ML16054A008

FOIA/PA-2015-0294 - Resp 2 - Final, Agency Records Subject to the Request Are Enclosed. Part 1 of 8

ML16054A008
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde, Columbia, Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	02/12/2016
From:	NRC/OCIO
To:
References
FOIA/PA-2015-0294
Download: ML16054A008 (426)

Text

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

Subject:

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

Subject:

FW: t -C:LH!.ln' --Availability to support Diablo Canyon Oral Arguments FYl-1. have. not been asked to support yet, but the potential exists (unfortunately). Jon From: Markley, Michael Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 3:41 PM To: Kock, Andrea; Flanders, Scott; Ake, Jon; Munson, Clifford Cc: Lingam, Siva; Wilson, George; Lund, Louise

Subject:

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

Subject:

Affe"'l41! 1 eetrn I --Availability to support Diablo Canyon Oral Arguments All, The Atomic Safety & Licensing Board is planning on holding oral arguments for several pending Diablo Canyon contentions, including: 1) License renewal contentions A and B -analysis of alternatives to license renewal 2) License renewal contentions C and D -SAMA contentions 3) The de facto license amendment issues referred by the Commission to the Board in CLl-15-14 The Board plans on holding the arguments all together, one after the other. The proposed dates are July 8, 9, or 10. It is possible all the arguments will only take one day, but they may take more. than one day. The Board is considering either holding the. arguments here in Rockville or in San Luis Obispo. We are looking. for Staff support, both in preparing for. arguments, as well. as. Staff members who are able to attend the argument. Please note that not everyone on this list needs to be available to attend the argument. If we end up going to San Luis Obispo, we will probably only bring a limited number of Staff to support.

What is your availability on July a. 9, and 10, and what is your availability regarding Rockville vs .. San Luis Obispo? Sincerely, Yosef Lindell Attorney U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel OWFN 15 015 301-415-14 7 4 N&*l&&i. l"lstie e: ::ail a: :8 etR) ,._8)' HRl8iR 08Rfi"8Rli81 °M8FR8)' *Iii Al is 0tli5Ri)' '0'wrk Plddbtt 111are11a1. OU 1101 dlsclose outside 141"18 nitl wot 8011::: :ieeie:: etf51ue s 81:

Sent:22 May 2015 20:07:34 +0000 Tol(bJ(5l I

Subject:

FW: Code Attachments:Point Source Model.zip jjj From:. Weaver, Thomas Sent: Friday, May 22. 2015 I :0 I PM To: Ake, Jon

Subject:

RE: Code Jon, Auached is a GU1 version. J can send a non-GUI version if you would like. There is a draft user manual included with the files I am sending. Call if you have any questions. Thomas ----Original MFrom: Ake, Jon Sent: Friday, May 22. 2015 11 :58 AM To: Weaver, Thomas

Subject:

Code Thomas-Do you have a matlab script for producing an FAS with Boore's simple seismological model? Including which units for inputs? ls so can you shoot me a copy? Thx Jon Sent from NRC BlackBerry Jon Ake l(b)(6)

User Manual: NRC Seismologic Model Software by The SGSEB Three Stooges Thomas Weaver, Scott Stovall & .Jon Ake Scptembrr 14, 2012 Contents 1 Using NRC Seismologic Model Software 1.1 File . . . . . . . . 1.2 Worksheets . . . . . 1.2.1 Project Information 1.2.2 Input .. 1.2.2.1 Earthquake l\fagnitude 1.2.2.2 Somce to Site Distance 1.2.2.3 1.2.2.4 1.2.2.5 1.2.2.6 1.2.2.7 1.2.2.8 1.2.2.9 Frequency Range . Response Spcctruru Source Parameters . . . Geometrical Spreading Site Amplification Diminution . . . . Seismic Attenuation 1.2.2.10 Somcc Duration 1.2.2.11 Path Duration .. 1.2.3 Pat.h and Site Effects Graphs 1.2.4 Simulated Time Histories 1.3 Calculate 1.4 Results . 1.5 Help 2 Point Source Model 3 Random Vibration Theory 4 Time History Simulation A NRC SMS Validation 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 9 10 11 12 List of Figures 1.1 Input worksheet ................ . 1.2 Geometrical spreading: eastern North America. 1.3 Generic site amplification ............ . 1.4 Three segment attenuation function and associated input for NRC SMS. 1.5 Path duratiou for eastern North America from 13oore (2005). . ..... ii 2 4 5 6 7 Chapter 1 Using NRC Seismologic Model Software The NRC Seismologic Model Software (NRC SMS) is based on the work published by Boore (2003) on the simulation of ground motion using the stochastic method. In addition, SMSIM, the DOS based Fortran program developed by Boore (2005) was used to assist in development of NRC SlVIS. NRC SMS uses a menu and toolbar structure to navigate through the program as you input and view data used for computing Fourier amplitude spectra (FAS) and structural response spectra (RS), calculate FAS and RS, and view results from calculations. Each menu option is decribecl below. 1.1 File The File menu contains options for opening a previously created *.mat file, saving your input and results as a *.mat file. or exporting your input and results to a text file (*.txt) or Excel file (*.xis). Corresponding buttons are located in the toolbar for opening and saving *.mat files. 1.2 Worksheets The Worksheets menu is used to access worksheets for inputing project data required for calculation of Fourier amplitude and response spectra, and data required to calculate simulated time histories. In addition, this menu option allows you to see the path and site effects functions that will be used for calculating the FAS based on the input you have provided. 1.2.1 Project Information The Project Information worksheet allows you to document important project details such as the project name, project identification, and additional information you find useful for identifying the associated calculations. 1.2.2 Input The Input worksheet is used to define parameters required for calculatiug Fourier amplitude and response spectra. This worksheet is shown in Figure 1.1. The Input worksheet is divided into 1 11 sections such as Earthquake Magnitude, Somce to Site Distance, Frequency Range, etc. Input parameters for each of these sections are discussed below. ) ffRC SMS_ v01 file Woricsheets c.la.lat< ResU.IS Helo ..J .... -E.arthqu.ake M.agnitude---Minimum f6o 1.1ax1mum. l"""6.'Q No of Magnitudes: 11 r-Source to Site Dlstance>-Minimum: l10 km Maximum j1o km Number of Distances. 11 Frequency R.ange Minimum Jo:o1 H;,; Maximum: j100 Hz Response Spectrum r Calculate Response Spectrum Correction* jeoore and Joyner (1984) ::J Damping I 0.05 Source Spectral Shape j&ngla Comet -Brune :::J Stress Drop* j100 bars Densrtr. gkc Velocity, Vs: 136 kmls Geometrical Spreading1No of IJne Segmer¥s lower ":lower, n Sour°' IDS<:!! (loo) 1 1 70 0 3 130 0.5000 Site Ampflfic.atlon IGenenc Hard Rock Dinlnutlon Type of Fiher jkappa J kappa. J 0.006 sec fmax lsQ.O Hz ::J Seismic Attenu.atio No of Line Segments-n Frequency Slope Altenuation r1 IT1 I -2.03 ITs6 11 !"02 12: r-°-6 12: !To' lo:92 l8a Seismic Velocity f'35 kmls Duration Weight, w_a f1o l Source Duration Duration Weight, w_b lO r Path Duration No. of line Segmems l4 0 0 10 70 130 0 9.6000 7.8000 Slope of last Segment J004 Figure 1.1: Input worksheet used to define parameters required for calculating fourier amplitude and response spectra 1.2.2.1 Earthquake Magnitude Earthquake !\.fangitude allows you to calculate FAS and RS for a range of earthquake magnitudes. FAS and RS are calculated at the minimum magnitude when the number of magnitudes is set equal to 1. When the number of magnitudes is set equal to 2, FAS and RS will be calculated at the specified minimum and maximum magnitudes. FAS and RS will be calculated at evenly spaced magnitudes when the number of magnitudes is set equal to 3 or greater. Thus, if the minimum magnitude is 5, the maximum magnitude is 7 and the number of magnitudes is 3> FAS and RS will be calculated for magnitudes of 5, 6, aud 7. 1.2.2.2 Source to Site Distance Similar to Earthquake Maguituclc, FAS aud RS can be obtained for a rauge of Source to Site Distances. 2 1.2.2.3 Frequency Range Frequency Range is used to define the minimum and maximum frequency for which FAS and RS are calculated. FAS and RS values are caclutcd at 340 points per log cycle. \i\Then the minimum frequency is set equal to 0.1 and the maximum frequency is set equal to 100, FAS an RS will be calculaLcd at 1020 points. 1.2.2.4 Response Spectrum Calculation of a response spectrum is optional and consists of three parts. the option checkbox, the oscillator correction option, and the decimal damping value, ( (typically 0.05 for 5% damping). If you desire to obtain a response spectrum, the checkbox for "Calculate Response Spectrum" must be checked. The response spectrum or spectra will then be calculated for each magnitude and source to site distance specified using ra.nclom vibration theory (RVT). *when using RVT to compute response spectra, a shaking duration value, Trms, is used to compute the root mean square (rms) spectral accelcratiou values. Therms duration is equal to the gTotmd motion duration plus a corrected oscillator duration as expressed in Equation 1.1. ( /'n ) Trms = Tgm +To --'Yn +a (1.1) Where T,9111 is the ground motion duration, T0 is the oscillator duration with T0 = 1/(21T fr(), / = T9m/T0, and n and a arc constants. The values used for the constants n and a a.re determined based on the oscillator correction option chosen. When choosing the Boore and Joyner {1994) correction n = 3 and a = 1/3. If the Liu and Pezeshk (1999) oscillator correction is chosen, n = 2 and a= [271" (i -112 mom2 (1.2) where mo, m1 and m2 are moments of the squared spectral amplitude. Additional details on RVT are provided in Chapter 3. 1.2.2.5 Source Parameters The Source Parameters section allows you to specify the type of spectral shape to be used in calculating the FAS (e.g. single corner model or two corner model), the stress drop for the single corner model, source density, and source shear wave velocity. When selecting a two corner model, the earthquake magnitude is soley used to determine the corner frequencies. Additional details on each spectra.I shape are provided in Chapter 2. 1.2.2.6 Geometrical Spreading The Geometrical Spreading section defines the function we use for describiug how wave amplitude decreases with distance from the source. The function may consist of multiple segments as shown in Equation 1.3. 3 R$R2 Z(R2) (!ff f2 R2 $ R $ R3 Z(R) = (1.3) Z(f4) ('Ji r; f4 R. In eastern North America, Atkinson and Boore (1995) and Frankel ct, al. (1996) suggest uing the three segment, function shown in Figure 1.2. To implement t,he eastern North America geometrical spreading relation.ship, we enter a value of 3 for the number of line segments. The values Ri, R2, RJ, nlo n2 and n3 for Equation 1.3 which correspond to the line segments shown in Figure 1.2 are 1 km, 70 km, 130 km, 1, 0, 0.5, respectively. O> c: "O co (I) 0.1 0. 0.03 Cf) ro .g 0.02 (i) E 0 (I) (9 0.01 10 1/70 1/70 (130/R)o.s 20 30 100 200 300 Distance (km) Figure 1.2: Geometrical spreading function for eastern North America (Boore 2003). 1.2.2. 7 Site Amplification The Site Amplification section requires you to select a site amplification function used to quantify site effects. The options consist of "Generic Hard Rock", "Generic Soft Rock", "No Amplification", and "User Defined". The "Generic Hard Rock" and *'Generic Soft Rock" amplification functions are shown in Figures 1.3. \i\lhen "No Amplification" is selected, the amplification value is 1 at all frequencies. When selecting "User Defined", you will be prompted to select a *.mat file that contains data used to define the amplification function. This file must have frequency values in column 1 and amplification values in column 2. o headings should be placed above the frequency and ampflication values. 4 c: 0 *;:; 4 3 Q. E <t 2 0.01 1.2.2.8 Diminution -Generic Soft Rock -Generic Hard Rock 0.1 1 Frequency (Hz) 10 Figure 1.3: Generic site amplification. 100 You have two options for implementing the diminution function (high frequency filter). The first option is to utilize kappa, " and the second option is to use a !max filter. Equatious that define the diminution function are provided below. D(J) = (1.4) D(f) = [l + (f I !max)8r112 (1.5) A "'value of 0.04 has been used for coastal California sites (Boore and Joyner 1997, RC 2012), and a value of 0.006 may be appropriate for sites in eastern North America. 1.2.2.9 Seismic Attenuation Attenuation can be modeled as a three segment piecewise function. An example of this three ment fw1ction is shown in Figure 1.4 along with the corresponding frequency, slope, and attenuation values that are used to define the function in NRC SMS. Often, sufficient data is only available to define the third segment (slope 2 segment) of the function. For this case, a single function is used to define the attenuation relationship. A single attenuation function is implemented in NRC SMS by selecting a value of 1 for the number of segments in the drop down menu. Boore {2003) plotted a number of attenuation functions for the slope 2 segment and two of these functions are provided in Equation 1.6. These two equation were obtained through best fit equations to the data presented by Boore (2003). vVhen implementing a function shown in Equation 1.6, the number of line segments is chosen to be 1, Lrl = 1 Hz, the slope is equal to the exponent (e.g. slope= 0.45) and Q is equal to the coefficient (e.g. Q = 180). 5 103 { 1430J0*35 Q(f) = 180/0.45 208!0.78 Central U.S. (Boore 2003) California California (Boore 2003) 111 ft2 a Seilmlc Attenuation {fr1, Qr1) No of L!ne Segmerts 133 FiequeACy Slope Atl&!Klatlofl 102 r1 ro;-I -2 03 [2a6 **************-........ 11 l"0"2 12 ros . , , , ,\ lo92 ITs , \ Setsmic Velocity 135' km's 101 , , 10*2 10*1 10° 101 102 Freq Figure 1.4: Three segment attenuation function and associated input for NRC Sl\1S. 1.2.2.10 Source Duration (1.6) The source duration is a fw1ction of the corner frequency or corner frequencies, depending on the point source model used. Equation 1.7 is used to calculate the source duration. For the single corner model, Wa = 1 and la is the corner frequency. When Wa = 1. Wb = 0. (1.7) 1.2.2.11 Path Duration The path duration can be modeled using a multi segmented line. For eastern North America, Boore has used a path duration function with four segments as shown in Figure 1.5. A single path duration begining at the source location having a slope of 0.05 is generally considered appropriate 6 for sources in California. Given a. single segment, the number of line segments is set equal to 1 a.nd an initial source to site distance and duration of 0 is input into the first row of the table. 15 -10 (..) Q) (/) -c 0 :;::; ro :::I 0 5 0 0 50 100 150 Path Duration No of line Segments r-4 SMu*S..Ollirce hfl!Ju' ..... --1----.-;;c.r. C-) 200 250 0 0 10 70 0 96000 130 7 8000 300 Distance (km) Figure 1.5: Path duration for eastern North America from Boore (2005). 1.2.3 Path and Site Effects Graphs The Path and Site Effects \iVorksheet shows plots of the geometrical spreading function, site amplification function, diminution function and seismic attenuation function used in calculating the FAS. These plots a.re updated as changes to the Input Worksheet are made. 1.2.4 Simulated Time Histories The Simulated Time Histories vVorksheet is currently not functional. Upon implementation, this worksheet will be used to provide input for developing time histories that spectrally match a given FAS. 7 1.3 Calculate The Calculate menu option is used to initiate calculation of FAS and RS as well as simulated time histories. 1.4 Results The Results menu option is used to view FAS and RS or simulated time histories which have been calculated. 1.5 Help The Help menu option provides access to this user manual. 8 Chapter 2 Point Source Model 9 Chapter 3 Random Vibration Theory 10 Chapter 4 Time History Simulation 11 Appendix A NRC SMS Validation 12 MATLAB 5.0 MAT-file, Platform: PCWIN, Created on: Fri Jan 04 12:03:27 2013 OMCixilc "O'd" CJD

CH!?<-? !DD@* *

• P>

• oL*u

• u

• tt./\ * '1C3 *

• I*>@-'\* '/DD!

• o * 'JH

• I * &O {-1 *

• 0 * -FbD Sent:22 May 201520:07:14 +0000 To:Heeszel, David;Seber, Dogan;Munson, Clifford Cc:Jackson, Diane.

Subject:

RE: Columbia GMM codes Thanks David From: Heeszel, David Sent: Friday. May 22, 2015 2:29 PM To: Seber, Dogan: Munson, Clifford Cc: Ake, Jon; Jackson, Diane

Subject:

Columbia GMM codes Hi All, Attached are two files that contain some results from my Columbia GMM software. Both files are for a single fault at 8 mag11itudes from 5(fault 1 )-8(fault8). ln this case the fault is a vertical strike-slip located with lOkm away that comes to the surface. The red dots are individual realizations of the SA at the branch level. The solid black curve is the weighted mean SA, and the dashed lines are the mean+/-sigma. For this code, we are simply using the middle branch of the normal distribution of sigma. The next step is to get a set of scenario earthquakes that are realistic and important to hazard. Perhaps we can discuss at the Columbia weekly meeting on Thursday. Thanks, David David Heeszel Geophysicist U.S. NRC, NRO/DSEA/RGS2 Office: T-7E28 Mail Stop: T-7F3 Phone: 301-415-5066 Sent:25 Mar 2015 20:32: l 8 +0000 To:Heeszel, David

Subject:

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

Subject:

Columbia Ground Motion Model Hi Cliff, I've finished coding up the ground motion model for the Columbia SSHAC. I can walk you through the program in about 20 min if your interested. Cheers, David David Heeszel Geophysicist U.S. NRC, NRO/DSEA/RGS2 Office: T-7E28 Mail Stop: T-7F3 Phone: 301-415-5066 Sent:3 Jun 2015 21:53:57 +0000 To:Seber, Dogan;Jackson, Diane;Munson, Clifford

Subject:

RE: Columbia Seismic. Public Meeting Slides l agree. We should gently suggest the SSHAC discussion be very brief. From: Seber, Dogan Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 2:41 PM To: Jackson. Diane; Munson, Clifford Cc: Ake, Jon

Subject:

FW: Columbia Seismic Public Meeting Slides Quickly went over the slides. In SSC, Focus #2 is missing(!?). IL is to me more important to discuss #2 than fault slip rates (#1 ). I wonder why they chose to not prepare slides for that. Also, can we tell them to skip SSHAC slides to save some time for more meaningful discussions on technical topics. There are about 20 slides discussing what SSHAC process is. -----Original MFrom: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Wednesday. June03, 2015 1:01 PM To: Munson. Clifford; Seber, Dogan; Jackson, Diane Cc: Vega, Frankie; Cho, Esther; Ake, Jon; Shams, Mohamed; Singal. Balwant; Alexander, Ryan; Maier, Bill; Uselding, Lara; Walker, Wayne; Burnell, Scott; Walsh, Lisa; Kock, Andrea; Monarque, Stephen

Subject:

Columbia Seismic Public Meeting Slides Folks, CGS Seismic Slides. For awareness, the State of Washington and Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board plan lo listen to the meeting or attend. Interim action adds information about Flex Strategy. Esther, Please add to public ADAMS. Thanks, Nick -----Original Message-----From: Williams, Lisa L. [1] Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 11:54 AM To: DiFrancesco, Nicholas Cc: Rich Rogalski

Subject:

Meeting slides Nick. Here is Energy Northwest's presentation. I have made 20 copies of the slides (2 per page) that ram bring1ng with me for handouts. Lisa Sent:20 Apr 2015 15:22:26 +0000 To:DiFrancesco, Nicholas;Munson, Clifford Cc:Jackson, Diane;Devlin-Gill, Stephanie;Vega, Frankie

Subject:

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

Subject:

Inquiry: Palo Verde Public Meetings Dates Cliff, et. al. Any preferences or limitations for planning the Palo Verde public meeting in mid-June. Thanks, Nick From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent:. Thursday, April 16, 2015 10:07. AM To:. Munson, Clifford Cc: Ake, Jon; Jackson, Diane; Vega, Frankie; Hill, Brittain; Shams, Mohamed

Subject:

Planning Items -DC Focus Areas and PV Meetings Dates Cliff, I am out PM today and Friday. PG&E Licensing Coordination and NRG Public Meeting Prep Frankie is PM backup and has a licensing call with PG&E Friday at 1 pm to discuss NRG technical focus areas as part of the April 28 public meeting. For Friday I would like to communicate a few topics for them to begin work on. Perhaps the 1 . ergodic method vs. single-station correction weighting. Early next week I plan to email a formal request for incorporation into the meeting notice. Please let us know a couple of focus areas by noon Friday. PV Meeting Date Coordination The licensee (APS) cannot support meeting until the 2nd week of June. As I recall, I thought we had conflicts starting then with NGA-East Working Group. Let me know if I can propose any dates in the 2nd and 3rd week of June. Thanks, Nick Senic',i Project Manager -Seismic Reevaluation Activities U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear. Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Division nicholas.difrancesco@nrc.gov I Tel: (301) 415-1115 Sent:l3Apr201513:59:10+0000 To:Munson, Clifford

Subject:

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

Subject:

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

Subject:

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

Subject:

Palo Verde Catalog Attached is an excel version of the Palo Verde Catalog (Appendix E of the report). Events highlighted in gray can be linked to a specific fault. The other columns should be relatively self explanatory. --David David Heeszel Geophysicist U.S. NRC, NRO/DSEA/RGS2 Office: T-7E28 Mail Stop: T-7F3 Phone: 301-415-5066 Sent:28 Apr 2015 13:44:04 +0000 To:Stieve, Alice

Subject:

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

Subject:

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

Subject:

Palo Verde Source Information for: SSHAC Documentation from PPRP-IT Team Cliff. Alice, Stephanie, Please let me know if this is the missing piece. They have this one file on the SSC in the reading room. Thanks, Nick From: Munson, Clifford Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 20154:14 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas; Ake, Jon Cc: Jackson, Diane; Shams, Mohamed; Vega, Frankie; Graizer, Vladimir; John Stamatakos <jstam@swri.org> (jstam@swri.org); Hill, Brittain; Seber, Dogan; Vega, Frankie; Stirewalt, Gerry

Subject:

RE: DCPP, Palo Verde, and Columbia Audit Information: SSHAC Documentation from PPRP-IT Team Importance: High Nick, We took a quick look at the contents of the. information for DCPP and PVNGS. The DCPP folder contains the PP RP-Tl correspondence and interactions on the source. model and ground motion model SSHACs. However, the PVNGS only has the ground motion model SSHAC PPRP-TI team material and not for the Source model. Please let us know when we can get the source model PPRP-TI team documentation. Thanks, Cliff From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 1:25 PM To: Munson, Clifford; Ake, Jon Cc: Jackson, Diane; Shams, Mohamed; Vega, Frankie; Graizer, Vladimir; John Stamatakos <jstam@swri.org> (jstam@swri.org); Hill, Brittain;. Seber, Dogan;. Vega, Frankie; Stirewalt,. Gerry

Subject:

DCPP, Palo Verde, and Columbia Audit Information: SSHAC Documentation from PPRP-IT Team Folks, Please control distribution to the designated review team member for the following references. Following your audit review, please advise if information reviewed should be docketed to support development of the hazard staff assessment or RAls. DC Audit Information S:\Diablo Canyon R2.1 Seismic lnformation\SSHAC Documentation of PPRP-TI Team Palo Verde Audit Information S:\Palo Verde R2.1 Seismic lnformation\SSHAC Documentation of PPRP-TI Team Columbia Information is on ePortal (PM action to work through access controls). Also, licensee plans to work with PNNL to post information on public website. Thanks, Nick From: Soenen, Philippe R [2] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 10:49 AM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas Cc: Jahangir, Nozar

Subject:

DCPP information on Certrec Nick, We have uploaded the PPRP information onto Certrec IMS and granted access to Vladimir Grazier, John Stamatakos, and yourself. Here is how you get to the PPRP information in Certrec:

• Login to ims.certrec.com

• Click on "Inspections"

• Set status to "In Progress" and Plant to "Diablo Canyon"

• Click "Search" button.

• Click link to "Self-Assessment I Audit-Review of PPRP Comments and TIT Resolution"

• Click on the "NRC Requests" tab

• Click on what you would like to see. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Regards, Philippe Soenen Regulatory Services Office -805.545.6984 Cell -j<bJ(6) I PG&E is committed to protecting our customers' privacy. To learn more, please visit http://www.pge.com/about/company/privacy/customer/

Devlin-Gill, Stephanie From:Devlin-Gill, Stephanie Sent:26 May 2015 19:24:02 +0000 To:Clifford Munson (Clifford.Munson@nrc.gov);Alice Stieve (Alice.Stieve@nrc.gov);Heeszel, David; Vladimir Graizer (Vladimir.Graizer@nrc.gov);Heeszel, David; Yong Li (Y ong.Li@nrc.gov );Jackson, Diane

Subject:

PVNGS -Focus Area Topics for June-9 Public Meeting Attacbments:Focus Area Topics for PYNGS Public Meeting (draft 2).docx Attached are the edited questions from our meeting today. Attachment was released in full in interim stephanie Geophysicist 301-415-5301 T-7D10 U.S. NRC, NRO, DSEA, RGS2 response #1 Devlin-Gill,. Stephanie From:Devlin-Gill, Stephanie Sent:20 May 2015 17: 16:56 +0000 To:Graizer, Yladimir;Stieve, Alice;Munson,. Clifford;Heeszel,. David;Ake. Jon;John Stamatkos;'Miriam R. Juckett (mjuckett@swri.org)';Hill, Brittain;Li, Yong

Subject:

PVNGS Public Meeting Questions Palo Verde team, For further discussion, below are the edited questions about the areal zones: Because the PVNGS host zones, SBA and East, contribute significantly to the hazard at the PVNGS site, the NRC staff is interested in hearing discussion, beyond what is presented in the PVNGS SSC SSHAC report, on the following topics regarding areal sources. Please discuss. the rational and analyses used for: a. Choosing to model the spatial variation of recurrence rate per unit area using variable, but continuous and relatively smooth seismicity. Please also discuss the rationale for not considering the use of uniform spatial recurrence rates in the. SSC areal sources. Although text in SSC Section 8.2.4.1 mentions that uniform rates are often inappropriate, the text does not elaborate on conditions where uniform rates might be appropriate or if such conditions occur for the SSC. areal sources. Additionally, please discuss this in the context of the previously completed PVNGS SSC SSHAC 2, since decisions made for that model led to the use of the constant rate model for the areal sources, and what information informed the recent SSC SSHAC 3 to not use the constant rate model for any of the areal sources. b. Not using a "floor" during the smoothing analysis of recurrence parameters .. Please also discuss this in the context of the. PVNGS host zones and the WEST and GULF zones, which all show in SSC Figures 9-30 through 9-33 cells of zero rate(M>5.0)/deg2/yr. c. Not using earthquakes lower than M4.67 to determine the recurrence parameters for the Eastern source zones, as shown in SSC Table 9-4. Please discuss this in the context of there being so few events within the host zones that have magnitudes greater than to equal to M4.67 and inclusion of earthquakes lower than M4.67 despite the earthquake record below M4.67 not be complete. I also updated the file on SharePoint: http://epm.nrc.gov/environmentalfilltq/wussshac/Shared%20Documents/Forms/Allitems.aspx (Click on the Palo Verde folder icon after the link opens) stephanie Geophysicist 301-415-5301. T-7010 U.S. NRC, NRO, DSEA,RGS2 From: Devlin-Gill, Stephanie Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 4:38 PM To: Graizer, Vladimir; Stieve, Alice; Munson, Clifford; Heeszel, David; Ake, Jon; John Stamatkos; Miriam R. Juckett (mjuckett@swri.org); Hill, Brittain; Li, Yong

Subject:

RE: PV team meeting tomorrow I added 2 questions, attached. I also updated the file on SharePoint: http: II epm. nrc.gov I environ mental/illtq/wus-sshac/Shared%20 Documents/Forms/Allltems.aspx (Click on the Palo Verde folder icon after the link opens) stephanie Geophysicist 301-415-5301 T-7010 U.S. NRC, NRO, DSEA, RGS2 From: Graizer, Vladimir Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 1:47 PM To: Stieve, Alice; Munson, Clifford; Devlin-Gill, Stephanie; Heeszel, David; Ake, Jon; John Stamatkos; Miriam R. Juckett (mjuckett@swri.org); Hill, Brittain; Li, Yong

Subject:

RE: PV team meeting tomorrow I. have. more observation/questions. that I can present tomorrow. From: Stieve, Alice. Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 1:43 PM To: Munson, Clifford; Devlin-Gill, Stephanie; Heeszel, David; Ake, Jon; John Stamatkos; Miriam R. Juckett (mjuckett@swri.org); Hill, Brittain; Li, Yong; Graizer, Vladimir

Subject:

RE: PV team meeting tomorrow Palo Verde SharePoint FOLDER: http://epm.nrc.gov/environmental/jlltg/wus-sshac/Shared%20Documents/Forms/Allltems.aspx Click on the Palo Verde folder icon after the link opens. My draft focus areas file is in that folder. The attached file are Vlad's draft topics. From: Munson, Clifford Sent: Monday,. May 18, 2015 1:02 PM To: Stieve,. Alice; Devlin-Gill, Stephanie; Heeszel, David;. Ake, Jon;. John Stamatkos; Miriam R. Juckett (mjuckett@swri.org); Hill, Brittain; Li, Yong; Graizer, Vladimir

Subject:

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

Subject:

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

Devlin-Gill, Stephanie From:Devlin-Gill, Stephanie Sent: 13 May 2015 15:44:07 +0000 To:Clifford Munson (Clifford.Munson@nrc.gov) Cc:Alice Stieve (Alice.Stieve@nrc.gov);Heeszel, David

Subject:

PVNGS Request Cliff, Please review and forward the following request on to JLD for Palo Verde: For the staff to preform confirmatory analysis, please have the licensee send the NRC the PVNGS composite earthquake catalog prior to the declustering analysis, meaning the catalog with 1,941 events in it as mentioned in "Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Seismic Source Characterization" report on page 6-7 and 6-10. The staff requests the catalog be provided in the tabular form. stephanie Geophysicist 301-415-5301 T-7010 U.S. NRC, NRO, DSEA, RGS2 Devlin-Gill, Stephanie From:Devlin-Gill, Stephanie Sent:26 May 2015 18: 15:50 +0000 To:Munson, Clifford Cc:Alice Stieve (Alice.Stieve@nrc.gov)

Subject:

RE: latest version Attachments:Focus Area Topics for PVNGS Public Meeting (draft 2).docx Cliff, OK. Alice and I spoke, we'll have a computer & laptop. stephanie Geophysicist 301-415-5301 T-7010 U.S.NRC, NRO, DSEA, RGS2 From: Munson,. Clifford . Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 1:39 PM To: Devlin-Gill, Stephanie

Subject:

latest version Stephanie, I made edits to the first draft. Let's use this one for the meeting discussion. Alice is getting a projector and laptop? Thanks, Cliff Focus Area Questions!Topics for Palo Verde Public Meeting 5/9 In addition to providing a general overview of the SSC and GMC SSHAC Reports and March 2015 50.54(f) response for DCPP, please provide additional clarification on the following topics. Seismic Source Characterization 1. Provide additional detail on the PPRP and Tl interaction documentation for the SSC model, specifically ....... TBD .... I am working through that documentation this week (April 27). 2. Clarify how uncertainty derived from the difference in cumulative slip rates on Quaternary faults in AZ in comparison to the geodetic slip rates in southern AZ were evaluated and incorporated into model. 3. Clarify how uncertainty of the potential for the existence of unknown Quaternary faults in Southern Basin and Range province were evaluated and captured in model, in particular in the area W and NW of the PV site, and outside the geologic mapping project area. 4.. Geologic. mapping project. Provide. additional detail on the. involvement of. the PPRP. in the field review of the Quaternary geology mapping project of the PV site area and vicinity 5.. Geologic. mapping project. Provide additional. detail regarding verification and characterization of the 3 faults of interest in the site vicinity (Sand Tank, unnamed fault (Gilbert), unnamed fault (Pearthree)). 6.. Geologic. mapping project. Provide additional detail regarding the very simplistic geologic cross section of the PV site to rule out existence of unnamed fault (Pearthree). 7. Geologic mapping project. Provide additional details regarding stratigraphic correlation of Quaternary units in the site area and vicinity, in particular the stand alone river terrace unit (Qorh) mismatch with the Qi1 alluvial fan surface. 8. Regarding information in PVNGS SSC Table 9-4, because the Eastern sources have so few events at please discuss how and why the Tl team chose to not use the events. lower. than M4.67 to determine the recurrence parameters. Also, please justify not using a "floor" during the recurrence parameters analysis. 9. Please talk about the SSHAC presentations, discussions, and/or analyses that led the Tl team to. use variable, continuous, and relatively. smooth seismicity when determining recurrence parameters for host zones, as opposed to constant rate values, particularly since there are so few recorded events in the PVNGS host zones. Ground Motion Characterization Site Response Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Site Response Evaluation Section 2.3 of the "Seismlic Hazard and Screening Report for the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units1, 2, and 3, March 2015" ...--. "O A> cc CD (/) I\) " _._ I I\) <D _._ -_._ 0 0 0 ..__. 1 Focus Area Topics for PVNGS Public Meeting on June-9 SITE RESPONSE Provide additional detail regarding the Vs-kappa adjustment factors. Specifically, provide the bases for -the host Vs profile, -the target deep Vs profile (including the use of a logarithmic standard deviation of 0.35 to develop the upper and lower profiles), -the target kappa value used for the kappa adjustments and whether the input FAS were corrected to the site kappa of 0.033 sec or a lower baserock kappa value, -use of a logarithmic standard deviation of 0.5 to determine the upper and lower site kappa values, -the scenario events (magnitudes and distances) used to develop the input spectra for the Vs-kappa adjustment factors, -not including the Vs-kappa adjustment factors as additional epistemic uncertainty on the median GM 1\11s instead of capturing this variability as part of the variability in the site amplification functions. 2 Description of Subsurface Material

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

• Basin sediments: stratigraphic subdivisions of sands, gravels, clays, silts, and fanglomerate.

• Bedrock: Miocene volcanic and interbedded sedimentary rocks.

• Materials are divided into 2 site profiles, a shallow site profile and deep site profile, that are separated at the bottorr1 of the basin sediments. 3 Development of Base Case Profiles and Nonlinear Material Properties Shallow Site Profile:

• UFSAR and PSAR lithologic descriptions and natural gamma logs

• Control point elevation is defined at the ground surface

• Vs values are estimated from suspension logs, downhole and crosshole surveys from the UFSAR and Spectral Analysis of Surface Waves (SASW) surveys.

• Epistemic uncertainty (alnVs) was e*stimated for shear wave velocities in the base-case (BC) profile from the different measurements that were used to develop best-estimate valu1es

• Upper-range (UR) and lower-range (LR) profiles were. developed by multiplying and dividing the BC profile by exp(1.28*alnVs), following guidance in the SPID to achieve 10th and 90th percentile values.

• Note. that the UR profile does not include a lithologic layer of fanglomerate to account for its possible non-existence. 4 850 ...J 800 w ...J <( w en z <( w 750 g ..J w er ! z 0 Gj ..J w 500 DISTANCE 8E1WEEN RELATIVE TO Ul-81 \fcell 0 1111!> U1-B1 U2-B1 (tleV. 1&3") (tlev. 15'1 * .. .. ... 2390 U3-B1 (*ltv. t501 Figure 34: Shallow profile boring logs from beneath each of the three reactors LmfOLOGIC UNITS SA"I> II CIAY Ill SAl<O IV cu.* v 5""111 VI CIAY VII IAl<D \Ill Ct.AV IX ..... ;o x GENERALIZED UTHll.OGJC DESCRIPTIONS D&o'° oay...., .....,_ .. _ .. DCUIY-SAOfD_...., ........... D Cl>* .. , .. ,,-.ai.; -* D fA.HGt.Olll£'tATE. , .. "'""' ..a ....., IO ___ ........ """ __ 0-run ... cv.v..-.. _.,......_ D IHlUll.A*-DFlOWlllt(CCIASo ... '1.CW\ ___ .. -DNClUCTE----Figure 35: Composite shallow profile Depth (ft) 0 Unit contact Uthologlc Description (deptlllelev.) 60 880 80 100 120 820 140 15917114 780 1661788 190 16817157 'l<Y5/748 11/fJ >-220 < no 2-<<> 230l723 ..J 2371715 () w 700 Q 260 0: w 880 > 280 0 ..J 300 < a. 640 3111642 320 IX* 620 I *SANO yellow to red to brown wrtll trwn becls or Slit clayey-sin and S11ty-clay II

• CLAY yetlOw to red to brown olayey.sll! and Silty-clay w<th lenses Of fine-grained sand and silty-sand Ill SANO brown, uody..ilt sflty &and and &allC1f..cloy tv -CLAY blown. S1lty-clay. ctayey-s.n low to med plaSilclty noncalcaleous to SbghlJy very sbn to hard v. SAND brown to red-brown 111ty sand 111ndy*Slll and cteyey sand vecy &I fl to hard nonptnbc to ION plashc1ly paraco11lorm11y V1 -CLAY yeltON to red-brown. S<l!y-clay very stdf to haJd distinct uppe1 cori8cl stigttly to hlgl'fy calcareous med lo h91 plasbelly VII* SANO uody-MI and silty 111nd btoWn non1)lHllC VIII Cl..AY to red-Crown. llify*cley Ancly-... 1, silly-sand sandy.clay, ctayey.gand calcareous verystl!f 10 hard, high plalbcty IX -SANO llrlJwn 10 re<J.brown, $11nd. silty-sand and Clayiry-sand oc:c:asional (jfavel Cla&tli 6Ubaf1glllar to subroooded dense to very dense Vf!fY S11n to hard 340 341/612 u nc0n form *iY 600 580 560 3951558 GENERALIZED LITHOLOGY Saod Clay LITHOt..OGIC UNIT X

• FANGLOMERATE brown to gay rroderately 10 wel cemened 1/0tcanic e1asts c:lenved from und<<lying bedtock in a matnl< of sand soil and occaitiooaJfy tlAlaoeous sand. el!M!1to11 of and thlckne!.6 ol tnt vary ectoss the site major uncontorm11y XI

• BEDROCK see deep prolile ll(µe 5 Dynamic properties of shallow site profile (base case profile) Strati-l:nit Sigma Base sigma Deprh Thickness Case Lanr graphic "*eight Depth y., , . ., (ln) . lithology (ft) (ft) Ys {;nit (pd) (ft) (ft/s) (In) (SPID] 1 I Sand 0 21 110 0.0 1017 0.070 0.13 2 I Sand 21 14 120 1041 0.0&8 0.19 3 I Sand 35 10 120 5A U50 0.075 0.17 4 I Sand 45 7 120 6.9 1181 0.063 0.15 5 II Clay 52 60 1151 8.0 1208 0.087 0.15 6 II Clav 112 25 12Sl 3.5 1293 0.073 0.15 7 II Cl av 137 22 1251 4.3 1391 0.073 0.15 8 m Sand 159 8 126* 5.0 1431 0.055 0.15 9 I\' Clay 167 19 ns1 8.0 1+46 0.049 0.15 10 \ ... Sand 186 19 126-' 2.0 1459 0.050 0.15 11 VI Clay 205 5 125t 5.0 1510 0.103 0.15 12 VI Clay 210 20 1251 1.8 1742 0.145 0.15 13 vn Sand 230 8 126-2.0 1829 0.160 0.15 14 VIII Clay ns 52 1251 LO 2094 0.127 0.15 15 \Till Clay 290 21 1251 15.9 1094 0.127 0.15 16 IX Sand 311 30 130 17.0 2094 0.127 0.15 17 x F ane:lomerate 341 86 140 60.0 3262 0.176 0.15 Bed-A.ndesite XI basal flow 427 140 83 4485 N'A1 NA3 rock brecc1a/mff Notes: 1125 pcf is the a\*erage urut weight of all day unrts. The unit weights for all clay ooits are averaged for the sake of simplicity ill me response analysis. '11_6 pcfis. the average urut \\'eight of Sand {;ruts Ill\'. and VIl. The average is used fur the sake of simplicity in the site response an.alyill. 3In the site response analysis for shallow profile, Unit XI 1s cons.idered as die half space.. 6 Vs (tt/scc) 0 1000 2000 3000 400Cl -LR so -BC 100 La*rer '" 1 bO l :; 200 4 ---.c ) -Q. 11> (.) 6 250 7 s 300 9 10 11 3SO 12 13 14 400 1.5 16 4.'.>0 17 Layer depths, thicknesses, and shear wave velocities (Vs) for lower-range (LR), base-case (BC), and upper-range (UR) profiles for the shallow site profile at PVNGS. Depth Tlt:ickness ,.-:s (ft) (ft) LR BC ml 0 21 929 1017 1113 21 15 ]041 1165 35 ro 1046 ]150 1266 4-) 7 lUtl 12,80 52 60 1081 ]208 1351 112 25 117S ]293 1419 137 2'.! ]391 t5Q8 159 8 1334 . .:>-1536 167 19 1359 l446 1540 186 19 1359 ]459 1555 205 5, l324 ]j1[0 1723 210 20 1448 2098 2]1] 8 i4gg ].829 2245 2:1S 52 1780 2094 2462 290 21 2094 2462 311 30 1550 2094 2462 341 86 2603 32:62 2 -0 0 100 200 300 400 £ 500 Q. Q 600 700 800 900 bear \Vave Velocity (ft/ ec) 1000 A WArray -LCll --L 12 -L 13 -LC14 -LCIS -L 16 --LCI 7 2000 3000 4000 50( ED lhts H 81 bonnvs @)

• PVNGS -llorlngl -SASW"'-1*7 0 1.000 2.000 II l 11 i I I I ' __ ............. o 250 500m Figure 1. Locations of SASW lines SASW-LCl-1 through SASW-LCl-7 (shown m red as lines 1-7) at the PVNGS site. 200 250 1000 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 hear Wave Velocity (m/ ec) Figure 4.1 Companson of the Seven. hear Wave Velocity Profi lcs Determined ai lhe Palo Verde NPP Site 8 PVNGS Borehole

• Drill and. log 2 boreholes. (one deep[B-2, 423. ft], one shallow [B-1, 45. ft]) at the site, collec downhole geophysical data from the deep borehole, and preparation of each borehole for installation of borehole seismometer equipment.

• P-S Suspension Logging

• Induction/Natural Gamma

• Caliper/Natural Gamma

• Acoustic Televiewer/Boring Deviation 411250 LCl*B-1 ., 0 80 i -=-" -=-m 0 :!ID No\OQ FIPS fl GOOQ18 Elflll -.ef!illgia 50 100 150 g 200 J: Ii: w c 250 300 PALO VERDE BOREHOLE B-2 Receiver to Receiver Vs and VP Analysis 450 Figure 1. Locations of boreholes LCl*B*1 and LCl*B*2 at the PVNGS site. Note: north arrow shows true north. as opposed to "plant north." 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 VELOCITY (ft/s) 10000 12000 9 Figure 5. Boring LCl-B-2, Suspension R1-R2 P-and Swwave velocities 14000 Geologic cross-section showing the shallow and deep stratigraphy at the PVNGS site 0 SCRJPTION I I E 6AS.En&an ...... _ ,,., *

• I J * -10 Development of Base Case Profiles and Nonlinear Material Properties Deep Site Profile:

• Developed from data presented in the UFSAR and Geological Society of America Bulletin A seismic-refraction survey of crustal structure in central Arizona (Warren, 1969)

• No borings underneath the. three units that reach the top of the basement complex, so the upper. contact is estimated using a. geologic cross-section from the UFSAR that shows. the shallow and deep stratigraphy at the si1te

• Control point elevation for this. profile is defined at the bottom of the shallow site profile.

• Vs values were estimated from suspension (LCI,. 2015f) for bedrock. Vs for the basement complex was determined using typical seisn1ic wave velocities for granodiorite.

• Uncertainty in the thickness of each layer vi1as accounted for in the LR and UR deep site profiles.

• For the volcanics, this uncertainty was determined from boring logs as described in LCI (LCI, 2015d). For the upper basement layers, this uncertainty was taken as 10 percent of each respective mean thickness.

• Consistent with SPI D: -UR and LR Vs values were developed by multiplying and dividing the BC profile value by exp(1.28*alnVs), respectively, like for the shallow site profile -Epistemic uncertainty was estimated for Vs in the BC profile using a logarithmic standard deviation of 0.35 as -The LR and UR profiles were constructed by pairing 90th percentile Vs with 10th percentile thickness (and vice versa) in order to maximize the varia1tion in travel time 11 Dynamic properties of deep site profile (base case profile) T bl 5 D a e . 1ynallllc properaes o fil s f d eep sire pro 1 e. ource: T bl 16 fr LCI (LCI ?Ol -d) a e om . -) Depth rmt :\Jean Vs Poisson's Elevatiou Sigma, Strat. Gt'neraUzed to top weight Vs Vp Sigma Ratio Thickness Tbicklless of layer unit XI xn xn xn lithology Mean, Top Sigma, Range+, Range-, (ft) (pct) (ft/sec) (ft/sec) (lo) (ft msl) Top (ft) 3 Top Top (ft) (ft msl) (ft msl) Andesirel basalt/ flow 395 140 4485 9863 0.35 0.370 558 83 641 475 808 breccia/ ruff Weathered granodiorire/ 1203 1461 5438 10786 0.35 0.330 -250 NIA NIA NIA 20 mera-granice (top) Weathered granodioritel 1223 1521 7343 12632 0.35 0.245 -270 NIA NIA NA 20 mera-granire (middle) Wearhered g:ranodio1ite/ 1243 1571 9248 14477 0.35 0.155 -290 NIA NIA NIA 20 mera-grnnire (bonom) Granodiorire/ 1263 1712 10200 15400 0.35 0.109 -310 NIA NIA NIA NIA Notes: 1 Unir weight for the weathered basement complex is deremlined from Vp. 1 Unit weight for wnveathered basement complex is detemiiued from Wan-en (WatTen. 1969). 3 Sigma rop is only calculated for Andesite XI for use in shallow site profile site response calculations. Sigma is calculated using rop elevation contact of bedrock from Units 1-3 Bl boreholes (Figure 34). (ft) 145 10 10 10 NIA 12 PVNGS deep site profile Lowtr R:mgt Profilt (low nlocidts. thil'ker layers. density): might= 0.3 Desc:riptton Tbicbiess (m) Vs (ms) Vokanic bedrock 324.2 873_4 Basement (shallow; weafherul top) 10_0 l,059_0 Basement (shallov.r: wealhered middle) 10_0 1.430_0 Basement (shallow: weathered bottom) 10.0 l.800_9 Basement (shallow) 1.784.2 1.986-3 Basemeru (deep) 12.560_0 3.680.0 B:iw Case Profilt (mtdfan Ynlues :ill par:unerers): weiebt=OA Description Thickness (m) Vs (ms) \'olcanic bedrotl: 267.6 1.367.0 Basement (shallow; weathered top) 6.1 l.657.5 Basement (shallow; vteatheted middle) 6.1 2.238_1 Basement weathered bottom) 6.1 1.818..8 (shallow) 1,581.7 3,109.0 Basement (dttp) 10.0000 3.680.0 t:pper Range Profile (high ,*elocitlts, rhiwter layers. b.-se cue density): wei_ebt = 0.3 Description Ttucl.."ness (m) Vs (ms) \'olcanic bedrock sequence 211.0 2.139.6 Basement (shallow; weathered top) 2.2 2.5943 Basement (sh3.llow; weathered middle) 2.'.! 3.503.1 Basement (shallow: weathered bottom) ..,.., 3.680.0 Basement (shallow) 1.379.3 3.680 0 Basement (deep) 17,.i40.0 3.680.0 0 500 -QI t6: 1000 Q. 3 0 t1I J:. "' ... 0 1500 :t: 0 .D E 0 ..c ... E -.z 2000 Q. QI 0 2500 3000 0 -. . -. . -. . -. . --1000 .,. -,. , I Vr, (m/'>) 2000 :1 . I ,,, 3000 . .. ,_ --............ I 1 I-"" I l .. I l -I I I I L 1 I I I . --I UR Prctile . I ' Base Case Profile I .. I LR Prctile I Warren (1969) I I S'NUS Reference I Profile I . 4000 -13 PVNGS Shear Modulus & Damping Curves Table . CW\"eS for each stratigraphic unit at PVNGS. Source: Table 14 from LCI (I.CI 2015d' -Strntigna pbic Gtnendized Depth Thickness Degrndatlon DtgradatioJl Layer Curns Cnit (ft) (ft} (..\lternach'e n l . .Uternntin 2) 1 I Sand 0 21 EPRI Soil Peninsular Cun-es 0-20 ft 0-50 ft 2 I Sand 21 14 EPRISou Peninsular 20-50 ft 0-50 ft 3 I Sand 35 10 EPRI Soil Peni.nsular Curves 20-50 ft 0-50 ft 4 I Sand 45 7 EPRI Sou Peninsular Curves 20-50 ft 0-50 ft 5 n Clay 52 60 Vucetic and Dobry Vuce-tic and Dobry (1991)-PI=30 (1991}Pl=30 6 II Clay 112 25 Vucetic and Dobry Vucetic and Dobry (1991)-PI=JO (1991)-Pl=30 7 II Clay 137 22 \*ocellc and Dobry Vucetic and Dobry (1991)-Pl= 30 (1991)-PI=30 8 m Sand 159 8 EPRI Soil Peninsular Cw.-es 120-250 ft 51-500 ft 9 I\" Clay 167 19 Vucetic and Dobry Vucrtic and Dobry (1991 )-PI=30 (1991}Pl=30 10 \ Sand 186 19 EPRI Soil Peninsular Curves 120-250 ft 51-500 ft 11 VI Oay 205 5 \"ucebc and Dobry Vucettc and Dobry (1991)-PI=JO (199l}Pl=30 12 VI Clay 210 20 \"ucetic and Dobry Vucetic and Dobry (1991)-PI=30 (199l}PI=30 13 VII Sand 230 8 EPRI Soil Peninsulnr Cw...-es 120-250 ft 51-500 ft u VIII aay 238 51 Vucebc and Dobry Vucetic and Dobty 099l)-PI=30 (1991)-PI=30 15 \'III Clay 290 21 Vucellc and Dobry Vucetic and Dobry 0991)-Pl=30 (1991)-Pl=30 16 IX Sand 311 30 EPRI Soil Peninsular Cun:es 150-500 ft 51-500 ft 17 x Fanglomernte 3-U 86 EPRI Soil Peninsular Cwve!. 250-500 ft 51-500 ft

• Shallow profile alternative were given equal weights

• Deep profile linear 14 PVNGS Kappa

• Adjustment factors were developed to convert ground motions. from the reference rock associated with the GMPEs from the SWUS. GMC to site specific rock conditions at PVNGS corresponding to the deep site profile ..

• Vs-kappa adjustments consist of 2 parts. 1. Account for impedance differences, calculated using the Quarter-wavelength approach (Boore and Joyner, 1997; Boore, 2003, 2013} and affects all frequencies. 2. Account for the differences in kappa (kappa-zero). It has an exponential form and affects mainly the high frequencies.

• Host kappa value for SWUS GMPEs is 0.041 sec and the target kappa value at PVNGS is 0.033 sec with a logarithmic standard deviation of 0.5.

• BC, LR, and UR target kappas were combined with each of the BC, LR, and UR deep site profiles to get 9 sets of adjustment factors applied to the {BC, LR, UR} kappa alternatives and Vs profile alternatives.

• Although some of these adjustment factors become very large at HF, the SWUS GMC rock motions have zero or no energy at these frequencies (say, above 20 Hz). Therefore, the effect on spectral accelerations is expected to be much smaller than the effect shown here. e 2 ti l "' .... .... :l if c 0 -.... 0 ... ..... .-c cu E ... =6' < 10 . ' . ,,, I I i < t, Z-!--+-I -' I I 'I I j I 1 ' ' '= f= *= -,_,,_ Al/ r/} . I l * ? -lJ;,? I I I Ti ......_ ' . I I _. I ---!. I * .,.. __ I:__... .. ---_,. .:: -..._ .. .. L . __, r ' "' _. I ...... """ """ "I" . r ' '--l lo.. I ' ', ' *---,_ ..... k I -0.1 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) -LB Profile, LB kappa (0.09) -LB Profile, Median kappa (0.11) LB Profile, UB kappa (0.09) -Median Profile, LB kappa (0.12) -Medi.1n Profile, Median kappa {0.16) -Median Profile, UB kappa (0.12} UB Profile, LB kappa (0.09) -UB Profile. Median kappa (O.U) UB Profile, UB kappa (0.09) Net factors to convert ground motions from SWUS reference rock to PVNGS rock condffions.

PVNGS Randomizcition of Vs Profiles

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

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

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

• Depth to bedrock was modeled using a Normal distribution, each realization of depth to the top c,f bedrock was limited to +/-2a.

• 60 random velocity profiles were generated for each combination of profile (BC, LR, and UR), material model (EPRI or Peninsular values), input spectrum, and set of adjustment factors. 16 PVNGS Input Spectra

• Obtained using reference-rock hazard for PVNGS

• Following guidance from the SPID, HF (5 and.10 Hz) and. LF (1. and 2.5 Hz) spectra at mean annual frequencies of exceedence (MAFEs) of 10-4, 10-5, and 10-6 were scaled to 11 different PGA amplitudes between 0.01 g and 1.5 g for a total of 22 input control motions.

• Input response spectra were converted to Fourier amplitude spectra (FAS) using IRVT, which requires an estimate of ground motion duration for each input control motion, which was calculated according to the method in Rathje et al. (2005). Table 8. Deaggregated magnitudes and distances for reference rock and associated durations. Source: LCI (LCL 2015a). :\lotion (l\1w) Di tance (km) Duration ( ec) 104 Freq. 7.5 210 26.3 104 High Freq. 6.1 18 4.06 I 0-5 Low Freq. 7.6 200 27.7 10-5 High Freq. 6.2 8.0 3.94 10-6 Low Freq. 6.8 8.0 .46 10-6 High Freq. 6.4 6.0 4.76 17 PVNGS Site Response Methodology

• RVT. was used to perform the site response analyses, consistent with SPID.

• For the BC, LR, and UR shallow site profiles, site amplification factors (SAF) are developed for seven spectral frequencies (0.5 Hz SA, 1.0 Hz SA, 2.5 Hz SA, 5.0 Hz SA, 10 Hz SA, 20 Hz SA, and 100 Hz SA or PGA) over the range of spectral amplitudes represented by the input contnol motions (refer to Section 2.3.4). Each set of SAF incorporates the various types of variability in profile and material properties and uncertainty in kappa and deep shear wave vellocities as represented by the nine sets of adjustment factors.

• To include the deep site profile effect on SAF, the IRVT-derived input FAS was multiplied. by the set of Vs-kappa adjustment factors prior to using that input spectrum to drive the shallow site profile. 18 PVNGS Amplification Function 101 -10 * --10* 10' Frequency, (Hz) BC.10-4 ti/ 10' 10' 10' to* 10' Freqa>>ney (Hz] -Ha. PVNGS BC s.udaa and SAf for 10-4 HF i.npuc molion 11$Uig the EPRl soil marerial olOdel and a SUlgle rock ro local rock adjustmen1 fuoc.tion. Green Imes are for 60 indi\idual randomiud profiles Median (blade solid line) and :::lo1o (blaclc dashed linH) abo shown. Souru: Figure 46 from LCI (l..CI.1015d). 10' 10' 810 I ; J 10' l10* 101 10' -;o* --"i°o' Figure 4lb. PVNGS spectra and SAF for 10-4 LF mput motion using !he EPRI soi.I matenal modtl and a slQ!le rock to local rod: adju5tmrnt function. Gtttn Imes are spectra for 60 111dmdual nmdoouz.ed pr-ofiles. Median (black sohd hne) and +/-loi. (blad: dashed lines) are also shown. Soun:e: Figure 47 from LCI (I.CI. 2015d) J 1cr' 101 10' 10' Frequency. (Hz) BC 10-5 10' to' 10' (Hz) UT -He. PVNGS BC mr£l<< r6ponsc spectra mid SAF for 10*1 HF input motion ming the EPRI soil mataial model and 1 sin.git refet-mce rock ro loc&l rock adj11stmeo1 function.. Green lio.es are spectra for 60 1.0dmdual randomized profiles. (blad: sohd lio.e) and =loi. (black dashed 11.0es) also shown. SoutN: F1gur-e 48 fromlCI (l..CL ::WlSd). 10' l(f' 10' 10' --,o* --,rf Fniquency. (Hz) 10' fiptt 41d. PVNGS BC surfuce response spectta. aod SAF for 10*1 l.F 111put motton usuig EPRI soil matmal model. and a smgle reftteoce rock to local rocl.: fimctton. Grett are for 60 1.odm.dual rmdomu.ed profiles. '.\ledian (black sohd !me) and "'lo11 {black dashed hoes) shown. Source: Figure 49 from LCI (l..Cl.1015d)

PVNGS BC median amplification factors c nl 2.5 1.5 1 0.5 -... l --"W:I*--I; -:,,.,. II II . 0 0.001 0.6 0.5 0.1 0 0.001 . 0.01 0.1 1 10 SpectraJ acceleration, (g) " .. ' c_c I ,. -u. l l I I ,...,. *r "-J",_J I '!"!' . -. -i 1 "" ' .... "', l -, ' -[J I . -0.01 0.1 1 10 Spectral aueleration, (g) -+-PGA -.20Hz -e-10Hz -*-S H_z 2.5 Hz 1 Hz -0.5 Hz -+-PGA ... 20Hz -10Hz 2.5 Hz 1 Hz -0.5 Hz 20 Devlin-Gill, Stephanie From:Devlin-Gill, Stephanie Sent:2 Jun 2015 17:35:50 +0000 To:Graizer, Yladimir;Munson, Clifford;Ake, Jon;Heeszel,. Alice;John Stamatkos;Weaver, Thomas;Stovall, Scott;Hill, Brittain;Chokshi, Nilesh Cc:Li, Yong;Jackson, Diane;Miriam Juckett (mjuckett@swri.org)

Subject:

RE: PVNGS: Site Response Attachments:PVNGS Site Response -SDG.pptx. Site response overview slides attached. stephanie Geophysicist 301-415-5301 T-7010 U.S. NRC, NRO, DSEA, RGS2 From: Graizer, Vladimir Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 11:57 AM To:. Devlin-Gill, Stephanie; Munson,. Clifford; Ake, Jon; Heeszel, David; Stieve, Alice; John Stamatkos; Weaver, Thomas;. Stovall, Scott; Hill, Brittain; Chokshi, Nilesh Cc: Li, Yong; Jackson, Diane; Miriam Juckett (mjuckett@swri.org)

Subject:

RE: PVNGS: Site Response I put together few slides about GMRS and can show them. From: Devlin-Gill, Stephanie Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 10:07 AM To: Munson, Clifford; Ake, Jon; Heeszel, David; Stieve, Alice; Graizer, Vladimir; John Stamatkos; Weaver, Thomas; Stovall, Scott; Hill,. Brittain; Chokshi, Nilesh. Cc: Li, Yong; Jackson, Diane; Miriam Juckett (mjuckett@swri.org)

Subject:

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

Subject:

DIABLO CANYON MEETING Nick in the staff slide presentation for the. subject meeting .. specifically, slide 15 shows l date for Group 1 SPRAs ... as has been discussed with NRC upper management our understanding is that Diablo (if it is in group 1) will be given the. same amount of time as others. to. complete SPRA which pushes it out beyond the date shown on the slide ..... was this just an oversight or is this an issue that needs further discussion? Thanks. Mike Tschiltz. Director,. Risk Assessment Nuclear Energy Institute 1201 F Street NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20004 www.nei.org P: 202.739.8083. Mf{b){6) I E: mdt@nei.org NUCUAR ENERGY INSTITUTE TAKE THE NE/ FUTURE OF ENERGY QUIZ, www.NEl.org/futureofenergy WORLD NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE CONFERENCE (CO-ORGANIZED WITH WNA) J 21-23 APRIL 2015, PRAGUE, CZECH REPUBLIC J REGISTER TODAY FOLLOW US ON

• essage transmission contains information.from the Nuclear Energy. Institute, Inc. The. information is intended solely.for the addressee.and its. use

• not authorized. If you are not the intended recipient,. you have received

• ion m error, and any. review, use, disclosure, copying or distribution o mmunication is strict u ave received this electronic transmission in error, please notify the sender Immediately by telephone or by elect delete the orig/no/ message. IRS Circular 230 disdosure: Ta ensure compliance with requirements im as other raxlng authorities, we inform you

• contained in this communication (includi is nor intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, far the purpose of (i} avai m y taxpayer or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending ta another porty any transaction or matter addressed herein.

Sent through www.lntermedia.com DiFrancesco, Nicholas From:DiFrancesco, Nicholas Sent:27 Apr 2015 15:12:36 +0000 To:Gibson, Lauren

Subject:

FW: PG&E: Diablo Canyon Public Meeting on April 28 Attachments:NRC Public Meeting 4-28 Seismic Final.pdf FYI. ... slide 54 has a summary of licensee and regulatory actions. From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2015 10:42 PM To: Munson, Clifford; Ake, Jon; 'John Stamatakos <jstam@swri.org> (jstam@swri.org)'; Hill, Brittain; Graizer, Vladimir Cc: Jackson, Diane; Shams, Mohamed; Vega, Frankie; Walker, Wayne; Alexander, Ryan; Moreno, Angel; Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; Kock, Andrea; Flanders, Scott; Maier, Bill; Roth(OGC), David; Lindell, Joseph; Uttal, Susan; Markley, Michael; Lingam, Siva; Hipschman, Thomas; Wyman, Stephen

Subject:

PG&E: Diablo Canyon Public Meeting on April 28 Folks, Attached are the. PG&E slides in support of the Tuesday public meeting. NRG slides. will be available tomorrow morning. Please forward to those I may have. missed. Thanks, Nick From: Jahangir, Nozar [3] Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2015 7:58 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas; Soenen, Philippe R Cc: Strickland, Jearl

Subject:

Diablo Canyon Public Meeting on April 28 Philippe; Attached is the DCPP presentation for the subject meeting. I will also take 30 hardcopies with me, as well. I will be travelling on Monday and will be in Rockville on Monday night. We also need the Web access number and passcode for Technical PG&E staff that will be calling in support of the presentation. Thanks Nozar Juhangir P.E. Manager, Technical Services Diablo Canyon Seismic Engineering 805-545-6512 l<b )(6) I (cell) nxjl@pge.com From: Difrancesco, Nicholas [4] Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 10:33 AM To: Soenen, Philippe R Cc: Jahangir, Nozar;. Vega, Frankie; Shams,. Mohamed; Jackson, Diane

Subject:

NRC Technical Focus Areas for Support of Public Meeting on April 28 Mr. Soenen, In support of the public meeting scheduled for April 28, 2015, the NRG staff would like to gain additional technical understanding in several areas to support productive public meeting discussions. In addition to providing a general overview of the SSC and GMC SSHAC Reports and March 2015 50.54(f) response for DCPP, please provide additional clarification on the following topics. Seismic Source Characterization 1. Summarize the key data used to constrain the slip rate of the Hosgri fault, including associated uncertainties. 2. Clarify how elements of the thrust/reverse interpretation for the San Luis Range Thrust are incorporated into the SSC. 3. Clarify how the rupture models are derived from the fault source geometry models. 4. Summarize the methodology used to define the equivalent Poisson rates. Ground Motion Characterization 1. Provide additional detail on the criteria used for the selection of the candidate ground motion prediction equations (GMPEs) for development of the common form median ground motion models for DCPP. Specifically, please elaborate on the basis for including GMPEs based on datasets other than NGA-West2. 2. Provide additional detail on development of the common functional form used to fit the candidate GMPEs. Specifically, please discuss how model parameters such as depth to Vs=1 km/sand 2.5 km/s (which are present in some of the candidate GMPEs) are accounted for in the functional form. 3. Provide additional detail on the approach for weighting the selected common form models as well as the criteria used to verify the physicality of the final models. 4. Provide additional detail on how the continuous distribution for total sigma (crss) was developed by combining the between-event and within-event aleatory variabilities.

Site Response 1. Section 2.3.2.1 of the 50.54(f) submittal states that shear modulus and damping curves are not directly applicable to DCPP since analytical modeling is not used and that linear site effects are implicitly included in the empirical GMPEs for Vs30=760 m/s. However, the NGA-West2 database has a limited amount of data for sites with Vs30 near 760 m/s and for earthquakes with magnitudes and source-to-site distances similar to those dominating the hazard for DCPP. Please provide additional information on how these limitations in the NGA-West2 database are accounted for in the site response model for DCPP. 2. Section 2.3.6 of the 50.54(f) submittal describes the development of the site term for DCPP. For the calculations of between-event residuals, provide additional information on the criteria used to determine the appropriate distance range(+ and -Rrup) to the sample station. Please discuss the sensitivity of this distance range on between-event residual values. Please provide an example calculation that uses site-specific values to determine the values for $s2s, including the epistemic uncertainty in the site term. Please let me know if you have any questions on the above focus areas. Thanks, Nick Difrancesco Senior Project Manager -Seismic Reevaluation Activities U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Division nicholas.difrancesco@nrc.gov I Tel: (301) 415-1115 PG&E is committed to protecting our customers' privacy. To learn more, please visit http://www.pge.com/about/company/privacy/customer/

AIL 09-001

• The NRC's first assessment of the Shoreline fault was detailed in RIL 09-001 and was based on information available at the time. The NRC found the Shoreline fault's maximum predicted shaking is less than what the plant was previously analyzed for. AIL 12-001

• RIL 12-01, "Confirmatory Analysis of Seismic Hazard at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant from the Shoreline Fault Zone," updates the NRC's evaluation based on information PG&E provided in January 2011, as well as a staff visit to Diablo Canyon.

• The NRC continues to conclude that ground shaking from the Shoreline fault's earthquake scenarios are less than the HE and L TSP ground motion levels for which the plant was previously evaluated and demonstrated to have reasonable assurance of sat ety --. -10 § i u j '° l .. Comparison of Hosgri and L TSP Spectra to NRC Deterministic Evaluation Results JAPAN LESSONS LEARNED

• The NRG staff issued a request for additional information to all nuclear power plants on March 12, 2012, to initiate several actions as a result of lessons learned from the Fukushima Dai-ichi accident in Japan: -Conduct "walkdowns" of all nuclear power plants to verify flooding and seismic protection features -Reevaluate flooding and seismic hazard and design using present day methods and guidance

• The DCPP seismic hazard reevaluation, submitted in March 2015,. assesses all known faults in the area (i.e., not limited to just the Shoreline fault) using a process similar to what is done for siting new reactors. The licensee reported that the ground shaking from the known fault's earthquake scenario exceeds the Double Design Earthquake in the 1-1 O Hz range and that there was reasonable assurance that the plant could achieve sate shutdown at the higher level. The NRC is currently evaluating the licensee's report

• The NRC performed a screening and prioritization review of this report and th::it niabln r.anyon screens in to do n me '"' 'l'lr.-J*e seismic probablis ; rii 3: mf .ts is due -----* ua$0V VI I (he licensee's reported interin actions, the NRC determined that the plant is safe to operate while the further analysis is being completed. NRC REvlEW OF SEISMIC HAZ'ARDATTHE DIABLO C,AJ\J'V PONERPLANT This brochure provides an overview o the NRC's review of the Shoreline f au zone. near Diablo Canyon .. It also places the Shoreline fault review in context with the NRC's request that al U.S. nuclear power plants reanalyze seismic hazards based on lessons learned from the Fukushima Dai-ichi accident in Japan. (Prepared April 2015) For additional information contact th Office of Public Affairs. (30 415-8200 or email: opa@nrc.gov _.. :J -00 I -, _.. PJ _.. --* 6" CJ) :J PJ -< "O PJ -co PJ CD Q: CJ) CD -_.. 0 0 -I ::; CD _.. "O (JI c: 0-0 =o 0o -u;* 0 c: -CJ) CD 0 --::; CD CJ) () 0 "O CD 0 --:::; CD ,, 0 )> .., CD .0 c: CD -i ::; CD "O PJ <O CD CJ)

DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT SEISMIC BACKGROUND

• Nuclear power plant designs consider earthquake effects by providing margins against ground motion levels at the plant site. -The ground motion levels show how much energy (measured in 'g,' or percent of Earth's gravity) is transmitted at different shaking frequencies Designers use ground motion levels to analyze how structures and equipment respond during an earthquake

• Diablo Canyon is licensed to three earthquake. ground motions (most plants have two) -Design Earthquake (DE) ground motion is the biggest earthquake the plant is allowed to continue operating through );;>. The DE ground motion level is 0.2g anchored at 100 Hz Double Design Earthquake (ODE), ground motion is the shaking level at. which all safety related equipment must remain functional The ODE ground motion level is double the amplitude of the DE (0.4g peak ground acceleration. anchored at 100 Hz) -Hosgri Earthquake (HE} ground motion level,. which is based on an earthquake from the Hosgri fault, which was discovered in 1971 . );;>. The HE ground motion level is 0.75g peak ground acceleration anchored at 100 Hz based on a 7.5 magnitude earthquake 5 kilometers from the site >-Diablo Canyon's design was modified so that sufficient equipment survives the. HE to safely shutdown the plant and keep the nuclear fuel cool

• Long Term Seismic Program (LTSP} -The plant's original license required seismic reevaluation in 1 O years The L TSP was initiated to meet this license condition -The L TSP spectrum has been used to evaluate seismic margins 00 DI f rfqUen<)' (H7) 10 100 SHORELINE FAULT * *

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

DiFrancesco, Nicholas From:DiFrancesco, Nicholas Sent:27 Apr 2015 12:45:57 +0000 To:Jackson, Diane

Subject:

FYT: Comment on the Diablo Canyon seismic brochure Attachments:diablo canyon brochure revision 6.docx Fyi. .. From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 8:34 AM To: Gibson, Lauren Cc: Hill, Brittain; Vega, Frankie

Subject:

Comment on the Diablo Canyon seismic brochure Lauren, Britt Hill had a new graphic with additional curves on it. We will probably need to add the GMRS and consider incorporation of the LSTP margin assessment. Scott Flanders, Mohamed Shams, Yong Li, and Kamal Manoly are planning to travel for the end-of-cycle meeting June 24. Ahead of the meeting we should share with them for comment. SPRA report will be due June 2017. Thanks, Nick From: Gibson, Lauren Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 8:21 AM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

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

Subject:

RE: question: how to help RIV with request regarding Diablo Canyon seismic brochure Nick, I took the liberty of updating this brochure as if the screening and prioritization review were already completed. All that's needed is to put in the due date for SPRA. There seems to be quite a large number of people to coordinate with in this: your branch, DORL, Region 4, and NRO, so it should probably go into circulation for comment soon. We don't want to get ahead of the screening and prioritization, but I want to be ready to go so we can use this tool as soon as the initial review is completed. When do you think I should send it to the others? I thought you should get the first crack at it. Thanks, Lauren From: Uselding, Lara . Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 9:32 AM To: Bowman, Gregory Cc: Burnell, Scott; Williams, Megan; Alexander, Ryan; Whaley, Sheena; Difrancesco, Nicholas; Jackson, Diane; Oesterle, Eric; Markley, Michael; Lingam, Siva; Sebrosky, Joseph; Gibson, Lauren

Subject:

RE: question: how to help RIV with request regarding Diablo Canyon seismic brochure Great news Greg, thanks and we appreciate the support. Lara From: Bowman, Gregory Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 7:29 AM To: Uselding, Lara Cc: Burnell, Scott; Williams, Megan; Alexander, Ryan; Whaley, Sheena; Difrancesco, Nicholas; Jackson, Diane; Oesterle, Eric; Markley, Michael; Lingam, Siva; Sebrosky, Joseph; Gibson, Lauren

Subject:

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

Subject:

question: how to help RIV with request regarding Diablo Canyon seismic brochure Greg, Lauren, Nick, Mike, Siva, Eric, and Diane, The purpose of this email is to inform you of a request from RIV regarding possibly updating the attached brochure that we used in the past to communicate Diablo Canyon seismic issues. The inquiry for possibly updating the brochure can be found in the email below. A second purpose is to provide a proposal for updating the brochure that would involve JLD, NRO and RIV resources. Any insights you might have on the best way of updating the brochure (if it is deemed appropriate to do so) based on the information below on how the brochure was put together would be helpful. The attached brochure was developed by me as the Diablo PM with help from Annie Kammerer, Cliff Munson, Chris Cook, RIV staff (including Neil O'Keefe, Christie Hale, Megan Williams and Lara Uselding), and the JLD (Barry Miller). It was. part of a broader effort to communicate seismic information to the public at a Fall 2012 public meeting. Barry, Annie, and Chris, all had poster boards that they developed along with the attached brochure and they attended the Fall 2012 public meeting. The. brochure and several poster boards from the Fall 2012 meeting are still available on the RIV sharepoint link (see http://fusion.nrc.gov/regions/riv/Public%20Meetings/Forms/Allltems.aspx) From my perspective, I understand the request below is limited to updating the attached brochure, I just wanted to give everyone that was not involved with the Fall 2012 public meeting an idea of how the seismic communication tools were developed (it was truly a team effort). For what it is worth my suggestion to update the brochure would include the following (the 4 megabyte word file is available on the RIV sharepoint link):

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

• Have the revised brochure. reviewed for technical. content by Nick DiFrancesco (JLD seismic reevaluation lead PM), Diane Jackson (NRO seismic branch chief-Diane can determine which NRO staff, if any, need to review the updated brochure for technical content) and RIV projects staff o Revise the brochure as appropriate based on comments from JLD, NRO, and RIV projects staff Please let me know if you have any questions about the above and feedback on the proposal if it is determined that updating the brochure is appropriate. Thanks, Joe Sebrosky Senior Project Manager: Japan Lessons-Learned Division Off ice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation joseph.sebrosky@nrc.gov 301-415-1132 From: OPA4 Resource Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 5:34 PM To: Gibson, Lauren; Sebrosky, Joseph Cc: Burnell, Scott

Subject:

Hello Lauren and Joe-Back in 2012 when we issued the RIL, we handed out the attached brochure. I forget who there at HQ put it together but it's been a super handy resource to pass out to public and the media. I thought it would be useful if we update it with 1) verbiage once the March submittals come 2)any necessary updates and take. it with. us this year to our meeting. Can you assist with this or point me to right person to work with? I am no longer pursuing a video so this would provide a helpful overview of Oiablo Canyon seismic .. Thanks, Lara Uselding Sent:24 Apr 2015 18:39:46 +0000 To:Alexander, Ryan; Walker, Wayne;Uselding, Lara;Maier, Bill

Subject:

FYI: Draft of WUS Screening and Pdoritization Letter Western US Screening and Prio1itization letter.docx, lnfo POP Western US Screening Letter rev5.docx Folks, Current WUS seismic screening letter. Beginning management review in NRR and NRO. It generally mirrors the CEUS screening letter from May 9, 2014. Attached is the current POP that will be updated for senior management briefings. I plan to schedule in the near future a NRR ET and include the R-IV management brief. Thanks, Nick From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 7:08 PM To: Shams, Mohamed; Jackson, Diane; Cho, Esther Cc: Hill, Brittain; Munson, Clifford; Vega, Frankie; Burnell, Scott; Lent, Susan Draft of WUS Screening and PrioritizatiOll Letter Folks, Esther, Attached is the WUS Screening and Priorization Letter. Along with Frankie's and technical staff efforts the letter is ready for management review. Attachment 2 -redline markup shows changes from the CEUS May 9, 2014 letter. Items for Management Awareness:

• Discusses acceptability of Oiablo Canyon and Palo Verde interim actions in lieu of ESEP

• Discusses limited scope evaluation schedule for Group 1 WUS Sites only

• No discussion of SPRA schedule relaxation (suggest to discuss with licensees when results are communicated) Attachment 4 -Current Management POP and Communication Plan Timeline Attachment 1 is ready for ADAMS add. Thanks, Nick Senior Project Manager -Seismic Reevaluation Activities U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Division nicholas.difrancesco@nrc.gov I Tel: (301) 415-1115 The Power Reactor Licensees on the Enclosed List

SUBJECT:

SCREENING AND PRIORITIZATION RESULTS FOR THE WESTERN UNITED STATES SITES REGARDING INFORMATION PURSUANT TO TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 50.54(f). REGARDING SEISMIC HAZARD RE-EVALUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDATION 2.1 OF THE TERM TASK FORCE REVIEW OF INSIGHTS FROM THE FUKUSHIMA ICHI ACCIDENT On March 12, 2012, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRG) issued a request for information pursuant to Title 1 O of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50 (1 O CFR), Section 50.54(f). (hereafter referred to as the 50.54. (f). letter) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML 12053A340). The purpose of that request was to gather information concerning, in part, the seismic hazards at operating reactor sites and to enable the NRC staff to determine. whether licenses. should be. modified, suspended, or revoked. The "Required Response" section of Enclosure 1 indicated that licensees and construction permit holders should provide a Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening report within 3 years from the date of the. letter for Western United States (WUS) plants (i.e., Columbia Generating Station (Columbia), Diablo Canyon Power Plant (Diablo Canyon), and Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (Palo Verde)). Further, the 50.54(f) letter stated that NRG would provide the results of the screening and prioritization indicating deadlines for individual plants to complete seismic risk evaluations to assess the total plant response to the re-evaluated seismic hazard. Additionally, by letter1 dated February 20, 2014, the NRG provided supplemental information on the content of the seismic re-evaluated hazard submittals including guidance on reportability and operability. The purpose of this letter is to inform WUS licensees of the. NRC's screening and prioritization and to allow licensees to appropriately plan the completion of further seismic risk evaluations described in Enclosure 1 of the 50.54(f) letter. To respond to the 50.54(f) letter, all addressees committed to. follow the Electric Power. Research Institute (EPRI) Report, "Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic,"2 as. supplemented, by the EPRI Report, "Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Recommendation 2.1: Seismic"3 (referred to as the Expedited Approach). The NRC held multiple public meetings and teleconferences with industry and the public leading to the development of the guidance documents supporting review of re-evaluated seismic hazards. I The February 20, 2014, supplemental information letter is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML 14030A046. The SPID guidance document is found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML 12333A 170. The staff endorsement letter for the SPID guidance is found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML 12319A074. I The Expedited Approach guidance document is found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML 13102A 142. The WUS licensees submitted the re-evaluated seismic hazards. by letters dated March 12, 2015 (references are provided in Enclosure 3 of this letter). The NRG staff conducted the screening and prioritization review of the submittals by assessing each licensee's screening evaluation and hazard analysis utilizing the. endorsed SPID guidance .. INTERIM EVALUATIONS4 The 50.54(f) letter requested that licensees provide "interim evaluations and actions taken or planned to address the higher seismic hazard relative to the design-basis, as appropriate, prior to completion of the risk evaluation." For those plants where the re-evaluated seismic hazard exceeds the seismic design-basis, licensees stated they will provide interim evaluations to demonstrate that the plant can cope with the higher re-evaluated seismic. hazard while the longer-term seismic risk evaluations are ongoing. In support of the requested interim evaluations for licensees, WUS plants provided information related to margin evaluations or insights from Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) evaluations including estimated seismic risk. Additionally, the. submittals discussed completing plant seismic walkdowns as part of NTIF Recommendation 2.3 in order to verify that the current plant configuration is consistent with the licensing basis. The NRG staff review of WUS reports found that licensees have demonstrated additional plant seismic. margins. supportive of continued plant operation while additional risk evaluations are conducted. The licensees for Diablo. Canyon and Palo. Verde provided interim evaluations in lieu. of completing of the Expedited Approach. These licensees have demonstrated seismic margins that met the intent of the Expedited Approach review. For Columbia, the interim evaluation provided in March 2015 is a first step in assessing the plant's capacity to withstand the re-evaluated hazard. In the near-term, by January 2016,. Columbia will complete an "Expedited Approach" to evaluate. and identify reinforcements,. if necessary, for certain equipment to ensure a safe shutdown pathway can withstand a higher seismic ground motion. SCREENING PROCESS As defined in the 50.54(f) letter and the SPID guidance, the seismic hazard re-evaluations were conducted using current analysis methods and guidance. The licensees' responses to the 50.54(f) letter provided seismic hazard re-evaluation results, which were the focus of the NRG staff's initial screening and prioritization review. Although the safe shutdown earthquake. (SSE) is commonly referred to as a single number, this number represents a distribution of ground motions that occur over a range of spectral frequencies. This results in a curve of ground acceleration over frequency. The ability of equipment and structures in the plant to withstand the effects of ground motions is frequency specific. For the purposes of the licensees' analyses and NRG staff's review, the SPID guidance identifies three frequency ranges that are of particular interest: 1-10 Hertz (Hz), a low frequency range of <2.5 Hz, and a high frequency range of > 1 O Hz. The different ranges have been identified due to the different types of structures and equipment that may be impacted by 4 Enclosure 1 of this letter provides a Glossary of Seismic Evaluations

-. 3 -. ground motions in that range. For example, large components generally are not affected significantly by high frequencies (i.e., > 1 O Hz). The frequency range 1-1 O Hz is. the focus for this portion of the risk evaluation, as this range has the greatest potential effect on the performance of equipment and structures important to safety. For other frequency ranges, discussed below, limited-scope evaluations will be conducted, when appropriate. In accordance with the SPID and Expedited Approach guidance, the re-evaluated seismic hazard determines if additional seismic risk evaluations are warranted for a plant. Specifically, the re-evaluated ground motion response spectra (GMRS) in the 1-10 Hz frequency range is compared to the existing SSE:

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

• If the GMRS, in the 1-1 O Hz range, is greater than the existing SSE, then the plant will complete the Expedited Approach (including the. Interim Evaluation) .. Most plants that meet this criterion also screen in to conduct a seismic risk evaluation and have committed to conduct high frequency and spent fuel pool evaluations. In addition,. if the. GMRS meets the. low hazard threshold, which is described in the SPID,. and only exceeds the SSE below 2.5 Hz, the licensee will perform a limited evaluation of equipment potentially susceptible to low frequency motions. Similarly, if the GMRS exceeds the SSE only above. 10. Hz, then the. licensee will perform an evaluation of the equipment or structures susceptible. to that specific range of ground motion. Enclosure 2. provides the staffs determination of priority for plants that screen-in to conduct a seismic risk evaluation, and identification of plants to complete limited-scope evaluations (i.e., spent fuel pool, high frequency, or low frequency). CONDITIONAL SCREENING As discussed in public meetings5 and by letter dated February 20, 2014, the staff anticipated the possibility of not being able to complete the determination for conducting a seismic risk evaluation for some plants in the. 30-day review period under certain circumstances .. For example, if a licensee provided a unique submittal or deviated from the SPID guidance, additional time for the review might be. needed. In general, WUS submittals contain extensive site specific information including site specific source models. and ground-motion models which could affect the final screening decisions. Accordingly, during the. NRC screening and prioritization process, the staff identified that for Palo. Verde additional time and interactions. will be. required to better understandthe. seismic hazard for the plant. As such, the staff determined that Palo Verde "conditionally screens-in" for the purposes of prioritizing and conducting additional evaluations .. Palo Verde has. been prioritized to complete a seismic risk evaluation in Group 3. After interactions have occurred, the staff will make a final screening and prioritization determination and provide a letter to the licensee. If the plant remains screened-in, the final screening letter will affirm the plant priority 5 Discussion as part of public meetings dated December 4, 2014, February 11, 2015, and March 30, 2015 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML14342A901, ML15104A065 and ML15111A031, respectively). for further evaluations and establish. schedule. for an Expedited Approach, if. necessary. If the plant screens out, the final screening letter also will determine if the Palo Verde needs to complete limited-scope evaluations (i.e., spent fuel pool, high frequency, or low frequency). PLANT PRIORITIZATION The NRC grouped the "screened-in" plants into three. groups6, which (i) reflects the. relative priority for conducting a seismic risk evaluation that compares each plant's current capabilities to the re-evaluated seismic hazard, and (ii) accounts for the appropriate allocation of limited staff and available expertise for reviewing. and conducting seismic risk evaluations. During the prioritization review, the staff considered each licensee's re-evaluated hazard submittals, plant specific seismic and risk insights, and previous design-basis ground motion estimates. To prioritize the plants for completing seismic risk evaluations, staff examined certain key parameters such as (1) the maximum ratio of the. new re-evaluated hazard (GMRS). to the. SSE in the 1-10 Hz range; (2) the maximum ground motion in the 1-10 Hz range; and (3) insights from previous seismic risk evaluations. As such, Group 1 plants are generally those that have the highest re-evaluated hazard relative to. the original plant seismic design-basis (GMRS to SSE), as well as ground motions in the 1-10 Hz range that are generally higher in absolute magnitude. Group 1 plants including Columbia and Diablo Canyon are expected to conduct a seismic risk evaluation and submit it by June 30, 2017. Group 3 plants have GMRS to SSE ratios that are greater than 1, but the amount of exceedance in the. 1-1 O Hz range is relatively small, and the maximum ground motion in the 1-1 O Hz range is also not high. Given the limited level of exceedance of the Group 3 plants including Palo Verde, staff is evaluating the need for licensees to conduct a seismic risk evaluation in order for the staff to complete its regulatory decision making. After. further review, the staff will decide which Group 3 plants need to complete a risk evaluation. Risk evaluations for Group 3 plants are due by December 31, 2020. NEXT STEPS Based on the. staffs screening review the licensee for Columbia should. finalize and submit an Expedited Approach Report no later than January 2016. In accordance with the endorsed guidance, the staff acknowledges that the January 2016 Expedited Approach submittal will focus on plant equipment (i.e. safe shutdown pathway7) evaluations and modifications, as necessary, prior to submitting the plant seismic risk evaluations. The content of limited-scope evaluations or confirmations and their associated schedule milestones remain under development with NRC staff and stakeholders to assess acceptable alternatives for conducting these evaluations. The NRC staff has conducted a number of public meetings to reach alignment on the implementation details of these evaluations. The staff expects that implementing guidance should be established by summer 2015 and fall 2015 for high frequency and spent fuel pool evaluations, respectively. It is expected that WUS licensees 6 Central and Eastern licensees seismic hazard screening and priority reviews were completed in 2014. 7 Section 3 of the Expedited Approach guidance (ADAMS Accession No. ML 13102A142) provides a process to identify a single seismically robust success path using a subset of installed plant equipment, FLEX equipment and connection points. can. complete these evaluations in parallel with completion of SPRAs for Group 1. plants by June 2017. This letter transmits the NRC staff's results of the. seismic. hazard submittals for the. purposes of screening and prioritizing the plants. It does not convey the staff's final determination regarding the adequacy of any plant's calculated hazard. As such, the NRG staff will continue its review of the. submitted seismic hazard re-evaluations, and may request additional. plant-specific information to support this review .. The. staff has. placed a high priority on this review for the early identification of issues that might adversely affect each licensee's seismic risk evaluations. Initial interactions. with licensees. will occur as soon as. practicable. The NRG staff plans to issue a staff assessment on the re-evaluated seismic. hazard once each review is completed in approximately 12 to 18 months. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Nicholas DiFrancesco at 301-415-1115 or via email at Nicholas.Difrancesco@nrc.gov. Sincerely, William M. Dean, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

1. Glossary of Evaluations 2. Screening and Prioritization Results 3. List of Licensees March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals 4. List of Licensees cc w/encls: Listserv

ML 15113B344 OFFICE NRR/JLD/PMB/PM NRR/JLD/LA NRR/JLD/HMB/BC NAME NDiFrancesco Slent MShams DATE 04/22/15 I /15 I /15 OFFICE NRO/DSEA/D OGC NRR/JLD/D NAME SFlanders BHarris JDavis DATE I /15 I. /15 . I. /15 Glossary of Evaluations Associated with Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1 Seismic Hazard Re-evaluations Interim Evaluation or Actions -An immediate licensee and NRC review of the re-evaluated hazard to determine whether actions are needed to assure plant safety while further evaluations are ongoing. The staff has completed its review and concluded that, based on the licensees' interim evaluations and actions, Western United States (WUS) plants are safe for continued operations. Interim evaluations and actions are provided in Section 5.0, "Interim Actions," of the licensee submittals. Expedited Approach -A near-term licensee evaluation to be completed by January 31, 2016, for WUS plants whose re-evaluated hazard exceeds the current design-basis for the safe shutdown earthquake hazard level. The evaluation looks at the systems and components that can be used to safely shut down a plant under the conditions of a station blackout (i.e., no alternating current power is available) and loss of ultimate heat sink. The expedited approach will either confirm that a plant has sufficient margin to continue with a longer-term evaluation without any modifications, or confirm the need to enhance the seismic capacity to assure they can withstand the re-evaluated hazard. The Expedited Approach guidance document is found in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System under No. Accession No. ML13102A142. Seismic Risk Evaluation -Longer-term seismic risk evaluation provides the most comprehensive information to make regulatory decisions, such as whether to amend a plant's design or licensing basis or make additional safety enhancements. These evaluations provide information to make risk-informed decisions. The staff will use this information in conjunction with the existing regulatory tools, such as backfit analysis, to decide on further regulatory actions. The longer-term seismic risk evaluations could be either a Seismic Margins Analysis or a Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment, depending on the magnitude of the exceedance. Limited-Scope Evaluations -These include i) Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation, ii) High Frequency Evaluation, and iii) Low Frequency Evaluation. Respectively, these evaluations are focused on the following: i) spent fuel pool components and systems capable of draining water inventory to the level of the spent fuel, ii) a review of components susceptible to high frequency accelerations (e.g. electrical relays), and iii) a review of components susceptible to low frequency accelerations (e.g. water storage tanks). Enclosure 1 Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the. Fukushima Dai-lchi Accident Seismic Risk Evaluations Screening and Prioritization Results for Western United States (WUS) Reactor Sites Seismic Risk Limited-scope Evaluations. Screening Expedited Evaluation High Low Spent Fuel Plant Name Result Approach (Prioritization Frequency Frequency Pool Evaluation Group) Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Columbia Generating Station In x 1 x x Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit In 1 x x Nos. 1 and 2 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Conditional Station, Units. 1, 2, and 3 in 3 x x Enclosure 2 March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals for Western United States Reactor Sites Licensee Facility Date of letter (ADAMS Accession Nos.) Columbia Generating Station March 12, 2015. (ML 15078A243) Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 March 11, 2015 (ML 15071 A046) Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units March 10, 2015 (ML 15076A073) and 1, 2, and 3 April 1O .. 2015 (ML 15105A076) Enclosure 3 LIST OF APPLICABLE POWER REACTOR LICENSEES Columbia Generating Station Energy Northwest Docket No .. 50-397 License No. NPF-21 Mr. Mark E. Reddemann Chief Executive Officer Energy Northwest MD 1023 76 North Power Plant Loop P.O. Box 968 Richland, WA 99352 Diablo Canyon Power. Plant. Unit Nos .. l and 2. Pacific Gas & Electric Company Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82 Mr. Edward D. Halpin Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 56 Mail Code 104/6 Avila Beach, CA 93424 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Arizona Public Service Company Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-529, and STN 50-530 License Nos. NPF-41, NPF-51 and NPF-74 Mr. Randall K. Edington Executive Vice President Nuclear/CNO Arizona Public Service Company P.O. Box 52034, MS 7602. Phoenix, AZ 85072-2034 Enclosure 4 DiFrancesco, Nicholas From:DiFrancesco, Nicholas Sent:21 May 201521:14:05 +0000 To:Burnell, Scott;Maier, Bill;Uselding, Lara;Moreno, Angel Cc:Alexander, Ryan;Walker, Wayne;Lingam, Siva;Vega, Frankie;Jackson, Diane;Shams, Mohamed;Hipschman, Thomas;Markley, Michael;Hill, Brittain

Subject:

FYI: Future Issuance of Diablo Canyon R2. l Seismic Meeting Summary Attachments:Summary of April 28th Meeting with PGE_5.docx Meeting summary is publicly available as Folks, ML 15125A186. FYI: The following meeting summary will be issued regarding the April 28 -Diablo Canyon R2.1 Seismic public meeting COB Wednesday May 27, 2015. The summary closes two public comments received related to the webcast. Open ADAMS P8 Document (Summary of April 28, 2015, Category 1 Public Meeting with Pacific Gas and Electric Company to Discuss Diablo Canyon's Seismic Hazard Reevaluation Associated with Implementation of Japan Lessons-Learned Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1, Seismic) Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks, Nick Senior Project Manager -Seismic Reevaluation Activities U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Division nicholas.difrancesco@nrc.gov I Tel: (301) 415-1115 DiFrancesco. Nicholas From:DiFrancesco, Nicholas Sent: 19 May 2015 19:05:51 +0000 To:'Gene Nelson, Ph.D.' Cc: Vega, Frankie

Subject:

Incorporation of Public Comment Or. Nelson, Appreciate the public comment. Apologizes in the delay in response, the staff has received a number of public comments for review as part of the meeting. Below is the staff summary of your comment: The staff received a comment from Dr. Gene Nelson (Californians for Green Nuclear Power) via email during the meeting. The NRG staff inadvertently missed the opportunity to acknowledge Dr. Nelson's. comment during the meeting. According to Dr. Nelson, Diablo Canyon has favorable site conditions, which attenuate or dissipate earthquake energy over relatively short distances. Due to this favorable condition, the primary earthquake forces seen by the plant would be dominated by nearby earthquake sources and energy transmitted to the plant would be dominated by the small section of the earthquake rupture closest to the plant. Dr. Nelson stated that when considering the information presented at the meeting of overall plant ruggedness and the seismic hazard insights discussed above, Diablo Canyon continues to operate safely. Please let Frankie and I know if you have proposed correction by May 21, 2015. Thanks, Nick -----Original Message-----From: Gene Nelson, Ph.D. [mailtol(bl(5l h Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2015 7:39 PM To: DiFrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

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

Dear Nicholas:

I'm still awaiting the summary for my review of the 28 April 2015 NRG meeting on DCPP that documents my participation in the meeting. Do you know when I will be able to review that document? You may also be interested in the 231 pages of submissions as of 11 May 2015 to the California Energy Commission (CEC) docket 15-IEPR-12 regarding Diablo Canyon Power Plant. I wrote or assembled about 99% of the written exhibits. Upon request, I'll email you a 5-page summary of those exhibits. Thanks! Gene Nelson, Ph.D. San Luis Obispo, CA >Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:55:27 -0700

>To: "DiFrancesco, Nicholas" <Nicholas.DiFrancesco@nrc.gov> >From: "Gene Nelson, Ph.D." 1<0><6> >Subft(t* Examnle DCPP N11flear Safety Discussions by Gene Nelson, Ph.D. >Beet >><5) _ > >Nicholas DeFrancesco >US Nuclear Regulatory Commission >NRR/DORULPL4 >(301) 415-1115 >njd2@nrc.gov > >30 April 2015 > >I appreciate your telephone call to me yesterday regarding my not being >a telephonic participant in the NRC DCPP seismic safety review on 28 >April 2015. I look forward to reviewing a draft of my contributions to >the 28 April 2015 DCPP seismic safety review in the upcoming NRC >report. > >I sincerely hope there will be more effort focused on public outreach >to help interested non-expert participants understand future NRC >reviews of DCPP safety. As a physical sciences professor at Cuesta >College -and recently an engineering professor at California. >Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, I recognize the >importance of public outreach. As a consequence, I have provided >citizen testimony at NRC field hearings, Diablo Canyon Independent >Safety Committee hearings, California Coastal Commission hearings, >California State Water Resources Control Board hearings, and California >Energy Commission hearings. A Google search of both phrases "Diablo. >Canyon Power Plant" and "Gene Nelson" shows 19 results, "DCPP" and >"Gene Nelson" shows 13 results, and "CGNP" and "Gene Nelson" showed 12 >results. > >As an example of my outreach, please see my current exchange with Rod >Deyo, Ph.D. in the attachment. His Ph.D. is in mathematics. >https://www.linkedin.com/in/roddeyo Rod and I both graduated from >Harvey. Mudd College. in 1973. > >I'm interested in your perspectives. > >Gene Nelson, Ph.D. https://www.linkedin.com/in/geneanelson San >Luis Obispo, CA1<0><6> !cell Sent:24 Apr 2015 20:01:37 +0000 To:Lindell, Joseph

Subject:

Many thanks! RE: For OPA and OGC Review: Near-final DCPP Slides Yosef, Have a good weekend. Appreciate the prompt review. Sincerely, Nick From: Lindell, Joseph Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 3:59 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

RE: For OPA and OGC Review: Near-final DCPP Slides Nick. Yosef. Lindell. Attorney U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel OWFN 15 015 301-4 15-14 7 4 MOTICE* This iWilil illi'Q ilRf i\tiil6RQ2ifilt8 M!!i)' Hfill!iifil 88FlfiieF1tieJ ;0:M9Ff19) elie1 :t er 1914101 I :CJ Wo:lc :::11te1i11l. Qu ::ct aisclosc oatsiac tJAS ::itlibal 80111111issia11 app1oeal. From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 2:31 PM To: Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; OGCMailCenter Resource Cc: Vega, Frankie; Lindell, Joseph; Roth(OGC), David; Uttal, Susan; Alexander, Ryan; Walker, Wayne; Shams, Mohamed; Jackson, Diane

Subject:

For OPA and OGC Review: Near-final DCPP Slides Scott, Lara, OGG, Current working draft of slides. Let me know if have questions with messages. I plan to start processing for public release about 9:30 am Monday. OGG, I don't see items that should impact ongoing hearings. -content relates to NTTF 2.1 Seismic. only. Mostly from information from the public domain. Thanks, Nick From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 12:58 PM To: Kock, Andrea; Jackson, Diane; Flanders, Scott; Hill, Brittain; Chokshi, Nilesh; Harrison, Donnie; Shams, Mohamed Cc: Spence, Jane

Subject:

Comments on DCPP slides Folks, I added a slide 16 based on the bullets below. Written to avoid getting ahead of senior management and public affairs. Proposed Bullets are: Forthcoming Seismic Screening Letter

• Issuance of letter for WUS sites in -2 weeks

• Diablo Canyon has screened-in for further risk evaluations and is a review priority

• No immediate safety issues identified

• Information supports safety assurance allowing additional time to complete the seismic risk evaluation Thanks, Nick From: Kock, Andrea Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 11:56 AM To: Jackson, Diane; Difrancesco, Nicholas; Flanders, Scott; Hill, Brittain; Chokshi, Nilesh; Harrison, Donnie; Shams, Mohamed Cc: Spence, Jane

Subject:

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

Subject:

For comment: Preliminary Slides for DCPP meeting Good morning all -Please find attached, for your review and comment, the staff introductory slides. Right now, I am giving these. Mohamed and Nick, your review and comment are requested as well. Once we have comments back, then we can send to the licensee. I am also thinking on additional/alternative context. We don't want this part to be too long. The talking points are not updated. I will be working on them today. If you want to add bullets or ideas as suggestions for me to work into the slide message, please add them. Diane fi>imie Chief Geosciences and Geotechnical Engineering Branch 2 (RGS2) Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis (DSEA), Office of New Reactors (NRO) US Nuclear Regulatory Commission +1301-415-5641; office: T-7 03; mail stop: T-7 F3 NRC -One Team -One Mission Sent:23 Apr 2015 13:50:37 +0000 To:Munson, Clifford;Ake, Jon;Jackson, Diane;Shams, Mohamed;Manoly, Kamal;Li, Yong;Walker, Wayne;Lingarn, Siva;Uselding, Lara;Alexander, Ryan;Roth(OGC), David;Lindell, Joseph;Uttal, Susan;Moreno, Angel Cc:Kock, Andrea;Flanders, Scott;Bowen, Jeremy;MarkJey, Michael;Rivera-Lugo, Richard;Hayes, Barbara;Hill, Brittain;NTTF R2.1_2.3 CAL Resource Bcc:HQ-TWFN-07C01-15p

Subject:

Prep meeting for Diablo Canyon Webcast (888-817-9392 PCl(bl(5l I) Attachments: PG&E Email.docx, 4-28-15 Public Notice.pdf, Potential Q As for April 302015 COM_BEH.DOCX Purpose: Prep Meeting to support Diablo Canyon Webcast on April 28 (888-817-9392 PC:l(bl(5J Background *a:-*I I Agenda: 1. Meeting Notice Agenda -a. Bridgeline Setup i. 1 assisted bridgeline -queue for one question or comment ii. 1 open bridgeline for. licensee and R-IV b. Attached Agenda c. NRC Planned. Introduction to 2.1 and DC Seismic. Hazard Reviews 2. NRC Technical Questions (PGE Email to be Public April 23, 2015) 3. Public.Availability of Slides on Monday April 27, 2015 d. Licensee Slides to NRC Sunday April 26, 2015. e. Slides to OCA and RSLO (Angel and Maier) -April 27. 4. Awareness of Open Contentions [OGC] f. Contention related to SSHAC g. Contention related. to CLB. h. Contention related to renewal 5. Discussion of Roles and Responsibility for Public Questions ITopics Primary Responsibility Current Licensing and Design Basis, USFAR Inspection or Compliance Renewal General R2. l Proces Questions Sei mic Que tion Off Topic Questions Thanks, Nick M. Markley, [B. Hill Y. Li], N. Di Francesco M. Markley or R-IV over bridgeline NA -No renewal staff N. DiFrancesco or DSEA C. Munson, J Ake, B Hill N. Difrancesco April 22, 2015 Potential Commission Q&As April 30, 2015, Update on NTTF Recommendation 2.1 Seismic 1. Are there plants that exceed 2X SSE? Why does the expedited approach only consider ground motions up to two times higher than the plant's design? Yes, there are several plants that exceed their Safe Shutdown Earthquake by more than two times. If. a re-evaluated seismic hazard is greater than the plant's design basis, completion of the expedited approach provided additional confidence that a plant can cope with the higher hazard. This information builds on the interim evaluations that were submitted to NRC in March 2014, which. showed that the plants were very unlikely. to experience core-damage at the higher hazard levels. The expedited approach is designed to show that important equipment used to safely shut-down a plant will function as intended if a large earthquake occurs .. The expedited. approaches were completed by licensees in December 2014, and the NRC staff is reviewing these submittals. In general, licensees used a simplified method to analyze how safe down equipment responds to the. re-evaluated ground motions. This method scales the plant's original engineering analyses to a higher level of ground motion, up to two times the plant's design basis. By using this scaling method, licensees could promptly determine if important safe-shutdown equipment is safe or needs additional modification. If a plant's re-evaluated hazard exceeds two times its design basis, the plant is categorized as either. Priority Group 1 or Group 2 for completion, of a seismic probabilistic risk assessment. For these risk assessments, licensees will use detailed engineering models that are based directly on the re-evaluated levels of ground motion for the plant. However, the first of these detailed risk assessments aren't expected until June, 2017. The NRC determined that the simplified method used in the expedited approach was appropriate, because it provided near-term information on the. functionality of important safety equipment at a higher hazard level years before the longer-term risk assessments could be completed. 2. If ESEP assures safety, what additional insights do we need from a PRA? How many sites provided modifications in the ESEP submittals? Does that give us insights regarding which sites need to do PRAs? The longer-term seismic risk evaluations provide the most comprehensive information to make regulatory decisions, such as whether to amend design or licensing basis or make additional sat ety enhancements. These evaluations provide information to make risk-informed decisions. The staff will use this information in conjunction with the existing regulatory tools, such as backfit analysis, to decide on further regulatory actions. In contrast, the ESEP analyses provide an important intermediate step in demonstrating plant safety for the re-evaluated seismic hazard. The interim analyses provided an overall plant-level assessment of seismic safety. The ESEP analyses give a more focused assessment of the ability of safe-shutdown equipment to withstand the higher seismic hazards. Although some plant modifications have resulted from the ESEP analyses, the NRG staff does not expect the results of these analyses to modify the need for plants to conduct a seismic PRA. 3. How does ESSP relate to the mitigation strategies rule? How can licensees leverage work on the ESEP for the purposes of mitigation strategies? 4. What are the staff's views on R2.2?. May just. ask what is your personal view. The staff will use the ongoing 2.1 activities and insight gained to inform our decision on augmenting the current regulatory process with a periodic review of external hazards. Recommendation 2.2 is a Tier 3 activity and a future decision. 5. How many plants need to do additional risk evaluations in response to the newly calculated seismic hazards? Update to indicate that the staff is working with industry to further. refine. which plants. will require. a PRA consistent with our May 9 2013 letter. Based on the results of the NRC staffs review of the March 31, 2014 submittals, at least 20 CEUS sites will need to conduct the detailed seismic risk evaluations (either the seismic probabilistic risk assessment or the seismic margins analysis) during the next several years MAY 2014 Letter Count: 10. plants screened into priority Group 1, 11. plants total screened into Group 2, including 1 conditional screen-in, 22.5 plants screened into Group 3, including 13.5 plants that conditionally screened in. 16.5 plants screened out of performing additional risk seismic evaluations Updated as of September 2014 1 O plants screened into priority Group 1, 11 plants total screened into Group 2, including 1 conditional screen-in, 13.5 plants screened into Group 3, including 2.5 plants that conditionally screened in. 24.5 plants screened out of performing additional risk seismic evaluations 1 deferred -Vermont Yankee (permanent shutdown in 4th quarter 2014) We will determine where the remaining conditional sites will screen very soon.

6. How can we be sure that the information provided in 2014 on seismic hazards remains applicable when PRAs are submitted close to 2020? The information submitted to the NRG in March of 2014 was a request for information [(50.54(f) request)] linked to Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1 .. These reevaluations provide the current site-specific seismic hazard information to the NRG. The NRG staff will review and issue assessments on the licensee's. reevaluated seismic hazard by the mid-year 2015. Priority Group 1 plants are performing risk evaluations, which. are due. in June of 2017 .. Risk evaluations. for Group 2 plants are due at the end of 2019 and Group 3 evaluations, if needed, are due at the end of 2020. The staff will also review the insights gained from Recommendation 2 activities inform our decision on Recommendation 2.2 to determine if licensees need to confirm seismic hazard information on a periodic basis .. 7. Since the hazard information is always changing, what regulatory assurance do licensees have that the hazard they are using for their PRAs will be acceptable? NRG understands that the seismic PRAs are. complex investigations that will take. licensees several years to complete, and that the reevaluated seismic hazards are an intrinsic part of these analyses. Late last year, the NRG staff informed licensees that if there were no outstanding questions {i.e., RAls) on their March 2014 submittals, the licensees should move forward with using their seismic hazards in their PRA calculations. The staff is beginning to make final review determinations on the March 2014 seismic hazard submittals, with Group l plants having highest priority for completion. The staff expects that these review determinations will be completed in late 2015. 8. Will the schedule for review of the WUS allow PRAs to be completed on time? The NRG staff will use the same approach as for CEUS plants and will communicate to WUS licensees as soon as practicable about using their March 2015 seismic hazards in their seismic PRAs. If a WUS plant screen-in as priority Group 1, the plant will need to complete the seismic PRA no later than June 2017. Licensees for both the Diablo Canyon Power Plant and Columbia Generating Station have seismic PRA programs ongoing, and have not indicated that they would be unable to meet completion deadlines. 9. Why are plants in the western United States (WUS) on a different and longer schedule than plants in the central and eastern United States? The Columbia, Diablo Canyon, and Palo Verde plants required additional time to develop an updated, site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard analysis due to the West Coast's complex seismic features. In developing probabilistic seismic hazard analyses, CEUS sites were able to use the same recently developed seismic source model and a common ground motion model (see Attachment 3). As a result, CEUS plants needed less time to. complete their seismic hazard re-evaluations. West Coast site-specific seismic sources and ground motion models involve a Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee (SSHAC) study, as described in NUREG/CR-6372, "Recommendations for Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis: Guidance on Uncertainty and Use of Experts." The SSHAC is a group of independent seismic experts who were convened in the 1990's to develop guidance on the conduct of major seismic studies, and ensure that seismic activities are conducted properly and documented completely. The SSHAC process is independent of the NRC's seismic experts. The NRC must approve any studies, models, methodologies, analyses etc. used by nuclear power plants if they form the. basis for safety assessments and where the. NRG needs to make regulatory decisions affecting their operating license. Further, although the NRC does carefully consider comments and recommendations from the SSHAC, as an independent regulatory body, NRC is not held to any decisions made by the SSHAC. 10. Will the staff complete it's review of the WUS reevaluated hazards in time to support implementation of mitigative strategies? Why or why not? 11. The CEUS screening process was completed in 30 days. Why is screening for the WUS taking longer? The screening and prioritization review for the WUS hazard reevaluations will likely take 30-60 days to accomplish, because there is substantially more new information in these reports than was submitted for the CEUS plants in March 2014. Compared to the CEUS submittals, the WUS submittals contain a lot more new information on site geology, earthquake sources, and ground motion modeling. As a result, the WUS submittals are much more complex to review than the CEUS reevaluations. In addition to all the new information, each WUS plant also had to do a complex probabilistic seismic hazard assessment (PSHA), using a very detailed, multi-year process. In contrast, all the CEUS plants used essentially the same PSHA, which was extensively reviewed by NRC before. the seismic hazard reevaluations. were. submitted. 12. The staff sent a CA note to the Commission this. fall indicating. that the SFP evaluations would continue to be conducted. Why is this evaluation needed given the extent of previous study in this area and the findings from the recent RES. scoping study?

As discussed in the CA note, the planned SFP evaluation provides an additional plant-specific, systematic, and traceable investigation of the significance of the newly evaluated seismic hazard. The staff concluded that available risk insights were insufficient to support modification or elimination of the SFP evaluation, in large part because it was not possible to relate plant-specific changes in seismic hazard to changes in SFP risk. As a result of the SFP evaluation, licensees are expected to confirm the applicability of available generic analyses to their plant-specific conditions, and enhance the technical basis used by NRC for decisions on the seismic safety of SFP storage systems. 13. Why didn't the CEUS licensee's submit new SCDF numbers? How can the industry say that nobody is above 10-4/year? What does 10"4/year mean for plant safety? Seismic core damage frequency (SCDF) is a numerical estimate of risk and provides a representative indication of plant safety. The March 12, 2012, 50.54(f) requested information stated that plant's where the re-evaluated hazard exceeds the design basis should submit and interim evaluation or actions. To support plant responses to the 50.54(f) request, industry independently assessed SCDF for all of the CEUS plants and provided the results to NRC in a March 12, 2014 letter. This assessment is similar to the NRC's preliminary seismic risk assessments for Gl-199. The 10*4/year value demonstrates that current understandings of seismic hazard do not represent an immediate concern to plant safety, and that plants should continue to operate while more rigorous risk evaluations are completed. The CEUS licensees, as part of the March 31, 2014, submittals, confirmed that the industry conclusions for their facility are accurate. The NRC reviewed this information as part of the staffs assessment of licensee interim actions and evaluations, and agrees that the re-evaluated seismic hazards do not represent an immediate concern to plant safety. 14. Do we have similar risk information for WUS as was submitted for the CEUS (as indicated in #13) interim evaluation to demonstrate that WUS plants are safe while risk evaluations are completed? The March 2015 WUS submittals included interim evaluations for the Diablo Canyon and Columbia plants. Diablo Canyon used the results of previously completed seismic margin analyses to show that the plant was. designed with sufficient margin to cope with the higher seismic hazard levels. Similar to CEUS plants, Columbia used updated core-damage frequency calculations to demonstrate the plant could cope with the higher seismic hazard. The Palo Verde submittal did not identify seismic hazard exceedances with the plant's design basis, and provided additional information showing the reevaluated seismic hazard did not exceed a 1.25 factor of safety above the plant's SSE. For all 3 WUS plants, the NRC staff believes that sufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that these plants are safe to operate while additional risk evaluations are completed.

15. What is the likelihood of the design basis earthquake or "SSE" ground motions being exceeded over the life of a nuclear plant? The ground motion response spectra forming the seismic design bases at U.S. nuclear plants are called the Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE). SSEs for operating nuclear power plants were established many years ago. Today's understanding of seismic hazard tells us there is some likelihood that a plant's SSE may be. exceeded by an earthquake ground motion. However, each plant was designed differently according to different licensing SSEs. Therefore, the likelihood of exceedance is plant specific. Meanwhile, systems, structures and components typically have margin, meaning that they often can withstand shaking levels that are above the plant's design basis. 16. SEP Plants and Enhancements Background URI 156 -Systematic Evaluation Program, considered the review of 51 plants receiving operating licenses before 1976. A sample review of 1 O of the older plants were completed as a part of SEP effort. Several of the 137 SEP identified issues were subsumed into A-46 and IPEEE. Standard review plan before 1975. 10 SEP Plants Operating Units Palisades, Ginna, Oyster Creek, Dresden 2, Units in Decommissioning Milestone Unit 1, Yankee Rowe, Haddam Neck, La Crosse, Big Rock Point, and San Onofre Ginna, SONG-1, and Yankee Rowe identified for plant enhancements 41 Non-SEP Plants Vermont Yankee, Maine Yankee, Kewaunee, Fort Calhoun, Zion 1/2, Browns Ferry 1/2, Indian Point 2/3, Peach Bottom 2/3, Prairie Island 1/2, Duane Arnold, Cooper, Arkansas 1 , Calvert Cliffs 1 , Cook 1, Hatch 1 , Fitzpatrick, Three Mile Island 1 , Brunswick 2, Trojan, Milestone 2 17. Has there been an operating U.S. reactor site that has experienced exceedance of. its. seismic design basis during an earthquake?. The August 2011 earthquake at North Anna plant in Virginia was the first instance of an operating reactor in the United States where recorded ground motion exceeded its design basis in some frequency range. The plant shut down safely, and extensive inspections showed that there was no discernable damage to safety systems. After thorough review of the inspection information, NRC authorized the restart of North Anna in November 2011. In 1986, earthquake motions at the Perry plant in Ohio exceeded its SSE in limited frequencies during construction, but the plant was found acceptable for operation and its license was issued. In 1979, the V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina also exceeded its SSE while under construction, but was found acceptable for operation and its license was issued. In all of these cases, the exceedance of ground motion by itself was not an indicator of whether the plant's design limits were exceeded. Also, the plants had much higher capacity than the design basis. As expected, there was no damage to these plants from the earthquakes. 18. Why isn't the NRC immediately shutting down priority 1 plants/plants with higher seismic hazards? The. prioritization is. not a risk ranking -. more analysis is needed to. determine actual changes in a plant's seismic accident risk. The NRC continues to have confidence, based on our understanding of both reactor design and construction and the results of the plants' seismic "walkdowns," that plants can operate safely while more analyses are done. Nuclear power plant manufacturing and construction methods typically result in a plant having the capacity to withstand earthquakes larger than their design basis earthquake. This is because nuclear power plants are designed to withstand the force of different internal and external events. Many of these events create larger forces on a plant than an earthquake. Plants examined this capacity and demonstrated their safety systems can still perform properly after seismic hazards. larger than those the plant was designed to withstand. The. NRC is satisfied the systems will perform their safety functions at the higher seismic hazard levels, and that the plant can continue operating. NRC staff's initial review of an industry screening analysis and the interim evaluations provided confidence. that none of the plants showed a preliminary change in risk that would cause concern. Consequently, interim actions were not necessary to ensure the systems can function. In addition to the design margins and interim actions, all plants recently underwent detailed seismic walkdowns. These walkdowns identified and addressed degraded, nonconforming, or unanalyzed conditions through the corrective action program, and verified the adequacy of the. monitoring and maintenance procedures. NRC reviewed licensee actions to:

• verify the plant configuration with the current seismic licensing basis;

• address degraded, nonconforming, or unanalyzed seismic conditions; and

• verify the adequacy of monitoring and maintenance programs for protective features. The results of these walkdowns provide additional confidence that plants can continue to operate safely while longer-term risk assessments progress. 19. How would you characterize the reevaluated hazards of the western sites. in comparison to the CEUS sites? How much has the "needle moved" with regard to the reevlauated WUS hazards?

20. There. are many more earthquakes and active faults in the WUS than in the CEUS, and WUS plants have been designed to withstand. these higher seismic. hazards. Seismic hazards changed. for WUS plants similar to the way hazards changed for CEUS plants. For Palo Verde, the licensee reports that the reevaluated seismic hazard is smaller than the design basis SSE for the plant. For Diablo Canyon and Columbia, the reevaluated hazards can be up to about 2.5x the SSE, which is comparable to some CEUS Group 2 plants. Are there seismic monitors on site? Yes. The NRC requires nuclear power plants to maintain operating seismic monitors on site. 21. Are there seismic trips installed on US plants? As required by their Technical Specifications, Diablo Canyon has an installed seismic trip. No other US operating nuclear plant has installed seismic trips, 22. How does the U.S approach and timelines for response to seismic Fukushima issues align with other countries? 23. How will we use the information from risk evaluations to make regulatory decisions on plant modifications or any necessary changes to plant licensing bases? Once the SPRA analyses are completed, the NRC will use these results along with other available risk information to determine if additional regulatory actions are needed to provide additional protection against the updated seismic hazards. The NRC staff expects that the results of the SPRA analyses will provide a transparent basis to support backfit decisions for. potential safety enhancements. DIABLO CANYON Q&As-1. Why is Diablo Canyon safe to operate today? In support of the requested interim evaluation for Diablo Canyon, PG&E provided a comparison of the reevaluated GMRS to ground motions based on the 1988 Long Term Seismic Program (L TSP). As part of the LTSP, PG&E determined that structures, systems and components at Diablo Canyon can safely withstand ground motions that are at least 1.35 times larger than the L TSP median ground motion. The NRC staff had previously reviewed the L TSP analyses and determined they were acceptable. Although the reevaluated GMRS exceeds Diablo. Canyon's. SSE, these ground motions do not exceed the minimum 1.35 factor of safety" in Diablo Canyon's design. After reviewing this information, NRC determined that the DCPP remains safe to operate while additional seismic risk evaluations are being conducted. Diablo Canyon has been screened-in as a priority Group 1 plant and a detailed risk evaluation is expected to be submitted to the NRC by June 30, 2017. 2. Have seismic hazards been increasing or decreasing when new analyses are done at DCPP? In 2011, information from the Shoreline and other faults was used in deterministic analyses of seismic hazard at DCPP, which showed ground motions were bounded by the previous Hosgri design-basis and L TSP ground motions .. PG&E updated these deterministic analyses with new information (AB 1632) in 2014. The 2014 seismic hazards were higher than calculated in 2011, but still bounded by Hosgri and LTSP. The latest probabilistic. analyses. are even higher than calculated in 2014, and slightly exceed the Hosgri ground motions at some low (1.5 Hz) and high (>25 Hz) frequencies. Nevertheless, DCPP has a well-established margin in its design that can cope with such small increases in seismic hazard above the plant's design basis. The science of seismic hazards analysis have advanced considerably since Diablo Canyon was first designed. The 2015 analyses use currently available science, along with current NRC regulations and guidance, to characterize potential seismic hazards at this site. The 2015 analyses now consider, for example, the likelihood that earthquakes could occur on seismic sources and the possibility that slip on one fault might trigger slip on nearby faults. These considerations appear to contribute to the observed increase in calculated seismic. hazard for the DCPP site. 3. What is the impact of this new information on seismic design and licensing of DCPP? Has the licensee entered this new information into the corrective action program and performed an operability evaluation? Needs to be updated As stated in the March 12, 2012 50.54(f) letter, the seismic hazard reevaluations conducted in Phase 1 do not revise the design basis of the plant. Based upon the results of Phase 1, the. NRC staff will determine whether additional regulatory actions are necessary (e.g., update the design basis and SSCs important to safety) to provide additional protection against the updated hazards. In their March 2015 submittal, PG&E provided an interim evaluation that shows the plant can cope with the reevaluated seismic hazards. This interim evaluation documents the specific seismic design characteristics of the DCPP, and summarizes analyses that demonstrate the plant has a sufficient design margin to safely cope with the reevaluated hazards. The March 12, 2012 50.54(f) letter considered the requested seismic hazard reevaluations to be outside the design basis of the plant, and the reevaluations were not expected to initiate an additional operability evaluation. 4. How will the AB 1632 seismic report be coordinated with the 50.54(f) required submittal in March 2015? What does. Diablo's submitted reevaluated hazard

5. state? Much of the new information on site geology, earthquake sources, and ground motion modeling from the AB 1632 report was used to develop the March 2015 submittal. To consider how this new information affects seismic hazard, PG&E had to do a complex probabilistic seismic hazard assessment (PSHA) using a very detailed, multi-year process. This process, from the Senior Seismic Hazards Analysis Committee (SSHAC, NUREG/CR-6372), evaluates the center, body and range of available information to rigorously calculate seismic hazards at a site. (If asked what things the plant has done since Fukushima: It is important to note that OCPP is an industry leader in implementing FLEX which was a post-Fukushima industry initiative to have extra equipment available remotely in the event of a beyond design basis event). 6. Why didn't the NRC discover the length of the faults when it did its seismic review of. the Shoreline fault in 2011 prior to issuing the AIL?. California Assembly Bill 1632 (Blakeslee, Chapter 722, Statutes of 2006) directs the California Energy Commission to assess the potential vulnerability of California's largest base-load power plants, Oiablo Canyon Power Plant and San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, to a major disruption due to a seismic event or plant aging; to assess the impacts of such a disruption on system reliability, public safety, and the economy; to assess the costs and impacts from nuclear waste accumulating at these plants; and to evaluate other major issues related to the future role of these plants in the state's energy portfolio. The licensee has used the most state-of-the-art 20 and 30 geophysical mapping techniques, which are commonly used in offshore petroleum resource exploration. These techniques provide higher-resolution data than what was available to characterize the Shoreline Fault in the 2011 report. The NRG has requested licensees of operating nuclear power reactors to submit a seismic hazard reevaluation using up-to-date methodologies and analyses which is due for OCPP in March 2015. 7. There is high public interest in the reevaluated seismic hazard at Oiablo Canyon. How have we ensured that this complicated topic is clearly communicated to the public surrounding the plant?

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

Subject:

RE: Diablo Public Meeting It was a straight forward meeting .. Great meeting for staff technical exchange and understanding of the submittal. Diablo Seismic analysis is at least a decade ahead of everyone else in the fleet. -Nick From: Proffitt, Andrew Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 2:38 PM To: DiFrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

Diablo Public Meeting Any key insights or take-aways from the Diablo public meeting earlier this week?. J. Andrew Proffitt U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Technical. Assistant NRR/JLD (301) 415-1418 Sent:29 May 2015 17:26:55 +0000 To: Vega, Frankie

Subject:

RE: FYI. ... FW: Proposed 2.1 Seismic Task Tracker Call or send an email to Diane and Stephanie to schedule some SRB time to review the letter and the request. I'll review the MS Order Alignment Section and back revisions. From: Vega, Frankie Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 1:19 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

RE: FYl....FW: Proposed 2.1 Seismic Task Tracker more interest from management ahhh! Have you heard from Diane on this and if they are planning to engage the SRB? If you haven't heard from her, I'll follow up with her early next week. Thanks From:. Difrancesco, Nicholas. Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 1:07 PM To: Vega, Frankie

Subject:

FYI.. .. FW: Proposed 2.1 Seismic Task Tracker FYI .. only your letter made the cut. Diablo Canyon Acknowledge on ESEP (June 19) [Owner: Vega) (Interest NRR/ET Commission) From: Shams, Mohamed Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 1:06 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas Cc: Proffitt, Andrew

Subject:

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

Subject:

Proposed 2.1 Seismic Task Tracker Mohamed, If you approve, I propose the following be added to the action tracker. Issue SPRA Relief or Alternatives Letter (August 30) [Owner: DiFrancesco] (Interest NRR ET) Issue. HF Endorsement Letter (August 30). [Owner:Wyman] (Interest NRR. ET)

Diablo Canyon Acknowledge on ESEP (June 19) [Owner: Vega] (Interest NRR/ET Commission) Watts Bar 2 JLD OL Appendix Input (June 5) [Owner: DiFrancesco] (Interest NRR/ET Commission) Thanks, Nick From:. Shams, Mohamed. Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 9:55 AM To: Uribe, Juan; NRR_JLD_JHMB Distribution

Subject:

RE: REQUEST -Update Task Tracker Juan -thanks very much for the background. That was very helpful. All -I spoke with Andrew and he said just send him an email with the action and he will update the tracker. That is what other branches do. The description Juan had below is perfect to defining the type of information to send to tracker. Thx Mohamed From:. Uribe, Juan Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 9:33 AM To: Shams, Mohamed

Subject:

RE: REQUEST -Update Task Tracker Mo, My $0.02 on this for background purposes was that this table (if it's the one I think it is) and the items within were added and maintained by the previous TA Billy Jessup. To my knowledge, he was. the only one who updated/maintained the. list so that the rest of the division wasn't trying to access and modify it. It was basically his own activity tracker that he then used to keep the directors up to speed. Your item #1 below suggests we may need to start doing it ourselves? My understanding is that he fed the list based on the discussions from Monday mornings between BCs and JLD management as well as other meetings he attended within the Division and L TIET. He would then do the rounds with his list asking for updates to prepare for the following Monday. It basically captured high level items that had a divisional impact. Below is a excerpt from one of the TA docs that details what the tracker (again, if it's the one Im thinking it is) is for: o Focus is primarily on the JLD Task Tracker (http://fusion.nrc.gov/nrr/team/jld/Lists/Tasks/Allltems.aspx)

• The Task Tracker is used to maintain awareness of due dates for level actions and activities in the division including controlled correspondence, EDO and Commission-level information requests, assistance to internal and external stakeholders (i.e., presentation requests), meeting preparations, and other items added at the request of JLD management. From: Shams, Mohamed Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 9:14 AM To: NRR_JLD_JHMB Distribution

Subject:

REQUEST -Update Task Tracker All -In the management meeting on Monday mornings, we go over the task tracker assessing the status of upcoming tasks for the division. I have noticed, and was also told, that our branch does not have any tasks on the list. Or at a minimum, our tasks are not up-to-date. I don't know to what degree you are aware of that task tracker and have updated it in the past. I also don't know the threshold of the tasks that go on the tracker-although I have a feel tor it. Two request: (1) please start/continue to update the tracker with our tasks, and (2) if you need clarification on the type of tasks to add to the list, please reach out to Andrew Proffitt. The examples that come to my mind that should have been tracked include: COMSECY on flooding action plan, WUS screening letter, VY 2.1/2.3/9.3 closure letter, and IA extension letter. No worries ... everything was tracked regardless. Many thanks, Mohamed DiFrancesco, Nicholas From:DiFrancesco, Nicholas Sent:l4 May 2015 18:24:29 +0000 To:Vega, Frankie Cc: Hill,. Brittain

Subject:

References for Diablo Letter Prep on Expedited Approach Response Frankie, To start the Diablo Letter and confirm technical assignment, I think we generally need the following references. We probably should handle Palo Verde separately (in a screening letter).

• NRC response letter to licensees related to expedited approach commitment change (December 15, 2014)

• Licensee Integrated Plan (due February 28, 2013) (report page 8 has a statement about will enter reevaluated hazard into CAPs If warranted -designed to CLB)

• NRC letter regarding Seismic Screening and Prioritization Results for WUS Licensees (May 13, 2015) Reference and Background from Britt: NRC's. review of the LTSP, and conclusion of its acceptability, are documented in the Diablo Canyon SER rev 34 (1991), which is publically available in ADAMS as ML 14279A 130. SSER34 documents NRC staff's thorough review of the L TSP, which includes the margins assessment cited by PG&E in their March 2015 submittal. Thanks, Nick Senior Project Manager -Seismic Reevaluation Activities U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of. Nuclear Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Division nicholas.difrancesco@nrc.gov I Tel: (301) 415-1115 Sent: 15 May 2015 21 :02:25 +0000 To:Lindell, Joseph;OGCMailCenter Resource Cc:Roth(OGC), David;Uttal, Susan

Subject:

Thanks ! RE: 'rn:TO' -OGC Review? Public Comment on April 28th, 2015 webcast meeting with PG&E -Product Thank you! Have a great weekend. -Nick From: Lindell, Joseph Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 5:02 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas; OGCMailCenter Resource Cc: Roth(OGC), David; Uttal, Susan

Subject:

-OGC Review? Public Comment on April 28th, 2015 webcast meeting with PG&E -OUO Work Product Nick, Yosef Yosef Lindell Attorney U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel OWFN 15 015 301-4 15-14 7 4 14eTleE. Tliis Cll mil u::c:l a: 19 atl!iel 11 ;;e11te 1118)' BBJiil8iJii iiOPfidortiil:I °Uc may qj02+ gr WmkP1 eeJtsot Jtt&lc: ial. Bo ::ct disclose outside fJfil8 ooitl 1oat 60111111issio11 app1ova1. From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 2:37 PM To: OGCMailCenter Resource Cc: Lindell, Joseph; Roth(OGC), David; Uttal, Susan

Subject:

-OGC Review? Public Comment on April 28th, 2015 webcast meeting with PG&E -OUO Work Product OUO VVOIR PIOOOCt OGC, Don't think this needs review. However, the response below is to Ms. Rochelle Becker, Executive Director, Alliance. for Nuclear Responsibility. Her concerns relate in part to the fidelity of the Diablo Canyon SSHAC and engineering methods.

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

Subject:

RE: Comments on Draft Response?:::::: Written concerns -April 28th, 2015 webcast meeting with PG&E One small clarification in green. Rest looks good. Britt From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 12:42 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas; Hill, Brittain; Gibson, Lauren Cc: Shams, Mohamed; Uselding, Lara; Jackson, Diane; Vega, Frankie; Lingam, Siva

Subject:

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

Subject:

Comments on Draft Response?:::::: Written concerns -April 28th, 2015 webcast meeting with PG&E Britt, Lauren, Comments??? Ms. Becker, Thank you for the public comment related to the April 28, 2015, webcast. The staff is aware and following the California Public Utilities Commission's Independent Peer Review Panel activities. The staff review for the Diablo Canyon Seismic Hazard Screening Report is ongoing in support of Near-Term Task Force -Recommendation 2.1: Seismic. We are independently reviewing PG&E's probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, which was developed using the Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee results and process. As you may be aware, on May 13, 2015, NRG placed Diablo Canyon into the highest priority group for the reevaluated Seismic Hazard review along with 11 other reactor sites. For awareness, I have placed our emails in NRC agency document access and management system (ADAMS) as a public record. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best regards, Nick DiFrancesco Project Manager -Seismic Reevaluation. Activities U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Division nicholas.difrancesco@nrc.gov I Tel: (301) 415-1115 Non Responsive Sent:24 Apr 2015 14:32:36 +0000 To:Munson, Clifford;Stieve, Alice Cc:Jackson, Diane;Devlin-Gill, Stephanie;Hill, Brittain

Subject:

Palo Verde Source Information for: SSHAC Documentation from PPRP-IT Team Attachments:SSC SSH AC Documentation of PPRP-TT-Team lnteraction.pdf Cliff, Alice, Stephanie, Please let me know if this. is. the missing piece. They have this one file on the. SSC in the. reading room. Thanks,. Nick From: Munson, Clifford Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 4:14 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas; Ake, Jon Cc: Jackson, Diane; Shams, Mohamed; Vega, Frankie; Graizer, Vladimir; John Stamatakos <jstam@swri.org> Ustam@swri.org); Hill, Brittain; Seber, Dogan; Vega, Frankie; Stirewalt, Gerry

Subject:

RE: DCPP, Palo Verde, and Columbia Audit Information: SSHAC Documentation from PPRP-IT Team Importance: High Nick, We took a quick look at the contents of the information for DCPP and PVNGS. The DCPP folder contains the PPRP-TI correspondence and interactions on the source model and ground motion model SSHACs. However, the PVNGS only has the ground motion model SSHAC PPRP-TI team material and not for the Source model. Please let us know when we can get the source model PPRP-TI team documentation. Thanks, Cliff From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 1:25 PM To: Munson, Clifford; Ake, Jon Cc: Jackson, Diane; Shams, Mohamed; Vega, Frankie; Graizer, Vladimir; John Stamatakos <jstam@swri.org> (jstam@swri.org); Hill, Brittain; Seber, Dogan; Vega, Frankie; Stirewalt, Gerry

Subject:

DCPP, Palo Verde, and Columbia Audit Information: SSHAC Documentation from PPRP-IT Team Folks, Please control distribution to the designated review team member for the following references. Following your audit review, please advise if information reviewed should be docketed to support development of the hazard staff assessment or RAls. DC Audit Information S:\Diablo Canyon R2.1 Seismic lnformation\SSHAC Documentation of PPRP-TI Team Palo Verde Audit Information S:\Palo Verde R2.1 Seismic lnformation\SSHAC Documentation of PPRP-TI Team Columbia Information is on ePortal (PM action to work through access controls). Also, licensee plans to work with PNNL to post information on public website. Thanks, Nick From: Soenen, Philippe R [5] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 10:49 AM To: DiFrancesco, Nicholas Cc: Jahangir, Nozar

Subject:

DCPP information on Certrec Nick, We have uploaded the PPRP information onto Certrec IMS and granted access to Vladimir Grazier, John Stamatakos, and yourself. Here is. how you get to the PPRP information in Certrec:

• Login to ims.certrec.com

• Click on "Inspections"

• Set status to "In Progress" and Plant te. "Diablo Canyon"

• Click "Search" button.

• Click link to "Self-Assessment I Audit-Review of PPRP Comments and TIT Resolution"

• Click on the "NRC Requests" tab

• Click on what you would like to see. Please let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Philippe Soenen Regulatory Services Office -805.545.6984 Cell j(b)(GJ I PG&E is committed to protecting our customers' privacy. To learn more, please visit http://www.pge.com/about/company/privacy/customer/

DiFrancesco, Nicholas From:DiFrancesco, Nicholas Sent:7 Apr2015 19:13:56 +0000 To:Shams, Mohamed

Subject:

RE: Inquiry: Palo Verde Supplemental Letter Agreed, I spoke with Kamal and Yong, they have the same concern. Not worried about this issue.. the technical staff will work it out. The seismic guys are worried the hazard could move. From: Shams, Mohamed Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 2:49 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

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

Subject:

Inquiry: Palo Verde Supplemental Letter Folks, Any additional comments? I intend to follow-up with the. licensee today. The licensee stated that they did not pass the. 0.2 g licensing basis SSE around 3 Hz. Received a staff comment that you get a different answering depending on how you transform the. SSE from a log plot to a linear plot. Thanks, Nick From: Hill, Brittain Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 7:07 AM To: Vega, Frankie; Jackson, Diane; Shams, Mohamed; Munson, Clifford; Manoly, Kamal Cc: Difrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

RE: Preview of upcoming Palo Verde seismic hazard supplement letter Frankie -it's not clear if APS intends to screen-out based on IPEEE, following the process outlined in the SPID. Please emphasize to APS that the screening process allows for screenout based on IPEEE. results, provided the IPEEE analyses meet the criteria outlined in the. SPID. Although "background information" on IPEEE appears useful, APS should focus on addressing the IPEEE acceptability criteria if they wish to use these analyses in screening decisions.

ThanksBritt From: Vega, Frankie Sent: Friday, April 03, 2015 8:18 AM To: Jackson, Diane;. Shams, Mohamed; Hill, Brittain;. Munson, Clifford; Manoly, Kamal Cc: Difrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

Preview of upcoming Palo Verde seismic hazard supplement letter Hi all; Nick and I met with APS (licensee for Palo Verde) and discussed details on the supplemental letter they are planning to submit next week regarding their seismic hazard reevaluation. Also, a preliminary agenda for the public kick-off meeting next month was discussed. Regarding the supplement, I've provided a short summary of the information APS is planning to submit to provide additional clarity for the staff's review: 1. APS will be adding a graph overlaying the .2g (licensing basis). IPEEE and .25g (design basis) spectral responses all together. This would add some clarity on the plant's margin. 2. APS will provide additional background information on their IPEEE curve. This will document the basis for selecting .3g instead of .5g PGA. The 841h percentile and median curves will be provided. 3. APS will provide a short discussion on why the ESEP will not add additional value to their seismic evaluation. 4. APS will clarify and provide additional background, referencing FSAR information, on the licensing (.20g) and design (.25g) basis responses. 5. Regarding PPRP discussions (comments and their resolutions). APS belief this information was provided as part of the SSHAC report. APS committed to verify this and will get back to us. APS agreed that having this information will greatly help the staffs review. APS intends to submit this letter by April 8, 2015. Nick is planning to have one additional call before this submittal to make sure they'll provide the information the staff is requesting. Please let us know if something is missing so we can communicate it to APS before the submittal. Thanks. Frankie G. Vega, P .E. Project Manager NRR/JLD/JHMB 30l-415-1617 Location: 0-13H10 DiFrancesco, Nicholas. From:DiFrancesco, Nicholas Sent: l Apr 2015 12:41:54 +0000 To:Jackson, Diane

Subject:

RE: publically available PV SSHAC Diane, I spoke with the licensee, the Palo Verde SSHAC is effectively decontrolled (e.g. printing and sending are ok). Licensee stated that the eRoom was sending the files due to the size. Only restriction would be purge copies when the review is completed. If the staff assessment relies on the SSHAC we may need to look at docketing information. The licensee also understands it is subject to FOIA. -Nick From: Jackson, Diane. Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 7:17 AM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

publically available PV SSHAC Nick-The PV reviewers expressed the concern about the PV SSHAC reports not be public. They are allowed to down load and print it right? They 9at least one reviewers) believes it will take them more time , if they have to write questions to identify what needs to be on the docket. I'd like to discuss further. Any chance PV is going to change their mind on the public vs non public? Diane 9>iane J.adLHm, Chief Geosciences and Geotechnical Engineering Branch 2 (RGS2) Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis (DSEA), Office of New Reactors (NRO) US Nuclear Regulatory Commission +1301-415-5641; office: T-7 D3; mail stop: T-7 F3 NRC -One Team -One Mission Sent:28 Apr 2015 20:08:36 +0000 To:Ake, Jon

Subject:

FW: 28 April 2015 Meeting -DCPP Seismic Hazard Re-evaluation From: Gene Nelson, Ph.D. l(b)(6) IJ Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 3:59 PM To: DiPrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

RE: 28 April 2015 Meeting -DCPP Seismic Hazard Re-evaluation Nicholas Defrancesco US Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRR/DORL/LPLA (30 I) 415-11 15 njd2@nrc.gov 28 April 2015 Hello, Nicholas: As a Ph.D. physical scientist, I note that today's PG&E presentation provided a large body of technical information regarding the latest update regarding DCPP seismic safety. I appreciate that as a consequence of how earthquake energy is sttongly attenuated by the distance between the earthquake rupture and a measurement point, the earthquake forces seen by the compact DCPP site are dominated by the small section of the eanhquake rupture closest to the plant. Today's data continue to confirm that DCPP can safely withstand any earthquake in the region near DCPP with a substantial safety margin. Since I have a schedule conflict that will likely prevent my parlicipation in the public question and answer period, I'm requesting that you ask the NRC staff attending this meeting to confirm my summary. (Please confinn receipt of this message.) Sincerely Gene Nelson, Ph.D. Physical Science Faculty, Cuesta College, San Luis Obispo, CA .. r_)_(5_l ----'cell Soenen, Philippe R From:Soenen, Philippe R Sent: 1 Jun 2015 20:15:29 +0000 To:Munson, Clifford;Jackson, Diane

Subject:

FW: Advanced Draft RAI on Geophysical Site Properties Attachments:June 2015 DCPP RAJ.DOCX I -----Original Appointment-----From: Soenen, Philippe R [6] Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 4:14 PM To: Soenen, Philippe R; Difrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

FW: Advanced Draft RAI on Geophysical Site Properties When: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 1:00 PM-1:30 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). Where: Bridgeline: 1.866.652.7690, pass code:l(b)(6J I -----Original AppoFrom: Soenen, Philippe R Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 1:33 PM To: Soenen, Philippe R; Jahangir, Nozar; Ferre, Kent S; thompson@lettisci.com; Abrahamson, Norman; abrahamson@berkeley.edu Cc: Nicholas.Difrancesco@nrc.gov; Strickland, Jearl

Subject:

Advanced Draft RAI on Geophysical Site Properties When: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 10:00 AM-10:30 AM UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada). Where: Bridgeline: 1.866.652.7690, pass code: (b)(6l All, This phone call is proposed to discuss the advanced draft RAI related to geophysical site properties. The meeting is proposed. for Tuesday June 2, 2015 from 1000 to 1030 Pacific Time. Please call in to Bridge line: 1.866.652. 7690, pass code:l(b)(6) l lf this date or time. does not work please propose any alternative. Regards, Philippe Soenen Regulatory Services Office -805.545.6984 Cell fb)(6J I PG&E is committed to. protecting our customers' privacy. To learn more, please visit http://www.pge.com/about/company/privacy/customer/

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

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFO RE-EVALUATIONS RELAT 0 SITE POWER PLANT (TAC NO 5275 AND By letter dated March 11, 20151, tot mission (NRC), Pacific Gas and Electric, submitted for N,...,.._" ic Hazard an creening Report, Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federa ection 50.54(f), Response for Information Regarding Recommen

• n 2.1 erm Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ic

• Acciden Can Power Plant. Included in the seismic hazard reevaluatiCJP18lQ luation of the site response for Diablo Canyon using an alternative empirical ........ ro ed for Diablo Canyon and has determined co te its review. Enclosed is a request for additional sponse evaluation. As discussed with your staff on June to the RAI would be provided no later than July 30, 1 The letter can be found under Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) No. ML15071A046 If you have any questions related to. the enclosed RAls or the requested submission date, please contact me at 301-415-1115 or via e-mail at Nicholas.Difrancesco@nrc.gov.

Enclosures:

1 . Request for Additional Information 2. Addressee List cc w/encls: Distribution via Listserv 1 Sincerely, IRA/ ior Project Manager

-. 2. -. If you have any questions related to the enclosed RAls or the requested submission date, please contact me at 301-415-1115 or via e-mail at Nicholas.Difrancesco@nrc.gov. Sincerely, IRA! ior Project Manager

Enclosures:

1. Request for Additional Information cc w/encls: Distribution via Listserv ADAMS Acee NAME DATE OFFICE OGG NAME DATE RidsNrrDorllpl4-2 NDiFrancesco, NRR RidsNrrPM RidsRgn2MailCenter RidsNrrOd Slingam, NRR *via mail NRR/JLD/JHMB/LA* NRO/DSEA/RGS1

• NRR/JLD/JHMB/BC Slent DJackson MS hams NRR/JLD/JHMB/PM NDiFrancesco OFFICIAL RECORD COPY REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION 2.1 SEISMIC HAZARD AND SCREENING REPORT FOR DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT Review of Alternative Empirical Site Response Evaluation By letter dated March 12, 2012 (Agencywide Documents Access and M (ADAMS) Accession No. ML 12053A340), the NRC staff requested that specific hazard curves that capture. the variability in soil depth (including. d agement System sees submit site conditions), shear-wave velocities, layer thicknesses, damping, train de to generic rock ent nonlinear f the March range of material properties at the site. Specifically, Attachment 1 to "Seis closur 12, 2012, letter stated that "site amplification curves should be dev r ab annual exceedance frequencies to facilitate estimation o qu By letter dated February 15, 2013 (ADAMS Accessio Electric Power Research Institute [EPRI] Final Draft Re Guidance: Screening, Prioritization and lmple tation De using the SPID guidance. Regarding the development of site. a seismic hazard reevaluations, Seer As r rock uncertainties should be. incorporated into site amplification and their uncertainties through the hazard curves. The control-point elevation hazard curves should By lette . (ADAMS Accession No. ML 15071 A046), the licensee for the Diablo Ca nt ( P) submitted an alternative site response evaluation, referred to as the empir which uses the observed ground motions at the site from two earthquakes to he site amplification rather than analytical models." While the staff considers the em te response approach as a viable alternative to the analytical approach, the method as imple nted by the licensee was able to use only three site recordings from two earthquakes to constrain the local site amplification. As such, the licensee's estimate of the uncertainty in the local site term is potentially impacted by the limited amount of data. In addition, the. site. term developed by the licensee using the empirical approach shows a significant amount of deviation in the negative direction over an important frequency range from the NGA-West2 ground motion models for a Vs3o=760 m/s site. Enclosure. l Request for Additional Information Consistent with the request for information issued pursuant to Title 1 O of the Code of Federal regulations, Part 50, Section 50.54(f) and the SPID guidance, please provide a supplemental response to the March 2015 seismic hazard reevaluation that develops site amplification factors as recommended in Section 2.4 and Appendix B of the SPID. Please provide (1) a detailed description of the subsurface profile properties including uncertainties, (2) potential for nonlinear behavior at the strain levels produced by the scenario earthquakes of interest, and (3) the control point elevation. In addition, provide the adjustment factors (Vs-kappa c rections) needed to modify the median ground motion models for the selected reference or rock elevation and velocity. Also include in the response as a figure and a table control point mic hazard curves developed using the site amplification factors and their uncertai hrough azard integral as recommended in Appendix B of the SPID. Enclosure 1 Sent:20 Mar 2015 17 :47: l 7 +0000 To:Munson, Clifford;Jackson, Diane;Ake, Jon Cc:Wbaley, Sheena;Shams, Mohamed;Kock, Andrea;Bowen, Jeremy

Subject:

FW: PG&E Drop-in Attendees on March 26 FYl. .. Attendees. Also, Philippe meant Thursday March 26. DC plans to cover a number of topics regarding their submittal and next steps with R2.1 activities. -Nick From: Soenen, Philippe R [7] Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 12:28 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

PG&E Drop-in Attendees Nick, The following are the people from PG&E that will be present for the drop-in on 3/28: Jearl Strickland -Director, Technical Services Nazar Jahangir -Manager, Nuclear Seismic Engineering Norm Abrahamson -Chief Geosciences Consultant Bill Horstman -Senior Consulting Engineer All of these individuals are PG&E employees. I will be providing these individuals your contact information to contact you once they are down in the lobby on 3/28. Regards, Philippe Soenen Regulatory Services Officf -805 545 6984 Cell (bJ(5l ] PG&E is committed to protecting our customers' privacy. To learn more, please visit http://www.pge.com/about/company/privacy/customer/

Information (pages 948-960/1000) is outside of the scope of the FOIA request. The information concern licensee press release -not the NRC's for review reevaluated hazard. DiFrancesco, Nicholas From:DiFrancesco, Nicholas Sent:lO Mar 2015 20:01:43 +0000 To:Li, Yong;Manoly, Karnal;Oesterle, Eric;Lingarn, Siva

Subject:

FW: PG&E Summary Sheet Attachments:Final Fact sheet -March 12, 2015 NRC Updates.pdf, News Release_Alt.docx Importance:High FYI.. Attachment l may be of interest. From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 12:53 PM To: DiFrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

Importance: High Lara Uselding NRC Region 4 Public Affairs 817-200-1519 From: Hipschman, Thomas Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 03:23 PM To: Uselding, Lara; Walker, Wayne; Maier, Bill

Subject:

FW: Pending Press Release FYI From: Jones, Thomas P. [8] Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 12:04 PM To: Hipschman, Thomas Cc: Baldwin, Thomas (DCPP)

Subject:

Pending Press Release Importance: High Good Morning Tom, Please find attached the press release PG&E intends to issue today at 3PM local time regarding completing the March 12 hazard updates for the NRC. We offer some highlights about plant safety and will make the filing this week. I have also attached a small fact sheet we will be using to help explain some of these complex topics. Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions. Regards, Tom Jones Director, Government Relations Pacific Gas & Electric Company Office: 805 595 6340 Mobile1 ... (b-J(-6l ____ _. PG&E is committed to protecting our customers' privacy. To learn more, please visit http://www.pge.com/about/company/privacy/customer/

Quick Facts on

• Performed at direction of Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) *Continue to show Diablo Canyon can withstand earthquakes, tsunamis and flooding

• Performed with independent experts using latest scientific methodologies and site-specific information

• NRC will independently review " . " I i ** .. Seismic & Flooding Hazards Re-evaluation New and extensive analyses performed at the direction. of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) re-confirm that Diablo Canyon Power Plant can. safely withstand extreme natural events, including potential earthquakes, tsunamis and flooding .. The hazard re-evaluations used the latest regulatory guidance, scientific methods and models, site-specific information and independent expertise to re-evaluate the impacts that earthquakes, large waves and flooding could have on the facility. Seismic Hazard Re-evaluation Represents a more extensive evaluation of the seismic hazard than previously performed. Using the NRC's Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee (SSHAC) process, independent seismic experts publically reanalyzed existing and new seismic information. including data acquired during the advanced seismic studies. to evaluate. how earthquakes could. potentially impact the facility. The. probability of earthquakes occurring on individual and multiple geologic faults was also determined. Key Results:

• Confirms plant's design can withstand earthquakes from all regional faults ..

• 0.0001 annual chance of an earthquake producing ground motions of .8g. * .8g does not exceed the robust seismic. design. margin of the plant.

• The plant has at least 35% design margin beyond .8g (left graph).

• A minor exceedance (approx. 7%) in the Hosgri earthquake design in a specific, low frequency range (1.33 Hz) that does not impact safety (right graph).

• No safety structures, systems and components required for safe shutdown are sensitive to ground motions at a frequency below 2. 7 Hz. . --** I i .. --Comparison of Ground Motion Response Spectrum (GMRS) and Long Term Seismic Program Seismic Margins Spectrum for Diablo Canyon Power Plant Comparison of GMRS and. 1977 Hosgri Design Spectrum for Diablo Canyon Power Plant March 2015 r r "'

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

• Plant continues to be safe from tsunamis, including those generated from underwater landslides and earthquakes.

• Design can withstand expected storm flooding.

• Measures were identified -and have already been implemented --to address a rare, theoretical event of excessive rainfall. What's Next? PG&E will submit the re-evaluations to the NRC for independent review on March 12, 2015. The NRC will later provide guidance on how and when PG&E should perform an additional risk assessment that examines the probability of earthquakes potentially damaging plant safety equipment. The same evaluation is being asked of other U.S. commercial nuclear power facilities. The NRC will also review the flooding re-evaluation to determine if additional actions might be required to further enhance safety.

March 9, 2015 NEW ANALYSES SHOW DIABLO CANYON SAFE FROM EXTREME NATURAL EVENTS Re-evaluations Demonstrate Earthquake, Flooding and Tsunami Safety A VILA BEACH, Calif. -New and extensive analyses performed at the direction of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) re-confirm that Pacific Gas and Electric Company's (PG&E) Diablo Canyon Power Plant (Diablo Canyon) can safely withstand extreme natural events, including potential ea1thquakes, tsunamis and flooding .. The new analyses, known as hazard re-evaluations, will be submitted to the NRC this week for independent review. The agency called on all U.S. commercial nuclear power plants to perfonn such work following the events that occurred in 2011 at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan. "Safety is and always will be the top priority for PG&E and Diablo Canyon. That's why seismic, flooding and tsunami safety was at the forefront in the design of the facility. These. updated findings are the. culmination of years of study and analysis, and further confirm the safety of the plant's design," said Ed Halpin, PG&E's Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer. The hazard re-evaluations used the latest regulatory guidance, scientific methods and models, site-specific information and independent expertise to re-evaluate the impacts that earthquakes, large waves and flooding could have on the Diablo Canyon facility. The updated seismic assessment represents a more extensive evaluation of the seismic hazard than previously performed. Prior evaluations dete1mined the ground shaking from an earthquake on a pa1ticular fault in the region, based on historical records and geological evidence, and then compared this information against structures, systems and components at the faciUty to ensure they could withstand seismic ground shaking .. Using the NRC's Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee (SSHAC) process, independent seismic experts publicaJly re-evaluated existing and new seismic information, including data acquired during the advanced seismic studies recently performed near. Diablo. Canyon, to re-evaluate how. earthquakes could potentially impact the facility. This process included examining the probability of earthquakes occurring on individual and multiple geologic faults. The result is a more thorough assessment of the seismic hazard, providing additional confirmation that the plant is seismically safe. The NRC will review the re-evaluation in order to provide guidance on how and when PG&E should perform an additional risk evaluation that examines the probability of earthquakes potentially damaging plant safety equipment. The same evaluation is being asked of other U.S. commercial nuclear power facilities. "The updated seismic source model for Diablo Canyon incorporates an extensive body of new onshore and offshore data and emerging new scientific concepts to characterize earthquake sources. For example, it is the first earthquake model developed for a nuclear site that allows for multi-fault linked ruptures to produce large maximum earthquakes. Through the extensive use of experts in the field of seismic geology and independent peer review, the model was developed to capture. the full range of possibilities regardjng the location, size and frequency of large magnitude eruthquakes in the vicinity of Diab lo Canyon. In my opinion, the model developed for Diablo Canyon will set the standard for how future eaithquake source models are developed," said Bill Lettis, who serves as one the key technical leads for the SSHAC process. PG&E's flooding and tsunami hazard update involved the use of the latest NRC guidance and methodologies to determine the maximum potential waves and rainfall that could impact Diablo Canyon. The re-evaluation, utilizing independent expertise, detenni_ned that the plant's key safety systems and components continue to be safe from tsunamjs, including those generated from underwater landslides and eaithquakes. The plant's design is also deemed appropriate to withstand expected storm flooding. In addition, measures were identified and implemented to address a rare, theoretical event of excessive rainfall and a quick build-up of water in some plant locations that greatly exceeds any known precipitation event recorded in the site's history. The NRC will review the re-evaluation to determine if additional actions might be required to further enhance safety. "These important updates. provide an in depth look at the seismic, tsunami and flooding hazards in our region, and most importantly, demonstrate the plant's design is safe. Our work in these areas, however, will never cea<;e. Our commitment to safe operations and protecting public health and safety will continue to be reflected in our ongoing study and evaluation of the. areas. Our customers expect no less," said PG&E's Halpin. NRC Hazards Assessment Background As part of its response to the Fukushima event in Japan in 2011, the NRC directed all U.S. commercial nuclear power plants to perform updated assessments of the seismic and flooding hazards for their facilities. Plants located in the eastern and Central U.S. completed such analyses and provided them to the NRC in 2014. Western plants, including Diablo Canyon, were directed to complete and submit their assessments by March 2015. About Diablo Canyon Power Plant Diablo Canyon Power Plant is a nuclear power facility owned and operated by PG&E. Its two units together produce approximately 2,300 net megawatts of carbon-free power. It provides nearly 10 percent of all electricity generated in California, and enough energy to meet the needs of more than three mjJlion Northern and Central Californians. Diablo Canyon has a $920 million annual local economic impact and is the largest p1ivate employer in San Luis Obispo County. About PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company, a subsidiary of PG&E Corporation (NYSE:PCG), is one of the largest combined natural gas and electric utilities in the United States. Based in San Francisco, with 20,000 employees, the company delivers some of the nation's cleanest energy to 16 million people in Northern and Central California. For more information, visit www.pge.com/ and www.pge.com/en/about/newsroom/index.page. ###

Sent:8 May 2015 13:01:42 +0000 To:Graizer, Vladimir;Munson, Clifford;Jackson, Diane;Ake, Jon Cc:Shams, Mohamed

Subject:

FW: Public Meeting announcement by "PEER" on Directivity discussion. FYI. .. From: Jahangir, Nozar [9] Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 6:44 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas; Soenen, Philippe R Cc: Strickland, Jearl

Subject:

Public Meeting announcement by "PEER" on Directivity discussion Nick; In the Diablo Canyon public meeting on April 28th, we stated that there will be an industry expert panel meeting, sponsored by PEER, on the topic of "Directivity" that the staff may be interested in participating. This was an area that the SSC SSHAC requested Diablo Canyon to provide additional documentation and PG&E made a commitment in our March 11 submittal to provide such documentation to the NRC once we. have greater clarity on the approach. This. is a link to the recently posted public announcement by the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) regarding the expert panel discussion on treatment of "Directivity" in Ground Motion models. PG&E will be an observer. in the proceedings. http://peer.berkeley.edu/ngawest2/2015/05/ground-motion-directivity-modeling-panel-meeting-may-22-2015/ Thanks Nazar Jahangir P.E. Manager, Technical Services Diablo Canyon Seismic Engineering S-'i -(cell) nx.1 pge.com PG&E is committed to protecting our customers' privacy. To learn more, please visit http://www.pge.com/about/company/privacy/customer/

Sent:25 Mar 2015 21 :20:08 +0000 To:Markley, Michael Cc:Bowen, Jeremy;Shams, Mohamed

Subject:

RE: Did you notice. the PG&E drop-in? Mike, Thank you for the recommendation and support. The PG&E drop-in is scheduled for tomorrow morning. The level-high topics are consistent with discussions allowed by COM-203. I will prepare a summary as appropriate. I have advised my management and the licensee that technical discussions are inappropriate. At present, we are working to have a public meeting discussing technical issues with PG&E on April 28, 2015, to better understand their seismic analyses and assumptions. Our current target is to notice the meeting around April 2 following confirmation of the agenda topics with staff and the licensee. Very respectfully, Nick Sr. Project Manager -Seismic Reevaluation Activities U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Division nicholas.difrancesco@nrc.gov I Tel: (301) 415-1115 From: Markley, Michael Sent: Wednesday, March 25,. 2015 11:14.AM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

Did you notice the PG&E drop-in? Nick, I did not hear back from you on the drop-in tomorrow. It would be better to notice it now and take your beating on not meeting the 10-day noticing requirement, than to have to answer all the stakeholder inquiries and accusations. Michael T. Markley, Chief Plant Licensing Branch IV-1 (LPL4-1) Division of Operating Reactor Licensing (DORL) Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 301-415-5723 (Office) l<bl(6l Michael.Markey@nrc.gov What information is NRC expecting in the. March 12,. 2015 WUS plant submittals? NRC expects that the March 12, 2015 submittals will contain substantially more information than was submitted for CEUS plants in March 2014. This is because each of the WUS plants had to develop site-specific source models and ground-motion models, using the Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee (SSHAC) approach. In contrast, the CEUS plants all used a common set of models (see Attachment 3). In addition to the information that was included for the CEUS plants, NRC expects that the important details of the site-specific SSHAC studies will be included in the March 12, 2015 submittals. NRC also expects that the complete SSHAC study report will be available for the NRC staff to review, as needed. If the reevaluated hazard exceeded the plant's seismic design basis, NRC expects the WUS plants to follow the same approach as used for CEUS plants and also submit an interim evaluation of the plant's. capacity to. withstand the higher ground motions. Because nuclear power plants generally have significant margin beyond their design capacity to withstand earthquake motions, the interim evaluation uses the actual capacities and new hazard information to see if the preliminary understanding of seismic risk is still within acceptable limits while the plant does more detailed evaluations. Will NRC conduct a screening and prioritization review for western United States (WUS) plant submittals? Yes. NRC staff will conduct a screening and prioritization review for the WUS hazard reevaluations after the complete hazard reports are submitted. This review will likely take two months to accomplish, because there is substantially more new information in these reports than was submitted for the CEUS plants in March 2014. If the reevaluated hazard is within the plant's design basis, the NRC staff will need to determine if sufficient information is available to support that conclusion. However, if the reevaluated seismic hazard exceeds the plant's design basis, NRC will need to determine: (1) if the plant's interim evaluations and actions demonstrate the plant can continue to operate safely at the reevaluated hazard level, while longer-term risk assessments are ongoing. (2) the priority for WUS plants to complete the additional risk evaluations (3) the schedule for completion of the expedited approach and seismic risk evaluation. NRC's review of the interim evaluations. and actions will determined if there is an immediate safety concern that warrants immediate regulatory action for WUS plants. The NRC's longerterm review will examine in detail licensees' reevaluated hazard submittals and related seismic risk assessments. Will NRC prioritize WUS plants for completion of seismic risk assessments? Yes. As part of the initial review, WUS plants that have "screen in". for more detailed risk assessments will be prioritized to ensure the plants of most interest are reviewed first. This prioritization is not a risk ranking -more analysis is needed to determine actual changes in a plant's seismic accident risk. Using the same approach as for the CEUS plants, the NRC staff will consider several factors in prioritizing (or screening) the WUS risk assessments: (1) the extent to which the reevaluated hazard exceeds the current design basis; (2) the site's overall seismic hazard. based on an examination of the reevaluation; and (3) previous estimates of plant capacity (e.g., IPEEE insights).

Does NRC expect to review the WUS submittals the same way as the CEUS submittals? Compared to the CEUS submittals, NRC expects that the WUS submittals will be much longer and contain a lot more new information on site geology, earthquake sources, and ground motion modeling. As a result, NRC expects that the WUS submittals will be much more complex to review than the CEUS reevaluations. In addition to all the new information, each WUS plant also had to do a complex probabilistic seismic hazard assessment (PSHA), using a very detailed, multi-year process. In contrast, all the CEUS plants used essentially the same PSHA, which was extensively reviewed by NRC before the seismic hazard reevaluations were submitted. After the screening and prioritization review is completed, NRC staff will conduct a thorough review of the WUS seismic hazard reevaluations. To review each of these site-specific hazard reevaluations, the NRC staff will need to examine important details of each plant-specific source characterization and ground motion model. The NRC staff expects to conduct confirmatory analyses of key parts of these models, to determine if the reevaluated seismic hazards are reasonable. In addition to examining the detailed technical information that supports the hazard reevaluation, the NRC staff also will review the lengthy documentation about the SSHAC process that licensees used to develop the source characterization and ground motion models. Will NRC. produce its. own version of the WUS plant's reevaluated seismic hazard? To support the initial review of CEUS plant submittals, the NRC developed a computer model that could calculate seismic hazards for each CEUS plant. These calculations were possible because all the CEUS plants used the same seismic hazard model, and the model was developed several years before the CEUS hazard reevaluations were submitted. However, the WUS plants completed their site-specific hazard analyses less than a year before the final reports were submitted to NRC, and each plant used different types of seismic hazard models. The NRC staff determined that they could conduct an appropriate, risk-informed review of the WUS hazard reevaluations without expending considerable resources to develop three new, site-specific computer models. The NRC staff expects to do site-specific confirmatory analyses on key parts of the hazard analyses, including independent evaluations of the earthquake source models, ground motion models, and site response models. Will WUS plants have to do additional risk assessments if their reevaluated hazard is larger than the plant's safe shutdown earthquake? Yes, the same criteria used for CEUS plants applies to WUS plants for determining if additional risk assessments are needed. WUS plants that screen-in for the risk assessments will need to complete the expedited approach (see question #4) and either a seismic margins assessment or a probabilistic risk assessment. Plants that screen-out from the risk assessment might still meet the criteria for conducting focused-scope evaluations of low frequency exceedances, high frequency exceedances, or spent fuel pool performance. The need for conducting additional analyses will be determined during NRC's screening and prioritization review.

Sent:5 May 2015 14:49:05 +0000 To:Shams, Mohamed Cc:Jackson, Diane;Hill. B1ittain

Subject:

Awareness of OGC. NLO on WUS Seismic. Reevaluation Letter Attachments:WUS Seismic Reevaluations Letter 4-2015 LSC.docx Mohamed, Awareness only. We continue to make progress on concurrences for the WUS letter. The letter will go to DORL and JLD senior management COB today. Thanks, Nick From: Clark, Sheldon Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 5:07 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas Cc: Spencer, Mary; Biggins, James

Subject:

WUS Seismic Reevaluation Letter Nick, (b)(5) Sheldon L. Sheldon Clark Attorney Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Email: Sheldon.Clark@nrc.gov Phone: 301-415-2189 Page 135 of 739 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Page 136 of 739 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Page 137 of 739 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Page 138 of 739 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (b)(S) If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Nicholas DiFrancesco at 301-415-1115 or via email at Nicholas.Difrancesco@nrc.gov. Sincerely, William M, Dean, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

1. Glossary of Evaluations 2. Screening and Prioritization Results 3. List of Licensees March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals 4. List of Licensees cc w/encls: Listserv

ML 15113B344 OFFICE NRR/JLD/PMB/PM NRR/JLD/LA NRR/JLD/HMB/BC NAME NDiFrancesco Slent MShams DATE 04/22/15 I /15 I /15 OFFICE NRO/DSEA/D OGC NRR/JLD/D NAME SFlanders BHarris JDavis DATE I /15. I ./15. . I /15 Glossary of Evaluations Associated with Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1 Seismic Hazard Re-evaluations (b)(5) Enclosure 1 (b)(S) Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the. Fukushima Dai-lchi Accident Seismic Risk Evaluations Screening and Prioritization Results for Western United States (WUS) Reactor Sites Enclosure 2 March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals for Western United States Reactor Sites Licensee Facility Date of letter (ADAMS Accession Nos.) Columbia Generating Station March 12, 2015. (ML 15078A243) Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 March 11, 2015 (ML 15071 A046) Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units March 10, 2015 (ML 15076A073) and 1, 2, and 3 April 10,. 2015 (ML 15105A076) Enclosure 3 LIST OF APPLICABLE POWER REACTOR LICENSEES Columbia Generating Station Energy Northwest Docket No .. 50-397 License No. NPF-21 Mr. Mark E. Reddemann Chief Executive Officer Energy Northwest MD 1023 76 North Power Plant Loop P.O. Box 968 Richland, WA 99352 Diablo Canyon Power. Plant. Unit Nos .. l and 2. Pacific Gas & Electric Company Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82 Mr. Edward D. Halpin Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 56 Mail Code 104/6 Avila Beach, CA 93424 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Arizona Public Service Company Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-529, and STN 50-530 License Nos. NPF-41, NPF-51 and NPF-74 Mr. Randall K. Edington Executive Vice President Nuclear/CNO Arizona Public Service Company P.O. Box 52034, MS 7602. Phoenix, AZ 85072-2034 Enclosure 4 DiFrancesco, Nicholas From:DiFrancesco, Nicholas Sent:4 May 2015 18:34:12 +0000 To:Jackson, Diane Cc:Shams, Mohamed;Kock, Andrea

Subject:

FYI: POP JLD Status (05.05.15).docx Attachments:POP -JLD Status (05.05.15).docx Diane, POP for DEDO brief tomorrow for awareness. Thanks, Nick From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 2:29 PM To: Bowen, Jeremy Cc: Shams, Mohamed

Subject:

One Change ---POP -JLD Status (05.05.15).docx Jeremy, One change from the current plan for Diablo Canyon. Technical staff is pushing to provide additional basis documenting the decision that no ESEP is needed for Diablo. We have a letter template from last year that I plan to use {letter. dated December 15. 2014). Thanks, Nick PURPOSE. JAPAN LESSONS LEARNED DIVISION STATUS UPDATE -05/05/2015 Update NRR ET on status of JLD activities EXPECTED OUTCOMES Provide current status and address any questions Outside of Scope

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

• sPRA due 06/30/17

• Diablo Canyon -Separate letter on no ESEP; LTSP provides safety basis

• Public Meetings o Diablo Canyon (04/28/15 o Columbia (96/04/15) o Palo Verde -Group 3

• sPRA due 12/31 /20

• Non Responsive The Power Reactor Licensees on the Enclosed List

SUBJECT:

SCREENING AND PRIORITIZATION RESULTS FOR THE WESTERN UNITED STATES SITES REGARDING INFORMATION PURSUANT TO TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 50.54(f). REGARDING SEISMIC HAZARD RE-EVALUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDATION 2.1 OF THE NEARTERM TASK FORCE REVIEW OF INSIGHTS FROM THE FUKUSHIMA ICHI ACCIDENT On March 12, 2012, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a request for information pursuant to Title 1 O of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50 (1 O CFR), Section 50.54(f). (hereafter referred. to as the 50.54. (f). letter) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML 12053A340). The purpose of that request was to gather information concerning, in part, the seismic hazards at operating reactor sites and to enable the NRC staff to determine. whether licenses. should. be. modified, suspended, or revoked. The "Required Response" section of Enclosure 1 indicated that licensees and construction permit holders should provide a Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening report within 3 years from the date of the. letter for Western United States (WUS) plants (i.e., Columbia Generating Station (Columbia), Diablo Canyon Power Plant (Diablo Canyon), and Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (Palo Verde)). Further, the 50.54(f) letter stated that NRC would provide the results of the screening and. prioritization indicating deadlines for individual plants to complete seismic risk evaluations to assess the total plant response to the re-evaluated seismic hazard. Additionally, by letter1 dated February 20, 2014, the NRC provided supplemental information on the content of the seismic re-evaluated hazard submittals including guidance on reportability and operability. The purpose of this letter is to inform WUS licensees of the. NRC's screening and prioritization and to allow licensees to appropriately plan the completion of further seismic risk evaluations described in Enclosure 1 of the 50.54(f) letter. To respond to the 50.54(f) letter, all addressees committed to. follow the Electric Power. Research Institute (EPRI) Report, "Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic,"2 as. supplemented, by the EPRI Report, "Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Recommendation 2.1: Seismic"3 (referred to as the Expedited Approach). The NRC held multiple public meetings and teleconferences with industry and the public leading to the development of the guidance documents supporting review of re-evaluated seismic hazards. 1 The February 20, 2014, supplemental information letter is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML 14030A046. 2 The SPID guidance document is found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML 12333A 170. The staff endorsement letter for the SPID guidance is found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML 12319A074. 3 The Expedited Approach guidance document is found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML 13102A 142. The WUS licensees submitted the re-evaluated seismic hazards. by letters dated on. or before. March 12, 2015 (references are provided in Enclosure 3 of this letter). The NRC staff conducted the screening and prioritization review of the submittals by assessing each licensee's screening evaluation and hazard analysis utilizing the endorsed SPID guidance. INTERIM EVALUATIONS4 The 50.54(f) letter requested that licensees provide "interim evaluations and actions taken or planned to address the higher seismic hazard relative to the design-basis, as appropriate, prior to completion of the risk evaluation." For those plants where the re-evaluated seismic hazard exceeds the seismic design-basis, licensees stated they will provide interim evaluations to demonstrate that the plant can cope with the higher re-evaluated seismic. hazard while the longer-term seismic risk evaluations are ongoing. In support of the requested interim evaluations for licensees, WUS plants provided information related to margin evaluations or insights from Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) evaluations included estimated seismic risk. Additionally,. the submittals discussed completing plant seismic walkdowns as part of NTIF Recommendation 2.3 in order to verify that the current plant configuration is consistent with the licensing basis. The NRC staff review of WUS reports found that licensees have demonstrated additional plant seismic margins supportive of continued plant operation while additional risk evaluations are conducted. The interim evaluation provided in March. 2015 is a first step in. assessing the plant's capacity to withstand the re-evaluated hazard. In the near-term, by January 2016, licensees will complete an "Expedited Approach" to evaluate and identify reinforcements, if necessary, for certain equipment to. ensure a safe shutdown pathway can withstand a higher seismic. ground motion. For Diablo Canyon and Palo Verde, the NRC staff is continuing to assess seismic evaluations completed by the licensees to determine if they meet the intent of the Expedited Approach review and. will response under a seperate letter. SCREENING PROCESS As defined in the 50.54(f) letter and the SPID guidance, the seismic hazard re-evaluations were conducted using current analysis methods and guidance. The licensees' responses to the 50.54(f) letter provided seismic hazard re-evaluation results, which were the focus of the NRC staffs initial screening and prioritization review. Although the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) is commonly referred to as a single number, this number represents a distribution of ground motions that occur over a range of spectral frequencies. This. results in a curve of. ground acceleration over frequency. The ability of equipment and structures in the plant to withstand the effects of ground motions is frequency specific. For the purposes of the licensees' analyses and NRC staff's review, the SPID guidance identifies three frequency ranges that are of particular interest: 1-1 O Hertz (Hz), a low frequency range of <2.5 Hz, and a high frequency range of > 1 O Hz. The different ranges have been identified due to the different types of structures and equipment that may be impacted by ground motions in that range. For example, large components generally are not affected significantly by high frequencies (i.e., >10 Hz). The frequency range 1-10 Hz is the focus for 4 Enclosure 1 of this letter provides a Glossary of Seismic Evaluations

-. 3 -. this portion of the risk evaluation, as this range has the greatest potential effect on the performance of equipment and structures important to safety. For other. frequency ranges, discussed below, limited-scope evaluations will be conducted, when appropriate. In accordance with the SPID and Expedited Approach guidance, the re-evaluated seismic hazard determines if additional seismic risk evaluations are warranted for a plant. Specifically, the re-evaluated ground motion response spectra (GMRS) in the 1-10 Hz frequency range is compared to the existing SSE:

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

• If the GMRS, in the. 1-10 Hz range, is greater than the. existing SSE, then the. plant will complete the Expedited Approach (including the Interim Evaluation). Most plants that meet this criterion also screen in to conduct a seismic risk evaluation and have committed to conduct high frequency and spent fuel pool evaluations. In addition, if the GMRS meets the low hazard threshold, which is described in the SPID, and only exceeds the SSE below 2.5 Hz, the licensee will perform a limited evaluation of equipment potentially susceptible to low frequency motions .. Similarly, if. the. GMRS. exceeds. the SSE only above 10 Hz, then the licensee will perform an evaluation of the equipment or structures susceptible to that specific range of ground motion. Enclosure 2 provides the staffs determination of priority for plants that screen-in to conduct a seismic risk evaluation, and identification of plants to complete limited-scope evaluations (i.e., spent fuel pool, high frequency, or low frequency) .. CONDITIONAL SCREENING As discussed in public meetings5, the staff anticipated the. possibility of not being able to complete the determination for conducting a seismic risk evaluation for some plants in the 30 to 60 day review period under certain circumstances. For example, if a licensee provided a unique submittal or deviated from the. SPID guidance, additional time for the review might be needed. In general, WUS submittals contain extensive site specific information including site specific source models and ground-motion models which could affect the final screening decisions. Accordingly, during. the NRG screening. and prioritization process, the staff identified that for Palo Verde additional time and interactions will be required to better understand the seismic hazard for the plant. As such, the staff determined that Palo Verde "conditionally screens-in" for the purposes of prioritizing and conducting additional. evaluations .. Palo Verde has been prioritized to complete a seismic risk evaluation in Group 3. After interactions have occurred, the staff will make a final screening and prioritization determination and provide a letter to the licensee. If the plant remains screened-in,. the final screening letter will affirm the plant priority for further evaluations and establish schedule for an Expedited Approach, if necessary. If the plant screens out, the final screening letter also will determine if the Palo Verde needs to complete limited-scope evaluations (i.e.,. spent fuel pool, high frequency, or low frequency). 5 Discussion as part of public meetings dated December 4, 2014, February 11, 2015, and March 30, 2015 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML14342A901, ML15104A065 and ML15111A031, respectively). PLANT PRIORITIZATION The NRC grouped the "screened-in" plants into three groups6, which (i) reflects the relative priority for conducting a seismic risk evaluation that compares each plant's current capabilities to the re-evaluated seismic hazard, and (ii) accounts for the appropriate allocation of limited staff and available expertise for reviewing and conducting seismic risk evaluations. During the prioritization review, the staff considered each licensee's re-evaluated hazard submittals, plant specific seismic and risk insights, and previous design-basis ground motion estimates. To prioritize the plants for completing seismic risk evaluations, staff examined certain key parameters such as (1) the maximum ratio of the new re-evaluated hazard (GMRS) to the SSE in the 1-10. Hz range; (2). the maximum ground motion in the. 1-10 Hz range; and (3) insights from previous seismic risk evaluations. As such, Group 1 plants are generally those that have the highest re-evaluated hazard relative to the original plant seismic design-basis (GMRS to SSE), as. well as ground motions in. the 1-10 Hz range that are. generally. higher in absolute magnitude. Based on these criteria, Columbia and Diablo Canyon are prioritized as Group 1 plants. Group 1 plants, including Columbia and Diablo Canyon are expected to conduct a seismic risk evaluation and submit it by June. 30, 2017 .. Group 3 plants have GMRS to SSE ratios that are greater than 1, but the amount of exceedance. in the 1-10 Hz. range is relatively small, and the maximum. ground motion in. the 1-1 O Hz range is also not high. Based on these criteria, Palo Verde is prioritized as a Group 3 plant. Given the limited level of exceedance of the Group 3 plants including Palo Verde, staff is evaluating the need for licensees to conduct a seismic risk evaluation in order for the staff to complete its regulatory decision making. After further review, the staff will decide which Group 3 plants need to complete a risk evaluation. Risk evaluations for Group 3 plants are due by December 31, 2020. NEXT STEPS Based on. the staffs screening review the licensee. for Columbia should finalize and submit an Expedited Approach Report no later than. January 31, 2016. The NRC staff is continuing to review the licensee provided information for Diablo Canyon and Palo Verde related to the Expedited Approach. In accordance with the endorsed guidance, the staff acknowledges that the January 2016 Expedited Approach submittal will focus on plant equipment (i.e. safe shutdown pathway7) evaluations and modifications, as necessary, prior to submitting the plant seismic risk evaluations. The content of limited-scope evaluations or confirmations and their associated schedule milestones remain under development with NRG staff and stakeholders. The NRC staff has conducted a number of public meetings to reach alignment on the implementation details of these evaluations, including the development of alternatives approaches for conducting these evaluations The staff expects that implementing guidance should be established by summer 6 Central and Eastern licensees seismic hazard screening and priority reviews were completed in 2014. 7 Section 3 of the Expedited Approach guidance (ADAMS Accession No. ML 13102A142) provides a process to identify a single seismically robust success path using a subset of installed plant equipment, FLEX equipment and connection points. 2015. and fall 2015 for high frequency and spent fuel pool evaluations, respectively. It is expected that WUS licensees can complete these evaluations in parallel with completion of SPRAs for Group 1 plants by June 2017. This letter transmits the NRC staff's results of the seismic hazard submittals for the purposes of screening and prioritizing the plants. It does not convey the staff's final determination regarding the adequacy of any plant's calculated hazard. As such, the NRC staff will continue. its review of the. submitted seismic hazard re-evaluations, and may request additional. plant-specific information to support this review through the summer of 2015. The staff has placed a high priority on this review for the early identification of issues that might adversely affect each licensee's seismic risk evaluations. Interactions with licensees will occur. as soon. as practicable, including NRC staff plans to acknowledge the whether seismic hazard curves are suitability for use in SPRA development by late 2015. The NRC staff plans to issue a staff assessment on the re-evaluated seismic hazard once each review is completed in approximately 12 to 18. months .. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Nicholas DiFrancesco at 301-415-1115 or via email at Nicholas.Difrancesco@nrc.gov ., Sincerely, William M. Dean, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

1. Glossary of Evaluations 2. Screening and Prioritization Results 3. List of Licensees March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals 4. List of Licensees cc w/encls: Listserv

ML 15113B344 OFFICE NRR/JLD/PMB/PM NRR/JLD/LA NRR/JLD/HMB/BC NAME NDiFrancesco Slent MShams DATE 04/22/15 I /15 I /15 OFFICE NRO/DSEA/D OGC NRR/JLD/D NAME SFlanders SCI ark JDavis (MFranovich for) DATE I /15 05/04/15 I /15 Glossary of Evaluations Associated with Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1 Seismic Hazard Re-evaluations Interim Evaluation or Actions -An immediate licensee and NRG review of the re-evaluated hazard to determine whether actions are needed to assure plant safety while further evaluations are ongoing. The staff has completed its review and concluded that, based on the licensees' interim evaluations and actions, Western United States (WUS) plants are safe for continued operations. Interim evaluations and actions are provided in Section 5.0, "Interim Actions," of the licensee submittals. Expedited Approach -A near-term licensee evaluation to be completed by January 31, 2016, for WUS plants whose re-evaluated hazard exceeds the current design-basis for the safe shutdown earthquake hazard level. The evaluation looks at the systems and components that can be used to safely shut down a plant under the conditions of a station blackout (i.e., no alternating current power is available) and loss of ultimate heat sink. The expedited approach will either confirm that a plant has sufficient margin to continue with a longer-term evaluation without any modifications, or confirm the need to enhance the seismic capacity to assure they can withstand the re-evaluated hazard. The Expedited Approach guidance document is found in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System under Accession No. ML13102A142. Seismic Risk Evaluation -Longer-term seismic risk evaluation provides the most comprehensive information to make regulatory decisions, such as whether to amend a plant's design or licensing basis or make additional safety enhancements. These evaluations provide information to make risk-informed decisions. The staff will use this information in conjunction with the existing regulatory tools, such as backfit analysis, to decide on further regulatory actions. The longer-term seismic risk evaluations could be either a Seismic Margins Analysis or a Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment, depending on the magnitude of the exceedance. Limited-Scope Evaluations -These include i) Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation, ii) High Frequency Evaluation, and iii) Low Frequency Evaluation. Respectively, these evaluations are focused on the following: i) spent fuel pool components and systems capable of draining water inventory to the level of the spent fuel, ii) a review of components susceptible to high frequency accelerations (e.g. electrical relays), and iii) a review of components susceptible to low frequency accelerations (e.g. water storage tanks). Enclosure 1

-:::::i _.. _... 0 __... -I\) I\) ::r I\) 0 .._ .._ (1) ......... ...... 00 o ..... .,,.. -..J ;;><;-...... 3 !ll ...... c:.n c:.n c:.n ,,. :::::i O::!: 0 ,-... 0 :::!. 0 "O 3 (/) 3 !ll 'O ::r 'O _([) ro co ([) a. <D co o q; CJ) a. ::r a. ([) (/) -* (") C. ;;><;-(") Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the. Fukushima Dai-lchi Accident I ([) -* <D :::i :::i =.co ([) :;* :::i Seismic Risk Evaluations Screening and Prioritization Results for -Q Ql -0 _o Western United States (WUS) Reactor Sites 0 O". (5" :::i 0 ([) -g_ :::i (/) en* 5* ([) Limited-scope Evaluations. Q ([) Seismic Risk a. 5* Expedited c 3 0 Plant Name Screening Approach Evaluation High Low Spent Fuel "O 3 Result (Prioritization Frequency Frequency Pool ff 5* Evaluation !ll :::i Group) Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation ...... Ql 6' <D (/) :::i ..., :T !ll ([) Columbia Generating Station In :::::i ro x 1 x x a. Ql u;* (/) "O _ro :::i c a. £ O" 0 0 Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit ff :::i :::> In x 1 x x g, :T Nos. 1 and 2 '< ..., ([) ([) !ll ro a. < Ql 0 (/) (") _ro ;;><;-Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Conditional x 3 x x !ll Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 in O" 0 <D 0 :::i s. ([) -g_ ..... 0 (/) 3 3 (") 0 0 )> 'O c ([) :::i o* a. )> Ql :::i a. (/) (/) ([) < ([) ..., 0 :T ([) ..., (/) :E ([) ..., ([) -Enclosure 2 March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals for Western United States Reactor Sites Licensee Facility Date of letter (ADAMS Accession Nos.) Columbia Generating Station March 12, 2015 (ML 15078A243) Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 March 11, 2015 (ML 15071 A046) Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units March 1 O, 2015(ML15076A073) and 1, 2, and 3 April 10, 2015 (ML 15105A076) Enclosure 3 LIST OF APPLICABLE POWER REACTOR LICENSEES Columbia Generating Station Energy Northwest Docket No .. 50-397 License No. NPF-21 Mr. Mark E. Reddemann Chief Executive Officer Energy Northwest MD 1023 76 North Power Plant Loop P.O. Box 968 Richland, WA 99352 Diablo Canyon Power. Plant. Unit Nos .. l and 2. Pacific Gas & Electric Company Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82 Mr. Edward D. Halpin Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 56 Mail Code 104/6 Avila Beach, CA 93424 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Arizona Public Service Company Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-529, and STN 50-530 License Nos. NPF-41, NPF-51 andNPF-74 Mr. Randall K. Edington Executive Vice President Nuclear/CNO Arizona Public Service Company P.O. Box 52034, MS 7602. Phoenix, AZ 85072-2034 Enclosure 4 Sent:5 May 2015 16:04: 18 +0000 To:Hill, Brittain Cc:Jackson, Diane

Subject:

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

Subject:

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

SUBJECT:

SCREENING AND PRIORITIZATION RESULTS FOR THE WESTERN UNITED STATES SITES REGARDING INFORMATION PURSUANT TO TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 50.54(f). REGARDING SEISMIC HAZARD RE-EVALUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDATION 2.1 OF THE NEARTERM TASK FORCE REVIEW OF INSIGHTS FROM THE FUKUSHIMA ICHI ACCIDENT On March 12, 2012, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a request for information pursuant to Title 1 O of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50 (1 O CFR), Section 50.54(f). (hereafter referred. to as the 50.54. (f). letter) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML 12053A340). The purpose of that request was to gather information concerning, in part, the seismic hazards at operating reactor sites and to enable the NRC staff to determine. whether licenses. should. be. modified, suspended, or revoked. The "Required Response" section of Enclosure 1 indicated that licensees and construction permit holders should provide a Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening report within 3 years from the date of the. letter for Western United States (WUS) plants (i.e., Columbia Generating Station (Columbia), Diablo Canyon Power Plant (Diablo Canyon), and Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (Palo Verde)). Further, the 50.54(f) letter stated that NRC would provide the results of the screening and. prioritization indicating deadlines for individual plants to complete seismic risk evaluations to assess the total plant response to the re-evaluated seismic hazard. Additionally, by letter1 dated February 20, 2014, the NRC provided supplemental information on the content of the seismic re-evaluated hazard submittals including guidance on reportability and operability. The purpose of this letter is to inform WUS licensees of the. NRC's screening and prioritization and to allow licensees to appropriately plan the completion of further seismic risk evaluations described in Enclosure 1 of the 50.54(f) letter. To respond to the 50.54(f) letter, all addressees committed to. follow the Electric Power. Research Institute (EPRI) Report, "Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic,"2 as. supplemented, by the EPRI Report, "Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Recommendation 2.1: Seismic"3 (referred to as the Expedited Approach). The NRC held multiple public meetings and teleconferences with industry and the public leading to the development of the guidance documents supporting review of re-evaluated seismic hazards. 1 The February 20, 2014, supplemental information letter is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML 14030A046. 2 The SPID guidance document is found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML 12333A 170. The staff endorsement letter for the SPID guidance is found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML 12319A074. 3 The Expedited Approach guidance document is found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML 13102A 142. The WUS licensees submitted the re-evaluated seismic hazards. by letters dated on. or before. March 12, 2015 (references are provided in Enclosure 3 of this letter). The NRC staff conducted the screening and prioritization review of the submittals by assessing each licensee's screening evaluation and hazard analysis utilizing the endorsed SPID guidance. INTERIM EVALUATIONS4 The 50.54(f) letter requested that licensees provide "interim evaluations and actions taken or planned to address the higher seismic hazard relative to the design-basis, as appropriate, prior to completion of the risk evaluation." For those plants where the re-evaluated seismic hazard exceeds the seismic design-basis, licensees stated they will provide interim evaluations to demonstrate that the plant can cope with the higher re-evaluated seismic. hazard while the longer-term seismic risk evaluations are ongoing. In support of the requested interim evaluations for licensees, WUS plants provided information related to margin evaluations or insights from Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) evaluations included estimated seismic risk. Additionally,. the submittals discussed completing plant seismic walkdowns as part of NTIF Recommendation 2.3 in order to verify that the current plant configuration is consistent with the licensing basis. The NRC staff review of WUS reports found that licensees have demonstrated additional plant seismic margins supportive of continued plant operation while additional risk evaluations are conducted. The interim evaluation provided in March. 2015 is a first step in. assessing the plant's capacity to withstand the re-evaluated hazard. In the near-term, by January 2016, licensees will complete an "Expedited Approach" to evaluate and identify reinforcements, if necessary, for certain equipment to. ensure a safe shutdown pathway can withstand a higher seismic. ground motion. For Diablo Canyon and Palo Verde sites, the NRC staff is continuing to assess seismic evaluations completed by the licensees to determine if they meet the intent of the Expedited Approach review and will respond under. a seperate letter. SCREENING PROCESS As described in the 50.54(f) letter and the SPID guidance, the seismic hazard re-evaluations were to be conducted using current analysis methods and guidance. The licensees' responses to the 50.54(f) letter provided seismic hazard re-evaluation results, which were the focus of the NRC staff's initial screening and prioritization review. Although the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) is commonly referred to as a single number, this number represents a distribution of ground motions that occur over a range of spectral frequencies. This. results in a curve of. ground acceleration over. frequency. The ability of the equipment and structures in the plant to withstand the effects of ground motions is frequency specific. For the purposes of the licensees' analyses and NRC staff's review, the SPID guidance identifies three frequency ranges that are of particular interest: 1-1 O Hertz (Hz), a low frequency range of <2.5 Hz, and a high frequency range of > 1 O Hz. The different ranges have been identified due to the different types of structures and equipment that may be impacted by ground motions in that range. For example, large components generally are not affected 4 Enclosure 1 of this letter provides a Glossary of Seismic Evaluations, explaining each of the evaluations that are part of the overall seismic reevaluation.

-. 3 -. significantly by high frequencies (i.e., > 1 o Hz). The frequency range 1-1 O Hz is the focus for this portion of the. risk evaluation, as this range has the. greatest potential effect on the performance of equipment and structures important to safety. For other frequency ranges, discussed below, limited-scope evaluations will be conducted, when appropriate. In accordance with the SPID and Expedited Approach guidance, the re-evaluated seismic hazard determines if additional seismic risk evaluations are warranted for a plant (i.e., the plant screens in for further evaluation). Specifically, the re-evaluated ground motion response spectra (GMRS) in the 1-10 Hz frequency range is compared to the existing SSE:

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

• If the GMRS, in the 1-1 O Hz range, is greater than the existing SSE, then the plant will complete the Expedited Approach (including the Interim Evaluation). Most plants that meet this criterion also screen in to conduct a seismic risk evaluation and have committed to conduct high frequency. and spent fuel pool. evaluations. In addition, if the GMRS meets the low hazard threshold, which is described in the SPID, and only exceeds. the SSE below 2.5 Hz,. the licensee will perform a limited evaluation of equipment potentially susceptible to low frequency motions. Similarly, if the GMRS exceeds the SSE only above 10 Hz, then the licensee will perform an evaluation of the equipment or structures susceptible to that specific. range of ground motion. Enclosure 2 provides the staffs determination of priority for plants that screen-in to conduct a seismic risk evaluation, and identification of plants to complete limited-scope. evaluations (i.e., spent fuel pool, high frequency, or low frequency) .. CONDITIONAL SCREENING As discussed in public meetings5, the staff anticipated the possibility of not being able to complete the determination for conducting a seismic risk evaluation for some plants in the 30 to 60 day review period under certain circumstances. For example, if a licensee provided a unique submittal or deviated from the SPID guidance, additional time for the review might be needed .. In general, WUS submittals contain extensive site specific information including site specific source models and ground-motion models which could affect the final screening decisions. Accordingly, during the NRC screening and prioritization process, the staff identified that for Palo Verde additional time and interactions will be required to better understand the seismic hazard for the. plant. As. such, the staff determined that Palo Verde "conditionally screens-in" for the purposes of prioritizing and conducting additional. evaluations.. After interactions have occurred, the staff will make a final screening and prioritization determination and provide a letter to. the licensee .. If the plant remains screened-in, the final screening letter will affirm the plant priority for further evaluations and establish schedule for an Expedited Approach, if necessary. If the plant screens out, the final screening letter also will determine if the Palo ...................... 5 Discussion as part of public meetings dated December 4, 2014, February 11, 2015, and March 30, 2015 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML14342A901, ML15104A065 and ML15111A031, respectively). Verde needs to. complete limited-scope evaluations. (i.e., spent fuel pool, high frequency, or low frequency). PLANT PRIORITIZATION The NRC grouped the "screened-in" plants into three groups6, which (i) reflects the relative priority for conducting a seismic risk evaluation that compares each plant's current capabilities to the re-evaluated seismic hazard, and (ii) accounts for the appropriate allocation of limited staff and available expertise for reviewing and conducting seismic risk evaluations. During the prioritization. review, the staff considered each licensee's re-evaluated hazard submittals, plant specific seismic and risk insights, and previous design basis ground motion estimates. To prioritize the plants for completing seismic risk evaluations, staff examined certain key parameters such as (1) the maximum ratio of the new re-evaluated hazard (GMRS) to the SSE in the 1-10 Hz range; (2) the maximum ground motion in the. 1-10 Hz range; and (3) insights from previous seismic risk evaluations. As such, Group 1 plants are generally those that have the highest re-evaluated hazard relative to the original plant seismic design-basis (GMRS to SSE), as well as ground motions in. the 1-10 Hz range that are. generally higher in absolute magnitude. Based on these criteria, Columbia and Diablo Canyon are prioritized as Group 1 plants. Group 1 plants, including Columbia and Diablo Canyon are expected to conduct a seismic risk evaluation and submit it by June. 30, 2017 .. Group 3 plants have GMRS to SSE ratios that are greater than 1, but the amount of exceedance. in the 1-1 O Hz range is relatively small, and the maximum ground motion in. the 1-10 Hz range is also not high. As described above, Palo Verde has conditionally screened in; based on current information Palo Verde has been assigned to prioritization Group 3. Given the limited level. of exceedance of the Group 3 plants including. Palo Verde, staff is evaluating the need for licensees to conduct a seismic risk evaluation in order for the staff to complete its regulatory decision making. After further review, the staff will decide which Group 3 plants need to complete a risk evaluation. Risk evaluations for Group 3 plants are due by December 31, 2020. NEXT STEPS Based on the staff's screening review the licensee for Columbia should finalize and submit an Expedited Approach Report no later than January 31, 2016. The NRC staff is continuing to review the licensee provided information for Diablo Canyon and Palo Verde related to the Expedited Approach. In accordance. with. the endorsed guidance, the staff acknowledges that the January 2016 Expedited Approach submittal will focus on plant equipment (i.e. safe shutdown pathway7) evaluations and modifications, as necessary, prior to submitting the plant seismic risk evaluations. The content of limited-scope evaluations or confirmations and their associated schedule milestones remain under development with NRC staff and stakeholders. The NRC staff has 6 Central and Eastern licensees seismic hazard screening and priority reviews were completed in 2014. 7 Section 3 of the Expedited Approach guidance (ADAMS Accession No. ML 13102A142) provides a process to identify a single seismically robust success path using a subset of installed plant equipment, FLEX equipment and connection points. conducted. a number of public meetings on. the implementation details of these evaluations, including the development of alternatives approaches for conducting these evaluations The staff expects that implementing guidance should be established by summer 2015 and fall 2015 for high frequency and. spent fuel pool evaluations, respectively. It is expected. that WUS licensees can complete these evaluations in parallel with completion of SPRAs for Group 1 plants by June 2017. This letter transmits the NRC staff's results of the seismic hazard submittals for the purposes of screening and prioritizing the plants. It does not convey the staff's final determination regarding the adequacy of any plant's. calculated hazard. As such .. the NRC staff. will continue. its review of the submitted seismic hazard re-evaluations, and may request additional plant-specific information to support this review through the summer of 2015. The staff has placed a high priority on this review for the early identification of issues that might adversely affect each licensee's seismic risk evaluations. Interactions with licensees will occur as soon as practicable, including NRC staff plans to acknowledge the whether seismic hazard curves are suitability for use in SPRA development by late 2015. The NRC staff plans to issue a staff assessment on the re-evaluated seismic hazard once each review is completed in approximately 12 to 18 months .. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Nicholas DiFrancesco at 301-415-1115 or via email at Nicholas.Difrancesco@nrc.gov. Sincerely, William M. Dean, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

1. Glossary of Evaluations 2. Screening and Prioritization Results 3. List of Licensees March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic. Hazard Submittals 4. List of Licensees cc w/encls: Listserv

Ml151138344 AKock, NRO DJackson, NRO RidsNrrPMDiabloCanyon RidsNrrPMColumbla RidsNrrPaloVerde RidsOgcRp Resource RidsRgn4MailCenter Resource RidsEdoMailCenler Resource *via email OFFICE NRR/JLD/PMB/PM NRR/JLD/LA NRR/JLD/HMB/BC NRO/DSEA/RGS2/BC NRR/DORUD NAME NDiFrancesco. SLent MS hams DJackson Llund DATE 04/22/15 04/24/15 04/23/15 .. /. /15. . I. /15 OFFICE NRO/DSEA/D OGC NRR/JLD/D NRR/ D NAME SFlanders SC lark JDavis IMFranovich forl WDean DATE I /15 05/04/15 I /15 I /15 Glossary of Evaluations Associated with Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1 Seismic Hazard Re-evaluations Interim Evaluation or Actions -An immediate licensee and NRC review of the re-evaluated hazard to determine whether actions are needed to assure plant safety while further evaluations are ongoing. The staff has completed its review and concluded that, based on the licensees' interim evaluations and actions, Western United States (WUS) plants are safe for continued operations. Interim evaluations and actions are provided in Section 5.0, "Interim Actions," of the licensee submittals. Expedited Approach -A near-term licensee evaluation to be completed by January 31, 2016, for WUS plants whose re-evaluated hazard exceeds the current design-basis for the safe shutdown earthquake hazard level. The evaluation looks at the systems and components that can be used to safely shut down a plant under the conditions of a station blackout (i.e., no alternating current power is available) and loss of ultimate heat sink. The expedited approach will either confirm that a plant has sufficient margin to continue with a longer-term evaluation without any modifications, or confirm the need to enhance the seismic capacity to assure they can withstand the re-evaluated hazard. The Expedited Approach guidance document is found in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System under Accession No. ML13102A142. Seismic Risk Evaluation -Longer-term seismic risk evaluation provides the most comprehensive information to make regulatory decisions, such as whether to amend a plant's design or licensing basis or make additional safety enhancements. These evaluations provide information to make risk-informed decisions. The staff will use this information in conjunction with the existing regulatory tools, such as backfit analysis, to decide on further regulatory actions. The longer-term seismic risk evaluations could be either a Seismic Margins Analysis or a Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment, depending on the magnitude of the exceedance. Limited-Scope Evaluations -These include i) Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation, ii) High Frequency Evaluation, and iii) Low Frequency Evaluation. Respectively, these evaluations are focused on the following: i) spent fuel pool components and systems capable of draining water inventory to the level of the spent fuel, ii) a review of components susceptible to high frequency accelerations (e.g. electrical relays), and iii) a review of components susceptible to low frequency accelerations (e.g. water storage tanks). Enclosure 1 Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the. Fukushima Dai-lchi Accident Seismic Risk Evaluations Screening and Prioritization Results for Western United States (WUS) Reactor Sites Seismic Risk Limited-scope Evaluations. Screening Expedited Evaluation High Low Spent Fuel Plant Name Result Approach (Prioritization Frequency Frequency Pool Evaluation Group) Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Columbia Generating Station In x 1 x x Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit In x 1 x x Nos. 1 and 2 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Conditional 3 Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 in x x x Enclosure 2 March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals for Western United States Reactor Sites Licensee Facility Date of letter (ADAMS Accession Nos.) Columbia Generating Station March 12, 2015 (ML 15078A243) Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 March 11, 2015 (ML 15071 A046) Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units March 1 O, 2015(ML15076A073) and 1, 2, and 3 April 10, 2015 (ML 15105A076) Enclosure 3 LIST OF APPLICABLE POWER REACTOR LICENSEES Columbia Generating Station Energy Northwest Docket No .. 50-397 License No. NPF-21 Mr. Mark E. Reddemann Chief Executive Officer Energy Northwest MD 1023 76 North Power Plant Loop P.O. Box 968 Richland, WA 99352 Diablo Canyon Power. Plant. Unit Nos .. l and 2. Pacific Gas & Electric Company Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82 Mr. Edward D. Halpin Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 56 Mail Code 104/6 Avila Beach, CA 93424 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Arizona Public Service Company Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-529, and STN 50-530 License Nos. NPF-41, NPF-51 and NPF-74 Mr. Randall K. Edington Executive Vice President Nuclear/CNO Arizona Public Service Company P.O. Box 52034, MS 7602. Phoenix, AZ 85072-2034 Enclosure 4 DiFrancesco, Nicholas From:DiFrancesco, Nicholas Sent:5 May 201521:18:36 +0000 To:Jackson, Diane Cc:Hill, Brittain

Subject:

Working Version of WUS Seismic Screening Letter Attachments:Western US Screening and Prioritization letter Revl 5-5-15 5pm.docx Diane, For awareness, attached is the working version of the letter .. This. includes incorporating limited OGC comments. There was one OGG comment regarding providing additional background that I maintained for consideration and discussion. Still considering a small update to support transition to the. interim evaluations section. Thanks, Nick From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 4:15 PM To: Burnell, Scott

Subject:

Press Release on WUS Seismic Screening Letter Scott, We. briefed the DEDO, NRR, and R-IV management on the content of the. WUS Screening letter during the JLD status weekly. Mentioned that we are working towards a press release. We received no realignment on the letter or communication plan approach. View ADAMS P8 Properties ML 151138344 Open ADAMS P8 Document (Screening and Prioritization Results for the Western United States Sites Regarding Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding Seismic Hazard Re-Evaluations for Recommendation 2.1 of the. NTTF Review) Current working towards issuance on Tuesday May 12 (that can always slip with NRR/ET review) .. Happy to. support a limited accuracy review as needed .. Please let me know if there are any questions or concerns. Thanks, Nick Senior Project Manager -Seismic Reevaluation Activities U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Division nicholas.difrancesco@nrc.gov I Tel: (301) 415-1115 Communication Plan Timeline (ADAMS ML14083A619) Date Activity (responsible organization) SignitJ.cant Historic Actions Completed (2/20/14} Issued letter to all licensees Re: Operability, Reportability, Interim Evaluation and Actions (ML14030A046) Completed (5/9/14) Issued Central and Eastern US (CEUS) Seismic Screening Letter (ML14111A147) WUS Seismic Hazard Screening Review Completed (3/12/15) NRC Receipt of WUS Hazard Reports (JLD/licensees) Completed (3/30/15) NRC/NEI Seismic Public Meeting w/ Discussion of WUS Review Process Completed (4/15/15) Target for public meeting notice of April 28 Diablo Seismic Meeting (JLD-DiFrancesco) Completed 4/27/15 Public availability of NRC and licensee slides for April 28 meeting (JLD -DiFrancesco) Completed 4/28/15 Diablo Canyon Public Meeting on 2.1 Seismic (NRR/JLD, NRO/DSEA, Licensee) Completed 4/29/15 Complete WUS screening & prioritization technical review (NRO/DSEA) 5/7/2015 Distribute WUS screening & prioritization letter to R-IV, OPA, OCA, OEDO (NRR/JLD liaison team) 5/11/2015 Notice to states, congressional, licensee issuance, and NGOs of pending issuance (RSLO, OCA, JLD) 5/12/2015. Issue WUS screening & prioritization letter licensees including review of interim evaluation and actions (NRR/JLD) Issue Press Release on prioritization review (OPA) 6/4/15 Columbia Public Meeting on Methods (NRR/JLD, NRO/DSEA, Licensee) 6/9/15 Palo Verde Public Meeting on Methods (NRR/JLD, NRO/DSEA, Licensee) 6/23/15 Diablo End of Cycle Meeting and Open House (R-IV) Late.Summer Columbia End of Cycle Meeting (R-IV) Continuing Staff assessment of the reevaluated seismic hazard (NRO/DSEA, NRR/JLD) Points-of-contact: TSO DiFrancesco, Nicholas From:DiFrancesco, Nicholas Sent:20 May 2015 15:26:48 +0000 To:Rosenberg, Stacey Cc: Laur, Steven;Han-ison, Donnie;Shams, Mohamed;Jackson, Diane

Subject:

Awareness of Public Meeting Slides on SPRA Relief and Working Letter Outline Attachments:R2.l Seismic -May 21 2015 Public Meeting Rev 7.pptx, SPRA Relief Letter for Group 2 and Group 3 Sites.docx Stacey, As mentioned in the May 4 NRR/DRA brief. The staff is moving forward to provide relief to certain priority Group 2 and Group 3 sites from completing an SPRA. The May 21 public meeting. tomorrow. (Attachment 1 ). is. a step, along the way. were we consider. external. stakeholder insights. Following the May 21 public meeting we will have one additional public meeting to consider stakeholder input. NRR ET has asked us to target August 2015 (Attachment 2) for issue of the letter response to licensee. The working draft contains my initial outline. I plan seek NRR/DRA concurrence sometime this summer and communicate awareness of SPRA activities. Steve, Donnie, During an NEI call this morning the technical background about ice condensers containment failure probability. Tomorrow I expect an industry question on this topic. Please let me know if you have questions or concerns. Sincerely, Nick Senior Project Manager -Seismic Reevaluation Activities U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Division nicholas.difrancesco@nrc.gov I Tel: (301) 415-1115 U.S.NRC UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Protecting People and the Environment NTTF Recommendation 2.1 Seismic May 21, 2015. Andrea Kock, Diane Jackson, Mohamed Shams, Nick DiFrancesco Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Office of New Reactors ::::J -0 ..... 3 OJ -O" ::::J --"O OJ co CD (/) w _. I 01 _. ....._ _. 0 0 0 ---..... 0 3 )> 0 )> (/) --r _. 01 _. .i::.. 0 )> en I\) CX> --

U.S.NRC llNTTllD STATES NUCLl!AI\ IU!CllUTORY COMMISSION Proucnng People and tlu Environment Today's Agenda NRC

• Discussion of SPRA for Groups 2 and 3

• Development of Guidance fair Proposed Rulemaking Related to Mitigation Strategies

• Public Questions or Comments NEI

• Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation l)evelopment

• High Frequency Guidance Updates

• Public Questions or Comments NRC

• Key Messages I Actions SPRA -Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessmen1t 2 U.S.NRC llNlTl!D h'UCLEAI\ IU!CUl.ATORY COMMISSION Protecting People aruJ the Environment Assessment of SPRAs for Group 2 and Group 3 plants Diane ,Jackson 3 Seismic 2.1 Process Ensures Clarity, Consistency, and Risk-Informed Regulatory Decisions ------------------------------PHASE 1 INFORMATION GATHERING STAGE 1 Interact with Industry on Hazard and Risk Evaluation Guidance CEUS Licensees submit Site Response (9/2013 & 3/2014) STAGE 2 Screened-in plants complete Expedited Interim Evaluation CEUS:12/2014; WUS:1 /2016 and Risk Evaluation (Group. 1: 2017) NRC review Seismic Risk Evaluation, as needed L-----------------------------PHASE 2 DECISION-MAKING NRC makes Regulatory Decisions, as needed

• Safety Enhancements

• Backfit Analysis

• Modify Plant License 4 U.S.NRC UNITED NUCLEAR Rl!CUl..ATORY COMMISSION Pl'Otecting PeQJJle and tJu Environment R2.1 Seismic lnforn1ation Needs for Regulatory Decisions

• 50.54(f) letter gathers information to support regulatory decision to modify, revoke or suspend license

• SPRA are an important tool to identify safety enhancements and assess plant capacity

• May 9, 2014, letter that SPRAs for some Group 3 plants with limited exceedanices may not be needed to make regulatory 50.54(f) decision

• Presently the staff is evaluating 50.54(f) responses and available information to potential SPRA relief for some Group 2 and Group 3 1plants 5 U.S.NRC UmTllD STATES 1\JCLEAR IU!CUl..ATORY COMMISSION Prot"'cnng P"'opl"' an.d tlu Ettvironment Available Information Supporting Limited SPRA Relie1f

• R2.1 seismic reevaluated hazard I interim actions

• R2.3 walkdown review:s and inspections

• Gl-199, CEUS seismic hazard insights

• IPEEE seismic plant Ccipacity insights

• Expedited Approach Eivaluations 6 U.S.NRC UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Proucting Pet>ple 1uul the Environment Evaluation Approach for SPRA Relief

• Staff built on Gl-199, IF>EEE, and reevaluated hazard risk insights for its review

• Considered exceedanc:e above SSE, hazard peak, area between curves between 1 to 10 Hz, and reactor design

• Assessed if SPRA insights would likely identified plant specific enhances 7 U.S.NRC Ul'o'l'l'ED NUCLEAR RllCUl..ATORY COMMISSION A-otectmg PeQJJle an.d tlu En.viron.men.t SPRA Relief Letter. and Target Timeline

• Engagement of stakeholder planned today and as part of next R2.1 public meeting

• May -June 2015 -Sta.ff is continuing to develop inputs and decisions

• Late Summer -Letter Issuance -Documents staff decisic>n providing SPRA relief for potential some Group 2 and Group 3 plants -Limited Scope Evaluati<)ns are expected from licensees provided SPFtA relief 8 U.S.NRC UNITED NUCLEAR R£CU1..ATORY OOMJ\t!SSION Protecting Peqple and the Environment NRC Guidance Development for Proposed Rule on Mitigation of Design-Basis Events (MBDBE) Incorporating Reevaluated Seismic Hazard 9 U.S.NRC UNrt'l!D NUCLEAR lll!CUl..ATORY COMMISSION Protecnng People and the Environment Overview of Topics for Discussion

• Background on propose of MBDBE rule and guidance

• Scope of proposed rule

• Reasonable Protectiion

• Deployment and interactions

• Use of existing engineering insights 10 U.S.NRC Ul'o1TED STATES NUCLEAR R£CU1..ATORY OOM1'fiSSION Protecting People and the Environment Guidance Development

• Agency priority to support MBDBE proposed rulemaking (i.e. proposed 1 O CFR 50.155)

• Proposed rulemaking extends Mitigation Strategies to met the reevaluated hazard level

• Draft Regulatory Guide [)G-1301 under development to support issuance for public comment by early

• Guidance to address scc)pe and performance requirements

• Draft DG 1301 -No. ML 15072A 171. 11 U.S.NRC UNrt'l!D NUCLEAR RJ!CUl..ATORY COMMISSION Protecnng People and the Environment Proposed Rule Scope

• All phases of FLEX equipment, including portable and installed

• FLEX equipment must perform its intended function

• Reasonable protection of equipment and strategies against the reevaluated hazard 12 U.S.NRC UKITllD STATES NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION Protecnng People and tlu Environment Reasonable Protection -Equipment

• Equipment must ren1ain functional -Components retain or fuel -Structures allow access for deployment -Supporting equipment remains functional

• Evaluation of equiprnent for robustness at the reevaluated seis,mic hazard -Analysis, testing, earthquake_ experience, and generic test data. 13 U.S.NRC UNITED NUCLEAJ\ RJ!CUl..ATORY COMMISSION Protecnng People and the Environment Reasonable Protection -Buildings

• Reasonable protection of equipment and strategies against the reevaluated hazard -Inelastic deformatior1 is permitted so long as strategy can be implemented -Deformation limit co111mensurate with intended function 14 U.S.NRC TATES NUCLEAR RJ!CUl..ATORY OOMMlSSION Protecnng People and the Environment Deployment and Interactions

• Secure and protect, equipment and strategies from seismic interactions

• Seismically induced flooding

• Feasible deployment routes -Potential soil liquefac:tion or non-safety building failures -Confirm access throLJgh robust structures 15 U.S.NRC U1'Tl'ED 1\JCLl!AR R£CUl..ATORY COMMJSSION Pw>tecting People and the Environment Existing Engineering Framework

• IPEEE A-46, capacity cind risk insights

• R2.1 Seismic ESEP interim evaluation -capacity insights

• Seismic probabilistic assessment -capacities and risk

• Industry codes and standards (e.g. ASCE 43-05) ESEP -Expedited Seismic Ev;aluation Process ASCE -American Society of C:ivil Engineers 16 U.S.NRC UNITED STATES 1\JCLEAJ\ RECUl..ATORY OOMMISSIOl'I Protecting People and the Environment Opportunity for Public Questions. or. Comments Additional Questions? Please ask us at: JLD _ PublicResource@nrc.gov 17 U.S.NRC l!NtTBD STATES NUCLEAR R£CUl..ATORY OOMAUSSION Proucnng People and the Environment Key Messages and Next Steps 18 U.S.NRC UNITllD STATES NUCLEAR RJ!CULATORY COMMISSION Protecnng People and the Environment NTTF 2.1. Seismic Next Steps

• Discussion of dates for r1ext meeting (late June)

• Interaction on guidance *for proposed rulemaking (June -August 2015)

• Discuss and finalize SRf)A decision for Groups 2 and 3 (August 2015)

• Finalize high-frequency fevaluation implementing guidance (June/July 2015)

• Spent fuel pool evaluatic>n implementing Guidance (Summer/Fall 2015) 19 U.S.NRC UNITED STATES 1\JCLEAJ\ RECUl..ATORY OOMMISSIOl'I Protecting People and the Environment Opportunity for Public Questions. or. Comments Additional Questions? Please ask us at: JLD _ PublicResource@nrc.gov 20 U.S.NRC lMTl:O SUCLEA!l RECt.'UTOllY OOMMJSSIOl\ ProkctinK People and the Enviromnent Backup Slides 21 jinformation (pages 52-61/1000) is available from ADAMS ML 151138344. The Power Reactor Licensees and Holder of Construction Permits in Deferred Status on the Enclosed List UBJECT: SUSPENSION OF SEISMIC RISK EVALUTION INFORMATION REQUES PURSUANT TO TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATI N .54(f). REGARDING SEISMIC HAZARD RE-EVALUATIONS FO , ECOMMENDATION 2.1 OF THE NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE N I FR THE F K HI A DAI-HI A IDEN fie purpose of tfits letter is to inform enc ose lcensees tflat certain Group 2 a Group 3 sit ay suspend respondin to the seismic risk evaluation information r; uest based on a revie avajlable inf *o [This letter discussions the analysis approach of this decisions and expectations for completion of limit-scope evaluation (i.e. spent fuel pool, high-frequency, and/or low frequency evaluations).] Does not provide relief from other licensing requirements for informed technical specifications or plant licensing.] BACRGROONll On Marcfl 12, 2012, the NRC issued a request for information pursuant to Title 10 of the Cod of Federal Regulations, Part 50 (1 O CFR), Section 50.54(f) (hereafter referred to as the 50.54 etter) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System {ADAMS) Accession No L 12053A340). The purpose of that request was to gather information concerning, in part, th ismic hazards at operating reactor sites and to enable the NRC staff to determine whethe icenses should be modified, suspended, or revoked. The "Required Response" section o

• nclosure 1 indicated that licensees and ns i n rm* h Id r h r vi i mi azaro Evaluation and Screenin re . The 50.54(f) letter stated that NRC would provide the results of the screening and prioritization indicating deadlines for individual plants to complete seismic risk evaluations to assess the total plant response to the re-evaluated seismic hazard. By (five] letters NRC completed its screening and prioritization review which places 34 reactor sites into three review groups based on relative priority and resource constraints to complete seismic risk evaluations. Previously, in accordance with the SPID and Expedited Approach guidance, the re-evaluated seismic hazard determines if additional seismic risk evaluations. If the re-evaluated ground motion response spectra (GMRS), in the 1-1 O Hz range, is greater than the existing SSE, then the plant complete an Expedited Approach, screen in to conduct a seismic risk evaluation, committed to conduct high frequency, and a spent fuel pool evaluation. The seismic screening letters dated in 2014 and 2015 also discussed that relief from the request was under consideration for some Group 3 sites. Based on further review, the staff found it prudent to also review Group 2 sites .. In total the staff identified that seismic risk evaluations for approximately (12.5] sites are not required [footnote Hatch unit CLB difference] to complete regulatory decision making. [This letter discussion the rationale]. AVAILIBLE INFORMATION The NRC staff as part of. its 50.54(f) request sought information to support regulatory decisions related to the seismic reevaluated hazard for operating reactor sites. The 50.54(f) letter discusses that this information would be used in Phase 2 decisions. Although seismic risk evaluations are an important tool to. assess plant sat ety and ruggedness. Based on the. staff review of licensee hazard, risk insights, and plant design, substantial safety benefits are not expected for a number of previously screened Group 2 and Group 3 review sites. The NRC staff in coming to this decision considered, the reevaluated hazard screening reports,. Gl-199 risk insights, R2.1 hazard updates, probabilistic risk assessment guidance and standards, and 1 O CFR 50.109 backfit criteria. EVALUATION PROCESS AND ANALYSIS Enclosure 2, documents plants identified in Group 2 and Group 3 where low to moderate seismic hazard exceedance and risk insights provided sufficient safety basis to not require a seismic risk evaluation. In otherwords, the seismic hazard was. reasonable small to. not require plant specific improvements. The staff found that Calvert Cliffs, Units 1 and 2, GMRS hazard slightly exceedance. the SSE, its spectral peak was low, and previous seismic probabilistic risk assessment (SPRA) found plant risk to be very low. The staff found that Cooper, Perry, Seabrook, and Three Mile Island, Unit 1, hazard slightly exceeded the SSE, and previously risk evaluations demonstrated plant risk to be low. The staff found that Davis-Besse, Wolf Creek, Point Beach, Fermi, and LaSalle, GMRS hazard exceedance was moderately above the SSE, its spectral peak was low, and recent risk estimates. are low. The staff found that Hatch Unit 2 and Monticello, GMRS hazard exceedance was moderately above the SSE, its spectral peak was low, and recent risk estimates are moderate. I I

ML151138344 *via email OFFICE NRR/JLD/PMB/PM NAR/JLD/LA NRR/JLD/HMB/BC NRO/DSEA/RGS2/BC NRR/DOAUD NAME NDiFrancesco Slent MShams DJackson Llund DATE OFFICE NRO/DSEA/D OGG NRR/JLDID NRR/D NAME SFlanders JDavis WDean DATE RidsNrrPMSalem RidsNrrPMSeabrook RidsNrrPMSequoyah RidsNrrPMShearonHarris RidsNrrPMSummer RidsNrrPMSurry RidsNrrPMSusquehanna RidsNrrPMThreeMilelsland RidsNrrPMTurkeyPoint RidsNrrPMVogtle RidsNrrPMWaterford RidsNrrPMWattsBar1 RidsNrrPMWattsBar2 RidsNrrPMWolfCreek RidsOgcRp Resource RidsRgn 1 MailCenter Resource RidsRgn2MailCenter Resource RidsRgn3MailCenter Resource RidsRgn4MailCenter Resource RidsEdoMailCenter Resource. PUBLIC RidsNroOd RidsNrrOd RidsNsirOd. MMarkley, NRR MKhanna, NRR MShams, NRR NDiFrancesco, NRR AKock, NAO DJackson, NRO RidsNrrPMDiabloCanyon RidsNrrPMColumbia RidsNrrPaloVerde RidsOgcRp Resource RidsRgn4MailCenter Resource RidsEdoMailCenter Resource

Glossary of Evaluation ?G'Sociat Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1 Seismic Hazard Re-evaluations ntenm Evaluat on or Actions -An immediate licensee an(j NBC review of the re-evaluat azard to determine whether actions are needed to assure plant safety while further evaluation e ongoing. The staff has completed Its review and concluded that, based on the licensees nterim evaluations and actions, Western United States (WUS) plants are safe for continu operations. Interim evaluatio s and actions are rovided In Section 5.0 "Interim Actions " of th . h-A near-term licensee evaluation to be completed in December 2014 f CEUS plants and by January 31, 2016, for WUS plants whose re-evaluated hazard exceeds r.urrent design-basis for the safe shutdown earthquake hazard level. The evaluation looks a he systems and components that can be used to safely shut down a plant under the conditi fa station blackout (i.e., no alternating current power is available) and loss of ultimate hea ink. The expedited approach will either confirm that a plant has sufficient margin to contin ith a longer-term evaluation without any modifications, or confirm the need to enhance capacity to assure they can withstand the re-evaluated hazard. The Expedite guidance document is found in the A enc

• e Documents Access and Mana emen S stem under Accession No. ML13102A142 _,__,_,.,_, comprehensive information to make regulatory decisions, such as whether to amena a plant's esign or licensing basis or make additional safety enhancements. These evaluations provid nformation to make risk-informed decisions. The staff will use this infonnation in ith the existing regulatory tools, such as backfit analysis, to decide on further regulato ctions. The longer-term seismic risk evaluations could be either a Seismic Margins AnalY,sis o * *

• s e Enclosure 1 Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from. the Fukusnima Dai-lchi Acciden1 Seismic Screening UDdated Based on Review of Available lnformatio Umited-scooe Evaluation!i Plant Name *Evaluatio esu en nc al a 0 Bellefonte Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2i Ou Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. Units 1 and Du Coooer Nuclear Station Ou, Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station. Unit 1] Out EdWin I. Ratcfi Nuclear Plant. Unit 2 1 QYj I =ermi, Unit 2! Ou 1 LaSalle Countv Station. Units 1 and 2! Ou I Monticello Nuclear Generatina :ou Dvster Creek Nuclear Generatina Statiori bu' I> Palo Verde Nuclear Station Units 1. 2, and 3 Ou ) Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1J Du i>oint Beach Nuclear Plant. Units 1 and 2 Pu Seabrook, Unit 11 Pu Nuclear Plant .. Units 1 and 2 '.Ou, ' jfhree Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 11 Pu Wolf Creek Generatina Station Unit 1l Ou Enclosure 2 arch 2015 Re-evatuated Seismic Hazard and Screening Repo dwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Units 1 and Salle Coun Station, Units 1 and rch 27 2014 ML14092A413 Station Unit 1 rch 31 2014 ML14097A020 Enclosure 3 LIST OF APPLICABLE POWER REACTOR LICENSEES Enclosure 4 DiFrancesco, Nicholas From:DiFrancesco, Nicholas Sent: 13 May 2015 18:34:49 +0000 To:Witt, Kevin;Yalentin, Milton Cc: Bowman, Gregory;Shams, Mohamed

Subject:

Comment Re: SFP Commitments to Commission Attachments:20 l 3-0030comscy. pdf We need to confirm with the technical experts but, l think the only plant we need to understand better is Columbia. DC and Palo Verde general appear to be within their CLB. Might be a good item to consider as we develop the SPF evaluation implementing details. -Nick -----Original MFrom: Witt. Kevin Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 12:15 PM To: Valentin, Milton Cc: Bowman. Gregory; Difrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

Commitments to Commission Hi Milton, since we were talking about commitments this morning, 1 was just reminded of one. ln the expedited transfer paper (attached-footnote on pg 10), we committed to go back and verify that the western US Plants SFPs are bounded by this analysis when we gain sufficient information about seismic hazards. We may be able to utilize the work that JHMB is doing on the SFP seismic hazard reevaluations to close this item out. -Kevin Ol'FICIAL USE ONLY SENSI I IVE IN I ERNAL INFoRMAllON March XX, 2015 MEMORANDUM TO: Chairman Burns Commissioner Svinicki Commissioner Ostendorff Commissioner Baran FROM:

SUBJECT:

Non Responsive Michael R. Johnson Deputy Executive. Director for Reactor and Preparedness Programs Office of the Executive Director for Operations PERIODIC COMMISSION UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF TIER 1 AND TIER 2 NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTACT: Gregory Bowman, NRR/JLD (301) 415-2939

Enclosures:

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

OFFICE NRR/JLD NAME LKGibson* DATE 3/12/15 *via email NRR/JLD/JPSB:BC OEDO/TCCM DEDR GBowman*. MDudek MJohnson. 3/12/15 OFFICIAL USE ONLY SENSI I Iv E IN I ERNAL IHFORIOIM'IOl4 -2 (6) On March 12, 2015, the NRC staff received the seismic hazard reevaluation reports for the. plants in the Western United States (Columbia Generating Station; Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; and Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3). Along with their submittals, licensees whose reevaluated seismic hazard is higher than their design basis are expected to provide an interim evaluation to demonstrate that the plant can cope with the reevaluated seismic hazard while the longer-term seismic risk evaluations are ongoing. The NRC staff will review the licensee submittals and establish a prioritization schedule for the seismic risk evaluations for those plants where the reevaluated seismic hazard exceeds that in the facility's design basis. The staff will also review the licensee's interim evaluation and actions,. if applicable .. This review, which will be documented in a letter. will likely take between 30-60 days to accomplish. With the submittal of these report, seismic hazard reevaluation have been submitted for all plants. Outside of Scope 8FFl81AI:: l:ISE IHl'liRHP:b 0TIQH 8FFl81AL 8HLV SEHSl"flVE lftifEfilHAL lt4F8filMAll8H Regulator} I ' Future Milestones Tier 1 NRG to document review of Expedited Approach. for GEUS by RFI issued December 31, 2015 March 12, 2012 NRG to issue seismic Seismic Hazard Reevaluation hazard staff assessments NRG to issue review NTTF 2.1 Request for Information Licensees for Western U.S. for GEUS licensees by letters on Expedited (RFI) facilities submitted site September.30, 2015 Approach for GEUS by seismic hazard February 28, 2016 reevaluations by March 12, 2015 Licensee(s) for Western U.S. facilities to submit Expedited Approach by January 31, 2016 Non Responsive Enclosure 2 QFFIGhl:b l!ISi: 8ttl'/ 8EHSl'flV! IH'l'! .. HAL 1m*onlUIA I ION Sent:20 May 2015 19:43: 18 +0000 To:Stieve, Alice;Munson, Clifford Cc:Ake, Jon;Stephanie Devlin;Heeszel, David

Subject:

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

Provide more rational for the choice of subset of GMPEs for PVNGS. What is the reason for deviation from approach chosen by DCPP? What is the reason for not using Idriss and Zhao GMPEs for Greater Arizona sources (Table EX-2)? Section 5.5.1.1 justifies use of Zhao models for California and they are used for Diablo. In mean time Table 5.5.1-1 (p.5-46) says that Zhao tectonics and attenuation are not relevant to California/West Arizona. DCPP. and PVNGS seem to contradict each other's .. ********************************************** Section 6.2.2 is including Bindi 2014 model, but limits its use to M=7 because of magnitude scaling which is different from others (Fig. 6.2.2-1) 1.50 1 1.00 0.70 ,........, El <( 0.50 en CL 0.30 0.20 5.0 T=0.2 SS Rx=S 5.5 6.0 6.5 M 7.0 *ASK14 *AS814 *Bi14 BSSAt4 *C814 7.5 ' l . 8.0 In mean time for DCPP the use of different scaling (strong saturation) by Zhao is considered to be useful representing alternative approach. It looks like when alternative scaling results in lower GM it is acceptable to Tl team, but when it results in higher GM it is not acceptable. ******************************************************************************** Page 6-6 states: "Based on the evaluation of the candidate GMPEs for application to earthquakes in California and Mexico recorded in central Arizona given in Kishida et al. (2014), the Tl Team judged that the. NGA-West2 GMPEs are suitable for estimating path terms. for the paths from California and Mexico to central Arizona." In mean time existing publications Phillips (2013) demonstrate higher Q for Arizona (also Fig. 5.5, p.107). ************************************************************************************* Kishida et al.,. 2014 report states. (Abstract):

"The comparison showed that overall the recorded 5% damped response spectral ordinates were. over predicted by the NGA-West2 models by a range of 0-0.35 natural log units for events occurring in Central California, and by a range of 0.2-0.7 natural log units for events occurring in Southern California and the Gulf of California." This conclusion looks inconsistent with: 1. Arizona Q at least same or higher than that of California 2. Kappa same or lower than that of California This conclusion is based on comparisons with records from mostly small. magnitude events (Table 2.2, p.6) and data having extremely limited frequency range of 0.5 to 8 Hz (may be actually up to 5 Hz). Figure 2.18 (p.19) confirms that (/) 150 ---...--.---................. --.--.-...-.-......... -n--.....-........ @ 100 -------------... -... -Arizona Events \ ---NGA-West2 Events \ \ 0 ....... .1....1....:..u..u....-..1.-..1-1...i..:iu.u.i 0.1 1 10 100 Period (s) ************************************************************************************** Are there any consideration of basin effect in applying GMPEs for Arizona considering that basin effect in NGA-West2 relations depends upon the depth to Vs=1 km/s or 2.5 km/s? ******************************************************************************* Use of such a subset of data actually questions estimates of kappa. Fig. 4.17-4.37 also don't look convincing.

Sent: 10 Apr 2015 21 :24:07 +0000 To:John Stamatakos;Stirewalt, Gerry;PJaza-Toledo, Meralis;Miriam R. Juckett Cc:Ake, Jon;Hill, Brittain;Munson. Clifford;lisa. walsch@nrc.gov;Li, Yong

Subject:

RE: Monday Diablo Meeting That is very good. Thanks! From: John Stamatakos [jstam@swri.org]. Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 4:01 PM To: Graizer, Vladimir; Stirewalt, Gerry; Plaza-Toledo, Meralis; Miriam R. Juckett Cc: Ake, Jon; Hill, Brittain; Munson, Clifford; lisa.walsch@nrc.gov; Li, Yong

Subject:

Monday Diablo Meeting Vlad, For Monday, I can walk everyone through the draft summary report we have on the seismic imagining data and searchable image table. John Dr. John Stamatakos Director ofTechnical Programs Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (CNWRA) Southwest Research Institute 1801 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852 301-881-0290 jstamatakos@swri.org I Information (pages 282-283/1000) is .......... . Graizer, Vladimir From:Graizer, Vladimir Sent:28 May 2015 13:53:52 +0000 To:Jackson, Diane;Munson, Clifford Cc:John Stamatakos;Ake, Jon;Plaza-Toledo, Meralis;Giacinto, Joseph;Stovall, Scott;H111, Britlain;Li, Yong

Subject:

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

Subject:

FYI: Reminder sent to Diablo for Information Request Nick sent a reminder. Diane From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 9: 16 AM To: Philippe Soenen (Pns3@oge.com); Jahangir, Nozar Cc: Michael Richardson (mjrm@pge.com); Strickland, Jearl; Shams, Mohamed; Jackson, Diane; Vega, Frankie

Subject:

Reminder on Diablo Information Request Philippe, et, al Just a reminder that the staff is interested in the following references to support NRC review: 1) Benchmark files for SWUS-DCPP median ground motion models. 2) EST A 27 and 28 recordings of Parkfield and San Simeon earthquakes a. Time histories

b. Response spectra c. Response spectra adjusted for Vs30 3) Engineering reports describing development of velocity profiles for stations ESTA 27. and 28. 4) Paper describing WAACY Magnitude PDF by Wooddell and others. Please let me know when the references will be available. Thanks, Nick Senior Project Manager -Seismic Reevaluation Activities U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Division nicholas.difrancesco@nrc.gov I Tel: (301) 415-1115 Heeszel, David From:Heeszel, David Sent:22 May 2015 18:29:27 +0000 To:Seber, Dogan;Munson, Clifford Cc:Ake, Jon;Jackson, Diane

Subject:

Columbia GMM codes Attachments:ss_90_0_10_10_10_yeskappa.pdf, ss_90_0_10_10_10_nokappa.pdf Hi All, Attached are two files that contain some results from my Columbia GMM software. Both files are for a single fault at 8 magnitudes from 5(fault1 )-8(fault8). In this case the fault is a vertical strike-slip located with 1 Okm away that comes to the surface. The red dots are individual realizations of the SA at the branch level. The solid black curve is the. weighted mean SA, and the dashed lines are. the mean+/-sigma. For this code, we are simply using the middle branch of the normal distribution of sigma. The next step is to get a set of. scenario. earthquakes that are realistic and important to hazard. Perhaps we can discuss at the Columbia weekly meeting on Thursday. Thanks, David David Heeszel Geophysicist U.S. NRC, NRO/DSEA/RGS2 Office: T-7E28 Mail Stop: T-7F3 Phone: 301-415-5066

<( CJ) fault1 0. 001 ;--____,....--,....-r--T'"...,.....,.....,........--____,....----..-.....,--,...........,....,.-----r----..-......--.-...,....,......--0 .1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) fault2 1 ..-.. 0) ..._... <( 0.1 (j) 0.01 0. 001 0 .1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

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

..-.. 0) ..._... <( (j) 1 0.1 0.01 .. ,. / fault4 .,,.,..,. __..-*-*1*---. __ _,,____.__i i -=*-:--*-*-*-* ' . ' ' ' i t * .. " . : : ... 0. 001 -------.---.-...,.....,....,...,....,...;-----.-----..--...--.-.,.............,...;---.....----.----.-..,........,..............-1-0 .1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) fault5 1 ...-.. O> ..._.. / <( 0.1 . ... . ....... / . I / I I (j) ! . . . 0.01 I I,, 0.001 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

<( (j) fault6 ..

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

• t I 1 I I * -. .V

• I t t I I

• I I ' -*-*-* / I t t I I t t I t i * / t

• I I I t t 1 I '11 II '11 ,1: I : t ! t : I t I ti ---...;l;_--1 ...... * .... . .. , .. t I I ... ., ' .

• I ......... 0.01 0. 001 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) faults 0. 001 0 .1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

<( CJ) fault1 0.01 ---t-' I ** . i . 0. 001 ------.---.--.--.-........-'T'1--.....----r---r--l""""l""°T'"'l'-----r-' ---.* -.,........,.....,....,....,'T"'l-0 .1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

<( (j) fault2 1 -,:1------1 ...... 0 .1 .. t . . . . . . ..... : . 0.01 --+------+---1---1 i j I j 0. 001 --t-"----r---.---r"""T""'T""T..........-------r----r-............... """T""T'"T'"T--+--,_;......,.....-r""P""r'".,..+-0. 1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) fault3 10 1 . **-* -* -. -I I . . ,..-I I -* A' *-...-.. O> ..._... <( 0.1 (j) 0.01 !..-'. ----. -*-*---/ .,...,,,--------/ . . . .. ,, ./ v I *, .. ......... ...... / / /*v ..... . . . // *" I . . . I / .* ; . . . . I . / / I I I I I I / . . 0.001 ! ' 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

<( CJ) fault4 : : ' ' 0. 001 ....---.---.--.......-r-r-0 .1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

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

• I : i : i .

• I . 0. 001 ------.-----.--.--.--.-.,...,......;--......----.---r--T ............... -----,..----.-* ,.........,......,....,....,.. 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) fault6 ..-.. 0) ..._.. <( 0.1 (j) *. I .

• r ....... ..... . I I I t I I 0. 001 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

..-.. 0) ..._... <( (j) 1 ..... ..... 0.1 0.01 fault? .-*-* -**-.. . . . -* --........ . ... : . *J-*-*-*-...__ T-+--+.---r-I .. *:* . : .. ! ... ..... . t I * ' ' ' ; * * . ' I I I ' . I I ' . 0. 001 ..,........,_"T""'"T"'T""'T'"t-0 .1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) fault8 1 -.---..-.. / -O> / -*""*I ...._.. ,,.*"" / <( 0.1 / (j) / / 0.01 . . . -*-. ---.. . .... . I . I I . -... I I -......_ 1 * -. -. -. -* ....... *,.. .. . . : ....

• l * . : .... ! ..... . I . : . * *

• I * *

• I I I t * *

• t I I I .. a a a 0. 001 0 .1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

Heeszel, David From:Heeszel, David Sent:26 Mar 2015 20:17:38 +0000 To:Seber, Dogan;Munson, Clifford Cc:Graizer, Vladimir

Subject:

Columbia GMM Implementation Attachments:Columbia Ground Motion Background.pptx Attached is a brief PowerPoint detailing the implementation of the Columbia GMM. I focused primarily on Appendix 02 of the SSHAC report and so am not intimately familiar with the technical bases used to develop the GMM. Let me know if you have any questions I may be able to answer. Please forward to anyone who may have a use or need for this. --David David Heeszel Geophysicist U.S. NRC, NRO/DSEA/RGS2 Office: T-7E28 Mail Stop: T-7F3 Phone: 301-415-5066 Hanford SSHAC Ground Motion and 43N 50 100 -=-=--Kilometers 122'W t20W 118W Hanford Ground Motion Model

• Defined at 20 Periods

• Divided into two pieces -GMM for background and fault sources (crustal model) -GMM for subduction sources (subduction model)

• Independent Logic Trees

• Single Sigma Logic Tree -Different parameters for crustal and subduction earthquakes

• V530 is 760 m/s throughout Crustal Model (189 branches) Backbone GMPE CY14 (1.0) Vs-K Adjustment Factors V K-7 s (0.055) V K-6 s {0.136) V K-5 s (0.198) (0.222) V K-3 s (0.198) V K-2 s (0.055) Inherent Uncertainty in Backbone Adjustments I M)9 (0.0625) I M)8 (0.0625) I Mh (0.0625) [61n(Y) I M)6 (0.0625) [flln(Y) I M]5 (0.50) [61n(Y) I M]4 (0.0625) [61n(Y) I Mh (0.0625) I Mh {0.0625) I M]1 (0.0625) Host-to-Target Uncertainty Factors x1.3 (0.3} xl.O (0.6) x0.8 (0.1)

Backbone Model

• Modification of Chiou and Youngs, 2014

• Can be broken into "'10 subcomponents Some parameters fall out b/c not considered by this PSHA

• E.g. directivity component

• Included in software for completeness

• Necessary Inputs Frequency (f) Magnitude (m) -Rupture Distance (RRuP) Joyner-Boore Distance (RJs) Fault Dip (6) Reverse Faulting Flag (FRv) Normal Faulting Flag (FNM) (I should remove this) Depth to top of rupture (ZroR)

Subsequent Adjustment Factors

• V5-kappa factors -Table lookup

• Period Dependent Uncertainty -Required Inputs

• Hanging Wall Factor (FHw) -Depends on Rx and fault type

• Joyner-Boore Distance (RJ8)

• Dip (6)

• Rx

• Magnitude (M)

• Host-to-Target Uncertaint\l -Constant Implementation in SSC

• Crustal Earthquakes

• Same GMM used for fault sources and background sources All earthquakes are faults

• Yakima Fold and Thrust treated Discretely

• Zones treated generally -Randomly Distributed -Sometimes randomly oriented -All Boundaries are Leaky Need to consider fault type

• Sources have styles of faulting and dips associated with them -Necessary to calculate the parameters Rx and Ztor

• Fault scaling relations. become important particularly for determining ztor -Calculate width based on scaling relations and determine >> If Ztor <0 then this realization is not considered in PSHA Subduction Model (72 branches) Backbone GMPE Back-arc {1.0) ? Magnitude Scaling + 0.2 (0.2) [6C1]med (0.6) [tiCl]med -0.2 (0.2) Scaling on An elastic Attenuation Term 0.5 05 ( 0.4) 05 ( 0.6) Implemented Within GMPE Epistemic Uncertainty in Median x1 .62 (0.2) x1.0 ( 0.6) x0.62 ( 0.2) Host-to-Target Vs Adjustment Factor* Vs factor-4 (0.335) Vs factor-3 (0.165) V5 factor-2 (0.335) V5 factor-1 (0.165)

Backbone Model

• Modification of BC Hydro Model.

• Broken into "'9 subcomponents

• Necessary inputs Frequency (f) Moment Magnitude (M) Focal Depth (Zh) for Interface events Depth within slab for lntraslab events Event type flag (Fevent)

• lnterplate

• lntraslab R

• Rupture for lnterplate

• Hypocentre for lntraslab

• Site correction term means that PGA callculation must be done for hypothetical case where V530=1,000 m/s Time consuming circular loop

• Requires calculating much of logic tree for IPGA at 1000 m/s prior to calculating SA at desired frequency.

Implementation in SSC

• Reads as if interplate are (semi)finite (Rrup)

• lntraplate are point(ish) sources (Rhyp)

• Logic tree is primarily <<3 lookup exercise

• Despite simpler form --more difficult to implement due to correction factors w/in backbone Sigma (6 branches) I Distribution I Sigma Model Normal High (0.2) (0.2) Central (0.6) Mixture Model {0.8) Low (0.2)

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

• Same tree used for both crustal and subduction -Normal Model Uses Table Lookup -Mixture Model Uses CcJnditional Probability and table lookup

• Need to call integration subroutine 6 times for one realization P(z ) 1-ffi ( z -/1) > z = WMixl Potential Sirr1plifications?

• All ruptures reach a specific depth_ (Ztor=constant)?.

• Ignore hanging wall effect*!>

• Constant Dip?

• Rrup=RJs=RHYP ?=Rx? -All could be implemented t::>n SSC side

• Full GMM logic tree is coded -Decide which, if any simplifications to apply later

• Need a definitive answer 01n the level of granularity necessary -Only interested in Median SA and sigma?

• Computationally cleaner Implementation So Far

• Fortran90 -need to consicler that most of Roland's codes are in C

• Models coded as indepenclent subroutines -With dependencies (mostlv lookup)

• Sigma developed as well -With dependencies

• Simple wrapper programs have been developed for testing -Comparisons to Chapter 9 in SSHAC report look reasonable

• No digital testing files for comparison

• only output is. and sigma. -Not individual branches Heeszel, David From:Heeszel, David Sent:26 May 2015 19:46:45 +0000 To:Seber, Dogan

Subject:

Columbia GMM without host to target uncertainty. Attachments:no_htu_yeskappa.pdf, no_htu_nokappa.pdf Attached are two pdfs containing plots for the Columbia GMM without the host to target uncertainty. nokappa does not contain the Vs-kappa correction, and yeskappa does. The faulting parameters and magnitudes are the same as the plots sent last week and the size of the dots corresponds to that branches relative weight in calculating the mean. There are nine branches for the nokappa realization and 63 for the yeskappa. The results. appear to be approximately 7% lower than for the case that includes the host-to-target uncertainty correction. --David David Heeszel Geophysicist U.S. NRC, NRO/DSEA/RGS2 Office: T-7E28 Mail Stop: T-7F3 Phone: 301-415-5066

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

....-0> -<( (j) fault2 0.001 o.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

<( (/) fault3 0.001 ........... -----0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

....-0> -<( (f) fault4 0.0001 -+----------+-----------------0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

....-0> -<( (f) fault5 0.01 o.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

....-0> -<( (f) fault6 0.01 o.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

....-0> -<( (f) fault? 0.01 o.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

....-0> -<( (f) fault8 0.01 o.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) fault1 10 1 0.1 . . . * * * * * *-*-. *

• t__ -*-.-***-*.-*-*-* 0.01

• 0.001 * * * ....-O> -0.0001 <( * (/) 1e-05

• 1e-06 1e-07 1e-08 1e-09 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) fault2 1 0.1 0.01 + * * * . 0.001 + ---O> + -<( 0.0001 (/) 1e-09 0.1 1 10 1e-08 100 Frequency (Hz) fault3 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 ....-O> -0.0001 <( Cf) 1e-05 1e-06 0.1 1 Frequency (Hz) fault4 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 ....-O> -0.0001 <( (f) 1e-05 1e-06 1e-07 1e-08 1e-09 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) faults 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 ..--O> -0.0001 <( Cf) 1e-05 1e-06 1e-07 1e-08 1e-09 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) fault6 10 1 0.1 ............................. 0.01 * * * ; . 0.001 ' ....-* O> ' -0.0001 <l: (f) 1e-05 1e-06 1e-07 1e-08 1e-09 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) fault? 10 1 0.1 ***;****: ................ . 0.01 + * * * * . 0.001 * * ---O> -0.0001 <( (/) 1e-05 1e-06 1e-07 1e-08 1e-09 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) fault8 10 1 -*--*-* -* ,_ . -:* -. _;, -; 0.1 ... ... 0.01 . . . *******:****; ................. . ' . : ; . . *

• 0.001 ....-O> -0.0001 <( (/) 1e-05 1e-06 1e-07 1e-08 1e-09 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

Information (pages 332/1000) is within scope of FOIA and should be released. Heeszel, David From:Heeszel, David Sent:25 Mar 2015 20:26:34 +0000 To:Munson, Clifford Cc:Ake, Jon;Jackson, Diane

Subject:

Columbia Ground Motion Model Hi Cliff, I've finished coding up the ground motion model for the Columbia SSHAC. I. can walk you through the program in about 20 min if your interested. Cheers,. David David Heeszel Geophysicist U.S. NRC, NRO/DSEA/RGS2 Office: T-7E28 Mail Stop: T-7F3 Phone: 301-415-5066 Sent:2 Apr 2015. 12:09:41 +0000 To:Munson, Clifford;Ake, Jon; Weaver, Thomas;Seber, Dogan;Li, Yong; Walsh, Lisa;Stovall, Scott Cc:'Miriam R. Juckett' Bcc:HQ-TWFN-07 A04-15p.

Subject:

Discussion of CGS GMPEs Attachments:Columbia Ground Motion Background.pptx We will go over the Columbia GMPEs and current implementation. Call in and presentation attached Bridge line phone number: 888-711-9770 Participant passcode1(b)(6) I Heeszel, David From:Heeszel, David Sent: 1Apr2015 12: 13:54 +0000 To:Walsh, Lisa

Subject:

RE: CGS GMPE Codes Hi Lisa, I'll be going through the logic tree approach and how I have currently implemented it. I imagine. that much of the discussion will be around simplifications that we can make that will help our review be more efficient. I would skim Chapter 9 of the report and (maybe) familiarize yourself with Appendix D2 .. I haven't given the code to Cliff or Dogan yet, so I don't want to put the cart before the horse in terms of handing them around. --David From: Walsh, Lisa Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 9:58 AM To: Heeszel, David

Subject:

CGS GMPE Codes Hi David, Dogan just mentioned that you are going to present the Columbia GMPEs and implementation along with the codes you have developed for confirmatory analysis on Thursday. He forwarded me the appointment and I plan to attend, but I just thought I would check in with you. I am planning on reading through the SSHAC report over the next few days. Would I be able to look at the codes you developed from the SSHAC report before the meeting (and/or would that be useful)? Lisa Lisa S. Walsh, Ph.D. Geophysicist, U.S. NRC NRO/DSEA/RGS1 T-7F15, 301-415-5612 PGA Weighted VS-kappa I I Log(SA) Frequency SA (code) Weight SA (Branch* Uncertainty B kb code) branch Branch ac one ---100 2.60E-01 3.44E-03 8.94E-04 1 1 -5.3100 100 1.72E-01 3.44E-03 5.92E-04 1 2 -5.3100 100 1.38E-01 3.44E-03 4.75E-04 1 3 -5.3100 100 3.25E-01 3.44E-03 1.12E-03 1 4 -5.3100 100 2.12E-01 2.75E-02 5.83E-03 1 5 -5.3100 100 1.81 E-01 3.44E-03 6.23E-04 1 6 -5.3100 100 3.32E-01 3.44E-03 1.14E-03 1 7 -5.3100 100 1.35E-01 3.44E-03 4.64E-04 1 8 -5.3100 100 2.47E-01 3.44E-03 8.50E-04 1 9 -5.3100 100 1.63E-01 8.50E-03 1.39E-03 2 1 -5.3100 100 1.08E-01 8.50E-03 9.18E-04 2 I 2 -5.3100 100 8.64E-02 8.50E-03 7.34E-04 2 I 3 -5.3100 100 2.04E-01 8.50E-03 1.73E-03 2 I 4 -5.3100 100 1.33E-01 6.SOE-02 9.04E-03 2 I 5 -5.3100 100 1.13E-01 8.50E-03 9.61 E-04 2 6 -5.3100 100 2.08E-01 8.50E-03 1.77E-03 2 I 7 -5.3100 100 8.46E-02 8.50E-03 7.19E-04 2 8 -5.3100 100 1.55E-01 8.50E-03 1.32E-03 2 9 -5.3100 100 8.14E-02 1.24E-02 1.01 E-03 3 I 1 -5.3100 100 5.37E-02 1.24E-02 6.66E-04 3 2 -5.3100 100 4.30E-02 1.24E-02 5.33E-04 3 3 -5.3100 100 1.02E-01 1.24E-02 1.26E-03 3 4 -5.3100 100 6.61 E-02 9.90E-02 6.54E-03 3 5 -5.3100 100 5.65E-02 1.24E-02 7.01 E-04 3 6 -5.3100 100 1.04E-01 1.24E-02 1.29E-03 3 7 -5.3100 100 4.21 E-02 1.24E-02 5.22E-04 3 8 -5.3100 100 7.73E-02 1.24E-02 9.59E-04 3 9 -5.3100 100 4.23E-02 1.39E-02 5.88E-04 4 1 -5.3100 ----------->-..... 1-----100 2.79E-02 1.39E-02 3.88E-04 4 2 -5.3100 100 2.23E-02 1.39E-02 3.1 OE-04 4 3 -5.3100 100 5.27E-02 1.39E-02 7.33E-04 4 4 -5.3100 100 3.43E-02 1.11E-01 3.81 E-03 4 5 -5.3100 ---100 2.94E-02 1.39E-02 4.09E-04 4 6 -5.3100 100 5.39E-02 1.39E-02 7.49E-04 4 7 -5.3100 100 2.19E-02 1.39E-02 3.04E-04 4 8 -5.3100 100 4.01 E-02 1.39E-02 5.57E-04 4 9 -5.3100 -100 1.46E-03 1.24E-02 1.81 E-05 5 1 -5.3100 100 9.62E-04 1.24E-02 1.19E-05 5 2 -5.3100 100 7.71 E-04 1.24E-02 9.56E-06 5 3 -5.3100 100 1.82E-03 1.24E-02 2.26E-05 5 4 -5.3100 100 1.18E-03 9.90E-02 1.17E-04 5 5 -5.3100 100 1.01 E-03 1.24E-02 1.25E-05 5 6 -5.3100 100 1.86E-03 1.24E-02 2.31 E-05 5 7 -5.3100 100 7.55E-04 1.24E-02 9.36E-06 5 8 -5.3100 100 1.38E-03 1.24E-02 1.71 E-05 5 I 9 -5.3100 100 7.57E-07 8.50E-03 6.43E-09 6 I 1 -5.3100 100 5.00E-07 8.50E-03 4.25E-09 6 I 2 -5.3100 100 4.00E-07 8.50E-03 3.40E-09 6 3 -5.3100 Pagel 100 100 100 100 100 100 --100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 9.45E-07 6.15E-07 5.26E-07 9.65E-07 3.92E-07 7.19E-07 -1.20E-13 7.90E-14 6.33E-14 1.49E-13 9.73E-14 8.32E-14 1.53E-13 6.20E-14 1.14E-13 8.50E-03 6.80E-02 8.50E-03 8.50E-03 8.50E-03 8.50E-03 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 2.75E-02 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 Weighted Mean SA PGA 8.03E-09 6 4 -5.3100 4.18E-08 6 5 -5.3100 4.47E-09 6 6 -5.3100 8.20E-09 6 7 -5.3100 3.33E-09 6 8 -5.3100 6.11 E-09 6 9 -5.3100 --4.13E-16 7 1 -5.3100 2.72E-16 7 2 -5.3100 2.18E-16 7 3 -5.3100 5.13E-16 7 4 -5.3100 2.68E-15 7 5 -5.3100 2.86E-16 7 6 -5.3100 5.26E-16 7 7 -5.3100 2.13E-16 7 8 -5.3100 3.92E-16 7 9 -5.3100 5.21E-02 Page2 PGA VS-Kappa Backbone Backbone SA *Vs SA*VSK + Uncertainty Backbone. Correction Correction kappa Correction J:!_ncertainty --0.340 0.4630 -1.8054 -1.3424 0.340 0.0471 -1.8054 -1.7583 0.340 -0.1740 -1.8054 -1.9794 0.340 0.6840 -1.8054 -1.1214 0.340 0.2550 -1.8054 -1.5504 0.340 0.0984 -1.8054 -1.7070 0.340 0.7050 -1.8054 -1.1004 0.340 -0.1950 -1.8054 -2.0004 0.340 0.4120 -1.8054 -1.3934 0.428 0.4630 -2.2727 -1.8097 0.428 0.0471 -2.2727 -2.2256 0.428 -0.1740 -2.2727 -2.4467 0.428 0.6840 -2.2727 -1.5887 0.428 0.2550 -2.2727 -2.0177 0.428 0.0984 -2.2727 -2.1743 0.428 0.7050 -2.2727 -1.5677 0.428 -0.1950 -2.2727 -2.4677 0.428 0.4120 -2.2727 -1.8607 0.560 0.4630 -2.9736 -2.5106 0.560 0.0471 -2.9736 -2.9265 0.560 -0.1740 -2.9736 -3.1476 0.560 0.6840 -2.9736 -2.2896 0.560 0.2550 -2.9736 -2.7186 0.560 0.0984 -2.9736 -2.8752 0.560 0.7050 -2.9736 -2.2686 0.560 -0.1950 -2.9736 -3.1686 0.560 0.4120 -2.9736 -2.5616 0.683 0.4630 -3.6267 -3.1637 ----1----0.683 0.0471 -3.6267 -3.5796 0.683 -0.1740 -3.6267 -3.8007 0.683 0.6840 -3.6267 -2.9427 0.683 0.2550 -3.6267 -3.3717 --0.683 0.0984 -3.6267 -3.5283 0.683 0.7050 -3.6267 -2.9217 0.683 -0.1950 -3.6267 -3.8217 0.683 0.4120 -3.6267 -3.2147 -----*-f-1.320 0.4630 -7.0092 -6.5462 1.320 0.0471 -7.0092 -6.9621 1.320 -0.1740 -7.0092 -7.1832 1.320 0.6840 -7.0092 -6.3252 1.320 0.2550 -7.0092 -6.7542 1.320 0.0984 -7.0092 -6.9108 1.320 0.7050 -7.0092 -6.3042 1.320 -0.1950 -7.0092 -7.2042 1.320 0.4120 -7.0092 -6.5972 2.740 0.4630 -14.5494 -14.0864 2.740 0.0471 -14.5494 -14.5023 2.740 -0.1740 -14.5494 -14.7234 Page 3 SA (Branch) 2.61 E-01 1.72E-01 1.38E-01 3.26E-01 2.12E-01 1.81 E-01 3.33E-01 1.35E-01 2.48E-01 1.64E-01 1.08E-01 8.66E-02 2.04E-01 1.33E-01 1.14E-01 2.09E-01 8.48E-02 1.56E-01 8.12E-02 5.36E-02 4.30E-02 1.01 E-01 6.60E-02 5.64E-02 1.03E-01 4.21 E-02 7.72E-02 4.23E-02 ----2.79E-02 2.24E-02 5.27E-02 3.43E-02 2.94E-02 5.38E-02 2.19E-02 4.02E-02 1.44E-03 9.47E-04 7.59E-04 1.79E-03 1.17E-03 9.97E-04 1.83E-03 7.43E-04 1.36E-03 7.63E-07 5.03E-07 4.03E-07 Weighted I SA 8.99E-04 5.93E-04 4.75E-04 1.12E-03 5.83E-03 6.24E-04 1.14E-03 4.65E-04 8.54E-04 1.39E-03 9.18E-04 7.36E-04 1.74E-03 9.04E-03 9.66E-04 1.77E-03 7.21 E-04 I 1.32E-03 1.01 E-03 6.64E-04 5.33E-04 I 1.26E-03 6.53E-03 6.99E-04 1.28E-03 5.22E-04 9.57E-04 5.88E-04 -3.88E-04 I 3.11 E-04 I 7.33E-04 I 3.81 E-03 4.08E-04 ] 7.48E-04 3.04E-04 5.58E-04 -1.78E-05 1.17E-05 9.41 E-06 2.22E-05 1.15E-04 1.24E-05 2.27E-05 9.22E-06 1 1.69E-05 6.48E-09 4.28E-09 3.43E-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

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

-30.2139 t--30.2139 -30.2139 -30.2139 -30.2139 -30.2139 I I PGA -l E-07 -14.2944 6.19E-07 -14.4510 5.30E-07 -13.8444 _9.72E-07 -14.7444 3.95E-07 -14.1374 7.25E-07 -29.7509 1.20E-13 --30.1668 7.92E-14 .... -30.3879 6.35E-14 -29.5299 1.50E-13 -29.9589 9.75E-14 -30.1155 8.34E-14 -29.5089 1.53E-13 -30.4089 6.22E-14 -29.8019 1.14E-13 f.-8.09E-09 4.21E-08 4.50E-09 8.26E-09 3.36E-09 6.16E-09 4.13E-16 2.72E-16 2.18E-16 5.15E-16 2.68E-15 2.87E-16 5.26E-16 2.14E-16 3.92EOJ1j Weighted 5.21 E-02 Mean SA Page4 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 PGA 5.0000 0.0000 61 -Log(SA) Backbone -5.0000 -10.0000 +----------t-----20.0000 ------------1----25.0000 +------------*---30.0000 +-------------ii.,,.,._ -35.0000 .....__ ____________ _ l.OOE+OO l.OOE-02 l.OOE-04 1.00E-06 1.00E--08 l.OOE-10 l.OOE-12 l.OOE-14 Page5 -VS-Kappa Correction Backbone SA *Vs-kappa Correction -SA *vsK +.Backbone Uncertainty -SA (Branch) -Weighted SA (Branch)

PGA Page6 PGA Page 7 0.1 Hz Weighted VS-kappa Backbone Log(SA} VS-Kappa Frequency SA Weight SA Uncertainty (Branch} branch Branch Backbone Correction 0.1 2.80E-04 3.44E-03 9.63E-07 1 1 -1.11 E+01 8.54E-01 0.1 5.19E-05 3.44E-03 1.79E-07 1 2 -1.11E+01 8.54E-01 -------*--0.1 9.15E-05 3.44E-03 3.15E-07 1 3 -1.11 E+01 8.54E-01 0.1 1.59E-04 3.44E-03 5.47E-07 1 4 -1.11 E+01 8.54E-01 0.1 1.20E-04 2.75E-02 3.30E-06 1 5 -1.11E+01 8.54E-01 0.1 1.80E-04 3.44E-03 6.19E-07 1 6 -1.11E+01 8.54E-01 0.1 2.66E-04 3.44E-03 9.15E-07 1 7 -1.11 E+01 8.54E-01 0.1 5.47E-05 3.44E-03 1.88E-07 1 8 -1.11E+01 8.54E-01 0.1 8.06E-05 3.44E-03 2.77E-07 1 9 -1.11E+01 8.54E-01 0.1 2.47E-04 8.50E-03 2.10E-06 2 1 -1.11E+01 8.65E-01 0.1 4.58E-05 8.50E-03 3.89E-07 2 2 -1.11E+01 8.65E-01 0.1 8.08E-05 8.50E-03 6.87E-07 2 3 -1.11 E+01 8.65E-01 0.1 1.40E-04 8.50E-03 1.19E-06 2 4 -1.11 E+01 8.65E-01 0.1 1.06E-04 6.80E-02 7.21 E-06 2 5 -1.11E+01 8.65E-01 0.1 1.59E-04 8.50E-03 1.35E-06 2 6 -1.11 E+01 8.65E-01 0.1 2.35E-04 8.50E-03 2.00E-06 2 7 -1.11E+01 8.65E-01 0.1 4.83E-05 8.50E-03 4.11 E-07 2 8 -1.11E+01 8.65E-01 0.1 7.12E-05 8.50E-03 6.05E-07 2 9 -1.11 E+01 8.65E-01 0.1 2.20E-04 1.24E-02 2.73E-06 3 1 -1.11E+01 8.75E-01 0.1 4.08E-05 1.24E-02 5.06E-07 3 2 -1.11E+01 8.75E-01 -0.1 7.21 E-05 1.24E-02 8.94E-07 3 3 -1.11E+01 8.75E-01 0.1 1.25E-04 1.24E-02 1.55E-06 3 4 -1.11E+01 8.75E-01 0.1 9.49E-05 9.90E-02 9.40E-06 3 5 -1.11 E+01 8.75E-01 0.1 1.42E-04 1.24E-02 1.76E-06 3 6 -1.11E+01 8.75E-01 --1.24E-02 2.59E-o6 ----1.11E+01 8.75E-01 0.1 3 7 0.1 4.30E-05 1.24E-02 5.33E-07 3 8 -1.11E+01 8.75E-01 0.1 6.35E-05 1.24E-02 7.87E-07 3 9 -1.11E+01 8.75E-01 0.1 2.02E-04 1.39E-02 2.81 E-06 4 1 -1.11E+01 8.83E-01 --3.74E.:-05 5.20E-0-7 -----0.1 1.39E-02 4 2 -1.11E+01 8.83E-01 --0.1 6.61 E-05 1.39E-02 9.19E-07 4 3 -1.11E+01 8.83E-01 0.1 1.14E-04 1.39E-02 1.58E-06 4 4 -1.11E+01 8.83E-01 0.1 8.70E-05 1.11E-01 9.66E-06 4 5 -1.11E+01 8.83E-01 --1.39E-o2 ---0.1 1.30E-04 1.81 E-06 4 6 -1.11 E+01 8.83E-01 0.1 1.92E-04 1.39E-02 2.67E-06 4 7 -1.11E+01 8.83E-01 0.1 3.95E-05 1.39E-02 5.49E-07 4 8 -1.11 E+01 8.83E-01 -------0.1 5.82E-05 1.39E-02 8.09E-07 4 9 -1.11 E+01 8.83E-01 ------0.1 1.76E-04 1.24E-02 2.18E-06 5 1 -1.11 E+01 8.95E-01 0.1 3.27E-05 1.24E-02 4.05E-07 5 2 -1.11E+01 8.95E-01 0.1 5.76E-05 1.24E-02 7.14E-07 5 3 -1.11 E+01 8.95E-01 0.1 9.99E-05 1.24E-02 1.24E-06 5 4 -1.11 E+01 8.95E-01 0.1 7.59E-05 9.90E-02 7.51 E-06 5 5 -1.11E+01 8.95E-01 0.1 1.13E-04 1.24E-02 1.40E-06 5 6 -1.11E+01 8.95E-01 0.1 1.67E-04 1.24E-02 2.07E-06 5 7 -1.11E+01 8.95E-01 0.1 3.44E-05 1.24E-02 4.27E-07 5 8 -1.11E+01 8.95E-01 0.1 5.08E-05 1.24E-02 6.30E-07 5 9 -1.11E+01 8.95E-01 0.1 1.66E-04 8.50E-03 1.41 E-06 6 1 -1.11E+01 9.01 E-01 0.1 3.08E-05 8.50E-03 2.62E-07 6 2 -1.11 E+01 9.01 E-01 Page 8 0.1 5.43E-05 0.1 9.41 E-05 0.1 7.15E-05 0.1 1.07E-04 0.1 1.58E-04 0.1 3.24E-05 --0.1 4.79E-05 0.1 1.60E-04 0.1 2.97E-05 0.1 5.24E-05 0.1 9.07E-05 0.1 6.89E-05 0.1 1.03E-04 0.1 1.52E-04 0.1 3.13E-05 0.1 4.61 E-05 8.50E-03 8.SOE-03 6.80E-02 8.50E-03 8.SOE-03 8.SOE-03 8.SOE-03 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 2.75E-02 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 Weighted Mean SA 4.62E-07 8.00E-07 4.86E-06 9ToE-07 1.34E-06 2.75E-07 4.07E-07 5.50E-07 1.02E-07 1.80E-07 3.12E-07 1.89E-06 3.54E-07 5.23E-07 1.08E-07 1.59E-07 9.67E-05 0.1 Hz 6 3 -1.11 E+01 9.01 E-01 6 4 -1.11E+01 9.01 E-01 6 5 -1.11 E+01 9.01 E-01 6 6 -1.11 E+01 9.01 E-01 6 7 -1.11 E+01 9.01 E-01 6 8 -1.11E+01 9.01 E-01 ----9.01 E-Of 6 9 -1.11 E+01 7 1 -1.11 E+01 9.04E-01 7 2 -1.11E+01 9.04E-01 7 3 -1.11E+01 9.04E-01 7 4 -1.11 E+01 9.04E-01 7 5 -1.11E+01 9.04E-01 7 6 -1.11E+01 9.04E-01 7 7 -1.11E+01 9.04E-01 7 8 -1.11E+01 9.04E-01 7 9 -1.11 E+01 9.04E-01 Page9 0.1 Hz Backbone Backbone SA*VSK + Uncertainty SA *Vs-Backbone SA (Branch) Weighted Correction kappa Uncertainty SA (Branch) Correction 1.32E+OO -9.4794 -8.1594 2.86E-04 9.84E-07 -3.69E-01 -9.4794 -9.8484 5.28E-05 1.82E-07 1 2 2.00 -----1.99E-01 -9.4794 -9.2804 9.32E-05 3.21 E-07 3 7.49E-01 -9.4794 -8.7304 1.62E-04 5.56E-07 4 0.00 4.74E-01 -9.4794 -9.0054 1.23E-04 3.38E-06 5 8.76E-01 -9.4794 -8.6034 1.83E-04 6.31 E-07 6 -2.00 1.26E+OO -9.4794 -8.2194 2.69E-04 9.27E-07 7 -3.16E-01 -9.4794 -9.7954 5.57E-05 1.92E-07 8 -4.00 7.25E-02 -9.4794 -9.4069 8.22E-05 2.83E-07 9 1.32E+OO -9.6015 -8.2815 2.53E-04 2.15E-06 10 -6.00 -3.69E-01 -9.6015 -9.9705 4.68E-05 3.97E-07 11 1.99E-01 -9.6015 -9.4025 8.25E-05 7.01 E-07 7.49E-01 -9.6015 -8.8525 1.43E-04 1.22E-06 12 -8.00 13 4.74E-01 -9.6015 -9.1275 1.09E-04 7.39E-06 8.76E-01 -9.6015 -8.7255 1.62E-04 1.38E-06 14 15 -10.00 1.26E+OO -9.6015 -8.3415 2.38E-04 2.03E-06 16 -3.16E-01 -9.6015 -9.9175 4.93E-05 4.19E-07 17 -12.00 7.25E-02 -9.6015 -9.5290 7.27E-05 6.18E-07 1.32E+OO -9.7125 -8.3925 2.27E-04 2.81 E-06 18 l.OOE 19 -3.69E-01 -9.7125 -10.0815 4.18E-05 5.19E-07 20 1.99E-01 -9.7125 -9.5135 7.38E-05 9.16E-07 21 1.00E 7.49E-01 -9.7125 -8.9635 1.28E-04 1.59E-06 22 4.74E-01 -9.7125 -9.2385 9.72E-05 9.63E-06 23 1.00E 8.76E-01 -9.7125 -8.8365 1.45E-04 1.80E-06 24 1.26E+oo -9.7125 -8.4525 2.13E-04 2.65E-06 25 1.00E -3.16E-01 -9.7125 -10.0285 4.41 E-05 5.47E-07 26 7.25E-02 -9.7125 -9.6400 6.51 E-05 8.07E-07 27 1.00E 1.32E+OO -9.8013 -8.4813 2.07E-04 2.88E-06 28 -3.69E-01 -9.8013 -10.1703 3.83E-05 5.32E-07 1.99E-01 -9.8013 -9.6023 6.76E-05 9.39E-07 29 l.OOE 30 7.49E-01 -9.8013 -9.0523 1.17E-04 1.63E-06 4.74E-01 -9.8013 -9.3273 8.90E-05 9.87E-06 31 l.OOE 32 -9.8013 -8.9253 1.33E-04 1.85E-06 33 1.26E+OO -9.8013 -8.5413 1.95E-04 2.71E-06 34 l.OOE -3.16E-01 -9.8013 -10.1173 4.04E-05 5.61 E-07 35 ----7.25E-02 -9.8013 -9.7288 5.95E-05 8.28E-07 36 ------1.32E+OO -9.9345 -8.6145 1.81 E-04 2.25E-06 37 -3.69E-01 -9.9345 -10.3035 3.35E-05 4.16E-07 38 1.99E-01 -9.9345 -9.7355 5.91 E-05 7.33E-07 39 7.49E-01 -9.9345 -9.1855 1.03E-04 1.27E-06 40 4.74E-01 -9.9345 -9.4605 7.79E-05 7.71E-06 41 8.76E-01 -9.9345 -9.0585 1.16E-04 1.44E-06 42 1.26E+OO -9.9345 -8.6745 1.71 E-04 2.12E-06 43 -3.16E-01 -9.9345 -10.2505 3.53E-05 4.38E-07 44 7.25E-02 -9.9345 -9.8620 5.21 E-05 6.46E-07 45 1.32E+OO -10.0011 -8.6811 1.70E-04 1.44E-06 46 -3.69E-01 -10.0011 -10.3701 3.14E-05 2.67E-07 47 Page 10 1.99E-01 7.49E-01 4.74E-01 8.76E-01 1.26E+OO -3.16E-01 7.25E-02 1.32E+OO -3.69E-01 i.-_1_.9:...:..9E-O 1 7.49E-01 f--4.74E-01 8.76E-01 1.26E+OO -3.16E-01 7.25E-02 0.1 Hz -10.001 _1 __ __ 5_.5_3_E_-0_5-+--10.0011 -9.2521 9.59E-05 -10.0011 -9.5271 7.29E-05 -10.0011 -10.0011 -10.0011 -10.0011 -10.0344 -10.0344 --10.0344 --10.0344 -10.0344 -10.0344 -10.0344 -10.0344 -10.0344 -9.1251 -8.7411 -10.3171 -9.9286 -8.7144 -10.4034 -9.8354 -9.2854 -9.5604 -9.1584 -8.7744 -10.3504 -9.9619 1.09E-04 1.60E-04 3.31 E-05 4.88E-05 1.64E-04 3.03E-05 5.35E-05 9.28E-05 7.05E-05 1.05E-04 1.55E-04 3.20E-05 4.72E-05 Weighted Mean SA I Page 11 4.70E-07 8.15E-07 4.95E-06 9.26E-07 1.36E-06 2.81 E-07 4.14E-07 5.65E-07 1.04E-07 1.84E-07 3.19E-07 --1.94E-06--3.62E-07 5.32E-07 1.10E-07 1.62E-07 9.90E-05 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 21 41 61 :+oo 21 41 61 :-01 :-02 :-03 :-04 :-os :-06 :-07 0.1 Hz -Log(SA) Backbone -VS-Kappa Correction -Backbone SA *Vs-kappa Correction -SA*VSK +Backbone Uncertainty -SA (Branch) -Weighted SA (Branch) Page 12 Sheet3 0.1 2.80E-04 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 1 0.1 5.19E-05 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 2 0.1 9.15E-05 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 3 0.1 1.59E-04 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 4 0.1 1.20E-04 2.75E-02 0.649E+OO 5 0.1 1.80E-04 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 6 0.1 2.66E-04 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 7 0.1 5.47E-05 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 8 0.1 8.06E-05 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 1 9 0.1 2.47E-04 8.SOE-03 0.649E+OO 2 1 0.1 4.58E-05 8.SOE-03 0.649E+OO 2 2 0.1 8.08E-05 8.SOE-03 0.649E+OO 2 3 0.1 1.40E-04 8.SOE-03 0.649E+OO 2 4 0.1 1.06E-04 6.80E-02 0.649E+OO 2 5 0.1 1.59E-04 8.SOE-03 0.649E+OO 2 6 0.1 2.35E-04 8.50E-03 0.649E+OO 2 7 0.1 4.83E-05 8.50E-03 0.649E+OO 2 8 0.1 7.12E-05 8.SOE-03 0.649E+OO 2 9 0.1 2.20E-04 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 3 1 0.1 4.08E-05 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 3 2 0.1 7.21 E-05 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 3 3 0.1 1.25E-04 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 3 4 0.1 9.49E-05 9.90E-02 0.649E+OO 3 5 0.1 1.42E-04 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 3 6 0.1 2.09E-04 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 3 7 0.1 4.30E-05 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 3 8 0.1 6.35E-05 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 3 9 0.1 2.02E-04 1.39E-02 0.649E+OO 4 1 0.1 3.74E-05 1.39E-02 0.649E+OO 4 2 0.1 6.61 E-05 1.39E-02 0.649E+OO 4 3 0.1 1.14E-04 1.39E-02 0.649E+OO 4 4 0.1 8.70E-05 1.11 E-01 0.649E+OO 4 5 0.1 1.30E-04 1.39E-02 0.649E+OO 4 6 0.1 1.92E-04 1.39E-02 0.649E+OO 4 7 0.1 3.95E-05 1.39E-02 0.649E+OO 4 8 0.1 5.82E-05 1.39E-02 0.649E+OO 4 9 0.1 1.76E-04 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 5 1 0.1 3.27E-05 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 5 2 0.1 5.76E-05 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 5 3 0.1 9.99E-05 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 5 4 0.1 7.59E-05 9.90E-02 0.649E+OO 5 5 0.1 1.13E-04 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 5 6 0.1 1.67E-04 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 5 7 0.1 3.44E-05 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 5 8 0.1 5.08E-05 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 5 9 0.1 1.66E-04 8.SOE-03 0.649E+OO 6 1 0.1 3.08E-05 8.SOE-03 0.649E+OO 6 2 0.1 5.43E-05 8.SOE-03 0.649E+OO 6 3 0.1 9.41 E-05 8.50E-03 0.649E+OO 6 4 0.1 7.1 SE-05 6.80E-02 0.649E+OO 6 5 0.1 1.07E-04 8.50E-03 0.649E+OO 6 6 Page 13 Sheet3 0.1 1.58E-04 8.50E-03 0.649E+OO 6 7 0.1 3.24E-05 8.SOE-03 0.649E+OO 6 8 0.1 4.79E-05 8.SOE-03 0.649E+OO 6 9 0.1 1.60E-04 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 7 1 0.1 2.97E-05 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 7 2 0.1 5.24E-05 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 7 3 0.1 9.07E-05 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 7 4 0.1 6.89E-05 2. 75E-02 0.649E+OO 7 5 0.1 1.03E-04 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 7 6 0.1 1.52E-04 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 7 7 0.1 3.13E-05 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 7 8 0.1 4.61 E-05 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 7 9 Page 14 Sheet3 1 2-0.111E+02 0.854E+OO 0.132E+01 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.854E+OO -0.369E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.854E+OO 0.199E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.854E+OO 0.749E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.854E+OO 0.474E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.854E+OO 0.876E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.854E+OO 0.126E+01 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.854E+OO -0.316E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.854E+OO 0.725E-01 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.865E+OO 0.132E+01 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.865E+OO -0.369E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.865E+OO 0.199E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.865E+OO 0.749E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.865E+OO 0.474E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.865E+OO 0.876E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.865E+OO 0.126E+01 1 2-0.111E+02 0.865E+OO -0.316E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.865E+OO 0.725E-01 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.875E+OO 0.132E+01 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.875E+OO -0.369E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.875E+OO 0.199E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.875E+OO 0.749E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.875E+OO 0.474E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.875E+OO 0.876E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.875E+OO 0.126E+01 1 2-0.111E+02 0.875E+OO -0.316E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.875E+OO 0.725E-01 1 2-0.111E+02 0.883E+OO 0.132E+01 1 2-0.111E+02 0.883E+OO -0.369E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.883E+OO 0.199E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.883E+OO 0.749E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.883E+OO 0.474E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.883E+OO 0.876E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.883E+OO 0.126E+01 1 2-0.111E+02 0.883E+OO -0.316E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.883E+OO 0.725E-01 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.895E+OO 0.132E+01 1 2-0.111E+02 0.895E+OO -0.369E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.895E+OO 0.199E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.895E+OO 0.749E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.895E+OO 0.474E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.895E+OO 0.876E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.895E+OO 0.126E+01 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.895E+OO -0.316E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.895E+OO 0.725E-01 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.901E+OO 0.132E+01 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.901E+OO -0.369E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.901E+OO 0.199E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.901E+OO 0.749E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.901E+OO 0.474E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.901E+OO 0.876E+OO Page 15 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.901 E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.901 E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.901 E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.904E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.904E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.904E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.904E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.904E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.904E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.904E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.904E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.904E+OO Sheet3 0.126E+01 -0.316E+OO 0.725E-01 0.132E+01 -0.369E+OO 0.199E+OO 0.749E+OO 0.474E+OO 0.876E+OO 0.126E+01 -0.316E+OO 0.725E-01 Page 16 Heeszel, David From:Heeszel, David Sent:8 May 2015 15: 16:30 +0000 To:Weaver, Thomas

Subject:

RE: Columbia GMPEs and CMS Sure. From: Weaver, Thomas Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015.11:11 AM To:. Heeszel,. David

Subject:

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

Subject:

RE: Columbia GMPEs and CMS Hi Thomas, Sure. My schedule is pretty open, but I plan to be out on Friday. Perhaps before or after one of the WUS site meetings? --David From: Weaver, Thomas Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 11:01 AM To: Heeszel, David

Subject:

Columbia GMPEs and CMS Hi David, If. possible, I would like to work with you on developing some conditional mean spectra that we can use for Columbia Generating Station site response analyses. Let me know if you have some time next week when you are available to discuss. Regards, Thomas Heeszel, David From:Heeszel, David Sent:! May 2015 14:44:11 +0000 To:Seber, Dogan

Subject:

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

Subject:

Columbia GMPEs Hi. David, I need to make some comparisons of the Columbia GMPE models. against some of the NGA-West 2 models. Is your Columbia GMPE code, you mentioned a while back, ready to be used by others? I need to make simple comparisons such as g vs distance given M. Please let me. know if I can use. your code. for this. purpose. Thanks! Dogan Seber, PhD Senior Geophysicist Geosciences and Geotechnical Engineering Branch 1 Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis Office of New Reactors U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-0212 Heeszel, David From:Heeszel, David Sent: 1Apr2015 12:08:07 +0000 To:Walsh, Lisa

Subject:

RE: Discussion of CGS GMPEs Thanks, that was on my list for this morning. --David From: Walsh, Lisa Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 5:54 PM To: Heeszel, David; Munson, Clifford; Ake, Jon; Weaver, Thomas; Seber, Dogan; Li, Yong; jstam@swri.org

Subject:

RE: Discussion of CGS GMPEs Bridge line phone 711-9770 Participant <<Message: FW: Conference Details {APR 02, 2015--11:00 AM ET--Conf# 3279869) >> -----Original Appointment---From:. Heeszel,. David. Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 9:40 AM To: Heeszel, David; Walsh, Lisa; Munson, Clifford; Ake, Jon; Weaver, Thomas; Seber, Dogan; Li, Yong; jstam@swri.org

Subject:

FW: Discussion of CGS GMPEs When: Thursday, April 02, 2015 11:00 AM-12:00 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). Where: HQ-TWFN-07 A04-15p -----Original From:. Heeszel,. David . Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 9:11 AM To: Heeszel, David; Munson, Clifford; Ake, Jon; Weaver, Thomas; Seber, Dogan; Li, Yong

Subject:

Discussion of CGS GMPEs When: Thursday, April 02, 2015 11:00 AM-12:00 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). Where: HQ-TWFN-07 A04-1 Sp We will go over the Columbia GMPEs and current implementation.

Heeszel, David From:Heeszel, David Sent:2 Apr 2015 14:55:33 +0000 To: Devlin-Gill, Stephanie;Stieve, Alice;Munson, Clifford;Ake, Jon; Hill, Brittain Cc:Miriam R.Juckett(mjuckett@swri.org);John Stamatakos

Subject:

Palo Verde Catalog Attachments:PVNGS_independent_evenL_catalog.xlsx Attached is an excel version of the Palo Verde Catalog (Appendix E of the report). Events highlighted in gray can be linked to a specific fault. The other columns should be relatively self explanatory. --David David Heeszel Geophysicist U.S. NRC,. NRO/DSEA/RGS2 Office: T-7E28 Mail.Stop: T-7F3 Phone: 301-415-5066 Year Month Day Hour Min. Sec. lat. long. Depth 1852 11 29 20 0 0 32.5 -115 9.9 1856 9 21 7 30 0 33.1 -116.7 9.9 1870 3 11 10 20 0 34.55 -112.47 0 1870 8 12 0 0 0 34.55 -112.47 0 1871 2 7 15 8 2 34.1 -112.44 0 1872 5 3 1 0 0 33 -115 9.9 1875 1 21 19 45 0 33.65 -114.S 0 1875 11 2 9 0 0 32.38 -114.6 0 1875 11 15 22 30 0 32.5 -115.5 9.9 1880 12 19 23 35 0 34 -117 9.9 1885 9 13 12 34 0 33.3 -116.9 9.9 1887 5 30 14 0 0 31.71 -110.07 0 1887 11 11 0 0 0 32 -110.58 0 1888 7 25 0 0 0 31.71 -110.07 0 1888 11 25 0 0 0 32.22 -110.97 0 1889 2 7 5 20 0 34.1 -116.7 9.9 1890 2 9 12 6 0 33.4 -116.3 9.9 1891 4 26 20 0 0 35.18 -114.52 0 1891 7 30 14 10 0 32 -115 9.9 1892 2 2 0 30 0 35.19 -111.65 0 1892 2 24 7 20 0 32.55 -115.63 9.9 1893 6 5 6 40 0 31.71 -110.07 0 1894 10 23 23 3 0 32.8 -116.8 9.9 1899 9 20 0 0 0 35.19 -114.06 0 1899 10 6 23 30 0 31.71 -110.07 0 1899 12 25 12 25 0 33.8 -117 9.9 1903 1 24 5 0 0 31.5 -115 9.9 1906 1 25 13 32 30 35.540 -111.870 0 1906 4 19 0 30 0 32.9 -115.S 9.9 1910 4 11 7 57 0 33.5 -116.5 9.9 1910 9 24 4 5 0 35.690 -111.670 0 1912 8 18 21 12 0 35.320 -111.710 0 1913 12 6 0 15 0 35.25 -112.17 0 1915 6 23 3 59 0 32.8 -115.S 9.9 1915 6 27 8 30 0 33.4 -111.8 0 1915 11 21 0 13 0 32 -115 9.9 1916 3 30 5 20 0 31.34 -110.94 0 1916 9 30 2 11 0 33.2 -116.1 9.9 1917 5 28 6 6 0 32.8 -115.3 9.9 1918 4 20 8 45 0 35.19 -111.65 0 1918 4 21 22 32 0 33.8 -117 9.9 1918 5 1 4 32 0 32.6 -115.4 9.9 1919 5 23 11 5 0 35.19 -111.65 0 1919 10 1 19 30 0 32.6 -115 9.9 1920 1 1 2 35 0 33.2 -116.7 9.9 1921 4 6 21 7 0 34.9 -110.16 0 1921 9 8 19 24 0 32.4 -115.S 9.9 1922 6 16 21 1 0 32.7 -114.7 0 1922 6 17 23 42 0 33.38 -110.86 0 1923 9 28 0 0 0 35.19 -111.65 0 1923 9 30 18 27 0 34.2 -111.5 0 1923 11 7 23 57 0 32.5 -115.5 9.9 1926 4 3 20 8 0 34 -116 9.9 1927 1 1 8 16 0 32.5 -115.5 9.9 1927 2 11 3 40 0 31.54 -110.75 0 1928 10 2 19 1 0 33.6 -116.7 9.9 1929 9 26 20 0 22.7 34.83 -116.52 9.9 1930 1 16 0 24 0 34.2 -116.9 9.9 1930 2 26 2 30 0 33 -115.S 9.9 1930 7 16 19 0 0 34.2 -112.5 0 1931 4 17 12 38 0 34.53 -110.05 0 1931 7 28 8 35 0 34.7 -112 0 1932 3 23 0 20 6.5 35.795 -115.932 6 1932 5 20 20 22 49.84 34.995 -115.841 6 1932 6 27 10 7 21.22 31.53 -116.091 6 1933 11 27 0 0 0 34.42 -112.91 0 1933 11 28 20 10 55.89 35.697 -116.072 6 1934 1 11 7 15 0 31.91 -109.82 0 1934 3 12 0 0 0 35.1 -110.9 0 1934 4 13 10 55 11.69 35.123 -116.233 6 1934 5 14 13 14 0 31 -114.5 0 1934 11 25 8 18 29.19 31.501 -116.074 6 1934 12 25 12 20 0 36.95 -112.5 0 1934 12 31 18 45 43.92 32.18 -115.175 6 1935 1 1 1 12 43.43 31 -114 6 1935 1 1 8 50 0 36.05 -112.14 0 1935 1 2 7 30 0 32.67 -114.14 0 1935 1 9 0 58 44.08 33.486 -115.167 6 1935 10 24 14 48 7.51 34.106 -116.699 6 1935 11 4 3 55 54.71 33.507 -116.667 6 1935 12 5 21 25 0 36.95 -112.5 0 1935 12 20 7 45 31.86 32.811 -115.296 6 1936 1 12 0 0 0 36.05 -112.14 0 1936 1 30 17 13 53.26 32.842 -114.82 6 1936 2 25 6 30 0 35.19 -114.06 0 1936 9 9 2 48 6.89 34.889 -116.049 6 1936 10 13 20 39 54.87 35.374 -115.772 6 1937 2 27 1 29 17.57 31.78 *116.599 6 1937 3 25 16 49 2.18 33.4 -116.25 6 1937 4 8 12 0 0 35.71 -109.54 0 1937 7 20 22 49 0 35.33 -112.88 0 1937 7 21 23 55 0 33.46 -112.07 0 1937 11 12 1 38 58.31 35.913 -115.274 6 1937 12 4 0 54 47.73 35.5 -113 6 1937 12 17 23 30 0 35.19 -111.65 0 1938 6 6 2 42 41.93 32.273 -115.191 6 1938 7 21 15 34 23.02 34.616 -115.938 6 1938 7 24 3 5 0.41 33.45 -115.065 6 1938 8 18 7 39 44.47 34.818 -116.047 6 1938 9 17 17 20 18 33.2 -108.6 0 1938 9 18 23 30 0 32.72 -109.1 0 1938 9 18 23 45 0 32.27 -109.23 0 1938 9 24 18 0 0 32.62 -109.97 0 1938 9 29 23 32 0 33.05 -109.3 0 1938 12 28 22 7 12 33.05 -109.3 0 1939 3 9 13 30 0 36.1 -112.1 0 1939 3 22 19 16 33.16 34.641 -115.671 6 1939 5 4 20 44 0 35.97 -114.82 9.9 1939 6 4 1 19 12 32.75 -109.1 0 1939 6 4 5 0 0 33.05 -109.3 0 1940 5 5 9 38 27.41 35.456 -115.29 6 1940 5 18 5 3 59.66 34.089 -116.282 6 1940 5 19 4 36 40.5 32.844 -115.381 6 1940 5 19 18 6 0 32.67 -114.14 0 1940 6 4 10 35 8.12 32.966 -116.315 6 1940 6 4 23 33 0.33 33.096 -114.7 6 1940 7 7 18 42 55.8 31.454 -115.133 6 1940 10 16 13 25 0 35.19 -111.65 0 1940 12 7 22 16 27 31.667 -115.083 9.9 1940 12 7 22 17 0 31.069 -114.853 6 1941 3 21 0 0 0 35.9 -114.6 0 1941 5 21 16 25 0 35.9 -114.6 0 1941 9 3 21 25 0 36 -114.7 0 1942 1 8 2 42 0 35.19 -111.65 0 1942 3 3 1 3 25.85 34.001 -115.847 6 1942 3 31 0 29 30.33 35.545 -115.891 6 1942 5 23 15 47 33.78 32.995 -116.25 6 1942 9 9 5 15 0 36 -114.7 0 1942 11 9 20 34 25.57 34.858 -116.092 6 1943 7 1 16 19 16.01 35.807 -115.955 6 1943 8 18 0 30 15.14 35.781 -116 6 1943 8 29 3 45 14.31 34.268 -116.968 6 1943 12 21 9 0 0 35.19 -111.65 0 1943 12 22 15 50 28.6 34.37 -115.819 6 1944 1 31 4 24 58 36.9 -112.5 0 1944 6 12 11 16 35.81 34.002 -116.699 6 1944 9 30 0 54 8.88 36.106 *114.701 6 1944 10 28 4 1 35.77 31.163 -115.739 6 1945 1 7 22 25 32 36.5 -111.8 0 1945 3 20 21 55 7 34.25 -116.167 9.9 1945 3 31 18 50 45 31 -114 0 1945 4 22 9 45 48 31.5 -114 9.9 1945 4 22 22 14 0.12 32 -114.5 6 1945 5 11 23 32 55.69 30.884 -115.897 6 1945 5 12 7 33 0 31.6 -115.6 9.9 1945 8 15 17 56 18.39 33.082 -115.631 6 1946 6 4 12 5 26.66 33.986 -115.704 6 1946 7 18 14 27 57.99 34.502 -115.915 6 1946 9 28 7 19 10.42 33.935 -116.867 12.8 1946 11 26 22 49 0 36.1 -114 0 1947 4 6 8 10 54.29 31.5 -115 6 1947 4 10 15 58 5.11 34.983 -116.531 6 1947 4 10 17 29 27 34.967 -115.55 6 1947 5 14 21 45 31.77 34.75 -114.5 6 1947 6 21 8 9 37 32 -115.5 9.9 1947 7 24 22 10 46.82 33.994 -116.481 6 1947 10 27 4 15 40 35.75 -111.48 0 1948 1 24 2 57 0 36.1 -111.5 0 1948 8 8 23 20 0 36.8 -112.l 0 1948 12 3 18 45 0 35.03 -110.7 0 1948 12 4 23 43 16.41 33.983 -116.331 6 1949 3 3 5 59 34 31 -113 0 1949 5 2 11 25 46.9 34 -115.696 6 1949 5 3 21 10 19.9 34.566 -115.447 6 1949 6 26 1 35 24 32.1 -113.9 0 1949 11 4 20 42 38.77 32.127 -116.75 6 1950 1 17 0 53 0 35.71 -109.54 0 1950 2 2 10 37 24 32 -113 0 1950 2 3 15 51 50.28 30.5 -114.5 6 1950 7 29 14 36 31.93 33.088 -115.664 6 1950 9 5 19 19 56.77 33.726 -116.697 6.4 1951 1 24 7 16 52.62 32.622 -115.119 6 1951 2 15 10 48 0.22 33.482 -116.601 3.4 1951 3 5 23 0 0 36.95 -112.5 0 1951 4 12 6 20 10 32 -113 0 1952 2 8 8 59 5.5 36 -114.7 0 1952 5 24 4 15 12.84 36.156 -114.461 6 1952 5 25 13 6 36 36 -115 6 1952 10 22 19 46 36 32 -113.S 0 1953 5 18 7 3 1.57 36.022 -113.784 6 1953 6 14 4 17 26.7 32.892 -115.504 6 1953 6 14 4 30 1.76 33.567 -115.251 6 1953 10 8 20 19 46 34.66 -111.01 0 1953 10 10 18 49 6 31.8 -116.1 9.9 1954 2 1 4 31 48.85 32195 -114.352 6 1954 2 1 13 5 10.16 31.719 *114.011 6 1954 3 19 9 54 27.83 33.298 -116.081 6 1954 5 31 8 6 24 31.6 -115.2 9.9 1955 1 28 12 10 18.08 33.748 -115.327 6 1955 4 25 10 43 7.42 32.466 -114.989 6 1955 12 17 6 7 27.9 32.955 -115.472 6 1956 1 3 14 24 1 32.383 -116 9.9 1956 1 9 12 56 59.66 35.624 -115.865 6 1956 2 9 14 32 41.91 31.832 -116.231 6 1956 2 15 1 20 35.27 31.149 -115.485 6 1956 3 16 20 29 33.73 34.289 -116.775 2.7 1957 4 25 21 57 36.9 33.119 -115.681 6 1957 7 5 0 58 0 32 -114 9.9 1957 9 22 16 3 47.97 33.884 -114.92 6 1958 3 15 8 34 4 32.5 -113.5 9.9 1958 6 12 22 1 4.46 34.816 -116.025 6 1958 8 18 6 0 52 30.5 -114 0 1958 9 18 6 3 0 31.4 -109.85 0 1958 12 1 3 21 17.62 32.216 -115.754 6 1959 2 11 14 1 0 35.19 -111.65 0 1959 6 14 6 13 37.14 31.335 -116.093 6 1959 7 21 12 39 0 36.8 -112.37 0 1959 10 13 8 15 0 35.5 -111.5 0 1960 1 23 3 11 43.76 35.419 -116.288 6 1960 6 3 21 38 0.06 31.5 -114 6 1961 2 9 17 50 44.41 31.579 -115.478 6 1961 9 12 19 18 49.21 32.742 -115.57 6 1962 2 15 7 12 42.9 36.9 -112.4 26 1962 3 7 19 57 37.5 32.29 -109.77 0 1962 5 9 16 39 6.1 32.06 -110.32 0 1962 5 27 1 45 40.74 32.258 -115.769 6 1962 8 6 13 59 58.72 34.613 -115.753 6 1962 8 10 2 29 55.83 35.007 -115.649 6 1962 8 20 10 43 13.7 31 -114 6 1962 10 29 2 42 53.71 34.349 -116.866 6 1963 1 27 3 0 38.98 31.564 -115.834 6 1963 3 25 9 28 43.94 35.962 -114.861 6 1963 5 10 23 49 50.5 35.04 -113.82 0 1963 5 19 22 55 21.7 35.46 -114.21 0 1963 6 11 15 23 41.67 31.973 -116.252 6 1963 6 20 14 59 42.6 30.2 -114.1 14 1963 6 29 3 3 50 34.81 -114.54 0 1963 9 11 11 59 41 33.2 -110.7 33 1963 9 23 14 41 52.79 33.704 -116.938 10.7 1963 10 20 13 29 32.64 31.685 -115.387 6 1963 11 2 8 47 43 32.4 -113.7 14 1963 11 18 14 38 28.9 29.9 -113.6 14 1963 11 23 10 53 18.4 30.4 -113.5 14 1964 1 17 17 8 24.4 31 -114 6 1964 2 3 8 43 36 31.5 -114.2 9.9 1964 4 16 4 16 26.7 30.5 -114.4 33 1964 4 16 4 56 47 31.8 -113.7 9.9 1964 4 16 6 45 43.9 32.5 -113.2 33 1964 8 21 19 41 37.5 30.6 -113.8 15 1964 8 22 3 3 20.7 31.5 -114.3 15 1964 9 6 18 51 18.6 34.2 -114 15 1964 9 23 18 9 36.16 36.135 -114.657 6 1964 12 20 21 56 6.2 35.959 -114.655 6 1965 1 9 20 37 11.83 32.037 -114.549 6 1965 2 16 12 24 35.9 30.7 -113.2 33 1965 3 13 8 46 56.8 32.2 -111.4 0 1965 5 3 3 30 48.81 36.483 -114.382 6 1965 5 15 6 25 1.5 35.9 -114.8 5 1965 6 7 14 28 1.3 36.1 -112.2 15 1965 6 17 22 58 20.9 31.7 -113.3 10 1965 7 1 2 43 1.4 30.9 -113.7 33 1965 7 9 1 26 54.6 30.6 -113.5 33 1965 9 13 8 47 6.5 31 -114.4 33 1965 9 23 10 35 58.7 30.4 -113.7 33 1965 9 25 17 43 43.33 34.714 -116.432 6 1965 10 14 17 47 35.3 31 -113 33 1965 10 17 9 45 18.78 33.99 -116.761 13 1965 11 26 13 57 2.6 31.8 -112.7 33 1966 1 11 10 25 12.2 31.1 -114.3 33 1966 1 22 12 16 35.1 36.57 -111.99 0 1966 2 24 8 24 53.47 31.919 -114.619 6 1966 3 29 22 56 17.15 33.728 -115.363 6 1966 3 31 0 56 39.3 29.9 -111.8 33 1966 4 3 19 44 38 30.7 -113.7 33 1966 4 13 9 36 15.3 36.7 -112.9 0 1966 4 28 0 42 57.4 35.6 -113 20 1966 5 2 14 59 13.1 36.4 -112.5 0 1966 5 3 5 28 11.1 31.5 -113.8 33 1966 5 26 20 33 22.69 31.544 -115.72 6 1966 6 14 10 45 17.1 36.4 -113.3 0 1966 6 17 20 12 23.9 36.6 -113.5 0 1966 6 24 22 59 56.2 31.5 -114.1 33 1966 7 23 22 55 59.11 35.47 -114.595 6 1966 8 7 17 36 26.7 31.8 -114.S 9.9 1966 8 10 13 24 51.1 30.8 -114.5 33 1966 8 10 17 45 37.97 30.328 -114.561 6 1966 8 16 4 43 21.4 30.1 -113.7 11 1966 9 28 12 so 26.7 30.4 -113.9 33 1966 10 1 19 23 11 30 -114.2 32 1966 10 3 16 3 50.9 35.8 -111.6 34 1966 10 30 22 20 6.8 30.8 -113.S 30 1966 11 5 5 18 14.89 31.573 -115.615 6 1966 11 9 14 11 30.66 36.092 -115.065 6 1966 12 1 9 20 40.9 36.2 *113.9 26 1966 12 8 7 23 5.1 30.6 -114.2 14 1967 3 2 6 29 24.4 34.475 -110.964 14 1967 3 10 13 5 17.9 30.333 -114.486 33 1967 3 28 3 48 59.1 35.45 -111.73 5 1967 4 1 15 39 49.9 30.781 -114.03 33 1967 4 26 7 18 22.5 31.14 -114.547 33 1967 5 1 19 48 7.1 34.457 -112.864 26 1967 5 4 22 34 48.5 30.416 -114.403 33 1967 5 21 14 42 34.06 33.552 -116.632 8.4 1967 5 21 18 0 5.1 34.29 -110.57 11 1967 5 26 7 48 43 36.42 -111.56 11 1967 6 14 23 11 53.3 35.28 -112.24 28 1967 8 7 16 40 32.1 36.4 -112.6 0 1967 9 4 23 27 44.7 36.2 -111.7 0 1967 9 21 0 1 52.74 31.301 -115.826 6 1967 10 13 1 19 3.5 30.4 -113.7 33 1967 11 1 16 55 43.3 30.7 -113.4 33 1967 12 5 11 9 37.4 30.8 -114.1 33 1967 12 5 13 15 31.8 30.2 -114.2 33 1967 12 5 18 12 13.9 31.1 -113.S 33 1968 4 9 2 28 58.39 33.18 -116.103 10 1968 6 20 19 28 51 31.285 -113.529 33 1968 9 3 13 51 36.8 30.847 -113.57 33 1968 12 1 19 16 32.9 31.108 -113.083 33 1969 1 23 23 1 0.44 33.892 -116.049 6 1969 2 2 19 3 38.3 31.588 -113.451 33 1969 2 10 2 57 35.7 30.818 -112.691 33 1969 2 10 6 58 39.7 29.899 -112.95 33 1969 2 10 20 41 30.5 30.291 -112.669 33 1969 3 9 2 53 19.9 30.866 -114.22 33 1969 3 9 3 21 58.3 31.731 -113.89 33 1969 3 21 3 7 31.9 31.3 -114.7 9.9 1969 3 22 7 25 35.6 31.4 -114.1 9.9 1969 5 27 16 17 39.37 35.337 -116.046 6 1969 6 10 3 41 31.5 31.436 -116.301 6 1969 7 31 22 36 2.32 34.467 -114.974 6 1969 9 10 1 7 24.2 31.031 -113.632 33 1969 9 10 2 42 1.5 30.431 -113.843 33 1969 12 25 12 49 10.1 33.4 -110.6 15 1970 1 19 7 16 21 31.497 -115.974 10 1970 4 25 8 25 50.1 36.019 -114.734 5 1970 4 28 7 0 36.22 32.175 -114.676 6 1970 8 6 20 2 24.3 33.199 -115.033 7.6 1970 8 19 2 55 23.31 32.015 -114.525 6 1970 9 3 23 8 28.95 34.642 -115.817 6 1970 9 25 21 24 21.77 34.737 -115.93 6 1970 10 4 7 21 18.4 29.965 -113.887 33 1970 10 4 17 39 45.4 30.629 -113.645 33 1970 10 12 20 5 34.5 30.072 *113.384 33 1970 11 24 16 47 56 36.357 -112.273 6 1970 12 3 3 47 24.6 35.874 -111.906 5 1970 12 14 19 14 19.15 34.33 -115.706 6 1970 12 18 9 18 33.4 35.99 -114.771 7 1970 12 28 1 13 8.01 33.813 -115.228 6 1971 5 1 3 11 19.9 36.518 -113.375 5 1971 5 6 22 32 36.4 36.45 -114.467 5 1971 5 23 21 31 51.6 35.02 -113.89 0 1971 9 30 22 46 10.87 32.983 -115.804 6 1971 11 4 2 18 58.7 35.2 -112.2 5 1971 11 30 4 21 57.3 31.233 -115.393 8 1971 12 15 12 58 14.5 36.791 -111.824 5 1972 2 20 6 8 17.9 29.895 -113.532 33 1972 4 20 13 28 16.3 35.31 -111.64 5 1972 8 2 13 6 15.6 31.539 -114.425 33 1972 8 3 22 36 2.94 31.818 -114.586 6 1972 9 4 6 8 19.5 30.908 -113.186 33 1972 9 4 23 55 56 30.353 -113.277 33 1972 10 28 13 22 37.89 31.763 -114.508 6 1973 4 19 16 59 42.7 34.3 -112.62 0 1973 7 23 20 37 46.1 30.751 -113.468 33 1973 7 24 1 46 5.8 31.124 -113.33 33 1973 10 10 17 20 19.2 30.203 -113.287 33 1973 10 16 14 53 52.4 31.6 -115.833 8 1973 11 20 19 1 4.44 33.959 -115.495 8 1973 12 26 6 18 16.6 36.081 -114.639 5 1974 3 14 20 59 57.2 34.24 -112.7 0 1974 3 23 17 36 47 30.346 -113.833 33 1974 5 8 19 27 35.72 31.768 -114.562 6 1974 6 4 21 58 41.86 34.597 -112.901 6 1974 6 11 4 55 6.51 35.783 -115.645 6 1974 6 30 8 44 29.76 30.619 -114.451 6 1974 9 5 21 41 5.84 31.789 -114.031 6 1974 9 5 22 3 22.46 31.654 -114.629 1.51 1974 10 4 18 59 58.4 34.54 -113.02 17 1974 10 16 23 49 39.3 31.499 -114.468 8 1974 11 16 7 38 59.43 30.588 -113.814 6 1974 11 16 7 39 9.32 31.163 -114.364 8 1974 11 22 16 25 49.6 31.18 -115.241 33 1974 12 24 5 47 20.7 33.9 -111.9 4 1975 1 23 17 2 30.14 32.964 -115.508 13.9 1975 3 26 4 30 54.7 36.1 -115.7 11 1975 4 9 6 54 26.1 34.596 -113.135 6 1975 4 13 19 8 48.06 35.401 -116.438 13 1975 4 28 0 17 49.7 31.998 -114.792 10 1975 4 28 2 37 58.09 31.632 -114.268 6 1975 4 29 17 35 32.72 35.598 -116.297 6 1975 5 5 16 56 49.76 31.505 -114.622 6 1975 6 1 1 38 48.74 34.521 *116.481 9.9 1975 7 17 18 24 46.1 31.883 -115.807 10 1975 8 1 11 42 12.6 33.65 -116.75 5 1975 9 8 22 25 23.4 32.55 -114.33 0 1975 11 5 12 23 15.5 34.538 -115.808 5.2 1975 11 15 7 43 48.3 34.3 -116.33 5 1975 12 3 10 12 22.8 32.83 -108.663 27 1976 2 4 0 4 58 34.66 -112.5 10 1976 2 28 20 53 58.5 35.91 -111.79 5 1976 7 19 20 7 39 30.748 -113.502 33 1976 7 30 23 18 49.64 33.492 -113.245 6 1976 8 9 21 43 2.9 35.54 -111.68 5 1976 10 4 14 48 39 36.026 -114.735 5 1976 10 19 5 39 5.2 30.277 -112.96 33 1976 10 21 14 58 18 30.592 -113.204 33 1976 11 4 10 41 37.87 33.124 -115.61 11 1976 11 10 16 36 9.71 33.871 -113.702 3 1976 12 4 23 18 58.2 33.457 -114.478 6 1976 12 7 12 59 56.3 31.983 -114.783 8 1976 12 15 17 50 20.4 29.947 -113.364 33 1976 12 23 21 5 22.55 34.573 -114.372 0 1977 1 10 21 51 59.29 32.77 -114.711 6 1977 2 26 9 44 0.32 31.238 -113.899 6 1977 2 26 23 25 37.19 31.209 -114.212 6 1977 3 17 19 11 11.93 35.212 -112.925 0 1977 3 24 6 24 14.63 34.689 -115.717 0 1977 4 27 21 48 17.79 34.684 -113.724 3 1977 4 29 18 59 35.67 34.877 -113.067 6 1977 5 25 22 36 32.12 32.253 -112.643 8 1977 6 1 19 12 9.76 35.051 -113.52 0 1977 6 14 19 3 39.11 34.859 -113.01 0 1977 7 13 22 10 51.12 34.682 -112.934 0 1977 7 19 18 47 1.84 36.076 -114.463 6 1977 7 20 4 7 55.98 36.61 -114.635 6 1977 8 6 3 16 39.67 30.269 -113.603 6 1977 9 2 12 40 56.15 36.551 -113.779 0 1977 9 2 18 51 41.65 34.793 -113.479 0 1977 9 12 19 2 9.34 34.819 -113.138 0 1977 10 4 14 51 32.69 31.183 -114.097 6 1977 10 4 17 7 55.39 31.365 -114.413 6 1977 10 13 22 28 19.81 32.277 -112.522 0 1977 10 30 5 30 13.3 32.88 -115.5 4 1977 11 10 14 30 0 33.01 -113.35 0 1977 12 23 11 0 4.33 35.366 -113.978 0 1978 1 10 17 37 14.47 34.932 -113.186 0 1978 1 23 22 37 10.42 34.919 -113.336 0 1978 1 25 19 5 38.24 34.951 -113.055 0 1978 2 6 22 39 5.48 33.048 -113.946 21.2 1978 2 14 18 49 28.37 32147 -112.553 6 1978 2 14 20 49 23.03 34.304 *112.876 0 1978 2 17 10 13 43.24 35.834 -115.787 6 1978 3 14 23 43 11.52 32.011 -112.756 6 1978 3 29 21 56 49.44 34.602 -113.303 0 1978 4 4 2 14 10.2 30.275 -113.403 33 1978 4 5 18 42 17.23 32.136 -112.624 0 1978 5 5 21 3 15.8 32.211 -115.303 6 1978 7 10 21 40 17.6 30.704 -114.002 15 1978 7 17 14 46 13.14 35.538 -116.271 13.3 1978 9 23 14 28 41.09 36.431 -115.156 6 1978 10 21 3 19 1.96 31.341 -113.874 6 1978 11 17 23 28 12.52 31.972 -112.615 6 1978 11 29 14 37 40.3 30.177 -113.956 15 1978 12 10 13 35 8.48 36.102 -114.407 6 1979 1 6 22 32 13.39 35.439 -114.524 6 1979 1 22 18 7 1.45 34 -113 0 1979 3 15 20 50 33.46 34.805 -113.302 0 1979 3 15 21 7 16.53 34.327 -116.445 2.5 1979 4 7 16 20 17.27 32.202 -112.346 6 1979 4 15 2 59 56.21 31.393 -114.408 6 1979 6 24 22 26 19.93 31.805 -112.523 6 1979 7 3 3 52 48.29 32 -114.589 6 1979 7 3 10 48 6.38 31.472 -114.681 6 1979 8 9 9 3 10.21 32.105 -114.698 6 1979 8 31 7 51 38.21 32.3 -114.605 10 1979 10 7 7 45 3.37 32.096 -114.677 6 1979 10 15 23 16 53.44 32.614 -115.318 12.3 1979 10 21 19 46 58.18 32.019 -114.596 15 1979 11 14 21 9 9.79 31.348 -112.589 6 1979 11 21 16 50 5.08 36.907 -112.852 7 1980 1 8 1 21 24.36 32.237 -114.391 6 1980 2 13 16 58 50.13 31.127 -113.79 10 1980 2 22 13 12 41.3 31 -113 6 1980 2 25 10 47 38.41 33.475 -116.5 19.4 1980 3 18 11 29 47.81 31 -112.714 6 1980 3 18 12 25 35.3 30.169 -113.966 15 1980 3 18 12 50 27.1 30 -113 6 1980 3 28 22 11 50.07 36.379 -114.161 6 1980 4 29 18 25 10.11 36.927 -113.491 7 1980 5 15 9 14 12 31.23 -113.769 15 1980 6 1 8 40 27.5 35.391 -111.986 5 1980 6 10 22 40 25.04 32.296 -112.439 6 1980 7 14 11 46 12.6 36.5 -112.33 13 1980 7 27 4 21 32.64 31.048 -113.428 6 1980 8 7 12 38 46.34 35.514 -113.623 6 1980 8 29 8 57 55.2 30.211 -113.212 15 1980 9 1 11 34 55.7 31.176 -113.194 15 1980 9 18 8 55 34 31.299 -113.893 6 1980 10 29 14 53 35.5 29951 -114.072 15 1980 10 30 16 37 48.28 32.295 *112.463 6 1980 11 8 6 4 42.4 31.039 -113.686 15 1980 11 9 7 29 2.6 30.431 -113.789 15 1980 12 11 17 54 6.86 34.719 -113.403 6 1981 1 12 8 59 13.2 35.658 -113.469 5 1981 2 15 21 16 46.64 30.644 -113.937 6 1981 3 13 0 9 6.6 35.948 -114.799 2 1981 3 18 11 45 43.37 30.762 -113.81 6 1981 4 6 18 21 37.38 34.555 -113.1 0 1981 4 9 22 58 49.91 31.648 -112.714 6 1981 5 7 1 38 17.8 32.202 -108.898 5 1981 8 28 6 44 36.29 31.968 -113.587 6 1981 10 29 19 31 1.16 31.688 -113.254 10 1981 11 16 4 32 48.97 36.961 -112.527 0.85 1981 12 20 3 6 21.59 30.937 -113.914 10 1982 1 3 4 2 17.92 33.053 -114.826 6 1982 6 9 2 21 12.44 34.377 -115.732 2.8 1982 6 15 23 49 21.16 33.555 -116.667 11.6 1982 7 31 6 42 19.31 35.47 -116.298 6 1982 10 21 15 17 15.05 31.407 -114.374 6 1982 10 22 19 2 47.94 33.385 -114.523 6 1982 11 1 23 14 21.8 36.033 -114.375 5 1982 11 4 23 3 37.16 36.133 -115.072 6 1982 11 19 20 57 34.67 36.027 -112.006 5 1982 11 27 23 38 18.41 35.943 -114.317 6 1982 12 7 9 43 49.61 36.023 -114.826 5 1983 1 1 22 29 30.68 32.686 -114.06 6 1983 2 12 4 4 8.42 34 -114 6 1983 2 23 11 10 20.87 35.973 -114.711 5 1983 4 9 0 45 26.03 36.394 -114.758 6 1983 4 17 6 3 30.93 30.39 -114.048 10 1983 5 17 21 55 58.9 35 -114.5 0 1983 6 10 1 22 31.96 36.179 -114.071 6 1983 6 18 11 9 34.05 31.575 -114.74 0.5 1983 7 14 18 59 22.82 34.62 -113.15 0 1983 7 19 18 43 23.02 31.3 -114.559 6 1983 7 23 12 48 7.3 30.856 -113.814 10 1983 8 31 8 10 8.74 36.135 -112.037 5 1983 11 3 18 26 23.56 36.483 -114.56 5 1983 12 3 21 1 10.61 32.322 -113.782 6 1984 2 11 19 30 1 35.93 -115.81 6 1984 3 7 3 32 36.68 34.569 -115.917 6 1984 4 3 14 34 32.52 36.132 -114.804 6 1984 4 22 9 49 56.38 31.787 -114.007 6 1984 4 22 10 41 10.95 35.488 -116.295 6 1984 5 5 21 56 47.3 36.1 -115.69 6 1984 6 20 13 37 18.31 36.049 -114.801 6 1984 6 30 3 30 2.59 30.074 -114.123 10 1984 7 5 1 12 28.45 31.52 -114.39 6 1984 7 7 18 14 59.06 32.462 *114.008 6 1984 7 18 14 29 31.82 36.216 -111.844 5 1984 9 5 12 37 5.03 31.078 -113.746 10 1984 9 6 20 34 25.49 30.614 -113.966 10 1984 9 22 17 59 55.04 32.435 -113.978 0 1984 12 4 20 53 8.62 36.042 -115.089 6 1985 1 21 4 18 15.98 35.917 -115.753 6 1985 1 29 5 37 54 35.3 -111.4 0 1985 1 30 13 47 16.42 34.75 -112.137 5 1985 3 30 18 34 57.57 32.466 -113.878 6 1985 5 8 23 40 21.75 31.942 -115.873 18.4 1985 7 6 10 34 44.2 31.108 -114.277 6 1985 7 6 11 11 31.85 32.288 -114.714 6 1985 7 16 17 57 50.9 34.54 -116.84 9.9 1985 7 23 20 16 44.91 36.01 -114.638 6 1985 8 7 21 28 44.28 35.491 -116.271 6 1985 10 4 8 3 44.97 35.898 -115.173 6 1985 10 11 0 16 26.48 35.657 -116.224 6 1985 11 16 12 6 48.31 36.088 -114.653 5 1986 1 19 19 35 0.1 32.55 -114.1 0 1986 3 24 17 29 57.34 32.446 -113.893 6 1986 4 27 16 14 29.1 30.518 -113.885 10 1986 7 8 9 20 44.35 34.007 -116.607 10.8 1986 8 6 5 31 7.9 36.8 -112.345 0.06 1986 8 22 14 43 58.55 36.245 -114.359 13.05 1987 1 26 12 44 27.72 35.854 -115.031 5 1987 2 7 3 45 14.5 32.373 -115.307 10.3 1987 2 25 13 52 27.2 31.45 -114.72 6 1987 3 15 19 25 38.66 31.355 -113.006 5 1987 4 15 7 16 10.8 34.64 -111.21 10 1987 6 21 9 44 7.2 30.88 -113.88 6 1987 9 9 4 20 10.3 31.48 -114.31 6 1987 9 20 0 0 0 36.17 -113.16 0 1987 9 20 11 24 33.02 34.853 -113.732 5 1987 10 1 20 20 8.1 36.423 -114.656 29.07 1987 11 16 5 52 43.36 30.049 -114.405 10 1987 11 17 23 44 24.91 30.641 -114.559 12 1987 11 24 13 15 56.29 33.014 -115.834 5.5 1988 1 25 13 17 12.31 31.834 -115.865 6 1988 2 12 5 23 56.47 30.105 -113.896 10 1988 2 14 7 39 49 35.59 -111.63 13 1988 2 23 0 48 25.3 35.912 -114.947 5 1988 4 20 9 59 1.01 30.538 -114.139 8 1988 4 28 6 16 7.85 35.585 -116.288 6 1988 5 4 18 53 33.54 35.974 -114.995 0 1988 5 22 19 22 45.77 36.925 -112.995 0.31 1988 5 28 10 51 13.97 35.933 -114.896 5 1988 7 4 10 56 54.54 35.918 -114.916 5 1988 7 15 0 38 9.59 36.374 -110.448 5 1988 9 7 1 17 40 36.01 *112.14 12 1988 9 10 20 59 3.86 34.249 -115.705 6 1988 12 16 5 53 4.77 33.986 -116.683 8.7 1988 12 29 18 18 57.4 36.896 -112.952 1.37 1988 12 30 19 55 55.09 35.983 -114.8 5 1989 1 9 5 8 8.46 36.3 -115.1 7 1989 2 1 0 32 40.37 35.775 -115.419 6 1989 2 4 12 26 58.08 36.788 -112.954 0.89 1989 2 5 21 51 12.79 32.494 -114.626 1 1989 2 7 1 48 12.03 32.167 -114.534 6 1989 3 5 0 40 30.84 35.952 -112.257 5 1989 3 12 6 30 19.49 36.976 -112.907 3.96 1989 4 6 16 10 4.09 36.046 -114.661 5 1989 4 18 10 45 47.66 34.669 -110.925 5 1989 6 21 19 42 23.38 30.959 -114.126 11.86 1989 6 22 21 6 1.84 30.395 -114.262 10 1989 7 17 20 10 22.25 34.038 -110.946 5 1989 8 2 20 59 9.39 35.627 -116.265 6 1989 8 24 22 44 10.92 35.62 -115.644 6 1989 9 6 12 36 55 34.87 -110.99 20 1989 9 6 18 26 52 36.03 -112.37 10 1989 9 19 9 46 0.79 36.663 -112.407 5 1989 9 21 9 33 58.95 33.57 -114.458 6 1989 10 29 9 8 30 35.886 -114.862 5 1989 11 12 0 14 39.69 30.871 -114.015 10 1989 11 28 18 37 32 36.1 -112.2 10 1990 1 13 5 47 33.52 30.222 -114.44 10 1990 1 27 6 28 52.07 30.121 -113.73 10 1990 6 14 23 28 48.92 31.566 -114.483 5.74 1990 7 23 6 51 11.47 30.248 -114.458 10 1990 8 14 15 7 2.76 32.07 -113.124 5 1990 10 14 6 17 2.8 30.618 -114.51 8 1990 10 17 11 48 23.5 36.53 -111.13 3 1990 11 11 12 32 16.83 30.768 -114.52 3 1991 2 18 12 51 21.78 30.973 -113.258 10 1991 2 20 0 56 55.72 29.874 -113.592 10 1991 4 26 13 8 20.64 36.627 -112.345 10 1991 4 29 13 4 37.35 32.088 -114.664 6 1991 7 4 7 51 22.5 30.151 -113.598 10 1991 7 4 11 20 30.56 30.446 -113.857 10 1991 8 22 15 7 13.55 30.777 -114.722 5 1991 8 22 16 41 1 36 -112.13 2 1991 9 10 4 21 4.31 30.46 -114.367 7 1991 11 13 21 37 27.03 34.644 -112.36 5 1991 12 3 17 54 35.81 31.703 -115.91 5 1991 12 25 8 44 14.93 30.551 -114.184 11.77 1991 12 25 20 30 7.88 31.288 -114.039 15.93 1992 1 23 7 55 28.79 35.625 -116.277 6 1992 2 17 5 43 40.54 30.808 -113.314 6 1992 2 24 17 15 20.79 35.953 *112.221 5 1992 3 6 16 19 0.88 36.553 -114.883 6 1992 3 13 11 20 2.87 35.516 -113.584 6 1992 3 14 5 13 31.64 35.96 -112.355 5 1992 3 15 0 17 47.16 30.82 -114.677 8 1992 4 6 11 25 1.93 31.062 -114.009 6 1992 4 7 0 39 9.19 35.447 -113.226 5 1992 5 6 1 41 1.27 36.346 -112.043 5 1992 5 20 21 46 5.2 36.02 -112.17 9 1992 5 26 6 0 15.2 31.691 -114.272 6 1992 5 26 6 24 23.95 30.207 -114.294 6 1992 5 27 10 56 54.31 30.837 -114.657 8 1992 6 28 11 57 33.98 34.203 *116.431 2.8 1992 7 5 18 17 29.97 35.982 -112.219 5 1992 7 13 9 56 13.16 35.345 -114.654 18 1992 8 28 10 14 44.51 36.057 -114.938 3.87 1992 8 30 1 17 45.02 30.144 *114.195 10 1992 9 20 4 44 24.5 30.607 -114.377 8 1992 10 18 4 52 47.01 30.801 -114.661 7.77 1992 12 4 18 15 54.73 36.444 -114.021 5 1992 12 7 9 4 53.49 30.586 -114.216 15.99 1992 12 10 19 15 42.64 31.875 -114.718 8 1992 12 20 3 12 56.79 30.902 -114.208 1.63 1993 1 21 20 42 53.89 36.384 -114.97 6 1993 2 4 6 18 18.06 35.964 -112.225 5 1993 2 4 11 4 25.21 36.08 -115.045 10.23 1993 3 7 8 53 27.95 31.164 -114.242 10 1993 3 19 21 1 46.28 36.398 -114.828 0 1993 4 1 18 34 13.87 36.383 -114.704 13.16 1993 4 15 1 24 58.96 31.376 -114.297 17.28 1993 4 29 8 21 0.81 35.611 -112.112 10 1993 5 2 11 5 1.57 30.485 -114.043 3.03 1993 5 12 7 23 56.11 36.203 -113 5 1993 5 12 7 24 4.1 36.203 -114.013 5 1993 6 13 12 9 33.48 31.482 -114.411 20.03 1993 6 27 13 20 9.5 36.73 -113.03 10 1993 7 8 2 5 20.94 30.25 -114.174 8 1993 7 9 11 25 6.99 31.387 -114.36 15.83 1993 7 12 3 37 47.2 36.75 -113.01 10 1993 7 18 11 37 35.4 34.77 -111.04 10 1993 8 16 14 9 49.68 30.718 -112.858 6 1993 8 16 14 10 7.12 31.352 -114.332 14.86 1993 9 5 13 36 9.59 30.261 -114.729 10 1993 9 8 1 1 44.07 35.951 -115.711 6 1993 10 18 11 54 54.7 36.74 -113 10 1993 11 3 12 14 27.31 35.925 -115.72 6 1993 11 25 2 46 35.31 35.833 -115.781 0 1994 2 3 12 47 17.13 31.793 -114.68 14.38 1994 2 20 15 42 56.71 30.576 *114.053 8 1994 2 25 19 16 10.78 31.458 -114.385 15.57 1994 3 23 2 59 16.17 31.806 -116.128 22.5 1994 3 25 6 41 49.2 36.14 *112.2 10 1994 4 1 17 17 33.86 34.936 *112.707 5 1994 4 24 8 41 33.7 36.71 -113.04 10 1994 5 19 6 0 43.86 30.45 *114.017 8.39 1994 6 17 13 43 10.12 30.658 -114.542 1.35 1994 7 4 7 2 15.05 31.655 -113.48 10 1994 7 17 23 41 37.41 30.573 -114.349 3.82 1994 7 21 13 51 23.74 30.174 -114.524 20.15 1994 8 8 21 17 8.37 30.511 -114.373 35.09 1994 9 4 16 43 22.35 30.195 -114.556 30.72 1994 9 19 3 53 8.76 31.519 -114.438 36.7 1994 9 29 11 21 24.58 35.464 -111.992 5 1994 10 3 14 0 48.63 32.066 -114.948 10 1994 10 29 22 27 52.19 36.081 -114.119 5 1994 11 25 8 17 26.41 31.497 -114.421 15.89 1994 11 27 11 10 53.46 36.332 -113.597 5 1994 12 13 18 42 59.73 30.593 -113.878 31.77 1994 12 23 4 9 58.41 30.209 -114.638 10.59 1995 1 1 14 59 43.41 36.047 -114.827 4.42 1995 1 11 4 51 27.06 32.43 -115.23 12 1995 2 6 14 28 21.2 35.07 -111.63 10 1995 3 7 21 56 14.9 36.78 -113.01 10 1995 3 7 22 33 19.36 36.602 -113.418 5 1995 3 21 9 43 21.12 30.404 -114.145 13.83 1995 3 26 14 32 6.41 31.265 -114.351 35.21 1995 4 16 8 23 45.7 36.05 -112.16 10 1995 5 7 11 3 32.85 33.911 -116.285 10.5 1995 6 12 18 51 58.66 32.085 -114.61 19.66 1995 6 17 19 42 56.93 31.454 -114.337 14.47 1995 6 20 16 21 16.09 36.391 -114.525 0 1995 8 2 18 24 27.32 30.513 -113.818 13.2 1995 8 2 18 26 58.46 30.912 -114.23 8 1995 8 2 18 32 11.7 30.318 -114.214 32.87 1995 9 22 2 42 55.8 36.137 -114.16 2.56 1995 10 26 4 4 37.03 30.593 -113.854 8 1995 11 1 18 54 37.58 31.029 -113.903 11.72 1995 12 6 3 27 31.89 31.515 -114.388 15.57 1995 12 27 22 25 13.26 36.196 -114.48 5 1996 1 2 1 44 48.86 30.767 -114.414 10.47 1996 1 31 22 59 56.24 35.919 -114.679 5 1996 2 8 22 58 26.72 30.883 -114.187 3 1996 2 15 22 41 37.87 36.793 -113.973 0.14 1996 3 13 5 43 53.25 36.917 -112.423 1.13 1996 3 15 9 17 33.71 30.811 -114.197 2 1996 3 31 22 43 13.68 32.034 -113.032 6 1996 4 26 4 4 1.1 36.54 -112.37 10 1996 5 1 23 10 54.32 31.286 -114.406 10 1996 5 1 23 13 3.46 30.98 -114.277 13 1996 6 6 2 30 36.97 30.207 -114.598 9 1996 6 14 19 23 0.48 32.051 -114.709 6 1996 9 12 21 19 13.74 36.833 -113.763 7.31 1996 10 8 4 13 19.26 31.018 -113.097 4 1996 10 22 4 15 12.33 36.17 -115.166 6.52 1996 11 17 2 37 53.82 35.746 -115.75 0 1997 1 22 1 5 54.4 36.76 -113.03 3 1997 2 2 2 26 0.01 30.251 -114.316 10.79 1997 2 5 8 23 5.58 30.435 -114.654 10 1997 2 5 10 21 36.95 30.596 -114.326 10 1997 2 9 16 15 24.9 34.77 -111.06 10 1997 3 31 7 34 48.91 35.534 -111.993 5 1997 4 22 0 44 29.13 30.419 -113.989 13.01 1997 4 29 20 4 49.94 30.118 -114.276 15 1997 5 28 4 26 20.1 36.73 -113.05 10 1997 6 8 14 29 59.7 36.09 -112.28 10 1997 6 19 11 21 49.53 31.246 -115.491 6 1997 7 3 0 24 0.48 36.078 -114.772 0 1997 7 9 19 29 19.6 36.79 -112.98 10 1997 7 10 10 34 42.1 36.44 -112.42 10 1997 7 19 9 59 22.9 34.52 -112.86 10 1997 7 19 11 43 57.7 36.082 -114.622 5.88 1997 7 26 3 14 55.75 33.402 -116.348 11.6 1997 7 31 7 30 1.2 36.7 -113.01 10 1997 8 26 6 52 20 36.2 -111.88 10 1997 10 15 11 7 49.6 36.74 -112.98 10 1997 12 20 2 5 52.2 36.341 -115.253 8.93 1998 1 5 5 23 48.5 35.54 -112.07 10 1998 1 6 8 36 46.63 34.916 -110.495 5 1998 1 16 8 35 30.6 36.5 -112.4 10 1998 2 3 6 26 31.64 30.868 -114.09 8 1998 2 18 14 29 32.65 31.854 -115.771 6 1998 2 22 10 15 9.4 36.49 -112.38 10 1998 2 24 11 31 48.78 31.235 -115.601 12 1998 4 8 12 2 57.16 30.372 -114.483 9.52 1998 4 13 14 31 11.5 34.26 -110.12 10 1998 4 24 1 27 8.54 31.756 -114.263 10 1998 5 15 12 48 16.1 36.71 -113.01 10 1998 6 8 18 49 2.98 31.968 -114.546 8 1998 6 15 12 56 13.44 31.329 -114.247 2.03 1998 8 22 23 20 28.78 36.281 -113.984 5 1998 10 18 7 13 10.65 36.033 -111.091 5 1998 10 27 1 8 40.33 34.321 -116.842 6 1998 10 31 22 38 6.26 30.443 -114.491 8 1998 11 6 17 15 3.24 31.552 -114.722 6 1998 11 8 0 24 18.21 36.216 -112.47 5 1998 11 17 0 6 27.41 36.8 -114.08 1.49 1998 12 7 20 32 45.29 36.793 -114.053 0.45 1998 12 14 21 40 37.47 36.293 *115.32 5 1999 1 5 23 24 0.32 36.822 -114.026 1.19 1999 2 10 5 9 46.65 36.551 -113.518 5 1999 2 11 6 37 36.16 35.634 -111.575 5 1999 2 24 21 9 52 35.81 -113.3 0 1999 3 2 19 8 22.28 36.458 -114.515 5 1999 3 17 18 29 43.68 30.338 -113.931 10 1999 3 17 20 4 59.32 30.393 -114.505 3.37 1999 3 29 6 47 38.19 30.503 -113.466 10 1999 3 30 21 41 13.12 36.814 -114.043 1.34 1999 5 5 19 4 40.85 36.794 -114.063 1.35 1999 5 14 7 54 2.98 34.066 -116.369 2.3 1999 6 1 12 40 5.01 35.904 -115.79 6 1999 6 1 15 18 2.46 32.411 -115.226 3.3 1999 6 11 8 57 25.62 31.725 -114.558 29.99 1999 8 2 17 59 58.73 36.02 -114.947 6 1999 8 3 9 37 25.08 31.322 -114.301 6.21 1999 8 24 13 4 7.39 31.986 -114.692 6 1999 9 10 7 6 2.72 31.379 -114.334 6 1999 10 1 18 38 23.82 31.681 -114.043 13 1999 10 8 21 26 41 33.28 -114.68 6.1 1999 10 8 21 34 14 33.03 -114.75 5.7 1999 10 16 9 46 43.96 34.596 -116.269 1.2 1999 10 16 9 47 43.59 33.23 -115.654 6.7 1999 10 16 17 15 9.17 30.751 -110.749 5 1999 11 29 15 14 49.12 30.13 -114.399 5 1999 12 6 14 20 3.26 35.049 -111.469 5 1999 12 7 19 25 21.68 36.852 -113.962 1.31 2000 2 22 3 31 37.8 35.77 -113.16 0 2000 3 28 4 45 20.49 36.512 -113.51 5 2000 4 12 15 57 0 36.24 -112.33 14 2000 5 2 6 45 45 32.111 -115.119 5 2000 5 4 6 48 0 36.09 -111.51 12 2000 5 4 7 42 15.98 36.632 -113.055 5 2000 6 2 17 51 14.27 31.113 -114.338 5 2000 6 12 18 13 22.49 30.464 -113.993 2.53 2000 6 23 20 10 42.73 35.509 -116.264 6 2000 8 8 3 18 2.42 30.75 -114.138 13.83 2000 8 8 3 18 9.32 32.448 -113.474 5 2000 8 25 15 23 16.96 29.932 -113.392 10 2000 10 31 21 56 39.69 36.456 -114.307 0 2000 12 1 0 1 9.1 36.051 -114.98 6 2001 1 16 7 26 35.21 30.391 -113.852 0.31 2001 1 17 1 26 32.85 31.812 -114.705 6 2001 1 17 4 13 3.67 32.448 -113.719 6 2001 1 17 9 33 27.88 31.867 -114.316 19.95 2001 2 4 3 29 2.65 36.143 -115.346 0 2001 5 17 10 15 32.31 30.807 -114.027 9.84 2001 7 12 20 9 1.7 31.392 -114.358 15.52 2001 9 9 6 30 30.1 30.224 *114.61 7 2001 10 23 7 19 42.4 31.697 -114.703 5 2001 10 31 7 56 16.36 33.511 -116.502 15.6 2001 11 28 16 24 0.74 30.331 -113.547 10 2001 12 6 12 58 16.03 30.639 -114.436 4 2001 12 8 23 36 10.14 32.059 -115.036 0.6 2002 2 11 23 34 24.91 30.565 -113.889 13 2002 3 3 0 9 0.64 35.422 -116.454 6.8 2002 3 3 15 20 56.14 35.618 -116.251 7 2002 3 27 11 18 5.92 30.216 -114.011 10 2002 4 15 6 53 20.5 36.79 -112.46 15 2002 5 25 0 5 17.71 35.589 -116.31 7 2002 7 7 5 37 38.98 36.486 -113.55 5 2002 8 30 5 16 12.98 31.863 -114.265 5 2002 9 13 11 42 17.29 30.216 -114.573 15 2002 10 29 14 16 54.08 34.803 -116.266 4.6 2002 12 10 21 4 0.5 32.25 -115.788 10.9 2003 1 11 15 40 37.1 31.248 -114.238 5 2003 2 7 10 34 4.83 31.628 -115.511 7.6 2003 2 22 12 19 10.53 34.31 -116.846 3.6 2003 3 17 6 28 41.3 31.851 -114.654 6 2003 3 25 21 11 34.89 36.766 -112.982 4.68 2003 6 8 19 14 48 31.92 -114.427 8 2003 6 11 0 56 15 31.917 -114.724 5 2003 8 10 0 33 23.52 35.066 -113.37 5 2003 9 8 18 13 24.7 31.324 -114.169 6 2003 9 9 23 7 21.35 30.155 -114.114 10 2003 9 9 23 41 52.8 30.159 -114.49 10 2003 9 10 11 26 44.55 30.641 -113.544 10 2003 9 17 18 1 36.93 35.939 -114.698 3.65 2003 10 24 18 18 53.92 35.939 -114.727 0 2003 11 1 2 43 29.3 30.661 -114.201 7 2003 11 15 12 54 11.3 32.496 -114.689 6 2003 11 18 19 35 45 32.183 -114.598 13 2003 12 4 16 0 52 31.964 -114.495 16 2003 12 12 2 55 18.1 30.808 -114.471 5 2003 12 21 16 8 57 33.62 -109.78 0 2003 12 21 21 28 22 33.8 -109.07 0 2004 1 13 7 58 53.3 31.058 -114.145 7 2004 1 17 9 47 21.7 30.78 -114.33 11.3 2004 1 26 7 14 23.8 31.67 -114.456 7 2004 3 5 8 28 0 34.98 -109.99 24 2004 3 12 8 37 26.21 33.227 -109.557 5 2004 3 15 17 19 12.6 30.689 -114.697 4 2004 3 16 4 6 3.6 30.75 -114.225 5 2004 3 30 1 40 23.1 30.201 -114.193 8.1 2004 5 14 10 58 1.67 36.05 -114.123 0 2004 5 14 14 9 36.7 31.528 -114.311 4 2004 6 27 5 0 0 36.21 -111.57 16 2004 8 12 14 44 30 30.546 *114.45 4 2004 8 20 6 33 2.7 30.147 -114.15 7.5 2004 8 26 0 16 14.6 30.646 -113.901 6 2004 10 18 16 47 14.3 30.309 -114.574 6 2005 2 24 8 58 54.1 30.63 -114.256 8 2005 3 2 11 12 57.42 34.715 -110.97 5 2005 3 15 0 21 7.29 36.911 -112.546 22.75 2005 4 20 19 3 25 31.931 -114.745 12 2005 4 25 22 59 39.6 30.059 -114.46 8 2005 4 27 0 32 59.02 30.253 -114.132 10 2005 6 8 4 32 33.1 36.832 -113.564 2.29 2005 6 12 15 41 46.33 33.538 -116.567 14.1 2005 6 16 20 53 25.68 34.061 -117.007 14.2 2005 7 12 23 32 41.38 36.959 -112.352 9.03 2005 9 2 1 27 19.5 33.143 -115.634 5.6 2005 10 31 13 41 33.62 30.517 -113.109 10 2005 11 8 4 11 59.5 30.715 -114.236 12 2005 11 20 8 45 36.39 36.185 -113.854 5 2005 11 25 12 32 53.6 31.288 -114.272 6 2005 12 16 8 17 1.41 30.177 -114.063 10 2006 1 20 20 1 15.5 30.5 -114.549 5 2006 2 5 11 36 55.89 36.988 -112.861 12.01 2006 2 23 1 22 2.2 30.618 -114.195 5.3 2006 5 1 21 4 42.6 30.199 -114.332 10 2006 5 24 4 20 26.01 32.307 -115.228 6 2006 6 21 1 45 8.9 31.536 -114.481 15 2006 7 9 17 43 33 34.743 -112.707 1 2006 7 23 15 24 20.1 31.895 -114.565 15 2006 11 15 7 4 2.3 30.69 -114.338 4 2007 1 4 19 4 43.7 30.97 -114.583 4 2007 1 18 6 21 6.42 30.493 -114.086 10 2007 1 19 17 34 27.58 36.283 -115.431 16 2007 1 24 12 27 25.6 30.546 -114.664 10 2007 5 22 20 55 19.8 31.364 -114.167 12 2007 6 25 14 52 28 33.73 -111.14 7 2007 7 4 18 30 28 36.104 -111.073 8 2007 7 5 1 38 32.4 30.551 -114.6 4 2007 7 5 4 37 29 31.053 -114.351 6 2007 7 26 2 37 24.5 31.532 -114.324 4 2007 8 28 13 52 27.32 30.315 -113.983 10 2007 9 8 7 15 40.59 33.697 -108.811 5 2007 9 15 5 26 24.33 33.401 -108.835 5 2007 9 21 0 58 0.4 31.284 -114.215 8 2007 9 28 0 23 22.28 35.773 -115.805 5.4 2007 10 5 6 28 12.7 31.588 -114.41 12 2007 10 25 20 35 29.5 31.712 -114.505 13 2007 10 29 2 2 16.8 30.505 -114.159 6 2007 10 29 22 21 11.9 31.47 -114.311 9 2007 12 5 0 22 41 36.428 -113.127 13 2007 12 27 0 13 20 36.53 *112.258 23 2008 1 10 11 26 15.97 30.917 -113.892 10 2008 1 12 12 50 20.44 30.445 -113.901 10 2008 1 17 22 0 13 35.02 -113.914 1 2008 1 29 14 46 6.3 31.339 -114.449 9 2008 2 9 7 12 4.5 32.36 -115.277 6 2008 2 19 20 41 28.35 30.01 -114.014 10 2008 3 27 1 7 13.78 36.465 -113.581 5 2008 4 7 21 32 5 34.704 -111.181 2 2008 5 14 1 7 40.88 30.569 -113.744 10 2008 5 14 16 9 52.93 30.25 -114.3 10 2008 5 17 19 8 55.3 31.912 -114.745 9 2008 6 4 23 32 35 36.443 -112.492 13 2008 7 8 17 51 5.16 36.62 -114.563 6 2008 9 3 23 44 17.03 34.615 -112.897 6 2008 10 1 23 49 18 35.925 -112.073 15 2008 10 8 9 31 41.04 30.279 -113.305 10 2008 10 19 19 51 14 35.479 -111.764 11 2008 10 26 19 47 48.35 36.235 -114.554 10.79 2008 11 5 6 17 40.6 31.813 -114.658 8 2008 11 13 7 48 45.42 29.98 -114.21 5 2008 11 19 15 35 39.2 30.564 -114.354 4 2008 11 20 19 23 0.1 32.329 -115.332 6 2008 12 4 2 4 36.9 36.044 -114.832 5.99 2008 12 6 4 18 42.8 34.813 -116.419 7 2008 12 11 3 41 55.68 30.335 -113.797 10 2008 12 30 11 44 12.97 30.107 -113.222 10 2009 2 24 7 10 30.6 30.104 -114.349 14 2009 2 24 7 17 35.7 30.456 -114.099 15 2009 2 27 15 10 1.4 36.352 -115.073 8.4 2009 3 24 11 55 43.9 33.317 -115.728 6 2009 4 28 0 59 53.5 30.571 -114.578 4 2009 5 9 6 7 31.97 34.213 -112.141 5 2009 5 11 22 35 49.8 31.711 -114.539 5 2009 5 14 4 23 27.2 30.852 -114.083 14.1 2009 9 3 15 54 6.8 31.232 -114.344 10 2009 9 4 11 47 54 36.647 -112.956 5 2009 10 7 16 35 5.5 30.212 -114.39 5 2009 10 8 3 47 45.1 30.542 -114.32 5 2009 10 8 6 1 0.3 30.278 -113.745 6.3 2009 10 9 22 13 54.18 35.963 -114.546 10.93 2009 10 16 10 27 10.7 29.991 -114.081 4 2009 10 31 3 17 31.9 35.358 -111.578 6.38 2009 11 3 23 39 42 36.713 -113.046 16 2009 11 16 6 55 46 36.833 -112.352 21 2009 11 21 20 45 46 36.877 -111.9 8 2009 11 28 5 23 15.7 30.912 -114.478 6 2010 1 27 20 33 31 36.581 -111.471 7 2010 2 19 23 30 17 31.402 -114.39 12 2010 2 20 1 12 48.7 31.673 *114.094 15 2010 2 21 1 12 9.5 31.837 -114.521 10 2010 3 2 0 51 39 36.564 -113.272 12 2010 3 13 20 55 8 30.62 -114.557 3 2010 3 18 18 40 41.97 35.019 -111.609 5 2010 3 21 17 40 6.08 36.61 -113.318 10 2010 3 30 9 14 10.46 31.276 -114.049 10 2010 4 4 22 40 41.7 32.216 -115.3 10 2010 5 3 0 59 24.24 31.539 -114.726 10 2010 5 24 7 27 7.76 33.298 -109.231 5 2010 5 29 15 31 54 36.463 -113.259 6.72 2010 6 15 4 26 58.4 32.7 -115.921 5 2010 6 18 15 7 33.65 31.716 -114.716 10 2010 6 25 10 30 34.12 33.61 -111.196 5 2010 7 3 7 34 46.28 30.731 -114.028 6 2010 7 7 23 53 33.5 33.421 -116.489 14 2010 7 27 12 22 31 35.889 -111.394 18.28 2010 8 9 23 55 47.4 31.01 -114.001 8 2010 8 10 22 47 47.1 30.365 -114.365 4 2010 8 11 17 23 2.1 30.617 -114.11 4 2010 9 8 3 58 8.45 30.435 -113.63 10 2010 9 15 7 50 2.4 30.069 -113.802 10 2010 9 25 16 49 26.3 31.23 -115.65 5 2010 9 26 22 20 30.64 33.696 -111.147 5 2010 10 13 18 20 47.34 31.54 -114.347 10 2010 10 19 1 27 55 36.855 -113.022 9.8 2010 10 20 23 1 54.8 31.395 -116.026 8 2010 11 6 20 39 5 36.969 -112.874 12.24 2010 11 11 3 23 38 36.463 -113.495 7.39 2010 11 24 14 58 20 36.818 -111.791 5.8 2011 1 16 11 55 48.81 31.474 -114.293 10 2011 1 17 21 2 24.7 31.725 -114.624 10 2011 1 23 12 16 47.19 34.837 -112.087 5 2011 1 26 10 51 36 36.098 -112.074 6.9 2011 3 18 19 54 46.74 34.827 -112.092 15 2011 3 20 21 28 16 36.077 -111.908 7.55 2011 4 7 13 40 57.9 31.233 -115.62 5 2011 5 26 19 46 30.3 30.822 -113.934 10 2011 6 16 0 0 0 35.872 -112.191 8.96 2011 6 21 0 0 0 35.055 -111.554 16.2 2011 7 8 3 44 3.04 36.288 -112.181 2.7 2011 7 18 0 0 0 36.603 -113.769 1.7 2011 7 18 9 6 54.13 36.891 -113.555 6 2011 7 29 0 0 0 34.9 -112.032 3.6 2011 8 31 0 0 0 35.784 -113.226 7 2011 9 17 2 8 39.5 31.385 -114.311 8 2011 10 11 10 12 2.38 34.72 -116.028 7.56 2011 10 13 0 0 0 35.666 -111.414 3.6 2011 10 14 16 15 46.5 31.304 -114.245 10 2011 10 20 3 45 49.2 30.622 *114.038 8 2011 10 25 18 20 24.6 34.871 -112.518 5 2011 11 3 0 0 0 35.842 -113.216 6.88 2011 11 12 23 3 46.33 36.014 -114.818 6 2011 12 13 0 0 0 36.764 -113.017 8.2 2011 12 14 18 34 47 36.666 -113.794 0.3 2011 12 23 12 32 37.6 30.451 -114.011 10 2012 1 8 19 11 12.21 34.826 -110.942 5 2012 1 19 1 38 55.6 30.887 -114.171 8 2012 2 26 0 0 0 34.898 -110.965 2 2012 3 20 14 18 52.8 31.288 -114.258 4 2012 3 21 1 18 22.5 31.084 -114.392 12 2012 3 26 3 42 43.1 31.517 -114.319 7 2012 4 22 0 0 0 34.894 -110.961 3.65 2012 6 1 5 24 34.1 30.452 -114.066 10 2012 6 25 0 0 0 35.025 -112.546 1.85 2012 7 19 5 8 39.3 31.428 -114.295 8 2012 7 24 21 39 24 30.56 -114.216 7 2012 8 25 9 28 26 31.339 -114.306 5 2012 8 26 20 57 58.2 33.02 -115.55 9 2012 8 26 21 17 26.72 34.175 -115.608 8.9 2012 8 27 5 23 19.1 30.658 -114.063 10 2012 8 28 11 36 52.97 30.026 -114.213 10 2012 9 25 16 3 33.46 36.486 -114.879 13.3 2012 10 8 0 0 0 33.431 -109.28 5 2012 10 11 21 26 49.76 36.431 -114.432 0 2012 10 17 0 0 0 35.748 -113.088 4.9 2012 10 30 9 20 57.6 31.24 -114.298 15 2012 11 13 0 19 16.49 35.511 -116.246 0 2012 12 11 0 0 0 35.619 -113.154 10 Mag Mag Type Source Catalog Priority Zone Mag Sigma Mw E(M) 6.5 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 6.5 6.33 5.5 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.5 5.33 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 6 MMI AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.5 5 5.00 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 5.8 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.8 5.63 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 4 2 0.5 4.33 4.33 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 5 6 0.5 4.33 4.33 6.2 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 6.2 6.03 5.9 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.9 5.73 5.8 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.8 5.63 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 7 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 5.67 5.67 6 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 5 5.00 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 5.6 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.6 5.43 6.8 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 6.8 6.63 3 MMI AZGS AZGS 4 7 0.5 3 3.00 6 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 6 5.83 6 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 5 5.00 7.3 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 7.3 7.13 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 6.1 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 6.1 5.93 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 4 7 0.5 3.67 3.67 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 6.7 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 6.7 6.53 6.6 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 5 0.3 6.6 6.43 6.2 Ms AEIC AEIC 2 3 0.3 6.2 6.03 6.2 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 6.2 6.03 5.8 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.8 5.63 6 Ms AEIC AEIC 2 3 0.3 6 5.83 6.2 Ms AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.3 6.2 6.03 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 6 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 6 5.83 3 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3 3.00 6.6 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 6.6 6.43 6 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 5 5.00 5.7 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.7 5.53 5.5 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.5 5.33 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 6.8 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 6.8 6.63 5.6 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.6 5.43 3 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3 3.00 5.9 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.9 5.73 5 Mw CDMG Unified 1 1 0.3 5 4.83 6 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 5 5.00 5.5 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.5 5.33 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 4 2 0.5 4.33 4.33 6 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 5 5.00 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 5.5 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.5 5.33 5.5 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.5 5.33 5.8 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.8 5.63 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 5.5 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.5 5.33 5.1 Mw CDMG Unified 1 1 0.3 5.1 4.93 5.5 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.5 5.33 5 Mw COMG Unified 1 1 0.3 5 4.83 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 6 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 5 5.00 4.46 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 4.46 4.39 3.78 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.78 3.71 4.7 Mw SCSN Unified 1 1 0.2 4.7 4.63 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 2.96 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 2.96 2.89 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 3 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3 3.00 3.58 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.58 3.51 5.5 ML CDMG AZGS 5 4 0.2 5.5 5.43 5.07 Mw SCSN Unified 1 5 0.2 5.07 5.00 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 6.46 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 6.46 6.39 3.93 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.2 3.93 3.86 6 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 5 5.00 6 MMI AZGS AZGS 4 2 0.5 5 5.00 3.11 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.11 3.04 4.84 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.84 4.77 4.79 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.79 4.72 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 5.25 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.25 5.18 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 3.79 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.79 3.72 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 4 7 0.5 3.67 3.67 2.78 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 2.78 2.71 3.22 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.22 3.15 4.85 Mw SCSN Unified 1 1 0.2 4.85 4.78 6.02 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 6.02 5.95 6 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 5 5.00 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 3.58 ML Cl ANSS 2 7 0.2 3.58 3.51 3.63 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.2 3.63 3.56 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 4.88 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.88 4.81 3.32 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.32 3.25 3.72 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.72 3.65 4.54 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 4.54 4.47 5.5 M AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.2 5.5 5.43 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 4.5 Md NMBMG AZGS 2 3 0.2 4.5 4.43 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 6 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 5 5.00 3.83 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.83 3.76 4.69 Mw Deng Unified 1 7 0.2 4.69 4.62 4.5 Md NMBMG AZGS 2 3 0.2 4.5 4.43 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 3.47 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.47 3.40 5.29 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.29 5.22 6.89 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 6.89 6.82 4.5 ML CDMG AZGS 4 2 0.2 4.5 4.43 5 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5 4.93 3.47 I SCSN_re SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.47 3.40 4.84 Mw SCSN Unified 1 5 0.2 4.84 4.77 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 5.5 Mw CDMG Unified 1 1 0.2 5.5 5.43 6.05 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 5 0.2 6.05 5.98 4 MMI AEIC AZGS 4 7 0.5 3.67 3.67 4 MMI AEIC AZGS 4 7 0.5 3.67 3.67 3 MMI AEIC AZGS 4 7 0.5 3 3.00 3 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3 3.00 4.78 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.78 4.71 3.28 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.28 3.21 4.83 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.83 4.76 5 MMI AEIC AZGS 4 7 0.5 4.33 4.33 4.11 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 4.11 4.04 3 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3 2.93 3.62 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.62 3.55 5.26 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.26 5.19 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 5.08 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.08 5.01 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 5.22 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.22 5.15 3.34 I SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.2 3.34 3.27 4.7 Mw SCSN Unified 1 5 0.2 4.7 4.63 5 MMI AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 4.86 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.86 4.79 5 Unk NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 5 4.93 5.3 Mw CDMG Unified 1 4 0.2 5.3 5.23 4.39 I SCSN_re SCSN 2 6 0.2 4.39 4.32 5.15 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 5 0.2 5.15 5.08 5.2 Mw CDMG Unified 1 1 0.2 5.2 5.13 5.78 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.78 5.71 4.65 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.65 4.58 5.5 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.5 5.43 4.83 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.83 4.76 5 MMI AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 4.85 Mw SCSN Unified 1 5 0.2 4.85 4.78 6.48 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 6.48 6.41 3.81 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.81 3.74 3.4 I SCSN_re SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.4 3.33 4.8 Mw CDMG Unified 1 1 0.2 4.8 4.73 5.28 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.28 5.21 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 5.96 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.96 5.89 4.5 Unk NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.5 4.43 5.69 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.69 5.62 3.53 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.53 3.46 4.3 Unk NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 5.66 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.66 5.59 7 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 5.67 5.67 4.2 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.2 4.2 4.13 4.16 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.2 4.16 4.09 5.41 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.41 5.34 4.72 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.72 4.65 5.97 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.97 5.90 4.66 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.66 4.59 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 4.5 Unk NEI ANSS 3 3 0.2 4.5 4.43 5 MMI AEIC AZGS 4 7 0.5 4.33 4.33 4.72 Mw SCSN Unified 1 7 0.2 4.72 4.65 3.67 I SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.2 3.67 3.60 5.1 Ml AZGS AZGS 5 4 0.2 5.1 5.03 3.7 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.2 3.7 3.63 5.46 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.46 5.39 4.76 Mw ANSS Unified 1 2 0.2 4.76 4.69 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 5 Mw CDMG Unified 1 1 0.2 5 4.93 566 Mw ANSS Unified 1 6 0.2 5.66 5.59 5.35 Mw SCSN Unified 1 6 0.2 5.35 5.28 6.37 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 6.37 6.30 5.2 Mw CDMG Unified 1 1 0.2 5.2 5.13 4.31 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 4.31 4.24 4.85 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.85 4.78 5.24 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.24 5.17 4.7 Mw COMG Unified 1 1 0.2 4.7 4.63 3.03 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.03 2.96 6.76 Mw SCSN Unified 1 1 0.2 6.76 6.69 6.52 I SCSN_le SCSN 4 5 0.2 6.55 6.48 4.65 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.65 4.58 5.17 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.17 5.10 4.7 Mw CDMG Unified 1 4 0.2 4.7 4.63 3.64 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.64 3.57 4.9 Mw CDMG Unified 1 3 0.2 4.9 4.83 3.26 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.26 3.19 5.25 Unk NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 5.25 5.18 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 5.76 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.76 5.69 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 4.82 Mw SCSN Unified 1 5 0.2 4.82 4.75 5.75 ML Brumbaugh AZGS 2 3 0.2 5.75 5.68 2008 5 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.2 5 4.93 3.38 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.38 3.31 4.74 Mw SCSN Unified 1 4 0.2 4.74 4.67 4.74 Mw SCSN Unified 1 1 0.2 4.74 4.67 4.71 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.71 4.64 4.5 ML uuss AZGS 2 3 0.2 4.5 4.43 2.9 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.2 2.9 2.83 2.9 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.2 2.9 2.83 5.07 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.07 5.00 2.96 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 2.96 2.89 3.01 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.01 2.94 4.9 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.2 4.9 4.83 4.94 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.94 4.87 4.86 Mw SCSN Unified 1 1 0.2 4.86 4.79 4.78 Mw ANSS Unified 1 7 0.2 4.78 4.71 2.7 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.2 2.7 2.63 2.9 ML AEIC AZGS 4 7 0.2 2.9 2.83 5.6 Mw SCSN Unified 1 1 0.2 5.6 5.53 4.5 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.5 4.43 2.7 ML AEIC AZGS 4 2 0.2 2.7 2.63 4.2 Mb NEI AZGS 2 3 0.2 4.2 4.13 5.27 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.27 5.20 4.96 Mw SCSN Unified 1 1 0.2 4.96 4.89 4.7 Mb AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.2 4.7 4.63 5.7 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 5.9 5.83 4.3 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 4.5 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.2 4.5 4.43 5 Mw CDMG Unified 1 4 0.2 5 4.93 4.2 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.2 4.13 4.7 Mw CDMG Unified 1 4 0.2 4.7 4.63 4.1 Mb NEI AZGS 2 3 0.2 4.1 4.03 4.7 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.7 4.63 5.73 Mw ANSS Unified 1 4 0.2 5.73 5.66 3.3 Mb AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.2 3.3 3.23 4.41 I SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.2 4.41 4.34 3.61 I SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.2 3.61 3.54 4 h SCSN_re SCSN 2 6 0.2 4 3.93 4.2 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.2 4.13 4.4 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.2 4.4 4.33 4.03 I SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.2 4.03 3.96 3.8 Mb NEI ANSS 2 7 0.2 3.8 3.73 3.7 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.2 3.7 3.63 4.4 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.4 4.33 4.4 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.4 4.33 4.4 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.4 4.33 4.3 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 4.4 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.4 4.33 5.11 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.11 5.04 4.3 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 4.92 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.92 4.85 4.1 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.1 4.03 4.4 Unk NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.4 4.33 2.7 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.2 2.7 2.63 4.33 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.2 4.33 4.26 3.11 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.11 3.04 4.3 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 4.5 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.5 4.43 3.3 M uuss AZGS 2 3 0.2 3.3 3.23 2.9 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.2 2.9 2.83 3.5 M uuss AZGS 2 3 0.2 3.5 3.43 3.9 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 3.9 3.83 4.74 Mw SCSN Unified 1 1 0.2 4.74 4.67 3.3 M uuss AZGS 2 3 0.2 3.3 3.23 3.5 M uuss AZGS 2 3 0.2 3.5 3.43 4.3 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 3.76 Ml Cl ANSS 2 7 0.2 3.76 3.69 6.3 Mw COMG Unified 1 6 0.2 6.3 6.23 3.9 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 3.9 3.83 4.3 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 4.3 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 4 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4 3.93 4.3 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 4.4 Mb NEI AZGS 2 3 0.2 4.4 4.33 4.6 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.6 4.53 4.72 Mw SCSN Unified 1 1 0.2 4.72 4.65 3.28 Ml Cl ANSS 2 7 0.2 3.28 3.21 3.7 Mb NEI AZGS 2 3 0.2 3.7 3.63 4.1 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.1 4.03 3.9 Mb NEI AZGS 2 3 0.2 3.9 3.83 4.1 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.1 4.03 2.8 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.2 2.8 2.73 4.5 Unk NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.5 4.43 5 Unk NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 5 4.93 3.8 Mb NEI AZGS 2 3 0.2 3.8 3.73 5 Unk NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 5 4.93 4.66 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.66 4.59 3.8 Mb AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.2 3.8 3.73 3 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.2 3 2.93 3.2 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.2 3.2 3.13 4 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.2 4 3.93 4.6 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.2 4.6 4.53 4.97 Mw SCSN Unified 1 5 0.2 4.97 4.90 4.3 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 4.3 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 5 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 5 4.93 4.2 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.2 4.13 4.1 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.1 4.03 6.58 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 6.58 6.51 4.2 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.2 4.13 4.2 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.2 4.13 4.3 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 4.71 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.71 4.64 4.4 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.4 4.33 4.5 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.5 4.43 4.5 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.5 4.43 4.8 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.8 4.73 3.9 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 3.9 3.83 4.2 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.2 4.13 5.2 Mw CDMG Unified 1 4 0.2 5.2 5.13 5.5 Mw CDMG Unified 1 4 0.2 5.5 5.43 3.22 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.22 3.15 4.89 Mw SCSN Unified 1 5 0.2 4.89 4.82 2.96 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 2.96 2.89 4.3 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 4.2 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.2 4.13 4.4 Mb AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.2 4.4 4.33 4.9 Mw CDMG Unified 1 5 0.2 4.9 4.83 3 Unk NEI ANSS 2 7 0.2 3 2.93 3.1 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.2 3.1 3.03 2.75 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 2.75 2.68 3.02 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.2 3.02 2.95 3.23 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.23 3.16 2.87 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 2.87 2.80 4 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4 3.93 5 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 5 4.93 5.2 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 5.2 5.13 3 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.2 3 2.93 2.8 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.2 2.8 2.73 3.83 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.83 3.76 3.7 Mb NEI ANSS 2 7 0.2 3.7 3.63 2.94 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 2.94 2.87 2.9 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.2 2.9 2.83 2.8 Unk NEI ANSS 2 7 0.2 2.8 2.73 3 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.2 3 2.93 4.99 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.99 4.92 3 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.2 3 2.93 4.7 Mw COMG Unified 1 5 0.2 4.7 4.63 3 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.2 3 2.93 5.4 Ms NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 5.5 5.48 3.7 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.7 3.68 4.1 Mb NEI ANSS 3 6 0.1 4.1 4.08 3.63 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 3.63 3.61 3.9 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 4.3 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.3 4.28 4 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 4 3.98 4.5 mbGS USGS_PDE AZGS 2 3 0.1 4.5 4.48 5 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 5 4.98 4.1 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.1 4.08 4.7 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.7 4.68 4.86 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 4.86 4.84 2.9 Mc Cl ANSS 3 2 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.1 Unk NEI ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.1 3.08 4.1 mbGS USGS_PDE AZGS 2 3 0.1 4.1 4.08 4.3 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.3 4.28 2.8 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.21 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.21 3.19 3.53 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.53 3.51 3.26 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.26 3.24 3.27 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 3.27 3.25 3.3 ML Cl ANSS 3 6 0.1 3.3 3.28 3.9 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.9 3.88 2.9 Mc Cl ANSS 3 4 0.1 2.9 2.88 4.16 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 4.16 4.14 4.1 Ml Cl ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.1 4.08 4.9 Mb NEI ANSS 3 5 0.1 4.9 4.88 3 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 4.76 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 4.76 4.74 3.4 Unk PAS ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.4 3.38 2.7 d SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 2.8 d SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.8 2.78 5.13 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 5.13 5.11 3.34 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 3.34 3.32 3.12 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.12 3.10 2.97 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 2.97 2.95 4.97 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 4.97 4.95 5.25 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 5.25 5.23 4.88 Mw NEIC Unified 1 1 0.1 4.88 4.86 2.9 Ml AEIC AZGS 4 2 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.01 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.01 2.99 4.88 Mw NEIC Unified 1 1 0.1 4.88 4.86 3.9 Unk NEI ANSS 3 3 0.1 3.9 3.88 5 M AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.1 5 4.98 3 M AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 4.5 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.5 4.48 3.02 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.02 3.00 2.9 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3 Unk NEI ANSS 2 7 0.1 3 2.98 4.4 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 4.9 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.9 4.88 5.07 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 5.07 5.05 3.78 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.78 3.76 2.9 h SCSN_re SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.9 2.88 5.79 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 5.79 5.77 5 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 5 4.98 2.7 h SCSN_re SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.7 2.68 2.8 h SCSN_re SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.05 h SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.05 3.03 3.16 h SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.16 3.14 3.11 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.11 3.09 3.02 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.02 3.00 2.73 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.73 2.71 3.06 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.06 3.04 3.2 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.84 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.84 2.82 3.05 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.05 3.03 3.09 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.09 3.07 3.34 I SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 3.34 3.32 3.45 I SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 3.45 3.43 3.97 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.97 3.95 2.8 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.8 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.97 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.97 2.95 4.08 I SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 4.08 4.06 3.21 h SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.21 3.19 3.14 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.14 3.12 4.68 Mw NEIC Unified 1 1 0.1 4.68 4.66 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 3 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3 2.98 2.7 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 2.8 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.79 c SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.79 2.77 3 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3 2.98 2.8 h SCSN_le SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.7 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 2.9 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.9 2.88 2.95 c SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.95 2.93 2.8 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 4.3 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.3 4.28 3.01 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.01 2.99 5.31 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 5.31 5.29 4 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4 3.98 3.84 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.84 3.82 2.78 Mh Cl ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.78 2.76 3.03 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.03 3.01 3.26 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.26 3.24 5.4 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 5.46 5.44 3.41 h SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 3.41 3.39 2.8 h SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.15 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.15 3.13 3 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3 2.98 5.51 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 5.51 5.49 3.21 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.21 3.19 2.8 h SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.21 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.21 3.19 3.25 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 3.25 3.23 3.24 I SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.24 3.22 2.99 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 2.99 2.97 2.8 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.1 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 3.1 3.08 6.51 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 6.51 6.49 2.85 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 2.85 2.83 3.49 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.49 3.47 2.7 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.08 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 3.08 3.06 3.98 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.98 3.96 3.45 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.45 3.43 5.32 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 5.32 5.30 4.39 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 4.39 4.37 4.8 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.8 4.78 4.22 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 4.22 4.20 2.9 h SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 2.9 2.88 2.7 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 4.4 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 3.6 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.6 3.58 2.8 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.8 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.27 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.27 3.25 2.98 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.98 2.96 5 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 5 4.98 4.4 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 3.53 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.53 3.51 4.4 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 3.38 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.38 3.36 4.3 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.3 4.28 4.6 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.6 4.58 2.7 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.5 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.5 3.48 3.02 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.02 3.00 3.2 Unk NEI ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.2 3.18 3.14 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.14 3.12 2.8 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.9 n SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.2 Unk NEI ANSS 3 3 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.8 h SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 2.8 2.78 4.9 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.9 4.88 2.71 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.71 2.69 4.5 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.5 4.48 2.98 c SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.98 2.96 2.73 c SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.73 2.71 4.77 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 4.77 4.75 3.16 c SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.16 3.14 3.22 c SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.22 3.20 3.05 c SCSN_re SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.05 3.03 3.3 Unk NEI ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.3 3.28 2.79 c SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 2.79 2.77 3 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.12 c SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 3.12 3.10 3.7 Unk NEI ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.7 3.68 2.79 c SCSN_re SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.79 2.77 2.85 c SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.85 2.83 3.9 Unk NEI ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.9 3.88 2.79 h SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 2.79 2.77 4.6 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.6 4.58 3.09 c SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 3.09 3.07 2.85 c SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 2.85 2.83 2.85 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 2.85 2.83 3.06 c SCSN_le SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.06 3.04 3.25 I SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.25 3.23 4.3 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.3 4.28 3.3 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.3 3.28 3.3 Unk NEI ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.3 3.28 2.71 c SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.71 2.69 3.2 Unk PAS ANSS 3 2 0.1 3.2 3.18 3 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3 2.98 2.75 c SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 2.75 2.73 3.12 h SCSN_re SCSN 2 6 0.1 3.12 3.10 2.7 c SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.2 Unk PAS ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.7 Mc Cl ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.7 2.68 4.4 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 2.81 c SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 2.81 2.79 3.3 c SCSN_re SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.3 3.28 3 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 4.8 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.8 4.78 5 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 5 4.98 2.75 c SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.75 2.73 2.92 Mc Cl ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.92 2.90 3.04 Mc Cl ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.04 3.02 2.7 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.54 c SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.54 3.52 5.49 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 5.49 5.47 4.72 I SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 4.72 4.70 3.07 c SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 3.07 3.05 5.17 Mw NEIC Unified 1 1 0.1 5.17 5.15 3.45 I SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 3.45 3.43 3.04 c SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.04 3.02 2.77 c SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 2.77 2.75 3.68 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.68 3.66 3.1 Unk NEI ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.1 Unk PAS ANSS 3 2 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.64 c SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.64 3.62 5 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 5 4.98 6.02 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 6.02 6.00 2.85 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.85 2.83 3 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 3 2.98 2.7 Unk NEI ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.7 2.68 5.48 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 5.48 5.46 3 Unk PAS ANSS 3 4 0.1 3 2.98 4.4 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 3 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.1 Unk PAS ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.1 3.08 3 Unk PAS ANSS 3 4 0.1 3 2.98 3.3 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.3 3.28 3 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.1 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.1 3.08 4.4 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 3.3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.4 3.38 6.5 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 6.5 6.48 5.49 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 5.49 5.47 5.3 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 5.3 5.28 2.9 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.9 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.69 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.69 3.67 3 Unk NEI ANSS 2 7 0.1 3 2.98 3.74 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.74 3.72 3.2 Unk NEI ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.2 3.18 3.7 Unk NEI ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.3 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.3 3.28 3.1 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.1 3.08 3 c SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3 2.98 5 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 5 4.98 3.61 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.61 3.59 2.7 Unk NEI ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.6 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.6 3.58 2.7 Mc Cl ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.01 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.01 2.99 3.42 c SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.42 3.40 3.27 c SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 3.27 3.25 4 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 4 3.98 3.44 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.44 3.42 2.7 Unk NEI ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.5 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.5 3.48 4.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 4.6 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.6 4.58 3 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.01 c SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.01 2.99 2.72 c SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.72 2.70 3.2 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.9 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.7 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.22 c SCSN_re SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.22 3.20 2.8 Unk NEI ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.8 2.78 4.5 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.5 4.48 3 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 4.6 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.6 4.58 4.2 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 3.5 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.6 3.58 3.6 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 5 3 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.5 3.48 2.9 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.7 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.8 3.78 4.2 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 4.6 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.6 4.58 3.9 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.9 3.88 2.8 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.8 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.8 3.78 4.5 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.5 4.48 2.9 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3 2.98 3 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.2 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.3 3.28 3.5 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.5 3.48 5.37 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 5.37 5.35 3.9 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4 3.98 3.6 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.36 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.36 3.34 3.33 d SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.33 3.31 3 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 2.77 d SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 2.77 2.75 3.02 d SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.02 3.00 4.2 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 4.2 4.18 3.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.2 3.18 3.27 h SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.27 3.25 3.4 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.4 3.38 2.9 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.1 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.26 d SCSN_re SCSN 2 6 0.1 3.26 3.24 2.85 d SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 2.85 2.83 3.9 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4 3.98 7.28 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 7.28 7.26 4 Mb NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 4 3.98 2.85 ML Cl ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.85 2.83 2.71 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.71 2.69 4.2 Unk NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 3.3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.4 3.38 3 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.4 Unk NEI ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.4 3.38 3.5 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.6 3.58 3.6 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.9 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4 3.98 3 d SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 3 2.98 3.6 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.6 3.58 2.75 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.75 2.73 3.7 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 2.91 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.91 2.89 3.11 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.11 3.09 3.2 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.3 3.28 5.5 Mb NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 5.61 5.59 2.9 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3 2.98 2.9 b SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.5 Unk NEI ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.5 3.48 3.4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.5 3.48 2.8 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 5 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 5.1 5.08 3.4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.5 3.48 3 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 2.8 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.43 d SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.43 3.41 4.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 3.9 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.83 ML Cl ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.83 3.81 2.8 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.34 ML Cl ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.34 3.32 3.9 Mc NN ANSS 3 2 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.1 MO_res RE SN OM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.2 3.18 36 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 4.6 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.7 4.68 4.97 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 4.97 4.95 2.7 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.3 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.3 3.28 3 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.5 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.6 3.58 3.4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.5 3.48 4 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4 3.98 2.9 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3 2.98 2.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 2.9 2.88 4.4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.5 4.48 3.6 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.2 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.3 3.28 3 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 5.21 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 5.21 5.19 3.6 Unk NEI ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.6 3.58 3.5 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.6 3.58 3.5 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.5 3.48 4 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.1 4.08 2.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.67 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.67 3.65 4.57 Mw NEIC Unified 1 1 0.1 4.57 4.55 3 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 2.8 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.1 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.1 3.08 4.4 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.5 4.48 4.2 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.3 4.28 4.1 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 4.1 4.08 4.71 Mw Berk_MT_TO Unified 1 1 0.1 4.71 4.69 2.9 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3 2.98 4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.1 4.08 2.75 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.75 2.73 4.3 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 4.3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 5.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 5.2 5.18 2.75 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.75 2.73 4.3 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 4.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 3.7 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.8 3.78 2.8 ML NEI ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.5 3.48 3.4 ML NEI ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.4 3.38 3.7 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.8 3.78 2.71 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.71 2.69 2.87 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.87 2.85 3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.1 3.08 3 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3 2.98 2.7 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.7 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.8 3.78 3.2 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.3 3.28 2.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 2.9 2.88 2.87 c SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 2.87 2.85 2.72 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.72 2.70 4.6 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.7 4.68 3.71 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.71 3.69 2.86 Mc NN ANSS 3 2 0.1 2.86 2.84 3.6 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.6 3.58 4.4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.5 4.48 3.6 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.1 4.08 2.8 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.7 Ml NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.7 3.68 4.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 4.2 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.3 4.28 3.3 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.3 3.28 2.9 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 4.75 I SCSN_le SCSN 4 5 0.1 4.75 4.73 2.7 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.7 2.68 2.7 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.2 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.9 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 2.85 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.85 2.83 4.85 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 4.85 4.83 2.9 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 2.77 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.77 2.75 2.7 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.9 Ml NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.5 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.5 3.48 3.7 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.8 3.78 4.81 Mw SCSN Unified 1 1 0.1 4.81 4.79 2.8 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 4.76 Mw ANSS Unified 1 5 0.1 4.76 4.74 3.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.2 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.2 3.18 3.5 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.6 3.58 3.1 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.9 3.88 4.4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.5 4.48 3.3 Ml NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.3 3.28 3.4 Ml NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.4 3.38 4.78 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 4.78 4.76 3.2 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.3 3.28 3.08 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 3.08 3.06 3.3 Ml NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.3 3.28 2.8 Mc uu ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.97 Mc uu ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.97 2.95 2.9 ML NEI ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.18 Mc uu ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.18 3.16 3.1 Ml NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.1 3.08 2.9 Ml NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 2.87 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.87 2.85 3 Ml NEI ANSS 2 7 0.1 3 2.98 4.3 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.3 4.28 4.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 4.4 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 2.83 Mc uu ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.83 2.81 2.91 Mc uu ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.91 2.89 4.89 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 4.89 4.87 3.25 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.25 3.23 4.97 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 4.97 4.95 3.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.75 Mc Cl ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.75 2.73 3.7 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.8 3.78 5.13 Mw ANSS Unified 1 6 0.1 5.13 5.11 3.2 I SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.2 3.18 3.6 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.7 3.68 2.8 Mb Cl AZGS 4 2 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.7 Mb Cl AZGS 4 2 0.1 2.7 2.68 7.12 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 7.12 7.10 4.65 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 4.65 4.63 4.5 Ml NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.5 4.48 3.2 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.3 3.28 2.7 Ml NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 2.73 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.73 2.71 3 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3 Ml NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.1 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.1 3.08 4.73 Mw SCSN_MT Unified 1 1 0.1 4.73 4.71 3.2 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.9 ML NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 4.3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 3.3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.4 3.38 3.06 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.06 3.04 4.4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.5 4.48 3.5 Ml NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.5 3.48 4.4 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 2.72 Ml NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.72 2.70 3 Ml PAS ANSS 2 7 0.1 3 2.98 4.3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 4.38 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 4.38 4.36 3.21 c SCSN_le SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.21 3.19 4.2 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 4.3 4.28 3.53 Ml NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.53 3.51 3.3 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.4 3.38 3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.1 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 2.9 2.88 5.02 Mw SCSN_MT Unified 1 1 0.1 5.02 5.00 4.2 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 3.3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.4 3.38 5.74 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 5.74 5.72 3.6 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.23 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.23 3.21 2.71 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.71 2.69 4.7 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.7 4.68 3 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 2.72 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.72 2.70 3.5 ML NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.5 3.48 3.6 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 4.73 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 4.73 4.71 4.88 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 4.88 4.86 3.6 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 4.97 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 4.97 4.95 5.19 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 5.19 5.17 3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.1 3.08 2.96 ML uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.96 2.94 3.3 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.4 3.38 3.6 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.7 3.68 3 ML NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.8 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.8 3.78 4.2 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.3 4.28 3.7 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 2.73 ML NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.73 2.71 2.9 Ml NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.4 3.38 3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 5 2 0.1 3.1 3.08 3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.1 3.08 2.9 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3 2.98 3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.1 3.08 4.2 Ml Eagar 2007 AZGS 2 3 0.1 4.2 4.18 3.6 Ml Eagar2007 AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.6 3.58 4.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.1 4.08 3.6 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.4 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.4 3.38 2.8 Ml NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.9 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4 3.98 3.4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.5 3.48 2.9 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3 2.98 2.78 Ml NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.78 2.76 2.8 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 2.9 2.88 2.8 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.8 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 4.7 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.8 4.78 3.9 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4 3.98 3.6 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.4 3.38 5.1 Mb NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 5.1 5.08 3.51 ML uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.51 3.49 2.7 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.5 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.6 3.58 5.1 Mw NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 5.1 5.08 2.7 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 5.21 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 5.21 5.19 4.87 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 4.87 4.85 2.88 Ml uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.88 2.86 5.15 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 5.15 5.13 3.9 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.2 Ml NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.2 3.18 3.8 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.9 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.1 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.9 Ml uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.9 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4 3.98 5.1 Mw NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 5.1 5.08 5.29 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 5.29 5.27 3.7 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.8 3.78 3.2 Ml ASU_TA AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.2 3.18 3 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.4 3.38 3.9 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4 3.98 4.8 Mw NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.8 4.78 2.85 I SCSN_le SCSN 3 7 0.1 2.85 2.83 3.5 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.6 3.58 3.7 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.8 3.78 2.9 ML ASU_TA AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.3 Ml ASU_TA AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.3 3.28 3.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.6 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 2.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 2.9 2.88 4 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4 3.98 3.6 Mw NEI ANSS 3 3 0.1 3.6 3.58 2.9 Ml NEI ANSS 3 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.2 3.18 3.22 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.22 3.20 3.1 ML ECX ANSS 3 6 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.2 3.18 3.3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.4 3.38 3.8 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.5 Ml ASU_TA AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.5 3.48 3 ML ASU_TA AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.8 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.8 3.78 3.9 Ml NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.4 ML ASU_TA AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.4 3.38 3.9 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4 3.98 5.14 Mw UC3 UCERF3 1 1 0.1 5.14 5.12 3.6 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.6 3.58 3.7 Mw NEI ANSS 3 3 0.1 3.7 3.68 2.8 Ml ASU_TA AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.6 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.6 3.58 4.8 Mw NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.8 4.78 2.7 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.8 Ml ASU_TA AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.8 3.78 3.5 h SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 3.5 3.48 2.8 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.7 ML ASU_TA AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.6 ML NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.6 3.58 2.9 ML ASU_TA AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.76 Ml NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.76 3.74 2.7 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.8 Ml NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 2.8 2.78 4.2 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.3 4.28 4.98 Mw UC3 UCERF3 1 1 0.1 4.98 4.96 2.95 ML NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.95 2.93 5.13 Mw UC3 UCERF3 1 1 0.1 5.13 5.11 3.7 ML NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 3 Ml NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 3 2.98 4.8 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.9 4.88 4.5 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.6 4.58 2.88 ML NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.88 2.86 4.96 Mw UC3 UCERF3 1 1 0.1 4.96 4.94 3.9 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4 3.98 3.1 ML NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.1 3.08 4.1 Ml ECX ANSS 3 6 0.1 4.1 4.08 3.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.9 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3 2.98 3 ML NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.5 3.48 3.6 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 4.7 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.8 4.78 3.85 ML NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.85 3.83 4.9 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 5 4.98 2.9 MD AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 2.8 MD AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.7 MD AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 2.7 MD AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.4 3.38 2.8 MO AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.1 4.08 3.7 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.8 3.78 3.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.9 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.5 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.6 3.58 2.7 ML NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 2.7 MD AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 4.6 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.6 4.58 7.19 Mw UC3 UCERF3 1 1 0.1 7.19 7.17 3.1 ML PAS ANSS 3 6 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.6 Mw NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.6 3.58 2.7 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 5.8 Mw UC3 UCERF3 1 1 0.1 5.8 5.78 2.93 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 2.93 2.91 3.1 ML NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.34 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.34 3.32 5.54 Mw UC3 UCERF3 1 1 0.1 5.54 5.52 3.1 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.6 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.6 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.5 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.6 3.58 4 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4 3.98 5.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 5.2 5.18 4.9 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 5 0.1 5 4.98 2.8 ML NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.48 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 3.48 3.46 3.06 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.06 3.04 4.7 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 5 0.1 4.8 4.78 3.2 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.8 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 3 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.35 I SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.35 3.33 3.2 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.3 3.28 3.6 ML NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.6 3.58 2.7 MD AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.7 ML NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.7 3.68 2.9 MD AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 5 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 5 0.1 5.1 5.08 3.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 2.79 MD AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.79 2.77 2.7 MO AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.1 ML NEI ANSS 3 3 0.1 3.1 3.08 2.97 MD AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.97 2.95 2.83 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.83 2.81 2.8 MD AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.8 MD AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.7 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.44 ML Cl ANSS 3 2 0.1 3.44 3.42 2.8 MD AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.7 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.8 3.78 3.5 ML NEI ANSS 3 3 0.1 3.5 3.48 2.79 MD AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.79 2.77 2.71 I SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 2.71 2.69 3.1 ML uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.4 Mc SLC ANSS 3 3 0.1 3.4 3.38 4.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.9 4.88 3.2 ML NEI ANSS 3 3 0.1 3.2 3.18 4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.1 4.08 2.95 MD AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.95 2.93 2.7 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.5 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.6 3.58 2.7 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.7 MD AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.7 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.8 3.78 2.7 MD AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.4 3.38 3.4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.5 3.48 4.2 Mc UNM ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 5.46 Mw CMT UCERF3 1 1 0.1 5.46 5.44 3.9 Ml PAS ANSS 3 2 0.1 3.9 3.88 5.4 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 5.61 5.59 4.2 Mc NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 3.59 ML NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.59 3.57 4.1 Ml AZGS-USGS AZGS 2 3 0.1 4.1 4.08 3.1 ML REN ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.1 3.08 2.9 ML AZGS-USGS AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 2.9 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3 2.98 2.94 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.94 2.92 2.72 MD AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.72 2.70 N* 1.16 1.16 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.16 1.53 1.53 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.16 1.16 1.53 1.16 1.53 1.16 1.53 1.16 1.53 1.53 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.53 1.16 1.53 1.16 1.53 1.16 1.16 1.53 1.16 1.16 1.53 1.16 1.16 1.53 1.16 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.53 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.53 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.07 1.53 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.53 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Heeszel, David From:Heeszel, David Sent:20 Apr 2015 15:20:20 +0000 To:Stieve, Alice;Devlin-Gill, Stephanie Cc:Graizer, Vladimir;Munson, Clifford;Ake, .Jon;John Stamatkos

Subject:

RE: Palo Verde public meeting in mid-June? I plan to be out the 22-26th, but am available otherwise. --David -----Original MFrorn: Stieve, Alice Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 11:17 AM To: Devlin-Gill, Stephanie; Heeszel, David Cc: Graizer. Vladimir; Munson. Clifford; Ake. Jon; John Stamatkos

Subject:

Palo Verde public meetjng in mid-June? Cao the Palo Verde team support a APS public meeting in mid-June? 1 have no vacation plans yet sol guess lam open in June. What about the rest of you? Of course Vlad is in CA for the week. Maybe he will check his email. -----Original Messagc---From: Devlin-Gill, Stephanie Sent: Monday, April 20. 2015 I J :10 AM To: Stieve, Alice; Heeszel, David

Subject:

FW: Inquiry: Palo Verde Public Meetings Dates From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 10:24 AM To: Munson, Clifford Cc: Jackson, Diane; Ake, Jon; Devlin-Gill, Stephanie; Vega, Frankie

Subject:

Inquiry: Palo Verde Public Meetings Dates Cliff, et. al. Any preferences or limitations for planning the Palo Verde public meeting in mid-June. Thanks, Nick From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Thursday. April 16,. 2015 10:07 AM To:. Munson, Clifford Cc: Ake, Jon; Jackson, Diane; Vega,. Frankie; Hill, Brittain; Shams, Mohamed

Subject:

Planning Items -DC Focus Areas and PV Meetings Dates Cliff. I am out PM today and Friday.

PG&E Licensing Coordination and NRC Public Meeting Prep Frankie is PM backup and has a licensing call with PG&E Friday at lpm to discuss NRC technical focus areas as part of the April 28 public meeting. For Friday I would like to communicate a few topics for them to begin work on. Perhaps the 1. ergodic method vs. single-station correction weighting. Early next week I plan to email a formal request for incorporation into the meeting notice .. Please let us know a couple. of focus areas by noon Friday. PV Meeting Date Coordination. The licensee (APS) cannot support meeting until the 2nd week of June. As. f recall,. I thought we. had conflicts starting then with NGA-East Working Group. Let me know. if I can propose any dates in the. 2nd and 3rd week of June. Thanks, Nick Senior Project Manager -Seismic Reevaluation Activities U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Division nicholas.difrancesco@nrc.gov<maillo:nicholas.difrancesco@nrc.gov> I Tel: (301) 415-1115 Heeszel, David From:Heeszel, David Sent:24 Mar 2015 18:07:16 +0000 To:Stieve, Alice

Subject:

RE: Palo Verde Is this in addition to or a replacement for the meeting already scheduled for 3:30? --David -----Original AppointmentFrom: Stieve, Alice Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 2:05 PM To: Graizer, Vladimir; Devlin-Gill, Stephanie; Heeszel, David

Subject:

Palo Verde When: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 3:00 PM-3:30 PM {UTC-05:00) Eastern nme (US & Canada). Where: HQ-TWFN-07CO 1-15p Can we meet at 3PM for a short meeting?

Heeszel, David From:Heeszel, David Sent:22 May 2015 15:01:01 +0000 To:Stieve, Alice;Devlin-Gill, Stephanie;Graizer, Vladimir;Munson, Clifford;Hill, Brittain;Ake, Jon;Li, Yong;John Starnatkos;Miriam R. Juckett (mjuckett@swri.org)

Subject:

RE: PY topics My question (as it stands) about site response is also updated on the sharepoint site. --David From: Stieve, Alice Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 10:43 AM To: Devlin-Gill, Stephanie; Graizer, Vladimir; Munson, Clifford; Hill, Brittain; Ake, Jon; Li, Yong; Heeszel, David; John Stamatkos; Miriam R. Juckett (mjuckett@swri.org)

Subject:

PV topics I made some mods to the SSC part of the PV topics (geology). They are in the SharePoint folder. PV Topics Heeszel, David From:Heeszel, David Sent:22 May 2015 15: 18:24 +0000 To:Stieve, Alice

Subject:

RE: PV topics Here From: Stieve, Alice Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 11:18.AM To: Heeszel, David

Subject:

RE: PV topics What file? From: Heeszel, David Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 11:01 AM To: Stieve, Alice; Devlin-Gill, Stephanie; Graizer, Vladimir; Munson, Clifford; Hill, Brittain; Ake, Jon; Li, Yong; John Stamatkos; Miriam R. Juckett (mjuckett@swri.org)

Subject:

RE: PV topics My question (as it stands) about site response is also updated on the sharepoint site. --David From: Stieve, Alice Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 10:43 AM To: Devlin-Gill, Stephanie; Graizer, Vladimir; Munson, Clifford; Hill, Brittain; Ake, Jon; Li, Yong; Heeszel, David; John Stamatkos; Miriam R. Juckett (mjuckett@swri.org)

Subject:

PV topics I made some mods to the SSC part of the PV topics (geology). They are in the SharePoint folder. PV Topics Heeszel, David From:Heeszel, David Sent: 11 May. 2015 14:56:25 +0000. To:Devlin-GiU, Stephanie;Jackson, Diane Cc:Stieve, Alice;Munson, Clifford

Subject:

RE: PVNGS GMM Review and Presentation I will do the same for Ch. 9. --David From: Devlin-Gill, Stephanie Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 10:09 AM To: Jackson, Diane; Heeszel, David Cc: Stieve, Alice; Munson, Clifford

Subject:

RE: PVNGS GMM Review and Presentation. Ok, I'll cover the SWUS Chp 5 as it applies to PVNGS next Tuesday. When Vlad returns, we should probably also make sure he's knows to attend the Tuesday PVNGS meeting, since it will be of interest to him. stephanie Geophysicist 301-415-5301 T-7Dl0 U.S. NRC, NRO, DSEA, RGS2 From: Jackson, Diane Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 9:41 AM To: Devlin-Gill, Stephanie; Heeszel, David Cc: Stieve, Alice; Munson, Clifford

Subject:

FW: PVNGS GMM Review and Presentation Stephanie and David -Cliff and I were discussing status of the PV review, and continuing to splice it up into reasonable chunks. Vlad is out this week. For next Tuesday (not tomorrow), Stephanie review and prepare slides for SWUS GMC SSHAC Report Ch5. For Ch5 some of the subsections are only applicable to DCPP so Stephanie can skip those (there aren't too many). David the same for Ch9. If you have questions on technical direction and level of detail, see the good Dr. Munson. Also, let me know if you think your workload will /will not support and we can look at workload and timelines. Thanks -Diane Heeszel, David From:Heeszel, David Sent:31Mar2015 17:33:05 +0000 To:Munson, Clifford

Subject:

RE: Request for Palo Verde Electronic Attachments from Hazard Input Document (HfD -. Appendix. F) Is there any way we can also request the peer review comments and the Tl teams response from the workshops? I can't find them in the SSHAC report. --David From: Munson, Clifford Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 1:32 PM To: Heeszel, David; Devlin-Gill, Stephanie; Stieve, Alice; John Stamatkos

Subject:

FW: Request for Palo Verde Electronic Attachments from Hazard Input Document (HID -Appendix F) FYI. From: Munson, Clifford Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 1:31 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas Cc: Ake, Jon; Jackson, Diane

Subject:

Request for Palo Verde Electronic Attachments from Hazard Input Document (HID -Appendix F) Nick, There are five electronic attachments listed in the Palo Verde SSHAC Appendix F (page F-57), which is the. very important Hazard Input Document. We need these electronic files to be able. to perform our sensitivity studies for the PV hazard. Please have the licensee put these in the electronic reading room as soon as possible. Thanks, Cliff HID Attachments These attachments were released in interim response #1 Attachment A: Areal Source Coordinates (electronic attachment) Attachment B: Fault Source Coordinates (electronic attachment). Attachment C: UCERF3.3 Rupture Sets (electronic attachment) Attachment D: ABSMOOTH Output (electronic attachment) Attachment E: SWUS GMC Regions for Fault Sources (electronic attachment)

LCI PROJECT CALCULATION PC No. PVOOl-PC-02 COVER SHEET Revision 0 I "!' ln\,rn.1llv,..,1. fn< Page 1of18 CALCULATION TITLE Adjustment Factors from Reference Rock to Palo Verde Rock Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Seismic Hazard PROJECTNAME: PROJECT No.: _1;;...;:0c.;;.5-=-6------------------Prepared by: Gabriel Toro[ Date: 2/27 /15' (Name/Signature) Verlrled by: Robin McGuire{ IV (Name/Signature of Verlller) Date: 2*'2(11< Approved by: £*s.s I (Name/Signature of Project Manager Date: 2./t1/*r or Vice President) Optlonal Cllent Approval: Date: (Name/Signature) LCIFORM.QAP-3*38.02 (04.04.2014)

LCI PROJECT CALCULATION PC No. PV001-PC-02 REVISION LOG Revision O Lt'lti.' illll*ul nl' lnt.-m.11il'll\.1l, In<. Page 2of18 r*c l', 1*;. t I,. I Calculation Revision Status Rev. No. Date Description Impacted Document No. 0 2/27/15 Initial Issue Text Revision. History Page No .. Rev. No .. Page No. Rev. No. 1-18 0 Attachment Revision History Attachment Page No. Rev. No. Attachment Page No. Rev. No. No .. No. A A1-A2 0 B 81-BS 0 LCIFORM.QAP-3-38.03 (04.04.2014)

PROJECT CALCULATION VERIFICATION SUMMARY SHEET VERIFICATION METHOD PC No. PVOOl -PC-02 Revision 0 Page 3of18 1:81 Step-by-Step Method D Alternate Calculation Item Parameter Yes No N/A 1 Purpose Is clearly stated and Calculation satisfies the x Purpose. 2 Methodology Is appropriate and properly applied. x 3 Assumptions are reasonable, adequately described, and x based upon sound geotechnlcal principles and practices. 4 Input received via signed communications from x authorized signatories and correctly Incorporated Into the Calculation. 5 Software Is properly Identified; Is appropriate for this x application; and validation Is referenced, or Included, and acceptable. 6 Calculation Is complete, accurate (I.e., equations are x correct, Input to equations is correct, and math Is correct), adequate, and leads logically to Results and Conclusions; or Is verified via Altemate Calculation. 7 Results and Conclusions are accurate, acceptable, and x reasonable compared to the Input and Assumptions. 8 References are valld for Intended use. x 9 Appendices are complete, accurate, and support text. x Comments: (use addltlonal pages as necessary) Robin McGuire/ f2R--V1A. x;,"I._ Verifier: (Date) (Nome/Signature) LClfORM.QAP-3*38.04 (04.04.2014)

PC No. PV001-PC-02 LCI PROJECT CALCULATION Rev.O Page 4of18 l cttJ.;¥';,,,.1111111:> lott>m>t10n.1I, 1.,.-I ' t Table of Contents Section Page Purpose .........*....................*.......*...................*.......*...........................*.......................*............ 5 Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 5 Assumptions .....*............*...........................*.................*............*....*........................................* 6 Inputs ...........................................................*.....................................*.........................*.......... 6 Software ..........................................*...................................*...................*..........*.........*.......... 7 Calculations ............................................................................................................................. 7 Results and Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 10 References .............................................................................................................................. 17 Appendices ............................................................................................................................ 18 APPENDIX A (PROPRIETARY} ................................................................................................... Al APPENDIX B. Calculations for 808 ft Thickness of Volcanics ................................................... Bl List of Tables Table 1. Adjustment factors (numbers in parentheses are weights for each profile-kappa combination) ....*.*...*.....*........*.....*......*...........*..*....*.......***..*....*..........*....*........*...............*... 14 List of Figures Figure 1. Vs deep profiles for. PVNGS. A depth of 0. corresponds to the bottom of the shallow profile (soils). Also shown are the Warren (1969) (Ref. 15} and SWUS (Ref. 1) profiles ............ 8 Figure 2. Adjustment Factors ................................................................................................. 12 Figure 3. Summary statistics of the adjustment factor ........................................................... 13 PC No. PV001-PC-02 LCI PROJECT CALCULATION Rev.O Page S of 18 l.etn¥n*t1l10nb lnwmahollJI, 1,,. \ -.. ,,_,-Adjustment Factors.from Reference Rock to Palo Verde Rock 1. PURPOSE The purpose of this calculation is to develop adjustment factors to convert ground motions from the reference rock associated with the South Western US Ground Motion Project (the SWUS project) GMPEs to the rock conditions at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS). These factors, which are given in Fourier-amplitude space, will be converted later to factors in spectral-acceleration space, and these in turn will be used to conve1t the amplitudes predicted by the SWUS GMPEs to Palo Verde rock .. 2. METHODOLOGY The following inputs are required to convert SWUS ground motions on Reference Rock (the host) to ground motions on PVNGS bedrock (the target) using Vs-kappa1 adjustments. Calculation of the SWUS rock to Palo Verde rock requires the following inputs: 1. Host Vs and density profile, specified by SWUS (Ref. 1). 2. Host kappa value, specified by SWUS (Ref. 1). 3. Target Vs and density profile, developed by LCI (Ref. 2). This is the. profile below PVNGS bedrock, and extending to deep basement. 4. Target PVNGS bedrock kappa value (and its uncertainty), specified by the SWUS project (Ref. I) .. These quantities are used to calculate host and target Vs-kappa filters in the frequency domain. Each filter consists of two parts. The first part accounts for impedance differences and can be calculated using the Quarter-wavelength approach (see Refs. 3-5) and affects all frequencies. The second filter accounts for the differences in kappa. It bas an exponential form and affects mainly the high frequencies. The net adjustment factor (in Fourier-amplitude space) is the ratio of the target filter divided by the host filter. Multiple values of this factor wil1 be calculated, to account for uncertainty in the inputs. This approach has. been used in a number of studies (e.g., Refs. 8-10 and 14). The result from this calculation consist of multiple values of the adjustment factor (in terms of Fourier amplitude) as a function of frequency (with associated weights), given in tabular form. 1 Vs is the shear-wave velocity; kappa is a quantity that represents the anelastic attenuation in the upper crust. ln the nomenclature of Anderson and Hough (1984) (Ref. 7), the kappa used in this calculation corresponds to kappa-zero, as it captures attenuation effects in the upper crust, rather than whole-path attenuation.

PC No. PV001-PC-02 LCI PROJECT CALCULATION Rev.O Page 6of18 I lntematlOll<ll, Inc. ! A' r-3. ASSUMPTIONS The following assumptions are made in this calculation: Assumption The input data provided by the SWUS project (Host Vs and density profile, host kappa. target kappa and its uncertainty) are correct. The site-specific deep profile (thickness, Vs, and density for each layer beneath soil) is. correct. The basement portion of the deep profile (from Warren (1969)) is correct. The. guidance provided by the EPRI SPID document (Ref. 11) regarding uncertainty ranges is correct. The. Qua11er Wave Length (QWL) approach is adequate for the adjustment of GMPEs. The. Gardner et al (1974) equation for density as a function of Vp is correct. 4. INPUTS Input Source Rationale These data were developed under a SSHAC Level 3 process These data were developed, documented, and reviewed by LCI. (Ref. 2), using specific data (recently acquired and from UFSAR). Good agreement with shallow portion of Warren (1969; Ref. 15) profile. Model based on regional data and used for earthquake locations (see Lockridge et al., Ref. 12). This document has been extensively reviewed and accepted by the NRC. Approach is well documented in the literature and has been used for regional and NPP studies (e.g., Refs. 8-10 and 14) Relation is widely used (see Bracher, 1995; Ref. 6). Host profile (thickness, Vs, and density for each layer) and host kappa (0.041 s) SWUS (Appendix L of Ref. I and its attached Excel file WUS_VsProfile-10272014.xls) Target (PVNGS) kappa and associated uncertainty

• median 0.033s

• 0'1n=0.5 SWUS (Appendix L of Ref. 1)

Deep PVNGS profile (thickness, Vs, and density for each layer) Equation for density as a function of Vp (used only for lower basement of PVNGS profile). 5. SOFTWARE NIA 6. CALCULATIONS PROJECT CALCULATION PC No. PV001-PC-02 Rev.O Page 7. of.18. LCI (Ref. 2; volcanics and upper basement; used the thickness of the volcanics derived from the elevation column because it is more reliable) and Warren(! 969; Ref. 15; lower basement) Gardner et al (1974; Ref. 12). All calculations are performed in spreadsheet Calc_Adjustment_Factors.xlsm (see Appendix A), as described below. Sheet Deep_Projlle_Summary tabulates the base-case deep profile (as generated from Refs. 2 and 15), converts it to metric units, generates the Lower Bound (LB), Median, and Upper Bound (UB) profiles, and generates. graphs. Following the. EPRI SPID (Ref. 11 ), cr1nvs is given a value of 0.35 for the upper two layers (applicable to sites with limited geophysical information). cr1nvs is set to 0 for the lower basement, just as Ref. 11 sets the CEUS basement Vs to 9200 ft/s (without uncertainty). Also, following Ref. 11, the. UB. Vs. values are. not allowed to exceed the lower basement Vs. Uncertainty in the thickness of the volcanics is taken from LCI (Ref. 2). Uncertainty in the thickness of the upper basement is taken as 10 percent. The UB and LB profiles are constructed by pairing 90-th percentile Vs with 10% thickness in order to maximize the variation in travel time (in a manner similar. to what is done in Ref.. 11 ). The three resulting Vs profiles are shown in Figure I.

LCI lntcnJiJholl<!I, Inc I _1.;-,. 0 500 ]' ; l:! 1000 Q. ::= ..2 n; .c "' -0 1500 0 ..c E 0 .[ of 2000 Q. QI 0 2500 3000 0 PROJECT CALCULATION 1000 Vs (m/s) 2000 3000 -, .. ... . I , 1 , I I I -1 *---'* . l I-"' I l .. I L -.._ I I I

I -L. 1 I I I T 1 -UBProfile I -Base Case Profile I I ... I -LB Profile 1: --Warren (1969} --SWUS Reference I Profile I PC No. PV001-PC-02 Rev.O Page 8of18 4000 Figure 1. Vs deep profiles for PVNGS. A depth of 0 corresponds to the bottom of the shallow profile (soils). Also shown are the Warren (1969) (Ref. 15) and SWUS (Ref. 1) profiJes. Sheet Lockridge_et_al lists. the Warren (1969; Ref. l 5) profile and contains tables used for plotting it. Sheet Density_Bsmnt documents the calculation of density for those basement layers for which no density. is provided in Ref. 2, using an equation. from Ref. 12 .. Sheet HostVsProfile_ Vs30_760 contains information about the host profile received from SWUS (Ref. 1) and a few calculations to extract information from them.

PROJECT CALCULATION PC No. PV001-PC-02 Rev.O Page 9of18

• Columns A-Y contains information about the host profile received from SWUS (Vs vs. depth, density vs. depth, and adjustment factors).

• Columns Z-AC contain profile information in the form (thickness, Vs, density) extracted from columns A-Y.

• Columns. N-0 contain amplification factors for this profile (calculated by SWUS (Ref. 1) using the QWL approach). These adjustment factors are relative to the source (characterized by Vs=3500 mis and density 2.7 gr/cc). Sheet Amplif'_Calcs_Ref_Pro.file contains. the calculation of the impedance. Z (see Refs. 3-5) for the reference SWUS (Ref. 1) profile.

• Columns A-C contain the profile data (from HostVsProfile_ Vs30_760) and columns E-F contain top and bottom depths derived from them.

• Columns H-J (step I) calculate travel time and integrated density to the bottom of each as the. first step in the calculation of the impedance (see. Eqs. 16-18 of Ref. 4 for the equations used; equations are reproduced in same columns).

• Columns L-R (step 2) interpolate the travel time and integrated density linearly to a finer depth scale. Interpolation is done using a user-defined function. The correctness of the interpolation can be verified graphically using the graphs shown at the bottom of the sheet. These interpolated values are then used to calculate the associated frequency l/(4*travel time), time-averaged. Vs. (beta_bar), average density (rho_bar), and impedance (beta_ bar* rho_ bar).

• Columns T-U (step 3) interpolate the impedance vs. frequency values to a fine frequency scale (0.1 to 100 Hz, 30 frequencies per decade), which will be the same frequency sampling to be used for all profiles. The correctness of the interpolation can be verified graphically using the graphs shown at the bottom of the sheet.

• Columns W-X use the impedance to calculate the adjustment factor with respect to the source (Vs=3500 mis, density=2.7 gr/cc). These values are compared to those calculated independently by SWUS (Ref. I) and provided in sheet HostVsProfile_V.d0_760 (see graphical comparison on same columns), obtaining a very. close agreement .. This comparison serves as an additional check for the calculation of impedance vs. frequency used in this calculation document. Sheets Amplif_Calcs_

• _PV _Pro,file (where* takes the values of LB, Median, and UB) contain the calculation of the impedance Z for the three PVNGS deep profiles and the calculation of their associated impedance factors.

• Columns A-C contain the profile data (from Deep_Profile_Summary) and columns E-F contain top and bottom depths derived from them.

PC No. PV001-PC-02 LCI PROJECT CALCULATION Rev.O Page10of18 L..-111.;?m-*uhont'l lnwm 1hon.JI, In.; t r

• Columns H-U contain the various steps in the calculation of impedance Z as a function of frequency. These calculations are similar to the ones performed in Columns H-U in Amplif_Calcs_Ref_Profile ..

• Column W calculates the adjustment factor associated with impedance effects (sqrt(Z _ Ref/Z _PVNGS)) vs .. frequency, using the impedance. Z calculated in. this sheet and in Amplif_Calcs_Ref_Profile.

• Columns Y -AB introduce the effect of kappa differences between the Host (0.04 ls) and the target, considering the LB (10%), median (50%), and UB (90%) values of the latter). Sheet Summary tabulates all nine profiles from columns Y-AB of Amplif_Calcs_

• _PV _Profile, calculates their weights, and computes their summary statistics. 7. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS The calculated adjustment factors account for differences in impedance and kappa between the Host SWUS (Ref. 1) Reference Profile and the Target PVNGS rock profile, and can be used for the calculation of adjustment factors to convert SWUS spectral accelerations to PVNGS rock. These factors (in Fourier amplitude space) are given in tbe Summary Sheet of Calc_Adjustment_Factors.xlsm (see Appendix A). They are also. given in Table 1 below and in stand-alone file Adjustment_Factors.csv (see Appendix A for a description of electronic files). As part of the review of Ref.2, one interpretation was revised, resulting in a change in thickness of the volcanic unit (top of deep profile). from 878 ft to 808 ft. The effect of this change is. evaluated in Appendix B. The change in the adjustment factor is small percent at a few frequencies) and would reduce ground motions (therefore ignoring the change is conservative). As a result, the adjustment factors based on the original volcanic unit thickness (Table 1 and file Adjustment_Factors.csv) are maintained .. It is important to note the following when interpreting and using these results. 1. Although these adjustment factors become very large at high frequencies (as a result of the kappa adjustments), the SWUS (Ref. 1) rock motions have zero or no energy at these frequencies (say, above 20 Hz). Therefore, the effect on spectral accelerations is expected to be much smaller than the effect shown here. 2. Results are tabulated to l 00 Hz, but the exponential model for kappa effects (which can produce very high adjustment factors at these high frequencies) may not be applicable. Based on seismological principles, one expects the product of these adjustment factors and the Fourier amplitudes of the SWUS (Ref. 1) motions to produce a spectral-shape falloff beyond approximately 10 Hz that is roughly linear in log-amplitude vs. frequency space (see Ref. 7), possibly becoming steeper at higher frequencies. If there are appreciable differences from this anticipated falloff (e.g., shapes that do not reach a peak, bimodal shapes with an extra peak beyond 20 Hz), it is appropriate to truncate or flatten these adjustment factors at some appropriate frequency to remove these unphysical shapes. Because it is difficult to anticipate whether these effects will occur, and at what frequencies, the adjustment factors are provided as calculated, but with the understanding that they may need some modifications at high frequencies. The task to truncate or flatten PC No. PV001-PC-02 LCI PROJECT CALCULATION Rev.O Page 11 of 18 11111< ()ln..,,hllnb lnl\'m 1t10rlJI, Inc \" I. .; them (if needed) is left to the analyst that converts these adjustment factors to spectraacceleration factors. 3. For frequencies below 0.1 Hz, it is appropriate to assume that the adjustment factor is equal to the factor at 0.1 Hz. The nine calculated adjustment factors are shown in Figure 2 and given in Table 1; the associated summary statistics are given in Figure 2.

10 I I I I i i ,_ -E ::s ... .. u C1I c. V) ... ...... C1I *.: ::s 0 u. c: 1 --I I I I ... 0 .. u "' u. .. c: C1I E .. Ill ::s ...... "C <( t t ,_ 0.1 I I 0.1 -LB. Profile, LB kappa (0.09) -LB. Profile, UB kappa (0.09) PROJECT CALCULATION I ---**--._,_,_ 1: _j.. ......... I -. .-I -.,,,,. ,,_ + -......... ' ' i-.....' ... i"' ... l "" t +-.... I 1 1 10 Frequency (Hz) PC No. PV001-PC-02 Rev.O Page 12of18 ,,. I I n -.J 1--'-/J t) 1 'II ll 7 "//i ,., >--1--100 -LB. Profile, Median kappa (0.12) -Median Profile, LB kappa (0.12) -Median Profile, Median kappa (0.16) -Median Profile, UB kappa (0.12) -UB Profile, LB kappa (0.09) -UB Profile, Median kappa (0.12) UB Profile, UB kappa (0.09) Figure 2. Adjustment Factors PROJECT CALCULATION 10 j + t t t t t: --Logarithmic mean AF I logarithmic sigma (right Y axis) I I I -E ::J ... .., I.I QI a. II) I I 11 11 ... QI *;:: ::J 0 ""' c 1 ... 0 J I I I t l I I ti IU ""' .., c QI E t; ::J :c < I I I I I I I I ,/ I I y / 11 ../ I --/ -I I 0.1 0.1 1 10 Frequency {Hz) Figure 3. Summary statistics of the adjustment factor I I I I PC No. PV001-PC-02 Rev.O Page 13of18 l+ 2 i/ , 1.8 1.6 1.4 I.I IU c. II) 1.2 E -c 0 _Y( 1 *:; QI c -I --!-< I I I 11 100 0.8 'E IU "O c 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 PC No. PV001-PC-02 LCI PROJECT CALCULATION Rev.O Page 14of18 lct11.;f"nsi1llanb ln1l'maho11<1l, l1"K" ' ,_, , f Table 1. Adjustment factors (numbers in parentheses are weights for each profile-kappa combination) SWUS to PVNGS Adjustment Factor (Fourier-amplitude Space) LB LB Median Median UB UB UB Profile, Profile, Median Profile, Profile, Profile, Profile, Profile, LB Profile, Median UB Profile, Median UB LB Median UB Frequency LB kappa kappa kappa LB kappa kappa kappa kappa kappa kappa (Hzi (0.09) (0.12) (0.09) (0.12) (0.16) (0.12) (0.09). (0.12) (0.09). 0.1000 1.0136 1.0086 0.9993 0.8916 0.8873 0.8790 0.8598 0.8556 0.8477 0.1080 1.0218 1.0165 1.0063 0.8871 0.8824 0.8736 0.8528 0.8483 0.8398 0.1166 1.0313 1.0255 1.0144 0.8821 0.8771 0.8676 0.8451 0.8403. 0.8312 0.1259 1.0424 1.0360 1.0240 0.8766 0.8712 0.8611 0.8367 0.8316 0.8219 0.1359 1.0574 1.0504 1.0372 0.8721 0.8663 0.8554 0.8291 0.8236 0.8132 0.1468 1.0768 1.0691 1.0546 0.8684 0.8622 0.8505 0.8219 0.8160 0.8050 0.1585 1.0999 1.0914 1.0754 0.8643 0.8576 0.8451 0.8140 0.8077 0.7959 0.1711 1.1279 1.1185 1.1009 0.8597 0.8526 0.8391 0.8054 0.7987 0.7861 0.1848 1.1660 1.1555 1.1358 0.8571 0.8493 0.8349 0.7981 0.7910 0.7775 0.1995 1.1927 1.1811 1.1594 0.8549 0.8466 0.8310 0.7910 0.7833. 0.7689 0.2154 1.1895 1.1770 1.1536 0.8524 0.8435 0.8268 0.7830 0.7748 0.7594 0.2326 1.1852 1.1718 1.1467 0.8496 0.8400 0.8220 0.7742 0.7654 0.7491 0.2512 1.1856 1.1711 1.1441 0.8501 0.8397 0.8203 0.7678 0.7584 0.7409 0.2712 1.1867 1.1710 1.1419 0.8511 0.8398 0.8189 0.7612 0.7511 0.7324 0.2929 1.1878 1.1709 1.1395 0.8522 0.8400 0.8175 0.7538 0.7431 0.7231 0.3162 1.1890 1.1707 1.1368 0.8533 0.8402 0.8159 0.7456 0.7341 0.7128 0.3415 1.1950 1.1752 1.1385 0.8580 0.8438 0.8174 0.7393 0.7271 0.7043 0.3687 1.2037 1.1821 1.1423 0.8578 0.8425 0.8141 0.7334 0.7203 0.6960 0.3981 1.2136 1.1902 1.1469 0.8537 0.8372 0.8068 0.7268 0.7128 0.6869 0.4299 1.2251 1.1996 1.1526 0.8490 0.8313 0.7987 0.7193 0.7043 0.6768 0.4642 1.2429 1.2149 1.1636 0.8464 0.8274 0.7924 0.7133 0.6973 0.6678 0.5012 1.2688 1.2380 1.1817 0.8466 0.8260 0.7884 0.7092 0.6920 0.6605 0.5412 1.3013 1.2673 1.2051 0.8474 0.8252 0.7847 0.7046 0.6861 0.6525 0.5843 1.3476 1.3096 1.2403 0.8521 0.8281 0.7843 0.7014 0.6816 0.6455 0.6310 1.4077 1.3648 1.2871 0.8586 0.8325 0.7851 0.6987 0.6774 0.6388 0.6813 1.4269 1.3801 1.2954 0.8659 0.8375 0.7861 0.6956 0.6728 0.6315 0.7356 1.4146 1.3645 1.2744 0.8755 0.8445 0.7887 0.6931 0.6686. 0.6244 0.7943 1.4047 1.3511 1.2549 0.8901 0.8561 0.7952 0.6929 0.6665 0.6191 0.8577 1.3940 1.3366 1.2342 0.9073 0.8699 0.8033 0.6928 0.6643 0.6134 0.9261 1.3821 1.3207 1.2118 0.9275 0.8863 0.8132 0.6926 0.6619 0.6073 1.0000 1.3731 1.3074 1.1914 0.9546 0.9089 0.8283 0.6943 0.6611 0.6024 1.0798 1.3666 1.2962 1.1724 0.9900 0.9390 0.8494 0.6980 0.6620 0.5988 1.1659 1.3594 1.2839 1.1520 1.0338 0.9764 0.8762 0.7019 0.6629 0.5948 1.2589 1.3512 1.2703 1.1300 1.0758 1.0114 0.8998 0.7062 0.6639. 0.5906 LB Profile, Frequency LB kappa (Hz) (0.09) 1.3594 1.3483 1.4678 1.3478 1.5849 1.3471 1.7113 1.3460 1.8478 1.3446 1.9953 1.3435. 2.1544 1.3435 2.3263 1.3431 2.5119 1.3424 2.7123 1.3421 2.9286 1.3413 3.1623 1.3399 3.4145 1.3419 3.6869 1.3434 3.9811 1.3451 4.2987 1.3525. 4.6416 1.3605 5.0119 1.3751 5.4117 1.3923 5.8434 1.4148 6.3096 1.4430 6.8129 1.4746 7.3564 1.5156. 7.9433 1.5606 8.5770 1.6136 9.2612 1.6782 10.0000 1.7503 10.7978 1.8346 11.6591 1.9374 12.5893. 2.0549 13.5936 2.1894 14.6780 2.3499 15.8489 2.5422 17.1133 2.7672 18.4785 3.0319 PROJECT CALCULATION PC No. PV001-PC-02 Rev.O Page 15of18 SWUS to PVNGS Adjustment Factor (Fourier-amplitude Space) LB LB Median Median UB UB UB Profile, Median Profile, Profile, Profile, Profile, Profile, Median UB Profile, Median UB LB Median UB kappa kappa LB kappa kappa kappa kappa kappa kappa (0.12) (0.09) (0.12) (0.16) (0.12) (0.09) (0.12) (0.09) 1.2614 1.1117 1.0777 1.0082 0.8886 0.7142 0.6681 0.5888 1.2543 1.0943 1.0773 1.0026 0.8747 0.7246 0.6743 0.5883 1.2464 1.0757 1.0767 0.9963 0.8598 0.7364 0.6813 0.5880 1.2378 1.0557 1.0759 0.9894 0.8439 0.7496 0.6893 0.5879 1.2282 1.0344 1.0748 0.9817 0.8268 0.7645 0.6984 0.5882 1.2184 1.0121. 1.0739 0.9739 0.8090 0.7821 0.7093 0.5892 1.2089 0.9895 1.0739 0.9663 0.7909 0.8033 0.7228 0.5916 1.1984 0.9654 1.0735 0.9579 0.7716 0.8280 0.7387 0.5951 1.1869 0.9398 1.0730 0.9487 0.7512 0.8522 0.7535 0.5966 1.1751 0.9132 1.0728 0.9392 0.7300 0.8575 0.7508 0.5835 1.1620 0.8851 1.0721 0.9288 0.7075 0.8570 0.7424 0.5655 1.1476 0.8553 1.0710 0.9173 0.6837 0.8561 0.7332 0.5465 1.1351 0.8264 1.0726 0.9073 0.6606 0.8573 0.7252 0.5280 1.1213 0.7960 1.0738 0.8963 0.6362 0.8583 0.7164 0.5086 1.1067 0.7644 1.0751 0.8846 0.6110 0.8594 0.7070 0.4884 1.0956 0.7347. 1.0811 0.8757 0.5873 0.8641 0.7000 0.4694 1.0837 0.7040 1.0874 0.8662 0.5627 0.8692 0.6924 0.4498 1.0756 0.6751 1.0991 0.8598 0.5396 0.8785 0.6872 0.4313 1.0680 0.6458 1.1129 0.8536 0.5162 0.8895 0.6823 0.4126 1.0625 0.6173 1.1309 0.8493 0.4934 0.9039 0.6788 0.3944 1.0592 0.5892 1.1534 0.8466 0.4710 0.9219 0.6767 0.3765 1.0560 0.5606 1.1787 0.8441 0.4481 0.9421 0.6747 0.3582 1.0569 0.5334. 1.2114 0.8448 0.4264 0.9683 0.6752 0.3408 1.0574 0.5054 1.2474 0.8452 0.4039 0.9971 0.6756 0.3229 1.0599 0.4776 1.2898 0.8472 0.3817 1.0310 0.6772 0.3051 1.0659 0.4507 1.3414 0.8520 0.3603 1.0722 0.6810 0.2880 1.0722 0.4233 1.3990 0.8570 0.3383 1.1183 0.6850 0.2704 1.0808 0.3962 1.4664 0.8639 0.3167 1.1721 0.6905 0.2531 1.0941 0.3702 1.5486 0.8746 0.2959 1.2378 0.6990 0.2365 1.1088 0.3441. 1.6425. 0.8863 0.2750 1.3129 0.7084 0.2199 1.1246 0.3179 1.7500 0.8989 0.2541 1.3988 0.7185 0.2031 1.1446 0.2926 1.8783 0.9149 0.2338 1.5014 0.7313 0.1869 1.1692 0.2680 2.0321 0.9346 0.2142 1.6243 0.7470 0.1712 1.1962 0.2438 2.2119 0.9562 0.1949 1.7680 0.7643 0.1558 1.2258 0.2201 2.4235 0.9798 0.1759 1.9371 0.7832 0.1406 LB Profile, Frequency LB kappa (Hz} (0.09} 19.9526 3.3536 21.5443 3.7485 23.2631 4.2270 25.1189 4.8118 27.1227 5.5426 29.2864 6.4784 31.6228 7.6667 34.1455 9.1952 36.8695 11.1888 39.8107 13.8284. 42.9866 17.3805 46.4159 22.2896 50.1187 29.2648. 54.1170 39.2659 58.4341 53.9344 63.0957 75.9811 68.1292 110.005. 73.5642 164.031 79.4328 252.802 85.7696 404.226. 92.6119 671.328 100.000 1160.96 PROJECT CALCULATION PC No. PV001-PC-02 Rev.O Page 16of18 SWUS to PVNGS Adjustment Factor (Fourier-amplitude Space) LB LB Median Median UB UB UB Profile, Median Profile, Profile, Profile, Profile, Profile, Median UB Profile, Median UB LB Median UB kappa kappa LB kappa kappa kappa kappa kappa kappa (0.12) (0.09} (0.12) (0.16) (0.12) (0.09) (0.12) (0.09) 1.2614 0.1975 2.6806 1.0083 0.1578 2.1427 0.8059 0.1262 1.3041 0.1761 2.9963 1.0424 0.1407 2.3950 0.8332 0.1125 1.3518 0.1556 3.3787 1.0805 0.1244 2.7006 0.8637 0.0994 1.4050 0.1361 3.8461 1.1231 0.1088 3.0743 0.8977 0.0869 1.4671 0.1179 4.4303 1.1727 0.0943 3.5412 0.9373 0.0754 1.5422 0.1014 5.1783 1.2327 0.0811 4.1391 0.9853 0.0648 1.6277 0.0861 6.1281 1.3010 0.0688 4.8983 1.0399 0.0550 1.7252 0.0722 7.3499 1.3789 0.0577 5.8748 1.1022 0.0461 1.8369 0.0597 8.9434 1.4682 0.0477 7.1486 1.1736 0.0381 1.9655 0.0486 11.0533 1.5710 0.0388 8.8350 1.2557 0.0310 2.1143 0.0389 13.8925 1.6900 0.0311 11.1045 1.3508 0.0249 2.2920 0.0307 17.8164 1.8320 0.0245 14.2409 1.4644 0.0196 2.5099 0.0238 23.3918 2.0062 0.0190 18.6974 1.6036 0.0152 2.7684 0.0181 31.3858 2.2128 0.0145 25.0872 1.7687 0.0116 3.0774 0.0135 43.1106 2.4598 0.0108 34.4589 1.9662 0.0086 3.4500 0.0098 60.7328 2.7576 0.0078 48.5447 2.2042 0.0063 3.9029 0.0069 87.9283 3.1197 0.0055 70.2824 2.4936 0.0044 4.4589 0.0048 131.113 3.5641 0.0038 104.800 2.8488 0.0031 5.1544 0.0032 202.069 4.1200 0.0026 161.517 3.2932 0.0020 6.0417 0.0021 323.104 4.8292 0.0017 258.262 3.8601 0.0013 7.1753 0.0013 536.603 5.7353 0.0010 428.915 4.5843 0.0008 8.6394 0.0008 927.980 6.9056 0.0006 741.749 5.5197 0.0005 PROJECT CALCULATION 8. REFERENCES PC No. PV001-PC-02 Rev.O Page 17of18 1. GeoPentech. (2015). Southwestern United States Ground Motion Characterization SSHAC Level 3-Technical Report Rev.I, February 2015. 2. Lettis Consultants International (2015). Development of site profile and amplifications for Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, PYOOl-PC-04-RevO. 3. Boore, D.M., and Joyner, W.B. (1997). Site amplifications for generic rock sites, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 87 (2), 327-341. 4. Boore, D. M. (2003). Simulation of ground motion using the stochastic method, Pure. and Applied Geophysics v.160, 635-675. 5. Boore, D. M. (2013). The Uses and Limitations oftbe Square-Root-Impedance Method for. Computing Site. Amplification. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,. I 03( 4), 2356-2368. 6. Brocher, T. M. (2005). Empirical relations between elastic wavespeeds.and density in the Earth's crust. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 95(6), 2081-2092. 7. Anderson, J. G., and Hough, S. E. (1984). A model. for the shape of the Fourier amplitude spectrum of acceleration at high frequencies. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 74(5), 1969-1993. 8. Al Atik, L., Kottke, A., Abrahamson, N., and Hollenback, J. (2014). Kappa (K) Scaling of Ground-Motion Prediction Equations Using an Inverse Random Vibration Theory Approach. Bulletin of the. Seismological Society of America, 104( I), 336-346. 9. Biro, Y., and Renault, P. (2012). Importance and impact of host-to-target conversions for ground motion prediction equations in PSHA. In Proc. of the 15th World Conference on. Earthquake Engineering (pp. 24-28). 10. Cotton, F., Scherbaum, F., Bommer, J. J., and Bungum, H. (2006). Criteria for selecting and adjusting ground-motion models for specific target regions: Application to central Europe and rock sites. Journal of Seismology, 10(2), 137-156. 11. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) (2013). Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task. Force Recommendation 2. J: EPRl Report J 025287, Palo Alto, Calif. 12. H.F., L. W. Gardner, and A .. R. Gregory (1974) .. Formation velocity and density-the diagnostic basics for stratigraphic traps. Geophysics 39, 770-780. 13. Lockridge.I. S., Fouch, M. J.,.& A1Towsmith,.J. R. (2012). Seismicity within Arizona during the Deployment of the EarthScope USArray Transportable Array. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 102(4), 1850-1863. 14. Rodriguez-Marek, A., Rathje, E. M., Bommer, J. J., Scherbaum, F., and Stafford, P. J. (2014). Application of Single-Station Sigma and Site-Response Characterization in a Probabilistic Seismic-Hazard Analysis for a New Nuclear Site. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

PROJECT CALCULATION PC No. PV001-PC-02 Rev.O Page 18of18 15. Wan*en, D. H. (1969). A seismic-refraction survey of crustal structure in central Arizona. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 80(2), 257-282. 9 .. APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Electronic files are provided in a DVD. (PROPRIETARY) APPENDIX B: Calculations for 808 ft Thickness of Volcanics PROJECT CALCULATION APPENDIX A APPENDIX A PROPRIETARY PC No. PV001-PC-02 Revision 0 Page A1 of A2 L. tti.-* J'nsuh.1ntii lnlern.>tinn.il, Inc PROPRIETARY PROJECT CALCULATION APPENDIX A PC No. PV001-PC-02 Revision 0 PageA2 of A2 Electronic files included in this appendix are provided on a DVD-ROM disc that contains multiple files developed as part of this calculation. This disc is labeled: 'PVOOl-PC-02-RevO' PROPRJETARY A complete list of data directories and associated files are contained in the text file named file_ list_ a_ 02262015. txt, located in a separate folder named 'App_ A_ file_ list'.

PROJECT CALCULATION APPENDIX B PC No. PV001-PC-02 Rev.O Page 81 of BS APPENDIX B. CALCULATIONS FOR 808 FT THICKNESS OF VOLCANICS The calculations presented here follow the same steps documented in Section 6 above and are performed in file Calc_Adjustment_Factors_808ft.xlsm (contained in Appendix A). The only difference between the. two sets of calculations is that the thickness. of the volcanics has. been changed from 878 ft to 808 ft (see sheet Deep_Projile_Summary). Figures B-1 through B-3 show the Vs profiles considered, individual adjustment factors, and logarithmic-mean adjustment factors. These can be compared to Figures 1-3 .. An additional sheet in Calc_Adjustrnent_Factors_808ft .xlsm (sheet Compare_878ft) compares the results obtained with the 808-ft thickness to those obtained earlier with the 878-ft thickness. The differences observed are. small and are much smaller than the. the uncertainty in the adjustment factors (see Figure B-4). The maximum change in the logarithmic-mean adjustment factor is a reduction of two percent, and the change is much smaller at most frequencies. Given the size of this change, and given that ignoring this change is conservative, it is concluded that the change. can be ignored and the values in Table I and in file Adjustment_Factors.csv can be used.

LCI Qi ; 0 500 1000 Q. Ri .s:. "' .... 0 1500 .... .... 0 .ll E 0 .:: i:' -s 2000 Q. cu 0 2500 3000 PROJECT CALCULATION APPENDIX B 0 1000 Vs (m/s) 2000 3000 -, .... I I I , I I I I I ------I 1 I "' I l .... I l -I I I t -1 I I I . -J--I UB Profile -Base Case Profile ; I ... I -LB Profile I --Warren (1969) I I --SWUS Reference I Profile I -PC No. PV001-PC-02 Rev.O Page 82 of BS 4000 -Figure B-1. Vs deep profiles for. PVNGS, after modifying thickness of volcanics, A depth of 0 corresponds to. the bottom of the shallow profile (soils). Also shown are the Warren (1969) (Ref. 15) and SWUS (Ref. 1) profiles.

LCI PROJECT CALCULATION APPENDIX B PC No. PV001-PC-02 Rev.O Page 83 of BS 10 I I I ..L -1, -r, I. /,j , -E :J .... ti QI Q. V'I .... QI *;: :J 0 u.. c 1 .... 0 .... v "' u.. .... c QI l/J' 'l h :Ii --t-..+-I-,_ __J--. ---l --I I I * """' --L-,, 11-,_ -"'" -r.--. !"..'. ' i....... .... .... , I r..... .... I E .... Ill "" "'-:J :0 < 0.1 I I 1 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) -LB Profile, LB kappa (0.09) -LB Profile, Median kappa (0.12) -LB Profile, UB kappa (0.09) -Median Profile, LB kappa (0.12) -Median Profile, Median kappa (0.16) -Median Profile, UB kappa (0.12) -UB Profile, LB kappa (0.09) -UB Profile, Median kappa (0.12) UB Profile, UB kappa (0.09) Figure B-2. Adjustment factors after modifying thickness of volcanics.

LCI 10 ---E :I .... ti QI Q. V) .... QI *.::: :I 0 u.. c 1 .£. .... 0 ... u ro u.. --... c QI E ... Ill :I !tJ <t / 0.1 0.1 PROJECT CALCULATION APPENDIX B I I I I I I ' i i I *-*-+--Logarithmic mean AF l sigma (right Y axis) I I->--+ ._,_,_ --' J I I I ---I I ' l +-. --I -+ + --l l -'- + , -r --1 10 Frequency (Hz) I + PC No. PV001-PC-02 Rev.o Page 84 of BS 2 -1.8 -I-+-1.6 -1.4 -;-u ro Q. " ! Ill 1.2 c -c: 0 1 ... ro *:;; QI 0 +. 0.8 "C .... ro "C c -ro 0.6 ... V) -0.4 0.2 0 100 Figure B-3. Swnmary statistics of the adjustment factor after modifying thickness of volcanics 30% 20% 10% u.. < *= Gi 11.0 c 111 0% .s:. u ... c Q,I u ... Q,I Q. -10% -20% -30% PROJECT CALCULATION APPENDIX B PC No. PV001-PC-02 Rev.O Page BS of BS Change in Adjustment Factor as a Result of Modifying Thickness of Volcanics I ' ' I / _, , I \ \. ' ' ,. \ ,., _,, \ 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency {Hz) -LB Profile, LB kappa (0.09) -LB Profile, Median kappa (0.12) --LB Profile, UB kappa (0.09) -Median Profile, LB kappa (0.12) -Median Profile, Median kappa (0.16) -Median Profile, UB kappa (0.12) -UB Profile, LB kappa (0.09) -UB Profile, Median kappa (0.12) -UB Profile, UB kappa (0.09) -Logarithmic mean AF -1 sigma + 1 sigma Figure B-4. Change in logarithmic-mean adjustment factor (thick blue line) as a result of modifying thickness of volcanjcs.

Heeszel, David From:Heeszel, David Sent:? May 2015 20:01:54 +0000 To:Seber, Dogan

Subject:

Vs-kappa corTection paper Attachments: Reference 7 .21. pdf Attached is the Vs-kappa correction from PVNGS. --David David Heeszel Geophysicist U.S. NRC, NRO/DSEA/RGS2 Office: T-7E28 Mail Stop: T-7F3 Phone: 301-415-5066 Sent: 12 Feb 2015 20:0 l :46 +0000 To:Munson, Clifford;Ake, Jon Cc:Jackson, Diane

Subject:

ACTJON: SSHAC Review Guidance lmportance: High Amigos-I've taken the risk of putting together some guidance on how the WUS teams can approach review of the SSHACs. I've focused on what I think are the. key questions. we'd want the teams to answer as the goals of their reviews, so that we'd have a good, traceable basis for concluding the SSHAC process was acceptable/unacceptable. Certainly, I don't think that every team would necessarily have to address every sub-question, but have tried to identify 7 basic yet distinct areas that appear intrinsic to a good SSHAC process. I've pulled these 7 areas from various statements and concepts in NUREG/CR-6372 (SSHAC), NUREG-2117 (Implementing SSHAC), and NUREG-1563 (BTP on Expert Elicitation). I'm intentionally avoiding the use of anything that reads like Acceptance Criteria/Review Methods, as I appreciate the sensitivities that the scope isn't a licensing review ... I would appreciate your thoughts on this approach for guiding the teams in their upcoming reviews. I've run it past Diane as a straw man, and she didn't barf. If you think this is on the right track, please add/edit the attached. If you think this is nuts, or want to work on an alternative approach, let's talk on Tues/Wed. I'll be out on AL from Thurs 2/19 through 3/5, and would like to get your initial feedback before I split for sunnier climes. ThanksBritt Brittain E. Hill, Ph.D. Sr. Technical Advisor US Nuclear Regulatory Commission MS T7-F03, NRO/DSEA Washington, DC 20555-0001 Ph+ 1 1301' 415-6588* Er+ 1 (301) 415-5399; Mobile_(bJ(5l j email: Brittain.Hill@nrc.gov Sent:3 Jun 2015 l 7:32:37 +0000 To:Walsh, Lisa

Subject:

RE: Columbia -Seismicity Map Lisa -this. looks good and is a handy reference -the changes make the data comparisons clear. Seems appropriate to send to group, but I don't see a need for using at tomorrow's meeting (we're not doing evaluations/comparisons with PSHA bases yet). ThanksBritt From: Walsh, Lisa Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 12:23 PM To: Hill, Brittain

Subject:

RE: Columbia -Seismicity Map Hi. Britt, Here is an updated version. Do you see. any additional changes I should make?. Should I send this version to the rest of the group? Changes

• Magnitude threshold to. only display events greater than and equal to 1.85 as they used in the SSHAC ..

• lluminated pre-and post-the licensee's catalog Lisa From: Hill, Brittain Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 8:32 AM To: Walsh, Lisa

Subject:

RE: Columbia -Seismicity Map Hi Lisa -nice map -are you running Arc for this, or GMT? Before showing this at a public meeting, I'd suggest truncating the USGS catalog to same M threshold as the SSHAC (2?). By plotting all USGS quakes, the map gives the impression that lots of. earthquakes are missing from the SSHAC database (i.e., not considered in the PSHA). From: Walsh, Lisa Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 8:19 AM To: Seber, Dogan; Stirewalt, Gerry; Weaver, Thomas Cc: Hill, Brittain; Ake, Jon; Munson, Clifford; Li, Yong; Chokshi, Nilesh; John Stamatkos; Jackson, Diane; Karas, Rebecca

Subject:

Columbia -Seismicity Map Hi CGS Team, Attached is a map I compiled with seismicity out beyond the 200 mi radius from the. site and info provided in the SSHAC by the licensee. This might be a useful resource for the public meeting tomorrow. Lisa Lisa S. Walsh, Ph.D .. Geophysicist, U.S. NRC NRO/DSEA/RGS1 T-7F15, 301-415-5612 Sent:21May201521:40:13 +0000 To: Vega, Frankie;JacksonFD.....,.ian=e ______ _, Cc:DiFrancesco, Nicholas (bl(5l ------------

Subject:

Re: Draft ESEP relief letter to Diablo Canyon Someone who knows the details of. what Diablo is relying on for FLEX need to confirm that the 1988 LTSP analyses have indeed evaluated the. SSCs Diablo currently relies on for shutdown path. Unless. this. is clear, issue needs to be resolved with SRB discussion. etc .. Absent that confirmation, it is premature to conclude that.the 1988 LTSP. margins assessment encompasses the 2015 shutdown path that includes FLEX. Diablo didnt address FLEX SSCs in submittal. Working from blakberry-very hard to edit files! Britt Sent from Brittain Hill's PDA l(b)(6) I From: Vega, Frankie Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 04: 16 PM To: Hill, Brittain Cc: DiFrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

RE: Draft ESEP relief letter to Diablo Canyon Britt; I'm not aware if the SRB has. discussed this issue yet. I will confirm. Thanks Frankie From: Hill, Brittain Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 4: 12 PM To: Vega, Frankie Cc: DiFrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

Re: Draft ESEP relief letter to Diablo Canyon Hi Frankie -has the issue of Diablo meeting the ESEP requirements been discussed by the SRB? Have they determined that all FLEX is covered by LTSP analyses? Please confirm. Thanks-Britt Sent from Brittain Hill's PDA l(b)(6) I From: Vega, Frankie Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 04:02 PM To: Hill, Brittain Cc: DiFrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

Draft ESEP relief letter to Diablo Canyon Britt; Hope you are doing well. I've attached the draft ESEP relief letter to Diablo Canyon. This letter follows a very similar format to the letter we sent last year to several CEUS licensee also requesting ESEP relief (Based on their previous IPEEE evaluations). I'm sending this draft letter to you first since It mostly references Diablo's L TSP which you are very familiar with. Please review and feel free to make any necessary changes. I'm also planning to share this with the mitigation strategies technical reviewers. just as we did with the other ESEP relief letter I mentioned above. If you have questions please let me. know. Thanks! ..... Frankie G. Vega, P.E. Project Manager NRR/JLD/JHMB 301-415-1617 Location: 0-13Hl2 Munson, Clifford From:Munson, Clifford Sent:26 May. 2015 14:54:41 +0000. To:Ake, Jon;John Starnatkos

Subject:

lst Draft -Focus Area Topics for PVNGS Public Meeting Attachments:Focus Area Topics for PVNGS Public Meeting (draft l).docx Britt is out this week. Here is what I cobbled together so far. Would appreciate your comments and input. I am working on the site response question on Vs-kappa corrections. Thanks, Cliff Munson, Clifford From:Munson, Clifford Sent:29 Apr 2015.19:04:03 +0000 To:Ake, Jon;Stovall, Scott

Subject:

Boore paper on adjusting from vs30=760 to 3000 You may already have this paper. http://www.daveboore.com/daves notes/Adjusting PSA amplitudes to Vs30 3000.v02.pdf Munson, Clifford From:Munson, Clifford Sent:21May.2015 19:42: 17 +0000. To:DiFrancesco, Nicholas Cc:Jackson, Diane;Seber, Dogan;Ake, Jon; Weaver, Thomas;Stirewalt, Gerry;Walsh, Lisa;John Stamatkos;Hill, Brittain;Kock, Andrea

Subject:

Columbia Topics for 6/4 meeting. Attacbments:Focus Area Topics for CGS Public Meeting (draft 2).docx These are ready to go. Thanks, Cliff Munson, Clifford From:Munson, Clifford Sent: 19 May. 2015 13:21: 14 +0000. To:Seber, Dogan Cc:Jackson, Diane

Subject:

Columbia Topics for Public Meeting Dogan, When you get a chance would you please forward your topics/questions for the Columbia public meeting to Britt, Jon, and me. Diane suggested that we discuss during the Thursday meeting so that we can get them over to JLD by the end of the week. Thanks, Cliff Munson, Clifford From:Munson, Clifford Sent:27 May 2015 20:47:43 +0000 To:Weaver, Thomas;Stovall, Scott;Ake, Jon. Cc: Heeszel, David

Subject:

Confirm Hanford Vs-Kappa correction Thomas, David has programed the Hanford GMM both with and without the vs-kappa correction. If you give him some scenario events similar to the ones used by Hanford, you could try to replicate the Vs-kappa corrections in Figure 9.38. This would be useful to make sure we understand each of the steps in preparation for the meeting next week. Let's talk tomorrow after the Columbia. meeting. Thanks, Cliff Munson, Clifford From:Munson, Clifford Sent:29 Apr 201516:25: 16 +0000 To:Ake, Jon;Stovall, Scott Cc:Graizer, Vladimir

Subject:

dcpp median gmm I finished the swus-dcpp gmm this morning. Below are median gm results for a scenario event on one of the local faults which we can use for the analytical site response. Solid line is the weighted average of the 31 median models. There are 21 frequencies between 0.1 and 100. Benchmarking to come. Cliff DCPP Median Ground Motion 2.0 .... ------------------------------_. ________________ __ 1.8 x 1.6 x x x x x 1.4 x x x x )C x x x M 3E x x x x x x 1.2 x )rt x x x x -x x O> x x x ..._.... x <( 1.0 x x en x x x 0.8

• x x x x x x x x x 0.6 x )C x x x

• x x x )( x x x )C x x M x x 0.4 x x

• x x x x )( 0.2 x x x 0.1 1 10 frequency (Hz)

Munson, Clifford From:Munson, Clifford Sent:28 May 2015 13:57:39 +0000 To:DiFrancesco, Nicholas;Jackson, Diane

Subject:

DCPP RAI-Draft 2 Attachments:DCPP RAJ (draft 2).docx Some modifications. Cliff To the Power Reactor Licensees on the Enclosed List May 27, 2015.

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION 2.1, SEISMIC RE-EVALUATIONS RELATED TO SITE RESPONSE FOR DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT (TAC NOS. XXXXX, XXXXX) By letter dated March 15, 2015,. to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRG), Pacific Gas and Electric, submitted for NRG review the Seismic Hazard and Screening Report, Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 50, Section 50.54(f), Response for Information Regarding Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term. Task Force. Review. of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant. Included in the seismic hazard reevaluation report is an evaluation of the site response for Diablo Canyon using an alternative empirical approach. The NRG staff has reviewed the information provided for Diablo Canyon and has determined that additional information is required to complete its review .. Enclosed is. a request for additional information (RAI) related to the site response evaluation. As discussed with your staff on XXXX YY, 2015, it was agreed that a response to the RAI would be provided no later than XXXXX YY, 2015. If you have any questions related to. the enclosed RAls or the requested submission date, please contact me at 301-415-1115 or via e-mail at Nicholas.Difrancesco@nrc.gov.

Enclosures:

1 . Request for Additional Information 2. Addressee List cc w/encls: Distribution via Listserv Sincerely, IRA/ Nicholas J. DiFrancesco, Senior Project Manager Hazards Management Branch. Japan Lessons-Learned Division Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

ML 14268A516 Sincerely, IRA/ Nicholas J. DiFrancesco, Senior Project Manager Hazards Management Branch Japan Lessons-Learned Division Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation RidsNrrDorllpl2-2 NDiFrancesco, NRA RidsNrrPMRobinson RidsRgn2MailCenter RidsNrrOd *via mail OFFICE NRR/JLD/JHMB/PM NRR/JLD/JHMB/LA* NRR/DORULPL2-2/PM* NRR/DORULPL2-1 /PM* NAME NDiFrancesco Slent MBarillas SWilliams DATE 09/29/14 09/29/14 10/15/14 09/30/14 OFFICE NRR/DORULPL2-1/PM* NRO/DSEA/RGS1

• NRR/JLD/JHMB/BC NRR/JLD/JHMB/PM NAME RHall (w/comments) DJackson SWhalev. NDiFrancesco DATE 09/30/14 10/15/14 10/23/14 10/23/14 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION 2.1 SEISMIC HAZARD AND SCREENING REPORT FOR DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT Review of Alternative Empirical Site Response Evaluation By letter dated March 12, 2012 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML12053A340), the NRG staff requested that licensees submit site specific hazard curves that capture the variability in soil depth (including depth to generic rock conditions), shear-wave velocities, layer thicknesses, damping, and strain dependent nonlinear material properties at the site. Specifically, Attachment 1 to "Seismic" Enclosure 1 of the March 12, 2012, letter stated that "site amplification curves should be developed over a broad range of annual exceedance frequencies to facilitate estimation of seismic core damage frequency.". By letter dated February 15, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML 12319A074), "Endorsement of Electric Power Research Institute [EPRI] Final Draft Report 1025287, 'Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID),' the NRG staff endorsed using the SPID guidance. Regarding the development of site amplification curves for the NTTF Recommendation 2.1 seismic hazard reevaluations, Section 2 of the SPID states: Site amplification factors should be calculated as described in Section 2.4. As discussed in that section, multiple models of site amplification factors (and associated. uncertainties) should be developed, indicating the log-mean and standard deviation of control-point motion divided by input rock motion, for various spectral frequencies. The SPID further recommends that the soil and/or rock uncertainties should be incorporated into the seismic hazard calculations via the site amplification and their uncertainties through the hazard integral to develop control-point hazard curves .. The control-point elevation hazard curves should then be used to calculate the GMRS. By letters dated March 15, 2015, the. licensee for the Diablo. Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) submitted an alternative site response evaluation, referred to as the empirical approach, which uses the observed ground motions at the site from two earthquakes to "constrain the site amplification rather than analytical models." While. the staff considers the empirical site response approach as a viable alternative to the analytical approach, the method as implemented by the licensee was able to use only three site recordings from two earthquakes to constrain the local site amplification. As such, the licensee's estimate of the uncertainty in the local site term is potentially impacted by the limited amount of data. Request for Additional Information Consistent with the request for information issued pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal regulations, Part 50, Section 50.54(f) and the SPID guidance, please provide a revised March 2015 Enclosure1 seismic hazard reevaluation submittal that develops site amplification factors as recommended in Section 2.4 and Appendix B of the SPID. Please provide (1) a detailed description of the subsurface profile properties including uncertainties, (2) potential for nonlinear behavior at the strain produced by the. scenario earthquakes of interest, and (3) control. point elevation .. In addition, provide the adjustment factors (Vs-kappa corrections) needed to modify the median ground motion models for the selected reference or baserock elevation and velocity. Also include in the response, in table form, control point seismic hazard curves developed using the site amplification factors and their uncertainties through the hazard integral as recommended in Appendix B of the SPID.

H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant Duke Energy Progress, Inc. Docket No. 50-261 License No. DPR-23 Mr. William R. Gideon, Vice President H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant 3581 West Entrance Road Hartsville, SC 29550 Oconee Nuclear Station Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC List of Addressees Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270 and 50-287 License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47 and DPR-55 Mr. Scott Batson Vice President, Oconee Nuclear Station Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 7800 Rochester Highway Seneca, SC 29672-0752 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station South Carolina Electric and Gas Company Docket No. 50-395 License No. NPF-12 Mr. Thomas D. Gatlin, Vice President Nuclear Operations South Carolina Electric and Gas Company Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Post Office Box 88, Mail Code 800 Jenkinsville, SC 29065 Enclosure 2 Sent:23 Apr 2015 19:34:30 +0000 To:Ake. Jon;John Stamatkos

Subject:

DCPP Scenario events Munson,. Clifford From:Munson, Clifford Sent:30 Apr 2015 19:28:09 +0000 To:Stovall, Scott;Ake, Jon. Cc:Graizer, Vladimir

Subject:

DCPP Scenario Worksheet Attachments:scenario-spreadsheet.csv, scenario-spreadsheet.xlsx, scenario-spreadsheet.ads Scott and Jon, I developed 5 scenario events each at 3 levels (16, 50, 84). So there are a total of 15 events. saved the spreadsheet in three formats -hopefully one of them will work for you. Here are the parameters Mag 7.5 6.5. 6.8 6.0 8.0 Ztor 1 1 1 1 1 Rrup 5.1 1.2 9.2 5.1 5.1 Rjb .3.7 . . 0.6. o.n . 3.7 .3.7. Dip 85 90 60 85 85 Width 15 12 15 12 15 Rx. 5. .0.6. 10 5 5 F SS SS REV SS SS I tried to get a sufficient range of SA values yet still keep this. somewhat realistic. Let me know if you want me to add another scenario. Thanks, Cliff freq 0.1 0.133333 0.2 0.25 0.333333 0.5 0.666666 1 1.333333 2 2.5 3.333333 4 5 6.666667 10 13.33333 20 33.33333 50 100 S1-L S1-M 0.0135928 0.02323223 0.02126067 0.03630149 0.02409332 0.0411381 0.04022888 0.06862008 0.05301979 0.09043807 0.09164862 0.15601652 0.14167118 0.24093055 0.21814579 0.37024451 0.27242788 0.4614501 0.36417754 0.61501182 0.40726873 0.68640871 0.47517616 0.79925945 0.58357937 0.98061553 0.65999943 1.10681187 0.67182266 1.12326444 0.58402362 0.97256939 0.53894264 0.89480798 0.40332911 0.66764251 0.32281427 0.53169879 0.30574949 0.5030885 0.29870653 0.49002754 Sheetl S1 -H S2-L S2-M S2-H 0.03970752 0.00589409 0.01020574 0.01767144 0.06198292 0.01001215 0.01731891 0.02995808 0.07024117 0.01871057 0.03236535 0.05598526 0.11704813 0.02539436 0.04388301 0.07583252 0.15426398 0.03797482 0.0656228 0.1134002 0.26559216 0.06757365 0.11653808 0.20098255 0.40973422 0.09803317 0.16889984 0.29099493 0.62839165 0.17031874 0.29285324 0.50354425 0.78162409 0.22171708 0.38084868 0.65419282 1.03861304 0.32708952 0.56016641 0.95932883 1.15686986 0.39553462 0.67670695 1.15775528 1.34437649 0.48466229 0.82753578 1.41297 45 1.64777384 0.57464538 0.98019656 1.6719621 1.85611147 0.60995261 1.03938167 1.77114457 1.87805962 0.64599653 1.09750438 1.86458565 1.61961123 0.5758048 0.97532302 1.65204421 1.48565221 0.50718422 0.85737405 1.44935555 1.10516825 0.41862939 0.70626183 1.19152113 0.87574691 0.33913793 0.56986923 0.95757774 0.8277954 7 0.31006683 0.52049895 0.8737 4438 0.80388932 0.29220525 0.48904596 0.81848615 Page I

$3-L $3-M $3-H 0.00451818 0.00776098 0.01333122 0.007 45782 0.01279767 0.02196089 0.01214696 0.02084426 0.03576889 0.0180192 0.03089016 0.05295474 0.02837656 0.0486457 0.08339292 0.05878505 0.10057337 0.17206762 0.09098823 0.15551313 0.26579629 0.1565745 0.26707565 0.45556206 0.22743113 0.387551 0.66040116 0.32907062 0.5590687 0.94981988 0.3932533 0.66677586 1.1305437 0.48875519 0.82704718 1.39948801 0.55287124 0.93460608 1.57991311 0.64332396 1.08533984 1.83105655 0.65070698 1.09560218 1.84467692 0.61103827 1.02470454 1.71841837 0.52224613 0.87317761 1.45992302 0.41903824 0.69851887 1.16440113 0.32035244 0.53188205 0.88308526 0.29310184 0.48615141 0.80635179 0 .28652044 0.47381165 o. 78353042 Sheetl $4-L $4-M S4-H S5-L 0.00141504 0.00247976 0.00434558 0.02435431 0.00251936 0.00441057 0.00772146 0.03666668 0.00523621 0.00916689 0.01604823 0.03245563 0.00736962 0.01288889 0.02254167 0.0597338 0.01202286 0.02102705 0.03677468 0.07387252 0.02361384 0.04125751 0.07208407 0.12573558 0.0361113 0.06309275 0.11023405 0.20049557 0.06559398 0.11437516 0.19943411 0.29220897 0.09763834 0.17008022 0.2962697 0.3556664 0.15350101 0.26685545 0.46391768 0.44779938 0.19326401 0.33564605 0.58292422 0.47353872 0.25366551 0.43966651 0.7620533 0.53575002 0.29240918 0.50681909 0.87844571 0.68431228 0.32928307 0.57016043 0.98724454 0.77468653 0.36299417 0.62727609 1.08397137 0. 78104157 0.33126088 0.57072428 0.9832921 0.66341963 0.29304614 0.50438006 0.8681201 0.62851214 0.23611794 0.40558539 0.69668365 0.45284468 0.18941057 0.32438043 0.55552688 0.36316698 0.16916332 0.28970543 0.49614323 0.3506405 0.16295276 0.2782334 0.47506912 0.34416697 Page2 S5-M S5-H 0.04162532 0.07114419 0.06260646 0.1068973 0.05541631 0.09462047 0.10189042 0.17379874 0.126007 43 0.21493612 0.21404391 0.36437413 0.34096921 0.57986317 0.49594707 0.84173833 0.60244309 1.02044411 o. 75622982 1.27709765 0.79809982 1.34511351 0.90114634 1.51575306 1.14988171 1.93219967 1.29914089 2.17864514 1.30587471 2.18337773 1.10478686 1.83979184 1.04352046 1.73255995 0.7496071 1.24084665 0.59816267 0.9852178 0.5769534 0.94933477 0.5646053 0.926234 Sheetl Page 3 Munson,. Clifford From:Munson, Clifford Sent:29 Apr 2015 17:55:32 +0000 To:Stovall, Scott

Subject:

dcpp site response See Section 9.3 in the Hanford SSHAC -this is what I was thinking we could do for DCPP.

Munson, Clifford From:Munson, Clifford Sent:27 Apr 201517:21:46 +0000 To:HiJl, Brittain

Subject:

DCPP SSC Britt, Would you make an unlocked version of the SSC like you did for the GMC? Thanks, Cliff freq 0.1 0.13333 0.2 0.25 0.3333 0.5 0.6666 1 1.3333 2 2.5 3.3333 4 5 6.66667 10 13.3333 20 33.3333 50 100 host AF Sheetl target27 AF target28 AF target27 /host target28/host 1.137 1.132 1.138 0.99560246 1.00087951 1.181 1.173 1.182 0.99322608 1.0008467 4 1.262 1.249 1.263 0.98969889 1.00079239 1.311 1.294 1.312 0.9870328 1.00076278 1.38 1.356 1.382 0.9826087 1.00144928 1.488 1.449 1.491 0.97379032 1.00201613 1.578 1.52.2 1.583 0.96451204 1.00316857 1.732 1.635 1.74 0.94399538 1.00461894 1.875 1.73 1.886 0.92266667 1.00586667 2.135 1.893 2.154 0.88665105 1.0088993 2.292 2.019 2.3 0.88089005 1.0034904 2.48 2.215 2.407 0.89314516 0.97056452 2.593 2.348 2.428 0.90551485 0.93636714 2.724 2.535 2.431 0.93061674 0.89243759 2.88 2.765 2.455 0.96006944 0.85243056 3.104 3.161 2.577 1.0183634 0.83021907 3.266 3.462 2.828 1.06001225 0.865891 3.514 3.671 3.136 1.04467843 0.89243028 3.808 3.799 3.267 0.99763655 0.85793067 3.996 3.854 3.314 0.96446446 0.82932933 4.147 3.895 3.358 0.93923318 0.80974198 Page I DCPP Mediar1 Ground Motion .............. ........ --....... ----............... ....... ---....... _._ ............. ._ 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 --0> <( 1.0 Cf) 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 1 ....... \ I \ I \ I \ I I \ I \ I x x \ >', Ix \ I x x \ I x \ \ /X)I. x XX \ )( x \ \ x\ 10 frequency (Hz) \ \ \ ....... x ....... ---100 Information (pages 503/1000) is within scope of FOIA and should be released. Munson, Clifford From:Munson, Clifford Sent:4 May 2015 17:44:31 +0000 To:Graizer, Vladimir

Subject:

dcpp-scenario.pptx Attachments:dcpp-scenario.pptx Slide with one of the scenario SA for DCPP. Cliff Munson, Clifford From:Munson, Clifford Sent:23 Apr 2015.18:56: 12 +0000 To:Graizer, Vladimir Cc:Ake, Jon;John Stamatkos;Hill, Brittain;Jackson, Diane

Subject:

Diablo GMM for Local Sources Presentation Attachments:Diablo GMM_Local.pptx Vlad, Attached are a few slides for Monday. Thanks, Cliff SWUS GMM for DCPP April 2:3, 2015 SWUS GMM Notation Table 1-1: Notation used in HID, Part II: DCPP. T Period (seconds) M Moment magnitude NML Normal sources (-120 -60) REV Reverse sources, including Reverse-Oblique (REV-OBL); (30 s rakes 150) SS Strike-slip sources, including Normal-Oblique; (-180 s rake< -120, -60 < rake < 30, and 150 < rake s 180) FNML style of faulting (FNML=1 for NML, 0 otherwise) FRv style of faulting (FRv=1 for REV, 0 otherwise) ZroR Depth to top of rupture (km) Dip Fault dip (degrees) w Down-dip rupture width (km) L Rupture length (km) RRuP Rupture distance (km) Ris Joyner-Boore distance (km) Rx Horizontal distance from top of rupture measured perpendicular to strike (km) Rv Horizontal distance from center of rupture measured parallel to strike (km) f Hw Hanging Wall factor (155 Total sigma Width SWUS GMM Distance Notations Strike-slip faulting Reverse or normal faulting, hanging-wall site : Rx=Rib (positive) : l( )! I Dip Fault Rx (positive) Surface Rrup = Closest distance to rupturing fault plane (slant distance) Site Rjb =Closest horizontal distance to vertical projection of the rupture Rx= Closest horizontal distance to top of rupture Surface SWUS -DCPP

• DCPP. median. ground motion models separated into two. sets -Nearby faults -Distant faults

• Up to 31 Common form median models for nearby faults -Hosgri rupture model -Outward-Vergent rupture model -Southwest-Vergent rupture n1odel -Northeast-Vergent rupture rr1odel -Irish Hills-Estero Bay {IHEB) Source Zone

• Five NGA-West 2 GMPEs (+ 3 additional epistemic for each= 15 total models) used for distant sources Logic Tree for Median at Nearbv Faults 'J.ourcf' Oln.mu Mf'n le llrutiv1tv (h for ( r>'11m0fl f!Jlll'm Arl111ih1 :uo 1s11 tr!V:\UI oas1 Ht'l.'4111 1 of 5 HW models tfl lf*I assigned to each H'Wl( Example for PGA llN3[ .1 base model branch ll!Nl (ll f H n 5(lJ ( 1111 111 tll fUlll llvvS I l 1rv21 Ct>tll1 .. H..,.JllJ 0 HN't(l} tr.HU) U2[0020) llW!i[l] Al a23(oou1 lfAi4(1)

• 1111 f\ tl.2."1[0024) II a2scoon1 lf:l'Yl(JJ I

• llJVS(tl No directivity adjustment 1227(0011) trNZ(l) 128(0041) IM'llll I ltl'>(O OU) 11.Nl(l] tl'.30[1) 019) 11#4ll) 02iJ 1-tWl (l) R11trncd loo1moo ronn ° 11011 0 1 Base Model The functional form of the DCPP base model GMPEs is given in Eq. 2-1: Ln ( SABASE(M,RRuP,ZT0R,F,T)) = a0(T)-a2(T)RRUP + ai(T)ZroR + a120(T)FRv + ( a4 (T) +a5(T)(M -5)) In ( + a:(T) )-a9(T)FNML + -a1(T) +a2(T)(M -5.5) for M < 5.5 a1(T)(M -6.5) for5.5 < M < 6.5 a3(T)(M -6.5) for M > 6.5 (Eq. 2-1) Each of 31 models has 9 coefficients which are unique for each period Some. periods do. not use all 31 models Coefficient a9 is different for each period but same for all 31 models Base Model Coefficients for f=lO Hz Weight ID ao. a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6 a7 as alO HW branch (T =0.1 s) Model 1 1.37939 0.208505 1.22538 -0.20679 -1.07715. 0.221829 5.79698. 0.110195 0.108741 0.046582 3 0.213802 Model 2 2.08907 -0.03872 0.288456 -0.29772 -1.50424 0.285801 6.32318 0.073587 0.212603 0.321285 4 0.026091 Model 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Model 4 1.42017 0.229463 1.26391 -0.18665 -1.01908 0.158087 5.54758 0.097386 0.164283 0.40946 5 0.045412 Table 2-1: Period dependent a, coefficients for F ..... Model 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Model 6. 2.11812 0.018214. 0.601 -0.2412. -1.43939 0.229396 6.44111 0.099093 0.109868 0.187477 2 0.090946 Period (sec) ... Model 7. 1.41537 -0.15843. 0.184346 -0.34334. -1.35195 0.248723 4.83625 0.043879 0.156605 0.283496 3 0.106704 0.01 0.132 Model 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 O.G2 0.132 Model 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0.03 0.132 Model 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Model 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Model 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.05 0.132 ---o:n7r:; n 132 c 0.1 0.132 D 0.1:. 0.132 Model 13 1.71824 -0.12097 0.045631 -0.41779 -1.52157 0.365292 4.77083 0.078932 0.322164 0.070163 1 0.021841 0.2 0.122 Model 14 1.70842 -0.06499. 0.933162 -0.38424. -1.33162 0.272438 5.45517 0.032357 0.279844 0.026501 5 0.025405 --0.25 0.113 Model 15 1.35801 0.227881. 0.80121 -0.07749. -0.98918 0.17225 5.81514 0.150695 0.109848 0.582348 5 0.033783 0.3 0.104 Model 16 0.135637 0.55761 0.680404 -0.02608 -0.46462 0.206783 3.94907. 0.156003 O.Q13575 0.291355 2 0.023577 0.4 0.095 Model 17 2.5824 -0.08858 0.070521 -0.46784 -1.82498. 0.330311 7.36546. 0.04215 0.176967 0.092855 2 0.070407 o.s 0.095 Model 18 1.29169 0.160183 0.256293 0.000711 -1.14381 0.158694 5.98039 0.044523 -0.02714 0.395977 4 0.039704 Model 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Model 20 1.13328 -0.01714 0.917788 -0.10739 -1.00981 0.120088 5.50958 0.137317 0.049162 0.265754 3 0.038353 0.75 0.086 1 0.077 1.5 0.068 2 0.058 Model 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.039 Model 22 1.83279. -0.18253 0.87006. -0.30695 -1.42278 0.358787 5.59443 0.083036 0.262303 -0.10329 5 0.014387. 4 0.020 Model 23 1.72167 0.036879. 0.069845 -0.38891. -1.44441 0.360783 4.97423 0.111618 0.331344 0.047177 4 0.015225 5 0.000 Model 24 1.48175 0.160589 1.03484 -0.19933 -1.0126 0.130542 6.03483 0.063056 0.096106 0.269177 3 0.013056 7.5 0.000 Model 25 1.2764 0.148104 1.1556 -0.29942 -1.09622 0.264494 4.31646. 0.16418 0.31363 0.031954 1 0.02341 10 0.000 Model 26 1.69432 0.364288 0.512214 -0.08895 -1.14172 0.219346 6.92161 0.168786 0.183995 0.120731 5 0.026731 Model 27 0.997811 -0.01465 0.810009 -0.02759 -1.02663 0.176784 4.90505 0.028728 0.007867 0.261264 2 0.018086 Model 28 1.67589 0.240931 0.3965 -0.12191 -1.23775 0.180479 6.61248 0.130284 0.073181 0.315853 3 0.088166 Model 29 0.44296 0.248235 0.446781 0.209578 -0.71921 0.089693 5.0781 0.108356 -0.06265 0.39772 1 0.030853 Model 30 -0.09241 0.111952 0.391203 -0.05354 -0.61128 0.125671 2.84165 0.131171 0.028781 0.323736 4 0.009617 Model 31 1.03204 0.190696. 0.640938 -0.10285. -0.96101 0.107609 5.67792 0.154048 0.050723 0.282794 1 0.024445 sum.

Hanging Wall Effect I it Rx is positive I (Eq. 2-2a) where (Eq. 2-2 b) (Eq. 2-2 c)

Hanging Wall Coefficients Table 2-2: Coefficients for HW Factor Model. Period Model-dependent Cl Coefficients Coefficients held Constant (sec) for all five models Model Model Model Model Model C2 C3 C4 HWl HW2 HW3 HW4 HWS 0.01 0.868 0.982 1.038 1.095 1.209 0.2160 2.0289 0.1675 0.02 0.867 0.987 1.046 1.106 1.226 0.2172 2.0260 0.1666 0.03 0.856 0.997 1.067 1.138 1.278 0.2178 2.0163 0.1670 0.05 0.840 1.027 1.121 1.215 1.402 0.2199 1.9870 0.1699 0.075 0.857 1.041 1.133 1.226 1.410 0.2218 1.9906 0.1817 0.1 0.848 1.040 1.135 1.231 1.422 0.2213 1.9974 0.1717 0.15 0.868 1.009 1.080 1.150 1.292 0.2169 2.0162 0.1814 0.2 0.850 1.005 1.082 1.160 1.315 0.2131 1.9746 0.1834 0.25 0.868 0.985 1.044 1.102 1.219 0.1988 1.9931 0.1767 0.3 0.839 0.974 1.041 1.108 1.242 0.2019 2.0179 0.1658 0.4 0.780 0.934 1.011 1.089 1.243 0.2090 2.0249 0.1624 0.5 0.741 0.902 0.982 1.063 1.223 0.2053 2.0041 0.1719 0.75 0.613 0.869 0.997 1.125 1.380 0.1713 1.8697 0.1866 1 0.621 0.788 0.872 0.955 1.123 0.1571 1.8526 0.3143 1.5 0.506 0.662 0.740 0.818 0.974 0.1559 1.8336 0.3195 2 0.391 0.537 0.609 0.682 0.828 0.1559 1.7996 0.3246 3 0.128 0.245 0.304 0.362 0.480 0.1616 1.6740 0.3314 4 0 0.034 0.088 0.138 0.231 0.1616 1.6740 0.3314 5 0 0 0 0 0.040 0.1616 1.6740 0.3314 7.5 0 0 0 0 0 0.1616 1.6740 0.3314 10 0 0 0 0 0 0.1616 1.6740 0.3314 DCPP Median Ground Motion Southwestern United States Ground Motion Characterization SSHAC Level 3 TECHNICAL REPORT -Rev. 2 2.5 DCPP Ground Motion for the Median The DCPP ground motion model for the median from REV and SS sources is given by ln(SA(g)) =Ln ( SABASE(J\tl. RRUP' ZTOR'F. T)) + f HWO\!f.,Dip fV,Rx.RJB,RRUP,ZroR) (Eq. 2-3) + foJR ss(M,R,o.,,,R ,R or SS events I No directivity J ,RY,W,L.D;p) for REV events The DCPP ground motion model for the median from NML sources is given by In( SA(g)) = Ln (SA BASE ( M. RRUP, Z TOR, F. T)) + f HW ( M' Dip. ff 'Rx. R JB. RRUP' ZTOR) (Eq. 2-4)

Results for f=l and 10 Hz 2.0 --+-'-__.__ .................... __.__ .................... ......__ .................... ......__ ................................................................. __.__ ........... -+-1 .8 1.6 O> 1.4 -<( 1.2 Cf) c 1.0 co i5 0.8 Q) f=l Hz *

• E o.6 * * *

• 0.4 --.!. .. ------------*---.. ----!_ _. -----0.2 * * * * * * * * * * * *

• 0.0 ---..-.-....................... -.-....................... -.-....................... -....................... -.-..-............ ----....-.--0 10 20 30 median model no. 2.0 ............ -................................... __ ............ ___ ......................... ___ __.__ ....................... __ ..._._ ........... __ 1.8 1.6 O> 1.4 -<( 1.2 Cf) c 1.0 co i5 0.8 Q) E o.6 0.4 0.2

• f=lO Hz * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * *

• 0.0 -t--.--.-..-....-.-....,........,-.....-............ ....,........,.-.-....................... -.-..-..,........,.......,........,-.....-....................... --0 10 20 30 median model no. Parameter Value Mag 8.1 ZroR 2.0 km RRUP 10.2 km RJB 10.0 km Dip 85 Width 15.0 km Rx 10.0 km F SS Total Sigma Model 3. Total Sigma Model for DCPP 3.1 Structure of the Logic Tree Model M-Dependent 1 0 (See Eq. 3-1) Epistemic Uncertainty High (95% percentile) 0.3 Central 0.55 Low (5*.4 ercentile) 015 (Set? Tobie J 1) Figure 3-1: Logic Tree for Total Sigma at DCPP. Partially Non-Ergodic Directivity Adjustment Yes-Central 0.0 No 1.0 Aleatory Distribution Form Mixture Model 08 Accounts for heavy tails Normal 0.2 (See Eq 3-l)

Total Sigma Model 3.2 DCPP Total Sigma Model The following values are provided obtain the total sigma as a function of Magnitude, O$$(M), for hazard calculations using: f (M-5) ( ) CT1+--* Uz-U1 CTss(M) = 2 CTz fo1*M< 7.0 forM 7.0 The period-dependent values of 0'1 and a2 are listed in Table 3-1: 3-1: Epistemic Distribution for O' ss for DCPP. Period (sec) Low Branch Central Branch CH <n CH en 0.01 0.456 0.390 0.576 0.495 0.02 0.457 0.394 0.577 0.498 0.03 0.458 0.396 0.577 0.499 0.05 0.460 0.402 0.578 0.504 0.075 0.461 0.407 0.578 0.507 0.1 0.462 0.411 0.579 0.510 0.15 0.464 0.416 0.580 0.514 0.2 0.465 0.419 0.581 0.517 0.25 0.465 0.422 0.581 0.519 0.3 0.466 0.424 0.581 0.520 0.4 0.466 0.427 0.582 0.522 0.5 0.467 0.429 0.582 0.524 0.7" ..... --v.4.:SL u.::>o., U.::>.L I c 1 0.468 0.434 0.583 0.529 1.:> -A_..., n .d'.:t7 n <;.'.:t1 2 0.469 0.439 0.584 0.532 3 0.470 0.441 0.585 0.534 4 0.470 0.441 0.585 0.534 5 0.470 0.441 0.585 0.535 7.5 0.471 0.442 0.585 0.535 10 0.471 0.442 0.586 0.536 (Eq. 3-1) High Branch CH 02 0.699 0.614 0.699 0.614 0.700 0.615 0.700 0.616 0.701 0.617 0.702 0.618 0.703 0.620 0.703 0.621 0.704 0.622 0.704 0.623 0.704 0.625 0.705 0.626 v. --"""8 0.706 0.629 ... 1 v:031 0.707 0.632 0.707 0.633 0.707 0.634 0.707 0.634 0.708 0.635 0.708 0.635 For M=8.1 ass (low) 0.434 (0.15) ass (central)= 0.592 (0.55) ass (high) = 0.629 (0.30)

To Do List

• Program more periods

• Validate results for a examples

• Implement with Roland's codes

• Run PSHA for major sources

• Distant sources -NGA West 2 GMPEs already part of Roland's codes Sent:l7 Apr2015 19:55:15 +0000 To:Munson, Clifford

Subject:

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

Subject:

FW: t -C:LH!.ln' --Availability to support Diablo Canyon Oral Arguments FYl-1. have. not been asked to support yet, but the potential exists (unfortunately). Jon From: Markley, Michael Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 3:41 PM To: Kock, Andrea; Flanders, Scott; Ake, Jon; Munson, Clifford Cc: Lingam, Siva; Wilson, George; Lund, Louise

Subject:

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

Subject:

Affe"'l41! 1 eetrn I --Availability to support Diablo Canyon Oral Arguments All, The Atomic Safety & Licensing Board is planning on holding oral arguments for several pending Diablo Canyon contentions, including: 1) License renewal contentions A and B -analysis of alternatives to license renewal 2) License renewal contentions C and D -SAMA contentions 3) The de facto license amendment issues referred by the Commission to the Board in CLl-15-14 The Board plans on holding the arguments all together, one after the other. The proposed dates are July 8, 9, or 10. It is possible all the arguments will only take one day, but they may take more. than one day. The Board is considering either holding the. arguments here in Rockville or in San Luis Obispo. We are looking. for Staff support, both in preparing for. arguments, as well. as. Staff members who are able to attend the argument. Please note that not everyone on this list needs to be available to attend the argument. If we end up going to San Luis Obispo, we will probably only bring a limited number of Staff to support.

What is your availability on July a. 9, and 10, and what is your availability regarding Rockville vs .. San Luis Obispo? Sincerely, Yosef Lindell Attorney U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel OWFN 15 015 301-415-14 7 4 N&*l&&i. l"lstie e: ::ail a: :8 etR) ,._8)' HRl8iR 08Rfi"8Rli81 °M8FR8)' *Iii Al is 0tli5Ri)' '0'wrk Plddbtt 111are11a1. OU 1101 dlsclose outside 141"18 nitl wot 8011::: :ieeie:: etf51ue s 81:

Sent:22 May 2015 20:07:34 +0000 Tol(bJ(5l I

Subject:

FW: Code Attachments:Point Source Model.zip jjj From:. Weaver, Thomas Sent: Friday, May 22. 2015 I :0 I PM To: Ake, Jon

Subject:

RE: Code Jon, Auached is a GU1 version. J can send a non-GUI version if you would like. There is a draft user manual included with the files I am sending. Call if you have any questions. Thomas ----Original MFrom: Ake, Jon Sent: Friday, May 22. 2015 11 :58 AM To: Weaver, Thomas

Subject:

Code Thomas-Do you have a matlab script for producing an FAS with Boore's simple seismological model? Including which units for inputs? ls so can you shoot me a copy? Thx Jon Sent from NRC BlackBerry Jon Ake l(b)(6)

User Manual: NRC Seismologic Model Software by The SGSEB Three Stooges Thomas Weaver, Scott Stovall & .Jon Ake Scptembrr 14, 2012 Contents 1 Using NRC Seismologic Model Software 1.1 File . . . . . . . . 1.2 Worksheets . . . . . 1.2.1 Project Information 1.2.2 Input .. 1.2.2.1 Earthquake l\fagnitude 1.2.2.2 Somce to Site Distance 1.2.2.3 1.2.2.4 1.2.2.5 1.2.2.6 1.2.2.7 1.2.2.8 1.2.2.9 Frequency Range . Response Spcctruru Source Parameters . . . Geometrical Spreading Site Amplification Diminution . . . . Seismic Attenuation 1.2.2.10 Somcc Duration 1.2.2.11 Path Duration .. 1.2.3 Pat.h and Site Effects Graphs 1.2.4 Simulated Time Histories 1.3 Calculate 1.4 Results . 1.5 Help 2 Point Source Model 3 Random Vibration Theory 4 Time History Simulation A NRC SMS Validation 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 9 10 11 12 List of Figures 1.1 Input worksheet ................ . 1.2 Geometrical spreading: eastern North America. 1.3 Generic site amplification ............ . 1.4 Three segment attenuation function and associated input for NRC SMS. 1.5 Path duratiou for eastern North America from 13oore (2005). . ..... ii 2 4 5 6 7 Chapter 1 Using NRC Seismologic Model Software The NRC Seismologic Model Software (NRC SMS) is based on the work published by Boore (2003) on the simulation of ground motion using the stochastic method. In addition, SMSIM, the DOS based Fortran program developed by Boore (2005) was used to assist in development of NRC SlVIS. NRC SMS uses a menu and toolbar structure to navigate through the program as you input and view data used for computing Fourier amplitude spectra (FAS) and structural response spectra (RS), calculate FAS and RS, and view results from calculations. Each menu option is decribecl below. 1.1 File The File menu contains options for opening a previously created *.mat file, saving your input and results as a *.mat file. or exporting your input and results to a text file (*.txt) or Excel file (*.xis). Corresponding buttons are located in the toolbar for opening and saving *.mat files. 1.2 Worksheets The Worksheets menu is used to access worksheets for inputing project data required for calculation of Fourier amplitude and response spectra, and data required to calculate simulated time histories. In addition, this menu option allows you to see the path and site effects functions that will be used for calculating the FAS based on the input you have provided. 1.2.1 Project Information The Project Information worksheet allows you to document important project details such as the project name, project identification, and additional information you find useful for identifying the associated calculations. 1.2.2 Input The Input worksheet is used to define parameters required for calculatiug Fourier amplitude and response spectra. This worksheet is shown in Figure 1.1. The Input worksheet is divided into 1 11 sections such as Earthquake Magnitude, Somce to Site Distance, Frequency Range, etc. Input parameters for each of these sections are discussed below. ) ffRC SMS_ v01 file Woricsheets c.la.lat< ResU.IS Helo ..J .... -E.arthqu.ake M.agnitude---Minimum f6o 1.1ax1mum. l"""6.'Q No of Magnitudes: 11 r-Source to Site Dlstance>-Minimum: l10 km Maximum j1o km Number of Distances. 11 Frequency R.ange Minimum Jo:o1 H;,; Maximum: j100 Hz Response Spectrum r Calculate Response Spectrum Correction* jeoore and Joyner (1984) ::J Damping I 0.05 Source Spectral Shape j&ngla Comet -Brune :::J Stress Drop* j100 bars Densrtr. gkc Velocity, Vs: 136 kmls Geometrical Spreading1No of IJne Segmer¥s lower ":lower, n Sour°' IDS<:!! (loo) 1 1 70 0 3 130 0.5000 Site Ampflfic.atlon IGenenc Hard Rock Dinlnutlon Type of Fiher jkappa J kappa. J 0.006 sec fmax lsQ.O Hz ::J Seismic Attenu.atio No of Line Segments-n Frequency Slope Altenuation r1 IT1 I -2.03 ITs6 11 !"02 12: r-°-6 12: !To' lo:92 l8a Seismic Velocity f'35 kmls Duration Weight, w_a f1o l Source Duration Duration Weight, w_b lO r Path Duration No. of line Segmems l4 0 0 10 70 130 0 9.6000 7.8000 Slope of last Segment J004 Figure 1.1: Input worksheet used to define parameters required for calculating fourier amplitude and response spectra 1.2.2.1 Earthquake Magnitude Earthquake !\.fangitude allows you to calculate FAS and RS for a range of earthquake magnitudes. FAS and RS are calculated at the minimum magnitude when the number of magnitudes is set equal to 1. When the number of magnitudes is set equal to 2, FAS and RS will be calculated at the specified minimum and maximum magnitudes. FAS and RS will be calculated at evenly spaced magnitudes when the number of magnitudes is set equal to 3 or greater. Thus, if the minimum magnitude is 5, the maximum magnitude is 7 and the number of magnitudes is 3> FAS and RS will be calculated for magnitudes of 5, 6, aud 7. 1.2.2.2 Source to Site Distance Similar to Earthquake Maguituclc, FAS aud RS can be obtained for a rauge of Source to Site Distances. 2 1.2.2.3 Frequency Range Frequency Range is used to define the minimum and maximum frequency for which FAS and RS are calculated. FAS and RS values are caclutcd at 340 points per log cycle. \i\Then the minimum frequency is set equal to 0.1 and the maximum frequency is set equal to 100, FAS an RS will be calculaLcd at 1020 points. 1.2.2.4 Response Spectrum Calculation of a response spectrum is optional and consists of three parts. the option checkbox, the oscillator correction option, and the decimal damping value, ( (typically 0.05 for 5% damping). If you desire to obtain a response spectrum, the checkbox for "Calculate Response Spectrum" must be checked. The response spectrum or spectra will then be calculated for each magnitude and source to site distance specified using ra.nclom vibration theory (RVT). *when using RVT to compute response spectra, a shaking duration value, Trms, is used to compute the root mean square (rms) spectral accelcratiou values. Therms duration is equal to the gTotmd motion duration plus a corrected oscillator duration as expressed in Equation 1.1. ( /'n ) Trms = Tgm +To --'Yn +a (1.1) Where T,9111 is the ground motion duration, T0 is the oscillator duration with T0 = 1/(21T fr(), / = T9m/T0, and n and a arc constants. The values used for the constants n and a a.re determined based on the oscillator correction option chosen. When choosing the Boore and Joyner {1994) correction n = 3 and a = 1/3. If the Liu and Pezeshk (1999) oscillator correction is chosen, n = 2 and a= [271" (i -112 mom2 (1.2) where mo, m1 and m2 are moments of the squared spectral amplitude. Additional details on RVT are provided in Chapter 3. 1.2.2.5 Source Parameters The Source Parameters section allows you to specify the type of spectral shape to be used in calculating the FAS (e.g. single corner model or two corner model), the stress drop for the single corner model, source density, and source shear wave velocity. When selecting a two corner model, the earthquake magnitude is soley used to determine the corner frequencies. Additional details on each spectra.I shape are provided in Chapter 2. 1.2.2.6 Geometrical Spreading The Geometrical Spreading section defines the function we use for describiug how wave amplitude decreases with distance from the source. The function may consist of multiple segments as shown in Equation 1.3. 3 R$R2 Z(R2) (!ff f2 R2 $ R $ R3 Z(R) = (1.3) Z(f4) ('Ji r; f4 R. In eastern North America, Atkinson and Boore (1995) and Frankel ct, al. (1996) suggest uing the three segment, function shown in Figure 1.2. To implement t,he eastern North America geometrical spreading relation.ship, we enter a value of 3 for the number of line segments. The values Ri, R2, RJ, nlo n2 and n3 for Equation 1.3 which correspond to the line segments shown in Figure 1.2 are 1 km, 70 km, 130 km, 1, 0, 0.5, respectively. O> c: "O co (I) 0.1 0. 0.03 Cf) ro .g 0.02 (i) E 0 (I) (9 0.01 10 1/70 1/70 (130/R)o.s 20 30 100 200 300 Distance (km) Figure 1.2: Geometrical spreading function for eastern North America (Boore 2003). 1.2.2. 7 Site Amplification The Site Amplification section requires you to select a site amplification function used to quantify site effects. The options consist of "Generic Hard Rock", "Generic Soft Rock", "No Amplification", and "User Defined". The "Generic Hard Rock" and *'Generic Soft Rock" amplification functions are shown in Figures 1.3. \i\lhen "No Amplification" is selected, the amplification value is 1 at all frequencies. When selecting "User Defined", you will be prompted to select a *.mat file that contains data used to define the amplification function. This file must have frequency values in column 1 and amplification values in column 2. o headings should be placed above the frequency and ampflication values. 4 c: 0 *;:; 4 3 Q. E <t 2 0.01 1.2.2.8 Diminution -Generic Soft Rock -Generic Hard Rock 0.1 1 Frequency (Hz) 10 Figure 1.3: Generic site amplification. 100 You have two options for implementing the diminution function (high frequency filter). The first option is to utilize kappa, " and the second option is to use a !max filter. Equatious that define the diminution function are provided below. D(J) = (1.4) D(f) = [l + (f I !max)8r112 (1.5) A "'value of 0.04 has been used for coastal California sites (Boore and Joyner 1997, RC 2012), and a value of 0.006 may be appropriate for sites in eastern North America. 1.2.2.9 Seismic Attenuation Attenuation can be modeled as a three segment piecewise function. An example of this three ment fw1ction is shown in Figure 1.4 along with the corresponding frequency, slope, and attenuation values that are used to define the function in NRC SMS. Often, sufficient data is only available to define the third segment (slope 2 segment) of the function. For this case, a single function is used to define the attenuation relationship. A single attenuation function is implemented in NRC SMS by selecting a value of 1 for the number of segments in the drop down menu. Boore {2003) plotted a number of attenuation functions for the slope 2 segment and two of these functions are provided in Equation 1.6. These two equation were obtained through best fit equations to the data presented by Boore (2003). vVhen implementing a function shown in Equation 1.6, the number of line segments is chosen to be 1, Lrl = 1 Hz, the slope is equal to the exponent (e.g. slope= 0.45) and Q is equal to the coefficient (e.g. Q = 180). 5 103 { 1430J0*35 Q(f) = 180/0.45 208!0.78 Central U.S. (Boore 2003) California California (Boore 2003) 111 ft2 a Seilmlc Attenuation {fr1, Qr1) No of L!ne Segmerts 133 FiequeACy Slope Atl&!Klatlofl 102 r1 ro;-I -2 03 [2a6 **************-........ 11 l"0"2 12 ros . , , , ,\ lo92 ITs , \ Setsmic Velocity 135' km's 101 , , 10*2 10*1 10° 101 102 Freq Figure 1.4: Three segment attenuation function and associated input for NRC Sl\1S. 1.2.2.10 Source Duration (1.6) The source duration is a fw1ction of the corner frequency or corner frequencies, depending on the point source model used. Equation 1.7 is used to calculate the source duration. For the single corner model, Wa = 1 and la is the corner frequency. When Wa = 1. Wb = 0. (1.7) 1.2.2.11 Path Duration The path duration can be modeled using a multi segmented line. For eastern North America, Boore has used a path duration function with four segments as shown in Figure 1.5. A single path duration begining at the source location having a slope of 0.05 is generally considered appropriate 6 for sources in California. Given a. single segment, the number of line segments is set equal to 1 a.nd an initial source to site distance and duration of 0 is input into the first row of the table. 15 -10 (..) Q) (/) -c 0 :;::; ro :::I 0 5 0 0 50 100 150 Path Duration No of line Segments r-4 SMu*S..Ollirce hfl!Ju' ..... --1----.-;;c.r. C-) 200 250 0 0 10 70 0 96000 130 7 8000 300 Distance (km) Figure 1.5: Path duration for eastern North America from Boore (2005). 1.2.3 Path and Site Effects Graphs The Path and Site Effects \iVorksheet shows plots of the geometrical spreading function, site amplification function, diminution function and seismic attenuation function used in calculating the FAS. These plots a.re updated as changes to the Input Worksheet are made. 1.2.4 Simulated Time Histories The Simulated Time Histories vVorksheet is currently not functional. Upon implementation, this worksheet will be used to provide input for developing time histories that spectrally match a given FAS. 7 1.3 Calculate The Calculate menu option is used to initiate calculation of FAS and RS as well as simulated time histories. 1.4 Results The Results menu option is used to view FAS and RS or simulated time histories which have been calculated. 1.5 Help The Help menu option provides access to this user manual. 8 Chapter 2 Point Source Model 9 Chapter 3 Random Vibration Theory 10 Chapter 4 Time History Simulation 11 Appendix A NRC SMS Validation 12 MATLAB 5.0 MAT-file, Platform: PCWIN, Created on: Fri Jan 04 12:03:27 2013 OMCixilc "O'd" CJD

CH!?<-? !DD@* *

• P>

• oL*u

• u

• tt./\ * '1C3 *

• I*>@-'\* '/DD!

• o * 'JH

• I * &O {-1 *

• 0 * -FbD Sent:22 May 201520:07:14 +0000 To:Heeszel, David;Seber, Dogan;Munson, Clifford Cc:Jackson, Diane.

Subject:

RE: Columbia GMM codes Thanks David From: Heeszel, David Sent: Friday. May 22, 2015 2:29 PM To: Seber, Dogan: Munson, Clifford Cc: Ake, Jon; Jackson, Diane

Subject:

Columbia GMM codes Hi All, Attached are two files that contain some results from my Columbia GMM software. Both files are for a single fault at 8 mag11itudes from 5(fault 1 )-8(fault8). ln this case the fault is a vertical strike-slip located with lOkm away that comes to the surface. The red dots are individual realizations of the SA at the branch level. The solid black curve is the weighted mean SA, and the dashed lines are the mean+/-sigma. For this code, we are simply using the middle branch of the normal distribution of sigma. The next step is to get a set of scenario earthquakes that are realistic and important to hazard. Perhaps we can discuss at the Columbia weekly meeting on Thursday. Thanks, David David Heeszel Geophysicist U.S. NRC, NRO/DSEA/RGS2 Office: T-7E28 Mail Stop: T-7F3 Phone: 301-415-5066 Sent:25 Mar 2015 20:32: l 8 +0000 To:Heeszel, David

Subject:

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

Subject:

Columbia Ground Motion Model Hi Cliff, I've finished coding up the ground motion model for the Columbia SSHAC. I can walk you through the program in about 20 min if your interested. Cheers, David David Heeszel Geophysicist U.S. NRC, NRO/DSEA/RGS2 Office: T-7E28 Mail Stop: T-7F3 Phone: 301-415-5066 Sent:3 Jun 2015 21:53:57 +0000 To:Seber, Dogan;Jackson, Diane;Munson, Clifford

Subject:

RE: Columbia Seismic. Public Meeting Slides l agree. We should gently suggest the SSHAC discussion be very brief. From: Seber, Dogan Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 2:41 PM To: Jackson. Diane; Munson, Clifford Cc: Ake, Jon

Subject:

FW: Columbia Seismic Public Meeting Slides Quickly went over the slides. In SSC, Focus #2 is missing(!?). IL is to me more important to discuss #2 than fault slip rates (#1 ). I wonder why they chose to not prepare slides for that. Also, can we tell them to skip SSHAC slides to save some time for more meaningful discussions on technical topics. There are about 20 slides discussing what SSHAC process is. -----Original MFrom: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Wednesday. June03, 2015 1:01 PM To: Munson. Clifford; Seber, Dogan; Jackson, Diane Cc: Vega, Frankie; Cho, Esther; Ake, Jon; Shams, Mohamed; Singal. Balwant; Alexander, Ryan; Maier, Bill; Uselding, Lara; Walker, Wayne; Burnell, Scott; Walsh, Lisa; Kock, Andrea; Monarque, Stephen

Subject:

Columbia Seismic Public Meeting Slides Folks, CGS Seismic Slides. For awareness, the State of Washington and Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board plan lo listen to the meeting or attend. Interim action adds information about Flex Strategy. Esther, Please add to public ADAMS. Thanks, Nick -----Original Message-----From: Williams, Lisa L. [10] Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 11:54 AM To: DiFrancesco, Nicholas Cc: Rich Rogalski

Subject:

Meeting slides Nick. Here is Energy Northwest's presentation. I have made 20 copies of the slides (2 per page) that ram bring1ng with me for handouts. Lisa Sent:20 Apr 2015 15:22:26 +0000 To:DiFrancesco, Nicholas;Munson, Clifford Cc:Jackson, Diane;Devlin-Gill, Stephanie;Vega, Frankie

Subject:

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

Subject:

Inquiry: Palo Verde Public Meetings Dates Cliff, et. al. Any preferences or limitations for planning the Palo Verde public meeting in mid-June. Thanks, Nick From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent:. Thursday, April 16, 2015 10:07. AM To:. Munson, Clifford Cc: Ake, Jon; Jackson, Diane; Vega, Frankie; Hill, Brittain; Shams, Mohamed

Subject:

Planning Items -DC Focus Areas and PV Meetings Dates Cliff, I am out PM today and Friday. PG&E Licensing Coordination and NRG Public Meeting Prep Frankie is PM backup and has a licensing call with PG&E Friday at 1 pm to discuss NRG technical focus areas as part of the April 28 public meeting. For Friday I would like to communicate a few topics for them to begin work on. Perhaps the 1 . ergodic method vs. single-station correction weighting. Early next week I plan to email a formal request for incorporation into the meeting notice. Please let us know a couple of focus areas by noon Friday. PV Meeting Date Coordination The licensee (APS) cannot support meeting until the 2nd week of June. As I recall, I thought we had conflicts starting then with NGA-East Working Group. Let me know if I can propose any dates in the 2nd and 3rd week of June. Thanks, Nick Senic',i Project Manager -Seismic Reevaluation Activities U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear. Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Division nicholas.difrancesco@nrc.gov I Tel: (301) 415-1115 Sent:l3Apr201513:59:10+0000 To:Munson, Clifford

Subject:

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

Subject:

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

Subject:

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

Subject:

Palo Verde Catalog Attached is an excel version of the Palo Verde Catalog (Appendix E of the report). Events highlighted in gray can be linked to a specific fault. The other columns should be relatively self explanatory. --David David Heeszel Geophysicist U.S. NRC, NRO/DSEA/RGS2 Office: T-7E28 Mail Stop: T-7F3 Phone: 301-415-5066 Sent:28 Apr 2015 13:44:04 +0000 To:Stieve, Alice

Subject:

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

Subject:

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

Subject:

Palo Verde Source Information for: SSHAC Documentation from PPRP-IT Team Cliff. Alice, Stephanie, Please let me know if this is the missing piece. They have this one file on the SSC in the reading room. Thanks, Nick From: Munson, Clifford Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 20154:14 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas; Ake, Jon Cc: Jackson, Diane; Shams, Mohamed; Vega, Frankie; Graizer, Vladimir; John Stamatakos <jstam@swri.org> (jstam@swri.org); Hill, Brittain; Seber, Dogan; Vega, Frankie; Stirewalt, Gerry

Subject:

RE: DCPP, Palo Verde, and Columbia Audit Information: SSHAC Documentation from PPRP-IT Team Importance: High Nick, We took a quick look at the contents of the. information for DCPP and PVNGS. The DCPP folder contains the PP RP-Tl correspondence and interactions on the source. model and ground motion model SSHACs. However, the PVNGS only has the ground motion model SSHAC PPRP-TI team material and not for the Source model. Please let us know when we can get the source model PPRP-TI team documentation. Thanks, Cliff From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 1:25 PM To: Munson, Clifford; Ake, Jon Cc: Jackson, Diane; Shams, Mohamed; Vega, Frankie; Graizer, Vladimir; John Stamatakos <jstam@swri.org> (jstam@swri.org); Hill, Brittain;. Seber, Dogan;. Vega, Frankie; Stirewalt,. Gerry

Subject:

DCPP, Palo Verde, and Columbia Audit Information: SSHAC Documentation from PPRP-IT Team Folks, Please control distribution to the designated review team member for the following references. Following your audit review, please advise if information reviewed should be docketed to support development of the hazard staff assessment or RAls. DC Audit Information S:\Diablo Canyon R2.1 Seismic lnformation\SSHAC Documentation of PPRP-TI Team Palo Verde Audit Information S:\Palo Verde R2.1 Seismic lnformation\SSHAC Documentation of PPRP-TI Team Columbia Information is on ePortal (PM action to work through access controls). Also, licensee plans to work with PNNL to post information on public website. Thanks, Nick From: Soenen, Philippe R [11] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 10:49 AM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas Cc: Jahangir, Nozar

Subject:

DCPP information on Certrec Nick, We have uploaded the PPRP information onto Certrec IMS and granted access to Vladimir Grazier, John Stamatakos, and yourself. Here is how you get to the PPRP information in Certrec:

• Login to ims.certrec.com

• Click on "Inspections"

• Set status to "In Progress" and Plant to "Diablo Canyon"

• Click "Search" button.

• Click link to "Self-Assessment I Audit-Review of PPRP Comments and TIT Resolution"

• Click on the "NRC Requests" tab

• Click on what you would like to see. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Regards, Philippe Soenen Regulatory Services Office -805.545.6984 Cell -j<bJ(6) I PG&E is committed to protecting our customers' privacy. To learn more, please visit http://www.pge.com/about/company/privacy/customer/

Devlin-Gill, Stephanie From:Devlin-Gill, Stephanie Sent:26 May 2015 19:24:02 +0000 To:Clifford Munson (Clifford.Munson@nrc.gov);Alice Stieve (Alice.Stieve@nrc.gov);Heeszel, David; Vladimir Graizer (Vladimir.Graizer@nrc.gov);Heeszel, David; Yong Li (Y ong.Li@nrc.gov );Jackson, Diane

Subject:

PVNGS -Focus Area Topics for June-9 Public Meeting Attacbments:Focus Area Topics for PYNGS Public Meeting (draft 2).docx Attached are the edited questions from our meeting today. Attachment was released in full in interim stephanie Geophysicist 301-415-5301 T-7D10 U.S. NRC, NRO, DSEA, RGS2 response #1 Devlin-Gill,. Stephanie From:Devlin-Gill, Stephanie Sent:20 May 2015 17: 16:56 +0000 To:Graizer, Yladimir;Stieve, Alice;Munson,. Clifford;Heeszel,. David;Ake. Jon;John Stamatkos;'Miriam R. Juckett (mjuckett@swri.org)';Hill, Brittain;Li, Yong

Subject:

PVNGS Public Meeting Questions Palo Verde team, For further discussion, below are the edited questions about the areal zones: Because the PVNGS host zones, SBA and East, contribute significantly to the hazard at the PVNGS site, the NRC staff is interested in hearing discussion, beyond what is presented in the PVNGS SSC SSHAC report, on the following topics regarding areal sources. Please discuss. the rational and analyses used for: a. Choosing to model the spatial variation of recurrence rate per unit area using variable, but continuous and relatively smooth seismicity. Please also discuss the rationale for not considering the use of uniform spatial recurrence rates in the. SSC areal sources. Although text in SSC Section 8.2.4.1 mentions that uniform rates are often inappropriate, the text does not elaborate on conditions where uniform rates might be appropriate or if such conditions occur for the SSC. areal sources. Additionally, please discuss this in the context of the previously completed PVNGS SSC SSHAC 2, since decisions made for that model led to the use of the constant rate model for the areal sources, and what information informed the recent SSC SSHAC 3 to not use the constant rate model for any of the areal sources. b. Not using a "floor" during the smoothing analysis of recurrence parameters .. Please also discuss this in the context of the. PVNGS host zones and the WEST and GULF zones, which all show in SSC Figures 9-30 through 9-33 cells of zero rate(M>5.0)/deg2/yr. c. Not using earthquakes lower than M4.67 to determine the recurrence parameters for the Eastern source zones, as shown in SSC Table 9-4. Please discuss this in the context of there being so few events within the host zones that have magnitudes greater than to equal to M4.67 and inclusion of earthquakes lower than M4.67 despite the earthquake record below M4.67 not be complete. I also updated the file on SharePoint: http://epm.nrc.gov/environmentalfilltq/wussshac/Shared%20Documents/Forms/Allitems.aspx (Click on the Palo Verde folder icon after the link opens) stephanie Geophysicist 301-415-5301. T-7010 U.S. NRC, NRO, DSEA,RGS2 From: Devlin-Gill, Stephanie Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 4:38 PM To: Graizer, Vladimir; Stieve, Alice; Munson, Clifford; Heeszel, David; Ake, Jon; John Stamatkos; Miriam R. Juckett (mjuckett@swri.org); Hill, Brittain; Li, Yong

Subject:

RE: PV team meeting tomorrow I added 2 questions, attached. I also updated the file on SharePoint: http: II epm. nrc.gov I environ mental/illtq/wus-sshac/Shared%20 Documents/Forms/Allltems.aspx (Click on the Palo Verde folder icon after the link opens) stephanie Geophysicist 301-415-5301 T-7010 U.S. NRC, NRO, DSEA, RGS2 From: Graizer, Vladimir Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 1:47 PM To: Stieve, Alice; Munson, Clifford; Devlin-Gill, Stephanie; Heeszel, David; Ake, Jon; John Stamatkos; Miriam R. Juckett (mjuckett@swri.org); Hill, Brittain; Li, Yong

Subject:

RE: PV team meeting tomorrow I. have. more observation/questions. that I can present tomorrow. From: Stieve, Alice. Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 1:43 PM To: Munson, Clifford; Devlin-Gill, Stephanie; Heeszel, David; Ake, Jon; John Stamatkos; Miriam R. Juckett (mjuckett@swri.org); Hill, Brittain; Li, Yong; Graizer, Vladimir

Subject:

RE: PV team meeting tomorrow Palo Verde SharePoint FOLDER: http://epm.nrc.gov/environmental/jlltg/wus-sshac/Shared%20Documents/Forms/Allltems.aspx Click on the Palo Verde folder icon after the link opens. My draft focus areas file is in that folder. The attached file are Vlad's draft topics. From: Munson, Clifford Sent: Monday,. May 18, 2015 1:02 PM To: Stieve,. Alice; Devlin-Gill, Stephanie; Heeszel, David;. Ake, Jon;. John Stamatkos; Miriam R. Juckett (mjuckett@swri.org); Hill, Brittain; Li, Yong; Graizer, Vladimir

Subject:

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

Subject:

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

Devlin-Gill, Stephanie From:Devlin-Gill, Stephanie Sent: 13 May 2015 15:44:07 +0000 To:Clifford Munson (Clifford.Munson@nrc.gov) Cc:Alice Stieve (Alice.Stieve@nrc.gov);Heeszel, David

Subject:

PVNGS Request Cliff, Please review and forward the following request on to JLD for Palo Verde: For the staff to preform confirmatory analysis, please have the licensee send the NRC the PVNGS composite earthquake catalog prior to the declustering analysis, meaning the catalog with 1,941 events in it as mentioned in "Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Seismic Source Characterization" report on page 6-7 and 6-10. The staff requests the catalog be provided in the tabular form. stephanie Geophysicist 301-415-5301 T-7010 U.S. NRC, NRO, DSEA, RGS2 Devlin-Gill, Stephanie From:Devlin-Gill, Stephanie Sent:26 May 2015 18: 15:50 +0000 To:Munson, Clifford Cc:Alice Stieve (Alice.Stieve@nrc.gov)

Subject:

RE: latest version Attachments:Focus Area Topics for PVNGS Public Meeting (draft 2).docx Cliff, OK. Alice and I spoke, we'll have a computer & laptop. stephanie Geophysicist 301-415-5301 T-7010 U.S.NRC, NRO, DSEA, RGS2 From: Munson,. Clifford . Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 1:39 PM To: Devlin-Gill, Stephanie

Subject:

latest version Stephanie, I made edits to the first draft. Let's use this one for the meeting discussion. Alice is getting a projector and laptop? Thanks, Cliff Focus Area Questions!Topics for Palo Verde Public Meeting 5/9 In addition to providing a general overview of the SSC and GMC SSHAC Reports and March 2015 50.54(f) response for DCPP, please provide additional clarification on the following topics. Seismic Source Characterization 1. Provide additional detail on the PPRP and Tl interaction documentation for the SSC model, specifically ....... TBD .... I am working through that documentation this week (April 27). 2. Clarify how uncertainty derived from the difference in cumulative slip rates on Quaternary faults in AZ in comparison to the geodetic slip rates in southern AZ were evaluated and incorporated into model. 3. Clarify how uncertainty of the potential for the existence of unknown Quaternary faults in Southern Basin and Range province were evaluated and captured in model, in particular in the area W and NW of the PV site, and outside the geologic mapping project area. 4.. Geologic. mapping project. Provide. additional detail on the. involvement of. the PPRP. in the field review of the Quaternary geology mapping project of the PV site area and vicinity 5.. Geologic. mapping project. Provide additional. detail regarding verification and characterization of the 3 faults of interest in the site vicinity (Sand Tank, unnamed fault (Gilbert), unnamed fault (Pearthree)). 6.. Geologic. mapping project. Provide additional detail regarding the very simplistic geologic cross section of the PV site to rule out existence of unnamed fault (Pearthree). 7. Geologic mapping project. Provide additional details regarding stratigraphic correlation of Quaternary units in the site area and vicinity, in particular the stand alone river terrace unit (Qorh) mismatch with the Qi1 alluvial fan surface. 8. Regarding information in PVNGS SSC Table 9-4, because the Eastern sources have so few events at please discuss how and why the Tl team chose to not use the events. lower. than M4.67 to determine the recurrence parameters. Also, please justify not using a "floor" during the recurrence parameters analysis. 9. Please talk about the SSHAC presentations, discussions, and/or analyses that led the Tl team to. use variable, continuous, and relatively. smooth seismicity when determining recurrence parameters for host zones, as opposed to constant rate values, particularly since there are so few recorded events in the PVNGS host zones. Ground Motion Characterization Site Response Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Site Response Evaluation Section 2.3 of the "Seismlic Hazard and Screening Report for the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units1, 2, and 3, March 2015" ...--. "O A> cc CD (/) I\) " _._ I I\) <D _._ -_._ 0 0 0 ..__. 1 Focus Area Topics for PVNGS Public Meeting on June-9 SITE RESPONSE Provide additional detail regarding the Vs-kappa adjustment factors. Specifically, provide the bases for -the host Vs profile, -the target deep Vs profile (including the use of a logarithmic standard deviation of 0.35 to develop the upper and lower profiles), -the target kappa value used for the kappa adjustments and whether the input FAS were corrected to the site kappa of 0.033 sec or a lower baserock kappa value, -use of a logarithmic standard deviation of 0.5 to determine the upper and lower site kappa values, -the scenario events (magnitudes and distances) used to develop the input spectra for the Vs-kappa adjustment factors, -not including the Vs-kappa adjustment factors as additional epistemic uncertainty on the median GM 1\11s instead of capturing this variability as part of the variability in the site amplification functions. 2 Description of Subsurface Material

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

• Basin sediments: stratigraphic subdivisions of sands, gravels, clays, silts, and fanglomerate.

• Bedrock: Miocene volcanic and interbedded sedimentary rocks.

• Materials are divided into 2 site profiles, a shallow site profile and deep site profile, that are separated at the bottorr1 of the basin sediments. 3 Development of Base Case Profiles and Nonlinear Material Properties Shallow Site Profile:

• UFSAR and PSAR lithologic descriptions and natural gamma logs

• Control point elevation is defined at the ground surface

• Vs values are estimated from suspension logs, downhole and crosshole surveys from the UFSAR and Spectral Analysis of Surface Waves (SASW) surveys.

• Epistemic uncertainty (alnVs) was e*stimated for shear wave velocities in the base-case (BC) profile from the different measurements that were used to develop best-estimate valu1es

• Upper-range (UR) and lower-range (LR) profiles were. developed by multiplying and dividing the BC profile by exp(1.28*alnVs), following guidance in the SPID to achieve 10th and 90th percentile values.

• Note. that the UR profile does not include a lithologic layer of fanglomerate to account for its possible non-existence. 4 850 ...J 800 w ...J <( w en z <( w 750 g ..J w er ! z 0 Gj ..J w 500 DISTANCE 8E1WEEN RELATIVE TO Ul-81 \fcell 0 1111!> U1-B1 U2-B1 (tleV. 1&3") (tlev. 15'1 * .. .. ... 2390 U3-B1 (*ltv. t501 Figure 34: Shallow profile boring logs from beneath each of the three reactors LmfOLOGIC UNITS SA"I> II CIAY Ill SAl<O IV cu.* v 5""111 VI CIAY VII IAl<D \Ill Ct.AV IX ..... ;o x GENERALIZED UTHll.OGJC DESCRIPTIONS D&o'° oay...., .....,_ .. _ .. DCUIY-SAOfD_...., ........... D Cl>* .. , .. ,,-.ai.; -* D fA.HGt.Olll£'tATE. , .. "'""' ..a ....., IO ___ ........ """ __ 0-run ... cv.v..-.. _.,......_ D IHlUll.A*-DFlOWlllt(CCIASo ... '1.CW\ ___ .. -DNClUCTE----Figure 35: Composite shallow profile Depth (ft) 0 Unit contact Uthologlc Description (deptlllelev.) 60 880 80 100 120 820 140 15917114 780 1661788 190 16817157 'l<Y5/748 11/fJ >-220 < no 2-<<> 230l723 ..J 2371715 () w 700 Q 260 0: w 880 > 280 0 ..J 300 < a. 640 3111642 320 IX* 620 I *SANO yellow to red to brown wrtll trwn becls or Slit clayey-sin and S11ty-clay II

• CLAY yetlOw to red to brown olayey.sll! and Silty-clay w<th lenses Of fine-grained sand and silty-sand Ill SANO brown, uody..ilt sflty &and and &allC1f..cloy tv -CLAY blown. S1lty-clay. ctayey-s.n low to med plaSilclty noncalcaleous to SbghlJy very sbn to hard v. SAND brown to red-brown 111ty sand 111ndy*Slll and cteyey sand vecy &I fl to hard nonptnbc to ION plashc1ly paraco11lorm11y V1 -CLAY yeltON to red-brown. S<l!y-clay very stdf to haJd distinct uppe1 cori8cl stigttly to hlgl'fy calcareous med lo h91 plasbelly VII* SANO uody-MI and silty 111nd btoWn non1)lHllC VIII Cl..AY to red-Crown. llify*cley Ancly-... 1, silly-sand sandy.clay, ctayey.gand calcareous verystl!f 10 hard, high plalbcty IX -SANO llrlJwn 10 re<J.brown, $11nd. silty-sand and Clayiry-sand oc:c:asional (jfavel Cla&tli 6Ubaf1glllar to subroooded dense to very dense Vf!fY S11n to hard 340 341/612 u nc0n form *iY 600 580 560 3951558 GENERALIZED LITHOLOGY Saod Clay LITHOt..OGIC UNIT X

• FANGLOMERATE brown to gay rroderately 10 wel cemened 1/0tcanic e1asts c:lenved from und<<lying bedtock in a matnl< of sand soil and occaitiooaJfy tlAlaoeous sand. el!M!1to11 of and thlckne!.6 ol tnt vary ectoss the site major uncontorm11y XI

• BEDROCK see deep prolile ll(µe 5 Dynamic properties of shallow site profile (base case profile) Strati-l:nit Sigma Base sigma Deprh Thickness Case Lanr graphic "*eight Depth y., , . ., (ln) . lithology (ft) (ft) Ys {;nit (pd) (ft) (ft/s) (In) (SPID] 1 I Sand 0 21 110 0.0 1017 0.070 0.13 2 I Sand 21 14 120 1041 0.0&8 0.19 3 I Sand 35 10 120 5A U50 0.075 0.17 4 I Sand 45 7 120 6.9 1181 0.063 0.15 5 II Clay 52 60 1151 8.0 1208 0.087 0.15 6 II Clav 112 25 12Sl 3.5 1293 0.073 0.15 7 II Cl av 137 22 1251 4.3 1391 0.073 0.15 8 m Sand 159 8 126* 5.0 1431 0.055 0.15 9 I\' Clay 167 19 ns1 8.0 1+46 0.049 0.15 10 \ ... Sand 186 19 126-' 2.0 1459 0.050 0.15 11 VI Clay 205 5 125t 5.0 1510 0.103 0.15 12 VI Clay 210 20 1251 1.8 1742 0.145 0.15 13 vn Sand 230 8 126-2.0 1829 0.160 0.15 14 VIII Clay ns 52 1251 LO 2094 0.127 0.15 15 \Till Clay 290 21 1251 15.9 1094 0.127 0.15 16 IX Sand 311 30 130 17.0 2094 0.127 0.15 17 x F ane:lomerate 341 86 140 60.0 3262 0.176 0.15 Bed-A.ndesite XI basal flow 427 140 83 4485 N'A1 NA3 rock brecc1a/mff Notes: 1125 pcf is the a\*erage urut weight of all day unrts. The unit weights for all clay ooits are averaged for the sake of simplicity ill me response analysis. '11_6 pcfis. the average urut \\'eight of Sand {;ruts Ill\'. and VIl. The average is used fur the sake of simplicity in the site response an.alyill. 3In the site response analysis for shallow profile, Unit XI 1s cons.idered as die half space.. 6 Vs (tt/scc) 0 1000 2000 3000 400Cl -LR so -BC 100 La*rer '" 1 bO l :; 200 4 ---.c ) -Q. 11> (.) 6 250 7 s 300 9 10 11 3SO 12 13 14 400 1.5 16 4.'.>0 17 Layer depths, thicknesses, and shear wave velocities (Vs) for lower-range (LR), base-case (BC), and upper-range (UR) profiles for the shallow site profile at PVNGS. Depth Tlt:ickness ,.-:s (ft) (ft) LR BC ml 0 21 929 1017 1113 21 15 ]041 1165 35 ro 1046 ]150 1266 4-) 7 lUtl 12,80 52 60 1081 ]208 1351 112 25 117S ]293 1419 137 2'.! ]391 t5Q8 159 8 1334 . .:>-1536 167 19 1359 l446 1540 186 19 1359 ]459 1555 205 5, l324 ]j1[0 1723 210 20 1448 2098 2]1] 8 i4gg ].829 2245 2:1S 52 1780 2094 2462 290 21 2094 2462 311 30 1550 2094 2462 341 86 2603 32:62 2 -0 0 100 200 300 400 £ 500 Q. Q 600 700 800 900 bear \Vave Velocity (ft/ ec) 1000 A WArray -LCll --L 12 -L 13 -LC14 -LCIS -L 16 --LCI 7 2000 3000 4000 50( ED lhts H 81 bonnvs @)

• PVNGS -llorlngl -SASW"'-1*7 0 1.000 2.000 II l 11 i I I I ' __ ............. o 250 500m Figure 1. Locations of SASW lines SASW-LCl-1 through SASW-LCl-7 (shown m red as lines 1-7) at the PVNGS site. 200 250 1000 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 hear Wave Velocity (m/ ec) Figure 4.1 Companson of the Seven. hear Wave Velocity Profi lcs Determined ai lhe Palo Verde NPP Site 8 PVNGS Borehole

• Drill and. log 2 boreholes. (one deep[B-2, 423. ft], one shallow [B-1, 45. ft]) at the site, collec downhole geophysical data from the deep borehole, and preparation of each borehole for installation of borehole seismometer equipment.

• P-S Suspension Logging

• Induction/Natural Gamma

• Caliper/Natural Gamma

• Acoustic Televiewer/Boring Deviation 411250 LCl*B-1 ., 0 80 i -=-" -=-m 0 :!ID No\OQ FIPS fl GOOQ18 Elflll -.ef!illgia 50 100 150 g 200 J: Ii: w c 250 300 PALO VERDE BOREHOLE B-2 Receiver to Receiver Vs and VP Analysis 450 Figure 1. Locations of boreholes LCl*B*1 and LCl*B*2 at the PVNGS site. Note: north arrow shows true north. as opposed to "plant north." 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 VELOCITY (ft/s) 10000 12000 9 Figure 5. Boring LCl-B-2, Suspension R1-R2 P-and Swwave velocities 14000 Geologic cross-section showing the shallow and deep stratigraphy at the PVNGS site 0 SCRJPTION I I E 6AS.En&an ...... _ ,,., *

• I J * -10 Development of Base Case Profiles and Nonlinear Material Properties Deep Site Profile:

• Developed from data presented in the UFSAR and Geological Society of America Bulletin A seismic-refraction survey of crustal structure in central Arizona (Warren, 1969)

• No borings underneath the. three units that reach the top of the basement complex, so the upper. contact is estimated using a. geologic cross-section from the UFSAR that shows. the shallow and deep stratigraphy at the si1te

• Control point elevation for this. profile is defined at the bottom of the shallow site profile.

• Vs values were estimated from suspension (LCI,. 2015f) for bedrock. Vs for the basement complex was determined using typical seisn1ic wave velocities for granodiorite.

• Uncertainty in the thickness of each layer vi1as accounted for in the LR and UR deep site profiles.

• For the volcanics, this uncertainty was determined from boring logs as described in LCI (LCI, 2015d). For the upper basement layers, this uncertainty was taken as 10 percent of each respective mean thickness.

• Consistent with SPI D: -UR and LR Vs values were developed by multiplying and dividing the BC profile value by exp(1.28*alnVs), respectively, like for the shallow site profile -Epistemic uncertainty was estimated for Vs in the BC profile using a logarithmic standard deviation of 0.35 as -The LR and UR profiles were constructed by pairing 90th percentile Vs with 10th percentile thickness (and vice versa) in order to maximize the varia1tion in travel time 11 Dynamic properties of deep site profile (base case profile) T bl 5 D a e . 1ynallllc properaes o fil s f d eep sire pro 1 e. ource: T bl 16 fr LCI (LCI ?Ol -d) a e om . -) Depth rmt :\Jean Vs Poisson's Elevatiou Sigma, Strat. Gt'neraUzed to top weight Vs Vp Sigma Ratio Thickness Tbicklless of layer unit XI xn xn xn lithology Mean, Top Sigma, Range+, Range-, (ft) (pct) (ft/sec) (ft/sec) (lo) (ft msl) Top (ft) 3 Top Top (ft) (ft msl) (ft msl) Andesirel basalt/ flow 395 140 4485 9863 0.35 0.370 558 83 641 475 808 breccia/ ruff Weathered granodiorire/ 1203 1461 5438 10786 0.35 0.330 -250 NIA NIA NIA 20 mera-granice (top) Weathered granodioritel 1223 1521 7343 12632 0.35 0.245 -270 NIA NIA NA 20 mera-granire (middle) Wearhered g:ranodio1ite/ 1243 1571 9248 14477 0.35 0.155 -290 NIA NIA NIA 20 mera-grnnire (bonom) Granodiorire/ 1263 1712 10200 15400 0.35 0.109 -310 NIA NIA NIA NIA Notes: 1 Unir weight for the weathered basement complex is deremlined from Vp. 1 Unit weight for wnveathered basement complex is detemiiued from Wan-en (WatTen. 1969). 3 Sigma rop is only calculated for Andesite XI for use in shallow site profile site response calculations. Sigma is calculated using rop elevation contact of bedrock from Units 1-3 Bl boreholes (Figure 34). (ft) 145 10 10 10 NIA 12 PVNGS deep site profile Lowtr R:mgt Profilt (low nlocidts. thil'ker layers. density): might= 0.3 Desc:riptton Tbicbiess (m) Vs (ms) Vokanic bedrock 324.2 873_4 Basement (shallow; weafherul top) 10_0 l,059_0 Basement (shallov.r: wealhered middle) 10_0 1.430_0 Basement (shallow: weathered bottom) 10.0 l.800_9 Basement (shallow) 1.784.2 1.986-3 Basemeru (deep) 12.560_0 3.680.0 B:iw Case Profilt (mtdfan Ynlues :ill par:unerers): weiebt=OA Description Thickness (m) Vs (ms) \'olcanic bedrotl: 267.6 1.367.0 Basement (shallow; weathered top) 6.1 l.657.5 Basement (shallow; vteatheted middle) 6.1 2.238_1 Basement weathered bottom) 6.1 1.818..8 (shallow) 1,581.7 3,109.0 Basement (dttp) 10.0000 3.680.0 t:pper Range Profile (high ,*elocitlts, rhiwter layers. b.-se cue density): wei_ebt = 0.3 Description Ttucl.."ness (m) Vs (ms) \'olcanic bedrock sequence 211.0 2.139.6 Basement (shallow; weathered top) 2.2 2.5943 Basement (sh3.llow; weathered middle) 2.'.! 3.503.1 Basement (shallow: weathered bottom) ..,.., 3.680.0 Basement (shallow) 1.379.3 3.680 0 Basement (deep) 17,.i40.0 3.680.0 0 500 -QI t6: 1000 Q. 3 0 t1I J:. "' ... 0 1500 :t: 0 .D E 0 ..c ... E -.z 2000 Q. QI 0 2500 3000 0 -. . -. . -. . -. . --1000 .,. -,. , I Vr, (m/'>) 2000 :1 . I ,,, 3000 . .. ,_ --............ I 1 I-"" I l .. I l -I I I I L 1 I I I . --I UR Prctile . I ' Base Case Profile I .. I LR Prctile I Warren (1969) I I S'NUS Reference I Profile I . 4000 -13 PVNGS Shear Modulus & Damping Curves Table . CW\"eS for each stratigraphic unit at PVNGS. Source: Table 14 from LCI (I.CI 2015d' -Strntigna pbic Gtnendized Depth Thickness Degrndatlon DtgradatioJl Layer Curns Cnit (ft) (ft} (..\lternach'e n l . .Uternntin 2) 1 I Sand 0 21 EPRI Soil Peninsular Cun-es 0-20 ft 0-50 ft 2 I Sand 21 14 EPRISou Peninsular 20-50 ft 0-50 ft 3 I Sand 35 10 EPRI Soil Peni.nsular Curves 20-50 ft 0-50 ft 4 I Sand 45 7 EPRI Sou Peninsular Curves 20-50 ft 0-50 ft 5 n Clay 52 60 Vucetic and Dobry Vuce-tic and Dobry (1991)-PI=30 (1991}Pl=30 6 II Clay 112 25 Vucetic and Dobry Vucetic and Dobry (1991)-PI=JO (1991)-Pl=30 7 II Clay 137 22 \*ocellc and Dobry Vucetic and Dobry (1991)-Pl= 30 (1991)-PI=30 8 m Sand 159 8 EPRI Soil Peninsular Cw.-es 120-250 ft 51-500 ft 9 I\" Clay 167 19 Vucetic and Dobry Vucrtic and Dobry (1991 )-PI=30 (1991}Pl=30 10 \ Sand 186 19 EPRI Soil Peninsular Curves 120-250 ft 51-500 ft 11 VI Oay 205 5 \"ucebc and Dobry Vucettc and Dobry (1991)-PI=JO (199l}Pl=30 12 VI Clay 210 20 \"ucetic and Dobry Vucetic and Dobry (1991)-PI=30 (199l}PI=30 13 VII Sand 230 8 EPRI Soil Peninsulnr Cw...-es 120-250 ft 51-500 ft u VIII aay 238 51 Vucebc and Dobry Vucetic and Dobty 099l)-PI=30 (1991)-PI=30 15 \'III Clay 290 21 Vucellc and Dobry Vucetic and Dobry 0991)-Pl=30 (1991)-Pl=30 16 IX Sand 311 30 EPRI Soil Peninsular Cun:es 150-500 ft 51-500 ft 17 x Fanglomernte 3-U 86 EPRI Soil Peninsular Cwve!. 250-500 ft 51-500 ft

• Shallow profile alternative were given equal weights

• Deep profile linear 14 PVNGS Kappa

• Adjustment factors were developed to convert ground motions. from the reference rock associated with the GMPEs from the SWUS. GMC to site specific rock conditions at PVNGS corresponding to the deep site profile ..

• Vs-kappa adjustments consist of 2 parts. 1. Account for impedance differences, calculated using the Quarter-wavelength approach (Boore and Joyner, 1997; Boore, 2003, 2013} and affects all frequencies. 2. Account for the differences in kappa (kappa-zero). It has an exponential form and affects mainly the high frequencies.

• Host kappa value for SWUS GMPEs is 0.041 sec and the target kappa value at PVNGS is 0.033 sec with a logarithmic standard deviation of 0.5.

• BC, LR, and UR target kappas were combined with each of the BC, LR, and UR deep site profiles to get 9 sets of adjustment factors applied to the {BC, LR, UR} kappa alternatives and Vs profile alternatives.

• Although some of these adjustment factors become very large at HF, the SWUS GMC rock motions have zero or no energy at these frequencies (say, above 20 Hz). Therefore, the effect on spectral accelerations is expected to be much smaller than the effect shown here. e 2 ti l "' .... .... :l if c 0 -.... 0 ... ..... .-c cu E ... =6' < 10 . ' . ,,, I I i < t, Z-!--+-I -' I I 'I I j I 1 ' ' '= f= *= -,_,,_ Al/ r/} . I l * ? -lJ;,? I I I Ti ......_ ' . I I _. I ---!. I * .,.. __ I:__... .. ---_,. .:: -..._ .. .. L . __, r ' "' _. I ...... """ """ "I" . r ' '--l lo.. I ' ', ' *---,_ ..... k I -0.1 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) -LB Profile, LB kappa (0.09) -LB Profile, Median kappa (0.11) LB Profile, UB kappa (0.09) -Median Profile, LB kappa (0.12) -Medi.1n Profile, Median kappa {0.16) -Median Profile, UB kappa (0.12} UB Profile, LB kappa (0.09) -UB Profile. Median kappa (O.U) UB Profile, UB kappa (0.09) Net factors to convert ground motions from SWUS reference rock to PVNGS rock condffions.

PVNGS Randomizcition of Vs Profiles

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

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

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

• Depth to bedrock was modeled using a Normal distribution, each realization of depth to the top c,f bedrock was limited to +/-2a.

• 60 random velocity profiles were generated for each combination of profile (BC, LR, and UR), material model (EPRI or Peninsular values), input spectrum, and set of adjustment factors. 16 PVNGS Input Spectra

• Obtained using reference-rock hazard for PVNGS

• Following guidance from the SPID, HF (5 and.10 Hz) and. LF (1. and 2.5 Hz) spectra at mean annual frequencies of exceedence (MAFEs) of 10-4, 10-5, and 10-6 were scaled to 11 different PGA amplitudes between 0.01 g and 1.5 g for a total of 22 input control motions.

• Input response spectra were converted to Fourier amplitude spectra (FAS) using IRVT, which requires an estimate of ground motion duration for each input control motion, which was calculated according to the method in Rathje et al. (2005). Table 8. Deaggregated magnitudes and distances for reference rock and associated durations. Source: LCI (LCL 2015a). :\lotion (l\1w) Di tance (km) Duration ( ec) 104 Freq. 7.5 210 26.3 104 High Freq. 6.1 18 4.06 I 0-5 Low Freq. 7.6 200 27.7 10-5 High Freq. 6.2 8.0 3.94 10-6 Low Freq. 6.8 8.0 .46 10-6 High Freq. 6.4 6.0 4.76 17 PVNGS Site Response Methodology

• RVT. was used to perform the site response analyses, consistent with SPID.

• For the BC, LR, and UR shallow site profiles, site amplification factors (SAF) are developed for seven spectral frequencies (0.5 Hz SA, 1.0 Hz SA, 2.5 Hz SA, 5.0 Hz SA, 10 Hz SA, 20 Hz SA, and 100 Hz SA or PGA) over the range of spectral amplitudes represented by the input contnol motions (refer to Section 2.3.4). Each set of SAF incorporates the various types of variability in profile and material properties and uncertainty in kappa and deep shear wave vellocities as represented by the nine sets of adjustment factors.

• To include the deep site profile effect on SAF, the IRVT-derived input FAS was multiplied. by the set of Vs-kappa adjustment factors prior to using that input spectrum to drive the shallow site profile. 18 PVNGS Amplification Function 101 -10 * --10* 10' Frequency, (Hz) BC.10-4 ti/ 10' 10' 10' to* 10' Freqa>>ney (Hz] -Ha. PVNGS BC s.udaa and SAf for 10-4 HF i.npuc molion 11$Uig the EPRl soil marerial olOdel and a SUlgle rock ro local rock adjustmen1 fuoc.tion. Green Imes are for 60 indi\idual randomiud profiles Median (blade solid line) and :::lo1o (blaclc dashed linH) abo shown. Souru: Figure 46 from LCI (l..CI.1015d). 10' 10' 810 I ; J 10' l10* 101 10' -;o* --"i°o' Figure 4lb. PVNGS spectra and SAF for 10-4 LF mput motion using !he EPRI soi.I matenal modtl and a slQ!le rock to local rod: adju5tmrnt function. Gtttn Imes are spectra for 60 111dmdual nmdoouz.ed pr-ofiles. Median (black sohd hne) and +/-loi. (blad: dashed lines) are also shown. Soun:e: Figure 47 from LCI (I.CI. 2015d) J 1cr' 101 10' 10' Frequency. (Hz) BC 10-5 10' to' 10' (Hz) UT -He. PVNGS BC mr£l<< r6ponsc spectra mid SAF for 10*1 HF input motion ming the EPRI soil mataial model and 1 sin.git refet-mce rock ro loc&l rock adj11stmeo1 function.. Green lio.es are spectra for 60 1.0dmdual randomized profiles. (blad: sohd lio.e) and =loi. (black dashed 11.0es) also shown. SoutN: F1gur-e 48 fromlCI (l..CL ::WlSd). 10' l(f' 10' 10' --,o* --,rf Fniquency. (Hz) 10' fiptt 41d. PVNGS BC surfuce response spectta. aod SAF for 10*1 l.F 111put motton usuig EPRI soil matmal model. and a smgle reftteoce rock to local rocl.: fimctton. Grett are for 60 1.odm.dual rmdomu.ed profiles. '.\ledian (black sohd !me) and "'lo11 {black dashed hoes) shown. Source: Figure 49 from LCI (l..Cl.1015d)

PVNGS BC median amplification factors c nl 2.5 1.5 1 0.5 -... l --"W:I*--I; -:,,.,. II II . 0 0.001 0.6 0.5 0.1 0 0.001 . 0.01 0.1 1 10 SpectraJ acceleration, (g) " .. ' c_c I ,. -u. l l I I ,...,. *r "-J",_J I '!"!' . -. -i 1 "" ' .... "', l -, ' -[J I . -0.01 0.1 1 10 Spectral aueleration, (g) -+-PGA -.20Hz -e-10Hz -*-S H_z 2.5 Hz 1 Hz -0.5 Hz -+-PGA ... 20Hz -10Hz 2.5 Hz 1 Hz -0.5 Hz 20 Devlin-Gill, Stephanie From:Devlin-Gill, Stephanie Sent:2 Jun 2015 17:35:50 +0000 To:Graizer, Yladimir;Munson, Clifford;Ake, Jon;Heeszel,. Alice;John Stamatkos;Weaver, Thomas;Stovall, Scott;Hill, Brittain;Chokshi, Nilesh Cc:Li, Yong;Jackson, Diane;Miriam Juckett (mjuckett@swri.org)

Subject:

RE: PVNGS: Site Response Attachments:PVNGS Site Response -SDG.pptx. Site response overview slides attached. stephanie Geophysicist 301-415-5301 T-7010 U.S. NRC, NRO, DSEA, RGS2 From: Graizer, Vladimir Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 11:57 AM To:. Devlin-Gill, Stephanie; Munson,. Clifford; Ake, Jon; Heeszel, David; Stieve, Alice; John Stamatkos; Weaver, Thomas;. Stovall, Scott; Hill, Brittain; Chokshi, Nilesh Cc: Li, Yong; Jackson, Diane; Miriam Juckett (mjuckett@swri.org)

Subject:

RE: PVNGS: Site Response I put together few slides about GMRS and can show them. From: Devlin-Gill, Stephanie Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 10:07 AM To: Munson, Clifford; Ake, Jon; Heeszel, David; Stieve, Alice; Graizer, Vladimir; John Stamatkos; Weaver, Thomas; Stovall, Scott; Hill,. Brittain; Chokshi, Nilesh. Cc: Li, Yong; Jackson, Diane; Miriam Juckett (mjuckett@swri.org)

Subject:

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

Subject:

DIABLO CANYON MEETING Nick in the staff slide presentation for the. subject meeting .. specifically, slide 15 shows l date for Group 1 SPRAs ... as has been discussed with NRC upper management our understanding is that Diablo (if it is in group 1) will be given the. same amount of time as others. to. complete SPRA which pushes it out beyond the date shown on the slide ..... was this just an oversight or is this an issue that needs further discussion? Thanks. Mike Tschiltz. Director,. Risk Assessment Nuclear Energy Institute 1201 F Street NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20004 www.nei.org P: 202.739.8083. Mf{b){6) I E: mdt@nei.org NUCUAR ENERGY INSTITUTE TAKE THE NE/ FUTURE OF ENERGY QUIZ, www.NEl.org/futureofenergy WORLD NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE CONFERENCE (CO-ORGANIZED WITH WNA) J 21-23 APRIL 2015, PRAGUE, CZECH REPUBLIC J REGISTER TODAY FOLLOW US ON

• essage transmission contains information.from the Nuclear Energy. Institute, Inc. The. information is intended solely.for the addressee.and its. use

• not authorized. If you are not the intended recipient,. you have received

• ion m error, and any. review, use, disclosure, copying or distribution o mmunication is strict u ave received this electronic transmission in error, please notify the sender Immediately by telephone or by elect delete the orig/no/ message. IRS Circular 230 disdosure: Ta ensure compliance with requirements im as other raxlng authorities, we inform you

• contained in this communication (includi is nor intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, far the purpose of (i} avai m y taxpayer or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending ta another porty any transaction or matter addressed herein.

Sent through www.lntermedia.com DiFrancesco, Nicholas From:DiFrancesco, Nicholas Sent:27 Apr 2015 15:12:36 +0000 To:Gibson, Lauren

Subject:

FW: PG&E: Diablo Canyon Public Meeting on April 28 Attachments:NRC Public Meeting 4-28 Seismic Final.pdf FYI. ... slide 54 has a summary of licensee and regulatory actions. From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2015 10:42 PM To: Munson, Clifford; Ake, Jon; 'John Stamatakos <jstam@swri.org> (jstam@swri.org)'; Hill, Brittain; Graizer, Vladimir Cc: Jackson, Diane; Shams, Mohamed; Vega, Frankie; Walker, Wayne; Alexander, Ryan; Moreno, Angel; Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; Kock, Andrea; Flanders, Scott; Maier, Bill; Roth(OGC), David; Lindell, Joseph; Uttal, Susan; Markley, Michael; Lingam, Siva; Hipschman, Thomas; Wyman, Stephen

Subject:

PG&E: Diablo Canyon Public Meeting on April 28 Folks, Attached are the. PG&E slides in support of the Tuesday public meeting. NRG slides. will be available tomorrow morning. Please forward to those I may have. missed. Thanks, Nick From: Jahangir, Nozar [12] Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2015 7:58 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas; Soenen, Philippe R Cc: Strickland, Jearl

Subject:

Diablo Canyon Public Meeting on April 28 Philippe; Attached is the DCPP presentation for the subject meeting. I will also take 30 hardcopies with me, as well. I will be travelling on Monday and will be in Rockville on Monday night. We also need the Web access number and passcode for Technical PG&E staff that will be calling in support of the presentation. Thanks Nozar Juhangir P.E. Manager, Technical Services Diablo Canyon Seismic Engineering 805-545-6512 l<b )(6) I (cell) nxjl@pge.com From: Difrancesco, Nicholas [13] Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 10:33 AM To: Soenen, Philippe R Cc: Jahangir, Nozar;. Vega, Frankie; Shams,. Mohamed; Jackson, Diane

Subject:

NRC Technical Focus Areas for Support of Public Meeting on April 28 Mr. Soenen, In support of the public meeting scheduled for April 28, 2015, the NRG staff would like to gain additional technical understanding in several areas to support productive public meeting discussions. In addition to providing a general overview of the SSC and GMC SSHAC Reports and March 2015 50.54(f) response for DCPP, please provide additional clarification on the following topics. Seismic Source Characterization 1. Summarize the key data used to constrain the slip rate of the Hosgri fault, including associated uncertainties. 2. Clarify how elements of the thrust/reverse interpretation for the San Luis Range Thrust are incorporated into the SSC. 3. Clarify how the rupture models are derived from the fault source geometry models. 4. Summarize the methodology used to define the equivalent Poisson rates. Ground Motion Characterization 1. Provide additional detail on the criteria used for the selection of the candidate ground motion prediction equations (GMPEs) for development of the common form median ground motion models for DCPP. Specifically, please elaborate on the basis for including GMPEs based on datasets other than NGA-West2. 2. Provide additional detail on development of the common functional form used to fit the candidate GMPEs. Specifically, please discuss how model parameters such as depth to Vs=1 km/sand 2.5 km/s (which are present in some of the candidate GMPEs) are accounted for in the functional form. 3. Provide additional detail on the approach for weighting the selected common form models as well as the criteria used to verify the physicality of the final models. 4. Provide additional detail on how the continuous distribution for total sigma (crss) was developed by combining the between-event and within-event aleatory variabilities.

Site Response 1. Section 2.3.2.1 of the 50.54(f) submittal states that shear modulus and damping curves are not directly applicable to DCPP since analytical modeling is not used and that linear site effects are implicitly included in the empirical GMPEs for Vs30=760 m/s. However, the NGA-West2 database has a limited amount of data for sites with Vs30 near 760 m/s and for earthquakes with magnitudes and source-to-site distances similar to those dominating the hazard for DCPP. Please provide additional information on how these limitations in the NGA-West2 database are accounted for in the site response model for DCPP. 2. Section 2.3.6 of the 50.54(f) submittal describes the development of the site term for DCPP. For the calculations of between-event residuals, provide additional information on the criteria used to determine the appropriate distance range(+ and -Rrup) to the sample station. Please discuss the sensitivity of this distance range on between-event residual values. Please provide an example calculation that uses site-specific values to determine the values for $s2s, including the epistemic uncertainty in the site term. Please let me know if you have any questions on the above focus areas. Thanks, Nick Difrancesco Senior Project Manager -Seismic Reevaluation Activities U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Division nicholas.difrancesco@nrc.gov I Tel: (301) 415-1115 PG&E is committed to protecting our customers' privacy. To learn more, please visit http://www.pge.com/about/company/privacy/customer/

AIL 09-001

• The NRC's first assessment of the Shoreline fault was detailed in RIL 09-001 and was based on information available at the time. The NRC found the Shoreline fault's maximum predicted shaking is less than what the plant was previously analyzed for. AIL 12-001

• RIL 12-01, "Confirmatory Analysis of Seismic Hazard at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant from the Shoreline Fault Zone," updates the NRC's evaluation based on information PG&E provided in January 2011, as well as a staff visit to Diablo Canyon.

• The NRC continues to conclude that ground shaking from the Shoreline fault's earthquake scenarios are less than the HE and L TSP ground motion levels for which the plant was previously evaluated and demonstrated to have reasonable assurance of sat ety --. -10 § i u j '° l .. Comparison of Hosgri and L TSP Spectra to NRC Deterministic Evaluation Results JAPAN LESSONS LEARNED

• The NRG staff issued a request for additional information to all nuclear power plants on March 12, 2012, to initiate several actions as a result of lessons learned from the Fukushima Dai-ichi accident in Japan: -Conduct "walkdowns" of all nuclear power plants to verify flooding and seismic protection features -Reevaluate flooding and seismic hazard and design using present day methods and guidance

• The DCPP seismic hazard reevaluation, submitted in March 2015,. assesses all known faults in the area (i.e., not limited to just the Shoreline fault) using a process similar to what is done for siting new reactors. The licensee reported that the ground shaking from the known fault's earthquake scenario exceeds the Double Design Earthquake in the 1-1 O Hz range and that there was reasonable assurance that the plant could achieve sate shutdown at the higher level. The NRC is currently evaluating the licensee's report

• The NRC performed a screening and prioritization review of this report and th::it niabln r.anyon screens in to do n me '"' 'l'lr.-J*e seismic probablis ; rii 3: mf .ts is due -----* ua$0V VI I (he licensee's reported interin actions, the NRC determined that the plant is safe to operate while the further analysis is being completed. NRC REvlEW OF SEISMIC HAZ'ARDATTHE DIABLO C,AJ\J'V PONERPLANT This brochure provides an overview o the NRC's review of the Shoreline f au zone. near Diablo Canyon .. It also places the Shoreline fault review in context with the NRC's request that al U.S. nuclear power plants reanalyze seismic hazards based on lessons learned from the Fukushima Dai-ichi accident in Japan. (Prepared April 2015) For additional information contact th Office of Public Affairs. (30 415-8200 or email: opa@nrc.gov _.. :J -00 I -, _.. PJ _.. --* 6" CJ) :J PJ -< "O PJ -co PJ CD Q: CJ) CD -_.. 0 0 -I ::; CD _.. "O (JI c: 0-0 =o 0o -u;* 0 c: -CJ) CD 0 --::; CD CJ) () 0 "O CD 0 --:::; CD ,, 0 )> .., CD .0 c: CD -i ::; CD "O PJ <O CD CJ)

DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT SEISMIC BACKGROUND

• Nuclear power plant designs consider earthquake effects by providing margins against ground motion levels at the plant site. -The ground motion levels show how much energy (measured in 'g,' or percent of Earth's gravity) is transmitted at different shaking frequencies Designers use ground motion levels to analyze how structures and equipment respond during an earthquake

• Diablo Canyon is licensed to three earthquake. ground motions (most plants have two) -Design Earthquake (DE) ground motion is the biggest earthquake the plant is allowed to continue operating through );;>. The DE ground motion level is 0.2g anchored at 100 Hz Double Design Earthquake (ODE), ground motion is the shaking level at. which all safety related equipment must remain functional The ODE ground motion level is double the amplitude of the DE (0.4g peak ground acceleration. anchored at 100 Hz) -Hosgri Earthquake (HE} ground motion level,. which is based on an earthquake from the Hosgri fault, which was discovered in 1971 . );;>. The HE ground motion level is 0.75g peak ground acceleration anchored at 100 Hz based on a 7.5 magnitude earthquake 5 kilometers from the site >-Diablo Canyon's design was modified so that sufficient equipment survives the. HE to safely shutdown the plant and keep the nuclear fuel cool

• Long Term Seismic Program (LTSP} -The plant's original license required seismic reevaluation in 1 O years The L TSP was initiated to meet this license condition -The L TSP spectrum has been used to evaluate seismic margins 00 DI f rfqUen<)' (H7) 10 100 SHORELINE FAULT * *

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

DiFrancesco, Nicholas From:DiFrancesco, Nicholas Sent:27 Apr 2015 12:45:57 +0000 To:Jackson, Diane

Subject:

FYT: Comment on the Diablo Canyon seismic brochure Attachments:diablo canyon brochure revision 6.docx Fyi. .. From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 8:34 AM To: Gibson, Lauren Cc: Hill, Brittain; Vega, Frankie

Subject:

Comment on the Diablo Canyon seismic brochure Lauren, Britt Hill had a new graphic with additional curves on it. We will probably need to add the GMRS and consider incorporation of the LSTP margin assessment. Scott Flanders, Mohamed Shams, Yong Li, and Kamal Manoly are planning to travel for the end-of-cycle meeting June 24. Ahead of the meeting we should share with them for comment. SPRA report will be due June 2017. Thanks, Nick From: Gibson, Lauren Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 8:21 AM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

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

Subject:

RE: question: how to help RIV with request regarding Diablo Canyon seismic brochure Nick, I took the liberty of updating this brochure as if the screening and prioritization review were already completed. All that's needed is to put in the due date for SPRA. There seems to be quite a large number of people to coordinate with in this: your branch, DORL, Region 4, and NRO, so it should probably go into circulation for comment soon. We don't want to get ahead of the screening and prioritization, but I want to be ready to go so we can use this tool as soon as the initial review is completed. When do you think I should send it to the others? I thought you should get the first crack at it. Thanks, Lauren From: Uselding, Lara . Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 9:32 AM To: Bowman, Gregory Cc: Burnell, Scott; Williams, Megan; Alexander, Ryan; Whaley, Sheena; Difrancesco, Nicholas; Jackson, Diane; Oesterle, Eric; Markley, Michael; Lingam, Siva; Sebrosky, Joseph; Gibson, Lauren

Subject:

RE: question: how to help RIV with request regarding Diablo Canyon seismic brochure Great news Greg, thanks and we appreciate the support. Lara From: Bowman, Gregory Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 7:29 AM To: Uselding, Lara Cc: Burnell, Scott; Williams, Megan; Alexander, Ryan; Whaley, Sheena; Difrancesco, Nicholas; Jackson, Diane; Oesterle, Eric; Markley, Michael; Lingam, Siva; Sebrosky, Joseph; Gibson, Lauren

Subject:

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

Subject:

question: how to help RIV with request regarding Diablo Canyon seismic brochure Greg, Lauren, Nick, Mike, Siva, Eric, and Diane, The purpose of this email is to inform you of a request from RIV regarding possibly updating the attached brochure that we used in the past to communicate Diablo Canyon seismic issues. The inquiry for possibly updating the brochure can be found in the email below. A second purpose is to provide a proposal for updating the brochure that would involve JLD, NRO and RIV resources. Any insights you might have on the best way of updating the brochure (if it is deemed appropriate to do so) based on the information below on how the brochure was put together would be helpful. The attached brochure was developed by me as the Diablo PM with help from Annie Kammerer, Cliff Munson, Chris Cook, RIV staff (including Neil O'Keefe, Christie Hale, Megan Williams and Lara Uselding), and the JLD (Barry Miller). It was. part of a broader effort to communicate seismic information to the public at a Fall 2012 public meeting. Barry, Annie, and Chris, all had poster boards that they developed along with the attached brochure and they attended the Fall 2012 public meeting. The. brochure and several poster boards from the Fall 2012 meeting are still available on the RIV sharepoint link (see http://fusion.nrc.gov/regions/riv/Public%20Meetings/Forms/Allltems.aspx) From my perspective, I understand the request below is limited to updating the attached brochure, I just wanted to give everyone that was not involved with the Fall 2012 public meeting an idea of how the seismic communication tools were developed (it was truly a team effort). For what it is worth my suggestion to update the brochure would include the following (the 4 megabyte word file is available on the RIV sharepoint link):

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

• Have the revised brochure. reviewed for technical. content by Nick DiFrancesco (JLD seismic reevaluation lead PM), Diane Jackson (NRO seismic branch chief-Diane can determine which NRO staff, if any, need to review the updated brochure for technical content) and RIV projects staff o Revise the brochure as appropriate based on comments from JLD, NRO, and RIV projects staff Please let me know if you have any questions about the above and feedback on the proposal if it is determined that updating the brochure is appropriate. Thanks, Joe Sebrosky Senior Project Manager: Japan Lessons-Learned Division Off ice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation joseph.sebrosky@nrc.gov 301-415-1132 From: OPA4 Resource Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 5:34 PM To: Gibson, Lauren; Sebrosky, Joseph Cc: Burnell, Scott

Subject:

Hello Lauren and Joe-Back in 2012 when we issued the RIL, we handed out the attached brochure. I forget who there at HQ put it together but it's been a super handy resource to pass out to public and the media. I thought it would be useful if we update it with 1) verbiage once the March submittals come 2)any necessary updates and take. it with. us this year to our meeting. Can you assist with this or point me to right person to work with? I am no longer pursuing a video so this would provide a helpful overview of Oiablo Canyon seismic .. Thanks, Lara Uselding Sent:24 Apr 2015 18:39:46 +0000 To:Alexander, Ryan; Walker, Wayne;Uselding, Lara;Maier, Bill

Subject:

FYI: Draft of WUS Screening and Pdoritization Letter Western US Screening and Prio1itization letter.docx, lnfo POP Western US Screening Letter rev5.docx Folks, Current WUS seismic screening letter. Beginning management review in NRR and NRO. It generally mirrors the CEUS screening letter from May 9, 2014. Attached is the current POP that will be updated for senior management briefings. I plan to schedule in the near future a NRR ET and include the R-IV management brief. Thanks, Nick From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 7:08 PM To: Shams, Mohamed; Jackson, Diane; Cho, Esther Cc: Hill, Brittain; Munson, Clifford; Vega, Frankie; Burnell, Scott; Lent, Susan Draft of WUS Screening and PrioritizatiOll Letter Folks, Esther, Attached is the WUS Screening and Priorization Letter. Along with Frankie's and technical staff efforts the letter is ready for management review. Attachment 2 -redline markup shows changes from the CEUS May 9, 2014 letter. Items for Management Awareness:

• Discusses acceptability of Oiablo Canyon and Palo Verde interim actions in lieu of ESEP

• Discusses limited scope evaluation schedule for Group 1 WUS Sites only

• No discussion of SPRA schedule relaxation (suggest to discuss with licensees when results are communicated) Attachment 4 -Current Management POP and Communication Plan Timeline Attachment 1 is ready for ADAMS add. Thanks, Nick Senior Project Manager -Seismic Reevaluation Activities U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Division nicholas.difrancesco@nrc.gov I Tel: (301) 415-1115 The Power Reactor Licensees on the Enclosed List

SUBJECT:

SCREENING AND PRIORITIZATION RESULTS FOR THE WESTERN UNITED STATES SITES REGARDING INFORMATION PURSUANT TO TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 50.54(f). REGARDING SEISMIC HAZARD RE-EVALUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDATION 2.1 OF THE TERM TASK FORCE REVIEW OF INSIGHTS FROM THE FUKUSHIMA ICHI ACCIDENT On March 12, 2012, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRG) issued a request for information pursuant to Title 1 O of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50 (1 O CFR), Section 50.54(f). (hereafter referred to as the 50.54. (f). letter) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML 12053A340). The purpose of that request was to gather information concerning, in part, the seismic hazards at operating reactor sites and to enable the NRC staff to determine. whether licenses. should be. modified, suspended, or revoked. The "Required Response" section of Enclosure 1 indicated that licensees and construction permit holders should provide a Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening report within 3 years from the date of the. letter for Western United States (WUS) plants (i.e., Columbia Generating Station (Columbia), Diablo Canyon Power Plant (Diablo Canyon), and Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (Palo Verde)). Further, the 50.54(f) letter stated that NRG would provide the results of the screening and prioritization indicating deadlines for individual plants to complete seismic risk evaluations to assess the total plant response to the re-evaluated seismic hazard. Additionally, by letter1 dated February 20, 2014, the NRG provided supplemental information on the content of the seismic re-evaluated hazard submittals including guidance on reportability and operability. The purpose of this letter is to inform WUS licensees of the. NRC's screening and prioritization and to allow licensees to appropriately plan the completion of further seismic risk evaluations described in Enclosure 1 of the 50.54(f) letter. To respond to the 50.54(f) letter, all addressees committed to. follow the Electric Power. Research Institute (EPRI) Report, "Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic,"2 as. supplemented, by the EPRI Report, "Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Recommendation 2.1: Seismic"3 (referred to as the Expedited Approach). The NRC held multiple public meetings and teleconferences with industry and the public leading to the development of the guidance documents supporting review of re-evaluated seismic hazards. I The February 20, 2014, supplemental information letter is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML 14030A046. The SPID guidance document is found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML 12333A 170. The staff endorsement letter for the SPID guidance is found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML 12319A074. I The Expedited Approach guidance document is found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML 13102A 142. The WUS licensees submitted the re-evaluated seismic hazards. by letters dated March 12, 2015 (references are provided in Enclosure 3 of this letter). The NRG staff conducted the screening and prioritization review of the submittals by assessing each licensee's screening evaluation and hazard analysis utilizing the. endorsed SPID guidance .. INTERIM EVALUATIONS4 The 50.54(f) letter requested that licensees provide "interim evaluations and actions taken or planned to address the higher seismic hazard relative to the design-basis, as appropriate, prior to completion of the risk evaluation." For those plants where the re-evaluated seismic hazard exceeds the seismic design-basis, licensees stated they will provide interim evaluations to demonstrate that the plant can cope with the higher re-evaluated seismic. hazard while the longer-term seismic risk evaluations are ongoing. In support of the requested interim evaluations for licensees, WUS plants provided information related to margin evaluations or insights from Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) evaluations including estimated seismic risk. Additionally, the. submittals discussed completing plant seismic walkdowns as part of NTIF Recommendation 2.3 in order to verify that the current plant configuration is consistent with the licensing basis. The NRG staff review of WUS reports found that licensees have demonstrated additional plant seismic. margins. supportive of continued plant operation while additional risk evaluations are conducted. The licensees for Diablo. Canyon and Palo. Verde provided interim evaluations in lieu. of completing of the Expedited Approach. These licensees have demonstrated seismic margins that met the intent of the Expedited Approach review. For Columbia, the interim evaluation provided in March 2015 is a first step in assessing the plant's capacity to withstand the re-evaluated hazard. In the near-term, by January 2016,. Columbia will complete an "Expedited Approach" to evaluate. and identify reinforcements,. if necessary, for certain equipment to ensure a safe shutdown pathway can withstand a higher seismic ground motion. SCREENING PROCESS As defined in the 50.54(f) letter and the SPID guidance, the seismic hazard re-evaluations were conducted using current analysis methods and guidance. The licensees' responses to the 50.54(f) letter provided seismic hazard re-evaluation results, which were the focus of the NRG staff's initial screening and prioritization review. Although the safe shutdown earthquake. (SSE) is commonly referred to as a single number, this number represents a distribution of ground motions that occur over a range of spectral frequencies. This results in a curve of ground acceleration over frequency. The ability of equipment and structures in the plant to withstand the effects of ground motions is frequency specific. For the purposes of the licensees' analyses and NRG staff's review, the SPID guidance identifies three frequency ranges that are of particular interest: 1-10 Hertz (Hz), a low frequency range of <2.5 Hz, and a high frequency range of > 1 O Hz. The different ranges have been identified due to the different types of structures and equipment that may be impacted by 4 Enclosure 1 of this letter provides a Glossary of Seismic Evaluations

-. 3 -. ground motions in that range. For example, large components generally are not affected significantly by high frequencies (i.e., > 1 O Hz). The frequency range 1-1 O Hz is. the focus for this portion of the risk evaluation, as this range has the greatest potential effect on the performance of equipment and structures important to safety. For other frequency ranges, discussed below, limited-scope evaluations will be conducted, when appropriate. In accordance with the SPID and Expedited Approach guidance, the re-evaluated seismic hazard determines if additional seismic risk evaluations are warranted for a plant. Specifically, the re-evaluated ground motion response spectra (GMRS) in the 1-10 Hz frequency range is compared to the existing SSE:

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

• If the GMRS, in the 1-1 O Hz range, is greater than the existing SSE, then the plant will complete the Expedited Approach (including the. Interim Evaluation) .. Most plants that meet this criterion also screen in to conduct a seismic risk evaluation and have committed to conduct high frequency and spent fuel pool evaluations. In addition,. if the. GMRS meets the. low hazard threshold, which is described in the SPID,. and only exceeds the SSE below 2.5 Hz, the licensee will perform a limited evaluation of equipment potentially susceptible to low frequency motions. Similarly, if the GMRS exceeds the SSE only above. 10. Hz, then the. licensee will perform an evaluation of the equipment or structures susceptible. to that specific range of ground motion. Enclosure 2. provides the staffs determination of priority for plants that screen-in to conduct a seismic risk evaluation, and identification of plants to complete limited-scope evaluations (i.e., spent fuel pool, high frequency, or low frequency). CONDITIONAL SCREENING As discussed in public meetings5 and by letter dated February 20, 2014, the staff anticipated the possibility of not being able to complete the determination for conducting a seismic risk evaluation for some plants in the. 30-day review period under certain circumstances .. For example, if a licensee provided a unique submittal or deviated from the SPID guidance, additional time for the review might be. needed. In general, WUS submittals contain extensive site specific information including site specific source models. and ground-motion models which could affect the final screening decisions. Accordingly, during the. NRC screening and prioritization process, the staff identified that for Palo. Verde additional time and interactions. will be. required to better understandthe. seismic hazard for the plant. As such, the staff determined that Palo Verde "conditionally screens-in" for the purposes of prioritizing and conducting additional evaluations .. Palo Verde has. been prioritized to complete a seismic risk evaluation in Group 3. After interactions have occurred, the staff will make a final screening and prioritization determination and provide a letter to the licensee. If the plant remains screened-in, the final screening letter will affirm the plant priority 5 Discussion as part of public meetings dated December 4, 2014, February 11, 2015, and March 30, 2015 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML14342A901, ML15104A065 and ML15111A031, respectively). for further evaluations and establish. schedule. for an Expedited Approach, if. necessary. If the plant screens out, the final screening letter also will determine if the Palo Verde needs to complete limited-scope evaluations (i.e., spent fuel pool, high frequency, or low frequency). PLANT PRIORITIZATION The NRC grouped the "screened-in" plants into three. groups6, which (i) reflects the. relative priority for conducting a seismic risk evaluation that compares each plant's current capabilities to the re-evaluated seismic hazard, and (ii) accounts for the appropriate allocation of limited staff and available expertise for reviewing. and conducting seismic risk evaluations. During the prioritization review, the staff considered each licensee's re-evaluated hazard submittals, plant specific seismic and risk insights, and previous design-basis ground motion estimates. To prioritize the plants for completing seismic risk evaluations, staff examined certain key parameters such as (1) the maximum ratio of the. new re-evaluated hazard (GMRS). to the. SSE in the 1-10 Hz range; (2) the maximum ground motion in the 1-10 Hz range; and (3) insights from previous seismic risk evaluations. As such, Group 1 plants are generally those that have the highest re-evaluated hazard relative to. the original plant seismic design-basis (GMRS to SSE), as well as ground motions in the 1-10 Hz range that are generally higher in absolute magnitude. Group 1 plants including Columbia and Diablo Canyon are expected to conduct a seismic risk evaluation and submit it by June 30, 2017. Group 3 plants have GMRS to SSE ratios that are greater than 1, but the amount of exceedance in the. 1-1 O Hz range is relatively small, and the maximum ground motion in the 1-1 O Hz range is also not high. Given the limited level of exceedance of the Group 3 plants including Palo Verde, staff is evaluating the need for licensees to conduct a seismic risk evaluation in order for the staff to complete its regulatory decision making. After. further review, the staff will decide which Group 3 plants need to complete a risk evaluation. Risk evaluations for Group 3 plants are due by December 31, 2020. NEXT STEPS Based on the. staffs screening review the licensee for Columbia should. finalize and submit an Expedited Approach Report no later than January 2016. In accordance with the endorsed guidance, the staff acknowledges that the January 2016 Expedited Approach submittal will focus on plant equipment (i.e. safe shutdown pathway7) evaluations and modifications, as necessary, prior to submitting the plant seismic risk evaluations. The content of limited-scope evaluations or confirmations and their associated schedule milestones remain under development with NRC staff and stakeholders to assess acceptable alternatives for conducting these evaluations. The NRC staff has conducted a number of public meetings to reach alignment on the implementation details of these evaluations. The staff expects that implementing guidance should be established by summer 2015 and fall 2015 for high frequency and spent fuel pool evaluations, respectively. It is expected that WUS licensees 6 Central and Eastern licensees seismic hazard screening and priority reviews were completed in 2014. 7 Section 3 of the Expedited Approach guidance (ADAMS Accession No. ML 13102A142) provides a process to identify a single seismically robust success path using a subset of installed plant equipment, FLEX equipment and connection points. can. complete these evaluations in parallel with completion of SPRAs for Group 1. plants by June 2017. This letter transmits the NRC staff's results of the. seismic. hazard submittals for the. purposes of screening and prioritizing the plants. It does not convey the staff's final determination regarding the adequacy of any plant's calculated hazard. As such, the NRG staff will continue its review of the. submitted seismic hazard re-evaluations, and may request additional. plant-specific information to support this review .. The. staff has. placed a high priority on this review for the early identification of issues that might adversely affect each licensee's seismic risk evaluations. Initial interactions. with licensees. will occur as soon as. practicable. The NRG staff plans to issue a staff assessment on the re-evaluated seismic. hazard once each review is completed in approximately 12 to 18 months. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Nicholas DiFrancesco at 301-415-1115 or via email at Nicholas.Difrancesco@nrc.gov. Sincerely, William M. Dean, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

1. Glossary of Evaluations 2. Screening and Prioritization Results 3. List of Licensees March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals 4. List of Licensees cc w/encls: Listserv

ML 15113B344 OFFICE NRR/JLD/PMB/PM NRR/JLD/LA NRR/JLD/HMB/BC NAME NDiFrancesco Slent MShams DATE 04/22/15 I /15 I /15 OFFICE NRO/DSEA/D OGC NRR/JLD/D NAME SFlanders BHarris JDavis DATE I /15 I. /15 . I. /15 Glossary of Evaluations Associated with Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1 Seismic Hazard Re-evaluations Interim Evaluation or Actions -An immediate licensee and NRC review of the re-evaluated hazard to determine whether actions are needed to assure plant safety while further evaluations are ongoing. The staff has completed its review and concluded that, based on the licensees' interim evaluations and actions, Western United States (WUS) plants are safe for continued operations. Interim evaluations and actions are provided in Section 5.0, "Interim Actions," of the licensee submittals. Expedited Approach -A near-term licensee evaluation to be completed by January 31, 2016, for WUS plants whose re-evaluated hazard exceeds the current design-basis for the safe shutdown earthquake hazard level. The evaluation looks at the systems and components that can be used to safely shut down a plant under the conditions of a station blackout (i.e., no alternating current power is available) and loss of ultimate heat sink. The expedited approach will either confirm that a plant has sufficient margin to continue with a longer-term evaluation without any modifications, or confirm the need to enhance the seismic capacity to assure they can withstand the re-evaluated hazard. The Expedited Approach guidance document is found in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System under No. Accession No. ML13102A142. Seismic Risk Evaluation -Longer-term seismic risk evaluation provides the most comprehensive information to make regulatory decisions, such as whether to amend a plant's design or licensing basis or make additional safety enhancements. These evaluations provide information to make risk-informed decisions. The staff will use this information in conjunction with the existing regulatory tools, such as backfit analysis, to decide on further regulatory actions. The longer-term seismic risk evaluations could be either a Seismic Margins Analysis or a Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment, depending on the magnitude of the exceedance. Limited-Scope Evaluations -These include i) Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation, ii) High Frequency Evaluation, and iii) Low Frequency Evaluation. Respectively, these evaluations are focused on the following: i) spent fuel pool components and systems capable of draining water inventory to the level of the spent fuel, ii) a review of components susceptible to high frequency accelerations (e.g. electrical relays), and iii) a review of components susceptible to low frequency accelerations (e.g. water storage tanks). Enclosure 1 Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the. Fukushima Dai-lchi Accident Seismic Risk Evaluations Screening and Prioritization Results for Western United States (WUS) Reactor Sites Seismic Risk Limited-scope Evaluations. Screening Expedited Evaluation High Low Spent Fuel Plant Name Result Approach (Prioritization Frequency Frequency Pool Evaluation Group) Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Columbia Generating Station In x 1 x x Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit In 1 x x Nos. 1 and 2 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Conditional Station, Units. 1, 2, and 3 in 3 x x Enclosure 2 March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals for Western United States Reactor Sites Licensee Facility Date of letter (ADAMS Accession Nos.) Columbia Generating Station March 12, 2015. (ML 15078A243) Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 March 11, 2015 (ML 15071 A046) Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units March 10, 2015 (ML 15076A073) and 1, 2, and 3 April 1O .. 2015 (ML 15105A076) Enclosure 3 LIST OF APPLICABLE POWER REACTOR LICENSEES Columbia Generating Station Energy Northwest Docket No .. 50-397 License No. NPF-21 Mr. Mark E. Reddemann Chief Executive Officer Energy Northwest MD 1023 76 North Power Plant Loop P.O. Box 968 Richland, WA 99352 Diablo Canyon Power. Plant. Unit Nos .. l and 2. Pacific Gas & Electric Company Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82 Mr. Edward D. Halpin Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 56 Mail Code 104/6 Avila Beach, CA 93424 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Arizona Public Service Company Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-529, and STN 50-530 License Nos. NPF-41, NPF-51 and NPF-74 Mr. Randall K. Edington Executive Vice President Nuclear/CNO Arizona Public Service Company P.O. Box 52034, MS 7602. Phoenix, AZ 85072-2034 Enclosure 4 DiFrancesco, Nicholas From:DiFrancesco, Nicholas Sent:21 May 201521:14:05 +0000 To:Burnell, Scott;Maier, Bill;Uselding, Lara;Moreno, Angel Cc:Alexander, Ryan;Walker, Wayne;Lingam, Siva;Vega, Frankie;Jackson, Diane;Shams, Mohamed;Hipschman, Thomas;Markley, Michael;Hill, Brittain

Subject:

FYI: Future Issuance of Diablo Canyon R2. l Seismic Meeting Summary Attachments:Summary of April 28th Meeting with PGE_5.docx Meeting summary is publicly available as Folks, ML 15125A186. FYI: The following meeting summary will be issued regarding the April 28 -Diablo Canyon R2.1 Seismic public meeting COB Wednesday May 27, 2015. The summary closes two public comments received related to the webcast. Open ADAMS P8 Document (Summary of April 28, 2015, Category 1 Public Meeting with Pacific Gas and Electric Company to Discuss Diablo Canyon's Seismic Hazard Reevaluation Associated with Implementation of Japan Lessons-Learned Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1, Seismic) Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks, Nick Senior Project Manager -Seismic Reevaluation Activities U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Division nicholas.difrancesco@nrc.gov I Tel: (301) 415-1115 DiFrancesco. Nicholas From:DiFrancesco, Nicholas Sent: 19 May 2015 19:05:51 +0000 To:'Gene Nelson, Ph.D.' Cc: Vega, Frankie

Subject:

Incorporation of Public Comment Or. Nelson, Appreciate the public comment. Apologizes in the delay in response, the staff has received a number of public comments for review as part of the meeting. Below is the staff summary of your comment: The staff received a comment from Dr. Gene Nelson (Californians for Green Nuclear Power) via email during the meeting. The NRG staff inadvertently missed the opportunity to acknowledge Dr. Nelson's. comment during the meeting. According to Dr. Nelson, Diablo Canyon has favorable site conditions, which attenuate or dissipate earthquake energy over relatively short distances. Due to this favorable condition, the primary earthquake forces seen by the plant would be dominated by nearby earthquake sources and energy transmitted to the plant would be dominated by the small section of the earthquake rupture closest to the plant. Dr. Nelson stated that when considering the information presented at the meeting of overall plant ruggedness and the seismic hazard insights discussed above, Diablo Canyon continues to operate safely. Please let Frankie and I know if you have proposed correction by May 21, 2015. Thanks, Nick -----Original Message-----From: Gene Nelson, Ph.D. [mailtol(bl(5l h Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2015 7:39 PM To: DiFrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

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

Dear Nicholas:

I'm still awaiting the summary for my review of the 28 April 2015 NRG meeting on DCPP that documents my participation in the meeting. Do you know when I will be able to review that document? You may also be interested in the 231 pages of submissions as of 11 May 2015 to the California Energy Commission (CEC) docket 15-IEPR-12 regarding Diablo Canyon Power Plant. I wrote or assembled about 99% of the written exhibits. Upon request, I'll email you a 5-page summary of those exhibits. Thanks! Gene Nelson, Ph.D. San Luis Obispo, CA >Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:55:27 -0700

>To: "DiFrancesco, Nicholas" <Nicholas.DiFrancesco@nrc.gov> >From: "Gene Nelson, Ph.D." 1<0><6> >Subft(t* Examnle DCPP N11flear Safety Discussions by Gene Nelson, Ph.D. >Beet >><5) _ > >Nicholas DeFrancesco >US Nuclear Regulatory Commission >NRR/DORULPL4 >(301) 415-1115 >njd2@nrc.gov > >30 April 2015 > >I appreciate your telephone call to me yesterday regarding my not being >a telephonic participant in the NRC DCPP seismic safety review on 28 >April 2015. I look forward to reviewing a draft of my contributions to >the 28 April 2015 DCPP seismic safety review in the upcoming NRC >report. > >I sincerely hope there will be more effort focused on public outreach >to help interested non-expert participants understand future NRC >reviews of DCPP safety. As a physical sciences professor at Cuesta >College -and recently an engineering professor at California. >Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, I recognize the >importance of public outreach. As a consequence, I have provided >citizen testimony at NRC field hearings, Diablo Canyon Independent >Safety Committee hearings, California Coastal Commission hearings, >California State Water Resources Control Board hearings, and California >Energy Commission hearings. A Google search of both phrases "Diablo. >Canyon Power Plant" and "Gene Nelson" shows 19 results, "DCPP" and >"Gene Nelson" shows 13 results, and "CGNP" and "Gene Nelson" showed 12 >results. > >As an example of my outreach, please see my current exchange with Rod >Deyo, Ph.D. in the attachment. His Ph.D. is in mathematics. >https://www.linkedin.com/in/roddeyo Rod and I both graduated from >Harvey. Mudd College. in 1973. > >I'm interested in your perspectives. > >Gene Nelson, Ph.D. https://www.linkedin.com/in/geneanelson San >Luis Obispo, CA1<0><6> !cell Sent:24 Apr 2015 20:01:37 +0000 To:Lindell, Joseph

Subject:

Many thanks! RE: For OPA and OGC Review: Near-final DCPP Slides Yosef, Have a good weekend. Appreciate the prompt review. Sincerely, Nick From: Lindell, Joseph Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 3:59 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

RE: For OPA and OGC Review: Near-final DCPP Slides Nick. Yosef. Lindell. Attorney U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel OWFN 15 015 301-4 15-14 7 4 MOTICE* This iWilil illi'Q ilRf i\tiil6RQ2ifilt8 M!!i)' Hfill!iifil 88FlfiieF1tieJ ;0:M9Ff19) elie1 :t er 1914101 I :CJ Wo:lc :::11te1i11l. Qu ::ct aisclosc oatsiac tJAS ::itlibal 80111111issia11 app1oeal. From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 2:31 PM To: Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; OGCMailCenter Resource Cc: Vega, Frankie; Lindell, Joseph; Roth(OGC), David; Uttal, Susan; Alexander, Ryan; Walker, Wayne; Shams, Mohamed; Jackson, Diane

Subject:

For OPA and OGC Review: Near-final DCPP Slides Scott, Lara, OGG, Current working draft of slides. Let me know if have questions with messages. I plan to start processing for public release about 9:30 am Monday. OGG, I don't see items that should impact ongoing hearings. -content relates to NTTF 2.1 Seismic. only. Mostly from information from the public domain. Thanks, Nick From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 12:58 PM To: Kock, Andrea; Jackson, Diane; Flanders, Scott; Hill, Brittain; Chokshi, Nilesh; Harrison, Donnie; Shams, Mohamed Cc: Spence, Jane

Subject:

Comments on DCPP slides Folks, I added a slide 16 based on the bullets below. Written to avoid getting ahead of senior management and public affairs. Proposed Bullets are: Forthcoming Seismic Screening Letter

• Issuance of letter for WUS sites in -2 weeks

• Diablo Canyon has screened-in for further risk evaluations and is a review priority

• No immediate safety issues identified

• Information supports safety assurance allowing additional time to complete the seismic risk evaluation Thanks, Nick From: Kock, Andrea Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 11:56 AM To: Jackson, Diane; Difrancesco, Nicholas; Flanders, Scott; Hill, Brittain; Chokshi, Nilesh; Harrison, Donnie; Shams, Mohamed Cc: Spence, Jane

Subject:

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

Subject:

For comment: Preliminary Slides for DCPP meeting Good morning all -Please find attached, for your review and comment, the staff introductory slides. Right now, I am giving these. Mohamed and Nick, your review and comment are requested as well. Once we have comments back, then we can send to the licensee. I am also thinking on additional/alternative context. We don't want this part to be too long. The talking points are not updated. I will be working on them today. If you want to add bullets or ideas as suggestions for me to work into the slide message, please add them. Diane fi>imie Chief Geosciences and Geotechnical Engineering Branch 2 (RGS2) Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis (DSEA), Office of New Reactors (NRO) US Nuclear Regulatory Commission +1301-415-5641; office: T-7 03; mail stop: T-7 F3 NRC -One Team -One Mission Sent:23 Apr 2015 13:50:37 +0000 To:Munson, Clifford;Ake, Jon;Jackson, Diane;Shams, Mohamed;Manoly, Kamal;Li, Yong;Walker, Wayne;Lingarn, Siva;Uselding, Lara;Alexander, Ryan;Roth(OGC), David;Lindell, Joseph;Uttal, Susan;Moreno, Angel Cc:Kock, Andrea;Flanders, Scott;Bowen, Jeremy;MarkJey, Michael;Rivera-Lugo, Richard;Hayes, Barbara;Hill, Brittain;NTTF R2.1_2.3 CAL Resource Bcc:HQ-TWFN-07C01-15p

Subject:

Prep meeting for Diablo Canyon Webcast (888-817-9392 PCl(bl(5l I) Attachments: PG&E Email.docx, 4-28-15 Public Notice.pdf, Potential Q As for April 302015 COM_BEH.DOCX Purpose: Prep Meeting to support Diablo Canyon Webcast on April 28 (888-817-9392 PC:l(bl(5J Background *a:-*I I Agenda: 1. Meeting Notice Agenda -a. Bridgeline Setup i. 1 assisted bridgeline -queue for one question or comment ii. 1 open bridgeline for. licensee and R-IV b. Attached Agenda c. NRC Planned. Introduction to 2.1 and DC Seismic. Hazard Reviews 2. NRC Technical Questions (PGE Email to be Public April 23, 2015) 3. Public.Availability of Slides on Monday April 27, 2015 d. Licensee Slides to NRC Sunday April 26, 2015. e. Slides to OCA and RSLO (Angel and Maier) -April 27. 4. Awareness of Open Contentions [OGC] f. Contention related to SSHAC g. Contention related. to CLB. h. Contention related to renewal 5. Discussion of Roles and Responsibility for Public Questions ITopics Primary Responsibility Current Licensing and Design Basis, USFAR Inspection or Compliance Renewal General R2. l Proces Questions Sei mic Que tion Off Topic Questions Thanks, Nick M. Markley, [B. Hill Y. Li], N. Di Francesco M. Markley or R-IV over bridgeline NA -No renewal staff N. DiFrancesco or DSEA C. Munson, J Ake, B Hill N. Difrancesco April 22, 2015 Potential Commission Q&As April 30, 2015, Update on NTTF Recommendation 2.1 Seismic 1. Are there plants that exceed 2X SSE? Why does the expedited approach only consider ground motions up to two times higher than the plant's design? Yes, there are several plants that exceed their Safe Shutdown Earthquake by more than two times. If. a re-evaluated seismic hazard is greater than the plant's design basis, completion of the expedited approach provided additional confidence that a plant can cope with the higher hazard. This information builds on the interim evaluations that were submitted to NRC in March 2014, which. showed that the plants were very unlikely. to experience core-damage at the higher hazard levels. The expedited approach is designed to show that important equipment used to safely shut-down a plant will function as intended if a large earthquake occurs .. The expedited. approaches were completed by licensees in December 2014, and the NRC staff is reviewing these submittals. In general, licensees used a simplified method to analyze how safe down equipment responds to the. re-evaluated ground motions. This method scales the plant's original engineering analyses to a higher level of ground motion, up to two times the plant's design basis. By using this scaling method, licensees could promptly determine if important safe-shutdown equipment is safe or needs additional modification. If a plant's re-evaluated hazard exceeds two times its design basis, the plant is categorized as either. Priority Group 1 or Group 2 for completion, of a seismic probabilistic risk assessment. For these risk assessments, licensees will use detailed engineering models that are based directly on the re-evaluated levels of ground motion for the plant. However, the first of these detailed risk assessments aren't expected until June, 2017. The NRC determined that the simplified method used in the expedited approach was appropriate, because it provided near-term information on the. functionality of important safety equipment at a higher hazard level years before the longer-term risk assessments could be completed. 2. If ESEP assures safety, what additional insights do we need from a PRA? How many sites provided modifications in the ESEP submittals? Does that give us insights regarding which sites need to do PRAs? The longer-term seismic risk evaluations provide the most comprehensive information to make regulatory decisions, such as whether to amend design or licensing basis or make additional sat ety enhancements. These evaluations provide information to make risk-informed decisions. The staff will use this information in conjunction with the existing regulatory tools, such as backfit analysis, to decide on further regulatory actions. In contrast, the ESEP analyses provide an important intermediate step in demonstrating plant safety for the re-evaluated seismic hazard. The interim analyses provided an overall plant-level assessment of seismic safety. The ESEP analyses give a more focused assessment of the ability of safe-shutdown equipment to withstand the higher seismic hazards. Although some plant modifications have resulted from the ESEP analyses, the NRG staff does not expect the results of these analyses to modify the need for plants to conduct a seismic PRA. 3. How does ESSP relate to the mitigation strategies rule? How can licensees leverage work on the ESEP for the purposes of mitigation strategies? 4. What are the staff's views on R2.2?. May just. ask what is your personal view. The staff will use the ongoing 2.1 activities and insight gained to inform our decision on augmenting the current regulatory process with a periodic review of external hazards. Recommendation 2.2 is a Tier 3 activity and a future decision. 5. How many plants need to do additional risk evaluations in response to the newly calculated seismic hazards? Update to indicate that the staff is working with industry to further. refine. which plants. will require. a PRA consistent with our May 9 2013 letter. Based on the results of the NRC staffs review of the March 31, 2014 submittals, at least 20 CEUS sites will need to conduct the detailed seismic risk evaluations (either the seismic probabilistic risk assessment or the seismic margins analysis) during the next several years MAY 2014 Letter Count: 10. plants screened into priority Group 1, 11. plants total screened into Group 2, including 1 conditional screen-in, 22.5 plants screened into Group 3, including 13.5 plants that conditionally screened in. 16.5 plants screened out of performing additional risk seismic evaluations Updated as of September 2014 1 O plants screened into priority Group 1, 11 plants total screened into Group 2, including 1 conditional screen-in, 13.5 plants screened into Group 3, including 2.5 plants that conditionally screened in. 24.5 plants screened out of performing additional risk seismic evaluations 1 deferred -Vermont Yankee (permanent shutdown in 4th quarter 2014) We will determine where the remaining conditional sites will screen very soon.

6. How can we be sure that the information provided in 2014 on seismic hazards remains applicable when PRAs are submitted close to 2020? The information submitted to the NRG in March of 2014 was a request for information [(50.54(f) request)] linked to Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1 .. These reevaluations provide the current site-specific seismic hazard information to the NRG. The NRG staff will review and issue assessments on the licensee's. reevaluated seismic hazard by the mid-year 2015. Priority Group 1 plants are performing risk evaluations, which. are due. in June of 2017 .. Risk evaluations. for Group 2 plants are due at the end of 2019 and Group 3 evaluations, if needed, are due at the end of 2020. The staff will also review the insights gained from Recommendation 2 activities inform our decision on Recommendation 2.2 to determine if licensees need to confirm seismic hazard information on a periodic basis .. 7. Since the hazard information is always changing, what regulatory assurance do licensees have that the hazard they are using for their PRAs will be acceptable? NRG understands that the seismic PRAs are. complex investigations that will take. licensees several years to complete, and that the reevaluated seismic hazards are an intrinsic part of these analyses. Late last year, the NRG staff informed licensees that if there were no outstanding questions {i.e., RAls) on their March 2014 submittals, the licensees should move forward with using their seismic hazards in their PRA calculations. The staff is beginning to make final review determinations on the March 2014 seismic hazard submittals, with Group l plants having highest priority for completion. The staff expects that these review determinations will be completed in late 2015. 8. Will the schedule for review of the WUS allow PRAs to be completed on time? The NRG staff will use the same approach as for CEUS plants and will communicate to WUS licensees as soon as practicable about using their March 2015 seismic hazards in their seismic PRAs. If a WUS plant screen-in as priority Group 1, the plant will need to complete the seismic PRA no later than June 2017. Licensees for both the Diablo Canyon Power Plant and Columbia Generating Station have seismic PRA programs ongoing, and have not indicated that they would be unable to meet completion deadlines. 9. Why are plants in the western United States (WUS) on a different and longer schedule than plants in the central and eastern United States? The Columbia, Diablo Canyon, and Palo Verde plants required additional time to develop an updated, site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard analysis due to the West Coast's complex seismic features. In developing probabilistic seismic hazard analyses, CEUS sites were able to use the same recently developed seismic source model and a common ground motion model (see Attachment 3). As a result, CEUS plants needed less time to. complete their seismic hazard re-evaluations. West Coast site-specific seismic sources and ground motion models involve a Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee (SSHAC) study, as described in NUREG/CR-6372, "Recommendations for Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis: Guidance on Uncertainty and Use of Experts." The SSHAC is a group of independent seismic experts who were convened in the 1990's to develop guidance on the conduct of major seismic studies, and ensure that seismic activities are conducted properly and documented completely. The SSHAC process is independent of the NRC's seismic experts. The NRC must approve any studies, models, methodologies, analyses etc. used by nuclear power plants if they form the. basis for safety assessments and where the. NRG needs to make regulatory decisions affecting their operating license. Further, although the NRC does carefully consider comments and recommendations from the SSHAC, as an independent regulatory body, NRC is not held to any decisions made by the SSHAC. 10. Will the staff complete it's review of the WUS reevaluated hazards in time to support implementation of mitigative strategies? Why or why not? 11. The CEUS screening process was completed in 30 days. Why is screening for the WUS taking longer? The screening and prioritization review for the WUS hazard reevaluations will likely take 30-60 days to accomplish, because there is substantially more new information in these reports than was submitted for the CEUS plants in March 2014. Compared to the CEUS submittals, the WUS submittals contain a lot more new information on site geology, earthquake sources, and ground motion modeling. As a result, the WUS submittals are much more complex to review than the CEUS reevaluations. In addition to all the new information, each WUS plant also had to do a complex probabilistic seismic hazard assessment (PSHA), using a very detailed, multi-year process. In contrast, all the CEUS plants used essentially the same PSHA, which was extensively reviewed by NRC before. the seismic hazard reevaluations. were. submitted. 12. The staff sent a CA note to the Commission this. fall indicating. that the SFP evaluations would continue to be conducted. Why is this evaluation needed given the extent of previous study in this area and the findings from the recent RES. scoping study?

As discussed in the CA note, the planned SFP evaluation provides an additional plant-specific, systematic, and traceable investigation of the significance of the newly evaluated seismic hazard. The staff concluded that available risk insights were insufficient to support modification or elimination of the SFP evaluation, in large part because it was not possible to relate plant-specific changes in seismic hazard to changes in SFP risk. As a result of the SFP evaluation, licensees are expected to confirm the applicability of available generic analyses to their plant-specific conditions, and enhance the technical basis used by NRC for decisions on the seismic safety of SFP storage systems. 13. Why didn't the CEUS licensee's submit new SCDF numbers? How can the industry say that nobody is above 10-4/year? What does 10"4/year mean for plant safety? Seismic core damage frequency (SCDF) is a numerical estimate of risk and provides a representative indication of plant safety. The March 12, 2012, 50.54(f) requested information stated that plant's where the re-evaluated hazard exceeds the design basis should submit and interim evaluation or actions. To support plant responses to the 50.54(f) request, industry independently assessed SCDF for all of the CEUS plants and provided the results to NRC in a March 12, 2014 letter. This assessment is similar to the NRC's preliminary seismic risk assessments for Gl-199. The 10*4/year value demonstrates that current understandings of seismic hazard do not represent an immediate concern to plant safety, and that plants should continue to operate while more rigorous risk evaluations are completed. The CEUS licensees, as part of the March 31, 2014, submittals, confirmed that the industry conclusions for their facility are accurate. The NRC reviewed this information as part of the staffs assessment of licensee interim actions and evaluations, and agrees that the re-evaluated seismic hazards do not represent an immediate concern to plant safety. 14. Do we have similar risk information for WUS as was submitted for the CEUS (as indicated in #13) interim evaluation to demonstrate that WUS plants are safe while risk evaluations are completed? The March 2015 WUS submittals included interim evaluations for the Diablo Canyon and Columbia plants. Diablo Canyon used the results of previously completed seismic margin analyses to show that the plant was. designed with sufficient margin to cope with the higher seismic hazard levels. Similar to CEUS plants, Columbia used updated core-damage frequency calculations to demonstrate the plant could cope with the higher seismic hazard. The Palo Verde submittal did not identify seismic hazard exceedances with the plant's design basis, and provided additional information showing the reevaluated seismic hazard did not exceed a 1.25 factor of safety above the plant's SSE. For all 3 WUS plants, the NRC staff believes that sufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that these plants are safe to operate while additional risk evaluations are completed.

15. What is the likelihood of the design basis earthquake or "SSE" ground motions being exceeded over the life of a nuclear plant? The ground motion response spectra forming the seismic design bases at U.S. nuclear plants are called the Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE). SSEs for operating nuclear power plants were established many years ago. Today's understanding of seismic hazard tells us there is some likelihood that a plant's SSE may be. exceeded by an earthquake ground motion. However, each plant was designed differently according to different licensing SSEs. Therefore, the likelihood of exceedance is plant specific. Meanwhile, systems, structures and components typically have margin, meaning that they often can withstand shaking levels that are above the plant's design basis. 16. SEP Plants and Enhancements Background URI 156 -Systematic Evaluation Program, considered the review of 51 plants receiving operating licenses before 1976. A sample review of 1 O of the older plants were completed as a part of SEP effort. Several of the 137 SEP identified issues were subsumed into A-46 and IPEEE. Standard review plan before 1975. 10 SEP Plants Operating Units Palisades, Ginna, Oyster Creek, Dresden 2, Units in Decommissioning Milestone Unit 1, Yankee Rowe, Haddam Neck, La Crosse, Big Rock Point, and San Onofre Ginna, SONG-1, and Yankee Rowe identified for plant enhancements 41 Non-SEP Plants Vermont Yankee, Maine Yankee, Kewaunee, Fort Calhoun, Zion 1/2, Browns Ferry 1/2, Indian Point 2/3, Peach Bottom 2/3, Prairie Island 1/2, Duane Arnold, Cooper, Arkansas 1 , Calvert Cliffs 1 , Cook 1, Hatch 1 , Fitzpatrick, Three Mile Island 1 , Brunswick 2, Trojan, Milestone 2 17. Has there been an operating U.S. reactor site that has experienced exceedance of. its. seismic design basis during an earthquake?. The August 2011 earthquake at North Anna plant in Virginia was the first instance of an operating reactor in the United States where recorded ground motion exceeded its design basis in some frequency range. The plant shut down safely, and extensive inspections showed that there was no discernable damage to safety systems. After thorough review of the inspection information, NRC authorized the restart of North Anna in November 2011. In 1986, earthquake motions at the Perry plant in Ohio exceeded its SSE in limited frequencies during construction, but the plant was found acceptable for operation and its license was issued. In 1979, the V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina also exceeded its SSE while under construction, but was found acceptable for operation and its license was issued. In all of these cases, the exceedance of ground motion by itself was not an indicator of whether the plant's design limits were exceeded. Also, the plants had much higher capacity than the design basis. As expected, there was no damage to these plants from the earthquakes. 18. Why isn't the NRC immediately shutting down priority 1 plants/plants with higher seismic hazards? The. prioritization is. not a risk ranking -. more analysis is needed to. determine actual changes in a plant's seismic accident risk. The NRC continues to have confidence, based on our understanding of both reactor design and construction and the results of the plants' seismic "walkdowns," that plants can operate safely while more analyses are done. Nuclear power plant manufacturing and construction methods typically result in a plant having the capacity to withstand earthquakes larger than their design basis earthquake. This is because nuclear power plants are designed to withstand the force of different internal and external events. Many of these events create larger forces on a plant than an earthquake. Plants examined this capacity and demonstrated their safety systems can still perform properly after seismic hazards. larger than those the plant was designed to withstand. The. NRC is satisfied the systems will perform their safety functions at the higher seismic hazard levels, and that the plant can continue operating. NRC staff's initial review of an industry screening analysis and the interim evaluations provided confidence. that none of the plants showed a preliminary change in risk that would cause concern. Consequently, interim actions were not necessary to ensure the systems can function. In addition to the design margins and interim actions, all plants recently underwent detailed seismic walkdowns. These walkdowns identified and addressed degraded, nonconforming, or unanalyzed conditions through the corrective action program, and verified the adequacy of the. monitoring and maintenance procedures. NRC reviewed licensee actions to:

• verify the plant configuration with the current seismic licensing basis;

• address degraded, nonconforming, or unanalyzed seismic conditions; and

• verify the adequacy of monitoring and maintenance programs for protective features. The results of these walkdowns provide additional confidence that plants can continue to operate safely while longer-term risk assessments progress. 19. How would you characterize the reevaluated hazards of the western sites. in comparison to the CEUS sites? How much has the "needle moved" with regard to the reevlauated WUS hazards?

20. There. are many more earthquakes and active faults in the WUS than in the CEUS, and WUS plants have been designed to withstand. these higher seismic. hazards. Seismic hazards changed. for WUS plants similar to the way hazards changed for CEUS plants. For Palo Verde, the licensee reports that the reevaluated seismic hazard is smaller than the design basis SSE for the plant. For Diablo Canyon and Columbia, the reevaluated hazards can be up to about 2.5x the SSE, which is comparable to some CEUS Group 2 plants. Are there seismic monitors on site? Yes. The NRC requires nuclear power plants to maintain operating seismic monitors on site. 21. Are there seismic trips installed on US plants? As required by their Technical Specifications, Diablo Canyon has an installed seismic trip. No other US operating nuclear plant has installed seismic trips, 22. How does the U.S approach and timelines for response to seismic Fukushima issues align with other countries? 23. How will we use the information from risk evaluations to make regulatory decisions on plant modifications or any necessary changes to plant licensing bases? Once the SPRA analyses are completed, the NRC will use these results along with other available risk information to determine if additional regulatory actions are needed to provide additional protection against the updated seismic hazards. The NRC staff expects that the results of the SPRA analyses will provide a transparent basis to support backfit decisions for. potential safety enhancements. DIABLO CANYON Q&As-1. Why is Diablo Canyon safe to operate today? In support of the requested interim evaluation for Diablo Canyon, PG&E provided a comparison of the reevaluated GMRS to ground motions based on the 1988 Long Term Seismic Program (L TSP). As part of the LTSP, PG&E determined that structures, systems and components at Diablo Canyon can safely withstand ground motions that are at least 1.35 times larger than the L TSP median ground motion. The NRC staff had previously reviewed the L TSP analyses and determined they were acceptable. Although the reevaluated GMRS exceeds Diablo. Canyon's. SSE, these ground motions do not exceed the minimum 1.35 factor of safety" in Diablo Canyon's design. After reviewing this information, NRC determined that the DCPP remains safe to operate while additional seismic risk evaluations are being conducted. Diablo Canyon has been screened-in as a priority Group 1 plant and a detailed risk evaluation is expected to be submitted to the NRC by June 30, 2017. 2. Have seismic hazards been increasing or decreasing when new analyses are done at DCPP? In 2011, information from the Shoreline and other faults was used in deterministic analyses of seismic hazard at DCPP, which showed ground motions were bounded by the previous Hosgri design-basis and L TSP ground motions .. PG&E updated these deterministic analyses with new information (AB 1632) in 2014. The 2014 seismic hazards were higher than calculated in 2011, but still bounded by Hosgri and LTSP. The latest probabilistic. analyses. are even higher than calculated in 2014, and slightly exceed the Hosgri ground motions at some low (1.5 Hz) and high (>25 Hz) frequencies. Nevertheless, DCPP has a well-established margin in its design that can cope with such small increases in seismic hazard above the plant's design basis. The science of seismic hazards analysis have advanced considerably since Diablo Canyon was first designed. The 2015 analyses use currently available science, along with current NRC regulations and guidance, to characterize potential seismic hazards at this site. The 2015 analyses now consider, for example, the likelihood that earthquakes could occur on seismic sources and the possibility that slip on one fault might trigger slip on nearby faults. These considerations appear to contribute to the observed increase in calculated seismic. hazard for the DCPP site. 3. What is the impact of this new information on seismic design and licensing of DCPP? Has the licensee entered this new information into the corrective action program and performed an operability evaluation? Needs to be updated As stated in the March 12, 2012 50.54(f) letter, the seismic hazard reevaluations conducted in Phase 1 do not revise the design basis of the plant. Based upon the results of Phase 1, the. NRC staff will determine whether additional regulatory actions are necessary (e.g., update the design basis and SSCs important to safety) to provide additional protection against the updated hazards. In their March 2015 submittal, PG&E provided an interim evaluation that shows the plant can cope with the reevaluated seismic hazards. This interim evaluation documents the specific seismic design characteristics of the DCPP, and summarizes analyses that demonstrate the plant has a sufficient design margin to safely cope with the reevaluated hazards. The March 12, 2012 50.54(f) letter considered the requested seismic hazard reevaluations to be outside the design basis of the plant, and the reevaluations were not expected to initiate an additional operability evaluation. 4. How will the AB 1632 seismic report be coordinated with the 50.54(f) required submittal in March 2015? What does. Diablo's submitted reevaluated hazard

5. state? Much of the new information on site geology, earthquake sources, and ground motion modeling from the AB 1632 report was used to develop the March 2015 submittal. To consider how this new information affects seismic hazard, PG&E had to do a complex probabilistic seismic hazard assessment (PSHA) using a very detailed, multi-year process. This process, from the Senior Seismic Hazards Analysis Committee (SSHAC, NUREG/CR-6372), evaluates the center, body and range of available information to rigorously calculate seismic hazards at a site. (If asked what things the plant has done since Fukushima: It is important to note that OCPP is an industry leader in implementing FLEX which was a post-Fukushima industry initiative to have extra equipment available remotely in the event of a beyond design basis event). 6. Why didn't the NRC discover the length of the faults when it did its seismic review of. the Shoreline fault in 2011 prior to issuing the AIL?. California Assembly Bill 1632 (Blakeslee, Chapter 722, Statutes of 2006) directs the California Energy Commission to assess the potential vulnerability of California's largest base-load power plants, Oiablo Canyon Power Plant and San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, to a major disruption due to a seismic event or plant aging; to assess the impacts of such a disruption on system reliability, public safety, and the economy; to assess the costs and impacts from nuclear waste accumulating at these plants; and to evaluate other major issues related to the future role of these plants in the state's energy portfolio. The licensee has used the most state-of-the-art 20 and 30 geophysical mapping techniques, which are commonly used in offshore petroleum resource exploration. These techniques provide higher-resolution data than what was available to characterize the Shoreline Fault in the 2011 report. The NRG has requested licensees of operating nuclear power reactors to submit a seismic hazard reevaluation using up-to-date methodologies and analyses which is due for OCPP in March 2015. 7. There is high public interest in the reevaluated seismic hazard at Oiablo Canyon. How have we ensured that this complicated topic is clearly communicated to the public surrounding the plant?

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

Subject:

RE: Diablo Public Meeting It was a straight forward meeting .. Great meeting for staff technical exchange and understanding of the submittal. Diablo Seismic analysis is at least a decade ahead of everyone else in the fleet. -Nick From: Proffitt, Andrew Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 2:38 PM To: DiFrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

Diablo Public Meeting Any key insights or take-aways from the Diablo public meeting earlier this week?. J. Andrew Proffitt U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Technical. Assistant NRR/JLD (301) 415-1418 Sent:29 May 2015 17:26:55 +0000 To: Vega, Frankie

Subject:

RE: FYI. ... FW: Proposed 2.1 Seismic Task Tracker Call or send an email to Diane and Stephanie to schedule some SRB time to review the letter and the request. I'll review the MS Order Alignment Section and back revisions. From: Vega, Frankie Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 1:19 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

RE: FYl....FW: Proposed 2.1 Seismic Task Tracker more interest from management ahhh! Have you heard from Diane on this and if they are planning to engage the SRB? If you haven't heard from her, I'll follow up with her early next week. Thanks From:. Difrancesco, Nicholas. Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 1:07 PM To: Vega, Frankie

Subject:

FYI.. .. FW: Proposed 2.1 Seismic Task Tracker FYI .. only your letter made the cut. Diablo Canyon Acknowledge on ESEP (June 19) [Owner: Vega) (Interest NRR/ET Commission) From: Shams, Mohamed Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 1:06 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas Cc: Proffitt, Andrew

Subject:

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

Subject:

Proposed 2.1 Seismic Task Tracker Mohamed, If you approve, I propose the following be added to the action tracker. Issue SPRA Relief or Alternatives Letter (August 30) [Owner: DiFrancesco] (Interest NRR ET) Issue. HF Endorsement Letter (August 30). [Owner:Wyman] (Interest NRR. ET)

Diablo Canyon Acknowledge on ESEP (June 19) [Owner: Vega] (Interest NRR/ET Commission) Watts Bar 2 JLD OL Appendix Input (June 5) [Owner: DiFrancesco] (Interest NRR/ET Commission) Thanks, Nick From:. Shams, Mohamed. Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 9:55 AM To: Uribe, Juan; NRR_JLD_JHMB Distribution

Subject:

RE: REQUEST -Update Task Tracker Juan -thanks very much for the background. That was very helpful. All -I spoke with Andrew and he said just send him an email with the action and he will update the tracker. That is what other branches do. The description Juan had below is perfect to defining the type of information to send to tracker. Thx Mohamed From:. Uribe, Juan Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 9:33 AM To: Shams, Mohamed

Subject:

RE: REQUEST -Update Task Tracker Mo, My $0.02 on this for background purposes was that this table (if it's the one I think it is) and the items within were added and maintained by the previous TA Billy Jessup. To my knowledge, he was. the only one who updated/maintained the. list so that the rest of the division wasn't trying to access and modify it. It was basically his own activity tracker that he then used to keep the directors up to speed. Your item #1 below suggests we may need to start doing it ourselves? My understanding is that he fed the list based on the discussions from Monday mornings between BCs and JLD management as well as other meetings he attended within the Division and L TIET. He would then do the rounds with his list asking for updates to prepare for the following Monday. It basically captured high level items that had a divisional impact. Below is a excerpt from one of the TA docs that details what the tracker (again, if it's the one Im thinking it is) is for: o Focus is primarily on the JLD Task Tracker (http://fusion.nrc.gov/nrr/team/jld/Lists/Tasks/Allltems.aspx)

• The Task Tracker is used to maintain awareness of due dates for level actions and activities in the division including controlled correspondence, EDO and Commission-level information requests, assistance to internal and external stakeholders (i.e., presentation requests), meeting preparations, and other items added at the request of JLD management. From: Shams, Mohamed Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 9:14 AM To: NRR_JLD_JHMB Distribution

Subject:

REQUEST -Update Task Tracker All -In the management meeting on Monday mornings, we go over the task tracker assessing the status of upcoming tasks for the division. I have noticed, and was also told, that our branch does not have any tasks on the list. Or at a minimum, our tasks are not up-to-date. I don't know to what degree you are aware of that task tracker and have updated it in the past. I also don't know the threshold of the tasks that go on the tracker-although I have a feel tor it. Two request: (1) please start/continue to update the tracker with our tasks, and (2) if you need clarification on the type of tasks to add to the list, please reach out to Andrew Proffitt. The examples that come to my mind that should have been tracked include: COMSECY on flooding action plan, WUS screening letter, VY 2.1/2.3/9.3 closure letter, and IA extension letter. No worries ... everything was tracked regardless. Many thanks, Mohamed DiFrancesco, Nicholas From:DiFrancesco, Nicholas Sent:l4 May 2015 18:24:29 +0000 To:Vega, Frankie Cc: Hill,. Brittain

Subject:

References for Diablo Letter Prep on Expedited Approach Response Frankie, To start the Diablo Letter and confirm technical assignment, I think we generally need the following references. We probably should handle Palo Verde separately (in a screening letter).

• NRC response letter to licensees related to expedited approach commitment change (December 15, 2014)

• Licensee Integrated Plan (due February 28, 2013) (report page 8 has a statement about will enter reevaluated hazard into CAPs If warranted -designed to CLB)

• NRC letter regarding Seismic Screening and Prioritization Results for WUS Licensees (May 13, 2015) Reference and Background from Britt: NRC's. review of the LTSP, and conclusion of its acceptability, are documented in the Diablo Canyon SER rev 34 (1991), which is publically available in ADAMS as ML 14279A 130. SSER34 documents NRC staff's thorough review of the L TSP, which includes the margins assessment cited by PG&E in their March 2015 submittal. Thanks, Nick Senior Project Manager -Seismic Reevaluation Activities U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of. Nuclear Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Division nicholas.difrancesco@nrc.gov I Tel: (301) 415-1115 Sent: 15 May 2015 21 :02:25 +0000 To:Lindell, Joseph;OGCMailCenter Resource Cc:Roth(OGC), David;Uttal, Susan

Subject:

Thanks ! RE: 'rn:TO' -OGC Review? Public Comment on April 28th, 2015 webcast meeting with PG&E -Product Thank you! Have a great weekend. -Nick From: Lindell, Joseph Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 5:02 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas; OGCMailCenter Resource Cc: Roth(OGC), David; Uttal, Susan

Subject:

-OGC Review? Public Comment on April 28th, 2015 webcast meeting with PG&E -OUO Work Product Nick, Yosef Yosef Lindell Attorney U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel OWFN 15 015 301-4 15-14 7 4 14eTleE. Tliis Cll mil u::c:l a: 19 atl!iel 11 ;;e11te 1118)' BBJiil8iJii iiOPfidortiil:I °Uc may qj02+ gr WmkP1 eeJtsot Jtt&lc: ial. Bo ::ct disclose outside fJfil8 ooitl 1oat 60111111issio11 app1ova1. From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 2:37 PM To: OGCMailCenter Resource Cc: Lindell, Joseph; Roth(OGC), David; Uttal, Susan

Subject:

-OGC Review? Public Comment on April 28th, 2015 webcast meeting with PG&E -OUO Work Product OUO VVOIR PIOOOCt OGC, Don't think this needs review. However, the response below is to Ms. Rochelle Becker, Executive Director, Alliance. for Nuclear Responsibility. Her concerns relate in part to the fidelity of the Diablo Canyon SSHAC and engineering methods.

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

Subject:

RE: Comments on Draft Response?:::::: Written concerns -April 28th, 2015 webcast meeting with PG&E One small clarification in green. Rest looks good. Britt From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 12:42 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas; Hill, Brittain; Gibson, Lauren Cc: Shams, Mohamed; Uselding, Lara; Jackson, Diane; Vega, Frankie; Lingam, Siva

Subject:

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

Subject:

Comments on Draft Response?:::::: Written concerns -April 28th, 2015 webcast meeting with PG&E Britt, Lauren, Comments??? Ms. Becker, Thank you for the public comment related to the April 28, 2015, webcast. The staff is aware and following the California Public Utilities Commission's Independent Peer Review Panel activities. The staff review for the Diablo Canyon Seismic Hazard Screening Report is ongoing in support of Near-Term Task Force -Recommendation 2.1: Seismic. We are independently reviewing PG&E's probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, which was developed using the Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee results and process. As you may be aware, on May 13, 2015, NRG placed Diablo Canyon into the highest priority group for the reevaluated Seismic Hazard review along with 11 other reactor sites. For awareness, I have placed our emails in NRC agency document access and management system (ADAMS) as a public record. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best regards, Nick DiFrancesco Project Manager -Seismic Reevaluation. Activities U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Division nicholas.difrancesco@nrc.gov I Tel: (301) 415-1115 Non Responsive Sent:24 Apr 2015 14:32:36 +0000 To:Munson, Clifford;Stieve, Alice Cc:Jackson, Diane;Devlin-Gill, Stephanie;Hill, Brittain

Subject:

Palo Verde Source Information for: SSHAC Documentation from PPRP-IT Team Attachments:SSC SSH AC Documentation of PPRP-TT-Team lnteraction.pdf Cliff, Alice, Stephanie, Please let me know if this. is. the missing piece. They have this one file on the. SSC in the. reading room. Thanks,. Nick From: Munson, Clifford Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 4:14 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas; Ake, Jon Cc: Jackson, Diane; Shams, Mohamed; Vega, Frankie; Graizer, Vladimir; John Stamatakos <jstam@swri.org> Ustam@swri.org); Hill, Brittain; Seber, Dogan; Vega, Frankie; Stirewalt, Gerry

Subject:

RE: DCPP, Palo Verde, and Columbia Audit Information: SSHAC Documentation from PPRP-IT Team Importance: High Nick, We took a quick look at the contents of the information for DCPP and PVNGS. The DCPP folder contains the PPRP-TI correspondence and interactions on the source model and ground motion model SSHACs. However, the PVNGS only has the ground motion model SSHAC PPRP-TI team material and not for the Source model. Please let us know when we can get the source model PPRP-TI team documentation. Thanks, Cliff From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 1:25 PM To: Munson, Clifford; Ake, Jon Cc: Jackson, Diane; Shams, Mohamed; Vega, Frankie; Graizer, Vladimir; John Stamatakos <jstam@swri.org> (jstam@swri.org); Hill, Brittain; Seber, Dogan; Vega, Frankie; Stirewalt, Gerry

Subject:

DCPP, Palo Verde, and Columbia Audit Information: SSHAC Documentation from PPRP-IT Team Folks, Please control distribution to the designated review team member for the following references. Following your audit review, please advise if information reviewed should be docketed to support development of the hazard staff assessment or RAls. DC Audit Information S:\Diablo Canyon R2.1 Seismic lnformation\SSHAC Documentation of PPRP-TI Team Palo Verde Audit Information S:\Palo Verde R2.1 Seismic lnformation\SSHAC Documentation of PPRP-TI Team Columbia Information is on ePortal (PM action to work through access controls). Also, licensee plans to work with PNNL to post information on public website. Thanks, Nick From: Soenen, Philippe R [14] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 10:49 AM To: DiFrancesco, Nicholas Cc: Jahangir, Nozar

Subject:

DCPP information on Certrec Nick, We have uploaded the PPRP information onto Certrec IMS and granted access to Vladimir Grazier, John Stamatakos, and yourself. Here is. how you get to the PPRP information in Certrec:

• Login to ims.certrec.com

• Click on "Inspections"

• Set status to "In Progress" and Plant te. "Diablo Canyon"

• Click "Search" button.

• Click link to "Self-Assessment I Audit-Review of PPRP Comments and TIT Resolution"

• Click on the "NRC Requests" tab

• Click on what you would like to see. Please let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Philippe Soenen Regulatory Services Office -805.545.6984 Cell j(b)(GJ I PG&E is committed to protecting our customers' privacy. To learn more, please visit http://www.pge.com/about/company/privacy/customer/

DiFrancesco, Nicholas From:DiFrancesco, Nicholas Sent:7 Apr2015 19:13:56 +0000 To:Shams, Mohamed

Subject:

RE: Inquiry: Palo Verde Supplemental Letter Agreed, I spoke with Kamal and Yong, they have the same concern. Not worried about this issue.. the technical staff will work it out. The seismic guys are worried the hazard could move. From: Shams, Mohamed Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 2:49 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

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

Subject:

Inquiry: Palo Verde Supplemental Letter Folks, Any additional comments? I intend to follow-up with the. licensee today. The licensee stated that they did not pass the. 0.2 g licensing basis SSE around 3 Hz. Received a staff comment that you get a different answering depending on how you transform the. SSE from a log plot to a linear plot. Thanks, Nick From: Hill, Brittain Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 7:07 AM To: Vega, Frankie; Jackson, Diane; Shams, Mohamed; Munson, Clifford; Manoly, Kamal Cc: Difrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

RE: Preview of upcoming Palo Verde seismic hazard supplement letter Frankie -it's not clear if APS intends to screen-out based on IPEEE, following the process outlined in the SPID. Please emphasize to APS that the screening process allows for screenout based on IPEEE. results, provided the IPEEE analyses meet the criteria outlined in the. SPID. Although "background information" on IPEEE appears useful, APS should focus on addressing the IPEEE acceptability criteria if they wish to use these analyses in screening decisions.

ThanksBritt From: Vega, Frankie Sent: Friday, April 03, 2015 8:18 AM To: Jackson, Diane;. Shams, Mohamed; Hill, Brittain;. Munson, Clifford; Manoly, Kamal Cc: Difrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

Preview of upcoming Palo Verde seismic hazard supplement letter Hi all; Nick and I met with APS (licensee for Palo Verde) and discussed details on the supplemental letter they are planning to submit next week regarding their seismic hazard reevaluation. Also, a preliminary agenda for the public kick-off meeting next month was discussed. Regarding the supplement, I've provided a short summary of the information APS is planning to submit to provide additional clarity for the staff's review: 1. APS will be adding a graph overlaying the .2g (licensing basis). IPEEE and .25g (design basis) spectral responses all together. This would add some clarity on the plant's margin. 2. APS will provide additional background information on their IPEEE curve. This will document the basis for selecting .3g instead of .5g PGA. The 841h percentile and median curves will be provided. 3. APS will provide a short discussion on why the ESEP will not add additional value to their seismic evaluation. 4. APS will clarify and provide additional background, referencing FSAR information, on the licensing (.20g) and design (.25g) basis responses. 5. Regarding PPRP discussions (comments and their resolutions). APS belief this information was provided as part of the SSHAC report. APS committed to verify this and will get back to us. APS agreed that having this information will greatly help the staffs review. APS intends to submit this letter by April 8, 2015. Nick is planning to have one additional call before this submittal to make sure they'll provide the information the staff is requesting. Please let us know if something is missing so we can communicate it to APS before the submittal. Thanks. Frankie G. Vega, P .E. Project Manager NRR/JLD/JHMB 30l-415-1617 Location: 0-13H10 DiFrancesco, Nicholas. From:DiFrancesco, Nicholas Sent: l Apr 2015 12:41:54 +0000 To:Jackson, Diane

Subject:

RE: publically available PV SSHAC Diane, I spoke with the licensee, the Palo Verde SSHAC is effectively decontrolled (e.g. printing and sending are ok). Licensee stated that the eRoom was sending the files due to the size. Only restriction would be purge copies when the review is completed. If the staff assessment relies on the SSHAC we may need to look at docketing information. The licensee also understands it is subject to FOIA. -Nick From: Jackson, Diane. Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 7:17 AM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

publically available PV SSHAC Nick-The PV reviewers expressed the concern about the PV SSHAC reports not be public. They are allowed to down load and print it right? They 9at least one reviewers) believes it will take them more time , if they have to write questions to identify what needs to be on the docket. I'd like to discuss further. Any chance PV is going to change their mind on the public vs non public? Diane 9>iane J.adLHm, Chief Geosciences and Geotechnical Engineering Branch 2 (RGS2) Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis (DSEA), Office of New Reactors (NRO) US Nuclear Regulatory Commission +1301-415-5641; office: T-7 D3; mail stop: T-7 F3 NRC -One Team -One Mission Sent:28 Apr 2015 20:08:36 +0000 To:Ake, Jon

Subject:

FW: 28 April 2015 Meeting -DCPP Seismic Hazard Re-evaluation From: Gene Nelson, Ph.D. l(b)(6) IJ Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 3:59 PM To: DiPrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

RE: 28 April 2015 Meeting -DCPP Seismic Hazard Re-evaluation Nicholas Defrancesco US Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRR/DORL/LPLA (30 I) 415-11 15 njd2@nrc.gov 28 April 2015 Hello, Nicholas: As a Ph.D. physical scientist, I note that today's PG&E presentation provided a large body of technical information regarding the latest update regarding DCPP seismic safety. I appreciate that as a consequence of how earthquake energy is sttongly attenuated by the distance between the earthquake rupture and a measurement point, the earthquake forces seen by the compact DCPP site are dominated by the small section of the eanhquake rupture closest to the plant. Today's data continue to confirm that DCPP can safely withstand any earthquake in the region near DCPP with a substantial safety margin. Since I have a schedule conflict that will likely prevent my parlicipation in the public question and answer period, I'm requesting that you ask the NRC staff attending this meeting to confirm my summary. (Please confinn receipt of this message.) Sincerely Gene Nelson, Ph.D. Physical Science Faculty, Cuesta College, San Luis Obispo, CA .. r_)_(5_l ----'cell Soenen, Philippe R From:Soenen, Philippe R Sent: 1 Jun 2015 20:15:29 +0000 To:Munson, Clifford;Jackson, Diane

Subject:

FW: Advanced Draft RAI on Geophysical Site Properties Attachments:June 2015 DCPP RAJ.DOCX I -----Original Appointment-----From: Soenen, Philippe R [15] Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 4:14 PM To: Soenen, Philippe R; Difrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

FW: Advanced Draft RAI on Geophysical Site Properties When: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 1:00 PM-1:30 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). Where: Bridgeline: 1.866.652.7690, pass code:l(b)(6J I -----Original AppoFrom: Soenen, Philippe R Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 1:33 PM To: Soenen, Philippe R; Jahangir, Nozar; Ferre, Kent S; thompson@lettisci.com; Abrahamson, Norman; abrahamson@berkeley.edu Cc: Nicholas.Difrancesco@nrc.gov; Strickland, Jearl

Subject:

Advanced Draft RAI on Geophysical Site Properties When: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 10:00 AM-10:30 AM UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada). Where: Bridgeline: 1.866.652.7690, pass code: (b)(6l All, This phone call is proposed to discuss the advanced draft RAI related to geophysical site properties. The meeting is proposed. for Tuesday June 2, 2015 from 1000 to 1030 Pacific Time. Please call in to Bridge line: 1.866.652. 7690, pass code:l(b)(6) l lf this date or time. does not work please propose any alternative. Regards, Philippe Soenen Regulatory Services Office -805.545.6984 Cell fb)(6J I PG&E is committed to. protecting our customers' privacy. To learn more, please visit http://www.pge.com/about/company/privacy/customer/

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

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFO RE-EVALUATIONS RELAT 0 SITE POWER PLANT (TAC NO 5275 AND By letter dated March 11, 20151, tot mission (NRC), Pacific Gas and Electric, submitted for N,...,.._" ic Hazard an creening Report, Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federa ection 50.54(f), Response for Information Regarding Recommen

• n 2.1 erm Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ic

• Acciden Can Power Plant. Included in the seismic hazard reevaluatiCJP18lQ luation of the site response for Diablo Canyon using an alternative empirical ........ ro ed for Diablo Canyon and has determined co te its review. Enclosed is a request for additional sponse evaluation. As discussed with your staff on June to the RAI would be provided no later than July 30, 1 The letter can be found under Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) No. ML15071A046 If you have any questions related to. the enclosed RAls or the requested submission date, please contact me at 301-415-1115 or via e-mail at Nicholas.Difrancesco@nrc.gov.

Enclosures:

1 . Request for Additional Information 2. Addressee List cc w/encls: Distribution via Listserv 1 Sincerely, IRA/ ior Project Manager

-. 2. -. If you have any questions related to the enclosed RAls or the requested submission date, please contact me at 301-415-1115 or via e-mail at Nicholas.Difrancesco@nrc.gov. Sincerely, IRA! ior Project Manager

Enclosures:

1. Request for Additional Information cc w/encls: Distribution via Listserv ADAMS Acee NAME DATE OFFICE OGG NAME DATE RidsNrrDorllpl4-2 NDiFrancesco, NRR RidsNrrPM RidsRgn2MailCenter RidsNrrOd Slingam, NRR *via mail NRR/JLD/JHMB/LA* NRO/DSEA/RGS1

• NRR/JLD/JHMB/BC Slent DJackson MS hams NRR/JLD/JHMB/PM NDiFrancesco OFFICIAL RECORD COPY REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION 2.1 SEISMIC HAZARD AND SCREENING REPORT FOR DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT Review of Alternative Empirical Site Response Evaluation By letter dated March 12, 2012 (Agencywide Documents Access and M (ADAMS) Accession No. ML 12053A340), the NRC staff requested that specific hazard curves that capture. the variability in soil depth (including. d agement System sees submit site conditions), shear-wave velocities, layer thicknesses, damping, train de to generic rock ent nonlinear f the March range of material properties at the site. Specifically, Attachment 1 to "Seis closur 12, 2012, letter stated that "site amplification curves should be dev r ab annual exceedance frequencies to facilitate estimation o qu By letter dated February 15, 2013 (ADAMS Accessio Electric Power Research Institute [EPRI] Final Draft Re Guidance: Screening, Prioritization and lmple tation De using the SPID guidance. Regarding the development of site. a seismic hazard reevaluations, Seer As r rock uncertainties should be. incorporated into site amplification and their uncertainties through the hazard curves. The control-point elevation hazard curves should By lette . (ADAMS Accession No. ML 15071 A046), the licensee for the Diablo Ca nt ( P) submitted an alternative site response evaluation, referred to as the empir which uses the observed ground motions at the site from two earthquakes to he site amplification rather than analytical models." While the staff considers the em te response approach as a viable alternative to the analytical approach, the method as imple nted by the licensee was able to use only three site recordings from two earthquakes to constrain the local site amplification. As such, the licensee's estimate of the uncertainty in the local site term is potentially impacted by the limited amount of data. In addition, the. site. term developed by the licensee using the empirical approach shows a significant amount of deviation in the negative direction over an important frequency range from the NGA-West2 ground motion models for a Vs3o=760 m/s site. Enclosure. l Request for Additional Information Consistent with the request for information issued pursuant to Title 1 O of the Code of Federal regulations, Part 50, Section 50.54(f) and the SPID guidance, please provide a supplemental response to the March 2015 seismic hazard reevaluation that develops site amplification factors as recommended in Section 2.4 and Appendix B of the SPID. Please provide (1) a detailed description of the subsurface profile properties including uncertainties, (2) potential for nonlinear behavior at the strain levels produced by the scenario earthquakes of interest, and (3) the control point elevation. In addition, provide the adjustment factors (Vs-kappa c rections) needed to modify the median ground motion models for the selected reference or rock elevation and velocity. Also include in the response as a figure and a table control point mic hazard curves developed using the site amplification factors and their uncertai hrough azard integral as recommended in Appendix B of the SPID. Enclosure 1 Sent:20 Mar 2015 17 :47: l 7 +0000 To:Munson, Clifford;Jackson, Diane;Ake, Jon Cc:Wbaley, Sheena;Shams, Mohamed;Kock, Andrea;Bowen, Jeremy

Subject:

FW: PG&E Drop-in Attendees on March 26 FYl. .. Attendees. Also, Philippe meant Thursday March 26. DC plans to cover a number of topics regarding their submittal and next steps with R2.1 activities. -Nick From: Soenen, Philippe R [16] Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 12:28 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

PG&E Drop-in Attendees Nick, The following are the people from PG&E that will be present for the drop-in on 3/28: Jearl Strickland -Director, Technical Services Nazar Jahangir -Manager, Nuclear Seismic Engineering Norm Abrahamson -Chief Geosciences Consultant Bill Horstman -Senior Consulting Engineer All of these individuals are PG&E employees. I will be providing these individuals your contact information to contact you once they are down in the lobby on 3/28. Regards, Philippe Soenen Regulatory Services Officf -805 545 6984 Cell (bJ(5l ] PG&E is committed to protecting our customers' privacy. To learn more, please visit http://www.pge.com/about/company/privacy/customer/

Information (pages 948-960/1000) is outside of the scope of the FOIA request. The information concern licensee press release -not the NRC's for review reevaluated hazard. DiFrancesco, Nicholas From:DiFrancesco, Nicholas Sent:lO Mar 2015 20:01:43 +0000 To:Li, Yong;Manoly, Karnal;Oesterle, Eric;Lingarn, Siva

Subject:

FW: PG&E Summary Sheet Attachments:Final Fact sheet -March 12, 2015 NRC Updates.pdf, News Release_Alt.docx Importance:High FYI.. Attachment l may be of interest. From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 12:53 PM To: DiFrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

Importance: High Lara Uselding NRC Region 4 Public Affairs 817-200-1519 From: Hipschman, Thomas Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 03:23 PM To: Uselding, Lara; Walker, Wayne; Maier, Bill

Subject:

FW: Pending Press Release FYI From: Jones, Thomas P. [17] Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 12:04 PM To: Hipschman, Thomas Cc: Baldwin, Thomas (DCPP)

Subject:

Pending Press Release Importance: High Good Morning Tom, Please find attached the press release PG&E intends to issue today at 3PM local time regarding completing the March 12 hazard updates for the NRC. We offer some highlights about plant safety and will make the filing this week. I have also attached a small fact sheet we will be using to help explain some of these complex topics. Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions. Regards, Tom Jones Director, Government Relations Pacific Gas & Electric Company Office: 805 595 6340 Mobile1 ... (b-J(-6l ____ _. PG&E is committed to protecting our customers' privacy. To learn more, please visit http://www.pge.com/about/company/privacy/customer/

Quick Facts on

• Performed at direction of Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) *Continue to show Diablo Canyon can withstand earthquakes, tsunamis and flooding

• Performed with independent experts using latest scientific methodologies and site-specific information

• NRC will independently review " . " I i ** .. Seismic & Flooding Hazards Re-evaluation New and extensive analyses performed at the direction. of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) re-confirm that Diablo Canyon Power Plant can. safely withstand extreme natural events, including potential earthquakes, tsunamis and flooding .. The hazard re-evaluations used the latest regulatory guidance, scientific methods and models, site-specific information and independent expertise to re-evaluate the impacts that earthquakes, large waves and flooding could have on the facility. Seismic Hazard Re-evaluation Represents a more extensive evaluation of the seismic hazard than previously performed. Using the NRC's Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee (SSHAC) process, independent seismic experts publically reanalyzed existing and new seismic information. including data acquired during the advanced seismic studies. to evaluate. how earthquakes could. potentially impact the facility. The. probability of earthquakes occurring on individual and multiple geologic faults was also determined. Key Results:

• Confirms plant's design can withstand earthquakes from all regional faults ..

• 0.0001 annual chance of an earthquake producing ground motions of .8g. * .8g does not exceed the robust seismic. design. margin of the plant.

• The plant has at least 35% design margin beyond .8g (left graph).

• A minor exceedance (approx. 7%) in the Hosgri earthquake design in a specific, low frequency range (1.33 Hz) that does not impact safety (right graph).

• No safety structures, systems and components required for safe shutdown are sensitive to ground motions at a frequency below 2. 7 Hz. . --** I i .. --Comparison of Ground Motion Response Spectrum (GMRS) and Long Term Seismic Program Seismic Margins Spectrum for Diablo Canyon Power Plant Comparison of GMRS and. 1977 Hosgri Design Spectrum for Diablo Canyon Power Plant March 2015 r r "'

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

• Plant continues to be safe from tsunamis, including those generated from underwater landslides and earthquakes.

• Design can withstand expected storm flooding.

• Measures were identified -and have already been implemented --to address a rare, theoretical event of excessive rainfall. What's Next? PG&E will submit the re-evaluations to the NRC for independent review on March 12, 2015. The NRC will later provide guidance on how and when PG&E should perform an additional risk assessment that examines the probability of earthquakes potentially damaging plant safety equipment. The same evaluation is being asked of other U.S. commercial nuclear power facilities. The NRC will also review the flooding re-evaluation to determine if additional actions might be required to further enhance safety.

March 9, 2015 NEW ANALYSES SHOW DIABLO CANYON SAFE FROM EXTREME NATURAL EVENTS Re-evaluations Demonstrate Earthquake, Flooding and Tsunami Safety A VILA BEACH, Calif. -New and extensive analyses performed at the direction of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) re-confirm that Pacific Gas and Electric Company's (PG&E) Diablo Canyon Power Plant (Diablo Canyon) can safely withstand extreme natural events, including potential ea1thquakes, tsunamis and flooding .. The new analyses, known as hazard re-evaluations, will be submitted to the NRC this week for independent review. The agency called on all U.S. commercial nuclear power plants to perfonn such work following the events that occurred in 2011 at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan. "Safety is and always will be the top priority for PG&E and Diablo Canyon. That's why seismic, flooding and tsunami safety was at the forefront in the design of the facility. These. updated findings are the. culmination of years of study and analysis, and further confirm the safety of the plant's design," said Ed Halpin, PG&E's Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer. The hazard re-evaluations used the latest regulatory guidance, scientific methods and models, site-specific information and independent expertise to re-evaluate the impacts that earthquakes, large waves and flooding could have on the Diablo Canyon facility. The updated seismic assessment represents a more extensive evaluation of the seismic hazard than previously performed. Prior evaluations dete1mined the ground shaking from an earthquake on a pa1ticular fault in the region, based on historical records and geological evidence, and then compared this information against structures, systems and components at the faciUty to ensure they could withstand seismic ground shaking .. Using the NRC's Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee (SSHAC) process, independent seismic experts publicaJly re-evaluated existing and new seismic information, including data acquired during the advanced seismic studies recently performed near. Diablo. Canyon, to re-evaluate how. earthquakes could potentially impact the facility. This process included examining the probability of earthquakes occurring on individual and multiple geologic faults. The result is a more thorough assessment of the seismic hazard, providing additional confirmation that the plant is seismically safe. The NRC will review the re-evaluation in order to provide guidance on how and when PG&E should perform an additional risk evaluation that examines the probability of earthquakes potentially damaging plant safety equipment. The same evaluation is being asked of other U.S. commercial nuclear power facilities. "The updated seismic source model for Diablo Canyon incorporates an extensive body of new onshore and offshore data and emerging new scientific concepts to characterize earthquake sources. For example, it is the first earthquake model developed for a nuclear site that allows for multi-fault linked ruptures to produce large maximum earthquakes. Through the extensive use of experts in the field of seismic geology and independent peer review, the model was developed to capture. the full range of possibilities regardjng the location, size and frequency of large magnitude eruthquakes in the vicinity of Diab lo Canyon. In my opinion, the model developed for Diablo Canyon will set the standard for how future eaithquake source models are developed," said Bill Lettis, who serves as one the key technical leads for the SSHAC process. PG&E's flooding and tsunami hazard update involved the use of the latest NRC guidance and methodologies to determine the maximum potential waves and rainfall that could impact Diablo Canyon. The re-evaluation, utilizing independent expertise, detenni_ned that the plant's key safety systems and components continue to be safe from tsunamjs, including those generated from underwater landslides and eaithquakes. The plant's design is also deemed appropriate to withstand expected storm flooding. In addition, measures were identified and implemented to address a rare, theoretical event of excessive rainfall and a quick build-up of water in some plant locations that greatly exceeds any known precipitation event recorded in the site's history. The NRC will review the re-evaluation to determine if additional actions might be required to further enhance safety. "These important updates. provide an in depth look at the seismic, tsunami and flooding hazards in our region, and most importantly, demonstrate the plant's design is safe. Our work in these areas, however, will never cea<;e. Our commitment to safe operations and protecting public health and safety will continue to be reflected in our ongoing study and evaluation of the. areas. Our customers expect no less," said PG&E's Halpin. NRC Hazards Assessment Background As part of its response to the Fukushima event in Japan in 2011, the NRC directed all U.S. commercial nuclear power plants to perform updated assessments of the seismic and flooding hazards for their facilities. Plants located in the eastern and Central U.S. completed such analyses and provided them to the NRC in 2014. Western plants, including Diablo Canyon, were directed to complete and submit their assessments by March 2015. About Diablo Canyon Power Plant Diablo Canyon Power Plant is a nuclear power facility owned and operated by PG&E. Its two units together produce approximately 2,300 net megawatts of carbon-free power. It provides nearly 10 percent of all electricity generated in California, and enough energy to meet the needs of more than three mjJlion Northern and Central Californians. Diablo Canyon has a $920 million annual local economic impact and is the largest p1ivate employer in San Luis Obispo County. About PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company, a subsidiary of PG&E Corporation (NYSE:PCG), is one of the largest combined natural gas and electric utilities in the United States. Based in San Francisco, with 20,000 employees, the company delivers some of the nation's cleanest energy to 16 million people in Northern and Central California. For more information, visit www.pge.com/ and www.pge.com/en/about/newsroom/index.page. ###

Sent:8 May 2015 13:01:42 +0000 To:Graizer, Vladimir;Munson, Clifford;Jackson, Diane;Ake, Jon Cc:Shams, Mohamed

Subject:

FW: Public Meeting announcement by "PEER" on Directivity discussion. FYI. .. From: Jahangir, Nozar [18] Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 6:44 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas; Soenen, Philippe R Cc: Strickland, Jearl

Subject:

Public Meeting announcement by "PEER" on Directivity discussion Nick; In the Diablo Canyon public meeting on April 28th, we stated that there will be an industry expert panel meeting, sponsored by PEER, on the topic of "Directivity" that the staff may be interested in participating. This was an area that the SSC SSHAC requested Diablo Canyon to provide additional documentation and PG&E made a commitment in our March 11 submittal to provide such documentation to the NRC once we. have greater clarity on the approach. This. is a link to the recently posted public announcement by the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) regarding the expert panel discussion on treatment of "Directivity" in Ground Motion models. PG&E will be an observer. in the proceedings. http://peer.berkeley.edu/ngawest2/2015/05/ground-motion-directivity-modeling-panel-meeting-may-22-2015/ Thanks Nazar Jahangir P.E. Manager, Technical Services Diablo Canyon Seismic Engineering S-'i -(cell) nx.1 pge.com PG&E is committed to protecting our customers' privacy. To learn more, please visit http://www.pge.com/about/company/privacy/customer/

Sent:25 Mar 2015 21 :20:08 +0000 To:Markley, Michael Cc:Bowen, Jeremy;Shams, Mohamed

Subject:

RE: Did you notice. the PG&E drop-in? Mike, Thank you for the recommendation and support. The PG&E drop-in is scheduled for tomorrow morning. The level-high topics are consistent with discussions allowed by COM-203. I will prepare a summary as appropriate. I have advised my management and the licensee that technical discussions are inappropriate. At present, we are working to have a public meeting discussing technical issues with PG&E on April 28, 2015, to better understand their seismic analyses and assumptions. Our current target is to notice the meeting around April 2 following confirmation of the agenda topics with staff and the licensee. Very respectfully, Nick Sr. Project Manager -Seismic Reevaluation Activities U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Division nicholas.difrancesco@nrc.gov I Tel: (301) 415-1115 From: Markley, Michael Sent: Wednesday, March 25,. 2015 11:14.AM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

Did you notice the PG&E drop-in? Nick, I did not hear back from you on the drop-in tomorrow. It would be better to notice it now and take your beating on not meeting the 10-day noticing requirement, than to have to answer all the stakeholder inquiries and accusations. Michael T. Markley, Chief Plant Licensing Branch IV-1 (LPL4-1) Division of Operating Reactor Licensing (DORL) Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 301-415-5723 (Office) l<bl(6l Michael.Markey@nrc.gov What information is NRC expecting in the. March 12,. 2015 WUS plant submittals? NRC expects that the March 12, 2015 submittals will contain substantially more information than was submitted for CEUS plants in March 2014. This is because each of the WUS plants had to develop site-specific source models and ground-motion models, using the Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee (SSHAC) approach. In contrast, the CEUS plants all used a common set of models (see Attachment 3). In addition to the information that was included for the CEUS plants, NRC expects that the important details of the site-specific SSHAC studies will be included in the March 12, 2015 submittals. NRC also expects that the complete SSHAC study report will be available for the NRC staff to review, as needed. If the reevaluated hazard exceeded the plant's seismic design basis, NRC expects the WUS plants to follow the same approach as used for CEUS plants and also submit an interim evaluation of the plant's. capacity to. withstand the higher ground motions. Because nuclear power plants generally have significant margin beyond their design capacity to withstand earthquake motions, the interim evaluation uses the actual capacities and new hazard information to see if the preliminary understanding of seismic risk is still within acceptable limits while the plant does more detailed evaluations. Will NRC conduct a screening and prioritization review for western United States (WUS) plant submittals? Yes. NRC staff will conduct a screening and prioritization review for the WUS hazard reevaluations after the complete hazard reports are submitted. This review will likely take two months to accomplish, because there is substantially more new information in these reports than was submitted for the CEUS plants in March 2014. If the reevaluated hazard is within the plant's design basis, the NRC staff will need to determine if sufficient information is available to support that conclusion. However, if the reevaluated seismic hazard exceeds the plant's design basis, NRC will need to determine: (1) if the plant's interim evaluations and actions demonstrate the plant can continue to operate safely at the reevaluated hazard level, while longer-term risk assessments are ongoing. (2) the priority for WUS plants to complete the additional risk evaluations (3) the schedule for completion of the expedited approach and seismic risk evaluation. NRC's review of the interim evaluations. and actions will determined if there is an immediate safety concern that warrants immediate regulatory action for WUS plants. The NRC's longerterm review will examine in detail licensees' reevaluated hazard submittals and related seismic risk assessments. Will NRC prioritize WUS plants for completion of seismic risk assessments? Yes. As part of the initial review, WUS plants that have "screen in". for more detailed risk assessments will be prioritized to ensure the plants of most interest are reviewed first. This prioritization is not a risk ranking -more analysis is needed to determine actual changes in a plant's seismic accident risk. Using the same approach as for the CEUS plants, the NRC staff will consider several factors in prioritizing (or screening) the WUS risk assessments: (1) the extent to which the reevaluated hazard exceeds the current design basis; (2) the site's overall seismic hazard. based on an examination of the reevaluation; and (3) previous estimates of plant capacity (e.g., IPEEE insights).

Does NRC expect to review the WUS submittals the same way as the CEUS submittals? Compared to the CEUS submittals, NRC expects that the WUS submittals will be much longer and contain a lot more new information on site geology, earthquake sources, and ground motion modeling. As a result, NRC expects that the WUS submittals will be much more complex to review than the CEUS reevaluations. In addition to all the new information, each WUS plant also had to do a complex probabilistic seismic hazard assessment (PSHA), using a very detailed, multi-year process. In contrast, all the CEUS plants used essentially the same PSHA, which was extensively reviewed by NRC before the seismic hazard reevaluations were submitted. After the screening and prioritization review is completed, NRC staff will conduct a thorough review of the WUS seismic hazard reevaluations. To review each of these site-specific hazard reevaluations, the NRC staff will need to examine important details of each plant-specific source characterization and ground motion model. The NRC staff expects to conduct confirmatory analyses of key parts of these models, to determine if the reevaluated seismic hazards are reasonable. In addition to examining the detailed technical information that supports the hazard reevaluation, the NRC staff also will review the lengthy documentation about the SSHAC process that licensees used to develop the source characterization and ground motion models. Will NRC. produce its. own version of the WUS plant's reevaluated seismic hazard? To support the initial review of CEUS plant submittals, the NRC developed a computer model that could calculate seismic hazards for each CEUS plant. These calculations were possible because all the CEUS plants used the same seismic hazard model, and the model was developed several years before the CEUS hazard reevaluations were submitted. However, the WUS plants completed their site-specific hazard analyses less than a year before the final reports were submitted to NRC, and each plant used different types of seismic hazard models. The NRC staff determined that they could conduct an appropriate, risk-informed review of the WUS hazard reevaluations without expending considerable resources to develop three new, site-specific computer models. The NRC staff expects to do site-specific confirmatory analyses on key parts of the hazard analyses, including independent evaluations of the earthquake source models, ground motion models, and site response models. Will WUS plants have to do additional risk assessments if their reevaluated hazard is larger than the plant's safe shutdown earthquake? Yes, the same criteria used for CEUS plants applies to WUS plants for determining if additional risk assessments are needed. WUS plants that screen-in for the risk assessments will need to complete the expedited approach (see question #4) and either a seismic margins assessment or a probabilistic risk assessment. Plants that screen-out from the risk assessment might still meet the criteria for conducting focused-scope evaluations of low frequency exceedances, high frequency exceedances, or spent fuel pool performance. The need for conducting additional analyses will be determined during NRC's screening and prioritization review.

Sent:5 May 2015 14:49:05 +0000 To:Shams, Mohamed Cc:Jackson, Diane;Hill. B1ittain

Subject:

Awareness of OGC. NLO on WUS Seismic. Reevaluation Letter Attachments:WUS Seismic Reevaluations Letter 4-2015 LSC.docx Mohamed, Awareness only. We continue to make progress on concurrences for the WUS letter. The letter will go to DORL and JLD senior management COB today. Thanks, Nick From: Clark, Sheldon Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 5:07 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas Cc: Spencer, Mary; Biggins, James

Subject:

WUS Seismic Reevaluation Letter Nick, (b)(5) Sheldon L. Sheldon Clark Attorney Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Email: Sheldon.Clark@nrc.gov Phone: 301-415-2189 Page 135 of 739 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Page 136 of 739 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Page 137 of 739 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Page 138 of 739 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (b)(S) If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Nicholas DiFrancesco at 301-415-1115 or via email at Nicholas.Difrancesco@nrc.gov. Sincerely, William M, Dean, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

1. Glossary of Evaluations 2. Screening and Prioritization Results 3. List of Licensees March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals 4. List of Licensees cc w/encls: Listserv

ML 15113B344 OFFICE NRR/JLD/PMB/PM NRR/JLD/LA NRR/JLD/HMB/BC NAME NDiFrancesco Slent MShams DATE 04/22/15 I /15 I /15 OFFICE NRO/DSEA/D OGC NRR/JLD/D NAME SFlanders BHarris JDavis DATE I /15. I ./15. . I /15 Glossary of Evaluations Associated with Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1 Seismic Hazard Re-evaluations (b)(5) Enclosure 1 (b)(S) Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the. Fukushima Dai-lchi Accident Seismic Risk Evaluations Screening and Prioritization Results for Western United States (WUS) Reactor Sites Enclosure 2 March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals for Western United States Reactor Sites Licensee Facility Date of letter (ADAMS Accession Nos.) Columbia Generating Station March 12, 2015. (ML 15078A243) Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 March 11, 2015 (ML 15071 A046) Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units March 10, 2015 (ML 15076A073) and 1, 2, and 3 April 10,. 2015 (ML 15105A076) Enclosure 3 LIST OF APPLICABLE POWER REACTOR LICENSEES Columbia Generating Station Energy Northwest Docket No .. 50-397 License No. NPF-21 Mr. Mark E. Reddemann Chief Executive Officer Energy Northwest MD 1023 76 North Power Plant Loop P.O. Box 968 Richland, WA 99352 Diablo Canyon Power. Plant. Unit Nos .. l and 2. Pacific Gas & Electric Company Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82 Mr. Edward D. Halpin Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 56 Mail Code 104/6 Avila Beach, CA 93424 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Arizona Public Service Company Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-529, and STN 50-530 License Nos. NPF-41, NPF-51 and NPF-74 Mr. Randall K. Edington Executive Vice President Nuclear/CNO Arizona Public Service Company P.O. Box 52034, MS 7602. Phoenix, AZ 85072-2034 Enclosure 4 DiFrancesco, Nicholas From:DiFrancesco, Nicholas Sent:4 May 2015 18:34:12 +0000 To:Jackson, Diane Cc:Shams, Mohamed;Kock, Andrea

Subject:

FYI: POP JLD Status (05.05.15).docx Attachments:POP -JLD Status (05.05.15).docx Diane, POP for DEDO brief tomorrow for awareness. Thanks, Nick From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 2:29 PM To: Bowen, Jeremy Cc: Shams, Mohamed

Subject:

One Change ---POP -JLD Status (05.05.15).docx Jeremy, One change from the current plan for Diablo Canyon. Technical staff is pushing to provide additional basis documenting the decision that no ESEP is needed for Diablo. We have a letter template from last year that I plan to use {letter. dated December 15. 2014). Thanks, Nick PURPOSE. JAPAN LESSONS LEARNED DIVISION STATUS UPDATE -05/05/2015 Update NRR ET on status of JLD activities EXPECTED OUTCOMES Provide current status and address any questions Outside of Scope

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

• sPRA due 06/30/17

• Diablo Canyon -Separate letter on no ESEP; LTSP provides safety basis

• Public Meetings o Diablo Canyon (04/28/15 o Columbia (96/04/15) o Palo Verde -Group 3

• sPRA due 12/31 /20

• Non Responsive The Power Reactor Licensees on the Enclosed List

SUBJECT:

SCREENING AND PRIORITIZATION RESULTS FOR THE WESTERN UNITED STATES SITES REGARDING INFORMATION PURSUANT TO TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 50.54(f). REGARDING SEISMIC HAZARD RE-EVALUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDATION 2.1 OF THE NEARTERM TASK FORCE REVIEW OF INSIGHTS FROM THE FUKUSHIMA ICHI ACCIDENT On March 12, 2012, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a request for information pursuant to Title 1 O of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50 (1 O CFR), Section 50.54(f). (hereafter referred. to as the 50.54. (f). letter) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML 12053A340). The purpose of that request was to gather information concerning, in part, the seismic hazards at operating reactor sites and to enable the NRC staff to determine. whether licenses. should. be. modified, suspended, or revoked. The "Required Response" section of Enclosure 1 indicated that licensees and construction permit holders should provide a Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening report within 3 years from the date of the. letter for Western United States (WUS) plants (i.e., Columbia Generating Station (Columbia), Diablo Canyon Power Plant (Diablo Canyon), and Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (Palo Verde)). Further, the 50.54(f) letter stated that NRC would provide the results of the screening and. prioritization indicating deadlines for individual plants to complete seismic risk evaluations to assess the total plant response to the re-evaluated seismic hazard. Additionally, by letter1 dated February 20, 2014, the NRC provided supplemental information on the content of the seismic re-evaluated hazard submittals including guidance on reportability and operability. The purpose of this letter is to inform WUS licensees of the. NRC's screening and prioritization and to allow licensees to appropriately plan the completion of further seismic risk evaluations described in Enclosure 1 of the 50.54(f) letter. To respond to the 50.54(f) letter, all addressees committed to. follow the Electric Power. Research Institute (EPRI) Report, "Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic,"2 as. supplemented, by the EPRI Report, "Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Recommendation 2.1: Seismic"3 (referred to as the Expedited Approach). The NRC held multiple public meetings and teleconferences with industry and the public leading to the development of the guidance documents supporting review of re-evaluated seismic hazards. 1 The February 20, 2014, supplemental information letter is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML 14030A046. 2 The SPID guidance document is found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML 12333A 170. The staff endorsement letter for the SPID guidance is found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML 12319A074. 3 The Expedited Approach guidance document is found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML 13102A 142. The WUS licensees submitted the re-evaluated seismic hazards. by letters dated on. or before. March 12, 2015 (references are provided in Enclosure 3 of this letter). The NRC staff conducted the screening and prioritization review of the submittals by assessing each licensee's screening evaluation and hazard analysis utilizing the endorsed SPID guidance. INTERIM EVALUATIONS4 The 50.54(f) letter requested that licensees provide "interim evaluations and actions taken or planned to address the higher seismic hazard relative to the design-basis, as appropriate, prior to completion of the risk evaluation." For those plants where the re-evaluated seismic hazard exceeds the seismic design-basis, licensees stated they will provide interim evaluations to demonstrate that the plant can cope with the higher re-evaluated seismic. hazard while the longer-term seismic risk evaluations are ongoing. In support of the requested interim evaluations for licensees, WUS plants provided information related to margin evaluations or insights from Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) evaluations included estimated seismic risk. Additionally,. the submittals discussed completing plant seismic walkdowns as part of NTIF Recommendation 2.3 in order to verify that the current plant configuration is consistent with the licensing basis. The NRC staff review of WUS reports found that licensees have demonstrated additional plant seismic margins supportive of continued plant operation while additional risk evaluations are conducted. The interim evaluation provided in March. 2015 is a first step in. assessing the plant's capacity to withstand the re-evaluated hazard. In the near-term, by January 2016, licensees will complete an "Expedited Approach" to evaluate and identify reinforcements, if necessary, for certain equipment to. ensure a safe shutdown pathway can withstand a higher seismic. ground motion. For Diablo Canyon and Palo Verde, the NRC staff is continuing to assess seismic evaluations completed by the licensees to determine if they meet the intent of the Expedited Approach review and. will response under a seperate letter. SCREENING PROCESS As defined in the 50.54(f) letter and the SPID guidance, the seismic hazard re-evaluations were conducted using current analysis methods and guidance. The licensees' responses to the 50.54(f) letter provided seismic hazard re-evaluation results, which were the focus of the NRC staffs initial screening and prioritization review. Although the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) is commonly referred to as a single number, this number represents a distribution of ground motions that occur over a range of spectral frequencies. This. results in a curve of. ground acceleration over frequency. The ability of equipment and structures in the plant to withstand the effects of ground motions is frequency specific. For the purposes of the licensees' analyses and NRC staff's review, the SPID guidance identifies three frequency ranges that are of particular interest: 1-1 O Hertz (Hz), a low frequency range of <2.5 Hz, and a high frequency range of > 1 O Hz. The different ranges have been identified due to the different types of structures and equipment that may be impacted by ground motions in that range. For example, large components generally are not affected significantly by high frequencies (i.e., >10 Hz). The frequency range 1-10 Hz is the focus for 4 Enclosure 1 of this letter provides a Glossary of Seismic Evaluations

-. 3 -. this portion of the risk evaluation, as this range has the greatest potential effect on the performance of equipment and structures important to safety. For other. frequency ranges, discussed below, limited-scope evaluations will be conducted, when appropriate. In accordance with the SPID and Expedited Approach guidance, the re-evaluated seismic hazard determines if additional seismic risk evaluations are warranted for a plant. Specifically, the re-evaluated ground motion response spectra (GMRS) in the 1-10 Hz frequency range is compared to the existing SSE:

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

• If the GMRS, in the. 1-10 Hz range, is greater than the. existing SSE, then the. plant will complete the Expedited Approach (including the Interim Evaluation). Most plants that meet this criterion also screen in to conduct a seismic risk evaluation and have committed to conduct high frequency and spent fuel pool evaluations. In addition, if the GMRS meets the low hazard threshold, which is described in the SPID, and only exceeds the SSE below 2.5 Hz, the licensee will perform a limited evaluation of equipment potentially susceptible to low frequency motions .. Similarly, if. the. GMRS. exceeds. the SSE only above 10 Hz, then the licensee will perform an evaluation of the equipment or structures susceptible to that specific range of ground motion. Enclosure 2 provides the staffs determination of priority for plants that screen-in to conduct a seismic risk evaluation, and identification of plants to complete limited-scope evaluations (i.e., spent fuel pool, high frequency, or low frequency) .. CONDITIONAL SCREENING As discussed in public meetings5, the staff anticipated the. possibility of not being able to complete the determination for conducting a seismic risk evaluation for some plants in the 30 to 60 day review period under certain circumstances. For example, if a licensee provided a unique submittal or deviated from the. SPID guidance, additional time for the review might be needed. In general, WUS submittals contain extensive site specific information including site specific source models and ground-motion models which could affect the final screening decisions. Accordingly, during. the NRG screening. and prioritization process, the staff identified that for Palo Verde additional time and interactions will be required to better understand the seismic hazard for the plant. As such, the staff determined that Palo Verde "conditionally screens-in" for the purposes of prioritizing and conducting additional. evaluations .. Palo Verde has been prioritized to complete a seismic risk evaluation in Group 3. After interactions have occurred, the staff will make a final screening and prioritization determination and provide a letter to the licensee. If the plant remains screened-in,. the final screening letter will affirm the plant priority for further evaluations and establish schedule for an Expedited Approach, if necessary. If the plant screens out, the final screening letter also will determine if the Palo Verde needs to complete limited-scope evaluations (i.e.,. spent fuel pool, high frequency, or low frequency). 5 Discussion as part of public meetings dated December 4, 2014, February 11, 2015, and March 30, 2015 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML14342A901, ML15104A065 and ML15111A031, respectively). PLANT PRIORITIZATION The NRC grouped the "screened-in" plants into three groups6, which (i) reflects the relative priority for conducting a seismic risk evaluation that compares each plant's current capabilities to the re-evaluated seismic hazard, and (ii) accounts for the appropriate allocation of limited staff and available expertise for reviewing and conducting seismic risk evaluations. During the prioritization review, the staff considered each licensee's re-evaluated hazard submittals, plant specific seismic and risk insights, and previous design-basis ground motion estimates. To prioritize the plants for completing seismic risk evaluations, staff examined certain key parameters such as (1) the maximum ratio of the new re-evaluated hazard (GMRS) to the SSE in the 1-10. Hz range; (2). the maximum ground motion in the. 1-10 Hz range; and (3) insights from previous seismic risk evaluations. As such, Group 1 plants are generally those that have the highest re-evaluated hazard relative to the original plant seismic design-basis (GMRS to SSE), as. well as ground motions in. the 1-10 Hz range that are. generally. higher in absolute magnitude. Based on these criteria, Columbia and Diablo Canyon are prioritized as Group 1 plants. Group 1 plants, including Columbia and Diablo Canyon are expected to conduct a seismic risk evaluation and submit it by June. 30, 2017 .. Group 3 plants have GMRS to SSE ratios that are greater than 1, but the amount of exceedance. in the 1-10 Hz. range is relatively small, and the maximum. ground motion in. the 1-1 O Hz range is also not high. Based on these criteria, Palo Verde is prioritized as a Group 3 plant. Given the limited level of exceedance of the Group 3 plants including Palo Verde, staff is evaluating the need for licensees to conduct a seismic risk evaluation in order for the staff to complete its regulatory decision making. After further review, the staff will decide which Group 3 plants need to complete a risk evaluation. Risk evaluations for Group 3 plants are due by December 31, 2020. NEXT STEPS Based on. the staffs screening review the licensee. for Columbia should finalize and submit an Expedited Approach Report no later than. January 31, 2016. The NRC staff is continuing to review the licensee provided information for Diablo Canyon and Palo Verde related to the Expedited Approach. In accordance with the endorsed guidance, the staff acknowledges that the January 2016 Expedited Approach submittal will focus on plant equipment (i.e. safe shutdown pathway7) evaluations and modifications, as necessary, prior to submitting the plant seismic risk evaluations. The content of limited-scope evaluations or confirmations and their associated schedule milestones remain under development with NRG staff and stakeholders. The NRC staff has conducted a number of public meetings to reach alignment on the implementation details of these evaluations, including the development of alternatives approaches for conducting these evaluations The staff expects that implementing guidance should be established by summer 6 Central and Eastern licensees seismic hazard screening and priority reviews were completed in 2014. 7 Section 3 of the Expedited Approach guidance (ADAMS Accession No. ML 13102A142) provides a process to identify a single seismically robust success path using a subset of installed plant equipment, FLEX equipment and connection points. 2015. and fall 2015 for high frequency and spent fuel pool evaluations, respectively. It is expected that WUS licensees can complete these evaluations in parallel with completion of SPRAs for Group 1 plants by June 2017. This letter transmits the NRC staff's results of the seismic hazard submittals for the purposes of screening and prioritizing the plants. It does not convey the staff's final determination regarding the adequacy of any plant's calculated hazard. As such, the NRC staff will continue. its review of the. submitted seismic hazard re-evaluations, and may request additional. plant-specific information to support this review through the summer of 2015. The staff has placed a high priority on this review for the early identification of issues that might adversely affect each licensee's seismic risk evaluations. Interactions with licensees will occur. as soon. as practicable, including NRC staff plans to acknowledge the whether seismic hazard curves are suitability for use in SPRA development by late 2015. The NRC staff plans to issue a staff assessment on the re-evaluated seismic hazard once each review is completed in approximately 12 to 18. months .. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Nicholas DiFrancesco at 301-415-1115 or via email at Nicholas.Difrancesco@nrc.gov ., Sincerely, William M. Dean, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

1. Glossary of Evaluations 2. Screening and Prioritization Results 3. List of Licensees March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals 4. List of Licensees cc w/encls: Listserv

ML 15113B344 OFFICE NRR/JLD/PMB/PM NRR/JLD/LA NRR/JLD/HMB/BC NAME NDiFrancesco Slent MShams DATE 04/22/15 I /15 I /15 OFFICE NRO/DSEA/D OGC NRR/JLD/D NAME SFlanders SCI ark JDavis (MFranovich for) DATE I /15 05/04/15 I /15 Glossary of Evaluations Associated with Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1 Seismic Hazard Re-evaluations Interim Evaluation or Actions -An immediate licensee and NRG review of the re-evaluated hazard to determine whether actions are needed to assure plant safety while further evaluations are ongoing. The staff has completed its review and concluded that, based on the licensees' interim evaluations and actions, Western United States (WUS) plants are safe for continued operations. Interim evaluations and actions are provided in Section 5.0, "Interim Actions," of the licensee submittals. Expedited Approach -A near-term licensee evaluation to be completed by January 31, 2016, for WUS plants whose re-evaluated hazard exceeds the current design-basis for the safe shutdown earthquake hazard level. The evaluation looks at the systems and components that can be used to safely shut down a plant under the conditions of a station blackout (i.e., no alternating current power is available) and loss of ultimate heat sink. The expedited approach will either confirm that a plant has sufficient margin to continue with a longer-term evaluation without any modifications, or confirm the need to enhance the seismic capacity to assure they can withstand the re-evaluated hazard. The Expedited Approach guidance document is found in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System under Accession No. ML13102A142. Seismic Risk Evaluation -Longer-term seismic risk evaluation provides the most comprehensive information to make regulatory decisions, such as whether to amend a plant's design or licensing basis or make additional safety enhancements. These evaluations provide information to make risk-informed decisions. The staff will use this information in conjunction with the existing regulatory tools, such as backfit analysis, to decide on further regulatory actions. The longer-term seismic risk evaluations could be either a Seismic Margins Analysis or a Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment, depending on the magnitude of the exceedance. Limited-Scope Evaluations -These include i) Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation, ii) High Frequency Evaluation, and iii) Low Frequency Evaluation. Respectively, these evaluations are focused on the following: i) spent fuel pool components and systems capable of draining water inventory to the level of the spent fuel, ii) a review of components susceptible to high frequency accelerations (e.g. electrical relays), and iii) a review of components susceptible to low frequency accelerations (e.g. water storage tanks). Enclosure 1

-:::::i _.. _... 0 __... -I\) I\) ::r I\) 0 .._ .._ (1) ......... ...... 00 o ..... .,,.. -..J ;;><;-...... 3 !ll ...... c:.n c:.n c:.n ,,. :::::i O::!: 0 ,-... 0 :::!. 0 "O 3 (/) 3 !ll 'O ::r 'O _([) ro co ([) a. <D co o q; CJ) a. ::r a. ([) (/) -* (") C. ;;><;-(") Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the. Fukushima Dai-lchi Accident I ([) -* <D :::i :::i =.co ([) :;* :::i Seismic Risk Evaluations Screening and Prioritization Results for -Q Ql -0 _o Western United States (WUS) Reactor Sites 0 O". (5" :::i 0 ([) -g_ :::i (/) en* 5* ([) Limited-scope Evaluations. Q ([) Seismic Risk a. 5* Expedited c 3 0 Plant Name Screening Approach Evaluation High Low Spent Fuel "O 3 Result (Prioritization Frequency Frequency Pool ff 5* Evaluation !ll :::i Group) Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation ...... Ql 6' <D (/) :::i ..., :T !ll ([) Columbia Generating Station In :::::i ro x 1 x x a. Ql u;* (/) "O _ro :::i c a. £ O" 0 0 Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit ff :::i :::> In x 1 x x g, :T Nos. 1 and 2 '< ..., ([) ([) !ll ro a. < Ql 0 (/) (") _ro ;;><;-Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Conditional x 3 x x !ll Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 in O" 0 <D 0 :::i s. ([) -g_ ..... 0 (/) 3 3 (") 0 0 )> 'O c ([) :::i o* a. )> Ql :::i a. (/) (/) ([) < ([) ..., 0 :T ([) ..., (/) :E ([) ..., ([) -Enclosure 2 March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals for Western United States Reactor Sites Licensee Facility Date of letter (ADAMS Accession Nos.) Columbia Generating Station March 12, 2015 (ML 15078A243) Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 March 11, 2015 (ML 15071 A046) Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units March 1 O, 2015(ML15076A073) and 1, 2, and 3 April 10, 2015 (ML 15105A076) Enclosure 3 LIST OF APPLICABLE POWER REACTOR LICENSEES Columbia Generating Station Energy Northwest Docket No .. 50-397 License No. NPF-21 Mr. Mark E. Reddemann Chief Executive Officer Energy Northwest MD 1023 76 North Power Plant Loop P.O. Box 968 Richland, WA 99352 Diablo Canyon Power. Plant. Unit Nos .. l and 2. Pacific Gas & Electric Company Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82 Mr. Edward D. Halpin Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 56 Mail Code 104/6 Avila Beach, CA 93424 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Arizona Public Service Company Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-529, and STN 50-530 License Nos. NPF-41, NPF-51 andNPF-74 Mr. Randall K. Edington Executive Vice President Nuclear/CNO Arizona Public Service Company P.O. Box 52034, MS 7602. Phoenix, AZ 85072-2034 Enclosure 4 Sent:5 May 2015 16:04: 18 +0000 To:Hill, Brittain Cc:Jackson, Diane

Subject:

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

Subject:

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

SUBJECT:

SCREENING AND PRIORITIZATION RESULTS FOR THE WESTERN UNITED STATES SITES REGARDING INFORMATION PURSUANT TO TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 50.54(f). REGARDING SEISMIC HAZARD RE-EVALUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDATION 2.1 OF THE NEARTERM TASK FORCE REVIEW OF INSIGHTS FROM THE FUKUSHIMA ICHI ACCIDENT On March 12, 2012, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a request for information pursuant to Title 1 O of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50 (1 O CFR), Section 50.54(f). (hereafter referred. to as the 50.54. (f). letter) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML 12053A340). The purpose of that request was to gather information concerning, in part, the seismic hazards at operating reactor sites and to enable the NRC staff to determine. whether licenses. should. be. modified, suspended, or revoked. The "Required Response" section of Enclosure 1 indicated that licensees and construction permit holders should provide a Seismic Hazard Evaluation and Screening report within 3 years from the date of the. letter for Western United States (WUS) plants (i.e., Columbia Generating Station (Columbia), Diablo Canyon Power Plant (Diablo Canyon), and Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (Palo Verde)). Further, the 50.54(f) letter stated that NRC would provide the results of the screening and. prioritization indicating deadlines for individual plants to complete seismic risk evaluations to assess the total plant response to the re-evaluated seismic hazard. Additionally, by letter1 dated February 20, 2014, the NRC provided supplemental information on the content of the seismic re-evaluated hazard submittals including guidance on reportability and operability. The purpose of this letter is to inform WUS licensees of the. NRC's screening and prioritization and to allow licensees to appropriately plan the completion of further seismic risk evaluations described in Enclosure 1 of the 50.54(f) letter. To respond to the 50.54(f) letter, all addressees committed to. follow the Electric Power. Research Institute (EPRI) Report, "Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic,"2 as. supplemented, by the EPRI Report, "Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Recommendation 2.1: Seismic"3 (referred to as the Expedited Approach). The NRC held multiple public meetings and teleconferences with industry and the public leading to the development of the guidance documents supporting review of re-evaluated seismic hazards. 1 The February 20, 2014, supplemental information letter is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML 14030A046. 2 The SPID guidance document is found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML 12333A 170. The staff endorsement letter for the SPID guidance is found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML 12319A074. 3 The Expedited Approach guidance document is found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML 13102A 142. The WUS licensees submitted the re-evaluated seismic hazards. by letters dated on. or before. March 12, 2015 (references are provided in Enclosure 3 of this letter). The NRC staff conducted the screening and prioritization review of the submittals by assessing each licensee's screening evaluation and hazard analysis utilizing the endorsed SPID guidance. INTERIM EVALUATIONS4 The 50.54(f) letter requested that licensees provide "interim evaluations and actions taken or planned to address the higher seismic hazard relative to the design-basis, as appropriate, prior to completion of the risk evaluation." For those plants where the re-evaluated seismic hazard exceeds the seismic design-basis, licensees stated they will provide interim evaluations to demonstrate that the plant can cope with the higher re-evaluated seismic. hazard while the longer-term seismic risk evaluations are ongoing. In support of the requested interim evaluations for licensees, WUS plants provided information related to margin evaluations or insights from Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) evaluations included estimated seismic risk. Additionally,. the submittals discussed completing plant seismic walkdowns as part of NTIF Recommendation 2.3 in order to verify that the current plant configuration is consistent with the licensing basis. The NRC staff review of WUS reports found that licensees have demonstrated additional plant seismic margins supportive of continued plant operation while additional risk evaluations are conducted. The interim evaluation provided in March. 2015 is a first step in. assessing the plant's capacity to withstand the re-evaluated hazard. In the near-term, by January 2016, licensees will complete an "Expedited Approach" to evaluate and identify reinforcements, if necessary, for certain equipment to. ensure a safe shutdown pathway can withstand a higher seismic. ground motion. For Diablo Canyon and Palo Verde sites, the NRC staff is continuing to assess seismic evaluations completed by the licensees to determine if they meet the intent of the Expedited Approach review and will respond under. a seperate letter. SCREENING PROCESS As described in the 50.54(f) letter and the SPID guidance, the seismic hazard re-evaluations were to be conducted using current analysis methods and guidance. The licensees' responses to the 50.54(f) letter provided seismic hazard re-evaluation results, which were the focus of the NRC staff's initial screening and prioritization review. Although the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) is commonly referred to as a single number, this number represents a distribution of ground motions that occur over a range of spectral frequencies. This. results in a curve of. ground acceleration over. frequency. The ability of the equipment and structures in the plant to withstand the effects of ground motions is frequency specific. For the purposes of the licensees' analyses and NRC staff's review, the SPID guidance identifies three frequency ranges that are of particular interest: 1-1 O Hertz (Hz), a low frequency range of <2.5 Hz, and a high frequency range of > 1 O Hz. The different ranges have been identified due to the different types of structures and equipment that may be impacted by ground motions in that range. For example, large components generally are not affected 4 Enclosure 1 of this letter provides a Glossary of Seismic Evaluations, explaining each of the evaluations that are part of the overall seismic reevaluation.

-. 3 -. significantly by high frequencies (i.e., > 1 o Hz). The frequency range 1-1 O Hz is the focus for this portion of the. risk evaluation, as this range has the. greatest potential effect on the performance of equipment and structures important to safety. For other frequency ranges, discussed below, limited-scope evaluations will be conducted, when appropriate. In accordance with the SPID and Expedited Approach guidance, the re-evaluated seismic hazard determines if additional seismic risk evaluations are warranted for a plant (i.e., the plant screens in for further evaluation). Specifically, the re-evaluated ground motion response spectra (GMRS) in the 1-10 Hz frequency range is compared to the existing SSE:

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

• If the GMRS, in the 1-1 O Hz range, is greater than the existing SSE, then the plant will complete the Expedited Approach (including the Interim Evaluation). Most plants that meet this criterion also screen in to conduct a seismic risk evaluation and have committed to conduct high frequency. and spent fuel pool. evaluations. In addition, if the GMRS meets the low hazard threshold, which is described in the SPID, and only exceeds. the SSE below 2.5 Hz,. the licensee will perform a limited evaluation of equipment potentially susceptible to low frequency motions. Similarly, if the GMRS exceeds the SSE only above 10 Hz, then the licensee will perform an evaluation of the equipment or structures susceptible to that specific. range of ground motion. Enclosure 2 provides the staffs determination of priority for plants that screen-in to conduct a seismic risk evaluation, and identification of plants to complete limited-scope. evaluations (i.e., spent fuel pool, high frequency, or low frequency) .. CONDITIONAL SCREENING As discussed in public meetings5, the staff anticipated the possibility of not being able to complete the determination for conducting a seismic risk evaluation for some plants in the 30 to 60 day review period under certain circumstances. For example, if a licensee provided a unique submittal or deviated from the SPID guidance, additional time for the review might be needed .. In general, WUS submittals contain extensive site specific information including site specific source models and ground-motion models which could affect the final screening decisions. Accordingly, during the NRC screening and prioritization process, the staff identified that for Palo Verde additional time and interactions will be required to better understand the seismic hazard for the. plant. As. such, the staff determined that Palo Verde "conditionally screens-in" for the purposes of prioritizing and conducting additional. evaluations.. After interactions have occurred, the staff will make a final screening and prioritization determination and provide a letter to. the licensee .. If the plant remains screened-in, the final screening letter will affirm the plant priority for further evaluations and establish schedule for an Expedited Approach, if necessary. If the plant screens out, the final screening letter also will determine if the Palo ...................... 5 Discussion as part of public meetings dated December 4, 2014, February 11, 2015, and March 30, 2015 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML14342A901, ML15104A065 and ML15111A031, respectively). Verde needs to. complete limited-scope evaluations. (i.e., spent fuel pool, high frequency, or low frequency). PLANT PRIORITIZATION The NRC grouped the "screened-in" plants into three groups6, which (i) reflects the relative priority for conducting a seismic risk evaluation that compares each plant's current capabilities to the re-evaluated seismic hazard, and (ii) accounts for the appropriate allocation of limited staff and available expertise for reviewing and conducting seismic risk evaluations. During the prioritization. review, the staff considered each licensee's re-evaluated hazard submittals, plant specific seismic and risk insights, and previous design basis ground motion estimates. To prioritize the plants for completing seismic risk evaluations, staff examined certain key parameters such as (1) the maximum ratio of the new re-evaluated hazard (GMRS) to the SSE in the 1-10 Hz range; (2) the maximum ground motion in the. 1-10 Hz range; and (3) insights from previous seismic risk evaluations. As such, Group 1 plants are generally those that have the highest re-evaluated hazard relative to the original plant seismic design-basis (GMRS to SSE), as well as ground motions in. the 1-10 Hz range that are. generally higher in absolute magnitude. Based on these criteria, Columbia and Diablo Canyon are prioritized as Group 1 plants. Group 1 plants, including Columbia and Diablo Canyon are expected to conduct a seismic risk evaluation and submit it by June. 30, 2017 .. Group 3 plants have GMRS to SSE ratios that are greater than 1, but the amount of exceedance. in the 1-1 O Hz range is relatively small, and the maximum ground motion in. the 1-10 Hz range is also not high. As described above, Palo Verde has conditionally screened in; based on current information Palo Verde has been assigned to prioritization Group 3. Given the limited level. of exceedance of the Group 3 plants including. Palo Verde, staff is evaluating the need for licensees to conduct a seismic risk evaluation in order for the staff to complete its regulatory decision making. After further review, the staff will decide which Group 3 plants need to complete a risk evaluation. Risk evaluations for Group 3 plants are due by December 31, 2020. NEXT STEPS Based on the staff's screening review the licensee for Columbia should finalize and submit an Expedited Approach Report no later than January 31, 2016. The NRC staff is continuing to review the licensee provided information for Diablo Canyon and Palo Verde related to the Expedited Approach. In accordance. with. the endorsed guidance, the staff acknowledges that the January 2016 Expedited Approach submittal will focus on plant equipment (i.e. safe shutdown pathway7) evaluations and modifications, as necessary, prior to submitting the plant seismic risk evaluations. The content of limited-scope evaluations or confirmations and their associated schedule milestones remain under development with NRC staff and stakeholders. The NRC staff has 6 Central and Eastern licensees seismic hazard screening and priority reviews were completed in 2014. 7 Section 3 of the Expedited Approach guidance (ADAMS Accession No. ML 13102A142) provides a process to identify a single seismically robust success path using a subset of installed plant equipment, FLEX equipment and connection points. conducted. a number of public meetings on. the implementation details of these evaluations, including the development of alternatives approaches for conducting these evaluations The staff expects that implementing guidance should be established by summer 2015 and fall 2015 for high frequency and. spent fuel pool evaluations, respectively. It is expected. that WUS licensees can complete these evaluations in parallel with completion of SPRAs for Group 1 plants by June 2017. This letter transmits the NRC staff's results of the seismic hazard submittals for the purposes of screening and prioritizing the plants. It does not convey the staff's final determination regarding the adequacy of any plant's. calculated hazard. As such .. the NRC staff. will continue. its review of the submitted seismic hazard re-evaluations, and may request additional plant-specific information to support this review through the summer of 2015. The staff has placed a high priority on this review for the early identification of issues that might adversely affect each licensee's seismic risk evaluations. Interactions with licensees will occur as soon as practicable, including NRC staff plans to acknowledge the whether seismic hazard curves are suitability for use in SPRA development by late 2015. The NRC staff plans to issue a staff assessment on the re-evaluated seismic hazard once each review is completed in approximately 12 to 18 months .. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Nicholas DiFrancesco at 301-415-1115 or via email at Nicholas.Difrancesco@nrc.gov. Sincerely, William M. Dean, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

1. Glossary of Evaluations 2. Screening and Prioritization Results 3. List of Licensees March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic. Hazard Submittals 4. List of Licensees cc w/encls: Listserv

Ml151138344 AKock, NRO DJackson, NRO RidsNrrPMDiabloCanyon RidsNrrPMColumbla RidsNrrPaloVerde RidsOgcRp Resource RidsRgn4MailCenter Resource RidsEdoMailCenler Resource *via email OFFICE NRR/JLD/PMB/PM NRR/JLD/LA NRR/JLD/HMB/BC NRO/DSEA/RGS2/BC NRR/DORUD NAME NDiFrancesco. SLent MS hams DJackson Llund DATE 04/22/15 04/24/15 04/23/15 .. /. /15. . I. /15 OFFICE NRO/DSEA/D OGC NRR/JLD/D NRR/ D NAME SFlanders SC lark JDavis IMFranovich forl WDean DATE I /15 05/04/15 I /15 I /15 Glossary of Evaluations Associated with Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1 Seismic Hazard Re-evaluations Interim Evaluation or Actions -An immediate licensee and NRC review of the re-evaluated hazard to determine whether actions are needed to assure plant safety while further evaluations are ongoing. The staff has completed its review and concluded that, based on the licensees' interim evaluations and actions, Western United States (WUS) plants are safe for continued operations. Interim evaluations and actions are provided in Section 5.0, "Interim Actions," of the licensee submittals. Expedited Approach -A near-term licensee evaluation to be completed by January 31, 2016, for WUS plants whose re-evaluated hazard exceeds the current design-basis for the safe shutdown earthquake hazard level. The evaluation looks at the systems and components that can be used to safely shut down a plant under the conditions of a station blackout (i.e., no alternating current power is available) and loss of ultimate heat sink. The expedited approach will either confirm that a plant has sufficient margin to continue with a longer-term evaluation without any modifications, or confirm the need to enhance the seismic capacity to assure they can withstand the re-evaluated hazard. The Expedited Approach guidance document is found in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System under Accession No. ML13102A142. Seismic Risk Evaluation -Longer-term seismic risk evaluation provides the most comprehensive information to make regulatory decisions, such as whether to amend a plant's design or licensing basis or make additional safety enhancements. These evaluations provide information to make risk-informed decisions. The staff will use this information in conjunction with the existing regulatory tools, such as backfit analysis, to decide on further regulatory actions. The longer-term seismic risk evaluations could be either a Seismic Margins Analysis or a Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment, depending on the magnitude of the exceedance. Limited-Scope Evaluations -These include i) Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation, ii) High Frequency Evaluation, and iii) Low Frequency Evaluation. Respectively, these evaluations are focused on the following: i) spent fuel pool components and systems capable of draining water inventory to the level of the spent fuel, ii) a review of components susceptible to high frequency accelerations (e.g. electrical relays), and iii) a review of components susceptible to low frequency accelerations (e.g. water storage tanks). Enclosure 1 Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the. Fukushima Dai-lchi Accident Seismic Risk Evaluations Screening and Prioritization Results for Western United States (WUS) Reactor Sites Seismic Risk Limited-scope Evaluations. Screening Expedited Evaluation High Low Spent Fuel Plant Name Result Approach (Prioritization Frequency Frequency Pool Evaluation Group) Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Columbia Generating Station In x 1 x x Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit In x 1 x x Nos. 1 and 2 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Conditional 3 Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 in x x x Enclosure 2 March 2015 Re-evaluated Seismic Hazard Submittals for Western United States Reactor Sites Licensee Facility Date of letter (ADAMS Accession Nos.) Columbia Generating Station March 12, 2015 (ML 15078A243) Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 March 11, 2015 (ML 15071 A046) Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units March 1 O, 2015(ML15076A073) and 1, 2, and 3 April 10, 2015 (ML 15105A076) Enclosure 3 LIST OF APPLICABLE POWER REACTOR LICENSEES Columbia Generating Station Energy Northwest Docket No .. 50-397 License No. NPF-21 Mr. Mark E. Reddemann Chief Executive Officer Energy Northwest MD 1023 76 North Power Plant Loop P.O. Box 968 Richland, WA 99352 Diablo Canyon Power. Plant. Unit Nos .. l and 2. Pacific Gas & Electric Company Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82 Mr. Edward D. Halpin Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 56 Mail Code 104/6 Avila Beach, CA 93424 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Arizona Public Service Company Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-529, and STN 50-530 License Nos. NPF-41, NPF-51 and NPF-74 Mr. Randall K. Edington Executive Vice President Nuclear/CNO Arizona Public Service Company P.O. Box 52034, MS 7602. Phoenix, AZ 85072-2034 Enclosure 4 DiFrancesco, Nicholas From:DiFrancesco, Nicholas Sent:5 May 201521:18:36 +0000 To:Jackson, Diane Cc:Hill, Brittain

Subject:

Working Version of WUS Seismic Screening Letter Attachments:Western US Screening and Prioritization letter Revl 5-5-15 5pm.docx Diane, For awareness, attached is the working version of the letter .. This. includes incorporating limited OGC comments. There was one OGG comment regarding providing additional background that I maintained for consideration and discussion. Still considering a small update to support transition to the. interim evaluations section. Thanks, Nick From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 4:15 PM To: Burnell, Scott

Subject:

Press Release on WUS Seismic Screening Letter Scott, We. briefed the DEDO, NRR, and R-IV management on the content of the. WUS Screening letter during the JLD status weekly. Mentioned that we are working towards a press release. We received no realignment on the letter or communication plan approach. View ADAMS P8 Properties ML 151138344 Open ADAMS P8 Document (Screening and Prioritization Results for the Western United States Sites Regarding Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding Seismic Hazard Re-Evaluations for Recommendation 2.1 of the. NTTF Review) Current working towards issuance on Tuesday May 12 (that can always slip with NRR/ET review) .. Happy to. support a limited accuracy review as needed .. Please let me know if there are any questions or concerns. Thanks, Nick Senior Project Manager -Seismic Reevaluation Activities U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Division nicholas.difrancesco@nrc.gov I Tel: (301) 415-1115 Communication Plan Timeline (ADAMS ML14083A619) Date Activity (responsible organization) SignitJ.cant Historic Actions Completed (2/20/14} Issued letter to all licensees Re: Operability, Reportability, Interim Evaluation and Actions (ML14030A046) Completed (5/9/14) Issued Central and Eastern US (CEUS) Seismic Screening Letter (ML14111A147) WUS Seismic Hazard Screening Review Completed (3/12/15) NRC Receipt of WUS Hazard Reports (JLD/licensees) Completed (3/30/15) NRC/NEI Seismic Public Meeting w/ Discussion of WUS Review Process Completed (4/15/15) Target for public meeting notice of April 28 Diablo Seismic Meeting (JLD-DiFrancesco) Completed 4/27/15 Public availability of NRC and licensee slides for April 28 meeting (JLD -DiFrancesco) Completed 4/28/15 Diablo Canyon Public Meeting on 2.1 Seismic (NRR/JLD, NRO/DSEA, Licensee) Completed 4/29/15 Complete WUS screening & prioritization technical review (NRO/DSEA) 5/7/2015 Distribute WUS screening & prioritization letter to R-IV, OPA, OCA, OEDO (NRR/JLD liaison team) 5/11/2015 Notice to states, congressional, licensee issuance, and NGOs of pending issuance (RSLO, OCA, JLD) 5/12/2015. Issue WUS screening & prioritization letter licensees including review of interim evaluation and actions (NRR/JLD) Issue Press Release on prioritization review (OPA) 6/4/15 Columbia Public Meeting on Methods (NRR/JLD, NRO/DSEA, Licensee) 6/9/15 Palo Verde Public Meeting on Methods (NRR/JLD, NRO/DSEA, Licensee) 6/23/15 Diablo End of Cycle Meeting and Open House (R-IV) Late.Summer Columbia End of Cycle Meeting (R-IV) Continuing Staff assessment of the reevaluated seismic hazard (NRO/DSEA, NRR/JLD) Points-of-contact: TSO DiFrancesco, Nicholas From:DiFrancesco, Nicholas Sent:20 May 2015 15:26:48 +0000 To:Rosenberg, Stacey Cc: Laur, Steven;Han-ison, Donnie;Shams, Mohamed;Jackson, Diane

Subject:

Awareness of Public Meeting Slides on SPRA Relief and Working Letter Outline Attachments:R2.l Seismic -May 21 2015 Public Meeting Rev 7.pptx, SPRA Relief Letter for Group 2 and Group 3 Sites.docx Stacey, As mentioned in the May 4 NRR/DRA brief. The staff is moving forward to provide relief to certain priority Group 2 and Group 3 sites from completing an SPRA. The May 21 public meeting. tomorrow. (Attachment 1 ). is. a step, along the way. were we consider. external. stakeholder insights. Following the May 21 public meeting we will have one additional public meeting to consider stakeholder input. NRR ET has asked us to target August 2015 (Attachment 2) for issue of the letter response to licensee. The working draft contains my initial outline. I plan seek NRR/DRA concurrence sometime this summer and communicate awareness of SPRA activities. Steve, Donnie, During an NEI call this morning the technical background about ice condensers containment failure probability. Tomorrow I expect an industry question on this topic. Please let me know if you have questions or concerns. Sincerely, Nick Senior Project Manager -Seismic Reevaluation Activities U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Division nicholas.difrancesco@nrc.gov I Tel: (301) 415-1115 U.S.NRC UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Protecting People and the Environment NTTF Recommendation 2.1 Seismic May 21, 2015. Andrea Kock, Diane Jackson, Mohamed Shams, Nick DiFrancesco Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Office of New Reactors ::::J -0 ..... 3 OJ -O" ::::J --"O OJ co CD (/) w _. I 01 _. ....._ _. 0 0 0 ---..... 0 3 )> 0 )> (/) --r _. 01 _. .i::.. 0 )> en I\) CX> --

U.S.NRC llNTTllD STATES NUCLl!AI\ IU!CllUTORY COMMISSION Proucnng People and tlu Environment Today's Agenda NRC

• Discussion of SPRA for Groups 2 and 3

• Development of Guidance fair Proposed Rulemaking Related to Mitigation Strategies

• Public Questions or Comments NEI

• Spent Fuel Pool Evaluation l)evelopment

• High Frequency Guidance Updates

• Public Questions or Comments NRC

• Key Messages I Actions SPRA -Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessmen1t 2 U.S.NRC llNlTl!D h'UCLEAI\ IU!CUl.ATORY COMMISSION Protecting People aruJ the Environment Assessment of SPRAs for Group 2 and Group 3 plants Diane ,Jackson 3 Seismic 2.1 Process Ensures Clarity, Consistency, and Risk-Informed Regulatory Decisions ------------------------------PHASE 1 INFORMATION GATHERING STAGE 1 Interact with Industry on Hazard and Risk Evaluation Guidance CEUS Licensees submit Site Response (9/2013 & 3/2014) STAGE 2 Screened-in plants complete Expedited Interim Evaluation CEUS:12/2014; WUS:1 /2016 and Risk Evaluation (Group. 1: 2017) NRC review Seismic Risk Evaluation, as needed L-----------------------------PHASE 2 DECISION-MAKING NRC makes Regulatory Decisions, as needed

• Safety Enhancements

• Backfit Analysis

• Modify Plant License 4 U.S.NRC UNITED NUCLEAR Rl!CUl..ATORY COMMISSION Pl'Otecting PeQJJle and tJu Environment R2.1 Seismic lnforn1ation Needs for Regulatory Decisions

• 50.54(f) letter gathers information to support regulatory decision to modify, revoke or suspend license

• SPRA are an important tool to identify safety enhancements and assess plant capacity

• May 9, 2014, letter that SPRAs for some Group 3 plants with limited exceedanices may not be needed to make regulatory 50.54(f) decision

• Presently the staff is evaluating 50.54(f) responses and available information to potential SPRA relief for some Group 2 and Group 3 1plants 5 U.S.NRC UmTllD STATES 1\JCLEAR IU!CUl..ATORY COMMISSION Prot"'cnng P"'opl"' an.d tlu Ettvironment Available Information Supporting Limited SPRA Relie1f

• R2.1 seismic reevaluated hazard I interim actions

• R2.3 walkdown review:s and inspections

• Gl-199, CEUS seismic hazard insights

• IPEEE seismic plant Ccipacity insights

• Expedited Approach Eivaluations 6 U.S.NRC UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Proucting Pet>ple 1uul the Environment Evaluation Approach for SPRA Relief

• Staff built on Gl-199, IF>EEE, and reevaluated hazard risk insights for its review

• Considered exceedanc:e above SSE, hazard peak, area between curves between 1 to 10 Hz, and reactor design

• Assessed if SPRA insights would likely identified plant specific enhances 7 U.S.NRC Ul'o'l'l'ED NUCLEAR RllCUl..ATORY COMMISSION A-otectmg PeQJJle an.d tlu En.viron.men.t SPRA Relief Letter. and Target Timeline

• Engagement of stakeholder planned today and as part of next R2.1 public meeting

• May -June 2015 -Sta.ff is continuing to develop inputs and decisions

• Late Summer -Letter Issuance -Documents staff decisic>n providing SPRA relief for potential some Group 2 and Group 3 plants -Limited Scope Evaluati<)ns are expected from licensees provided SPFtA relief 8 U.S.NRC UNITED NUCLEAR R£CU1..ATORY OOMJ\t!SSION Protecting Peqple and the Environment NRC Guidance Development for Proposed Rule on Mitigation of Design-Basis Events (MBDBE) Incorporating Reevaluated Seismic Hazard 9 U.S.NRC UNrt'l!D NUCLEAR lll!CUl..ATORY COMMISSION Protecnng People and the Environment Overview of Topics for Discussion

• Background on propose of MBDBE rule and guidance

• Scope of proposed rule

• Reasonable Protectiion

• Deployment and interactions

• Use of existing engineering insights 10 U.S.NRC Ul'o1TED STATES NUCLEAR R£CU1..ATORY OOM1'fiSSION Protecting People and the Environment Guidance Development

• Agency priority to support MBDBE proposed rulemaking (i.e. proposed 1 O CFR 50.155)

• Proposed rulemaking extends Mitigation Strategies to met the reevaluated hazard level

• Draft Regulatory Guide [)G-1301 under development to support issuance for public comment by early

• Guidance to address scc)pe and performance requirements

• Draft DG 1301 -No. ML 15072A 171. 11 U.S.NRC UNrt'l!D NUCLEAR RJ!CUl..ATORY COMMISSION Protecnng People and the Environment Proposed Rule Scope

• All phases of FLEX equipment, including portable and installed

• FLEX equipment must perform its intended function

• Reasonable protection of equipment and strategies against the reevaluated hazard 12 U.S.NRC UKITllD STATES NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION Protecnng People and tlu Environment Reasonable Protection -Equipment

• Equipment must ren1ain functional -Components retain or fuel -Structures allow access for deployment -Supporting equipment remains functional

• Evaluation of equiprnent for robustness at the reevaluated seis,mic hazard -Analysis, testing, earthquake_ experience, and generic test data. 13 U.S.NRC UNITED NUCLEAJ\ RJ!CUl..ATORY COMMISSION Protecnng People and the Environment Reasonable Protection -Buildings

• Reasonable protection of equipment and strategies against the reevaluated hazard -Inelastic deformatior1 is permitted so long as strategy can be implemented -Deformation limit co111mensurate with intended function 14 U.S.NRC TATES NUCLEAR RJ!CUl..ATORY OOMMlSSION Protecnng People and the Environment Deployment and Interactions

• Secure and protect, equipment and strategies from seismic interactions

• Seismically induced flooding

• Feasible deployment routes -Potential soil liquefac:tion or non-safety building failures -Confirm access throLJgh robust structures 15 U.S.NRC U1'Tl'ED 1\JCLl!AR R£CUl..ATORY COMMJSSION Pw>tecting People and the Environment Existing Engineering Framework

• IPEEE A-46, capacity cind risk insights

• R2.1 Seismic ESEP interim evaluation -capacity insights

• Seismic probabilistic assessment -capacities and risk

• Industry codes and standards (e.g. ASCE 43-05) ESEP -Expedited Seismic Ev;aluation Process ASCE -American Society of C:ivil Engineers 16 U.S.NRC UNITED STATES 1\JCLEAJ\ RECUl..ATORY OOMMISSIOl'I Protecting People and the Environment Opportunity for Public Questions. or. Comments Additional Questions? Please ask us at: JLD _ PublicResource@nrc.gov 17 U.S.NRC l!NtTBD STATES NUCLEAR R£CUl..ATORY OOMAUSSION Proucnng People and the Environment Key Messages and Next Steps 18 U.S.NRC UNITllD STATES NUCLEAR RJ!CULATORY COMMISSION Protecnng People and the Environment NTTF 2.1. Seismic Next Steps

• Discussion of dates for r1ext meeting (late June)

• Interaction on guidance *for proposed rulemaking (June -August 2015)

• Discuss and finalize SRf)A decision for Groups 2 and 3 (August 2015)

• Finalize high-frequency fevaluation implementing guidance (June/July 2015)

• Spent fuel pool evaluatic>n implementing Guidance (Summer/Fall 2015) 19 U.S.NRC UNITED STATES 1\JCLEAJ\ RECUl..ATORY OOMMISSIOl'I Protecting People and the Environment Opportunity for Public Questions. or. Comments Additional Questions? Please ask us at: JLD _ PublicResource@nrc.gov 20 U.S.NRC lMTl:O SUCLEA!l RECt.'UTOllY OOMMJSSIOl\ ProkctinK People and the Enviromnent Backup Slides 21 jinformation (pages 52-61/1000) is available from ADAMS ML 151138344. The Power Reactor Licensees and Holder of Construction Permits in Deferred Status on the Enclosed List UBJECT: SUSPENSION OF SEISMIC RISK EVALUTION INFORMATION REQUES PURSUANT TO TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATI N .54(f). REGARDING SEISMIC HAZARD RE-EVALUATIONS FO , ECOMMENDATION 2.1 OF THE NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE N I FR THE F K HI A DAI-HI A IDEN fie purpose of tfits letter is to inform enc ose lcensees tflat certain Group 2 a Group 3 sit ay suspend respondin to the seismic risk evaluation information r; uest based on a revie avajlable inf *o [This letter discussions the analysis approach of this decisions and expectations for completion of limit-scope evaluation (i.e. spent fuel pool, high-frequency, and/or low frequency evaluations).] Does not provide relief from other licensing requirements for informed technical specifications or plant licensing.] BACRGROONll On Marcfl 12, 2012, the NRC issued a request for information pursuant to Title 10 of the Cod of Federal Regulations, Part 50 (1 O CFR), Section 50.54(f) (hereafter referred to as the 50.54 etter) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System {ADAMS) Accession No L 12053A340). The purpose of that request was to gather information concerning, in part, th ismic hazards at operating reactor sites and to enable the NRC staff to determine whethe icenses should be modified, suspended, or revoked. The "Required Response" section o

• nclosure 1 indicated that licensees and ns i n rm* h Id r h r vi i mi azaro Evaluation and Screenin re . The 50.54(f) letter stated that NRC would provide the results of the screening and prioritization indicating deadlines for individual plants to complete seismic risk evaluations to assess the total plant response to the re-evaluated seismic hazard. By (five] letters NRC completed its screening and prioritization review which places 34 reactor sites into three review groups based on relative priority and resource constraints to complete seismic risk evaluations. Previously, in accordance with the SPID and Expedited Approach guidance, the re-evaluated seismic hazard determines if additional seismic risk evaluations. If the re-evaluated ground motion response spectra (GMRS), in the 1-1 O Hz range, is greater than the existing SSE, then the plant complete an Expedited Approach, screen in to conduct a seismic risk evaluation, committed to conduct high frequency, and a spent fuel pool evaluation. The seismic screening letters dated in 2014 and 2015 also discussed that relief from the request was under consideration for some Group 3 sites. Based on further review, the staff found it prudent to also review Group 2 sites .. In total the staff identified that seismic risk evaluations for approximately (12.5] sites are not required [footnote Hatch unit CLB difference] to complete regulatory decision making. [This letter discussion the rationale]. AVAILIBLE INFORMATION The NRC staff as part of. its 50.54(f) request sought information to support regulatory decisions related to the seismic reevaluated hazard for operating reactor sites. The 50.54(f) letter discusses that this information would be used in Phase 2 decisions. Although seismic risk evaluations are an important tool to. assess plant sat ety and ruggedness. Based on the. staff review of licensee hazard, risk insights, and plant design, substantial safety benefits are not expected for a number of previously screened Group 2 and Group 3 review sites. The NRC staff in coming to this decision considered, the reevaluated hazard screening reports,. Gl-199 risk insights, R2.1 hazard updates, probabilistic risk assessment guidance and standards, and 1 O CFR 50.109 backfit criteria. EVALUATION PROCESS AND ANALYSIS Enclosure 2, documents plants identified in Group 2 and Group 3 where low to moderate seismic hazard exceedance and risk insights provided sufficient safety basis to not require a seismic risk evaluation. In otherwords, the seismic hazard was. reasonable small to. not require plant specific improvements. The staff found that Calvert Cliffs, Units 1 and 2, GMRS hazard slightly exceedance. the SSE, its spectral peak was low, and previous seismic probabilistic risk assessment (SPRA) found plant risk to be very low. The staff found that Cooper, Perry, Seabrook, and Three Mile Island, Unit 1, hazard slightly exceeded the SSE, and previously risk evaluations demonstrated plant risk to be low. The staff found that Davis-Besse, Wolf Creek, Point Beach, Fermi, and LaSalle, GMRS hazard exceedance was moderately above the SSE, its spectral peak was low, and recent risk estimates. are low. The staff found that Hatch Unit 2 and Monticello, GMRS hazard exceedance was moderately above the SSE, its spectral peak was low, and recent risk estimates are moderate. I I

ML151138344 *via email OFFICE NRR/JLD/PMB/PM NAR/JLD/LA NRR/JLD/HMB/BC NRO/DSEA/RGS2/BC NRR/DOAUD NAME NDiFrancesco Slent MShams DJackson Llund DATE OFFICE NRO/DSEA/D OGG NRR/JLDID NRR/D NAME SFlanders JDavis WDean DATE RidsNrrPMSalem RidsNrrPMSeabrook RidsNrrPMSequoyah RidsNrrPMShearonHarris RidsNrrPMSummer RidsNrrPMSurry RidsNrrPMSusquehanna RidsNrrPMThreeMilelsland RidsNrrPMTurkeyPoint RidsNrrPMVogtle RidsNrrPMWaterford RidsNrrPMWattsBar1 RidsNrrPMWattsBar2 RidsNrrPMWolfCreek RidsOgcRp Resource RidsRgn 1 MailCenter Resource RidsRgn2MailCenter Resource RidsRgn3MailCenter Resource RidsRgn4MailCenter Resource RidsEdoMailCenter Resource. PUBLIC RidsNroOd RidsNrrOd RidsNsirOd. MMarkley, NRR MKhanna, NRR MShams, NRR NDiFrancesco, NRR AKock, NAO DJackson, NRO RidsNrrPMDiabloCanyon RidsNrrPMColumbia RidsNrrPaloVerde RidsOgcRp Resource RidsRgn4MailCenter Resource RidsEdoMailCenter Resource

Glossary of Evaluation ?G'Sociat Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1 Seismic Hazard Re-evaluations ntenm Evaluat on or Actions -An immediate licensee an(j NBC review of the re-evaluat azard to determine whether actions are needed to assure plant safety while further evaluation e ongoing. The staff has completed Its review and concluded that, based on the licensees nterim evaluations and actions, Western United States (WUS) plants are safe for continu operations. Interim evaluatio s and actions are rovided In Section 5.0 "Interim Actions " of th . h-A near-term licensee evaluation to be completed in December 2014 f CEUS plants and by January 31, 2016, for WUS plants whose re-evaluated hazard exceeds r.urrent design-basis for the safe shutdown earthquake hazard level. The evaluation looks a he systems and components that can be used to safely shut down a plant under the conditi fa station blackout (i.e., no alternating current power is available) and loss of ultimate hea ink. The expedited approach will either confirm that a plant has sufficient margin to contin ith a longer-term evaluation without any modifications, or confirm the need to enhance capacity to assure they can withstand the re-evaluated hazard. The Expedite guidance document is found in the A enc

• e Documents Access and Mana emen S stem under Accession No. ML13102A142 _,__,_,.,_, comprehensive information to make regulatory decisions, such as whether to amena a plant's esign or licensing basis or make additional safety enhancements. These evaluations provid nformation to make risk-informed decisions. The staff will use this infonnation in ith the existing regulatory tools, such as backfit analysis, to decide on further regulato ctions. The longer-term seismic risk evaluations could be either a Seismic Margins AnalY,sis o * *

• s e Enclosure 1 Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from. the Fukusnima Dai-lchi Acciden1 Seismic Screening UDdated Based on Review of Available lnformatio Umited-scooe Evaluation!i Plant Name *Evaluatio esu en nc al a 0 Bellefonte Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2i Ou Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. Units 1 and Du Coooer Nuclear Station Ou, Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station. Unit 1] Out EdWin I. Ratcfi Nuclear Plant. Unit 2 1 QYj I =ermi, Unit 2! Ou 1 LaSalle Countv Station. Units 1 and 2! Ou I Monticello Nuclear Generatina :ou Dvster Creek Nuclear Generatina Statiori bu' I> Palo Verde Nuclear Station Units 1. 2, and 3 Ou ) Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1J Du i>oint Beach Nuclear Plant. Units 1 and 2 Pu Seabrook, Unit 11 Pu Nuclear Plant .. Units 1 and 2 '.Ou, ' jfhree Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 11 Pu Wolf Creek Generatina Station Unit 1l Ou Enclosure 2 arch 2015 Re-evatuated Seismic Hazard and Screening Repo dwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Units 1 and Salle Coun Station, Units 1 and rch 27 2014 ML14092A413 Station Unit 1 rch 31 2014 ML14097A020 Enclosure 3 LIST OF APPLICABLE POWER REACTOR LICENSEES Enclosure 4 DiFrancesco, Nicholas From:DiFrancesco, Nicholas Sent: 13 May 2015 18:34:49 +0000 To:Witt, Kevin;Yalentin, Milton Cc: Bowman, Gregory;Shams, Mohamed

Subject:

Comment Re: SFP Commitments to Commission Attachments:20 l 3-0030comscy. pdf We need to confirm with the technical experts but, l think the only plant we need to understand better is Columbia. DC and Palo Verde general appear to be within their CLB. Might be a good item to consider as we develop the SPF evaluation implementing details. -Nick -----Original MFrom: Witt. Kevin Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 12:15 PM To: Valentin, Milton Cc: Bowman. Gregory; Difrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

Commitments to Commission Hi Milton, since we were talking about commitments this morning, 1 was just reminded of one. ln the expedited transfer paper (attached-footnote on pg 10), we committed to go back and verify that the western US Plants SFPs are bounded by this analysis when we gain sufficient information about seismic hazards. We may be able to utilize the work that JHMB is doing on the SFP seismic hazard reevaluations to close this item out. -Kevin Ol'FICIAL USE ONLY SENSI I IVE IN I ERNAL INFoRMAllON March XX, 2015 MEMORANDUM TO: Chairman Burns Commissioner Svinicki Commissioner Ostendorff Commissioner Baran FROM:

SUBJECT:

Non Responsive Michael R. Johnson Deputy Executive. Director for Reactor and Preparedness Programs Office of the Executive Director for Operations PERIODIC COMMISSION UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF TIER 1 AND TIER 2 NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTACT: Gregory Bowman, NRR/JLD (301) 415-2939

Enclosures:

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

OFFICE NRR/JLD NAME LKGibson* DATE 3/12/15 *via email NRR/JLD/JPSB:BC OEDO/TCCM DEDR GBowman*. MDudek MJohnson. 3/12/15 OFFICIAL USE ONLY SENSI I Iv E IN I ERNAL IHFORIOIM'IOl4 -2 (6) On March 12, 2015, the NRC staff received the seismic hazard reevaluation reports for the. plants in the Western United States (Columbia Generating Station; Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; and Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3). Along with their submittals, licensees whose reevaluated seismic hazard is higher than their design basis are expected to provide an interim evaluation to demonstrate that the plant can cope with the reevaluated seismic hazard while the longer-term seismic risk evaluations are ongoing. The NRC staff will review the licensee submittals and establish a prioritization schedule for the seismic risk evaluations for those plants where the reevaluated seismic hazard exceeds that in the facility's design basis. The staff will also review the licensee's interim evaluation and actions,. if applicable .. This review, which will be documented in a letter. will likely take between 30-60 days to accomplish. With the submittal of these report, seismic hazard reevaluation have been submitted for all plants. Outside of Scope 8FFl81AI:: l:ISE IHl'liRHP:b 0TIQH 8FFl81AL 8HLV SEHSl"flVE lftifEfilHAL lt4F8filMAll8H Regulator} I ' Future Milestones Tier 1 NRG to document review of Expedited Approach. for GEUS by RFI issued December 31, 2015 March 12, 2012 NRG to issue seismic Seismic Hazard Reevaluation hazard staff assessments NRG to issue review NTTF 2.1 Request for Information Licensees for Western U.S. for GEUS licensees by letters on Expedited (RFI) facilities submitted site September.30, 2015 Approach for GEUS by seismic hazard February 28, 2016 reevaluations by March 12, 2015 Licensee(s) for Western U.S. facilities to submit Expedited Approach by January 31, 2016 Non Responsive Enclosure 2 QFFIGhl:b l!ISi: 8ttl'/ 8EHSl'flV! IH'l'! .. HAL 1m*onlUIA I ION Sent:20 May 2015 19:43: 18 +0000 To:Stieve, Alice;Munson, Clifford Cc:Ake, Jon;Stephanie Devlin;Heeszel, David

Subject:

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

Provide more rational for the choice of subset of GMPEs for PVNGS. What is the reason for deviation from approach chosen by DCPP? What is the reason for not using Idriss and Zhao GMPEs for Greater Arizona sources (Table EX-2)? Section 5.5.1.1 justifies use of Zhao models for California and they are used for Diablo. In mean time Table 5.5.1-1 (p.5-46) says that Zhao tectonics and attenuation are not relevant to California/West Arizona. DCPP. and PVNGS seem to contradict each other's .. ********************************************** Section 6.2.2 is including Bindi 2014 model, but limits its use to M=7 because of magnitude scaling which is different from others (Fig. 6.2.2-1) 1.50 1 1.00 0.70 ,........, El <( 0.50 en CL 0.30 0.20 5.0 T=0.2 SS Rx=S 5.5 6.0 6.5 M 7.0 *ASK14 *AS814 *Bi14 BSSAt4 *C814 7.5 ' l . 8.0 In mean time for DCPP the use of different scaling (strong saturation) by Zhao is considered to be useful representing alternative approach. It looks like when alternative scaling results in lower GM it is acceptable to Tl team, but when it results in higher GM it is not acceptable. ******************************************************************************** Page 6-6 states: "Based on the evaluation of the candidate GMPEs for application to earthquakes in California and Mexico recorded in central Arizona given in Kishida et al. (2014), the Tl Team judged that the. NGA-West2 GMPEs are suitable for estimating path terms. for the paths from California and Mexico to central Arizona." In mean time existing publications Phillips (2013) demonstrate higher Q for Arizona (also Fig. 5.5, p.107). ************************************************************************************* Kishida et al.,. 2014 report states. (Abstract):

"The comparison showed that overall the recorded 5% damped response spectral ordinates were. over predicted by the NGA-West2 models by a range of 0-0.35 natural log units for events occurring in Central California, and by a range of 0.2-0.7 natural log units for events occurring in Southern California and the Gulf of California." This conclusion looks inconsistent with: 1. Arizona Q at least same or higher than that of California 2. Kappa same or lower than that of California This conclusion is based on comparisons with records from mostly small. magnitude events (Table 2.2, p.6) and data having extremely limited frequency range of 0.5 to 8 Hz (may be actually up to 5 Hz). Figure 2.18 (p.19) confirms that (/) 150 ---...--.---................. --.--.-...-.-......... -n--.....-........ @ 100 -------------... -... -Arizona Events \ ---NGA-West2 Events \ \ 0 ....... .1....1....:..u..u....-..1.-..1-1...i..:iu.u.i 0.1 1 10 100 Period (s) ************************************************************************************** Are there any consideration of basin effect in applying GMPEs for Arizona considering that basin effect in NGA-West2 relations depends upon the depth to Vs=1 km/s or 2.5 km/s? ******************************************************************************* Use of such a subset of data actually questions estimates of kappa. Fig. 4.17-4.37 also don't look convincing.

Sent: 10 Apr 2015 21 :24:07 +0000 To:John Stamatakos;Stirewalt, Gerry;PJaza-Toledo, Meralis;Miriam R. Juckett Cc:Ake, Jon;Hill, Brittain;Munson. Clifford;lisa. walsch@nrc.gov;Li, Yong

Subject:

RE: Monday Diablo Meeting That is very good. Thanks! From: John Stamatakos [jstam@swri.org]. Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 4:01 PM To: Graizer, Vladimir; Stirewalt, Gerry; Plaza-Toledo, Meralis; Miriam R. Juckett Cc: Ake, Jon; Hill, Brittain; Munson, Clifford; lisa.walsch@nrc.gov; Li, Yong

Subject:

Monday Diablo Meeting Vlad, For Monday, I can walk everyone through the draft summary report we have on the seismic imagining data and searchable image table. John Dr. John Stamatakos Director ofTechnical Programs Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (CNWRA) Southwest Research Institute 1801 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852 301-881-0290 jstamatakos@swri.org I Information (pages 282-283/1000) is .......... . Graizer, Vladimir From:Graizer, Vladimir Sent:28 May 2015 13:53:52 +0000 To:Jackson, Diane;Munson, Clifford Cc:John Stamatakos;Ake, Jon;Plaza-Toledo, Meralis;Giacinto, Joseph;Stovall, Scott;H111, Britlain;Li, Yong

Subject:

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

Subject:

FYI: Reminder sent to Diablo for Information Request Nick sent a reminder. Diane From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 9: 16 AM To: Philippe Soenen (Pns3@oge.com); Jahangir, Nozar Cc: Michael Richardson (mjrm@pge.com); Strickland, Jearl; Shams, Mohamed; Jackson, Diane; Vega, Frankie

Subject:

Reminder on Diablo Information Request Philippe, et, al Just a reminder that the staff is interested in the following references to support NRC review: 1) Benchmark files for SWUS-DCPP median ground motion models. 2) EST A 27 and 28 recordings of Parkfield and San Simeon earthquakes a. Time histories

b. Response spectra c. Response spectra adjusted for Vs30 3) Engineering reports describing development of velocity profiles for stations ESTA 27. and 28. 4) Paper describing WAACY Magnitude PDF by Wooddell and others. Please let me know when the references will be available. Thanks, Nick Senior Project Manager -Seismic Reevaluation Activities U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Division nicholas.difrancesco@nrc.gov I Tel: (301) 415-1115 Heeszel, David From:Heeszel, David Sent:22 May 2015 18:29:27 +0000 To:Seber, Dogan;Munson, Clifford Cc:Ake, Jon;Jackson, Diane

Subject:

Columbia GMM codes Attachments:ss_90_0_10_10_10_yeskappa.pdf, ss_90_0_10_10_10_nokappa.pdf Hi All, Attached are two files that contain some results from my Columbia GMM software. Both files are for a single fault at 8 magnitudes from 5(fault1 )-8(fault8). In this case the fault is a vertical strike-slip located with 1 Okm away that comes to the surface. The red dots are individual realizations of the SA at the branch level. The solid black curve is the. weighted mean SA, and the dashed lines are. the mean+/-sigma. For this code, we are simply using the middle branch of the normal distribution of sigma. The next step is to get a set of. scenario. earthquakes that are realistic and important to hazard. Perhaps we can discuss at the Columbia weekly meeting on Thursday. Thanks, David David Heeszel Geophysicist U.S. NRC, NRO/DSEA/RGS2 Office: T-7E28 Mail Stop: T-7F3 Phone: 301-415-5066

<( CJ) fault1 0. 001 ;--____,....--,....-r--T'"...,.....,.....,........--____,....----..-.....,--,...........,....,.-----r----..-......--.-...,....,......--0 .1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) fault2 1 ..-.. 0) ..._... <( 0.1 (j) 0.01 0. 001 0 .1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

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

..-.. 0) ..._... <( (j) 1 0.1 0.01 .. ,. / fault4 .,,.,..,. __..-*-*1*---. __ _,,____.__i i -=*-:--*-*-*-* ' . ' ' ' i t * .. " . : : ... 0. 001 -------.---.-...,.....,....,...,....,...;-----.-----..--...--.-.,.............,...;---.....----.----.-..,........,..............-1-0 .1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) fault5 1 ...-.. O> ..._.. / <( 0.1 . ... . ....... / . I / I I (j) ! . . . 0.01 I I,, 0.001 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

<( (j) fault6 ..

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

• t I 1 I I * -. .V

• I t t I I

• I I ' -*-*-* / I t t I I t t I t i * / t

• I I I t t 1 I '11 II '11 ,1: I : t ! t : I t I ti ---...;l;_--1 ...... * .... . .. , .. t I I ... ., ' .

• I ......... 0.01 0. 001 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) faults 0. 001 0 .1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

<( CJ) fault1 0.01 ---t-' I ** . i . 0. 001 ------.---.--.--.-........-'T'1--.....----r---r--l""""l""°T'"'l'-----r-' ---.* -.,........,.....,....,....,'T"'l-0 .1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

<( (j) fault2 1 -,:1------1 ...... 0 .1 .. t . . . . . . ..... : . 0.01 --+------+---1---1 i j I j 0. 001 --t-"----r---.---r"""T""'T""T..........-------r----r-............... """T""T'"T'"T--+--,_;......,.....-r""P""r'".,..+-0. 1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) fault3 10 1 . **-* -* -. -I I . . ,..-I I -* A' *-...-.. O> ..._... <( 0.1 (j) 0.01 !..-'. ----. -*-*---/ .,...,,,--------/ . . . .. ,, ./ v I *, .. ......... ...... / / /*v ..... . . . // *" I . . . I / .* ; . . . . I . / / I I I I I I / . . 0.001 ! ' 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

<( CJ) fault4 : : ' ' 0. 001 ....---.---.--.......-r-r-0 .1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

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

• I : i : i .

• I . 0. 001 ------.-----.--.--.--.-.,...,......;--......----.---r--T ............... -----,..----.-* ,.........,......,....,....,.. 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) fault6 ..-.. 0) ..._.. <( 0.1 (j) *. I .

• r ....... ..... . I I I t I I 0. 001 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

..-.. 0) ..._... <( (j) 1 ..... ..... 0.1 0.01 fault? .-*-* -**-.. . . . -* --........ . ... : . *J-*-*-*-...__ T-+--+.---r-I .. *:* . : .. ! ... ..... . t I * ' ' ' ; * * . ' I I I ' . I I ' . 0. 001 ..,........,_"T""'"T"'T""'T'"t-0 .1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) fault8 1 -.---..-.. / -O> / -*""*I ...._.. ,,.*"" / <( 0.1 / (j) / / 0.01 . . . -*-. ---.. . .... . I . I I . -... I I -......_ 1 * -. -. -. -* ....... *,.. .. . . : ....

• l * . : .... ! ..... . I . : . * *

• I * *

• I I I t * *

• t I I I .. a a a 0. 001 0 .1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

Heeszel, David From:Heeszel, David Sent:26 Mar 2015 20:17:38 +0000 To:Seber, Dogan;Munson, Clifford Cc:Graizer, Vladimir

Subject:

Columbia GMM Implementation Attachments:Columbia Ground Motion Background.pptx Attached is a brief PowerPoint detailing the implementation of the Columbia GMM. I focused primarily on Appendix 02 of the SSHAC report and so am not intimately familiar with the technical bases used to develop the GMM. Let me know if you have any questions I may be able to answer. Please forward to anyone who may have a use or need for this. --David David Heeszel Geophysicist U.S. NRC, NRO/DSEA/RGS2 Office: T-7E28 Mail Stop: T-7F3 Phone: 301-415-5066 Hanford SSHAC Ground Motion and 43N 50 100 -=-=--Kilometers 122'W t20W 118W Hanford Ground Motion Model

• Defined at 20 Periods

• Divided into two pieces -GMM for background and fault sources (crustal model) -GMM for subduction sources (subduction model)

• Independent Logic Trees

• Single Sigma Logic Tree -Different parameters for crustal and subduction earthquakes

• V530 is 760 m/s throughout Crustal Model (189 branches) Backbone GMPE CY14 (1.0) Vs-K Adjustment Factors V K-7 s (0.055) V K-6 s {0.136) V K-5 s (0.198) (0.222) V K-3 s (0.198) V K-2 s (0.055) Inherent Uncertainty in Backbone Adjustments I M)9 (0.0625) I M)8 (0.0625) I Mh (0.0625) [61n(Y) I M)6 (0.0625) [flln(Y) I M]5 (0.50) [61n(Y) I M]4 (0.0625) [61n(Y) I Mh (0.0625) I Mh {0.0625) I M]1 (0.0625) Host-to-Target Uncertainty Factors x1.3 (0.3} xl.O (0.6) x0.8 (0.1)

Backbone Model

• Modification of Chiou and Youngs, 2014

• Can be broken into "'10 subcomponents Some parameters fall out b/c not considered by this PSHA

• E.g. directivity component

• Included in software for completeness

• Necessary Inputs Frequency (f) Magnitude (m) -Rupture Distance (RRuP) Joyner-Boore Distance (RJs) Fault Dip (6) Reverse Faulting Flag (FRv) Normal Faulting Flag (FNM) (I should remove this) Depth to top of rupture (ZroR)

Subsequent Adjustment Factors

• V5-kappa factors -Table lookup

• Period Dependent Uncertainty -Required Inputs

• Hanging Wall Factor (FHw) -Depends on Rx and fault type

• Joyner-Boore Distance (RJ8)

• Dip (6)

• Rx

• Magnitude (M)

• Host-to-Target Uncertaint\l -Constant Implementation in SSC

• Crustal Earthquakes

• Same GMM used for fault sources and background sources All earthquakes are faults

• Yakima Fold and Thrust treated Discretely

• Zones treated generally -Randomly Distributed -Sometimes randomly oriented -All Boundaries are Leaky Need to consider fault type

• Sources have styles of faulting and dips associated with them -Necessary to calculate the parameters Rx and Ztor

• Fault scaling relations. become important particularly for determining ztor -Calculate width based on scaling relations and determine >> If Ztor <0 then this realization is not considered in PSHA Subduction Model (72 branches) Backbone GMPE Back-arc {1.0) ? Magnitude Scaling + 0.2 (0.2) [6C1]med (0.6) [tiCl]med -0.2 (0.2) Scaling on An elastic Attenuation Term 0.5 05 ( 0.4) 05 ( 0.6) Implemented Within GMPE Epistemic Uncertainty in Median x1 .62 (0.2) x1.0 ( 0.6) x0.62 ( 0.2) Host-to-Target Vs Adjustment Factor* Vs factor-4 (0.335) Vs factor-3 (0.165) V5 factor-2 (0.335) V5 factor-1 (0.165)

Backbone Model

• Modification of BC Hydro Model.

• Broken into "'9 subcomponents

• Necessary inputs Frequency (f) Moment Magnitude (M) Focal Depth (Zh) for Interface events Depth within slab for lntraslab events Event type flag (Fevent)

• lnterplate

• lntraslab R

• Rupture for lnterplate

• Hypocentre for lntraslab

• Site correction term means that PGA callculation must be done for hypothetical case where V530=1,000 m/s Time consuming circular loop

• Requires calculating much of logic tree for IPGA at 1000 m/s prior to calculating SA at desired frequency.

Implementation in SSC

• Reads as if interplate are (semi)finite (Rrup)

• lntraplate are point(ish) sources (Rhyp)

• Logic tree is primarily <<3 lookup exercise

• Despite simpler form --more difficult to implement due to correction factors w/in backbone Sigma (6 branches) I Distribution I Sigma Model Normal High (0.2) (0.2) Central (0.6) Mixture Model {0.8) Low (0.2)

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

• Same tree used for both crustal and subduction -Normal Model Uses Table Lookup -Mixture Model Uses CcJnditional Probability and table lookup

• Need to call integration subroutine 6 times for one realization P(z ) 1-ffi ( z -/1) > z = WMixl Potential Sirr1plifications?

• All ruptures reach a specific depth_ (Ztor=constant)?.

• Ignore hanging wall effect*!>

• Constant Dip?

• Rrup=RJs=RHYP ?=Rx? -All could be implemented t::>n SSC side

• Full GMM logic tree is coded -Decide which, if any simplifications to apply later

• Need a definitive answer 01n the level of granularity necessary -Only interested in Median SA and sigma?

• Computationally cleaner Implementation So Far

• Fortran90 -need to consicler that most of Roland's codes are in C

• Models coded as indepenclent subroutines -With dependencies (mostlv lookup)

• Sigma developed as well -With dependencies

• Simple wrapper programs have been developed for testing -Comparisons to Chapter 9 in SSHAC report look reasonable

• No digital testing files for comparison

• only output is. and sigma. -Not individual branches Heeszel, David From:Heeszel, David Sent:26 May 2015 19:46:45 +0000 To:Seber, Dogan

Subject:

Columbia GMM without host to target uncertainty. Attachments:no_htu_yeskappa.pdf, no_htu_nokappa.pdf Attached are two pdfs containing plots for the Columbia GMM without the host to target uncertainty. nokappa does not contain the Vs-kappa correction, and yeskappa does. The faulting parameters and magnitudes are the same as the plots sent last week and the size of the dots corresponds to that branches relative weight in calculating the mean. There are nine branches for the nokappa realization and 63 for the yeskappa. The results. appear to be approximately 7% lower than for the case that includes the host-to-target uncertainty correction. --David David Heeszel Geophysicist U.S. NRC, NRO/DSEA/RGS2 Office: T-7E28 Mail Stop: T-7F3 Phone: 301-415-5066

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

....-0> -<( (j) fault2 0.001 o.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

<( (/) fault3 0.001 ........... -----0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

....-0> -<( (f) fault4 0.0001 -+----------+-----------------0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

....-0> -<( (f) fault5 0.01 o.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

....-0> -<( (f) fault6 0.01 o.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

....-0> -<( (f) fault? 0.01 o.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

....-0> -<( (f) fault8 0.01 o.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) fault1 10 1 0.1 . . . * * * * * *-*-. *

• t__ -*-.-***-*.-*-*-* 0.01

• 0.001 * * * ....-O> -0.0001 <( * (/) 1e-05

• 1e-06 1e-07 1e-08 1e-09 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) fault2 1 0.1 0.01 + * * * . 0.001 + ---O> + -<( 0.0001 (/) 1e-09 0.1 1 10 1e-08 100 Frequency (Hz) fault3 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 ....-O> -0.0001 <( Cf) 1e-05 1e-06 0.1 1 Frequency (Hz) fault4 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 ....-O> -0.0001 <( (f) 1e-05 1e-06 1e-07 1e-08 1e-09 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) faults 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 ..--O> -0.0001 <( Cf) 1e-05 1e-06 1e-07 1e-08 1e-09 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) fault6 10 1 0.1 ............................. 0.01 * * * ; . 0.001 ' ....-* O> ' -0.0001 <l: (f) 1e-05 1e-06 1e-07 1e-08 1e-09 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) fault? 10 1 0.1 ***;****: ................ . 0.01 + * * * * . 0.001 * * ---O> -0.0001 <( (/) 1e-05 1e-06 1e-07 1e-08 1e-09 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) fault8 10 1 -*--*-* -* ,_ . -:* -. _;, -; 0.1 ... ... 0.01 . . . *******:****; ................. . ' . : ; . . *

• 0.001 ....-O> -0.0001 <( (/) 1e-05 1e-06 1e-07 1e-08 1e-09 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

Information (pages 332/1000) is within scope of FOIA and should be released. Heeszel, David From:Heeszel, David Sent:25 Mar 2015 20:26:34 +0000 To:Munson, Clifford Cc:Ake, Jon;Jackson, Diane

Subject:

Columbia Ground Motion Model Hi Cliff, I've finished coding up the ground motion model for the Columbia SSHAC. I. can walk you through the program in about 20 min if your interested. Cheers,. David David Heeszel Geophysicist U.S. NRC, NRO/DSEA/RGS2 Office: T-7E28 Mail Stop: T-7F3 Phone: 301-415-5066 Sent:2 Apr 2015. 12:09:41 +0000 To:Munson, Clifford;Ake, Jon; Weaver, Thomas;Seber, Dogan;Li, Yong; Walsh, Lisa;Stovall, Scott Cc:'Miriam R. Juckett' Bcc:HQ-TWFN-07 A04-15p.

Subject:

Discussion of CGS GMPEs Attachments:Columbia Ground Motion Background.pptx We will go over the Columbia GMPEs and current implementation. Call in and presentation attached Bridge line phone number: 888-711-9770 Participant passcode1(b)(6) I Heeszel, David From:Heeszel, David Sent: 1Apr2015 12: 13:54 +0000 To:Walsh, Lisa

Subject:

RE: CGS GMPE Codes Hi Lisa, I'll be going through the logic tree approach and how I have currently implemented it. I imagine. that much of the discussion will be around simplifications that we can make that will help our review be more efficient. I would skim Chapter 9 of the report and (maybe) familiarize yourself with Appendix D2 .. I haven't given the code to Cliff or Dogan yet, so I don't want to put the cart before the horse in terms of handing them around. --David From: Walsh, Lisa Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 9:58 AM To: Heeszel, David

Subject:

CGS GMPE Codes Hi David, Dogan just mentioned that you are going to present the Columbia GMPEs and implementation along with the codes you have developed for confirmatory analysis on Thursday. He forwarded me the appointment and I plan to attend, but I just thought I would check in with you. I am planning on reading through the SSHAC report over the next few days. Would I be able to look at the codes you developed from the SSHAC report before the meeting (and/or would that be useful)? Lisa Lisa S. Walsh, Ph.D. Geophysicist, U.S. NRC NRO/DSEA/RGS1 T-7F15, 301-415-5612 PGA Weighted VS-kappa I I Log(SA) Frequency SA (code) Weight SA (Branch* Uncertainty B kb code) branch Branch ac one ---100 2.60E-01 3.44E-03 8.94E-04 1 1 -5.3100 100 1.72E-01 3.44E-03 5.92E-04 1 2 -5.3100 100 1.38E-01 3.44E-03 4.75E-04 1 3 -5.3100 100 3.25E-01 3.44E-03 1.12E-03 1 4 -5.3100 100 2.12E-01 2.75E-02 5.83E-03 1 5 -5.3100 100 1.81 E-01 3.44E-03 6.23E-04 1 6 -5.3100 100 3.32E-01 3.44E-03 1.14E-03 1 7 -5.3100 100 1.35E-01 3.44E-03 4.64E-04 1 8 -5.3100 100 2.47E-01 3.44E-03 8.50E-04 1 9 -5.3100 100 1.63E-01 8.50E-03 1.39E-03 2 1 -5.3100 100 1.08E-01 8.50E-03 9.18E-04 2 I 2 -5.3100 100 8.64E-02 8.50E-03 7.34E-04 2 I 3 -5.3100 100 2.04E-01 8.50E-03 1.73E-03 2 I 4 -5.3100 100 1.33E-01 6.SOE-02 9.04E-03 2 I 5 -5.3100 100 1.13E-01 8.50E-03 9.61 E-04 2 6 -5.3100 100 2.08E-01 8.50E-03 1.77E-03 2 I 7 -5.3100 100 8.46E-02 8.50E-03 7.19E-04 2 8 -5.3100 100 1.55E-01 8.50E-03 1.32E-03 2 9 -5.3100 100 8.14E-02 1.24E-02 1.01 E-03 3 I 1 -5.3100 100 5.37E-02 1.24E-02 6.66E-04 3 2 -5.3100 100 4.30E-02 1.24E-02 5.33E-04 3 3 -5.3100 100 1.02E-01 1.24E-02 1.26E-03 3 4 -5.3100 100 6.61 E-02 9.90E-02 6.54E-03 3 5 -5.3100 100 5.65E-02 1.24E-02 7.01 E-04 3 6 -5.3100 100 1.04E-01 1.24E-02 1.29E-03 3 7 -5.3100 100 4.21 E-02 1.24E-02 5.22E-04 3 8 -5.3100 100 7.73E-02 1.24E-02 9.59E-04 3 9 -5.3100 100 4.23E-02 1.39E-02 5.88E-04 4 1 -5.3100 ----------->-..... 1-----100 2.79E-02 1.39E-02 3.88E-04 4 2 -5.3100 100 2.23E-02 1.39E-02 3.1 OE-04 4 3 -5.3100 100 5.27E-02 1.39E-02 7.33E-04 4 4 -5.3100 100 3.43E-02 1.11E-01 3.81 E-03 4 5 -5.3100 ---100 2.94E-02 1.39E-02 4.09E-04 4 6 -5.3100 100 5.39E-02 1.39E-02 7.49E-04 4 7 -5.3100 100 2.19E-02 1.39E-02 3.04E-04 4 8 -5.3100 100 4.01 E-02 1.39E-02 5.57E-04 4 9 -5.3100 -100 1.46E-03 1.24E-02 1.81 E-05 5 1 -5.3100 100 9.62E-04 1.24E-02 1.19E-05 5 2 -5.3100 100 7.71 E-04 1.24E-02 9.56E-06 5 3 -5.3100 100 1.82E-03 1.24E-02 2.26E-05 5 4 -5.3100 100 1.18E-03 9.90E-02 1.17E-04 5 5 -5.3100 100 1.01 E-03 1.24E-02 1.25E-05 5 6 -5.3100 100 1.86E-03 1.24E-02 2.31 E-05 5 7 -5.3100 100 7.55E-04 1.24E-02 9.36E-06 5 8 -5.3100 100 1.38E-03 1.24E-02 1.71 E-05 5 I 9 -5.3100 100 7.57E-07 8.50E-03 6.43E-09 6 I 1 -5.3100 100 5.00E-07 8.50E-03 4.25E-09 6 I 2 -5.3100 100 4.00E-07 8.50E-03 3.40E-09 6 3 -5.3100 Pagel 100 100 100 100 100 100 --100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 9.45E-07 6.15E-07 5.26E-07 9.65E-07 3.92E-07 7.19E-07 -1.20E-13 7.90E-14 6.33E-14 1.49E-13 9.73E-14 8.32E-14 1.53E-13 6.20E-14 1.14E-13 8.50E-03 6.80E-02 8.50E-03 8.50E-03 8.50E-03 8.50E-03 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 2.75E-02 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 Weighted Mean SA PGA 8.03E-09 6 4 -5.3100 4.18E-08 6 5 -5.3100 4.47E-09 6 6 -5.3100 8.20E-09 6 7 -5.3100 3.33E-09 6 8 -5.3100 6.11 E-09 6 9 -5.3100 --4.13E-16 7 1 -5.3100 2.72E-16 7 2 -5.3100 2.18E-16 7 3 -5.3100 5.13E-16 7 4 -5.3100 2.68E-15 7 5 -5.3100 2.86E-16 7 6 -5.3100 5.26E-16 7 7 -5.3100 2.13E-16 7 8 -5.3100 3.92E-16 7 9 -5.3100 5.21E-02 Page2 PGA VS-Kappa Backbone Backbone SA *Vs SA*VSK + Uncertainty Backbone. Correction Correction kappa Correction J:!_ncertainty --0.340 0.4630 -1.8054 -1.3424 0.340 0.0471 -1.8054 -1.7583 0.340 -0.1740 -1.8054 -1.9794 0.340 0.6840 -1.8054 -1.1214 0.340 0.2550 -1.8054 -1.5504 0.340 0.0984 -1.8054 -1.7070 0.340 0.7050 -1.8054 -1.1004 0.340 -0.1950 -1.8054 -2.0004 0.340 0.4120 -1.8054 -1.3934 0.428 0.4630 -2.2727 -1.8097 0.428 0.0471 -2.2727 -2.2256 0.428 -0.1740 -2.2727 -2.4467 0.428 0.6840 -2.2727 -1.5887 0.428 0.2550 -2.2727 -2.0177 0.428 0.0984 -2.2727 -2.1743 0.428 0.7050 -2.2727 -1.5677 0.428 -0.1950 -2.2727 -2.4677 0.428 0.4120 -2.2727 -1.8607 0.560 0.4630 -2.9736 -2.5106 0.560 0.0471 -2.9736 -2.9265 0.560 -0.1740 -2.9736 -3.1476 0.560 0.6840 -2.9736 -2.2896 0.560 0.2550 -2.9736 -2.7186 0.560 0.0984 -2.9736 -2.8752 0.560 0.7050 -2.9736 -2.2686 0.560 -0.1950 -2.9736 -3.1686 0.560 0.4120 -2.9736 -2.5616 0.683 0.4630 -3.6267 -3.1637 ----1----0.683 0.0471 -3.6267 -3.5796 0.683 -0.1740 -3.6267 -3.8007 0.683 0.6840 -3.6267 -2.9427 0.683 0.2550 -3.6267 -3.3717 --0.683 0.0984 -3.6267 -3.5283 0.683 0.7050 -3.6267 -2.9217 0.683 -0.1950 -3.6267 -3.8217 0.683 0.4120 -3.6267 -3.2147 -----*-f-1.320 0.4630 -7.0092 -6.5462 1.320 0.0471 -7.0092 -6.9621 1.320 -0.1740 -7.0092 -7.1832 1.320 0.6840 -7.0092 -6.3252 1.320 0.2550 -7.0092 -6.7542 1.320 0.0984 -7.0092 -6.9108 1.320 0.7050 -7.0092 -6.3042 1.320 -0.1950 -7.0092 -7.2042 1.320 0.4120 -7.0092 -6.5972 2.740 0.4630 -14.5494 -14.0864 2.740 0.0471 -14.5494 -14.5023 2.740 -0.1740 -14.5494 -14.7234 Page 3 SA (Branch) 2.61 E-01 1.72E-01 1.38E-01 3.26E-01 2.12E-01 1.81 E-01 3.33E-01 1.35E-01 2.48E-01 1.64E-01 1.08E-01 8.66E-02 2.04E-01 1.33E-01 1.14E-01 2.09E-01 8.48E-02 1.56E-01 8.12E-02 5.36E-02 4.30E-02 1.01 E-01 6.60E-02 5.64E-02 1.03E-01 4.21 E-02 7.72E-02 4.23E-02 ----2.79E-02 2.24E-02 5.27E-02 3.43E-02 2.94E-02 5.38E-02 2.19E-02 4.02E-02 1.44E-03 9.47E-04 7.59E-04 1.79E-03 1.17E-03 9.97E-04 1.83E-03 7.43E-04 1.36E-03 7.63E-07 5.03E-07 4.03E-07 Weighted I SA 8.99E-04 5.93E-04 4.75E-04 1.12E-03 5.83E-03 6.24E-04 1.14E-03 4.65E-04 8.54E-04 1.39E-03 9.18E-04 7.36E-04 1.74E-03 9.04E-03 9.66E-04 1.77E-03 7.21 E-04 I 1.32E-03 1.01 E-03 6.64E-04 5.33E-04 I 1.26E-03 6.53E-03 6.99E-04 1.28E-03 5.22E-04 9.57E-04 5.88E-04 -3.88E-04 I 3.11 E-04 I 7.33E-04 I 3.81 E-03 4.08E-04 ] 7.48E-04 3.04E-04 5.58E-04 -1.78E-05 1.17E-05 9.41 E-06 2.22E-05 1.15E-04 1.24E-05 2.27E-05 9.22E-06 1 1.69E-05 6.48E-09 4.28E-09 3.43E-09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

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

-30.2139 t--30.2139 -30.2139 -30.2139 -30.2139 -30.2139 I I PGA -l E-07 -14.2944 6.19E-07 -14.4510 5.30E-07 -13.8444 _9.72E-07 -14.7444 3.95E-07 -14.1374 7.25E-07 -29.7509 1.20E-13 --30.1668 7.92E-14 .... -30.3879 6.35E-14 -29.5299 1.50E-13 -29.9589 9.75E-14 -30.1155 8.34E-14 -29.5089 1.53E-13 -30.4089 6.22E-14 -29.8019 1.14E-13 f.-8.09E-09 4.21E-08 4.50E-09 8.26E-09 3.36E-09 6.16E-09 4.13E-16 2.72E-16 2.18E-16 5.15E-16 2.68E-15 2.87E-16 5.26E-16 2.14E-16 3.92EOJ1j Weighted 5.21 E-02 Mean SA Page4 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 PGA 5.0000 0.0000 61 -Log(SA) Backbone -5.0000 -10.0000 +----------t-----20.0000 ------------1----25.0000 +------------*---30.0000 +-------------ii.,,.,._ -35.0000 .....__ ____________ _ l.OOE+OO l.OOE-02 l.OOE-04 1.00E-06 1.00E--08 l.OOE-10 l.OOE-12 l.OOE-14 Page5 -VS-Kappa Correction Backbone SA *Vs-kappa Correction -SA *vsK +.Backbone Uncertainty -SA (Branch) -Weighted SA (Branch)

PGA Page6 PGA Page 7 0.1 Hz Weighted VS-kappa Backbone Log(SA} VS-Kappa Frequency SA Weight SA Uncertainty (Branch} branch Branch Backbone Correction 0.1 2.80E-04 3.44E-03 9.63E-07 1 1 -1.11 E+01 8.54E-01 0.1 5.19E-05 3.44E-03 1.79E-07 1 2 -1.11E+01 8.54E-01 -------*--0.1 9.15E-05 3.44E-03 3.15E-07 1 3 -1.11 E+01 8.54E-01 0.1 1.59E-04 3.44E-03 5.47E-07 1 4 -1.11 E+01 8.54E-01 0.1 1.20E-04 2.75E-02 3.30E-06 1 5 -1.11E+01 8.54E-01 0.1 1.80E-04 3.44E-03 6.19E-07 1 6 -1.11E+01 8.54E-01 0.1 2.66E-04 3.44E-03 9.15E-07 1 7 -1.11 E+01 8.54E-01 0.1 5.47E-05 3.44E-03 1.88E-07 1 8 -1.11E+01 8.54E-01 0.1 8.06E-05 3.44E-03 2.77E-07 1 9 -1.11E+01 8.54E-01 0.1 2.47E-04 8.50E-03 2.10E-06 2 1 -1.11E+01 8.65E-01 0.1 4.58E-05 8.50E-03 3.89E-07 2 2 -1.11E+01 8.65E-01 0.1 8.08E-05 8.50E-03 6.87E-07 2 3 -1.11 E+01 8.65E-01 0.1 1.40E-04 8.50E-03 1.19E-06 2 4 -1.11 E+01 8.65E-01 0.1 1.06E-04 6.80E-02 7.21 E-06 2 5 -1.11E+01 8.65E-01 0.1 1.59E-04 8.50E-03 1.35E-06 2 6 -1.11 E+01 8.65E-01 0.1 2.35E-04 8.50E-03 2.00E-06 2 7 -1.11E+01 8.65E-01 0.1 4.83E-05 8.50E-03 4.11 E-07 2 8 -1.11E+01 8.65E-01 0.1 7.12E-05 8.50E-03 6.05E-07 2 9 -1.11 E+01 8.65E-01 0.1 2.20E-04 1.24E-02 2.73E-06 3 1 -1.11E+01 8.75E-01 0.1 4.08E-05 1.24E-02 5.06E-07 3 2 -1.11E+01 8.75E-01 -0.1 7.21 E-05 1.24E-02 8.94E-07 3 3 -1.11E+01 8.75E-01 0.1 1.25E-04 1.24E-02 1.55E-06 3 4 -1.11E+01 8.75E-01 0.1 9.49E-05 9.90E-02 9.40E-06 3 5 -1.11 E+01 8.75E-01 0.1 1.42E-04 1.24E-02 1.76E-06 3 6 -1.11E+01 8.75E-01 --1.24E-02 2.59E-o6 ----1.11E+01 8.75E-01 0.1 3 7 0.1 4.30E-05 1.24E-02 5.33E-07 3 8 -1.11E+01 8.75E-01 0.1 6.35E-05 1.24E-02 7.87E-07 3 9 -1.11E+01 8.75E-01 0.1 2.02E-04 1.39E-02 2.81 E-06 4 1 -1.11E+01 8.83E-01 --3.74E.:-05 5.20E-0-7 -----0.1 1.39E-02 4 2 -1.11E+01 8.83E-01 --0.1 6.61 E-05 1.39E-02 9.19E-07 4 3 -1.11E+01 8.83E-01 0.1 1.14E-04 1.39E-02 1.58E-06 4 4 -1.11E+01 8.83E-01 0.1 8.70E-05 1.11E-01 9.66E-06 4 5 -1.11E+01 8.83E-01 --1.39E-o2 ---0.1 1.30E-04 1.81 E-06 4 6 -1.11 E+01 8.83E-01 0.1 1.92E-04 1.39E-02 2.67E-06 4 7 -1.11E+01 8.83E-01 0.1 3.95E-05 1.39E-02 5.49E-07 4 8 -1.11 E+01 8.83E-01 -------0.1 5.82E-05 1.39E-02 8.09E-07 4 9 -1.11 E+01 8.83E-01 ------0.1 1.76E-04 1.24E-02 2.18E-06 5 1 -1.11 E+01 8.95E-01 0.1 3.27E-05 1.24E-02 4.05E-07 5 2 -1.11E+01 8.95E-01 0.1 5.76E-05 1.24E-02 7.14E-07 5 3 -1.11 E+01 8.95E-01 0.1 9.99E-05 1.24E-02 1.24E-06 5 4 -1.11 E+01 8.95E-01 0.1 7.59E-05 9.90E-02 7.51 E-06 5 5 -1.11E+01 8.95E-01 0.1 1.13E-04 1.24E-02 1.40E-06 5 6 -1.11E+01 8.95E-01 0.1 1.67E-04 1.24E-02 2.07E-06 5 7 -1.11E+01 8.95E-01 0.1 3.44E-05 1.24E-02 4.27E-07 5 8 -1.11E+01 8.95E-01 0.1 5.08E-05 1.24E-02 6.30E-07 5 9 -1.11E+01 8.95E-01 0.1 1.66E-04 8.50E-03 1.41 E-06 6 1 -1.11E+01 9.01 E-01 0.1 3.08E-05 8.50E-03 2.62E-07 6 2 -1.11 E+01 9.01 E-01 Page 8 0.1 5.43E-05 0.1 9.41 E-05 0.1 7.15E-05 0.1 1.07E-04 0.1 1.58E-04 0.1 3.24E-05 --0.1 4.79E-05 0.1 1.60E-04 0.1 2.97E-05 0.1 5.24E-05 0.1 9.07E-05 0.1 6.89E-05 0.1 1.03E-04 0.1 1.52E-04 0.1 3.13E-05 0.1 4.61 E-05 8.50E-03 8.SOE-03 6.80E-02 8.50E-03 8.SOE-03 8.SOE-03 8.SOE-03 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 2.75E-02 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 3.44E-03 Weighted Mean SA 4.62E-07 8.00E-07 4.86E-06 9ToE-07 1.34E-06 2.75E-07 4.07E-07 5.50E-07 1.02E-07 1.80E-07 3.12E-07 1.89E-06 3.54E-07 5.23E-07 1.08E-07 1.59E-07 9.67E-05 0.1 Hz 6 3 -1.11 E+01 9.01 E-01 6 4 -1.11E+01 9.01 E-01 6 5 -1.11 E+01 9.01 E-01 6 6 -1.11 E+01 9.01 E-01 6 7 -1.11 E+01 9.01 E-01 6 8 -1.11E+01 9.01 E-01 ----9.01 E-Of 6 9 -1.11 E+01 7 1 -1.11 E+01 9.04E-01 7 2 -1.11E+01 9.04E-01 7 3 -1.11E+01 9.04E-01 7 4 -1.11 E+01 9.04E-01 7 5 -1.11E+01 9.04E-01 7 6 -1.11E+01 9.04E-01 7 7 -1.11E+01 9.04E-01 7 8 -1.11E+01 9.04E-01 7 9 -1.11 E+01 9.04E-01 Page9 0.1 Hz Backbone Backbone SA*VSK + Uncertainty SA *Vs-Backbone SA (Branch) Weighted Correction kappa Uncertainty SA (Branch) Correction 1.32E+OO -9.4794 -8.1594 2.86E-04 9.84E-07 -3.69E-01 -9.4794 -9.8484 5.28E-05 1.82E-07 1 2 2.00 -----1.99E-01 -9.4794 -9.2804 9.32E-05 3.21 E-07 3 7.49E-01 -9.4794 -8.7304 1.62E-04 5.56E-07 4 0.00 4.74E-01 -9.4794 -9.0054 1.23E-04 3.38E-06 5 8.76E-01 -9.4794 -8.6034 1.83E-04 6.31 E-07 6 -2.00 1.26E+OO -9.4794 -8.2194 2.69E-04 9.27E-07 7 -3.16E-01 -9.4794 -9.7954 5.57E-05 1.92E-07 8 -4.00 7.25E-02 -9.4794 -9.4069 8.22E-05 2.83E-07 9 1.32E+OO -9.6015 -8.2815 2.53E-04 2.15E-06 10 -6.00 -3.69E-01 -9.6015 -9.9705 4.68E-05 3.97E-07 11 1.99E-01 -9.6015 -9.4025 8.25E-05 7.01 E-07 7.49E-01 -9.6015 -8.8525 1.43E-04 1.22E-06 12 -8.00 13 4.74E-01 -9.6015 -9.1275 1.09E-04 7.39E-06 8.76E-01 -9.6015 -8.7255 1.62E-04 1.38E-06 14 15 -10.00 1.26E+OO -9.6015 -8.3415 2.38E-04 2.03E-06 16 -3.16E-01 -9.6015 -9.9175 4.93E-05 4.19E-07 17 -12.00 7.25E-02 -9.6015 -9.5290 7.27E-05 6.18E-07 1.32E+OO -9.7125 -8.3925 2.27E-04 2.81 E-06 18 l.OOE 19 -3.69E-01 -9.7125 -10.0815 4.18E-05 5.19E-07 20 1.99E-01 -9.7125 -9.5135 7.38E-05 9.16E-07 21 1.00E 7.49E-01 -9.7125 -8.9635 1.28E-04 1.59E-06 22 4.74E-01 -9.7125 -9.2385 9.72E-05 9.63E-06 23 1.00E 8.76E-01 -9.7125 -8.8365 1.45E-04 1.80E-06 24 1.26E+oo -9.7125 -8.4525 2.13E-04 2.65E-06 25 1.00E -3.16E-01 -9.7125 -10.0285 4.41 E-05 5.47E-07 26 7.25E-02 -9.7125 -9.6400 6.51 E-05 8.07E-07 27 1.00E 1.32E+OO -9.8013 -8.4813 2.07E-04 2.88E-06 28 -3.69E-01 -9.8013 -10.1703 3.83E-05 5.32E-07 1.99E-01 -9.8013 -9.6023 6.76E-05 9.39E-07 29 l.OOE 30 7.49E-01 -9.8013 -9.0523 1.17E-04 1.63E-06 4.74E-01 -9.8013 -9.3273 8.90E-05 9.87E-06 31 l.OOE 32 -9.8013 -8.9253 1.33E-04 1.85E-06 33 1.26E+OO -9.8013 -8.5413 1.95E-04 2.71E-06 34 l.OOE -3.16E-01 -9.8013 -10.1173 4.04E-05 5.61 E-07 35 ----7.25E-02 -9.8013 -9.7288 5.95E-05 8.28E-07 36 ------1.32E+OO -9.9345 -8.6145 1.81 E-04 2.25E-06 37 -3.69E-01 -9.9345 -10.3035 3.35E-05 4.16E-07 38 1.99E-01 -9.9345 -9.7355 5.91 E-05 7.33E-07 39 7.49E-01 -9.9345 -9.1855 1.03E-04 1.27E-06 40 4.74E-01 -9.9345 -9.4605 7.79E-05 7.71E-06 41 8.76E-01 -9.9345 -9.0585 1.16E-04 1.44E-06 42 1.26E+OO -9.9345 -8.6745 1.71 E-04 2.12E-06 43 -3.16E-01 -9.9345 -10.2505 3.53E-05 4.38E-07 44 7.25E-02 -9.9345 -9.8620 5.21 E-05 6.46E-07 45 1.32E+OO -10.0011 -8.6811 1.70E-04 1.44E-06 46 -3.69E-01 -10.0011 -10.3701 3.14E-05 2.67E-07 47 Page 10 1.99E-01 7.49E-01 4.74E-01 8.76E-01 1.26E+OO -3.16E-01 7.25E-02 1.32E+OO -3.69E-01 i.-_1_.9:...:..9E-O 1 7.49E-01 f--4.74E-01 8.76E-01 1.26E+OO -3.16E-01 7.25E-02 0.1 Hz -10.001 _1 __ __ 5_.5_3_E_-0_5-+--10.0011 -9.2521 9.59E-05 -10.0011 -9.5271 7.29E-05 -10.0011 -10.0011 -10.0011 -10.0011 -10.0344 -10.0344 --10.0344 --10.0344 -10.0344 -10.0344 -10.0344 -10.0344 -10.0344 -9.1251 -8.7411 -10.3171 -9.9286 -8.7144 -10.4034 -9.8354 -9.2854 -9.5604 -9.1584 -8.7744 -10.3504 -9.9619 1.09E-04 1.60E-04 3.31 E-05 4.88E-05 1.64E-04 3.03E-05 5.35E-05 9.28E-05 7.05E-05 1.05E-04 1.55E-04 3.20E-05 4.72E-05 Weighted Mean SA I Page 11 4.70E-07 8.15E-07 4.95E-06 9.26E-07 1.36E-06 2.81 E-07 4.14E-07 5.65E-07 1.04E-07 1.84E-07 3.19E-07 --1.94E-06--3.62E-07 5.32E-07 1.10E-07 1.62E-07 9.90E-05 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 21 41 61 :+oo 21 41 61 :-01 :-02 :-03 :-04 :-os :-06 :-07 0.1 Hz -Log(SA) Backbone -VS-Kappa Correction -Backbone SA *Vs-kappa Correction -SA*VSK +Backbone Uncertainty -SA (Branch) -Weighted SA (Branch) Page 12 Sheet3 0.1 2.80E-04 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 1 0.1 5.19E-05 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 2 0.1 9.15E-05 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 3 0.1 1.59E-04 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 4 0.1 1.20E-04 2.75E-02 0.649E+OO 5 0.1 1.80E-04 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 6 0.1 2.66E-04 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 7 0.1 5.47E-05 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 8 0.1 8.06E-05 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 1 9 0.1 2.47E-04 8.SOE-03 0.649E+OO 2 1 0.1 4.58E-05 8.SOE-03 0.649E+OO 2 2 0.1 8.08E-05 8.SOE-03 0.649E+OO 2 3 0.1 1.40E-04 8.SOE-03 0.649E+OO 2 4 0.1 1.06E-04 6.80E-02 0.649E+OO 2 5 0.1 1.59E-04 8.SOE-03 0.649E+OO 2 6 0.1 2.35E-04 8.50E-03 0.649E+OO 2 7 0.1 4.83E-05 8.50E-03 0.649E+OO 2 8 0.1 7.12E-05 8.SOE-03 0.649E+OO 2 9 0.1 2.20E-04 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 3 1 0.1 4.08E-05 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 3 2 0.1 7.21 E-05 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 3 3 0.1 1.25E-04 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 3 4 0.1 9.49E-05 9.90E-02 0.649E+OO 3 5 0.1 1.42E-04 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 3 6 0.1 2.09E-04 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 3 7 0.1 4.30E-05 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 3 8 0.1 6.35E-05 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 3 9 0.1 2.02E-04 1.39E-02 0.649E+OO 4 1 0.1 3.74E-05 1.39E-02 0.649E+OO 4 2 0.1 6.61 E-05 1.39E-02 0.649E+OO 4 3 0.1 1.14E-04 1.39E-02 0.649E+OO 4 4 0.1 8.70E-05 1.11 E-01 0.649E+OO 4 5 0.1 1.30E-04 1.39E-02 0.649E+OO 4 6 0.1 1.92E-04 1.39E-02 0.649E+OO 4 7 0.1 3.95E-05 1.39E-02 0.649E+OO 4 8 0.1 5.82E-05 1.39E-02 0.649E+OO 4 9 0.1 1.76E-04 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 5 1 0.1 3.27E-05 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 5 2 0.1 5.76E-05 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 5 3 0.1 9.99E-05 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 5 4 0.1 7.59E-05 9.90E-02 0.649E+OO 5 5 0.1 1.13E-04 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 5 6 0.1 1.67E-04 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 5 7 0.1 3.44E-05 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 5 8 0.1 5.08E-05 1.24E-02 0.649E+OO 5 9 0.1 1.66E-04 8.SOE-03 0.649E+OO 6 1 0.1 3.08E-05 8.SOE-03 0.649E+OO 6 2 0.1 5.43E-05 8.SOE-03 0.649E+OO 6 3 0.1 9.41 E-05 8.50E-03 0.649E+OO 6 4 0.1 7.1 SE-05 6.80E-02 0.649E+OO 6 5 0.1 1.07E-04 8.50E-03 0.649E+OO 6 6 Page 13 Sheet3 0.1 1.58E-04 8.50E-03 0.649E+OO 6 7 0.1 3.24E-05 8.SOE-03 0.649E+OO 6 8 0.1 4.79E-05 8.SOE-03 0.649E+OO 6 9 0.1 1.60E-04 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 7 1 0.1 2.97E-05 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 7 2 0.1 5.24E-05 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 7 3 0.1 9.07E-05 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 7 4 0.1 6.89E-05 2. 75E-02 0.649E+OO 7 5 0.1 1.03E-04 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 7 6 0.1 1.52E-04 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 7 7 0.1 3.13E-05 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 7 8 0.1 4.61 E-05 3.44E-03 0.649E+OO 7 9 Page 14 Sheet3 1 2-0.111E+02 0.854E+OO 0.132E+01 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.854E+OO -0.369E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.854E+OO 0.199E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.854E+OO 0.749E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.854E+OO 0.474E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.854E+OO 0.876E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.854E+OO 0.126E+01 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.854E+OO -0.316E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.854E+OO 0.725E-01 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.865E+OO 0.132E+01 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.865E+OO -0.369E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.865E+OO 0.199E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.865E+OO 0.749E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.865E+OO 0.474E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.865E+OO 0.876E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.865E+OO 0.126E+01 1 2-0.111E+02 0.865E+OO -0.316E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.865E+OO 0.725E-01 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.875E+OO 0.132E+01 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.875E+OO -0.369E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.875E+OO 0.199E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.875E+OO 0.749E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.875E+OO 0.474E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.875E+OO 0.876E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.875E+OO 0.126E+01 1 2-0.111E+02 0.875E+OO -0.316E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.875E+OO 0.725E-01 1 2-0.111E+02 0.883E+OO 0.132E+01 1 2-0.111E+02 0.883E+OO -0.369E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.883E+OO 0.199E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.883E+OO 0.749E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.883E+OO 0.474E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.883E+OO 0.876E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.883E+OO 0.126E+01 1 2-0.111E+02 0.883E+OO -0.316E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.883E+OO 0.725E-01 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.895E+OO 0.132E+01 1 2-0.111E+02 0.895E+OO -0.369E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.895E+OO 0.199E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.895E+OO 0.749E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.895E+OO 0.474E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.895E+OO 0.876E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.895E+OO 0.126E+01 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.895E+OO -0.316E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.895E+OO 0.725E-01 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.901E+OO 0.132E+01 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.901E+OO -0.369E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.901E+OO 0.199E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.901E+OO 0.749E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.901E+OO 0.474E+OO 1 2-0.111E+02 0.901E+OO 0.876E+OO Page 15 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.901 E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.901 E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.901 E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.904E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.904E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.904E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.904E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.904E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.904E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.904E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.904E+OO 1 2-0.111 E+02 0.904E+OO Sheet3 0.126E+01 -0.316E+OO 0.725E-01 0.132E+01 -0.369E+OO 0.199E+OO 0.749E+OO 0.474E+OO 0.876E+OO 0.126E+01 -0.316E+OO 0.725E-01 Page 16 Heeszel, David From:Heeszel, David Sent:8 May 2015 15: 16:30 +0000 To:Weaver, Thomas

Subject:

RE: Columbia GMPEs and CMS Sure. From: Weaver, Thomas Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015.11:11 AM To:. Heeszel,. David

Subject:

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

Subject:

RE: Columbia GMPEs and CMS Hi Thomas, Sure. My schedule is pretty open, but I plan to be out on Friday. Perhaps before or after one of the WUS site meetings? --David From: Weaver, Thomas Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 11:01 AM To: Heeszel, David

Subject:

Columbia GMPEs and CMS Hi David, If. possible, I would like to work with you on developing some conditional mean spectra that we can use for Columbia Generating Station site response analyses. Let me know if you have some time next week when you are available to discuss. Regards, Thomas Heeszel, David From:Heeszel, David Sent:! May 2015 14:44:11 +0000 To:Seber, Dogan

Subject:

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

Subject:

Columbia GMPEs Hi. David, I need to make some comparisons of the Columbia GMPE models. against some of the NGA-West 2 models. Is your Columbia GMPE code, you mentioned a while back, ready to be used by others? I need to make simple comparisons such as g vs distance given M. Please let me. know if I can use. your code. for this. purpose. Thanks! Dogan Seber, PhD Senior Geophysicist Geosciences and Geotechnical Engineering Branch 1 Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis Office of New Reactors U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-0212 Heeszel, David From:Heeszel, David Sent: 1Apr2015 12:08:07 +0000 To:Walsh, Lisa

Subject:

RE: Discussion of CGS GMPEs Thanks, that was on my list for this morning. --David From: Walsh, Lisa Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 5:54 PM To: Heeszel, David; Munson, Clifford; Ake, Jon; Weaver, Thomas; Seber, Dogan; Li, Yong; jstam@swri.org

Subject:

RE: Discussion of CGS GMPEs Bridge line phone 711-9770 Participant <<Message: FW: Conference Details {APR 02, 2015--11:00 AM ET--Conf# 3279869) >> -----Original Appointment---From:. Heeszel,. David. Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 9:40 AM To: Heeszel, David; Walsh, Lisa; Munson, Clifford; Ake, Jon; Weaver, Thomas; Seber, Dogan; Li, Yong; jstam@swri.org

Subject:

FW: Discussion of CGS GMPEs When: Thursday, April 02, 2015 11:00 AM-12:00 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). Where: HQ-TWFN-07 A04-15p -----Original From:. Heeszel,. David . Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 9:11 AM To: Heeszel, David; Munson, Clifford; Ake, Jon; Weaver, Thomas; Seber, Dogan; Li, Yong

Subject:

Discussion of CGS GMPEs When: Thursday, April 02, 2015 11:00 AM-12:00 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). Where: HQ-TWFN-07 A04-1 Sp We will go over the Columbia GMPEs and current implementation.

Heeszel, David From:Heeszel, David Sent:2 Apr 2015 14:55:33 +0000 To: Devlin-Gill, Stephanie;Stieve, Alice;Munson, Clifford;Ake, Jon; Hill, Brittain Cc:Miriam R.Juckett(mjuckett@swri.org);John Stamatakos

Subject:

Palo Verde Catalog Attachments:PVNGS_independent_evenL_catalog.xlsx Attached is an excel version of the Palo Verde Catalog (Appendix E of the report). Events highlighted in gray can be linked to a specific fault. The other columns should be relatively self explanatory. --David David Heeszel Geophysicist U.S. NRC,. NRO/DSEA/RGS2 Office: T-7E28 Mail.Stop: T-7F3 Phone: 301-415-5066 Year Month Day Hour Min. Sec. lat. long. Depth 1852 11 29 20 0 0 32.5 -115 9.9 1856 9 21 7 30 0 33.1 -116.7 9.9 1870 3 11 10 20 0 34.55 -112.47 0 1870 8 12 0 0 0 34.55 -112.47 0 1871 2 7 15 8 2 34.1 -112.44 0 1872 5 3 1 0 0 33 -115 9.9 1875 1 21 19 45 0 33.65 -114.S 0 1875 11 2 9 0 0 32.38 -114.6 0 1875 11 15 22 30 0 32.5 -115.5 9.9 1880 12 19 23 35 0 34 -117 9.9 1885 9 13 12 34 0 33.3 -116.9 9.9 1887 5 30 14 0 0 31.71 -110.07 0 1887 11 11 0 0 0 32 -110.58 0 1888 7 25 0 0 0 31.71 -110.07 0 1888 11 25 0 0 0 32.22 -110.97 0 1889 2 7 5 20 0 34.1 -116.7 9.9 1890 2 9 12 6 0 33.4 -116.3 9.9 1891 4 26 20 0 0 35.18 -114.52 0 1891 7 30 14 10 0 32 -115 9.9 1892 2 2 0 30 0 35.19 -111.65 0 1892 2 24 7 20 0 32.55 -115.63 9.9 1893 6 5 6 40 0 31.71 -110.07 0 1894 10 23 23 3 0 32.8 -116.8 9.9 1899 9 20 0 0 0 35.19 -114.06 0 1899 10 6 23 30 0 31.71 -110.07 0 1899 12 25 12 25 0 33.8 -117 9.9 1903 1 24 5 0 0 31.5 -115 9.9 1906 1 25 13 32 30 35.540 -111.870 0 1906 4 19 0 30 0 32.9 -115.S 9.9 1910 4 11 7 57 0 33.5 -116.5 9.9 1910 9 24 4 5 0 35.690 -111.670 0 1912 8 18 21 12 0 35.320 -111.710 0 1913 12 6 0 15 0 35.25 -112.17 0 1915 6 23 3 59 0 32.8 -115.S 9.9 1915 6 27 8 30 0 33.4 -111.8 0 1915 11 21 0 13 0 32 -115 9.9 1916 3 30 5 20 0 31.34 -110.94 0 1916 9 30 2 11 0 33.2 -116.1 9.9 1917 5 28 6 6 0 32.8 -115.3 9.9 1918 4 20 8 45 0 35.19 -111.65 0 1918 4 21 22 32 0 33.8 -117 9.9 1918 5 1 4 32 0 32.6 -115.4 9.9 1919 5 23 11 5 0 35.19 -111.65 0 1919 10 1 19 30 0 32.6 -115 9.9 1920 1 1 2 35 0 33.2 -116.7 9.9 1921 4 6 21 7 0 34.9 -110.16 0 1921 9 8 19 24 0 32.4 -115.S 9.9 1922 6 16 21 1 0 32.7 -114.7 0 1922 6 17 23 42 0 33.38 -110.86 0 1923 9 28 0 0 0 35.19 -111.65 0 1923 9 30 18 27 0 34.2 -111.5 0 1923 11 7 23 57 0 32.5 -115.5 9.9 1926 4 3 20 8 0 34 -116 9.9 1927 1 1 8 16 0 32.5 -115.5 9.9 1927 2 11 3 40 0 31.54 -110.75 0 1928 10 2 19 1 0 33.6 -116.7 9.9 1929 9 26 20 0 22.7 34.83 -116.52 9.9 1930 1 16 0 24 0 34.2 -116.9 9.9 1930 2 26 2 30 0 33 -115.S 9.9 1930 7 16 19 0 0 34.2 -112.5 0 1931 4 17 12 38 0 34.53 -110.05 0 1931 7 28 8 35 0 34.7 -112 0 1932 3 23 0 20 6.5 35.795 -115.932 6 1932 5 20 20 22 49.84 34.995 -115.841 6 1932 6 27 10 7 21.22 31.53 -116.091 6 1933 11 27 0 0 0 34.42 -112.91 0 1933 11 28 20 10 55.89 35.697 -116.072 6 1934 1 11 7 15 0 31.91 -109.82 0 1934 3 12 0 0 0 35.1 -110.9 0 1934 4 13 10 55 11.69 35.123 -116.233 6 1934 5 14 13 14 0 31 -114.5 0 1934 11 25 8 18 29.19 31.501 -116.074 6 1934 12 25 12 20 0 36.95 -112.5 0 1934 12 31 18 45 43.92 32.18 -115.175 6 1935 1 1 1 12 43.43 31 -114 6 1935 1 1 8 50 0 36.05 -112.14 0 1935 1 2 7 30 0 32.67 -114.14 0 1935 1 9 0 58 44.08 33.486 -115.167 6 1935 10 24 14 48 7.51 34.106 -116.699 6 1935 11 4 3 55 54.71 33.507 -116.667 6 1935 12 5 21 25 0 36.95 -112.5 0 1935 12 20 7 45 31.86 32.811 -115.296 6 1936 1 12 0 0 0 36.05 -112.14 0 1936 1 30 17 13 53.26 32.842 -114.82 6 1936 2 25 6 30 0 35.19 -114.06 0 1936 9 9 2 48 6.89 34.889 -116.049 6 1936 10 13 20 39 54.87 35.374 -115.772 6 1937 2 27 1 29 17.57 31.78 *116.599 6 1937 3 25 16 49 2.18 33.4 -116.25 6 1937 4 8 12 0 0 35.71 -109.54 0 1937 7 20 22 49 0 35.33 -112.88 0 1937 7 21 23 55 0 33.46 -112.07 0 1937 11 12 1 38 58.31 35.913 -115.274 6 1937 12 4 0 54 47.73 35.5 -113 6 1937 12 17 23 30 0 35.19 -111.65 0 1938 6 6 2 42 41.93 32.273 -115.191 6 1938 7 21 15 34 23.02 34.616 -115.938 6 1938 7 24 3 5 0.41 33.45 -115.065 6 1938 8 18 7 39 44.47 34.818 -116.047 6 1938 9 17 17 20 18 33.2 -108.6 0 1938 9 18 23 30 0 32.72 -109.1 0 1938 9 18 23 45 0 32.27 -109.23 0 1938 9 24 18 0 0 32.62 -109.97 0 1938 9 29 23 32 0 33.05 -109.3 0 1938 12 28 22 7 12 33.05 -109.3 0 1939 3 9 13 30 0 36.1 -112.1 0 1939 3 22 19 16 33.16 34.641 -115.671 6 1939 5 4 20 44 0 35.97 -114.82 9.9 1939 6 4 1 19 12 32.75 -109.1 0 1939 6 4 5 0 0 33.05 -109.3 0 1940 5 5 9 38 27.41 35.456 -115.29 6 1940 5 18 5 3 59.66 34.089 -116.282 6 1940 5 19 4 36 40.5 32.844 -115.381 6 1940 5 19 18 6 0 32.67 -114.14 0 1940 6 4 10 35 8.12 32.966 -116.315 6 1940 6 4 23 33 0.33 33.096 -114.7 6 1940 7 7 18 42 55.8 31.454 -115.133 6 1940 10 16 13 25 0 35.19 -111.65 0 1940 12 7 22 16 27 31.667 -115.083 9.9 1940 12 7 22 17 0 31.069 -114.853 6 1941 3 21 0 0 0 35.9 -114.6 0 1941 5 21 16 25 0 35.9 -114.6 0 1941 9 3 21 25 0 36 -114.7 0 1942 1 8 2 42 0 35.19 -111.65 0 1942 3 3 1 3 25.85 34.001 -115.847 6 1942 3 31 0 29 30.33 35.545 -115.891 6 1942 5 23 15 47 33.78 32.995 -116.25 6 1942 9 9 5 15 0 36 -114.7 0 1942 11 9 20 34 25.57 34.858 -116.092 6 1943 7 1 16 19 16.01 35.807 -115.955 6 1943 8 18 0 30 15.14 35.781 -116 6 1943 8 29 3 45 14.31 34.268 -116.968 6 1943 12 21 9 0 0 35.19 -111.65 0 1943 12 22 15 50 28.6 34.37 -115.819 6 1944 1 31 4 24 58 36.9 -112.5 0 1944 6 12 11 16 35.81 34.002 -116.699 6 1944 9 30 0 54 8.88 36.106 *114.701 6 1944 10 28 4 1 35.77 31.163 -115.739 6 1945 1 7 22 25 32 36.5 -111.8 0 1945 3 20 21 55 7 34.25 -116.167 9.9 1945 3 31 18 50 45 31 -114 0 1945 4 22 9 45 48 31.5 -114 9.9 1945 4 22 22 14 0.12 32 -114.5 6 1945 5 11 23 32 55.69 30.884 -115.897 6 1945 5 12 7 33 0 31.6 -115.6 9.9 1945 8 15 17 56 18.39 33.082 -115.631 6 1946 6 4 12 5 26.66 33.986 -115.704 6 1946 7 18 14 27 57.99 34.502 -115.915 6 1946 9 28 7 19 10.42 33.935 -116.867 12.8 1946 11 26 22 49 0 36.1 -114 0 1947 4 6 8 10 54.29 31.5 -115 6 1947 4 10 15 58 5.11 34.983 -116.531 6 1947 4 10 17 29 27 34.967 -115.55 6 1947 5 14 21 45 31.77 34.75 -114.5 6 1947 6 21 8 9 37 32 -115.5 9.9 1947 7 24 22 10 46.82 33.994 -116.481 6 1947 10 27 4 15 40 35.75 -111.48 0 1948 1 24 2 57 0 36.1 -111.5 0 1948 8 8 23 20 0 36.8 -112.l 0 1948 12 3 18 45 0 35.03 -110.7 0 1948 12 4 23 43 16.41 33.983 -116.331 6 1949 3 3 5 59 34 31 -113 0 1949 5 2 11 25 46.9 34 -115.696 6 1949 5 3 21 10 19.9 34.566 -115.447 6 1949 6 26 1 35 24 32.1 -113.9 0 1949 11 4 20 42 38.77 32.127 -116.75 6 1950 1 17 0 53 0 35.71 -109.54 0 1950 2 2 10 37 24 32 -113 0 1950 2 3 15 51 50.28 30.5 -114.5 6 1950 7 29 14 36 31.93 33.088 -115.664 6 1950 9 5 19 19 56.77 33.726 -116.697 6.4 1951 1 24 7 16 52.62 32.622 -115.119 6 1951 2 15 10 48 0.22 33.482 -116.601 3.4 1951 3 5 23 0 0 36.95 -112.5 0 1951 4 12 6 20 10 32 -113 0 1952 2 8 8 59 5.5 36 -114.7 0 1952 5 24 4 15 12.84 36.156 -114.461 6 1952 5 25 13 6 36 36 -115 6 1952 10 22 19 46 36 32 -113.S 0 1953 5 18 7 3 1.57 36.022 -113.784 6 1953 6 14 4 17 26.7 32.892 -115.504 6 1953 6 14 4 30 1.76 33.567 -115.251 6 1953 10 8 20 19 46 34.66 -111.01 0 1953 10 10 18 49 6 31.8 -116.1 9.9 1954 2 1 4 31 48.85 32195 -114.352 6 1954 2 1 13 5 10.16 31.719 *114.011 6 1954 3 19 9 54 27.83 33.298 -116.081 6 1954 5 31 8 6 24 31.6 -115.2 9.9 1955 1 28 12 10 18.08 33.748 -115.327 6 1955 4 25 10 43 7.42 32.466 -114.989 6 1955 12 17 6 7 27.9 32.955 -115.472 6 1956 1 3 14 24 1 32.383 -116 9.9 1956 1 9 12 56 59.66 35.624 -115.865 6 1956 2 9 14 32 41.91 31.832 -116.231 6 1956 2 15 1 20 35.27 31.149 -115.485 6 1956 3 16 20 29 33.73 34.289 -116.775 2.7 1957 4 25 21 57 36.9 33.119 -115.681 6 1957 7 5 0 58 0 32 -114 9.9 1957 9 22 16 3 47.97 33.884 -114.92 6 1958 3 15 8 34 4 32.5 -113.5 9.9 1958 6 12 22 1 4.46 34.816 -116.025 6 1958 8 18 6 0 52 30.5 -114 0 1958 9 18 6 3 0 31.4 -109.85 0 1958 12 1 3 21 17.62 32.216 -115.754 6 1959 2 11 14 1 0 35.19 -111.65 0 1959 6 14 6 13 37.14 31.335 -116.093 6 1959 7 21 12 39 0 36.8 -112.37 0 1959 10 13 8 15 0 35.5 -111.5 0 1960 1 23 3 11 43.76 35.419 -116.288 6 1960 6 3 21 38 0.06 31.5 -114 6 1961 2 9 17 50 44.41 31.579 -115.478 6 1961 9 12 19 18 49.21 32.742 -115.57 6 1962 2 15 7 12 42.9 36.9 -112.4 26 1962 3 7 19 57 37.5 32.29 -109.77 0 1962 5 9 16 39 6.1 32.06 -110.32 0 1962 5 27 1 45 40.74 32.258 -115.769 6 1962 8 6 13 59 58.72 34.613 -115.753 6 1962 8 10 2 29 55.83 35.007 -115.649 6 1962 8 20 10 43 13.7 31 -114 6 1962 10 29 2 42 53.71 34.349 -116.866 6 1963 1 27 3 0 38.98 31.564 -115.834 6 1963 3 25 9 28 43.94 35.962 -114.861 6 1963 5 10 23 49 50.5 35.04 -113.82 0 1963 5 19 22 55 21.7 35.46 -114.21 0 1963 6 11 15 23 41.67 31.973 -116.252 6 1963 6 20 14 59 42.6 30.2 -114.1 14 1963 6 29 3 3 50 34.81 -114.54 0 1963 9 11 11 59 41 33.2 -110.7 33 1963 9 23 14 41 52.79 33.704 -116.938 10.7 1963 10 20 13 29 32.64 31.685 -115.387 6 1963 11 2 8 47 43 32.4 -113.7 14 1963 11 18 14 38 28.9 29.9 -113.6 14 1963 11 23 10 53 18.4 30.4 -113.5 14 1964 1 17 17 8 24.4 31 -114 6 1964 2 3 8 43 36 31.5 -114.2 9.9 1964 4 16 4 16 26.7 30.5 -114.4 33 1964 4 16 4 56 47 31.8 -113.7 9.9 1964 4 16 6 45 43.9 32.5 -113.2 33 1964 8 21 19 41 37.5 30.6 -113.8 15 1964 8 22 3 3 20.7 31.5 -114.3 15 1964 9 6 18 51 18.6 34.2 -114 15 1964 9 23 18 9 36.16 36.135 -114.657 6 1964 12 20 21 56 6.2 35.959 -114.655 6 1965 1 9 20 37 11.83 32.037 -114.549 6 1965 2 16 12 24 35.9 30.7 -113.2 33 1965 3 13 8 46 56.8 32.2 -111.4 0 1965 5 3 3 30 48.81 36.483 -114.382 6 1965 5 15 6 25 1.5 35.9 -114.8 5 1965 6 7 14 28 1.3 36.1 -112.2 15 1965 6 17 22 58 20.9 31.7 -113.3 10 1965 7 1 2 43 1.4 30.9 -113.7 33 1965 7 9 1 26 54.6 30.6 -113.5 33 1965 9 13 8 47 6.5 31 -114.4 33 1965 9 23 10 35 58.7 30.4 -113.7 33 1965 9 25 17 43 43.33 34.714 -116.432 6 1965 10 14 17 47 35.3 31 -113 33 1965 10 17 9 45 18.78 33.99 -116.761 13 1965 11 26 13 57 2.6 31.8 -112.7 33 1966 1 11 10 25 12.2 31.1 -114.3 33 1966 1 22 12 16 35.1 36.57 -111.99 0 1966 2 24 8 24 53.47 31.919 -114.619 6 1966 3 29 22 56 17.15 33.728 -115.363 6 1966 3 31 0 56 39.3 29.9 -111.8 33 1966 4 3 19 44 38 30.7 -113.7 33 1966 4 13 9 36 15.3 36.7 -112.9 0 1966 4 28 0 42 57.4 35.6 -113 20 1966 5 2 14 59 13.1 36.4 -112.5 0 1966 5 3 5 28 11.1 31.5 -113.8 33 1966 5 26 20 33 22.69 31.544 -115.72 6 1966 6 14 10 45 17.1 36.4 -113.3 0 1966 6 17 20 12 23.9 36.6 -113.5 0 1966 6 24 22 59 56.2 31.5 -114.1 33 1966 7 23 22 55 59.11 35.47 -114.595 6 1966 8 7 17 36 26.7 31.8 -114.S 9.9 1966 8 10 13 24 51.1 30.8 -114.5 33 1966 8 10 17 45 37.97 30.328 -114.561 6 1966 8 16 4 43 21.4 30.1 -113.7 11 1966 9 28 12 so 26.7 30.4 -113.9 33 1966 10 1 19 23 11 30 -114.2 32 1966 10 3 16 3 50.9 35.8 -111.6 34 1966 10 30 22 20 6.8 30.8 -113.S 30 1966 11 5 5 18 14.89 31.573 -115.615 6 1966 11 9 14 11 30.66 36.092 -115.065 6 1966 12 1 9 20 40.9 36.2 *113.9 26 1966 12 8 7 23 5.1 30.6 -114.2 14 1967 3 2 6 29 24.4 34.475 -110.964 14 1967 3 10 13 5 17.9 30.333 -114.486 33 1967 3 28 3 48 59.1 35.45 -111.73 5 1967 4 1 15 39 49.9 30.781 -114.03 33 1967 4 26 7 18 22.5 31.14 -114.547 33 1967 5 1 19 48 7.1 34.457 -112.864 26 1967 5 4 22 34 48.5 30.416 -114.403 33 1967 5 21 14 42 34.06 33.552 -116.632 8.4 1967 5 21 18 0 5.1 34.29 -110.57 11 1967 5 26 7 48 43 36.42 -111.56 11 1967 6 14 23 11 53.3 35.28 -112.24 28 1967 8 7 16 40 32.1 36.4 -112.6 0 1967 9 4 23 27 44.7 36.2 -111.7 0 1967 9 21 0 1 52.74 31.301 -115.826 6 1967 10 13 1 19 3.5 30.4 -113.7 33 1967 11 1 16 55 43.3 30.7 -113.4 33 1967 12 5 11 9 37.4 30.8 -114.1 33 1967 12 5 13 15 31.8 30.2 -114.2 33 1967 12 5 18 12 13.9 31.1 -113.S 33 1968 4 9 2 28 58.39 33.18 -116.103 10 1968 6 20 19 28 51 31.285 -113.529 33 1968 9 3 13 51 36.8 30.847 -113.57 33 1968 12 1 19 16 32.9 31.108 -113.083 33 1969 1 23 23 1 0.44 33.892 -116.049 6 1969 2 2 19 3 38.3 31.588 -113.451 33 1969 2 10 2 57 35.7 30.818 -112.691 33 1969 2 10 6 58 39.7 29.899 -112.95 33 1969 2 10 20 41 30.5 30.291 -112.669 33 1969 3 9 2 53 19.9 30.866 -114.22 33 1969 3 9 3 21 58.3 31.731 -113.89 33 1969 3 21 3 7 31.9 31.3 -114.7 9.9 1969 3 22 7 25 35.6 31.4 -114.1 9.9 1969 5 27 16 17 39.37 35.337 -116.046 6 1969 6 10 3 41 31.5 31.436 -116.301 6 1969 7 31 22 36 2.32 34.467 -114.974 6 1969 9 10 1 7 24.2 31.031 -113.632 33 1969 9 10 2 42 1.5 30.431 -113.843 33 1969 12 25 12 49 10.1 33.4 -110.6 15 1970 1 19 7 16 21 31.497 -115.974 10 1970 4 25 8 25 50.1 36.019 -114.734 5 1970 4 28 7 0 36.22 32.175 -114.676 6 1970 8 6 20 2 24.3 33.199 -115.033 7.6 1970 8 19 2 55 23.31 32.015 -114.525 6 1970 9 3 23 8 28.95 34.642 -115.817 6 1970 9 25 21 24 21.77 34.737 -115.93 6 1970 10 4 7 21 18.4 29.965 -113.887 33 1970 10 4 17 39 45.4 30.629 -113.645 33 1970 10 12 20 5 34.5 30.072 *113.384 33 1970 11 24 16 47 56 36.357 -112.273 6 1970 12 3 3 47 24.6 35.874 -111.906 5 1970 12 14 19 14 19.15 34.33 -115.706 6 1970 12 18 9 18 33.4 35.99 -114.771 7 1970 12 28 1 13 8.01 33.813 -115.228 6 1971 5 1 3 11 19.9 36.518 -113.375 5 1971 5 6 22 32 36.4 36.45 -114.467 5 1971 5 23 21 31 51.6 35.02 -113.89 0 1971 9 30 22 46 10.87 32.983 -115.804 6 1971 11 4 2 18 58.7 35.2 -112.2 5 1971 11 30 4 21 57.3 31.233 -115.393 8 1971 12 15 12 58 14.5 36.791 -111.824 5 1972 2 20 6 8 17.9 29.895 -113.532 33 1972 4 20 13 28 16.3 35.31 -111.64 5 1972 8 2 13 6 15.6 31.539 -114.425 33 1972 8 3 22 36 2.94 31.818 -114.586 6 1972 9 4 6 8 19.5 30.908 -113.186 33 1972 9 4 23 55 56 30.353 -113.277 33 1972 10 28 13 22 37.89 31.763 -114.508 6 1973 4 19 16 59 42.7 34.3 -112.62 0 1973 7 23 20 37 46.1 30.751 -113.468 33 1973 7 24 1 46 5.8 31.124 -113.33 33 1973 10 10 17 20 19.2 30.203 -113.287 33 1973 10 16 14 53 52.4 31.6 -115.833 8 1973 11 20 19 1 4.44 33.959 -115.495 8 1973 12 26 6 18 16.6 36.081 -114.639 5 1974 3 14 20 59 57.2 34.24 -112.7 0 1974 3 23 17 36 47 30.346 -113.833 33 1974 5 8 19 27 35.72 31.768 -114.562 6 1974 6 4 21 58 41.86 34.597 -112.901 6 1974 6 11 4 55 6.51 35.783 -115.645 6 1974 6 30 8 44 29.76 30.619 -114.451 6 1974 9 5 21 41 5.84 31.789 -114.031 6 1974 9 5 22 3 22.46 31.654 -114.629 1.51 1974 10 4 18 59 58.4 34.54 -113.02 17 1974 10 16 23 49 39.3 31.499 -114.468 8 1974 11 16 7 38 59.43 30.588 -113.814 6 1974 11 16 7 39 9.32 31.163 -114.364 8 1974 11 22 16 25 49.6 31.18 -115.241 33 1974 12 24 5 47 20.7 33.9 -111.9 4 1975 1 23 17 2 30.14 32.964 -115.508 13.9 1975 3 26 4 30 54.7 36.1 -115.7 11 1975 4 9 6 54 26.1 34.596 -113.135 6 1975 4 13 19 8 48.06 35.401 -116.438 13 1975 4 28 0 17 49.7 31.998 -114.792 10 1975 4 28 2 37 58.09 31.632 -114.268 6 1975 4 29 17 35 32.72 35.598 -116.297 6 1975 5 5 16 56 49.76 31.505 -114.622 6 1975 6 1 1 38 48.74 34.521 *116.481 9.9 1975 7 17 18 24 46.1 31.883 -115.807 10 1975 8 1 11 42 12.6 33.65 -116.75 5 1975 9 8 22 25 23.4 32.55 -114.33 0 1975 11 5 12 23 15.5 34.538 -115.808 5.2 1975 11 15 7 43 48.3 34.3 -116.33 5 1975 12 3 10 12 22.8 32.83 -108.663 27 1976 2 4 0 4 58 34.66 -112.5 10 1976 2 28 20 53 58.5 35.91 -111.79 5 1976 7 19 20 7 39 30.748 -113.502 33 1976 7 30 23 18 49.64 33.492 -113.245 6 1976 8 9 21 43 2.9 35.54 -111.68 5 1976 10 4 14 48 39 36.026 -114.735 5 1976 10 19 5 39 5.2 30.277 -112.96 33 1976 10 21 14 58 18 30.592 -113.204 33 1976 11 4 10 41 37.87 33.124 -115.61 11 1976 11 10 16 36 9.71 33.871 -113.702 3 1976 12 4 23 18 58.2 33.457 -114.478 6 1976 12 7 12 59 56.3 31.983 -114.783 8 1976 12 15 17 50 20.4 29.947 -113.364 33 1976 12 23 21 5 22.55 34.573 -114.372 0 1977 1 10 21 51 59.29 32.77 -114.711 6 1977 2 26 9 44 0.32 31.238 -113.899 6 1977 2 26 23 25 37.19 31.209 -114.212 6 1977 3 17 19 11 11.93 35.212 -112.925 0 1977 3 24 6 24 14.63 34.689 -115.717 0 1977 4 27 21 48 17.79 34.684 -113.724 3 1977 4 29 18 59 35.67 34.877 -113.067 6 1977 5 25 22 36 32.12 32.253 -112.643 8 1977 6 1 19 12 9.76 35.051 -113.52 0 1977 6 14 19 3 39.11 34.859 -113.01 0 1977 7 13 22 10 51.12 34.682 -112.934 0 1977 7 19 18 47 1.84 36.076 -114.463 6 1977 7 20 4 7 55.98 36.61 -114.635 6 1977 8 6 3 16 39.67 30.269 -113.603 6 1977 9 2 12 40 56.15 36.551 -113.779 0 1977 9 2 18 51 41.65 34.793 -113.479 0 1977 9 12 19 2 9.34 34.819 -113.138 0 1977 10 4 14 51 32.69 31.183 -114.097 6 1977 10 4 17 7 55.39 31.365 -114.413 6 1977 10 13 22 28 19.81 32.277 -112.522 0 1977 10 30 5 30 13.3 32.88 -115.5 4 1977 11 10 14 30 0 33.01 -113.35 0 1977 12 23 11 0 4.33 35.366 -113.978 0 1978 1 10 17 37 14.47 34.932 -113.186 0 1978 1 23 22 37 10.42 34.919 -113.336 0 1978 1 25 19 5 38.24 34.951 -113.055 0 1978 2 6 22 39 5.48 33.048 -113.946 21.2 1978 2 14 18 49 28.37 32147 -112.553 6 1978 2 14 20 49 23.03 34.304 *112.876 0 1978 2 17 10 13 43.24 35.834 -115.787 6 1978 3 14 23 43 11.52 32.011 -112.756 6 1978 3 29 21 56 49.44 34.602 -113.303 0 1978 4 4 2 14 10.2 30.275 -113.403 33 1978 4 5 18 42 17.23 32.136 -112.624 0 1978 5 5 21 3 15.8 32.211 -115.303 6 1978 7 10 21 40 17.6 30.704 -114.002 15 1978 7 17 14 46 13.14 35.538 -116.271 13.3 1978 9 23 14 28 41.09 36.431 -115.156 6 1978 10 21 3 19 1.96 31.341 -113.874 6 1978 11 17 23 28 12.52 31.972 -112.615 6 1978 11 29 14 37 40.3 30.177 -113.956 15 1978 12 10 13 35 8.48 36.102 -114.407 6 1979 1 6 22 32 13.39 35.439 -114.524 6 1979 1 22 18 7 1.45 34 -113 0 1979 3 15 20 50 33.46 34.805 -113.302 0 1979 3 15 21 7 16.53 34.327 -116.445 2.5 1979 4 7 16 20 17.27 32.202 -112.346 6 1979 4 15 2 59 56.21 31.393 -114.408 6 1979 6 24 22 26 19.93 31.805 -112.523 6 1979 7 3 3 52 48.29 32 -114.589 6 1979 7 3 10 48 6.38 31.472 -114.681 6 1979 8 9 9 3 10.21 32.105 -114.698 6 1979 8 31 7 51 38.21 32.3 -114.605 10 1979 10 7 7 45 3.37 32.096 -114.677 6 1979 10 15 23 16 53.44 32.614 -115.318 12.3 1979 10 21 19 46 58.18 32.019 -114.596 15 1979 11 14 21 9 9.79 31.348 -112.589 6 1979 11 21 16 50 5.08 36.907 -112.852 7 1980 1 8 1 21 24.36 32.237 -114.391 6 1980 2 13 16 58 50.13 31.127 -113.79 10 1980 2 22 13 12 41.3 31 -113 6 1980 2 25 10 47 38.41 33.475 -116.5 19.4 1980 3 18 11 29 47.81 31 -112.714 6 1980 3 18 12 25 35.3 30.169 -113.966 15 1980 3 18 12 50 27.1 30 -113 6 1980 3 28 22 11 50.07 36.379 -114.161 6 1980 4 29 18 25 10.11 36.927 -113.491 7 1980 5 15 9 14 12 31.23 -113.769 15 1980 6 1 8 40 27.5 35.391 -111.986 5 1980 6 10 22 40 25.04 32.296 -112.439 6 1980 7 14 11 46 12.6 36.5 -112.33 13 1980 7 27 4 21 32.64 31.048 -113.428 6 1980 8 7 12 38 46.34 35.514 -113.623 6 1980 8 29 8 57 55.2 30.211 -113.212 15 1980 9 1 11 34 55.7 31.176 -113.194 15 1980 9 18 8 55 34 31.299 -113.893 6 1980 10 29 14 53 35.5 29951 -114.072 15 1980 10 30 16 37 48.28 32.295 *112.463 6 1980 11 8 6 4 42.4 31.039 -113.686 15 1980 11 9 7 29 2.6 30.431 -113.789 15 1980 12 11 17 54 6.86 34.719 -113.403 6 1981 1 12 8 59 13.2 35.658 -113.469 5 1981 2 15 21 16 46.64 30.644 -113.937 6 1981 3 13 0 9 6.6 35.948 -114.799 2 1981 3 18 11 45 43.37 30.762 -113.81 6 1981 4 6 18 21 37.38 34.555 -113.1 0 1981 4 9 22 58 49.91 31.648 -112.714 6 1981 5 7 1 38 17.8 32.202 -108.898 5 1981 8 28 6 44 36.29 31.968 -113.587 6 1981 10 29 19 31 1.16 31.688 -113.254 10 1981 11 16 4 32 48.97 36.961 -112.527 0.85 1981 12 20 3 6 21.59 30.937 -113.914 10 1982 1 3 4 2 17.92 33.053 -114.826 6 1982 6 9 2 21 12.44 34.377 -115.732 2.8 1982 6 15 23 49 21.16 33.555 -116.667 11.6 1982 7 31 6 42 19.31 35.47 -116.298 6 1982 10 21 15 17 15.05 31.407 -114.374 6 1982 10 22 19 2 47.94 33.385 -114.523 6 1982 11 1 23 14 21.8 36.033 -114.375 5 1982 11 4 23 3 37.16 36.133 -115.072 6 1982 11 19 20 57 34.67 36.027 -112.006 5 1982 11 27 23 38 18.41 35.943 -114.317 6 1982 12 7 9 43 49.61 36.023 -114.826 5 1983 1 1 22 29 30.68 32.686 -114.06 6 1983 2 12 4 4 8.42 34 -114 6 1983 2 23 11 10 20.87 35.973 -114.711 5 1983 4 9 0 45 26.03 36.394 -114.758 6 1983 4 17 6 3 30.93 30.39 -114.048 10 1983 5 17 21 55 58.9 35 -114.5 0 1983 6 10 1 22 31.96 36.179 -114.071 6 1983 6 18 11 9 34.05 31.575 -114.74 0.5 1983 7 14 18 59 22.82 34.62 -113.15 0 1983 7 19 18 43 23.02 31.3 -114.559 6 1983 7 23 12 48 7.3 30.856 -113.814 10 1983 8 31 8 10 8.74 36.135 -112.037 5 1983 11 3 18 26 23.56 36.483 -114.56 5 1983 12 3 21 1 10.61 32.322 -113.782 6 1984 2 11 19 30 1 35.93 -115.81 6 1984 3 7 3 32 36.68 34.569 -115.917 6 1984 4 3 14 34 32.52 36.132 -114.804 6 1984 4 22 9 49 56.38 31.787 -114.007 6 1984 4 22 10 41 10.95 35.488 -116.295 6 1984 5 5 21 56 47.3 36.1 -115.69 6 1984 6 20 13 37 18.31 36.049 -114.801 6 1984 6 30 3 30 2.59 30.074 -114.123 10 1984 7 5 1 12 28.45 31.52 -114.39 6 1984 7 7 18 14 59.06 32.462 *114.008 6 1984 7 18 14 29 31.82 36.216 -111.844 5 1984 9 5 12 37 5.03 31.078 -113.746 10 1984 9 6 20 34 25.49 30.614 -113.966 10 1984 9 22 17 59 55.04 32.435 -113.978 0 1984 12 4 20 53 8.62 36.042 -115.089 6 1985 1 21 4 18 15.98 35.917 -115.753 6 1985 1 29 5 37 54 35.3 -111.4 0 1985 1 30 13 47 16.42 34.75 -112.137 5 1985 3 30 18 34 57.57 32.466 -113.878 6 1985 5 8 23 40 21.75 31.942 -115.873 18.4 1985 7 6 10 34 44.2 31.108 -114.277 6 1985 7 6 11 11 31.85 32.288 -114.714 6 1985 7 16 17 57 50.9 34.54 -116.84 9.9 1985 7 23 20 16 44.91 36.01 -114.638 6 1985 8 7 21 28 44.28 35.491 -116.271 6 1985 10 4 8 3 44.97 35.898 -115.173 6 1985 10 11 0 16 26.48 35.657 -116.224 6 1985 11 16 12 6 48.31 36.088 -114.653 5 1986 1 19 19 35 0.1 32.55 -114.1 0 1986 3 24 17 29 57.34 32.446 -113.893 6 1986 4 27 16 14 29.1 30.518 -113.885 10 1986 7 8 9 20 44.35 34.007 -116.607 10.8 1986 8 6 5 31 7.9 36.8 -112.345 0.06 1986 8 22 14 43 58.55 36.245 -114.359 13.05 1987 1 26 12 44 27.72 35.854 -115.031 5 1987 2 7 3 45 14.5 32.373 -115.307 10.3 1987 2 25 13 52 27.2 31.45 -114.72 6 1987 3 15 19 25 38.66 31.355 -113.006 5 1987 4 15 7 16 10.8 34.64 -111.21 10 1987 6 21 9 44 7.2 30.88 -113.88 6 1987 9 9 4 20 10.3 31.48 -114.31 6 1987 9 20 0 0 0 36.17 -113.16 0 1987 9 20 11 24 33.02 34.853 -113.732 5 1987 10 1 20 20 8.1 36.423 -114.656 29.07 1987 11 16 5 52 43.36 30.049 -114.405 10 1987 11 17 23 44 24.91 30.641 -114.559 12 1987 11 24 13 15 56.29 33.014 -115.834 5.5 1988 1 25 13 17 12.31 31.834 -115.865 6 1988 2 12 5 23 56.47 30.105 -113.896 10 1988 2 14 7 39 49 35.59 -111.63 13 1988 2 23 0 48 25.3 35.912 -114.947 5 1988 4 20 9 59 1.01 30.538 -114.139 8 1988 4 28 6 16 7.85 35.585 -116.288 6 1988 5 4 18 53 33.54 35.974 -114.995 0 1988 5 22 19 22 45.77 36.925 -112.995 0.31 1988 5 28 10 51 13.97 35.933 -114.896 5 1988 7 4 10 56 54.54 35.918 -114.916 5 1988 7 15 0 38 9.59 36.374 -110.448 5 1988 9 7 1 17 40 36.01 *112.14 12 1988 9 10 20 59 3.86 34.249 -115.705 6 1988 12 16 5 53 4.77 33.986 -116.683 8.7 1988 12 29 18 18 57.4 36.896 -112.952 1.37 1988 12 30 19 55 55.09 35.983 -114.8 5 1989 1 9 5 8 8.46 36.3 -115.1 7 1989 2 1 0 32 40.37 35.775 -115.419 6 1989 2 4 12 26 58.08 36.788 -112.954 0.89 1989 2 5 21 51 12.79 32.494 -114.626 1 1989 2 7 1 48 12.03 32.167 -114.534 6 1989 3 5 0 40 30.84 35.952 -112.257 5 1989 3 12 6 30 19.49 36.976 -112.907 3.96 1989 4 6 16 10 4.09 36.046 -114.661 5 1989 4 18 10 45 47.66 34.669 -110.925 5 1989 6 21 19 42 23.38 30.959 -114.126 11.86 1989 6 22 21 6 1.84 30.395 -114.262 10 1989 7 17 20 10 22.25 34.038 -110.946 5 1989 8 2 20 59 9.39 35.627 -116.265 6 1989 8 24 22 44 10.92 35.62 -115.644 6 1989 9 6 12 36 55 34.87 -110.99 20 1989 9 6 18 26 52 36.03 -112.37 10 1989 9 19 9 46 0.79 36.663 -112.407 5 1989 9 21 9 33 58.95 33.57 -114.458 6 1989 10 29 9 8 30 35.886 -114.862 5 1989 11 12 0 14 39.69 30.871 -114.015 10 1989 11 28 18 37 32 36.1 -112.2 10 1990 1 13 5 47 33.52 30.222 -114.44 10 1990 1 27 6 28 52.07 30.121 -113.73 10 1990 6 14 23 28 48.92 31.566 -114.483 5.74 1990 7 23 6 51 11.47 30.248 -114.458 10 1990 8 14 15 7 2.76 32.07 -113.124 5 1990 10 14 6 17 2.8 30.618 -114.51 8 1990 10 17 11 48 23.5 36.53 -111.13 3 1990 11 11 12 32 16.83 30.768 -114.52 3 1991 2 18 12 51 21.78 30.973 -113.258 10 1991 2 20 0 56 55.72 29.874 -113.592 10 1991 4 26 13 8 20.64 36.627 -112.345 10 1991 4 29 13 4 37.35 32.088 -114.664 6 1991 7 4 7 51 22.5 30.151 -113.598 10 1991 7 4 11 20 30.56 30.446 -113.857 10 1991 8 22 15 7 13.55 30.777 -114.722 5 1991 8 22 16 41 1 36 -112.13 2 1991 9 10 4 21 4.31 30.46 -114.367 7 1991 11 13 21 37 27.03 34.644 -112.36 5 1991 12 3 17 54 35.81 31.703 -115.91 5 1991 12 25 8 44 14.93 30.551 -114.184 11.77 1991 12 25 20 30 7.88 31.288 -114.039 15.93 1992 1 23 7 55 28.79 35.625 -116.277 6 1992 2 17 5 43 40.54 30.808 -113.314 6 1992 2 24 17 15 20.79 35.953 *112.221 5 1992 3 6 16 19 0.88 36.553 -114.883 6 1992 3 13 11 20 2.87 35.516 -113.584 6 1992 3 14 5 13 31.64 35.96 -112.355 5 1992 3 15 0 17 47.16 30.82 -114.677 8 1992 4 6 11 25 1.93 31.062 -114.009 6 1992 4 7 0 39 9.19 35.447 -113.226 5 1992 5 6 1 41 1.27 36.346 -112.043 5 1992 5 20 21 46 5.2 36.02 -112.17 9 1992 5 26 6 0 15.2 31.691 -114.272 6 1992 5 26 6 24 23.95 30.207 -114.294 6 1992 5 27 10 56 54.31 30.837 -114.657 8 1992 6 28 11 57 33.98 34.203 *116.431 2.8 1992 7 5 18 17 29.97 35.982 -112.219 5 1992 7 13 9 56 13.16 35.345 -114.654 18 1992 8 28 10 14 44.51 36.057 -114.938 3.87 1992 8 30 1 17 45.02 30.144 *114.195 10 1992 9 20 4 44 24.5 30.607 -114.377 8 1992 10 18 4 52 47.01 30.801 -114.661 7.77 1992 12 4 18 15 54.73 36.444 -114.021 5 1992 12 7 9 4 53.49 30.586 -114.216 15.99 1992 12 10 19 15 42.64 31.875 -114.718 8 1992 12 20 3 12 56.79 30.902 -114.208 1.63 1993 1 21 20 42 53.89 36.384 -114.97 6 1993 2 4 6 18 18.06 35.964 -112.225 5 1993 2 4 11 4 25.21 36.08 -115.045 10.23 1993 3 7 8 53 27.95 31.164 -114.242 10 1993 3 19 21 1 46.28 36.398 -114.828 0 1993 4 1 18 34 13.87 36.383 -114.704 13.16 1993 4 15 1 24 58.96 31.376 -114.297 17.28 1993 4 29 8 21 0.81 35.611 -112.112 10 1993 5 2 11 5 1.57 30.485 -114.043 3.03 1993 5 12 7 23 56.11 36.203 -113 5 1993 5 12 7 24 4.1 36.203 -114.013 5 1993 6 13 12 9 33.48 31.482 -114.411 20.03 1993 6 27 13 20 9.5 36.73 -113.03 10 1993 7 8 2 5 20.94 30.25 -114.174 8 1993 7 9 11 25 6.99 31.387 -114.36 15.83 1993 7 12 3 37 47.2 36.75 -113.01 10 1993 7 18 11 37 35.4 34.77 -111.04 10 1993 8 16 14 9 49.68 30.718 -112.858 6 1993 8 16 14 10 7.12 31.352 -114.332 14.86 1993 9 5 13 36 9.59 30.261 -114.729 10 1993 9 8 1 1 44.07 35.951 -115.711 6 1993 10 18 11 54 54.7 36.74 -113 10 1993 11 3 12 14 27.31 35.925 -115.72 6 1993 11 25 2 46 35.31 35.833 -115.781 0 1994 2 3 12 47 17.13 31.793 -114.68 14.38 1994 2 20 15 42 56.71 30.576 *114.053 8 1994 2 25 19 16 10.78 31.458 -114.385 15.57 1994 3 23 2 59 16.17 31.806 -116.128 22.5 1994 3 25 6 41 49.2 36.14 *112.2 10 1994 4 1 17 17 33.86 34.936 *112.707 5 1994 4 24 8 41 33.7 36.71 -113.04 10 1994 5 19 6 0 43.86 30.45 *114.017 8.39 1994 6 17 13 43 10.12 30.658 -114.542 1.35 1994 7 4 7 2 15.05 31.655 -113.48 10 1994 7 17 23 41 37.41 30.573 -114.349 3.82 1994 7 21 13 51 23.74 30.174 -114.524 20.15 1994 8 8 21 17 8.37 30.511 -114.373 35.09 1994 9 4 16 43 22.35 30.195 -114.556 30.72 1994 9 19 3 53 8.76 31.519 -114.438 36.7 1994 9 29 11 21 24.58 35.464 -111.992 5 1994 10 3 14 0 48.63 32.066 -114.948 10 1994 10 29 22 27 52.19 36.081 -114.119 5 1994 11 25 8 17 26.41 31.497 -114.421 15.89 1994 11 27 11 10 53.46 36.332 -113.597 5 1994 12 13 18 42 59.73 30.593 -113.878 31.77 1994 12 23 4 9 58.41 30.209 -114.638 10.59 1995 1 1 14 59 43.41 36.047 -114.827 4.42 1995 1 11 4 51 27.06 32.43 -115.23 12 1995 2 6 14 28 21.2 35.07 -111.63 10 1995 3 7 21 56 14.9 36.78 -113.01 10 1995 3 7 22 33 19.36 36.602 -113.418 5 1995 3 21 9 43 21.12 30.404 -114.145 13.83 1995 3 26 14 32 6.41 31.265 -114.351 35.21 1995 4 16 8 23 45.7 36.05 -112.16 10 1995 5 7 11 3 32.85 33.911 -116.285 10.5 1995 6 12 18 51 58.66 32.085 -114.61 19.66 1995 6 17 19 42 56.93 31.454 -114.337 14.47 1995 6 20 16 21 16.09 36.391 -114.525 0 1995 8 2 18 24 27.32 30.513 -113.818 13.2 1995 8 2 18 26 58.46 30.912 -114.23 8 1995 8 2 18 32 11.7 30.318 -114.214 32.87 1995 9 22 2 42 55.8 36.137 -114.16 2.56 1995 10 26 4 4 37.03 30.593 -113.854 8 1995 11 1 18 54 37.58 31.029 -113.903 11.72 1995 12 6 3 27 31.89 31.515 -114.388 15.57 1995 12 27 22 25 13.26 36.196 -114.48 5 1996 1 2 1 44 48.86 30.767 -114.414 10.47 1996 1 31 22 59 56.24 35.919 -114.679 5 1996 2 8 22 58 26.72 30.883 -114.187 3 1996 2 15 22 41 37.87 36.793 -113.973 0.14 1996 3 13 5 43 53.25 36.917 -112.423 1.13 1996 3 15 9 17 33.71 30.811 -114.197 2 1996 3 31 22 43 13.68 32.034 -113.032 6 1996 4 26 4 4 1.1 36.54 -112.37 10 1996 5 1 23 10 54.32 31.286 -114.406 10 1996 5 1 23 13 3.46 30.98 -114.277 13 1996 6 6 2 30 36.97 30.207 -114.598 9 1996 6 14 19 23 0.48 32.051 -114.709 6 1996 9 12 21 19 13.74 36.833 -113.763 7.31 1996 10 8 4 13 19.26 31.018 -113.097 4 1996 10 22 4 15 12.33 36.17 -115.166 6.52 1996 11 17 2 37 53.82 35.746 -115.75 0 1997 1 22 1 5 54.4 36.76 -113.03 3 1997 2 2 2 26 0.01 30.251 -114.316 10.79 1997 2 5 8 23 5.58 30.435 -114.654 10 1997 2 5 10 21 36.95 30.596 -114.326 10 1997 2 9 16 15 24.9 34.77 -111.06 10 1997 3 31 7 34 48.91 35.534 -111.993 5 1997 4 22 0 44 29.13 30.419 -113.989 13.01 1997 4 29 20 4 49.94 30.118 -114.276 15 1997 5 28 4 26 20.1 36.73 -113.05 10 1997 6 8 14 29 59.7 36.09 -112.28 10 1997 6 19 11 21 49.53 31.246 -115.491 6 1997 7 3 0 24 0.48 36.078 -114.772 0 1997 7 9 19 29 19.6 36.79 -112.98 10 1997 7 10 10 34 42.1 36.44 -112.42 10 1997 7 19 9 59 22.9 34.52 -112.86 10 1997 7 19 11 43 57.7 36.082 -114.622 5.88 1997 7 26 3 14 55.75 33.402 -116.348 11.6 1997 7 31 7 30 1.2 36.7 -113.01 10 1997 8 26 6 52 20 36.2 -111.88 10 1997 10 15 11 7 49.6 36.74 -112.98 10 1997 12 20 2 5 52.2 36.341 -115.253 8.93 1998 1 5 5 23 48.5 35.54 -112.07 10 1998 1 6 8 36 46.63 34.916 -110.495 5 1998 1 16 8 35 30.6 36.5 -112.4 10 1998 2 3 6 26 31.64 30.868 -114.09 8 1998 2 18 14 29 32.65 31.854 -115.771 6 1998 2 22 10 15 9.4 36.49 -112.38 10 1998 2 24 11 31 48.78 31.235 -115.601 12 1998 4 8 12 2 57.16 30.372 -114.483 9.52 1998 4 13 14 31 11.5 34.26 -110.12 10 1998 4 24 1 27 8.54 31.756 -114.263 10 1998 5 15 12 48 16.1 36.71 -113.01 10 1998 6 8 18 49 2.98 31.968 -114.546 8 1998 6 15 12 56 13.44 31.329 -114.247 2.03 1998 8 22 23 20 28.78 36.281 -113.984 5 1998 10 18 7 13 10.65 36.033 -111.091 5 1998 10 27 1 8 40.33 34.321 -116.842 6 1998 10 31 22 38 6.26 30.443 -114.491 8 1998 11 6 17 15 3.24 31.552 -114.722 6 1998 11 8 0 24 18.21 36.216 -112.47 5 1998 11 17 0 6 27.41 36.8 -114.08 1.49 1998 12 7 20 32 45.29 36.793 -114.053 0.45 1998 12 14 21 40 37.47 36.293 *115.32 5 1999 1 5 23 24 0.32 36.822 -114.026 1.19 1999 2 10 5 9 46.65 36.551 -113.518 5 1999 2 11 6 37 36.16 35.634 -111.575 5 1999 2 24 21 9 52 35.81 -113.3 0 1999 3 2 19 8 22.28 36.458 -114.515 5 1999 3 17 18 29 43.68 30.338 -113.931 10 1999 3 17 20 4 59.32 30.393 -114.505 3.37 1999 3 29 6 47 38.19 30.503 -113.466 10 1999 3 30 21 41 13.12 36.814 -114.043 1.34 1999 5 5 19 4 40.85 36.794 -114.063 1.35 1999 5 14 7 54 2.98 34.066 -116.369 2.3 1999 6 1 12 40 5.01 35.904 -115.79 6 1999 6 1 15 18 2.46 32.411 -115.226 3.3 1999 6 11 8 57 25.62 31.725 -114.558 29.99 1999 8 2 17 59 58.73 36.02 -114.947 6 1999 8 3 9 37 25.08 31.322 -114.301 6.21 1999 8 24 13 4 7.39 31.986 -114.692 6 1999 9 10 7 6 2.72 31.379 -114.334 6 1999 10 1 18 38 23.82 31.681 -114.043 13 1999 10 8 21 26 41 33.28 -114.68 6.1 1999 10 8 21 34 14 33.03 -114.75 5.7 1999 10 16 9 46 43.96 34.596 -116.269 1.2 1999 10 16 9 47 43.59 33.23 -115.654 6.7 1999 10 16 17 15 9.17 30.751 -110.749 5 1999 11 29 15 14 49.12 30.13 -114.399 5 1999 12 6 14 20 3.26 35.049 -111.469 5 1999 12 7 19 25 21.68 36.852 -113.962 1.31 2000 2 22 3 31 37.8 35.77 -113.16 0 2000 3 28 4 45 20.49 36.512 -113.51 5 2000 4 12 15 57 0 36.24 -112.33 14 2000 5 2 6 45 45 32.111 -115.119 5 2000 5 4 6 48 0 36.09 -111.51 12 2000 5 4 7 42 15.98 36.632 -113.055 5 2000 6 2 17 51 14.27 31.113 -114.338 5 2000 6 12 18 13 22.49 30.464 -113.993 2.53 2000 6 23 20 10 42.73 35.509 -116.264 6 2000 8 8 3 18 2.42 30.75 -114.138 13.83 2000 8 8 3 18 9.32 32.448 -113.474 5 2000 8 25 15 23 16.96 29.932 -113.392 10 2000 10 31 21 56 39.69 36.456 -114.307 0 2000 12 1 0 1 9.1 36.051 -114.98 6 2001 1 16 7 26 35.21 30.391 -113.852 0.31 2001 1 17 1 26 32.85 31.812 -114.705 6 2001 1 17 4 13 3.67 32.448 -113.719 6 2001 1 17 9 33 27.88 31.867 -114.316 19.95 2001 2 4 3 29 2.65 36.143 -115.346 0 2001 5 17 10 15 32.31 30.807 -114.027 9.84 2001 7 12 20 9 1.7 31.392 -114.358 15.52 2001 9 9 6 30 30.1 30.224 *114.61 7 2001 10 23 7 19 42.4 31.697 -114.703 5 2001 10 31 7 56 16.36 33.511 -116.502 15.6 2001 11 28 16 24 0.74 30.331 -113.547 10 2001 12 6 12 58 16.03 30.639 -114.436 4 2001 12 8 23 36 10.14 32.059 -115.036 0.6 2002 2 11 23 34 24.91 30.565 -113.889 13 2002 3 3 0 9 0.64 35.422 -116.454 6.8 2002 3 3 15 20 56.14 35.618 -116.251 7 2002 3 27 11 18 5.92 30.216 -114.011 10 2002 4 15 6 53 20.5 36.79 -112.46 15 2002 5 25 0 5 17.71 35.589 -116.31 7 2002 7 7 5 37 38.98 36.486 -113.55 5 2002 8 30 5 16 12.98 31.863 -114.265 5 2002 9 13 11 42 17.29 30.216 -114.573 15 2002 10 29 14 16 54.08 34.803 -116.266 4.6 2002 12 10 21 4 0.5 32.25 -115.788 10.9 2003 1 11 15 40 37.1 31.248 -114.238 5 2003 2 7 10 34 4.83 31.628 -115.511 7.6 2003 2 22 12 19 10.53 34.31 -116.846 3.6 2003 3 17 6 28 41.3 31.851 -114.654 6 2003 3 25 21 11 34.89 36.766 -112.982 4.68 2003 6 8 19 14 48 31.92 -114.427 8 2003 6 11 0 56 15 31.917 -114.724 5 2003 8 10 0 33 23.52 35.066 -113.37 5 2003 9 8 18 13 24.7 31.324 -114.169 6 2003 9 9 23 7 21.35 30.155 -114.114 10 2003 9 9 23 41 52.8 30.159 -114.49 10 2003 9 10 11 26 44.55 30.641 -113.544 10 2003 9 17 18 1 36.93 35.939 -114.698 3.65 2003 10 24 18 18 53.92 35.939 -114.727 0 2003 11 1 2 43 29.3 30.661 -114.201 7 2003 11 15 12 54 11.3 32.496 -114.689 6 2003 11 18 19 35 45 32.183 -114.598 13 2003 12 4 16 0 52 31.964 -114.495 16 2003 12 12 2 55 18.1 30.808 -114.471 5 2003 12 21 16 8 57 33.62 -109.78 0 2003 12 21 21 28 22 33.8 -109.07 0 2004 1 13 7 58 53.3 31.058 -114.145 7 2004 1 17 9 47 21.7 30.78 -114.33 11.3 2004 1 26 7 14 23.8 31.67 -114.456 7 2004 3 5 8 28 0 34.98 -109.99 24 2004 3 12 8 37 26.21 33.227 -109.557 5 2004 3 15 17 19 12.6 30.689 -114.697 4 2004 3 16 4 6 3.6 30.75 -114.225 5 2004 3 30 1 40 23.1 30.201 -114.193 8.1 2004 5 14 10 58 1.67 36.05 -114.123 0 2004 5 14 14 9 36.7 31.528 -114.311 4 2004 6 27 5 0 0 36.21 -111.57 16 2004 8 12 14 44 30 30.546 *114.45 4 2004 8 20 6 33 2.7 30.147 -114.15 7.5 2004 8 26 0 16 14.6 30.646 -113.901 6 2004 10 18 16 47 14.3 30.309 -114.574 6 2005 2 24 8 58 54.1 30.63 -114.256 8 2005 3 2 11 12 57.42 34.715 -110.97 5 2005 3 15 0 21 7.29 36.911 -112.546 22.75 2005 4 20 19 3 25 31.931 -114.745 12 2005 4 25 22 59 39.6 30.059 -114.46 8 2005 4 27 0 32 59.02 30.253 -114.132 10 2005 6 8 4 32 33.1 36.832 -113.564 2.29 2005 6 12 15 41 46.33 33.538 -116.567 14.1 2005 6 16 20 53 25.68 34.061 -117.007 14.2 2005 7 12 23 32 41.38 36.959 -112.352 9.03 2005 9 2 1 27 19.5 33.143 -115.634 5.6 2005 10 31 13 41 33.62 30.517 -113.109 10 2005 11 8 4 11 59.5 30.715 -114.236 12 2005 11 20 8 45 36.39 36.185 -113.854 5 2005 11 25 12 32 53.6 31.288 -114.272 6 2005 12 16 8 17 1.41 30.177 -114.063 10 2006 1 20 20 1 15.5 30.5 -114.549 5 2006 2 5 11 36 55.89 36.988 -112.861 12.01 2006 2 23 1 22 2.2 30.618 -114.195 5.3 2006 5 1 21 4 42.6 30.199 -114.332 10 2006 5 24 4 20 26.01 32.307 -115.228 6 2006 6 21 1 45 8.9 31.536 -114.481 15 2006 7 9 17 43 33 34.743 -112.707 1 2006 7 23 15 24 20.1 31.895 -114.565 15 2006 11 15 7 4 2.3 30.69 -114.338 4 2007 1 4 19 4 43.7 30.97 -114.583 4 2007 1 18 6 21 6.42 30.493 -114.086 10 2007 1 19 17 34 27.58 36.283 -115.431 16 2007 1 24 12 27 25.6 30.546 -114.664 10 2007 5 22 20 55 19.8 31.364 -114.167 12 2007 6 25 14 52 28 33.73 -111.14 7 2007 7 4 18 30 28 36.104 -111.073 8 2007 7 5 1 38 32.4 30.551 -114.6 4 2007 7 5 4 37 29 31.053 -114.351 6 2007 7 26 2 37 24.5 31.532 -114.324 4 2007 8 28 13 52 27.32 30.315 -113.983 10 2007 9 8 7 15 40.59 33.697 -108.811 5 2007 9 15 5 26 24.33 33.401 -108.835 5 2007 9 21 0 58 0.4 31.284 -114.215 8 2007 9 28 0 23 22.28 35.773 -115.805 5.4 2007 10 5 6 28 12.7 31.588 -114.41 12 2007 10 25 20 35 29.5 31.712 -114.505 13 2007 10 29 2 2 16.8 30.505 -114.159 6 2007 10 29 22 21 11.9 31.47 -114.311 9 2007 12 5 0 22 41 36.428 -113.127 13 2007 12 27 0 13 20 36.53 *112.258 23 2008 1 10 11 26 15.97 30.917 -113.892 10 2008 1 12 12 50 20.44 30.445 -113.901 10 2008 1 17 22 0 13 35.02 -113.914 1 2008 1 29 14 46 6.3 31.339 -114.449 9 2008 2 9 7 12 4.5 32.36 -115.277 6 2008 2 19 20 41 28.35 30.01 -114.014 10 2008 3 27 1 7 13.78 36.465 -113.581 5 2008 4 7 21 32 5 34.704 -111.181 2 2008 5 14 1 7 40.88 30.569 -113.744 10 2008 5 14 16 9 52.93 30.25 -114.3 10 2008 5 17 19 8 55.3 31.912 -114.745 9 2008 6 4 23 32 35 36.443 -112.492 13 2008 7 8 17 51 5.16 36.62 -114.563 6 2008 9 3 23 44 17.03 34.615 -112.897 6 2008 10 1 23 49 18 35.925 -112.073 15 2008 10 8 9 31 41.04 30.279 -113.305 10 2008 10 19 19 51 14 35.479 -111.764 11 2008 10 26 19 47 48.35 36.235 -114.554 10.79 2008 11 5 6 17 40.6 31.813 -114.658 8 2008 11 13 7 48 45.42 29.98 -114.21 5 2008 11 19 15 35 39.2 30.564 -114.354 4 2008 11 20 19 23 0.1 32.329 -115.332 6 2008 12 4 2 4 36.9 36.044 -114.832 5.99 2008 12 6 4 18 42.8 34.813 -116.419 7 2008 12 11 3 41 55.68 30.335 -113.797 10 2008 12 30 11 44 12.97 30.107 -113.222 10 2009 2 24 7 10 30.6 30.104 -114.349 14 2009 2 24 7 17 35.7 30.456 -114.099 15 2009 2 27 15 10 1.4 36.352 -115.073 8.4 2009 3 24 11 55 43.9 33.317 -115.728 6 2009 4 28 0 59 53.5 30.571 -114.578 4 2009 5 9 6 7 31.97 34.213 -112.141 5 2009 5 11 22 35 49.8 31.711 -114.539 5 2009 5 14 4 23 27.2 30.852 -114.083 14.1 2009 9 3 15 54 6.8 31.232 -114.344 10 2009 9 4 11 47 54 36.647 -112.956 5 2009 10 7 16 35 5.5 30.212 -114.39 5 2009 10 8 3 47 45.1 30.542 -114.32 5 2009 10 8 6 1 0.3 30.278 -113.745 6.3 2009 10 9 22 13 54.18 35.963 -114.546 10.93 2009 10 16 10 27 10.7 29.991 -114.081 4 2009 10 31 3 17 31.9 35.358 -111.578 6.38 2009 11 3 23 39 42 36.713 -113.046 16 2009 11 16 6 55 46 36.833 -112.352 21 2009 11 21 20 45 46 36.877 -111.9 8 2009 11 28 5 23 15.7 30.912 -114.478 6 2010 1 27 20 33 31 36.581 -111.471 7 2010 2 19 23 30 17 31.402 -114.39 12 2010 2 20 1 12 48.7 31.673 *114.094 15 2010 2 21 1 12 9.5 31.837 -114.521 10 2010 3 2 0 51 39 36.564 -113.272 12 2010 3 13 20 55 8 30.62 -114.557 3 2010 3 18 18 40 41.97 35.019 -111.609 5 2010 3 21 17 40 6.08 36.61 -113.318 10 2010 3 30 9 14 10.46 31.276 -114.049 10 2010 4 4 22 40 41.7 32.216 -115.3 10 2010 5 3 0 59 24.24 31.539 -114.726 10 2010 5 24 7 27 7.76 33.298 -109.231 5 2010 5 29 15 31 54 36.463 -113.259 6.72 2010 6 15 4 26 58.4 32.7 -115.921 5 2010 6 18 15 7 33.65 31.716 -114.716 10 2010 6 25 10 30 34.12 33.61 -111.196 5 2010 7 3 7 34 46.28 30.731 -114.028 6 2010 7 7 23 53 33.5 33.421 -116.489 14 2010 7 27 12 22 31 35.889 -111.394 18.28 2010 8 9 23 55 47.4 31.01 -114.001 8 2010 8 10 22 47 47.1 30.365 -114.365 4 2010 8 11 17 23 2.1 30.617 -114.11 4 2010 9 8 3 58 8.45 30.435 -113.63 10 2010 9 15 7 50 2.4 30.069 -113.802 10 2010 9 25 16 49 26.3 31.23 -115.65 5 2010 9 26 22 20 30.64 33.696 -111.147 5 2010 10 13 18 20 47.34 31.54 -114.347 10 2010 10 19 1 27 55 36.855 -113.022 9.8 2010 10 20 23 1 54.8 31.395 -116.026 8 2010 11 6 20 39 5 36.969 -112.874 12.24 2010 11 11 3 23 38 36.463 -113.495 7.39 2010 11 24 14 58 20 36.818 -111.791 5.8 2011 1 16 11 55 48.81 31.474 -114.293 10 2011 1 17 21 2 24.7 31.725 -114.624 10 2011 1 23 12 16 47.19 34.837 -112.087 5 2011 1 26 10 51 36 36.098 -112.074 6.9 2011 3 18 19 54 46.74 34.827 -112.092 15 2011 3 20 21 28 16 36.077 -111.908 7.55 2011 4 7 13 40 57.9 31.233 -115.62 5 2011 5 26 19 46 30.3 30.822 -113.934 10 2011 6 16 0 0 0 35.872 -112.191 8.96 2011 6 21 0 0 0 35.055 -111.554 16.2 2011 7 8 3 44 3.04 36.288 -112.181 2.7 2011 7 18 0 0 0 36.603 -113.769 1.7 2011 7 18 9 6 54.13 36.891 -113.555 6 2011 7 29 0 0 0 34.9 -112.032 3.6 2011 8 31 0 0 0 35.784 -113.226 7 2011 9 17 2 8 39.5 31.385 -114.311 8 2011 10 11 10 12 2.38 34.72 -116.028 7.56 2011 10 13 0 0 0 35.666 -111.414 3.6 2011 10 14 16 15 46.5 31.304 -114.245 10 2011 10 20 3 45 49.2 30.622 *114.038 8 2011 10 25 18 20 24.6 34.871 -112.518 5 2011 11 3 0 0 0 35.842 -113.216 6.88 2011 11 12 23 3 46.33 36.014 -114.818 6 2011 12 13 0 0 0 36.764 -113.017 8.2 2011 12 14 18 34 47 36.666 -113.794 0.3 2011 12 23 12 32 37.6 30.451 -114.011 10 2012 1 8 19 11 12.21 34.826 -110.942 5 2012 1 19 1 38 55.6 30.887 -114.171 8 2012 2 26 0 0 0 34.898 -110.965 2 2012 3 20 14 18 52.8 31.288 -114.258 4 2012 3 21 1 18 22.5 31.084 -114.392 12 2012 3 26 3 42 43.1 31.517 -114.319 7 2012 4 22 0 0 0 34.894 -110.961 3.65 2012 6 1 5 24 34.1 30.452 -114.066 10 2012 6 25 0 0 0 35.025 -112.546 1.85 2012 7 19 5 8 39.3 31.428 -114.295 8 2012 7 24 21 39 24 30.56 -114.216 7 2012 8 25 9 28 26 31.339 -114.306 5 2012 8 26 20 57 58.2 33.02 -115.55 9 2012 8 26 21 17 26.72 34.175 -115.608 8.9 2012 8 27 5 23 19.1 30.658 -114.063 10 2012 8 28 11 36 52.97 30.026 -114.213 10 2012 9 25 16 3 33.46 36.486 -114.879 13.3 2012 10 8 0 0 0 33.431 -109.28 5 2012 10 11 21 26 49.76 36.431 -114.432 0 2012 10 17 0 0 0 35.748 -113.088 4.9 2012 10 30 9 20 57.6 31.24 -114.298 15 2012 11 13 0 19 16.49 35.511 -116.246 0 2012 12 11 0 0 0 35.619 -113.154 10 Mag Mag Type Source Catalog Priority Zone Mag Sigma Mw E(M) 6.5 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 6.5 6.33 5.5 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.5 5.33 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 6 MMI AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.5 5 5.00 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 5.8 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.8 5.63 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 4 2 0.5 4.33 4.33 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 5 6 0.5 4.33 4.33 6.2 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 6.2 6.03 5.9 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.9 5.73 5.8 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.8 5.63 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 7 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 5.67 5.67 6 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 5 5.00 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 5.6 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.6 5.43 6.8 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 6.8 6.63 3 MMI AZGS AZGS 4 7 0.5 3 3.00 6 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 6 5.83 6 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 5 5.00 7.3 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 7.3 7.13 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 6.1 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 6.1 5.93 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 4 7 0.5 3.67 3.67 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 6.7 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 6.7 6.53 6.6 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 5 0.3 6.6 6.43 6.2 Ms AEIC AEIC 2 3 0.3 6.2 6.03 6.2 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 6.2 6.03 5.8 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.8 5.63 6 Ms AEIC AEIC 2 3 0.3 6 5.83 6.2 Ms AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.3 6.2 6.03 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 6 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 6 5.83 3 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3 3.00 6.6 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 6.6 6.43 6 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 5 5.00 5.7 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.7 5.53 5.5 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.5 5.33 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 6.8 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 6.8 6.63 5.6 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.6 5.43 3 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3 3.00 5.9 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.9 5.73 5 Mw CDMG Unified 1 1 0.3 5 4.83 6 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 5 5.00 5.5 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.5 5.33 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 4 2 0.5 4.33 4.33 6 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 5 5.00 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 5.5 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.5 5.33 5.5 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.5 5.33 5.8 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.8 5.63 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 5.5 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.5 5.33 5.1 Mw CDMG Unified 1 1 0.3 5.1 4.93 5.5 Mw Toppozada Unified 1 1 0.3 5.5 5.33 5 Mw COMG Unified 1 1 0.3 5 4.83 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 6 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 5 5.00 4.46 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 4.46 4.39 3.78 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.78 3.71 4.7 Mw SCSN Unified 1 1 0.2 4.7 4.63 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 2.96 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 2.96 2.89 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 3 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3 3.00 3.58 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.58 3.51 5.5 ML CDMG AZGS 5 4 0.2 5.5 5.43 5.07 Mw SCSN Unified 1 5 0.2 5.07 5.00 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 6.46 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 6.46 6.39 3.93 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.2 3.93 3.86 6 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 5 5.00 6 MMI AZGS AZGS 4 2 0.5 5 5.00 3.11 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.11 3.04 4.84 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.84 4.77 4.79 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.79 4.72 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 5.25 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.25 5.18 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 3.79 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.79 3.72 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 4 7 0.5 3.67 3.67 2.78 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 2.78 2.71 3.22 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.22 3.15 4.85 Mw SCSN Unified 1 1 0.2 4.85 4.78 6.02 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 6.02 5.95 6 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 5 5.00 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 3.58 ML Cl ANSS 2 7 0.2 3.58 3.51 3.63 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.2 3.63 3.56 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 4.88 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.88 4.81 3.32 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.32 3.25 3.72 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.72 3.65 4.54 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 4.54 4.47 5.5 M AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.2 5.5 5.43 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 4.5 Md NMBMG AZGS 2 3 0.2 4.5 4.43 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 6 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 5 5.00 3.83 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.83 3.76 4.69 Mw Deng Unified 1 7 0.2 4.69 4.62 4.5 Md NMBMG AZGS 2 3 0.2 4.5 4.43 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 3.47 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.47 3.40 5.29 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.29 5.22 6.89 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 6.89 6.82 4.5 ML CDMG AZGS 4 2 0.2 4.5 4.43 5 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5 4.93 3.47 I SCSN_re SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.47 3.40 4.84 Mw SCSN Unified 1 5 0.2 4.84 4.77 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 5.5 Mw CDMG Unified 1 1 0.2 5.5 5.43 6.05 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 5 0.2 6.05 5.98 4 MMI AEIC AZGS 4 7 0.5 3.67 3.67 4 MMI AEIC AZGS 4 7 0.5 3.67 3.67 3 MMI AEIC AZGS 4 7 0.5 3 3.00 3 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3 3.00 4.78 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.78 4.71 3.28 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.28 3.21 4.83 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.83 4.76 5 MMI AEIC AZGS 4 7 0.5 4.33 4.33 4.11 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 4.11 4.04 3 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3 2.93 3.62 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.62 3.55 5.26 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.26 5.19 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 5.08 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.08 5.01 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 5.22 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.22 5.15 3.34 I SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.2 3.34 3.27 4.7 Mw SCSN Unified 1 5 0.2 4.7 4.63 5 MMI AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 4.86 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.86 4.79 5 Unk NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 5 4.93 5.3 Mw CDMG Unified 1 4 0.2 5.3 5.23 4.39 I SCSN_re SCSN 2 6 0.2 4.39 4.32 5.15 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 5 0.2 5.15 5.08 5.2 Mw CDMG Unified 1 1 0.2 5.2 5.13 5.78 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.78 5.71 4.65 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.65 4.58 5.5 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.5 5.43 4.83 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.83 4.76 5 MMI AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 4.85 Mw SCSN Unified 1 5 0.2 4.85 4.78 6.48 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 6.48 6.41 3.81 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.81 3.74 3.4 I SCSN_re SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.4 3.33 4.8 Mw CDMG Unified 1 1 0.2 4.8 4.73 5.28 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.28 5.21 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 5.96 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.96 5.89 4.5 Unk NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.5 4.43 5.69 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.69 5.62 3.53 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.53 3.46 4.3 Unk NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 5.66 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.66 5.59 7 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 5.67 5.67 4.2 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.2 4.2 4.13 4.16 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.2 4.16 4.09 5.41 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.41 5.34 4.72 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.72 4.65 5.97 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.97 5.90 4.66 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.66 4.59 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 4.5 Unk NEI ANSS 3 3 0.2 4.5 4.43 5 MMI AEIC AZGS 4 7 0.5 4.33 4.33 4.72 Mw SCSN Unified 1 7 0.2 4.72 4.65 3.67 I SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.2 3.67 3.60 5.1 Ml AZGS AZGS 5 4 0.2 5.1 5.03 3.7 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.2 3.7 3.63 5.46 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.46 5.39 4.76 Mw ANSS Unified 1 2 0.2 4.76 4.69 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 5 Mw CDMG Unified 1 1 0.2 5 4.93 566 Mw ANSS Unified 1 6 0.2 5.66 5.59 5.35 Mw SCSN Unified 1 6 0.2 5.35 5.28 6.37 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 6.37 6.30 5.2 Mw CDMG Unified 1 1 0.2 5.2 5.13 4.31 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 4.31 4.24 4.85 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.85 4.78 5.24 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.24 5.17 4.7 Mw COMG Unified 1 1 0.2 4.7 4.63 3.03 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.03 2.96 6.76 Mw SCSN Unified 1 1 0.2 6.76 6.69 6.52 I SCSN_le SCSN 4 5 0.2 6.55 6.48 4.65 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.65 4.58 5.17 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.17 5.10 4.7 Mw CDMG Unified 1 4 0.2 4.7 4.63 3.64 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.64 3.57 4.9 Mw CDMG Unified 1 3 0.2 4.9 4.83 3.26 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.26 3.19 5.25 Unk NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 5.25 5.18 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 5.76 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.76 5.69 5 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 4.33 4.33 4.82 Mw SCSN Unified 1 5 0.2 4.82 4.75 5.75 ML Brumbaugh AZGS 2 3 0.2 5.75 5.68 2008 5 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.2 5 4.93 3.38 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.38 3.31 4.74 Mw SCSN Unified 1 4 0.2 4.74 4.67 4.74 Mw SCSN Unified 1 1 0.2 4.74 4.67 4.71 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.71 4.64 4.5 ML uuss AZGS 2 3 0.2 4.5 4.43 2.9 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.2 2.9 2.83 2.9 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.2 2.9 2.83 5.07 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.07 5.00 2.96 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 2.96 2.89 3.01 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.01 2.94 4.9 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.2 4.9 4.83 4.94 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.94 4.87 4.86 Mw SCSN Unified 1 1 0.2 4.86 4.79 4.78 Mw ANSS Unified 1 7 0.2 4.78 4.71 2.7 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.2 2.7 2.63 2.9 ML AEIC AZGS 4 7 0.2 2.9 2.83 5.6 Mw SCSN Unified 1 1 0.2 5.6 5.53 4.5 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.5 4.43 2.7 ML AEIC AZGS 4 2 0.2 2.7 2.63 4.2 Mb NEI AZGS 2 3 0.2 4.2 4.13 5.27 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.27 5.20 4.96 Mw SCSN Unified 1 1 0.2 4.96 4.89 4.7 Mb AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.2 4.7 4.63 5.7 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 5.9 5.83 4.3 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 4.5 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.2 4.5 4.43 5 Mw CDMG Unified 1 4 0.2 5 4.93 4.2 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.2 4.13 4.7 Mw CDMG Unified 1 4 0.2 4.7 4.63 4.1 Mb NEI AZGS 2 3 0.2 4.1 4.03 4.7 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.7 4.63 5.73 Mw ANSS Unified 1 4 0.2 5.73 5.66 3.3 Mb AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.2 3.3 3.23 4.41 I SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.2 4.41 4.34 3.61 I SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.2 3.61 3.54 4 h SCSN_re SCSN 2 6 0.2 4 3.93 4.2 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.2 4.13 4.4 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.2 4.4 4.33 4.03 I SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.2 4.03 3.96 3.8 Mb NEI ANSS 2 7 0.2 3.8 3.73 3.7 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.2 3.7 3.63 4.4 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.4 4.33 4.4 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.4 4.33 4.4 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.4 4.33 4.3 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 4.4 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.4 4.33 5.11 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 5.11 5.04 4.3 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 4.92 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.92 4.85 4.1 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.1 4.03 4.4 Unk NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.4 4.33 2.7 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.2 2.7 2.63 4.33 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.2 4.33 4.26 3.11 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.11 3.04 4.3 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 4.5 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.5 4.43 3.3 M uuss AZGS 2 3 0.2 3.3 3.23 2.9 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.2 2.9 2.83 3.5 M uuss AZGS 2 3 0.2 3.5 3.43 3.9 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 3.9 3.83 4.74 Mw SCSN Unified 1 1 0.2 4.74 4.67 3.3 M uuss AZGS 2 3 0.2 3.3 3.23 3.5 M uuss AZGS 2 3 0.2 3.5 3.43 4.3 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 3.76 Ml Cl ANSS 2 7 0.2 3.76 3.69 6.3 Mw COMG Unified 1 6 0.2 6.3 6.23 3.9 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 3.9 3.83 4.3 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 4.3 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 4 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4 3.93 4.3 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 4.4 Mb NEI AZGS 2 3 0.2 4.4 4.33 4.6 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.6 4.53 4.72 Mw SCSN Unified 1 1 0.2 4.72 4.65 3.28 Ml Cl ANSS 2 7 0.2 3.28 3.21 3.7 Mb NEI AZGS 2 3 0.2 3.7 3.63 4.1 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.1 4.03 3.9 Mb NEI AZGS 2 3 0.2 3.9 3.83 4.1 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.1 4.03 2.8 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.2 2.8 2.73 4.5 Unk NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.5 4.43 5 Unk NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 5 4.93 3.8 Mb NEI AZGS 2 3 0.2 3.8 3.73 5 Unk NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 5 4.93 4.66 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.66 4.59 3.8 Mb AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.2 3.8 3.73 3 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.2 3 2.93 3.2 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.2 3.2 3.13 4 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.2 4 3.93 4.6 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.2 4.6 4.53 4.97 Mw SCSN Unified 1 5 0.2 4.97 4.90 4.3 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 4.3 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 5 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 5 4.93 4.2 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.2 4.13 4.1 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.1 4.03 6.58 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 6.58 6.51 4.2 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.2 4.13 4.2 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.2 4.13 4.3 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 4.71 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.71 4.64 4.4 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.4 4.33 4.5 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.5 4.43 4.5 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.5 4.43 4.8 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.8 4.73 3.9 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 3.9 3.83 4.2 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.2 4.13 5.2 Mw CDMG Unified 1 4 0.2 5.2 5.13 5.5 Mw CDMG Unified 1 4 0.2 5.5 5.43 3.22 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.22 3.15 4.89 Mw SCSN Unified 1 5 0.2 4.89 4.82 2.96 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 2.96 2.89 4.3 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.3 4.23 4.2 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4.2 4.13 4.4 Mb AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.2 4.4 4.33 4.9 Mw CDMG Unified 1 5 0.2 4.9 4.83 3 Unk NEI ANSS 2 7 0.2 3 2.93 3.1 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.2 3.1 3.03 2.75 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 2.75 2.68 3.02 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.2 3.02 2.95 3.23 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.23 3.16 2.87 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 2.87 2.80 4 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 4 3.93 5 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 5 4.93 5.2 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.2 5.2 5.13 3 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.2 3 2.93 2.8 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.2 2.8 2.73 3.83 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 3.83 3.76 3.7 Mb NEI ANSS 2 7 0.2 3.7 3.63 2.94 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.2 2.94 2.87 2.9 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.2 2.9 2.83 2.8 Unk NEI ANSS 2 7 0.2 2.8 2.73 3 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.2 3 2.93 4.99 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.2 4.99 4.92 3 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.2 3 2.93 4.7 Mw COMG Unified 1 5 0.2 4.7 4.63 3 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.2 3 2.93 5.4 Ms NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 5.5 5.48 3.7 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.7 3.68 4.1 Mb NEI ANSS 3 6 0.1 4.1 4.08 3.63 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 3.63 3.61 3.9 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 4.3 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.3 4.28 4 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 4 3.98 4.5 mbGS USGS_PDE AZGS 2 3 0.1 4.5 4.48 5 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 5 4.98 4.1 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.1 4.08 4.7 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.7 4.68 4.86 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 4.86 4.84 2.9 Mc Cl ANSS 3 2 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.1 Unk NEI ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.1 3.08 4.1 mbGS USGS_PDE AZGS 2 3 0.1 4.1 4.08 4.3 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.3 4.28 2.8 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.21 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.21 3.19 3.53 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.53 3.51 3.26 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.26 3.24 3.27 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 3.27 3.25 3.3 ML Cl ANSS 3 6 0.1 3.3 3.28 3.9 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.9 3.88 2.9 Mc Cl ANSS 3 4 0.1 2.9 2.88 4.16 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 4.16 4.14 4.1 Ml Cl ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.1 4.08 4.9 Mb NEI ANSS 3 5 0.1 4.9 4.88 3 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 4.76 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 4.76 4.74 3.4 Unk PAS ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.4 3.38 2.7 d SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 2.8 d SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.8 2.78 5.13 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 5.13 5.11 3.34 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 3.34 3.32 3.12 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.12 3.10 2.97 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 2.97 2.95 4.97 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 4.97 4.95 5.25 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 5.25 5.23 4.88 Mw NEIC Unified 1 1 0.1 4.88 4.86 2.9 Ml AEIC AZGS 4 2 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.01 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.01 2.99 4.88 Mw NEIC Unified 1 1 0.1 4.88 4.86 3.9 Unk NEI ANSS 3 3 0.1 3.9 3.88 5 M AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.1 5 4.98 3 M AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 4.5 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.5 4.48 3.02 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.02 3.00 2.9 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3 Unk NEI ANSS 2 7 0.1 3 2.98 4.4 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 4.9 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.9 4.88 5.07 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 5.07 5.05 3.78 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.78 3.76 2.9 h SCSN_re SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.9 2.88 5.79 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 5.79 5.77 5 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 5 4.98 2.7 h SCSN_re SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.7 2.68 2.8 h SCSN_re SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.05 h SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.05 3.03 3.16 h SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.16 3.14 3.11 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.11 3.09 3.02 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.02 3.00 2.73 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.73 2.71 3.06 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.06 3.04 3.2 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.84 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.84 2.82 3.05 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.05 3.03 3.09 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.09 3.07 3.34 I SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 3.34 3.32 3.45 I SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 3.45 3.43 3.97 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.97 3.95 2.8 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.8 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.97 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.97 2.95 4.08 I SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 4.08 4.06 3.21 h SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.21 3.19 3.14 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.14 3.12 4.68 Mw NEIC Unified 1 1 0.1 4.68 4.66 4 MMI AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.5 3.67 3.67 3 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3 2.98 2.7 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 2.8 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.79 c SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.79 2.77 3 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3 2.98 2.8 h SCSN_le SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.7 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 2.9 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.9 2.88 2.95 c SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.95 2.93 2.8 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 4.3 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.3 4.28 3.01 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.01 2.99 5.31 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 5.31 5.29 4 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4 3.98 3.84 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.84 3.82 2.78 Mh Cl ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.78 2.76 3.03 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.03 3.01 3.26 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.26 3.24 5.4 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 5.46 5.44 3.41 h SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 3.41 3.39 2.8 h SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.15 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.15 3.13 3 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3 2.98 5.51 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 5.51 5.49 3.21 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.21 3.19 2.8 h SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.21 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.21 3.19 3.25 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 3.25 3.23 3.24 I SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.24 3.22 2.99 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 2.99 2.97 2.8 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.1 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 3.1 3.08 6.51 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 6.51 6.49 2.85 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 2.85 2.83 3.49 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.49 3.47 2.7 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.08 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 3.08 3.06 3.98 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.98 3.96 3.45 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.45 3.43 5.32 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 5.32 5.30 4.39 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 4.39 4.37 4.8 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.8 4.78 4.22 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 4.22 4.20 2.9 h SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 2.9 2.88 2.7 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 4.4 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 3.6 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.6 3.58 2.8 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.8 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.27 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.27 3.25 2.98 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.98 2.96 5 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 5 4.98 4.4 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 3.53 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.53 3.51 4.4 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 3.38 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.38 3.36 4.3 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.3 4.28 4.6 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.6 4.58 2.7 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.5 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.5 3.48 3.02 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.02 3.00 3.2 Unk NEI ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.2 3.18 3.14 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.14 3.12 2.8 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.9 n SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.2 Unk NEI ANSS 3 3 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.8 h SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 2.8 2.78 4.9 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.9 4.88 2.71 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.71 2.69 4.5 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.5 4.48 2.98 c SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.98 2.96 2.73 c SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.73 2.71 4.77 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 4.77 4.75 3.16 c SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.16 3.14 3.22 c SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.22 3.20 3.05 c SCSN_re SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.05 3.03 3.3 Unk NEI ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.3 3.28 2.79 c SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 2.79 2.77 3 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.12 c SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 3.12 3.10 3.7 Unk NEI ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.7 3.68 2.79 c SCSN_re SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.79 2.77 2.85 c SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.85 2.83 3.9 Unk NEI ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.9 3.88 2.79 h SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 2.79 2.77 4.6 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.6 4.58 3.09 c SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 3.09 3.07 2.85 c SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 2.85 2.83 2.85 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 2.85 2.83 3.06 c SCSN_le SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.06 3.04 3.25 I SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.25 3.23 4.3 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.3 4.28 3.3 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.3 3.28 3.3 Unk NEI ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.3 3.28 2.71 c SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.71 2.69 3.2 Unk PAS ANSS 3 2 0.1 3.2 3.18 3 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3 2.98 2.75 c SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 2.75 2.73 3.12 h SCSN_re SCSN 2 6 0.1 3.12 3.10 2.7 c SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.2 Unk PAS ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.7 Mc Cl ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.7 2.68 4.4 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 2.81 c SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 2.81 2.79 3.3 c SCSN_re SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.3 3.28 3 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 4.8 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.8 4.78 5 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 5 4.98 2.75 c SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.75 2.73 2.92 Mc Cl ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.92 2.90 3.04 Mc Cl ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.04 3.02 2.7 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.54 c SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.54 3.52 5.49 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 5.49 5.47 4.72 I SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 4.72 4.70 3.07 c SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 3.07 3.05 5.17 Mw NEIC Unified 1 1 0.1 5.17 5.15 3.45 I SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 3.45 3.43 3.04 c SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.04 3.02 2.77 c SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 2.77 2.75 3.68 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.68 3.66 3.1 Unk NEI ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.1 Unk PAS ANSS 3 2 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.64 c SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.64 3.62 5 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 5 4.98 6.02 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 6.02 6.00 2.85 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.85 2.83 3 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 3 2.98 2.7 Unk NEI ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.7 2.68 5.48 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 5.48 5.46 3 Unk PAS ANSS 3 4 0.1 3 2.98 4.4 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 3 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.1 Unk PAS ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.1 3.08 3 Unk PAS ANSS 3 4 0.1 3 2.98 3.3 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.3 3.28 3 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.1 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.1 3.08 4.4 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 3.3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.4 3.38 6.5 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 6.5 6.48 5.49 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 5.49 5.47 5.3 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 5.3 5.28 2.9 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.9 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.69 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.69 3.67 3 Unk NEI ANSS 2 7 0.1 3 2.98 3.74 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.74 3.72 3.2 Unk NEI ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.2 3.18 3.7 Unk NEI ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.3 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.3 3.28 3.1 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.1 3.08 3 c SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3 2.98 5 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 5 4.98 3.61 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.61 3.59 2.7 Unk NEI ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.6 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.6 3.58 2.7 Mc Cl ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.01 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.01 2.99 3.42 c SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.42 3.40 3.27 c SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 3.27 3.25 4 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 4 3.98 3.44 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.44 3.42 2.7 Unk NEI ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.5 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.5 3.48 4.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 4.6 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.6 4.58 3 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.01 c SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.01 2.99 2.72 c SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.72 2.70 3.2 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.9 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.7 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.22 c SCSN_re SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.22 3.20 2.8 Unk NEI ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.8 2.78 4.5 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.5 4.48 3 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 4.6 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.6 4.58 4.2 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 3.5 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.6 3.58 3.6 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 5 3 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.5 3.48 2.9 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.7 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.8 3.78 4.2 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 4.6 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.6 4.58 3.9 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.9 3.88 2.8 h SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.8 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.8 3.78 4.5 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.5 4.48 2.9 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3 2.98 3 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.2 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.3 3.28 3.5 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.5 3.48 5.37 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 5.37 5.35 3.9 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4 3.98 3.6 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.36 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.36 3.34 3.33 d SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.33 3.31 3 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 2.77 d SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 2.77 2.75 3.02 d SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.02 3.00 4.2 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 4.2 4.18 3.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.2 3.18 3.27 h SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.27 3.25 3.4 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.4 3.38 2.9 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.1 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.26 d SCSN_re SCSN 2 6 0.1 3.26 3.24 2.85 d SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 2.85 2.83 3.9 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4 3.98 7.28 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 7.28 7.26 4 Mb NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 4 3.98 2.85 ML Cl ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.85 2.83 2.71 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.71 2.69 4.2 Unk NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 3.3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.4 3.38 3 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.4 Unk NEI ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.4 3.38 3.5 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.6 3.58 3.6 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.9 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4 3.98 3 d SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 3 2.98 3.6 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.6 3.58 2.75 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.75 2.73 3.7 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 2.91 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.91 2.89 3.11 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.11 3.09 3.2 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.3 3.28 5.5 Mb NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 5.61 5.59 2.9 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3 2.98 2.9 b SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.5 Unk NEI ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.5 3.48 3.4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.5 3.48 2.8 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 5 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 5.1 5.08 3.4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.5 3.48 3 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 2.8 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.43 d SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.43 3.41 4.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 3.9 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.83 ML Cl ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.83 3.81 2.8 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.34 ML Cl ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.34 3.32 3.9 Mc NN ANSS 3 2 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.1 MO_res RE SN OM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.2 3.18 36 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 4.6 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.7 4.68 4.97 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 4.97 4.95 2.7 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.3 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.3 3.28 3 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.5 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.6 3.58 3.4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.5 3.48 4 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4 3.98 2.9 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3 2.98 2.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 2.9 2.88 4.4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.5 4.48 3.6 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.2 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.3 3.28 3 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 5.21 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 5.21 5.19 3.6 Unk NEI ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.6 3.58 3.5 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.6 3.58 3.5 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.5 3.48 4 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.1 4.08 2.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.67 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.67 3.65 4.57 Mw NEIC Unified 1 1 0.1 4.57 4.55 3 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 2.8 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.1 Unk NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.1 3.08 4.4 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.5 4.48 4.2 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.3 4.28 4.1 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 4.1 4.08 4.71 Mw Berk_MT_TO Unified 1 1 0.1 4.71 4.69 2.9 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3 2.98 4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.1 4.08 2.75 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.75 2.73 4.3 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 4.3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 5.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 5.2 5.18 2.75 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.75 2.73 4.3 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 4.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 3.7 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.8 3.78 2.8 ML NEI ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.5 3.48 3.4 ML NEI ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.4 3.38 3.7 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.8 3.78 2.71 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.71 2.69 2.87 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.87 2.85 3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.1 3.08 3 h SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 3 2.98 2.7 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.7 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.8 3.78 3.2 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.3 3.28 2.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 2.9 2.88 2.87 c SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 2.87 2.85 2.72 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.72 2.70 4.6 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.7 4.68 3.71 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.71 3.69 2.86 Mc NN ANSS 3 2 0.1 2.86 2.84 3.6 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.6 3.58 4.4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.5 4.48 3.6 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.1 4.08 2.8 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.7 Ml NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.7 3.68 4.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 4.2 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.3 4.28 3.3 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.3 3.28 2.9 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 4.75 I SCSN_le SCSN 4 5 0.1 4.75 4.73 2.7 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.7 2.68 2.7 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.2 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.9 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 2.85 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.85 2.83 4.85 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 4.85 4.83 2.9 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 2.77 Mc NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.77 2.75 2.7 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.9 Ml NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.5 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.5 3.48 3.7 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.8 3.78 4.81 Mw SCSN Unified 1 1 0.1 4.81 4.79 2.8 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 4.76 Mw ANSS Unified 1 5 0.1 4.76 4.74 3.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.2 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.2 3.18 3.5 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.6 3.58 3.1 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.9 3.88 4.4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.5 4.48 3.3 Ml NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.3 3.28 3.4 Ml NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.4 3.38 4.78 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 4.78 4.76 3.2 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.3 3.28 3.08 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 3.08 3.06 3.3 Ml NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.3 3.28 2.8 Mc uu ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.97 Mc uu ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.97 2.95 2.9 ML NEI ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.18 Mc uu ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.18 3.16 3.1 Ml NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.1 3.08 2.9 Ml NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 2.87 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.87 2.85 3 Ml NEI ANSS 2 7 0.1 3 2.98 4.3 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.3 4.28 4.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 4.4 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 2.83 Mc uu ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.83 2.81 2.91 Mc uu ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.91 2.89 4.89 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 4.89 4.87 3.25 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.25 3.23 4.97 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 4.97 4.95 3.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.75 Mc Cl ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.75 2.73 3.7 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.8 3.78 5.13 Mw ANSS Unified 1 6 0.1 5.13 5.11 3.2 I SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.2 3.18 3.6 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.7 3.68 2.8 Mb Cl AZGS 4 2 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.7 Mb Cl AZGS 4 2 0.1 2.7 2.68 7.12 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 7.12 7.10 4.65 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 4.65 4.63 4.5 Ml NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.5 4.48 3.2 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.3 3.28 2.7 Ml NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 2.73 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.73 2.71 3 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3 Ml NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.1 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.1 3.08 4.73 Mw SCSN_MT Unified 1 1 0.1 4.73 4.71 3.2 Ml AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.9 ML NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 4.3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 3.3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.4 3.38 3.06 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.06 3.04 4.4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.5 4.48 3.5 Ml NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.5 3.48 4.4 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 2.72 Ml NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.72 2.70 3 Ml PAS ANSS 2 7 0.1 3 2.98 4.3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.4 4.38 4.38 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 4.38 4.36 3.21 c SCSN_le SCSN 4 3 0.1 3.21 3.19 4.2 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 4.3 4.28 3.53 Ml NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.53 3.51 3.3 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.4 3.38 3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.1 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 2.9 2.88 5.02 Mw SCSN_MT Unified 1 1 0.1 5.02 5.00 4.2 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 3.3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.4 3.38 5.74 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 5.74 5.72 3.6 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.23 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.23 3.21 2.71 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.71 2.69 4.7 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.7 4.68 3 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 2.72 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.72 2.70 3.5 ML NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.5 3.48 3.6 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 4.73 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 4.73 4.71 4.88 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 4.88 4.86 3.6 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 4.97 Mw ANSS Unified 1 1 0.1 4.97 4.95 5.19 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 5.19 5.17 3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.1 3.08 2.96 ML uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.96 2.94 3.3 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.4 3.38 3.6 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.7 3.68 3 ML NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.8 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.8 3.78 4.2 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.3 4.28 3.7 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 2.73 ML NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.73 2.71 2.9 Ml NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.4 3.38 3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 5 2 0.1 3.1 3.08 3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.1 3.08 2.9 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3 2.98 3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.1 3.08 4.2 Ml Eagar 2007 AZGS 2 3 0.1 4.2 4.18 3.6 Ml Eagar2007 AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.6 3.58 4.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.1 4.08 3.6 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.4 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.4 3.38 2.8 Ml NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.9 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4 3.98 3.4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.5 3.48 2.9 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3 2.98 2.78 Ml NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.78 2.76 2.8 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 2.9 2.88 2.8 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.8 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 4.7 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.8 4.78 3.9 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4 3.98 3.6 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.4 3.38 5.1 Mb NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 5.1 5.08 3.51 ML uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.51 3.49 2.7 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.5 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.6 3.58 5.1 Mw NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 5.1 5.08 2.7 Mc uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 5.21 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 5.21 5.19 4.87 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 4.87 4.85 2.88 Ml uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.88 2.86 5.15 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 5.15 5.13 3.9 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.2 Ml NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.2 3.18 3.8 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.9 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.1 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.9 Ml uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.9 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4 3.98 5.1 Mw NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 5.1 5.08 5.29 Mw GlobalCMT Unified 1 1 0.1 5.29 5.27 3.7 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.8 3.78 3.2 Ml ASU_TA AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.2 3.18 3 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.4 3.38 3.9 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4 3.98 4.8 Mw NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.8 4.78 2.85 I SCSN_le SCSN 3 7 0.1 2.85 2.83 3.5 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.6 3.58 3.7 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.8 3.78 2.9 ML ASU_TA AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.3 Ml ASU_TA AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.3 3.28 3.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.6 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 2.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 2.9 2.88 4 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4 3.98 3.6 Mw NEI ANSS 3 3 0.1 3.6 3.58 2.9 Ml NEI ANSS 3 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.2 3.18 3.22 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 3.22 3.20 3.1 ML ECX ANSS 3 6 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.2 3.18 3.3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.4 3.38 3.8 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.5 Ml ASU_TA AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.5 3.48 3 ML ASU_TA AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.8 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.8 3.78 3.9 Ml NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.4 ML ASU_TA AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.4 3.38 3.9 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4 3.98 5.14 Mw UC3 UCERF3 1 1 0.1 5.14 5.12 3.6 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.6 3.58 3.7 Mw NEI ANSS 3 3 0.1 3.7 3.68 2.8 Ml ASU_TA AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.6 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.6 3.58 4.8 Mw NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.8 4.78 2.7 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.8 Ml ASU_TA AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.8 3.78 3.5 h SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 3.5 3.48 2.8 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.7 ML ASU_TA AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.6 ML NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.6 3.58 2.9 ML ASU_TA AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.76 Ml NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.76 3.74 2.7 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.8 Ml NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 2.8 2.78 4.2 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.3 4.28 4.98 Mw UC3 UCERF3 1 1 0.1 4.98 4.96 2.95 ML NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.95 2.93 5.13 Mw UC3 UCERF3 1 1 0.1 5.13 5.11 3.7 ML NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 3 Ml NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 3 2.98 4.8 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.9 4.88 4.5 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.6 4.58 2.88 ML NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 2.88 2.86 4.96 Mw UC3 UCERF3 1 1 0.1 4.96 4.94 3.9 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4 3.98 3.1 ML NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.1 3.08 4.1 Ml ECX ANSS 3 6 0.1 4.1 4.08 3.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.9 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3 2.98 3 ML NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.5 3.48 3.6 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 4.7 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.8 4.78 3.85 ML NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.85 3.83 4.9 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 5 4.98 2.9 MD AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 2.8 MD AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.7 MD AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 2.7 MD AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.4 3.38 2.8 MO AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.1 4.08 3.7 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.8 3.78 3.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.9 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 3.5 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.6 3.58 2.7 ML NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 2.7 MD AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 4.6 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.6 4.58 7.19 Mw UC3 UCERF3 1 1 0.1 7.19 7.17 3.1 ML PAS ANSS 3 6 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.6 Mw NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.6 3.58 2.7 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 5.8 Mw UC3 UCERF3 1 1 0.1 5.8 5.78 2.93 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 2.93 2.91 3.1 ML NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.34 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.34 3.32 5.54 Mw UC3 UCERF3 1 1 0.1 5.54 5.52 3.1 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.6 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.6 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.7 3.68 3.5 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.6 3.58 4 Mb NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4 3.98 5.1 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 5.2 5.18 4.9 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 5 0.1 5 4.98 2.8 ML NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.48 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 6 0.1 3.48 3.46 3.06 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.06 3.04 4.7 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 5 0.1 4.8 4.78 3.2 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.2 3.18 2.8 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 3 ML AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 3 2.98 3.35 I SCSN_le SCSN 4 4 0.1 3.35 3.33 3.2 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 3.3 3.28 3.6 ML NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.6 3.58 2.7 MD AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.7 ML NEI AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.7 3.68 2.9 MD AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 5 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 5 0.1 5.1 5.08 3.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 2.79 MD AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.79 2.77 2.7 MO AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.1 ML NEI ANSS 3 3 0.1 3.1 3.08 2.97 MD AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.97 2.95 2.83 I SCSN_re SCSN 4 3 0.1 2.83 2.81 2.8 MD AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.8 MD AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.7 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.44 ML Cl ANSS 3 2 0.1 3.44 3.42 2.8 MD AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.9 3.88 3.7 MD_res RE SN OM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.8 3.78 3.5 ML NEI ANSS 3 3 0.1 3.5 3.48 2.79 MD AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.79 2.77 2.71 I SCSN_re SCSN 3 7 0.1 2.71 2.69 3.1 ML uu AZGS 2 3 0.1 3.1 3.08 3.4 Mc SLC ANSS 3 3 0.1 3.4 3.38 4.8 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.9 4.88 3.2 ML NEI ANSS 3 3 0.1 3.2 3.18 4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 4.1 4.08 2.95 MD AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.95 2.93 2.7 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 2.8 2.78 3.5 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.6 3.58 2.7 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 4 6 0.1 2.8 2.78 2.7 MD AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.7 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.8 3.78 2.7 MD AZGS AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.7 2.68 3.3 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.4 3.38 3.4 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3.5 3.48 4.2 Mc UNM ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 5.46 Mw CMT UCERF3 1 1 0.1 5.46 5.44 3.9 Ml PAS ANSS 3 2 0.1 3.9 3.88 5.4 MO_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 5.61 5.59 4.2 Mc NEI ANSS 3 4 0.1 4.2 4.18 3.59 ML NN ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.59 3.57 4.1 Ml AZGS-USGS AZGS 2 3 0.1 4.1 4.08 3.1 ML REN ANSS 2 7 0.1 3.1 3.08 2.9 ML AZGS-USGS AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.9 2.88 2.9 MD_res RESNOM RESNOM 2 4 0.1 3 2.98 2.94 I SCSN_le SCSN 2 2 0.1 2.94 2.92 2.72 MD AEIC AZGS 2 3 0.1 2.72 2.70 N* 1.16 1.16 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.16 1.53 1.53 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.16 1.16 1.53 1.16 1.53 1.16 1.53 1.16 1.53 1.53 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.53 1.16 1.53 1.16 1.53 1.16 1.16 1.53 1.16 1.16 1.53 1.16 1.16 1.53 1.16 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.53 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.53 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.07 1.53 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.53 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.53 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Heeszel, David From:Heeszel, David Sent:20 Apr 2015 15:20:20 +0000 To:Stieve, Alice;Devlin-Gill, Stephanie Cc:Graizer, Vladimir;Munson, Clifford;Ake, .Jon;John Stamatkos

Subject:

RE: Palo Verde public meeting in mid-June? I plan to be out the 22-26th, but am available otherwise. --David -----Original MFrorn: Stieve, Alice Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 11:17 AM To: Devlin-Gill, Stephanie; Heeszel, David Cc: Graizer. Vladimir; Munson. Clifford; Ake. Jon; John Stamatkos

Subject:

Palo Verde public meetjng in mid-June? Cao the Palo Verde team support a APS public meeting in mid-June? 1 have no vacation plans yet sol guess lam open in June. What about the rest of you? Of course Vlad is in CA for the week. Maybe he will check his email. -----Original Messagc---From: Devlin-Gill, Stephanie Sent: Monday, April 20. 2015 I J :10 AM To: Stieve, Alice; Heeszel, David

Subject:

FW: Inquiry: Palo Verde Public Meetings Dates From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 10:24 AM To: Munson, Clifford Cc: Jackson, Diane; Ake, Jon; Devlin-Gill, Stephanie; Vega, Frankie

Subject:

Inquiry: Palo Verde Public Meetings Dates Cliff, et. al. Any preferences or limitations for planning the Palo Verde public meeting in mid-June. Thanks, Nick From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Thursday. April 16,. 2015 10:07 AM To:. Munson, Clifford Cc: Ake, Jon; Jackson, Diane; Vega,. Frankie; Hill, Brittain; Shams, Mohamed

Subject:

Planning Items -DC Focus Areas and PV Meetings Dates Cliff. I am out PM today and Friday.

PG&E Licensing Coordination and NRC Public Meeting Prep Frankie is PM backup and has a licensing call with PG&E Friday at lpm to discuss NRC technical focus areas as part of the April 28 public meeting. For Friday I would like to communicate a few topics for them to begin work on. Perhaps the 1. ergodic method vs. single-station correction weighting. Early next week I plan to email a formal request for incorporation into the meeting notice .. Please let us know a couple. of focus areas by noon Friday. PV Meeting Date Coordination. The licensee (APS) cannot support meeting until the 2nd week of June. As. f recall,. I thought we. had conflicts starting then with NGA-East Working Group. Let me know. if I can propose any dates in the. 2nd and 3rd week of June. Thanks, Nick Senior Project Manager -Seismic Reevaluation Activities U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Japan Lesson Learned Project Division nicholas.difrancesco@nrc.gov<maillo:nicholas.difrancesco@nrc.gov> I Tel: (301) 415-1115 Heeszel, David From:Heeszel, David Sent:24 Mar 2015 18:07:16 +0000 To:Stieve, Alice

Subject:

RE: Palo Verde Is this in addition to or a replacement for the meeting already scheduled for 3:30? --David -----Original AppointmentFrom: Stieve, Alice Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 2:05 PM To: Graizer, Vladimir; Devlin-Gill, Stephanie; Heeszel, David

Subject:

Palo Verde When: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 3:00 PM-3:30 PM {UTC-05:00) Eastern nme (US & Canada). Where: HQ-TWFN-07CO 1-15p Can we meet at 3PM for a short meeting?

Heeszel, David From:Heeszel, David Sent:22 May 2015 15:01:01 +0000 To:Stieve, Alice;Devlin-Gill, Stephanie;Graizer, Vladimir;Munson, Clifford;Hill, Brittain;Ake, Jon;Li, Yong;John Starnatkos;Miriam R. Juckett (mjuckett@swri.org)

Subject:

RE: PY topics My question (as it stands) about site response is also updated on the sharepoint site. --David From: Stieve, Alice Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 10:43 AM To: Devlin-Gill, Stephanie; Graizer, Vladimir; Munson, Clifford; Hill, Brittain; Ake, Jon; Li, Yong; Heeszel, David; John Stamatkos; Miriam R. Juckett (mjuckett@swri.org)

Subject:

PV topics I made some mods to the SSC part of the PV topics (geology). They are in the SharePoint folder. PV Topics Heeszel, David From:Heeszel, David Sent:22 May 2015 15: 18:24 +0000 To:Stieve, Alice

Subject:

RE: PV topics Here From: Stieve, Alice Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 11:18.AM To: Heeszel, David

Subject:

RE: PV topics What file? From: Heeszel, David Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 11:01 AM To: Stieve, Alice; Devlin-Gill, Stephanie; Graizer, Vladimir; Munson, Clifford; Hill, Brittain; Ake, Jon; Li, Yong; John Stamatkos; Miriam R. Juckett (mjuckett@swri.org)

Subject:

RE: PV topics My question (as it stands) about site response is also updated on the sharepoint site. --David From: Stieve, Alice Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 10:43 AM To: Devlin-Gill, Stephanie; Graizer, Vladimir; Munson, Clifford; Hill, Brittain; Ake, Jon; Li, Yong; Heeszel, David; John Stamatkos; Miriam R. Juckett (mjuckett@swri.org)

Subject:

PV topics I made some mods to the SSC part of the PV topics (geology). They are in the SharePoint folder. PV Topics Heeszel, David From:Heeszel, David Sent: 11 May. 2015 14:56:25 +0000. To:Devlin-GiU, Stephanie;Jackson, Diane Cc:Stieve, Alice;Munson, Clifford

Subject:

RE: PVNGS GMM Review and Presentation I will do the same for Ch. 9. --David From: Devlin-Gill, Stephanie Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 10:09 AM To: Jackson, Diane; Heeszel, David Cc: Stieve, Alice; Munson, Clifford

Subject:

RE: PVNGS GMM Review and Presentation. Ok, I'll cover the SWUS Chp 5 as it applies to PVNGS next Tuesday. When Vlad returns, we should probably also make sure he's knows to attend the Tuesday PVNGS meeting, since it will be of interest to him. stephanie Geophysicist 301-415-5301 T-7Dl0 U.S. NRC, NRO, DSEA, RGS2 From: Jackson, Diane Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 9:41 AM To: Devlin-Gill, Stephanie; Heeszel, David Cc: Stieve, Alice; Munson, Clifford

Subject:

FW: PVNGS GMM Review and Presentation Stephanie and David -Cliff and I were discussing status of the PV review, and continuing to splice it up into reasonable chunks. Vlad is out this week. For next Tuesday (not tomorrow), Stephanie review and prepare slides for SWUS GMC SSHAC Report Ch5. For Ch5 some of the subsections are only applicable to DCPP so Stephanie can skip those (there aren't too many). David the same for Ch9. If you have questions on technical direction and level of detail, see the good Dr. Munson. Also, let me know if you think your workload will /will not support and we can look at workload and timelines. Thanks -Diane Heeszel, David From:Heeszel, David Sent:31Mar2015 17:33:05 +0000 To:Munson, Clifford

Subject:

RE: Request for Palo Verde Electronic Attachments from Hazard Input Document (HfD -. Appendix. F) Is there any way we can also request the peer review comments and the Tl teams response from the workshops? I can't find them in the SSHAC report. --David From: Munson, Clifford Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 1:32 PM To: Heeszel, David; Devlin-Gill, Stephanie; Stieve, Alice; John Stamatkos

Subject:

FW: Request for Palo Verde Electronic Attachments from Hazard Input Document (HID -Appendix F) FYI. From: Munson, Clifford Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 1:31 PM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas Cc: Ake, Jon; Jackson, Diane

Subject:

Request for Palo Verde Electronic Attachments from Hazard Input Document (HID -Appendix F) Nick, There are five electronic attachments listed in the Palo Verde SSHAC Appendix F (page F-57), which is the. very important Hazard Input Document. We need these electronic files to be able. to perform our sensitivity studies for the PV hazard. Please have the licensee put these in the electronic reading room as soon as possible. Thanks, Cliff HID Attachments These attachments were released in interim response #1 Attachment A: Areal Source Coordinates (electronic attachment) Attachment B: Fault Source Coordinates (electronic attachment). Attachment C: UCERF3.3 Rupture Sets (electronic attachment) Attachment D: ABSMOOTH Output (electronic attachment) Attachment E: SWUS GMC Regions for Fault Sources (electronic attachment)

LCI PROJECT CALCULATION PC No. PVOOl-PC-02 COVER SHEET Revision 0 I "!' ln\,rn.1llv,..,1. fn< Page 1of18 CALCULATION TITLE Adjustment Factors from Reference Rock to Palo Verde Rock Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Seismic Hazard PROJECTNAME: PROJECT No.: _1;;...;:0c.;;.5-=-6------------------Prepared by: Gabriel Toro[ Date: 2/27 /15' (Name/Signature) Verlrled by: Robin McGuire{ IV (Name/Signature of Verlller) Date: 2*'2(11< Approved by: £*s.s I (Name/Signature of Project Manager Date: 2./t1/*r or Vice President) Optlonal Cllent Approval: Date: (Name/Signature) LCIFORM.QAP-3*38.02 (04.04.2014)

LCI PROJECT CALCULATION PC No. PV001-PC-02 REVISION LOG Revision O Lt'lti.' illll*ul nl' lnt.-m.11il'll\.1l, In<. Page 2of18 r*c l', 1*;. t I,. I Calculation Revision Status Rev. No. Date Description Impacted Document No. 0 2/27/15 Initial Issue Text Revision. History Page No .. Rev. No .. Page No. Rev. No. 1-18 0 Attachment Revision History Attachment Page No. Rev. No. Attachment Page No. Rev. No. No .. No. A A1-A2 0 B 81-BS 0 LCIFORM.QAP-3-38.03 (04.04.2014)

PROJECT CALCULATION VERIFICATION SUMMARY SHEET VERIFICATION METHOD PC No. PVOOl -PC-02 Revision 0 Page 3of18 1:81 Step-by-Step Method D Alternate Calculation Item Parameter Yes No N/A 1 Purpose Is clearly stated and Calculation satisfies the x Purpose. 2 Methodology Is appropriate and properly applied. x 3 Assumptions are reasonable, adequately described, and x based upon sound geotechnlcal principles and practices. 4 Input received via signed communications from x authorized signatories and correctly Incorporated Into the Calculation. 5 Software Is properly Identified; Is appropriate for this x application; and validation Is referenced, or Included, and acceptable. 6 Calculation Is complete, accurate (I.e., equations are x correct, Input to equations is correct, and math Is correct), adequate, and leads logically to Results and Conclusions; or Is verified via Altemate Calculation. 7 Results and Conclusions are accurate, acceptable, and x reasonable compared to the Input and Assumptions. 8 References are valld for Intended use. x 9 Appendices are complete, accurate, and support text. x Comments: (use addltlonal pages as necessary) Robin McGuire/ f2R--V1A. x;,"I._ Verifier: (Date) (Nome/Signature) LClfORM.QAP-3*38.04 (04.04.2014)

PC No. PV001-PC-02 LCI PROJECT CALCULATION Rev.O Page 4of18 l cttJ.;¥';,,,.1111111:> lott>m>t10n.1I, 1.,.-I ' t Table of Contents Section Page Purpose .........*....................*.......*...................*.......*...........................*.......................*............ 5 Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 5 Assumptions .....*............*...........................*.................*............*....*........................................* 6 Inputs ...........................................................*.....................................*.........................*.......... 6 Software ..........................................*...................................*...................*..........*.........*.......... 7 Calculations ............................................................................................................................. 7 Results and Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 10 References .............................................................................................................................. 17 Appendices ............................................................................................................................ 18 APPENDIX A (PROPRIETARY} ................................................................................................... Al APPENDIX B. Calculations for 808 ft Thickness of Volcanics ................................................... Bl List of Tables Table 1. Adjustment factors (numbers in parentheses are weights for each profile-kappa combination) ....*.*...*.....*........*.....*......*...........*..*....*.......***..*....*..........*....*........*...............*... 14 List of Figures Figure 1. Vs deep profiles for. PVNGS. A depth of 0. corresponds to the bottom of the shallow profile (soils). Also shown are the Warren (1969) (Ref. 15} and SWUS (Ref. 1) profiles ............ 8 Figure 2. Adjustment Factors ................................................................................................. 12 Figure 3. Summary statistics of the adjustment factor ........................................................... 13 PC No. PV001-PC-02 LCI PROJECT CALCULATION Rev.O Page S of 18 l.etn¥n*t1l10nb lnwmahollJI, 1,,. \ -.. ,,_,-Adjustment Factors.from Reference Rock to Palo Verde Rock 1. PURPOSE The purpose of this calculation is to develop adjustment factors to convert ground motions from the reference rock associated with the South Western US Ground Motion Project (the SWUS project) GMPEs to the rock conditions at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS). These factors, which are given in Fourier-amplitude space, will be converted later to factors in spectral-acceleration space, and these in turn will be used to conve1t the amplitudes predicted by the SWUS GMPEs to Palo Verde rock .. 2. METHODOLOGY The following inputs are required to convert SWUS ground motions on Reference Rock (the host) to ground motions on PVNGS bedrock (the target) using Vs-kappa1 adjustments. Calculation of the SWUS rock to Palo Verde rock requires the following inputs: 1. Host Vs and density profile, specified by SWUS (Ref. 1). 2. Host kappa value, specified by SWUS (Ref. 1). 3. Target Vs and density profile, developed by LCI (Ref. 2). This is the. profile below PVNGS bedrock, and extending to deep basement. 4. Target PVNGS bedrock kappa value (and its uncertainty), specified by the SWUS project (Ref. I) .. These quantities are used to calculate host and target Vs-kappa filters in the frequency domain. Each filter consists of two parts. The first part accounts for impedance differences and can be calculated using the Quarter-wavelength approach (see Refs. 3-5) and affects all frequencies. The second filter accounts for the differences in kappa. It bas an exponential form and affects mainly the high frequencies. The net adjustment factor (in Fourier-amplitude space) is the ratio of the target filter divided by the host filter. Multiple values of this factor wil1 be calculated, to account for uncertainty in the inputs. This approach has. been used in a number of studies (e.g., Refs. 8-10 and 14). The result from this calculation consist of multiple values of the adjustment factor (in terms of Fourier amplitude) as a function of frequency (with associated weights), given in tabular form. 1 Vs is the shear-wave velocity; kappa is a quantity that represents the anelastic attenuation in the upper crust. ln the nomenclature of Anderson and Hough (1984) (Ref. 7), the kappa used in this calculation corresponds to kappa-zero, as it captures attenuation effects in the upper crust, rather than whole-path attenuation.

PC No. PV001-PC-02 LCI PROJECT CALCULATION Rev.O Page 6of18 I lntematlOll<ll, Inc. ! A' r-3. ASSUMPTIONS The following assumptions are made in this calculation: Assumption The input data provided by the SWUS project (Host Vs and density profile, host kappa. target kappa and its uncertainty) are correct. The site-specific deep profile (thickness, Vs, and density for each layer beneath soil) is. correct. The basement portion of the deep profile (from Warren (1969)) is correct. The. guidance provided by the EPRI SPID document (Ref. 11) regarding uncertainty ranges is correct. The. Qua11er Wave Length (QWL) approach is adequate for the adjustment of GMPEs. The. Gardner et al (1974) equation for density as a function of Vp is correct. 4. INPUTS Input Source Rationale These data were developed under a SSHAC Level 3 process These data were developed, documented, and reviewed by LCI. (Ref. 2), using specific data (recently acquired and from UFSAR). Good agreement with shallow portion of Warren (1969; Ref. 15) profile. Model based on regional data and used for earthquake locations (see Lockridge et al., Ref. 12). This document has been extensively reviewed and accepted by the NRC. Approach is well documented in the literature and has been used for regional and NPP studies (e.g., Refs. 8-10 and 14) Relation is widely used (see Bracher, 1995; Ref. 6). Host profile (thickness, Vs, and density for each layer) and host kappa (0.041 s) SWUS (Appendix L of Ref. I and its attached Excel file WUS_VsProfile-10272014.xls) Target (PVNGS) kappa and associated uncertainty

• median 0.033s

• 0'1n=0.5 SWUS (Appendix L of Ref. 1)

Deep PVNGS profile (thickness, Vs, and density for each layer) Equation for density as a function of Vp (used only for lower basement of PVNGS profile). 5. SOFTWARE NIA 6. CALCULATIONS PROJECT CALCULATION PC No. PV001-PC-02 Rev.O Page 7. of.18. LCI (Ref. 2; volcanics and upper basement; used the thickness of the volcanics derived from the elevation column because it is more reliable) and Warren(! 969; Ref. 15; lower basement) Gardner et al (1974; Ref. 12). All calculations are performed in spreadsheet Calc_Adjustment_Factors.xlsm (see Appendix A), as described below. Sheet Deep_Projlle_Summary tabulates the base-case deep profile (as generated from Refs. 2 and 15), converts it to metric units, generates the Lower Bound (LB), Median, and Upper Bound (UB) profiles, and generates. graphs. Following the. EPRI SPID (Ref. 11 ), cr1nvs is given a value of 0.35 for the upper two layers (applicable to sites with limited geophysical information). cr1nvs is set to 0 for the lower basement, just as Ref. 11 sets the CEUS basement Vs to 9200 ft/s (without uncertainty). Also, following Ref. 11, the. UB. Vs. values are. not allowed to exceed the lower basement Vs. Uncertainty in the thickness of the volcanics is taken from LCI (Ref. 2). Uncertainty in the thickness of the upper basement is taken as 10 percent. The UB and LB profiles are constructed by pairing 90-th percentile Vs with 10% thickness in order to maximize the variation in travel time (in a manner similar. to what is done in Ref.. 11 ). The three resulting Vs profiles are shown in Figure I.

LCI lntcnJiJholl<!I, Inc I _1.;-,. 0 500 ]' ; l:! 1000 Q. ::= ..2 n; .c "' -0 1500 0 ..c E 0 .[ of 2000 Q. QI 0 2500 3000 0 PROJECT CALCULATION 1000 Vs (m/s) 2000 3000 -, .. ... . I , 1 , I I I -1 *---'* . l I-"' I l .. I L -.._ I I I

I -L. 1 I I I T 1 -UBProfile I -Base Case Profile I I ... I -LB Profile 1: --Warren (1969} --SWUS Reference I Profile I PC No. PV001-PC-02 Rev.O Page 8of18 4000 Figure 1. Vs deep profiles for PVNGS. A depth of 0 corresponds to the bottom of the shallow profile (soils). Also shown are the Warren (1969) (Ref. 15) and SWUS (Ref. 1) profiJes. Sheet Lockridge_et_al lists. the Warren (1969; Ref. l 5) profile and contains tables used for plotting it. Sheet Density_Bsmnt documents the calculation of density for those basement layers for which no density. is provided in Ref. 2, using an equation. from Ref. 12 .. Sheet HostVsProfile_ Vs30_760 contains information about the host profile received from SWUS (Ref. 1) and a few calculations to extract information from them.

PROJECT CALCULATION PC No. PV001-PC-02 Rev.O Page 9of18

• Columns A-Y contains information about the host profile received from SWUS (Vs vs. depth, density vs. depth, and adjustment factors).

• Columns Z-AC contain profile information in the form (thickness, Vs, density) extracted from columns A-Y.

• Columns. N-0 contain amplification factors for this profile (calculated by SWUS (Ref. 1) using the QWL approach). These adjustment factors are relative to the source (characterized by Vs=3500 mis and density 2.7 gr/cc). Sheet Amplif'_Calcs_Ref_Pro.file contains. the calculation of the impedance. Z (see Refs. 3-5) for the reference SWUS (Ref. 1) profile.

• Columns A-C contain the profile data (from HostVsProfile_ Vs30_760) and columns E-F contain top and bottom depths derived from them.

• Columns H-J (step I) calculate travel time and integrated density to the bottom of each as the. first step in the calculation of the impedance (see. Eqs. 16-18 of Ref. 4 for the equations used; equations are reproduced in same columns).

• Columns L-R (step 2) interpolate the travel time and integrated density linearly to a finer depth scale. Interpolation is done using a user-defined function. The correctness of the interpolation can be verified graphically using the graphs shown at the bottom of the sheet. These interpolated values are then used to calculate the associated frequency l/(4*travel time), time-averaged. Vs. (beta_bar), average density (rho_bar), and impedance (beta_ bar* rho_ bar).

• Columns T-U (step 3) interpolate the impedance vs. frequency values to a fine frequency scale (0.1 to 100 Hz, 30 frequencies per decade), which will be the same frequency sampling to be used for all profiles. The correctness of the interpolation can be verified graphically using the graphs shown at the bottom of the sheet.

• Columns W-X use the impedance to calculate the adjustment factor with respect to the source (Vs=3500 mis, density=2.7 gr/cc). These values are compared to those calculated independently by SWUS (Ref. I) and provided in sheet HostVsProfile_V.d0_760 (see graphical comparison on same columns), obtaining a very. close agreement .. This comparison serves as an additional check for the calculation of impedance vs. frequency used in this calculation document. Sheets Amplif_Calcs_

• _PV _Pro,file (where* takes the values of LB, Median, and UB) contain the calculation of the impedance Z for the three PVNGS deep profiles and the calculation of their associated impedance factors.

• Columns A-C contain the profile data (from Deep_Profile_Summary) and columns E-F contain top and bottom depths derived from them.

PC No. PV001-PC-02 LCI PROJECT CALCULATION Rev.O Page10of18 L..-111.;?m-*uhont'l lnwm 1hon.JI, In.; t r

• Columns H-U contain the various steps in the calculation of impedance Z as a function of frequency. These calculations are similar to the ones performed in Columns H-U in Amplif_Calcs_Ref_Profile ..

• Column W calculates the adjustment factor associated with impedance effects (sqrt(Z _ Ref/Z _PVNGS)) vs .. frequency, using the impedance. Z calculated in. this sheet and in Amplif_Calcs_Ref_Profile.

• Columns Y -AB introduce the effect of kappa differences between the Host (0.04 ls) and the target, considering the LB (10%), median (50%), and UB (90%) values of the latter). Sheet Summary tabulates all nine profiles from columns Y-AB of Amplif_Calcs_

• _PV _Profile, calculates their weights, and computes their summary statistics. 7. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS The calculated adjustment factors account for differences in impedance and kappa between the Host SWUS (Ref. 1) Reference Profile and the Target PVNGS rock profile, and can be used for the calculation of adjustment factors to convert SWUS spectral accelerations to PVNGS rock. These factors (in Fourier amplitude space) are given in tbe Summary Sheet of Calc_Adjustment_Factors.xlsm (see Appendix A). They are also. given in Table 1 below and in stand-alone file Adjustment_Factors.csv (see Appendix A for a description of electronic files). As part of the review of Ref.2, one interpretation was revised, resulting in a change in thickness of the volcanic unit (top of deep profile). from 878 ft to 808 ft. The effect of this change is. evaluated in Appendix B. The change in the adjustment factor is small percent at a few frequencies) and would reduce ground motions (therefore ignoring the change is conservative). As a result, the adjustment factors based on the original volcanic unit thickness (Table 1 and file Adjustment_Factors.csv) are maintained .. It is important to note the following when interpreting and using these results. 1. Although these adjustment factors become very large at high frequencies (as a result of the kappa adjustments), the SWUS (Ref. 1) rock motions have zero or no energy at these frequencies (say, above 20 Hz). Therefore, the effect on spectral accelerations is expected to be much smaller than the effect shown here. 2. Results are tabulated to l 00 Hz, but the exponential model for kappa effects (which can produce very high adjustment factors at these high frequencies) may not be applicable. Based on seismological principles, one expects the product of these adjustment factors and the Fourier amplitudes of the SWUS (Ref. 1) motions to produce a spectral-shape falloff beyond approximately 10 Hz that is roughly linear in log-amplitude vs. frequency space (see Ref. 7), possibly becoming steeper at higher frequencies. If there are appreciable differences from this anticipated falloff (e.g., shapes that do not reach a peak, bimodal shapes with an extra peak beyond 20 Hz), it is appropriate to truncate or flatten these adjustment factors at some appropriate frequency to remove these unphysical shapes. Because it is difficult to anticipate whether these effects will occur, and at what frequencies, the adjustment factors are provided as calculated, but with the understanding that they may need some modifications at high frequencies. The task to truncate or flatten PC No. PV001-PC-02 LCI PROJECT CALCULATION Rev.O Page 11 of 18 11111< ()ln..,,hllnb lnl\'m 1t10rlJI, Inc \" I. .; them (if needed) is left to the analyst that converts these adjustment factors to spectraacceleration factors. 3. For frequencies below 0.1 Hz, it is appropriate to assume that the adjustment factor is equal to the factor at 0.1 Hz. The nine calculated adjustment factors are shown in Figure 2 and given in Table 1; the associated summary statistics are given in Figure 2.

10 I I I I i i ,_ -E ::s ... .. u C1I c. V) ... ...... C1I *.: ::s 0 u. c: 1 --I I I I ... 0 .. u "' u. .. c: C1I E .. Ill ::s ...... "C <( t t ,_ 0.1 I I 0.1 -LB. Profile, LB kappa (0.09) -LB. Profile, UB kappa (0.09) PROJECT CALCULATION I ---**--._,_,_ 1: _j.. ......... I -. .-I -.,,,,. ,,_ + -......... ' ' i-.....' ... i"' ... l "" t +-.... I 1 1 10 Frequency (Hz) PC No. PV001-PC-02 Rev.O Page 12of18 ,,. I I n -.J 1--'-/J t) 1 'II ll 7 "//i ,., >--1--100 -LB. Profile, Median kappa (0.12) -Median Profile, LB kappa (0.12) -Median Profile, Median kappa (0.16) -Median Profile, UB kappa (0.12) -UB Profile, LB kappa (0.09) -UB Profile, Median kappa (0.12) UB Profile, UB kappa (0.09) Figure 2. Adjustment Factors PROJECT CALCULATION 10 j + t t t t t: --Logarithmic mean AF I logarithmic sigma (right Y axis) I I I -E ::J ... .., I.I QI a. II) I I 11 11 ... QI *;:: ::J 0 ""' c 1 ... 0 J I I I t l I I ti IU ""' .., c QI E t; ::J :c < I I I I I I I I ,/ I I y / 11 ../ I --/ -I I 0.1 0.1 1 10 Frequency {Hz) Figure 3. Summary statistics of the adjustment factor I I I I PC No. PV001-PC-02 Rev.O Page 13of18 l+ 2 i/ , 1.8 1.6 1.4 I.I IU c. II) 1.2 E -c 0 _Y( 1 *:; QI c -I --!-< I I I 11 100 0.8 'E IU "O c 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 PC No. PV001-PC-02 LCI PROJECT CALCULATION Rev.O Page 14of18 lct11.;f"nsi1llanb ln1l'maho11<1l, l1"K" ' ,_, , f Table 1. Adjustment factors (numbers in parentheses are weights for each profile-kappa combination) SWUS to PVNGS Adjustment Factor (Fourier-amplitude Space) LB LB Median Median UB UB UB Profile, Profile, Median Profile, Profile, Profile, Profile, Profile, LB Profile, Median UB Profile, Median UB LB Median UB Frequency LB kappa kappa kappa LB kappa kappa kappa kappa kappa kappa (Hzi (0.09) (0.12) (0.09) (0.12) (0.16) (0.12) (0.09). (0.12) (0.09). 0.1000 1.0136 1.0086 0.9993 0.8916 0.8873 0.8790 0.8598 0.8556 0.8477 0.1080 1.0218 1.0165 1.0063 0.8871 0.8824 0.8736 0.8528 0.8483 0.8398 0.1166 1.0313 1.0255 1.0144 0.8821 0.8771 0.8676 0.8451 0.8403. 0.8312 0.1259 1.0424 1.0360 1.0240 0.8766 0.8712 0.8611 0.8367 0.8316 0.8219 0.1359 1.0574 1.0504 1.0372 0.8721 0.8663 0.8554 0.8291 0.8236 0.8132 0.1468 1.0768 1.0691 1.0546 0.8684 0.8622 0.8505 0.8219 0.8160 0.8050 0.1585 1.0999 1.0914 1.0754 0.8643 0.8576 0.8451 0.8140 0.8077 0.7959 0.1711 1.1279 1.1185 1.1009 0.8597 0.8526 0.8391 0.8054 0.7987 0.7861 0.1848 1.1660 1.1555 1.1358 0.8571 0.8493 0.8349 0.7981 0.7910 0.7775 0.1995 1.1927 1.1811 1.1594 0.8549 0.8466 0.8310 0.7910 0.7833. 0.7689 0.2154 1.1895 1.1770 1.1536 0.8524 0.8435 0.8268 0.7830 0.7748 0.7594 0.2326 1.1852 1.1718 1.1467 0.8496 0.8400 0.8220 0.7742 0.7654 0.7491 0.2512 1.1856 1.1711 1.1441 0.8501 0.8397 0.8203 0.7678 0.7584 0.7409 0.2712 1.1867 1.1710 1.1419 0.8511 0.8398 0.8189 0.7612 0.7511 0.7324 0.2929 1.1878 1.1709 1.1395 0.8522 0.8400 0.8175 0.7538 0.7431 0.7231 0.3162 1.1890 1.1707 1.1368 0.8533 0.8402 0.8159 0.7456 0.7341 0.7128 0.3415 1.1950 1.1752 1.1385 0.8580 0.8438 0.8174 0.7393 0.7271 0.7043 0.3687 1.2037 1.1821 1.1423 0.8578 0.8425 0.8141 0.7334 0.7203 0.6960 0.3981 1.2136 1.1902 1.1469 0.8537 0.8372 0.8068 0.7268 0.7128 0.6869 0.4299 1.2251 1.1996 1.1526 0.8490 0.8313 0.7987 0.7193 0.7043 0.6768 0.4642 1.2429 1.2149 1.1636 0.8464 0.8274 0.7924 0.7133 0.6973 0.6678 0.5012 1.2688 1.2380 1.1817 0.8466 0.8260 0.7884 0.7092 0.6920 0.6605 0.5412 1.3013 1.2673 1.2051 0.8474 0.8252 0.7847 0.7046 0.6861 0.6525 0.5843 1.3476 1.3096 1.2403 0.8521 0.8281 0.7843 0.7014 0.6816 0.6455 0.6310 1.4077 1.3648 1.2871 0.8586 0.8325 0.7851 0.6987 0.6774 0.6388 0.6813 1.4269 1.3801 1.2954 0.8659 0.8375 0.7861 0.6956 0.6728 0.6315 0.7356 1.4146 1.3645 1.2744 0.8755 0.8445 0.7887 0.6931 0.6686. 0.6244 0.7943 1.4047 1.3511 1.2549 0.8901 0.8561 0.7952 0.6929 0.6665 0.6191 0.8577 1.3940 1.3366 1.2342 0.9073 0.8699 0.8033 0.6928 0.6643 0.6134 0.9261 1.3821 1.3207 1.2118 0.9275 0.8863 0.8132 0.6926 0.6619 0.6073 1.0000 1.3731 1.3074 1.1914 0.9546 0.9089 0.8283 0.6943 0.6611 0.6024 1.0798 1.3666 1.2962 1.1724 0.9900 0.9390 0.8494 0.6980 0.6620 0.5988 1.1659 1.3594 1.2839 1.1520 1.0338 0.9764 0.8762 0.7019 0.6629 0.5948 1.2589 1.3512 1.2703 1.1300 1.0758 1.0114 0.8998 0.7062 0.6639. 0.5906 LB Profile, Frequency LB kappa (Hz) (0.09) 1.3594 1.3483 1.4678 1.3478 1.5849 1.3471 1.7113 1.3460 1.8478 1.3446 1.9953 1.3435. 2.1544 1.3435 2.3263 1.3431 2.5119 1.3424 2.7123 1.3421 2.9286 1.3413 3.1623 1.3399 3.4145 1.3419 3.6869 1.3434 3.9811 1.3451 4.2987 1.3525. 4.6416 1.3605 5.0119 1.3751 5.4117 1.3923 5.8434 1.4148 6.3096 1.4430 6.8129 1.4746 7.3564 1.5156. 7.9433 1.5606 8.5770 1.6136 9.2612 1.6782 10.0000 1.7503 10.7978 1.8346 11.6591 1.9374 12.5893. 2.0549 13.5936 2.1894 14.6780 2.3499 15.8489 2.5422 17.1133 2.7672 18.4785 3.0319 PROJECT CALCULATION PC No. PV001-PC-02 Rev.O Page 15of18 SWUS to PVNGS Adjustment Factor (Fourier-amplitude Space) LB LB Median Median UB UB UB Profile, Median Profile, Profile, Profile, Profile, Profile, Median UB Profile, Median UB LB Median UB kappa kappa LB kappa kappa kappa kappa kappa kappa (0.12) (0.09) (0.12) (0.16) (0.12) (0.09) (0.12) (0.09) 1.2614 1.1117 1.0777 1.0082 0.8886 0.7142 0.6681 0.5888 1.2543 1.0943 1.0773 1.0026 0.8747 0.7246 0.6743 0.5883 1.2464 1.0757 1.0767 0.9963 0.8598 0.7364 0.6813 0.5880 1.2378 1.0557 1.0759 0.9894 0.8439 0.7496 0.6893 0.5879 1.2282 1.0344 1.0748 0.9817 0.8268 0.7645 0.6984 0.5882 1.2184 1.0121. 1.0739 0.9739 0.8090 0.7821 0.7093 0.5892 1.2089 0.9895 1.0739 0.9663 0.7909 0.8033 0.7228 0.5916 1.1984 0.9654 1.0735 0.9579 0.7716 0.8280 0.7387 0.5951 1.1869 0.9398 1.0730 0.9487 0.7512 0.8522 0.7535 0.5966 1.1751 0.9132 1.0728 0.9392 0.7300 0.8575 0.7508 0.5835 1.1620 0.8851 1.0721 0.9288 0.7075 0.8570 0.7424 0.5655 1.1476 0.8553 1.0710 0.9173 0.6837 0.8561 0.7332 0.5465 1.1351 0.8264 1.0726 0.9073 0.6606 0.8573 0.7252 0.5280 1.1213 0.7960 1.0738 0.8963 0.6362 0.8583 0.7164 0.5086 1.1067 0.7644 1.0751 0.8846 0.6110 0.8594 0.7070 0.4884 1.0956 0.7347. 1.0811 0.8757 0.5873 0.8641 0.7000 0.4694 1.0837 0.7040 1.0874 0.8662 0.5627 0.8692 0.6924 0.4498 1.0756 0.6751 1.0991 0.8598 0.5396 0.8785 0.6872 0.4313 1.0680 0.6458 1.1129 0.8536 0.5162 0.8895 0.6823 0.4126 1.0625 0.6173 1.1309 0.8493 0.4934 0.9039 0.6788 0.3944 1.0592 0.5892 1.1534 0.8466 0.4710 0.9219 0.6767 0.3765 1.0560 0.5606 1.1787 0.8441 0.4481 0.9421 0.6747 0.3582 1.0569 0.5334. 1.2114 0.8448 0.4264 0.9683 0.6752 0.3408 1.0574 0.5054 1.2474 0.8452 0.4039 0.9971 0.6756 0.3229 1.0599 0.4776 1.2898 0.8472 0.3817 1.0310 0.6772 0.3051 1.0659 0.4507 1.3414 0.8520 0.3603 1.0722 0.6810 0.2880 1.0722 0.4233 1.3990 0.8570 0.3383 1.1183 0.6850 0.2704 1.0808 0.3962 1.4664 0.8639 0.3167 1.1721 0.6905 0.2531 1.0941 0.3702 1.5486 0.8746 0.2959 1.2378 0.6990 0.2365 1.1088 0.3441. 1.6425. 0.8863 0.2750 1.3129 0.7084 0.2199 1.1246 0.3179 1.7500 0.8989 0.2541 1.3988 0.7185 0.2031 1.1446 0.2926 1.8783 0.9149 0.2338 1.5014 0.7313 0.1869 1.1692 0.2680 2.0321 0.9346 0.2142 1.6243 0.7470 0.1712 1.1962 0.2438 2.2119 0.9562 0.1949 1.7680 0.7643 0.1558 1.2258 0.2201 2.4235 0.9798 0.1759 1.9371 0.7832 0.1406 LB Profile, Frequency LB kappa (Hz} (0.09} 19.9526 3.3536 21.5443 3.7485 23.2631 4.2270 25.1189 4.8118 27.1227 5.5426 29.2864 6.4784 31.6228 7.6667 34.1455 9.1952 36.8695 11.1888 39.8107 13.8284. 42.9866 17.3805 46.4159 22.2896 50.1187 29.2648. 54.1170 39.2659 58.4341 53.9344 63.0957 75.9811 68.1292 110.005. 73.5642 164.031 79.4328 252.802 85.7696 404.226. 92.6119 671.328 100.000 1160.96 PROJECT CALCULATION PC No. PV001-PC-02 Rev.O Page 16of18 SWUS to PVNGS Adjustment Factor (Fourier-amplitude Space) LB LB Median Median UB UB UB Profile, Median Profile, Profile, Profile, Profile, Profile, Median UB Profile, Median UB LB Median UB kappa kappa LB kappa kappa kappa kappa kappa kappa (0.12) (0.09} (0.12) (0.16) (0.12) (0.09) (0.12) (0.09) 1.2614 0.1975 2.6806 1.0083 0.1578 2.1427 0.8059 0.1262 1.3041 0.1761 2.9963 1.0424 0.1407 2.3950 0.8332 0.1125 1.3518 0.1556 3.3787 1.0805 0.1244 2.7006 0.8637 0.0994 1.4050 0.1361 3.8461 1.1231 0.1088 3.0743 0.8977 0.0869 1.4671 0.1179 4.4303 1.1727 0.0943 3.5412 0.9373 0.0754 1.5422 0.1014 5.1783 1.2327 0.0811 4.1391 0.9853 0.0648 1.6277 0.0861 6.1281 1.3010 0.0688 4.8983 1.0399 0.0550 1.7252 0.0722 7.3499 1.3789 0.0577 5.8748 1.1022 0.0461 1.8369 0.0597 8.9434 1.4682 0.0477 7.1486 1.1736 0.0381 1.9655 0.0486 11.0533 1.5710 0.0388 8.8350 1.2557 0.0310 2.1143 0.0389 13.8925 1.6900 0.0311 11.1045 1.3508 0.0249 2.2920 0.0307 17.8164 1.8320 0.0245 14.2409 1.4644 0.0196 2.5099 0.0238 23.3918 2.0062 0.0190 18.6974 1.6036 0.0152 2.7684 0.0181 31.3858 2.2128 0.0145 25.0872 1.7687 0.0116 3.0774 0.0135 43.1106 2.4598 0.0108 34.4589 1.9662 0.0086 3.4500 0.0098 60.7328 2.7576 0.0078 48.5447 2.2042 0.0063 3.9029 0.0069 87.9283 3.1197 0.0055 70.2824 2.4936 0.0044 4.4589 0.0048 131.113 3.5641 0.0038 104.800 2.8488 0.0031 5.1544 0.0032 202.069 4.1200 0.0026 161.517 3.2932 0.0020 6.0417 0.0021 323.104 4.8292 0.0017 258.262 3.8601 0.0013 7.1753 0.0013 536.603 5.7353 0.0010 428.915 4.5843 0.0008 8.6394 0.0008 927.980 6.9056 0.0006 741.749 5.5197 0.0005 PROJECT CALCULATION 8. REFERENCES PC No. PV001-PC-02 Rev.O Page 17of18 1. GeoPentech. (2015). Southwestern United States Ground Motion Characterization SSHAC Level 3-Technical Report Rev.I, February 2015. 2. Lettis Consultants International (2015). Development of site profile and amplifications for Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, PYOOl-PC-04-RevO. 3. Boore, D.M., and Joyner, W.B. (1997). Site amplifications for generic rock sites, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 87 (2), 327-341. 4. Boore, D. M. (2003). Simulation of ground motion using the stochastic method, Pure. and Applied Geophysics v.160, 635-675. 5. Boore, D. M. (2013). The Uses and Limitations oftbe Square-Root-Impedance Method for. Computing Site. Amplification. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,. I 03( 4), 2356-2368. 6. Brocher, T. M. (2005). Empirical relations between elastic wavespeeds.and density in the Earth's crust. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 95(6), 2081-2092. 7. Anderson, J. G., and Hough, S. E. (1984). A model. for the shape of the Fourier amplitude spectrum of acceleration at high frequencies. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 74(5), 1969-1993. 8. Al Atik, L., Kottke, A., Abrahamson, N., and Hollenback, J. (2014). Kappa (K) Scaling of Ground-Motion Prediction Equations Using an Inverse Random Vibration Theory Approach. Bulletin of the. Seismological Society of America, 104( I), 336-346. 9. Biro, Y., and Renault, P. (2012). Importance and impact of host-to-target conversions for ground motion prediction equations in PSHA. In Proc. of the 15th World Conference on. Earthquake Engineering (pp. 24-28). 10. Cotton, F., Scherbaum, F., Bommer, J. J., and Bungum, H. (2006). Criteria for selecting and adjusting ground-motion models for specific target regions: Application to central Europe and rock sites. Journal of Seismology, 10(2), 137-156. 11. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) (2013). Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task. Force Recommendation 2. J: EPRl Report J 025287, Palo Alto, Calif. 12. H.F., L. W. Gardner, and A .. R. Gregory (1974) .. Formation velocity and density-the diagnostic basics for stratigraphic traps. Geophysics 39, 770-780. 13. Lockridge.I. S., Fouch, M. J.,.& A1Towsmith,.J. R. (2012). Seismicity within Arizona during the Deployment of the EarthScope USArray Transportable Array. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 102(4), 1850-1863. 14. Rodriguez-Marek, A., Rathje, E. M., Bommer, J. J., Scherbaum, F., and Stafford, P. J. (2014). Application of Single-Station Sigma and Site-Response Characterization in a Probabilistic Seismic-Hazard Analysis for a New Nuclear Site. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

PROJECT CALCULATION PC No. PV001-PC-02 Rev.O Page 18of18 15. Wan*en, D. H. (1969). A seismic-refraction survey of crustal structure in central Arizona. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 80(2), 257-282. 9 .. APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Electronic files are provided in a DVD. (PROPRIETARY) APPENDIX B: Calculations for 808 ft Thickness of Volcanics PROJECT CALCULATION APPENDIX A APPENDIX A PROPRIETARY PC No. PV001-PC-02 Revision 0 Page A1 of A2 L. tti.-* J'nsuh.1ntii lnlern.>tinn.il, Inc PROPRIETARY PROJECT CALCULATION APPENDIX A PC No. PV001-PC-02 Revision 0 PageA2 of A2 Electronic files included in this appendix are provided on a DVD-ROM disc that contains multiple files developed as part of this calculation. This disc is labeled: 'PVOOl-PC-02-RevO' PROPRJETARY A complete list of data directories and associated files are contained in the text file named file_ list_ a_ 02262015. txt, located in a separate folder named 'App_ A_ file_ list'.

PROJECT CALCULATION APPENDIX B PC No. PV001-PC-02 Rev.O Page 81 of BS APPENDIX B. CALCULATIONS FOR 808 FT THICKNESS OF VOLCANICS The calculations presented here follow the same steps documented in Section 6 above and are performed in file Calc_Adjustment_Factors_808ft.xlsm (contained in Appendix A). The only difference between the. two sets of calculations is that the thickness. of the volcanics has. been changed from 878 ft to 808 ft (see sheet Deep_Projile_Summary). Figures B-1 through B-3 show the Vs profiles considered, individual adjustment factors, and logarithmic-mean adjustment factors. These can be compared to Figures 1-3 .. An additional sheet in Calc_Adjustrnent_Factors_808ft .xlsm (sheet Compare_878ft) compares the results obtained with the 808-ft thickness to those obtained earlier with the 878-ft thickness. The differences observed are. small and are much smaller than the. the uncertainty in the adjustment factors (see Figure B-4). The maximum change in the logarithmic-mean adjustment factor is a reduction of two percent, and the change is much smaller at most frequencies. Given the size of this change, and given that ignoring this change is conservative, it is concluded that the change. can be ignored and the values in Table I and in file Adjustment_Factors.csv can be used.

LCI Qi ; 0 500 1000 Q. Ri .s:. "' .... 0 1500 .... .... 0 .ll E 0 .:: i:' -s 2000 Q. cu 0 2500 3000 PROJECT CALCULATION APPENDIX B 0 1000 Vs (m/s) 2000 3000 -, .... I I I , I I I I I ------I 1 I "' I l .... I l -I I I t -1 I I I . -J--I UB Profile -Base Case Profile ; I ... I -LB Profile I --Warren (1969) I I --SWUS Reference I Profile I -PC No. PV001-PC-02 Rev.O Page 82 of BS 4000 -Figure B-1. Vs deep profiles for. PVNGS, after modifying thickness of volcanics, A depth of 0 corresponds to. the bottom of the shallow profile (soils). Also shown are the Warren (1969) (Ref. 15) and SWUS (Ref. 1) profiles.

LCI PROJECT CALCULATION APPENDIX B PC No. PV001-PC-02 Rev.O Page 83 of BS 10 I I I ..L -1, -r, I. /,j , -E :J .... ti QI Q. V'I .... QI *;: :J 0 u.. c 1 .... 0 .... v "' u.. .... c QI l/J' 'l h :Ii --t-..+-I-,_ __J--. ---l --I I I * """' --L-,, 11-,_ -"'" -r.--. !"..'. ' i....... .... .... , I r..... .... I E .... Ill "" "'-:J :0 < 0.1 I I 1 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) -LB Profile, LB kappa (0.09) -LB Profile, Median kappa (0.12) -LB Profile, UB kappa (0.09) -Median Profile, LB kappa (0.12) -Median Profile, Median kappa (0.16) -Median Profile, UB kappa (0.12) -UB Profile, LB kappa (0.09) -UB Profile, Median kappa (0.12) UB Profile, UB kappa (0.09) Figure B-2. Adjustment factors after modifying thickness of volcanics.

LCI 10 ---E :I .... ti QI Q. V) .... QI *.::: :I 0 u.. c 1 .£. .... 0 ... u ro u.. --... c QI E ... Ill :I !tJ <t / 0.1 0.1 PROJECT CALCULATION APPENDIX B I I I I I I ' i i I *-*-+--Logarithmic mean AF l sigma (right Y axis) I I->--+ ._,_,_ --' J I I I ---I I ' l +-. --I -+ + --l l -'- + , -r --1 10 Frequency (Hz) I + PC No. PV001-PC-02 Rev.o Page 84 of BS 2 -1.8 -I-+-1.6 -1.4 -;-u ro Q. " ! Ill 1.2 c -c: 0 1 ... ro *:;; QI 0 +. 0.8 "C .... ro "C c -ro 0.6 ... V) -0.4 0.2 0 100 Figure B-3. Swnmary statistics of the adjustment factor after modifying thickness of volcanics 30% 20% 10% u.. < *= Gi 11.0 c 111 0% .s:. u ... c Q,I u ... Q,I Q. -10% -20% -30% PROJECT CALCULATION APPENDIX B PC No. PV001-PC-02 Rev.O Page BS of BS Change in Adjustment Factor as a Result of Modifying Thickness of Volcanics I ' ' I / _, , I \ \. ' ' ,. \ ,., _,, \ 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency {Hz) -LB Profile, LB kappa (0.09) -LB Profile, Median kappa (0.12) --LB Profile, UB kappa (0.09) -Median Profile, LB kappa (0.12) -Median Profile, Median kappa (0.16) -Median Profile, UB kappa (0.12) -UB Profile, LB kappa (0.09) -UB Profile, Median kappa (0.12) -UB Profile, UB kappa (0.09) -Logarithmic mean AF -1 sigma + 1 sigma Figure B-4. Change in logarithmic-mean adjustment factor (thick blue line) as a result of modifying thickness of volcanjcs.

Heeszel, David From:Heeszel, David Sent:? May 2015 20:01:54 +0000 To:Seber, Dogan

Subject:

Vs-kappa corTection paper Attachments: Reference 7 .21. pdf Attached is the Vs-kappa correction from PVNGS. --David David Heeszel Geophysicist U.S. NRC, NRO/DSEA/RGS2 Office: T-7E28 Mail Stop: T-7F3 Phone: 301-415-5066 Sent: 12 Feb 2015 20:0 l :46 +0000 To:Munson, Clifford;Ake, Jon Cc:Jackson, Diane

Subject:

ACTJON: SSHAC Review Guidance lmportance: High Amigos-I've taken the risk of putting together some guidance on how the WUS teams can approach review of the SSHACs. I've focused on what I think are the. key questions. we'd want the teams to answer as the goals of their reviews, so that we'd have a good, traceable basis for concluding the SSHAC process was acceptable/unacceptable. Certainly, I don't think that every team would necessarily have to address every sub-question, but have tried to identify 7 basic yet distinct areas that appear intrinsic to a good SSHAC process. I've pulled these 7 areas from various statements and concepts in NUREG/CR-6372 (SSHAC), NUREG-2117 (Implementing SSHAC), and NUREG-1563 (BTP on Expert Elicitation). I'm intentionally avoiding the use of anything that reads like Acceptance Criteria/Review Methods, as I appreciate the sensitivities that the scope isn't a licensing review ... I would appreciate your thoughts on this approach for guiding the teams in their upcoming reviews. I've run it past Diane as a straw man, and she didn't barf. If you think this is on the right track, please add/edit the attached. If you think this is nuts, or want to work on an alternative approach, let's talk on Tues/Wed. I'll be out on AL from Thurs 2/19 through 3/5, and would like to get your initial feedback before I split for sunnier climes. ThanksBritt Brittain E. Hill, Ph.D. Sr. Technical Advisor US Nuclear Regulatory Commission MS T7-F03, NRO/DSEA Washington, DC 20555-0001 Ph+ 1 1301' 415-6588* Er+ 1 (301) 415-5399; Mobile_(bJ(5l j email: Brittain.Hill@nrc.gov Sent:3 Jun 2015 l 7:32:37 +0000 To:Walsh, Lisa

Subject:

RE: Columbia -Seismicity Map Lisa -this. looks good and is a handy reference -the changes make the data comparisons clear. Seems appropriate to send to group, but I don't see a need for using at tomorrow's meeting (we're not doing evaluations/comparisons with PSHA bases yet). ThanksBritt From: Walsh, Lisa Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 12:23 PM To: Hill, Brittain

Subject:

RE: Columbia -Seismicity Map Hi. Britt, Here is an updated version. Do you see. any additional changes I should make?. Should I send this version to the rest of the group? Changes

• Magnitude threshold to. only display events greater than and equal to 1.85 as they used in the SSHAC ..

• lluminated pre-and post-the licensee's catalog Lisa From: Hill, Brittain Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 8:32 AM To: Walsh, Lisa

Subject:

RE: Columbia -Seismicity Map Hi Lisa -nice map -are you running Arc for this, or GMT? Before showing this at a public meeting, I'd suggest truncating the USGS catalog to same M threshold as the SSHAC (2?). By plotting all USGS quakes, the map gives the impression that lots of. earthquakes are missing from the SSHAC database (i.e., not considered in the PSHA). From: Walsh, Lisa Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 8:19 AM To: Seber, Dogan; Stirewalt, Gerry; Weaver, Thomas Cc: Hill, Brittain; Ake, Jon; Munson, Clifford; Li, Yong; Chokshi, Nilesh; John Stamatkos; Jackson, Diane; Karas, Rebecca

Subject:

Columbia -Seismicity Map Hi CGS Team, Attached is a map I compiled with seismicity out beyond the 200 mi radius from the. site and info provided in the SSHAC by the licensee. This might be a useful resource for the public meeting tomorrow. Lisa Lisa S. Walsh, Ph.D .. Geophysicist, U.S. NRC NRO/DSEA/RGS1 T-7F15, 301-415-5612 Sent:21May201521:40:13 +0000 To: Vega, Frankie;JacksonFD.....,.ian=e ______ _, Cc:DiFrancesco, Nicholas (bl(5l ------------

Subject:

Re: Draft ESEP relief letter to Diablo Canyon Someone who knows the details of. what Diablo is relying on for FLEX need to confirm that the 1988 LTSP analyses have indeed evaluated the. SSCs Diablo currently relies on for shutdown path. Unless. this. is clear, issue needs to be resolved with SRB discussion. etc .. Absent that confirmation, it is premature to conclude that.the 1988 LTSP. margins assessment encompasses the 2015 shutdown path that includes FLEX. Diablo didnt address FLEX SSCs in submittal. Working from blakberry-very hard to edit files! Britt Sent from Brittain Hill's PDA l(b)(6) I From: Vega, Frankie Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 04: 16 PM To: Hill, Brittain Cc: DiFrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

RE: Draft ESEP relief letter to Diablo Canyon Britt; I'm not aware if the SRB has. discussed this issue yet. I will confirm. Thanks Frankie From: Hill, Brittain Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 4: 12 PM To: Vega, Frankie Cc: DiFrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

Re: Draft ESEP relief letter to Diablo Canyon Hi Frankie -has the issue of Diablo meeting the ESEP requirements been discussed by the SRB? Have they determined that all FLEX is covered by LTSP analyses? Please confirm. Thanks-Britt Sent from Brittain Hill's PDA l(b)(6) I From: Vega, Frankie Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 04:02 PM To: Hill, Brittain Cc: DiFrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

Draft ESEP relief letter to Diablo Canyon Britt; Hope you are doing well. I've attached the draft ESEP relief letter to Diablo Canyon. This letter follows a very similar format to the letter we sent last year to several CEUS licensee also requesting ESEP relief (Based on their previous IPEEE evaluations). I'm sending this draft letter to you first since It mostly references Diablo's L TSP which you are very familiar with. Please review and feel free to make any necessary changes. I'm also planning to share this with the mitigation strategies technical reviewers. just as we did with the other ESEP relief letter I mentioned above. If you have questions please let me. know. Thanks! ..... Frankie G. Vega, P.E. Project Manager NRR/JLD/JHMB 301-415-1617 Location: 0-13Hl2 Munson, Clifford From:Munson, Clifford Sent:26 May. 2015 14:54:41 +0000. To:Ake, Jon;John Starnatkos

Subject:

lst Draft -Focus Area Topics for PVNGS Public Meeting Attachments:Focus Area Topics for PVNGS Public Meeting (draft l).docx Britt is out this week. Here is what I cobbled together so far. Would appreciate your comments and input. I am working on the site response question on Vs-kappa corrections. Thanks, Cliff Munson, Clifford From:Munson, Clifford Sent:29 Apr 2015.19:04:03 +0000 To:Ake, Jon;Stovall, Scott

Subject:

Boore paper on adjusting from vs30=760 to 3000 You may already have this paper. http://www.daveboore.com/daves notes/Adjusting PSA amplitudes to Vs30 3000.v02.pdf Munson, Clifford From:Munson, Clifford Sent:21May.2015 19:42: 17 +0000. To:DiFrancesco, Nicholas Cc:Jackson, Diane;Seber, Dogan;Ake, Jon; Weaver, Thomas;Stirewalt, Gerry;Walsh, Lisa;John Stamatkos;Hill, Brittain;Kock, Andrea

Subject:

Columbia Topics for 6/4 meeting. Attacbments:Focus Area Topics for CGS Public Meeting (draft 2).docx These are ready to go. Thanks, Cliff Munson, Clifford From:Munson, Clifford Sent: 19 May. 2015 13:21: 14 +0000. To:Seber, Dogan Cc:Jackson, Diane

Subject:

Columbia Topics for Public Meeting Dogan, When you get a chance would you please forward your topics/questions for the Columbia public meeting to Britt, Jon, and me. Diane suggested that we discuss during the Thursday meeting so that we can get them over to JLD by the end of the week. Thanks, Cliff Munson, Clifford From:Munson, Clifford Sent:27 May 2015 20:47:43 +0000 To:Weaver, Thomas;Stovall, Scott;Ake, Jon. Cc: Heeszel, David

Subject:

Confirm Hanford Vs-Kappa correction Thomas, David has programed the Hanford GMM both with and without the vs-kappa correction. If you give him some scenario events similar to the ones used by Hanford, you could try to replicate the Vs-kappa corrections in Figure 9.38. This would be useful to make sure we understand each of the steps in preparation for the meeting next week. Let's talk tomorrow after the Columbia. meeting. Thanks, Cliff Munson, Clifford From:Munson, Clifford Sent:29 Apr 201516:25: 16 +0000 To:Ake, Jon;Stovall, Scott Cc:Graizer, Vladimir

Subject:

dcpp median gmm I finished the swus-dcpp gmm this morning. Below are median gm results for a scenario event on one of the local faults which we can use for the analytical site response. Solid line is the weighted average of the 31 median models. There are 21 frequencies between 0.1 and 100. Benchmarking to come. Cliff DCPP Median Ground Motion 2.0 .... ------------------------------_. ________________ __ 1.8 x 1.6 x x x x x 1.4 x x x x )C x x x M 3E x x x x x x 1.2 x )rt x x x x -x x O> x x x ..._.... x <( 1.0 x x en x x x 0.8

• x x x x x x x x x 0.6 x )C x x x

• x x x )( x x x )C x x M x x 0.4 x x

• x x x x )( 0.2 x x x 0.1 1 10 frequency (Hz)

Munson, Clifford From:Munson, Clifford Sent:28 May 2015 13:57:39 +0000 To:DiFrancesco, Nicholas;Jackson, Diane

Subject:

DCPP RAI-Draft 2 Attachments:DCPP RAJ (draft 2).docx Some modifications. Cliff To the Power Reactor Licensees on the Enclosed List May 27, 2015.

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION 2.1, SEISMIC RE-EVALUATIONS RELATED TO SITE RESPONSE FOR DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT (TAC NOS. XXXXX, XXXXX) By letter dated March 15, 2015,. to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRG), Pacific Gas and Electric, submitted for NRG review the Seismic Hazard and Screening Report, Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 50, Section 50.54(f), Response for Information Regarding Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term. Task Force. Review. of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant. Included in the seismic hazard reevaluation report is an evaluation of the site response for Diablo Canyon using an alternative empirical approach. The NRG staff has reviewed the information provided for Diablo Canyon and has determined that additional information is required to complete its review .. Enclosed is. a request for additional information (RAI) related to the site response evaluation. As discussed with your staff on XXXX YY, 2015, it was agreed that a response to the RAI would be provided no later than XXXXX YY, 2015. If you have any questions related to. the enclosed RAls or the requested submission date, please contact me at 301-415-1115 or via e-mail at Nicholas.Difrancesco@nrc.gov.

Enclosures:

1 . Request for Additional Information 2. Addressee List cc w/encls: Distribution via Listserv Sincerely, IRA/ Nicholas J. DiFrancesco, Senior Project Manager Hazards Management Branch. Japan Lessons-Learned Division Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

ML 14268A516 Sincerely, IRA/ Nicholas J. DiFrancesco, Senior Project Manager Hazards Management Branch Japan Lessons-Learned Division Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation RidsNrrDorllpl2-2 NDiFrancesco, NRA RidsNrrPMRobinson RidsRgn2MailCenter RidsNrrOd *via mail OFFICE NRR/JLD/JHMB/PM NRR/JLD/JHMB/LA* NRR/DORULPL2-2/PM* NRR/DORULPL2-1 /PM* NAME NDiFrancesco Slent MBarillas SWilliams DATE 09/29/14 09/29/14 10/15/14 09/30/14 OFFICE NRR/DORULPL2-1/PM* NRO/DSEA/RGS1

• NRR/JLD/JHMB/BC NRR/JLD/JHMB/PM NAME RHall (w/comments) DJackson SWhalev. NDiFrancesco DATE 09/30/14 10/15/14 10/23/14 10/23/14 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION 2.1 SEISMIC HAZARD AND SCREENING REPORT FOR DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT Review of Alternative Empirical Site Response Evaluation By letter dated March 12, 2012 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML12053A340), the NRG staff requested that licensees submit site specific hazard curves that capture the variability in soil depth (including depth to generic rock conditions), shear-wave velocities, layer thicknesses, damping, and strain dependent nonlinear material properties at the site. Specifically, Attachment 1 to "Seismic" Enclosure 1 of the March 12, 2012, letter stated that "site amplification curves should be developed over a broad range of annual exceedance frequencies to facilitate estimation of seismic core damage frequency.". By letter dated February 15, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML 12319A074), "Endorsement of Electric Power Research Institute [EPRI] Final Draft Report 1025287, 'Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID),' the NRG staff endorsed using the SPID guidance. Regarding the development of site amplification curves for the NTTF Recommendation 2.1 seismic hazard reevaluations, Section 2 of the SPID states: Site amplification factors should be calculated as described in Section 2.4. As discussed in that section, multiple models of site amplification factors (and associated. uncertainties) should be developed, indicating the log-mean and standard deviation of control-point motion divided by input rock motion, for various spectral frequencies. The SPID further recommends that the soil and/or rock uncertainties should be incorporated into the seismic hazard calculations via the site amplification and their uncertainties through the hazard integral to develop control-point hazard curves .. The control-point elevation hazard curves should then be used to calculate the GMRS. By letters dated March 15, 2015, the. licensee for the Diablo. Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) submitted an alternative site response evaluation, referred to as the empirical approach, which uses the observed ground motions at the site from two earthquakes to "constrain the site amplification rather than analytical models." While. the staff considers the empirical site response approach as a viable alternative to the analytical approach, the method as implemented by the licensee was able to use only three site recordings from two earthquakes to constrain the local site amplification. As such, the licensee's estimate of the uncertainty in the local site term is potentially impacted by the limited amount of data. Request for Additional Information Consistent with the request for information issued pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal regulations, Part 50, Section 50.54(f) and the SPID guidance, please provide a revised March 2015 Enclosure1 seismic hazard reevaluation submittal that develops site amplification factors as recommended in Section 2.4 and Appendix B of the SPID. Please provide (1) a detailed description of the subsurface profile properties including uncertainties, (2) potential for nonlinear behavior at the strain produced by the. scenario earthquakes of interest, and (3) control. point elevation .. In addition, provide the adjustment factors (Vs-kappa corrections) needed to modify the median ground motion models for the selected reference or baserock elevation and velocity. Also include in the response, in table form, control point seismic hazard curves developed using the site amplification factors and their uncertainties through the hazard integral as recommended in Appendix B of the SPID.

H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant Duke Energy Progress, Inc. Docket No. 50-261 License No. DPR-23 Mr. William R. Gideon, Vice President H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant 3581 West Entrance Road Hartsville, SC 29550 Oconee Nuclear Station Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC List of Addressees Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270 and 50-287 License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47 and DPR-55 Mr. Scott Batson Vice President, Oconee Nuclear Station Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 7800 Rochester Highway Seneca, SC 29672-0752 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station South Carolina Electric and Gas Company Docket No. 50-395 License No. NPF-12 Mr. Thomas D. Gatlin, Vice President Nuclear Operations South Carolina Electric and Gas Company Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Post Office Box 88, Mail Code 800 Jenkinsville, SC 29065 Enclosure 2 Sent:23 Apr 2015 19:34:30 +0000 To:Ake. Jon;John Stamatkos

Subject:

DCPP Scenario events Munson,. Clifford From:Munson, Clifford Sent:30 Apr 2015 19:28:09 +0000 To:Stovall, Scott;Ake, Jon. Cc:Graizer, Vladimir

Subject:

DCPP Scenario Worksheet Attachments:scenario-spreadsheet.csv, scenario-spreadsheet.xlsx, scenario-spreadsheet.ads Scott and Jon, I developed 5 scenario events each at 3 levels (16, 50, 84). So there are a total of 15 events. saved the spreadsheet in three formats -hopefully one of them will work for you. Here are the parameters Mag 7.5 6.5. 6.8 6.0 8.0 Ztor 1 1 1 1 1 Rrup 5.1 1.2 9.2 5.1 5.1 Rjb .3.7 . . 0.6. o.n . 3.7 .3.7. Dip 85 90 60 85 85 Width 15 12 15 12 15 Rx. 5. .0.6. 10 5 5 F SS SS REV SS SS I tried to get a sufficient range of SA values yet still keep this. somewhat realistic. Let me know if you want me to add another scenario. Thanks, Cliff freq 0.1 0.133333 0.2 0.25 0.333333 0.5 0.666666 1 1.333333 2 2.5 3.333333 4 5 6.666667 10 13.33333 20 33.33333 50 100 S1-L S1-M 0.0135928 0.02323223 0.02126067 0.03630149 0.02409332 0.0411381 0.04022888 0.06862008 0.05301979 0.09043807 0.09164862 0.15601652 0.14167118 0.24093055 0.21814579 0.37024451 0.27242788 0.4614501 0.36417754 0.61501182 0.40726873 0.68640871 0.47517616 0.79925945 0.58357937 0.98061553 0.65999943 1.10681187 0.67182266 1.12326444 0.58402362 0.97256939 0.53894264 0.89480798 0.40332911 0.66764251 0.32281427 0.53169879 0.30574949 0.5030885 0.29870653 0.49002754 Sheetl S1 -H S2-L S2-M S2-H 0.03970752 0.00589409 0.01020574 0.01767144 0.06198292 0.01001215 0.01731891 0.02995808 0.07024117 0.01871057 0.03236535 0.05598526 0.11704813 0.02539436 0.04388301 0.07583252 0.15426398 0.03797482 0.0656228 0.1134002 0.26559216 0.06757365 0.11653808 0.20098255 0.40973422 0.09803317 0.16889984 0.29099493 0.62839165 0.17031874 0.29285324 0.50354425 0.78162409 0.22171708 0.38084868 0.65419282 1.03861304 0.32708952 0.56016641 0.95932883 1.15686986 0.39553462 0.67670695 1.15775528 1.34437649 0.48466229 0.82753578 1.41297 45 1.64777384 0.57464538 0.98019656 1.6719621 1.85611147 0.60995261 1.03938167 1.77114457 1.87805962 0.64599653 1.09750438 1.86458565 1.61961123 0.5758048 0.97532302 1.65204421 1.48565221 0.50718422 0.85737405 1.44935555 1.10516825 0.41862939 0.70626183 1.19152113 0.87574691 0.33913793 0.56986923 0.95757774 0.8277954 7 0.31006683 0.52049895 0.8737 4438 0.80388932 0.29220525 0.48904596 0.81848615 Page I

$3-L $3-M $3-H 0.00451818 0.00776098 0.01333122 0.007 45782 0.01279767 0.02196089 0.01214696 0.02084426 0.03576889 0.0180192 0.03089016 0.05295474 0.02837656 0.0486457 0.08339292 0.05878505 0.10057337 0.17206762 0.09098823 0.15551313 0.26579629 0.1565745 0.26707565 0.45556206 0.22743113 0.387551 0.66040116 0.32907062 0.5590687 0.94981988 0.3932533 0.66677586 1.1305437 0.48875519 0.82704718 1.39948801 0.55287124 0.93460608 1.57991311 0.64332396 1.08533984 1.83105655 0.65070698 1.09560218 1.84467692 0.61103827 1.02470454 1.71841837 0.52224613 0.87317761 1.45992302 0.41903824 0.69851887 1.16440113 0.32035244 0.53188205 0.88308526 0.29310184 0.48615141 0.80635179 0 .28652044 0.47381165 o. 78353042 Sheetl $4-L $4-M S4-H S5-L 0.00141504 0.00247976 0.00434558 0.02435431 0.00251936 0.00441057 0.00772146 0.03666668 0.00523621 0.00916689 0.01604823 0.03245563 0.00736962 0.01288889 0.02254167 0.0597338 0.01202286 0.02102705 0.03677468 0.07387252 0.02361384 0.04125751 0.07208407 0.12573558 0.0361113 0.06309275 0.11023405 0.20049557 0.06559398 0.11437516 0.19943411 0.29220897 0.09763834 0.17008022 0.2962697 0.3556664 0.15350101 0.26685545 0.46391768 0.44779938 0.19326401 0.33564605 0.58292422 0.47353872 0.25366551 0.43966651 0.7620533 0.53575002 0.29240918 0.50681909 0.87844571 0.68431228 0.32928307 0.57016043 0.98724454 0.77468653 0.36299417 0.62727609 1.08397137 0. 78104157 0.33126088 0.57072428 0.9832921 0.66341963 0.29304614 0.50438006 0.8681201 0.62851214 0.23611794 0.40558539 0.69668365 0.45284468 0.18941057 0.32438043 0.55552688 0.36316698 0.16916332 0.28970543 0.49614323 0.3506405 0.16295276 0.2782334 0.47506912 0.34416697 Page2 S5-M S5-H 0.04162532 0.07114419 0.06260646 0.1068973 0.05541631 0.09462047 0.10189042 0.17379874 0.126007 43 0.21493612 0.21404391 0.36437413 0.34096921 0.57986317 0.49594707 0.84173833 0.60244309 1.02044411 o. 75622982 1.27709765 0.79809982 1.34511351 0.90114634 1.51575306 1.14988171 1.93219967 1.29914089 2.17864514 1.30587471 2.18337773 1.10478686 1.83979184 1.04352046 1.73255995 0.7496071 1.24084665 0.59816267 0.9852178 0.5769534 0.94933477 0.5646053 0.926234 Sheetl Page 3 Munson,. Clifford From:Munson, Clifford Sent:29 Apr 2015 17:55:32 +0000 To:Stovall, Scott

Subject:

dcpp site response See Section 9.3 in the Hanford SSHAC -this is what I was thinking we could do for DCPP.

Munson, Clifford From:Munson, Clifford Sent:27 Apr 201517:21:46 +0000 To:HiJl, Brittain

Subject:

DCPP SSC Britt, Would you make an unlocked version of the SSC like you did for the GMC? Thanks, Cliff freq 0.1 0.13333 0.2 0.25 0.3333 0.5 0.6666 1 1.3333 2 2.5 3.3333 4 5 6.66667 10 13.3333 20 33.3333 50 100 host AF Sheetl target27 AF target28 AF target27 /host target28/host 1.137 1.132 1.138 0.99560246 1.00087951 1.181 1.173 1.182 0.99322608 1.0008467 4 1.262 1.249 1.263 0.98969889 1.00079239 1.311 1.294 1.312 0.9870328 1.00076278 1.38 1.356 1.382 0.9826087 1.00144928 1.488 1.449 1.491 0.97379032 1.00201613 1.578 1.52.2 1.583 0.96451204 1.00316857 1.732 1.635 1.74 0.94399538 1.00461894 1.875 1.73 1.886 0.92266667 1.00586667 2.135 1.893 2.154 0.88665105 1.0088993 2.292 2.019 2.3 0.88089005 1.0034904 2.48 2.215 2.407 0.89314516 0.97056452 2.593 2.348 2.428 0.90551485 0.93636714 2.724 2.535 2.431 0.93061674 0.89243759 2.88 2.765 2.455 0.96006944 0.85243056 3.104 3.161 2.577 1.0183634 0.83021907 3.266 3.462 2.828 1.06001225 0.865891 3.514 3.671 3.136 1.04467843 0.89243028 3.808 3.799 3.267 0.99763655 0.85793067 3.996 3.854 3.314 0.96446446 0.82932933 4.147 3.895 3.358 0.93923318 0.80974198 Page I DCPP Mediar1 Ground Motion .............. ........ --....... ----............... ....... ---....... _._ ............. ._ 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 --0> <( 1.0 Cf) 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 1 ....... \ I \ I \ I \ I I \ I \ I x x \ >', Ix \ I x x \ I x \ \ /X)I. x XX \ )( x \ \ x\ 10 frequency (Hz) \ \ \ ....... x ....... ---100 Information (pages 503/1000) is within scope of FOIA and should be released. Munson, Clifford From:Munson, Clifford Sent:4 May 2015 17:44:31 +0000 To:Graizer, Vladimir

Subject:

dcpp-scenario.pptx Attachments:dcpp-scenario.pptx Slide with one of the scenario SA for DCPP. Cliff Munson, Clifford From:Munson, Clifford Sent:23 Apr 2015.18:56: 12 +0000 To:Graizer, Vladimir Cc:Ake, Jon;John Stamatkos;Hill, Brittain;Jackson, Diane

Subject:

Diablo GMM for Local Sources Presentation Attachments:Diablo GMM_Local.pptx Vlad, Attached are a few slides for Monday. Thanks, Cliff SWUS GMM for DCPP April 2:3, 2015 SWUS GMM Notation Table 1-1: Notation used in HID, Part II: DCPP. T Period (seconds) M Moment magnitude NML Normal sources (-120 -60) REV Reverse sources, including Reverse-Oblique (REV-OBL); (30 s rakes 150) SS Strike-slip sources, including Normal-Oblique; (-180 s rake< -120, -60 < rake < 30, and 150 < rake s 180) FNML style of faulting (FNML=1 for NML, 0 otherwise) FRv style of faulting (FRv=1 for REV, 0 otherwise) ZroR Depth to top of rupture (km) Dip Fault dip (degrees) w Down-dip rupture width (km) L Rupture length (km) RRuP Rupture distance (km) Ris Joyner-Boore distance (km) Rx Horizontal distance from top of rupture measured perpendicular to strike (km) Rv Horizontal distance from center of rupture measured parallel to strike (km) f Hw Hanging Wall factor (155 Total sigma Width SWUS GMM Distance Notations Strike-slip faulting Reverse or normal faulting, hanging-wall site : Rx=Rib (positive) : l( )! I Dip Fault Rx (positive) Surface Rrup = Closest distance to rupturing fault plane (slant distance) Site Rjb =Closest horizontal distance to vertical projection of the rupture Rx= Closest horizontal distance to top of rupture Surface SWUS -DCPP

• DCPP. median. ground motion models separated into two. sets -Nearby faults -Distant faults

• Up to 31 Common form median models for nearby faults -Hosgri rupture model -Outward-Vergent rupture model -Southwest-Vergent rupture n1odel -Northeast-Vergent rupture rr1odel -Irish Hills-Estero Bay {IHEB) Source Zone

• Five NGA-West 2 GMPEs (+ 3 additional epistemic for each= 15 total models) used for distant sources Logic Tree for Median at Nearbv Faults 'J.ourcf' Oln.mu Mf'n le llrutiv1tv (h for ( r>'11m0fl f!Jlll'm Arl111ih1 :uo 1s11 tr!V:\UI oas1 Ht'l.'4111 1 of 5 HW models tfl lf*I assigned to each H'Wl( Example for PGA llN3[ .1 base model branch ll!Nl (ll f H n 5(lJ ( 1111 111 tll fUlll llvvS I l 1rv21 Ct>tll1 .. H..,.JllJ 0 HN't(l} tr.HU) U2[0020) llW!i[l] Al a23(oou1 lfAi4(1)

• 1111 f\ tl.2."1[0024) II a2scoon1 lf:l'Yl(JJ I

• llJVS(tl No directivity adjustment 1227(0011) trNZ(l) 128(0041) IM'llll I ltl'>(O OU) 11.Nl(l] tl'.30[1) 019) 11#4ll) 02iJ 1-tWl (l) R11trncd loo1moo ronn ° 11011 0 1 Base Model The functional form of the DCPP base model GMPEs is given in Eq. 2-1: Ln ( SABASE(M,RRuP,ZT0R,F,T)) = a0(T)-a2(T)RRUP + ai(T)ZroR + a120(T)FRv + ( a4 (T) +a5(T)(M -5)) In ( + a:(T) )-a9(T)FNML + -a1(T) +a2(T)(M -5.5) for M < 5.5 a1(T)(M -6.5) for5.5 < M < 6.5 a3(T)(M -6.5) for M > 6.5 (Eq. 2-1) Each of 31 models has 9 coefficients which are unique for each period Some. periods do. not use all 31 models Coefficient a9 is different for each period but same for all 31 models Base Model Coefficients for f=lO Hz Weight ID ao. a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6 a7 as alO HW branch (T =0.1 s) Model 1 1.37939 0.208505 1.22538 -0.20679 -1.07715. 0.221829 5.79698. 0.110195 0.108741 0.046582 3 0.213802 Model 2 2.08907 -0.03872 0.288456 -0.29772 -1.50424 0.285801 6.32318 0.073587 0.212603 0.321285 4 0.026091 Model 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Model 4 1.42017 0.229463 1.26391 -0.18665 -1.01908 0.158087 5.54758 0.097386 0.164283 0.40946 5 0.045412 Table 2-1: Period dependent a, coefficients for F ..... Model 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Model 6. 2.11812 0.018214. 0.601 -0.2412. -1.43939 0.229396 6.44111 0.099093 0.109868 0.187477 2 0.090946 Period (sec) ... Model 7. 1.41537 -0.15843. 0.184346 -0.34334. -1.35195 0.248723 4.83625 0.043879 0.156605 0.283496 3 0.106704 0.01 0.132 Model 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 O.G2 0.132 Model 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0.03 0.132 Model 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Model 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Model 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.05 0.132 ---o:n7r:; n 132 c 0.1 0.132 D 0.1:. 0.132 Model 13 1.71824 -0.12097 0.045631 -0.41779 -1.52157 0.365292 4.77083 0.078932 0.322164 0.070163 1 0.021841 0.2 0.122 Model 14 1.70842 -0.06499. 0.933162 -0.38424. -1.33162 0.272438 5.45517 0.032357 0.279844 0.026501 5 0.025405 --0.25 0.113 Model 15 1.35801 0.227881. 0.80121 -0.07749. -0.98918 0.17225 5.81514 0.150695 0.109848 0.582348 5 0.033783 0.3 0.104 Model 16 0.135637 0.55761 0.680404 -0.02608 -0.46462 0.206783 3.94907. 0.156003 O.Q13575 0.291355 2 0.023577 0.4 0.095 Model 17 2.5824 -0.08858 0.070521 -0.46784 -1.82498. 0.330311 7.36546. 0.04215 0.176967 0.092855 2 0.070407 o.s 0.095 Model 18 1.29169 0.160183 0.256293 0.000711 -1.14381 0.158694 5.98039 0.044523 -0.02714 0.395977 4 0.039704 Model 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Model 20 1.13328 -0.01714 0.917788 -0.10739 -1.00981 0.120088 5.50958 0.137317 0.049162 0.265754 3 0.038353 0.75 0.086 1 0.077 1.5 0.068 2 0.058 Model 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.039 Model 22 1.83279. -0.18253 0.87006. -0.30695 -1.42278 0.358787 5.59443 0.083036 0.262303 -0.10329 5 0.014387. 4 0.020 Model 23 1.72167 0.036879. 0.069845 -0.38891. -1.44441 0.360783 4.97423 0.111618 0.331344 0.047177 4 0.015225 5 0.000 Model 24 1.48175 0.160589 1.03484 -0.19933 -1.0126 0.130542 6.03483 0.063056 0.096106 0.269177 3 0.013056 7.5 0.000 Model 25 1.2764 0.148104 1.1556 -0.29942 -1.09622 0.264494 4.31646. 0.16418 0.31363 0.031954 1 0.02341 10 0.000 Model 26 1.69432 0.364288 0.512214 -0.08895 -1.14172 0.219346 6.92161 0.168786 0.183995 0.120731 5 0.026731 Model 27 0.997811 -0.01465 0.810009 -0.02759 -1.02663 0.176784 4.90505 0.028728 0.007867 0.261264 2 0.018086 Model 28 1.67589 0.240931 0.3965 -0.12191 -1.23775 0.180479 6.61248 0.130284 0.073181 0.315853 3 0.088166 Model 29 0.44296 0.248235 0.446781 0.209578 -0.71921 0.089693 5.0781 0.108356 -0.06265 0.39772 1 0.030853 Model 30 -0.09241 0.111952 0.391203 -0.05354 -0.61128 0.125671 2.84165 0.131171 0.028781 0.323736 4 0.009617 Model 31 1.03204 0.190696. 0.640938 -0.10285. -0.96101 0.107609 5.67792 0.154048 0.050723 0.282794 1 0.024445 sum.

Hanging Wall Effect I it Rx is positive I (Eq. 2-2a) where (Eq. 2-2 b) (Eq. 2-2 c)

Hanging Wall Coefficients Table 2-2: Coefficients for HW Factor Model. Period Model-dependent Cl Coefficients Coefficients held Constant (sec) for all five models Model Model Model Model Model C2 C3 C4 HWl HW2 HW3 HW4 HWS 0.01 0.868 0.982 1.038 1.095 1.209 0.2160 2.0289 0.1675 0.02 0.867 0.987 1.046 1.106 1.226 0.2172 2.0260 0.1666 0.03 0.856 0.997 1.067 1.138 1.278 0.2178 2.0163 0.1670 0.05 0.840 1.027 1.121 1.215 1.402 0.2199 1.9870 0.1699 0.075 0.857 1.041 1.133 1.226 1.410 0.2218 1.9906 0.1817 0.1 0.848 1.040 1.135 1.231 1.422 0.2213 1.9974 0.1717 0.15 0.868 1.009 1.080 1.150 1.292 0.2169 2.0162 0.1814 0.2 0.850 1.005 1.082 1.160 1.315 0.2131 1.9746 0.1834 0.25 0.868 0.985 1.044 1.102 1.219 0.1988 1.9931 0.1767 0.3 0.839 0.974 1.041 1.108 1.242 0.2019 2.0179 0.1658 0.4 0.780 0.934 1.011 1.089 1.243 0.2090 2.0249 0.1624 0.5 0.741 0.902 0.982 1.063 1.223 0.2053 2.0041 0.1719 0.75 0.613 0.869 0.997 1.125 1.380 0.1713 1.8697 0.1866 1 0.621 0.788 0.872 0.955 1.123 0.1571 1.8526 0.3143 1.5 0.506 0.662 0.740 0.818 0.974 0.1559 1.8336 0.3195 2 0.391 0.537 0.609 0.682 0.828 0.1559 1.7996 0.3246 3 0.128 0.245 0.304 0.362 0.480 0.1616 1.6740 0.3314 4 0 0.034 0.088 0.138 0.231 0.1616 1.6740 0.3314 5 0 0 0 0 0.040 0.1616 1.6740 0.3314 7.5 0 0 0 0 0 0.1616 1.6740 0.3314 10 0 0 0 0 0 0.1616 1.6740 0.3314 DCPP Median Ground Motion Southwestern United States Ground Motion Characterization SSHAC Level 3 TECHNICAL REPORT -Rev. 2 2.5 DCPP Ground Motion for the Median The DCPP ground motion model for the median from REV and SS sources is given by ln(SA(g)) =Ln ( SABASE(J\tl. RRUP' ZTOR'F. T)) + f HWO\!f.,Dip fV,Rx.RJB,RRUP,ZroR) (Eq. 2-3) + foJR ss(M,R,o.,,,R ,R or SS events I No directivity J ,RY,W,L.D;p) for REV events The DCPP ground motion model for the median from NML sources is given by In( SA(g)) = Ln (SA BASE ( M. RRUP, Z TOR, F. T)) + f HW ( M' Dip. ff 'Rx. R JB. RRUP' ZTOR) (Eq. 2-4)

Results for f=l and 10 Hz 2.0 --+-'-__.__ .................... __.__ .................... ......__ .................... ......__ ................................................................. __.__ ........... -+-1 .8 1.6 O> 1.4 -<( 1.2 Cf) c 1.0 co i5 0.8 Q) f=l Hz *

• E o.6 * * *

• 0.4 --.!. .. ------------*---.. ----!_ _. -----0.2 * * * * * * * * * * * *

• 0.0 ---..-.-....................... -.-....................... -.-....................... -....................... -.-..-............ ----....-.--0 10 20 30 median model no. 2.0 ............ -................................... __ ............ ___ ......................... ___ __.__ ....................... __ ..._._ ........... __ 1.8 1.6 O> 1.4 -<( 1.2 Cf) c 1.0 co i5 0.8 Q) E o.6 0.4 0.2

• f=lO Hz * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * *

• 0.0 -t--.--.-..-....-.-....,........,-.....-............ ....,........,.-.-....................... -.-..-..,........,.......,........,-.....-....................... --0 10 20 30 median model no. Parameter Value Mag 8.1 ZroR 2.0 km RRUP 10.2 km RJB 10.0 km Dip 85 Width 15.0 km Rx 10.0 km F SS Total Sigma Model 3. Total Sigma Model for DCPP 3.1 Structure of the Logic Tree Model M-Dependent 1 0 (See Eq. 3-1) Epistemic Uncertainty High (95% percentile) 0.3 Central 0.55 Low (5*.4 ercentile) 015 (Set? Tobie J 1) Figure 3-1: Logic Tree for Total Sigma at DCPP. Partially Non-Ergodic Directivity Adjustment Yes-Central 0.0 No 1.0 Aleatory Distribution Form Mixture Model 08 Accounts for heavy tails Normal 0.2 (See Eq 3-l)

Total Sigma Model 3.2 DCPP Total Sigma Model The following values are provided obtain the total sigma as a function of Magnitude, O$$(M), for hazard calculations using: f (M-5) ( ) CT1+--* Uz-U1 CTss(M) = 2 CTz fo1*M< 7.0 forM 7.0 The period-dependent values of 0'1 and a2 are listed in Table 3-1: 3-1: Epistemic Distribution for O' ss for DCPP. Period (sec) Low Branch Central Branch CH <n CH en 0.01 0.456 0.390 0.576 0.495 0.02 0.457 0.394 0.577 0.498 0.03 0.458 0.396 0.577 0.499 0.05 0.460 0.402 0.578 0.504 0.075 0.461 0.407 0.578 0.507 0.1 0.462 0.411 0.579 0.510 0.15 0.464 0.416 0.580 0.514 0.2 0.465 0.419 0.581 0.517 0.25 0.465 0.422 0.581 0.519 0.3 0.466 0.424 0.581 0.520 0.4 0.466 0.427 0.582 0.522 0.5 0.467 0.429 0.582 0.524 0.7" ..... --v.4.:SL u.::>o., U.::>.L I c 1 0.468 0.434 0.583 0.529 1.:> -A_..., n .d'.:t7 n <;.'.:t1 2 0.469 0.439 0.584 0.532 3 0.470 0.441 0.585 0.534 4 0.470 0.441 0.585 0.534 5 0.470 0.441 0.585 0.535 7.5 0.471 0.442 0.585 0.535 10 0.471 0.442 0.586 0.536 (Eq. 3-1) High Branch CH 02 0.699 0.614 0.699 0.614 0.700 0.615 0.700 0.616 0.701 0.617 0.702 0.618 0.703 0.620 0.703 0.621 0.704 0.622 0.704 0.623 0.704 0.625 0.705 0.626 v. --"""8 0.706 0.629 ... 1 v:031 0.707 0.632 0.707 0.633 0.707 0.634 0.707 0.634 0.708 0.635 0.708 0.635 For M=8.1 ass (low) 0.434 (0.15) ass (central)= 0.592 (0.55) ass (high) = 0.629 (0.30)

To Do List

• Program more periods

• Validate results for a examples

• Implement with Roland's codes

• Run PSHA for major sources

• Distant sources -NGA West 2 GMPEs already part of Roland's codes