ML032731593

North Anna Early Site Permit Application, Revision 0, Site Safety Analysis Report, Section 2.5.5 Through Figure 2.5-12

ML032731593
Person / Time
Site:	North Anna, 05200008, PROJ0719
Issue date:	09/30/2003
From:	Dominion Nuclear Connecticut
To:	Office of New Reactors
References
+reviewedDominionESP, +reviewedmls
Download: ML032731593 (96)

Text

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report 2.5.5 Stability of Slopes This section presents information on the stability of permanent slopes at the NAPS site. The information has been developed in accordance with Review Standard RS-002, Processing Applications for Early Site Permits (Reference 145), following the guidance presented in RG 1.70, Section 2.5.5 (Reference 3). The geological, geophysical, geotechnical and seismological information presented in this section is used as a basis to evaluate the stability of specific slopes at the site.

The information presented in this section was developed from a review of reports prepared for the existing units and the abandoned Units 3 and 4, geotechnical literature, and a subsurface investigation conducted for preparation of this ESP application. The review included the site-specific reports from the UFSAR (Reference 5), and reports prepared by Dames and Moore regarding the design and construction of the existing units (Reference 7) and the abandoned Units 3 and 4 (Reference 8).

A 55-foot high, 2-horizontal to 1-vertical (2h:1v) slope descends from north of the SWR down to south of the existing excavation made for abandoned Units 3 and 4. This slope was excavated during construction of the existing units, and is almost entirely in cut material. The top of this slope is 200 feet from the top of the SWR embankment, and thus any potential instability of the slope would have no impact on the stability of the SWR embankment.

The only new permanent slope that may be created in association with the new units would be to the west of the SWR to accommodate the buried UHSs for certain new unit designs. The amount (if any) of this cut depends on the design that would be selected. The maximum slope height envisioned is about 55 feet, cut at a 2h:1v slope. The top of the slope would be at least 200 feet from the top of the SWR embankment, the same distance as for the existing slope to the north of the SWR. Thus, any instability of the new slope would not impact the SWR.

Although instability of the existing and possible new 2h:1v slopes would not impact the SWR, sloughing or collapse of these slopes could impact the new units, depending on their final location.

The stability of these slopes is addressed in the following sections. The new slopes of the non-safety-related, deepened intake channel, which would be used for the normal cooling water system supply of the new units, would be analyzed during detailed design, if required. Such analysis is not part of the ESP SSAR.

2.5.5.1 Existing Slope Characteristics The location and direction of the existing 2h:1v slope to the north of the SWR is shown in plan view in Figure 2.5-65; the location is also shown in the photograph in Figure 2.5-66. The photograph in Figure 2.5-67 shows the existing slope clearly, descending from the SWR to close to the excavation for the now abandoned Unit 3 and 4 containment buildings. The structure behind the slope on the SWR embankment is the Unit 1 and 2 valve house, which was originally designed to be the now 2-2-304 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report abandoned Unit 3 and 4 pump house. A cross-section through the existing slope is shown on Figure 2.5-68.

2.5.5.1.1 Slope Borings As shown in Figure 2.5-65, two borings (B-15 and B-18) were performed previously on or close to the area of the slope. These borings were conducted for the Unit 1 and 2 investigation. The profiles of these borings are included in Figure 2.5-68. The boring logs are presented in Section 2.5.5.3. No additional exploration for the slope was made during the ESP exploration program.

2.5.5.1.2 Slope Subsurface Conditions The ESP site soils and bedrock are described in detail in Section 2.5.4.2.2. As can be seen from Figure 2.5-68, the soils in the slope consist almost entirely of Zone IIA saprolites. Saprolites are a further stage of weathering beyond weathered rock. They have been derived by in-place disintegration and decomposition and have not been transported. Saprolites are classified as soils but still contain the relict structure of the parent rock, and they also typically still contain some core stone of the parent rock. The North Anna saprolites in many instances maintain the foliation characteristics of the parent rock. They are mainly classified as silty sands, although there are also sands, clayey sands, sandy silts, clayey silts and clays, depending very much on their degree of weathering. The fabric is strongly anisotropic. The texture shows angular geometrically interlocking grains with a lack of void network, very unlike the well-pronounced voids found in marine or alluvial sands and silts. The Zone IIA saprolites comprise, on average, about 80 percent of the saprolitic materials onsite. About 75 percent of the Zone IIA saprolites are classified as coarse-grained (sands, silty sands) while the remainder are fine-grained (clayey sands, sandy and clayey silts, and clays). The majority of the saprolites obtained from the borings in the slope area are dense silty sands.

The bedrock beneath the Zone IIA saprolite ranges from moderately to severely weathered (Zone III), to fresh to slightly weathered (Zone IV). The bedrock throughout the North Anna site is classified as a gneiss, which is a metamorphic rock that exhibits a banded texture (foliation) in which light and dark bands alternate. It is composed of feldspar, quartz, and one or more other minerals such as mica and hornblende. The majority of the bedrock obtained from the borings in the slope area is a dark green or gray to black biotite hornblende gneiss.

The engineering properties of the site soils and bedrock are described in Section 2.5.4.2.5 and are tabulated in Table 2.5-45. These properties are based on extensive field and laboratory testing described in Section 2.5.4.3 and Section 2.5.4.2, respectively.

The liquefaction characteristics of all of the Zone IIA saprolite are thoroughly examined in Section 2.5.4.8. That section concludes that there would be no liquefaction of the Zone IIA saprolitic soils at the ESP site, except possibly in isolated near-surface zones.

2-2-305 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report 2.5.5.1.3 Slope Phreatic Surface The postulated phreatic surface is shown in Figure 2.5-68 for the existing slope. This surface has been developed from the water table levels derived in Section 2.4.12. The depth of this phreatic surface precludes any potential for liquefaction of the near-surface soils in the slope.

2.5.5.2 Design Criteria and Analyses 2.5.5.2.1 Required Factor of Safety The following factors of safety are proposed by the Department of the Army (Reference 183):

Condition Minimum Factor of Safety End of Construction 1.4 Long-Term Static (non-seismic) 1.5 Long-Term Seismic 1.1 2.5.5.2.2 Stability of Existing Slope The photograph in Figure 2.5-67 of the existing 2h:1v slope to the north of the SWR was taken about 20 years ago. The condition of the slope is essentially the same today. It was thoroughly inspected during the ESP site investigation. The slope shows no signs of distress.

2.5.5.2.3 Analysis of Modified Slope The static and dynamic stability of the existing slope to the north of the SWR was analyzed using the computer program SLOPE/W (Reference 184).

a. Long-Term Static Analysis The SLOPE/W Program used the Bishop method of slices (Reference 185) for analysis of the long-term static condition. The analysis assumed the saprolite was predominantly coarse grained (as shown in borings B-15 and B-18 close to the slope). The effective strength parameters given in Table 2.5-45 were an angle of internal friction = 30 degrees and effective cohesion c = 0.25 ksf for the coarse-grained saprolite.

The input to the analysis and the results are shown in Figure 2.5-69. The computed factor of safety is about 1.75. This values is above the minimum 1.5 factor of safety required.

b. Seismic Slope Stability Analysis The pseudo-static approach is used as a first approximation for the seismic analysis of slopes.

In this approach, the horizontal and vertical seismic forces are assumed to act on the slope in a static manner; that is, as a constant static force. This is an obviously conservative approach, since an the actual seismic event occurs for only a short period of time, and during that time, the forces alternate their direction at a relatively high frequency. Also, the pseudo-static analysis tends to be run using the peak seismic acceleration; the mean acceleration during the 2-2-306 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report design seismic event is significantly less than the peak value. A pseudo-static analysis using peak acceleration values can be a useful tool in a limit analysis where the peak acceleration is relatively low. In such analyses, the computed factor of safety may well exceed the minimum of 1.1, thus requiring no further analysis. However, where the peak seismic acceleration values are high, the pseudo-static analysis produces unreasonably low safety factor values.

The pseudo-static analysis was run using SLOPE/W. The peak horizontal acceleration used was 0.33g. This is the average peak acceleration in the top 55 feet of unimproved soil shown in Table 2.5-46, which shows the amplification of the acceleration values up through the unimproved soil column. The vertical acceleration used was 0.165g. The computed factor of safety was 0.91.

Seed (Reference 186), in the 19th Rankine Lecture, addressed the over-conservatism intrinsic in the pseudo-static analysis. He looked at the more rational approach proposed by Newmark (Reference 187), where the effective acceleration time-history is integrated to determine velocities and displacements of the slope. He also examined dams in California that had been subjected to seismic forces, including several dams that survived the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. Based on his studies, he concluded that for embankments that consist of materials that do not tend to build up large pore pressures or lose significant percentages of their shear strength during seismic shaking, seismic coefficients of only 0.15g are adequate to ensure acceptable embankment performance for earthquakes up to Magnitude M = 8.25 with peak ground accelerations of 0.75g. For earthquakes in the range of M = 6.5, Seed recommends a horizontal seismic coefficient of only 0.1g with a vertical seismic coefficient of zero.

The fabric and interlocking angular grain structure of the Zone IIA saprolite, along with the significant portion of low plasticity clay minerals present in the material, have been demonstrated to give the grain structure of the saprolite a low susceptibility to pore pressure build-up or liquefaction (Section 2.5.4.8). This material would not lose a significant proportion of its shear strength during shaking. Thus, with a design Magnitude M = 5.5, the pseudo-static analysis should be limited to a horizontal acceleration of only 0.1g. The pseudo-static analysis was again run using SLOPE/W. This time the horizontal acceleration used was 0.1g, with zero vertical acceleration. The computed factor of safety was about 1.41. The input to the analysis and the results are shown in Figure 2.5-70.

Other researchers have also recommended substantially reducing the peak acceleration when applying the pseudo-static analysis. Kramer (Reference 188) recommends using an acceleration of 50 percent of the peak acceleration. Using the average peak acceleration in the top 55 feet of 0.33g, the horizontal input using Kramers recommendation would be 0.165g.

This level of input provides a factor of safety against slope failure in excess of 1.1.

2-2-307 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report 2.5.5.3 Logs of Borings As noted in Section 2.5.5.1, two sample borings were drilled on or close to the existing 2h:1v slope to the north of the SWR. The logs of borings B-15 and B-18 are reproduced in Figure 2.5-71 and Figure 2.5-72, respectively.

2.5.5.4 Compacted Fill The existing 2h:1v slope described and analyzed in the previous sections is a cut slope and does not contain fill materials in any significant quantity.

2.5.5.5 Proposed New Slope As noted at the beginning of Section 2.5.5, a new slope may be excavated to the west of the SWR to accommodate UHSs for the new units. The new slope would be approximately the same height and would have the same 2h:1v slope as the existing slope discussed in Section 2.5.5.1 through Section 2.5.5.4. It would also be a cut slope like the existing slope, and would comprise similar materials to those in the existing slope. Therefore, the analytical conclusions for the existing slope would apply to the new slope, namely the new slope would be stable under seismic and long-term static conditions.

If the selected design for the new units requires that the new slope be constructed, and it is deemed that any failure of the slope could impact the new units, then investigation and analysis of the slope would be performed as part of detailed engineering and described in the COL application. If the analysis, based on the subsurface investigation results, showed an inadequate factor of safety against slope failure, then the design would be modified to eliminate any risk of slope failure. Such modification would include measures such as reducing the slope steepness, removing and replacing materials that could lose significant strength during the design earthquake, and/or ground improvement measures such as soil nailing.

2.5.5.6 Conclusions Existing slopes and embankments that are not impacted by the new units (such as the SWR embankments) are not analyzed. New slopes of the non-safety-related, deepened intake channel, which would be used for the normal cooling water system supply of the new units, would be analyzed during detailed design, if required. Such analysis is not part of the ESP SSAR.

The only existing slope whose failure could adversely affect the safety of the new units because of its proximity to the ESP site is a 55-foot high, 2h:1v slope that descends from north of the SWR down to south of the existing excavation made for abandoned Units 3 and 4. The slope is made almost entirely in cut material. Static long-term analyses of the existing slope using the computer program SLOPE/W gave values of factor of safety in excess of the minimum 1.5 required.

Pseudo-static analyses using ESP design values of horizontal and vertical seismic acceleration gave safety factor values less than the minimum acceptable value of 1.1. However, when the 2-2-308 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report seismic input was modified to conform to the reductions given by Seed (Reference 186), the computed safety factors against slope failure were well in excess of 1.1. The Seed reductions are considered reasonable and valid, and it is concluded that the SWR slope has an adequate factor of safety against failure.

A new slope may be excavated to the west of the SWR to accommodate UHSs for the new units.

The new slope would be approximately the same height, would have the same 2h:1v slope, and would have the same soil and rock characteristics as the existing slope that was analyzed. The analytical conclusions for the existing slope would apply to the new slope, namely the new slope would be stable under seismic and long-term static conditions. If analysis during the design stage of this slope indicates unacceptable factors of safety against slope failure, modifications would be employed to ensure adequate slope stability, including measures such as reducing the slope steepness, removing and replacing materials that could lose significant strength during the design earthquake, and/or ground improvement measures such as soil nailing.

2-2-309 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report 2.5.6 Embankments and Dams Because Lake Anna would only be used for normal plant cooling of the new units, the North Anna Dam, which is designed and constructed to meet requirements for a seismic Category I structure in support of the existing units, was not re-analyzed as part of this application. Analysis of the new non-safety-related deepened intake channel slopes for the new units would be performed during detailed design.

Construction of the new units would not adversely affect the slopes of the SWR for the existing units. There is an existing 55-foot high embankment to the north of the SWR and to the south of the new units. A similar embankment may be constructed to the west of the SWR to accommodate the buried UHS of certain reactor designs that might be constructed on the ESP site. Instability of these slopes could affect the new units. This is described and discussed in Section 2.5.5.

In summary, there are no embankments and dams to be addressed in this section.

2-2-310 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Section 2.5 References

1. Seismic Hazard Methodology for the Central and Eastern United States, Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Volumes 5-10, Tectonic Interpretations, July 1986.

2. Regulatory Guide 1.165, Identification and Characterization of Seismic Sources and Determination of Safe Shutdown Earthquake Ground Motion, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, March 1997.

3. Regulatory Guide 1.70, Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants, LWR Edition, Revision 3, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, November 1978.

4. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Section 100.23, Geologic and Seismic Siting Criteria, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, December 03, 2002.

5. Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, North Anna Power Station Units No. 1 and 2 Revision 38.

6. Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Safety Analysis Report, North Anna Power Station Units 1 and 2, Revision 3.

7. Site Environmental Studies, Proposed North Anna Power Station, Louisa County, Virginia, Virginia Electric and Power Company Report, (Included in Units 1 and 2 PSAR as Appendix A), Dames & Moore, January 13, 1969.

8. Site Environmental Studies, North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Proposed Units 3 and 4, Louisa County, Virginia, Virginia Electric Power Company Report, Dames and Moore, August 18, 1971.

9. Supplemental Geologic Data, North Anna Power Station, Louisa County, Virginia, Virginia Electric and Power Company Report, Dames & Moore, August 17, 1973.

10. Thelin, G. P., and R. J. Pike, Landforms of the Conterminous United States-A Digital Shaded-Relief Portrayal, U.S. Geological Survey, pamphlet to accompany Geological Investigation Series Map I-2206, April 17 1991.

11. Vigil, J. F., R. J. Pike, and D. G Howell. A Tapestry of Time and Terrain, U.S. Geological Survey, pamphlet to accompany U.S. Geological Survey, Geological Investigation Series Map I-2720, February 24, 2000.

12. Lane, C. F., Physiographic Provinces of Virginia, Virginia Geographer, Volume XV, Fall-Winter 1983.

2-2-311 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report

13. Hope Creek Generating Station, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Public Service Electrical and Gas Company, Revision 0, April 11, 1988.

14. College of William and Mary, The Geology of Virginia: Piedmont Province, Department of Geology Web Source, 1998: www.wm.edu/geology/virginia/piedmont.html.

15. Clark, G. M., R. E Behling, D. D. Braun, E. J. Ciolkosz, J. S. Kite, and B. Marsh. Central Appalachian Periglacial Geomorphology, A Field Excursion Guidebook under the auspices of the 27th International Geographical Congress, Commission on Frost Action Environments, Agronomy Series Number 120, August 1992, Reprinted January 1993.

16. Trapp, H., Jr. and M. A. Horn. Ground Water Atlas of the United States, Segment 11, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, U.S.

Geological Survey, Hydrologic Investigations Atlas, 730-L, 1997.

17. Edwards, J. E., Jr. A Brief Description of the Geology of Maryland, Maryland Geological Survey, Pamphlet Series, Web Source, 1981:

www.mgs.md.gov/esic/brochures/mdgeology.html.

18. Bingham, E. The Physiographic Provinces of Virginia, Virginia Geographer, Volume 23 (2),

Fall-Winter 1991.

19. Bates, R. L. and J. A. Jackson. Glossary of Geology, Third Edition, The American Geological Institute, 1995.

20. Bailey, C. M. The Geology of Virginia: Physiographic Map of Virginia, College of William and Mary, Department of Geology Web Source, 1999:

www.wm.edu/geology/virginia/phys_regions.html.

21. Hack, J. T. Geomorphology of the Appalachian Highlands, in R. D. Hatcher, Jr., W. A. Thomas, and G. W. Viele, eds., The Geology of North America, Volume F-2, The Appalachian-Ouachita Orogen in the United States, Geological Society of America, 1989.

22. Faill, R. T. A Geologic History of the North-Central Appalachians. Part 1. Orogenesis from the Mesoproterozoic through the Taconic Orogeny, American Journal of Science, June 1997, Volume 297, 551-619.

23. Fichter, L. S. and S. J. Baedke. The Geological Evolution of Virginia and the Mid-Atlantic Region: Chronology of Events in the Geologic History of Virginia, Stages A through M, James Madison University Web source, Last Update September 2000:

geollab.jmu.edu/vageol/vahist.html.

2-2-312 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report

24. Colton, G. W. The Appalachian Basin - Its Depositional Sequences and Their Geologic Relationships, Chapter 2 in Studies of Appalachian Geology: Central and Southern by G. W. Fisher, F. J. Pettijohn, J. C. Reed, Jr., and K. N. Weaver, Interscience Publishers, 1970.

25. Faill, R. T. A Geologic History of the North-Central Appalachians, Part 2: The Appalachian Basin from Silurian through the Carboniferous, American Journal of Science, Volume 297, 729-761, Summer 1997.

26. Faill, R. T. A Geologic History of the North-Central Appalachians, Part 3. The Allegheny Orogeny, American Journal of Science, Volume 298, 131-179, February 1998.

27. Conners, J. A. Quaternary Geomorphic Processes in Virginia, in The Quaternary of Virginia -

A Symposium Volume, edited by J. N. McDonald and S. O. Bird, Virginia Division of Mineral Resources, Publication 75, 1986.

28. Cleaves, E. T. Regoliths of the Middle-Atlantic Piedmont and Evolution of a Polymorphic Landscape, Southeastern Geology, Volume 39, Nos. 3 and 4, 199-122, October 2000.

29. King, P. B. and H. M. Beikman. Geologic Map of the United States, U.S. Geological Survey, 1974.

30. Fichter, L. S. and S. J. Baedke. The Geological Evolution of Virginia and the Mid-Atlantic Region: A Description of the Geology of Virginia, James Madison University Web Source, Last Update September 2000: gsmres.jmu.edu/geollab/vageol/vahist/PhysProv.html.

31. Markewich, H. W., M. J. Pavich, and G. R. Buell. Contrasting Soils and Landscapes of the Piedmont and Coastal Plain, Eastern United States, Geomorphology, Volume 3, 417-447, 1990.

32. Bledsoe, H. W., Jr. and I. W. Marine. Executive Summary, Review of Potential Host Rocks for Radioactive Waste Disposal in the Southeastern United States, prepared by E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company for the U.S. Department of the Energy, DP-1559, October 1980.

33. Pavlides, L., J. G. Arth, J. F. Sutter, T. W. Stern, and H. Cortesini, Jr. Early Paleozoic Alkalic and Calc-Alkalic Plutonism and Associated Contact Metamorphism, Central Virginia Piedmont, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1529, 1994.

34. Frye, K. Roadside Geology of Virginia, Mountain Press Publishing Company, 1986.

35. Spears, D. B., and C. M. Bailey. Geology of the central Virginia Piedmont between the Arvonia syncline and the Spotsylvania high-strain zone, Thirty-Second Annual Virginia Geological Conference, Charlottesville, Virginia, October 11-13, 2002.

2-2-313 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report

36. Pavlides, L. Early Paleozoic Composite Melange Terrane, Central Appalachian Piedmont, Virginia and Maryland: Its Origin and Tectonic History, Geological Society of America Special Paper 228, 135-193, 1989.

37. Pavlides, L. Revised Nomenclature and Stratigraphic Relationships of the Fredericksburg Complex and Quantico Formation of the Virginia Piedmont, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1146, 1980.

38. Bailey, C. M. The Geology of Virginia: Generalized Geologic Terrane Map of the Virginia Piedmont and Blue Ridge, College of William and Mary, Department of Geology Web Source, 1999: www.wm.edu/geology/virginia/phys_regions.html.

39. Rader, E. K., and N. H. Evans, editors. Geologic map of the Virginia - expanded explanation:

Virginia Division of Mineral Resources, 1993.

40. Pavlides, L. Geology of the Piedmont and Blue Ridge Provinces, Chapter II of the pamphlet to accompany the U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic Investigations Series Map I-2607, 2000.

41. Carter, J. B. Soil Survey of Louisa County, Virginia, United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, March 1976.

42. Sevon, W. D. Regolith in the Piedmont Upland section, Piedmont Province, York, Lancaster, and Chester Counties, Southeastern Pennsylvania, Southeastern Geology, Volume 39, No. 3 and 4, 223-241, October 2000.

43. Mixon, R. B. Overview of the Fredericksburg 30 x 60 Quadrangle, Virginia and Maryland, Chapter I of the pamphlet that accompanies the U.S. Geologic Investigations Series Map I-2607, 2000.

44. Conley, J. F. Geology of the Piedmont of Virginia - Interpretations and Problems, in Contributions to Virginia Geology - III: Virginia Division of Mineral Resources Publication 7, 115-149, 1978.

45. Hatcher, R. D., Jr. Tectonics of the southern and central Appalachian internides, Annual Reviews of Earth and Planetary Science, Volume 15, 337-362, 1987.

46. Horton, J. W., A. A. Drake, D. W. Rankin, and R. D. Dallmeyer. Preliminary Tectonostratigraphic Terrane Map of the Central and Southern Appalachians, U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-2163, 1991.

2-2-314 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report

47. Glover, L., III, J. K. Costain, and C. Coruh. Chapter 1. Tectonics of the central Appalachian orogen in the vicinity of corridor E-3, with implications for tectonics of the southern Appalachians, in L. Glover III, and K. D. Klitgord, Chief Compilers, E-3 Southwestern Pennsylvania to Baltimore Canyon Trough, Geological Society of America Continent/Ocean Transect #19, Explanatory Pamphlet, 2-49, 1995.

48. Williams, H., and R. D. Hatcher, Jr. Appalachian Suspect Terranes, in R. D. Hatcher, Jr.,

H. Williams, and I. Zeitz, eds., Contributions to the Tectonics and Geophysics of Mountain Chains, Geological Society of America Memoir 158, 33-53, 1983.

49. Wheeler, R. L. Earthquakes and the Cratonward Limit of Iapetan Faulting in Eastern North America, Geology, Volume 23, 105-108, 1995.

50. Zoback, M. L., and M. D. Zoback. Tectonic Stress Field of the Coterminous United States, in L. C. Pakiser and M. D. Mooney, eds., Geophysical Framework of the Continental United States, Geological Society of America Memoir 172, 523-539, 1989.

51. Zoback, M. L., et al. Global Patterns of Tectonic Stress, Nature, Volume 341, 291-298, 1989.

52. Zoback, M. L. Stress Field Constraints on Intraplate Seismicity in Eastern North America, Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 97, 11,761-11,782, 1992.

53. Coblentz, D. D., and R. M. Richardson. Statistical Trends in the Intraplate Stress Field, Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 100, 20,245-20, 255, 1995.

54. Richardson, R. M., and L. M. Reding. North American plate dynamics, Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 96, 12,201-12,223, 1991.

55. Turcotte, D. L., and G. Schubert. Geodynamics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 456 p., 2002.

56. Dahlen, F. A. Isostacy and Ambient State of Stress in the Oceanic Lithosphere, Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 86, 7801-7807, 1981.

57. Chapman, M. C., and F. Krimgold. Seismic Hazard Assessment for Virginia, Virginia Tech Seismological Observatory, Department of Geological Sciences, February 1994.

58. Bollinger, G. A., and R. L. Wheeler. The Giles County, Virginia, Seismic Zone - Seismological Results and Geological Interpretations, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1355, 1988.

2-2-315 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report

59. Crone, A. J. and R. L. Wheeler. Data for Quaternary Faults, Liquefaction Features, and Possible Tectonic Features in the Central and Eastern United States, east of the Rocky Mountain front, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-260, 2000.

60. Bobyarchick, A. R., and L. Glover. Deformation and Metamorphism in the Hylas Zone and Adjacent Parts of the Eastern Piedmont in Virginia, Geological Society of America Bulletin, Volume 90, 739-752, 1979.

61. Ratcliffe, N. M., W. C. Burton, R. M. D Angelo, and J. K. Costain. Seismic Reflection Geometry of the Newark Basin Margin in Eastern Pennsylvania, NUREG/CR-4676, 1986.

62. Manspeizer, W., J. DeBoer, J. K. Costain, A. J. Froelich, C. Coruh, P. E. Olsen, G. J. McHone, J. H. Puffer, and D. C. Prowell. Post-Paleozoic Activity, Geology of North America, v. F-2, The Appalachian-Ouachita Orogen in the United States, Geological Society of America, 1989.

63. Benson, R. N. Map of Exposed and Buried Early Mesozoic Rift Basins/Synrift Rocks of the U.S. Middle Atlantic Continental Margin, Delaware Geological Survey Miscellaneous Map Series No. 5, 1992.

64. Prowell, D. C. Index of Faults of Cretaceous and Cenozoic Age in the Eastern United States, U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-1269, 1983.

65. Newell, W. L., D. C. Prowell, and R. B. Mixon. Detailed Investigation of a Coastal Plain-Piedmont Fault Contact in Northeastern Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 76-329, 1976.

66. Mixon, R. B., L. Pavlides, D. S. Powars, A. J. Froelich, R. E. Weems, J. S. Schindler, W. L. Newell, L. E. Edwards, and L. W. Ward. Geologic Map of the Fredericksburg 30' x 60' Quadrangle, Virginia and Maryland, U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic Investigations Series Map I-2607, 2000.

67. Mixon, R. B., and W. L. Newell. Stafford Fault System: Structures Documenting Cretaceous and Tertiary Deformation Along the Fall Line in Northeastern Virginia, Geology, Volume 5, 437-440, 1977.

68. Mixon, R. B., and W. L. Newell. The Faulted Coastal Plain Margin at Fredericksburg, Virginia, Tenth Annual Virginia Geology Field Conference, October 1978.

69. Mixon, R. B., D. S. Powars, S. David, R. E. Weems, J. S. Schindler, and W. Newell. Upper Mesozoic and Cenozoic Deposits of the Atlantic Coastal Plain, in Mixon and others, 2000, U.S.

Geological Survey, Geologic Investigations Series I-2607, 17-28, 2000.

2-2-316 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report

70. Weems, R. E. Newly Recognized En Echelon Fall Lines in the Piedmont and Blue Ridge Provinces of North Carolina and Virginia, With a Discussion of Their Possible Ages and Origins, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 98-374, 1998.

71. Obermeier, S. F., and W. E. McNulty. Paleoliquefaction Evidence for Seismic Quiescence in Central Virginia During the Late and Middle Holocene Time [abs], Eos Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, Volume 79, No. 17, p S342, 1998.

72. Pavlides, L. Mountain Run Fault Zone of Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 87-93, 93-94, 1986

73. Pavlides, L., A. R. Bobyarchick, W. L. Newell, and M. Pavish. Late Cenozoic faulting along the Mountain Run Fault Zone, central Virginia Piedmont, GSA Abstracts with Programs, Volume. 15, No. 2, 1983.

74. Marple, R. T., and P. Talwani. Evidence for a Buried Fault System in the Coastal Plain of the Carolinas and Virginia - Implications for Neotectonics in the Southeastern United Sates, Geological Society of America Bulletin, Volume 112, No. 2., 200-220, February 2000.

75. Marple, R. T., and P. Talwani. Evidence for Possible Tectonic Upwarping Along the South Carolina Coastal Plain from an Examination of River Morphology and Elevation Data, Geology, Volume 21, 651-654, 1993.

76. Frankel, A. D., M. D. Petersen, C. S. Mueller, K. M. Haller, R. L. Wheeler, E. V. Leyendecker, R. L. Wesson, S. C. Harmsen, C. H. Cramer, D. M. Perkins, and K. S. Rukstales.

Documentation for the 2002 Update of the National Seismic Hazard Maps: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02-420, 2002.

77. Wheeler, R. L. and D. M. Perkins. Research, Methodology, and Applications of Probabilistic Seismic-hazard Mapping of the Central and Eastern United States, Minutes of a workshop on June 13-14, 2000 at Saint Louis University: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-0390, 2000.

78. Savy, J. B., W. Foxall, N. Abrahamson, and D. Bernreuter. Guidance for Performing Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis for a Nuclear Plant Site: Example Application to the Southeastern United States, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-CR/6607, 2002.

79. Bollinger, G. A. Specification of Source Zones, Recurrence Rates, Focal Depths, and Maximum Magnitudes for Earthquakes Affecting the Savannah River Site in South Carolina, U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2017, 1992.

2-2-317 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report

80. Bollinger, G. A., and M. S. Sibol. Seismicity, Seismic Reflection Studies, Gravity and Geology of the Central Virginia Seismic Zone: Part I. Seismicity, Geological Society of America Bulletin, Volume 96, 49-57, January 1985.

81. Bollinger, G. A., and M. G. Hopper. Virginia's Two Largest Earthquakes - December 22, 1875 and May 31, 1897, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Volume 61, No. 4, 1033-1039, 1971.

82. Wheeler, R. L., and A. C. Johnston. Geologic Implications of Earthquake Source Parameters in Central and Eastern North America, Seismological Research Letters, Volume 63, No. 4, 491-505, 1992.

83. Coruh, C., G. A. Bollinger, and J. K. Costain. Seismogenic structures in the central Virginia seismic zone, Geology, Volume 16, 748-751, August 1988.

84. Bollinger, G. A., M. S. Sibol, and M. C. Chapman. Maximum magnitude estimation for an intraplate setting - Example: The Giles County, Virginia, Seismic Zone, Seismological Research Letters, Volume 63, No. 2, p. 139, 1992.

85. Law, R. D., E. S. Robinson, M. Pope, and R. T. Williams. Folding and Faulting of Plio-Pleistocene Sediments in Giles County, SW Virginia: 1) Surface Data and Interpretation, Geological Society of America, Southeastern Section Meeting, Abstracts with Programs, Volume 32, No. 2, p. A-57, 2000.

86. Bollinger, G. A., R. D. Law, M. C. Pope, R. H. Wirgart, and R. S. Whitmarsh. Geologically Recent Near-surface Faulting in the Valley and Ridge Province: New exposures of extensional faults in alluvial deposits, Giles County, SW Virginia, Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs 1992 Annual Meeting, October 26-29, 1992.

87. Powell, C. A., G. A. Bollinger, M. C. Chapman, M. S. Sibol, and A. R. Johnston.

A Seismotectonic Model for the 300 Kilometer-Long Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone, Science, Volume 264, 686-688, April 1994.

88. Chapman, M. C., C. A. Powell, G. Vlahovic, and M. S. Sibol. A Statistical Analysis of Earthquake Focal Mechanisms and Epicenter Locations in the Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Volume 87, No. 6, 1522-1536, 1997.

89. Johnston, A. C., D. J. Reinbold, and S. I. Brewer. Seismotectonics of the Southern Appalachians, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Volume 75, No. 1, 291-312, February 1985.

2-2-318 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report

90. Johnston, A. C., Seismic moment assessment of earthquake in stable continental regions - III.

New Madrid 1811-1812, Charleston 1886 and Lisbon 1755, Geophysical Journal International, Volume 126, 314-344, 1996.

91. Talwani, P. and W. T. Schaeffer. Recurrence Rates of Large Earthquakes in the South Carolina Coastal Plain Based on Paleoliquefaction Fata, Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 106, No. B4, 6621-6642, 2001.

92. Talwani, P. An internally consistent pattern of seismicity near Charleston, South Carolina, Geology, Volume 10, 655-658, 1982.

93. Bakun, W. H., and M. G. Hopper. The 1811-1812 New Madrid, Missouri, and the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, Earthquakes, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 2003, in press.

94. Wheeler, C. M., and A. J. Crone. Known and Suggested Quaternary Faulting in the Mid-continent United States, Engineering Geology, Volume 62, 51-78, 2001.

95. Hough, S. E., J. G. Armbruster, L. Seeber, and J. F. Hough. On the Modified Mercalli intensities and magnitudes of the 1811-12 New Madrid earthquakes, Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 105, 23,839-23,864, 2000.

96. Johnston, A. C., and G. D. Schweig. The enigma of the New Madrid earthquakes of 1811-181, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Volume 24, 339-384, 1996.

97. Van Arsdale, R. B., K. I. Kelson, and C. H. Lurnsden. Northern Extension of the Tennessee Reelfoot Scarp into Kentucky and Missouri: Seismological Research Letters, Volume 66, No. 5., 57-62, 1995.

98. Kelson, K. I., G. D. Simpson, R. B. Van Arsdale, C. C. Haraden, and W. R. Lettis. Multiple late Holocene earthquakes along the Reelfoot fault, central New Madrid seismic zone, Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 101, No. B3, 6151-6170, 1996.

99. Mueller, K., J. Champion, M. Buccione, and K. Kelson. Fault slip rates in the modern New Madrid seismic zone, Science, Volume 286, 1135-1138, 1999.

100. Van Arsdale, R. B. Displacement History and Slip Rate on the Reelfoot Fault of the New Madrid Seismic Zone, Engineering Geology, Volume 55, 219-226, 2000.

101. Tuttle, M. P., and E. S. Schweig. Earthquake potential of the New Madrid seismic zone (ads.),

EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, Volume 81, S308-309, 2000.

2-2-319 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report 102. Glover, L., III, and K. D. Klitgord. E-3 Southwestern Pennsylvania to Baltimore Canyon Trough, Geological Society of America Centennial Continent/Ocean Transect #19, 1995.

103. Harris, L. D., W. deWitt, Jr., and K. C. Bayer. Interpretive seismic profile along Interstate I-64 from the Valley and Ridge to the Coastal Plain in central Virginia, United States Geological Survey Oil and Gas Investigations Chart OC-123, 1982.

104. Committee for the Gravity Anomaly Map of North America, Gravity Anomaly Map of North America, Geological Society of America, Continent-Scale Map-002, scale 1:5,000,000, 1987.

105. Marr, J. D., Jr. Geologic Map of the Western Portion of the Richmond 30 x 60 Minute Quadrangle, Virginia, Virginia Division of Mineral Resources, Publication 165, 2002.

106. North Anna Power Station, Units 3 and 4, Supplement Volume 2, Appendix E - Applicants Correspondence to the Atomic Energy Commission Relevant to the Geological Fault Investigation in Connection with the Construction of North Anna Power Station Units 3 and 4, Dockets Nos. 50-404 and 50-405, Virginia Electric Power Company, Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, February 20, 1974.

107. Geotechnical Report on Excavation, Reinforcement, and Final Conditions of Foundation Rock, North Anna Power Station - Units 3 and 4, report for Virginia Electric and Power Company, Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1975.

108. Safety Evaluation Report of the North Anna Power Station, Units 3 and 4, Supplement No. 3, Docket Nos. 50-404 and 50-405, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Directorate of Licensing, February 28, 1974.

109. ASTM D-6032-96, Standard Test Method for Determining Rock Quality Designation (RQD) of Rock Core, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).

110. Poole, J. L. Notes on Some Abandoned Copper, Lead, and Zinc Mines in the Piedmont of Virginia, Virginia Minerals, Volume 20, No. 2, May 1974.

111. Hickman, R. C. Pyrites, Mineral, Louisa county, Virginia, United States Department of the Interior - Bureau of Mines, Report of Investigations, R.I. 4116, August 1947.

112. Miller, J. W., and J. R. Craig. Ore Minerals of the Cofer Volcanogenic Massive Sulfide Deposit, Louisa County, Virginia, The Canadian Mineralogist, Volume 35, part 6, 1465-1483, December 1997.

2-2-320 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report 113. Pavlides, L., J. E. Gair, and S. L. Cranford. Massive Sulfide Deposits of the Southern Appalachians: Central Virginia Volcanic-Plutonic Belt as a Host for Massive Sulfide Deposits, Economic Geology and the Bulletin of the Society of Economic Geologists, Volume 77, No. 2, March-April 1982.

114. NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Section 2.5.2, Revision 3, March 1997.

115. Rept. NP-6395-D, Probabilistic seismic hazard evaluations at nuclear plant sites in the central and eastern United States: resolution of the Charleston earthquake issue. EPRI, April 1989.

116. EPRI 1008910, CEUS ground motion projectmodel development and results, EPRI, August 2003.

117. USDOE. Natural phenomena hazards design and evaluation criteria for Department of Energy facilities, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., Rept. DOE-STD-1020-2002, January 2002.

118. American Society of Civil Engineers, Seismic design criteria for structures, systems, and components in nuclear facilities and commentary, ASCE draft standard, July 25, 2003.

119. Risk Engineering, Inc. Technical basis for revision of regulatory guidance on design ground motions: hazard- and risk-consistent ground motion spectra guidelines, USNRC, Report NUREG/CR-6728, October 2001.

120. EPRI. Seismic Hazard Methodology for the Central and Eastern United States, EPRI Report NP-4726, July 1986.

121. Risk Engineering, Inc. EQHAZARD Primer, EPRI, Report NP-6452-D, July 1989.

122. Atkinson, G. M. and D. M. Boore (1995). Ground-motion relations for eastern North America.

Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., v. 85, n. 1, 17-30.

123. Frankel, A., C. Mueller, T. Barnhard, D. Perkins, E. V. Leyendecker, N. Dickman, S. Hanson, and M. Hopper. 1996, National seismic-hazard maps; documentation: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 96-532.

124. EPRI (1993). Guidelines for determining design basis ground motions. Volume 5:

Quantification of seismic source effects. EPRI Report TR-102293, Project 3302, Final Report, November 1993.

2-2-321 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report 125. Bollinger, G. A., Specification of Source Zones, Recurrence Rates, Focal Depths, and Maximum Magnitudes for Earthquakes Affecting the Savannah River Site in South Carolina, U.S. Geological Survey, Bulletin 2017, 1992.

126. Chapman, M. C., and F. Krimgold. Seismic Hazard Assessment for Virginia, Virginia Tech Seismological Observatory, Department of Geological Sciences, February 1994.

127. Frankel, A. D., M. D. Petersen, C. S. Mueller, K. M. Haller, R. L. Wheeler, E. V. Leyendecker, R. L. Wesson, S. C. Harmsen, C. H. Cramer, D. M. Perkins, and K. S. Rukstales.

Documentation for the 2002 Update of the National Seismic Hazard Maps, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02-420, 2002.

128. Kennedy, Robert C., and Stephen A. Short. Basis for seismic provisions of DOE-STD-1020, LLNL Rept. to U.S. Department of Energy, Report UCRL-CR-111478, April 1994.

R. C. Kennedy and S. A. Short (1994). Basis for seismic provisions of DOE-STD-1020, Lawrence Livermore Nat. Lab Rept. UCRL-CR-111478, Brookhaven Nat. Lab. Rept.

BNL-52418.

129. Sobel, P. Revised Livermore seismic hazard estimates for sixty-nine nuclear power plant sites east of the Rocky Mountains, USNRC, Rept. NUREG-1488, April 1994.

130. Jack R. Benjamin and Associates, Inc. Lower-bound magnitude for probabilistic seismic hazard assessment, EPRI, Rept. NP-6496, Oct. 1989. Also published as Reference 115, Appendix B.

131. Abrahamson, N. N., and W. J. Silva. Empirical response spectral attenuation relations for shallow crustal earthquakes, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 68, 1,94-127, Jan/Feb 1997.

132. Sadigh, K., C.-Y. Chang, J. A. Egan, F. Makdisi, and R. R. Youngs. Attenuation relationships for shallow crustal earthquakes based on California strong motion data, Bull. Seism. Soc.

Am., 68,1, 180-189, Jan/Feb 1997.

133. Campbell, K. W. Empirical near-source attenuation relationships for horizontal and vertical components of peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity, and pseudo-absolute acceleration response spectra, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 68,1, 154-179, Jan/Feb 1997.

134. Boore, D. M., W. B. Joyer, and T. E. Fumal. Equations for estimating horizontal response spectra and peak acceleration from western North American earthquakes, a summary of recent work, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 68, 1, 128-153, Jan/Feb 1997.

135. Chang, C. Y., et al. Engineering Characterization of Ground Motion - Task II: Observational Data on Spatial Variations of Earthquake Ground Motion, NUREG/CR-3805, Vol. 3, Prepared for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, February 1986.

2-2-322 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report 136. Jack R. Benjamin and Associates, Inc. and RPK Structural Mechanics Consulting. Analysis of High-Frequency Seismic Effects, Report EPRI TR-102470, prepared for EPRI, October 1993.

137. ASCE. Seismic Analysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures and Commentary, ASCE 4-98, published by the American Society of Civil Engineers.

138. Neuschel, S. K. Correlation of aeromagnetics and aeroradioactivity with lithology in the Spotsylvania area, Virginia, Geological Society of America Bulletin, vol. 81, no. 12, 3573-3582, 1970.

139. Lateral Continuity of a Pre- or Early Cretaceous Erosion Surface Across Neuschel's Lineament Northern Virginia, for Virginia Electric and Power Company, Dames & Moore, April 1977.

140. Safety Evaluation Report Related to Operation of North Anna Power Station Units 1 and 2, Supplement No. 5, Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339, USNRC, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, December 1976.

141. Pavlides, L. Geology of part of the northern Virginia Piedmont, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 90-548, 1:100,000 scale, 1990.

142. A Seismic Monitoring Program at the North Anna Site in Central Virginia, January 24, 1974 Through August 1, 1977, for Virginia Electric and Power Company, Dames & Moore, September 13, 1977.

143. Safety Evaluation Report Related to Operation of North Anna Power Station Units 1 and 2, Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339, USNRC, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, June 1976.

144. Safety Evaluation Report Related to Operation of North Anna Power Station Units 1 and 2, Supplement No. 2, Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339, USNRC, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, August 1976.

145. Review Standard RS-002, Processing Applications for Early Site Permits, Draft for Interim Use and Public Comment, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

146. Dames and Moore, Site Environmental Studies, Proposed North Anna Power Station, Louisa County, Virginia, Virginia Electric Power Company, Report, January 13, 1969.

147. Results of Geotechnical Exploration and Testing, North Anna ESP Project, Louisa County, Virginia, MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc., for Bechtel Power Corporation, February 11, 2003.

2-2-323 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report 148. Regulatory Guide 1.138, Laboratory Investigation of Soils for Engineering Analysis and Design of Nuclear Power Plants, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, April 1978.

149. Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1109, Laboratory Investigation of Soils and Rocks for Engineering Analysis and Design of Nuclear Power Plants, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, August 2001.

150. Bowles, J. E. Foundation Analysis and Design, Third Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1982.

151. Davie, J. R., and M. R. Lewis. Settlement of Two Tall Chimney Foundations, Proceedings, Second International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, St. Louis, MO, June 1988.

152. Terzaghi, K. Evaluation of Coefficients of Subgrade Reaction, Geotechnique, Volume 5, 1955.

153. Regulatory Guide 1.132, Site Investigations for Foundations of Nuclear Power Plants, Revision 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, March 1979.

154. Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1101, Site Investigations for Foundations of Nuclear Power Plants, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, February 2001.

155. ASTM D 1586 - 99, Test Method for Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).

156. ASTM D 2113 - 99, Practice for Rock Core Drilling and Sampling of Rock for Site Investigation, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).

157. ASTM D 4044 - 96, Test Method for Instantaneous Change in Head (Slug Tests) for Determining Hydraulic Properties of Aquifers, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).

158. ASTM D 5778 - 95(2000), Test Method for Performing Electronic Friction Cone and Piezocone Penetration Testing of Soils, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).

159. Seismic Survey of the North Anna Power Station, Virginia Electric and Power Company, Weston Geophysical Research, Inc., for Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation, February 1969. (Appendix 2B of the Unit 1 and 2 UFSAR).

160. Velocity Measurements, North Anna Power Station, Virginia Electric and Power Company, Weston Geophysical Research, Inc., for Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation, January 1970.

2-2-324 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report 161. ASTM D 4428/D 4428M - 00, Test Methods for Crosshole Seismic Testing, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).

162. OSHA 29 CFR Part 1926, Safety and Health Regulations for Construction.

163. Geotechnical Report on Excavation, Reinforcement, and Final Conditions of Foundation Rock, North Anna Power Station - Units 3 and 4, Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation for Virginia Electric and Power Company, July 1, 1975.

164. Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, North Anna Power Station, Units 3 and 4, Supplement Volume 2, Appendix E - Applicants Correspondence to the Atomic Energy Commission Relevant to the Geological Fault Investigation in Connection with the Construction of North Anna Power Station Units 3 and 4, Dockets Nos. 50-404 and 50-405, Virginia Electric Power Company, February 20, 1974.

165. ASTM D 1557 - 00, Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).

166. Road and Bridge Specifications, Virginia Department of Transportation, Richmond, VA, 2002.

167. Seed, H. B., and I. M. Idriss. Soil Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic Response Analyses, Report No. UCB/EERC-70/10, University of California, Berkeley, December 1970.

168. Seed, H. B., R. T. Wong, I. M. Idriss, and K. Tokimatsu. Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic Analyses of Cohesionless Soils, Report No. UCB/EERC-84/14, University of California, Berkeley, September 1984.

169. Sun, J. I., R. Golesorkhi, and H. B. Seed. Dynamic Moduli and Damping Ratios for Cohesive Soils, Report No. UCB/EERC-88/15, University of California, Berkeley, August 1988.

170. Guidelines for Determining Design Basis Ground Motions, Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Volumes 1-5, EPRI TR-102293, Palo Alto, CA, 1993.

171. McGuire, R. K., W. J. Silva, and C. J. Constantino. Technical Basis for Revision of Regulatory Guidance on Design Ground Motions: Hazard and Risk-Consistent Ground Motion Spectra Guidelines, NUREG/CR6728, October, 2001.

172. Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1105, Procedures and Criteria for Assessing Seismic Soil Liquefaction at Nuclear Power Plant Sites, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, March 2001.

173. Liquefaction of Soils During Earthquakes, Committee on Earthquake Engineering, National Research Council, National academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1985.

2-2-325 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report 174. Soil Failure/Liquefaction Susceptibility Analysis for North Anna Power station Seismic Margin Assessment, Geotechnics for Virginia Power Company, December 1994.

175. Seed, H. B., and I. M. Idriss. Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Monograph, Oakland, CA, 1982.

176. Pavich, M. J., L. Brown, J. N. Valette-Silver, J. Klein, and R. Middleton. 10Be Analysis of a Quaternary Weathering Profile in the Virginia Piedmont, Geology, Volume 13, January 1985.

177. Bierschwale, J. G., and K. H. Stokoe. Analytical Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential of Sands Subjected to the 1981 Westmoreland Earthquake, Geotechnical Engineering Report GR-84-15, Civil Engineering Department, University of Texas, Austin, Texas, 1984.

178. Youd, T. L. et al. Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction of Soils, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Environmental Engineering, Volume 127, No. 10, October 2001.

179. Tokimatsu, K. and H.B. Sneed. Evaluation of Settlements on Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Volume 113, No. 8, August 1997.

180. Vesic, A. S. Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations, in Foundation Engineering Handbook, H. F. Winterkorn and H-Y Fang, Editors, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, 1975.

181. DAppolonia, E., D. J. DAppolonia, and R. D. Ellison. Drilled Piers, in Foundation Engineering Handbook, H. F. Winterkorn and H-Y Fang, Editors, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, 1975.

182. Peck, R. B., W. E. Hanson, and T. H. Thornburn. Foundation Engineering, Second Edition, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1974.

183. Engineering and Design, Stability of Earth and Rock-Fill Dams, Department of the Army, April 1970.

184. SLOPE/W for Slope Stability Analysis, Version 4, GEO-SLOPE International Ltd., 1998.

185. Fang, H.-Y. Stability of Earth Slopes, in Foundation Engineering Handbook, H. F. Winterkorn and H-Y Fang, Editors, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, 1975.

186. Seed, H. B. Considerations in the Earthquake-Resistant Design of Earth and Rockfill Dams, Geotechnique, Volume 29, No. 3, 1979.

187. Newmark, N. M. Effects of Earthquakes on Dams and Embankments, Geotechnique, Volume 15, No. 2, 1965.

2-2-326 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report 188. Kramer, S. L. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1996.

189. McGuire, R. K., G. R. Toro, and W. J Silva, Engineering model of earthquake ground motion for eastern North America, EPRI Rept. NP-6074, October 1988.

190. Boore, D. M., and G. M. Atkinson, Stochastic prediction of ground motion and spectral response parameters at hard-rock sites in eastern North America, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am, 77, 2, 1987.

191. Nuttli, O. W. Letter dated September 19, 1986, to J. B. Savy, in D. Bernreuter et al. Seismic hazard characterization of 69 nuclear plant sites east of the Rocky Mountains: questionnaires, USNRC, Rept NUREG/CR-5250, Vol. 7, 1989.

192. Newmark, N. M, and W. J. Hall. Earthquake spectra and design, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, CA, 1982.

193. Priebe, H. J. Design Criteria for Ground Improvement by Stone Columns, Fourth National Conference on Ground Improvement, Lahore, Pakistan, January 1993.

194. Clemente, J. L. M., and J. R. Davie. Stone Columns for Settlement Reduction, Proceedings, GeoEng 2000, Melbourne, Australia, November 2000.

2-2-327 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.5-1 Definitions of Classes Used in the Compilation of Quaternary Faults, Liquefaction Features, and Deformation in the Central and Eastern United States (After Crone and Wheeler, 2000)

Class Category Definition Class A Geologic evidence demonstrates the existence of a Quaternary fault of tectonic origin, whether the fault is exposed for mapping or inferred from liquefaction to other deformational features.

Class B Geologic evidence demonstrates the existence of a fault or suggests Quaternary deformation, but either: 1) the fault might not extend deeply enough to be a potential source of significant earthquakes, or 2) the currently available geologic evidence is too strong to confidently assign the feature to Class C but not strong enough to assign it to Class A.

Class C Geologic evidence is insufficient to demonstrate: 1) the existence of tectonic fault, or

2) Quaternary slip or deformation associated with the feature.

Class D Geologic evidence demonstrates that the feature is not a tectonic fault or feature; this category includes features such as demonstrated joints or joint zones, landslides, erosional or fluvial scarps, or landforms resembling fault scarps, but of demonstrable non-tectonic origin.

2-2-328 Revision 0 September 2003

Table 2.5-2 Quaternary Faults, Liquefaction Features, and Possible Tectonic Features Within the Site Region (200-Mile Radius) (Modified from Crone)

Distance Post-Physiographic from Site EPRI Info. Fault Length Feature State County Province (mi.) Class (1986) (mi.)

Central VA Seismic zone VA 14 counties Piedmont 0 A No NAa Mountain Run/Everona fault zone VA Orange, Culpeper, Fauquier Piedmont 19 C No 60-90 Lebanon Church fault VA Albemarle Blue Ridge 45 C No NRb Upper Marlboro faults MD Prince Georges Coastal Plain 75 C No NAa Old Hickory faults VA Dinwiddie, Sussex Coastal Plain 78 C Yes 0.6-0.09 Stanleytown-Villa Heights fault VA Henry Piedmont 144 C No ~0.1 Lancaster fault zone PA Lancaster Piedmont 157 C No NAa Lindside fault zone VA, WV Giles (VA) Appalachian Plateaus 162 C Yes >30 Pembroke faults VA Giles Valley and Ridge 163 B Yes NAa Hares Crossroads fault NC Johnston Coastal Plain 165 C No NRb Cacoosing Valley earthquake PA Berks Valley and Ridge 186 C Yes NAa

a. NA: Not Applicable

b. NR: Not Reported North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 2-2-329 September 2003

Table 2.5-3 Site Area Stratigraphic Column (5-Mile Radius)

North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 2-2-330 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.5-4 Earthquakes 1985-2001, m3.0, within 35°N-41°N and 74°W-82°W Latitude Longitude Depth Year Month Day North West km mb m(coda) m(int) ML m(unk) Source 1985 6 10 37.248 80.485 11.1 3.2 2.8 3.3 VT 1986 3 26 37.245 80.494 11.9 2.9 3.3 VT 1986 12 3 37.58 77.458 1.6 1.5 3.3 VT 1986 12 10 37.585 77.468 1.2 2.5 2.2 3.5 VT 1986 12 24 37.583 77.458 1 1.6 3.3 VT 1987 1 13 37.584 77.465 2.5 1.9 3.3 VT 1988 5 28 39.753 81.613 0 3.4 ANSS 1988 8 27 37.718 77.775 14.3 2.7 3.3 VT 1990 1 13 39.366 76.851 4.1 2.5 2.6 3.5 VT 1991 3 15 37.746 77.909 15.5 3.8 3.3 3.5 VT 1991 4 22 37.942 80.205 14.8 3.5 3.5 3.3 VT 1991 6 28 38.231 81.335 7 3.0 VT 1991 8 15 40.786 77.657 1 3.0 ANSS 1992 1 9 40.363 74.341 7.9 3.1 ANSS 1993 3 10 39.233 76.882 5 2.5 3.3 VT 1993 3 15 39.197 76.87 0.9 2.7 2.1 3.5 VT 1993 7 12 36.035 79.823 5 2.7 3.3 VT 1993 10 28 39.25 76.77 2.1 3.3 VT 1993 10 28 39.25 76.77 1.8 3.3 VT 1994 1 16 40.327 76.007 5 4.2 ANSS 1994 1 16 40.33 76.037 5 4.6 ANSS 1994 8 6 35.101 76.786 0 3.6 3.8 3.5 VT 1995 6 26 36.752 81.481 1.8 3.4 3.3 VT 1995 7 7 36.493 81.833 10 3.0 3.1 VT 1997 11 14 40.146 76.252 5 3.0 ANSS 1997 11 14 40.741 76.549 0 3.0 VT 1998 6 5 35.554 80.785 9.4 3.2 3.4 VT 1998 10 21 37.422 78.439 12.6 3.8 3.4 VT 2001 9 22 38.026 78.396 0.4 3.2 2.5 VT 2001 12 4 37.726 80.752 8.5 3.1 VT 2-2-331 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.5-5 Summary of Bechtel Seismic Sources Contributed New Information to Suggest Distancea Smoothing to 99% Change in Source:

Mmax (mb) Options of EPRI Source Description (km) (mi) Pab and Wts.c and Wts.d Hazarde Geometry?f Mmax?g RI?h Sources within 200 mi (320 km)

E Central Virginia 0 0 0.35 5.4 [0.10] 1 [0.33] Yes No No No 5.7 [0.40] 2 [0.34]

6.0 [0.40] 4 [0.33]

6.6 [0.10]

BZ5 S. Appalachians 0 0 1.00 5.7 [0.10] 1 [0.33] Yes No No No 6.0 [0.40] 2 [0.34]

6.3 [0.40] 3 [0.33]

6.6 [0.10]

24 Bristol Trends 61 38 0.25 5.7 [0.10] 1 [0.33] Yes No No No 6.0 [0.40] 2 [0.34]

6.3 [0.40] 4 [0.33]

6.6 [0.10]

BZ4 Atlantic Coastal 144 90 1.00 6.6 [0.10] 1 [0.33] Yes No No No Region 6.8 [0.40] 2 [0.34]

7.1 [0.40] 3 [0.33]

7.4 [0.10]

17 Stafford fault 0 0 0.10 5.4 [0.10] 1 [0.33] No No No No zone 5.7 [0.40] 2 [0.34]

6.0 [0.40] 4 [0.33]

6.6 [0.10]

13 Eastern 5 3 0.10 5.4 [0.10] 1 [0.33] No No No No Mesozoic 5.7 [0.40] 2 [0.34]

Basins 6.0 [0.40] 4 [0.33]

6.6 [0.10]

25 NY-Alabama 189 118 0.30 5.4 [0.10] 1 [0.33] No No No No Lineament 5.7 [0.40] 2 [0.34]

6.0 [0.40] 4 [0.33]

6.6 [0.10]

23 Lebanon Trend 211 131 0.05 5.4 [0.10] 1 [0.33] No No No No 5.7 [0.40] 2 [0.34]

6.0 [0.40] 4 [0.33]

6.6 [0.10]

19 Giles County 221 137 0.35 5.7 [0.10] 1 [0.33] No No No No 6.0 [0.40] 2 [0.34]

6.3 [0.40] 4 [0.33]

6.6 [0.10]

2-2-332 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.5-5 Summary of Bechtel Seismic Sources Contributed New Information to Suggest Distancea Smoothing to 99% Change in Source:

Mmax (mb) Options of EPRI Source Description (km) (mi) Pab and Wts.c and Wts.d Hazarde Geometry?f Mmax?g RI?h BZ6 SE. Craton 229 142 1.00 5.4 [0.10] 1 [0.33] No No No No Region 5.7 [0.40] 2 [0.34]

6.0 [0.40] 3 [0.33]

6.6 [0.10]

F SE. 274 170 0.35 5.4 [0.10] 1 [0.33] No No No No Appalachians 5.7 [0.40] 2 [0.34]

6.0 [0.40] 4 [0.33]

6.6 [0.10]

Selected Sources Beyond 200 mi (320 km)

H Charleston Area 545 339 0.50 6.8 [0.20] 1 [0.33] No Yes; No Yes; 7.1 [0.40] 2 [0.34] ECFS RI of 7.4 [0.40] 4 [0.33] Southern 550 Section yrs N3 Charleston 579 359 0.53 6.8 [0.20] 1 [0.33] No Yes; No Yes; Faults 7.1 [0.40] 2 [0.34] ECFS RI of 7.4 [0.40] 4 [0.33] Southern 550 Section yrs

a. Closest Distance between site and source measured in Bechtel GIS system using EPRI source files.

b. Pa = probability of activity; from Reference 121

c. Maximum Magnitude (Mmax) and weights (wts.); from Reference 121

d. Smoothing options are defined as follows (from Reference 121):

1 = constant a, constant b (no prior b);

2 = low smoothing on a, high smoothing on b (no prior b);

3 = low smoothing on a, low smoothing on b (no prior b);

4 = low smoothing on a, low smoothing on b (weak prior of 1.05).

Weights on magnitude intervals are [1.0, 1.0, 1.0, 1.0, 1.0, 1.0, 1.0].

e. Did the source contribute to 99% of EPRI hazard calculated at NAPS?; from Table 2.5-18.

f. No, unless new geometry proposed in literature.

g. No, unless EPRI Mmax exceeded in literature. For Charleston, Mmax from Reference 127 and weights even though new magnitude estimates do not generally exceed majority of EPRI Mmax values.

h. RI = recurrence interval; assumed no change if no new paleoseismic data or rate of seismicity has not significantly changed per Section 2.5.2.6.5.

2-2-333 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.5-6 Summary of Dames & Moore Seismic Sources Contributed New Information to Suggest Distancea Smoothing to 99% Change in Source:

Mmax (mb) Options of EPRI Source Description (km) (mi) Pab and Wts.c and Wts.d Hazarde Geometry?f Mmax?g RI?h Sources within 200 mi (320 km) 41 S. Cratonic 0 0 0.12 6.1 [0.80] 1 [0.75] Yes No No No Margin (Default 7.2 [0.20] 2 [0.25]

Zone) 53 S. Appalachian 6 4 0.26 5.6 [0.80] 1 [0.75] Yes No No No Mobile Belt 7.2 [0.20] 2 [0.25]

(Default Zone) 40 Central VA 24 15 1.00 6.6 [0.80] 1 [0.75] Yes No No No Seismic Zone 7.2 [0.20] 2 [0.25]

42 Newark- 32 20 0.40 6.3 [0.75] 3 [0.75] Yes No No No Gettysburg 7.2 [0.25] 4 [0.25]

Basin 47 Connecticut 41 25 0.28 6.0 [0.75] 3 [0.75] Yes No No No Basin 7.2 [0.25] 4 [0.25]

4 Appalachian 74 46 0.35 6.0 [0.80] 1 [0.75] Yes No No No Fold Belts 7.2 [0.20] 2 [0.25]

4B Kink in Fold Belt 145 90 0.65 6.2 [0.75] 3 [0.75] Yes No No No (Giles Co. Area) 7.2 [0.25] 4 [0.25]

44 Stafford Fault 34 21 1.00 5.0 [0.80] 1 [0.69] No No No No Zone 7.2 [0.20] 2 [0.23]

3 [0.06]

4 [0.02]

C01 Combination 74 46 NA 6.0 [0.80] 1 [0.75] No No No No zone 7.2 [0.20] 2 [0.25]

4-4A-4B-4C-4D 45 Hopewell Fault 87 54 1.00 5.0 [0.80] 1 [0.69] No No No No Zone 7.2 [0.20] 2 [0.23]

3 [0.06]

4 [0.02]

46 Dan River Basin 118 74 0.28 6.0 [0.75] 3 [0.75] No No No No 7.2 [0.25] 4 [0.25]

4C Kink in Fold Belt 173 108 0.65 5.0 [0.75] 3 [0.75] No No No No 7.2 [0.25] 4 [0.25]

48 Buried Triassic 175 108 0.28 6.0 [0.75] 3 [0.75] No No No No Basins 7.2 [0.25] 4 [0.25]

2-2-334 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.5-6 Summary of Dames & Moore Seismic Sources Contributed New Information to Suggest Distancea Smoothing to 99% Change in Source:

Mmax (mb) Options of EPRI Source Description (km) (mi) Pab and Wts.c and Wts.d Hazarde Geometry?f Mmax?g RI?h 8 E. Marginal 188 117 0.08 5.6 [0.80] 1 [0.75] No No No No Basin 7.2 [0.20] 2 [0.25]

C02 Combination 188 117 NA 5.6 [0.80] 1 [0.75] No No No No zone 8-9 7.2 [0.20] 2[0.25]

49 Jonesboro 204 127 0.28 6.0 [0.75] 3 [0.75] No No No No Basin 7.2 [0.25] 4 [0.25]

6 Rome Trough 218 135 0.24 5.0 [0.75] 3 [0.75] No No No No 7.2 [0.25] 4 [0.25]

7 Dunkard Basin 281 175 0.38 5,7 [0.75] 3 [0.75] No No No No 7.2 [0.25] 4 [0.25]

50 Buried Triassic 290 180 0.28 6.0 [0.75] 3 [0.75] No No No No Basins 7.2 [0.25] 4 [0.25]

Selected Sources Beyond 200 mi (320 km) 54 Charleston 533 331 1.00 6.6 [0.75] 1 [0.22] No Yes; ECFS No Yes; Seismic Zone 7.2 [0.25] 2 [0.08] Southern RI of 3 [0.52] Section 550 4 [0.18] yrs

a. Closest Distance between site and source measured in Bechtel GIS system using EPRI source files.

b. Pa = probability of activity; from Reference 121

c. Maximum Magnitude (Mmax) and weights (wts.); from Reference 121

d. Smoothing options are defined as follows (from Reference 121):

1 = No smoothing on a, no smoothing on b (strong prior of 1.04);

2 = No smoothing on a, no smoothing on b (weak prior of 1.04);

3 = Constant a, constant b (strong prior of 1.04);

4 = Constant a, constant b (weak prior of 1.04).

Weights on magnitude intervals are [0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 1.0, 1.0, 1.0, 1.0]

e. Did the source contribute to 99% of EPRI hazard calculated at NAPS?; from Table 2.5-18.

f. No, unless new geometry proposed in literature.

g. No, unless EPRI Mmax exceeded in literature. For Charleston, Mmax from Reference 127 and weights even though new magnitude estimates do not generally exceed majority of EPRI Mmax values.

h. RI = recurrence interval; assumed no change if no new paleoseismic data or rate of seismicity has not significantly changed per Section 2.5.2.6.5.

2-2-335 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.5-7 Summary of Law Engineering Seismic Sources Contributed New Information to Suggest Distancea Smoothing to 99% Change in Source:

Mmax (mb) Options of EPRI Source Description (km) (mi) Pab and Wts.c and Wts.d Hazarde Geometry?f Mmax?g RI?h Sources within 200 mi (320 km) 17 Eastern 0 0 0.62 5.7 [0.20] 1b [1.00] Yes No No No Basement 6.8 [0.80]

217 Eastern 0 0 1.00 4.9 [0.50] 1b [1.00] Yes No No No Basement 5.7 [0.50]

Background

GC011 22 - 35 7 4 NA 6.8 [1.00] 2a [1.00] Yes No No No 107 Eastern 7 4 1.00 4.9 [0.30] 1a [1.00] Yes No No No Piedmont 5.5 [0.40]

5.7 [0.30]

22 Reactivated E. 7 4 0.27 6.8 [1.00] 2a [1.00] Yes No No No Seaboard Normal M22 Mafic Pluton 23 14 0.43 6.8 [1.00] 5 [1.00] Yes No No No GC09 Mesozoic 28 18 NA 5.0 [0.20] 1c [1.00] Yes No No No Basins (8 - 5.8 [0.50]

Bridged) 7.4 [0.30]

C10 Combination 28 18 NA 6.8 [1.00] 2a [1.00] Yes No No No Zone 8-35 M21 Mafic Pluton 47 29 0.43 6.8 [1.00] 5 [1.00] Yes No No No M23 Mafic Pluton 73 45 0.43 6.8 [1.00] 5 [1.00] Yes No No No M20 Mafic Pluton 79 49 0.43 6.8 [1.00] 5 [1.00] Yes No No No M24 Mafic Pluton 81 50 0.43 6.8 [1.00] 5 [1.00] Yes No No No M27 Mafic Pluton 152 94 0.43 6.8 [1.00] 5 [1.00] Yes No No No M19 Mafic Pluton 159 98 0.43 6.8 [1.00] 5 [1.00] Yes No No No GC13 22 35 7 4 NA 6.8 [1.00] 2a [1.00] No No No No GC12 22 - 24 7 4 NA 6.8 [1.00] 2a [1.00] No No No No 105 Northern 60 37 1.00 4.6 [0.90] 1a [1.00] No No No No Coastal Plain 4.9 [0.10]

M25 Mafic Pluton 84 52 0.43 6.8 [1.00] 5 [1.00] No No No No M26 Mafic Pluton 112 70 0.43 6.8 [1.00] 5 [1.00] No No No No 2-2-336 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.5-7 Summary of Law Engineering Seismic Sources Contributed New Information to Suggest Distancea Smoothing to 99% Change in Source:

Mmax (mb) Options of EPRI Source Description (km) (mi) Pab and Wts.c and Wts.d Hazarde Geometry?f Mmax?g RI?h 8 Mesozoic Basins 194 120 0.27 6.8 [1.00] a and b No No No No values calculated for C09 M28 Mafic Pluton 200 124 0.43 6.8 [1.00] 5 [1.00] No No No No M18 Mafic Pluton 211 131 0.43 6.8 [1.00] 5 [1.00] No No No No M29 Mafic Pluton 220 136 0.43 6.8 [1.00] 5 [1.00] No No No No 112 Ohio-Pennsylvania 223 138 1.00 4.6 [0.20] 1a [1.00] No No No No Block 5.1 [0.50]

5.5 [0.30]

M30 Mafic Pluton 240 149 0.43 6.8 [1.00] 5 [1.00] No No No No M17 Mafic Pluton 272 169 0.43 6.8 [1.00] 5 [1.00] No No No No M16 Mafic Pluton 281 175 0.43 6.8 [1.00] 5 [1.00] No No No No 101 Western New 313 194 1.00 4.5 [0.15] 1c [1.00] No No No No England 5.5 [0.85]

M31 Mafic Pluton 321 199 0.43 6.8 [1.00] 5 [1.00] No No No No Selected Sources Beyond 200 mi (320 km) 35 Charleston Seismic 560 348 0.45 6.8 [1.00] 2a [1.00] No Yes; ECFS No Yes; Zone Southern RI of Section 550 yrs

a. Closest Distance between site and source measured in Bechtel GIS system using EPRI source files.

b. Pa = probability of activity; from Reference 121

c. Maximum Magnitude (Mmax) and weights (wts.); from Reference 121

d. Smoothing options are defined as follows (from Reference 121):

1a = High smoothing on a, constant b (strong prior of 1.05);

1b = High smoothing on b, constant b (strong prior of 1.00);

1c = High smoothing on a, constant b (strong prior of 0.95);

1d = High smoothing on a, constant b (strong prior of 0.90);

1e = High smoothing on a, constant b (strong prior of 0.70);

2a = Constant a, constant b (strong prior of 1.05);

2c = Constant a, constant b (strong prior of 0.95);

2d = Constant a, constant b (strong prior of 0.90).

Weights on magnitude intervals are all 1.0 for above options.

3a = High smoothing on a, constant b (strong prior of 1.05).

Weights on magnitude intervals are [0.0, 1.0, 1.0, 1.0, 1.0, 1.0, 1.0] for option 3a.

e. Did the source contribute to 99% of EPRI hazard calculated at NAPS?; from Table 2.5-18.

f. No, unless new geometry proposed in literature.

2-2-337 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report

g. No, unless EPRI Mmax exceeded in literature. For Charleston, Mmax from Reference 127 and weights even though new magnitude estimates do not generally exceed majority of EPRI Mmax values.

h. RI = recurrence interval; assumed no change if no new paleoseismic data or rate of seismicity has not significantly changed per Section 2.5.2.6.5.

2-2-338 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.5-8 Summary of Rondout Seismic Sources Contributed New Information to Suggest Distancea Smoothing to 99% Change in Source:

Mmax (mb) Options of EPRI Source Description (km) (mi) Pab and Wts.c and Wts.d Hazarde Geometry?f Mmax?g RI?h Sources within 200 mi (320 km) 29 Central VA 0 0 1.00 6.6 [0.30] 1 [1.00] Yes No No No 6.8 [0.60] (a=-0.900, 7.0 [0.10] b=0.930) 30 Shenandoah 0 0 0.96 5.2 [0.30] 1 [1.00] Yes No No No 6.3 [0.55] (a=-1.710, 6.5 [0.15] b=1.010) 28 Giles County 188. 117 1.00 6.6 [0.30] 1 [1.00] Yes No No No 4 6.8 [0.60] (a=-1.130, 7.0 [0.10] b=0.900) 49 Appalachian 66.9 42 1.00 4.8 [0.20] 2 [1.00] No No No No 5.5 [0.60]

5.8 [0.20]

C01 Background 49 67 42 NA 4.8 [0.20] 3 [1.00] No No No No 5.5 [0.60]

5.8 [0.20]

C09 49+32 67 42 NA 4.8 [0.20] 3 [1.00] No No No No 5.5 [0.60]

5.8 [0.20]

50 Grenville 106. 66 1.00 4.8 [0.20] 2 [1.00] No No No No 9 5.5 [0.60]

5.8 [0.20]

C07 50 (02) + 12 107 66 NA 4.8 [0.20] 3 [1.00] No No No No 5.5 [0.60]

5.8 [0.20]

C02 Background 50 107 66 NA 4.8 [0.20] 3 [1.00] No No No No 5.5 [0.60]

5.8 [0.20]

32 Norfolk Fracture 114.1 71 0.67 5.8 [0.15] 1 [1.00] No No No No Zone 6.5 [0.60] (a=-2.110, 6.8 [0.25] b=1.040) 31 Quakers 210. 131 1.00 5.8 [0.15] 1 [1.00] No No No No 3 6.5 [0.60] (a=-1.200, 6.8 [0.25] b=0.960)

Selected Sources Beyond 200 mi (320 km) 24 Charleston 526 327 1.00 6.6 [0.20] 1 [1.00] No Yes; ECFS No Yes; 6.8 [0.60] (a=-0.710, Southern RI of 7.0 [0.20] b=1.020) Section 550 yrs 2-2-339 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report

a. Closest Distance between site and source measured in Bechtel GIS system using EPRI source files.

b. Pa = probability of activity; from Reference 121

c. Maximum Magnitude (Mmax) and weights (wts.); from Reference 121

d. Smoothing options are defined as follows (from Reference 121):

1, 6, 7, 8 = a, b values as listed above, with weights shown; 3 = Low smoothing on a, constant b (strong prior of 1.0);

5 = a, b values as listed above, with weights shown.

e. Did the source contribute to 99% of EPRI hazard calculated at NAPS?; from Table 2.5-18.

f. No, unless new geometry proposed in literature.

g. No, unless EPRI Mmax exceeded in literature. For Charleston, Mmax from Reference 127 and weights even though new magnitude estimates do not generally exceed majority of EPRI Mmax values.

h. RI = recurrence interval; assumed no change if no new paleoseismic data or rate of seismicity has not significantly changed per Section 2.5.2.6.5.

2-2-340 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.5-9 Summary of Weston Seismic Sources Contributed New Information to Suggest Distancea Smoothing to 99% Change in Source:

Mmax (mb) Options of EPRI Source Description (km) (mi) Pab and Wts.c and Wts.d Hazarde Geometry?f Mmax?g RI?h Sources within 200 mi (320 km) 22 Central VA Seismic 0 0 0.82 5.4 [0.19] 1b [1.00] Yes No No No Zone 6.0 [0.65]

6.6 [0.16]

C21 104-25 0 0 NA 5.4 [0.24] 1a [0.30] Yes No No No 6.0 [0.61] 2a [0.70]

6.6 [0.15]

C22 104-26 0 0 NA 5.4 [0.24] 1a [0.30] Yes No No No 6.0 [0.61] 1b [0.70]

6.6 [0.15]

C34 104-28BE-26 0 0 NA 5.4 [0.24] 1a [0.20] Yes No No No 6.0 [0.61] 1b [0.80]

6.6 [0.15]

C35 104-28BE-25 0 0 NA 5.4 [0.24] 1a [0.20] Yes No No No 6.0 [0.61] 1b [0.80]

6.6 [0.15]

C23 104-22-26 17 10 NA 5.4 [0.80] 1a [0.50] Yes No No No 6.0 [0.14] 2a [0.50]

6.6 [0.06]

C19 103-23-24 43 27 NA 5.4 [0.26] 1a [1.00] Yes No No No 6.0 [0.58]

6.6 [0.16]

104 Southern Coastal 0 0 1.00 5.4 [0.24] 1a [0.20] No No No No Plain 6.0 [0.61] 2a [0.80]

6.6 [0.15]

C25 104-28BCDE 0 0 NA 5.4 [0.24] 1a [0.30] No No No No 6.6 [0.61] 2a [0.70]

6.6 [0.15]

C20 104-22 17 10 NA 6.0 [0.85] 1a [0.30] No No No No 6.6 [0.15] 2a [0.70]

C24 104-22-25 17 10 NA 5.4 [0.80] 1a [0.50] No No No No 6.0 [0.14] 2a [0.50]

6.6 [0.06]

C26 104-28BCDE-22 17 11 NA 5.4 [0.24] 1a [0.30] No No No No 6.0 [0.61] 2a [0.70]

6.6 [0.15]

C27 104-28BCDE-22-2 17 11 NA 5.4 [0.30] 1a [0.70] No No No No 5 6.0 [0.70] 2a [0.30]

C28 104-28BCDE-22-2 17 11 NA 5.4 [0.30] 1a [0.70] No No No No 6 6.0 [0.70] 2a [0.30]

2-2-341 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.5-9 Summary of Weston Seismic Sources Contributed New Information to Suggest Distancea Smoothing to 99% Change in Source:

Mmax (mb) Options of EPRI Source Description (km) (mi) Pab and Wts.c and Wts.d Hazarde Geometry?f Mmax?g RI?h 28B Zone of Mesozoic 24 15 0.26 5.4 [0.65] 1b [1.00] No No No No Basin 6.0 [0.25]

6.6 [0.10]

C01 28A thru E 24 15 NA 5.4 [0.65] 1b [1.00] No No No No 6.0 [0.25]

6.6 [0.10]

28E Zone of Mesozoic 41 25 0.26 5.4 [0.65] 1b [1.00] No No No No Basin 6.0 [0.25]

6.6 [0.10]

103 Southern 43 27 1.00 5.4 [0.26] 1a [0.20] No No No No Appalachians 6.0 [0.58] 2a [0.80]

6.6 [0.16]

C17 103-23 43 27 NA 5.4 [0.26] 1a [0.70] No No No No 6.0 [0.58] 2a [0.30]

6.6 [0.16]

C18 103-24 43 27 NA 5.4 [0.26] 1a [0.70] No No No No 6.0 [0.58] 1b [0.30]

6.6 [0.16]

28D Zone of Mesozoic 116 72 0.26 5.4 [0.65] 1b [1.00] No No No No Basin 6.0 [0.25]

6.6 [0.10]

28C Zone of Mesozoic 142 88 0.26 5.4 [0.65] 1b [1.00] No No No No Basin 6.0 [0.25]

6.6 [0.10]

23 Giles County 213 132 0.90 6.0 [0.81] 1b [1.00] No No No No Seismic Zone 6.6 [0.19]

102 Appalachian 234 145 1.00 5.4 [0.62] 1a [0.20] No No No No Plateau 6.0 [0.29] 2a [0.80]

6.6 [0.09]

101 S. 236 147 1.00 5.4 [0.19] 1a [0.20] No No No No Ontario-Ohio-India 6.0 [0.68] 2a [0.80]

na 6.6 [0.13]

C12 101-7 236 147 NA 5.4 [0.19] 1a [0.70] No No No No 6.0 [0.68] 2a [0.30]

6.6 [0.13]

C13 101-8 236 147 NA 5.4 [0.19] 1a [0.70] No No No No 6.0 [0.68] 2a [0.30]

6.6 [0.13]

C14 101-29 236 147 NA 5.4 [0.19] 1a [0.70] No No No No 6.0 [0.68] 2a [0.30]

6.6 [0.13]

2-2-342 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.5-9 Summary of Weston Seismic Sources Contributed New Information to Suggest Distancea Smoothing to 99% Change in Source:

Mmax (mb) Options of EPRI Source Description (km) (mi) Pab and Wts.c and Wts.d Hazarde Geometry?f Mmax?g RI?h C15 101-7-8 236 147 NA 5.4 [0.19] 1a [0.70] No No No No 6.0 [0.68] 2a [0.30]

6.6 [0.13]

C16 101-7-8-29 236 147 NA 5.4 [0.19] 1a [1.00] No No No No 6.0 [0.68]

6.6 [0.13]

24 New 255 159 0.90 5.4 [0.26] 1b [1.00] No No No No York-Alabama- 6.0 [0.58]

Clingman 6.6 [0.16]

21 New York Nexus 296 184 1.00 5.4 [0.62] 1b [`.00] No No No No 6.0 [0.29]

6.6 [0.09]

28A Mesozoic Basin 296 184 0.26 5.4 [0.65] 1b [1.00] No No No No 6.0 [0.25]

6.6 [0.10]

C07 21-19 296 184 NA 5.4 [0.62] 1b [0.70] No No No No 6.0 [0.29] 2b [0.30]

6.6 [0.09]

C08 21-19-10A 296 184 NA 5.4 [0.62] 1b [0.70] No No No No 6.0 [0.29] 2b [0.30]

6.6 [0.09]

C09 21-19-10A-28A 320 199 NA 5.4 [0.62] 1b [1.00] No No No No 6.0 [0.29]

6.6 [0.09]

C10 21-19-28A 320 199 NA 5.4 [0.62] 1b [1.00] No No No No 6.0 [0.29]

6.6 [0.09]

Selected Sources Beyond 200 mi (320 km) 25 Charleston Seismic 532 330 0.99 6.6 [0.90] 1b [1.00] No Yes; ECFS No Yes; Zone 7.2 [0.10] Southern RI of Section 550 yrs

a. Closest Distance between site and source measured in Bechtel GIS system using EPRI source files.

b. Pa = probability of activity; from Reference 121

c. Maximum Magnitude (Mmax) and weights (wts.); from Reference 121 2-2-343 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report

d. Smoothing options are defined as follows (from Reference 121):

1a = Constant a, constant b (medium prior of 1.0);

1b = Constant a, constant b (medium prior of 0.9);

1c = Constant a, constant b (medium prior of 0.7);

2a = Medium smoothing on a, medium smoothing on b (medium prior of 1.0);

2b = Medium smoothing on a, medium smoothing on b (medium prior of 0.9);

2c = Medium smoothing on a, medium smoothing on b (medium prior of 0.7).

e. Did the source contribute to 99% of EPRI hazard calculated at NAPS?; from Table 2.5-18.

f. No, unless new geometry proposed in literature.

g. No, unless EPRI Mmax exceeded in literature. For Charleston, Mmax from Reference 127 and weights even though new magnitude estimates do not generally exceed majority of EPRI Mmax values.

h. RI = recurrence interval; assumed no change if no new paleoseismic data or rate of seismicity has not significantly changed per Section 2.5.2.6.2.

2-2-344 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.5-10 Summary of Woodward-Clyde Seismic Sources Contributed New Information to Suggest Distancea Smoothing to 99% Change in Source:

Mmax (mb) Options of EPRI Source Description (km) (mi) Pab and Wts.c and Wts.d Hazarde Geometry?f Mmax?g RI?h Sources within 200 mi (320 km)

B22 North Anna 0 0 1.00 5.8 [0.33] 1 [0.25] Yes No No No Background 6.2 [0.34] 6 [0.25]

6.6 [0.33] 7 [0.25]

8 [0.25]

26 Central VA Gravity 4 3 0.434 5.4 [0.33] 2 [0.25] Yes No No No Saddle 6.5 [0.34] 3 [0.25]

7.0 [0.33] 4 [0.25]

5 [0.25]

27 State Farm 5 3 0.474 5.6 [0.33] 2 [0.25] Yes No No No Complex 6.3 [0.34] 3 [0.25]

6.9 [0.33] 4 [0.25]

5 [0.25]

28 Richmond Basin 41 26 0.092 5.3 [0.33] 3 [0.33] No No No No 6.0 [0.34] 4 [0.34]

7.2 [0.33] 5 [0.33]

61 Tyrone-Mt. Union 76 47 0.048 5.4 [0.33] 3 [0.33] No No No No Lineament 6.5 [0.34] 4 [0.34]

7.1 [0.33] 5 [0.33]

63 Pittsburg- 186 116 0.050 5.4 [0.33] 3 [0.33] No No No No Washington 6.3 [0.34] 4 [0.34]

Lineament 7.1 [0.33] 5 [0.33]

21 New Jersey 192 120 0.135 5.3 [0.33] 2 [0.10] No No No No Isostatic Gravity 6.5 [0.34] 3 [0.10]

Saddle 6.9 [0.33] 4 [0.10]

5 [0.10]

9 [0.60]

(a=-1.406, b=1.020) 21A New Jersey 192 120 0.045 5.5 [0.33] 2 [0.10] No No No No Isostatic Gravity 6.3 [0.34] 3 [0.10]

Saddle No. 2 7.1 [0.33] 4 [0.10]

(Combo C2) 5 [0.10]

9 [0.60]

(a=-1.406, b=1.020) 31A Blue Ridge 209 130 0.211 5.9 [0.33] 2 [0.25] No No No No Combination - 6.3 [0.34] 3 [0.25]

Alternate 7.0 [0.33] 4 [0.25]

Configuration 5 [0.25]

2-2-345 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.5-10 Summary of Woodward-Clyde Seismic Sources Contributed New Information to Suggest Distancea Smoothing to 99% Change in Source:

Mmax (mb) Options of EPRI Source Description (km) (mi) Pab and Wts.c and Wts.d Hazarde Geometry?f Mmax?g RI?h 53 SE NY/NJ/PA 247 153 0.100 5.5 [0.33] 2 [0.10] No No No No NOTA Zone 6.3 [0.34] 3 [0.10]

6.8 [0.33] 4 [0.10]

5 [0.10]

9 [0.60]

(a=-1.406, b=1.020) 22 Newark Basin 259 161 0.078 5.5 [0.33] 2 [0.10] No No No No 6.5 [0.34] 3 [0.10]

7.1 [0.33] 4 [0.10]

5 [0.10]

9 [0.60]

(a=-1.503, b=0.776)

Selected Sources Beyond 200 mi (320 km) 29 S. Carolina Gravity 416 259 0.122 6.7 [0.33] 2 [0.25] Yes No No No Saddle (Extended) 7.0 [0.34] 3 [0.25]

7.4 [0.33] 4 [0.25]

5 [0.25]

29A SC Gravity Saddle 426 264 0.305 6.7 [0.33] 2 [0.25] Yes No No No No. 2 (Combo C3) 7.0 [0.34] 3 [0.25]

7.4 [0.33] 4 [0.25]

5 [0.25]

29B SC Gravity Saddle 416 259 0.183 5.4 [0.33] 2 [0.25] No No No No No. 3 (NW Portion) 6.0 [0.34] 3 [0.25]

7.0 [0.33] 4 [0.25]

5 [0.25]

30 Charleston 551 342 0.573 6.8 [0.33] 2 [0.10] No Yes; ECFS No Yes; (includes NOTA) 7.3 [0.34] 3 [0.10] Southern RI of 7.5 [0.33] 4 [0.10] Section 550 5 [0.10] yrs 9 [0.60]

(a = -1.005, b

= 0.852)

a. Closest Distance between site and source measured in Bechtel GIS system using EPRI source files.

b. Pa = probability of activity; from Reference 121

c. Maximum Magnitude (Mmax) and weights (wts.); from Reference 121 2-2-346 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report

d. Smoothing options are defined as follows (from Reference 121):

1 = Low smoothing on a, high smoothing on b (no prior);

2 = High smoothing on a, high smoothing on b (no prior);

3 = High smoothing on a, high smoothing on b (moderate prior of 1.0);

4 = High smoothing on a, high smoothing on b (moderate prior of 0.9);

5 = High smoothing on a, high smoothing on b (moderate prior of 0.8);

6 = Low smoothing on a, high smoothing on b (moderate prior of 1.0);

7 = Low smoothing on a, high smoothing on b (moderate prior of 0.9);

8 = Low smoothing on a, high smoothing on b (moderate prior of0.8).

Weights on magnitude intervals are all 1.0.

9 = a and b values as listed.

e. Did the source contribute to 99% of EPRI hazard calculated at NAPS?; from Table 2.5-18.

f. No, unless new geometry proposed in literature.

g. No, unless EPRI Mmax exceeded in literature. For Charleston, Mmax from Reference 127 and weights even though new magnitude estimates do not generally exceed majority of EPRI Mmax values.

h. RI = recurrence interval; assumed no change if no new paleoseismic data or rate of seismicity has not significantly changed per Section 2.5.2.6.5.

2-2-347 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.5-11 Comparison of EPRI Characterizations of the Central Virginia Seismic Zone Largest Mmax Value Contributed Distancea Considered by EPRI Team to 99%

EPRI Mmax (mb) of EPRI Team Source Description km mi Pab and Wts.c mb Me Hazardd Bechtel E Central Virginia 0 0 0.35 5.4 [0.10] 6.6 6.49 Yes 5.7 [0.40]

6.0 [0.40]

6.6 [0.10]

Dames & 40 Central VA 24 15 1.00 6.6 [0.80] 7.2 7.51 Yes Moore Seismic Zone 7.2 [0.20]

Law na na na na na na na na na Engineeringf Rondout 29 Central VA 0 0 1.00 6.6 [0.30] 7.0 7.16 Yes 6.8 [0.60]

7.0 [0.10]

Weston 22 Central VA 0 0 0.82 5.4 [0.19] 6.6 6.49 Yes Seismic Zone 6.0 [0.65]

6.6 [0.16]

Woodward- 26 Central VA 4 3 0.434 5.4 [0.33] 7.0 7.16 Yes Clyde Gravity Saddle 6.5 [0.34]

Consultants 7.0 [0.33]

Range of Largest Mmax Value Considered by EPRI Teams = mb 6.6 - 7.2 M 6.5 - 7.5 Average of Largest Mmax Values for 5 EPRI Teams (mb) = 6.9 Average of Largest Mmax Values for 5 EPRI Teams (M) = 7.0

a. Closest distance between site and source measured in Bechtel GIS system using EPRI source files.

b. Pa = probability of activity; from Reference 121

c. Maximum Magnitude (Mmax) and weights (wts.); from Reference 121

d. Source contribution to 99% of EPRI hazard at North Anna from Table 2.5-18.

e. mb converted from M as described in Section 2.5.2.2.1.

f. Law Engineering team did not define a Central VA seismic zone, but did define several mafic pluton sources in the central VA area. The seismicity parameters for the pluton sources were calculated from a large region surrounding each pluton, which effectively captured a majority of seismicity from the Central Virginia seismic zone, as described in Section 2.5.2.6.1.

2-2-348 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.5-12 Seismic Source Zone Parameters from Bollinger Study (Reference 125)

Focal Depth Distribution (km)

Upper Bound Lower Bound Mmax (DU) (DL)

Source Description a b mbLga Msa Mb 10% Quantile 90% Quantile RZ6 Central VA 1.18 0.64 6.40 7.10 6.20 4.5 13.4 RZ3 Giles County, VA 1.07 0.64 6.30 6.80 6.06 4.4 15.1 CZ1 Complementary 2.70 0.84 5.75 5.80 5.36 3.3 18.5 (Background)

LZ1 Charleston, SC 1.69 0.77 6.90 8.10 6.98 5.0 10.2 RZ4A Eastern TN 2.72 0.90 7.35 8.75 7.78 7.6 20.8 RZ4 Eastern TN 2.72 0.90 6.45 7.15 6.27 7.6 20.8 RZ5 NW SC and SW NC 2.14 0.82 6.00 6.20 5.66 2.3 11.2 LZ3 South Carolina 1.86 0.80 6.00 6.20 5.66 0.8 7.4 Piedmont and Coastal Plain LZ4 SC Fall Line 1.58 0.81 6.25 6.50 5.99 0.9 6.1 LZ2 Bowman, SC 1.34 0.78 6.00 6.20 5.66 2.4 5.8 LZ5 Area of LZ3 minus 1.70 0.80 6.00 6.20 5.66 0.9 6.5 Area of LZ4 LZ6 Savannah River Site 1.34 0.80 6.50 7.20 6.34 0.8 7.4 RZ1 New Madrid, MO 3.32 0.91 7.35 8.75 7.78 3.0 11.6 (small)

RZ2 New Madrid, MO 3.43 0.88 6.70 7.65 6.65 2.8 12.4 (large)

a. mb and Ms values presented in Reference 125. The mb to Ms conversion was defined by Nuttli in a written communication to Bollinger.

b. M converted from mbLg as described in Section 2.5.2.6.5.

2-2-349 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.5-13 Seismic Source Zone Parameters from Chapman and Krimgold Study (Reference 126)

Approx.

Distancea Area M max c,d Mmaxe Source Description km mi. (sq. km) ab bb (mbLg) (M) (mb) 1 Giles County, VA 210 130 5.1 x 103 1.07 0.64 7.25 7.53 7.22 4

2 Central VA 0 0 2.0 x 10 1.18 0.64 7.25 7.53 7.22 3 Eastern TN 510 317 3.7 x 104 2.72 0.90 7.25 7.53 7.22 4

4 Southern Appalachians (VA, NC, SC, TN) 150 93 7.6 x 10 2.42 0.84 7.25 7.53 7.22 5 Northern VA, MD 60 37 4.3 x 104 1.63 0.84 7.25 7.53 7.22 4

6 Central Appalachians (PA, NJ, NY) 180 112 6.8 x 10 2.84 0.98 7.25 7.53 7.22 7 Piedmont - Coastal Plain 25 16 4.4 x 105 2.32 0.84 7.25 7.53 7.22 3

8 Charleston, SC 570 354 1.2 x 10 1.69 0.77 7.25 7.53 7.22 9 Appalachian Foreland (TN, KY, OH, WVA, PA) 175 109 6.5 x 105 3.36 1.00 7.25 7.53 7.22 3

10 New Madrid, MO 1015 631 6.1 x 10 3.32 0.91 7.25 7.53 7.22

a. Closest Distance between site and source estimated (approximately) from Figure 1 in Reference 126.

b. a and b values from Reference 126.

c. Values listed in Reference 126. With the exception of New Madrid, they assumed all sources would have the same Mmax as the largest EQ to have occurred in the southeastern U.S. region, the 1886 Charleston, SC event.

d. Note that more recent estimates of Charleston EQ magnitude are lower than M 7.53.

M 7.3 +0.26/-0.26 Reference 90 M 6.8 +0.3/-0.4 Reference 189

e. mb converted from M as described in Section 2.5.2.2.1.

2-2-350 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.5-14 Summary of Selected USGS Seismic Sources (Reference 127)

Largest Mmax Value Considered Mmax by USGS (M)

Description and Wts. M mb a Sources within 200 mi (320 km)

Extended Margin Background 7.5 [1.00] 7.5 7.20 Selected Sources Beyond 200 mi (320 km)

Charleston 6.8 [0.20] 7.5 7.20 7.1 [0.20]

7.3 [0.45]

7.5 [0.15]

New Madrid 7.3 [0.15] 8.0 7.49 7.5 [0.20]

7.7 [0.50]

8.0 [0.15]

Stable Craton Background 7.0 [1.00] 7.0 6.91

a. mb converted from M as described in Section 2.5.2.2.1.

Table 2.5-15 1989 EPRI PSHA Study Models Model Description Weight McGuire et al. Model developed by EPRI 0.5 (Reference 189)

Boore and Atkinson Published model 0.25 (Reference 190)

Nuttli Published model for peak parameters, combined with Newmark-Hall 0.25 (Reference 191) (Reference 192) amplification factors 2-2-351 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.5-16 Comparison of PGA Results for North Anna Using 1989 EPRI Sources and Ground Motion Models Ground motion (PGA) Original 1989a Replicated 1989 Differencea Mean 50 cm/s2 1.6E-3 1.62E-3 +1%

2 50% 50 cm/s 1.4E-3 1.32E-3 -5%

85% 50 cm/s2 2.9E-3 2.92E-3 +1%

Mean 250 cm/s2 7.0E-5 7.09E-5 +1%

50% 250 cm/s2 4.8E-5 4.79E-5 0 85% 250 cm/s2 1.3E-4 1.35E-4 +4%

mean 500 cm/s2 9.3E-6 9.46E-6 +2%

50% 500 cm/s2 5.5E-6 5.62E-6 +2%

85% 500 cm/s2 1.7E-5 1.76E-5 +4%

a. 1989 results are only available to 2 digits accuracy in Reference 115, which could lead to a +5% apparent difference.

Table 2.5-17 Comparison of Spectral Velocity Results for North Anna Using 1989 EPRI Sources and Ground Motion Models Parameter Original 1989a Replicated 1989 Difference Median 1E-5 1 Hz amplitude 14.0 cm/s 14.2 cm/s +1%

Median 1E-5 2.5 Hz amplitude 14.5 cm/s 14.5 cm/s 0%

Median 1E-5 5 Hz amplitude 13.3 cm/s 13.7 cm/s +3%

Median 1E-5 10 Hz amplitude 10.4 cm/s 10.3 cm/s -1%

a. Reference 115, Appendix E, Table 3-62 2-2-352 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.5-18 Seismic Sources Contributing to 99% of Hazard for Each 1989 EPRI Team Earth Science Team Sources used Bechtel 24, E, BZ4, BZ5 Dames & Moore 4, 40, 41, 42, 47, 4b, 53 Law Engineering 17, 107, 22, 217, C09, C10, C11, M19, M20, M21, M22, M23, M24, M27 Rondout Associates 28, 29, 30 Woodward-Clyde Cons. 26, 27, 29, 29A, B22 Weston Geophysical Corp. 22, C19, C21, C22, C23, C34, C35 Table 2.5-19 Significant Seismic Source at North Anna by 1989 EPRI Team Seismic Earth Science Team source Description Bechtel E Central VA seismic zone BZ5 Local background Dames & Moore 40 Central VA seismic zone Law Engineering 17 Eastern basement M22 Local mafic pluton source Rondout Association 29 Central VA seismic zone Woodward-Clyde Consultants 27 Central VA seismic zone 26 Alternate Central VA seismic zone B22 Local background Weston Geophysical 22 Central VA seismic zone Corporation Table 2.5-20 Controlling Earthquake Magnitude and Distances 1989 EPRI Sources and Ground Motion Models mb Ma repi, km r CD b , km Low frequency (1 and 2.5 Hz) 6.2 5.9 31 29 High frequency (5 and 10 Hz) 5.9 5.5 21 20

a. M converted from mb as described in Section 2.5.2.2.1.

b. rCD converted from repi as given in Reference 116, model F3.

2-2-353 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.5-21 Spectral Amplitudes Using 1989 EPRI Sources And Ground Motion Models Frequency Median/Mean 1989 Ground Motions 10-5 median 0.0910 g 1 Hz

-5 10 mean 0.219 g 10-5 median 0.232 g 2.5 Hz 10-5 mean 0.519 g 10-5 median 0.439 g 5 Hz 10-5 mean 0.753 g 10-5 median 0.660 g 10 Hz 10-5 mean 0.827 g Table 2.5-22 Updated Seismic Hazard Results at ESP Site Frequency Median/Mean Updated Models 1989 Models Difference 10-5 median 0.0961 g 0.0910 g +6%

1 Hz 10-5 mean 0.134 g 0.219 g -39%

10-5 median 0.316 g 0.232 g +36%

2.5 Hz 10-5 mean 0.364 g 0.519 g -30%

10-5 median 0.639 g 0.439 g +46%

5 Hz 10-5 mean 0.735 g 0.753 g -2%

-5 10 median 1.020 g 0.660 g +55%

10 Hz 10-5 mean 1.216 g 0.827 g +47%

Table 2.5-23 Controlling Earthquake Magnitude and Distances, Updated Models mb Ma repi, km r CD b , km Low frequency (1 and 2.5 Hz) 5.9 5.6 25 24 high frequency (5 and 10 Hz) 5.7 5.3 17 17

a. M converted from mb as described in Section 2.5.2.2.1.

b. rCD converted from repi as given in Reference 116, model F3.

2-2-354 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.5-24 Summary of Performance-Based Spectrum Calculations, Base Case Frequency Mean 1 x 10-4 Mean 1 x 10-5 Hz Amplitude, g Amplitude, g AR SF A(f), g 0.5 0.0298 0.0944 3.17 1.51 0.0450 1 0.0463 0.134 2.89 1.40 0.0648 2.5 0.120 0.364 3.03 1.46 0.175 5 0.235 0.735 3.13 1.49 0.350 10 0.373 1.216 3.26 1.54 0.574 25 0.569 1.99 3.50 1.63 0.930 100 (PGA) 0.214 0.753 3.52 1.64 0.351 Table 2.5-25 Spectral Accelerations Corresponding to Mean 5 x 10-5 Annual Frequency Spectral Acceleration at Combined Average spectral Frequency 5 x 10-5, g frequency, Hz Acceleration, g 1 0.0652 1.75 0.118 2.5 0.170 5 0.339 7.5 0.443 10 0.547 Table 2.5-26 Controlling Earthquake Magnitudes and Distances Corresponding to Mean 5 x 10-5 Annual Frequency Frequencies M rCD, km Low (1 and 2.5 Hz) 5.5 30 High (5 and 10 Hz) 5.3 23 2-2-355 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.5-27 Summary of Spectrum Calculations for Sensitivity Study with Increased Alternate Minimum Magnitude Frequency Mean 1 x 10-4 Mean 1 x 10-5 Hz Acceleration, g Acceleration, g AR SF A(f), g 0.5 0.0289 0.0942 3.26 1.54 0.0446 1 0.0453 0.133 2.94 1.42 0.0643 2.5 0.108 0.344 3.19 1.52 0.164 5 0.194 0.657 3.39 1.59 0.309 10 0.291 1.033 3.55 1.65 0.481 25 0.427 1.60 3.75 1.73 0.737 100 (PGA) 0.160 0.607 3.79 1.74 0.279 Table 2.5-28 Summary of Spectrum Calculations for Sensitivity Study with Alternate Aleatory Ground Motion Uncertainties Frequency Mean 1 x 10-4 Mean 1 x 10-5 Hz Acceleration, g Acceleration, g AR SF A(f), g 0.5 0.0241 0.0688 2.85 1.39 0.0335 1 0.0424 0.119 2.81 1.37 0.0581 2.5 0.114 0.335 2.94 1.42 0.162 5 0.23 0.683 2.97 1.43 0.330 10 0.356 1.089 3.06 1.47 0.522 25 0.519 1.76 3.39 1.59 0.827 100 (PGA) 0.2 0.658 3.29 1.56 0.311 2-2-356 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.5-29 Zone IIA Constituents Coarse-Grained Fine-Grained SC Thickness Location Sampled, ft SP/GP SM ML MH/CL/CH Units 1&2 2204 9.4% 67.8% 1.5% 20.3% 1%

Units 3&4 1112 17.5% 78.8% 3.7% a SWR 1223 23.3% 44.7% 22.7% 6.3% 3%

ISFSI 451 45.5% 2.4% 47% 5.1%

ESP 105 2.4% 68.5% 20.2% 8.9%

Average 10.5% 61.1% 10.1% 14.7% 3.6%

Sources: Table 2.5-30 through Table 2.5-36, and Table 2.5-38

a. Dash in box denotes absence of that constituent at that location 2-2-357 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.5-30 Summary of Units 1&2 BoringsSoils Borehole Details Soil Zone Thickness Zone IIA N-Values Northing Easting Elev. Depth Fill I IIA IIB Range Median Boring ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft No. blows/ft blows/ft 1 144,104 2,204,897 275 87 -a 1 35 7 24 to 600 138 2 144,381 2,204,733 285 97 3 29 3 144,667 2,204,564 279 80 2 33 4 144,000 2,204,665 291 104 25 5 144,175 2,204,567 294 116 1 20 7 6 144,348 2,204,464 289 110 1 28 7 144,559 2,204,340 275 151 55 8 143,897 2,204,438 299 97 1 7 9 144,176 2,204,273 281 92 8 55 10 144,463 2,204,108 256 79 2 31 7 17 to 1220 151 11 143,794 2,204,206 307 107 22 7 12 143,964 2,204,103 289 106 1 17 13 144,139 2,204,000 270 90 24 14 144,358 2,203,876 275 87 1 42 15 143,742 2,203,980 317 117 5 34 5 16 143,971 2,203,814 297 117 30 17 144,253 2,203,655 271 94 1 67 18 143,582 2,203,751 314 130 1 21 19 143,751 2,203,649 298 120 3 22 20 143,932 2,203,549 283 104 2 18 21 144,144 2,203,423 275 93 10 37 22 143,479 2,203,521 317 123 4 49 23 143,758 2,203,356 305 97 1 7 10 24 144,041 2,203,191 293 90 3 57 25 143,371 2,203,289 305 112 1 49 26 143,655 2,203,126 297 97 4 2 27 143,938 2,202,959 279 92 4 36 4 16 to 107 36 28 144,060 2,204,552 295 115 25 2-2-358 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.5-30 Summary of Units 1&2 BoringsSoils Borehole Details Soil Zone Thickness Zone IIA N-Values Northing Easting Elev. Depth Fill I IIA IIB Range Median Boring ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft No. blows/ft blows/ft 29 144,129 2,204,515 294 115 13 7 30 144,015 2,204,418 293 92 24 31 144,036 2,204,256 281 100 7 32 143,960 2,204,294 288 109 15 34 144,297 2,204,385 286 86 45 35 144,238 2,204,136 273 75 40 5 36 144,206 2,204,139 272 72 60 37 144,711 2,204,201 251 65 50 38 144,675 2,204,103 244 57 40 39 143,985 2,204,582 293 112 31 15 40 143,892 2,204,320 297 112 4 11 27 41 143,335 2,203,820 326 77 77 42 142,737 2,204,067 305 76 76 43 143,737 2,204,722 285 60 2 42 8 6 69 to 140 88 44 143,119 2,204,974 275 76 76 45 143,282 2,204,569 309 76 76 46 143,167 2,204,242 317 75 4 71 47 143,528 2,204,284 302 76 76 48 143,020 2,204,469 294 76 6 70 49 144,222 2,204,490 291 120 42 50 144,123 2,204,232 287 83 53 9 4 to 65 9 51 144,703 2,202,598 253 20 2 52 143,765 2,202,970 285 27 9 18 53 144,082 2,202,414 301 27 19 8 54 144,402 2,201,850 300 27 3 24 55 144,474 2,202,231 323 27 9 18 101 145,187 2,203,051 282 92 5 36 102 142,058 2,205,639 288 100 70 15 2-2-359 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.5-30 Summary of Units 1&2 BoringsSoils Borehole Details Soil Zone Thickness Zone IIA N-Values Northing Easting Elev. Depth Fill I IIA IIB Range Median Boring ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft No. blows/ft blows/ft 103 141,134 2,206,732 265 125 80 22 7 22 to 277 52 104 143,840 2,204,196 304 150 19 105 144,041 2,204,072 274 150 30 2 6 to 7 7 106 144,206 2,203,930 274 150 57 13 60 290 93 0% 5% 89% 6% 42 52 Total Median Percentage Total Median Source: Reference 146

a. Dash in box denotes absence of that soil in boring, or no test performed.

2-2-360 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.5-31 Summary of Units 1 & 2 BoringsRock Top of Rock Borehole Details Elevation Median Recovery/RQD Northing Easting Depth Elev. III III-IV or IV III III-IV IV Boring ft ft ft ft ft ft Rec. RQD Rec. RQD Rec. RQD 1 144,104 2,204,897 87 275 216 239 64% 0% 87% 9% 100% 46%

2 144,381 2,204,733 97 285 -a 253 79% 63%

3 144,667 2,204,564 80 279 245 226 100% 52% 96% 32%

4 144,000 2,204,665 104 291 267 90% 0% 90% 22%

5 144,175 2,204,567 116 294 273 251 92% 70% 100% 35% 95% 55%

6 144,348 2,204,464 110 289 259 234 83% 22% 100% 86% 98% 93%

7 144,559 2,204,340 151 275 220 98% 62%

8 143,897 2,204,438 97 299 289 75% 40%

9 144,176 2,204,273 92 281 218 215 29% 25% 100% 97%

10 144,463 2,204,108 79 256 216 223 55% 33% 81% 70%

11 143,794 2,204,206 107 307 285 212 60% 0% 100% 28%

12 143,964 2,204,103 106 289 268 97% 80%

13 144,139 2,204,000 90 270 246 240 22% 0% 91% 75% 100% 85%

14 144,358 2,203,876 87 275 225 211 30% 0% 90% 70%

15 143,742 2,203,980 117 317 278 249 50% 20% 93% 82%

16 143,971 2,203,814 117 297 267 100% 90%

17 144,253 2,203,655 94 271 203 100% 97%

18 143,582 2,203,751 130 314 292 225 10% 0% 87% 60%

19 143,751 2,203,649 120 298 273 234 25% 8% 75% 66%

20 143,932 2,203,549 104 283 263 245 33% 16% 95% 88%

21 144,144 2,203,423 93 275 235 206 25% 0% 96% 66%

22 143,479 2,203,521 123 317 264 254 43% 15% 57% 11% 91% 44%

23 143,758 2,203,356 97 305 287 274 76% 56% 95% 78%

24 144,041 2,203,191 90 293 233 80% 71%

25 143,371 2,203,289 112 305 255 205 0% 0% 100% 73%

26 143,655 2,203,126 97 297 291 288 96% 65% 70% 59%

27 143,938 2,202,959 92 279 239 210 17% 0% 78% 40%

2-2-361 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.5-31 Summary of Units 1 & 2 BoringsRock Top of Rock Borehole Details Elevation Median Recovery/RQD Northing Easting Depth Elev. III III-IV or IV III III-IV IV Boring ft ft ft ft ft ft Rec. RQD Rec. RQD Rec. RQD 28 144,060 2,204,552 115 295 270 100% 25% 100% 38%

29 144,129 2,204,515 115 294 274 100% 63%

30 144,015 2,204,418 92 293 269 100% 60% 100% 77%

31 144,036 2,204,256 100 281 274 230 80% 42% 47% 17% 90% 47%

32 143,960 2,204,294 109 288 273 97% 50%

34 144,297 2,204,385 86 286 206 241 62% 9% 80% 47%

35 144,238 2,204,136 75 273 233 50% 29%

36 144,206 2,204,139 72 272 212 75% 42%

37 144,711 2,204,201 65 251 201 75% 43%

38 144,675 2,204,103 57 244 204 67% 32%

39 143,985 2,204,582 112 293 243 262 90% 42% 67% 18% 88% 70%

40 143,892 2,204,320 112 297 282 228 70% 21% 49% 4%

41 143,335 2,203,820 77 326 42 142,737 2,204,067 76 305 43 143,737 2,204,722 60 285 44 143,119 2,204,974 76 275 45 143,282 2,204,569 76 309 46 143,167 2,204,242 75 317 47 143,528 2,204,284 76 302 48 143,020 2,204,469 76 294 49 144,222 2,204,490 120 291 249 83% 62% 85% 33%

50 144,123 2,204,232 83 287 234 95% 92%

51 144,703 2,202,598 20 253 251 65% 17%

52 143,765 2,202,970 27 285 53 144,082 2,202,414 27 301 54 144,402 2,201,850 27 300 55 144,474 2,202,231 27 323 2-2-362 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.5-31 Summary of Units 1 & 2 BoringsRock Top of Rock Borehole Details Elevation Median Recovery/RQD Northing Easting Depth Elev. III III-IV or IV III III-IV IV Boring ft ft ft ft ft ft Rec. RQD Rec. RQD Rec. RQD 101 145,187 2,203,051 92 282 242 236 83% 40% 82% 62%

102 142,058 2,205,639 100 288 103 141,134 2,206,732 125 265 104 143,840 2,204,196 150 304 298 55% 17% 100% 88%

105 144,041 2,204,072 150 274 244 242 80% 67% 92% 79%

106 144,206 2,203,930 150 274 216 204 57% 4% 96% 40% 100% 95%

60 5589 290 250 236 58% 18% 88% 30% 92% 66%

Total Total Median Source: Reference 146

a. Dash in box denotes absence of that rock in boring, and no Recovery/RQD recorded.

2-2-363 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.5-32 Summary of Units 3 & 4 BoringsSoils Soil Zone Borehole Details Thickness Zone IIA N-Values Northing Easting Elev. Depth Fill I IIA IIB Range Median Boring ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft No. blows/ft blows/ft 601 144,563 2,203,695 269 64 5 19 2 16 to 100 58 602 144,490 2,203,510 277 70 21 603 144,495 2,203,615 274 85 14 19 20 2 105 to 175 140 604 144,500 2,203,731 270 85 3 16 10 1 40 40 605 144,425 2,203,535 277 70 15 14 3 35 to 123 54 606 144,338 2,203,843 270 70 2 22 11 4 18 to 140 48 607 144,235 2,203,570 270 65 2 26 7 5 13 to 250 32 608 144,270 2,203,882 270 87 2 33 37 3 31 to 146 143 609 144,232 2,203,803 271 90 2 54 7 5 13 to 140 21 610 144,188 2,203,705 271 96 2 70 9 8 22 to 225 27 611 144,165 2,203,610 271 76 2 48 5 15 to 220 33 612 144,125 2,203,515 270 80 7 46 5 1 13 13 613 144,195 2,203,910 270 65 2 42 7 15 to 90 30 614 144,160 2,203,825 271 70 2 38 5 18 to 33 23 615 144,125 2,203,723 270 65 2 33 4 4 12 to 44 28 616 144,100 2,203,638 271 64 1 32 5 9 to 45 24 617 144,063 2,203,548 271 70 2 38 5 7 26 to 136 94 618 144,140 2,203,930 270 54 2 32 5 14 to 44 32 619 144,065 2,203,749 271 49 1 12 2 65 to 110 87 620 144,108 2,203,859 270 46 1 9 3 1 40 40 621 144,005 2,203,700 271 50 -a 2 622 143,510 2,203,535 271 79 1 19 10 3 41 to 360 210 623 143,915 2,203,670 272 79 2 12 2 49 to 510 275 624 143,960 2,203,985 271 175 1 9 2 49 to 150 100 625 143,905 2,203,845 270 40 5 1 6 6 626 143,870 2,203,686 272 150 1 7 1 119 119 627 143,911 2,204,068 271 78 3 7 2-2-364 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.5-32 Summary of Units 3 & 4 BoringsSoils Soil Zone Borehole Details Thickness Zone IIA N-Values Northing Easting Elev. Depth Fill I IIA IIB Range Median Boring ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft No. blows/ft blows/ft 628 143,878 2,203,980 271 78 3 629 143,795 2,203,780 272 79 1 630 143,775 2,203,725 271 78 3 631 143,345 2,204,005 322 105 11 77 8 13 to 262 48 632 143,815 2,204,355 294 75 1 15 18 3 44 to 116 56 633 143,880 2,204,570 284 59 8 5 15 634 143,945 2,204,790 284 62 8 25 8 5 23 to 145 65 635 143,995 2,204,960 275 65 - 2 19 18 636 144,415 2,203,750 270 70 3 26 15 5 15 to 400 200 637 144,340 2,203,570 271 75 10 20 3 14 to 200 42 638 144,660 2,203,660 268 50 3 5 20 1 116 116 639 144,590 2,203,475 274 61 23 8 10 2 128 to 160 144 640 144,290 2,203,935 269 82 - 47 35 8 22 to 242 50 641 143,205 2,203,855 270 88 2 55 10 16 to 300 28 642 144,175 2,203,655 271 75 2 52 7 19 to 94 26 643 144,109 2,203,586 270 72 2 30 8 6 18 to 400 55 644 143,825 2,203,745 271 50 5 -

645 143,895 2,204,010 271 78 5 -

646 144,665 2,203,790 268 47 8 39 8 20 to 240 68 647 144,705 2,203,430 256 40 28 5 13 to 200 44 47 271 71 12% 1% 71% 16% 155 50 Total Median Percentage Total Median Source: Reference 8

a. Dash in box denotes absence of that soil in boring, or no test performed.

2-2-365 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.5-33 Summary of Units 3 & 4 BoringsRock Borehole Details Top of Rock El. Median Recovery/RQD Northing Easting Depth Elev. III IV or III-IV III III-IV IV Boring Ft Ft Ft Ft Ft Ft Rec. RQD Rec. RQD Rec. RQD 601 144,563 2,203,695 64 269 237 245 98% 39% 95% 73%

602 144,490 2,203,510 70 277 238 255 84% 30% 69% 29%

603 144,495 2,203,615 85 274 209 230 57% 6% 100% 50% 100% 85%

604 144,500 2,203,731 85 270 251 190 75% 27% 100% 69%

605 144,425 2,203,535 70 277 248 98% 45%

606 144,338 2,203,843 70 270 205 223 20% 0% 100% 60%

607 144,235 2,203,570 65 270 235 227 100% 55%

608 144,270 2,203,882 87 270 235 188 75% 23% 93% 49%

609 144,232 2,203,803 90 271 208 87% 14%

610 144,188 2,203,705 96 271 -a 191 100% 86%

611 144,165 2,203,610 76 271 221 97% 96%

612 144,125 2,203,515 80 270 212 98% 75%

613 144,195 2,203,910 65 270 226 100% 51%

614 144,160 2,203,825 70 271 231 224 70% 5% 93% 55% 97% 69%

615 144,125 2,203,723 65 270 232 227 78% 60%

616 144,100 2,203,638 64 271 238 227 67% 53% 95% 83%

617 144,063 2,203,548 70 271 226 221 96% 44% 94% 94%

618 144,140 2,203,930 54 270 236 100% 90%

619 144,065 2,203,749 49 271 249 258 92% 0% 93% 93%

620 144,108 2,203,859 46 270 259 257 99% 77%

621 144,005 2,203,700 50 271 269 246 69% 65% 100% 100%

622 143,510 2,203,535 79 271 246 241 75% 10% 100% 84%

623 143,915 2,203,670 79 272 258 234 80% 35% 100% 87%

624 143,960 2,203,985 175 271 261 98% 80%

625 143,905 2,203,845 40 270 265 100% 90%

626 143,870 2,203,686 150 272 264 94% 40% 98% 91%

627 143,911 2,204,068 78 271 261 246 75% 20% 100% 66% 100% 91%

628 143,878 2,203,980 78 271 258 242 90% 9% 100% 61% 100% 90%

2-2-366 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.5-33 Summary of Units 3 & 4 BoringsRock Borehole Details Top of Rock El. Median Recovery/RQD Northing Easting Depth Elev. III IV or III-IV III III-IV IV Boring Ft Ft Ft Ft Ft Ft Rec. RQD Rec. RQD Rec. RQD 629 143,795 2,203,780 79 272 269 262 50% 20% 100% 80% 100% 90%

630 143,775 2,203,725 78 271 268 251 100% 58% 100% 75% 100% 75%

631 143,345 2,204,005 105 322 234 52% 28%

632 143,815 2,204,355 75 294 262 80% 70%

633 143,880 2,204,570 59 284 257 229 70% 15% 100% 50%

634 143,945 2,204,790 62 284 251 96% 60%

635 143,995 2,204,960 65 275 224 236 86% 23% 86% 52%

636 144,415 2,203,750 70 270 241 60% 18%

637 144,340 2,203,570 75 271 241 227 65% 35% 50% 29% 85% 81%

638 144,660 2,203,660 50 268 239 75% 35%

639 144,590 2,203,475 61 274 232 218 70% 8% 85% 50%

640 144,290 2,203,935 82 269 222 95% 39% - -

641 143,205 2,203,855 88 270 214 197 75% 35% 100% 73%

642 144,175 2,203,655 75 271 217 208 100% 20% 98% 70%

643 144,109 2,203,586 72 270 230 218 60% 40% 90% 70% - -

644 143,825 2,203,745 50 271 266 256 93% 31% 90% 30% - -

645 143,895 2,204,010 78 271 266 100% 40% 100% 68%

646 144,665 2,203,790 47 268 647 144,705 2,203,430 40 256 228 80% 25%

47 3461 271 238 234 80% 27% 95% 60% 100% 82%

Total Total Median Source: Reference 8

a. Dash in box denotes absence of that rock in boring, and no Recovery/RQD recorded.

2-2-367 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.5-34 Summary of Service Water Reservoir BoringsSoils Borehole Details Soil Zone Thickness Zone IIA N-Values Northing Easting Elev. Depth Fill I IIA IIB Range Median Boring ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft No. blows/ft blows/ft P-10 142,876 2,204,869 283 27 -a 27 4 20 to 142 34 P-11 143,495 2,204,410 324 53 13 40 7 13 to 23 16 P-12 143,561 2,204,416 298 30 30 4 17 to 25 18 P-15 143,150 2,204,700 321 72 28 44 1 19 19 P-16 143,050 2,204,607 321 70 32 38 7 18 to 107 28 P-17 142,958 2,204,529 321 77 32 45 9 17 to 137 22 S1-1 143,495 2,204,430 326 92 12 80 12 17 to 100 26 S1-2 143,565 2,204,435 297 75 75 7 15 to 100 33 S1-3 143,078 2,204,777 285 64 64 9 31 to 155 63 SWR-1 143,470 2,204,492 306 58 43 15 27 9 to 24 17 SWR-2 143,438 2,204,492 306 58 50 8 33 11 to 84 18 SWR-3 143,076 2,203,686 321 100 100 19 12 to 142 45 SWR-4 143,396 2,203,983 320 101 101 20 16 to 400 30 SWR-5 143,391 2,204,753 321 105 26 79 17 12 to 226 23 SWR-6 143,127 2,204,712 321 104 15 89 18 16 to 400 25 SWR-7 142,942 2,204,532 321 82 15 67 13 8 to 37 19 SWR-8 142,951 2,204,302 321 72 10 62 13 9 to 109 25 SWR-9 142,982 2,204,061 321 67 12 55 11 8 to 274 50 SWR-10 143,133 2,204,685 321 64 31 33 13 14 to 36 21 SWR-11 142,980 2,204,685 286 38 16 22 5 17 to 300 48 SWR-12 142,893 2,204,598 289 49 15 34 SWR-13 143,242 2,204,792 321 72 27 45 9 13 to 62 22 22 321 71 18.5% 0 80% 1.5% 258 25 Total Median Percentage Total Median Source: Reference 5

a. Dash in box denotes absence of that soil in boring, or no test performed.

2-2-368 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.5-35 Summary of Service Water Reservoir BoringsRock Borehole Details Top of Rock Elev.a Northing Easting Depth Elev. III III-IV or IV Boring ft ft ft ft ft ft P-10 142,876 2,204,869 27 283 -b P-11 143,495 2,204,410 53 324 P-12 143,561 2,204,416 30 298 P-15 143,150 2,204,700 72 321 P-16 143,050 2,204,607 70 321 P-17 142,958 2,204,529 77 321 S1-1 143,495 2,204,430 92 326 234 S1-2 143,565 2,204,435 75 297 222 S1-3 143,078 2,204,777 64 285 221 SWR-1 143,470 2,204,492 58 306 248 SWR-2 143,438 2,204,492 58 306 248 SWR-3 143,076 2,203,686 100 321 221 SWR-4 143,396 2,203,983 101 320 219 SWR-5 143,391 2,204,753 105 321 216 SWR-6 143,127 2,204,712 104 321 217 SWR-7 142,942 2,204,532 82 321 SWR-8 142,951 2,204,302 72 321 SWR-9 142,982 2,204,061 67 321 SWR-10 143,133 2,204,685 64 321 SWR-11 142,980 2,204,685 38 286 SWR-12 142,893 2,204,598 49 289 SWR-13 143,242 2,204,792 72 321 22 1530 321 248 221 Total Total Median Source: Reference 5

a. Top of rock is estimated since there was no rock coring.

b. Dash in box denotes absence of that rock in boring.

2-2-369 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.5-36 Summary of ISFSI BoringsSoils Borehole Details Soil Zone Thickness Zone IIA N-Values Northing Easting Elev. Depth Fill I IIA IIB Range Median Boring ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft No. blows/ft blows/ft F-2 142,000 2,202,990 320 70 -a 65 14 14 to 78 18 F-4 141,982 2,202,850 317 59 34 15 9 15 to 125 21 F-5 141,982 2,203,200 318 115 64 15 9 to 44 25 F-6 141,864 2,202,850 316 59 44 11 13 to 110 19 F-7 141,864 2,203,000 320 105 75 18 10 to 165 21 F-8 141,864 2,203,200 318 69 35 29 9 16 to 36 24 F-9 141,746 2,202,850 311 105 55 4 13 7 to 56 21 F-10 141,746 2,203,000 315 74 50 19 12 20 to 80 27 F-11 141,746 2,203,200 309 69 29 10 8 32 to 160 42 9 317 70 0 0 85.4 14.6 109 21 Total Median Percentage Total Median Source: Reference 6

a. Dash in box denotes absence of that soil in boring, or no test performed.

2-2-370 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.5-37 Summary of ISFSI BoringsRock Top of Avg.

Rock Recovery/

Borehole Details Elev. RQD Northing Easting Depth Elev. III III Boring ft ft ft ft ft Rec. RQD F-2 142,000 2,202,990 70 320 255 0% 0%

F-4 141,982 2,202,850 59 317 268 50% 20%

F-5 141,982 2,203,200 115 318 254 15% 0%

F-6 141,864 2,202,850 59 316 272 23% 6%

F-7 141,864 2,203,000 105 320 245 11% 0%

F-8 141,864 2,203,200 69 318 254 80% 0%

F-9 141,746 2,202,850 105 311 252 20% 4%

F-10 141,746 2,203,000 74 315 246 95% 36%

F-11 141,746 2,203,200 69 309 260 41% 8%

9 725 317 254 23% 4%

Total Total Median Source: Reference 5 2-2-371 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.5-38 Summary of ESP Borings, Observation Wells, and CPTsSoils Borehole/OW/CPT Details Soil Zone Thickness IIA N-Values Boring/ Northing Easting Elev. Depth Fill I IIA IIB Range Median OW/CPT ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft No. blows/ft blows/ft B-801 144,034 2,203,740 249 50 19 B-802 143,639 2,203,383 271 90 3 3 1 44 44 a

B-803 143,603 2,202,766 292 170 - 31 9 12 to 31 22 B-804 143,179 2,202,137 320 60 2 21 8 5 to 24 8 B-805 144,043 2,203,249 271 90 23 5 8 12 to 100 22 B-806 143,098 2,200,979 299 65 2 6 2 18 to 22 20 B-807 143,530 2,200,983 311 72 21 21 10 12 to 100 16 7 292 72 15% 1% 67% 17% 38 21 Total Median Percentage Total Median Soil Thickness, ft OW-841 144,238 2,203,806 252 34 24 OW-842 142,716 2,202,151 337 50 50 OW-843 143,407 2,202,059 321 49 49 OW-844 143,591 2,203,592 274 25 24 OW-845 143,540 2,202,743 297 55 33 OW-846 143,527 2,202,724 297 33 33 OW-847 142,627 2,203,450 320 50 50 OW-848 144,535 2,203,275 285 47 33 OW-849 144,468 2,201,733 299 50 50 9 297 49 33 Total Median CPT-821 143,647 2,203,355 271 4 4 CPT-822 144,057 2,203,239 271 23 23 CPT-823 143,532 2,202,758 296 32 32 CPT-824 143,736 2,203,012 276 4 4 CPT-825 143,160 2,202,269 333 52 52 CPT-827 144,370 2,200,571 277 58 58 CPT-828 144,334 2,200,068 270 5 5 CPT-830 143,531 2,203,002 308 16 16 8 276 20 20 Total Median Source: Reference 147

a. Dash in box denotes absence of that soil in boring, or no test performed.

2-2-372 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.5-39 Summary of ESP Borings, Observation Wells, and CPTsRock Top of Borehole/OW/CPT Details Rock Elev. Median Recovery/RQD III-IV III III-IV IV Boring/ Northing Easting Depth Elev. III or IV OW/CPT ft ft ft ft ft ft Rec. RQD Rec. RQD Rec. RQD a

B-801 144,034 2,203,740 50 249 230 229 - 100% 100%

B-802 143,639 2,203,383 90 271 265 263 88% 44% 100% 84%

B-803 143,603 2,202,766 170 292 262 244 100% 100%

B-804 143,179 2,202,137 60 320 298 287 80% 47% 100% 98%

B-805 144,043 2,203,249 90 271 243 232 90% 70% 100% 90%

B-806 143,098 2,200,979 65 299 292 288 25% 5% 86% 65%

B-807 143,530 2,200,983 72 311 276 254 46% 0%

7 597 292 265 254 25% 5% 86% 47% 100% 98%

Total Total Median OW-841 144,238 2,203,806 34 252 228 OW-842 142,716 2,202,151 50 337 OW-843 143,407 2,202,059 49 321 OW-844 143,591 2,203,592 25 274 250 OW-845 143,540 2,202,743 55 297 264 OW-846 143,527 2,202,724 33 297 OW-847 142,627 2,203,450 50 320 OW-848 144,535 2,203,275 47 285 252 OW-849 144,468 2,201,733 50 299 9 393 297 251 Total Total Median CPT-821 143,647 2,203,355 4 271 CPT-822 144,057 2,203,239 23 271 CPT-823 143,532 2,202,758 32 296 CPT-824 143,736 2,203,012 4 276 CPT-825 143,160 2,202,269 52 333 CPT-827 144,370 2,200,571 58 277 CPT-828 144,334 2,200,068 5 270 CPT-830 143,531 2,203,002 16 308 8 194 276 Total Total Median

a. Dash in box denotes absence of that soil in boring, or no test performed. Source: Reference 147.

2-2-373 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.5-40 Summary of Soil Sampling Results Borehole Median, ft Percentage per Zone Zone IIA N-Values No.

of Total Soil Fill I IIA IIB Median Location Boreholes Elevation Depth Thickness  %  %  %  % Number blows/ft Units 1&2 60 290 93 40 0 5 89 6 42 52 Units 3&4 47 271 71 34 12 1 71 16 155 50 SWR 22 321 71 71 18 0 80 2 258 25 ISFSI 9 317 70 64 0 0 85 15 109 21 ESP 7 292 72 23 15 1 67 17 38 21 Sources: Reference 5, Reference 6, Reference 146, Reference 8 and Reference 147 Table 2.5-41 Summary of Rock Coring Results III III-IV IV Thickness Recovery RQD Thickness Recovery RQD Thickness Recovery RQD Location ft  %  % ft  %  % ft  %  %

Units 1&2 702 58 18 493 88 30 1896 92 66 Units 3&4 647 88 27 491 95 60 732 100 82 ISFSI 197 23 4 -a - - - - -

ESP 94 25 5 91 86 47 255 100 98 Sources: Reference 6, Reference 146, Reference 8 and Reference 147

a. Dash in box denotes absence of that rock in boring, or no recovery/RQD recorded.

2-2-374 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.5-42 Summary of Laboratory Tests Performed Units Test 1 & 2 SWR ISFSI ESP Total Soil Moisture content 72 339 30 9 450 a

Percent passing #200 sieve 260 - - 260 Sieve analysis 15 63 19 10 107 Sieve and hydrometer analysis - 4 - 5 9 Atterberg limits b 4 16 13 5 38 Unit weight 71 163 11 - 245 Mineral analysis (thin section) 1 27 - - 28 Permeability 4 - 1 - 5 pH 2 - - 4 6 Sulfate 2 - - 4 6 Chloride - - - 4 4 Moisture density (Proctor) 2 - 3 - 5 CBR - - 3 - 3 Consolidation 5 15c 3 - 23 Unconfined compression 2 - 5 - 7 d

Triaxial compression (UU) 19 62 5 - 86 Triaxial compression (CIU) w/pp 5 8 6 - 19 Triaxial compression (cyclic) 2 15 - - 17 Direct shear - 2 - - 2 Shockscope 3 - - - 3 Rock Unit weight - - - 19 19 Unconfined compression 24 - - 13 37 Unconfined compression w/stress-strain 6 - - 6 12 Sources: Reference 5, Reference 6, Reference 146, Reference 8 and Reference 147.

a. Dash denotes no test performed.

b. Atterberg limit tests only listed for plastic samples tested.

c. Includes 5 constant strain tests with pore pressure measurement.

d. Includes 8 tests on prepared soil samples.

2-2-375 Revision 0 September 2003

Table 2.5-43 Summary of ESP Laboratory Test Results Sample Identification Atterberg Limits Chemical Tests Moisture  % Finer Depth Content #200 Chlorides Sulfates Boring Sample Number ft  % Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Sieve pH mg/kg Mg/kg B-801 SS-1 0-1.5 22.2 39 29 10 6.3 130 <27 B-801 SS-5 8.5-10 -a 39.9 B-801 SS-6 13.5-15 55.1 B-802 SS-2 3.7-5.2 19.5 B-803 SS-3 6.1-7.6 18.9 30 26 4 -

B-803 SS-4 8.6-10.1 23.2 24.4 B-803 SS-6 13.7-15.3 20.9 5.7 100 <23 B-803 SS-8 23.6-25.1 18.5 B-804 SS-3 3.5-5 54.2 B-804 SS-6 11-12.5 46.1 B-804 SS-8 18.5-20 22.1 b

B-805 SS-4 7.5-9 27.2 NP NP NP 27.5 B-805 SS-7 18.5-20 25.1 B-806 SS-3 5.6-7.1 27.1 6.7 920 <24 B-807 SS-3 4.5-6 40.1 49 45 4 B-807 SS-6 12.3-13.8 42.8 46 40 6 5.7 170 <28 B-807 SS-8 21.8-23.8 28.9 41 34 7 42.6 B-807 SS-10 31.5-33 26.7 37.7 B-807 SS-12 41.4-42.9 21.8 44.2 Source: Reference 147

a. Dash denotes no test performed.

b. NP - Non Plastic North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 2-2-376 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.5-44 Summary of ESP Laboratory Test ResultsRock Unconfined Modulus Boring Depth, Compressive of Elasticity, Poissons Number ft Zone Strength, ksi ksi Ratio B-801 24.1-24.8 IV 27.21 -a B-801 48.7-49.7 IV 28.42 8670 0.27 B-802 20.4-21.0 III-IV 8.64 B-802 44.9-45.6 IV 11.76 B-802 66.0-66.7 IV 14.71 4613 0.24 B-802 85.3-85.9 IV 9.37 B-803 54.1-54.7 IV 13.01 B-803 70.4-71.1 IV 23.21 7133 0.34 B-803 90.3-91.0 IV 27.59 B-803 129.4-130.1 IV 26.73 B-803 155.6-156.4 IV 22.03 7173 0.33 B-804 38.9-39.9 IV 27.15 B-804 43.5-44.9 IV 25.20 B-804 49.9-50.5 IV 12.30 3190 0.43 B-805 41.3-41.9 III-IV 3.40 336 0.15 B-805 80.8-81.6 IV 4.43 B-806 25.1-25.8 III 0.61 B-806 42.6-43.2 III-IV 2.72 B-806 64.1-64.5 IV 27.36 Source: Reference 147

a. Dash denotes no test performed.

2-2-377 Revision 0 September 2003

Table 2.5-45 Summary of Geotechnical Engineering Properties Stratum IIA IIB III III-IV IV Coarse-grained Fine-grained Moderately Slightly to Fresh to Saprolite to Highly Moderately Slightly w/10 to Weathered Weathered Weathered 50% Core Quartz Gneiss Quartz Gneiss Quartz Gneiss Description Saprolite Saprolite Stone w/Biotite w/Biotite w/Biotite Rock properties Recovery, % 60 90 100 RQD, % 20 50 95 Unconfined compressive strength, ksi 0.6 4 12 USCS symbol SP, SM, SC ML, CL, MH, CH Mainly SM Range of fines content, % 15 to 45 Natural moisture content, w, % 26 Undrained shear strength, cu, ksf 2.0 Effective cohesion, c, ksf 0.25 0.5 Effective friction angle, , degrees 30 25 40 Total unit weight, , pcf 125 130 145 163 163 SPT N-value, N60, blows/ft 20 100 Shear and compression wave velocity Shear wave velocity range, ft/sec 600 to 1350 4000 to 8000 Shear wave velocity average, ft/sec 950 1600 2000 3300 6300 Compression wave velocity average, ft/sec 2100 3500 4500 7400 14,000 North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 2-2-378 September 2003

Table 2.5-45 Summary of Geotechnical Engineering Properties Stratum IIA IIB III III-IV IV Coarse-grained Fine-grained Moderately Slightly to Fresh to Saprolite to Highly Moderately Slightly w/10 to Weathered Weathered Weathered 50% Core Quartz Gneiss Quartz Gneiss Quartz Gneiss Description Saprolite Saprolite Stone w/Biotite w/Biotite w/Biotite Elastic and shear moduli Elastic modulus (high strain), Ehs 1200 ksf 3500 ksf 120 ksi 1000 ksi 3750 ksi Elastic modulus (low strain), Els 9500 ksf 28,000 ksf 300 ksi 1000 ksi 3750 ksi Shear modulus (high strain), Ghs 450 ksf 1300 ksf 50 ksi 375 ksi 1400 ksi Shear modulus (low strain), Gls 3500 ksf 10,000 ksf 125 ksi 375 ksi 1400 ksi Consolidation characteristics Recompression ratio, RR 0.015 Coeff. of secondary compression, C 0.0008 Coeff. of subgrade reaction, k1, kcf 230 1500 - - -

Coefficient of sliding against concrete 0.35 0.45 0.6 0.65 0.7 Poissons ratio, µ (high strain) 0.35 0.3 0.33 0.33 0.33 Static earth pressure coefficients Active, Ka 0.33 0.22 Passive, Kp 3.0 4.6 At-rest, Ko 0.5 0.36 Hydraulic conductivity, cm/sec 5 x 10-4 Note:Dash denotes no design parameter given North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 2-2-379 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.5-46 ZPA Results from SHAKE Analysis Depth, ft Vs, ft/sec Profile 1 Profile 2 Profile 3 Vs, ft/sec Profile 4 0.0 700 0.59g -a - 1275 0.41g 2.5 700 0.55g - - 1275 0.39g 5.0 700 0.46g - - 1275 0.35g 7.5 700 0.37g - - 1275 0.34g 10.0 700/950 0.41g - - 1275/1380 0.31g 12.5 950 0.36g - - 1380 0.28g 15.0 950 0.34g - - 1380 0.27g 17.5 950 0.36g - - 1380 0.28g 20.0 950/1200 0.35g - - 1380/1500 0.30g 22.5 1200 0.32g - - 1500 0.31g 25.0 1200 0.30g - - 1500 0.29g 27.5 1200 0.29g - - 1500 0.30g 30.0 1200/1600 0.34g 0.49g - 1500/1600 0.31g 35.0 1600 0.34g 0.40g - 1600 0.31g 40.0 1600/2000 0.28g 0.31g 0.45g 1600/2000 0.28g 45.0 2000 0.23g 0.29g 0.39g 2000 0.26g 50.0 2000 0.21g 0.28g 0.29g 2000 0.20g 55.0 2000/3300 0.22g 0.24g 0.26g 2000/3300 0.22g 60.0 3300 0.19g 0.24g 0.22g 3300 0.20g 65.0 3300 0.16g 0.24g 0.18g 3300 0.20g 70.0 3300 0.16g 0.22g 0.17g 3300 0.19g Outcrop 6300 0.22g 0.22g 0.22g 6300 0.22g

a. Dash denotes soil not present.

Soil/Rock Columns

1. Profile from 0 to 70 feet, with 30 feet of unimproved Zone IIA saprolite, 10 feet of Zone IIB saprolite, 15 feet of Zone III rock, and 15 feet of Zone III-IV rock.

2. Profile from 30 to 70 feet depth for foundation sitting on 10 feet of Zone IIB saprolite, 15 feet of Zone III weathered rock, and 15 feet of Zone III-IV rock.

2-2-380 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report

3. Profile from 40 to 70 feet depth for foundation sitting on 15 feet of Zone III weathered rock and 15 feet of Zone III-IV rock.

4. Profile from 0 to 70 feet, with 30 feet of improved Zone IIA saprolite, 10 feet of Zone IIB saprolite, 55 feet of Zone III weathered rock, and 15 feet of Zone III-IV rock.

2-2-381 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.5-47 Allowable Bearing Capacity Values Allowable Bearing Zone Capacity, ksf IIA 4 IIB 8 III 16 III-IV 80 IV 160 Note:The above values include a factor of safety against bearing failure of at least 3.

Minimum assumed foundation width is 5 feet. Minimum assumed foundation depth is 3 feet. For the Zone IIA saprolite, the 4 ksf allowable bearing capacity does not consider settlement.

2-2-382 Revision 0 September 2003

Figure 2.5-1 Regional Physiographic Map (200-Mile Radius)

North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 2-2-383 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Figure 2.5-2 Evolution of the Appalachian Orogen (after Hatcher, 1987) 2-2-384 Revision 0 September 2003

Figure 2.5-3 Regional Geologic Map (200-Mile Radius) (Sheet 1 of 2)

North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 2-2-385 September 2003

Stratified Sequence Continental Eugeosynclinal Volcanic Plutonic and Intrusive Metamorphic (mainly marine) Deposits Deposits Rocks Rocks Rocks Paleocene Miocene Pleistocene Pleistocene Cenozoic Eocene Eocene Paleocene Navarro Group Cretaceous Woodbine and Tuscaloosa groups Washita Group Lower Cretaceous Jurassic Mesozoic Triassic mafic intrusives Triassic Triassic Ultramafic rocks Pennsylvanian Permian Wolfcampian Series Virgilian Series Upper Paleozoic granitic rocks Missourian Series Des Moinesian Series Pennsylvanian Atokan and Morrowan Series Mississippian felsic paragneiss and schist Mississippian felsic orthogneiss (=granite schist)

Devonian Upper Devonian Series Upper Devonian Middle Paleozoic granitic rocks Middle Devonian Series Devonian Paleozoic Silurian Devonian and Silurian Silurian Cambrian Ordovician Middle Ordovician (Mohawkian) Ordovician Lower Paleozoic granitic rocks Ordovician Lower Ordovician (Canadian)

Cambrian Cambrian Cambrian volcanic rocks basal Lower Cambrian clastic rocks Z sedimentary rocks Z volcanic rocks Z granitic rocks Paragneiss and schist Anorthosite Orthogneiss Legend for Regional Geologic Map 200-Mile Radius North Anna Site After P. B. King and H. M. Beikman (1974)

Figure 2.5-3 Regional Geologic Map (200-Mile Radius) (Sheet 2 of 2)

North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 2-2-386 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report B al Ij timo amsvil re G le neis Belt s an B al dG timo lena re M rm afic Gr o up Com B el plex t elt Goochland Belt ams North Anna Site ic B Ch o paw n nB to w t. el t a ura . An lto Belt S tn M Mi Be Raleig h

lt Be lt Eastern Slate Belt ied te mo Sla nt IN e lin R idg Inn er Ca a LA ue P ro P Bl rn/ L We Be TA ste lt tn B elt S Kin A gs o tte O ne M arl C Zo Ch C Br TI evard N A

TL elt lt A Be Ch ke e

au Kio Belair Belt ga B

Belt e M tn Pin 0 25 50 75 100 Miles Uchee Belt 0 100 Kilometers Source: Bledsoe and Marine, 1980 Fichter and Baedke, 2000 Figure 2.5-4 Lithotectonic Belts of the Piedmont Province 2-2-387 Revision 0 September 2003

Explanation Plutons Carboniferous felsic pluton Silurian feslic pluton Silurian or Ordovician felsic pluton Orodovician felsic pluton Orodovician and (or) Cambrian felsic pluton Paloezoic and (or) Proterozoic felsic pluton Orodovician mafic pluton Cambrian mafic pluton Cambrian or Proterozoic mafic pluton Unassigned terrane Continental-margin terrane Catoctin Formation True Blue Formation Black-arc-basing terrane (melange deposits)

Block-in-phylite melange Metadiamicictite melange Island-arc terrane Continentward facing Oceanward facing Successor basins terrane Quantico Formation Other basins Salem Church allocation Falls Run Granite Gneiss (Berea pluton)

Holly Corner Gneiss Matte nappe Early Mesozoic Culpeper basin Thrust fault Mountain Run fault zone Antiform Synform Overturned antiform Overturned synform Mine Run antiform Rocky Pen antiform Pipe Dam Run symform La Roque synform Massaponax synform NAPS Project Site Town Simplified Tectonostratigraphic Map Figure 2.5-5 Simplified Tectonostratigraphic Map North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 2-2-388 September 2003

Explanation (geologic descriptions from east to west)

Terrane Cretaceous and younger sedimentary rocks Triassic basins and related deposits Goochland Terrane: North American basement Carolina Slate Belt: Island arc complex Chopawamsic Terrane: Island arc complex Jefferson and Smith River Terranes: Sedimentary and volcanic rocks Blue Ridge: North American basement depositionally overlain by late Proterozoic-early Cambrian continental margin deposits Autochthonous North American deposits Symbols Province boundary Terrane / Belt boundary Figure 2.5-6 Simplified Tectonic Map of Virginia North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 2-2-389 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Figure 2.5-7 Evolution of the Appalachian Orogen (after Glover and others, 1995) 2-2-390 Revision 0 September 2003

Figure 2.5-8 Crustal Section Through Appalachian Orogen (200-mile radius)

North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 2-2-391 September 2003

ECFS East Coast Fault System nt me Seg ern rth No Ce nt ra lS eg m

en t

Figure 2.5-9 Tectonic Features Map (200-mile radius)

North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 2-2-392 September 2003

0 2.5 5 7.5 10 Miles Virginia Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Map of Virginia, 1993, Scale 1:500,000 Virginia State Plane (North) coordinate system, Fipszone 4501, NAD 1927 Horizontal datum.

Figure 2.5-10 Site Vicinity Geologic Map (25-Mile Radius) (Sheet 1 of 2)

North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 2-2-393 September 2003

Figure 2.5-10 Site Vicinity Geologic Map (25-Mile Radius) (Sheet 2 of 2)

North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 2-2-394 September 2003

Figure 2.5-11 Site Area Geologic Map (5-Mile Radius) (Sheet 1 of 2)

North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 2-2-395 September 2003

Figure 2.5-11 Site Area Geologic Map (5-Mile Radius) (Sheet 2 of 2)

North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 2-2-396 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report Source: Crone and Wheeler (2000)

Figure 2.5-12 Quaternary Features Map 2-2-397 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 2 - Site Safety Analysis Report ent egm rn S rthe No t

en gm Se al ntr Ce t

en gm Se So uth East Coast Fault System ern (ECFS)

S SS Figure 2.5-13 Northern, Central, and Southern Segments of the East Coast Fault System 2-2-398 Revision 0 September 2003

Central and Eastern North American Seismicity 1568 - 1987 50 St. Lawrence Seismic Zone Ottawa Seismic Zone 45 Adirondack Mtn.

Seismic Zone Clarendon Lindon Seismic Zone New England MAGNITUDE Seismic Zone 8

Upper Miss.

M Latitude (Deg.)

Seismic Zone 7 Anna, Ohio Seismic Zone 6 40 NY-NJ-PA 5

Seismic Zone 4 3

Central Virginia Seismic Zone Site Region Giles County, VA 35 Seismic Zone Charleston, SC Seismic Zone New Madrid, MO Seismic Zone Eastern Tennessee N = 817 200 KM Seismic Zone 30

-95 -90 -85 -80 -75 -70 -65 Longitude (Deg.) (from Bollinger and others, 1992)

Figure 2.5-14 Seismic Source Zones and Seismicity in Central and Eastern North America North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 2-2-399 September 2003