ML14090A144

Firstenergy Nuclear Operating Co., Enclosure B to L-14-120 - 2734294-R-018, Rev. 1, NTTF 2.1 Seismic Hazard and Screening Report, Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 2, Beaver County, Pennsylvania.

ML14090A144
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	03/20/2014
From:	ABS Consulting
To:	FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML14090A143	List: L-14-120, Firstenergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) Seismic Hazard and Screening Report (CEUS Sites), Response to NRC Request for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Review of in ML14090A144 ML14090A145 ML14090A146 ML14090A148
References
L-14-120 2734294-R-018, Rev 1
Download: ML14090A144 (85)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:Enclosure B L-14-120NTTF 2.1 Seismic Hazard and Screening Reportfor Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 2Beaver County, Pennsylvania (84 pages follow) ABSGonsulting 2734294-R-018 Revision II"CRFiliml;ffiffii"r*;fi; ENGIN'E[,RS IC'ONSLII.TANTS i CMNTTF 2.1 SeismicHazard and Screening ReportBeaver Valley Power Station Unit 2Beaver Gounty, Pennsylvania March 20,2014Preparedfor: FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating CompanyABSG Consulting Inc. . 300 Commerce Drive, Suite 200 . lrvine, California 92602 2734294-R-018 Reaision LMarch 20,201.4Page 2 of 55REVISION l REPORTNTTF 2.1 SEISMIC H.AZARD AND SCREENING REPORTBEAVERVALLEY POWER STATION UNIT 2BEAVER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ABSG CONSULTING INC. REPONT NO. 2734294-R.018 RrvrsroN IPno.rncr No. R10 12-4736 M.lncn 2012014ABSG CoNSuLTING INc.P^lur C.Rrzzo AssocrATES, INC.AFSGonsulting ratS:\Local\Pubs12734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-O18\R1\2734294-RO18, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-0L8 Reaision 1,March 20,20L4Page 3 of 55Report Name: Date:Revision No.: Originators: Independent Technical Reviewer: ProjectManager:Jeffrey K. Kimball Principal Seismologistii.i fi)"'tlr " \lilr'\-- -Digitally signed by Jose E Blanco BeltranDN: cn=Jose E Blanco Beltran, o=Paul C RizzoAssociates, ou=Seismic, email=jose.blanco@rizzoassoc.com, c=U5Date: 2014.03.20 l6:32:1 1 -04'00'0312012014 Date0312012014 Date0312012014 Date0312012014 Date0312012014 Date0312012014 DateAPPROVALSNTTF 2.1 SeismicHazard and Screening ReportBeaver Valley Power Station Untt 2Beaver County, PennsylvaniaMarch 20,2014 IApproval by the responsible manager signifies that the document is complete, all requiredreviews are complete, and the document is released for use. Digitally signed by Richard Quittmeyer DN: cn=Richard Quittmeyer, o=Paul C. RizzoAssociates, Inc., ou=Seismology, r'i- email=richard.quittmeyer@rizzoassoc.com, c=UsDate: 201 4.03.20 1 6:20:50 -04'00'Jos6 E. Blanco, Ph.D. Technical Director-r\rv; \a"Digitally 5i9ned by Nishikant VaidyaDN: cn=Nithikant Vaidya, o=Paul C. Rizo Associates, ou=V.P. Advan(ed Engineering

Projects, email=nirh.vaidya@rizoasfi .com, c=U5Date: 2014.03.20 I6:45:32

-O4',00', ( ).."-,ll<lNishikant R. Vaidya, Ph.D., P.E.Vice President - Advanced Engineering ProjectsDigitally signed by Richard Quittmeyer - DN: cn=Richard Quittmeyer, o=Paul C. RizoAssociates, Inc., ou=SeismologY, f:- email=richard.quittmeyer@rizzoassoc.com, c=USDate: 2014.03.20 16:21:19 -(X'00'Richard C. Quittmeyer, Ph.D.Vice President - Seismology Nr=rr^ Va,Digitally siqned by Nithikant VaidyaDN: cn=Nishikant Vaidya, o=Paul C. Rizo Atsociates,ou=V.P. Advanced Engineering

Projects, email=nish.vaidya@rizoatsoc.com, c=UsDate; 201 4.03.20 I6:46:29

-04'00'Nishikant R. Vaidya, Ph.D., P.E. Vice President - Advanced Engineering ProjectsApprover:R. Roche. Vice President S:\Local\Pubst2734294 FENOC BeaverValleyp.lQ Report File\R-018\R112734294-R-018, Rev. l.docx AF@nsulting 2734294-R-01.8 Reaision LMarch 20, 20L4Pnge 4 of 55Report Name: Revision No.:CHANGE MANAGEMENT RECORI)NTTF 2.1 SeismicHazard and Screening ReportBeaver Valley Power Station Unrt 2Beaver County, Pennsylv anra IRnvrsroNNo.D,q,rnDnscRrprloNs oFCHnNcns/AnpncrED PacnsPnnsoNAUTHonlZING CHnNcnAppRov^q.Ll 0March 6.2014 Orieinal IssueN/AN/AIMarch 20,2014Incorporate NEI FinalTemplate, CDF Letterand FENOC Comments ,\t:,ts Y(L?r t;:J..- * *- -,,"--",", \l ;r:;fJlfiriiir:t;-'^ Nishikant R.VaidvaThomas R. RocheNote:tPerson authorizing change shall sign here for the latest revision. S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\3.1Q Report File\R-O18\R1\2734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-0L8Reuision 1, March 20, 20L4Page 5 of 55TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGELIST OF TABLES .............7 LrsT oF FTGURES ..................8LIST OF ACRONYMS ...............9I.O INTRODUCTION .....121.1 Suuunny oF LrcpNsrNc BASrs. ..........13 1.2 Suuunny oF GnouNo MorroN RsspoNsE SpECTRUM ANDScnppNrNG RESULTS ....... ............13 2.01.3 Onc,q.NrzATIoN oF THIS Rpponr. ........14SEISMICHAZARD REEVALUATION .............I5 2.1 RpctoNal AND Locnl cEot.ocy ........... ..........15 2.2 Pnoeaert-rsrrc SEtsnarc HnznRn ANRr-vsrs ........ ...162.32.2.1 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis Results .............16 2.2.2 Base Rock Seismic Hazard Curves ...17Srrp RespoNsp EvRr-uArroN .............19 2.3.1 Description of Subsurface Materials and Properties...................20 2.3.2 Development of Base Case Profiles and Non-LinearMaterial Properties ......... .....232.3.3 Randomization of Base Case Profiles .............31 2.3.4 Input Fourier Amplitude Spectra.......... ...........32 2.3.5 Site Response Methodology ..............33 2.3.6 Amplification Factors ..........33 4.02.4 CoNrnol Pomr Sprsrr,rrc HnznRn CuRvns .....392.5 CoNrnoL porNT RESpoNSE spECTRUM........ .......40PLANT DESIGN BASIS GROUND MOTION........ ................43 3.1 SSE DpscnrpuoN op Sppcrnnl SHnpE ......... ................433.2 SSE CoNrnor. Pomr ElnvauoN........ .........44 SCREENING EVALUATION ........464.1 Rtst< Evnr.uerroN ScnppurNc (1 ro 1}Hz) ....464.2 HrcH FnequnNcv ScnpENrNc (> 10 Hz)....... ...46ABSGonsulting rCR3.0S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\3.1Q Report File\R-018\R1V734294-R418, Rev. 1 .docx 2734294-R-01.8Reuision L March 20, 2014Page 6 of 555.0TABLB OF CONTENTS PAGE4.3 SpnNr Fupr- Poor- EvnlunrroN ScnEeNrNG (1 ro l0 Hz) ...........47 INTERIM ACTIONS... ..........485.1 NTTF 2.3 WalKDowNS .......49 5.2 IPEEE DESCRIPTION AND CAPACITY RESPONSESPECTRUM......... .......49 CONCLUSIONS .............51 REFERENCES ...526.07.0APPENDICES: APPENDIX AAPPENDIX BAPPENDIX CNTTF 2.1 SITE RESPONSE ANALYSIS EVALUATION OF BVPS-2 IPEEE SUBMITTALREACTOR BUILDING MEAN AND FRACTILE HAZARD CURVESBVPS-2 SITE fBgGonsuElng FCES:\Local\Pubs97%294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-O18\R1\2734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-018 Reaision 1'March 20, 2014Page 7 of 55TABLE NO.TABLE 2-ITABLE2.2TABLE 2-3TABLE2-4TABLE 2-5TABLE 2-6TABLE 2-7TABLE 3-1 TABLE 5-1LIST OF TABLESTITLEPAGBMEAN SEISMICHAZARD AT HARD ROCK BVPS.2SITE ............19 SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY AND LINITTHICKNESSES AT THE BVPS-2 SITE .............23 CHARACTERISTICS OF SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHIC T]NITS . BVPS-2 SITE .....25BASE CASE Vs PROFILES, BVPS-2 SITE ....29KAPPA VALUES AND WEIGHTS USED IN SITERESPONSE, ANALYSIS ........3IBVPS.2 MEAN CONTROL POINT SEISMTCHAZARD AT SELECTED SPECTRAL FREQUENCIES........... ...40BVPS.2 CONTROL POINT s%.DAMPED UHRS ANDGMRS ........41SSE HORIZONTAL GROUND MOTION RESPONSESPECTRUM FOR BVPS-2 ...............44 HORIZONTAL IHS FOR BVPS-2 .....50lESGonsutting raeS:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-O18\R1\27U294-R418, Rev, 1.docx 2734294-R-01.8 Reaisiott 1March 20, 2014Page 8 of 55FIGURB NO.FIGURE 2-1FIGURE 2-2 F'IGURE 2-3FIGURE 2-4FIGURE 2.5 F'IGURE 2.6F'IGURE 2.7 FIGURE 3-1FIGURE 5-1 LIST OF FIGURESTITLEPAGEBVPS-2 MEAN SEISMICHAZARD AT HARD ROCK ...18STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN LINDERLYING THEBVPS.2 SITE ...22BASE CASE Vs PROFILES, BVPS-2 SITE, ....28BVPS.2 SITE AMPLIFICATION F'ACTORS, BASE.CASE PROFILE (P1), EPRI ROCK G/GMAX ANDDAMPTNG, KAPPA 1, I.CORNER SOURCE MODEL.............35BVPS.2 SITE AMPLIFICATION

FACTORS, BASE-CASE PROFILE (PI), LINEAR ROCK G/GMAX ANDDAMPING, KAPPA I, I-CORNER SOURCE MODEL .............37 BVPS-2 MEAN CONTROL POINT SEISMICHAZARD AT SELECTED SPECTRAL FREQUENCIES...........

...39CONTROL POINT LINIFORM HAZARD RESPONSESPECTRA AT MEAN ANNUAL FREQUENCIES OFEXCEEDANCE OF IX1O-4 AND IX1O.5, ANDGROLIND MOTION RESPONSE SPECTRUM AT BVPS.2............ ...............42BVPS-2 SAFE, SHUTDOWN EARTHQUAKE 5%-DAMPED RESPONSE SPECTRA .......44BVPS-2 SSE AND IPEEE HCLPF SPECTRA ...............50 ff]tConsulting rctS:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\3.1Q Report File\R-O18\R19734294-R418, R6v. 1 .docx 2734294-R-018 Reaision 1March 20, 20'l-4Page 9 of 55AFAHEXBDBBEBVPSBVPS.IBVPS.2CDFCEUSCEUS.SSCCOVDBEDFECC-AMELEPRIERM.NERM-SFENOCFSARftft/sgGMMGMRSHCLPFHZIBEBIEPRAIHSLIST OF ACRONYMSAMPLIFICATION FACTOR ATLANTIC HIGHLY EXTENDED CRUSTBEYOND DESIGN BASISBEST ESTIMATEBEAVER VALLEY POWER STATIONBEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION LI-NIT IBEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION LINIT 2CORE DAMAGE FREQUENCYCENTRAL AND EASTERN LINITED STATESCENTRAL AND EASTERN UNITED STATES SEISMIC SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE DESIGN FACTOREXTENDED CONTINENTAL CRUST - ATLANTIC MARGTNELEVATIONELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE EASTERN RIFT MARGIN FAULT NORTHERN SEGMENTEASTERN RIFT MARGIN FAULT SOUTHERN SEGMENTFIRSTENERGY NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANYFINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FEETFEET PER SECOND GRAVITY GROUND MOTION MODELGROUND MOTION RESPONSE SPECTRUMHIGH CONFIDENCE OF LOW PROBABILITY OF FAILURE HERTZILLINOIS BASIS EXTENDED BASEMENT

INTERNAL EVENTS PRA IPEEE HCLPF SPECTRUM AESConsulting rceS:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-O18\R1\2734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-AL8 Reaision LMarch 20, 20L4Page 1.0 of 55IPEEEISRSkmkm/sLRMMAFEMESE.NMESE-W MIDC-AMIDC-BMIDC-CMIDC_DMMIMWrNAP NEINMESE.NNMESE-WNMFSNPPNRCNSSSNTTFNUREGNUREG/CROBEPEZ-NPEZ-W PGALIST OF ACRONYMS(coNTINUED) INDIVIDUAL PLANT EXAMINATION OF EXTERNAL EVENTSIN-STRUCTURE RESPONSE SPECTRA KILOMETERS KILOMETER PER SECOND LOWER RANGEMAGNITUDE MEAN ANNUAL FREQUENCY EXCEEDANCEMESOZOIC AND YOUNGER EXTENDED PRIOR _ NARROWMESOZOIC AND YOUNGER EXTENDED PRIOR _ WIDEMIDCONTINENT.CRATON ALTERNATIVE AMIDCONTINENT-CRATON ALTERNATIVE BMIDCONTINENT-CRATON ALTERNATIVE CMIDCONTINENT.CRATON ALTERNATIVE DMODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY MEGA WATTS THERMALNORTHERN APPALACHIANSNUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTENON-MESOZOIC AND YOUNGER EXTENDED CRUST _NARROWNON-MESOZOIC AND YOLINGER EXTENDED CRUST - WIDENEW MADRID FAULT SYSTEMNUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NUCLEAR STEAM SUPPLY SYSTEMNEAR.TERM TASK FORCENUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION TECHNICAL REPORTNUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CONTRACTOR REPORTOPERATING BASIS EARTHQUAKEPALEOZOIC EXTENDED CRUST NARROWPALEOZOIC EXTENDED CRUST WIDEPEAK GROUND ACCELERATION AFSConsulting raRS:\Local\Pubs\27M294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Repori File\R-O18\R1t2734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-01,8 Reaision LMarch 20, 20L4Page 11. of 55PSHAPRARBRGRLERLMERR-RCGRVTSSERSEWSSLR SMASPIDSPRASPTSQUGSRSSSSCsSSESSELSSISTUDY_Rs&wUHRSUFSARURUSIvpVsLIST OF ACRONYMS(coNTTNUED) PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSISPROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT REACTOR BUILDINGREGULATORY GUIDEREVIEW LEVEL EARTHQUAKEREPEAT LARGE MAGNITUDE EARTHQUAKE REELFOOT RIFT INCLUDING THE ROUGH CREEK GRABENRANDOM VIBRATION THEORYSECONDSSAFETY EVALUATION REPORTSEISMIC EVALUATION WORKSHEETS ST. LAWRENCE RIFT ZONESEISMIC MARGIN AS SES SMENTSCREENING, PRIORITIZATION, AND IMPLEMENTATION DETAILSSEISMIC PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT STANDARD PENETRATION TESTSEISMIC QUALIFICATION UTILITY GROUPSQUARE ROOT OF THE SUM OF THE SQUARESSYSTEM, STRUCTURE, AND COMPONENTS SAFE SHUTDOWN EARTHQUAKE SAFE SHUTDOWN EQUIPMENT LIST SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTIONSTUDY REGION STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING COORPORATION LTNIFORM HAZARD RESPONSE SPECTRA UPDATED SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORTUPPER RANGE UNRESOLVED SAFETY ISSUEPRESSURE, WAVE VELOCITYSHEAR WAVE VELOCITY AESGonsulting rceS:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\3.1Q Report File\R418\R,lV734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-018 Reaision 1.March 20, 20L4Page L2 of 55NTTF 2.1 SEISMIC H.AZARD AND SCREENING REPORTBEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION UNIT 2BEAVER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Following the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) resulting from theMarch 11,201 l, Great Tohoku Earthquake and subsequent

tsunami, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) established a Near-Term Task Force (I.{TTF) to conduct asystematic review of NRC processes and regulations and to determine if the agency should makeadditional improvements to its regulatory system. The NTTF developed a set ofrecommendations intended to clarify and strengthen the regulatory framework for protectionagainst natural phenomena. Subsequently, the NRC issued a 50.54(f) letter (NRC, 2012a) thatrequests information to assure that these recommendations are addressed by all United StatesNPPs. The 50.54(f) letter requests that licensees and holders of construction permits under 10CFR Part 50 reevaluate the seismic hazards at their sites against present-day NRC requirements.

Depending on the comparison between the reevaluated seismic hazard and the current design basis, the result is either no further risk evaluation or the performance of a seismic riskassessment. Risk assessment approaches acceptable to the NRC staff include a seismicprobabilistic risk assessment (SPRA), or a seismic margin assessment (SMA). Based upon therisk assessment results, the NRC staff will determine whether additional regulatory actions arenecessary.This Report provides the information requested in Items I throughT of the "Requested Information" section and Attachment I of the 50.54(0 letter (NRC, 2012a) pertaining to NTTFRecommendation 2.1 for the Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 2 (BVPS-2). The BVPS-2 islocated in Shippingport Borough on the south bank of the Ohio River in Beaver County. TheSite is approximately one mile from Midland, Pennsylvania, five miles from East Liverpool,Ohio, and approximately 25 miles from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. BVPS-2 includes apressurized water reactor Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) and turbine generator furnishedby Westinghouse Electric Corporation. The balance of the unit was designed and constructed bythe Licensee, with the assistance of their agent, Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R418\R1\2734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx fESConsultlng 2734294-R-018Reaision 7 March 20, 20L4Page 1.3 of 55(S&W). The nominal NSSS power level for BVPS-2 is set at 2,910 Mega Watts Thermal(MWl. The operating license was issued in August of 1987. In providing the information contained here, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC)has followed the guidance provided in the Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Screening, Prioritization, and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.I : Seismic (Electric Power Research Institute [EPRI], 2013a).The Augmented Approach, Seismic Evaluation Guidance: Augmented Approach for theResolution of Fulrushima NTTF Recommendation 2.1 : Seismic (EPRI, 2013b), has beendeveloped as the process, if required, for evaluating critical plant equipment as an interim action to demonstrate additional plant safety margin prior to performing the complete plant seismic riskevaluations.Reference is made to FENOC's Partial Submittal (FENOC,20l3a) summarizingthe Sitegeologic and geotechnical information. The "Description of Subsurface Materials and Properties," and the "Development of Base-Case Profiles and Nonlinear Material Properties" presented in FENOC, (2013a), are repeated here for completeness. l.L SunnuanY oF LrcnnsrNc BASrs The original geologic and seismic siting investigations for BVPS-2 were performed inaccordance with Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 and meet General Design Criterion 2 inAppendix A to l0 CFR Part

50. The Safe Shutdown Earthquake ground motion (SSE) wasdeveloped in accordance with Appendix A to l0 CFR Part 100 and used for the design of seismicCategory I systems, structures, and components. The Category I SSCs are identified in Table 3-l of the Updated Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) (FENOC,20I2).

1.2 Sunnu,lnv oF GRoUND MortoN Rnspoxsn SpECTRUM AND ScRTnNING RESULTSIn response to the 50.54(f) letter and following the guidance provided in the SPID (EPRI1025287 , 2012), a seismi c hazard reevaluation was performed. For screening pu{poses, ahorizontal Ground Motion Response Spectrum (GMRS) was developed. Based on the results ofthe screening evaluation, BVPS-2 screens in for risk evaluation, a Spent Fuel Pool evaluation,S:\Local\Pubs\27il294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R418\R1\2734294-R41e, Rev. 1.docx AESGoneultlng 1.32734294-R-018Reuision 1, March 20, 2014Page L4 of 55and a High Frequency Confirmation. In the I to I 0 Hertz (Hz) part of the response

spectrum, theGMRS exceeds the SSE and above 10 Hzthe GMRS also exceeds the SSE.Onc,q,NIZATIoN oF THIS RnponrThe remainder of this Report is organized as follows:

Section 2.0 provides the Seismic HazardReevaluation that was performed for the BVPS Site, including the probabilistic seismic hazardanalysis (PSHA) for hard rock site conditions, the site response evaluation, seismichazard at theSSE control point, and the derivation of the horizontal GMRS. The discussion in Section 2.0applies to both Units 1 and 2 ofthe BVPS. Section 3.0 provides a summary of the BVPS-2 SSEground motion. Section 4.0 provides the screening evaluation, including a comparison betweenthe GMRS and SSE, and the screening evaluation outcome. Section 5.0 describes interimactions completed for BVPS-2, and Section 6.0 provides conclusions. AB$Gonsulting rceS:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-O18\R1\2734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-01,8 Reaision 1March 20, 2014Page 1-S of 552.0 SEISMIC HAZARD REEVALUATIONThe BVPS-2 is located in Shippingport Borough on the south bank of the Ohio River in Beaver County, Pennsylvania. The Ohio River Valley is an erosional, flat-bottomed, and steep-walled valley. The bedrock of Pennsylvanian age is a sequence of flat-lying shale and sandstone strataoccasionally inter-bedded with coal seams. It is overlain by about 100 feet (ft) thick alluvialgranular terraces that formed during the Pleistocene. Plant grade is elevation (EL) 735 ft and thetop of bedrock is at approximate EL 625 ft.The Site area is located in a region with a low rate of seismicity. Historically, no earthquake ofepicentral Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) V, or greater, has occurred within 80 miles of theSite. The Site has experienced vibratory ground motion as a result of regional and distantearthquakes, most notably the 181 l - 12 earthquake sequence at New Madrid, Missouri, and the1886 earthquake at Charleston, South Carolina. Category I SSCs are designed for a safe shutdown following SSE ground motions associated with horizontal peak ground acceleration of 12.5 percent of gravity (0.125g) at the rock surfaceat the base of the foundation level.2.1 RnctotrlAt, AND Locnl cEoLocYThe Beaver Valley Power Station (BVPS) is located in an unglaciated area on sand and graveldeposits along the Ohio River, west of Pittsburgh and a few miles east of the Pennsylvania -Ohio border. Physiographically, the Site is located in the Appalachian Plateau Province. The bedrock in theareais the Allegheny Formation of Pennsylvanian Age. It consists of approximately two-thirdsshale and one-third sandstone with several interbedded coal seams and a thin bed of fossiliferous Vanport limestone.The stratigraphic materials underlying the bedrock are characteized by various sedimentarysequences of Mississippian, Devonian,

Silurian, Ordovician, and Precambrian age, consisting ofS:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-018\R1\2734294-R418, Rev. 1.docxAESGonsulting 2734294-R-0L8 Reaision 1.March 20, 2014Page L6 of 55 shales, interbedded sandstones, siltstones and dolomites, and limestone.

These rocks overlie the Precambrian basement at a depth of approximately I 1,000 ft.Structurally, the bedrock is generally flat lying. It has a regional dip of approximately 15 to 20feet per mile to the south and southeast with low amplitude anticlines and synclines. Theregional dip and structure were imposed by orogenic movements that formed the Appalachian Mountains, about 100 miles southeast of the Site, at the close of the Paleozoic Era.2.2Pnon,q.g[ISTIC Sntsu tc H,qz,tnu Ax,q,lysIs2.2.1 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analvsis ResultsJIn accordance with the 50.54(f) letter (NRC, 2012a) and following the guidance in the SPID (EPRI, 2013a), a PSHA was completed using the recently developed Central and Eastern United States Seismic Source Characterization (CEUS-SSC) for Nuclear Facilities (EPRI/DOEAtrRC,2012). The PSHA uses a minimum moment magnitude cutoff of 5.0 forhazard integration, asspecified in the 50.54(f) letter (NRC, 2012a).The CEUS-SSC model consists of distributed seismicity sources and repeatedearthquake (RLME) sources. Distributed seismicity sources are characterized approaches: the M,nu* approach and the seismotectonic approach.large magnitudefollowing twoThe BVPS-2 PSHA accounts for the CEUS-SSC distributed seismicity source zones out to atleast a distance of 400 miles (640 kilometers [km]) around the BVPS-2. This distance exceedsthe 200 mile (320 km) recommendation contained in NRC (2007) and was chosen forcompleteness. Distributed seismicity source zones included in this Site PSHA are the following: o Mesozoic and younger extended crust - naffow and wide (MESE-N andMESE-W). Non-Mesozoic and younger extended crust - narrow and wide (I'{MESE-Nand NMESE-W) Study Region (STUDY_R)Atlantic Highly Extended Crust (AHEX)Northern Appalachians (NAP)S:\Local\Pubs\279294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-O18\R1\2734294-R{18, Rev. 1.docxAB$Consulting 2734294-R-018Reoision LMarch 20, 20L4 Page 1,7 of 55 o St. Lawrence Rift Zone, including the Ottawa and Saguenay grabens Zone(sLR)Extended Continental Crust - Atlantic Margin (ECC_AM)Illinois Basin Extended Basement (IBEB). Midcontinent-Craton alternative A to D (MIDC_A, MIDC_MrDC_D)B, MIDC_C, and Paleozoic Extended Crust naffow and wide (PEZ_N and PEZ_W)Reelfoot Rift (RR and RR-RCG) RLME seismic sources within or near 1000 km from the Site are included in the PSHA asfollows:Charlevoix CharlestonNew Madrid Fault System (NMFS)Eastern Rift Margin Fault northern segment (ERM-N)Eastern Rift Margin Fault southern segment (ERM-S)Marianna ZoneCommerce Fault Wabash ValleyFor each of the above distributed seismicity and RLME sources, the mid-continent version of theupdated EPRI Ground Motion Model (GMM) was used (EPRI, 2013c).2,2.2 Base Rock Seismic Hazard CurvesWhile the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) does not require that base rock seismic hazard curves be

provided, they are included here as background information. These were developed by FENOCas part of an on-going SPRA effon. Figure 2-I and Table 2-1 present the mean hard-rock hazard curves at the BVPS-2 Site resulting from the PSHA. Thehazard curves showthe meanannual frequency of exceedance (MAFE) for spectral acceleration at the seven response spectralfrequencies (100 Hz, 25 Hz, l0 Hz, 5 H2,2.5 H4 l Hz, and 0.5 Hz), for which the updated EPRIGMM (2013c) is defined.aaa aASSGonsulting rC?S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-O18\R1\2734294-R{18, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-018 Reaision 1,March 20, 2014Page 18 of 551. E-01L,E-021. E-031. E-041. E-051. E-06L,E-071. E-080.010.101.00L0.00Spectral Acceleration (g)FIGURE 2.1BVPS.2 MEAN SEISMIC HAZARD AT HARD ROCKConsistent with the SPID (EPRI,20l3a), Approach 3 of Nuclear Regulatory Commission Contractor Report (NUREG/CR)-6728 (McGuire et al., 2001) is used to calculate the seismichazard curves at the SSE control point elevation (the base of the Reactor Building

[RB]Foundation). This method uses the median and log standard deviation of the site amplification factors (AF) developed as described in Section 2.3. The control point hazard curves arepresented in Section 2.4.4. ugo5CTot-U-oC'troT'ooTJxul-lUJtrgtr.uo,- .0.5 HZ-.L.0HZ- *2.5H2- . .5.0 Hz(n - 10Hzr (r,.' 25 HZ- 100 HzS:\Local\PubsV734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\3 1 Q Report File\R418\R1U734294-R{1 8, Rev 1 docx 2734294-R-01"8Reaision L March 20, 2A1.4Page 79 of 55GnouNuMorroN LnvnltelMn,tN ANT,IUIT. FRnounNCY oF ExcnnoANCE FOR SPECTRAL FNNQUN,NCY 0.5 HzlIJz2.5H25Hzl0}Jz25IJz100 Hz0.011.05E-032.10E-034.67E-036.628-037.53E-036.178-033.01E-030.022.59E-045,58E-041.36E-03 2.38E-033.20E-032.848-031 .148-030.039.178-052.098-045.918-041.21E-031.82E-03r.73E-036.34F-040.044.028 -059.648 -053.178-047.288-04I . l9E-03 1.18E-034.168-040.052.048 -055.14E-051.948-044.868-048.41E-048.67E-042.998-040.06I .l5E-05 3.05E-05r.3lE-043.48E-046.308-046.698-042.298 -040.077.01E-061.968-0s9.338-052.628-04491F'045.35E-041.828-040.084.578-061.34E-056.99E-052.05E-043.94E-044.408-041 .498 -040.093.15E-069.66E-065.43E-051.648-043.258-043.708-041 .258 -040.12.27E-067.248-064.338 -051.35E-042.728-043.16E-041.068-040.23.208-071.278 -06r.00E-053.71E-058.46E-05I .l0E-04 3.57E-050.251.84E-077.498-076.238-062.428-055.77E-057.81E-052.458-450.3I . l9E-07 4.908 -074.2rE-061.70E-054.21F-055.86E-051.78E-050.46.0sE-082.508 -072.238 -069.628-062.538 -053.69E-051.06E-050.53.57E-081.478-07 1.34E-066.05E-061.68E-052.55E-056.87E-060.62.30E-089.39E-088.738-074.09E-06I . l9E-05 1.878-054.7 5F,-060.71.58E-08 6.388-086.028-072.918-068.78E-061.43E-053.428-060.81.13E-084.s4E-084.33E -072.14E-066.728 -061.12E-052.558-060.98.368-093.33E-083.228 -071.628 -065.278-069.038-061.958-061.06.36E-092.s28-082.45F,-07 r.268-064.2t8-067.398-061.528-462.09.208- 103.418-093.54E,082.018 -078.268-071.72E-062.428-073.02.61E- 109.248-109.868-095.93E-082.7 4F.-07 6.38E-076.85E-085.04.60E-l I1.53E-101.66E-091.08E-085.67E-08t.548-011.13E-08TABLE 2.1MEAN SBISMICH.AZARD AT HARD ROCKBVPS.2 SITE2,3SIrn RnspoNsE EvALUATToN Category I structures of the BVPS-2 are founded in the Pleistocene Upper and Lower Terraceunit at elevations varying from 680.9 ft for the RB to 703 ft for the Control Building to about735 ft for the Diesel Generator Building. The Pleistocene Upper and Lower Terrace unit ischaracterizedby a shear-wave velocity (Vr) of about 1,100 to 1,200 feet per second (ft/s).Following the guidance contained in Seismic Enclosure l, of the March 12,2012,50.54(f) S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-O18\R1\2734294-R{18, Rev. 1.docx AE$Consulting 2734294-R-018 Reaision 1March 20, 20L4Page 20 of 55 Request for Information (NRC, 2012a) and in the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) for NPPs that are not sited on hard rock (defined as 2.83 kilometers per second [km/s]), a site response analysis wasperformed for BVPS-2 Site. The following sections describe the various inputs to the siteresponse analysis. These inputs are summarized in Appendbc A.2.3.1 Description of Subsurface Materials and Properties The site stratigraphy presented here is based in part on site-specific geotechnical investigationsreported in the UFSAR (FENOC,2012, Section2.5.4). Thirty-five dry sample borings at the Shippingport Power Station were supplemented by 30 additional borings at the BVPS. Theseincluded 10 dry sample borings on the high terrace, and the remaining borings located in theintermediate and low terrace materials. All borings penetrated approximately 20 ft into bedrock.The geologic profile below the reported subsurface investigation depth is based on the analysisof formation tops and bottoms from available deep well logs in the vicinity of the Site (withinabout 7 miles), obtained from the Pennsylvania Geological Survey. This is supplemented byinformation from West Virginia and Ohio Geological Surveys, as well as the UFSAR.The terrace deposits in the Site area are characterized by three levels: high, intermediate, andlow. The low tenace is the most recent, where the upper alluvial deposit is composed of brownsilty clay approximately 20to 30 ft thick. The intermediate terrace consists of medium claysextending to about EL 660 ft. The oldest, high terrace is the most abundant deposit atthe plantlocation. The terrace materials in the plant area(high terrace deposits) consist of unconsolidated and stratified sand and gravel outwash derived from the melting of glacial ice at the end of Pleistocene time. The surface sand and gravel layer is underlain by relatively dense andincompressible sand and gravel extending down to bedrock at approximately EL 625 ft. Majorstructures of the plant are founded in the high terrace sands and gravel either directly or oncompacted backfill. Thin deposits of mud, silt, and sand deposited by flood water on the OhioRiver and tributary streams overlay the terrace sands and gravel.The subsurface materials properties summarized here are based on the geotechnical investigations described in the UFSAR. The borings in the intermediate and low terrace materials retrieved undisturbed samples of surface clays and silts for physical testing. However,no samples were obtained in the high terrace materials. The properties for these materials are based on Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow counts and in-situ geophysical measurements. S:\Local\Pubs\27A294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-O18\R1\2734294-R{18, Rev. 1.docx ABSConanlting 2734294-R-018Reaision 1 March 20, 20'14Page 21. of 55 Properties of the bedrock material are based on both laboratory tests and in-situ geophysical measurements. Figure 2-2 presents the stratigraphic soil/rock column underlying the Site, and Table 2-2presents the stratigraphy, identifying unit boundary elevations and depths as estimated from thesubsurface investigations reported in the UFSAR and available well logs in the Site vicinity. Due to the relative proximity of the deep wells to the Site, the unit lithologies and depthsencountered in those wells can be reliablv assumed to be similar to those below the Site.S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-O18\R1\2734294-R{18, Rev. 1.docx AFSGonsufting 2734294-R-01,8 Reaision 1,March 20, 2014(1). Pleistocene: upperterrace: unconsolidated sand andgravel with varying amounts of clay and silt. Lowerterrace: 3G40'of silt and clay with sand and graveloverlying gravels(2). Middle Pennsylvanian Allegheny Group: gray shalewith interbedded sandstones, coal seams, underclays and a limestone bed (3). Lower Pennsylvanian Pottsville Group: sandstoneand conglomerate (a). Upper Mississippian Mauch Chunk Formation: redshale with sandstone (5). Lower Mississippian Pocono Group: sandstone andconglomerate w/ shale(6). Upper Devonian undivided: interbedded shale,sandstone and siltstone. (Equivalent to the Ohio Shale) (7). Middle Devonian Tully Limestone (8). Middle Devonian Mahantango shale(9). Middle Devonian Marcellus Shale (10). Middle Devonian Onondaga Group (Eqv. toNeedmore shale/ Selinsgrove Limestone ): limestonesand dolomites (11). Lower Devonian Ridgeley (Oriskany) sandstone (12). Lower Devonian Helderberg Formation: limestone/shale (13). Upper Silurian Bass lsland Group: dolomite andlimestone (14). Upper Silurian Salina Group/Tonoloway Formation: dolornite and limestone (15). Upper Silurian Wells Creek Formation: shale(15). Middle Silurian Lockport dolomite(17). Middle Silurian Rochester Shale(18). Middle Silurian Rose Hill formation: shale withsandstone (19). Lower Silurian Tuscarora Formation: sandstone withconglomerate (20). Upper Ordovician Queenston Formation: shale,si ltstone and sandstone (21). Upper Ordovician Reedsville Shale(22). Middle Ordovician Utica Shale (23). Middle Ordovician Trenton Group (Black River(24). Middle Ordovician Gull River and GlenwoodFormations: limestone and dolomite(25). Lower Ordovician Beekmantown Group: dolomite(26). Upper Cambrian Gatesburg Formation: dolomiteand dolomitic sandstone (27). Middle Cambrian Rome Formation: dolomite(28). Lower Cambrian Mt. Simon Formation: sandstone (29). Precambrian Granite FIGURE 2.2STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN UNDERLYING THE BVPS-2 SITEPage 22 of 55S:\Local\PubsV734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\3 1Q Report File\R-O18\R1U734294-R{18, Rev 1 docxAB$Gonsulting 2734294-R-0L8 Reaision 1March 20, 20L4Page 23 of 55 TABLE2-2SUBSURFACB STRATIGRAPHY AND UNIT THICKNBSSESAT THE BVPS-2 SITB TopELlfflBorrovrELtfrlLmsolocvTopDnprHlftlBorrouDnprnlftl735625Pleistocene: upper terrace: Unconsolidated sand and gravel with varying amounts of clay and silt.Lower terrace: 30 to 40 ft of silt and clay withsand and gravel overlvins sravels0ll062s550Middle Pennsylvanian Allegheny Group: grayshale with interbedded sandstones. coal seams.underclavs. and a limestone bed ll01855503s0Lower Pennsylvanian Poffsville Group: sandstoneand conglomerate 185385350300Upper Mississippian Mauch Chunk Formation: red shale with sandstone 385435300-120Lower Mississippian Pocono Group: sandstoneand conglomerate with shale4358s5-120-3,700Upper Devonian undivided: interbedded shale, sandstone. and siltstone. 8554,435-3,700-3.820Middle Devonian Tullv Limestone 4,4354.555-3.820-3,900Middle Devonian Mahantaneo Shale 4,5554,635-3,900-3.93sMiddle Devonian Marcellus Shale4.6354.670 -3,935-4,150Middle Devonian Onondaga GroupShale/Sel inssrove Limestone4,6704,885 -4,150-4.250Lower Devonian Rideeley (Oriskany) Sandstone 4.8854.985-4,250-4,450Lower Devonian Helderberg Formation: limestone/shale 4,9855,1 852.3.2 Development of Base Case Profiles and Non-Linear Material PropertiesMost major structures of the BVPS-2 are founded in the upper terrace sand and gravel layers.The RB is supported on in-situ soils at EL 680.9 ft. Other structures are supported on compacted backfrll placed on the terrace sand and gravel at foundation elevations varying between EL 703 ftfor the Control Building to about EL 735 ft for the Diesel Generator Building. Based on theUFSAR (FENOC,2012) description of the seismic analysis, the control point elevation forGMRS is taken to be the base of the RB foundation level (EL 6S0.9 ft). S:\Local\Pubs\27M294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-O18\R1\2734294-R{18, Rev. 1.docxAESGonsulting 2734294-R-0L8Reaision L March 20, 2014Page 24 of 55The shear and compression wave velocities of the overburden soils and the shale bedrock arebased on the subsurface investigations reported in the UFSAR (FENOC ,2012),particularly Appendix 2G. Appendix2G summarizes the geophysical investigations consisting of cross-hole, up-hole, and down-hole measurements in five drill holes located in the reactor area. Compression-and shear-wave velocities were measured from direct arrival times. A limitedamount of seismic refraction survey investigation was also performed to verify the elevation of

bedrock, and to determine velocity layering.

Variabilities in the V, of the bedrock material and the overburden soil are estimated respectively, from velocity measurements and lab tests. and the SPT data. The deep rock stratigraphy, as well as the seismic velocities of these strata relies on sonic logsrecorded in wells in the site vicinity (within 7 miles). The sonic data were converted tocompression-wave velocities (Vo) and shear-wave velocities (Vr) based on published literature (Pickett, 1963; Rafavich, 1984; Miller, 1990; and Castagna, 1993) reflecting the material type(limestone and dolomite, anhydrites and salts), porosity and density, and to a lesser extent, thelithology. Additionally, based on published literature, VpAy', ratios for these types of geologicunits were used to define the epistemic uncertainty for Vr.Varying unit thicknesses, incomplete well logs, and non-standard lithologic descriptions presentsome challenges to reliably estimating contact locations. However, the lithologic units in theregion are generally flat lying and for the most pafi,laterally consistent. Consequently, thevelocity structure in the wells examined is similar and consistent from well to well for similar depths. Due to the proximity of these deep wells to the Site and the general flat lying (low dip)nature of the geologic units, the unit lithologies and thicknesses can be reliably assumed to besimilar to those below the SiteTable 2-3 presents the summary geotechnical profile identifying the layer thicknesses, Vr, anduncertainties in these parameters. From Table 2-3,the SSE control point is at EL 680.9 ft within the Pleistocene Upper and Lower Terrace unit with a best-estimate (BE) V, of 1,100 ft/s.S:\Local\Pubsl27H294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-018\R1\2734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx ABSGonsulting 2734294-R-0L8 Reaision 1March 2A, 201.4Page 25 of 55TABLE 2-3 CHARACTERISTICS OF SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHIC UNITS - BVPS-2 SITEElnv,luoN lftlL.tynnNo.SOTURoCK DESCRIPTION T,o,",DlpcflVsAIftlslptPlant Grade (Surface Elevation 735Structural Fill/ Natural and Densified Soil 136730+183"0.35 "720Structural Fill/ Natural and Densified Soil 136r0l5+254" 0.35 "680.91(d)Pleistocene Upper and Lower Terrace r25l 100+27 5 '0.29"680.9GMRS Elevation - SSE Control Point at Base of Nuclear Island Foundation 66sGround Water Elevation 665l(e)Pleistocene Unper and Lower Terrace1361200+300 "0.49 "6252Middle Pennsylvanian Alleeheny Shale 1605000+1000 " 0.39'550c-JLower Pennsylvanian Pottsville Sandstone, conqlomerate 1606,0260.303s04Upper Mississippian Mauch Chunk Shale1556.7440.303005Lower Mississippian Pocono Sandstone conglomerate 1556,7440.30-t206Upper Devonian Interbedded Shale,Sandstone. Siltstone ts57,1120.30-2.9941556,4160.30-3,7007Middle Devonian Tullv Limestone 1689.8560.30-3,8208Middle Devonian Mahantaneo Shale r579,8560.30-3,9009Middle Devonian Marcellus Shale1579,8560.30-3,935t0Middle Devonian Onondaga Limestone, Dolomite1709,8560.30-4,1501lLower Devonian Ridselev Sandstone 1609,8560.30-4,250t2Lower Devonian Helderberg Limestone, Shale1709,8560.30-4,450l3Upper Silurian Bass Island Dolomite, Limestone r708,3520.30-4"540t4Upper Silurian Salina Dolomite, Limestone 1708.3520.30-5,034t709.5470.30-5,33015Upper Silurian Wells Creek Shaler6311,5340.30-5.55016Middle Silurian Lockport Dolomite 1709.0150.30-5,900t7Middle Silurian Rochester Shale r639.0150.30-5,980l8Middle Silurian Rose Hill Shale r639,0150.30-6,170I9Lower Si lurian Tuscarora Sandstone t638,5880.30-6,39020Upper Ordovician Queenston Shale,Siltstone, Sandstone r638,5880.30-7.12321t637,8350.30-7,4552l(a\Upper Ordovician Reedsville Shale 16378350.30-7,6982l(b)r6368340.30-8,26522Middle Ordovician Utica Shale r6368340.30-8.56523Middle Ordovician Trenton Limestone 17510.5200.30S:\Local\Pubs\27%294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R418\R,lV734294-R4'18, Rev. 1.docxAESConsulting 2734294-R-018Reaision 1 March 20, 2014Page 26 of 55 TABLE 2.3SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY AND UNIT THICKNESSES - BVPS-2 SITB(coNTTNUBD) Notes:A. Variability in Vs of soil is based on SPT-V, correlations (COV:25 percent). COV is assumed 20 percent asaverage of soil and rock for the rock at the top and for deeper rock units COV

I I percent is assumed based on theinformation from deep wells; B. Appendix 2D, 2G and 2H of BVPS-I UFSAR (FENOC, 201l); C. From thiselevation down, soil parameters are estimates from sonic velocities of deep wells except unit weight. Unit weights are typical values from the literature. Poisson's ratio is calculated by following formula: Poisson's Ratio :[(Vpivs)2

- 2] I [ 2(Vp/Vs)' - z]; D. Unit weight; E. Poisson's ratio. 2.3.2.1 Base-CaseShear-WaveVelocitvProfiles Based on the well characterizednature of the Site, the generally flat lying geologic units, and thegeology-specific compressional-to-shear-wave velocity conversions, a scale factor of l.l5 isused for developing upper and lower base-cases to reflect epistemic uncertainty in the V'. Thescale factor of 1 . 15 reflects a realistic range in Poisson's ratio for the type of geologic unitsfound in the Paleozoic rocks underlying the site. The V, profiles determined using the scalefactor represent the epistemic uncertainty in the soil and rock column from the Tully Limestone formation at EL -3,700 ft to the top of the Pleistocene Upper and Lower Terrace unit underlyingthe base of the RB foundation mat.Using the best-estimate Vs specified in Table 2-3,t\vee base-case profiles were developed usingthe scale factor of 1.15. The specified Vs were taken as the mean or BE base-case profile (Pl)and the scaled profiles as the lower and upper range base-cases (profiles P2 and P3),respectively. Elnv^lrtoN lftlLnvnnNo.SOIilROCK DESCRIPTION T,or"lDlpcflVsAIfUs]lP-9,30524Middle Ordovician Gull River Limestone. Dolomite17510,5200.30-9,45525Lower Ordovician Beekmantown Dolomitet7510,5200.30-9,64526Upper Cambrian Gatesburg Dolomite Sandstone 17010,5200.30-9.99s27Middle Cambrian Rome Dolomite n510.5200.30-10,69528Lower Cambrian Mt. Simon Sandstone 11010,5200.30-10,86529Precambrian Granitet7510,520 0.30S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R418\R1\2734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx AlSGonsulting 2734294-R-018 Reoision 1.March 20, 2014Page 27 of 55All three profiles extend to hard rock conditions below the RB foundation at a depth of 4,380.9.The base-case profiles (P1, P2, and P3) are shown onFigure 2-3 and listedinTable 2-4.S:\Local\Pubs9734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\3.1Q Report File\R-O18\R1U734294-R-018, Rev. 1,docx fFSGonsultlng 273429+R-01,8 Reaision 1,March 20, 20L4Page 28 of 552000vs (ft/secl4000 6000 8000 10000efr 2sooCLoo05001 0001 500200030003500400045005000*Depth 0 ft coresponds to EL 680.9 ftFIGURE 2-3BASE CASE VS PROFILES' BVPS-2 SITEffinSrffiLLIIONle Flofile P2ofile P3L-S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BEaver Valley\3.1Q Report Filc\R{l8\R1\2734294-R418, Rev. l.docxtlc 2734294-R-018 Reaision'L March 20, 20L4Page 29 of 55TABLE 2-4BASE CASB VS PROFILES, BVPS'2 SITETop onLnynnElnvlttoN IftlPnorrln PlPnonrln P2PnoFu,n P3V. [ftlslDnprHlftlV. [ftlslDnprntftlV, [ftlslDBpTHlftl680.9I 10009570t2650665I 10015.995715.9126515.966sI 20015.91 04315.9138015.9625120055.9104355.913805s.962ss00055.943485s.957 5055.95505000130.94348130.95750130.95506026130.95240130.96930130.93506026330.95240330.96930330.93506744330.95864330.977 56330.930067 44380.95864380.977 s6380.93006744380.95864380.977 56380.9-r206744800.95864800.977 56800.9-1207 tt2800.961 84800.98r79800.9-29947 ttz367 4.96184367 4.98179367 4.9-29946416367 4.955793674.973783674.9-370064164380.95579$84.973784380.9-370092004380.992004380.992004380.92,3.2.2 Shear Modulus and Damping Cur-vesThe site response analysis represents non-linear material properties by utilizing shear modulusdegradation and material damping as functions of the seismic shear strain. Strain-dependent dynamic parameters for the overburden soils are reported in Appendix2D, Figure 2D-3 ofBeaver Valley Power Station Unit I [BVPS-I] UFSAR (FENOC,20I1), and Figure 2.5.4-71 of the BVPS-2 UFSAR (FENOC,20L2). The material damping ratio is limited to a maximum of 15percent in the calculations following guidance in NRC (2007) (RG 1.208).Consistent with the SPID (EPRI 2013a), uncertainty and variability in material dynamic properties are included in the site response analysis. For the rock material over the upper 500 ft,uncertainty is represented by modeling the material as either linear or non-linear in its dynamicbehavior. To represent the epistemic uncertainty in shear modulus and damping, two sets ofshear modulus reduction, and hysteretic damping curves were used. Consistent with the SPID S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\3. 1 Q Report File\R-O18\R112734294-R41 8, Rev. 1 .docxfESConsuEing l.2.2734294-R-01_8 Reaision LMarch 20, 20L4Page 30 of 55(EPRI, 2013a), the EPRI rock curves (model Ml) were used to represent the upper rangenonlinearity likely in the materials at this Site, and linear behavior (model M2) was assumed torepresent an equally plausible alternative rock response across loading level. For the linearanalyses, the low strain damping from the EPRI rock curves was used as the constant damping values in the upper 500 ft. Below a depth of 500 ft, linear material behavior is assumed for bothmodels, with the damping value specified consistent with the kappa estimates for the Site (valuesdiscussed in Section 2.3.2.3 and shown in Table 2-5).2.3.2.3 KappaNear-surface site damping is often described in terms of the parameter kappa (EPRI, 2013a).Section B-5.1.3.1 of the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) recommends the following procedure forevaluating kappa: Kappa for a firm rock site with at least 3,000 ft (1 km) of sedimentary rock may be estimated from the average Vs over the upper 100 ft (Vrroo) of the subsurface profile.Kappa for a site with less than 3,000 ft (l km) of firm rock may be estimated with Q' of40 below 500 ft combined with the low strain damping from the EPRI rock curves and anadditional kappa of 0.006s for the underlying hard rock. For the BVPS-2 Site, kappa was estimated using the first of the above approaches because thethickness of the sedimentary rock overlying hard rock is 4,380.9 ft. There is sufficientconfidence, based on deep well data,that the hard-rock horizon is more than 3,000 ft below theelevation of the RB foundation. Including a kappa of 0.006s for the underlying hard rock, thetotal site kappa is estimated to be 0.0213s for profile Pl, 0.0237s for profile P2, and 0.0193s forProfile P3.To complete the representation of uncertainty in kappa and, at the same time, reducecomputational demands, a 50 percent variation to the base-case kappa estimates was added forprofiles P2 and P3. For profilePZ, the softest profile, the base-case kappa estimate of 0.0237swas augmented with a 50 percent increase in kappa to a value of 0.032s, resulting in two sets ofanalyses for profileP2. Similarly, uncertainty in kappa for profile P3, the stiffest

profile, wasaugmented with a 50 percent reduction in kappa, resulting in analyses with low strain kappavalues of 0.0193s and 0.0152s. The suite of kappa estimates and associated weights is listed inAFSGonsultlng rceS:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R418\R1\2734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-01.8 Reaision LMarch 20, 2014 Page 31. of 55Table 2-5. The base-case kappa estimates were judged to be the more likely (by 50 percent) withweights of 0.6 compared to the augmented values with weights of 0.4.To maintain consistency in the site response analyses, the low-strain damping values are adjusted consistent with the kappa value associated with each profile.TABLE 2.5 KAPPA VALUBS AND WEIGHTS USED IN SITB RESPONSE ANALYSISVnl.,ocrry PRorrr,nPRorrln Wnrcnr KappA, lslK.Lpp.l, WnrcHrPIBase-Case 0.40.0213 (Kappa I )1.0P2Lower Range 0.30.0237 (Kappa l) 0.60.0320 (Kappa 2) 0.4P3Upper Range 0.30.0193 (Kappa 1)0.60.0152 (Kappa 2) 0.4This unsymmetric approach results in an appropriate representation of the epistemic uncertainty in site response. It also significantly reduces computational demands relative to specifying threealternative kappa values for each velocity profile.

When uncertainty and variability in otherinputs are also considered, it results in 6,600 site response analyses (5 combinations of profilesand kappa values ,2 material behavior models flinear and nonlinear for the upper 500 ft], 2source models (single and double corner inputs), 1 I loading levels, and 30 soil profilerealizations). The range of kappa values presente d in Tuhle 2-5 is utilized in the site responseanalysis that is combined with the hard-rock seismic hazard to obtain the control point seismichazard and the GMRS.2.3.3 Randomization of Base Case ProfilesTo account for the aleatory variability in dynamic material properties that is expected to occuracross a site at the scale of a typical nuclear facility, variability in the V5 profiles and shear-strain-degradation shear modulus reduction, and damping curves are incorporated in the site response calculations. S:\Local\Pubs\27%294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R418\R1\2734294-R418, Rev. 1.docxAEtGonsultlng 2734294-R-01,8Reaision 7 March 20, 2014Page 32 of 552.3.3.1 Randomization of Shear-wave Velocitv ProfilesFor the BVPS-2 Site, aleatory variability in the Vs profile for the Site is presented by 30randomized profiles developed from each of the base-case profiles shown on Figure 2-3.These randomized Vs profiles were generated using a natural log standard deviation of 0.25 over the top 50 ft and 0.15 over the remaining soil column depth. As specified in the SPID (EPRI,2013a), correlation of Vs between layers was modeled using the footprint correlation model. Inthe correlation model, a limit of +/- 2 standard deviations, and a factor of I .3 about the medianvalue in each layer was assumed for the limits on random velocity fluctuations. Additionally, profiles were constrained to not exceed a Vs of 9,200 ftls.2.3.3.2 Randomization of Modulus Reduction and Hysteretic Damping Curves For the BVPS-2 Site, aleatory variability in dynamic material property curves is represented using 30 randomizations derived from the base-case for each alternative model. The randomgeneration of G/cn,u* and damping ratio values are limited to upper and lower bounds of the BE +two standard deviations, consistent with the SPID (EPRI, 2013a). The damping ratio values arelimited to l5 percent. Also consistent with the SPID (EPRI, 2013a), a log normal distribution isused with a natural log standard deviation of 0.15 and 0.30 for modulus reduction and hystereticdamping, respectively.2.3.4 Input Fourier Amplitude Spectra Consistent with the guidance in Appendix B of the SPID (EPRI, 2013a), input Fourier amplitude spectra were defined for a single representative earthquake magnitude (M 6.5) using twodifferent models for the shape of the seismic source spectrum (single-corner and double-corner). By selecting appropriate distances and depths, a suite of I I different input amplitudes (medianpeak ground acceleration [PGA] ranging from 0.01 to 1.5g) were modeled foruse in the siteresponse analyses. The characteristics of the seismic source and upper crustal attenuation properties used forthe analysis of the BVPS-2 Site were the same as those identified in Tables B-4, B-5, 8-6, and B-7 of the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) as appropriate fortypical Central and EasternUnited States (CEUS) Sites.ABSGonsultlng rctS:\Local\Pubs\27il294 FENOC Beaver Valley\3. 1 Q Report File\R41 8\R19734294-R41 I, Rev. 1 .docx 2734294-R-0L8 Reaision 1March 20,2014Page 33 of 552.3.5 Site Response MethodologyThe site response analysis reported here implements an equivalent-linear method using the random vibration theory (RVT) approach. This process utilizes a simple, efficient method forcomputing site-specific amplification functions and is consistent with existing NRC guidanceand the SPID (EPRI, 2013a). The guidance contained in Appendix B of the SPID (EPRI, 2013a)on incorporating epistemic uncertainty in Vs, kappa, dynamic material properties, and source spectra was followed for the BVPS-2 Site.2.3.6 Amplification FactorsThe results of the site response analysis consist of factors (5 percent damped pseudo absoluteacceleration response spectra), that describe the amplification (or de-amplification) of referencehard-rock response spectra as a function of frequency and input reference hard-rock PGSamplitude. Amplification is determined for the SSE control point elevation at the base of the RBfoundation level. Because of the uncertainty and variability incorporated in the site responseanalysis, a distribution of AFs is produced. The AFs are represented by a median (i.e., log-mean) amplification value and an associated log standard deviation (sigma-ln) for each oscillator frequency and input rock amplitude. Consistent with the SPID (EPRI, 2013a), medianamplification was constrained to not fall below 0.5 to avoid extreme de-amplification that mayreflect limitations of the methodology.Figure 2-4 presents the median and +l- I standard deviation in the predicted AFs developed forthe I 1 loading levels parameterized by the reference (hard rock) PGA (0.01 to 1.50g) for profilePl and EPRI rock G/G.*, and hysteretic damping curves (EPRI, 2013a). Further, the AFsshown on Figure 2-4 are developed for the hard-rock input motion based on the single-corner frequency source model. The variability in the AFs results from variability in Vs and modulus reduction and hysteretic damping curves. Figure 2-5 presents similar information for profile Plusing the linear dynamic material property representation. Comparison of AFs, including the effects of material nonlinearity in the BVPS-2 Site firm rocklayers (model Ml),with the coffesponding AFs developed with linear site response analyses(model M2) shows only minor effects of non-linearity for frequencies below about 20Hz and a S:\Local\Pubs\27%294 FENOC Beaver Valley\3.1Q Report File\R418\R1\2734294-R{18, Rev. 1.docx AEtConsulting 2734294-R-018 Reaision LMarch 20, 2014Page 34 of 55loading level less than about 0.5g. Above about the 0.5g loading level, the differences

increase, but only for spectral frequencies in excess of about 20 Hz.Appendix,4 provides several tables that summarize the site response uncertainty

analysis, including the development of the site response logic tree (V. models, kappa, and dynamic properties) and a summary of the numerical values of the AFs at seven spectral frequencies and1l input PGA values at hard-rock.

Additionally, Appendix,4 provides tables of the AFs forthree loading levels consistent with the information shown on Figures 2-4 and 2-5.S:\Local\Pubs\27%294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-018\R1\2734294-R{18, Rev. 1.docx ABSGonsultlng 2734294-R-018 Reuision LMarch 20, 2014Page 35 of 554.543.5*3ot!E 2.s.EzeE 1.s10.5010100Frequency IHz]43.53o1yH zstt=.9.a.zot,-o. 1.5E70.50100Frequency IHz]100Frequency IHzlF'IGURE 2.4 BVPS-2 SITE AMPLIFICATION FACTORS, BASE.CASE PROF'ILEG/GMAX AND DAMPING, KAPPA 1, I.CORNER SOURCE4.543.5*3ot!5 2.s)ra3')CLE 1.s10.504.543.5*3(!t!.E,tP.82CLE 1.s10.50Frequency IHz]Frequency [Hzl100.143.543.53oH zsl!g.9 -rPZtu(,-o 1.5E10.503LoH z.slttr.9 11PZo(,= ^-CL I.)EL0.5Frequency [Hz](P1), EPRr ROCKMODELNote:Quantities in the upper right hand corner represent the hard rock input 100 Hz spectral acceleration in g'snFSGottsulting rce/l',t'-iS:\Local\PubsV734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\3 1 Q Report File\R-O18\R1\2734294-R41 8, Rev 1 docx 2734294-R-0L8 Reaision 1March21,201.4 Page 36 of 55Frequency IHzlFrequency IHz]E Mean--- Mean+Stdv Mean - Stdv1.83,,?\^r, itr i/A rr\-*.w4F -\*,':3.53- 2.5otl!l!.gzo+to* t'tcE0.5043.53LorYH z.st!c.9.tt a.o(,=.-o. r.)E10.503.53- 2.5oEo:2.9.Hl!* r.s0.E0.5ooPIJolrco,yoIJ=o.E100Frequency IHz]Frequency IHzlfrequcncy [HzlX'IGURE 2.4Bvps-2 sIrE AMpLrFrcArroN.^*3JftNH;-cASE pRoFrLE (pr), EpRr RocK G/GMAX AND DAMPING, KAppA 1, I-CORNER SOURCE MODEL Note:Quantities in the upper right hand corner represent the hard rock input 100 Hz spectral acceleration in g'sLoP(,Gt!g.91YoI.;E3.532.521.5L0.5032.521.510.50S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\3 1Q Report File\R-O18\R1U734294-R418, Rev 1 docx tESGonsulting 2734294-R-01,8 Reaision 1March 20, 201'4Page 37 of 554.543.5L*3l!t!t 2.sa.8)CLE 1.510.504.543.5*3oll5 2.s3)=o.E 1.sL050Frequency [HzlT0.504.543.5*3ol!E 2.sP.EzeE l.sL0.5043.53LotPH z.st!C.9 .,I(!IE 1.5E43.53oPH z.sItC.9rYLoI-o 1.5EL0.5043.53oPH z.st!c.9 1a)zl!t-o 1.5E10.50100Frequency [HzlFrequency [Hz]FIGURE 2.5BVPS-2 SITE AMPLIFICATION

FACTORS, BASE-CASE PROFILE (Pl)' LINEARROCK G/GMAX AND DAMPING, KAPPA 1, I-CORNER SOURCE MODELaffi Mean--- Mean+Stdv" Mean - StdvFrequency

[HzlS:\Local\P ubsV734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\3 1 Q Report File\R-O1 8\R1U734294-R418, Rev 1 docxfF$Gonsulting 2734294-R-018 Reaision 1March 20, 201'43.53- 2.5oIPL'oll .!CZott(!E r.scE0.5043.53o.PH z.st!tr.9 .lPZoIi. r.sE10.50Pase 38 of 55100Frequency [HzJ100Frequency [Hzl3.53.. 2.5o,ttt,olL .rCL0.rt(!# r.sCLE0.503.53- 2.5oPi,o*=2.9ayGE t.to,E0.50Frequency [Hzl100Frequency [Hz]100Frequency [HzlFIGURE 2-5(coNTINUED) BVPS.2 SITE AMPLIFICATION

FACTORS, BASE.CASE PROFILE (P1)' LINEARROCK G/GMAX AND DAMPING, KAPPA 1, I-CORNER SOURCE MODELNote:Quantities in the upper right hand corner represent the hard rock input 100 Hz spectral acceleration in g's.2.5tOt.PZL't!t!gE r.st!It-o.E10.5- Mean--- Mean+Stdv

+h vj\ Ae Mean - Stdv\tI{----- Mean--- Mean+StdV Mean - StdvS:\Local\PubsV734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3 1Q Report File\R-018\R1U734294-R418, Rev 1 docxAE$ 2734294-R-01.8Reaision 1-March 20, 201.4Page 39 of 55 2.4 CoNrRoL PorNr Snrsvrrc HnzARD CunvBsAs presented"in Section 3.2below, the control point elevation is taken to be the base of the RBfoundation level (EL 680.9 ft). The procedure to develop probabilistic site-specific control pointhazardcurves follows the methodology described in Section 8-6.0 of the SPID (EPRI,20I3a). This procedure (referred to as Approach 3) computes a site-specific control point hazard curvefor a broad range ofspectral accelerations given the site-specific bedrock hazard curve and site-specific estimates of soil or soft-rock response and associated uncertainties. This process isrepeated for each of the seven specified spectral frequencies, for which the EPRI (2013c) GMMis defined.The dynamic response of the rock column below the control point elevation is represented by the frequency and amplitude-dependent amplification function (median values and ln-standard deviations) developed and described in the previous section. The resulting control point meanhazafi curves for the BVPS-2 Site are shown on Figure 2-6 and in Table 2-6 for the sevenspectral frequencies, for which the EPRI (2013c) GMM is defined. Tabulated values of the site response amplification functions and the control point hazard curves for various fractiles are provided inAppendLx C.1.E-01t.E-021.E-031.E-041.E-051.E-05 L.E-071.E-080.010.1010.00Spectral Accclention (g)FIGURE 2-6 BVPS.2 MEAN CONTROL POINT SEISMIC HAZARD AT SELECTED SPECTRALFREQUENCIES (.,gotC'oLltoC'g(!rEoo1.,xUJ(E5trctroo=-.0.5H2,- . 1.0 HZ- -2.5 Hz- ' '5.0 HzG - 10.0 Hzn =D 25.0 HZl-) 100.0 HZS:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\3 1Q Report File\R-O18\R1U734294-R418, Rev 1 docx 2734294-R-01.8Reaision L March 20, 201,4 Page 40 of 55TABLB 2.6 BVPS.2 MBAN CONTROL POINT SEISMIC HAZARD AT SELBCTED SPBCTRALFREQUENCIES 2.5Conrnol PorNT RESPoNSE SPECTRUMThe control point hazard curves described above have been used to develop uniformhazard response spectra (UHRS) and the GMRS. To ensure that important site response frequencies areaccurately modeled, the control point response spectra are based on smoothed UHRS developedat the hard-rock boundary using the approach described by NRC (2007a) and McGuire et al.,GRouNnMorIoNLnvnlIqlMnln ANNulr, FnneunNcy oF ExcnntANCE non SpnCTRAL FnnQUnNCIES0.5 Hz1.0 Hz2.5Hz5.0 Hz10 Hz25Hlz100 Hz0.023.868-049.168-044.598 -03t.368-026.54E-035.65E-033.49E -030.031.55E-043.99E-042.22E-03 7.488-033 .948 -433.30E-031.83E-030.047.328-052.018-041.30E-034.89E-032.67F-03 2.148-031.13E-030.053.87E-051.13E-048.568-043.508-03r.92F,-03 1.508-037 .688 -040.062.258-056.94E-0s6.028 -042.658-031.45E-03t.l0E-035 .598 -040.071.40E-054.548-054.458-042.08E-031.138-038.408-044.26F,040.089.2t8-063.13E-053.428-041.68E-039. l 1E-046.628-043.36E-040.096.35E-062.268 -052.708-041.388-037 .498 -045.34F'042.698-040.104.56E-061.69E-052.t98-04r.l5E-036.278 -044.408-442.198-040.206.218 -012.83E-065.46E-053.268-041.86E-041.208-045.03E-050.253.4tE-071.66E-063.49E-052.148-04t.258-047.89E-053.06E-050.302.188 -071.08E-062.428-05r.s0E-048.94E-055.54E-05 1.99E-0s0.401.138-075.698-071.35E-058.49E-055.248-053.10E-059.52E-060.506.72E-083.s3E-078.58E-065.39E-05 3.41E-051.928-055.08E-060.604.37E-082.438-075.89E-063.69E-05 2..378-05 t.268-052.908-060.703.03E-081.798-074.26E -062.668-05t.12E-058.56E-061.73E-060.802.198-081.39F,-07 3.218-061.99E-051.28E-056.00E-061.07E-060.901.64E-081.10E-072.498-061.53E-059.69E-064.30E-066.89E-071.001.218-088.95E-081.98E-061.20E-05 7.488-063.148-064.598-072.001.96E-091.87E-083.988-07r.928-069.258-072.978-013.64E-083.006.078-106.198 -091.328-075.t58-072.288-077 .218 -088.88E-095.00I.I7E-101.35E-092.89E-088.50E-084.418-081.07E-08t.228-09S:\Local\Pubs9734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report Fite\R{18\R1\2734294.-R-0'18, Rev. 1.docxfBSGonsultlng 2734294-R-018 Reuision 1March 20,201.4Page 41, of 55 (2001). The UHRS were obtained through linear interpolation in log-log space to estimate thespectral acceleration at each oscillator frequency for the lE-4 and lE-5 per year hazard levels. The lE-4 and lE-5 UHRS, along with a design factor (DF), are used to compute the GMRS atthe control point using the criteria in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.208. Table 2-7 presents thecontrol point lE-4 and 1E-5 UHRS, the GMRS, and Figure 2-7 graphically illustrates the GMRSrelative to the UHRS. TABLE2-7BVPS-2 CONTROL POINT s%.DAMPBD UHRS AND GMRSFnneueNcY lHzlHonrzoNur. SpncrRAL Accsr,nRATroN lgl lr rnn RBFouNolrroN 1xl0-" UHRSIXIO-'UHRS GMRS0.100.00270.00670.00330.130.00390.00960.00480.160.00570.01410.00710.200.0088 0.02130.0r070.260.01360.03250.01640.330.02030.04730.02404.420.02840.06400.03260.s00.03570.07820.04010.530.03560.07860.04020.670.0375 0.08440.04310.850.04680. l08l0.0549r.000.05240.12t70.06171.080.05630.13360.06741.370.06880.17710.08791.740.08320.2373 0.11542.210.1r890.37830. I 8012.500.t4760.46s00.22182.810.t8420.57250.27383.560.26610.82920.39644.520.3s011.035605042s.000.36911.08010.52285.740.37071.06910.51907.280.31800.92910.44999.240.28160.8816 0.421010.000.28240.88790.4237r1.720.28690.8895a.4256t4.870.28880.8880 0.425618.870.26460.78770.380023.950.22550.67760.326325.000.22050.65800.3r7330.390.20270.57650.2807S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\3. 1 Q Report File\R41 8\R1\2734294-R-01 8, Rev. 1 .docxAEBConsultlng 2734294-R-018 Reuision 1,March 20, 20L4Page a2 of 55-ruoYgoa-PIELo-oL'I-lELtD)IoCLltl1.2001.0000.8000.6000.4000.2000.000-,- - 1X10-4UHRS [c]- Lx10-5UH RS [e]s=n GMRS/II0.101.0010.00100.00Frequency (HzlFIGURE 2.7CONTROL POINT UNIFORM HAZARD RESPONSE SPECTRA AT MEAN ANNUALFREQUENCIES OF EXCEEDANCE OF 1X10-4 AND 1X10-5, AND GROUND MOTIONRESPONSE SPECTRUM AT BVPS.2fE$Gonsulting rCQTABLE2-7BVPS.2 CONTROL POINT s%-DAMPED UHRS AND GMRS(coNTINUED) FnEQTIENCY lHzlHontzoNTAL SpecrRAL AccnlERATIoN lgl Ar THE RBFOTIXUATIONIXIO'4 UHRS 1XlO-5 UHRSGMRS38.570. I 9040.52670.2s7848.940. r 8280.487 l0.240262.100.17040.443r0.219678.800.15260.3 93 80. l 955100.000. l 4550.39290.t933*,tS:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\3 1Q Report File\R-O18\R1U734294-R418, Rev 1 docx 2734294-R-01_8 Reaision LMarch 20, 2014Page 43 of 553.0 PLANT DESIGN BASIS GROUND MOTIONThe design basis for BVPS-2 is identified in the UFSAR (FENOC,2012).3.1 SSE DnscruprroN oF SpECTRAL SHl,pnThe SSE was developed in accordance with conservative deterministic principles through anevaluation of the maximum earthquake potential for the region suffounding the Site. Based ondeterministic hazard analysis, the UFSAR (FENOC,2012, Sections 2.5 and 3.7) reports twodesign basis earthquakes, the SSE and the Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE). The purpose ofthe seismicity analysis is to evaluate earthquakes that have been recorded historically andinstrumentally in order to determine the OBE and the SSE. The SSE ground motion accounts forthe soil conditions at the Site.The SSE response spectra for the BVPS-2 Site are anchored atzero period accelerations ofO.l2lghorizontal and 0.0839 vertical (Section 2.5.4.9 of UFSAR [FENOC,2012]). DynamicAFs used for these spectra give a maximum spectral acceleration of 0.449 for two percentdamping, with appropriate relative values for other amounts of damping. The spectra arc flatfrom 2to 6Hzandreduce to an amplification ratio of unity for frequency exceeding20Hz. The So/o-damped horizontal SSE spectral accelerations are presented in Table 3-1. Thecoffesponding vertical ground motion spectrum forthe SSE is taken as2l3 of the horizontalspectrum. Figare 3-1 presents the SSE So/o-Damped Response Spectra. AESGonsultlng rctS:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R418\R1\2734294-R*18, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-018Reaision 1 March 20, 2014Page aa of 55TABLE 3-ISSE HORIZONTAL GROUND MOTION RESPONSE SPECTRUM FOR BVPS.2FnneuENCY IHzlSppcrRAL AccnLERATIoN tel0.20.0120.50.07 620.32560.325200.1251000.1250.101.0010.001m.00Frequency (Hz)-BV2 H_SSE, 0.1259 PGA -BV2 V_SSE, 0.0839 PGAFIGURE 3.1BVPS-2 SAFE SHUTDOWN EARTHQUAKE 5%-DAMPED RESPONSE SPECTRA3.2 SSE Conrnol PorNr Er,ov,lrronThe horizontal and vertical SSE response spectra shown on Figure 3-1 represent the design basis ground motion input applied at the base of the foundation levels of the BVPS-2 structures. AtAo0; 0.6o.I+,(!bo-!'f 0.4(J-lUL+,L'a 0.2vlS:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3 1Q Report File\R-O18\R1\2734294-R418, Rev 1 docx AES 2734294-R-0L8 Reaision 1March 2A,20'L4Page 45 of 55BVPS-2, the top of bedrock is at EL 625 ft and the foundation elevation of the RB and theNuclear Island is 680.9 ft. The SSE control point elevation is taken to be the base of the RBfoundation, andthe SSE response spectraare, therefore, comparedto the GMRS atEL 680.9 ft.S:\Local\Pubs\27M294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-O18\R19734294-R418, Rev. 1.docxAESGonsultlng 2734294-R-018 Reaision 1March 20, 2014Page 46 of 55 4.0 SCREENING EVALUATIONIn accordance with the SPID, (EPRI, 2013a, Section 3), a screening evaluation was performed asdescribed below.The screening process determines if a seismic risk evaluation is needed. The horizontal GMRSdetermined from thehazard reevaluation is used to characterize the amplitude of the updated evaluation of seismic hazard at the BVPS-2 Site. The screening evaluation is based upon acomparison of the GMRS with the horizontal SSE ground motion spectrum.4.1 Rtsr Ev,q.r-u.q.TroN ScnnBNrNG (1 To 10 IJz)Inthe I to l0Hzpart of the response spectrum, the GMRS exceeds the horizontal SSE (atfrequencies above about 6Hz). Therefore, the plant screens in for a risk evaluation.The GMRS exceedance relative to the SSE spectrum above about 3-4 Hz is characterized asbroad banded with spectral accelerations exceedin10.4g at some frequencies in the 1.0 to l0Hzfrequency range. However, the SSE spectrum envelops the GMRS below 3-4 Hz. Therefore,SSCs and failure modes associated with low frequency are not affected by the GMRS. Asdiscussed in the SPID (EPRI, 2013a), these SSCs and failure modes include flexible distribution

systems, sliding and rocking of unanchored components, fuel assemblies inside the reactorvessel, soil liquefaction, and liquid sloshing in atmospheric pressure storage tanks. Accordingly,no new high confidence of low probability of failure (HCLPF) analysis of low frequency SSCs and failure modes is planned.4.2 Hrcu FnneunNcy ScnnnNrNG

(> 10 Hz)In the range of frequencies above l0 Hz, the GMRS exceeds the horizontal SSE. The highfrequency exceedances will be addressed in the risk evaluation discussed in,Section 4.1above.The BVPS-2 SSE ground motions do nothave significant frequency content above l0 Hz.Moreover, the consideration of high-frequency vulnerability of components in the IPEEE was focused on "bad actor" relays mutually agreed to by the industry and the NRC, with knownS:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\3.1Q Report File\R-O18\R19734294-R418, Rev. 1 .docxABSGonsultlng 2734294-R-018 Reaision LMarch 20, 201.4Page 47 of 55 earthquake or shock sensitivity. These specific model relays, designated as low ruggedness relays, were identified in EPRI Report 7148 (EPRI, 1990). Rather than considering high frequency capacity versus demand screening, "bad actor" relays were considered programoutliers and were evaluated using circuit analysis, operator actions, or component replacement.The response of components to the high frequency ground motion associated with the GMRSwill be addressed as part of the on-going SPRA. EPRI ReportNP-7498 (EPRI, l99l), as well asmore recent studies related to licensing activities for new plants (EPRI, 2007aand2007b), summarize the basis and conclude that "...high-frequency vibratory motions above about 10 Hzare not damaging to the large majority of NPP structures, components, and equipment. Anexception to this is the functional performance of vibration sensitive components, such as relaysand other electrical and instrumentation devices whose output signals could be affected by high-frequenc y excitation. " The SPRA will utilizethe information from EPRI's on-going test program to develop estimates of fragility for potential high-frequency sensitive components. The test program is expected to"... use accelerations or spectral levels that are sufficiently high to address the anticipated high-frequency in-structure and in-cabinet responses of various plants."4.3Spnxr Funl Pool Ev,Ll,u.q,TloN ScnnnxING (1 ro 10 IJ.z) In the I to I 0 Hz part of the response spectrum, the GMRS exceeds the horizontal SSE. Therefore, a spent fuel pool evaluation will be performed following the guidance in SectionT ofthe SPID (EPRI, 2013a).S:\Local\Pubs\27%294 FENOC Beaver Valley\3.1Q Report File\R-018\R1\2734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx AESGonsultlng 2734294-R-018 Reaision LMarch 20, 2014Page 48 of 555.0 INTERIM ACTIONSBased onthe screening evaluation, the expedited seismic evaluation described in EPRI (2013b)is being performed as proposed in a letter to NRC dated April 9,2013, (l{EI,2013), and agreedto by NRC in a letter dated May 7,2013, (ML131064331).Consistent with NRC letter dated February 20,2014, [ML14030A046]the seismic hazardreevaluations presented herein are distinct from the current design and licensing bases of theBVPS-2. Therefore, the results do not call into question the operability or functionality of SSCsand are not reportable pursuant to10 CFR 50.72, "Immediate notification requirements foroperating nuclear power reactors," andlO CFR 50.73, "Licensee event report system."The NRC letter also requests that licensees provide an interim evaluation or actions todemonstrate that the plant can cope with the reevaluated hazard while the expedited approach and risk evaluations are conducted. In response to that

request, NEI letter dated March 12,2014(NEI, 2014), provides seismic core damage risk estimates using the updated seismic hazards forthe operating nuclear plants in the CEUS. These risk estimates continue to support the followingconclusions of the NRC GI- 1 99 Safety/Risk Assessment (NRC , 2010a):Overall seismic core damage risk estimates are consistent with the Commission's SafetyGoal Policy Statement because they are within the subsidiary objective of 104/year forcore damage frequency.

The GI-199 Safety/Risk Assessment, based in part oninformation from the NRC's IPEEE program, indicates that no concern exists regarding adequate protection and that the current seismic design of operating reactors provides asafety margin to withstand potential earthquakes exceeding the original design basis.BVPS-2 is included in the Marchl2,20l4, risk estimates. Using the methodology described inthe NEI letter, all plants were shown to be below 70'a lyeau thus, the above conclusions apply.Additionally, as requested in Enclosure 1 of the 50.54(f) letter (Item 5) the followingparagraphs provide insights from the NTTF Recommendati on 2.3 walkdowns, and the IPEEE programaccomplished for BVPS-2. These programs further illustrate the plant seismic capacity. S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R{18\R1\2734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx AFSConsulting 2734294-R-0L8 Reuision LMarch 20, 20'l-4Page 49 of 55 5.1NTTF 2.3 W,q.LKDowNsIn response to NTTF Recommendation 2.3, FENOC completed the Seismic 2.3 walkdown forBVPS-2 in September 2012 (FENOC,20l3b). This walkdown identified no major anomalies.

However, some potentially adverse seismic conditions were identified during the SeismicWalkdown. The walkdown report summarizes these conditions. Condition reports wereinititiated as appropriate.

Justifications for findings, for which a Licensing Evaluation is notrequired, are provided in the Component's respective SWCs.The 2.3 walkdown for the Beaver Valley Power Station was subsequently audited by NRC staff.The staff concurred with the process, as well as the findings and conclusions. IPEEE DESCRIPTION AND CAPACITY RESPONSE SPECTRUMThe IPEEE for BVPS-2 accomplished a SPRA for selected plant SSCs (Duquesne Light Co,1995) in accordance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission Technical Report (NUREG)-1407 (NRC, 1991). The seismic fragilities, developed in support of the SPRA,are based onthe lE-4return period UHRS developed in the EPRI SOG program (EPRI, 1989a, 1989b).The IPEEE HCLPF spectrum (IHS) is not used for screening. However, it is provided here forreference and to document the level of the BDB seismic ground motion, for which the plantSSCs have been evaluated. Appendix,B summarizes the elements of the IPEEE, following theIPEEE adequacy requirements in SPID Section 3.3.1 (EPRI, 2013a).The IPEEE reports aminimum HCLPF value of about 0.1259, associated with failure of theunrestrained station batteries. However, the supporting SPRA estimates a mean seismic-initiatedCDF of 5.338-6, andthe plant level HCLPF of 0.259 PGA (NRC, 2010b). Accordingly, the 5-percent damped horizontal IHS spectral accelerations provided in Table 5-1 corcespond to the0.259 PGA UHRS. The SSE spectrum and the IHS in the horizontal direction are shown onFigure 5-1.ABSGonsulting rceS:\Local\Pubs\27%294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-O18\R1\2734294-R-018, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-018 Reuision LMarch 20, 201,4 Page 50 of 550.8TABLE 5-1HORIZONTAL IHS FOR BVPS-2Frequency (Hzl-BV2 IHS 0.259 -BV2 H-SSE, 0.L25g PGAFIGURE 5-1BVPS-2 SSE AND IPEEE HCLPF SPECTRA,Aa0Vs 0.6o'tr(uLgot ^AELP(,ot o.zAESGonsultlng rceFnneuENCY lHzlSpncrRAL AccnLERATIoN tgl1.00.0192.50.1255.00.29210.00.36925.00.369100.00.250S:\Local\PubsV734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\3 1Q Report File\R{18\R1U734294-R418, Rev 1 docx 273429+R-018 Reaision 1March 20, 2014 Page 51, of 5

56.0 CONCLUSION

S In accordance withthe 50.54(f) request for information letter (NRC, 2012a) a seismichazardand screening evaluation was performed for BVPS-2. This reevaluation followed the guidanceprovided in the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) and developed the control point GMRS for the Site. Thescreening evaluation compares the horizontal SSE spectrum to the control point GMRS.Based on the results of the screening evaluation, the plant screens in for risk evaluation, a SpentFuel Pool evaluation, and a High Frequency Confirmation. The GMRS exceeds the horizontal SSE both in the I to 1 0 Hzpart of the response spectrum and above l0 Hz.Although the BVPS-2 IPEEE is a focused scope SPRA and is not used for screening, this ReportQ4ppendix B) performs the evaluation of the completed IPEEE. It concludes thatthe IPEEE isof good quality and meets all other prerequisites and the adequacy requirements in accordance with the SPID (EPRI, 2013a). The Report compares the GMRS to the IPEEE spectrum for reference and to illustrate the robustness in the plant design relative to the design basis for new plants.The SPRA for BVPS-2 is currently on-going and is expected to be completed consistent with theschedule proposed in the industry letter to NRC dated April 9,2013, (f{EI, 2013), and agreed toby NRC in a letter dated May 7, 2013, (MLl3106A33l). Gonsultlng rceS:\Local\Pubs\27H294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-018\R1\2734294-R-018, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-41.8Reaision 1 March 20, 2074Page 52 of 557.0 REFBRENCES Castagna, J.P., and M.M. Backus,1993, "Rock Physics - The Link Between Rock Properties andAVO Response," in Eds., Offset-dependent reflectivity - Theory and Practice of AVO Analysis, Castagna, J.P., Batzle,M.L., and Kan, T.K., Investigations in Geophysics (SEG)No. 8, p. 135 -l7 t, 1993.Duquesne Light Company, 1995, "Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 1, Probabilistic RiskAssessment, Individual Plant Examination Summary Report," June 1995.EPRI, 1989a, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Evaluation for Beaver Valley Power Station, ProjectRPl0l-53, Electric Power Research Institute, April 1989.EPRI, 1989b, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Evaluations at Nuclear Plant Sites in the Central andEastern United States: Resolution of the Charleston Earthquake Issue, NP-6395-D, ElectricPower Research Institute, April 1989.EPRI, 1990, "Procedure for Evaluating Nuclear Power Plant Relay Seismic Functionality," Report 7148, Electric Power Research Institute, December 1990. EPRI, 1991, "Industry Approach to Severe Accident Policy Implementation," Report EPRI NP-7498, Electric Power Research Institute, November 1991.EPRI, 1993, "Guidelines for Determining Design Basis Ground Motions," Electric PowerResearch Institute, Vol. l-5, EPRI TR-102293, Electric Power Research Institute, 1993.EPRI, 2004, "CEUS Ground Motion Project Final Report: TR-1009684 2004," Electric PowerResearch Institute, December 2004. EPRI, 2006, "Program on Technology Innovation: Truncation of the Lognormal Distribution andValue of the Standard Deviation for Ground Motion Models in the Central and Eastern UnitedStates," TR-1014381, Electric Power Research Institute, August 2006.EPRI, 2007a, "Program on Technology Innovation: The Effects of High-Frequency GroundMotion on Structures, Components, and Equipment in Nuclear Power Plants," EPRI 1015108,Electric Power Research Institute, June 2007 . EPRI, 2007b, "Program on Technology Innovation: Seismic Screening of Components Sensitiveto High-Frequency Vibratory," EPRI 1015109, Electric Power Research Institute, October 2007.ABSGonsultlng rCRS:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R418\R1\2734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-41.8 Reaision 1March 20, 2014Page 53 of 55 EPRI, 20l3a "Seismic Evaluation

Guidance, Screening, Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1:Seismic,"

Electric Power Research Institute, February 2013. EPRI, 20l3b, "Augmented Approach for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic," Report 3002000704,, Electric Power Research Institute, April,2013.EPRI, 20l3c, "EPRI (2004,2006) Ground-Motion Model (GMM) Review Project, Report3002000717," Electric Power Research Institute, June 2013.EPRI/DOEA{RC, 2012, "Technical Report: Central and Eastern United States Seismic SourceCharacterization for Nuclear Facilities," EPRI Report # 1021097, U.S. DOE Report # DOEA{E-0140, U.S. NRC NUREG-2115, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, U.S. DOE,U.S. NRC, 2012.FENOC , 2011, Beaver Valley Power Station Unit I Updated Final Safety Analysis Report,Revision 27 ,Docket No. 50-334, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company,20ll. FENOC ,2012,"lJpdated Final Safety Analysis Report," Revision 27,Beaver Valley PowerStation Unit 2, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company,2\l2. FENOC ,2013a "Site Description for Beaver Valley Power Station, Near-Term Task ForceRecommendation 2.1Partial Submittal", FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, September 12,2013.FENOC ,2013b, "Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 2 Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report," Revision 1, September 4,2An NRC ADAMS accession number MLI 3284A025), FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating

Company, 2013.Goldthwait, R., G. White, and J. Forsyth, 1961, "Glacial Map of Ohio," Ohio Department ofNatural Resources, Div. of Geol Survey, 1961.

Hough, J.L., 1958, "Geology of the Great Lakes," University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL, 1958. Miller, S.L.M., and R.R.

Steward, l990, "Effects of Lithology, Porosity and Shaliness on P- andS-Wave Velocities from Sonic Logs," Canadian Journal of Exploration Geophysics, Volume 26,Nos. l & 2, p. 94-103, 1990.NEI, 2013, Letter from Pietrangelo (NEI) to Skeen (NRC) with Attachments, "Proposed PathForward for NTTF Recommendation 2.1: Seismic Reevaluations," Nuclear Energy Institute, April 9, 2013.Gonsultlng raeS:\Local\Pubs\27M294 FENOC Beaver Valley\3.1Q Report File\R-O't8\R1\2734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-018 Reaision 1March 20, 201.4Page 54 of 55NEI, 2014, Letter from Pietrangelo QI{EI) to Leeds (NRC) with Attachments, "Seismic RiskEvaluations for Plants in the Central and Eastern United States," Nuclear Energy Institute, March 12,2014.Norris, S.E., 1975, Geologic Structure of Near-Surface Rocks in Western Ohio, Ohio Journal ofScience 75(5): 225, 1975.NRC, 1991, "Procedural and Submittal Guidelines for the Individual Plant Examination of External Events for Severe Accident,"

NUREG-1407, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. , 1991.NRC, 2007, "A Perfornance-Based Approach to Define the Site-Specific Earthquake GroundMotion," Regulatory Guide 1.208, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.,March 2007. NRC, 2009, "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 36, Regarding Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2," NUREG-1437, Supplement 36, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., May 2009.NRC, 2010a, Memorandum, Hiland to Sheron, "safety/Risk Assessment Results for GenericIssue 199 'Implications of Updated Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Estimates in Central and Eastern United States on Existing Plants,' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,D.C., Septemb er 2, 2010 [MLl 0027 0598ML]. NRC, 2010b, "Resolution of Generic Safety Issues: Issue 199: Implications of UpdatedProbabilistic Seismic Hazard Estimates in Central and Eastern U.S. for Existing Plants, NUREG-0933, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., 2010.NRC, 20l2a, " Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations50.54(0 Regarding Recommendations 2.1,2.3 and 9.3 of the Near-Term Task Forces Review ofInsights from the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Accident, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C., March 12, 201 2 (ML I 2053 A3 40). NRC, 2013, Letter from E.J. Leeds (NRC) to J.E. Pollock (NEI), "Electric Power Research Institute Final Draft Report XXXXXX, 'seismic Evaluation Guidance: Augmented Approachfor the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic,' as anAcceptable Alternative to the March 12,2012, Information Request for Seismic Reevaluations,"U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., May 7 ,2013, (ML13 106A33 l). AESConcultlng rctS:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\3.1 Q Report File\R{1 8\R1\2734294-R-01 8, Rev. 1 .docx 2734294-R-0L8 Reaision 1March 20, 201.4Page 55 of 55NRC, 2014, Letter from E.J. Leeds [NRC) to All Power Reactor Licensees and Holders ofConstruction Permits in Active or Deferred Status, "supplemental Information Related toRequest for Information Pursuantto Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f)Regarding SeismicHazard Reevaluations for Recommendation2.l of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident," U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., February 20, 2014.

Pickett, G.R., (Pickett),

1963, "Acoustic Character Logs and their Applications in Formation Evaluatiofl," Journal of Petroleum Technology, Volume 15, No. 6, p. 659-667 , 1963.Rafavich, F., C. St. C.H. Kendall, and T.P. Todd, 1984, "The Relationship between AcousticProperties and the Petrographic Character of Carbonate Rocks," Geophysics, Volume 49, No. 10,p. 1622-1636,1984.RlZZO,2}l3, "Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis and Ground Motion Response Spectra,Beaver Valley Power Station, Seismic PRA Project," Paul C.Ptizzo Associates, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, April 19, 2013. S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R418\R1\2734294-R{18, Rev. 1.docxAESGonsultlng 2734294-R-018 Reaision 1.March 20, 201.4Page A1 of A10APPENDIXA NTTF 2.I SITE RESPONSE ANALYSISBVPS-2 SITEAE$Csrcultlng rrctS:\Local\Pubs\27U2U FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R418\R'l\2734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-01.8 Reaision 1March 20, 201.4 Page A2 of A10 l.2.J.4.5.6.7.8.9.APPENDIX A - NTTF 2.1 SITE RESPONSE ANALYSISINPUTS AND RESULTS, BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION SITEUncertainty and variability in inputs to the site response analysis are addressed as follows:Epistemic uncertainty in shear wave velocity (Vr) is modeled using three V, profiles. The derivation of upper range (UR) and lower range (LR) V, profiles is based on using afactor of 1.15, which is derived from a range of reasonable Voff, ratios based on literature review for the type of Paleozoic rocks that exist at the Site.The randomized site profile realizations use the log standard deviation as the layer by layer coefficient of variation 0.25 for the upper 50 ft and 0.15 at greater depths. Basedon the review of sonic log data from the three FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company(FENOC) Sites, an upper and lower V, limit is defined by a factor of 1.3 relative to the base case V, for each of the three V, profiles. The SPID (EPRI,20l3a) specifies the use of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) rock degradation curves for rock units such as found at the FENOC Sites. Thesecurves were used forthe top 500 feet (ft) of rock. Below 500 ft, damping forthe bedrockis derived consistent with kappa estimates. At the BVPS-2 Site strain-dependent properties for the soil overburden are based onFSAR data for the Pleistocene Upper and Lower Terrace Units (1E).Consistent with the SPID (EPRI, 2013a), kappa is estimated for each site profile. Forboth the lower and upper range V, profiles, uncertainty is represented using a secondary kappa value by applying a factor of 1.5 (multiplied by 1.5 for LR profile and divided by1.5 for UR profile). For profiles greater than 3,000 ft the SPID (EPRI, 2013a) specifiesuse of an equation between V, (30m) and kappa; allthree profiles at BVPS-Z arc greaterthan 3,000 ft thickness. The total kappa is based on adding the soil kappa, the rockkappa, and the hard rock kappa.For the secondary kappa profiles the rock damping in the top 500 ft is modified by thesame factor of 1.5 used to characterize uncertainty in kappa. Below 500 ft rock damping was adjusted to preserve the total kappa for the profile.Table A-1 provided below specifies the site response inputs consistent with theseassessment of uncertainty and variability. Table,4-8 lists the resulting median AFs and the related ln-sigma for seven selected frequencies and 1 I values of input hard rock peak ground acceleration (PGA).Tables A-9 to A-11 list the resulting median AFs and the related ln-sigma for three loading levels associated with Figures 2-6 and 2-7.S:\Local\Pubs\27%294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report Fib\R-018\R1\2734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx AEgGonsulting 2734294-R-0L8 Reaision'LMarch 20, 2014Page A3 of A1.0O+)a(D(t)0.)t<c)u)(.)l.rrt)(l)li(Dqtrg(Bl.{c)GItr(JFEa(.)F.\1(Jt<(Da(+rqrallr)(l)*()U)(l)ogc)a-v()I.r(rr'Hlr)qoPt<.9(l)Cg ,;vu)!2 >'aaaF.9 c.r!ia(l)=yu)A' 9)t!fJ(uEtno-c.PP(oqo4rloborlqoEoLr*1r,(uf(oc.9(oL(uo{Ju(o-ocfoLbo-Y(ooo-rlF{(o.=brO c=.tl(uL.a-co-(uE-oc(ora(uL)c(oP.2E-cv-3tndllboco_e$0Jco=<uEEstIco(u-o(oF3o(u-oEg:to(FTEoEc,c,fottlPc'oo_o-cP.gT'(uatfv,(u+r(uE(I,L(oo-Ec.9.=EE(ng(Uo0c(o&.oo-o-l?o'/) 'FF(E^.j .!rn:: E gd.e?E*s"i E.(E)or-r pHEotY)*r9:<-ioFislr-ottOl6tI3c;9;rlEn=i- Fi-oE'io^F!3E'-i o.e\OCl^*(Y')3E'-j o.\OCQ*oo4oll=ET;-om.rostr-ovt(Il+E 8oc-rrEn=i- rll-oE,io^*gPs'-'i cL\OtrE*rl(UobIcc='d>REur)(oqEoorndtl=saosf?6tg" *i;fl-v,(Jo&Eo-IJ.JCs'-'i o.:OEQ*ooulotl3t; $i s HuYo=-tF 3Euru.(o(uq!gc='d}RErn(o.?Eoo4oll=boco-eq0Jco=c,EFNgL(uuoc(EtL(u3oJ.llco.Frn(EFIN!.1 F{ E= >o (u,\.actlEI.EOE<.(u,,(U*E; E.(oEt OFur P008to(i)EggFsfr-ot/r(u(O3 9c;97"Eh=tr3ErF!3E'-i o.\otrl^*(nSE'-'i o\OCQ*oo4otl=-q':<ai+SFslr-ovrosl39c;5;rlEa=icnr-oE'io^F!bP.= 'a\OLQ3sfL(o(Uhtcc='dbRErn(oc!Erlorncitl3Lo9dt(,8*droEooc_oi; ,(1JJ(JoEEo-UJPe'-'i o.:OEQ*oo4oil3s-OOtE si e Hu; oE$F 3EuJ -^(o(ua!cc='d;RErn(or! .tJFlornc;tl3bogo-eqolO=<uEErlo-(uP(oE'FvlIJ.Jtt1a)mvlcoF(o.!NG-40(u- $Ed ?E,,N; 3E(oOFEc(oto(n-o:<d9s5lIet'a(uF{ge,,t,fr='= Fl-c\l-oE,io^F!3E'-1 0.\OCil*(nL3E'-1 0.-\OCQ*ooaotl=o-o(o.9E-o-Pozo-o(E.9E-o-oz(u-o(It.9E.o.ozo,lt(o.9E-oozgO9a= (/)8TdrdToa,c-cli;g.YtJoEao-ulgg'-1 o'\OCQ*oornc;ll=c,trlFtrJoc4Floz:t o-c(u(Jfo.J).9E.9c),JloEo(u(J5o.'1ooLo-(!o-a^iEF{Y. -}/.o.t -.eu)fioot.r')ooF(uoo- q1iJgFlornP-c.go(u3(oo-o^g!o-v-tnooIno-oF(uoLo 6.1ERF{olrl+,-c.9pa)39e(o=ttt EfPE=sry!a_3E-c(o(,OEg(o(/)d* Ps5'aY* Etsi83(U(u-crllF-A--zHtiLtd<i crlQZ'iAtivEF{444dklE- lV--Flt-0fBSConsulting rctS:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-018\R1\2734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-018 Reaision 1March 20, 20L4Page Aa of A10L,rynnElnvlrloN tftlPnoprlnP1DnprHlftlPRonLnP2DnprnlftlPnoprlBP3Dnprnlftl680.9I 10009s701265066sl 100r5.9957t5.91265ts.9665120015.910431s.9138015.9625120055.9r04355.9138055.9625s00055.9434855.9575055.95505000130.94348r30.95750130.95506026130.95240130.96%A130.93s06026330.95240330.96930330.93506744330.95864330.97756330.93006744380.95864380.97756380.93006744380.95864380.97756380.9 -r206744800.95864800.97756800.9-t207tt2800.96l 84800.98t79800.9-29941ttz3674.96t843674.981793674.9-299464163674.955793674.973783614.9-370064164380.955794380.973784380.9 -370092004380.992004380.992004380.9TABLE A.2 SHBAR WAVE VELOCITY [ftls] PROFILESTABLE A-3 KAPPA (K1) USBD WITH BEST ESTIMATE PROFILE Pl Klppn (nocx) Bnsno oN: LoG (k) : 2.2189 - 1.093

• Loc (Vsroo)Vsroo ron BnoRocK

- 5222 ftls; K.lppa (Pl) : .0143sK.qpp.{ (sott ) Blsnn oN: K.tppA (ms)

.0605

• H (m) : .0605
• 17.038 : .001sTor^Lr, K.q,ppl : .001 + .0143 + .006 (H,q,nn RocK) = .0213sV, [ftlsf PlTlftlDepth to Top [ft]I 10015.9120040r5.9500075s5.96026200130.9674450330.96744420380.97ttz287 4800.96416706367 4.992004380.9S:tLocaf\Pubs\27M294 FENOC BeaverValtey\3.1Q Report File\R{18\R1\27U294-R418, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-01,8 Reaision LMarch 20, 20L4 Page A5 of A1.0TABLE A.4KAPPA (k1) USED WITH LOWER RANGE PROFILEP2 TABLB A.5KAPPA (k2) USED WrTH LOWER RANGE PROFILEP2 K,q.pp.q, (Rocr) Bnsnn On: Loc (k) = 2.2189 - 1.093
• Loc (Vsroo)Vsroo FoR BEDRoCT

= 4541 ftls; K,q.pp,{ (P2) = .0167sKApp,q, (sott ) BAsED oN: K.q,ppA (ms) = .0605

• H (m) = .0605
• 17.038 = .001sTor.ql K.q,pp.q.

= .001 + .0167 + .006 (uanu RocK) = .0237sV. [ftls]P2TlftlDnprn ro Tor [ft]95715.9t0434015.94348755s.95240200130.9s86450330.95864420380.961842874800.955797063674.9920043 80.9Klppl (nocr) BAsED oN 1.5

• k(1) = .025K,tppl (soIl) BASED oN: KAPPA (ms) = .0605
• H (m) = .0605
• 17.038 : .001sToru, Kapp,l = .001 + .025 + .006 (H.q,nn nocr) : .032sV. [ftlsl P2r lftlDnpur ro Ton [ft]95715.9t0434015.9434875s5.95240200130.9586450330.95864420380.961 84287 4800.955797063674.9920043 80.9S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-o18\R1\2734294-R418, Rev.

1.docxfESGonsuhing 2734294-R-01.8 Reaision 1March 20, 2014Page A6 of A1.0 TABLE A-6KAPPA (K1) USED WITH UPPER RANGE PROFILE P3TABLE A-7KAPPA (K2) USED WITH UPPER RANGE PROFILB P3AESConsulting rCRKnpp,l (nocr) BASED oN: Loc (k) = 2.2189 - 1.093

• Loc (Vsroo)Vsroo FoR BEDRoCx

= 6006 ftls; Klppl (P3) = .0123sKapp.q. (sou,) BASED oN: K.q,rn,t (ms) = .0605

• H (m) = .0605
• L7.038 : .001sTornl K,q.pp.L

= .001 + .0123 + .006 (H,ann Rocx) = .0193sV. [ftlsl P3T tftlDepth to Top lftl1265I 5.91 3804015.957 507555.96930200130.977 5650330.977 56420380.981792874800.97378706367 4.9920043 80.9Knpp.q, (nocr) BASED oN K(1) l 1.5: .0082sK,q.pp,l (Sou,) B,qsnn ON: Knn,l, (ms) = .0605

• H (m) = .0605
• 17.038 = .00LsTornl K.q,ppn = .001 + .0082 + .006 (glnn nocr) = .0152sV. [ftlsl P3TtftlDnpru ro Top lftl126515.9I 3804015.957 507555.96930200130.977 5650330.977 56420380.98179287 4800.97378706367 4.992004380.9S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R{18\R1\2734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-018Reaision 1-March 20, 2014Page A7 of A10x?il3Ir r-lc..lq(\Irrlcoct;If rl(\lc.;If rlcr)coITrlo\=coIT r'1v?coITrlcotr-coIca=f,IH+Ifrlc-lvI*,QszE<+frlaa;+Trlaq6l+T r'1\oooc.il-f r'l\o9c-l+fTl00nol-Tf r Ila)c.lN+frlC-lcJN+C-lq+9+frlv?+trlse.lNA0;<olIrrltal."'l(\.lc-'lIfrlsfo\Ifrl+..,jIfrlC-lca;Ifrltatao+Ioo9rnI(\tr-ffrlc.t+trloo.1+f r Is\-t-rrl o\c'iE?If r'linc-lIfrlo\

=olIr rl\o(.)c.iIfrlt--lrlc'iIfrl,1c-'lIT r'llale.iIf r'l00inc.iI009c.lIfrlo\aocriIr r'laOclcAIf r'lr,alncO<b2z(.f) t(\Io\\oc-lIr! o\t--(\IfrlsfcAr.-t\tIr r)oontr*c{Iootart-'rC.lItt,tao9f.-c-'l,u.]00tr-c.lIf r"1o\trrN,frl,Qoo(\l,frlnOrI\ozE<-t-frlc-Trr Irn+rrlO,=q+f rl.++co..1+f r'l\oc.l-rfrlc.l+r!ooJIr rlo\9OrIrrltal\qaIfrlioor'-zE<+Tr lc-lcl-rco c!+I!+c.l+frltalc.l+frlinc'l+rr Ira,.!+frl\oc]ITfrll'-cl+r r'1ooclTrrlo\o!+frl.1as6c.lIrre.lItf.,taoIfrlc.iIfrl.++IT r'lc.l,r;IfrlaoooF-Itf.,llrlc-+lrl$+frllarq-rfrlt--Rcl+f r )c-o\c.i0HAu1aoItrltn00t\.1Ir r)r-oq(\IrI]Ie(\c-lIf r'lc-\$c-lIfrlo\ir,\cjotIfrlo\eoodI(\{-,.;It4tr-=If r'lcqJIrr)o{1c-lIfrl0000c.i<b=3a3Irrlo\-Ifrlc.iIfrlF-v')o.lIf !'lroIf r'1C.ltoIf r'1ca,c?aoIfrl\onro,frl\caIf r Ic\loqcoIr r'lc-lqaoIr-qc.)<tr=sii3I(\l\Ir!\o\Ifrlo\\Irrl\oa.IfrlcoqIf r'lc.i!Trlo\eiIf r'lo\cO..iIfrllrlqc-'lIfrl\o.1caIH.<r\cozE<-rfrlr'-oo-rf r Itr*--T-f r'1Ifr)\nodIrrlF-\qr-Ifrlt--If r Ilal+\oIfrlRlrlIr r'loo9+Ifrl+1f r'loo9cr)z=IrE<+rrlael+..)+f r "lc?+Trlc.l.1+r r'l.+c1+fr)trlc.l+f r'l\o..)+trl=q+frlr+n+frlo\n+rr)+v?U)SEinFI(\If r'1c1If r'lF--iIrrl\oclolIfrlcnf-+Ifrlt--Ir-oi+C-lc.l+frl\ooq+r!cAv16l+rr)a.tolao-rttlo\oqar1N6i<-a(\.lIfrl\oR(\tIr r'l(\\coc.tI\ooqralIftlIlJ.]RIr r'1oqIfrlc{(\Ic'lcaIr !'lcoc].+Iu.1colt.rIl'r'lvaog?EZ<bE<il3If r)\oc.)stfrl\o\o+IrrlC.ln<fIr rlt-+It.-\coIf r'laa,QaoIfrlr,Rcr)Irrloo c?coIfrllarcJc.)IfrlincoIrr)+a";IT r'l\oclIft'llal-:IrrlF--Ifrl o\c1Ifrls,qIfrl\oIf r'lcooqIooc.iIrr)c--o!t\Irr'l\onC-lIo\tal6izE<tfr)caclc!-r-frlr'-+o\c1+r!-:I+t,-o\IfrlC-l00odIfrlao00Icoo\\oI$\oI(\l.QtalIfrltrllalz*r"il<-rfrl\+rrlc-\+rrl$oq+frl.fq+rrlc'i+rrltalcri-rfrlo\c'i+rI]t.rc.i+frlr-c'i+f r'lolc.i+frlFre'iFA0=<=ac.lIr{t\.l-.:(\tIf r'1lrlnlrlIlalIF]cl(.rc.iIfrlF-qcaIr!oontalIr r'1ratt-++rrlvl-1-rrllalq+f r"lc-r.'!(\oNArti6lc\lIfrl\oc.i(\lIr rllaloo\CiIr r'\rf,JIfrle.}c'iIf r'loooqC-lIfrlco\coIfrlo\in+It!\\oIfrlc-lod+rrlNJTfrl.+c"jrdFi-aolIaFr,+t-/1.-AvF=-oaz<crr EE t-'.H T\^dv2ZdPEzAvf-tF-lIf-t=t-'.1A,-fESConsultittg S:\Locaf\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-O'l8\R1\27U294-R418, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-018 Reoision LMarch 20, 20L4Page A8 of A10TABLE A-9AMPLIFICATION FUNCTIONS AT SPECIFIC LOADING LEVBLS FOR BVPS.2 SITE100 Hz SPECTRAL ACCELERATION = O.LlgFnseuBNcy IHzIPRopu,n Pl K.tppn 1 (Kl)EPRI RocK NoNuxnan CuRvns (M1)l-ConNnn Gnouno Morron Monnl Pnornu Pl K,tppa I (Kf)LmpnR Rocx Cunvns (M2)l-ConNBn Gnouun MonoN MoDELMnonx AFSrcunLt'v(AF)MnnnN AFSrcM.q,LN(AF)0.11.158+006.968 -021.15E+007.058-020.13l.l4E+006.92E -021.14E+006.98E-020.16I . I 6E+00 8.66E-021.17E+008.69E-020.21.228+00I .l8E-01 t.228+00I .1 8E-01 0.261.31E+001.53E-011.31E+001.53E-010.331.37E+00t.44F-011.378+001.44E-010.421.32E+008.18E-021.32E+008.18E-020.51.228+00s.708-02 1.228+005.698-020.531.1 9E+005.368 -02I . I 9E+00 5.368-020.67I . I 0E+00 4.80E-02I . I 0E+00 4.88E-020.85I . 1 9E+00 2.00E-01I . 1 9E+00 2.02E-01I1.30E+001.828-0r1.30E+001.82E-011.081.32E+001.38E-011.33E+001.39E-01t.371.32E+001.48E-011.33E+001.55E-011.741.43E+002.02E-011.43E+002.068 -012.211.62E+003.248-0r1.63E+003.39E-012.51.75E+004.008-011.75E+004.27E-012.811.928+004.738-011.92E+004.858-013.562.458+003.71E-012.468+003.73F-0r4.522.88E+003.298-012.89E+003.31E-0152.85E+002.878-012.86E+002.878-015.742.64E+002.848-012.65E+002.83E-017.282.048+003.16E-012.05E+003.07E-019.241.59E+002.71F-0r1.60E+002.69F.-01 l01.51E+002.268 -011.51E+002.nE-ArtI.721.498+002.238-011.50E+002.23E -01t4.871.428+002.36F-011.43E+002.328 -0118.871.28E+002.378-01 1.29E+002.21F-0123.951.07E+001.94E-011.07E+001.82E-01251.04E+001.928-0r1.04E+001.798-0130.399.64F-01t.44E-019.70F-011.38E-0138.579.19E-019.208-029.238 -019.568-0248.949.65E-018.388-029.68E-018.84E-0262.11.06E+007 .058 -021.07E+007.638-0278.81.20E+006.38E-021 .21E+007.158-021001.40E+006.198 -021 .41E+00 7.038-02S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-O18\R1\2734294-R418, Rev. 1.docxABSGonsultlng 2734294-R-018 Reaision 1.March 20, 20L4Page A9 of A1-0TABLE A-10 AMPLIFICATION FUNCTIONS AT SPECIFIC LOADING LEVELS FOR BVPS.2 SITE100 Hz SPECTRAL ACCELERATION = 0.378Fnneunncy IH.zIPRonLn Pl Kaprn I (K1)EPRI Rocx NoNr,rrunaR CuRvos (Mf)l-COru.WR GROTIND MOTION MOUNIPRorrln Pl K,tppa I (K1)LrunnR RocK Cunvns (M2)l-Conxnn GnouNn MorroN MonuMnonn AFSrcuaLu(AF)Mnnltx AFSrcnnnLN(AF)0.11.17E+007.368-021 .1 7E+007 .458 -020. r3l.l5E+007.268-021.15E+007.318-020.16I . I 8E+008.938 -021. I 8E+008.958-020.21.23E+001 .21E-01 1.23E+00I .2 1E-01 0.261.32E+001.568-011.32E+001.56E-010.331.38E+001.46E-011.38E+001.46E-010.421.33E+008.418 -021.338+008.39E-020.51.23E+005.78E-02 1.23E+005.778-020.531.20E+005.40E -021.20E+005.398-020.671.1 1E+00 5.528 -02l.llE+005.528 -020.851.20E+002.148-0rt.20E+002.148-01I1.33E+001.93E-011.32E+001.93E-011.081.35E+001.49E-011.35E+001.49E-011.371.37E+001.84E-011.36E+001.91E-01r.741.50E+002.478-01 1.50E+002.578-012.211.748+043.928-011.748+004.16E-012.51 .91E+00 3.97E-01I .91E+00 4.02E-012.812.09E+003.86E-012.1 0E+003.91E-013.562.50E+003.49E-012.528+003.57E-014.522.59E+002.988-012.628+002.98F.-01 52.50E+002.97E-012.53E+003.00E-015.742.298+003.54E-012.32E+003.50E-017.281.76E+003.278-011.79E+003.18E-019.241.39E+002.7 5E-01 1.43E+002.648-01t01.36E+002.338 -011.39E+002.258-01r1.721.32E+002.348-01 1.36E+002.498 -0114.87I . I 7E+00 2.44E-01I .21E+00 2.47F-0118.871.04E+002.998-011.08E+002.81E-0123.9s8.278-012.638-0t8,578-012.48E-01258.05E-012.628-0r8.35E-012.528-0130.397.24E-012.258 -017.468-012.10E-0138.576.718-011.60E-016.90E-011.51E-0148.946.76E-0r1.35E-016.928 -011.30E-0162.17.268-0r1.17E-017.41E-011.12E-0178.88.19E-011.03E-018.35E-019.938-421001.02E+009.688 -021.04E+009.398-02fBSGonsulting rctS:\Local\Pubs\27%294 FENOC Beaver Valley\3.1Q Report File\R-O18\R.l127U294-R418, Rev. l.docx 2734294-R-018 Reaision LMarch 20, 201.4Page AL0 of 1'L0AMpLIFTcATIoN FUNCrroNs Ar ffi%lftt-lt^DrNc LEVELS FoR BVps-2 sIrE 100 Hz SPECTRAL ACCELERATION = 1.039F'nreuot[cy IHZIPRorrlE Pl Kappa I (K1)EPRI Rocr NoNlrnnnR CuRvEs (Ml)l-ConNnR Gnouxn Morron Monnr,Pnonnn Pl Kappa 1 (K1)Ln{nan Rocx Cunvns (M2)l-Conxnn GRouNu MorIoN Moorl MnuhN AFSrcmnLN{(AF)MnnTnN AFSrcvrlLN(AF)0.1l. I 9E+00 7.828-02l. I 9E+007.758-020.131 . 1 7E+007 .698 -021.16E+007.628-020.r61. I 9E+00 9.378 -02I . I 9E+00 9.30E-020.21.24E+001.268-011.248+001.25E-010.261.33E+001.628-011.33E+001.61E-010.331.39E+001.528-011.398+001.51E-010.421.35E+008.98E-021.34E+00 8.858-020.51.25E+006.10E,021.24E+006.00E-020.s3I .21E+00 5.678-02I .21E+00 5.58E-020.67I .1 3E+007.79E-021.1 3E+00 7.40F-020.851.248+002.538 -011.23E+002.498-0111.398+002.288 -011.37E+002.268-01L081.42E+001.85E-011.40E+001.82E-01r.371.478+002.95E-011.45E+003.05E-011.741.67E+003.448-0r1.64E+003.498-012.211.96E+003.50E-011.94E+003.628-012.52.09E+003.168-012.088+003.238-012.812.188+003.388-012.19E+003.50E-013.562.26E+003.10E-012.30E+003.09E-014.522.148+003.56E-012.20E+003.64E-0152.04E+003.96E-012.10E+003.96E-015.741.80E+003.98E-011.86E+003.89E-017.281.36E+003.758-011.428+003.62E-019.24l. l7E+00 2.85E-011.248+002.738-01l01.12E+002.58E-01I . I 9E+00 2.54E-0111.721.00E+002.678-011.07E+002.55E-0114.879.13E-013.298-019.90E-0r3.19E-0118.877.268-013.55E-017.89E-013.278-0123.956.00E-013.50E-0r6.51E-013.428-0r255.8sE-013.41E-016.338-013.32F-0130.395.17E-012.668-015.53E-012.578-Al38.574.89E-012.29E-015.18E-012.298-0148.944.89E-011.88E-015.148-011.88E-0162.15.21E-011.698-0r5.4sE-01 1.69E-0178.85.86E-011.57E-016.1lE-011.56E-011007.458-01l.s2E-017.76E 011.50E-01S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-O18\R1\27y294-R418, Rev. 1.docx fBSGonsultlng APPENDIX BEVALUATION OF BVPS-2 IPEEE SUBMITTAL ABgGonsulting r{c.,tS:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\3. 1 Q Report File\R-O1 8\R 1U734294-R41 8, Rev. 1 .docx 734294-R-0L8 Reaision 1,March 20, 20L4Page 82 of 87APPENDIX B - EVALUATION OF BVPS.2 IPEEE SUBMITTALThe Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) for the BVPS-2 accomplished aprobabilistic risk assessment that included seismic initiating events (Duquesne Light Co, 1995).Although allowed by Seismic Evaluation Guidance, Screening, Prioritization, andImplementation Details (SPID)/or the Resolution of the Fukushima Near-Term Task ForceRecommendation 2.1: Seismic (EPRI,20l3a), this IPEEE is not utilized in the Near-Term TaskForce (NTTF) 2.1 plant screening. Nevertheless, it is summarized here for information, andbecause the IPEEE findings indicate that the plant design is seismically robust and exhibits significantmargins in excess of the designbasis. The IPEEE, was performed in accordance withthe guidelines in Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Technical Report (NUREG)-I4I7 (NRC, 1991). The plant high confidences of low probability of failure (HCLPF) value estimatedfrom the Core Damage Frequency (CDF) is reported to be 0.259 peak ground acceleration (PGA). It is largely controlled by failure scenarios involving the station batteries. B.LIPEEE PrerequisitesThe SPID (EPRI 2013a) guidelines require that the following prerequisites be documented priorto the possible use of the IPEEE, for screening.Confirm that commitments made under the IPEEE have been met. If not. address andclose those commitments.Confirm whether all of the modifications and other changes credited in the IPEEEanalysis are in place.Confirm that any identified deficiencies or weaknesses to NUREG-1407 (NRC, 1991) inthe plant specific NRC Safety Evaluation Report (SER) are properly justified to ensure that the IPEEE conclusions remain valid.Confirm that major plant modifications since the completion of the IPEEE have notdegraded limpacted the conclusions reached in the IPEEE. As part of the NTTF 2.3 Seismic walkdown effort for BVPS-2, the IPEEE was examined toverify that the corrective actions were implemented and documents closed. Available SeismicAESGonsultlng rce1.2.aJ.4.S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R418\R1\2734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx 2734294-R-018 Reaision 1March 20, 201-4Page 83 of 87Evaluation Worksheets (SEWS) generated during the IPEEE walkdowns were included in theNTTF 2.3 Report (FENOC, 2013b). The NTTF 2.3 walkdowns identified no potential adverseseismic conditions. The BVPS-2 IPEEE identified no seismic vulnerabilities for the Plant. This was recognized bythe NRC in NUREG-1437 Supplement 36 "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 36, Regarding Beaver Valley Power Station Units 1 and2" (NRC , 20A9) Page G20 and 21 states "The NRC staff also notes that the use of the integrated PSA to facilitate identification of SAMAs for external events, the prior implementation of plantmodifications for seismic and fire events, and the absence of external event vulnerabilities ensurethat the search for external event SAMAs was reasonably comprehensive."8.2 IPEEE Adequacy DemonstrationConsistent with the guidelines in NUREG -1407 (NRC, l99l), the BVPS-2 IPEEE is based on aseismic PRA (SPRA), which extends the internal events PRA (IEPRA). The SPRA evaluates therisk contribution and significance of seismic initiated events to the total plant risk. The SPRAwas selected to accomplish the IPEEE over the seismic margins assessment based on the following considerations

The SPRA would be integrated with the IEPRA. The integrated PRA would consistently treat all internal and external initiating events. This model rigorously accounts for all accident sequences resulting from any combinationof internal and external events. The resulting risk information provided fromthis integrated approach was viewed as more useful to management to makedecisions about allocating resources to manage the risks of severe accidents.With the ability to link the Level 1 and Level 2 event trees as demonstrated inthe IPE submittal, the selected PRA approach was found to provide a morerigorous examination of potential containment vulnerabilities andseismic/systems interactions impacting containment effectiveness than waspossible using the seismic margins approach.With the previous decision to perform an internal events PRA for the IPE, theability to utilize insights from the completed internal events PRA, and theexternal events capabilities of the software that was used, there was a higherconfidence that the seismic PRA would be completed within the resourcesS:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R418\R1\2734294-R-018, Rev.

1.docxAESConsulting 2734294-R-0L8Reaision 1March 20, 2A14 Page Ba of 87budgeted for the IPEEE program in comparison with the seismic marginsapproach. The seismic PRA consisted of the following main steps:S eismic Hazar d AnalysisFragility AnalysisPlant Logic Analysis and development of logic models Integration of Level I seismic event tress with Level 2 containment eventtreesRisk Quantification Uncertainty Quantifi cationEnhancements to the foregoing steps were made to be responsive to the requirements fromNUREG-1407 (NRC, 1991). Seismic events below about 0.1g were found to have aninsignificant chance of failing any equipment. Seismic events above 1.33g were of low enough hazard and were ignored. The seismic PRA results showed that95 percent of the seismic CDFcomes from earthquakes that arc at least twice as severe as the peak ground acceleration of theSSE (0.125g). Core damage sequences resulting from earthquakes between roughly one and twotimes the SSE, mainly involved seismic failure of either emergency DC power or emergency ACpower.The following paragraphs briefly summarize the IPEEE in accordance with the guidelines of theSPID (EPRI 20r3a).8.2.1 Building Seismic AnalysisThe design seismic analysis of Category I structures of BVPS-2 is based onthe time historymodal supe{position method using simulated time histories representing the SSE spectra.Lumped mass models of the buildings were utilized in the seismic analysis. These modelsrepresent the building mass at floor elevations and include the floor system, a portion of thewalls above, and the walls below the floor system, and major component and equipment loads.S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-O18\R1\2734294-R-018, Rev. 1.docx AESGonsutrlng 2734294-R-01.8Reaision 1March 20, 20L4Page 85 of 87In addition, masses are located at elevations where any other response values are required. The lumped masses are connected by story stiffnesses.Most major structures of the BVPS-2 are founded on the dense gravel layer underlying the upperterrace deposits. The soil structure interaction (SSD effects on the seismic response arerepresented by soil springs representing the stiffness and damping characteristics of thesupporting soil medium. The soil springs represent a range of shear moduli values to envelopethe variation of peak floor response periods. Additionally, the Containment Building seismicmodel considers uncracked and partially cracked reinforced concrete sections to account fornormal and pressurized conditions.Modal responses from the dynamic model are combined using the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) method to establish Seismic Category I structure seismic loads. This is usedeven when modes have closely spaced frequencies, since no well-established criterion tocombine modes under this condition was available. In-structure response spectra used as seismic inputs to Category I structural systems,components, and equipment are derived from the lumped mass dynamic models. The dynamicmodel is also used to determine forces and overturning moments on the building structure, Overturning moments are combined with vertical acceleration forces in order to check structure overturning stability and subgrade reactions.Seismic response forces and stresses are determined for simultaneous application of horizontaland vertical earthquake ground motions using the response spectrum technique. It is assumedthat the response in the vertical direction is uncoupled from the lateral motion. Accordingly, twodynamic models, one for horizontal and one for the vertical, are used to obtain the respective response. The responses obtained from the two-dimensional planar models are combined usingthe SRSS method.8.2.2 IPEEE Seismic ResponseIn-structure response spectra (ISRS) for use in the seismic IPEEE were developed using medianbased soil properties, structural properties, and the median 1x10-4 uniformhazard spectrum. S:\Local\PubsV7U294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-o18\R1\2734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx fFGonculting 2734294-R-01.8 Reaision 1March 2A, 201.4Page 86 of 87 The best estimate (BE) structural models used for this analysis were based on the mathem aticalmodels used in the design seismic analysis.The design basis SSE floor response spectra for one percent damping are scaled by use of S&A in-house computer program PSD 107 .1. Scaling of the spectra incorporated the following: . Change PGA from 0.l25gto 0.1519. Change Equipment Damping Ratio from I percent to 5 percent. Change SSE response spectrum shape to the IPEEE Uniform HazardSpectrum ShapeThe scaling assumes that the IPEEE analysis is based on the composite modal dampingdeveloped from the soil-structure interaction (SSf analysis performed in 1979,limited to 7percent.The seismic floor response spectra developed as described above and used for the fragility evaluations are provided in the IPEEE Report (Duquesne Light Co, 1995).8.2.3 Screening of ComponentsThe development of the Safe Shutdown Equipment List (SSEL) and the screening evaluations were performed following the SPRA guidelines and based on the plant systems models. Initial screening prior to the walkdowns was based on HCLPF levels estimated relative to the medianspectral shape of NUREG/CR-0098 (Newmark and Hall,1978) anchored to 0.3g. Thesubsequent fragility analysis used floor response spectra associated with the Review Level Earthquake (RLE) spectrum. This screening utilized the guidelines in EPRI NP-6041 (EPRI,Ieel).8.2.4 Seismic Capability WalkdownsThe IPEEE walkdowns were performed to support the subsequent fragility analysis, and toscreen out components that have a high enough HCLPF value and the site hazard curves. TheS:\Local\Pubs\27il294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R418\R112734294-R418, Rev. 1.docxfSGonsulting 2734294-R-018 Reaision 1March 20, 20L4Page 87 of 87preparation activities reviewed the seismic design criteria and design specifications forequipment and components for all the items on the seismic equipment list.In general, the walkdown team evaluated equipment aspect ratios, equipment, and pipinganchorages and supports, the potential seismic interactions. The walkdowns assessed potential seismic vulnerabilities, assigned preliminary HCLPF values, and identified potentially seismic-vulnerable component(s) in each group of similar type components based on the preliminary HCLPF values andthe importance of the component as determined inthe IPE. PreliminaryHCLPF values were assigned based on judgment and experience of the seismic reviewteam, andreferences from both the Seismic Qualification Utility Group (SQUG) and EPRI NP-6041 (EPRIleer).The seismic capacities for other components were conservatively assigned based on the morevulnerable components in each group. Upon completion of the initial sequence quantifications the fragilities of significant contributors were improved using component-specific analysis. Aconfirmatory walkdown of components verified that representative fragilities of each group arestill applicable after detailed study. B.3GMRS and IHS ComparisonThe IPEEE for BVPS-2 is not used for the plant screening evaluation. However, comparison ofthe IPEEE HCLPF spectrum (IHS) and the horizontal ground motion response spectra (GMRS)at the base of the Reactor Building (RB) foundation level shows that the GMRS exceeds the IHSin the range of frequencies of interest.S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R418\R1V734294-R{18, Rev. 1.docx AEgCortsultlng APPENDIX CREACTOR BUILDING MEAN AND FRACTILESEISMIC HAZARD CURVES BVPS-2 SITEfE$Gonsultlng ]-CtS:\Local\Pubs\27%294 FENOC Beaver Valley\3. 1 Q Report File\R4l8\R1\2734294-R41 8, Rev. 1 .docx 2734294-R-41.8 Reaision 1March 20, 201.4 Page C2 of C1-2APPENDIX C . REACTOR BUILDING MEAN AND FRACTILE SEISMICIJAZARD FOR THE SSE CONTROL POINTTABLE C.l TOOIJZ SPECTRAL ACCELBRATION MEAN AND FRACTILE SBISMIC HAZARI)AT BEAVER VALLEY 2 RB FOUNDATION LEVELAE$GonsuEing rceSpncrrulACCELERATION lslANNunI FnnOUNNCY OF EXCNNNANCE Mnm{5rs16rs50rH84rH95rn0.019.258 -435.428-036.85E-039.268-03t.228-02t.4tE-020.023.498-031.56E-032.05E-033.16E-034.91E-036.778-030.031.83E-036.83E-049.208-041.55E-032.708-034.168-03 0.04l.l3E-033.65E-045.02E-049.0sE-041.71E-032.88E-030.057.688-042.198 -043.058-045.88E-041.19E-032.14E-030.065.59E-04l.4l E-042.01E-044.1 1E-048.83E-041.678-030.074.268 -049.60E-051.40E-043.03E-04 6.89E-041.33E-030.083.368-046.88E-0sl.0l E-04 2.338-04s.54E-041.07E-030.092.69E-045.08E-057.55E-051.83E-044.538 -048.618-040.102.198-043.84E-055.79E-05t.468-043 .738 -047.048-040.205.03E-056.7 5E-06I .l3E-05 3.248-058.97E-051.638-040.253.06E-053.91E-066.738-061.98E-055.468-059.61E -050.301.99E-052.45E -064.30E-061.28E-053.56E-056.12E-050.409.s28-061.08E-061.998-066.03E-061.738-052.938-050.505.08E-065.16E-079.998 -073.18E-069.26F,-06 1.59E-050.602.908-062.628 -075.278-071.78E-065.30E-069.248-060.70t.738-061.408-072.90E-071.04E-063.19E-065.60E-060.801.07E-067.678-081.66F-076.18E-071.98E-063.53E-06 0.906.898-074.3sE-089.738-083.81E-071.278-062.32E-061.004.598-072.548-08 5.90E-082.428-078.478 -071.58E-062.003.64E-087.10E- 102.03F'091.348-086.538-081.498-073.008.88E-098.55E-112.848-102.51E-091.54E-083.89E-08 s.001.22E-494.83F-122.00E-112.518-102.04E-095.70E-09S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-018\R1t2734294-R{18, Rev. 1.docx 734294-R-018 Reaision 1March20,201-4Page C3 of C1.2TABLE C-225HZ SPECTRAL ACCELERATION MEAN AND FRACTILE SEISMIC HAZARI)AT BBAVER VALLEY 2 RB FOUNDATION LEVBLSpncrRnlAccnInRATIoN lslAXNuI,T, FnnQUNNCY OF EXCNNOANCE MEAI,l5rH16rH50rH84rn95rn0.011 .238 -027.298-038.73E-03t.17E-021.60E-021.93E-020.025.65E-032.88E-033.628 -035.21F-037 .1lE-039.94E-030.033.30E-03l.5lE-031.978-032.988 -034.648-036.278-030.042.148-038.97E-04r.l9E-031.89E-033.08E-034.33E-030.05t.50E-035.81E-047.80E-041.298-032.19F'033.20E-030.061.10E-034.018-04 5.448-049.288-041.65E-032.478-430.078.40E-042.89F'043.968-046.96F-041.288-031.96E-030.086.628-042.t6E-042.988-045.418-041.038-031.60E-030.095.34F,-04 1.65E-042.308-044.318-048.368-04l.32F,-03 0.104.408-041.29F,041.82F,-04 3.51E-046.968-041.1 lE-03 0.20t.20E-042.528-05 3.86E-058.98E-052.018-043.258-040.257.89E-051.52E-052.408 -055.82E-05t.398-042.15E-040.305.548-051.01E-051.648-054.08E-0s9.83E-051.51E-040.403.10E-0s5.31E-068.88E-062.30E-055.528-058.41E-050.501.928-A53.14E-065 .348 -061.428-053.41E-055.19E-050.601.268-051.99E-063.42F,-06 9.31E-062.248 -053.42E-050.708.56E-061.3 I E-06 2.28E-066.318-061.548-052.348 -050.806.00E-068.89E-07r.56E-064.398-061.08E-051.66E-050.904.30E-066.168-07I .l0E-06 3 .128 -067.788-061.20E,051.003.14E-064.358-077 .82E -072.268-065.71E-068.86E-062.002.978-072.738 -095.62E-08t.9tE-07s.55E-079.388-073.007.21E-084.478-091.03E-084.07E-08t.368-012.478-075.001.07E-084.58E-10I.t7E-09s.38E-092.01E-083.89E-08S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC Beaver Valley\3. 1 Q Report File\R-018\R1\2734294-R{18, Rev. 1 .docx AE$Gonsulting 734294-R-018 Reaision 1March 20, 2014Page C4 of C12TABLE C.3fiHZ SPBCTRAL ACCELBRATION MEAN AND FRACTILB SEISMIC HAZARDAT BEAVER VALLEY 2 RB FOUNDATION LBVELSpncrnllAccBInRATIoN lslANNu,I.I, FRnOUnNCY OF EXCNNUANCE Mn,rN5rs16ru50rn84rH95rn0.011.548 -029.778-03I .l6E -021.51E-021.938-022.258 -020.026.54E-033.61E-034.458-036.23E -038.67E-031.05E-020.033.94E-032.00E-03 2.528-033.69E-035.40E-036.7 4E-03 0.042.618-431.268-031.63E-032.47F-033.74E-03 4.778-030.051.928-038.55E-04l.l2E-031.76E-032.748-033.578-030.06r.45E-036.128-048.10E-041.31E-032.ttB-032.798-030.07l.l3E-034.58E-046.118-041.018-03r.678-032.25E-030.089.118-043.538-044.758-048.03E-04r .368 -431.86E-030.097.498-042.80E-043.798-04 6.528-04t.l3E-031.57E-030.106.278-042.268-043.08E-045.40E-049.55E-041.35E-030.201.86E-044.89E-057.258-051.50E-043.09E-04 4.518-040.2s1 .258 -042.95E-054.45E-05937E-052.12F,-04 3.13E-040.308.94E-051.95E-052.998 -056.88E-051.55E-042.308-040.405.24F,-051.01E-051.61E-05 3.95E-059.25F,-05 1.39E-040.503.41E-056.078-069.978-06 2.558 -056.05E-059.19E-050.602.378-053 .978 -066.668-061368-054.228 -056.44E -050.701.728-052.7 48 -064.678-061.268-A53.07E-054.698-050.801.28E-051.96E-063.38E-06 9.30E-062.30E-053.528-050.909.698-061.438-062.518-067.00E-061.758-052.708-051.007.48F,-061.06E-061.90E-06 5.36E-061.36E-052. I 1E-05 2.009.25E-079.35E-081.88E-076.058-071.728-062.868-063.002.28F.-01 1.67E-083.688-081.35E-074.29F-077.608-075.004.478-082.038-094.99F-092.238-088.62E-081.67E-07AESGonsultlng rceS:\Local\Pubs\27A294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R418\R1\:2734294-R-018, Rev. 1.docx 734294-R-018 Reoision LMarch 20, 2014Page CS of C12TABLB C-4 jHZ SPBCTRAL ACCELBRATION MEAN AND FRACTILE SBISMIC HAZARDAT BEAVBR VALLEY 2 RB FOUNDATION LEVBL

SpncrRlt, ACCELERATION tslANNUnI FnnounNCY or ExcnEDANCE Mnln5rn16rn50rn84rH95rn0.013.78E-022.768-023.05E-023.85E-02 4.578-024.94E-020.02t.368-028.538-039.99E-031.35E-021.73E-021.96E-020.037.488-034.298-035.20E-037.288-039.81E-03t.t4E-020.044.89E-032.638 -033.278-034.t rE-036.55E-037.748-030.053.50E-031.80E-032.278-033 .348 -034.788-035.738-030.062.658 -031.318-031.67E-032.51E-03 3.678-034.45E-030.072.08E-039.90E-041.28E-031.96E-032.928-033.s8E-030.081.688-037.7tF-04I .01E-031.57E-032.38E-03 2.948-030.091.38E-036.t48-048.08E-041.28E-03 1.98E-032.468-030.101.15E-034.988-046.60E-041.068-03t.67E-432.098-030.203.268-04t.t2E-041.58E-042.868-045.078-046.778-040.252.14F,-04 6.61E-0s9.638-051.83E-04 3.408-044.658-040.301.50E-044.268-056.33E-051.278-042.448-043.398-040.408.49E-052.10E-053.238-056.968-05 1.42F,042.028-040.505.39E-051.20E-05 1.90E-054.32F,-05 9.21E -051.33E-040.603.69E-0s7.58E-061.228-052.90E-056.40E-05 9.36E-050.702.668-055.1lE-068.378-062.06E-054.668 -056.88E-050.801.99E-053.61E-066.00E-061.52E-053.528-055.248-050.901.53E-052.648-064.448-06I . 16E-052.738-054.08E-051.001.20E-051.99E-063.38E-069.00E-062.16E-05 3.25E-052.001.92F,-06 2.32F,-07 4.348-07r.328-063.56E-065.628-063.005.15E-074.85E-089.758-083.298-079.668-071.60E-065.008.50E-084.87E-09I .l I E-08 4.56E-08t.6tE-072.968-07S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R418\R1\2734294-R{18, Rev. 1.docx ASConsultlng 734294-R-018 Reaision LMarch 20, 201.4Page C6 of C12TABLE C.5 2.5IJ2 SPECTRAL ACCBLERATION MEAN AND FRACTILE SEISMIC HAZARDAT BEAVBR VALLEY 2 RB FOUNDATION LBVBLSpncrRrr, AcCBInRATIoN lplANIIU.I,T, FRnOUnNCY OF EXCEEDANCE Mn.q,N5rH16rn50rH84rH95ru0.011.58E-021.098-02t.268-021.598-42 t.938-022.llE -020.024.s9E-032.6rE-033. r8E-034.468-036.A68-037.08E-030.032.228-03l.l3E-03l.4l E-03 2.r0E-033.0sE-033.70E-030.041.30E-036.138-047.868-041.228-03r.85E-032.30E-030.058.56E-043.778-04 4.938-047.908-041.248-031.57E-030.066.028-042.5t8-043.348-045.50E-048.87E-04I . l4E-03 0.074.458 -04r.778-042.388-044.028-046.668-048.63E-040.083.428-04t.298-04r.77F,-04 3.06E-045.18E-046.78E-040.092.708-049.80E-051.36E-042.408-044.14F,-04 5.478-040.102.t9F-047.628-051.078-04t.928-043.398-044.52E-040.205.46E-051.38E-052.108-054.428-059.098-051.30E-040.253.498-057.828-061.23E-052]38 -055.93E-058.76E-050.302.428-054.89E-067.878-061.84E-054.178-056.328-050.401.35E-052.298-063.878-069.79E-062.39E-053.74F-050.508.588-06r.268-062.208-065.99E-061.54E-052.488-050.605.89E-067.638-071.38E-063.998 -061.07E-051.768-050.704.268-064.938-07 9.248-072.818-067.848-06t.3lE-050.803.21E-063.358-076.478-072.068-065.95E-061.00E-050.902.498 -062.368 -074.708 -071.56E-064.658-067.958-061.001.98E-061.718-073.528-07t.2tE-063.728-066.42E -062.003.98E-071.69E-084.40E-082.008 -077.778-07T.458-063.001.328-073.258-099.7lF,-09 s.66E-082.54E-075.11E-075.002.89E-082.86E-101.05E-099.19E-095.33E-08t.2lE-07S:\Local\Pubs\27%294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-O18\R1\2734294-R418, Rev. 1.docx fSConsulting 734294-R-018 Reaision 1March 20, 20-L4Page C7 of C12TABLE C.6 IHZ SPBCTRAL ACCELERATION MEAN AND FRACTILE SEISMIC HAZARI)AT BEAVER VALLBY 2 RB FOUNDATION LEVELSpncrn,ll Accnr,BRATIoN IplANllull, FnnounNcY oF ExcnnoANCE MnIN5rH16rH50rH84rH95rH0.013.448-031.538-032.008-033.35E-035.00E-035.90E-030.029.16F.-04 2.90E -044.098 -04I .838 -041.46E-031 .978 -030.033.99E-04r.058-041.54E-043.t98-046.64E-049.60E-040.042.0t8-044.708-05 7.08E-05t.548-043.41F-045.15E-040.05l.l3E-042.428-053.728 -058.44E-051.95E-043.01E-040.066.948-051.37E-052.15E-055.06E-05l .zlE -041.90E-040.074.548-058.33E-061.33E-053.258-058.00E-0st.27E-040.083.13E-05s.3tE-068.71E-062.208-055.588-058.96E-050.092.268-053.62E-065.97F,-06 1.56E-054.06E-056.59E-050.101.69E-052.548 -064.248-06t.l4E-053.06E-0s5.02E-050.202.83E-06 2.1lE-074.278 -071.50E-065.248-069.948-060.2s1.66E-069.28E-082.038-017.988-073.06E-066.15E-060.301.08E-064.7lE-09I . t 0E-07 4.808-071.99E-064.208-060.405.698-071.578-084.16E-08 2.228-071.048-062.348-060.503 .53E -076.65E-091.97E-08r.248 -016.408-071.50E-060.602.438-073.348 -091.08E-087.88E-084.38E-071.05E-060.701.798-071.90E-096.668-095.42E-083.218-077.86E-070.801.39E-07l .l8E-09 4.398-093.928-082.468-076.128-070.90I . 10E-077.74F,103.05E-092.95E-081.948-074.90E-071.008,95E-085.31E-102.19E-092.27E-081.56E-074.01E-072.001.87E-083.30E-l I1.87E-103.028-092.888-088.53E-083.006. l9E-09 4.308 -123.06E-116.758-108.37E-092.778-085.001.35E-09 0.00E+002.238-127.86E-l Ir.46E-095.56E-09fEConsultlng rCRS:\Local\Pubs\27H294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R418\R1\2734294-R-018, Rev.

1.docx 734294-R-018 Reaision 1March 20, 2014Page C8 of C12TABLE C.7O.;HZ SPECTRAL ACCELERATION MEAN AND FRACTILE SEISMIC HAZARI)AT BEAVBR VALLEY 2 RB FOUNDATION LEVELGqrsulting lrc'eSpncrrulAcCnInRATIoN tslANNuu, FnnOUNNCY Or. EXCNEDANCE Mn,At,l5rH16rn50rH84rn95rs0.011.54E-034.208 -046.168 -041.33E-032.63E-033.38E-030.023.86E-046.63E-051.05E-0423 tE-047.00E-041.08E-030.031.55E-042.05E-053.43E-05 9.70E-052.858-044.848-040.047.328-058.108-06r.4l E-05 4.268-05r .348 -042.418-040.053.87E-053.798-066.7 4F,-062.138 -057.128-051.32E-040.062.258-051.98E-063.61E-06l.l8E-054.17E-057.81E-050.071.40E-05r.r2E-062.098-067.08E-062.628 -054.998-050.089.21F.-06 6.778-071.298-064.53E-061.748-053.37E-050.096.35E-064.3tF-078.32E-073.03E-061.21F,-05 2.398-050.104.s6F-062.858-075.638-072.10E-068.66E-061.75E-050.206.218-071.50E-083.63E-08I .91E-07 1.04E-062.70F-060.253 .418 -075.728-091.48E-089.02E-085 .39E -071.558-060.302.188 -072.518 -096.91E-094.92E-083.30E-07I .01E-06 0.401.13E-076.25E-101.98E-09r.86E-081.58E-075.31E-070.506.728-081.848-106.67F-108.15E-098.59E-083.r6E-070.604.378-086.31E-l r 2.638-104.148 -095.18E-082.05E-070.703.03E-082.428-11l.l6E-102.33E -093.35E-08l.4lE-070.802.19E-08I .028- l I 5.54E,1I1.39E-092.26F-081.00E-070.901.64E-084.648-122.828-tl8.678-101.578-087.38E-081.001.278-082.24E-t2I .50E- I I5.61E-10l.l2E-085.56E-082.001.96E-090.00E+001.648-132.3t8-119.61E- 106.93F-093.006.07E- 10 0.00E+008.348-153.048-121 .98E- l0t.79F-095.00I .l7E- 100.00E+000.00E+00 1.68E-132.03E-112.33E-10S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R418\R1\27U294-R4'18, Rev. 1.docx 734294-R-018 Reuision 1,March 20, 20L4 Page C9 of C1.2 !,go=EolrorJglEEooIJxUJ(E=cc1.E-011_.E-021.E-031.E-041.E-051.E-061.E-071.E-08r\$q3i-5-4 _-:-S::-;*---... -

• $.0.10 L.00100 Hz Spectral Acceleration (g)-mean_fdn -o-Sth_fdn - - 16th_fdn-..soth_fdn -.84th_fdn

-.95th_fdn L0.001.E-011.E-021.E-031.E-041.E-051.E-06t.E-o71.E-080.10 1.0025 Hz Spectral Acceleration (e)-mean_fdn --- Sth_fdn - - 16th_fdn- . -50th fdn - .84th fdn - o 95th fdn1_0.00FIGURE C-l BVPS-2 MEAN AND FRACTILE HAZARD CURVES AT RB FOUNDATION LEVEL(sA AT r$Oltz AND 2sHZ)ug0,=EoLl!o(Jgl!T'ooIJxUJlEJEEAESGmsulting rceS:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-O18\R1\2734294-R{18, Rev. 1.docx 734294-R-0L8Reaision 1-March 20, 20'14Page C10 of C12 1.E-021.E-03 1.E-041.E-051.E-06t.E-071.E-0810.0010 Hz SpectralAcceleration (e)-mean_fdn --- Sth_fdn - - 16th_fdn- . .50th fdn - .84th fdn - .95th fdn1_.E-01t.E-021.E-031.E-041.E-051.E-061.E-071.E-080.010.101.0010.005 Hz SpectralAcceleration (g)-mean_fdn --- Sth_fdn - - 16th_fdnr . .50th fdn - .84th fdn - o 95th fdnFIGURE C.2 BVPS-2 MEAN AND FRACTILE HAZARD CURVES AT RB FOUNDATION LBVEL(sA AT t0 HZ AND 5.0 HZ) Icq,=Eotlotlc(E=too(,xulIU=ggrr,go=EoLl!o(,glET'ooIJxul(u=gsfBSGonsulting rce-El-\*;lrlrl,*-:--*-*l rl-Ro.N:\-:*i\\:l'r\\i\\lr\:\a\S:\Local\Pubs\2734294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-O18\R1\2734294-R{18, Rev. 1.docx 734294-R-01.8 Reaision 1March 20, 2014Page C1I of C12-a\SEiS{.tl:,tl;l ,=iS::T\*:-l\--. l\- -\\\:l:\r\s.i.'i. Il\rl,co5EoLu.o(,co'ctooIJxUJlE5cc1.E-0L1.E-021.E-03 1.E-04 1.E-051.E-06r.E-o71.E-080.010.101.002.5 Hz SpectralAcceleration (g)-mean_fdn --- Sth_fdn - - 16th_fdn- . .50th fdn - -84th fdn - o 95th fdnL0.00AESConeulting rct(Jco=C'ot!oIclu-tooIxUJIEJgg1.E-01t.E-o21.E-03 1.E-041.E-051.E-06t.E-o71.E-08' S--i\NOt\r\. \r\\.\l\S._'\ls\\\-\\:,\r'\r\:r\:0.010.101.001.0.001 Hz SpectralAcceleration (g)mean_fdn --- sth_fdn - - 16th_fdnsoth_fdn o .84th_fdn - .95th_fdnFIGURE C.3 BVPS-2 MEAN AND FRACTILE HAZARD CURVBS AT RB FOUNDATION LBVEL(sA AT 2.5It2 AND t.0HZ) S:\Local\Pubs\27%294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report Fite\R-O18\R1\2734294-R{18, Rev. 1.docx 734294-R-0L8Reoision 1 March 20, 201.4 Page C12 of CL2 a:;1i;:!.ig-{}\.-.\,'s\-.\:\.\rIriN.>TJN1.E-0LL.E-O21.E-031. E-041.E-051.E-06L.E-07L.E-080.0L0. L01.0010.000.5 Hz Spectral Acceleration (g)-mean_fdn --- Sth_fdn - - L6th_fdn- . -50th fdn - -84th fdn - .95th fdnFIGURE C-4BVPS-2 MEAN AND FRACTILE HAZARD CURVES AT RB FOUNDATION LBVBL(sA AT 0.5 HZ)Igo=ETot-lLo1.,troTIooIxullE=gcAE$Gonsulting rctS:\Local\Pubs97M294 FENOC BeaverValley\3.1Q Report File\R-O18\R19734294-R-018, Rev. 1.docx}}