SOUTHWESTERN UNITED STATES

GROUND MOTION CHARACTERIZATION

SSHAC LEVEL 3

Project Plan

Revision 3
April 16, 2014
 Southwestern U.S. Ground Motion Characterization
Project Plan
Prepared for:

Arizona Public Service Company

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station
Wandell, Christopher J.
Senior Consulting "Chief" Civil Engineer
Phone: (623) 393-6741; E-mail: christopher.wandell@aps.com

Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Diablo Canyon Power Plant
Klimczak, Richard
Director Geosciences
Phone: (415) 973-2791; E-mail: RLK1@pge.com

Prepared by:

GeoPentech, Inc.
525 N. Cabrillo Park Drive, Suite 280
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Phone: 714-796-9100
Fax: 714-796-9191

Version Control Information:

This project plan is a living document that will be used to communicate the project goals and
activities to project participants and to the public. The following information is provided for
tracking released versions.

Version Forwarding Date Changes Submitted by Comments

Digitally signed by Carola Di
Revision
after
Carola Di Alessandro
DN: cn=Carola Di
Alessandro, o=GeoPentech,
Main text of
Southern Project Plan
Revision 3 April 16, 2014
California Alessand INC., ou=Project Manager for
SWUS GMC SSHAC Level 3,
email=carola_dialessandro@
has not been
Edison’s modified
withdrawal ro geopentech.com, c=US
Date: 2014.04.16 11:26:11
-07'00'

Southwestern U.S. Ground Motion Characterization Project Plan, Rev. 3 Page ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Reason for Revision .............................................................................................................. iii

List of Acronyms......................................................................................................................v
Introduction and Context of the Study......................................................................................1
Description of SSHAC Methodology ........................................................................................2
Project Organization................................................................................................................3
SWUS GMC Work Plan and Key Study Tasks.........................................................................6
Project Schedule ...................................................................................................................15
Validation, Verification and Peer Review ...............................................................................15
References ............................................................................................................................15
Appendix A - Selection Criteria for Project Participants ...................................................... A -1
Appendix B - PPRP Letter approving Project Plan ............................................................. B -1

REASON FOR REVISION

Effective October 1, 2013, a change in the Southwestern US Ground Motion Characterization (SWUS
GMC) Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee (SSHAC) Level 3 Project organization is
undertaken to reflect Southern California Edison’s (SCE) withdrawal from the project.

Under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) agreement among the former three project Sponsors
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), Arizona Public Service (APS) and SCE, SCE is released as a
sponsor for the SWUS GMC SSHAC and all personnel devoted to providing ground motion
characterization for the SONGS site are no longer part of this effort. As a result, the Project is now
addressing ground motion characterization that will be used as input in PSHA studies for the DCPP
and PVNGS sites.

Southwestern U.S. Ground Motion Characterization Project Plan, Rev. 3 Page iii
In lieu of the former Project Organization Chart shown in Figure 1 of the Project Plan, the current
Project Organization Chart is shown in the revised Figure 1 and is provided as follows:

Figure 1: Southwestern U.S. Ground Motion Characterization Project (Revised October 1, 2013)

Other than the changes to Figure 1, which modifies the Sponsors’ list and removes the participation of
personnel providing ground motion characterization for SONGS and the inclusion of the PPRP Project
Plan Approval letter - Appendix B, the accompanying Project Plan remains unchanged.

Southwestern U.S. Ground Motion Characterization Project Plan, Rev. 3 Page iv

List of Acronyms
APS Arizona Public Services
CBR Center, Body, and Range
CEUS Central and Eastern United States
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DCPP Diablo Canyon Power Plant
EE Evaluator Expert
EPRI Electric Power Research Institute
GMC Ground Motion Characterization
GMPE Ground Motion Prediction Equation
HID Hazard Input Document
ITC Informed Technical Community
NGA Next Generation Attenuation
NGA-west2 Project name for the update of the 2008 NGA models
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission
PE Proponent Expert
PEER Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center
PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric
PM Project Manager
PPRP Participatory Peer Review Panel
PSHA Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis
PTI Project Technical Integrator
PVNGS Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station
QA Quality Assurance
RE Resource Expert
RG Regulatory Guide
SCE Southern California Edison
SCEC Southern California Earthquake Center
SONGS San Onofre Nuclear Generation Station
SSC Seismic Source Characterization
SSHAC Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee
SWUS Southwestern United States
TDI Technically Defensible Interpretation
TI Technical Integrator
WUS Western United States

Southwestern U.S. Ground Motion Characterization Project Plan, Rev. 3 Page v

USGS United States Geological Survey
VS30 Shear Wave Velocity in the upper 30m

Southwestern U.S. Ground Motion Characterization Project Plan, Rev. 3 Page vi

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT OF THE STUDY
In response to the March 2012 50.54(f) letter, an updated probabilistic seismic hazard analysis
(PSHA) based on a Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee (SSHAC) Level 3 process (Budnitz et
al., 1997; NRC 2012, NUREG 2117) is required to be conducted for all operating nuclear power
plants. A seismic hazard analysis requires a Seismic Source Characterization (SSC) and a Ground
Motion Characterization (GMC).

Previous SSHAC level 3 studies for source characterization and ground motion characterization are
available for the central and eastern United States (CEUS) (EPRI, 2004; CEUS, 2012), but SSHAC
level 3 studies are not available for the western United States (WUS). The four WUS plant sites
(DCPP, SONGS, PVNGS, and Columbia) have different seismic source issues that require separate
SSC studies, but they have similar ground motion issues. The three plants in the southwestern US,
DCPP, SONGS, and PVNGS, have joined together to sponsor a single GMC project for the
southwestern United States (SWUS).

This Project Plan outlines the approach for conducting the SWUS GMC for application to the DCPP,
SONGS, and PVNGS sites. As shown on the Project Organization Chart (Figure 1), the three utilities
(PG&E, SCE, and APS) are the Project Sponsors and the project will be coordinated under the
direction of a Project Manager, Dr. Carola Di Alessandro. The Project Schedule is shown on Figure 2,
together with the schedule of the three SSC studies for the individual nuclear power plants. The
project organization and schedule are described below.

A SSHAC Level 3 process is a formal, structured process for developing the SSC and GMC for use in
PSHA. The SSHAC process provides guidelines for how the GMC study should be conducted,
including: (a) identification of significant issues and data; (b) identification and solicitation of expert
opinions and alternative models; (c) evaluation of the available data, expert opinions and alternative
models; (d) integration of the information into GMC models that incorporate the range of technically
defensible interpretations; (e) documentation of the model development; and (f) participatory peer
review of the technical results and process. As described within the SSHAC guidelines (Budnitz et al,
1997; Hanks et al., 2009; Coppersmith et al., 2010; NRC, 2012), the goal of following a SSHAC
process is to provide reasonable regulatory assurance that the center, body and range (CBR) of the
technically defensible interpretations (TDI) in the GMC models have been adequately captured. The
purpose of this Project Plan is to describe the SSHAC methodology, in general, and how the SSHAC
Level 3 process will be applied to develop the GMC models for the SWUS region.

Southwestern U.S. Ground Motion Characterization Project Plan, Rev. 3 Page 1

DESCRIPTION OF SSHAC METHODOLOGY
In 1997, the Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee published NUREG/CR-6372 (Budnitz et al.,
1997) that detailed a methodology for capturing the epistemic uncertainty in input parameters for
PSHAs. Factors motivating the development of this methodology were the observations that: (1)
different PSHA studies (e.g., EPRI, 1988; Bernreuter et al., 1989) developed significantly different
estimates of the mean seismic hazard for nuclear facilities; and (2) the primary reason for the
difference in hazard estimates was that the SSCs and GMCs did not characterize the epistemic
uncertainty within those characterizations in a consistent way. Recognizing the importance of
characterizing epistemic uncertainty, the SSHAC spent approximately four years developing a
methodology for characterizing epistemic uncertainties in SSC and GMC studies. Since publication of
the original SSHAC methodology, there have been additional publications that have elaborated on the
guidance and how it should be applied (e.g., Hanks et al., 2009; Coppersmith et al., 2010). These
guidelines were finalized in NUREG 2117 (NRC, 2012). The following summary of the SSHAC
methodology and the plan for the SWUS GMC study are consistent with these publications.

The stated goal of the SSHAC guidelines is to provide a methodology for developing SSC and GMC
that “…represent the center, the body, and the range of technical interpretations that the larger
informed technical community would have if they were to conduct the study” (Budnitz et al., 1997, p.
21). The terminology “center, body, and range” refers to the complete characterization of uncertainty.
For simplicity, consider the single parameter of the maximum earthquake magnitude for a fault. In this
case, “center” can be thought of as the average (i.e., median) maximum magnitude, “range” can be
thought of as the extreme upper and lower estimates of the maximum magnitude limits, and “body”
can be thought of as the shape of the distribution of potential maximum magnitudes within that range
(e.g., symmetric or skewed distributions).

The use of the terminology “informed technical community” (ITC) also has an explicit meaning within
the SSHAC guidance. This terminology is meant to communicate the hypothetical idea that if technical
experts within the appropriate fields (e.g., GMC, SSC) (1) had detailed knowledge of the same data as
those who developed the SSC and GMC, and (2) went through the same interactive process as the
developers of the SSC and GMC, this ITC would develop characterizations that fit within the center,
body, and range of those developed for the project. More recently, the NRC (2012, NUREG 2117)
suggests replacing the term ITC with “technically defensible interpretations (TDI)” of the available
data, models and methods to more clearly reflect the intent of the SSHAC process. They continue to
emphasize that the careful evaluation of the larger technical community’s viewpoints remains a vital
part of the SSHAC process. By following the structured methodology of the SSHAC process, the
intent is to provide reasonable regulatory assurance that the goal of representing the center, body,
and range of the characterizations has been met, and thus provides the basis for developing seismic

Southwestern U.S. Ground Motion Characterization Project Plan, Rev. 3 Page 2

hazard estimates that are reproducible, defensible, transparent, and stable (i.e., if someone else were
to conduct a similar study they would not get significantly different results). For the remainder of this
Project Plan, the term “technically defensible interpretations” (TDI) will be used rather than the earlier
term “informed technical community” (ITC).

PROJECT ORGANIZATION
The project organization is shown on Figure 1. As described by Budnitz et al. (1997) and Hanks et al.
(2009), specific roles and responsibilities of individuals within a SSHAC process must be clearly
defined because the guided interaction between the different roles allows for the center, body, and
range of the SSC and GMC to be robustly characterized.

Members of the project team (TI Team and PPRP) were selected to provide a broad spectrum of (1)
past experience on GMC models, (2) knowledge of data, methods and technical approaches relevant
to ground motion in the WUS, and (3) prior SSHAC Level 3 experience. In addition, there was a goal
to involve younger scientists on the TI team to help build up the number of people with experience
with the SSHAC process for future projects. The basis for the selection of the PPRP and TI team
members is given in Appendix A. The Project Plan provides for bringing all members of the project
team to a common level of understanding of the technical data as well as explicit training in the
SSHAC process. Specific roles of the SSHAC Project Team are described below.

Project Sponsor –The Project Sponsors provide financial support and “own” the
results of the study in the sense of property ownership.

Project Manager (PM) – The PM is responsible for the scope, schedule, and budget
and coordinates the execution of the project. In addition, the PM interacts with the
Project Sponsors to keep them informed on the progress.

Project Technical Integrator (PTI) – The PTI is a technical expert with knowledge of
the SSHAC process, both GMC and SSC studies, and the site-specific application for
site response effects. The PTI is responsible for ensuring coordination and
compatibility between the joint SWUS GMC study and the SSC studies being
conducted separately by the three utilities. Each utility will assign a PTI who will be
responsible for the coordination of the SWUS GMC, and plant-specific SSC, and site-
specific site response.

Technical Integrator Team (TI Team) – The TI Team is a team of Evaluator Experts
with PSHA experience that are responsible for conducting the evaluation and

Southwestern U.S. Ground Motion Characterization Project Plan, Rev. 3 Page 3

 integration process. The TI Team also will have a staff of Evaluator Experts that are
not officially part of the TI Team but assist the team during the data evaluation part of
the project. The TI Team will perform the integration and model-building part of the
study and ultimately will “own” the results of the study with respect to intellectual
responsibility for the results. As such, the TI Team is responsible for ensuring: (1) that
the various data, models, and methods proposed by the larger technical community
and relevant to the hazard analysis are considered in the evaluation; and (2) that the
final GMC models represent the center, body and range of the TDI. Dr. Norman
Abrahamson will be the TI Team Lead. Members of the TI Team are shown on Figure
1. The basis for the selection of the TI team members is given in Appendix A.

Evaluator Expert (EE) – An EE is an expert with PSHA experience capable of

evaluating the relative credibility of multiple alternative hypotheses to explain
observations. All members of the TI Team will be EEs. EEs use their professional
judgment to objectively quantify epistemic uncertainty based on evaluations of the
data, knowledge, and alternative models presented by the Resource and Proponent
Experts. In addition, a support staff will assist the TI Team in their evaluation by
conducting analyses of certain datasets and proponent models as directed by the TI
team. Only the members of the TI Team will have intellectual ownership of the final
logic tree and weights.

Resource Expert (RE) – A RE is an expert with a specialized knowledge of a

particular data set, interpretation, or hypothesis who can present this information
without a proponent bias. REs generally are invited to one or more Workshops and/or
may be contacted outside of the Workshop environment by the TI Team to present
and discuss their specialized knowledge regarding the strengths and weaknesses of
alternative models and data sets. The REs will be identified as needed during the
project. The REs provide their specialized knowledge to assist the TI team in the
evaluation but they do not take ownership or endorse the final GMC models. For
example, scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey may act as Resource Experts
during the Workshops, but their participation does not imply that they support the
GMC model developed by the TI team.

Proponent Expert (PE) – In contrast to the unbiased RE, a PE is an expert who

advocates a particular hypothesis or technical position. The PE’s opinion may range
from mainstream to extreme (outlier) views. PEs generally are invited to one or more
Workshops and/or may be contacted outside of the Workshop environment by the TI

Southwestern U.S. Ground Motion Characterization Project Plan, Rev. 3 Page 4

 Team to present and discuss their position. PEs will be identified as needed during
the project, but are expected to mainly include model developers from PEER and
SCEC.

Hazard Analyst – The Hazard Analyst is a PSHA expert responsible for performing the
PSHA calculations. Hazard Analysts are incorporated into all phases of the study
(e.g., evaluation, integration) because they can provide: (a) valuable insight into how
to represent uncertainty within different parameters; and (b) sensitivity feedback with
respect to what parameters have the most impact to the hazard calculations. Each
utility will provide its own Hazard Analyst who is knowledgeable with the site-specific
SSC so that the hazard feedback addresses the key issues at all three sites. The
basis for the selection of the Hazard Analysts is given in Appendix A.

Participatory Peer Review Panel (PPRP) – The PPRP is a panel of experts with
SSHAC methodology and/or PSHA experience that provide participatory peer review
of the SSHAC methodology implementation process and technical judgments of the TI
Team. The PPRP assures that the range of TDI is captured and documented through
proper implementation of the SSHAC process. PPRP members should be highly
regarded and recognized as experts in their respective technical fields. The members
of the PPRP serve as individuals and not as an affiliate of any organization. Each
member of the PPRP in the employ of any organization must ensure that it is
understood that, as Panel members, they are not representing the position of their
respective organizations, but rather, they are serving as recognized experts in their
respective fields.

Members of the PPRP will attend all of the formal Workshops and are encouraged to
participate in field reviews and selected working meetings of the TI Team.
Opportunities to participate in working meetings will be identified by the PPRP and
coordinated with the Project Manager.

The members of the PPRP are shown on Figure 1 and will consist of Dr. Steve Day
(Chair), Dr. Ken Campbell, Dr. Brian Chiou, and Dr. Tom Rockwell. The composition
of the PPRP includes individuals with prior SSHAC Level 3 experience (Campbell, and
Chiou), as well as captures the breadth of technical requirements for the project
including both empirical GMPEs and numerical simulations of ground motion. The
basis for the selection of the PPRP members is given in Appendix A.

Southwestern U.S. Ground Motion Characterization Project Plan, Rev. 3 Page 5

 Outside Observers – Outside observers are not explicitly defined within the SSHAC
guidance (Budnitz et al., 1997), but are discussed in the implementation guidelines
(NRC, 2012; NUREG 2117). Observers may include sponsors, regulators, and other
invited individuals that would benefit from observing the Workshops. Outside
observers do not participate in any aspect of the SSHAC process (e.g., evaluation,
integration, peer review, documentation), but they may be invited to observe some
Workshops depending on the specific needs of the Project Sponsors. Time for
observer comments will be accommodated at the end of each day of each Workshop.

SWUS GMC WORK PLAN AND KEY STUDY TASKS

For the SWUS Project, the SSHAC Level 3 study will involve four components: (1) evaluation, (2)
integration, (3) participatory peer review, and (4) documentation. Evaluation refers to the process of
compiling and evaluating relevant data, alternative models/concepts, and alternative interpretations of
the TDI. Integration refers to the assessment process where the various datasets, models, and
interpretations are combined into a representation of the CBR of the TDI for the SSC and GMC.
Participatory peer review refers to review of the evaluation and integration process by a peer review
panel capable of providing feedback, during the project, on technical aspects of the project and
whether the SSHAC Level 3 process was followed appropriately. By receiving feedback from the peer
review panel during the project, the TI team can make necessary corrections before the project is
complete. Documentation refers to the final reports produced by the project that document the
technical results, the technical basis for the evaluation and assignment of weights on the logic tree,
and how the SSHAC Level 3 process was implemented. The SSHAC Level 3 methodology formalizes
the process of interaction between the technical community, the TI Teams, and the PPRP through a
series of Workshops.

The process of evaluation, integration, peer review, and documentation will occur in a series of
Workshops, Working Meetings, and internal work. These process components are described below.

Evaluation: The consideration of the complete set of data, models and methods
proposed by the larger technical community that are relevant to the ground motion
model’s hazard at any of the three sites.

The process of evaluation includes, but is not limited to, the: (a) identification of
hazard-significant issues; (b) compilation of relevant data and models; (c) evaluation
of the data and models with respect to their impact on the GMC. The primary focus of
the GMC evaluation process will be on (1) the applicability of the NGA-West2
empirical GMPE models and other candidate empirical GMPEs to the three SWUS

Southwestern U.S. Ground Motion Characterization Project Plan, Rev. 3 Page 6

 sites of interest, because each might require its own adjustment to the ground motion
model(s), and (2) the applicability of the ground motions based on numerical
simulations to the fault/site-specific geometries at each site. Through sensitivity
analyses, those parts of the GMC Logic Tree that are most significant to hazard will
be the focus for the discussions at the Workshops. Those parts of the GMC Logic
Tree model that are not significant to hazard will be reviewed and updated to reflect
the current state of scientific knowledge, as appropriate, but will not be the focus of
detailed evaluation and further refinement.

The PPRP is involved in the evaluation process through attending Workshops,

reviewing interim project documentation, and participating in Working Meetings of the
TI Teams, as needed.

Integration: Representing the center, body and range of technically defensible

interpretations in light of the evaluation process (i.e., informed by the assessment of
existing data, models and methods).

Following the evaluation process, the TI Team will integrate the relevant data,
models, and interpretations to develop a general GMC logic tree for the SWUS that
captures the center, body, and range of the TDI. There will also be site-specific
modifications of the GMC logic trees to address site-specific issues such as the
reference VS for the ground motion model. The process of integration commonly
includes: (a) development of a version of the GMC Logic Tree; (b) hazard sensitivity
analyses to document the impact of model parameters on the seismic hazard; (c)
feedback from the Resource Experts, Proponent Experts, and PPRP members on the
logic tree models, and hazard sensitivity; and (d) the development of the next
versions of the GMC logic tree. This process is iterated until final site-specific GMC
logic trees are developed for each site.

The GMC TI Team will lead the integration process; the Hazard Analysts will conduct
the iterative hazard sensitivity analyses. The REs and PEs will be less active in this
process, but they can be called upon by the TI Teams as needed to provide
clarification, resolve new issues, and provide feedback on the preliminary model. The
majority of the integration process will occur through informal Working Meetings and
internal work. The Workshops are designed to present the models and sensitivity
results, and to collect feedback. The PPRP will be involved in the integration process

Southwestern U.S. Ground Motion Characterization Project Plan, Rev. 3 Page 7

 through attending Workshops, reviewing interim project documentation, and attending
selected Working Meetings, as needed.

Peer Review – Participatory peer review is an integral component of a SSHAC Level

3 study. The overall goals of this review will be to ensure that the SSHAC process is
adequately followed and that the technical results adequately characterize the CBR of
the TDI. The review is participatory in that it will be a continuous process throughout
the study, and not a singular review that occurs at the end of the study. As such, the
PPRP will be kept abreast of project developments through a combination of
attending Workshops, reviewing interim project documents, and attending selected
field reviews and/or Working Meetings, as needed. The TI team will have the
opportunity to address PPRP comments and make modifications during the project.

Documentation – Documentation also is an integral component of a SSHAC Level 3

study in that it provides a record of the final technical results, how they were reached,
and how the SSHAC Level 3 process was implemented. In addition, the
documentation provides the basis for review by any pertinent regulatory officials, if
needed. Documentation for the study will include the Workshop summaries and
presentations, PPRP letter reports and TI Team responses, GMC data tables
showing how the different data sets and models were used, GMC logic trees, and the
final report including the PPRP review of the final report.

The four process components of the SSHAC Level 3 study (evaluation, integration, peer review, and
documentation) will be conducted using a series of formal Workshops, Working Meetings, and internal
work. The following work plan summarizes the individual tasks that will be conducted for the SWUS
GMC study. The major milestones of the work plan are shown on Figure 2.

Databases
The GMC database will be the PEER NGA-west2 database with the addition of results from suites of
numerical simulations computed using the SCEC broadband platform. The PEER NGA-west2 data
will be stored at PEER which provides for public access to the data. If additional observed ground
motion data are added to the PEER-NGA-west2 data set as part of the SWUS project, then these
additional data will be provided to PEER for incorporation in the next version of the PEER ground
motion database. It is expected that under the project a ground motion database for Arizona will be
developed: it will include small magnitude recordings in the surrounding region of PVNGS and
moderate to large magnitude recordings from California recorded in Arizona. The simulated ground
motions developed specifically for the SWUS GMC will be archived at the Southern California

Southwestern U.S. Ground Motion Characterization Project Plan, Rev. 3 Page 8

Earthquake Center (SCEC) and will be made available to the public after QA is completed. A project-
specific website is being developed to maintain the project documents. The page is managed by SCE
and has the format of a collaborative platform (cFolder). Full access will be warranted to Project
Sponsor and participants, including PPRP members. We plan to provide specific limited access to
REs and PEs. The platform will also include literature and other general information relevant to the
three nuclear power plants. At the end of the project, final report, PPRP final letters, presentations
from public Workshops, Workshop summaries minutes, Working Meetings material and reference
documents will be made publicly available. The reference documents will include PEER reports
describing the empirical ground motion studies and SCEC reports describing the simulation methods
and the validation study. Project participants will have access to such repository throughout the
project; critical reference material will be available prior to each Workshop to allow adequate time for
PPRP review. If documentation for a specific model is not provided in a timely manner, the model
might be downweighted in the subsequent evaluation process.

General Tasks
Task 1: Preparation of Project Plan and Kickoff Meeting
The Project Sponsors will prepare a letter that outlines sponsor expectations, required
deliverables and schedule. The initial task for the SWUS GMC study will be to prepare the
Project Plan and hold a Workshop 0 (the Kick-off Meeting). The kick-off meeting will involve
the Project Sponsors, PPRP, TI team, Hazard Analyst from each utility, PTI from each utility,
Project Manager, Project Contracting, and the representatives of the Project Sponsors. The
purpose of the kick-off meeting is to review the project plan, discuss the roles of the project
participants, and identify key interface issues (SSC, GMC, and site response) for the three
sites. The PPRP will provide a letter documenting their review of the Project Plan after the
Kick-off Meeting.

Task 2: University Research to Develop Proponent Models

Two major ground motion projects are currently being conducted that are relevant to the
hazard evaluation for the SWUS: PEER NGA-west2 and SCEC broadband platform
validation. The PEER and SCEC studies are not part of the formal SSHAC process for the
SWUS GMC study, but brief descriptions of these two studies are given below as they will be
key inputs for the SWUS GMC study.

PEER is developing an updated ground motion database including key data from shallow
crustal earthquakes in active regions around the world. This data set will increase the number
of recordings above magnitude 5 by about a factor of 3 as compared to the original NGA data
set (Chiou et al, 2008). PEER is using this expanded data set to develop new ground motion

Southwestern U.S. Ground Motion Characterization Project Plan, Rev. 3 Page 9

 prediction equations (GMPEs) that will be finalized in January 2013. It is expected that those
models will include the traditional ergodic sigma (where the total variability is treated as a
random variable that can be decomposed into between-events variability and within-event
variability). Other studies are being conducted at PEER in coordination with the NGA-west 2
program that are focusing on other aspects relevant to the ground motion characterization
such as single-station sigma (where there is an effort to remove the epistemic uncertainty
from the total variability by recognizing systematic site effects not captured in the GMPEs –
AlAtik et al., 2010), Kappa scaling, near fault fling effects; preliminary results from these
additional studies should be available by March 2013 and their completion is expected by
summer 2013. The PEER studies will result in a set of proponent models that will then be
evaluated for their applicability to the three sites as part of the SWUS GMC study under the
SSHAC process. The TI team evaluation will not be restricted to the NGA-west2 models.
Other available GMPEs that may be applicable to the SWUS, such as GMPEs from Japan,
Taiwan, Italy, Turkey, New Zealand, will also be considered.

SCEC is conducting a major systematic evaluation of the methods for numerical simulation of
ground motion for engineering applications. They are developing a series of validation
exercises that will be used to test the numerical simulation methods. These include two parts.
The first part is a comparison of simulated motions with observations from past earthquakes
using the optimized source parameters for each earthquake. This provides an evaluation of
how well the simulation method works if the source is known. The second part is a
comparison of the median simulation for future earthquakes (average of many realizations of
the source) in the magnitude and distance range that are well constrained by the empirical
data. This provides an evaluation of how well the method for generating source parameters
for future earthquakes is working. To capture the CBR of the available simulation methods,
SCEC will incorporate a range of different models with different approaches into the
broadband platform for the validation. SCEC will provide a report describing the evaluation
and recommending a set of simulations methods that pass the validation tests and represent
proponent models for simulations. This set of proponent models will then be evaluated as part
of the SWUS GMC study under the SSHAC process. The schedule of SCEC activities is set
up so to expedite the validation and evaluation process. SCEC will hold several workshops
that evaluate preliminary results to allow for early correction, reducing the risk of not meeting
the SWUS schedule. In the event that SCEC cannot produce simulation methods that pass
validation test in due time, the TI Team will consider the range of results from previous
simulations along with the validation results and will likely need to increase the uncertainty of
the GM appropriately.

Southwestern U.S. Ground Motion Characterization Project Plan, Rev. 3 Page 10

 Task 3: Workshop 1 (Significant Issues, Available Data and Data Needs)
The TI team and staff will develop the agenda for Workshop 1 (WS1), and identify the
appropriate REs for WS1. The agenda and list of REs will be provided to the PPRP for their
review. The PPRP may identify additional REs for consideration and/or significant issues or
topics to be covered at the Workshop.

Workshop 1 will last for three days and be attended by the PTI, the TI team and staff, the
PPRP, the Hazard Analysts, Resource Experts (REs), the Project Manager and support staff.
The goals of WS1 are to (1) provide SSHAC training to the project participants, (2) discuss
issues significant to hazard, and (3) identify available data to address the significant issues.
REs will be asked to discuss specific data sets and to assist in identifying available data to
address significant issues. Prior to the Workshop, letters will be sent to selected REs
identifying directed topics and issues that they should be prepared to address at the meeting.
The letters will help focus the Workshop discussion on key issues related to a particular data
set, including quality of data, expected use of data, uncertainty or limitations in the data or
interpretations, etc. The REs will be asked to present data and/or to participate in interactive
discussion sessions with the TI staff and other related REs. This will inform the TI staff of the
available data, and evaluations and interpretations of the data.

Key outcomes of Workshop 1 will include the definition of the scope of the numerical
simulations to be conducted including the selection of the simulation methods to be
implemented, and identification of the key ground motion data that can be used to check
and/or constrain the GMPEs for application to the SWUS.

The PPRP will attend Workshop 1 mainly as observers, but in some cases, PPRP members
may serve as a Resource Expert during the Workshop to take advantage of their specific
technical knowledge on a topic. The PPRP may also ask clarification questions during the
Workshop. The PPRP will provide verbal comments to the Project Manager and the TI team
at the end of each day and at the conclusion of the Workshop. Following the three-day
Workshop, a PPRP deliberation will take place to review the Workshop proceedings. PPRP
will have the flexibility to complete its post-Workshop deliberations by teleconference and/or
email. During this deliberation process, the PPRP will prepare verbal comments and feedback
to the PTI and TI Teams. A written version of the PPRP comments will be provided at a later
date so that they can be carefully edited and a consensus built and confirmed among the
PPRP members. The PTI and TI Team Leads will provide written responses to the PPRP
comments. Following the Workshop and PPRP deliberation, the proceedings of the
Workshop will be documented in a brief Workshop summary for distribution to the Project

Southwestern U.S. Ground Motion Characterization Project Plan, Rev. 3 Page 11

 Sponsors and members of the PPRP, and the PPRP will submit a letter to the TI Team Leads
documenting their observations of the Workshop. The Workshop summary and PPRP letter
will become part of the final documentation of the SWUS GMC study.

Topics to be addressed at Workshop 1 will include the following:

- SSHAC training for project participants
- Summarize project overview and objectives
- Review SSHAC procedures and Workshop ground rules
- Identification of data needs or gaps
- Present sensitivity analysis to ground motion models for the three sites (GMC
model V0)
- Review new data and GMPEs from PEER
- Review other GMPEs developed for extensional regimes
- Review simulation validation from SCEC
- Review available models for near fault effects including directivity, fling, hanging
wall effects, splay faults for M6-M7.5 earthquakes at distances of 0 to 15 km (for
DCPP and SONGS)
- Review available models for moderate (M 5.5—6.5) earthquakes at distances of
30-100 km from a site, for a variety of rupture mechanisms, including normal
faulting (for PVNGS)
- Evaluate applicability of close scaling models and distant attenuation in Arizona
for PVNGS
- Review base rock characteristics (e.g. VS30) of available ground motion models,
and select a representative reference VS30 that is applicable to all three sites.
Should a common VS30 not be applicable for all sites and difficulties are found in
this regard, then site-specific reference VS30 can be selected.
- Interactive discussion with Resource Experts (selected presentations)
- Identify scenarios to be implemented in the numerical simulations

Task 4: Workshop 2 (proponent models)

Prior to Workshop 2, the TI Teams will identify all relevant proponent models for ground
motions in the SWUS, develop version 1 of the GMC logic tree, and prepare the agenda for
Workshop 2. A hazard sensitivity analysis will be conducted using the alternative proponent
models to help focus the discussion of the proponent models on those features that are most
important to the hazard at the three sites. The sensitivity analysis will be performed by the
Hazard Analysts using version V1 of the GMC logic tree and the SSC models that are
available at the time.

Southwestern U.S. Ground Motion Characterization Project Plan, Rev. 3 Page 12

 Prior to Workshop 2, REs and PEs will be identified and their names provided to the PPRP for
their review. The PPRP may identify additional PEs and/or REs for consideration. The PEs
and/or REs will be contacted prior to the Workshop and provided with a specific request for
discussion topics.

Workshop 2 will last for three days and be attended by the PTI, the TI team and staff, the
PPRP, the Project Manager, the Hazard Analyst, Resource Experts and Proponent Experts.
The primary goal of WS2 will be to interactively use the PEs to evaluate the strengths and
weakness of the candidate GMPEs and the data available for testing the models. The PEs
may identify other alternative models or technical issues that are not currently captured in the
V1 logic trees and that are needed to capture the CBR of the GMPEs. These alternative
models or technical issues will be identified during the Workshop for evaluation by the TI
Team and will be added to the GMC logic tree as appropriate.

The information gained from these interactions will form the basis for defining the CBR of the
TDI and will then be used to develop the revised GMC model. The PPRP members will attend
Workshop 2 as observers, but again, may also serve as Resource Experts when needed.
The PPRP members will not serve as Proponent Experts for models. The PPRP will provide
verbal comments at the end of each day and at the conclusion of the Workshop. Following the
three-day Workshop, a PPRP deliberation will take place to review the Workshop
proceedings. PPRP will have the flexibility to complete its post-Workshop deliberations by
teleconference and/or email. During this deliberation process, the PPRP will prepare verbal
comments and feedback to the PTI and TI Teams. A written version of the PPRP comments
may be provided at a later date so that they can be carefully edited and a consensus built and
confirmed among the PPRP members. The PTI and TI Team Leads will provide written
responses to the PPRP comments. Following the Workshop and PPRP deliberation, the
proceedings of the Workshop will be documented in a brief Workshop summary for
distribution to the Project Sponsors and members of the PPRP, and the PPRP will submit a
letter to the TI Team Leads documenting their observations of the Workshop. The Workshop
summary and PPRP letter will become part of the final documentation of the SWUS GMC
study.

The topics to be addressed at Workshop 2 will include the following:

- Review SSHAC procedures and Workshop ground rules
- Present hazard sensitivity analysis on the GMC V1 logic trees using available
SSC models

Southwestern U.S. Ground Motion Characterization Project Plan, Rev. 3 Page 13

 - Present the proponent models and discuss their strengths and weaknesses
through interactive discussion with Proponent Experts and Resource Experts
- Evaluate the proponent models with comparisons to data, as appropriate
- Identify model gaps, i.e. cases that don’t appear to be covered by current models,
and how to cover those gaps

Task 5: Workshop 3 (TI Evaluation)

Following Workshop 2, the TI Team will evaluate the proponent models and integrate the
information into version V2 of the GMC logic tree based on the feedback from Workshop 2.
Modeling gaps identified at Workshop 2 will be filled with modifications to existing models or
development of new models. The Hazard Analysts will implement the new GMC model in the
hazard code and conduct a hazard sensitivity analysis for each site to identify the key
contributors to the uncertainty. The latest version of the SSC model will be implemented in the
hazard sensitivity analysis. The latter will also be used to focus the discussion by the REs,
PEs, and PPRP on the technical issues and parameters that have the greatest effect on the
hazard at the three sites.

Workshop 3 will last for two days and be attended by the PTI, the TI teams and staff, the
PPRP, the Project Manager, the Hazard Analysts, and selected REs and PEs that are
identified by the TI Team, as needed. In contrast to Workshops 1 and 2, the PPRP will be
active participants in Workshop 3 to fully query the model parameters, level of documentation,
uncertainty, and rationale in developing the model. The focus of the PPRP review should be
on the adequacy of the technical basis for the GMC model and not on the specific value of a
particular weight on the logic tree. The primary focus of the Workshop 3 process will be for the
TI Team to integrate information into models that represent the CBR of TDI.

The proceedings of Workshop 3 will be documented in a brief Workshop summary report for
distribution to the Project Sponsors and members of the PPRP, and the PPRP will submit a
letter to the TI Team Leads documenting their observations of the Workshop. The Workshop
summary and PPRP letter will become part of the final documentation of the SWUS GMC
study.

Task 6: Incorporation of PPRP Comments in GMC (V3) Models

Following Workshop 3, comments from the PPRP will be resolved and incorporated into the
final GMC logic trees (V3), as needed.

Southwestern U.S. Ground Motion Characterization Project Plan, Rev. 3 Page 14

 Task 7: Documentation
The TI Team will develop the final documentation of the SWUS GMC study. An initial draft
report will be prepared and submitted to the PPRP for review. It is expected that the main
PPRP comments will have been addressed based on the PPRP comments in Workshop 3.
The reporting will include complete documentation of the development of the GMC models
and all of the parameters included within the models.

Upon completion of the PPRP review of the draft report, the TI Team will respond to PPRP comments
and prepare a Final Report. The PPRP will review the response to comments and the Final Report,
and provide a letter to the Project Sponsors and TI Team Leads documenting their evaluation of the
SSHAC Level 3 process. This letter will be included in an appendix of the Final Report.

PROJECT SCHEDULE
The schedule for completing the SWUS GMC Study is presented on Figure 2. The project will
commence with Workshop 0 (Kickoff Meeting) in August 2012, and will be completed in mid 2014, a 2-
year duration. Workshops are anticipated to be held at 6-month intervals every October and March
during the study. As described above, the goal of following the SSHAC Level 3 methodology is to
have reasonable assurance that epistemic uncertainties in the GMC logic trees have been adequately
captured for use in a PSHA for DCPP, SONGS, and PVNGS.

VALIDATION, VERIFICATION AND PEER REVIEW

Validation, verification and peer review provides the necessary quality assurance for development of
the GMC models and is inherent in the SSHAC process itself and the participatory peer review. The
participatory peer review is comparable to and, in many areas, much more thorough and
comprehensive than the standard Independent Technical Review (ITR) of the QA procedures given in
10CFR50 Appendix B. Thus, following the guidelines in NUREG 2117, the SSHAC process will not be
required to follow a formal 10CFR50 Appendix B QA procedure.

NOTE: The hazard calculations for the development of the GMRS are not part of this SWUS GMC
project and are the responsibility of the Project Sponsors. QA of hazard codes is outside the scope of
the project, however the translation of GMC models into PSHA inputs will be documented in Hazard
Input Documents (HIDs) and the HIDs will be part of the QA documentation.

Southwestern U.S. Ground Motion Characterization Project Plan, Rev. 3 Page 15

REFERENCES

Al-Atik, L., N. Abrahamson, F. Cotton, F. Scherbaum, J. Bommer, and N. Kuehn , 2010, The variability
of ground-motion prediction models and its components, Seismological Research Letters 81,
no. 5, 794–801.
Bernreuter, D.L., Savy, J.B., Mensing, R.W., Chen, J.C., and Davis, B.C., 1989, Seismic hazard
characterization of 69 nuclear plant sites east of the Rocky Mountains, NUREG/CR-5250,
Volumes 1-8, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington D.C.
Budnitz, R.J., Apostolakis, G., Boore, D.M., Cluff, L.S., Coppersmith, K.J., Cornell, C.A., and Morris,
P.A., 1997, Recommendations for Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis: Guidance on
Uncertainty and Use of Experts: Washington, D.C., US Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
NUREG/CR-6372, p. 278.
CEUS (2012). Central and Eastern United States Seismic Source Characterization for Nuclear
Facilities, Report published by NRC Report NUREG-2115, DOE Report NE-0140, EPRI
Report 1021097, 6 Volumes.
Coppersmith, K.J., Bommer, J.J., Kammerer, A.M., and Ake, J., 2010, Implementation guidance for
th
SSHAC Level 3 and 4 processes; 10 International Probabilistic Safety and Management
Conference, Seattle, Washington, June 7-11, 2010.
Chiou, B., Darragh, R., Gregor, N., and Silva, W., 2008. NGA project strong motion database,
Earthquake Spectra, 24, 23 - 44.
EPRI-SOG, 1988, Seismic hazard methodology for the central and eastern United States, EPRI NP-
4726A, Revision 1, Volumes 1-11, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California
EPRI, 2004. CEUS Ground motion project. Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute, Final
Report, EPRI Technical EPRI Report 1009684.
Hanks, T.C., Abrahamson, N.A., Boore, D.M., Coppersmith, K.J., and Knepprath, N.E., 2009,
Implementation of the SSHAC Guidelines for Level 3 and 4 PSHAs—Experience Gained from
Actual Applications, U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report 2009-1093, p. 66.
NRC, 2007, Regulatory Guide 1.208: A Performance-Based Approach to Define the Site-Specific
Earthquake Ground Motion, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, p. 53.
NRC, 2012 Practical Implementation Guidelines for SSHAC Level 3 and 4 Hazard Studies:
Washington D.C., US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG2117.

Southwestern U.S. Ground Motion Characterization Project Plan, Rev. 3 Page 16

 Figure 1: Southwestern U.S. Ground Motion Characterization Project Organization

Southwestern U.S. Ground Motion Characterization Project Plan, Rev. 3 Page 17

Figure 2: SWUS GMC Schedule and Major Milestones

Southwestern U.S. Ground Motion Characterization Project Plan, Rev. 3 Page 18

 APPENDIX A – SELECTION CRITERIA FOR PROJECT PARTICIPANTS
This appendix describes the selection criteria for the selection of the TI team lead, TI team
members, PPRP members, and Project Manager.

1. Technical Integrator (TI) Lead

The TI Lead is selected by the Project Sponsors. The TI team is selected by the TI Lead.
The roles and responsibilities of the TI lead are given in Table 1A and the selection criteria
are given in Table 1B.

The Project Sponsors selected Dr. Norm Abrahamson as the TI lead for the SWUS GMC.
Dr. Abrahamson is an internationally recognized expert in field of ground motion with
experience developing empirical GMPEs and using numerical simulations to develop
GMPEs. He has also past experience with the SSHAC studies having served as the
Technical Facilitator/Integrator for the 1996-1998 Yucca Mountain and 2001-2004 Swiss
SSHAC level 4 GMCs. He has also served as the TI lead for the 2008-2011 BCHydro
SSHAC level 3 GMC, as the TI co-lead for the ongoing NGA-east SSHAC level 3 GMC, and
as TI team member for the Blue Castle SSHAC level 3 GMC.

Table 1A. Roles and Responsibilities of TI Team Lead

1 Preparation of Project Plan
2 Point of contact for all technical activities on the project
3 Selection of appropriate evaluator and integration experts for TI Team
4 Leading the evaluation and integration activities of the TI team, including the conduct
of multiple working meetings
5 Finding and assuring participation of suitable Resource and Proponent Experts
6 Running Workshops and ensuring that the participants clearly understand the
Workshop objectives, their individual roles, the required output from the Workshops,
and the implication to hazard
7 Ensure that the project documentation is complete and comprehensive

Southwestern U.S. Ground Motion Characterization Project Plan, Rev. 3 Page A - 1

 Table 1B. ATTRIBUTES / SELECTION CRITERIA for TI TEAM LEAD
1 A thorough understanding of the SSHAC goals and processes
2 Acknowledged technical expertise with particular emphasis in the GMC issues
being addressed and in PSHA
3 Experience in conducting previous SSHAC Level 3 and 4 studies
4 Strong communication skills to work with the technical evaluators
5 Project management skills to ensure technical products are high-quality and
delivered in a timely manner
6 Experience and familiarity with NRC regulations, quality assurance, and regulatory
compliance

2. Technical Integrator (TI) Team

The TI team members were selected with the goal of having a balance between senior
members with extensive experience in SSHAC studies and younger members that have
limited or no SSHAC experience. The purpose of including younger members is to build up
the pool of ground motion experts with SSHAC experience.

Past experience has shown that a TI team of 3 to 5 people works well for GMC projects. A
five person TI team was selected for this project with three senior people and two younger
people.

Dr. Robert Youngs was selected as the second senior person (in addition to Dr.
Abrahamson). Dr. Youngs has extensive experience with SSHAC studies for both GMC and
SSC: 1998 Yucca Mountain SSC (SSHAC level 4), 2004 Swiss SSC (SSHAC level 4), 2004
EPRI GMC (SSHAC level 3), 2011 BCHydro GMC and SSC (SSHAC level 3), ongoing NGA-
East GMC (SSHAC level 3), and ongoing Hanford GMC (SSHAC level 3). He is also a
recognized ground motion expert and is an active participant in the PEER NGA studies for
WUS ground motion models.

Prof. Douglas Dreger has been selected as a third senior evaluator expert with experience
with numerical simulations. Through his well established academic career, Prof. Dreger is

Southwestern U.S. Ground Motion Characterization Project Plan, Rev. 3 Page A - 2

knowledgeable with respect to the techniques employed in numerical simulation studies, as
well as knowledgeable in the appropriate selection of model parameters for those studies.

Ms. Katie Wooddell was selected as a younger person on the TI team. Ms. Wooddell is an
active participant in the PEER NGA-west2 empirical ground motion studies. She has also
experience over the last three years testing and using the SCEC broadband simulation
platform. She is currently participating in the SCEC broadband validation project. Having
experience in both empirical GMPEs and numerical simulations gives Ms. Wooddell a good
background for the SWUS GMC. Ms. Wooddell has some recent experience in SSHAC
studies: she was on the TI team for the GMC for the initial work on the 2011 DCPP SSHAC
level 3 study. She is also the Hazard Analyst for the ongoing DCPP SSC SSHAC level 3
study.

Dr. Jennifer Donahue was selected as the second younger member of the TI team. Dr.
Donahue is an active participant in the NGA-west2 ground motion project with a focus on
evaluation of hanging wall effects using both empirical data and numerical simulations. As
hanging wall effects are likely to be an important issue for DCPP and SONGS, Dr. Donahue
is well qualified to evaluate the alternative hanging wall models that will be part of the
proponent models. Dr. Donahue has also some recent experience in SSHAC studies: she
was on the TI team for the GMC for the initial work on the 2011 DCPP SSHAC level 3 study
and she is providing project management support for the ongoing DCPP SSC SSHAC level
3 study.

3. PPRP Members
The PPRP members are selected by the TI lead, PM, and the Project Sponsors. The roles
and responsibilities of the PPRP are given in Table 2A and the selection criteria are given in
Table 2B. The PPRP members are selected so that, collectively, their experience and
specialized technical knowledge meets the requirements given in Table 2B with a focus on
experience in the SWUS region. For this project, an additional goal for the PPRP is to have a
mixture of experience with the SSHAC process by including some members with limited
SSHAC experience to help build up the available pool of people with SSHAC experience for
future projects. Based on the criteria in Table 2B, the TI lead and the Project Sponsors
selected the following members for the PPRP: Prof. Steve Day (Chair), Dr. Ken Campbell,

Southwestern U.S. Ground Motion Characterization Project Plan, Rev. 3 Page A - 3

Dr. Brain Chiou, and Prof. Tom Rockwell. A brief description of the qualifications of each
PPRP member is given below.

Prof. Steve Day is a recognized expert in ground motions with over 30 years experience with
methods for the numerical simulation of ground motion. He has experience with both
kinematic and dynamic approaches for simulation of ground motions and has participated in
the SCEC ground motion simulation studies. He also has experience in simplifying results of
numerical simulations into useable engineering models as part of the 2008 NGA project.
Prof. Day has served on the NRC peer review panel for the 1985-1991 DCPP Long Term
Seismic Program and also as a member of the seismic technical advisory board for both
DCPP and SONGS. Prof. Day’s experience with the SSHAC process is as a member of the
PPRP for the ongoing DCPP SSC SSHAC level 3 study. He was selected as the PPRP
chair because of the breath of his knowledge on ground motion, his strong communication
skills, and his availability to commit the required time to work with the PPRP members to
achieve a consensus and complete reporting on schedule.

Dr. Ken Campbell is a recognized expert in ground motion and seismic hazard. He has over
30 years experience in developing empirically based GMPEs. He was one of the GMPE
developers in the 2008 NGA project and is a developer of updated GMPEs in the ongoing
NGA-west2 project. Dr. Campbell has also extensive experience with the SSHAC process.
He participated as an Expert Evaluator in the 1998 Yucca Mountain SSHAC level 4 GMC
and is currently an Expert Evaluator in the ongoing SSHAC level 4 GMC for the PEGASOS
refinement project and Chair of the PPRP in the ongoing SSHAC level 3 GMC study for the
Hanford PSHA. In addition, Dr. Campbell has served as a PPRP member for the 2011
BCHydro SSHAC level 3 SSC and GMC studies, was a Resource Expert in the 2004 EPRI
CEUS SSHAC level 3 GMC study, and was a Proponent Expert for the hybrid empirical
method of modifying GMPEs for regional factors in the Blue Castle and Thyspunt SSHAC
level 3 GMC studies.

Dr. Brian Chiou is a recognized expert in ground motion and seismic hazard. He was one of
the GMPE developers in the 2008 NGA project and is a developer of updated GMPEs in the
ongoing NGA-west2 project. For this project, his key expertise is in empirical data sets,
empirical GMPEs, treatment of variability, and directivity effects. Dr. Chiou has previous
experience with the SSHAC process having been a Resource Expert in the recently
Southwestern U.S. Ground Motion Characterization Project Plan, Rev. 3 Page A - 4
completed BCHydro SSHAC level 3 GMC study and the ongoing Blue Castle SSHAC level 3
GMC study. He is currently serving as a PPRP member for the ongoing Hanford SSHAC
level 3 SSC and GMC studies.

Prof. Tom Rockwell is a recognized expert in earthquake geology and characterization of

active faults with experience in the SWUS and around the world. He is involved in the SCEC
program for source characterization in southern California. Prof. Rockwell is relatively new
to the SSHAC process with experience as a member of the PPRP for the ongoing DCPP
SSC SSHAC level 3 study. Prof. Rockwell was selected as a PPRP member to provide a link
between the GMC and the source characterization issues for the SWUS.

Table 2A. Roles and responsibilities of the PPRP

11 Provide a technical review of the TI team evaluation
2 Provide a process review of the SSHAC level 3 study
3 Attend all Workshops and selected working meetings
4 Review project plan
4 Review draft project report
5 Issue concurrence letter report (after review comments are adequately addressed)

Table 2B. ATTRIBUTES / SELECTION CRITERIA of the PPRP RITERIA

1 Technical expertise in empirical ground motion models for active crustal regions
2 Technical expertise in numerical simulations of ground motion models for active
crustal regions
3 Technical expertise in source characterization in the SWUS (for interface issues
between SSC and GMC models)
4 Working knowledge of PSHA
5 Past experience with SSHAC level 3 studies

4. Project Manager (PM)

The PM is selected by the Project Sponsors. The roles and responsibilities of the Project
Manager are given in Table 3A and the selection criteria are given in Table 3B.

Southwestern U.S. Ground Motion Characterization Project Plan, Rev. 3 Page A - 5

The Project Sponsors selected Carola Di Alessandro as the PM. Dr. Di Alessandro has
experience in engineering seismology and has also good organizational skills. She recently
served as the coordinator for the Global Earthquake Model (GEM) ground motion
characterization project conducted by PEER, coordinating a large number of ground motion
experts. In the GEM project, she organized technical meetings and the preparation of
technical reports that involved over 20 ground motion experts around the world.

Table 3A. Roles and responsibilities

1 With TI Lead, prepare Project Plan
2 Point of contact between Sponsors, TI Lead, PPRP, and QA
3 Responsible for development of and adherence to scope, schedule and budget
4 Responsible for establishing contracts and contractual compliance with all participants
5 Oversight of QA implementation Staff
6 Status reporting to Sponsors on schedule, scope, budget
7 Delivery of all technical products

Table 3B. ATTRIBUTES / SELECTION CRITERIA

1 Familiarity with the SSHAC process, previous involvement in a SSHAC Level 3 or
higher project
2 Proven ability to manage complex projects that involve multiple project roles,
responsibilities, and participants
3 Technical background in seismic hazard
4 Experience and familiarity with NRC regulations, quality assurance, and regulatory
compliance
5 Communication and management skills
6 Willingness to commit significant time to ensure timely delivery of all products

5. Hazard Analysts
The Hazard Analysts are selected by each utility based on the selection criteria given in
Table 4A. The roles and responsibilities of the Hazard Analysts are given in Table 4B. Based
on the criteria in Table 4B, the Project Sponsors selected the following Hazard Analysts: Dr.

Southwestern U.S. Ground Motion Characterization Project Plan, Rev. 3 Page A - 6

Nick Gregor for DCPP, Dr. Phalkun Tan and Andrew Dinsick for SONGS, and Dr. Melanie
Walling for PVNGS. A brief description of the qualifications of each Hazard Analyst is given
below.

Dr. Nick Gregor has over 20 years of experience in seismic hazard assessment. He was part
of the Technical Support Staff for the Yucca Mountain project, being involved in the
application of site-specific amplification factors using the PSHA hazard results. Recently Dr.
Gregor was a TI Team member for the BCHydro GMC Level 3 study, where he assisted in
the development of a new subduction earthquake ground motion prediction equation
(GMPE) model based on world-wide data. In addition, he was part of the Technical Support
Staff for the DCPP Shoreline Fault hazard study and is a Proponent Expert in the Hanford
SSHAC level 3 project. During the last 15 plus years, Dr. Gregor has assisted Dr.
Abrahamson in the modification and upgrade of his PSHA program. As part of this support,
he was involved in producing the necessary QA validation documents for the hazard
program used in the 2010 Shoreline report for PG&E. It is expected that for this project, the
PSHA will again undergo modifications and Dr. Gregor will be the lead member for these
expected changes.

Dr. Phalkun Tan is an Associate Engineer with GeoPentech and is heavily involved in the
firm’s geotechnical earthquake engineering practice. Dr. Tan has 24 years of experience in
geotechnical earthquake engineering and numerical analysis. He was involved as Hazard
Analyst in the ground motion evaluations for several important structures, such as the
Vincent-Thomas Bridge in Long Beach, California, the Coronado Bay Bridge in San Diego,
the Foothill Transportation Corridor alignment in Orange County, California, high rise
commercial buildings in downtown Los Angeles and San Diego, earth dams and earth
structures. He was also appointed the role of Hazard Analyst for the 2001 and 2010 SONGS
PSHA studies. Additionally, he developed Woodward-Clyde and GeoPentech’s computer
program for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. The GeoPentech computer code was one
of the computer programs used in the PEER Verification of Probabilistic Seismic Hazard
Analysis Computer Programs in 2009.

Dr. Melanie Walling has three years experience in seismic hazard and ground motion
studies. She was one of the main people responsible for the QA of the LCI seismic hazard
code. She is also part of the LCI team to compute the seismic hazard for many of the
Southwestern U.S. Ground Motion Characterization Project Plan, Rev. 3 Page A - 7
Central and Eastern plants as part of their response to the NRC letter on Fukushima. She is
working under the direction of Robin McGuire which will provide her additional support in
seismic hazard as needed.

Table 4A. Roles and responsibilities

1 Responsible for hazard calculations and sensitivity analyses
2 Provide feedback to the TI Team and answer questions on the distributions used for
the PSHA computation , identifying key contributors to uncertainty

Table 4B. ATTRIBUTES / SELECTION CRITERIA

1 Technical expertise with hazard computation and analysis
2 Working knowledge of PSHA programs
3 Ability to perform hazard analysis under QA

Southwestern U.S. Ground Motion Characterization Project Plan, Rev. 3 Page A - 8

APPENDIX B - PPRP LETTER APPROVING PROJECT PLAN

November 29, 2012

Carola Di Alessandro, Ph.D.

Project Manager for the SWUS GMC SSHAC
GeoPentech, Inc.
525 N . Cabrillo Park Drive, Suite 280
Santa Ana., CA 92701

Dear Dr. Di Alessandro:

The Participatory Peer Review Panel (PPRP) has reviewed the Project Plan (dated
November 12, 2012) for the Southwestern U.S. Ground Motion Characterization (SWUS-
GMC) SSHAC Level 3 study. The Project Plan document is well prepared, explains the SSHAC
Level 3 guidelines well, and provides a framework for successful implementation of those
guidelines. It is responsive to earlier PPR.P's recon1n1endatio11s, as detailed in ottr
memoranda dated September 17 and November 3, 2012, respectively. The Plan includes a
Technical Integration (Tl) team that br ings the project an appropriate balance between
experienced experts and more junior members, and includes high-level expertise in both
empirical and simulation-based ground motion estimation.

The PPRP believes that the Project Plan has the elements required for meeting the SSHAC
Level 3 objectives. We thank the project team for its efforts in developing the plan and look
forward to its implemen tation.

Sincerely,

Steven M. Day Kenneth Campbell

Chair, PPRP Member, PPRP

Brian Chiou Thomas Rockwell

Member, PPRP Member, PPRP

Southwestern U.S. Ground Motion Characterization Project Plan, Rev. 3 Page B - 1