ML15212A713

(External_Sender) Davis Besse ESEP Clarification Questions

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

Text

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

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

Subject:

[External_Sender] RE: Davis Besse ESEP Clarification Questions Attachments: DBNPS ESEP Clarification Question Response.pdf Responses to the Davis-Besse ESEP clarification questions are included in the attachment to this email.

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

Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 5:39 PM To: Lashley, Phil H.

Cc: DiFrancesco, Nicholas; Devlin-Gill, Stephanie

Subject:

Davis Besse ESEP Clarification Questions Mr. Lashley, As part of the NRC review of the Davis Besse ESEP report, the staff would appreciate clarification on the following technical items:

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

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

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

Attachment A, the ESEL, contains 382 items on 19 pages. Attachment B contains 11 pages of HCLPF values, with no cross reference back to the ESEL Table items. There appears to be fewer items in the HCLPF Table than items in the ESEL. Please confirm that the HCLPF Table only includes the ESEL items that Attachment A identifies as Screened In. For clarification, provide a roadmap from the ESEL Table (Attachment A) to the HCLPF Table (Attachment B).

3. Section 3.1.5 of the ESEP Report states:Critical indicators and recorders are typically physically located on panels/cabinets and are included as separate components; however, seismic evaluation of the instrument indication may be included in the panel/cabinet seismic evaluation (rule-of-the-box).

1

Section 6.1 of the ESEP Report states A number of components on the ESEL are breakers and switches that are housed in a parent component, such as a motor control center (MCC) or switchgear. For the purpose of this evaluation, calculations are not explicitly performed for these housed components. Instead, their HCLPF is assigned based on the parent component.

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

4. Section 5.2 of the ESEP Report states the following: Subsequent equipment HCLPF calculations and fragility evaluations are based on the conservative deterministic failure margin (CDFM) approach. In accordance with EPRI 1019200 [10] "Seismic Fragility Applications Guide Update," the seismic analyses are performed using BE structure stiffness, mass and damping characteristics, and the BE subsurface Vs profile compatible with the expected seismic shear strains. The resulting ISRS approximately represent the 84th percentile response suitable for use in the CDFM calculations.

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

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

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

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

However, Appendix B provides information for C, R, and U, which would indicate that fragility analyses have been performed.

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

2

An email response will likely be sufficient to support the ESEP report review, however, please be aware that your email response will be made publicly available in ADAMS. A response around July 22, if practicable, would be greatly appreciated to support the planned review schedule.

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

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

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

3

Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 2265 Mail Envelope Properties (CY1PR0501MB15472BA3AD40F80DC34ED75ABD830)

Subject:

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

Created By: phlashley@firstenergycorp.com Recipients:

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

Tracking Status: None "Devlin-Gill, Stephanie" <Stephanie.Devlin-Gill@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Lentz, Thomas A. (Licensing)" <talentz@firstenergycorp.com>

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

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

Tracking Status: None Post Office: CY1PR0501MB1547.namprd05.prod.outlook.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 7716 7/22/2015 11:32:23 AM DBNPS ESEP Clarification Question Response.pdf 1525903 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received:

3562533-R-001 Revision 0 Response to Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Expedited Seismic Evaluation Process Report Clarification Questions July 14, 2015 Prepared for:

ABSG Consulting Inc.

• 300 Commerce Drive, Suite 200

• Irvine, California 92602

3562533-R-001 Revision 0 Response to Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Expedited Seismic Evaluation Process Report Clarification Questions July 14, 2015 Prepared by:

ABSG Consulting Inc.

Prepared for:

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station 5501 Ohio 2 Oak Harbor, OH 43449

3562533-R-001 Revision 0 July 14, 2015 Page 4 of 10 Table of Revisions Revision No. Date Description of Revision 0 July 14, 2015 Original Issue

3562533-R-001 Revision 0 July 14, 2015 Page 5 of 10 Nuclear Regulatory Commission e-mail from Stephen Wyman to Phil Lashley dated July 1, 2015.

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

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

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

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

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

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

FENOC Response Based on the guidance in EPRI 3002000704, 382 items were identified as potential ESEL items.

Following the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) screening process, described in Section 3.1 of the ESEP Report, 109 of these items were screened out. The final ESEL contains 273 screened in components. Attachment A of the ESEP report summarizes and documents this screening process, and Attachment B of the ESEP report presents HCLPF values only for the screened in items.

For clarification, Attachment 2 of this response provides the Attachment B HCLPF table with an additional column identifying the ESEL item number to provide a roadmap to the ESEL table in Attachment A of the ESEP report.

3562533-R-001 Revision 0 July 14, 2015 Page 7 of 10 Clarification Question #3 Section 3.1.5 of the ESEP Report states: Critical indicators and recorders are typically physically located on panels/cabinets and are included as separate components; however, seismic evaluation of the instrument indication may be included in the panel/cabinet seismic evaluation (rule-of-the-box).

Section 6.1 of the ESEP Report states A number of components on the ESEL are breakers and switches that are housed in a parent component, such as a motor control center (MCC) or switchgear. For the purpose of this evaluation, calculations are not explicitly performed for these housed components. Instead, their HCLPF is assigned based on the parent component.

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

FENOC Response The above referenced sections of the ESEP Report describe the approach to the rule-of-the-box. Section 3.1.5 states that indicators and recorders are listed on the ESEL as distinct items, but that their seismic evaluation is based on the evaluation of the parent component. Section 6.1 reiterates that when an ESEL item is identified to be mounted on a parent component, the HCLPF of the parent component is assigned to the item.

All the HCLPF calculations are based on the guidance provided in EPRI TR-1002988 and EPRI TR-1019200, in which a generic capacity of 1.8g or use of GERS is endorsed for functional capacity. The anchorage capacity for the parent component is also evaluated. The HCLPF developed for the parent component is assigned as the HCLPF value to all ESEL components housed therein, as documented in Attachment B of the ESEP report.

Plants component management system was utilized to locate all housed-in components on the ESEL. All housed-in components were subsequently walked down as part of the parent component. For example, HPI Converters FYHP3C1 and FYHP3C2 (ESEL Items 201 and 202) were walked down to confirm their location and mounting inside Cabinet C3628 (ESEL Item 205). These components are therefore assigned the HCLPF of C3628. Similarly, a walkdown confirmed that Motor MP42-1 (ESEL Item 325) is mounted on Decay Heat Pump P42-1 (ESEL Item 324). As the HCLPF calculation for P42-1 considers everything within the boundary of the skid, MP42-1 is assigned the HCLPF of P42-1.

As stated in Section 6.5 of the ESEP Report, there are no relays included in the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station ESEL. Therefore no specific evaluations for devices sensitive to vibration were performed.

3562533-R-001 Revision 0 July 14, 2015 Page 8 of 10 Clarification Question #4 Section 5.2 of the ESEP Report states the following:

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

Section 4 of the Seismic Evaluation Guidance, Augmented Approach (EPRI 3002000704) allows the development of ISRS calculated from new soil structure interaction (SSI) models.

The guidance document indicates that: EPRI 1025287 (SPID) and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)/American Nuclear Society (ANS) probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) Standard give guidance on acceptable methods to compute both the ground motion response spectra and the associated in-structure response spectra (ISRS). Table 6-5 in the SPID document, under the SFR-C6 entry, indicates that ASME/ANS PRA Standard (Addendums A and B) requires consideration of the variation of soil properties (Vs profile).

Also, the SFR-C5 entry indicates that if the median-centered response analysis is performed, the evaluation should estimate the median response (i.e., structural loads and ISRS) and variability in the response using established methods.

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

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

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

EPRI 1019200 further states that the SSI analysis should address best estimate + parameter variation, and that the peak shifting should be used instead of peak broadening recommended

3562533-R-001 Revision 0 July 14, 2015 Page 9 of 10 in ASCE 4-98. However, the reported analysis uses only the result from the BE soil column (stiffness and damping), and median structure stiffness and damping. The effects of variability of the soil column stiffness and damping are considered using the approach in EPRI NP-6041.

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

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

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

3562533-R-001 Revision 0 July 14, 2015 Page 10 of 10 Clarification Question #5 Section 6.4 of the ESEP Reports states that all HCLPF calculations were performed using the CDFM methodology. However, Appendix B provides information for C, R, and U, which would indicate that fragility analyses have been performed.

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

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

3562533-R-001 Revision 0 July 14, 2015 Page 1.1 of 1.33 Attachment 1.

Walkdown Team Member Resumes

3562533-R-001, Revision 0 Page 1.2 of 1.33 July 14, 2015 FAR RZIN R. BEIGI, B P.E E.

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

Selected project accomplishma ments includ de the follow wing:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3562533-R-001, Revision 0 Page 1.3 of 1.33 July 14, 2015 F

FARZIN R.. BEIGI, P.E E.

x Mr.

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

x Mr.

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

x Mr.

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

x Mr.

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

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

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

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

P x Mr.

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

x Mr.

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

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

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

3562533-R-001, Revision 0 Page 1.4 of 1.33 July 14, 2015 F

FARZIN R.. BEIGI, P.E E.

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

x Mr.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3562533-R-001, Revision 0 Page 1.5 of 1.33 July 14, 2015 F

FARZIN R.. BEIGI, P.E E.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3562533-R-001, Revision 0 Page 1.6 of 1.33 July 14, 2015 F

FARZIN R.. BEIGI, P.E E.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3562533-R-001, Revision 0 Page 1.7 of 1.33 July 14, 2015 A-31

3562533-R-001, Revision 0 Page 1.8 of 1.33 July 14, 2015 279 Dorchester Rd, Phone 330-612-9579 Akron Ohio 44313 E-mail jereddington@gmail.com John E. Reddington Work Experience March 2013 to Present: CJR Engineering and Rolls-Royce Consultant: Technical lead on seismic PRA for several units; assist in fire PRA; work on Small Modular Reactor initial PRA.

January 2007 to March 2013: First Energy, FENOC Principal Consultant, Probabilistic Risk Analysis: Technical lead for seismic PRA for FENOC fleet; SQUG qualified- performed oversight of NRCs 50.54f task 2.3 and 2.1. mentor to junior and co-op engineers Lead fire PRA for the Davis-Besse fire PRA, including contractor oversight and coordination; specialization in HRA, including operations interface, model integration, dependency analysis and PWROG HRA Subcommittee; participant in several fire PRA peer reviews and one seismic PRA peer review.

August 2004- January 2007:

Principal Programs Engineer, Fleet office Akron, OH: responsible for the fire protection program for the FENOC fleet August 2003 to August 2004: Davis Besse Nuclear Station Oak Harbor, OH Training Manager: Responsible for direction and implementation of sites accredited training programs. Heavily involved with high intensity training required to get Davis Besse back on line following a two year outage replacing the reactor head.

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

Responsible for value added assessments based on performance as well as compliance. Ensure industry best practices are used as standards for performance in maintenance, outage planning, and scheduling.

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

3562533-R-001, Revision 0 Page 1.9 of 1.33 July 14, 2015 1993 - 1996 Shift Manager Act as the on-shift representative of the Plant Manager. Responsible for providing continuous management support for all Station activities to ensure safe and efficient plant operation. Establish short term objectives for plant control and provide recommendations to the Shift Supervisor. Monitor core reactivity and thermal hydraulic performance, containment isolation capability, and plant radiological conditions during transients and advise the operating crew on the actions required to maintain adequate shutdown margin, core cooling capability, and minimize radiological releases.

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

Acted as Fuel Handling Director during refueling outages.

Responsibilities Included maintaining the safe and analyzed core configuration, directing operation personnel on fuel moves, directing maintenance personnel on equipment repair and preventative maintenance.

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

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

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

Investigated and prepared both remedial and long term solutions to structural problems associated with a hot side precipitator.

1980 - 1984 Structural Engineer Responsible for steel and concrete design and analysis for LaSalle and Fermi Nuclear Power plants. Performed vibrational load and stability analysis for numerous piping systems. Member of the on-site team of engineers responsbile for timely in-place modifications to the plant structure at LaSalle.

1979 - 1980 Wagner Martin Mechanical Contractors Richmond, IN Engineer/Project Manager Responsible for sprinkler system design through approval by appropriate underwriter. Estimator and Project Manager on numerous mechanical projects up to 1.8 million dollars.

3562533-R-001, Revision 0 Page 1.10 of 1.33 July 14, 2015 Education 1975 - 1979 Purdue University West Lafayette, IN Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering 1990- 1995 University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, OH Master of Science in Nuclear Engineering Professional Professional Engineer, State of Illinois, 1984 Memberships Professional Engineer, State of Ohio, 1986 Senior Reactor Operator, Davis Besse Nuclear Power Plant, 1990 Qualified Lead Auditor, 2003 Seismic Qualification Utility Group- SQUG qualified

3562533-R-001, Revision 0 Page 1.11 of 1.33 July 14, 2015 A-37

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

Senior Structural Engineer Years Experience Skill Areas:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3562533-R-001, Revision 0 Page 1.13 of 1.33 July 14, 2015 Eddie M. Guerra, P.E.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 3 of 7

3562533-R-001, Revision 0 Page 1.15 of 1.33 July 14, 2015 Eddie M. Guerra, P.E.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3562533-R-001, Revision 0 Page 1.16 of 1.33 July 14, 2015 Eddie M. Guerra, P.E.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 5 of 7

3562533-R-001, Revision 0 Page 1.17 of 1.33 July 14, 2015 Eddie M. Guerra, P.E.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 6 of 7

3562533-R-001, Revision 0 Page 1.18 of 1.33 July 14, 2015 Eddie M. Guerra, P.E.

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

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

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

Page 7 of 7

3562533-R-001, Revision 0 Page 1.19 of 1.33 July 14, 2015

3562533-R-001, Revision 0 Page 1.20 of 1.33 July 14, 2015 Brian A. Lucarelli, E.I.T.

Engineering Associate Skill Areas:

Years Experience 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3562533-R-001, Revision 0 Page 1.21 of 1.33 July 14, 2015 Brian A. Lucarelli, E.I.T.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3562533-R-001, Revision 0 Page 1.22 of 1.33 July 14, 2015 Brian A. Lucarelli, E.I.T.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE Page 3 of 4

3562533-R-001, Revision 0 Page 1.23 of 1.33 July 14, 2015 Brian A. Lucarelli, E.I.T.

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

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

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

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

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

Page 4 of 4

3562533-R-001, Revision 0 Page 1.24 of 1.33 July 14, 2015

3562533-R-001, Revision 0 Page 1.25 of 1.33 July 14, 2015 Jason M. Dimaria, P.E.

Project Engineer Skill Areas:

Years Experience 6

Steel Connection Design Finite Element Analysis Steel Framing Design Existing Structure Evaluation Level Reinforced Concrete Design Constructability Design/Evaluation 4 Heavy Lift and Rigging Design Advanced Structural Analysis Response Spectra Analysis Seismic Evaluation Education Time History Analysis Structural Dynamics M.S., Civil Engineering, Wayne State Monte Carlo Simulation Fragility Analysis University - 2008 Probabilistic Structural Analysis HCLPF/CDFM Analysis Concrete Design (ACI 318) ACI 349 B.S., Civil Engineering, Wayne State University - 2005, Cum Laude Mr. Dimaria is a Project Engineer with Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc.

B.A., Physics, Albion College - 2003 (RIZZO). He has developed an extensive background in industrial and commercial facilities. In addition to new designs, Mr. Dimaria has worked on Professional Affiliations the evaluation of existing structures for retrofit.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), American Institute of Steel His experience includes 3D computer modeling of structures for static and Construction (AISC), Member Structural dynamic analysis, response spectra analysis for mechanical, and wind Engineers Association of Michigan vibrations or earthquakes. Mr. Dimaria also has experience modeling linear (SEAMi), Associate Member Chi Epsilon - and non-linear finite element model stress evaluation of various structures Civil Engineering Honor Society and structural details.

Professional Registration Before joining RIZZO, Mr. Dimaria functioned as a Staff Engineer at Ruby+Associates Inc. in Farmington Hills, Michigan. His main areas of Professional Engineer - P.E. - Michigan:

responsibility included structural steel building design, structural steel License No. 6201059422 connection design, reinforced concrete design and constructability review.

From this experience Mr. Dimaria has a unique perspective of structural Software systems and applies knowledge of constructability design to ensuring that the RAM, STAAD.pro, Sap 2000, RISA 3D, structure is able to be efficiently erected in the field.

RISA Floor, Math Cad, Auto Cad, REVIT, Hypermesh, Abaqus, ANSYS, TNO Diana, In addition to his experience with steel and reinforced concrete design, Mr.

Nastran, MATLAB, MS Office Suite Dimaria also has experience with heavy lift and rigging design.

Publications Mr. Dimaria has completed the Seismic Qualification Utilities Group (SQUG)

Michigan Department of Transportation 5-Day 2.1 Seismic Walkdown Training Course. This training course includes RC-1490 - Bridge Deck Corner Cracking certification of Near Term Task Force (NTTF) 2.3 Seismic Walkdown on Skewed Structures Training.

Sep. 2007, by Gongkang Fu, Jihang Feng, Jason Dimaria and Yizhou Zhuang, WSU June 2013 - Present CA01 Module Evaluation - Westinghouse, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania:

Mr. Dimaria, as Project Engineer, is responsible for the review and implementation of corrective actions. He will also analyze any required updates to the structural drawings of the CA01 structure and assess the impact these updates will have on the analytical model.

November 2012 - Present FERMI 2 NPP SPRA Upgrade Fragility Analysis - URS/DTE Energy Plant, Newport, Michigan:

Mr. Dimaria is engaged in performing seismic evaluations of plant structures and components in support of developing seismic fragilities and the seismic PRA. As part of this effort, Mr. Dimaria is part of the team responsible for the

3562533-R-001, Revision 0 Page 1.26 of 1.33 July 14, 2015 Jason M. Dimaria, P.E.

SPRA Walk downs to be performed in compliance with the ASME ANS RA-Sa-2009 Standard and the NTTF 2.1 Recommendations.

April 2012 - Present Perry NPP - Seismic Fragility Evaluation - FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Perry, Ohio:

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

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

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Shippingport, PA:

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

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

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Shippingport, Pennsylvania:

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

April 2012- Present Davis-Besse NPP - Seismic Fragility Evaluation - FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, NPP, Oak Harbor, Ohio:

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

April 2009 - Present AP1000 VCS Duct System Engineering Analysis and HVAC Design - SSM Industries:

Mr. Dimaria is a Project Engineer for this ongoing project. RIZZO is providing seismic design support for VCS Duct System for AP1000 Containment. Mr.

Dimaria created several models to determine the reaction loads on different containment modules due to the duct runs associated with the VCS System inside the AP1000 Containment. The duct runs mainly conduct chilled air from the ring header to various lower regions of the containment space.

Mr. Dimaria performed mode-frequency analysis using the Global Models and extract frequencies and mode shapes for specific VCS duct segments by using STAAD.pro. The frequencies represent the combined frequency of the duct beams and supports. Mr. Dimaria also utilized MathCAD to calculate the Jason M. Dimaria, P.E.

3562533-R-001, Revision 0 Page 1.27 of 1.33 July 14, 2015 Jason M. Dimaria, P.E.

composite fundamental Frequency of specific duct systems combining the Global Beam Model frequency, the panel frequency and the stiffener frequency. He demonstrated that the fundamental frequency is in excess of 33 Hz, which is the threshold frequency for ZPA associated with the support point ISRS.

The final analysis will evaluate the dynamic interaction of the duct systems with various miscellaneous platform structures which are used to support the duct runs inside containment. This analysis will develop composite modal frequencies that include the stiffness and mass of the platforms. The combined platforms and duct system will be analyzed using the appropriate spectral acceleration in the In-Structure Response Spectra (ISRS) at the locations where the platforms are attached.

August 2009 - Present Geotechnical Evaluation of Layered Soils and Dynamic Analysis of STM Test Facility for AP1000 RC Pump - Shenyang Turbo-Machinery Corporation (STM):

Mr. Dimaria is a Project Engineer for this project. RIZZO is providing geotechnical, structural, and mechanical engineering services for the Shenyang Turbo-Machinery (STM) Company in mainland China. RIZZO is developing the design of a Test Loop Facility used for manufacturing the AP 1000 Reactor Cooling Pump. The design is similar to a design developed by RIZZO for a facility in the United States. Due to the multi-layered soils at the Chinese site and the low bearing capacity of several layers, RIZZO is developing a soil remediation plan for the facility. The excavation methodology plan will remove the weaker, saturated clay deposits directly below the mat and pit foundations that are settlement prone. These soils will be replaced with compacted, granular engineered fill. The dewatering of the site and the design of a deep, braced excavation for the pit construction is also part of the plan.

For this project Mr. Dimaria reviewed the Structural Steel Drawings and Details for completeness, accuracy and compliance with Chinese Steel Design and Welding Codes. Since the project involved the conversion from Rolled U.S. Steel Shapes to Chinese Welded Shapes, Mr. Dimaria Reviewed these alterations of the design, additionally the welding symbols used in China are different than those in the U.S. Mr. Dimaria reviewed the original U.S. Test Loop Drawings and ensured that the welding procedures and steel design used at the Chinese Test Loop facility were in compliance.

August 2011 - November 2011 Koeberg Nuclear Power Plant Seismic Evaluation, Cape Town, South Africa - ESCOM:

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

April 2011 - March 2012 Kallpa Seismic Calculation Review - POSCO:

Mr. Dimaria is an Assistant Project Engineer for this project. RIZZO is providing, structural analysis and design calculation peer review for the Combined Cycle Power Plant in Peru. Mr. Dimaria reviewed client Jason M. Dimaria, P.E.

3562533-R-001, Revision 0 Page 1.28 of 1.33 July 14, 2015 Jason M. Dimaria, P.E.

calculations and drawings and provided comments to the originator to ensure consistency and proper structural design and analysis methodologies were employed on the project.

As part of the design review Mr. Dimaria was support field engineer for the inspection of the Kallpa Combined Cycle Power Plant to verify that the as built condition of the structures was in line with the design calculations and drawings reviewed and approved by RIZZO.

April 2011 - Present Chilca Uno Seismic Calculation Review - POSCO:

Mr. Dimaria is a Project Engineer for this project. RIZZO is providing, structural analsis and design calculation peer review for the Combined Cycle Power Plant in Peru currently under construction. Mr. Dimaria reviewed client calculations and drawings and provided comments to the originator to ensure consistency and proper structural design and analysis methodologies were employed on the project.

As part of the design review Mr. Dimaria was lead field engineer for the inspection of the Chilca Uno Combined Cycle Power Plant to verify that the as built condition of the structures was in line with the design calculations and drawings reviewed and approved by RIZZO.

PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE:

December 2006 - June 2009 Staff Engineer II - Ruby Associates, Inc. Farmington Hills, Michigan:

x Developed innovative calculations for various engineering problems for time critical projects.

x Created and analyzed Finite Element models of complex structural systems.

x Developed computational spreadsheets to design structural elements more efficiently and with greater accuracy.

x Collaborated with engineering staff to provide solutions for structural problems. Coordinated efforts with clients and field personnel concerning problem solutions, development, and repair methods, including:

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

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

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

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

Jason M. Dimaria, P.E.

3562533-R-001, Revision 0 Page 1.29 of 1.33 July 14, 2015 Jason M. Dimaria, P.E.

May 2005 - December 2006 Graduate Research Assistant - Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan:

x Worked with Michigan and Georgia DOTs on several original sensor instrumentation projects, maintained systems, and compiled data for computer analysis.

x Assumed leadership role on system design and field instrumentation, coordinated efforts with DOTs and contractors to keep project on schedule.

x Teaching Assistant - Worked with students as a teacher to mentor and improve understanding of design and analysis process.

Jason M. Dimaria, P.E.

3562533-R-001, Revision 0 Page 1.30 of 1.33 July 14, 2015

3562533-R-001, Revision 0 Page 1.31 of 1.33 July 14, 2015 Bradley T. Yagla, E.I.T.

Engineering Associate Skill Areas:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

x Analyzed structure FE models for soil-structure interaction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

x Analyzed structure FE models for soil-structure interaction.

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

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

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

3562533-R-001, Revision 0 Page 1.32 of 1.33 July 14, 2015 Bradley T. Yagla, E.I.T.

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

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

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

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

x Analyzed structure FE models for soil-structure interaction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

x Analyzed structure FE models for soil-structure interaction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

x Developed process flowcharts for piping isometric drawing classification.

x Verified stress calculations for pipe hangers in mechanical modules.

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

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

Page 2 of 2

3562533-R-001, Revision 0 Page 1.33 of 1.33 July 14, 2015

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

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID

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

HV5301A 1.02 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.90 Functional Analysis Qualification Data 300 HV5301B 1.02 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.90 Functional Analysis Qualification Data 301 HV5301C 1.02 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.90 Functional Analysis Qualification Data 302 HV5301D 1.02 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.90 Functional Analysis Qualification Data 303 HV5301E 1.02 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.90 Functional Analysis Qualification Data 304 HV5301F 1.02 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.90 Functional Analysis Qualification Data 305 HV5301G 0.42 0.40 0.26 0.30 1.07 Block Wall New Analysis 306 HV5301H 1.02 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.90 Functional Analysis Qualification Data 307 SV5301 1.02 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.90 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 310 Box. Parent Component HV-5301E.

SV5301A 1.02 0.45 0.24 0.38 2.90 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 311 Box. Parent Component HV-5301E.

HV5443A 0.57 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.62 Anchorage Analysis Based on Existing 379 Seismic Analysis HV5443C 0.57 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.62 Anchorage Analysis Based on Existing 380 Seismic Analysis HV5261 0.57 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.62 Anchorage Analysis Based on Existing 375 Seismic Analysis 3562533-R-001 HV5305 0.57 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.62 Anchorage Analysis Based on Existing 376 Revision 0 Seismic Analysis July 1414, 2015 Page 2.2 of 2.28

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued)

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

HV5305A 0.57 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.62 Anchorage Analysis Based on Existing 377 Seismic Analysis HV5305B 0.57 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.62 Anchorage Analysis Based on Existing 378 Seismic Analysis HV5361A 0.50 0.40 0.26 0.30 1.27 Block Wall New Analysis 308 HV5361B 0.57 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.62 Anchorage Analysis Based on Existing 309 Seismic Analysis HV5597 0.57 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.62 Anchorage Analysis Based on Existing 381 Seismic Analysis MV5443A 0.57 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.62 Anchorage Assigned by Rule of the 353 Box. Parent Component HV5443A.

MV5443C 0.57 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.62 Anchorage Assigned by Rule of the 354 Box. Parent Component HV5443C.

MV5261A 0.57 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.62 Anchorage Assigned by Rule of the 297 Box. Parent Component HV5261.

MV5305 0.57 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.62 Anchorage Assigned by Rule of the 280 Box. Parent Component HV5305. 3562533-R-001 MV5305A 0.57 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.62 Anchorage Assigned by Rule of the 278 Revision 0 Box. Parent Component July 1414, 2015 HV5305A.

Page 2.3 of 2.28

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued)

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

MV5305B 0.57 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.62 Anchorage Assigned by Rule of the 279 Box. Parent Component HV5305B.

MV5597 0.57 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.62 Anchorage Assigned by Rule of the 281 Box. Parent Component HV5597.

F15-3 1.26 0.35 0.24 0.26 2.85 Anchorage New Analysis 158 E12B 1.06 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.70 Functional GERS 253 E12F 1.06 0.40 0.26 0.30 2.69 Block Wall New Analysis 256 YE1 1.06 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.70 Functional GERS 258 BE1259 1.06 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.70 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 257 Box. Parent Component E12B.

BE1273 1.06 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.70 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 254 Box. Parent Component E12B.

BE1285 1.06 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.70 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 275 Box. Parent Component E12B.

BE1297 1.06 0.40 0.26 0.30 2.69 Block Wall Assigned by Rule of the 255 Box. Parent Component 3562533-R-001 E12F. Revision 0 BE1298 1.06 0.40 0.26 0.30 2.69 Block Wall Assigned by Rule of the 268 July 1414, 2015 Box. Parent Component Page 2.4 of 2.28 E12F.

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued)

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

BE1208A 1.06 0.40 0.26 0.30 2.69 Block Wall Assigned by Rule of the 274 Box. Parent Component E12F.

YE104 1.06 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.70 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 284 Box. Parent Component YE1.

F11A 0.26 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.67 Anchorage New Analysis 212 BF1130 0.26 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.67 Anchorage Assigned by Rule of the 317 Box. Parent Component F11A.

BF1120 0.26 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.67 Anchorage Assigned by Rule of the 211 Box. Parent Component F11A.

E11E 0.29 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.73 Anchorage New Analysis 374 YE2 0.29 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.73 Anchorage New Analysis 262 BE1151 0.29 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.73 Anchorage Assigned by Rule of the 246 Box. Parent Component E11E.

BE1149 0.29 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.73 Anchorage Assigned by Rule of the 295 Box. Parent Component E11E. 3562533-R-001 YE208 0.29 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.73 Anchorage Assigned by Rule of the 260 Revision 0 Box. Parent Component July 1414, 2015 YE2.

Page 2.5 of 2.28

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued)

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

YE209 0.29 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.73 Anchorage Assigned by Rule of the 361 Box. Parent Component YE2.

YE210 0.29 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.73 Anchorage Assigned by Rule of the 362 Box. Parent Component YE2.

YE212 0.29 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.73 Anchorage Assigned by Rule of the 363 Box. Parent Component YE2.

YE2A 0.29 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.73 Anchorage Assigned by Rule of the 259 Box. Parent Component YE2.

YE2B 0.29 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.73 Anchorage Assigned by Rule of the 261 Box. Parent Component YE2.

E12E 0.68 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.73 Anchorage New Analysis 252 BE1291 0.68 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.73 Anchorage Assigned by Rule of the 251 Box. Parent Component E12E.

BE1292 0.68 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.73 Anchorage Assigned by Rule of the 348 Box. Parent Component E12E. 3562533-R-001 Revision 0 E12A 1.15 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.92 Functional GERS 216 July 1414, 2015 D1_ED 1.15 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.92 Functional GERS 373 Page 2.6 of 2.28 E14 1.15 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.92 Functional GERS 155

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued)

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

BE1201 1.15 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.92 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 291 Box. Parent Component E12A.

BE1202 1.15 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.92 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 247 Box. Parent Component E12A.

BE1208 1.15 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.92 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 273 Box. Parent Component E12A.

BE1209 1.15 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.92 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 293 Box. Parent Component E12A.

BE1216 1.15 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.92 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 292 Box. Parent Component E12A.

BE1223 1.15 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.92 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 217 Box. Parent Component E12A.

BE1226 1.15 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.92 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 343 Box. Parent Component E12A.

BE1234 1.15 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.92 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 250 3562533-R-001 Box. Parent Component Revision 0 E12A.

July 1414, 2015 Page 2.7 of 2.28

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued)

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

BE1240 1.15 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.92 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 276 Box. Parent Component E12A.

BE1241 1.15 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.92 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 277 Box. Parent Component E12A.

BE1401 1.15 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.92 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 154 Box. Parent Component E14.

D101 1.15 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.92 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 65 Box. Parent Component D1_ED.

D103 1.15 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.92 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 74 Box. Parent Component D1_ED.

D104 1.15 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.92 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 67 Box. Parent Component D1_ED.

D131 1.15 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.92 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 68 Box. Parent Component D1_ED.

D132 1.15 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.92 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 72 3562533-R-001 Box. Parent Component Revision 0 D1_ED.

July 1414, 2015 Page 2.8 of 2.28

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued)

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

D134 1.15 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.92 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 75 Box. Parent Component D1_ED.

D111 1.15 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.92 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 69 Box. Parent Component D1_ED.

D112 1.15 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.92 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 70 Box. Parent Component D1_ED.

D116 1.15 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.92 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 71 Box. Parent Component D1_ED.

E11D 0.32 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.81 Anchorage New Analysis 242 BE1126 0.32 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.81 Anchorage Assigned by Rule of the 320 Box. Parent Component E11D.

BE1196 0.32 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.81 Anchorage Assigned by Rule of the 240 Box. Parent Component E11D.

E11A 0.49 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.24 Anchorage New Analysis 239 E11B 0.49 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.24 Anchorage New Analysis 241 3562533-R-001 E11C 0.49 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.24 Anchorage New Analysis 244 Revision 0 BE1120 0.49 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.24 Anchorage Assigned by Rule of the 237 July 1414, 2015 Box. Parent Component Page 2.9 of 2.28 E11A.

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued)

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

BE1121 0.49 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.24 Anchorage Assigned by Rule of the 323 Box. Parent Component E11A.

BE1162 0.49 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.24 Anchorage Assigned by Rule of the 213 Box. Parent Component E11B.

BE1166 0.49 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.24 Anchorage Assigned by Rule of the 238 Box. Parent Component E11B.

BE1180 0.49 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.24 Anchorage Assigned by Rule of the 243 Box. Parent Component E11B.

BE1183 0.49 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.24 Anchorage Assigned by Rule of the 316 Box. Parent Component E11B.

BE1144 0.49 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.24 Anchorage Assigned by Rule of the 294 Box. Parent Component E11C.

BE1150 0.49 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.24 Anchorage Assigned by Rule of the 245 Box. Parent Component E11C.

3562533-R-001 BE1154 0.49 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.24 Anchorage Assigned by Rule of the 360 Box. Parent Component Revision 0 E11C. July 1414, 2015 Page 2.10 of 2.28

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued)

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

BE1142 0.49 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.24 Anchorage Assigned by Rule of the 163 Box. Parent Component E11C.

E12C 0.42 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.06 Functional GERS 249 EF12C 0.42 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.06 Functional GERS 160 BE1284 0.42 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.06 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 248 Box. Parent Component E12C.

BEF124 0.42 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.06 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 159 Box. Parent Component EF12C.

BEF125 0.42 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.06 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 166 Box. Parent Component EF12C.

E1 0.70 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.77 Anchorage New Analysis 230 BCE11 0.70 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.77 Anchorage Assigned by Rule of the 232 Box. Parent Component E1.

BE106 0.70 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.77 Anchorage Assigned by Rule of the 236 Box. Parent Component E1. 3562533-R-001 BE107 0.70 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.77 Anchorage Assigned by Rule of the 235 Revision 0 Box. Parent Component July 1414, 2015 E1.

Page 2.11 of 2.28

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued)

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

BE110 0.70 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.77 Anchorage Assigned by Rule of the 234 Box. Parent Component E1.

C1 0.38 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.97 Anchorage New Analysis 367 ABDC1 0.38 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.97 Anchorage Assigned by Rule of the 364 Box. Parent Component C1.

AC110 0.38 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.97 Anchorage Assigned by Rule of the 365 Box. Parent Component C1.

AC112 0.38 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.97 Anchorage Assigned by Rule of the 326 Box. Parent Component C1.

AC113 0.38 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.97 Anchorage Assigned by Rule of the 340 Box. Parent Component C1.

AC1CE11 0.38 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.97 Anchorage Assigned by Rule of the 366 Box. Parent Component C1.

XCE1-1 0.43 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.08 Anchorage New Analysis 368 P42-1 0.49 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.24 Anchorage New Analysis 324 3562533-R-001 P43-1 0.49 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.24 Anchorage New Analysis 335 Revision 0 MP42-1 0.49 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.24 Anchorage Assigned by Rule of the 325 July 1414, 2015 Box. Parent Component Page 2.12 of 2.28 P42-1.

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued)

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

P195-1 0.76 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.93 Anchorage New Analysis 269 CC1467 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.66 Functional Earthquake Experience 338 Data SV1467 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.66 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 339 Box. Parent Component CC1467.

SS607 3.85 0.40 0.24 0.32 9.78 Functional Analysis Based on Existing 14 Seismic Analysis SV607 3.85 0.40 0.24 0.32 9.78 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 15 Box. Parent Component SS607.

HP2C 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.66 Functional Earthquake Experience 197 Data DH1517 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.66 Functional Earthquake Experience 318 Data DH2733 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.66 Functional Earthquake Experience 321 Data MV1517 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.66 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 319 Box. Parent Component DH1517.

3562533-R-001 MV2733 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.66 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 322 Box. Parent Component Revision 0 DH2733. July 1414, 2015 SW1366 0.41 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.05 Functional Analysis Based on Existing 161 Page 2.13 of 2.28 Seismic Analysis

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued)

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

CC5095 0.41 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.05 Functional Analysis Based on Existing 341 Seismic Analysis MV1366 0.41 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.05 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 162 Box. Parent Component SW1366.

MV5095 0.41 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.05 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 342 Box. Parent Component CC5095.

MU3 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.66 Functional Earthquake Experience 22 Data MU38 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.66 Functional Earthquake Experience 17 Data SVMU3 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.66 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 23 Box. Parent Component MU3.

SVMU38 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.66 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 18 Box. Parent Component MU38.

SV4823 0.31 0.45 0.24 0.38 0.90 Functional Earthquake Experience 298 Data SV4824 0.31 0.45 0.24 0.38 0.90 Functional Earthquake Experience 299 3562533-R-001 Data Revision 0 DH11 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.66 Functional Earthquake Experience 312 July 1414, 2015 Data Page 2.14 of 2.28

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued)

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

DH12 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.66 Functional Earthquake Experience 313 Data CF1A 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.66 Functional Earthquake Experience 207 Data CF1B 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.66 Functional Earthquake Experience 208 Data MVDH11 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.66 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 314 Box. Parent Component DH11.

MVDH12 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.66 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 315 Box. Parent Component DH12.

MVCF1A 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.66 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 209 Box. Parent Component CF1A.

MVCF1B 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.66 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 210 Box. Parent Component CF1B.

SW1381 0.47 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.20 Functional Earthquake Experience 165 Data C31-4 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.66 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 347 3562533-R-001 Box. Parent Component Revision 0 E42-4.

July 1414, 2015 Page 2.15 of 2.28

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued)

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

MC31-4 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.66 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 349 Box. Parent Component C31-4.

C71-1 0.92 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.34 Functional Earthquake Experience 271 Data C75-1 0.75 0.40 0.26 0.30 1.90 Block Wall New Analysis 352 C78-1 0.75 0.40 0.26 0.30 1.90 Block Wall New Analysis 272 C21-1 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.12 Functional Earthquake Experience 285 Data MC21-1 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.12 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 286 Box. Parent Component C21-1.

S61-1 0.22 0.45 0.24 0.38 0.63 Functional Analysis Based on Existing 288 Seismic Analysis MS3311 0.22 0.45 0.24 0.38 0.63 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 290 Box. Parent Component S61-1.

MS61-1 0.22 0.45 0.24 0.38 0.63 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 289 Box. Parent Component S61-1.

3562533-R-001 E42-4 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.66 Functional Earthquake Experience 346 Data Revision 0 S33-1 0.61 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.74 Functional Earthquake Experience 287 July 1414, 2015 Data Page 2.16 of 2.28

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued)

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

MP43-1 0.61 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.74 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 336 Box. Parent Component S33-1.

C1-1 0.36 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.91 Functional Earthquake Experience 157 Data E37-1 0.36 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.91 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 149 Box. Parent Component C1-1.

L5701 0.30 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.76 Functional GERS 56 L57D1 0.30 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.76 Functional GERS 57 Y1 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional GERS 103 Y3 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional GERS 105 D1P 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional GERS 84 D1N 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional GERS 94 Y1A 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional GERS 109 D1N01 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 95 Box. Parent Component D1N.

D1N03 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 97 3562533-R-001 Box. Parent Component D1N. Revision 0 D1N04 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 98 July 1414, 2015 Box. Parent Component Page 2.17 of 2.28 D1N.

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued)

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

D1P01 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 85 Box. Parent Component D1P.

D1P03 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 87 Box. Parent Component D1P.

D1P07 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 89 Box. Parent Component D1P.

D1P11 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 90 Box. Parent Component D1P.

D1P13 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 91 Box. Parent Component D1P.

D1P20 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 92 Box. Parent Component D1P.

D1P24 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 93 Box. Parent Component D1P.

3562533-R-001 Y101 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 107 Box. Parent Component Revision 0 Y1. July 1414, 2015 Page 2.18 of 2.28

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued)

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

Y108 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 110 Box. Parent Component Y1.

Y301 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 115 Box. Parent Component Y3.

Y101A 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 108 Box. Parent Component Y1A.

Y109A 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 111 Box. Parent Component Y1A.

YAR 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional GERS 76 YAU 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional GERS 82 YAR04 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 77 Box. Parent Component YAR.

YAR05 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 78 Box. Parent Component YAR.

YAR06 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 79 3562533-R-001 Box. Parent Component Revision 0 YAR.

July 1414, 2015 Page 2.19 of 2.28

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued)

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

YAU01 0.82 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.08 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 83 Box. Parent Component YAU.

1N 0.76 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.94 Functional GERS 62 1P 0.76 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.94 Functional GERS 61 DBC1N 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.64 Functional GERS 219 DBC1P 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.64 Functional GERS 218 DBC1NA 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.64 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 222 Box. Parent Component DBC1N.

BBC1NB 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.64 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 223 Box. Parent Component DBC1N.

DBC1PA 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.64 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 224 Box. Parent Component DBC1P.

BBC1PB 0.65 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.64 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 225 Box. Parent Component DBC1P.

YV1 0.95 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.42 Functional GERS 99 3562533-R-001 YV3 0.95 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.42 Functional GERS 101 Revision 0 YVA 0.95 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.42 Functional GERS 81 July 1414, 2015 LTSP9B3 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on 33 Page 2.20 of 2.28 Seismic Ruggedness

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued)

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

FIS1422D 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on 344 Seismic Ruggedness FTHP3C 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on 200 Seismic Ruggedness TS-5261 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on 296 Seismic Ruggedness TS5318 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on 283 Seismic Ruggedness TS5443 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on 358 Seismic Ruggedness TS-5597 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on 282 Seismic Ruggedness TSH5421 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on 350 Seismic Ruggedness TSL5421 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on 351 Seismic Ruggedness TT5443 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on 356 Seismic Ruggedness LSH 1128 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on 267 Seismic Ruggedness 3562533-R-001 LSL 1128 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on 266 Revision 0 Seismic Ruggedness July 1414, 2015 LT1525A 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on 183 Seismic Ruggedness Page 2.21 of 2.28

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued)

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

PT2000 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on 181 Seismic Ruggedness PTRC2B4 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on 43 Seismic Ruggedness TSH 1483 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on 345 Seismic Ruggedness FTDH2B 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on 332 Seismic Ruggedness LT2787 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on 264 Seismic Ruggedness TT1356 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on 153 Seismic Ruggedness PTSP12B1 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on 31 Seismic Ruggedness TY5443 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on 359 Seismic Ruggedness LTRC14-2 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on 45 Seismic Ruggedness TESP11B1 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on 26 Seismic Ruggedness 3562533-R-001 TIC5443 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on 357 Revision 0 Seismic Ruggedness July 1414, 2015 TE-5443 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on 355 Seismic Ruggedness Page 2.22 of 2.28

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued)

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

TE-1356 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on 151 Seismic Ruggedness TEIM07M 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on 41 Seismic Ruggedness TE-RC3B5 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on 38 Seismic Ruggedness TE-RC4B2 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on 35 Seismic Ruggedness C3630 1.09 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.77 Anchorage Earthquake Experience 47 Data LIRC14-2 1.09 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.77 Anchorage Assigned by Rule of the 46 Box. Parent Component C3630.

FYIHP3C1 1.09 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.77 Anchorage Assigned by Rule of the 204 Box. Parent Component C3630.

C5762 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.10 Functional Earthquake Experience 48 Data C5763 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.10 Functional Earthquake Experience 51 Data 3562533-R-001 C5759 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.10 Functional Earthquake Experience 50 Data Revision 0 C5752 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.10 Functional Earthquake Experience 54 July 1414, 2015 Data Page 2.23 of 2.28

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued)

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

C5753 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.10 Functional Earthquake Experience 206 Data C5799 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.10 Functional Earthquake Experience 52 Data C5727 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.10 Functional Earthquake Experience 60 Data C5712 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.10 Functional Earthquake Experience 53 Data C5705 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.10 Functional Earthquake Experience 369 Data C5706 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.10 Functional Earthquake Experience 370 Data C5708 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.10 Functional Earthquake Experience 371 Data PISP12B 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.10 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 32 Box. Parent Component C5708.

TTRC3B5 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.10 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 37 Box. Parent Component C5706.

3562533-R-001 TTRC4B2 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.10 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 36 Box. Parent Component Revision 0 C5706. July 1414, 2015 Page 2.24 of 2.28

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued)

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

LISP9B1 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.10 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 34 Box. Parent Component C5712.

TDI4951 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.10 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 40 Box. Parent Component C5799.

TI4627 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.10 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 39 Box. Parent Component C5799.

HISRC2-1 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.10 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 214 Box. Parent Component C5705.

TTIM7M 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.10 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 42 Box. Parent Component C5763.

C5752E 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.10 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 156 Box. Parent Component C5752.

C5752F 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.10 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 49 Box. Parent Component C5752.

3562533-R-001 PY2000B 0.39 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.10 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 178 Box. Parent Component Revision 0 C5762. July 1414, 2015 C5716 0.42 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.19 Functional Earthquake Experience 58 Page 2.25 of 2.28 Data

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued)

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

C5717 0.42 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.19 Functional Earthquake Experience 59 Data C5720 0.42 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.19 Functional Earthquake Experience 372 Data FYIHP3C 0.42 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.19 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 203 Box. Parent Component C5716.

PI2000 0.42 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.19 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 179 Box. Parent Component C5716.

PIRC2B4 0.42 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.19 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 44 Box. Parent Component C5716.

LI1525A 0.42 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.19 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 184 Box. Parent Component C5716.

TI1356 0.42 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.19 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 152 Box. Parent Component C5716.

FYIDH2B 0.42 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.19 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 333 Box. Parent Component 3562533-R-001 C5716.

Revision 0 JY1525A 0.42 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.19 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 185 Box. Parent Component July 1414, 2015 C5716. Page 2.26 of 2.28

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued)

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

JY2000 0.42 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.19 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 180 Box. Parent Component C5716.

LI2787B 0.42 0.45 0.24 0.38 1.19 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 265 Box. Parent Component C5720.

C4601 0.28 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.71 Functional Earthquake Experience 55 Data C3628 1.16 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.95 Functional Earthquake Experience 205 Data FYHP3C1 1.16 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.95 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 201 Box. Parent Component C3628.

FYHP3C2 1.16 0.40 0.24 0.32 2.95 Functional Assigned by Rule of the 202 Box. Parent Component C3628.

C4607 0.27 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.67 Anchorage New Analysis 215 C3019 0.50 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.27 Functional Assigned based on 164 Seismic Ruggedness E22-1 0.30 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.76 Anchorage Analysis Based on Existing 337 Seismic Analysis 3562533-R-001 E27-1 0.40 0.35 0.24 0.26 0.90 Anchorage Analysis Based on Existing 331 Revision 0 Seismic Analysis July 1414, 2015 T10 0.34 0.35 0.24 0.26 0.77 Anchorage New Analysis 182 Page 2.27 of 2.28

Tabulated HCLPF Values with ESEL ID (Continued)

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

T12 0.44 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.12 Anchorage New Analysis 334 T46-1 0.57 0.40 0.24 0.32 1.45 Anchorage New Analysis 263 T153-1 0.91 0.35 0.24 0.26 2.07 Anchorage New Analysis 270 3562533-R-001 Revision 0 July 1414, 2015 Page 2.28 of 2.28

ABSG CONSULTING INC. ABS GROUP OF COMPANIES, INC.

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

Telephone 571-2960718 www.absconsulting.com