Broken into "'9 s ubcomponent s
  • Neces s ary input s Fr eq u e n cy (f) Mo m en t Mag n i tud e (M) F oca l D ep t h (Z h) f o r In terface even t s D e pth w ithin s l a b fo r lntr as lab eve nt s E ve nt type fl ag (F event)
  • l nte r plate
  • l ntraslab R
  • R upture for l nterp l ate
  • H ypocentre for lnt r aslab
  • Site correction term means that PGA ca l lculation must be done for hypothetical case where V 530=1 , 000 m/s T i me co n s u min g cir c ul a r l oo p
  • R equi r es calculati n g m u ch o f logic t ree fo r I PGA at 1000 m/s pr i or to calcu l ating SA at d es i red frequency.

Implementation in SSC

  • Reads as if interplate are (semi)finite (Rrup)
  • lntraplate are point(ish) sources (Rhyp)
  • Logic tree is primarily

<<3 lookup exercise

  • Despite simpler form --more difficult to implement due to correction factors w/in backbone Sigma (6 branches)

I Dist ri bu t ion I Sigma Mo d el No r mal H i gh (0.2) (0.2) Cen t ral (0.6) Mixture Model {0.8) Low (0.2)

CY -CY a == a-1 + 2 1 [ mir1(max(M, 5), 7) -5] 2

  • Same tree used for both crustal and subduction

-Normal Model Uses Table Lookup -Mixture Model Uses CcJnditional Probability and table lookup

  • Need to call integration subroutine 6 times for one realization P(z ) 1-ffi ( z -/1) > z = WMi x l Potential Sirr1plifications?
  • All ruptures reach a specific depth_ (Ztor=constant)?.
  • Ignore hanging wall effect*!>
  • Constant Dip?
  • Rrup=RJs=RHYP

?=Rx? -All could be implemented t::>n SSC side

  • Full GMM logic tree is coded -Decide which, if any simplifications to apply later
  • Need a definitive answer 0 1 n the level of granularity necessary

-Only interested in Median SA and sigma?

  • Computationally cleaner Implementation So Far
  • Fortran90

-need to consicler that most of Roland's codes are in C

  • Models coded as indepenclent subroutines

-With dependencies (mostlv lookup)

  • Sigma developed as well -With dependencies
  • Simple wrapper programs have been developed for testing -Comparisons to Chapter 9 in SSHAC report look reasonable
  • No digital testing files for comparison
  • only output is. and sigma. -Not individual branches H eesze l , D av id From:Heeszel , David Sent:26 May 2 015 19:46:45 +0000 T o:Seber , Do ga n

Subject:

Columbia GMM without ho s t to target un ce rtainty. Attachments:no

_h tu_y es kappa.pdf , no_htu_nok ap p a.pdf Attached are two pdfs conta i ning plots for the Columbia GMM without the host to target uncerta i nty. nokappa does not contain the V s-kappa correction , and yeskappa does. The faulting paramete r s and magnitudes are the same as the plots sent last week and the size of the dots corresponds to that branches re l a t ive weight in calculating the mean. There are n in e branches for the nokappa realizat i on and 63 for the yeskappa.

The resu l ts. appear to be approximately 7% l ower than for the case that includes the host-to-target uncertainty correction. --Dav i d David Heeszel Geophysicist U.S. NRC , NRO/DSEA/RGS2 Office: T-7E28 Mail Stop: T-7F3 Phon e: 301-415-5066

....-0> -<( (f) fault1 0.0001 o.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

....-0> -<( (j) fault2 0.0 01 o.1 1 1 0 10 0 Frequency (Hz)

<( (/) fault3 0.001

...........

0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

....-0> -<( (f) fault4 0.0 001 -+----------+----------------

-

0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

....-0> -<( (f) fault5 0.0 1 o.1 1 1 0 10 0 Frequency (Hz)

....-0> -<( (f) fault6 0.0 1 o.1 1 1 0 10 0 Frequency (Hz)

....-0> -<( (f) fault? 0.0 1 o.1 1 1 0 10 0 Frequency (Hz)

....-0> -<( (f) fault8 0.0 1 o.1 1 1 0 10 0 Frequency (Hz) fault1 10 1 0.1 . . . * * * * * *-*-. *

  • t__ -*-.-***-*.-*-*-* 0.01
  • 0.001 * * * ....-O> -0.0001 <( * (/) 1e-05
  • 1e-06 1e-0 7 1e-0 8 1e-09 0.1 1 10 10 0 Frequency (Hz) fault2 1 0.1 0.01 + * * * . 0.001 + ---O> + -<( 0.0001 (/) 1e-09 0.1 1 10 1e-08 100 Frequency (Hz) fa u lt3 1 0 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 ....-O> -0.0001 <( Cf) 1e-05 1e-06 0.1 1 F re qu ency (H z) fa u lt4 1 0 1 0.1 0.0 1 0.001 ....-O> -0.0001 <( (f) 1e-05 1e-06 1e-0 7 1e-0 8 1e-09 0.1 1 10 1 00 Fr e q uency (H z) fa u lts 1 0 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 ..--O> -0.0001 <( Cf) 1e-05 1e-06 1e-07 1e-08 1e-09 0.1 1 10 1 00 Fr e q uency (H z) fa u lt6 1 0 1 0.1 ............................. 0.01 * * * ; . 0.001 ' ....-* O> ' -0.0001 <l: (f) 1e-05 1e-06 1e-07 1e-08 1e-09 0.1 1 10 100 F requency (H z) fault? 10 1 0.1 ***;****: ................ . 0.01 + * * * * . 0.001 * * ---O> -0.0001 <( (/) 1e-05 1e-06 1e-07 1e-08 1e-09 0.1 1 10 10 0 Frequency (Hz) fault8 1 0 1 -*--*-* -* ,_ . -:* -. _;, -; 0.1 ... ... 0.01 . . . *******:****; ................. . ' . : ; . . *
  • 0.001 ....-O> -0.0001 <( (/) 1e-05 1e-06 1e-07 1e-08 1e-09 0.1 1 10 1 00 F re q uency (H z)

I n formation (pages 332/1 000) is w i thin scope of FO I A a n d s h o ul d be r e l eased. H eesze l , D av id From:Heeszel , David Sent:25 Mar 2015 20:26:34 +0000 T o:Mun so n , Cl iff o rd Cc:Ake , Jon;Jack so n , Di a n e

Subject:

Columbia Ground Motion Mod e l Hi Cliff , I've finished coding up the ground motion model for the Columbia SSHAC. I. can walk you through the program i n about 20 min if your interested.

Cheers ,. David David Heeszel Geophysicist U.S. NRC , NRO/DSEA/RGS2 Office: T-7E28 Mail Stop: T-7F3 Phone: 301-415-5066 Sent:2 Apr 2015. 12:09:41 +0000 To:Munson, Clifford;Ake, J on; Weaver, Thomas;Seber, D ogan;L i , Yong; Wa l sh, L isa;Stova ll , Scott Cc:'Miriam R. Juckett' Bcc:HQ-TWFN-07 A04-15p.

Subject:

D i scu s sion of CGS GMPEs Attachments:Columbia Grou n d Motion Background.pptx We wi l l go over the Columb i a GMPEs and current implementa t ion. Ca ll in and presentation attached Bridge line phone number: 888-71 1-9770 Partic i pant passcode 1 (b)(6) I Hee s zel , David From:Heeszel, D avid Sent: 1Apr2015 12: 13:54 +0000 To:Walsh , Lisa

Subject:

RE:

CGS GMPE Code s Hi Lisa , I'll be going through the logic tree approach and how I have currently implemented it. I i mag i ne. that much of the discussion will be around simpl i fications that we can make that will help our review be mo r e efficient.

I would skim Chapter 9 of the report and (maybe) famil i arize yourself with Append i x D2 .. I haven't given the code to Cliff or Dogan yet , so I don't want t o put the cart before the horse in terms of hand i ng them around. --David From: Walsh, Lisa Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 9:58 AM To: Heeszel , David

Subject:

CGS GMPE Codes Hi David, Dogan jus t mentioned that you are going to present the Columbia GMPEs and implementation along with the codes you have deve loped for confirmatory ana l ysis on Thursday.

He forwarded me the appointment and I plan to attend, but I just thought I would check in with you. I am planning on reading through the SSHAC report over the next few days. Would I be able to look at the codes you developed from the SSHAC report before the meeting (an d/or would that be useful)? Lisa Lisa S. Walsh , Ph.D. Geophysicist , U.S. NRC NRO/DS EA/RGS1 T-7F15 , 301-415-5612 PGA We i ghte d VS-k a pp a I I L og(S A) F req u e n cy S A (c o de) Weight SA (Bra n c h* Un certa int y B kb co d e) branch Br a n c h ac one ---100 2.60E-01 3.44E-03 8.94E-04 1 1 -5.3100 100 1.72E-01 3.44E-03 5.92 E-04 1 2 -5.3100 100 1.38E-01 3.44E-03 4.75E-04 1 3 -5.3 1 00 100 3.25E-01 3.44E-03 1.1 2E-03 1 4 -5.3100 100 2.12E-01 2.75E-02 5.83E-03 1 5 -5.3100 100 1.81 E-01 3.44E-03 6.23E-04 1 6 -5.3100 100 3.32E-01 3.44E-03 1.14E-03 1 7 -5.3100 100 1.35E-01 3.44E-03 4.64E-04 1 8 -5.3100 100 2.47E-01 3.44E-03 8.50E-04 1 9 -5.3100 100 1.63E-01 8.50E-03 1.39E-03 2 1 -5.3100 100 1.08E-01 8.50E-03 9.18E-04 2 I 2 -5.3 1 00 100 8.64E-02 8.50E-03 7.34E-04 2 I 3 -5.3100 100 2.04E-01 8.50E-03 1.73E-03 2 I 4 -5.3100 100 1.33E-01 6.SOE-02 9.04E-03 2 I 5 -5.3100 100 1.13E-01 8.50E-03 9.61 E-04 2 6 -5.3100 100 2.08E-01 8.50E-03 1.77E-03 2 I 7 -5.3100 100 8.46E-02 8.50E-03 7.19E-04 2 8 -5.3100 100 1.55E-01 8.50E-03 1.32E-03 2 9 -5.3 1 00 100 8.14E-02 1.24E-02 1.0 1 E-03 3 I 1 -5.3100 100 5.37E-02 1.24E-02 6.66E-0 4 3 2 -5.3100 100 4.30E-02 1.24E-02 5.33E-04 3 3 -5.3100 100 1.02E-01 1.24E-02 1.26 E-03 3 4 -5.3 1 00 100 6.61 E-02 9.90E-02 6.54E-03 3 5 -5.3 1 00 100 5.65E-02 1.24E-02 7.01 E-04 3 6 -5.3100 100 1.0 4 E-01 1.24E-02 1.29E-03 3 7 -5.3100 100 4.21 E-02 1.24E-02 5.22 E-04 3 8 -5.3100 100 7.73E-02 1.2 4 E-02 9.59E-04 3 9 -5.3 1 00 100 4.23E-02 1.39E-02 5.88E-04 4 1 -5.3 1 00 ----------->-..... 1-----100 2.79E-02 1.39E-02 3.88E-04 4 2 -5.3100 100 2.23E-02 1.39E-02 3.1 OE-04 4 3 -5.3 1 00 100 5.27E-02 1.39E-02 7.33 E-04 4 4 -5.3100 100 3.43E-02 1.1 1 E-01 3.81 E-03 4 5 -5.3100 ---100 2.9 4 E-02 1.39E-02 4.09E-04 4 6 -5.3100 100 5.39E-02 1.39E-02 7.49E-0 4 4 7 -5.3 1 00 100 2.19E-02 1.39E-02 3.04 E-04 4 8 -5.3100 100 4.01 E-02 1.39E-02 5.57E-04 4 9 -5.3 1 00 -100 1.46E-03 1.24E-02 1.8 1 E-05 5 1 -5.3 1 00 100 9.62E-04 1.24E-02 1.1 9 E-05 5 2 -5.3 1 00 100 7.71 E-04 1.24E-02 9.56E-06 5 3 -5.3100 100 1.82E-03 1.24E-02 2.26E-05 5 4 -5.3100 100 1.18E-03 9.90E-02 1.17E-0 4 5 5 -5.3100 100 1.01 E-03 1.24E-02 1.25E-05 5 6 -5.3100 100 1.86E-03 1.24E-02 2.31 E-05 5 7 -5.3100 100 7.55E-04 1.24E-02 9.36E-06 5 8 -5.3 1 00 100 1.38E-03 1.24E-02 1.71 E-05 5 I 9 -5.3100 100 7.57E-07 8.50E-03 6.43E-09 6 I 1 -5.3100 100 5.00E-07 8.50E-03 4.25E-09 6 I 2 -5.3100 100 4.00E-07 8.50E-03 3.40E-09 6 3 -5.3100 Pag e l 100 100 100 100 100 100 --100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 9.45E-07 6.15E-07 5.26E-07 9.65E-07 3.92E-07 7.19 E-07 -1.20E-13 7.90E-14 6.33E-14 1.4 9E-13 9.73E-14 8.32E-14 1.53E-13 6.20E-14 1.14E-13 8.50E-03 6.80E-02 8.50E-03 8.50E-03 8.50E-03 8.50E-03 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 2.75E-02 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 Weighted Mean SA PGA 8.03E-09 6 4 -5.3 100 4.18E-08 6 5 -5.3100 4.47E-09 6 6 -5.3100 8.20E-09 6 7 -5.3100 3.33E-09 6 8 -5.3100 6.11 E-09 6 9 -5.3 100 --4.13E-16 7 1 -5.3100 2.72E-16 7 2 -5.3100 2.18E-16 7 3 -5.3 100 5.13E-16 7 4 -5.3 100 2.68E-15 7 5 -5.3100 2.86E-16 7 6 -5.3100 5.26E-16 7 7 -5.3100 2.13E-16 7 8 -5.3100 3.92E-16 7 9 -5.3100 5.21E-0 2 Pag e2 PGA VS-Kappa B ack b one Back b one S A *Vs SA*VSK + Unce r tainty B ack b o n e. Correction Correctio n kappa Correction J:!_ncerta i nty --0.340 0.4630 -1.8054 -1.3424 0.340 0.0471 -1.8054 -1.7583 0.340 -0.1740 -1.8054 -1.9794 0.340 0.6840 -1.8054 -1.1214 0.340 0.2550 -1.8054 -1.5504 0.340 0.0984 -1.8054 -1.7070 0.340 0.7050 -1.8054 -1.1004 0.340 -0.1950 -1.8054 -2.0004 0.340 0.4120 -1.8054 -1.3934 0.428 0.4630 -2.2727 -1.8097 0.428 0.0471 -2.2727 -2.2256 0.428 -0.1740 -2.2727 -2.4467 0.428 0.6840 -2.2727 -1.5887 0.428 0.2550 -2.2727 -2.0177 0.428 0.0984 -2.2727 -2.1743 0.428 0.7050 -2.2727 -1.5677 0.428 -0.1950 -2.2727 -2.4677 0.428 0.4120 -2.2727 -1.8607 0.560 0.4630 -2.9736 -2.5106 0.560 0.0471 -2.9736 -2.9265 0.560 -0.1740 -2.9736 -3.1 476 0.560 0.6840 -2.9736 -2.2896 0.560 0.2550 -2.9736 -2.7186 0.560 0.0984 -2.9736 -2.8752 0.560 0.7050 -2.9736 -2.2686 0.560 -0.1950 -2.9736 -3.1 686 0.560 0.4120 -2.9736 -2.5616 0.683 0.4630 -3.6267 -3.1637

1----0.683 0.0471 -3.6267 -3.5796 0.683 -0.1740 -3.6267 -3.8007 0.683 0.6840 -3.6267 -2.9427 0.683 0.2550 -3.6267 -3.3717 --0.683 0.0984 -3.6267 -3.5283 0.683 0.7050 -3.6267 -2.9217 0.683 -0.1950 -3.6267 -3.8217 0.683 0.4120 -3.6267 -3.2147 -----*-f-1.320 0.4630 -7.0092 -6.5462 1.320 0.0471 -7.0092 -6.962 1 1.320 -0.1740 -7.0092 -7.1 832 1.320 0.6840 -7.0092 -6.3252 1.320 0.2550 -7.0092 -6.7542 1.320 0.0984 -7.0092 -6.9108 1.320 0.7050 -7.0092 -6.3042 1.320 -0.1950 -7.0092 -7.2042 1.320 0.4120 -7.0092 -6.5972 2.740 0.4630 -14.5494 -14.0864 2.740 0.0471 -14.5494 -14.5023 2.740 -0.1740 -14.5494 -14.7234 P a g e 3 S A (B ranch) 2.61 E-01 1.72E-01 1.38E-01 3.26E-01 2.12E-01 1.81 E-01 3.33E-01 1.35E-01 2.48E-01 1.64E-01 1.08E-01 8.66E-02 2.04E-01 1.33E-01 1.1 4E-01 2.09E-01 8.48E-02 1.56E-01 8.1 2E-02 5.36E-02 4.30E-02 1.01 E-01 6.60E-02 5.64E-02 1.03E-01 4.21 E-02 7.72E-02 4.23E-02 ----2.79E-02 2.24E-02 5.27 E-02 3.43E-02 2.94E-02 5.38E-02 2.1 9E-02 4.02E-02 1.44E-03 9.47E-04 7.59E-04 1.79E-03 1.17E-03 9.97E-04 1.83E-03 7.43E-04 1.36E-03 7.63E-07 5.03E-07 4.03E-07 Weighte d I S A 8.99E-04 5.93E-04 4.75E-04 1.12E-03 5.83E-03 6.24E-04 1.14E-03 4.65E-04 8.54E-04 1.39E-03 9.18E-04 7.36E-04 1.74E-03 9.04E-03 9.66E-04 1.77E-03 7.2 1 E-04 I 1.32E-03 1.0 1 E-03 6.64E-04 5.33E-04 I 1.26E-03 6.53E-03 6.99E-04 1.28E-03 5.22E-04 9.57E-04 5.88E-04 -3.88E-04 I 3.11 E-04 I 7.33E-04 I 3.8 1 E-03 4.08E-04 ] 7.48E-04 3.04E-04 5.58E-04 -1.78E-05 1.17E-05 9.4 1 E-06 2.22E-05 1.15E-04 1.24E-05 2.27E-05 9.22E-06 1 1.69E-05 6.48E-09 4.28E-09 3.43E-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

--2.740 2.740 2.7 40 2.740 2.740 2.740 5.690 5.690 ._5.690 ,__ 5.690 5.690 5.690 5.690 5.690 5.690 840 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.7 -0. 0.4 0.4 0.0 -0. 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.7 -0. 0.4 550 984 050 1950 120 630 471 1740 840 550 984 050 1950 120 -14.5 494 -14.5494 -14.5494 --14.5494 -14.5494 --14.549 4 --30.2139 --30.2139 t--30.2139

-30.2139 t--30.2139 -30.2 139 -30.2139 -30.2 1 39 -30.2 1 39 I I PGA -l E-07 -14.2944 6.19E-07 -14.4510 5.30E-07 -13.8444 _9.72E-07 -14.7444 3.95E-07 -14.1374 7.25E-0 7 -29.7509 1.20E-13 --30.1668 7.92E-14 .... -30.3879 6.35E-14 -29.5299 1.50E-13 -29.9589 9.75E-14 -30.1 155 8.34E-14 -29.5089 1.53E-13 -30.4089 6.22E-14 -29.8019 1.14 E-13 f.-8.0 9E-09 4.21E-08 4.50E-09 8.26E-09 3.36E-09 6.16E-09 4.13E-16 2.7 2E-16 2.18E-1 6 5.15E-16 2.68E-15 2.87E-16 5.26E-16 2.14E-1 6 3.92E OJ1j Weighted 5.21 E-0 2 Mean SA Page4 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 PGA 5.0000 0.0000 61 -Log(SA) Backbone -5.0000 -10.0000 +----------t-----20.0000 ------------1----25.0000 +---------

---*---30.0000 +-------------i i.,,.,._ -35.0000 .....__ ____________

_ l.OOE+OO l.OOE-02 l.OOE-04 1.00E-06 1.00E--08 l.OOE-10 l.OOE-12 l.OOE-14 Page5 -VS-Kappa Correction Backbone SA *Vs-kappa Correction

-SA *vsK +.Backbone Uncertainty

-SA (Branch) -We i ghted SA (Bra nch)

PGA P age 6 P GA P age 7 0.1 H z Weig h ted VS-kappa Backbone L og(S A} VS-Kap p a F requency S A Weig h t S A Un certai n ty (Br anch} b r a n ch B ranc h B ackbo n e Co r rection 0.1 2.80 E-04 3.44E-03 9.63E-07 1 1 -1.11 E+0 1 8.5 4 E-0 1 0.1 5.1 9E-05 3.4 4 E-03 1.79E-07 1 2 -1.11E+01 8.5 4 E-0 1 -------*--0.1 9.1 5 E-05 3.44E-03 3.15E-07 1 3 -1.11 E+01 8.54E-0 1 0.1 1.59E-04 3.44E-03 5.47E-07 1 4 -1.11 E+01 8.54E-0 1 0.1 1.20E-04 2.75E-02 3.30E-06 1 5 -1.11E+01 8.54E-0 1 0.1 1.80E-04 3.44E-03 6.19E-07 1 6 -1.11E+01 8.54E-0 1 0.1 2.66 E-04 3.44E-03 9.15E-07 1 7 -1.11 E+01 8.54E-0 1 0.1 5.47E-05 3.44E-03 1.88E-07 1 8 -1.11E+01 8.54E-0 1 0.1 8.06E-05 3.44E-03 2.77E-07 1 9 -1.11E+01 8.54E-0 1 0.1 2.47E-04 8.50E-03 2.10E-06 2 1 -1.11E+01 8.65E-01 0.1 4.58E-05 8.50E-03 3.89E-07 2 2 -1.11E+01 8.65E-0 1 0.1 8.08 E-05 8.5 0E-03 6.87E-07 2 3 -1.11 E+01 8.65E-01 0.1 1.40E-04 8.50E-03 1.19E-06 2 4 -1.11 E+01 8.65E-0 1 0.1 1.06E-04 6.80E-02 7.2 1 E-06 2 5 -1.11E+01 8.65E-0 1 0.1 1.59 E-04 8.50E-03 1.3 5E-06 2 6 -1.11 E+01 8.65E-0 1 0.1 2.35E-04 8.50E-03 2.00E-06 2 7 -1.11E+01 8.65E-0 1 0.1 4.83E-05 8.50E-03 4.1 1 E-07 2 8 -1.11E+0 1 8.65E-0 1 0.1 7.1 2E-05 8.50E-03 6.05E-07 2 9 -1.11 E+01 8.65E-01 0.1 2.20 E-04 1.24E-02 2.73E-06 3 1 -1.11E+01 8.75E-0 1 0.1 4.08E-05 1.24E-02 5.06E-07 3 2 -1.11E+01 8.75E-0 1 -0.1 7.21 E-05 1.24E-02 8.94E-07 3 3 -1.11E+01 8.75E-0 1 0.1 1.25E-04 1.24E-02 1.55E-06 3 4 -1.11E+01 8.75E-0 1 0.1 9.49E-05 9.90E-02 9.40E-06 3 5 -1.11 E+01 8.75E-0 1 0.1 1.42 E-04 1.24E-02 1.76E-06 3 6 -1.11E+01 8.7 5E-0 1 --

1.24E-02 2.59E-o6 ----1.11E+01 8.75E-0 1 0.1 3 7 0.1 4.30E-05 1.24E-02 5.33E-07 3 8 -1.11E+01 8.75E-0 1 0.1 6.35E-05 1.24E-02 7.87E-07 3 9 -1.11E+01 8.75E-0 1 0.1 2.02 E-04 1.39E-02 2.8 1 E-06 4 1 -1.11E+01 8.83E-0 1 --3.74E.:-05 5.20E-0-7 -----0.1 1.39E-02 4 2 -1.11E+01 8.83E-0 1 --0.1 6.61 E-05 1.39E-02 9.19E-07 4 3 -1.11E+01 8.83E-0 1 0.1 1.1 4E-04 1.39E-02 1.58E-06 4 4 -1.11E+01 8.83E-0 1 0.1 8.70 E-05 1.1 1 E-01 9.66E-06 4 5 -1.11E+01 8.83E-01 --1.39E-o2 ---0.1 1.30E-04 1.8 1 E-06 4 6 -1.11 E+01 8.83E-0 1 0.1 1.92E-04 1.39E-02 2.67E-06 4 7 -1.11E+01 8.83E-0 1 0.1 3.95E-05 1.39E-02 5.49E-07 4 8 -1.11 E+01 8.83E-0 1 -------0.1 5.82 E-05 1.39E-02 8.09E-07 4 9 -1.11 E+01 8.83E-0 1 ------0.1 1.76E-04 1.24E-02 2.18E-06 5 1 -1.11 E+01 8.95E-0 1 0.1 3.27E-05 1.24E-02 4.05E-07 5 2 -1.11E+01 8.95E-0 1 0.1 5.76E-05 1.24E-02 7.1 4E-07 5 3 -1.11 E+01 8.95E-0 1 0.1 9.99 E-05 1.24E-02 1.24E-06 5 4 -1.11 E+01 8.95E-0 1 0.1 7.59E-05 9.90E-02 7.5 1 E-06 5 5 -1.11E+01 8.95E-0 1 0.1 1.1 3E-04 1.24E-02 1.40E-06 5 6 -1.11E+01 8.95E-0 1 0.1 1.67 E-04 1.24E-02 2.07E-06 5 7 -1.11E+01 8.95E-0 1 0.1 3.44E-05 1.24E-02 4.27E-07 5 8 -1.11E+01 8.95E-01 0.1 5.08E-05 1.24E-02 6.30E-07 5 9 -1.11E+01 8.95E-0 1 0.1 1.66E-04 8.50E-03 1.4 1 E-06 6 1 -1.11E+01 9.0 1 E-0 1 0.1 3.08E-05 8.50E-03 2.62E-07 6 2 -1.11 E+01 9.0 1 E-0 1 Pag e 8 0.1 5.43 E-05 0.1 9.41 E-05 0.1 7.15E-05 0.1 1.07E-04 0.1 1.58E-04 0.1 3.24E-05 --0.1 4.79 E-05 0.1 1.60E-04 0.1 2.97E-05 0.1 5.24E-05 0.1 9.07 E-05 0.1 6.89E-05 0.1 1.03E-04 0.1 1.52E-04 0.1 3.1 3E-05 0.1 4.61 E-05 8.50E-03 8.SOE-03 6.80E-02 8.50E-03 8.SOE-03 8.SOE-03 8.SOE-03 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 2.75E-02 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 We i g ht ed Mean S A 4.62E-07 8.00E-07 4.86E-06 9 To E-07 1.34E-06 2.7 5E-07 4.07E-07 5.50E-07 1.02E-07 1.80E-07 3.12E-07 1.89E-06 3.54E-07 5.23E-07 1.08E-07 1.59E-07 9.6 7 E-05 0.1 H z 6 3 -1.11 E+01 9.0 1 E-0 1 6 4 -1.11E+01 9.01 E-0 1 6 5 -1.11 E+01 9.0 1 E-01 6 6 -1.11 E+01 9.0 1 E-01 6 7 -1.11 E+01 9.0 1 E-01 6 8 -1.11E+01 9.01 E-0 1 ----9.0 1 E-O f 6 9 -1.11 E+01 7 1 -1.11 E+01 9.04E-0 1 7 2 -1.11E+01 9.04E-0 1 7 3 -1.11E+01 9.04E-01 7 4 -1.11 E+01 9.04E-0 1 7 5 -1.11E+01 9.04E-0 1 7 6 -1.11E+01 9.04E-0 1 7 7 -1.11E+01 9.04E-01 7 8 -1.11E+01 9.04E-01 7 9 -1.11 E+01 9.04E-01 Pag e 9 0.1 Hz Backbone Backbon e SA*VSK + Uncertainty SA *Vs-B ackbone SA (Br a n ch) Weighted Correction kappa Un certainty S A (Branch) Correction 1.32E+OO -9.4794 -8.1594 2.86E-04 9.84E-07 -3.69E-01

-9.4794 -9.8484 5.28E-05 1.82E-07 1 2 2.00 -----1.99E-01 -9.4794 -9.2804 9.32E-05 3.21 E-07 3 7.49E-01 -9.4794 -8.7304 1.62E-04 5.56E-07 4 0.00 4.74E-01 -9.4794 -9.0054 1.23E-04 3.38E-06 5 8.76E-01 -9.4794 -8.6034 1.83E-04 6.31 E-07 6 -2.00 1.26E+OO -9.4794 -8.2194 2.69E-04 9.27E-07 7 -3.16E-01 -9.4794 -9.7954 5.57E-05 1.92E-07 8 -4.00 7.25E-02 -9.4794 -9.4069 8.22E-05 2.83E-07 9 1.32E+OO -9.6015 -8.2815 2.53E-04 2.15E-06 10 -6.00 -3.69E-01 -9.6015 -9.9705 4.68E-05 3.97E-07 11 1.99E-01 -9.6015 -9.4025 8.25E-05 7.01 E-07 7.49E-01 -9.6015 -8.8525 1.43E-04 1.22E-06 12 -8.00 13 4.74E-01 -9.6015 -9.1275 1.09E-04 7.39E-06 8.76E-01 -9.6015 -8.7255 1.62E-04 1.38E-06 14 15 -10.00 1.26E+OO -9.6015 -8.3415 2.38E-04 2.03E-06 16 -3.16E-01 -9.6015 -9.9175 4.93E-05 4.19E-07 17 -12.00 7.25E-02 -9.6015 -9.5290 7.27E-05 6.18E-07 1.32E+OO -9.7125 -8.3925 2.27E-04 2.81 E-06 18 l.OOE 19 -3.69E-01 -9.7125 -10.0815 4.18E-05 5.19E-07 20 1.99E-01 -9.7125 -9.5135 7.38E-05 9.16E-07 21 1.00E 7.49E-01 -9.7125 -8.9 635 1.28E-04 1.59E-06 22 4.74E-0 1 -9.7 125 -9.2385 9.72E-05 9.63E-06 23 1.00E 8.76E-01 -9.7125 -8.8365 1.45E-04 1.80E-06 24 1.26E+oo -9.7125 -8.4525 2.13E-04 2.65E-06 25 1.00E -3.16E-0 1 -9.7125 -10.0285 4.41 E-05 5.47E-07 26 7.25E-02 -9.7 125 -9.6 400 6.5 1 E-05 8.07E-07 27 1.00E 1.32E+OO -9.8013 -8.4813 2.07E-04 2.88E-06 28 -3.69E-01 -9.8013 -10.1703 3.83E-05 5.32E-07 1.99E-01 -9.8013 -9.6023 6.76E-05 9.39E-07 29 l.OOE 30 7.49E-01 -9.8013 -9.0523 1.1 7E-04 1.63E-06 4.74E-01 -9.8013 -9.3273 8.90E-05 9.87E-06 31 l.OOE 32 -9.8013 -8.9253 1.33E-04 1.85E-06 33 1.26E+OO -9.8013 -8.5413 1.95E-04 2.71E-06 34 l.OOE -3.16E-01

-9.8013 -10.1173 4.04E-05 5.61 E-07 35 ----7.25E-02 -9.8013 -9.7288 5.95E-05 8.28E-07 36 ------1.32E+OO -9.9345 -8.6145 1.81 E-04 2.25E-06 37 -3.6 9E-01 -9.93 45 -10.3035 3.35E-05 4.16E-07 38 1.99E-01 -9.93 45 -9.7355 5.91 E-05 7.33E-07 39 7.49E-01 -9.93 45 -9.1855 1.03E-04 1.27E-06 40 4.74E-01 -9.9345 -9.4605 7.79E-05 7.71E-06 41 8.76E-01 -9.9345 -9.0585 1.16E-04 1.44E-06 42 1.26 E+OO -9.9345 -8.6745 1.7 1 E-04 2.12E-06 43 -3.16E-01 -9.9345 -10.2505 3.53E-05 4.38E-07 44 7.25E-02 -9.9345 -9.8620 5.21 E-05 6.46E-07 45 1.32E+OO -10.001 1 -8.6811 1.70E-04 1.4 4E-06 46 -3.69E-01 -10.0011 -10.3701 3.14E-05 2.67E-07 47 P age 10 1.99E-01 7.49E-01 4.74E-01 8.76E-01 1.26E+OO -3.16E-01 7.25E-02 1.32E+OO -3.69E-01 i.-_1_.9:...:..9E-O 1 7.49E-01 f--4.74E-01 8.76E-01 1.26E+OO -3.16E-01 7.25E-02 0.1 H z -10.001 _1 __ __ 5_.5_3_E_-0_5-+--10.0011 -9.2521 9.59E-05

-10.0011 -9.5271 7.29E-05 -10.0011 -10.0011 -10.0011 -10.0011 -10.0344 -10.03 44 --10.0344 --10.0344 -10.0344 -10.0344 -10.0344 -10.0344 -10.0344 -9.1251 -8.7411 -10.3171 -9.9286 -8.7 144 -10.4034 -9.8354 -9.2854 -9.5604 -9.158 4 -8.7744 -10.3504 -9.9619 1.0 9E-04 1.60E-04 3.3 1 E-05 4.88E-05 1.64E-04 3.03E-05 5.35E-05 9.28E-05 7.05E-05 1.05E-04 1.55E-04 3.20E-05 4.72E-05 We ig h te d M e an S A I P age 11 4.70E-07 8.1 5E-07 4.95E-06 9.26E-07 1.36E-0 6 2.81 E-07 4.14E-07 5.65E-07 1.04E-07 1.84E-07 3.19E-07 --1.94E-06--3.62E-07 5.32E-07 1.10E-07 1.62E-07 9.9 0E-0 5 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 21 41 61 :+oo 21 41 61 :-01 :-02 :-03 :-04 :-os :-06 :-07 0.1 H z -Log(SA) Backbone -VS-Kappa Correct i on -Backbone SA *Vs-kappa Co rr ection -SA*VSK +Backbone Uncertainty

-SA (Branch) -Weighted SA (Branch) P age 12 Sh e et3 0.1 2.80E-04 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 1 0.1 5.19E-05 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 2 0.1 9.15E-05 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 3 0.1 1.59E-04 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 4 0.1 1.20E-04 2.75E-02 0.649E+OO 5 0.1 1.80E-04 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 6 0.1 2.66E-04 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 7 0.1 5.47E-05 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 8 0.1 8.06E-05 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 1 9 0.1 2.47E-04 8.SOE-03 0.649E+OO 2 1 0.1 4.58E-05 8.SOE-03 0.649E+OO 2 2 0.1 8.08E-05 8.SOE-03 0.649E+OO 2 3 0.1 1.40E-04 8.SOE-03 0.649E+OO 2 4 0.1 1.06E-04 6.80E-02 0.649E+OO 2 5 0.1 1.59E-04 8.SOE-03 0.649E+OO 2 6 0.1 2.35E-04 8.50E-03 0.649E+OO 2 7 0.1 4.83E-05 8.50E-03 0.649E+OO 2 8 0.1 7.12E-05 8.SOE-03 0.649E+OO 2 9 0.1 2.20E-04 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 3 1 0.1 4.08E-05 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 3 2 0.1 7.21 E-05 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 3 3 0.1 1.25E-04 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 3 4 0.1 9.49E-05 9.90E-02 0.649E+OO 3 5 0.1 1.42E-04 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 3 6 0.1 2.09E-04 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 3 7 0.1 4.30E-05 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 3 8 0.1 6.35E-05 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 3 9 0.1 2.02E-04 1.39E-02 0.649E+OO 4 1 0.1 3.74E-05 1.39E-02 0.649E+OO 4 2 0.1 6.61 E-05 1.39E-02 0.649E+OO 4 3 0.1 1.14E-04 1.39E-02 0.649E+OO 4 4 0.1 8.70E-05 1.11 E-01 0.649E+OO 4 5 0.1 1.30E-04 1.39E-02 0.649E+OO 4 6 0.1 1.92E-04 1.39E-02 0.649E+OO 4 7 0.1 3.95E-05 1.39E-02 0.649E+OO 4 8 0.1 5.82E-05 1.39E-02 0.649E+OO 4 9 0.1 1.76E-04 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 5 1 0.1 3.27E-05 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 5 2 0.1 5.76E-05 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 5 3 0.1 9.99E-05 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 5 4 0.1 7.59E-05 9.90E-02 0.649E+OO 5 5 0.1 1.13E-04 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 5 6 0.1 1.67E-04 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 5 7 0.1 3.44E-05 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 5 8 0.1 5.08E-05 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 5 9 0.1 1.66E-04 8.SOE-03 0.649E+OO 6 1 0.1 3.08E-05 8.SOE-03 0.649E+OO 6 2 0.1 5.43E-05 8.SOE-03 0.649E+OO 6 3 0.1 9.41 E-05 8.50E-03 0.649E+OO 6 4 0.1 7.1 SE-05 6.80E-02 0.649E+OO 6 5 0.1 1.07E-04 8.50E-03 0.649E+OO 6 6 P age 1 3 Sheet3 0.1 1.58E-04 8.50E-03 0.649E+OO 6 7 0.1 3.24E-05 8.SOE-03 0.649E+OO 6 8 0.1 4.79E-05 8.SOE-03 0.649E+OO 6 9 0.1 1.60E-04 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 7 1 0.1 2.97E-05 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 7 2 0.1 5.24E-05 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 7 3 0.1 9.07E-05 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 7 4 0.1 6.89E-05 2. 75E-02 0.649E+OO 7 5 0.1 1.03E-04 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 7 6 0.1 1.52E-04 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 7 7 0.1 3.13E-05 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 7 8 0.1 4.61 E-05 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 7 9 Page 14 Sh ee t3 1 2-0.111E+02 0.854E+OO 0.132E+01 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.854E+OO

-0.369E+OO 1 2-0.11 1 E+02 0.854E+OO 0.199E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.854E+OO 0.749E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.854E+OO 0.474E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.854E+OO 0.876E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.854E+OO 0.126E+01 1 2-0.11 1 E+02 0.854E+OO -0.316E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.854E+OO 0.725E-01 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.865E+OO 0.132E+01 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.865E+OO -0.369E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.865E+OO 0.199E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.865E+OO 0.749E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.865E+OO 0.474E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.865E+OO 0.876E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.865E+OO 0.126E+01 1 2-0.111E+02 0.865E+OO -0.316E+OO 1 2-0.11 1 E+02 0.865E+OO 0.725E-01 1 2-0.11 1 E+02 0.875E+OO 0.132E+01 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.875E+OO -0.369E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.875E+OO 0.199E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.875E+OO 0.749E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.875E+OO 0.474E+OO 1 2-0.11 1 E+02 0.875E+OO 0.876E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.875E+OO 0.126E+01 1 2-0.111E+02 0.875E+OO

-0.316E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.875E+OO 0.725E-01 1 2-0.111E+02 0.883E+OO 0.132E+01 1 2-0.111E+02 0.883E+OO

-0.369E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.883E+OO 0.199E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.883E+OO 0.749E+OO 1 2-0.1 1 1 E+02 0.883E+OO 0.474E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.883E+OO 0.876E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.883E+OO 0.126E+01 1 2-0.111E+02 0.883E+OO

-0.316E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.883E+OO 0.725E-01 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.895E+OO 0.132E+01 1 2-0.11 1 E+02 0.895E+OO -0.369E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.895E+OO 0.199E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.895E+OO 0.749E+OO 1 2-0.11 1 E+02 0.895E+OO 0.474E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.895E+OO 0.876E+OO 1 2-0.1 11 E+02 0.895E+OO 0.126E+01 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.895E+OO -0.316E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.895E+OO 0.725E-01 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.901E+OO 0.132E+01 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.901E+OO -0.369E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.901E+OO 0.199E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.901E+OO 0.749E+OO 1 2-0.11 1 E+02 0.901E+OO 0.47 4 E+OO 1 2-0.11 1 E+02 0.901E+OO 0.876E+OO Pag e 15 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.901 E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.901 E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.901 E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.904E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.904E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.904E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.904E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.904E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.904E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.904E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.904E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.904E+OO Sheet3 0.126E+01

-0.316E+OO 0.725E-01 0.132E+01 -0.369E+OO 0.199E+OO 0.749E+OO 0.474E+OO 0.876E+OO 0.126E+01 -0.316E+OO 0.725E-01 Pa ge 16 H eesze l , D a vid From:H e e s zel , David Sent:8 M ay 2015 15: 16: 3 0 +0000 To: W e av e r , Thoma s Subj e ct:RE: Columbia GMPE s and CMS Sure. From: Weaver, Thomas Sent: Friday, May 08 , 2015.11:11 AM To:. Heeszel,. David

Subject:

RE: Columbia GMPEs and CMS Does Monday at 1 PM work for you? From: Heeszel, David Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 11:05 AM To: Weaver, Thomas

Subject:

RE: Columbia GMPEs and CMS Hi Thomas , Sure. My schedule i s pretty open , but I plan to be out on Friday. Perhaps before or after one of the WUS site meetings?

--David From: Weaver, Thomas Sent: Friday, May 08 , 2015 11:01 AM To: He e szel , David

Subject:

Columb i a GMPEs and CMS Hi David , I f. possib l e , I would l i ke to work w i th you on developing some conditional mean spectra that we can use for Columb i a Generating Station s i te response analyses.

Let me know i f you have some time next week when you are availab l e to d i scuss. Regards, Thomas H eesze l , D a vid From:H e e s zel , David Sent:! M ay 2015 14:44:11 +0000 To: S e b e r , Do g an Subj e ct:RE: Columbia GMPE s Hi. Dogan , I need to make a few modifications

-specifically to how the sigma model operates, but it should be useable for the purpose you want. Cliff. also wants me. to simplify it to the branch level , which I am working on as well. I'll try and have an updated version on Monday. --David From: Seber, Dogan Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 10:26 AM To: Heeszel, David

Subject:

Columb i a GMPEs Hi. David , I need to make some comparisons of the Columbia GMPE models. against some of the NGA-West 2 models. Is your Columbia GMPE code , you mentioned a while back, ready to be used by others? I need to make simple comparisons such as g vs d i stance given M. Please let me. know if I can use. your code. for this. purpose. Thanks! Dogan Seber , PhD Senior Geophys i cist Geoscience s and Geotechnical Engineering Branch 1 Division of Site Safety and Env i ronmental Ana l ys i s Offic e of N ew R e acto rs U.S. Nucle a r Regul a tory Commi ss ion 301-415-0212 Heeszel , David From:Heeszel, David Sent: 1Apr2015 12:08:07 +0000 To:Walsh, Lisa

Subject:

RE: Di scussion of CGS GM P Es Thanks , that was on my l i s t f or th i s morning. --David From: Walsh, Lisa Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 5:54 PM To: Heeszel, David; Munson, Clifford; Ake, Jon; Weaver, Thomas; Seber, Dogan; Li, Yong; jstam@swri.org

Subject:

RE: Discussion of CGS GMPEs Bridge line phone 711-9770 Participant <<Message: FW: Conference Details {APR 02, 2015--11:00 AM ET--Conf# 3279869) >> -----Original Appointment---From:. Heeszel,.

David. Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 9:40 AM To: Heeszel, David; Walsh, Lisa; Munson, Clifford; Ake, Jon; Weaver, Thomas; Seber, Dogan; Li, Yong; jstam@swri.org

Subject:

FW: Discussion of CGS GMPEs When: Thursday, April 02, 2015 11:00 AM-12:00 PM (UTC-05:00)

Eastern Time (US & Canada). Where: HQ-TWFN-07 A04-15p -----Original From:. Heeszel,.

David . Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 9:11 AM To: Heeszel , David; Munson, Cl i fford; Ake, Jon; Weaver, Thomas; Seber, Dogan; Li, Yong

Subject:

Discussion of CGS GMPEs When: Thursday, April 02, 2015 11:00 AM-12:00 PM (UTC-05:00)

Eastern Time (US & Canada). Where: HQ-TWFN-07 A04-1 Sp We will go over the Columbia GMPEs and current implementation.

H eesze l , D av id From:Heeszel , David Sent:2 Apr 2015 14:55:33 +0000 To: D ev lin-Gill , Stephanie;Stieve , Alice;Mun so n , Clifford;Ake, Jon; Hill , Brittain Cc:Miriam R.Ju cke tt(mju cke tt@swr i.o r g);John Stamatako s

Subject:

Palo Verde Catalo g Attachments:PVNGS

_independent

_evenL_c atalog.xl s x Attached i s an excel version of the Palo Verde Catalog (Appendix E of the report). Events highlighted in gray can be linked to a specific fault. The other columns should be relatively self explanatory.

--Dav i d David Hee szel Geophysicist U.S. NRC ,. NRO/DSEA/RGS2 Office: T-7E28 Mail.Stop: T-7F3 Phone: 301-415-5066 Year Mon t h Day Hour Min. Se c. lat. lon g. Dep t h 1 852 11 29 20 0 0 32.5 -115 9.9 1856 9 21 7 30 0 33.1 -116.7 9.9 1 870 3 11 10 20 0 34.55 -112.47 0 1870 8 12 0 0 0 34.55 -112.47 0 1 871 2 7 15 8 2 34.1 -112.44 0 1 872 5 3 1 0 0 33 -115 9.9 1 875 1 21 19 45 0 33.65 -114.S 0 1875 11 2 9 0 0 32.38 -114.6 0 1 875 11 15 22 30 0 32.5 -115.5 9.9 1 880 12 19 23 35 0 34 -117 9.9 1885 9 13 12 3 4 0 33.3 -116.9 9.9 1 887 5 30 14 0 0 3 1.71 -110.07 0 1 887 11 1 1 0 0 0 32 -110.58 0 1 888 7 25 0 0 0 3 1.71 -110.07 0 1 888 11 25 0 0 0 32.22 -110.97 0 1889 2 7 5 20 0 34.1 -116.7 9.9 1 8 9 0 2 9 12 6 0 33.4 -116.3 9.9 1891 4 26 20 0 0 35.18 -114.52 0 1 891 7 30 1 4 10 0 32 -115 9.9 1892 2 2 0 30 0 35.19 -111.65 0 1 8 92 2 24 7 20 0 32.55 -115.63 9.9 1 893 6 5 6 4 0 0 3 1.71 -110.07 0 1 894 10 23 23 3 0 32.8 -116.8 9.9 1899 9 20 0 0 0 35.1 9 -114.06 0 1 899 10 6 23 30 0 3 1.7 1 -110.0 7 0 1899 12 25 1 2 25 0 33.8 -117 9.9 1903 1 24 5 0 0 3 1.5 -115 9.9 1 906 1 25 13 32 30 35.540 -111.870 0 19 0 6 4 19 0 30 0 32.9 -115.S 9.9 1 910 4 11 7 57 0 33.5 -116.5 9.9 1 9 1 0 9 24 4 5 0 35.690 -111.670 0 1 9 12 8 18 2 1 12 0 35.320 -111.710 0 1 913 12 6 0 1 5 0 35.25 -112.17 0 1 9 1 5 6 23 3 59 0 32.8 -115.S 9.9 1 9 1 5 6 27 8 30 0 33.4 -111.8 0 1 9 15 1 1 21 0 1 3 0 32 -115 9.9 1 9 1 6 3 30 5 20 0 3 1.34 -110.94 0 1 9 1 6 9 30 2 11 0 33.2 -116.1 9.9 19 1 7 5 28 6 6 0 32.8 -115.3 9.9 19 18 4 20 8 45 0 35.19 -111.65 0 1 9 1 8 4 2 1 2 2 32 0 33.8 -117 9.9 1 9 1 8 5 1 4 32 0 32.6 -115.4 9.9 1 919 5 23 11 5 0 35.19 -111.65 0 1 9 1 9 10 1 19 30 0 32.6 -115 9.9 1 920 1 1 2 35 0 33.2 -116.7 9.9 1 921 4 6 21 7 0 34.9 -110.16 0 1 921 9 8 19 2 4 0 32.4 -115.S 9.9 1 922 6 16 2 1 1 0 32.7 -114.7 0 1 922 6 17 23 42 0 33.38 -110.86 0 1 923 9 28 0 0 0 35.19 -11 1.65 0 1923 9 30 18 27 0 34.2 -11 1.5 0 1923 11 7 23 57 0 32.5 -115.5 9.9 1 926 4 3 20 8 0 34 -116 9.9 1 927 1 1 8 1 6 0 32.5 -115.5 9.9 1927 2 11 3 40 0 3 1.54 -110.75 0 1 928 10 2 19 1 0 33.6 -116.7 9.9 1929 9 26 20 0 22.7 34.83 -116.52 9.9 1930 1 16 0 24 0 34.2 -116.9 9.9 1 930 2 26 2 30 0 33 -115.S 9.9 1930 7 16 19 0 0 34.2 -112.5 0 1 931 4 17 12 38 0 34.53 -110.05 0 1 931 7 28 8 35 0 3 4.7 -112 0 1 932 3 23 0 20 6.5 35.795 -115.932 6 1 932 5 20 20 22 49.84 34.995 -115.84 1 6 1 932 6 27 10 7 21.22 3 1.53 -116.091 6 1933 11 27 0 0 0 34.42 -112.91 0 1 933 11 28 20 10 55.89 35.697 -116.072 6 1934 1 11 7 15 0 3 1.91 -109.82 0 1934 3 12 0 0 0 35.1 -110.9 0 1934 4 1 3 10 55 11.69 35.123 -116.233 6 1 934 5 14 13 14 0 3 1 -1 14.5 0 1 934 11 25 8 18 29.1 9 3 1.501 -116.074 6 1 934 12 25 12 20 0 36.95 -112.5 0 1 934 12 31 18 45 43.92 32.18 -115.175 6 1 935 1 1 1 12 43.43 3 1 -114 6 1935 1 1 8 50 0 36.05 -112.1 4 0 1935 1 2 7 30 0 32.67 -114.14 0 1 935 1 9 0 58 44.08 33.486 -115.167 6 1935 10 24 14 48 7.51 34.106 -116.699 6 1 935 11 4 3 55 54.7 1 33.507 -116.667 6 1 935 12 5 2 1 25 0 36.95 -112.5 0 1935 12 20 7 45 31.86 32.811 -115.296 6 1936 1 12 0 0 0 36.05 -112.1 4 0 1 936 1 30 17 13 53.26 32.842 -114.82 6 1 936 2 25 6 30 0 35.19 -114.06 0 1 936 9 9 2 48 6.89 34.889 -116.04 9 6 1 936 10 13 20 39 54.87 35.374 -115.772 6 1937 2 2 7 1 29 17.57 3 1.78 *116.599 6 1937 3 25 16 49 2.18 33.4 -116.25 6 1 937 4 8 12 0 0 35.71 -109.54 0 1 937 7 20 22 4 9 0 35.33 -112.88 0 1 937 7 2 1 23 55 0 33.46 -112.07 0 1937 11 12 1 38 58.3 1 35.9 1 3 -115.274 6 1 937 12 4 0 54 47.73 35.5 -11 3 6 1 937 12 1 7 23 30 0 35.19 -111.65 0 1 938 6 6 2 42 41.93 32.273 -115.191 6 1 938 7 21 15 34 23.02 34.616 -115.938 6 1 938 7 24 3 5 0.41 33.45 -115.065 6 1 938 8 18 7 39 44.47 3 4.818 -11 6.047 6 1 938 9 17 17 20 18 33.2 -108.6 0 1938 9 18 23 30 0 32.72 -109.1 0 1 938 9 18 23 45 0 32.27 -1 09.23 0 1 938 9 24 18 0 0 32.62 -109.97 0 1938 9 29 23 32 0 33.05 -109.3 0 1 938 12 28 22 7 12 33.05 -109.3 0 1939 3 9 13 30 0 36.1 -112.1 0 1939 3 22 19 16 33.16 34.641 -115.671 6 1 939 5 4 20 44 0 35.97 -114.82 9.9 1939 6 4 1 19 12 32.75 -109.1 0 1 939 6 4 5 0 0 33.05 -1 09.3 0 1 9 4 0 5 5 9 38 27.4 1 35.456 -115.29 6 1 9 4 0 5 18 5 3 59.66 34.089 -116.282 6 1 9 4 0 5 19 4 36 4 0.5 32.8 44 -115.381 6 1 940 5 19 18 6 0 32.67 -114.14 0 1 940 6 4 10 35 8.12 32.966 -116.315 6 1 940 6 4 23 33 0.33 33.096 -11 4.7 6 1940 7 7 18 42 55.8 3 1.454 -115.133 6 19 4 0 10 16 13 25 0 35.19 -111.65 0 1 9 4 0 12 7 22 1 6 27 3 1.667 -115.083 9.9 1 940 12 7 22 17 0 3 1.069 -114.853 6 1 9 41 3 21 0 0 0 35.9 -114.6 0 1 941 5 21 16 25 0 35.9 -114.6 0 1941 9 3 21 25 0 36 -114.7 0 1 9 4 2 1 8 2 4 2 0 35.19 -111.65 0 1 9 4 2 3 3 1 3 25.85 34.001 -115.847 6 19 42 3 3 1 0 29 30.33 35.545 -1 15.891 6 1 9 4 2 5 23 1 5 47 33.78 32.995 -116.25 6 1 942 9 9 5 15 0 36 -114.7 0 1 942 11 9 20 34 25.57 34.858 -116.092 6 1 9 43 7 1 16 19 16.0 1 35.807 -115.955 6 1 943 8 18 0 30 15.14 35.781 -116 6 19 43 8 29 3 45 14.3 1 34.268 -116.968 6 1 9 4 3 12 21 9 0 0 35.19 -111.65 0 1943 12 22 15 50 28.6 34.37 -115.819 6 1944 1 31 4 24 58 36.9 -112.5 0 1 944 6 12 1 1 16 35.8 1 34.002 -116.699 6 1944 9 30 0 54 8.88 36.106 *114.7 01 6 1 9 4 4 10 28 4 1 35.77 3 1.163 -115.739 6 1 9 4 5 1 7 22 25 32 36.5 -111.8 0 1 9 4 5 3 20 2 1 55 7 3 4.25 -11 6.167 9.9 1 9 4 5 3 31 1 8 50 45 3 1 -114 0 1945 4 22 9 45 48 3 1.5 -114 9.9 1 945 4 22 22 14 0.12 32 -114.5 6 1 945 5 1 1 23 32 55.69 30.884 -115.897 6 1 945 5 12 7 33 0 3 1.6 -115.6 9.9 1945 8 15 17 56 18.39 33.082 -115.631 6 1946 6 4 12 5 26.66 33.986 -115.704 6 1946 7 18 14 27 57.99 34.502 -115.915 6 1946 9 28 7 19 10.42 33.935 -116.867 12.8 1946 11 26 22 49 0 36.1 -114 0 1947 4 6 8 10 54.29 3 1.5 -115 6 1947 4 10 15 58 5.11 34.983 -116.5 31 6 1947 4 10 17 29 27 34.967 -115.55 6 1 947 5 14 2 1 45 31.77 34.75

-114.5 6 1947 6 21 8 9 37 32 -115.5 9.9 1947 7 24 22 10 46.82 33.994 -116.481 6 1947 10 27 4 15 40 35.75 -111.48 0 1948 1 24 2 57 0 36.1 -111.5 0 1948 8 8 23 20 0 36.8 -112.l 0 1948 12 3 18 45 0 35.03 -110.7 0 1 948 12 4 23 43 16.4 1 33.983 -116.331 6 1949 3 3 5 59 34 3 1 -113 0 1 949 5 2 11 25 46.9 34 -115.696 6 1949 5 3 21 10 19.9 34.566 -115.447 6 1 949 6 26 1 35 24 32.1 -113.9 0 1949 11 4 20 42 38.77 32.127 -116.75 6 1950 1 17 0 53 0 35.71 -109.5 4 0 1950 2 2 10 37 24 32 -113 0 1950 2 3 15 51 50.28 30.5 -1 14.5 6 1950 7 29 14 36 31.93 33.088 -115.664 6 1 950 9 5 19 19 56.77 33.726 -116.697 6.4 1951 1 24 7 16 52.62 32.622 -115.119 6 1 951 2 15 10 48 0.22 33.482 -116.601 3.4 1951 3 5 23 0 0 36.95 -112.5 0 1951 4 12 6 20 10 32 -113 0 1952 2 8 8 59 5.5 36 -114.7 0 1952 5 24 4 15 12.84 36.156 -114.461 6 1952 5 25 13 6 36 36 -115 6 1 952 10 22 19 46 36 32 -113.S 0 1953 5 18 7 3 1.57 36.022 -113.784 6 1953 6 14 4 17 26.7 32.892 -115.504 6 1953 6 14 4 30 1.76 33.567 -115.251 6 1953 10 8 20 19 46 34.66 -111.01 0 1953 10 10 18 49 6 3 1.8 -116.1 9.9 1954 2 1 4 31 48.85 32195 -114.352 6 1954 2 1 13 5 10.16 3 1.719 *114.011 6 1 954 3 19 9 54 27.83 33.298 -116.081 6 1954 5 31 8 6 24 3 1.6 -115.2 9.9 1955 1 28 12 10 18.08 33.748 -115.327 6 1 955 4 25 10 43 7.42 32.466 -114.989 6 1955 12 17 6 7 27.9 32.955 -115.472 6 1956 1 3 14 24 1 32.383 -116 9.9 1 956 1 9 12 56 59.66 35.624 -115.865 6 1956 2 9 14 32 41.91 3 1.832 -116.231 6 1 956 2 15 1 20 35.27 3 1.149 -115.485 6 1 956 3 16 20 29 33.73 34.289 -116.775 2.7 1 957 4 25 2 1 57 36.9 33.119 -115.681 6 1 957 7 5 0 58 0 32 -114 9.9 1957 9 22 16 3 47.97 33.884 -114.92 6 1 958 3 15 8 34 4 32.5 -113.5 9.9 1 958 6 12 22 1 4.46 34.816 -116.025 6 1958 8 18 6 0 52 30.5 -114 0 1 958 9 18 6 3 0 3 1.4 -109.85 0 1958 12 1 3 21 17.62 32.216 -115.754 6 1959 2 11 14 1 0 35.19 -111.65 0 1 959 6 14 6 13 37.1 4 3 1.335 -116.093 6 1959 7 21 12 39 0 36.8 -112.37 0 1 959 10 13 8 1 5 0 35.5 -111.5 0 1 960 1 23 3 1 1 43.76 35.4 19 -116.288 6 1960 6 3 2 1 38 0.06 3 1.5 -114 6 1 961 2 9 1 7 50 44.4 1 3 1.579 -115.478 6 1 961 9 12 19 18 49.2 1 32.742 -115.57 6 1 962 2 15 7 12 42.9 36.9 -112.4 26 1 962 3 7 19 57 37.5 32.29 -109.77 0 1962 5 9 16 39 6.1 32.06 -110.32 0 1 962 5 27 1 4 5 40.7 4 32.258 -115.769 6 1 9 62 8 6 13 59 58.72 34.613 -115.753 6 1962 8 10 2 29 55.83 35.007 -115.649 6 1 962 8 20 1 0 43 13.7 3 1 -114 6 1 962 10 29 2 42 53.7 1 34.349 -116.866 6 1 963 1 27 3 0 38.98 3 1.564 -115.834 6 1 963 3 25 9 28 43.94 35.962 -114.861 6 1 963 5 10 23 49 50.5 35.04 -113.82 0 1963 5 19 22 55 21.7 35.4 6 -114.21 0 1 963 6 11 15 23 41.67 3 1.9 73 -116.252 6 1 963 6 20 1 4 59 42.6 30.2 -114.1 14 1 963 6 29 3 3 50 34.81 -114.54 0 1 963 9 11 11 59 41 33.2 -110.7 33 1963 9 23 14 41 52.79 33.704 -116.938 10.7 1 963 10 20 13 29 32.6 4 3 1.685 -115.387 6 1 963 11 2 8 47 43 32.4 -113.7 14 1 963 11 1 8 14 38 28.9 29.9 -113.6 14 1 963 11 2 3 1 0 53 18.4 30.4 -113.5 14 1964 1 17 1 7 8 24.4 3 1 -114 6 1 964 2 3 8 43 36 3 1.5 -114.2 9.9 1 964 4 16 4 16 26.7 30.5 -114.4 33 1 964 4 16 4 56 47 3 1.8 -113.7 9.9 1 964 4 16 6 4 5 4 3.9 32.5 -113.2 33 1 964 8 21 1 9 41 37.5 30.6 -113.8 15 1 964 8 22 3 3 20.7 3 1.5 -114.3 15 1 964 9 6 1 8 51 18.6 34.2 -114 15 1964 9 23 18 9 36.16 36.135 -114.657 6 1 964 12 20 2 1 56 6.2 35.959 -114.655 6 1 965 1 9 20 37 11.83 32.037 -114.549 6 1 965 2 16 12 24 35.9 30.7 -113.2 33 1 965 3 13 8 46 56.8 32.2 -111.4 0 1 965 5 3 3 30 48.8 1 36.483 -114.382 6 1965 5 15 6 25 1.5 35.9 -114.8 5 1 965 6 7 14 28 1.3 36.1 -112.2 15 1 965 6 17 22 58 20.9 3 1.7 -113.3 10 1965 7 1 2 43 1.4 30.9 -1 13.7 33 1 965 7 9 1 26 54.6 30.6 -113.5 33 1965 9 13 8 47 6.5 3 1 -114.4 33 1965 9 23 10 35 58.7 30.4 -113.7 33 1 965 9 25 17 43 43.33 34.714 -116.432 6 1965 10 14 17 47 35.3 3 1 -113 33 1 965 10 17 9 45 18.78 33.99 -116.761 13 1 965 11 26 1 3 57 2.6 3 1.8 -112.7 33 1 966 1 11 10 25 12.2 3 1.1 -1 14.3 33 1 966 1 22 1 2 1 6 35.1 36.57 -111.99 0 1 966 2 24 8 24 53.47 3 1.919 -114.619 6 1 966 3 29 22 56 17.15 33.728 -115.363 6 1 966 3 31 0 56 39.3 29.9 -111.8 33 1966 4 3 19 44 38 30.7 -113.7 33 1966 4 13 9 36 15.3 36.7 -112.9 0 1 966 4 28 0 42 57.4 35.6 -113 20 1 966 5 2 14 59 13.1 36.4 -112.5 0 1 966 5 3 5 28 11.1 3 1.5 -113.8 33 1 966 5 26 20 33 22.69 3 1.544 -115.72 6 1966 6 14 10 45 17.1 36.4 -113.3 0 1 966 6 17 20 12 23.9 36.6 -113.5 0 1 9 66 6 24 22 59 56.2 3 1.5 -114.1 33 1966 7 23 22 55 59.1 1 35.47 -1 14.595 6 1 966 8 7 1 7 36 26.7 3 1.8 -114.S 9.9 1966 8 10 13 24 51.1 30.8 -114.5 33 1 966 8 10 17 45 37.97 30.328 -114.561 6 1 966 8 16 4 43 21.4 30.1 -113.7 11 1 966 9 28 12 so 26.7 30.4 -113.9 33 1966 10 1 19 23 11 30 -114.2 32 1 966 10 3 1 6 3 50.9 35.8 -111.6 34 1 966 10 30 22 20 6.8 30.8 -1 13.S 30 1 966 11 5 5 1 8 14.89 3 1.573 -115.615 6 1 966 11 9 14 1 1 30.66 36.092 -115.065 6 1966 12 1 9 20 40.9 36.2 *113.9 26 1 966 12 8 7 23 5.1 30.6 -114.2 14 1 967 3 2 6 29 24.4 34.475 -110.964 14 1 967 3 1 0 13 5 17.9 30.333 -114.486 33 1 967 3 28 3 4 8 59.1 35.45 -111.73 5 1967 4 1 15 39 49.9 30.781 -114.03 33 1 967 4 26 7 1 8 22.5 3 1.14 -114.547 33 1 967 5 1 19 48 7.1 34.457 -112.864 26 1 967 5 4 22 34 48.5 30.416 -114.403 33 1967 5 21 14 42 34.06 33.552 -116.632 8.4 1967 5 21 18 0 5.1 34.29 -110.57 11 1967 5 26 7 48 43 36.42 -11 1.56 11 1967 6 14 23 11 53.3 35.28 -112.24 28 1967 8 7 16 40 32.1 36.4 -112.6 0 1967 9 4 23 27 44.7 36.2 -11 1.7 0 1967 9 21 0 1 52.74 3 1.301 -115.826 6 1967 10 13 1 19 3.5 30.4 -113.7 33 1 967 11 1 16 55 43.3 30.7 -113.4 33 1967 12 5 11 9 37.4 30.8 -114.1 33 1967 12 5 13 15 31.8 30.2 -114.2 33 1 967 12 5 18 12 13.9 3 1.1 -1 13.S 33 1968 4 9 2 28 58.39 33.18 -116.103 10 1968 6 20 19 28 51 3 1.285 -113.529 33 1968 9 3 13 51 36.8 30.847 -113.57 33 1 968 12 1 19 16 32.9 3 1.108 -113.083 33 1969 1 23 23 1 0.44 33.892 -116.049 6 1 969 2 2 19 3 38.3 3 1.588 -113.451 33 1969 2 10 2 57 35.7 30.818 -112.691 33 1 969 2 10 6 58 39.7 29.899 -112.95 33 1969 2 10 20 41 30.5 30.291 -112.669 33 1969 3 9 2 53 19.9 30.866 -114.22 33 1969 3 9 3 21 58.3 3 1.731 -113.89 33 1969 3 21 3 7 31.9 3 1.3 -1 14.7 9.9 1969 3 22 7 25 35.6 3 1.4 -114.1 9.9 1 969 5 27 16 17 39.37 35.337 -116.046 6 1969 6 10 3 41 31.5 31.436 -116.301 6 1 969 7 31 22 36 2.32 34.467 -114.974 6 1969 9 10 1 7 24.2 3 1.031 -113.632 33 1969 9 10 2 42 1.5 30.431 -113.843 33 1 969 12 25 12 49 10.1 33.4 -110.6 15 1970 1 19 7 16 21 3 1.497 -115.974 10 1970 4 25 8 25 50.1 36.019 -114.734 5 1 970 4 28 7 0 36.22 32.175 -114.676 6 1970 8 6 20 2 24.3 33.199 -115.033 7.6 1970 8 19 2 55 23.3 1 32.015 -114.525 6 1970 9 3 23 8 28.95 34.642 -115.817 6 1970 9 25 2 1 24 21.77 34.737 -115.93 6 1970 10 4 7 21 18.4 29.965 -11 3.887 33 1970 10 4 17 39 45.4 30.629 -113.645 33 1970 10 12 20 5 34.5 30.072 *113.384 33 1970 11 24 16 47 56 36.357 -112.273 6 1970 12 3 3 47 24.6 35.874 -111.906 5 1970 12 14 19 14 19.15 34.33 -115.706 6 1 970 12 18 9 18 33.4 35.99 -114.771 7 1970 12 28 1 13 8.01 33.813 -115.228 6 1971 5 1 3 11 19.9 36.518 -11 3.375 5 1 971 5 6 22 32 36.4 36.45 -114.46 7 5 1971 5 23 21 31 51.6 35.02 -113.89 0 1971 9 30 22 46 10.87 32.983 -115.804 6 1971 11 4 2 18 58.7 35.2 -112.2 5 1971 11 30 4 21 57.3 3 1.233 -115.393 8 1971 12 15 12 58 14.5 36.791 -111.824 5 1972 2 20 6 8 17.9 29.895 -113.532 33 1972 4 20 13 28 16.3 35.31 -111.64 5 1972 8 2 13 6 15.6 3 1.539 -114.425 33 1972 8 3 22 36 2.94 3 1.818 -114.586 6 1 972 9 4 6 8 19.5 30.908 -113.186 33 1972 9 4 23 55 56 30.353 -113.277 33 1972 10 28 13 22 37.89 3 1.763 -114.508 6 1973 4 19 16 59 42.7 34.3 -112.62 0 1973 7 23 20 37 46.1 30.751 -113.468 33 1973 7 24 1 46 5.8 3 1.124 -113.33 33 1973 10 10 17 20 19.2 30.203 -113.287 33 1 973 10 16 14 53 52.4 3 1.6 -115.833 8 1973 11 20 19 1 4.44 33.959 -115.495 8 1 973 12 26 6 18 16.6 36.081 -114.639 5 1974 3 14 20 59 57.2 34.24 -112.7 0 1 974 3 23 17 36 47 30.346 -113.833 33 1974 5 8 19 27 35.72 31.768 -114.562 6 1974 6 4 21 58 41.86 34.597 -112.901 6 1974 6 11 4 55 6.51 35.783 -115.645 6 1974 6 30 8 44 29.76 30.619 -1 14.45 1 6 1974 9 5 2 1 41 5.84 3 1.789 -114.03 1 6 1 974 9 5 22 3 22.46 3 1.654 -114.629 1.51 1974 10 4 18 59 58.4 34.54 -113.02 17 1 974 10 16 23 49 39.3 3 1.4 99 -114.468 8 1974 11 16 7 38 59.43 30.588 -113.814 6 1974 11 16 7 39 9.32 3 1.163 -114.364 8 1974 11 22 16 25 49.6 3 1.18 -115.24 1 33 1974 12 24 5 47 20.7 33.9 -111.9 4 1975 1 23 17 2 30.14 32.964 -11 5.508 13.9 1 975 3 26 4 30 54.7 36.1 -115.7 11 1975 4 9 6 54 26.1 34.596 -113.135 6 1975 4 13 19 8 48.06 35.401 -116.438 13 1975 4 28 0 17 49.7 3 1.998 -114.792 10 1975 4 28 2 37 58.09 3 1.632 -114.268 6 1975 4 29 17 35 32.72 35.598 -116.297 6 1975 5 5 16 56 49.76 3 1.505 -114.622 6 1975 6 1 1 38 48.74 34.521 *116.481 9.9 1975 7 17 18 24 46.1 3 1.883 -115.807 10 1975 8 1 11 42 12.6 33.65 -116.75 5 1975 9 8 22 25 23.4 32.55 -114.33 0 1 975 11 5 12 23 15.5 34.538 -115.808 5.2 1975 11 15 7 43 48.3 34.3 -116.33 5 1975 12 3 10 12 22.8 32.83 -108.663 27 1 976 2 4 0 4 58 34.66 -11 2.5 10 1976 2 28 20 53 58.5 35.91 -111.79 5 1 976 7 19 20 7 39 30.748 -113.502 33 1 976 7 30 23 18 49.64 33.492 -113.245 6 1 976 8 9 2 1 43 2.9 35.54 -111.68 5 1 976 10 4 14 48 39 36.026 -114.735 5 1976 10 19 5 39 5.2 30.277 -112.96 33 1 976 10 21 14 58 18 30.592 -113.204 33 1 976 11 4 10 4 1 37.87 33.124 -115.61 11 1976 11 10 16 36 9.71 33.871 -113.702 3 1 976 12 4 23 1 8 58.2 33.457 -114.478 6 1 9 7 6 12 7 12 59 56.3 3 1.983 -114.783 8 1976 12 15 17 50 20.4 29.947 -113.364 33 1 9 7 6 12 23 2 1 5 22.55 34.573 -114.372 0 1977 1 10 21 51 59.29 32.77 -114.711 6 1 977 2 26 9 44 0.32 3 1.238 -113.899 6 1 977 2 26 23 25 37.19 3 1.209 -114.212 6 1 977 3 17 19 1 1 11.93 35.212 -112.925 0 1 977 3 24 6 24 14.63 34.689 -115.717 0 1 977 4 27 2 1 48 17.79 34.684 -113.724 3 1 977 4 29 18 59 35.67 34.877

-113.067 6 1 977 5 25 22 36 32.12 32.253 -112.643 8 1977 6 1 19 12 9.76 35.051 -113.52 0 1977 6 14 19 3 39.11 3 4.859 -113.01 0 1 977 7 1 3 22 1 0 51.1 2 34.682 -112.934 0 1 977 7 19 18 47 1.84 36.076 -1 14.463 6 1 977 7 20 4 7 55.98 36.61 -114.635 6 1 977 8 6 3 16 39.67 30.269 -113.603 6 1977 9 2 12 40 56.15 36.551 -113.779 0 1 977 9 2 18 51 41.65 34.793 -113.479 0 1 977 9 12 19 2 9.34 34.819 -113.138 0 1977 10 4 14 51 32.69 3 1.1 83 -114.097 6 1 977 10 4 17 7 55.39 3 1.365 -114.413 6 1 977 10 13 22 28 19.8 1 32.277 -112.522 0 1 977 10 30 5 30 13.3 32.88 -115.5 4 1 977 11 10 14 30 0 33.01 -113.35 0 1 977 12 23 11 0 4.33 35.366 -113.978 0 1978 1 10 17 37 14.47 34.932 -113.186 0 1 978 1 23 22 37 10.42 34.9 19 -113.336 0 1 978 1 25 19 5 38.24 34.951 -113.055 0 1 978 2 6 22 39 5.48 33.048 -113.946 21.2 1 978 2 14 18 49 28.37 32147 -112.553 6 1978 2 14 20 49 23.03 34.304 *112.876 0 1 978 2 17 10 1 3 43.24 35.834

-115.787 6 1 978 3 1 4 23 4 3 11.52 32.011 -112.756 6 1 978 3 29 2 1 56 49.4 4 3 4.602 -113.303 0 1 978 4 4 2 1 4 10.2 30.275 -113.403 33 1978 4 5 1 8 42 17.23 32.136 -112.624 0 1 978 5 5 2 1 3 15.8 32.211 -115.3 03 6 1 978 7 1 0 21 40 17.6 30.704 -114.002 15 1 978 7 17 14 46 13.14 35.538 -116.271 13.3 1978 9 23 14 28 41.09 36.431 -115.156 6 1978 10 21 3 19 1.96 3 1.341 -113.874 6 1978 11 17 23 28 12.52 3 1.972 -112.615 6 1978 11 29 14 37 40.3 30.177 -113.956 15 1978 12 10 13 35 8.48 36.102 -114.407 6 1979 1 6 22 32 13.39 35.439 -114.524 6 1 979 1 22 18 7 1.45 34 -113 0 1979 3 15 20 50 33.46 34.805 -113.302 0 1 979 3 15 21 7 16.53 34.327 -116.445 2.5 1979 4 7 16 20 17.27 32.202 -112.346 6 1979 4 15 2 59 56.2 1 3 1.393 -114.408 6 1 979 6 24 22 26 19.93 3 1.805 -112.523 6 1979 7 3 3 52 48.29 32 -114.589 6 1 979 7 3 10 48 6.38 3 1.4 72 -114.681 6 1979 8 9 9 3 10.2 1 32.105 -114.698 6 1 979 8 31 7 51 38.2 1 32.3 -114.605 10 1979 10 7 7 45 3.37 32.096 -114.677 6 1 979 10 15 23 16 53.44 32.614 -115.318 12.3 1979 10 21 19 46 58.18 32.019 -114.596 15 1 979 11 14 2 1 9 9.79 3 1.348 -112.589 6 1979 11 21 16 50 5.08 36.907 -112.852 7 1980 1 8 1 21 24.36 32.237 -114.391 6 1980 2 1 3 16 58 50.13 3 1.127 -113.79 10 1 980 2 22 13 12 41.3 3 1 -113 6 1 980 2 25 10 47 38.4 1 33.475 -116.5 19.4 1 980 3 1 8 11 29 47.8 1 3 1 -112.714 6 1980 3 18 12 25 35.3 30.169 -113.966 15 1 980 3 18 12 50 27.1 30 -113 6 1980 3 28 22 11 50.07 36.379 -114.161 6 1980 4 29 18 25 10.1 1 36.927 -113.491 7 1 980 5 15 9 14 12 3 1.23 -113.769 15 1980 6 1 8 40 27.5 35.391 -111.986 5 1980 6 10 22 40 25.04 32.296 -112.439 6 1 980 7 14 11 46 12.6 36.5 -112.33 13 1980 7 27 4 21 32.64 3 1.048 -113.428 6 1980 8 7 12 38 46.34 35.514 -113.623 6 1 980 8 29 8 57 55.2 30.211 -113.212 15 1 980 9 1 11 34 55.7 3 1.176 -113.194 15 1 980 9 18 8 55 34 3 1.299 -113.893 6 1 980 10 29 14 53 35.5 29951 -114.072 15 1980 10 30 16 37 48.28 32.295 *112.463 6 1980 11 8 6 4 42.4 3 1.039 -113.686 15 1 980 11 9 7 29 2.6 30.431 -113.789 15 1980 12 11 17 54 6.86 34.719 -113.403 6 1 981 1 12 8 59 13.2 35.658 -113.469 5 1981 2 15 2 1 16 46.64 30.644 -113.937 6 1 981 3 13 0 9 6.6 35.948 -114.799 2 1 981 3 18 11 45 43.3 7 30.762 -113.81 6 1981 4 6 18 21 3 7.38 34.555 -113.1 0 1 981 4 9 22 58 49.9 1 3 1.648 -112.714 6 1 981 5 7 1 38 17.8 32.202 -108.898 5 1 981 8 28 6 44 36.29 3 1.968 -113.587 6 1 981 10 29 19 31 1.16 3 1.688 -113.254 10 1981 11 16 4 32 48.97 36.961 -112.527 0.85 1 981 12 20 3 6 21.59 30.937 -113.914 10 1 982 1 3 4 2 17.92 33.053 -114.826 6 1982 6 9 2 21 12.44 34.377 -11 5.732 2.8 1 982 6 1 5 23 49 21.1 6 33.555 -116.667 11.6 1982 7 31 6 42 19.3 1 35.47 -116.298 6 1982 10 21 15 1 7 15.05 3 1.407 -114.374 6 1 982 10 22 19 2 47.94 33.385 -114.523 6 1982 11 1 23 14 21.8 36.033 -114.375 5 1 982 11 4 23 3 37.16 36.133

-115.072 6 1 982 11 19 20 57 34.67 36.027 -112.006 5 1 982 1 1 27 23 38 18.4 1 35.943 -1 14.317 6 1 982 12 7 9 4 3 49.6 1 36.023 -114.826 5 1 983 1 1 22 29 30.68 32.686 -114.06 6 1 983 2 12 4 4 8.42 34 -114 6 1 983 2 23 1 1 10 20.87 35.973 -11 4.711 5 1983 4 9 0 45 26.03 36.394 -114.758 6 1983 4 17 6 3 30.93 30.39 -114.048 10 1 983 5 17 2 1 55 58.9 35 -114.5 0 1 983 6 10 1 22 31.96 36.179 -114.071 6 1 983 6 18 1 1 9 34.05 3 1.575 -114.74 0.5 1 983 7 1 4 18 59 22.82 34.62 -113.15 0 1983 7 19 18 43 23.02 3 1.3 -114.559 6 1 983 7 23 12 48 7.3 30.856 -113.814 10 1 983 8 31 8 10 8.74 36.135 -112.037 5 1983 11 3 18 26 23.56 36.483 -1 14.56 5 1 983 12 3 21 1 10.6 1 32.322 -113.782 6 1984 2 11 19 30 1 35.93 -115.81 6 1 984 3 7 3 32 36.68 34.569 -115.917 6 1 984 4 3 14 34 32.52 36.132 -114.804 6 1 984 4 22 9 49 56.38 3 1.787 -114.007 6 1984 4 22 10 41 10.95 35.4 88 -116.295 6 1 984 5 5 2 1 56 47.3 36.1 -115.69 6 1 984 6 20 13 37 18.3 1 36.049 -114.801 6 1 984 6 30 3 30 2.59 30.074 -114.123 10 1 984 7 5 1 12 28.45 3 1.52 -114.39 6 1984 7 7 18 14 59.06 32.462 *114.008 6 1 984 7 18 14 29 31.82 36.216

-111.844 5 1 984 9 5 12 37 5.03 3 1.078 -113.746 10 1 984 9 6 20 3 4 25.49 30.614 -113.966 10 1 984 9 2 2 1 7 59 55.04 32.435 -113.978 0 1984 12 4 20 53 8.62 36.042 -115.089 6 1 985 1 2 1 4 1 8 15.98 35.917 -115.753 6 1 985 1 29 5 37 54 35.3 -111.4 0 1 985 1 30 13 47 16.42 34.75 -112.137 5 1985 3 30 18 34 57.57 32.466 -113.878 6 1985 5 8 23 40 21.75 3 1.942 -115.873 18.4 1985 7 6 10 34 44.2 3 1.108 -114.277 6 1985 7 6 11 11 31.85 32.288 -114.714 6 1985 7 16 17 57 50.9 34.54 -116.84 9.9 1985 7 23 20 16 44.91 36.01 -114.638 6 1985 8 7 21 28 44.28 35.491 -116.271 6 1985 10 4 8 3 44.97 35.898 -115.173 6 1 985 10 11 0 16 26.48 35.657 -116.224 6 1985 11 16 12 6 48.3 1 36.088 -114.653 5 1986 1 19 19 35 0.1 32.55 -114.1 0 1 986 3 24 17 29 57.34 32.446 -1 13.893 6 1986 4 27 16 14 29.1 30.518 -113.885 1 0 1986 7 8 9 20 44.35 34.007 -116.607 10.8 1986 8 6 5 31 7.9 36.8 -112.345 0.06 1 986 8 22 14 43 58.55 36.245 -114.359 13.05 1987 1 26 12 44 27.72 35.854 -115.03 1 5 1 987 2 7 3 45 14.5 32.373 -115.307 10.3 198 7 2 25 13 52 27.2 3 1.45 -114.72 6 1 987 3 15 19 25 38.66 3 1.355 -113.006 5 1987 4 15 7 16 10.8 34.64 -111.21 10 1987 6 21 9 44 7.2 30.88 -113.88 6 1987 9 9 4 20 10.3 3 1.48 -114.31 6 1987 9 20 0 0 0 36.17 -1 13.16 0 1987 9 20 11 24 33.02 34.853 -113.732 5 1 987 10 1 20 20 8.1 36.423 -114.656 29.07 1987 11 16 5 52 43.36 30.049 -114.405 10 1 987 11 17 23 44 24.91 30.641 -114.559 12 1987 11 24 13 15 56.29 33.014 -11 5.834 5.5 1988 1 25 13 17 12.3 1 3 1.834 -115.865 6 1988 2 12 5 23 56.47 30.105 -11 3.896 10 1988 2 14 7 39 49 35.59 -111.63 13 1988 2 23 0 48 25.3 35.912 -114.947 5 1 988 4 20 9 59 1.01 30.538 -114.139 8 1988 4 28 6 16 7.85 35.585 -116.288 6 1988 5 4 18 53 33.54 35.974 -114.995 0 1988 5 22 19 22 45.77 36.925 -112.995 0.3 1 1988 5 28 10 51 13.97 35.933 -114.896 5 1988 7 4 10 56 54.54 35.918 -114.916 5 1988 7 15 0 38 9.59 36.374 -110.448 5 1988 9 7 1 17 40 36.0 1 *112.14 12 1988 9 10 20 59 3.86 34.249 -115.705 6 1988 12 16 5 53 4.77 33.986 -116.683 8.7 1988 12 29 18 18 57.4 36.896 -112.952 1.37 1 988 12 30 19 55 55.09 35.983 -114.8 5 1989 1 9 5 8 8.46 36.3 -115.1 7 1989 2 1 0 32 40.37 35.775 -11 5.419 6 1 989 2 4 12 26 58.08 36.788 -11 2.954 0.89 1989 2 5 21 51 12.79 32.494 -114.626 1 1 989 2 7 1 4 8 12.03 32.167 -114.534 6 1 989 3 5 0 40 30.84 35.952 -112.257 5 1 989 3 12 6 30 19.49 36.976 -112.907 3.96 1 989 4 6 16 10 4.09 36.046 -114.661 5 1989 4 18 10 45 47.66 34.669 -110.925 5 1 989 6 21 19 4 2 23.38 30.959 -114.126 11.86 1 989 6 22 2 1 6 1.84 30.395 -114.262 10 1989 7 17 20 10 22.25 34.038 -110.9 4 6 5 1 989 8 2 20 59 9.39 35.627 -116.265 6 1989 8 24 22 44 10.92 35.62 -115.644 6 1 989 9 6 12 36 55 34.87 -110.99 20 1 989 9 6 18 26 52 36.03 -112.37 10 1989 9 19 9 46 0.79 36.663 -112.407 5 1 989 9 2 1 9 33 58.95 33.57 -114.458 6 1 989 10 29 9 8 30 35.886 -114.862 5 1 989 1 1 12 0 14 3 9.69 30.871 -114.015 10 1 989 1 1 28 18 37 32 36.1 -112.2 10 1 990 1 13 5 47 33.52 30.222 -114.44 10 1 990 1 27 6 28 52.07 30.121 -113.73 10 1 990 6 14 23 28 48.92 3 1.566 -114.483 5.74 1 990 7 23 6 51 11.47 30.248 -114.458 10 19 9 0 8 14 15 7 2.76 3 2.07 -113.124 5 1 990 10 1 4 6 1 7 2.8 30.618 -114.51 8 1 990 10 17 1 1 48 23.5 36.53 -111.13 3 1 990 1 1 1 1 12 32 16.83 30.768 -114.52 3 1 991 2 1 8 12 51 21.78 30.973 -113.258 10 1991 2 20 0 56 55.72 29.874 -113.592 10 1 991 4 26 13 8 20.64 36.627 -112.3 4 5 10 1 991 4 2 9 13 4 37.35 32.088 -114.664 6 1991 7 4 7 51 22.5 30.1 51 -113.598 10 1 991 7 4 11 20 30.56 30.446 -113.857 10 1 991 8 22 15 7 13.55 30.777 -114.722 5 1 991 8 22 1 6 41 1 36 -112.13 2 1 991 9 1 0 4 21 4.31 30.46 -114.367 7 1 991 11 1 3 2 1 37 27.03 34.644 -112.36 5 1 991 1 2 3 17 5 4 35.8 1 3 1.703 -115.91 5 1 991 12 25 8 44 14.9 3 30.551 -114.184 11.77 1 991 12 25 20 30 7.88 3 1.288 -114.039 15.93 1 992 1 23 7 55 28.79 35.625 -116.277 6 1 992 2 1 7 5 43 40.54 30.808 -113.314 6 1992 2 24 17 15 20.79 35.953 *112.221 5 1 992 3 6 16 1 9 0.88 36.553 -114.883 6 1 992 3 1 3 11 20 2.87 35.516 -113.584 6 1 992 3 1 4 5 13 31.6 4 35.96 -112.355 5 1 992 3 15 0 17 47.1 6 30.82 -114.677 8 1992 4 6 11 25 1.93 3 1.062 -114.009 6 1 992 4 7 0 39 9.1 9 35.447 -113.226 5 1 992 5 6 1 41 1.27 36.346 -112.043 5 1 992 5 20 2 1 46 5.2 36.02 -112.1 7 9 1 992 5 26 6 0 15.2 3 1.691 -114.272 6 1 992 5 26 6 24 23.95 30.207 -114.294 6 1 992 5 27 1 0 56 54.3 1 30.837 -114.657 8 1 992 6 28 11 57 33.98 34.203 *116.431 2.8 1 992 7 5 18 17 29.97 35.982 -112.219 5 1 992 7 13 9 56 13.16 35.345 -114.654 18 1 992 8 28 1 0 14 44.5 1 36.057 -114.938 3.87 19 92 8 30 1 17 45.02 30.144 *114.195 10 1 992 9 20 4 44 24.5 30.607 -114.377 8 1 992 10 18 4 52 47.0 1 30.801 -114.661 7.77 1 992 12 4 18 1 5 54.73 36.444 -114.021 5 1 992 12 7 9 4 53.49 30.586 -114.216 15.99 1992 12 10 19 15 42.64 3 1.8 7 5 -114.718 8 1 992 12 20 3 12 56.79 30.902 -114.208 1.63 1 993 1 2 1 20 4 2 53.89 36.384 -114.97 6 1 993 2 4 6 1 8 18.06 35.964 -112.225 5 1 993 2 4 11 4 25.2 1 36.08 -115.045 10.23 1 993 3 7 8 53 27.95 3 1.1 64 -114.242 10 1 993 3 19 2 1 1 46.28 36.398 -114.828 0 1 993 4 1 18 3 4 13.87 36.383 -114.704 13.1 6 1 993 4 15 1 24 58.96 3 1.3 7 6 -114.297 17.28 19 93 4 29 8 21 0.8 1 35.611 -112.112 10 1 993 5 2 11 5 1.57 30.485 -114.043 3.03 1 993 5 12 7 23 56.11 36.203 -1 13 5 1 993 5 12 7 24 4.1 36.203 -114.013 5 1 993 6 1 3 12 9 33.48 3 1.482 -114.411 20.03 1993 6 27 13 20 9.5 36.73 -113.03 10 1 993 7 8 2 5 20.94 30.25 -114.174 8 1 993 7 9 11 25 6.99 3 1.387 -114.36 15.83 1 9 9 3 7 12 3 37 47.2 36.75 -113.01 10 1 993 7 1 8 11 37 35.4 34.7 7 -11 1.04 10 1 993 8 16 14 9 49.68 30.718 -112.858 6 1 993 8 1 6 1 4 10 7.12 3 1.352 -114.332 14.86 1 993 9 5 13 36 9.59 30.261 -114.729 10 1 993 9 8 1 1 44.07 35.951 -115.711 6 1 9 9 3 10 18 11 5 4 54.7 36.74 -113 10 1 9 93 1 1 3 12 14 27.3 1 35.9 25 -115.72 6 1 993 1 1 25 2 46 35.3 1 35.833 -115.781 0 1 994 2 3 12 47 17.13 3 1.793 -114.68 14.38 1 994 2 20 15 42 56.7 1 30.576 *114.053 8 1994 2 25 19 16 10.78 3 1.458 -114.385 15.57 1 994 3 23 2 59 16.1 7 3 1.806 -116.128 22.5 1 994 3 25 6 4 1 49.2 36.1 4 *112.2 10 1 99 4 4 1 17 17 33.86 3 4.936 *112.707 5 1 994 4 2 4 8 4 1 33.7 36.71 -113.04 10 1994 5 1 9 6 0 43.86 30.45 *114.017 8.39 1 994 6 1 7 1 3 43 10.12 30.658 -114.542 1.35 1 994 7 4 7 2 15.05 3 1.655 -113.48 1 0 1 994 7 17 23 41 37.4 1 30.5 7 3 -114.349 3.82 1994 7 21 13 51 23.74 30.174 -114.524 20.1 5 1994 8 8 21 17 8.37 30.511 -114.373 35.09 1994 9 4 16 43 22.35 30.195 -114.556 30.72 1994 9 19 3 53 8.76 3 1.519 -114.438 36.7 1994 9 29 11 21 24.58 35.464 -111.992 5 1994 10 3 14 0 48.63 32.066 -114.948 10 1994 10 29 22 27 52.19 36.081 -114.119 5 1994 11 25 8 17 26.41 3 1.497 -114.421 15.89 1 994 11 27 1 1 10 53.46 36.332 -113.597 5 1994 12 13 18 42 59.73 30.593 -113.878 31.77 1994 12 23 4 9 58.41 30.209 -114.638 10.59 1995 1 1 14 59 43.4 1 36.047 -114.827 4.42 1995 1 11 4 51 27.06 32.43 -115.23 12 1995 2 6 14 28 21.2 35.07 -111.63 10 1995 3 7 21 56 14.9 36.78 -113.01 10 1 995 3 7 22 33 19.36 36.602 -113.418 5 1995 3 21 9 43 21.12 30.404 -114.145 13.83 1 995 3 26 14 32 6.41 31.265 -114.351 35.21 1995 4 16 8 23 45.7 36.05 -112.16 10 1 995 5 7 11 3 32.85 33.911 -116.285 10.5 1 995 6 12 18 51 58.66 32.085 -114.61 19.66 1995 6 17 19 42 56.93 31.454 -114.337 14.47 1 995 6 20 16 21 16.09 36.391 -114.525 0 1995 8 2 18 24 27.32 30.513 -113.818 13.2 1995 8 2 18 26 58.46 30.912 -114.23 8 1995 8 2 18 32 11.7 30.318 -114.214 32.87 1995 9 22 2 42 55.8 36.137 -114.16 2.56 1995 10 26 4 4 37.03 30.593 -113.854 8 1995 11 1 18 54 37.58 3 1.029 -113.903 11.72 1995 12 6 3 27 31.89 3 1.515 -114.388 15.57 1 995 12 27 22 25 13.26 36.196 -114.48 5 1 996 1 2 1 44 48.86 30.767 -114.414 10.47 1996 1 31 22 59 56.24 35.919 -114.679 5 1 996 2 8 22 58 26.72 30.883 -114.187 3 1 996 2 15 22 41 37.87 36.793 -113.973 0.14 1996 3 13 5 43 53.25 36.917 -112.423 1.13 1 996 3 15 9 17 33.7 1 30.811 -114.197 2 1996 3 31 22 43 13.68 32.034 -113.032 6 1996 4 26 4 4 1.1 36.54 -112.3 7 10 1 996 5 1 23 10 54.32 3 1.286 -114.406 10 1996 5 1 23 13 3.46 30.98 -114.277 13 1996 6 6 2 30 36.97 30.207 -114.598 9 1996 6 14 19 23 0.48 32.051 -114.709 6 1996 9 12 21 19 13.74 36.833 -113.763 7.3 1 1996 10 8 4 13 19.26 3 1.018 -113.097 4 1996 10 22 4 15 12.33 36.17 -115.166 6.52 1996 11 17 2 37 53.82 35.746 -115.75 0 1 997 1 22 1 5 54.4 36.76 -113.03 3 1997 2 2 2 26 0.01 30.251 -114.316 10.79 1997 2 5 8 23 5.58 30.435 -114.654 10 1997 2 5 10 21 36.95 30.596 -114.326 10 1997 2 9 16 15 24.9 34.77 -11 1.06 10 1997 3 31 7 34 48.91 35.534 -11 1.99 3 5 1997 4 22 0 44 29.13 30.419 -113.989 1 3.01 1997 4 29 20 4 49.94 30.118 -114.276 15 1997 5 28 4 26 20.1 36.73 -113.05 10 1997 6 8 14 29 59.7 36.09 -112.28 10 1 997 6 19 1 1 21 49.53 3 1.246 -115.491 6 1997 7 3 0 24 0.48 36.078 -114.772 0 1997 7 9 19 29 19.6 36.79 -112.9 8 10 1 997 7 10 10 34 42.1 36.44 -112.42 10 1997 7 19 9 59 22.9 34.52 -112.86 1 0 1997 7 19 11 43 57.7 36.082 -114.622 5.88 1997 7 26 3 14 55.75 33.402 -116.348 11.6 1 997 7 31 7 30 1.2 36.7 -113.01 10 1997 8 26 6 52 20 36.2 -11 1.88 10 1 997 10 15 11 7 49.6 36.74 -112.98 10 199 7 12 20 2 5 52.2 36.341 -115.253 8.93 1 998 1 5 5 23 48.5 35.54 -112.07 10 1998 1 6 8 36 46.63 34.916 -110.495 5 1998 1 16 8 35 30.6 36.5 -112.4 10 1998 2 3 6 26 31.64 30.868 -114.09 8 1998 2 18 14 29 32.65 3 1.854 -1 15.77 1 6 1998 2 22 10 15 9.4 36.49 -112.3 8 10 1 998 2 24 11 31 48.78 3 1.235 -115.601 12 1998 4 8 12 2 57.16 30.3 7 2 -114.483 9.52 1 998 4 13 14 31 11.5 34.26 -110.12 10 1998 4 24 1 27 8.54 3 1.756 -114.263 10 1998 5 15 12 48 16.1 36.71 -113.01 10 1998 6 8 18 49 2.98 3 1.968 -114.546 8 1998 6 15 12 56 13.44 3 1.329 -114.247 2.03 1998 8 22 23 20 28.78 36.281 -113.984 5 1 998 10 18 7 13 10.65 36.033 -111.091 5 1998 10 27 1 8 40.33 34.321 -116.842 6 1998 10 31 22 38 6.26 30.443 -114.491 8 1998 11 6 17 15 3.24 3 1.552 -114.722 6 1998 11 8 0 24 18.2 1 36.216 -112.47 5 1998 11 17 0 6 27.4 1 36.8 -114.08 1.49 1998 12 7 20 32 45.29 36.793 -114.053 0.45 1998 12 14 21 40 37.47 36.293

  • 115.32 5 1999 1 5 23 24 0.32 36.822 -114.026 1.19 1999 2 10 5 9 46.65 36.551 -113.518 5 1999 2 11 6 37 36.16 35.634 -111.575 5 1 999 2 24 2 1 9 52 35.81 -113.3 0 1999 3 2 19 8 22.28 36.458 -114.515 5 1999 3 17 18 29 43.68 30.338 -11 3.93 1 10 1 999 3 17 20 4 59.32 30.393 -114.505 3.37 1999 3 29 6 47 38.19 30.503 -113.466 10 1 999 3 30 2 1 41 13.12 36.814 -114.043 1.34 1 999 5 5 19 4 40.85 36.794 -114.063 1.35 1 999 5 14 7 54 2.98 3 4.066 -11 6.369 2.3 1999 6 1 12 40 5.01 35.904 -115.79 6 1999 6 1 15 18 2.46 32.411 -115.226 3.3 1 999 6 11 8 57 25.62 3 1.725 -114.558 29.99 1 999 8 2 17 59 58.73 36.02 -114.947 6 1999 8 3 9 37 25.08 3 1.322 -114.301 6.2 1 1 999 8 24 13 4 7.39 3 1.986 -114.692 6 1999 9 10 7 6 2.72 3 1.379 -114.334 6 1999 10 1 18 38 23.82 3 1.681 -114.043 13 1 999 10 8 21 26 41 33.28 -114.68 6.1 1999 10 8 21 34 14 33.03 -114.75 5.7 1999 10 16 9 46 43.96 34.596 -116.269 1.2 1 999 10 16 9 4 7 43.59 33.23 -115.654 6.7 1999 10 16 17 1 5 9.17 30.751 -1 10.749 5 1 999 1 1 29 1 5 14 49.1 2 30.13 -114.399 5 1 999 12 6 14 20 3.26 35.049 -111.469 5 1 999 12 7 19 25 21.68 36.852 -113.962 1.3 1 2000 2 22 3 31 37.8 35.77 -113.16 0 2000 3 28 4 45 20.49 36.512 -113.51 5 2000 4 12 15 57 0 36.24 -1 12.33 14 2000 5 2 6 45 45 32.1 11 -115.119 5 2000 5 4 6 48 0 36.09 -111.51 12 2000 5 4 7 42 15.98 36.632 -113.055 5 2000 6 2 17 51 14.27 3 1.113 -114.338 5 2000 6 12 18 13 22.49 30.464 -113.993 2.53 2000 6 23 20 10 42.73 35.509 -11 6.264 6 2000 8 8 3 18 2.42 30.75 -114.138 13.83 2000 8 8 3 18 9.32 32.448 -1 13.474 5 2000 8 25 1 5 23 16.96 29.932 -113.392 10 2000 10 3 1 21 56 39.69 36.456 -114.3 07 0 2000 12 1 0 1 9.1 36.051 -114.9 8 6 2001 1 16 7 26 35.2 1 30.391 -113.852 0.3 1 2001 1 17 1 26 32.85 3 1.812 -114.705 6 2001 1 17 4 13 3.67 32.448

-113.719 6 2001 1 17 9 33 27.88 3 1.867 -114.316 19.95 2001 2 4 3 29 2.65 36.143 -115.346 0 2001 5 17 10 1 5 32.3 1 30.807 -114.027 9.84 2001 7 12 20 9 1.7 3 1.392 -114.35 8 15.52 2001 9 9 6 30 30.1 30.224 *114.61 7 2001 10 23 7 19 4 2.4 3 1.697 -114.703 5 2001 10 31 7 56 16.36 33.511 -116.502 15.6 2001 11 28 16 2 4 0.74 30.331 -1 13.547 10 2001 12 6 12 58 16.03 30.639 -114.436 4 2001 12 8 23 36 10.14 32.059 -115.036 0.6 2002 2 1 1 23 34 24.9 1 30.565 -113.889 13 2002 3 3 0 9 0.64 35.422 -116.454 6.8 2002 3 3 15 20 56.14 35.618 -116.251 7 2002 3 27 1 1 18 5.92 30.216 -114.011 10 2002 4 15 6 53 20.5 36.79 -112.46 15 2002 5 25 0 5 17.7 1 35.589 -116.31 7 2002 7 7 5 37 38.98 36.486 -113.55 5 2002 8 30 5 16 12.98 3 1.863 -114.265 5 2002 9 13 1 1 42 17.29 30.216 -114.573 15 2002 10 29 14 16 54.08 34.803 -116.266 4.6 2002 12 10 21 4 0.5 32.25 -115.788 10.9 2003 1 11 15 40 37.1 3 1.248 -114.238 5 2003 2 7 10 34 4.83 3 1.628 -115.511 7.6 2003 2 22 12 19 10.53 34.31 -116.846 3.6 2003 3 17 6 28 41.3 3 1.851 -114.654 6 2003 3 25 21 11 34.89 36.766 -112.982 4.68 2003 6 8 19 14 48 3 1.92 -114.427 8 2003 6 11 0 56 15 3 1.917 -114.724 5 2003 8 10 0 33 23.52 35.066 -113.37 5 2003 9 8 18 13 24.7 3 1.324 -114.169 6 2003 9 9 23 7 21.35 30.155 -114.114 10 2003 9 9 23 41 52.8 30.159 -114.49 10 2003 9 10 11 26 44.55 30.641 -113.544 10 2003 9 17 18 1 36.93 35.939 -114.698 3.65 2003 10 24 18 18 53.92 35.939 -114.727 0 2003 11 1 2 43 29.3 30.661 -114.201 7 2003 11 15 12 54 11.3 32.496 -114.689 6 2003 11 18 19 35 45 32.183 -114.598 13 2003 12 4 16 0 52 3 1.964 -114.495 16 2003 12 12 2 55 18.1 30.808 -114.471 5 2003 12 21 16 8 57 33.62 -109.78 0 2003 12 21 21 28 22 33.8 -109.07 0 2004 1 13 7 58 53.3 3 1.058 -114.145 7 2004 1 17 9 47 21.7 30.78 -114.33 11.3 2004 1 26 7 14 23.8 3 1.67 -114.456 7 2004 3 5 8 28 0 34.98 -109.99 24 2004 3 12 8 37 26.2 1 33.227 -109.557 5 2004 3 15 17 19 12.6 30.689 -114.697 4 2004 3 16 4 6 3.6 30.75 -114.225 5 2004 3 30 1 40 23.1 30.201 -114.193 8.1 2004 5 14 10 58 1.67 36.05 -114.123 0 2004 5 14 14 9 36.7 3 1.528 -114.311 4 2004 6 27 5 0 0 36.21 -111.57 16 2004 8 12 14 44 30 30.546 *114.45 4 2004 8 20 6 33 2.7 30.147 -114.15 7.5 2004 8 26 0 16 14.6 30.646 -113.901 6 2004 10 18 16 4 7 14.3 30.309 -114.574 6 2005 2 24 8 58 54.1 30.63 -114.256 8 2005 3 2 11 12 57.42 34.715 -110.97 5 2005 3 15 0 21 7.29 36.911 -112.546 22.75 2005 4 20 19 3 25 3 1.931 -114.745 12 2005 4 25 22 59 39.6 30.059 -114.46 8 2005 4 27 0 32 59.02 30.253 -114.132 10 2005 6 8 4 32 33.1 36.832 -113.564 2.29 2005 6 12 1 5 41 46.33 33.538 -116.567 14.1 2005 6 16 20 53 25.68 34.061 -117.007 14.2 2005 7 12 23 32 41.38 36.959 -112.352 9.03 2005 9 2 1 27 19.5 33.143 -115.634 5.6 2005 10 31 13 4 1 33.62 30.517 -113.109 10 2005 11 8 4 11 59.5 30.715 -114.236 12 2005 11 20 8 45 36.39 36.185 -113.854 5 2005 11 25 12 32 53.6 3 1.288 -114.272 6 2005 12 16 8 17 1.41 30.177 -114.063 10 2006 1 20 20 1 15.5 30.5 -114.549 5 2006 2 5 11 36 55.89 36.988 -112.861 12.01 2006 2 23 1 22 2.2 30.618 -114.195 5.3 2006 5 1 2 1 4 42.6 30.199 -114.332 10 2006 5 24 4 20 26.0 1 32.307 -115.228 6 2006 6 21 1 45 8.9 3 1.536 -114.481 15 2006 7 9 17 43 33 34.743 -112.707 1 2006 7 23 15 24 20.1 3 1.895 -114.565 15 2006 11 15 7 4 2.3 30.69 -114.338 4 2007 1 4 19 4 43.7 30.97 -114.583 4 2007 1 18 6 21 6.42 30.493 -114.086 10 2007 1 1 9 17 34 27.58 36.283 -115.431 16 2007 1 24 12 27 25.6 30.546 -114.664 10 2007 5 22 20 55 19.8 3 1.364 -114.167 12 2007 6 25 14 52 28 33.73 -111.14 7 2007 7 4 18 30 28 36.104 -111.073 8 2007 7 5 1 38 32.4 30.551 -114.6 4 2007 7 5 4 37 29 3 1.053 -114.351 6 2007 7 26 2 37 24.5 3 1.532 -114.324 4 2007 8 28 13 52 27.32 30.315 -113.983 10 2007 9 8 7 15 40.59 33.697 -108.811 5 2007 9 15 5 26 24.33 33.401 -108.835 5 2007 9 21 0 58 0.4 3 1.284 -114.215 8 2007 9 28 0 23 22.28 35.773 -115.805 5.4 2007 10 5 6 28 12.7 3 1.588 -114.41 12 2007 10 25 20 35 29.5 3 1.712 -114.505 13 2007 10 29 2 2 16.8 30.505 -114.159 6 2007 10 29 22 21 11.9 3 1.47 -114.311 9 2007 12 5 0 22 41 36.428 -113.127 13 2007 12 27 0 13 20 36.53 *112.258 23 2008 1 10 11 26 15.97 30.917 -113.892 10 2008 1 12 12 50 20.44 30.445 -113.901 10 2008 1 17 22 0 13 35.02 -113.914 1 2008 1 29 14 46 6.3 3 1.339 -114.449 9 2008 2 9 7 12 4.5 32.36 -115.277 6 2008 2 19 20 41 28.35 30.01 -114.014 10 2008 3 27 1 7 13.78 36.465 -113.581 5 2008 4 7 21 32 5 34.704 -111.181 2 2008 5 14 1 7 40.88 30.569 -113.744 10 2008 5 14 16 9 52.93 30.25 -114.3 10 2008 5 17 19 8 55.3 3 1.912 -114.745 9 2008 6 4 23 32 35 36.443 -112.492 13 2008 7 8 17 51 5.16 36.62 -114.563 6 2008 9 3 23 44 17.03 34.615 -112.897 6 2008 10 1 23 4 9 18 35.925 -112.073 15 2008 10 8 9 31 41.04 30.279 -113.305 10 2008 10 19 19 51 14 35.479 -111.764 11 2008 10 26 19 47 48.35 36.235 -114.554 10.79 2008 11 5 6 17 40.6 3 1.813 -114.658 8 2008 11 13 7 48 45.42 29.98 -114.21 5 2008 11 19 15 35 39.2 30.564 -114.354 4 2008 11 20 19 23 0.1 32.329 -115.332 6 2008 12 4 2 4 36.9 36.044 -114.832 5.99 2008 12 6 4 1 8 42.8 34.813 -116.419 7 2008 12 11 3 41 55.68 30.335 -113.797 10 2008 12 30 11 44 12.97 30.107 -113.222 10 2009 2 24 7 10 30.6 30.104 -114.349 14 2009 2 24 7 17 35.7 30.4 56 -114.099 15 2009 2 27 15 10 1.4 36.352 -115.073 8.4 2009 3 24 1 1 55 43.9 33.317 -115.728 6 2009 4 28 0 59 53.5 30.571 -114.578 4 2009 5 9 6 7 31.97 34.213 -112.141 5 2009 5 11 22 35 49.8 3 1.711 -114.539 5 2009 5 14 4 23 27.2 30.852 -114.083 14.1 2009 9 3 15 54 6.8 3 1.232 -114.344 10 2009 9 4 1 1 47 54 36.647 -112.956 5 2009 10 7 16 35 5.5 30.212 -114.39 5 2009 10 8 3 47 45.1 30.542 -114.32 5 2009 10 8 6 1 0.3 30.278 -113.745 6.3 2009 10 9 22 13 54.18 35.963 -114.546 10.93 2009 10 16 10 27 10.7 29.991 -114.081 4 2009 10 31 3 1 7 31.9 35.358

-111.578 6.38 2009 11 3 23 39 42 36.713 -113.046 16 2009 11 16 6 55 46 36.833 -112.352 21 2009 11 21 20 45 46 36.877 -111.9 8 2009 11 28 5 23 15.7 30.912 -114.478 6 20 1 0 1 27 20 33 31 36.581 -111.471 7 20 1 0 2 19 23 30 17 3 1.402 -114.39 12 2010 2 20 1 12 48.7 3 1.673 *114.094 15 20 1 0 2 21 1 12 9.5 3 1.837 -114.521 10 2010 3 2 0 51 39 36.564 -113.272 12 2010 3 1 3 20 55 8 30.62 -114.557 3 20 1 0 3 18 18 4 0 41.97 35.019 -111.609 5 20 1 0 3 21 17 40 6.08 36.61 -113.318 10 2010 3 30 9 14 10.46 3 1.276 -114.049 10 2010 4 4 22 40 41.7 32.216 -115.3 10 2010 5 3 0 59 24.24 3 1.539 -114.726 10 2010 5 24 7 27 7.76 33.298 -109.231 5 20 1 0 5 29 15 31 54 36.463 -113.259 6.72 20 1 0 6 1 5 4 26 58.4 32.7 -115.921 5 2010 6 18 15 7 33.65 3 1.7 1 6 -114.716 10 2010 6 25 10 30 34.12 33.61 -111.196 5 2010 7 3 7 34 46.28 30.731 -114.028 6 2010 7 7 23 53 33.5 33.421 -116.489 14 20 1 0 7 27 12 22 3 1 35.889 -1 11.394 18.28 20 1 0 8 9 23 55 47.4 3 1.01 -114.00 1 8 2010 8 10 22 47 47.1 30.365 -114.365 4 2010 8 11 17 23 2.1 30.617 -114.11 4 20 1 0 9 8 3 58 8.45 30.435 -1 13.63 10 2010 9 15 7 50 2.4 30.069 -113.802 1 0 20 1 0 9 25 16 49 26.3 3 1.23 -115.65 5 2010 9 26 22 20 30.64 33.696 -111.147 5 2010 10 13 18 20 47.34 3 1.54 -114.347 10 20 1 0 10 19 1 27 55 36.855 -11 3.022 9.8 2010 10 20 23 1 54.8 3 1.395 -116.026 8 2010 11 6 20 39 5 36.969 -112.874 12.24 2010 11 11 3 23 38 36.463 -113.495 7.39 2010 11 24 14 58 20 36.818 -111.791 5.8 2011 1 16 11 55 48.8 1 3 1.4 74 -114.293 10 20 1 1 1 17 2 1 2 24.7 3 1.725 -114.624 10 2011 1 23 12 16 47.19 34.837 -1 12.087 5 20 1 1 1 26 10 51 36 36.098 -112.074 6.9 20 1 1 3 1 8 19 54 46.74 34.827 -112.092 15 2011 3 20 21 28 16 36.077 -111.908 7.55 20 1 1 4 7 13 4 0 57.9 3 1.233 -115.62 5 2011 5 26 19 46 30.3 30.822 -113.934 10 2011 6 16 0 0 0 35.872 -112.19 1 8.96 2011 6 21 0 0 0 35.055 -11 1.554 16.2 2011 7 8 3 44 3.04 36.288 -112.181 2.7 20 1 1 7 18 0 0 0 36.603 -113.769 1.7 2011 7 18 9 6 54.13 36.891 -113.555 6 2011 7 29 0 0 0 34.9 -112.032 3.6 2011 8 31 0 0 0 35.784 -113.226 7 20 1 1 9 17 2 8 39.5 3 1.385 -114.311 8 2011 10 11 10 12 2.38 34.72 -116.028 7.56 20 1 1 10 13 0 0 0 35.666 -1 11.414 3.6 20 1 1 10 14 16 15 46.5 3 1.304 -114.245 10 2011 10 20 3 45 49.2 30.622 *114.038 8 20 1 1 10 25 18 20 24.6 3 4.871 -112.518 5 2011 11 3 0 0 0 35.842 -113.216 6.88 2011 11 1 2 23 3 46.33 36.014 -114.818 6 20 1 1 12 13 0 0 0 36.764 -113.017 8.2 20 1 1 12 14 18 34 47 36.666 -113.794 0.3 2011 12 23 12 32 37.6 30.451 -114.01 1 10 2012 1 8 19 11 12.2 1 34.826 -110.942 5 2012 1 19 1 38 55.6 30.887 -114.171 8 20 1 2 2 26 0 0 0 3 4.898 -110.965 2 20 1 2 3 20 14 1 8 52.8 3 1.288 -114.258 4 20 1 2 3 21 1 1 8 22.5 3 1.084 -114.392 12 20 1 2 3 26 3 42 43.1 3 1.517 -114.319 7 20 1 2 4 22 0 0 0 34.894 -110.961 3.65 20 1 2 6 1 5 24 34.1 30.452 -114.066 10 20 1 2 6 25 0 0 0 35.025 -112.546 1.85 2012 7 19 5 8 39.3 3 1.428 -114.295 8 20 1 2 7 24 21 39 24 30.56 -114.216 7 2012 8 25 9 28 26 3 1.339 -114.306 5 20 1 2 8 26 20 57 58.2 33.02 -115.55 9 20 1 2 8 26 2 1 17 26.72 34.175 -115.608 8.9 20 1 2 8 27 5 23 19.1 30.658 -114.063 10 20 1 2 8 28 11 36 52.9 7 30.026 -114.213 10 2012 9 25 16 3 33.46 36.486 -114.879 13.3 20 1 2 10 8 0 0 0 33.431 -109.28 5 2012 10 11 21 26 49.76 36.431 -114.432 0 20 1 2 10 17 0 0 0 35.748 -113.088 4.9 20 1 2 10 30 9 20 57.6 3 1.24 -114.298 15 20 1 2 11 13 0 19 16.49 35.511 -116.2 4 6 0 20 1 2 12 1 1 0 0 0 35.61 9 -113.154 10 M ag Ma g Type Sou rc e Cata l o g P r i o ri t y Zone Mag Si g ma Mw E(M) 6.5 Mw Toppozada U n ified 1 1 0.3 6.5 6.33 5.5 Mw T oppo za da Unified 1 1 0.3 5.5 5.33 5 MMI AZGS AZG S 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 6 MMI AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.5 5 5.00 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 5.8 Mw T oppozada U n ified 1 1 0.3 5.8 5.63 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 4 2 0.5 4.33 4.33 5 MMI A Z GS AZGS 5 6 0.5 4.33 4.33 6.2 Mw Toppoz a d a Unif ie d 1 1 0.3 6.2 6.03 5.9 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.9 5.73 5.8 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.8 5.63 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 7 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 5.67 5.67 6 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 5 5.00 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 5.6 Mw To p pozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.6 5.43 6.8 Mw T o p pozada Unified 1 1 0.3 6.8 6.63 3 MMI AZGS AZGS 4 7 0.5 3 3.00 6 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 6 5.83 6 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 5 5.00 7.3 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 7.3 7.13 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 6.1 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 6.1 5.93 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 4 7 0.5 3.67 3.67 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 6.7 Mw T oppozada U n ified 1 1 0.3 6.7 6.53 6.6 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 5 0.3 6.6 6.43 6.2 Ms AE I C AE I C 2 3 0.3 6.2 6.03 6.2 Mw T o p pozada U n i f ied 1 1 0.3 6.2 6.03 5.8 Mw T oppozada U n ified 1 1 0.3 5.8 5.63 6 M s AE I C AE I C 2 3 0.3 6 5.83 6.2 M s AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.3 6.2 6.03 5 MMI A Z GS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 6 Mw Toppozada Unif i ed 1 1 0.3 6 5.83 3 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3 3.00 6.6 Mw T oppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 6.6 6.43 6 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 5 5.00 5.7 Mw T oppozad a Unified 1 1 0.3 5.7 5.53 5.5 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.5 5.33 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 6.8 Mw T o p pozada U n ified 1 1 0.3 6.8 6.63 5.6 Mw T oppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.6 5.43 3 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3 3.00 5.9 Mw Toppo za d a Unifi e d 1 1 0.3 5.9 5.73 5 Mw CDMG Unified 1 1 0.3 5 4.83 6 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 5 5.00 5.5 Mw Toppozada Unif i ed 1 1 0.3 5.5 5.33 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 4 2 0.5 4.33 4.33 6 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 5 5.00 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 5.5 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.5 5.33 5.5 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.5 5.33 5.8 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.8 5.63 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 5.5 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.5 5.33 5.1 Mw CDMG Unified 1 1 0.3 5.1 4.93 5.5 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.5 5.33 5 Mw COMG Unified 1 1 0.3 5 4.83 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 6 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 5 5.00 4.46 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 4.46 4.39 3.78 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.78 3.7 1 4.7 Mw SCSN Unified 1 1 0.2 4.7 4.63 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 2.96 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 2.96 2.89 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 3 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3 3.00 3.58 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.58 3.5 1 5.5 ML CDMG AZGS 5 4 0.2 5.5 5.43 5.07 Mw SCSN Unified 1 5 0.2 5.07 5.00 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 6.46 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 6.46 6.39 3.93 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.2 3.93 3.86 6 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 5 5.00 6 MMI AZGS AZGS 4 2 0.5 5 5.00 3.11 I SCSN_le SCS N 2 2 0.2 3.11 3.04 4.84 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.84 4.77 4.79 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.79 4.72 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 5.25 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.25 5.18 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 3.79 I SCSN_l e SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.79 3.72 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 4 7 0.5 3.67 3.67 2.78 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 2.78 2.7 1 3.22 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.22 3.15 4.85 Mw SCSN Unified 1 1 0.2 4.85 4.78 6.02 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 6.02 5.95 6 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 5 5.00 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 3.58 ML Cl ANSS 2 7 0.2 3.58 3.5 1 3.63 I SCSN_re SCS N 4 3 0.2 3.63 3.56 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 4.88 Mw ANSS U n ified 1 1 0.2 4.88 4.8 1 3.32 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.32 3.25 3.72 I SCSN_l e SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.72 3.65 4.54 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 4.54 4.47 5.5 M AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.2 5.5 5.43 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.6 7 3.67 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 4.5 Md N MBMG AZGS 2 3 0.2 4.5 4.43 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 6 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 5 5.00 3.83 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.83 3.76 4.69 Mw Deng Unified 1 7 0.2 4.69 4.62 4.5 Md NMBMG AZGS 2 3 0.2 4.5 4.43 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 3.47 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.47 3.40 5.29 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.29 5.22 6.89 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 6.89 6.82 4.5 ML CDMG AZGS 4 2 0.2 4.5 4.43 5 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5 4.93 3.47 I SCSN_re SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.47 3.40 4.84 Mw SCSN Unified 1 5 0.2 4.84 4.77 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 5.5 Mw CDMG Unified 1 1 0.2 5.5 5.43 6.05 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 5 0.2 6.05 5.98 4 MMI AE I C AZGS 4 7 0.5 3.67 3.67 4 MMI AE I C AZGS 4 7 0.5 3.67 3.67 3 MMI AE I C AZGS 4 7 0.5 3 3.00 3 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3 3.00 4.78 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.78 4.71 3.28 I SCSN_l e SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.28 3.2 1 4.83 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.83 4.76 5 MMI AE I C AZGS 4 7 0.5 4.33 4.33 4.11 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 4.11 4.04 3 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3 2.93 3.62 I SCSN_le SCS N 2 2 0.2 3.62 3.55 5.26 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.26 5.19 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 5.08 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.08 5.0 1 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 5.22 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.22 5.15 3.34 I SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.2 3.34 3.27 4.7 Mw SCSN Unified 1 5 0.2 4.7 4.63 5 MMI AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 4.86 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.86 4.79 5 Unk N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 5 4.93 5.3 Mw CDMG Unified 1 4 0.2 5.3 5.23 4.39 I SCSN_re SCS N 2 6 0.2 4.39 4.32 5.15 I SCSN_re SCS N 4 5 0.2 5.15 5.08 5.2 Mw CDMG U n ified 1 1 0.2 5.2 5.13 5.78 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.78 5.7 1 4.65 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.65 4.58 5.5 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.5 5.43 4.83 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.83 4.76 5 MMI AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 4.85 Mw SCSN Unified 1 5 0.2 4.85 4.78 6.48 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 6.48 6.41 3.81 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.81 3.74 3.4 I SCSN_re SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.4 3.33 4.8 Mw CDMG Unified 1 1 0.2 4.8 4.73 5.28 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.28 5.2 1 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 5.96 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.96 5.89 4.5 Unk N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.5 4.43 5.69 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.69 5.62 3.53 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.53 3.46 4.3 Unk N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 5.66 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.66 5.59 7 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 5.67 5.67 4.2 Unk NE I AZGS 2 3 0.2 4.2 4.13 4.16 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.2 4.16 4.09 5.41 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.41 5.34 4.72 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.72 4.65 5.97 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.97 5.90 4.66 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.66 4.59 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 4.5 Unk NE I ANSS 3 3 0.2 4.5 4.43 5 MMI AE I C AZGS 4 7 0.5 4.33 4.33 4.72 Mw SCSN Unified 1 7 0.2 4.72 4.65 3.67 I SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.2 3.67 3.60 5.1 Ml AZGS AZGS 5 4 0.2 5.1 5.03 3.7 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.2 3.7 3.63 5.46 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.46 5.39 4.76 Mw ANSS Unified 1 2 0.2 4.76 4.69 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 5 Mw CDMG Unified 1 1 0.2 5 4.93 566 Mw ANSS Unified 1 6 0.2 5.66 5.59 5.35 Mw SCSN Unified 1 6 0.2 5.35 5.28 6.37 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 6.37 6.30 5.2 Mw CDMG U n ified 1 1 0.2 5.2 5.13 4.31 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 4.31 4.24 4.85 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.85 4.78 5.24 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.24 5.17 4.7 Mw COMG Unified 1 1 0.2 4.7 4.63 3.03 I SCSN_le SCS N 2 2 0.2 3.03 2.96 6.76 Mw SCSN U n ified 1 1 0.2 6.76 6.69 6.52 I SCSN_l e SCSN 4 5 0.2 6.55 6.48 4.65 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.65 4.58 5.17 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.17 5.10 4.7 Mw CDMG Unified 1 4 0.2 4.7 4.63 3.64 I SCSN_le SCS N 2 2 0.2 3.64 3.57 4.9 Mw CDMG Unified 1 3 0.2 4.9 4.83 3.26 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.26 3.19 5.25 Unk NE I ANSS 3 4 0.2 5.25 5.18 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 5.76 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.76 5.69 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 4.82 Mw SCSN Unified 1 5 0.2 4.82 4.75 5.75 ML B rumbaugh AZGS 2 3 0.2 5.75 5.68 2008 5 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.2 5 4.93 3.38 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.38 3.3 1 4.74 Mw SCSN Unified 1 4 0.2 4.74 4.67 4.74 Mw SCSN Unified 1 1 0.2 4.74 4.67 4.71 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.71 4.64 4.5 ML uu ss AZGS 2 3 0.2 4.5 4.43 2.9 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.2 2.9 2.83 2.9 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.2 2.9 2.83 5.07 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.07 5.00 2.96 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 2.96 2.89 3.01 I SCSN_l e SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.01 2.94 4.9 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.2 4.9 4.83 4.94 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.94 4.87 4.86 Mw SCSN Unified 1 1 0.2 4.86 4.79 4.78 Mw ANSS Unified 1 7 0.2 4.78 4.7 1 2.7 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.2 2.7 2.63 2.9 ML AE I C AZGS 4 7 0.2 2.9 2.83 5.6 Mw SCSN Unified 1 1 0.2 5.6 5.53 4.5 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.5 4.43 2.7 ML AE I C AZGS 4 2 0.2 2.7 2.63 4.2 Mb NE I AZGS 2 3 0.2 4.2 4.13 5.27 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.27 5.20 4.96 Mw SCSN Unified 1 1 0.2 4.96 4.89 4.7 Mb AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.2 4.7 4.63 5.7 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 5.9 5.83 4.3 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 4.5 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.2 4.5 4.43 5 Mw CDMG Unified 1 4 0.2 5 4.93 4.2 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.2 4.13 4.7 Mw CDMG U n ified 1 4 0.2 4.7 4.63 4.1 Mb NE I AZGS 2 3 0.2 4.1 4.03 4.7 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.7 4.63 5.73 Mw ANSS Unified 1 4 0.2 5.73 5.66 3.3 Mb AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.2 3.3 3.23 4.41 I SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.2 4.41 4.34 3.61 I SCSN_r e SCSN 3 7 0.2 3.61 3.54 4 h SCSN_re SCSN 2 6 0.2 4 3.93 4.2 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.2 4.13 4.4 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.2 4.4 4.33 4.03 I SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.2 4.03 3.96 3.8 Mb NE I ANSS 2 7 0.2 3.8 3.73 3.7 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.2 3.7 3.63 4.4 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.4 4.33 4.4 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.4 4.33 4.4 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.4 4.33 4.3 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 4.4 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.4 4.33 5.11 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.11 5.04 4.3 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 4.92 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.92 4.85 4.1 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.1 4.03 4.4 Unk N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.4 4.33 2.7 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.2 2.7 2.63 4.33 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.2 4.33 4.26 3.11 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.11 3.04 4.3 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 4.5 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.5 4.43 3.3 M uuss AZGS 2 3 0.2 3.3 3.23 2.9 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.2 2.9 2.83 3.5 M uuss AZGS 2 3 0.2 3.5 3.43 3.9 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 3.9 3.83 4.74 Mw SCSN Unified 1 1 0.2 4.74 4.67 3.3 M u uss AZGS 2 3 0.2 3.3 3.23 3.5 M u uss AZGS 2 3 0.2 3.5 3.43 4.3 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 3.76 Ml Cl ANSS 2 7 0.2 3.76 3.69 6.3 Mw COMG Unified 1 6 0.2 6.3 6.23 3.9 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.2 3.9 3.83 4.3 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 4.3 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 4 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4 3.93 4.3 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 4.4 Mb N E I AZGS 2 3 0.2 4.4 4.33 4.6 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.6 4.53 4.72 Mw SCSN Unifi e d 1 1 0.2 4.72 4.65 3.28 Ml Cl ANSS 2 7 0.2 3.28 3.21 3.7 Mb NE I AZGS 2 3 0.2 3.7 3.63 4.1 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.1 4.03 3.9 Mb N E I AZGS 2 3 0.2 3.9 3.83 4.1 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.1 4.03 2.8 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.2 2.8 2.73 4.5 Unk N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.5 4.43 5 Unk NE I ANSS 3 4 0.2 5 4.93 3.8 Mb NE I AZGS 2 3 0.2 3.8 3.73 5 Unk N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 5 4.93 4.66 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.66 4.59 3.8 Mb AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.2 3.8 3.73 3 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.2 3 2.93 3.2 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.2 3.2 3.13 4 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.2 4 3.93 4.6 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.2 4.6 4.53 4.97 Mw SCSN Unif i ed 1 5 0.2 4.97 4.90 4.3 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 4.3 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 5 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 5 4.93 4.2 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.2 4.13 4.1 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.1 4.03 6.58 Mw A N SS Unified 1 1 0.2 6.58 6.51 4.2 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.2 4.13 4.2 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.2 4.13 4.3 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 4.71 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.71 4.64 4.4 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.4 4.33 4.5 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.5 4.43 4.5 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.5 4.43 4.8 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.8 4.7 3 3.9 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.2 3.9 3.83 4.2 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.2 4.13 5.2 Mw CDMG Unifi e d 1 4 0.2 5.2 5.13 5.5 Mw CDMG Unifi e d 1 4 0.2 5.5 5.43 3.22 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.22 3.15 4.89 Mw SCSN Unified 1 5 0.2 4.89 4.82 2.96 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 2.96 2.89 4.3 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 4.2 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.2 4.13 4.4 Mb A E I C AZG S 2 3 0.2 4.4 4.33 4.9 Mw CDMG Unifi e d 1 5 0.2 4.9 4.83 3 Un k N E I ANSS 2 7 0.2 3 2.93 3.1 h SCSN_l e SCS N 2 6 0.2 3.1 3.03 2.75 h SCSN_le SCS N 2 2 0.2 2.75 2.68 3.02 h SCSN_l e SCS N 2 6 0.2 3.02 2.95 3.23 h SCSN_l e SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.23 3.16 2.87 h SCSN_l e SCS N 2 2 0.2 2.87 2.80 4 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4 3.93 5 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 5 4.93 5.2 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 5.2 5.1 3 3 Un k N E I AZGS 2 3 0.2 3 2.93 2.8 Unk N E I AZGS 2 3 0.2 2.8 2.73 3.83 I SCSN_le SCS N 2 2 0.2 3.83 3.76 3.7 Mb N E I ANSS 2 7 0.2 3.7 3.63 2.94 h SCSN_l e SCSN 2 2 0.2 2.94 2.87 2.9 Unk N E I AZG S 2 3 0.2 2.9 2.83 2.8 Unk N E I ANSS 2 7 0.2 2.8 2.73 3 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.2 3 2.93 4.99 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.99 4.92 3 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.2 3 2.93 4.7 Mw COMG Unified 1 5 0.2 4.7 4.63 3 Unk NE I AZGS 2 3 0.2 3 2.93 5.4 Ms NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 5.5 5.48 3.7 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.7 3.68 4.1 Mb NE I ANSS 3 6 0.1 4.1 4.08 3.63 h SCSN_l e SCSN 2 6 0.1 3.63 3.6 1 3.9 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 4.3 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.3 4.28 4 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 4 3.98 4.5 mbGS USGS_PDE AZGS 2 3 0.1 4.5 4.48 5 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 5 4.98 4.1 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.1 4.08 4.7 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.7 4.68 4.86 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 4.86 4.84 2.9 Mc C l ANSS 3 2 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.1 Unk NE I ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.1 3.08 4.1 mbGS USGS_PDE AZGS 2 3 0.1 4.1 4.08 4.3 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.3 4.28 2.8 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.21 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.21 3.19 3.53 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.53 3.5 1 3.26 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.26 3.24 3.27 h SCSN_l e SCSN 2 6 0.1 3.27 3.25 3.3 ML Cl ANSS 3 6 0.1 3.3 3.28 3.9 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.9 3.88 2.9 Mc C l ANSS 3 4 0.1 2.9 2.88 4.16 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 4.16 4.14 4.1 Ml C l ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.1 4.08 4.9 Mb NE I ANSS 3 5 0.1 4.9 4.88 3 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 4.76 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 4.76 4.74 3.4 Unk PAS ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.4 3.38 2.7 d SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 2.8 d SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.8 2.78 5.13 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 5.13 5.1 1 3.34 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 3.34 3.32 3.12 h SCSN_l e SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.12 3.10 2.97 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 2.97 2.95 4.97 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 4.97 4.95 5.25 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 5.25 5.23 4.88 Mw N E I C U n ified 1 1 0.1 4.88 4.86 2.9 Ml AE I C AZGS 4 2 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.01 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.01 2.99 4.88 Mw N E I C Unified 1 1 0.1 4.88 4.86 3.9 Unk N E I ANSS 3 3 0.1 3.9 3.88 5 M AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.1 5 4.98 3 M AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 4.5 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.5 4.48 3.02 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.02 3.00 2.9 Ml AE I C A ZG S 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3 Unk NE I ANSS 2 7 0.1 3 2.98 4.4 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 4.9 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.9 4.88 5.07 Mw ANSS Unif i ed 1 1 0.1 5.07 5.05 3.78 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.78 3.76 2.9 h SCSN_re SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.9 2.88 5.79 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 5.79 5.77 5 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 5 4.98 2.7 h SCSN_re SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.7 2.68 2.8 h SCSN_re SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.05 h SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.05 3.03 3.16 h SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.16 3.14 3.11 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.11 3.09 3.02 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.02 3.00 2.73 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.73 2.71 3.06 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.06 3.04 3.2 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.84 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.84 2.82 3.05 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.05 3.03 3.09 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.09 3.07 3.34 I SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 3.34 3.32 3.45 I SCSN_r e SCSN 3 7 0.1 3.45 3.43 3.97 I SCSN_r e SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.97 3.95 2.8 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.8 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.97 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.97 2.95 4.08 I SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 4.08 4.06 3.21 h SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.21 3.19 3.14 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.14 3.12 4.68 Mw NE I C Unified 1 1 0.1 4.68 4.66 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 3 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3 2.98 2.7 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 2.8 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.79 c SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.79 2.77 3 h SCSN_r e SCSN 4 3 0.1 3 2.98 2.8 h SCSN_le SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.7 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 2.9 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.9 2.88 2.95 c SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.95 2.93 2.8 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 4.3 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.3 4.28 3.01 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.01 2.99 5.31 Mw ANSS Unif ie d 1 1 0.1 5.31 5.29 4 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4 3.98 3.84 I SCSN_l e SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.84 3.82 2.78 Mh Cl ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.78 2.76 3.03 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.03 3.0 1 3.26 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.26 3.24 5.4 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 5.46 5.44 3.41 h SCSN_re SCS N 3 7 0.1 3.41 3.39 2.8 h SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.15 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.15 3.13 3 h SCSN_re SCS N 4 3 0.1 3 2.98 5.51 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 5.51 5.49 3.21 h SCSN_re SCS N 4 3 0.1 3.21 3.19 2.8 h SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.21 h SCSN_re SCS N 4 3 0.1 3.21 3.19 3.25 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 3.25 3.23 3.24 I SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.24 3.22 2.99 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 2.99 2.97 2.8 I SCSN_le SCS N 2 6 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.1 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 3.1 3.08 6.51 Mw Globa l CMT U n ified 1 1 0.1 6.51 6.49 2.85 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 2.85 2.83 3.49 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.49 3.47 2.7 Mc u u AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.08 I SCSN_le SCS N 2 6 0.1 3.08 3.06 3.98 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.98 3.96 3.45 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.45 3.43 5.32 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 5.32 5.30 4.39 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 4.39 4.37 4.8 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.8 4.78 4.22 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 4.22 4.20 2.9 h SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 2.9 2.88 2.7 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 4.4 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 3.6 Unk NE I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.6 3.58 2.8 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.8 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.27 h SCSN_re SCS N 4 4 0.1 3.27 3.25 2.98 h SCSN_re SCS N 4 3 0.1 2.98 2.96 5 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 5 4.98 4.4 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 3.53 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.53 3.5 1 4.4 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 3.38 h SCSN_re SCS N 4 3 0.1 3.38 3.36 4.3 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.3 4.28 4.6 Mb N E I A N SS 3 4 0.1 4.6 4.58 2.7 h SCSN_re SCS N 4 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.5 Unk N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.5 3.48 3.02 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.02 3.00 3.2 Unk N E I ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.2 3.18 3.14 h SCSN_re SCS N 4 4 0.1 3.14 3.12 2.8 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.9 n SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.2 Unk NE I ANSS 3 3 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.8 h SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 2.8 2.78 4.9 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.9 4.88 2.71 Mc u u AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.71 2.69 4.5 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.5 4.48 2.98 c SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.98 2.96 2.73 c SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.73 2.7 1 4.77 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 4.77 4.75 3.16 c SCSN_le SCS N 2 2 0.1 3.16 3.14 3.22 c SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.22 3.20 3.05 c SCSN_re SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.05 3.03 3.3 Unk N E I ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.3 3.28 2.79 c SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 2.79 2.77 3 Unk NE I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.12 c SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 3.12 3.10 3.7 Unk N E I ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.7 3.68 2.79 c SCSN_re SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.79 2.77 2.85 c SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.85 2.83 3.9 Unk N E I ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.9 3.88 2.79 h SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 2.79 2.77 4.6 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.6 4.58 3.09 c SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 3.09 3.07 2.85 c SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 2.85 2.83 2.85 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 2.85 2.83 3.06 c SCSN_le SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.06 3.04 3.25 I SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.25 3.23 4.3 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.3 4.28 3.3 Unk NE I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.3 3.28 3.3 Unk NE I ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.3 3.28 2.71 c SCSN_re SCS N 4 3 0.1 2.71 2.69 3.2 Unk PAS ANSS 3 2 0.1 3.2 3.18 3 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3 2.98 2.75 c SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 2.75 2.73 3.12 h SCSN_re SCS N 2 6 0.1 3.12 3.10 2.7 c SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.2 Unk PAS ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.7 Mc Cl ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.7 2.68 4.4 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 2.81 c SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 2.81 2.79 3.3 c SCSN_re SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.3 3.28 3 Unk N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 4.8 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.8 4.78 5 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 5 4.98 2.75 c SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.75 2.73 2.92 Mc Cl ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.92 2.90 3.04 Mc Cl ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.04 3.02 2.7 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3 Unk NE I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.54 c SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.54 3.52 5.49 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 5.49 5.47 4.72 I SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 4.72 4.70 3.07 c SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 3.07 3.05 5.17 Mw NE I C Unified 1 1 0.1 5.17 5.15 3.45 I SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 3.45 3.43 3.04 c SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.04 3.02 2.77 c SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 2.77 2.75 3.68 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.68 3.66 3.1 Unk N E I ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.1 Unk PAS ANSS 3 2 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.64 c SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.64 3.62 5 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 5 4.98 6.02 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 6.02 6.00 2.85 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.85 2.83 3 Mc N N ANSS 2 7 0.1 3 2.98 2.7 Unk N E I ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.7 2.68 5.48 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 5.48 5.46 3 Unk PAS ANSS 3 4 0.1 3 2.98 4.4 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 3 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.1 Unk P AS ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.1 3.08 3 Unk PAS ANSS 3 4 0.1 3 2.98 3.3 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.3 3.28 3 Unk N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.1 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.1 3.08 4.4 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 3.3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.4 3.38 6.5 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 6.5 6.48 5.49 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 5.49 5.47 5.3 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 5.3 5.28 2.9 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.9 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.8 MD_res RESNOM RES NOM 2 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.69 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.69 3.67 3 Un k N E I ANSS 2 7 0.1 3 2.98 3.74 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.74 3.72 3.2 Unk NE I ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.2 3.18 3.7 Unk N E I ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.3 Unk NE I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.3 3.28 3.1 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.1 3.08 3 c SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3 2.98 5 Mw ANSS U n ified 1 1 0.1 5 4.98 3.61 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.61 3.59 2.7 Unk N E I ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.6 Mc N N ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.6 3.58 2.7 Mc Cl ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.01 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.01 2.99 3.42 c SCSN_l e SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.42 3.40 3.27 c SCSN_l e SCSN 2 6 0.1 3.27 3.25 4 Unk NE I AZGS 2 3 0.1 4 3.98 3.44 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.44 3.42 2.7 Unk NE I ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.5 Unk N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.5 3.48 4.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 4.6 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.6 4.58 3 Unk NE I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.01 c SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.01 2.99 2.72 c SCSN_le SCS N 2 2 0.1 2.72 2.70 3.2 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.9 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.7 Unk N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.22 c SCSN_re SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.22 3.20 2.8 Unk NE I ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.8 2.78 4.5 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.5 4.48 3 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 4.6 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.6 4.58 4.2 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 3.5 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.6 3.58 3.6 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 5 3 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.5 3.48 2.9 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.7 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.8 3.78 4.2 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 4.6 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.6 4.58 3.9 Unk N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.9 3.88 2.8 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.8 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.8 3.78 4.5 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.5 4.48 2.9 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3 2.98 3 Ml A E I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.2 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.3 3.28 3.5 Unk N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.5 3.48 5.37 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 5.37 5.35 3.9 MD_res RESNOM RES N OM 2 4 0.1 4 3.98 3.6 MD_res R ESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.36 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.36 3.34 3.33 d SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.33 3.31 3 Unk N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 2.77 d SCSN_re SCS N 3 7 0.1 2.77 2.75 3.02 d SCSN_r e SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.02 3.00 4.2 Unk N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 4.2 4.18 3.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.2 3.18 3.27 h SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.27 3.25 3.4 Unk N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.4 3.38 2.9 Unk N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.1 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.26 d SCSN_re SCSN 2 6 0.1 3.26 3.24 2.85 d SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 2.85 2.83 3.9 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4 3.98 7.28 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 7.28 7.26 4 Mb NE I AZGS 2 3 0.1 4 3.98 2.85 ML Cl ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.85 2.83 2.71 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.71 2.69 4.2 Unk NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 3.3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.4 3.38 3 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.4 Unk N E I ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.4 3.38 3.5 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.6 3.58 3.6 MD_res R ESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.9 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4 3.98 3 d SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 3 2.98 3.6 Unk N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.6 3.58 2.75 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.75 2.73 3.7 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 2.91 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.91 2.89 3.11 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.11 3.09 3.2 MD_res R ESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.3 3.28 5.5 Mb NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 5.61 5.59 2.9 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3 2.98 2.9 b SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.5 Unk N E I ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.5 3.48 3.4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.5 3.48 2.8 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 5 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 5.1 5.08 3.4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.5 3.48 3 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 2.8 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.43 d SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.43 3.41 4.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 3.9 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.83 ML Cl ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.83 3.81 2.8 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.34 ML Cl ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.34 3.32 3.9 Mc NN ANSS 3 2 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.1 MO_res R E SN OM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.2 3.18 36 MD_res R ESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 4.6 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.7 4.68 4.97 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 4.97 4.95 2.7 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.3 Unk N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.3 3.28 3 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.5 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.6 3.58 3.4 MD_re s RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.5 3.48 4 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4 3.98 2.9 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3 2.98 2.8 MD_res R ESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 2.9 2.88 4.4 MD_res R ESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.5 4.48 3.6 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.2 MD_res R ESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.3 3.28 3 Unk NE I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 5.21 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 5.21 5.19 3.6 Unk N E I ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.6 3.58 3.5 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.6 3.58 3.5 Unk N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.5 3.48 4 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.1 4.08 2.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.67 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.67 3.65 4.57 Mw N E I C Unified 1 1 0.1 4.57 4.55 3 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 2.8 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.1 Unk N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.1 3.08 4.4 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.5 4.48 4.2 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.3 4.28 4.1 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 4.1 4.08 4.71 Mw Berk_MT_TO Unified 1 1 0.1 4.71 4.69 2.9 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3 2.98 4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.1 4.08 2.75 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.75 2.73 4.3 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 4.3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 5.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 5.2 5.18 2.75 Mc N N ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.75 2.73 4.3 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 4.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 3.7 MD_res R ESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.8 3.78 2.8 ML N E I ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.4 MD_res R ESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.5 3.48 3.4 ML NE I ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.4 3.38 3.7 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.8 3.78 2.71 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.71 2.69 2.87 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.87 2.85 3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.1 3.08 3 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3 2.98 2.7 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.7 MD_res RESNOM RES NOM 2 4 0.1 3.8 3.78 3.2 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.3 3.28 2.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 2.9 2.88 2.87 c SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 2.87 2.85 2.72 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.72 2.70 4.6 MD_res R ESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.7 4.68 3.71 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.71 3.69 2.86 Mc NN ANSS 3 2 0.1 2.86 2.84 3.6 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.6 3.58 4.4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.5 4.48 3.6 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 4 MD_res R ESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.1 4.08 2.8 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.7 Ml NE I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.7 3.68 4.1 MD_re s RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 4.2 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.3 4.28 3.3 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.3 3.28 2.9 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 4.75 I SCSN_le SCSN 4 5 0.1 4.75 4.73 2.7 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.7 2.68 2.7 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.2 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.9 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 2.85 Mc N N ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.85 2.83 4.85 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 4.85 4.83 2.9 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 2.77 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.77 2.75 2.7 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.9 Ml N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.5 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.5 3.48 3.7 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.8 3.78 4.81 Mw SCSN Unifi e d 1 1 0.1 4.8 1 4.79 2.8 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 4.76 Mw ANSS Unified 1 5 0.1 4.76 4.74 3.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.2 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.2 3.1 8 3.5 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.6 3.58 3.1 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.8 MD_re s R E SNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.9 3.88 4.4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.5 4.48 3.3 Ml N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.3 3.28 3.4 Ml N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.4 3.38 4.78 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 4.78 4.7 6 3.2 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.3 3.28 3.08 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 3.08 3.06 3.3 Ml NE I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.3 3.28 2.8 M c uu ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.97 Mc uu ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.97 2.95 2.9 ML N E I ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.18 Mc uu ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.18 3.16 3.1 Ml N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.1 3.08 2.9 Ml N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 2.87 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.87 2.85 3 Ml N E I ANSS 2 7 0.1 3 2.98 4.3 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.3 4.28 4.1 MD_re s RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 4.4 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 2.83 Mc uu ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.83 2.8 1 2.91 Mc uu ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.91 2.89 4.89 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 4.89 4.87 3.25 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.25 3.23 4.97 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 4.97 4.95 3.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.75 Mc Cl ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.75 2.73 3.7 MD_res R ESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.8 3.78 5.13 Mw ANSS Unified 1 6 0.1 5.13 5.1 1 3.2 I SCSN_le SCS N 4 4 0.1 3.2 3.18 3.6 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.7 3.68 2.8 Mb Cl AZGS 4 2 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.7 Mb Cl AZGS 4 2 0.1 2.7 2.68 7.12 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 7.12 7.10 4.65 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 4.65 4.63 4.5 Ml N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.5 4.48 3.2 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.3 3.28 2.7 Ml NE I AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 2.73 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.73 2.7 1 3 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3 Ml N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.1 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.1 3.08 4.73 Mw SCSN_MT Unified 1 1 0.1 4.73 4.7 1 3.2 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.9 ML N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 4.3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 3.3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.4 3.38 3.06 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.06 3.04 4.4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.5 4.48 3.5 Ml NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.5 3.48 4.4 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 2.72 Ml NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.72 2.70 3 Ml PAS ANSS 2 7 0.1 3 2.98 4.3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 4.38 I SCSN_le SCS N 2 6 0.1 4.38 4.36 3.21 c SCSN_le SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.21 3.19 4.2 MD_re s RESNOM RES N OM 4 6 0.1 4.3 4.28 3.53 Ml NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.53 3.5 1 3.3 MD_res R E SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.4 3.38 3 MD_res R ESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.1 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 2.9 2.88 5.02 Mw SCSN_MT U n ified 1 1 0.1 5.02 5.00 4.2 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 3.3 MD_res R ESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.4 3.38 5.74 Mw GlobalCMT U nified 1 1 0.1 5.74 5.72 3.6 MD_re s RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.23 I SCSN_le SCS N 2 2 0.1 3.23 3.21 2.71 I SCSN_l e SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.71 2.69 4.7 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.7 4.68 3 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 2.72 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.72 2.70 3.5 ML N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.5 3.48 3.6 MD_re s RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.8 MD_re s RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 4.73 Mw ANSS Unif i ed 1 1 0.1 4.73 4.7 1 4.88 Mw ANSS U n ified 1 1 0.1 4.88 4.86 3.6 MD_res R E SNOM RES N OM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 4.97 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 4.97 4.95 5.19 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 5.19 5.17 3 MD_res R E SNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.1 3.08 2.96 ML u u AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.96 2.94 3.3 MD_res RE SN OM RES N OM 4 6 0.1 3.4 3.38 3.6 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.7 3.68 3 ML N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.8 MD_re s R E SNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.8 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.8 3.78 4.2 MD_re s RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.3 4.28 3.7 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 2.73 ML N N ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.73 2.7 1 2.9 Ml N N ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.4 3.38 3 MD_r es R ESNOM RES N OM 5 2 0.1 3.1 3.08 3 MD_res R E SNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.1 3.08 2.9 MD_re s RESNOM RES N OM 4 6 0.1 3 2.98 3 MD_res RESNOM RES N OM 2 4 0.1 3.1 3.08 4.2 Ml Eagar 200 7 AZGS 2 3 0.1 4.2 4.1 8 3.6 Ml Eagar2007 AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.6 3.58 4.1 MD_res R ESNOM RES N OM 2 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 4 MD_re s R E SNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.1 4.08 3.6 MD_res R ESNOM RES N OM 4 6 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.4 ML A E I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.4 3.38 2.8 Ml N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.9 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4 3.98 3.4 MD_res R ESNOM RES N OM 2 4 0.1 3.5 3.48 2.9 MD_r es R ESNOM RES N OM 2 4 0.1 3 2.98 2.78 Ml N N ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.78 2.76 2.8 MD_r es R E SN OM RES N OM 4 6 0.1 2.9 2.88 2.8 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.8 MD_re s RE SN OM RES N OM 2 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 4.7 MD_res RESNOM RES N OM 2 4 0.1 4.8 4.78 3.9 MD_r es R E SN OM R E S N OM 2 4 0.1 4 3.98 3.6 MD_res R ESNOM RES N OM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.3 MD_res R ESNOM RES N OM 2 4 0.1 3.4 3.38 5.1 Mb N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 5.1 5.08 3.51 ML uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.51 3.49 2.7 MD_re s RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.5 MD_res R ESNOM RES N OM 2 4 0.1 3.6 3.58 5.1 Mw NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 5.1 5.08 2.7 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 5.21 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 5.21 5.19 4.87 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 4.87 4.85 2.88 Ml uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.88 2.86 5.15 Mw G l obalCM T Unified 1 1 0.1 5.15 5.13 3.9 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.2 Ml NE I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.2 3.18 3.8 MD_re s RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.9 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.1 MO_re s R E SNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.9 Ml u u AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.9 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4 3.98 5.1 Mw NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 5.1 5.08 5.29 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 5.29 5.27 3.7 MO_re s R E SNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.8 3.78 3.2 Ml ASU_TA AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.2 3.18 3 MD_re s RE SN OM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.4 3.38 3.9 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4 3.98 4.8 Mw NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.8 4.78 2.85 I SCSN_le SCSN 3 7 0.1 2.85 2.83 3.5 MO_re s RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.6 3.58 3.7 MD_r e s R E SNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.8 3.78 2.9 ML ASU_TA AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.3 Ml ASU_T A AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.3 3.28 3.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.6 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 2.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 2.9 2.88 4 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4 3.98 3.6 Mw NE I ANSS 3 3 0.1 3.6 3.58 2.9 Ml NE I ANSS 3 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.2 3.18 3.22 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.22 3.20 3.1 ML ECX ANSS 3 6 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.2 3.18 3.3 MD_re s R ESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.4 3.38 3.8 MD_r es R E SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.5 Ml ASU_TA AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.5 3.48 3 ML ASU_T A AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.8 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.8 3.78 3.9 Ml N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.4 ML ASU_TA AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.4 3.38 3.9 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4 3.98 5.14 Mw UC3 UCERF3 1 1 0.1 5.14 5.12 3.6 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.6 3.58 3.7 Mw N E I ANSS 3 3 0.1 3.7 3.68 2.8 Ml ASU_T A AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.6 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.6 3.58 4.8 Mw NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.8 4.78 2.7 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.8 Ml ASU_TA AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.8 3.78 3.5 h SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 3.5 3.48 2.8 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.7 ML ASU_TA AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.6 ML NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.6 3.58 2.9 ML ASU_TA AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.76 Ml N N ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.76 3.74 2.7 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.8 Ml N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 2.8 2.78 4.2 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.3 4.28 4.98 Mw UC3 UCERF3 1 1 0.1 4.98 4.96 2.95 ML N N ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.95 2.93 5.13 Mw UC3 UCERF3 1 1 0.1 5.13 5.11 3.7 ML N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 3 Ml NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 3 2.98 4.8 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.9 4.88 4.5 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.6 4.58 2.88 ML NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.88 2.86 4.96 Mw UC3 UCERF3 1 1 0.1 4.96 4.94 3.9 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4 3.98 3.1 ML N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.1 3.08 4.1 Ml ECX ANSS 3 6 0.1 4.1 4.08 3.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.9 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3 2.98 3 ML N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.5 3.48 3.6 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 4.7 MO_res R ESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.8 4.78 3.85 ML NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.85 3.83 4.9 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 5 4.98 2.9 MD AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 2.8 MD AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.7 MD AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 2.7 MD AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.3 MD_res R ESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.4 3.38 2.8 MO AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.1 4.08 3.7 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.8 3.78 3.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.9 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.5 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.6 3.58 2.7 ML N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 2.7 MD AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 4.6 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.6 4.58 7.19 Mw UC3 UCERF3 1 1 0.1 7.19 7.17 3.1 ML PAS ANSS 3 6 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.6 Mw NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.6 3.58 2.7 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 5.8 Mw UC3 UCERF3 1 1 0.1 5.8 5.78 2.93 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 2.93 2.91 3.1 ML NE I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.34 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.34 3.32 5.54 Mw UC3 UCERF3 1 1 0.1 5.54 5.52 3.1 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.6 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.6 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.5 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.6 3.58 4 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4 3.98 5.1 MD_res R ESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 5.2 5.18 4.9 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 5 0.1 5 4.98 2.8 ML NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.48 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 3.48 3.46 3.06 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.06 3.04 4.7 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 5 0.1 4.8 4.78 3.2 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.8 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 3 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.35 I SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.35 3.33 3.2 MD_res R ESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.3 3.28 3.6 ML NE I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.6 3.58 2.7 MD AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.7 ML N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.7 3.68 2.9 MD AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 5 MO_res RESNOM RES NOM 2 5 0.1 5.1 5.08 3.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 2.79 MD AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.79 2.77 2.7 MO AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.1 ML NEI ANSS 3 3 0.1 3.1 3.08 2.97 MD AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.97 2.95 2.83 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.83 2.8 1 2.8 MD A E I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.8 MD AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.7 MD_re s RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.44 ML Cl A NS S 3 2 0.1 3.44 3.42 2.8 MD AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.8 MD_res R ESNOM RES NOM 2 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.7 MD_res RE SN OM RES NOM 2 4 0.1 3.8 3.78 3.5 ML N E I ANSS 3 3 0.1 3.5 3.48 2.79 MD AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.79 2.77 2.71 I SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 2.71 2.69 3.1 ML uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.4 Mc SLC A NSS 3 3 0.1 3.4 3.38 4.8 MD_res RESNOM RES NOM 2 4 0.1 4.9 4.88 3.2 ML N E I A NSS 3 3 0.1 3.2 3.18 4 MD_r es RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.1 4.08 2.95 MD AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.95 2.93 2.7 MD_res R ESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.5 MD_res R ESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.6 3.58 2.7 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.7 MD AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.7 MD_res R ESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.8 3.78 2.7 MD AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.4 3.38 3.4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.5 3.48 4.2 Mc UNM ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 5.46 Mw CMT UCERF3 1 1 0.1 5.46 5.44 3.9 Ml PAS ANSS 3 2 0.1 3.9 3.88 5.4 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 5.61 5.59 4.2 Mc N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 3.59 ML N N ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.59 3.57 4.1 Ml AZGS-USGS AZGS 2 3 0.1 4.1 4.08 3.1 ML REN ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.1 3.08 2.9 ML AZGS-USGS AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 2.9 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3 2.98 2.94 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.94 2.92 2.72 MD AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2 2.70 N* 1.16 1.16 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.16 1.53 1.53 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.16 1.16 1.53 1.16 1.53 1.16 1.53 1.16 1.53 1.53 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.1 6 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.53 1.16 1.53 1.1 6 1.53 1.16 1.16 1.53 1.16 1.16 1.53 1.16 1.16 1.53 1.16 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.5 3 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.53 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.07 1.53 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.0 7 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.0 7 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.5 3 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.0 7 1.0 7 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.0 7 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.0 7 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.0 7 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.0 7 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.0 7 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.0 7 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.0 7 1.0 7 1.0 7 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.0 7 1.0 7 1.0 7 1.0 7 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.0 7 1.0 7 1.0 7 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.0 7 1.0 7 1.07 1.07 1.0 7 1.07 1.07 1.0 7 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.0 7 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.0 7 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.0 7 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.0 7 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.53 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.0 2 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.0 2 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.0 2 1.02 1.02 1.0 2 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.0 2 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.0 2 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.0 2 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Hee sze l , D avid F rom: H eeszel , D avid Sent:20 Apr 2015 1 5:20:20 +0000 T o:Stieve , Al i ce;D e vlin-Gill , Step h anie Cc:Gra i ze r , Vlad i mir;M u n son, Cl i fford;Ake, .Jon;John Sta m atko s Subjec t: RE: P a lo V e rd e pub li c m ee t i n g i n mid-J une? I plan t o be out th e 22-2 6th , bu t am availab le o therwi se. --Da v id -----Ori gi n a l M Fr o rn: Stieve , Ali ce Sent: Monda y, April 20 , 2015 1 1: 17 AM To: D ev l in-Gill , Stephanie; H ee s ze l , D av id Cc: Gr a i ze r. Vl a dimir; Mun so n. Clifford; Ake. Jon; John Stamatk os

Subject:

Palo Ve r de publi c m eet jng i n mid-June? Ca o the Palo Verde team s upport a APS publi c meeting in mid-June? 1 hav e no vacation plans ye t so l guess l am open in June. Wh a t a bout the re st of you? O f course Vlad is i n CA for the week. Maybe h e will c h eck hi s ema il. -----Ori gi n a l M es s agc---From: D evl i n-G i ll , Stephanie Sent: Mond ay, April 20. 2 015 I J : 10 AM To: Stieve, Al i ce; H eeszel , D avi d Subj ect: FW: Inquiry: Pal o V e rd e P ublic M eeti n gs Date s From: Difran cesco , Nic h o la s Sent: Monda y , April 20 , 2015 1 0:24 AM To: Mun son, Clifford C c: Jack s on, Di ane; Ake, Jon; De v lin-Gill , Stephanie; V ega, F ra nki e Subj ec t: Inquir y: Pal o Verde Pub l ic M ee ting s D a t es Cliff , et. a l. An y preference s o r li mitati o n s for plannin g the Pal o V e rde public m eet i n g in m i d-June. Th a nk s, Nick From: Difran cesc o , Nicholas S en t: Thur s day. April 16 ,. 2015 10:07 AM To:. Mun s on, Clifford Cc: Ak e, Jon; Jackson , Diane; Vega,. Fr a nkie; Hill , Brittain; Shams, Mohamed

Subject:

P l a nning I tems -DC Focus Areas and PV Meet ings Date s Cliff. I am out PM toda y and Friday.

PG&E Licensing Coordination and NRC Pub lic M eeti n g Pr ep Frankie i s PM b ac kup and h as a l i censing cal l with PG&E Friday at lpm to discu s s NRC tec hni cal foc u s area s as part of th e Apr il 28 publi c meeting. For Friday I wou l d like to comm uni cate a few topics for t h em to begin wo rk o n. Perhap s th e 1. ergod ic method vs. s in gle-sta tion co rr ec t ion weighting.

Ea rl y n ext week I pl an to e ma i l a formal r e qu e s t for incorporation into t h e meeting n o ti ce .. Pl ease let u s know a cou pl e. of focus areas by noon Friday. PV M ee t i n g D ate Coo r d ina t i o n. Th e li censee (APS) cannot s upp ort m eeti n g until the 2 nd wee k of June. A s. f r eca ll ,. I thought we. h a d co nfli cts start in g th en with NGA-East W o rkin g Group. Let m e know. if I can p r o p ose a n y dates in t h e. 2 nd a nd 3rd week of Jun e. T hank s, Nick Se ni o r Project M a n age r -Seismic R eeval uation Activities U.S. Nuc l ear R egu l a tor y Commission Office of N ucl ear R eactor R eg ulati o n Japan L esson L ear n ed Pro jec t Div ision nicholas.difrancesco@nrc.gov<maillo:nicholas.difrancesco@nrc.gov>

I Te l: (301) 415-1115 H eesze l , D av id From:Heeszel , David Sent:24 Mar 2015 18: 07:16 +0000 T o:Stieve , Al i ce

Subject:

RE:

P a l o V e rd e I s th i s i n addit i on to o r a replacement for the meeting a l ready scheduled for 3: 30? --David -----Original AppointmentFrom: Stieve, Alice Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 2:05 PM To: Graizer, Vladim i r; Devlin-Gill, Stephanie; Heeszel, David

Subject:

Palo Verde When: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 3: 00 PM-3:30 PM {UTC-0 5:00) Eastern nme (US & Canada). Where: HQ-TWFN-07CO 1-15p Can we meet at 3PM for a short meeting?

Hee sze l , David From:Heeszel , David Sent:22 May 2015 15:0 1:0 1 +0000 To:Stieve , Alice;D evlin-Gill, Stephanie;Graizer , Vladimir;Munson , Clifford;Hill , Brittain;Ake , J on;Li, Yon g;John Starnatkos;Miriam R. Juckett (mjuckett@swri.org)

Subject:

RE:

PY topic s My question (as it stands) about site response is also updated on the sharepoint site. --David From: Stieve, Alice Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 10:43 AM To: Devlin-Gill, Stephanie; Graizer, V l adimir; Munson, Clifford; Hill , Brittain; Ake, Jon; Li, Yong; Heeszel, David; John Stamatkos; Miriam R. Juckett (mjuckett@swri.org)

Subject:

PV topics I made some mods to the SSC part of the PV top i cs (geology).

They are in the SharePoint folder. PV Topics Hee sze l , David From:Heeszel , David Sent:22 May 2015 15: 18:2 4 +0000 To:Stieve , Alice

Subject:

RE:

P V topics H ere From: Stieve, Alice Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 11:18.AM To: Heeszel, David

Subject:

RE: PV topics What f i le? From: Heeszel, David Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 11:01 AM To: Stieve, Alice; Devl i n-Gill, Stephanie; Graizer, Vladimir; Munson, Clifford; Hill, Brittain; Ake, Jon; Li, Yong; John Stamatkos; Miriam R. Juckett (mjuckett@swri.org)

Subject:

RE: PV topics My question (as it stands) about site response is also updated on the sharepoint site. --Dav id From: Stieve, Alice Sent: Friday, May 22 , 2015 10:43 AM To: Devlin-Gill, Stephanie; Graizer, V l adimir; Munson, Clifford; Hill , Brittain; Ake, Jon; Li, Yong; Heeszel, David; John Stamatkos; Miriam R. Juckett (mjuckett@swr i.org)

Subject:

PV topics I made some mods to the SSC part of the PV top i cs (geology). They are in the SharePoint folder. PV Topics Hee sze l , David From:Heeszel , David Sent: 11 May. 2015 14:56:25 +0000. To:Devlin-G i U , Stephanie;Jack s on , Dian e Cc:Stieve , Alice;Munson , Clifford

Subject:

RE:

P VNGS GMM Review and Pre se ntation I w i ll do the same for Ch. 9. --Dav i d From: Devlin-Gill, Stephanie Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 10:09 AM To: Jackson, Diane; Heeszel, David Cc: Stieve, A l ice; Munson, Clifford

Subject:

RE: PVNGS GMM Review and Presentat ion. Ok, I'll cover the SWUS Chp 5 as it applies to PVNGS next Tuesday. When Vlad returns, we should probably also make sure he's knows to attend the Tuesday PVNGS meeting , since i t wil l be of interest to him. stephanie Geophysicist 301-415-5301 T-7Dl0 U.S. NRC, NRO, DSEA, RGS2 From: Jackson, Diane Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 9:41 AM To: Devlin-Gill, Stephanie; Heesze l, David Cc: Stieve, A l ice; Munson, Clifford

Subject:

FW: PVNGS GMM Review and Presentation Stephanie and Dav id -C l iff and I were discussing status of the PV review, and continuing to splice it up into reasonab le chunks. Vlad i s out this week. For next Tuesday (not tomorrow), Stephanie review and prepare slides for SWUS GMC SSHAC Report Ch5. For Ch5 some of the subsections are only applicable to DCPP so Stephanie can skip those (there aren't too many). David the same for Ch9. I f you have questions on technical direction and level of detail , see the good Dr. Munson. Also , let me know if you think your workload will /will not support and we can look at workload and timelines. Thanks -Diane Heeszel , David From:Heeszel, David Sent:31Mar20 1 5 17:33:05 +0000 To:Munson, Clifford

Subject:

RE:

R equest for Palo Verde Electronic Attachments from H azar d Input Document (HfD -. Appendix.

F) Is there any way we can also request the peer review comments and the Tl teams response from the workshops?

I can't find them in the SSHAC report. --Dav id From: Munson, Clifford Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 1:32 PM To: Heeszel, David; Devlin-Gill, Stephanie; Stieve, Alice; John Stamatkos

Subject:

FW: Request for Palo Verde Electronic Attachments from Hazard Input Document (HID -Appendix F) FYI. From: Munson, Clifford Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 1:31 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas Cc: Ake, Jon; Jackson, Diane

Subject:

Request for Pa lo Verde Electronic Attachments from Hazard Input Document (HID -Appendix F) Nick, There are five electronic attachments listed in the Palo Verde SSHAC Append ix F (page F-57), which is the. very important Hazard I nput Document.

We need these electronic fi l es to be able. to perform our sensitivity studies for the PV hazard. Please have the licensee put these i n the electronic reading room as soon as possible.

Thanks , C l iff HID Attachments T h ese a tta c hm e nts w e r e r e l ease d in int e rim r es p o ns e #1 Attachme n t A: Area l Sou r ce Coordinates (electron ic a tta chment) Attachment B: Fault Source Coordinates (electro n ic attachment

). Attachment C: UCERF3.3 Ruptur e Sets (e l ectronic attachme n t) Attachment D: ABSMOOTH Output (electronic attachment)

Attachment E: SWUS GMC Region s for Fault Sources (e l ectronic attachment)

L CI PROJECT CALCULATION PC No. PVOOl-PC-02 COVER SHEET Revis i on 0 I

"!' ln\, r n.1llv,..,1.

fn< Page 1of18 CALCULAT I ON TITLE Adjustment Factors from Reference Rock to Palo Verde Rock Palo Verde Nuclear Gene r ating Station Seismic Hazard PROJECTNAME: PROJECT No.: _1;;...;: 0 c.;;.5-=-6------------------Prepared by: Gabriel Toro[ Date: 2/27 /15' (Name/Signature)

Verlrled b y: Robin McGuire{

IV (Name/Signature of Verlller)

Date: 2*'2(11< Approved by:

£*s.s I (Nam e/Signatu re of Proje c t Manager Date: 2./t1/*r or Vice President)

Optlonal Cllent Approval: Date: (Name/Signature)

LCIFO R M.Q A P-3*38.02 (04.0 4.2 014)

L CI PROJECT CALCULATION PC No. PV001-PC-02 REVISION LOG Revision O Lt'lti.' il lll*ul nl' lnt.-m.11il'll\.1l, In<. Page 2of18 r*c l', 1*;. t I,. I Calculation Revision Status Rev. No. Date Description Impacted Documen t No. 0 2/27/15 Initial Issue Text Revision. History Page No .. Rev. No .. Page No. Rev. No. 1-18 0 Attachment Revision History Attachment Page No. Rev. No. Attachment Page No. Rev. No. No .. No. A A1-A2 0 B 81-BS 0 LC I FO R M.QAP-3-38.03 (04.04.201 4)

PROJECT CALCULATION VERIFICATION

SUMMARY

SHEET VERIFICATION METHOD PC No. PVOOl -PC-02 Revision 0 Page 3of18 1:81 Step-by-Step Method D Alternate Calculation Item Parameter Yes No N/A 1 Purpose Is clearly stated and Calculation satisfies the x Purpose. 2 Methodology Is appropriate and properly applied. x 3 Assumptions are reasonable , adequately described , and x based upon sound geotechnlcal principles and practices. 4 Input received via signed communications from x authorized signatories and correctly Incorporated Into the Calculat i on. 5 Software Is properly Identified

Is appropriate for this x application
and validation Is referenced , or Included , and acceptable. 6 Calculation Is complete , accurate (I.e., equations are x correct , Input to equations i s correct , and math Is correct), adequate , and leads logically to Results and Conclusions
or Is verified via Altemate Calculation. 7 Results and Conclusions are accurate , acceptable , and x reasonable compared to the Input and Assumptions. 8 References are valld for I ntended use. x 9 Appendices are complete , accurate , and support te x t. x Comments
(use addltlonal pages as necessary)

Robin McGuire/ f2R--V1A. x;,"I._ Verifier: (Date) (Nome/Signature)

LClfORM.QAP-3*38.04 (04.04.2014)

PC No. PV001-PC-02 L CI PROJECT CALCULATION Rev.O Pa ge 4o f18 l cttJ.;¥';,,,.111111 1:> lott>m>t10n.1I, 1.,.-I ' t Table of Contents Section Page Purpo se .........*............

........*.......*.................

..*.......*...............

............*...

....................*............

5 Methodology

................

.............

........................................

................................

...................... 5 Assumptions .....*............*..

.........................*.................*............*....*........................................* 6 Input s ..............

.........................

....................*......

...............................*...........

..............*.

......... 6 Software ............................

...........

...*...................................*...................*..........*.........*..

........ 7 Calculations

.............................................................................................................................

7 Results and Conclusions

........................................................................................................ 10 Refe r ences .............................................................................................................................. 17 Appendices

............................................................................................................................ 18 APPENDIX A (PROPR I ETARY} ................................................................................................... Al APPENDIX B. C a lcul a tions for 808 ft Thickn ess of Volcanics

............................

.......................

Bl List of Tables Table 1. Adjustment facto rs (number s in parentheses are weights for each profile-kapp a combination)

....*.*...*.....*........*.....*......*...........*..*....*.......***..*....*..........*....*........*...............*... 14 List of Figures Figure 1. Vs deep profiles for. PVNGS. A depth of 0. corresponds to the bottom of the s hallow profile (soils). Also s hown are the Warren (1969) (Ref. 15} and SWUS (Ref. 1) profiles ............ 8 Figur e 2. Adju s tm e nt Factor s ...............

..................................................................

................ 12 Figur e 3. Summary s tati s tic s of the adjustment factor ..............................................

............. 13 P C N o. PV001-PC-02 L CI PROJECT CALCULATION Re v.O Page S of 18 l.etn¥n*t1l10nb lnwmahollJI , 1,,. \ -.. ,,_,-Adjustment Factors.from R e f e rence Rock to Palo Verde Rock 1. P URPOSE The purpose of this calcu l ation is to develop adjustment fac t ors to convert ground motion s from t he reference rock associated with the South Western US Ground Motion Project (the SWUS project) GMPEs to the rock conditions at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (P VNGS). The se factors , which are given in Fourier-amplitude space , will be converted later to facto r s in spect r a l-acce l e ration space, a nd these in turn w i ll be u se d to conve 1t t h e amplitudes pred i cted by the SWUS GMPEs to P alo Verde rock .. 2. METH ODO L O G Y Th e following input s are r equired to convert SWUS ground motion s on R eference Rock (t h e ho st) to gro und m ot ion s on P VNGS bedrock (the target) using Vs-kappa 1 ad ju st ments. Calculat i on of the SWUS rock to P alo Verde rock r eq uir es th e fo ll owing input s: 1. Ho st Vs and d ens i ty profi l e, spec i fied by SWUS (R ef. 1). 2. H ost kappa va lu e, spec ified by SWUS (Ref. 1). 3. Target Vs and density profile , de veloped by LC I (Ref. 2). This i s the. profile be l ow P VNGS bedrock , and extending t o deep baseme n t. 4. Tar ge t PVNGS bedrock kappa value (a nd it s uncertai n ty), s pecified by the SWUS project (R ef. I) .. These qu antit i es are us ed to calcula t e host and target V s-k appa filters in t he fr e qu e nc y domain. Each fi l ter consists of two parts. The fi r s t part accounts for im pedance differences and can be calcu l ated u sing the Quarter-wav e l ength app r oach (see Ref s. 3-5) a nd affects a ll frequencie

s. The second filter accounts for the diff e r ences in kappa. It bas an ex pon ent ial form and affects mainly the high frequencies.

The net adjustment facto r (in Fouri e r-amplitud e space) is the ratio of t h e target filter divided by the ho st filter. Multiple va l ues of this factor wil1 be calcu l ated, to account for uncertainty in the inputs. This approach ha s. been used in a number of studies (e.g., Ref s. 8-1 0 and 14). The result from this calculatio n consist of multiple values of the a d j u s tment factor (i n terms of Fourier amplitude) as a function o f frequency (with assoc i ated we i ghts), given in tabular form. 1 V s is the s hear-wave ve locity; kappa i s a quantit y that rep r esents the anelastic attenuation in the upper cru s t. ln the nomenclature o f Ande r son and Hough (1984) (Ref. 7), the kappa u sed in thi s calc u lation corresponds to kappa-zero, as it captu r es attenuation effects in the upper crust , rather than whole-p ath attenuation.

PC No. PV001-PC-02 L CI PROJECT CALCULATION Rev.O Page 6o f 18 I lntematlOll<ll , Inc. ! A' r-3. ASS UM P T IO N S The following assumptions are made in this calculation:

Ass umption The input data provided by the SWUS project (Host Vs and density profile , host kappa. target kappa and its uncertainty) are correct. The site-specific deep profile (thickne ss, Vs , and den sity for each layer beneath so il) is. correct. The ba se ment portion of the deep profil e (from Warren (1969)) is correct. T he. guidance pro v ided by the EPRI SP ID document (Ref. 11) regarding uncertainty ranges is correct. T he. Qua11er Wave Length (QWL) approach i s adequate for the adjustment of GM P Es. The. Gardner et al (19 74) equation for density as a function of Vp is correct. 4. INP U TS Input S our c e Rational e These data we r e developed under a SSHAC Level 3 process These data we r e developed , documented , and re v iewed by LCI. (Ref. 2), using spec ific dat a (r ece ntly acqu i r e d and from UFSAR). Good agreement w i th shal l ow portion of Warren (1969; Ref. 15) profile. Model based on regional data and u se d for ea rthquake loca t ions (see L ockridge et a l., Ref. 12). Thi s document ha s been extens i vely reviewed and acc ep ted by th e N R C. Approach i s well documented in the literature and has been used for regiona l and NPP studies (e.g., Refs. 8-10 and 14) Rela t ion is widely used (see Bracher , 1995; Ref. 6). Host profile (thickne ss, Vs, and density for each layer) and host kappa (0.041 s) SWUS (Appendix L of R ef. I and its attached Exce l file WUS_VsProfile-10272014

.xls) Target (PVNGS) kappa and associated uncertainty

  • media n 0.033 s
  • 0'1 n=0.5 SWUS (Appendix L of Ref. 1)

Deep PVNGS profile (thickness, Vs , and density for each layer) Equation for densit y as a function of Vp (u se d only for low er basement of PVNGS profile).

5. SOFTWARE N I A 6. CALCULATIONS PROJECT CALCULATION PC No. PV001-PC-02 Rev.O Page 7. of.18. LCI (Ref. 2; volcanics and upper basement; used the thicknes s of the volcanics derived from the elevation column because it is more reliable) and Warren(! 969; Ref. 15; low er basement)

Gardn e r et al (19 74; Ref. 12). All calculations are performed in spreadsheet Calc_Adjustment

_Factors.xlsm (see Appendix A), as d escr ib ed b e l ow. Sheet D eep_Projll e_Summary tabulates the ba se-ca se deep profile (as generated from R efs. 2 and 15), converts it to m etr ic units, generates the Low er Bound (LB), M ed i an, and Upper Bound (UB) p r ofiles, a nd generates. graphs. Follow i ng the. E PRI SPID (Ref. 11 ), cr 1 n vs is given a va l u e of 0.35 for the upper two layers (a pplicable to sites with limited geophysical information).

cr 1 n vs is set t o 0 for the lower bas ement, just as Ref. 11 sets the CEUS basement Vs to 9200 ft/s (w ithout uncertainty).

Also , following Ref. 11, the. U B. Vs. values are. not allowed to exceed the lower basement Vs. Uncertainty in the thickness of the volcanics is taken from LCI (Ref. 2). Uncertainty in the thickne ss of the upper basement is taken as 10 percent. The UB and LB profiles are construc t ed by pairing 90-th perc e ntil e Vs with 10% thickness i n order to maximize the var i ation in travel time (in a manner similar. to what i s done in Ref.. 11 ). The three resulting Vs profile s are s hown in Figur e I.

L CI lntcnJiJholl<!I , Inc I _1.;-,. 0 500 ]' ; l:! 1000 Q. ::= ..2 n; .c "' -0 1500 0 ..c E 0 .[ of 2000 Q. QI 0 2500 3000 0 PRO J ECT CALCULA TI ON 1000 Vs (m/s) 2000 3000 -, .. ... . I , 1 , I I I -1 *---'* . l I-"' I l .. I L -.._ I I I

I -L. 1 I I I T 1 -UBProfile I -Base Case Profile I I ... I -LB Profile 1: --Warren (1969} --SWUS Reference I Profile I P C No. PV 00 1-PC-02 Rev.O P age 8of18 4000 F i gu r e 1. Vs d ee p pr o fil es f o r PV NGS. A d e pth o f 0 c o r r es po n d s to th e bott o m o f th e s h a llo w profil e (so il s). A l s o s ho w n a r e th e W a rr e n (1 9 6 9) (R e f. 1 5) and S WU S (Ref. 1) pr o fiJ es. Sheet Lo ckri d ge_et_al l i sts. t h e Warren (1 969; Ref. l 5) profile and conta i ns tables u se d for p l otting it. S h eet D ensity_Bsmnt document s the calcu l ation of den s i ty fo r tho se baseme n t la ye r s for wh i c h no density. is provided in Ref. 2, using an equation.

from Ref. 12 .. Sheet HostVsPr o fil e_ Vs30_760 conta i ns information about the host p r ofi l e rece i ve d from SWUS (R ef. 1) and a few calculations to extract information from them.

PROJECT CALCULATION P C No. PV001-PC-0 2 Rev.O P a ge 9o f1 8

  • Columns A-Y contains information about the host profile received from SWUS (Vs vs. depth , density vs. depth , and adjustment factors).
  • Co l umns Z-AC contain profile i nformation in the form (thickness , Vs , dens i ty) extracted from co lumn s A-Y.
  • Columns. N-0 conta in amplification factors for this profile (calcu l ated by SWUS (Ref. 1) using the QWL approach).

These adjustment factors are relative to th e source (characterized by Vs=3500 mis and density 2.7 gr/cc). Sheet Amplif'_C alcs_Ref_Pro.file contains. the calculation of the impedance.

Z (see Refs. 3-5) for the reference SWUS (Ref. 1) profile.

  • Co lumn s A-C contain the profile data (from H ostVsProfile_

Vs30_760) and columns E-F contain top and bottom depths derived from t hem.

  • Columns H-J (step I) calc ulate tra vel time and integrated density to the bottom of each as the. first step in the calculation of the impedance (see. Eqs. 16-1 8 of Ref. 4 for the equations used; equations are reproduced in same columns).
  • Colu mn s L-R (step 2) interpolate the travel time and inte grated density linearly to a fin er depth sca le. I nterpolation is done using a user-defined function.

The correctne s s of the interpolation can be verified graphically using th e graphs show n at the bottom of the s h eet. These int erpo la ted values are t h e n used to calculate the assoc i ated frequency l/(4*travel time), time-averaged. Vs. (beta_bar), average density (rho_bar), and i mpedance (beta_ bar* rho_ bar).

  • Columns T-U (s tep 3) int e rp olate t h e impedance vs. frequency values to a fine frequency scale (0.1 to 100 Hz, 30 frequencies p er decade), which will be the same frequency sampling to be used for all profiles.

The correctness of the interpolation can be verified graphically using th e graphs shown at the bottom of the sheet.

  • Columns W-X use the impedance to calculate the adjustment factor with respect to the source (Vs=3500 mis, densit y=2.7 gr/cc). These val ue s are compared to those calculate d independently by SWUS (Ref. I) and provided in sheet H ostVsProfile

_V.d0_760 (see grap hi cal comparison on same co l umn s), obtaining a very. close agreemen t .. This comparison serves as an addit i onal check for the calculation of impedance vs. frequency used in this calculation document.

Sheets Amplif_Calcs_

  • _PV _Pr o,file (where* t akes the va l ues of LB, Median, and UB) contain the calculation of the impedance Z for the three PVNGS deep profiles and th e calculat ion of their associated impedance factors.
  • Columns A-C contain the profile data (from Deep_Profile_Summar y) and columns E-F contain top and bottom depths derived from them.

PC No. PV001-PC-02 L CI PROJECT CALCULATION Rev.O Page 1 0of18 L..-111.;?m-*uhont'l lnwm 1hon.JI, In.; t r

  • Columns H-U contain the various steps in the calculation of impedance Z as a function of frequency.

These calculations are similar to the ones performed in Columns H-U in Amplif_Calcs_Ref_Profile

..

  • Column W calculates the adjustment factor associated with impedance effects (sqrt(Z _ Ref/Z _PVNGS)) vs .. frequ e ncy , using the imp eda nce. Z calcu l ated in. th i s s h ee t and i n Amplif_Cal cs_Ref_Profile.
  • Columns Y -AB introduce the effect of kappa diff erences between the Host (0.04 ls) and the target , conside r ing t he LB (10%), median (50%), and UB (90%) va l ues of the latter). Sheet Summary tabulates all nine profiles from columns Y-AB of Amplif_Calcs_
  • _PV _Profile , calculates their weights , and computes their summary statistics.
7. RE SU LT S A ND C O NC L US IO NS The calculated adjustment factors account for differences in impedance and kappa between the Host SWUS (Ref. 1) Reference Profile and the Target PVNGS rock profile, and can be used for t he calculation of adjustment factors to convert SWUS s pectral accelerations to PVNGS rock. T hese factors (in Fourier amplitude space) are given i n tbe Summary Sheet of Calc_Adjustment_Factors.xlsm (see Appendix A). T hey are also. given in Table 1 below and i n stand-alone file Adjustment

_Factors.csv (see Appendix A for a desc r iption of electronic fi l es). As part of the review of Ref.2 , one interpretation was revised , resulting in a change in thickness of the volcanic unit (top of deep profi l e). from 878 ft to 808 ft. The e ff ect of th i s change i s. eva l uated in Appendix B. The change in the adjustment factor i s small percent at a few frequencies) and would reduce ground motions (therefore ignoring the change is conservative).

As a result, the adjustment factors based on the original volcanic unit thickness (Table 1 and file Adjustment

_Factors.csv) are ma i ntained .. It is important to note the following when i nterpreting and using these results. 1. Although these adjustment factors become very large at high frequencies (as a result of the kappa adjustments), the SWUS (Ref. 1) rock motions have zero or no energy at these frequencies (say, above 20 Hz). Therefo r e, the effect on spectral accelerations is expected to be much smaller than the effect shown here. 2. Results are tabulated to l 00 Hz, but the exponential model for kappa effects (w hich can produce very high adjustment factors at these high frequencies) may not be applicable.

B ased on seismologica l principles , one expects the product of these adjustme n t factors and the Fourier amplitude s of the SWUS (Ref. 1) motions to produce a spectral-shape falloff beyond approximately 10 Hz that is roughly l inear in log-amp l itude vs. frequency space (s ee Ref. 7), possibly becoming steeper at high e r frequencies.

If there are appreciable differences from this ant i c i pated fa l loff (e.g., s hap es that do not reach a peak , bimodal shapes with an extra peak beyond 20 Hz), it is appropriate to truncate or flatten these adjustment factors at some appropriate frequency to remove these unphysical shapes. Because it is difficu l t to anticipate whether these effec t s will occur, and at what frequencies, the adjustment factors are provided as calcu l ated, but with the understand i ng that they may need some modificat i ons at h i gh frequencie

s. The task to truncate or flatten PC No. PV001-PC-02 L CI PROJECT CALCULATION Rev.O Page 11 of 18 11111< ()l n..,,hllnb lnl\'m 1t10rlJI , Inc \" I. .; them (if n eeded) is left to the analyst t h at converts these adjustment factors to spectraacce l eration factors. 3. For fr equenc i es below 0.1 H z, i t is appropriate t o assu me t h a t the adjustme n t factor i s eq u a l to t h e factor at 0.1 Hz. The ni n e calculated adj u stment factors are shown in Figure 2 a n d given in Tabl e 1; th e associated s ummary sta ti stics are given in Fig ur e 2.

10 I I I I i i ,_ -E ::s ... .. u C1I c. V) ... ...... C1I *.: ::s 0 u. c: 1 --I I I I ... 0 .. u "' u. .. c: C1I E .. Ill ::s ...... "C <( t t ,_ 0.1 I I 0.1 -LB. Profile, LB kappa (0.09) -LB. Profi l e, UB kappa (0.09) PROJECT CALCULATION I ---**--._,_,_ 1: _j.. ......... I -. .-I -.,,,,. ,,_ + -.........

' ' i-.....' ... i"' ...

l "" t +-.... I 1 1 10 Frequency (Hz) PC No. PV001-PC-02 Rev.O Page 12of18 , ,. I I n -.J 1--'-/J t) 1 'I I l l 7 "//i ,., >--1--100 -LB. Profile, Median kappa (0.12) -Median Profile, LB kappa (0.1 2) -Median P r ofile, Median kappa (0.16) -Median Profile, UB kappa (0.12) -UB Profile, LB kappa (0.09) -UB P rofile, Median kappa (0.12) UB Profile, UB kappa (0.09) Figure 2. Adjustment Factors PROJECT CALCULATION 10 j + t t t t t: --L oga r ithmi c mean AF I logarithmic s i gma (rig h t Y axis) I I I -E ::J ... .., I.I QI a. II) I I 11 11 ... QI *;:: ::J 0 ""' c 1 ... 0 J I I I t l I I ti IU ""' .., c QI E t; ::J :c < I I I I I I I I ,/ I I y / 11 ../ I --/ -I I 0.1 0.1 1 10 Frequency

{Hz) F i g ur e 3. S umm ary s t a ti s ti cs o f t he a dju s tment fa c t o r I I I I PC No. PV001-PC-02 Rev.O Page 1 3 of18 l+ 2 i/ , 1.8 1.6 1.4 I.I IU c. II) 1.2 E -c 0 _Y( 1 *:; QI c -I --!-< I I I 11 100 0.8 'E IU "O c 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 P C No. PV 00 1-P C-02 L CI P ROJECT CALCULA TI ON Rev.O Page 14of18 lct11.;f"nsi1llanb ln1l'maho11<1l, l1"K" ' ,_, , f Ta b l e 1. A dj us tm e n t f ac t o rs (n u mb e r s in pa r e nth eses a r e we i g h ts for eac h pr o fil e-k a ppa c omb i n at i o n) SWUS t o P VNGS Adjustme nt F a ctor (Fo u rier-am p litude Space) L B L B M e di an M e di a n UB UB UB Profi l e , Profi l e , Med i an P r ofi l e , P r ofi l e , Profile , Profi l e , Profi l e , L B Profil e, M e dian U B Profil e, M e di a n UB LB M e di a n U B F r e qu e ncy LB k a p pa k a ppa kapp a LB k a p p a kapp a kapp a kapp a k a ppa k appa (H z i (0.09) (0.12) (0.09) (0.12) (0.1 6) (0.12) (0.0 9). (0.12) (0.0 9). 0.1000 1.0136 1.0086 0.9993 0.8916 0.8873 0.8790 0.8598 0.8556 0.8477 0.1080 1.0218 1.0165 1.0063 0.8871 0.882 4 0.8736 0.8528 0.8483 0.8398 0.1166 1.0313 1.0255 1.0144 0.8821 0.8771 0.8676 0.8451 0.8403. 0.8312 0.1259 1.0424 1.0360 1.0240 0.8766 0.8712 0.8611 0.8367 0.8316 0.8219 0.1359 1.0574 1.050 4 1.0372 0.8721 0.8663 0.8554 0.8291 0.8236 0.8132 0.1468 1.0768 1.0691 1.0546 0.8684 0.8622 0.8505 0.8219 0.8160 0.8050 0.1585 1.0999 1.09 1 4 1.0 7 54 0.8643 0.8576 0.8451 0.8140 0.807 7 0.7959 0.1711 1.1279 1.1185 1.1009 0.8597 0.8526 0.8391 0.8054 0.7987 0.7861 0.1848 1.1660 1.1555 1.1358 0.857 1 0.8493 0.8349 0.7981 0.7910 0.7775 0.1995 1.1927 1.18 1 1 1.1594 0.8549 0.8466 0.83 1 0 0.7910 0.7833. 0.7689 0.2154 1.1895 1.1770 1.1536 0.8524 0.8435 0.8268 0.7830 0.7748 0.7594 0.2326 1.1852 1.17 1 8 1.1467 0.8496 0.8400 0.8220 0.7742 0.7654 0.7491 0.2512 1.1856 1.1711 1.1441 0.850 1 0.8397 0.8203 0.7 678 0.7584 0.7409 0.2712 1.1867 1.1710 1.1 4 19 0.8511 0.8398 0.8189 0.7612 0.7511 0.7324 0.2929 1.18 7 8 1.1709 1.1395 0.8522 0.8400 0.81 7 5 0.7538 0.7 431 0.7231 0.3162 1.1890 1.1707 1.1368 0.8533 0.8402 0.8159 0.7456 0.7 341 0.7128 0.3415 1.1950 1.1752 1.1385 0.8580 0.8438 0.81 7 4 0.7393 0.7271 0.7043 0.368 7 1.2 037 1.1821 1.1423 0.8578 0.8425 0.81 4 1 0.7334 0.7203 0.6960 0.3981 1.2136 1.1902 1.1469 0.8537 0.8372 0.8068 0.7268 0.7 128 0.6869 0.4 2 99 1.2251 1.1996 1.1526 0.8490 0.8313 0.7987 0.7193 0.7 043 0.6768 0.4642 1.2429 1.2149 1.1636 0.8464 0.8274 0.7924 0.7 133 0.6973 0.6678 0.5012 1.2688 1.2380 1.1817 0.8466 0.8260 0.7884 0.7092 0.6920 0.6605 0.5412 1.3013 1.2673 1.2051 0.8474 0.8252 0.78 4 7 0.7046 0.6861 0.6525 0.5843 1.3476 1.3096 1.2403 0.8521 0.8281 0.7843 0.7014 0.6816 0.6455 0.6310 1.4077 1.3648 1.2871 0.8586 0.8325 0.7851 0.6987 0.6774 0.6388 0.6813 1.4269 1.3801 1.2954 0.8659 0.8375 0.7861 0.6956 0.6728 0.6315 0.7356 1.4146 1.3645 1.2 7 44 0.8755 0.8445 0.7887 0.6931 0.6686. 0.6244 0.7943 1.40 4 7 1.3511 1.2549 0.890 1 0.856 1 0.7952 0.6 929 0.6665 0.6191 0.8577 1.39 4 0 1.3366 1.2342 0.9073 0.8699 0.8033 0.6928 0.6643 0.6134 0.9261 1.3821 1.320 7 1.2118 0.9275 0.8863 0.8132 0.6926 0.6619 0.6073 1.0000 1.3731 1.307 4 1.1914 0.9546 0.9089 0.8283 0.6943 0.6611 0.6024 1.0798 1.3666 1.2962 1.1724 0.9900 0.9390 0.8494 0.6980 0.6620 0.5988 1.1659 1.3594 1.2839 1.1520 1.0338 0.9764 0.8762 0.7019 0.6629 0.5948 1.2589 1.3512 1.2703 1.1300 1.0758 1.0114 0.8998 0.7062 0.6639. 0.5906 LB P r ofile , Fr e quency L B kappa (H z) (0.09) 1.359 4 1.3483 1.4678 1.3478 1.5849 1.3471 1.7113 1.3460 1.8478 1.3446 1.9953 1.3435. 2.1544 1.3435 2.3263 1.343 1 2.5119 1.3424 2.7123 1.3421 2.9286 1.3413 3.1623 1.3399 3.4 1 4 5 1.3419 3.6869 1.3434 3.9811 1.3451 4.2987 1.3525. 4.6416 1.3605 5.0119 1.3751 5.411 7 1.3923 5.843 4 1.41 4 8 6.3096 1.4430 6.812 9 1.4746 7.3564 1.5 1 56. 7.9433 1.5606 8.5770 1.6136 9.2612 1.6782 10.0000 1.7503 10.7978 1.83 4 6 11.6591 1.9374 12.5893. 2.0549 13.5936 2.1894 14.6 7 80 2.34 99 15.8489 2.5422 17.1133 2.7672 18.4785 3.0319 PROJECT CALCULA TI ON P C No. PV 00 1-P C-02 Rev.O Page 15of18 SWUS to P V NGS Adju st m e nt F a cto r (F o uri e r-amplitude Sp ace) L B L B M e di a n M e di a n UB UB UB Profi l e , Me d ian P r ofile, P r ofi l e , P r ofile, Profil e, Pr o f il e , Me d ian U B P r ofile , Medi a n U B LB Med i an U B kapp a kapp a L B kapp a kappa ka p pa kapp a k a pp a kapp a (0.1 2) (0.09) (0.12) (0.16) (0.12) (0.0 9) (0.1 2) (0.0 9) 1.261 4 1.1117 1.0777 1.0082 0.8886 0.7142 0.6681 0.5888 1.2543 1.0943 1.0773 1.0026 0.8747 0.7246 0.6743 0.5883 1.2464 1.0 7 57 1.0767 0.9963 0.8598 0.7364 0.6813 0.5880 1.2378 1.0557 1.0759 0.9894 0.8439 0.7496 0.6893 0.5879 1.2282 1.0344 1.0748 0.981 7 0.8268 0.7645 0.6984 0.5882 1.2184 1.0121. 1.0739 0.9739 0.8090 0.7821 0.7093 0.5892 1.2089 0.9895 1.0739 0.9663 0.7909 0.8033 0.7228 0.5916 1.1 98 4 0.9654 1.0735 0.9579 0.7 716 0.8280 0.7387 0.5951 1.1869 0.9398 1.0730 0.9487 0.75 1 2 0.8522 0.7535 0.5966 1.1751 0.9132 1.0728 0.9392 0.7300 0.8575 0.7508 0.5835 1.1620 0.8851 1.0721 0.9288 0.7075 0.8570 0.7424 0.5655 1.1476 0.8553 1.0710 0.9173 0.6837 0.8561 0.7332 0.5465 1.1351 0.8264 1.0726 0.9073 0.6606 0.8573 0.7252 0.5280 1.1213 0.7960 1.0738 0.8963 0.6362 0.8583 0.7164 0.5086 1.1067 0.7644 1.075 1 0.8846 0.61 10 0.8594 0.7070 0.4884 1.0956 0.7347. 1.0811 0.8757 0.5873 0.8641 0.7000 0.4 694 1.0837 0.7040 1.0874 0.8662 0.5627 0.8692 0.6924 0.4498 1.0756 0.6 7 51 1.0991 0.8598 0.5396 0.8 7 85 0.6872 0.4313 1.0680 0.6458 1.1129 0.8536 0.5162 0.8895 0.6823 0.4126 1.0625 0.6 1 73 1.1309 0.8493 0.4934 0.9039 0.6788 0.3944 1.0592 0.5892 1.1534 0.8466 0.4710 0.9219 0.6767 0.3765 1.0560 0.5606 1.1787 0.844 1 0.4481 0.9421 0.6747 0.3582 1.0569 0.5334. 1.2114 0.8448 0.4264 0.9683 0.6752 0.3408 1.057 4 0.5054 1.2474 0.8452 0.4039 0.9971 0.6756 0.3229 1.0599 0.4776 1.2898 0.8472 0.38 1 7 1.0 310 0.6772 0.3051 1.0659 0.4507 1.3414 0.8520 0.3603 1.0722 0.6810 0.2880 1.0722 0.4233 1.3990 0.8570 0.3383 1.1183 0.6850 0.2704 1.0808 0.3962 1.4664 0.8639 0.3167 1.1721 0.6905 0.2531 1.0941 0.3702 1.548 6 0.8746 0.2959 1.2 3 78 0.6990 0.2365 1.1088 0.3441. 1.6425. 0.8863 0.2750 1.3129 0.7084 0.2199 1.1246 0.3 1 79 1.7500 0.8989 0.2541 1.3988 0.7185 0.2031 1.1446 0.2926 1.8783 0.9149 0.23 38 1.5014 0.7 313 0.1869 1.1692 0.2680 2.0321 0.9346 0.21 4 2 1.6243 0.74 7 0 0.1 712 1.1962 0.2438 2.2119 0.9562 0.1949 1.7680 0.7643 0.1558 1.2258 0.2201 2.4235 0.9798 0.1759 1.9371 0.7832 0.1406 L B P r ofil e , F r e quency LB k a ppa (H z} (0.09} 19.9526 3.3536 21.5443 3.7485 23.2631 4.2270 25.1189 4.8118 27.1227 5.5426 29.2864 6.4784 31.6228 7.6667 34.1455 9.1952 36.8695 11.1 888 39.8107 13.8284. 42.9866 17.3805 46.4 1 59 22.2896 50.1187 29.2648. 54.1170 39.2659 58.4341 53.9344 63.0957 75.9811 68.1292 110.005. 73.5642 164.031 79.4328 252.802 85.7 696 404.226. 92.6119 6 7 1.328 100.000 1160.96 PROJECT CALCULATION P C No. PV 00 1-PC-02 Rev.O Page 16of18 SWUS to P V NGS Adju st m e n t F a ctor (F o uri e r-amplitude Spa ce) L B L B M e di an M e di a n UB UB UB P r ofile, Me di an P r of il e, P r ofi l e , P r ofile , P r ofil e, Prof il e , Med i an U B P r ofile, Medi a n U B LB Median U B k a pp a kappa L B kap p a kappa kappa ka p p a k a pp a kapp a (0.1 2) (0.09} (0.12) (0.16) (0.12) (0.0 9) (0.1 2) (0.0 9) 1.261 4 0.1975 2.6806 1.0083 0.1578 2.1427 0.8059 0.1262 1.3041 0.1761 2.9963 1.0424 0.1 407 2.3950 0.8332 0.1125 1.3518 0.1556 3.3787 1.0805 0.1244 2.7006 0.8637 0.0994 1.4050 0.1361 3.8461 1.123 1 0.1088 3.0743 0.8977 0.0869 1.4671 0.1179 4.4 303 1.1727 0.0943 3.5 4 12 0.9373 0.0754 1.5422 0.1014 5.1783 1.2327 0.0811 4.1391 0.9853 0.0648 1.6277 0.0861 6.1281 1.3010 0.0688 4.8983 1.0399 0.0550 1.7252 0.0722 7.3499 1.3789 0.0577 5.8748 1.1022 0.0461 1.8369 0.0597 8.9 434 1.4682 0.0477 7.1486 1.1 736 0.0381 1.9655 0.0486 11.0533 1.5710 0.0388 8.8350 1.2557 0.0310 2.1143 0.0389 13.8925 1.6900 0.0311 11.1045 1.3508 0.0249 2.2920 0.0307 17.8 1 64 1.8320 0.0245 14.2409 1.4644 0.0 1 96 2.5099 0.0238 23.3918 2.0062 0.0190 18.6974 1.6036 0.0152 2.7684 0.0181 31.3858 2.2128 0.01 4 5 25.0872 1.768 7 0.0116 3.0774 0.0135 43.1106 2.4598 0.0108 34.4589 1.9662 0.0086 3.4500 0.0098 60.7328 2.7 576 0.0078 4 8.54 47 2.2 042 0.0063 3.9029 0.0069 87.9283 3.1197 0.0055 70.2824 2.4936 0.0044 4.4589 0.0048 131.113 3.5641 0.0038 104.800 2.8488 0.0031 5.1544 0.0032 202.069 4.1200 0.0026 161.51 7 3.2932 0.0020 6.0417 0.0021 323.104 4.8292 0.0017 258.262 3.860 1 0.0013 7.1753 0.0013 536.603 5.7353 0.0010 428.915 4.5843 0.0008 8.639 4 0.0008 927.980 6.9056 0.0006 741.749 5.5197 0.0005 PROJECT CALCULATION

8. RE FE RE N C E S P C No. PV 00 1-PC-02 Rev.O Page 1 7 of18 1. Geo P en t ech. (2015). Southwestern United States Ground Motion Characterization SSHAC Level 3-Te chnica l Report Rev.I, February 2015. 2. L ettis Consu l tants International (2015). D evelopme nt of site profile and amplifications for Palo Verd e Nuclear Generating Station, P YOOl-P C-04-R evO. 3. B oore, D.M., and Joyner, W.B. (1 997). Site amplificat i ons for gener i c rock s ite s, B ullet i n of the Se i smological Society of America 87 (2), 327-341. 4. Boore , D. M. (2003). Simulation of g r ound motion usi ng t h e stochastic method , Pure. and Appli ed G eop h ys i cs v.160, 635-675. 5. B oore , D. M. (2013). The Uses and L imi t a t ions oftbe Square-Roo t-I mpedance Method for. Comp u ti n g Site. Amp l i fi cation. Bulletin of the Seismolog i ca l Soc i ety of America,. I 03( 4), 2356-2368.
6. B rocher, T. M. (2005). Empirica l re l ations between e l ast i c wavespeeds

.and dens i ty i n t h e Eart h's crust. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 95(6), 208 1-2092. 7. Anderson, J. G., and Hough, S. E. (1984). A model. for the s hape of the F ourie r amplitude spectrum of acceleration at hig h freque n cies. B ullet i n of the Seismo l ogica l Society of Amer i ca, 74(5), 1969-1993.

8. Al Atik, L., Kottke , A., Abrahamson, N., and Hollenback , J. (2014). Kappa (K) Scal i ng of Ground-Motion Predict i on Equations Us i ng an Inverse Random V i brat i on T h eory App r oach. Bull e tin of the. Se i smological Society of Am e rica , 104( I), 336-346. 9. B iro, Y., and Renault, P. (2 012). I mportance an d impact of h ost-t o-target conversions for g r ound motion pred i ction equat i ons in PSHA. In P roc. of the 15th World Conference on. Earthquake Engin ee rin g (pp. 24-28). 10. Cotton, F., Sche r baum , F., B omme r , J. J., and B ungum, H. (2006). Criteria for selecting and adju s t ing ground-motion mo d els for specific target reg i ons: Application to central Europe and rock sites. J ournal of Seismolog y , 10(2), 137-156. 11. Electric P ower R esearch Institu t e (E P RI) (2013). Seismic Evaluation Guidance:

Screening, Prior i tization and Implementation Deta i ls (S PID) for the R eso lution of Fu ku s h ima Near-Term Task. Force Recommendation

2. J:

E PRl Report J 025287 , Palo Alto, Cal i f. 12. H.F., L. W. Gardner, and A .. R. Gregory (1974) .. Formation ve l ocity and density-the d i agnostic bas i cs for stratigraphic t r aps. Geoph y sics 39 , 770-780. 13. Lockr i dge.I. S., Fouch, M. J.,.& A 1 Towsmith,.J. R. (2012). Sei s mic i ty wi t h i n Arizo n a during t h e D eployment of the EarthScope USArray T r ansportab l e Array. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America , 1 02(4), 1850-1863. 14. R odriguez-M arek, A., R athje, E. M., Bomm e r , J. J., Scherbaum, F., and S t afford, P. J. (2014). App l ication of Sing l e-S t at i on S i gma and Site-Response Characterizat i on in a P robabilist i c Seism i c-H azard Analysis for a New Nuclea r Site. B ulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

PROJECT CALCULATION PC No. PV001-PC-02 Rev.O Page 18of18 15. Wan*en , D. H. (1969). A seismic-refraction survey of crusta l struc t ure in central Arizona. G eo lo g i cal Society of Ameri ca Bull et in , 80(2), 257-282. 9 .. APP EN DIC E S APPEND I X A: El ectro nic fi l es are provid e d in a DVD. (PRO PR IETARY) APPEND I X B: Calculations for 808 ft Thicknes s of Volcanics PROJECT CALCULATION APPENDIX A APPENDIX A PROPRIETARY PC No. PV001-PC-02 Revision 0 Page A1 of A2 L. tti.-* J'nsuh.1ntii lnlern.>tinn.il , Inc PROPRIETARY PROJECT CALCULATION APPENDIX A PC No. PV001-PC-02 Revision 0 PageA2 of A2 Electronic files included in this ap p endix are pro v id ed on a DVD-ROM disc that conta in s multiple files developed as part of this calculat i on. This disc is labeled: 'PVOOl-PC-02-RevO

' PROPRJETARY A complete list of data dir ectories a nd associated files are contained in the text file named file_ list_ a_ 02262015.

t xt , located in a separa te folder named 'App_ A_ file_ list'.

PROJECT CALCULATION APPENDIX B PC No. PV001-PC-02 Rev.O Page 8 1 of BS APPENDIX B. CALCULAT IO NS FOR 808 FT THICKNESS O F VOLCANICS T he calcu l ations presented here follow the same steps documented in Section 6 above and are performed in file Ca l c_Adjustment

_Fa ctors_808ft.xlsm (conta i ned in Appendix A). The on l y difference between the. two sets of calculations is that the thickness.

of the volcanics has. been changed from 878 ft to 808 ft (see sheet Deep_Projile_Summar y). Figures B-1 through B-3 show the Vs profiles considered, individua l adjustment factors, and logarithmic-mean adjustment factors. These can be compared to Figures 1-3 .. An additional sheet in Calc_Adjustrnent

_Factors_808ft .x l s m (sheet Compare_878ft) compares the re s ults obta i ned with the 808-ft thickness to those obta in ed earlier with the 878-ft thickness.

The differences observed a r e. sma ll and are much smalle r than the. the uncertainty in the adjustment factors (see Figure B-4). The maximum change in the l ogarithmic-mean adjustme n t factor is a reduction of two percent, and the change is much smaller at most frequencies.

Given the size of this change, and given that ignoring this change i s conservative, it is concluded that the change. can be ignored and the values in Table I and in fi le Adjustment_Factors.csv can be used.

LCI Qi ; 0 500 1000 Q. Ri .s:. "' .... 0 1500 .... .... 0 .ll E 0 .:: i:' -s 2000 Q. cu 0 2500 3000 PROJECT CALCULATION APPENDIX B 0 1000 Vs (m/s) 2000 3000 -, .... I I I , I I I I I ------I 1 I "' I l .... I l -I I I t -1 I I I . -J--I UB Profile -Base Case P rofile ; I ... I -LB Profile I --Wa rr en (1969) I I --SWUS Reference I Pr o file I -PC No. PV001-PC-02 Rev.O Page 82 of BS 4000 -Fi g ur e B-1. V s de e p pr o fil es f o r. PV NG S, aft er m o dif y in g th ic kn ess o f vo lc a nic s , A d e pth o f 0 co rr es p o nds to. th e bottom o f the s h a llo w profil e (so il s). A l s o s ho w n a r e the W a rr e n (1969) (R e f. 15) a nd S W U S (R e f. 1) profil es.

L CI PROJECT CALCULATION APPENDIX B PC No. PV001-PC-02 Rev.O Page 83 of BS 10 I I I ..L -1 , -r, I. /, j , -E :J .... ti QI Q. V'I .... QI *;: :J 0 u.. c 1 .... 0 .... v "' u.. .... c QI l/J' 'l h : Ii --t-..+-I-,_ __J--. ---l --I I I * """' --L-,, 11-,_ -"'" -r.--. !"..'. ' i....... .... .... , I r..... .... I E .... Ill "" "'-:J :0 < 0.1 I I 1 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) -LB Profile, LB kappa (0.09) -LB Profile, Median kappa (0.12) -LB Profi l e, UB kappa (0.09) -Median Profile, LB kappa (0.12) -Median Profile, Median kappa (0.16) -Median Profile, UB kappa (0.12) -UB Profile, LB kappa (0.09) -UB Profile , Median kappa (0.12) UB Profile, UB kappa (0.09) F igur e B-2. Adjustment factors af ter m o dif y in g thick n ess of vo l ca ni cs.

L CI 10 ---E :I .... ti QI Q. V) .... QI *.::: :I 0 u.. c 1 .£. .... 0 ... u ro u.. --... c QI E ... Ill :I !tJ <t / 0.1 0.1 PROJECT CALCULATION APPENDIX B I I I I I I ' i i I *-*-+--L ogarithmic mean AF l si gm a (righ t Y a xi s) I I->--+ ._,_,_ --' J I I I ---I I ' l +-. --I -+ + --l l -'- + , -r --1 10 Frequency (Hz) I + PC No. PV001-PC-02 Rev.o Page 84 of BS 2 -1.8 -I-+-1.6 -1.4 -;-u ro Q. " ! Ill 1.2 c -c: 0 1 ... ro *:;; QI 0 +. 0.8 "C .... ro "C c -ro 0.6 ... V) -0.4 0.2 0 100 Figure B-3. Swnmary sta ti s ti cs of th e ad ju st ment factor a ft er modif yi n g thickness of vo lcani cs 30% 20% 10% u.. < *= Gi 11.0 c 111 0% .s:. u ... c Q,I u ... Q,I Q. -10% -20% -30% PROJECT CALCULATION APPENDIX B P C No. PV001-PC-02 R ev.O P a ge B S o f BS Change in Adjustment Factor as a Result of Modifying Thickness of Volc a nics I ' ' I / _, , I \ \. ' ' ,. \ ,., _,, \ 0.1 1 10 100 F requency {Hz) -LB Profile, LB kappa (0.09) -LB Profile, Median kappa (0.12) --LB Profile, UB kappa (0.09) -Med i an Profile , LB kappa (0.12) -Median Profile, Median kappa (0.16) -Median Profile , UB kappa (0.12) -UB Profi l e , LB kappa (0.09) -UB Profile, Media n kappa (0.12) -UB Profile , UB kappa (0.09) -Logarithmic mean AF -1 sigma + 1 s i gma F ig u r e B-4. C h a n g e i n logarithmic

-m ea n ad j u st m e nt fa c tor (t h ick b lu e l in e) as a r es ult o f mod i f y in g t h ic k n ess o f v olca n j cs.

H eesze l , D av id From:Hee sze l , D avid Sent:? M ay 2015 2 0:01:54 +0000 To:Sebe r , Do gan

Subject:

Vs-kappa co rT ect i o n pap e r Attachments:

R efere nce 7 .21. pdf Attached i s the Vs-kappa correction from PVNGS. --David David Heeszel Geophysicist U.S. NRC , NRO/DSEA/RGS2 Office: T-7E28 Mail Stop: T-7F3 Phone: 301-415-5066 Sent: 12 Feb 20 15 20:0 l :46 +0000 To:Munson, Clifford;Ake , Jon Cc:Jack s on , Diane Subj ec t:ACTJON:

SSHAC R e vi e w Guidance lmp o rtan ce: Hi gh Amigos-I've taken the risk of putting together some guidance on how the WUS teams can approach review of the SSHACs. I've focused on what I think are the. key questions. we'd want the teams to answer as the goals of their reviews , so that we'd have a good , traceable bas i s for concluding the SSHAC process was acceptable

/u nacceptab l e. Certainly , I don't think that every team would necessarily have to address every sub-question , but have tried to identify 7 basic yet dist i nct areas that appear intrinsic to a good SSHAC process. I've pulled these 7 areas from various statements and concepts in NUREG/CR-6372 (SSHAC), NUREG-2117 (Imp l ementing SSHAC), and NUREG-1563 (BTP on Expert Elicitation).

I'm intentionally avoiding the use of anything that reads like Acceptance Criteria/Review Methods , as I appreciate the sensitivities that the scope isn't a licensing review ... I would appreciate your thoughts on this approach for gu i d i ng the teams in the i r upcoming reviews. I've run it past D i ane as a straw man , and she d i dn't barf. If you think this is on the r ight track , please add/ed i t the attached.

If you think this is nuts , or want to work on an alternative approach , let's talk on Tues/Wed. I'll be out on AL from Thurs 2/19 through 3/5 , and would l ike to get your init ial feedback before I split for sunn i er cl i mes. ThanksBritt Britta in E. H i ll , Ph.D. Sr. Techn ic al Advisor US Nuclear Regulatory Comm i ssion MS T7-F03 , NRO/DSEA Washington , DC 20555-0001 Ph+ 1 13 01' 41 5-65 88* Er+ 1 (301) 415-5399; Mobile_(b J(5 l j email: B r ittain.H i ll@nrc.gov Sent:3 Jun 2015 l 7:32:37 +0000 To:Wa l sh, Lisa

Subject:

RE:

Columbia -Sei s micity Map Lisa -this. l ooks good and is a handy reference

-the changes make the data compar i sons clear. Seems appropriate to send to group , but I don't see a need for using at tomorrow's meeting (we're not doing evaluations/compar i sons with PSHA bases yet). ThanksBr i tt From: Walsh, Lisa Sent: Wednesday , J u ne 03 , 2015 12:23 PM To: Hill, Brittain

Subject:

RE: Columbia -Seismicity Map Hi. Britt, Here is an updated version. Do you see. any additiona l changes I should make?. Should I send this version to the rest of the group? Changes

  • Magnitude threshold to. only display events greater than and equal to 1.85 as they used i n the SSHAC ..
  • lluminated pre-and post-the licensee's catalog Lisa From: H ill, Brittain Sent: Wed n esday, J u ne 03, 2015 8:32 AM To: Walsh, Lisa

Subject:

RE: Columbia -Seismicity Map Hi Lisa -nice map -are you running Arc for this , or GMT? Before show i ng this at a public meeting , I'd suggest truncating the USGS cata l og to same M thresho l d as the SSHAC (2?). By plotting all USGS quakes , the map gives the impression tha t lots of. earthquakes are missing from the SSHAC database (i.e., not considered i n the PSHA). From: Walsh, Lisa Sent: Wednesday, J u ne 03, 2015 8:19 AM To: Seber, Dogan; S t irewalt, Gerry; Weaver, Thomas Cc: Hill, Br i ttain; Ake, Jon; Munson, Clifford; Li , Yong; Chokshi, Nilesh; John Stamatkos; Jackson, Diane; Karas, Rebecca

Subject:

Columbia -Seismicity M a p Hi CGS T eam ,

Attached is a map I compiled with seismicity out beyond the 200 mi radius from the. site and info provided in the SSHAC by the licensee. This might be a useful resource for the public meeting tomorrow.

Lisa Lisa S. Walsh , Ph.D .. Geophysicist , U.S. NRC NRO/DSEA/RGS1 T-7F15 , 301-415-5612 Sent:21May201521:40:13

+0000 To: Ve ga, Frankie;Jack so n F D.....,.ian=e ______ _, Cc:DiFrance s co , Nicholas (b l(5 l ------------

Subject:

R e: Draft ESEP r e li ef l e tt e r to Di ablo Canyon Someone who knows the details of. what Diablo is relying on for FLEX need to confirm that the 1988 LTSP analyses have indeed evaluated the. SSCs Diablo currently relies on for shutdown path. Unless. this. is clear, issue needs to be resolved with SRB discussion.

etc .. Absent that confirmation, it is premature to conclude that.the 1988 LTSP. margins assessment encompasses the 2015 shutdown path that includes FLEX. Diablo didnt address FLEX SSCs in submittal.

Working from blakberry-very hard to edit files! Britt Sent from Brittain H i ll's PDA l (b)(6) I From: Vega, Frankie Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 04: 16 PM To: Hill, Brittain Cc: DiFrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

RE: Draft ESEP re l ief letter to Diab l o Canyon Britt; I'm not aware if the SRB has. discussed th i s issue yet. I will confirm. Thanks Frankie From: Hill, Brittain Sent: Thursday , May 21, 2015 4: 12 PM To: Vega, Frankie Cc: DiFrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

Re: Draft ESEP relief lette r to Diablo Canyon Hi Frankie -has the issue of Diablo meeting the ESEP requirements been discussed by the SRB? Have they determined that all FLEX is covered by LTSP analyses?

Please confirm. Thanks-Britt Sent from Brittain H i ll's PDA l (b)(6) I From: Vega, Frankie Sent: Thursday , May 21, 2015 04:02 PM To: Hill, Brittain Cc: D i Francesco , Nicholas

Subject:

Draft ESEP relief letter to Diablo Canyon Britt; Hope you are doing well. I've attached the draft ESEP relief letter to Diablo Canyon. This letter follows a very similar format to the letter we sent last year to several CEUS licensee also requesting ESEP relief (Based on their previous IPEEE evaluations).

I'm sending this draft letter to you first since It mostly references Diablo's L TSP which you are very familiar with. Please review and feel free to make any necessary changes. I'm also planning to share this with the mitigation strategies technical reviewers. just as we did with the other ESEP relief letter I mentioned above. If you have questions please let me. know. Thanks! ..... Frankie G. Vega , P.E. Project Manager NRR/JLD/JHMB 301-415-1617 L o c ation: 0-13Hl2 Muns on, Clifford From:Mun so n , Clifford Sent: 26 May. 2 015 14:54:41 +0000. To:Ak e, Jon;Jo hn Starnatko s

Subject:

l s t Draft -F ocus Are a T opic s fo r PVNGS Publi c M eet in g Attachments:Focus Ar ea T opics for PVNGS Publi c M eet in g (draft l).do cx Br i tt is out this week. Here i s what I cobbled together so far. Wou l d appreciate your comments and input. I am work i ng on the s i te response question on Vs-kappa corrections.

Thanks , Cliff Mun so n , Clifford From:Mun s on , Clifford Sent: 2 9 Apr 2 015.19: 04: 0 3 +0000 T o:Ak e, Jon;St o v a ll , S co tt Sub jec t:Bo o r e p a p e r o n a dju s tin g fr o m vs3 0=760 to 3 000 You may already have this paper. http://www.daveboore.com

/daves notes/Adjusting PSA amp l itudes to Vs30 3000.v02.pdf Munson , Clifford Fr om: Mun son , Clifford Sent:21May.2015 19:42: 17 +0000. T o: DiF rancesco , Nicho l as Cc:Jackson , Diane;Seb e r , Dogan;Ake, Jon; Weaver, Th o m as;St i rewalt, Gerry;Wal s h , Lisa;John Stamatko s;Hill, Brittain;Kock, Andrea

Subject:

Columbia T opics for 6/4 meeting. Attacbments:Focus Area Topics for CGS Publi c Meeting (draft 2).docx These are ready to go. Thanks , Cliff Muns o n , Cli f ford From:Mun s on , Clifford Sent: 19 Ma y. 2 015 1 3:2 1: 14 +0000. To: S e b e r , D og an C c:Ja c k s on , Di a n e Subj ec t:Columbi a Topic s for Publi c M ee tin g Dogan, When you get a chance would you please forward your topics/quest i ons for the Columbia public meeting to Britt, Jon, and me. Diane suggested that we discuss during the Thursday meeting so that we can get them over to JLD by the end of the week. Thanks , Cliff Muns on, Clifford From:Mun so n , Clifford Sent: 2 7 May 2 015 20: 47:43 +0000 To: W eave r , Thoma s;St ova ll , Scott;Ake , Jon. Cc: H eesze l , D av id Subj ec t:C on firm H a n fo rd V s-K ap pa correction Thomas, David has programed the Hanford GMM both w it h and w i thout the vs-kappa correction.

If you g i ve h i m some scenario events similar to the ones used by Hanford , you could try to replicate the Vs-kappa corrections in F i gure 9.38. This would be useful to make sure we understand each of the steps in preparation for the meet i ng next week. Let's ta l k tomorrow after the Columbia. meeting. Thanks , Cliff Mun son, Clifford From:Mun so n , Clifford Sent:29 Apr 2 01516:25:

16 +0000 T o:Ake, Jon;S t ova ll , Scott C c:Grai ze r , Vladimir Subj ec t:d c pp m e dian gmm I finished the swus-dcpp gmm th i s morning. Below are median gm results for a scenario event on one of the local faults which we can use for the analytical site response. Sol i d line is the weighted average of the 31 median models. There are 21 frequencies between 0.1 and 100. Benchmarking to come. Cliff DCPP Median Ground Motion 2.0 .... ------------------------------_.

________________

__ 1.8 x 1.6 x x x x x 1.4 x x x x )C x x x M 3E x x x x x x 1.2 x )rt x x x x -x x O> x x x ..._.... x <( 1.0 x x en x x x 0.8

  • x x x x x x x x x 0.6 x )C x x x
  • x x x )( x x x )C x x M x x 0.4 x x
  • x x x x )( 0.2 x x x 0.1 1 10 f r eque n cy (H z)

Mun son, Clifford F rom: Mun so n , Clifford Sent:28 May 2015 13:57:39 +0000 T o: DiF rancesco , Nichol as;J ac k s o n , D iane

Subject:

D C PP R A I-D raft 2 Attach m e n ts:DCPP RAJ (d r aft 2).docx Some mod if icat i ons. Cliff To the Power Reactor Licensees on the Enclosed List May 27, 2015.

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL IN FORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION 2.1 , SE I SMIC RE-EVALUATIONS RELATED TO SITE RESPONSE FOR DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT (TAC NOS. XXXXX , XXXXX) By letter dated March 15 , 2015 ,. to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRG), Pacif i c Gas and Electric , submitted for NRG review the Seismic Hazard and Screening Report, Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 50 , Sect i on 50.54(f), Response for Information Regarding Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term. Task Force. Rev i ew. of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident for the Diablo Canyon Powe r Plant. I ncluded in the seismic hazard reevaluation report is an evaluation of the site response for Diablo Canyon using an alternative empirical approach.

The NRG staff has reviewed the i nformation provided for Diablo Canyon and has determined that additional information is required to complete its review .. Enclosed is. a request for addit i onal information (RAI) related to the site response evaluation.

As discussed with your staff on XXXX YY , 2015 , it was agreed that a response to the RAI would be provided no later than XXXXX YY , 2015. If you have any questions related to. the enclosed RAls or the requested submission date, please contact me at 301-415-1115 or via e-mail at Nicholas.Difrancesco@nrc

.gov.

Enclosures:

1 . Request for Additional Info r mation 2. Addressee List cc w/encls: Distribution via Listserv Sincerely , I RA/ Nicholas J. DiFrancesco , Senior Projec t Manager Hazards Management Branch. Japan Lessons-Learned Di vision Office of Nuc lear Reac to r Regulation

-. 2. -. If you have any questions related to the enclosed RAls or the requested submission date, please contact me at 301-415-1115 or via e-mail at Nicholas.Difrancesco@nrc

.gov.

Enclosures:

1 . Request for Additional Info r mation 2. Addressee List cc w/encls: Distribution via Listserv DISTRIBUTION:

PUBLIC. JLD R/F R i dsOeMai l Center R i dsNrrPMOconee R i dsNrrDorllp l 2-1 RidsNrrLASLen t RidsNrrPMSummer

RidsRgn1 Ma i lCenter ADAMS Accession No: ML14268A516 Sincerely , I RA/ Nicholas J. DiFrancesco , Senior Project Manager Hazards Management Branch Japan Lessons-Learned Division Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation RidsNrrDorllpl2-2 NDiFrancesco, NRA RidsNrrPMRobinson RidsRgn2MailCenter R i dsNrrOd *via mail OFFICE NRR/J L D/JHMB/PM NRR/J LD/JHMB/LA* NRR/DORU L PL2-2/PM* NRR/DORULPL2

-1 /PM* NAME NDiFrancesco Slent MBari ll as SWill i ams DATE 09/29/14 09/29/14 1 0/15/14 09/30/1 4 OFFICE NRR/DORULPL2-1/PM* NRO/DSEA/RGS1

  • NRR/JLD/JHMB/BC NRR/J L D/J HMB/PM NAME RHall (w/comments)

DJa c kson SWhalev. NDiF r ancesco DATE 09/30/14 10/15/14 10/23/14 10/23/14 OFFICIAL RE CO RD COPY REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL I NFORMATION NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION 2.1 SEISMIC HAZARD AND SCREENING REPORT FOR DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT Review of Alternative Empirical Site Response Evaluation By letter dated March 12, 2012 (Agencyw i de Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML12053A340), the NRG staff requested that licensees submit site specific hazard curves that capture the variability in soil depth (including depth to generic rock conditions

), shear-wave velocities, layer thicknesses , damping, and strain dependent nonlinear material properties at the site. Specifically, Attachment 1 to " Seismic" Enclosure 1 of the March 12, 2012 , letter stated that " site amplification curves should be developed over a broad range of annual exceedance frequencies to facilitate estimation of seismic core damage frequency.". By letter dated February 15 , 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12319A074), " Endorsement of Elec tric Power Research Institute

[EPRI] Final Draft Report 1025287 , 'Seismic Evaluation Guidance:

Screening , Prioritization and Implementation Detai l s (S PID),' the NRG staff endorsed using the SP I D guidance.

Regarding the development of site amplification curves for the NTTF Recommendation 2.1 seismic hazard reevaluations , Section 2 of the SPID states: Site amplification factors should be calculated as described in Section 2.4. As discussed in that section , multiple models of site amplification factors (and associated.

uncertainties) should be developed , indica t i ng the log-mean and standard deviation of control-point motion d i vided by input rock motion, for various spectral frequencies.

The SPID further recommends that the soil and/or rock uncertainties should be incorporated into the seismic hazard calculations via the site amplification and their uncertainties through the hazard integral to develop control-po i nt hazard curves .. The control-point elevation hazard curves should then be used to calculate the GMRS. By letters dated March 1 5 , 2015 , the. licensee for the Diablo. Canyon Powe r Plant (DCPP) submitted an alternative site r esponse evaluation , referred to as the empirical approach , which uses the observed ground mot ions at the site from two earthquakes to "constrain the site amplification rather than analytical models." While. the staff considers the empirical site response approach as a viable alternative to the analytical approach , the method as implemented by the licensee was able to use only three site recordings from two earthquakes to const ra in the local site amplification.

As such , the licensee's estimate of the uncertainty in the local site term is potentially impacted by the li mited amount of data. Request for Additional Information Consistent with the request for information i ssued pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal regulations, Part 50 , Section 50.54(f) and the SPID guidance, please provide a revised March 20 1 5 Enc l osure1 seismic hazard reevaluation submittal that deve lops site amp l ification factors as recommended in Section 2.4 and Appendix B of the SPID. Please provide (1) a detailed description of the subsurface profile properties inclu ding uncertainties, (2) potential for nonlinear behavior at the strain produced by the. scenario earthquakes of interest, and (3) control. po int elevation

.. In addition, provide the adjustment factors (Vs-kappa corrections) needed to modify the median ground motion models for the selected reference or baserock elevation and velocity.

Also include in the response, in table form, control point seismic hazard curves developed using the site amplification factors and their uncertaint ies through the hazard integral as recommended in Append ix B of the SPID.

H.B. Robinson Steam Electr i c Plant Duke Energy Progress , Inc. Docket No. 50-261 License No. DPR-23 Mr. William R. G i deon , Vice President H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant 3581 West Entrance Road Hartsville , SC 29550 Oconee Nuclear Stat i on Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC List of Addressees Docket Nos. 50-269 , 50-270 and 50-287 License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47 and DPR-55 Mr. Scott Batson Vice President , Oconee Nuclear Station Duke Ene r gy Carolinas , LLC 7800 Rochester H i ghway Seneca , SC 29672-0752 Virg il C. Summer Nuclear Stat i on South Carolina Electr i c and Gas Company Docket No. 50-395 License No. NPF-12 Mr. Thomas D. Gat li n , V i ce Pres i dent Nuclear Operations South Carolina Electric and Gas Company Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Stat i on Post Office Box 88 , Mai l Code 800 Jenkinsville , SC 29065 Enclosure 2

Sent:23 Apr 2015 19:34:30 +0000 To:Ake. Jon;Jo hn Stamatkos

Subject:

DCPP Scenario events Mun son,. Clifford From:Mun so n , Clifford Sent:30 Apr 2 015 19:28:09 +0000 To:S tovall , Scott;Ake, Jon. C c: Grai ze r , Vladimir

Subject:

DCPP Scenario Work s h eet Attachments:scenario-spreadsheet.csv , sce nari o-s pr eads h eet.x l sx, scena rio-s pread s heet.ad s Scott and Jon , I developed 5 scenar i o events each at 3 levels (16, 50, 84). So there are a total of 15 events. saved the spreadsheet in three formats -hopefully one of them will work for you. Here are the parameters Mag 7.5 6.5. 6.8 6.0 8.0 Ztor 1 1 1 1 1 Rrup 5.1 1.2 9.2 5.1 5.1 R j b .3.7 . . 0.6. o.n . 3.7 .3.7. Dip 85 90 60 85 85 Width 15 12 15 12 15 Rx. 5. .0.6. 10 5 5 F SS SS REV SS SS I tried to get a sufficient range of SA values yet still keep this. somewhat realistic. Let me know i f you want me to add another scenario. Thanks , Cliff freq 0.1 0.133333 0.2 0.25 0.333333 0.5 0.666666 1 1.333333 2 2.5 3.333333 4 5 6.666667 10 13.33333 20 33.33333 50 100 S1-L S1-M 0.0135928 0.02323223 0.02126067 0.03630149 0.02409332 0.0411381 0.04022888 0.06862008 0.05301979 0.09043807 0.09164862 0.15601652 0.14167118 0.24093055 0.21814579 0.37024451 0.27242788 0.4614501 0.36417754 0.6150 1 182 0.40726873 0.68640871 0.47517616 0.79925945 0.58357937 0.98061553 0.65999943 1.10681187 0.67182266 1.12326444 0.58402362 0.97256939 0.53894264 0.89480798 0.40332911 0.66764251 0.32281427 0.53169879 0.30574949 0.5030885 0.29870653 0.49002754 She e tl S1 -H S2-L S2-M S2-H 0.03970752 0.00589409 0.01020574 0.01767144 0.06198292 0.01001215 0.01731891 0.02995808 0.07024117 0.01871057 0.03236535 0.05598526 0.11704813 0.02539436 0.04388301 0.07583252 0.15426398 0.03797482 0.0656228 0.1134002 0.26559216 0.06757365 0.11653808 0.20098255 0.40973422 0.09803317 0.16889984 0.29099493 0.62839165 0.17031874 0.29285324 0.50354425 0.78162409 0.22171708 0.38084868 0.65419282 1.03861304 0.32708952 0.56016641 0.95932883 1.15686986 0.39553462 0.67670695 1.15775528 1.34437649 0.48466229 0.82753578 1.41297 45 1.64777384 0.57464538 0.98019656 1.6719621 1.85611147 0.60995261 1.03938 1 67 1.77114457 1.87805962 0.64599653 1.09750438 1.86458565 1.61961123 0.5758048 0.97532302 1.65204421 1.48565221 0.50718422 0.85737405 1.44935555 1.10516825 0.41862939 0.70626183 1.19152113 0.87574691 0.33913793 0.56986923 0.95757774 0.8277954 7 0.31006683 0.52049895 0.8737 4438 0.80388932 0.29220525 0.48904596 0.81848615 Page I

$3-L $3-M $3-H 0.00451818 0.00776098 0.01333122 0.007 45782 0.01279767 0.02196089 0.01214696 0.02084426 0.03576889 0.0180192 0.03089016 0.05295474 0.02837656 0.0486457 0.08339292 0.05878505 0.10057337 0.17206762 0.09098823 0.15551313 0.26579629 0.1565745 0.26707565 0.45556206 0.22743113 0.387551 0.66040116 0.32907062 0.5590687 0.9498 1 988 0.3932533 0.66677586 1.1305437 0.488755 1 9 0.82704718 1.39948801 0.55287124 0.93460608 1.5799 1 31 1 0.64332396 1.08533984 1.83105655 0.65070698 1.09560218 1.84467692 0.61 1 03827 1.02470454 1.71841837 0.52224613 0.8731776 1 1.45992302 0.41903824 0.69851887 1.16440113 0.32035244 0.53188205 0.88308526 0.29310184 0.48615141 0.80635179 0 .28652044 0.47381165

o. 78353042 Sheetl $4-L $4-M S4-H S5-L 0.001 4 1504 0.00247976 0.00434558 0.02435431 0.00251936 0.00441057 0.00772146 0.03666668 0.00523621 0.00916689 0.01604823 0.03245563 0.00736962 0.01288889 0.02254167 0.0597338 0.01202286 0.02102705 0.03677468 0.07387252 0.02361384 0.04125751 0.07208407 0.12573558 0.0361113 0.06309275 0.11023405 0.20049557 0.06559398 0.11437516 0.19943411 0.29220897 0.09763834 0.1 7008022 0.2962697 0.3556664 0.15350101 0.26685545 0.46391768 0.44779938 0.19326401 0.33564605 0.58292422 0.47353872 0.25366551 0.43966651 0.7620533 0.53575002 0.292 4 0918 0.50681909 0.8784457 1 0.68 4 31228 0.32928307 0.57016043 0.98724454 0.77468653 0.36299417 0.62727609 1.08397 1 37 0. 78104 1 57 0.33126088 0.57072428 0.9832921 0.66341963 0.29304614 0.50438006 0.8681201 0.62851214 0.23611794 0.40558539 0.69668365 0.45284468 0.18941057 0.32438043 0.55552688 0.36316698 0.16916332 0.28970543 0.49614323 0.3506405 0.16295276 0.2782334 0.47506912 0.34416697 Page2 S5-M S5-H 0.04162532 0.07114419 0.06260646 0.1068973 0.05541631 0.09462047 0.10189042 0.17379874 0.126007 43 0.21493612 0.21404391 0.36437413 0.34096921 0.57986317 0.49594707 0.84173833 0.60244309 1.02044411
o. 75622982 1.27709765 0.79809982 1.34511351 0.90114634 1.51575306 1.14988171 1.93219967 1.29914089 2.17864514 1.30587471 2.18337773 1.10478686 1.83979184 1.04352046 1.73255995 0.7496071 1.24084665 0.59816267 0.9852178 0.5769534 0.94933477 0.5646053 0.926234 Sh ee tl Pag e 3 Mun son,. Clifford From:Mun so n , Clifford Sent:29 Apr 2 015 17:55:3 2 +0000 T o:Stovall , Scott

Subject:

dcpp s it e re s p o n se See Sect i on 9.3 in the Hanford SSHAC -th i s is what I was thinking we could do for DC P P.

Muns on, Clifford From:Mun so n , Clifford Sent: 2 7 Apr 20 1517:21:46 +0000 To: HiJl , Brittain

Subject:

DCPP SSC Br it t , Would you make an unlocked vers i on of the SSC like you did for the GMC? Thanks , Cliff freq 0.1 0.13333 0.2 0.25 0.3333 0.5 0.6666 1 1.3333 2 2.5 3.3333 4 5 6.66667 10 13.3333 20 33.3333 50 100 host AF She e tl target27 AF target28 AF target27 /host target28/host 1.137 1.132 1.138 0.99560246 1.00087951 1.181 1.173 1.182 0.99322608 1.0008467 4 1.262 1.249 1.263 0.98969889 1.00079239 1.311 1.294 1.312 0.9870328 1.00076278 1.38 1.356 1.382 0.9826087 1.00144928 1.488 1.449 1.491 0.97379032 1.00201613 1.578 1.52.2 1.583 0.96451204 1.00316857 1.732 1.635 1.74 0.94399538 1.00461894 1.875 1.73 1.886 0.92266667 1.00586667 2.135 1.893 2.154 0.88665105 1.0088993 2.292 2.019 2.3 0.88089005 1.0034904 2.48 2.215 2.407 0.89314516 0.97056452 2.593 2.3 4 8 2.428 0.90551485 0.936367 1 4 2.724 2.535 2.431 0.93061674 0.89243759 2.88 2.765 2.455 0.96006944 0.85243056 3.104 3.161 2.577 1.0183634 0.83021907 3.266 3.462 2.828 1.06001225 0.865891 3.514 3.671 3.136 1.04467843 0.89243028 3.808 3.799 3.267 0.99763655 0.85793067 3.996 3.854 3.314 0.96446446 0.82932933 4.147 3.895 3.358 0.93923318 0.80974198 Page I DCPP Mediar1 Ground Motion

..............

........ --....... ----............... ....... ---....... _._ .............

._ 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 --0> <( 1.0 Cf) 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 1 ....... \ I \ I \ I \ I I \ I \ I x x \ >', I x \ I x x \ I x \ \ /X)I. x XX \ )( x \ \ x\ 10 frequency (Hz) \ \ \ ....... x ....... ---100 Informat i on (pages 503/1000) is wit hi n scope of F O I A and should be released. Mun son, Clifford From:Mun so n , Clifford Sent:4 M ay 2015 17:44:31 +0000 T o:Graizer , Vladimi r

Subject:

dcpp-scenario.pptx Attachments:dcpp-scenar i o.pptx Slide with one of the scenario SA for DCPP. C l iff Mun son, Clifford From:Mun so n , Clifford Sent:23 Apr 2 015.18:56:

1 2 +0000 To: Graiz e r , Vladimir Cc:Ake , Jon;John Stamatko s;Hill , Brittain;Ja ckson, Di a n e

Subject:

Diablo GMM for Lo ca l Sour ces Pr ese ntation Attachments:Diablo GMM_Local.pptx Vlad, Attached are a few slides for Monday. Thanks , Cliff SWUS GMM for DCPP April 2:3, 2015 SWUS GMM Notation T a bl e 1-1: Notation used in HID, Part II: DCPP. T Period (s eco n ds) M Moment magnitude NML Normal sources (-120

-60) REV Reverse sources, including Reverse-Oblique (REV-OBL);

(30 s rakes 150) SS Str i ke-sl ip sources, including Normal-Ob l i que; (-180 s rake< -120 , -60 < rake < 30 , and 150 < rake s 180) F NM L style of fault in g (F NML=1 for NML, 0 otherwise)

F Rv style of faulting (F Rv=1 for REV , 0 otherwise)

Z roR Depth to top of rupture (km) D ip Fau l t d ip (degrees) w Dow n-dip rupture width (km) L Rupture length (km) R RuP Rupture distance (km) R is Joyner-Boore d i stance (km) R x Ho ri zontal distance from top of rupture measured perpendicular to str i ke (km) R v Ho riz ontal distance from center o f rupture measured parallel to strike (km) f Hw Hanging Wall factor (1 55 To ta l sigma W i dth SWUS GMM Distance Notations Strike-slip faulting Reverse or normal faulting, hanging-wall site : R x=R ib (po si tive) : l ( )! I D i p Fault R x (positive)

S ur face R rup = Closest distance to rupturing fault plane (slant distance)

S ite Rjb =Closest horizontal distance to vertical projection of the rupture R x= Closest horizontal distance to top of rupture Surface SWUS

-DCPP

  • DCPP. median. ground motion models separated into two. sets -Nearby faults -Distant faults
  • Up to 31 Common form median models for nearby faults -Hosgri rupture model -Outward-Vergent rupture model -Southwest-Vergent rupture n1odel -Northeast-Vergent rupture rr1odel -Irish Hills-Estero Bay {IHEB) Source Zone
  • Five NGA-West 2 GMPEs (+ 3 additional epistemic for each= 15 total models) used for distant sources Logic Tree for Median at Nearbv Faults 'J.o u r c f' O l n.m u M f'n l e ll ru ti v 1tv (h for ( r>'11m 0fl f!Jlll'm A rl1 11 i h 1  : u o 1s11 t r!V:\UI oas1 H t'l.'4 111 1 of 5 HW models tf l lf*I assigned to each H'W l ( Example for PGA ll N3[ .1 base model branch ll!N l (ll f H n 5 (lJ ( 11 11 1 1 1 t ll f Ulll ll vvS I l 1 r v2 1 C t>tll 1 .. H..,.J llJ 0 H N't (l} tr.H U) U2[0020) l lW!i[l] Al a 23 (oou 1 lf Ai 4 (1)
  • 1 1 1 1 f\ tl.2."1[0024) II a2s coon 1 l f:l'Y l(JJ I
  • ll JV S (tl No directivity adjustment 1227 (0011) tr NZ (l) 1 2 8 (0041) I M'l l ll I lt l'>(O OU) 11.N l (l] tl'.30[1) 019) 11#4 ll) 02i J 1-t W l (l) R 1 1 trnc d l oo 1 moo r o nn ° 11 0 11 0 1 Base Model T he f unctional form o f the DCPP ba se model GMPEs i s given in E q. 2-1: Ln ( SA BASE (M , R RuP, Z T 0 R, F , T)) = a 0 (T)-a 2 (T)R RUP + a i (T)Z roR + a 1 2 0 (T)F Rv + ( a 4 (T) +a 5 (T)(M -5)) In ( + a: (T) )-a 9 (T)F NML + -a 1 (T) +a 2 (T)(M -5.5) for M < 5.5 a 1 (T)(M -6.5) for5.5 < M < 6.5 a 3 (T)(M -6.5) for M > 6.5 (Eq. 2-1) Each of 31 models has 9 coefficients which are unique for each period Some. periods do. not use all 31 models Coefficient a 9 is different for each period but same for all 31 models Base Model Coefficients for f=lO Hz Weight ID ao. a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6 a7 as alO HW branch (T =0.1 s) Mode l 1 1.37939 0.208505 1.22538 -0.20679 -1.07715. 0.221829 5.79698. 0.1 10195 0.108741 0.046582 3 0.213802 Model 2 2.08907 -0.03872 0.288456 -0.29772 -1.50424 0.285801 6.32318 0.073587 0.2 1 2603 0.321285 4 0.026091 Mode l 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mode l 4 1.42017 0.229463 1.26391 -0.18665 -1.0 1908 0.158087 5.54758 0.097386 0.164283 0.40946 5 0.045412 T able 2-1: Per i od dependent a , coefficients for F ..... Mode l 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Model 6. 2.1 1 812 0.018214. 0.601 -0.2 4 12. -1.43939 0.229396 6.44111 0.099093 0.109868 0.187477 2 0.090946 Period (sec) ... Mode l 7. 1.4 1 537 -0.15843. 0.184346 -0.34334. -1.35195 0.248723 4.83625 0.043879 0.156605 0.283 4 96 3 0.106704 0.01 0.132 Mod el 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 O.G2 0.132 Model 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0.03 0.132 Mode l 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mode l 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Model 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.05 0.132 ---o:n 7r:; n 132 c 0.1 0.132 D 0.1:. 0.132 Mode l 13 1.7 1 824 -0.12097 0.04563 1 -0.41779 -1.52157 0.365292 4.77083 0.078932 0.322164 0.070163 1 0.021841 0.2 0.122 Mode l 14 1.7 08 4 2 -0.06499. 0.933162 -0.38 4 2 4. -1.33162 0.272438 5.4551 7 0.032357 0.279844 0.026501 5 0.025405 --0.25 0.113 Mode l 15 1.35801 0.227881. 0.8012 1 -0.07749. -0.98918 0.17225 5.8 1 5 1 4 0.1 50695 0.109848 0.582348 5 0.033783 0.3 0.104 Mode l 16 0.135637 0.55761 0.680404 -0.02608 -0.46462 0.206783 3.94907. 0.1 56003 O.Q13575 0.291355 2 0.023577 0.4 0.095 Mode l 17 2.5824 -0.08858 0.0 7052 1 -0.46784 -1.82498. 0.330311 7.36546. 0.042 1 5 0.176967 0.092855 2 0.070407 o.s 0.095 Mode l 18 1.29169 0.160183 0.256293 0.000711 -1.1438 1 0.1 58694 5.98039 0.044523 -0.02714 0.395977 4 0.039704 Mode l 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mode l 20 1.13328 -0.017 1 4 0.9 1 7788 -0.1 0 7 39 -1.0098 1 0.120088 5.50958 0.1 373 1 7 0.049162 0.265754 3 0.038353 0.75 0.086 1 0.077 1.5 0.068 2 0.058 Mode l 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.039 Mode l 22 1.83279. -0.18253 0.87006. -0.30695 -1.42278 0.358787 5.59443 0.083036 0.262303 -0.10329 5 0.014387. 4 0.020 Mode l 23 1.72167 0.036879. 0.069845 -0.38891. -1.44441 0.360783 4.97423 0.1 116 1 8 0.331344 0.047177 4 0.015225 5 0.000 Mode l 24 1.48175 0.160589 1.03484 -0.19933 -1.0126 0.130542 6.03483 0.063056 0.096106 0.269177 3 0.013056 7.5 0.000 Mod el 25 1.2764 0.148 1 04 1.1556 -0.29942 -1.09622 0.264494 4.3 1 6 4 6. 0.164 1 8 0.31363 0.031954 1 0.02341 10 0.000 Mode l 26 1.69432 0.364288 0.5 1 2214 -0.08895 -1.141 72 0.219346 6.92161 0.168 786 0.183995 0.120731 5 0.026731 Mode l 27 0.997811 -0.01465 0.8 1 0009 -0.02759 -1.02663 0.176784 4.90505 0.028728 0.007867 0.261264 2 0.018086 Mode l 28 1.67589 0.240931 0.3965 -0.12191 -1.23775 0.180479 6.61248 0.130284 0.073181 0.315853 3 0.088166 Mode l 29 0.4 4 296 0.248235 0.4 4 678 1 0.209578 -0.71921 0.089693 5.0781 0.1 08356 -0.06265 0.39772 1 0.030853 Mode l 30 -0.09241 0.111952 0.391203 -0.05354 -0.61128 0.125671 2.84165 0.131 171 0.028781 0.323736 4 0.009617 Model 31 1.03204 0.190696. 0.6 4 0938 -0.10285. -0.96101 0.107609 5.67792 0.1 540 4 8 0.050723 0.282794 1 0.024445 sum.

Hanging Wall Effect I it R x i s pos i tive I (Eq. 2-2a) where (Eq. 2-2 b) (Eq. 2-2 c)

Hanging Wall Coefficients Table 2-2: Coeffic i ents for HW Factor Model. Period Model-dependent Cl Coefficients Coefficients held Constant (sec) for all five models Model Model Model Model Model C 2 C 3 C 4 HWl HW2 HW3 HW4 HWS 0.01 0.868 0.982 1.038 1.095 1.209 0.2160 2.0289 0.1675 0.02 0.867 0.987 1.046 1.106 1.226 0.2172 2.0260 0.1666 0.03 0.856 0.997 1.067 1.138 1.278 0.2178 2.0163 0.1670 0.05 0.840 1.027 1.121 1.215 1.402 0.2199 1.9870 0.1699 0.0 75 0.857 1.041 1.133 1.226 1.410 0.2218 1.9906 0.1817 0.1 0.848 1.040 1.135 1.231 1.422 0.2213 1.9974 0.1717 0.15 0.868 1.009 1.080 1.150 1.292 0.2169 2.0162 0.1814 0.2 0.850 1.005 1.082 1.160 1.315 0.2131 1.9746 0.1834 0.25 0.868 0.985 1.044 1.102 1.219 0.1988 1.9931 0.1767 0.3 0.839 0.974 1.041 1.108 1.242 0.2019 2.0179 0.1658 0.4 0.780 0.934 1.011 1.089 1.243 0.2090 2.0249 0.1624 0.5 0.741 0.902 0.982 1.063 1.223 0.2053 2.0041 0.1719 0.75 0.613 0.869 0.997 1.125 1.380 0.1713 1.8697 0.1866 1 0.621 0.788 0.872 0.955 1.123 0.1571 1.8526 0.3143 1.5 0.506 0.662 0.740 0.818 0.974 0.1559 1.8336 0.3195 2 0.391 0.537 0.609 0.682 0.828 0.1559 1.7996 0.3246 3 0.128 0.245 0.304 0.362 0.480 0.1616 1.6740 0.3314 4 0 0.034 0.088 0.138 0.231 0.1616 1.6740 0.3314 5 0 0 0 0 0.040 0.1616 1.6740 0.3314 7.5 0 0 0 0 0 0.1616 1.6740 0.3314 10 0 0 0 0 0 0.1616 1.6740 0.3314 DCPP Median Ground Motion Southwestern Unite d States Ground Motion Character i zation SSHAC Leve l 3 TECHNICAL R EP ORT -Rev. 2 2.5 DCPP Ground Motion for the Median The DCPP ground mot io n model for the median from RE V and SS sources is gi v en by ln (SA(g)) =Ln ( SA BASE (J\tl. R R UP' Z TOR'F. T)) + f HWO\!f., Dip fV , R x.RJB , R RUP,ZroR) (Eq. 2-3) + foJR ss (M , R ,o.,,, R , R or SS events I No di r ectivity J , R Y, W , L.D;p) for REV events The DCPP gro u nd mot io n model for the med i an from NML sources is g iv en by I n( SA(g)) = Ln (SA BASE ( M. RR UP, Z TOR, F. T)) + f HW ( M' Dip. ff 'R x. R JB. R RUP' Z TOR) (Eq. 2-4)

Results for f=l and 10 Hz 2.0 --+-'-__.__

....................

__.__ ....................

......__ ....................

......__ .................................................................

__.__ ...........

-+-1 .8 1.6 O> 1.4 -<( 1.2 Cf) c 1.0 co i5 0.8 Q) f=l Hz *

  • E o.6 * * *
  • 0.4 --.!. .. -----------

-*---.. ----!_ _. -----0.2 * * * * * * * * * * * *

  • 0.0 ---..-.-.......................

-.-.......................

-.-.......................

-.......................

-.-..-............

....-.--0 10 20 30 med ian model no. 2.0 ............

-...................................

__ ............

___ .........................

___ __.__ .......................

__ ..._._ ...........

__ 1.8 1.6 O> 1.4 -<( 1.2 Cf) c 1.0 co i5 0.8 Q) E o.6 0.4 0.2

  • f=lO Hz * * * * * * * *
  • * * * ** * * *
  • 0.0 -t--.--.-..-....-.-....,........,-.....-

............

....,........,.-.-

.......................

-.-..-..,........,.......,........,-.....-

.......................

--0 10 20 30 median mode l no. Parameter Value Mag 8.1 ZroR 2.0 km RRUP 10.2 km RJB 10.0 km Dip 85 Width 15.0 km Rx 10.0 km F SS Total Sigma Model 3. Total Sigma Model for DCPP 3.1 Structure of the Logic Tree Model M-Dependent 1 0 (See Eq. 3-1) Epistemic U n ce rta i n ty H igh (95% percentile) 0.3 Cen tral 0.55 L ow (5*.4 ercentile) 0 1 5 (Set? Tobie J 1) F igu r e 3-1: Logic Tree for Tota l Sigma at DCPP. Part i ally Non-Ergodic Directivity Adjustmen t Yes-C entral 0.0 No 1.0 Aleat ory Distribution Form Mi x ture Model 08 Accounts for heavy tails Normal 0.2 (See Eq 3-l)

Total Sigma Model 3.2 DCP P Tota l Sigma M odel The fol l owi ng values are prov ide d obtain the total sigma as a funct io n o f Magn i tude, O$$(M), for hazard ca l c ulations using: f (M-5) ( ) CT1+--* Uz-U1 CTss(M) = 2 CTz fo1*M< 7.0 forM 7.0 The period-dependent values of 0'1 and a 2 are listed in Table 3-1: 3-1: Epistemic Distr i bution for O' ss for DCPP. Period (sec) Lo w Bran ch Cen tra l Branch CH <n CH en 0.0 1 0.456 0.390 0.576 0.495 0.02 0.457 0.394 0.577 0.498 0.03 0.458 0.396 0.577 0.499 0.05 0.460 0.402 0.578 0.504 0.075 0.4 6 1 0.407 0.578 0.507 0.1 0.462 0.411 0.579 0.510 0.1 5 0.46 4 0.4 1 6 0.580 0.514 0.2 0.465 0.4 1 9 0.58 1 0.5 1 7 0.25 0.465 0.422 0.581 0.519 0.3 0.466 0.424 0.58 1 0.520 0.4 0.466 0.427 0.582 0.522 0.5 0.467 0.429 0.582 0.524 0.7" ..... --v.4.:SL u.::>o., U.::>.L I c 1 0.468 0.434 0.583 0.529 1.:> -A_..., n .d'.:t7 n <;.'.:t1 2 0.469 0.439 0.584 0.532 3 0.470 0.441 0.585 0.534 4 0.470 0.441 0.585 0.534 5 0.470 0.441 0.585 0.535 7.5 0.471 0.442 0.585 0.535 1 0 0.471 0.442 0.586 0.536 (Eq. 3-1) High Branch CH 02 0.699 0.614 0.699 0.61 4 0.700 0.615 0.700 0.616 0.701 0.617 0.702 0.618 0.703 0.620 0.703 0.621 0.704 0.622 0.704 0.623 0.704 0.625 0.705 0.626 v. --"""8 0.706 0.629 ... 1 v:031 0.707 0.632 0.707 0.633 0.707 0.634 0.707 0.634 0.708 0.635 0.708 0.635 For M=8.1 ass (low) 0.434 (0.15) ass (central)=

0.592 (0.55) ass (high) = 0.629 (0.30)

To Do List

  • Program more periods
  • Validate results for a examples
  • Implement with Roland's codes
  • Run PSHA for major sources
  • Distant sources -NGA West 2 GMPEs already part of Roland's codes Sent:l7 Apr2015 19:55:15 +0000 To:Munson, Cliffo rd

Subject:

Focus Area Questions for DCPP Public Meeting_jpa.docx Attachments:

Focus Area Qu es ti ons for DCPP Publi c Meeting_jpa.docx Cliff-Here is a shot at adding some additional language to 2 of the questions. We can discuss Monday-Jon Sent:28 May 2015 19: 10:07 +0000 To:Brock, Kathryn;Thornas , Brian

Subject:

FW:

t -C:LH!.ln'

--A vai l ability to s upport Diablo Canyon Oral Argument s FYl-1. have. not been asked to support yet, but the potential exists (unfortunately

). Jon From: Markley, Michael Sent: Wednesday, May 27 , 2015 3:41 PM To: Kock, Andrea; Fland ers, Scott; Ake, Jon; Munson, Clifford Cc: Lingam, Siva; Wilson, George; Lund, Louise

Subject:

FW: Ai I ORIQEY-CdENt --Availab i lity to support Diablo Canyon Oral Arguments Andrea , Scott, et.al Heads-up. It is like l y that you and/or your will soon rece i ve requests to support the hear i ngs. Mike From: Lindell , Joseph Sent: Wednesday, May 27 , 2015 11:53 AM To: Wentzel, Michael; Cook, Christopher; Hill, Brittain; Rikhoff, Jeffrey; Dozier, Jerry; Oesterle, Eric; Lingam, Siva; Sebrosky, Joseph; Bamford, Peter; Markley, Michael; Manoly, Kamal; Li, Yong Cc: Roth(OGC), David; Young, Mitzi; Straus, Dan i el; Kanatas, Catherine; Mizuno, Beth; Wachutka, Jeremy; Uttal, Susan

Subject:

Affe"'l41!

1 eetrn I --Ava i lability to support D i ab l o Canyon Ora l Arguments All , The Atomic Safety & Licens i ng Board is plann ing on holding oral arguments for several pending Diablo Canyon contentions, including:

1) License renewal contentions A and B -analysis of alternat i ves to license renewal 2) License renewal contentions C and D -SAMA contentions
3) The de facto license amendment issues referred by the Comm i ssion to the Board in CLl-15-14 The Board plans on holding the arguments all together , one after the other. The proposed dates are July 8 , 9 , or 10. It is possible all the arguments will only take one day , but they may take more. than one day. The Board i s considering either holding the. arguments here in Rockville or in San Luis Obispo. W e are looking. for Staff support, both in preparing for. arguments , as well. as. Staff members who are able to attend the argument.

Please note that not everyone on this list needs to be available to attend the argument.

If we end up going to San Luis Obispo , we will probably only bring a limi ted number of Staff to support.

What is your availability on July a. 9 , and 10 , and what is your availability regarding Rockville vs .. San Luis Obispo? Sincerel y , Yosef Lindell Attorney U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiss i on Office of the General Counsel OWFN 15 015 301-415-14 7 4 N&*l&&i. l"lstie e: ::a il a: :8 etR)

,._8)' HRl8iR 08Rfi"8Rl i 81 °M 8FR8)' *I i i Al is 0 tli5Ri)' '0'wrk Plddbtt 111are11a1.

OU 1101 dlsclose outs i de 141"18 n i tl wot 8011::: :ieeie:: etf51ue s 81:

Sent:22 May 2015 20:07:34 +0000 To l (b J(5 l I

Subject:

FW:

Code Attachme n ts:Point Source Mode l.zip jjj From:. W eave r , Th omas S e nt: Frida y, Ma y 22. 2015 I : 0 I PM To: Ak e, Jon

Subject:

RE: Code J on, Auach e d is a GU1 ve rsion. J can se nd a n on-GUI version if yo u would lik e. Th e r e i s a draft us e r manual includ e d with the fil es I am se nding. Call if y ou hav e any questi o n s. Th o ma s ----Ori ginal M F rom: Ake , Jon S e nt: F r i day, Ma y 22. 2015 11 :58 AM T o: Wea ve r , Th omas Subj ec t: Cod e Thom as-Do you have a matlab script for producing an FAS w ith Boore's s imple se i sm olo g ical mode l? Including which unit s for input s? l s so ca n you shoo t me a co p y? T h x J o n S e nt from NRC Bla c kB e rry Jon Ak e l (b)(6)

User Manual: NRC Seismologic Model Software by The SGSEB Three Stooges Thomas W eaver, Scott Stova ll & .Jon Ake Scptembrr 1 4, 2012 Contents 1 U s i ng NRC Se i smo l ogic Mode l Softwar e 1.1 File . . . . . . . . 1.2 Wo r ks h eets . . . . . 1.2.1 Project Information 1.2.2 Input .. 1.2.2.1 Earthquake l\fagnitude 1.2.2.2 Somce to Sit e Di sta nc e 1.2.2.3 1.2.2.4 1.2.2.5 1.2.2.6 1.2.2.7 1.2.2.8 1.2.2.9 Frequency R ange . R es pon se Spcctruru So u r ce Param eters . . . Geometr i cal Sp r eading Si t e Amplification Diminution . . . . Seismic Attenuat i on 1.2.2.10 Somcc D uration 1.2.2.11 Pa t h Duration .. 1.2.3 P a t.h and Site Effects G raphs 1.2.4 Simulated Tim e Hi s tori es 1.3 Ca l c u late 1.4 Resu l ts . 1.5 H e lp 2 Poin t Sourc e Mode l 3 Random Vibration Th eo r y 4 Tim e Hi s tory Simu l ation A NRC SMS Validation 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 9 10 11 12 List of Figures 1.1 In p ut w orks h ee t ................ . 1.2 G eo m et ri ca l s pr ea din g: eas t e rn Nor th A me r i ca. 1.3 G e n e ric s i te am plifi cat i on ............ . 1.4 Thr ee seg m e nt a t te nua t i o n fun c ti o n an d ass o c i ated input for N RC SMS. 1.5 P at h dur a tiou for easte rn No r t h Am e ri ca fr o m 13 oo r e (200 5). . ..... ii 2 4 5 6 7 Chapter 1 Using NRC Seismologic Model Software The NRC Seismologic Model Software (N RC SMS) i s based on the work published by Bo ore (2003) on the s imulation of ground motion u s ing the stoc h astic method. In addit ion, SMS IM , t h e DOS based For tran program developed by Boore (2005) was used to assist in development of NRC SlVIS. NRC SMS uses a menu and too l ba r structure to navigate through the program as you input and view data used for computing Fourier amp litud e spectra (FAS) and structural response spectra (RS), calculate FAS and RS, and view results from calc ulation s. Each menu option i s decribecl below. 1.1 File The File menu contains options for open i ng a previously created *.mat fi l e, savi ng your input and results as a *.mat file. or export ing your input and r esults to a text file (*.txt) or Exce l fi l e (*.xis). Corresponding bu ttons are located in the toolbar for opening and saving *.mat files. 1.2 Worksheets The Worksheets menu i s used to access worksheets for inputing proj ect data requ ir ed for calculation of Fourier am plitud e and response spectra, and data r eq uir ed to calculate sim ulat ed time hi sto rie s. In addition, this menu option allows you to see t h e path and s i te effects funct i ons that will be used for calculat in g the FAS based on th e input you have provided.

1.2.1 Proj ec t Inform at ion The Pr o j ect Information worksheet a llow s you to document important project details such as the proj ect n ame , project i dent i ficat i on, and addit i onal information you find u sefu l for i dentifying the assoc i ated calc ul at i ons. 1.2.2 Input Th e I np u t worksheet i s used to define parameters r eq uir ed for calculat iu g Fouri er amplitude and r esponse spectra. This worksheet is s hown in Fi g ur e 1.1. Th e Input worksheet is d i v id e d into 1 11 sec tions s u c h as E ar thq u a k e Magni t ud e, Som ce to Sit e Di st a n ce , Fr e quenc y R a n ge , e t c. Input p a r a m et er s fo r eac h of t h ese sec t i on s a r e d i sc u ss ed b e l ow. ) ffRC SMS_ v01 file W oricsheets c.la.lat<

ResU.IS Helo ..J .... -

E.arthqu.a ke M.agnitu de---M i nimum f6o 1.1ax 1 m u m. l"""6.'Q No of Magnit u des: 11 r-Source to Site Dlstance>-Minimum: l10 k m Maximum j1o km Number of Dista n ces. 11 Frequency R.ange Minimum Jo:o1 H;,; Maximum: j100 H z Response Spectrum r Ca l culate Response Spect r um Co rr ecti o n* je o o r e and J oy n e r (1984) ::J Damping I 0.05 Source Spectral Shape j&n g l a Com et -B r u n e :::J Stress D r o p* j100 b ars De n s rt r. g k c V elocity , Vs: 136 kmls Geometrical Spreading 1No of IJne Segme r¥s lower ":lower , n Sour°' IDS<:!! (loo) 1 1 70 0 3 130 0.5 0 0 0 Site Ampflfic.atlon I Genenc Ha r d Rock Dinlnutlon Type of Fiher jkappa J kap pa. J 0.006 sec fmax lsQ.O Hz ::J Seismic Attenu.atio No of Line Segment s-n Fre q uency S l ope Alten u ation r1 IT1 I -2.0 3 ITs6 11 !"02 12: r-°-6 12: !To' lo:92 l8a S eis mic Ve l oc ity f'35 kml s Du r a ti on Weigh t , w_a f1o l Source Duration Du r ation Wei g ht , w_b lO r Path Duration No. o f l ine S egmem s l4 0 0 1 0 70 1 30 0 9.6 000 7.8 00 0 Slope of last Segment J004 F i gur e 1.1: I nput workshe e t u s e d to d e fin e param e t e r s r e quir e d for calcu l a ting fou r ier a mp l itude and respon s e sp e c t ra 1.2.2.1 Earthquake Magn itud e Earthq u ak e !\.fa n gitude allows you to calcu l at e F AS and R S for a range of e art h quak e magnitude s. F A S and R S are c alcula te d at the mi n imum m a gnitude when the numb e r o f ma g nitu d es is s e t equa l t o 1. Wh e n t h e numb e r of ma g ni t ud e s i s set equal to 2 , F AS and R S will b e c a lcu l a t e d a t the s p e cifi e d minimum an d maximum m a gnitude s. FAS and RS will b e ca lc u la te d at e v e nly s pa ce d m a gn i t ud es wh e n th e numb e r o f m ag n i t ud es i s se t e qu a l to 3 o r g r eate r. Thu s , if t h e m i n i mum m ag n i t ud e i s 5 , t h e m ax i mum m a gni t u d e i s 7 and t h e numb e r of ma g ni t ud es i s 3> FAS a nd RS will b e c a lcul a t e d fo r m a g n itud es of 5 , 6, a ud 7. 1.2.2.2 Sou r ce to Site Distance Simil a r to E a rthqu a k e M ag ui t ucl c, FAS a ud RS ca n b e ob t ai n ed for a raug e of Sour ce t o S i t e Di s tanc es. 2 1.2.2.3 Fr e qu e ncy Range Frequency Rang e is used to defin e the m i nimum and maximum frequency for which F AS and RS a r e calcu l ated. FAS and RS va l ues are caclutcd at 340 poi n ts per log cycle. \i\T h en the m i n i mum frequency i s set eq u al to 0.1 and the maximum frequenc y is set equa l to 100 , FAS an RS will be calcu l aLcd at 1020 points. 1.2.2.4 R e spons e Sp e ctrum Calculation of a response spectrum i s optional and cons i sts of three parts. the option c h ec k box, t h e oscillator correction option , and t h e decimal damping va l ue, ( (t ypica ll y 0.05 for 5% damping).

If you desire to obtain a response spectrum, the checkbox for " Calculate Response Spectrum" must be checked. Th e response spectrum or spectra will then be calculated for each magnitude and source to site d i stance specified us i ng ra.nclom vibration theory (RVT). *w hen using RVT to compute response spectra, a shaking durat i on va l ue , T r ms, is used to comput e the root mean square (rms) spectra l accelcratiou values. T herms dura t i on i s equa l to t h e gTotmd mot i on durat i on plus a corrected osc ill ator du ration as expressed in Equat i on 1.1. ( /'n ) T rms = Tg m +To --'Yn +a (1.1) W here T, 9111 is t he ground motion duration, T 0 is th e oscillator duration with T 0 = 1/(21T f r(), / = T 9 m/T 0 , and n and a arc constants.

The values used for the constants n and a a.re det e rm i ned based on the oscillato r correct i on option c h os e n. Whe n c h oosing the Boore and Joyner {1994) co rr ect i on n = 3 and a = 1/3. If the L iu an d Pezes hk (1999) osc i llator correct i on i s chosen, n = 2 and a= [271" (i -1 1 2 mom2 (1.2) where mo , m 1 and m2 are moments of the squared spectra l amplitude.

Additional details on RVT are p r ov i de d in Chapter 3. 1.2.2.5 Source Paramet e r s The Source Paramet e r s sect i on allows you to specify the type o f spectral shape to be used in calculating th e FAS (e.g. s i ngle corner model or two corner mode l), the st r ess drop for the single corn e r mode l , so urc e d e nsi ty, and source s h ea r wave v e loc i ty. Wh e n selecting a two corner model, the earthquake magnitude is soley used to determine t h e corner frequencie

s. Additiona l details on each spectra.I shape are provided in Chapter 2. 1.2.2.6 Geometrical Spreading The Geom e trical Spreading sec tion defines the function we use for describiug how wav e amp l itude dec r eases with dista n ce from the source. The funct i on may cons i st of mu l t i p l e segments as shown i n Equat i on 1.3. 3

R$R2 Z(R2) (!ff f 2 R2 $ R $ R 3 Z(R) = (1.3) Z(f4) ('Ji r; f4 R. In eastern North America , Atkinson and Boore (1995) and Frankel ct, a l. (1996) s ugg est uin g the three segment, function s h own in Figure 1.2. To implement t,he eastern North America geometrical s preading relation.ship, we e nt e r a value of 3 for the number of lin e segme nt s. The values Ri, R2 , R J, nlo n2 and n3 for Equation 1.3 which correspond to the lin e segme nts shown in Fi gure 1.2 are 1 km , 70 km, 130 km, 1 , 0, 0.5 , respectively.

O> c: "O co (I) 0.1 0. 0.03 Cf) ro .g 0.02 (i) E 0 (I) (9 0.01 10 1/70 1/70 (130/R)o.s 20 30 100 200 300 Distance (km) Figure 1.2: Geometrical s pr ead ing function for eastern North Am e ric a (Boore 2003). 1.2.2. 7 S i te A mplifi cat ion The Site Amplification section requires yo u to select a site ampli fi cation function used t o quantify site effects. The opt ions cons i st of "Gener i c H a rd Rock" , "Generic Soft Rock", "No Amplification

", and "User D efined". Th e " G eneric H ard R ock" and *'Generic Soft Ro ck" ampl ifi cation functions are s hown in Fi gures 1.3. \i\lh en "No Amplification" is selected , the amplification valu e is 1 at all frequencies.

When select in g "Use r D efi n ed" , you will be prompted to se l ect a *.mat file that contains data used to define t h e amplification function.

This file must h ave frequency val u es in column 1 and amp lifi cat i on va lu es in column 2. o headings should be placed above the frequency and ampflicat io n values. 4 c: 0 *;:; 4 3 Q. E <t 2 0.01 1.2.2.8 Di m inution -G eneric Soft Rock -G eneric Hard Rock 0.1 1 Frequency (Hz) 10 Figure 1.3: Generic s it e amplification.

100 You have two options for implementing the diminution function (high frequency filter). Th e first option is to utilize kappa, " and the second option is to use a !max filter. Equatious that define the diminution function are provided below. D(J) = (1.4) D(f) = [l + (f I !ma x)8 r 1 1 2 (1.5) A "'va lu e of 0.04 has been used for coas tal California sites (Boor e and J oyner 1997, RC 2012), and a va l ue o f 0.006 may be appropriate for sites i n eastern No r th America. 1.2.2.9 Se ismic Attenuation Attenuation can be modeled as a three segment piecewise function. An examp l e of this th r ee ment fw1ction is shown in Figure 1.4 a l ong with the correspond in g frequ e ncy, s l ope , and atten u ation values that are used to define the function in NRC SMS. Often, suffic i ent data is only availab l e to define the third segment (slope 2 segment) of the function.

For this case , a single function is u sed to define t h e attenuation r e l ationship. A sing l e attenuation function i s implemented in NRC SMS by selecting a value of 1 for t h e number of segments in the drop down menu. B oore {2003) plott e d a n umber of atten u ation functions for the slope 2 segment and two of these functions are provided in Equation 1.6. These two equation were obtained t h ro u gh best fit equations to the data presented by Boore (2003). vVh en impl ement in g a function show n in Equation 1.6 , the number of lin e segments is c ho sen to be 1, Lrl = 1 Hz , the s l ope i s eq ual to the expone n t (e.g. s lop e= 0.45) and Q i s equal to t h e coefficient (e.g. Q = 180). 5 10 3 { 1430J 0*35 Q(f) = 1 80/0.4 5 208!0.78 Cen t ra l U.S. (Boore 2003) C aliforn i a Californ i a (Boore 2003) 111 ft 2 a Se ilmlc A ttenua tion {fr 1, Qr 1) No of L!ne Segmerts 133 FiequeACy Slope Atl&!Klatlofl 102 r1 ro;-I -2 03 [2a6 **************-

........ 11 l"0"2 12 ros . , , , ,\ lo92 ITs , \ Setsmic Veloc it y 135' km's 10 1 , , 10*2 10*1 1 0° 10 1 10 2 Fre q Figure 1.4: Three segment attenuation func t ion and associated input for NRC Sl\1S. 1.2.2.10 Sour ce Dur at i o n (1.6) The source duration is a fw1c t ion of the corner frequen c y or corn e r frequencies , depending on the poin t so urc e model u sed. Equation 1.7 i s u sed to calc u late the so urc e duration.

For the si n g le corn e r model , Wa = 1 and l a is the corn e r frequen cy. When Wa = 1. Wb = 0. (1.7) 1.2.2.11 P ath Du ration Th e pa t h duration can b e modeled u s ing a multi seg ment e d lin e. F or eastern North America, B oore h as us e d a p at h duration fun ct i on w i t h four segments as shown in Fi gure 1.5. A single p at h duration begining a t t h e source l ocation ha ving a s l op e of 0.05 i s generally con s idered approp ri ate 6 for so ur ces in C a liforni a. Gi ve n a. s in g l e seg m e n t, th e numb e r o f lin e se gm e n ts i s se t e qu a l t o 1 a.nd a n ini t ial s our ce to s i te di sta n ce a nd dur at i o n of 0 i s input into t h e fir st row of t h e t a bl e. 15 -10 (..) Q) (/) -c 0 :;::; ro :::I 0 5 0 0 50 100 150 Path Duration No of line Segments r-4 SMu*S..Ollirce hfl!Ju' ..... --1----.-;;c.r. C-) 200 250 0 0 10 70 0 96000 130 7 8000 300 D istance (km) Fi g ur e 1.5: P a th dur a tion for eas t e rn N orth Am e ric a from B o or e (2005). 1.2.3 P at h a nd Sit e Eff ects Graph s Th e P at h a nd Sit e Eff ects \iVork s h eet s how s pl ot s of t h e ge om et ri c al s pr ea din g func t i on , s i te amplifi c a t i on fun ct ion, diminution fun ct i o n a nd se i s mic a t te nu a tion fun c tion u se d in ca lcul at ing t h e FAS. Th ese pl o t s a.re upd ate d as c h a ng es to th e Input W o rk s h ee t a r e ma d e. 1.2.4 Simu l ated T im e Hi sto ri es The Simulat e d Tim e Hi st ori es vVork s h ee t is c urrently no t fun c tional. U pon i mplem e ntation , this worksh eet will b e u s ed t o provid e inpu t for d e v e loping tim e hist o ri es t h at sp ect rall y m a t c h a given FAS. 7 1.3 Calculate Th e Calculate menu opt i on is u sed to initiate calcu l ation of FAS a nd RS as well as s imul ated time hist o ri es. 1.4 Results Th e R es ult s m e nu opt i on i s u sed to v i ew FAS and RS or s i mula ted t i me histor i es which h ave been calcu l ated. 1.5 Help Th e H el p menu o ption provid es access t o this us e r manual. 8 Chapt er 2 Point Source Model 9 Chapt er 3 Random Vibration Theory 10 Chapter 4 Time History Simulation 11 App en dix A NRC SMS Validation 12 MATLAB 5.0 MAT-file , P l atform: PCWIN , Created on: Fri Jan 04 12: 03: 27 2013 OMCi xilc " O'd" CJD

CH!?<-? !DD@* *

  • P>
  • oL*u
  • u
  • tt./\ * '1C3 *
  • I*>@-'\* '/DD!
  • o * 'JH
  • I * &O

{-1 *

  • 0 * -FbD Sent:22 May 201520:07:14

+0000 To:Hee sze l , D av id;Seber, Do ga n;Mun so n , Clifford Cc: J ackson , Diane.

Subject:

RE: Columbia GMM codes Thank s Da v i d From: H eesze l , Da vid Sent: Friday. May 22, 2015 2:29 PM To: Seber , Dogan: Munson, Clifford Cc: Ake, Jon; Jackson , Diane

Subject:

Columbia GMM codes Hi All, Attached are two file s that contain some r esu lt s from my Columbia GMM software.

Both fi l es are for a s ingle fau l t at 8 mag11itude s from 5 (fa ult 1 )-8(fault8). ln t hi s case the fau lt is a vertica l strike-slip l oca t ed with lOkm away that comes to the s urface. Th e r ed dot s a r e individual rea l ization s of the SA at th e branch l e v e l. Th e so lid b l ack curve i s th e weighted mean SA , and th e da s hed line s are the mean+/-s igma. F or thi s code , we are s impl y u s in g th e middle branch of the normal distributi o n of s igma. The next step i s to get a set of scenario earthquakes that are reali s tic and important to hazard. Perhap s we can discu ss at the Columbia weekly meeting on Thursday.

Thanks, David David He esze l Geophysici s t U.S. NRC , NRO/DSEA/RGS2 Offic e: T-7E28 Mail Stop: T-7F3 Ph o n e: 30 1-415-5066 Sent:25 Mar 2015 20:32: l 8 +0000 To: H eeszel, David

Subject:

Re:

Columbia Ground Motion Model Thanks David looking forward to looking at it next week Jon Sent from NRC BlackBerry Jon Ake l (b)(6) From: Heeszel, David Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 09:26 PM To: Munson, Clifford Cc: Ake, Jon; Jackson, Diane

Subject:

Co l umbia Ground Motion Mode l H i Cliff, I've fin i shed coding up the ground motion model for t he Columbia SS H AC. I can walk you through the program in abou t 20 min if your interested.

Cheers, D avid David Heeszel Geophysicist U.S. NRC, NRO/DSEA/RGS2 Office: T-7E28 Mail Stop: T-7F3 Phone: 301-415-5066 Sent:3 Jun 2015 21:53:57 +0000 To:Seber , D ogan;J ackson, Diane;Munson , Clifford

Subject:

RE:

Columbia Sei s mic. Public Meeting Slides l agree. We should gen tly suggest the SSHAC di sc u ssion be very brief. From: Seber, D ogan Sent: Wednesday , Ju ne 03, 2015 2:41 P M To: Jack son. Diane; Mun son, Clifford Cc: Ak e, Jon

Subject:

F W: Columbia Seismic Public Meeting Slides Quick l y went over the sl ide s. I n SSC , Focu s #2 is mi ss ing (!?). IL is to m e more important to discuss #2 than fau lt s lip rates (#1 ). I wonder why th ey chose t o not prepare s lide s for that. Als o , ca n we t e ll th em to sk ip SS HA C s lid es t o save so me time for more meaningfu l discuss i o ns o n technica l topics. There a r e about 20 s lid es di sc u ssing what SSHAC process i s. -----Ori g inal M From: Difran cesco, Ni c h o la s Sent: W ed n es d ay. Jun e03, 20 15 1:0 1 PM To: Mun so n. Clifford; Seber, Do ga n; Jackson, Dian e Cc: V ega, Franki e; Cho, Esth e r; Ak e, Jon; Shams, Mohamed; Singal. Balwant; Alexander, Ryan; Maier, Bill; Use ldi ng, Lara; Walk e r , Wayne; Burn e ll, Scott; Walsh , Li sa; Kock, Andrea; Monarqu e, Stephen

Subject:

Columbia Seismic Pub l ic Meeting Slides Folks, CGS S e i smic Slid es. For awareness, the Stat e of W ashington a nd D efe n se Nuclear Fa ci li ties Safety Board p l an lo l isten t o th e mee t ing or attend. I nterim ac ti on adds informat i o n about Flex Strategy. Esther, Please add to public ADAMS. Tha nk s, Nick -----O ri ginal M essage-----

From: Wi ll iams, Li sa L. [ma i lto: ll wi ll iams@energy-110rthwes t.com] Sen t: Wedn es d ay, June 03, 2015 1 1:54 AM To: DiF rancesco, Nicholas Cc: Rich Ro ga l s ki

Subject:

M eet ing s lid es Nick. Her e is Energy Northwest's pre se ntation. I have made 20 copies of the s lide s (2 per page) that ram bring1ng with me for handout s. Li sa Sent:20 Apr 2015 15:22:26 +0000 To:DiFrancesco , Nicho l as;Munson, Clifford Cc:Jackson , Diane;De v lin-Gill, Stephanie;Vega , Frankie

Subject:

RE:

Inquiry: Palo Verde P ublic Meetings Dat es I will be on travel the 16-18. Jon. From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 10:24 AM To: Munson, Clifford Cc: Jackson , Diane; Ake, Jon; Devlin-Gill, Stephanie; Vega, Frankie

Subject:

Inquiry: Palo Verde Publ i c Meet i ngs Dates C l iff , et. al. Any preferences or l i mitations for p l ann i ng the Pa l o Verde public meet i ng in m i d-June. Thanks , Nick From: Difrancesco , Nicholas Sent:. Thursday , Apri l 16 , 2015 10:07. AM To:. Munson , Clifford Cc: Ake, Jon; Jackson, Diane; Vega, Frankie; Hill, Brittain; Shams , Mohamed

Subject:

Planning Items -DC Focus Areas and PV Meetings Dates C l iff , I am out PM today and Friday. PG&E Licensing Coordination and NRG Public Meet i ng Prep Frankie is PM backup and has a licensing call with PG&E Friday at 1 pm to discuss NRG technical focus areas as part of the April 28 public meet i ng. For Friday I would like to communicate a few topics for them to begin work on. Perhaps the 1 . ergodic method vs. single-station correction weighting.

Early next week I plan to email a formal request for i ncorporation i nto the meeting notice. Please let us know a couple of focus areas by noon Friday. PV Meeting Date Coordination The l i censee (APS) cannot support meeting unti l the 2 nd week of June. As I recall, I thought we had conflicts starting then with NGA-East Working Group. Let me know i f I can propose any dates in the 2 nd an d 3 r d week of June. Thanks, Nick Senic',i Pro j ect Manage r -Seism i c R eevaluat i on Activities U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuc l ea r. Reacto r Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Divis i on nicholas.difrancesco@nrc

.gov I Tel: (301) 415-1115 Sent:l3Apr201513:59:10+0000 To:Munson, Clifford

Subject:

RE:

Overview of SWUS for PVNGS and DCPP Cliff-L ooks good Jon From: Munson, Clifford Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 3:09 PM To: Graizer, Vladimir Cc: Ake, Jon

Subject:

Overview of SWUS for PVNGS and DCPP Vlad, Here is my slide set for overview of SWUS GMC. Cliff Sent:2 Apr2015 17:03:24 +0000 To: H eeszel, D avid

Subject:

RE:

Pal o Verde Catalog Thanks David From: Heeszel, David Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 10:56 AM To:. Devlin-Gill, Stephanie; Stieve, Alice; Munson,. Clifford; Ake,. Jon; Hill, Brittain Cc: Miriam R .. Juckett (mjuckett@swri.org)

John Stamatakos

Subject:

Palo Verde Catalog Attached is an excel version of the Palo Verde Catalog (Appendix E of the report). Events highlighted in gray can be linked to a specific fault. T he other columns should be relatively self explanatory.

--D avid David Heeszel Geophysicist U.S. NRC, NRO/DSEA/RGS2 Office: T-7E28 Mail Stop: T-7F3 Phon e: 301-415-5066 Sent:28 Apr 2015 1 3:44:04 +0000 To:Stieve, Alice

Subject:

RE:

Pal o Verde Source Information for: SSHAC Documentation from PPRP-IT Team Thanks Alice-1 hadn't seen this yet Jon From: Stieve, Alice Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 8:43 AM To: John Stamatkos; Li, Yong; Ake, Jon; Graizer, Vladimir

Subject:

FW: Palo Verde Source Informat i on for: SSHAC Documentation from PPRP-IT Team You may already have through others but you were not on distribution so I am sending. From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 10:33 AM To: Munson, Clifford; Stieve, Alice Cc: Jackson, Diane; Devlin-Gill, Stephanie; Hill, Brittain

Subject:

Palo Verde Source Information for: SSHAC Documentation from PPRP-IT Team C l iff. Alice, Stephanie, Please let me know if this is the missing piece. They have this one file on the SSC in the reading room. Thanks , Nick From: Munson, Clifford Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 20154:14 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas; Ake, Jon Cc: Jackson, Diane; Shams, Mohamed; Vega, Frankie; Graizer, V l adimir; John Stamatakos

<jstam@swr i.o r g> (j stam@swr i.org); Hill, Brittain; Seber, Dogan; Vega, Frankie; Stirewalt, Gerry

Subject:

RE: DCPP, Palo Ve r de, and Columbia Audit Information:

SSHAC Documentation from PPRP-IT Team Importance:

High Nick , We took a quick l ook at the conten t s of the. information for DCPP and PVNGS. The DCPP folder contains the PP RP-Tl correspondence and interactions on the source. model and ground motion model SSHACs. However, t he PVNGS only has the ground motion model SSHAC PPRP-T I team mater i al and not for the Source model. Please let us know when we can get the source model PPRP-TI team documentation.

Thanks , C li f f From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Tuesday, April 2 1 , 2015 1:25 PM To: Munson, Clifford; Ake, Jon Cc: Jackson, Diane; Shams, Mohamed; Vega, Frank i e; Graizer, Vladimir; John Stamatakos

<jstam@swri.org> (jstam@swri.org

); Hill, Brittain;.

Seber, Dogan;. Vega, Frankie; Stirewalt,. Gerry

Subject:

DCPP, Palo Verde, and Columbia Aud i t Information:

SSHAC Documenta t ion from PPRP-IT Team Folks, Please control distribution to the designated review team member for the following references.

Following your audit review, please advise if information reviewed should be docketed to support development of the hazard staff assessment or RAls. DC Aud i t Information S:\Diablo Canyon R2.1 Seismic lnformation\SSHAC Documentation of PPRP-TI Team Palo Verde Audit Information S:\Palo Verde R2.1 Seism i c l nformation

\SSHAC Documentation of PPRP-T I Team Co l umbia Information i s on ePortal (PM action to work through access controls). Also , licensee plans to work with PNNL to post information on public website. Thanks , Nick From: Soenen , Ph i lippe R [mailto:PNS3@pge.com

] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 10:49 AM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas Cc: Jahangir, Nozar

Subject:

DCPP information on Certrec Nick, We have uploaded the PPRP i nfo r mation onto Certrec IMS and granted access to Vladimir Grazier , John Stamatakos , and yourself.

Here is how yo u get to the PPRP information in Certrec:

  • Login to ims.certrec.com
  • Click on "Inspect i ons"
  • Set status to "In Progress" and Plant to "Diab l o Canyon"
  • Click " Search" button.
  • Click link to "Self-Assessment I Audit-Revi e w of PPRP Comments and TIT Reso l ution"
  • Click on t he "NRC Requests" tab
  • Click on what you would l ike to see. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Regards , Philippe Soenen Regu l a t ory Services Office -805.545.6984 Cel l -j<bJ (6) I PG&E is committed to protecting our customers' privacy. To learn more, please visit http://www.pge.com/about/company/privacy/customer/

Devlin-Gill, Stephanie Fr om: De v l in-G i ll , S t ephanie Sent:26 May 2015 19:24:02 +0000 T o:C l ifford Mun son (C l ifford.Mun s on@nrc.gov);Alice S ti eve (Al i ce.S t ieve@nrc.gov);Heeszel, D avid; Vlad im ir Gra i zer (V l ad imir.G ra i zer@n r c.gov);H eesze l , D avid; Yong Li (Y ong.Li@nrc.gov

);J ackson, Diane

Subject:

PVNGS

-Focus Area T opics for June-9 Pub l ic Meeting Attacbments:Focus Area Topics for PYNGS Public Meeting (draft 2).docx Attached are the edited questions from our meeting today. Attachment w as r e l ease d i n f ull in in ter im stephanie Geophysicist 301-415-5301 T-7D10 U.S. NRC, NRO, DSEA, RGS2 r espo n se #1 D e vlin-Gill,. St e phani e From:De v lin-Gill , St e phanie Sent: 2 0 May 2 015 17: 16: 56 +0000 To: Graiz e r , Yladimir;Sti eve, Ali ce;Mun so n ,. Cliff o rd;H eesze l ,. David;Ak e. Jon;John St a m a tk os;'Miri am R. Ju c k e tt (mju c k e tt@s wri.or g)';Hill , Brittain;Li , Y o n g Subj ec t:PVNGS Publi c M ee tin g Qu es tion s Palo V e rd e t e am, For furth e r di s cus si on, below are t he e di ted q u e s tion s about the area l zon e s: Because the PVNGS host zones , SBA and East, contribute significantly to the hazard at the PVNGS site , the NRC staff is i nterested in hearing d i scussion , beyond what is presented in the PVNGS SSC SSHAC report, on the follow i ng topics regarding areal sources. Please discuss. the rational and analyses used for: a. Choos i ng to model the spatia l var i ation of recurrence rate per unit area using variab l e , but continuous and relat i ve l y smooth seismicity. Please also d i scuss the rationale for not considering the use of unifo r m spatial recurrence rates in the. SSC areal sources. Although text in SSC Sect i on 8.2.4.1 mentions that uniform rates are often inappropr i ate, t he text does not elaborate on cond i tions where uniform rates might be appropriate or i f such cond i tions occur for the SSC. areal sources. Additiona ll y , please d i scuss this in the context of the prev i ously completed PVNGS SSC SSHAC 2 , since decisions made for that model led to the use of the constant rate model for the area l sources , and what i nformation informed the recent SSC SSHAC 3 to not use the constant rate model for any of the areal sources. b. Not using a " floor" during the smoothing analysis of recurrence parameters

.. Please also discuss this i n the context of the. PVNGS host zones and the WEST and GULF zones , which all show in SSC Figures 9-30 through 9-33 cells of zero rate (M>5.0)/deg 2/yr. c. Not using earthquakes lower than M4.67 to determine the recurrence parameters for the Eastern source zones, as shown in SSC Table 9-4. Please d i scuss th i s in the context of there be i ng so few events with i n the host zones that have magnitudes greater than to equal to M4.67 and inclusion of earthquakes lower than M4.67 despite the earthquake record below M4.67 not be complete. I also updated the file on Sha r ePoint: http://epm.nrc.gov/environmentalfilltq/wussshac/Shared%20Documents/Forms/Allitems

.aspx (Click on the Palo Verde fo l der icon after the link opens) stepha nie Geophysicist 301-415-5301.

T-7010 U.S. NRC, NRO, DSEA,RGS2 From: Devlin-Gill, Stephanie Sent: Monday, May 18 , 2015 4: 38 PM To: Graizer, Vladimir; Stieve, Alice; Munson, Clifford; Heeszel, Da vid; Ake, Jon; John Stamatkos; Miriam R. Juckett (mjuckett@swri.org);

Hill, Br ittain; Li, Yong

Subject:

RE: PV team meeting tomorrow I added 2 questions, attached.

I also updated the fi l e on SharePoint:

http: II epm. nrc.gov I environ menta l/illtq/wus

-sshac/Shared%20 Documents/Forms/A l llt ems.aspx (Clic k on the Palo Verde folder icon after the link opens) stephanie Geophysicist 301-415-5301 T-7010 U.S. NRC, NRO, DSEA, RGS2 From: Graizer, Vladimir Sent: Monday, May 18 , 2015 1:47 PM To: Stieve, Alice; Munson, Clifford; Devlin-Gill, Stephan i e; Heeszel, David; Ake , Jon; John Stamatkos; Miriam R. Juckett (mj u c k ett@sw ri.or g); Hill, Brittain; Li, Yong

Subject:

RE: PV team meeting tomorrow I. have. more observation

/questions. that I can present tomorrow.

From: Stieve, Alice. Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 1:43 PM To: Munson, Clifford; Dev l in-Gill, Stephanie; Heeszel, David; Ake, Jon; John Stamatkos; Miriam R. Juckett (m j ucke tt@sw ri.org); Hill, Brittain; Li, Yong; Graizer, Vladimir

Subject:

RE: PV team meeting tomorrow Pa lo Verde SharePoint FOLDER: http://epm.nrc.gov

/environmental

/jlltg/wus-sshac/Shared%20Documents

/Forms/A l lltems.aspx Click on the Palo Verde fo l der icon after the link opens. My dra f t focus areas file is i n that folder. The attached file are Vlad's draft top i cs. From: Munson, Clifford Sent: Monday,. May 18 , 2015 1:02 PM To: Stieve,. Alice; Devl i n-Gill, Stephanie; Heeszel, David;. Ake, Jon;. John Stamatkos; Miriam R. Juckett (mjuckett@swr i.org); Hill, B r ittai n; Li, Yong; Graizer, V ladimir

Subject:

RE: PV team meeting tomorrow Alice , Can you send us the link to the topics/quest i ons you've developed for the public meeting. Thanks , Cliff From: Stieve, Alice Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 10:22 AM To: Devlin-Gill, Stephanie; Heeszel, David; Mu n son, C l ifford; Ake, Jon; John Stamatkos; Miriam R. Juckett (mjuckett@swr i.org); Hill, Brittain; Li, Yong; Graizer, Vladimir

Subject:

PV team meeting tomorrow I w i ll not be at work all day tomorrow , therefore , I w i ll not be at the PV team meeting_ Don't cry. You will just have to carry on without me.@. Let me know what happens.

Devlin-Gill, Stephanie From:Devlin

-G i ll , S t ephanie Sent: 13 May 2015 15:44:07 +0000 T o:C l ifford Munson (C l ifford.Mun s on@nrc.gov) Cc:Alice Stieve (Alice.Stieve

@nrc.g ov);H eesze l , David

Subject:

PVNGS R e qu est Cliff, Please review and forward the following request on to JLD for Pa l o Verde: For the staff to preform confirmatory analysis, please have the l icensee send the NRC the PVNGS composite earthquake catalog prior to the declustering ana l ysis, meaning t he catalog with 1,941 events in it as mentioned in "Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Seismic Source Characterization" report on page 6-7 and 6-10. The staff requests the catalog be prov i ded in the tabular fo r m. stephanie Geophysicist 301-415-5301 T-7010 U.S. NRC, NRO, DSEA, RGS2 D ev lin-Gill, St ep hani e From:De v lin-Gill , S t e phanie Sent:26 May 2 015 18: 15:50 +0000 T o:Mun so n , Cl iff o rd Cc:Alice Stieve (Alice.Stieve

@nr c.gov)

Subject:

RE

l ates t versio n Attachments:Focus Area T o pi cs fo r PVNGS Publi c Meeting (draft 2).docx Cliff, OK. Alice and I spoke, we'll have a computer & laptop. stephanie Geophysicist 301-415-5301 T-7010 U.S.NRC, NRO, DSEA, RGS2 From: Munson,. Clifford . Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 1:39 PM To: Devlin-Gill, Stephanie

Subject:

l atest version Stephanie , I made edits to the first draft. Let's use th i s one for the meeting discussion. Alice i s getting a projector and laptop? Thanks , Cliff Focus Area Ques t ions!Topics for Palo Verde P ub l ic M eeting 5/9 I n addi t ion to providing a general overview of the SSC and GMC SSHAC Reports and Ma r ch 2015 50.54(f) response for D CP P , please provide additional clarification on the following topics. Seismic Source Characterization

1. Provide additional detail on the PPR P and Tl interaction documentation for the SSC model, specifically

....... T BD .... I am wo r king through that documentation t his week (April 27). 2. Clarify how uncerta i nty derived from the difference in cumulat i ve slip rates on Quaternary faults in AZ in comparison to the geodetic slip rates in southern AZ were evaluated and incorporated into model. 3. Clarify how uncertainty of the potential for the existence of unknown Quaternary faults in Southern Bas i n and Range prov i nce we r e eva l uated and captured in model , in particular in the area W and NW of the PV site, and outside the geologic mapping project area. 4.. Geo l ogic. mapping project. Provide. additional deta il on the. invo l vement of. the PPRP. in the fie l d review of the Quaternary geo l ogy mapping project of the PV site area and vicinity 5.. Geo l ogic. mapping project. Provide additional. detail regard i ng verification and character i zation of the 3 faults of interest in the site vicinity (Sand Tank , unnamed fault (Gilbert), unnamed fau l t (Pearthree)).

6.. Geo l ogic. mapping project. Provide add i tional detail regarding the very simpl i stic geologic cross section of the PV site to rule out existence of unnamed fault (Pearthree). 7. Geo l ogic mapping project. Provide additional detai l s regarding stratigraphic corre l ation of Quaternary units in the s i te area and vicinity , in particular the stand alone rive r te r race unit (Qorh) mismatch with the Q i 1 alluvial fan surface. 8. Regarding i nformation in PVNGS SSC T able 9-4 , because the Eastern sources have so few events a t please discuss how and why the Tl team chose to not use the events. lower. than M4.67 to determine the recurrence parameters.

Also, please justify not using a " floor" during the recurrence pa r ameters ana l ysis. 9. Please talk about the SS H AC presentations , discussions , and/or analyses that l ed the Tl team to. use variab l e , continuous , and relatively. smooth seis m icity when dete r mining recurrence parameters for host zones, as opposed t o constant rate values , particularly since there are so few recorded events in the PVNGS host zones. Ground Motion Characterization Sit e Response Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Site Response Evaluation Section 2.3 of the "Seismlic Hazard and Screening Report for the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units1, 2, and 3, March 2015" ...--. "O A> cc CD (/) I\) " _._ I I\) <D _._ -_._ 0 0 0 ..__. 1 Focus Area Topics for PVNGS Public Meeting on June-9 SITE RESPONSE Provide additional detail regarding the Vs-kappa adjustment factors. Specifically, provide the bases for -the host Vs profile, -the target deep Vs profile (including the use of a logarithmic standard deviation of 0.35 to develop the upper and lower profiles), -the target kappa value used for the kappa adjustments and whether the input FAS were corrected to the site kappa of 0.033 sec or a lower baserock kappa value, -use of a logarithmic standard deviation of 0.5 to determine the upper and lower site kappa values, -the scenario events (magnitudes and distances) used to develop the input spectra for the Vs-kappa adjustment factors, -not including the Vs-kappa adjustment factors as additional epistemic uncertainty on the median GM 1\11s instead of capturing this variability as part of the variability in the site amplification functions.

2 Description of Subsurface Material

  • Subsurface at PVNGS consists of about 350 ft of basin sediments overlyi11g bedrock, with a crystalline basement co1mplex at a depth of about 1,200 feet below the grcJund surface.
  • Basin sediments:

stratigraphic subdivisions of sands, gravels, clays, silts, and fanglomerate.

  • Bedrock: Miocene volcanic and interbedded sedimentary rocks.
  • Materials are divided into 2 site profiles, a shallow site profile and deep site profile, that are separated at the bottorr1 of the basin sediments.

3 Development of Base Case Profiles and Nonlinear Material Properties Shallow Site Profile:

  • UFSAR and PSAR lithologic descriptions and natural gamma logs
  • Control point elevation is defined at the ground surface
  • Vs values are estimated from suspension logs, downhole and crosshole surveys from the UFSAR and Spectral Analysis of Surface Waves (SASW) surveys.
  • Epistemic uncertainty (alnVs) was e*stimated for shear wave velocities in the base-case (BC) profile from the different measurements that were used to develop best-estimate valu 1 es
  • Upper-range (UR) and lower-range (LR) profiles were. developed by multiplying and dividing the BC profile by exp(1.28*alnVs), following guidance in the SPID to achieve 10th and 90th percentile values.
  • Note. that the UR profile does not include a lithologic layer of fanglomerate to account for its possible non-existence.

4 850 ...J 800 w ...J <( w en z <( w 750 g ..J w er ! z 0 Gj ..J w 500 DIS T ANCE 8E1WEEN RELATIVE TO Ul-81 \fcell 0 1111!> U1-B1 U2-B1 (tleV. 1&3") (tlev. 15'1 * .. .. ... 2390 U3-B1 (*ltv. t50 1 Figure 34: Sh a llow pro fi le boring logs from beneath each of the three reactors LmfOLOGIC UNITS SA"I> II CIAY Ill SAl<O IV cu.* v 5""111 VI CIAY VII IAl<D \Ill Ct.AV IX ..... ;o x GENERALIZED UTHll.OGJC DESCRIPTIONS D&o'° oay...., .....,_ .. _ .. DCUIY-SAOfD_...., ...........

D Cl>* .. , .. ,,-.ai.; -* D fA.HGt.Olll£'tATE. , .. "'""' ..a ....., IO ___ ........ """ __ 0-run ... cv.v..-.. _.,......_

D IHlUll.A*-DFlOWlllt(CCIASo

... '1.CW\ ___

.. -DNClUCTE----

Figure 35: Composite s hallow profile Depth (ft) 0 Unit contact Uthologlc Description (deptlllelev

.) 60 880 80 100 120 820 140 15917114 780 1661788 190 16817157 'l<Y5/748 11/fJ >-220 < no 2-<<> 230l723 ..J 2371715 () w 700 Q 260 0: w 880 > 280 0 ..J 300 < a. 640 3111642 320 IX* 620 I *SANO yellow t o red to brown wrtll trwn becls or Slit clayey-sin and S11ty-clay II

  • CLAY yetlOw to red to brown olayey.sll!

and Silty-clay w<th lenses Of fine-grained sand and silty-sand Ill SANO brown, uody..ilt sflty &and and &allC1f..cloy tv -CLAY blown. S1lty-clay.

ctayey-s.n low to med plaSilclty noncalcaleous to SbghlJy very sbn to hard v. SAND brown to red-brown 111ty sand 111ndy*Slll and cteyey sand vecy &I fl to hard nonptnbc to ION plashc1ly paraco11lorm11y V1 -CLAY yeltON to red-brown.

S<l!y-clay very stdf to haJd distinct uppe1 cori8cl stigttly to hlgl'fy calcareous med lo h91 plasbelly VII* SANO uody-MI and silty 111nd btoWn non1)lHllC VIII Cl..AY to red-Crown.

llify*cley Ancly-... 1, silly-sand sandy.clay, ctayey.gand calcareous verystl!f 10 hard, high plalbcty IX -SANO llrlJwn 10 re<J.brown, $11nd. silty-sand and Clayiry-sand oc:c:asional (jfavel Cla&tli 6Ubaf1glllar to subroooded dense to very dense Vf!fY S11n to hard 340 341/612 u nc0n form *iY 600 580 560 3951558 GENERALIZED LITHOLOGY Saod Clay LITHOt..OGIC UNIT X

  • FANGLOMERATE brown to gay rroderately 10 wel cemened 1/0tcanic e1asts c:lenved from und<<lying bedtock in a matnl< of sand soil and occaitiooaJfy tlAlaoeous sand. el!M!1to11 of and thlckne!.6 ol tnt vary ectoss the site major uncontorm11y XI
  • BEDROCK see deep prolile ll(µe 5 Dynamic properties of shallow site profile (base case profile) Str ati-l:nit S igma B ase s igma D eprh Thickne ss Case L anr graphic "*e ight Depth y., , . ., (ln) . lithology (ft) (ft) Y s {;nit (pd) (ft) (f t/s) (In) (SP ID] 1 I Sand 0 21 110 0.0 101 7 0.0 7 0 0.13 2 I Sand 21 14 120 1041 0.0&8 0.1 9 3 I Sand 35 10 120 5A U50 0.0 7 5 0.1 7 4 I Sand 45 7 120 6.9 1181 0.063 0.1 5 5 II Clay 52 60 115 1 8.0 1208 0.08 7 0.1 5 6 II Clav 112 25 12S l 3.5 1293 0.0 7 3 0.1 5 7 II Cl av 137 22 1 25 1 4.3 1391 0.0 7 3 0.1 5 8 m Sand 159 8 126* 5.0 1431 0.055 0.1 5 9 I\' Clay 167 19 ns 1 8.0 1+46 0.049 0.1 5 10 \ ... Sand 186 19 1 26-' 2.0 1459 0.050 0.1 5 11 VI Clay 205 5 125 t 5.0 1510 0.1 03 0.1 5 12 VI Clay 2 1 0 20 125 1 1.8 1 7 42 0.1 45 0.1 5 13 vn Sand 230 8 126-2.0 1829 0.160 0.1 5 14 VIII Clay ns 52 125 1 LO 2094 0.12 7 0.15 15 \Till Clay 290 21 1 25 1 15.9 1094 0.12 7 0.1 5 16 IX Sand 311 30 130 17.0 2094 0.1 2 7 0.1 5 17 x F ane:lomerate 341 86 140 60.0 3262 0.1 7 6 0.1 5 B ed-A.n desite XI basal fl ow 42 7 140 83 4485 N'A 1 NA 3 rock brecc1a/mff Note s: 1 125 pcf is the a\*erage urut weight of all day unrts. The unit weights for all clay ooits are averaged for the s ake of s implicity ill me response anal ys is. '11_6 pcfi s. the average urut \\'eight of Sand {;rut s Ill\'. and VIl. The average is used fur the s ake of s implicity in the site response an.al y ill. 3 In the s ite response analysis for s hallow pr ofile , Unit XI 1 s cons.idered as die half space.. 6 Vs (tt/scc) 0 1000 2000 3000 400Cl -LR so -BC 100 La*r e r '" 1 bO l :; 200 4 ---.c ) -Q. 11> (.) 6 250 7 s 300 9 1 0 11 3SO 1 2 1 3 1 4 400 1.5 1 6 4.'.>0 1 7 Layer depths, thicknesses, and shear wave velocities (Vs) for lower-range (LR), base-case (BC), and upper-range (UR) profiles for the shallow site profile at PVNGS. Depth Tlt:ickne ss ,.-:s (ft) (ft) LR B C ml 0 21 929 101 7 11 1 3 2 1 1 5 ]041 1165 35 r o 1 046 ]1 50 1266 4-) 7 lUtl 12,80 52 60 1 08 1 ]208 135 1 1 12 25 1 17S ]293 14 1 9 1 37 2'.!

]391 t5Q8 1 59 8 13 34 . .:>-1536 1 67 1 9 1 359 l446 1540 1 86 1 9 1359 ]459 1555 205 5 , l324 ]j 1[0 1 723 210 20 1 448 2098 2]1] 8 i4gg ].829 2245 2:1S 52 1 7 80 2094 2462 290 21 2094 2462 311 30 1 550 2094 2462 341 86 2603 32:62 2 -0 0 100 200 300 400 £ 500 Q. Q 600 700 800 900 bear \Vave Velocity (f t/ ec) 1000 A WArra y -L C ll --L 12 -L 1 3 -L C 14 -L C IS -L 1 6 --L C I 7 2000 3000 4000 50( ED lhts H 81 bonnvs @)

  • PVNGS -llorlngl -SASW"'-1*7 0 1.000 2.000 II l 1 1 i I I I '

__ .............

o 250 500 m Figure 1. Locat i ons of SASW li nes SASW-LCl-1 through SAS W-LCl-7 (sho w n m red as l i nes 1-7) at the P V NGS s i te. 200 250 1000 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 hear Wave Velocity (m/ ec) F igu re 4.1 Co mpa nso n of th e Seve n. h e ar W ave Veloci t y Pr ofi l cs D e t e rmin ed ai lh e P a l o V e rd e N PP Si t e 8 PVNGS Borehole

  • Drill and. log 2 borehole s. (one deep[B-2, 423. ft], one s h a llow [B-1, 45. ft]) at the site , collec downhole geophysical data from the deep borehole , and preparation of each borehole fo r installation of borehole s eismometer equipment.
  • P-S Su s pension Logging
  • Induction/Natural Gamma
  • Caliper/Natural Gamma
  • Acoustic Televiewer/Boring Deviation 411250 LCl*B-1 ., 0 80 i -=-" -=-m 0 :!ID No\OQ FIPS fl GOOQ18 Elflll -.ef!illgia 50 100 150 g 200 J: Ii: w c 250 300 PA L O VERDE BOREHOLE B-2 R ecei v er t o R e c eiver V s a nd V P A na ly sis 450 F i gure 1. Locat ions of boreholes LCl*B*1 and LCl*B*2 a t the P VNGS site. Note: north arro w shows true north. as opposed to " plant north." 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 VELOCITY (ft/s) 1 0000 12000 9 F igu re 5. B oring LC l-B-2 , S u spension R1-R2 P-and Swwave velocities 14000 Geologic cross-section showing the shallow and deep stratigraphy at the PVNGS site 0 SCRJPTION I I E 6AS.En&an

...... _ ,,., *

  • I J * -10 Development of Base Case Profiles and Nonlinear Material Properties Deep Site Profile:
  • Developed from data presented in the UFSAR and Geological Society of America Bulletin A seismic-refraction survey of crustal structure in central Arizona (Warren, 1969)
  • No borings underneath the. three units that reach the top of the basement complex, so the upper. contact is estimated using a. geologic cross-section from the UFSAR that shows. the shallow and deep stratigraphy at the si1te
  • Control point elevation for this. profile is defined at the bottom of the shallow site profile.
  • Vs values were estimated from suspension (LCI,. 2015f) for bedrock. Vs for the basement complex was determined using typical seisn1ic wave velocities for granodiorite.
  • Uncertainty in the thickness of each layer vi1as accounted for in the LR and UR deep site profiles.
  • For the volcanics, this uncertainty was determined from boring logs as described in LCI (LCI, 2015d). For the upper basement layers, this uncertainty was taken as 10 percent of each respective mean thickness.
  • Consistent with SPI D: -UR and LR Vs values were developed by multiplying and dividing the BC profile value by exp(1.28*alnVs), respectively, like for the shallow site profile -Epistemic uncertainty was estimated for Vs in the BC profile using a logarithmic standard deviation of 0.35 as -The LR and UR profiles were constructed by pairing 90th percentile Vs with 10th percentile thickness (and vice versa) in order to maximize the varia1tion in travel time 11 Dynamic properties of deep site profile (base case profile) T bl 5 D a e . 1 y nallllc properae s o fil s f d ee p s ire pro 1 e. ourc e: T b l 1 6 fr L C I (LCI ?O l -d) a e om . -) Depth rmt
\Jean Vs Poisson's Elevatio u S igma , Strat. Gt'neraU zed to top weight Vs Vp Sig ma Ratio Thickne ss Tbicklles s of la yer unit XI xn xn xn litholog y Mean , Top Sigma , Range+, Range-, (ft) (pct) (ft/sec) (ft/sec) (lo) (ft m s l) Top (ft) 3 Top Top (ft) (ft m s l) (ft msl) Andesire l basa l t/ flow 395 140 44 85 9863 0.35 0.370 558 83 641 475 808 breccia/ ruff Weat h ered g r anodio ri re/ 120 3 146 1 5438 10 786 0.3 5 0.330 -250 N I A N I A N I A 20 mera-gran i ce (top) Weathered g r anodio ri te l 1223 152 1 7343 12632 0.35 0.245 -270 N IA N I A NA 20 mera-grani r e (middle) Wearhered g:ranodio 1 ite/ 1243 157 1 9248 14477 0.35 0.155 -290 N I A N I A N I A 20 mera-grn nir e (bonom) Gra n odiorire/ 1263 171 2 10200 15400 0.35 0.1 09 -310 N I A N I A N I A N I A Note s: 1 Unir weight for the weathered basement complex i s deremlined from V p. 1 Unit weight for wnveathered basement complex i s detemii ue d from Wan-e n (WatTen. 1969). 3 S i gma rop i s o nl y calcu l ated fo r Ande s ite XI for u se in s hallow s ite profile s it e respo n se calcu l ations. S i gma i s calcu l ated u s in g rop elevation contact of bedrock from U ni t s 1-3 Bl bo r eho l es (Figure 34). (ft) 145 10 10 10 N I A 12 PVNGS deep site profile Lowtr R:mg t P ro fil t (low n l oci d ts. thi l'ker la yer s. d e n si t y): m ight= 0.3 Desc:riptton Tbicbiess (m) V s (m s) Vokanic bedrock 324.2 873_4 Basement (s hall o w; weafherul top) 10_0 l , 059_0 Basement (shallov.r: wealhered middle) 10_0 1.430_0 Basement (shallo w: weathered bottom) 10.0 l.800_9 Basement (s hall o w) 1.784.2 1.986-3 Basemeru (deep) 12.5 60_0 3.680.0 B:iw Case Pr o fil t (m t d fan Ynlues :i ll p ar:une r ers): we iebt=OA Description Thicknes s (m) V s (m s) \'olcanic bedrotl: 2 6 7.6 1.36 7.0 Basement (shallow; weathered top) 6.1 l.6 57.5 Basement (shallow; vteatheted middle) 6.1 2.238_1 Basement weathered bottom) 6.1 1.8 1 8..8 (shallow) 1 , 581.7 3 , 109.0 Basement (dttp) 1 0.0000 3.680.0 t: p per Range Pro fil e (h i gh ,*e l ocitlts, rhi wt er la yers. b.-se cue d ensity): wei_eb t = 0.3 Description Ttucl.."ness (m) Vs (m s) \'olcanic bedrock sequence 211.0 2.139.6 Basement (shallow; weathered top) 2.2 2.594 3 Basement (s h3.llow; weathered middle) 2.'.! 3.503.1 Basement (shallow: weathered bottom) ..,.., 3.680.0 Basement (s hallow) 1.3 7 9.3 3.680 0 Basemen t (deep) 1 7 ,.i40.0 3.680.0 0 5 00 -QI t6: 1 000 Q. 3 0 t1I J:. "' ... 0 1 500 :t: 0 .D E 0 ..c ... E -.z 2000 Q. QI 0 2 5 00 3000 0 -. . -. . -. . -. . --1 000 .,. -,. , I V r, (m/'>) 2000 : 1 . I , ,, 300 0 . .. ,_ --............ I 1 I-"" I l .. I l -I I I I L 1 I I I . --I UR Prctile . I ' Base Case P ro f i l e I .. I LR P rctil e I W a rr en (1 969) I I S'N U S Re f e re nce I Pro fil e I . 4 000 -13 PVNGS Shear Modulus & Damping Curves Tab l e .

CW\"eS for each stratigraphic unit at PVNG S. Source: Table 14 from LCI (I.CI 20 1 5d' -Strntigna pbic Gtnendized Depth Thickne ss Degrndatlon DtgradatioJl Layer Curns Cnit (ft) (ft} (..\l terna c h'e n l . .Uternntin

2) 1 I Sand 0 2 1 EPRI Soil Peninsular Cun-es 0-20 ft 0-50 ft 2 I Sand 2 1 14 EPRI Sou Peninsular 20-50 ft 0-50 ft 3 I Sand 35 10 EPRI Soil Peni.nsular Curves 20-50 ft 0-50 ft 4 I Sand 45 7 EPRI Sou Penin sul ar Curves 20-50 ft 0-50 ft 5 n Clay 52 60 Vucetic and Dobry Vuce-tic and Dobry (1 991)-PI=30 (1 991}Pl=30 6 II Clay 112 25 Vucetic and Dobry Vucetic and Dobry (1991)-PI=JO (1991)-Pl=30 7 II Clay 137 22 \*oce llc and Dobry Vucetic and D obry (1991)-Pl=

30 (1991)-PI=3 0 8 m Sand 159 8 EPRI Soil Peninsular Cw.-es 120-250 ft 51-500 ft 9 I\" Clay 167 1 9 Vucetic and Dobry Vucrtic and D obry (1 991 )-PI=30 (1991}P l=30 10 \ San d 1 86 19 EPRI Soil Peninsular Curves 1 20-250 ft 51-500 ft 11 VI Oay 205 5 \"ucebc and Dobry Vucettc and Dobry (1991)-PI=JO (199l}Pl=30 12 VI Clay 210 20 \"uceti c and Dobry Vucetic and D obry (1991)-PI=30 (199l}PI=30 13 VII Sand 230 8 EPRI Soil Peninsulnr Cw...-es 1 20-250 ft 51-500 ft u VIII aa y 238 51 Vucebc and Dobry Vucetic and Dobty 099l)-PI=30 (1991)-PI=30 1 5 \'III Clay 290 21 Vucellc and Dobry Vucetic and D obry 0991)-Pl=30 (1991)-Pl=30 16 IX Sand 311 30 EPRI Soil Peninsular Cun:es 150-500 ft 5 1-500 ft 1 7 x Fanglomernte 3-U 86 EPRI Soil Peninsular Cwve!. 250-500 ft 51-500 ft

  • Shallow profile alte r native were given equal weights
  • Deep profile linear 14 PVNGS Kappa
  • Adjustment factors were developed to convert ground motions. from the reference rock associated with the GMPEs from the SWUS. GMC to site s pecific rock cond i tions at PVNGS corresponding to the deep site profile ..
  • Vs-kappa adjustments consist of 2 parts. 1. Accou nt for impedance diffe r ences, calcu l ate d using the Quarter-wavelength approach (Boore and Joyner, 1 997; Boore, 2003, 2013} and affects all frequencies.
2. Account for the differences in kappa (kappa-zero). I t has an exponential fo rm and affects mainly the hi gh frequencies.
  • Host kappa value fo r SWUS GMPEs i s 0.041 sec and the ta r get kappa value at PVNGS is 0.033 sec with a logarithmic standard deviation of 0.5.
  • BC , LR , and UR target kappas were combined with each of the BC, LR, and UR deep s ite profiles to get 9 sets of adj u stment factors appl i ed to the {BC, LR , UR} kappa alternatives and Vs profile alternatives.
  • Alt h oug h some of these adjustment factors become very large at HF , the SWUS GMC rock motion s have ze ro o r no e n ergy at the se frequencies (say, above 20 H z). Th erefore, the effect on spectral accele r ations i s expected to be much smaller than the effect s hown here. e 2 ti l "' .... .... :l if c 0 -.... 0 ... ..... .-c cu E ... =6' < 1 0 . ' . , , , I I i < t , Z-!--+-I -' I I 'I I j I 1 ' ' '= f= *= -,_,,_ A l/ r/} . I l * ? -lJ;,? I I I Ti ......_ ' . I I _. I ---!.

I * .,.. __ I:__... .. ---_,. .:: -..._ .. .. L . __, r ' "' _. I ...... """ """ "I" . r ' '--l lo.. I ' ', ' *---,_ ..... k I -0.1 0.1 1 10 100 Freq ue ncy (Hz) -LB P r of il e , LB kappa (0.09) -LB Profile , Med i a n kappa (0.11) LB Profile , UB kappa (0.09) -Media n P rofile, LB ka p pa (0.12) -Medi.1n Prof i le , Med i an kappa {0.16) -Med ian P rofile , UB kappa (0.12} UB Prof i le, LB kappa (0.09) -UB P rofi le. Med ian kappa (O.U) UB Pro fi l e, UB kappa (0.09) Net factors to convert ground motions from SWUS reference rock to PVNGS rock cond ffi ons.

PVNGS Randomizcition of Vs Profiles

  • Shear wave velocity in each SPID (EPRI, 2013) guidance was followed -shear wave velocities were truncated to +/-2 alnVs. USGS site class "A" pararr1eters, for hard rock.
  • Material properties.

SPID guidance was followed and realizations were. truncated at +/-2 aln for both G/Gmax and. damping curves.

  • Profile layer depths and thicknesses.

Depth to the top of each layer was modeled using a Norrnal distribution, each realization of depth to the top of a given layer was limited to +/-2a.

  • Depth to bedrock was modeled using a Normal distribution, each realization of depth to the top c,f bedrock was limited to +/-2a.
  • 60 random velocity profiles were generated for each combination of profile (BC, LR, and UR), material model (EPRI or Peninsular values), input spectrum, and set of adjustment factors. 16 PVNGS Input Spectra
  • Obtained using reference-rock hazard for PVNGS
  • Following guidance from the SPID, HF (5 and.10 Hz) and. LF (1. and 2.5 Hz) spectra at mean annual frequencies of exceedence (MAFEs) of 10-4, 10-5, and 10-6 were scaled to 11 different PGA amplitudes between 0.01 g and 1.5 g for a total of 22 input control motions.
  • Input response spectra were converted to Fourier amplitude spectra (FAS) using IRVT , which requires an estimate of ground motion duration for each input control motion, which was calculated according to the method in Rathje et al. (2005). Tabl e 8. Deaggregated magnitude s and distances for reference rock and as s ociated durations.

Source: LCI (LCL 2015a). :\lotion (l\1 w) Di tance (km) Duration ( ec) 10 4 F req. 7.5 2 1 0 26.3 10 4 High Freq. 6.1 1 8 4.06 I 0-5 Low F req. 7.6 200 27.7 10-5 High Freq. 6.2 8.0 3.9 4 10-6 Low Freq. 6.8 8.0 .46 10-6 High Freq. 6.4 6.0 4.76 17 PVNGS Site Response Methodology

  • RVT. was used to perform the site response analyses, consistent with SPID.
  • For the BC, LR, and UR shallow site profiles, site amplification factors (SAF) are developed for seven spectral frequencies (0.5 Hz SA, 1.0 Hz SA, 2.5 Hz SA, 5.0 Hz SA, 10 Hz SA, 20 Hz SA, and 100 Hz SA or PGA) over the range of spectral amplitudes represented by the input contnol motions (refer to Section 2.3.4). Each set of SAF incorporates the various types of variability in profile and material properties and uncertainty in kappa and deep shear wave vellocities as represented by the nine sets of adjustment factors.
  • To include the deep site profile effect on SAF, the IRVT-derived input FAS was multiplied. by the set of Vs-kappa adjustment factors prior to using that input spectrum to drive the shallow site profile. 18 PVNGS Amplification Function 10 1 -10 * --10* 10' Frequency , (Hz) BC.10-4 ti/ 10' 10' 10' to* 10' Freqa>>ney (Hz]

-H a. PVNGS BC s.udaa and SAf for 10-4 HF i.npuc molion 11$Uig the EPRl soil marerial olOdel and a SUlgle rock ro local rock adjustmen1 fuoc.tion.

Green Imes are for 60 indi\idual randomiud profiles Median (blade solid line) and :::lo1o (blaclc dashed linH) abo shown. Souru: Figure 46 from LCI (l..CI.1015d).

10' 10' 810 I ; J 10' l10* 10 1 10' -;o* --"i°o' Fi gure 4l b. PVNGS spectra and SAF for 10-4 LF mput motion using !he EPRI soi.I matenal modtl and a slQ!le rock t o local rod: adju5tmrnt func ti on. Gtttn Imes are spectra for 60 111dmdual nmdoouz.ed pr-ofiles.

Median (black sohd hne) and +/-loi. (blad: dashed lines) are also shown. Soun:e: Figure 4 7 from LCI (I.CI. 2015d) J 1cr' 10 1 10' 10' Frequency. (Hz) BC 10-5 10' to' 10' (Hz) UT -H e. PVNGS BC mr£l<< r6ponsc spectra mid SAF for 10*1 HF input motion ming the EPRI soil mataial model and 1 sin.git refet-mce rock ro loc&l rock adj11stmeo1 function..

Green lio.es are spectra for 60 1.0dmdual randomized profiles. (blad: sohd lio.e) and =loi. (black dashed 11.0es) also shown. SoutN: F1gur-e 48 fromlCI (l..CL ::WlSd). 10' l(f' 10' 10' --,o* --, rf Fniquency. (Hz) 10' f i ptt 4 1d. PVNGS BC surfuce response spectta. aod SAF for 10*1 l.F 111put motton usuig EPRI soil matmal model. and a smgle reftteoce rock to local rocl.:

fimctton.

Grett are for 60 1.odm.dual rmdomu.ed profiles.

'.\ledian (black sohd !me) and "'lo 11 {black dashed hoes) shown. Source: Figure 49 from LCI (l..Cl.1015d)

PVNGS BC median amplification factors c nl 2.5 1.5 1 0.5 -... l --"W: I*--I; -: ,,.,. II II . 0 0.001 0.6 0.5 0.1 0 0.00 1 . 0.01 0.1 1 10 SpectraJ acce l eration, (g) " .. ' c_c I ,. -u. l l I I ,...,. *r "-J" ,_J I '!"!' . -. -i 1 "" ' .... "', l -, ' -[J I . -0.01 0.1 1 10 Spectral aue l eration , (g) -+-PGA -.20Hz -e-10Hz -*-S H_z 2.5 Hz 1 H z -0.5 Hz -+-PGA ... 20Hz -10Hz 2.5 Hz 1 Hz -0.5 H z 20 Devlin-Gill, Stephanie From:Devlin

-G i ll , S t ephanie Sent:2 Jun 2015 17:35:50 +0000 T o:Graizer , Yladimi r;Munson , Clifford;Ak e, Jon;H eeszel,. A l ic e;John Stamatko s;Weaver , Thoma s;Stovall , Scott;H i ll , Brittain;Chok s hi , Nilesh Cc: L i , Yong;Jack s on , Diane;Miriam Juckett (mjuck e tt@s wri.org)

Subject:

RE

PVNGS: Site Re s pon se Attachments:PVNGS Site Re s ponse -S D G.pptx. Site response overview slides attached.

stephanie Geophysicist 301-415-5301 T-7010 U.S. NRC, NRO, DSEA, RGS2 From: Graizer, Vladimir Sent: Tuesday, J une 02, 2015 11:57 AM To:. Devlin-Gill, Stephanie; Munson,. Clifford; Ake, Jon; Heeszel, David; Stieve, Alice; John Stamatkos; Weaver, Thomas;. Stovall, Scott; Hill, Britta i n; Chokshi, Nilesh Cc: Li, Yong; Jackson, Diane; Mi r iam Juckett (mjuckett@swri.o r g)

Subject:

RE: PVNGS: Site Response I put togethe r few slides about GMRS and can show them. From: Devlin-Gil l , Step h anie Sent: Tuesday, J une 02, 2015 1 0: 07 A M To: Munson, Clifford; Ake, Jon; Heeszel, David; Stieve, Alice; Graizer, Vladimir; John Stamatkos; Weaver, Thomas; Stova ll , Scott; Hill,. B r ittain; Choksh i , Ni l es h. Cc: Li, Yong; Jackson, Diane; Miriam Juckett (mjuckett@swri.o r g)

Subject:

PVNGS: Site Response Palo Verde Team , I put together a few sl i des on the PV site response to generate discussion at today's meeting. I know there has been ongoing work by others regarding PV site response, p l ease come prepared to discuss your work and knowledge of the PV site response with the whole team. Tuesday, June 2 (TODAY), 2:30PM ET TWFN-07A03 Phone: (877) 927-0419 Passcode l (b)(6) j# stephanie Geophysicist 301-415-5301 T-7010 U.S. NRC, NRO, DSEA, RGS2 TSCHIL TZ , Michae l From:TSCHILTZ , Mich ae l Sent:29 Apr2015 19: 14:30 +0000 T o: DiFranc esco, Nicholas Cc:MAUER , Andrew

Subject:

DIABLO CANYON MEETING Nick in the staff slide presentation for the. subject meeting .. specifically, s lide 15 shows l date for Group 1 SPRAs ... as has been discussed with NRC upper management our understanding is that Diablo (if it is in group 1) will be given the. same amount of time as others. to. complete SPRA which pushes it out beyond the date shown on the slide ..... was this just an oversight or is t his an issue t ha t needs further discussion?

Thanks. Mik e Tschiltz.

Dir ecto r ,. Risk Assessment Nuclear Energy Institute 1201 F Street NW , Suite 1100 Washington , DC 20004 www.nei.org P: 202.739.8083.

M f{b){6) I E: mdt@nei.org NUCUAR ENERGY INSTITUTE TA KE TH E NE/ FUTURE OF ENE RGY QUIZ, www.NEl.org/futureofene rgy WORLD NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE CONFERENCE (CO-ORGANIZED WITH WNA) J 21-23 APRIL 2015, PRAGUE, CZECH REPUBLIC J RE GISTER TODAY FOLLOW US ON

  • essage transmission contains information.from the Nuclear Energy. Inst it ute, Inc. The. information is intended solely.for the addressee.and its. use
  • not authorized.

If y ou are no t t h e intended recipient,. you have received

  • ion m error, and any. review, use, disclosure, cop y ing or di st r i bution o mmunication is strict u ave received this electronic tr a nsmiss ion in error, please notify the sender Immediately by telephone or by elect dele t e the orig/no/ message. IR S Circular 230 disdosure: Ta ensure compliance with requirements im as other rax l ng author ities, we inform you
  • conta ined in this communication (i ncludi is nor intended or written to be used, and cannot be u sed, far the purpose of (i} avai m y taxpayer or (ii) promoting , marketing or recommending ta another porty any transaction or matter addressed herein.

Sent through www.lntermedia.c om DiFrance s co , Nicholas From:DiFrancesco, Nicholas Sent:27 Apr 2015 15: 1 2:36 +0000 T o:Gibson , Lauren

Subject:

FW:

PG&E: Diablo Canyon Pu blic Meeting on April 28 Attachments:NRC Public Meeting 4-28 Seismic Final.p d f FYI. ... slide 54 has a summary of licensee and regulatory actions. From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2015 10:42 PM To: Munson, Clifford; Ake, Jon; 'John Stamatakos

<jstam@swri.org> (jstam@swri.org)';

Hill, Brittain; Graizer, Vladimir Cc: Jackson, Diane; Shams, Mohamed; Vega, Frankie; Walker, Wayne; Alexander, Ryan; Moreno, Angel; Use l ding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; Kock, Andrea; Flanders, Scott; Maier, Bill; Roth(OGC), David; Lindell, Joseph; Uttal, Susan; Markley, Michael; Lingam, Siva; Hipschman, Thomas; Wyman, Stephen

Subject:

PG&E: Diablo Canyon Public Meeting on April 28 Folks, Attached are the. PG&E sl i des in support of the Tuesday public meeting. NRG sl i des. will be avai l able tomorrow morning. Please forward to those I may have. missed. Thanks , Nick From: Jahangir, Nozar [mai l to: NxJl@oge.com] Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2015 7:58 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas; Soenen, Philippe R Cc: Strickland, Jea r l

Subject:

Diablo Canyon Public Meeting on April 28 Ph i l i ppe; Attached is the DCPP p r esentation for the subject meeting. I will also take 30 hardcopies with me , as well. I w i ll be travelling on Monday and will be in Rockville on Monday n i ght. We also need the Web access number and passcode for Techn i cal PG&E staff that w i ll be calling in support of the presentat i on. Thanks N oza r Juh a n g ir P.E. M a nag er, T ec hni c al Servic es D ia blo Can yo n Sei s mi c En g in eer in g 80 5-5 4 5-6512 l<b )(6) I (ce ll) n x jl@p ge.co m From: Difrancesco, Nicholas [mai l to:N ic h olas.D i Francesco@nrc.gov] S e nt: Thursday , April 23, 2015 10:33 AM To: Soenen, Philippe R Cc: Jahangir, Nozar;. Vega, Frankie; Shams,. Mohamed; Jackson, Diane

Subject:

NRC Technical Focus Areas for Support of Public Meeting on April 28 Mr. Soenen , In support of the public meeting scheduled for Ap ril 28, 2015, the NRG staff wou l d like to gain additional technical understanding in several areas to support productive public meeting discussions.

I n addition to providing a general overview of the SSC and GMC SSHAC Reports and March 2015 50.54(f) response for DCPP, please provide additional clarification on the following topics. Seismic Source Characterization

1. Summarize the key data used to constrain the slip rate of the Hosgr i fault, including associated uncertainties.
2. Clarify how elements of the thrust/reverse inter pretation for the San Luis Range Thrust are incorporated into the SSC. 3. Clarify how the rupture models are derived from the fault source geometry models. 4. Summarize the methodology used to define the equivalent Poisson rates. Ground Motion Characterization
1. Pro vide additional detail on the criteria used for the selection of the candidate ground motion prediction equations (GM PEs) for development of the common form median ground motion models for DCPP. Specifically, please elaborate on the basis for inc ludi ng GMPEs based on datasets other than NGA-West2.
2. Provide additional detail on development of the common functional form used to fi t the candidate GMPEs. Specifically, please discuss how model parameters such as depth to Vs=1 km/sand 2.5 km/s (which are present in some of the candidate GMPEs) are accounted for in the functiona l form. 3. Provide additional detail on the approach for weighting the selected common form models as well as the criteria used to verify the physicality of the final models. 4. Provide additional detai l on how the continuous distribution for total sigma (crss) was developed by combining the between-event and within-event aleatory variabilities.

Site Response 1. Section 2.3.2.1 of the 50.54(f) submittal states that shear modu l us and damping curves are not directly applicab l e to DCPP since ana l ytica l mode l ing i s not used and that li near s i te effects are implic i tly included in the emp i rical GMPEs for Vs30=760 m/s. However , the NGA-West2 database has a limited amount of data for s i tes with Vs30 near 760 m/s and for earthquakes w i th magn i tudes and source-to-site d i stances similar to those dom i nat i ng the hazard for DCPP. Please provide add i tional information on how these lim i tations in the NGA-West2 database are accounted for in t he site response model for DCPP. 2. Section 2.3.6 of the 50.54(f) subm i ttal desc r i bes the deve l opment of the site te r m for DCPP. F o r the ca l culations of between-event res i dua l s , prov i de addit i ona l information on the criteria used to determine the appropriate distance r ange(+ and -R rup) to the sample station. Please d i scuss the sens i tivity of this distance range on between-event res i dual values. Please prov i de an example ca l culation that uses site-specific values to determine the values for $s 2 s, includ i ng the ep i stemic uncerta i nty in the s i te term. Please l et me know if you have any questions on the above focus areas. Thanks , Nick Di f rancesco Senior Pro j ect Manager -Seism i c R eevaluat i on Activities U.S. N uc l ear R egulatory Commission Office of Nucle a r R eacto r R egulation Japan Lesson Learned P roject Division nicholas.d i francesco@nrc.gov I T el: (301) 4 15-1115 PG&E is committed to pro t ect i ng our customers' p r ivacy. To learn mo r e , please vis i t http://www.pge.com/about/company/privacy/customer/

AIL 09-00 1

  • The NRC's first assessment of the Shoreline fault was detailed in RIL 09-001 and was based on i nformation available at the time. The NRC found the Shoreline fault's maximum predicted shaking is less than what the p lan t was prev i ously analyzed for. AIL 12-001
  • R IL 12-01 , " Confirmatory Analysis of Seismic Hazard at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant from the Shoreline Fau lt Zone ," updates the NRC's evaluation based on information PG&E prov i ded in January 2011 , as well as a staff v isit to Diablo Can y on.
  • T he NRC continues to conclu d e that ground shaking from the Shoreline fault's earthquake scena r ios are l ess than the HE and L T SP ground motion levels fo r which the plant was previously evaluated and demonstrated to have reasonable assurance of sat ety --. -10 § i u j '° l .. Co m par i so n of H osg ri a nd L T S P S p ect r a t o NR C D etermi n istic Ev a l uation R esu lt s JAPAN LESSONS LEARNED
  • The NRG staff issued a request for additional information to all nuclear power plants on March 12 , 2012 , to in it iate several actions as a result of lessons learned from the F ukushima Da i-ichi accident in Japan: -Conduct "walkdowns" of all n uclear power plants to verify flooding and seismic protection features -Reevaluate flooding and seismic hazard and design using prese nt day methods and guidance
  • The DCPP se i smic hazard reevaluat i on , submitted in M arch 20 1 5,. assesses all known faults in the area (i.e., not limited to just the Sho r eline fault) using a process similar to what i s done for siting new reactors. T he licensee r eported that the ground shaking from the known fault's earthquake scenario exceeds the Double De sign Earthquake in the 1-1 O Hz range and that there was reasonable assurance that the plant could achieve sate shutdown at the higher level. The NRC i s currently evaluating the licensee's report
  • The NRC performed a screening and priorit izat ion r eview of this report and th::it niabln r.anyo n screens in to do n me '"' 'l'l r.-J*e se ismic probablis
r ii 3
mf .ts is due -----* ua$0V VI I (he li cens ee's reported interin actions , the NRC determined that the plant is safe to operate while the further analysis is being comp l eted. NR C REvlEW OF S EISMIC HAZ'ARDATTH E D IABLO C ,AJ\J'V P ONERPLANT Th is brochure pro vides an overview o the NRC's review of the Shoreline f au zone. near D iablo Canyon .. It also places the Shoreline fault review i n context with the NRC's r equest that al U.S. nuclear power plants reana lyze seismic hazards based on l essons learned from the Fukushima Dai-i chi accident in J a p an. (Prepared April 2015) For additional information con t act th Office of Public Affairs. (30 415-8200 or email: opa@nrc.gov _.. :J -00 I -, _.. PJ _.. --* 6" CJ) :J PJ -< "O PJ -co PJ CD Q: CJ) CD -_.. 0 0 -I ::; CD _.. "O (JI c: 0-0 =o 0o -u;* 0 c: -CJ) CD 0 --::; CD CJ) () 0 "O CD 0 --:::; CD ,, 0 )> .., CD .0 c: CD -i ::; CD "O PJ <O CD CJ)

DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT SEISMIC BACKGROUND

  • Nuclear power plant designs consider earthquake effects by prov i ding marg i ns against ground motion levels at the plant s i te. -The ground motion levels show how much energy (measured in 'g ,' or percent of Earth's gravity) is transmitted at different shak i ng frequencies Designers use ground motion levels to analyze how structures and equipment respond during an earthquake
  • Diablo Canyon is licensed to three earthquake. ground motions (most plants have two) -Design Earthquake (DE) ground motion is the b i ggest earthquake the plant is allowed to continue operating through );;>. The DE ground motion level is 0.2g anchored at 100 Hz Double Design Earthquake (ODE), ground motion is the shaking level at. which all safety related equipment must remain functional The ODE ground motion level is double the amplitude of the DE (0.4g peak ground acceleration.

anchored at 100 Hz) -Hosgri Earthquake (HE} ground motion level,. which is based on an earthquake from the Hosgri fault , which was discovered in 1971 . );;>. The HE ground motion level is 0.75g peak ground acceleration anchored at 100 Hz based on a 7.5 magnitude earthquake 5 kilometers from the s i te >-Diablo Canyon's design was mod i fied so that sufficient equipment survives the. HE to safely shutdown the plant and keep the nuclear fuel cool

  • Long Term Seismic Program (LTS P} -The plant's original license required seismic reevaluation in 1 O years The L TSP was i nitiated to meet this license condition

-The L TSP spectrum has been used to evaluate seismic margins 00 DI f rfqUen<)'

(H 7) 10 100 SHORELINE FAULT * *

  • In November of 2008 , plant owner Pacific Gas and Electr i c (PG&E) informed the NRG it had i dentified a previously unknown fault during collaborative research. w i th the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS} The Shoreline fault i s approximately 600. meters from the reactor and 300 meters off shore The NRC's first assessment of the Shoreline fault was detailed in Research Information Letter (R I L)09-001 .. "Preliminary Deterministic Analysis of Seismic Hazard at Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant from Newly Identified

'Shorel i ne. Fault""

DiFran ce s co, Ni c h o l as From:DiFrance sco, Nicholas Sent: 2 7 Apr 2 015 1 2: 45: 57 +0000 T o:Jackson , Dian e

Subject:

FY T: Comm e nt on th e Diab l o Ca nyon se i s mic brochure Attachments:diablo canyon bro c hur e r ev i s i on 6.docx Fyi. .. From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 8:34 AM To: Gibson, Lauren Cc: Hill, Brittain; Vega, Frankie

Subject:

Comment on the Diablo Canyon seismic brochure Lauren , Br i tt Hill had a new graphic with additional curves on it. We will probably need to add the GMRS and cons i der incorporation of the LSTP margin assessment.

Scott Flanders , Mohamed Shams , Yong Li , and Kama l Manoly are planning to travel for the end-of-cycle meeting June 24. Ahead of the meet i ng we should share with them for comment. SPRA report w i ll be due June 2017. Thanks , Nick From: Gibson , Lauren Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 8:21 AM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

FW: question:

how to help RIV with request regarding Diablo canyon seismic brochure Nick , Have you been able to look a t this yet? I th i nk the time has come. Thanks , Lauren From: Gibson, Lauren Sent: Monday, March 23 , 2015 4:56 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

RE: question:

how to he lp RIV with request regarding Diablo Canyon seismic brochure Nick , I took the liberty of updating this brochure as if the screening and prioritization rev i ew were already completed. All that's needed is to put in the due date for SPRA. There seems to be quite a large number of people to coordinate with i n t his: your branch , DORL , Region 4 , and NRO, so it should probably go into circulation for comment soon. We don't want to get ahead of the sc r eening and prioritization , but I want to be ready to go so we can use this tool as soon as the initia l rev i ew is completed. When do you think I should send it to the others? I thought you should get the first crack at it. Thanks , Lauren From: Uselding, Lara . Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 9:32 AM T o: Bowman, Gregory C c: Burnell, Scott; Williams , Megan; A lexander, Ryan; Wha l ey, Sheena; Difrancesco, Nicholas; Jackson, Diane; Oesterle, Eric; Markley, Michael; Lingam , Siva; Sebrosky, Joseph; Gibson, L auren

Subject:

RE: question:

how to help RIV with request regarding Diablo Canyon seism i c brochure Great news Greg , thanks and we appreciate the support. L ara F r om: Bowman, Gregory Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 7:29 AM T o: Uselding, Lara C c: Burnell, Scott; Williams, Megan; A lexan der, Ryan; Whaley, Sheena; Difrancesco, Nicholas; Jackson, Diane; Oesterle, Eric; Markley, Michael; Lingam, Siva; Sebrosky, Joseph; Gibson, L auren

Subject:

RE: question:

how to help RIV with request regarding Diablo Canyon seismic brochure Lara , L auren will take the lead for helping out with prepar i ng for the meeting and pu ll ing together the communication tools to support it. She'll coordinate w i th NRO , JHMB , DORL , and Region I V on that. I asked her to get in touch with you to discuss specifics , inc l ud i ng timing of the meeting, so. you should be hea r i ng from her shortly. Greg From: Sebrosky, Joseph Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 6:53 AM To: Bowman, Gregory; Gibson, Lauren; Difrancesco, Nicholas; Lingam, Siva; Markley, Michael; Oesterle, Eric; Jackson, Diane Cc: Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; Williams, Megan; Alexander, Ryan; Whaley, Sheena

Subject:

question:

how to he lp RIV with request regarding Diablo Canyon seismic brochure Greg, Lauren , Nick , Mike , Siva , Eric , and Diane , The purpose of th i s email is to i nform you of a request from RIV regarding possibly updating the attached brochure that we used in the past to commun i cate Diablo Canyon seismic issues. T he i nquiry for possibly updating the brochure can be found in the ema i l below. A second purpose is to provide a proposal for updating the brochure that wou l d involve JLD, NRO and RIV resources. Any insights you m i ght have on the best way of updating the brochure (if it i s deemed appropriate to do so) based on the information below on how the brochure was put together would be helpful. The attached brochure was developed by me as the Diablo PM with help from Annie Kammerer, Cliff Munson , Chris Cook, RIV staff (including Neil O'Keefe , Christie Hale , Megan Williams and Lara Useld i ng), and the JLD (Barry Miller). It was. part of a broader effort to communicate seismic information to the public at a Fall 2012 public meeting. Barry , Annie , and Chris , all had poster boards that they developed along with the attached brochure and they attended the Fall 2012 public meeting. The. brochure and several poster boards from the Fall 2012 meeting are still available on the RIV sharepoint link (see http://fusion.nrc.gov/r eg i ons/r iv/Pub l i c%20Meetings

/Forms/A l lltems.aspx) From my perspective , I understand the request below is limited to updating the attached brochure , I just wanted to give everyone that was not involved with the Fall 2012 public meeting an idea of how the seismic communication tools were developed (it was truly a team effort). For what it is worth my suggestion to update the brochure would include the following (the 4 megabyte word file is available on the RIV sharepoint link):

  • Me or Lauren Gibson work with Megan Williams to take a first crack at updating the brochure based on the Diablo's March 2015 seismic reevaluation information o Megan has the technical background on Diablo seismic issues and is an outstanding source of information
  • Have the revised brochure. reviewed for technical.

content by Nick DiFrancesco (JLD seismic reevaluation lead PM), D i ane Jackson (NRO seismic branch chief-Diane can determine which NRO staff , if any , need to review the updated brochure for technical content) and RIV projects staff o Revise the brochure as appropriate based on comments from JLD , NRO , and RIV projects staff Please let me know if you have any questions about the above and feedback on the proposal if it is determined that updating the brochure is appropriate.

Thanks , Joe Sebrosky Senior Project Manager: Japan Lessons-Learned Division Off ice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation joseph.sebrosky@nrc

.gov 301-415-1132 From: OPA4 Resource Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 5:34 PM To: Gibson, Lauren; Sebrosky, Joseph Cc: Burnell, Scott

Subject:

Hello Lauren and Joe-Back in 2012 when we issued the RIL , we handed out the attached brochure.

I forget who there at HQ put i t together but it's been a super handy resource to pass out to public and the media. I thought it would be useful i f we update it with 1) verbiage once the March submittals come 2)any necessary updates and take. i t with. us this year to our meeting. Can you assist with this or point me to right pe rson to work with? I am no longer pursuing a video so this would provide a helpful overview of O iab l o Canyon seismic .. Thanks , Lara Uselding S e nt: 2 4 Apr 2015 1 8: 3 9: 4 6 +0000 To: Al ex ander , Ry a n; Walk e r, Wayn e;U se ldin g, Lar a;Mai e r , Bill Subj ec t:FYI: Dr aft of WUS S c r ee nin g and Pdori t i za tion Letter W es t e rn U S Scr een in g and Prio1it iz ation l e tt e r.do cx, l n fo POP W es t e rn US S cr ee nin g L e tt er r e v5.do cx Folks , Current WUS seismic screening letter. Beginning management review in NRR and NRO. It generally mirrors the CEUS screening letter from May 9, 2014. Attached is the current POP that will be updated for senior management briefings.

I plan to schedu l e in the near future a NRR E T and i nc l ude the R-I V managemen t brief. Thanks , Nick From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 7:08 PM To: Shams, Mohamed; Jackson, D i ane; Cho, Esthe r Cc: Hill, B r itta i n; Munson , Cl i fford; Vega , Frank i e; Burnell, Scott; Lent, Susan Draft of WUS Screening and P r ior i tizatiOll Letter Folks, Esther , Attached is the WUS Screening and Pr i o r ization Letter. Along with Frankie's and technica l staff efforts the letter i s ready for management review. Attachment 2 -redline markup shows changes from the CEUS May 9 , 2014 letter. Items for Management Awareness:

  • Discusses acceptabil i ty of Oiab l o Canyon and Palo Verde inter i m actions in l ieu of ESEP
  • Discusses limi t ed scope evaluation schedule for Group 1 WUS Sites only
  • No discussion of SPRA schedule relaxation (suggest to discuss with l icensees when results are commun i cated) Attachment 4 -Current Management POP and Commun i cation Plan Timeline Attachment 1 is ready for ADAMS add. Thanks , Nick Sen i or Project Manager -Se i smic Reevaluation Act i vit i es U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project D i v i s i on nicho l as.d i francesco@nrc.gov I Tel: (301) 415-1 115 The Power Reactor Licensees on the Enclosed List

SUBJECT:

SCREENING AND PRIORITIZATION RESULTS FOR THE WESTERN UNITED STATES SITES REGARDING INFORMATION PURSUANT TO T I TLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 50.54 (f). REGARDING SEISMIC HAZARD RE-EVALUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDATION 2.1 OF THE TERM TASK FORCE REVIEW OF INSIGHTS FROM THE FUKUSHIMA ICHI ACCIDENT On March 12 , 2012 , the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRG) issued a request for information pursuant to Title 1 O of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50 (1 O CFR), Section 50.54(f). (hereafter referred to as the 50.54. (f). letter) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML12053A340). The purpose of that request was to gather information concerning , in part , the seismic hazards at operating reactor sites and to enable the NRC staff to determine. whether licenses.

should be. modified, suspended , or revoked. The "Required Response" section of Enclosure 1 indicated that licensees and construction permit holders should provide a Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening report within 3 years from the date of the. letter for Western United States (WUS) plants (i.e., Columbia Generating Station (Columbia), Diablo Canyon Power Plant (Diablo Canyon), and Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (Palo Verde)). Further , the 50.54(f) letter stated that NRG would provide the results of the screening and prioritization indicating dead lines for individual plants to complete seismic risk evaluations to assess the total plant response to the re-evaluated seismic hazard. Additionally, by letter 1 dated February 20, 2014, the NRG provided supplemental information on the content of the seismic re-evaluated hazard submittals including guidance on reportability and operability.

The purpose of this letter is to inform WUS licensees of the. NRC's screening and prioritization and to allow licensees to appropriately plan the completion of further seismic r isk evaluations described in Enc losure 1 of the 50.54(f) letter. To respond to the 50.54(f) letter , all addressees committed to. follow the Electric Power. Research Institute (EPRI) Report , "Seismic Evaluation Guidance:

Screening, Prioritization and Implementat ion Deta ils (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic ," 2 as. supplemented , by the EPRI Report , " Seismic Evaluation Guidance:

Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Recommendation 2.1: Seismic" 3 (referre d to as the Exped ited Approach). The NRC held multiple public meetings and teleconferences with industry and the public leading to the development of the guidance documents supporting review of re-ev aluated seismic hazards. I The February 20, 2014, supplemental in format ion letter is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14030A046. T h e SPID gu ida nce document is found in ADAMS u nde r Accession No. ML12333A170. The staff endorsement letter for the SPID guidance is found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML12319A074.

I T h e Expedited Approach gu i dance document is found in ADAMS under Access ion No. ML13102A142. The WUS l i censees submitted the re-evaluated seismic hazards. by letters dated March 12, 2015 (references are provided i n Enclosure 3 of this letter). The NRG staff conducted the screening and prioritization r ev i ew of the submitta l s by assessing each l icensee's screening evaluation and hazard analys i s uti li zing the. endorsed SPID guidance .. INTERIM EVALUAT I ONS 4 The 50.54(f) letter requested that l icensees provide " interim evaluations and actions taken o r planned to address the higher se i smic hazard relative to the design-bas i s , as appropriate, prior to completion of the risk evaluation." For those plants where the re-evaluated seismic hazard exceeds t he seismic design-basis, licensees stated they w i ll provide inter i m evaluat i ons to demonstrate that the plant can cope with the higher re-evaluated se i sm i c. hazard while the longer-term se i smic r i sk evaluations are ongoing. In support of the requested interim evaluations for licensees , WUS p l ants provided i nformat i on related to margin evalua t ions or insights from Individual Plant Exam i nat i on of External Events (I PEEE) eva l uat i ons including estimated seismic risk. Additionally , the. subm i ttals discussed completing p l ant seismic walkdowns as part of NTIF Recommendation 2.3 in order to verify that the current p l ant configuration is cons i stent with the licens i ng basis. The NRG staff rev i ew of WUS reports found that li censees have demonstrated add i tional p l ant seism i c. margins. supportive of cont i nued plan t operation wh i le additiona l risk evaluations are conducted. The licensees for Diab l o. Canyon and Palo. Verde provided inter i m evaluations i n lieu. of completing of the Exped i ted Approach. These l i censees have demonstrated seism i c margins that met the intent of the Exped i ted Approach review. For Columbia , the inter i m evaluation prov i ded i n March 2015 is a first step in assessing the plant's capacity to withstand the re-evaluated hazard. In the near-term, by January 2016 ,. Columb i a will complete an " Expedited Approach" t o evaluate. and identify reinforcemen t s ,. if necessary , for certain equipment to ensure a safe shutdown pathway can withstand a higher se i smic ground motion. SCREENING PROCESS As defined in the 50.54(f) letter and the SPID gu i dance , the seismic hazard re-evaluations were conducted using current analys i s methods and guidance. The licensees' responses to the 50.54 (f) l etter provided se i sm i c hazard re-evaluation results , which were the focus of the NRG staff's i nitial screening and prioritization review. Although the safe shutdown earthquake. (SSE) is commonly referred to as a single number, this number represents a distr i but i on of ground motions that occur over a range of spectral frequencies. This resu l ts in a curve of ground acce l e r ation ove r frequency.

The ability of equipment and structures i n the p l ant to withstand the effects of ground motions is frequency specif i c. For the purposes of the licensees' ana l yses and NRG staff's review , the SPID gu i dance identif i es three frequency ranges that are of particular interest:

1-10 Hertz (Hz), a low frequency range of <2.5 Hz , and a high frequency range of > 1 O Hz. The different ranges have been identified due to the different types of structures and equipment that may be impacted by 4 E nc l o s u re 1 o f t h i s l e tt er p r o v ides a Gl ossary o f Se i s m i c Eval uat i o ns

-. 3 -. ground motions in that range. For example, large components generally are not affected significantly by high frequencies (i.e., > 1 O Hz). The frequency range 1-1 O Hz is. the focus for this portion of the risk evaluation , as this range has the greatest potential effect on the performance of equipment and structures important to safety. For other frequency ranges, discussed below, limited-scope evaluations will be conducted, when appropriate.

In accordance with the SPID and Expedited Approach guidance, the re-evaluated seismic hazard determines if additional seismic risk evaluations are warranted for a plant. Specifically, the re-evaluated ground motion response spectra (GMRS) in the 1-10 Hz frequency range is compared to the existing SSE:

  • If the re-evaluated GMRS, in the 1-10 Hz range, is less than the plant's existing SSE, then the plant screens out of conducting further. seismic risk evaluations.
  • If th e GMRS, in the 1-1 O Hz range, is greater than the existing SSE , then the plant will complete the Expedited Approach (including the. Interim Evaluation)

.. Most plants that meet this criterion also screen in to conduc t a seismic risk evaluation and have comm itted to conduct high frequency and spent fuel pool evaluations.

I n addition,. if the. GMRS meets the. low hazard threshold , which is described in the SPID ,. and only exceeds the SSE below 2.5 Hz , the licensee will perform a limited evaluation of equipment potentially susceptible to low frequency motions. Similarly , if the GMRS exceeds the SSE only above. 10. Hz , then the. licensee will perform an evaluation of the equipment or structures susceptible. to that specific range of ground motion. Enclosure

2. provides the s t a f fs determination of priority for plants that screen-in to conduct a se i smic risk evaluation , and identification of plants to complete limited-scope evaluations (i.e., spent fuel pool , high frequency, or low frequency).

CONDITIONAL SCREENING As discussed in public meetings 5 and by letter dated February 20, 2014, the staff anticipated the possibility of not being able to complete the determination for conducting a seismic risk evaluation for some plants in the. 30-day review period under certain circumstances

.. For example, if a l icensee provided a unique submittal or deviated from the SPID gu i dance , additional time for the review might be. needed. In general, WUS submittals contain extensive site specific information including site specific source models. and ground-motion models which could affect the final screening decisions.

Accordingly , during the. NRC screening and pr i orit i zation process , the staff identified that for Palo. Verde additional time and inte rac tions. will be. required to better understandthe. seismic hazard for the plant. As such , the staff determined that Palo Verde " conditionally screens-in" for the purposes of prioritizing and conduct i ng additional evaluations

.. Palo Verde has. been prioritized to complete a seismic risk evaluation in Group 3. After interactions have occurred , the staff will make a final screening and prioritization determination and provide a letter to the licensee.

I f the plant remains screened-in , the final screening l etter will affirm the plant priority 5 Discuss i o n as part o f public meetings dated December 4 , 2014 , February 11, 2015, a n d Ma r ch 30 , 2015 (ADAMS Access i on Nos. M L 14342A901, ML15104A065 and ML15111A031 , respec t i vely). for further evaluations and establish. schedu l e. for an Expedited Approach, if. necessary.

If the plant screens out , the final screening letter also will determine if the Pa l o Verde needs to complete limited-scope evaluations (i.e., spent fuel pool, high frequency, or low frequency).

PLANT PRIOR I TIZATION The NRC grouped the " screened-i n" pla n ts into three. groups 6 , which (i) reflects the. relative priority for conduct i ng a seismic risk evaluation that compares each plant's current capabilities to the re-evaluated seismic hazard , and (ii) accounts for the approp r iate allocation of limited staff and available expertise for r eviewing. and conducting seismic risk evaluations.

During the priori t ization review , the staff considered each l i censee's re-evaluated hazard submittals , p l ant specific seismic and risk insights , and prev i ous des i gn-basis ground motion estimates.

To prioritize the plants for completing seismic risk eva l uations , s t aff examined certain key parameters such as (1) the max i mum ratio of the. new re-evalua t ed hazard (GM R S). to the. SSE i n the 1-1 0 Hz range; (2) the maximum ground motion in the 1-10 Hz range; and (3) insights from previous seismic risk evaluations.

As such, Group 1 plants are generally those that have the highest r e-evaluated hazard relat i ve to. the original plant seismic design-basis (GMRS to SSE), as well as ground motions in the 1-10 Hz range that are generally higher in absolute magnitude.

Group 1 plants including Columbia and D iablo Canyon are expected to conduct a se i smic risk evaluation and submit it by June 30 , 2017. Group 3 plants have GMRS to SSE rat i os tha t are greater than 1 , but the amount of exceedance in t he. 1-1 O Hz range is relatively small, and the maximum ground mot i on in the 1-1 O Hz range is also not high. Given the limited level of exceedance of the Group 3 plants including Palo Verde , staff is evaluating the need for licensees to conduct a seismic risk evaluation in order for the staff to complete its regulatory decision making. After. f urther review , the staff will decide which Group 3 plants need to comp l ete a risk evaluation.

Risk evaluations for Group 3 plants are due by D ecember 31, 2020. NEX T S T EPS Based on the. staffs screening review the licensee for Columbia should. final i ze and submit an Expedited Approach Report no later than January 2016. I n accordance with the endorsed guidance, the staff acknowledges that the January 2016 Expedited Approach submittal will focus on plant equipment (i.e. safe shutdown pathway 7) evaluations and modifications , as necessary, prior to submitting the plant seismic risk eva l uations. The content of limited-scope evaluations or confirmations and their associated schedule milestones remain under development with NRC staff and stakeholders to assess acceptable alternatives for conducting these evaluat i ons. The NRC staff has conducted a number of public meetings to reach alignment on the implementation details of these evaluations.

The staff expects that implementing guidance should be established by summer 2015 and fall 2015 for high frequency and spent fuel pool eva l uations, respectively. It is expected that WUS l i censees 6 Central and Eastern l i censees seismic hazard screening and pr i or i ty rev i ews were completed i n 2014. 7 Section 3 of the Expedited Approach guidance (ADAMS Access i on No. ML13102A142) prov i des a process to identify a sing l e seismically rob ust success path us ing a subset o f installed plant equipme n t , FLEX eq ui pme n t and connection points. can. comp l ete these evaluat i ons in parallel with completion of SPRAs for Group 1. plants by June 2017. This letter transmits the NRC staff's results of the. seismic. hazard submittals for the. purposes of screening and prioritizing the p l ants. It does not convey the staff's final determination regarding the adequacy of any plant's calculated hazard. As such , the NRG staff w i ll continue its review of the. submitted seismic hazard re-evaluations , and may request addit i onal. plant-specific information to support th i s review .. The. staff has. placed a high priority on this review for the early i dentification of issues that m i ght adversely affect each licensee's seismic risk evaluations. Initial i nteractions. with l icensees. will occur as soon as. practicable. The NRG staff plans to issue a staff assessment on the re-evaluated seismic. hazard once each rev i ew i s completed in approximately 1 2 to 18 months. If you have any questions regard i ng th i s letter , please contact Nicho l as DiFrancesco at 301-415-1115 or via emai l at Nicholas.Difrancesco@nrc

.gov. S i ncerely, Wi lli am M. Dean , Director Off i ce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

1. Glossary of Evaluations
2. Screening and Prior i ti z ation Resu l ts 3. List of Licensees March 2015 Re-eva l uated Se i sm i c Hazard Submittals
4. List of Licensees cc w/encls: Listserv can comp l ete these evaluat i ons in parallel with completion of SPRAs for Group 1 plants by June 2017. This letter transmits t he NR C staff's results of the se i smic hazard submitta l s for the pu r poses of screening and prioritizing the p l ants. It does not convey the staffs final determ i nat i on regard i ng t he adequacy of any p l ant's ca l culated haza r d. As such , the NRC staff will continue its r eview of t he submitted seismic hazard re-evaluations , and may request addit i onal plant-specific information to support th i s review .. The. staff has. placed a h i gh priori t y on this rev i ew for. the early iden t ification of issues that might adversely affect each licensee's seismic risk evaluations. Initial i nteractions with l icensees w i ll occur as soon as practicable. The NRC staff plans to issue a staff assessment on the re-evaluated seismic. hazard once each rev i ew i s comp l eted in approximately. 1 2. to 18 months. If you have any questions regarding this letter , please contact Nicholas D i Francesco at 30 1-415-1115 or via email at Nicholas.Difrancesco@nrc

.gov. Sincerely, Wi lli am M. Dean , Director Off i ce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

1. Glossary of Evaluations
2. Screening and Prior i t i zation Results 3. List of Licensee March 2015 Re-eva l uated Seismic . Hazard Subm i ttals. 4. List of Licensees cc w/encls: Listserv DISTR I BUTION: PUBLIC LPL4-1 R/F LP L 4-2 R/F R i dsNroOd RidsNrrDorl R i dsNrrDorllpl4

-1 Rids N r r Dorllpl4-2 R i dsNrrOd R i dsNs i rOd R i dsOeMa il Center R i dsOgcMa i lCen t er MMark l ey , NRR MKhanna , NRR MShams , NRR NDiF r ancesco , NRA ADAMS Accession No.: ML15113B344 OFFI C E NR R/J LD/P MB/PM NR R/J L D/LA N RR/JLD/HMB/BC NAME ND i F r ancesc o S l e n t MS ha ms D A TE 04/22/15 I /1 5 I /15 OFFIC E NRO/D S E A/D OG C NRR/J LD/D NAME SFl a nd ers BH a r ris JD a v is DATE I /1 5 I. /15 . I. /15 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY AKock , NRO DJackson , NRO RidsNrrPM Diab l oCanyon RidsNrrPMCo l umb i a RidsNrrPaloVerde

RidsOgcRp Resource R i dsRgn4Ma il Center Reso ur ce RidsEdoMai l Center Resou r ce *v i a ema il N R O/DS ENR GS 2/B C N R R/DOR U D. D J ac ks o n Llu nd I /1 5 I /15 NRR/D WD ean I .. /15 Glossary of Evaluations Associated with Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1 Seismic Hazard Re-eva l uations Interim Evaluation or Actions -An immediate licensee and NRC review of the re-evaluate d hazard to determine whether actions are needed to assure plant safety while further evaluations are ongoing. The staff has completed its review and concluded that , based on the licensees' interim evaluations and actions , Western United States (WUS) plants are safe for continued operations.

Interim evaluations and actions are provided in Section 5.0, "Interim Act i ons ," of the licensee submittals.

Expedit e d Appro ac h -A near-term licensee evaluation to be completed by January 31 , 2016 , for WUS plants whose re-evaluated hazard exceeds the current des ign-ba sis for the safe shutdown earthquake hazard level. The evaluation looks at the systems and components that can be used to safely shut down a plant under the conditions of a station blackout (i.e., no alternating current power is available) and loss of ultimate heat sink. The expedited approach will either confirm that a plant has sufficient margin to continue w ith a longer-ter m evaluation without any modificat ions, or confirm the need to enhance the seismic capacity to assure they can withstand the re-evaluated hazard. The Expedited Approach guidance document is found in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System under No. Accession No. ML13102A142.

S e ismi c Ri s k Evaluation

-L onger-term seismic risk evaluation provides the most comprehensive information to make regulatory decisions, such as whether to amend a plant's design or licensing basis or make additional safety enhancements.

These evaluations provide information to make r isk-informed decis ions. The staff will use this information in conjunction with the existing regulatory tools, such as backfit analysis , to decide on further regulatory actions. The longer-term seismic risk evaluations could be either a Seismic Margins Analys is or a Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment , depending on the magnitude of the exceedance.

Limit e d-S c op e Ev a luation s -These include i) Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation , ii) High Frequency Evaluation , and iii) Low Frequency Evaluation.

Respect i vely , these evaluations are focused on the following:

i) spent fuel pool components and systems capable of draining water inventory to the level of the spent fuel, ii) a review of components susceptible to high frequency accelerations (e.g. electrical relays), and ii i) a review of components susceptible to low frequency accelerations (e.g. water storage tanks). Enclosure 1

Near-Term Task Force Review of Ins i ghts from the. Fukushima Dai-l chi Accident Seism i c Risk Evaluations Screening and Pr i oritizat i on Resu l ts for Western Un i ted States (WUS) Reactor Sites Seism i c Risk Lim i ted-scope Evaluations. S c reen i ng Exped i ted Evaluation H igh Low Spent Fue l Plant Name Resu l t App r oach (Priori ti zat i on Frequency Frequency Pool Eva l uation Group) Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Columbia Generat i ng Station I n x 1 x x Diablo Canyon Power Plant , U nit In 1 x x Nos. 1 and 2 Palo Verde Nuclear Generat i ng Conditional Stat i on , Units. 1 , 2 , a n d 3 i n 3 x x Enclosure 2

March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals for Western United States Reactor Sites Licensee Facility Date of letter (ADAMS Accession Nos.) Columbia Generating Station March 12, 2015. (ML15078A243)

Diab lo Canyon Power Plant , Unit Nos. 1 and 2 March 11 , 2015 (ML15071A046) Pa lo Verde Nuclear Generating Station , Units March 10 , 2015 (ML15076A073) and 1, 2 , and 3 April 1O .. 2015 (ML15105A076)

Enclosure 3

LIST OF APPLICABLE POWER REACTOR LICENSEES Columbia Generating Station Energy Northwest Docket No .. 50-397 License No. NPF-2 1 Mr. Mark E. Reddemann Chief Executive Officer Energy Northwest MD 1023 76 North Power Plant L oop P.O. Box 968 Richland , WA 99352 Diablo Canyon Power. P l ant. Unit Nos .. l and 2. Pacific Gas & Electric Company Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82 Mr. Edward D. Halpin Senior Vice President and Ch i ef Nuclear Officer Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 56 Mail Code 104/6 Avila Beach, CA 93424 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Arizona Public Service Company Docket Nos. STN 50-528 , STN 50-529 , and STN 50-530 License Nos. NPF-41 , NPF-51 and NPF-74 Mr. Randall K. Edington Executive Vice Pres i dent Nuclear/CNO Arizona Public Service Company P.O. Box 52034 , MS 7602. Phoenix , AZ 85072-2034 Enclosure 4

DiFr ancesco, Ni c h o l as F ro m:DiFr ancesco, N i c h o la s Sent: 21 M ay 2 01 52 1:1 4: 05 +00 00 T o: Burn e ll , Sco tt;M aie r , B i ll;U se ldin g, La ra;M o r e n o, An ge l C c:A l exa nd e r , Ry a n;W a lk e r , W ay n e;Lin ga m , Siv a;V ega, Fr a nki e;Ja c k so n , Di a n e;S ha m s, M o h a m e d;Hip sc hman , Th o m as;M ark l ey, Mi c ha e l;Hill , Britt ai n Subj ec t:FYI: Fu t ur e I ss u a n ce of Di ab l o C a ny on R2. l S e i s mi c M eeti n g Summ ary Att ac h me n ts:S um mary of A pr il 28 th M ee ti ng w i th P G E_5.d ocx Meeting summary i s pub li c l y ava il ab l e as Folks , ML15125A186. FYI: The following meeting summary will be i ssued regard i ng the Apri l 28 -D i ablo Canyon R2.1 Se i smic pub li c mee t ing COB Wednesday May 27 , 2015. The summary closes two public comments received related t o the webcast. Open ADAMS P8 Document (Summary of Apri l 28, 2015, Category 1 P ubl ic Meeting with Pacific Gas and Electric Company to Discuss Diablo Canyon's Seismic Haza rd Reevaluation Associated with Implementation of Japan Lessons-Learned Nea r-T erm Task Force Recommendation 2.1, Seismic) Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Thanks , Nick Sen i or Project Manager -Se i smic Reevaluation Activ i t i es U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm i ssion Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Div i s i on nicholas.difrancesco@nrc.gov I Tel: (301) 415-1115 DiFran cesco. Ni c h o l as From:DiFrance sco, Nicholas Sent: 19 May 2 015 19:05:51 +0000 T o:'Gene N e l so n , Ph.D.' C c: Vega, F ra nki e Subj ec t:Incorporation of Public C o mm e nt Or. Nelson , Appreciate the public comment. Apologizes in the delay i n response , the staff has rece i ved a number of public comments for review as part of the meeting. Below is the staff summary of your comment: The staff rece i ved a comment from Dr. Gene Nelson (Cal i fornians for Green Nuclear Power) via email dur i ng the meeting. The NRG staff inadvertent l y missed the opportunity to acknowledge Dr. Nelson's. comment during the meeting. According to Dr. Nelson , Diablo Canyon has favorable site conditions , which attenuate or d i ssipate earthquake energy over relat i vely short distances.

Due to this favorable condition , the primary earthquake forces seen by the plant would be dom i nated by nearby earthquake sources and energy transmitted to the plant would be dominated by the small section of the earthquake rupture closest to the plant. Dr. Nelson stated that when cons i dering the i nformation presented at the meeting of overall plant ruggedness and the seismic hazard i nsights discussed above , Diablo Canyon continues to operate safely. Please let Frankie and I know if you have proposed correction by May 21 , 2015. Thanks , Nick -----Original Message-----

From: Gene Nelson , Ph.D. [mailto l (b l(5 l h Sent: Saturday, May 16 , 2015 7:39 PM To: DiFrancesco , Nicholas

Subject:

Reminder:

Gene Nelson , Ph.D. is still awaiting the summary of the 28 April 2015 NRG meeting on DCPP Importance:

H i gh Dea r Nicholas:

I'm still awaiting the summary for my review of the 28 April 2015 NRG meeting on DCPP that documents my participation in the meeting. Do you know when I will be able to review that document?

You may also be i nterested i n the 231 pages of submissions as of 11 May 2015 to the Cal i fornia Energy Commission (CEC) docket 15-IEPR-12 regarding Diablo Canyon Power Plant. I wrote or assembled about 99% of the written exhibits.

Upon request , I'll email you a 5-page summary of those exhibits. Thanks! Gene Nelson , Ph.D. San Luis Obispo, CA >Date: Thu , 30 Apr 2015 08: 55: 27 -0700

>To: "DiFrancesco, Nicholas" <Nicholas.DiFrancesco@nrc.gov>

>From: "Gene Nelson , Ph.D." 1<0><6> >Sub ft(t* Exa mnle D CPP N11 f lear Safety Discuss ions by Gene Nelson , Ph.D. >Bee t >><5) _ > >Nicholas DeFrancesco

>US Nuclear Regula tory Commission

>NRR/DORULPL4

>(301) 415-1 115 >njd2@nrc.gov

> >30 April 2015 > >I appreciate your telephone call to me yesterday regarding my not being >a telephonic participant in the NRC DCPP seismic safety review on 28 >April 2015. I look forward to reviewing a draft of my contributions to >the 28 April 2015 DCPP seismic safety review in the upcoming NRC >re port. > >I sincerely hope there will be more effort focused on public outreach >to help interested non-expert part ici pants understand future NRC >reviews of DCPP safety. As a physical sciences professor at Cuesta >College -and recently an engineering professor at California. >Polytechnic State University at San Lu is Obispo , I recognize the >importance of public outreach.

As a consequence , I have provided >citizen testimony at NRC field hearings, D iablo Canyon Independent

>Safety Committee hearings, California Coastal Commission hearings , >California State Water Resources Contro l Board hearings, and California

>Energy Commission hearings.

A Google search of both phrases "Diablo. >Canyon Power Plant" and " Gene Nelson" shows 19 results , " DCPP" and >"Gene Nelson" shows 13 results , and "CGNP" and " Gen e Nelson" showed 12 >results.

> >As an example of my outreach, please see my current exchange with Rod >Deyo, Ph.D. in the attachment.

His Ph.D. is in mathematics. >https://www.linkedin.co m/in/roddeyo Rod and I both graduated from >Harvey. Mudd College. in 1973. > >I'm interested in your perspectives.

> >Gene Nelson , Ph.D. https://www.linkedin.com

/in/geneanelson San >Luis Obispo , CA 1<0><6> !cell Sent:24 Apr 2015 20:01:37 +0000 To:Lindell , J ose ph

Subject:

Many t hank s! RE: For OP A and OGC R ev i ew: Near-final DCPP Slides Yosef , Have a good weekend. Appreciate the prompt rev i ew. Sincerely , Nick From: Lindell , Joseph Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 3:59 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicho l as

Subject:

RE: For OPA and OGC Rev i ew: Nea r-final DCPP Slides Nick. Yosef. Lindell. Attorney U.S. Nuc l ea r Regulatory Commiss i on Office of the General Counse l OWFN 15 015 301-4 15-14 7 4 MOTI C E* Th is iWil il illi'Q ilRf i\tiil6RQ2ifilt8 M!!i)' Hfill!i i fil 88FlfiieF1tie J ;0:M9Ff19) elie1 :t er 1 9 1410 1 I :CJ Wo:lc

11te1 i 11l. Qu ::ct aisclosc oats i ac tJAS :: i tlibal 80111111issia11 app1oeal.

From: Difrancesco, Nicholas S e nt: Friday, April 24, 2015 2:31 PM To: Uselding, Lara; Burnell , Scott; OGCMai l Center Resou rce Cc: Vega, Frankie; Linde ll , Joseph; Ro t h(OGC), Da v id; Uttal , Susan; Alexande r , Ryan; Wa l ker , Wayne; Shams , Mohamed; Jackson, Diane

Subject:

For OPA and OGC Rev iew: Near-final DCPP Slides Scott , Lara , OGG , Current working draft of slides. Let me know if have questions with messages.

I plan to start processing for public release about 9:30 am Monday. OGG , I don't see items that should impact ongoing hearings. -content relates to NTTF 2.1 Seismic. only. Mostly from information from the public domain. Thanks , Nick From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 12:58 PM To: Kock, Andrea; Jackson, Diane; Flanders, Scott; Hill, Brittain; Chokshi, Nilesh; Harr ison, Donnie; Shams, Mohamed Cc: Spence, Jane

Subject:

Comments on DCPP slides Folks, I added a slide 16 based on the bullets be l ow. Written to avoid getting ahead of senior management and public affairs. Proposed Bullets are: Forthcom in g Sei s mic Screening Lett e r

  • Issuan ce of letter for WUS sites in -2 weeks
  • Diablo Canyon has sc r eened-in for furth er r i sk evaluations and is a review priority
  • No immed i ate safety issues identified
  • Informat i on supports safety assurance allowing addit i onal time to complete the seismic risk evaluat i on Thanks , Nick From: Kock , Andrea Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 11:56 AM To: Jackson, Diane; Difrancesco, Nicholas; Flanders, Scott; Hill, Brittain; Chokshi, Nilesh; Harrison, Donnie; Shams, Mohamed Cc: Spence, Jane

Subject:

RE: For comme nt: Preliminary Slides for DCPP meeting Slides look good to me. I wou l d be sure to clarify a few things in your talking points if you have not already: (1) Where are we in the process for Diablo-they screened themselves in and we are eva l uating their hazard (2) They submitted an interim eva l uation and based on th i s and other. information we. have, there is no immediate safety issue. This information provide additional safety assurance for us to take additional time to evaluate the ir r i sk evaluation and determine what regulatory act i ons. are needed if any Andrea Kock, Deputy D i rector, Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis Office of New Reactors United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville, MD 301-415-2368 From: Jackson, Diane Sent:. Friday, April 24, 2015 8:56 AM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas; Kock, Andrea; Flanders, Scott; Hill, Brittain; Chokshi, Nilesh; Harrison, Donnie; Shams, Mohamed Cc: Spence, Jane

Subject:

For comment: Preliminary Slides for DCPP meeting Good morning all -Please find attached , for your review and comment , the staff introductory slides. Right now , I am giving these. Mohamed and Nick , your review and comment are reques ted as well. Once we have comments back, then we can send to the licensee. I am also thinking on additional/alternative context. We don't want this part to be too long. The talking points are not updated. I will be working on them to day. If you want to add bullets or ideas as suggestions for me to work into the slide message , please add them. Diane fi>imie Chief Geosciences and Geotechnical Engineering Branch 2 (RGS2) Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis (DSEA), Office of New Reactors (NRO) US Nuclear Regulatory Commission

+1301-415-5641; office: T-7 03; mail stop: T-7 F3 NRC -One Te a m -One M is sion Sent:23 Apr 2015 1 3:50:37 +0000 To:Munson, Clifford;Ake , J on;Jack s on, Diane;Shams , Mohamed;Manoly , Kamal;L i, Yong;Walke r, Wayne;Lingarn , Siva;Use ldin g, Lara;Alexander , Ryan;Roth(OGC), D avid;L ind e ll , Jo se ph;Utta l , S u sa n;Mo r e no , An ge l Cc:Kock , Andrea;Fland e r s, S co tt;Bow e n , J e remy;MarkJey , Mich a el;Riv e ra-Lu go, Ri chard;Hayes, B a r bara;Hill, Brittain;NTTF R 2.1_2.3 CAL R esource Bc c: HQ-TWFN-07C0 1-15p

Subject:

Prep me e ting for Diablo Canyon Webca s t (888-8 1 7-9392 PC l (b l(5 l I) Attachments:

PG&E Email.do cx, 4-28-1 5 Public Notice.pdf, Potential Q As for April 3020 1 5 COM_BEH.DOCX Purpose: Prep Meeting to support D i ablo Canyon Webcast on Apr i l 28 (888-817-9392 PC: l (b l(5 J Background

  • a:-*I I Agenda: 1. Meeting Notice Agenda -a. Bridge l ine Setup i. 1 ass i sted b ridge l ine -queue for one question or comment ii. 1 open bridgeline for. licensee and R-I V b. Attached Agenda c. NRC Planned. I ntrod uction to 2.1 and DC Seismic. Hazard Rev ie ws 2. NRC T echnica l Questions (PGE Emai l to be Pub li c Apr i l 23 , 2015) 3. Publ i c.Ava i labi l ity of Sl i des on Monday Apr i l 27 , 2015 d. Licensee Slides to NRC Sunday Apri l 26, 2015. e. Sl i d es to OCA and RSLO (Angel and Mai e r) -Apr i l 27. 4. Awareness of Open Contentions

[OGC] f. Conten t i on related t o SSHAC g. Contention related. to CLB. h. Contention r elated to renewa l 5. Discussion of Roles and Respons i bility for Public Quest i ons ITopic s Primar y R esponsibil i ty Curren t Li cens ing and D es i gn B asis, USFAR I n s p ec ti o n or C o mpliance R e n ewal G e n e r al R 2. l Pr oces Que s t ion s Sei mic Qu e tion Off Topi c Que s t io n s Th anks, Nick M. M arkley, [B. Hill Y. Li], N. D i France sco M. M arkley or R-I V over bridge lin e NA -No renewal s taff N. DiFran cesco or DSEA C. Mun so n , J Ake , B Hi ll N. Dif rancesco A p r il 22 , 20 1 5 Potential Commission Q&As April 30, 2015, Update on NTTF Recommendation 2.1 Seismic 1. Are there plants that exceed 2X SSE? Why does the expedited approach only consider ground motions up to two times higher than the plant's des i gn? Yes, there are several plants that exceed the i r Safe Shutdown E arthquake by m o r e than two t i mes. If. a re-eva l uated se i smic hazard is greater than the p l ant's design basis , comp l etion of the exped i ted approach provided additiona l confidence that a plant can cope with the h i gher hazard. This informat i on bui l ds on the i nter i m eva l uat i ons that were submitted to NRC i n March 20 1 4 , wh i ch. showed that the plants were very unlike l y. to exper i ence core-damage at the h i gher hazard levels. T he expedited approach i s designed to show that important equ i pment used t o safe l y shut-down a plant w i ll funct i on as i ntended if a large earthquake occurs .. The expedited.

approaches were comp l eted by licensees in Dec e mber 2014 , and the NRC staff is reviewing these submittals.

In general , li censees used a s i mplified method to ana l yze how safe down equ i pment responds to the. re-evaluated ground motions. This method scales the p l ant's original engineering analyses to a h i gher level of ground motion, up to two times the p l ant's des i gn bas i s. By using th i s sca l ing method, l i censees could promptly determ i ne i f i mportant safe-shutdown equipment i s safe or needs add i tional mod if icat i on. If a plant's r e-eval u ated haza r d exceeds two times its design basis , the plant i s categorized as e i the r. Prior i ty Group 1 o r Group 2 for completion, of a se i smic probabil i st i c risk assessment.

For these r i sk assessments, l i censees w ill use detailed eng i neering models that are based directly on the re-evaluated levels of ground motion for the plant. H owever , the first o f these deta il ed risk ass e ssments aren't expected unt il June , 2017. T he NRC determined that the s i m pli fi ed metho d used in the exped i ted approach was appropriate , because it provided near-term info r mat i on on the. functionality of impo r tant safety equipment at a higher haza r d level years before the longe r-term risk assessments could be completed. 2. If ESEP assures safety , what additional insights do we need from a PRA? How many sites provided modifications in the ESEP submittals?

Does that give us insights regarding wh i ch sites need to do PRAs? T he longer-t er m seismi c risk eva l uations provide the most c omprehensive in f ormation to make regulatory decisions, such as whether to amend design or l icensing bas i s or make add i tional sat ety enhancements.

These evaluat i ons prov i de i nformation to make risk-informed decisions. The staff will use this information i n conjunction with the existing regulatory tools, such as backfit analysis, to decide on f urther regulatory actions. In contrast, the ESEP analyses provide an important int ermediate step in demonstrat ing plant safety for the re-evaluated seismic hazard. The interim analyses provided an overall plant-level assessment of seismic safety. T he ESEP analyses give a more focused assessment of the ability of safe-shutdown equipment to withstand the higher seismic hazards. Although some plant modifications have resulted from the ESEP analyses, the NRG staff does not expect the results of these analyses to modify the need for plants to conduct a se i smic PRA. 3. How does ESSP re l ate to the mitigation strategies rule? H ow can l i censees leverage work on the ESEP for the purposes of mitigation strategies?

4. What are the staff's views on R2.2?. May just. ask what is your personal view. The staff will use the ongoing 2.1 activities and insight gained to inform our decis ion on augmenting the curren t regulatory process with a periodic review of external hazards. Recommendation 2.2 is a Tier 3 activity and a future decision.
5. How many plants need to do additional risk evaluations in response to the newly calculated seismic hazards? Update to indicate that the staff is working with industry to further. refine. which plants. will require. a PRA consistent with our May 9 2013 letter. Based on the results of the NRC staffs rev i ew of the March 31, 2014 submitta l s, at least 20 CEUS sites will need to conduct the detailed seism i c risk evaluations (either the seismic probabilistic risk assessment or the seismic margins analysis) du ring the next several years MAY 2014 Letter Count: 10. plants screened i nto pr iority Group 1 , 11. plants total screened into Group 2 , including 1 conditional screen-in , 22.5 plants screened into Group 3 , including 13.5 plants that conditionally screened in. 16.5 plants screened out of performing additional risk seismic eva luations Updated as of September 2014 1 O plants screened into priority Group 1 , 11 plants total screened in to Group 2 , including 1 conditional screen-in, 13.5 plants screened into Group 3 , inc luding 2.5 plants that conditionally screened i n. 24.5 plants screened out of performing additional risk seismic evaluations 1 deferred -Vermont Yankee (permanent shutdown in 4 th quarter 2014) We will determine where the remaining conditional sites will screen very soon.
6. How can we be sure that the i nformation provided in 2014 on seismic haza r ds r e mains applicable when PRAs are submitt e d clos e to 2020? The information submitted to the NRG in March of 2014 was a request for information

[(50.54(f) request)]

linked to Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1 .. T hese reevaluations provide the cur r ent site-specific seismic hazard informat i on to the NRG. The NRG staff will rev i ew and issue assess m ents on the licensee's. reevaluated seismic hazard by the mid-year 2015. P r iority Group 1 plants are performing risk evaluations , which. a r e due. in J une of 201 7 .. Risk evaluations. for Group 2 p l ants are due at the end o f 2019 and Group 3 evaluations , if needed, are due a t the end of 2020. The sta ff will also r eview the insigh t s gained from Recommenda t ion 2 activities inform our decision on Recommendation 2.2 to determine if licensees need to confirm seismic hazard information on a periodic basis .. 7. Since the hazard information is always changing , what regulatory assurance do licensees have that the hazard they are using for their PRAs will be acceptable?

N RG unde r stands that the seismic P R As a r e. complex investigations that will take. licensees several years to complete, and that the reevaluated seismic hazards are an intrins i c part of these anal y ses. L ate last year, the NRG staff i nforme d l i censees that if there were no ou t stand i ng questions

{i.e., RAls) on their March 20 1 4 subm i ttals, the licensees should move forward with using their seismic hazards in their PRA ca l cu l ations. The staff i s beg i nning to make final revie w determinations on the March 2014 seismic haza r d submittals, with Group l plants having highest priority for completion.

T he s t a f f expects that t hese review determinations w i ll be com pl eted in late 20 1 5. 8. Will the schedule for review of the WUS allow PRAs to be completed on time? The NRG staff will use the same approach as for CE U S plants and will communicate to W U S licensees as soon as practicable about using their March 2015 seismic hazards in the i r seismic PR A s. I f a WU S plant screen-in as p r iority Group 1 , the plant will need to complete the seismic PRA no l a t er than June 2017. Licensees for both the Diablo Canyon Power P lant and Co l umb i a Generating Station have seismic PR A programs ongoing, and have not indicated that they would be unab l e to meet com pl etion deadlines.

9. Why are plants in the western United States (WUS) on a different and longer schedule than plants in the central and eastern United States? T he Co l u m b i a , D iablo Canyon , and Palo Verde plants required additional time to develop an updated , site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard analysis due to the West C oast's compl e x seism i c fea t ures. I n develop i ng pro b abilis t ic seis m ic hazard analyses, CEUS sites were able to use the same recently developed seismic source m odel and a common ground motion model (see Attachment 3). As a result , CEUS plants needed less time to. co m p l ete their seismic hazard r e-evaluations.

West Coast s i te-spec i f i c se i smic sou r ces and ground mo t i on models i nvolve a Sen i o r Seismic Hazard Analysis Comm i ttee (SSHAC) study , as descr i bed i n NUREG/CR-6372 , " Recommendations for Probabil i stic Seismic H azard Ana l ysis: Gu i dance on Uncerta i nty and Use of Experts." The SSHAC is a group of i ndependent seismic experts who were convened in the 1990's to deve l op gu i dance on the conduct of major seism i c studies , and ensure that se i sm i c act i vities are conducted properly and docume n ted completely.

T he SS H AC p r ocess is independent of the NRC's se i smic experts. The NRC must approve any stud i es , models , methodolog i es , analyses e t c. used by nuclear power plants i f they form the. basis for safety assessments and where the. N RG needs to make regulatory dec i sions affecting their operating l i cense. Fur t her , although the NRC does carefully consider comments and r ecommendat i ons from the SSHAC , as an independent r egulatory body , NRC i s not held to any dec i sions made by the SSHAC. 10. Will the staff compl e te it's review of the WUS reevaluated hazards in time to support implem e ntation of mitigative strategies?

Why or why not? 11. The CEUS screening process was completed in 30 days. Why is screening for the WUS taking longer? The screen i ng and pr i orit i zat i on rev i ew for t he WUS hazard reeva l uat i ons will likely take 30-60 days to accomp li sh , because there is substantia ll y more new informat i on i n these reports than was subm i tted for the CEUS plants i n March 20 1 4. Compared to the CEUS submitta l s , the WUS submittals contain a lot more new i nformat ion on s i te geology , earthquake sou r ces , and ground mot i on model i ng. As a r esult , the WUS subm i ttals are much more complex to review than the CEUS reevaluations. In addit i on to all the new i nformation , each W U S plant also had to do a complex probab i l i st i c se i smic hazard ass e ssment (PSHA), using a very deta i led , mu l t i-year p r ocess. In cont r ast, a ll the CEUS plants used essentially t h e same PS H A, wh i ch was extens i vely r eviewed by NRC before. the seismic hazard reevaluations. were. submitted. 12. The staff sent a CA note to the Commission this. fall indicating. that the SFP evaluations wou l d continue to be conducted.

Why is this evaluation needed given the ex t ent of previous study in this area and the findings from the recent RES. s coping study?

As discussed in the CA note, the p lanned SFP evaluation provides an addit ional plant-specific , systematic , and traceable investigation of the significance of the newly evaluated seismic hazard. The staff concluded that availab l e risk insights were insufficient to support modification or elimination of the SFP evaluation, in large part because it was not possible to relate plant-specific changes in seismic hazard to changes in SFP risk. As a result of the SFP evaluation, licensees are expected to confirm the applicability of available generic analyses to their plant-specific conditions, and enhance the technical basis used by NRC for decisions on the seismic safety of SFP storage systems. 13. Why didn't the CEUS licensee's submit new SCDF numbers? How can the industry say that nobody is above 10-4/year? What does 10" 4/year mean for plant safety? Seismic core damage frequency (SCDF) is a numerical estimate of risk and provides a represen tative indication of plant safety. The March 12, 2012, 50.54(f) requested information stated that p l ant's where the re-evaluated hazard exceeds the design basis should submit and inter im evaluation or actions. To support plant responses to the 50.54(f) request , industry independen t ly assessed SCDF for all of the CEUS plants and provided the results to NRC in a March 12 , 2014 letter. This assessment is similar to the NRC's preliminary seismic r isk assessments for Gl-199. The 10*4/year value demonstrates that current understandings of seismic hazard do not represent an immediate concern to plant safety , and that plants should continue to operate while more rigorous risk evaluations are completed.

T he CEUS licensees , as part of the March 31 , 2014 , submittals, confirmed that the in dustry conclusions for their fa cility are accurate.

The NRC reviewed this information as part of the staffs assessment of licensee inte rim actions and eva l uations, and agrees that the re-evaluated seismic hazards do not represen t an immediate concern to plant safety. 14. Do we have similar risk information for WUS as was submitted for the CEUS (as indicated in #13) interim evaluation to demonstrate that WUS plants are safe while risk evaluations are completed?

The Ma rch 2015 WUS submittals included interim evaluations for the Diablo Canyon and Columbia plants. Diablo Canyon used the results of previously completed seismic margin analyses to show that the plant was. designed with sufficient margin to cope with the higher seismic hazard levels. Similar to CEUS plants , Columbia used updated core-damage frequency calculations to demonstrate the plant could cope with the higher seismic hazard. The Palo Verde submittal did not identify seismic haza rd exceedances with the plant's design basis, and provided additional information showing the reevaluated seismic hazard did not exceed a 1.25 fac tor of safety above the plant's SSE. For all 3 WUS plants , the NRC staff believes that sufficient info rmation has been provided to demonstrate that these plants are safe to operate while additional r isk evaluations are completed.

15. What i s the likelihood of the design basis earthquake or "SSE" ground motions being exceeded over the life of a nuclear plant? The ground motion response spectra forming the seismic design bases at U.S. n u clear plants are called the Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE). SSEs for operat i ng nuclear powe r plants were established many years ago. Today's understanding of seismic hazard tells us there is some l ikel i hood that a plant's SSE may be. exceeded by an earthquake ground motion. However , each plant was designed different l y according to different l icensing SSEs. Therefore , the likel i hood of exceedance i s plant specific. Meanwh il e , systems , structures and components typ i cally have marg i n, meaning that they often can w i thstand shak i ng levels t hat are above the p l ant's design bas i s. 16. SEP Plants and Enhancements Background URI 156 -Systematic Eva l uat i on Program, considered the rev i ew of 51 plants receiving operating licenses before 1976. A samp l e review of 1 O of the older p l ants were completed as a part of SEP effort. Seve r al of the 137 SEP iden ti fied issues were subsumed i nto A-46 and I PEEE. Standard review p l an before 1975. 10 SEP Plants Operating Un i ts Palisades , Ginna , Oyster Creek , Dresden 2 , Un i ts in Decommiss i oning Mi l estone Un i t 1 , Yankee Rowe , Haddam Neck , La Crosse , Big Rock Point , and San Onofre Ginna , SONG-1 , and Yankee Rowe identified for plant enhancements 41 Non-SEP Plants Vermont Yankee , Maine Yankee , Kewaunee , Fort Calhoun , Zion 1/2 , Browns Ferry 1/2 , Indian Point 2/3 , Peach Bottom 2/3 , Prairie Island 1/2, Duane Arnold, Cooper, Arkansas 1 , Calvert Cliffs 1 , Cook 1, Hatch 1 , Fitzpatrick, Three Mile Island 1 , Brunswick 2, Tro j an , M il estone 2 17. Has there been an operating U.S. reactor site that has experienced exceedance of. its. seismic design basis during an earthquake?. The August 2011 earthquake at North Anna plant in V i rgin i a was the first instance of an operating reactor in the United States where recorded ground motion exceeded its des i gn basis in some frequency range. The plant shut down safely, and extensive inspections showed that there was no discernable damage to safety systems. After thorough review of the inspect i on information , NRC authorized the restart of North Anna in November 2011. I n 1986 , earthquake motions at the Perry p l ant in Ohio exceeded its SSE i n limited frequenc i es during construction, but the plant was found acceptable for operation and i ts license was i ssued. I n 1979 , the V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina a l so exceeded its SSE while under construction, but was found acceptable for operation and its license was issued. In all of these cases , the exceedance o f ground motion by itself was not an in dicator of whe t her the plant's design lim its were exceeded.

Also, the plants had much higher capacity than the design basis. As expected , there was no damage to these plants from the earthquakes. 18. Why isn't the NRC immediately shutting down priority 1 plants/plants with higher seismic hazards? T he. prior i tization is. not a risk ranking -. more analysis is needed to. determ i ne actual changes in a plant's seismic accident risk. The NRC continues to have confidence, based on our unders t anding of both reac t or design and construction and the resu l ts of the plants' seismic " walkdowns ," that plants can ope r ate safely while more analyses are done. Nuclear power plant manufacturing and construction methods typically result in a plant having the capacity to withstand earthquakes larger than their design basis earthquake.

This is because nuclear power plants are des i gned to withstand the force of different internal and external events. Many of these events create larger forces on a plant t han an earthquake. Plan t s exam ine d this capaci t y and demonstrated thei r safety systems can still perform properly a f ter seismic hazards. larger than those the plant was designed to withstand.

The. NRC is satisfied the systems will perform their safety functions at the higher seismic hazard levels, and that the plant can continue operating.

NRC staff's initia l review of an industry sc r eening ana l ysis and the i nte r im evaluations provided confidence. that none of the plants showed a preliminary change in r isk that would cause concern. Consequently, int er im actions were not necessary to ensure the sys t ems can function.

In addition to the design margins and interim actions , all plants recently underwent detai led seismic walkdowns.

T hese walkdowns identified and addressed degraded , nonconforming , or unanalyzed cond i tions through the corrective action program, and verified the adequacy of the. monitoring and maintenance procedures.

NRC reviewed licensee actions to:

  • verify the plant configuration with the current seismic licensing basis;
  • address degraded , nonconforming , or unanalyzed seismic conditions; and
  • verify the adequacy of mon i toring and maintenance programs for protective features.

The results of these walkdowns provide additional conf id ence that plants can continue to operate safe l y while longer-te r m r isk assessments progress. 19. How would you characterize the reevaluated hazards of the western sites. in comparison to the CEUS sites? How much has the " needle moved" with regard to the reevlauated WUS hazards?

20. There. are many more earthquakes and active f a ults in the WUS than in the CEUS , and WUS plants have been designed to withstand.

these higher seismic. hazards. Seismic hazards changed. for WUS p l ants similar to the way hazards changed for CEUS plants. For P a lo Verde , the licensee reports that the reevaluated seismic hazard is smaller than the design basis SSE for the plant. For Diablo Canyon and Co l umbia , the reevaluated hazards can be up to about 2.5x the SSE , which is comparable to some CEUS Group 2 plants. Are there seismic mon itors on site? Yes. The NRC requires nuclear power plants to maintain operating seismic monitors on site. 21. Are th e re seismic trips installed on US plants? As required by the i r Technical Specifications , D i ab l o Canyon has an installed seismic trip. No other US operating nuclear plant has i nsta ll ed seism i c tr i ps , 22. How does the U.S approach and timelines for response to seismic Fukushima issues align with othe r countries?

2 3. How will we u s e the inform a tion f r om risk evaluations to make r egulatory decisions on plant modifications or any necessary changes to plant licensing bases? Once the SPRA analyses are completed , t he NRC wi ll use these results a l ong w i th other ava il able risk information to determine if add i tiona l regu l atory act i ons are needed t o provide additional protect i on against the updated se i smic hazards. The NRC staff expects that the resu l ts of the SPRA analyses w i ll provide a transparent basis to support backfit decisions for. potent i a l safety enhancements. DIABLO CANYON Q&As-1. Why is Diablo Canyon safe t o opera t e today? In support of the requested interim eva l uation for Diablo Canyon , PG&E provided a comparison of the reevaluated GMRS to ground motions based on the 1 988 Long Term Seismic Program (L TSP). As part of the LTSP , PG&E determined that structures , systems and components at D i ablo Canyon can safely withstand ground motions that are at least 1.35 t i mes l arger than the L T SP med i an ground motion. The NRC staff had prev i ously reviewed the L TSP analyses and determined they were acceptable.

A l though the reevaluated GMRS exceeds Diablo. Canyon's. SSE , these ground motions do not exceed the minimum 1.35 factor of safety" in Diablo Canyon's design. After review i ng this i nformation , NRC determ i ned that the D CPP rema i ns safe to operate while addit i onal seismic risk evaluat i ons are being conducted.

Diablo Canyon has been screened-in as a priority Group 1 plant and a deta iled risk evaluation is expected to be submitted to the NRC by June 30, 2017. 2. Have seismic hazards been increasing or decreasing when new analyses are done at DCPP? In 2011, information from the Shoreline and other faults was used in deterministic analyses of seismic hazard at DCPP , which showed ground motions were bounded by the previous Hosgri design-basis and L TSP ground motions .. PG&E updated these determin istic analyses with new information (AB 1632) in 2014. The 2014 seismic hazards were higher than calculated in 2011, but still bounded by Hosgri and LTSP. The latest probabilist ic. analyses. are even higher than calculated in 20 1 4 , and slightly exceed the Hosgri ground motions at some low (1.5 H z) and high (>25 Hz) frequencies.

Nevertheless , DCPP has a well-established margin in its design that can cope with such small i ncreases in seismic hazard above the plant's design basis. T he science o f seismic hazards analysis have advanced considerably since Diablo Canyon was fi r st designed.

The 20 1 5 analyses use current l y available science , along with current NRC regulat i ons and gu i dance, to characterize potential seismic hazards at this site. The 2015 analyses now consider, for example, the l ikelihood that earthquakes could occur on seismic sources and the poss i bil ity that slip on one fault might trigger s l ip on nearby faults. T hese considerations appear to contribute to the observed increase in calculated se i smic. hazard for the DCPP site. 3. What is the impact of this new information on seismic design and licensing of DCPP? Has the licensee entered this new information into the corrective action program and performed an operability evaluation?

Needs to be updated As stated in the March 12, 2012 50.54(f) lette r, the seismic hazard reevaluations conducted in Phase 1 do not rev ise the design basis of the plant. Based upon the results of Phase 1 , the. NRC staff w ill determine whether additiona l regulatory actions are necessary (e.g., update the design basis and SSCs important to safety) to provide additional protection against the updated hazards. In their March 2015 submittal, PG&E provided an interim evaluation that shows the plant can cope with the reeva l uated seismic hazards. Th is inter im evaluation documents the specific seismic design characteristics of the DCPP , and summarizes analyses that demonstrate the p lant has a sufficien t design margin to safely cope with the reevaluated hazards. The March 12, 2012 50.54(f) letter considered the requested seismic hazard reevaluations to be outside the design bas is of t he plant, and the reevaluations were not expected to initia te an additional operability evaluation.

4. How will the AB 1632 seismic report be coord i nated with the 50.54(f) required submittal in March 2015? What does. Diablo's submitted reevaluated hazard
5. state? Much of the new information on site geology, earthquake sources , and ground motion modeling from the AB 1632 report was used to develop the March 2015 submittal.

To consider how this new information affects seism i c hazard, PG&E had to do a complex probabilist i c seism i c hazard assessment (PSHA) us i ng a very detailed , mult i-year process. This process, from the Senior Seismic Hazards Analys is Committee (SSHAC, NUREG/CR-6372), evaluates the center , body and range of available information to rigorously calculate seismic hazards at a site. (I f asked what things the plant has done since Fukushima: I t is i mportant to note that OCPP is an industry leader in i mplement ing FLEX which was a post-Fukushima industry initiative to have extra equipment available remotely i n the event of a beyond design basis event). 6. Why didn't the NRC discover the length of the faults when it did its seismic review of. the Shoreline fault in 2011 prior to issuing the AIL?. California Assembly Bill 1632 (Blakeslee , Chapter 722 , Statutes of 2006) d i rects the California Ene r gy Commission to assess the potential vulnerab i lity of California

's largest base-l oad power plants, Oiablo Canyon Power Pl ant and San Onofre Nu clear Generating Station, to a major disruption due to a seismic event or plant aging; to assess the i mpacts of such a disrupt ion on system reliability , public safety , and the economy; to assess the costs and impacts from nuclear waste accumulating at these plants; and to evaluate other major issues re l ated to the future role of these plants in the state's energy portfo l io. The licensee has used the most state-of-the-art 20 and 30 geophysical mapping techniques , which are commonly used i n offshore petroleum resource exploration. These techniques provide higher-resolution data than what was available to characterize the Shoreline Fault in the 2011 report. T he NRG has requested licensees of operating nuclea r power reactors to submit a seismic hazard reevaluation using up-to-date methodologies and analyses wh i ch i s due for OCPP in March 2015. 7. There i s high public interest in the reevaluated seismic hazard at O i ablo Canyon. How have we ensured that this complicated topic is clearly communicated to the public surrounding the p l ant?

Sent: l May 2015 18:49:27 +0000 To:Proffitt, Andrew

Subject:

RE:

Diablo Public Meeting It was a straight forward meeting .. Great meeting for staff technical exchange and understanding of the submittal.

Diablo Seismic analysis is at least a decade ahead of everyone else in the fleet. -Nick From: Proffitt, Andrew Se n t: Friday, May 01, 2015 2:38 PM T o: DiF r ancesco, Nicholas Subj ec t: Diablo Public Meeting Any key insights or take-aways from the Diab l o public meeting earlier this week?. J. Andrew Proffitt U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission T echnical.

Assistant NRR/JLD (301) 415-1418 Sent:29 May 2015 17:26:55 +0000 To: Ve ga, Frankie

Subject:

RE:

FYI. ... FW: Proposed 2.1 Sei s mic Ta s k Tracker Call or send an email to Diane and Stephanie to schedu l e some SRB time to review the letter and the request. I'll review the MS Order Alignment Section and back revisions. From: Vega, Frankie Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 1:19 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

RE: FYl....FW: Proposed 2.1 Seismic Task Tracker more interest from management ahhh! Have you heard from Diane on this and i f they are plann i ng to engage the SRB? If you haven't heard from her , I'll follow up with her early next week. Thanks From:. Difrancesco, Nicholas.

Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 1:07 PM To: Vega, Frankie

Subject:

FYI.. .. FW: Proposed 2.1 Seism i c Task Tracker FYI .. only your letter made the cut. Diab lo Canyon Acknowledge on ESEP (June 19) [Owner: Vega) (I nterest N RR/ET Commission) From: Shams, Mohamed Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 1:06 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas Cc: Proffitt, Andrew

Subject:

RE: Proposed 2.1 Seismic Task Tracke r Let us go with the Diablo Canyon one only for now. The August dates are too far out for now. Thx From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 10: 12 AM To: Shams, Mohamed Cc: Proffitt, Andrew

Subject:

Proposed 2.1 Seismic Task Tracker Mohamed, I f you approve , I propose the following be added to the action tracker. Issue SPRA Relief or A lternatives Letter (August 30) [Owner: DiFrancesco

] (I nterest NRR ET) Issue. HF Endorsement Letter (August 30). [Owner:Wyman] (Interest NRR. ET)

Diablo Canyon Acknowledge on ESEP (June 19) [Owner: Vega] (Interest NRR/ET Commission)

Watts Bar 2 JLD OL Append i x Input (June 5) [Owne r: D i Francesco] (Interest NRR/ET Commiss i on) Thanks , Nick From:. Shams, Mohamed. Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 9:55 AM To: Uribe, Juan; NRR_JLD_JHMB D i stribution

Subject:

RE: REQUEST -Update Task Tracker Juan -thanks very much for the background. That was very he l pful. All -I spoke with Andrew and he sa i d just send h i m an email w i th the action and he will update the tracker. That is what other branches do. The description Juan had below i s perfect to defining the type of informat i on to send to t r acker. Thx Mohamed From:. Uribe, Juan Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 9: 33 AM To: Shams, Mohamed Subj e ct: RE: REQUES T -Update Task Tracker Mo , My $0.02 on this for background purposes was that this table (if it's the one I think it is) and the items within were added and ma i nta i ned by the previous TA Billy Jessup. To my knowledge , he was. the only one who updated/maintained the. list so that the rest of the div i sion wasn't try i ng to access and modify i t. It was basically his own activity tracker that he then used to keep the directors up to speed. Your item #1 below suggests we may need to start doing i t ourselves?

My understanding is that he fed the list based on the discussions from Monday morn i ngs between BCs and JLD management as well as other meetings he attended with i n the Division and L T I ET. He would then do the rounds with his l ist ask i ng for updates to prepare for the fo ll owing Monday. It basically captured h i gh level items that had a divis i onal impact. Below is a excerpt from one of the TA docs that details what the tracker (again , if it's the one Im th i nking it is) is for: o Focus is pr i marily on the JLD Task Tracker (http://fusion.nrc.gov/nrr/team

/jld/Lists/Tasks

/All l tems.aspx)

  • The Task Tracker is used to maintain awareness of due dates for level actions and act i v i t i es in the div i s i on including con t rolled correspondence , EDO and Comm i ssion-leve l i nformation requests , assistance to internal and external stakeholders (i.e., presentat i on requests), meeting preparations , and other i tems added a t the request of JLD management.

From: Shams, Mohamed Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 9:14 AM To: NRR_JLD_JHMB Distribution

Subject:

REQUEST -Update Task Tracker All -I n the management meeting on Monday mornings, we go over the task tracker assessing the status of upcoming tasks for the division.

I have noticed , and was also told , that our branch does not have any tasks on the list. Or at a minimum , our tasks are not up-to-date.

I don't know t o what degree you are aware o f that task tracker and have updated it in the past. I also don't know the threshold of the tasks that go on the tracker-a l though I have a feel tor it. T wo request: (1) p l ease start/continue to update the tracker with our tasks, and (2) if you need clarification on the type of tasks to add to the list, please reach ou t to Andrew Proffitt.

The examp l es that come to my mind that shou l d have been tracked include: COMS E CY on flooding action plan , WUS screening l etter, VY 2.1/2.3/9.3 closure letter , and I A extension letter. No worries ... everything was t racked regardless.

Many thanks , Mohamed DiFran cesco, Nichola s From: DiFran cesco, Nic hola s Sent:l4 May 2015 18:24:2 9 +0000 T o:Vega, F rankie Cc: Hill ,. Brittain

Subject:

Referen ces fo r Di a bl o Letter Pr ep o n Expe dit ed Ap p roach R es ponse Frankie, To start the Diablo Letter and confirm technical ass i gnment, I think we general l y need the following references.

We probably should handle Palo Verde separately (in a screening letter).

  • NRC response letter to licensees related to expedited approach commitment change (December 15, 2014)
  • Licensee Integrated Plan (due February 28, 2013) (report page 8 has a statement about will enter reevaluated hazard into CAPs If warranted

-designed to CLB)

  • NRC letter regarding Seismic Screening and Prioritization Results for WUS Licensees (May 13, 2015) Reference and Background from Br i tt: NRC's. review of the L TSP , and conclusion of its acceptability , are documented in the Diablo Canyon SER rev 34 (1991), which is publically available in ADAMS as ML14279A130. SSER34 documents NRC staff's thorough review o f the L TSP , which includes the margins assessment cited by PG&E in their March 2015 submittal.

Thanks , Nick Sen i or Project Manager -Se i smic Reevaluation Act i vities U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of. Nuclear Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Divis i on n ic h olas.d i fra n cesco@nrc.gov I Tel: (30 1) 415-1115 Sent: 15 May 2015 2 1 :02:25 +0000 To: L indell , Joseph;OGCMai l Center Re s ource Cc:Roth(OGC), David;Ut tal , Susan

Subject:

Thank s ! RE: 'rn:TO' -OGC R ev i ew? P ublic Comment on April 28th, 2015 webcast meeting with P G&E -

P roduct Thank you! Have a great weekend. -N i ck From: Lindell, Joseph Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 5:02 PM To: Dif r ancesco, Nicholas; OGCMailCenter Resource Cc: Roth(OGC), David; Utta l , Susan

Subject:

-OGC Review? Public Comment on Apri l 28th, 2015 webcast meeting with PG&E -OUO Work Product Nick , Yosef Yosef Lindell Attorney U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiss i on Office of the Gener a l Counse l OWFN 15 015 30 1-4 15-14 7 4 14eTleE. Tliis Cll mil u::c:l a: 19 atl!iel 11 ;;e11te 1118)' BBJiil8iJii iiOPfid o rtiil:I °Uc may qj 02+ gr WmkP1 eeJtsot Jtt&lc: ial. Bo ::ct disclose outside fJfil8 ooitl 1oat 60111111issio11 app1ova1.

From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 2:37 PM To: OGCMailCenter Resource Cc: Lindell, Joseph; Roth(OGC), David; Uttal, Susan

Subject:

-OGC Rev i ew? Public Comment on April 28th, 2015 webcast meeting wi t h PG&E -OUO Work Product OUO VVOIR PIOOOCt OGC , Don't think this needs review. However , t he response below is to Ms. Rochelle Becker, Executive Director, Alliance. for Nuclear Responsibility.

H er concerns relate in part to the fidelity of the Diablo Canyon SSHAC and engineering methods.

The propose response is fact based , consistent w i th the public meeting , and our public staff review plan. Thanks , Nick From: Hill, Brittain Sent: Thursday , May. 14, 2015 1:15 PM 01::10 Wrnk f'1odott To: Burnell, Scott; Difrancesco, Nicholas; Gibson, Lauren Cc: Shams, Mohamed; Uselding, Lara; Jackson, Dian e; Vega, Frankie; Lingam, S i va

Subject:

RE: Comments on Draft Response?::::::

Written concerns -Apr i l 28th, 2015 webcast meeting with PG&E One small clarif i cation in green. Rest looks good. Britt From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Thursday , May 14, 2015 12:42 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas; Hill, Brittain; Gibson, Lauren C c: Shams, Mohamed; Uselding, Lara; Jackson, Diane; Vega, Frankie; Lingam, Siva

Subject:

. RE: Comments on Draft Response?:::::: Written concerns -April 28th, 2015 webcast meeting with PG&E Minor grammar tweak below. F r om: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 12:35 PM To: Hi ll, Brittain; Gibson, Lauren Cc: Shams, Mohamed; Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; Jackson, Diane; Vega, Frankie; Lingam, Siva

Subject:

Comments on Draft Response?::::::

Written concerns -April 28th, 2015 webcast meeting with PG&E Britt , Lauren , Comments???

Ms. Becker , Thank you for the publ i c comment related to the April 28 , 2015 , webcast. The staff is aware and following the California Public Utilities Commission's Independent Peer Review Panel activities. The staff review for the D i ablo Canyon Se i smic Hazard Screening Report is ongoing in support of Near-Term Task Force -Recommendation 2.1: Seismic. We are independently reviewing PG&E's probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, which was developed using the Senior Se i smic Hazard Analysis Committee results and process. As you may be aware, on May 13 , 2015, NRG placed Diablo Canyon into the highest priority group for the reevaluated Seismic Hazard rev i ew along with 11 other reactor sites. For awareness , I have placed our emails in NRC agency document access and management system (ADAMS) as a public record. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best regards , Nick DiFrancesco Project Manager -Seismic Reevaluation.

Activities U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Div ision n ic h olas.difrancesco@nrc

.gov I Tel: (301) 415-1115 Non Responsive Sent:24 Apr 2015 14: 32:36 +0000 To:Munson, Clifford;Stieve , Alice Cc:Jackson , Diane;Devlin-Gill , Stephanie;Hill , Brittain

Subject:

Palo Verde Source I nformation for: SSHAC Documentation from P PRP-IT T eam Attachments:SSC SSH AC D ocumentat i on of PPRP-TT-Team lnteraction.pdf Cliff , Alice, Stephanie, Please let me know if this. is. the missing piece. They have this one file on the. SSC in the. reading room. Thanks ,. Nick From: Munson, Clifford Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 4:14 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas; Ake, Jon Cc: Jackson, Diane; Shams, Mohamed; Vega, Frankie; Graizer, Vladimir; John Stamatakos

<jstam@swri.org>

Ustam@swri.org);

Hill, Brittain; Seber, Dogan; Vega, Frankie; Stirewalt, Gerry

Subject:

RE: DCPP, Palo Verde, and Columbia Audit Information:

SSHAC Documentation from PPRP-IT Team Importance:

High Nick , We took a quick look at the contents of the information for DCPP and PVNGS. The DCPP folder con t ains the PPRP-TI correspondence and interactions on the source model and ground motion model SSHACs. However , the PVNGS only has the ground motion model SSHAC PPRP-T I team material and not for the Source model. Please let us know when we can get the source model PPRP-TI team documentation.

Thanks , C l iff From: Di f rancesco, Nicholas Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 1:25 PM To: Munson, Clifford; Ake, Jon Cc: Jackson, Diane; Shams, Mohamed; Vega, Frankie; Graizer, Vladimir; John Stamatakos

<jstam@sw r i.o r g> (j stam@swr i.org); Hill, Brittain; Seber, Dogan; Vega, Frankie; Stirewalt, Gerry

Subject:

DCPP, Palo Verde, and Columbia Audit Information:

SSHAC Documentation from PPRP-IT Team Folks , Please control distribution to the designated review team member for the following references.

Following your audit review, please advise if information reviewed should be docketed to support development of the hazard staff assessment or RAls. DC Audi t Information S:\Diablo Canyon R2.1 Seismic lnformation

\SSHAC Documentat i on of PPRP-T I Team Palo Verde Audit Information S:\Palo Verde R2.1 Seism i c l nformation

\SSHAC D ocumentat i on of PPRP-T I Team Columbia Information i s on ePortal (PM action to work through access controls). Also, licensee plans to work with PNNL to post information on public website. Thanks , Nick From: Soenen, Philippe R [mailto:PNS3@pge

.com] S e nt: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 10:49 AM To: DiFrancesco, Nicholas Cc: Jahangir, Nozar

Subject:

DCPP information on Certrec Nick, We have uploaded the PPRP information onto Certrec IMS and granted access to Vladimir Grazier , John Stamatakos , and yourself.

Here is. how you get to the PPRP information in Certrec:

  • Login to ims.certrec.com
  • Click on " I nspections"
  • Set status to "In Progress" and Plant te. "Diab l o Canyon"
  • Click "Search" button.
  • Click link to "Self-Assessment I Audit-Review of PPRP Comments and TIT Resolution"
  • Click on the "NRC Requests" tab
  • Click on what you would l ike to see. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Regards , Ph i lippe Soenen Regulatory Services Office -805.545.6984 Cell j (b)(GJ I PG&E is committed to protecting our customers' privacy. To learn more , please vis i t http://www.pge

.com/about/company/privacy/customer/

DiFrance s co, Nicholas From:DiFrancesco, Nicholas Sent:7 Apr2015 19:13:56 +0000 T o:S h ams, Mohamed

Subject:

RE:

Inquiry: P a l o Verde Supplemen t al Letter Agreed , I spoke with Kamal and Yong , they have the same concern. Not worried about this issue.. the technical staff will work i t out. The se i smic guys are wo r ried the hazard could move. From: Shams, Mohamed Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 2:49 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

RE: Inquiry: Palo Verde Supplemental Letter Why are we still going after these fo l ks for+/-1 t o 2% from the SSE? Is that making sense to you? From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 9:57 AM To: Hi ll , Brittain; Shams, Mohamed; Munson, Clifford; Manoly, Kamal; Devlin-Gill, Stephanie Cc: Vega, Frankie; Jackson, Diane; Li, Yong

Subject:

Inquiry: Pa l o Verde Supplemental Letter Folks , Any addit i onal comments?

I intend to follow-up w i th the. licensee today. The licensee stated that they did not pass the. 0.2 g licensing basis SSE around 3 Hz. Received a staff comment that you get a different answering depending on how you transform the. SSE from a log plot to a l inear p l ot. Thanks , Nick From: Hill, Brittain Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 7:07 AM To: Vega, Frankie; Jackson, Diane; Shams, Mohamed; Munson, Clifford; Manoly, Kamal Cc: Difrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

RE: Preview of upcoming Palo Verde seismic hazard supplement letter Frankie -it's not clear i f APS intends to screen-out based on I PEEE , following the process outlined in the SPID. Please emphasize to APS that the screening process allows for screenout based on IPEEE. results , provided the I PEEE analyses meet the criteria out l ined in the. SP I D. A l though "background informat i on" on IPEEE appears use f u l , APS should focus on addressing the IPEEE acceptability cr i ter i a if they w i sh to use these analyses in screen i ng decisions.

ThanksBr i tt From: Vega , Frankie Sent: Friday, April 03 , 2015 8:18 AM To: Jackson , Diane;. Shams , Mohamed; Hill, Brittain;. Munson, C li fford; M anoly, Kamal Cc: Difrancesco , Nicho l as

Subject:

Preview of upcom i ng Pa l o Verde seism i c hazard supp l ement l ette r Hi all; Nick and I met with APS (licensee for Palo Verde) and discussed details on the supplemental letter they are planning to submit next week regarding their seismic hazard reevaluation.

Also , a preliminary agenda for the public kick-off meeting next month was discussed.

Regarding the supplement , I've provided a short summary of the information APS is planning to submit to provide additional clarity for the staff's review: 1. APS will be adding a graph overlaying the .2g (licensing basis). IPEEE and .25g (des i gn basis) spectral responses all t ogether. This would add some clarity on the plant's margin. 2. APS will provide additional background information on their IPEEE curve. This will document the basis for selecting

.3g instead of .5g PGA. The 84 1 h percen t ile and median curves w i ll be provided.

3. APS will provide a short d i scussion on why the ESEP will not add additional value to their seismic evaluation.
4. APS will clarify and p r ovide additional background , referencing F SAR information, on the licensing

(.20g) and design (.25g) basis responses.

5. Regard i ng P PRP discussions (comments and t h eir resolutions). APS belief this information was provided as part of the SS H AC report. APS committed to verify this and will get back to us. APS agreed that having this information will greatly help the staffs review. APS intends to submit th i s letter by April 8 , 2015. Nick i s planning to have one additional call before this subm i ttal to make su r e they'll provide the i nformation the staff is requesting. Please let us know if something is missing so we can communicate it to APS before the subm i ttal. Thanks. F ranki e G. Vega, P .E. Project Manager NR R/JLD/JHMB 30l-4 15-1 617 Lo cat i o n: 0-13H1 0 DiFrance s co , Nicholas.

From:DiFrancesco, Nicholas Sent: l Apr 2015 12:41:54 +0000 T o:Jackson , Diane

Subject:

RE:

publ i ca ll y available PV SSHAC Diane , I spoke with the licensee , the Palo Verde SSHAC is effectively decontrolled (e.g. pr i nting and sending are ok). Licensee stated that the eRoom was send i ng the files due to the size. Only restr i ction would be purge copies when the review is completed. If the staff assessment r elies on the SSHAC we may need to look at docket i ng i nformation.

The licensee also understands it is sub j ect to FOIA. -Nick From: Jackson, Diane. Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 7:17 AM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

publically available PV SSHAC Nick-The PV reviewers expressed the concern about the PV SSHAC reports not be public. They are allowed to down load and print i t right? They 9at least one reviewers) believes it will take them more time , if they have to write questions to identify what needs to be on the docket. I'd like to discuss further. Any chance PV is going to change their mind on the public vs non public? Diane 9>iane J.adLHm, Chief Geosciences and Geotechnical Engineering Branch 2 (RGS2) Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis (DSEA), Office of New Reactors (NRO) US Nuclear Regulatory Commission

+1301-415-5641; office: T-7 D3; mail stop: T-7 F3 NRC -One Team -One Mission Sent:28 Apr 20 1 5 20:08:36 +0000 To:Ake , Jon

Subject:

FW:

28 April 2015 Meeting -D CPP Seismic Ha zar d Re-evaluat ion From: Gene Nelson , Ph.D. l (b)(6) IJ Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 3:59 PM To: DiPr ancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

RE: 28 April 2015 Meeting -DCPP Sei s mic Hazard Re-evaluation Nicho l as Defrance s co US Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRR/DORL/LPLA (30 I) 415-11 15 njd2@nrc.go v 28 Ap r i l 2 015 Hello, Ni c hola s: As a Ph.D. phy s i cal sc i e nti s t, I not e that tod ay's PG&E presentation provid ed a lar ge body of technical information r egard in g th e lates t update r egar d ing DCPP se ismic s afety. I appre c i ate that as a conseq u e n ce of how earthquake energy is sttongly attenuated by the distance betw ee n the earthquake ruptur e and a measurement point, th e earthquake forces seen by the compact DCPP s ite are dominated b y the small section of the eanhquake rupture clo ses t to the plant. Toda y's data con t inue t o confirm th a t DCPP can safely withstand any ear thquak e in th e r egio n near DCPP wit h a s ub s t a ntial safe t y margin. Sin ce I hav e a sc h e dul e co nfli c t that will lik e l y prev e nt my parlicipation in th e public que s tion a nd a n swer period , I'm r eq ue st ing that you a s k th e NRC s t a ff attend in g thi s m ee ting t o confirm my s ummary. (P l ease confinn r eceipt of thi s me ssage.) Sincerely Gene Nelson , Ph.D. Phy s ical Science Facult y, Cue s ta Co ll ege, San Lui s Obispo , CA .. r_)_(5_l ----'ce ll Soenen, Philippe R From:Soenen , Philippe R Sent: 1 Jun 2015 20:15:29 +0000 T o:Munson, Cl iff o rd;Jackson , Di ane

Subject:

FW:

Advanced Draft RAI on Geophysical Site Prop e rti es Attachments:June 2015 DCPP RAJ.DOCX I -----Original Appointment-----

From: Soenen, Ph i lippe R [mailto:PNS3

@pge.com] Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 4:14 PM To: Soenen, Philippe R; Difrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

FW: Advanced Draft RAI on Geophysical Site Properties When: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 1:00 PM-1:30 PM (U TC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). Where: Bridgeline:

1.866.652.7690, pass code: l (b)(6J I -----Original Appo From: Soenen, Ph il ippe R Sent: Friday , May 29, 2015 1:33 PM To: Soenen, Philippe R; Jahangir, Nozar; Ferre, Kent S; thompson@l ett i sci.com; Abrahamson, Norman; abrahamson

@berkeley.edu Cc: Nicholas.Difrancesco

@nrc.gov; Strickland, Jearl

Subject:

Advanced Draft RAI on Geophysical Site Properties When: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 10:00 AM-10:30 AM UTC-08:00)

Pacific Time (US & Canada). Where: Bridgeline:

1.866.652.7690, pass code: (b)(6 l All, This phon e call is proposed to discuss the advanced draft RAI related to geophysical site properties. The meet i ng is proposed.

for Tuesda y June 2, 2015 from 1000 to 1030 Pacific Time. P l ease call in to Bridge l i ne: 1.866.652. 7690, pass code: l (b)(6) l lf this date or time. does not work please propose any alternative.

Regards, Ph il ippe Soenen Regulatory Services Office -805.545.6984 Ce ll f b)(6J I PG&E is committed to. protecting our customers' privacy. To learn more, please visit http://www.pge.com/about/company/pr i vacy/customer/

Mr. Edward D. Halp in Senior Vice Pres ident and Chief Nuclear Officer Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 56 Mail Code 1 04/6 Avila Beach , CA 93424 June XX , 2015

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL I NFO RE-EVALUATIONS RELAT 0 SITE POWER PLANT (TAC NO 5275 AND By letter dated March 11 , 2015 1 , tot mission (N RC), Pacific Gas and Electric , submitted for N,...,.._" ic H azard an creening Report, Pu rsuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federa ection 50.54(f), Response for Information Regarding Recommen

  • n 2.1 erm Task Force Review of Ins i ghts from the Fukushima Dai-i c
  • Acc iden Can Power Plant. Included in the seismic hazard reevaluatiCJP18lQ luation of the site response for Diablo Canyon using an alternative empirical

........ ro ed for D iab lo Canyon and has determined co te i ts review. Enclosed is a request for addit i onal sponse evaluation. As discussed with your staff on June to the RAI would be provided no later than July 30, 1 The letter can be found under Agen c yw i de Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) No. ML15071A046 If you have any questions related to. the enclosed RAls or the requested submission date, please contact me at 301-415-1115 or via e-mail at Nicholas.Difrancesco@nrc

.gov.

Enclosures:

1 . Request for Additional Info r mation 2. Addressee List cc w/encls: Distribution via Listserv 1 Sincerely , I RA/ ior Projec t Manager

-. 2. -. I f you have any questions related to the enclosed RAls or the requested subm i ssion date , please contact me at 301-415-11 1 5 or via e-mail at Nicholas.Difrancesco@nrc

.gov. Sincerely , I RA! i or Project M anager

Enclosures:

1. Request for Add i tional Info r mat i on cc w/encls: Distribution via Listserv ADAM S Ac ee NAME DATE OFFICE OGG NAME DATE RidsNrrDorllpl4

-2 NDiF r ancesco, NRR RidsNrrPM RidsRgn2MailCenter R i dsN r rOd Slingam , NRR *via mail NRR/J L D/JHMB/L A* NRO/DSEA/RGS1

  • NRR/JLD/JHMB/BC Slent DJa c kson MS hams NRR/JLD/JHMB/PM ND i Francesco OFFICIAL RECORD COPY REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION 2.1 SEISMIC HAZARD AND SCREENING REPORT FOR D I ABLO CANYON POWER PLANT Review of Alternative Emp irical Site Response Evaluation By letter dated March 12, 2012 (Agencywide Documents Access and M (ADAMS) Accession No. ML12053A340), the NRC staff requested that specific hazard curves that capture. the variability i n soil depth (including. d agement System sees submit site conditions), shear-wave velocities , laye r th icknesses , damping , train de to generic rock ent nonlinear f the March range of material properties at the site. Specifically, Attachment 1 to "Seis closur 12 , 2012 , letter stated that " site amplification curves should be dev r ab annual exceedance frequencies to facilitate estimation o qu By letter dated February 15 , 2013 (ADAMS Accessio Electric Power Research Institute

[E PR I] Fin al Draft Re Guidance:

Screening , Prioritization and lmple tation De using the SPID guidance.

Rega rding the development of site. a seismic hazard reeva luat ions , Seer As r rock uncertainties should be. incorporated into site amplification and thei r uncertainties through the hazard curves. The control-point elevation hazard curves should By lette . (ADAMS Accession No. ML15071A046), the licensee for the Diablo Ca nt ( P) submitted an alternative site response evaluation, referred to as the empir which uses the observed ground motions at the site from two earthquakes to he site amplification rather than analytical models." While the staff considers the em te response approach as a viable alternative to the analytical approach , the method as imple nted by the licensee was able to use only three site recordings from two earthquakes to constrain the local site amplification.

As such, the licensee's estimate of the uncertainty in the local site term is potentia lly impacted by the limited amount of data. In addition, the. site. term developed by the licensee using the empirical approach shows a significant amount of deviat ion in the negative direction over an important frequency range from the NGA-West2 ground motion models for a Vs 3o=760 m/s site. Enclosure. l Request for Additional Information Consistent with the request for information issued pursuant to Tit le 1 O of the Code of Federal regulations, Part 50 , Section 50.54(f) and the SPID guidance, please provide a supplemental response to the March 2015 seismic hazard reevaluation that develops site amplification factors as recommended in Section 2.4 and Appendix B of the SPID. Please provide (1) a detailed description of the subsurface profile properties including uncertainties , (2) potent i al for nonlinear behavior at the strain levels produced by the scenario earthquakes of interes t , and (3) the control point elevation.

In addition , prov ide the adjustment factors (Vs-kappa c rections) needed to modify the median ground motion models for the selected reference or rock elevation and velocity.

Also include in the response as a figure and a table control point mic hazard curves developed using the site amplification factors and their uncertai hrough azard integral as recommended in Appendix B of the SPID. Enclosure 1

Sent:20 Mar 2015 17 :47: l 7 +0000 To:Munson, Clifford;Jackson , Diane;Ake , Jon Cc:Wba l ey , Sheena;Sham s , Mohamed;Kock , Andrea;Bowen , J eremy

Subject:

FW:

P G&E Drop-in Attendee s on M arch 26 FYl. .. Attendees.

Also, Philippe meant Thursday March 26. DC p l ans to cover a number of topics regarding their submittal and next steps with R2.1 activities.

-Nick From: Soenen , Ph i lippe R [2]

Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 12:28 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

PG&E Drop-i n Attendees Nick, The following are the people from PG&E that w i ll be present for the drop-in on 3/28: Jearl St r ickland -Director , Techn i cal Services N azar Jahangir -Manager, N uclear Seismic Engineering N orm Abrahamson

-Chief Geosciences Consu l tant Bill Horstman -Senior Consulting Eng i neer All of these individuals are PG&E employees.

I will be provid i ng t h ese indiv i duals your co n tact information to contact you o n ce they are down in the lobby on 3/28. Regards , Ph i lippe Soenen Regulatory Services Offic f -805 545 6984 Cell (bJ(5 l ] PG&E is committed to protecting our customers' privacy. To learn more , please visit http://www

.pge.com/about/company/p ri va c y/customer/

I n format i on (pages 948-960/1 000) is o u ts i de of t h e scope of t he F O I A request. The i nfo r mat i o n co n cern li ce n see p r ess re l ease -n ot the NRC's fo r rev i ew reeva lu ated h aza r d. DiFrance s co , Nicholas From:DiFrancesco, Nicholas Sent:lO Mar 20 15 20:01:43 +0000 To:Li , Yong;Manoly , Karnal;Oesterle , Eric;Lingarn , Siva

Subject:

FW:

PG&E Summary Sheet Attachments:Final Fact s heet -March 1 2 , 2015 NRC Updates.pdf , New s Relea s e_A lt.d ocx Im portance: Hi gh FYI.. Attachment l may be o f interest.

From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 12:53 PM To: DiFrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

Importance:

High Lara Use l d i ng NRC Region 4 Public A f fa i rs 817-200-1519 From: Hipschman, Thomas Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 03:23 PM To: Uselding, Lara; Walker, Wayne; Maier, Bill

Subject:

FW: Pending Press Release FYI From: Jones, Thomas P. [ma i lto:TPJ2@pge.com

] Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 12:04 PM To: Hipschman , Thomas Cc: Baldwin, Thomas (DCPP)

Subject:

Pending Press Release Importance:

High Good Morning Tom, P lease find attached the press release PG&E intends to issue today at 3PM local time regarding completing the March 12 hazard updates for the NRC. We offer some highlights about plant safety and will make t h e filing this week. I have also attached a small fact sheet we will be using to help explain some of these complex topics. Please fee l free to reach out if you have any questions.

Regards, Tom Jones Director, Government Relations Pacific Gas & Electric Company Office: 805 595 6340 Mobile 1 ... (b-J (-6 l ____ _. PG&E is committed to protecting our customers' privacy. To l earn more, please visit http://www

.pge.com/about/company/p ri vacy/customer/

Quick Facts on

  • Performed at direction of Nuclear Regulatory Commiss i on (NRC) *Continue to show Diablo Canyon can w i thstand earthquakes , tsunamis and flooding
  • Performed with i ndependent experts us i ng latest scientific methodologies and site-specific information
  • NRC will independently review " . " I i ** .. Seismic & Flooding Hazards Re-evaluation New and extensive analyses performed at the direction.

of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) re-confirm that Diablo Canyon Power Plant can. safely withstand extreme natural events , including potential earthquakes , tsunamis and flooding .. The hazard re-evaluations used the l atest regulatory guidance , scientific methods and models , site-specific information and independent expertise to re-eva l uate the impacts that earthquakes , large waves and flood i ng could have on the facility. Seismic Hazard Re-eva l uation Represents a more extens i ve evaluat i on of the se i smic hazard than previously performed. Using the NRC's Senior Seismic Hazard Analys i s Committee (SSHAC) process , independent seismic experts publically reana l yzed existing and new seismic information.

includ i ng data acqu i red during the advanced seism i c studies. to evaluate. how earthquakes could. potentially impact the facility. The. probab i lity of earthquakes occurring on individual and mu l tiple geologic faults was also determined.

Key Results:

  • Confirms plant's design can withstand earthquakes from all regional fau l ts ..
  • 0.0001 annual chance of an earthquake produc i ng ground mo t ions of .8g. * .8g does not exceed the robust seismic. design. margin of the plant.
  • The p l ant has at least 35% design margin beyond .8g (left graph).
  • A minor exceedance (approx. 7%) in the Hosgri earthquake design in a specific, low frequency range (1.33 Hz) that does not impact safety (right graph).
  • No safety structures , systems and components requ i red for safe shutdown are sensitive to ground motions at a frequency below 2. 7 Hz. . --** I i .. --Comparison of Ground Motion Response Spectrum (GMRS) and Long Term Seismic Program Seismic Marg i ns Spectrum for D i ab l o Canyon Power Plant Comparison of GMRS and. 1977 Hosgri Design Spectrum for Diablo Canyon Power Plant March 2015 r r "'

March 2015 Tsunami/Flooding Hazard Re-evaluation Used the latest NRC gu i dance , methodolog i es and independent expertise to determine the maximum waves and rainfall that could impact the site. Key Results:

  • Plant continues to be safe from tsunam i s , includ i ng those generated from underwater lands l ides and earthquakes.
  • Design can withstand expected storm flooding.
  • Measures were identified

-and have already been implemented

--to address a rare , theoret i cal event of excess i ve rainfall.

What's Next? PG&E will subm i t the re-evaluations to the NRC for independent review on March 12 , 2015. The NRC w i ll later provide guidance on how and when PG&E should perform an additional risk assessment that examines the probab i lity of earthquakes potent i ally damaging plant safety equipment.

The same eva l uation is being asked of other U.S. commercial nuclear power facil i ties. The NRC will also review the flood i ng re-evaluation to determine if additiona l act i ons might be requ i red to further enhance safe t y.

March 9 , 2015 NE W ANALYSES SHOW DIABLO CANYON SAFE FROM EXTREME NATURAL EVENTS R e-evaluations Demonstrate Earthquake, Flooding and Tsunami Safety A VILA BEACH , Calif. -New an d extens i ve a n alyses perfo rm ed at the direction of the N u clea r R egu l atory Commissio n (NR C) re-confirm t h at P acific Ga s a nd Electr i c Company's (PG&E) Di ab l o Canyon P ower P lant (Diablo Canyon) ca n safe ly wi t h sta nd ext r e m e n atura l eve n ts, in clu din g pote n t i a l ea 1 t h quak es , t s un am i s a nd flooding .. Th e new ana l yses, know n as haza rd re-e valuation s, will be s ub m itt e d to th e NRC t his week for in depende nt r eview. Th e agency called on all U.S. commercial n u c l ear power p l a nt s to perfonn s uch work fo l lowing the even t s that occurred in 2 011 at the Fuku shima D aiichi p l ant in Japan. "Safe t y is an d alwa ys will be th e t op priorit y for PG&E and Diablo Ca n yon. Tha t's why se i s mic, flooding and tsunami safe t y was at th e forefro nt in the d esig n of t he facility. Th ese. updated fi ndin gs a r e the. culmination of yea r s of st udy a n d analysis, an d further confirm t h e safe ty of the p l ant's design," sai d Ed Halpin , PG&E's Senior Vice P residen t and Chief Nuclear O fficer. The ha za rd re-eval u atio n s u se d the l atest re gulato ry g u i d a nc e, sc ienti fic me t h ods and mod els, s ite-specific information and independent experti se to re-eva lua te the impact s that eart h q u akes, l arge waves and floo din g could have on the Di ablo Canyon facility. T h e updat e d se i s mic assess m en t repre se nts a more exte n s i ve eva l uat i on of the seis mic hazard t ha n previou s ly p e rform e d. P rior eva luation s d e t e 1m ined th e grou nd s h aking from an ear thquak e on a pa1ticular fa ult i n t h e region , b ased o n h istorical record s an d geological ev i de n ce, a nd t h e n co mp a r e d thi s i nformation a g ain s t s tructu res, systems and componen t s a t the faci Ut y to ensu r e t hey could withs t a nd se i s mic groun d s h ak in g .. U s ing the NRC's S e nior Se i sm i c H aza rd Analys i s Comm i tte e (SSHAC) proc ess, i nd epe n de nt se i s mic expe rt s publicaJly r e-eva lua t e d ex i s tin g and n ew se i s mic in fo rm a ti on, includi n g data a c quir e d durin g t h e a d va n ce d seis mi c st udi es r ece n t l y p e rformed near. D i a blo. Ca n yo n , to r e-eva lua te h ow. ea rthq u a k es cou l d potentially imp act the faci l it y. Th i s process in cl u ded exa minin g t h e probabi li ty of eart hqu akes occur rin g o n indi vi du al an d multipl e geologic faults. Th e r es ult i s a mor e th oro u gh assessment of t he se i s mic h aza rd , prov i d in g add i t i o n a l confi rm at i o n that the plant i s se i s mically safe. T h e NRC will review t he r e-evalua tion in order t o provide g uid a n ce on h ow and when PG&E s hould perfo rm an a d ditional risk eva lu ation tha t exami n es the probabilit y of earthquakes potentially damaging pla n t sa fety eq u ip ment. T h e s ame eval u atio n is be i ng as ked of other U.S. co mmer c ial nucle ar p ower facili ti es. "The updated se i sm ic sou rc e model for Di ab l o Canyon incorporat es an ex t e n s i ve body of n ew on s h ore a n d offsho r e data a nd e m e r gi n g new sc i ent i fic co n cep t s to c h arac t e r ize ear thqu ake sources. F o r exa mpl e , it i s th e first eart h quake mod el d eveloped fo r a nuc l ea r si te t hat a ll ows for mu l ti-fa u l t link ed rupture s t o produc e larg e ma x im um ear th quakes. Thro ugh t h e ex t ens i ve u se of ex p e rt s in th e fi e ld of se ismic geo l ogy a nd in depe nd e n t peer r e view , th e model was deve l oped to ca pture. t he full r ange o f po ss ibiliti es re g ard j ng the l ocatio n , s iz e an d fr eq u e ncy of large ma g nitud e erut hqu akes in the v i cini t y of Di ab l o Canyon. In m y opinion, the model d e v e l o p ed for Diablo Canyon will set th e sta nd a rd for how fut u re eaithquake so ur ce mode l s are deve l oped," sa id B ill Le t t i s, who se rv es as o n e th e k ey t ec hnical l ea d s for th e SSHAC proc ess. PG&E's flooding and t s unami hazard update invol v ed the u se o f the l atest NRC guidance and methodologie s t o dete r mine the maximum potential waves and rainfall that could im pact Di a blo Can yo n. T h e re-evaluation , u t iliz i ng i ndependent expertise, dete n ni_ned t hat the plant's key safety systems and components continue to be safe fr om t su namj s, i n clud in g th ose ge nerated from underwater land s lide s and eait h quake s. The plant's de sign is a l so deemed appropriate to withstand ex p ec t e d s torm floodin g. In addit i on, mea s ur es we r e identifi e d a nd implement e d to address a rar e, t h eo r e tic a l eve nt of excess i ve rainfal l and a quick b u ild-up of w ate r in some p l a nt lo cat i o n s that greatly exceeds a ny known pr ec ipitati o n eve nt recorded in th e site's hi sto ry. Th e NRC will review the r e-e v a luation t o d eterm in e if a dditional actions might b e req u ir ed t o f u rther enhance safe ty. " Thes e important update s. pro v ide an in depth look at the seismic, tsunam i and flooding hazards i n our regio n , and most importantly , demonstrate the plant's de s i gn is s afe. Our work in these areas, however , will never cea<;e. Ou r commitment to s afe operations and protecting public health and sa fety w ill co ntinue to b e refl ec t e d in our ongoing st udy and evaluation o f the. a r e a s. Our customers expect no less," said P G&E's Halpin. N R C Ha za rd s A ssess m e n t B ac k g round A s part of i t s response to the F uku s hima eve nt in Jap a n i n 2 011 , the N R C dir ec t e d all U.S. comme r c ial n u clear pow e r pl a nt s to p erfo rm upd ated assess m en ts o f the se i s mic and flooding ha zards for th e ir facilit i es. P l a nt s l oca t ed in the eas t e rn an d Cen t ral U.S. completed s u c h analyses and provid ed th em t o the N R C in 20 1 4. We s t ern plant s, inc l uding D i a blo Canyon , were di r ected to complete and s ubmit t h e i r assessments by March 2 0 1 5. About Diablo C a n y on Pow e r Pl a nt D iablo Can yon P owe r Plant is a nucle a r power facility owned and operated by PG&E. I t s two unit s togethe r produc e approx i m a t e l y 2,30 0 n et m egawatts of ca rbon-fr ee pow e r. It p r ov id es n ea r ly 10 p e r ce nt of a ll e le ctr i c i ty generated in California , and e n o ugh e n e r gy to me et th e n eeds o f mor e th a n three mjJlion Northern a nd Central Californian

s. Di a blo Can yon h as a $9 20 mill i on annual l oca l economic impact a nd i s th e la r ges t p 1 iva t e e mploy e r in San Lui s Obi s p o County. A bout P G&E P acific Ga s and Electric Company , a s ubsidiary o f PG&E Co r porat i on (N YSE:PCG), i s one o f th e largest comb i ned natural gas and electric uti l ities in the United S t ates. Ba s ed in San Francisco, with 20,000 em plo yees, the company d e liv e rs s om e of th e nation's cl ea n es t en e r gy to 16 million p eo p l e in Northern a n d Ce n tral California. For more info r mation, v i s it www.pge.com/ and www.pge.com/en/about/newsroom/

i ndex.page. ###

Sent:8 May 2015 1 3:01:42 +0000 To:Graizer , Vladimir;Mun s on , Clifford;Jack s on , Diane;Ake , Jon Cc:Sham s, Moh a med Subj ec t:FW: Pub l ic M ee tin g ann o un ce m e nt by "PEER" on Dire c ti v ity di sc u ss ion. F Y I. .. From: Jahangir, Nozar [mailto:NxJl

@pge.com] Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 6:44 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas; Soenen, Philippe R C c: Strickland, Jearl

Subject:

Public Meeting announcement by "PEER" on D i rectiv i ty discussion Nick; In the Diablo Canyon public meeting on April 28t h , we stated that there will be an industry expert panel meeting , sponsored by PEER , on the topic of "Directivity" that the staff may be interested in participating. This was an area that the SSC SSHAC requested D i ablo Canyon to provide additional documentation and PG&E made a commitment in our March 11 s ubmittal to provide such documentation to the NRC once we. have greater clarity on the approach.

This. is a link to the recently posted public announcement by the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) regard i ng the expert pane l discussion on treatment of "D i rectivity" in Ground Motion models. PG&E w i ll be an observer. in the proceedings.

http://peer.be r keley.edu/ngawest2/2015/05/ground-motion-d i r ectivity-mode l ing-pane l-meeting-may-22-2015/ Thanks Nazar Jahangir P.E. Manager, Technica l Services Diablo Canyon Seismic Engineering S-'i -(ce ll) nx.1 pge.com PG&E is c ommitted to protect i ng our customers' privacy. To learn more, please vis i t http://www.pge.com/about/company/privacy/customer/

Sent:25 Mar 2015 21 :20:08 +0000 To:Markle y, Michael Cc:Bowen , J eremy;Shams , Mohamed Subj ec t: RE: Did you notic e. t h e PG&E dr o p-in? Mike , Thank you for the recommendat i on and support. The PG&E drop-in is schedu l ed for tomorrow morning. The level-h i gh t opics are cons i s t ent with discuss i ons allowed by COM-203. I will prepare a summary as appropriate.

I have advised my management and the licensee that technical discuss i ons are inappropriate.

At present, we are work i ng to have a public meeting discussing technical issues with PG&E on Apr i l 28 , 2015 , to better understand the ir se i sm i c analyses and assumptions. Our current target i s to not i ce the meet i ng around April 2 follow i ng confirmation o f the agenda topics with staff and the licensee. Ve r y respectfully , Nick Sr. Pro j ect Manage r -Se i sm i c Reevalua t io n Ac t ivit i es U.S. Nuc l ea r Regulatory Commiss i on Office of Nuclear Rea c to r Regu l at i on Japan Lesson Learned Project Division n i cho l as.d i francesco@nrc

.gov I Tel: (301) 415-1115 From: Markley, Michael Sent: Wednesday, March 25 ,. 2015 11:14.AM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

Did you notice the PG&E drop-in? Nick , I did not hear back from you on the drop-in tomorrow. It would be better to notice it now and take your beating on not meeting the 10-day noticing requ i rement , than to have to answer all the stakeholder inqu ir ies and accusations.

Michael T. Markley , Chief Plant Licensing Branch IV-1 (LPL4-1) Division of Operating Reactor Licensing (DORL) Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 301-415-5723 (Office) l<b l(6 l Michael.Mar k ey@nrc.gov Wha t information is NRC e x pecting in the. March 12 ,. 2015 WUS plant subm i ttals? NRC expects that the March 12, 2015 submitta l s will contain substantially more information than was submitted for CEUS plants in March 2014. This is because each of the WUS plants had to develop site-specific source models and ground-motion models , using the Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee (SS H AC) approach.

In contrast , the CEUS plants all used a common set of models (see Attachment 3). In addition to the information that was included for the CEUS plants , NRC expects that the important deta i ls of the site-specific SS H AC studies will be included in the March 12 , 2015 submittals.

NRC also expects that the complete SSHAC study report will be available for the NRC staff to review, as needed. If the reevaluated hazard exceeded the plant's seismic des i gn basis , NRC expects t he WUS plants to follow the same approach as used for CEUS plants and also submit an inter im evaluation of the p l ant's. capacity to. withstand the higher ground motions. Because nuc l ear power plants generally have significant margin beyond their design capacity to withstand earthquake motions , the interim evaluation uses the actual capacities and new hazard information to see if the preliminary understanding o f seismic risk is still within acceptable li m its while the plant does more detailed evaluations.

Will NRC conduct a screening and prio r itization review for western United States (WUS) plant submittals?

Yes. NRC staff will conduct a screening and prioritization review for the WUS hazard reevaluations after the complete hazard reports are submitted.

T his review will likely take two months to accomplish, because there is substantially more new information in these reports than was submitted for the CEUS plants in March 2014. If the reevaluated hazard is within the plant's design basis , the NRC staff will need to determine if sufficient information is available to support that conclusion.

However, i f the reevaluated seismic hazard exceeds the plant's design basis , NRC will need to determine: (1) i f the plant's inte r im evaluations and actions demonstrate the plant can continue to operate safely at the reevaluated hazard level , whi l e longer-term risk assessments are ongoing. (2) the priority for WUS plants to complete the additional risk eva l uations (3) the schedu l e for completion o f the expedited approach and seismic risk evaluation.

NRC's review of the interim evaluations. and actions will determined if there is an immediate safety concern that warrants immediate regulatory action for WUS plants. The NRC's l ongerterm review will examine i n detail licensees' reevaluated hazard submittals and related seismic risk assessments. Will NRC prioritize WUS plants for completion of seismic risk assessments?

Yes. As part of the initial review , WUS plants that have "screen in". for more detailed risk assessments will be prioritized to ensure the plants of most interest are reviewed first. T his prioritization is not a risk ranking -more analysis is needed to determine actual changes in a plant's seismic accident risk. Using the same approach as for the CEUS plants , the NRC staff will consider several factors in prioritizing (or screening) the WUS risk assessments:

(1) the extent to which the reevaluated hazard exceeds the current design basis; (2) the site's overall seismic hazard. based on an examination of the reevaluation; and (3) previous estimates of plant capacity (e.g., IPEEE insights).

Does NRC expect to review the WUS submittals the same way as the CEUS submittals?

Compared to the CEUS subm i ttals , NRC expects that the WUS submittals w i ll be much longer and contain a l ot more new information on site geology , earthquake sources , and ground mot i on modeling.

As a result, NRC expects that the WUS subm i ttals will be much more comp l ex to review than the CEUS reevaluations. I n add i tion to all the new i nformation , each WUS p l ant also had to do a complex probab i listic seismic hazard assessment (PSHA), using a very deta i led , mu l ti-year process. In contrast , all the CEUS p l ants used essentially the same PSHA , which was extensively reviewed by NRC before the seism i c hazard reevaluations were submitted. After the screen i ng and prioritizat i on review is completed, NRC s t aff will conduct a thorough review of the WUS seismic hazard reevaluations. To review each of these site-specific hazard reevaluat i ons , the NRC staff will need to exam i ne important details of each p l ant-specific source characterization and ground motion model. The NRC staff expects to conduct conf i rmatory analyses of key parts of these models , to determine if the reevaluated seismic hazards are reasonab l e. I n addit i on to examin i ng the deta il ed technical information that supports the hazard reeva l uat i on , the NRC staff also will rev i ew the lengthy documentation about the SSHAC process that licensees used to deve l op the source characterization and ground motion models. Will NRC. produce its. own version of the WUS plant's reevaluated seismic hazard? To support the initial review of CEUS plant submittals , the NRC developed a computer model that could calculate se i smic hazards for each CEUS plant. These calcu l ations were possible because all the CEUS plants used the same seismic hazard model , and the model was deve l oped seve r al years before the CEUS hazard reevaluat i ons were submitted.

However , the WUS plants completed thei r site-specific hazard analyses less than a year before the f i nal reports were submitted to NRC , and each p l ant used different types of se i smic hazard models. The NRC staff determ i ned that they could conduct an appropriate , r i sk-informed review of the WUS hazard reevaluat i ons without expending considerable resources to develop three new , site-specific computer mode l s. The NRC staff expects to do site-specific conf i rmatory analyses on key parts of the hazard analyses, including independent evaluations of the earthquake source mode l s, ground motion models , and site response models. Will WUS plants have to do additional risk assessments if their reevaluated hazard is larger than the plant's safe shutdown earthquake?

Yes , the same criteria used for CEUS plants applies to WUS plants for determ i n i ng if additional risk assessments are needed. WUS plants that screen-in for the r i sk assessments will need to complete the exped i ted approach (see question #4) and e i ther a seismic marg i ns assessment or a probabilistic risk assessment.

Plants that screen-out from the risk assessment might st i ll meet the criteria for conduct i ng focused-scope evaluations of low frequency exceedances , high f requency exceedances , or spent fuel pool performance. The need for conduct i ng add i tional analyses will be determ i ned during NRC's screen i ng and priorit i zation review.

Sent:5 May 2015 14:49:05 +0000 To:Shams, Mohamed Cc: J ackson , Diane;Hill.

B1ittain

Subject:

Awarenes s of OGC. NLO on WUS Seismic. Reevaluation Letter Attachme n ts:WUS Sei s mic Reeva l uation s Letter 4-20 1 5 LSC.docx Mohamed, Awareness only. We continue to make progress on concurrences for the WUS lette r. The letter will go to DORL and JLD senior management COB today. Thanks , Nick From: Clark, She l don Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 5: 07 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas Cc: Spencer, M ary; Biggins, James

Subject:

WUS Seismic Reevaluation Letter N i ck , (b)(5) Shel d on L. Sheldon Clark Attorney Office of the General Counsel U.S. N uclear Regulatory Commission Email: Sheldon.Clark@nrc.gov Phone: 301-415-2189 Page 1 35 o f 739 W ithh e l d p u rs u a nt t o exemp ti o n (b)(5) o f th e Freedo m o f I nf or mati o n a n d Pr i v a cy Act P a ge 1 36 o f 73 9 W ithh e l d pursuant t o exe m p ti o n (b)(5) o f th e F reedo m o f I nf o rmati o n an d P ri v a cy Act P a ge 1 37 o f 73 9 W ithh e l d pursuant t o exe m p ti o n (b)(5) o f th e Fr eedo m o f I nf o rmati o n an d Pri v a cy A ct P a ge 1 38 o f 73 9 W ithh e l d pursuant t o exe m p ti o n (b)(5) o f th e Fr eedo m o f I nf o rmati o n an d Pri v a cy A ct (b)(S) If you have any questions regarding this letter , please contact Nicholas DiFrancesco at 301-415-1115 or via email at Nicholas.Difrancesco@nrc

.gov. Sincerely, Wi lliam M , Dean , Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Enclosures

1. Glossary of Evaluations
2. Screening and Prioritization Results 3. List of Licensees March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals
4. List of Licensees cc w/encls: Listserv (b)(5) If you have any questions regarding this letter , please contact Nicholas D i Francesco at 301-415-1115 or via email at Nicholas.Difrancesco@nrc.gov. Sincerely, Will iam M. Dean , Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulat io n

Enclosures:

1. Glossary of Evaluations
2. Screening and Prior it i zation Results 3. List of Licensee March 2015 Re-eva l uated Seismic Hazard Submittals
4. List of Licensees cc w/encls: Listserv DISTRIBUTION
PUBLIC LPL4-1 R/F LPL4-2 R/F RidsNroOd RidsNrrDorl RidsNrrDorllpl4

-1 Rids N rrDorllpl4-2 RidsNrrOd RidsNs i rOd RidsOeMailCenter RidsOgcMa i lCenter MMarkley, NRR MKhanna , NRR MShams , NRR NDiFrancesco , NRR ADAMS Accession No.: ML15113B344 OFFICE NRR/J LD/PMB/PM NRR/JLD/LA NRR/JLD/HMB/BC NAME ND i Francesco Slent MShams DATE 04/22/15 I /15 I /15 OFFICE NRO/DSEA/D OGC NRR/JLD/D NAME SFlanders BHar ri s JDavis DATE I /15. I ./15. . I /15 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY AKock , NRO DJackson , NRO RidsNrrPM DiabloCanyon RidsNrrPMColumbia RidsNrrPaloVerde

RidsOgcRp Resource RidsRgn4MailCenter Resource RidsEdoMailCenter Resource *via email NRO/DSENRGS 2/BC NRR/DORUO DJackson Llund I /15 I /1 5 NRR/.D WDean . I. /15 Glossary of Evaluations Associated with Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1 Seismic Hazard Re-evaluations (b)(5) Enclosure 1

(b)(S) Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the. Fukushima Dai-l chi Accident Seism i c Risk Eva l uations Screening and Pr i oritization Results for Western United States (WUS) Reactor S i tes Enclosure 2

March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals for Western United States Reactor S i tes Licensee Facility Date of letter (ADAMS Accession Nos.) Columb i a Genera t ing Station March 12 , 2015. (ML15078A243) Diab l o Canyon Power P l ant , Unit Nos. 1 and 2 March 11 , 2015 (ML15071A046) Pa l o Verde Nuclear Generating Stat i on , Units March 10 , 2015 (ML15076A073) and 1, 2 , and 3 Apr i l 10 ,. 2015 (ML15105A076) Enclosure 3

LIST OF APPLICABLE POWER REACTOR LICENSEES Columbia Generating Station Energy Northwest Docket No .. 50-397 License No. NPF-2 1 Mr. Mark E. Reddemann Chief Executive Officer Energy Northwest MD 1023 76 North Power Plant L oop P.O. Box 968 Richland , WA 99352 Diablo Canyon Power. P l ant. Unit Nos .. l and 2. Pacific Gas & Electric Company Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82 Mr. Edward D. Halpin Senior Vice President and Ch i ef Nuclear Officer Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 56 Mail Code 104/6 Avila Beach, CA 93424 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Arizona Public Service Company Docket Nos. STN 50-528 , STN 50-529 , and STN 50-530 License Nos. NPF-41 , NPF-51 and NPF-74 Mr. Randall K. Edington Executive Vice President Nuclear/CNO Arizona Public Service Company P.O. Box 52034 , MS 7602. Phoenix , AZ 85072-2034 Enclosure 4

DiFrance s co , Nichola s From:DiFrance sc o, Nicholas Sent:4 M ay 2 015 18:34:12 +0000 To:Jack so n , Diane Cc:Sham s, Moh a med;Kock , Andrea

Subject:

FYI:

POP JLD Status (05.05.15).d ocx Atta c hm e nt s: POP -JLD Statu s (05.05.15).do cx Diane , POP for DEDO brief tomorrow for awareness.

Thanks , Nick From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 2:29 PM To: Bowen, Jeremy Cc: Shams, Mohamed

Subject:

One Change ---POP -JLD Status (05.05.15).docx Jeremy , One change from the current plan for D i ablo Canyon. Technical staff i s pushing to provide additiona l basis documenting the decision that no ESEP is needed for Diablo. We have a letter template from l ast year that I plan to use {lette r. dated Dece m ber 15. 201 4). Thanks , Nick PURPOSE. JAPAN LESSONS LEARNED DIVISION STATUS UPDATE -05/05/2015 Update NRR ET on status of J L D activities EXPECTED OUTCOMES Prov i de current status and address any questions Outsid e of Sc ope

  • wus o Screening

& prioritization letter -targeting 05/12/15 o All 3 plants screen in for sPRA; no immediate safety issues o Columbia & Diablo Canyon -Group 1

  • sPRA due 06/30/17
  • Diablo Canyon -Separate letter on no ESEP; LTSP provides safety basis
  • Public Meetings o Diablo Canyon (04/28/15 o Co l umbia (9 6/04/15) o Palo Verde -Group 3
  • sPRA due 12/31 /20
  • Non Responsi v e The Power Reactor Licensees on the Enclosed List

SUBJECT:

SCREENING AND PRIORITIZATION RESULTS FOR THE WESTERN UNITED STATES SITES REGARDING INFORMATION PURSUANT TO T I TLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 50.54 (f). REGARDING SEISMIC HAZARD RE-EVALUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDATION 2.1 OF THE NEARTERM TASK FORCE REVIEW OF I NSIGHTS FROM THE FUKUSHIMA ICHI ACCIDENT On March 12 , 2012 , the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a request for information pursuant to Ti tle 1 O of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50 (1 O CFR), Section 50.54(f). (hereafter referred.

to as the 50.54. (f). letter) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (A DAMS) Accession No. ML12053A340). The purpose of that request was to gather information concerning , in part , the seismic hazards at operating reactor sites and to enable the NRC staff to determine. whether licenses.

should. be. mod if ied , suspended , or revoked. The "Required Response" section of Enclosure 1 indicated that licensees and construction permit holders should provide a Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening report within 3 years from the date of the. letter for Western United States (WUS) plants (i.e., Columbia Generating Station (Columbia), Diablo Canyon Powe r Plant (Diablo Canyon), and Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (Pa lo Verde)). Further , the 50.54(f) letter stated that NRC would provide the results of the screening and. prioritization indica ting dead lines for individual plants to complete seismic risk evaluations to assess the total plant res ponse to the re-evaluated seismic hazard. Additionally, by letter 1 dated February 20 , 2014, the NRC provided supplemental information on the content of the seismic re-evaluated hazard submittals i ncluding guidance on reportabil ity and operability.

The purpose of this letter is to inform WUS l icensees of the. NRC's screening and prioritization and to allow licensees to appropriately plan the completion of further seismic r isk evaluations described in Enclosure 1 of the 50.54(f) letter. To respond to the 50.54(f) letter , all addressees committed to. follow the E lect ric Power. Research Institute (EP RI) Report , "Seismic Evaluation Guidance:

Screening, Prioritization and Implementat ion Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic ," 2 as. supplemented , by the EPRI Report , " Seismic Evaluation Guidance:

Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Recommendation 2.1: Seismic" 3 (referre d to as the Exped ited Approach).

The NRC held multiple public meetings and teleconferences with industry and the public leading to the development of the guidance documents supporting review of re-evaluated se ismic hazards. 1 The February 20, 2014 , supplemental information letter is available i n ADAMS under Accession No. ML14030A046. 2 The SPID gu ida nce document is found in ADAMS u nde r Accession No. ML12333A170. The staff endo r seme n t letter for the SPID guidance is found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML12319A074.

3 The Exped ited Approach g uid ance document is found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13102A142. The WUS l i censees submitted the re-evaluated seismic hazards. by letters dated on. or before. March 12 , 2015 (references are provided in Enclosure 3 of th i s letter). The NRC staff conducted the screening and prioritization review of the subm i ttals by assess i ng each licensee's sc r eening evaluation and hazard analysis utilizing the endorsed SPID gu i dance. INTERIM EVALUAT I ONS 4 The 50.54(f) letter requested that licensees provide " interim evaluations and actions taken or planned to address the higher se i smic hazard relative to the design-bas i s , as appropriate, prior to completion of the risk evaluation." For those plants where the re-evaluated seismic hazard exceeds t he seismic design-basis, licensees stated they w i ll provide inter i m evaluat i ons to demonstrate that the plant can cope with the higher re-evaluated se i sm i c. hazard while the longer-term se i smic r i sk evaluations are ongoing. In support of the requested interim evaluations for licensees , WUS p l ants provided i nformat i on related to margin evalua t ions or insights from Individual Plant Exam i nat i on of External Events (I PEEE) eva l uat i ons included est i mated seismic risk. Additionally

,. the submittals discussed completing p l ant se i smic walkdowns as part of NTIF Recommendation 2.3 in order to verify that the current p l ant configuration is cons i stent with the licens i ng basis. The NRC staff rev i ew of WUS reports found that li censees have demonstrated add i tional p l ant seism i c margins supportive of cont i nued plan t operation wh i le additiona l risk evaluations are conducted. The i nterim eva l uat i on provided in March. 2015 is a first step in. assessing the plant's capacity to withstand the re-evaluated hazard. In the near-term , by January 2016 , l icensees will comp l ete an " Expedited Approach" to evaluate and iden t ify reinforcements , if necessary , for certain equipment to. ensure a safe shutdown pathway can w i thstand a higher se i sm i c. ground motion. For Diablo Canyon and Palo Verde, the NRC staff is continuing to assess seism i c evaluat i ons completed by the licensees to determine if they meet the intent of the Expedited Approach review and. will response under a seperate letter. SCREENING PROCESS As defined in the 50.54(f) letter and the SPID gu i dance , the seismic hazard re-evaluations were conducted using current analys i s methods and guidance. The l icensees' responses to the 50.54 (f) l etter prov i ded se i sm i c hazard re-evaluation results , which were the focus of the NRC staffs initial screening and prioritization r ev i ew. Although the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) is commonly referred to as a single number, this number represents a distr i but i on of ground motions that occu r over a range of spectral frequencies.

This. resu l ts in a curve of. ground acce l eration over frequency.

The ability of equipment and structures i n the p l ant to withstand the effects of ground motions is frequency specif i c. For the purposes of the licensees' ana l yses and NRC staff's rev i ew , the SPID gu i dance iden t if i es three frequency r anges that are of part i cular interest:

1-1 O Hertz (Hz), a low frequency range of <2.5 Hz , and a high frequency range o f > 1 O Hz. The different ranges have been identified due to the different types of structures and equipment that may be impacted by ground mo t ions in that range. For example , l a r ge components generally are not affected sign i ficantly by high frequencies (i.e., >10 Hz). The frequency range 1-10 Hz i s the focus for 4 E nclos u re 1 o f t h i s l e tt er p r o vi d es a Gl ossary o f S eism i c Eval uat i o n s

-. 3 -. this portion of the risk evaluation , as this range has the greatest potentia l effect on the performance of equipment and structures important to safety. For other. frequency ranges, discussed below, limited-scope evaluations will be conducted, when appropriate.

I n accordance with the SPID and Expedited Approach guidance, the re-evaluated seismic hazard determ in es if additional seismic risk evaluat ions are warranted for a plant. Specifically, the re-evaluated ground motion response spectra (GMRS) in the 1-10 Hz frequency range is compared to the existing SSE:

  • If the re-evaluated GMRS, in the 1-10 Hz range, is less than the plant's existing SSE, then the plant screens out of conducting further seismic risk evaluations.
  • If the GMRS, in the. 1-1 0 Hz range, is greater than the. ex istin g SSE , then the. plant will complete the Expedited Approach (including the Interim Evaluation).

Most plants that meet this criterion also screen in to conduct a seismic risk evaluation and have committed to conduct high frequency and spent fuel pool evaluations.

In addition, if the GMRS meets the low hazard threshold, which is described in the SP I D , and only exceeds the SSE below 2.5 Hz, the licensee will perform a limited evaluation of equipment potentially susceptible to low frequency motions .. Similarly , if. the. GMRS. exceeds. the SSE only above 10 Hz, then the licensee will perform an evaluation of t he equipment or structures susceptible to that specific range of ground motion. Enclosure 2 provides the staffs determination of priority for plants that screen-in to conduct a seismic risk evaluation , and identification of plants to complete limited-scope evaluations (i.e., spent fuel pool, high frequency, or low f re quency) .. CONDITIONAL SCREENING As discussed in public meetings 5 , the staff anticipated the. possibility of not being able to complete the determ ination for conducting a seismic risk evaluation for some plants in the 30 to 60 day re v ie w period under certain circumstances.

For example, if a licensee provided a unique submittal or deviated from the. SP I D guidance, additional time for the review m ight be needed. I n general, WUS submittals contain extensive site specific information including site specific source models and ground-motion models which could affect the f ina l screening decisions.

Accordingly , during. the NRG screening. and pr ior it ization process , the staff identif ied that for Pa lo Verde additional time and interactions will be required to better understand the seismic hazard for the p lant. As such , the staff determined that Palo Verde "con d itionally screens-in" for the purposes of prioritizing and conducting additional.

evaluat ions .. Pa lo Verde has been prior i tized to comp l ete a seismic risk evaluation in Group 3. After interactions have occurred, the staff will make a final screening and prioritization determination and prov ide a letter to the licensee.

I f the plant remains screened-in,. the final screening letter will affirm the plant priority for further evaluations and establish schedule for an Expedited Approach , if necessary.

If the plant screens out , the final screening letter also will determine if the Palo Verde needs to complete limited-scope evaluations (i.e.,. spent fuel pool, high frequency , or low frequency).

5 Discuss i on as part of public meetings dated December 4 , 2014 , February 11, 2015, and March 30, 2015 (ADAMS Access i on Nos. ML14342A901, ML15104A065 and ML15111A031 , respective l y). PLANT PRIORITIZATION The NRC grouped the " screened-in" plants into three groups 6 , which (i) reflects the relative priority for conducting a seismic risk evaluation that compares each plant's current capabilities to the re-evaluated seismic hazard, and (ii) accounts for the appropriate allocation of limi ted staff and available expertise for reviewing and conduct ing seismic risk evaluations.

During the prioritization review , the staff considered each licensee's re-evaluated hazard submittals , plant specific seismic and risk insights , and prev i ous des i gn-basis ground motion estimates.

To prior i tize the plants for completing seismic risk evaluations , staff examined certain key parameters such as (1) the maximum ratio of the new re-evaluated hazard (GM RS) to the SSE in the 1-10. Hz range; (2). the maximum ground motion in the. 1-10 Hz range; and (3) insights from previous seismic risk evaluations.

As such , Group 1 plants are generally those that have the highest re-eva luated hazard relative to the original plant seismic design-basis (GMRS to SSE), as. well as ground motions in. the 1-10 Hz range that are. generally. higher in absolute magnitude.

Based on these criteria, Columb ia and Diablo Canyon are prioritized as Group 1 plants. Group 1 plants, including Columbia and Diablo Canyon are expected to conduct a seismic risk evaluation and submit it by June. 30 , 2017 .. Group 3 plants have GMRS to SSE ratios that are greater than 1 , but the amount of exceedance.

in the 1-10 Hz. range is relatively small , and the maximum. ground motion in. the 1-1 O Hz range is also not high. Based on these criteria, Palo Verde is prioritized as a Group 3 plant. Given the limited level of exceedance of the Group 3 plants including Palo Verde, staff is evaluating the need for licensees to conduct a seismic risk evaluation in order for the staff to complete its regulatory decision making. After further review, the staff will decide which Group 3 plants need to complete a risk evaluation.

Risk evaluations for Group 3 plants are due by December 31, 2020. NEXT STEPS Based on. the staffs screening review the licensee. for Columbia should finalize and submit an Expedited Approach Report no later than. January 31 , 2016. The NRC staff is continuing to review the licensee provided information for D iab lo Canyon and Palo Verde related to the Expedited Approach.

In accordance with the endorsed guidance, the staff acknowledges that the January 2016 Expedited Approach submittal will focus on plant equipment (i.e. safe shutdown pathway 7) evaluations and modifications, as necessary, prior to submitting the plant seismic risk evaluations.

The content of limited-scope evaluations or confirmations and their associated schedule milestones remain under development with NRG staff and stakeholders.

The NRC staff has conducted a number of pub lic meetings to r each alignment on the implementation details of these evaluations , inc lud ing the development of alternatives approaches for conducting these evaluations The staf f expects that implementing guidance should be established by summer 6 Central and Eastern l i censees seismic hazard screening and priority rev i ews were completed in 2014. 7 Section 3 of the Expedi ted Approach guidance (ADAMS Accession No. ML13102A142) p rov i des a process t o identify a single seismically r obust success path using a subset of installed p l ant equipment , FLEX equipment and connection points. 2015. and fall 2015 for high frequency and spent fuel pool evaluations, respectively.

It is expected that WUS licensees can complete these evaluations in parallel with completion of SPRAs for Group 1 plants by J une 2017. This letter transmits the NRC staff's results of the seismic hazard submittals for the purposes of screening and prioritizing the plants. It does not convey the staff's final determination regarding the adequacy of any plant's calculated hazard. As such , the NRC staff will continue. its review of the. submitted seismic hazard re-evaluations , and may request additional.

plant-specific information to support this review through the summer of 2015. The staff has placed a high priority on this review for the early identification of issues that might adversely affect each licensee's seismic risk evaluations.

Interactions with licensees will occur. as soon. as practicable , including NRC staff plans to acknowledge the whether seismic hazard curves are suitability for use in SPRA development by late 20 1 5. The NRC staff plans to issue a staff assessment on the re-evaluated seismic hazard once each review is completed in approximately 1 2 to 18. months .. If you have any questions regard i ng this letter, please contact N i cholas DiFrancesco at 301-415-1115 or via email at Nicholas.Difrancesco@nrc.gov

., Sincerely, William M. Dean, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

1. Glossary of Evaluations
2. Screening and Prioritization Results 3. List of Licensees March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals
4. List of Licensees cc w/encls: Listserv can comp l ete these evaluat io ns in parallel with completion of SPRAs for Group 1 plants by June 2017. This letter transmits the NRC staff's results of the seismic hazard submitta l s for the purposes of screening and prio r itizing the plants. It does not convey the staff's final determination regarding the adequacy of any plant's calculated hazard. As such , the NRG staff will continue its review of the submitted seismic hazard re-evaluations, and may request additional plant-specific information to support this review .. The staff has placed a high priority. on this. review for the early iden tification of issues that might adversely affect each licensee's seismic risk evaluations.

Initial interactions with licensees will occur as soon as practicable.

The NRG staff plans to issue a staff assessment on the. re-evaluated seismic. hazard once each review is completed in approximately 1 2 to 18 months. If you have any questions regarding this letter , please contact Nicholas DiFrancesco at 301-415-1115 or via email at Nicholas.Difrancesco@nrc.gov. Sincerely, William M. Dean, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulat ion Enclosures

1. Glossary of Evaluations
2. Screening and Prioritization Results 3. List of Licensee March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals
4. List of Licensees cc w/encls: Listserv DISTRIBUTION
PUBLIC LPL4-1 R/F LPL4-2 R/F RidsNroOd RidsNrrDorl RidsNrrDorllpl4-1 RidsNrrDorllpl4-2 RidsNrrOd RidsNs i rOd RidsOeMailCenter RidsOgcMailCenter MMarkley, NRR MKhanna , NRR MShams , NRR NDiF rancesco, NRR ADAM S A ccession N o.: ML15113B344 OF F ICE NRR/J LD/PMB/PM NRR/JLD/LA N RR/JLD/HMB/BC NAME NDiFrancesco Slent MShams D A TE 04/22/15 I /15 I /15 OF F ICE NRO/DSEA/D OGC NRR/JLD/D N AM E SFlanders SCI ark JDavis (MFranovich for) DAT E I /1 5 05/04/15 I /15 OFFI C I A L RE CO RD COP Y AKock , NRO DJackson , NRO RidsNrrPM DiabloCanyon RidsNrrPMColumbia RidsNrrPaloVerde

RidsOgcRp Resource RidsRgn4MailCenter Resource RidsEdoMailCenter Resource *via email NRO/DSENRGS2/BC NRR/DORUO DJackson Llund I /15 I /15 NRR/.D WDean I /15 Glossary of Evaluations Associated with Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1 Seismic Hazard Re-eva l uations Interim Evaluation or Actions -An immediate licensee and NRG review of the re-evaluate d hazard to determine whether actions are needed to assure plant safety while further evaluations are ongoing. The staff has completed its review and concluded that , based on the licensees' interim evaluations and actions , Western United States (WUS) plants are safe for continued operations.

Interim evaluations and actions are provided in Section 5.0, "Interim Act i ons ," of the licensee submittals.

Expedit e d Appro ac h -A near-term licensee evaluation to be completed by January 31 , 2016 , for WUS plants whose re-evaluated hazard exceeds the current des ign-ba sis for the safe shutdown earthquake hazard level. The evaluation looks at the systems and components that can be used to safely shut down a plant under the conditions of a station blackout (i.e., no alternating current power is available) and loss of ultimate heat sink. The expedited approach will either confirm that a plant has sufficient margin to continue w i th a longer-ter m evaluation without any modificat ions, or confirm the need to enhance the seismic capacity to assure they can withstand the re-evaluated hazard. The Expedited Approach guidance document is found in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System under Accession No. ML13102A142.

S e ismi c Ri s k Evaluation

-L onger-term seismic risk evaluation provides the most comprehensive information to make regulatory decisions, such as whether to amend a plant's design or licensing basis or make additional safety enhancements.

These evaluations provide information to make r isk-informed decis ions. The staff will use this information in conjunction with the existing regulatory tools, such as backfit analysis, to decide on further regulatory actions. The longer-term seismic risk evaluations could be either a Seismic Margins Analys is or a Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment , depending on the magnitude of the exceedance.

Limit e d-S c op e Ev a luation s -These include i) Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation , ii) High Frequency Evaluation , and iii) Low Frequency Evaluation.

Respect i vely , these evaluations are focused on the following:

i) spent fuel pool components and systems capable of draining water inventory to the level of the spent fuel, ii) a review of components susceptible to high frequency accelerations (e.g. electrical relays), and ii i) a review of components susceptible to low frequency accelerations (e.g. water storage tanks). Enclosure 1

-:::::i _.. _... 0 __... -I\) I\) ::r I\) 0 .._ .._ (1) .........

...... 0 0 o ..... .,,.. -..J ;;><;-...... 3

!ll ...... c:.n c:.n c:.n ,,. :::::i O::!: 0 ,-... 0 :::!. 0 "O 3 (/) 3 !ll 'O ::r 'O _([) ro co ([) a. <D co o q; CJ) a. ::r a. ([) (/) -* (") C. ;;><;-(") Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the. Fukushima Da i-l chi Accident I ([) -* <D :::i :::i =.co ([) :;* :::i Seism i c Risk Eva l uations Screening and Pr i oritization Results for -Q Ql -0 _o Western United States (WUS) Reactor S i tes 0 O". (5" :::i 0 ([) -g_ :::i (/) en* 5* ([) Lim i ted-scope Evaluations. Q ([) Se i smic Risk a. 5* Expedite d c 3 0 Pl ant Name Screening Approach Evaluation High Low Spent Fue l "O 3 Resul t (Pr i or i t i zat i on Frequency Frequency Pool ff 5* Evaluation

!ll :::i Group) Evaluation Evaluation Evaluat i on ...... Ql 6' <D (/) :::i ..., :T !ll ([) Columbia Generat i ng Station In :::::i ro x 1 x x a. Ql u;* (/) "O _ro :::i c a. £ O" 0 0 Diablo Canyon Power Plant , U nit ff :::i :::> I n x 1 x x g, :T Nos. 1 and 2 '< ..., ([) ([) !ll ro a. < Ql 0 (/) (") _ro ;;><;-P alo Verde Nuclear Generat i ng Condit i onal x 3 x x !ll Station , U nits 1 , 2 , and 3 i n O" 0 <D 0 :::i s. ([) -g_ ..... 0 (/) 3 3 (") 0 0 )> 'O c ([) :::i o* a. )> Ql :::i a. (/) (/) ([) < ([) ..., 0 :T ([) ..., (/) :E ([) ..., ([) -E n closure 2 March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals for Western United States Reactor Sites Licensee Facility Date of letter (ADAMS Accession Nos.) Columbia Generating Station March 12 , 2015 (ML15078A243)

Diab lo Canyon Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 March 11, 20 15 (M L 15071 A046) Pa lo Verde Nuclear Generating Station , Units March 1 O, 2015(ML15076A073) and 1 , 2 , and 3 April 10 , 2015 (ML15105A076)

Enclosure 3

LIST OF APPLICABLE POWER REACTOR LICENSEES Columbia Generating Station Energy Northwest Docket No .. 50-397 License No. NPF-2 1 Mr. Mark E. Reddemann Chief Executive Officer Energy Northwest MD 1023 76 North Power Plant L oop P.O. Box 968 Richland , WA 99352 Diablo Canyon Power. P l ant. Unit Nos .. l and 2. Pacific Gas & Electric Company Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82 Mr. Edward D. Halpin Senior Vice Pres i dent and Ch i ef Nuclear Officer Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 56 Ma il Code 104/6 Avila Beach, CA 93424 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2 , and 3 Arizona Public Service Company Docket Nos. STN 50-528 , STN 50-529 , and STN 50-530 License Nos. NPF-41 , NPF-51 andNPF-74 Mr. Randall K. Edington Executive V i ce Pres i dent Nuclear/CNO Arizona Public Service Company P.O. Box 52034 , MS 7602. Phoenix , AZ 85072-2034 Enclosure 4

Sent:5 May 2015 16:04: 18 +0000 To:Hill , Brittain Cc:Jackson , Diane

Subject:

Western US Screening and Prioritization letter Attachments:

Western US Screenin g and Prior i t i zation letter.docx Britt , Still working on the letter. However , I think that. I have resolved the primary comments supporting DSEA concurrence. 1. ESEP. assessment tor DC and PV will be a separate letter 2. GMRS agreement will come late 2015 trom the NRC. 3. Most editorial changes have been incorporated Thanks , Nick From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 11:58 AM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

Western US Screening and Prioritization letter The Power Reactor Licensees on the Enclosed List

SUBJECT:

SCREENING AND PRIORITIZATION RESULTS FOR THE WESTERN UNITED STATES SITES REGARDING INFORMATION PURSUANT TO T I TLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 50.54 (f). REGARDING SEISMIC HAZARD RE-EVALUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDATION 2.1 OF THE NEARTERM TASK FORCE REVIEW OF I NSIGHTS FROM THE FUKUSHIMA ICHI ACCIDENT On March 12 , 2012 , the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a request for information pursuant to Ti tle 1 O of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50 (1 O CFR), Section 50.54(f). (hereafter referred.

to as the 50.54. (f). letter) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (A DAMS) Accession No. ML12053A340). The purpose of that request was to gather information concerning , in part , the seismic hazards at operating reactor sites and to enable the NRC staff to determine. whether licenses.

should. be. mod if ied , suspended , or revoked. The "Required Response" section of Enclosure 1 indicated that licensees and construction permit holders should provide a Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening report within 3 years from the date of the. letter for Western United States (WUS) plants (i.e., Columbia Generating Station (Columbia), Diablo Canyon Powe r Plant (Diablo Canyon), and Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (Pa lo Verde)). Further , the 50.54(f) letter stated that NRC would provide the results of the screening and. prioritization indica ting dead lines for individual plants to complete seismic risk evaluations to assess the total plant res ponse to the re-evaluated seismic hazard. Additionally, by letter 1 dated February 20 , 2014, the NRC provided supplemental information on the content of the seismic re-evaluated hazard submittals i ncluding guidance on reportabil ity and operability.

The purpose of this letter is to inform WUS l icensees of the. NRC's screening and prioritization and to allow licensees to appropriately plan the completion of further seismic r isk evaluations described in Enclosure 1 of the 50.54(f) letter. To respond to the 50.54(f) letter , all addressees committed to. follow the E lect ric Power. Research Institute (EP RI) Report , "Seismic Evaluation Guidance:

Screening, Prioritization and Implementat ion Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic ," 2 as. supplemented , by the EPRI Report , " Seismic Evaluation Guidance:

Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Recommendation 2.1: Seismic" 3 (referre d to as the Exped ited Approach).

The NRC held multiple public meetings and teleconferences with industry and the public leading to the development of the guidance documents supporting review of re-evaluated se ismic hazards. 1 The February 20 , 2014 , supplemental information letter is availab l e i n ADAMS under Accession No. ML14030A046. 2 The SPID gu ida nce document is found in ADAMS u nde r Accession No. ML12333A170. The staff endo r seme n t letter for the SPID guidance is found in ADAMS under Access i on No. ML12319A074.

3 The Exped ited Approach g uid ance document is found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13102A142. The WUS l i censees submitted the re-evaluated seismic hazards. by letters dated on. or before. March 12 , 2015 (references are provided in Enclosure 3 of th i s letter). The NRC staff conducted the screening and prioritization review of the subm i ttals by assess i ng each licensee's sc r eening evaluation and hazard analysis utilizing the endorsed SPID guidance.

INTERIM EVALUATIONS 4 The 50.54(f) letter requested that licensees provide " interim evaluations and actions taken or planned to address the higher se i smic hazard relative to the design-bas i s , as appropriate, prior to completion of the risk evaluation." For those plants where the re-evaluated seismic hazard exceeds t he seismic design-basis , licensees stated they w i ll provide inter i m evaluat i ons to demonstrate that the plant can cope with the higher re-evaluated se i sm i c. hazard while the longer-term se i smic r i sk evaluations are ongoing. In support of the requested interim evaluations for licensees , WUS p l ants provided i nformat i on related to margin evalua t ions or insights from Individual Plant Exam i nat i on of External Events (I PEEE) eva l uat i ons included est i mated se i sm i c risk. Additionally

,. the submittals discussed completing p l ant se i sm i c walkdowns as part of NTIF Recommendation 2.3 in order to verify that the current p l ant configuration is cons i stent with the licens i ng basis. The NRC staff rev i ew of WUS reports found that li censees have demonstrated add i tional p l ant seism i c margins supportive of cont i nued plan t operation wh i le additiona l risk evaluations are conducted. The i nterim eva l uat i on provided in March. 2015 is a first step in. assessing the plant's capacity to withstand the re-evaluated hazard. In the near-term , by January 2016 , l icensees will complete an " Expedited Approach" to evaluate and iden t ify reinforcements , if necessary , for certain equipment to. ensure a safe shutdown pathway can w i thstand a higher se i sm i c. ground motion. For Diablo Canyon and Palo Verde sites , the NRC staff is continuing to assess se i smic evaluations completed by the licensees to determ i ne i f they meet the i ntent of the Exped i ted Approach review and wi ll respond under. a seperate letter. SCREENING PROCESS As described in the 50.54 (f) letter and the SPID guidance , the se i smic hazard re-evaluat i ons were to be conducted us i ng current analysis me t hods and gu i dance. The licensees' responses to the 50.54(f) letter prov i ded seismic haza r d re-evaluation results , which were the focus of the NRC staff's in i tial screen i ng and prior i tization review. Although the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) is commonly referred to as a single number, this number represents a distr i but i on of ground motions that occu r over a range of spectral frequencies.

This. resu l ts in a curve of. ground acce l eration over. frequency.

The ability of t he equipment and structures i n the plant to withstand the effects of ground motions is frequency specif i c. For the purposes of the licensees' ana l yses and NRC staff's rev i ew , the SPID gu i dance iden t if i es three frequency r anges that are of part i cular interest:

1-1 O Hertz (Hz), a low frequency range of <2.5 Hz , and a high frequency range o f > 1 O Hz. The different ranges have been identified due to the different types of structures and equipment that may be impacted by ground mo t ions in that range. For example, l a r ge components generally are not affected 4 E nc l osure 1 o f t h is letter p rov ides a Glossa ry o f Se i s m ic E v a l uat i o ns , ex p la in i ng each of t he e v a lu ati o ns t hat a r e pa rt of t he o v e r a ll s e i s m ic reevalu ati on.

-. 3 -. significantly by high frequencies (i.e., > 1 o Hz). The frequency range 1-1 O Hz is the focus for this portion of the. risk evaluation , as this range has the. greatest potential effect on the performance of equ i pment and structures important to safety. For other frequency ranges , discussed below, limited-scope evaluations will be conducted , when appropriate.

In accordance with the SPID and Expedited Approach guidance , the re-evaluated seismic hazard determines if add i tional seismic risk evaluations are warranted for a plant (i.e., the plant screens in for further evaluation).

Specifically , the re-eva l uated ground motion response spectra (GMRS) in the 1-10 Hz frequency range is compared to the existing SSE:

  • If the re-evaluated GMRS, in the 1-10 Hz range, is less than the plant's exist i ng SSE, then the plant screens out of conducting further seismic risk evaluations

..

  • If the GMRS, in the 1-1 O Hz range, is greater than the existing SSE , then the plant will complete the Expedited Approach (including the Interim Evaluat ion). Most plants that meet this criterion also screen in to conduct a seismic risk evaluation and have committed to conduct high frequency.

and spent fuel poo l. evaluations. I n addition, if the GMRS meets the low hazard threshold , which is described in the SP ID , and only exceeds. the SSE below 2.5 Hz ,. the licensee will perform a limited evaluation of equipment potentially susceptible to low frequency motions. Similarly , if the GMRS exceeds the SSE only above 10 Hz , then the licensee will perform an evaluation of the equipment or structures susceptible to that specific.

range of ground motion. Enclosure 2 provides the staffs determinat ion of priority for plants that screen-in to conduct a seismic risk evaluation , and iden ti f ica tion of plants to complete limited-scope. evaluations (i.e., spent fuel pool , high frequency , or low frequency)

.. CONDITIONAL SCREENING As discussed in public meetings 5 , the staff anticipated the possibility of not being able to complete the determination for conducting a seismic risk evaluation for some plants in the 30 to 60 day review period under certain circumstances.

For example , if a l icensee provided a unique submittal or deviated from the SP ID guidance, additional t ime for the review might be needed .. In general, WUS submittals contain extensive site specific informat ion including site specific source models and ground-motion models which could affect the f ina l screening decisions.

Accordingly , during the NRC screening and pr ior it i zation process , the staff identif ied that for Pa l o Verde add i tiona l t im e and interactions will be required to better understand the seismic hazard for the. plant. As. such , the staff determined that Palo Verde " conditionally screens-in" for the purposes of prioritizing and conducting additional.

evaluations

.. After interactions have occurred , the staff will make a final screening and prior iti zat ion determination and prov id e a letter to. the licensee .. If the plant remains screened-in , the final screening letter will affirm the plant priority for further evaluations and establish schedule for an Expedited Approach , if necessary.

If the plant screens out, the final screening letter also will determ ine if the Palo ...................... 5 Discuss i o n as part o f public meetings dated December 4 , 2014 , February 11, 2015, a n d Ma rch 30 , 2015 (ADAMS Access i on Nos. ML14342A901, ML15104A065 and ML15111A031 , respect i ve l y). Verde needs to. complete limited-scope evaluations. (i.e., spent fuel pool , high frequency, or low frequency).

PLANT PRIORITIZATION The NRC grouped the " screened-in" plants into three groups 6 , which (i) reflects the relative priority for conducting a seismic risk evaluation that compares each plant's current capabilities to the re-evaluated seismic hazard , and (ii) accounts for the appropriate allocation of limited staff and available expert i se for reviewing and conducting seism i c risk evaluations. Dur i ng the prioritization.

review , the staff conside r ed each l i censee's re-evaluated hazard submittals , p l ant specific seismic and risk insights , and prev i ous des i gn basis ground motion est i mates. To prioritize the plants for completing seismic risk eva l uations, staff examined certain key parameters such as (1) the max i mum ratio of the new re-evaluated hazard (GMRS) to the SSE i n the 1-1 0 Hz ra n ge; (2) the maximum ground motion in the. 1-10 Hz range; and (3) insights from previous se i smic risk evaluations.

As such , Group 1 plants are gene r ally those that have the highest re-evaluated hazard relat i ve to the original plant seismic design-basis (GMRS to SSE), as well as ground mot i ons in. the 1-10 Hz range that are. generally higher in absolute magnitude.

Based on these criteria , Columbia and Diablo Canyon are prioritized as Group 1 plants. Group 1 plants , including Columbia and Diablo Canyon are expected to conduc t a se i smic risk evaluation and submit it by June. 30 , 2017 .. Group 3 plants have GMRS to SSE rat i os tha t are greater than 1 , but the amount of exceedance. in t he 1-1 O Hz range is relatively small , and the maximum ground mot i on in. the 1-10 Hz range is also not high. As described above, Pa l o Verde has conditionally screened in; based on current information Palo Verde has been assigned to pr i oritization Group 3. Given the limi t ed level. of exceedance of the Group 3 plants including. Palo Verde , staff is eva l uating the need for l i censees to conduct a seismic risk evaluation in order for the staff to complete its regulatory decision making. After further review , the staff will decide which Group 3 plants need to complete a risk evaluation.

Risk evaluations for Group 3 plants are due by December 3 1 , 2020. NEX T STEPS Based on t he s t aff's screening review the licensee for Columbia should final i ze and submit an Expedited Approach Report no later than J anuary 3 1 , 2016. The NRC staff is continuing to review the licensee provided information for Diab l o Canyon and Palo Verde related to the Expedited Approach.

In accordance. with. the endorsed guidance , the staff acknowledges that the January 2016 Expedited Approach submittal will focus on plant equipment (i.e. safe shutdown pathway 7) evaluations and modifications, as necessary , prior to submitting the plant seismic risk evaluations. The content of limi t ed-scope evaluations or confirmations and their associated schedule milestones remain under development with NRC staff and stakeholders.

The N RC staff has 6 Central and Eastern l i censees seismic hazard screening and pr i or i ty rev i ews were completed i n 2014. 7 Section 3 of the Expedited Approach guidance (ADAMS Access i on No. ML13102A142) prov i des a process to identify a sing l e seismically rob ust success path using a subset of ins talled plant equipment , FLEX equ i pment and connection points. conducted.

a number of public meetings on. the implementation detai ls of these evaluations, includ in g the development of alternatives approaches for conducting these evaluations The staff expects that implementing gu i dance should be established by summer 2015 and fall 2015 for high frequency and. spent fuel pool evaluations, respectively.

I t is expected.

that WUS licensees can complete these evaluations in parallel with completion of SPRAs for Group 1 plants by June 2017. This letter transmits the NRC staff's results of the seismic hazard submittals for the purposes of screening and prioritizing the plants. It does not convey the staff's final dete r mination regarding the adequacy of any plant's. calculated hazard. As such .. the NRC staff. w i ll continue. its review of the submitted seismic hazard re-evaluations , and may request additional plant-specific information to support this review through the summer of 2015. The staff has placed a high priority on this review for the early iden tification of issues that might adversely affect each licensee's seismic risk evaluations. Interactions with licensees will occur as soon as p racticable, including NRC staff plans to acknowledge the whether seismic hazard curves are suitability for use in SPRA development by late 2015. The NRC staff plans to issue a staff assessment on the re-evaluated seismic hazard once each review is completed in approximately 1 2 to 18 months .. I f you have any questions regarding this letter , please contact Nicholas DiFrancesco at 301-415-1115 or via email at Nicholas.Difrancesco@nrc

.gov. Sincerely, William M. Dean, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

1. Glossary of Evaluations
2. Screening and Prioritization Resu lts 3. List of Licensees March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic. Hazard Submittals
4. List of Licensees cc w/encls: Listserv conducted a number of pub lic meetings on the imple mentation detai l s o f these evaluations, i n cluding the development of a lt ernatives approaches for conducting these evaluations The staff expects that implementing guidance should be established by summe r 2015 and fall 2015 for high frequency and spent fuel pool evaluations, respectively.

It is expected that WUS licensees can complete these evaluations in parallel with completion of SPRAs for Group 1 plants by June 2017. Th is letter transmits the NRC staff's results of the. seismic hazard submittals for the. purposes of screening and prioritizing the plants. It does not convey the staff's final determination regard ing the adequacy of any plant's calculated hazard .. As. such , the NRC staff will continue. its review of the. submitted seismic hazard re-evaluations , and may request additional. plant-specific information to support this review through the summer of 2015. The staff has placed a high priority on this rev ie w for the early identification of issues that might adversely affect each licensee's seismic risk evaluations. Interact ions with licensees will occur as soon as practicab l e , including NRC staff plans to acknow ledge the whether seismic hazard curves are su i tability for use i n SPRA development by late 2015. The NRC sta ff plans to i ssue a staff assessment on the re-evaluated seism ic hazard once each review is completed in approximately 12 to 18 months. I f you have any questions regarding this letter , please contact Nicho las DiFrancesco at 301-415-1115 or via email at Nicholas.Difrancesco@nrc.gov.

Sincerely, William M. Dean , Director Office of Nuclear Re actor Regulat i on Enclosures

1. Glossary of Evaluations
2. Screening and Prioritization Results 3. List of Li censee March 2015 Re-e valuated Seismic Hazard Subm i ttals 4. List of Licensees cc w/encls: Listserv DISTR IBU T I ON: PUBLIC LPL4-1 R/F L P L 4-2 R/F R ids NroOd R ids NrrDorl R i dsNrrDorllpl4

-1 R i dsNrrDo rl lpl4-2 R idsNrrOd R idsNsirOd RidsOeMailCenter RidsOgcMa il Ce n ter MMarkley , NRA MKhanna, NRR MShams , NRR NDiFr ancesco , NRR ADA MS A ccess i on N o.: Ml151138344 AK ock, NRO D J ackson , NRO RidsNrrPMD i abloCanyon R ids Nr r PM Co l u mbla R ids NrrPa l oVerde R idsOgc R p Resource RidsRgn 4 MailC e n te r Resource R idsEdoMailCenler Resource *via ema il OFFICE NR R/JLD/PMB/PM NRR/JLD/LA NRR/JLD/H MB/BC NRO/DSEA/RGS2/BC NRR/D OR UD NAME ND iFr ances c o. SLent MS ha ms D Jac kso n Llund DATE 04/22/15 04/24/1 5 04/2 3/1 5 .. /. /15. . I. /15 OFFICE NRO/DSEA/D OGC NRR/J LD/D NRR/ D NAME SFlanders SC lar k JDavis IMFranov i ch for l WDea n DA T E I /1 5 05/0 4/1 5 I /15 I /15 O FFI C I AL R ECO RD CO P Y Glossary of Evaluations Associated with Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1 Seismic Hazard Re-eva l uations Interim Evaluation or Actions -An immediate licensee and NRC review of the re-evaluate d hazard to determine whether actions are needed to assure plant safety while further evaluations are ongoing. The staff has completed its review and concluded that , based on the licensees' interim evaluations and actions , Western United States (WUS) plants are safe for continued operations.

Interim evaluations and actions are provided in Section 5.0, "Interim Act i ons ," of the licensee submittals.

Expedit e d Appro ac h -A near-term licensee evaluation to be completed by January 31 , 2016 , for WUS plants whose re-evaluated hazard exceeds the current des ign-ba sis for the safe shutdown earthquake hazard level. The evaluation looks at the systems and components that can be used to safely shut down a plant under the conditions of a station blackout (i.e., no alternating current power is available) and loss of ultimate heat sink. The expedited approach will either confirm that a plant has sufficient margin to continue w ith a longer-ter m evaluation without any modificat ions, or confirm the need to enhance the seismic capacity to assure they can withstand the re-evaluated hazard. The Expedited Approach guidance document is found in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System under Accession No. ML13102A142.

S e ismi c Ri s k Evaluation

-L onger-term seismic risk evaluation provides the most comprehensive information to make regulatory decisions, such as whether to amend a plant's design or licensing basis or make additional safety enhancements.

These evaluations provide information to make r isk-informed decis ions. The staff will use this information in conjunction with the existing regulatory tools, such as backfit analysis, to decide on further regulatory actions. The longer-term seismic risk evaluations could be either a Seismic Margins Analys is or a Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment , depending on the magnitude of the exceedance.

Limit e d-S c op e Ev a luation s -These include i) Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation , ii) High Frequency Evaluation , and iii) Low Frequency Evaluation.

Respect i vely , these evaluations are focused on the following:

i) spent fuel pool components and systems capable of draining water inventory to the level of the spent fuel, ii) a review of components susceptible to high frequency accelerations (e.g. electrical relays), and ii i) a review of components susceptible to low frequency accelerations (e.g. water storage tanks). Enclosure 1

Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the. Fukushima Dai-l chi Accident Seismic Risk Eva l uations Screening and Prioritization Results for Western United States (WUS) Reactor Sites Seismic Risk Limited-scope Evaluations. Screening Expedited Evaluation H igh Low Spent Fue l Plant Name Resul t Approach (Priorit i zat i on Frequency Frequency Pool Evaluation Group) Evaluation Evaluation Evaluat i on Columbia Generating Station In x 1 x x Diablo Canyon Power Plant , U nit In x 1 x x Nos. 1 and 2 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Conditional 3 Station , Units 1 , 2, and 3 in x x x Enclosure 2

March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals for Western United States Reactor Sites Licensee Facility Date of letter (ADAMS Accession Nos.) Columbia Generating Station March 12 , 2015 (ML15078A243)

Diab lo Canyon Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 March 11, 20 15 (M L 15071 A046) Pa lo Verde Nuclear Generating Station , Units March 1 O, 2015(ML15076A073) and 1 , 2 , and 3 April 10 , 2015 (ML15105A076)

Enclosure 3

LIST OF APPLICABLE POWER REACTOR LICENSEES Columbia Generating Station Energy Northwest Docket No .. 50-397 License No. NPF-2 1 Mr. Mark E. Reddemann Chief Executive Officer Energy Northwest MD 1023 76 North Power Plant L oop P.O. Box 968 Richland , WA 99352 Diablo Canyon Power. P l ant. Unit Nos .. l and 2. Pacific Gas & Electric Company Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82 Mr. Edward D. Halpin Senior Vice President and Ch i ef Nuclear Officer Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 56 Mail Code 104/6 Avila Beach, CA 93424 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Arizona Public Service Company Docket Nos. STN 50-528 , STN 50-529 , and STN 50-530 License Nos. NPF-41 , NPF-51 and NPF-74 Mr. Randall K. Edington Executive Vice President Nuclear/CNO Arizona Public Service Company P.O. Box 52034 , MS 7602. Phoenix , AZ 85072-2034 Enclosure 4

DiFr ance s co , Ni c h o l as F ro m:DiFr ancesco, N i c h o la s Sent: 5 M ay 20 1 521: 18:3 6 +00 0 0 T o: Ja c k so n , Di a n e C c: Hill , Br i t ta in Sub jec t: W o rkin g V e r s i o n o f WUS S e i s mi c S c r ee nin g Le t t e r A tt ac hm e n ts: W este rn US S c r ee n i n g an d Pri o riti zat i o n l etter R ev l 5-5-15 5p m.d ocx Diane , For awareness, attached is the working version of the letter .. This. includes incorporating limited OGC comments.

There was one OGG comment regarding providing additional background that I maintained for consideration and discussion. Still considering a small update to support transition to the. interim evaluations section. Thanks , Nick From: Difrancesco , Nicholas Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 4: 15 PM To: Burn ell , S c ott

Subject:

Pr e ss Release on WUS Seismic Sc r een i ng Lette r Scott, We. briefed the DEDO, NRR, and R-IV management on the content of the. WUS Screening letter during the JLD status weekly. Mentioned that we are working towards a press release. We received no realignment on the letter or communication plan approach.

View ADAMS P8 Prope rties ML151138344 Open ADAMS P8 Document (Screen i ng and Pr i or i tization Results for the Western United States S i tes Regard i ng I nformat i on Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Rega r ding Se i sm i c Hazard Re-Evaluat i ons for Recommendat ion 2.1 of the. NTTF Rev iew) Current working towards issuance on Tuesday May 12 (that can always slip with NRR/ET review) .. Happy to. support a limited accuracy review as needed .. Please let me know if there are any questions or concerns.

Thanks , Nick Senior Project Manager -Seismic Reevaluation Activities U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiss i on Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Division nicho l as.difrancesco@nrc.gov I Tel: (301) 415-1115 Communicat i on Plan Timeline (A DAMS ML14083A619)

Date Act ivi ty (responsible organization)

SignitJ.cant Historic Actions Completed (2/20/14}

Issued letter to all licensees Re: Operability , Reportability, Interim Evaluation and Actions (ML14030A046)

Completed (5/9/14) Issued Central and Eastern US (CEUS) Seismic Screening Letter (ML14111A147)

WUS Seismic Hazard Screening Review Completed (3/12/15)

NRC Receipt of WUS Hazard Reports (JLD/licensees)

Completed (3/30/15)

NRC/NEI Seismic Public Meeting w/ Discussion of WUS Review P roce ss Completed (4/15/15)

Target for public meeting notice of April 28 Diablo Seismic Meeting (JLD-DiFrancesco)

Completed 4/27/15 Public availability of NRC and licensee slides for April 28 meeting (JLD -Di Fr ancesco) Completed 4/28/15 Diab l o Canyon Public Meeting on 2.1 Seismic (NRR/JLD, N RO/DSEA, Licensee)

Completed 4/29/15 Comp l ete WUS screening

& prior i tization technical review (NRO/DSEA) 5/7/2015 Distribute WUS screening

& prioritization letter to R-IV, OPA, OCA, OEDO (NRR/JLD liaison team) 5/11/2015 Notice to states, congressional, licensee issuance, and NGO s of pending issuance (RSLO, OCA, JLD) 5/12/2015. Issue WUS screening

& prioritization letter licensees including review of interim evaluation and actions (NRR/JLD) Issue Press Release on prioritization review (OPA) 6/4/15 Columbia Public Meeting on Methods (NRR/JLD, NRO/DSEA , Licensee) 6/9/15 Palo Verde Public Meeting on Methods (NRR/JLD, NRO/DSEA, Licensee) 6/23/15 Diablo End of Cycle Meeting and Open House (R-IV) Late.Summer Columbia End of Cycle Meeting (R-IV) Continuing Staff assessment of the reevaluated seismic hazard (NRO/DSEA , NRR/JLD) Points-of-contact

TSO DiFr ance s co, Ni c h o l as F ro m:DiFr ancesco, N i c h o la s Sent: 20 M ay 2 01 5 1 5:2 6: 4 8 +00 00 T o: R ose nb e r g , S t acey C c: L a ur , S t eve n;H a n-i s on , D o nni e;Sh a m s , M o h a m ed;Ja ckso n , Di a n e Sub jec t:Aw are n ess o f Publi c M ee tin g Slid e s o n SPRA R e li ef a nd W o rkin g L e t te r Outlin e A tt ac hm e n ts: R 2.l S eis m ic -M a y 2 1 2 015 Publi c M ee tin g R ev 7.pp tx, SPR A R e l ief Le tt e r fo r Group 2 a nd Group 3 Sit es.d ocx Stacey, As men t ioned i n the May 4 NRR/DRA brief. The staff i s moving forward to provide re l ief to certain priority Group 2 and Group 3 s i tes from comp l eting an SPRA. The May 21 pub li c mee t ing. tomorrow.

(Attachment 1 ). i s. a step, a l ong the wa y. were we consider. external. stakeholder i nsights. F ollowing the May 21 public meet i ng we wi ll have one addit i ona l publ i c mee t ing to cons i der stakeholder input. NRR ET has asked us to target August 20 1 5 (Attachment

2) for issue of the letter response to licensee.

The working draft con t a i ns my i nitial ou tli ne. I p l an seek NRR/DRA concurrence sometime t h i s summer and communicate awareness of SPRA act i vities. Steve , Donn i e , During an NE I call this morning the technical background about ice condensers containment f ailure probability. Tomorrow I expect an industry question on this top i c. Please l et me know if you have questions or concerns.

Sincere l y , Nick Sen i or Project Manager -Seismic Reevaluation Activit i es U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Div i s i on nicholas.d i f rancesco@nrc

.gov I Tel: (301) 415-1115 U.S.NRC UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS I ON Prot e ct i ng People and the En v ironm e nt NTTF Recommendation 2.1 Seismic May 21 , 2015. Andrea Kock, Diane Jackson, Mohamed Shams , Nick DiFrancesco Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Office of New Reactors ::::J -0 ..... 3 OJ -O" ::::J --"O OJ co CD (/) w _. I 01 _. ....._ _. 0 0 0 ---..... 0 3 )> 0 )> (/) --r _. 01 _. .i::.. 0 )> en I\) CX> --

U.S.NRC llNTTllD STATES NUCLl!AI\

IU!CllUTORY CO M MISSION Proucnng Peop l e and tlu En v ironment Today's Agenda NRC

  • Discussion of SPRA for Groups 2 and 3
  • Development of Guidance fair Proposed Rulemaking Related to Mitigation Strategies
  • Public Questions or Comments NEI
  • Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation l)evelopment
  • High Frequency Guidance Updates
  • Public Questions or Comments NRC
  • Key Messages I Actions SPRA -Sei s m i c Probab i l i stic Risk Assessmen 1 t 2 U.S.NRC llNlTl!D h'UCLEAI\

IU!CUl.ATORY COMMISSION Protecting Peop l e aruJ the Environment Assessment of SPRAs for Group 2 and Group 3 plants Diane ,Jackson 3 Seismic 2.1 Process Ensures Clarity, Consistency, and Risk-Informed Regulatory Decisions

PHASE 1 INFORMATION GATHERING STAGE 1 Interact with Industry on Ha z ard and Risk Evaluation Guidance CEUS Licensees submit Site Response (9/2013 & 3/2014) STAGE 2 S c reened-i n plants c omp le te E x pedited Interim Evalu a tion CEUS: 12/2014; WUS: 1 /2016 a nd R i sk E val u a tion (Group. 1: 201 7) NRC review Seismic Ris k Evaluation , as needed L-----------------------------

PHASE 2 DECISION-MAKING NRC makes Regulatory Decisions, as needed

  • Safety Enhancements
  • Modify Plant License 4 U.S.NRC UNITED NUCLEAR Rl!CUl..ATORY CO MMISSION Pl'Otecting PeQJJ l e and tJu Environment R2.1 Seismic lnforn1ation Needs for Regulatory Decisions
  • 50.54(f) letter gathers information to support regulatory decision to modify, revoke or suspend license
  • SPRA are an important tool to identify safety enhancements and assess plant capacity
  • May 9, 2014 , letter that SPRAs for some Group 3 plants with limited exceedan i ces may not be needed to make regulatory 50.54(f) decision
  • Presently the staff is evaluating 50.54(f) responses and available information to potential SPRA relief for some Group 2 and Group 3 1plants 5 U.S.NRC UmTllD STATES 1\JCLEAR IU!CUl..ATORY CO M MISSION Prot"'cnng P"'opl"' an.d tlu Ett v i ronmen t Available Information Supporting Limited SPRA Relie1f
  • R2.1 seismic reevaluated hazard I interim actions
  • R2.3 walkdown review:s and inspections
  • Gl-199, CEUS seismic hazard insights
  • IPEEE seismic plant Ccipacity insights
  • Expedited Approach Eivaluations 6

U.S.NRC UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Proucting Pet>pl e 1uul th e Environmen t Evaluation Approach for SPRA Relief

  • Staff built on Gl-199, IF>EEE, and reevaluated hazard risk insights for its review
  • Considered exceedanc:e above SSE, hazard peak, area between curves between 1 to 10 Hz, and reactor design
  • Assessed if SPRA insights would likely identified plant specific enhances 7 U.S.NRC Ul'o'l'l'ED NUCLEAR RllCUl..ATORY COMMISSION A-otectmg P eQJJ l e an.d t lu En.v i ron.m en.t SPRA Relief Letter. and Target Timeline
  • Engagement of stakeholder planned today and as part of next R2.1 public meeting
  • May -June 2015 -Sta.ff is continuing to develop inputs and decisions
  • Late Summer -Letter Issuance -Documents staff decisic>n providing SPRA relief for potential some Group 2 and Group 3 plants -Limited Scope Evaluati<)ns are expected from licensees provided SPFtA relief 8 U.S.NRC UNITED NUCLEAR R£CU1..ATORY OO MJ\t!SSION Protecting Peqp l e and th e Environ m en t NRC Guidance Development for Proposed Rule on Mitigation of Design-Basis Events (MBDBE) Incorporating Reevaluated Seismic Hazard 9 U.S.NRC UNrt'l!D NUCLEAR lll!CUl..ATORY CO M MISSION Protecnng P eop l e and the En v i ronmen t Overview of Topics for Discussion
  • Background on propose of MBDBE rule and guidance
  • Scope of proposed rule
  • Reasonable Protectiion
  • Deployment and interactions
  • Use of existing engineering insights 10 U.S.NRC Ul'o1TED STATES NUCLEAR R£CU1..ATORY OO M 1'fiSSION Protecting P eop l e and the Environment Guidance Development
  • Agency priority to support MBDBE proposed rulemaking (i.e. proposed 1 O CFR 50.155)
  • Proposed rulemaking extends Mitigation Strategies to met the reevaluated hazard level
  • Draft Regulatory Guide [)G-1301 under development to support issuance for public comment by early
  • Guidance to address scc)pe and performance requirements
  • Draft DG 1301 -

No. ML15072A171. 11 U.S.NRC UNrt'l!D NUCLEAR RJ!CUl..ATORY CO M MISSION Protecnng Peop l e and the Environment Proposed Rule Scope

  • All phases of FLEX equipment, including portable and installed
  • FLEX equipment must perform its intended function
  • Reasonable protection of equipment and strategies against the reevaluated hazard 12 U.S.NRC UKITllD STATES NUCLEAR RECULATORY CO M MISSION Protecnng P eop l e and tlu En v ironment Reasonable Protection

-Equipment

  • Equipment must ren1ain functional

-Components retain or fuel -Structures allow access for deployment

-Supporting equipment remains functional

  • Evaluation of equiprnent for robustness at the reevaluated seis , mic hazard -Analysis, testing, earthquake

_ experience, and generic test data. 1 3 U.S.NRC UNITED NUCLEAJ\ RJ!CUl..ATORY CO M MISSION Protecnng P eop l e and the Environmen t Reasonable Protection

-Buildings

  • Reasonable protection of equipment and strategies against the reevaluated hazard -Inelastic deformatior1 is permitted so long as strategy can be implemented

-Deformation limit co111mensurate with intended function 14 U.S.NRC TATES NUCLEAR RJ!CUl..ATORY OO M MlSSION Protecnng People and the Environment Deployment and Interactions

  • Secure and protect, equipment and strategies from seismic interactions
  • Seismically induced flooding
  • Feasible deployment routes -Potential soil liquefac:tion or non-safety building failures -Confirm access throLJgh robust structures 1 5 U.S.NRC U1'Tl'ED 1\JCLl!AR R£CUl..ATORY CO MMJSSION Pw>tecting P eop l e and t he Environment Existing Engineering Framework
  • IPEEE A-46, capacity cind risk insights
  • R2.1 Seismic ESEP interim evaluation

-capacity insights

  • Seismic probabilistic assessment

-capacities and risk

  • Industry codes and standards (e.g. ASCE 43-05) ESEP -Expedited Seismic Ev;aluation Process ASCE -American Society of C:ivil Engineers 16 U.S.NRC UNITED STATES 1\JCLEAJ\

RECUl..ATO R Y OO M MISSIOl'I Prot ecting Peop l e and the Environment Opportunity for Public Questions. or. Comments Additional Questions?

Please ask us at: JLD _ PublicResource@nrc.gov 17 U.S.NRC l!NtTBD STATES NUCLEAR R£CUl..ATORY O O M AUSSION Prou c nng Peop l e and t h e En v ironment Key Messages and Next Steps 1 8 U.S.NRC UNITllD STATES NUCLEAR RJ!CULATORY CO M MISSION Protecnng P eop l e and th e En v i ronment NTTF 2.1. Seismic Next Steps

  • Discussion of dates for r1ext meeting (late June)
  • Interaction on guidance *for proposed rulemaking (June -August 2015)
  • Discuss and finalize SRf)A decision for Groups 2 and 3 (August 2015)
  • Finalize high-frequency fevaluation implementing guidance (June/July 2015)
  • Spent fuel pool evaluatic>n implementing Guidance (Summer/Fall 2015) 19 U.S.NRC UNITED STATES 1\JCLEAJ\

RECUl..ATO R Y OO M MISSIOl'I Prot ecting Peop l e and the Environment Opportunity for Public Questions. or. Comments Additional Questions?

Please ask us at: JLD _ PublicResource@nrc.gov 20 U.S.NRC lMTl:O SUCLEA!l RECt.'UTOllY OOMMJSSIOl\

ProkctinK People and the Enviromnent Backup Slides 21 ji nformat i o n (pages 52-6 1/1000) i s ava il ab l e from ADAMS ML151138344. The Power Reactor Licensees and Holder of Construction Permits in Deferred Status on the Enclosed List UBJECT: SUSPENSION OF SEISMIC RISK EVALUTION INFORMATION REQUES PURSUANT TO TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATI N .54(f). REGARDING SEISMIC HAZARD RE-EVALUATIONS FO , ECOMMENDATION 2.1 OF THE NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE N I FR THE F K HI A DAI-HI A IDEN fie purpose of tfits letter i s to i nform enc ose lcensees tflat certain Group 2 a Group 3 s i t ay suspend respond i n to the seismic risk evaluation informa ti on r; uest based on a revie a vaj lable inf *o [This letter discussions the analysis approach of this decisions and expectations for completion of limit-scope evaluation (i.e. spent fuel pool , high-frequency, and/or low fre quency evaluations

).] Does not prov i de relief from other licens ing requirements for informed technical specifications or plant licensing.]

B A CRG ROON ll On Marcfl 12 , 2012 , the NRC issued a request for informat i on pursuant to Title 10 of the Cod of Federal Regulations , Part 50 (1 O CFR), Section 50.54(f) (hereafter referred to as the 50.54 etter) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System {ADAMS) Accession No L 12053A340). The purpose of that r equest was to gather information concern i ng , i n part , th i smic hazards at ope r ating reacto r s i tes and to enable the NRC staff to determine whethe icenses should be modified , s us pended, o r revoked. The "Required R esponse" sect i on o

  • nclosure 1 indicated that licensees and ns i n rm* h I d r h r v i i m i azaro Evaluation and Screenin re . The 50.54(f) letter stated that NRC would provide the results of the screening and prior i tizat ion indicating deadlines for individual plants to complete seismic risk evaluations to assess the total plant response to the re-evaluated seismic hazard. By (five] letters NRC completed its screening and p rio ritization review wh ich places 34 reactor sites into three review groups based on relative priority and resource constraints to complete seismic risk evaluations.

Prev iously , in accordance with the SPID and Expedited Approach guidance, the re-evaluated seismic hazard determ ines if additional seismic r isk evaluations.

I f the re-evaluated ground motion response spectra (GMRS), in the 1-1 O Hz range , is greater than the existing SSE, then the plant complete an Expedited Approach , screen in to conduct a seismic risk evaluat ion , committed to conduct high frequency, and a spent fuel pool evaluation.

The seismic screening letters dated in 2014 and 2015 also discussed that relief from the request was under consideration for some Group 3 sites. Based on further review , the staff found it prudent to also review Group 2 sites .. In tota l the staff identified that seismic risk evaluations fo r approximately (12.5] sites are not required [footnote Hatch unit CLB difference]

to complete regulatory decision mak ing. [This letter discussion the rationale]. AVAILIBLE I NFORMATION The NRC staff as part of. its 50.54(f) r equest sought information to support regulatory decisions related to the seismic reevaluated hazard for operating reactor sites. The 50.54 (f) letter discusses that this information would be used i n Phase 2 decis i ons. Although seismic risk evaluations are an important tool to. assess plant sat ety and ruggedness. Based on the. staff review of licensee hazard , r i sk i nsights, and plant design , substant i a l safety benefits are not expected for a number of previously screened Group 2 and Group 3 rev i ew sites. The NRC staff in coming to this dec i sion considered , the reevaluated hazard screening reports ,. Gl-199 risk insights , R2.1 hazard updates , probabilistic r i sk assessment guidance and standards , and 1 O CFR 50.109 backfit criteria. EVALUATION PROCESS AND ANALYSIS Enclosure 2 , documents p l ants identified i n Group 2 and Group 3 where low t o moderate se i sm i c hazard exceedance and risk insigh t s provided sufficient safety basis to not r equire a se i sm i c risk eva l uation. In otherwords , the seismic hazard was. reasonable small to. not require plant speci f ic imp r ovements. The staff found that Calvert Cliffs , Units 1 and 2 , GMRS hazard slightly exceedance. the SSE, its spectral peak was low, and previous se i smic probabilistic risk assessment (SPRA) found plant risk to be very l ow. The staff found that Cooper , Perry , Seabrook , and Three M il e I sland , U n it 1 , hazard slightly exceeded the SSE, and p r eviously risk evaluations demonstrated p l ant risk to be l ow. The staff f ound that Davis-Besse , Wo l f Creek, Po i nt Beach , Fermi , and LaSa ll e, GMRS hazard exceedance was moderately above the SSE , its spectral peak was low , and recent risk estimates. are l ow. The sta f f found that Hatch Un i t 2 and Mont i ce ll o , GMRS hazard exceedance was moderately above the SSE, its spectral peak was l ow , and recent r i sk est i mates are moderate. I I If you have any questions regarding this letter , please contact Nicho las DiFrancesco at 301-415-1115 or via email at N icho l as.Di francesco@nrc.gov.

Sincerely, William M. Dean , Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulat ion

Enclosures:

1. Glossary of Evaluations
2. Screening and Prioritization Re sults 3. List of Licensees' March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals
4. List of Licensees cc w/encls: Lis tse rv DISTR I BUTION: See n e x t pag e ADAMS Accession No.: ML151138344
  • via ema il OFFIC E NRR/J LD/PMB/PM NA R/JLD/LA NRR/JLD/HMB/BC NRO/DSEA/RGS2/

BC NR R/DOAU D NAME NDiFr ancesc o Slent MShams DJackson Ll und DATE OFFICE NRO/DSEA/D OGG NRR/JLDID NRR/D NAME SFlanders JDav i s WDe a n DATE OFFICIAL RECORD COPY RidsNrrPMSa l em RidsNrrPMSeabrook RidsNrrPMSequoyah RidsNrrPMShearonHa r ris RidsNrrPMSummer RidsNrrPMSurry RidsNrrPMSusquehanna RidsNrrPMTh r eeMi l els l and RidsNrrPMTu r keyPo i nt RidsNrrPMVogtle RidsNrrPMWaterford RidsNrrPMWattsBar1 RidsNrrPMWattsBar2 RidsNrrPMWo l fCreek RidsOgcRp Resource RidsRgn 1 Ma il Center Resource RidsRgn2Mai l Center Resource RidsRgn3Ma il Center Resource RidsRgn4Ma il Center Resource RidsEdoMailCenter Resou r ce. PUBLIC RidsNroOd R i dsNrrOd RidsNsirOd. MMarkley , NRR MKhanna , NRR MShams, NRR NDiFrancesco , NRR AKock , NAO DJackson , NRO RidsNrrPMDiabloCanyon RidsNrrPMCo l umbia RidsNrrPa l oVerde RidsOgcRp Resou r ce RidsRgn4Ma il Center Resou r ce RidsEdoMailCente r Resou r ce

Glossary of Evaluation

?G'Sociat Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1 Seismic Hazard Re-evaluations ntenm Evaluat on or Actions -An immediate lice nse e an(j NBC revi ew of the re-evaluat azard t o determine whether actions are needed to assure plant safety while further evaluation e ongoing. The staff has completed I ts review and concluded that , based on the l icensees nterim evaluations and actions , Western Un ited States (WUS) plants are safe for continu operations. Interim evaluatio s and actions are rovided In Section 5.0 " Inte rim Actions " of th . h-A near-term l ice nsee evaluation to be completed in December 2014 f CEUS plant s and by January 31 , 2016, for WUS plants whose re-e valuated haza rd exceeds r.urrent design-basis for the safe shutdown earthquake hazard level. The evaluation looks a he systems and components that can be used to safely s hut down a plant under the conditi fa stat i on blackout (i.e., no a lt ernating current power i s available) and l oss of ultimate hea ink. The expedited approach wi ll either co nfirm that a plan t has sufficient margin to contin ith a longer-ter m evaluation without any modifications , or confirm the need to enhance capacity to assure they can withstand the re-evaluated hazar d. T he Expedite gu i dance document is found in the A enc

  • e Document s Access and Mana emen S stem under Accession No. ML13102A142

_,__,_,.,_, comprehensive information to make regulatory dec isi o ns, such as whether to amena a plant's esign or l icensing basis or make additional safety enhancements.

These evaluations provid nforma t ion to make risk-info rmed decis i ons. The staff will use t his in fonna tion in ith the exist i ng regulatory tools , such as backfit analysis, to d ecide on f urther regulato ctions. T he longe r-term se i smic risk evaluations could be either a Seismic Margins A nalY,sis o * *

  • s e Enclosure 1

Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from. the Fukusn i ma Dai-lch i Acciden1 Seism i c Screen i ng UDdated Based on Review of Available lnformatio Umited-scooe Evaluation

!i P l ant Name *Evaluatio esu en nc al a 0 Bellefonte Nuclea r Plant , Un i ts 1 and 2i Ou Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. Units 1 and Du Coooer Nuclear Stat i o n Ou , Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station. Unit 1] Ou t EdWin I. Ratcfi Nuclea r Plant. Un i t 2 1 QYj I =ermi , Un i t 2! Ou 1 LaSalle Countv Station. Units 1 and 2! Ou I Mont i cello Nuclear Generatina

ou Dvster Creek Nu cl ear Generatina Statio ri bu' I> Palo Verde Nuclear Station Units 1. 2, and 3 Ou ) Perry Nuclear Power Plan t, Unit 1J Du i>oint Beach Nuclear Plant. Units 1 and 2 Pu Seabrook , Unit 1 1 Pu Nuclear Plant .. Units 1 and 2 '.Ou , ' jfhree Mi l e Island Nuclear Station , Un it 11 Pu Wolf Creek Genera ti na Station Unit 1 l Ou Enclosure 2

arch 2015 Re-evatuated Seismic Hazard and Screen i ng Repo dwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Units 1 and Salle Coun Station , Units 1 and rch 27 2014 ML14092A413 Station Unit 1 rch 31 2014 ML14097A020 Enclosure 3

LIST OF APPLICABLE POWER REACTOR LICENSEES Enclosure 4

DiFran cesco, Nicholas From:DiFrance sco, Nicholas Sent: 13 May 2015 18:34:49 +0000 To: Witt , K ev in;Yal e ntin , Milton Cc: B owman, Gregory;Sham s, Mohamed

Subject:

Comment R e: SFP Commitm e nt s to Commis s i on Attachments:20 l 3-0030comscy.

pd f W e n ee d to confirm with the t echn i cal expert s but , l think the only plant we need t o under stand b e tt er i s C ol umbi a. DC and Pal o V e rd e genera l appear t o b e within their C LB. Mi g ht be a good item t o co n si d e r as we develop th e SPF eva luat io n implementing details. -Nick -----Ori g in a l M Fr o m: Witt. K ev in Sent: W ed n es d ay, May 1 3, 2 015 12:15 PM To: Val e ntin , Milt o n Cc: B owma n. Gregor y; Difran cesco, Nichola s

Subject:

Commi tm ents to Commission Hi Milton, s inc e we were talking about co mmitm e nt s thi s m o rning , 1 wa s ju st r e mind e d of one. ln th e ex pedit e d tr a n sfe r paper (attached-footnote on pg 10), we co mmitt ed t o go ba c k and verify that the we s t e rn US Plant s SFPs are b o und ed by thi s analy s i s w h en we g a in s uffi c i ent in formation a bout s eismi c ha zar d s. W e m ay b e ab l e t o utili ze th e work th a t JHMB i s doin g on the SFP se i s mi c ha z ard re eval uation s to clo s e thi s it em o ut. -K e vin Ol'FICIAL USE ONLY SENSI I IVE IN I ERNAL INFoRMAllON March XX , 2015 MEMORANDUM TO: Chairman Burns Commissioner Svinicki Comm i ssioner Ostendorff Comm i ssioner Baran FROM:

SUBJECT:

Non Responsive M i chael R. Johnson Deputy Execut i ve. D ir ector for Reactor and Preparedness Programs Off i ce of the Execut i ve D i rector for Operations PERIODIC COMMISSION UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF TIER 1 AND TIER 2 NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTACT: Gregory Bowman , NRR/JLD (301) 415-2939 Enclosures

As stated cc: SECY OGC OCA OPA CFO Ol'l'lelAL t:l!I! 014L I !1!14SITI O I!! ii"l!!l'\14AL 114FORMA I ION 9FFl81AL 8HL'/ SElf!"IY!

llfT!PU*At IHFOl'tl!A I ION MEMORANDUM TO: FROM:

SUBJECT:

No n Re sp o nsi ve March XX , 2015 Chairman Burns Comm i ssioner Svinicki Commissioner Ostendorff Comm i ssioner Baran Michael R.. Johnson Deputy Execut i ve Director for Reactor and Preparedness Programs Office of the Execut i ve. Director for Operations PERIODIC COMMISSION UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF T I ER 1 AND TIER 2 NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTACT: Gregory Bowman , NRR/JLD (301) 415-2939 Enclosures

As s t ated cc: SECY OGC OCA OPA CFO DISTR I BUTION: See next page ADA MS A ccess i on No.: OFFICE NRR/JLD NAME LKG i bson* DATE 3/12/15 *v i a ema il NRR/JLD/JPSB: BC OEDO/TCCM DEDR GBowman*. MDudek MJohnson.

3/12/15 OFF I CIAL RECORD COPY QFFIQIAb 1!1812 9Hb\' 8EP481ll'/E lf4lEAHAL IHF8AMA"ef4 OFFICIAL USE ONLY SENSI I Iv E IN I ERNAL IHFORIOIM'IOl4

-2 (6) On March 12 , 2015 , the NRC staff received the seismic hazard reevaluation reports for the. plants in the Western United States (Columbia Generating Station; Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; and Pa lo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2 , and 3). Along with their submittals, licensees whose reevaluated seismic hazard is higher than their design basis are expected to provide an interim evaluation to demonstrate that the plant can cope with the reevaluated seismic hazard while the longer-t erm seismic risk eva l uations are ongoing. The NRC staff will review the licensee submittals and establ ish a prioritization schedule for the seismic r isk evaluations for those plants where the reevaluated seis mi c hazard exceeds that in the facility's design basis. T he staff w i ll a l so review the l i censee's inter im evaluation and actions,.

if applicable

.. This review , which will be documented in a letter. will like ly take between 30-60 days to accomplish.

With the submittal of these report , seismic hazard reevaluation have been submitted for all plants. O utsi de of Scope 8FFl81AI::

l:ISE IHl'liRHP:b 0 TIQH 8FFl81AL 8HLV SEHSl"flVE lftifEfilHAL lt4F8filMAll8H Regulator}'

' I ' Future Milestones Tier 1 NRG to document review of Expedited Approach.

for GEUS by RFI i ssued December 31, 2015 March 12, 2012 NRG to issue seismic Seismic Hazard Reevaluation hazard staff assessments NRG to issue review NTTF 2.1 Request for Information Licensees for Western U.S. for GEUS licensees by letters on Expedited (RFI) facil i ties submitted site September.30, 2015 Approach for GEUS by seismic hazard February 28 , 20 1 6 reevaluations by March 12, 2015 Licensee(s) for Western U.S. facilities to subm i t Expedited Approach by January 31 , 20 1 6 No n Re sp o nsi v e Enc l osure 2 QFFIGhl:b l!ISi: 8ttl'/ 8EHSl'flV!

IH'l'! .. HAL 1m*onlUIA I ION Sent:20 May 2015 19:43: 18 +0000 To:Stieve, Alice;Munson, Clifford Cc:Ake , Jon;Stephanie Dev lin;Hee szel, David

Subject:

Palo Verde questions Attachments:Questions for PVNG S.docx Attached are my draft questions based on their use of GMM. They supersede couple of my questions send to you 10 days ago.

Provide more rational for the choice of subset of GMPEs for PVNGS. What is the reason for deviation from approach chosen by DCPP? What is the reason for not using I driss and Zhao GMPEs for Greater Arizona sources (Table EX-2)? Section 5.5.1.1 justifies use of Zhao models for California and they are used fo r Diablo. I n mean time Table 5.5.1-1 (p.5-46) says that Zhao tectonics and attenuation are not relevant to California/West Arizona. DCPP. and PVNGS seem to contradict each other's .. **********************************************

Section 6.2.2 is including Bindi 2014 model, but limits its use to M=7 because of magnitude scaling which is d ifferent from others (Fig. 6.2.2-1) 1.50 1 1.00 0.70 ,........, El <( 0.50 en CL 0.30 0.20 5.0 T=0.2 SS Rx=S 5.5 6.0 6.5 M 7.0 *ASK14 *AS814 *Bi14 BSSAt4 *C814 7.5 ' l . 8.0 In mean time for DCPP the use of different scaling (strong saturation) by Zhao is considered to be useful representing alternative approach. I t looks like when alternative scaling results in lower GM i t is acceptable to Tl team , but when it results in higher GM it is not acceptable.

Page 6-6 states: " Based on the evaluation of the candidate GMPEs for application to earthquakes in Cal i fornia and Mexico recorded in central Ar i zona given in Kishida et a l. (2014), the Tl Team judged that the. NGA-West2 GMPEs are suitab l e for estimating path terms. for the paths from California and Mexico to central Arizona." In mean time existing publications Phill ips (2013) demonstrate higher Q for Arizona (also F ig. 5.5 , p.107). ************************************************

                      • Kish ida et al.,. 2014 report states. (Abstract):

" The compar i son showed that overall the recorded 5% damped response spectral ordinates were. over predicted by the NGA-West2 models by a range of 0-0.35 natural l og units for events occurr i ng in Central California , and by a range of 0.2-0.7 natural l og units for events occurring in Sou t hern California and the Gulf of California." Th i s conclusion looks inconsistent w i th: 1. Ar i zona Q at least same or higher than that of California

2. Kappa same or lower than that of California This conclusion is based on compa r isons with records from mostly small. magnitude even t s (Table 2.2 , p.6) and data hav i ng e x treme l y limited frequency range of 0.5 to 8 Hz (may be actua ll y up to 5 Hz). Figure 2.18 (p.19) conf i rms that (/) 150 ---...--.---

.................

--.--.-...-.-

......... -n--.....-

........ @ 100 -------------

... -... -Ari z ona Events \ ---NGA-W est2 E vents \ \ 0 ....... .1....1....:..u..u....

-..1.-..1-1...i..:iu.u.i 0.1 1 10 100 Pe ri od (s) ******************************************************

                                                                • Are the r e any consideration of bas i n effect i n applying GMPEs fo r Arizona consider i ng tha t basin effec t in NGA-West2 re l a t ions depends upon the depth to Vs=1 km/s or 2.5 km/s? ******************************************************************************* Use of such a subset of data actually questions est i ma t es of kappa. Fig. 4.17-4.37 a l so don't look conv i ncing.

Sent: 10 Apr 20 1 5 21 :24:07 +0000 To:John Stamatakos;Stirewa l t, Gerry;PJaza

-Toledo, Meralis;Miriam R. Juckett Cc:Ake , Jon;Hill, Brittain;Munson.

Clifford;lisa.

walsch@nrc.gov;Li , Yong

Subject:

RE:

Monday D iablo Meeti n g That is very good. T hanks! From: John Stamatakos

[jstam@swri.org].

Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 4:01 PM To: Gra i zer, Vladimir; St i rewa l t, Ge r ry; Plaza-To l edo, Meralis; Miriam R. Juckett Cc: Ake, Jon; Hill, Brittain; Munson, Clifford; lisa.walsch@nrc.gov; Li, Yong

Subject:

Monday Diab l o Meeting Vlad, For Monday, I can walk everyone through the draft summary report we have on the seismic imagining data and searchable image table. John Dr. John Stamatakos Direc t o r ofTechnical Programs Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Ana l yses (CNWRA) Southwest Research I nstitu t e 1801 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852 301-881-0290 j stamatakos@swr i.org I I n formation (pages 282-283/1000) i s .......... . Graizer , Vladimir From:Grai zer, V l adimir Sent:28 May 2015 13:53:52 +0000 T o:Jackson , Diane;Munson , Clifford Cc:John Stamatako s;Ake , Jon;Plaza-Tol edo, Merali s;Giacinto , Jo s eph;Stovall, Scott;H111 , Britlain;Li , Yong

Subject:

RE:

R eminder s ent to Diablo for Information Reque s t Diane and Cliff, I don't know if it is considered an RAI, but as I mentioned at one of the Diablo meetings I need the following info: Section 8.4.1 of the SWUS report discusses evaluation of median base models and their range. Please provide Excel files of the plots shown on Figures 8.4-17 and 8.4-18 showing comparisons of hazard curves for frequencies of 5 and 0.5 Hz. In addition , please provide similar files for the frequencies of 1 O and 1 Hz. Vlad i mir Graizer , Ph.D. Se i smologist Office of New Reactors Mail Stop: T-7F3 Washington , DC 20555-0001 From: Jackson,. Diane Sent: Thursday , May 28, 2015 9:43 AM To: Munson, Clifford Cc: Graizer, Vladimir; John Stamatakos; Ake, Jon; Plaza-To l edo, Meralis; Giacinto, Joseph; Stovall, Scott; Hill, Brittain; Li, Yong

Subject:

FYI: Rem inder sent to Diablo for Information Request Nick sent a reminder. Diane From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Thursday , May 28, 2015 9: 16 AM To: Philippe Soenen (Pns3@oge.com); Jahangir, Nozar Cc: Michae l Richardson (mjrm@pge.com

); Str i ckland, Jearl; Shams, Mohamed; Jackson, D i ane; Vega, Frankie

Subject:

Reminder on Diablo Information Request Ph ilip pe , et , al Just a reminder that the staff is interested i n the following references to support NRC review: 1) Benchmark fi les for SWUS-DCPP median ground motion models. 2) EST A 27 and 28 recordings of Parkfield and San Simeon earthquakes

a. Time histories
b. Response spectra c. Response spectra adjusted for Vs30 3) Engineering reports describing development of velocity profiles for stations ESTA 27. and 28. 4) Paper describing WAACY Magnitude PDF by Wooddell and others. Please let me know when the references will be availab l e. Thanks , Nick Senior Pro j ect Manager -Seism i c Reevaluat i on Activities U.S. Nuc l ear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Division nicholas.difrancesco@nrc.gov I Tel: (30 1) 415-1115 H eesze l , D av id From:Heeszel , David Sent:22 May 2 015 18:29:2 7 +0000 To:Sebe r , D oga n;Mun son, Clifford Cc:Ake , Jon;Jack so n , Di a n e

Subject:

Columbia GMM codes Attachments:s s_90_0_10_10_10_ye s kappa.pdf, ss_90_0_10_10_10_nokappa.pdf Hi All , Attached are two files that contain some results from my Columbia GMM software.

Both files are for a single fault at 8 magnitudes from 5(fault1 )-8 (fault8). In this case the fault is a vertical strike-s li p located w i th 1 Okm away that comes to the surface. The red dots are individual realizat i ons of the SA at the branch l evel. The solid black curve is the. weighted mean SA , and the dashed lines are. the mean+/-sigma. For this code , we are simply using the middle branch of the normal distr i bution of sigma. The next step is to get a set of. scenar i o. earthquakes that are realistic and importan t to hazard. Perhaps we can discuss at the Columbia weekly meeting on Thursday.

Thanks , David David Heeszel Geophy s icist U.S. NRC , NRO/DSEA/RGS2 Offic e: T-7E28 Mail Stop: T-7F3 Phone: 301-415-5066

<( CJ) fault1 0. 001 ;--____,....--,....-r--T'"...,.....,.....,........--____,....----..-.....,--,...........,....,.-----r----..-......--.-...,....,......--

0 .1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) fault2 1 ..-.. 0) ..._... <( 0.1 (j) 0.0 1 0. 00 1 0 .1 1 1 0 100 Frequency (Hz)

<( CJ) fault3 0.001 0 .1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

..-.. 0) ..._... <( (j) 1 0.1 0.0 1 .. ,. / fault4 .,,.,..,.

__..-*-*1*---. __ _,,____.__

i i -=*-:--*-*-*-* ' . ' ' ' i t * .. " . : : ... 0. 00 1 -------.---.-...,.....,....,...,....,...;-----.-----..--...--.-.,.............,...;---.....----.----.-..,........,.............. 0 .1 1 1 0 10 0 Frequency (Hz) fault5 1 ...-.. O> ..._.. / <( 0.1 . ... . ....... / . I / I I (j) ! . . . 0.0 1 I I ,, 0.00 1 0.1 1 1 0 100 Frequency (Hz)

<( (j) fault6 ..

  • 0.001

...............

....,...,...;--.,....----,.__,........,....,....,....,....-r 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) fault? 1 ...-.. O> ..._... <( 0.1 (j) _.,,,,,. * ' t I ! * , ...___. *

  • t I 1 I I * -. .V
  • I t t I I
  • I I ' -*-*-* / I t t I I t t I t i * / t
  • I I I t t 1 I '1 1 II '11 , 1: I : t ! t : I t I t i ---...;l;_--1 ...... * .... . .. , .. t I I ... ., ' .
  • I ......... 0.0 1 0. 00 1 0.1 1 1 0 100 Frequency (Hz) faults 0. 0 01 0 .1 1 1 0 10 0 Frequency (Hz)

<( CJ) fault1 0.01 ---t-' I ** . i . 0. 001 ------.---.--.--.-........-'T'1--.....----r---r--l""""l""°T'"'l'-----r-

' ---.* -.,........,.....,....,....,'T"'l-0 .1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

<( (j) fault2 1 -,:1------1 ...... 0 .1 .. t . . . . . . ..... : . 0.01 --+------+-'

'--1---1 i j I j 0. 001 --t-"----r---.---r"""T""'T""T

..........-------r----r-

...............

"""T""T'"T'"T

--+--,_;......,.....-r""P""r'".,..+-0. 1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) fault3 10 1 . **-* -* -. -I I . . ,..-I I -* A' *-...-.. O> ..._... <( 0.1 (j) 0.0 1 !..-'. ----. -*-*---/ .,...,,,----

/ . . . .. ,, ./ v I *, .. ......... ...... / / /*v ..... . . . // *" I . . . I / .* ; . . . . I . / / I I I I I I / . . 0.00 1 ! ' 0.1 1 1 0 100 Frequency (Hz)

<( CJ) fault4 : : ' ' 0. 001 ....---.---.--.......-r-r

-0 .1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

<( CJ) fault5 1 .-*-*i-* ... -..... t' . : / / --------.. -*-*-*-/ / . / -v . .*. . . . . . . . . . -.-, -+-, ___,____, 01 ..,. .,,,,.-.** *. * ... . . ... .. .. .. -... v*/ / ......... j * / ... ** : , .. 0.01 / * *

  • I : i : i .
  • I . 0. 001 ------.-----.--.--.--.-.,...,......;--......----.---r--T

...............

,..----.-* ,.........,......,....,....,..

0.1 1 10 1 0 0 Frequency (Hz) fault6 ..-.. 0) ..._.. <( 0.1 (j) *. I .

  • r ....... ..... . I I I t I I 0. 00 1 0.1 1 1 0 100 Frequency (Hz)

..-.. 0) ..._... <( (j) 1 ..... ..... 0.1 0.0 1 fault? .-*-* -**-.. . . . -* --........ . ... : . *J-*-*-*-...__ T-+--+.---r-I .. *:* . : .. ! ... ..... . t I * ' ' ' ; * * . ' I I I ' . I I ' . 0. 00 1 ..,........,_"T""'"T"'T""'T'"t-0 .1 1 1 0 100 Frequency (Hz) fault8 1 -.---..-.. / -O> / -*""*I ...._.. ,,.*"" / <( 0.1 / (j) / / 0.01 . . . -*-. ---.. . .... . I . I I . -... I I -......_ 1 * -. -. -. -* ....... *,.. .. . . : ....

  • l * . : .... ! ..... . I . : . * *
  • I * *
  • I I I t * *
  • t I I I .. a a a 0. 001 0 .1 1 1 0 100 Frequency (Hz)

H eesze l , D av id From:Heeszel , David Sent:26 Mar 2015 20:17:38 +0000 To:Sebe r , Do ga n;Mun son, Clifford Cc:Graizer , Vladimir

Subject:

Columbia GMM Impl eme ntation Attachments:Columbia Ground Motion B ackgro und.pptx Attached is a brief PowerPoint detail in g the implementat i on of the Columbia GMM. I focused primarily on Appendix 02 of the SSHAC report and so am not intimately familiar with the technica l bases used to develop the GMM. Let me know if you have any questions I may be able to answer. Please forward to anyone who may have a use or need for th i s. --Dav i d David Heeszel Geophysicist U.S. NRC , NRO/DSEA/RGS2 Office: T-7E28 Mail Stop: T-7F3 Phone: 301-415-5066 Hanford SSHAC Ground Motion and 43N 50 100 -=-=--Kilometers 1 22'W t20W 118W Hanford Ground Motion Model

  • Defined at 20 Periods
  • Divided into two pieces -GMM for background and fault sources (crustal model) -GMM for subduction sources (subduction model)
  • Independent Logic Trees
  • Single Sigma Logic Tree -Different parameters for crustal and subduction earthquakes
  • V 530 is 760 m/s throughout Crustal Model (189 branches)

Backbone GMPE CY14 (1.0) V s-K Ad j ustment Factors V K-7 s (0.055) V K-6 s {0.136) V K-5 s (0.198) (0.222) V K-3 s (0.198) V K-2 s (0.055) Inh erent Uncertainty in Backbone Adjustments I M)9 (0.0625) I M)8 (0.0625) I Mh (0.0625) [61n (Y) I M)6 (0.0625) [fl ln(Y) I M]5 (0.50) [61 n (Y) I M]4 (0.0625) [61n (Y) I Mh (0.0625) I Mh {0.0625) I M]1 (0.0625) Host-to-Target Uncertainty Facto r s x1.3 (0.3} xl.O (0.6) x0.8 (0.1)

Backbone Model

  • Modification of Chiou and Youngs, 2014
  • Can be broken into "'10 subcomponents Some parameters fall out b/c not considered by this PSHA
  • E.g. directivity component
  • Included in software for completeness
  • Necessary Inputs Frequency (f) Magnitude (m) -Rupture Distance (RRuP) Joyner-Boore Distance (RJs) Fault Dip (6) Reverse Faulting Flag (FRv) Normal Faulting Flag (FNM) (I should remove this) Depth to top of rupture (ZroR)

Subsequent Adjustment Factors

  • V 5-kappa factors -Table lookup
  • Period Dependent Uncertainty

-Required Inputs

  • Hanging Wall Factor (FH w) -Depend s on R x and fault type
  • Joyner-Boo r e Distance (R J 8)
  • Dip (6)
  • R x
  • Magnitude (M)
  • Host-to-Target Uncertaint\l

-Constant Implementation in SSC

  • Same GMM used for fault sources and background sources All earthquakes are faults
  • Yakima Fold and Thrust treated Discretely
  • Zones treated generally

-Randomly Distributed

-Sometimes randomly oriented -All Boundaries are Leaky Need to consider fault type

  • Sources have styles of faulting and dips associated with them -Necessary to calculate the parameters R x and Z tor
  • Fault scaling relations. become important particularly for determining ztor -Calculate width based on scaling relations and determine >> If Z tor <0 then this realization is not considered in PSHA Subduction Model (72 branches)

Backbone GMPE Back-arc {1.0) ? Magnitude Scal i ng

+ 0.2 (0.2) [6C1]med (0.6) [tiCl]med

-0.2 (0.2) Scaling on An elastic Attenuation Term 0.5 05 ( 0.4) 05 ( 0.6) Implemented Within GMPE Epi stemic Uncerta i nty in Med i an x1 .62 (0.2) x1.0 ( 0.6) x 0.62 ( 0.2) Host-to-Ta r get V s Adjustment Fa ctor* V s factor-4 (0.335) V s factor-3 (0.165) V 5 factor-2 (0.335) V 5 facto r-1 (0.165)

Backbone Model

  • Modification of BC Hydro Model.
  • Broken into "'9 s ubcomponent s
  • Neces s ary input s Fr eq u e n cy (f) Mo m en t Mag n i tud e (M) F oca l D ep t h (Z h) f o r In terface even t s D e pth w ithin s l a b fo r lntr as lab eve nt s E ve nt type fl ag (F event)
  • l nte r plate
  • l ntraslab R
  • R upture for l nterp l ate
  • H ypocentre for lnt r aslab
  • Site correction term means that PGA ca l lculation must be done for hypothetical case where V 530=1 , 000 m/s T i me co n s u min g cir c ul a r l oo p
  • R equi r es calculati n g m u ch o f logic t ree fo r I PGA at 1000 m/s pr i or to calcu l ating SA at d es i red frequency.

Implementation in SSC

  • Reads as if interplate are (semi)finite (Rrup)
  • lntraplate are point(ish) sources (Rhyp)
  • Logic tree is primarily

<<3 lookup exercise

  • Despite simpler form --more difficult to implement due to correction factors w/in backbone Sigma (6 branches)

I Dist ri bu t ion I Sigma Mo d el No r mal H i gh (0.2) (0.2) Cen t ral (0.6) Mixture Model {0.8) Low (0.2)

CY -CY a == a-1 + 2 1 [ mir1(max(M, 5), 7) -5] 2

  • Same tree used for both crustal and subduction

-Normal Model Uses Table Lookup -Mixture Model Uses CcJnditional Probability and table lookup

  • Need to call integration subroutine 6 times for one realization P(z ) 1-ffi ( z -/1) > z = WMi x l Potential Sirr1plifications?
  • All ruptures reach a specific depth_ (Ztor=constant)?.
  • Ignore hanging wall effect*!>
  • Constant Dip?
  • Rrup=RJs=RHYP

?=Rx? -All could be implemented t::>n SSC side

  • Full GMM logic tree is coded -Decide which, if any simplifications to apply later
  • Need a definitive answer 0 1 n the level of granularity necessary

-Only interested in Median SA and sigma?

  • Computationally cleaner Implementation So Far
  • Fortran90

-need to consicler that most of Roland's codes are in C

  • Models coded as indepenclent subroutines

-With dependencies (mostlv lookup)

  • Sigma developed as well -With dependencies
  • Simple wrapper programs have been developed for testing -Comparisons to Chapter 9 in SSHAC report look reasonable
  • No digital testing files for comparison
  • only output is. and sigma. -Not individual branches H eesze l , D av id From:Heeszel , David Sent:26 May 2 015 19:46:45 +0000 T o:Seber , Do ga n

Subject:

Columbia GMM without ho s t to target un ce rtainty. Attachments:no

_h tu_y es kappa.pdf , no_htu_nok ap p a.pdf Attached are two pdfs conta i ning plots for the Columbia GMM without the host to target uncerta i nty. nokappa does not contain the V s-kappa correction , and yeskappa does. The faulting paramete r s and magnitudes are the same as the plots sent last week and the size of the dots corresponds to that branches re l a t ive weight in calculating the mean. There are n in e branches for the nokappa realizat i on and 63 for the yeskappa.

The resu l ts. appear to be approximately 7% l ower than for the case that includes the host-to-target uncertainty correction. --Dav i d David Heeszel Geophysicist U.S. NRC , NRO/DSEA/RGS2 Office: T-7E28 Mail Stop: T-7F3 Phon e: 301-415-5066

....-0> -<( (f) fault1 0.0001 o.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

....-0> -<( (j) fault2 0.0 01 o.1 1 1 0 10 0 Frequency (Hz)

<( (/) fault3 0.001

...........

0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

....-0> -<( (f) fault4 0.0 001 -+----------+----------------

-

0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

....-0> -<( (f) fault5 0.0 1 o.1 1 1 0 10 0 Frequency (Hz)

....-0> -<( (f) fault6 0.0 1 o.1 1 1 0 10 0 Frequency (Hz)

....-0> -<( (f) fault? 0.0 1 o.1 1 1 0 10 0 Frequency (Hz)

....-0> -<( (f) fault8 0.0 1 o.1 1 1 0 10 0 Frequency (Hz) fault1 10 1 0.1 . . . * * * * * *-*-. *

  • t__ -*-.-***-*.-*-*-* 0.01
  • 0.001 * * * ....-O> -0.0001 <( * (/) 1e-05
  • 1e-06 1e-0 7 1e-0 8 1e-09 0.1 1 10 10 0 Frequency (Hz) fault2 1 0.1 0.01 + * * * . 0.001 + ---O> + -<( 0.0001 (/) 1e-09 0.1 1 10 1e-08 100 Frequency (Hz) fa u lt3 1 0 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 ....-O> -0.0001 <( Cf) 1e-05 1e-06 0.1 1 F re qu ency (H z) fa u lt4 1 0 1 0.1 0.0 1 0.001 ....-O> -0.0001 <( (f) 1e-05 1e-06 1e-0 7 1e-0 8 1e-09 0.1 1 10 1 00 Fr e q uency (H z) fa u lts 1 0 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 ..--O> -0.0001 <( Cf) 1e-05 1e-06 1e-07 1e-08 1e-09 0.1 1 10 1 00 Fr e q uency (H z) fa u lt6 1 0 1 0.1 ............................. 0.01 * * * ; . 0.001 ' ....-* O> ' -0.0001 <l: (f) 1e-05 1e-06 1e-07 1e-08 1e-09 0.1 1 10 100 F requency (H z) fault? 10 1 0.1 ***;****: ................ . 0.01 + * * * * . 0.001 * * ---O> -0.0001 <( (/) 1e-05 1e-06 1e-07 1e-08 1e-09 0.1 1 10 10 0 Frequency (Hz) fault8 1 0 1 -*--*-* -* ,_ . -:* -. _;, -; 0.1 ... ... 0.01 . . . *******:****; ................. . ' . : ; . . *
  • 0.001 ....-O> -0.0001 <( (/) 1e-05 1e-06 1e-07 1e-08 1e-09 0.1 1 10 1 00 F re q uency (H z)

I n formation (pages 332/1 000) is w i thin scope of FO I A a n d s h o ul d be r e l eased. H eesze l , D av id From:Heeszel , David Sent:25 Mar 2015 20:26:34 +0000 T o:Mun so n , Cl iff o rd Cc:Ake , Jon;Jack so n , Di a n e

Subject:

Columbia Ground Motion Mod e l Hi Cliff , I've finished coding up the ground motion model for the Columbia SSHAC. I. can walk you through the program i n about 20 min if your interested.

Cheers ,. David David Heeszel Geophysicist U.S. NRC , NRO/DSEA/RGS2 Office: T-7E28 Mail Stop: T-7F3 Phone: 301-415-5066 Sent:2 Apr 2015. 12:09:41 +0000 To:Munson, Clifford;Ake, J on; Weaver, Thomas;Seber, D ogan;L i , Yong; Wa l sh, L isa;Stova ll , Scott Cc:'Miriam R. Juckett' Bcc:HQ-TWFN-07 A04-15p.

Subject:

D i scu s sion of CGS GMPEs Attachments:Columbia Grou n d Motion Background.pptx We wi l l go over the Columb i a GMPEs and current implementa t ion. Ca ll in and presentation attached Bridge line phone number: 888-71 1-9770 Partic i pant passcode 1 (b)(6) I Hee s zel , David From:Heeszel, D avid Sent: 1Apr2015 12: 13:54 +0000 To:Walsh , Lisa

Subject:

RE:

CGS GMPE Code s Hi Lisa , I'll be going through the logic tree approach and how I have currently implemented it. I i mag i ne. that much of the discussion will be around simpl i fications that we can make that will help our review be mo r e efficient.

I would skim Chapter 9 of the report and (maybe) famil i arize yourself with Append i x D2 .. I haven't given the code to Cliff or Dogan yet , so I don't want t o put the cart before the horse in terms of hand i ng them around. --David From: Walsh, Lisa Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 9:58 AM To: Heeszel , David

Subject:

CGS GMPE Codes Hi David, Dogan jus t mentioned that you are going to present the Columbia GMPEs and implementation along with the codes you have deve loped for confirmatory ana l ysis on Thursday.

He forwarded me the appointment and I plan to attend, but I just thought I would check in with you. I am planning on reading through the SSHAC report over the next few days. Would I be able to look at the codes you developed from the SSHAC report before the meeting (an d/or would that be useful)? Lisa Lisa S. Walsh , Ph.D. Geophysicist , U.S. NRC NRO/DS EA/RGS1 T-7F15 , 301-415-5612 PGA We i ghte d VS-k a pp a I I L og(S A) F req u e n cy S A (c o de) Weight SA (Bra n c h* Un certa int y B kb co d e) branch Br a n c h ac one ---100 2.60E-01 3.44E-03 8.94E-04 1 1 -5.3100 100 1.72E-01 3.44E-03 5.92 E-04 1 2 -5.3100 100 1.38E-01 3.44E-03 4.75E-04 1 3 -5.3 1 00 100 3.25E-01 3.44E-03 1.1 2E-03 1 4 -5.3100 100 2.12E-01 2.75E-02 5.83E-03 1 5 -5.3100 100 1.81 E-01 3.44E-03 6.23E-04 1 6 -5.3100 100 3.32E-01 3.44E-03 1.14E-03 1 7 -5.3100 100 1.35E-01 3.44E-03 4.64E-04 1 8 -5.3100 100 2.47E-01 3.44E-03 8.50E-04 1 9 -5.3100 100 1.63E-01 8.50E-03 1.39E-03 2 1 -5.3100 100 1.08E-01 8.50E-03 9.18E-04 2 I 2 -5.3 1 00 100 8.64E-02 8.50E-03 7.34E-04 2 I 3 -5.3100 100 2.04E-01 8.50E-03 1.73E-03 2 I 4 -5.3100 100 1.33E-01 6.SOE-02 9.04E-03 2 I 5 -5.3100 100 1.13E-01 8.50E-03 9.61 E-04 2 6 -5.3100 100 2.08E-01 8.50E-03 1.77E-03 2 I 7 -5.3100 100 8.46E-02 8.50E-03 7.19E-04 2 8 -5.3100 100 1.55E-01 8.50E-03 1.32E-03 2 9 -5.3 1 00 100 8.14E-02 1.24E-02 1.0 1 E-03 3 I 1 -5.3100 100 5.37E-02 1.24E-02 6.66E-0 4 3 2 -5.3100 100 4.30E-02 1.24E-02 5.33E-04 3 3 -5.3100 100 1.02E-01 1.24E-02 1.26 E-03 3 4 -5.3 1 00 100 6.61 E-02 9.90E-02 6.54E-03 3 5 -5.3 1 00 100 5.65E-02 1.24E-02 7.01 E-04 3 6 -5.3100 100 1.0 4 E-01 1.24E-02 1.29E-03 3 7 -5.3100 100 4.21 E-02 1.24E-02 5.22 E-04 3 8 -5.3100 100 7.73E-02 1.2 4 E-02 9.59E-04 3 9 -5.3 1 00 100 4.23E-02 1.39E-02 5.88E-04 4 1 -5.3 1 00 ----------->-..... 1-----100 2.79E-02 1.39E-02 3.88E-04 4 2 -5.3100 100 2.23E-02 1.39E-02 3.1 OE-04 4 3 -5.3 1 00 100 5.27E-02 1.39E-02 7.33 E-04 4 4 -5.3100 100 3.43E-02 1.1 1 E-01 3.81 E-03 4 5 -5.3100 ---100 2.9 4 E-02 1.39E-02 4.09E-04 4 6 -5.3100 100 5.39E-02 1.39E-02 7.49E-0 4 4 7 -5.3 1 00 100 2.19E-02 1.39E-02 3.04 E-04 4 8 -5.3100 100 4.01 E-02 1.39E-02 5.57E-04 4 9 -5.3 1 00 -100 1.46E-03 1.24E-02 1.8 1 E-05 5 1 -5.3 1 00 100 9.62E-04 1.24E-02 1.1 9 E-05 5 2 -5.3 1 00 100 7.71 E-04 1.24E-02 9.56E-06 5 3 -5.3100 100 1.82E-03 1.24E-02 2.26E-05 5 4 -5.3100 100 1.18E-03 9.90E-02 1.17E-0 4 5 5 -5.3100 100 1.01 E-03 1.24E-02 1.25E-05 5 6 -5.3100 100 1.86E-03 1.24E-02 2.31 E-05 5 7 -5.3100 100 7.55E-04 1.24E-02 9.36E-06 5 8 -5.3 1 00 100 1.38E-03 1.24E-02 1.71 E-05 5 I 9 -5.3100 100 7.57E-07 8.50E-03 6.43E-09 6 I 1 -5.3100 100 5.00E-07 8.50E-03 4.25E-09 6 I 2 -5.3100 100 4.00E-07 8.50E-03 3.40E-09 6 3 -5.3100 Pag e l 100 100 100 100 100 100 --100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 9.45E-07 6.15E-07 5.26E-07 9.65E-07 3.92E-07 7.19 E-07 -1.20E-13 7.90E-14 6.33E-14 1.4 9E-13 9.73E-14 8.32E-14 1.53E-13 6.20E-14 1.14E-13 8.50E-03 6.80E-02 8.50E-03 8.50E-03 8.50E-03 8.50E-03 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 2.75E-02 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 Weighted Mean SA PGA 8.03E-09 6 4 -5.3 100 4.18E-08 6 5 -5.3100 4.47E-09 6 6 -5.3100 8.20E-09 6 7 -5.3100 3.33E-09 6 8 -5.3100 6.11 E-09 6 9 -5.3 100 --4.13E-16 7 1 -5.3100 2.72E-16 7 2 -5.3100 2.18E-16 7 3 -5.3 100 5.13E-16 7 4 -5.3 100 2.68E-15 7 5 -5.3100 2.86E-16 7 6 -5.3100 5.26E-16 7 7 -5.3100 2.13E-16 7 8 -5.3100 3.92E-16 7 9 -5.3100 5.21E-0 2 Pag e2 PGA VS-Kappa B ack b one Back b one S A *Vs SA*VSK + Unce r tainty B ack b o n e. Correction Correctio n kappa Correction J:!_ncerta i nty --0.340 0.4630 -1.8054 -1.3424 0.340 0.0471 -1.8054 -1.7583 0.340 -0.1740 -1.8054 -1.9794 0.340 0.6840 -1.8054 -1.1214 0.340 0.2550 -1.8054 -1.5504 0.340 0.0984 -1.8054 -1.7070 0.340 0.7050 -1.8054 -1.1004 0.340 -0.1950 -1.8054 -2.0004 0.340 0.4120 -1.8054 -1.3934 0.428 0.4630 -2.2727 -1.8097 0.428 0.0471 -2.2727 -2.2256 0.428 -0.1740 -2.2727 -2.4467 0.428 0.6840 -2.2727 -1.5887 0.428 0.2550 -2.2727 -2.0177 0.428 0.0984 -2.2727 -2.1743 0.428 0.7050 -2.2727 -1.5677 0.428 -0.1950 -2.2727 -2.4677 0.428 0.4120 -2.2727 -1.8607 0.560 0.4630 -2.9736 -2.5106 0.560 0.0471 -2.9736 -2.9265 0.560 -0.1740 -2.9736 -3.1 476 0.560 0.6840 -2.9736 -2.2896 0.560 0.2550 -2.9736 -2.7186 0.560 0.0984 -2.9736 -2.8752 0.560 0.7050 -2.9736 -2.2686 0.560 -0.1950 -2.9736 -3.1 686 0.560 0.4120 -2.9736 -2.5616 0.683 0.4630 -3.6267 -3.1637

1----0.683 0.0471 -3.6267 -3.5796 0.683 -0.1740 -3.6267 -3.8007 0.683 0.6840 -3.6267 -2.9427 0.683 0.2550 -3.6267 -3.3717 --0.683 0.0984 -3.6267 -3.5283 0.683 0.7050 -3.6267 -2.9217 0.683 -0.1950 -3.6267 -3.8217 0.683 0.4120 -3.6267 -3.2147 -----*-f-1.320 0.4630 -7.0092 -6.5462 1.320 0.0471 -7.0092 -6.962 1 1.320 -0.1740 -7.0092 -7.1 832 1.320 0.6840 -7.0092 -6.3252 1.320 0.2550 -7.0092 -6.7542 1.320 0.0984 -7.0092 -6.9108 1.320 0.7050 -7.0092 -6.3042 1.320 -0.1950 -7.0092 -7.2042 1.320 0.4120 -7.0092 -6.5972 2.740 0.4630 -14.5494 -14.0864 2.740 0.0471 -14.5494 -14.5023 2.740 -0.1740 -14.5494 -14.7234 P a g e 3 S A (B ranch) 2.61 E-01 1.72E-01 1.38E-01 3.26E-01 2.12E-01 1.81 E-01 3.33E-01 1.35E-01 2.48E-01 1.64E-01 1.08E-01 8.66E-02 2.04E-01 1.33E-01 1.1 4E-01 2.09E-01 8.48E-02 1.56E-01 8.1 2E-02 5.36E-02 4.30E-02 1.01 E-01 6.60E-02 5.64E-02 1.03E-01 4.21 E-02 7.72E-02 4.23E-02 ----2.79E-02 2.24E-02 5.27 E-02 3.43E-02 2.94E-02 5.38E-02 2.1 9E-02 4.02E-02 1.44E-03 9.47E-04 7.59E-04 1.79E-03 1.17E-03 9.97E-04 1.83E-03 7.43E-04 1.36E-03 7.63E-07 5.03E-07 4.03E-07 Weighte d I S A 8.99E-04 5.93E-04 4.75E-04 1.12E-03 5.83E-03 6.24E-04 1.14E-03 4.65E-04 8.54E-04 1.39E-03 9.18E-04 7.36E-04 1.74E-03 9.04E-03 9.66E-04 1.77E-03 7.2 1 E-04 I 1.32E-03 1.0 1 E-03 6.64E-04 5.33E-04 I 1.26E-03 6.53E-03 6.99E-04 1.28E-03 5.22E-04 9.57E-04 5.88E-04 -3.88E-04 I 3.11 E-04 I 7.33E-04 I 3.8 1 E-03 4.08E-04 ] 7.48E-04 3.04E-04 5.58E-04 -1.78E-05 1.17E-05 9.4 1 E-06 2.22E-05 1.15E-04 1.24E-05 2.27E-05 9.22E-06 1 1.69E-05 6.48E-09 4.28E-09 3.43E-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

--2.740 2.740 2.7 40 2.740 2.740 2.740 5.690 5.690 ._5.690 ,__ 5.690 5.690 5.690 5.690 5.690 5.690 840 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.7 -0. 0.4 0.4 0.0 -0. 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.7 -0. 0.4 550 984 050 1950 120 630 471 1740 840 550 984 050 1950 120 -14.5 494 -14.5494 -14.5494 --14.5494 -14.5494 --14.549 4 --30.2139 --30.2139 t--30.2139

-30.2139 t--30.2139 -30.2 139 -30.2139 -30.2 1 39 -30.2 1 39 I I PGA -l E-07 -14.2944 6.19E-07 -14.4510 5.30E-07 -13.8444 _9.72E-07 -14.7444 3.95E-07 -14.1374 7.25E-0 7 -29.7509 1.20E-13 --30.1668 7.92E-14 .... -30.3879 6.35E-14 -29.5299 1.50E-13 -29.9589 9.75E-14 -30.1 155 8.34E-14 -29.5089 1.53E-13 -30.4089 6.22E-14 -29.8019 1.14 E-13 f.-8.0 9E-09 4.21E-08 4.50E-09 8.26E-09 3.36E-09 6.16E-09 4.13E-16 2.7 2E-16 2.18E-1 6 5.15E-16 2.68E-15 2.87E-16 5.26E-16 2.14E-1 6 3.92E OJ1j Weighted 5.21 E-0 2 Mean SA Page4 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 PGA 5.0000 0.0000 61 -Log(SA) Backbone -5.0000 -10.0000 +----------t-----20.0000 ------------1----25.0000 +---------

---*---30.0000 +-------------i i.,,.,._ -35.0000 .....__ ____________

_ l.OOE+OO l.OOE-02 l.OOE-04 1.00E-06 1.00E--08 l.OOE-10 l.OOE-12 l.OOE-14 Page5 -VS-Kappa Correction Backbone SA *Vs-kappa Correction

-SA *vsK +.Backbone Uncertainty

-SA (Branch) -We i ghted SA (Bra nch)

PGA P age 6 P GA P age 7 0.1 H z Weig h ted VS-kappa Backbone L og(S A} VS-Kap p a F requency S A Weig h t S A Un certai n ty (Br anch} b r a n ch B ranc h B ackbo n e Co r rection 0.1 2.80 E-04 3.44E-03 9.63E-07 1 1 -1.11 E+0 1 8.5 4 E-0 1 0.1 5.1 9E-05 3.4 4 E-03 1.79E-07 1 2 -1.11E+01 8.5 4 E-0 1 -------*--0.1 9.1 5 E-05 3.44E-03 3.15E-07 1 3 -1.11 E+01 8.54E-0 1 0.1 1.59E-04 3.44E-03 5.47E-07 1 4 -1.11 E+01 8.54E-0 1 0.1 1.20E-04 2.75E-02 3.30E-06 1 5 -1.11E+01 8.54E-0 1 0.1 1.80E-04 3.44E-03 6.19E-07 1 6 -1.11E+01 8.54E-0 1 0.1 2.66 E-04 3.44E-03 9.15E-07 1 7 -1.11 E+01 8.54E-0 1 0.1 5.47E-05 3.44E-03 1.88E-07 1 8 -1.11E+01 8.54E-0 1 0.1 8.06E-05 3.44E-03 2.77E-07 1 9 -1.11E+01 8.54E-0 1 0.1 2.47E-04 8.50E-03 2.10E-06 2 1 -1.11E+01 8.65E-01 0.1 4.58E-05 8.50E-03 3.89E-07 2 2 -1.11E+01 8.65E-0 1 0.1 8.08 E-05 8.5 0E-03 6.87E-07 2 3 -1.11 E+01 8.65E-01 0.1 1.40E-04 8.50E-03 1.19E-06 2 4 -1.11 E+01 8.65E-0 1 0.1 1.06E-04 6.80E-02 7.2 1 E-06 2 5 -1.11E+01 8.65E-0 1 0.1 1.59 E-04 8.50E-03 1.3 5E-06 2 6 -1.11 E+01 8.65E-0 1 0.1 2.35E-04 8.50E-03 2.00E-06 2 7 -1.11E+01 8.65E-0 1 0.1 4.83E-05 8.50E-03 4.1 1 E-07 2 8 -1.11E+0 1 8.65E-0 1 0.1 7.1 2E-05 8.50E-03 6.05E-07 2 9 -1.11 E+01 8.65E-01 0.1 2.20 E-04 1.24E-02 2.73E-06 3 1 -1.11E+01 8.75E-0 1 0.1 4.08E-05 1.24E-02 5.06E-07 3 2 -1.11E+01 8.75E-0 1 -0.1 7.21 E-05 1.24E-02 8.94E-07 3 3 -1.11E+01 8.75E-0 1 0.1 1.25E-04 1.24E-02 1.55E-06 3 4 -1.11E+01 8.75E-0 1 0.1 9.49E-05 9.90E-02 9.40E-06 3 5 -1.11 E+01 8.75E-0 1 0.1 1.42 E-04 1.24E-02 1.76E-06 3 6 -1.11E+01 8.7 5E-0 1 --

1.24E-02 2.59E-o6 ----1.11E+01 8.75E-0 1 0.1 3 7 0.1 4.30E-05 1.24E-02 5.33E-07 3 8 -1.11E+01 8.75E-0 1 0.1 6.35E-05 1.24E-02 7.87E-07 3 9 -1.11E+01 8.75E-0 1 0.1 2.02 E-04 1.39E-02 2.8 1 E-06 4 1 -1.11E+01 8.83E-0 1 --3.74E.:-05 5.20E-0-7 -----0.1 1.39E-02 4 2 -1.11E+01 8.83E-0 1 --0.1 6.61 E-05 1.39E-02 9.19E-07 4 3 -1.11E+01 8.83E-0 1 0.1 1.1 4E-04 1.39E-02 1.58E-06 4 4 -1.11E+01 8.83E-0 1 0.1 8.70 E-05 1.1 1 E-01 9.66E-06 4 5 -1.11E+01 8.83E-01 --1.39E-o2 ---0.1 1.30E-04 1.8 1 E-06 4 6 -1.11 E+01 8.83E-0 1 0.1 1.92E-04 1.39E-02 2.67E-06 4 7 -1.11E+01 8.83E-0 1 0.1 3.95E-05 1.39E-02 5.49E-07 4 8 -1.11 E+01 8.83E-0 1 -------0.1 5.82 E-05 1.39E-02 8.09E-07 4 9 -1.11 E+01 8.83E-0 1 ------0.1 1.76E-04 1.24E-02 2.18E-06 5 1 -1.11 E+01 8.95E-0 1 0.1 3.27E-05 1.24E-02 4.05E-07 5 2 -1.11E+01 8.95E-0 1 0.1 5.76E-05 1.24E-02 7.1 4E-07 5 3 -1.11 E+01 8.95E-0 1 0.1 9.99 E-05 1.24E-02 1.24E-06 5 4 -1.11 E+01 8.95E-0 1 0.1 7.59E-05 9.90E-02 7.5 1 E-06 5 5 -1.11E+01 8.95E-0 1 0.1 1.1 3E-04 1.24E-02 1.40E-06 5 6 -1.11E+01 8.95E-0 1 0.1 1.67 E-04 1.24E-02 2.07E-06 5 7 -1.11E+01 8.95E-0 1 0.1 3.44E-05 1.24E-02 4.27E-07 5 8 -1.11E+01 8.95E-01 0.1 5.08E-05 1.24E-02 6.30E-07 5 9 -1.11E+01 8.95E-0 1 0.1 1.66E-04 8.50E-03 1.4 1 E-06 6 1 -1.11E+01 9.0 1 E-0 1 0.1 3.08E-05 8.50E-03 2.62E-07 6 2 -1.11 E+01 9.0 1 E-0 1 Pag e 8 0.1 5.43 E-05 0.1 9.41 E-05 0.1 7.15E-05 0.1 1.07E-04 0.1 1.58E-04 0.1 3.24E-05 --0.1 4.79 E-05 0.1 1.60E-04 0.1 2.97E-05 0.1 5.24E-05 0.1 9.07 E-05 0.1 6.89E-05 0.1 1.03E-04 0.1 1.52E-04 0.1 3.1 3E-05 0.1 4.61 E-05 8.50E-03 8.SOE-03 6.80E-02 8.50E-03 8.SOE-03 8.SOE-03 8.SOE-03 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 2.75E-02 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 We i g ht ed Mean S A 4.62E-07 8.00E-07 4.86E-06 9 To E-07 1.34E-06 2.7 5E-07 4.07E-07 5.50E-07 1.02E-07 1.80E-07 3.12E-07 1.89E-06 3.54E-07 5.23E-07 1.08E-07 1.59E-07 9.6 7 E-05 0.1 H z 6 3 -1.11 E+01 9.0 1 E-0 1 6 4 -1.11E+01 9.01 E-0 1 6 5 -1.11 E+01 9.0 1 E-01 6 6 -1.11 E+01 9.0 1 E-01 6 7 -1.11 E+01 9.0 1 E-01 6 8 -1.11E+01 9.01 E-0 1 ----9.0 1 E-O f 6 9 -1.11 E+01 7 1 -1.11 E+01 9.04E-0 1 7 2 -1.11E+01 9.04E-0 1 7 3 -1.11E+01 9.04E-01 7 4 -1.11 E+01 9.04E-0 1 7 5 -1.11E+01 9.04E-0 1 7 6 -1.11E+01 9.04E-0 1 7 7 -1.11E+01 9.04E-01 7 8 -1.11E+01 9.04E-01 7 9 -1.11 E+01 9.04E-01 Pag e 9 0.1 Hz Backbone Backbon e SA*VSK + Uncertainty SA *Vs-B ackbone SA (Br a n ch) Weighted Correction kappa Un certainty S A (Branch) Correction 1.32E+OO -9.4794 -8.1594 2.86E-04 9.84E-07 -3.69E-01

-9.4794 -9.8484 5.28E-05 1.82E-07 1 2 2.00 -----1.99E-01 -9.4794 -9.2804 9.32E-05 3.21 E-07 3 7.49E-01 -9.4794 -8.7304 1.62E-04 5.56E-07 4 0.00 4.74E-01 -9.4794 -9.0054 1.23E-04 3.38E-06 5 8.76E-01 -9.4794 -8.6034 1.83E-04 6.31 E-07 6 -2.00 1.26E+OO -9.4794 -8.2194 2.69E-04 9.27E-07 7 -3.16E-01 -9.4794 -9.7954 5.57E-05 1.92E-07 8 -4.00 7.25E-02 -9.4794 -9.4069 8.22E-05 2.83E-07 9 1.32E+OO -9.6015 -8.2815 2.53E-04 2.15E-06 10 -6.00 -3.69E-01 -9.6015 -9.9705 4.68E-05 3.97E-07 11 1.99E-01 -9.6015 -9.4025 8.25E-05 7.01 E-07 7.49E-01 -9.6015 -8.8525 1.43E-04 1.22E-06 12 -8.00 13 4.74E-01 -9.6015 -9.1275 1.09E-04 7.39E-06 8.76E-01 -9.6015 -8.7255 1.62E-04 1.38E-06 14 15 -10.00 1.26E+OO -9.6015 -8.3415 2.38E-04 2.03E-06 16 -3.16E-01 -9.6015 -9.9175 4.93E-05 4.19E-07 17 -12.00 7.25E-02 -9.6015 -9.5290 7.27E-05 6.18E-07 1.32E+OO -9.7125 -8.3925 2.27E-04 2.81 E-06 18 l.OOE 19 -3.69E-01 -9.7125 -10.0815 4.18E-05 5.19E-07 20 1.99E-01 -9.7125 -9.5135 7.38E-05 9.16E-07 21 1.00E 7.49E-01 -9.7125 -8.9 635 1.28E-04 1.59E-06 22 4.74E-0 1 -9.7 125 -9.2385 9.72E-05 9.63E-06 23 1.00E 8.76E-01 -9.7125 -8.8365 1.45E-04 1.80E-06 24 1.26E+oo -9.7125 -8.4525 2.13E-04 2.65E-06 25 1.00E -3.16E-0 1 -9.7125 -10.0285 4.41 E-05 5.47E-07 26 7.25E-02 -9.7 125 -9.6 400 6.5 1 E-05 8.07E-07 27 1.00E 1.32E+OO -9.8013 -8.4813 2.07E-04 2.88E-06 28 -3.69E-01 -9.8013 -10.1703 3.83E-05 5.32E-07 1.99E-01 -9.8013 -9.6023 6.76E-05 9.39E-07 29 l.OOE 30 7.49E-01 -9.8013 -9.0523 1.1 7E-04 1.63E-06 4.74E-01 -9.8013 -9.3273 8.90E-05 9.87E-06 31 l.OOE 32 -9.8013 -8.9253 1.33E-04 1.85E-06 33 1.26E+OO -9.8013 -8.5413 1.95E-04 2.71E-06 34 l.OOE -3.16E-01

-9.8013 -10.1173 4.04E-05 5.61 E-07 35 ----7.25E-02 -9.8013 -9.7288 5.95E-05 8.28E-07 36 ------1.32E+OO -9.9345 -8.6145 1.81 E-04 2.25E-06 37 -3.6 9E-01 -9.93 45 -10.3035 3.35E-05 4.16E-07 38 1.99E-01 -9.93 45 -9.7355 5.91 E-05 7.33E-07 39 7.49E-01 -9.93 45 -9.1855 1.03E-04 1.27E-06 40 4.74E-01 -9.9345 -9.4605 7.79E-05 7.71E-06 41 8.76E-01 -9.9345 -9.0585 1.16E-04 1.44E-06 42 1.26 E+OO -9.9345 -8.6745 1.7 1 E-04 2.12E-06 43 -3.16E-01 -9.9345 -10.2505 3.53E-05 4.38E-07 44 7.25E-02 -9.9345 -9.8620 5.21 E-05 6.46E-07 45 1.32E+OO -10.001 1 -8.6811 1.70E-04 1.4 4E-06 46 -3.69E-01 -10.0011 -10.3701 3.14E-05 2.67E-07 47 P age 10 1.99E-01 7.49E-01 4.74E-01 8.76E-01 1.26E+OO -3.16E-01 7.25E-02 1.32E+OO -3.69E-01 i.-_1_.9:...:..9E-O 1 7.49E-01 f--4.74E-01 8.76E-01 1.26E+OO -3.16E-01 7.25E-02 0.1 H z -10.001 _1 __ __ 5_.5_3_E_-0_5-+--10.0011 -9.2521 9.59E-05

-10.0011 -9.5271 7.29E-05 -10.0011 -10.0011 -10.0011 -10.0011 -10.0344 -10.03 44 --10.0344 --10.0344 -10.0344 -10.0344 -10.0344 -10.0344 -10.0344 -9.1251 -8.7411 -10.3171 -9.9286 -8.7 144 -10.4034 -9.8354 -9.2854 -9.5604 -9.158 4 -8.7744 -10.3504 -9.9619 1.0 9E-04 1.60E-04 3.3 1 E-05 4.88E-05 1.64E-04 3.03E-05 5.35E-05 9.28E-05 7.05E-05 1.05E-04 1.55E-04 3.20E-05 4.72E-05 We ig h te d M e an S A I P age 11 4.70E-07 8.1 5E-07 4.95E-06 9.26E-07 1.36E-0 6 2.81 E-07 4.14E-07 5.65E-07 1.04E-07 1.84E-07 3.19E-07 --1.94E-06--3.62E-07 5.32E-07 1.10E-07 1.62E-07 9.9 0E-0 5 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 21 41 61 :+oo 21 41 61 :-01 :-02 :-03 :-04 :-os :-06 :-07 0.1 H z -Log(SA) Backbone -VS-Kappa Correct i on -Backbone SA *Vs-kappa Co rr ection -SA*VSK +Backbone Uncertainty

-SA (Branch) -Weighted SA (Branch) P age 12 Sh e et3 0.1 2.80E-04 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 1 0.1 5.19E-05 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 2 0.1 9.15E-05 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 3 0.1 1.59E-04 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 4 0.1 1.20E-04 2.75E-02 0.649E+OO 5 0.1 1.80E-04 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 6 0.1 2.66E-04 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 7 0.1 5.47E-05 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 8 0.1 8.06E-05 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 1 9 0.1 2.47E-04 8.SOE-03 0.649E+OO 2 1 0.1 4.58E-05 8.SOE-03 0.649E+OO 2 2 0.1 8.08E-05 8.SOE-03 0.649E+OO 2 3 0.1 1.40E-04 8.SOE-03 0.649E+OO 2 4 0.1 1.06E-04 6.80E-02 0.649E+OO 2 5 0.1 1.59E-04 8.SOE-03 0.649E+OO 2 6 0.1 2.35E-04 8.50E-03 0.649E+OO 2 7 0.1 4.83E-05 8.50E-03 0.649E+OO 2 8 0.1 7.12E-05 8.SOE-03 0.649E+OO 2 9 0.1 2.20E-04 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 3 1 0.1 4.08E-05 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 3 2 0.1 7.21 E-05 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 3 3 0.1 1.25E-04 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 3 4 0.1 9.49E-05 9.90E-02 0.649E+OO 3 5 0.1 1.42E-04 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 3 6 0.1 2.09E-04 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 3 7 0.1 4.30E-05 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 3 8 0.1 6.35E-05 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 3 9 0.1 2.02E-04 1.39E-02 0.649E+OO 4 1 0.1 3.74E-05 1.39E-02 0.649E+OO 4 2 0.1 6.61 E-05 1.39E-02 0.649E+OO 4 3 0.1 1.14E-04 1.39E-02 0.649E+OO 4 4 0.1 8.70E-05 1.11 E-01 0.649E+OO 4 5 0.1 1.30E-04 1.39E-02 0.649E+OO 4 6 0.1 1.92E-04 1.39E-02 0.649E+OO 4 7 0.1 3.95E-05 1.39E-02 0.649E+OO 4 8 0.1 5.82E-05 1.39E-02 0.649E+OO 4 9 0.1 1.76E-04 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 5 1 0.1 3.27E-05 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 5 2 0.1 5.76E-05 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 5 3 0.1 9.99E-05 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 5 4 0.1 7.59E-05 9.90E-02 0.649E+OO 5 5 0.1 1.13E-04 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 5 6 0.1 1.67E-04 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 5 7 0.1 3.44E-05 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 5 8 0.1 5.08E-05 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 5 9 0.1 1.66E-04 8.SOE-03 0.649E+OO 6 1 0.1 3.08E-05 8.SOE-03 0.649E+OO 6 2 0.1 5.43E-05 8.SOE-03 0.649E+OO 6 3 0.1 9.41 E-05 8.50E-03 0.649E+OO 6 4 0.1 7.1 SE-05 6.80E-02 0.649E+OO 6 5 0.1 1.07E-04 8.50E-03 0.649E+OO 6 6 P age 1 3 Sheet3 0.1 1.58E-04 8.50E-03 0.649E+OO 6 7 0.1 3.24E-05 8.SOE-03 0.649E+OO 6 8 0.1 4.79E-05 8.SOE-03 0.649E+OO 6 9 0.1 1.60E-04 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 7 1 0.1 2.97E-05 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 7 2 0.1 5.24E-05 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 7 3 0.1 9.07E-05 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 7 4 0.1 6.89E-05 2. 75E-02 0.649E+OO 7 5 0.1 1.03E-04 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 7 6 0.1 1.52E-04 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 7 7 0.1 3.13E-05 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 7 8 0.1 4.61 E-05 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 7 9 Page 14 Sh ee t3 1 2-0.111E+02 0.854E+OO 0.132E+01 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.854E+OO

-0.369E+OO 1 2-0.11 1 E+02 0.854E+OO 0.199E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.854E+OO 0.749E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.854E+OO 0.474E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.854E+OO 0.876E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.854E+OO 0.126E+01 1 2-0.11 1 E+02 0.854E+OO -0.316E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.854E+OO 0.725E-01 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.865E+OO 0.132E+01 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.865E+OO -0.369E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.865E+OO 0.199E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.865E+OO 0.749E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.865E+OO 0.474E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.865E+OO 0.876E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.865E+OO 0.126E+01 1 2-0.111E+02 0.865E+OO -0.316E+OO 1 2-0.11 1 E+02 0.865E+OO 0.725E-01 1 2-0.11 1 E+02 0.875E+OO 0.132E+01 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.875E+OO -0.369E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.875E+OO 0.199E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.875E+OO 0.749E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.875E+OO 0.474E+OO 1 2-0.11 1 E+02 0.875E+OO 0.876E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.875E+OO 0.126E+01 1 2-0.111E+02 0.875E+OO

-0.316E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.875E+OO 0.725E-01 1 2-0.111E+02 0.883E+OO 0.132E+01 1 2-0.111E+02 0.883E+OO

-0.369E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.883E+OO 0.199E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.883E+OO 0.749E+OO 1 2-0.1 1 1 E+02 0.883E+OO 0.474E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.883E+OO 0.876E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.883E+OO 0.126E+01 1 2-0.111E+02 0.883E+OO

-0.316E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.883E+OO 0.725E-01 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.895E+OO 0.132E+01 1 2-0.11 1 E+02 0.895E+OO -0.369E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.895E+OO 0.199E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.895E+OO 0.749E+OO 1 2-0.11 1 E+02 0.895E+OO 0.474E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.895E+OO 0.876E+OO 1 2-0.1 11 E+02 0.895E+OO 0.126E+01 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.895E+OO -0.316E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.895E+OO 0.725E-01 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.901E+OO 0.132E+01 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.901E+OO -0.369E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.901E+OO 0.199E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.901E+OO 0.749E+OO 1 2-0.11 1 E+02 0.901E+OO 0.47 4 E+OO 1 2-0.11 1 E+02 0.901E+OO 0.876E+OO Pag e 15 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.901 E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.901 E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.901 E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.904E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.904E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.904E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.904E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.904E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.904E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.904E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.904E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.904E+OO Sheet3 0.126E+01

-0.316E+OO 0.725E-01 0.132E+01 -0.369E+OO 0.199E+OO 0.749E+OO 0.474E+OO 0.876E+OO 0.126E+01 -0.316E+OO 0.725E-01 Pa ge 16 H eesze l , D a vid From:H e e s zel , David Sent:8 M ay 2015 15: 16: 3 0 +0000 To: W e av e r , Thoma s Subj e ct:RE: Columbia GMPE s and CMS Sure. From: Weaver, Thomas Sent: Friday, May 08 , 2015.11:11 AM To:. Heeszel,. David

Subject:

RE: Columbia GMPEs and CMS Does Monday at 1 PM work for you? From: Heeszel, David Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 11:05 AM To: Weaver, Thomas

Subject:

RE: Columbia GMPEs and CMS Hi Thomas , Sure. My schedule i s pretty open , but I plan to be out on Friday. Perhaps before or after one of the WUS site meetings?

--David From: Weaver, Thomas Sent: Friday, May 08 , 2015 11:01 AM To: He e szel , David

Subject:

Columb i a GMPEs and CMS Hi David , I f. possib l e , I would l i ke to work w i th you on developing some conditional mean spectra that we can use for Columb i a Generating Station s i te response analyses.

Let me know i f you have some time next week when you are availab l e to d i scuss. Regards, Thomas H eesze l , D a vid From:H e e s zel , David Sent:! M ay 2015 14:44:11 +0000 To: S e b e r , Do g an Subj e ct:RE: Columbia GMPE s Hi. Dogan , I need to make a few modifications

-specifically to how the sigma model operates, but it should be useable for the purpose you want. Cliff. also wants me. to simplify it to the branch level , which I am working on as well. I'll try and have an updated version on Monday. --David From: Seber, Dogan Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 10:26 AM To: Heeszel, David

Subject:

Columb i a GMPEs Hi. David , I need to make some comparisons of the Columbia GMPE models. against some of the NGA-West 2 models. Is your Columbia GMPE code , you mentioned a while back, ready to be used by others? I need to make simple comparisons such as g vs d i stance given M. Please let me. know if I can use. your code. for this. purpose. Thanks! Dogan Seber , PhD Senior Geophys i cist Geoscience s and Geotechnical Engineering Branch 1 Division of Site Safety and Env i ronmental Ana l ys i s Offic e of N ew R e acto rs U.S. Nucle a r Regul a tory Commi ss ion 301-415-0212 Heeszel , David From:Heeszel, David Sent: 1Apr2015 12:08:07 +0000 To:Walsh, Lisa

Subject:

RE: Di scussion of CGS GM P Es Thanks , that was on my l i s t f or th i s morning. --David From: Walsh, Lisa Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 5:54 PM To: Heeszel, David; Munson, Clifford; Ake, Jon; Weaver, Thomas; Seber, Dogan; Li, Yong; jstam@swri.org

Subject:

RE: Discussion of CGS GMPEs Bridge line phone 711-9770 Participant <<Message: FW: Conference Details {APR 02, 2015--11:00 AM ET--Conf# 3279869) >> -----Original Appointment---From:. Heeszel,.

David. Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 9:40 AM To: Heeszel, David; Walsh, Lisa; Munson, Clifford; Ake, Jon; Weaver, Thomas; Seber, Dogan; Li, Yong; jstam@swri.org

Subject:

FW: Discussion of CGS GMPEs When: Thursday, April 02, 2015 11:00 AM-12:00 PM (UTC-05:00)

Eastern Time (US & Canada). Where: HQ-TWFN-07 A04-15p -----Original From:. Heeszel,.

David . Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 9:11 AM To: Heeszel , David; Munson, Cl i fford; Ake, Jon; Weaver, Thomas; Seber, Dogan; Li, Yong

Subject:

Discussion of CGS GMPEs When: Thursday, April 02, 2015 11:00 AM-12:00 PM (UTC-05:00)

Eastern Time (US & Canada). Where: HQ-TWFN-07 A04-1 Sp We will go over the Columbia GMPEs and current implementation.

H eesze l , D av id From:Heeszel , David Sent:2 Apr 2015 14:55:33 +0000 To: D ev lin-Gill , Stephanie;Stieve , Alice;Mun so n , Clifford;Ake, Jon; Hill , Brittain Cc:Miriam R.Ju cke tt(mju cke tt@swr i.o r g);John Stamatako s

Subject:

Palo Verde Catalo g Attachments:PVNGS

_independent

_evenL_c atalog.xl s x Attached i s an excel version of the Palo Verde Catalog (Appendix E of the report). Events highlighted in gray can be linked to a specific fault. The other columns should be relatively self explanatory.

--Dav i d David Hee szel Geophysicist U.S. NRC ,. NRO/DSEA/RGS2 Office: T-7E28 Mail.Stop: T-7F3 Phone: 301-415-5066 Year Mon t h Day Hour Min. Se c. lat. lon g. Dep t h 1 852 11 29 20 0 0 32.5 -115 9.9 1856 9 21 7 30 0 33.1 -116.7 9.9 1 870 3 11 10 20 0 34.55 -112.47 0 1870 8 12 0 0 0 34.55 -112.47 0 1 871 2 7 15 8 2 34.1 -112.44 0 1 872 5 3 1 0 0 33 -115 9.9 1 875 1 21 19 45 0 33.65 -114.S 0 1875 11 2 9 0 0 32.38 -114.6 0 1 875 11 15 22 30 0 32.5 -115.5 9.9 1 880 12 19 23 35 0 34 -117 9.9 1885 9 13 12 3 4 0 33.3 -116.9 9.9 1 887 5 30 14 0 0 3 1.71 -110.07 0 1 887 11 1 1 0 0 0 32 -110.58 0 1 888 7 25 0 0 0 3 1.71 -110.07 0 1 888 11 25 0 0 0 32.22 -110.97 0 1889 2 7 5 20 0 34.1 -116.7 9.9 1 8 9 0 2 9 12 6 0 33.4 -116.3 9.9 1891 4 26 20 0 0 35.18 -114.52 0 1 891 7 30 1 4 10 0 32 -115 9.9 1892 2 2 0 30 0 35.19 -111.65 0 1 8 92 2 24 7 20 0 32.55 -115.63 9.9 1 893 6 5 6 4 0 0 3 1.71 -110.07 0 1 894 10 23 23 3 0 32.8 -116.8 9.9 1899 9 20 0 0 0 35.1 9 -114.06 0 1 899 10 6 23 30 0 3 1.7 1 -110.0 7 0 1899 12 25 1 2 25 0 33.8 -117 9.9 1903 1 24 5 0 0 3 1.5 -115 9.9 1 906 1 25 13 32 30 35.540 -111.870 0 19 0 6 4 19 0 30 0 32.9 -115.S 9.9 1 910 4 11 7 57 0 33.5 -116.5 9.9 1 9 1 0 9 24 4 5 0 35.690 -111.670 0 1 9 12 8 18 2 1 12 0 35.320 -111.710 0 1 913 12 6 0 1 5 0 35.25 -112.17 0 1 9 1 5 6 23 3 59 0 32.8 -115.S 9.9 1 9 1 5 6 27 8 30 0 33.4 -111.8 0 1 9 15 1 1 21 0 1 3 0 32 -115 9.9 1 9 1 6 3 30 5 20 0 3 1.34 -110.94 0 1 9 1 6 9 30 2 11 0 33.2 -116.1 9.9 19 1 7 5 28 6 6 0 32.8 -115.3 9.9 19 18 4 20 8 45 0 35.19 -111.65 0 1 9 1 8 4 2 1 2 2 32 0 33.8 -117 9.9 1 9 1 8 5 1 4 32 0 32.6 -115.4 9.9 1 919 5 23 11 5 0 35.19 -111.65 0 1 9 1 9 10 1 19 30 0 32.6 -115 9.9 1 920 1 1 2 35 0 33.2 -116.7 9.9 1 921 4 6 21 7 0 34.9 -110.16 0 1 921 9 8 19 2 4 0 32.4 -115.S 9.9 1 922 6 16 2 1 1 0 32.7 -114.7 0 1 922 6 17 23 42 0 33.38 -110.86 0 1 923 9 28 0 0 0 35.19 -11 1.65 0 1923 9 30 18 27 0 34.2 -11 1.5 0 1923 11 7 23 57 0 32.5 -115.5 9.9 1 926 4 3 20 8 0 34 -116 9.9 1 927 1 1 8 1 6 0 32.5 -115.5 9.9 1927 2 11 3 40 0 3 1.54 -110.75 0 1 928 10 2 19 1 0 33.6 -116.7 9.9 1929 9 26 20 0 22.7 34.83 -116.52 9.9 1930 1 16 0 24 0 34.2 -116.9 9.9 1 930 2 26 2 30 0 33 -115.S 9.9 1930 7 16 19 0 0 34.2 -112.5 0 1 931 4 17 12 38 0 34.53 -110.05 0 1 931 7 28 8 35 0 3 4.7 -112 0 1 932 3 23 0 20 6.5 35.795 -115.932 6 1 932 5 20 20 22 49.84 34.995 -115.84 1 6 1 932 6 27 10 7 21.22 3 1.53 -116.091 6 1933 11 27 0 0 0 34.42 -112.91 0 1 933 11 28 20 10 55.89 35.697 -116.072 6 1934 1 11 7 15 0 3 1.91 -109.82 0 1934 3 12 0 0 0 35.1 -110.9 0 1934 4 1 3 10 55 11.69 35.123 -116.233 6 1 934 5 14 13 14 0 3 1 -1 14.5 0 1 934 11 25 8 18 29.1 9 3 1.501 -116.074 6 1 934 12 25 12 20 0 36.95 -112.5 0 1 934 12 31 18 45 43.92 32.18 -115.175 6 1 935 1 1 1 12 43.43 3 1 -114 6 1935 1 1 8 50 0 36.05 -112.1 4 0 1935 1 2 7 30 0 32.67 -114.14 0 1 935 1 9 0 58 44.08 33.486 -115.167 6 1935 10 24 14 48 7.51 34.106 -116.699 6 1 935 11 4 3 55 54.7 1 33.507 -116.667 6 1 935 12 5 2 1 25 0 36.95 -112.5 0 1935 12 20 7 45 31.86 32.811 -115.296 6 1936 1 12 0 0 0 36.05 -112.1 4 0 1 936 1 30 17 13 53.26 32.842 -114.82 6 1 936 2 25 6 30 0 35.19 -114.06 0 1 936 9 9 2 48 6.89 34.889 -116.04 9 6 1 936 10 13 20 39 54.87 35.374 -115.772 6 1937 2 2 7 1 29 17.57 3 1.78 *116.599 6 1937 3 25 16 49 2.18 33.4 -116.25 6 1 937 4 8 12 0 0 35.71 -109.54 0 1 937 7 20 22 4 9 0 35.33 -112.88 0 1 937 7 2 1 23 55 0 33.46 -112.07 0 1937 11 12 1 38 58.3 1 35.9 1 3 -115.274 6 1 937 12 4 0 54 47.73 35.5 -11 3 6 1 937 12 1 7 23 30 0 35.19 -111.65 0 1 938 6 6 2 42 41.93 32.273 -115.191 6 1 938 7 21 15 34 23.02 34.616 -115.938 6 1 938 7 24 3 5 0.41 33.45 -115.065 6 1 938 8 18 7 39 44.47 3 4.818 -11 6.047 6 1 938 9 17 17 20 18 33.2 -108.6 0 1938 9 18 23 30 0 32.72 -109.1 0 1 938 9 18 23 45 0 32.27 -1 09.23 0 1 938 9 24 18 0 0 32.62 -109.97 0 1938 9 29 23 32 0 33.05 -109.3 0 1 938 12 28 22 7 12 33.05 -109.3 0 1939 3 9 13 30 0 36.1 -112.1 0 1939 3 22 19 16 33.16 34.641 -115.671 6 1 939 5 4 20 44 0 35.97 -114.82 9.9 1939 6 4 1 19 12 32.75 -109.1 0 1 939 6 4 5 0 0 33.05 -1 09.3 0 1 9 4 0 5 5 9 38 27.4 1 35.456 -115.29 6 1 9 4 0 5 18 5 3 59.66 34.089 -116.282 6 1 9 4 0 5 19 4 36 4 0.5 32.8 44 -115.381 6 1 940 5 19 18 6 0 32.67 -114.14 0 1 940 6 4 10 35 8.12 32.966 -116.315 6 1 940 6 4 23 33 0.33 33.096 -11 4.7 6 1940 7 7 18 42 55.8 3 1.454 -115.133 6 19 4 0 10 16 13 25 0 35.19 -111.65 0 1 9 4 0 12 7 22 1 6 27 3 1.667 -115.083 9.9 1 940 12 7 22 17 0 3 1.069 -114.853 6 1 9 41 3 21 0 0 0 35.9 -114.6 0 1 941 5 21 16 25 0 35.9 -114.6 0 1941 9 3 21 25 0 36 -114.7 0 1 9 4 2 1 8 2 4 2 0 35.19 -111.65 0 1 9 4 2 3 3 1 3 25.85 34.001 -115.847 6 19 42 3 3 1 0 29 30.33 35.545 -1 15.891 6 1 9 4 2 5 23 1 5 47 33.78 32.995 -116.25 6 1 942 9 9 5 15 0 36 -114.7 0 1 942 11 9 20 34 25.57 34.858 -116.092 6 1 9 43 7 1 16 19 16.0 1 35.807 -115.955 6 1 943 8 18 0 30 15.14 35.781 -116 6 19 43 8 29 3 45 14.3 1 34.268 -116.968 6 1 9 4 3 12 21 9 0 0 35.19 -111.65 0 1943 12 22 15 50 28.6 34.37 -115.819 6 1944 1 31 4 24 58 36.9 -112.5 0 1 944 6 12 1 1 16 35.8 1 34.002 -116.699 6 1944 9 30 0 54 8.88 36.106 *114.7 01 6 1 9 4 4 10 28 4 1 35.77 3 1.163 -115.739 6 1 9 4 5 1 7 22 25 32 36.5 -111.8 0 1 9 4 5 3 20 2 1 55 7 3 4.25 -11 6.167 9.9 1 9 4 5 3 31 1 8 50 45 3 1 -114 0 1945 4 22 9 45 48 3 1.5 -114 9.9 1 945 4 22 22 14 0.12 32 -114.5 6 1 945 5 1 1 23 32 55.69 30.884 -115.897 6 1 945 5 12 7 33 0 3 1.6 -115.6 9.9 1945 8 15 17 56 18.39 33.082 -115.631 6 1946 6 4 12 5 26.66 33.986 -115.704 6 1946 7 18 14 27 57.99 34.502 -115.915 6 1946 9 28 7 19 10.42 33.935 -116.867 12.8 1946 11 26 22 49 0 36.1 -114 0 1947 4 6 8 10 54.29 3 1.5 -115 6 1947 4 10 15 58 5.11 34.983 -116.5 31 6 1947 4 10 17 29 27 34.967 -115.55 6 1 947 5 14 2 1 45 31.77 34.75

-114.5 6 1947 6 21 8 9 37 32 -115.5 9.9 1947 7 24 22 10 46.82 33.994 -116.481 6 1947 10 27 4 15 40 35.75 -111.48 0 1948 1 24 2 57 0 36.1 -111.5 0 1948 8 8 23 20 0 36.8 -112.l 0 1948 12 3 18 45 0 35.03 -110.7 0 1 948 12 4 23 43 16.4 1 33.983 -116.331 6 1949 3 3 5 59 34 3 1 -113 0 1 949 5 2 11 25 46.9 34 -115.696 6 1949 5 3 21 10 19.9 34.566 -115.447 6 1 949 6 26 1 35 24 32.1 -113.9 0 1949 11 4 20 42 38.77 32.127 -116.75 6 1950 1 17 0 53 0 35.71 -109.5 4 0 1950 2 2 10 37 24 32 -113 0 1950 2 3 15 51 50.28 30.5 -1 14.5 6 1950 7 29 14 36 31.93 33.088 -115.664 6 1 950 9 5 19 19 56.77 33.726 -116.697 6.4 1951 1 24 7 16 52.62 32.622 -115.119 6 1 951 2 15 10 48 0.22 33.482 -116.601 3.4 1951 3 5 23 0 0 36.95 -112.5 0 1951 4 12 6 20 10 32 -113 0 1952 2 8 8 59 5.5 36 -114.7 0 1952 5 24 4 15 12.84 36.156 -114.461 6 1952 5 25 13 6 36 36 -115 6 1 952 10 22 19 46 36 32 -113.S 0 1953 5 18 7 3 1.57 36.022 -113.784 6 1953 6 14 4 17 26.7 32.892 -115.504 6 1953 6 14 4 30 1.76 33.567 -115.251 6 1953 10 8 20 19 46 34.66 -111.01 0 1953 10 10 18 49 6 3 1.8 -116.1 9.9 1954 2 1 4 31 48.85 32195 -114.352 6 1954 2 1 13 5 10.16 3 1.719 *114.011 6 1 954 3 19 9 54 27.83 33.298 -116.081 6 1954 5 31 8 6 24 3 1.6 -115.2 9.9 1955 1 28 12 10 18.08 33.748 -115.327 6 1 955 4 25 10 43 7.42 32.466 -114.989 6 1955 12 17 6 7 27.9 32.955 -115.472 6 1956 1 3 14 24 1 32.383 -116 9.9 1 956 1 9 12 56 59.66 35.624 -115.865 6 1956 2 9 14 32 41.91 3 1.832 -116.231 6 1 956 2 15 1 20 35.27 3 1.149 -115.485 6 1 956 3 16 20 29 33.73 34.289 -116.775 2.7 1 957 4 25 2 1 57 36.9 33.119 -115.681 6 1 957 7 5 0 58 0 32 -114 9.9 1957 9 22 16 3 47.97 33.884 -114.92 6 1 958 3 15 8 34 4 32.5 -113.5 9.9 1 958 6 12 22 1 4.46 34.816 -116.025 6 1958 8 18 6 0 52 30.5 -114 0 1 958 9 18 6 3 0 3 1.4 -109.85 0 1958 12 1 3 21 17.62 32.216 -115.754 6 1959 2 11 14 1 0 35.19 -111.65 0 1 959 6 14 6 13 37.1 4 3 1.335 -116.093 6 1959 7 21 12 39 0 36.8 -112.37 0 1 959 10 13 8 1 5 0 35.5 -111.5 0 1 960 1 23 3 1 1 43.76 35.4 19 -116.288 6 1960 6 3 2 1 38 0.06 3 1.5 -114 6 1 961 2 9 1 7 50 44.4 1 3 1.579 -115.478 6 1 961 9 12 19 18 49.2 1 32.742 -115.57 6 1 962 2 15 7 12 42.9 36.9 -112.4 26 1 962 3 7 19 57 37.5 32.29 -109.77 0 1962 5 9 16 39 6.1 32.06 -110.32 0 1 962 5 27 1 4 5 40.7 4 32.258 -115.769 6 1 9 62 8 6 13 59 58.72 34.613 -115.753 6 1962 8 10 2 29 55.83 35.007 -115.649 6 1 962 8 20 1 0 43 13.7 3 1 -114 6 1 962 10 29 2 42 53.7 1 34.349 -116.866 6 1 963 1 27 3 0 38.98 3 1.564 -115.834 6 1 963 3 25 9 28 43.94 35.962 -114.861 6 1 963 5 10 23 49 50.5 35.04 -113.82 0 1963 5 19 22 55 21.7 35.4 6 -114.21 0 1 963 6 11 15 23 41.67 3 1.9 73 -116.252 6 1 963 6 20 1 4 59 42.6 30.2 -114.1 14 1 963 6 29 3 3 50 34.81 -114.54 0 1 963 9 11 11 59 41 33.2 -110.7 33 1963 9 23 14 41 52.79 33.704 -116.938 10.7 1 963 10 20 13 29 32.6 4 3 1.685 -115.387 6 1 963 11 2 8 47 43 32.4 -113.7 14 1 963 11 1 8 14 38 28.9 29.9 -113.6 14 1 963 11 2 3 1 0 53 18.4 30.4 -113.5 14 1964 1 17 1 7 8 24.4 3 1 -114 6 1 964 2 3 8 43 36 3 1.5 -114.2 9.9 1 964 4 16 4 16 26.7 30.5 -114.4 33 1 964 4 16 4 56 47 3 1.8 -113.7 9.9 1 964 4 16 6 4 5 4 3.9 32.5 -113.2 33 1 964 8 21 1 9 41 37.5 30.6 -113.8 15 1 964 8 22 3 3 20.7 3 1.5 -114.3 15 1 964 9 6 1 8 51 18.6 34.2 -114 15 1964 9 23 18 9 36.16 36.135 -114.657 6 1 964 12 20 2 1 56 6.2 35.959 -114.655 6 1 965 1 9 20 37 11.83 32.037 -114.549 6 1 965 2 16 12 24 35.9 30.7 -113.2 33 1 965 3 13 8 46 56.8 32.2 -111.4 0 1 965 5 3 3 30 48.8 1 36.483 -114.382 6 1965 5 15 6 25 1.5 35.9 -114.8 5 1 965 6 7 14 28 1.3 36.1 -112.2 15 1 965 6 17 22 58 20.9 3 1.7 -113.3 10 1965 7 1 2 43 1.4 30.9 -1 13.7 33 1 965 7 9 1 26 54.6 30.6 -113.5 33 1965 9 13 8 47 6.5 3 1 -114.4 33 1965 9 23 10 35 58.7 30.4 -113.7 33 1 965 9 25 17 43 43.33 34.714 -116.432 6 1965 10 14 17 47 35.3 3 1 -113 33 1 965 10 17 9 45 18.78 33.99 -116.761 13 1 965 11 26 1 3 57 2.6 3 1.8 -112.7 33 1 966 1 11 10 25 12.2 3 1.1 -1 14.3 33 1 966 1 22 1 2 1 6 35.1 36.57 -111.99 0 1 966 2 24 8 24 53.47 3 1.919 -114.619 6 1 966 3 29 22 56 17.15 33.728 -115.363 6 1 966 3 31 0 56 39.3 29.9 -111.8 33 1966 4 3 19 44 38 30.7 -113.7 33 1966 4 13 9 36 15.3 36.7 -112.9 0 1 966 4 28 0 42 57.4 35.6 -113 20 1 966 5 2 14 59 13.1 36.4 -112.5 0 1 966 5 3 5 28 11.1 3 1.5 -113.8 33 1 966 5 26 20 33 22.69 3 1.544 -115.72 6 1966 6 14 10 45 17.1 36.4 -113.3 0 1 966 6 17 20 12 23.9 36.6 -113.5 0 1 9 66 6 24 22 59 56.2 3 1.5 -114.1 33 1966 7 23 22 55 59.1 1 35.47 -1 14.595 6 1 966 8 7 1 7 36 26.7 3 1.8 -114.S 9.9 1966 8 10 13 24 51.1 30.8 -114.5 33 1 966 8 10 17 45 37.97 30.328 -114.561 6 1 966 8 16 4 43 21.4 30.1 -113.7 11 1 966 9 28 12 so 26.7 30.4 -113.9 33 1966 10 1 19 23 11 30 -114.2 32 1 966 10 3 1 6 3 50.9 35.8 -111.6 34 1 966 10 30 22 20 6.8 30.8 -1 13.S 30 1 966 11 5 5 1 8 14.89 3 1.573 -115.615 6 1 966 11 9 14 1 1 30.66 36.092 -115.065 6 1966 12 1 9 20 40.9 36.2 *113.9 26 1 966 12 8 7 23 5.1 30.6 -114.2 14 1 967 3 2 6 29 24.4 34.475 -110.964 14 1 967 3 1 0 13 5 17.9 30.333 -114.486 33 1 967 3 28 3 4 8 59.1 35.45 -111.73 5 1967 4 1 15 39 49.9 30.781 -114.03 33 1 967 4 26 7 1 8 22.5 3 1.14 -114.547 33 1 967 5 1 19 48 7.1 34.457 -112.864 26 1 967 5 4 22 34 48.5 30.416 -114.403 33 1967 5 21 14 42 34.06 33.552 -116.632 8.4 1967 5 21 18 0 5.1 34.29 -110.57 11 1967 5 26 7 48 43 36.42 -11 1.56 11 1967 6 14 23 11 53.3 35.28 -112.24 28 1967 8 7 16 40 32.1 36.4 -112.6 0 1967 9 4 23 27 44.7 36.2 -11 1.7 0 1967 9 21 0 1 52.74 3 1.301 -115.826 6 1967 10 13 1 19 3.5 30.4 -113.7 33 1 967 11 1 16 55 43.3 30.7 -113.4 33 1967 12 5 11 9 37.4 30.8 -114.1 33 1967 12 5 13 15 31.8 30.2 -114.2 33 1 967 12 5 18 12 13.9 3 1.1 -1 13.S 33 1968 4 9 2 28 58.39 33.18 -116.103 10 1968 6 20 19 28 51 3 1.285 -113.529 33 1968 9 3 13 51 36.8 30.847 -113.57 33 1 968 12 1 19 16 32.9 3 1.108 -113.083 33 1969 1 23 23 1 0.44 33.892 -116.049 6 1 969 2 2 19 3 38.3 3 1.588 -113.451 33 1969 2 10 2 57 35.7 30.818 -112.691 33 1 969 2 10 6 58 39.7 29.899 -112.95 33 1969 2 10 20 41 30.5 30.291 -112.669 33 1969 3 9 2 53 19.9 30.866 -114.22 33 1969 3 9 3 21 58.3 3 1.731 -113.89 33 1969 3 21 3 7 31.9 3 1.3 -1 14.7 9.9 1969 3 22 7 25 35.6 3 1.4 -114.1 9.9 1 969 5 27 16 17 39.37 35.337 -116.046 6 1969 6 10 3 41 31.5 31.436 -116.301 6 1 969 7 31 22 36 2.32 34.467 -114.974 6 1969 9 10 1 7 24.2 3 1.031 -113.632 33 1969 9 10 2 42 1.5 30.431 -113.843 33 1 969 12 25 12 49 10.1 33.4 -110.6 15 1970 1 19 7 16 21 3 1.497 -115.974 10 1970 4 25 8 25 50.1 36.019 -114.734 5 1 970 4 28 7 0 36.22 32.175 -114.676 6 1970 8 6 20 2 24.3 33.199 -115.033 7.6 1970 8 19 2 55 23.3 1 32.015 -114.525 6 1970 9 3 23 8 28.95 34.642 -115.817 6 1970 9 25 2 1 24 21.77 34.737 -115.93 6 1970 10 4 7 21 18.4 29.965 -11 3.887 33 1970 10 4 17 39 45.4 30.629 -113.645 33 1970 10 12 20 5 34.5 30.072 *113.384 33 1970 11 24 16 47 56 36.357 -112.273 6 1970 12 3 3 47 24.6 35.874 -111.906 5 1970 12 14 19 14 19.15 34.33 -115.706 6 1 970 12 18 9 18 33.4 35.99 -114.771 7 1970 12 28 1 13 8.01 33.813 -115.228 6 1971 5 1 3 11 19.9 36.518 -11 3.375 5 1 971 5 6 22 32 36.4 36.45 -114.46 7 5 1971 5 23 21 31 51.6 35.02 -113.89 0 1971 9 30 22 46 10.87 32.983 -115.804 6 1971 11 4 2 18 58.7 35.2 -112.2 5 1971 11 30 4 21 57.3 3 1.233 -115.393 8 1971 12 15 12 58 14.5 36.791 -111.824 5 1972 2 20 6 8 17.9 29.895 -113.532 33 1972 4 20 13 28 16.3 35.31 -111.64 5 1972 8 2 13 6 15.6 3 1.539 -114.425 33 1972 8 3 22 36 2.94 3 1.818 -114.586 6 1 972 9 4 6 8 19.5 30.908 -113.186 33 1972 9 4 23 55 56 30.353 -113.277 33 1972 10 28 13 22 37.89 3 1.763 -114.508 6 1973 4 19 16 59 42.7 34.3 -112.62 0 1973 7 23 20 37 46.1 30.751 -113.468 33 1973 7 24 1 46 5.8 3 1.124 -113.33 33 1973 10 10 17 20 19.2 30.203 -113.287 33 1 973 10 16 14 53 52.4 3 1.6 -115.833 8 1973 11 20 19 1 4.44 33.959 -115.495 8 1 973 12 26 6 18 16.6 36.081 -114.639 5 1974 3 14 20 59 57.2 34.24 -112.7 0 1 974 3 23 17 36 47 30.346 -113.833 33 1974 5 8 19 27 35.72 31.768 -114.562 6 1974 6 4 21 58 41.86 34.597 -112.901 6 1974 6 11 4 55 6.51 35.783 -115.645 6 1974 6 30 8 44 29.76 30.619 -1 14.45 1 6 1974 9 5 2 1 41 5.84 3 1.789 -114.03 1 6 1 974 9 5 22 3 22.46 3 1.654 -114.629 1.51 1974 10 4 18 59 58.4 34.54 -113.02 17 1 974 10 16 23 49 39.3 3 1.4 99 -114.468 8 1974 11 16 7 38 59.43 30.588 -113.814 6 1974 11 16 7 39 9.32 3 1.163 -114.364 8 1974 11 22 16 25 49.6 3 1.18 -115.24 1 33 1974 12 24 5 47 20.7 33.9 -111.9 4 1975 1 23 17 2 30.14 32.964 -11 5.508 13.9 1 975 3 26 4 30 54.7 36.1 -115.7 11 1975 4 9 6 54 26.1 34.596 -113.135 6 1975 4 13 19 8 48.06 35.401 -116.438 13 1975 4 28 0 17 49.7 3 1.998 -114.792 10 1975 4 28 2 37 58.09 3 1.632 -114.268 6 1975 4 29 17 35 32.72 35.598 -116.297 6 1975 5 5 16 56 49.76 3 1.505 -114.622 6 1975 6 1 1 38 48.74 34.521 *116.481 9.9 1975 7 17 18 24 46.1 3 1.883 -115.807 10 1975 8 1 11 42 12.6 33.65 -116.75 5 1975 9 8 22 25 23.4 32.55 -114.33 0 1 975 11 5 12 23 15.5 34.538 -115.808 5.2 1975 11 15 7 43 48.3 34.3 -116.33 5 1975 12 3 10 12 22.8 32.83 -108.663 27 1 976 2 4 0 4 58 34.66 -11 2.5 10 1976 2 28 20 53 58.5 35.91 -111.79 5 1 976 7 19 20 7 39 30.748 -113.502 33 1 976 7 30 23 18 49.64 33.492 -113.245 6 1 976 8 9 2 1 43 2.9 35.54 -111.68 5 1 976 10 4 14 48 39 36.026 -114.735 5 1976 10 19 5 39 5.2 30.277 -112.96 33 1 976 10 21 14 58 18 30.592 -113.204 33 1 976 11 4 10 4 1 37.87 33.124 -115.61 11 1976 11 10 16 36 9.71 33.871 -113.702 3 1 976 12 4 23 1 8 58.2 33.457 -114.478 6 1 9 7 6 12 7 12 59 56.3 3 1.983 -114.783 8 1976 12 15 17 50 20.4 29.947 -113.364 33 1 9 7 6 12 23 2 1 5 22.55 34.573 -114.372 0 1977 1 10 21 51 59.29 32.77 -114.711 6 1 977 2 26 9 44 0.32 3 1.238 -113.899 6 1 977 2 26 23 25 37.19 3 1.209 -114.212 6 1 977 3 17 19 1 1 11.93 35.212 -112.925 0 1 977 3 24 6 24 14.63 34.689 -115.717 0 1 977 4 27 2 1 48 17.79 34.684 -113.724 3 1 977 4 29 18 59 35.67 34.877

-113.067 6 1 977 5 25 22 36 32.12 32.253 -112.643 8 1977 6 1 19 12 9.76 35.051 -113.52 0 1977 6 14 19 3 39.11 3 4.859 -113.01 0 1 977 7 1 3 22 1 0 51.1 2 34.682 -112.934 0 1 977 7 19 18 47 1.84 36.076 -1 14.463 6 1 977 7 20 4 7 55.98 36.61 -114.635 6 1 977 8 6 3 16 39.67 30.269 -113.603 6 1977 9 2 12 40 56.15 36.551 -113.779 0 1 977 9 2 18 51 41.65 34.793 -113.479 0 1 977 9 12 19 2 9.34 34.819 -113.138 0 1977 10 4 14 51 32.69 3 1.1 83 -114.097 6 1 977 10 4 17 7 55.39 3 1.365 -114.413 6 1 977 10 13 22 28 19.8 1 32.277 -112.522 0 1 977 10 30 5 30 13.3 32.88 -115.5 4 1 977 11 10 14 30 0 33.01 -113.35 0 1 977 12 23 11 0 4.33 35.366 -113.978 0 1978 1 10 17 37 14.47 34.932 -113.186 0 1 978 1 23 22 37 10.42 34.9 19 -113.336 0 1 978 1 25 19 5 38.24 34.951 -113.055 0 1 978 2 6 22 39 5.48 33.048 -113.946 21.2 1 978 2 14 18 49 28.37 32147 -112.553 6 1978 2 14 20 49 23.03 34.304 *112.876 0 1 978 2 17 10 1 3 43.24 35.834

-115.787 6 1 978 3 1 4 23 4 3 11.52 32.011 -112.756 6 1 978 3 29 2 1 56 49.4 4 3 4.602 -113.303 0 1 978 4 4 2 1 4 10.2 30.275 -113.403 33 1978 4 5 1 8 42 17.23 32.136 -112.624 0 1 978 5 5 2 1 3 15.8 32.211 -115.3 03 6 1 978 7 1 0 21 40 17.6 30.704 -114.002 15 1 978 7 17 14 46 13.14 35.538 -116.271 13.3 1978 9 23 14 28 41.09 36.431 -115.156 6 1978 10 21 3 19 1.96 3 1.341 -113.874 6 1978 11 17 23 28 12.52 3 1.972 -112.615 6 1978 11 29 14 37 40.3 30.177 -113.956 15 1978 12 10 13 35 8.48 36.102 -114.407 6 1979 1 6 22 32 13.39 35.439 -114.524 6 1 979 1 22 18 7 1.45 34 -113 0 1979 3 15 20 50 33.46 34.805 -113.302 0 1 979 3 15 21 7 16.53 34.327 -116.445 2.5 1979 4 7 16 20 17.27 32.202 -112.346 6 1979 4 15 2 59 56.2 1 3 1.393 -114.408 6 1 979 6 24 22 26 19.93 3 1.805 -112.523 6 1979 7 3 3 52 48.29 32 -114.589 6 1 979 7 3 10 48 6.38 3 1.4 72 -114.681 6 1979 8 9 9 3 10.2 1 32.105 -114.698 6 1 979 8 31 7 51 38.2 1 32.3 -114.605 10 1979 10 7 7 45 3.37 32.096 -114.677 6 1 979 10 15 23 16 53.44 32.614 -115.318 12.3 1979 10 21 19 46 58.18 32.019 -114.596 15 1 979 11 14 2 1 9 9.79 3 1.348 -112.589 6 1979 11 21 16 50 5.08 36.907 -112.852 7 1980 1 8 1 21 24.36 32.237 -114.391 6 1980 2 1 3 16 58 50.13 3 1.127 -113.79 10 1 980 2 22 13 12 41.3 3 1 -113 6 1 980 2 25 10 47 38.4 1 33.475 -116.5 19.4 1 980 3 1 8 11 29 47.8 1 3 1 -112.714 6 1980 3 18 12 25 35.3 30.169 -113.966 15 1 980 3 18 12 50 27.1 30 -113 6 1980 3 28 22 11 50.07 36.379 -114.161 6 1980 4 29 18 25 10.1 1 36.927 -113.491 7 1 980 5 15 9 14 12 3 1.23 -113.769 15 1980 6 1 8 40 27.5 35.391 -111.986 5 1980 6 10 22 40 25.04 32.296 -112.439 6 1 980 7 14 11 46 12.6 36.5 -112.33 13 1980 7 27 4 21 32.64 3 1.048 -113.428 6 1980 8 7 12 38 46.34 35.514 -113.623 6 1 980 8 29 8 57 55.2 30.211 -113.212 15 1 980 9 1 11 34 55.7 3 1.176 -113.194 15 1 980 9 18 8 55 34 3 1.299 -113.893 6 1 980 10 29 14 53 35.5 29951 -114.072 15 1980 10 30 16 37 48.28 32.295 *112.463 6 1980 11 8 6 4 42.4 3 1.039 -113.686 15 1 980 11 9 7 29 2.6 30.431 -113.789 15 1980 12 11 17 54 6.86 34.719 -113.403 6 1 981 1 12 8 59 13.2 35.658 -113.469 5 1981 2 15 2 1 16 46.64 30.644 -113.937 6 1 981 3 13 0 9 6.6 35.948 -114.799 2 1 981 3 18 11 45 43.3 7 30.762 -113.81 6 1981 4 6 18 21 3 7.38 34.555 -113.1 0 1 981 4 9 22 58 49.9 1 3 1.648 -112.714 6 1 981 5 7 1 38 17.8 32.202 -108.898 5 1 981 8 28 6 44 36.29 3 1.968 -113.587 6 1 981 10 29 19 31 1.16 3 1.688 -113.254 10 1981 11 16 4 32 48.97 36.961 -112.527 0.85 1 981 12 20 3 6 21.59 30.937 -113.914 10 1 982 1 3 4 2 17.92 33.053 -114.826 6 1982 6 9 2 21 12.44 34.377 -11 5.732 2.8 1 982 6 1 5 23 49 21.1 6 33.555 -116.667 11.6 1982 7 31 6 42 19.3 1 35.47 -116.298 6 1982 10 21 15 1 7 15.05 3 1.407 -114.374 6 1 982 10 22 19 2 47.94 33.385 -114.523 6 1982 11 1 23 14 21.8 36.033 -114.375 5 1 982 11 4 23 3 37.16 36.133

-115.072 6 1 982 11 19 20 57 34.67 36.027 -112.006 5 1 982 1 1 27 23 38 18.4 1 35.943 -1 14.317 6 1 982 12 7 9 4 3 49.6 1 36.023 -114.826 5 1 983 1 1 22 29 30.68 32.686 -114.06 6 1 983 2 12 4 4 8.42 34 -114 6 1 983 2 23 1 1 10 20.87 35.973 -11 4.711 5 1983 4 9 0 45 26.03 36.394 -114.758 6 1983 4 17 6 3 30.93 30.39 -114.048 10 1 983 5 17 2 1 55 58.9 35 -114.5 0 1 983 6 10 1 22 31.96 36.179 -114.071 6 1 983 6 18 1 1 9 34.05 3 1.575 -114.74 0.5 1 983 7 1 4 18 59 22.82 34.62 -113.15 0 1983 7 19 18 43 23.02 3 1.3 -114.559 6 1 983 7 23 12 48 7.3 30.856 -113.814 10 1 983 8 31 8 10 8.74 36.135 -112.037 5 1983 11 3 18 26 23.56 36.483 -1 14.56 5 1 983 12 3 21 1 10.6 1 32.322 -113.782 6 1984 2 11 19 30 1 35.93 -115.81 6 1 984 3 7 3 32 36.68 34.569 -115.917 6 1 984 4 3 14 34 32.52 36.132 -114.804 6 1 984 4 22 9 49 56.38 3 1.787 -114.007 6 1984 4 22 10 41 10.95 35.4 88 -116.295 6 1 984 5 5 2 1 56 47.3 36.1 -115.69 6 1 984 6 20 13 37 18.3 1 36.049 -114.801 6 1 984 6 30 3 30 2.59 30.074 -114.123 10 1 984 7 5 1 12 28.45 3 1.52 -114.39 6 1984 7 7 18 14 59.06 32.462 *114.008 6 1 984 7 18 14 29 31.82 36.216

-111.844 5 1 984 9 5 12 37 5.03 3 1.078 -113.746 10 1 984 9 6 20 3 4 25.49 30.614 -113.966 10 1 984 9 2 2 1 7 59 55.04 32.435 -113.978 0 1984 12 4 20 53 8.62 36.042 -115.089 6 1 985 1 2 1 4 1 8 15.98 35.917 -115.753 6 1 985 1 29 5 37 54 35.3 -111.4 0 1 985 1 30 13 47 16.42 34.75 -112.137 5 1985 3 30 18 34 57.57 32.466 -113.878 6 1985 5 8 23 40 21.75 3 1.942 -115.873 18.4 1985 7 6 10 34 44.2 3 1.108 -114.277 6 1985 7 6 11 11 31.85 32.288 -114.714 6 1985 7 16 17 57 50.9 34.54 -116.84 9.9 1985 7 23 20 16 44.91 36.01 -114.638 6 1985 8 7 21 28 44.28 35.491 -116.271 6 1985 10 4 8 3 44.97 35.898 -115.173 6 1 985 10 11 0 16 26.48 35.657 -116.224 6 1985 11 16 12 6 48.3 1 36.088 -114.653 5 1986 1 19 19 35 0.1 32.55 -114.1 0 1 986 3 24 17 29 57.34 32.446 -1 13.893 6 1986 4 27 16 14 29.1 30.518 -113.885 1 0 1986 7 8 9 20 44.35 34.007 -116.607 10.8 1986 8 6 5 31 7.9 36.8 -112.345 0.06 1 986 8 22 14 43 58.55 36.245 -114.359 13.05 1987 1 26 12 44 27.72 35.854 -115.03 1 5 1 987 2 7 3 45 14.5 32.373 -115.307 10.3 198 7 2 25 13 52 27.2 3 1.45 -114.72 6 1 987 3 15 19 25 38.66 3 1.355 -113.006 5 1987 4 15 7 16 10.8 34.64 -111.21 10 1987 6 21 9 44 7.2 30.88 -113.88 6 1987 9 9 4 20 10.3 3 1.48 -114.31 6 1987 9 20 0 0 0 36.17 -1 13.16 0 1987 9 20 11 24 33.02 34.853 -113.732 5 1 987 10 1 20 20 8.1 36.423 -114.656 29.07 1987 11 16 5 52 43.36 30.049 -114.405 10 1 987 11 17 23 44 24.91 30.641 -114.559 12 1987 11 24 13 15 56.29 33.014 -11 5.834 5.5 1988 1 25 13 17 12.3 1 3 1.834 -115.865 6 1988 2 12 5 23 56.47 30.105 -11 3.896 10 1988 2 14 7 39 49 35.59 -111.63 13 1988 2 23 0 48 25.3 35.912 -114.947 5 1 988 4 20 9 59 1.01 30.538 -114.139 8 1988 4 28 6 16 7.85 35.585 -116.288 6 1988 5 4 18 53 33.54 35.974 -114.995 0 1988 5 22 19 22 45.77 36.925 -112.995 0.3 1 1988 5 28 10 51 13.97 35.933 -114.896 5 1988 7 4 10 56 54.54 35.918 -114.916 5 1988 7 15 0 38 9.59 36.374 -110.448 5 1988 9 7 1 17 40 36.0 1 *112.14 12 1988 9 10 20 59 3.86 34.249 -115.705 6 1988 12 16 5 53 4.77 33.986 -116.683 8.7 1988 12 29 18 18 57.4 36.896 -112.952 1.37 1 988 12 30 19 55 55.09 35.983 -114.8 5 1989 1 9 5 8 8.46 36.3 -115.1 7 1989 2 1 0 32 40.37 35.775 -11 5.419 6 1 989 2 4 12 26 58.08 36.788 -11 2.954 0.89 1989 2 5 21 51 12.79 32.494 -114.626 1 1 989 2 7 1 4 8 12.03 32.167 -114.534 6 1 989 3 5 0 40 30.84 35.952 -112.257 5 1 989 3 12 6 30 19.49 36.976 -112.907 3.96 1 989 4 6 16 10 4.09 36.046 -114.661 5 1989 4 18 10 45 47.66 34.669 -110.925 5 1 989 6 21 19 4 2 23.38 30.959 -114.126 11.86 1 989 6 22 2 1 6 1.84 30.395 -114.262 10 1989 7 17 20 10 22.25 34.038 -110.9 4 6 5 1 989 8 2 20 59 9.39 35.627 -116.265 6 1989 8 24 22 44 10.92 35.62 -115.644 6 1 989 9 6 12 36 55 34.87 -110.99 20 1 989 9 6 18 26 52 36.03 -112.37 10 1989 9 19 9 46 0.79 36.663 -112.407 5 1 989 9 2 1 9 33 58.95 33.57 -114.458 6 1 989 10 29 9 8 30 35.886 -114.862 5 1 989 1 1 12 0 14 3 9.69 30.871 -114.015 10 1 989 1 1 28 18 37 32 36.1 -112.2 10 1 990 1 13 5 47 33.52 30.222 -114.44 10 1 990 1 27 6 28 52.07 30.121 -113.73 10 1 990 6 14 23 28 48.92 3 1.566 -114.483 5.74 1 990 7 23 6 51 11.47 30.248 -114.458 10 19 9 0 8 14 15 7 2.76 3 2.07 -113.124 5 1 990 10 1 4 6 1 7 2.8 30.618 -114.51 8 1 990 10 17 1 1 48 23.5 36.53 -111.13 3 1 990 1 1 1 1 12 32 16.83 30.768 -114.52 3 1 991 2 1 8 12 51 21.78 30.973 -113.258 10 1991 2 20 0 56 55.72 29.874 -113.592 10 1 991 4 26 13 8 20.64 36.627 -112.3 4 5 10 1 991 4 2 9 13 4 37.35 32.088 -114.664 6 1991 7 4 7 51 22.5 30.1 51 -113.598 10 1 991 7 4 11 20 30.56 30.446 -113.857 10 1 991 8 22 15 7 13.55 30.777 -114.722 5 1 991 8 22 1 6 41 1 36 -112.13 2 1 991 9 1 0 4 21 4.31 30.46 -114.367 7 1 991 11 1 3 2 1 37 27.03 34.644 -112.36 5 1 991 1 2 3 17 5 4 35.8 1 3 1.703 -115.91 5 1 991 12 25 8 44 14.9 3 30.551 -114.184 11.77 1 991 12 25 20 30 7.88 3 1.288 -114.039 15.93 1 992 1 23 7 55 28.79 35.625 -116.277 6 1 992 2 1 7 5 43 40.54 30.808 -113.314 6 1992 2 24 17 15 20.79 35.953 *112.221 5 1 992 3 6 16 1 9 0.88 36.553 -114.883 6 1 992 3 1 3 11 20 2.87 35.516 -113.584 6 1 992 3 1 4 5 13 31.6 4 35.96 -112.355 5 1 992 3 15 0 17 47.1 6 30.82 -114.677 8 1992 4 6 11 25 1.93 3 1.062 -114.009 6 1 992 4 7 0 39 9.1 9 35.447 -113.226 5 1 992 5 6 1 41 1.27 36.346 -112.043 5 1 992 5 20 2 1 46 5.2 36.02 -112.1 7 9 1 992 5 26 6 0 15.2 3 1.691 -114.272 6 1 992 5 26 6 24 23.95 30.207 -114.294 6 1 992 5 27 1 0 56 54.3 1 30.837 -114.657 8 1 992 6 28 11 57 33.98 34.203 *116.431 2.8 1 992 7 5 18 17 29.97 35.982 -112.219 5 1 992 7 13 9 56 13.16 35.345 -114.654 18 1 992 8 28 1 0 14 44.5 1 36.057 -114.938 3.87 19 92 8 30 1 17 45.02 30.144 *114.195 10 1 992 9 20 4 44 24.5 30.607 -114.377 8 1 992 10 18 4 52 47.0 1 30.801 -114.661 7.77 1 992 12 4 18 1 5 54.73 36.444 -114.021 5 1 992 12 7 9 4 53.49 30.586 -114.216 15.99 1992 12 10 19 15 42.64 3 1.8 7 5 -114.718 8 1 992 12 20 3 12 56.79 30.902 -114.208 1.63 1 993 1 2 1 20 4 2 53.89 36.384 -114.97 6 1 993 2 4 6 1 8 18.06 35.964 -112.225 5 1 993 2 4 11 4 25.2 1 36.08 -115.045 10.23 1 993 3 7 8 53 27.95 3 1.1 64 -114.242 10 1 993 3 19 2 1 1 46.28 36.398 -114.828 0 1 993 4 1 18 3 4 13.87 36.383 -114.704 13.1 6 1 993 4 15 1 24 58.96 3 1.3 7 6 -114.297 17.28 19 93 4 29 8 21 0.8 1 35.611 -112.112 10 1 993 5 2 11 5 1.57 30.485 -114.043 3.03 1 993 5 12 7 23 56.11 36.203 -1 13 5 1 993 5 12 7 24 4.1 36.203 -114.013 5 1 993 6 1 3 12 9 33.48 3 1.482 -114.411 20.03 1993 6 27 13 20 9.5 36.73 -113.03 10 1 993 7 8 2 5 20.94 30.25 -114.174 8 1 993 7 9 11 25 6.99 3 1.387 -114.36 15.83 1 9 9 3 7 12 3 37 47.2 36.75 -113.01 10 1 993 7 1 8 11 37 35.4 34.7 7 -11 1.04 10 1 993 8 16 14 9 49.68 30.718 -112.858 6 1 993 8 1 6 1 4 10 7.12 3 1.352 -114.332 14.86 1 993 9 5 13 36 9.59 30.261 -114.729 10 1 993 9 8 1 1 44.07 35.951 -115.711 6 1 9 9 3 10 18 11 5 4 54.7 36.74 -113 10 1 9 93 1 1 3 12 14 27.3 1 35.9 25 -115.72 6 1 993 1 1 25 2 46 35.3 1 35.833 -115.781 0 1 994 2 3 12 47 17.13 3 1.793 -114.68 14.38 1 994 2 20 15 42 56.7 1 30.576 *114.053 8 1994 2 25 19 16 10.78 3 1.458 -114.385 15.57 1 994 3 23 2 59 16.1 7 3 1.806 -116.128 22.5 1 994 3 25 6 4 1 49.2 36.1 4 *112.2 10 1 99 4 4 1 17 17 33.86 3 4.936 *112.707 5 1 994 4 2 4 8 4 1 33.7 36.71 -113.04 10 1994 5 1 9 6 0 43.86 30.45 *114.017 8.39 1 994 6 1 7 1 3 43 10.12 30.658 -114.542 1.35 1 994 7 4 7 2 15.05 3 1.655 -113.48 1 0 1 994 7 17 23 41 37.4 1 30.5 7 3 -114.349 3.82 1994 7 21 13 51 23.74 30.174 -114.524 20.1 5 1994 8 8 21 17 8.37 30.511 -114.373 35.09 1994 9 4 16 43 22.35 30.195 -114.556 30.72 1994 9 19 3 53 8.76 3 1.519 -114.438 36.7 1994 9 29 11 21 24.58 35.464 -111.992 5 1994 10 3 14 0 48.63 32.066 -114.948 10 1994 10 29 22 27 52.19 36.081 -114.119 5 1994 11 25 8 17 26.41 3 1.497 -114.421 15.89 1 994 11 27 1 1 10 53.46 36.332 -113.597 5 1994 12 13 18 42 59.73 30.593 -113.878 31.77 1994 12 23 4 9 58.41 30.209 -114.638 10.59 1995 1 1 14 59 43.4 1 36.047 -114.827 4.42 1995 1 11 4 51 27.06 32.43 -115.23 12 1995 2 6 14 28 21.2 35.07 -111.63 10 1995 3 7 21 56 14.9 36.78 -113.01 10 1 995 3 7 22 33 19.36 36.602 -113.418 5 1995 3 21 9 43 21.12 30.404 -114.145 13.83 1 995 3 26 14 32 6.41 31.265 -114.351 35.21 1995 4 16 8 23 45.7 36.05 -112.16 10 1 995 5 7 11 3 32.85 33.911 -116.285 10.5 1 995 6 12 18 51 58.66 32.085 -114.61 19.66 1995 6 17 19 42 56.93 31.454 -114.337 14.47 1 995 6 20 16 21 16.09 36.391 -114.525 0 1995 8 2 18 24 27.32 30.513 -113.818 13.2 1995 8 2 18 26 58.46 30.912 -114.23 8 1995 8 2 18 32 11.7 30.318 -114.214 32.87 1995 9 22 2 42 55.8 36.137 -114.16 2.56 1995 10 26 4 4 37.03 30.593 -113.854 8 1995 11 1 18 54 37.58 3 1.029 -113.903 11.72 1995 12 6 3 27 31.89 3 1.515 -114.388 15.57 1 995 12 27 22 25 13.26 36.196 -114.48 5 1 996 1 2 1 44 48.86 30.767 -114.414 10.47 1996 1 31 22 59 56.24 35.919 -114.679 5 1 996 2 8 22 58 26.72 30.883 -114.187 3 1 996 2 15 22 41 37.87 36.793 -113.973 0.14 1996 3 13 5 43 53.25 36.917 -112.423 1.13 1 996 3 15 9 17 33.7 1 30.811 -114.197 2 1996 3 31 22 43 13.68 32.034 -113.032 6 1996 4 26 4 4 1.1 36.54 -112.3 7 10 1 996 5 1 23 10 54.32 3 1.286 -114.406 10 1996 5 1 23 13 3.46 30.98 -114.277 13 1996 6 6 2 30 36.97 30.207 -114.598 9 1996 6 14 19 23 0.48 32.051 -114.709 6 1996 9 12 21 19 13.74 36.833 -113.763 7.3 1 1996 10 8 4 13 19.26 3 1.018 -113.097 4 1996 10 22 4 15 12.33 36.17 -115.166 6.52 1996 11 17 2 37 53.82 35.746 -115.75 0 1 997 1 22 1 5 54.4 36.76 -113.03 3 1997 2 2 2 26 0.01 30.251 -114.316 10.79 1997 2 5 8 23 5.58 30.435 -114.654 10 1997 2 5 10 21 36.95 30.596 -114.326 10 1997 2 9 16 15 24.9 34.77 -11 1.06 10 1997 3 31 7 34 48.91 35.534 -11 1.99 3 5 1997 4 22 0 44 29.13 30.419 -113.989 1 3.01 1997 4 29 20 4 49.94 30.118 -114.276 15 1997 5 28 4 26 20.1 36.73 -113.05 10 1997 6 8 14 29 59.7 36.09 -112.28 10 1 997 6 19 1 1 21 49.53 3 1.246 -115.491 6 1997 7 3 0 24 0.48 36.078 -114.772 0 1997 7 9 19 29 19.6 36.79 -112.9 8 10 1 997 7 10 10 34 42.1 36.44 -112.42 10 1997 7 19 9 59 22.9 34.52 -112.86 1 0 1997 7 19 11 43 57.7 36.082 -114.622 5.88 1997 7 26 3 14 55.75 33.402 -116.348 11.6 1 997 7 31 7 30 1.2 36.7 -113.01 10 1997 8 26 6 52 20 36.2 -11 1.88 10 1 997 10 15 11 7 49.6 36.74 -112.98 10 199 7 12 20 2 5 52.2 36.341 -115.253 8.93 1 998 1 5 5 23 48.5 35.54 -112.07 10 1998 1 6 8 36 46.63 34.916 -110.495 5 1998 1 16 8 35 30.6 36.5 -112.4 10 1998 2 3 6 26 31.64 30.868 -114.09 8 1998 2 18 14 29 32.65 3 1.854 -1 15.77 1 6 1998 2 22 10 15 9.4 36.49 -112.3 8 10 1 998 2 24 11 31 48.78 3 1.235 -115.601 12 1998 4 8 12 2 57.16 30.3 7 2 -114.483 9.52 1 998 4 13 14 31 11.5 34.26 -110.12 10 1998 4 24 1 27 8.54 3 1.756 -114.263 10 1998 5 15 12 48 16.1 36.71 -113.01 10 1998 6 8 18 49 2.98 3 1.968 -114.546 8 1998 6 15 12 56 13.44 3 1.329 -114.247 2.03 1998 8 22 23 20 28.78 36.281 -113.984 5 1 998 10 18 7 13 10.65 36.033 -111.091 5 1998 10 27 1 8 40.33 34.321 -116.842 6 1998 10 31 22 38 6.26 30.443 -114.491 8 1998 11 6 17 15 3.24 3 1.552 -114.722 6 1998 11 8 0 24 18.2 1 36.216 -112.47 5 1998 11 17 0 6 27.4 1 36.8 -114.08 1.49 1998 12 7 20 32 45.29 36.793 -114.053 0.45 1998 12 14 21 40 37.47 36.293

  • 115.32 5 1999 1 5 23 24 0.32 36.822 -114.026 1.19 1999 2 10 5 9 46.65 36.551 -113.518 5 1999 2 11 6 37 36.16 35.634 -111.575 5 1 999 2 24 2 1 9 52 35.81 -113.3 0 1999 3 2 19 8 22.28 36.458 -114.515 5 1999 3 17 18 29 43.68 30.338 -11 3.93 1 10 1 999 3 17 20 4 59.32 30.393 -114.505 3.37 1999 3 29 6 47 38.19 30.503 -113.466 10 1 999 3 30 2 1 41 13.12 36.814 -114.043 1.34 1 999 5 5 19 4 40.85 36.794 -114.063 1.35 1 999 5 14 7 54 2.98 3 4.066 -11 6.369 2.3 1999 6 1 12 40 5.01 35.904 -115.79 6 1999 6 1 15 18 2.46 32.411 -115.226 3.3 1 999 6 11 8 57 25.62 3 1.725 -114.558 29.99 1 999 8 2 17 59 58.73 36.02 -114.947 6 1999 8 3 9 37 25.08 3 1.322 -114.301 6.2 1 1 999 8 24 13 4 7.39 3 1.986 -114.692 6 1999 9 10 7 6 2.72 3 1.379 -114.334 6 1999 10 1 18 38 23.82 3 1.681 -114.043 13 1 999 10 8 21 26 41 33.28 -114.68 6.1 1999 10 8 21 34 14 33.03 -114.75 5.7 1999 10 16 9 46 43.96 34.596 -116.269 1.2 1 999 10 16 9 4 7 43.59 33.23 -115.654 6.7 1999 10 16 17 1 5 9.17 30.751 -1 10.749 5 1 999 1 1 29 1 5 14 49.1 2 30.13 -114.399 5 1 999 12 6 14 20 3.26 35.049 -111.469 5 1 999 12 7 19 25 21.68 36.852 -113.962 1.3 1 2000 2 22 3 31 37.8 35.77 -113.16 0 2000 3 28 4 45 20.49 36.512 -113.51 5 2000 4 12 15 57 0 36.24 -1 12.33 14 2000 5 2 6 45 45 32.1 11 -115.119 5 2000 5 4 6 48 0 36.09 -111.51 12 2000 5 4 7 42 15.98 36.632 -113.055 5 2000 6 2 17 51 14.27 3 1.113 -114.338 5 2000 6 12 18 13 22.49 30.464 -113.993 2.53 2000 6 23 20 10 42.73 35.509 -11 6.264 6 2000 8 8 3 18 2.42 30.75 -114.138 13.83 2000 8 8 3 18 9.32 32.448 -1 13.474 5 2000 8 25 1 5 23 16.96 29.932 -113.392 10 2000 10 3 1 21 56 39.69 36.456 -114.3 07 0 2000 12 1 0 1 9.1 36.051 -114.9 8 6 2001 1 16 7 26 35.2 1 30.391 -113.852 0.3 1 2001 1 17 1 26 32.85 3 1.812 -114.705 6 2001 1 17 4 13 3.67 32.448

-113.719 6 2001 1 17 9 33 27.88 3 1.867 -114.316 19.95 2001 2 4 3 29 2.65 36.143 -115.346 0 2001 5 17 10 1 5 32.3 1 30.807 -114.027 9.84 2001 7 12 20 9 1.7 3 1.392 -114.35 8 15.52 2001 9 9 6 30 30.1 30.224 *114.61 7 2001 10 23 7 19 4 2.4 3 1.697 -114.703 5 2001 10 31 7 56 16.36 33.511 -116.502 15.6 2001 11 28 16 2 4 0.74 30.331 -1 13.547 10 2001 12 6 12 58 16.03 30.639 -114.436 4 2001 12 8 23 36 10.14 32.059 -115.036 0.6 2002 2 1 1 23 34 24.9 1 30.565 -113.889 13 2002 3 3 0 9 0.64 35.422 -116.454 6.8 2002 3 3 15 20 56.14 35.618 -116.251 7 2002 3 27 1 1 18 5.92 30.216 -114.011 10 2002 4 15 6 53 20.5 36.79 -112.46 15 2002 5 25 0 5 17.7 1 35.589 -116.31 7 2002 7 7 5 37 38.98 36.486 -113.55 5 2002 8 30 5 16 12.98 3 1.863 -114.265 5 2002 9 13 1 1 42 17.29 30.216 -114.573 15 2002 10 29 14 16 54.08 34.803 -116.266 4.6 2002 12 10 21 4 0.5 32.25 -115.788 10.9 2003 1 11 15 40 37.1 3 1.248 -114.238 5 2003 2 7 10 34 4.83 3 1.628 -115.511 7.6 2003 2 22 12 19 10.53 34.31 -116.846 3.6 2003 3 17 6 28 41.3 3 1.851 -114.654 6 2003 3 25 21 11 34.89 36.766 -112.982 4.68 2003 6 8 19 14 48 3 1.92 -114.427 8 2003 6 11 0 56 15 3 1.917 -114.724 5 2003 8 10 0 33 23.52 35.066 -113.37 5 2003 9 8 18 13 24.7 3 1.324 -114.169 6 2003 9 9 23 7 21.35 30.155 -114.114 10 2003 9 9 23 41 52.8 30.159 -114.49 10 2003 9 10 11 26 44.55 30.641 -113.544 10 2003 9 17 18 1 36.93 35.939 -114.698 3.65 2003 10 24 18 18 53.92 35.939 -114.727 0 2003 11 1 2 43 29.3 30.661 -114.201 7 2003 11 15 12 54 11.3 32.496 -114.689 6 2003 11 18 19 35 45 32.183 -114.598 13 2003 12 4 16 0 52 3 1.964 -114.495 16 2003 12 12 2 55 18.1 30.808 -114.471 5 2003 12 21 16 8 57 33.62 -109.78 0 2003 12 21 21 28 22 33.8 -109.07 0 2004 1 13 7 58 53.3 3 1.058 -114.145 7 2004 1 17 9 47 21.7 30.78 -114.33 11.3 2004 1 26 7 14 23.8 3 1.67 -114.456 7 2004 3 5 8 28 0 34.98 -109.99 24 2004 3 12 8 37 26.2 1 33.227 -109.557 5 2004 3 15 17 19 12.6 30.689 -114.697 4 2004 3 16 4 6 3.6 30.75 -114.225 5 2004 3 30 1 40 23.1 30.201 -114.193 8.1 2004 5 14 10 58 1.67 36.05 -114.123 0 2004 5 14 14 9 36.7 3 1.528 -114.311 4 2004 6 27 5 0 0 36.21 -111.57 16 2004 8 12 14 44 30 30.546 *114.45 4 2004 8 20 6 33 2.7 30.147 -114.15 7.5 2004 8 26 0 16 14.6 30.646 -113.901 6 2004 10 18 16 4 7 14.3 30.309 -114.574 6 2005 2 24 8 58 54.1 30.63 -114.256 8 2005 3 2 11 12 57.42 34.715 -110.97 5 2005 3 15 0 21 7.29 36.911 -112.546 22.75 2005 4 20 19 3 25 3 1.931 -114.745 12 2005 4 25 22 59 39.6 30.059 -114.46 8 2005 4 27 0 32 59.02 30.253 -114.132 10 2005 6 8 4 32 33.1 36.832 -113.564 2.29 2005 6 12 1 5 41 46.33 33.538 -116.567 14.1 2005 6 16 20 53 25.68 34.061 -117.007 14.2 2005 7 12 23 32 41.38 36.959 -112.352 9.03 2005 9 2 1 27 19.5 33.143 -115.634 5.6 2005 10 31 13 4 1 33.62 30.517 -113.109 10 2005 11 8 4 11 59.5 30.715 -114.236 12 2005 11 20 8 45 36.39 36.185 -113.854 5 2005 11 25 12 32 53.6 3 1.288 -114.272 6 2005 12 16 8 17 1.41 30.177 -114.063 10 2006 1 20 20 1 15.5 30.5 -114.549 5 2006 2 5 11 36 55.89 36.988 -112.861 12.01 2006 2 23 1 22 2.2 30.618 -114.195 5.3 2006 5 1 2 1 4 42.6 30.199 -114.332 10 2006 5 24 4 20 26.0 1 32.307 -115.228 6 2006 6 21 1 45 8.9 3 1.536 -114.481 15 2006 7 9 17 43 33 34.743 -112.707 1 2006 7 23 15 24 20.1 3 1.895 -114.565 15 2006 11 15 7 4 2.3 30.69 -114.338 4 2007 1 4 19 4 43.7 30.97 -114.583 4 2007 1 18 6 21 6.42 30.493 -114.086 10 2007 1 1 9 17 34 27.58 36.283 -115.431 16 2007 1 24 12 27 25.6 30.546 -114.664 10 2007 5 22 20 55 19.8 3 1.364 -114.167 12 2007 6 25 14 52 28 33.73 -111.14 7 2007 7 4 18 30 28 36.104 -111.073 8 2007 7 5 1 38 32.4 30.551 -114.6 4 2007 7 5 4 37 29 3 1.053 -114.351 6 2007 7 26 2 37 24.5 3 1.532 -114.324 4 2007 8 28 13 52 27.32 30.315 -113.983 10 2007 9 8 7 15 40.59 33.697 -108.811 5 2007 9 15 5 26 24.33 33.401 -108.835 5 2007 9 21 0 58 0.4 3 1.284 -114.215 8 2007 9 28 0 23 22.28 35.773 -115.805 5.4 2007 10 5 6 28 12.7 3 1.588 -114.41 12 2007 10 25 20 35 29.5 3 1.712 -114.505 13 2007 10 29 2 2 16.8 30.505 -114.159 6 2007 10 29 22 21 11.9 3 1.47 -114.311 9 2007 12 5 0 22 41 36.428 -113.127 13 2007 12 27 0 13 20 36.53 *112.258 23 2008 1 10 11 26 15.97 30.917 -113.892 10 2008 1 12 12 50 20.44 30.445 -113.901 10 2008 1 17 22 0 13 35.02 -113.914 1 2008 1 29 14 46 6.3 3 1.339 -114.449 9 2008 2 9 7 12 4.5 32.36 -115.277 6 2008 2 19 20 41 28.35 30.01 -114.014 10 2008 3 27 1 7 13.78 36.465 -113.581 5 2008 4 7 21 32 5 34.704 -111.181 2 2008 5 14 1 7 40.88 30.569 -113.744 10 2008 5 14 16 9 52.93 30.25 -114.3 10 2008 5 17 19 8 55.3 3 1.912 -114.745 9 2008 6 4 23 32 35 36.443 -112.492 13 2008 7 8 17 51 5.16 36.62 -114.563 6 2008 9 3 23 44 17.03 34.615 -112.897 6 2008 10 1 23 4 9 18 35.925 -112.073 15 2008 10 8 9 31 41.04 30.279 -113.305 10 2008 10 19 19 51 14 35.479 -111.764 11 2008 10 26 19 47 48.35 36.235 -114.554 10.79 2008 11 5 6 17 40.6 3 1.813 -114.658 8 2008 11 13 7 48 45.42 29.98 -114.21 5 2008 11 19 15 35 39.2 30.564 -114.354 4 2008 11 20 19 23 0.1 32.329 -115.332 6 2008 12 4 2 4 36.9 36.044 -114.832 5.99 2008 12 6 4 1 8 42.8 34.813 -116.419 7 2008 12 11 3 41 55.68 30.335 -113.797 10 2008 12 30 11 44 12.97 30.107 -113.222 10 2009 2 24 7 10 30.6 30.104 -114.349 14 2009 2 24 7 17 35.7 30.4 56 -114.099 15 2009 2 27 15 10 1.4 36.352 -115.073 8.4 2009 3 24 1 1 55 43.9 33.317 -115.728 6 2009 4 28 0 59 53.5 30.571 -114.578 4 2009 5 9 6 7 31.97 34.213 -112.141 5 2009 5 11 22 35 49.8 3 1.711 -114.539 5 2009 5 14 4 23 27.2 30.852 -114.083 14.1 2009 9 3 15 54 6.8 3 1.232 -114.344 10 2009 9 4 1 1 47 54 36.647 -112.956 5 2009 10 7 16 35 5.5 30.212 -114.39 5 2009 10 8 3 47 45.1 30.542 -114.32 5 2009 10 8 6 1 0.3 30.278 -113.745 6.3 2009 10 9 22 13 54.18 35.963 -114.546 10.93 2009 10 16 10 27 10.7 29.991 -114.081 4 2009 10 31 3 1 7 31.9 35.358

-111.578 6.38 2009 11 3 23 39 42 36.713 -113.046 16 2009 11 16 6 55 46 36.833 -112.352 21 2009 11 21 20 45 46 36.877 -111.9 8 2009 11 28 5 23 15.7 30.912 -114.478 6 20 1 0 1 27 20 33 31 36.581 -111.471 7 20 1 0 2 19 23 30 17 3 1.402 -114.39 12 2010 2 20 1 12 48.7 3 1.673 *114.094 15 20 1 0 2 21 1 12 9.5 3 1.837 -114.521 10 2010 3 2 0 51 39 36.564 -113.272 12 2010 3 1 3 20 55 8 30.62 -114.557 3 20 1 0 3 18 18 4 0 41.97 35.019 -111.609 5 20 1 0 3 21 17 40 6.08 36.61 -113.318 10 2010 3 30 9 14 10.46 3 1.276 -114.049 10 2010 4 4 22 40 41.7 32.216 -115.3 10 2010 5 3 0 59 24.24 3 1.539 -114.726 10 2010 5 24 7 27 7.76 33.298 -109.231 5 20 1 0 5 29 15 31 54 36.463 -113.259 6.72 20 1 0 6 1 5 4 26 58.4 32.7 -115.921 5 2010 6 18 15 7 33.65 3 1.7 1 6 -114.716 10 2010 6 25 10 30 34.12 33.61 -111.196 5 2010 7 3 7 34 46.28 30.731 -114.028 6 2010 7 7 23 53 33.5 33.421 -116.489 14 20 1 0 7 27 12 22 3 1 35.889 -1 11.394 18.28 20 1 0 8 9 23 55 47.4 3 1.01 -114.00 1 8 2010 8 10 22 47 47.1 30.365 -114.365 4 2010 8 11 17 23 2.1 30.617 -114.11 4 20 1 0 9 8 3 58 8.45 30.435 -1 13.63 10 2010 9 15 7 50 2.4 30.069 -113.802 1 0 20 1 0 9 25 16 49 26.3 3 1.23 -115.65 5 2010 9 26 22 20 30.64 33.696 -111.147 5 2010 10 13 18 20 47.34 3 1.54 -114.347 10 20 1 0 10 19 1 27 55 36.855 -11 3.022 9.8 2010 10 20 23 1 54.8 3 1.395 -116.026 8 2010 11 6 20 39 5 36.969 -112.874 12.24 2010 11 11 3 23 38 36.463 -113.495 7.39 2010 11 24 14 58 20 36.818 -111.791 5.8 2011 1 16 11 55 48.8 1 3 1.4 74 -114.293 10 20 1 1 1 17 2 1 2 24.7 3 1.725 -114.624 10 2011 1 23 12 16 47.19 34.837 -1 12.087 5 20 1 1 1 26 10 51 36 36.098 -112.074 6.9 20 1 1 3 1 8 19 54 46.74 34.827 -112.092 15 2011 3 20 21 28 16 36.077 -111.908 7.55 20 1 1 4 7 13 4 0 57.9 3 1.233 -115.62 5 2011 5 26 19 46 30.3 30.822 -113.934 10 2011 6 16 0 0 0 35.872 -112.19 1 8.96 2011 6 21 0 0 0 35.055 -11 1.554 16.2 2011 7 8 3 44 3.04 36.288 -112.181 2.7 20 1 1 7 18 0 0 0 36.603 -113.769 1.7 2011 7 18 9 6 54.13 36.891 -113.555 6 2011 7 29 0 0 0 34.9 -112.032 3.6 2011 8 31 0 0 0 35.784 -113.226 7 20 1 1 9 17 2 8 39.5 3 1.385 -114.311 8 2011 10 11 10 12 2.38 34.72 -116.028 7.56 20 1 1 10 13 0 0 0 35.666 -1 11.414 3.6 20 1 1 10 14 16 15 46.5 3 1.304 -114.245 10 2011 10 20 3 45 49.2 30.622 *114.038 8 20 1 1 10 25 18 20 24.6 3 4.871 -112.518 5 2011 11 3 0 0 0 35.842 -113.216 6.88 2011 11 1 2 23 3 46.33 36.014 -114.818 6 20 1 1 12 13 0 0 0 36.764 -113.017 8.2 20 1 1 12 14 18 34 47 36.666 -113.794 0.3 2011 12 23 12 32 37.6 30.451 -114.01 1 10 2012 1 8 19 11 12.2 1 34.826 -110.942 5 2012 1 19 1 38 55.6 30.887 -114.171 8 20 1 2 2 26 0 0 0 3 4.898 -110.965 2 20 1 2 3 20 14 1 8 52.8 3 1.288 -114.258 4 20 1 2 3 21 1 1 8 22.5 3 1.084 -114.392 12 20 1 2 3 26 3 42 43.1 3 1.517 -114.319 7 20 1 2 4 22 0 0 0 34.894 -110.961 3.65 20 1 2 6 1 5 24 34.1 30.452 -114.066 10 20 1 2 6 25 0 0 0 35.025 -112.546 1.85 2012 7 19 5 8 39.3 3 1.428 -114.295 8 20 1 2 7 24 21 39 24 30.56 -114.216 7 2012 8 25 9 28 26 3 1.339 -114.306 5 20 1 2 8 26 20 57 58.2 33.02 -115.55 9 20 1 2 8 26 2 1 17 26.72 34.175 -115.608 8.9 20 1 2 8 27 5 23 19.1 30.658 -114.063 10 20 1 2 8 28 11 36 52.9 7 30.026 -114.213 10 2012 9 25 16 3 33.46 36.486 -114.879 13.3 20 1 2 10 8 0 0 0 33.431 -109.28 5 2012 10 11 21 26 49.76 36.431 -114.432 0 20 1 2 10 17 0 0 0 35.748 -113.088 4.9 20 1 2 10 30 9 20 57.6 3 1.24 -114.298 15 20 1 2 11 13 0 19 16.49 35.511 -116.2 4 6 0 20 1 2 12 1 1 0 0 0 35.61 9 -113.154 10 M ag Ma g Type Sou rc e Cata l o g P r i o ri t y Zone Mag Si g ma Mw E(M) 6.5 Mw Toppozada U n ified 1 1 0.3 6.5 6.33 5.5 Mw T oppo za da Unified 1 1 0.3 5.5 5.33 5 MMI AZGS AZG S 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 6 MMI AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.5 5 5.00 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 5.8 Mw T oppozada U n ified 1 1 0.3 5.8 5.63 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 4 2 0.5 4.33 4.33 5 MMI A Z GS AZGS 5 6 0.5 4.33 4.33 6.2 Mw Toppoz a d a Unif ie d 1 1 0.3 6.2 6.03 5.9 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.9 5.73 5.8 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.8 5.63 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 7 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 5.67 5.67 6 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 5 5.00 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 5.6 Mw To p pozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.6 5.43 6.8 Mw T o p pozada Unified 1 1 0.3 6.8 6.63 3 MMI AZGS AZGS 4 7 0.5 3 3.00 6 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 6 5.83 6 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 5 5.00 7.3 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 7.3 7.13 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 6.1 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 6.1 5.93 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 4 7 0.5 3.67 3.67 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 6.7 Mw T oppozada U n ified 1 1 0.3 6.7 6.53 6.6 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 5 0.3 6.6 6.43 6.2 Ms AE I C AE I C 2 3 0.3 6.2 6.03 6.2 Mw T o p pozada U n i f ied 1 1 0.3 6.2 6.03 5.8 Mw T oppozada U n ified 1 1 0.3 5.8 5.63 6 M s AE I C AE I C 2 3 0.3 6 5.83 6.2 M s AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.3 6.2 6.03 5 MMI A Z GS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 6 Mw Toppozada Unif i ed 1 1 0.3 6 5.83 3 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3 3.00 6.6 Mw T oppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 6.6 6.43 6 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 5 5.00 5.7 Mw T oppozad a Unified 1 1 0.3 5.7 5.53 5.5 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.5 5.33 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 6.8 Mw T o p pozada U n ified 1 1 0.3 6.8 6.63 5.6 Mw T oppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.6 5.43 3 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3 3.00 5.9 Mw Toppo za d a Unifi e d 1 1 0.3 5.9 5.73 5 Mw CDMG Unified 1 1 0.3 5 4.83 6 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 5 5.00 5.5 Mw Toppozada Unif i ed 1 1 0.3 5.5 5.33 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 4 2 0.5 4.33 4.33 6 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 5 5.00 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 5.5 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.5 5.33 5.5 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.5 5.33 5.8 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.8 5.63 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 5.5 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.5 5.33 5.1 Mw CDMG Unified 1 1 0.3 5.1 4.93 5.5 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.5 5.33 5 Mw COMG Unified 1 1 0.3 5 4.83 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 6 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 5 5.00 4.46 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 4.46 4.39 3.78 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.78 3.7 1 4.7 Mw SCSN Unified 1 1 0.2 4.7 4.63 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 2.96 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 2.96 2.89 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 3 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3 3.00 3.58 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.58 3.5 1 5.5 ML CDMG AZGS 5 4 0.2 5.5 5.43 5.07 Mw SCSN Unified 1 5 0.2 5.07 5.00 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 6.46 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 6.46 6.39 3.93 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.2 3.93 3.86 6 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 5 5.00 6 MMI AZGS AZGS 4 2 0.5 5 5.00 3.11 I SCSN_le SCS N 2 2 0.2 3.11 3.04 4.84 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.84 4.77 4.79 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.79 4.72 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 5.25 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.25 5.18 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 3.79 I SCSN_l e SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.79 3.72 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 4 7 0.5 3.67 3.67 2.78 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 2.78 2.7 1 3.22 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.22 3.15 4.85 Mw SCSN Unified 1 1 0.2 4.85 4.78 6.02 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 6.02 5.95 6 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 5 5.00 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 3.58 ML Cl ANSS 2 7 0.2 3.58 3.5 1 3.63 I SCSN_re SCS N 4 3 0.2 3.63 3.56 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 4.88 Mw ANSS U n ified 1 1 0.2 4.88 4.8 1 3.32 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.32 3.25 3.72 I SCSN_l e SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.72 3.65 4.54 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 4.54 4.47 5.5 M AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.2 5.5 5.43 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.6 7 3.67 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 4.5 Md N MBMG AZGS 2 3 0.2 4.5 4.43 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 6 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 5 5.00 3.83 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.83 3.76 4.69 Mw Deng Unified 1 7 0.2 4.69 4.62 4.5 Md NMBMG AZGS 2 3 0.2 4.5 4.43 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 3.47 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.47 3.40 5.29 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.29 5.22 6.89 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 6.89 6.82 4.5 ML CDMG AZGS 4 2 0.2 4.5 4.43 5 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5 4.93 3.47 I SCSN_re SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.47 3.40 4.84 Mw SCSN Unified 1 5 0.2 4.84 4.77 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 5.5 Mw CDMG Unified 1 1 0.2 5.5 5.43 6.05 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 5 0.2 6.05 5.98 4 MMI AE I C AZGS 4 7 0.5 3.67 3.67 4 MMI AE I C AZGS 4 7 0.5 3.67 3.67 3 MMI AE I C AZGS 4 7 0.5 3 3.00 3 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3 3.00 4.78 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.78 4.71 3.28 I SCSN_l e SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.28 3.2 1 4.83 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.83 4.76 5 MMI AE I C AZGS 4 7 0.5 4.33 4.33 4.11 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 4.11 4.04 3 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3 2.93 3.62 I SCSN_le SCS N 2 2 0.2 3.62 3.55 5.26 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.26 5.19 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 5.08 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.08 5.0 1 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 5.22 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.22 5.15 3.34 I SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.2 3.34 3.27 4.7 Mw SCSN Unified 1 5 0.2 4.7 4.63 5 MMI AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 4.86 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.86 4.79 5 Unk N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 5 4.93 5.3 Mw CDMG Unified 1 4 0.2 5.3 5.23 4.39 I SCSN_re SCS N 2 6 0.2 4.39 4.32 5.15 I SCSN_re SCS N 4 5 0.2 5.15 5.08 5.2 Mw CDMG U n ified 1 1 0.2 5.2 5.13 5.78 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.78 5.7 1 4.65 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.65 4.58 5.5 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.5 5.43 4.83 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.83 4.76 5 MMI AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 4.85 Mw SCSN Unified 1 5 0.2 4.85 4.78 6.48 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 6.48 6.41 3.81 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.81 3.74 3.4 I SCSN_re SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.4 3.33 4.8 Mw CDMG Unified 1 1 0.2 4.8 4.73 5.28 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.28 5.2 1 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 5.96 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.96 5.89 4.5 Unk N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.5 4.43 5.69 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.69 5.62 3.53 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.53 3.46 4.3 Unk N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 5.66 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.66 5.59 7 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 5.67 5.67 4.2 Unk NE I AZGS 2 3 0.2 4.2 4.13 4.16 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.2 4.16 4.09 5.41 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.41 5.34 4.72 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.72 4.65 5.97 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.97 5.90 4.66 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.66 4.59 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 4.5 Unk NE I ANSS 3 3 0.2 4.5 4.43 5 MMI AE I C AZGS 4 7 0.5 4.33 4.33 4.72 Mw SCSN Unified 1 7 0.2 4.72 4.65 3.67 I SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.2 3.67 3.60 5.1 Ml AZGS AZGS 5 4 0.2 5.1 5.03 3.7 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.2 3.7 3.63 5.46 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.46 5.39 4.76 Mw ANSS Unified 1 2 0.2 4.76 4.69 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 5 Mw CDMG Unified 1 1 0.2 5 4.93 566 Mw ANSS Unified 1 6 0.2 5.66 5.59 5.35 Mw SCSN Unified 1 6 0.2 5.35 5.28 6.37 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 6.37 6.30 5.2 Mw CDMG U n ified 1 1 0.2 5.2 5.13 4.31 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 4.31 4.24 4.85 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.85 4.78 5.24 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.24 5.17 4.7 Mw COMG Unified 1 1 0.2 4.7 4.63 3.03 I SCSN_le SCS N 2 2 0.2 3.03 2.96 6.76 Mw SCSN U n ified 1 1 0.2 6.76 6.69 6.52 I SCSN_l e SCSN 4 5 0.2 6.55 6.48 4.65 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.65 4.58 5.17 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.17 5.10 4.7 Mw CDMG Unified 1 4 0.2 4.7 4.63 3.64 I SCSN_le SCS N 2 2 0.2 3.64 3.57 4.9 Mw CDMG Unified 1 3 0.2 4.9 4.83 3.26 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.26 3.19 5.25 Unk NE I ANSS 3 4 0.2 5.25 5.18 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 5.76 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.76 5.69 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 4.82 Mw SCSN Unified 1 5 0.2 4.82 4.75 5.75 ML B rumbaugh AZGS 2 3 0.2 5.75 5.68 2008 5 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.2 5 4.93 3.38 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.38 3.3 1 4.74 Mw SCSN Unified 1 4 0.2 4.74 4.67 4.74 Mw SCSN Unified 1 1 0.2 4.74 4.67 4.71 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.71 4.64 4.5 ML uu ss AZGS 2 3 0.2 4.5 4.43 2.9 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.2 2.9 2.83 2.9 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.2 2.9 2.83 5.07 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.07 5.00 2.96 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 2.96 2.89 3.01 I SCSN_l e SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.01 2.94 4.9 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.2 4.9 4.83 4.94 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.94 4.87 4.86 Mw SCSN Unified 1 1 0.2 4.86 4.79 4.78 Mw ANSS Unified 1 7 0.2 4.78 4.7 1 2.7 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.2 2.7 2.63 2.9 ML AE I C AZGS 4 7 0.2 2.9 2.83 5.6 Mw SCSN Unified 1 1 0.2 5.6 5.53 4.5 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.5 4.43 2.7 ML AE I C AZGS 4 2 0.2 2.7 2.63 4.2 Mb NE I AZGS 2 3 0.2 4.2 4.13 5.27 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.27 5.20 4.96 Mw SCSN Unified 1 1 0.2 4.96 4.89 4.7 Mb AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.2 4.7 4.63 5.7 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 5.9 5.83 4.3 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 4.5 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.2 4.5 4.43 5 Mw CDMG Unified 1 4 0.2 5 4.93 4.2 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.2 4.13 4.7 Mw CDMG U n ified 1 4 0.2 4.7 4.63 4.1 Mb NE I AZGS 2 3 0.2 4.1 4.03 4.7 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.7 4.63 5.73 Mw ANSS Unified 1 4 0.2 5.73 5.66 3.3 Mb AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.2 3.3 3.23 4.41 I SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.2 4.41 4.34 3.61 I SCSN_r e SCSN 3 7 0.2 3.61 3.54 4 h SCSN_re SCSN 2 6 0.2 4 3.93 4.2 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.2 4.13 4.4 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.2 4.4 4.33 4.03 I SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.2 4.03 3.96 3.8 Mb NE I ANSS 2 7 0.2 3.8 3.73 3.7 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.2 3.7 3.63 4.4 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.4 4.33 4.4 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.4 4.33 4.4 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.4 4.33 4.3 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 4.4 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.4 4.33 5.11 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.11 5.04 4.3 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 4.92 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.92 4.85 4.1 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.1 4.03 4.4 Unk N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.4 4.33 2.7 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.2 2.7 2.63 4.33 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.2 4.33 4.26 3.11 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.11 3.04 4.3 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 4.5 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.5 4.43 3.3 M uuss AZGS 2 3 0.2 3.3 3.23 2.9 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.2 2.9 2.83 3.5 M uuss AZGS 2 3 0.2 3.5 3.43 3.9 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 3.9 3.83 4.74 Mw SCSN Unified 1 1 0.2 4.74 4.67 3.3 M u uss AZGS 2 3 0.2 3.3 3.23 3.5 M u uss AZGS 2 3 0.2 3.5 3.43 4.3 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 3.76 Ml Cl ANSS 2 7 0.2 3.76 3.69 6.3 Mw COMG Unified 1 6 0.2 6.3 6.23 3.9 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.2 3.9 3.83 4.3 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 4.3 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 4 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4 3.93 4.3 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 4.4 Mb N E I AZGS 2 3 0.2 4.4 4.33 4.6 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.6 4.53 4.72 Mw SCSN Unifi e d 1 1 0.2 4.72 4.65 3.28 Ml Cl ANSS 2 7 0.2 3.28 3.21 3.7 Mb NE I AZGS 2 3 0.2 3.7 3.63 4.1 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.1 4.03 3.9 Mb N E I AZGS 2 3 0.2 3.9 3.83 4.1 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.1 4.03 2.8 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.2 2.8 2.73 4.5 Unk N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.5 4.43 5 Unk NE I ANSS 3 4 0.2 5 4.93 3.8 Mb NE I AZGS 2 3 0.2 3.8 3.73 5 Unk N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 5 4.93 4.66 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.66 4.59 3.8 Mb AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.2 3.8 3.73 3 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.2 3 2.93 3.2 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.2 3.2 3.13 4 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.2 4 3.93 4.6 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.2 4.6 4.53 4.97 Mw SCSN Unif i ed 1 5 0.2 4.97 4.90 4.3 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 4.3 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 5 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 5 4.93 4.2 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.2 4.13 4.1 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.1 4.03 6.58 Mw A N SS Unified 1 1 0.2 6.58 6.51 4.2 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.2 4.13 4.2 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.2 4.13 4.3 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 4.71 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.71 4.64 4.4 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.4 4.33 4.5 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.5 4.43 4.5 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.5 4.43 4.8 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.8 4.7 3 3.9 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.2 3.9 3.83 4.2 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.2 4.13 5.2 Mw CDMG Unifi e d 1 4 0.2 5.2 5.13 5.5 Mw CDMG Unifi e d 1 4 0.2 5.5 5.43 3.22 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.22 3.15 4.89 Mw SCSN Unified 1 5 0.2 4.89 4.82 2.96 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 2.96 2.89 4.3 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 4.2 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.2 4.13 4.4 Mb A E I C AZG S 2 3 0.2 4.4 4.33 4.9 Mw CDMG Unifi e d 1 5 0.2 4.9 4.83 3 Un k N E I ANSS 2 7 0.2 3 2.93 3.1 h SCSN_l e SCS N 2 6 0.2 3.1 3.03 2.75 h SCSN_le SCS N 2 2 0.2 2.75 2.68 3.02 h SCSN_l e SCS N 2 6 0.2 3.02 2.95 3.23 h SCSN_l e SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.23 3.16 2.87 h SCSN_l e SCS N 2 2 0.2 2.87 2.80 4 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 4 3.93 5 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 5 4.93 5.2 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.2 5.2 5.1 3 3 Un k N E I AZGS 2 3 0.2 3 2.93 2.8 Unk N E I AZGS 2 3 0.2 2.8 2.73 3.83 I SCSN_le SCS N 2 2 0.2 3.83 3.76 3.7 Mb N E I ANSS 2 7 0.2 3.7 3.63 2.94 h SCSN_l e SCSN 2 2 0.2 2.94 2.87 2.9 Unk N E I AZG S 2 3 0.2 2.9 2.83 2.8 Unk N E I ANSS 2 7 0.2 2.8 2.73 3 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.2 3 2.93 4.99 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.99 4.92 3 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.2 3 2.93 4.7 Mw COMG Unified 1 5 0.2 4.7 4.63 3 Unk NE I AZGS 2 3 0.2 3 2.93 5.4 Ms NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 5.5 5.48 3.7 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.7 3.68 4.1 Mb NE I ANSS 3 6 0.1 4.1 4.08 3.63 h SCSN_l e SCSN 2 6 0.1 3.63 3.6 1 3.9 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 4.3 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.3 4.28 4 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 4 3.98 4.5 mbGS USGS_PDE AZGS 2 3 0.1 4.5 4.48 5 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 5 4.98 4.1 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.1 4.08 4.7 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.7 4.68 4.86 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 4.86 4.84 2.9 Mc C l ANSS 3 2 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.1 Unk NE I ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.1 3.08 4.1 mbGS USGS_PDE AZGS 2 3 0.1 4.1 4.08 4.3 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.3 4.28 2.8 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.21 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.21 3.19 3.53 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.53 3.5 1 3.26 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.26 3.24 3.27 h SCSN_l e SCSN 2 6 0.1 3.27 3.25 3.3 ML Cl ANSS 3 6 0.1 3.3 3.28 3.9 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.9 3.88 2.9 Mc C l ANSS 3 4 0.1 2.9 2.88 4.16 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 4.16 4.14 4.1 Ml C l ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.1 4.08 4.9 Mb NE I ANSS 3 5 0.1 4.9 4.88 3 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 4.76 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 4.76 4.74 3.4 Unk PAS ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.4 3.38 2.7 d SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 2.8 d SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.8 2.78 5.13 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 5.13 5.1 1 3.34 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 3.34 3.32 3.12 h SCSN_l e SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.12 3.10 2.97 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 2.97 2.95 4.97 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 4.97 4.95 5.25 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 5.25 5.23 4.88 Mw N E I C U n ified 1 1 0.1 4.88 4.86 2.9 Ml AE I C AZGS 4 2 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.01 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.01 2.99 4.88 Mw N E I C Unified 1 1 0.1 4.88 4.86 3.9 Unk N E I ANSS 3 3 0.1 3.9 3.88 5 M AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.1 5 4.98 3 M AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 4.5 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.5 4.48 3.02 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.02 3.00 2.9 Ml AE I C A ZG S 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3 Unk NE I ANSS 2 7 0.1 3 2.98 4.4 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 4.9 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.9 4.88 5.07 Mw ANSS Unif i ed 1 1 0.1 5.07 5.05 3.78 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.78 3.76 2.9 h SCSN_re SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.9 2.88 5.79 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 5.79 5.77 5 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 5 4.98 2.7 h SCSN_re SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.7 2.68 2.8 h SCSN_re SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.05 h SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.05 3.03 3.16 h SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.16 3.14 3.11 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.11 3.09 3.02 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.02 3.00 2.73 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.73 2.71 3.06 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.06 3.04 3.2 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.84 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.84 2.82 3.05 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.05 3.03 3.09 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.09 3.07 3.34 I SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 3.34 3.32 3.45 I SCSN_r e SCSN 3 7 0.1 3.45 3.43 3.97 I SCSN_r e SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.97 3.95 2.8 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.8 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.97 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.97 2.95 4.08 I SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 4.08 4.06 3.21 h SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.21 3.19 3.14 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.14 3.12 4.68 Mw NE I C Unified 1 1 0.1 4.68 4.66 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 3 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3 2.98 2.7 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 2.8 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.79 c SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.79 2.77 3 h SCSN_r e SCSN 4 3 0.1 3 2.98 2.8 h SCSN_le SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.7 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 2.9 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.9 2.88 2.95 c SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.95 2.93 2.8 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 4.3 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.3 4.28 3.01 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.01 2.99 5.31 Mw ANSS Unif ie d 1 1 0.1 5.31 5.29 4 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4 3.98 3.84 I SCSN_l e SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.84 3.82 2.78 Mh Cl ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.78 2.76 3.03 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.03 3.0 1 3.26 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.26 3.24 5.4 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 5.46 5.44 3.41 h SCSN_re SCS N 3 7 0.1 3.41 3.39 2.8 h SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.15 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.15 3.13 3 h SCSN_re SCS N 4 3 0.1 3 2.98 5.51 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 5.51 5.49 3.21 h SCSN_re SCS N 4 3 0.1 3.21 3.19 2.8 h SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.21 h SCSN_re SCS N 4 3 0.1 3.21 3.19 3.25 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 3.25 3.23 3.24 I SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.24 3.22 2.99 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 2.99 2.97 2.8 I SCSN_le SCS N 2 6 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.1 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 3.1 3.08 6.51 Mw Globa l CMT U n ified 1 1 0.1 6.51 6.49 2.85 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 2.85 2.83 3.49 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.49 3.47 2.7 Mc u u AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.08 I SCSN_le SCS N 2 6 0.1 3.08 3.06 3.98 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.98 3.96 3.45 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.45 3.43 5.32 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 5.32 5.30 4.39 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 4.39 4.37 4.8 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.8 4.78 4.22 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 4.22 4.20 2.9 h SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 2.9 2.88 2.7 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 4.4 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 3.6 Unk NE I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.6 3.58 2.8 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.8 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.27 h SCSN_re SCS N 4 4 0.1 3.27 3.25 2.98 h SCSN_re SCS N 4 3 0.1 2.98 2.96 5 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 5 4.98 4.4 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 3.53 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.53 3.5 1 4.4 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 3.38 h SCSN_re SCS N 4 3 0.1 3.38 3.36 4.3 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.3 4.28 4.6 Mb N E I A N SS 3 4 0.1 4.6 4.58 2.7 h SCSN_re SCS N 4 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.5 Unk N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.5 3.48 3.02 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.02 3.00 3.2 Unk N E I ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.2 3.18 3.14 h SCSN_re SCS N 4 4 0.1 3.14 3.12 2.8 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.9 n SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.2 Unk NE I ANSS 3 3 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.8 h SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 2.8 2.78 4.9 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.9 4.88 2.71 Mc u u AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.71 2.69 4.5 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.5 4.48 2.98 c SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.98 2.96 2.73 c SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.73 2.7 1 4.77 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 4.77 4.75 3.16 c SCSN_le SCS N 2 2 0.1 3.16 3.14 3.22 c SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.22 3.20 3.05 c SCSN_re SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.05 3.03 3.3 Unk N E I ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.3 3.28 2.79 c SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 2.79 2.77 3 Unk NE I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.12 c SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 3.12 3.10 3.7 Unk N E I ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.7 3.68 2.79 c SCSN_re SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.79 2.77 2.85 c SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.85 2.83 3.9 Unk N E I ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.9 3.88 2.79 h SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 2.79 2.77 4.6 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.6 4.58 3.09 c SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 3.09 3.07 2.85 c SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 2.85 2.83 2.85 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 2.85 2.83 3.06 c SCSN_le SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.06 3.04 3.25 I SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.25 3.23 4.3 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.3 4.28 3.3 Unk NE I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.3 3.28 3.3 Unk NE I ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.3 3.28 2.71 c SCSN_re SCS N 4 3 0.1 2.71 2.69 3.2 Unk PAS ANSS 3 2 0.1 3.2 3.18 3 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3 2.98 2.75 c SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 2.75 2.73 3.12 h SCSN_re SCS N 2 6 0.1 3.12 3.10 2.7 c SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.2 Unk PAS ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.7 Mc Cl ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.7 2.68 4.4 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 2.81 c SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 2.81 2.79 3.3 c SCSN_re SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.3 3.28 3 Unk N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 4.8 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.8 4.78 5 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 5 4.98 2.75 c SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.75 2.73 2.92 Mc Cl ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.92 2.90 3.04 Mc Cl ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.04 3.02 2.7 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3 Unk NE I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.54 c SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.54 3.52 5.49 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 5.49 5.47 4.72 I SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 4.72 4.70 3.07 c SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 3.07 3.05 5.17 Mw NE I C Unified 1 1 0.1 5.17 5.15 3.45 I SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 3.45 3.43 3.04 c SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.04 3.02 2.77 c SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 2.77 2.75 3.68 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.68 3.66 3.1 Unk N E I ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.1 Unk PAS ANSS 3 2 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.64 c SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.64 3.62 5 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 5 4.98 6.02 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 6.02 6.00 2.85 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.85 2.83 3 Mc N N ANSS 2 7 0.1 3 2.98 2.7 Unk N E I ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.7 2.68 5.48 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 5.48 5.46 3 Unk PAS ANSS 3 4 0.1 3 2.98 4.4 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 3 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.1 Unk P AS ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.1 3.08 3 Unk PAS ANSS 3 4 0.1 3 2.98 3.3 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.3 3.28 3 Unk N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.1 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.1 3.08 4.4 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 3.3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.4 3.38 6.5 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 6.5 6.48 5.49 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 5.49 5.47 5.3 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 5.3 5.28 2.9 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.9 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.8 MD_res RESNOM RES NOM 2 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.69 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.69 3.67 3 Un k N E I ANSS 2 7 0.1 3 2.98 3.74 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.74 3.72 3.2 Unk NE I ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.2 3.18 3.7 Unk N E I ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.3 Unk NE I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.3 3.28 3.1 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.1 3.08 3 c SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3 2.98 5 Mw ANSS U n ified 1 1 0.1 5 4.98 3.61 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.61 3.59 2.7 Unk N E I ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.6 Mc N N ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.6 3.58 2.7 Mc Cl ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.01 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.01 2.99 3.42 c SCSN_l e SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.42 3.40 3.27 c SCSN_l e SCSN 2 6 0.1 3.27 3.25 4 Unk NE I AZGS 2 3 0.1 4 3.98 3.44 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.44 3.42 2.7 Unk NE I ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.5 Unk N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.5 3.48 4.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 4.6 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.6 4.58 3 Unk NE I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.01 c SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.01 2.99 2.72 c SCSN_le SCS N 2 2 0.1 2.72 2.70 3.2 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.9 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.7 Unk N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.22 c SCSN_re SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.22 3.20 2.8 Unk NE I ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.8 2.78 4.5 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.5 4.48 3 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 4.6 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.6 4.58 4.2 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 3.5 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.6 3.58 3.6 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 5 3 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.5 3.48 2.9 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.7 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.8 3.78 4.2 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 4.6 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.6 4.58 3.9 Unk N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.9 3.88 2.8 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.8 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.8 3.78 4.5 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.5 4.48 2.9 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3 2.98 3 Ml A E I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.2 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.3 3.28 3.5 Unk N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.5 3.48 5.37 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 5.37 5.35 3.9 MD_res RESNOM RES N OM 2 4 0.1 4 3.98 3.6 MD_res R ESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.36 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.36 3.34 3.33 d SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.33 3.31 3 Unk N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 2.77 d SCSN_re SCS N 3 7 0.1 2.77 2.75 3.02 d SCSN_r e SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.02 3.00 4.2 Unk N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 4.2 4.18 3.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.2 3.18 3.27 h SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.27 3.25 3.4 Unk N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.4 3.38 2.9 Unk N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.1 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.26 d SCSN_re SCSN 2 6 0.1 3.26 3.24 2.85 d SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 2.85 2.83 3.9 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4 3.98 7.28 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 7.28 7.26 4 Mb NE I AZGS 2 3 0.1 4 3.98 2.85 ML Cl ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.85 2.83 2.71 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.71 2.69 4.2 Unk NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 3.3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.4 3.38 3 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.4 Unk N E I ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.4 3.38 3.5 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.6 3.58 3.6 MD_res R ESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.9 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4 3.98 3 d SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 3 2.98 3.6 Unk N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.6 3.58 2.75 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.75 2.73 3.7 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 2.91 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.91 2.89 3.11 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.11 3.09 3.2 MD_res R ESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.3 3.28 5.5 Mb NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 5.61 5.59 2.9 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3 2.98 2.9 b SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.5 Unk N E I ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.5 3.48 3.4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.5 3.48 2.8 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 5 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 5.1 5.08 3.4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.5 3.48 3 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 2.8 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.43 d SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.43 3.41 4.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 3.9 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.83 ML Cl ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.83 3.81 2.8 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.34 ML Cl ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.34 3.32 3.9 Mc NN ANSS 3 2 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.1 MO_res R E SN OM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.2 3.18 36 MD_res R ESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 4.6 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.7 4.68 4.97 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 4.97 4.95 2.7 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.3 Unk N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.3 3.28 3 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.5 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.6 3.58 3.4 MD_re s RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.5 3.48 4 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4 3.98 2.9 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3 2.98 2.8 MD_res R ESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 2.9 2.88 4.4 MD_res R ESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.5 4.48 3.6 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.2 MD_res R ESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.3 3.28 3 Unk NE I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 5.21 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 5.21 5.19 3.6 Unk N E I ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.6 3.58 3.5 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.6 3.58 3.5 Unk N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.5 3.48 4 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.1 4.08 2.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.67 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.67 3.65 4.57 Mw N E I C Unified 1 1 0.1 4.57 4.55 3 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 2.8 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.1 Unk N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.1 3.08 4.4 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.5 4.48 4.2 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.3 4.28 4.1 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 4.1 4.08 4.71 Mw Berk_MT_TO Unified 1 1 0.1 4.71 4.69 2.9 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3 2.98 4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.1 4.08 2.75 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.75 2.73 4.3 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 4.3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 5.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 5.2 5.18 2.75 Mc N N ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.75 2.73 4.3 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 4.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 3.7 MD_res R ESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.8 3.78 2.8 ML N E I ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.4 MD_res R ESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.5 3.48 3.4 ML NE I ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.4 3.38 3.7 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.8 3.78 2.71 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.71 2.69 2.87 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.87 2.85 3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.1 3.08 3 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3 2.98 2.7 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.7 MD_res RESNOM RES NOM 2 4 0.1 3.8 3.78 3.2 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.3 3.28 2.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 2.9 2.88 2.87 c SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 2.87 2.85 2.72 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.72 2.70 4.6 MD_res R ESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.7 4.68 3.71 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.71 3.69 2.86 Mc NN ANSS 3 2 0.1 2.86 2.84 3.6 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.6 3.58 4.4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.5 4.48 3.6 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 4 MD_res R ESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.1 4.08 2.8 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.7 Ml NE I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.7 3.68 4.1 MD_re s RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 4.2 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.3 4.28 3.3 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.3 3.28 2.9 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 4.75 I SCSN_le SCSN 4 5 0.1 4.75 4.73 2.7 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.7 2.68 2.7 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.2 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.9 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 2.85 Mc N N ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.85 2.83 4.85 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 4.85 4.83 2.9 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 2.77 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.77 2.75 2.7 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.9 Ml N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.5 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.5 3.48 3.7 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.8 3.78 4.81 Mw SCSN Unifi e d 1 1 0.1 4.8 1 4.79 2.8 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 4.76 Mw ANSS Unified 1 5 0.1 4.76 4.74 3.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.2 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.2 3.1 8 3.5 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.6 3.58 3.1 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.8 MD_re s R E SNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.9 3.88 4.4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.5 4.48 3.3 Ml N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.3 3.28 3.4 Ml N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.4 3.38 4.78 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 4.78 4.7 6 3.2 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.3 3.28 3.08 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 3.08 3.06 3.3 Ml NE I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.3 3.28 2.8 M c uu ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.97 Mc uu ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.97 2.95 2.9 ML N E I ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.18 Mc uu ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.18 3.16 3.1 Ml N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.1 3.08 2.9 Ml N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 2.87 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.87 2.85 3 Ml N E I ANSS 2 7 0.1 3 2.98 4.3 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.3 4.28 4.1 MD_re s RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 4.4 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 2.83 Mc uu ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.83 2.8 1 2.91 Mc uu ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.91 2.89 4.89 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 4.89 4.87 3.25 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.25 3.23 4.97 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 4.97 4.95 3.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.75 Mc Cl ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.75 2.73 3.7 MD_res R ESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.8 3.78 5.13 Mw ANSS Unified 1 6 0.1 5.13 5.1 1 3.2 I SCSN_le SCS N 4 4 0.1 3.2 3.18 3.6 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.7 3.68 2.8 Mb Cl AZGS 4 2 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.7 Mb Cl AZGS 4 2 0.1 2.7 2.68 7.12 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 7.12 7.10 4.65 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 4.65 4.63 4.5 Ml N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.5 4.48 3.2 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.3 3.28 2.7 Ml NE I AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 2.73 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.73 2.7 1 3 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3 Ml N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.1 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.1 3.08 4.73 Mw SCSN_MT Unified 1 1 0.1 4.73 4.7 1 3.2 Ml AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.9 ML N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 4.3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 3.3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.4 3.38 3.06 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.06 3.04 4.4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.5 4.48 3.5 Ml NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.5 3.48 4.4 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 2.72 Ml NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.72 2.70 3 Ml PAS ANSS 2 7 0.1 3 2.98 4.3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 4.38 I SCSN_le SCS N 2 6 0.1 4.38 4.36 3.21 c SCSN_le SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.21 3.19 4.2 MD_re s RESNOM RES N OM 4 6 0.1 4.3 4.28 3.53 Ml NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.53 3.5 1 3.3 MD_res R E SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.4 3.38 3 MD_res R ESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.1 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 2.9 2.88 5.02 Mw SCSN_MT U n ified 1 1 0.1 5.02 5.00 4.2 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 3.3 MD_res R ESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.4 3.38 5.74 Mw GlobalCMT U nified 1 1 0.1 5.74 5.72 3.6 MD_re s RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.23 I SCSN_le SCS N 2 2 0.1 3.23 3.21 2.71 I SCSN_l e SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.71 2.69 4.7 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.7 4.68 3 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 2.72 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.72 2.70 3.5 ML N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.5 3.48 3.6 MD_re s RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.8 MD_re s RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 4.73 Mw ANSS Unif i ed 1 1 0.1 4.73 4.7 1 4.88 Mw ANSS U n ified 1 1 0.1 4.88 4.86 3.6 MD_res R E SNOM RES N OM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 4.97 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 4.97 4.95 5.19 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 5.19 5.17 3 MD_res R E SNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.1 3.08 2.96 ML u u AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.96 2.94 3.3 MD_res RE SN OM RES N OM 4 6 0.1 3.4 3.38 3.6 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.7 3.68 3 ML N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.8 MD_re s R E SNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.8 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.8 3.78 4.2 MD_re s RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.3 4.28 3.7 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 2.73 ML N N ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.73 2.7 1 2.9 Ml N N ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.4 3.38 3 MD_r es R ESNOM RES N OM 5 2 0.1 3.1 3.08 3 MD_res R E SNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.1 3.08 2.9 MD_re s RESNOM RES N OM 4 6 0.1 3 2.98 3 MD_res RESNOM RES N OM 2 4 0.1 3.1 3.08 4.2 Ml Eagar 200 7 AZGS 2 3 0.1 4.2 4.1 8 3.6 Ml Eagar2007 AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.6 3.58 4.1 MD_res R ESNOM RES N OM 2 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 4 MD_re s R E SNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.1 4.08 3.6 MD_res R ESNOM RES N OM 4 6 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.4 ML A E I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.4 3.38 2.8 Ml N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.9 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4 3.98 3.4 MD_res R ESNOM RES N OM 2 4 0.1 3.5 3.48 2.9 MD_r es R ESNOM RES N OM 2 4 0.1 3 2.98 2.78 Ml N N ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.78 2.76 2.8 MD_r es R E SN OM RES N OM 4 6 0.1 2.9 2.88 2.8 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.8 MD_re s RE SN OM RES N OM 2 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 4.7 MD_res RESNOM RES N OM 2 4 0.1 4.8 4.78 3.9 MD_r es R E SN OM R E S N OM 2 4 0.1 4 3.98 3.6 MD_res R ESNOM RES N OM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.3 MD_res R ESNOM RES N OM 2 4 0.1 3.4 3.38 5.1 Mb N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 5.1 5.08 3.51 ML uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.51 3.49 2.7 MD_re s RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.5 MD_res R ESNOM RES N OM 2 4 0.1 3.6 3.58 5.1 Mw NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 5.1 5.08 2.7 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 5.21 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 5.21 5.19 4.87 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 4.87 4.85 2.88 Ml uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.88 2.86 5.15 Mw G l obalCM T Unified 1 1 0.1 5.15 5.13 3.9 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.2 Ml NE I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.2 3.18 3.8 MD_re s RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.9 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.1 MO_re s R E SNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.9 Ml u u AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.9 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4 3.98 5.1 Mw NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 5.1 5.08 5.29 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 5.29 5.27 3.7 MO_re s R E SNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.8 3.78 3.2 Ml ASU_TA AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.2 3.18 3 MD_re s RE SN OM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.4 3.38 3.9 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4 3.98 4.8 Mw NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.8 4.78 2.85 I SCSN_le SCSN 3 7 0.1 2.85 2.83 3.5 MO_re s RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.6 3.58 3.7 MD_r e s R E SNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.8 3.78 2.9 ML ASU_TA AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.3 Ml ASU_T A AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.3 3.28 3.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.6 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 2.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 2.9 2.88 4 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4 3.98 3.6 Mw NE I ANSS 3 3 0.1 3.6 3.58 2.9 Ml NE I ANSS 3 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.2 3.18 3.22 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.22 3.20 3.1 ML ECX ANSS 3 6 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.2 3.18 3.3 MD_re s R ESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.4 3.38 3.8 MD_r es R E SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.5 Ml ASU_TA AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.5 3.48 3 ML ASU_T A AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.8 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.8 3.78 3.9 Ml N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.4 ML ASU_TA AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.4 3.38 3.9 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4 3.98 5.14 Mw UC3 UCERF3 1 1 0.1 5.14 5.12 3.6 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.6 3.58 3.7 Mw N E I ANSS 3 3 0.1 3.7 3.68 2.8 Ml ASU_T A AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.6 Mb NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.6 3.58 4.8 Mw NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.8 4.78 2.7 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.8 Ml ASU_TA AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.8 3.78 3.5 h SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 3.5 3.48 2.8 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.7 ML ASU_TA AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.6 ML NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.6 3.58 2.9 ML ASU_TA AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.76 Ml N N ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.76 3.74 2.7 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.8 Ml N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 2.8 2.78 4.2 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.3 4.28 4.98 Mw UC3 UCERF3 1 1 0.1 4.98 4.96 2.95 ML N N ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.95 2.93 5.13 Mw UC3 UCERF3 1 1 0.1 5.13 5.11 3.7 ML N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 3 Ml NE I ANSS 3 4 0.1 3 2.98 4.8 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.9 4.88 4.5 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.6 4.58 2.88 ML NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.88 2.86 4.96 Mw UC3 UCERF3 1 1 0.1 4.96 4.94 3.9 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4 3.98 3.1 ML N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.1 3.08 4.1 Ml ECX ANSS 3 6 0.1 4.1 4.08 3.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.9 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3 2.98 3 ML N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.5 3.48 3.6 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 4.7 MO_res R ESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.8 4.78 3.85 ML NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.85 3.83 4.9 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 5 4.98 2.9 MD AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 2.8 MD AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.7 MD AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 2.7 MD AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.3 MD_res R ESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.4 3.38 2.8 MO AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.1 4.08 3.7 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.8 3.78 3.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.9 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.5 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.6 3.58 2.7 ML N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 2.7 MD AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 4.6 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.6 4.58 7.19 Mw UC3 UCERF3 1 1 0.1 7.19 7.17 3.1 ML PAS ANSS 3 6 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.6 Mw NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.6 3.58 2.7 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 5.8 Mw UC3 UCERF3 1 1 0.1 5.8 5.78 2.93 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 2.93 2.91 3.1 ML NE I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.34 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.34 3.32 5.54 Mw UC3 UCERF3 1 1 0.1 5.54 5.52 3.1 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.6 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.6 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.5 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.6 3.58 4 Mb N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4 3.98 5.1 MD_res R ESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 5.2 5.18 4.9 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 5 0.1 5 4.98 2.8 ML NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.48 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 3.48 3.46 3.06 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.06 3.04 4.7 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 5 0.1 4.8 4.78 3.2 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.8 ML AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 3 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.35 I SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.35 3.33 3.2 MD_res R ESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.3 3.28 3.6 ML NE I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.6 3.58 2.7 MD AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.7 ML N E I AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.7 3.68 2.9 MD AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 5 MO_res RESNOM RES NOM 2 5 0.1 5.1 5.08 3.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 2.79 MD AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.79 2.77 2.7 MO AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.1 ML NEI ANSS 3 3 0.1 3.1 3.08 2.97 MD AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.97 2.95 2.83 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.83 2.8 1 2.8 MD A E I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.8 MD AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.7 MD_re s RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.44 ML Cl A NS S 3 2 0.1 3.44 3.42 2.8 MD AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.8 MD_res R ESNOM RES NOM 2 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.7 MD_res RE SN OM RES NOM 2 4 0.1 3.8 3.78 3.5 ML N E I ANSS 3 3 0.1 3.5 3.48 2.79 MD AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.79 2.77 2.71 I SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 2.71 2.69 3.1 ML uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.4 Mc SLC A NSS 3 3 0.1 3.4 3.38 4.8 MD_res RESNOM RES NOM 2 4 0.1 4.9 4.88 3.2 ML N E I A NSS 3 3 0.1 3.2 3.18 4 MD_r es RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.1 4.08 2.95 MD AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.95 2.93 2.7 MD_res R ESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.5 MD_res R ESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.6 3.58 2.7 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.7 MD AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.7 MD_res R ESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.8 3.78 2.7 MD AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.4 3.38 3.4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.5 3.48 4.2 Mc UNM ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 5.46 Mw CMT UCERF3 1 1 0.1 5.46 5.44 3.9 Ml PAS ANSS 3 2 0.1 3.9 3.88 5.4 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 5.61 5.59 4.2 Mc N E I ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 3.59 ML N N ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.59 3.57 4.1 Ml AZGS-USGS AZGS 2 3 0.1 4.1 4.08 3.1 ML REN ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.1 3.08 2.9 ML AZGS-USGS AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 2.9 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3 2.98 2.94 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.94 2.92 2.72 MD AE I C AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2 2.70 N* 1.16 1.16 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.16 1.53 1.53 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.16 1.16 1.53 1.16 1.53 1.16 1.53 1.16 1.53 1.53 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.1 6 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.53 1.16 1.53 1.1 6 1.53 1.16 1.16 1.53 1.16 1.16 1.53 1.16 1.16 1.53 1.16 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.5 3 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.53 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.07 1.53 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.0 7 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.0 7 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.5 3 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.0 7 1.0 7 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.0 7 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.0 7 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.0 7 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.0 7 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.0 7 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.0 7 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.0 7 1.0 7 1.0 7 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.0 7 1.0 7 1.0 7 1.0 7 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.0 7 1.0 7 1.0 7 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.0 7 1.0 7 1.07 1.07 1.0 7 1.07 1.07 1.0 7 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.0 7 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.0 7 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.0 7 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.0 7 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.53 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.0 2 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.0 2 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.0 2 1.02 1.02 1.0 2 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.0 2 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.0 2 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.0 2 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Hee sze l , D avid F rom: H eeszel , D avid Sent:20 Apr 2015 1 5:20:20 +0000 T o:Stieve , Al i ce;D e vlin-Gill , Step h anie Cc:Gra i ze r , Vlad i mir;M u n son, Cl i fford;Ake, .Jon;John Sta m atko s Subjec t: RE: P a lo V e rd e pub li c m ee t i n g i n mid-J une? I plan t o be out th e 22-2 6th , bu t am availab le o therwi se. --Da v id -----Ori gi n a l M Fr o rn: Stieve , Ali ce Sent: Monda y, April 20 , 2015 1 1: 17 AM To: D ev l in-Gill , Stephanie; H ee s ze l , D av id Cc: Gr a i ze r. Vl a dimir; Mun so n. Clifford; Ake. Jon; John Stamatk os

Subject:

Palo Ve r de publi c m eet jng i n mid-June? Ca o the Palo Verde team s upport a APS publi c meeting in mid-June? 1 hav e no vacation plans ye t so l guess l am open in June. Wh a t a bout the re st of you? O f course Vlad is i n CA for the week. Maybe h e will c h eck hi s ema il. -----Ori gi n a l M es s agc---From: D evl i n-G i ll , Stephanie Sent: Mond ay, April 20. 2 015 I J : 10 AM To: Stieve, Al i ce; H eeszel , D avi d Subj ect: FW: Inquiry: Pal o V e rd e P ublic M eeti n gs Date s From: Difran cesco , Nic h o la s Sent: Monda y , April 20 , 2015 1 0:24 AM To: Mun son, Clifford C c: Jack s on, Di ane; Ake, Jon; De v lin-Gill , Stephanie; V ega, F ra nki e Subj ec t: Inquir y: Pal o Verde Pub l ic M ee ting s D a t es Cliff , et. a l. An y preference s o r li mitati o n s for plannin g the Pal o V e rde public m eet i n g in m i d-June. Th a nk s, Nick From: Difran cesc o , Nicholas S en t: Thur s day. April 16 ,. 2015 10:07 AM To:. Mun s on, Clifford Cc: Ak e, Jon; Jackson , Diane; Vega,. Fr a nkie; Hill , Brittain; Shams, Mohamed

Subject:

P l a nning I tems -DC Focus Areas and PV Meet ings Date s Cliff. I am out PM toda y and Friday.

PG&E Licensing Coordination and NRC Pub lic M eeti n g Pr ep Frankie i s PM b ac kup and h as a l i censing cal l with PG&E Friday at lpm to discu s s NRC tec hni cal foc u s area s as part of th e Apr il 28 publi c meeting. For Friday I wou l d like to comm uni cate a few topics for t h em to begin wo rk o n. Perhap s th e 1. ergod ic method vs. s in gle-sta tion co rr ec t ion weighting.

Ea rl y n ext week I pl an to e ma i l a formal r e qu e s t for incorporation into t h e meeting n o ti ce .. Pl ease let u s know a cou pl e. of focus areas by noon Friday. PV M ee t i n g D ate Coo r d ina t i o n. Th e li censee (APS) cannot s upp ort m eeti n g until the 2 nd wee k of June. A s. f r eca ll ,. I thought we. h a d co nfli cts start in g th en with NGA-East W o rkin g Group. Let m e know. if I can p r o p ose a n y dates in t h e. 2 nd a nd 3rd week of Jun e. T hank s, Nick Se ni o r Project M a n age r -Seismic R eeval uation Activities U.S. Nuc l ear R egu l a tor y Commission Office of N ucl ear R eactor R eg ulati o n Japan L esson L ear n ed Pro jec t Div ision nicholas.difrancesco@nrc.gov<maillo:nicholas.difrancesco@nrc.gov>

I Te l: (301) 415-1115 H eesze l , D av id From:Heeszel , David Sent:24 Mar 2015 18: 07:16 +0000 T o:Stieve , Al i ce

Subject:

RE:

P a l o V e rd e I s th i s i n addit i on to o r a replacement for the meeting a l ready scheduled for 3: 30? --David -----Original AppointmentFrom: Stieve, Alice Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 2:05 PM To: Graizer, Vladim i r; Devlin-Gill, Stephanie; Heeszel, David

Subject:

Palo Verde When: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 3: 00 PM-3:30 PM {UTC-0 5:00) Eastern nme (US & Canada). Where: HQ-TWFN-07CO 1-15p Can we meet at 3PM for a short meeting?

Hee sze l , David From:Heeszel , David Sent:22 May 2015 15:0 1:0 1 +0000 To:Stieve , Alice;D evlin-Gill, Stephanie;Graizer , Vladimir;Munson , Clifford;Hill , Brittain;Ake , J on;Li, Yon g;John Starnatkos;Miriam R. Juckett (mjuckett@swri.org)

Subject:

RE:

PY topic s My question (as it stands) about site response is also updated on the sharepoint site. --David From: Stieve, Alice Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 10:43 AM To: Devlin-Gill, Stephanie; Graizer, V l adimir; Munson, Clifford; Hill , Brittain; Ake, Jon; Li, Yong; Heeszel, David; John Stamatkos; Miriam R. Juckett (mjuckett@swri.org)

Subject:

PV topics I made some mods to the SSC part of the PV top i cs (geology).

They are in the SharePoint folder. PV Topics Hee sze l , David From:Heeszel , David Sent:22 May 2015 15: 18:2 4 +0000 To:Stieve , Alice

Subject:

RE:

P V topics H ere From: Stieve, Alice Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 11:18.AM To: Heeszel, David

Subject:

RE: PV topics What f i le? From: Heeszel, David Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 11:01 AM To: Stieve, Alice; Devl i n-Gill, Stephanie; Graizer, Vladimir; Munson, Clifford; Hill, Brittain; Ake, Jon; Li, Yong; John Stamatkos; Miriam R. Juckett (mjuckett@swri.org)

Subject:

RE: PV topics My question (as it stands) about site response is also updated on the sharepoint site. --Dav id From: Stieve, Alice Sent: Friday, May 22 , 2015 10:43 AM To: Devlin-Gill, Stephanie; Graizer, V l adimir; Munson, Clifford; Hill , Brittain; Ake, Jon; Li, Yong; Heeszel, David; John Stamatkos; Miriam R. Juckett (mjuckett@swr i.org)

Subject:

PV topics I made some mods to the SSC part of the PV top i cs (geology). They are in the SharePoint folder. PV Topics Hee sze l , David From:Heeszel , David Sent: 11 May. 2015 14:56:25 +0000. To:Devlin-G i U , Stephanie;Jack s on , Dian e Cc:Stieve , Alice;Munson , Clifford

Subject:

RE:

P VNGS GMM Review and Pre se ntation I w i ll do the same for Ch. 9. --Dav i d From: Devlin-Gill, Stephanie Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 10:09 AM To: Jackson, Diane; Heeszel, David Cc: Stieve, A l ice; Munson, Clifford

Subject:

RE: PVNGS GMM Review and Presentat ion. Ok, I'll cover the SWUS Chp 5 as it applies to PVNGS next Tuesday. When Vlad returns, we should probably also make sure he's knows to attend the Tuesday PVNGS meeting , since i t wil l be of interest to him. stephanie Geophysicist 301-415-5301 T-7Dl0 U.S. NRC, NRO, DSEA, RGS2 From: Jackson, Diane Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 9:41 AM To: Devlin-Gill, Stephanie; Heesze l, David Cc: Stieve, A l ice; Munson, Clifford

Subject:

FW: PVNGS GMM Review and Presentation Stephanie and Dav id -C l iff and I were discussing status of the PV review, and continuing to splice it up into reasonab le chunks. Vlad i s out this week. For next Tuesday (not tomorrow), Stephanie review and prepare slides for SWUS GMC SSHAC Report Ch5. For Ch5 some of the subsections are only applicable to DCPP so Stephanie can skip those (there aren't too many). David the same for Ch9. I f you have questions on technical direction and level of detail , see the good Dr. Munson. Also , let me know if you think your workload will /will not support and we can look at workload and timelines. Thanks -Diane Heeszel , David From:Heeszel, David Sent:31Mar20 1 5 17:33:05 +0000 To:Munson, Clifford

Subject:

RE:

R equest for Palo Verde Electronic Attachments from H azar d Input Document (HfD -. Appendix.

F) Is there any way we can also request the peer review comments and the Tl teams response from the workshops?

I can't find them in the SSHAC report. --Dav id From: Munson, Clifford Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 1:32 PM To: Heeszel, David; Devlin-Gill, Stephanie; Stieve, Alice; John Stamatkos

Subject:

FW: Request for Palo Verde Electronic Attachments from Hazard Input Document (HID -Appendix F) FYI. From: Munson, Clifford Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 1:31 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas Cc: Ake, Jon; Jackson, Diane

Subject:

Request for Pa lo Verde Electronic Attachments from Hazard Input Document (HID -Appendix F) Nick, There are five electronic attachments listed in the Palo Verde SSHAC Append ix F (page F-57), which is the. very important Hazard I nput Document.

We need these electronic fi l es to be able. to perform our sensitivity studies for the PV hazard. Please have the licensee put these i n the electronic reading room as soon as possible.

Thanks , C l iff HID Attachments T h ese a tta c hm e nts w e r e r e l ease d in int e rim r es p o ns e #1 Attachme n t A: Area l Sou r ce Coordinates (electron ic a tta chment) Attachment B: Fault Source Coordinates (electro n ic attachment

). Attachment C: UCERF3.3 Ruptur e Sets (e l ectronic attachme n t) Attachment D: ABSMOOTH Output (electronic attachment)

Attachment E: SWUS GMC Region s for Fault Sources (e l ectronic attachment)

L CI PROJECT CALCULATION PC No. PVOOl-PC-02 COVER SHEET Revis i on 0 I

"!' ln\, r n.1llv,..,1.

fn< Page 1of18 CALCULAT I ON TITLE Adjustment Factors from Reference Rock to Palo Verde Rock Palo Verde Nuclear Gene r ating Station Seismic Hazard PROJECTNAME: PROJECT No.: _1;;...;: 0 c.;;.5-=-6------------------Prepared by: Gabriel Toro[ Date: 2/27 /15' (Name/Signature)

Verlrled b y: Robin McGuire{

IV (Name/Signature of Verlller)

Date: 2*'2(11< Approved by:

£*s.s I (Nam e/Signatu re of Proje c t Manager Date: 2./t1/*r or Vice President)

Optlonal Cllent Approval: Date: (Name/Signature)

LCIFO R M.Q A P-3*38.02 (04.0 4.2 014)

L CI PROJECT CALCULATION PC No. PV001-PC-02 REVISION LOG Revision O Lt'lti.' il lll*ul nl' lnt.-m.11il'll\.1l, In<. Page 2of18 r*c l', 1*;. t I,. I Calculation Revision Status Rev. No. Date Description Impacted Documen t No. 0 2/27/15 Initial Issue Text Revision. History Page No .. Rev. No .. Page No. Rev. No. 1-18 0 Attachment Revision History Attachment Page No. Rev. No. Attachment Page No. Rev. No. No .. No. A A1-A2 0 B 81-BS 0 LC I FO R M.QAP-3-38.03 (04.04.201 4)

PROJECT CALCULATION VERIFICATION

SUMMARY

SHEET VERIFICATION METHOD PC No. PVOOl -PC-02 Revision 0 Page 3of18 1:81 Step-by-Step Method D Alternate Calculation Item Parameter Yes No N/A 1 Purpose Is clearly stated and Calculation satisfies the x Purpose. 2 Methodology Is appropriate and properly applied. x 3 Assumptions are reasonable , adequately described , and x based upon sound geotechnlcal principles and practices. 4 Input received via signed communications from x authorized signatories and correctly Incorporated Into the Calculat i on. 5 Software Is properly Identified

Is appropriate for this x application
and validation Is referenced , or Included , and acceptable. 6 Calculation Is complete , accurate (I.e., equations are x correct , Input to equations i s correct , and math Is correct), adequate , and leads logically to Results and Conclusions
or Is verified via Altemate Calculation. 7 Results and Conclusions are accurate , acceptable , and x reasonable compared to the Input and Assumptions. 8 References are valld for I ntended use. x 9 Appendices are complete , accurate , and support te x t. x Comments
(use addltlonal pages as necessary)

Robin McGuire/ f2R--V1A. x;,"I._ Verifier: (Date) (Nome/Signature)

LClfORM.QAP-3*38.04 (04.04.2014)

PC No. PV001-PC-02 L CI PROJECT CALCULATION Rev.O Pa ge 4o f18 l cttJ.;¥';,,,.111111 1:> lott>m>t10n.1I, 1.,.-I ' t Table of Contents Section Page Purpo se .........*............

........*.......*.................

..*.......*...............

............*...

....................*............

5 Methodology

................

.............

........................................

................................

...................... 5 Assumptions .....*............*..

.........................*.................*............*....*........................................* 6 Input s ..............

.........................

....................*......

...............................*...........

..............*.

......... 6 Software ............................

...........

...*...................................*...................*..........*.........*..

........ 7 Calculations

.............................................................................................................................

7 Results and Conclusions

........................................................................................................ 10 Refe r ences .............................................................................................................................. 17 Appendices

............................................................................................................................ 18 APPENDIX A (PROPR I ETARY} ................................................................................................... Al APPENDIX B. C a lcul a tions for 808 ft Thickn ess of Volcanics

............................

.......................

Bl List of Tables Table 1. Adjustment facto rs (number s in parentheses are weights for each profile-kapp a combination)

....*.*...*.....*........*.....*......*...........*..*....*.......***..*....*..........*....*........*...............*... 14 List of Figures Figure 1. Vs deep profiles for. PVNGS. A depth of 0. corresponds to the bottom of the s hallow profile (soils). Also s hown are the Warren (1969) (Ref. 15} and SWUS (Ref. 1) profiles ............ 8 Figur e 2. Adju s tm e nt Factor s ...............

..................................................................

................ 12 Figur e 3. Summary s tati s tic s of the adjustment factor ..............................................

............. 13 P C N o. PV001-PC-02 L CI PROJECT CALCULATION Re v.O Page S of 18 l.etn¥n*t1l10nb lnwmahollJI , 1,,. \ -.. ,,_,-Adjustment Factors.from R e f e rence Rock to Palo Verde Rock 1. P URPOSE The purpose of this calcu l ation is to develop adjustment fac t ors to convert ground motion s from t he reference rock associated with the South Western US Ground Motion Project (the SWUS project) GMPEs to the rock conditions at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (P VNGS). The se factors , which are given in Fourier-amplitude space , will be converted later to facto r s in spect r a l-acce l e ration space, a nd these in turn w i ll be u se d to conve 1t t h e amplitudes pred i cted by the SWUS GMPEs to P alo Verde rock .. 2. METH ODO L O G Y Th e following input s are r equired to convert SWUS ground motion s on R eference Rock (t h e ho st) to gro und m ot ion s on P VNGS bedrock (the target) using Vs-kappa 1 ad ju st ments. Calculat i on of the SWUS rock to P alo Verde rock r eq uir es th e fo ll owing input s: 1. Ho st Vs and d ens i ty profi l e, spec i fied by SWUS (R ef. 1). 2. H ost kappa va lu e, spec ified by SWUS (Ref. 1). 3. Target Vs and density profile , de veloped by LC I (Ref. 2). This i s the. profile be l ow P VNGS bedrock , and extending t o deep baseme n t. 4. Tar ge t PVNGS bedrock kappa value (a nd it s uncertai n ty), s pecified by the SWUS project (R ef. I) .. These qu antit i es are us ed to calcula t e host and target V s-k appa filters in t he fr e qu e nc y domain. Each fi l ter consists of two parts. The fi r s t part accounts for im pedance differences and can be calcu l ated u sing the Quarter-wav e l ength app r oach (see Ref s. 3-5) a nd affects a ll frequencie

s. The second filter accounts for the diff e r ences in kappa. It bas an ex pon ent ial form and affects mainly the high frequencies.

The net adjustment facto r (in Fouri e r-amplitud e space) is the ratio of t h e target filter divided by the ho st filter. Multiple va l ues of this factor wil1 be calcu l ated, to account for uncertainty in the inputs. This approach ha s. been used in a number of studies (e.g., Ref s. 8-1 0 and 14). The result from this calculatio n consist of multiple values of the a d j u s tment factor (i n terms of Fourier amplitude) as a function o f frequency (with assoc i ated we i ghts), given in tabular form. 1 V s is the s hear-wave ve locity; kappa i s a quantit y that rep r esents the anelastic attenuation in the upper cru s t. ln the nomenclature o f Ande r son and Hough (1984) (Ref. 7), the kappa u sed in thi s calc u lation corresponds to kappa-zero, as it captu r es attenuation effects in the upper crust , rather than whole-p ath attenuation.

PC No. PV001-PC-02 L CI PROJECT CALCULATION Rev.O Page 6o f 18 I lntematlOll<ll , Inc. ! A' r-3. ASS UM P T IO N S The following assumptions are made in this calculation:

Ass umption The input data provided by the SWUS project (Host Vs and density profile , host kappa. target kappa and its uncertainty) are correct. The site-specific deep profile (thickne ss, Vs , and den sity for each layer beneath so il) is. correct. The ba se ment portion of the deep profil e (from Warren (1969)) is correct. T he. guidance pro v ided by the EPRI SP ID document (Ref. 11) regarding uncertainty ranges is correct. T he. Qua11er Wave Length (QWL) approach i s adequate for the adjustment of GM P Es. The. Gardner et al (19 74) equation for density as a function of Vp is correct. 4. INP U TS Input S our c e Rational e These data we r e developed under a SSHAC Level 3 process These data we r e developed , documented , and re v iewed by LCI. (Ref. 2), using spec ific dat a (r ece ntly acqu i r e d and from UFSAR). Good agreement w i th shal l ow portion of Warren (1969; Ref. 15) profile. Model based on regional data and u se d for ea rthquake loca t ions (see L ockridge et a l., Ref. 12). Thi s document ha s been extens i vely reviewed and acc ep ted by th e N R C. Approach i s well documented in the literature and has been used for regiona l and NPP studies (e.g., Refs. 8-10 and 14) Rela t ion is widely used (see Bracher , 1995; Ref. 6). Host profile (thickne ss, Vs, and density for each layer) and host kappa (0.041 s) SWUS (Appendix L of R ef. I and its attached Exce l file WUS_VsProfile-10272014

.xls) Target (PVNGS) kappa and associated uncertainty

  • media n 0.033 s
  • 0'1 n=0.5 SWUS (Appendix L of Ref. 1)

Deep PVNGS profile (thickness, Vs , and density for each layer) Equation for densit y as a function of Vp (u se d only for low er basement of PVNGS profile).

5. SOFTWARE N I A 6. CALCULATIONS PROJECT CALCULATION PC No. PV001-PC-02 Rev.O Page 7. of.18. LCI (Ref. 2; volcanics and upper basement; used the thicknes s of the volcanics derived from the elevation column because it is more reliable) and Warren(! 969; Ref. 15; low er basement)

Gardn e r et al (19 74; Ref. 12). All calculations are performed in spreadsheet Calc_Adjustment

_Factors.xlsm (see Appendix A), as d escr ib ed b e l ow. Sheet D eep_Projll e_Summary tabulates the ba se-ca se deep profile (as generated from R efs. 2 and 15), converts it to m etr ic units, generates the Low er Bound (LB), M ed i an, and Upper Bound (UB) p r ofiles, a nd generates. graphs. Follow i ng the. E PRI SPID (Ref. 11 ), cr 1 n vs is given a va l u e of 0.35 for the upper two layers (a pplicable to sites with limited geophysical information).

cr 1 n vs is set t o 0 for the lower bas ement, just as Ref. 11 sets the CEUS basement Vs to 9200 ft/s (w ithout uncertainty).

Also , following Ref. 11, the. U B. Vs. values are. not allowed to exceed the lower basement Vs. Uncertainty in the thickness of the volcanics is taken from LCI (Ref. 2). Uncertainty in the thickne ss of the upper basement is taken as 10 percent. The UB and LB profiles are construc t ed by pairing 90-th perc e ntil e Vs with 10% thickness i n order to maximize the var i ation in travel time (in a manner similar. to what i s done in Ref.. 11 ). The three resulting Vs profile s are s hown in Figur e I.

L CI lntcnJiJholl<!I , Inc I _1.;-,. 0 500 ]' ; l:! 1000 Q. ::= ..2 n; .c "' -0 1500 0 ..c E 0 .[ of 2000 Q. QI 0 2500 3000 0 PRO J ECT CALCULA TI ON 1000 Vs (m/s) 2000 3000 -, .. ... . I , 1 , I I I -1 *---'* . l I-"' I l .. I L -.._ I I I

I -L. 1 I I I T 1 -UBProfile I -Base Case Profile I I ... I -LB Profile 1: --Warren (1969} --SWUS Reference I Profile I P C No. PV 00 1-PC-02 Rev.O P age 8of18 4000 F i gu r e 1. Vs d ee p pr o fil es f o r PV NGS. A d e pth o f 0 c o r r es po n d s to th e bott o m o f th e s h a llo w profil e (so il s). A l s o s ho w n a r e th e W a rr e n (1 9 6 9) (R e f. 1 5) and S WU S (Ref. 1) pr o fiJ es. Sheet Lo ckri d ge_et_al l i sts. t h e Warren (1 969; Ref. l 5) profile and conta i ns tables u se d for p l otting it. S h eet D ensity_Bsmnt document s the calcu l ation of den s i ty fo r tho se baseme n t la ye r s for wh i c h no density. is provided in Ref. 2, using an equation.

from Ref. 12 .. Sheet HostVsPr o fil e_ Vs30_760 conta i ns information about the host p r ofi l e rece i ve d from SWUS (R ef. 1) and a few calculations to extract information from them.

PROJECT CALCULATION P C No. PV001-PC-0 2 Rev.O P a ge 9o f1 8

  • Columns A-Y contains information about the host profile received from SWUS (Vs vs. depth , density vs. depth , and adjustment factors).
  • Co l umns Z-AC contain profile i nformation in the form (thickness , Vs , dens i ty) extracted from co lumn s A-Y.
  • Columns. N-0 conta in amplification factors for this profile (calcu l ated by SWUS (Ref. 1) using the QWL approach).

These adjustment factors are relative to th e source (characterized by Vs=3500 mis and density 2.7 gr/cc). Sheet Amplif'_C alcs_Ref_Pro.file contains. the calculation of the impedance.

Z (see Refs. 3-5) for the reference SWUS (Ref. 1) profile.

  • Co lumn s A-C contain the profile data (from H ostVsProfile_

Vs30_760) and columns E-F contain top and bottom depths derived from t hem.

  • Columns H-J (step I) calc ulate tra vel time and integrated density to the bottom of each as the. first step in the calculation of the impedance (see. Eqs. 16-1 8 of Ref. 4 for the equations used; equations are reproduced in same columns).
  • Colu mn s L-R (step 2) interpolate the travel time and inte grated density linearly to a fin er depth sca le. I nterpolation is done using a user-defined function.

The correctne s s of the interpolation can be verified graphically using th e graphs show n at the bottom of the s h eet. These int erpo la ted values are t h e n used to calculate the assoc i ated frequency l/(4*travel time), time-averaged. Vs. (beta_bar), average density (rho_bar), and i mpedance (beta_ bar* rho_ bar).

  • Columns T-U (s tep 3) int e rp olate t h e impedance vs. frequency values to a fine frequency scale (0.1 to 100 Hz, 30 frequencies p er decade), which will be the same frequency sampling to be used for all profiles.

The correctness of the interpolation can be verified graphically using th e graphs shown at the bottom of the sheet.

  • Columns W-X use the impedance to calculate the adjustment factor with respect to the source (Vs=3500 mis, densit y=2.7 gr/cc). These val ue s are compared to those calculate d independently by SWUS (Ref. I) and provided in sheet H ostVsProfile

_V.d0_760 (see grap hi cal comparison on same co l umn s), obtaining a very. close agreemen t .. This comparison serves as an addit i onal check for the calculation of impedance vs. frequency used in this calculation document.

Sheets Amplif_Calcs_

  • _PV _Pr o,file (where* t akes the va l ues of LB, Median, and UB) contain the calculation of the impedance Z for the three PVNGS deep profiles and th e calculat ion of their associated impedance factors.
  • Columns A-C contain the profile data (from Deep_Profile_Summar y) and columns E-F contain top and bottom depths derived from them.

PC No. PV001-PC-02 L CI PROJECT CALCULATION Rev.O Page 1 0of18 L..-111.;?m-*uhont'l lnwm 1hon.JI, In.; t r

  • Columns H-U contain the various steps in the calculation of impedance Z as a function of frequency.

These calculations are similar to the ones performed in Columns H-U in Amplif_Calcs_Ref_Profile

..

  • Column W calculates the adjustment factor associated with impedance effects (sqrt(Z _ Ref/Z _PVNGS)) vs .. frequ e ncy , using the imp eda nce. Z calcu l ated in. th i s s h ee t and i n Amplif_Cal cs_Ref_Profile.
  • Columns Y -AB introduce the effect of kappa diff erences between the Host (0.04 ls) and the target , conside r ing t he LB (10%), median (50%), and UB (90%) va l ues of the latter). Sheet Summary tabulates all nine profiles from columns Y-AB of Amplif_Calcs_
  • _PV _Profile , calculates their weights , and computes their summary statistics.
7. RE SU LT S A ND C O NC L US IO NS The calculated adjustment factors account for differences in impedance and kappa between the Host SWUS (Ref. 1) Reference Profile and the Target PVNGS rock profile, and can be used for t he calculation of adjustment factors to convert SWUS s pectral accelerations to PVNGS rock. T hese factors (in Fourier amplitude space) are given i n tbe Summary Sheet of Calc_Adjustment_Factors.xlsm (see Appendix A). T hey are also. given in Table 1 below and i n stand-alone file Adjustment

_Factors.csv (see Appendix A for a desc r iption of electronic fi l es). As part of the review of Ref.2 , one interpretation was revised , resulting in a change in thickness of the volcanic unit (top of deep profi l e). from 878 ft to 808 ft. The e ff ect of th i s change i s. eva l uated in Appendix B. The change in the adjustment factor i s small percent at a few frequencies) and would reduce ground motions (therefore ignoring the change is conservative).

As a result, the adjustment factors based on the original volcanic unit thickness (Table 1 and file Adjustment

_Factors.csv) are ma i ntained .. It is important to note the following when i nterpreting and using these results. 1. Although these adjustment factors become very large at high frequencies (as a result of the kappa adjustments), the SWUS (Ref. 1) rock motions have zero or no energy at these frequencies (say, above 20 Hz). Therefo r e, the effect on spectral accelerations is expected to be much smaller than the effect shown here. 2. Results are tabulated to l 00 Hz, but the exponential model for kappa effects (w hich can produce very high adjustment factors at these high frequencies) may not be applicable.

B ased on seismologica l principles , one expects the product of these adjustme n t factors and the Fourier amplitude s of the SWUS (Ref. 1) motions to produce a spectral-shape falloff beyond approximately 10 Hz that is roughly l inear in log-amp l itude vs. frequency space (s ee Ref. 7), possibly becoming steeper at high e r frequencies.

If there are appreciable differences from this ant i c i pated fa l loff (e.g., s hap es that do not reach a peak , bimodal shapes with an extra peak beyond 20 Hz), it is appropriate to truncate or flatten these adjustment factors at some appropriate frequency to remove these unphysical shapes. Because it is difficu l t to anticipate whether these effec t s will occur, and at what frequencies, the adjustment factors are provided as calcu l ated, but with the understand i ng that they may need some modificat i ons at h i gh frequencie

s. The task to truncate or flatten PC No. PV001-PC-02 L CI PROJECT CALCULATION Rev.O Page 11 of 18 11111< ()l n..,,hllnb lnl\'m 1t10rlJI , Inc \" I. .; them (if n eeded) is left to the analyst t h at converts these adjustment factors to spectraacce l eration factors. 3. For fr equenc i es below 0.1 H z, i t is appropriate t o assu me t h a t the adjustme n t factor i s eq u a l to t h e factor at 0.1 Hz. The ni n e calculated adj u stment factors are shown in Figure 2 a n d given in Tabl e 1; th e associated s ummary sta ti stics are given in Fig ur e 2.

10 I I I I i i ,_ -E ::s ... .. u C1I c. V) ... ...... C1I *.: ::s 0 u. c: 1 --I I I I ... 0 .. u "' u. .. c: C1I E .. Ill ::s ...... "C <( t t ,_ 0.1 I I 0.1 -LB. Profile, LB kappa (0.09) -LB. Profi l e, UB kappa (0.09) PROJECT CALCULATION I ---**--._,_,_ 1: _j.. ......... I -. .-I -.,,,,. ,,_ + -.........

' ' i-.....' ... i"' ...

l "" t +-.... I 1 1 10 Frequency (Hz) PC No. PV001-PC-02 Rev.O Page 12of18 , ,. I I n -.J 1--'-/J t) 1 'I I l l 7 "//i ,., >--1--100 -LB. Profile, Median kappa (0.12) -Median Profile, LB kappa (0.1 2) -Median P r ofile, Median kappa (0.16) -Median Profile, UB kappa (0.12) -UB Profile, LB kappa (0.09) -UB P rofile, Median kappa (0.12) UB Profile, UB kappa (0.09) Figure 2. Adjustment Factors PROJECT CALCULATION 10 j + t t t t t: --L oga r ithmi c mean AF I logarithmic s i gma (rig h t Y axis) I I I -E ::J ... .., I.I QI a. II) I I 11 11 ... QI *;:: ::J 0 ""' c 1 ... 0 J I I I t l I I ti IU ""' .., c QI E t; ::J :c < I I I I I I I I ,/ I I y / 11 ../ I --/ -I I 0.1 0.1 1 10 Frequency

{Hz) F i g ur e 3. S umm ary s t a ti s ti cs o f t he a dju s tment fa c t o r I I I I PC No. PV001-PC-02 Rev.O Page 1 3 of18 l+ 2 i/ , 1.8 1.6 1.4 I.I IU c. II) 1.2 E -c 0 _Y( 1 *:; QI c -I --!-< I I I 11 100 0.8 'E IU "O c 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 P C No. PV 00 1-P C-02 L CI P ROJECT CALCULA TI ON Rev.O Page 14of18 lct11.;f"nsi1llanb ln1l'maho11<1l, l1"K" ' ,_, , f Ta b l e 1. A dj us tm e n t f ac t o rs (n u mb e r s in pa r e nth eses a r e we i g h ts for eac h pr o fil e-k a ppa c omb i n at i o n) SWUS t o P VNGS Adjustme nt F a ctor (Fo u rier-am p litude Space) L B L B M e di an M e di a n UB UB UB Profi l e , Profi l e , Med i an P r ofi l e , P r ofi l e , Profile , Profi l e , Profi l e , L B Profil e, M e dian U B Profil e, M e di a n UB LB M e di a n U B F r e qu e ncy LB k a p pa k a ppa kapp a LB k a p p a kapp a kapp a kapp a k a ppa k appa (H z i (0.09) (0.12) (0.09) (0.12) (0.1 6) (0.12) (0.0 9). (0.12) (0.0 9). 0.1000 1.0136 1.0086 0.9993 0.8916 0.8873 0.8790 0.8598 0.8556 0.8477 0.1080 1.0218 1.0165 1.0063 0.8871 0.882 4 0.8736 0.8528 0.8483 0.8398 0.1166 1.0313 1.0255 1.0144 0.8821 0.8771 0.8676 0.8451 0.8403. 0.8312 0.1259 1.0424 1.0360 1.0240 0.8766 0.8712 0.8611 0.8367 0.8316 0.8219 0.1359 1.0574 1.050 4 1.0372 0.8721 0.8663 0.8554 0.8291 0.8236 0.8132 0.1468 1.0768 1.0691 1.0546 0.8684 0.8622 0.8505 0.8219 0.8160 0.8050 0.1585 1.0999 1.09 1 4 1.0 7 54 0.8643 0.8576 0.8451 0.8140 0.807 7 0.7959 0.1711 1.1279 1.1185 1.1009 0.8597 0.8526 0.8391 0.8054 0.7987 0.7861 0.1848 1.1660 1.1555 1.1358 0.857 1 0.8493 0.8349 0.7981 0.7910 0.7775 0.1995 1.1927 1.18 1 1 1.1594 0.8549 0.8466 0.83 1 0 0.7910 0.7833. 0.7689 0.2154 1.1895 1.1770 1.1536 0.8524 0.8435 0.8268 0.7830 0.7748 0.7594 0.2326 1.1852 1.17 1 8 1.1467 0.8496 0.8400 0.8220 0.7742 0.7654 0.7491 0.2512 1.1856 1.1711 1.1441 0.850 1 0.8397 0.8203 0.7 678 0.7584 0.7409 0.2712 1.1867 1.1710 1.1 4 19 0.8511 0.8398 0.8189 0.7612 0.7511 0.7324 0.2929 1.18 7 8 1.1709 1.1395 0.8522 0.8400 0.81 7 5 0.7538 0.7 431 0.7231 0.3162 1.1890 1.1707 1.1368 0.8533 0.8402 0.8159 0.7456 0.7 341 0.7128 0.3415 1.1950 1.1752 1.1385 0.8580 0.8438 0.81 7 4 0.7393 0.7271 0.7043 0.368 7 1.2 037 1.1821 1.1423 0.8578 0.8425 0.81 4 1 0.7334 0.7203 0.6960 0.3981 1.2136 1.1902 1.1469 0.8537 0.8372 0.8068 0.7268 0.7 128 0.6869 0.4 2 99 1.2251 1.1996 1.1526 0.8490 0.8313 0.7987 0.7193 0.7 043 0.6768 0.4642 1.2429 1.2149 1.1636 0.8464 0.8274 0.7924 0.7 133 0.6973 0.6678 0.5012 1.2688 1.2380 1.1817 0.8466 0.8260 0.7884 0.7092 0.6920 0.6605 0.5412 1.3013 1.2673 1.2051 0.8474 0.8252 0.78 4 7 0.7046 0.6861 0.6525 0.5843 1.3476 1.3096 1.2403 0.8521 0.8281 0.7843 0.7014 0.6816 0.6455 0.6310 1.4077 1.3648 1.2871 0.8586 0.8325 0.7851 0.6987 0.6774 0.6388 0.6813 1.4269 1.3801 1.2954 0.8659 0.8375 0.7861 0.6956 0.6728 0.6315 0.7356 1.4146 1.3645 1.2 7 44 0.8755 0.8445 0.7887 0.6931 0.6686. 0.6244 0.7943 1.40 4 7 1.3511 1.2549 0.890 1 0.856 1 0.7952 0.6 929 0.6665 0.6191 0.8577 1.39 4 0 1.3366 1.2342 0.9073 0.8699 0.8033 0.6928 0.6643 0.6134 0.9261 1.3821 1.320 7 1.2118 0.9275 0.8863 0.8132 0.6926 0.6619 0.6073 1.0000 1.3731 1.307 4 1.1914 0.9546 0.9089 0.8283 0.6943 0.6611 0.6024 1.0798 1.3666 1.2962 1.1724 0.9900 0.9390 0.8494 0.6980 0.6620 0.5988 1.1659 1.3594 1.2839 1.1520 1.0338 0.9764 0.8762 0.7019 0.6629 0.5948 1.2589 1.3512 1.2703 1.1300 1.0758 1.0114 0.8998 0.7062 0.6639. 0.5906 LB P r ofile , Fr e quency L B kappa (H z) (0.09) 1.359 4 1.3483 1.4678 1.3478 1.5849 1.3471 1.7113 1.3460 1.8478 1.3446 1.9953 1.3435. 2.1544 1.3435 2.3263 1.343 1 2.5119 1.3424 2.7123 1.3421 2.9286 1.3413 3.1623 1.3399 3.4 1 4 5 1.3419 3.6869 1.3434 3.9811 1.3451 4.2987 1.3525. 4.6416 1.3605 5.0119 1.3751 5.411 7 1.3923 5.843 4 1.41 4 8 6.3096 1.4430 6.812 9 1.4746 7.3564 1.5 1 56. 7.9433 1.5606 8.5770 1.6136 9.2612 1.6782 10.0000 1.7503 10.7978 1.83 4 6 11.6591 1.9374 12.5893. 2.0549 13.5936 2.1894 14.6 7 80 2.34 99 15.8489 2.5422 17.1133 2.7672 18.4785 3.0319 PROJECT CALCULA TI ON P C No. PV 00 1-P C-02 Rev.O Page 15of18 SWUS to P V NGS Adju st m e nt F a cto r (F o uri e r-amplitude Sp ace) L B L B M e di a n M e di a n UB UB UB Profi l e , Me d ian P r ofile, P r ofi l e , P r ofile, Profil e, Pr o f il e , Me d ian U B P r ofile , Medi a n U B LB Med i an U B kapp a kapp a L B kapp a kappa ka p pa kapp a k a pp a kapp a (0.1 2) (0.09) (0.12) (0.16) (0.12) (0.0 9) (0.1 2) (0.0 9) 1.261 4 1.1117 1.0777 1.0082 0.8886 0.7142 0.6681 0.5888 1.2543 1.0943 1.0773 1.0026 0.8747 0.7246 0.6743 0.5883 1.2464 1.0 7 57 1.0767 0.9963 0.8598 0.7364 0.6813 0.5880 1.2378 1.0557 1.0759 0.9894 0.8439 0.7496 0.6893 0.5879 1.2282 1.0344 1.0748 0.981 7 0.8268 0.7645 0.6984 0.5882 1.2184 1.0121. 1.0739 0.9739 0.8090 0.7821 0.7093 0.5892 1.2089 0.9895 1.0739 0.9663 0.7909 0.8033 0.7228 0.5916 1.1 98 4 0.9654 1.0735 0.9579 0.7 716 0.8280 0.7387 0.5951 1.1869 0.9398 1.0730 0.9487 0.75 1 2 0.8522 0.7535 0.5966 1.1751 0.9132 1.0728 0.9392 0.7300 0.8575 0.7508 0.5835 1.1620 0.8851 1.0721 0.9288 0.7075 0.8570 0.7424 0.5655 1.1476 0.8553 1.0710 0.9173 0.6837 0.8561 0.7332 0.5465 1.1351 0.8264 1.0726 0.9073 0.6606 0.8573 0.7252 0.5280 1.1213 0.7960 1.0738 0.8963 0.6362 0.8583 0.7164 0.5086 1.1067 0.7644 1.075 1 0.8846 0.61 10 0.8594 0.7070 0.4884 1.0956 0.7347. 1.0811 0.8757 0.5873 0.8641 0.7000 0.4 694 1.0837 0.7040 1.0874 0.8662 0.5627 0.8692 0.6924 0.4498 1.0756 0.6 7 51 1.0991 0.8598 0.5396 0.8 7 85 0.6872 0.4313 1.0680 0.6458 1.1129 0.8536 0.5162 0.8895 0.6823 0.4126 1.0625 0.6 1 73 1.1309 0.8493 0.4934 0.9039 0.6788 0.3944 1.0592 0.5892 1.1534 0.8466 0.4710 0.9219 0.6767 0.3765 1.0560 0.5606 1.1787 0.844 1 0.4481 0.9421 0.6747 0.3582 1.0569 0.5334. 1.2114 0.8448 0.4264 0.9683 0.6752 0.3408 1.057 4 0.5054 1.2474 0.8452 0.4039 0.9971 0.6756 0.3229 1.0599 0.4776 1.2898 0.8472 0.38 1 7 1.0 310 0.6772 0.3051 1.0659 0.4507 1.3414 0.8520 0.3603 1.0722 0.6810 0.2880 1.0722 0.4233 1.3990 0.8570 0.3383 1.1183 0.6850 0.2704 1.0808 0.3962 1.4664 0.8639 0.3167 1.1721 0.6905 0.2531 1.0941 0.3702 1.548 6 0.8746 0.2959 1.2 3 78 0.6990 0.2365 1.1088 0.3441. 1.6425. 0.8863 0.2750 1.3129 0.7084 0.2199 1.1246 0.3 1 79 1.7500 0.8989 0.2541 1.3988 0.7185 0.2031 1.1446 0.2926 1.8783 0.9149 0.23 38 1.5014 0.7 313 0.1869 1.1692 0.2680 2.0321 0.9346 0.21 4 2 1.6243 0.74 7 0 0.1 712 1.1962 0.2438 2.2119 0.9562 0.1949 1.7680 0.7643 0.1558 1.2258 0.2201 2.4235 0.9798 0.1759 1.9371 0.7832 0.1406 L B P r ofil e , F r e quency LB k a ppa (H z} (0.09} 19.9526 3.3536 21.5443 3.7485 23.2631 4.2270 25.1189 4.8118 27.1227 5.5426 29.2864 6.4784 31.6228 7.6667 34.1455 9.1952 36.8695 11.1 888 39.8107 13.8284. 42.9866 17.3805 46.4 1 59 22.2896 50.1187 29.2648. 54.1170 39.2659 58.4341 53.9344 63.0957 75.9811 68.1292 110.005. 73.5642 164.031 79.4328 252.802 85.7 696 404.226. 92.6119 6 7 1.328 100.000 1160.96 PROJECT CALCULATION P C No. PV 00 1-PC-02 Rev.O Page 16of18 SWUS to P V NGS Adju st m e n t F a ctor (F o uri e r-amplitude Spa ce) L B L B M e di an M e di a n UB UB UB P r ofile, Me di an P r of il e, P r ofi l e , P r ofile , P r ofil e, Prof il e , Med i an U B P r ofile, Medi a n U B LB Median U B k a pp a kappa L B kap p a kappa kappa ka p p a k a pp a kapp a (0.1 2) (0.09} (0.12) (0.16) (0.12) (0.0 9) (0.1 2) (0.0 9) 1.261 4 0.1975 2.6806 1.0083 0.1578 2.1427 0.8059 0.1262 1.3041 0.1761 2.9963 1.0424 0.1 407 2.3950 0.8332 0.1125 1.3518 0.1556 3.3787 1.0805 0.1244 2.7006 0.8637 0.0994 1.4050 0.1361 3.8461 1.123 1 0.1088 3.0743 0.8977 0.0869 1.4671 0.1179 4.4 303 1.1727 0.0943 3.5 4 12 0.9373 0.0754 1.5422 0.1014 5.1783 1.2327 0.0811 4.1391 0.9853 0.0648 1.6277 0.0861 6.1281 1.3010 0.0688 4.8983 1.0399 0.0550 1.7252 0.0722 7.3499 1.3789 0.0577 5.8748 1.1022 0.0461 1.8369 0.0597 8.9 434 1.4682 0.0477 7.1486 1.1 736 0.0381 1.9655 0.0486 11.0533 1.5710 0.0388 8.8350 1.2557 0.0310 2.1143 0.0389 13.8925 1.6900 0.0311 11.1045 1.3508 0.0249 2.2920 0.0307 17.8 1 64 1.8320 0.0245 14.2409 1.4644 0.0 1 96 2.5099 0.0238 23.3918 2.0062 0.0190 18.6974 1.6036 0.0152 2.7684 0.0181 31.3858 2.2128 0.01 4 5 25.0872 1.768 7 0.0116 3.0774 0.0135 43.1106 2.4598 0.0108 34.4589 1.9662 0.0086 3.4500 0.0098 60.7328 2.7 576 0.0078 4 8.54 47 2.2 042 0.0063 3.9029 0.0069 87.9283 3.1197 0.0055 70.2824 2.4936 0.0044 4.4589 0.0048 131.113 3.5641 0.0038 104.800 2.8488 0.0031 5.1544 0.0032 202.069 4.1200 0.0026 161.51 7 3.2932 0.0020 6.0417 0.0021 323.104 4.8292 0.0017 258.262 3.860 1 0.0013 7.1753 0.0013 536.603 5.7353 0.0010 428.915 4.5843 0.0008 8.639 4 0.0008 927.980 6.9056 0.0006 741.749 5.5197 0.0005 PROJECT CALCULATION

8. RE FE RE N C E S P C No. PV 00 1-PC-02 Rev.O Page 1 7 of18 1. Geo P en t ech. (2015). Southwestern United States Ground Motion Characterization SSHAC Level 3-Te chnica l Report Rev.I, February 2015. 2. L ettis Consu l tants International (2015). D evelopme nt of site profile and amplifications for Palo Verd e Nuclear Generating Station, P YOOl-P C-04-R evO. 3. B oore, D.M., and Joyner, W.B. (1 997). Site amplificat i ons for gener i c rock s ite s, B ullet i n of the Se i smological Society of America 87 (2), 327-341. 4. Boore , D. M. (2003). Simulation of g r ound motion usi ng t h e stochastic method , Pure. and Appli ed G eop h ys i cs v.160, 635-675. 5. B oore , D. M. (2013). The Uses and L imi t a t ions oftbe Square-Roo t-I mpedance Method for. Comp u ti n g Site. Amp l i fi cation. Bulletin of the Seismolog i ca l Soc i ety of America,. I 03( 4), 2356-2368.
6. B rocher, T. M. (2005). Empirica l re l ations between e l ast i c wavespeeds

.and dens i ty i n t h e Eart h's crust. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 95(6), 208 1-2092. 7. Anderson, J. G., and Hough, S. E. (1984). A model. for the s hape of the F ourie r amplitude spectrum of acceleration at hig h freque n cies. B ullet i n of the Seismo l ogica l Society of Amer i ca, 74(5), 1969-1993.

8. Al Atik, L., Kottke , A., Abrahamson, N., and Hollenback , J. (2014). Kappa (K) Scal i ng of Ground-Motion Predict i on Equations Us i ng an Inverse Random V i brat i on T h eory App r oach. Bull e tin of the. Se i smological Society of Am e rica , 104( I), 336-346. 9. B iro, Y., and Renault, P. (2 012). I mportance an d impact of h ost-t o-target conversions for g r ound motion pred i ction equat i ons in PSHA. In P roc. of the 15th World Conference on. Earthquake Engin ee rin g (pp. 24-28). 10. Cotton, F., Sche r baum , F., B omme r , J. J., and B ungum, H. (2006). Criteria for selecting and adju s t ing ground-motion mo d els for specific target reg i ons: Application to central Europe and rock sites. J ournal of Seismolog y , 10(2), 137-156. 11. Electric P ower R esearch Institu t e (E P RI) (2013). Seismic Evaluation Guidance:

Screening, Prior i tization and Implementation Deta i ls (S PID) for the R eso lution of Fu ku s h ima Near-Term Task. Force Recommendation

2. J:

E PRl Report J 025287 , Palo Alto, Cal i f. 12. H.F., L. W. Gardner, and A .. R. Gregory (1974) .. Formation ve l ocity and density-the d i agnostic bas i cs for stratigraphic t r aps. Geoph y sics 39 , 770-780. 13. Lockr i dge.I. S., Fouch, M. J.,.& A 1 Towsmith,.J. R. (2012). Sei s mic i ty wi t h i n Arizo n a during t h e D eployment of the EarthScope USArray T r ansportab l e Array. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America , 1 02(4), 1850-1863. 14. R odriguez-M arek, A., R athje, E. M., Bomm e r , J. J., Scherbaum, F., and S t afford, P. J. (2014). App l ication of Sing l e-S t at i on S i gma and Site-Response Characterizat i on in a P robabilist i c Seism i c-H azard Analysis for a New Nuclea r Site. B ulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

PROJECT CALCULATION PC No. PV001-PC-02 Rev.O Page 18of18 15. Wan*en , D. H. (1969). A seismic-refraction survey of crusta l struc t ure in central Arizona. G eo lo g i cal Society of Ameri ca Bull et in , 80(2), 257-282. 9 .. APP EN DIC E S APPEND I X A: El ectro nic fi l es are provid e d in a DVD. (PRO PR IETARY) APPEND I X B: Calculations for 808 ft Thicknes s of Volcanics PROJECT CALCULATION APPENDIX A APPENDIX A PROPRIETARY PC No. PV001-PC-02 Revision 0 Page A1 of A2 L. tti.-* J'nsuh.1ntii lnlern.>tinn.il , Inc PROPRIETARY PROJECT CALCULATION APPENDIX A PC No. PV001-PC-02 Revision 0 PageA2 of A2 Electronic files included in this ap p endix are pro v id ed on a DVD-ROM disc that conta in s multiple files developed as part of this calculat i on. This disc is labeled: 'PVOOl-PC-02-RevO

' PROPRJETARY A complete list of data dir ectories a nd associated files are contained in the text file named file_ list_ a_ 02262015.

t xt , located in a separa te folder named 'App_ A_ file_ list'.

PROJECT CALCULATION APPENDIX B PC No. PV001-PC-02 Rev.O Page 8 1 of BS APPENDIX B. CALCULAT IO NS FOR 808 FT THICKNESS O F VOLCANICS T he calcu l ations presented here follow the same steps documented in Section 6 above and are performed in file Ca l c_Adjustment

_Fa ctors_808ft.xlsm (conta i ned in Appendix A). The on l y difference between the. two sets of calculations is that the thickness.

of the volcanics has. been changed from 878 ft to 808 ft (see sheet Deep_Projile_Summar y). Figures B-1 through B-3 show the Vs profiles considered, individua l adjustment factors, and logarithmic-mean adjustment factors. These can be compared to Figures 1-3 .. An additional sheet in Calc_Adjustrnent

_Factors_808ft .x l s m (sheet Compare_878ft) compares the re s ults obta i ned with the 808-ft thickness to those obta in ed earlier with the 878-ft thickness.

The differences observed a r e. sma ll and are much smalle r than the. the uncertainty in the adjustment factors (see Figure B-4). The maximum change in the l ogarithmic-mean adjustme n t factor is a reduction of two percent, and the change is much smaller at most frequencies.

Given the size of this change, and given that ignoring this change i s conservative, it is concluded that the change. can be ignored and the values in Table I and in fi le Adjustment_Factors.csv can be used.

LCI Qi ; 0 500 1000 Q. Ri .s:. "' .... 0 1500 .... .... 0 .ll E 0 .:: i:' -s 2000 Q. cu 0 2500 3000 PROJECT CALCULATION APPENDIX B 0 1000 Vs (m/s) 2000 3000 -, .... I I I , I I I I I ------I 1 I "' I l .... I l -I I I t -1 I I I . -J--I UB Profile -Base Case P rofile ; I ... I -LB Profile I --Wa rr en (1969) I I --SWUS Reference I Pr o file I -PC No. PV001-PC-02 Rev.O Page 82 of BS 4000 -Fi g ur e B-1. V s de e p pr o fil es f o r. PV NG S, aft er m o dif y in g th ic kn ess o f vo lc a nic s , A d e pth o f 0 co rr es p o nds to. th e bottom o f the s h a llo w profil e (so il s). A l s o s ho w n a r e the W a rr e n (1969) (R e f. 15) a nd S W U S (R e f. 1) profil es.

L CI PROJECT CALCULATION APPENDIX B PC No. PV001-PC-02 Rev.O Page 83 of BS 10 I I I ..L -1 , -r, I. /, j , -E :J .... ti QI Q. V'I .... QI *;: :J 0 u.. c 1 .... 0 .... v "' u.. .... c QI l/J' 'l h : Ii --t-..+-I-,_ __J--. ---l --I I I * """' --L-,, 11-,_ -"'" -r.--. !"..'. ' i....... .... .... , I r..... .... I E .... Ill "" "'-:J :0 < 0.1 I I 1 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) -LB Profile, LB kappa (0.09) -LB Profile, Median kappa (0.12) -LB Profi l e, UB kappa (0.09) -Median Profile, LB kappa (0.12) -Median Profile, Median kappa (0.16) -Median Profile, UB kappa (0.12) -UB Profile, LB kappa (0.09) -UB Profile , Median kappa (0.12) UB Profile, UB kappa (0.09) F igur e B-2. Adjustment factors af ter m o dif y in g thick n ess of vo l ca ni cs.

L CI 10 ---E :I .... ti QI Q. V) .... QI *.::: :I 0 u.. c 1 .£. .... 0 ... u ro u.. --... c QI E ... Ill :I !tJ <t / 0.1 0.1 PROJECT CALCULATION APPENDIX B I I I I I I ' i i I *-*-+--L ogarithmic mean AF l si gm a (righ t Y a xi s) I I->--+ ._,_,_ --' J I I I ---I I ' l +-. --I -+ + --l l -'- + , -r --1 10 Frequency (Hz) I + PC No. PV001-PC-02 Rev.o Page 84 of BS 2 -1.8 -I-+-1.6 -1.4 -;-u ro Q. " ! Ill 1.2 c -c: 0 1 ... ro *:;; QI 0 +. 0.8 "C .... ro "C c -ro 0.6 ... V) -0.4 0.2 0 100 Figure B-3. Swnmary sta ti s ti cs of th e ad ju st ment factor a ft er modif yi n g thickness of vo lcani cs 30% 20% 10% u.. < *= Gi 11.0 c 111 0% .s:. u ... c Q,I u ... Q,I Q. -10% -20% -30% PROJECT CALCULATION APPENDIX B P C No. PV001-PC-02 R ev.O P a ge B S o f BS Change in Adjustment Factor as a Result of Modifying Thickness of Volc a nics I ' ' I / _, , I \ \. ' ' ,. \ ,., _,, \ 0.1 1 10 100 F requency {Hz) -LB Profile, LB kappa (0.09) -LB Profile, Median kappa (0.12) --LB Profile, UB kappa (0.09) -Med i an Profile , LB kappa (0.12) -Median Profile, Median kappa (0.16) -Median Profile , UB kappa (0.12) -UB Profi l e , LB kappa (0.09) -UB Profile, Media n kappa (0.12) -UB Profile , UB kappa (0.09) -Logarithmic mean AF -1 sigma + 1 s i gma F ig u r e B-4. C h a n g e i n logarithmic

-m ea n ad j u st m e nt fa c tor (t h ick b lu e l in e) as a r es ult o f mod i f y in g t h ic k n ess o f v olca n j cs.

H eesze l , D av id From:Hee sze l , D avid Sent:? M ay 2015 2 0:01:54 +0000 To:Sebe r , Do gan

Subject:

Vs-kappa co rT ect i o n pap e r Attachments:

R efere nce 7 .21. pdf Attached i s the Vs-kappa correction from PVNGS. --David David Heeszel Geophysicist U.S. NRC , NRO/DSEA/RGS2 Office: T-7E28 Mail Stop: T-7F3 Phone: 301-415-5066 Sent: 12 Feb 20 15 20:0 l :46 +0000 To:Munson, Clifford;Ake , Jon Cc:Jack s on , Diane Subj ec t:ACTJON:

SSHAC R e vi e w Guidance lmp o rtan ce: Hi gh Amigos-I've taken the risk of putting together some guidance on how the WUS teams can approach review of the SSHACs. I've focused on what I think are the. key questions. we'd want the teams to answer as the goals of their reviews , so that we'd have a good , traceable bas i s for concluding the SSHAC process was acceptable

/u nacceptab l e. Certainly , I don't think that every team would necessarily have to address every sub-question , but have tried to identify 7 basic yet dist i nct areas that appear intrinsic to a good SSHAC process. I've pulled these 7 areas from various statements and concepts in NUREG/CR-6372 (SSHAC), NUREG-2117 (Imp l ementing SSHAC), and NUREG-1563 (BTP on Expert Elicitation).

I'm intentionally avoiding the use of anything that reads like Acceptance Criteria/Review Methods , as I appreciate the sensitivities that the scope isn't a licensing review ... I would appreciate your thoughts on this approach for gu i d i ng the teams in the i r upcoming reviews. I've run it past D i ane as a straw man , and she d i dn't barf. If you think this is on the r ight track , please add/ed i t the attached.

If you think this is nuts , or want to work on an alternative approach , let's talk on Tues/Wed. I'll be out on AL from Thurs 2/19 through 3/5 , and would l ike to get your init ial feedback before I split for sunn i er cl i mes. ThanksBritt Britta in E. H i ll , Ph.D. Sr. Techn ic al Advisor US Nuclear Regulatory Comm i ssion MS T7-F03 , NRO/DSEA Washington , DC 20555-0001 Ph+ 1 13 01' 41 5-65 88* Er+ 1 (301) 415-5399; Mobile_(b J(5 l j email: B r ittain.H i ll@nrc.gov Sent:3 Jun 2015 l 7:32:37 +0000 To:Wa l sh, Lisa

Subject:

RE:

Columbia -Sei s micity Map Lisa -this. l ooks good and is a handy reference

-the changes make the data compar i sons clear. Seems appropriate to send to group , but I don't see a need for using at tomorrow's meeting (we're not doing evaluations/compar i sons with PSHA bases yet). ThanksBr i tt From: Walsh, Lisa Sent: Wednesday , J u ne 03 , 2015 12:23 PM To: Hill, Brittain

Subject:

RE: Columbia -Seismicity Map Hi. Britt, Here is an updated version. Do you see. any additiona l changes I should make?. Should I send this version to the rest of the group? Changes

  • Magnitude threshold to. only display events greater than and equal to 1.85 as they used i n the SSHAC ..
  • lluminated pre-and post-the licensee's catalog Lisa From: H ill, Brittain Sent: Wed n esday, J u ne 03, 2015 8:32 AM To: Walsh, Lisa

Subject:

RE: Columbia -Seismicity Map Hi Lisa -nice map -are you running Arc for this , or GMT? Before show i ng this at a public meeting , I'd suggest truncating the USGS cata l og to same M thresho l d as the SSHAC (2?). By plotting all USGS quakes , the map gives the impression tha t lots of. earthquakes are missing from the SSHAC database (i.e., not considered i n the PSHA). From: Walsh, Lisa Sent: Wednesday, J u ne 03, 2015 8:19 AM To: Seber, Dogan; S t irewalt, Gerry; Weaver, Thomas Cc: Hill, Br i ttain; Ake, Jon; Munson, Clifford; Li , Yong; Chokshi, Nilesh; John Stamatkos; Jackson, Diane; Karas, Rebecca

Subject:

Columbia -Seismicity M a p Hi CGS T eam ,

Attached is a map I compiled with seismicity out beyond the 200 mi radius from the. site and info provided in the SSHAC by the licensee. This might be a useful resource for the public meeting tomorrow.

Lisa Lisa S. Walsh , Ph.D .. Geophysicist , U.S. NRC NRO/DSEA/RGS1 T-7F15 , 301-415-5612 Sent:21May201521:40:13

+0000 To: Ve ga, Frankie;Jack so n F D.....,.ian=e ______ _, Cc:DiFrance s co , Nicholas (b l(5 l ------------

Subject:

R e: Draft ESEP r e li ef l e tt e r to Di ablo Canyon Someone who knows the details of. what Diablo is relying on for FLEX need to confirm that the 1988 LTSP analyses have indeed evaluated the. SSCs Diablo currently relies on for shutdown path. Unless. this. is clear, issue needs to be resolved with SRB discussion.

etc .. Absent that confirmation, it is premature to conclude that.the 1988 LTSP. margins assessment encompasses the 2015 shutdown path that includes FLEX. Diablo didnt address FLEX SSCs in submittal.

Working from blakberry-very hard to edit files! Britt Sent from Brittain H i ll's PDA l (b)(6) I From: Vega, Frankie Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 04: 16 PM To: Hill, Brittain Cc: DiFrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

RE: Draft ESEP re l ief letter to Diab l o Canyon Britt; I'm not aware if the SRB has. discussed th i s issue yet. I will confirm. Thanks Frankie From: Hill, Brittain Sent: Thursday , May 21, 2015 4: 12 PM To: Vega, Frankie Cc: DiFrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

Re: Draft ESEP relief lette r to Diablo Canyon Hi Frankie -has the issue of Diablo meeting the ESEP requirements been discussed by the SRB? Have they determined that all FLEX is covered by LTSP analyses?

Please confirm. Thanks-Britt Sent from Brittain H i ll's PDA l (b)(6) I From: Vega, Frankie Sent: Thursday , May 21, 2015 04:02 PM To: Hill, Brittain Cc: D i Francesco , Nicholas

Subject:

Draft ESEP relief letter to Diablo Canyon Britt; Hope you are doing well. I've attached the draft ESEP relief letter to Diablo Canyon. This letter follows a very similar format to the letter we sent last year to several CEUS licensee also requesting ESEP relief (Based on their previous IPEEE evaluations).

I'm sending this draft letter to you first since It mostly references Diablo's L TSP which you are very familiar with. Please review and feel free to make any necessary changes. I'm also planning to share this with the mitigation strategies technical reviewers. just as we did with the other ESEP relief letter I mentioned above. If you have questions please let me. know. Thanks! ..... Frankie G. Vega , P.E. Project Manager NRR/JLD/JHMB 301-415-1617 L o c ation: 0-13Hl2 Muns on, Clifford From:Mun so n , Clifford Sent: 26 May. 2 015 14:54:41 +0000. To:Ak e, Jon;Jo hn Starnatko s

Subject:

l s t Draft -F ocus Are a T opic s fo r PVNGS Publi c M eet in g Attachments:Focus Ar ea T opics for PVNGS Publi c M eet in g (draft l).do cx Br i tt is out this week. Here i s what I cobbled together so far. Wou l d appreciate your comments and input. I am work i ng on the s i te response question on Vs-kappa corrections.

Thanks , Cliff Mun so n , Clifford From:Mun s on , Clifford Sent: 2 9 Apr 2 015.19: 04: 0 3 +0000 T o:Ak e, Jon;St o v a ll , S co tt Sub jec t:Bo o r e p a p e r o n a dju s tin g fr o m vs3 0=760 to 3 000 You may already have this paper. http://www.daveboore.com

/daves notes/Adjusting PSA amp l itudes to Vs30 3000.v02.pdf Munson , Clifford Fr om: Mun son , Clifford Sent:21May.2015 19:42: 17 +0000. T o: DiF rancesco , Nicho l as Cc:Jackson , Diane;Seb e r , Dogan;Ake, Jon; Weaver, Th o m as;St i rewalt, Gerry;Wal s h , Lisa;John Stamatko s;Hill, Brittain;Kock, Andrea

Subject:

Columbia T opics for 6/4 meeting. Attacbments:Focus Area Topics for CGS Publi c Meeting (draft 2).docx These are ready to go. Thanks , Cliff Muns o n , Cli f ford From:Mun s on , Clifford Sent: 19 Ma y. 2 015 1 3:2 1: 14 +0000. To: S e b e r , D og an C c:Ja c k s on , Di a n e Subj ec t:Columbi a Topic s for Publi c M ee tin g Dogan, When you get a chance would you please forward your topics/quest i ons for the Columbia public meeting to Britt, Jon, and me. Diane suggested that we discuss during the Thursday meeting so that we can get them over to JLD by the end of the week. Thanks , Cliff Muns on, Clifford From:Mun so n , Clifford Sent: 2 7 May 2 015 20: 47:43 +0000 To: W eave r , Thoma s;St ova ll , Scott;Ake , Jon. Cc: H eesze l , D av id Subj ec t:C on firm H a n fo rd V s-K ap pa correction Thomas, David has programed the Hanford GMM both w it h and w i thout the vs-kappa correction.

If you g i ve h i m some scenario events similar to the ones used by Hanford , you could try to replicate the Vs-kappa corrections in F i gure 9.38. This would be useful to make sure we understand each of the steps in preparation for the meet i ng next week. Let's ta l k tomorrow after the Columbia. meeting. Thanks , Cliff Mun son, Clifford From:Mun so n , Clifford Sent:29 Apr 2 01516:25:

16 +0000 T o:Ake, Jon;S t ova ll , Scott C c:Grai ze r , Vladimir Subj ec t:d c pp m e dian gmm I finished the swus-dcpp gmm th i s morning. Below are median gm results for a scenario event on one of the local faults which we can use for the analytical site response. Sol i d line is the weighted average of the 31 median models. There are 21 frequencies between 0.1 and 100. Benchmarking to come. Cliff DCPP Median Ground Motion 2.0 .... ------------------------------_.

________________

__ 1.8 x 1.6 x x x x x 1.4 x x x x )C x x x M 3E x x x x x x 1.2 x )rt x x x x -x x O> x x x ..._.... x <( 1.0 x x en x x x 0.8

  • x x x x x x x x x 0.6 x )C x x x
  • x x x )( x x x )C x x M x x 0.4 x x
  • x x x x )( 0.2 x x x 0.1 1 10 f r eque n cy (H z)

Mun son, Clifford F rom: Mun so n , Clifford Sent:28 May 2015 13:57:39 +0000 T o: DiF rancesco , Nichol as;J ac k s o n , D iane

Subject:

D C PP R A I-D raft 2 Attach m e n ts:DCPP RAJ (d r aft 2).docx Some mod if icat i ons. Cliff To the Power Reactor Licensees on the Enclosed List May 27, 2015.

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL IN FORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION 2.1 , SE I SMIC RE-EVALUATIONS RELATED TO SITE RESPONSE FOR DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT (TAC NOS. XXXXX , XXXXX) By letter dated March 15 , 2015 ,. to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRG), Pacif i c Gas and Electric , submitted for NRG review the Seismic Hazard and Screening Report, Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 50 , Sect i on 50.54(f), Response for Information Regarding Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term. Task Force. Rev i ew. of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident for the Diablo Canyon Powe r Plant. I ncluded in the seismic hazard reevaluation report is an evaluation of the site response for Diablo Canyon using an alternative empirical approach.

The NRG staff has reviewed the i nformation provided for Diablo Canyon and has determined that additional information is required to complete its review .. Enclosed is. a request for addit i onal information (RAI) related to the site response evaluation.

As discussed with your staff on XXXX YY , 2015 , it was agreed that a response to the RAI would be provided no later than XXXXX YY , 2015. If you have any questions related to. the enclosed RAls or the requested submission date, please contact me at 301-415-1115 or via e-mail at Nicholas.Difrancesco@nrc

.gov.

Enclosures:

1 . Request for Additional Info r mation 2. Addressee List cc w/encls: Distribution via Listserv Sincerely , I RA/ Nicholas J. DiFrancesco , Senior Projec t Manager Hazards Management Branch. Japan Lessons-Learned Di vision Office of Nuc lear Reac to r Regulation

-. 2. -. If you have any questions related to the enclosed RAls or the requested submission date, please contact me at 301-415-1115 or via e-mail at Nicholas.Difrancesco@nrc

.gov.

Enclosures:

1 . Request for Additional Info r mation 2. Addressee List cc w/encls: Distribution via Listserv DISTRIBUTION:

PUBLIC. JLD R/F R i dsOeMai l Center R i dsNrrPMOconee R i dsNrrDorllp l 2-1 RidsNrrLASLen t RidsNrrPMSummer

RidsRgn1 Ma i lCenter ADAMS Accession No: ML14268A516 Sincerely , I RA/ Nicholas J. DiFrancesco , Senior Project Manager Hazards Management Branch Japan Lessons-Learned Division Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation RidsNrrDorllpl2-2 NDiFrancesco, NRA RidsNrrPMRobinson RidsRgn2MailCenter R i dsNrrOd *via mail OFFICE NRR/J L D/JHMB/PM NRR/J LD/JHMB/LA* NRR/DORU L PL2-2/PM* NRR/DORULPL2

-1 /PM* NAME NDiFrancesco Slent MBari ll as SWill i ams DATE 09/29/14 09/29/14 1 0/15/14 09/30/1 4 OFFICE NRR/DORULPL2-1/PM* NRO/DSEA/RGS1

  • NRR/JLD/JHMB/BC NRR/J L D/J HMB/PM NAME RHall (w/comments)

DJa c kson SWhalev. NDiF r ancesco DATE 09/30/14 10/15/14 10/23/14 10/23/14 OFFICIAL RE CO RD COPY REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL I NFORMATION NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION 2.1 SEISMIC HAZARD AND SCREENING REPORT FOR DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT Review of Alternative Empirical Site Response Evaluation By letter dated March 12, 2012 (Agencyw i de Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML12053A340), the NRG staff requested that licensees submit site specific hazard curves that capture the variability in soil depth (including depth to generic rock conditions

), shear-wave velocities, layer thicknesses , damping, and strain dependent nonlinear material properties at the site. Specifically, Attachment 1 to " Seismic" Enclosure 1 of the March 12, 2012 , letter stated that " site amplification curves should be developed over a broad range of annual exceedance frequencies to facilitate estimation of seismic core damage frequency.". By letter dated February 15 , 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12319A074), " Endorsement of Elec tric Power Research Institute

[EPRI] Final Draft Report 1025287 , 'Seismic Evaluation Guidance:

Screening , Prioritization and Implementation Detai l s (S PID),' the NRG staff endorsed using the SP I D guidance.

Regarding the development of site amplification curves for the NTTF Recommendation 2.1 seismic hazard reevaluations , Section 2 of the SPID states: Site amplification factors should be calculated as described in Section 2.4. As discussed in that section , multiple models of site amplification factors (and associated.

uncertainties) should be developed , indica t i ng the log-mean and standard deviation of control-point motion d i vided by input rock motion, for various spectral frequencies.

The SPID further recommends that the soil and/or rock uncertainties should be incorporated into the seismic hazard calculations via the site amplification and their uncertainties through the hazard integral to develop control-po i nt hazard curves .. The control-point elevation hazard curves should then be used to calculate the GMRS. By letters dated March 1 5 , 2015 , the. licensee for the Diablo. Canyon Powe r Plant (DCPP) submitted an alternative site r esponse evaluation , referred to as the empirical approach , which uses the observed ground mot ions at the site from two earthquakes to "constrain the site amplification rather than analytical models." While. the staff considers the empirical site response approach as a viable alternative to the analytical approach , the method as implemented by the licensee was able to use only three site recordings from two earthquakes to const ra in the local site amplification.

As such , the licensee's estimate of the uncertainty in the local site term is potentially impacted by the li mited amount of data. Request for Additional Information Consistent with the request for information i ssued pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal regulations, Part 50 , Section 50.54(f) and the SPID guidance, please provide a revised March 20 1 5 Enc l osure1 seismic hazard reevaluation submittal that deve lops site amp l ification factors as recommended in Section 2.4 and Appendix B of the SPID. Please provide (1) a detailed description of the subsurface profile properties inclu ding uncertainties, (2) potential for nonlinear behavior at the strain produced by the. scenario earthquakes of interest, and (3) control. po int elevation

.. In addition, provide the adjustment factors (Vs-kappa corrections) needed to modify the median ground motion models for the selected reference or baserock elevation and velocity.

Also include in the response, in table form, control point seismic hazard curves developed using the site amplification factors and their uncertaint ies through the hazard integral as recommended in Append ix B of the SPID.

H.B. Robinson Steam Electr i c Plant Duke Energy Progress , Inc. Docket No. 50-261 License No. DPR-23 Mr. William R. G i deon , Vice President H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant 3581 West Entrance Road Hartsville , SC 29550 Oconee Nuclear Stat i on Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC List of Addressees Docket Nos. 50-269 , 50-270 and 50-287 License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47 and DPR-55 Mr. Scott Batson Vice President , Oconee Nuclear Station Duke Ene r gy Carolinas , LLC 7800 Rochester H i ghway Seneca , SC 29672-0752 Virg il C. Summer Nuclear Stat i on South Carolina Electr i c and Gas Company Docket No. 50-395 License No. NPF-12 Mr. Thomas D. Gat li n , V i ce Pres i dent Nuclear Operations South Carolina Electric and Gas Company Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Stat i on Post Office Box 88 , Mai l Code 800 Jenkinsville , SC 29065 Enclosure 2

Sent:23 Apr 2015 19:34:30 +0000 To:Ake. Jon;Jo hn Stamatkos

Subject:

DCPP Scenario events Mun son,. Clifford From:Mun so n , Clifford Sent:30 Apr 2 015 19:28:09 +0000 To:S tovall , Scott;Ake, Jon. C c: Grai ze r , Vladimir

Subject:

DCPP Scenario Work s h eet Attachments:scenario-spreadsheet.csv , sce nari o-s pr eads h eet.x l sx, scena rio-s pread s heet.ad s Scott and Jon , I developed 5 scenar i o events each at 3 levels (16, 50, 84). So there are a total of 15 events. saved the spreadsheet in three formats -hopefully one of them will work for you. Here are the parameters Mag 7.5 6.5. 6.8 6.0 8.0 Ztor 1 1 1 1 1 Rrup 5.1 1.2 9.2 5.1 5.1 R j b .3.7 . . 0.6. o.n . 3.7 .3.7. Dip 85 90 60 85 85 Width 15 12 15 12 15 Rx. 5. .0.6. 10 5 5 F SS SS REV SS SS I tried to get a sufficient range of SA values yet still keep this. somewhat realistic. Let me know i f you want me to add another scenario. Thanks , Cliff freq 0.1 0.133333 0.2 0.25 0.333333 0.5 0.666666 1 1.333333 2 2.5 3.333333 4 5 6.666667 10 13.33333 20 33.33333 50 100 S1-L S1-M 0.0135928 0.02323223 0.02126067 0.03630149 0.02409332 0.0411381 0.04022888 0.06862008 0.05301979 0.09043807 0.09164862 0.15601652 0.14167118 0.24093055 0.21814579 0.37024451 0.27242788 0.4614501 0.36417754 0.6150 1 182 0.40726873 0.68640871 0.47517616 0.79925945 0.58357937 0.98061553 0.65999943 1.10681187 0.67182266 1.12326444 0.58402362 0.97256939 0.53894264 0.89480798 0.40332911 0.66764251 0.32281427 0.53169879 0.30574949 0.5030885 0.29870653 0.49002754 She e tl S1 -H S2-L S2-M S2-H 0.03970752 0.00589409 0.01020574 0.01767144 0.06198292 0.01001215 0.01731891 0.02995808 0.07024117 0.01871057 0.03236535 0.05598526 0.11704813 0.02539436 0.04388301 0.07583252 0.15426398 0.03797482 0.0656228 0.1134002 0.26559216 0.06757365 0.11653808 0.20098255 0.40973422 0.09803317 0.16889984 0.29099493 0.62839165 0.17031874 0.29285324 0.50354425 0.78162409 0.22171708 0.38084868 0.65419282 1.03861304 0.32708952 0.56016641 0.95932883 1.15686986 0.39553462 0.67670695 1.15775528 1.34437649 0.48466229 0.82753578 1.41297 45 1.64777384 0.57464538 0.98019656 1.6719621 1.85611147 0.60995261 1.03938 1 67 1.77114457 1.87805962 0.64599653 1.09750438 1.86458565 1.61961123 0.5758048 0.97532302 1.65204421 1.48565221 0.50718422 0.85737405 1.44935555 1.10516825 0.41862939 0.70626183 1.19152113 0.87574691 0.33913793 0.56986923 0.95757774 0.8277954 7 0.31006683 0.52049895 0.8737 4438 0.80388932 0.29220525 0.48904596 0.81848615 Page I

$3-L $3-M $3-H 0.00451818 0.00776098 0.01333122 0.007 45782 0.01279767 0.02196089 0.01214696 0.02084426 0.03576889 0.0180192 0.03089016 0.05295474 0.02837656 0.0486457 0.08339292 0.05878505 0.10057337 0.17206762 0.09098823 0.15551313 0.26579629 0.1565745 0.26707565 0.45556206 0.22743113 0.387551 0.66040116 0.32907062 0.5590687 0.9498 1 988 0.3932533 0.66677586 1.1305437 0.488755 1 9 0.82704718 1.39948801 0.55287124 0.93460608 1.5799 1 31 1 0.64332396 1.08533984 1.83105655 0.65070698 1.09560218 1.84467692 0.61 1 03827 1.02470454 1.71841837 0.52224613 0.8731776 1 1.45992302 0.41903824 0.69851887 1.16440113 0.32035244 0.53188205 0.88308526 0.29310184 0.48615141 0.80635179 0 .28652044 0.47381165

o. 78353042 Sheetl $4-L $4-M S4-H S5-L 0.001 4 1504 0.00247976 0.00434558 0.02435431 0.00251936 0.00441057 0.00772146 0.03666668 0.00523621 0.00916689 0.01604823 0.03245563 0.00736962 0.01288889 0.02254167 0.0597338 0.01202286 0.02102705 0.03677468 0.07387252 0.02361384 0.04125751 0.07208407 0.12573558 0.0361113 0.06309275 0.11023405 0.20049557 0.06559398 0.11437516 0.19943411 0.29220897 0.09763834 0.1 7008022 0.2962697 0.3556664 0.15350101 0.26685545 0.46391768 0.44779938 0.19326401 0.33564605 0.58292422 0.47353872 0.25366551 0.43966651 0.7620533 0.53575002 0.292 4 0918 0.50681909 0.8784457 1 0.68 4 31228 0.32928307 0.57016043 0.98724454 0.77468653 0.36299417 0.62727609 1.08397 1 37 0. 78104 1 57 0.33126088 0.57072428 0.9832921 0.66341963 0.29304614 0.50438006 0.8681201 0.62851214 0.23611794 0.40558539 0.69668365 0.45284468 0.18941057 0.32438043 0.55552688 0.36316698 0.16916332 0.28970543 0.49614323 0.3506405 0.16295276 0.2782334 0.47506912 0.34416697 Page2 S5-M S5-H 0.04162532 0.07114419 0.06260646 0.1068973 0.05541631 0.09462047 0.10189042 0.17379874 0.126007 43 0.21493612 0.21404391 0.36437413 0.34096921 0.57986317 0.49594707 0.84173833 0.60244309 1.02044411
o. 75622982 1.27709765 0.79809982 1.34511351 0.90114634 1.51575306 1.14988171 1.93219967 1.29914089 2.17864514 1.30587471 2.18337773 1.10478686 1.83979184 1.04352046 1.73255995 0.7496071 1.24084665 0.59816267 0.9852178 0.5769534 0.94933477 0.5646053 0.926234 Sh ee tl Pag e 3 Mun son,. Clifford From:Mun so n , Clifford Sent:29 Apr 2 015 17:55:3 2 +0000 T o:Stovall , Scott

Subject:

dcpp s it e re s p o n se See Sect i on 9.3 in the Hanford SSHAC -th i s is what I was thinking we could do for DC P P.

Muns on, Clifford From:Mun so n , Clifford Sent: 2 7 Apr 20 1517:21:46 +0000 To: HiJl , Brittain

Subject:

DCPP SSC Br it t , Would you make an unlocked vers i on of the SSC like you did for the GMC? Thanks , Cliff freq 0.1 0.13333 0.2 0.25 0.3333 0.5 0.6666 1 1.3333 2 2.5 3.3333 4 5 6.66667 10 13.3333 20 33.3333 50 100 host AF She e tl target27 AF target28 AF target27 /host target28/host 1.137 1.132 1.138 0.99560246 1.00087951 1.181 1.173 1.182 0.99322608 1.0008467 4 1.262 1.249 1.263 0.98969889 1.00079239 1.311 1.294 1.312 0.9870328 1.00076278 1.38 1.356 1.382 0.9826087 1.00144928 1.488 1.449 1.491 0.97379032 1.00201613 1.578 1.52.2 1.583 0.96451204 1.00316857 1.732 1.635 1.74 0.94399538 1.00461894 1.875 1.73 1.886 0.92266667 1.00586667 2.135 1.893 2.154 0.88665105 1.0088993 2.292 2.019 2.3 0.88089005 1.0034904 2.48 2.215 2.407 0.89314516 0.97056452 2.593 2.3 4 8 2.428 0.90551485 0.936367 1 4 2.724 2.535 2.431 0.93061674 0.89243759 2.88 2.765 2.455 0.96006944 0.85243056 3.104 3.161 2.577 1.0183634 0.83021907 3.266 3.462 2.828 1.06001225 0.865891 3.514 3.671 3.136 1.04467843 0.89243028 3.808 3.799 3.267 0.99763655 0.85793067 3.996 3.854 3.314 0.96446446 0.82932933 4.147 3.895 3.358 0.93923318 0.80974198 Page I DCPP Mediar1 Ground Motion

..............

........ --....... ----............... ....... ---....... _._ .............

._ 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 --0> <( 1.0 Cf) 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 1 ....... \ I \ I \ I \ I I \ I \ I x x \ >', I x \ I x x \ I x \ \ /X)I. x XX \ )( x \ \ x\ 10 frequency (Hz) \ \ \ ....... x ....... ---100 Informat i on (pages 503/1000) is wit hi n scope of F O I A and should be released. Mun son, Clifford From:Mun so n , Clifford Sent:4 M ay 2015 17:44:31 +0000 T o:Graizer , Vladimi r

Subject:

dcpp-scenario.pptx Attachments:dcpp-scenar i o.pptx Slide with one of the scenario SA for DCPP. C l iff Mun son, Clifford From:Mun so n , Clifford Sent:23 Apr 2 015.18:56:

1 2 +0000 To: Graiz e r , Vladimir Cc:Ake , Jon;John Stamatko s;Hill , Brittain;Ja ckson, Di a n e

Subject:

Diablo GMM for Lo ca l Sour ces Pr ese ntation Attachments:Diablo GMM_Local.pptx Vlad, Attached are a few slides for Monday. Thanks , Cliff SWUS GMM for DCPP April 2:3, 2015 SWUS GMM Notation T a bl e 1-1: Notation used in HID, Part II: DCPP. T Period (s eco n ds) M Moment magnitude NML Normal sources (-120

-60) REV Reverse sources, including Reverse-Oblique (REV-OBL);

(30 s rakes 150) SS Str i ke-sl ip sources, including Normal-Ob l i que; (-180 s rake< -120 , -60 < rake < 30 , and 150 < rake s 180) F NM L style of fault in g (F NML=1 for NML, 0 otherwise)

F Rv style of faulting (F Rv=1 for REV , 0 otherwise)

Z roR Depth to top of rupture (km) D ip Fau l t d ip (degrees) w Dow n-dip rupture width (km) L Rupture length (km) R RuP Rupture distance (km) R is Joyner-Boore d i stance (km) R x Ho ri zontal distance from top of rupture measured perpendicular to str i ke (km) R v Ho riz ontal distance from center o f rupture measured parallel to strike (km) f Hw Hanging Wall factor (1 55 To ta l sigma W i dth SWUS GMM Distance Notations Strike-slip faulting Reverse or normal faulting, hanging-wall site : R x=R ib (po si tive) : l ( )! I D i p Fault R x (positive)

S ur face R rup = Closest distance to rupturing fault plane (slant distance)

S ite Rjb =Closest horizontal distance to vertical projection of the rupture R x= Closest horizontal distance to top of rupture Surface SWUS

-DCPP

  • DCPP. median. ground motion models separated into two. sets -Nearby faults -Distant faults
  • Up to 31 Common form median models for nearby faults -Hosgri rupture model -Outward-Vergent rupture model -Southwest-Vergent rupture n1odel -Northeast-Vergent rupture rr1odel -Irish Hills-Estero Bay {IHEB) Source Zone
  • Five NGA-West 2 GMPEs (+ 3 additional epistemic for each= 15 total models) used for distant sources Logic Tree for Median at Nearbv Faults 'J.o u r c f' O l n.m u M f'n l e ll ru ti v 1tv (h for ( r>'11m 0fl f!Jlll'm A rl1 11 i h 1  : u o 1s11 t r!V:\UI oas1 H t'l.'4 111 1 of 5 HW models tf l lf*I assigned to each H'W l ( Example for PGA ll N3[ .1 base model branch ll!N l (ll f H n 5 (lJ ( 11 11 1 1 1 t ll f Ulll ll vvS I l 1 r v2 1 C t>tll 1 .. H..,.J llJ 0 H N't (l} tr.H U) U2[0020) l lW!i[l] Al a 23 (oou 1 lf Ai 4 (1)
  • 1 1 1 1 f\ tl.2."1[0024) II a2s coon 1 l f:l'Y l(JJ I
  • ll JV S (tl No directivity adjustment 1227 (0011) tr NZ (l) 1 2 8 (0041) I M'l l ll I lt l'>(O OU) 11.N l (l] tl'.30[1) 019) 11#4 ll) 02i J 1-t W l (l) R 1 1 trnc d l oo 1 moo r o nn ° 11 0 11 0 1 Base Model T he f unctional form o f the DCPP ba se model GMPEs i s given in E q. 2-1: Ln ( SA BASE (M , R RuP, Z T 0 R, F , T)) = a 0 (T)-a 2 (T)R RUP + a i (T)Z roR + a 1 2 0 (T)F Rv + ( a 4 (T) +a 5 (T)(M -5)) In ( + a: (T) )-a 9 (T)F NML + -a 1 (T) +a 2 (T)(M -5.5) for M < 5.5 a 1 (T)(M -6.5) for5.5 < M < 6.5 a 3 (T)(M -6.5) for M > 6.5 (Eq. 2-1) Each of 31 models has 9 coefficients which are unique for each period Some. periods do. not use all 31 models Coefficient a 9 is different for each period but same for all 31 models Base Model Coefficients for f=lO Hz Weight ID ao. a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6 a7 as alO HW branch (T =0.1 s) Mode l 1 1.37939 0.208505 1.22538 -0.20679 -1.07715. 0.221829 5.79698. 0.1 10195 0.108741 0.046582 3 0.213802 Model 2 2.08907 -0.03872 0.288456 -0.29772 -1.50424 0.285801 6.32318 0.073587 0.2 1 2603 0.321285 4 0.026091 Mode l 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mode l 4 1.42017 0.229463 1.26391 -0.18665 -1.0 1908 0.158087 5.54758 0.097386 0.164283 0.40946 5 0.045412 T able 2-1: Per i od dependent a , coefficients for F ..... Mode l 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Model 6. 2.1 1 812 0.018214. 0.601 -0.2 4 12. -1.43939 0.229396 6.44111 0.099093 0.109868 0.187477 2 0.090946 Period (sec) ... Mode l 7. 1.4 1 537 -0.15843. 0.184346 -0.34334. -1.35195 0.248723 4.83625 0.043879 0.156605 0.283 4 96 3 0.106704 0.01 0.132 Mod el 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 O.G2 0.132 Model 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0.03 0.132 Mode l 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mode l 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Model 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.05 0.132 ---o:n 7r:; n 132 c 0.1 0.132 D 0.1:. 0.132 Mode l 13 1.7 1 824 -0.12097 0.04563 1 -0.41779 -1.52157 0.365292 4.77083 0.078932 0.322164 0.070163 1 0.021841 0.2 0.122 Mode l 14 1.7 08 4 2 -0.06499. 0.933162 -0.38 4 2 4. -1.33162 0.272438 5.4551 7 0.032357 0.279844 0.026501 5 0.025405 --0.25 0.113 Mode l 15 1.35801 0.227881. 0.8012 1 -0.07749. -0.98918 0.17225 5.8 1 5 1 4 0.1 50695 0.109848 0.582348 5 0.033783 0.3 0.104 Mode l 16 0.135637 0.55761 0.680404 -0.02608 -0.46462 0.206783 3.94907. 0.1 56003 O.Q13575 0.291355 2 0.023577 0.4 0.095 Mode l 17 2.5824 -0.08858 0.0 7052 1 -0.46784 -1.82498. 0.330311 7.36546. 0.042 1 5 0.176967 0.092855 2 0.070407 o.s 0.095 Mode l 18 1.29169 0.160183 0.256293 0.000711 -1.1438 1 0.1 58694 5.98039 0.044523 -0.02714 0.395977 4 0.039704 Mode l 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mode l 20 1.13328 -0.017 1 4 0.9 1 7788 -0.1 0 7 39 -1.0098 1 0.120088 5.50958 0.1 373 1 7 0.049162 0.265754 3 0.038353 0.75 0.086 1 0.077 1.5 0.068 2 0.058 Mode l 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.039 Mode l 22 1.83279. -0.18253 0.87006. -0.30695 -1.42278 0.358787 5.59443 0.083036 0.262303 -0.10329 5 0.014387. 4 0.020 Mode l 23 1.72167 0.036879. 0.069845 -0.38891. -1.44441 0.360783 4.97423 0.1 116 1 8 0.331344 0.047177 4 0.015225 5 0.000 Mode l 24 1.48175 0.160589 1.03484 -0.19933 -1.0126 0.130542 6.03483 0.063056 0.096106 0.269177 3 0.013056 7.5 0.000 Mod el 25 1.2764 0.148 1 04 1.1556 -0.29942 -1.09622 0.264494 4.3 1 6 4 6. 0.164 1 8 0.31363 0.031954 1 0.02341 10 0.000 Mode l 26 1.69432 0.364288 0.5 1 2214 -0.08895 -1.141 72 0.219346 6.92161 0.168 786 0.183995 0.120731 5 0.026731 Mode l 27 0.997811 -0.01465 0.8 1 0009 -0.02759 -1.02663 0.176784 4.90505 0.028728 0.007867 0.261264 2 0.018086 Mode l 28 1.67589 0.240931 0.3965 -0.12191 -1.23775 0.180479 6.61248 0.130284 0.073181 0.315853 3 0.088166 Mode l 29 0.4 4 296 0.248235 0.4 4 678 1 0.209578 -0.71921 0.089693 5.0781 0.1 08356 -0.06265 0.39772 1 0.030853 Mode l 30 -0.09241 0.111952 0.391203 -0.05354 -0.61128 0.125671 2.84165 0.131 171 0.028781 0.323736 4 0.009617 Model 31 1.03204 0.190696. 0.6 4 0938 -0.10285. -0.96101 0.107609 5.67792 0.1 540 4 8 0.050723 0.282794 1 0.024445 sum.

Hanging Wall Effect I it R x i s pos i tive I (Eq. 2-2a) where (Eq. 2-2 b) (Eq. 2-2 c)

Hanging Wall Coefficients Table 2-2: Coeffic i ents for HW Factor Model. Period Model-dependent Cl Coefficients Coefficients held Constant (sec) for all five models Model Model Model Model Model C 2 C 3 C 4 HWl HW2 HW3 HW4 HWS 0.01 0.868 0.982 1.038 1.095 1.209 0.2160 2.0289 0.1675 0.02 0.867 0.987 1.046 1.106 1.226 0.2172 2.0260 0.1666 0.03 0.856 0.997 1.067 1.138 1.278 0.2178 2.0163 0.1670 0.05 0.840 1.027 1.121 1.215 1.402 0.2199 1.9870 0.1699 0.0 75 0.857 1.041 1.133 1.226 1.410 0.2218 1.9906 0.1817 0.1 0.848 1.040 1.135 1.231 1.422 0.2213 1.9974 0.1717 0.15 0.868 1.009 1.080 1.150 1.292 0.2169 2.0162 0.1814 0.2 0.850 1.005 1.082 1.160 1.315 0.2131 1.9746 0.1834 0.25 0.868 0.985 1.044 1.102 1.219 0.1988 1.9931 0.1767 0.3 0.839 0.974 1.041 1.108 1.242 0.2019 2.0179 0.1658 0.4 0.780 0.934 1.011 1.089 1.243 0.2090 2.0249 0.1624 0.5 0.741 0.902 0.982 1.063 1.223 0.2053 2.0041 0.1719 0.75 0.613 0.869 0.997 1.125 1.380 0.1713 1.8697 0.1866 1 0.621 0.788 0.872 0.955 1.123 0.1571 1.8526 0.3143 1.5 0.506 0.662 0.740 0.818 0.974 0.1559 1.8336 0.3195 2 0.391 0.537 0.609 0.682 0.828 0.1559 1.7996 0.3246 3 0.128 0.245 0.304 0.362 0.480 0.1616 1.6740 0.3314 4 0 0.034 0.088 0.138 0.231 0.1616 1.6740 0.3314 5 0 0 0 0 0.040 0.1616 1.6740 0.3314 7.5 0 0 0 0 0 0.1616 1.6740 0.3314 10 0 0 0 0 0 0.1616 1.6740 0.3314 DCPP Median Ground Motion Southwestern Unite d States Ground Motion Character i zation SSHAC Leve l 3 TECHNICAL R EP ORT -Rev. 2 2.5 DCPP Ground Motion for the Median The DCPP ground mot io n model for the median from RE V and SS sources is gi v en by ln (SA(g)) =Ln ( SA BASE (J\tl. R R UP' Z TOR'F. T)) + f HWO\!f., Dip fV , R x.RJB , R RUP,ZroR) (Eq. 2-3) + foJR ss (M , R ,o.,,, R , R or SS events I No di r ectivity J , R Y, W , L.D;p) for REV events The DCPP gro u nd mot io n model for the med i an from NML sources is g iv en by I n( SA(g)) = Ln (SA BASE ( M. RR UP, Z TOR, F. T)) + f HW ( M' Dip. ff 'R x. R JB. R RUP' Z TOR) (Eq. 2-4)

Results for f=l and 10 Hz 2.0 --+-'-__.__

....................

__.__ ....................

......__ ....................

......__ .................................................................

__.__ ...........

-+-1 .8 1.6 O> 1.4 -<( 1.2 Cf) c 1.0 co i5 0.8 Q) f=l Hz *

  • E o.6 * * *
  • 0.4 --.!. .. -----------

-*---.. ----!_ _. -----0.2 * * * * * * * * * * * *

  • 0.0 ---..-.-.......................

-.-.......................

-.-.......................

-.......................

-.-..-............

....-.--0 10 20 30 med ian model no. 2.0 ............

-...................................

__ ............

___ .........................

___ __.__ .......................

__ ..._._ ...........

__ 1.8 1.6 O> 1.4 -<( 1.2 Cf) c 1.0 co i5 0.8 Q) E o.6 0.4 0.2

  • f=lO Hz * * * * * * * *
  • * * * ** * * *
  • 0.0 -t--.--.-..-....-.-....,........,-.....-

............

....,........,.-.-

.......................

-.-..-..,........,.......,........,-.....-

.......................

--0 10 20 30 median mode l no. Parameter Value Mag 8.1 ZroR 2.0 km RRUP 10.2 km RJB 10.0 km Dip 85 Width 15.0 km Rx 10.0 km F SS Total Sigma Model 3. Total Sigma Model for DCPP 3.1 Structure of the Logic Tree Model M-Dependent 1 0 (See Eq. 3-1) Epistemic U n ce rta i n ty H igh (95% percentile) 0.3 Cen tral 0.55 L ow (5*.4 ercentile) 0 1 5 (Set? Tobie J 1) F igu r e 3-1: Logic Tree for Tota l Sigma at DCPP. Part i ally Non-Ergodic Directivity Adjustmen t Yes-C entral 0.0 No 1.0 Aleat ory Distribution Form Mi x ture Model 08 Accounts for heavy tails Normal 0.2 (See Eq 3-l)

Total Sigma Model 3.2 DCP P Tota l Sigma M odel The fol l owi ng values are prov ide d obtain the total sigma as a funct io n o f Magn i tude, O$$(M), for hazard ca l c ulations using: f (M-5) ( ) CT1+--* Uz-U1 CTss(M) = 2 CTz fo1*M< 7.0 forM 7.0 The period-dependent values of 0'1 and a 2 are listed in Table 3-1: 3-1: Epistemic Distr i bution for O' ss for DCPP. Period (sec) Lo w Bran ch Cen tra l Branch CH <n CH en 0.0 1 0.456 0.390 0.576 0.495 0.02 0.457 0.394 0.577 0.498 0.03 0.458 0.396 0.577 0.499 0.05 0.460 0.402 0.578 0.504 0.075 0.4 6 1 0.407 0.578 0.507 0.1 0.462 0.411 0.579 0.510 0.1 5 0.46 4 0.4 1 6 0.580 0.514 0.2 0.465 0.4 1 9 0.58 1 0.5 1 7 0.25 0.465 0.422 0.581 0.519 0.3 0.466 0.424 0.58 1 0.520 0.4 0.466 0.427 0.582 0.522 0.5 0.467 0.429 0.582 0.524 0.7" ..... --v.4.:SL u.::>o., U.::>.L I c 1 0.468 0.434 0.583 0.529 1.:> -A_..., n .d'.:t7 n <;.'.:t1 2 0.469 0.439 0.584 0.532 3 0.470 0.441 0.585 0.534 4 0.470 0.441 0.585 0.534 5 0.470 0.441 0.585 0.535 7.5 0.471 0.442 0.585 0.535 1 0 0.471 0.442 0.586 0.536 (Eq. 3-1) High Branch CH 02 0.699 0.614 0.699 0.61 4 0.700 0.615 0.700 0.616 0.701 0.617 0.702 0.618 0.703 0.620 0.703 0.621 0.704 0.622 0.704 0.623 0.704 0.625 0.705 0.626 v. --"""8 0.706 0.629 ... 1 v:031 0.707 0.632 0.707 0.633 0.707 0.634 0.707 0.634 0.708 0.635 0.708 0.635 For M=8.1 ass (low) 0.434 (0.15) ass (central)=

0.592 (0.55) ass (high) = 0.629 (0.30)

To Do List

  • Program more periods
  • Validate results for a examples
  • Implement with Roland's codes
  • Run PSHA for major sources
  • Distant sources -NGA West 2 GMPEs already part of Roland's codes
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML16054A008&oldid=1713284"