DCL-17-038, Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 & 2, Revised Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Rev. 23, Chapter 2, Site Characteristics

Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 & 2, Revised Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Rev. 23, Chapter 2, Site Characteristics

ML17206A058
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	12/31/2016
From:	Pacific Gas & Electric Co
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML17206A046	List: DCL-17-038, Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 & 2, Revised Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Rev. 23, Chapter 1 DCL-17-038, Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 & 2, Revised Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Rev. 23, Chapter 10, Steam and Power Conversion System DCL-17-038, Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 & 2, Revised Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Rev. 23, Chapter 11, Radioactive Waste Management DCL-17-038, Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 & 2, Revised Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Rev. 23, Chapter 12, Radiation Protection (Redacted) DCL-17-038, Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 & 2, Revised Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Rev. 23, Chapter 13, Conduct of Operations DCL-17-038, Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 & 2, Revised Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Rev. 23, Chapter 14, Initial Tests and Operation DCL-17-038, Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 & 2, Revised Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Rev. 23, Chapter 15, Accident Analyses DCL-17-038, Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 & 2, Revised Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Rev. 23, Chapter 16, Technical Specifications and Equipment Control Guidelines DCL-17-038, Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 & 2, Revised Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Rev. 23, Chapter 17, Quality Assurance DCL-17-038, Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 & 2, Revised Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Rev. 23, Chapter 2, Site Characteristics DCL-17-038, Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 & 2, Revised Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Rev. 23, Chapter 4, Reactor DCL-17-038, Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 & 2, Revised Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Rev. 23, Chapter 5, Reactor Coolant System DCL-17-038, Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 & 2, Revised Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Rev. 23, Chapter 6, Engineered Safety Features (Redacted) DCL-17-038, Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 & 2, Revised Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Rev. 23, Chapter 7 DCL-17-038, Revised Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Rev. 23, Chapter 8, Electric Power ML17206A048 ML17206A049 ML17206A050 ML17206A051 ML17206A053 ML17206A054 ML17206A055 ML17206A056 ML17206A057 ML17206A058 ML17206A059 ML17206A060 ML17206A061 ML17206A062 ML17206A064
References
DCL-17-038
Download: ML17206A058 (461)

Text

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE i Revision 23 December 2016 Chapter 2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS CONTENTS Section Title Page

2.1 GEOGRAPHY AND DEMOGRAPHY 2.1-1

2.1.1 DESIGN BASES 2.1-1 2.1.1.1 10 CFR Part 100 - Reactor Site Criteria 2.1-1

2.1.2 SAFETY EVALUATION 2.1-1 2.1.2.1 10 CFR Part 100 - Reactor Site Criteria 2.1-1

2.

1.3 REFERENCES

(Historical) 2.1-8

2.2 NEARBY INDUSTRIA L, TRANSPORTATION, AND MILITARY FACILITIES 2.2-1

2.2.1 DESIGN BASES 2.2-1 2.2.1.1 Nearby Industrial, Transportation, and Military Facilities Safety Function Requirement 2.2-1 2.2.1.2 10 CFR Part 100 - Reactor Site Criteria 2.2-1 2.2.1.3 Regulatory Guide 1.78, June 1974 - Assumptions For Evaluating The Habitability Of A Nuclear Power Plant

Control Room During A Postulated Hazardous Chemical Release 2.2-1

2.2.2 LOCATIONS AND ROUTES 2.2-1 2.2.2.1 Descriptions 2.2-3

2.2.3 SAFETY EVALUATIONS 2.2-3 2.2.3.1 Nearby Industrial, Transportation, and Military Facilities Safety Function Requirement 2.2-3 2.2.3.2 10 CFR Part 100 - Reactor Site Criteria 2.2-4 2.2.3.3 Regulatory Guide 1.78, June 1974 - Assumptions for Evaluating the Habitability of a Nuclear Power Plant Control Room During a Postulated Hazardous Chemical Release 2.2-5

2.

2.4 REFERENCES

2.2-5

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE Chapter 2 CONTENTS (Continued)

Section Title Page ii Revision 23 December 2016 2.3 METEOROLOGY 2.3-1 2.3.1 DESIGN BASES 2.3-1 2.3.1.1 General Design Criterion 11, 1967 - Control Room 2.3-1 2.3.1.2 General Design Criterion 12, 1967 - Instrumentation and Control Systems 2.3-1 2.3.1.3 Meteorology Safety Function Requirements 2.3-1 2.3.1.4 Safety Guide 23, February 1972 - Onsite Meteorological Programs 2.3-1 2.3.1.5 Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 3 - Instrumentation for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants to Assess Plant and Environs Conditions During and Following an Accident 2.3-2 2.3.1.6 Regulatory Guide 1.111, March 1976 - Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light-Water-Cooled Reactors 2.3-2 2.3.1.7 NUREG-0737 (Item III.A.2), November 1980 - Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements 2.3-2 2.3.1.8 IE Information Notice 84-91, December 1984 - Quality Control Problems of Meteorological Measurements Programs 2.3-2

2.3.2 REGIONAL CLIMATOLOGY 2.3-3 2.3.2.1 Data Sources (Historical) 2.3-3 2.3.2.2 General Climate (Historical) 2.3-3 2.3.2.3 Severe Weather (Historical) 2.3-4 2.3.3 LOCAL METEOROLOGY 2.3-5 2.3.3.1 Data from Offsite Sources (Historical) 2.3-5 2.3.3.2 Onsite Normal and Extreme Values of Meteorological Parameters (Historical) 2.3-5 2.3.3.3 Potential Influence of the Plant and Its Facilities on Local Meteorology (Historical) 2.3-13 2.3.3.4 Topographical Description (Historical) 2.3-14 2.3.4 ONSITE METEOROLOGICAL MEASUREMENT PROGRAM 2.3-14 2.3.4.1 Wind Measurement System 2.3-19 2.3.4.2 Temperature Measurement System 2.3-19 2.3.4.3 Dew Point Measurement System 2.3-20 2.3.4.4 Precipitation Measurement System 2.3-20 2.3.4.5 Supplemental Measurement System 2.3-20 2.3.4.6 Meteorological Datalogger 2.3-21 2.3.4.7 Meteorological Computers 2.3-23 DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE Chapter 2 CONTENTS (Continued)

Section Title Page iii Revision 23 December 2016 2.3.4.8 Power Supply for Meteorological Equipment 2.3-25 2.3.5 SHORT-TERM (ACCIDENT) DIFFUSION ESTIMATES 2.3-26 2.3.5.1 Objective (Historical) 2.3-26 2.3.5.2 Calculations (Historical) 2.3-26 2.3.6 LONG-TERM (ROUTINE) DIFFUSION ESTIMATES 2.3-27 2.3.6.1 Objective (Historical) 2.3-27 2.3.6.2 Calculations (Historical) 2.3-28 2.3.6.3 Meteorological Parameters (Historical) 2.3-28 2.

3.7 CONCLUSION

S 2.3-29 2.3.8 SAFETY EVALUATION 2.3-30 2.3.8.1 General Design Criterion 11, 1967 - Control Room 2.3-30 2.3.8.2 General Design Criterion 12, 1967 - Instrumentation and Control Systems 2.3-30 2.3.8.3 Meteorology Safety Function Requirements 2.3-30 2.3.8.4 Safety Guide 23, February 1972 - Onsite Meteorological Programs 2.3-30 2.3.8.5 Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 3 - Instrumentation for Light-Water- Cooled Nuclear Power Plants to Assess Plant and Environs Conditions During and Following an Accident 2.3-30 2.3.8.6 Regulatory Guide 1.111, March 1976 - Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light-Water-Cooled Reactors 2.3-31 2.3.8.7 NUREG=0737 (Item III.A.2), November 1980 - Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements 2.3-31 2.3.8.8 IE Information Notice 84-91, December 1984 - Quality Control Problems of Meteorological Measurements Programs 2.3-31

2.

3.9 REFERENCES

2.3-32 DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE Chapter 2 CONTENTS (Continued)

Section Title Page iv Revision 23 December 2016 2.4 HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING 2.4-1 2.4.1 DESIGN BASES 2.4-1 2.4.1.1 General Design Criterion 2, 1967 - Performance Standards 2.4-1 2.4.1.2 Regulatory Guide 1.59, Revision 2, August 1977 - Design Basis Floods for Nuclear Power Plants 2.4-1 2.4.1.3 Regulatory Guide 1.102, Revision 1, September 1976 - Flood Protection for Nuclear Power Plants 2.4-1 2.4.1.4 Regulatory Guide 1.125, Revision 1, October 1978 - Physical Models for Design and Operation of Hydraulic Structures and Systems for Nuclear Power Plants 2.4-1 2.4.2 HYDROLOGIC DESCRIPTION 2.4-1 2.4.2.1 Site and Facilities (Historical) 2.4-1 2.4.2.2 Hydrosphere (Historical) 2.4-2 2.4.3 FLOODS 2.4-2 2.4.3.1 Flood History (Historical) 2.4-2 2.4.3.2 Flood Design Considerations 2.4-3 2.4.4 PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD (PMF) ON STREAMS AND RIVERS 2.4-5 (Historical) 2.4.4.1 Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) (Historical) 2.4-5 2.4.4.2 Precipitation Losses (Historical) 2.4-6 2.4.4.3 Runoff Model (Historical) 2.4-7 2.4.4.4 Probable Maximum Flood Flow (Historical) 2.4-8 2.4.4.5 Water Level Determinations (Historical) 2.4-8 2.4.4.6 Coincident Wind Wave Activity (Historical) 2.4-8 2.4.5 POTENTIAL DAM FAILURES (SEISMICALLY INDUCED) (Historical) 2.4-8

2.4.6 PROBABLE MAXIMUM SURGE AND SEICHE FLOODING 2.4-9 2.4.6.1 Probable Maximum Winds and Associated Meteorological Parameters 2.4-9 2.4.6.2 Surge and Seiche History 2.4-9 2.4.6.3 Surge and Seiche Sources 2.4-9 2.4.6.4 Wave Action 2.4-9 2.4.6.5 Resonance/Ponding 2.4-10 2.4.6.6 Runup and Drawdown 2.4-10 2.4.6.7 Protective Structures 2.4-11 DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE Chapter 2 CONTENTS (Continued)

Section Title Page v Revision 23 December 2016

2.4.7 PROBABLE MAXIMUM TSUNAMI FLOODING 2.4-11 2.4.7.1 Probable Maximum Tsunami 2.4-11 2.4.7.2 Historical Tsunami Record (Historical) 2.4-14 2.4.7.3 Source of Tsunami Wave Height 2.4-15 2.4.7.4 Tsunami Height Offshore 2.4-15 2.4.7.5 Hydrography and Harbor or Breakwater Influences on Tsunami 2.4-15 2.4.7.6 Effects on PG&E Design Class I Facilities 2.4-16 2.4.7.7 Background and Evolution of the Tsunami Design Basis 2.4-17

2.4.8 ICE FLOODING (Historical) 2.4-17

2.4.9 COOLING WATER CANALS AND RESERVOIRS (Historical) 2.4-17

2.4.10 CHANNEL DIVERSIONS (Historical) 2.4-18

2.4.11 FLOODING PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS 2.4-18

2.4.12 LOW WATER CONSIDERATIONS 2.4-18 2.4.12.1 Low Flow in Rivers and Streams 2.4-18 2.4.12.2 Low Water Resulting from Surges, Seiches, or Tsunamis 2.4-18 2.4.12.3 Historical Low Water 2.4-18 2.4.12.4 Future Control 2.4-18 2.4.12.5 Plant Requirements 2.4-19 2.4.12.6 Heat Sink Dependability Requirements 2.4-19

2.4.13 ENVIRONMENTAL ACCEPTANCE OF EFFLUENTS 2.4-19

2.4.14 GROUNDWATER 2.4-20 2.4.14.1 Description and Onsite Use (Historical) 2.4-20 2.4.14.2 Monitoring and Safeguard Requirements 2.4-20

2.4.15 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS AND EMERGENCY OPERATION REQUIREMENTS 2.4-20

2.4.16 SAFETY EVALUATION 2.4-20 2.4.16.1 General Design Criterion 2, 1967 - Performance Standards 2.4-20 2.4.16.2 Regulatory Guide 1.59, Revision 2, August 1977 - Design Basis Floods for Nuclear Power Plants 2.4-20 2.4.16.3 Regulatory Guide 1.102, Revision 1, September 1976 - Flood Protection for Nuclear Power Plants 2.4-21 DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE Chapter 2 CONTENTS (Continued)

Section Title Page vi Revision 23 December 2016 2.4.16.4 Regulatory Guide 1.125, Revision 1, October 1978 - Physical Models for Design and Operation of Hydraulic Structures and Systems for Nuclear Power Plants 2.4-21

2.4.17 REFERENCES 2.4-21

2.4.18 REFERENCE DRAWINGS 2.4-24 2.5 GEOLOGY AND SEISMOLOGY 2.5-1

2.5.1 DESIGN BASIS 2.5-3 2.5.1.1 General Design Criterion 2, 1967 Performance Standards 2.5-3 2.5.1.2 License Condition 2.C(7) of DCPP Facility Operating License DPR-80 Rev. 44 (LTSP), Elements (1), (2), and (3) 2.5-4 2.5.1.3 10 CFR Part 100, March 1966- Reactor Site Criteria 2.5.4

2.5.2 BASIC GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC INFORMATION 2.5-4 2.5.2.1 Regional Geology 2.5-5 2.5.2.2 Site Geology 2.5-25

2.5.3 VIBRATORY GROUND MOTION 2.5-56 2.5.3.1 Geologic Conditions of the Site and Vicinity 2.5-56 2.5.3.2 Underlying Tectonic Structures 2.5-56 2.5.3.3 Behavior During Prior Earthquakes 2.5-57 2.5.3.4 Engineering Properties of Materials Underlying the Site 2.5-57 2.5.3.5 Earthquake History 2.5-57 2.5.3.6 Correlation of Epicenters with Geologic Structures 2.5-58 2.5.3.7 Identification of Active Faults 2.5-59 2.5.3.8 Description of Active Faults 2.5-59 2.5.3.9 Design and Licensing Basis Earthquakes 2.5-59 2.5.3.10 Ground Accelerations and Response Spectra 2.5-62 2.5.4 SURFACE FAULTING 2.5-67 2.5.4.1 Geologic Conditions of the Site 2.5-67 2.5.4.2 Evidence for Fault Offset 2.5-67 2.5.4.3 Identification of Active Faults 2.5-67 2.5.4.4 Earthquakes Associated with Active Faults 2.5-67 2.5.4.5 Correlation of Epicenters with Active Faults 2.5-69 2.5.4.6 Description of Active Faults 2.5-71 2.5.4.7 Results of Faulting Investigation 2.5-71 DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE Chapter 2 CONTENTS (Continued)

Section Title Page vii Revision 23 December 2016 2.5.5 Stability of Subsurface Materials 2.5-71 2.5.5.1 Geologic Features 2.5-71 2.5.5.2 Properties of Underlying Materials 2.5-76 2.5.5.3 Plot Plan 2.5-76 2.5.5.4 Soil and Rock Characteristics 2.5-76 2.5.5.5 Excavations and Backfill 2.5-76 2.5.5.6 Groundwater Conditions 2.5-76 2.5.5.7 Response of Soil and Rock to Dynamic Loading 2.5-77 2.5.5.8 Liquefaction Potential 2.5-77 2.5.5.9 Earthquake Design Basis 2.5-77 2.5.5.10 Static Analysis 2.5-77 2.5.5.11 Criteria and Design Methods 2.5.77 2.5.5.12 Techniques to Improve Subsurface Conditions 2.5-77 2.5.6 SLOPE STABILITY 2.5-78 2.5.6.1 Slope Characteristics 2.5-78 2.5.6.2 Design Criteria and Analyses 2.5-79 2.5.6.3 Slope Stability for Buried Auxiliary Saltwater System Piping 2.5-80

2.5.7 LONG TERM SEISMIC PROGRAM 2.5-80 2.5.7.1 Shoreline Fault Zone 2.5-81 2.5.7.2 Evaluation of Updated Estimates of Ground Motion 2.5-82 2.5.8 SAFETY EVALUATION 2.5-82 2.5.8.1 General Design Criterion 2, 1967 - Performance Standards 2.5-82 2.5.8.2 License Condition 2.C(7) of DCPP Facility Operating License

DPR-80 Rev 44 (LTSP), Elements (1), (2), and (3) 2.5-82 2.5.8.3 10 CFR Part 100, March 1966 - Reactor Site Criteria 2.5-83 2.

5.9 REFERENCES

2.5-83 DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE Chapter 2 TABLES Table

Title

viii Revision 23 December 2016

2.1-1 Population Trends of the State of California and of San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties (Historical) 2.1-2 Growth of Principal Communities Within 50 Miles of DCPP Site (Historical)

2.1-3 Population Centers of 1000 or More Within 50 Miles of DCPP Site (Historical) 2.1-4 Transient Population at Recreation Areas Within 50 Miles of DCPP Site (Historical) 2.1-5 1985 Land Use Census -- Distances in Miles from the Unit 1 Centerline to the Nearest Milk Animal, Residence, Vegetable Garden (Historical) 2.3-1 Persistence of Calm at Diablo Ca nyon Expressed As Percentage of Total Hourly Observations for Which the Mean Hourly Wind Speed Was Less

Than 1 Mile Per Hour for More Than 1 to 10 Hours (Historical) 2.3-2 Normalized Annual Ground Level Concentrations Downwind from DCPP Site Ground Release (Historical) 2.3-3 Monthly Mixing Heights at DCPP Site (Historical)

2.3-4 Estimates of Relative Concentrations at Specified Locations Downwind of DCPP Site (Historical) 2.3-5 Deleted in Revision 2

2.3-6 DCPP Site Precipitation Data (Historical)

2.3-7 DCPP Site Temperature Data (Historical)

2.3-8 Percentage Frequency of Occurrence, Directions by Speed Groups - All Months - Santa Maria (Historical) 2.3-9 Percentage Frequency of Occurrence, Directions by Speed Groups -

January - Santa Maria (Historical) 2.3-10 Percentage Frequency of Occurrence, Directions by Speed Groups -

February - Santa Maria (Historical)

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE Chapter 2 TABLES Table

Title

ix Revision 23 December 2016

2.3-11 Percentage Frequency of Occurrence, Directions by Speed Groups -

March - Santa Maria (Historical)

2.3-12 Percentage Frequency of Occurrence, Directions by Speed Groups -

April - Santa Maria (Historical) 2.3-13 Percentage Frequency of Occurrence, Directions by Speed Groups -

May - Santa Maria (Historical) 2.3-14 Percentage Frequency of Occurrence, Directions by Speed Groups -

June - Santa Maria (Historical) 2.3-15 Percentage Frequency of Occurrence, Directions by Speed Groups -

July - Santa Maria (Historical) 2.3-16 Percentage Frequency of Occurrence, Directions by Speed Groups -

August - Santa Maria (Historical) 2.3-17 Percentage Frequency of Occurrence, Directions by Speed Groups -

September - Santa Maria (Historical) 2.3-18 Percentage Frequency of Occurrence, Directions by Speed Groups -

October - Santa Maria (Historical) 2.3-19 Percentage Frequency of Occurrence, Directions by Speed Groups -

November - Santa Maria (Historical) 2.3-20 Percentage Frequency of Occurrence, Directions by Speed Groups -

December - Santa Maria (Historical) 2.3-21 Extremely Unstable, Frequency Table - Diablo Canyon (Historical)

2.3-22 Moderately Unstable, Frequency Table - Diablo Canyon (Historical)

2.3-23 Slightly Unstable, Frequency Table - Diablo Canyon (Historical)

2.3-24 Neutral, Frequency Table - Diablo Canyon (Historical)

2.3-25 Slightly Stable, Frequency Table - Diablo Canyon (Historical)

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE Chapter 2 TABLES (Continued)

Table

Title

x Revision 23 December 2016 2.3-26 Moderately Stable, Frequency Table - Diablo Canyon (Historical)

2.3-27 Extremely Stable, Frequency Table - Diablo Canyon (Historical)

2.3-28 DCPP Site - Distribution of Wind Speed Observations by Stability Class (Historical) 2.3-29 DCPP Site - Station E 25 foot Level, Vertical Angle Stability Class A (Historical) 2.3-30 DCPP Site - Station E 25 foot Level, Vertical Angle Stability Class B (Historical) 2.3-31 DCPP Site - Station E 25 foot Level, Vertical Angle Stability Class C (Historical) 2.3-32 DCPP Site - Station E 25 foot Level, Vertical Angle Stability Class D (Historical) 2.3-33 DCPP Site - Station E 25 foot Level, Vertical Angle Stability Class E (Historical) 2.3-34 DCPP Site - Station E 25 foot Level, Vertical Angle Stability Classes F and G (Historical) 2.3-35 DCPP Site - Station E 25 foot Level, Azimuth Angle Stability Class A (Historical) 2.3-36 DCPP Site - Station E 25 foot Level, Azimuth Angle Stability Class B (Historical) 2.3-37 DCPP Site - Station E 25 foot Level, Azimuth Angle Stability Class C (Historical) 2.3-38 DCPP Site - Station E 25 foot Level, Azimuth Angle Stability Class D (Historical) 2.3-39 DCPP Site - Station E 25 foot Level, Azimuth Angle Stability Class E (Historical) 2.3-40 DCPP Site - Station E 25 foot Level, Azimuth Angle Stability Class F DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE Chapter 2 TABLES (Continued)

Table

Title

xi Revision 23 December 2016 and G (Historical) 2.3-41 Cumulative Percentage Distributions of /Q Estimates Based on Distance and Wind Sector Centerline for Ground Level Releases (Historical) 2.3-42 DCPP Site - Stability Based on Vertical Temperature Gradient, Extremely Unstable (Historical) 2.3-43 DCPP Site - Stability Based on Vertical Temperature Gradient, Moderately Unstable (Historical)

2.3-44 DCPP Site - Stability Based on Vertical Temperature Gradient, Slightly Unstable (Historical) 2.3-45 DCPP Site - Stability Based on Vertical Temperature Gradient, Neutral (Historical) 2.3-46 DCPP Site - Stability Based on Vertical Temperature Gradient, Slightly Stable (Historical) 2.3-47 DCPP Site - Stability Based on Vertical Temperature Gradient, Moderately Stable (Historical) 2.3-48 DCPP Site - Stability Based on Vertical Temperature Gradient, Extremely Stable (Historical) 2.3-49 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class A, Annual (Historical)

2.3-50 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class B, Annual (Historical)

2.3-51 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class C, Annual (Historical)

2.3-52 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class D, Annual (Historical)

2.3-53 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class E, Annual (Historical)

2.3-54 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class F, Annual (Historical)

2.3-55 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class G, Annual (Historical)

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE Chapter 2 TABLES (Continued)

Table

Title

xii Revision 23 December 2016 2.3-56 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class A, January (Historical)

2.3-57 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class B, January (Historical)

2.3-58 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class C, January (Historical)

2.3-59 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class D, January (Historical)

2.3-60 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class E, January (Historical)

2.3-61 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class F, January (Historical)

2.3-62 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class G, January (Historical)

2.3-63 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class A, February (Historical)

2.3-64 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class B, February (Historical) 2.3-65 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class C, February (Historical) 2.3-66 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class D, February (Historical)

2.3-67 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class E, February (Historical)

2.3-68 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class F, February (Historical)

2.3-69 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class G, February (Historical)

2.3-70 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class A, March (Historical)

2.3-71 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class B, March (Historical)

2.3-72 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class C, March (Historical)

2.3-73 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class D, March (Historical)

2.3-74 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class E, March (Historical)

2.3-75 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class F, March (Historical)

2.3-76 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class G, March (Historical)

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE Chapter 2 TABLES (Continued)

Table

Title

xiii Revision 23 December 2016

2.3-77 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class A, April (Historical)

2.3-78 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class B, April (Historical)

2.3-79 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class C, April (Historical)

2.3-80 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class D, April (Historical)

2.3-81 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class E, April (Historical)

2.3-82 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class F, April (Historical)

2.3-83 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class G, April (Historical)

2.3-84 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class A, May (Historical)

2.3-85 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class B, May (Historical) 2.3-86 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class C, May (Historical)

2.3-87 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class D, May (Historical)

2.3-88 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class E, May (Historical)

2.3-89 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class F, May (Historical)

2.3-90 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class G, May (Historical)

2.3-91 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class A, June (Historical)

2.3-92 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class B, June (Historical)

2.3-93 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class C, June (Historical)

2.3-94 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class D, June (Historical)

2.3-95 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class E, June (Historical)

2.3-96 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class F, June (Historical)

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE Chapter 2 TABLES (Continued)

Table

Title

xiv Revision 23 December 2016 2.3-97 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class G, June (Historical)

2.3-98 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class A, July (Historical)

2.3-99 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class B, July (Historical)

2.3-100 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class C, July (Historical)

2.3-101 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class D, July (Historical)

2.3-102 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class E, July (Historical)

2.3-103 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class F, July (Historical)

2.3-104 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class G, July (Historical)

2.3-105 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class A, August (Historical) 2.3-106 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class B, August (Historical) 2.3-107 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class C, August (Historical) 2.3-108 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class D, August (Historical)

2.3-109 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class E, August (Historical)

2.3-110 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class F, August (Historical)

2.3-111 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class G, August (Historical)

2.3-112 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class A, September (Historical)

2.3-113 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class B, September (Historical)

2.3-114 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class C, September (Historical)

2.3-115 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class D, September (Historical)

2.3-116 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class E, September (Historical)

2.3-117 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class F, September (Historical)

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE Chapter 2 TABLES (Continued)

Table

Title

xv Revision 23 December 2016

2.3-118 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class G, September (Historical)

2.3-119 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class A, October (Historical)

2.3-120 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class B, October (Historical)

2.3-121 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class C, October (Historical)

2.3-122 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class D, October (Historical)

2.3-123 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class E, October (Historical)

2.3-124 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class F, October (Historical)

2.3-125 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class G, October (Historical)

2.3-126 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class A, November (Historical) 2.3-127 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class B, November (Historical) 2.3-128 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class C, November (Historical)

2.3-129 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class D, November (Historical)

2.3-130 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class E, November (Historical)

2.3-131 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class F, November (Historical)

2.3-132 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class G, November (Historical)

2.3-133 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class A, December (Historical)

2.3-134 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class B, December (Historical)

2.3-135 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class C, December (Historical)

2.3-136 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class D, December (Historical)

2.3-137 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class E, December (Historical)

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE Chapter 2 TABLES (Continued)

Table

Title

xvi Revision 23 December 2016 2.3-138 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class F, December (Historical)

2.3-139 DCPP Site Wind Data, Stability Class G, December (Historical)

2.3-140 Deleted in Revision 9

2.3-141 Ranges of Stability Classification Parameters for Each Stability Category at DCPP Site (Historical) 2.3-142 Summary of Meteorological Data for Diffusion Experiments at DCPP Site (Historical) 2.3-143 Deleted in Revision 2

2.3-144 DCPP Site Nighttime P-G Stability Categories Based on (Historical) 2.4-1 Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) As a Function of Duration at DCPP Site As Determined from USWB HMR No. 36 (Historical) 2.5-1 Listing of Earthquakes Within 75 Miles of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant Site 2.5-2 Summary, Revised Epicenters of Representative Samples of Earthquakes off the Coast of California Near San Luis Obispo 2.5-3 Displacement History of Faults in the Southern Coast Ranges of California

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE Chapter 2 FIGURES (Continued)

Figure

Title

xvii Revision 23 December 2016

2.1-1 Site Location Map (Historical) 2.1-2 Site Plan and Gaseous Liquid Effluent Release Points 2.1-3 Aerial Photograph of the Site (Historical) 2.1-4 Population Distribution, 0 to 10 Miles, 2000 Census (Historical)

2.1-5 Population Distribution, 0 to 10 Miles, 2010 Projected (Historical)

2.1-6 Population Distribution, 0 to 10 Miles, 2025 Projected (Historical)

2.1-7 Population Distribution, 10 to 50 Miles, 2000 Census (Historical)

2.1-8 Population Distribution, 10 to 50 Miles, 2010 Projected (Historical)

2.1-9 Population Distribution, 10 to 50 Miles, 2025 Projected (Historical)

2.1-10 Deleted in Revision 8

2.1-11 Deleted in Revision 8

2.1-12 Deleted in Revision 8

2.1-13 Deleted in Revision 8 2.1-14 1985 Land Use Census (Historical)

2.1-15 Low Population Zone (Historical)

2.3-1 Topographical Features at Cross Sections to a 10 mile Radius

2.3-2 Topographical Features at Cross Sections to a 10 mile Radius

2.3-3 Location of Meteorological Stations Within the Site Boundary

2.3-4 Location of Meteorological Measurement Sites at Diablo Canyon and Vicinity 2.4-1 Plant Site Location Drainage and Topography (2 sheets)

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE Chapter 2 FIGURES (Continued)

Figure

Title

xviii Revision 23 December 2016

2.4-2 Surface Drainage Plan

2.4-3 Diablo Creek from Foot of 230 kV Switchyard to Pacific Ocean

2.4-4 Optimization of Fit, Diablo - Los Berros (3 sheets)

2.4-5 Design Flood Hydrograph (3 sheets)

2.4-6 General Layout of Breakwaters (2 sheets)

2.4-7 (a) Typical Sections for Tribar Armor Construction

2.4-8 (a) Restored Cross-sections and Embedment Plan

2.4-9 Dimensions for Tribars

2.5-1 Plant Site Location and Topography

2.5-2 Earthquake Epicenters Within 200 Miles of Plant Site

2.5-3 Faults and Earthquake Epicenters Within 75 Miles of Plant Site (For Earthquakes with Assigned Magnitudes)

2.5-4 Faults and Earthquake Epicenters Within 75 Miles of Plant Site (For Earthquakes with Assigned Intensities Only)

2.5-5 Geologic and Tectonic Map of Southern Coast Ranges in the Region of Plant Site (2 sheets)

2.5-6 Geologic Map of the Morro Bay South and Port San Luis Quadrangles, San Luis Obispo County, California, and Adjacent Offshore Area

2.5-7 Geologic Section Through Exploratory Oil Wells in the San Luis Range

2.5-8 Geologic Map of Diablo Canyon Coastal Area

2.5-9 Geologic Map of Switchyard Area

2.5-10 Geologic Section Through the Plant Site

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE Chapter 2 FIGURES (Continued)

Figure

Title

xix Revision 23 December 2016 2.5-11 Site Exploration Features and Bedrock Contours

2.5-12 Unit 1 - Geologic Sections and Sketches Along Exploratory Trenches

2.5-13 Unit 2 - Geologic Sections and Sketches Along Exploratory Trenches

2.5-14 Relationships of Faults and Shears at Plant Site

2.5-15 Geologic Map of Excavations for Plant Facilities

2.5-16 Geologic Sections Through Exca vations for Plant Facilities 2.5-17 Plan of Excavation and Backfill 2.5-18 Section A-A, Excavation and Backfill 2.5-19 Soil Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson's Ratio 2.5-20 Smooth Response Acceleration Spectra - Earthquake "B" 2.5-21 Smooth Response Acceleration Spectra - Earthquake "D" Modified 2.5-22 Power Plant Slope - Plan 2.5-23 Power Plant Slope - Log of Boring 1 2.5-24 Power Plant Slope - Log of Boring 2 2.5-25 Power Plant Slope - Log of Boring 3 2.5-26 Power Plant Slope - Log of Test Pits 1 and 2 2.5-27 Power Plant Slope - Log of Test Pit 3 2.5-28 Power Plant Slope - Soil Classification Chart and Key to Test Area 2.5-29 Free Field Spectra (Horizontal), Hosgri: 7.5M/Blume 2.5-30 Free Field Spectra (Horizontal), Hosgri: 7.5M/Newmark 2.5-31 Free Field Spectra (Vertical), Hosgri: 7.5M/Blume

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE Chapter 2 FIGURES (Continued)

Figure

Title

xx Revision 23 December 2016 2.5-32 Free Field Spectra (Vertical), Hosgri: 7.5M/Newmark

2.5-33 Free Field Spectrum Horizontal 1991 LTSP (84 th Percentile Non-Exceedance) as Modif ied per SSER-34

2.5-34 Free Field Spectrum Vertical 1991 LTSP (84th Percentile Non-Exceedance) as Modif ied per SSER-34

2.5-35 Free Field Spectra Horizontal LTSP (PG&E 1998) Ground Motion vs.

Hosgri (Newmark 1977)

2.5-36 Map of Shoreline Fault Study Area

NOTE:

(a) This figure corresponds to a controlled engineering drawing that is incorporated by reference into the FSAR Update. See Table 1.6-1 for the correlation between the

FSAR Update figure number and the corresp onding controlled engineering drawing number.

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.1-1 Revision 23 December 2016 Chapter 2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS This chapter describes the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) site and vicinity as they existed when the facility was licensed. In the past some changes to site characteristics

have been incorporated into this chapter and parts of this chapter reflect this more

recent information. Details of the current site area may not be completely consistent with the historic descriptions. Accurate and current site characteristics germane to the licensing bases are contained in the Emergency Plan, Annual Radiological

Environmental Operating Report, and the Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report.

HISTORICAL INFORMATION BELOW IS SHOWN IN ITALICS This chapter provides information on the geolog ical, seismolog ical, hydrological, and meteorological characteristics of the DCPP site and vicinity. Population distribution, land use, and site activities and controls are also discussed. This information, used in conjunction with the detailed technical disc ussions provided in other chapters, shows the adequacy of the site for the safe operation of nuclear power units.

2.1 GEOGRAPHY AND DEMOGRAPHY 2.1.1 DESIGN BASES

2.1.1.1 10 CFR Part 100 - Reactor Site Criteria

DCPP is committed to following the guidance set by the standard definition of exclusion area, low population zone (LPZ) and population center distance.

2.1.2 SAFETY EVALUATION

2.1.2.1 10 CFR Part 100 - Reactor Site Criteria

The DCPP commitment to exclusion area, LPZ and population center distance is described in the following sections.

HISTORICAL INFORMATION BELOW IS SHOWN IN ITALICS 2.1.2.1.1 Site Location

The DCPP site is adjacent to the Pacific Ocean in San Luis Obispo County, California, and is approximately 12 m iles west-southwest of the city of San Luis Obispo, the county seat. The reactor for Unit 1 is located at latitude 35°12'44" N and longitude 120°51'14" W. The Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates for zone 10 are

695,350 meters E and 3,898,450 meters N. The reactor for Unit 2 is located at latitude

35°12'41" N and longitude 120°51'13" W.

The UTM coordinates are 695,380 meters E DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.1-2 Revision 23 December 2016 and 3,898,400 meters N. Figure 2.1-1 locates the site on a map of western San Luis Obispo County.

2.1.2.1.2 Site Description The site boundary and the location of principal structures are shown in Figure 2.1-2. A portion of the site is bounded by the Pacific Ocean.

The DCPP site consists of approximately 750 acres of land located near the mouth of Diablo Creek. 165 acres of the DCPP site are located north of Diablo Creek; this acreage is owned by Pacific Gas and Electric Co mpany (PG&E). The remaining 585 acres are located adjacent to and south of Diab lo Creek. It was purchased in 1995 by Eureka Energy Company (Eureka), a wholly owned subsidiary of PG&E.

All coastal properties located north of Diablo Creek, extending north to the southerly boundary of Montana de Oro State Park and reaching inland approximately 1.5 mile has been owned by PG&E since 1988. Coastal properties located south of Diablo Creek

and also reaching inland approximately 1.5 mi le has been owned by Eureka since 1995.

Prior to 1995, PG&E leased the property from the owner, Luigi Marre Land and Cattle

Company. In 1988, PG&E purchased appro ximately 4500 acres located north of the DCPP site. This section of land consists of approximately 5 miles of coastline and reaches inland approximately 1.5 mile. Except for the DCPP site, the approximately 4500 acres are encumbered by a grazing lease that expires in the year 2000.

There are no plans for development of the property, most of which is within the area subject to the California Coastal Act of 1976.

Any development plans would be subject to approval by a discretionary land use permitting process. In 1988 the San Luis Obispo County Planning Department was g iven authority by the California Coastal Commission to interpret the Act and incorpor ate it into the County of San Luis Obispos General Plan, which included the right to issue coastal land use permits. Because it is a

discretionary permitting process, the County of San Luis Obispo has the authority to require development projects to be approved by the California Coastal Commission rather than obtaining final approval by the County of San Luis Obispo, Board of Supervisors.

In addition, portions of the coastal property have been listed in the National Register of Historic Places pursuant to the "National Historic Preservation Act of 1966" as a place of historic significance due to the presence of numerous Native American remains and scientific data potential.

2.1.2.1.3 Exclusion Area Control

PG&E has complete authority to determine all activities within the site boundary and this authority extends to the mean high water line along the ocean. On land, the site

boundary, the boundary of the exclusion area (as defined in 10 CFR 100), and the boundary of the unrestricted area (as defined in 10 CFR 20) are shown in Figure 2.1-2.

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.1-3 Revision 23 December 2016 Minimum distances from potential release points for radioactive materials to the unrestricted area boundary and to the mean high water line are also shown in Figure 2.1-2.

The definition of unrestricted area has been expanded over that in 10 CFR 20.1003.

The unrestricted area boundary may coincide with the exclusion (fenced) area boundary, as defined in 10 CFR 100.3, but the unrestricted area does not include areas

over water bodies. The concept of unrestricted areas, established at or beyond the site boundary, is utilized in the Technical Specifications limiting conditions for operation to keep levels of radioactive materials in liqu id and gaseous effluents as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA), pursuant to 10 CFR 50.36a.

On land, there are no activities unrelated to plant operation within the exclusion area; it

is not traversed by public highway or railroad. Normal access to the site is from the south by private road (PG&E road easement) that is fenced and posted by PG&E.

PG&E has the right, within the DCPP site, to use excavated materials during the construction of the plant (considering that PG&E obtains all permitting required by regulatory agencies prior to excavation). It is unclear legally if the owner retains all

mineral rights. Whatever mineral rights an owner may retain, the owner cannot exercise any such rights in a manner that would interfere with PG&Es rights. Any proposed

mining operation (including but not li mited to excavation, drilling, and blasting) that would be conducted close enough to the plant to threaten the structural integrity of its foundations will be carefully reviewed and PG&E will take whatever steps it deems necessary to ensure that: (a) the health and safety of the public is not jeopardized, and (b) the operation of the plant is not disrupted. Any entry by the lessee onto the land is subject to PG&E's safety rules and regulations, as is the right to restrict the use of buildings and other structures, and to exclude persons therefrom to the extent

necessary to comply with nuclear reactor site criteria.

The mineral rights within the 165 acre PG&E portion of the DCPP site are owned by

PG&E, but there is no information suggesting that the land contains any commercially valuable minerals other than fo r use as borrow materials.

The offshore area (below the mean high water line) is not under PG&E's control. Due to the natural rough and precipitous conditions of the offshore area at Diablo Cove and near its southerly boundary, as shown in the aerial photograph, Figure 2.1-3, the area could only be occupied with great difficulty. (Some of these rocks have since been incorporated into the breakwater.) There is no history of public access to these rocks.

The Captain of the Port of Los Angeles-Long Beach, under the authority of 33 U.S.C.

Section 1226 and Section 1231, has established a Security Zone in the Pacific Ocean, from surface to bottom, within a 2,000-yard radius of DCPP centered at position

35 12 23N, 120 51 23 W (Datum 83).

No person or vessel may enter or remain in this Security Zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port Los Angeles-Long DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.1-4 Revision 23 December 2016 Beach. This Security Zone will be enforced by representatives of the Captain of the Port of Los Angeles-Long Beach, San Luis Obispo Co unty Sheriff, and DCPP Security.

2.1.2.1.4 Population and Population Distribution PG&E has reviewed the original population totals and projections within the 50-mile radius of the plant. The following population data are based on the 2000 census and on projections based on estimates prepared by the State of California Department of Finance. The portion of California that lies within 50 miles of the site is relatively

sparsely populated, having approxi mately 424, 013 residents in 2000. A circle with a 50-mile radius includes most of San Luis Obispo County, about one-third of Santa Barbara County, and a minor, sparsely-populated portion of Monterey County. About

55 percent of the area within the 50-mile circl e is on land, the balance being on the Pacific Ocean.

The 2000 census population of this region is very close to that projected in the original Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), and subsequent projections by the Department of Finance are similarly close to earlier projections. Table 2.1-1 shows population trends of the State of California and of San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties.

Table 2.1-2 shows the growth since 1960 of the principal cities within 50 miles of the

site. Table 2.1-3 lists all communities within 50 miles having a population of 1000 or more, gives distance and direction from the site, and gives the 2000 population.

2.1.2.1.4.1 Population Within 10 Miles In 1980, approximately 16,760 persons resided within 10 miles of the site. The

1990 census counted approximately 22,200 residents within the same 10 miles. The 2000 census counted approximately 23,661 residents within the same 10 miles. As in 1980, the nearest residence is about 1-1/2 miles north-northwest of the site and two

persons occupy this dwelling. There are 9 p ermanently inhabited dwel lings, for about 17 residents, within 5 miles of the plant.

The population within the 6-mile radius, used in the emergency plan, is estimated to be 100.

Figure 2.1-4 shows the 2000 population distribution with in a 10-mile radius wherein the area is divided into 22-1/2° sectors, with part circles of r adii of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 10 miles.

Figures 2.1-5 and 2.1-6 show projected popu lation distributions for 2010 and 2025, respectively, and are based primarily on po pulation projections published by the California Department of Finance. The distributions are based on the assumption that the land usage will not change in character during the next 25 years, and that population growth within 10 miles will be proportional to growth in San Luis Obispo County as a whole.

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.1-5 Revision 23 December 2016 2.1.2.1.4.2 Population Between 10 and 50 Miles Figure 2.1-7 shows the 2000 population distribution bet ween 10 and 50 miles, within the sectors of 22-1/2°, as before, but with part circles of rad ii of 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 miles.

Figures 2.1-8 and 2.1-9 show projected distributions for 2010 and 2025, respectively, and are based primarily on population projections published by the California Department of Finance and interviews with area government officials. In 2000, some 82 percent of those persons within 50 miles of the site resided in the population centers

listed in Table 2.1-3.

2.1.2.1.4.3 Low Population Zone As previously mentioned, the population within the 6-mile radius used in the emergency plan is estimated to be 100. This number is derived from a survey of residences in this area, and approximates the LPZ as defined in 10 CFR 100. Coincidentally, 6 miles is the distance to the nearest residential community development at Los Osos, north of the site. It is assumed that the population withi n this mountainous and largely inaccessible zone will stay constant for the foreseeable future. Figure 2.1-15 shows the LPZ.

2.1.2.1.4.4 Transient Population In addition to the resident population presented in the tables and population distribution

charts, there is a seasonal influx of vacation and weekend visitors, especially during the summer months. This influx is heaviest along the coast from Avila Beach to south of

Oceano.

During August, the month of heaviest influx, the maximum overnight transient population in motels and state parks in this area is approximately 100,000 persons.

However, there are no significant seasonal or diurnal shifts in population or population

distribution within the LPZ. Table 2.1-4 lists transient population for recreation areas within 50 miles of the site for the periods of record listed.

Within the LPZ, the maximum recorded num ber of persons at any single time is estimated to be 5000. This figure is provided by the State Department of Parks and Recreation and corresponds to the maximum daytime use of Montana de Oro State Park. Overnight use is considerably less, an estimated maximum of 400. Evacuation of these numbers of persons from the park in the event of a radiation release could be accomplished as provided for in the emergency plan, with a reasonable probability that no injury would result. For all accident analyses considered in Chapter 15, there is a wide margin of safety between exposures at the outer boundary of the LPZ for a 30-day period following a postulated accident and the allowable doses considered acceptable in 10 CFR 100 for the same location.

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.1-6 Revision 23 December 2016 2.1.2.1.4.5 Population Center Distance The population center distance as defined in 10 CFR 100 is approximately 10 miles, the distance to the nearest boundary of San Luis Obispo, situated beyond the San Luis Range, east-northeast of the site, with a 2000 population of 44,174.

2.1.2.1.4.6 Public Facilities and Institutions Several elementary schools are located within 10 miles of the site, near Los Osos and Avila Beach. These serve the local community and do not draw from outlying areas.

California Polytechnic State University is 12 miles north-northeast of the DCPP site and has an enrollment of approximately 16,000.

Cuesta College is located 10 miles northeast of the DCPP site and has an enrollment of approximately 7,000.

Montana de Oro State Park is located north of the site.

Its area of principal use is along the beach, between 4 and 5 miles north-northwest of the site. The total number of visitor days during a 12-month period over the last five years averages approximately 680,000. 2.1.2.1.5 Boundaries for Establishing Effluent Release Limits On land, the boundary line of the unrestricted area (as defined in 10 CFR 20) coincides with the site boundary as shown in Figure 2.1-2. The relationship of the exclusion area

to the unrestricted area and the site area is also shown in Figure 2.1-2. Control of access to the land area within this boundary is as described for the exclusion area control. As therein described, no special provisions have been made for control of

access, during normal operation, to the offshore area below the mean high water line.

Occupancy of this area by any member of the public is expected to result in exposures, during normal operation, within the limits established by 10 CFR 20 and will be maintained ALARA.

2.1.2.1.6 Uses of Adjacent Lands and Waters The San Luis Range, attaining a height of 1800 feet, dominates the region between the

site and US Route 101. This upland country is used to a limited extent for grazing beef cattle and, to a very minor extent, dairy cattle. The terrain east of US Route 101, lying in the mostly inaccessible Santa L ucia Mountains, is sparsely populated with little development. A large portion of this area is included within the Los Padres National Forest.

2.1.2.1.6.1 Agriculture San Luis Obispo County has relatively little level land, except for a few small coastal valleys such as the Santa Maria and San Lui s Valleys, and some land along the county's northern border in the Salinas Valley and Carrizo Plain areas. Farming is a significant land use in the county. Principal crops include wine grapes, vegetables, DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.1-7 Revision 23 December 2016 cattle, nurseries, fruits, nuts, and grain. There are several vineyards and wineries located in the county. The countys lead ing agricultural product is wine grapes, valued at $123,500,000 in 2003. The total farm acreage in the county is approximately

1,300,000. The county contains a total of 2,128,640 acres.

2.1.2.1.6.2 Dairying

The nearest dairying activity is 12 miles northeast of the site at California State Polytechnic College and produces 1000 gallons of milk per day. Some replacement heifers and dry cows are sometimes pastured on property adjacent to site.

2.1.2.1.6.3 Fisheries

The DCPP site is located between two fishing harbors that support commercial and sport fishing activities. Port San Luis Harbor is located in Avila Beach, approximately 7 miles downcoast of the DCPP site. Morro Bay Harbor is located in Morro Bay, approximately 14 miles upcoast of the site. In 2003 the combined landings for the sport catch (known as commercial passenger fishing vessel fleet) totaled approximately 110,510 rockfish and 10,683 fish of other species, for a total of 8 fishing vessels. Sport

catch are calculated by the number of fish caught.

Commercial landings are calculated by poundage of land ings by port. In 2003 at Port San Luis and at Morro Bay Harbor, the landings were estimated to be as follows:

450,423 pounds of rockfish, 1,433,650 pounds of squid; 534,000 pounds of crab; 282,696 pounds of shrimp; and 1,592 pounds of urchins were landed.

There has been a dramatic decrease since 1970 in the abalone fishery, with approximately 621,000 pounds taken in 1966 and 200,000 pounds taken in 1970.

Some data suggest that the southern mov ement of the Southern California sea otter may have had an impact on the red abalone population.

2.1.2.1.6.4 Surface and Groundwater As discussed in Section 2.4, there are two public water supply groundwater basins within 10 miles of the site. Avila Beach County Water and Sewer District and San Miguelito Mutual Water and Sewer Company provide water to the Avila Beach and Avila Valley area.

2.1.2.1.6.5 Land Usage Within 5 Miles

An annual land use census is required by Regulatory Guide 4.8 (Reference 6). A census is required to be conducted at least once per year during the growing season (between February 15 and December 1 for th e Diablo Canyon environs). The census is to identify the nearest milk animal and nearest garden greater than 50 square meters (500 square feet) producing broadleaf vegetation in each of 16 22-1/2° sectors within a distance of 8 kilometers (5 miles) of the plant. In addition, Regulatory Guide 4.8 DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.1-8 Revision 23 December 2016 requires the identification of the location of the nearest residence in each of the 16 sectors within a distance of 5 miles.

Land owners were identified from San Luis Obispo County records, and direct contact was made with them or their tenants. The only agricultural activities indicated by County personnel were cattle grazing in much of the area surrounding the site, and a farm in the east-southeast sector (along the site access road) producing legumes and

cereal grass (grains).

Personal and telephone contacts with the land owners or tenants also identified a household garden greater than 500 square feet in the east sector in addition to the above mentioned farming. No milk ani mals were identified on these properties or within the first 5 miles in any sector.

The 1985 land use census results indicate the land use in the vicinity of the plant site has not changed significantly from that identified in Amendment 44 (July 1976) of the FSAR. A summary of the land use census is presented in Table 2.1-5 and Figure 2.1-14. Table 2.1-5 lists the distances measured in miles from the Unit 1 reactor centerline to the nearest animal, residence, and vegetable garden. The locations of

gardens or farms greater than 500 square feet are shown in Figure 2.1-14. There is a farm in the southeast sector along the site access road on the coastal plateau; it starts approximately 2 miles from the plant and extends to 4.5 miles from the plant.

Figure 2.1-14 also shows the nearest residence is 1.55 miles north-northwest of the plant. Nine permanent residences were identified within 5 miles of the plant.

2.

1.3 REFERENCES

1. Regulatory Guide 4.8, Environmental Technical Specifications for Nuclear Power Plants, USNRC, December 1975.

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.2-1 Revision 23 December 2016 2.2 NEARBY INDUSTRIAL, TRANSPORTATION, AND MILITARY FACILITIES

This section establishes that DCPP is designed to safely withstand the effects of potential accidents at, or as a result of the presence of, other industrial, transportation, mining, and military installations or operations near the site which may have a

potentially significant effect on the safe operation of the plant.

2.2.1 DESIGN BASES 2.2.1.1 Nearby Industrial, Transportation, and Mili tary Facilities Safety Function Requirement (1) Protection of the Intake Structure The DCPP intake structure is appropriately protected from marine vessel collisions that

may pose a significant hazard to the PG&E Design Class I auxiliary saltwater (ASW) system.

2.2.1.2 10 CFR Part 100 - Reactor Site Criteria PG&E considered the characteristics peculiar to the site, the site location and the use characteristics of the site environs when evaluating the DCPP site.

2.2.1.3 Regulatory Guide 1.78, June 1974 - Assumptions For Evaluating The Habitability Of A Nuclear Power Plant Control Room During A Postulated Hazardous Chemical Release The DCPP control room is appropriately protected from hazardous chemicals that may

be discharged as a result of events and conditions outside the control of the plant.

2.2.2 LOCATIONS AND ROUTES There are no industrial, transportation, mining, or military facilities within 5 miles of the

DCPP site. The DCPP site is adjacent to the Pacific Ocean; however, no people or

vessels are permitted to come within 2000 yards of the plant (refer to Section 2.1).

Coastal shipping lanes are approximately 20 miles offshore. Prior to 1998, there were local tankers coming into and out of Estero Bay, which is north of the DCPP site. There

is no further tanker traffic in either Port San Luis or Estero Bay. The local tanker

terminal at Estero Bay closed in 1994, and Avila Pier ceased operation in 1998.

Petroleum products and crude oil are no longer stored at Avila Beach, since the storage

tanks there were removed in 1999. However, some petroleum products and crude oil

continue to be stored at Estero Bay approximately 10 miles from the DCPP site.

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.2-2 Revision 23 December 2016 Port San Luis Harbor and the Point San Luis Lighthouse are located approximately 6.5 miles south-southeast of the DCPP site. The Coast Guard operates and maintains a modern light station and navigating equipment adjacent to the lighthouse. Located

approximately 6.5 miles east-southeast of the DCPP site is the Cal Poly pier that is

owned by California Polytechnic State University and is used for research.

US Highway 101 is the main arterial road serving the coastal region in this portion of

California. It passes about 9 miles east of the site, separated from it by the Irish Hills.

US Highway 1 passes 10 miles to the north and carries moderate traffic between

San Luis Obispo and the coast. The nearest public access is by county roads in Clark

Valley (5 miles north) and See Canyon (5 miles east). Access to the site is by Avila

Beach Drive (county road) to the entrance of PG&Es private access road (easement).

The Union Pacific Transportation Company provides rail service to the county by a route

that roughly parallels US Highway 101. There is no spur track into the site.

The San Luis Obispo County Airport is 12 miles east of the site. There is a smaller airport near Oceano, 15 miles east-southeast of the DCPP site, which accommodates

private planes only. The Camp San Luis Obispo airfield, 8 miles northeast of the DCPP

site, is not operational.

Aircraft operating out of the San Luis Obispo County Airport are limited to general

aviation, freight, and commuter flights weighing generally less than 100,000 pounds.

The approach route for visual landings passes 8 miles from the site, on the far side of the San Luis Range. The approach route for a portion of the traffic passes within approximately 4 miles of the DCPP site at an elevation of 3,000 feet, but is used

infrequently.

The largest military and industrial complex is Vandenberg Air Force Base, located about

35 miles south-southeast of the site in Santa Barbara County. Vandenberg Air Force

Base employs several thousand military and civilian personnel in the area of Lompoc-

Santa Maria.

The closest US Army installation is the Hunter-Liggett Military Reservation located in

Monterey County approximately 45 miles north of the site. The California National Guard maintains Camp Roberts, located on the border of Monterey County and

San Luis Obispo County, southeast of the Hunter-Liggett Military Reservation and

approximately 30 miles north of the DCPP site, and Camp San Luis Obispo, in San Luis

Obispo County, located about 14 miles northeast of the DCPP site. In addition, as

previously described, a US Coast Guard light station is located in Avila Beach on

property commonly known as the Point San Luis Lighthouse property.

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.2-3 Revision 23 December 2016 2.2.

2.1 DESCRIPTION

S No products are manufactured, stored or transported within 5 miles of DCPP site.

Industry in the vicinity of DCPP site is mainly light and of a local nature serving the

needs of agriculture in the area. Food processing and refining of crude oil are the

area's major industries, although the numbers employed are not large.

2.2.3 SAFETY EVALUATION 2.2.3.1 Nearby Industrial, Transportation, and Mili tary Facilities Safety Function Requirement (1) Protection of the Intake Structure Collisions of marine vessels with the intake structure are not a significant hazard to the

safe operation of DCPP. The intake structure is protected by massive breakwaters as described in Sections 2.4 and 3.4. Jack R. Benjamin & Associates, Inc., (JBA) (Reference 1), consultants to PG&E, assessed the likelihood of marine vessel collisions

with the intake structure thereby endangering operation of the PG&E Design Class I ASW system pumps.

JBA investigated maritime traffic in the vicinity of Diablo Canyon looking for events that

could lead to a marine vessel collision with the intake structure. The study considered

13 categories of large vessels, those greater than 100 feet in length and of more than

250 long tons displacement, and a single category including all smaller vessels.

Quantitative data were developed for the larger vessel collisions and probability

analyses made for both storm dependent and storm independent cases. Development

of quantitative data for the smaller vessel collision proved to be not feasible due to the

lack of sufficient records of small vessel traffic and accidental groundings. As an

alternative approach for smaller vessels, a deterministic structural analysis was made to

assess the potential damage to the intake structure for an extreme case collision

scenario involving the largest of the smaller vessel category.

The investigations were based on the following conservative assumptions that resulted

in computed frequencies of collisions substantially greater than likely to occur:

(1) The entire length of the breakwater is degraded to the mean lower low water (MLLW) level (2) Any vessel crossing the breakwater boundary always impacts the intake structure (3) All barges (either large or small vessels) are empty and have only a 3 to 4-foot draft

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.2-4 Revision 23 December 2016 The storm-independent case probabilistic analysis for large vessels yielded a best estimate frequency of 6.7 x 10

-6 collisions per year. The storm-dependent probabilistic analysis, the best estimate annual frequency of collision increased only moderately to 1.9 x 10-5. The storm independent case, which realistically assumes vessels arriving randomly and encountering storm conditions only a fraction of the time, was used as the basis for evaluating the frequency of impact.

The results of the deterministic analysis indicated that collisions with the intake structure by small vessels of 250 tons or less would be inconsequential to the PG&E Design

Class I function of the ASW pumps.

The study demonstrated that larger marine vessels are not likely to collide with the

intake structure and that collisions by smaller vessels would not cause sufficient

damage to the intake structure to impair the o peration of the ASW system. It is, therefore, concluded that collisions of marine vessels with the intake structure are not a

significant hazard to the safe operation of the power plant even if the entire breakwater

were to be degraded to the MLLW level. The breakwater in the fully repaired normal

condition provides a substantial physical barrier to vessels approaching the intake

structure, further reducing the potential hazard from collisions.

2.2.3.2 10 CFR Part 100 - Reactor Site Criteria PG&E has identified and evaluated the characteristics peculiar to the site, including the site location and the use characteristics of the site environment.

DCPP is located in a remote, sparsely populated, undeveloped site that is an essentially agricultural area. None of the activities described in Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.2.1 could constitute a hazard to the plant.

Due to very limited industry within San Luis Obispo County, any products or materials

manufactured, stored, or transported beyond 5 miles are not likely to be a significant

hazard to the plant.

No explosive or combustible materials are stored within 5 miles of the site and no

natural gas or other pipelines pass within 5 miles of the DCPP site. The risk of fire is minimal, since adjacent hills are sparsely covered with low lying brush and grasses.

Missiles fired from Vandenberg Air Force base to the Western Pacific Missile Range are

not directed north or west. Missile launch sites are some 36 miles due south of DCPP.

Polar orbit launches are in a southerly direction.

Local shipping tankers come within 5 to 10 miles of the DCPP site. Coastal shipping

lanes are approximately 20 miles offshore.

Because shipping does not approach closer than 5 miles of the DCPP site and a limited number of tankers pass through, shipping

does not pose a hazard to the DCPP site.

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.2-5 Revision 23 December 2016 Aircraft operating in the area are small in size and few in number. Take-off and landing patterns do not come near the DCPP site and the probability of aircraft impacting or

damaging the plant is very low.

On the DCPP site, as well as surrounding properties, there are no natural-draft cooling

towers or other tall structures with a potential for damage to PG&E Design Class I

equipment or structures in the event of collapse of such tall structures.

2.2.3.3 Regulatory Guide 1.78, June 1974 - Assumptions for Evaluating the Habitability of a Nuclear Power Plant Control Room During a

Postulated Hazardous Chemical Release

DCPP has evaluated control room habitabi lity in accordance with the Regulatory Guide 1.78, June 1974 screening criteria for stationary sources. Details of the evaluations are

discussed in Sections 6.4 and 9.4.1.

The nearby industrial, transportation, and military facilities are all located at distances

greater than 5 miles from the site.

Chemicals stored or situated or frequently shipped by rail, water, or road routes at distances greater than 5 miles from the plant need not be considered because, if a release occurs at such a distance, atmospheric dispersion

will dilute and disperse the incoming plume to such a degree that either toxic limits will

never be reached or there would be sufficient time for the control room operators to take appropriate action. In addition, the probability of a plume remaining within a given sector for a long period of time is quite small.

2.

2.4 REFERENCES

1. Charles A. Kircher, et al, Frequency of Vessel Impact With the Diablo Canyon Intake Structure, Jack R. Benjamin & Associates, Inc., Mountain View, CA, 1982.

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.3-1 Revision 23 December 2016 2.3 METEOROLOGY Historical summaries of normal and extreme values of meteorological parameters such as wind speed, wind direction, ambient air temperature, and precipitation are presented

in this section. The historical data contained in this section were used for initial plant

licensing and are not required to be updated. Wind speed and wind direction for tornado and dose analysis are discussed in Sections 3.3.2 and 15.5, respectively. The

ambient air temperature for heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) analysis is

discussed in Section 9.4. Precipitation data for probable maximum flood are discussed

in Section 2.4.3.

The onsite meteorological monitoring program is discussed in this section. The

program provides meteorological information for use in (1) estimating potential radiation

doses to the public resulting from actual, routine or accidental releases of radioactive

materials to the atmosphere and (2) coping with radiological emergencies. Note that

the dispersion factors calculated by the onsite meteorological monitoring program are produced and used for purposes of immediate radionuclide transport and dispersion

assessment, and are therefore separate from those used for design bases radiological

analyses as described in Section 15.5.5.

2.3.1 DESIGN BASES 2.3.1.1 General Design Criterion 11, 1967 - Control Room Meteorological monitoring is provided to support actions to maintain and control the safe

operational status of the plant from the control room.

2.3.1.2 General Design Criterion 12, 1967 -

Instrumentation and Control Systems Instrumentation and controls are provided as required to monitor meteorological

conditions.

2.3.1.3 Meteorology Safety Function Requirements (1) Calculation of Atmospheric Dispersion

The calculated relative concentration values are provided for use in (1) estimating

potential radiation doses to the public resulting from actual, routine or accidental

releases of radioactive materials to the atmosphere and (2) coping with radiological

emergencies.

2.3.1.4 Safety Guide 23, February 1972 - Onsite Meteorological Programs An onsite meteorological monitoring program that is capable of providing meteorological

data needed to estimate potential radiation doses to the public as a result of routine or

accidental release of radioactive material to the atmosphere and to asses other

environmental effects is provided.

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.3-2 Revision 23 December 2016 2.3.1.5 Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 3 - Instrumentation for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants to Assess Plant and Environs Conditions

During and Following an Accident Control room display instrumentation for use in determining the magnitude of the

release of radioactive materials and in continuously assessing such releases during and

following an accident is provided.

2.3.1.6 Regulatory Guide 1.111, March 1976 - Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light-Water-Cooled Reactors Annual average relative concentration values are used during the postulated accident to

estimate the long-term atmospheric transport and dispersion of gaseous effluents in

routine releases.

2.3.1.7 NUREG-0737 (Item III.A.2), November 1980 - Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements Item III.A.2 - Improving Licensee Emergency Preparedness-Long-Term:

Reasonable assurance is provided that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency. The requirements of NUREG-0654, Revision 1, November 1980, which provides meteorological criteria to ensure that the

methods, systems and equipment for monitoring and assessing the consequences of radiological emergencies are in use, is implemented.

Item III.A.2.2 - Meteorological Dat a: NUREG-0737, Supplement 1, January 1983 provides the requirements for III.A.2.2 as follows:

Reliable indication of the meteorological variables specified in Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 3, for site meteorology is provided.

2.3.1.8 IE Information Notice 84-91, December 1984 - Quality Control Problems of Meteorological Measurements Programs Meteorological data that are climatically representative, of high quality, and reliable in

providing credible dose calculations and recommendations for protective actions in an

emergency situation, and for doses calculated to assess the impact of routine releases

of radioactive material to the atmosphere are available.

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.3-3 Revision 23 December 2016 2.3.2 REGIONAL CLIMATOLOGY HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED.

2.3.2.1 Data Sources

The information used in determining the regional meteorological characteristics of Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) site consists of climatological summaries, technical studies, and reports by Dye (Reference 2), Edinger (Reference 3), Elford (Reference 4),

Holzworth (Reference 6), Martin (Reference 8), Thom References 13 and 14), and a

Weather Bureau Technical Paper (Reference 16), all pertinent to the region.

2.3.2.2 General Climate

The climate of the area is typical of the central California coastal region and is

characterized by small diurnal and seasonal temperature variations and scanty summer precipitation. The prevailing wind direction is from the northwest, and the annual

average wind speed is about 10 mph. In the dry season, which extends from May

through September, the Pacific high-pressure area is located off the California coast, and the Pacific storm track is located far to the north. Moderate to strong sea breezes are common during the afternoon hours of this season while, at night, weak offshore

drainage winds (land breezes) are prevalent.

There is a high frequency of fog and low stratus clouds during the dry season, associated with a strong low-level temperature

inversion.

The mean height of the inversion base is app roximately 1100 feet. During the wet season, extending from November through March, the Pacific high-pressure area moves southward and weakens in intensity, allo wing storms to move into and across the state. More than 80 percent of the annual rainfall occurs during this 5-month period.

Middle and high clouds occur mainly with win ter storm activity, and strong winds may be associated with the arrival and passage of storm systems. April and October are

considered transitional months separating the two seasons.

The coastal mountains that extend in a general northwest-to-southeast direction along

the coastline affect the general circulation patterns.

The wind direction in many areas is more likely a result of the local terrain than it is of the prevailing circulation. This range

of mountains is indented by numerous canyons and valleys, each of which has its own land-sea breeze regime. As the air flows alo ng this barrier, it is dispersed inland by the valleys and canyons that indent the coastal range. Once the air enters these valleys

and canyons, it is controlled by the local terrain features.

In areas where there are no breaks in the coastal range, the magnitude of the wind

speed is increased and the variation in the w ind direction decreases as the air is forced along the barrier. However, because of the irregular terrain profile and increased

mechanical turbulence due to the rough terrain, vertical mixing and lateral meandering DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.3-4 Revision 23 December 2016 under the inversion are enhanced. Therefore, emissions injected into the coastal regime are transported and dispersed by a com plex array of land-sea breeze regimes that lead to rapid dispersion in both the vertical and horizontal planes.

2.3.2.3 Severe Weather

The annual mean number of days with severe weather conditions, such as tornadoes

and ice storms at west coast sites, is zero. Thunderstorms and hail are also rare

phenomena, the average occurrence being less than three days per year, as reported

by Dye (Reference 2) and Thom (Reference 13). The maximum recorded precipitation in the San Luis Obispo region is 2.35 inches in 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> at the DCPP site, and 5.98 inches

in 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> at San Luis Obispo. The 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> maximum and the 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> maximum occurred on March 4, 1978. The 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> maximum recorded precipitation resulted from

a semistationary low-pressure system located southwe st of the central California coast that produced a series of frontal waves. These surges of warm, moist air moved into

and across the central portion of the state and produced heavy precipitation. The

1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> maximum was associated with the passage of a strong cold front.

The maximum recorded annual precipitation at San Luis Obispo was 54.53 inches

during 1969. The average annual precipitation at San Luis Obispo is 21.53 inches.

There are no fastest mile wind speed records in the general area of Diablo Canyon;

surface peak gusts at 46 mph have been reported at Santa Maria, California, and peak

gusts of 56 mph have been recorded at the 250 foot level on the tower at DCPP site.

The frequency of occurrence of peak gusts of this magnitude is approximately once

every 10 years. The 100 year recurrence interval wind speed for the site area is 80 mph, Thom (Reference 14). The numb er of days having a high air pollution potential averages ten per year, Holzworth (Reference 6).

One of the most severe tropical storms on record along the Southern California coast

occurred September 24-25, 1939. It moved northward off the Southern California coast

and came inland on the 25th in the Los Angeles area, but dissipated rapidly. This storm was attended by extremely heavy rains and winds of gale force in the Los Angeles area

and southward. Precipitation amounts recorded during the storm are shown below;

these data show that this storm had little or no effect on the DCPP site:

Precipitation in Inches Location September 24 September 25 September 26 Total Los Angeles 1.62 3.96 0.04 5.62 Oxnard 0.00 1.67 0.02 1.69 Ventura 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.80 Santa Barbara 0.09 0.16 0.01 0.26 Santa Maria 1.13 0.29 0.00 1.42 San Luis Obispo 0.04 0.48 0.07 0.59

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.3-5 Revision 23 December 2016 By definition, gale force winds range from 30 to 60 mph, so the intensity of this storm was about equal to the expected wind speed having a recurrence interval of 10 years at

the site. The maximum daily precipitation of 4 inches recorded in this storm was well under the expected maximum probabl e precipitation estimated for DCPP site.

2.3.3 LOCAL METEOROLOGY

HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED.

2.3.3.1 Data from Offsite Sources Meteorological data from National Weather Service Stations are indicated below and data from other sources near the DCP P site had been gathered and reported previously in prior FSAR Updates as Appendix 2.3J. Since this appendix, as well as other appendices to this chapter (including Append ices 2.3A-K, 2.4A-C, and 2.5A-F) is merely of historical value at this time, they have been removed from this revision of the FSAR

Update and are included only by reference collectively as Reference 27. However, all of these appendices are maintained availabl e for review at PG&E offices. In addition, these appendices have also been docketed at the NRC as a part of Revision 0 through Revision 10 of the FSAR Update. Further, since the nearest National Weather Service

Station is located approximately 30 airline miles southeast of the DCPP site, and since other offsite sources are separated from the site by rugged terrain, data from other

sources are not considered indicative of site conditions. The only representative local

data source is the onsite meteorological mea surement program, data from which are summarized in Section 2.3.3.2, below, and presented in detail in Appendix 2.3J of Reference 27.

Precipitation and ambient air temperature data at National Weather Service stations

surrounding DCPP are shown in Tables 2.3-6 and 2.3-7. Annual and monthly wind data summaries for Santa Maria, California, are shown in Tables 2.3-8 through 2.3-20.

The results of the analysis of the meteorol ogical observations made at the DCPP site are summarized in the following sections and presented in further detail in

References 1, 9, 10, and 11, and in Appendix 2.3J of Reference 27.

2.3.3.2 Onsite Normal and Extreme Values of Meteorological Parameters Summaries of normal and extreme values of meteorological parameters are presented in this section for six stations located on DCPP property. Detailed data are included in the locations described in this section.

Additional data from continued long-term operation of one site station (Station E) are presented in Appendix 2.3J of

Reference 27.

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.3-6 Revision 23 December 2016 2.3.3.2.1 Wind Speed and Wind Direction

The wind speed units in References 1, 9, and 10, and in Appendix 2.3J of Reference 27

are in miles per hour and were estimated to the nearest mile per hour. The wind speed

values in the tables contained in Reference 9 and Appendix 2.3J of Reference 27 refer

to the values included in each category.

For example, the category of 4-7 includes all wind speed values for 4, 5, 6, and 7 mph. The wind speed values in the tables

contained in References 1 and 10 are the midpoint values of the class intervals.

The seasonal and annual frequency distributions of wind speed and wind direction are

shown graphically in Figures 1 through 4, Reference 9. The percentage occurrence (expressed as the percent of the total number of observations in the period) for each of

the 16 wind direction sectors is represented by the length of the bars on the wind rose, and the average wind speed for each wind direction sector is plotted at the end of each

bar.

The annual frequency distribution of wind speed and wind direction at the six DCPP

stations is shown in Figure 1, Reference 9. The patterns at Stations E, A, and B are

grossly similar with about 50 percent of the observations comprising northwesterly winds with average speeds of 10 to 15 mph. The percentage of indicated hourly mean wind speeds that are 2 mph or less varies from 21 percent at Station E to 14 percent at

Station A. This variation may be attributed, in part, to the higher starting threshold of

the sensors at Station E.

As shown in Tables S.2-1 and S.2-2 of Reference 11, there is a 4 percent difference in

the percentage of indicated hourly mean wind speeds that are 2 mph or less for the two concurrent sets of measurements at the 25 foot level of Station E for the period April 1970 through March 1972. The measurements presented in Table S.2-1 were obtained from a lightweight cup and vane wind system, while the observations shown in

Table S.2-2 are concurrent measurements obtained fro m a Bendix-Friez aerovane wind system. The wind flows at Stations C and D, both located in Diablo Canyon, reflect the

channeling of the wind by the canyon walls; the predominant directions are up-canyon and down-canyon. The wind distribution at Station F tends to be somewhat circular, because of topographical factors, with the highest mean wind speeds identified with easterly flow.

The highest recorded peak gust at Station E is 84 mph, and the maximum recorded hourly mean wind speed is 54 m ph, both recorded at the 76-m level of the primary tower.

Figure 2 of Reference 9 shows that during the dry season northwesterly flow is

predominant; Figure 3 of Reference 9 shows there is an increase in southeasterly flow

during the wet season compared to the annual distribution. Wind frequency

distributions for the transitional months, April and October, show all six stations similar

to the annual patterns. Because of the small variability from month to month within a

particular season, monthly wind distribution s have not been prepared.

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.3-7 Revision 23 December 2016 The strong diurnal variability of the wind patterns at DCPP site is revealed in Figure 5

and in Figures I-1 through I-7 of Reference

9. The following time periods are shown in the figures for the six stations: Day, 1200-1700 PDT; Night, 2300-0500 PDT; Morning

0600-1100 PDT; and Evening, 1800-2200 PDT. During the day, the winds are

northwesterly at Stations E, A, and B. The daytime flow at Stations C and D in

Diablo Canyon is directed up-canyon. The m ost frequent daytime wind direction at Station F is from the northwest. During the night and morning periods, northerly and easterly drainage winds are typically present at all stations. The average nighttime wind

speeds at Stations E, A, and B are approximately one-half as great as the average

daytime speeds. At the other three stations, no large differences in mean wind speed between the daytime and nighttime regimes are apparent.

2.3.3.2.2 Ambient Air Temperature

Average ambient air temperatures for each month of the year, calculated from the hourly temperature measurements at Stations E, B, and F up to the year 1980, are plotted in Figures I-15 through I-17 of Reference 9. The average annual temperature at

the plant site is about 55°F. Generally, the warmest mean monthly temperature occurs in October, and the coldest mean mo nthly temperature occurs in December. The highest and lowest hourly temperatures recorded at the Diablo Canyon site through the year 2000 were 97

°F in October 1987 and 33

°F in December 1990, respectively.

2.3.3.2.3 Atmospheric Water Vapor and Fog

Measurements of atmospheric water vapor and fog observations are not present

throughout the entire meteorological data co llection program. However, measurements of these parameters are not essential at DCPP site since regional data are adequate for

design purposes and cooling towers are not being used.

2.3.3.2.4 Precipitation

Rainfall measurements made at the DCPP shown herein for two report periods. The first period was from July 1, 1967 through October 31, 1969 and is discussed in

Section 7.7 and summarized in Table 7 of Appendix 2.3A in Reference 27. The second

period was from May 1973 through April 1981 and is discussed in Section 2.3J.4.2 and

summarized in Table 2.3J-3 of Append ix 2.3J of Reference 27. Precipitation occurs typically during the period of late October through the first part of May and most

frequently in the presence of southeasterly wind flow in advance of a frontal system.

The average annual precipitation in the area is about 16 inches. The highest monthly

total during the period of record (1967-1981) was 11.26 inches as shown in Section 7.7

of Appendix 2.3A of Reference 27. The greatest amount of precipitation received in a

24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period was 3.28 inches as shown in Section 2.3J.4.2 and Table 2.3J-3 of

Appendix 2.3J of Reference 27. These maximums were recorded in January 1969 and

March 1978, respectively. The maximum ho urly amount recorded at DCPP site during the periods of record is 2.35 inches as shown in Section 2.3J.4.2 of Appendix 2.3J of DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.3-8 Revision 23 December 2016 Reference 27. The 1978-1979 winter season with 35.22 inches of rainfall was one of the heaviest precipitation seasons of record.

2.3.3.2.5 Wind Direction Persistence

The steadiness of the wind flow at DCPP site has been studied by tabulating the

number of consecutive hours the hourly mean wind direction remained within a given 22.5° angular sector. The results, expressed in terms of percentage of all hourly

observations, are plotted in Figures I-8 through I-14 of Reference 9, and presented also

in Table 2.3J-17 of Appendix 2.3J of Reference 27, for periods ranging from 1 through

24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. The mean wind direction at all stations in the analysis of Reference 9

remained within the same 22.5° sector for two consecutive hours or longer in 31 to

42 percent of the observations. The persistence of the wind direction decreases rapidly

for a longer time period with only 3 to 4 percent of the observations showing a

persistence of 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> or longer.

The longest run of persistent wind direction in the total set of measurements occurred at Station B where a northwest wind direction lasted for 51 consecutive hours. The longest period of calm (hourly mean wind sp eed less than 1 mph) observed at Station E, near the plant location, was 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br />. As shown in Table 2.3-1, the percentage of

the total hourly mean wind speed observations that are less than 1 mph at Station E is 5.9 and 4.9 percent at the 25 foot and 250 foot levels, respectively. The percentage of

time that the mean hourly wind speed wou ld be less than 1 mph for 8 consecutive hours or longer is less than 0.5.

As indicated by the persistence analysis, despite the prevalence of the marine inversion and the northwesterly wind flow gradient along the California coast, the long-term accumulation of plant e missions in any particular geogr aphical area downwind is virtually impossible. Pollutants injected into the marine inversion layer of the coastal wind regime are transported and dispersed by a complex array of land-sea breeze regimes that exist all along the coast wherever canyons or valleys indent the coastal

range. These conclusions are strongly supported by Edinger's (Reference 3)

comprehensive analysis of the influence of terrain and thermal stratification on wind

circulations along the California coast, as well as the onsite diffusion studies by Cramer

and Record (Reference 1).

2.3.3.2.6 Atmospheric Stability Conditions Defined by Turbulence Measurements

The Pasquill (Reference 17) stability categories (see Table 2.3-141) are frequently used as a convenient practical index for gauging the dispersal capacity of the atmosphere.

For example, unstable and near-neutral stability conditio ns (Pasquill Categories A, B, C, D) are favorable for the dilution of pollutants; on the other hand, poor dilution occurs under stable conditions (Pasquill Categories E, F, G). Following a procedure outlined

by Slade (Reference 12) the turbulence measurem ents obtained from the bidirectional vanes at Station E have been used to classify the wind observations at DCPP site

according to the Pasquill stability categories. Table 4 of Reference 9, shows the DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.3-9 Revision 23 December 2016 relationship between the range in azimuth and vertical wind angle and the Pasquill stability categories. Scaling factors used to convert the angle ranges to standard deviations were determined from the data presented in Table 2 of Reference 9.

The annual wind distributions for the 250 foot level at Station E, given by the measurements made during the period from July 1967 through October 1969, are

classified according to the range values of azimuth and vertical wind angles associated

with the various Pasquill categories, Tables I-2 through I-6 and Tables I-14 through I-18

of Reference 9. The corresponding annual wind distributions for the 25 foot level are

similarly classified, using the 250 foot turbulence measurements, in Tables I-8 through I-12, and I-20 through I-24 of Reference 9. As mentioned above, turbulence measurements were available only at the 250-foot level for this period.

As shown in Table 5 of Reference 9, when the range in azimuth wind angle is used to

determine the number of wind observations at Station E in the various Pasquill stability categories, 57 percent of the total observations are in the stable E, F, and G categories.

The unstable categories A, B, and C contain 25 percent of the total observations. When

the range in vertical wind angle is used to classify the Station E wind data, less than

20 percent of the total observations are in the E, F, and G stable categories. The

unstable categories A, B, and C account for about 65 percent of the total observations.

These apparent inconsistencies are explained in part by terrain restrictions on the

azimuth wind variations at the site.

The results also indicate the routine presence of relatively large vertical turbulence

intensities that are caused by the rough terrain at the site. Therefore, it is concluded

that the range in vertical wind-angle is a better index of turbulent mixing at DCPP site than the range in azimuth angle. This conclusion is strongly supported by Luna and Church's (Reference 7) comprehensive analysis of the use of measured vertical turbulence values to define stability conditions at sites with rough terrain.

Toward the end of the 2 year meteorological measurement program, July 1967 through October 1969, a question arose as to the applica bility of the azimuth and vertical wind fluctuations measured at the 250-foot level in determining the site dispersion characteristics for low-level releases resulting from an accident. Therefore, 1 year (October 1969 through September 1970) of concurrent azimuth and vertical wind-angle measurements were obtained at the 25- an d 250-foot levels. A detailed analysis of

these data is contained in Reference 10 where Tables S.1-1 through S.1-6, pages 7

through 12, and Tables S.1-13 through S.1-18, pages 19 through 24, contains the

annual wind distributions classifie d according to the azimuth wind-angle for the 25- and 250-foot levels, respectively. The annual distributions classified according to vertical

wind angle for the two levels are shown in Tables S.1-7 through S.1-12, pages 13

through 18, and Tables S.1-19 through S.1-24, pages 25 through 30.

When the range in azimuth wind-angle is used to classify these concurrent measurements, the 250 foot azimuth range yields the same percentages as the data collected during the period July 1967 through October 1969 (57 percent for the E, F, and G stable categories, and 25 percent for the unstable categories A, B, and C).

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.3-10 Revision 23 December 2016 However, when the azimuth ran ge measured at the 25 foot level is used to classify the total number of observations at the 25-foot level in the various Pasquill stability categories, 48 percent of the total observations are in the E, F, and G stable categories;

the unstable categories A, B, and C contain 29 percent of the total observations.

When the range in vertical wind-angle is used to classify the 1 year of concurrent measurement, again at the 250 foot level, there is very little change from the data

collected during the period of July 1967 through October 1969: 17 percent of the total

observations are in the E, F, and G stable categories and 68 percent are in the unstable

categories A, B, and C. At the 25-foot level, only 7 percent of the total observations are

in the E, F, and G stable categories. The percentage of total observations in the

unstable categories A, B, and C is 80 percent, compared to 66 percent calculated from

the wind-angle measurements from the 250 foot level during the period of July 1967

through October 1969.

Because of the poor dilution normally associ ated with the Pasquill F and G stable categories, the annual percentage occurrences of the F and G categories, in

combination with onshore winds of 2 mph or less were also determined and are shown in Tables S.1-1 and S.1-7 of Reference 10. Onshore wind directions include winds for

southeast through west-northwest, measured clockwise. The results from the 25-foot

level indicate that the Pasquill F and G and onshore wind combination defined above occurs slightly less than 4 percent of the time when the azimuth angle-range data are used as indices, and slightly more than 3 per cent of the time when the vertical range-angle data are used as indices. These percentages, which were calculated from the wind-angle measurements from the 250-foot level, are approximately one percentage

point less than those for the 25 foot level shown in Table 5 of Reference 9.

The seasonal distributions given in Figure 6 of Reference 9 show the highest

percentage of stable conditions during the dry season for both the azimuth and vertical

wind-angle classifications. Additional analyse s and discussion are presented in Appendix 2.3K of Reference 27.

2.3.3.2.7 Atmospheric Stability Conditions Defined by Vertical Temperature Gradient Measurements

The gross relationship between the hourly wind observations at Station E and the

thermal stratification can be shown by classifying the wind data into three stability

categories defined by the vertical temperature difference measured between the

250- and 25-foot levels on the tower.

The following ranges of the vertical temperature difference between these two levels

can be used to define the categories:

Stable (T 250 T 25) = +25.0 to +1.6°F Near Neutral (T 250 T 25) = +1.5 to 1.5°F Unstable (T 250 T 25) = 1.6 to 25.0°F DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.3-11 Revision 23 December 2016 A discussion of the effect of measure ment interval on stability estimates of temperature gradients is provided in Appendix 2.3G of Reference 27.

Joint frequency distributions of hourly wind speed and wind direction measurements at the 250-foot level for the three stability categories are contained in Reference 9, Tables I-26 through I-28. Similar frequency distributions of the hourly wind observations

at the 25-foot level are shown in Tables I-30 through I-32.

Over 70 percent of all the wind observations are grouped in the near-neutral category at

both levels. This large percentage is probably explained by the small vertical temperature gradients in the surface layer of the maritime air that reaches the tower

during onshore winds; the proximity of the tower to the shoreline, and the intense turbulent mixing induced by the rough terrain at DCPP site. Approximately 5 percent of

the total hourly observations at each level are identified with stable thermal stratification

and mean wind speeds of 2 mph or less. The percentage of total hourly observations and onshore winds (southeast through west-northwest measured clockwise), with mean

wind speeds of 2 mph or less, is 3.2 for the 250-foot level and 1.4 for the 25-foot level.

The corresponding percentages for the Pasquill F and G stability categories, as shown

in Table 2 of Reference 10, page 4, are 6 at the 250-foot level and 3.2 at the 25-foot

level when the range data for the vertical win d angle are used to define the Pasquill categories.

Wind data (speed and direction) classified int o seven stability categories (Pasquill A through G) are shown in Tables 2.3-21 through 2.3-27. The wind data were measured

at the 250-foot level and the vertical temperature difference measurements are 250-foot level minus 25-foot level. The wind speed values are in miles per hour and the values in the tables refer to the midpoint of each class interval. The rows are labeled with the wind direction at the midpoint of 22.5° intervals:

Midpoint, mph Class Interval, mph Calm Less than 1 2.0 1-3 5.1 4-7 9.6 8-12 15.1 13-18 21.1 19-24 39.6 > 24 Wind data (speed and direction) classified int o seven stability categories (Pasquill A through G) for the period May 1973 through April 1974 are shown in Tables 2.3-42

through 2.3-48. The wind data were measured at the 25-foot level and the vertical

temperature difference measurements are 250-foot level minus 25-foot level. The wind speed values are in miles per hour and the values in the tables refer to the midpoint of

each class interval. The rows are labeled with the wind direction at the midpoint of

22.5° intervals:

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.3-12 Revision 23 December 2016 Midpoint, mph Class Interval, mph Calm Less than 1 1.8 0.6 to 3.1 5.1 3.1 to 7.1 9.6 7.1 to 12.1 15.1 12.1 to 18.1 21.1 18.1 to 24.1 39.6 > 24 Wind data (speed and direction) classified int o seven stability categories (Pasquill A through G) for the period May 1973 through April 1975 are shown in Tables 2.3-49

through 2.3-55 on an annual basis, and in Tables 2.3-56 through 2.3-139, on a monthly

basis. The wind data were measured at the 10-meter level, and the vertical temperature gradient measurements were made at 76 meters minus 10 meters.

The wind speed values are in miles per hour and the values in the tables refer to the

midpoint of each class interval. The rows are labeled with the wind direction at the midpoint of 22.5° intervals:

Midpoint, mph Class Interval, mph 1.5 1.0-3 5.1 3.1-7 9.6 7.1-12 15.1 12.1-18 21.1 18.1-24 29.6 24.1-35 40.1 35.1-45 50.1 >45

These 2 years of data, May 1973 through April 1975, are considered representative of

long-term conditions at DCPP site, and are in agreement with other data taken at the site, such as that in Reference 9, Table I-7, page 2.3A-87, July 1967 through

December 1969 and the data in Appendix 2

.3J of Reference 27. The prevailing wind direction is from the northwest and the mean annual wind speed is about 10 mph.

Between 70 to 90 percent of the observations are contained in the stability classes D

and E, Tables 2.3-42 through 2.3-48, and Tables 2.3-49 through 2.3-55.

During the August 1969 review by the Environ mental Science Services Administration (ESSA) for Diablo Canyon Nuclear Unit 2, it was requested that the wind data be processed so that the distribution of wind speeds of 3 mph and less could be examined.

Since the wind sensor had a nominal starting speed of 2.2 mph, the following

procedures were followed in processing the wind data:

(1) Calm refers to hourly wind spe ed traces indicating zero wind speed and hourly direction traces that were either squarewave or straight line DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.3-13 Revision 23 December 2016 (2) The values shown for the 1 and 2 mph categories were determined by equal area averaging (3) For wind speed entries in the 1 and 2 mph categories that show a calm wind direction, refer to hourly records for which a mean wind direction

could not be defined

Additional analyses and discussion are presented in Appendix 2.3J of Reference 27.

2.3.3.2.8 Atmospheric Stability Conditions Defined by Onsite Diffusion Studies

Twenty-seven onsite field tests involving releases of smoke and fluorescent particles

were made during various meteorological regi mes. The data from these tests were used for verifying the diffusion model comp utations by comparing predicted ground level concentrations to observed concentrations. The data also served as a guide in the

selection of parameters used in the long-term diffusion model. The analysis of the field measurements was performed by the GCA Corporation and is described in

Reference 1. Additional analyses and discus sion are contained in Appendix 2.3K of Reference 27.

Analysis of the meteorological and diffusion data obtained during the onsite field tests at Diablo Canyon leads to the following conclusions:

(1) For daytime elevated (250 foot) releases into northwesterly flow, only four measured concentrations exceeded the values predicted by the

Pasquill-Gifford curve for Category D; these four values exceed the predicted values for Category D by a factor of 2 or less.

(2) For releases into southeasterly flow (generally prefrontal conditions), the Pasquill-Gifford curve for Category B serves as the upper bound for the

concentrations measured during the 250-foot releases.

(3) During light and variable winds, the fluorescent particle tracer was found along the coast both north and south of the release point; all measured

concentrations for both 250 and 25-foot releases were below the

Pasquill-Gifford curve for Category B.

2.3.3.3 Potential Influence of the Plant and Its Facilities on Local Meteorology Modification of local meteorologic al parameters is not expected by the presence and operation of DCPP.

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.3-14 Revision 23 December 2016 2.3.3.4 Topographical Description The topographical features within a 10-mile radius of the plant site are shown in Figure 2.3-1. The vertical cross sections for the eight 22.5° onshore wind direction

sectors (southeast through west-northwest) radiating from the plant are shown in

Figure 2.3-2. Modification of the local topography by the plant is considered negligible.

Topographical influences on both short-term and long-term diffusion estimates are quite pronounced in that the ridge lines east of the plant location extend at least to the average height of the marine inversion base.

The implications of this barrier are:

(1) Any material released that is diverted along the coastline will be diluted and dispersed by the natural valleys and canyons, which indent the

coastline.

(2) Any material released that is transported over the ridgeline will be distributed through a deep layer because of the enhanced vertical mixing

due to topographic features.

2.3.4 ONSITE METEOROLOGICAL MEASUREMENT PROGRAM The preoperational meteorological data collection program is described in detail in the

references. This meteorological program was designed and has been updated continually to meet the requirements of Safety Guide 23, February 1972 (Reference 21).

HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED.

Onsite Meteorological Measurement Program

Data were collected from a comprehensive station network, shown as points A through

F in Figure 2.3-3, over a 28-month period fro m July 1967 through October 1969.

Because of a considerable amount of missing data during the first few months of the operation of the meteorological data network, the data collection period was

extended four additional months beyond July 1, 1969, to eliminate any bias in the annual distributions caused by incompl ete data. The above meteorological measurements were also supplemented by a 12-month program of concurrent turbulence measurements at heights of 250 and 25 feet from October 1969 through

September 1970, and by a 24-month program of concurrent wind measurements at the 25 foot level of Station E using a Bendix-Friez aerovane wind system and a lightweight cup and vane system from April 1970 through March 1972. A complete description of the onsite meteorological me asurement program is given in Reference 9.

Figure 2.3-1 shows the plant location and site boundary. Locations of Stations A through F of the meteorological measurement network are as shown in Figure 2.3-3.

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.3-15 Revision 23 December 2016 Stations A and B are approximately 3000 feet southeast of the plant location at elevations of 125 and 600 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL), respectively. Station C at

elevation of 75 feet MSL and Station D at 350 feet MSL are in Diablo Canyon. Stations

E and F are at elevations 85 and 920 feet MSL, respectively. The meteorological

instruments at each of the six stations consisted of a Climet Model CI-26 cup and vane assembly mounted at a height of 35 feet above the surface. In addition, air temperature measurements were made at Station B at a height of 5 feet above the surface using a

Foxboro Capillary System.

At Station E, currently the primary tower site, meteorological sensors were mounted at

heights of 250 and 25 feet on a 260-foot tower. The sensors at the 250-foot level

comprised a Bendix-Friez Model 120 Aerovane, a Meteorology Research Incorporated bidirectional vane, and a platinum resistance thermometer for measuring the vertical

temperature gradient. The sensor installation at the 25-foot level comprised a Bendix-Friez Model 120 Aerovane and a platinum resistance thermometer for

measuring ambient air temperature. A second Meteorology Research Incorporated bidirectional vane was installed at the 25-foot level at Station E in October 1969, and a

Climet Model CI-26 cup and vane system was installed at the 25-foot level of Station E

in April 1970 to obtain supplementary data. A tipping-bucket rain gauge was located

near Station E at the surface.

At Station F, approximately 3000 feet directly east of the plant location at an elevation of

920 feet MSL, a Bendix-Friez Model 120 Aerovane and a Meteorology Research

Incorporated bidirectional vane were mounted at the top of a 100-foot tower. Ambient air temperature measurements were made at the 5-foot level by means of a Foxboro Capillary Sensor. Accuracy specifications of the instrumentation used prior to the spring of 1973 are:

(1) The Bendix-Friez Model 120 Aerovane has a stated accuracy of

+/-2° over the complete direction range, an average wind speed error of

+/-0.5 mph for speeds under 10 mph, and

+/-1 mph for speeds between 10 and 200 mph (2) A Climet Model CI-26 wind speed sensor has a stated accuracy of 2 percent or 0.25 mph (whichever is greater) and a wind direction accuracy of

+/-5° (3) Meteorology Research Inc. bivanes have stated accuracies of

+/-3.6° for horizontal and

+/-2° for vertical direction (4) The platinum resistance temp erature gradient measurement system has an accuracy of

+/-0.2°F Additional descriptions of the instruments are contained in Reference 9. The temperature gradient system and the Bendix-Friez wind systems were calibrated annually or more often when required. The lightweight cup and vane wind systems and DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.3-16 Revision 23 December 2016 the bidirectional wind systems were calibrate d every 90 days, or sooner when required.

Inspection was performed on a daily basis, and maintenance as necessary.

All of the meteorological sensor outputs from the network described above were

recorded on continuous strip chart recorders at the site. Measurements of wind speed, azimuth wind direction, ambient air temp erature, and vertical temperature gradient were reduced as hourly averages; rain gauge measurements were reduced to hourly totals;

bidirectional vane mea surements of the fluctuations in azimuth and vertical wind angles at Stations E and F were abstracted from the chart records in the form of 10 minute

range values for the last 10 minutes of each hour. These range values were converted to 10 minute standard deviations of azimuth and vertical wind angle by the use of simple

scaling factors and classified according to stability category following a procedure

outlined by Slade (Reference 12).

Subsequent to November 1969, Station E became the primary meteorological measurement site at Diab lo Canyon, and measurem ents were discontinued at Stations B, C, D, and F. Measurements at Station A were continued through August 1974.

During the spring of 1973 the instrumentation was changed. The Climet and

Bendix-Friez systems were replaced with Te ledyne Geotech Series 50 cup and vane sensors to improve reliability and response characteristics. The resistance thermometer system was changed to 4-wire Rosemont bridges and Teledyne Geotech aspirated

shields and a sensor was added at the 150-foot level. The precipitation measurement system was changed to a weighing bucket gauge with a potentiometer. Signals from all

of the above devices are processed by Teledyne Geotech Series 40 processors that

provide output voltages and currents of 0-5 Vdc and 0-1 milliampere, respectively, to the digital and strip chart recorders. A Ca mbridge systems/EG&G chilled mirror dew point system was added at this time to provide de w point and backup ambient temperature at the 25 foot level. H. E. Cramer Corporation installed signal conditioning equipment of their own design that produced analog signa ls from the above equipment and the existing bivane equipment that were equivalent to 5 minute values of:

(1) Means of all parameters, except precipitation (2) Variance of horizontal and vertical wind directions (3) Peak wind speeds The signal conditioning provided by H. E. Cr amer also converted the Teledyne Geotech 0-360° wind direction output to a 0-540° wind direction signal to accomplish Items 1 and 2 above. H. E. Cramer also provided a digitizing and recording system that utilized Nonlinear Systems' equipm ent for digitizing and a Bright Industries 7-track magnetic tape recorder for storage of the 5 minute data.

In 1973, a minicomputer and printer were added to the digital system in the control room. Digital data were taken at the tape recorder input and transmitted to the control DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.3-17 Revision 23 December 2016 room computer. The co mputer system was designed to calculate and display downwind concentrations based on real-time data.

The weighing bucket precipitation gauge was replaced with a tipping bucket gauge in December 1976.

In December 1978, Station E was again up graded. The equipment was moved to a new equipment shelter at the site and completely rewired. Although the sensors were retained, considerable changes were made to the processors and recording system. A

new microprocessor temperature processor was installed to replace the Rosemont Bridge system and improve the accuracy of t he temperature differe nce measurements.

The entire H.E. Cramer signal conditioning, digitizing, and recording system was replaced by a Teledyne Geotech Automet V microprocessor-based digital data system.

The Automet V also replaced the minicomput er and only the printer remained in the control room. The multipoint Servo recorder was modified to record 25 foot temperature

and temperature differences: 150 foot by 25 foot and 250 foot by 25 foot. The Bright

Industries 7-track magnetic tape recorder was replaced with a Kennedy Model 9000, 9-track, 1600 bits per inch, phase encoded, buffered tape system.

In June 1980, the system was again upgraded by incorporation of improved wind direction processors using a linear output voltage with no step changes and

phase-locked loops to increase immunity to sensor signal distortion. The new

processors output a signal that changes linearly from 0 to 5 volts at 180° and back to

0 volts at 360°. A digital signal is used to identify which 180° is being processed. This

eliminates errors in the 360° transition as 0° and 360° are both 0 volts rather than

5 volts for 360° in the old system. Digital processing was also changed at this time to use unit vectors for standard deviation and mean direction calculations to eliminate potential ambiguities inherent in the older system.

An additional communications link was installed at this time to transmit meteorological data to the technical support center (TSC) computer.

In May of 1981, the Automet system was revi sed to allow polling from the DCPP Emergency Assessment and Response System (EARS) computer, and a math

processor was incorporated to speed up the processing of wind direction vectors.

In October of 1981, a new 60 meter tower was installed as a backup meteorological

system. The backup tower has two levels of wind direction, wind speed, and

temperature instrumentation. It is located approximately 1.2 km southeast of the

primary tower. The instruments are at the 10 meter and 60 meter levels. Wind speed and wind direction processing is identical to the primary system. The temperature

processing incorporates new analog processors from Teledyne Geotech with the same

type of aspirated platinum resistance thermometers. The backup system is powered by

batteries and is capable of 7 days of operation without external power.

The Automet microcomputer for the backup system is located in the TSC and receives data digitally from a remote terminal at the tower location over a 4-wire communications DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.3-18 Revision 23 December 2016 link. The backup system printer and a 9-track magnetic tape recorder are also located in the TSC. A switching system has been incorporated into the pri mary meteorological printer in the control room and allows the backup system printout to be substituted for

the primary system printout. This switching system reconfigures the backup system

automatically when the switch is actuated so that 5-minute updates of the current 15-minute logs derived from backup data are printed on the control room printer. The primary system data are output on the printer in the TSC when the backup system is

selected in the control room.

In the spring of 1982, a visibility measurem ent system was installed at the base of the primary tower. The system relates local visual range to forward light scattering by the

air along a 4 foot horizontal path. This system was removed in February 1985 after a

sufficient record of information had been collected.

Onsite Meteorological Measurement Program (Current)

The current onsite meteorological monitoring system consists of two independent

subsystems that measure meteorological conditions and process the information into

useable data. The measurement subsystems consist of a primary meteorological tower and a backup meteorological tower.

The primary meteorological tower location is shown in Figure 2.3-3 as Station E. There

are instruments located at the 10 m, 46 m, and 76 m elevations. The 10 m and 76 m

elevations have wind speed, wind direction, and temperature sensors. The 46 m

elevation has a temperature sensor. The 10 m level also has a dewpoint sensor. There

is a precipitation measurement system at the base of the tower.

The backup meteorological tower is located approximately 1.2 km southeast of the primary tower and is listed as Station A in Figure 2.3-3. There are wind speed, wind

direction, and temperature sensors at the 10 m and 60 m elevations.

The processors for the above instruments reside in the meteorological facilities located

near the towers. The temperature in these facilities is maintained to support processor operation. These processors provide input to strip chart recorders and the

meteorological dataloggers. The datalogg ers provide input to their respective meteorological computers.

The primary meteorological computer is located in the primary meteorological facility.

The backup meteorological computer is located in the TSC. These two computers

communicate with each other and the EARS. The primary meteorological computer

also communicates with the Unit 1 Transient Recording System (TRS) server. The

backup meteorological computer also communicates with the Unit 2 TRS server.

Primary and backup meteorological data are available on the Plant Process Computers (PPCs) via the TRS servers. Thus meteorological data are available in the control room

and emergency response facilities in accordance with NUREG-0654, Revision 1, November 1980 (Reference 23).

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.3-19 Revision 23 December 2016 A detailed discussion of each of the above instruments is provided in the following

sections.

2.3.4.1 Wind Measurement System The wind direction processor supplies voltage and current signals corresponding

to -180 to 0 to 180 degrees. A digital signal is provided to identify which 180-degree

sector the signal represents.

The wind speed signal is processed to develop a voltage signal for the data acquisition

system and a current signal for the strip chart recorder.

2.3.4.2 Temperature Measurement System The primary tower temperature measurement system employs a microprocessor system

in conjunction with platinum resistance temperature detectors (RTDs) to measure

temperature at three levels on the meteorological tower.

Analog outputs of the temperature processor are recorded on a 3-channel multipoint recorder and depict:

(1) 10-m temperature in degrees Fahrenheit from 0 to 120 (2) temperature difference 46 m to 10 m from -15 to 21°F (3) temperature difference 76 m to 10 m from -15 to 21°F

Temperature probes are housed in aspirated radiation shields. Radiation errors are

limited to less than 0.2°F at a radiation intensity of 1.56 gram-calories/cm/min. This radiation level represents approximately twice the highe st summer radiation level for the DCPP site. Aspirators are individually monitored by motor current sensors and

temperatures are invalidated if the motor current is out of a specified range.

The backup tower 10-m processor supplies an intermediate output that is used to sum

with the intermediate output of the 60-m processor and provide a temperature difference

output from the 60-m processor. Both processors supply a current signal to a multipoint strip chart recorder at the tower location and a voltage signal to the data acquisition

system.

Measurement ranges are 0 to 120°F for the 10-m temperature and -15 to 21°F for the

60- to 10-m temperature difference.

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.3-20 Revision 23 December 2016 2.3.4.3 Dew Point Measurement System A chilled mirror dew point measuring system is used to monitor the dew point at the

primary tower 10-m level. The output voltage signal represents a range of 0 to 100°F.

The sensor head is equipped with an aspirator to present a representative atmospheric

sample to the mirror.

The voltage signal is further processed to generate a buffered voltage output to the data

acquisition system and a current signa l to the strip chart recorder.

2.3.4.4 Precipitation Measurement System

Precipitation is measured by a tipping bucket rain gauge that delivers a pulse for each 0.01-inch increment of rainfall. This pulse is digitally accumulated by a processor

module. The digital accumulator resets to zero after the 250th pulse and begins a new

cycle. The digital accumulator output is processed by a digital-to-analog converter that provides a voltage signal to the data acquisition system and a current signal to the strip

chart recorder.

2.3.4.5 Supplemental Measurement System A supplemental meteorological measurement system is present in the vicinity of the

DCPP site. This supplemental measurement system consists of three Doppler SODAR (Sonic Detection and Ranging) and seven tower sites located as indicated in Figure 2.3-

4.

The Doppler sounders provide remote sensing of wind speed, wind direction, standard deviation of wind direction variability (sigma theta), vertical velocity, and standard deviation of vertical velocity (sigma w), as well as information on echo characteristics

useful in deducing the presence of inversion layers. At each Doppler location, the above

parameters are provided as 15-minute average values for each of twenty 30-m thick

vertical layers above the instrument site. Layer midpoints extend from 40 m to 610 m

above ground level, providing data to heights just exceeding the maximum height of the

local terrain. A thorough evaluation of the Doppler technique has been made by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (Reference 25). The NOAA

evaluation of the Doppler produced correlation coefficients on the order of 0.93 and

higher for both wind speed and direction in comparison with measurements by sonic anemometers.

The offsite towers provide measurements of wind speed, wind direction, sigma theta, and temperatures as 15 minute averages. All of the supplemental tower measurements

are taken at or near the 10-m level using in strumentation designed to meet or exceed ANSI/ANS 2.5-1984 (Reference 24) for meteorological measurements at nuclear plant

sites. Tower data are telemetered to the TSC, Alternate Technical Support

Center/Operational Support Center (Alternate TSC/OSC), Emergency Operations

Facility (EOF), and General Office headquarters on a continuous basis. The data are DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.3-21 Revision 23 December 2016 archived as a permanent record. SODAR data are available on-demand via a dial-up modem interface in the EOF or remotely via computer.

Onsite meteorological data and supplemental win d speed and direction data are processed by the EARS software. The data are provided to the Meteorological

Information and Dose Assessment System (MIDAS) software to make estimates and predictions of atmospheric effluent transport and diffusion during and immediately

following an accidental airborne radioactivity release from the plant. The software can

produce initial transport and diffusion estimates for the plume exposure emergency

planning zone (EPZ) within 15 minutes followi ng the classification of an incident. The MIDAS model is designed to use actual 15-minute average meteorological data from

onsite and offsite meteorological measurement systems.

The output from the model includes the dimensions, position, locations, and arrival time of the plume.

If one or more of the supplemental tower data are unavailable, EARS and MIDAS will

fail over to the supplemental tower most representative of the region that is missing

data. If transmission of all supplemental data fails, EARS and MIDAS will continue to

be functional with onsite meteorological data as the only source.

2.3.4.6 Meteorological Datalogger A datalogger is installed in both the primary and backup meteorological facilities. The dataloggers receive the outputs of the meteorological sensor signal processors and

computer 15-minute averages and maximums. The dataloggers also assign quality

values to each of the 15-minute values. On the quarter hour, the dataloggers output

their 15-minute data sets to the meteorological computers.

The primary tower datalogger records the following:

(1) 10-m and 76-m wind speeds (2) 10-m and 76-m wind direction (3) 10-m temperature (4) 76 m temperature difference (5) 46 m temperature difference (6) precipitation (7) dewpoint (8) 10-m, 46-m, and 76-m aspirator currents

The backup tower datalogger records the following:

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.3-22 Revision 23 December 2016 (1) 10-m and 60-m wind speeds (2) 10-m and 60-m wind direction (3) 10-m temperature (4) 60 m temperature difference (5) the sum of the aspirator currents (6) battery monitor voltage The dataloggers scan their inputs every 2 seconds (450 samples per 15 minutes). The

following tests are performed to determine th e validity of the meteorological sensor data:

(1) If the wind direction standard deviation (calculated using the Yamartino method) is less than 1, the wind data are considered invalid.

(Appendix 2.3F of Reference 27 presents the historical Wind Direction

Deviation Computation at Diablo Canyon and its reference has been retained to provide a continuity of understanding.

(2) If the 15-minute average wind speed is greater than 0.75 mph and the difference between the peak wind speed and the average wind speed is

less than 0.3, then the wind speed data are considered invalid.

(3) If the wind speed is greater than 100 mph or less than 0 mph, that 2-second sample is invalid. If more than 150 samples are invalid (i.e., less

than 10 minutes worth of good data), then the 15-minute wind speed data

are invalid.

(4) If more than 150 delta temperatur e samples are greater than 21 or less than -15, then the 15-minute temperature difference data are invalid.

(5) If more than 150 dew point samples are greater than the 10-m temperature by 2 degrees, then the 15-minute dew point data are invalid.

(6) If more than 150 aspirator samples are out of a specified range, then both the 15-minute aspirator value and the associated temperature value are

invalid.

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.3-23 Revision 23 December 2016 2.3.4.7 Meteorological Computers The primary meteorological computer resides in the primary meteorological facility and

the backup meteorological computer is located in the TSC. The primary computer

communicates with the primary datalogger, the Unit 1 TRS, the EARS server, and the

backup meteorological tower computer. The backup meteorological computer

communicates with the backup datalogger, the Unit 2 TRS, the EARS server, and the

primary tower computer. Meteorological data are also available on the Unit 1 and Unit 2

PPCs via their respective TRS.

Each computer receives data from its respective datalogger on a 15-minute basis and sends its data set to the other computer. Each computer then calculates /Q, sigma Y, and sigma Z for 10 distances for both the primary and backup data sets. The primary computer sends both data sets to the Unit 1 TRS server and the EARS system. The backup computer sends both data sets to the Unit 2 TRS server and the EARS system.

Along with the 15-minute data set, each computer receives error flags, which are

assigned to the appropriate data values, and these error flags are also sent to the PPCs

and the EARS system. In this ma nner, the correct data quality is propagated through the entire system (datalogger, meteorological computer, PPC, and EARS).

The equation used to compute centerline /Q values is based on lateral fluctuations of wind direction (A) for horizontal spread, and vertical temperature gradient (T) for vertical spread of the plume for all daytime cases when the 10-meter speeds are not less than 1.5 m/sec. Nighttime cases in the same wind speed class are treated in

accordance with the method of Mitchell and Timbre (Reference 19) as outlined in Table 2.3-144. For speeds less than 1.5 m/sec at the 10-meter level, both lateral and

vertical spread of the plume are determined by the vertical temperature gradient.

Estimates of both lateral and vertical plume dimensions are determined from the

procedures described by Sagendorf (Reference 15).

Equations used to determine /Q are: CA) (u 1 Q z y+= (2.3-1)

) (3 u 1 Q z y= (2.3-2) zu 1 Q y+= (2.3-3)

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.3-24 Revision 23 December 2016 where: Q is the relative concentration (sec/m

3) is 3.14159 u is the wind speed at the 10-meter level (m/sec) z y are the lateral and vertical cloud dimensions, respectively, as a function of downwind distance. The vertical cloud dimension has an upper limiting value of 1000 m or the product (T m) (H m), whichever is less. T m is a multiplier that is used as a simple substitute for the multiple

reflection term and is approximately 0.8 (References 5 and 12)

H m is the monthly average mixing layer depth for the four time periods of the day which were derived from Holzworth (Reference 6); data are given in

Table 2.3-3.

A is the minimum cross-sectional area of the reactor building (1600 m

2) C is constant (0.5) y = My - at distances less than or equal to 800 m;

at distances greater than 800 m -

ym800y y)1)(M+= M is a correction factor for meandering and assumes the following values for speeds less than 2 m/sec:

u<2 m/sec 2 m/sec<u<6 m/sec Stability M M A,B,C 1 1 D 2 (u/6) -0.631 E 3 (u/6) -1.00 F 4 (u/6) -1.262 G 6 (u/6) -1.631 If both values at all levels are invalid, temperature differences (T) are used to determine both lateral and vertical stability categories regardless of wind speed. When this occurs, the dispersion equation used contains the plume meandering correction

term. The applicable correction term M for the specific stability and wind speed is that DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.3-25 Revision 23 December 2016 derived from Figure 3 of Regulatory Guide 1.145, Revision 1 (Reference 22), page 1.145-9.

During neutral (D) or stable (E, F, G) stability conditions when 10-m wind speed is less

than 6 m/sec, horizontal plume meander is considered. This process consists of

comparing the values from Equations 1 and 2, and selecting the higher value. This

value is then compared with the value from Equation 3 and the lower value of these selected for /Q value. During all other meteorological conditions, plume meander is not considered. The appropriate /Q value in these cases is the higher value calculated from Equations 1 and 2.

The dispersion model described above is a generic model and was not developed

specifically for the DCPP site. Certain factors specific to the DCPP site bear upon the

use and interpretation of the modeling output. Analysis and treatment of such

site-specific factors are presented in Appendix 2.3H of Reference 27.

2.3.4.8 Power Supply For Meteorological Equipment Power for the main meteorological instrumentation buil ding is supplied from Unit 1 480-V non-Class 1E bus. This source is supplied through a transfer switch and will

automatically switch to Unit 2 480-V non-Class 1E bus if a failure occurs on the Unit 1

bus. The microprocessor and the meteorological sensors are backed up by an 8-hour

battery source to prevent any problems during switching and maintain a continuous

database.

The backup meteorological instrumentation is supplied with ac power from the

underground Unit 2 12-kV startup bus. In case of an ac power failure, batteries supply

emergency power for up to 1 week. During battery backup, the temperature system aspirators are not powered, thereby invalidating temperatures.

If the measurement systems are being operated on battery power, T measurement is inactivated due to inability to aspirate the temperature shields. In this case, /Q values are based on lateral fluctuations of wind direction (A) for both horizontal and vertical spread of the plume. Nighttime stability categories are adjusted, however, in accordance with the method of Mitchell and Timbre (Reference 19) as outlined in

Table 2.3-144.

Should both automated tower systems become inoperative, a portable battery-powered meteorological system is available for deployment and use in providing /Q values for input to dose-calculation algorithms as described in the Emergency Plan and outlined in

Appendix 2.3I of Reference 27. Translation of /Q values to centerline and plume-spread estimates may be accomplished in accordance with procedures in the same Appendix 2.3I of Reference 27. (Appendix 2.3I of Reference 27 is historical in

nature; however, reference to it has been retained to provide a continuity of

understanding. Current procedures meet the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.145, Revision 1 (Reference 22)).

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.3-26 Revision 23 December 2016 2.3.5 SHORT-TERM (ACCIDENT) DIFFUSION ESTIMATES HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED.

2.3.5.1 Objective

Estimates of dilution factors that apply at dis tances of 0.8 to 80 kilometers downwind from DCPP are shown in Table 2.3-41 for each wind direction sector. These dilution factors represent the distribution of /Q value within each wind direction sector at the various downwind distances.

2.3.5.2 Calculations

The cumulative probability distribution of the dilution factor at the distances noted above were computed using one of the diffusion models shown below for centerline dispersion

estimates from a ground level release. These are defined as:

()CA u 1 Q z y+= (2.3-4) zu3 1 Q y= (2.3-5) =zyu 1 Q (2.3-6) where: = ground level centerline concentration, curies/cubic meter Q = source emission rate, curies/second y = standard deviation of the lateral concentration distribution, meters z = standard deviation of the vertical concentration distribution, meters u = mean wind speed, meters/second C = building wake shape factor, 0.5 A = minimum cross-sectional area of the reactor building, 1600 m 2 y = f(y) = meander correction factor

A complete description of the models and their selection for use is included in Reference 18.

The year-to-year variation in the frequency of occurrence of conditions producing high /Q values is small, so that data from one complete year are representative of the site.

In fact, the addition of the second year's data from October 1970 through March 1971 DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.3-27 Revision 23 December 2016 and April 1972 through September 1972, resulted in a change in percentage frequency for the combined F and G categories of only 0.1 percent. Frequency distributions for joint probabilities using the 2-year length of record are given in Tables 2.3-29 through

2.3-40. The wind speed values are in miles per hour and the values in the tables refer

to the midpoint of each of the following clas s intervals: 0-3, 4-7, 8-12, 13-18, 19-24, and greater than 24. The rows are labeled with the wind direction at the midpoint of each

22.5° interval. The 1-year gap (April 1971 through March 1972) in the period of record, October 1970 through September 1972, resulted from an unauthorized bivane

modification.

Frequency distributions of wind speed and wind direction classified into seven stability

classes as defined by the vertical temperature gradient are shown in Tables 2.3-21

through 2.3-28. The column headings are l abeled in terms of mean hourly wind speed in miles per hour. The six wind speed categories are as follows: 1-3, 4-7, 8-12, 13-18, 19-24, and 25-55. The rows are labeled with the wind direction at the midpoints of 22.5° intervals. Table 2.3-28 shows the number of observations in each of the seven stability classes (Pasquill A through G) for the period of record July 1, 1967, through

October 31, 1969, when the mean hourly wind speed is less than 1 mph. The wind

data were measured at the 76 meter level, and the vertical temperature difference measurements are the 76 meter level minus the 10 meter level.

The radius of the low population zone (LPZ) at DCPP has been established to be 6

miles. Cumulative frequency distributions of atmospheric dilution factors at each 22.5° intersection with a 10,000-meter radius (slightly greater than 6 miles) for the period May 1973 through April 1975 are presented in Table 2.3-41, Sheets 7, 8, 9, and 10. Each

data set used to compile the frequency distribution is comprised of averages taken over 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />, 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />, 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br />, 3 days, or 26 days, using overlapping means updated at 1-hour increments as specified by the NRC.

Because of overlapping means, a 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> /Q is included in several observation periods:

for example, an hourly /Q is included in 624 estimates of the 26-day averages. As a result, a single hourly measurement may infl uence the value of over 5 percent of the observations. Since overlapping means are used in the distributions, the data are not independent and no assumption of normality can be made. These data show /Q estimates from the 25th through the 100th percentile levels for each of the averaging periods.

2.3.6 LONG-TERM (ROUTINE) DIFFUSION ESTIMATES

HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED.

2.3.6.1 Objective Annual relative concentrations (/Q) were estimated for distances out to 80 kilometers from onsite meteorological data for the period May 1973 through April 1975. These relative concentrations are presented in Table 2.3-2; they were estimated using the DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.3-28 Revision 23 December 2016 models described in Reference 18. The same program also produces cumulative frequency distributions for selected averaging periods using overlapping means having

hourly updates. For critical offsite locations, measured lateral standard deviations of wind direction, A , and bulk Richardson number, R i , were used as the stability parameters in the computations. The meteorological input data were measured at the 10 meter level of the meteorological tower at DCPP site. Annual averaged relative concentrations calculated by the above methods are presented in Table 2.3-4.

2.3.6.2 Calculations

The meteorological ins trumentation that was used to obtain the input data for the previously discussed relative concentration calculations at DCPP site is described in

Section 2.3.4. Procedures for obtaini ng annual averaged relative concentrations are described in detail in Reference 15.

2.3.6.3 Meteorological Parameters

The following assumptions were used in developing the meteorological input parameters required in the dispersion model: (1) There is no wind direction change with height (2) Wind speed changes with height can be estimated by a power law function where the exponent, P, varies with stability class and is assigned

the following values:

Pasquill Stability Class Exponent (P)

A & B 0.10 C 0.15 D 0.20 E 0.25 F & G 0.30

If more than five hourly observations are missing in any 24-hour period, the estimated

24-hour concentration value is not included in the analyses.

Meteorological data collected at DCPP site are representative of atmospheric conditions

along a Pacific coastal area having a compl ex terrain near the shoreline. Use of these data in estimating downwind relati ve concentrations results in realistic estimates as shown in the report by Cramer and Record (Reference 1). This field program included ground level concentration measurements out to a distance of about 20 kilometers. All concentration measurements were approximated by near-neutral through unstable

stability classifications, even though both vertical and lateral turbule nce measurements, E and A in Table 3.1 of Reference 1, indicated several stable regimes.

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.3-29 Revision 23 December 2016 Even during the nighttime periods when extre me stability may be expected, the relative concentrations in the area were characteristic of unstable lapse rates. Actual average temperature differences over the height of the tower for these trials, given in

Table 2.3-142, show a high percentage of test periods with stable lapse rates. Five

nighttime trials having light and variable w inds were included; three were near ground level (8 meters) and two were el evated (76 meters) releases. Temperature gradient measurements indicated three of these trials having near-neutral and two with stable lapse rates, yet the measured ground level concentrations were at least two orders of

magnitude less than the predicted peak concentrations f or those stabilities. In fact, the diffusion rates, as shown in Figure 3-3 of Reference 1, based on measured ground level

concentrations, were typical of those expected for extreme instability.

Results of this series of diffusion trials conducted at DCPP site have yielded

considerable insight into the dispersal capabilities of a coastal site. They indicate that

use of direct turbulence measurements and the split sigma approach to independently predict lateral and vertical cloud growth yield realistic estimates of site dilution factors

without including any corrections or recirculation.

2.

3.7 CONCLUSION

S HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED.

The principal conclusions reached as the result of the analysis of the data obtained during the onsite meteorological measurement program at DCPP site are listed below:

(1) Northwesterly wind directions with wind speeds averaging 10 to 15 mph can be expected to occur approximately 50 percent of the time.

(2) Wind directions within a 22.5° sector that persist for periods of 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> or longer will occur 3 to 4 percent of the time.

(3) Less than 4 percent of the total observations at the 25 foot level at Station E refer to the joint occurrence of me an wind speeds of 2 mph or less, onshore wind directions (southeast through west-northwest

measured clockwise), and m oderately stable and/or extremely stable thermal stratifications.

(4) Despite the prevalence of the marine inversion and the northwesterly wind flow gradient along the California coast in the dry season, the long-term

accumulation of plant emissions, released routinely or accidentally, in any particular geographical area downwind from the plant is virtually

impossible. Pollutants injected into the marine inversion layer of the coastal wind regime are transported and dispersed by a complex array of land-sea breeze regimes that exist all along the coast wherever canyons

or valleys indent the coastal range.

Because of the complexities of the

wind circulation in these regimes and their fundamental diurnal nature, the DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.3-30 Revision 23 December 2016 net result is a very effective and wide daily dispersal of any pollutants that are present in the marine coastal air.

2.3.8 SAFETY EVALUATION 2.3.8.1 General Design Criterion 11, 1967 - Control Room Wind speed, wind direction, and differential air temperature measurements from the

primary and backup meteorological towers are provided to control room personnel to

respond to abnormal meteorological conditions in order to maintain safe operational status of the plant. The data are retrieved continually and provided to the PPC. High

ambient air temperature is annunciated on the main control board.

2.3.8.2 General Design Criterion 12, 1967 -

Instrumentation and Control Systems Meteorological monitoring instrumentation is provided for DCPP Unit 1 and Unit 2 to provide meteorological conditions as discussed in Section 2.3.4.

2.3.8.3 Meteorology Safety Function Requirements (1) Calculation of Atmospheric Dispersion Calculation of atmospheric dispersion as discussed in Section 2.3.4.7 is based on

methodology in Sagendorf (Reference 15) and Regulatory Guide 1.145, Revision 1.

2.3.8.4 Safety Guide 23, February 1972 - Onsite Meteorological Programs As discussed in Section 2.3.4, the preoperational meteorological data collection program was designed and has been updated continually to meet the requirements of

Safety Guide 23, February 1972.

2.3.8.5 Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 3 - Instrumentation for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants to Assess Plant and Environs Conditions

During and Following an Accident Wind speed, wind direction, and estimation of atmospheric stability indication in the control room provide information for use in determining the magnitude of the release of

radioactive materials and in continuously assessing such releases during and following

an accident (refer to Table 7.5-6 for a summary of compliance to Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 3).

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.3-31 Revision 23 December 2016 2.3.8.6 Regulatory Guide 1.111, March 1976 - Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light-Water-Cooled Reactors The pre-operational values of dilution factor and deposition factor used in the calculation

of annual average offsite radiation dose are discussed in Section 11.3.2.4. The values of deposition rate were derived from Figure 7 of Regulatory Guide 1.111, March 1976, for a ground-level release.

2.3.8.7 NUREG-0737 (Item III.A.2), November 1980 - Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements Item III.A.2 - Improving Licensee Emergency Preparedness-Long-Term:

As discussed in Section 2.3.4, the primary and backup meteorological data are

available in the control room and emergency response facilities via the TRS servers and

EARS, in accordance with NUREG-0654, Revision 1, November 1980.

As discussed in Section 2.3.4, the measurement subsystems consist of a primary

meteorological tower and a backup meteorological towe

r. The primary meteorological computer and the backup meteorological computer communicate with each other, the

EARS and also with the TRS server. Primary and backup meteorological data are

available on the PPCs via the TRS servers and thus in the control room and emergency

response facilities.

Item III.A.2.2 - Meteorological Dat a: NUREG-0737, Supplement 1, January 1983:

Table 7.5-6 and Section 2.3.8.5 summarize DCPP conformance with Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 3. Wind direction, wind speed, and estimation of atmospheric stability

are categorized as Type E variables, based on Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 3. The

PPC is used as the indicating device to display meteorological instrument signals. In

addition, Type E, Category 3, recorders are located in the meteorological towers.

2.3.8.8 IE Information Notice 84-91, December 1984 - Quality Control Problems of Meteorological Measurements Programs In addition to the primary meteorological towers, a supplemental meteorological

measurement system is provided in the vicinity of the plant site in order to meet

IE Information Notice 84-91. As discussed in Section 2.3.4.5, this supplemental

measurement system consists of three Doppler SODAR and seven tower sites located

as indicated in Figure 2.3-4. The primary and secondary meteorological towers in conjunction with the supplemental system adequately predict the meteorological

conditions at the site boundary (800 meters) and beyond.

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.3-32 Revision 23 December 2016 2.

3.9 REFERENCES

1. H. E. Cramer and F. A. Record, Diffusion Studies at the Diablo Canyon Site, Environmental Sciences Laboratory, GCA Technology Division, GCA

Corporation, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1970. (Appendix 2.3B to Diablo Canyon

Power Plant Final Safety Analysis Report as amended through August 1980; see

Reference 27).

2. L. W. Dye, Climatological Data N ational Summary, Department of Commerce, Asheville, North Carolina, 1972.

3. J. G. Edinger, The Influence of Terrain and Thermal Stratification of Flow Across the California Coastline, AFCRL-TR-60-438, Final Report, Contract No. AF (604) - 5512, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, 1960.

4. C. R. Elford, Climate of California, Climatography of the United States No. 60-52, Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C., 1970.

5. S. R. Hanna, et al, AMS Workshop on Stability Classification Schemes and Sigma Curves - Summary of Recommendations, Bulletin of American Meteorological Society, Vol. 58, No. 12, 1970.

6. G. C. Holzworth, Mixing Heights, Wind Speed, and Potential for Urban Air Pollution Throughout the Contiguous United States, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1972.

7. R. E. Luna and H. W. Church, "A Comparison of Turbulence Intensity and Stability Ratio Measurements to Pasquill Stabil ity Classes," J. Appl. Meteor., Vol. II, 1972.

8. R. G. Martin and J. B. Kincer, Climatography of the United States No. 10-4, Section 17 - Central California, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C., 1960.

9. M. L. Mooney and H. E. Cramer, Meteorological Study of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Site, Meteorological Office, Gas Control Department, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, CA, 1970. (Appendix 2.3A to Diablo

Canyon Power Plant Final Safety Analysis Report as amended through

August 1980; see Reference 27).

10. M. L. Mooney, First Supplement, Meteorological Study of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Site, Meteorological Office, Gas Control Department, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, CA, 1971. (Appendix 2.3C to Diablo

Canyon Power Plant Final Safety Analysis Report as amended through

August 1980; see Reference 27).

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.3-33 Revision 23 December 2016

11. M. L. Mooney, Second Supplement, Me teorological Study of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Site, Meteorological Office, Gas Control Department, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, CA, 1972. (Appendix 2.3D, to Diablo Canyon Power Plant Final Safety Analysis Report as amended through

August 1980; see Reference 27).

12. David H. Slade (ed), Meteorology and Atomic Energy 1968, USAEC Division of Technical Information, Oak Ridge, TN, 1968.

13. H. C. S. Thom, "Tornado Probabilities," Monthly Weather Review, 1963.

14. H. C. S. Thom, "New Distribution of Extreme Winds in the United States," Journal of the Structural Division, Proc. of the ASCE, Vol. 94, No. ST 7, 1968.

15. J. F. Sagendorf, A Program for Evaluating Atmospheric Dispersion from a Nuclear Power Station, NOAA Technical Memorandum ERL ARL-42, Air Resources Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID, 1974. (Appendix 2.3E to Diablo Canyon

Power Plant Final Safety Analysis Report as amended through August 1980; see

Reference 27).

16. Weather Bureau Technical Paper, Maximum Station Precipitation for 1, 2, 3, 6, 12, 24 Hours, Technical Paper No. 15, Part XXIII: California, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C., 1969.

17. F. Pasquill, Atmospheric Diffusion, D. Van Nostrand Company, Ltd., London, 1962.

18. J. F. Sagendorf, Diffusion Model, Air Resources Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID, 1981.

19. A. E. Mitchell, Jr., and K. O.

Timbre, Atmospheric Stability Class from Horizontal Wind Fluctuation, Reprint, 72nd Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1979.

20. Deleted in Revision 9.

21. Safety Guide 23, Onsite Meteorological Programs, USAEC, February 1972.

22. Regulatory Guide 1.145, Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Pow er Plants, USNRC, Revision 1, February 1983.

23. NUREG-0654, Criteria for Preparation and E valuation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants, USNRC, Revision 1, November 1980.

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.3-34 Revision 23 December 2016

24. ANSI/ANS 2.5, American National Standard for Determining Meteorological Information at Nuclear Power Sites, American Nuclear Society, 1984.

25. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, An Evaluation of Wind Measurements by Four Doppler SODARS, NOAA Wave Propagation Laboratory, 1984.

26. Deleted in Revision 20.

27. PG&E reports previously submitted as Appendices 2.3A-K, 2.4A-C, and 2.5A-F of the FSAR Update, Revision 0 through Revision 10 (Currently maintained at

PG&E Nuclear Power Generation Licensing office files).

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.4-1 Revision 23 December 2016 2.4 HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING 2.4.1 DESIGN BASES 2.4.1.1 General Design Criterion 2, 1967 - Performance Standards The PG&E Design Class I struct ures, systems and components es sential to the prevention of accidents, or to mitigate of their consequences, are designed to withstand the additional forces that might be imposed by natural phenomena such as flooding.

2.4.1.2 Regulatory Guide 1.59, Revision 2, August 1977 - Design Basis Floods for Nuclear Power Plants

The PG&E Design Class I structures, systems, and components are designed to withstand and retain the capability to achieve and maintain cold shutdown during the

worst probable site-related flood.

2.4.1.3 Regulatory Guide 1.102, Revision 1, September 1976 - Flood Protection for Nuclear Power Plants The PG&E Design Class I structures, systems, and components are appropriately

protected from damage caused by flooding through the use of exterior and incorporated

barriers.

2.4.1.4 Regulatory Guide 1.125, Revision 1, October 1978 - Physical Models for Design and Operation of Hydraulic Structures and Systems for Nuclear Power Plants Hydraulic modeling of the site intake breakwaters, systems, and structures is

appropriately designed, tested, and documented to accurately describe the behavior of

these plant facilities.

2.4.2 HYDROLOGIC DESCRIPTION HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALI CS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED.

2.4.2.1 Site and Facilities

The general topography with outline of the drainage basin at Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) site is shown in Sheet 1 of 2 of Figure 2.4-1, reproduced from the United

States Geological Survey (USGS) Port San Luis and Pismo Beach 7.5 minute topographic quadrangles (contour interval 40 feet, original scale 1:24,000). Figure 2.4-2

shows the Diablo Creek drainage basin to a larger scale. The area encompasses some

5 square miles and is bounded by ridges reaching a maximum elevation of 1819 feet at Saddle Peak. The figure also shows changes to the natural drainage features.

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.4-2 Revision 23 December 2016 2.4.2.2 Hydrosphere

The hydrologic characteristics of the site are influenced by the Pacific Ocean on the west and by local storm runoff collected from the 5 square mile egg-shaped area

drained by Diablo Creek. The maximum and minimum flows in Diablo Creek are highly variable. Average flows tend to be nearer the minimum flow value of 0.44 cfs.

Maximum flows reflect short-term conditio ns associated with storm events. Usually within 1 or 2 days following a storm, flows return to normal. Flows during the wet

season (October-April) vary daily and monthly. Dry season flows are sustained by

groundwater seepage and are more consistent from day to day, tapering off over time.

There is no other creek or river within the site area.

Water for the city of San Luis Obispo is obtained principally fro m Salinas Reservoir, about 23 miles east-northeast of the site. Whale Rock Reservoir on Old Creek, 17 miles north of the site, and Chorro Reservoir, about 13 miles northeast of the site, are also used. A few small unco vered reservoirs are used in connection with the San Luis Obispo water system and are located about 18 miles northeast of the site. A reservoir in Lopez Canyon is 20 miles east of the site. Smaller towns in the region of San Luis Obispo depend on wells for domestic water.

There are two public water supply groundwater basins within 10 miles of the DCPP site.

Avila Beach County Water District serves Avila B each (including Unocal) with water and sewer needs, and the San Miguelito Mutual Water District and Sewer District serves

most of the Avila Valley area. An ocean water desalinization plant has been built and in operation at the site since 1985 (Reference 1).

The property owners to the north and south of the DCPP site capture surface water from small intermittent streams and springs for minimal domestic use. Property owned by PG&E captures water from Crowbar Canyon, 1 mile north of the DCPP site. PG&Es lessee captures water 2 to 4 miles south of the DCPP site from streams and springs

between Pecho Canyon and Rattlesnake Canyon.

2.4.3 FLOODS

2.4.3.1 Flood History

HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALI CS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED.

Since 1968, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) has kept a record of flows through a V-notched weir located on Diablo Creek, as shown in Figure 2.4-2.

Two major storms occurred in the area between the time the weir was established

and June 1973. One occurred on January 18-25, 1969, and the other on

January 16-19, 1973. On each occasion, streamflow washed out the weir so no

definitive readings were obtained. Flood hydrograph reconstitution indicated that the DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.4-3 Revision 23 December 2016 1969 flood could have peaked with a flow of approximately 430 cfs and the 1973 flood could have peaked with a flow of approximately 400 cfs.

A USGS gauging station (Los Berros Creek, No. 11-1416), located 21 miles southeast

of the site near Nipomo, has a 15 square mile drainage basin, approximately three

times the size of the Diablo Creek basin. The gauge at this station recorded a peak flow

of 599 cfs on January 25, 1969. The flow at the same station on January 18, 1973, was

about 324 cfs. Regional floods of January and February 1969 are reported by U.S.

government publications in References 2, 3, and 4.

Ocean wave history is discussed in Reference 5.

2.4.3.2 Flood Design Considerations

2.4.3.2.1 Site Flooding Topography and plant site arrangement limit flood design considerations to local floods

from Diablo Creek and sea wave action from the Pacific Ocean. As discussed in

Section 2.4.4, the canyon confining Diablo Creek remains intact and will pass any conceivable flood without hazard to PG&E Design Class I equipment. Channel

blockage from landslides downstream of the plant, sufficient to flood the plant yard, is

not possible because of the topographic arrangement of the site.

2.4.3.2.2 Flood Waves Flooding conditions, for purposes of the following discussion, include the combined effects of a tsunami, wind-generated storm waves, storm surge (piling up of water near the shore due to a storm), and tides. The combination of these effects results in a rise and fall of the ocean surface level relative to a defined datum level. The reference datum is the mean lower low water level (ML LW). At DCPP, MLLW is 2.6 feet below the mean sea level (MSL), which is used as a reference datum for plant elevation.

Values of water level rise and fall are expressed relative to MLLW. References to plant elevation are expressed relative to MSL.

When considering tsunami effects alone, the rise in water level is termed tsunami runup, and the fall of the water level is termed tsunami drawdown. Effects of both

locally-generated (near-shore) tsunami and distantly-generated tsunami are considered. Tsunami runup and drawdown values given for locally-generated tsunami include the

effects of subsidence at the plant site that is considered to occur as a result of

near-shore earthquakes.

The wave terms are defined as follows:

Still Water Level (SWL) The water level that includes the effects of tsunami, tide, and storm surge

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.4-4 Revision 23 December 2016 Combined Wave Runup The peak water level associated with storm wave action on top of SWL, but not including splash or spray effects associated with wave impacts Splash Runup The water level that includes wave runup effects plus splash effects, but not including spray effects Combined Wave Drawdown The lowest water level associated with tsunami coincident with low tide and short period storm

waves The rise in water level may result in submersion, associated hydraulic loading and

ground erosion effects, and may result in flooding effects, on structures and system

components located in the zone of influence.

The following effects are considered in determining the design water levels for DCPP:

Storm Waves: waves induced by the wind and pressure effects of a storm Storm Surge: the piling up of w ater at the shore due to (a) a long duration storm wind acting on the water surface, (b) local reduction in atmospheric

pressure, and (c) wave effects near the shoreline Tide: the rise and fall of the surface of the ocean caused by the gravitational

attraction of the sun and moon on the earth. Tidal range is typically based on the maximum annual higher high tide and the minimum annual lower low tide.

Tsunami: a long-period wave generated by a seismic event

In addition to water level changes resulting from the effects described above, the

following effects are also considered:

Breakwater Damage: only partial credit is taken for protection provided by the

breakwaters, considering that they could potentially be damaged by near-shore

seismic activity or by storm waves Resonance/Ponding Effects: local amplification of wave activity as a result of

resonance effects in the intake basin, or increase in water level in the intake

basin as a result of wave overtopping of the breakwaters, or wave ingress

through the breakwater opening

Combined runup and drawdown effects on PG&E Design Class I structures and systems are as follows:

• Combined splash runup effects for applica ble PG&E Design Class I facilities and their supporting structures are discussed in Section 2.4.7.6 DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.4-5 Revision 23 December 2016

• PG&E Design Class I systems include consideration of the effects of the combined drawdown and are discussed in Section 2.4.7.1.5

• Tsunami loads on the intake structure, including the effects of the combined wave runup are discussed in Section 2.4.7.6 2.4.3.2.3 Structural Evaluation As discussed in Section 2.4.7.6, testing and analyses demonstrate that equipment and

structures important to safety will remain operable in the event of a probable maximum tsunami, storm, and tide occurrence (Reference 21).

2.4.4 PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD (PMF) ON STREAMS AND RIVERS HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALI CS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED.

The only stream on the site subject to a PMF study is Diablo Creek. The creek collects runoff from a drainage area of 5.19 square miles up from the ocean side.

The PMF was obtained by deriving an est imated probable maximum precipitation (PMP) with a duration of 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> over the subject drainage area. The most severe

antecedent condition of ground wetness favorable to high flood runoff was assumed. In

view of the low elevation of the site, snowmelt was not considered in the study.

It was assumed that during a PMF all culverts are plugged, and water is impounded to

the crest of the lowest depression of the switchyard's fill. The artificial reservoir formed

in this assumption is so small that the PMF could not affect the plant.

For a drainage area of 5.19 square miles, the PMF was found to have a peak discharge

of 6878 cfs (1325 cfs/sq mi) or a total volume of about 4306 acre-feet for the 24-hour storm.

2.4.4.1 Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP)

Due to the small drainage area of the site, a PMP with 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> duration of rain was selected. Determination of the PMP is based entirely on the methods and procedures

outlined in Reference 6. The unrestricted cumulative convergence PMP determined by the above method is found to be 16.6 inches during the month of October. PMP values

for other durations as interpolated by the method suggested in Reference 6 are shown

in Table 2.4-1.

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.4-6 Revision 23 December 2016 2.4.4.2 Precipitation Losses

Losses are a complex function of rain intensity and accumulated loss (as an index of

ground wetness). Five loss rate variables in this study represent average loss, initial

loss, rate of decrease of loss with wetness, relation of loss to rain intensity, and rate of

recovery of loss rate between storm periods. The unit hydrograph and loss rate

parameters are determined in a sequential successive approximati on manner as described in Reference 7. Optimization of the basin parameters was performed with the

aid of computer program No. 23-J-L211, "Unit Hydrograph and Loss Rate Optimization,"

developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and modified by PG&E (Reference 8).

To obtain precipitation losses, the storm at DCPP site on January 24-25, 1969, was

optimized with the runoff record at the USG S gauging station at Los Berros Creek for the same period. Actual rainfall-runoff optimization on Diablo Creek could have been done if the weir had not washed out during the major storms of 1969 and 1973.

Nevertheless, geographic and geologic conditions of Los Berros Creek are similar to those of Diablo Creek; Los Berros is the nearest USGS gauging station in the vicinity of

DCPP site. The records are good and unregulated. It is in the same hydrographic

drainage area as the plant site and both drainage areas have relatively similar

elevations. Geologic map comparison sho ws similarity of ground conditions. Isohyetal maps of major storms show similar magnitude of rainfall in both areas.

In the rainfall-runoff optimization fit using rainfall at DCPP site, the Los Berros recorded

runoff responded well to the rainfall distribution at Diablo Canyon. Other rainfall stations

around the gauging station were tried but no better fit could be derived than the above.

On the foregoing consideration, the optimized loss rates are judged to be representative of the Diablo Canyon drainage basin.

The antecedent condition for the storm of January 24-25, 1969, was very favorable to

heavy runoff. Heavy rains during the period of January 18-22, 1969, brought

widespread but generally moderate flooding in the area. According to flood reports from

USGS, this rain saturated the soil over much of the area. The time distribution of

precipitation during the January 24-25 storm was conducive to rapid and intense runoff, because the heaviest rain occurred near the end of the storm when streams were

already carrying large flood flows.

Choice of the January 24-25, 1969, storm gave, therefore, conservative results of loss

rates. Precipitation data indicate that January 1969 was the wettest January in many

years in the area.

As stated in Section 2.4.2.2, Hydrosphere, the average discharge at Diablo Creek is

0.5 cfs in its 16 years of record.

However, base flow considerations were taken from the hydrograph of flood flow at Los Berros. The result of the optimization study is

shown in Figure 2.4-4.

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.4-7 Revision 23 December 2016 2.4.4.3 Runoff Model

Based on the discussion in the preceding section, the hydrologic response

characteristics of Diablo Creek were considered as those that were optimized. The

time of concentration of the Diablo Creek basin was calculated using the formula of the Bureau of Reclamation, Design of Small Dams, where:

()0.385 3 H 11.9L T c= (2.4-1) where: T c = time of concentration in hours L = length of longest water course in miles

H = elevation difference in feet

Due to the small size of the basins, Variables 2 and 3 in the rainfall-runoff study were

taken as the optimized values. The definitions of the variables or parameters in the

optimized model are shown in Sheet 3 of Figure 2.4-5. The first three variables represent unit hydrograph parameters.

The mechanics of the mathem atical model used in this study are described in the program documentation of the "Unit Hydrograph and Loss Rate Optimization" computer

program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Based on the mechanics of this program, P G&E developed the computer program listed as Reference 8. The parameters obtained a nd defined in the optimization, or other values considered, are held constant and considered representative of the basin. No

optimization is performed.

This model is capable of m odeling any basin rainfall amount and time distribution up to and including the PMP. Loss rates are also calculated in a

nonlinear function represented by the equation:

EPKL= (2.4-2) where:

L = loss for each period K = a function of four variables (average value and initial loss increment, which differ from flood to flood, and recovery rate and exponential recession rate, which are uniform for all floods) P = rain for each period E = loss rate variable equal to Variable 7 in the program

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.4-8 Revision 23 December 2016 2.4.4.4 Probable Maximum Flood Flow

The PMP estimate obtained in Section 2.4.4.1 was distributed according to

Reference 6. The loss rate parameters obtained in Section 2.4.4.2 were reduced by

50 percent to represent a much more severe antecedent condition and loss rate

recession. The exponent of the loss rate equation (Variable 7) was not changed, but it

was considered as an optimized regional val ue. Using the foregoing values as input, the synthetic PMF hydrograph for Diablo Creek up to the ocean side was derived with

the aid of the PG&E computer program, Reference 8. The unit hydrograph constants

were those that were derived in the runoff model. The hydrograph of inflow for the PMF

is presented as a computer printout in Figure 2.4-5, Sheet 2. The peak flow for the PMF

was found to be 6878 cfs (1325 cfs/sq mi) with a runoff factor of 0.92.

The switchyard embankment creates a dam upstream of the plant with a potential reservoir storage capacity of 1100 acre-feet.

The possibility exists that this small reservoir is full prior to a PMF as a result of culvert plugging. Therefore, storage

attenuation of inflow PMF was not considered.

Section 2.4.11 discusses the capability of roof and yard drainage to handle runoff from

local PMP without risk of flooding PG&E Design Class I buildings.

2.4.4.5 Water Level Determinations

Figure 2.4-3 shows that the hydraulic capacity of the canyon is in excess of 10,000 cfs.

There is more than 11 feet of freeboard if the road crossing is washed out and more

than 7 feet of freeboard if the road crossing rem ains intact; thus, there is no risk of flood to PG&E Design Class I equipment.

2.4.4.6 Coincident Wind Wave Activity

Wave runup, discussed in Section 2.4.6, coincident with PMF will have little effect on

computed water surfaces. The roadway acting as a weir at an elevation of 65 feet

above MLLW (refer to Figure 2.4-3) provides higher backwaters than the combined waves discussed in Sections 2.4.6 and 2.4.7.

2.4.5 POTENTIAL DAM FAILURES (SEISMICALLY INDUCED)

HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALI CS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED.

There are no dams in the watershed and failure of dams outside the watershed could not generate sea waves higher than those discussed in Sections 2.4.6 and 2.4.7. The

potential storage of water upstream of the switchyard fill described in Section 2.4.4.4

poses no flood threat since the switchyard fill is more than five times as wide as it is deep and the maximum storage of 1100 acre-feet has a face depth of 120 feet.

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.4-9 Revision 23 December 2016 2.4.6 PROBABLE MAXIMUM SURGE AND SEICHE FLOODING 2.4.6.1 Probable Maximum Winds and Associated Meteorological Parameters Hurricanes or line squalls of sufficient magnitude to generate surge flooding (storm-generated, long-period sea waves) have not been recorded on the Pacific

coastline. This lack of observed events in 200 years of record lends reasonable

assurance that such an event will not occur during the lifetime of the power plant.

However, the effects of wind-generated storm waves, storm surge, and tides are

conservatively considered in the evaluation of water level and its effects on PG&E

Design Class I equipment and structures.

2.4.6.2 Surge and Seiche History As discussed above, there is no record of surge flooding associated with hurricanes or

line squalls. The history of short-period wave trains generated from remote storms in this region is limited. As described below, to compensate for the lack of historical knowledge, conservative flood levels have been developed on the basis of hindcasts

and three-dimensional model testing.

2.4.6.3 Surge and Seiche Sources Since there is no record of hurricanes, cyclonic type wind storms, squall lines, etc., on

the Pacific Coast, these phenomena are not a design consideration. However, design

for any credible flooding, including tsunami in combination with wave and tide action as discussed in Section 2.4.7, is conservatively considered.

2.4.6.4 Wave Action Wave action behavior at DCPP was originall y developed on the basis of hindcasts based on a statistical evaluation of historical data in combination with previous scale

model testing. PG&E conducted an extensive review of the historical data that led to

the estimation of the return periods of the critical storms; e.g., the 1905 storm and the

1981 storm. A major Pacific storm in January 1981 resulted in extensive damage to the west breakwater protecting the intake basin, and led to a review of all the design waves

and water levels.

As a result of the damage, PG&E undertook a test program to determine critical wave

behavior at the intake basin, including wave height, wave direction, wave runup, resulting forces, and the effects of wave splash on the intake structure and the auxiliary

saltwater (ASW) system. A three-dimensional physical model of the basin and its

surroundings was constructed, representing in a 1:45 scale the sea floor, the intake

structure, and the breakwaters in storm-induced damage conditions.

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.4-10 Revision 23 December 2016 The tests included the effects of: (a) wind-generated storm waves, including storm surge and tides, and (b) the effects of tsunami plus storm waves. The effects of the waves, including the wave heights, are discussed in detail in Section 2.4.7.

Because data related to wind-generated storm waves were very limited, PG&E

developed and implemented a test progra m to generate the required data (Reference 16). The test program developed site-specific design basis flood events (References 16, 20).

Although the maximum still water level of 17 feet, for probable maximum tsunami, high

tide, and storm surge, was conservatively used in the scale model tests (References 16

and 20), the still water level of 15.5 feet, as approved by the NRC, may be used (Reference 28).

Waves for the scale model tests were mechanica lly generated. Wave heights, outside the breakwater, of up to 45 feet, with periods of 12, 16, and 20 seconds were

generated. The results for the model testing indicated that the response waves within

the intake basin reached a maximum height that did not increase further in response to

increases in the offshore wave height. This phenomenon is due to the effects of the

natural terrain and the presence of the degraded breakwater. Therefore, the maximum

credible wave event is based on the maximum response of the wave height within the

basin, in combination with the still water level in the basin, and is used for assessing the

maximum inundating effects and wave forces at the intake structure.

A wave data buoy was installed immediately off DCPP in May 1983 to directly obtain

data on wave action. The data are recorded on site and telemetered to the Scripps Institute at La Jolla, California, where they are assimilated with data from other Pacific Coast buoys interconnected with the Scripps "Coastal Data Information Program."

2.4.6.5 Resonance/Ponding As discussed in Section 2.4.6.4, PG&E develope d and implemented a test program to simulate the effects of storm waves and tsunamis on the intake basin. The scale model

included the detailed relief of the surroundin g submerged terrain, the breakwaters, and the intake structure. The action of the waves on the scale model automatically

incorporates the resonance and ponding effects of the intake basin.

2.4.6.6 Runup and Drawdown Estimates of storm and tsunami wave runup and drawdown, and their effects on the

plant, are presented in Section 2.4.7.

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.4-11 Revision 23 December 2016 2.4.6.7 Protective Structures The only PG&E Design Class I system that has components within the projected sea

wave zone is the ASW system. The ASW pump motors are housed in watertight

compartments within the intake structure. These compartments are designed for a

combination tsunami-storm wave activity to elevation

+48 feet MLLW (+45.4 feet MSL).

The massive concrete intake structure ensures that the pumps remain in place and

operate during extreme wave events. The intake structure is arranged to provide

redundant paths for seawater to the pumps, ensuring a dependable supply of seawater.

In addition to the ASW pumps, the buried ASW piping outside of the intake structure, which is not attached to the circulating water tunnels, is vulnerable to the effects of

tsunami and storm waves. An evaluation was conducted by Bechtel Corporation for

PG&E to determine what protective measures were required to protect this buried ASW

piping. This evaluation is described in Reference 40. Based on this evaluation, erosion

protection, consisting of gabion mattresses, reinforced concrete pavement above this

buried piping, and an armored embankment southeast of the intake structure, were

designed and installed to resist th e effects of tsunami and storm waves.

The model test program (References 16, 20) and resultant evaluations led to various

structural modifications, including the extension of the ASW air vent structures with steel

tubular snorkels having openings between elevations 48 and 52 feet MLLW. The snorkels were installed during 1982 and 1983 plant modifications. Analysis of the installed extensions by P. J. Ryan (Reference 18) further demonstrated that ingestion of

sufficient water by the snorkels is extremely unlikely to jeopardize the operation of the

ASW pumps. Section 2.4.7.6 provides additional details.

2.4.7 PROBABLE MAXIMUM TSUNAMI FLOODING The tsunami evaluation and design have evolved as a result of a number of studies and analyses during the original plant design period, the operating license review period, and following the breakwater damage in 1981. The licensing basis for tsunami

evaluation is presented in Sections 2.4.7.1 to 2.4.7.6. The background and evolution of the tsunami design and evaluation are provided in Section 2.4.7.7.

2.4.7.1 Probable Maximum Tsunami Tsunamis are classified according to the distance from the shore to the location of the

event (generator) that causes the wave. The design tsunami for DCPP represents the

envelope of the following two classes of tsunamis:

Distantly-generated tsunami: a tsunami whose generator is located more than

several times the principal source dimension (e.g., length of postulated fault

rupture) from the plant, Marine Advisors, Inc., 1966 (Reference 24)

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.4-12 Revision 23 December 2016 Locally-generated (near-shore) tsunami: a tsunami whose generator is closer than the distance defined for distantly-generated tsunami

The tsunami runup and drawdown at the intake structure are dependent on the source

of the tsunami, the distance to the tsunami generator, and the near-shore undersea

terrain, including the topography of the intake basin and the configuration of the

breakwater.

Wave heights for the two classes of tsunamis considered in the design of DCPP are described in the following sections.

2.4.7.1.1 Distantly-Generated Tsunamis The predominant sources of distantly-generated tsunamis are limited to areas of

earthquake and volcanic activity on the circum-Pacific belt. Distant sources relative to

DCPP include the Aleutian area, t he Kuril-Kamchatka region, and the South American coast.

The lack of historical data for the site during the construction permit review raised a

question on the degree of confidence for a virtually no risk of being exceeded

assurance. In 1967, the AEC staff and its consultants, the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey (USCGS), agreed that the probable maximum tsunami at the site, which had virtually no risk of being exceeded, would be less than the 17- to 20- foot

waves experienced at Crescent City, California, as a result of the 1964 Anchorage, Alaska, earthquake (Reference 35). To expedite the permit schedule, PG&E decided to

use 20 feet as the maximum distantly-generated tsunami wave height.

2.4.7.1.2 Near-Shore Tsunami A number of investigations and analyses to determine the tsunami-generation potential

of near-shore earthquake faults were performed during the period from 1966 to 1975.

The design basis tsunami wave heights are based on the analysis performed in 1975 by

Hwang, Yuen, and Brandsma (Reference 28). The following earthquake sources and

characteristics were considered in the analysis:

• Santa Lucia Bank fault, located approximately 29 miles from the site, considering a resultant displacement of 9.8 feet and a vertical

displacement (6.6 feet) equal to 2/3 of the resultant displacement

• Santa Maria Basin fault (later identified as the Hosgri fault), located approximately 3.5 miles from the site, considering a resultant

displacement of 11 feet and a vert ical displacement (7.3 feet) equal to 2/3 of the resultant displacement

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.4-13 Revision 23 December 2016 The analysis considered the cases of the breakwaters (a) present as originally constructed, (b) completely absent, and (c) in damaged conditions, in which the sides of

the breakwaters slump to a 1-on-4, 1-on-5, or 1-on-6 vertical-to-horizontal slope.

The Santa Maria Basin fault source controls, producing a maximum runup of 9.2 feet

and a maximum drawdown of 0.0 feet (Reference 28).

The design basis maximum combined wave runup is the greater of that determined for

near-shore or distantly-generated tsunamis, and results from near-shore tsunamis. The

bases of these runup values are given in the following two subsections.

• For distantly-generated tsunamis, the combined runup is 30 feet

• For near-shore tsunamis, the combined wave runup is 34.6 feet, as determined by hydraulic model testing (References 21 and 37) 2.4.7.1.3 Combined Wave Runup for Distantly-Generated Tsunamis The combined wave runup for distantly-generated tsunamis is the same as the value

adopted during the construction permit review. The value adopted at that time was

30 feet, as imposed by the NRC (Reference 35).

2.4.7.1.4 Combined Wave Runup for Near-Shore Tsunamis

The combined wave runup for near-shore tsunamis, 34.6 feet, is based on observations during scale model testing (Reference 21), which was performed subsequent to the

1981 breakwater damage. This runup value represents the maximum runup observed

at the location of the ventilation shafts in the test model, excluding wave spray. Wave

splash and spray, which can extend to higher elevations, are discussed in

Section 2.4.7.6.

A degraded breakwater model was used, representing the crest of both breakwaters

reduced to MLLW, the seaward slopes below that level remaining as originally

constructed, and the intake basin sides widened by as much as the material above

MLLW could achieve while coming to rest at a slope of 1 vertical to 1.5 horizontal. The

model represents the worst-case breakwater damage that could result from the

cumulative effects of severe storms, a tsunami, and Hosgri effects (References 23 and

33).

Tsunami, storm surge, and tide effects have relatively long periods and were combined

to represent a static change in the elevation of the still water surface. The dynamic

effects of storm waves, which have shorter periods, were then superimposed.

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.4-14 Revision 23 December 2016 2.4.7.1.5 Combined Wave Drawdo wn Minimum Water Level The maximum combined wave drawdown is the greater of that determined for near-

shore or distantly-generated tsunamis, and results from distantly-generated tsunamis.

This value constitutes the design combined drawdown value, which is 9.0 feet.

• Combined wave drawdown for distantly-generated tsunamis: The combined wave drawdown value of 9 feet, derived by a study performed

during the construction permit review, is based on the combination of

tsunami, storm wave, storm surge, and tide (Reference 24).

• Combined wave drawdown for near-shore tsunamis: The maximum combined wave drawdown determined by analysis for the case with the

breakwaters intact, as originally constructed, is 4.07 feet (Reference 28).

The maximum combined drawdown for the case with the breakwater

degraded to MLLW has not been evaluated. However, analysis for the

case of no breakwater present shows that the drawdown effect is 4.40 feet (Reference 28). Therefore, the drawdown for near-shore tsunamis will be

less than for distantly-generated tsunamis. There is a significant margin

between the 4.07 feet of drawdown and the available pump submergence

depth.

2.4.7.2 Historical Tsunami Record HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED.

There is no historical record of tsunamis for DCPP site due to the remote location with respect to populated areas. The historical review of the region shows tsunamis that

have been recorded in the region are of the sa me order of magnitude as the normal tide range and that local configurations play a large part in the ultimate effects of the tsunami.

At the California coast, reactions to tsunamis from distant sources have been generally moderate, with the exception of certain sensitive areas that have historically shown an

abnormally high response as compared to the coast in general. Avila Beach is the closest sensitive area to DCPP.

A review of historical tsunami records and studies of the underwater topography has

determined that wave heights recorded at Avila Beach are the result of local conditions that do not affect DCPP (Reference 24). The review demonstrated that DCPP need

consider only a distantly-generated tsunami height of 5.0 to 6.0 feet, corresponding to the normal tidal range. Thus, a 6-foot change in the water level above or below MLLW

could result (Reference 24). Hence, the 20-foot tsunami runup from a distantly-

generated tsunami suggested by the USCGS (Reference 32) is extremely conservative.

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.4-15 Revision 23 December 2016 2.4.7.3 Source of Tsunami Wave Height

2.4.7.3.1 Distantly-Generated Tsunamis As discussed in Section 2.4.7.1.1, the predominant sources of distantly-generated

tsunamis are limited to areas of earthquake and volcanic activity on the circum-Pacific

belt. Distant sources relative to DCPP inclu de the Aleutian area, the Kuril-Kamchatka region, and the South American coast.

2.4.7.3.2 Near-Shore Tsunamis A number of investigations and analyses to determine the tsunami-generation potential

of near-shore earthquake faults was performed during the period from 1966 to 1975.

The following earthquake sources and characteristics were considered in the analyses:

• Santa Lucia Bank fault, located approximately 29 miles from the site, considering a resultant displacement of 9.8 feet and a vertical

displacement (6.6 feet) equal to 2/3 of the resultant displacement

• Santa Maria Basin fault (later identified as the Hosgri fault), located approximately 3.5 miles from the site, considering a resultant

displacement of 11 feet and a vert ical displacement (7.3 feet) equal to 2/3 of the resultant displacement The design basis tsunami wave heights are based on the analysis performed in 1975 by Hwang, Yuen, and Brandsma of Tetra Tech, Inc. (Reference 28).

2.4.7.4 Tsunami Height Offshore Estimates of tsunami heights from distant generators offshore are postulated to have

dissipated to wave trains with heights on the order of astronomical tidal range of 6 feet.

Locally-generated tsunami runup heights from seismic activity or from submarine

landslides are estimated to be a maximum of 9.2 feet (Reference 28).

2.4.7.5 Hydrography and Harbor or Breakwater Influences on Tsunami Since the approach to the intake structure is across very irregular submerged terrain, PG&E decided after the January 1981 storm, which significantly damaged the

breakwater, that the wave behavior under both extreme tide and tsunami condition

would most reliably be evaluated through the use of a three-dimensional physical scale model. The effects of the intake basin, natural sea floor, and the breakwaters (in the

damaged state) were considered in the testing and evaluation. Resonance and ponding effects are automatically incorporated by the model testing.

The 80- by 120-foot, 1:45 scale model was designed and constructed on the basis of

detailed surveys and soundings. Wave-making machines were positioned at various DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.4-16 Revision 23 December 2016 parts of the basin to drive waves of defined heights, periods, and directions toward the intake basin. Appropriate instrumentation was included to measure and record wave

characteristics, and to measure and record critical forces and loads on the intake

structure (References 16 and 20).

2.4.7.6 Effects on PG&E Design Class I Facilities The only PG&E Design Class I system that has components within the projected sea

wave zone is the ASW system. The intake structure, within which this equipment is

housed, has a main deck elevation of +20 feet above MLLW; it will withstand a tsunami

coincident with high tide and depth-limited maximum storm waves that can occur within

the intake basin. The PG&E Design Cl ass I equipment is installed in watertight compartments to protect it from adverse sea wave events to elevation +48 feet above

MLLW.

In addition to the ASW pumps, the buried ASW piping outside of the intake structure, which is not attached to the circulating water tunnels, is vulnerable to the effects of

tsunami and storm waves. An evaluation was conducted by Bechtel Corporation for

PG&E to determine what protective measures were required to protect this buried ASW

piping. This evaluation is described in Reference 40. Based on this evaluation, erosion

protection, consisting of gabion mattresses, reinforced concrete pavement above this

buried piping, and an armored embankment southeast of the intake structure, were

designed and installed to resist th e effects of tsunami and storm waves.

The ability of the breakwater to resist damage to the intake structure caused by

collisions of marine vessels was demonstrated by Kircher et al. (Reference 41) as described in Section 2.2.3.1. The structural i ntegrity of the intake structure to resist extreme wave attack (design flood event) in the unlikely event of degradation of the breakwater was reviewed by model tests conducted by O. J. Lillevang (Reference 16)

and Dr. Fredric Raichlen (Reference 20). Data from the model study were used by E.

N. Matsuda (Reference 21) to structurally analyze the ability of the intake structure to

resist the most extreme wave forces. Matsuda determined that, with minor

modifications, the intake structure would not be structurally damaged by the most

extreme wave forces that might occur even in the unlikely event the entire breakwater

were to be degraded to zero feet MLLW. The modifications were completed in 1983.

In addition to the structural evaluations discussed above, the potential effects of splash

and spray of the sea waves on PG&E Design Class I equipment were evaluated.

Splashing of water up to and above the top of the ventilation shaft (52 feet MLLW) for the ASW pump rooms was observed during the performance of the scale model testing (Reference 16). The testing demonstrated that the ventilation shaft extensions

remained free of the upward splashed water as they are set back from the seaward edge of the concrete vent huts at a considerable distance from the seaward edge of the

intake structure, and the openings face away from the sea.

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.4-17 Revision 23 December 2016 Although the air intake would not be inundated by splashing of water, it could be subject to windborne spray. This spray could potentially wet the vent openings and enter the

ASW pump rooms. As described in the following subsections, testing and analysis

showed that it is not credible that the water level in a pump room would exceed the

maximum design flood level for the room.

Additional tests, using the 1:45 scale model of the intake structure and intake basin, were performed by Offshore Technology Corporation to determine the potential for

ingestion of water by the ASW pump room ventilation shafts (Reference 30). Wave

splash behavior in the vicinity of the ventilation shafts was recorded using high-speed

motion pictures, still photography, and visual observation. Subsequent to the testing, analyses were conducted to evaluate the effect of the splashing on the ASW pumps (Reference 18). The conclusion of this analysis was that the combination of degraded

breakwater, tsunami, high tide, severe storm, and extreme winds in the offshore

direction necessary to result in a critical volume of water being ingested is not credible (Reference 18).

The ASW pumps are protected against floodi ng for the maximum wave height under tsunami and storm wave conditions even if the entire length of the breakwater were

degraded to MLLW. Since there is no assurance that the breakwater would not

degrade below MLLW, even though Wiegel (Reference 33) indicates that this is very

unlikely, the DCPP Equipment Control Guidelines (Reference 29) include requirements to monitor the condition of the breakwater, to implement corrective action when limited

damage is sustained, and to identify the limiting condition for operation relative to the

configuration of the breakwaters.

2.4.7.7 Background and Evolution of the Tsunami Design Basis

The background and evolution of the tsunami design basis have been documented in

detail in NRC Supplemental Safety Evaluation Reports (SSERs) 1, 5, 7, 13, and 17.

2.4.8 ICE FLOODING

HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALI CS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED.

As described in Section 2.3, the mild cl imate and general lack of freezing temperatures in this region make regional ice formation h ighly unlikely, and it was, therefore, not considered.

2.4.9 COOLING WATER CANALS AND RESERVOIRS HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALI CS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED.

The Pacific Ocean is the source of cooling water for the plant. This cooling water system contains no canals or reservoirs.

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.4-18 Revision 23 December 2016 2.4.10 CHANNEL DIVERSIONS HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALI CS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED.

Upstream diversions associated with rivers, where low flow has an impact on dependable cooling water sources, is not a factor for this site.

2.4.11 FLOODING PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS The site arrangement, with the plant situated on a coastal terrace 85 feet above MSL, virtually eliminates all risks from flooding.

Roofs of PG&E Design Class I buildings ha ve a drainage system designed in accordance with the Uniform Plumbing Code for an adjusted regional PMP of 4

inches/hour. In addition, overflow scuppers are provided in parapet walls at roof level to

prevent ponding of accumulated rainwater in excess of drain capacity. Yard areas around PG&E Design Class I buildings are graded to provide positive slope away from

buildings. Storm runoff is overland and unobstructed. It is, therefore, not possible for

ponding from local PMP to flood PG&E Design Class I buildings.

2.4.12 LOW WATER CONSIDERATIONS 2.4.12.1 Low Flow in Rivers and Streams There are no rivers or streams involved in plant operations; therefore, low flow

conditions were not evaluated.

2.4.12.2 Low Water Resulting from Surges, Seiches, or Tsunamis Low water, as a result of tsunami drawdown occurring coincident with low tide and short-period storm waves, is projected by Marine Advisers (Reference 24) to result in a possible low water elevation of 9 feet below MLLW.

2.4.12.3 Historical Low Water As discussed in Section 2.4.7.2, there is no historical record for the site. Regional ocean low water history is reported in Reference 24.

2.4.12.4 Future Control Flowrate factors generally associated with plants situated on rivers are not applicable to

DCPP.

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.4-19 Revision 23 December 2016 2.4.12.5 Plant Requirements The only PG&E Design Class I system impacted by tsunami drawdown is the ASW. To

ensure adequate water supply to the ASW system in the event a tsunami downsurge

occurs, the arrangement of the intake structure provides free access to the ocean. In the event of a low water elevation of 9 feet below MLLW, each ASW pump will provide approximately 85 percent of the design flow due to increased static head losses (while

operating in the one-pump one-heat exchanger alignment) (refer to Section 9.2.7.3.1).

This is a temporary condition and would not result in a significant increase in component

cooling water (CCW) temperature.

2.4.12.6 Heat Sink Dependability Requirements The ASW pumps are designed to operate with the water level down to 17.4 feet below

MLLW, substantially below the minimum water level of 9 feet below MLLW that might

occur during a tsunami. Therefore, operation of the ASW system would not be

interrupted by low water levels.

Cavitation (with the potential to significantly reduce system flow) is predicted to occur when operating with one ASW pump supplying two CCW heat exchangers during a

tsunami drawdown. In the event a tsunami is indicated (by a tsunami warning or a

severe earthquake) with two CCW heat exchangers in service, a loss of suction would

be indicated by low ASW pump discharge pressure and/or low CCW heat exchanger

differential pressure (D/P), low ASW bay level, or fluctuating pump motor current.

Operator action would be required to remove one of the CCW heat exchangers from

service to reduce system flow and decrease pump suction head requirements.

2.4.13 ENVIRONMENTAL ACCEPTA NCE OF EFFLUENTS

Deep Well 0-2 is the source for groundwater for use at the DCPP site only, and there is

no public use of this groundwater (as discussed in Section 2.4.14). No other significant

groundwater source exists in this area.

No detailed analysis of acceptance of effluents by surface or groundwater is relevant. The releases to the environment via the

discharge canal are described in Sections 11.2.2.5.2 and 11.2.3.12.2.2.

HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALI CS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED.

Estimated releases of activity from the liquid radwaste system are discussed in Section 11.2.2.5, and dilution factors for dilution of liquid wastes are discussed in Section 11.2.2.6. The release points for liquid waste are shown in Figure 11.2-9.

A flow diagram for the design basis case for liquid radwaste processing is shown in Figure 11.2-2. The numbered waste input streams have their annual flow and isotopic spectra listed in Tables 11.2-3 and 11.2-5. The numbered process streams are listed in Tables

11.2-8 and 11.2-9, with flows and isotopic concentrations.

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.4-20 Revision 23 December 2016 The possibility of accidental releases and the consequent dispersion of such releases are discussed in Chapter 15. Because of the location of the plant on the ocean and the separation of intake and discharge structures, insignificant recirculation occurs.

2.4.14 GROUNDWATER 2.4.14.1 Description and Onsite Use HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALI CS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED.

Groundwater at the site is limited to Deep Well 0-2. No other significant groundwater has been encountered. Three small springs were encountered during excavation for plant construction; two of these were wet spots and the third had a flow of less than

thirty gallons per minute. The water was analyzed and found to be very hard (1050 mg/I

CaCO 3 and high in dissolved residue (2148 m g/I). Groundwater and domestic water supplies are not affected by the operation of the plant. (Draft Environmental Statement of the Directorate of Licensing, United States Atom ic Energy Commission, December 1972.) There is no public use of onsite groundwater.

2.4.14.2 Monitoring and Safeguard Requirements Process and effluent streams are monitored wherever a potential release of radioactivity

exists during all modes of plant operation.

Differential temperature across the condenser is monitored as a condition of the

national pollution discharge elimination system (NPDES) permit.

2.4.15 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS AND EMERGENCY OPERATION REQUIREMENTS Technical Specifications that describe the safe operation or shutdown requirements for the plant are contained in Appendix A to the operating license.

2.4.16 SAFETY EVALUATION

2.4.16.1 General Design Criterion 2, 1967 - Performance Standards

The PG&E Design Class I structures, syst ems, and components es sential to the prevention of accidents or to mitigate their co nsequences are designed to withstand or are protected from the effects of flooding. Refer to Sections 2.4.3.2.1, 2.4.3.2.2, 2.4.6.7, 2.4.11, 2.4.12.1, 2.4.12.4, 2.4.13, 2.4.14.1, and 2.4.14.2.

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.4-21 Revision 23 December 2016 2.4.16.2 Regulatory Guide 1.59, Revision 2, August 1977 - Design Basis Floods for Nuclear Power Plants

The PG&E Design Class I structures, systems, and components are designed to

withstand and continue to perform their function during the worst site-related flood

probable to occur. Refer to Sections 2.4.3.2.

2, 2.4.3.2.3, 2.4.6.7, 2.4.7, 2.4.7.1, 2.4.7.1.1, 2.4.7.1.2, 2.4.7.1.3, 2.4

.7.1.4, 2.4.7.1.5, 2.4.7.3.1, 2

.4.7.3.2, 2.4.7.4, 2.4.7.6, 2.4.12.2, 2.4.12.3, 2.4.12.5, and 2.4.12.6.

2.4.16.3 Regulatory Guide 1.102, Revision 1, September 1976 - Flood Protection for Nuclear Power Plants

The PG&E Design Class I structures, systems, and components are appropriately

protected from damage caused by flooding. Refer to Sections 2.4.3.2.3, 2.4.6.7, 2.4.7.6, and 2.4.12.6.

2.4.16.4 Regulatory Guide 1.125, Revision 1, October 1978 - Physical Models for Design and Operation of Hydraulic Structures and Systems for Nuclear Power Plants Hydraulic modeling of the site intake breakwaters, systems, and structures is

appropriately designed, verified, tested, and documented to accurately describe the

behavior of these plant facilities. Refer to Sections 2.4.3.2.3, 2.4.6.7, 2.4.7.14, 2.4.7.5, and 2.4.7.6.

2.4.17 REFERENCES

1. Joint Feasibility Report by the State of California Department of Water Resources and the United States Department of the Interior, Office of Saline Water, 1972.

2. A. O. Waananen, Open File R eport, Water Resources Division, Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1977.

3. Report on January - February 1969 Floods, Central Coastal Streams (2 Vol.), San Francisco District, Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, 1969.

4. Floods of January and February 1969 in Southern California, Los Angeles District, Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, 1969.

5. PG&E, Ocean Wave History, Appendix E, of the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR) for Nuclear Unit No. 2, San Francisco, California, 1967.

6. United States Weather Bureau (USWB), Hydrometeorological Report (HMR)

No. 36, Interim Report - Probable Maximum Precipitation in California, and DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.4-22 Revision 23 December 2016 modification thereto suggested in Revisions of October 1969 to Hydrometeorological Report No. 36, Interim Report - Probable Maximum Precipitation in California, 1969.

7. L. R. Beard, Optimization Techniques for Hydrologic Engineering, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Technical Paper No. 2, 1966.

8. C. B. Cecilio, Design Flood Hydro graph and Reservoir Flood Routing, Civil Engineering Department, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, California, 1970.

9. Deleted

10. Deleted

11. Deleted

12. Deleted

13. Deleted

14. Deleted

15. Deleted

16. O. J. Lillevang, et al., The Height Limiting Effect of Sea Floor Terrain Features and of Hypothetically Extensively Reduced Breakwaters on Wave Action at Diablo Canyon Sea Water Intake, California, 1982.

17. Deleted

18. P. J. Ryan, Investigations of Seawater Ingestion Into the Auxiliary Saltwater Pump Room Due to Splash Run-up During the Design Flood Events at Diablo Canyon, California, 1983.

19. Deleted

20. F. Raichlen, The Investigation of Wave-Structure Interactions for the Cooling Water Intake Structure of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, California, 1982.

21. E. N. Matsuda, Wave Effects on t he Intake Structure, DCPP, California, 1983.

22. O. J. Lillevang, Letter/Report dated May 20, 1982, to R. V. Bettinger.

23. H. Bolton Seed, Letter/Report dated September 22, 1981, to R. V. Bettinger.

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.4-23 Revision 23 December 2016

24. An Evaluation of Tsunami Potential at the Diablo Canyon Site, Marine Advisers, Inc., Report A-253, 1966. (Appendix E of the PSAR).

25. O. J. Lillevang, A Basin Intake for Cooling Water at Diablo Canyon Power Plant, 1969. (Appendix 2.4A to Diablo Canyon Power Plant Final Safety Analysis Report as amended through Augu st 1980). (See also Reference 27 of Section 2.3.)

26. Deleted

27. Li-San Hwang, et al., Earthquake Generated Water Waves at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, 1974. (Appendix D of Appendix 2.4C to Diablo Canyon Power Plant Final Safety Analysis Report as amended through August 1980).

(See also Reference 27 of Section 2.3.)

28. Li-San Hwang, et al., Earthquake Generated Water Waves at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, (Part Two), 1975. (Appendi x E of Appendix 2.4C to Diablo Canyon Power Plant Final Safety Analysis Report as amended through

August 1980). (See also Reference 27 of Section 2.3.)

29. DCPP Equipment Control Guideline 17.3, "Flood Protection," Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

30. J. I. Collins and W. G.

Groskopf, Hydraulic Model Study of Diablo Canyon Intake Structure, Test Results - Ingestion Studies, OTC Corporation, 1983.

31. Deleted in Revision 22.

32. U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, Report on the Seismicity of the Nuclear Plant at the Diablo Canyon Site, September 1967.

33. R. L. Wiegel, Breakwater Damage by Severe Storm Waves and Tsunami Waves, March 5, 1982.

34. Hydraulic Model Study of Diablo Canyon Intake Structure Test Results, December 1982, OTC-82-42.

35. Department of Engineering Memorandum, "Meeting with AEC Staff and Consultants, November 21, 1967," Pacific Gas and Electric Company, December 4, 1967.

36. F. Raichlen, "Wave Induced Effects in a Cooling Water Basin," Chapter 196, Proceedings of International Coas tal Engineering Conference, 1986.

DCPP UNITS 1 &

2 FSAR UPDATE 2.4-24 Revision 23 December 2016

37. PG&E Calculation No. 52.18.13.1, "Combined Runup Depths for Tsunami and Storm Waves," 1997.

38. Regulatory Guide 1.102, Revision 1, Flood Protection for Nuclear Power Sites, USNRC, September 1976.

39. NUREG-0675, Supplement No. 5, Safety Evaluation of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, USNRC, September 1996.

40. Diablo Canyon Power Plant - Au xiliary Saltwater Cooling System Erosion Protection for New Bypass Piping, Bechtel Corporation, October 1996.

41. C. A. Kircher, et al., Frequency of Vessel Impact with the Diablo Canyon Intake Structures, December 10, 1982.

42. Regulatory Guide 1.59, Revision 2, Design Basis Floods for Nuclear Power Plants, USNRC, August 1977.

43. Regulatory Guide 1.125, Revision 1, Physical Models for Design and Operation of Hydraulic Structures and Systems for Nuclear Power Plants, USNRC, October 1978. 2.4.18 REFERENCE DRAWINGS Figures representing controlled engineering drawings a re incorporated by reference and

are identified in Table 1.6-1. The contents of the drawings are controlled by DCPP procedures.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-1 Revision 21 September 2013 2.5 GEOLOGY AND SEISMOLOGY This section presents the findings of the regional and site-specific geologic and seismologic investigations of the Diablo Ca nyon Power Plant (DCPP) site. Information presented is in compliance wit h the criteria in Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 100, as described below, and meets the format and c ontent recommendations of Regulatory Guide 1.70, Revision 1 (Reference 39). Because the development of the seismic inputs for DCPP predates the issuance of 10 CF R Part 100, Appendix A, "Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Powe r Plants," the DCPP earthquakes are plant specific.

To capture the historical pr ogress of the geotechni cal and seismological investigations associated with the DCPP site, information pertaining to the following three time periods is described herein:

(1) Original Design Phase: investigat ions performed in support of the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, prior to the issuance of the Unit 1 construction permit (1967), through the early stages of t he construction of Unit 1 (1971). The Design Eart hquake and Double Design Earthquake ground motions are associated with this phase. These earthquakes are similar to the regulatory ground motion level that the NRC subsequently developed in 10 CFR Part 100 Appendix A as the "Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE)" ground motion and t he "Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE)" ground motion, respectively.

(2) Hosgri Evaluation Phase: investi gations performed in response to the identification of the offs hore Hosgri fault zone (1971) through the issuance of the Unit 1 operating license (1 984). The 1977 Hosgri Earthquake ground motions are associated with this phase. The Hosgri Evaluation Phase does not affect or change the in vestigations and conclusions of the Original Design Phase.

(3) Long Term Seismic Program (LTSP) Evaluation Phase: investigations performed in response to the License Condition Item No.

2.C.(7) of the Unit 1 operating license (1984) th rough the removal of the License Condition (1991), including current on-going investigations. The 1991 L TSP ground motion is associated with this phase. The LTSP Evaluation Phase does not affect or change the investigations and conclusions of either the Original Design Phase or the Hosgri Evaluation Phase.

Overview Locations of earthquake epicenters within 200 miles of the plant site, and faults and earthquake epicenters within 75 miles of the plant site for either magnitudes or intensities, respectively, are shown in Figur es 2.5-2, 2.5-3, and 2.

5-4 (through 1972). A geologic and tectonic map of the region surrounding the site is shown in Figure 2.5-5, DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-2 Revision 21 September 2013 and detailed information about site geology is presented in Figures 2.5-8 through 2.5-16. Geology and seismology are discussed in detail in Sections 2.5.2 through 2.5.5.

Additional information on site geology is contained in References 1 and 2.

Detailed supporting data pertaining to this section are presented in Appendices 2.5A, 2.5B, 2.5C, and 2.5D of Reference 27 in Sect ion 2.3. Geologic and seismic information from investigations that responded to Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing review questions are present ed Appendices 2.5E and 2.5F of the same reference. A brief synopsis of the information presented in Reference 27 (Section 2.3) is given below.

The DCPP site is located in San Luis Ob ispo County approximately 190 miles south of San Francisco and 150 miles northwest of Los Angeles, California. It is adjacent to the Pacific Ocean, 12 miles west-southwest of the city of San Luis Obispo, the county seat.

The plant site location and topography are shown in Figure 2.5-1.

The site is located near the mouth of Diablo Creek which flows out of the San Luis Range, the dominant feature to the northeast.

The Pacific Ocean is southwest of the site. Facilities for the power plant are lo cated on a marine terrace that is situated between the mountain range and the ocean.

The terrace is bedrock overlain by surficia l deposits of marine and nonmarine origin.

PG&E Design Class I structur es at the site are si tuated on bedrock that is predominantly stratified marine sedimentary rocks and volcanics, all of Miocene age. A more extensive discussion of the regional geology is pres ented in Section 2.5.2.1 and site geology in Section 2.5.2.2.

Several investigations were performed at the site and in the vicinity of the site to determine: potential vi bratory ground motion characteri stics, existence of surface faulting, and stability of subsurface mate rials and cut slopes adjacent to Seismic Category I structures. Details of these investigations ar e presented in Sections 2.5.2 through 2.5.5. Consultants retained to perform these studies included: Earth Science Associates (geology and seismicity), John A. Blume and Associates (seismic design and foundation materials dynamic response), Harding-Lawson and Associates (stability of cut slope), Woodward-Clyde-Sherard and Associ ates (soil testing), and Geo-Recon, Incorporated (rock seismic velocity determinations). The findings of these consultants are summarized in this secti on and the detailed reports are included in Appendices 2.5A, 2.5B, 2.5C, 2.5D, 2.5E, and 2.5F of Reference 27 in Section 2.3.

Geologic investigation of the Diablo Canyon coastal area, in cluding detailed mapping of all natural exposures and exploratory trenches, yielded the following basic conclusions:

(1) The area is underlain by sedime ntary and volcanic bedrock units of Miocene age. Within this area, the pow er plant site is underlain almost wholly by sedimentary strata of the Monterey Formation, which dip northward at moderate to very steep angles. More specifically, the reactor site is underlain by thick-bedded to almost massive Monterey sandstone DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-3 Revision 21 September 2013 that is well indurated and firm. Where exposed on the nearby hillslope, this rock is markedly resistant to erosion.

(2) The bedrock beneath the main terrace area, within which the power plant site has been located, is covered by 3 to 35 feet of surficial deposits.

These include marine sediments of Pleistocene age and nonmarine sediments of Pleistocene and Holocene ag

e. In general, they are thickest in the vicinity of the reactor site.

(3) The interface between the unconsolidated terrace deposits and the underlying bedrock comprises flat to moderately irregular surfaces of Pleistocene marine planation and in tervening steeper slopes that also represent erosion in Pleistocene time.

(4) The bedrock beneath the power plant site occupies the southerly flank of a major syncline that trends west to north west. No evidence of a major fault has been recognized within or near the coastal area, and bedrock relationships in the exploratory trenches positively indicate that no such fault is present within the ar ea of the power plant site.

(5) Minor surfaces of disturbance, so me of which plainly are faults, are present within the bedrock that underlies the power plant site. None of these breaks offsets the interfac e between bedrock and the cover of terrace deposits, and none of them extends upward into the surficial cover. Thus, the latest movements along these small faults must have antedated erosion of the bedrock section in Pleistocene time.

(6) No landslide masses or other gross expressions of ground instability are present within the power plant site or on the main hillslope east of the site. Some landslides have been identified in adjacent ground, but these are minor features confined to the naturally oversteepened walls of Diablo Canyon. (7) No water of subsurface origin was encountered in the exploratory trenches, and the level of permanent groundwater beneath the main terrace area probably is little different from that of the adjacent lower reaches of the deeply incised Diablo Creek.

2.5.1. DESIGN BASIS 2.5.1.1 General Design Criterion 2, 1967 Performance Standards DCPP systems, structures, and components have been located, designed and analyzed to withstand those forces that might result from the most severe natural earthquake phenomena.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-4 Revision 21 September 2013 2.5.1.2 License Condition 2.C(7) of DCPP Facility Operating License DPR-80 Rev. 44 (LTSP), Elements (1), (2) and (3)

DCPP developed and implemented a program to re-evaluate the seismic design bases used for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant.

The program included the following three El ements that were completed and accepted by the NRC (References 40, 41, and 43):

(1) The identification, examination, and evaluation of all relevant geologic and seismic data, information, and interpre tations that have become available since the 1979 ASLB hearing in order to update the geology, seismology and tectonics in the region of the Dia blo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. If needed to define the earthquake potential of the region as it affects the Diablo Canyon Plant, PG&E has also re-evaluated the earlier information and acquired additional data.

(2) DCPP has re-evaluated the magni tude of the earthquakes used to determine the seismic basis of the Di ablo Canyon Nuclear Plant using the information from Element 1.

(3) DCPP has re-evaluated the ground motion at the site based on the results obtained from Element 2 with full consideration of site and other relevant effects. As a condition of the NRC's closeout of License Condition 2.C.(7

), PG&E committed to several ongoing activities in support of the LTSP, as discussed in a public meeting between PG&E and the NRC on March 15, 1991 (Reference 53), described as the "Framework for the Future," in a letter to the NRC, dated April17, 1991 (Reference 50), and affirmed by the NRC in SSER 34 (Reference 43). These ongoing activities are discussed in Section 2.5.7.

2.5.1.3 10 CFR Part 100, March 1966- Reactor Site Criteria During the determination of the locati on of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, consideration was given to the physical charac teristics of the site, including seismology and geology.

2.5.2 BASIC GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC INFORMATION This section presents the basic geologic and seismic information for DCPP site and surrounding region. Information contai ned herein has been obtai ned from literature studies, field investigations, and laboratory testing and is to be used as a basis for evaluations required to provide a safe design for the facility. The basic data contained in this section and in Reference 27 of Sect ion 2.3 are referenced in several other DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-5 Revision 21 September 2013 sections of this FSAR Update. Additional information, developed during the Hosgri and LTSP evaluations, is described in Sections 2.5.3.9.3 and 2.5.3.9.4, respectively.

2.5.2.1 Regional Geology 2.5.2.1.1 Regional Physiography Diablo Canyon is in the southern Coast Range which is a part of the California Coast Ranges section of the Pacific Border physiog raphic province (refer to Figure 2.5-1). The region surrounding the power plant site consists of mountains, foothills, marine terraces, and valleys. The dominant features are the San Luis Range adjacent to the site to the northeast, the Santa Lucia Rang e farther inland, the lowlands of the Los Osos and San Luis Obispo Valleys separati ng the San Luis and Santa Lucia Ranges, and the marine terrace along the coasta l margin of the San Luis Range.

Landforms of the San Luis Range and the adjacent marine terrace produce the physiography at the site and in the region su rrounding the site. The westerly end of the

San Luis Range is a mass of rugged high gr ound that extends from San Luis Obispo Creek and San Luis Obispo Bay on the east and is bounded by the Pacific Ocean on the south and west. Except for its narrow fringe of coastal terraces, the range is

featured by west-northwest erly-trending ridge and canyon topography. Ridge crest altitudes range from about 800 to 1800 feet. Near ly all of the slopes are steep, and they are modified locally by extensiv e slump and earthflow landslides.

Most of the canyons have narrow-bottomed, V-shaped cross sections. Alluvial fans and talus aprons are prominent f eatures along the bases of m any slopes and at localities where ravines debouch onto relatively gentle te rrace surfaces. The coastal terrace belt extends between a steep mountain-front backscarp and a near-vertical sea cliff 40 to 200 feet in height. Both the bedrock benches of the terraces and the present offshore wave-cut bench are irregular in detail, with numerous basins and rock projections.

The main terrace along the coastal margin of the San Luis Range is a gently to

moderately sloping strip of land as much as 2000 feet in maximum width. The more landward parts of its surfac e are defined by broad aprons of alluvial deposits. This cover thins progressively in a seaward direct ion and is absent altogether in a few places along the present sea cliff. The main terrace represents a series of at least three wave-cut rock benches that have approximate shor eline-angle elevations of 70, 100, and 120 feet.

Owing to both the prevailing seaward slope s of the rock surf aces and the variable thickness of overlying marine and nonmarine cover, the present su rface of the main terrace ranges from 70 to mo re than 200 feet in elevation.

Remnants of higher terraces exist at scattered locations along upper slop es and ridge crests. The most extensive among these is a series of terrace surfaces at altitudes of 300+, 400+, and 700+ feet at the west end of the ridge betwe en Coon and Islay Creeks, north of Point Buchon. A

surface described by Headlee (Reference 19) as a marine terrace at an altitude of about DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-6 Revision 21 September 2013 700 feet forms the top of San Luis Hill. Remnants of a lower terrace at an altitude of 30 to 45 feet are preserved at the mouth of Diablo Canyon and at several places farther north.

Owing to contrasting resistance to erosion among the various bedrock units of the San

Luis Range, the detailed topography of t he wave-cut benches commonly is very irregular. As extreme exam ples, both modern and fossil sea stacks rise as much as 100 feet above the general levels of adjacent marine-eroded surfaces at several localities.

2.5.2.1.2 Regional Geologic and Tectonic Setting

2.5.2.1.2.1 Geologic Setting The San Luis Range is underlain by a synclinal section of Tertiary sedimentary and

volcanic rocks, which have been downfolded into a basement of Mesozoic rocks now exposed along its southwest and northeast sides. Two zones of faulting have been

recognized within the range. The Edna faul t zone trends along its northeast side, and the Miguelito fault zone extends into the range from the vicinity of Avila Bay. Minor faults and bedding-plane shears can be seen in t he parts of the sect ion that are well exposed along the sea cliff fringing the coas tal terrace benches. None of these faults shows evidence of geologically recent acti vity, and the most recent movements along those in the rocks underlying the youngest coastal terraces can be positively dated as

older than 80,000 to 120,000 ye ars. Geologic and tecton ic maps of the region surrounding the site are shown in Figures 2.5-5 (2 sheets), 2.5-6, 2.5-8, and 2.5-9.

2.5.2.1.2.2 Tectonic Features of the Central Coastal Region

DCPP site lies within the southern Coast Ranges structural province, and approximately upon the centerline axis of the northwest-trending block of crust that is bounded by the San Andreas fault on the nort heast and the continental margin on the southwest. This crustal block is characterized by northwest-trending structural and geomorphic features, in contrast to the west-tr ending features of the Transvers e Ranges to the south. A major geologic boundary within the block is associated with the Sur-Nacimiento and Rinconada faults, which separate terrains of contrasting basement rock types. The

ground southwest of the Sur-Nacimiento z one and the southerly ha lf of the Rinconada fault, referred to as the Coastal Block, is underlain by Franciscan basement rocks of dominantly oceanic types, whereas that to the northeast, referred to as the Salinia Block, is underlain by granitic and metamorphic basement rocks of continental types.

Page (Reference 10) outlined the geology of the Coast Ranges, describing it generally in terms of "core complexes" of basement rocks and surrounding sections of younger sedimentary rocks. The prin cipal Franciscan core comp lex of the southern Coast Range crops out on the coastal side of the S anta Lucia Range from the vicinity of San

Luis Obispo to Point Sur, a distance of 120 miles. Its complex features reflect numerous episodes of deformation that evidently included folding, faulting, and the tectonic emplacement of extensive bodies of ultrabasic rocks. Other core complexes DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-7 Revision 21 September 2013 consisting of granitic and metamorphic basem ent rocks are exposed in the southern Coast Ranges in the ground between the Sur-Nacimiento and Rin conada and in the San Andreas fault zones. The locations of these areas of basement rock exposure are shown in Figure 2.5-6 and in Fi gure 1 of Appendix 2.5D of Reference 27 in Section 2.3.

Younger structural features include thick fo lded basins of Tertiary strata and the large faults that form structural boundaries bet ween and within the core complexes and basins.

The structure of the southern Coast Ranges has evolved during a lengthy history of deformation extending from the time when the ancestral Sur-Nacimiento zone was a site for subduction (a Benioff zone) along the then-existing continental margin, through subsequent parts of Cenozoic time when the San Andreas fault system was the principal expression of the r egional stress-strain system. The latest episodes of major deformation involved folding and faulting of Pliocene and older sediments during mid-Pliocene time, and renewed movements along pr eexisting faults during early or mid-Pliocene time. Present tectonic activity wit hin the region is dominated by interaction between the Pacific and American crustal pl ates on opposite sides of the San Andreas fault and by continuing vertical uplift of t he Coast Ranges. In the regional setting of DCPP site, the major structural features addressed during the original design phase are the San Andreas, Rinconada-San Marcos-Jolon, Sur-Nacimiento, and Santa Lucia Bank faults. Additional faults were identifi ed during the Hosgri evaluation and LTSP evaluation phases, discussed in Sections 2.5.3.9.3 and 2.5.3.9.4, respectively. The San Simeon fault may also be included with this group. These original design phase faults are described as follows:

1. San Andreas Fault The San Andreas fault is recognized as a ma jor transform fault of regional dimensions that forms an active boundary be tween the Pacific and North American crustal plates.

Cumulative slip along the San Andreas fault may have amounted to several hundred miles, and a substantial fraction of the total slip has occurred during late Cenozoic time. The fault has spectacular topographic expressi on, generally lying wit hin a rift valley or along an escarpment mountain front, and hav ing associated sag ponds, low scarps, right-laterally deflected str eams, and related manifestat ions of recent activity.

The most recent episode of large-scale move ment along the reach of the San Andreas fault that is closest to the San Luis Range occurred during the great Fort Tejon earthquake of 1857. Geologic evi dence pertinent to the behavior of the fault during this and earlier seismic events was studied in great detail by Wallace (Reference 15 and 32) who reported in terms of infrequent great earthquakes accompanied by ground rupture of 10 to 30 feet, with intervening periods of near total quiescence. Allen (Reference 16 suggested that such behavior has been typical for this reach of the San Andreas fault and has been fundamentally diffe rent from the behavior of the fault along the reach farther northwest, where creep and numerous small earthquakes have occurred. He further suggested that release of accumulating strain energy might have been facilitated DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-8 Revision 21 September 2013 by the presence of large amounts of serpenti ne in the fault zone to the northwest, and retarded by the locking effect of the broad bend of the fault zone wh ere it crosses the Transverse Ranges to the southeast.

Movement is currently taking place along lar ge segments of the San Andreas fault. The active reach of the fault between Parkfiel d and San Francisco is currently undergoing relative movement of at least 3 to 4 cm/yr, as determined geodetically and analyzed by Savage and Burford (Reference 33). When the movement that occurs during the episodes of fault displacement in the western part of the Basin and Ranges Province is added to the minimum of 3 to 4 cm/yr of continuously and intermittently released strain, the total probably amounts to at least 5 to 6 cm/yr. This may account for essentially all of the relative motion between the Pacific and North American plates at present. In the Transverse Ranges to the south, this strain is distributed between lateral slip along the San Andreas system and east-west striking lateral slip faul ting, thrust faulting, and folding. North of the latitude of Mont erey Bay and south of the Transverse Ranges, transcurrent movement is again concentra ted along the San Andreas system, but in those regions, it is distributed among several major strands of the system.

2. Sur-Nacimiento Fault Zone The Sur-Nacimiento fault zone has been regarded as the system of f aults that extends

from the vicinity of Point Sur, near the nor thwest end of the Santa Lucia Range, to the Big Pine fault in the western Transvers e Ranges, and that separates the granitic-metamorphic basement of the Salinian Blo ck from the Franciscan basement of the Coastal Block. The most pr ominent faults that are incl uded within this zone are, from northwest to southeast, the Sur, Nacimiento , Rinconada, and (south) Nacimiento faults.

The Sur fault, which extends as far northward as Point Sur on land, continues to the northwest in the offshore continental margin. At its southerly end, the zone terminates where the (south) Nacimiento fault is cut off by the Big Pine fault.

The overall length of the Sur-Nacimiento fault zone between Point Sur and the Transverse Ranges is about 180 miles. The 60 mile long Nacimiento faul t, between points of juncture with the Sur and Rinconada faults, forms the longest segment within this z one. Page (Reference 11) stated that:

"It is unlikely that the Na cimiento fault proper has displaced the ground surface in Late Quaternary time, as there are no indicative offsets of streams, ridges, terrace deposits, or other topographi c features. The Great Valley-type rocks on the northeast side must have been down-dropp ed against the older Franciscan rocks on the southwest, yet they commonly stand higher in the topography. This implies relative quiescence of the Late Quaternary time, allowing differential erosion to take place. In a few localities, the northeast side is the low side, and this inconsistency favors the same conclu sion. In addition to the foregoing circumstances, the fault is offset by minor cross-faults in a manner suggesting that little, if any, Late Quaternary near-surfa ce movement had occurred along the main fracture."

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-9 Revision 21 September 2013 Hart (Reference 14), on the other hand, stated that: ". . . youthful topographic features (offset streams, sag ponds, possible fault scarplets, and apparently oversteepened slopes) suggest movement along both (Sur-Nacimiento and Rinconada) fault zones."

The map compiled by Jennings (Referenc e 23), however, shows only the Rinconada with a symbol indicating "Quaternary fault displacement."

The results of photogeologic st udy of the region traversed by the Sur-Nacimiento fault zone tend to support Page's view. A pronounc ed zone of fault-controlled topographic lineaments can be traced from the northwest end of the Naci miento fault southeastward to the Rinconada (south Nacimiento), East Huasna, and West Huasna faults. Only along the Rinconada, however, are there topographic features that seem to have originated through fault disturbances of the ground surface rather than through differential erosion along zones of shear ing and juxtaposition of differing rocks.

Richter (Reference 13) noted that some historic seismicity, particularly the 1952 Bryson earthquake, appears to have originated along the Nacimiento fault. This view is

supported by recent work of S. W. Smith (R eference 30) that indi cates that the Bryson shock and the epicenters of several smaller, more recent earthquakes were located along or near the trac e of the Nacimiento.

3. Rinconada (Nacimiento)-San Marcos-Jolon-San Antonio Fault System A system of major faults extends northwestward, parallel to the San Andreas fault, from a point of junction with the Big Pine fault in the western Transverse Ranges. This system includes several faults that have been mapped as separ ate features and assigned individual names.

Dibblee (Reference 27) however, has suggested that these faults are part of a single system, provisi onally termed the Rinconada fault zone after one of its more prominent members.

He also proposed abandoning the name Nacimiento for the large fault t hat constitutes the most southerly part of this system, as it is not continuous with the Nacimiento fault to the north, near the Nacimiento River.

The newly defined Rinconada fault system co mprises the old (south) Nacimiento, Rinconada, and San Marcos faults. Dibblee proposed that the system also include the Espinosa and Reliz faults, to the north, but detailed work by Durham (Reference 28) does not seem to support this interpretati on. Instead, the system may extend into Lockwood Valley and die out there along the Jol on and San Antonio faults. All the faults of the Rinconada system have undergone signific ant movement during middle and late Cenozoic time, though the entire system did not behave as a unit. Dibblee pointed out that: "Relative vertical displacements are co ntroversial, inconsistent, reversed from one segment to another; the major movement may be strike s lip, as on the San Andreas fault."

Regarding the structural relationship of the Rinconada fault to nearby faults, Dibblee wrote as follows:

"Thrust or reverse faults of Quaternar y age are associated wit h the Rinconada fault along much of its course on one or both sides, within 9 miles, especially in areas of intense folding. In the northern part several, including the San Antonio fault, are DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-10 Revision 21 September 2013 present along both margins of the range of hills between the Salinas and Lockwood Valleys . . . . along which this range was elevated in part. Near the southern part are the major southwest-di pping South Cuyama and Ozena faults along which the Sierra Madre Range was elevated against Cuyama Valley, with vertical displacements possibly up to 8000 f eet. All these thrust or reverse faults dip inward toward the Rinconada fault and presumably either splay from it at depth, or are branches of it.

These faults, combined with the intense folding between them, indicated that severe compression accompanied possible transcurrent movement along the Rinconada fault." "The La Panza fault along which the La Panza Range was elevated .... in

Quaternary time, is a reverse fault that dips northeast under the range, and is not directly related to the Rinconada fault.

"The Big Pine fault against which the Rinco nada fault abuts . . . is a high angle left-lateral transcurrent fault active in Quaternary time (Reference 35). The Pine Mountain fault south of it . . . . is a northeast-dipping reverse fault along which the Pine Mountain Range was elevated in Quater nary time. This fault may have been reactivated along an earlier fault t hat may have been continuous with the Rinconada fault, but displaced about 8 miles from it by left slip on the Big Pine fault (Reference 12) in Quaternary time."

"The Rinconada and Reliz faults were active after deposition of the Monterey Shale and Pancho Rico Formation, which are severely deformed adjacent and near the faults. The faults were again active after deposition of the Paso Robles

Formation but to a lesser degree. These faul ts do not affect the alluvium or terrace deposits. There are no offset stream channel s along these faults. However, in two areas several canyons and streams are deviated, possibly by right-lateral movement on the (Espinosa and San Marcos segments of the) Rinconada fault. There are no indications that thes e faults are presently active." 4. San Simeon Fault The fault here referred to as the San Si meon fault trends along the base of the peninsula that lies north of t he settlement of San Simeon.

This fault is on land for a distance of 12 miles between its only outcrop, north of Ragged Point, and Point San Simeon. It may extend as mu ch as 16 miles farther to the southeast, to the vicinity of Point Estero. This possibility is suggested by the straight reach of coastline between Cambria and Point Estero, which is directly aligned with the onshore trend of the fault;

its linear form may well have been controlle d by a zone of structural weakness associated with the inferred sout herly part of the fault. Sout h of Port Estero, however, there is no evidence of faul ting observable in the seismic reflection profiles across

Estero Bay, and the trend defined by the Los Osos Valley-Estero Bay series of lower Miocene or Oligocene intrusives extends across the San Simeon trend without deviation.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-11 Revision 21 September 2013 North of Point Piedras Blancas, Silver (Reference 26) reports a fault with about 5 kilometers of vertical separation between the 4-kilometer-thick Tertiary section in the offshore basin and the nearby 1-kilometer-high exposure of Franciscan basement rocks in the coastline mountain front. The existence of a fault in th is region is also indicated by the 30- milligal gravity anomaly between the offshore basin and the onshore ranges (Plate II of Appendix 2.5D of Reference 27 in Section 2.3). This postulated fault may well be a northward extension of the San Simeon fault. If this is the case, the San

Simeon fault may have a total length of as much as 60 miles.

Between Point San Simeon and Ragged Point, t he San Simeon fault lies along the base of a broad peninsula, the surfac e of which is characterized by elevated marine terraces and younger, steep-walled ravines and canyons.

The low, terraced topography of the peninsula contrasts sharply with that of the steep mountain fr ont that rises immediately behind it. Clearly, the ground we st of the main fault repres ents a part of the sea floor that has been locally arched up.

This has resulted in exposure of the fault, which elsewhere is c oncealed underwater off the shoreline.

The ground between the San Si meon fault and the southwest coastline of the Piedras Blancas peninsula is underlain by faulted blocks and slivers of Franciscan rocks, serpentinites, Tertiary sedimentary breccia and volcanic rocks, and Miocene shale. The faulted contacts between these rock masses trend somewhat more westerly than the trend of the San Simeon fault. One north-dipping reverse fault, which separates serpentinite from graywacke, has broken mari ne terrace deposits in at least two places, one of them in the basal part of the lowest and youngest te rrace. Movement along this branch fault has therefore occurred le ss than 130,000 years before the present, although the uppermost, youngest Pleistocene deposits are apparently not broken.

Prominent topographic lineations defined by northwest-aligned ravines that incise the

upper terrace surface, on the other hand, apparently have originated through headward gully erosion along faults and faulted contacts, rather than through the effects of surface

faulting.

The characteristics of the San Simeon fault can be summarized as follows: The fault may be related to a fault along the coast to t he north that displays some 5 kilometers of vertical displacement. Near San Simeon, it exhibits probable Pleistocene right-lateral strike-slip movement of as much as 1500 f eet near San Simeon, although it apparently does not break dune sand deposits of late Pleist ocene or early Holocene age. A branch reverse fault, however, breaks upper Pleistocene marine terrace deposits. The San

Simeon fault may extend as far south as Point Estero, but it dies out before crossing the northern part of Estero Bay.

5. Santa Lucia Bank Fault South of the latitude of Point Piedras Blancas, the western boundary of the main offshore Santa Maria Basin is defined by the east-facing scarp along the east side of the DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-12 Revision 21 September 2013 Santa Lucia Bank. This scarp is associ ated with the Santa Luc ia Bank fault, the structure that separates the subsided block under the basin from the structural high of the bank. The escarpment that rises above the west side of t he fault trace has a maximum height of about 450 feet, as show n on U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (USC&GS) Bathymetric Map 1306N-20.

The Santa Lucia Bank fault can be trac ed on the sea floor for a distance of about 65 miles. Extensions that ar e overlapped by upper Tertiary st rata continue to the south for at least another 10 miles, as well as to the north. The nort hern extension may be related to another, largely buried fault that crosses and may intersect the trend of the Santa Lucia Bank fault. This second fault ext ends to the surface only at points north of the latitude of Point Piedras Blancas.

West of the Santa Lucia Bank fault, between N latitudes 34°30' and 30°, several subparallel faults are characterized by appar ent surface scarps. The longest of these faults trends along the upper cont inental slope for a distance of as much as 45 miles, and generally exhibits a west-facing scarp.

Other faults are pres ent in a zone about 30 miles long lying between the 45 mile faul t and the Santa Lucia Bank fault. These faults range from 5 to 15 or more miles in length, and have both east-and west-facing scarps.

This zone of faulting corresponds closely in space with the cluster of earthquake epicenters around N latitude 34°45' and 121°30' W longitude, and it probably represents the source structure for those shocks (Figure 2.5-3).

2.5.2.1.2.3 Tectonic Features in the Vicinity of the DCPP Site Geologic relationships between the major fold and fault structures in the vicinity of Diablo Canyon are shown in Figures 2.5-5, 2.5-6, and 2.5-7, and are described and

illustrated in Appendix 2.5D of Reference 27 of Section 2.3. The San Luis Ranges-Estero Bay area is characterized stru cturally by west-northwest-trending folds and faults. These include the San Luis-Pismo syncline and the bordering Los Osos Valley and Point San Luis antiformal hi ghs, and the West Huasna, Edna, and San Miguelito faults. A few miles offshore, the st ructural features associated with this trend merge into a north-northwest-t rending zone of folds and faults that is referred to herein as the offshore Santa Maria Basin East Boundary zone of folding and faulting. The general pattern of structural highs and lows of the onshore area is warped and stepped downward to the west across this boundary zone, to be replaced by more northerly-trending folds in the lower part of the offshore basin se ction. The overall relationship between the onshore Coast Ranges and the offshore continental margin is one of differential uplift and subsidence.

The East Boundary zone represents the

structural expression of the zone of inflection between th ese regions of contrasting vertical movement.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-13 Revision 21 September 2013 In terms of regional relationshi ps, structural style, and histor y of movement, the faults in the San Luis Ranges-Estero Bay vicinity, identified during the original design phase, may be characterized as follows:

1. West Huasna Fault This fault zone separates the large downwar p of the Huasna syncline on the northeast from Franciscan assemblage rocks of the Los Osos Valley antiform and the Tertiary section of the southerly part of the San Luis-Pismo syncline on the southwest. The West Huasna fault is thought to join with the Suey fault to the south. Differences in thicknesses and facies relationships between units of apparently equivalent age on opposite sides of the fault are interpreted as indicating lateral move ment along the fault; however, the available evidenc e regarding the amount and ev en the relative sense of displacement is not consistent. The West Huasna shows no evidence of late Quaternary activity.

2. Edna Fault Zone The Edna fault zone lies along a west-northwest erly trend that extends obliquely from the West Huasna fault at its southeast end to the hills of the San Luis Range south of Morro Bay. Several isolated breaks that lie on a line with the trend are present in the Tertiary strata beneath the south part of Estero Bay, east of the Santa Maria Basin East Boundary fault zone across the mouth of the bay.

The Edna fault is typically a zone of two or more anastomosing br anches that range in width from 1/2 mile to as much as 1-1/2 miles. Although individual strands are variously oriented and exhibit various senses of amounts of movement, the zone as a whole clearly expresses high-angle dip-slip displa cement (down to t he southwest). The

irregular traces of major strands suggest that little, if any, stri ke-slip movement has occurred. Preliminar y geologic sections shown by Ha ll and Surdam (Reference 21) and Hall (Reference 20) imply that the total amount of vertical separation ranges from 1500 to a few thousand feet along the central par t of the fault zone.

The amount of displacement across the main fault trend evidently decreases to the northwest, where the zone is mostly overlapped by upper Tertiary strata.

It may be, however, that most of the movement in the Baywood Park vicinity has been transferred to the north-trending branch of the Edna, which juxtaposes Pliocene and Franciscan rocks where last exposed. In t he northwesterly part of the San Luis Range, the Edna fault forms much of the boundary between the Tertiary and basement rock sections. Most of the measurable displacements along this zone of rupture occurred during or after folding of the Pliocene Pi smo Formation but prior to deposition of the lower Pleistocene Paso Robles Formation. Some additional movement has occurred during or since early Pleistocene time, however, because Monterey strata have been faulted against Paso Robles deposits al ong at least one strand of the Edna near the head of Arroyo Grande valley. This involv ed steep reverse fault movement, with the DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-14 Revision 21 September 2013 southwest side raised, in contrast to the earlier normal displacement down to the southwest.

Search has failed to reveal dislocation of deposits younger than the Paso Robles Formation, disturbance of late Quaternary landforms, or other evidence of Holocene or late Pleistocene activity.

3. San Miguelito Fault Zone Northwesterly-trending faults have been m apped in the area between Pismo Beach and Arroyo Grande, and from Avila Beach to the vicinity of the west fork of Vineyard Canyon, north of San Luis Hill. Because t hese faults lie on the same trend, appear to reflect similar senses of movement, and are "separated" only by an area of no exposure along the shoreline between Pismo Beach and Avil a Beach, they may well be part of a more or less continuous zone about 10 mile s long. As on the Edna fault, movements along the San Miguelito fault appear to hav e been predominantly dip-slip, but with

displacement down on the northeast. Hall's preliminary cross section indicates total vertical separation of about 1400 feet. The fault is mapped as being overlain by unbroken deposits of the Paso Robl es Formation near Arroyo Grande.

Field checking of the ground al ong the projected trend of the San Miguelito fault zone northwest of Vineyard Canyon in the San Luis Range has substantiated Hall's note that the fault cannot be traced west of that area.

Detailed mapping of the nearly continuous sea cliff exposures extending across this trend northeast of Point Buchon has shown ther e is no faulting along the San Miguelito trend at the northwesterly end of the range. Like the Edna fault zone, the San Miguelito fault zone evidently represents a zone of high-angle dip-slip rupturing along the flank of the San Luis-Pismo syncline.

4. East Boundary Zone of t he Offshore Santa Maria Basin The boundary between the offshore Santa Mari a Basin and the onshore features of the southern Coast Ranges is a 4 to 5 wide z one of generally north-northwest-trending folds, faults, and onlap unconformities referre d to as the "Hosgri fault zone" by Wagner (Reference 31). The geology of this boundar y zone has been investigated in detail by means of extensive seismic reflection profiling, high resolution surface profiling, and side scan sonar surveying.

More general information about structural relationships along the boundary zone has been obtained from the pattern of Bouguer Gravity anomaly va lues that exist in its vicinity. These data show the East Boundary zone to consist of a series of generally parallel north-northwest-trending faults and folds, developed chiefly in upper Pliocene strata that flank upwarped lower Pliocene and older rocks.

The zone extends from south of the latitude of Point Sal to north of Point Piedras Blancas. Within the zone, individual fault breaks range in length from less than 1000 feet up to a maximum of DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-15 Revision 21 September 2013 about 30 miles. The overall length of t he zone is approximately 90 miles, with about 60 miles of relatively continuous faulting.

The apparent vertical component of movement is down to the west across some faults and down to the east across others. Along the central reach of the zone, opposite the San Luis Range, a block of ground has been dropped between the two main strands of

the fault to form a graben structure. With in the graben, and at other points along the East Boundary zone, bedding in the rock has been folded down toward the upthrown side of the west side down faul

t. This feature evidently is an expression of "reverse drag" phenomena.

The axes of folds in the ground on either side of the principal fault breaks can be traced for distances of as much as 22 miles. T he fold axes typically are nearly horizontal; maximum axial plunges seem to be 5° or less.

The structure and onlap relationships of the upper Pliocene, as reflected in the confi guration of the unconformi ty at its base, are such that it consistently rises from the offshore basin and across the boundary zone via a series of upwarps, asymmetric folds, and faults. This configuration seems to correspond generally to a zone of warpi ng and partial disruption along the boundary between relatively uplifting and subsiding regions.

2.5.2.1.3 Geologic History The geologic history reflected by the rocks, structural features, and landforms of the San Luis Range is typical of that of the southern Coast Ranges of California in its length and complexity. Six general episodes for which there is direct evidence can be

tabulated as follows:

Age Episode Evidence

Late Mesozoic Development of Franciscan and Franciscan and other Upper Cretaceous rock assemblages Mesozoic rocks Late Mesozoic - Early Coast Ranges Structural features pre-served Early Tertiary deformation in the Mesozoic rocks

Mid-Tertiary Uplift and erosion Erosion surface at the base of the Tertiary section

Mid- and late- Accumulation of Miocene Vaqueros, Rincon, Obispo, Tertiary and Pliocene sedimentary Point Sal, Monterey, and Pismo and volcanic rocks Formation and associated volcanic intrusive, and brecciated rocks

Pliocene Folding and faulting associated with Folding and faulting of the the Pliocene Coast Ranges deformation Tertiary and basement rocks

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-16 Revision 21 September 2013 Pleistocene Uplift and erosion, development of Pleistocene and Holocene successive tiers of wave-cut-benches deposits, present land-forms. alluvial fan, talus, and landslide deposition.

The earliest recognizable geologic histor y of the southern C oast Ranges began in Mesozoic time, during the Jurassic period when eugeosynclinal deposits (graywacke sandstone, shale, chert, and basalt) accumulated in an offshore trench developed in

oceanic crust.

Some time after the initiation of Franciscan sedimentation, deposition of a sequence of miogeosynclinal or shelf sandstones and shales, known as the Gr eat Valley Sequence, began on the continental crust, at some distanc e to the east of the Franciscan trench. Deposition of both sequences continued into Cretaceous time, even while the crustal basement section on which the Great Valley strata were being deposited was

undergoing plutonism involving emplacement of granitic rocks. Subsequently, the Franciscan assemblage, the Great Valley Se quence, and the granite-intruded basement rocks were tectonically juxtaposed. The result ing terrane consisted generally of granitic basement thrust over intensely deformed Franciscan, with Great Valley Sequence strata overlying the basement, but thrust ov er and faulted into the Franciscan.

The processes that were involved in the te ctonic juxtaposition evidently were active during the Mesozoic, and continued into the early Tertiary. Page (Reference 25) has shown that they were completed by no later than Oligocene time, so that the dual core complex basement of the southern Coast Ranges was formed by then.

The Miocene and later geologic history of the southern Coast Ranges region began with deposition of the Vaqueros and Rincon Fo rmations on a surface eroded on the Franciscan and Great Valley core complex rocks.

Following deposition and some deformation and erosion of these formations, the stratigraphic unit that includes the Point Sa l and Obispo Formations as approximately contemporaneous facies was laid down. The Ob ispo consists of a section of tuffaceous sandstone and mudstone, with lesser amounts of shale, and lensin g layers of vitric and lithic-crystal tuff. Locally, the unit is feat ured by masses of clastic-textured tuffaceous rock that exhibit cross-cutting intrusive rela tions with the bedded parts of the formation.

The Obispo and Point Sal were folded and locally eroded prior to initiation of the main episode of upper Miocene and Plio cene marine sedimentation.

During late middle Miocene to late Miocene ti me, deposition of the thick sections of silica-rich shale of the Monterey Formati on began. Deposition of this formation and equivalent strata took place throughout much of the coasta l region of California, but apparently was centered in a series of offshor e basins that all developed at about the same time, some 10 to 12 million years ago.

Local volcanism toward the latter part of this time is shown by the presence of diabase dikes and sills in the Monterey. Near the end of the Miocene, the Monter ey strata were subjected to compressional deformation resulting in folding, in part with great complexity, and in faulting. Near the old DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-17 Revision 21 September 2013 continental margin, represented by the Sur-N acimiento fault zone, the deformation was most intense, and was accompanied by upli ft. This apparently resulted in the first development of many of the large folds of the southern Coast Ranges including the Huasna and San Luis-Pismo synclines, and in t he partial erosion of the folded Monterey section in areas of uplift. The pattern of regional uplift of the Coast Ranges and subsidence of the offshore basins, with local upwarping and faulting in a zone of inflection along the boundary between the two regions, apparently became well established during the episode of late Miocene and Mio-Pliocene diastrophism.

Sedimentation resumed in Pliocene time thr oughout much of the region of the Miocene basins, and several thousand feet of silt stone and sandstone was deposited. This was the last significant episode of marine sedim entation in the region of the present Coast Ranges. Pliocene deposits in the region of uplift were then folded, and there was renewed movement along most of the preexisting larger faults.

Differential movements between the Coast R anges uplift and the offshore basins were again concentrated along the boundary zone of inflection, resulting in upwarping and

faulting of the basement, Miocene, and Pliocene sections. Relative displacement across parts of this zone evidently was dominantly vertical, because the faulting in the Pliocene has definitely extensional characte r, and Miocene structures can be traced

across the zone without apparent lateral offs et. The basement and Tertiary sections step down seaward, away from the uplift, along a system of normal faults having hundreds to nearly a thousand feet of dip-slip offset. A second, more seaward system of normal faults is antithetic to the master set and exhibits only tens to a few hundreds of feet of displacement. Strata between these faults locally exhibit reverse drag downfolding toward the edge of the Pliocene basin, whereas the section is essentially undeformed farther offshore. This style of deformation indicates a passive response, through gravity tectonics, to the onshore uplift.

The Plio-Pleistocene uplift was accompanied by rapid erosion, with consequent nearby

deposition of clastic sediments such as the Paso Robles Formation in valleys throughout the southern Coast Ranges. The high-angle reverse and normal faulting observed by Compton (Reference 38) in t he northern Santa Lucia Range also occurred farther south, probably more or less contemporaneously with accumulation of the continental deposits. Much of the Quaternary faulting other than that related to the San Andreas right lateral stress-strain system may well have occurred at this time.

Tectonic activity during the Quaternary has involved continued general uplift of the southern Coast Ranges, with superimpos ed local downwarpi ng and continued movement along faults of the San Andreas system. T he uplift is shown by the general high elevation and st eep youthful topography that characterizes the Coast Ranges and by the widespread uplifted marine and stream terraces. Local downwarping can be seen in valleys, such as the Santa Maria Valley, where thick

sections of Plio-Pleistocene and younger dep osits have accumulated. Evidence of significant late Quaternary fault movem ent is seen in the topography along the Rinconada-San Marcos, Espinosa, San Simeon, and Santa Lucia Bank faults, as well DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-18 Revision 21 September 2013 as along the San Andreas itself. Only along the San Andreas, however, is there evidence of Holocene or contemporary movement.

The latest stage in the evolution of the San Luis Range has extended from mid-Pleistocene time to the present, and has involved more or less continuous interaction between apparent uplift of the range and alternating periods of erosion or deposition, especially along the coast, during times of relatively rising, falling, or unchanging sea level. The dev elopment of wave-cut benches and the accumulation of marine deposits on these benches have provi ded a reliable guide to the minimum age of latest displacements along breaks in the underlying bedrock. Detailed exploration of the interfaces between wave-cut benches and overlying marine deposits at the site of DCPP has shown that no breaks extend across these interfaces. This demonstrates

that the youngest faulting or other bedrock breakage in that area antedated the time of terrace cutting, which is on the order of 80,000 to 120,000 years before the present.

The bedrock section and the surficial deposit s that formerly capped this bedrock on which the power plant facilities are located have been studied in detail to determine

whether they express any ev idence of deformation or dislocation ascribable to earthquake effects.

The surficial geologic materials at the site consisted of a thin, discontinuous basal section of rubbly marine sand and silty s and, and an overlying section of nonmarine rocky sand and sandy clay alluvial and colluvial deposits. These deposits were extensively exposed by exploratory trenches , and were examined and mapped in detail. No evidence of earthquake-induced effects su ch as lurching, slumping, fissuring, and

liquefaction was detected during this investigation.

The initial movement of so me of the landslide masses now present in Diablo Canyon upstream from the switchyard area may hav e been triggered by earthquake shaking. It is also possible that some local talus deposits may represent ear thquake-triggered rock falls from the sea cliff or ot her steep slopes in the vicinity.

Deformation of the rock substrata in the si te area may well have been accompanied by earthquake activity at the time of its occurrence in the geologic past. There is no evidence, however, of post-terrace earthquak e effects in the bedrock where the power plant is being constructed.

2.5.2.1.4 Stratigraphy of the San Luis Range and Vicinity The geologic section exposed in the San Lui s Range comprises sedi mentary, igneous, and tectonically emplaced ultrabasic rocks of Mesozoic age, sedimentary, pyroclastic, and hypabyssal intrusive rocks of Tertiary ag e, and a variety of surficial deposits of Quaternary age. The lithology, age, and distribution of these rocks were studied by Headlee and more recently have been mapped in detail by Hall. The geology of the San Luis Range is shown in Figure 2.5-6 wit h a geologic cross section constructed using exploratory oil wells shown in Figure 2.5-

7. The geologic events that resulted in DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-19 Revision 21 September 2013 the stratigraphic units described in this se ction are discussed in Section 2.5.2.1.3, Geologic History.

2.5.2.1.4.1 Basement Rocks An assemblage of rocks typical of the C oast Ranges basement terrane west of the Nacimiento fault zone is exposed along the south and northeast sides of the San Luis Range. As described by Headlee, this assemblage includes quartzose and greywacke

sandstone, shale, radiolarian chert, intrus ive serpentine and diabase, and pillow basalt. Some of these rocks have been dated as Upper Cretaceous from contained microfossils, including pollen and spores , and Headlee suggested that they may represent dislocated parts of the Great Valley Sequence.

There is contrasting evidence, however, that at least the pillow basalt and associated cherty rocks may be more typically Franciscan. Certainly, such rocks are characteristic of the Franciscan

terrane. Further, a potassium-argon age of 156 million years, equivalent to Upper Jurassic, has been determined for a core of similar rocks obtained from the bottom of the Montodoro Well No. 1 near Point Buchon.

2.5.2.1.4.2 Tertiary Rocks

Five formational units are represented in the Tertiary section of the San Luis Range.

The lower part of this section comprises rocks of the Vaqueros, Rincon, and Obispo Formations, which range in age from lower Miocene through middle Miocene. These

strata crop out in the vicinity of Hazard Canyon, at the northwest end of the range, and in a broad band along the south coastal marg in of the range. In both areas the Vaqueros rests directly on Mesozoic basement rocks. The core of the western San Luis Range is underlain by the Upper Miocene M onterey Formation, which constitutes the bulk of the Tertiary section. The Upper Miocene to Lower Pliocene Pismo Formation crops out in a discontinuous band along the southwest flank and across the west end of the range, resting with some discordance on the Monterey section and elsewhere directly on older Tertiary or basement rocks.

The coastal area in the vicinity of Diablo Ca nyon is underlain by strata that have been variously correlated with the Obispo, Point Sal, and Monterey Formations. Headlee, for example, has shown the Point Sal as overlying the Obispo, whereas Hall has considered these two units as different faci es of a single time-stratigraphic unit.

Whatever the exact stratigraphic relationships of these rocks might prove to be, it is clear that they lie above the main body of tuffaceous sedimentary rocks of the Obispo

Formation and below the main part of the Monterey Formation. The existence of intrusive bodies of both tuff breccia and diaba se in this part of the section indicates either that local volcanic activity continued beyond the time of deposition of the Obispo Formation, or that the section represents a predominantly sedimentary facies of the upper part of the Obispo Formati on. In either case, the strata underlying the power plant site range downward through the Obis po Formation and presumably include a few hundred feet of the Rincon and Vaqueros Formations resting upon a basement of Mesozoic rocks.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-20 Revision 21 September 2013 A generalized description of the major units in the Tertiary section follows, and a more detailed description of the rocks exposed at the power plant site is included in a later section.

The Vaqueros Formation has been described by Headlee as consisting of 100 to 400

feet of resistant, massive, coarse-grained, calcareously cem ented bioclastic sandstone.

The overlying Rincon Formation consists of 200 to 300 feet of dark gray to chocolate brown calcareous shale and mudstone.

The Obispo Formation (or Obispo Tuff) is 800 to 2000 feet thick and comprises alternating massive to thi ck-bedded, medium to fine grained vitric-lithic tuffs, finely laminated black and brown marine siltstone and shale, and medium grained light tan marine sandstone. Headlee assigned to the Point Sal Formation a section described as

consisting chiefly of medium to fine grained silty sandstone, with several thin silty and fossiliferous limestone lenses; it is gradational upward into siliceous shale characteristic

of the Monterey Formation.

The Monterey Formation itself is composed predominantly of porcelaneous and finely laminated siliceous and cherty shales.

The Pismo Formation consists of massive, medium to fine grained arkosic sandstone, with subordinate amounts of siltstone, sandy shale, mudstone, hard siliceous shale, and chert.

2.5.2.1.4.3 Quaternary Deposits Deposits of Pleistocene and Holocene age are widespread on the coastal terrace benches along the southwest margin of t he San Luis Range, and they exist farther onshore as local alluvial and stream-terra ce deposits, landslide debris, and various colluvial accumulations. The coastal terrace deposits include discontinuous thin basal

sections of marine silt, sand, gravel, and rubble, some of which are highly fossiliferous, and generally much thicker overlying sections of talus, alluvial-f an debris, and other deposits of landward origin. All of the marine deposits and most of the overlying nonmarine accumulations are of Pleistocene age, but some of the uppermost talus and alluvial deposits are Holocene. Most of the alluvial and colluvial materials consist of silty clayey sand with irregularly distri buted fragments and blocks of locally exposed rock types. The landslide deposits include ch aotic mixtures of rock fragments and fine-grained matrix debris, as well as some large masses of nearly intact to thoroughly disrupted bedrock.

A more detailed description of surficial deposit s that are present in the vicinity of the power plant site is included in a later section.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-21 Revision 21 September 2013 2.5.2.1.5 Structure of the San Luis Range and Vicinity 2.5.2.1.5.1 General Features The geologic structure of the San Luis Range-Estero Bay and adjacent offshore area is characterized by a complex set of folds and f aults (Figures 2.5-5, 2.5-6, and 2.5-7). Tectonic events that produced these folds and f aults are discussed in Section 2.5.2.1.3, Geologic History. The San Luis Range-Estero Bay and adjacent offshore area lies within the zone of transiti on from the west-trending Transverse Range structural province to the northwest-trending Coast Ranges province. Major structural features are the long narrow downfold of the San Luis-Pismo synclin e and the bordering antiformal structural highs of Los Osos Valley on the northeast, and of Point San Luis and the adjacent offshore area on the southwest.

This set of folds trends obliquely into a north-northwest aligned zone of basement upwarping, folding, and high-angle normal

faulting that lies a few miles off the coast. The main ons hore folds can be recognized, by seismic reflection and gravity techniques, in the structure of t he buried, downfaulted Miocene section that lies ac ross (west of) this zone.

Lesser, but yet important struct ural features in this area in clude smaller zones of faulting and trends of volcanic intrusives. The Edna and San Miguelito fault zones disrupt parts of the northeast and southwest flanks of th e San Luis-Pismo syncline. A southward extension of the San Simeon fault, the existenc e of which is inferred on the basis of the linearity of the coastline between Cambria and Point Estero, and of the gravity gradient in that area, may extend into, and die out within, the northern part of Estero Bay. An aligned series of plugs and lensoid masses of Tertiary volcanic rocks that intrude the

Franciscan Formation along the axis of the Los Osos Valley antiform extends from the outer part of Estero Bay southeastw ard for 22 miles (Figure 2.5-6).

These features define the major elements of geologic structure in the San Luis Range-Estero Bay area. Other structural elements include the complex fold and fault structures within the Franciscan core complex rocks and the numerous smaller folds within the Tertiary section.

2.5.2.1.5.2 San Luis-Pismo Syncline The main synclinal fold of the San Luis Ra nge, referred to here as the San Luis-Pismo syncline, trends about N60°W and forms a structural trend more than 15 miles in length. The fold system comprises several parallel an ticlines and synclines across its maximum onshore width of about 5 miles. Individual folds of the system typically range in length

from hundreds of feet to as much as 10,000 f eet. The folds range from zero to more than 30° in plunge, and have flank dips as steep as 90°. Various kinds of smaller folds exist locally, especially flexures and drag folds associated with tuff intrusions and with zones of shear deformation.

Near Estero Bay, the major fold extends to a depth of more than 6000 feet. Farther south, in the central part of the San Luis Range, it is more than 11,000 feet deep. Parts DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-22 Revision 21 September 2013 of the northeast flank of the fold are disrupted by faults associated with the Edna fault zone. Local breaks along the central part of the southwest flank have been referred to as the San Miguelito fault zone.

2.5.2.1.5.3 Los Osos Valley Antiform The body of Franciscan and Great Valley Sequence rocks that crops out between the San Luis-Pismo and Huasna synclines is her e referred to as the Los Osos Valley antiform. This composite structure extends southward from the Santa Lucia Range, across the central and norther n part of Estero Bay, and thence southeastward to the point where it is faulted out at the juncture of the Edna and the West Huasna fault zones.

Notable structural features within this core complex include northwest- and

west-northwest- trending-faults that separate Franciscan melange, graywacke, metavolcanic, and serpentinite units. T he serpentinites have been intruded or dragged within faults, apparently over a wide range of sca les. One of the more persistent zones of serpentinite bodies occurs along a trend which extends we st-northwestward from the West Huasna fault. It has been suggested that movement from this fault may have taken place within this serpentine belt. T he range of hills that lies between the coast and Highway 1 between Estero Bay and Cambria is underlain by sandstone and minor

shale of the Great Valley Sequence, referr ed to as the Cambria slab, which has been underthrust by Franciscan rocks. The thru st contact extends southeastward under Estero Bay near Cayucos. This contact is probably related to t he fault contact between Great Valley and Franciscan rocks located just north of San Luis Obispo, which Page has shown to be overlain by unbroken lower Miocene strata.

A prominent feature of the Los Osos Valley antiform is the line of plugs and lensoid masses of intrusive Tertiary volcanic rocks.

These distinctive bodi es are present at isolated points along the approximate axis of the antiform over a di stance of 22 miles, extending from the center of outer Estero Bay to the upper part of Los Osos Valley (Figure 2.5-6). The consistent trend of the intrusives provides a useful reference for assessing the possibility of north west-trending lateral slip faul ting within Estero Bay. It shows that such faulting has not extended ac ross the trend from either the inferred San Simeon fault offshore south extension, or from faults in the ground east of the San Simeon trend.

2.5.2.1.5.4 Edna and San Miguelito Fault Zones These fault zones are descri bed in Section 2.5.2.1.2.3.

2.5.2.1.5.5 Adjacent Offshore Area and East Boundary of the Offshore Santa Maria Basin

The stratigraphy and west-northwest-trending st ructure that charac terize the onshore region from Point Sal to north of Point Estero have been shown by extensive marine DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-23 Revision 21 September 2013 geophysical surveying to extend into the adj acent offshore area as far as the north-northwest trending structural zone that forms a boundary with the main offshore Santa Maria Basin. Owing to the irregular ou tline of the coast, the width of the offshore shelf east of this boundary zone ranges from 2-1/

2 to as much as 12 miles. The shelf area is narrowest opposite the reach of coast between Point San Luis and Point Buchon, and widest in Estero Bay and south of San Luis Bay.

The major geologic features that underlie the nea r-shore shelf include, from south to north, the Casmalia Hills ant icline, the broad Santa Maria Valley downwarp, the

anticlinal structural high off Point San Luis, the San Luis-Pi smo syncline, and the Los Osos Valley antiform.

The form of these features is defined by t he outcrop pattern and structure of the older Pliocene, Miocene, and basement core complex rocks. The younger Pliocene strata that constitute the upper 1000 to 2000 feet of section in the adjacent offshore Santa Maria Basin are partly buttressed and partly f aulted against the rocks that underlie the near-shore shelf, and they unconformably ov erlap the boundary zone and parts of the shelf in several areas.

The boundaries between the S an Luis-Pismo syncline and the adjacent Los Osos Valley and Point San Luis antiforms can be seen in the offshore area to be expressed chiefly as zones of inflection between synclinal and anticlinal folds, rather than as zones of fault rupture such as occurs farther south along the Edna and Sa n Miguelito faults.

Isolated west-northwest- tr ending faults of no more than a few hundred feet

displacement are located along the northeast flank of the syncline in Estero Bay. These faults evidently are the northwesternmost expressions of breakage along the Edna fault trend.

The main San Luis-Pismo synclinal structure opens to the northwest, attaining a maximum width of 8 or 9 miles in the southerly part of Estero Bay. The Point San Luis high, on the other hand, is a domal structur e, the exposed basement rock core of which is about 10 miles long and 5 miles wide.

The general characteristics of the Sant a Maria Basin East Boundary zone have been described in Section 2.5.2.1.2.

3. As was noted there, th e zone is essentially an expression of the boundary betw een the synclinorial downwarp of the offshore basin and the regional uplift of the southern Coast Ranges. In the vicinity of the San Luis Range, the zone is characterized by pr onounced upwarping and normal faulting of the

basement and overlying Tertiary rock secti ons. Both modes of deformation have contributed to the stru ctural relief of about 500 feet in the Pliocene section, and of 1500 feet or more in the basement rocks, across this boundary. Successively younger strata are banked unconformably against the slopes that have formed from time to time in response to the relative uplifti ng of the ground east of the boundary zone.

A series of near-surface structural troughs forms prominent featur es within the segment of the boundary zone structure that extends between the approximate latitudes of DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-24 Revision 21 September 2013 Arroyo Grande and Estero Bay. This tr ough structure apparently has formed through the extension and subsidence of a block of ground in the zone where the downwarp of the offshore basin has pulled away from t he Santa Lucia uplift. Continued subsidence of this block has resulted in deformati on and partial disruption of the buttress unconformity between the offshore Pliocene section and the near-shore Miocene and older rocks. This deformation is expresse d by normal faulting and reverse drag type downfolding of the Pliocene strata adjacent to the contact, along the east side of the trough.

On the opposite, seaward side of the trough, a series of antithetic down-to-the-east normal faults of small displacement has fo rmed in the Pliocene strata west of the contact zone. These faults exhibit only a fe w tens of feet displacement, and they seem to exhibit constant or even decreasing displacement downward.

The structural evolution of the offshore area near Estero Bay and the San Luis Range involved episodes of compressional deformati on that affected the upper Tertiary section similarly on opposite sides of the boundary zone. The secti on on either side exhibits about the same intensity and styl e of folding. Major folds, such as the San Luis-Pismo syncline and the Piedras Blancas anticline, can be traced into the ground across the boundary zone.

The internal structure of the zone, including the presence of several on-lap unconformities in the adjacent Pliocene secti on, shows that, at least during Pliocene and early Pleistocene time, the boundary zone has been the inflection line between the Coast Ranges uplift and the offshor e Santa Maria Basin downwarp.

Evidence that uplift has continued through late Pleistocene time, at le ast in the vicinity of the San Luis Range, is given by the presence of successive tiers of marine terraces along the seaward flank of the range. The wave-cut benches and back scarps of these terraces now exist at elevations ranging from about -300 feet (below sea level) to more than 300 feet above sea level.

The ground within which t he East Boundary zone lie s has been beveled by the post-Wisconsin marine transgression, and so the zone generally is not expressed topographically. Small topographic features, such as a s eaward topographic step-up of the sea floor surface across the east-down f ault at the BBN (Reference 37) (offshore) survey line 27 crossing, in Estero Bay, and several possible fault-line notch back scarps, however, may represent minor t opographic expressions of deformation within the zone.

2.5.2.1.6 Structural Stability The potential for surface or subsurface subsi dence, uplift, or collapse at the site or in the region surrounding the site, is discussed in Section 2.5.5, Stab ility of Subsurface Materials.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-25 Revision 21 September 2013 2.5.2.1.7 Regional Groundwater Groundwater in the region surrounding the site is used as a backup source due to its poor quality and the lack of a significant groundwater reservoir. Section 2.4.13 states that most of the groundwater at the site or in the area around the si te is either in the alluvial deposits of Diablo Creek or seeps from springs encountered in excavations at the site.

2.5.2.2 Site Geology

2.5.2.2.1 Site Physiography The site consists of approximately 750 acre s near the mouth of Diablo Creek and is located on a sloping coastal terrace, ranging from 60 to 150 feet above sea level. The terrace terminates at the Pacific Ocean on the southwest and extends toward the San Luis Mountains on the northeast. The terrace c onsists of bedrock overlain by surficial deposits of marine and nonmarine origin.

The remainder of this section presents a detailed description of site geology.

2.5.2.2.2 General Features The area of the DCPP site is a coastal tract in San Luis Obispo County approximately

6.5 miles northwest of Point San Luis. It lies immediately sout heast of the mouth of Diablo Canyon, a major westward-draining feature of the San Luis Range, and about a mile southeast of Lion Rock, a prominent offshore elemen t of the highly irregular coastline.

The ground being developed as a power plant site occupies an extensive topographic terrace about 1000 feet in average width. In its pregrading, natural state, the gently undulating surface of this terrace sloped gradually sout hwestward to an abrupt termination along a cliff fronting the ocean; in a landward, or northeasterly, direction, it rose with progressively increasing slope to merge with the much steeper front of a foothill ridge of the San Luis Range. The su rface ranged in altitude from 65 to 80 feet along the coastline to a maximum of nearly 300 feet along the base of the hillslope to the northeast, but nowhere was its local relie f greater than 10 fee

t. Its only major interruption was the steep-walled canyon of lower Diablo Creek, a gash about 75 feet in average depth.

The entire subject area is underlain by a complex sequence of stratified marine sedimentary rocks and tuffaceous volcanic rocks, all of Tertiary (Miocene) age.

Diabasic intrusive rocks are locally exposed high on the walls of Diablo Canyon at the

edge of the area. Both the sedimentary and volcanic rocks have been folded and otherwise disturbed over a considerable range of scales.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-26 Revision 21 September 2013 Surficial deposits of Quaternar y age are widespread. In a few places, they are as thick as 50 feet, but their average thickness probabl y is on the order of 20 feet over the terrace areas and 10 feet or less over the entire mapped ground. The most extensive deposits underlie the main topographic terrace.

Like many other parts of t he California coast, the Diablo Canyon area is characterized by several wave-cut benches of Pleistocene age. These surfaces of irregular but

generally low relief were developed across bedrock by marine erosion, and they are ancient analogues of the benches now being cut approximately at sea level along the present coast. They were formed during peri ods when the sea level was higher, relative to the adjacent land, than it is now. Each is thinly and discontinuously mantled with marine sand, gravel, and rubble similar to the beach and offshore deposits that are accumulating along the present coastline. Al ong its landward margin each bears thicker and more localized coarse deposits similar to the modern talus along the base of the

present sea cliff.

Both the ancient wave-cut benches and their overlying marine and shoreline deposits have been buried beneath silty to gravelly detritus derived from landward sources after the benches were, in effect, abandoned by the ocean. This nonmarine cover is

essentially an apron of coalescing fan deposits and other alluvial debris that is thickest

adjacent to the mouths of major canyons.

Where they have been deeply trenched by subseque nt erosion, as along Diablo Canyon in the map areas, these depos its can be seen to have buried some of the benches so deeply that their individual ident ities are not reflected by t he present (pregrading) rather smooth terrace topography. Thus, the surface of the main terrace is defined mainly by nonmarine deposits that conceal both the older benches of ma rine erosion and some of the abruptly rising ground that separates t hem (refer to Figur es 2.5-8 and 2.5-10).

The observed and inferred relationships among the terrace surfaces and the wave-cut benches buried beneath them can be summarized as follows:

Wave-cut Bench Terrace Surface Altitude, feet Location Altitude, feet Location 170-175 Small remnants on sides of Diablo Canyon Mainly 170-190 Sides of Diablo Canyon and

upper parts of main terrace; in places separated from 145-155 Very small remnants on sides of Diablo Canyon Mainly 150-170 lower parts of terrace by

scarps 120-130 Subparallel benches elongate in a northwest-Mainly 70-160 Most of main terrace, a wide-

spread surface on a composite90-100 southeast direction but with considerable section of nonmarine deposits; no well-defined scarps 65-80 aggregate width; wholly DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-27 Revision 21 September 2013 beneath main terrace surface 50-100 Small remnants above modern sea cliff 30-45 Small remnants above modern sea cliff No depositional terrace Approx. 0 Small to moderately large areas along present coastline.

Within the subject area the wave-cut benches increase progressively in age with increasing elevation above present sea level; hence, their order in the above list is one of decreasing age. By far, the most extensive of these benches slopes gently seaward from a shoreline angle that lies at an elevat ion of 100 feet above present sea level.

The geology of the power plant site is shown in the si te geologic maps, Figures 2.5-8 and 2.5-9, and geologic se ction, Figure 2.5-10.

2.5.2.2.3 Stratigraphy 2.5.2.2.3.1 Obispo Tuff The Obispo Tuff, which has been classified either as a separate formation or as a member of the Miocene Monterey Formation, is the oldest bedrock unit exposed in the site area. Its constituent rocks generally are well exposed, appear extensively in the coastward parts of the area, and form nearly all of the offshor e prominences and shoals.

They are dense to highly porous, and thinly la yered to almost massive. Their color ranges from white to buff in fresh exposures , and from yellowish to reddish brown on weathered surfaces, many of which are variegated in shades of brown. Outcrop surfaces have a characteristic "punky" to crusty appearance, but the rocks in general

are tough, cohesive, and relati vely resistant to erosion.

Several pyroclastic rock types constitute the Obispo Tuff ("To" on map, Figure 2.5-8) in and near the subject area. By far, the most widespread is fine-grained vitric tuff with rare to moderately abundant tabul ar crystals of sodic plagiocl ase. The constituent glass commonly appears as fresh shards, but in many places it has been partly or completely devitrified. Crystal tuffs are locally prom inent, and some of these are so crowded with 1/8 to 3/8 inch crystals of plagioclase that they superficially resemble granitoid plutonic rocks. Other observed rock types include pumi ceous tuffs, pumice-pellet tuff breccias, perlitic vitreous tuffs, tuffaceous silt stones and mudstones, and fine-grained tuff breccias with fragments of glass and various Monterey rocks. No massive flow rocks were recognized anywhere in the exposed volcanic section.

In terms of bulk composition, the pyroclastic rocks appear to be chiefly soda rhyolites and soda quartz latites. Their plagioclase, which ranges from calcic albite to sodic oligoclase, commonly is accompanied by lesser amounts of quartz as small rounded DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-28 Revision 21 September 2013 crystals and irregular crystal fr agments. Biotite, zircon, and apatite also are present in many of the specimens that were examin ed under the microscope. Most of the tuffaceous rocks, and especially the more vitreous ones, have been locally to pervasively altered. Products of silicification, zeolitization, and pyritization are readily recognizable in many exposures, where the rocks generally are traversed by numerous thin, irregular veinlets and layers of cher ty to opaline material. Veinlets and thin, pod-like concentrations of gypsum also are widespread. Where pyrite is present, the rocks weather yellowish to brownish and are marked by gossan-like crusts.

The various contrasting rock types are simply interlayered in only a few places; much more typical are abutting, intertonguing, and i rregularly interpenetrating relationships over a wide range of scales. Septa and inclusions of Monterey rocks are abundant, and

a few of them are large enough to be shown separately on the accompanying geologic map (Figure 2.5-8). Highly irregular inclusions, a few inches to several feet in maximum dimension, are so densely packe d together in some places t hat they form breccias with volcanic matrices.

The Obispo Tuff is underlain by mudstones of early Miocene (pre-Monterey) age, on which it rests with a highly irregular contact that appears to be in part intrusive. This contact lies offshore in the vicinity of the power plant site, but it is exposed along the seacoast to the southeast.

In a gross way, the Obispo underlies the basal part of the Monterey formation, but many of its contacts with these sedimentary strata are plainly intrusive. Moreover, individual sills and dikes of slightly to thoroughly altered tuffaceous rocks appear here and there in

the Monterey section, not uncommonly at st ratigraphic levels well above its base (refer to Figures 2.5-8 and 2.5-13). The observed physical relationships, together with the local occurrence of diatoms and foraminifera within the principal masses of volcanic rocks, indicate that much of the Obispo Tuff in this area probably was emplaced at shallow depths beneath the Miocene sea floor during accumulation of the Monterey strata. The tuff unit does not appear to repr esent a single, well-defined eruptive event, nor is it likely to have been derived from a single source conduit.

2.5.2.2.3.2 Monterey Formation Stratified marine rocks variously correlated with the Monterey Formation, Point Sal Formation, and Obispo Tuff underlie most of the subject area, including all of that portion intended for power plant location. T hey are almost continuously exposed along the crescentic sea cliff that borders Diabl o Cove, and elsewhere they appear in much

more localized outcrops. For convenience, they are here assigne d to the Monterey Formation ("Tm" on map, Figure 2.5-8) in or der to delineate them from the adjacent more tuffaceous rocks so ty pical of the Obispo Tuff.

The observed rock types, listed in general or der of decreasing abundance, are silty and tuffaceous sandstone, siliceous shale, shaly siltstone and muds tone, diatomaceous shale, sandy to highly tuffaceous shale, calcareous shale and impure limestone, DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-29 Revision 21 September 2013 bituminous shale, fine- to coarse-grained sandstone, impure vitric tuff, silicified limestone and shale, and tuff-pellet sandstone.

Dark colored and relatively fine-grained strata are most abundant in the lowest part of the section, as exposed along the east side of Diablo Cove, whereas lighter colored sandstones and siliceous shales are dominant at stratigraphically higher levels fart her north. In detail, however, the different rock types are interbedded in various combinations, and intervals of uniform lithology rarely are thicker than 30 feet. Indeed, the closely-spaced al ternations of contrasting strata yield a prominent rib-like pattern of outcrop along much of the sea cliff and shoreline bench forming the margin of Diablo Cove.

The sandstones are mainly fine- to medium-gra ined, and most are distinctly tuffaceous.

Shards of volcanic glass generally are reco gnizable under the microscope, and the very fine-grained siliceous matrix may well have been derived largely through alteration of original glassy material. Some of the sandstone contains small but megascopically visible fragments of pumice, perlitic glass, and tuff, and a few beds grade along strike into submarine tuff breccia. The sandstones are thinly to very thickly layered; individual beds 6 inches to 4 feet thick are fairly common, and a few appear to be as thick as 15 feet. Some of them are hard and very resistant to erosion, and they typically form subdued but nearly continuous el ongated projections on major hillslopes (Figure 2.5-8).

The siliceous shales are buff to light gray platy rocks that are moderately hard to extremely hard according to their silica c ontent, but they tend to break readily along bedding and fracture surfaces. The bitumin ous rocks and the siltstones and mudstones are darker colored, softer, and grossly more compact. Some of them are very thinly bedded or laminated, others appear almost massi ve or form matrices for irregularly ellipsoidal masses of somewhat sandier mate rial. The diatomaceous, tuffaceous, and sandy rocks are lighter colored. The mo re tuffaceous types are softer, and the diatomaceous ones are soft to the degree of punkiness; both kinds of rocks are easily eroded, but are markedly cohesive and tend to retain their gross positions on even the steepest of slopes.

The siliceous shale and most of the hardest, highly silicified rocks w eather to very light gray, and the dark colored, fine-grained rocks tend to bleach when weathered. The other types, including the sandstones, weat her to various shades of buff and light brown. Stains of iron oxides are widespread on exposures of nearly all the Monterey rocks, and are especially well developed on some of the finest-grained shales that contain disseminated pyrite. All but the hardest and most thick-bedded rocks are considerably broken to depths of as much as 6 feet in the zone of weathering on slopes other than the present sea cliff, and the broken fragments have been separated and displaced by surface creep to somewhat lesser depths.

2.5.2.2.3.3 Diabasi c Intrusive Rocks Small, irregular bodies of diabasic rocks ar e poorly exposed high on the walls of Diablo Canyon at and beyond the northeasterly edge of the map area. Contact relationships are readily determined at only a few places where these rocks evidently are intrusive DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-30 Revision 21 September 2013 into the Monterey Formation. They are considerably weathered, but an ophitic texture is recognizable. They consist chiefly of calcic plagioclase and augite, with some olivine, opaque minerals, and zeolitic alteration products.

2.5.2.2.3.4 Masses of Brecciated Rocks Highly irregular masses of coarsely brecciated ro cks, a few feet to many tens of feet in maximum dimension, are present in some of the relatively siliceous parts of the Monterey section that adjoin the principal bodies of Obispo Tuff. The fracturing and dislocation is not genetically related to any recognizable faults, but instead seems to have been associated with emplacement of the volcanic rocks; it evidently was accompanied by, or soon followed by, extensive silicification. Many adjacent fragments in the breccias are closely juxtaposed and have matching opposed surfaces, so that they plainly represent no more than coarse crackling of the brittle rocks. Other fragments, though angular or subangular, are not readily matched with adjacent fragments and hence may represent significant translation within the entire rock masses.

The ratio of matrix materials to coarse fragm ents is very low in most of the breccias and nowhere was it observed to exceed about 1:3. The matrices generally comprise smaller

angular fragments of the same Monterey rocks that are elsewhere dominant in the breccias, and they characteristically are set in a siliceous cement. Tuffaceous matrices, with or without Monterey fragments, also are widespread and commonly show the effects of pervasive silicification. All the exposed breccias are firmly cemented, and

they rank among the hardest and most resist ant units in the entire bedrock section.

A few 3 to 18 inch beds of sandstone hav e been pulled apart to fo rm separate tabular masses along specific stratigraphic horizons in higher parts of the Monterey sequence. Such individual tablets, which are boudins ra ther than ordinary bre ccia fragments, are especially well exposed in the sea cliff at the northern corner of Diablo Cove. They are flanked by much finer-grained strata t hat converge around their ends and continue essentially unbroken beyond them. This boudi nage or separation and stringing out of sandstone beds that lie within intervals of much softer and more shaly rocks has resulted from compression during folding of t he Monterey section.

Its distribution is stratigraphically controlled and is not systematically related to recognizable faults in the area. 2.5.2.2.3.5 Surficial Deposits

1. Coastal Terrace Deposits The coastal wave-cut benches of Pleistocene age, as described in a foregoing section, are almost continuously blanket ed by terrace deposits (Qter in Figure 2.5-8) of several contrasting types and modes of origin. The oldest of these deposits are relatively thin and patchy in their occurrence, and were laid down along and adj acent to ancient beaches during Pleistocene time. They are cove red by considerably thicker and more DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-31 Revision 21 September 2013 extensive nonmarine accumulations of detrital materials derived from various landward sources.

The marine deposits consist of silt, sand, gr avel, and cobbly to bouldery rubble. They are approximately 2 feet in average thicknes s over the entire te rrace area and reach a maximum observed thickness of about 8 feet. They rest directly upon bedrock, some of which is marked by numerous holes attributable to the action of boring marine mollusks, and they commonly contain large rounded cobbles and boulders of Monterey and Obispo rocks that have been similarly bored.

Lenses and pockets of highly fossiliferous sand and gravel are present locally.

The marine sediments are poorly to very well sorted and loose to moderately well consolidated. All of them have been natur ally compacted; the degree of compaction varies according to the material, but it is consistently greater t han that observed in any of the associated surficial deposits of other types. Near the inner margins of individual wave-cut benches the marine deposits merge landward into coarser and less

well-sorted debris that evident ly accumulated along the bases of ancient sea cliffs or other shoreline slopes. This debris is locally as much as 12 feet thi ck; it forms broad but very short aprons, now buried beneath younger deposits, that are ancient analogues of the talus accumulations along the inner marg in of the present beach in Diablo Cove.

One of these occurrences, identified as "fossil Qtb" in the geologic map of Figure 2.5-8, is well exposed high on the nort herly wall of Diablo Canyon.

A younger, thicker, and much more continuous nonmarine cover is present over most of the coastal terrace area. It consistently overlies the marine deposits noted above, and, where these are absent, it rests directly upon bedrock. It is composed in part of alluvial detritus contributed during Pleistocene time from Diablo Canyon and several smaller drainage courses, and it thickens markedl y as traced sourceward toward these canyons. The detritus represents a series of alluvial fans, some of which appear to

have partly coalesced with adjacent ones. It is chiefly fine- to moderately-coarse-grained gravel and rubble characterized by tabular fragments of M onterey rocks in a rather abundant silty to clayey matrix. Most of it is thinly and regularly stratified, but the distinctness of this layering varies greatly from place to place.

Slump, creep, and slope-wash d eposits, derived from adjacent hillsides by relatively slow downhill movement over long periods of time, also form major parts of the nonmarine terrace cover. All are loose and un compacted. They comprise fragments of Monterey rocks in dark colored clayey matrices , and their internal structure is essentially chaotic. In some places they are crudely interlayered with the alluvial fan deposits, and elsewhere they overlie these bedded sediments. On parts of the main terrace area not reached by any of the alluvial fans, a cover of slump, creep, and slope-wash deposits, a

few inches to nearly 10 feet thick, rests di rectly upon either marine terrace deposits or bedrock.

Thus, the entire section of terrace deposits t hat caps the coastal benches of Pleistocene marine erosion is heterogeneous and internally complex; it includes contributions of DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-32 Revision 21 September 2013 detritus from contrasting sources, from diff erent directions at di fferent times, and via several basically different modes of transport and deposition.

2. Stream-terrace Deposits Several narrow, irregular benches along the walls of Diablo Canyon are veneered by a

few inches to 6 feet of silt y gravels that are somewhat c oarser but otherwise similar to the alluvial fan deposits de scribed above. These str eam-terrace deposits (Qst) originally occupied the bottom of the canyon at a time when the lower course of Diablo Creek had been cut downward through the alluvial fan sediments of the main terrace and well into the underlying bedrock.

Subsequent deepening of the canyon left remnants of the deposits as cappings on scattered small terraces.

3. Landslide Deposits The walls of Diablo Canyon also are marked by tongue- and bench-like accumulations of loose, rubbly landslide debris (Qls), c onsisting mainly of highly broken and jumbled masses of Monterey rocks with abundant silty and soily matrix materials. These landslide bodies represent localized failure on naturally oversteepened slopes, generally confined to fractured bedrock in and immediately beneath the zone of weathering.

Individual bodies within the mapped area are small, with probable maximum thicknesses no greater than 20 fe et. All of them lie outsi de the area intended for power plant construction.

Landslide deposits along the sea cliff have been recognized at only one locality, on the north side of Diablo Cove about 400 feet north west of the mouth of Diablo Canyon. Here slippage has occurred along bedding and fracture surfaces in siliceous Monterey rocks, and it has been confined essentially to the axial region of a well-defined syncline (refer to Figure 2.5-8). Several episodes of sliding are attested by thin, elongate masses of highly broken gr ound separated from one another by well-defined zones of dislocation. Some of these masses are still capped by terrace deposits. The entire composite accumulation of debris is not more than 35 feet in maximum thickness, and ground failure at this localit y does not appear to have resulted in major recession of the cliff. Elsewhere within the m apped area, landsliding al ong the sea cliff evidently has not been a significant process.

Large landslides, some of them involving su bstantial thickness of bedrock, are present on both sides of Diablo Canyon not far north east of the power pl ant area. These occurrences need not be considered in connec tion with the plant site, but they have

been regarded as significant factors in establishing a satisfactory grading design for the switchyard and other up-canyon installations.

They are not dealt with in this section.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-33 Revision 21 September 2013

4. Slump, Creep, and Slope-wash Deposits As noted earlier, slump, creep, and slope-wash deposits (Qsw) form parts of the nonmarine sedimentary blanket on the main terrace. These materials are shown separately on the geologic map only in t hose limited areas where they have been considerably concentrated along well-defined swales and are readily distinguished from other surficial deposits. Their actual distribution is much wider, and they undoubtedly

are present over a large fraction of the areas designated as Qter; their average thickness in such areas, however, is probably less than 5 feet.

Angular fragments of Monterey rocks are sparsely to very abundantly scattered through the slump, creep, and slope-wash deposits, whose most characteristic feature is a fine-grained matrix that is dar k colored, moderately rich in clay minerals, and extremely soft when wet. Internal layering is rarely observable and nowhere is sharply expressed.

The debris seems to have been rather thoroughly intermixed during its slow migration down hillslopes in response to gravity. That it was derived mainly from broken materials in the zone of weathering is shown by several exposures in which it grades downward through soily debris into highly disturbed and partly weathered bedrock, and thence into progressively fresher and less broken bedrock.

5. Talus and Beach Deposits Much of the present coastline in the subj ect area is marked by bare rock, but Diablo Cove and a few other large indentations ar e fringed by narrow, discontinuous beaches and irregular concentrations of sea cliff talu

s. These deposits (Qtb) are very coarse grained. Their total volume is small, and they are of interest mainly as modern analogues of much older deposit s at higher levels beneath the main terrace surface.

The beach deposits consist chiefly of well-r ounded cobbles. They form thin veneers over bedrock, and in Diablo Cove they gr ade seaward into patches of coarse pebbly sand. The floors of both Diablo Cove and South Cove probably are irregular in detail and are featured by rather hard, fresh bedrock that is discontinuously overlain by irregular thin bodies of sand and gravel. The distribution and abundance of kelp

suggest that bedrock crops out over large parts of these cove areas where the sea bottom cannot be observed from onshore points.

6. Stream-laid Alluvium Stream-laid alluvium (Qal) occurs as a st rip along the present narrow floor of Diablo Canyon, where it is only a few feet in average thickness. It is composed of irregularly

intertongued silt, sand, gravel, and rubble. It is crudely to sharply stratified, poorly to well sorted, and, in general, somewhat compacted. Most of it is at least moderately

porous.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-34 Revision 21 September 2013

7. Other Deposits Earlier inhabitation of the area by Indians is indicated by several midden deposits that

are rich in charcoal and fragments of shells and bones. The most extensive of these occurrences marks the site of a long-abandoned village along the edge of the main

terrace immediately northwest of Diablo Ca nyon. Others have been noted on the main terrace just east of the mout h of Diablo Canyon, on the s horeward end of South Point, and at several places in and near the plant site.

2.5.2.2.4 Structure

2.5.2.2.4.1 Tectonic Structures Underlying the Region Surrounding the Site The dominant tectonic structur e in the region of the power plant site is the San Luis-Pismo downwarp system of west-northwest-trending folds. This structure is bounded on the northeast by the antiformal basement rock stru cture of the Los Osos and San Luis Valley trend. The west-nor thwest-trending Edna fault zone lies along the northeast flank of the range, and the para llel Miguelito fault extends into the southeasterly end of the range.

A north-northwest- trending stru ctural discontinuity that may be a fault has been inferred or interpolat ed from widely spaced traverses in the offshore, extending within about 5 miles of the site at its point of closest approach. To the west of this discontinuity, the st ructure is dominated by north to north-northwest-trending folds in Tertiary rocks. These features are illustrated in Figure 2.5-3 and described in this section.

Tectonic structures underlying the site and region surrounding the site are identified in the above and following sections, and they are shown in Figure s 2.5-3, 2.5-5, 2.5-8, 2.5-10, 2.5-15, and 2.5-16.

They are listed as follows:

2.5.2.2.4.2 Tectonic Structures Underlying the Site

The rocks underlying the DCPP site have been subjected to intrusive volcanic activity and to later compre ssional deformation that has given rise to folding, jointing and fracturing, minor f aulting, and local brecciation. The site is situated in a section of moderately to steeply north-di pping strata, about 300 f eet south of an east-west-trending synclinal fold axis (Figur es 2.5-8 and 2.5-10).

The rocks are jointed throughout, and they contain local zones of closely spaced high-angle fractures (Figure 2.5-16).

A minor fault zone extends into t he site from the west, but dies out in the vicinity of the Unit 1 turbine building. Two other minor f aults were mapped for distances of 35 to more than 200 feet in the bedrock section exposed in the excavation for the Unit 1

containment structure. In addition to these features, cross-cutting bodies of tuff and tuff brecia, and cemented "crackle breccia" coul d be considered as tectonic structures.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-35 Revision 21 September 2013 Exact ages of the various tectonic structures at the site are not known. It has been clearly demonstrated, however , that all of them are truncated by, and therefore antedate, the principal marine erosion surface that underlies the coastal terrace bench.

This terrace can be correlated with coastal terraces to the north and south that have been dated as 80,000 to 120,000 years old.

The tectonic structures probably are related to the Pliocene-lower Pleistocene episode of Coast Ranges deformation, which occurred more than 1 million years ago.

The bedrock units within the entire subject area fo rm part of the southerly flank of a very large syncline that is a major feature of the San Luis Range. T he northerly-dipping sequence of strata is marked by several smaller folds with subparallel trends and

flank-to-flank dimensions measured in hundreds of feet. One of th ese, a syncline with gentle to moderate westerly plunge, is the largest flexure recognized in the vicinity of

the power plant site. Its axis lies a short distance north of the site and about 450 feet northeast of the mouth of Diabl o Canyon (Figures 2.5-8 and 2.

5-10). East of the canyon this fold appears to be rather open and simple in form, but farther west it probably is complicated by several large wrinkles and may well lose its identity as a single feature.

Some of this complexity is clearly revealed along the northerly margin of Diablo Cove, where the beds exposed in the sea cliff have been closely folded along east to

northeast trends. Here a tight syncline (shown in Figure 2.5-8) and several smaller folds can be recognized, and steep to near-vertical dips are dominant in several parts of

the section.

The southerly flank of the main synclin e within the map area steepens markedly as traced southward away from the fold axis.

Most of this steepening is concentrated within an across-strike distance of about 300 f eet as revealed by the strata exposed in the sea cliff southeastward fr om the mouth of Diablo Cany on; farther southward the beds of sandstone and finer-grained rocks dip rather uniformly at angles of 70° or more. A slight overturning through the vertical characterizes the several hundred feet of section exposed immediately north of the Obispo Tuff that underlies South Point and the north shore of South Cove (refer to Figure 2.5-8). Thus the ma in syncline, though simple in gross form, is distinctly asymme tric. The steepness of it s southerly flank may well have resulted from buttressing, during t he folding, by the relatively massive and competent unit of tuffaceous rocks that adjoins the Monterey strata at this general level of exposure.

Smaller folds, corrugations, and highly irregular convolutions are widespread among the

Monterey rocks, especially the finest-graine d and most shaley types. Some of these flexures trend east to southeast and appear to be drag features systemat ically related to the larger-scale folding in the area. Most, however, reflect no consistent form or trend, range in scale from inches to only a few feet, and evidently are confined to relatively soft

rocks that are flanked by inte rvals of harder and more massive strata. They constitute crudely tabular zones of contor tion within which individual rock layers can be traced for short distances but rarely are cont inuous throughout the deformed ground.

Some of this contortion appears to have derived from slumping and sliding of unconsolidated sediments on the Miocene sea floor during accumulation of the DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-36 Revision 21 September 2013 Monterey section. Most of it, in contrast, plainly occurred at much later times, presumably after conversion of the sediments to sedimentary rocks, and it can be most readily attributed to highly localized deformati on during the ancient folding of a section that comprises rocks with contrasting degrees of structural competence.

2.5.2.2.4.3 Faults Numerous faults with total displacements rang ing from a few inches to several feet cut the exposed Monterey rocks. Most of thes e occur within, or al ong the margins of, the zones of contortion noted above. They are sharp, tight breaks with highly diverse attitudes, and they typically are marked by 1/16-inch or less of gouge or microbreccia.

Nearly all of them are curv ing or otherwise somewhat irregular surfaces, and many can be seen to terminate abruptly or to die out gradually within masses of tightly folded rocks. These small faults appear to have been developed as end products of localized

intense deformation caused by folding of the bedrock section. Their unsystematic attitudes, small displacements, and limited effects upon the ho st rocks identify them as second-order features, i.e., as results rather than causes of the localized folding and convolution with which they are associated.

Three distinctly larger and more continuous faults also were recognized within the mapped area. They are well exposed on the sea cliff that fringes Diablo Cove (refer to Figure 2.5-8), and each lies within a zone of moderately to severely contorted fine-

grained Monterey strata. Each is actually a zone, 6 inches to several feet wide, within which two or more subparallel tight breaks are marked by slickensides, 1/4-inch or less of gouge, and local stringers of gypsum.

None of these breaks appears to be systematically related to individual folds within the adjoining rocks. None of them extends upward into the overlying bl anket of Quaternary terrace deposits.

One of these faults, exposed on the north side of the co ve, trends north-northwest essentially parallel to the flank ing Monterey beds, but it di ps more steeply than these beds. Another, exposed on the east side of the cove, trends east-southeast and is essentially vertical; thus, it is essentially parallel to the structure of the host Monterey

section. Neither of these faults projects toward the ground intended for power plant construction. The third fault, which appears on the sea cliff at the mouth of Diablo Canyon, trends northeast and projects toward t he ground in the norther nmost part of the power plant site. It dips northward some what more steeply t han the adjacent strata.

Total displacement is not known for any of these three faults on the basis of natural exposures, but it could amount to as much as tens of feet. That these breaks are not major features, however, is strongly suggest ed by their sharpness, by the thinness of gouge along individual surfaces of slippage, and by the essential lack of correlation between the highly irregular geometry of de formation in the enclosing strata and any directions of movement along the slip surfaces.

The possibility that these surfaces are late-stage expressions of much larger-scale faulting at this general locality was tested by careful examination of the deformed rocks DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-37 Revision 21 September 2013 that they transect. On megascopic scales, the rocks appear to have been deformed much more by flexing than by rupture and slippage, as evidenced by local continuity of numerous thin beds that denies the existence of pervasive faulting within much of the ground in question. That the finer-grai ned rocks are not themselves fault gouged was confirmed by examination of 34 samples under the microscope.

Sedimentary layering, recognized in 27 of these samples, was observed to be grossly continuous even though dislocat ed here and there by tiny fractures. Moreover, nearly all the samples were found to contain shar ds of volcanic glass and/or the tests of foraminifera; some of these delicate com ponents showed effects of microfracturing and a few had been offset a millimeter or less al ong tiny shear surfaces, but none appeared to have been smeared out or partially obliterated by intense shearing or grinding. Thus, the three larger faults in the area evidently were s uperimposed upon ground that already had been deformed primarily by small-scale and locally very intense folding rather than by pervasive grinding and milling.

It is not known whether these faults were late-stage results of major folding in the region or were products of independent tectonic activi ty. In either case, they are relatively ancient features, as they are capped without break by the Quaternary terrace deposits exposed along the upper part of the sea c liff. They probably are not large-scale elements of regional structure, as examinat ion of the nearest areas of exposed bedrock along their respective landward projections revealed no evidence of substantial offsets among recognizable stratigraphic units.

Seaward projection of one or mo re of these faults might be taken to explain a possible large offset of the Obispo Tuff units ex posed on North Point and South Point. The notion of such an offset, however, would re st upon the assumption that these two units are displaced parts of an originally continuous body, for which there is no real evidence.

Indeed, the two tuff units are bounded on their northerly sides by lithologically different parts of the Monterey Formati on; hence, they were clearly originally emplaced at different stratigraphic levels and are not directly correlative.

2.5.2.2.5 Geological Relationships at the Units 1 and 2 Power Plant Site

2.5.2.2.5.1 Geologic Invest igations at the Site The geologic relationships at DCPP site have been studied in terms of both local and regional stratigraphy and structure, with an emphasis on relati onships that could aid in dating the youngest tectonic activity in the ar ea. Geologic conditions that could affect

the design, construction, and performanc e of various components of the plant installation also were identified and evaluated. The investigations were carried out in three main phases, which spanned the ti me between initial site selection and completion of foundation construction.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-38 Revision 21 September 2013 2.5.2.2.5.2 Feasibility Investigation Phase Work directed toward determining the perti nent general geologic conditions at the plant site comprised detailed mapping of available exposures, limited hand trenching in areas with critical relationships, and petrographi c study of the principal rock types. The results of this feasibility program were presented in a report that also included

recommendations for determining su itability of the site in te rms of geologic conditions.

Information from this early phase of studies is included in the preceding four sections and illustrated in Figures 2.5-8, 2.5-9, and 2.5-10.

2.5.2.2.5.3 Suitabil ity Investigation Phase The record phase of investigations was directed toward testing and confirming the favorable judgments concerning site feasibility. Inasmuch as the principal remaining uncertainties involved structural features in the local bedrock, additional effort was made to expose and map thes e features and their relationships. This was accomplished through excavation of large tr enches on a grid pattern that extended throughout the plant area, followed by photographing the trench walls and logging the exposed geologic features. Large-scale photographs were used as a mapping base, and the recorded data were then transferred to c ontrolled vertical sections at a scale of 1 inch = 20 feet. The results of this work were reported in three supplements to the original geologic report (Ref erence 1). Supplementary Repor ts I and III presented data and interpretation based on trench exposures in the areas of the Unit 1 and Unit 2 installations, respectively. Supplementary Report II described the relationships of small bedrock faults exposed in the exploratory trenches and in the nearby sea cliff.

During these suitability investigations, special attention was given to the contact between bedrock and overlying terrace deposit s in the plant site area. It was determined that none of the discontinuities present in the bedrock section displaces either the erosional surface developed across the bedrock or the terrace deposits that rest upon this surface. The pertinent data ar e presented farther on in this section and illustrated in Figures 2.5-11, 2.5-12, 2.5-13, and 2.5-14.

2.5.2.2.5.4 Construction Geology Investigation Phase Geologic work done during the course of construction at the plant site spanned an

interval of 5 years, which encompassed the per iod of large-scale excavation. It included detailed mapping of all signific ant excavations, as well as s pecial studies in some areas of rock bolting and other work involv ing rock reinforcement and temporary instrumentation. The mapping covered essentially all parts of the area to be occupied by structures for Units 1 and 2, including the excavations for the circ ulating water intake and outlet, the turbine-generator building, t he auxiliary building, and the containment structures. The results of this mapping are described farther on and illustrated in Figures 2.5-15 and 2.5-16.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-39 Revision 21 September 2013 2.5.2.2.5.5 Exploratory Trenching Program, Unit 1 Site Four exploratory trenches were cut beneath the main terrace surface at the power plant site, as shown in Figures 2.5-8, 2.5-11, 2.5-12, and 2.5-13. Trench AF (Trench A), about 1080 feet long, ex tended in a north-northwesterly direction and thus was roughly parallel to the nearby margin of Diablo Cove. Trench BE (Trench B), 380 feet long, was parallel to Trench A and lay about 150 feet east of t he northerly one-third of the longer trench. Trenches C and D, 450 and 490 feet l ong, respectively were nearly parallel to each other, 130 to 150 feet apart, and lay essentially normal to Trenches A and B. The two pairs of trenches crossed each other to form a "#" pattern that would have been symmetrical were it not for the long southerly extension of Trench A.

They covered the area intended for Unit 1 power plant construction, and the intersection of Trenches B and C coincided in position with the center of the Unit 1 nuclear reactor structure.

All four trenches, throughout their aggregate length of approximately 2400 feet, revealed a section of surficial deposits and underlying bedrock that corresponds to the two-ply sequence of surficial dep osits and Monterey strata exposed along the sea cliff in nearby Diablo Cove. The trenches ranged in depth from 10 feet to nearly 40 feet, and all had sloping sides that gave way downward to essentially vertical walls in the bedrock encountered 3 to 8 feet above their floors.

To facilitate detailed geologic mapping, the easterly walls of Trenches A and B and the southerly walls of Trenches C and D were trimmed to near-vertical slopes extending upward from the trench floors to levels we ll above the top of bedrock. These walls subsequently were scaled back by means of hand tools in order to provide fresh, clean exposures prior to mapping of the contact between bedrock and overlying unconsolidated materials.

1. Bedrock The bedrock that was continuously exposed in the lowest parts of all the exploratory trenches lies within a portion of the M ontery Formation characterized by a preponderance of sandstone. It corresponds to the part of the section that crops out in lower Diablo Canyon and along the sea cliff s outeastward from the canyon mouth. The sandstone ranges from light gray through buff to light reddish brow n, from silty to markedly tuffaceous, and from thin-bedded and pl aty to massive. The distribution and thickness of beds can be readily appraised from sections along Trenches A and B (Figure 2.5-12) that show nearly all individual bedding surfaces that could be recognized on the ground.

The sandstone ranges from very hard to moderately soft, and some of it feels slightly punky when struck with a pick. All of it is, however, firm and very compact. In general, the most platy parts of the sequence are al so the hardest, but the soundest rock in the area is almost massive sandstone of the ki nd that underlies the site of the intended reactor structure. This rock is well exposed on the nearby hillslope adjoining the main DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-40 Revision 21 September 2013 terrace area, where it has been markedly resist ant to erosion and st ands out as distinct low ridges.

Tuff, consisting chiefly of altered volcanic glass, forms irregular sills and dikes in several

parts of the bedrock section. This material , generally light gray to buff, is compact but distinctly softer than the enclosing sandstone.

Individual bodies are 1/2 inch to 4 feet thick. They are locally abundant in Tr ench C west of Trench A, and in Trench A southward beyond the end of the section in Figure 2.5-12. They are very rare or absent in Trenches B and D, and in the easterly parts of Trench C and the northerly parts of Trench A. These volcanic rocks probably are related to the Obispo Tuff as described earlier, but all known masses of typical Obis po rocks in this area lie at considerable distances west and south of the ground occupied by the trenches.

2. Bedrock Structure The stratification of the Monterey rocks dips northward wherever it was observable in the trenches, in general, at angles of 35 to 55°. Thus, the bedrock beneath the power plant site evidently lies on the southerly flank of the major syncline noted and described earlier. Zones of convolution and other expr essions of locally intense folding were not recognized, and probably are much less common in this general part of the section than in other, previously described parts that include intervals of softer and more shaley rocks.

Much of the sandstone is traversed by fractu res. Planar, curving, and irregular surfaces are well represented, and, in places, they are abundant and closely spaced. All prominent fractures and many of the mi nor and discontinuous ones are shown in the sections of Figure 2.5-12. Also shown in these sections are all recognized slip joints, shear surfaces, and faults, i.e., all surfaces along which the bedrock has been displaced. Such features are mo st abundant in Trenches A and C near their intersection, in Trench D west of the inte rsection with Trench A, and near the northerly end of Trench B.

Most of the surfaces of movement are hairli ne features with or without thin films of clay and/or gypsum. Displacements r ange from a small fraction of an inch to several inches.

The other surfaces are more prominent, with well-defined zones of gouge and fine-grained breccia ordinarily 1/8 inch or less in thickness. Such zones were observed to reach a maximum thickness of nearly 1/2 inch along two small faults, but only as local lenses or pockets. Exposures were not suff iciently extensive in three dimensions for definitely determining the magnitude of slip along the more prominent faults, but all of these breaks appeared to be minor features.

Indeed, no expressions of major faulting were recognized in any of the trenches despite careful search, and the continuous bedrock exposures precluded the possibility that such features could have been readily overlooked.

A northeast-trending fault that appears on the sea cliff at t he mouth of Diablo Canyon projects toward the ground in the northernmos t part of the power plant site, as noted in DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-41 Revision 21 September 2013 a foregoing section. No zone of breaks as prominent as this one was identified in the trench exposures, and any distinct northeas tward continuation of the fault would necessarily lie north of the trenched ground. Alternatively, this fault might well separate northeastward into several smaller faults; some or all of these could correspond to some or all of the breaks mapped in the nor therly parts of Trenches A and B.

3. Terrace Deposits Marine terrace deposits of Pleistocene age form a co ver, generally 2 to 5 feet thick, over the bedrock that lies beneath t he power plant site. This cover was observed to be

continuous in Trench C and the northerly part of Trench A, and to be nearly continuous in the other two trenches.

Its lithology is highly variabl e, and includes bouldery rubble, loose beach sand, pebbly silt, silty to clay ey sand with abundant sh ell fragments, and soft clay derived from underlying tuffaceous rocks. Nearly all of these deposits are at least sparsely fossiliferous, and, in a few places, they consist mainly of shells and shell

fragments. Vertebrate fossils, chiefly vert ebral and rib materials representing large marine mammals, are present locally; recognized occurrences are designated by the

symbol X in the sections of Figure 2.5-12.

At the easterly ends of Trenches C and D, the marine deposits intergrade and intertongue in a landward direction with thicker and coarser accumulations of poorly

sorted debris. This material evidently is talus that was formed along the base of an ancient sea cliff or other shoreline slope. In some places, the marine deposits are overlain by nonmarine terrace sediments wit h a sharp break, but elsewhere the contact between these two kinds of deposits is a dark colored zone, a few inches to as much as

2 feet thick, that appears to represent a soil developed on the marine section.

Fragments of these soily materials appear her e and there in the basal parts of the nonmarine section.

The nonmarine sediments that were exposed in Trenches B, C, and D and in the northerly part of Trench A are mainly alluvial deposits derived in ancient times from Diablo Canyon. They consist of numerous tabular fragments of Mo nterey rocks in a relatively dark colored silty to clayey ma trix, and, in general, t hey are distinctly bedded and moderately to highly compact. As indicat ed in the sections of Figure 2.5-12, they thicken progressively in a north-northeastwar d direction, i.e., toward their principal source, the ancient mouth of Diablo Canyon.

Slump, creep, and slope-wash d eposits, which constitute t he youngest major element of the terrace section, overlie the alluvial fan gravels and locally are in terlayered with them.

Where the gravels are absent, as in the southerly part of Trench A, this younger cover rests directly upon bedrock. It is loose and uncompacted, internally chaotic, and is composed of fragments of Monterey rocks in an abundant dark colored clayey matrix.

All the terrace deposits are soft and unconso lidated, and hence are much less resistant

to erosion than is the underlying bedrock.

Those appearing along the walls of exploratory trenches were exposed to heavy rainfall during two storms, and showed DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-42 Revision 21 September 2013 some tendency to wash and locally to rill. Little slumping and no gross failure were noted in the trenches, however, and it was not anticipated that these materials would cause special problems during c onstruction of a power plant.

4. Interface Between Bedrock and Surficial Deposits As once exposed continuously in the explorat ory trenches, the contact between bedrock and overlying terrace deposits represents a broad wave-cut platform of Pleistocene age.

This buried surface of ancient marine erosion ranges in altitude between extremes of 82 and 100 feet, and more than th ree-fourths of it lies withi n the more limited range of 90 to 100 feet. It terminates eastward agains t a moderately steep s horeline slope, the lowest parts of which were encountered at the extreme easterly ends of Trenches C and D, and beyond this slope is an older buri ed bench at an altitude of 120 to 130 feet.

Available exposures indicate t hat the configurati on of the erosional platform is markedly similar, over a wide range of scales, to t hat of the platform now being cut approximately at sea level along the present coast. Grossly viewed, it slopes very gently in a seaward (westerly) direction and is marked by broad, shallow channels and by upward projections that must have appeared as low spines and reefs when the bench was

being formed (Figures 2.5-12 and 2.5-13). The most prominent reef, formerly exposed in Trenches B and D at and near their intersection, is a wide, westerly-trending projection that rises 5 to 15 feet above nei ghboring parts of the bench surface. It is composed of massive sandstone that was rela tively resistant to the ancient wave erosion.

As shown in the sections and sketches of Fi gure 2.5-12, the surfac e of the platform is nearly planar in some places but elsewhere is highly irregular in detail. The small-scale irregularities, generally 3 feet or less in vert ical extent, including knob, spine, and rib like projections and various wave-scoured pits, crevices, notches, and channels. The

upward projections clearly correspond to relati vely hard, resistant beds or parts of beds in the sandstone section. The depressions cons istently mark the positions of relatively soft silty or shaley sandstone, of very soft tuffaceous rocks, or of extensively jointed rocks. The surface traces of most faults and some of the most prominent joints are in sharp depressions, some of t hem with overhanging walls. All these irregularities of

detail have modern analogues that can be recognized on the bedrock bench now being cut along the margins of Diablo Cove.

The interface between bedrock and overlying surficial deposits is of particular interest in the trenched area because it provides information concerning the age of youngest fault

movements within the bedrock section. This interface is nowhere offset by faults

revealed in the trenches, but instead has been developed irregularly across these faults after their latest movement

s. The consistency of this general relationship was established by highly detailed tracing and ins pection of the contact as freshly exhumed by scaling of the trench walls. Gaps in ex posure of the interface necessarily were developed at the four inters ections of trenches; at thes e localities, the bedrock was carefully laid bare so that all joints and faults could be recognized and traced along the DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-43 Revision 21 September 2013 trench floors to points where their relationships with the exposed interface could be determined.

Corroborative evidence concerning the age of the most recent fault displacements stems from the marine deposits that overlie the bedrock bench and form the basal part of the terrace section. That these deposits re st without break across the traces of faults in the underlying bedrock was shown by the c ontinuity of individu al sedimentary beds and lenses that could be clearly recognized and traced.

Further, some of the faults are directly capped by individual boulders, cobbles, pebbles, shells, and fossil bones, none of which have been affected by fault movements. Thus, the most recent fault displacements in t he plant site area occurred prior to marine planation of the bedrock and deposit ion of the overlying terrace sediments. As pointed out earlier, the age of the most recent faulting in this area is therefore at least 80,000 years and more probably at least 120,000 years. It might be millions of years.

2.5.2.2.5.6 Exploratory Trenching Program, Unit 2 Site Eight additional trenches were cut beneath t he main terrace surface south of Diablo Canyon (Figure 2.5-13) in or der to extend the scope of subsurface exploration to include all ground in the Unit 2 plant site. As in the area of the Unit 1 plant site, the trenches formed two groups; those in each group were parallel with one another and were oriented nearly normal to those of the other group. The excavations pertinent to

the Unit 2 plant site can be briefly identified as follows:

1. North-northwest Alignment

a. Trench EJ, 240 feet long, was a s outherly extension of older Trench BE (originally designated as Trench B).

b. Trench WU, 1300 feet long, exte nded southward from Trench DG (originally designated as Trench D), and it s northerly part lay about 65 feet east of Trench EJ. The northernmos t 485 feet of this trench was mapped in connection with the Un it 2 trenching program. c. Trench MV, 700 feet long, lay about 190 feet east of Trench WU. The northernmost 250 feet of this tr ench was mapped in connection with the Unit 2 trenching program.

d. Trench AF (originally designated as Trench A) was mapped earlier in connection with the detailed st udy of the Unit 1 plant site. A section for this trench, which lay about 140 feet west of Trench EJ, was included with others in the report on the Unit 1 trenching program.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-44 Revision 21 September 2013

2. East-northeast Alignment

a. Trench KL, about 750 feet long, la y 180 feet south of Trench DG (originally designated as Trench D) and crossed Trenches AF, EJ, and WU. b. Trench NO, about 730 feet long, la y 250 feet south of Trench KL and crossed Trenches AF, WU, and MV.

These trenches, or parts ther eof, covered the area intended fo r the Unit 2 power plant construction, and the intersection of Trenches WU and KL coincided in position with the

center of the Unit 2 nuc lear reactor structure.

All five additional trenches, throughout their aggregate length of nearly half a mile, revealed a section of surficial deposit s and underlying Monterey bedrock that corresponded to the two-ply sequence of surf icial deposits and Monter ey strata exposed in the older trenches and along the sea cliff in nearby Diablo Cove. The trenches

ranged in depth from 10 feet (or less along their approach ramps) to nearly 35 feet, and all had sloping sides that gave way downward to essentially vertical walls in the bedrock encountered 3 to 22 feet above their floors. To facilitate detailed geologic mapping, the easterly walls of Trenches EJ, WU, and MV and the southerly walls of Trenches KL and NO were trimmed to near-vertical slopes extending upward from the trench floors to levels well above the top of bedrock. These walls subsequently were scaled back by means of hand tools in order to provide fr esh, clean exposures prior to mapping of the contact between bedrock and overlying unconsolidated materials.

The geologic sections shown in Figures 2.

5-12 and 2.5-13 correspond in position to the vertical portions of the mapped trench walls. Relationships exposed at higher levels on sloping portions of the trench walls have been projected to the vertic al planes of the sections. Centerlines of intersecting trenches are shown for convenience, but the planes of the geologic sections do not contain the centerlines of the respective

trenches.

3. Bedrock The bedrock that was continuously exposed in the lowest parts of all the exploratory trenches lies within a part of the Monterey Formation charac terized by a preponderance of sandstone. It corresponds to the portion of the section that crops out along the sea cliff southward from the mout h of Diablo Canyon. The sandstone is light to medium gray where fresh, and light gray to buff and reddish brown where weathered. It ranges from silty to markedly tuffa ceous, with tuffaceous units t ending to dominate southward and southwestward from the central parts of the trenched area (refer to geologic section in Figure 2.5-13). Much of the sandstone is thin-bedded and platy, but the most siliceous parts of the section are characterized by a strata a fo ot or more in thickness. Individual beds commonly are well defined by adjacent thin layers of more silty material.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-45 Revision 21 September 2013 Bedding is less distinct in the more tuffaceous parts of the section, some of which seem to be almost massive. These rocks typically are broken by numerous tight fractures disposed at high angles to one another so that, where weathered, their appearance is coarsely blocky rather than layered.

As broadly indicated in the geologic sections, the sandstone ranges from very hard to moderately soft, and some of it feels slightly punky when struck with a pick. All of it, however, is firm and very compact. In general, the most platy parts of the sequence are relatively hard, but the hardest and soundest ro ck in the area is thick-bedded to almost massive sandstone of the kind at and immedi ately north of the site for the intended reactor structure. This resistant rock is well exposed as distinct low ridges on the nearby hillslope adjoining the main terrace area.

Tuff, consisting chiefly of altered volcanic glass, is abundant within the bedrock section. Also widely scattered, but much less abundant, is tuff breccia, cons isting typically of small fragments of older tuff, pu mice, or Monterey rocks in a matrix of fresh to altered volcanic glass. These materials, which form sills, dikes, and highly irregular intrusive masses, are generally light gray to buff, gr itty, and compact but distinctly softer than much of the enclosing sands tone. Individual bodies range from stringers less than a quarter of an inch thick to bulbous or mushroom-shaped masses with maximum

exposed dimensions measured in tens of feet. As shown on the geologic sections, they are abundant in all the trenches.

These volcanic rocks probably are related to t he Obispo Tuff, large masses of which are well exposed west and south of the trenched ground. The bodies exposed in the trenches doubtless represent a rather lengthy period of Miocene volcanism, during which the Monterey strata were repeatedly invaded by both tuff and tuff breccia.

Indeed, several of the mapped tuff units were themselves intruded by dikes of younger tuff, as shown, for example, in Sections KL and NO.

4. Bedrock Structure The stratification of the Monterey rocks dips northward wherever it was observable in the trenches, in general, at angles of 45 to 85°. The steepness of dip increases progressively from north to south in the trenched ground, a relationship also noted along the sea cliff southward from the mouth of Diablo Canyon. Thus, the bedrock beneath the power plant site evidently lies on the so utherly flank of the major syncline that was described previously. Zones of convoluti on and other expressions of locally intense folding were not recognized, and they pr obably are much less common in this general part of the section than in ot her (previously described) parts that include intervals of softer and more shaley rocks.

Much of the sandstone is traversed by fractu res. Planar, curving, and irregular surfaces are well represented, and in places they are abundant and closely spaced. All prominent fractures and nearly all of t he minor and discontinuous ones are shown on the geologic sections (Figure 2.5-13). Also shown in these sections are all recognized DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-46 Revision 21 September 2013 shear surfaces, faults, and other discont inuities along which the bedrock has been displaced. Such features are nowhere abundant in the trench exposures.

Most of the surfaces of movement are hair line breaks with or without thin films of clay, calcite, and/or gypsum. Displacements range fr om a small fraction of an inch to several inches. A few other surfaces are more prominent, with well-defined zones of fine-grained breccia and/or infilling mineral material ordinarily 1/8 inch or less in thickness. Such zones were observed to reach maximu m thicknesses of 3/8 to 1/2 inch along three small faults, but only as local lenses or pockets.

Exposures are not sufficiently extensive in three dimensions for definitely determining

the magnitude of slip along all the faults, but for most of them it is plainly a few inches or less. None of them appears to be more than a minor break in a bedrock section that has been folded on a large scale. Indeed, no expressions of major faulting were recognized in any of the trenches despite careful search, and the continuous bedrock exposures preclude the possibility that such features could be readily overlooked.

Most surfaces of past movement probably we re active during times when the Monterey rocks were being deformed by folding, when rupture and some differential movements would be expected in a section comprising such markedly differing rock types. Some of the fault displacements may well have been older, as attested in two places by relationships involving small faul ts, the Monterey rocks, and tuff.

In Trench WU south of Trench KL, for ex ample, sandstone beds were seen to have been offset about a foot along a small fault. A thin sill of tuff occupies the same stratigraphic horizon on opposite sides of this fault, but the sill has not been displaced by the fault. Instead, the tuff occupies a short segment of the fault to effect the slight jog between its positions in the strata on either side. Intrusion of the tuff plainly postdated all movements along this fault.

5. Terrace Deposits Marine terrace deposits of Pleistocene age form co vers, generally 2 to 5 feet thick, but locally as much as 12 feet thick, over the bedrock that lies beneath the Unit 2 plant site. These covers were observed to be continu ous in some parts of all the trenches, and thin and discontinuous in a few other parts.

Elsewhere, the marine sediments were absent altogether, as in the lower and more southerly parts of Trenches EJ and WU and in the lower and more westerly parts of Trenches KL and NO.

The range in lithology of these deposits is considerable, and includes bouldery rubble, gravel composed of well-round ed fragments of shells and/or Monterey rocks, beach sand, loose accumulations of shells, pebbly s ilt, silty to clayey sand with abundant shell fragments, and soft clay derived from underlyi ng tuffaceous rocks. Nearly all of the deposits are at least sparsely fossiliferous, and many of them contain little other than shell material. Vertebrate fossils, chiefly vertebral and rib materials representing large marine mammals, are present locally.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-47 Revision 21 September 2013 The trenches in and near the site of the reactor structure exposed a buried narrow ridge of hard bedrock that once projected west ward as a bold promontory along an ancient sea coast, probably at a time when sea level corresponded approximately to the present 100 foot contour (refer to Figur e 2.5-11). Along the flanks of this promontory and the face of an adjoining buried sea cliff that extends southeastward through the area in which Trenches MV and NO intersected, the marine deposits intergrade and intertongue with thicker and coarser accumulations of poorly sorted debris. This rubbly material evidently is talus that was formed and depo sited along the margins of the ancient shoreline cliff.

Similar gradations of older marine deposits into older talus deposits were observable at higher levels in the easternmost parts of Trenches KL and NO, where the rubbly materials doubtless lie against a more ancient sea cliff that was formed when sea level corresponded to the present 140 foot contour. The cliff itself was not exposed, however, as it lies slightly beyond the limits of trenching.

In many places, the marine covers are overlain by younger nonmarine terrace sediments with a sharp break, but elsewhere the contact between these two kinds of deposits is a zone of dark colored material, a few inches to as much as 6 feet thick, that represents weathering and developm ent of soils on the marine sections. Fragments of these soily materials are present here and t here in the basal parts of the nonmarine section. Over large areas, the porous marine deposits have been discolored through infiltration by fine-grained materials derived from the overlying ancient soils.

The nonmarine accumulations, which form the pr edominant fraction of the entire terrace cover, consist mainly of slump, creep, and sl ope-wash debris that is characteristically loose, uncompacted, and internally chaotic.

These relatively dark colored deposits are fine grained and clayey, but they contain sparse to very abundant fragments of Monterey rocks generally ranging from less than an inch to about 2 feet in maximum dimension. Toward Diablo Canyon they overlie and, in places, intertongue with silty to

clayey gravels that are ancient contributions from Diablo Creek when it flowed at levels much higher than its present one. These "dirty" alluvial deposits appeared only in the most northerly parts of the more recently trenched terrace area, and they are not

distinguished from other parts of the nonmarine cove r on the geologic sections (Figure 2.5-13).

All the terrace deposits are soft and unconso lidated, and hence are much less resistant

to erosion than is the underlying bedrock.

Those appearing along the walls of the exploratory trenches showed some tendency to wash and locally to rill when exposed to heavy rainfall, but little slumping and no gr oss failure were noted in the trenches.

6. Interface Between Bedr ock and Surficial Deposits As exposed continuously in the explorat ory trenches, the contact between bedrock and overlying terrace deposits represents two wave-cut platforms and intervening slopes, all of Pleistocene age. The broadest surface of anc ient marine erosion ranges in altitude DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-48 Revision 21 September 2013 from 80 to 105 feet, and its s horeward margin, at the base of an ancient sea cliff, lies uniformly within 5 feet of t he 100 foot contour. A higher, older, and less extensive marine platform ranges in alti tude from 130 to 145 feet, and most of it lies within the ranges of 135 to 140 feet. As noted previously, these are two of several wave-cut benches in this coastal area, each of which terminates eastward against a cliff or steep shoreline slope and westward at the upper rim of a similar but younger slope.

Available exposures indicate that the configurations of the erosional platforms are markedly similar, over a wide range of scales, to that of the platform now being cut approximately at sea level al ong the present coast. Gro ssly viewed, they slope very gently in a seaward (westerly) direction and are marked by broad, shallow channels and by upward projections that must have appeared as low spines and reefs when the

benches were being formed. The most prominent reefs, which rise from a few inches to about 5 feet above neighboring parts of the bench surfaces, are composed of hard, thick-bedded sandstone that was relatively resistant to ancient wave erosion.

As shown in the geologic sections (Figure 2.5-13), the surfaces of the platforms are nearly planar in some places but elsewhere are highly irr egular in detail. The small scale irregularities, generally 3 feet or less in vertical extent, include knob-, spine-, and rib-like projections and various wave-sc oured pits, notches, crevices, and channels.

Most of the upward projections closely correspond to relatively hard, resistant beds or

parts of beds in the sandstone section. T he depressions consistently mark the positions of relatively soft silty or shaley sandstone, of very soft tuffaceous rocks, or of extensively jointed rocks. The surface traces of most faults and some of the most prominent joints are in sharp depressions, some of them with overhanging walls. All these irregularities of detail have modern analo gues that can be recognize d on the bedrock bench now being cut along the margins of Diablo Cove.

The interface between bedrock and overlying surficial deposits provides information

concerning the age of youngest fault movem ents within the bedro ck section. This interface is nowhere offset by faults that were exposed in the trenches, but instead has

been developed irregularly across the faults after their latest movements. The consistency of this general relationship was established by highl y detailed tracing and inspection of the contact as freshly exhumed by scaling of the trench walls. Gaps in exposure of the interface necessarily were de veloped at the intersections of trenches as in the exploration at the Unit 1 site. At such localities, the bedrock was carefully laid bare so that all joints and faults could be recognized and traced along the trench floors to points where their relationships with the exposed interface could be determined.

Corroborative evidence concerning the age of the most recent fault displacements stems from the marine deposits that overlie the bedrock bench and form a basal part of

the terrace section. That thes e deposits rest without break acro ss the traces of faults in the underlying bedrock was shown by the continuity of individual sedimentary beds and lenses that could be clearly recognized and traced. As in other parts of the site area, some of the faults are directly capped by individual boulders, cobbles, pebbles, shells, and fossil bones, none of which have been affe cted by fault movements. Thus, the DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-49 Revision 21 September 2013 most recent fault displacements in the pl ant site area occurred before marine planation of the bedrock and deposition of the overlying terrace sediments.

The age of the most recent faulting in this ar ea is therefore at leas t 80,000 years. More probably, it is at least 120,000 years, the age most generally assigned to these terrace deposits along other parts of the California c oastline. Evidence from the higher bench in the plant site area indicates a much ol der age, as the unfaulted marine deposits there are considerably older than t hose that occupy the lowe r bench corresponding to the 100 foot terrace. Moreover, it can be noted that ages thus determined for most recent fault displacements are minimal rather than absolute, as the la test faulting actually could have occurred millions of years ago.

During the Unit 2 exploratory trenching program, special att ention was directed to those exposed parts of the wave-cut benches where no marine deposits are present, and hence where there are no overlying reference materials nearly as old as the benches

themselves. At such places, the bedrock beneath each bench has been weathered to depths ranging from less than 1 inch to at least 10 feet, a feat ure that evidently corresponds to a lengthy period of surface exposure from the time when the bench was abandoned by the sea to the time when it was covered beneath encroaching nonmarine deposits derived from hill slopes to the east.

Stratification and other structural features are clearly recognizable in the weathered bedrock, and they obviously have exercised some degree of control over localization of the weathering. Moreover, in places w here upward projections of bedrock have been gradually bent or rotationally draped in re sponse to weathering and creep, their contained fractures and surfaces of movement have been correspondingly bent. Nowhere in such a section that has been disturbed by weathering have the materials been cut by younger fractures that would r epresent straight upward projections of breaks in the underlying fresh rocks. Nor have such fractures been observed in any of

the overlying nonmarine terrace cover.

Thus, the minimum age of any fault movem ent in the plant site area is based on compatible evidence from undisplaced reference features of four ki nds: (a) Pleistocene wave-cut benches developed on bedrock, (b) immediately overlying marine deposits that are very slightly younger, (c) zones of weathering that repr esent a considerable span of subsequent time, and (d) younger terrace deposits of nonmarine origin.

2.5.2.2.5.7 Bedrock Geology of the Plant Foundation Excavations Bedrock was continuously exposed in the f oundation excavations fo r major structural components of Units 1 and 2. Outlines and in vert elevations of these large openings, which ranged in depth from about 5 to nearly 90 feet below the origin al ground surface, are shown in Figures 2.5-15 and 2.5-16. T he complex pattern of straight and curved walls with various positions and orientations provided an excellent three-dimensional representation of bedrock stru cture. These walls were photographed at large scales as construction progressed, and the photographs were used directly as a geologic DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-50 Revision 21 September 2013 mapping base. The largest excavations also were mapped in detail on a surveyed planimetric base.

Geologic mapping of the plant excavations confirmed the conclusions based on earlier

investigations at the site. The exposed section of Monterey strata was found to correspond in lithology and structure to what had been predicted from exposures at the mouth of Diablo Canyon, along the sea cliffs in nearby Diablo Cove, and in the test trenches. Thus, the plant foundation is unde rlain by a moderately to steeply north-dipping sequence of thin to thick bedded sa ndy mudstone and fine-grained sandstone.

The rocks at these levels are generally fres h and competent, as they lie below the zone of intense near-surface weathering.

Several thin interbeds of claystone were expo sed in the southwestern part of the plant site in the excavations for the Unit 2 turbine-generator building, intake conduits, and outlet structure. These beds, which generally are less than 6 inches thick, are distinctly softer than the flanking sandstone. Some of them show evidence of internal shearing.

Layers of tuffaceous sandstone and sills, dike s, and irregular masse s of tuff and tuff breccia are present in most parts of the foundati on area. They tend to increase in abundance and thickness toward the south, w here they are relatively near the large masses of Obispo Tuff exposed along the coast south of the plant site.

Some of the tuff bodies are conformable wit h the enclosing sandstone, but others are markedly discordant. Most are clearly intrusiv

e. Individual masses, as exposed in the excavations, range in thickness from less than 1 inch to about 40 feet. The tuff breccia, which is less abundant than the tuff, consists typically of small fragments of older tuff, pumice, or Monterey rocks in a matrix of fresh to highly alte red volcanic glass. At the levels of exposure in the excavations, both t he tuff and tuff breccia are somewhat softer than the enclosing sandstone.

The stratification of the Monterey rocks dips generally northward throughout the plant foundation area. Steepness of di ps increases progressively and, in places, sharply from north to south, ranging from 10 to 15° on the nor th side of Unit 1 to 75 to 80° in the area of Unit 2. A local reversal in direction of dip reflects a small open fold or warp in the Unit 1 area. The axis of this fold is par allel to the overall strike of the bedding, and strata on the north limb dip southward at angles of 10 to 15°. The more general steepening of dips from north to south may reflect buttressing by the large masses of Obispo Tuff south of the plant site.

The bedrock of the plant area is traversed throughout by fractures, including various planar, broadly curving, and irregular breaks. A dominant set of steeply dipping to

vertical joints trends northerly, nearly normal to the strike of bedding. Other joints are diversely oriented with strikes in various direct ions and dips ranging from 10° to vertical.

Many fractures curve abruptly, terminate agains t other breaks, or di e out within single beds or groups of beds.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-51 Revision 21 September 2013 Most of the joints are widely spaced, rangi ng from about 1 to 10 feet apart, but within several northerly trending zones, ranging in width from 10 to 20 feet, closely spaced near vertical fractures give the rocks a blocky or platy appearance. The fracture and joint surfaces are predominantly clean and tight, although some irregular ones are thinly

coated with clay or gypsum. Others could be traced into thin zones of breccia with calcite cement.

Several small faults were mapped in the foundation excavations for Unit 1 and the outlet

structure. A detailed discussion of these breaks and their rela tionship to faults that were mapped earlier along the sea cliff and in the exploratory trenches is included in the following section.

2.5.2.2.5.8 Relationships of Faults and Shear Surfaces Several subparallel breaks are recognizable on the sea cliff immediately south of Diablo Canyon, where they transect moderately th ick-bedded sandstone of the kind exposed in the exploratory trenches to the east.

These breaks are nearly concordant with the bedrock stratification but, in general, they dip more steeply (refer to detailed structure section, Figure 2.5-14) and trend more northerly than the stratification. Their trend differs significantly from mu ch of their mapped trace, as the trace of each inclined surface is markedly affected by the local st eep topography. The indicated trend, which projects eastward toward ground north of the Unit 1 reactor site, has been summed from numerous individual measur ements of strike on the sea cliff exposures, and it also corresponds to the trace of t he main break as observed in nearly horizontal outcrop within the tidal zone west of the cliff.

The structure section shows all recognizabl e surfaces of faulting and shearing in the sea cliff that are continuous for distances of 10 feet or more.

Taken together, they represent a zone of dislocation along wh ich rocks on the north have moved upward with respect to those on the south as indicated by the attitude and roughness sense of slickensides. The total amount of move ment cannot be determined by any direct means, but it probably is not more than a fe w tens of feet and could well be less than 10 feet. This is suggested by the following observed features:

(1) All individual breaks are sharp and narrow, and the strata between them are essentially undeformed except for their gross inclination.

(2) Some breaks plainly die out as traced upward along the cliff surface, and others merge with adjoining breaks. At least one well-defined break butts downward against a cross-break, which in turn butts upward against a break that branches and dies out approximately 20 feet away (refer to structure section, Figure 2.5-14, for details).

(3) Nearly all the breaks curve moderately to abruptly in the general direction of movement along them.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-52 Revision 21 September 2013 (4) Most of the breaks are little mo re than knife-edge f eatures along which rock is in direct contact with rock, and others are marked by thin films of gouge. Maximum thickness of gouge anywhere observed is about 1/2 inch, and such exceptional occurr ences are confined to short curving segments of the main break at t he southerly margin of the zone.

(5) No fault breccia is present; inst ead, the zone represents transection of otherwise undeformed rocks by sharpl y-defined breaks. No bedrock unit is cut off and juxtaposed against a unit of different lithology along any of the breaks.

(6) Local prominence of the exposed br eaks, and especially the main one, is due to slickensides, surface coatings of gypsum, and iron-oxide stains

rather than to any features reflecting large-scale movements.

This zone of faulting cannot be regarded as a major tectonic element, nor is it the kind of feature normally associated with the generation of earthquakes. It appears instead to reflect second-order rupturing re lated to a marked change in di p of strata to the south, and its general sense of movement is what one would expect if the breaks were

developed during folding of the Monterey section agains t what amounts to a broad buttress of Obispo Tuff farther so uth (refer to geologic map, Fi gure 2.5-8). That the fault and shear movements were ancient is positively indicated by upward truncation of the zone at the bench of marine er osion along the base of the overlying terrace deposits.

As indicated earlier, bedrock was continuously exposed along several exploratory trenches. This bedrock is traversed by numerous fractures, most of which represent no more than rupture and very small amounts of simple separation. The others additionally represent displacement of the bedrock, and the map in Figure 2.5-14 shows every exposed break in the initial set of trenches along which any amount of displacement could be recognized or inferred.

That the surfaces of movement constitute no more than minor elements of the bedrock structure was verified by detailed mapping of the large excavations for the plant structures. Detailed examinat ion of the excavation walls indicated that the faults exposed in the sea cliff south of Diablo Ca nyon continue through the rock under the Unit 1 turbine-generator building, where they ar e expressed as three subparallel breaks with easterly trend and moderately steep nor therly dips (Figure 2.5-15).

Stratigraphic separation along these breaks ranges from a few inches to nearly 5 feet, and, in general, decreases eastward on each of them. They evidently die out in the ground immediately west of t he containment excavation, and their eastward projections are represented by several joints along whic h no offsets have occurred. Such joints, with eastward trend and northward dip, also are abundant in some of the ground

adjacent to the faults on the south (Figure 2.5-15).

The easterly reach of the Diablo Canyon sea cliff faults apparently corresponds to the two most northerly of the north-dipping faults mapped in Trench A (Figure 2.5-14).

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-53 Revision 21 September 2013 Dying out of these breaks, as established from subsequent large excavations in the ground east of where Trench A was located, expl ains and verifies the absence of faults in the exposed rocks of Tr enches B and C. Other minor faults and shear surfaces mapped in the trench exposures could not be i dentified in the more extensive exposures of fresher rocks in the Unit 1 containment and turbine-generator bu ilding excavations.

The few other minor faults that were mapped in these large excavations evidently are not sufficiently continuous to have been present in the expl oratory trenches.

2.5.2.2.6 Site Engineering Properties

2.5.2.2.6.1 Field and Laboratory Investigations In order to determine anticipated ground accelerations at the site, it was necessary to conduct field surveys and laboratory testing to evaluate the engine ering properties of the materials underlying the site.

Bore holes were drilled into the rock upon which PG&E Design Cla ss 1 structures are founded. The borings were loca ted at or near the intersecti on of the then existing Unit 1 exploration trenches. (refer to Figures 2.

5-11, 2.5-12, and 2.5-13 for exploratory trenching programs and boring locations.) These holes were cored continuously and representative samples were taken from the cores and submitted for laboratory testing.

The field work also included a reconnaissance to evaluate physical condition of the rocks that were exposed in trenches, and samples were collected from the ground surface in the trenches for laboratory testing. These investigations included seismic

refraction measurements across the ground surface and uphole seismic measurements in the various drill holes to determine shear and compressional velocities of vertically

propagated waves.

Laboratory testing, performed by Woodward-Clyde-Sherar d & Associates, included unconfined compression tests, dynamic elas tic moduli tests under controlled stress conditions, density and water content determinations, and Poisson's ratio tests. Tests were also carried out by Geo-Recon, Incor porated, to determine seismic velocities on selected rock samples in the laboratory. T he results of seismic measurements in the field were used to construct a three-dimens ional model of the subsurface materials beneath the plant site showing variations of shear wave velocity and compressional wave velocity both laterally and vertically. The seismic velocity data and elastic moduli determined from laboratory testing were co rrelated to determine representative values of elastic moduli necessary for use in dynamic analyses of structures.

Details of field investigations and results of laboratory testing and correlation of data are contained in Appendices 2.5A and 2.5B of Reference 27 in Section 2.3.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-54 Revision 21 September 2013 2.5.2.2.6.2 Summary and Correlation of Data The foundation material at the site can be categorized as a stratified sequence of fine to very fine grained sandstone deeply weathered to an average elevation of 75 to 80 feet, mean sea level (MSL). The rock is closely fractured, with tightly closed or healed fractures generally present below elevation 75 feet. Compressional and shear wave velocity interfaces generally are at an av erage elevation of 75 feet, correlating with fracture conditions.

Time-distance plots and seismic velocity pr ofiles presenting results of each seismic refraction line and time depth plots with re sults for each uphole seismic survey are included in Appendices 2.5A and 2.5B of Reference 27 in Section 2.3. Compressional wave velocities range from 2350 to 5700 feet per second and shear wave velocities

from 1400 to 3600 feet per second as determined by the refraction survey. These same parameters range from 2450 to 9800 and 1060 to 6050 feet per second as determined by the uphole survey. For the Hosgri Evaluation an average shear wave velocity of 3600 feet per second is used at the f oundation grade. An isometric diagram summarizing results of the refraction survey for Unit 1 is also included in Appendix 2.5A of Reference 27 in Section 2.3.

Table 1 of Appendix 2.5A of Reference 27 of Section 2.3 shows calculations of

Poisson's ratio and Young's Modulus based on representative compressional and shear wave velocities from the field geophysical investigations and laboratory measurements of compressional wave velocities. Table 2 of Appendix 2.5A of the same reference presents laboratory test re sults including density, unconf ined compressive strength, Poisson's ratio and calculated values for compressional and shea r wave velocities, shear modulus, and constrained modulus. Secant modulus values in Table 2 were determined from cyclic stress-co ntrolled laboratory tests.

Compressional wave velocity measurements were made in the l aboratory of four selected core samples and three hand spec imens from exposu res in the trench excavations. Measured val ues ranged from 5700 to 9500 feet per second. A complete tabulation of these result s can be found in Appendix 2.

5A of Reference 27 of Section 2.3.

2.5.2.2.6.3 Dynamic Elastic Moduli and Poisson's Ratio Laboratory test results are considered to be indicative of intact specimens of foundation

materials. Field test results are considered to be indicative of the gross assemblage of foundation materials, including fractures and other defects. Load stress conditions are obtained by evaluating cyclic load tests.

In-place load stress conditions and confinement of the material at depth are also influential in determining elastic behavior. Because of these considerations, origin ally recommended representative values for Young's Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson's ratio for the site were:

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-55 Revision 21 September 2013 Depth Below Bottom of Trench E 0 to approximately 15 feet 44 x 10 6 lb/ft 2 0.20 Below 15 feet 148 x 10 6 lb/ft 2 0.18 A single value was selected for Young's Modul us below 15 feet be cause the initial analyses of the seismic response of the st ructures utilized a single value that was considered representativ e of the foundation earth materials as a whole.

More detailed seismic analyses were performed subsequent to the initial analyses.

These analyses, discussed in Section 3.7.2, incorporated the finite element method and made it possible to model the rock beneath the plant site in a more refined manner by accounting for changes in properties with incr easing depth. To determine the refined properties of the founding materials for these analyses, the test data were reviewed and consideration was given to: (a) strain range of the materials at t he site, (b) overburden pressure and confinement, (c) load imposed by t he structure, (d) obser vation of fracture condition and geometry of the founding rock in the open excavation, (e) decreases in Poisson's ratio with depth, and (f) significant advances in state-of-the-art techniques of testing and analysis in rock mechanics that had been made and which resulted in

considerably more being known about the behavior of rock under seismic strains in 1970 than in 1968 or 1969.

For the purposes of developing the mathem atical models that represented the rock mass, the foundation was divided into horizontal layers based on: (a) the estimated depth of disturbance of t he foundation rock below the base of the excavation, (b) changes in rock type and physical condition as determined from bore hole logs, (c) velocity interfaces as determined by refraction geophysical surveys, and (d) estimated depth limit of fractures ac ross which movement cannot take place because of confinement and combined overburden and structural load. Based on these considerations, the founding material properties as shown in Figure 2.5-19 were selected as being representative of the ph ysical conditions in the founding rock.

2.5.2.2.6.4 Engineered Backfill Backfill operations were carefully contro lled to ensure stability and safety. All engineered backfill was placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose depth. Yard areas and roads were compacted to 95 percent relative compaction as determined by

the method specified in ASTM D1557. Rock larger than 8 inches in its largest

dimension that would not break down under the compactors was not permitted. Figures 2.5-17 and 2.5-18 show the plan and profile view of excavation and backfill for major plant structures.

2.5.2.2.6.5 Foundati on Bearing Pressures PG&E Design Class I structures were analyz ed to determine the foundation pressures resulting from the combination of dead load, live load, and the double design DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-56 Revision 21 September 2013 earthquake (DDE). The maxi mum pressure was found to be 158 ksf and occurs under the containment structure foundation slab. This analysis assumed that the lateral seismic shear force will be transferred to the rock at the base of the slab which is embedded 11 feet into rock. This com puted bearing pressure is considered conservative in that no passive lateral pre ssure was assumed to act on the sides of the slab. Based on the results of the laboratory tests of unconf ined compressive strength of representative samples of rock at the si te, which ranged from 800 to 1300 ksf, the calculated foundation pressure is well below the ultimate in situ rock bearing capacity.

Adverse hydrologic effects on the foundations of PG&E Design Class I structures (there are no PG&E Design Class I embankments) can be safely neglected at this site, since PG&E Design Class I structures are founded on a substantial layer of bedrock, and the groundwater level lies well below grade, at a level corresponding to that of Diablo Creek. Additionally, the com puted factors of safety (minimum of 5 under DDE) of foundation pressures versus unconfined compre ssive strength of rock are sufficiently high to ensure foundation integrity in the unlikely event groundwater levels temporarily rose to foundation grade.

Soil properties such as grain size, Atterberg limits, and wate r content need not be considered since PG&E Design Class I stru ctures and PG&E Design Class II structures housing PG&E Design Class I equipment are founded on rock.

2.5.3 VIBRATORY GROUND MOTION

2.5.3.1 Geologic Conditions of the Site and Vicinity DCPP is situated at the coastline on the southwest flank of the San Luis Range, in the southern Coast Ranges of California. T he San Luis Range branches from the main coastal mountain chain, the Santa Lucia Ra nge, in the area north of the Santa Maria Valley and southeast of the plant site, and thence follows an alignment that curves toward the west. Owing to this divergence in structural grain, the range juts out from the regional coastline as a broad peninsula and is separ ated from the Santa Lucia Range by an elongated lowland that ext ends southeasterly from Morro Bay and includes Los Osos and San Luis Obispo Va lleys. It is characterized by rugged west-northwesterly trending ridges and c anyons, and by a narrow fringe of coastal terraces along its southwesterly flank.

Diablo Canyon follows a generally west-southwes terly course from the central part of the range to the north-central par t of the terraced coastal strip. Detailed discussions of the lithology, stratigraphy, structure, and geologic history of the plant site and surrounding region are pres ented in Section 2.5.2.

2.5.3.2 Underlying Tectonic Structures Evidence pertaining to tectonic and seismic conditions in the region of the DCPP site, developed during the original des ign phase, is summarized later in the section, and is DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-57 Revision 21 September 2013 illustrated in Figures 2.5-2, 2.5-3, 2.5-4, and 2.

5-5. Table 2.5-1 includes a summary listing of the nature and effects of all significant historic earthquakes within 75 miles of the site that have been reported through the end of 1972. Table 2.5-2 shows locations of 19 selected earthquakes that have been investigated by S. W. Smith. Table 2.5-3 lists the principal faults in the region that were identified during the original design phase and indicates major elements of their histories of displacement, in geol ogical time units.

Prior to the start of construction of DCPP, Benioff and Smith (reference 5) assessed the maximum earthquakes to be expected at the site, and John A. Blume and Associates (references 6 and 7) derived the site vibrat ory motions that coul d result from these maximum earthquakes, which form the basis of the Design Earthquake. An extensive discussion of the geology of the southern Coast Ranges, the western Transverse Ranges, and the adjoining offshore region is presented in Appendix 2.5D of Reference

27 of Section 2.3. Tectonic features of the central c oastal region are discussed in Section 2.5.2.1.2, Regional Geologic and Tectonic Setting.

Additional information about the tectonic and seismic conditions was gathered during the Hosgri evaluation and LTSP evaluation phases, as discuss ed in Sections 2.5.3.9.3 and 2.5.3.9.4, respectively.

2.5.3.3 Behavior During Prior Earthquakes

Physical evidence that indicates the behavio r of subsurface materials, strata, and structure during prior earthquakes is present ed in Section 2.5.2.2.5. The section presents the findings of the exploratory trenching programs conducted at the site.

2.5.3.4 Engineering Properties of Materials Underlying the Site

A description of the static and dynamic engineering properties of the materials underlying the site is present ed in Section 2.5.2.2.6, Si te Engineering Properties.

2.5.3.5 Earthquake History The seismicity of the southern Coast Ranges region is k nown from scattered records extending back to the beginni ng of the 19th centur y, and from instrumental records dating from about 1900. Detailed records of earthquake locations and magnitudes became available following installation of the California Institute of Technology and University of California (Berkeley) seismograph arrays in 1932.

A plot of the epicenters for all large historical earthquakes and fo r all instrumentally recorded earthquakes of Magnitude 4 or larger that have occurred within 200 miles of DCPP site, through the end of 1972, is given in Fi gure 2.5-2. Plots of all historically and instrumentally recorded epicenters and all mapped faults within about 75 miles of the site, known through the end of 1972, are shown in Figures 2.5-3 and 2.5-4.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-58 Revision 21 September 2013 A tabulated list of seismic events through the end of 1972, representing the computer printout from the Berkeley Seismograph Station records, supplemented with records of individual shocks of greater t han Magnitude 4 that appear only in the Caltech records, is included as Table 2.5-1. Table 2.5-2 gi ves a summary of revised epicenters of a representative sample of earthquakes off t he coast of California near San Luis Obispo, as determined by S. W. Smith.

2.5.3.6 Correlation of Epicenters With Geologic Structures Studies of particular aspects of the seismi city of the southern Coast Ranges region have been made by Benioff and Smith, Richter , and Allen. From results of these studies, together with data pertaining to the broader aspects of the geology and seismicity of central and eastern Califo rnia, it can be concluded that, although the southern Coast Ranges region may be subjec ted to vibratory ground motion from earthquakes originating along faults as distant as 200 miles or more, the region itself is traversed by faults capable of producing large earthquakes, and that the strongest shaking possible for sites within the region probably would be caused by earthquakes

no more than a few tens of mile s away. Therefore, only the seismicity of the southern Coast Ranges, the adjacent offshore area, and the western Transverse Ranges is reviewed in detail.

Figure 2.5-3 shows three principal concentrations of earthquake epicenters, three

smaller or more diffuse areas of activity, and a scattering of other epicenters, for earthquakes recorded through 1972. The most active areas, in terms of numbers of shocks, are the reach of the S an Andreas fault north of about 35°7' latitude, the offshore area near Santa Barbara, and the offshor e Santa Lucia Bank area. Notable concentrations of epicenters also are located as occurring in Salinas Valley, at Point San Simeon, and near Point Conception. The scattered epicenters are most numerous in the general vicinities of t he most active areas, but they also occur at isolated points throughout the region.

The reliability of the position of instrumenta lly located epicenters of small shocks in the central California region has been relative ly poor in the past, owing to its position between the areas covered by the Berkeley and Caltech seismograph networks. A recent study by Smith, however, resulted in relocation of nineteen epicenters in the coastal and offshore region bet ween the latitudes of Point Arguello and Point Sur.

Studies by Gawthrop (reference 29) and reported in Wagner have led to results that seem to accord generally with those achieved by Smith.

The epicenters relocated by Smith and those recorded by Gawthrop are plotted in

Figure 2.5-3. This plot shows that most of the epicenters re corded in the offshore region seem to be spatially associated with faults in the Santa Lucia Bank region, the East Boundary zone, and the San Simeon fault. Other epicenters, including ones for the 1952 Bryson shock, and several smaller shocks or iginally located in the offshore area, were determined to be centered on or near the Su r-Nacimiento fault north of the latitude of San Simeon.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-59 Revision 21 September 2013 2.5.3.7 Identificati on of Active Faults Faults that have evidence of recent activi ty and have portions passing within 200 miles of the site, as known through the end of 1972, are identified in Section 2.5.2.1.2.

2.5.3.8 Description of Active Faults Active faults that have any part passing with in 200 miles of the site, as known through the end of 1972, are described in Section 2.5.2.1.2. Addi tional active faults were identified during the Hosgri and LTSP evaluation phases, as described in Sections 2.5.3.9.3 and 2.5.3.9.4, respectively.

2.5.3.9 Design and Li censing Basis Earthquakes The seismic design and evaluation of DCPP is based on the earthquakes described in the following four subsections. Refer to Section 3.7 for the design criteria associated with the application of these earthquakes to the structures, systems, and components.

The DE, DDE, and HE are design bases ear thquakes and the LTSP is a licensing bases earthquake.

2.5.3.9.1 D esign Earthquake During the original design phase, Benioff and Sm ith, in reviewing the seismicity of the region around DCPP site, determined the maxi mum earthquakes that could reasonably be expected to affect the site. Their conclusions regarding the maximum size earthquakes that can be expected to occur during the life of the reactor are listed below:

(1) Earthquake A: A great earthquake ma y occur on the San Andreas fault at a distance from the site of more than 48 miles. It would be likely to produce surface rupture along the San A ndreas fault over a distance of 200 miles with a horizontal slip of about 20 feet and a vertical slip of 3 feet.

The duration of strong shaking from such an event would be about 40 seconds, and the equivalent magnitude would be 8.5.

(2) Earthquake B: A large earthquake on the Nacimiento (Rinconada) fault at a distance from the site of more than 20 miles would be likely to produce a 60 mile surface rupture along the Nacimiento fault, a slip of 6 feet in the

horizontal direction, and have a duration of 10 seconds. The equivalent magnitude would be 7.25.

(3) Earthquake C: Possible large earthquakes occurring on offshore fault systems that may need to be consider ed for the generation of seismic sea waves are listed below:

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-60 Revision 21 September 2013 Length of Distance Location Fault Break Slip, feet Magnitude to Site Santa Ynez Extension 80 miles 10 horizontal 7.5 50 miles Cape Mendocino, NW 100 miles 10 horizontal 7.5 420 miles Extension of San

Andreas fault

Gorda Escarpment 40 miles 5 vertical or 7 420 miles horizontal (4) Earthquake D: Should a great earthquake occur on the San Andreas fault, as described in "A" above, la rge aftershocks may occur out to distances of about 50 miles from t he San Andreas fault, but those aftershocks which are not located on existing faults would not be expected

to produce new surface faulting, and would be restricted to depths of about 6 miles or more and magnitudes of about 6.75 or less. The distance from the site to such aftershocks would thus be more than 6 miles.

The available information suggests that the f aults in this region can be associated with contrasting general levels of seismic potential. These are as follows:

(1) Level I: Potential for great earthquakes involving surface faulting over distances on the order of 100 miles:

seismic activity at this level should occur only on the reach of the San Andr eas fault that extends between the locales of Cajon Pass and Parkfield.

This was the source of the 1857 Fort Tejon earthquake, estimated to have been of Magnitude 8.

(2) Level II: Potential for large earthquak es involving faulting over distances on the order of tens of m iles: seismic activity at this level can occur along offshore faults in the Santa Lucia B ank region (the likely source of the Magnitude 7.3 earthquake of 1927), and possibly along the Big Pine and Santa Ynez faults in the Transverse Ranges.

Although the Rinconada-San Marcos-Jolon, Espinosa, Sur-Nacimiento, and San Simeon faults do not exhibit hist orical or even Holocene activity indicating this level of seismic potential, the fault dimensions, together with evidence of late Pleistocene movements along these faults, suggest that they may be regarded as capable of generating similarly large earthquakes.

(3) Level III: Potential for earthquakes resulting chiefly from movement at depth with no surface faulting, but at least with some possibility of surface faulting of as much as a few miles strike length and a few feet of slip:

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-61 Revision 21 September 2013 Seismic activity at this level proba bly could occur on almost any major fault in the southern Coast Ranges and adjacent regions.

From the observed geologic record of limited fault activity extending into Quaternary time, and from the historical record of apparently associated seismicity, it can be inferred that bo th the greater frequency of earthquake activity and larger shocks from earthquake source structures having this level of seismic potential probably will be associated with one of the relatively extensive faults. Faults in the vicinity of t he San Luis Range that may be considered to have such seismic potential include the West

Huasna, Edna, and offshore Santa Maria Basin East Boundary zone.

(4) Level IV: Potential for earthquakes and aftershocks resulting from crustal movements that cannot be associ ated with any near-surface fault structures: such earthquakes apparent ly can occur almost anywhere in the region.

This information forms the basis of t he Design Earthquake, described in section 2.5.3.10.1.

2.5.3.9.2 Double Design Earthquake During the original design phase, in order to assure adequate reserve seismic resisting capability of safety related structures, systems, and components, an earthquake producing two-times the acceleration values of the Design Earthquake was also considered (Reference 51).

2.5.3.9.3 Hosg ri Earthquake In 1976, subsequent to the issuance of the construction permit of Unit 1, PG&E was requested by the NRC to evaluate the plant's capability to withstand a postulated

Richter Magnitude 7.5 earthquake centered along an offshore z one of geologic faulting, approximately 3 miles offshore, generally referred to as the "Hosgri fault." Details of the investigations associated with this fault are provided in Appendices 2.5D, 2.5E, and 2.5F of Reference 27 in Section 2.3. An ov erview is provided in Section 2.5.3.10.3.

Note that the Shoreline Fault Zone (refer to Section 2.5.7.1) is considered to be a lesser included case under the Hosgri evaluation (Reference 55).

A further assessment of the seismic potential of faults mapped in the region of DCPP site was made following the ex tensive additional studies of on and offshore geology and is reported in Appendix 2.5D of Reference 27 of Section 2.3. This was done in terms of observed Holocene activity, to achieve assessment of what seismic activity is reasonably probable, in terms of observed late Pleistocene activity, fault dimensions, and style of deformation.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-62 Revision 21 September 2013 2.5.3.9.4 1991 Long Term Se ismic Program Earthquake PG&E performed a reevaluation of the seismic design bases of DCPP in response to License Condition No. 2.C.(7) of the Unit 1 Operating License. Details of this reevaluation, referred to as the Long Term Seismic Program, are provided in Section 2.5.7.

PG&E's evaluations included the development of significant additional data applicable to the geology, seismology, and tectonics of th e DCPP region, including characterization of the Hosgri, Los Osos, San Luis Bay, Ol son, San Simeon, and Wilmar Avenue faults.

These faults were evaluated as potential se ismic sources (Reference 40, Chapter 3). However, PG&E determined that the potential seismic sources of significance to the ground motions at the site are: the Hosgri and Los Osos fault zones, and the San Luis Bay fault, based on the probabilistic seismic haz ard analysis; and the Hosgri fault zone, based on the deterministic analysis. Details ar e provided in Reference 40, Chapters 2 and 3, and summarized in SSER 34, Section 2.5.

1, "Geology" and 2.5.2, "Seismology".

The NRC's review of PG&E's evaluations is documented in References 42 and 43.

2.5.3.10 Ground Accelerations and Response Spectra The seismic design and evaluation of DCPP is based on the earthquakes described in the following four subsections. Refer to Section 3.7 for the design criteria associated with the application of the DE, DDE, and HE to the structures, systems, and components and the seismic margin assessment of the LTSP.

2.5.3.10.1 D esign Earthquake During the original design phase, the maximu m ground acceleration that would occur at the DCPP site was estimated for each of the postulated earthquakes listed in Section 2.5.3.9, using the methods set forth in References 12 and 24. The plant site acceleration was primarily dependent on the following parameters: Gutenberg-Richter magnitude and released energy, distance from the earthquake focus to the plant site, shear and compressional velocities of the rock media, and density of the rock. Rock properties are discussed under Section 2.

5.2.2.6, Site E ngineering Properties.

The maximum rock accelerations that would occur at the DCPP site were estimated as:

Earthquake A . . . . 0.10 g Earthquake C . . . . 0.05 g Earthquake B . . . . 0.12 g Earthquake D . . . . 0.20 g

In addition to the maximum acceleration, the frequency distribution of earthquake motions is important for com parison of the effects on plant structures and equipment. In general, the parameters affecti ng the frequency distribution ar e distance, properties of the transmitting media, length of faulting, focus depth, and total energy release.

Earthquakes that might reach t he site after traveling over great distances would tend to DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-63 Revision 21 September 2013 have their high frequency waves filtered out.

Earthquakes that might be centered close to the site would tend to produce wave fo rms at the site hav ing minor low frequency characteristics.

In order to evaluate the fr equency distribution of earthqu akes, the concept of the response spectrum is used.

For nearby earthquakes, the resulting response spectra accelerations would peak sharply at short periods and would decay rapidly at longer periods. Earthquake D would

produce such response spectra. The March 1957 San Francisco earthquake as recorded in Golden Gate Park (S80°E com ponent) was the same type. It produced a maximum recorded ground acceleration of 0.

13 g (on rock) at a distance of about 8 miles from the epicenter. Since Ea rthquake D has an assigned hypocentral distance of 12 miles, it would be expected to produce response spectra similar in shape to those

of the 1957 event.

Large earthquakes centered at some distance fr om the plant site would tend to produce response spectra accelerations that peak at longer periods than those for nearby smaller shocks. Such spectra maintain a higher spectral acceleration throughout the period range beyond the peak peri od. Earthquakes A and C ar e events that would tend to produce this type of spectra. The intensity of shaking as indicated by the maximum predicted ground acceleration shows that Earthquake C would always have lower spectral accelerations than Earthquake A.

Since the two shocks would have approximatel y the same shape spectra, Earthquake C would always have lower spectral accelerati ons than Earthquake A, and it is therefore eliminated from further cons ideration. The north-sout h component of the 1940 El Centro earthquake produced response spectra that emphasized the long period characteristics described above. Earthquake A, because of its distance from the plant site, would be expected to produce response spectra similar in shape to those produced

by the El Centro event. Smoothed response spectra for Earthquake A were constructed by normalizing the El Centro spectra to 0.10

g. These spectra, however, show smaller accelerations than the corresponding spectra for Earthquake B (discussed in the next paragraph) for all building periods, and thus Earthquake A is also eliminated from further consideration.

Earthquake B would tend to produce response spectra that emphasize the intermediate

period range inasmuch as the epicenter is not close enough to the plant site to produce large high frequency (short-period) effects, and it is too close to the site and too small in magnitude to produce large low frequency (long-period) effects. The N69°W component to the 1952 Taft earthquake prod uced response spectra having such characteristics. That shock was therefore used as a guide in establishing the shape of the response spectra that woul d be expected for Earthquake B.

Following several meetings wit h the AEC staff and their consultants, the following two modifications were made in order to make the crit eria more conservative:

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-64 Revision 21 September 2013 (1) The Earthquake D time-history was modified in order to obtain better continuity of frequency distribution between Earthquakes D and B.

(2) The accelerations of Earthquake B were increased by 25 percent in order to provide the required margin of safety to compensate for possible uncertainties in the basic earthquake data.

Accordingly, Earthquake D-modified was derived by modifying the S80°E component of the 1957 Golden Gate Park, San Francisco earthquake, and then normalizing to a maximum ground acceleration of 0.20 g.

Smoothed response spectra for this earthquake are shown in Figure 2.5-21.

Likewise, Earthquake B was derived by normalizing the N69°W component of the 1952 Taft earthquake to a maximum ground acceleration of 0.15 g. Smoothed respons e spectra for Earthquake B are shown in Figure 2.5-20. The maximum vibratory moti on at the plant site would be produced by either Earthquake D-modified or Earthquake B, depending on the natural period of the vibrating body.

2.5.3.10.2 Double Design Earthquake The maximum ground acceleration and response spectra for the Double Design Earthquake are twice those associated with the design earthquake, as described in Section 2.5.3.10.1 (Reference 51).

2.5.3.10.3 Hosg ri Earthquake

As mentioned earlier, based on a review of the studies presented in Appendices 2.5D and 2.5E (of Reference 27 in Section 2.3) by the NRC and the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) (acting as the NRC's geological consultant), the NRC issued SSER 4 in May 1976. This supplement included the USGS conclusion that a magnitude 7.5 earthquake could occur on the Hosgri fault at a point nearest to the Diablo Canyon site. The USGS further concluded that such an earthquake should be described in terms of

near fault horizontal ground motion using techniques and conditions presented in Geological Survey Circular 672. The USGS al so recommended that an effective, rather than instrumental, acceleration be derived for seismic analysis.

The NRC adopted the USGS recommendation of the seismic potential of the Hosgri fault. In addition, based on the recomm endation of Dr. N. M.

Newmark, the NRC prescribed that an effective horizontal ground acceleration of 0.75g be used for the development of response spectra to be employed in a seismic evaluation of the plant.

The NRC outlined procedures considered appropriate for the evaluation including an adjustment of the response spectra to account fo r the filtering effect of the large building foundations. An appropriate allowance for tors ion and tilting was to be included in the analysis. A guideline for the consideration of inelastic behavior, with an associated ductility ratio, was also established.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-65 Revision 21 September 2013 The NRC issued SSER 5 in September 1976. This supplement included independently-derived response spectra and the rationale for their development. Parameters to be used in the foundation filtering calculation were delineated for each major structure.

The supplement prescribed that either t he spectra developed by Blume or Newmark would be acceptable for use in the evaluation with the following conditions:

(1) In the case of the Newmark s pectra no reduction for nonlinear effects would be taken except in certain s pecific areas on an individual case basis. (2) In the case of the Blume spectr a a reduction for nonlinear behavior using a ductility ratio of up to 1.3 may be employed.

(3) The Blume spectra would be adjusted so as not to fall below the Newmark spectra at any frequency.

The development of the Blum e ground response spectra, including the effect of foundation filtering, is briefly discussed below. The rationale and derivation of the Newmark ground response spectra is discussed in Appendix C to Supplement No. 5 of the SER.

The time-histories of strong motion for se lected earthquakes recorded on rock close to the epicenters were normalized to a 0.75g peak acceleration. Such records provide the best available models for the Diablo Canyon condi tions relative to the Hosgri fault zone. The eight earthquake records used are listed in the table below.

Epicentral Peak Depth, Distance, Acceleration Earthquake M km Recorded at km Component g

Helena 1935 6 5 Helena 3 to 8 EW 0.16 Helena 1935 6 5 Hele na 3 to 8 NS 0.13 Daly City 1957 5.3 9 Golden Gate Park 8 N80W 0.13 Daly City 1957 5.3 9 Golden Gate Park 8 N10E 0.11 Parkfield 1966 5.6 7 Temblor 2 7 S25W 0.33 Parkfield 1966 5.6 7 Temblor 2 7 N65W 0.28 San Fernando 1971 6.6 13 Pacoima Dam 3 S14W 1.17 San Fernando 1971 6.6 13 Pacoima 3 N76W 1.08

The magnitudes are the greatest recorded t hus far (September 1985) close in on rock stations and range from 5.3 to 6.6. Adjustments were made subsequently in the period range of the response spectrum above 0.40 sec for the greater long period energy expected in a 7.5M shock as compared to the model magnitudes.

The procedure followed was to develop 7 percent damped response spectra for each of the eight records normalized to 0.75g and then to treat the results statistically according DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-66 Revision 21 September 2013 to period bands to obtain the mean, the median, and the standard deviations of spectral response. At this stage, no adjustments for the size of the foundation or for ductility were made. The 7 percent damped response spectra were used as the basis for

calculating spectra at other damping values.

Figures 2.5-29 and 2.5-30 show free-field horizontal ground response spectra as determined by Blume and Newmark, respective ly, at damping levels from two to seven percent.

Figures 2.5-31 and 2.5-32 show vertical ground response spectra as determined by Blume and Newmark, respectively, for two to seven percent damping. The ordinates of

vertical spectra are taken as two-thirds of the corresponding ordinat es of the horizontal spectra. These response spectra, finaliz ed in 1977, are described as the "1977 Hosgri response spectra." Note that the Shoreline Fault Zone (refe r to Section 2.5.7.1) is considered to be a lesser included case under the Hosgri evaluation (Reference 55).

2.5.3.10.4 1991 Long Term Se ismic Program Earthquake As discussed in Section 2.5.3.9.4, the Long Term Seismic Program, in response to License Condition No. 2.C.(7) determined that the governing earthquake source for the deterministic seismic margins evaluation of DCPP (84th percent ile ground motion response spectrum) is the Hosgri fault.

Ground motions, and the corresponding free-field response spectra for a Richter M agnitude 7.2 earthquake ce ntered along the Hosgri fault, approximately 4.5 km from DCPP, were developed by PG&E, as documented in Reference 40. This event is referred to as the "LTSP Earthquake." As part of their review of Reference 40, the NRC concluded that spectra developed by PG&E could underestimate the ground motion (R eference 42). As a result, the final spectra, applicable to the LTSP evaluation of DCPP, is an envelope of that developed by PG&E and that developed by the NRC.

Figures 2.5-33 and 2.5-34 show the 84th percentile ground motion response spectrum at 5% damping for the horizontal and vertical directions, respectively, descri bed as the "1991 LTSP response spectra".

These spectra define the current licensing basis for the LTSP.

Figure 2.5-35 shows a comparison of the horizontal 1991 LTSP response spectrum with the 1977 Newmark Hosgri spectrum (based on Reference 40, Figure 7-2). This comparison indicates that the 1977 Hosgri spectrum is great er than the 1991 LTSP spectrum at all frequencies less than about 15 Hz, but the 1991 LTSP spectrum exceeds the 1977 Hosgri spectrum by approx imately 10 percent for frequencies above 15 Hz. This exceedance was accepted by the NRC in SSER 34 (Reference 42), Section 3.8.1.1 (Ground-Motion Input for Deterministic Evaluations):

"On the basis of PG&E's margins evaluatio n discussed in Section 3.8.1.7 of this SSER, the staff c oncludes that these high-frequency spectral exceedances are not significant."

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-67 Revision 21 September 2013 In addition, the NRC states in SSER 34 (Refer ence 42), Section 1.4 (Summary of Staff Conclusions):

"The staff notes that the seismic qualification basis for Diablo Canyon will continue to be the original design basis pl us the Hosgri evaluation basis, along with the associated analytical methods, initial conditions, etc. The LTSP has served as a useful check of the adequacy of the seismic margins and has generally confirmed that the margins are acceptable." Therefore, the 1991 LT SP ground motion response spectra does not replace or modify, the DE, DDE, or 1977 Hosgri re sponse spectra described above.

2.5.4 SURFACE FAULTING

2.5.4.1 Geologic Conditions of the Site The geologic history and lithologi c, stratigraphic, and structural conditions of the site and the surrounding area are described in Sect ion 2.5.2 and are illustrated in the various figures included in Section 2.5.

2.5.4.2 Evidence for Fault Offset Substantive geologic evidence, described under Section 2.5.2.2, Site Geology, indicates that the ground at and near the site has not been displaced by faulting for at least 80,000 to 120,000 years. It can be inferred, on the basis of regional geologic history, that minor faults in the site bedrock date fr om the mid-Pliocene or, at the latest, from mid-Pleistocene episodes of tectonic activity.

2.5.4.3 Identificati on of Active Faults Three zones that include faults greater t han 1000 feet in length were mapped within about 5 miles of the site. Two of these, the Edna and San Miguelito fault zones, were mapped on land in the San Luis Range. T he third, consisting of several breaks associated with the offshore Santa Maria Basin East Boundary zone of folding and faulting, is described in Sections 2.5.2.

1.2.3 and 2.5.2.1.5.5 under Regional Geologic and Tectonic Setting. The mapped trace of each of these structures is shown in Figures 2.5-3 and 2.5-4. Additional active f aults that were identified through the studies associated with the Hosgri Evaluation and LTSP are discussed in Sections 2.5.3.9.3 and 2.5.3.9.4, respectively.

2.5.4.4 Earthquakes Associat ed With Active Faults The earthquakes discussions are limited to those identified during the original design phase and do not include any earthquakes recorded since 1971.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-68 Revision 21 September 2013 The Edna fault or fault zone has been active at some time since the deposition of the Plio-Pleistocene Paso Robles Formation, wh ich it displaces.

It has no morphologic expression suggestive of late Pleistocene activity, nor is it known to displace late Pleistocene or younger deposits. Four epic enters of small (3.9 to 3M) shocks and 42 other epicenters for shocks of "small" or "unknown" intens ity have been reported as occurring in the approximate vicinity of the Edna fault (Figures 2.

5-3 and 2.5-4). Owing to the small size of the eart hquakes that they represent, howe ver, all of these epicenters are only approximately located. Further, they fall in the energy range of shocks that can be generated by fairly large construction blasts. At present, no conclusive evidence is available to determine whether the Edna fault could be classified as seismically active, or as geologically active in the sense of having undergone multip le movements within the last 500,000 years.

The San Miguelito fault has been mapped as not displacing the Plio-Pleistocene Paso Robles Formation. No instrumental epi center has been reliably recorded from its vicinity, but the Berkeley Seismological Labora tory indicates Avila Bay as the presumed epicentral location for a moderately damaging (Intensity VII at Avila) earthquake that occurred on December 1, 1916. It seems likely, however, that this shock occurred along the offshore East Boundary zone rather than on the San Miguelito fault zone.

The East Boundary zone has an overall length of about 70 miles. Individual breaks

within the zone are as much as 30 mile s long, though the varying amount of displacement that occurs along specific brea ks indicates that move ment along them is not uniform, and it suggests that break age may have occurred on separate, limited segments of the faults. The reach of the zone that is opposite DCPP site contains four fault breaks. These breaks range from 1 to 15 miles in length, and they have minimum distances of 2.1 to 4.5 miles from the site. The East Boundar y zone is considered to be seismically active, since at least five instru mentally well located epicenters and as many as ten less reliably located other epicenter s are centered along or near the zone. One of the breaks (located 3-1/2 miles offs hore from the site) exhibits topographic expression that may represent a tectonic offset of the sea floor surface at a point along its trace 6 miles north of t he site. Other faults in the East Boundary zone have associated erosion features, a few of which could possibly be partly of faultline origin.

The earthquake of December 1, 1916, though listed as having an epicentral location at Avila Bay, is considered more probably to have originated along either the East Boundary zone or, possibly, the Santa Lucia Bank fault. Effects of this shock at Avila included landsliding in Dairy Canyon, 2 miles north of town, and "...disturbance of waters in the Bay of San Luis Obispo." "...plaster in several cottages...was jarred loose...while some of the smokestacks on the (Union Oil Company) refinery were toppled over." It is apparently on this basis that the Berkeley listing of earthquakes assigns this shock a "large" intensity and pl aces its approximate epicentral location at Port San Luis.

A small (Magnitude 2.9) shock that apparently originated near the East Boundary zone a short distance south of DCPP site was lightly felt at the site on September 24, 1974.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-69 Revision 21 September 2013 This shock, like most of those recor ded along the East B oundary zone, was not damaging.

The minor fault zone that was mapped in the s ea cliff at the mouth of Diablo Creek and in the excavation for the Unit 1 turbine building has an onshore le ngth of about 550 feet, and it probably continues for some distance o ffshore. It has been definitely determined to be not active.

2.5.4.5 Correlation of Epicenters With Active Faults Earthquake epicenters located within 50 miles of DCPP site, for earthquakes recorded through 1972, have been approximately located in the vicinity of each of the faults. The reported earthquakes are listed in Table 2.5-1 and as follows, and their indicated epicentral locations are shown in Figures 2.5-3 and 2.5-4:

Earthquake Epicenters Reported as Bei ng Located Approximately in the Vicinities of San Luis Obispo, Avila, and Arroyo Grande

Geographic Coordinates Magni- Inten- Notes and Greenwich Date N Latitude W Longitude tude sity Mean Time (GMT)

7.10.1889 35.17° 120.58° Arroyo Grande. Shocks for several days.

12.1.1916 35.17° 120.75° VII VII at Avila. Considerable glass broken and goods in stores thrown from shelves at San Luis Obispo. Water in bay

disturbed, plaster in

cottages jarred loose, smoke stacks of Union Oil

refinery toppled over at Avila. Severe at Port San

Luis. III at Santa Maria:

22:53:00 4.26.1950 35.20° 120.60° 3.5 V V at Santa Maria. Also felt at Orcutt: 7:23:29

1.26.1971 35.20° 120.70° 3 Near San Luis Obispo:

21:53:53

1830 to 7.21.1931 35.25° 120.67° 42 epicenters

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-70 Revision 21 September 2013 Earthquake Epicenters Reported as Bei ng Located Approximately in the Vicinity of the Offshore Santa Maria Basin East Boundary Zone Geographic Coordinates Magni- Inten- Notes and Greenwich Date N Latitude W Longitude tude sity Mean Time (GMT) 5.27.1935 (30-1) 35.62° 121.64° 3 III Felt at Templeton: 16:08:00 9.7.1939 (30-6) 35.46° 121.50° 3 Off San Luis Obispo County; felt at Cambria: 2:50:30 1.27.1945 34.75° 120.67° 3.9 17:50:31 12.31.1948 (30-10) 35.60° 121.23° 4.6 Felt along coast from Lompoc to Moss Landing. VI at San

Simeon. V at Cayucos, Creston, Moss

Landing, Piedras

Blancas Light Station:

14:35:46 11.17.1949 34.80° 120.70° 2.8 IV at Santa Maria.

Near Priest: 5:06:60 2.5.1955 (30-23) 35.86° 121.15° 3.3 West of San Simeon:

7:10:19 6.21.1957 (30-25A) 35.23° 120.95° 3.7 Off Coast. Felt in San Luis Obispo, Morro Bay: 20:46:42

8.18.1958 35.60° 121.30 3.4 Near San Simeon:

5:30:42 10.25.1967 35.73° 121.45° 2.6 Near San Simeon:

23:05:39.5

(Figures in parentheses refer to events relocat ed by S. W. Smith, re fer to Table 2.5-2).

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-71 Revision 21 September 2013 2.5.4.6 Description of Active Faults Data pertaining to faults with lengths gr eater than 1000 feet and r eaches within 50 miles of the site, as identified during the original design phase, are included in Section 2.5.2.1.5, Structure of the San Luis Range and Vicinity, and in Figures 2.5-3 and 2.5-4.

These data indicate the fault lengths, relations hip of the faults to regional tectonic structures, known history of displacements, outer limits, and whether the faults can be considered as active.

2.5.4.7 Results of Faulting Investigation The site for Units 1 and 2 of DCPP was in vestigated in detail for faulting and other possibly detrimental geologic conditions.

From studies made prior to design of the plant, it was determined that there was need to take into account the possibility of surface faulting in such design. The data on which this determination was based are

presented in Section 2.5.2.2, Site Geology.

2.5.5 Stability of Subsurface Materials The possibility of past or potential surface or subsurface ground subsidence, uplift, or collapse in the vicinity of DCPP was considered during the course of the geologic investigations for Units 1 and 2.

2.5.5.1 Geologic Features The site is underlain by folded bedrock stra ta consisting predominantly of sandy mudstone and fine-grained sandstone. T he existence of an unbroken and otherwise undeformed section of upper Pleistocene terrace deposits overlying a wave-cut bedrock bench at the site provides positive evidence that all folding and faulting in the bedrock antedated formation of the terrace. Local depr essions and other irregularities on the bedrock surface plainly reflect er osion in an ancient surf zone.

The rocks that constitute the bedrock section are not subject to significant solution effects (i.e., development of cavities or channels that could affect the engineering or fluid conducting character of the rock) because the bedrock section does not contain thick or continuous bodies of soluble rock types such as limestone or gypsum. Voids encountered during excavation at the site were limited to thin zones of vuggy breccia and isolated vugs in some beds of calcar eous mudstone. Areas where such minor vuggy conditions were present were noted at a few locations in the excavation for the Unit 2 containment and fuel handling structures (at plant grid coordinates N59, N597, E10, E005 and N59, N700, E10, E120).

The maximum size of any individual opening was 3 inches or less, and most were less than 1 inch in maximum dimension. Because of the limited extent and isolated nature of these small voids, they were not considered significant in foundat ion engineering or slope stability analyses.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-72 Revision 21 September 2013 It has been determined by field examination that no sea caves exist in the immediate vicinity of the site. The only cave like natur al features in the ar ea are shallow pits and hollows in some of the sea cliff outcrops of resistant tuff. These features generally have dimensions of a few inches to about 10 feet. They are s uperficial, and have originated through differential weathering of variably cemented rock.

Several exploratory wells have been drilled fo r petroleum within the San Luis Range, but no production was achieved and the wells were abandoned. The area is not now

active in terms of either production or exploration. The location of the abandoned wells is shown in Figure 2.5-6, and the geologic re lationships in the Range are illustrated in Section A-A' of Figure 2.5-6 and in Figur e 2.5-7, Section D-D'. The nearest oil-producing area is the Arroyo Grande fi eld, about 15 miles to the southeast.

The potential for future problems of ground in stability at the site, because of nearby petroleum production, can be assessed in te rms of the geologic potential for the occurrence of oil within, or offshore from, the San Luis R ange. In addition, assessment can be made in terms of the geologic relationships in the site as contrasted with

geologic conditions in places where oil field exploitation has result ed in deformation of the ground surface.

As shown in Figures 2.5-6 and 2.5-7, the Sa n Luis Range has the structural form of a broad synclinal fold, which in turn is made up of several tightly compressed anticlines and synclines of lesser order. The configuration is not conducive to entrapment of hydrocarbon fluids, as such fluids t end to migrate upward through bedding and fracture-controlled zones of higher primar y and secondary permeability until they reach a local trap or escape into the near surface or surface environment.

Within the San Luis Range, the only recogniz able structural traps are in local zones

where plunge reversals exist along the cres ts of the second-order anticlines. Such structures evidently were the actual or hope d-for targets for most of the exploratory wells that have been drilled in the San Luis Range, but none of these wells has produced enough oil or gas to record; thus , the traps have not been effective, or perhaps the strata are essentially lacking in hydrocarbon fluids. Other conditions that indicate poor petroleum prospects for the Range include the general absence of good reservoir rocks within the section and t he relatively shallow basement of non petroliferous Franciscan rocks.

In the offshore, adjacent to the southerly flank of the San Luis Range, subsurface conditions are not well known, but are probably generally similar. Scattered data suggest that a structural high, perhaps defin ed by a west-northwest plunging anticline, may exist a few miles offshore from DCPP site. Such a feature could conceivably serve as a structural trap, if lo cal closure were present along its axis; however, it seems unlikely that it would contain significant amounts of petroleum.

Available data pertaining to exploratory oil wells drilled in t he region of the site are given here:

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-73 Revision 21 September 2013 Exploratory Oil Wells in the Vicinity of DCPP Site Data from exploratory wells drilled outside of oil and gas fields in California to December 31, 1963: Division of Oil and Gas, San Francisco.

Mount Diablo Total Stratigraphy B. & M. Elev, Date Depth, (depth in ft) Age T R Sec Operator Well No. ft Started ft at Bottom of Hole

31S 10E 3 Tidewater "Montadoro" 365 April 6,146 Monterey 0-3800; Oil Co. 1 1954 Obispo Tuff 3800: Franciscan; U. Jurassic

30S 10E 24 Gretna "Maino- 275 March 1,575 Franciscan; Corp. Gonzales" 1 1937 Jurassic

24 Wm. H. "Spooner" 1 325 July 1,749 Jurassic Provost 1952

24 Shell Oil "Buchon" - - - - Co.

34 A. O. Lewis "Pecho" 1 177 May 2,745 Monterey 0-2612; 1937 U. Miocene

30S 11E 9 Van Stone "Souza" 1 42 Oct 1,233 Franciscan; and 1951 Jurassic Dallaston

31S 11E 15 Tidewater "Honolulu- 1,614 Jan 10,788 Monterey 0-4363; Oil Co. Tidewater- 1958 Pt. Sal 4363; U.S.L.- Obispo Tuff 4722; Heller Rincon Shale 5370; "Lease" 1 2nd Tuff 5546; 2nd Rincon Shale 6354; 3rd Tuff

10,174; L. Miocene For the purpose of assessing the potential for t he occurrence of adverse oil field related ground deformation effects at DCPP site, in the unlikely event that petroleum should be discovered and produced at a nearby location, it is useful to review the nature and causes of such ground deformation, and the types of geologic conditions at places where it has been observed.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-74 Revision 21 September 2013 The general subject of surface deformation a ssociated with oil and gas field operations has been reviewed by Yerkes and Castle (Reference 22), among others. Such deformation includes differential subsidence, development of horizontally compressive strain effects within the central parts of subsidence bowls and horizontally extensive

strain effects around their margins, and development or activation of cracks and faults.

Pull-apart cracks and normal faults may develop in the marginal zone of extensive strain, while reverse and thrust faults sometimes occur in t he central, compressive part of subsidence bowls. These effects all can develop when extraction of petroleum, water, and sand, plus lowering of fluid pressures, result in compression within and adjacent to producing zones, and attendant subsidence of the overlying ground. Other effects, including rebound of the ground surface, fault activation, and earthquake generation, have resulted from injection of fluid into the ground for purposes of secondary recovery, subsidence contro l, and disposal of fluid waste.

In virtually all instances of ground-surf ace deformation associated with petroleum production, the producing field has been center ed on an anticlinal structure, in general relatively broad and internally faulted. The st rata in the producing and overlying parts of the section typically are poorly consolidat ed sandstone, siltstone, claystone, and shale of low structural competence.

The field generally is one wit h relatively large production, with significant decline of fluid pressure in the producing zones.

The conditions just cited can be contrasted with those obtained in the vicinity of DCPP

site, where the rocks lie along the flank of a major syncline. They consist of tight sandstone, tuffaceous sandstone, mudstone, and shale, together wit h large resistant masses of tuff and diabase. Bedding dips range from near horizontal to vertical and steeply overturned, as shown in Section D-D' of Figure 2.5-7 and Section A-B of Figure 2.5-10. This structural setting is unlike any reported from areas where oil-field-associated surface deformation has occurred.

The foregoing discussion leads to the following conclusions: (a) future development of a producing oil field in the vicinity of DCPP site is highly unlikely because of unfavorable geologic conditions, and (b) geologic conditions in the site vicinity are not conducive to

the occurrence of surface deformation, ev en if nearby petroleum production could be

achieved.

As was noted in Section 2.4, the rocks underlying the site do not constitute a significant groundwater reservoir, so that future dev elopment of deep rock water wells in the vicinity is not a reasonable possibility. The considerations pertaining to surface deformation resulting from water extracti on are about the same as for petroleum

extraction, so there is no likelihood that DCPP site could experience artificially induced

and potentially damaging subsidence, uplift, collapse, or changes in subsurface effective stress related to pore pressure phenomena.

There are no mineral deposits of economic significance in the ground underlying the site.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-75 Revision 21 September 2013 Although some regional warping and uplift may well be taking place in the southern Coast Ranges, such deformation cannot be sufficiently rapid and local to impose significant effects on coastal installations.

Apparent elevation of the San Luis Range has increased about 100 feet relative to sea le vel since the cutting of the main terrace bench at least 80,000 years ago.

Expressions of deformation preserved in the bedrock at the site include minor faults, folds, and zones of blocky fracturing in sands tone and intra-bed shearin g in claystone.

Zones of cemented breccia also are presen t, as is widespread evidence of disturbance adjacent to intrusive bodies of tuff. Local weakening of the rocks in some of these zones led to some problems during construction, but these were handled by conventional techniques such as overexcavation and rock bolting. No observed

features of deformation are large or continuous enough to impose significant effects on the overall performance of the site foundation.

The foundation excavations for Units 1 and 2 were extended below the zone of intense near surface weathering so that the expose d bedrock was found to be relatively fresh and firm. The principal zones of structural weakness are associated with small bodies of altered tuff and with internally sheared beds of claystone. The claystone intra-bed shear was expressed by the development of numerous slickensided shear surfaces

within parts of the beds, espec ially in places where the claystone had locally been squeezed into pod like masses. The shearing and local squeezing clearly are expressions of the preferential occurrence of differential adjustments in the relatively weaker claystone beds during folding of the section.

The claystone beds are localized in a par t of the rock secti on that underlies the discharge structure and extends across the southerly part of the Unit 2 turbine-generator building, thence continuing easterly, along a strike through the ground south of the Unit 2 c ontainment. The bedding dips 48 to 75° north within this zone. Individual claystone beds range from 1/2 inch to about 6 inches in thickness, and they occur as interbeds in t he sandstone-mudstone rock section.

The relationship of the claystone layers to the foundation excavation is such that they crop out in several narrow bands across the fl oor and walls (refer to Figures 2.5-15 and 2.5-16). Thus, the claystone bed remains confi ned within the rock section, except in a narrow strip at the face of the excavation. Because of the small amount of claystone mass and the geometric relationship of the st eeply dipping claystone interbeds to the foundation structures, it wa s determined that the finis hed structure would not be affected by any tendency of the claystone to undergo further changes in volume.

The only area in which claystone swelling was m onitored was along the north wall of the

lower part of the large slot cut for the coo ling water discharge structure. There are several thin (6 inches or less) claystone interbeds in the sandstone-mudstone section.

Because the orientation of the bedding and the plane of the cut face differ by only about 30°, and the bedding dips steeply into the face, opening of the cut served both to remove lateral support from the rock behind the face, and also to expose the clay beds DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-76 Revision 21 September 2013 to rainfall and runoff. This apparently resulted in both load relief and hydration swelling of the newly exposed claystone, which in tu rn caused some outward movement of the cut face. The movement then continued as gravity creep of the locally destabilized mass of rock between the claystone beds and the free face.

The movement was finally

controlled by installation of drilled-in lateral tie-backs, prior to placement of the reinforced concrete wall of the discharge structure.

No evidence of unrelieved residual st resses in the bedrock was noted during the excavation or subsequent constr uction of the plant foundation. Isolated occurrences of temporary slope instability clearly were rela ted to locally weathered and fractured rock, hydration swelling of claystone interbeds, and local saturation by surface runoff. The Units 1 and 2 power plant facilities are founded on physically and chemically stable

bedrock.

2.5.5.2 Properties of Underlying Materials Static and dynamic engineering properties of mate rials in the subsurface at the site are presented in Section 2.5.2.2.6, Site Engineering Properties.

2.5.5.3 Plot Plan

Plan views of the site indicating exploratory bori ng and trenching locations are presented in Figures 2.5-8 and 2.5-11 thr ough 2.5-15. Profile s illustrating the subsurface conditions relative to the PG&E Design Class I structures are furnished in Figures 2.5-12 through 2.5-16. Discussions of engineering pr operties of materials and groundwater conditions are included in Section 2.5.2.2.6, Site Engineering Properties.

2.5.5.4 Soil and Rock Characteristics Information on compressi onal and shear wave velocity su rveys performed at the site are included in Appendices 2.5A and 2.5B of Reference 27 of Section 2.3. Values of soil modulus of elasticity and Poisson's ratio calculated from seismic measurements are

presented in Table 1 of Appendix 2.5A of Reference 27 of Section 2.3, and in Figure 2.5-19. Boring and trench logs are pr esented in Figures 2.5-23 through 2.5-28.

2.5.5.5 Excavations and Backfill Plan and profile drawings of excavations and backfill at the site are presented in Figures 2.5-17 and 2.5-18. The engineered backfill placement operations are discussed in Section 2.5.2.2.6.4, Engineered Backfill.

2.5.5.6 Groundwater Conditions Groundwater conditions at the site are discussed in Section 2.4.13. The effect on

foundations of PG&E Design Class I structures is discussed in Section 2.5.2.2.6, Site Engineering Properties.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-77 Revision 21 September 2013 2.5.5.7 Response of Soil and Rock to Dynamic Loading Details of dynamic testing on site materials are contained in Appendices 2.5A and 2.5B of Reference 27 in Section 2.3.

2.5.5.8 Liquef action Potential As stated in Section 2.5.2.

2.6.5, adverse hydrologic e ffects on foundations of PG&E Design Class I structures can be neglect ed due to the structur es being founded on bedrock and the groundwat er level lying well below final grade.

There is a small local zone of medium dense sand located northeast of the intake structure and beneath a portion of buried ASW piping that is not attached to the

circulating water tunnels. This zone is su sceptible to liquefaction during design basis seismic events (References 45 and 46).

The associated liquefaction-induced settlements from seismic events are considered in the design of the buried ASW piping. (References 48 and 49)

2.5.5.9 Earthquake Design Basis The earthquake design bases for the DCPP site are discussed in Section 2.5.3.9, a discussion of the design response spectra is provided in Section 2.5.3.10, and the application of the earthquake ground motions to the seis mic analysis of structures, systems, and components is provided in Section 3.7. Response acceleration curves for the site resulting from Earthquake B and Earthquake D-modified are shown in Figures 2.5-20 and 2.5-21, respectively. Response spec trum curves for the Hosgri earthquake are shown in Figures 2.5-29 through 2.5-32.

2.5.5.10 Static Analysis A discussion of the analyses performed on ma terials at the site is presented in Section 2.5.2.2.6, Site Engineering Properties.

2.5.5.11 Criteria and Design Methods The criteria and methods used in evaluating s ubsurface material stability are presented in Section 2.5.2.2.6, Si te Engineering Properties.

2.5.5.12 Techniques to Im prove Subsurface Conditions Due to the bearing of in situ rock being well in excess of the foundation pressure, no treatment of the in situ rock is necessary. Compaction specifications for backfill are presented in Section 2.5.2.2.6.4, Engineered Backfill.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-78 Revision 21 September 2013 2.5.6 SLOPE STABILITY 2.5.6.1 Slope Characteristics The only slope whose failure during a DDE could adversely affect the nuclear power plant is the slope east of the building complex (refer to Figures 2.5-17, 2.5-18, and 2.5-22). To evaluate the stability of this slope, the soil and rock conditions were investigated by exploratory borings, test pits, and a thorough geological reconnaissance by the soil consultant, Harding-Lawson Asso ciates, and was in addition to the overall geologic investigation perform ed by other consultants.

The slope configuration and repr esentative locations of the subsurface conditions determined from the explorat ion are shown on Plates 2, 3, and 4 of Appendix 2.5C of Reference 27 of Section 2.3. Reference 44 provides further information compiled in 1997 in response to NRC questions on landslide potential.

Bedrock is exposed along the lower portions of the cut slope up to about the lower bench at elevation 115 feet. It consists of tuffaceous siltstone and fine-grained sandstone of the Monterey Formation. Terra ce gravel overlies bedrock and extends to an approximate elevation of 145 feet. Stiff clays and silty soils with gravel and rock fragments constitute the upper material on t he site. The upper few feet of fine-grained soils are dark brown and expansive.

No free groundwater was observed in any of the borings which were drilled in April 1971, nor was any evidence of groundwater observed in this slope during the previous

years of investigation and construction of the project.

In response to an NRC request in early 1997, PG&E conducted further investigations of slope stability at the site (Reference 44). Th e results of the investigations showed that earthquake loading, as a result of an eart hquake on the Hosgri fault zone, following periods of prolonged precipitat ion will not produce any significant slope failure that can impact Design Class I structur es and equipment. In additi on, potential slope failures under such conditions will not adv ersely impact other important facilities, including the raw water reservoirs, the 230 kV and 500 kV switchyards, and the intake and discharge structures. Potential landslides may temp orarily block the access road at several locations. However, there is considerable room adjacent to and nor th of the road to reroute emergency traffic.The investigation of the cut slope included geologic mapping of the soil and rock conditions exposed on the surface of slope and existing benches. Subsurface conditions were investigated by drilling test borings and by excavating test pits in the natural slope above the plant site (refer to Figure 2.5-22). The test borings were drilled with a truck mounted, 24 inch flig ht auger drill rig, and the test pits were excavated with a track-mounted backhoe. Boring and Log of Test Pits 1, 2, and 3 were logged by the soil consultant; borings 2 and 3 were logged by PG&E engineering personnel. The logs of all borings were veri fied by the soil consultant, who examined all samples obtained from each boring. Undist urbed samples were obtained from boring 2 and each of the test pits. Bec ause of the stiffne ss of the soil, hardne ss of the rock, and DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-79 Revision 21 September 2013 type of drilling equipment used, the undisturbed samples were obtained by pushing an 18-inch steel tube that m easured 2.5 inches in outsi de diameter. A Sprague & Henwood split-barrel sampler containing bra ss liners was used to obtain undisturbed soil samples from the test pi ts. The brass liners measur ed 2.5 inches in outside diameter and 6 inches in height. Logs of the borings and pits are shown in Figures 2.5-23 through 2.5-27. The soils were classi fied in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System pr esented in Figure 2.5-28.

2.5.6.2 Design Criteria and Analyses Undisturbed samples of the materials encou ntered in pits and borings were examined by the soil consultant in the laboratory and were subsequently tested to determine the shear strength, moisture content, and dry densit

y. Strain controlled, unconsolidated, undrained triaxial tests at field moisture were performed on the clay to evaluate the shear strength of the materials penetrated.

(The samples were maintained at field moisture since adverse moisture or seepage conditions were not encountered during this investigation nor previous investigat ions.) The confining stress was varied in

relation to depth at which the undisturbed samp le was taken. The test results are presented on the boring logs and are explained by the Key to Test Data, Figure 2.5-28.

The results of strength tests were correlated with the results developed during earlier investigations of DCPP site. Mohr circles of stresses at failure (6 to 7 percent strain) were drawn for each strength test result, and failure lines were developed through points representing one-half the dev iator stresses. An average C- strength equal to a cohesion (C) value of 1000 psf and an angle of internal friction () of 29° was selected for the slope stability analysis. The analysis was checked by maintaining the angle of internal friction () constant at 19° and varying the cohesion (C) from 950 psf (weakest layer) to 3400 psf (deepest and strongest layer).

Because of the presence of large gravel sizes, it was not possible to accurately determine the strength of the sand and gravel lense. However, based on tests on sand samples from other parts of the site, an angle of internal friction of 35° was selected as being the minimum available. An assumed rock strength of 5000 psf was used. This value is consistent with st rength tests performed on remold rock samples from other areas of the site.

The stability of the slope was analyzed for the forces of gravity using a static method that is, the conventional method of slices. This analysis was checked using Bishop's

modified method. The static method of analysis was chosen because, for the soil conditions at the site, it was judged to be more conservative than a dynamic analysis.

Because the overall strength of the rock would preclude a stability failure except along a plane of weakness which was not encountered in the borings or during the many

geologic mappings of the slope, only the stability of the soil over t he rock was analyzed.

The strength parameters were varied as previously discussed to determine the

minimum factor of safety under the most critical strength condition. For the static DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-80 Revision 21 September 2013 analysis excluding horizontal forces, the factor of safety was computed to be 3. When the additional unbalanced horizontal force of 0.4 times t he weight of the soil within the critical surface combined with a vertical force of 0.26 times the weight was included, the minimum computed factor of safety was 1.1.

On the basis of the investigation and analysis, it was concluded that the slope adjacent to DCPP site would not experience instabili ty of sufficient magnitude to damage adjacent safety-related structures.

The above conclusion is substantiated by additi onal field exploration, laboratory tests, and dynamic analyses using finite element te chniques. Refer to Appendix 2.5C of Reference 27 in Section 2.3, Harding-Lawson Associates' report on this work.

2.5.6.3 Slope Stability for Buried Auxiliary Saltwater System Piping A portion of the buried ASW piping fo r Unit 1 ascends an approximate 2:1 (horizontal/vertical) slope to the parking ar ea near the meteorology tower (Plates 1 and 2 of Reference 47). To ensure the stability of this slope in which the ASW piping is buried, a geotechnical evaluation, considering various design basis seismic events, was performed by Harding Lawson Associates. Th is evaluation is described in Reference

47. Based on this evaluation, it was c oncluded that this sl ope will be stable during seismic events and that additional loads resu lting from permanent deformation of the slope will not impact the buried ASW piping.

2.5.7 LONG TERM SEISMIC PROGRAM On November 2, 1984, the NRC issued the Diablo Canyon Unit 1 Facility Operating License DPR-80. In DPR-80, License Condit ion Item 2.C.(7), the NRC stated, in part:

"PG&E shall develop and implement a program to reev aluate the seismic design bases used for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant." PG&E's reevaluation effort in response to the license condition was titled the "Long Term Seismic Program" (LTSP). PG&E pre pared and submitted to the NRC the "Final Report of the Diablo Canyon Long Term Seismic Program" in July 1988 (Reference 40). Between 1988 and 1991, the NRC performed an extensive review of the Final Report, and PG&E prepared and submitted written responses to formal NRC questions. In February 1991, PG&E issued the "Addendum to the 1988 Fi nal Report of the Diablo Canyon Long Term Seismic Program" (Reference 41). In June 1991, the NRC issued Supplement Number 34 to the Diablo Canyon Safety Evaluation Report (SSER) (Reference 42) in which the NRC concluded that PG&E had satisfied License Condition 2.C.(7) of Facility Operating License DPR-80. In the SSER the NRC requested certain confirmatory analyse s from PG&E, and PG&E subsequently submitted the requested analyses. The NRC's final acceptance of the LTSP is documented in a letter to PG&E da ted April 17, 1992 (Reference 43).

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-81 Revision 21 September 2013 The LTSP contains extensive data bases and analyses that update the basic geologic and seismic information in this section of the FSAR Update. However, the LTSP material does not address or alter the current design licensing basis for the plant. In SSER 34 (Reference 42), the NRC st ated, "The Staff notes that the seismic qualification basis for Diablo Canyon will continue to be the original design basis plus the Hosgri Evaluation basis, along with a ssociated analytical methods, initial conditions, etc."

As a condition of the NRC's close out of License Condition 2.C.(7), PG&E committed to several ongoing activities in support of the LTSP, as discussed in a public meeting between PG&E and the NRC on March 15, 1991 (Reference 53), described as the "Framework for the Future," in a letter to the NRC, dated April 17, 1991 (Reference 50), and affirmed by the NRC in SSER 34 (Reference 43). These ongoing activities include the following that are related to geology and seismology (Reference 42, Section 2.5.2.4):

(1) To continue to maintain a strong geosciences and engineering staff to keep abreast of new geological, seismic, and seismic engineering information and evaluate it with res pect to its significance to Diablo Canyon. (2) To continue to operate the stro ng-motion accelerometer array and the coastal seismic network.

A complete listing of bibliographic referenc es to the LTSP reports and other documents may be found in References 40, 41 and 42.

2.5.7.1 Shoreline Fault Zone In November 2008, as a result of the ongoing activities described in Section 2.5.7, the USGS, working in collaboration with the PG

&E Geosciences Departm ent, identified an alignment of microseismicit y subparallel to the coastlin e adjacent to DCPP indicating the possible presence of a previously unide ntified fault located approximately 1 km offshore of DCPP. The offshore region a ssociated with this fault was subsequently named the Shoreline fault zone.

PG&E developed estimates of the 84 th percentile deterministic ground motion response spectrum for earthquakes associated with the S horeline fault zone. The results of the study of the Shoreline faul t zone are documented in Refer ence 52. A map showing the location of the Shoreline Fault Zone is provided in Figure 2.5-36. This report includes a comparison of the updated 84 th percentile deterministic re sponse spectra with the 1991 LTSP and 1977 Hosgri earthquake response spectra. This comparison indicates that the updated deterministic response spectra are enveloped by both the 1977 Hosgri earthquake spectrum and the 1991 LTSP earthquake spectrum.

The NRC developed an independent assessment of the seismic source characteristics of the Shoreline fault and performed an i ndependent deterministic seismic hazard DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-82 Revision 21 September 2013 assessment (References 54 and 55). The N RC concluded that their conservative estimates for the potential ground motions from the Shoreline fault are at or below the ground motions for which the DCPP has been evaluated previously and demonstrated to have a reasonable assurance of safety (i.e., the 1977 Hosgri earthquake and 1991 LTSP earthquake ground motion response sp ectra). The NRC stated that the "Shoreline scenario should be co nsidered as a lesser included case under the Hosgri evaluation." 2.5.7.2 Evaluation of Update d Estimates of Ground Motion As an outcome of the Shoreli ne fault zone evaluation descri bed in Section 2.5.7.1, the process to be used for the evaluation of new/updated geological/seismological information has been developed (Referenc es 55 and 56). The new/updated geological/seismological information, resulti ng from the activities described in Section 2.5.7, will be evaluated using a process that is consistent with t he evaluation process defined by the NRC in Reference 57.

2.5.8 Safety Evaluation 2.5.8.1 General Design Criterion 2, 1967 Performance Standards The determination of the appropriate earthquake parameters for design of plant SSCs is addressed throughout Section 2.5, and the maximum earthquakes for the plant site are presented in Sections 2.5.3.9.1, 2.5.3.9.2, and 2.5.3.9.3. The associated design basis site free field accelerations and response spectra are presente d in Sections 2.5.3.10.1, 2.5.3.10.2, and 2.5.3.10.3. The seismic design of these SSC is addressed in Section 3.7.

2.5.8.2 License Condition 2.C(7) of DCPP Facility Operating License DPR-80 Rev 44 (LTSP), Elements (1), (2) and (3)

PG&E's reevaluation effort in response to the license condition was titled the "Long Term Seismic Program" (LTSP). PG&E pre pared and submitted to the NRC the "Final Report of the Diablo Canyon Long Term Seismi c Program" in July 1988. Between 1988 and 1991, the NRC performed an extensive review of the Final Report, and PG&E prepared and submitted written responses to formal NRC questions. In February 1991, PG&E issued the "Addendum to the 1988 Final Re port of the Diablo Canyon Long Term Seismic Program". In June 1991, the NRC issued Supplement Number 34 to the Diablo Canyon Safety Evaluation Report (SSER) in which the NRC concluded that PG&E had satisfied License Condition 2.C(7) of Fac ility Operating License DPR-80. In the SSER the NRC requested certain confirmatory ana lyses from PG&E, and PG&E subsequently submitted the requested analyses. The NRC's final acceptance of the LTSP is documented in a letter to PG&E dated April 17, 1992 The commitments made as a part of the Diablo Canyon Long Term Seismic Program are detailed in Section 2.

5.3.9.4 and Sect ion 2.5.7.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-83 Revision 21 September 2013 2.5.8.3 10 CFR Part 100, March 1966 - Reactor Site Criteria As described in Sections 2.5.

2 through 2.5.6 above, the physical characteristics of the site, including seismology and geology have been considered.

2.

5.9 REFERENCES

1. R. H. Jahns, "Geology of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant Site, San Luis Obispo County, California," 1967-Supplementary Reports I and II, 1968-Supplementary Report III, Diablo Canyon PSAR, Do cket No. 50-275, (Main Report and Supplementary Report I). Diablo Cany on PSAR, Docket No. 50-323, (All reports, 1966 and 1967).

2. R. H. Jahns, "Guide to the Geology of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Site, San Luis Obispo County, California," Geol. Soc. Amer., Guidebook for 66th Annual Meeting, Cordi lleran Section, 1970.

3. Deleted in Revision 1

4. Deleted in Revision 1

5. H. Benioff and S. W. Sm ith, "Seismic Evaluation of the Diablo Canyon Site,"

Diablo Canyon Unit 1 PSAR, Docket No. 50-275. Also, Diablo Canyon Unit 2 PSAR Docket No. 50-323, 1967.

6. John A. Blume & Associates, Engineers, "Earthquake Design Criteria for the Nuclear Power Plant - Diablo Canyon Site," Diablo Canyon Unit 1 PSAR, Docket No. 50-275., January 12, 1967. Also, Diablo Canyon Unit 2 PSAR Docket No. 50-323.

7. John A. Blume & Associates, E ngineers, "Recommended Earthquake Design Criteria for the Nuclear Power Plant -

Unit No. 2, Diablo Canyon Site," Diablo Canyon Unit 2 PSAR, Docket No. 50-323, June 24, 1968.

8. Deleted in Revision 1

9. Deleted in Revision 1

10. B. M. Page, "Geology of the Coast Ranges of California," E. H. Bailey (editor), Geology of Northern Californi a, California Division, Mines and Geology, Bull. 190, 1966, pp 255-276.

11. B. M. Page, "Sur-Nacimiento Fault Z one of California: Continental Margin Tectonics," Geol. Soc. Amer., Bull., Vol. 81, 1970, pp 667-690.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-84 Revision 21 September 2013

12. J. G. Vedder and R. D. Brown, "Struc tural and Stratigraphic Relations Along the Nacimiento Fault in the Santa Lucia Range and San Rafael Mountains, California," W. R. Dickinson and Arthur Grantz (editors), Proceedings of Conference on Geologic Problems of the San Andreas Fault System, Stanford University Publs. in the Geol. Sciences, Vol. XI, 1968, pp 242-258.

13. C. F. Richter, "Possible Seismicity of the Nacimiento Faul t, California," Geol.

Soc. Amer., Bull., Vo

l. 80, 1969, pp 1363-1366.

14. E. W. Hart, "Possible Active Fault Movement Along the Nacimiento Fault Zone, Southern Coast Ranges, Calif ornia," (abs.), Geol. So

c. Amer., Abstracts with Programs for 1969, pt. 3, 1969, pp 22-23.

15. R. E. Wallace, "Notes on Stream Channels Offset by the San Andreas Fault, Southern Coast Ranges, California," W. R. Dickinson and Arthur Grantz (editors), Proceedings of Conference on Geologic Problems of the San Andreas Fault System, Stanford University Publs. in the Geol. Sciences, Vol. XI, 1968, pp 242-258.

16. C. R. Allen, "The Tectoni c Environments of Seismically Active and Inactive Areas Along the San Andreas Fault System," W. R. Dickinson and Arthur Grantz (editors), Proceedings of Conference on Geologic Problems of the San Andreas Fault System, Stanford University Publs.

in the Geol. Sciences, Volume XI, 1968, pp 70-82.

17. Deleted in Revision 1

18. Deleted in Revision 1

19. L. A. Headlee, Geology of the Coastal Portion of the San Luis Range, San Luis Obispo County, California, Unpublished MS thesis, University of Southern California, 1965.

20. C. A. Hall, "Geologi c Map of the Morro Bay South and Port San Luis Quadrangles, San Luis County, Califo rnia," U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studi es Map MF-511, 1973.

21. C. A. Hall and R. C. Surdam, "Geol ogy of the San Luis Obispo-Nipomo Area, San Luis Obispo County, California," Geol. Soc. Amer., Guidebook for 63rd Ann.

Meeting, Cordilleran Section, 1967.

22. R. F. Yerkes and R. O. Castle, "Surface Deformation Associated with Oil and Gas Field Operations in the United States in Land Subsidence," Proceedings of the Tokyo Symposium, Vol. 1, 1 ASH/A1HS Unesco, 1969, pp 55-65.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-85 Revision 21 September 2013

23. C. W. Jennings, et al., Geologic Map of California, South Half, scale 1:750,000, California Div. Mines and Geology, 1972.

24. John H. Wiggins, Jr., "Effect of Site Conditions on Earthquake Intensity," ASCE Proceedings, Vol. 90, ST2, Part 1, 1964.

25. B. M. Page, "Time of Completion of Underthrusting of Franciscan Beneath Great Valley Rocks West of Salini an Block, California," Geol.

Soc. Amer., Bull., Vol. 81, 1970, pp 2825-2834.

26. Eli A. Silver, "Basin Development Along Translational Co ntinental Margins," W. R. Dickinson (editor), Geologic Interpretations from Global Tectonics with Applications for California Geology and Petroleum Exploration, San Joaquin Geological Society, Short Course, 1974.

27. T. W. Dibblee, The Riconada Fault in the Southern Coast Ranges, California, and Its Significance, Unpublished abstract of talk given to the AAPG, Pacific Section, 1972.

28. D. L. Durham, "Geolog y of the Southern Salinas Valley Area, California," U.S. Geol. Survey Pro

f. Paper 819, 1974, p 111.

29. William Gawthrop, Preliminary Report on a Short-term Seismic Study of the San Luis Obispo Region, in May 1973 (Unpublished research paper), 1973.

30. S. W. Smith, Analysis of Offshore Seismicity in the Vicinity of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, repor t to Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 1974.

31. H. C. Wagner, "Marine Geology bet ween Cape San Martin and Pt. Sal, South-Central California Offshore; a Prelim inary Report, August 1974," USGS Open File Report 74-252, 1974.

32. R. E. Wallace, "Earthquake Recurrence Intervals on the San Adreas Fault", Geol. Soc. Amer., Bull., Vol. 81, 1970, pp 1875-2890.

33. J. C. Savage and R. O. Burford, "G eodetic Determination of Relative Plate Motion in Central California", Jour.

Geophys. Res., Vol.

78, No. 5, 1973, pp 832-845.

34. Deleted in Revision 1

35. Hill, et al., "San Andreas, Garlock, and Big Pine faults, California" - A Study of the character, history, and significance of their displace ments, Geol. Soc. Amer., Bull., Vol. 64, No. 4, 1953, pp 443-458.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-86 Revision 21 September 2013

36. C.A. Hall and C.E. Co rbato, "Stratigraphy and Structure of Mesozoic and Cenozoic Rocks, Nipomo Quadrangle, Southern Coast Ranges, California," Geol. Soc. Amer., Bull., Vol. 78, No. 5, 1969, pp 559-582. (Table 2.5-3, Sheet 1 of 2). 37. Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Inc., Spar ker Survey Line, Plates III and IV, 1973/1974. (Appendix 2.5D, to Diablo Canyon Power Plant Final Safety Analysis Report as amended through August 1980). (See also Reference 27 of Section 2.3.)

38. R. R. Compton, "Quatenary of the California Coast Ranges," E. H. Bailey (editor), Geology of Northern California, California Division Mines and Geology, Bull. 190, 1966, pp 277-287.

39. Regulatory Guide 1.70, Revision 1, Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Powe r Plants, USNRC, October 1972.

40. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Final Report of the Diablo Canyon Long Term Seismic Program, July 1988.

41. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Addendum to the 1988 Fi nal Report of the Diablo Canyon Long Term Seismic Program, February 1991.

42. NUREG-0675, Supplement No. 34, Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Operation of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, USNRC, June 1991.

43. NRC letter to PG&E, Transmittal of Safety Evaluation Closing Out Diablo Canyon Long-Term Seismic Program, (TAC Nos.

M80670 and M80671), April 17, 1992.

44. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Assessment of Slope Stability Near the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, April 1997.

45. Harding Lawson Associates, Liquefaction Evaluation - Proposed ASW Bypass -

Diablo Canyon Power Plant, August 23, 1996.

46. Harding Lawson Associates Letter, "Geotechnical Consultation - Liquefaction Evaluation - Proposed ASW Bypass -

Diablo Canyon Power Plant,"

October 1, 1996.

47. Harding Lawson Associates Report, Geotechnical Slope Stability Evaluation -

ASW System Bypass, Unit 1 - Diablo Canyon Power Plant, July 3, 1996.

48. License Amendment Request 97-11, S ubmitted to the NRC by PG&E Letters DCL-97-150, dated August 26, 1997; DCL-97-177, dated October 14, 1997;

DCL-97-191, dated November 13, 1997; and DCL-98-013, dated January 29, 1998.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 2.5-87 Revision 21 September 2013

49. NRC Letter to PG&E dated March 26, 1999, granting License Amendment No. 131 to Unit 1 and No. 129 to Unit 2.

50. PG&E letter to the NRC, "Benefits and Insights of the Long Term Seismic Program," DCL-91-09 1, April 17, 1991.

51. John A. Blume and Associates letter to PG&E, "Earthquake Design Criteria for the Nuclear Power Plant - Diablo Canyon Site," January 12, 1967.

52. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Report on the Analysis of the Shoreline Fault Zone - Central Coastal Ca lifornia, January 2011.

53. NRC Letter to PG&E, "Summary of Ma rch 15, 1991 Public Meeting to Discuss Diablo Canyon Long-Term Seismic Program (TAC Nos. 55305 and 68049)", March 22, 1991

54. NRC Office of Nuclear Regulatory Res earch, "Confirmatory Analysis of Seismic Hazard at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant form the Shoreline Fault Zone," Research Information Lette r No. 12-01, September 2012

55. NRC letter to PG&E, "Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 - NRC Review of Shoreline Fault (TAC Nos. ME5306 and ME5307)," October 12, 2012.

56. Pacific Gas and Electric Company lette r to the NRC, "Withdrawal of License Amendment Request 11-05, Evaluation Proc ess for New Seismic Information and Clarifying the Diablo Canyon Powe r Plant Safe Shutdown Earthquake,:

Letter No. DCL-12-103, October 25, 2012.

57. NRC letter to All Power Reactor Licensees and Holders of Construction Permits in Active or Deferred Status, "Request of Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendation s 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Accident," Marc 12, 2012.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.1-1 HISTORICAL INFORMATION BELOW IS SHOWN IN ITALICS POPULATION TRENDS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND SANTA BARBARA COUNTIES Year State of California San Luis Obispo County Santa Barbara County Notes 1940 6,907,387 33,246 70,555 (a) 1950 10,586,233 51,417 98,220 (a) 1960 15,717,204 81,044 168,962 (a) 1970 19,953,134 105,690 264,324 (a) 1980 23,668,562 155,345 298,660 (a) 1990 29,760,021 217,162 369,608 (a) 2000 33,871,648 246,681 399,347 (a) 2010 40,262,400 323,100 467,700 (b) 2025 48,626,052 426,812 603,966 (c)

Notes: (a) U.S. Bureau of the Census (b) State of California Department of Finance (June 2001) (c) State of California Department of Finance Data Files (March 16, 2000)

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.1-2 HISTORICAL INFORMATION BELOW IS SHOWN IN ITALICS GROWTH OF PRINCIPAL COMMUNITIES WITHIN 50 MILES OF DCPP SITE Community Population (1960 Census)

Population (1970 Census)

Population (1980 Census)

Population (1990 Census)

Population (2000 Census)

Arroyo Grande 3,291 7,454 10,350 14,378 15,851 Atascadero 5,983 10,290 15,930 23,138 26,411 Grover City 5,210 5,939 8,827 11,656 13,067 Guadalupe 2,614 3,145 3,629 5,479 5,659 Lompoc 14,415 25,284 26,267 37,649 41,103 Morro Bay 3,692 7,109 9,064 9,664 10,350 Paso Robles 6,617 7,168 9,163 18,583 24,297 Pismo Beach 1,762 4,043 5,364 7,669 8,551 San Luis Obispo 20,437 28,036 34,253 41,958 44,174 Santa Maria 20,027 32,749 39,685 61,284 77,423

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.1-3 HISTORICAL INFORMATION BELOW IS SHOWN IN ITALICS POPULATION CENTERS OF 1,000 OR MORE WITHIN 50 MILES OF DCPP SITE

Community

County Distance and Direction From the Site Population (1970 Census)

Population (1980 Census)

Population (1990 Census)

Population (2000 Census)

Baywood-Los Osos San Luis Obispo 8 miles N 3,487 10,933 15,290 14,351 Morro Bay San Luis Obispo 10 miles N 7,109 9,064 12,949 10,350 San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo 12 miles ENE 28,036 34,253 51,173 44,174 Pismo Beach San Luis Obispo 13 miles ESE 4,043 5,364 7,699 8,551 Grover City San Luis Obispo 14 miles ESE 5,939 8,827 11,656 13,067 Oceano San Luis Obispo 15 miles ESE 2,564 4,478 6,169 7,260 Arroyo Grande San Luis Obispo 17 miles ESE 7,454 10,350 14,378 15,851 Cayucos San Luis Obispo 17 miles N 1,772 2,301 2,960 2,943 Atascadero San Luis Obispo 21 miles NNE 10,290 15,930 23,138 26,411 Guadalupe Santa Barbara 23 miles SE 3,145 3,629 5,479 5,659 Nipomo San Luis Obispo 24 miles ESE 3,642 5,247 7,109 12,626 Cambria San Luis Obispo 28 miles NNW 1,716 3,061 5,382 6,232

Santa Maria Santa Barbara 29 miles SE 39,878 39,685 61,284 77,423 Paso Robles San Luis Obispo 30 miles NNE 7,168 9,163 18,583 24,297 Orcutt Santa Barbara 33 miles SE 8,500 1,469 ---- 28,830 Vandenberg Santa Barbara 35 miles SSE 13,193 13,975 ---- 11,953 Lompoc Santa Barbara 45 miles SSE 25,284 26,267 37,649 41,103

___________

___________

___________

Total 180,793 203,996 280,898 351,081

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.1-4 HISTORICAL INFORMATION BELOW IS SHOWN IN ITALICS TRANSIENT POPULATION AT RECREATION AREAS WITHIN 50 MILES OF DCPP SITE Names Visitor -Days State Parks (a)

Cayucos State Beach 698,000 Hearst San Simeon State Historical Monument 795,000 Montana de Oro State Park 683,000 Morro Bay State Park 1,129,000 Morro Strand State Beach 129,000 Pismo State Beach 1,297,000 San Simeon State Beach 696,000 W. R. Hearst Memorial State Beach 213,000 County and Local Parks (b)

Atascadero Lake 300,000 Avila Beach 800,000 Cambria 15,000 Cayucos Beach 918,000 Cuesta 67,000 Lake Nacimiento 345,000 Lopez Recreation Area 379,000 Los Alamos Park 45,000 Miquelito Park 36,000 Nipomo 168,000 Ocean Park 105,000 Oceano 95,000 Rancho Guadalupe Dunes Park 48,000 San Antonio Reservoir 361,000 San Miguel 54,000 Santa Margarita Lake 169,000 Shamel 130,000 Templeton 99,000 Waller 450,000 Name Visitor -Days Los Padres National Forest (c) Agua Escondido 700 American Canyon 800 Balm of Gilead 200 Brookshire Springs 1,600 Buckeye 200 Cerro Alto 15,600 French 200 Frus 700 Hi Mountain 4,800 Horseshoe Springs 1,400 Indians 600 Kerry Canyon 300 La Panza 4,400 Lazy Camp 500 Miranda Pine 2,300 Navajo 2,800 Pine Flat 300 Pine Springs 400 Plowshare Springs 300 Queen Bee 2,200 Stony Creek 1,100 Sulphur Pot 1,000 Upper Lopez 600 Wagon Flat 2,200 (a) California Department of Parks and Recreation (July 1998 through June 1999).

(b) County Park Departments.

Monterey County (July 1, 1998 through June 30, 1999).

San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties (July 1998 through June 1999).

(c) Los Padres National Forest (July 1, 1971 through June 30, 1972. Current data is no longer compiled.).

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.1-5 HISTORICAL INFORMATION BELOW IS SHOWN IN ITALICS 1985 LAND USE CENSUS DISTANCES IN MILES FROM THE UNIT 1 CENTERLINE TO THE NEAREST MILK ANIMAL, RESIDENCE, VEGETABLE GARDEN 22-1/2 Degree (a) Radial Sector Nearest Milk Animal Nearest Residence km (mi)

Residence Azimuth degree Nearest Vegetable Garden NW None 5.95 (3.7) 326 None NNW None 2.50 (1.55) 333 None N None 7.15 (4.44) 008 None NNE None 5.30 (3.3) 018.5 None NE None 8.15 (5.06) 037 None ENE None 7.15 (4.44) 062.5 None E None 7.25 (4.5) 096.5 None ESE None None -- 2 SE None None -- None

(a) Sectors not shown contain no land beyond the site boundary, other than islets not used for the purposes indicated in this table.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-1 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED PERSISTENCE OF CALM AT DIABLO CANYON EXPRESSED AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL HOURLY OBSERVATIONS FOR WHICH THE MEAN HOURLY WIND SPEED WAS LESS THAN 1 MILE PER HOUR FOR MORE THAN 1 TO 10 HOURS Station E Consecutive Hours 25-foot level 250-foot level 1 5.9 4.9 2 3.8 3.1 3 2.5 2.0 4 1.8 1.2 5 1.0 0.7 6 0.7 0.4 7 0.5 0.3 8 0.3 0.2 9 0.2 0.2 10 0.1 0.1

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-2 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED NORMALIZED ANNUAL GROUND LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS DOWNWIND FROM DCPP SITE GROUND RELEASE

Ground Level Release 10-meter wind data and Temperature Gradient (76-10 meters). For calculations with wind speeds below 1.5

meters per second stability is based on Temperature Gradient only and either building wake or wind meander is considered - with wind speed above 1.5 meters per second stability is based on measured Sigma A and Temperature Gradient with building wake only

considered. Data Period May 1973 through April 1975.

Midpoint of Directions from Plant for each 22.5 degree Sector Dilution Factors /Q x 10-8 sec m-3 Downwind Distance (km)

NW NNW N

NNE NE ENE E

ESE SE 0.8 387.15 220.81 95.726 57.503 61.687 49.292 89.447 355.48 978.67 5.0 24.738 12.860 5.6009 3.2347 3.8566 2.9593 5.0400 21.388 68.029 10.0 9.2115 4.6658 2.0693 1.1535 1.4426 1.0949 1.8138 7.6144 25.269 15.0 5.3897 2.6719 1.2018 0.65477 0.84233 0.63167 1.0391 4.3081 14.651 30.0 2.3889 1.1375 0.52497 0.27935 0.36768 0.27011 0.45145 1.8261 6.3086 40.0 1.7484 0.82010 0.38341 0.20223 0.26689 0.19464 0.33046 1.3223 4.5669 50.0 1.3803 0.64135 0.30252 0.15868 0.20947 0.15208 0.26155 1.0377 3.5778 80.0 0.84914 0.38822 0.18632 0.09654 0.12747 0.09173 0.16222 0.63113 2.1699 DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-3 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED MONTHLY MIXING HEIGHTS (a) AT DCPP SITE Month Morning Hours of Day (b) Afternoon Hours of Day (b) Evening Hours of Day (b) Night Hours of Day (b) January 500 9-11 600 12-16 700 17-19 500 20-8 February 600 9-11 600 12-17 800 18-20 600 21-8 March 700 8-10 800 11-17 1,000 18-20 800 21-7 April 600 7-10 700 11-18 800 19-21 700 22-6 May 500 7-11 600 12-20 700 21-23 600 24-6 June 500 7-10 500 11-20 600 21-23 500 24-6 July 500 7-9 500 10-20 700 21-23 500 24-6 August 500 7-9 600 10-20 700 21-23 600 24-6 September 500 8-10 600 11-19 800 20-22 600 23-7 October 500 8-10 600 11-19 800 20-22 500 23-7 November 500 8-10 600 11-17 700 18-20 500 21-7 December 500 9-11 600 12-17 700 18-20 500 21-8

(a) Mixing heights (in meters) derived from seasonal estimates given by Holzworth (6) (b) Definition of morning, afternoon, evening, and nighttime hours. Hours are inclusive in local time.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-4 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED ESTIMATES OF RELATIVE CONCENTRATIONS (/Q sec m-3) AT SPECIFIED LOCATIONS DOWNWIND OF DCPP SITE (a, b) Direction From Site Distance, mi /Q (r - ) NW 0.5 3.87 x 10-6 326 3.6 1.71 x 10-7 NW 5.0 1.25 x 10-7 NNW 0.5 2.21 x 10-6 330 1.75 4.28 x 10-7 NNW 5.0 6.37 x 10-8 N 0.5 9.57 x 10-7 N 5.0 2.81 x 10-8 NNE 0.5 5.75 x 10-7 NNE 3.3 2.93 x 10-8 NNE 5.0 1.58 x 10-8 NE 0.5 6.17 x 10-7 035 4.9 1.64 x 10-8 NE 5.0 1.95 x 10-8 ENE 0.7 2.83 x 10-7 ENE 4.7 1.62 x 10-8 ENE 5.0 1.49 x 10-8 E 1.0 2.86 x 10-7 E 3.8 3.70 x 10-8 E 5.0 2.48 x 10-8 ESE 1.0 1.21 x 10-6 ESE 5.0 1.05 x 10-7 SE 1.1 3.10 x 10-6 124 2.0 9.42 x 10-7 SE 5.0 3.43 x 10-7 (a) Based on the models described in Reference 21 and used for Table 2.3-2 (January 1978, Amendment 57) of the DCPP FSAR.

(b) Estimates Involve Wind Data From the 10 Meter Level and Temperature Gradient From the 76m - 10m Levels.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-6 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE PRECIPITATION DATA Mean Monthly and Annual Precipitation for Indicated Period of Record Precipitation in Inches -- Record in Years Annual Mean No. Days (a) Precipitation Greater STATIONS JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MEAN MAX MIN Than 0.09 and 0.49 Morro Bay 2.94 2.72 1.86 1.46 0.22 0.05 0.06 0.01 0.21 0.72 2.65 2.50 15.40 24.12 6.60 31 (10) Years 14 14 14 14 14 14 13 13 13 12 13 13 Pismo Beach 3.79 3.05 2.10 1.92 0.34 0.04 0.06 0.01 0.20 0.46 1.82 2.65 16.44 27.45 6.75 28 (11) Years 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12

San Luis Obispo 4.72 4.12 3.34 1.60 0.51 0.11 0.01 0.02 0.20 0.82 1.72 3.94 21.11 48.76 6.93 30 (14) Years 91 91 91 91 91 91 92 92 92 92 92 92 Santa Maria 2.81 2.50 2.60 1.05 0.39 0.08 0.02 0.02 0.20 0.73 1.18 2.32 13.90 28.46 4.40 25 (7) Years 69 69 69 68 68 68 68 69 69 69 69 69

Santa Margarita 6.04 5.81 5.27 3.25 0.73 0.05 0.06 0.01 0.22 1.03 3.11 6.47 32.05 49.55 7.67 34 (21) Years 20 20 20 20 21 21 21 21 20 21 21 21

Camp San Luis 3.91 3.48 3.29 1.95 0.45 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.13 0.59 2.02 3.62 19.53 29.89 10.29 32 (13) Years 18 18 18 18 18 18 17 18 18 18 18 19 (a) Values shown in parentheses are mean number of days with precipitation amounts greater than 0.49.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-7 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE TEMPERATURE DATA Coastal Stations Morro Bay and Pismo Beach. Values Shown in Parentheses are Pismo Beach. Period of Record: Morro Bay 14 years; Pismo Beach 12 years Temperature in

°F Months Mean Temperature Mean Maximum Mean Minimum Extreme Maximum Extreme Minimum Mean No. of Days Above 90°F Mean No. of Days Below 32°F January 52.6 (51.7) 62.0 (61.3) 43.2 (42.0) 82 (80) 30 (24) 0 (0) 1 (2) February 53.8 (53.7) 63.0 (64.0) 44.6 (43.4) 82 (82) 30 (29) 0 (0) 0 (1)

March 53.1 (54.8) 62.5 (65.5) 43.6 (44.0) 85 (88) 32 (30) 0 (0) 0 (1)

April 54.1 (56.1) 63.5 (66.1) 44.7 (46.1) 93 (90) 33 (32) 0 (0) 0 (0)

May 55.1 (57.3) 62.9 (67.5) 47.3 (47.1) 98 (89) 33 (36) 0 (1) 0 (0)

June 57.5 (59.8) 64.4 (69.8) 50.5 (49.7) 98 (96) 40 (40) 0 (0) 0 (0)

July 58.2 (60.5) 65.1 (68.7) 51.3 (52.3) 89 (104) 34 (38) 0 (0) 0 (0)

August 55.5 (60.6) 66.7 (68.5) 52.7 (52.7) 94 (102) 45 (43) 0 (0) 0 (0)

September 60.7 (62.1) 68.8 (71.8) 52.5 (52.3) 101 (99) 43 (41) 1 (1) 0 (0)

October 60.8 (60.6) 70.5 (71.3) 51.0 (49.8) 99 (95) 38 (32) 1 (1) 0 (0)

November 57.0 (58.3) 66.0 (69.4) 47.8 (47.1) 92 (91) 32 (29) 0 (0) 0 (0)

December 52.4 (54.6) 61.6 (65.3) 43.2 (43.9) 79 (92) 29 (28) 0 (0) 1 (1)

Annual 55.9 (57.5) 64.8 (67.4) 47.7 (47.5) 101 (104) 29 (24) 2 (3) 2 (5)

Inland Stations San Luis Obispo and Santa Maria. Values Shown in Parenthesis are Santa Maria. Period of Record: San Luis Obispo 66 years; Santa Maria 17 years.

Months Mean Temperature Mean Maximum Mean Minimum Extreme Maximum Extreme Minimum Mean No. of Days Above 90°F Mean No. of Days Below 32°F January 51.8 (50.2) 62.1 (62.3) 41.5 (38.2) 84 (82) 20 (21) 0 (0) 1 (4) February 53.6 (51.6) 63.5 (63.3) 43.5 (39.9) 89 (87) 25 (24) 0 (0) 1 (4)

March 54.9 (53.0) 65.2 (64.3) 44.8 (41.6) 93 (88) 28 (29) 0 (0) 0 (1)

April 56.7 (55.3) 67.6 (66.3) 46.0 (44.3) 97 (97) 30 (31) 0 (0) 0 (0)

May 58.6 (57.2) 69.3 (67.7) 47.8 (46.8) 100 (93) 34 (34) 0 (0) 0 (0)

June 62.0 (59.8) 73.6 (70.2) 50.2 (49.4) 110 (95) 37 (36) 1 (0) 0 (0)

July 64.6 (62.0) 76.9 (71.6) 52.0 (52.4) 106 (104) 42 (43) 2 (0) 0 (0)

August 64.7 (61.9) 77.0 (71.5) 52.4 (52.2) 107 (93) 40 (43) 1 (0) 0 (0)

September 64.9 (62.7) 77.8 (74.1) 52.0 (51.3) 110 (102) 38 (36) 4 (1) 0 (0)

October 62.5 (60.0) 75.3 (72.6) 49.8 (47.4) 103 (103) 35 (30) 2 (1) 0 (0)

November 58.3 (55.8) 70.7 (69.7) 45.9 (42.0) 96 (93) 24 (25) 0 (0) 0 (1)

December 53.5 (52.2) 64.4 (64.8) 42.8 (39.6) 92 (90) 24 (26) 0 (0) 0 (3)

Annual 58.8 (56.8) 70.3 (68.2) 47.4 (45.4) 110 (104) 20 (21) 10 (2) 2 (13)

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 Air Weather Service - Directorate of Climatology Surface Winds Data Control Division TABLE 2.3-8 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED PERCENTAGE FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE DIRECTIONS BY SPEED GROUPS

23273 Santa Maria, California WBAS All Station Station Name Month Class Jan 1948 - Jun 1958 Years T o t a l N o. o f Observations

Speed Dir.

1-3 Knots 4-10 Knots 11-21 Knots 22-27 Knots 28-40 Knots 41 Knots and Over Total 4 Knots and Over

%

Obs Sum of Speed Mean Wind Speed, Knots N 0.5 1.1 0.7 1.8 2.2 2095 17809 8.5 NNE 0.3 1.0 0.9 0.1 2.0 2.3 2160 21637 10.0 NE 0.8 1.2 0.5 0.1 1.8 2.6 2412 18236 7.6 ENE 0.5 1.2 0.1 1.3 1.8 1637 8937 5.5 E 1.2 5.2 0.2 5.5 6.7 6230 37649 6.0 ESE 0.8 2.9 0.3 3.3 4.1 3814 24253 6.4 SE 0.8 2.9 0.8 0.1 3.8 4.6 4295 33136 7.7 SSE 0.4 0.9 0.5 1.4 1.8 1644 13935 8.5 S 0.5 0.8 0.2 1.0 1.6 1455 9343 6.4 SSW 0.4 0.7 0.2 0.9 1.3 1205 7848 6.5 SW 0.9 2.0 0.3 2.4 3.3 3119 18690 6.0 WSW 0.9 3.3 0.9 4.2 5.1 4737 34900 7.4 W 1.6 9.4 4.4 0.1 13.8 15.5 14446 127257 8.8 WNW 1.2 9.8 5.4 0.1 15.3 16.5 15458 142383 9.2 NW 0.9 4.5 1.2 5.8 6.7 6221 46750 7.5 NNW 0.3 1.0 0.2 1.1 1.5 1375 9091 6.6 CALM 21.8 20397 TOTALS 12.0 47.9 16.8 0.6 0.1 65.3 100.0 92700 571854 6.1

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 Air Weather Service - Directorate of Climatology Surface Winds Data Control Division TABLE 2.3-9 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED PERCENTAGE FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE DIRECTIONS BY SPEED GROUPS

23273 Santa Maria, California WBAS Jan Station Station Name Month Class 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Years T o t a l N o. o f Observations

Speed Dir.

1-3 Knots 4-10 Knots 11-21 Knots 22-27 Knots 28-40 Knots 41 Knots and Over Total 4 Knots and Over

%

Obs.

Sum of Speed Mean Wind Speed, Knots N 0.4 1.9 1.4 0.1 3.3 3.7 300 2892 9.6 NNE 0.3 2.2 1.6 0.2 4.0 4.3 350 3671 10.5 NE 0.9 2.3 1.2 0.2 3.8 4.7 383 3408 8.9 ENE 0.7 2.3 0.1 2.4 3.1 254 1476 5.8 E 1.7 10.5 0.5 11.0 12.7 1042 6790 6.5 ESE 1.4 5.6 0.9 6.5 7.9 644 4443 6.9 SE 1.0 6.1 1.8 0.1 8.1 9.1 743 6108 8.2 SSE 0.4 1.3 1.0 0.1 2.4 2.8 229 2209 9.6 S 0.4 1.0 0.4 1.4 1.8 148 1070 7.2 SSW 0.3 0.7 0.4 1.1 1.4 115 964 8.4 SW 0.7 1.4 0.3 1.8 2.5 201 1308 6.5 WSW 0.5 1.6 0.4 1.9 2.4 196 1327 6.8 W 1.1 6.0 1.6 7.6 8.7 712 5493 7.7 WNW 0.7 6.7 1.8 8.5 9.3 757 6090 8.0 NW 0.6 4.0 0.7 4.7 5.4 439 3165 7.2 NNW 0.2 1.5 0.3 1.8 2.0 164 1207 7.4 CALM 18.3 1501 TOTALS 11.4 54.9 14.5 0.8 70.2 100.0 8178 51621 6.3

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 Air Weather Service - Directorate of Climatology Surface Winds Data Control Division TABLE 2.3-10 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED PERCENTAGE FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE DIRECTIONS BY SPEED GROUPS 23273 Santa Maria, California WBAS Feb Station Station Name Month Class 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Years Total No. of Observations

Speed Dir.

1-3 Knots 4-10 Knots 11-21 Knots 22-27 Knots 28-40 Knots 41 Knots and Over Total 4 Knots and Over

%

Obs.

Sum of Speed Mean Wind Speed, Knots N 0.6 2.1 1.6 0.1 3.8 4.4 325 3152 9.7 NNE 0.4 1.4 1.5 0.2 3.1 3.5 259 2822 10.9 NE 0.9 2.2 1.0 3.3 4.2 312 2458 7.9 ENE 0.7 2.4 2.5 3.2 240 1419 5.9 E 1.3 9.6 0.5 10.2 11.5 857 5626 6.6 ESE 1.2 4.6 0.4 0.1 5.1 6.3 472 3078 6.5 SE 1.0 4.5 1.5 0.1 6.0 7.0 524 4300 8.2 SSE 0.3 1.1 1.0 0.1 2.1 2.5 183 1758 9.6 S 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.6 2.0 152 1140 7.5 SSW 0.3 0.9 0.4 1.2 1.5 112 0841 7.5 SW 0.5 1.7 0.4 2.2 2.7 201 1393 6.9 WSW 0.4 2.5 0.6 3.1 3.5 260 1951 7.5 W 0.7 6.9 2.9 0.1 9.8 10.5 787 6984 8.9 WNW 0.7 9.8 10.5 11.3 841 7341 8.7 NW 0.8 4.5 1.0 5.5 6.3 470 3511 7.5 NWW 0.3 5.5 6.3 2.0 2.3 170 1332 7.8 CALM 17.4 1297 TOTALS 10.6 54.4 17.2 0.5 72.0 100.0 7462 49106 6.6 DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 Air Weather Service- Directorate of Climatology Surface Winds Data Control Division TABLE 2.3-11 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED PERCENTAGE FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE DIRECTIONS BY SPEED GROUPS 23273 Santa Maria, California WBAS Mar Station Station Name Month Class 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Years T o t a l N o. o f Observations

Speed Dir.

1-3 Knots 4-10 Knots 11-21 Knots 22-27 Knots 28-40 Knots 41 Knots and Over Total 4 Knots and Over

%

Obs.

Sum of Speed Mean Wind Speed, Knots N 0.5 1.5 0.9 2.4 2.9 239 2069 8.7 NNE 0.4 1.4 1.6 0.1 3.0 3.4 281 2894 10.3 NE 0.8 1.4 0.7 0.1 2.2 3.0 249 2015 8.1 ENE 0.5 1.4 0.0 1.4 1.9 153 807 5.3 E 1.0 6.2 0.2 6.4 7.4 605 3667 6.1 ESE 0.8 4.2 0.5 4.7 5.5 448 3059 6.8 SE 0.9 3.8 1.5 0.2 0.1 5.5 6.4 524 4696 9.0 SSE 0.6 1.2 0.9 0.1 0.1 2.4 3.0 242 2502 10.3 S 0.4 0.8 0.4 1.3 1.7 140 1188 8.5 SSW 0.4 0.8 0.3 0.1 1.2 1.6 129 1029 8.0 SW 0.8 1.9 0.6 2.5 3.3 266 1898 7.1 WSW 0.4 2.9 1.0 4.0 4.4 359 2917 8.1 W 1.1 6.1 4.8 0.2 11.2 12.2 999 10067 10.1 WNW 0.9 8.6 7.4 0.1 16.1 17.0 1391 14436 10.3 NW 0.8 5.3 1.8 7.1 7.9 645 5282 8.2 NNW 0.3 1.3 0.3 1.6 1.8 148 1078 7.3 CALM 16.7 1365 TOTALS 10.4 48.7 22.9 1.0 0.3 73.0 100.0 8183 59504 7.3

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 Air Weather Service - Directorate of Climatology Surface Winds Data Control Division TABLE 2.3-12 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED PERCENTAGE FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE DIRECTIONS BY SPEED GROUPS 23273 Santa Maria, California WBAS Apr Station Station Name Month Class 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Years T o t a l N o. o f Observations

Speed Dir.

1-3 Knots 4-10 Knots 11-21 Knots 22-27 Knots 28-40 Knots 41 Knots and Over Total 4 Knots and Over

%

Obs.

Sum of Speed Mean Wind Speed, Knots N 0.4 0.9 0.4 1.4 1.7 138 1061 7.7 NNE 0.2 0.7 0.7 1.5 1.7 133 1322 9.9 NE 0.9 0.9 0.2 1.1 2.0 156 822 5.3 ENE 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.9 68 282 4.1 E 1.1 3.3 0.1 3.4 4.5 356 1814 5.1 ESE 0.6 2.5 0.2 2.7 3.4 266 1564 5.9 SE 0.8 3.2 1.1 0.1 4.4 5.2 409 3269 8.0 SSE 0.5 1.2 0.6 1.9 2.4 188 1543 8.2 S 0.5 1.1 0.4 1.5 1.9 154 1118 7.3 SSW 0.5 0.8 0.3 1.1 1.6 123 870 7.1 SW 0.8 2.8 0.9 3.7 4.4 352 2651 7.5 WSW 0.7 3.2 1.3 4.5 5.1 408 3280 8.0 W 1.7 9.0 5.5 0.2 14.7 16.3 1294 12182 9.4 WNW 1.3 10.5 7.9 0.2 18.7 20.0 1583 15873 10.0 NW 1.0 5.1 1.3 6.4 7.4 587 4502 7.7 NNW 0.3 1.1 0.1 1.2 1.5 117 731 6.2 CALM 20.0 1588 TOTALS 11.4 46.6 21.0 0.7 68.6 100.0 7920 52884 6.7 DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 Air Weather Service - Directorate of Climatology Surface Winds Data Control Division TABLE 2.3-13 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED PERCENTAGE FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE DIRECTIONS BY SPEED GROUPS 23273 Santa Maria, California WBAS May Station Station Name Month Class 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Years Total No. of Observations

Speed Dir.

1-3 Knots 4-10 Knots 11-21 Knots 22-27 Knots 28-40 Knots 41 Knots and Over Total 4 Knots and Over

%

Obs.

Sum of Speed Mean Wind Speed, Knots N 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.8 1.2 102 763 7.5 NNE 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.7 0.9 75 509 6.8 NE 0.5 0.7 0.2 0.9 1.3 107 682 6.4 ENE 0.4 0.6 0.7 1.1 87 421 4.8 E 0.7 2.2 2.2 3.0 244 1298 5.3 ESE 0.7 1.4 0.1 1.4 2.1 173 898 5.2 SE 0.7 1.6 0.1 1.7 2.5 201 1128 5.6 SSE 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.7 1.0 83 508 6.1 S 0.7 0.9 0.2 1.1 1.8 146 850 5.8 SSW 0.5 1.1 0.2 1.2 1.7 139 820 5.9 SW 1.0 2.8 0.4 3.3 4.3 352 2071 5.9 WSW 1.1 4.4 2.0 6.5 7.5 615 5056 8.2 W 1.6 10.7 7.7 0.3 18.7 20.3 1664 16546 9.9 WNW 1.3 11.7 7.9 0.2 19.9 21.1 1730 16949 9.8 NW 1.0 4.3 1.8 6.1 7.1 581 4684 8.1 NNW 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.8 1.2 95 511 5.4 CALM 21.9 1789 TOTALS 11.5 44.6 21.5 0.6 66.7 100.0 8183 53694 6.6 DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 Air Weather Service - Directorate of Climatology Surface Winds Data Control Division TABLE 2.3-14 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED PERCENTAGE FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE DIRECTIONS BY SPEED GROUPS 23273 Santa Maria, California WBAS June Station Station Name Month Class 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Years Total No. of Observations

Speed Dir.

1-3 Knots 4-10 Knots 11-21 Knots 22-27 Knots 28-40 Knots 41 Knots and Over Total 4 Knots and Over

%

Obs.

Sum of Speed Mean Wind Speed, Knots N 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.9 73 361 4.9 NNE 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 49 378 7.7 NE 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.5 1.0 83 455 5.5 ENE 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.5 43 160 3.7 E 1.0 1.3 1.4 2.3 185 780 4.2 ESE 0.4 0.6 0.6 1.0 78 326 4.2 SE 0.6 1.1 1.1 1.7 133 610 4.6 SSE 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 51 241 4.7 S 0.5 0.6 0.7 1.1 89 414 4.7 SSW 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.9 1.2 97 596 6.1 SW 1.4 2.7 0.4 3.1 4.5 357 2029 5.7 WSW 0.9 3.9 1.8 5.8 6.7 528 4395 8.3 W 2.1 12.3 8.0 0.1 20.4 22.5 1782 16856 9.5 WNW 1.7 13.5 10.0 0.2 23.6 25.3 2004 19743 9.9 NW 0.9 4.9 1.8 6.7 7.6 605 4861 8.0 NNW 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.7 52 290 5.6 CALM 21.6 1710 TOTALS 11.8 43.9 22.6 0.3 66.6 100.0 7919 52495 6.6 DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 Air Weather Service - Directorate of Climatology Surface Winds Data Control Division TABLE 2.3-15 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED PERCENTAGE FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE DIRECTIONS BY SPEED GROUPS 23273 Santa Maria, California WBAS July Station Station Name Month Class 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Years Total No. of Observations

Speed Dir.

1-3 Knots 4-10 Knots 11-21 Knots 22-27 Knots 28-40 Knots 41 Knots and Over Total 4 Knots and Over

%

Obs.

Sum of Speed Mean Wind Speed, Knots N 0.5 0.6 0.6 1.1 89 352 4.0 NNE 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.7 58 246 4.2 NE 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.9 74 277 3.7 ENE 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.5 40 146 3.7 E 0.4 0.7 0.7 1.2 96 403 4.2 ESE 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.6 52 196 3.8 SE 0.3 0.7 0.7 1.0 84 370 4.4 SSE 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.5 38 175 4.6 S 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 83 314 3.8 SSW 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 82 334 4.1 SW 1.3 2.1 0.1 2.2 3.5 285 1410 4.9 WSW 1.6 4.3 0.6 4.9 6.5 533 3422 6.4 W 2.7 14.5 5.6 20.1 22.8 1863 15557 8.4 WNW 2.2 14.4 6.7 21.1 23.3 1906 16377 8.6 NW 1.2 5.2 1.5 6.7 7.9 646 4697 7.3 NNW 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.9 76 313 4.1 CALM 26.6 2177 TOTALS 12.9 45.8 14.6 60.4 100.0 8182 44589 5.4 DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 Air Weather Service - Directorate of Climatology Surface Winds Data Control Division TABLE 2.3-16 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED PERCENTAGE FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE DIRECTIONS BY SPEED GROUPS 23273 Santa Maria, California WBAS Aug Station Station Name Month Class 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Years Total No. of Observations

Speed Dir.

1-3 Knots 4-10 Knots 11-21 Knots 22-27 Knots 28-40 Knots 41 Knots and Over Total 4 Knots and Over

%

Obs.

Sum of Speed Mean Wind Speed, Knots N 0.5 0.6 0.6 1.1 79 311 3.9 NNE 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 36 140 3.9 NE 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.9 64 228 3.6 ENE 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.7 55 235 4.3 E 0.4 0.7 0.7 1.1 83 354 4.3 ESE 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.9 69 287 4.2 SE 0.5 1.2 1.2 1.7 128 578 4.5 SSE 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.9 68 286 4.2 S 0.7 0.6 0.6 1.2 91 348 3.8 SSW 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.9 67 274 4.1 SW 1.5 3.2 0.1 3.3 4.8 356 1755 4.9 WSW 1.5 5.2 1.1 6.3 7.8 579 4012 6.9 W 2.1 14.9 5.5 20.4 22.5 1676 14120 8.4 WNW 1.1 12.5 4.8 17.3 18.4 1369 11893 8.7 NW 1.1 4.7 1.2 5.9 7.0 522 3765 7.2 NNW 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.8 60 251 4.2 CALM 28.7 2132 TOTALS 11.8 46.7 12.8 59.5 100.0 7434 38837 5.2 DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 Air Weather Service - Directorate of Climatology Surface Winds Data Control Division TABLE 2.3-17 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED PERCENTAGE FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE DIRECTIONS BY SPEED GROUPS 23273 Santa Maria, California WBAS Sept Station Station Name Month Class 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Years Total No. of Observations

Speed Dir.

1-3 Knots 4-10 Knots 11-21 Knots 22-27 Knots 28-40 Knots 41 Knots and Over Total 4 Knots and Over

%

Obs.

Sum of Speed Mean Wind Speed, Knots N 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.7 1.2 89 474 5.3 NNE 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.7 1.2 85 461 5.4 NE 0.7 0.8 0.1 0.9 1.6 118 574 4.9 ENE 0.3 0.7 0.8 1.1 77 379 4.9 E 0.9 2.3 2.4 3.3 239 1191 5.0 ESE 0.7 1.4 1.4 2.1 154 716 4.6 SE 1.0 1.6 1.7 2.6 189 874 4.6 SSE 0.3 0.6 0.6 1.0 69 320 4.6 S 0.6 0.8 0.8 1.4 101 436 4.3 SSW 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 71 309 4.4 SW 1.2 2.1 0.1 2.2 3.4 244 1240 5.1 WSW 1.3 4.4 0.9 5.3 6.6 473 3287 6.9 W 2.1 12.7 4.6 0.1 17.3 19.4 1394 11723 8.4 WNW 1.3 10.3 5.0 0.1 15.4 16.7 1202 10714 8.9 NW 1.1 4.3 0.9 5.2 6.3 452 3068 6.8 NNW 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 74 342 4.6 CALM 30.1 2166 TOTALS 13.6 44.0 12.1 0.2 56.3 100.0 7197 36108 5.0

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 Air Weather Service - Directorate of Climatology Surface Winds Data Control Division TABLE 2.3-18 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED PERCENTAGE FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE DIRECTIONS BY SPEED GROUPS 23273 Santa Maria, California WBAS Oct Station Station Name Month Class 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Years Total No. of Observations

Speed Dir.

1-3 Knots 4-10 Knots 11-21 Knots 22-27 Knots 28-40 Knots 41 Knots and Over Total 4 Knots and Over

%

Obs.

Sum of Speed Mean Wind Speed, Knots N 0.4 0.7 0.5 1.2 1.6 119 1046 8.8 NNE 0.4 0.9 0.6 0.1 1.7 2.1 157 1466 9.3 NE 1.1 1.4 0.7 0.1 2.2 3.3 247 1775 7.2 ENE 0.5 1.3 1.3 1.8 132 736 5.6 E 1.7 6.0 0.2 6.3 8.0 592 3348 5.7 ESE 1.2 3.4 0.1 3.5 4.7 347 1921 5.5 SE 0.9 3.3 0.3 3.6 4.5 335 2030 6.1 SSE 0.4 0.8 0.2 1.0 1.4 102 679 6.7 S 0.5 0.7 0.3 1.0 1.5 112 726 6.5 SSW 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.7 1.1 84 496 5.9 SW 1.1 1.8 0.2 1.9 3.0 223 1173 5.3 WSW 1.0 3.2 0.7 3.9 4.9 363 2503 6.9 W 2.1 9.1 3.7 12.8 15.0 1112 9125 8.2 WNW 1.3 8.6 4.8 0.2 13.6 14.9 1109 10269 9.3 NW 0.9 4.2 1.0 5.2 6.1 454 3204 7.1 NNW 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.7 1.1 79 470 5.9 CALM 25.0 1856 TOTALS 14.3 46.5 13.7 0.5 0.0 60.7 100.0 7423 40967 5.5

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 Air Weather Service - Directorate of Climatology Surface Winds Data Control Division TABLE 2.3-19 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED PERCENTAGE FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE DIRECTIONS BY SPEED GROUPS 23273 Santa Maria, California WBAS Nov Station Station Name Month Class 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Years Total No. of Observations

Speed Dir.

1-3 Knots 4-10 Knots 11-21 Knots 22-27 Knots 28-40 Knots 41 Knots and Over Total 4 Knots and Over

%

Obs.

Sum of Speed Mean Wind Speed, Knots N 0.5 1.4 1.2 0.1 2.6 3.1 224 2109 9.4 NNE 0.5 1.7 1.7 0.3 3.7 4.2 302 3374 11.2 NE 0.8 1.8 0.8 0.4 0.2 3.2 4.0 288 2840 9.9 ENE 0.7 2.1 2.1 2.8 204 1125 5.5 E 2.1 10.2 0.6 10.8 13.0 933 6008 6.4 ESE 1.1 5.3 0.8 6.1 7.2 516 3491 6.8 SE 1.0 3.9 0.9 0.2 5.0 6.0 433 3400 7.9 SSE 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.5 2.1 148 1190 8.0 S 0.5 0.9 0.3 1.2 1.7 120 795 6.6 SSW 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.9 1.3 96 733 .6 SW 0.6 1.0 0.3 1.3 2.0 141 947 .7 WSW 0.6 2.1 0.3 2.4 3.0 219 1418 6.5 W 1.4 6.6 1.4 8.1 9.4 678 5104 7.5 WNW 1.1 7.6 3.3 10.9 12.1 868 7440 8.6 NW 0.7 3.9 0.7 4.6 5.3 379 2732 7.2 NNW 0.3 1.4 0.4 1.8 2.1 148 1127 7.6 CALM 20.7 1490 TOTALS 13.0 51.4 13.7 0.9 0.2 66.3 100.0 7187 43833 6.1

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 Air Weather Service - Directorate of Climatology Surface Winds Data Control Division TABLE 2.3-20 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED PERCENTAGE FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE DIRECTIONS BY SPEED GROUPS 23273 Santa Maria, California WBAS Dec Station Station Name Month Class 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Years Total No. of Observations

Speed Dir.

1-3 Knots 4-10 Knots 11-21 Knots 22-27 Knots 28-40 Knots 41 Knots and Over Total 4 Knots and Over

%

Obs.

Sum of Speed Mean Wind Speed, Knots N 0.5 2.0 1.6 0.1 3.8 4.3 318 3219 10.1 NNE 0.4 1.9 2.4 0.3 0.1 4.6 5.0 375 4354 11.6 NE 1.1 2.1 1.1 0.2 3.3 4.5 331 2702 8.2 ENE 1.0 2.6 0.2 2.8 3.8 284 1751 6.2 E 2.4 10.5 0.6 11.1 13.4 998 6370 6.4 ESE 1.3 5.6 1.1 6.7 8.0 595 4274 7.2 SE 0.9 4.5 2.1 0.3 0.1 7.1 8.0 592 5773 9.8 SSE 0.5 1.4 1.1 0.2 0.1 2.8 3.3 243 2524 10.4 S 0.5 0.8 0.3 1.1 1.6 119 944 7.9 SSW 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.8 1.2 90 582 6.5 SW 0.6 1.0 0.2 1.3 1.9 141 815 5.8 WSW 0.7 1.7 0.4 2.1 2.7 204 1332 6.5 W 1.1 4.4 1.0 5.4 6.5 485 3500 7.2 WNW 1.0 6.8 1.6 8.4 9.4 698 5358 7.7 NW 0.7 4.4 0.8 5.2 5.9 441 3279 7.4 NNW 0.4 1.8 0.4 2.2 2.6 192 1439 7.5 CALM 17.8 1326 TOTALS 13.5 52.2 15.0 1.2 0.3 68.7 100.0 7432 48216 6.5

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-21 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED EXTREMELY UNSTABLE (T less than -1.9°C/100M)

DIABLO CANYON PERIOD OF RECORD JULY 1967-OCTOBER 1969 FREQUENCY TABLE Wind Speed, mph Row Row Direction Calm 2.0 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 39.6 Sums Avg CALM 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.0 22.50 0 1 7 6 0 0 0 14 7.4 45.00 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 5 9.6 67.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 90.00 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 3.7 112.50 0 0 1 3 11 12 9 36 19.9 135.00 0 2 3 12 24 12 14 67 17.6 157.50 0 2 5 7 6 10 4 34 15.7 180.00 0 3 5 5 4 7 3 27 13.2 202.50 0 0 2 4 1 0 0 7 9.3 225.00 0 1 1 3 3 0 0 8 10.4 247.50 0 13 1 1 3 0 0 18 4.8 270.00 0 15 7 1 3 0 0 26 4.7 292.50 0 3 12 6 12 2 0 35 10.2 315.00 0 2 4 24 39 24 7 100 16.0 337.50 0 0 1 6 6 5 3 21 16.3 360.00 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 4 11.0 ______ _____ ____ _____ _____ ______ _____ _____ _____

Column Sums 3 43 53 82 15 72 40 408 13.9 DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-22 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED MODERATELY UNSTABLE (T -1.9 to -1.7°C/100M)

DIABLO CANYON PERIOD OF RECORD JULY 1967-OCTOBER 1969 FREQUENCY TABLE Wind Speed, mph Row Row Direction Calm 2.0 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 39.6 Sums Avg CALM 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0.0 22.50 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 8.0 45.00 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 10.0 67.50 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 12.0 90.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 112.50 0 0 0 1 4 1 0 6 15.5 135.00 0 1 1 3 2 0 1 8 13.0 157.50 0 0 3 4 0 0 8 15 21.3 180.00 0 2 0 2 1 1 2 8 14.2 202.50 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 4.5 225.00 0 7 0 2 1 0 0 10 4.5 247.50 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2.5 270.00 0 3 5 0 0 0 0 8 3.7 292.50 0 0 2 5 6 0 0 13 11.8 315.00 0 2 3 5 12 4 1 27 13.9 337.50 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 5 12.8 360.00 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 9.0 ______ _____ _____ _____ _______ _____ _____ ____ ______

Column Sums 5 18 19 27 28 7 12 116 11.9 DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-23 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED SLIGHTLY UNSTABLE (T -1.7 to -1.5°C/100M)

DIABLO CANYON PERIOD OF RECORD JULY 1967-OCTOBER 1969 FREQUENCY TABLE Wind Speed, mph Row Row Direction Calm 2.0 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 39.6 Sums Avg CALM 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0.0 22.50 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 13.0 45.00 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 6.5 67.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 90.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 112.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 135.00 0 1 2 1 5 5 1 15 15.5 157.50 0 2 10 2 1 1 4 20 13.1 180.00 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 3 18.0 202.50 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 6.5 225.00 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 1.7 247.50 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 3.0 270.00 0 2 5 0 1 2 0 10 8.9 292.50 0 1 2 11 0 1 2 17 11.4 315.00 0 0 1 5 8 9 2 25 17.4 337.50 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 12.0 360.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 ______ _____ _____ _____ ______ _____ _____ ____ ______

Colum n Sums 6 13 22 24 17 18 10 110 12.3

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-24 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED NEUTRAL (T -1.5 to -0.5°C/100M)

DIABLO CANYON PERIOD OF RECORD JULY 1967-OCTOBER 1969 FREQUENCY TABLE Wind Speed, mph Row Row Direction Calm 2.0 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 39.6 Sums Avg CALM 290 2 0 0 0 0 0 292 0.0 22.50 0 24 36 40 17 4 0 121 8.1 45.00 0 20 35 39 17 1 0 112 8.0 67.50 0 23 20 33 6 0 0 82 6.8 90.00 0 25 18 6 3 0 0 52 4.6 112.50 0 32 51 60 53 9 1 206 9.4 135.00 0 171 284 203 157 54 17 886 8.9 157.50 0 182 155 61 29 23 13 463 6.5 180.00 0 126 46 21 22 17 9 241 6.9 202.50 0 79 16 11 6 6 0 120 4.9 225.00 0 87 12 5 8 2 0 114 3.5 247.50 0 95 20 1 2 3 0 121 3.0 270.00 0 126 96 17 1 4 0 244 4.1 292.50 0 110 223 187 104 28 4 656 8.5 315.00 0 67 242 530 652 308 143 1942 14.2 337.50 0 42 97 210 160 98 80 687 13.9 360.00 0 41 5 63 53 6 0 218 8.7 ______ ______ _____ _____ _____ ______ _____ _____ ____

Column Sums 290 1252 1406 1487 1290 563 269 6557 9.8 DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-25 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED SLIGHTLY STABLE (T -0.5 to 1.5°C/100M)

DIABLO CANYON PERIOD OF RECORD JULY 1967-OCTOBER 1969 FREQUENCY TABLE Wind Speed, mph Row Row Direction Calm 2.0 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 39.6 Sums Avg CALM 405 12 0 0 0 0 0 417 0.0 22.50 0 66 92 96 58 14 2 328 8.7 45.00 0 53 94 66 29 1 0 243 6.9 67.50 0 42 58 35 21 2 0 158 6.7 90.00 0 84 40 13 4 0 0 141 3.8 112.50 0 128 57 25 9 5 0 224 4.5 135.00 0 296 279 164 47 11 5 802 5.9 157.50 0 330 129 16 1 0 4 480 3.0 180.00 0 188 16 2 1 3 1 211 2.2 202.50 0 94 13 2 0 0 0 109 1.9 225.00 0 91 12 4 3 0 0 110 2.7 247.50 0 83 16 1 0 0 0 100 2.2 270.00 0 158 33 5 3 0 0 199 2.6 292.50 0 166 154 132 99 44 12 607 8.5 315.00 0 161 344 454 497 479 304 2239 14.9 337.50 0 97 136 159 97 62 35 586 10.7 360.00 0 99 123 130 78 20 4 454 8.5 _______ _____ _____ _____ ______ _____ _____ _____ ______ Column Sums 405 2148 1596 1304 947 641 367 7408 8.6 DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-26 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED MODERATELY STABLE (T 1.5 to 4.0°C/100M)

DIABLO CANYON PERIOD OF RECORD JULY 1967-OCTOBER 1969 FREQUENCY TABLE Wind Speed, mph Row Row Direction Calm 2.0 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 39.6 Sums Avg CALM 117 1 0 0 0 0 0 118 0.0 22.50 0 9 9 5 6 2 0 31 8.0 45.00 0 12 10 3 3 0 0 28 5.1 67.50 0 12 6 4 1 1 0 24 5.6 90.00 0 20 12 2 0 0 0 34 3.0 112.50 0 33 16 5 0 0 0 54 3.4 135.00 0 54 52 25 2 0 0 133 4.6 157.50 0 68 17 1 0 0 0 86 2.3 180.00 0 35 6 0 0 0 0 41 1.8 202.50 0 20 0 1 0 0 0 21 1.8 225.00 0 18 3 0 0 0 0 21 2.0 247.50 0 30 2 0 0 0 0 32 1.7 270.00 0 34 4 1 0 0 0 39 2.5 292.50 0 38 28 28 8 4 3 109 7.2 315.00 0 43 65 114 167 179 170 738 17.3 337.50 0 20 39 25 15 13 0 112 8.7 360.00 0 20 14 11 7 3 0 55 6.9 ______ _____ _____ _____ _______ _____ _____ _____ ______

Column Sums 117 467 283 225 209 202 173 1676 10.1 DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-27 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED EXTREMELY STABLE (T greater than 4.0°C/100M)

DIABLO CANYON PERIOD OF RECORD JULY 1967-OCTOBER 1969 FREQUENCY TABLE Wind Speed, mph Row Row Direction Calm 2.0 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 39.6 Sums Avg CALM 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 0.0 22.50 0 9 8 6 0 0 0 23 5.2 45.00 0 8 13 3 0 0 0 24 4.6 67.50 0 11 7 1 0 0 0 19 3.5 90.00 0 13 10 1 0 0 0 24 3.7 112.50 0 14 6 1 0 0 0 21 3.3 135.00 0 36 11 2 0 0 0 49 2.9 157.50 0 23 7 1 0 0 0 31 2.8 180.00 0 29 2 0 0 0 0 31 1.5 202.50 0 13 1 0 0 0 0 14 1.7 225.00 0 12 1 0 0 0 0 13 1.6 247.50 0 13 1 0 0 0 0 14 2.2 270.00 0 22 6 2 0 0 0 30 3.0 292.50 0 12 19 14 4 3 0 52 7.4 315.00 0 19 32 73 87 94 95 400 17.7 337.50 0 16 16 12 9 6 0 59 8.5 360.00 0 9 12 5 2 0 0 28 5.7 ______ _____ _____ _____ _______ _____ _____ _____ ______

Column Sums 46 259 152 121 102 103 95 878 10.3 DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-28 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DISTRIBUTION OF WIND SPEED OBSERVATIONS BY STABILITY CLASS Stability Class T, °C/100M Number of Observations Extremely unstable Less than -1.9 3

Moderately unstable -1.9 to -1.7 5

Slightly unstable -1.7 to -1.5 6

Neutral -1.5 to -0.5 290

Slightly stable -0.5 to 1.5 405

Moderately stable 1.5 to 4.0 117

Extremely stable Greater than 4.0 46

(a) Observations for which the mean hourly wind speed was less than one mile per hour when stability is defined by vertical temperature gradient between the 25-foot levels at Station E period of record July 1, 1967 through October 31, 1969.

(b) Total hourly observations for period of record: 17,153.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-29 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - STATION E 25-FOOT LEVEL OCTOBER 1969 THROUGH MARCH 1971 AND APRIL 1972 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1972 VERTICAL ANGLE STABILITY CLASS A

Direction, deg. Wind Speed, mph Row Sum Row Avg. 1.5 5.5 10.0 15.5 21.5 37.5 Calm 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.0 22.5 106 185 63 14 1 0 369 5.6 45.0 127 152 71 12 1 0 363 5.3 67.5 77 69 44 9 0 0 199 5.3 90.0 101 47 16 7 2 0 173 4.1 112.5 97 25 17 11 4 0 144 3.9 135.0 178 111 27 10 3 0 329 4.2 157.5 185 168 22 1 0 0 376 3.9 180.0 209 64 5 1 0 0 279 3.0 202.5 117 19 1 0 0 0 137 2.2 225.0 83 10 1 1 0 0 95 2.0 247.5 90 15 2 1 0 0 108 2.2 270.0 126 23 9 1 0 0 159 2.7 292.5 164 98 60 18 5 3 348 5.6 315.0 108 166 126 64 13 1 478 7.7 337.5 79 126 119 66 15 3 408 8.2 360.0 91 215 146 32 4 0 488 6.8 Column _____ _____ ___ ___ __ _ _____ Sums 1,940 1,493 729 238 48 7 4,455 5.7

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-30 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - STATION E 25-FOOT LEVEL OCTOBER 1969 THROUGH MARCH 1971 AND APRIL 1972 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1972 VERTICAL ANGLE STABILITY CLASS B

Direction, deg. Wind Speed, mph Row Sum Row Avg. 1.5 5.5 10.0 15.5 21.5 37.5 Calm 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.0 22.5 32 43 27 12 4 1 119 7.1 45.0 44 55 28 3 0 0 130 5.5 67.5 33 20 18 9 0 0 80 5.9 90.0 46 18 8 2 1 1 76 4.4 112.5 52 19 32 27 6 0 136 7.8 135.0 107 152 104 57 11 1 432 7.4 157.5 94 127 52 10 2 3 288 5.6 180.0 59 47 6 0 0 0 112 3.6 202.5 24 7 0 0 0 0 31 2.4 225.0 19 8 1 0 0 0 28 2.5 247.5 23 6 1 0 0 0 30 2.4 270.0 48 7 2 0 0 0 57 2.5 292.5 74 90 47 33 16 3 263 7.6 315.0 52 143 156 110 65 19 545 11.1 337.5 43 81 102 98 58 8 390 11.5 360.0 32 92 64 21 7 0 216 7.6 Column ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ _____ ___

Sums 784 915 648 382 170 36 2,935 7.9

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-31 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - STATION E 25-FOOT LEVEL OCTOBER 1969 THROUGH MARCH 1971 AND APRIL 1972 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1972 VERTICAL ANGLE STABILITY CLASS C Direction, deg. Wind Speed, mph Row Sum Row Avg. 1.5 5.5 10.0 15.5 21.5 37.5 Calm 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.0 22.5 7 12 8 2 1 0 30 7.1 45.0 24 24 6 4 0 0 58 5.3 67.5 19 17 10 5 0 0 51 5.6 90.0 18 6 3 6 0 1 34 6.2 112.5 34 4 19 16 6 3 82 8.8 135.0 76 102 134 63 29 9 413 9.3 157.5 55 96 56 20 6 0 233 6.7 180.0 21 18 2 3 1 1 46 5.4 202.5 10 4 4 0 0 0 17 3.5 225.0 8 6 0 0 0 0 14 3.5 247.5 15 4 0 0 0 0 19 2.5 270.0 32 23 4 0 1 1 61 4.3 292.5 29 94 76 73 43 2 317 10.8 315.0 49 222 388 445 390 148 1,642 15.0 337.5 35 65 114 123 93 28 458 13.6 360.0 14 27 12 7 3 0 63 7.3 Column ____ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ _____ ____

Sums 448 724 836 767 573 192 3,540 12.0

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-32 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - STATION E 25-FOOT LEVEL OCTOBER 1969 THROUGH MARCH 1971 AND APRIL 1972 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1972 VERTICAL ANGLE STABILITY CLASS D

Direction, deg. Wind Speed, mph Row Sum Row Avg. 1.5 5.5 10.0 15.5 21.5 37.5 Calm 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.0 22.5 1 5 0 0 0 0 6 4.5 45.0 16 4 1 0 0 0 21 3.1 67.5 9 5 4 5 1 0 24 9.7 90.0 15 4 3 0 1 0 23 5.4 112.5 31 5 2 2 0 0 40 4.5 135.0 63 40 15 8 4 5 135 5.9 157.5 30 17 12 5 2 0 66 5.7 180.0 8 4 1 2 1 0 16 6.1 202.5 7 1 0 0 0 0 8 1.6 225.0 4 4 0 1 0 0 9 5.2 247.5 6 5 1 0 0 0 12 3.7 270.0 22 6 4 2 3 0 37 5.5 292.5 14 43 55 55 40 12 219 12.7 315.0 31 181 369 556 463 271 1,871 16.5 337.5 16 33 69 85 63 50 316 15.6 360.0 3 11 9 0 0 0 23 6.5 Column ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ _____ ____

Sums 278 368 545 721 578 338 2,828 14.5

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-33 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - STATION E 25-FOOT LEVEL OCTOBER 1969 THROUGH MARCH 1971 AND APRIL 1972 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1972 VERTICAL ANGLE STABILITY CLASS E Direction, deg. Wind Speed, mph Row Sum Row Avg. 1.5 5.5 10.0 15.5 21.5 37.5 Calm 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.0 22.5 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 4.0 45.0 2 1 1 0 0 0 4 3.8 67.5 0 2 3 0 0 0 5 7.6 90.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 112.5 10 1 0 0 0 0 11 1.9 135.0 15 3 0 0 0 0 18 2.3 157.5 7 2 1 0 2 0 12 2.8 180.0 4 1 0 0 0 0 5 2.4 202.5 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 5.3 225.0 2 2 0 0 0 0 4 3.3 247.5 2 3 1 0 0 0 6 4.6 270.0 1 0 1 1 0 0 3 8.3 292.5 2 8 8 4 11 8 41 15.8 315.0 8 30 42 105 111 47 343 17.3 337.5 3 3 5 4 2 3 20 13.2 360.0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 8.0 Column __ __ __ ___ ___ __ ___ ____

Sums 59 57 63 115 126 58 478 14.8

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-34 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - STATION E 25-FOOT LEVEL OCTOBER 1969 THROUGH MARCH 1971 AND APRIL 1972 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1972 VERTICAL ANGLE STABILITY CLASS F AND G Direction, deg. Wind Speed, mph Row Avg. Row Sum 1.5 5.5 10.0 15.5 21.5 37.5 Calm 516 0 0 0 0 0 516 0.0 22.5 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 1.2 45.0 5 1 0 0 0 0 6 2.5 67.5 11 0 0 0 0 0 11 1.7 90.0 8 1 0 0 0 0 9 1.4 112.5 15 0 0 0 0 0 15 1.6 135.0 55 3 0 0 0 0 58 1.7 157.5 32 2 1 0 0 0 35 1.9 180.0 19 0 1 0 0 0 20 1.9 202.5 11 0 0 0 0 0 11 1.4 225.0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 1.3 247.5 11 0 0 0 0 0 11 1.0 270.0 17 0 0 0 0 0 17 1.3 292.5 9 5 5 0 2 0 22 6.5 315.0 21 18 25 32 27 15 138 13.4 337.5 15 3 4 4 2 0 28 4.8 360.0 11 4 0 0 0 0 15 2.7 Column ___ __ __ __ __ __ ___ ___

Sums 769 37 36 36 31 15 925 2.7

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-35 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - STATION E 25-FOOT LEVEL OCTOBER 1969 THROUGH MARCH 1971 AND APRIL 1972 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1972 AZIMUTH ANGLE STABILITY CLASS A

Direction, deg. Wind Speed, mph Row Sum Row Avg. 1.5 5.5 10.0 15.5 21.5 37.5 Calm 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.0 22.5 44 87 26 4 0 0 161 5.4 45.0 42 88 46 8 0 0 184 6.0 67.5 35 43 40 4 0 0 122 6.0 90.0 63 34 12 1 0 0 110 3.7 112.5 61 11 4 0 0 0 76 2.8 135.0 84 32 4 2 0 0 122 3.1 157.5 54 26 4 0 0 0 84 3.2 180.0 55 17 2 0 0 0 74 2.7 202.5 39 6 1 0 0 0 46 2.6 225.0 25 3 2 1 0 0 31 3.1 247.5 41 5 1 0 0 0 47 2.0 270.0 46 12 6 0 0 0 64 3.2 292.5 32 29 16 6 1 0 84 5.7 315.0 28 55 53 23 6 2 167 8.6 337.5 32 71 53 13 3 1 173 7.1 360.0 41 96 40 11 1 0 189 6.4 Column ___ ___ ___ __ __ _ _____ ___

Sums 723 615 310 73 11 3 1,735 5.2

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-36 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - STATION E 25-FOOT LEVEL OCTOBER 1969 THROUGH MARCH 1971 AND APRIL 1972 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1972 AZIMUTH ANGLE STABILITY CLASS B

Direction, deg. Wind Speed, mph Row Sum Row Avg. 1.5 5.5 10.0 15.5 21.5 37.5 Calm 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.0 22.5 31 43 18 7 0 0 99 5.9 45.0 30 38 22 2 0 0 92 5.4 67.5 24 19 13 3 0 0 59 5.1 90.0 26 12 3 5 1 0 47 5.6 112.5 22 10 4 0 1 0 37 4.7 135.0 40 14 4 1 0 0 59 3.2 157.5 25 19 1 0 0 0 45 3.7 180.0 20 5 0 0 0 0 25 2.4 202.5 20 3 0 0 0 0 23 2.5 225.0 17 2 0 0 0 0 19 2.4 247.5 21 4 2 0 0 0 27 2.8 270.0 25 9 4 0 0 0 38 3.6 292.5 22 22 9 1 0 1 55 5.7 315.0 13 23 27 20 12 3 98 10.8 337.5 19 24 31 20 4 1 99 9.1 360.0 20 64 61 16 3 0 164 8.0 Column ___ ___ ___ __ __ _ ___ ___

Sums 377 311 199 75 21 5 988 6.2

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-37 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - STATION E 25-FOOT LEVEL OCTOBER 1969 THROUGH MARCH 1971 AND APRIL 1972 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1972 AZIMUTH ANGLE STABILITY CLASS C

Direction, deg. Wind Speed, mph Row Sum Row Avg. 1.5 5.5 10.0 15.5 21.5 37.5 Calm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 22.5 34 58 35 8 3 0 138 6.5 45.0 44 53 27 5 1 0 130 5.6 67.5 24 24 11 6 1 0 66 5.6 90.0 21 12 7 3 2 0 45 5.4 112.5 43 12 6 5 1 0 67 4.2 135.0 79 43 19 8 1 0 150 4.8 157.5 54 43 11 2 0 0 110 4.3 180.0 39 9 1 0 0 0 49 2.6 202.5 28 5 0 0 0 0 33 1.9 225.0 19 6 1 0 0 0 26 2.7 247.5 29 3 1 0 0 0 33 2.3 270.0 34 6 2 1 0 0 44 2.9 292.5 49 36 23 11 5 0 124 6.4 315.0 36 55 78 56 36 3 270 11.2 337.5 26 50 65 59 24 7 229 11.1 360.0 30 78 75 18 2 4 203 8.9 Column ___ ___ ___ ___ __ __ _____ ___

Sums 589 93 363 182 76 14 1,717 7.2

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-38 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - STATION E 25-FOOT LEVEL OCTOBER 1969 THROUGH MARCH 1971 AND APRIL 1972 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1972 AZIMUTH ANGLE STABILITY CLASS D

Direction, deg. Wind Speed, mph Row Sum Row Avg. 1.5 5.5 10.0 15.5 21.5 37.5 Calm 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.0 22.5 34 44 17 9 3 1 108 6.4 45.0 55 54 22 5 0 0 136 5.1 67.5 34 16 16 10 0 0 76 6.0 90.0 46 23 9 6 1 1 86 5.6 112.5 56 17 35 24 7 1 140 7.9 135.0 126 178 122 65 15 6 512 7.5 157.5 106 148 45 9 3 1 312 5.2 180.0 70 36 6 2 1 0 115 3.7 202.5 27 7 0 0 0 0 34 2.3 225.0 30 8 2 0 0 0 40 2.6 247.5 23 8 0 0 0 0 31 2.3 270.0 53 9 4 0 1 1 68 3.4 292.5 73 81 62 43 32 10 301 9.2 315.0 69 171 222 209 138 47 856 12.6 337.5 35 83 116 139 109 25 507 13.4 360.0 39 62 53 15 8 0 177 7.4 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ __ _____ ___

Column Sums 877 945 731 536 318 93 3,500 9.0 DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-39 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - STATION E 25-FOOT LEVEL OCTOBER 1969 THROUGH MARCH 1971 AND APRIL 1972 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1972 AZIMUTH ANGLE STABILITY CLASS E

Direction, deg. Wind Speed, mph Row Sum Row Avg. 1.5 5.5 10.0 15.5 21.5 37.5 Calm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 22.5 11 13 4 1 0 0 29 5.2 45.0 44 32 4 2 0 0 82 4.0 67.5 28 19 17 7 0 0 71 5.8 90.0 30 8 2 0 0 1 41 3.9 112.5 47 10 11 8 2 1 79 5.6 135.0 120 116 96 56 25 7 420 8.0 157.5 105 136 69 18 6 2 336 6.1 180.0 64 41 4 3 1 1 114 4.0 202.5 20 5 2 1 0 0 28 3.3 225.0 24 10 1 0 0 0 35 3.0 247.5 22 8 2 0 0 0 32 2.9 270.0 47 23 5 2 2 0 79 4.2 292.5 72 129 106 90 54 9 460 10.2 315.0 83 319 549 696 608 292 2,547 15.5 337.5 46 63 126 120 101 61 517 14.3 360.0 20 29 13 5 0 0 67 6.0 ___ ___ _____ _____ ___ ___ _____ ____

Column Sums 783 961 1,011 1,009 799 374 4,937 12.1 DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-40 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - STATION E 25-FOOT LEVEL OCTOBER 1969 THROUGH MARCH 1971 AND APRIL 1972 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1972 AZIMUTH ANGLE STABILITY CLASS F AND G

Direction, deg. Wind Speed, mph Row Sum Row Avg. 1.5 5.5 10.0 15.5 21.5 37.5 Calm 564 0 0 0 0 0 564 0.0 22.5 7 2 0 0 0 0 9 2.3 45.0 17 4 0 0 0 0 21 2.5 67.5 17 2 2 1 0 0 22 3.6 90.0 15 3 1 0 0 0 19 2.5 112.5 27 1 0 1 0 0 29 2.0 135.0 75 19 6 2 2 1 105 3.4 157.5 65 31 5 3 2 0 106 3.8 180.0 52 7 2 1 0 0 62 2.5 202.5 29 4 1 0 0 0 34 2.0 225.0 16 1 0 1 0 0 18 2.2 247.5 17 4 1 0 0 0 22 2.3 270.0 55 9 1 0 0 0 65 2.2 292.5 50 55 53 36 23 7 224 9.4 315.0 56 151 222 314 286 172 1,201 15.8 337.5 32 15 21 37 9 5 118 10.4 360.0 9 7 2 0 0 0 18 3.7 _____ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ _____ ___

Column Sums 1,103 315 317 396 322 185 2,637 9.4 DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.3-41 Sheet 1 of 25 Revision 22 May 2015 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTIONS OF /Q ESTIMATES BASED ON DISTANCE AND WIND SECTOR CENTERLINE FOR GROUND LEVEL RELEASES 10-meter wind data and stability categories based on measured Sigma A and Temperature Gradient (76M - 10M) values. For calculations with wind speed below 1.5 meters per second stability is based on Temperature Gradient only and building wake or a meander factor is considered - with wind speeds a bove 1.5 meters per second stability is based on

measured Sigma A and Temperature Gradient with building wake only considered. X is downwind distance in meters, Y is sector ce nterline from north in degrees, and Z is terrain height defined as zero for Ground Level Releases. Data Period May 1973 through April 1975. In the following Tables Y=0.0 is e quivalent to Y=360°=North.

CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=800.0 Y=315.0 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.60140297E-06 0.17928305E-05 50 0.0 0.0 0.34090243E-06 0.11967086E-05 0.22880003E-05 0.36180809E-05 75 0.0 0.35322555E-05 0.47339599E-05 0.52474825E-05 0.51153211E-05 0.56741301E-05 90 0.46975747E-05 0.13407243E-04 0.12096141E-04 0.11476736E-04 0.96943622E-05 0.75202488E-05 95 0.26914247E-04 0.21392218E-04 0.18613035E-04 0.16908802E-04 0.13674124E-04 0.82745992E-05 99 0.79830948E-04 0.41694584E-04 0.31726566E-04 0.28974857E-04 0.22724547E-04 0.93198487E-05 99.5 0.10060299E-03 0.48705522E-04 0.38378115E-04 0.35206263E-04 0.25349524E-04 0.97140346E-05 99.9 0.17863358E-03 0.69454283E-04 0.52891977E-04 0.55085635E-04 0.29252842E-04 0.98666351E-05 100 0.42693969E-03 0.16204809E-03 0.91344118E-04 0.63421554E-04 0.31318254E-04 0.10198001E-04

CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=800.0 Y=337.5 Z=0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.27897920E-06 0.14245843E-05 50 0.0 0.0 0.39965435E-07 0.47623541E-06 0.11941902E-05 0.21688302E-05 75 0.0 0.11479096E-05 0.25813661E-05 0.28035602E-05 0.31818436E-05 0.30996152E-05 90 0.16196464E-06 0.73396404E-05 0.71391196E-05 0.69225625E-05 0.60822440E-05 0.39170363E-05 95 0.10839826E-04 0.13190673E-04 0.11428615E-04 0.10343385E-04 0.76751812E-05 0.42903375E-05 99 0.57332712E-04 0.28498354E-04 0.21073996E-04 0.16707505E-04 0.10494983E-04 0.51341722E-05 99.5 0.77042845E-04 0.34250028E-04 0.23407832E-04 0.18469131E-04 0.11948351E-04 0.52089890E-05 99.9 0.11422510E-03 0.46669331E-04 0.30434865E-04 0.26693204E-04 0.17508937E-04 0.54098209E-05 100 0.45017432E-03 0.59372076E-04 0.29615683E-04 0.30263240E-04 0.18352424E-04 0.55004302E-05

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.3-41 Sheet 2 of 25 Revision 22 May 2015 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=800.0 Y=0.0 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.20178135E-07 0.61033268E-06 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.84964356E-08 0.52331109E-06 0.96415260E-06 75 0.0 0.25302236E-08 0.70840883E-06 0.11574984E-05 0.13509989E-05 0.12979572E-05 90 0.0 0.30571773E-05 0.34360637E-05 0.30373176E-05 0.24284118E-05 0.16593158E-05 95 0.11744612E-06 0.66978700E-05 0.51172337E-05 0.42316142E-05 0.33221295E-05 0.19114732E-05 99 0.33281089E-04 0.14604380E-04 0.10118109E-04 0.86893342E-05 0.67918800E-05 0.23723878E-05 99.5 0.49149618E-04 0.18833016E-04 0.13381233E-04 0.12046017E-04 0.82666420E-05 0.24336141E-05 99.9 0.88619912E-04 0.34606783E-04 0.24519803E-04 0.19771018E-04 0.94038032E-05 0.25613817E-05 100 0.31923875E-03 0.49039605E-04 0.29722723E-04 0.24404493E-04 0.10373947E-04 0.25717727E-05 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=800.0 Y=22.5 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.31590432E-08 0.33214155E-06 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.31713915E-06 0.54789928E-06 75 0.0 0.0 0.12785688E-06 0.61485019E-06 0.78384534E-06 0.75719402E-06 90 0.0 0.14533725E-05 0.21641408E-05 0.18840965E-05 0.15855258E-05 0.10827689E-05 95 0.0 0.41104977E-05 0.33112265E-05 0.28097411E-05 0.22921749E-05 9.12460659E-05 99 0.20790569E-04 0.10313162E-04 0.76756214E-05 0.57558864E-05 0.31460195E-05 0.15083806E-05 99.5 0.36712212E-04 0.13969571E-04 0.84455642E-05 0.69937705E-05 0.38429389E-05 0.15696178E-05 99.9 0.64066669E-04 0.20981301E-04 0.12264602E-04 0.12232087E-04 0.47792591E-05 0.16129306E-05 100 0.29356778E-03 0.36696263E-04 0.18348132E-04 0.14337682E-04 0.54107604E-05 0.16385302E-05 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=800.0 Y=45.0 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.55598703E-09 0.35731915E-06 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.20440370E-06 0.49795892E-06 75 0.0 0.0 0.86261821E-07 0.39869042E-06 0.85617688E-06 0.81063536E-06 90 0.0 0.11350148E-05 0.24830606E-05 0.22180611E-05 0.16361364E-05 0.12692826E-05 95 0.0 0.49661339E-05 0.38527442E-05 0.31920190E-05 0.23277044E-05 0.14467960E-05 99 0.19482410E-04 0.11177684E-04 0.85418196E-05 0.70383176E-05 0.53034983E-05 0.17087514E-05 99.5 0.42459200E-04 0.15879719E-04 0.10553575E-04 0.93715735E-05 0.57840080E-05 0.20348043E-05 99.9 0.77170160E-04 0.28114708E-04 0.16107486E-04 0.15625614E-04 0.76384376E-05 0.21556871E-05 100 0.37501496E-03 0.46876870E-04 0.23438435E-04 0.15689511E-04 0.81559456E-05 0.21701553E-05 DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.3-41 Sheet 3 of 25 Revision 22 May 2015 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=800.0 Y=67.5 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.19910218E-08 0.24889209E-06 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.14546737E-06 0.42911802E-06 75 0.0 0.0 0.10832360E-06 0.32727348E-06 0.79993595E-06 0.62177327E-06 90 0.0 0.88918227E-06 0.17428902E-05 0.17519760E-05 0.13282652E-05 0.91909624E-06 95 0.0 0.34773839E-05 0.31748004E-05 0.28340100E-05 0.18950996E-05 0.11182974E-05 99 0.16080114E-04 0.89836503E-05 0.65093709E-05 0.54437296E-05 0.31568488E-05 0.19424133E-05 99.5 0.32439624E-04 0.12748404E-04 0.83791401E-05 0.62988538E-05 0.35999619E-05 0.19563859E-05 99.9 0.63343803E-04 0.18939914E-04 0.11131005E-04 0.77977775E-05 0.47309759E-05 0.19899007E-05 100 0.16785040E-03 0.30303869E-04 0.11655334E-04 0.92206838E-05 0.59454760E-05 0.20108682E-05 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=800.0 Y=90.0 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.98381292E-07 0.42774644E-06 50 0.0 0.0 0.67347941E-08 0.10075223E-06 0.47905326E-06 0.81535012E-06 75 0.0 0.11733863E-06 0.85482128E-06 0.11202137E-05 0.12998180E-05 0.12833762E-05 90 0.0 0.30206447E-05 0.28861887E-05 0.27604883E-05 0.22959002E-05 0.16845443E-05 95 0.47983724E-06 0.56365625E-05 0.45940978E-05 0.41290305E-05 0.30253241E-05 0.18356177E-05 99 0.30167124E-04 0.12510503E-04 0.89678560E-05 0.74601758E-05 0.54740649E-05 0.24251367E-05 99.5 0.43825232E-04 0.15991667E-04 0.11190264E-04 0.10325079E-04 0.61040009E-05 0.25050431E-05 99.9 0.80253856E-04 0.25524816E-04 0.16437087E-04 0.13011633E-04 0.64430151E-05 0.26079852E-05 100 0.26299339E-03 0.32874173E-04 0.25596077E-04 0.17605096E-04 0.77006334E-05 0.26970001E-05 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=800.0 Y=112.5 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours Hourly (17127) 8 Hours (17140) 16 Hours (16978) 24 Hours (16827) 3 Days (17161) 26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.21881338E-07 0.17739683E-06 0.80441509E-06 0.15274791E-05 50 0.0 0.15332762E-06 0.99273075E-06 0.15290261E-05 0.21965543E-05 0.28209042E-05 75 0.36544221E-08 0.36351485E-05 0.45084162E-05 0.49050886E-05 0.52850155E-05 0.55923738E-05 90 0.58355099E-05 0.11542677E-04 0.10774902E-04 0.99791041E-05 0.84557751E-05 0.71882914E-05 95 0.24372421E-04 0.19057174E-04 0.15440848E-04 0.13660998E-04 0.11346160E-04 0.84373014E-05 99 0.73329080E-04 0.35874895E-04 0.26128837E-04 0.22772845E-04 0.17065628E-04 0.94562383E-05 99.5 0.92018949E-04 0.41281746E-04 0.31428004E-04 0.29057730E-04 0.19443658E-04 0.98133150E-05 99.9 0.13031083E-03 0.60571503E-04 0.44662738E-04 0.35700417E-04 0.23957633E-04 0.10166443E-04 100 0.25177584E-03 0.87236898E-04 0.52296658E-04 0.39889244E-04 0.25460802E-04 0.10185076E-04 DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.3-41 Sheet 4 of 25 Revision 22 May 2015 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=800.0 Y=135.0 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.15051785E-06 0.19566469E-05 0.29644816E-05 0.44178805E-05 0.58212872E-05 50 0.81038642E-08 0.53202129E-05 0.68629924E-05 0.74960581E-05 0.86957034E-05 0.92801483E-05 75 0.10795834E-04 0.14239811E-04 0.13835153E-04 0.13944897E-04 0.13847120E-04 0.13906842E-04 90 0.31399934E-04 0.25514790E-04 0.22496853E-04 0.20765699E-04 0.18985549E-04 0.15998783E-04 95 0.47333873E-04 0.34454075E-04 0.29741001E-04 0.27354195E-04 0.21924367E-04 0.17443468E-04 99 0.98935401E-04 0.62552077E-04 0.51852519E-04 0.41265914E-04 0.32405180E-04 0.20288542E-04 99.5 0.13996252E-03 0.73905539E-04 0.57608209E-04 0.50959148E-04 0.36743804E-04 0.21132306E-04 99.9 0.21938581E-03 0.92197675E-04 0.76897748E-04 0.72839248E-04 0.58351958E-04 0.22017281E-04 100 0.43604663E-03 0.12359285E-03 0.10618559E-03 0.90063026E-04 0.63509433E-04 0.23351851E-04 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=5000.0 Y=315.0 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.36168682E-07 0.10453664E-06 50 0.0 0.0 0.85387946E-08 0.58115610E-07 0.13548572E-06 0.22112152E-06 75 0.0 0.17811465E-06 0.27010481E-06 0.30452969E-06 0.31845224E-06 0.36362576E-06 90 0.13189924E-06 0.80447398E-06 0.75813131E-06 0.73916146E-06 0.64316288E-06 0.50780699E-06 95 0.14717771E-05 0.13776043E-05 0.12477758E-05 0.11084267E-05 0.88879460E-06 0.56026227E-06 99 0.54080638E-05 0.29498933E-05 0.22118938E-05 0.19417621E-05 0.16314389E-05 0.61426806E-06 99.5 0.72580106E-05 0.35909725E-05 0.27032129E-05 0.25552408E-05 0.19728277E-05 0.63870863E-06 99.9 0.15196728E-04 0.59458198E-05 0.44717808E-05 0.66192533E-05 0.26420630E-05 0.64619587E-06 100 0.84131505E-04 0.20947293E-04 0.10490432E-04 0.71668255E-05 0.29852199E-05 0.66191802E-06 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=5000.0 Y=337.5 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours Hourly (17127) 8 Hours (17140) 16 Hours (16978) 24 Hours (16827) 3 Days (17161) 26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.13080108E-07 0.80222492E-07 50 0.0 0.0 0.34313286E-09 0.19187748E-07 0.69095165E-07 0.12573850E-06 75 0.0 0.35439491E-07 0.13064300E-06 0.15438911E-06 0.18920201E-06 0.17924884E-06 90 0.10963741E-08 0.41085059E-06 0.41715919E-06 0.41353013E-06 0.36168058E-06 0.22895489E-06 95 0.43192472E-06 0.78051630E-06 0.69862722E-06 0.63962761E-06 0.45303062E-06 0.26817463E-06 99 0.36181909E-05 0.18028550E-05 0.12881756E-05 0.10581916E-05 0.65855136E-06 0.29816505E-06 99.5 0.51098368E-05 0.22534186E-05 0.15325004E-05 0.11887769E-05 0.76233380E-06 0.30169258E-06 99.9 0.90557323E-05 0.33098568E-05 0.18670871E-05 0.14873640E-05 0.91363347E-06 0.31337936E-06 100 0.21146378E-04 0.37607297E-05 0.22657759E-05 0.17264520E-05 0.96313761E-06 0.31662830E-06

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.3-41 Sheet 5 of 25 Revision 22 May 2015 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=5000.0 Y=0.0 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.14577914E-09 0.35206888E-07 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.45826593E-10 0.29770831E-07 0.52756821E-07 75 0.0 0.58812052E-11 0.27133446E-07 0.58794626E-07 0.75742776E-07 0.73219780E-07 50 0.0 0.15007060E-06 0.19557928E-06 0.17316466E-06 0.12850018E-06 0.11007444E-06 95 0.59110117E-09 0.38010899E-06 0.29189255E-06 0.24359178E-06 0.19158728E-06 0.12307993E-06 99 0.17581433E-05 0.83792327E-06 0.62629374E-06 0.58788004E-06 0.49176458E-06 0.14301321E-06 99.5 0.29224684E-05 0.11764350E-05 0.91553710E-06 0.82102144E-06 0.56503490E-06 0.14409750E-06 99.9 0.56128920E-05 0.24570221E-05 0.21853366E-05 0.17620714E-05 0.10170143E-05 0.14915304E-06 100 0.42233936E-04 0.52862160E-05 0.26431080E-05 0.28504437E-05 0.10222102E-05 0.15006066E-06 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=5000.0 Y=22.5 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.20389176E-10 0.19992385E-07 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.13813594E-07 0.28445811E-07 75 0.0 0.0 0.23833167E-08 0.24813552E-07 0.42410218E-07 0.40333958E-07 90 0.0 0.54455477E-07 0.11946088E-06 0.10623080E-06 0.94955624E-07 0.62961988E-07 95 0.0 0.22869460E-06 0.19328428E-06 0.16950753E-06 0.13235518E-06 0.75315427E-07 99 0.11487864E-05 0.60345269E-06 0.46176353E-06 0.36859063E-06 0.18517102E-06 0.90167873E-07 99.5 0.21258884E-05 0.90078481E-06 0.56635531E-06 0.42334409E-06 0.24530493E-06 0.90845560E-07 99.9 0.40991818E-05 0.12700320E-05 0.76666845E-06 0.98082091E-06 0.37735197E-06 0.92208381E-07 100 0.23539702E-04 0.29424627E-05 0.14712314E-05 0.11320553E-05 0.37735197E-06 0.93904873E-07 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=5000.0 Y=45.0 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161) 26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.14582606E-11 0.20480179E-07 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.10482022E-07 0.29226378E-07 75 0.0 0.0 0.10083996E-08 0.14940628E-07 0.50052737E-07 0.50985456E-07 90 0.0 0.43275435E-07 0.13510913E-06 0.12896214E-06 0.10230991E-06 0.85150248E-07 95 0.0 0.27654005E-06 0.24085580E-06 0.20941150E-06 0.14324081E-06 0.93926701E-07 99 0.10752683E-05 0.72607270E-06 0.58212339E-06 0.46406512E-06 0.39380984E-06 0.12303661E-06 99.5 0.25677864E-05 0.10686435E-05 0.78176242E-06 0.65926480E-06 0.44854397E-06 0.15118201E-06 99.9 0.53723543E-05 0.19507843E-05 0.17475313E-05 0.12004366E-05 0.52173317E-06 0.15981925E-06 100 0.28810478E-04 0.36013098E-05 0.18006549E-05 0.12010714E-05 0.56730175E-06 0.16089183E-06

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.3-41 Sheet 6 of 25 Revision 22 May 2015 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=5000.0 Y=67.5 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.71000514E-11 0.14641117E-07 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.70953732E-08 0.25460412E-07 75 0.0 0.0 0.14370967E-08 0.15539950E-07 0.47672188E-07 0.39219451E-07 90 0.0 0.31356308E-07 0.95708401E-07 0.10693691E-06 0.83028453E-07 0.52725785E-07 95 0.0 0.19428228E-06 0.20763008E-06 0.16664444E-06 0.12739076E-06 0.63567370E-07 99 0.87763675E-06 0.55491716E-06 0.43887115E-06 0.35722360E-06 0.18691651E-06 0.12359015E-06 99.5 0.20100751E-05 0.87702165E-06 0.58959779E-06 0.42241618E-06 0.20926058E-06 0.12442842E-06 99.9 0.40991790E-05 0.14034076E-05 0.70586043E-06 0.50623231E-06 0.30232917E-06 0.12563163E-06 100 0.12149576E-04 0.24299152E-05 0.93458272E-06 0.58561466E-06 0.37802903E-06 0.12742345E-06 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=5000.0 Y=90.0 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161) 26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.40193058E-08 0.23817272E-07 50 0.0 0.0 0.25931188E-10 0.20316566E-08 0.25079416E-07 0.43462933E-07 75 0.0 0.12126509E-08 0.35333194E-07 0.55407174E-07 0.67701819E-07 0.66386406E-07 90 0.0 0.14632678E-06 0.15654877E-06 0.15234110E-06 0.12525743E-06 0.98119585E-07 95 0.42502215E-08 0.31009449E-06 0.26077959E-06 0.23628263E-06 0.18326324E-06 0.11449896E-06 99 0.16467056E-05 0.79867789E-06 0.58171133E-06 0.52813391E-06 0.34962306E-06 0.17958166E-06 99.5 0.26262996E-05 0.10492295E-05 0.89531187E-06 0.76633961E-06 0.43603438E-06 0.18571274E-06 99.9 0.58168962E-05 0.21671476E-05 0.17486946E-05 0.11915372E-05 0.50521476E-06 0.19400682E-06 100 0.28155948E-04 0.35194935E-05 0.19037416E-05 0.12691607E-05 0.66004691E-06 0.20071275E-06 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=5000.0 Y=112.5 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.21045696E-09 0.42891095E-08 0.41060400E-07 0.84093926E-07 50 0.0 0.19965642E-08 0.40799645E-07 0.77697678E-07 0.12948186E-06 0.16824447E-06 75 0.95705752E-11 0.18900982E-06 0.26854855E-06 0.29308774E-06 0.31357575E-06 0.32824516E-06 90 0.18181407E-06 0.71684804E-06 0.64501506E-06 0.61001066E-06 0.51318074E-06 0.45536137E-06 95 0.13917124E-05 0.11540496E-05 0.95202239E-06 0.85374086E-06 0.71276997E-06 0.51387065E-06 99 0.49232312E-05 0.22464483E-05 0.19052277E-05 0.15245078E-05 0.10616695E-05 0.57821558E-06 99.5 0.62745294E-05 0.29965740E-05 0.22118547E-05 0.19582285E-05 0.12047130E-05 0.59775459E-06 99.9 0.10065412E-04 0.42593965E-05 0.29897665E-05 0.24965957E-05 0.15395262E-05 0.60724216E-06 100 0.18854073E-04 0.69515136E-05 0.40005962E-05 0.26940934E-05 0.16514177E-05 0.60842700E-06

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.3-41 Sheet 7 of 25 Revision 22 May 2015 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=5000.0 Y=135.0 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.23127003E-08 0.10091179E-06 0.16987104E-06 0.27334886E-06 0.38332479E-06 50 0.21753807E-10 0.29918658E-06 0.41405730E-06 0.45959354E-06 0.55291048E-06 0.61919405E-06 75 0.54507149E-06 0.90911567E-06 0.91407458E-06 0.91384572E-06 0.93934290E-06 0.97202701E-06 90 0.20855923E-05 0.17987522E-05 0.15966352E-05 0.15276491E-05 0.14050647E-05 0.11763577E-05 95 0.23725582E-05 0.26130037E-05 0.23192615E-05 0.21618853E-05 0.16822378E-05 0.12873825E-05 99 0.82008863E-05 0.53806925E-05 0.41197482E-05 0.35819121E-05 0.27855021E-05 0.15215419E-05 99.5 0.12291127E-04 0.63633797E-05 0.50722783E-05 0.40628656E-05 0.34123441E-05 0.16112281E-05 99.9 0.21577056E-04 0.95259120E-05 0.79465844E-05 0.73275551E-05 0.51353773E-05 0.17033917E-05 100 0.48696151E-04 0.12974342E-04 0.11042428E-04 0.87179824E-05 0.56531680E-05 0.17843304E-05 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=10000.0 Y=315.0 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours Hourly (17127) 8 Hours (17140) 16 Hours (16978) 24 Hours (16827) 3 Days (17161) 26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.11898855E-07 0.39420250E-07 50 0.0 0.0 0.16825294E-08 0.17398602E-07 0.48724825E-07 0.81325879E-07 75 0.0 0.57269261E-07 0.95579821E-07 0.10819360E-06 0.11580113E-06 0.13432509E-06 90 0.26942164E-07 0.29764158E-06 0.28247553E-06 0.26897686E-06 0.24290699E-06 0.19045433E-06 95 0.50944533E-06 0.51394477E-06 0.46507063E-06 0.40625190E-06 0.33735540E-06 0.21974654E-06 99 0.20018133E-05 0.11472730E-05 0.87053417E-06 0.76213655E-06 0.63080751E-06 0.24315244E-06 99.5 0.28199247E-05 0.14036650E-05 0.10350741E-05 0.95666292E-06 0.74433427E-06 0.24778973E-06 99.9 0.60016846E-05 0.23125722E-05 0.17085695E-05 0.31087411E-05 0.12042174E-05 0.25372725E-06 100 0.44052867E-04 0.98463388E-05 0.49264872E-05 0.33393026E-05 0.13460522E-05 0.25695738E-06 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=10000.0 Y=337.5 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.38649119E-08 0.29699688E-07 50 0.0 0.0 0.30288896E-10 0.48866617E-08 0.23919647E-07 0.44517531E-07 75 0.0 0.79878504E-08 0.48146685E-07 0.55628789E-07 0.67815961E-07 0.64992946E-07 90 0.87539087E-10 0.14584339E-06 0.15432619E-06 0.15032344E-06 0.13241515E-06 0.83584041E-07 95 0.12040977E-06 0.28320778E-06 0.25935333E-06 0.23495539E-06 0.16971364E-06 0.97883003E-07 99 0.13245890E-05 0.67357894E-06 0.48515130E-06 0.40291360E-06 0.24880012E-06 0.10802484E-06 99.5 0.19078780E-05 0.87823923E-06 0.57994760E-06 0.44074397E-06 0.27561646E-06 0.11238512E-06 99.9 0.35605253E-05 0.13149829E-05 0.72390708E-06 0.52097437E-06 0.30930397E-06 0.11448327E-06 100 0.81129356E-05 0.14976467E-05 0.78242454E-06 0.62768413E-06 0.32477283E-06 0.11568238E-06 DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.3-41 Sheet 8 of 25 Revision 22 May 2015 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=10000.0 Y=0.0 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.16834784E-10 0.12309329E-07 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.31556008E-11 0.10926414E-07 0.19151265E-07 75 0.0 0.27285314E-12 0.70115966E-08 0.20003114E-07 0.27724038E-07 0.26369385E-07 90 0.0 0.49454080E-07 0.68042254E-07 0.63437994E-07 0.45896854E-07 0.41167368E-07 95 0.48697504E-10 0.13497800E-06 0.10816240E-06 0.87966214E-07 0.67900999E-07 0.47427534E-07 99 0.66222321E-06 0.31061472E-06 0.23853221E-06 0.20138287E-06 0.19189895E-06 0.63146729E-07 99.5 0.10830563E-05 0.42724957E-06 0.35048373E-06 0.30563172E-06 0.21208240E-06 0.63680375E-07 99.9 0.21694095E-05 0.14475672E-05 0.93568065E-06 0.86835882E-06 0.46961736E-06 0.64146434E-07 100 0.20840351E-04 0.26050766E-05 0.13025383E-05 0.13460503E-05 0.47182988E-06 0.64146434E-07 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=10000.0 Y=22.5 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.14361038E-11 0.71856725E-08 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.40441996E-11 0.96102717E-08 75 0.0 0.0 0.40697401E-09 0.68615691E-08 0.14953013E-07 0.14444218E-07 90 0.0 0.14685845E-07 0.40945434E-07 0.39981616E-07 0.25217113E-07 0.23196083E-07 95 0.0 0.81890562E-07 0.67836766E-07 0.60708089E-07 0.48405600E-07 0.28668552E-07 99 0.38537263E-06 0.21330425E-06 0.17496620E-06 0.13972345E-06 0.71506918E-07 0.32824058E-07 99.5 0.75938635E-06 0.32788751E-06 0.22722116E-06 0.16397127E-06 0.89498371E-07 0.33046216E-07 99.9 0.15570795E-05 0.49191385E-06 0.29049704E-06 0.40790667E-06 0.15543850E-06 0.33252277E-07 100 0.97897600E-05 0.12237197E-05 0.61186000E-06 0.46631561E-06 0.15543850E-06 0.33908496E-07 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=10000.0 Y=45.0 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.15478715E-12 0.75894029E-08 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.30787499E-08 0.10594668E-07 75 0.0 0.0 0.17251980E-09 0.45243382E-08 0.18642215E-07 0.18259620E-07 90 0.0 0.10589190E-07 0.49752124E-07 0.47352728E-07 0.39567627E-07 0.32490437E-07 95 0.0 0.10258418E-06 0.87888225E-07 0.79934239E-07 0.54511247E-07 0.35676820E-07 99 0.41110115E-06 0.28796683E-06 0.22915549E-06 0.18589975E-06 0.16457756E-06 0.48509975E-07 99.5 0.93040444E-06 0.42667341E-06 0.29673453E-06 0.25408576E-06 0.17955091E-06 0.59185670E-07 99.9 0.20388570E-05 0.75091657E-06 0.73016986E-06 0.49865224E-06 0.19861722E-06 0.62496042E-07 100 0.11967654E-04 0.14967463E-05 0.74837357E-06 0.49891571E-06 0.21501700E-06 0.62915490E-07

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.3-41 Sheet 9 of 25 Revision 22 May 2015 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=10000.0 Y=67.5 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.48820513E-12 0.53997553E-08 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.21488484E-08 0.90656442E-08 75 0.0 0.0 0.19064900E-09 0.42332360E-08 0.16774479E-07 0.14740483E-07 90 0.0 0.88868433E-08 0.35620776E-07 0.38310301E-07 0.30575201E-07 0.19366762E-07 95 0.0 0.71241516E-07 0.74582317E-07 0.61896685E-07 0.48626674E-07 0.24230758E-07 99 0.29504389E-06 0.22101483E-06 0.16693326E-06 0.13171086E-06 0.73985177E-07 0.47917510E-07 99.5 0.72123976E-06 0.32533364E-06 0.22253283E-06 0.17043118E-06 0.80711118E-07 0.48377270E-07 99.9 0.17442262E-05 0.54720454E-06 0.29351366E-06 0.19567574E-06 0.10984843E-06 0.48791776E-07 100 0.50527960E-05 0.10105587E-05 0.38867660E-06 0.24060932E-06 0.13656671E-06 0.49360189E-07 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=10000.0 Y=90.0 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.91895269E-09 0.89162064E-08 50 0.0 0.0 0.15489381E-11 0.33227221E-09 0.85072607E-08 0.14988771E-07 75 0.0 0.14541743E-09 0.10274171E-07 0.19407693E-07 0.24531005E-07 0.23121000E-07 90 0.0 0.49379487E-07 0.55943179E-07 0.53257811E-07 0.46220329E-07 0.35295201E-07 95 0.44333115E-09 0.11061496E-06 0.93854453E-07 0.86122611E-07 0.65709855E-07 0.42358931E-07 99 0.60299112E-06 0.31099250E-06 0.22322087E-06 0.20123827E-06 0.13368032E-06 0.69289285E-07 99.5 0.95648102E-06 0.41436692E-06 0.34033985E-06 0.30379016E-06 0.17566379E-06 0.71729801E-07 99.9 0.23944494E-05 0.80091729E-06 0.71727061E-06 0.51419346E-06 0.21365605E-06 0.74848742E-07 100 0.12227629E-04 0.15284531E-05 0.77249723E-06 0.51499813E-06 0.28325258E-06 0.77379980E-07 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=10000.0 Y=112.5 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.20839219E-10 0.84166718E-09 0.14151624E-07 0.29900782E-07 50 0.0 0.27501934E-09 0.11402463E-07 0.25803622E-07 0.47297128E-07 0.60711443E-07 75 0.16949690E-12 0.60673813E-07 0.94820109E-07 0.10325118E-06 0.10866609E-06 0.11630510E-06 90 0.40460890E-07 0.26155215E-06 0.23049108E-06 0.21451825E-06 0.18499907E-06 0.16472660E-06 95 0.45990720E-06 0.41155283E-06 0.34330810E-06 0.30469738E-06 0.25186006E-06 0.18124632E-06 99 0.18238316E-05 0.83206919E-06 0.70830458E-06 0.56533167E-06 0.40792537E-06 0.19859812E-06 99.5 0.23300199E-05 0.10834447E-05 0.81554646E-06 0.70112458E-06 0.43298786E-06 0.20610111E-06 99.9 0.29353081E-05 0.15642336E-05 0.10322783E-05 0.92796711E-06 0.53611660E-06 0.20792345E-06 100 0.73103029E-05 0.27324531E-05 0.15486767E-05 0.10390831E-05 0.58725243E-06 0.20836592E-06

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.3-41 Sheet 10 of 25 Revision 22 May 2015 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=10000.0 Y=135.0 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.30513836E-09 0.33975152E-07 0.60142440E-07 0.97421378E-07 0.14158559E-06 50 0.81213882E-12 0.10084892E-06 0.14449859E-06 0.15982766E-06 0.19696233E-06 0.22543361E-06 75 0.16013809E-06 0.32541402E-06 0.32830889E-06 0.32482870E-06 0.34691823E-06 0.35846648E-06 90 0.76552914E-06 0.66848929E-06 0.60408695E-06 0.57567422E-06 0.53463327E-06 0.45199931E-06 95 0.12743885E-05 0.99710542E-06 0.89382365E-06 0.83963278E-06 0.65709690E-06 0.48823017E-06 99 0.32882863E-05 0.21611031E-05 0.16481881E-05 0.14180096E-05 0.11066504E-05 0.58373649E-06 99.5 0.49012660E-05 0.25623904E-05 0.20536236E-05 0.16799531E-05 0.13855224E-05 0.61466212E-06 99.9 0.90633584E-05 0.39299375E-05 0.32929020E-05 0.30402252E-05 0.20607076E-05 0.64537051E-06 100 0.21114320E-04 0.53340282E-05 0.45244979E-05 0.35760759E-05 0.22838203E-05 0.69248154E-06 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=15000.0 Y=315.0 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161) 26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.65581034E-08 0.22620974E-07 50 0.0 0.0 0.55711591E-09 0.87253866E-08 0.28744893E-07 0.47982880E-07 75 0.0 0.28775133E-07 0.54719095E-07 0.61016749E-07 0.68279519E-07 0.77431821E-07 90 0.98195940E-08 0.16965191E-06 0.16625148E-06 0.15875236E-06 0.14214334E-06 0.11057045E-06 95 0.28281733E-06 0.30325634E-06 0.27776838E-06 0.24559421E-06 0.19655960E-06 0.12945674E-06 99 0.11925194E-05 0.69576959E-06 0.51861451E-06 0.47041817E-06 0.37303488E-06 0.15222821E-06 99.5 0.17336597E-05 0.83605255E-06 0.63974949E-06 0.57241328E-06 0.43054570E-06 0.15427327E-06 99.9 0.41135654E-05 0.13727631E-05 0.10024742E-05 0.20443877E-05 0.78021060E-06 0.15839174E-06 100 0.30345429E-04 0.64752967E-05 0.32388989E-05 0.21875321E-05 0.86791459E-06 0.16016929E-06 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=15000.0 Y=337.5 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 250.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .19011699E-08 0.16883281E-07 50 0.0 0.0 0.66232393E-11 0.20247073E-08 0.13712853E-07 0.25553373E-07 75 0.0 0.31021297E-08 0.26537951E-07 0.30617500E-07 0.38804675E-07 0.37484096E-07 90 0.17074051E-10 0.84400710E-07 0.87690921E-07 0.88357922E-07 0.76232027E-07 0.48131973E-07 95 0.55542273E-07 0.16197566E-06 0.15089341E-06 0.13481110E-06 0.10000292E-06 0.55359607E-07 99 0.77743528E-06 0.38396513E-06 0.27873079E-06 0.23427765E-06 0.14466826E-06 0.65524091E-07 99.5 0.11094689E-05 0.51570566E-06 0.34316957E-06 0.26858902E-06 0.16511478E-06 0.69627163E-07 99.9 0.21586957E-05 0.78843152E-06 0.43353373E-06 0.30150534E-06 0.17615287E-06 0.71047509E-07 100 0.50085073E-05 0.90445928E-06 0.45224823E-06 0.37201784E-06 0.18749381E-06 0.71783518E-07

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.3-41 Sheet 11 of 25 Revision 22 May 2015 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=15000.0 Y=0.0 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161) 26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.42491158E-11 0.68898416E-08 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.50700438E-12 0.60802101E-08 0.10994714E-07 75 0.0 0.0 0.29931513E-08 0.10471879E-07 0.15913940E-07 0.15212056E-07 90 0.0 0.25995199E-07 0.39465355E-07 0.37539614E-07 0.26602049E-07 0.23917156E-07 95 0.84520620E-11 0.78655887E-07 0.64125516E-07 0.50901349E-07 0.38762082E-07 0.27592829E-07 99 0.39688416E-06 0.18071910E-06 0.13130398E-06 0.12209216E-06 0.10809686E-06 0.39930477E-07 99.5 0.63648679E-06 0.24657982E-06 0.21058162E-06 0.17981279E-06 0.13211240E-06 0.40202647E-07 99.9 0.13129211E-05 0.89727888E-06 0.59065110E-06 0.57528712E-06 0.30167593E-06 0.40480511E-07 100 0.13806886E-04 0.17258608E-05 0.86293073E-06 0.87396558E-06 0.30306848E-06 0.40480511E-07 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=15000.0 Y=22.5 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.33338339E-12 0.39631480E-08 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.18983932E-08 0.53384994E-08 75 0.0 0.0 0.13741124E-09 0.32824041E-08 0.85651628E-08 0.81658236E-08 90 0.0 0.67215353E-08 0.22862757E-07 0.21644198E-07 0.19387659E-07 0.13477994E-07 95 0.0 0.47744486E-07 0.40322814E-07 0.35388123E-07 0.26921331E-07 0.16593361E-07 99 0.20850109E-06 0.12234443E-06 0.10114360E-06 0.81633004E-07 0.41390166E-07 0.19006450E-07 99.5 0.43771365E-06 0.19947140E-06 0.13024169E-06 0.96822475E-07 0.51571217E-07 0.19195689E-07 99.9 0.91841656E-06 0.30954106E-06 0.16814755E-06 0.25093811E-06 0.95084317E-07 0.19331665E-07 100 0.60225157E-05 0.75281446E-06 0.37640723E-06 0.28525307E-06 0.95084317E-07 0.19398097E-07 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=15000.0 Y=45.0 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.16775125E-13 0.43620254E-08 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.15074273E-08 0.62900263E-08 75 0.0 0.0 0.50292701E-10 0.18487309E-08 0.10394373E-07 0.10547602E-07 90 0.0 0.46893938E-08 0.29167751E-07 0.26986175E-07 0.22845800E-07 0.19048986E-07 95 0.0 0.59042485E-07 0.54270807E-07 0.46654009E-07 0.32093070E-07 0.21249946E-07 99 0.23026769E-06 0.16328897E-06 0.13279731E-06 0.13307749E-06 0.98863723E-07 0.29389479E-07 99.5 0.55310579E-06 0.24180156E-06 0.19961624E-06 0.15243188E-06 0.10709704E-06 0.35758887E-07 99.9 0.11425655E-05 0.44322462E-06 0.43867260E-06 0.31491277E-06 0.12175013E-06 0.37773642E-07 100 0.75579073E-05 0.94493657E-06 0.47246829E-06 0.31497882E-06 0.13047810E-06 0.38027157E-07

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.3-41 Sheet 12 of 25 Revision 22 May 2015 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=15000.0 Y=67.5 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.84983778E-13 0.28847238E-08 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.10945815E-08 0.51356537E-08 75 0.0 0.0 0.51957716E-10 0.18548296E-08 0.95388017E-08 0.86745793E-08 90 0.0 0.39902375E-08 0.20557884E-07 0.22688319E-07 0.18057346E-07 0.11139001E-07 95 0.0 0.41215444E-07 0.40739160E-07 0.35761879E-07 0.28582093E-07 0.14339826E-07 99 0.15917016E-06 0.13336694E-06 0.99734848E-07 0.77640095E-07 0.45095966E-07 0.28247744E-07 99.5 0.42300820E-06 0.19946970E-06 0.12478461E-06 0.10174961E-06 0.48676057E-07 0.28512972E-07 99.9 0.10532685E-05 0.31382297E-06 0.18011775E-06 0.12007848E-06 0.62027539E-07 0.28752943E-07 100 0.31094064E-05 0.62168124E-06 0.23910815E-06 0.14801935E-06 0.76844231E-07 0.29126156E-07 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=15000.0 Y=90.0 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.35814640E-09 0.50313389E-08 50 0.0 0.0 0.26058447E-12 0.10601167E-09 0.45774478E-08 0.82628588E-08 75 0.0 0.35607323E-10 0.48928221E-08 0.10372965E-07 0.13553148E-07 0.13117738E-07 90 0.0 0.27021031E-07 0.31015087E-07 0.31375979E-07 0.26601228E-07 0.20073045E-07 95 0.98749744E-10 0.61981723E-07 0.54284722E-07 0.49494322E-07 0.39624183E-07 0.24721672E-07 99 0.34081376E-06 0.17759987E-06 0.13384806E-06 0.12186308E-06 0.83738769E-07 0.40617124E-07 99.5 0.56139402E-06 0.26591306E-06 0.19706977E-06 0.18206487E-06 0.10600883E-06 0.42088498E-07 99.9 0.13590184E-05 0.48480365E-06 0.43750231E-06 0.31885628E-06 0.13196990E-06 0.43901814E-07 100 0.76525512E-05 0.95656833E-06 0.48143238E-06 0.32095488E-06 0.17561098E-06 0.45360050E-07 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=15000.0 Y=112.5 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161) 26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.43523128E-11 0.30470293E-09 0.75992297E-08 0.16716541E-07 50 0.0 0.77833850E-10 0.54824341E-08 0.13232260E-07 0.27178555E-07 0.34113487E-07 75 0.0 0.32367581E-07 0.53171512E-07 0.58579150E-07 0.60095658E-07 0.64531093E-07 90 0.15921973E-07 0.14831653E-06 0.12985015E-06 0.12489033E-06 0.10569761E-06 0.94182724E-07 95 0.24518067E-06 0.23630218E-06 0.19737212E-06 0.16936474E-06 0.14695985E-06 0.10216166E-06 99 0.10542435E-05 0.48661377E-06 0.40624525E-06 0.32735522E-06 0.23301607E-06 0.11407087E-06 99.5 0.13866784E-05 0.62256959E-06 0.47548781E-06 0.39148244E-06 0.25524099E-06 0.11504034E-06 99.9 0.23214416E-05 0.91088100E-06 0.58397745E-06 0.54756902E-06 0.30177517E-06 0.11607568E-06 100 0.44572580E-05 0.16203585E-05 0.91777423E-06 0.61470507E-06 0.32979307E-06 0.11660666E-06

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.3-41 Sheet 13 of 25 Revision 22 May 2015 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=15000.0 Y=135.0 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.87701235E-10 0.17875784E-07 0.32972068E-07 0.54499544E-07 0.83042266E-07 50 0.0 0.54354430E-07 0.80337145E-07 0.89459093E-07 0.11152611E-06 0.13161014E-06 75 0.76664151E-07 0.18519063E-06 0.18656362E-06 0.18567346E-06 0.19885351E-06 0.20508207E-06 90 0.43765573E-06 0.38521569E-06 0.35380822E-06 0.33945889E-06 0.31262346E-06 0.26365655E-06 95 0.74108164E-06 0.58376895E-06 0.53680361E-06 0.49867924E-06 0.38944358E-06 0.28592308E-06 99 0.20399293E-05 0.12813935E-05 0.98928103E-06 0.86699043E-06 0.64731728E-06 0.34321846E-06 99.5 0.28955837E-05 0.15893529E-05 0.12666242E-05 0.10356380E-05 0.83330207E-06 0.35980611E-06 99.9 0.57216357E-05 0.24207111E-05 0.20257066E-05 0.18715227E-05 0.12421297E-05 0.37859621E-06 100 0.13350488E-04 0.32579665E-05 0.27657179E-05 0.21882661E-05 0.13833542E-05 0.40881116E-06 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=30000.0 Y=315.0 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.25466331E-08 0.95368655E-08 50 0.0 0.0 0.78097778E-10 0.29290086E-08 0.12006758E-07 0.21992719E-07 75 0.0 0.96733572E-08 0.23271738E-07 0.26817059E-07 0.29294508E-07 0.33200383E-07 90 0.15804347E-08 0.75784897E-07 0.72687101E-07 0.69492899E-07 0.62654692E-07 0.50567294E-07 95 0.11228110E-06 0.13580825E-06 0.12496923E-06 0.11077958E-06 0.87188369E-07 0.57074697E-07 99 0.54333287E-06 0.31370473E-06 0.23337026E-06 0.20854372E-06 0.16181275E-06 0.73323690E-07 99.5 0.78534606E-06 0.38627832E-06 0.29357693E-06 0.25960179E-06 0.18710909E-06 0.74192769E-07 99.9 0.18420833E-05 0.59907313E-06 0.44757218E-06 0.10596832E-05 0.39342717E-06 0.77013965E-07 100 0.16618098E-04 0.33369779E-05 0.16687000E-05 0.11220336E-05 0.43589006E-06 0.77496850E-07 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=30000.0 Y=337.5 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.57549632E-09 0.73884365E-08 50 0.0 0.0 0.36937684E-12 0.42537796E-09 0.53889941E-08 0.10797148E-07 75 0.0 0.60633898E-09 0.98081117E-08 0.13246350E-07 0.16726691E-07 0.15961593E-07 90 0.53020040E-12 0.36850878E-07 0.36645520E-07 0.38873999E-07 0.32473420E-07 0.19701353E-07 95 0.14082605E-07 0.69344082E-07 0.68281850E-07 0.57674050E-07 0.43507271E-07 0.22800123E-07 99 0.35425074E-06 0.16567549E-06 0.12153515E-06 0.10311425E-06 0.63890070E-07 0.31202003E-07 99.5 0.49062709E-06 0.21010817E-06 0.15162880E-06 0.11906582E-06 0.68105351E-07 0.32523928E-07 99.9 0.93845620E-06 0.35708922E-06 0.20588476E-06 0.15175669E-06 0.90669801E-07 0.33244039E-07 100 0.23853527E-05 0.45305342E-06 0.22763510E-06 0.16396825E-06 0.99481440E-07 0.33542680E-07

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.3-41 Sheet 14 of 25 Revision 22 May 2015 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=30000.0 Y=0.0 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.29609935E-12 0.28636971E-08 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.11113838E-13 0.22228508E-08 0.47122803E-08 75 0.0 0.0 0.73223183E-09 0.38157530E-08 0.69859922E-08 0.66229759E-07 90 0.0 0.97641788E-08 0.17463666E-07 0.17415971E-07 0.11571441E-07 0.10530172E-07 95 0.15624204E-12 0.34692391E-07 0.29171744E-07 0.23136387E-07 0.16517987E-07 0.12725344E-07 99 0.16071755E-06 0.76794834E-07 0.58218461E-07 0.51091696E-07 0.47019551E-07 0.18705244E-07 99.5 0.29896370E-06 0.10925226E-06 0.93230540E-07 0.79488757E-07 0.63624952E-07 0.18805757E-07 99.9 0.58652580E-06 0.42542558E-06 0.28551841E-06 0.28332755E-06 0.14418623E-06 0.18922940E-07 100 0.67998617E-05 0.84998271E-06 0.42499136E-06 0.42281243E-06 0.14469254E-06 0.18922940E-07 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=30000.0 Y=22.5 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.10799511E-13 0.15164612E-08 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.61131900E-09 0.21830511E-08 75 0.0 0.0 0.16979002E-10 0.87244656E-09 0.35564787E-08 0.36691099E-08 90 0.0 0.17925390E-08 0.95135775E-08 0.92867367E-08 0.84610576E-08 0.63178405E-08 95 0.0 0.19747674E-07 0.18311582E-07 0.16318879E-07 0.12306064E-07 0.74280209E-08 99 0.73414014E-07 0.58875209E-07 0.44931362E-07 0.37825529E-07 0.19342966E-07 0.87324601E-08 99.5 0.19305151E-06 0.85239321E-07 0.57500131E-07 0.45481329E-07 0.23543205E-07 0.88065910E-08 99.9 0.40763098E-06 0.14512125E-07 0.78058292E-07 0.11679180E-06 0.43894588E-07 0.88819903E-08 100 0.28030036E-05 0.35037544E-06 0.17518772E-06 0.13168375E-06 0.43894588E-07 0.89204555E-08 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=30000.0 Y=45.0 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.18662873E-08 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.50042726E-09 0.26730709E-08 75 0.0 0.0 0.39705583E-11 0.52659033E-09 0.46017661E-08 0.47644235E-08 90 0.0 0.10701231E-08 0.11990824E-07 0.11826288E-07 0.10011917E-07 0.81641041E-08 95 0.0 0.24349113E-07 0.24542345E-07 0.20046127E-07 0.13839816E-07 0.92468966E-08 99 0.92524488E-07 0.69798716E-07 0.60351681E-07 0.59177616E-07 0.43500155E-07 0.13539605E-07 99.5 0.23834008E-06 0.11319975E-06 0.89329035E-07 0.70118176E-07 0.51050378E-07 0.16306434E-07 99.9 0.53826830E-06 0.28328691E-06 0.19303008E-06 0.15226681E-06 0.54461015E-07 0.17222273E-07 100 0.36544034E-05 0.45681497E-06 0.22840749E-06 0.15227164E-06 0.61999003E-07 0.17337861E-07

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.3-41 Sheet 15 of 25 Revision 22 May 2015 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=30000.0 Y=67.5 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.22644992E-14 0.11720056E-08 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.31417380E-09 0.22692874E-08 75 0.0 0.0 0.52800845E-11 0.48673421E-09 0.40366999E-08 0.38441001E-08 90 0.0 0.88995789E-09 0.85814769E-08 0.10402204E-07 0.83399527E-08 0.47788618E-08 95 0.0 0.17683718E-07 0.17903890E-07 0.14717511E-07 0.11889053E-07 0.60918310E-08 99 0.54966797E-07 0.61008564E-07 0.43119574E-07 0.35202913E-07 0.19701574E-07 0.12019374E-07 99.5 0.18337704E-06 0.85349200E-07 0.53488929E-07 0.43651355E-07 0.22257193E-07 0.12152224E-07 99.9 0.49097372E-06 0.14134537E-06 0.80181849E-07 0.53454563E-07 0.25143208E-07 0.12246886E-07 100 0.14467178E-05 0.28934352E-06 0.11128594E-06 0.68891268E-07 0.31165513E-07 0.12445035E-07 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=30000.0 Y=90.0 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.65864397E-10 0.20825124E-08 50 0.0 0.0 0.92840334E-14 0.11592745E-10 0.16247081E-08 0.35264047E-08 75 0.0 0.25062209E-11 0.12690611E-08 0.36838277E-08 0.57753837E-08 0.57722005E-08 90 0.0 0.98424167E-08 0.14377200E-07 0.13429144E-07 0.12304604E-07 0.88840082E-08 95 0.59097033E-11 0.28230950E-07 0.25187923E-07 0.21970269E-07 0.19115102E-07 0.10852848E-07 99 0.13526767E-06 0.80749828E-07 0.62610525E-07 0.57959785E-07 0.40544993E-07 0.17481465E-07 99.5 0.25345207E-06 0.11674047E-06 0.94287941E-07 0.81522671E-07 0.47361077E-07 0.17962108E-07 99.9 0.62218726E-06 0.22123038E-06 0.19813035E-06 0.14556815E-06 0.59094461E-07 0.18709208E-07 100 0.34936356E-05 0.43670445E-06 0.21909176E-06 0.14606115E-06 0.78980747E-07 0.19330866E-07 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=30000.0 Y=112.5 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.23345361E-12 0.47088083E-10 0.28057887E-08 0.67437043E-08 50 0.0 0.62331269E-11 0.15318589E-08 0.47521667E-08 0.10813505E-07 0.14239223E-07 75 0.0 0.11210062E-07 0.22545485E-07 0.23727203E-07 0.25251463E-07 0.28560905E-07 90 0.30338845E-08 0.61439380E-07 0.58503737E-07 0.54185911E-07 0.46454740E-07 0.40374253E-07 95 0.90963283E-07 0.10561797E-06 0.86726743E-07 0.76200081E-07 0.62735467E-07 0.44272010E-07 99 0.47112485E-06 0.22302675E-06 0.16909689E-06 0.14090898E-06 0.99676811E-07 0.50122829E-07 99.5 0.65351367E-06 0.27533167E-06 0.20922118E-06 0.17070170E-06 0.11543676E-06 0.51748586E-07 99.9 0.10784406E-05 0.41844237E-06 0.29186162E-06 0.24557761E-06 0.13325729E-06 0.52903065E-07 100 0.20587149E-05 0.70244937E-06 0.40353405E-06 0.26973731E-06 0.14793858E-06 0.53056681E-07

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.3-41 Sheet 16 of 25 Revision 22 May 2015 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=30000.0 Y=135.0 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.69041387E-11 0.64947194E-08 0.12591528E-07 0.23224793E-07 0.36272571E-07 50 0.0 0.20490724E-07 0.33088554E-07 0.36662065E-07 0.46559546E-07 0.58065218E-07 75 0.22570859E-07 0.77671871E-07 0.77909647E-07 0.78995015E-07 0.85990962E-07 0.85851411E-07 90 0.18494472E-06 0.16740989E-06 0.15365777E-06 0.14811320E-06 0.13546395E-06 0.11276023E-06 95 0.33302257E-06 0.26129362E-06 0.23807456E-06 0.22218791E-06 0.16813664E-06 0.12399533E-06 99 0.94607157E-06 0.56286763E-06 0.45282661E-06 0.38698556E-06 0.27706278E-06 0.14644928E-06 99.5 0.13263107E-05 0.73711476E-06 0.56172013E-06 0.48058166E-06 0.37332501E-06 0.15398774E-06 99.9 0.27695505E-05 0.11265029E-05 0.93776180E-06 0.85681131E-06 0.55677998E-06 0.16290767E-06 100 0.65669201E-05 0.14959496E-05 0.12713581E-05 0.10003M147E-05 0.62457548E-06 0.17522251E-06 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=40000.0 Y=315.0 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.16415163E-08 0.70380430E-08 50 0.0 0.0 0.29444877E-10 0.19349189E-08 0.84524601E-08 0.16231006E-07 75 0.0 0.60881220E-08 0.16645327E-07 0.19264924E-07 0.20944906E-07 0.24019435E-07 90 0.71701356E-09 0.53886090E-07 0.53000878E-07 0.51506767E-07 0.45976762E-07 0.37226414E-07 95 0.75505227E-07 0.99917543E-07 0.91774098E-07 0.81905512E-07 0.63249729E-07 0.41935728E-07 99 0.41088538E-06 0.22936251E-06 0.17727916E-06 0.15149800E-06 0.11761983E-06 0.55074278E-07 99.5 0.58249861E-06 0.28886063E-06 0.21878833E-06 0.18809868E-06 0.13698002E-06 0.55732723E-07 99.9 0.13457156E-05 0.43757666E-06 0.32631584E-06 0.82002043E-06 0.30040792E-06 0.58093370E-07 100 0.12992401E-04 0.25675909E-05 0.12838909E-05 0.86207729E-06 0.33248313E-06 0.58379729E-07 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=40000.0 Y=337.5 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.35253844E-09 0.53102625E-08 50 0.0 0.0 0.67349663E-13 0.23781399E-09 0.38566021E-08 0.76761992E-08 75 0.0 0.29737235E-09 0.68120087E-08 0.97082982E-08 0.12000356E-07 0.11549659E-07 90 0.0 0.26685257E-07 0.26478013E-07 0.29063639E-07 0.24013083E-07 0.13988611E-07 95 0.76828286E-08 0.51009202E-07 0.48923273E-07 0.42713317E-07 0.31614430E-07 0.15853630E-07 99 0.25945445E-06 0.12263331E-06 0.88253955E-07 0.72231558E-07 0.46019963E-07 0.23189518E-07 99.5 0.36299582E-06 0.15003980E-06 0.10998303E-06 0.91423658E-07 0.50830963E-07 0.24025013E-07 99.9 0.69772511E-06 0.27427109E-06 0.15174987E-06 0.11625650E-06 0.69469593E-07 0.24556485E-07 100 0.17996481E-05 0.34739230E-06 0.17438481E-06 0.12516523E-06 0.76494473E-07 0.24756925E-07

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.3-41 Sheet 17 of 25 Revision 22 May 2015 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=40000.0 Y=0.0 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.69631855E-13 0.20553141E-08 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.14375043E-08 0.34248908E-08 75 0.0 0.0 0.38991144E-09 0.25732849E-08 0.51838285E-08 0.49844573E-08 90 0.0 0.63576451E-08 0.12781506E-07 0.12009970E-07 0.85428482E-08 0.77559221E-08 95 0.0 0.24914229E-07 0.21519909E-07 0.17115667E-07 0.11925533E-07 0.95558512E-08 99 0.11585513E-06 0.58398037E-07 0.43353321E-07 0.38138676E-07 0.35706218E-07 0.13780717E-07 99.5 0.22897450E-06 0.80479367E-07 0.68184363E-07 0.57399269E-07 0.48447543E-07 0.13859413E-07 99.9 0.43573579E-06 0.31790933E-06 0.21758177E-06 0.21185264E-06 0.10697067E-06 0.13931686E-07 100 0.50844637E-05 0.63555797E-06 0.31777898E-06 0.31517305E-06 0.10728007E-06 0.13931686E-07 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=40000.0 Y=22.5 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.22825323E-14 0.10253214E-08 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.37899350E-09 0.15423209E-08 75 0.0 0.0 0.60948772E-11 0.50212967E-09 0.25850413E-08 0.26817426E-08 90 0.0 0.94948893E-09 0.64822387E-08 0.66115007E-08 0.59713088E-08 0.46137707E-08 95 0.0 0.13425790E-07 0.13770709E-07 0.11709076E-07 0.89902592E-08 0.53256137E-08 99 0.47268532E-07 0.42771248E-07 0.31585852E-07 0.26871376E-07 0.14729572E-07 0.65359025E-08 99.5 0.14044599E-06 0.62980973E-07 0.42434817E-07 0.32666609E-07 0.18163774E-07 0.65801409E-08 99.9 0.32420206E-06 0.10505386E-06 0.62342622E-07 0.86487489E-07 0.32380285E-07 0.66406116E-08 100 0.20757006E-05 0.25946258E-06 0.12973129E-06 0.97140855E-07 0.32380285E-07 0.66714563E-08 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=40000.0 Y=45.0 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.13420420E-08 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.30277159E-09 0.19575030E-08 75 0.0 0.0 0.98163491E-12 0.26609581E-09 0.33844989E-08 0.35684173E-08 90 0.0 0.54799099E-09 0.85229992E-08 0.87782972E-08 0.71423401E-08 0.58347283E-08 95 0.0 0.17286126E-07 0.17707460E-07 0.14583417E-07 0.11001159E-07 0.67578902E-08 99 0.60002037E-07 0.51943729E-07 0.43389754E-07 0.41945697E-07 0.31346310E-07 0.10047788E-07 99.5 0.16618321E-06 0.83851432E-07 0.64742324E-07 0.49712447E-07 0.37315683E-07 0.12012599E-07 99.9 0.38219673E-06 0.23010818E-06 0.13909863E-06 0.11604084E-06 0.39791168E-07 0.12678129E-07 100 0.27849810E-05 0.34812706E-06 0.17406353E-06 0.11604232E-06 0.46856055E-07 0.12763220E-07

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.3-41 Sheet 18 of 25 Revision 22 May 2015 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=40000.0 Y=67.5 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.86270013E-09 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.18723927E-09 0.16437189E-08 75 0.0 0.0 0.19616964E-11 0.29583536E-09 0.29029823E-08 0.27648739E-08 90 0.0 0.45677395E-09 0.62707031E-08 0.75733055E-08 0.63489232E-08 0.35549321E-08 95 0.0 0.12763330E-07 0.13008794E-07 0.11139939E-07 0.89749221E-08 0.43838959E-08 99 0.33933272E-07 0.47509751E-07 0.33027465E-07 0.24448063E-07 0.15027211E-07 0.84558280E-08 99.5 0.13824439E-06 0.66054895E-07 0.40431871E-07 0.30825113E-07 0.16482073E-07 0.85466070E-08 99.9 0.38007801E-06 0.10414516E-06 0.57283035E-07 0.38188688E-07 0.17925203E-07 0.86144318E-08 100 0.10713347E-05 0.21426695E-06 0.82410338E-07 0.51015938E-07 0.21639782E-07 0.87671630E-08 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=40000.0 Y=90.0 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0. 0 0.36115860E-10 0.15164872E-08 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.41449916E-11 0.10705856E-08 0.26077296E-08 75 0.0 0.82237873E-12 0.68779538E-09 0.23202409E-08 0.42293387E-08 0.43136446E-08 90 0.0 0.65096906E-08 0.10405316E-07 0.10173373E-07 0.89387164E-08 0.67975172E-08 95 0.15404657E-11 0.20744508E-07 0.19049246E-07 0.16678687E-07 0.13891455E-07 0.80735063E-08 99 0.93648168E-07 0.59597937E-07 0.5060003M3E-07 0.41623515E-07 0.30180381E-07 0.12550590E-07 99.5 0.18856923E-06 0.83812040E-07 0.69579073E-07 0.59586302E-07 0.34338292E-07 0.12818862E-07 99.9 0.44919136E-06 0.16302067E-06 0.14433573E-06 0.10652877E-06 0.42909726E-07 0.13341559E-07 100 0.25566906E-05 0.31958632E-06 0.16018430E-06 0.10678951E-06 0.57358410E-07 0.13782877E-07 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=40000.0 Y=112.5 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.44786206E-13 0.20067781E-10 0.18704158E-08 0.47645052E-08 50 0.0 0.20901163E-11 0.88423890E-09 0.31391185E-08 0.74166522E-08 0.10151794E-07 75 0.0 0.72699855E-08 0.16055758E-07 0.16961692E-07 0.18201654E-07 0.21012170E-07 90 0.13907424E-08 0.44147285E-07 0.42939924E-07 0.39192841E-07 0.34247254E-07 0.29138306E-07 95 0.62572951E-07 0.77944890E-07 0.62158051E-07 0.56820568E-07 0.46285223E-07 0.32769321E-07 99 0.35544366E-06 0.16516822E-06 0.12869509E-06 0.10627093E-06 0.72404021E-07 0.37315800E-07 99.5 0.48561060E-06 0.20236121E-06 0.15044947E-06 0.12279213E-06 0.86895113E-07 0.39183174E-07 99.9 0.79982300E-06 0.30243359E-06 0.23379363E-06 0.18339102E-06 0.10336390E-06 0.40233235E-07 100 0.15243104E-05 0.50295489E-06 0.29130939E-06 0.19718789E-06 0.11713684E-06 0.40354642E-07

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.3-41 Sheet 19 of 25 Revision 22 May 2015 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=40000.0 Y=135.0 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.17996013E-11 0.42544315E-08 0.87951726E-08 0.16500621E-07 0.26431923E-07 50 0.0 0.13923973E-07 0.23451772E-07 0.26243036E-07 0.33586602E-07 0.42776964E-07 75 0.12926265E-07 0.55918868E-07 0.56889608E-07 0.57493668E-07 0.62766333E-07 0.61176479E-07 90 0.13196137E-06 0.12335147E-06 0.11182908E-06 0.11028703E-06 0.97954683E-07 0.81658641E-07 95 0.24321042E-06 0.19214144E-06 0.17277318E-06 0.16163261E-06 0.12189474E-06 0.89847731E-07 99 0.69058160E-06 0.40855002E-06 0.32181708E-06 0.27994167E-06 0.20150475E-06 0.10477578E-06 99.5 0.10288722E-05 0.54148290E-06 0.39110370E-06 0.34589146E-06 0.27409010E-06 0.11023269E-06 99.9 0.19892714E-05 0.83666066E-06 0.69441830E-06 0.63590898E-06 0.40677452E-06 0.11642396E-06 100 0.49683067E-05 0.11077846E-05 0.94137056E-06 0.74459365E-06 0.45793308E-06 0.12506968E-06 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=50000.0 Y=315.0 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.11853969E-08 0.55911684E-08 50 0.0 0.0 0.15915338E-10 0.13169581E-08 0.67191372E-08 0.13015494E-07 75 0.0 0.43038213E-08 0.12962797E-07 0.15104355E-07 0.16195525E-07 0.18793767E-07 90 0.36273518E-09 0.42316998E-07 0.42017792E-07 0.40966444E-07 0.36742584E-07 0.29288746E-07 95 0.54992793E-07 0.78129574E-07 0.72207968E-07 0.64581457E-07 0.49703644E-07 0.32882163E-07 99 0.33280520E-06 0.18264325E-06 0.14367447E-06 0.12006387E-06 0.90980166E-07 0.44202082E-07 99.5 0.48250172E-06 0.23287839E-06 0.17397065E-06 0.15041292E-06 0.10630970E-06 0.44734783E-07 99.9 0.10621479E-05 0.34794130E-06 0.25547547E-06 0.67242036E-06 0.24399679E-06 0.46763812E-07 100 0.10739011E-04 0.20961907E-05 0.10481454E-05 0.70316611E-06 0.26973709E-06 0.46990777E-07 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=50000.0 Y=337.5 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161) 26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.23571856E-09 0.41648924E-08 50 0.0 0.0 0.19380348E-13 0.14101728E-09 0.30366298E-08 0.60264966E-08 75 0.0 0.17223564E-09 0.51954352E-08 0.76911952E-08 0.91056904E-08 0.90638999E-08 90 0.0 0.21044961E-07 0.20916513E-07 0.22435927E-07 0.18708000E-07 0.11039180E-07 95 0.45941526E-08 0.40792976E-07 0.38187956E-07 0.33429160E-07 0.24837654E-07 0.12232128E-07 99 0.20600692E-06 0.97148813E-07 0.70691158E-07 0.58054486E-07 0.36737926E-07 0.18491644E-07 99.5 0.28410670E-06 0.11614532E-06 0.87081730E-07 0.74278603E-07 0.39955427E-07 0.19061513E-07 99.9 0.55124275E-06 0.22283587E-06 0.11997895E-06 0.94546067E-07 0.56433741E-07 0.19482982E-07 100 0.14447642E-05 0.28267436E-06 0.14182086E-06 0.10229849E-06 0.62306071E-07 0.19628473E-07

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.3-41 Sheet 20 of 25 Revision 22 May 2015 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=50000.0 Y=0.0 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.25092474E-13 0.16122919E-08 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.99717168E-09 0.26935338E-08 75 0.0 0.0 0.22834719E-09 0.18305966E-08 0.41064112E-08 0.39980179E-08 90 0.0 0.46071484E-08 0.10087042E-07 0.96617967E-08 0.68796489E-08 0.61201533E-08 95 0.0 0.20100636E-07 0.16803586E-07 0.14196448E-07 0.98225712E-08 0.76537745E-08 99 0.87091394E-07 0.45476163E-07 0.36103128E-07 0.31477288E-07 0.28805363E-07 0.10817931E-07 99.5 0.17823288E-06 0.65993390E-07 0.54441589E-07 0.45532108E-07 0.39213191E-07 0.10876999E-07 99.9 0.36152659E-06 0.25359185E-06 0.17618959E-06 0.16722169E-06 0.84218016E-07 0.10931323E-07 100 0.40133209E-05 0.50166511E-06 0.25083256E-06 0.24891347E-06 0.84423675E-07 0.10931323E-07 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=50000.0 Y=22.5 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.78266593E-09 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.27549363E-09 0.12099282E-08 75 0.0 0.0 0.29529669E-11 0.33172798E-09 0.19754711E-08 0.20782787E-08 90 0.0 0.62962968E-09 0.48998245E-08 0.52175260E-08 0.45992010E-08 0.36191163E-08 95 0.0 0.10249266E-07 0.10755432E-07 0.94190682E-08 0.71207644E-08 0.41645407E-08 99 0.36101284E-07 0.35021920E-07 0.26912769E-07 0.21362300E-07 0.12348206E-07 0.52444129E-08 99.5 0.11135671E-06 0.50203244E-07 0.33474695E-07 0.25565598E-07 0.15020778E-07 0.52745222E-08 99.9 0.26841957E-06 0.82788972E-07 0.52334890E-07 0.68378199E-07 0.25531119E-07 0.53263918E-08 100 0.16410777E-05 0.20513471E-06 0.10256736E-06 0.76593324E-07 0.25531119E-07 0.53520317E-08 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=50000.0 Y=45.0 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.10340857E-08 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.18030499E-09 0.15494794E-08 75 0.0 0.0 0.42945606E-12 0.15061261E-09 0.25657800E-08 0.29090854E-08 90 0.0 0.33783154E-09 0.64839725E-08 0.69931403E-08 0.54554761E-08 0.45059920E-08 95 0.0 0.13322733E-07 0.13732663E-07 0.11582031E-07 0.86609830E-08 0.52724012E-08 99 0.43783377E-07 0.41510184E-07 0.33729030E-07 0.32147092E-07 0.24144676E-07 0.79870048E-08 99.5 0.13243022E-06 0.66692735E-07 0.49707701E-07 0.38130608E-07 0.28835643E-07 0.94942649E-08 99.9 0.30703234E-06 0.19617551E-06 0.10707288E-06 0.93966776E-07 0.31763602E-07 0.10014510E-07 100 0.22552031E-05 0.28190198E-06 0.14095099E-06 0.93967287E-07 0.37749661E-07 0.10081720E-07

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.3-41 Sheet 21 of 25 Revision 22 May 2015 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=50000.0 Y=67.5 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.66957306E-09 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.13316517E-09 0.12845931E-08 75 0.0 0.0 0.85038216E-12 0.16582083E-09 0.22065068E-08 0.21248860E-08 90 0.0 0.25389424E-09 0.50534226E-08 0.57119536E-08 0.50176823E-08 0.28658880E-08 95 0.0 0.10465790E-07 0.10157930E-07 0.91188816E-08 0.68588584E-08 0.34008540E-08 99 0.24164102E-07 0.35183987E-07 0.27026164E-07 0.18310264E-07 0.11509790E-07 0.64450134E-08 99.5 0.11171124E-06 0.54052329E-07 0.32624158E-07 0.23696042E-07 0.13030974E-07 0.65142629E-08 99.9 0.28228010E-06 0.82283577E-07 0.44146546E-07 0.29431028E-07 0.14633770E-07 0.65637700E-08 100 0.84701344E-06 0.16940265E-06 0.65154836E-07 0.40333973E-07 0.16320641E-07 0.66900334E-08 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=50000.0 Y=90.0 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.20694460E-10 0.11800114E-08 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.19688175E-11 0.81600304E-09 0.20301589E-08 75 0.0 0.31775851E-12 0.43454973E-09 0.16164319E-08 0.33696921E-08 0.34307661E-08 90 0.0 0.45849120E-08 0.82456673E-08 0.81490867E-08 0.73634006E-08 0.54987304E-08 95 0.51647667E-12 0.16686656E-07 0.15317362E-07 0.13467044E-07 0.11251270E-07 0.63576735E-08 99 0.73126216E-07 0.48637965E-07 0.42723254E-07 0.32386758E-07 0.24012792E-07 0.97243422E-08 99.5 0.14855880E-06 0.67772135E-07 0.55989315E-07 0.47435265E-07 0.26773638E-07 0.98806865E-08 99.9 0.36986239E-06 0.14183593E-06 0.11295282E-06 0.83600185E-07 0.33485254E-07 0.10276274E-07 100 0.20064053E-05 0.25080067E-06 0.12563481E-06 0.83756504E-07 0.44745281E-07 0.10615800E-07 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=50000.0 Y=112.5 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.12215150E-13 0.94269731E-11 0.13790900E-08 0.36257559E-08 50 0.0 0.84960749E-12 0.57637051E-09 0.22458901E-08 0.57519642E-08 0.77996631E-08 75 0.0 0.50542823E-08 0.12315439E-07 0.13372876E-07 0.14208720E-07 0.16725675E-07 90 0.75359941E-09 0.34573283E-07 0.33278660E-07 0.30816604E-07 0.27703496E-07 0.22581052E-07 95 0.44954490E-07 0.63112225E-07 0.49922416E-07 0.45039464E-07 0.36442820E-07 0.25874247E-07 99 0.29372399E-06 0.13212582E-06 0.10093214E-06 0.83105817E-07 0.58743339E-07 0.29899567E-07 99.5 0.39168447E-06 0.16215336E-06 0.11737382E-06 0.97298368E-07 0.68320730E-07 0.31828201E-07 99.9 0.64866003E-06 0.23529321E-06 0.19623712E-06 0.14293482E-06 0.86031491E-07 0.32638635E-07 100 0.12040582E-05 0.39247425E-06 0.22610521E-06 0.16602985E-06 0.97728844E-07 0.32739788E-07

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.3-41 Sheet 22 of 25 Revision 22 May 2015 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=50000.0 Y=135.0 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.61075624E-12 0.31693310E-08 0.66972738E-08 0.12690837E-07 0.20674896E-07 50 0.0 0.10099292E-07 0.18149407E-07 0.20214408E-07 0.26503898E-07 0.34343568E-07 75 0.83025924E-08 0.44163883E-07 0.44727006E-07 0.45825875E-07 0.49546831E-07 0.47610992E-07 90 0.10267865E-06 0.97962243E-07 0.87843659E-07 0.87005276E-07 0.77128107E-07 0.63993582E-07 95 0.19357014E-06 0.15113994E-06 0.13635895E-06 0.12813746E-06 0.95651558E-07 0.70772842E-07 99 0.54038247E-06 0.32589605E-06 0.24782901E-06 0.22050733E-06 0.16026121E-06 0.81001417E-07 99.5 0.80859462E-06 0.42909994E-06 0.30845001E-06 0.27604972E-06 0.21563494E-06 0.85226077E-07 99.9 0.16250297E-05 0.66202301E-06 0.54818537E-06 0.50672486E-06 0.31821128E-06 0.89998935E-07 100 0.40223113E-05 0.87409626E-06 0.74308213E-06 0.58785832E-06 0.35921062E-06 0.96486076E-07 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=80000.0 Y=315.0 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours Hourly (17127) 8 Hours (17140) 16 Hours (16978) 24 Hours (16827) 3 Days (17161) 26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.65276673E-09 0.35078707E-08 50 0.0 0.0 0.33894190E-11 0.60718031E-09 0.38736765E-08 0.80197466E-08 75 0.0 0.19328388E-08 0.77655038E-08 0.92039798E-08 0.10344905E-07 0.11389400E-07 90 0.76484916E-10 0.25294739E-07 0.25548477E-07 0.25730539E-07 0.22523533E-07 0.17330667E-07 95 0.29226076E-07 0.48009852E-07 0.43391363E-07 0.39309654E-07 0.30696153E-07 0.21243380E-07 99 0.20973710E-06 0.11531552E-06 0.87721560E-07 0.75226922E-07 0.55266543E-07 0.27757252E-07 99.5 0.30590235E-06 0.14711543E-06 0.10695692E-06 0.91145296E-07 0.67181190E-07 0.28096817E-07 99.9 0.63627107E-06 0.21613107E-06 0.15217483E-06 0.43817931E-06 0.15639898E-06 0.29515526E-07 100 0.70768247E-05 0.13542603E-05 0.67714234E-06 0.45366562E-06 0.17241052E-06 0.29666275E-07 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=80000.0 Y=337.5 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.84785207E-10 0.24457543E-08 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.45899451E-10 0.17995252E-08 0.35901322E-08 75 0.0 0.51442711E-10 0.28513145E-08 0.44887614E-08 0.54845017E-08 0.56187446E-08 90 0.0 0.12769597E-07 0.12972219E-07 0.13275660E-07 0.10979658E-07 0.66874719E-08 95 0.14491313E-08 0.25121921E-07 0.22533687E-07 0.20588466E-07 0.15167060E-07 0.73721367E-08 99 0.12983469E-06 0.61765377E-07 0.44980368E-07 0.35164355E-07 0.23213261E-07 0.11513386E-07 99.5 0.18876881E-06 0.73988758E-07 0.51687838E-07 0.46414165E-07 0.24687512E-07 0.11739687E-07 99.9 0.32741599E-06 0.13922465E-06 0.73254171E-07 0.61163576E-07 0.36286373E-07 0.12001777E-07 100 0.90657738E-06 0.18304536E-06 0.91745505E-07 0.66791301E-07 0.40278195E-07 0.12073233E-07

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.3-41 Sheet 23 of 25 Revision 22 May 2015 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=80000.0 Y=0.0 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.25106469E-14 0.99453712E-09 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.55796257E-09 0.16581954E-08 75 0.0 0.0 0.80589202E-10 0.95763264E-09 0.24900506E-08 0.25746785E-08 90 0.0 0.22760132E-08 0.61041199E-08 0.57902909E-08 0.43640469E-08 0.38284007E-08 95 0.0 0.12208240E-07 0.10959212E-07 0.91982102E-08 0.62144672E-08 0.48259530E-08 99 0.48402377E-07 0.30818953E-07 0.21944107E-07 0.20212426E-07 0.19731385E-07 0.65269639E-08 99.5 0.11177519E-06 0.42664013E-07 0.32363843E-07 0.32549750E-07 0.25111248E-07 0.65584551E-08 99.9 0.24386242E-06 0.15219257E-06 0.11290774E-06 0.10185670E-06 0.50956118E-07 0.65897545E-08 100 0.24445608E-05 0.30557010E-06 0.15278505E-06 0.15143064E-06 0.51036523E-07 0.65897545E-08 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=80000.0 Y=22.5 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.46133164E-09 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.12066736E-09 0.72181616E-09 75 0.0 0.0 0.52365095E-12 0.12807970E-09 0.12061769E-08 0.12459991E-08 90 0.0 0.22165453E-09 0.29164720E-08 0.31495748E-08 0.29592928E-08 0.22402589E-08 95 0.0 0.59576664E-08 0.67835089E-08 0.59894063E-08 0.43192188E-08 0.26721245E-08 99 0.17530951E-07 0.22263201E-07 0.17530020E-07 0.13612464E-07 0.84006615E-08 0.33540584E-08 99.5 0.65391646E-07 0.31685744E-07 0.21958471E-07 0.17399760E-07 0.99603028E-08 0.33648779E-08 99.9 0.16862316E-06 0.52199283E-07 0.35745270E-07 0.41626812E-07 0.15459236E-07 0.34284178E-08 100 0.99904355E-06 0.12488044E-06 0.62440222E-07 0.46377711E-07 0.15459236E-07 0.34394771E-08 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=80000.0 Y=45.0 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.62765548E-09 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.86242069E-10 0.94237307E-09 75 0.0 0.0 0.60965772E-13 0.47255977E-10 0.15263830E-08 0.18479362E-08 90 0.0 0.10838444E-09 0.36246495E-08 0.43227182E-08 0.32060408E-08 0.26872247E-08 95 0.0 0.74232460E-08 0.83683602E-08 0.71442834E-08 0.56041856E-08 0.31772152E-08 99 0.23824935E-07 0.25591824E-07 0.20618280E-07 0.19569001E-07 0.15346156E-07 0.49528595E-08 99.5 0.82678980E-07 0.39745835E-07 0.29984275E-07 0.22488898E-07 0.16998818E-07 0.58194978E-08 99.9 0.19101225E-06 0.12275189E-06 0.69057705E-07 0.60217360E-07 0.20355181E-07 0.61314793E-08 100 0.14452171E-05 0.18065225E-06 0.90326125E-07 0.60217417E-07 0.24044109E-07 0.61726304E-08

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.3-41 Sheet 24 of 25 Revision 22 May 2015 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=80000.0 Y=67.5 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.40123016E-09 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.57695071E-10 0.76099349E-09 75 0.0 0.0 0.11640369E-12 0.46190177E-10 0.12886678E-08 0.12265651E-08 90 0.0 0.74503903E-10 0.28157352E-08 0.34115928E-08 0.29993801E-08 0.18697315E-08 95 0.0 0.57772347E-08 0.62005761E-08 0.55078466E-08 0.41141384E-08 0.20978645E-08 99 0.11210879E-07 0.23970365E-07 0.16480179E-07 0.12894198E-07 0.64184746E-08 0.36281811E-08 99.5 0.69407463E-07 0.31309682E-07 0.20505123E-07 0.14411793E-07 0.79329112E-08 0.36715551E-08 99.9 0.19176292E-06 0.50278885E-07 0.25450035E-07 0.17403586E-07 0.90481507E-08 0.37003107E-08 100 0.51563939E-06 0.10312783E-06 0.39664567E-07 0.24554254E-07 0.95206083E-08 0.37798848E-08 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=80000.0 Y=90.0 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours(16978)

24 Hours(16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.59401772E-11 0.70902839E-09 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.26056636E-12 0.40447090E-09 0.12827850E-08 75 0.0 0.31595447E-13 0.16143946E-09 0.78973983E-09 0.20683550E-08 0.21955537E-08 90 0.0 0.21497186E-08 0.51419100E-08 0.51890368E-08 0.45642992E-08 0.33887582E-08 95 0.16535089E-13 0.10429602E-07 0.94783310E-08 0.87783860E-08 0.73252231E-08 0.39429153E-08 99 0.45823214E-07 0.33394400E-07 0.24858196E-07 0.21363114E-07 0.14849093E-07 0.56996932E-08 99.5 0.93907090E-07 0.46579807E-07 0.37967766E-07 0.33527250E-07 0.15856369E-07 0.57991549E-08 99.9 0.24400498E-06 0.10003M176E-06 0.67518158E-07 0.50156849E-07 0.19876644E-07 0.59569629E-08 100 0.12037644E-05 0.15047056E-06 0.75310766E-07 0.50207177E-07 0.26520990E-07 0.61537762E-08 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=80000.0 Y=112.5 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

24 Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.17013136E-11 0.72735729E-09 0.21114108E-08 50 0.0 0.90145935E-13 0.24937985E-09 0.10941141E-08 0.33791445E-08 0.45784425E-08 75 0.0 0.23630458E-08 0.70595156E-08 0.79780342E-08 0.87566576E-08 0.10210552E-07 90 0.18571251E-09 0.20381883E-07 0.20710111E-07 0.18896735E-07 0.17511347E-07 0.13531970E-07 95 0.21296035E-07 0.38957580E-07 0.31680546E-07 0.28699560E-07 0.22742029E-07 0.16043234E-07 99 0.18808896E-06 0.83608597E-07 0.64716914E-07 0.50944852E-07 0.37962000E-07 0.18823801E-07 99.5 0.25296754E-06 0.10035802E-06 0.73881438E-07 0.61447224E-07 0.41299103E-07 0.20404279E-07 99.9 0.39284362E-06 0.15931448E-06 0.12458219E-06 0.88562729E-07 0.57374056E-07 0.20854820E-07 100 0.72630843E-06 0.26562009E-06 0.13284415E-06 0.11288694E-06 0.65481743E-07 0.20917575E-07 DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.3-41 Sheet 25 of 25 Revision 22 May 2015 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AT X=80000.0 Y=135.0 Z=0.0 Percentage of

Total Hours

Hourly (17127)

8 Hours (17140)

16 Hours (16978)

Hours (16827)

3 Days (17161)

26 Days (16606) 25 0.0 0.53608065E-13 0.15507566E-08 0.37072401E-08 0.72642301E-08 0.12430696E-07 50 0.0 0.54108469E-08 0.10682420E-07 0.12110306E-07 0.16393336E-07 0.21119209E-07 75 0.31305785E-08 0.26878141E-07 0.27722947E-07 0.28005950E-07 0.30296825E-07 0.29032226E-07 90 0.61701087E-07 0.60302057E-07 0.54364037E-07 0.52630334E-07 0.46747747E-07 0.38486551E-07 95 0.11980205E-06 0.91934908E-07 0.84140481E-07 0.78212679E-07 0.58057847E-07 0.43278874E-07 99 0.33317684E-06 0.19935442E-06 0.14976899E-06 0.13110741E-06 0.99965803E-07 0.47624940E-07 99.5 0.48037498E-06 0.25995200E-06 0.18830934E-06 0.17129037E-06 0.13088629E-06 0.50088705E-07 99.9 0.10322974E-05 0.40344401E-06 0.33194232E-06 0.30887401E-06 0.18952687E-06 0.52885735E-07 100 0.25595009E-05 0.53274880E-06 0.45236368E-06 0.35789134E-06 0.21528973E-06 0.56458632E-07

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-42 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - STABILITY BASED ON VERTICAL TEMPERATURE GRADIENT MAY 1973-APRIL 1974 EXTREMELY UNSTABLE (T < -1.9°C/100M)

FREQUENCY TABLE Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.8 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 39.6 CALM 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 11.3 22.50 6 6 5 0 0 0 17 5.1 45.00 4 6 1 1 0 0 12 4.8 67.50 8 18 0 1 1 0 28 4.9 90.00 8 10 4 2 0 0 24 5.6 112.50 3 11 2 4 5 1 26 10.3 135.00 7 10 3 7 1 0 28 8.2 157.50 4 5 0 1 0 0 10 4.9 180.00 4 6 0 0 0 0 10 3.5 202.50 1 7 3 1 0 0 12 6.4 225.00 3 4 5 12 1 0 25 11.3 247.50 1 2 0 1 2 0 6 11.4 270.00 6 3 1 0 0 0 10 3.9 292.50 9 14 11 2 6 1 43 8.6 315.00 17 22 21 38 2 18 138 13.9 337.50 8 17 13 20 1 7 76 12.5 360.00 7 10 15 2 0 0 34 7.1 __ ___ __ __ __ __ ___ ___

Column Sums 96 51 85 92 49 27 500 9.9 DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-43 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - STABILITY BASED ON VERTICAL TEMPERATURE GRADIENT MAY 1973-APRIL 1974 MODERATELY UNSTABLE (T -1.9° to -1.7°C/100M)

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.8 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 39.6 CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 22.50 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 5.3 45.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 67.50 4 1 1 0 0 0 6 3.9 90.00 1 1 5 1 0 0 8 8.6 112.50 1 0 3 1 0 0 5 8.8 135.00 2 3 3 5 0 0 13 9.9 157.50 4 5 1 0 0 0 10 4.5 180.00 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 3.6 202.50 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 3.9 225.00 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 3.3 247.50 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 5.3 270.00 0 2 1 0 0 0 3 5.9 292.50 2 2 2 3 0 0 9 8.6 315.00 4 8 6 6 4 0 28 10.1 337.50 1 0 3 5 2 3 14 16.8 360.00 1 3 6 1 0 0 11 8.7 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Column Sums 25 28 33 22 6 3 117 9.1 DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-44 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - STABILITY BASED ON VERTICAL TEMPERATURE GRADIENT MAY 1973-APRIL 1974 SLIGHTLY UNSTABLE (T -1.7 to -1.5°C/100M)

FREQUENCY TABLE Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.8 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 39.6 CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 22.50 2 1 2 0 0 0 5 6.0 45.00 2 1 3 0 0 0 6 6.1 67.50 1 2 1 0 0 0 4 4.4 90.00 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 4.8 112.50 1 2 0 0 1 1 5 12.6 135.00 1 8 6 11 0 0 26 10.1 157.50 2 8 2 0 1 0 13 6.7 180.00 1 5 0 0 2 0 8 7.7 202.50 1 3 0 0 0 0 4 3.4 225.00 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 4.1 247.50 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2.3 270.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 4.2 292.50 4 12 7 1 0 0 24 6.1 315.00 1 4 4 2 1 0 12 10.0 337.50 1 3 8 13 4 4 33 15.4 360.00 0 2 2 1 0 0 5 8.5 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Column Sums 21 55 36 28 9 5 154 9.2 DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-45 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - STABILITY BASED ON VERTICAL TEMPERATURE GRADIENT MAY 1973-APRIL 1974 NEUTRAL (T -1.5 to -0.5°C/100M)

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.8 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 39.6 CALM 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1.4 22.50 8 31 24 4 0 1 68 6.9 45.00 12 22 19 10 0 0 63 7.1 67.50 15 12 14 3 0 1 45 6.4 90.00 12 22 8 5 1 0 48 6.3 112.50 8 37 32 33 12 3 125 10.8 135.00 22 83 73 39 16 7 240 9.3 157.50 27 107 20 12 10 11 187 8.2 180.00 20 54 5 1 0 0 80 4.2 202.50 15 23 3 2 1 0 44 4.9 225.00 23 12 4 7 2 0 48 6.0 247.50 13 15 3 0 1 0 32 4.3 270.00 22 32 4 1 0 0 59 4.1 292.50 28 124 71 27 4 1 255 7.2 315.00 18 106 222 230 209 145 930 15.7 337.50 9 44 69 65 61 35 283 14.9 360.00 17 50 42 19 2 0 130 7.6 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____ ____

Column Sums 271 774 613 458 319 204 2639 11.2 DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-46 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - STABILITY BASED ON VERTICAL TEMPERATURE GRADIENT MAY 1973-APRIL 1974 SLIGHTLY STABLE (T -0.5 to 1.5°C/100M)

FREQUENCY TABLE Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.8 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 39.6 CALM 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 4.9 22.50 39 125 44 7 0 0 215 5.4 45.00 52 92 48 16 3 0 211 6.0 67.50 48 39 25 20 4 0 136 6.6 90.00 56 64 25 6 2 0 153 5.1 112.50 41 95 49 29 19 1 234 8.0 135.00 34 167 109 37 5 2 354 7.5 157.50 27 99 23 8 3 1 161 6.1 180.00 25 26 5 0 0 0 56 4.0 202.50 15 10 4 0 0 0 29 4.1 225.00 21 16 3 3 3 1 47 6.1 247.50 19 16 1 2 1 0 39 4.5 270.00 19 16 6 1 0 0 42 4.6 292.50 28 116 53 39 13 5 254 8.2 315.00 48 203 202 298 275 185 1211 15.3 337.50 29 120 128 113 30 10 430 10.5 360.00 33 128 101 32 2 0 296 7.3 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Column Sums 537 1336 827 611 360 205 3876 9.8 DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-47 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - STABILITY BASED ON VERTICAL TEMPERATURE GRADIENT MAY 1973-APRIL 1974 MODERATELY STABLE (T +1.5 to +4.0°C/100M)

FREQUENCY TABLE Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.8 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 39.6 CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 22.50 11 15 2 0 0 0 28 4.2 45.00 14 13 7 2 2 0 38 5.9 67.50 14 7 2 0 0 0 23 3.4 90.00 24 13 1 0 0 0 38 3.3 112.50 18 26 1 0 0 0 45 3.6 135.00 15 33 22 1 0 0 71 5.8 157.50 9 20 4 0 0 0 33 5.1 180.00 9 9 0 0 0 0 18 3.8 202.50 4 2 0 0 0 0 6 2.9 225.00 3 2 0 1 0 0 6 5.2 247.50 4 3 1 0 0 0 8 4.2 270.00 2 0 3 0 0 0 5 6.8 292.50 7 20 12 14 15 9 77 13.2 315.00 13 38 72 78 81 68 350 16.6 337.50 8 23 15 12 3 0 61 8.7 360.00 4 14 4 0 0 0 22 5.4 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sums 159 238 146 108 101 77 829 10.8 DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-48 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - STABILITY BASED ON VERTICAL TEMPERATURE GRADIENT MAY 1973-APRIL 1974 EXTREMELY STABLE (T GREATER THAN 4.0°C/100M)

FREQUENCY TABLE Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.8 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 39.6 CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 22.50 4 1 0 0 0 0 5 3.3 45.00 2 2 1 0 0 0 5 4.8 67.50 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.9 90.00 3 3 0 0 0 0 6 3.3 112.50 3 8 0 0 0 0 11 3.7 135.00 7 18 4 1 0 0 30 4.9 157.50 7 7 0 0 0 0 14 3.5 180.00 2 1 0 0 0 1 4 8.6 202.50 5 0 0 1 0 0 6 3.5 225.00 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 2.0 247.50 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 3.7 270.00 0 3 0 1 0 0 4 6.7 292.50 0 10 6 5 4 6 31 13.3 315.00 6 45 40 30 27 28 176 14.0 337.50 3 7 2 1 2 0 15 8.0 360.00 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 4.6 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sums 49 107 54 39 33 35 317 10.7 DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-49 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS A ANNUAL FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 4 5 2 0 0 0 0 11 8.9 45.00 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 5 11.7 67.50 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 5 7.4 90.00 0 1 7 1 0 0 0 0 9 10.5 112.50 0 3 2 5 5 2 0 0 17 15.4 135.00 1 9 6 9 4 1 0 0 30 12.3 157.50 1 10 1 2 0 0 0 0 14 7.2 180.00 1 6 1 1 0 1 0 0 10 7.7 202.50 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 4 12.6 225.00 1 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 7 6.6 247.50 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 7.8 270.00 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 5 7.0 292.50 1 15 2 1 3 2 0 0 24 9.3 315.00 2 11 14 20 11 24 0 0 82 17.6 337.50 2 5 10 12 13 7 0 0 49 15.5 360.00 1 6 9 3 4 0 0 0 23 10.6 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sums 11 84 62 64 40 8 0 0 299 13.2 Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 299 and column totals = 299

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-50 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS B ANNUAL FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 5 7.7 45.00 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 13.0 67.50 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 8.5 90.00 0 2 5 1 0 0 0 0 8 8.7 112.50 0 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 7 10.7 135.00 2 4 8 6 0 1 0 0 21 10.7 157.50 4 9 6 0 0 2 0 0 21 7.8 180.00 2 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 8 8.5 202.50 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 3.8 225.00 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 6.2 247.50 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 4.4 270.00 1 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 7 6.8 292.50 3 11 6 2 0 0 0 0 22 6.7 315.00 4 10 12 13 9 9 0 0 57 14.4 337.50 1 0 3 7 6 4 0 0 21 18.1 360.00 0 3 8 1 1 0 0 0 13 10.1

___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____ Column Sums 23 55 65 34 18 16 0 0 211 10.9 Hours of Calm = 3

Sums of this table: row totals = 211 and column totals = 211

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-51 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS C ANNUAL FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 5 8.5 45.00 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 6.7 67.50 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 4.9 90.00 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 5.1 112.50 1 2 0 1 3 1 0 0 8 14.4 135.00 1 8 0 12 0 0 0 0 31 10.2 157.50 3 15 7 2 5 0 0 0 32 8.6 180.00 2 10 1 0 2 1 0 0 16 7.8 202.50 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3.4 225.00 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3.7 247.50 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3.1 270.00 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 5.3 292.50 4 14 11 3 0 0 0 0 32 7.0 315.00 1 9 15 29 27 17 2 0 100 17.9 337.50 1 1 8 29 9 6 0 0 54 17.0 360.00 0 3 3 2 0 0 0 0 8 9.0 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sums 25 79 63 79 46 25 2 0 319 12.6

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 319 and column totals = 319

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-52 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS D ANNUAL FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 18 79 62 14 0 1 0 0 174 7.1 45.00 22 62 41 14 1 0 0 0 140 6.8 67.50 18 32 22 6 0 0 0 0 78 6.0 90.00 23 48 13 8 1 0 0 0 93 5.8 112.50 23 130 97 61 27 9 0 0 347 9.7 135.00 37 237 167 88 41 40 0 0 610 10.0 157.50 46 215 56 26 15 21 3 0 382 8.1 180.00 32 105 16 6 0 0 0 0 159 4.7 202.50 40 48 8 2 1 0 0 0 99 4.4 225.00 50 29 4 5 1 0 0 0 89 4.2 247.50 25 34 6 1 0 0 0 0 66 4.2 270.00 57 78 15 3 1 0 0 0 154 4.4 292.50 62 290 200 81 13 5 0 0 651 7.8 315.00 41 247 532 652 501 319 6 0 2298 15.6 337.50 22 143 230 202 156 77 3 0 833 13.9 360.00 31 113 101 36 3 0 0 0 284 7.6 ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

Column Sums 547 1890 1570 1205 761 472 12 0 6457 11.3 Hours of Calm = 5

Sums of this table: row totals = 6457 and column totals = 6457

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-53 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS E ANNUAL FREQUENCY TABLE Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 77 270 82 16 1 0 0 0 446 5.5 45.00 123 207 76 20 3 0 0 0 429 5.3 67.50 127 114 53 37 4 1 0 0 336 5.8 90.00 127 130 28 8 2 0 0 0 295 4.4 112.50 107 188 74 41 27 5 0 0 442 7.1 135.00 66 281 150 46 5 10 0 559 7.3 157.50 46 139 31 10 3 2 0 0 231 5.8 180.00 41 39 5 1 0 0 0 0 86 3.8 202.50 26 22 6 1 0 0 0 0 55 4.1 225.00 37 27 9 12 3 1 0 0 89 6.4 247.50 25 24 3 3 3 0 0 0 58 5.2 270.00 44 28 13 3 1 0 0 0 89 4.8 292.50 70 216 121 81 42 18 0 0 548 9.0 315.00 85 358 441 611 502 353 14 0 2364 15.4 337.50 68 253 210 169 52 11 1 0 764 9.6 360.00 78 266 171 44 3 1 0 0 563 6.8 ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

Column Sums 1147 2562 1473 1103 651 402 16 0 7354 9.6 Hours of Calm = 12

Sums of this table: row totals = 7354 and column totals = 7354

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-54 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS F ANNUAL FREQUENCY TABLE Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sum Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 22 32 9 0 0 0 0 0 63 4.6 45.00 23 24 14 2 2 0 0 0 65 5.5 67.50 28 20 3 0 1 0 0 0 52 3.9 90.00 46 24 1 1 0 0 0 0 72 3.4 112.50 41 58 6 0 0 0 0 0 105 4.0 135.00 26 66 32 1 0 0 2 0 127 6.0 157.50 19 32 4 0 0 0 0 0 55 4.5 180.00 11 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 3.8 202.50 11 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 2.6 225.00 7 9 1 6 3 0 0 0 26 8.1 247.50 5 9 3 1 1 0 0 0 19 5.8 270.00 9 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 16 4.6 292.50 14 35 29 21 22 18 0 0 139 12.6 315.00 30 83 121 147 158 176 16 0 731 17.7 337.50 16 47 30 27 10 0 0 0 130 9.1 360.00 11 29 11 0 1 0 0 0 52 5.6

___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ __ ____ ____ Column Sums 319 488 268 206 198 194 18 0 1691 11.4

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 1691 and column totals = 1691

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-55 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS G ANNUAL FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3.4 45.00 6 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 13 4.7 67.50 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3.0 90.00 7 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 3.3 112.50 14 21 3 1 0 0 0 0 39 4.4 135.00 22 39 8 1 0 0 0 0 70 4.6 157.50 12 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 3.4 180.00 5 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 10 6.6 202.50 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 3.5 225.00 8 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 14 5.3 247.50 4 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 4.2 270.00 5 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 10 4.8 292.50 3 15 21 10 5 8 0 0 62 12.0 315.00 19 75 62 61 52 69 10 0 348 15.5 337.50 3 17 8 5 2 2 0 0 37 9.3 360.00 7 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 11 4.2 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sums 127 217 106 84 59 80 10 0 683 11.0 Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 683 and column totals = 683

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-56 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS A JAN.

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 5 10.7 45.00 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 14.7 67.50 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 9.0 90.00 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 11.0 112.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 135.00 0 1 2 2 0 1 0 0 6 14.3 157.50 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5.0 180.00 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 25.0 202.50 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 28.0 225.00 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 9.5 247.50 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 17.1 270.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 292.50 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 8.0 315.00 0 1 6 2 1 2 0 0 12 15.3 337.50 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 9.0 360.00 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 5 20.0 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sums 0 5 16 11 5 5 0 0 42 14.4

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 42 and column totals = 42

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-57 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS B JAN.

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 12.0 45.00 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 13.0 67.50 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 11.0 90.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 112.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 135.00 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 20.7 157.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 180.00 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 8.0 202.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 225.00 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 10.5 247.50 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.0 270.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 292.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 315.00 0 0 0 5 1 2 0 0 8 18.5 337.50 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 13.0 360.00 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 12.7 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sums 1 1 8 8 3 3 0 0 24 14.4

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 24 and column totals = 24

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-58 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS C JAN.

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 14.2 45.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 67.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 90.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 112.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 135.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 157.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 180.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 202.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 225.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 247.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 270.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 292.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 315.00 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 14.2 337.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 360.00 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 16.2 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sums 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 5 14.6 Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 5 and column totals = 5

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-59 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS D JAN.

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 3 7 11 6 0 0 0 0 27 9.0 45.00 0 12 5 5 0 0 0 0 22 8.0 67.50 4 4 1 2 0 0 0 0 11 6.3 90.00 1 5 1 5 1 0 0 0 13 10.2 112.50 3 6 15 19 3 0 0 0 46 11.3 135.00 1 12 14 17 7 14 0 0 65 15.7 157.50 1 11 6 7 1 8 3 0 37 16.1 180.00 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 4.2 202.50 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 11 4.4 225.00 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 3.1 247.50 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 7.3 270.00 1 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 9 5.8 292.50 1 5 10 3 0 1 0 0 20 10.0 315.00 0 1 19 46 29 9 0 0 104 16.7 337.50 1 3 12 9 9 13 3 0 50 18.7 360.00 1 4 7 3 1 0 0 0 16 9.9 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sums 23 93 105 123 51 45 6 0 446 13.4

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 446 and column totals = 446

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-60 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS E JAN.

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 10 45 11 1 0 0 0 0 67 5.5 45.00 14 23 10 2 0 0 0 0 49 5.3 67.50 11 18 13 5 2 0 0 0 49 7.1 90.00 9 19 7 2 1 0 0 0 38 5.9 112.50 12 24 18 10 5 0 0 0 69 8.1 135.00 3 36 38 11 2 1 1 0 92 9.0 157.50 5 7 4 6 0 1 0 0 23 9.5 180.00 4 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 9 6.5 202.50 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 5.4 225.00 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 3.3 247.50 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 5 6.7 270.00 4 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 9 6.6 292.50 2 4 3 2 5 0 0 0 16 11.8 315.00 3 17 18 46 21 2 0 0 107 13.5 337.50 5 13 29 13 1 0 0 0 61 9.2 360.00 4 38 24 2 0 0 0 0 68 6.5 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___` ___ ___ ___ ___

Column Sums 93 250 185 103 37 4 1 0 673 8.4

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 673 and column totals = 673

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-61 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS F JAN.

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 5 11 5 0 0 0 0 0 21 5.2 45.00 5 3 4 0 1 0 0 0 13 5.7 67.50 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 4.3 90.00 8 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 3.6 112.50 7 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 25 4.6 135.00 3 11 7 0 0 0 0 0 21 6.1 157.50 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 3.6 180.00 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4.2 202.50 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2.3 225.00 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 4.1 247.50 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 6 4.7 270.00 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 3.4 292.50 1 6 5 0 0 0 0 0 12 6.0 315.00 3 14 8 8 2 0 0 0 35 9.3 337.50 6 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 14 4.5 360.00 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 4.1 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Column Sums 57 99 35 8 3 0 0 0 202 5.5 Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 202 and column totals = 202

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-62 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS G JAN.

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 45.00 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2.5 67.50 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.0 90.00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.0 112.50 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 3.7 135.00 6 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 15 4.8 157.50 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3.3 180.00 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 6.4 202.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 225.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3.9 247.50 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 4.5 270.00 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5.0 292.50 1 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 7 9.8 315.00 5 9 4 3 1 0 0 0 22 7.8 337.50 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5.0 360.00 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 5.0 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Column Sums 27 34 13 5 1 0 0 0 80 5.9 Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 80 and column totals = 80

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-63 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS A FEB.

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 45.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 67.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 90.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 112.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 135.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 157.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 180.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 202.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 225.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 247.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 270.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 292.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 315.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 337.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 360.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ __

Column Sums 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 0 and column totals = 0

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-64 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS B FEB.

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 45.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 67.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 90.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 112.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 135.00 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 11.5 157.50 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 19.7 180.00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.7 202.50 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.7 225.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 247.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 270.00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.7 292.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 315.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 337.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 360.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Column Sums 2 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 6 10.0 Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 6 and column totals = 6

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-65 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS C FEB.

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 45.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 67.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 90.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 112.50 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 21.2 135.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 157.50 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5.6 180.00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.0 202.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 225.00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.6 247.50 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.6 270.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 292.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 315.00 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 23.8 337.50 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 17.2 360.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sums 1 4 0 1 2 0 0 0 8 10.4 Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 8 and column totals = 8

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-66 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS D FEB.

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 2 7 12 2 0 0 0 0 23 7.6 45.00 0 3 8 4 0 0 0 0 15 9.9 67.50 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 5 9.5 90.00 2 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 5.6 112.50 0 11 3 4 6 0 0 0 24 10.9 135.00 0 14 25 16 7 9 0 0 71 12.8 157.50 2 27 18 5 2 8 0 0 62 10.6 180.00 4 11 9 3 0 0 0 0 27 6.8 202.50 1 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 7 5.4 225.00 4 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 10 4.4 247.50 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3.8 270.00 1 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 7 7.5 292.50 5 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 17 4.1 315.00 0 13 12 32 22 8 0 0 87 15.1 337.50 0 4 24 34 19 33 0 0 114 18.6 360.00 4 12 13 8 0 0 0 0 37 8.4 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sums 26 132 133 112 56 58 0 0 517 12.3

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 517 and column totals = 517

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-67 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS E FEB.

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 8 42 16 1 0 0 0 0 67 5.4 45.00 21 29 19 4 1 0 0 0 74 5.8 67.50 19 19 7 7 0 0 0 0 52 5.5 90.00 27 24 4 0 0 0 0 0 55 3.7 112.50 20 24 4 1 4 0 0 0 53 5.4 135.00 6 10 2 7 1 0 0 0 26 7.9 157.50 0 10 4 1 1 0 0 0 16 7.4 180.00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.7 202.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 225.00 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 8.1 247.50 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3.2 270.00 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 7.3 292.50 3 2 3 1 3 0 0 0 12 10.0 315.00 3 13 22 30 35 4 0 0 107 14.6 337.50 4 17 23 26 10 1 0 0 81 11.4 360.00 8 26 44 8 0 0 0 0 86 8.2 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Column Sums 123 221 149 87 56 5 0 0 641 8.2

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 641 and column totals = 641

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-68 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS F FEB.

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 4.5 45.00 1 4 1 2 1 0 0 0 9 8.9 67.50 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 3.5 90.00 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 2.8 112.50 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 3.2 135.00 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 3.4 157.50 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5.8 180.00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.2 202.50 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.9 225.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 247.50 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3.1 270.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 292.50 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3.0 315.00 1 3 7 9 9 1 0 0 30 14.7 337.50 0 8 3 1 0 0 0 0 12 6.9 360.00 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4.8 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Column Sums 25 37 13 12 10 1 0 0 98 7.8

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 98 and column totals = 98

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-69 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS G FEB.

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 45.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 67.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 90.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 112.50 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3.0 135.00 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4.0 157.50 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.8 180.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 202.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 225.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 247.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 270.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 292.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 315.00 0 3 4 0 3 0 0 0 10 11.8 337.50 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 8 6.2 360.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Column Sums 2 12 6 0 3 0 0 0 23 8.1

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 23 and column totals = 23

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-70 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS A MARCH FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6.1 45.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 67.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 90.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 112.50 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6.5 135.00 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 17.8 157.50 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 10.7 180.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 202.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 225.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 247.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 270.00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.8 292.50 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7.0 315.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 337.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 360.00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.5 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sums 0 7 1 1 3 0 0 0 12 10.9

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 12 and column totals = 12

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-71 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS B MARCH FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.9 45.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 67.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 90.00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.2 112.50 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 10.8 135.00 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 12.2 157.50 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 3 12.8 180.00 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 14.4 202.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 225.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 247.50 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.8 270.00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.1 292.50 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 7.7 315.00 0 0 2 2 3 4 0 0 11 21.4 337.50 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 5 23.6 360.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sums 0 6 7 5 7 6 0 0 31 16.1

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 31 and column totals = 31

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-72 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS C MARCH FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 45.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 67.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 90.00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.8 112.50 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 15.5 135.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 157.50 1 3 3 1 4 0 0 0 12 11.8 180.00 1 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 6 8.6 202.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 225.00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.6 247.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 270.00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5.5 292.50 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 11.3 315.00 0 5 2 15 17 13 2 0 54 20.2 337.50 0 0 0 14 4 2 0 0 20 18.2 360.00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5.9 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sums 3 14 8 32 26 16 2 0 101 17.2 Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 101 and column totals = 101

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-73 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS D MARCH FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 1 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 11 5.7 45.00 3 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 21 6.4 67.50 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 7.3 90.00 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 8 5.9 112.50 1 6 11 9 9 1 0 0 37 13.2 135.00 1 13 30 24 20 11 0 0 99 14.6 157.50 1 20 7 5 9 1 0 0 43 10.5 180.00 1 10 2 1 0 0 0 0 14 5.6 202.50 4 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 10 5.1 225.00 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 2.9 247.50 4 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 8 6.4 270.00 1 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 8 6.5 292.50 4 24 13 4 3 1 0 0 49 8.0 315.00 5 25 42 78 97 28 0 0 275 16.3 337.50 4 15 50 48 53 7 0 0 177 14.7 360.00 1 23 8 1 0 0 0 0 33 6.7 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sums 39 170 183 174 191 9 0 0 806 13.2

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 806 and column totals = 806

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-74 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS E MARCH FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 3 26 7 2 0 0 0 0 38 5.4 45.00 9 24 10 3 0 0 0 0 46 5.7 67.50 5 6 4 3 0 0 0 0 18 6.6 90.00 4 10 3 2 0 0 0 0 19 6.3 112.50 5 16 6 12 7 0 0 0 46 10.0 135.00 6 35 22 9 2 4 0 0 78 9.1 157.50 4 18 5 1 2 0 0 0 30 6.7 180.00 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3.1 202.50 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 4.2 225.00 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2.9 247.50 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3.7 270.00 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 5.2 292.50 1 10 8 2 0 0 0 0 21 6.7 315.00 3 19 14 22 19 4 0 0 81 13.4 337.50 1 10 20 17 6 1 0 0 55 11.8 360.00 0 20 13 7 0 0 0 0 40 8.1 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Column Sums 53 200 115 80 36 9 0 0 493 8.8

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 493 and column totals = 493

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-75 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS F MARCH FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 45.00 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 9.7 67.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 90.00 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3.0 112.50 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.3 135.00 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 8.0 157.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 180.00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.4 202.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 225.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 247.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 270.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 292.50 0 3 0 2 3 0 0 0 8 13.2 315.00 1 3 2 2 7 0 0 0 15 14.4 337.50 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6.1 360.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sums 3 11 5 4 10 0 0 0 33 11.6

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 33 and column totals = 33

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-76 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS G MARCH FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 45.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 67.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 90.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 112.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 135.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 157.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 180.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 202.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 225.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 247.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 270.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 292.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 315.00 0 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 5 12.6 337.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 360.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sums 0 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 5 12.6

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 5 and column totals = 5

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-77 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS A APRIL FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 45.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 67.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 90.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 112.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 135.00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6.0 157.50 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5.5 180.00 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 5.6 202.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 225.00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5.1 247.50 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5.0 270.00 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3.1 292.50 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 7.7 315.00 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 9.0 337.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 360.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Column Sums 1 17 3 1 0 0 0 0 22 6.0

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 22 and column totals = 22

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-78 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS B APRIL FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 45.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 67.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 90.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 112.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 135.00 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 5.8 157.50 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 7 7.1 180.00 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 7.1 202.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 225.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 247.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 270.00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.0 292.50 1 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 7 5.8 315.00 1 4 6 2 2 2 0 0 17 12.5 337.50 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 24.5 360.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sums 2 15 14 2 3 3 0 0 39 9.9

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 39 and column totals = 39

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-79 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS C APRIL FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 45.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 67.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 90.00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5.0 112.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 135.00 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 8.6 157.50 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 7.9 180.00 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5.6 202.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 225.00 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2.9 247.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 270.00 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 7.9 292.50 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 7.4 315.00 0 0 7 12 6 4 0 0 29 17.0 337.50 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 19.2 360.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sums 3 8 13 13 7 4 0 0 48 13.3

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 48 and column totals = 48

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-80 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS D APRIL FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 14 4 1 0 0 0 0 19 6.2 45.00 1 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 7 5.3 67.50 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 7 4.9 90.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3.7 112.50 1 10 23 0 0 0 0 0 34 8.5 135.00 2 17 7 1 0 0 0 0 27 6.5 157.50 4 9 5 3 0 0 0 0 21 6.6 180.00 1 4 1 2 0 0 0 0 8 7.3 202.50 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 3.4 225.00 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 5.5 247.50 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4.2 270.00 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 7 7.2 292.50 4 13 12 6 0 0 0 0 35 7.8 315.00 1 17 61 71 66 69 0 0 285 17.5 337.50 3 24 63 39 25 9 0 0 163 12.9 360.00 4 13 21 1 0 0 0 0 39 7.2 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sums 33 135 205 124 92 78 0 0 667 12.9 Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 667 and column totals = 667

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-81 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS E APRIL FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 7 21 10 0 0 0 0 0 38 5.5 45.00 13 14 3 4 0 0 0 0 34 5.3 67.50 7 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 14 5.0 90.00 7 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 14 3.8 112.50 7 13 4 3 0 0 0 0 27 5.7 135.00 6 5 6 1 0 0 0 0 18 6.1 157.50 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 4.4 180.00 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3.0 202.50 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3.5 225.00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.8 247.50 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 9.5 270.00 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 7.3 292.50 0 1 7 9 1 0 0 0 18 12.9 315.00 3 7 19 38 48 42 0 0 157 18.7 337.50 2 12 15 23 11 6 0 0 69 13.6 360.00 14 20 28 5 0 0 0 0 67 6.8 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sums 73 109 96 86 60 48 0 0 472 11.5 Hours of Calm = 1

Sums of this table: row totals = 472 and column totals = 472

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-82 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS F APRIL FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4.6 45.00 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 9 5.2 67.50 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 3.2 90.00 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 3.7 112.50 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2.7 135.00 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 5.0 157.50 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3.4 180.00 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3.4 202.50 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3.0 225.00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.9 247.50 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5.2 270.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 292.50 0 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 7 12.7 315.00 3 3 12 9 22 15 0 0 64 18.2 337.50 1 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 8 7.4 360.00 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 6.3 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sums 33 29 22 12 24 15 0 0 135 11.4

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 135 and column totals = 135

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-83 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS G APRIL FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2.4 45.00 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 8.0 67.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 90.00 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3.5 112.50 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.6 135.00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.0 157.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 180.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 202.50 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.6 225.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 247.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 270.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 292.50 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 5.9 315.00 0 8 8 3 10 2 0 0 31 13.6 337.50 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 9.0 360.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sums 5 16 12 3 10 2 0 0 48 10.6

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 48 and column totals = 48

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-84 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS A MAY FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 45.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 67.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 90.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 112.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 135.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 157.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 180.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 202.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 225.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 247.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 270.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 292.50 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.0 315.00 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 4.8 337.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 360.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Column Sums 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 4.5

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 6 and column totals = 6

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-85 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS B MAY FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 45.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 67.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 90.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 112.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 135.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 157.50 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.0 180.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 202.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 225.00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.8 247.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 270.00 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4.1 292.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 315.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 337.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 360.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Column Sums 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4.0

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 4 and column totals = 4

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-86 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS C MAY FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 45.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 67.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 90.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 112.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 135.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 157.50 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6.5 180.00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.4 202.50 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.1 225.00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.8 247.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 270.00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5.4 292.50 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 5.6 315.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 337.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 360.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Column Sums 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 5.0

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 8 and column totals = 8

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-87 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS D MAY FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 6.1 45.00 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2.6 67.50 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 3.6 90.00 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 4.4 112.50 2 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 19 5.3 135.00 8 25 5 0 0 0 0 0 38 4.8 157.50 9 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 22 3.8 180.00 3 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 3.7 202.50 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 3.0 225.00 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 2.7 247.50 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 3.4 270.00 9 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 22 3.5 292.50 8 32 25 6 0 0 0 0 71 6.9 315.00 2 23 72 94 79 80 2 0 352 17.7 337.50 1 15 22 8 18 11 0 0 75 15.0 360.00 2 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 9 4.7 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sums 64 175 133 108 97 91 2 0 670 12.8

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 670 and column totals = 670

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-88 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS E MAY FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 4 11 5 0 0 0 0 0 20 5.2 45.00 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 9 4.1 67.50 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 4.1 90.00 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 5.0 112.50 1 12 5 1 0 0 0 0 19 6.3 135.00 6 22 1 1 0 0 0 0 30 4.6 157.50 3 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 12 4.8 180.00 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 2.9 202.50 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 4.2 225.00 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 2.9 247.50 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 2.8 270.00 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 10 3.9 292.50 7 32 2 10 6 1 0 0 58 8.3 315.00 13 42 47 45 47 56 0 0 250 15.7 337.50 5 27 23 15 9 1 0 0 80 9.8 360.00 6 28 8 1 0 0 0 0 43 5.6 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sums 81 203 97 73 62 58 0 0 574 10.6

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 574 and column totals = 574

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-89 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS F MAY FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3.9 45.00 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 7.1 67.50 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.9 90.00 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3.1 112.50 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6.3 135.00 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 7 6.6 157.50 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 7.5 180.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 202.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 225.00 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 9.3 247.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 270.00 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 10.3 292.50 1 3 1 5 4 2 0 0 16 15.2 315.00 2 6 10 15 14 37 0 0 84 20.6 337.50 0 1 1 4 1 0 0 0 7 13.7 360.00 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3.1 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sums 6 20 19 25 19 39 0 0 128 17.2

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 128 and column totals = 128

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-90 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS G MAY FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.6 45.00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.0 67.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 90.00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.6 112.50 1 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 8 7.3 135.00 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 7 5.3 157.50 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.5 180.00 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 24.4 202.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 225.00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.0 247.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 270.00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.7 292.50 0 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 6 10.5 315.00 3 9 15 8 7 19 0 0 61 16.5 337.50 0 2 1 1 0 2 0 0 6 14.7 360.00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5.8 ___ ____ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sums 11 21 23 11 7 23 0 0 96 13.5 Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 96 and column totals = 96

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-91 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS A JUNE FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 45.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 67.50 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.0 90.00 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 9.0 112.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 135.00 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 6.2 157.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 180.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 202.50 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5.0 225.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 247.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 270.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 292.50 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4.0 315.00 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 8.0 337.50 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 12.5 360.00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5.0 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Column Sums 1 11 3 0 2 0 0 0 17 7.7

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 17 and column totals = 17

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-92 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS B JUNE FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 45.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 67.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 90.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 112.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 135.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 157.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 180.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 202.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 225.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 247.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 270.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 292.50 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4.2 315.00 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 9.0 337.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 360.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Column Sums 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 6.6 Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 4 and column totals = 4

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-93 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS C JUNE FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 45.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 67.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 90.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 112.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 135.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 157.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 180.00 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4.2 202.50 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.7 225.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 247.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 270.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 292.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 315.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 337.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 360.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Column Sums 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4.1 Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 3 and column totals = 3

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-94 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS D JUNE FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3.6 45.00 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4.5 67.50 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2.8 90.00 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 6 7.1 112.50 0 7 11 2 0 0 0 0 20 8.5 135.00 4 19 10 3 0 0 0 0 36 6.3 157.50 6 17 3 0 0 0 0 0 26 4.6 180.00 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 3.5 202.50 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3.2 225.00 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 3.1 247.50 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 3.2 270.00 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 3.4 292.50 3 18 19 0 0 0 0 0 40 6.9 315.00 8 29 62 73 47 37 0 0 256 15.3 337.50 2 10 8 13 11 3 0 0 47 13.5 360.00 1 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 9 5.0 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sum 47 136 115 92 58 40 0 0 488 11.5 Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 488 and column totals = 488

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-95 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS E JUNE FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 4 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 13 5.2 45.00 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2.6 67.50 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2.3 90.00 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2.8 112.50 4 12 10 3 0 0 0 0 29 6.7 135.00 4 16 8 1 0 0 0 0 29 5.9 157.50 4 13 3 0 0 0 0 0 20 5.0 180.00 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 3.4 202.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 225.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3.7 247.50 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2.4 270.00 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2.4 292.50 7 22 11 4 2 1 0 0 47 7.7 315.00 7 29 46 87 60 66 7 0 302 17.8 337.50 10 19 10 6 2 0 0 0 47 7.4 360.00 4 21 1 1 0 1 0 0 28 5.6 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sums 67 1 46 93 107 64 68 7 0 547 12.6

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 547 and column totals = 547

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-96 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS F JUNE FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.0 45.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 67.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 90.00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.3 112.50 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 6.7 135.00 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 7 6.2 157.50 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.1 180.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 202.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 247.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 270.00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.7 292.50 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 5 14.2 315.00 1 8 3 21 23 24 6 0 86 21.2 337.50 2 2 3 5 6 0 0 0 18 13.1 360.00 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 7.0 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sums 6 18 16 28 30 24 6 0 128 17.6

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 128 and column totals = 128

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-97 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS G JUNE FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 45.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 67.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 90.00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.7 112.50 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3.1 135.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 4.1 157.50 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 3.7 180.00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.8 202.50 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1.6 225.00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 247.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 270.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 292.50 0 1 3 4 0 1 0 0 9 14.2 315.00 1 15 11 18 13 30 7 0 95 19.7 337.50 2 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 7 9.3 360.00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.4 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sums 15 25 16 23 14 31 7 0 131 16.2

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 131 and column totals = 131

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-98 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS A JULY FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 45.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 67.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 90.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 112.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 135.00 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5.1 157.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 180.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 202.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 225.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 247.50 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.0 270.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 292.50 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 5 14.9 315.00 0 0 3 10 7 11 0 0 31 20.8 337.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 360.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sums 0 5 3 10 10 11 0 0 39 18.8 Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 39 and column totals = 39

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-99 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS B JULY FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 45.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 67.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 90.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 112.50 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 12.0 135.00 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 6.8 157.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 180.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 202.50 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.0 225.00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.9 247.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 270.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 292.50 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 6.5 315.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 337.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 360.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Column Sums 2 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 10 6.5

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 10 and column totals = 10

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-100 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS C JULY FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 45.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 67.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 90.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 112.50 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.5 135.00 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 7.1 157.50 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.6 180.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 202.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 225.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 247.50 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.6 270.00 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3.6 292.50 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 5.2 315.00 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 10.7 337.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 360.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Column Sums 4 6 2 0 1 0 0 0 13 5.5

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 13 and column totals = 13

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-101 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS D JULY FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 3.4 45.00 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2.4 67.50 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3.9 90.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4.3 112.50 2 22 8 5 0 0 0 0 37 7.1 135.00 6 21 17 2 0 0 0 0 46 6.6 157.50 7 29 4 0 0 0 0 0 40 5.0 180.00 7 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 3.3 202.50 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2.5 225.00 9 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 15 3.5 247.50 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 3.2 270.00 6 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 3.4 292.50 9 46 23 14 0 0 0 0 92 7.5 315.00 7 55 84 49 56 39 3 0 293 14.4 337.50 4 18 8 3 0 0 0 0 33 6.8 360.00 7 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 3.5 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Column Sums 79 239 145 73 56 39 3 0 634 9.8 Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 634 and column totals = 634

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-102 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS E JULY FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3.8 45.00 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3.2 67.50 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 90.00 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 2.7 112.50 3 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 13 5.8 135.00 6 15 9 2 0 0 0 0 32 5.9 157.50 4 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 21 4.7 180.00 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 3.3 202.50 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 3.9 225.00 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2.7 247.50 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3.3 270.00 7 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 13 3.6 292.50 15 24 25 15 2 2 0 0 83 8.2 315.00 15 59 83 86 80 74 5 0 402 15.9 337.50 7 20 11 7 0 0 0 0 45 7.3 360.00 5 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 14 4.9 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sums 84 169 139 110 82 76 5 0 665 12.1

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 665 and column totals = 665

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-103 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS F JULY FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 45.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 67.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 90.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 112.50 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 9.3 135.00 1 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 8 5.7 157.50 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6.8 180.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 202.50 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.7 225.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 247.50 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.9 270.00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.5 292.50 1 3 4 1 0 4 0 0 13 14.0 315.00 2 6 3 12 8 31 4 0 66 22.0 337.50 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 17.0 360.00 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 19.0 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sums 7 15 10 14 9 35 4 0 94 18.5

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 94 and column totals = 94

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-104 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS G JULY FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 45.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 67.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 90.00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.1 112.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 135.00 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 6.5 157.50 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4.6 180.00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6.4 202.50 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 12.2 225.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 247.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 270.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 292.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 315.00 0 1 1 0 2 3 1 0 8 23.0 337.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 360.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sums 0 7 2 1 2 3 1 0 16 14.7 Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 16 and column totals = 16

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-105 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS A AUG.

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 45.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 67.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 90.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 112.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 135.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 157.50 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5.8 180.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 202.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 225.00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.2 247.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 270.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 292.50 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 4.4 315.00 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 9.7 337.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 360.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Column Sums 1 9 0 0 0 1 0 0 11 6.4

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 11 and column totals = 11

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-106 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS B AUG.

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 45.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 67.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 90.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 112.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 135.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 157.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 180.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 202.50 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.7 225.00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.5 247.50 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4.0 270.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 292.50 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.5 315.00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5.4 337.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 360.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Column Sums 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3.8

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 6 and column totals = 6

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-107 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS C AUG.

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 45.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 67.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 90.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 112.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 135.00 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 7.9 157.50 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 7.7 180.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 202.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 225.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 247.50 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4.4 270.00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.2 292.50 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 4 9.6 315.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 337.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 360.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Column Sums 0 4 4 1 0 0 0 0 9 7.3

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 9 and column totals = 9

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-108 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS D AUG.

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 3.1 45.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 3.2 67.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 90.00 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3.3 112.50 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3.2 135.00 0 13 5 2 0 0 0 0 20 6.9 157.50 7 21 1 0 0 0 0 0 29 4.3 180.00 5 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 3.7 202.50 11 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 3.1 225.00 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 3.0 247.50 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 2.9 270.00 13 15 3 0 0 0 0 0 31 4.2 292.50 17 75 43 25 5 1 0 0 166 7.8 315.00 9 33 79 67 36 14 0 0 238 12.9 337.50 2 17 3 0 0 0 0 0 22 6.0 360.00 4 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 3.5 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Column Sums 87 225 134 94 41 15 0 0 596 8.7

Hours of Calm = 2

Sums of this table: row totals = 596 and column totals = 596

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-109 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS E AUG.

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 8 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 3.2 45.00 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 3.3 67.50 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 3.5 90.00 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2.5 112.50 7 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 12 4.2 135.00 5 11 6 1 0 0 0 0 23 5.9 157.50 7 18 2 0 0 0 0 0 27 4.4 180.00 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 3.4 202.50 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3.0 225.00 4 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 9 4.3 247.50 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 3.3 270.00 6 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 12 4.5 292.50 11 52 19 10 7 8 0 0 107 9.3 315.00 18 68 75 107 70 61 2 0 401 15.0 337.50 10 31 7 0 0 0 0 0 48 5.3 360.00 14 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 4.1 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sums 118 228 116 118 77 69 2 0 728 11.0 Hours of Calm = 3

Sums of this table: row totals = 728 and column totals = 728

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-110 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS F AUG.

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 45.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 67.50 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 7.6 90.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 112.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 135.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 157.50 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 4.3 180.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4.4 202.50 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.4 225.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 247.50 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 9.0 270.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 292.50 1 2 2 3 6 9 0 0 23 20.3 315.00 2 1 5 5 14 22 6 0 55 24.3 337.50 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 6.8 360.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Column Sums 7 11 9 9 20 31 6 0 93 20.3

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 93 and column totals = 93

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-111 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS G AUG.

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 45.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 67.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 90.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 112.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 135.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 157.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 180.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 202.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 225.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 247.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 270.00 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 6.7 292.50 0 1 0 0 2 3 0 0 6 20.1 315.00 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 4 24.0 337.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 360.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sums 0 4 0 2 4 3 1 0 14 17.4

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 14 and column totals = 14

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-112 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS A SEPT.

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 45.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 67.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 90.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 112.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 135.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 157.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 180.00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.4 202.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 225.00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.4 247.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 270.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 292.50 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6.5 315.00 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 28.7 337.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 360.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sums 1 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 7 15.1

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 7 and column totals = 7

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-113 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS B SEPT.

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 45.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 67.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 90.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 112.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 135.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 157.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 180.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 202.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 225.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 247.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 270.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 292.50 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.8 315.00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.9 337.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 360.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Column Sums 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3.3 Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 2 and column totals = 2

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-114 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS C SEPT.

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 45.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 67.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 90.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 112.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 135.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 157.50 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7.0 180.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 202.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 225.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 247.50 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2.2 270.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 292.50 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 6.1 315.00 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 11.2 337.50 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 16.0 360.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Column Sums 3 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 10 6.9

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 10 and column totals = 10

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-115 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS D SEPT.

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3.5 45.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3.2 67.50 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3.5 90.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3.6 112.50 5 21 4 1 0 0 0 0 31 5.2 135.00 9 54 9 1 0 0 0 0 73 5.4 157.50 3 15 4 0 0 0 0 0 22 5.0 180.00 3 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 3.5 202.50 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 2.8 225.00 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 2.9 247.50 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 4.8 270.00 3 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 11 4.1 292.50 3 30 23 13 3 0 0 0 72 8.9 315.00 4 24 42 40 24 6 0 0 140 12.6 337.50 1 15 5 2 0 0 0 0 23 6.3 360.00 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 3.5 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Column Sums 55 201 89 57 27 6 0 0 435 8.0

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 435 and column totals = 435

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-116 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS E SEPT.

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind

Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 7 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 21 3.9 45.00 6 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 16 4.0 67.50 5 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 13 5.0 90.00 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 2.9 112.50 7 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 23 4.2 135.00 8 20 10 0 0 0 0 0 38 5.2 157.50 4 11 5 0 0 0 0 0 20 5.5 180.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3.7 202.50 3 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 8 4.3 225.00 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 2.6 247.50 2 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 7 8.0 270.00 6 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 9 4.5 292.50 4 27 17 10 2 1 0 0 61 8.6 315.00 4 36 46 52 56 27 0 0 221 15.0 337.50 3 25 10 7 1 1 0 0 47 7.8 360.00 2 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 15 4.4 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Column Sums 79 190 93 73 60 29 0 0 524 9.7

Hours of Calm = 2

Sums of this table: row totals = 524 and column totals = 524

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-117 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS F SEPT.

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3.3 45.00 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3.5 67.50 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1.5 90.00 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2.6 112.50 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 4.1 135.00 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 5.3 157.50 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 5.3 180.00 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 4.3 202.50 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1.7 225.00 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3.3 247.50 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4.0 270.00 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 5.2 292.50 2 7 1 1 3 0 0 0 14 9.7 315.00 2 14 40 1 28 38 0 0 153 17.2 337.50 1 5 6 1 1 0 0 0 14 9.2 360.00 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 4.2 ___ ___ ____ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sums 33 62 49 33 32 8 0 0 247 12.8

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 247 and column totals = 247

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-118 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS G SEPT.

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4.4 45.00 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4.0 67.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 90.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 112.50 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2.9 135.00 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 4.0 157.50 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.1 180.00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.8 202.50 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.5 225.00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.8 247.50 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4.0 270.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 292.50 0 1 2 1 1 3 0 0 8 17.8 315.00 1 4 7 9 4 10 1 0 36 17.8 337.50 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 11.0 360.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sums 12 16 9 10 6 13 1 0 67 13.1

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 67 and column totals = 67

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-119 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS A OCT.

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 45.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 67.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 90.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 112.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 135.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 157.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 180.00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.8 202.50 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.9 225.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 247.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 270.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 292.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 315.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 337.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 360.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Column Sums 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3.8

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 2 and column totals = 2

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-120 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS B OCT.

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 45.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 67.50 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 6 10.2 90.00 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 8.2 112.50 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.0 135.00 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3.0 157.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 180.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 202.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 225.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 247.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 270.00 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 9.3 292.50 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 13.8 315.00 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 5 8.6 337.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 360.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Column Sums 3 2 10 4 0 0 0 0 19 9.1 Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 19 and column totals = 19

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-121 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS C OCT.

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 45.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 67.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 90.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 112.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 135.00 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 8.7 157.50 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.2 180.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 202.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 225.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 247.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 270.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 292.50 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 8.2 315.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 337.50 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.0 360.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Column Sums 1 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 6 6.5

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 6 and column totals = 6

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-122 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS D OCT.

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4.4 45.00 2 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 9 4.5 67.50 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3.5 90.00 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 12 5.7 112.50 5 17 12 2 0 0 0 0 36 6.7 135.00 4 25 21 5 0 0 0 0 55 7.1 157.50 2 18 1 0 0 0 0 0 21 4.7 180.00 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 3.4 202.50 2 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 9 4.8 225.00 4 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 8 5.0 247.50 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.3 270.00 8 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 3.5 292.50 5 25 23 6 0 1 0 0 60 7.9 315.00 3 22 29 31 4 18 1 0 108 13.8 337.50 1 11 9 2 0 0 0 0 23 7.7 360.00 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 5.4 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Column Sums 43 163 102 48 4 19 1 0 380 8.4

Hours of Calm = 2

Sums of this table: row totals = 380 and column totals = 380

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-123 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS E OCT.

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 7 28 2 2 0 0 0 0 39 5.0 45.00 10 17 1 4 2 0 0 0 34 6.2 67.50 27 23 0 2 0 1 0 0 53 4.1 90.00 20 22 4 1 0 0 0 0 47 4.1 112.50 17 15 11 3 2 0 0 0 48 6.7 135.00 7 53 22 8 0 0 0 0 90 6.6 157.50 5 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 3.7 180.00 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 3.3 202.50 4 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 10 4.7 225.00 3 2 5 10 1 0 0 0 21 11.8 247.50 3 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 7 9.2 270.00 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3.1 292.50 12 20 20 8 6 3 0 0 69 9.4 315.00 11 23 21 37 19 9 0 0 120 12.9 337.50 14 24 13 4 2 0 0 0 57 6.7 360.00 5 16 6 2 0 0 0 0 29 6.1 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Column Sums 154 265 108 81 34 13 0 0 655 7.6

Hours of Calm = 3

Sums of this table: row totals = 655 and column totals = 655

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-124 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS F OCT.

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 4 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 10 4.9 45.00 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 4.4 67.50 5 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 11 5.1 90.00 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 5.2 112.50 5 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 18 4.3 135.00 3 10 5 1 0 0 0 0 19 6.2 157.50 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2.4 180.00 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2.1 202.50 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.0 225.00 0 2 1 5 3 0 0 0 11 13.5 247.50 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 12.4 270.00 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 4.1 292.50 3 5 0 4 2 3 0 0 27 11.2 315.00 10 11 14 15 15 7 0 0 72 12.8 337.50 3 10 7 7 0 0 0 0 27 8.7 360.00 3 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 11 6.3 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Column Sums 51 68 46 34 22 10 0 0 231 9.1

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 231 and column totals = 231

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-125 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS G OCT.

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.2 45.00 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 6.5 67.50 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2.7 90.00 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2.8 112.50 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 4.4 135.00 8 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 3.5 157.50 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 3.3 180.00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.0 202.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 225.00 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 13.1 247.50 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2.5 270.00 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2.9 292.50 2 3 6 2 2 0 0 0 15 9.7 315.00 8 11 5 14 7 5 0 0 50 12.2 337.50 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 10.4 360.00 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2.7 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Column Sums 35 41 11 21 9 5 0 0 122 8.3

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 122 and column totals = 122

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-126 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS A NOV.

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 6.9 45.00 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 7.9 67.50 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 8.0 90.00 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 5 11.2 112.50 0 2 2 4 5 1 0 0 14 15.4 135.00 1 1 1 7 1 0 0 0 11 13.5 157.50 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 9.3 180.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 202.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 225.00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.6 247.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 270.00 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.1 292.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 315.00 0 2 2 8 3 5 0 0 20 18.4 337.50 1 2 9 11 11 7 0 0 41 16.4 360.00 1 4 7 2 0 0 0 0 14 8.5 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sums 3 17 29 35 20 13 0 0 117 14.3

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 117 and column totals = 117

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-127 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS B NOV.

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 45.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 67.50 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 7.2 90.00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5.2 112.50 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 11.1 135.00 0 1 3 5 0 0 0 0 9 12.6 157.50 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 4.2 180.00 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3.6 202.50 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3.9 225.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 247.50 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 5.3 270.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 292.50 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.9 315.00 2 2 1 3 3 0 0 0 11 12.0 337.50 1 0 2 3 1 2 0 0 9 15.9 360.00 0 3 5 1 0 0 0 0 9 9.2 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sums 11 12 15 13 4 2 0 0 57 10.1 Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 57 and column totals = 57

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-128 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS C NOV.

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 7.0 45.00 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 6.7 67.50 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 4.9 90.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 112.50 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 4 15.2 135.00 1 6 5 10 0 0 0 0 22 10.6 157.50 2 5 2 0 1 0 0 0 10 7.1 180.00 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 8.4 202.50 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3.4 225.00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.4 247.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 270.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 292.50 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3.5 315.00 0 3 3 2 1 0 0 0 9 11.6 337.50 0 1 4 10 4 4 0 0 23 17.8 360.00 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 12.2 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sums 9 25 21 23 8 5 0 0 91 11.3

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 91 and column totals = 91

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-129 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS D NOV.

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 2 14 9 1 0 1 0 0 27 7.4 45.00 6 12 4 0 1 0 0 0 23 5.7 67.50 6 4 9 0 0 0 0 0 19 5.8 90.00 5 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 16 4.5 112.50 0 5 1 5 4 3 0 0 18 15.3 135.00 2 17 16 9 1 2 0 0 47 9.6 157.50 4 20 2 1 2 1 0 0 30 7.4 180.00 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 5.5 202.50 2 3 4 1 1 0 0 0 11 8.5 225.00 2 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 7 11.2 247.50 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4.5 270.00 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 5.7 292.50 2 6 6 2 2 0 0 0 18 10.0 315.00 0 3 24 38 24 3 0 0 92 15.3 337.50 1 5 13 22 10 0 0 0 51 13.5 360.00 2 5 26 12 2 0 0 0 47 10.5 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sums 37 107 123 93 48 10 0 0 418 10.7

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 418 and column totals = 418

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-130 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS E NOV.

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 12 20 9 1 0 0 0 0 42 5.4 45.00 22 33 10 1 0 0 0 0 66 4.6 67.50 20 14 5 7 0 0 0 0 46 5.7 90.00 17 13 2 1 0 0 0 0 33 4.1 112.50 9 18 0 2 1 1 0 0 31 6.1 135.00 5 28 5 3 0 0 0 0 41 6.1 157.50 3 14 1 2 0 0 0 0 20 5.4 180.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3.6 202.50 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2.5 225.00 1 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 9 10.4 247.50 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 5.0 270.00 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 6 6.6 292.50 5 12 3 3 5 0 0 0 28 9.2 315.00 1 21 24 28 16 7 0 0 97 13.3 337.50 3 19 13 18 7 1 0 0 61 11.0 360.00 7 23 14 6 3 0 0 0 53 7.6 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Column Sums 110 226 90 73 33 10 0 0 542 7.9

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 542 and column totals = 542

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-131 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS F NOV.

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 3.7 45.00 4 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 13 4.2 67.50 5 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 90.00 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 2.9 112.50 8 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 3.2 135.00 3 9 5 0 0 0 0 0 17 5.3 157.50 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 4.0 180.00 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4.8 202.50 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.7 225.00 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2.5 247.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 270.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 292.50 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 6 5.1 315.00 2 9 9 8 6 1 0 0 35 11.6 337.50 1 3 1 1 2 0 0 0 8 10.4 360.00 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 4.5 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Column Sums 45 56 21 9 8 1 0 0 140 6.3

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 140 and column totals = 140

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-132 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS G NOV.

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 45.00 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2.8 67.50 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.3 90.00 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3.0 112.50 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2.7 135.00 2 7 1 1 0 0 0 0 11 5.3 157.50 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.1 180.00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.2 202.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 225.00 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2.3 247.50 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.7 270.00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.2 292.50 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 5 9.0 315.00 1 7 2 3 1 0 0 0 14 9.0 337.50 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5.9 360.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Column Sums 14 23 5 5 1 0 0 0 48 5.9

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 48 and column totals = 48

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-133 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS A DEC.

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 8.7 45.00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6.8 67.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 90.00 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 9.5 112.50 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 20.3 135.00 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 10.7 157.50 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.0 180.00 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 8.2 202.50 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 12.7 225.00 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 12.1 247.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 270.00 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 15.1 292.50 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 18.6 315.00 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 29.4 337.50 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 9.0 360.00 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 8.3 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sums 1 5 7 6 0 5 0 0 24 13.1

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 24 and column totals = 24

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-134 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS B DEC.

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 8.6 45.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 67.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 90.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 112.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 135.00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5.0 157.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 180.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 202.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 225.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 247.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 270.00 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 20.3 292.50 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 7.5 315.00 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 25.3 337.50 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 14.4 360.00 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.9 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sums 0 1 4 2 1 1 0 0 9 13.4 Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 9 and column totals = 9

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-135 DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS C DEC.

HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 45.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 67.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 90.00 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 7.5 112.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 135.00 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 11.5 157.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 180.00 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 19.3 202.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 225.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 247.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 270.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 292.50 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 10.8 315.00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.0 337.50 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 7 12.6 360.00 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 6.4 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sums 1 2 9 4 1 0 0 0 17 10.4

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 17 and column totals = 17

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-136 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS D DEC.

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 10 21 4 0 0 0 0 35 8.8 45.00 0 7 12 5 0 0 0 0 24 9.3 67.50 0 7 6 2 0 0 0 0 15 8.0 90.00 1 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 12 5.5 112.50 1 7 7 14 5 5 0 0 39 14.6 135.00 0 7 8 8 6 4 0 0 33 14.0 157.50 0 16 4 5 1 3 0 0 29 10.4 180.00 1 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 11 5.1 202.50 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 4.4 225.00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5.0 247.50 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3.5 270.00 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 4.7 292.50 1 5 2 2 0 1 0 0 11 9.2 315.00 2 2 6 33 17 8 0 0 68 16.9 337.50 2 6 13 22 11 1 0 0 55 13.2 360.00 1 18 22 11 0 0 0 0 2 8.7 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

Column Sums 14 114 103 107 40 22 0 0 400 11.5

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 400 and column totals = 400

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-137 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS E DEC.

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 6 50 17 9 1 0 0 0 83 6.7 45.00 10 49 21 2 0 0 0 0 82 5.8 67.50 22 22 19 11 2 0 0 0 76 6.8 90.00 19 25 6 2 1 0 0 0 53 4.8 112.50 15 30 9 6 8 4 0 0 72 8.7 135.00 4 30 21 2 0 5 0 0 62 8.6 157.50 6 2 0 0 1 0 0 23 5.9 180.00 4 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 15 4.4 202.50 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 3.3 225.00 3 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 9 5.5 247.50 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4.9 270.00 1 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 4.8 292.50 3 10 3 7 3 2 0 0 28 11.0 315.00 4 24 26 33 31 1 0 0 119 13.1 337.50 4 36 36 33 3 0 1 0 113 10.0 360.00 9 39 29 12 0 0 0 0 89 7.3 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Column Sums 112 355 192 117 50 13 1 0 840 8.3 Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 840 and column totals = 840

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-138 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS F DEC.

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind

Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 5.3 45.00 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 3.8 67.50 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2.8 90.00 7 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 10 3.6 112.50 11 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 3.1 135.00 6 17 4 0 0 0 2 0 29 6.9 157.50 3 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 12 4.6 180.00 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2.8 202.50 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2.4 225.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 247.50 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6.3 270.00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.0 292.50 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 6 8.2 315.00 1 5 8 12 10 0 0 0 36 13.8 337.50 0 7 4 5 0 0 0 0 16 9.6 360.00 1 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 9 6.4 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Column Sums 46 62 23 18 11 0 2 0 162 7.4

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 162 and column totals = 162

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-139 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE - MAY 1973 - APRIL 1975 WIND DATA 10M, TEMP GRAD 76-10M STABILITY CLASS G DEC.

FREQUENCY TABLE

Mean Wind Direction Mean Wind Speed, mph Row Sums Row Avg. 1.5 5.1 9.6 15.1 21.1 29.6 40.1 50.1 22.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 45.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 67.50 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.9 90.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 112.50 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5.3 135.00 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 5.0 157.50 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2.6 180.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 202.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 225.00 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 5.4 247.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 270.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 292.50 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3.3 315.00 0 8 2 1 1 0 0 0 12 8.0 337.50 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 5 8.1 360.00 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 5.7 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Column Sums 6 18 6 2 1 0 0 0 33 6.3

Hours of Calm = 0

Sums of this table: row totals = 33 and column totals = 33

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-141 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED RANGES OF STABILITY CLASSIFICATION PARAMETERS FOR EACH STABILITY CATEGORY AT DCPP SITE Pasquil Stability Class (a) Range, (deg) Range, (°C/100m) R i Range g = 76m - 10m U

-2 A 22.5 < -1.9 < -0.02 B 22.5 > 17.5 -1.9 to -1.7 -0.02 to- .01 C 17.5 > 12.5 -1.7 to -1.5 -0.01 to -.001 D 12.5 > 7.5 -1.5 to -0.5 -0.001 to +0.005 E 7.5 > 3.8 -0.5 to +1.5 +0.005 to +0.02 F 3.8 > 2.1 +1.5 to +4.0 +0.02 to +0.07 G 2.1 > +4.0 +0.07

(a) See Reference 17, Section 2.3.9.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-142 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED

SUMMARY

OF METEOROLOGICAL DATA FOR DIFFUSION EXPERIMENTS AT DCPP SITE Date Release Time (Local Time) h (ft) Wind Dir. (deg) m (mph) H m (ft) T 250 30 (°F) Trial No. Trials with Northwesterly Flow 1 11-20-68 1552-1652 250 304 11 1000 11.7 2 11-21-68 1411-1510 250 313 15 800 3.1 3 11-22-68 1540-1632 250 303 20 400 5.9 4 11-24-68 1036-1135 250 310 19 2500 -2.0 9 03-04-69 1110-1210 250 294 16 800 -3.0 10 03-06-69 1220-1320 250 311 26 2400 -3.0 11 03-07-69 1100-1200 250 297 16 4600 -4.2 12 03-08-69 1418-1518 250 306 14 1400 -2.0 15 05-20-69 1100-1200 250 305 15 1000 -0.2 16 05-20-69 1445-1545 250 306 18 600 -0.6 17 05-21-69 1240-1340 250 308 24 800 +1.5 18 05-22-69 1230-1330 250 310 20 1000 +0.3 20 07-15-69 1412-1512 250 305 27 600 +4.5 22 07-16-69 1500-1600 250 304 16 500 +1.0 24 07-24-69 1238-1338 250 305 24 600 +1.7 25 07-25-69 1054-1155 250 306 20 1500 +0.1 Trials with Southeasterly Flow 6 01-12-69 0940-1040 250 133 15 2500 -1.3 8 02-22-69 1300-1400 250 168 9 2500 -2.7 13 04-02-69 0930-1030 250 146 10 1500 -0.4 14 04-02-69 1300-1400 250 148 9 2500 -2.2 23 07-17-69 0205-0305 250 131 8 500 +1.9 30 10-15-69 0742-0842 25 143 6 2500 +0.4

Trials with Light and Variable Winds (a) 19 07-15-69 0201-0301 250 -0.8 21 07-16-69 0433-0500 250 0.9 26 09-29-69 0037-0137 25 -1.1 27 09-30-69 0220-0322 25 +0.4 28 10-01-69 0250-0350 25 +0.3

(a) Wind speed of 2 mph was assumed.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.3-144 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED DCPP SITE NIGHTTIME P-G STABILITY CATEGORIES BASED ON And if the 10m Wind Speed, u is:

If the Stability Class is:

m/s mi/hr The Stability Class for the z is: A u<2.9 u<6.4 F 2.9 u<3.6 6.4 u<7.9 E 3.6 u 7.9 u D B u<2.4 u<5.3 F 2.4 u<3.0 5.3 u<6.6 E 3.0<u 6.6 u D C u<2.4 u<5.3 E 2.4<u 5.3<u D

D, E, F, or G wind speed not considered

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Revision 22 May 2015 TABLE 2.4-1 HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN ITALICS BELOW NOT REQUIRED TO BE REVISED PROBABLE MAXIMUM PRECIPITATION (PMP) AS A FUNCTION OF DURATION AT DCPP SITE AS DETERMINED FROM USWB HMR NO. 36

Duration, hours PMP, inches 1 4.3 3 7.1 6 9.1 12 12.0 18 14.8 24 16.6

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.5-1 Sheet 1 of 43 Revision 17 November 2006 LISTING OF EARTHQAKES WITHIN 75 MILES OF THE DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT SITE SELECTED EARTHQUAKES MM/DD/YY HR/MN/SE NORTH LAT WEST LONG QUALITY MAG. STA. REC. FELT MAXIMUM INTENSITY - COMMENTS -?/-?/1800 -?--?--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA. 03/25/1806 08--?--? 34.50 119.67 D F VIII AT SANTA BARBARA. 12/21/1812 18--?--? 34.50 120.00 D F VIII AT SAN FERNANDO. 12/21/1812 19--?--? 34.50 120.00 D F IX AT SAN FERNANDO. 01/18/1815 -?--?--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA; 5 SHOCKS. 01/30/1815 -?--?--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA.

07/08/1815 -?--?--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA; 6 SHOCKS ON THE EIGHTH AND NINTH. -?/-?/1830 -?--?--? 35.25 120.67 D F VIII AT SAN LUIS OBISPO. 07/03/1841 -?--?--? 36.30 122.30 6.3 (CALTECH FILE) 06/13/1851 -?--?--? 35.25 120.67 D F V AT SAN LUIS OBISPO. 10/26/1852 -?--?--? 35.67 121.17 D F X AT SAN SIMEON; 11 SHOCKS. 12/17/1852 -?--?--? 35.25 120.67 D F IX AT SAN LUIS OBISPO; 2 SHOCKS. 01/10/1853 -?--?--? 35.25 120.67 D F DANA RANCHO.

01/29/1853 -?--?--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA.

02/01/1853 21--?--? 35.67 121.17 D F VIII AT SAN SIMEON. 02/14/1853 -?--?--? 35.25 120.67 D F SAN LUIS OBISPO. 03/01/1853 -?--?--? 34.50 119.67 D F V AT SAN LUIS OBISPO. 04/20/1854 -?--?--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA.

04/29/1854 -?--?--? 34.50 119.67 D F III AT SANTA BARBARA. 05/03/1854 13-10--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA; 3 SEVERE SHOCKS. 05/13/1854 -?--?--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA.

05/29/1854 -?--?--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA.

05/31/1854 12-50--? 34.50 119.67 D F VI AT SANTA BARBARA; 3 SHOCKS. 01/14/1855 02-30--? 35.75 120.67 D F SAN BENITO AND SAN MIGUEL. 06/25/1855 22--?--? 34.50 119.67 D F V AT SANTA BARBARA. 01/08/1857 14--?--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA.

01/08/1857 17--?--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA. 01/08/1857 18--?--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA.

01/09/1857 07-20--? 34.50 119.67 D F IX AT SANTA BARBARA. 01/21/1857 -?--?--? 36.50 121.08 D F III AT A POINT NORTHWEST OF SAN BENITO. 03/14/1857 23--?--? 34.50 119.67 D F V AT MONTECITO AND SANTA BARBARA. 09/02/1858 -?--?--? 34.50 119.67 D F V AT SANTA BARBARA. 04/03/1860 04--?--? 36.50 121.08 D F VI AT SAN JOSE. 04/17/1860 -?--?--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA.

-?/-?/1862 -?--?--? 34.42 119.63 D F VIII AT GOLETA. 09/13/1869 -?--?--? 35.25 120.67 D F V AT SAN LUIS OBISPO. 09/14/1869 -?--?--? 35.25 120.67 D F SAN LUIS OBISPO. 12/15/1869 -?--?--? 35.25 120.67 F V AT SAN LUIS OBISPO. 02/06/1872 -?--?--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA; FIRST SINCE APRIL 1860. 11/07/1875 -?--?--? 36.50 121.08 D F V IN SAN BENITO COUNTY. 12/21/1875 -?--?--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA.

05/10/1876 -?--?--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA.

05/30/1877 -?--?--? 35.67 120.67 D F V AT PASO ROBLES.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.5-1 Sheet 2 of 43 Revision 17 November 2006 MM/DD/YY HR/MN/SE NORTH LAT WEST LONG QUALITY MAG. STA. REC. FELT MAXIMUM INTENSITY - COMMENTS 06/24/1877 07-30--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA. 01/08/1878 -?--?--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA.

11/13/1880 06-30--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA.

02/02/1881 -?--?--? 36.37 121.67 D F III AT SALINAS. 08/31/1881 03--?--? 34.50 119.67 D F III AT SANTA BARBARA. 09/13/1883 22-30--? 34.50 119.67 D F IV AT SANTA BARBARA. 08/03/1884 -?--?--? 34.50 119.67 D F III AT SANTA BARBARA; NIGHT. 08/04/1884 09--?--? 34.50 119.67 D F III AT SANTA BARBARA; 3 SHOCKS. 03/31/1885 -?--?--? 36.30 121.00 7.0 (CALTECH FILE) 04/07/1885 10--?--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA AND SAN BUENAVENTURA. 04/09/1885 -?--?--? 35.58 121.08 D F CAMBRIA.

04/12/1885 04-05--? 36.25 120.80 D F IX IN CENTRAL CALIFORNIA; FELT OVER AN AREA OF 125,000 SQ. MI.- EPICENTER PROBABLY EAST OF KING CITY. 04/12/1885 11--?--? 36.33 119.67 D F HANFORD.

07/09/1885 09-15--? 34.50 119.67 D F V AT SANTA BARBARA. 07/09/1885 16-15--? 34.50 119.67 D F V AT SANTA BARBARA; 5 EARTHQUAKES. 10/03/1888 20-52--? 35.75 120.67 D F III AT SAN MIGUEL. 10/03/1888 21-02--? 35.75 120.67 D F VI AT SAN MIGUEL. 10/04/1888 -?--?--? 35.67 120.67 D F PASO ROBLES.

05/01/1889 19-55--? 34.67 120.42 D F SUSANVILLE.

05/26/1889 15-13--? 36.50 121.42 D F GONZALES, SAN FRANCISCO, AND SANTA CRUZ; RECORDED AT MT. HAMILTON. 07/10/1889 -?--?--? 35.17 120.58 D F ARROYO GRANDE; SHOCKS FOR SEVERAL DAYS. 09/30/1889 20-17--? 36.50 119.58 D F KINGSBURG.

01/-?/1890 23-30--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA.

11/13/1892 -?--?--? 36.30 122.00 6.0 (CALTECH FILE) 05/19/1893 -?-35--? 34.17 119.50 D F VII FELT FROM SAN DIEGO TO LOMPOC, INLAND TO SAN BERNADINO. MOST SEVERE SE OF VENTURA. POSSIBLY OF SUBMARINE ORIGIN OFF THE COAST OF VENTURA COUNTY 06/01/1893 12--?--? 34.50 119.67 D F VII AT NORDHOFF (OJAI), SANTA BARBARA, AND VENTURA. 06/01/1893 12--?--? 34.50 119.67 D F NORDHOFF, SANTA BARBARA, AND VENTURA. 06/01/1893 12-10--? 34.50 119.67 D F NORDHOFF, SANTA BARBARA, AND VENTURA. 12/06/1893 04-56--? 35.67 121.33 D F PIEDRAS BLANCAS LIGHTHOUSE. 07/27/1895 -?-10--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA.

12/24/1895 05-30--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA.

06/24/1897 14-10--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA.

07/18/1897 -?--?--? 34.50 119.67 D F CASTLE PINCKNEY.

07/20/1897 07-45--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA.

05/30/1898 03-03--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA.

06/04/1898 06-20--? 34.67 120.08 D F LOS OLIVOS; FE LT THROUGHOUT THE SANTA YNEZ VALLEY; AT SANTA BARBARA THE HEAVIEST FOR SOME YEARS. 02/08/1899 04-55--? 36.33 121.92 D F POINT SUR LIGHT STATION. 06/05/1899 -?--?--? 35.83 120.83 D F BRADLEY.

06/25/1899 -?--?--? 35.75 120.67 D F SAN MIGUEL.

06/09/1900 -?--?--? 36.00 120.92 D F SAN ARDO.

10/18/1900 -?--?--? 35.25 120.67 D F SAN LUIS OBISPO. 03/03/1901 -?--?--? 35.25 120.67 D F SAN LUIS OBISPO.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.5-1 Sheet 3 of 43 Revision 17 November 2006 MM/DD/YY HR/MN/SE NORTH LAT WEST LONG QUALITY MAG. STA. REC. FELT MAXIMUM INTENSITY - COMMENTS 03/03/1901 07-45--? 36.08 120.58 D F IX AT STONE CANYON - SURFACE CRACKS IN THE GROUND; ALSO FELT AT ADELAIDA, ESTRELLA, PARKFIELD, PASO ROBLES, PORTERVILLE, SAN JOSE, SAN LUIS OBISPO, AND SAN MIGUEL. 03/05/1901 -?--?--? 35.67 120.67 D F PASO ROBLES.

03/06/1901 -?--?--? 36.00 120.92 D F SAN ARDO AND SAN LUIS OBISPO. 06/03/1901 -?--?--? 35.25 120.67 D F SAN LUIS OBISPO. 07/30/1901 19--?--? 35.25 120.67 D F SAN LUIS OBISPO. 08/14/1901 11-11--? 35.42 120.92 D F CAYUCOS, HOLLISTER, SALINAS, SAN LUIS OBISPO, AND SANTA CRUZ. 02/07/1902 -?--?--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA.

02/09/1902 15--?--? 34.50 119.67 D F PINE CREST, SAN LUIS OBISPO, SANTA BARBARA, AND VENTURA. 04/06/1902 -?--?--? 35.25 120.67 D F SAN LUIS OBISPO. 07/21/1902 -?--?--? 34.75 120.00 D F PINE CREST.

07/28/1902 06-57--? 34.75 120.25 D F IX AT LOMPOC AND LOS ALAMOS; CONFINED TO THE NORTHERN PART OF SANTA BARBARA COUNTY. 07/28/1902 13--8--? 35.25 120.67 D F SAN LUIS OBISPO; AFTERSHOCK OF 06-57-?. 07/31/1902 09-20--? 34.75 120.25 D F IX AT LOS ALAMOS AND SURROUNDING COUNTRY; FISSURES, CRACKS IN THE GROUND, AND LANDSLIDES. 08/01/1902 -?--?--? 34.75 120.25 D F LOS ALAMOS. SEVERAL SHOCKS. 08/01/1902 03-30--? 34.75 120.25 D F VIII AT LOS ALAMOS. 08/02/1902 -?--?--? 34.75 120.25 D F LOS ALAMOS.

08/03/1902 -?--?--? 34.75 120.25 D F LOS ALAMOS.

08/04/1902 10 -? 34.75 120.25 D F LOS ALAMOS. 08/04/1902 11-18--? 34.75 120.25 D F LOS ALAMOS.

08/04/1902 12-15--? 34.75 120.25 D F LOS ALAMOS.

08/04/1902 21-29--? 34.75 120.25 D F LOS ALAMOS.

08/04/1902 23-40--? 34.75 120.25 D F LOS ALAMOS.

08/05/1902 -?-55--? 34.75 120.25 D F LOS ALAMOS.

08/10/1902 -?--?--? 34.75 120.25 D F LOS ALAMOS; DISTINCT EARTHQUAKE DETONATION AND TREMOR. 08/10/1902 10-40--? 34.75 120.25 D F LOS ALAMOS; HEAVY DETONATION FOLLOWED BY TREMBLING. 08/10/1902 22-40--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA.

08/14/1902 10-15--? 34.75 120.25 D F LOS ALAMOS.

08/14/1902 11-05--? 34.75 120.25 D F LOS ALAMOS.

08/14/1902 11-20--? 34.75 120.25 D F LOS ALAMOS; SHOOK GROUND VIOLENTLY. 08/14/1902 21-50--? 34.75 120.25 D F LOS ALAMOS.

08/14/1902 23-50--? 34.75 120.25 D F LOS ALAMOS.

08/28/1902 -?--?--? 35.25 120.67 D F SAN LUIS OBISPO. 08/31/1902 -?--?--? 35.25 120.67 D F SAN LUIS OBISPO. 09/11/1902 05-30--? 34.25 120.25 D F V AT LOS ALAMOS. 10/21/1902 21-45--? 34.75 120.25 D F LOMPOC AND LOS ALAMOS. 10/21/1902 22-15--? 34.75 120.25 D F LOMPOC AND LOS ALAMOS. 10/22/1902 10--?--? 34.75 120.25 D F LOS ALAMOS.

12/12/1902 -?--?--? 34.75 120.25 D F VIII AT LOS ALAM OS -3 SHOCKS IN 5 MINUTES; FELT THROUGHOUT THE NORTHERN PART OF SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, ESPECIALLY AT LOMPOC, LOS ALAMOS, SAN LUIS OBISPO, SANTA BARBARA, AND SANTA MARIA. 01/11/1903 -?--?--? 35.25 120.67 D F SAN LUIS OBISPO.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.5-1 Sheet 4 of 43 Revision 17 November 2006 MM/DD/YY HR/MN/SE NORTH LAT WEST LONG QUALITY MAG. STA. REC. FELT MAXIMUM INTENSITY - COMMENTS 03/07/1903 -?--?--? 36.50 121.42 D F GONZALES. 03/24/1903 -?--?--? 36.50 121.42 D F GONZALES AND SANTA MARGARITA. 04/24/1903 -?--?--? 35.42 120.58 D F SANTA MARGARITA.

07/29/1903 07-13--? 35.67 121.33 D F V AT POINT PIEDRAS BLANCAS LIGHTHOUSE. 07/29/1903 10-30--? 35.67 121.33 D F POINT PIEDRAS BLANCAS LIGHTHOUSE. 08/24/1903 -?--?--? 34.67 120.08 D F LOS OLIVOS.

01/22/1904 -?--?--? 34.75 120.25 D F LOS ALAMOS.

01/23/1904 -?--?--? 34.75 120.25 D F LOS ALAMOS.

09/10/1904 -?--?--? 35.25 120.67 D F SAN LUIS OBISPO. 05/26/1905 05-49--? 35.25 120.67 D F LOS GATOS, SALINAS, SAN FRANCISCO, SAN LUIS OBISPO, SANTA CRUZ AND SOLEDAD. 07/06/1906 -?--?--? 35.25 120.67 D F SAN LUIS OBISPO. 07/22/1906 -?--?--? 35.25 120.67 D F SAN LUIS OBISPO. 08/01/1906 -?--?--? 35.25 120.67 D F SAN LUIS OBISPO. 12/07/1906 06-40--? 35.67 121.33 D F VII AT SAN LUIS OBISPO AND SANTA MARIA; DURATION 30 SECONDS, FOLLOWED BY SECOND SH OCK HALF AN HOUR LATER. +12/08/1906 06-55--? 35.75 120.67 D F SAN MIGUEL.

06/19/1907 12--?--? 36.17 120.67 D F PRIEST VALLEY.

07/02/1907 18-10--? 35.25 120.67 D F SAN LUIS OBISPO. 07/21/1907 -?--?--? 35.25 120.67 D F SAN LUIS OBISPO. 07/29/1907 05-10--? 34.75 120.00 D F PINE CREST.

08/-?/1907 -?--?--? 34.75 120.00 D F PINE CREST AND SANTA BARBARA. 12/27/1907 09-15--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA; AL SO FELT AT VENTURA; REPORTED FROM OJAI AND PINE CREST. 04/27/1908 10-50--? 36.00 121.17 D F JOLON, PASO ROBLES, PRIEST VALLEY, SAN LUIS OBISPO, SANTA MARGARETA, AND SAN MIGUEL. 05/19/1908 -?--?--? 35.25 120.67 D F SAN LUIS OBISPO. 09/16/1908 -?--?--? 36.17 120.67 D F PRIEST VALLEY.

11/-?/1908 19-30--? 36.17 120.67 D F PRIEST VALLEY.

01/23/1909 14-58--? 34.50 119.67 D F PINE CREST AND SANTA BARBARA. 04/10/1909 -?--?--? 34.50 119.67 D F MONO RANCH AND SANTA PAULA CANYON. 06/17/1909 08-20--? 36.42 121.33 D F SOLEDAD.

07/03/1909 07--?--? 34.50 119.67 D F MONTECITO AND SANTA BARBARA. 07/05/1909 06-10--? 34.50 119.67 D F III AT SANTA BARBARA. 07/16/1909 10-28--? 34.50 119.67 D F IV AT LOS ANGELES AND SANTA BARBARA. 07/31/1909 19-37--? 34.50 119.67 D F IV AT OJAI AND SANTA BARBARA. 08/18/1909 -?--?--? 35.25 120.67 D F SAN LUIS OBISPO. 11/24/1909 15--?--? 36.00 121.17 D F JOLON.

03/08/1910 09-30--? 36.17 120.67 D F PRIEST VALLEY.

04/30/1910 18-25--? 36.17 120.67 D F PRIEST VALLEY; 3 SHOCKS, THE SECOND ONE QUITE VIOLENT. 11/-?/1910 -?--?--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA; 2 SLIGHT QUAKES DURING NOVEMBER. 02/02/1911 -?--?--? 34.75 120.25 D F LOS ALAMOS.

03/22/1911 10-55--? 35.75 120.67 D F SAN MIGUEL; QUITE SEVERE. 06/02/1911 -?--?--? 36.17 120.67 D F PRIEST VALLEY.

06/18/1912 22-27--? 36.00 121.17 D F JOLON. (RECORDED AT BERKELEY.) 10/20/1913 11-25--? 35.25 120.67 D F BETTERAVIA, PASO ROBLES, SAN LUIS OBISPO,AND SANTA MARIA. 11/27/1913 19--?--? 34.50 119.67 D F MONO RANCH.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.5-1 Sheet 5 of 43 Revision 17 November 2006 MM/DD/YY HR/MN/SE NORTH LAT WEST LONG QUALITY MAG. STA. REC. FELT MAXIMUM INTENSITY - COMMENTS 12/26/1913 12--?--? 36.17 121.00 D F SAN LUCAS. 11/24/1914 04-25--? 35.25 120.67 D F II AT SAN LUIS OBISPO; ABRUPT TREMBLING, LASTING 20 SECONDS. 01/12/1915 -?--?--? 34.92 120.50 D F BETTERAVIA.

01/12/1915 04-31--? 34.75 120.25 B F VIII AT LOS ALAMOS - EPICENTER 2 OR 3 MI. EAST OF LOS ALAMOS; FELT FROM SAN JOSE TO LOS ANGELES; SHAKEN AREA IN EXCESS OF 50,000 SQ. MI. - PRACTICALLY EVERY CHIMNEY DAMAGED AT LOS ALAMOS, VII AT LOMPOC, VI-VII AT SANTA MARIA, V AT SAN LUIS OBISPO AND SANTA BARBARA, IV AT PASO ROBLES, AND II AT LOS ANGELES, WEATHER BUREAU REPORTED V-VI AT SANTA BARBARA, V AT OZENA AND SAN LUIS OBISPO, IV AT PASO ROBLES, III AT OJAI, AND II IN PRIEST VALLEY; ALSO II AT

BAKERSFIELD. 01/14/1915 -?--?--? 34.92 120.50 D F BETTERAVIA.

01/15/1915 -?--?--? 34.75 120.25 D F LOS ALAMOS.

01/20/1915 -?--?--? 34.75 120.25 D F LOS ALAMOS.

01/26/1915 -?--?--? 34.75 120.25 D F LOS ALAMOS.

01/27/1915 -?--?--? 34.75 120.25 D F LOS ALAMOS.

04/21/1915 09-58--? 35.25 120.67 D F IV AT SAN LUIS OBISPO; ALSO FELT 3 MI. NW OF PRIEST VALLEY. 08/23/1915 23-15--? 34.75 119.75 D F HILL CAMP.

08/31/1915 21--?--? 34.75 119.75 D F HILL CAMP.

09/08/1915 12-45--? 35.67 120.67 D F V IN REGION EAST OF PASO ROBLES; ANTELOPE - 2 SHOCKS, FIRST THE HEAVIER, OIL CAME UP WITH WATER IN WELL AFTER SHOCK. AT SHANDON A SEATED MAN WAS SHAKEN SO HARD HE THOUGHT A PERSON WAS SHAKING HIM. AT CRESTON THE SHOCK WAS SHORT AND SHARP. A SLIGHT LANDSLIDE AT PORT SAN LUIS. WEATHER BUREAU REPORTS -PASO ROBLES V AND

SAN LUIS OBISPO III-IV. 09/14/1915 -?--?--? 34.75 119.75 D F HILL CAMP; 3 HARD SHOCKS - EARTH TREMBLED FOR 15 MINUTES AFTERWARDS. 02/27/1916 13-26--? 34.75 120.25 D F LOS ALAMOS.

03/01/1916 19-15--? 34.75 120.25 D F LOS ALAMOS.

05/06/1916 03-45--? 34.75 120.25 D F III AT LOS ALAMOS. FELT BY MANY AT EL ROBLAR RANCH, 2 MI. SE OF LOS ALAMOS. 08/06/1916 -?--?--? 36.00 121.00 7.0 (CALTECH FILE) 10/24/1916 13-03--? 35.25 120.67 D F II AT SAN LUIS OBISPO; PROBABLY NEXT SHOCK, WITH TIME ERROR. 10/24/1916 13-30--? 36.00 121.17 D F V AT JOLON; III AT A POINT 3.5 MI. NW OF PRIEST VALLEY. 12/01/1916 22-53--? 35.17 120.75 D F VII AT AVILA - CONSIDERABLE GLASS BROKEN AND GOODS IN STORES THROWN FROM SHELVES. FELT AT SAN LUIS OBISPO; WATER IN BAY DISTURBED, PLASTER IN COTTAGES JARRED LOOSE, SMOKESTACKS OF UNION OIL CO. REFINERY TOPPLED OVER. SEVERE AT PORT SAN LUIS; III AT SANTA MARIA. 02/01/1917 05-18--? 34.92 120.42 D F III AT SANTA MARIA. 04/05/1917 19--?--? 34.67 120.33 D F IV AT SANTA RITA; ALSO FELT AT LOMPOC.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.5-1 Sheet 6 of 43 Revision 17 November 2006 MM/DD/YY HR/MN/SE NORTH LAT WEST LONG QUALITY MAG. STA. REC. FELT MAXIMUM INTENSITY - COMMENTS 04/13/1917 03-59--? 34.25 119.67 D F VI AT SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL REGION; FELT OVER AN AREA OF COAST SOUTH AND EAST OF SANTA BARBARA AS FAR AS VENTURA, AND ON SANTA CRUZ ISLAND. 04/21/1917 06-59--? 34.25 119.67 D F V AT SANTA BAR BARA CHANNEL; PERCEPTIBLE OVER AN AREA OF PERHAPS 4000 SQ. MI. 07/07/1917 20-57--? 35.25 120.50 D F LOPEZ CANYON; ALSO AT SAN LUIS OBISPO. 07/07/1917 21-02--? 35.25 120.50 D F LOPEZ CANYON.

07/07/1917 21-15--? 35.25 120.50 D F LOPEZ CANYON.

07/08/1917 03-20--? 34.92 120.42 D F II AT SANTA MARIA. 07/08/1917 11-29--? 35.25 120.50 D F IV IN LOPEZ CANYON. 07/09/1917 22-22--? 35.25 120.50 D F VII IN LOPEZ CANYON; IV AT SAN LUIS OBISPO. 07/09/1917 22-38--? 35.25 120.50 D F LOPEZ CANYON.

07/10/1917 -?-43--? 35.25 120.50 D F LOPEZ CANYON.

07/10/1917 -?-45--? 35.25 120.50 D F LOPEZ CANYON.

07/26/1917 08-31--? 34.92 120.42 D F V AT SANTA MARIA - FURNITURE MOVED. IV AT LOS OLIVOS - AWAKENED SLEEPERS AT SAN LUIS OBISPO 12/05/1918 02-38--? 35.67 120.67 D F IV AT PASO ROBLES; II AT SAN LUIS OBISPO. 12/05/1918 04-30--? 35.25 120.67 D F SAN LUIS OBISPO. 03/01/1919 04-19--? 36.17 120.67 D F IV IN PRIEST VALLEY. 03/15/1919 07-53--? 35.25 120.67 D F SAN LUIS OBISPO. 07/31/1919 21-31--? 36.33 120.67 D F V IN SAN BENITO COUNTY; FELT AT IDRIA - ORIGIN SOME DISTANCE FROM IDRIA 08/26/1919 12-12--? 34.50 119.67 D F V IN SANTA BARBARA COUNTY - FELT AT OJAI, SAN LUIS OBISPO (3 SHOCKS), SANTA BARBARA. 08/26/1919 14.57--? 34.50 119.67 D F V IN SANTA BARBARA COUNTY - THIS SHOCK STRONGER AT SANTA BARBARA THAN PREVIOUS SHOCK. BUILDINGS AND WHARVES SWAYED; FELT AT OJAI. 12/18/1919 07-15--? 35.67 120.67 D F PASO ROBLES.

01/30/1920 23-30--? 34.50 119.67 D F III AT SANTA BARBARA. 01/30/1920 23-33--? 34.50 119.67 D F II AT SANTA BARBARA. 01/30/1920 23-35--? 34.50 119.67 D F II AT SANTA BARBARA. 01/30/1920 23-38--? 34.50 119.67 D F II AT SANTA BARBARA. 01/31/1920 01--?--? 34.50 119.67 D F III AT SANTA BARBARA. 01/31/1920 01-03--? 34.50 119.67 D F III AT SANTA BARBARA. 01/31/1920 01-07--? 34.50 119.67 D F III AT SANTA BARBARA. 03/20/1920 07-04--? 35.25 120.67 D F II AT SAN LUIS OBISPO. 05/07/1920 01-59--? 35.25 120.67 D F IV AT SAN LUIS OBISPO. 06/28/1920 09-01--? 35.25 120.67 D F V AT SAN LUIS OBISPO. 12/01/1920 01-30--? 35.17 119.50 D F VI AT TAFT - MANY PEOPLE MADE "SEASICK", DISHES SHAKEN FROM SHELVES, IV AT MARICOPA. 12/05/1920 11-58--? 34.50 119.67 D F V IN SANTA BARBARA COUNTY MOUNTAINS, V AT LOMPOC, LOS ALAMOS, MARICOPA, OJAI, AND SANTA BARBARA. 12/06/1920 -?--?--? 35.25 120.67 D F SAN LUIS OBISPO. 03/10/1922 11-21-20 35.75 120.25 C 6.5 43 F IX IN CHOLAME VALLEY REGION OF SAN ANDREAS FAULT. FELT OVER AN AREA OF 100,000 SQ. MI. - CRACKS IN THE GROUND AND NEW SPRINGS. VII-VIII AT PARKFIELD AND SHANDON. VI-VII AT SAN LUIS OBISPO AND SIMMLER, AND V AT LOS ANGELES.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.5-1 Sheet 7 of 43 Revision 17 November 2006 MM/DD/YY HR/MN/SE NORTH LAT WEST LONG QUALITY MAG. STA. REC. FELT MAXIMUM INTENSITY - COMMENTS 03/16/1922 23-10--? 35.75 120.33 D F VI IN CHOLAME VALLEY - RATHER STRONG AFTERSHOCKS, V AT PASO ROBLES AND SAN LUIS OBISPO, AND IV AT ANTELOPE VALLEY; ALSO IV AT SHANDON. 03/19/1922 11--?--? 35.67 120.67 D F III AT PASO ROBLES. 03/23/1922 10--?--? 35.67 120.67 D F III AT PASO ROBLES. 03/25/1922 12--?--? 35.67 120.67 D F III AT PASO ROBLES. 05/31/1922 01-25--? 35.67 120.67 D F III AT PASO ROBLES; 2 SHOCKS. 07/05/1922 19--?--? 34.75 120.25 D F LOS ALAMOS.

07/09/1922 12--?--? 34.75 120.25 D F LOS ALAMOS.

07/11/1922 03--?--? 34.75 120.25 D F LOS ALAMOS.

07/11/1922 15-30--? 34.75 120.25 D F LOS ALAMOS.

08/18/1922 05-12--? 35.75 120.33 D F VII IN CHOLAME VALLEY; V AT PASO ROBLES AND SAN LUIS OBISPO. 08/20/1922 21-14--? 35.50 120.67 D F III AT ATASCADERO. 09/04/1922 10-15--? 35.67 120.67 D F IV AT PASO ROBLES. 09/05/1922 09-05--? 35.25 120.67 D F V AT SAN LUIS OBISPO; 2 SHOCKS. 12/29/1922 11--?--? 35.67 120.67 D F III AT PASO ROBLES. 12/29/1922 12--?--? 35.67 120.67 D F III AT PASO ROBLES. 03/12/1923 06--?--? 34.75 120.25 D F LOS ALAMOS.

05/04/1923 22-45--? 35.25 120.67 D F V AT SAN LUIS OBISPO; 2 SHOCKS, SECOND EQUALED INTENSITY II. 05/08/1923 05-02--? 35.75 120.33 D F II AT CHOLAME. 06/16/1923 20-40--? 35.67 120.67 D F IV AT PASO ROBLES - DURATION 15-20 SECONDS. 06/25/1923 13-21--? 35.25 120.67 D F II AT SAN LUIS OBISPO. 12/19/1923 07-35--? 34.92 120.42 D F II AT SANTA MARIA - DURATION 20 SECONDS. 07/02/1924 58-02--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA.

12/30/1924 12-17--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA.

12/30/1924 14-15--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA.

06/29/1925 14-42-16 34.30 119.80 B 6.3 1 F IX AT SANTA BARBARA; FELT OVER AN AREA OF 100,000 SQ. MI. - RECORDED WORLD-WIDE. RUPTURE AT DEPTH ON THE MESA

AND RECORDED WORLD-WIDE. RUPTURE AT DEPTH ON THE MESA AND SANTA YNEZ FAULTS (BAILEY WILLIS); A FEW DEATHS, SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS DAMAGE; IX AT GOLETA, NAPLES, AND SANTA BARBARA; VIII AT GAVIOTA, MIRAMAR, AND SANTA YNEZ, LOS ALAMOS, LOS OLIVOS; VII AT ARROYO GRANDE, NIPOMO, ORCOTT, ALAMOS, LOS OLIVOS; VII AT ARROYO GRANDE, NIPOMO, ORCOTT, ALAMOS, LOS OLIVOS; VII AT ARROYO GRANDE, NIPOMO, ORCOTT, PISMO BEACH, SANTA MARIA, AND VENTURA, AND VI AT AVILA, LOMPOC, AND PORT SAN LUIS. 06/29/1925 15-20--? 35.25 120.67 D F III AT SAN LUIS OBISPO. 06/29/1925 16-35--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA; II AT OXNARD. 06/29/1925 18-54--? 34.50 119.67 D F IV AT SANTA BAR BARA; II AT OXNARD - STRONGEST AFTERSHOCK OF THE DAY. 06/30/1925 01-37--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA.

06/30/1925 02-47--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA.

06/30/1925 09-19--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA - VIOLENT; FELT AT OJAI AND OXNARD.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.5-1 Sheet 8 of 43 Revision 17 November 2006 MM/DD/YY HR/MN/SE NORTH LAT WEST LONG QUALITY MAG. STA. REC. FELT MAXIMUM INTENSITY - COMMENTS 07/03/1925 16-38--? 34.50 119.67 D F VII AT SANTA BARBARA; III AT PASADENA AND OJAI - STIFF TREMOR AT VENTURA. 07/03/1925 18-21--? 34.50 119.67 D F VII AT SANTA BARBARA - STRONGEST AFTERSHOCK; FELT AT LOS ANGELES, OJAI, AND PASADENA. 07/03/1925 18-46--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA. 07/04/1925 19-18--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA - ANOTHER SHOCK FELT LATER IN DAY. 07/05/1925 12--?--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA; 11 SHOCKS IN THE NEXT 19 HOURS. 07/06/1925 21-45--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA - SEVERAL FAIRLY SEVERE SHOCKS. 07/09/1925 -?--?--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA.

07/20/1925 09-50--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA.

07/29/1925 14--?--? 34.50 119.67 D F V AT WASIOJA - CEMENT WALK CRACKED. 07/30/1925 09-50--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA.

07/30/1925 12--?--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA.

08/13/1925 11--?--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA - 5 LIGHT SHOCKS DURING NIGHT; THE STRONGEST TOOK PLACE JUST BEFORE 11--?--?. 10/04/1925 -?-50--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA.

10/08/1925 21-30--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA.

10/30/1925 09-45--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA.

10/30/1925 13-30--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA AND VENTURA. 02/18/1926 18-18--? 34.17 119.50 D F VII ORIGIN AT SEA, SW OF VENTURA; FELT ALONG COAST FROM SAN LUIS OBISPO ON NW TO SOUTH OF SANTA ANA, A DISTANCE

OF 200 MI. AT SANTA BARBARA WINDOWS OF A SCHOOL WERE

BROKEN, WATER PIPE IN ROUNDHO USE WAS BROKEN. THERE WAS DAMAGE TO TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT AT SIMI. ALSO FELT AT LOS ANGELES, PASADENA, SANTA MONICA, SANTA SUSANA, AND

VENTURA. 04/29/1926 12-18--? 34.67 120.17 D F IV AT BUELLTON. 06/18/1926 -?--?--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA.

06/24/1926 15-30--? 34.50 119.67 D F V AT SANTA BARBARA. 06/29/1926 23-21--? 34.50 119.67 D F VII-VIII AT SANTA BARBARA - ONE PERSON KILLED BY FALLING CHIMNEY. VI AT BUELLTON AND VENTURA; ALSO FELT AT CAMARILLO, LOS ANGELES, OJA I, OXNARD, PORT HUENEME, AND SANTA PAULA - POSSIBLY SUBMARINE ORIGIN; FELT OVER AN

AREA OF 30,000 SQ. MI. 07/03/1926 23--?--? 34.50 119.67 D F II AT SANTA BARBARA. 07/06/1926 17-45--? 34.50 119.67 D F V AT SANTA BARBARA. 07/25/1926 -?--?--? 36.30 120.30 (CALTECH FILE) 08/06/1926 17-42--? 34.50 119.67 D F IV IN SANTA BARBARA REGION; 2 SHOCKS AT OJAI - LASTED 30 SECONDS AT VENTURA WITH SHARP SHOCK AT SANTA BARBARA. 08/09/1926 04-12--? 34.50 119.67 D F V AT SANTA BARBARA; 2 SHOCKS AT VENTURA. 10/22/1926 10-10--? 35.67 120.67 D F III AT PASO ROBLES. 10/22/1926 -?--?--? 36.45 122.00 (CALTECH FILE) 12/09/1926 -?-03--? 35.67 120.67 D F IV AT PASO ROBLES - PROBABLY MISTIMED REPORT OF SHOCK AT

-? 41-?. 12/09/1926 -?-41--? 35.25 120.67 D F NE OF SAN LUIS OBISPO; AT SAN LUIS OBISPO DURATION 20 SECONDS; FELT AT COALINGA WI TH ORIGIN ABOUT 120 MI. FROM MT HAMILTON.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.5-1 Sheet 9 of 43 Revision 17 November 2006 MM/DD/YY HR/MN/SE NORTH LAT WEST LONG QUALITY MAG. STA. REC. FELT MAXIMUM INTENSITY - COMMENTS 12/27/1926 09-19--? 36.17 120.33 D F VI NEAR COALINGA

FELT OVER AN AREA OF 25,000 SQ. MI. FELT AT FIREBAUGH, FRESNO, LOS BANOS, MENDOTA, OAKDALE, OILFIELDS, PORTERVILLE, AND SAN LUIS OBISPO. 11/04/1927 11--?--? 34.58 120.67 D F LOMPOC, POINT ARGUELLO, AND SAN LUIS OBISPO. 11/04/1927 11-30--? 34.58 120.67 D F LOMPOC.

11/04/1927 13-50-53 34.54 121.40 A 7.3 3 F X AT SEA, W EST OF POINT ARGUELLO. AREA SHAKEN WITH INTENSITY VI OR GREATER WAS 40,000 SQ. MI. A SMALL SEA WAVE

WAS PRODUCED, RECORDED ON TIDE GAUGES AT SAN DIEGO AND SAN FRANCISCO, AND OBSERVED AS 6 FEET HIGH AT SURF;

IX AT HONDA, ROBERDS RANCH, SURF, AND WHITE HILLS, VIII AT ARLIGHT, ARROYO GRANDE, BERROS, BETTERAVIA, CAMBRIA, CASMALIA, CAYUCOS, GUADOCEANO, PISMO BEACH, POINT

CONCEPTION, SAN JULIAN RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO, AND SANTA MARIA, VI-VII AT GUADOCEANO, PISMO BEACH, POINT

CONCEPTION, SAN JULIAN RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO, AND SANTA MARIA, VI-VII AT ALUPE, HALCYON, HARRISTON, HUASNO, LOMPOC, LOS ALAMOS, LOS OLIVOS, MORRO BAY, NIPOMO, ADELAIDA, ATASCADERO, BAKERSFIELD, BICKNELL, BUTTONWILLOW,CARPINTERIA CHOLAME, CRESTON, EDNA GAVIOTA, GOLETA, HARMONY, KING CITY, LAS CRUCES, NAPLES, OXNARD, PASO ROBLES, REWARD, SANTA BARBARA, SANTA MARGARITA, SANTA YNEZ, SOLVANG, TAFT, TEMPLETON, VENTURA, AND WASIOJA, AND IV-V AT ANNETTE, BIG SUR, CASTROVILLE, COALINGA, FELLOWS, GONZALES, GORMAN, HOLLISTER, LOCKWOOD, LUCIA, MCKITTRICK, MONTEREY, PARKFIELD, PATTIWAY, PORT SAN LUIS, POZO, PRIEST, SALINAS, SANGER, SAN LUCAS, SAN SIMEON, SANTA PAULA, SCHEIDECK, SESPE, SIMMLER, SOLEDAD, AND TEHACHAPI. DATA FROM BSSA

V. 17, P. 258 AND V. 20, P. 53. 11/04/1927 14-12--? 34.58 120.67 D F SANTA MARIA - AFTERSHOCK. 11/04/1927 14-14--? 34.58 120.67 D F SANTA MARIA - AFTERSHOCK. 11/04/1927 15--?--? 34.58 120.67 D F SAN LUIS OBISPO - AFTERSHOCK. 11/04/1927 15-42--? 34.58 120.67 D F SANTA MARIA - AFTERSHOCK. 1/05/1927 08-17--? 34.58 120.67 D F POINT ARGUELLO - AFTERSHOCK; MILD AT SURF. 11/05/1927 09--?--? 34.58 120.67 D F POINT ARGUELLO - AFTERSHOCK; REPORTED FROM PASO ROBLES TO HADLEY TOWER. 11/05/1927 11-37--? 34.58 120.67 D F POINT ARGUELLO - AFTERSHOCK; REPORTED FROM SURF TO HADLEY TOWER, AND SOUTH OF SAN LUIS OBISPO. 11/06/1927 -?-06--? 34.67 120.17 D F IV AT BUELLTON. 11/06/1927 02-25--? 34.67 120.17 D F POINT ARGU ELLO - AFTERSHOCK; STRONGEST IMMEDIATE AFTERSHOCK AT LOMPOC. 11/06/1927 03-10--? 34.67 120.17 D F IV AT BUELLTON. 11/06/1927 22-10--? 34.67 120.17 D F OFF POINT CONCEPTION. 11/06/1927 22-50--? 34.67 120.17 D F IV AT BUELLTON. 11/06/1927 23-10--? 34.67 120.17 D F OFF POINT CONCEPTION. 11/08/1927 10-10--? 34.67 120.17 D F IV AT BUELLTON - SHARP BUMPING AT 10-02--?, AROUSED NEARLY ALL. AT LOMPOC MANY AWAKENED BY SHOCK AT 10-15--?.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.5-1 Sheet 10 of 43 Revision 17 November 2006 MM/DD/YY HR/MN/SE NORTH LAT WEST LONG QUALITY MAG. STA. REC. FELT MAXIMUM INTENSITY - COMMENTS 11/19/1927 03-32--? 34.92 120.42 D F VII AT SANTA MARI A - CENTERED TO NW OF ORIGIN OF NOVEMBER 4 QUAKE -WEAKER, YET NEARLY AS STRONG AT SANTA MARIA,AND VI AT BETTERAVIA AND BICKNELL; REPORTED FROM SAN MIGUEL AND PARKFIELD ON THE NORTH TO SANTA BARBARA

CHANNEL ON THE SOUTH. 12/05/1927 11-45--? 34.58 120.67 D F IV AT POINT ARGUELLO, AND IV AT BUELLTON WITH 2 SHOCKS 15 SECONDS APART; FELT AT GUADALUPE, SANTA MARGARITA, SANTA MARIA AND SURF. 12/31/1927 10-10--? 34.58 120.67 D F V AT POINT ARGUELLO. 03/15/1928 12-03--? 34.92 120.42 D F SANTA MARIA.

03/15/1928 12-20--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA.

03/16/1928 14-30--? 34.92 120.42 D F SANTA MARIA.

03/29/1928 06-25--? 34.92 120.42 D F VII AT SANTA MARIA. 06/09/1928 08-22--? 35.17 119.50 D F TAFT.

06/09/1928 08-31--? 35.17 119.50 D F TAFT.

06/09/1928 12-25--? 35.17 119.50 D F TAFT.

09/03/1928 04-01-54 34.50 122.50 D 5.0 1 OFF POINT ARGUELLO - LICK OBSERVATORY S-P= 39 SECONDS. 11/02/1928 05--?--? 34.67 120.42 D F LOMPOC.

05/28/1929 07-10--? 36.17 120.33 D F COALINGA.

07/03/1929 09-24--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA.

07/12/1929 13-10--? 36.17 120.33 D F COALINGA.

08/28/1929 18-10--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA.

09/09/1929 05-15--? 34.50 119.67 D F GAVIOTA, NAPLES, AND SANTA BARBARA. 09/16/1929 03-16--? 35.42 120.92 D F CAYUCOS.

09/16/1929 06-15--? 35.42 120.92 D F CAYUCOS.

10/05/1929 20-03--? 36.17 120.33 D F COALINGA AND LIGHTHIPE.

10/06/1929 21-14--? 36.17 120.33 D F COALINGA.

10/07/1929 08--?--? 36.17 120.33 D F COALINGA.

10/07/1929 11-30--? 34.83 120.42 D F ORCUTT.

10/11/1929 17-55--? 36.17 120.33 D F COALINGA.

10/15/1929 22-02--? 36.17 120.67 D F COALINGA, KETTLEMEN HILLS, OILFIELDS, AND PRIEST VALLEY,. 11/07/1929 06-30--? 36.33 119.67 D F HANFORD.

11/09/1929 02-30--? 36.17 120.33 D F BITTER WATER, COALINGA, AND MCKITTRICK. 11/20/1929 22-50--? 36.42 121.00 D F BITTER WATER.

11/24/1929 09-54--? 36.42 121.00 D F LONOAK, BITTER WATER, AND LEWIS CREEK. 11/26/1929 08-05--? 36.42 121.00 D F V AT BITTER WATER AND SAN ARDO; FELT FROM HOLLISTER TO SANTA MARGARITA. 11/26/1929 09--?--? 36.42 120.83 D F HERNANDEZ.

11/26/1929 18-06--? 36.42 121.00 D F BITTER WATER.

12/05/1929 07-40--? 36.33 119.67 D F HANFORD.

03/11/1930 23-59--? 36.42 121.25 D F PINNACLES.

06/21/1930 05-15--? 34.83 120.50 D F CASMALIA.

08/05/1930 11-25--? 34.42 119.50 D F NEAR SANTA BARBARA - FELT OVER AN AREA OF 9000 SQ. MI. V-VI AT CARPINTERIA, GOLETA, OJAI, OXNARD, AND SANTA BARBARA,. 08/08/1930 16.46--? 34.42 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA AND GOLETA. 08/18/1930 13-09--? 34.33 120.58 D F OFF POINT CO NCEPTION; V OVER A LAND AREA OF 500 SQ. MI. NEAR POINT CONCEPTION.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.5-1 Sheet 11 of 43 Revision 17 November 2006 MM/DD/YY HR/MN/SE NORTH LAT WEST LONG QUALITY MAG. STA. REC. FELT MAXIMUM INTENSITY - COMMENTS 08/28/1930 05-15--? 36.42 121.33 D F SOLEDAD. 09/02/1930 13-35--? 35.00 121.00 D F OFF COAST - FELT AT HALCYON AND SAN LUIS OBISPO. 09/09/1930 05-27--? 34.42 119.50 D F SANTA BARBARA.

10/02/1930 14-18--? 34.58 120.67 D F OFF POINT ARGUELLO - FELT AT HALCYON. 10/28/1930 13-57--? 35.42 120.92 D F OFF COAST NEAR CAYUCOS - FELT AT NIPOMO. 12/08/1930 01-23--? 34.50 119.67 D F GOLETA AND SANTA BARBARA. 12/08/1930 01-29--? 34.50 119.67 D F GOLETA AND SANTA BARBARA. 02/21/1931 08-10--? 35.67 121.33 D F NW OF SAN LUIS OBISPO - FELT AT BRYSON AND PIEDRAS BLANCAS. 02/23/1931 10-01--? 35.83 120.50 D F OVER AN AREA OF 5000 SQ. MI.; V AT CAYUCOS, PARKFIELD, AND TEMPLETON. 02/23/1931 10-33--? 35.83 120.50 D F SAME AS ABOVE. 04/05/1931 03--?--? 36.17 121.00 D F SE OF KING CITY. 07/15/1931 18-40--? 35.00 120.58 D F GUADALUPE, NIPOMO, AND SANTA MARGARITA. 07/21/1931 03-25--? 35.25 120.67 D F SAN LUIS OBISPO. 07/21/1931 12-08--? 35.25 120.67 D F IV AT HALCYON, LOS ALAMOS, NIPOMO, OCEANO, AND TEMPLETON:ALSO FELT AT CAMBRIA, GAVIOTA, PIEDRAS BLANCAS, PORT SAN LUIS, SAN LUIS OBISPO, SANTA MARGARITA, AND SANTA MARIA 09/03/1931 13-50--? 34.50 119.67 D F SANTA BARBARA.

09/10/1931 14-35--? 35.50 120.67 D F ATASCADERO.

09/30/1931 14-35--? 35.50 120.67 D F ATASCADERO.

10/13/1931 12-25--? 36.33 121.67 D F JAMESBURG.

10/18/1931 19-58--? 36.33 121.67 D F IV AT HOLLIST ER, JAMESBURG, AND SPRECKLES; ALSO FELT AT APTOS, CARMEL, CHUALAR, MOSS LANDING, MONTEREY, PARAISO, SALINAS, AND SANTA CRUZ. 12/04/1931 -?-53--? 36.50 121.67 D F 10 MI. S OF SPRECKELS. FELT AT HOLLISTER, METZ, PIGEON POINT, SPRECKELS, AND SANTA CRUZ. 02/04/1932 16-02-58 34.55 119.73 C 3.0 1 F SANTA BARBARA AND VENTURA.

02/05/1932 04-14-45 35.83 121.47 C 3.5 1 F COAST OF MONTEREY COUNTY; FELT AT PIEDRAS BLANCAS LIGHT AND SALMON CREEK. 02/05/1932 06-46-54 35.83 121.47 C 3.5 1 F COAST OF MONTEREY COUNTY; FELT AT PIEDRAS BLANCAS LIGHT AND SALMON CREEK. 02/05/1932 07-10--? 35.83 121.47 C F AFTERSHOCK OF PRECEDING.

02/26/1932 16-58--? 36.00 121.00 5.0 F IV AT APTOS, ASILOMAR, CARMEL, DEL MONTE, GONZALES, METZ, MONTEREY, PACIFIC GROVE, AND PEBBLE BEACH. 03/13/1932 23-09-24 34.44 120.17 B 3.5 1 F OFF PO INT CONCEPTION; FELT AT BUELLTON. 04/21/1932 03-36-20 35.50 120.67 D 3.0 F ATASCADERO.

05/06/1932 03-37-08 36.00 120.50 C 3.0 1 F PARKFIELD.

06/27/1932 05-17-25 36.00 122.00 D 4.0 COAST OF MONTEREY COUNTY. 10/24/1932 04-45--? 35.75 120.75 D F PASO ROBLES.

01/30/1933 17--?--? 34.67 120.42 D F LOMPOC.

02/26/1933 09-34-32 36.40 121.30 D F III AT HOLLISTER, SALINAS, AND SPRECKLES. 04/12/1933 10-03--? 36.33 121.75 D F IV AT PORTERVILLE AND VISALIA. 06/26/1933 06-26--? 34.42 120.50 D F V AT BUELLTON AND POINT CONCEPTION. 06/26/1933 06-29--? 34.42 120.50 D F V AT BUELLTON AND POINT CONCEPTION. 01/09/1934 12-48--? 35.13 120.08 C 3.0 DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.5-1 Sheet 12 of 43 Revision 17 November 2006 MM/DD/YY HR/MN/SE NORTH LAT WEST LONG QUALITY MAG. STA. REC. FELT MAXIMUM INTENSITY - COMMENTS 01/12/1934 12-50--? 34.45 120.15 D F IV AT LOS ALAMOS. 02/01/1934 16-09--? 34.55 119.53 B 3.5 F II AT SANTA BARBARA. 02/11/1934 15-16--? 34.55 119.53 C 2.0 03/20/1934 11-48--? 36.00 120.00 D 3.0 05/06/1934 20-14--? 35.83 120.75 B 3.5 05/10/1934 11-28--? 34.50 119.58 C 3.0 05/19/1934 06-37--? 34.58 120.75 D 3.0 05/24/1934 06-52--? 34.42 119.75 C 2.5 05/24/1934 09-04--? 34.42 119.75 C 2.5 05/24/1934 11-18--? 34.42 119.75 C 2.0 06/05/1934 09-51--? 35.80 120.33 D F COALINGA AND KETTLEMAN HILLS; ALSO FELT AT MONTEREY AND SANTA CRUZ. 06/05/1934 11-30--? 35.80 120.33 D F SAN MIGUEL AND SHANDON. 06/05/1934 11-47--? 35.80 120.33 B 3.0 06/05/1934 13-46--? 35.80 120.33 C 3.0 06/05/1934 21-30--? 35.80 120.33 D F SAN MIGUEL.

06/05/1934 21-48--? 35.80 120.33 B 5.0 F V AT ADELAIDA , PARKFIELD, AND PRIEST, IV AT ATASCADERO, AVENAL, BIG SUR, BRYSON, CARMEL, HANFORD, KING CITY, LEMOORE, LONOAK, PARAISO, SAN MIGUEL, SANTA CRUZ, SHANDON, AND TEMPLETON, III AT APTOS, BOULDER CREEK, CAMBRIA, CHUALAR, COALINGA, GONZALES, HOLLISTER, MONTEREY, MORRO BAY, PASO ROBLES, SALINAS, SAN FRANCISCO, SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY, SAN LUIS OBISPO, SOLEDAD, SPRECKLES, ETC.; NOT FELT AT ANTIOCH, ETC., BAKERSFIELD, FRESNO, GILROY, LIVERMORE, LOS GATOS, MARICOPA, MERCED, MODESTO, MORGAN HILL, REDWOOD CITY, SAN JOSE, SANTA

MARIA, TULARE, OR WATSONVILLE. 06/05/1934 22-52--? 35.80 120.33 C 4.0 F VI AT ADELAIDA; IV AT ATASCADERO. 06/05/1934 23-30--? 35.80 120.33 D F V AT LEMOORE; ALSO FELT AT CASTROVILLE. 06/06/1934 -?-55--? 35.80 120.33 C 3.0 06/06/1934 16-40--? 35.80 120.33 C 3.5 06/06/1934 22-40--? 35.80 120.33 C 3.5 F ADELAIDA, GRAEAGLE, AND PAYNES CREEK. 06/07/1934 22-30--? 35.80 120.33 D F STONE CANYON.

06/08/1934 04-15--? 35.80 120.33 D F IV AT GONZALES AND MCKITTRICK. 06/08/1934 04-30--? 35.80 120.33 B 5.0 F VI TO VII AT CHOLOME RANCH, PARKFIELD, AND STONE CANYON DURATION 30 SECONDS, DAMAGE SLIGHT, V AT ATASCADERO, AT ANTELOPE, BIG SUR, CAMBRIA, CASTROVILLE, DELANO, MONTEREY, PASO ROBLES, SAN LUIS OBISPO, SANTA BARBARASANTA MARGARITA, SANTA MARIA, SOLEDAD, TAFT, VENTURA, VISALIA, ETC., AND III OR LESS AT ARVIN, BAKERSFIELD, FRESNO, KERNVILLE, LOMPOC, LOS ANGELES, MENDOTA, PORTERVILLE, SALINAS, SAN BENITO, SANTA ANA, SANTA BARBARA, TULARE, WATSONVILLE, ETC.; NOT FELT AT BIG BASIN, CAJON, COYOTE, GILROY, HUNTINGTON BEACH, INDEPENDENCE, INYOKERN, LANCASTER, MERCED, POMONA, OR SAN JOSE. 06/08/1934 04-37--? 35.60 121.30 D F IV AT PIEDRAS BLANCAS, SAN LUIS OBISPO, AND SANTA CRUZ; ALSO FELT AT BRYSON AND LOS ALAMOS.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.5-1 Sheet 13 of 43 Revision 17 November 2006 MM/DD/YY HR/MN/SE NORTH LAT WEST LONG QUALITY MAG. STA. REC. FELT MAXIMUM INTENSITY - COMMENTS 06/08/1934 04-45--? 35.80 120.33 D F ATASCADERO, COALINGA, LOCKWOOD, PASO ROBLES, PORT SAN LUIS, PRIEST, SAN MIGUEL, AND WESTHAVEN. 06/08/1934 04-47--? 35.80 120.33 B 6.0 F WITHIN A RADIUS OF 250 KM FROM THE EPICENTER NEAR THE SOUTHEASTERN ANGLE OF MONTEREY COUNTY; VII TO VIII AT PARKFIELD, VI AT COALINGA, KETTLEMAN CITY, LEMOORE, AND STONE CANYON, V AT ATASCADERO, DUDLEY, HOLLISTER, KING CITY, OILFIELDS, SAN MIGUEL, SEASIDE, SHALE PUMP STATION, AND SHANDON, IV AT ANTELOPE, AVILA, CANOGA PARK, HANFORD, LOS ALAMOS, MARICOPA, MORRO BAY, NIPOMO, PASO

ROBLES, PRIEST, SAN LUIS OBISPO, SANTA CRUZ, SANTA MARIA, SOLEDAD, VISALIA ETC., AND III OR LESS AT APTOS, FRESNO, KERNVILLE, LONE PINE, LOS BANOS, MENDOTA, MONTEREY, OAKLAND HARBOR, SALINAS, SAN BENITO, SANTA ANA, TEHACHAPI, TULARE, ETC. 06/08/1934 05--?--? 35.60 121.30 D F PIEDRAS BLANCAS LIGHT; ALSO BRYSON, KERNVILLE, LA PANZA, LEMOORE, PARKFIELD, SANDBERG, AND SAN FERNANDO. 06/08/1934 05-20--? 35.80 120.33 D F III AT ATASCADERO. 06/08/1934 05-23--? 35.80 120.33 C 3.5 F ATASCADERO AND SAN MIGUEL. 06/08/1934 05-36--? 35.80 120.33 C 3.0 06/08/1934 05-42--? 35.80 120.33 B 4.5 F ATASCADERO, BIG SUR, COALINGA, KING CITY, PASO ROBLES, AND WESTHAVEN. 06/08/1934 05-50--? 35.80 120.33 D F IV AT ATASCADER O; ALSO FELT AT COALINGA AND SAN LUIS OBISPO. 06/08/1934 09-30--? 35.80 120.33 B 4.0 F ATASCADERO AND PARKFIELD. 06/08/1934 15-30--? 35.80 120.33 C 3.5 06/08/1934 16-30--? 35.80 120.33 D F PARKFIELD.

06/08/1934 23-23--? 35.80 120.33 B 4.0 F NEAR PARKFIELD.

06/10/1934 06-47--? 35.80 120.33 C 3.0 06/10/1934 08-03--? 35.80 120.33 B 4.5 F NEAR PARKFIELD; IV AT SAN MIGUEL. 06/10/1934 20-02--? 35.80 120.33 D F IV AT SAN MIGUEL; ALSO PARKFIELD AND WOODY. 06/11/1934 03-25--? 35.80 120.33 C 3.0 06/12/1934 10-47--? 35.80 120.33 C 3.5 06/14/1934 14-55--? 35.80 120.33 C 4.0 F IV AT ATASCADER O; ALSO FELT AT SAN MIGUEL AND TEMPLETON. 06/14/1934 15-54--? 35.80 120.33 C 4.0 F III AT ATASCADERO AND SAN MIGUEL. 06/14/1934 19-26--? 35.80 120.33 C 4.5 F ATASCADERO AND TEMPLETON. 06/14/1934 22-02--? 35.80 120.33 C 3.5 F ATASCADERO.

06/15/1934 04-48--? 35.80 120.33 C 3.0 06/16/1934 23-03--? 36.50 121.00 D 4.0 F IV AT HOLLISTER AND MONTEREY, AND III AT GONZALES, PARKFIELD, AND SALINAS. 07/02/1934 18-44--? 35.80 120.33 B 3.0 08/04/1934 -?-18--? 35.80 120.33 B 3.0 08/21/1934 03-37--? 36.08 120.58 D F IV IN STONE CANYON. 08/25/1934 18-52--? 34.42 119.75 C 2.5 08/26/1934 03-02--? 35.57 119.85 B 3.0 09/06/1934 23-24--? 36.00 120.55 C 3.0 09/16/1934 14-38--? 35.83 120.33 C 3.5 10/07/1934 -?-18--? 34.55 120.78 C 3.5 DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.5-1 Sheet 14 of 43 Revision 17 November 2006 MM/DD/YY HR/MN/SE NORTH LAT WEST LONG QUALITY MAG. STA. REC. FELT MAXIMUM INTENSITY - COMMENTS 10/08/1934 04-57--? 34.50 119.58 C 2.0 10/10/1934 10-52--? 34.55 120.78 C 3.0 10/19/1934 15-39--? 35.80 120.33 C 3.0 11/04/1934 22-17--? 34.53 119.67 B 3.0 11/21/1934 01-02--? 34.58 119.62 B 2.5 12/01/1934 13-05--? 36.00 121.50 D F 15 MI. S OF PARAISO; V AT PIEDRAS BLANCAS LIGHT AND IV AT PARAISO. 12/02/1934 16-07--? 35.97 120.58 C 4.0 F SAN MIGUEL.

12/03/1934 01-54--? 35.95 121.50 C 4.5 F IV AT BRYSON, KING CITY, AND PARAISO; ALSO FELT AT PARKFIELD, PASO ROBLES, SAN LUCAS, AND SAN MIGUEL. 12/17/1934 11-10--? 34.58 120.33 B 4.5 F VI AT LOS ALAMOS. 12/17/1934 13-51--? 34.58 120.33 C 2.5 F LOS ALAMOS.

12/17/1934 15-16--? 34.55 119.67 C 2.5 12/17/1934 15-35--? 34.58 120.33 C 2.5 12/18/1934 03-09--? 34.58 120.33 C 4.0 F LOS ALAMOS.

12/18/1934 04-34--? 34.58 120.33 C 3.0 F LOS ALAMOS.

12/18/1934 05-28--? 34.58 120.33 C 3.0 F LOS ALAMOS.

12/19/1934 20-39--? 34.28 119.50 B 2.5 12/20/1934 12-37--? 34.58 120.33 C 2.5 F LOS ALAMOS.

12/20/1934 12-39--? 34.58 120.33 C 3.0 12/20/1934 22-21--? 34.58 120.33 C 3.0 12/23/1934 16-08--? 34.58 120.33 C 2.5 12/24/1934 10-22--? 34.58 120.33 B 3.0 F LOS ALAMOS. 12/24/1934 16-26--? 35.93 120.48 B 5.0 F IV AT LOS ALAMOS AND SHANDON; ALSO FELT AT KING CITY TEMPLETON. 12/25/1934 04-03--? 34.58 120.33 C 3.0 01/06/1935 04-04--? 35.98 120.48 C 4.0 F IV AT PARKFIELD; ALSO FELT AT SHANDON. 01/06/1935 04-25--? 35.90 120.45 D F IV AT PARKFIELD. 01/06/1935 04-40--? 35.98 120.48 C 4.0 F IV AT PARKFIELD AND III AT SHANDON. 01/07/1935 -?-11--? 35.75 119.67 D 3.0 01/23/1935 03-16--? 34.58 120.33 C 3.5 F IV AT LOS ALAMOS. 01/27/1935 09-49--? 34.50 119.62 B 2.5 02/18/1935 04-02--? 35.93 120.48 C 3.5 02/19/1935 14-17--? 35.93 120.48 D 3.0 02/28/1935 19-06--? 35.80 120.33 C 3.0 03/03/1935 11-26--? 36.42 121.75 C 3.0 03/06/1935 23-14--? 34.43 119.87 C 3.5 F III AT SANTA BARBARA. 03/19/1935 03-59--? 34.55 120.78 B 4.0 OFF POINT ARGUELLO. 04/05/1935 10-13--? 35.93 120.48 C 3.5 05/05/1935 12-58--? 34.58 119.68 C 2.5 05/18/1935 04-36--? 34.58 120.33 B 3.5 F IV AT LOS ALAMOS. 05/19/1935 03-44--? 34.58 120.33 C 3.0 05/20/1935 23-44--? 34.58 120.33 C 3.0 05/27/1935 16-08--? 35.37 120.97 C 3.0 F III AT TEMPLETON. 06/10/1935 02-02--? 35.33 119.83 C 3.5 06/18/1935 08-52--? 34.60 119.60 C 2.0 06/23/1935 23-53--? 34.55 119.68 C 3.0 DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.5-1 Sheet 15 of 43 Revision 17 November 2006 MM/DD/YY HR/MN/SE NORTH LAT WEST LONG QUALITY MAG. STA. REC. FELT MAXIMUM INTENSITY - COMMENTS 06/30/1935 23-28--? 36.00 121.00 D 4.0 F SE OF SALINAS; III AT HOLLISTER. 07/25/1935 04-16--? 35.80 120.33 C 3.0 F V AT PARKFIELD. 07/28/1935 06--?--? 35.70 121.12 B 4.0 F SAN SIMEON. 08/06/1935 19-05--? 34.62 119.62 C 3.0 F SANTA BARBARA.

08/07/1935 22-30--? 34.55 120.78 C 3.5 08/09/1935 17-14--? 36.17 120.98 C 3.5 F PRIEST VALLEY.

08/31/1935 09-28--? 34.50 119.70 C 2.5 10/18/1935 09-24--? 35.80 120.70 D 3.5 F IV AT PARKFIELD - AFTERSHOCK. 10/22/1935 18-37--? 35.93 120.48 C 4.0 F PARKFIELD.

10/25/1935 19-43--? 36.40 121.55 D F 13 MI. W OF SOLEDAD; IV AT SAN BENITO. 10/26/1935 10-46--? 35.85 121.40 D F AFTERSHOCK.

12/22/1935 06-54--? 34.55 120.78 C 3.0 02/03/1936 09-12--? 34.75 119.75 C 2.5 02/21/1936 23-06--? 34.42 119.67 C 3.0 02/22/1936 -?-18--? 34.42 119.67 C 3.0 02/22/1936 -?-21--? 34.42 119.67 C 2.5 02/22/1936 -?-23--? 34.42 119.67 C 3.0 02/22/1936 04-55--? 34.42 119.67 C 3.0 03/06/1936 03-45--? 35.90 120.40 D 3.0 03/17/1936 01-55--? 36.50 120.92 C 4.0 F IV AT CHUALAR, HOLLISTER, AND TRES PINOS. 03/18/1936 09-07--? 35.93 120.48 C 2.5 03/27/1936 -?-58--? 34.55 120.78 C 3.0 03/29/1936 09-26--? 34.50 119.62 C 2.5 05/20/1936 17-22--? 35.93 120.48 C 3.0 05/23/1936 04-41--? 36.17 120.92 C 4.0 F IV AT KING CITY. 05/27/1936 19-55--? 36.50 121.17 C 4.5 SAN BENITO COUNTY. 06/24/1936 12-23--? 35.12 120.08 C 3.0 F SAN LUIS OBISPO CO.; IV AT LOS ALAMOS. 07/13/1936 18-09--? 34.50 119.60 D 2.5 07/22/1936 04-03--? 34.50 119.80 C 2.5 07/30/1936 09-36--? 34.57 119.63 C 3.0 09/07/1936 16-47--? 34.37 120.38 C 3.0 09/09/1936 04-54--? 34.37 120.38 C 4.0 F LOS ALAMOS.

09/10/1936 21-21--? 34.40 120.40 D 3.0 09/12/1936 13-56--? 34.75 120.33 C 3.5 09/15/1936 -?-09--? 34.50 120.50 D 2.5 10/16/1936 15-30--? 34.83 120.58 C 4.0 NEAR CASMALIA.

10/16/1936 15-36--? 34.83 120.58 C 3.0 10/17/1936 01-17--? 34.83 120.58 C 3.0 10/19/1936 14-01--? 34.83 120.58 C 3.0 11/01/1936 15-10--? 34.55 120.78 B 4.0 OFF POINT ARGUELLO. 11/02/1936 01-29--? 34.55 120.78 C 3.0 11/05/1936 14-30--? 35.85 121.40 D F HOLLISTER.

11/08/1936 16-51--? 34.55 120.78 C 3.0 11/08/1936 22-43--? 34.55 120.78 C 3.0 11/18/1936 17-15--? 35.35 120.60 D F POZO, SAN LUIS OBISPO, AND SANTA MARGARITA.

11/18/1936 18-02--? 34.70 120.25 C 4.5 F IV AT ARROYO GRANDE, ATASCADERO, BETTERAVIA, LOS ALAMOS OCEANO, POZO, SAN LUIS OBISPO, AND SANTA MARGARITA.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.5-1 Sheet 16 of 43 Revision 17 November 2006 MM/DD/YY HR/MN/SE NORTH LAT WEST LONG QUALITY MAG. STA. REC. FELT MAXIMUM INTENSITY - COMMENTS 11/22/1936 02-16--? 34.58 120.78 C 3.5 11/25/1936 21-51--? 34.58 120.78 C 3.0 12/23/1936 17-16--? 35.93 120.48 B 3.5 12/26/1936 01-12--? 34.55 119.68 C 2.5 01/12/1937 15-44--? 34.50 120.80 D 3.0 01/28/1937 17-36--? 34.43 119.87 C 2.5 02/16/1937 17-40--? 34.55 120.78 C 4.0 OFF POINT ARGUELLO. 02/17/1937 03-33--? 36.50 121.58 C 4.5 F 9 MI. SE OF PAICINE; FELT AT ANTELOPE, HOLLISTER, AND PANOCHE. 02/20/1937 09-58--? 35.93 120.48 C 4.0 F PARKFIELD AND PASO ROBLES. 02/22/1937 18-10--? 36.17 121.53 C 4.0 F KING CITY.

02/24/1937 13-37--? 34.50 119.70 C 2.0 02/25/1937 03-20--? 34.50 119.70 C 2.0 03/26/1937 21-35--? 34.60 119.70 C 3.5 03/31/1937 17-43--? 34.50 119.70 C 3.0 04/17/1937 08-30--? 34.60 119.70 C 2.5 04/30/1937 08-16--? 34.50 119.70 D 2.5 05/31/1937 15-33--? 36.50 120.70 C 3.0 06/02/1937 09-32--? 34.40 119.70 C 2.5 07/31/1937 14-18--? 34.22 119.55 C 3.0 07/31/1937 15-14--? 34.22 119.55 C 2.5 08/15/1937 19-01--? 36.50 120.70 D 3.0 08/22/1937 01-56--? 35.00 121.00 D 3.5 09/16/1937 02-48--? 35.93 120.48 B 3.5 F NEAR PARKFIELD; FELT AT BRADLEY. 09/18/1937 13-29--? 36.50 121.50 D 4.0 F 9 MI. SE OF PAICINES; FELT AT CHUALAR, SALINAS, AND SPRECKLES. 09/22/1937 02-41--? 34.50 119.70 C 3.0 09/29/1937 22-39--? 34.50 119.70 C 3.0 10/13/1937 08-32--? 34.40 119.70 C 2.5 11/01/1937 21-40--? 36.50 121.40 D F 6 MI. N OF GONZALES. 11/03/1937 10--?--? 36.15 121.00 D F V AT SAN LUCAS; FELT ALSO AT KING CITY AND SAN ARDO. 11/22/1937 04-12--? 34.55 120.78 C 4.5 F OFF POINT ARGUELLO; V AT BUELLTON, GOLETA, PISMO BEACH, POINT D SANTA MARIA, AND IV AT ARLIGHT, BETTERAVIA, BICKNELL, E, GAVIOTA, GUADALUPE, LOMPOC, LOS ALAMOS, LOS

OLIVOS, SANTA URF. 11/22/1937 04-51--? 34.55 120.78 C 3.5 11/28/1937 09-55--? 34.55 120.78 C 3.5 12/03/1937 15-28--? 34.55 120.78 C 4.0 F OFF POIN T ARGUELLO; FELT AT GAVIOTA AND POINT CONCEPTION. 12/03/1937 21-13--? 34.55 120.78 C 3.5 12/05/1937 01-36--? 36.00 121.00 D 3.5 F 19 MI. S OF LOS BANOS; V AT LOS BANOS. 12/05/1937 01-37--? 36.00 121.00 D 4.0 SAN BENITO COUNTY. 12/05/1937 02-05--? 36.00 121.00 D 3.0 F 19 MI. S OF LOS BANOS. 12/24/1937 11-57--? 34.50 120.80 D 4.0 F OFF POINT ARGU ELLO. FELT AT CASMALIA, LOS ALAMOS, POINT CONCEPTION. 12/25/1937 13-01--? 36.00 120.00 D 3.0 01/01/1938 01-59--? 34.55 120.78 C 3.5 DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.5-1 Sheet 17 of 43 Revision 17 November 2006 MM/DD/YY HR/MN/SE NORTH LAT WEST LONG QUALITY MAG. STA. REC. FELT MAXIMUM INTENSITY - COMMENTS 01/18/1938 04-35--? 34.55 120.78 B 3.5 01/24/1938 04-38--? 34.55 120.78 C 3.5 01/25/1938 12-24--? 34.55 120.78 C 3.5 02/01/1938 18-14--? 34.55 120.78 C 3.5 02/20/1938 14--?--? 34.55 120.78 C 3.5 02/21/1938 10-59--? 35.93 120.78 C 3.0 03/04/1938 15-14--? 34.30 119.57 C 2.5 03/04/1938 18-25--? 34.30 119.57 C 2.5 04/12/1938 01-50--? 34.55 120.78 C 3.5 05/10/1938 10-32--? 36.20 121.30 D 4.5 F BIG SUR, HOLLISTER, KING CITY, PINNACLES, SALINAS, SOLEDAD, SOQUEL, AND TRES PINOS-6 SHOCKS FELT AT PINNACLES. 05/10/1938 10-41--? 36.20 121.30 D 4.0 F SAN BENITO.

05/13/1938 19-34--? 36.20 121.30 D 4.0 MONTEREY COUNTY.

05/27/1938 22-03--? 36.20 120.00 D 3.5 06/01/1938 05-17--? 34.55 119.68 D F SANTA BARBARA.

06/01/1938 06-17--? 34.55 119.68 D 3.0 06/06/1938 02-55--? 34.50 119.67 C 3.0 09/16/1938 06-11--? 36.40 121.20 D 4.0 F PINNACLES.

09/27/1938 10-21--? 34.50 119.70 C 2.5 09/27/1938 12-23--? 36.30 120.90 C 5.0 F OVER AN AREA OF 9000 SQ. MI. OF WEST-CENTRAL CALIFORNIA, ALONG THE COAST AS FAR NORTH AS PESCADERO AND SOUTH TO SAN LUIS OBISPO. INLAND IT WAS FELT AT COALINGA, MENDOTA, AND STEVENSON, WITH A V AT BIG SUR, BRYSON, CHUALAR, GONZALES, GREENFIELD, HARMONY, HOLLISTER, JOLON, LOCKWOOD, PAICINES, PARAISO, PINNACLES, SAN ARDO, SAN BENITO, SAN LUCAS, SOLEDAD, AND SPRECKLES, AND IV AT BEN LOMOND, CAMBRIA, CARMEL, CASTROVILLE, DOS PALOS, GILROY, KING CITY, LOS BANOS, MENDOTA, MONTEREY, PASO ROBLES, PRIEST, SALINAS, SAN LUIS OBISPO, TRES PINOS, WATSONVILLE, ETC. 09/27/1938 16-20--? 36.45 121.25 D F PAICINES AND PINNACLES. 09/29/1938 12-12--? 34.55 120.78 C 4.0 OFF POINT ARGUELLO. 10/02/1938 18-45--? 34.33 119.58 C 4.0 F SANTA BARBARA AND SUMMERLAND. 10/24/1938 13-40--? 36.45 121.25 D F HOLLISTER AND PINNACLES. 10/28/1938 10-07--? 35.80 120.33 C 3.5 11/01/1938 22-46--? 35.12 120.08 C 3.0 11/16/1938 13-39--? 35.80 120.33 C 3.0 11/22/1938 15-30--? 35.93 120.48 B 4.5 F NEAR PARKFIELD; FELT AT ATASCADERO, CAMBRIA, CRESTON, MORRO BAY, PARKFIELD, PASO ROBLES, SAN MIGUEL, AND

SHANDON. 01/01/1939 -?-53--? 34.58 120.33 C 3.0 01/21/1939 07-08--? 36.45 121.25 D F PINNACLES.

01/22/1939 15-52--? 34.40 119.70 C 2.5 02/05/1939 03-30--? 35.65 120.65 D F PASO ROBLES.

02/09/1939 06-44--? 35.93 120.48 C 3.0 F NEAR PARKFIELD.

02/12/1939 03-12--? 34.42 119.83 B 3.0 F GOLETA AND SANTA BARBARA . 03/24/1939 02-49--? 34.55 120.78 C 3.5 DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.5-1 Sheet 18 of 43 Revision 17 November 2006 MM/DD/YY HR/MN/SE NORTH LAT WEST LONG QUALITY MAG. STA. REC. FELT MAXIMUM INTENSITY - COMMENTS 03/25/1939 03-45--? 36.45 121.25 D F PINNACLES. 03/30/1939 10-11--? 34.50 119.80 C 2.5 05/02/1939 18-49--? 35.93 120.48 C 4.0 F IV AT PARKFIELD. 05/03/1939 07-55--? 34.55 120.78 C 3.0 05/03/1939 12-39--? 35.65 120.65 D F PASO ROBLES.

05/18/1939 23--?--? 35.80 120.33 C 3.0 06/15/1939 21-12--? 34.50 119.70 C 2.5 06/17/1939 04-30--? 34.75 120.25 D F LOS ALAMOS. REPORTS OF SEVERAL SHOCKS. 06/24/1939 12-55--? 35.85 120.85 D F BRADLEY.

06/24/1939 13-02--? 36.40 121.00 C 5.5 F OVER AN AREA OF 10,000 SQ. MI. IN WEST-CENTRAL CALIFORNIA, ALONG THE COAST AS FAR NORTH AS HALF MOON BAY AND SOUTH TO ESTERO BAY. INLAND IT WAS FELT AT COALINGA, TRANQUILITY, AND VOLTA, WITH A VII AT HOLLISTER, VI AT KING CITY AND PAICINES, V AT CAYUCOS, SOLEDAD, AND SPRECKLES, AND IV AT PAICINES, V AT CAYUCOS, SOLEDAD, AND SPRECKLES, AND IV AT CAMBRIA, CARMEL, CASTROVILLE, CHUALAR, GILROY, GONZALES, LOCKWOOD, MILPITAS, MONTEREY, NIPOMO, PASO ROBLES, PINNACLES, SALINAS, SAN ARDO, SAN BENITO, SAN

JUAN, SAN MIGUEL, SAN SIMEON, SANTA CRUZ, TRES PINOS, AND

WATSONVILLE. 07/04/1939 10-49--? 36.40 121.00 C 4.0 F HOLLISTER, PAICINES, AND SALINAS. 07/10/1939 18-33--? 36.40 121.25 D F PINNACLES.

07/24/1939 09-30--? 36.25 121.80 D F BIG SUR.

07/24/1939 13--?--? 36.00 121.15 D F JOLON.

09/06/1939 01-53-43 34.58 120.42 C 3.0 09/07/1939 02-50-30 35.42 121.08 C 3.0 F OFF SAN LUIS OBISPO CO.; FELT AT CAMBRIA. 09/08/1939 01-57--? 34.75 120.25 D F LOS ALAMOS.

09/08/1939 05--?--? 34.75 120.25 D F LOS ALAMOS.

09/12/1939 -?--?-47 34.25 119.75 C 3.0 09/24/1939 11-57-40 36.40 121.00 D 3.5 10/06/1939 04-39--? 35.80 121.50 D 3.5 10/17/1939 19-21-41 34.55 120.78 C 3.5 10/17/1939 20-42-43 34.55 120.78 C 4.0 OFF POINT ARGUELLO. 11/02/1939 14-02--? 34.40 120.50 D F POINT CONCEPTION LIGHT STATION. 11/04/1939 14-11-33 36.20 120.90 D 3.0 F SALINAS AND SAN LUCAS. 12/14/1939 03-45-18 36.10 120.00 D 3.0 12/25/1939 15-36-23 34.28 119.83 C 3.5 12/28/1939 12-15-38 35.80 120.33 B 5.0 F OVER AN AREA OF 15,000 SQ. MI. IN WEST-CENTRAL CALIFORNIA, ON THE COAST FROM SANTA CRUZ SOUTH TO POINT ARGUELLO, AND INLAND TO LOST HILLS AND FRESNO. V AT COALINGA, FRESNO, GREENFIELD, PRIEST, SAN ARDO, AND SAN LUCAS, AND IV AT APTOS, ATASCADERO, BIG SUR, CAMBRIA, CARMEL, CASTROVILLE, CAYUCOS, CHUALAR, GONZALES, HOLLISTER, KING CITY, MENDOTA, MONTEREY, MORRO BAY, PARKFIELD, PASO ROBLES, PINNACLES, SALINAS, SAN JUAN BAUTISTA, SAN LUIS

OBISPO, SANTA CRUZ, SOLEDAD, TAFT, ETC.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.5-1 Sheet 19 of 43 Revision 17 November 2006 MM/DD/YY HR/MN/SE NORTH LAT WEST LONG QUALITY MAG. STA. REC. FELT MAXIMUM INTENSITY - COMMENTS 12/29/1939 04--?--? 36.40 121.25 D F PINNACLES. 12/30/1939 15-24-37 35.80 120.33 D 3.5 F NEAR PARKFIELD. FELT AT SAN LUCAS. 02/27/1940 11-40-25 34.25 119.50 B 3.0 05/21/1940 10-05-34 35.28 120.48 B 4.0 F ATASCADERO, CAMBRIA, CAYUCOS, MORRO BAY, PASO ROBLES, PISMO BEACH, AND SAN LUIS OBISPO. 06/16/1940 09-25-04 34.55 120.78 C 4.0 F OFF POINT ARGU ELLO; FELT AT GUADALUPE AND LOS ALAMOS. 06/26/1940 08-56--? 36.08 120.32 C 3.5 06/28/1940 04-06-42 34.55 120.78 C 3.0 08/13/1940 22-07-29 36.23 120.32 B 4.0 (DEPT. OF WATER RESOURCES DATA.) 08/31/1940 08-52-46 34.55 120.78 B 3.5 09/07/1940 10-36-30 36.50 121.50 D 3.5 09/07/1940 10-38-36 36.50 121.50 D 3.5 09/07/1940 13-02-06 36.50 121.50 D 4.5 F CARMEL AND SALINAS. 10/20/1940 22-18-45 34.55 120.78 C 3.0 11/10/1940 10-25-10 34.35 119.77 C 4.0 F SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL; FELT AT GOLETA, PARADISE CAMP, AND SANTA BARBARA. 11/17/1940 21-23-43 35.00 119.50 C 3.0 01/29/1941 08-54-01 34.48 119.53 B 3.0 02/04/1941 03-19-12 34.55 119.68 C 3.0 02/04/1941 03-42-09 34.55 119.68 C 3.0 02/08/1941 15-58-50 34.55 119.68 C 3.5 F SANTA BARBARA.

02/09/1941 23-49-18 34.50 119.70 C 2.0 02/11/1941 06-43-30 34.27 119.57 B 3.5 F SANTA BARBARA.

02/12/1941 20-10-24 34.40 119.70 C 3.0 02/14/1941 22-19-06 34.40 119.70 C 2.5 05/07/1941 16-17-34 34.55 120.78 C 3.5 05/15/1941 03-29--? 36.15 120.35 D F COALINGA.

05/15/1941 06--?--? 36.15 120.35 D F COALINGA.

07/01/1941 07-50-57 34.33 119.58 A 6.0 F SANTA BARBARA; FE LT OVER AN AREA OF 20,000 SQ. MI. VIII AT CARPINTERIA AND SANTA BARBARA, VII AT GOLETA AND VENTURA, VI AT FILLMORE, KEYSTONE, LOS ALAMOS, OJAI, OXNARD, PORT HUENEME, SANTA PAULA, SUMMERLAND, AND WHEELER SPRINGS, AND V AT ACTON, ALTADENA, ARLIGHT, ARTESIA, ARVIN, BETTERAVIA, BUELLTON, BURBANK, CAMARILLO, CANOGA PARK, CASMALIA, CAYUCOS, CHATSWORTH, COMPTON, EL SEGUNDO, GAVIOTA, GLENDALE, HERMOSA BEACH, INGLEWOOD, LA CRESCENTA, LAGUNA BEACH, LANCASTER, LOMITA, LOMPOC, LONG BEACH, LOS ANGELES, LOS OLIVOS, MAYWOOD, MCKITTRICK, MONTALVO, MOORPARK, NEWBURY PARK, NEWPORT, NIPOMO, NORTH HOLLYWOOD, OCEANO, ORCUTT, PASADENA, PATTIWAY, IRU, POINT CONCEPTION, SANDBERG, SAN NICHOLAS ISLAND, SAN PEDRO, SANTA ANA, SANTA MARIA, SANTA MONICA, SANTA YNEZ, SIERRA MADRE, SIMI, STANTON, SUNLAND, SURF, TEHACHAPI, UPPER SESPE MOUNTAINS, VALYERMO, WHEELER RIDGE, AND WHITTIER. 07/01/1941 07-57--? 34.33 119.58 B 3.0 07/01/1941 07-58--? 34.33 119.58 B 3.5 DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.5-1 Sheet 20 of 43 Revision 17 November 2006 MM/DD/YY HR/MN/SE NORTH LAT WEST LONG QUALITY MAG. STA. REC. FELT MAXIMUM INTENSITY - COMMENTS 07/01/1941 08-05--? 34.33 119.58 B 3.0 07/01/1941 08-07--? 34.33 119.58 B 3.0 07/01/1941 08-10--? 34.33 119.58 B 3.0 07/01/1941 08-13--? 34.33 119.58 B 3.0 07/01/1941 08-15--? 34.33 119.58 B 3.0 07/01/1941 08-19--? 34.33 119.58 B 4.0 F AFTERSHOCK OF 07-50-57 (THIS DATE). 07/01/1941 08-21--? 34.33 119.58 B 4.0 F AFTERSHOCK OF 07-50-57.

07/01/1941 08-25--? 34.33 119.58 B 3.5 07/01/1941 08-30--? 34.33 119.58 B 4.0 F AFTERSHOCK OF 07-50-57.

MM/DD/YY HR/MN/SE NORTH LAT WEST LONG QUALITY MAG. STA. REC. FELT MAXIMUM INTENSITY - COMMENTS 07/01/1941 08-48--? 34.33 119.58 B 4.0 F AFTERSHOCK OF 07-50-57.

07/01/1941 08-58--? 34.33 119.58 B 4.0 F AFTERSHOCK OF 07-50-57.

07/01/1941 09-05--? 34.33 119.58 B 4.0 F AFTERSHOCK OF 07-50-57.

07/01/1941 09-45--? 34.33 119.58 B 4.0 F AFTERSHOCK OF 07-50-57.

07/01/1941 10-25--? 34.33 119.58 B 4.0 F AFTERSHOCK OF 07-50-57.

07/01/1941 12-37--? 34.33 119.58 B 3.0 07/01/1941 14-22--? 34.33 119.58 B 3.0 07/01/1941 18-13--? 34.33 119.58 B 3.0 07/01/1941 18-20--? 34.33 119.58 B 4.0 F AFTERSHOCK OF 07-50-57.

07/01/1941 19-48--? 34.33 119.58 B 3.0 07/01/1941 20-15--? 34.33 119.58 B 3.5 07/01/1941 22-51--? 34.33 119.58 B 3.5 07/01/1941 23-54--? 34.33 119.58 B 4.5 F AFTERSHOCK OF 07-50-57; FELT AT FILLMORE, GAVIOTA, LOS ALAMOS, AND SANTA BARBARA. 07/02/1941 -?-17--? 34.33 119.58 B 3.0 07/02/1941 04-33--? 34.33 119.58 B 3.5 07/02/1941 08-45--? 34.33 119.58 B 3.5 07/02/1941 11-41--? 34.33 119.58 B 3.0 07/02/1941 22-19--? 34.33 119.58 B 4.0 F AFTERSHOCK OF 07-50-57.

07/03/1941 -?-25--? 34.33 119.58 B 3.5 07/03/1941 19-26--? 34.33 119.58 B 4.0 F AFTERSHOCK OF 07-50-57.

07/07/1941 01-06--? 34.33 119.58 B 3.0 07/07/1941 06-25--? 34.33 119.58 B 3.5 07/08/1941 19-37--? 34.33 119.58 B 3.0 07/12/1941 16-18--? 34.33 119.58 B 4.5 F AFTERSHOCK OF 07-50-57; FELT AT FILLMORE, GLENDALE, MONTROSE, SATICOY, SAUGUS, AND WHEELER SPRINGS. 07/12/1941 16-41--? 34.33 119.58 B 3.0 07/12/1941 21-07--? 34.33 119.58 B 3.0 07/12/1941 21-12--? 34.33 119.58 B 3.0 07/13/1941 06-11--? 34.33 119.58 B 3.5 07/16/1941 23-10--? 34.33 119.58 B 3.0 07/17/1941 18-31--? 34.33 119.58 B 3.0 07/27/1941 12-44--? 34.33 119.58 B 3.0 07/31/1941 13-23--? 34.33 119.58 B 3.0 08/02/1941 12-31-19 34.33 119.58 C 3.0 08/09/1941 05-05-24 34.33 119.58 C 3.5 DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.5-1 Sheet 21 of 43 Revision 17 November 2006 MM/DD/YY HR/MN/SE NORTH LAT WEST LONG QUALITY MAG. STA. REC. FELT MAXIMUM INTENSITY - COMMENTS 08/12/1941 22-35-24 34.33 119.58 C 3.5 08/19/1941 10-20-25 34.33 119.58 C 3.0 08/25/1941 06-58-22 34.33 119.58 C 3.0 08/27/1941 17-11-02 34.33 119.58 C 3.0 08/29/1941 08-43-24 34.60 120.30 C 3.0 09/08/1941 03-12-45 34.33 119.58 B 4.5 F AFTERSHOCK OF 07/01/41, 07-50-57. V AT GOLETA AND SANTA BARBARA; FELT STRONGLY AT LOS ALAMOS AND SUMMERLAND. 09/08/1941 03-14-23 34.33 119.58 B 4.0 F TWIN SH OCK OF 03-12-45; SAME "FELT" REPORT.

09/08/1941 04-45-16 34.33 119.58 B 3.5 F SANTA BARBARA.

09/09/1941 03-23-17 34.33 119.58 B 3.5 F SANTA BARBARA.

09/09/1941 13-44-46 34.33 119.58 B 3.0 09/14/1941 01-45-18 34.33 119.58 B 4.0 F AFTERSHOCK OF 07/01/41, 07-50-57. 09/14/1941 02-20-42 34.33 119.58 B 3.0 09/15/1941 01-37-02 34.33 119.58 B 4.0 F GOLETA, SANTA BARBARA, AND SUMMERLAND. 09/15/1941 01-55-18 34.33 119.58 B 3.0 09/15/1941 02-49-06 34.33 119.58 B 3.5 09/16/1941 07-27--? 34.33 119.58 B 3.5 09/25/1941 05-12-56 34.33 119.58 B 4.0 F GOLETA AND SANTA BARBARA. 10/07/1941 12-05-42 34.33 119.58 3.0 10/19/1941 23-22-19 34.33 119.58 B 3.0 11/05/1941 16-36--? 35.00 121.00 D 3.5 F OFF PO INT CONCEPTION; FELT AT SAN SIMEON. 11/17/1941 17-30-27 34.33 119.58 C 3.0 11/18/1941 18-08-10 34.33 119.58 C 4.0 F CARPINTERIA AND SANTA BARBARA. 11/21/1941 16-56-03 34.33 119.58 C 4.0 F GOLETA AND SANTA BARBARA. 11/25/1941 20-01-48 34.33 119.58 C 3.0 11/28/1941 06-33--? 35.00 120.00 D 3.5 12/08/1941 -?-29-42 36.00 121.00 D 3.5 12/22/1941 -?-54-09 35.93 120.48 C 4.0 F NEAR PARKFIELD-NOT RECORDED ON BERKELEY NETWORK. 01/06/1942 09-20--? 36.15 120.65 D F PRIEST VALLEY-RECORDED AT TINEMAHA. 01/06/1942 09-23--? 36.15 120.65 D F PRIEST VALLEY-RECORDED AT TINEMAHA. 01/08/1942 18-21-05 34.13 119.58 C 2.5 01/18/1942 11-35--? 36.40 121.25 D F PINNACLES.

01/18/1942 16-50--? 36.40 121.25 D F PINNACLES.

02/19/1942 18-33--? 36.40 121.25 D F PINNACLES.

03/09/1942 05-57-42 34.30 119.60 3.0 03/25/1942 -?--?--? 36.40 121.25 D F PINNACLES; LIGHT SHOCK. 04/19/1942 04-02-47 34.30 119.60 D 3.0 04/22/1942 05-32-52 35.30 119.50 D 3.0 05/08/1942 17-19-13 34.33 119.58 C 3.0 06/06/1942 06-42-11 34.35 119.85 C 3.0 F GOLETA.

06/29/1942 21-07-30 35.60 120.80 D 4.0 F IV AT CAMBRIA AND SAN LUIS OBISPO. 07/19/1942 10-42-07 36.40 121.10 D 1.6 SW OF LLANADA. 09/15/1942 10-36-33 36.13 122.18 B 3.0 SW OF KING CITY. 10/04/1942 10--?--? 34.60 120.00 D F IV AT SANTA YNEZ PEAK. 10/11/1942 23-48-23 36.48 121.40 C 1.9 FORESHOC K OF QUAKE ON OCTOBER 15 AT 13-53-56. 10/15/1942 13-53-56 36.48 121.40 B 4.3 F IV AT BIG SUR, GONZALES, GREENFIELD, HOLLISTER, SALINAS, AND SOLEDAD.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.5-1 Sheet 22 of 43 Revision 17 November 2006 MM/DD/YY HR/MN/SE NORTH LAT WEST LONG QUALITY MAG. STA. REC. FELT MAXIMUM INTENSITY - COMMENTS 10/18/1942 08--?--? 36.00 121.00 D F CAMBRIA. 10/18/1942 12-01-42 36.00 121.00 D F V AT CAMBRIA. 10/19/1942 10-23--? 34.50 119.65 D F V AT SANTA BARBARA. 10/20/1942 10-25--? 36.00 121.00 D F V AT CAMBRIA. 10/26/1942 01-09-01 36.40 121.60 D 1.8 DEPTH ABOUT 12 KM. 12/02/1942 11-46--? 34.33 119.58 C 3.5 F V AT SANTA BARBARA. 12/06/1942 16-57-49 35.93 120.48 C 3.5 01/24/1943 06-55-57 34.33 119.58 C 3.0 03/16/1943 09-27-47 34.28 119.60 C 3.0 04/01/1943 13-39-66 34.68 121.75 B 3.1 OFF COAST, WEST OF POINT ARGUELLO. 06/29/1943 02-50-53 36.50 121.10 D 3.1 SW OF LLANADA. 07/05/1943 16-30-29 36.38 121.83 C 3.9 SOUTH OF SALINAS. 07/15/1943 -?-44-42 36.00 120.15 D F NEAR AVENAL.

08/07/1943 16-59-47 34.28 119.57 C 3.5 08/12/1943 15-56-33 34.75 121.15 C 3.5 08/27/1943 08-16-53 34.43 119.87 C 3.5 F IV AT SANTA BARBARA. 09/13/1943 12-40--? 35.65 120.65 D F PASO ROBLES, POSSIBLY GUN FIRE. 09/18/1943 17-07-16 34.37 119.58 C 3.0 10/22/1943 12--?--? 36.00 120.90 D F SAN ARDO; 2 SHOCKS. 10/26/1943 22-10--? 34.75 120.25 D F LOS ALAMOS.

10/31/1943 17-54-06 35.80 120.40 D 3.5 10/31/1943 20--?--? 36.40 121.00 D F LONOAK.

11/08/1943 11-33-46 36.00 119.92 C 3.0 F KETTLEMAN HILLS; FELT AT AVENAL. 11/30/1943 21-57-18 36.30 120.50 D 4.0 NEAR COALINGA.

12/01/1943 04-51--? 36.50 121.10 D F SAN BENITO.

01/04/1944 18-06-40 34.10 120.40 D 3.3 02/18/1944 16-29-37 34.10 119.52 C 2.1 02/21/1944 13--?-11 36.17 120.93 C 3.8 WEST OF PRIEST. 03/06/1944 21-32-16 36.40 121.25 C 3.4 NE OF PARAISO. 04/03/1944 02-33--? 34.50 121.40 D 4.0 OFF POINT ARGUELLO. 04/12/1944 15-33-10 34.27 119.52 C 4.0 F OFF CARPINTERIA; FELT EAST OF SANTA BARBARA. 06/13/1944 08-27-32 34.67 120.50 C 4.6 F NEAR LOMPOC; VI AT LOS ALAMOS AND IV AT SANTA MARIA. 06/13/1944 08-46-43 34.67 120.50 C 4.0 F AFTERSHOCK OF 08-27-32.

06/13/1944 11-07-24 34.67 120.50 C 4.4 F AFTERSHOCK OF 08-27-32.

07/11/1944 22-33--? 36.50 121.10 D F SAN BENITO.

07/15/1944 19-22-37 34.37 119.62 C 3.1 09/04/1944 02-47-46 35.00 120.00 D 3.4 F LOS ALAMOS.

09/04/1944 05--?--? 35.00 120.00 D F LOS ALAMOS.

09/15/1944 14-12-42 34.70 120.20 D 2.6 F KETTLEMAN HILLS REGION; FELT AT PARKFIELD. 09/18/1944 01-30--? 35.00 120.00 D 3.5 11/04/1944 08-12-01 36.33 120.08 C 3.4 11/08/1944 16-12-36 34.33 119.72 C 3.1 11/28/1944 10-36--? 35.80 120.00 D 3.3 11/30/1944 18-53-15 34.72 120.42 C 4.1 F NEAR LOS ALAM OS; FELT AT LOS ALAMOS AND LOS OLIVOS. 12/02/1944 15-09-12 35.80 120.00 D 3.2 01/27/1945 17-50-31 34.75 120.67 C 3.9 02/25/1945 20-18-38 36.00 120.48 C 3.6 DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.5-1 Sheet 23 of 43 Revision 17 November 2006 MM/DD/YY HR/MN/SE NORTH LAT WEST LONG QUALITY MAG. STA. REC. FELT MAXIMUM INTENSITY - COMMENTS 04/15/1945 22-59-57 34.13 119.83 C 3.1 06/11/1945 03-54-52 34.50 120.80 D 3.2 07/11/1945 16-13--? 35.67 121.25 D 4.0 F NEAR SAN SIMEON; IV AT CAMBRIA. 07/28/1945 02-33-48 34.70 120.10 D 4.2 F EAST OF SANTA MARIA; IV AT LOS ALAMOS. 09/04/1945 12-38-31 34.32 119.63 C 3.2 09/07/1945 11-34-20 35.83 120.75 C 4.2 F NEAR BRADLEY; IV AT CAMBRIA, PARKFIELD, PASO ROBLES, AND SAN MIGUEL. 11/04/1945 -?-46-34 36.38 121.28 C 3.3 NEAR SOLEDAD.

02/09/1946 02-55-28 34.33 119.92 C 2.5 02/10/1946 11-01-19 36.50 121.00 D 4.2 F OVER AN AREA OF 2000 SQ. MI. IN WEST CENTRAL CALIFORNIA. V AT SAN BENITO, AND IV AT BIG SUR, CHUALAR, GREENFIELD, HOLLISTER, LONOAK, SAN LUCAS, SAN MIGUEL, SANTA CRUZ, AND SOLEDAD. 02/15/1946 12-07-00 35.90 121.45 D F PARKFIELD; LIGHT SHOCK.

04/19/1946 12-50--? 34.00 120.40 D F SANTA MARIA.

07/08/1946 19-59-44 34.83 120.53 C 3.2 08/06/1946 04-55-07 34.95 120.18 C 2.8 F E OF SANTA MARIA; FELT AT LOS ALAMOS. 09/02/1946 10-09-47 34.18 119.62 C 3.0 09/09/1946 11-20--? 34.90 120.40 D F SANTA MARIA.

09/19/1946 06-35-44 35.83 119.67 C 3.2 10/24/1946 18-26-50 34.37 119.62 C 2.7 11/22/1946 09-47-59 34.83 120.68 D 3.0 11/27/1946 14-44-51 35.50 120.92 C 4.3 F NEAR CAYUCOS; V AT MORRO BAY AND SAN TA MARGARITA; ALSO FELT ATASCADERO, LOS ALAMOS, PISMO BEACH, AND SAN LUIS OBISPO. 12/13/1946 -?-40-01 34.17 119.53 C 3.5 01/06/1947 21-05-47 35.85 120.47 C 3.6 01/13/1947 19-38-31 34.32 119.65 C 2.2 01/14/1947 20-49-27 34.23 119.65 C 2.7 01/18/1947 12--?-42 34.20 121.50 D 3.3 01/19/1947 19-32--? 35.60 120.30 D 3.1 F PASO ROBLES.

02/05/1947 06-14--? 38.23 120.65 B 5.0 F VI AT LONOAK, V AT COALINGA, IDRIA, AND KING CITY, AND IV AT BIG SUR, HURON, PARKFIELD, SAN ARDO, AND WESTHAVEN.NEAR

COALINGA - AFTERSHOCK OF 2/5/47 OF 06-14--?. 02/25/1947 11-45-18 36.20 120.50 D 4.2 03/23/1947 16-04-51 35.15 121.30 D 3.7 03/27/1947 09-16-46 35.00 121.00 D 4.2 F OFF COAST; V AT LOMPOC. 04/29/1947 07-44--? 34.33 119.55 C 3.2 06/25/1947 18-39-53 34.25 119.50 C 3.1 F NEAR CARPINTERIA.

06/25/1947 13-41-21 34.25 119.50 C 3.6 F NEAR CARPINTERIA.

06/25/1947 18-48-26 34.25 119.50 C 2.5 06/25/1947 20-55-16 34.25 119.50 C 3.2 F NEAR CARPINTERIA.

06/25/1947 20-55-54 34.25 119.50 C 3.8 07/13/1947 05-35--? 36.08 121.10 D 3.4 SOUTH OF KING CITY. 07/14/1947 05-40-06 35.92 119.92 C 4.0 F KETTLEMAN HILLS; IV AT KETTLEMAN CITY. 10/6/1947 18-39--? 36.50 121.23 A 3.2 EAST OF GONZALES. 12/14/1947 05-42--? 36.45 121.08 B 3.4 SW OF LLANADA.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.5-1 Sheet 24 of 43 Revision 17 November 2006 MM/DD/YY HR/MN/SE NORTH LAT WEST LONG QUALITY MAG. STA. REC. FELT MAXIMUM INTENSITY - COMMENTS 12/16/1947 09-21-03 36.25 120.77 C 3.6 F IV AT SAN LUCAS. 12/18/1947 19-30-06 36.12 120.90 D F IV AT PARKFIELD. 12/25/1947 06-05--? 35.60 121.10 D F CAMBRIA. 12/25/1947 06-20--? 35.60 121.10 D F CAMBRIA.

01/11/1948 05-37-28 36.43 121.48 B 4.3 F IV AT HOLLISTER. 02/01/1948 17--?-54 34.42 119.92 C 3.0 02/15/1948 08-04-06 35.88 120.37 A 3.4 EAST OF PARKFIELD. 03/07/1948 07-46-22 36.10 120.40 D 3.0 NEAR COALINGA.

03/10/1948 23-24-34 34.43 119.73 C 2.6 03/18/1948 09-35-05 34.40 119.60 C 2.8 03/29/1948 02-40--? 35.85 121.40 D F IV AT HOLLISTER. 04/23/1948 15-23-43 34.10 120.93 C 3.7 05/05/1948 06-47-06 34.45 119.72 B 2.7 05/07/1948 12--?-32 36.20 121.90 D 3.0 WEST OF PRIEST. 05/09/1948 11-10--? 34.75 120.25 D F V AT LOS ALAMOS. 07/14/1948 11-05-37 34.67 120.92 C 3.2 07/17/1948 05-26-31 34.55 120.05 C 3.4 07/28/1948 01-30-57 36.05 120.53 C 3.1 SE OF PRIEST. 07/29/1948 13-16-23 35.12 120.47 C 3.4 08/04/1948 10-22-57 35.92 120.33 C 3.6 09/03/1948 23-42-26 34.33 119.53 C 3.9 F SANTA BARBARA.

09/17/1948 15-41-01 34.40 119.62 C 3.1 10/27/1948 03-05--? 34.75 120.25 D F IV AT LOS ALAMOS. 10/29/1948 03-04-59 34.10 120.40 D 3.4 F V AT ARLI GHT AND POINT ARGUELLO LIGHT STATION. 11/02/1948 19-06-45 34.37 119.58 C 2.9 12/04/1948 06-44-20 34.43 119.72 C 2.8 12/04/1948 23-32-51 34.42 119.50 C 2.7 12/20/1948 04-42-46 35.80 121.50 C 4.5 F OFF COAST, NEAR PIEDRAS BLANCAS POINT; III AT SAN SIMEON. 12/31/1948 14-35-46 35.67 121.40 B 4.6 F ALONG THE COAST FROM LOMPOC TO MOSS LANDING; VI AT SAN SIMEON AND V AT CAYUCOS, CRESTON, MOSS LANDING, AND PIEDRAS BLANCAS LIGHT STATION. 01/25/1949 04-29--? 34.90 120.40 D F V AT ORCUTT AND SANTA MARIA. 03/27/1949 06-31-16 34.25 119.62 C 2.6 04/06/1949 14-07--? 35.00 120.00 2.6 04/08/1949 13-17-07 34.60 120.35 C 3.2 F IV AT LOS ALAMOS. 04/14/1949 01-46-12 34.28 119.52 C 2.6 04/23/1949 09-18-09 36.38 121.37 C 3.7 NORTH OF PARAISO. 05/06/1949 04-23-46 34.50 121.00 C 3.4 05/10/1949 06-20--? 35.90 120.40 D F SANTA MARIA - SLIGHT. 05/10/1949 11--?--? 35.90 120.40 D F SANTA MARIA - SLIGHT. 05/16/1949 03-01-03 34.72 120.02 C 3.2 05/17/1949 23-57-55 35.63 121.15 D 4.1 F IV AT SAN SIMEON. 06/27/1949 10-35-31 35.80 121.10 D 4.5 F V AT SAN ARDO AND SAN MIGUEL; ALSO FELT AT PASO ROBLES, SAN LUIS OBISPO, AND SANTA MARGARITA. 07/21/1949 16-50--? 36.15 120.35 D F IV AT COALINGA. 07/21/1949 17-01--? 36.15 120.35 D F IV AT COALINGA. 07/24/1949 03-04-05 36.00 120.00 D 2.3 SE. KINGS C0. AFTER SHOCK AT 06-26--?, MAG. 2.0.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.5-1 Sheet 25 of 43 Revision 17 November 2006 MM/DD/YY HR/MN/SE NORTH LAT WEST LONG QUALITY MAG. STA. REC. FELT MAXIMUM INTENSITY - COMMENTS 07/27/1949 18-21-35 34.53 120.37 C 3.6 08/01/1949 -?-07-24 36.90 121.20 D 3.0 SOUTH OF KING CITY. 08/07/1949 01-38-43 36.50 121.50 D 2.3 NO. MONTEREY CO.

08/10/1949 09-17-39 36.50 121.00 C 2.6 CENTRAL SAN BENITO CO. 08/22/1949 03--?--? 36.00 120.00 D F KETTLEMAN HILLS. FIFTH SHOCK IN 2 WEEKS. 08/26/1949 16-52-32 34.50 120.50 D 4.2 F NEAR POINT CONC EPTION. VI AT ARLIGHT AND SURF. IV AT GUADALUPE, LOMPOC, AND LOS ALAMOS. 08/27/1949 14-15--? 34.50 120.50 D F ARLIGHT. SLIGHT SHOCK. 08/27/1949 14-51-46 34.50 120.50 D 4.9 F NEAR POINT CO NCEPTION. VI AT ARLIGHT, LOMPOC, AND SUDDEN. V AT COSMALIA, LO S ALAMOS, NIPOMO, SANTA BARBARA, AND SURF. 08/29/1949 12-07-20 36.00 120.10 D 3.0 F IV IN AVENAL AND KETTLEMAN CITY. 10/28/1949 08-07-02 36.80 120.90 C 2.6 NW OF PRIEST. 11/17/1949 05-06-06 34.80 120.70 D 2.8 F IV AT SANTA MARIA. 12/28/1949 09-17-12 36.20 120.70 D 2.6 NEAR PRIEST.

02/19/1950 08-29-44 34.50 120.70 D 3.5 03/09/1950 23-43-19 36.35 121.22 C 3.2 F NORTH OF KING CITY; V AT ROBLES DEL RIO. 03/22/1950 01-31-57 35.97 120.63 C 3.7 03/29/1950 12-43-20 35.97 120.88 D 3.5 04/15/1950 11-56-32 35.75 119.62 C 4.6 F NE OF LOST HI LLS; V AT ASH MOUNTAIN, (SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARK), KERNVILLE, AND SHAFTER, AND IV AT BUTTONWILLOW, JAWBONE AQUEDUCT STATION, LO ST HILLS, THREE RIVERS, AND VISALIA. 04/21/1950 13-17-29 34.38 119.58 B 3.0 F IV AT SANTA BARBARA. 04/26/1950 07-23-29 35.20 120.60 C 3.5 F V AT SANTA MARIA; ALSO FELT AT ORCUTT. 04/26/1950 07-38--? 35.20 120.60 D F SANTA MARIA.

05/21/1950 18-59-03 34.57 119.63 C 2.6 05/21/1950 19-26-48 35.88 119.73 C 3.4 05/24/1950 01-46-57 36.43 120.77 C 2.9 SE OF LLANADA. 07/13/1950 15-01-47 34.33 119.50 C 2.8 F OFF CARPINTERI A; V AT MONTECITO; ALSO FELT AT SANTA BARBARA AND NEARBY AREAS. 08/01/1950 21-08-43 36.20 122.23 B 2.0 OFF COAST, WEST OF BIG SUR. 08/02/1950 06-50-48 34.67 120.63 C 3.3 08/23/1950 09-10--? 34.40 119.50 D F IV AT RINCON POINT; FELT AT CARPINTERIA. 09/24/1950 04-45--? 34.50 120.50 D F III AT ARLIGHT. 09/24/1950 12-23--? 34.22 119.58 C 3.3 09/24/1950 21-51-44 36.20 120.50 D 2.9 EAST OF PRIEST. 10/20/1950 08-23-25 36.33 121.07 C 2.7 SOUTH OF KING CITY. 11/21/1950 04-30--? 30.90 120.40 D F SANTA MARIA.

03/02/1951 02-13-44 36.10 120.60 D 3.1 SE OF PRIEST 03/04/1951 13-32--? 34.90 120.40 D F IV AT SANTA MARIA; 2 SHOCKS. 03/05/1951 09-50--? 34.90 120.40 D F IV AT SANTA MARIA. 03/10/1951 05-35--? 34.50 120.50 D F IV AT ARLIGHT. 03/15/1951 13-50-43 35.02 120.48 C 3.8 F IV AT LOS ALAMOS. 03/26/1951 06-07-34 34.62 119.50 C 3.5 F IV AT OJAI AND SUMMERLAND; FELT AT VENTURA. 05/04/1951 03-28-36 36.20 120.20 D 3.1 FORESHOCK OF QUAKE AT 20-08-10. 05/04/1951 20-08-10 36.20 120.20 D 3.2 EAST OF COALINGA.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.5-1 Sheet 26 of 43 Revision 17 November 2006 MM/DD/YY HR/MN/SE NORTH LAT WEST LONG QUALITY MAG. STA. REC. FELT MAXIMUM INTENSITY - COMMENTS 05/06/1951 03-18-03 36.40 120.40 D 2.8 NORTH OF COALINGA. 05/25/1951 05-11-18 36.30 120.30 D 3.1 NORTH OF COALINGA. 05/29/1951 05-08-24 35.08 119.65 C 3.2 F ELKHORN HILLS; IV IN CUYAMA VALLEY. 05/31/1951 06-28-42 36.30 120.20 D 2.7 NE OF COALINGA. 06/16/1951 19-01-17 34.40 120.08 C 3.3 06/19/1951 06-13-47 35.97 120.42 C 3.6 SOUTH OF COALINGA. 07/01/1951 -?-13-19 36.20 120.95 B 3.2 EAST OF KING CITY. 07/07/1951 05-53-33 34.75 120.75 C 3.5 08/02/1951 05-09-25 36.35 121.27 B 3.9 F NEAR GREENFIELD; IV AT BIG SUR, AT 7 MI. S OF HOLLISTER, AND ROBLES DEL RIO. 08/08/1951 19-42--? 34.80 120.40 D F IV AT ORCUTT. 08/09/1951 09-20-48 36.15 121.75 C 2.2 NEAR BIG SUR.

08/25/1951 01-04-10 36.47 121.15 B 3.1 SW OF LLANADA. 08/28/1951 22-12-27 34.60 121.00 D 3.5 F OFF PO INT ARGUELLO; III AT LOS ALAMOS. 09/18/1951 02-30--? 36.25 121.80 D F IV AT BIG SUR. 09/19/1951 22-50--? 36.25 121.80 D F IV AT BIG SUR. 10/03/1951 13-44-33 35.92 120.52 C 3.8 10/26/1951 16-25-40 34.42 119.73 C 3.0 11/17/1951 03-19-48 34.70 120.50 D 2.5 F NEAR LOMPOC; III AT LOS ALAMOS. 11/25/1951 23-15-39 35.33 119.50 B 3.8 12/20/1951 04-13-06 36.00 120.05 C 3.7 01/24/1952 -?-32-38 34.18 119.88 C 2.7 01/30/1952 11-05-33 36.30 121.13 C 2.7 NEAR KING CITY.

01/31/1952 20-09-02 34.18 119.53 C 2.6 01/31/1952 21-33-12 36.40 121.40 C 3.6 SOUTHEAST CF SOLEDAD.

02/09/1952 22-26-39 34.07 120.75 C 3.6 03/25/1952 09-18-50 34.18 120.95 C 3.6 04/02/1952 05-21-10 36.45 121.25 B 3.1 NEAR SOLEDAD.

05/07/1952 05-45--? 34.40 119.60 D F IV AT MONTECITO AND SUMMERLAND. 06/18/1952 04--?--? 34.60 120.65 D F IV AT POINT ARGUELLO LIFEBOAT STATION. 07/01/1952 15-29-24 34.30 119.80 D 3.1 07/15/1952 06-07-55 36.42 121.00 C 2.5 ABOUT 15 MI. NE OF KING CITY. 07/27/1952 18-15-14 34.18 119.70 C 3.1 07/27/1952 20-20-35 34.22 119.67 C 3.2 07/27/1952 20-30-05 34.20 119.67 B 3.5 08/07/1952 19-l6-12 34.33 120.68 C 3.6 F OFF PO INT CONCEPTION; IV AT LOS ALAMOS.

08/11/1952 21-42-29 34.17 119.67 C 3.1 08/23/1952 20-10--? 34.85 119.50 D F IV AT VENTUCOPA - SECOND SHOCK AT 21-20--?. 08/30/1952 14-58-11 34.35 119.62 B 3.3 09/01/1952 12-03--? 34.30 119.60 D 3.0 09/12/1952 21--?-15 34.25 119.70 C 3.0 09/14/1952 11-46-06 35.90 120.30 D 3.3 10/09/1952 14-46-02 34.20 122.20 D 4.6 (DEPT. OF WATER RESOURCES DATA)

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.5-1 Sheet 27 of 43 Revision 17 November 2006 MM/DD/YY HR/MN/SE NORTH LAT WEST LONG QUALITY MAG. STA. REC. FELT MAXIMUM INTENSITY - COMMENTS 11/22/1952 07-46-37 35.73 121.20 B 6.0 F 6 MI. NORTH OF SAN SIMEON, NEAR BRYSON; FELT OVER AN AREA OF 20,000 SQ. MI. VII AT BRADLEY AND BRYSON, VI AT ARROYO GRANDE, ATASCADERO, CAMBRIA, CAMP COOKE, CARMEL VALLEY, CAYUCOS, CHUALAR, CRESTON, GORDA STATION, GUADALUPE, HARMONY, HEARST RANCH, KING CITY, LOCKWOOD, LONOAK, MORRO BAY, OCEANO, PARKFIELD, PASO ROBLES, PISMO BEACH, SALINAS, SAN ARDO, SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN SIMEON, SANTA MARGARITA, AND TEMPLETON, AND V AT AVENAL, BEN LOMOND, BIG SUR, BUELLTON, BUTTONWILLOW, CARUTHERS, CASMALIA, CHOLAME, COALINGA, CORCORAN, DOS PALOS, HOLLISTER, HUASNA, KETTLEMAN CITY, LOMPOC, LOST HILLS, LUCIA, MARICOPA, MONTEREY, MOSS LANDING, NIPOMO, ORCUTT, PAICINES, RIVERDALE, SAN MIGUEL, SANTA CRUZ, SANTA MARIA, SHAFTER, STRATFORD, SUDDEN, AND SURF. 11/22/1952 08-02-40 35.73 121.20 B 3.2 SAN SIMEON AFTERSHOCK. 11/22/1952 08-29-47 35.73 121.20 B 3.1 SAN SIMEON AFTERSHOCK. 11/22/1952 08-53-04 35.73 121.20 B 3.4 F SAN SIMEON AFTERS HOCK; IV AT ARVIN, CALIENTE, JOLON, LOST HILLS, MALIBU, MARICOPA, MCFARLAND, MIRACLE HOT SPRINGS, MORGAN HILL, NIPOMO, PISMO BEACH, AND SHAFTER. 11/22/1952 11-08-44 35.73 121.20 B 3.1 SAN SIMEON AFTERSHOCK. 11/22/1952 11-45-31 35.73 121.20 B 3.1 SAN SIMEON AFTERSHOCK. 11/22/1952 12-34-44 35.73 121.20 B 3.0 SAN SIMEON AFTERSHOCK. 11/22/1952 13-37-31 35.73 121.20 B 4.0 F SAN SIMEON AFTERSHOCK; V AT CALIENTE, MIRACLE HOT SPRINGS, AND WHEELER SPRINGS. 11/22/1952 19-25-21 35.73 121.20 B 3.9 SAN SIMEON AFTERSHOCK. 11/22/1952 19-36-27 35.70 121.20 D 3.1 SAN SIMEON AFTERSHOCK. 11/22/1952 23-39-20 35.70 121.20 D 3.1 SAN SIMEON AFTERSHOCK. 11/23/1952 09-22-35 36.00 120.90 D 3.2 20 MI. SE OF KING CITY. 11/23/1952 18-40-19 35.67 121.17 C 4.2 SAN SIMEON AFTERSHOCK. 11/25/1952 19-17-54 36.20 120.00 D 3.2 11/25/1952 20-14-45 35.73 121.20 C 3.6 SAN SIMEON AFTERSHOCK. 11/25/1952 21-59-17 35.73 121.20 C 4.4 SAN SIMEON AFTERSHOCK. 11/26/1952 13-32-09 35.73 121.20 C 3.5 SAN SIMEON AFTERSHOCK. 11/27/1952 17-37-05 35.70 121.20 D 3.3 SAN SIMEON AFTERSHOCK. 11/28/1952 10-22-33 35.90 121.20 D 3.0 SAN SIMEON AFTERSHOCK. 11/29/1952 16--?--? 36.00 121.15 D F IV AT JOLON - TIME MAY BE 04--?--? ON 11/30/1952. 11/29/1952 23-15-58 35.70 121.20 D 3.5 SAN SIMEON AFTERSHOCK. 12/05/1952 01-05-57 36.50 120.70 D 3.0 14 MI. SE OF LLANADA. 12/06/1952 23-50--? 35.66 120.65 D F IV AT PASO ROBLES; FELT AT ADELAIDA. 12/12/1952 -?-27-07 36.40 120.97 B 3.0 F 17 MI. NE OF KING CITY; III AT LONOAK. 12/25/1952 16-44-10 34.40 121.40 D 3.6 01/12/1953 13-05-18 35.80 121.10 D 3.2 14 MI. NE OF SAN SIMEON. 01/24/1953 -?--?--? 35.90 121.00 D F TEN SHOCKS REPORTED FELT FROM 1/24 TO 1/31 AT BRYSON (E.

WEFERLING RANCH). 01/29/1953 20-31-19 35.80 121.10 D 3.1 14 MI. NE OF SAN SIMEON.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.5-1 Sheet 28 of 43 Revision 17 November 2006 MM/DD/YY HR/MN/SE NORTH LAT WEST LONG QUALITY MAG. STA. REC. FELT MAXIMUM INTENSITY - COMMENTS 02/03/1953 14-50-18 35.47 120.75 C 4.1 F 12 MI. NNW OF SAN LUIS OBISPO; V AT ATASCADERO, BRYSON, CRESTON, MORRO BAY, SANTA MARGARITA, AND IV AT CAYUCOS, PASO ROBLES, SAN LUIS OBISPO, AND TEMPLETON. 02/05/1953 02-54-12 35.90 121.00 D 2.8 F IV AT BRYSON (E. WEFERLING RANCH). 02/15/1953 15-30--? 35.90 121.00 D F BRYSON (E. WEFERLING RANCH). 02/17/1953 08-06--? 35.90 121.00 D F III AT BRYSON (PLEYTO SCHOOL) - SEVERAL MILD SHOCKS REPORTED FELT DAILY SINCE SHOCK OF 11/21/52, 23-46-38 (NOT

LISTED). 02/18/1953 14-10--? 35.90 121.00 D F BRYSON (E. WEFERLING RANCH) - MILD. 03/01/1953 18-53--? 35.90 121.00 D F V AT BRYSON. 03/04/1953 03-40--? 35.90 121.00 D F BRYSON (PLEYTO SCHOOL) - LIGHT. 03/15/1953 21--?-32 34.87 121.53 C 3.7 03/18/1953 05-03--? 35.90 121.00 D F III AT BRYSON (PLEYTO SCHOOL). 03/29/1953 17-19-48 35.90 120.20 D 3.7 04/08/1953 -?-59-20 34.80 120.60 D 3.6 F NEAR CASMALIA; IV AT LOS ALAMOS. 04/15/1953 -?-29-10 35.83 121.07 C 3.1 F 14 MI. NNE OF SAN SIMEON; IV AT BRYSON. 04/15/1953 05-30--? 35.90 121.00 D F BRYSON - LIGHT. 04/29/1953 05-26-53 36.00 121.15 C 3.5 F 14 MI. S OF KING CITY - USCGS GIVES TIME AS 05-26-52, LOCATION AS N35.8 121.2W, REPORT AS NEAR BRYSON; V AT PLEYTO SCHOOL. 22 MI. NE OF KING CITY. 05/01/1953 22-16-51 36.40 120.80 D 3.0 05/08/1953 08-15--? 34.65 120.45 D F III AT LOMPOC. 05/14/1953 03-36--? 36.00 120.00 D 3.3 05/14/1953 09-36-09 35.75 121.08 B 3.7 F 9 MI. NE OF SAN SIMEON - USCGS GIVES N35.52 121.28W, OFF CAMBRIA; V AT BRYSON. 05/15/1983 07-15--? 35.90 121.00 D F IV AT BRYSON (PLEYTO SCHOOL). 05/28/1953 03-51-13 35.88 120.50 B 4.3 F 20 MI. SW OF COALINGA; IV AT PASO ROBLES AND III AT SAN MIGUEL. 05/28/1953 07-58-33 35.88 120.50 C 3.5 F AFTERSHOCK OF 03-51-13; FELT AT SAN MIGUEL. 05/29/1953 10-20-16 35.90 121.20 D 2.9 20 MI. SOUTH OF KING CITY. 05/31/1953 23-51-17 36.10 120.40 D 3.2 NEAR COALINGA.

06/04/1953 11-40--? 35.50 120.50 D F V AT CRESTON - PROBABLY A BLAST. 06/06/1953 20-26-33 36.00 120.30 D 2.9 10 MI. SOUTH OF COALINGA. 06/19/1953 11-24-50 36.30 120.70 D 2.8 20 MI. EAST OF KING CITY. 06/22/1953 15-22-35 35.93 120.38 C 4.3 F 15 MI. WSW OF CO ALINGA; FELT AT COALINGA AND PASO ROBLES. 07/01/1953 22-17-20 34.60 121.35 D 3.2 F OFF POINT ARGUE LLO; IV AT POINT ARGUELLO LIGHT STATION. 08/14/1953 01-40-06 36.30 120.30 D 2.9 8 MI. NORTH OF COALINGA. 08/14/1953 09-22-50 36.50 121.20 D 2.3 20 MI. NORTH OF KING CITY. 09/02/1953 09-41-20 35.90 120.80 D 3.0 30 MI. SE OF KING CITY. 09/03/1953 11--?--? 35.50 120.50 D F CRESTON.

09/04/1953 03-54-25 35.90 120.32 C 3.5 F 15 MI. SOUTH OF COALINGA; IV AT CRESTON AND PASO ROBLES. 09/22/1953 07-36-58 36.40 121.20 D 3.8 NORTH OF KING CITY. 09/23/1953 06-21-51 35.70 121.10 D 3.5 F NEAR SAN SIMEON; V AT BRYSON. 10/01/1953 03-56-15 36.25 121.83 C 3.4 F 25 MI. S OF MONTEREY; IV AT BIG SUR. 10/16/1953 03-45-35 35.95 120.53 C 3.4 SOUTHWEST OF COALINGA.

10/21/1953 16-02-38 34.32 119.70 B 4.0 F OFF SANTA BARBARA; V AT SANTA BARBARA AND VICINTIY, AND IV AT GOLETA AND LOS PRIETOS RANGER STATION.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.5-1 Sheet 29 of 43 Revision 17 November 2006 MM/DD/YY HR/MN/SE NORTH LAT WEST LONG QUALITY MAG. STA. REC. FELT MAXIMUM INTENSITY - COMMENTS 10/24/1953 13-24-30 35.90 121.10 D 3.6 SOUTH OF KING CITY. 10/25/1953 08-43-25 36.50 121.50 D 3.2 NORTHWEST OF KING CITY. 11/02/1953 -?-52-06 36.40 121.30 D 3.4 NORTHWEST OF KING CITY. 01/04/1954 23-03-11 36.12 120.63 B 3.2 14 MI. WEST OF COALINGA. 01/05/1954 -?-23-23 35.93 120.00 C 3.0 SOUTHEAST OF COALINGA. 01/15/1954 22-02-18 36.50 121.23 C 2.6 NORTH OF KING CITY. 01/24/1954 19-06-45 35.78 121.08 C 3.1 30 MI. SOUTH OF KING CITY. 01/26/1954 09-43-22 34.50 120.33 C 3.8 F W OF LAS CRUCES; III AT SANTA YNEZ. 03/09/1954 19-55-30 35.90 120.50 D 3.6 F 16 MI. SSE OF COALINGA; FELT NEAR PARKFIELD. 03/15/1954 22-43-50 35.00 120.70 D 3.4 03/18/1954 12-07-53 35.40 120.90 D 3.0 NORTHWEST OF SAN LUIS OBISPO. 04/01/1954 12-04-38 36.05 120.20 C 3.3 6 MI. SOUTHEAST OF COALINGA. 04/09/1954 07-38-23 35.78 121.08 D 3.1 10 MI. NORTHEAST OF SAN SIMEON. 04/09/1954 14-58--? 35.90 121.00 D F IV AT BRYSON (PLEYTO SCHOOL); SECOND SHOCK REPORTED FELT AT 23-40--?. 04/20/1954 09-32-18 36.63 121.03 D 2.6 12 MI. NORTHEAST OF KING CITY. 05/10/1954 14-24-28 36.08 120.80 C 3.1 F NE OF SAN ARDO - SLIGHT AT KING CITY. 06/04/1954 11-58-38 36.45 121.13 C 3.5 16 MI. SOUTHWEST OF LLANADA. 07/05/1954 07-25-39 36.20 121.80 D 3.2 30 MI. SOUTH OF MONTEREY. 08/13/1954 13-36-44 34.25 120.50 C 3.2 08/13/1954 13-44-23 34.25 120.50 C 3.2 08/19/1954 11-45-08 34.25 120.50 C 3.2 08/21/1954 22-50-49 35.47 121.33 B 3.3 40 MI. SOUTH OF HOLLISTER. 08/22/1954 08-34-40 34.33 120.67 C 3.8 08/22/1954 12-36-07 34.33 120.67 C 3.8 12/22/1954 21-12-24 36.00 121.00 D 3.7 F SE OF KING CITY; III AT KING CITY. 12/22/1954 21-12-28 36.00 120.60 D 3.8 01/07/1955 14-50-22 34.40 119.60 D 3.0 01/18/1955 13-30--? 36.20 121.85 D F IV REPORTED FELT AT BIG SUR. 02/05/1955 07-10-19 35.80 121.40 C 3.3 WEST OF SAN SIMEON. 02/27/1955 03-17-51 36.25 120.83 C 2.9 F EAST OF KING CITY; IV IN PRIEST VALLEY. 03/02/1955 03-30--? 36.00 120.70 D F IV REPORTED FELT IN INDIAN VALLEY. 03/02/1955 15-59-01 36.00 120.93 B 4.8 F 18 MI. SE OF KING CITY; FELT OVER 7000 SQ. MI. OF W CENTRAL CALIF. USCGS MAG. 5.1. VI AT ADELAIDA, BRYSON, INDIAN VALLEY, SAN ARDO, SAN LUCAS, AND TEMPLETON. 03/02/1955 20-02-53 36.00 120.93 B 3.7 AFTERSHOCK OF QUAKE AT 15-59-01. 03/05/1955 08-46-36 36.10 121.10 D 2.0 SOUTH OF KING CITY. 03/06/1955 10-47-32 35.92 120.90 D 3.2 SOUTHEAST OF KING CITY. 04/04/1955 20-56-56 36.08 121.00 C 3.2 SOUTHEAST OF KING CITY. 04/27/1955 09-28-08 35.90 121.20 D 2.8 SOUTHWEST OF KING CITY. 05/14/1955 20--?--? 36.35 121.85 D F IV REPORTED FELT AT BIG SUR AND SANTA CRUZ. 05/16/1955 18-22-52 35.92 120.58 C 3.0 SOUTHWEST OF COALINGA.

05/30/1955 09-38-29 36.25 121.25 C 3.0 WEST OF KING CITY. 05/31/1955 01-45-53 36.40 121.25 B 3.0 NORTH OF KING CITY. 06/13/1955 14-55-12 36.30 121.30 C 2.5 NORTH OF KING CITY. 06/19/1955 05-36-33 35.62 121.10 C 2.5 SOUTHEAST OF SAN SIMEON. 07/06/1955 11-29-18 36.50 121.42 C 3.4 SOUTH OF HOLLISTER.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.5-1 Sheet 30 of 43 Revision 17 November 2006 MM/DD/YY HR/MN/SE NORTH LAT WEST LONG QUALITY MAG. STA. REC. FELT MAXIMUM INTENSITY - COMMENTS 07/06/1955 13-18-53 36.50 121.50 D 2.7 SOUTH OF HOLLISTER. 07/28/1955 12-07-52 36.50 121.40 D 2.6 SOUTH OF HOLLISTER. 09/21/1955 18-06-52 36.50 121.00 D 3.3 NORTH OF KING CITY. 10/22/1955 07-04-18 36.22 120.33 C 4.2 F V AT AND 14 MI. NW OF COALINGA. 11/02/1955 19-40-06 36.00 120.92 A 5.2 F 55 MI. NNW OF SAN LUIS OBISPO; FELT OVER 7000 SQ. MI. OF COASTAL W CENTRAL CALIF. VI AT ADELAIDA RD. (14 MI. W OF PASO ROBLES), BRYSON, KING CITY, PASO ROBLES, SAN ARDO, SAN LUCAS, AND SAN MIGUEL. 11/18/1955 09-03-30 35.90 120.50 D 2.9 SOUTHWEST OF COALINGA.

11/19/1955 07-20--? 34.50 119.65 D F REPORTED FELT AT SANTA BARBARA. 11/19/1955 10-59-41 36.03 120.90 C 3.3 SOUTHEAST OF KING CITY. 11/21/1955 21-14-18 36.10 119.90 D 3.5 12/11/1955 20-10-38 36.27 120.72 C 3.5 NORTHWEST OF COALINGA.

12/16/1955 14-43-11 36.03 120.87 C 3.8 F SOUTHWEST OF KING CITY; FELT AT ATASCADERO, PASO ROBLES, AND SAN MIGUEL. 12/29/1955 13-33-17 36.45 121.25 C 3.4 NORTH OF KING CITY. 02/14/1956 22-15-08 36.50 121.10 D 2.8 SOUTHWEST OF LLANADA.

03/15/1956 15-26-11 36.50 121.20 D 2.6 SOUTHEAST OF HOLLISTER.

04/03/1956 09-26-02 36.45 121.23 B 2.7 SOUTH OF HOLLISTER. 04/10/1956 11-24-21 36.43 121.48 C 2.9 SOUTHEAST OF MONTEREY.

04/10/1956 20-53-21 36.30 121.00 D 2.9 NORTHEAST OF KING CITY. 05/01/1956 15-06-33 36.50 121.00 D 2.5 SOUTH OF HOLLISTER. 05/04/1956 08-16-14 35.75 121.07 B 3.1 NORTHEAST OF SAN SIMEON. 05/04/1956 08-16-16 35.95 120.93 D 3.5 05/15/1956 10-45--? 34.90 120.40 D F REPORTED FELT AT SANTA MARIA. 06/11/1956 -?-48-37 36.00 120.97 C 3.2 SOUTHEAST OF KING CITY. 06/15/1956 23-42-03 36.30 121.80 D 2.8 SOUTH OF MONTEREY. 07/09/1956 23-15--? 35.10 120.50 D F III REPORTED FELT NEAR HUASNA. 07/23/1956 08-03-48 36.30 121.30 D 4.7 F NW OF KING CITY; FELT OVER 4000 SQ. MI. OF COASTAL CENTRAL CALIF. V AT BIG SUR, CHUALAR, GONZALES, GREENFIELD, 7.5 MI.

S OF HOLLISTER, KING CITY, PASO ROBLES, SAN BENITO, AND SAN

JUAN BAUTISTA. 07/23/1956 08-20-37 36.50 121.40 D 3.1 AFTERSHOCK OF QUAKE AT 08-03-48. 07/31/1956 -?-40-43 34.15 119.60 C 3.2 07/31/1956 17-25--? 35.10 120.50 D F IV REPORTED FELT AT HUASNA. 08/09/1956 -?-08-49 34.37 119.80 B 4.0 F OFF SANTA BAR BARA; IV AT LOS PRIE TOS RANGER STATION. 08/10/1956 23-24-03 35.90 121.30 D 3.0 SOUTHWEST OF KING CITY. 08/20/1956 05-10-33 36.48 121.48 B 3.2 F NEAR GONZALES; IV AT PINNACLES NATIONAL MONUMENT. 09/15/1956 -?-34-37 36.30 120.30 D 2.7 NORTH OF COALINGA. 10/10/1956 20-02-24 34.70 121.00 D 3.8 11/12/1956 10-13--? 36.30 120.10 C 3.3 11/16/1956 03-23-09 35.95 120.47 B 5.0 F SW OF COALINGA; FELT OVER 8000 SQ. MI. FROM HOLY CITY TO BETTERAVIA TO FIREBAUGH. VI AT KING CITY, MEE RANCH (LONOAK), AND SAN LUCAS. 11/19/1956 13-53-53 35.98 120.57 C 3.3 F SOUTHWEST OF COAL INGA; III AT ADELAIDA (15 MI. WEST OF PASO ROBLES). 11/20/1956 03-42-44 34.70 120.50 C 3.6 F IV AT LOS ALAMOS; III FELT AT 07-42--?, 11/21/1956.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.5-1 Sheet 31 of 43 Revision 17 November 2006 MM/DD/YY HR/MN/SE NORTH LAT WEST LONG QUALITY MAG. STA. REC. FELT MAXIMUM INTENSITY - COMMENTS 12/11/1956 10-56-53 35.88 120.47 C 4.1 NEAR PARKFIELD. 12/28/1956 13-39-37 35.90 121.10 D 2.6 NORTHEAST OF SAN SIMEON. 01/01/1957 09-25--? 35.50 120.65 D F REPORTED FELT AT ATASCADERO. 01/29/1957 21-19-53 35.87 122.12 C 4.9 F OFF COAST NW OF SAN SIMEON; FELT OVER 5000 SQ. MI. OF COASTAL CENTRAL CALIF. V AT BIG SUR, CAMBRIA, CARMEL VALLEY, HARMONY, KING CITY, LUCIA, MARINA, AND SEASIDE, AND IV GENERALLY FROM MOSS LANDING TO 20 MI. W OF COALINGA TO SAN LUIS OBISPO. 02/03/1957 07-57-12 34.50 121.20 C 3.9 02/08/1957 04-45-38 36.50 121.20 D 2.8 NORTH OF KING CITY. 02/08/1957 21-20--? 36.50 122.00 D F SHARP SHOCK FELT MONTEREY PEN. (BSSA). 02/09/1957 08-10--? 35.50 120.65 D F IV REPORTED FELT AT ATASCADERO. 02/14/1957 -?-31-30 35.10 119.80 D 2.4 02/14/1957 10-30-27 36.00 120.60 C 3.6 02/16/1957 11-43-50 34.30 119.53 C 3.5 03/09/1957 14-38-28 34.70 119.60 C 2.9 03/09/1957 14-59-21 34.70 119.60 C 2.4 04/05/1957 -?-40--? 34.75 120.25 D F IV REPORTED FELT AT LOS ALAMOS. 06/21/1957 20-46-42 35.10 120.90 D 3.7 F OFF COAST; FELT AT SAN LUIS OBISPO AND MORRO BAY. 07/02/1957 09-18-22 34.37 119.88 B 3.4 F W OF SANTA BARBARA; FELT AT SANTA BARBARA. 07/02/1957 12-59-05 34.37 119.88 B 3.3 07/02/1957 13-58-28 34.37 119.88 B 3.2 07/21/1957 01-29-20 36.43 121.22 B 3.1 NORTH OF KING CITY. 08/03/1957 09-31-22 36.25 120.88 C 2.5 EAST OF KING CITY. 08/18/1957 03-05-25 34.47 120.13 C 3.4 08/18/1957 11-08-23 34.47 120.13 C F N OF GAVIOTA; FELT AT CACHUMA RESERVOIR. 08/21/1957 07-36-54 36.47 121.52 C 3.6 NORTHWEST OF KING CITY. 08/28/1957 01-13-57 34.58 121.00 C 3.5 09/12/1957 21-36--? 35.50 121.00 D F II FELT AT P G AND E PLANT, MORRO BAY. 09/21/1957 06-54-26 36.40 121.10 D 2.8 NORTH OF KING CITY. 09/21/1957 15-32--? 35.50 121.00 D F II FELT AT P G AND E PLANT, MORRO BAY. 09/25/1957 23-33-31 36.50 121.50 D 2.7 SOUTH OF HOLLISTER. 10/01/1957 12-55-57 36.47 121.23 C 3.3 SOUTHWEST OF LLANADA.

10/05/1957 14-42--? 34.75 120.25 D F IV REPORTED FELT AT LOS ALAMOS. 10/19/1957 -?-04-38 36.10 120.87 B 3.3 SOUTHEAST OF KING CITY. 10/28/1957 11-41-02 34.33 120.00 C 2.8 11/05/1957 23-50-52 34.72 120.33 C 3.4 11/18/1957 01-11-42 36.38 121.23 C 3.1 NORTHWEST OF KING CITY. 11/18/1957 07-26-32 36.50 121.70 D 3.3 SOUTHEAST OF MONTEREY.

12/31/1957 22-32-55 36.40 121.00 D 2.9 NORTHEAST OF KING CITY. 01/07/1958 17-13-16 35.70 120.80 D 3.0 NORTH OF SAN LUIS OBISPO. 01/18/1958 08-12--? 35.55 120.65 D F REPORTED FELT AT PASO ROBLES. 01/21/1958 21-22-08 36.40 120.50 D 2.9 NORTHWEST OF COALINGA.

01/23/1958 07-06-46 34.38 119.58 B 2.6 F E OF SANTA BARBARA; IV AT SANTA BARBARA. 01/28/1958 07-12-54 36.50 121.10 D 2.2 SOUTHWEST OF LLANADA.

03/26/1958 13-12-30 36.20 120.30 D 2.4 NEAR COALINGA.

03/27/1958 20-26-14 35.90 121.50 D 2.8 NORTHWEST OF SAN SIMEON.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.5-1 Sheet 32 of 43 Revision 17 November 2006 MM/DD/YY HR/MN/SE NORTH LAT WEST LONG QUALITY MAG. STA. REC. FELT MAXIMUM INTENSITY - COMMENTS 03/31/1958 17-38-23 36.50 121.10 D 2.7 SOUTHWEST OF LLANADA. 04/10/1958 08-32-33 36.45 121.12 C 2.9 SOUTHWEST OF LLANADA.

06/05/1958 17-12-50 36.40 121.10 D 3.1 NORTH OF KING CITY. 06/15/1958 07-02-33 36.50 121.38 C 2.9 FORESHOCK OF QUAKE AT 07-05-34. 06/18/1958 07-05-34 36.50 121.38 C 3.3 SOUTH OF HOLLISTER. 06/21/1958 01-03-31 36.40 120.40 D 2.1 SOUTHWEST OF FRESNO.

07/02/1958 17-56-26 36.50 121.30 D 2.8 SOUTHWEST OF LLANADA.

08/08/1958 18-43-01 36.30 121.20 D 2.7 FORESHOCK OF 13-43 RECORDS MIXED. 08/08/1958 13-43-15 36.30 121.20 D 3.9 F NORTHWEST OF KING CITY; IV AT BIG SUR. 08/18/1958 05-30-42 35.80 121.30 D 3.4 NEAR SAN SIMEON.

09/01/1958 11-31-42 36.10 120.80 D 3.2 SOUTHEAST OF KING CITY. 09/21/1958 07-24-55 36.35 121.12 C 4.0 F NORTH OF KING CITY

VI AT SAN BENITO; ALSO FELT AT SOLEDAD. 09/21/1958 14-23-01 36.50 121.05 C 2.7 SOUTHWEST OF LLANADA.

10/03/1958 04-25-51 34.37 119.50 B 3.7 F FROM CARPINTERIA TO GOLETA. 10/10/1958 13-05-16 35.93 120.50 B 4.5 F SOUTHWEST OF COALINGA; FELT OVER AN AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 3500 SQ. MI. OF THE SOUTHWEST-CENTRAL REGION OF CALIFORNIA - APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN FELT MORE STRONGLY AT PARKFIELD THAN ELSEWHERE; V AT ADELAIDA, CAMP ROBERTS, COALINGA, HARMONY, LONE PINE INN, OILFIELD, PARKFIELD, PASO ROBLES, AND SAN ARDO. 10/15/1958 16-16-44 35.50 121.20 D 3.2 NEAR SAN SIMEON.

11/06/1958 20-11-57 36.08 120.88 C 3.1 SOUTHEAST OF KING CITY. 11/16/1958 09-34-04 34.50 119.83 C 4.0 F NW OF SANTA BARBARA; FELT OVER 600 SQ. MI. FROM SANTA YNEZ TO VENTURA; V AT CARPINTERIA, GOLETA, AND SANTA

BARBARA. 11/27/1958 06-04-26 36.37 121.15 C 3.9 F WEST OF LLANADA; FELT SLIGHTLY AT CARMEL. 11/27/1958 13-39-01 36.20 120.80 D 3.1 EAST OF KING CITY. 12/15/1958 14-58-49 36.20 120.40 D 3.0 NEAR COALINGA.

12/15/1958 15-24-01 36.20 120.40 D 3.0 F NEAR COALINGA; IV AT COALINGA. 12/30/1958 01-34-15 35.92 119.80 C 3.2 01/11/1959 05-18-26 36.20 120.80 D 2.5 WEST OF COALINGA. 02/07/1959 05-51-02 36.10 120.00 D 3.0 SOUTHEAST OF KING CITY. 02/27/1959 21-35-01 36.25 120.75 C 3.1 SOUTHEAST OF LLANADA.

03/13/1959 02-44-27 35.80 120.30 D 2.5 SOUTH OF COALINGA. 03/14/1959 02-43-41 35.70 121.30 D 3.6 WEST OF SAN SIMEON. 03/20/1959 05-12-09 36.48 121.17 B 2.9 SOUTHWEST OF LLANADA. 03/25/1959 05-34-17 34.25 119.58 C 2.5 F SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL; IV AT CARPINTERIA. 04/08/1959 07-41-57 36.37 121.20 B 3.4 NORTH OF KING CITY. 04/09/1959 14-03-11 36.38 121.15 C 2.5 NORTH OF KING CITY. 04/21/1959 09-36-23 36.40 120.40 D 3.0 NORTH OF COALINGA. 04/21/1959 12-31-10 36.10 121.10 D 2.2 NEAR KING CITY.

04/22/1959 19-04-25 36.20 120.90 D 2.6 NEAR KING CITY.

05/13/1959 14-28-10 36.48 121.03 C 2.6 SOUTHWEST OF LLANADA.

05/14/1959 01-34-09 36.50 121.20 D 2.4 SOUTHWEST OF LLANADA.

05/20/1959 10-15-55 36.30 120.40 D 2.6 NORTHWEST OF COALINGA.

06/01/1959 03-47-24 36.50 121.23 C 2.4 SOUTHWEST OF LLANADA.

06/20/1959 15-01-17 36.50 121.30 D 2.9 SOUTH OF VINEYARD.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.5-1 Sheet 33 of 43 Revision 17 November 2006 MM/DD/YY HR/MN/SE NORTH LAT WEST LONG QUALITY MAG. STA. REC. FELT MAXIMUM INTENSITY - COMMENTS 06/21/1959 09-24-07 34.32 119.67 B 3.3 07/18/1959 01-11-47 36.50 121.30 D 2.5 SOUTH OF VINEYARD. 08/05/1959 03--?-34 35.95 120.48 C 3.5 F SOUTHEAST OF COALINGA (NEAR PARKFIELD; FELT STRONGEST AT PARKFIELD; IV FELT AT PASO ROBLES). 09/05/1959 05-45-34 36.50 121.70 D 3.8 SOUTHWEST OF VINEYARD.

10/01/1959 04-35-35 34.43 120.57 B 4.5 F OFF POINT CONCEPT ION; VI AT GAVIOTA PASS AND V AT GAVIOTA, GOLETA, AND LOMPOC. 10/01/1959 05-52-55 34.20 119.50 C 3.2 10/11/1959 02-03-09 36.45 121.12 C 4.1 F SOUTHWEST OF LLANADA; FELT AT SALINAS. 10/24/1959 23-12-54 36.47 121.40 C 3.2 SOUTH OF HOLLISTER. 10/25/1959 03-33-13 36.50 121.20 D 2.4 SOUTHEAST OF VINEYARD.

10/25/1959 03-34-02 36.50 121.32 C 3.0 SOUTH OF VINEYARD. 10/26/1959 09-56-01 36.40 121.10 D 3.0 SOUTHEAST OF VINEYARD.

11/25/1959 09-28-22 35.20 121.20 D 3.5 SOUTH OF KING CITY. 11/26/1959 07-02-05 36.40 121.40 D 2.7 SOUTH OF VINEYARD. 12/11/1959 05-55-26 35.60 120.60 D 3.5 SOUTHEAST OF VINEYARD.

12/25/1959 20-38-28 36.00 120.60 D 3.1 SOUTHEAST OF VINEYARD.

12/29/1959 14-53-08 35.75 120.30 C 3.5 F NEAR CHOLAME; FELT AT PASO ROBLES. 01/02/1960 22-51-48 35.40 121.20 D 4.0 NW OF SAN LUIS OBISPO. 01/04/1960 12-18-20 36.20 120.70 D 3.2 WEST OF COALINGA. 02/14/1960 08-34-30 35.80 121.70 D 2.8 WEST OF SAN SIMEON. 02/25/1960 06-34-31 36.50 121.20 D 2.7 SOUTHWEST OF LLANADA.

02/28/1960 02-55-32 34.33 119.95 C 3.1 03/21/1960 20-46-39 36.50 120.73 C 2.5 SOUTHEAST OF LLANADA.

03/26/1960 21-39-21 36.22 121.00 C 2.7 EAST OF KING CITY. 03/29/1960 11-46-42 36.50 121.10 C 2.4 SOUTHEAST OF VINEYARD.

03/31/1960 08-35-09 36.40 121.20 D 2.6 SOUTHEAST OF VINEYARD.

04/02/1960 13-02-10 35.97 120.33 C 2.7 SOUTH OF COALINGA. 04/02/1960 19-01-12 36.20 120.60 D 3.4 WEST OF COALINGA. 04/09/1960 08-01-14 36.50 121.13 B 3.6 SOUTHEAST OF HOLLISTER. 05/04/1960 09-44-32 36.42 120.72 C 3.4 SOUTHEAST OF LLANADA.

05/15/1960 06-07-23 36.43 121.27 C 2.5 SOUTH OF VINEYARD. 06/11/1960 17-39-48 36.30 120.90 D 3.7 SOUTHEAST OF VINEYARD, DIABLO RANGE. 06/19/1960 19-51-20 36.20 121.90 D 2.6 SOUTHWEST OF BIG SUR. 06/24/1960 18-13-12 36.45 121.22 B 3.5 SOUTHEAST OF VINEYARD.

07/14/1960 03-22-23 35.60 120.40 D 3.0 NORTHEAST OF SAN LUIS OBISPO. 07/20/1960 -?-59-36 35.80 119.80 D 2.8 NORTHEAST OF SAN LUIS OBISPO. 07/30/1960 02-16-29 36.43 120.28 C 2.5 SOUTHWEST OF FRESNO.

08/09/1960 08-59-47 36.20 120.20 D 3.2 EAST OF COALINGA. 08/10/1960 03-03-50 36.47 121.40 D 3.2 SOUTH OF VINEYARD. 08/26/1960 08-57-24 38.33 121.13 C 3.0 SOUTHEAST OF VINEYARD.

09/10/1960 01-18-22 36.47 121.05 C 2.7 SOUTHEAST OF HOLLISTER.

09/10/1960 20-49-12 36.45 121.28 D 2.8 SOUTHWEST OF LLANADA.

10/08/1960 -?-02-29 36.50 121.67 C 3.0 SOUTHWEST OF VINEYARD.

11/03/1960 07-13-40 36.43 121.07 C 2.7 SOUTH-SOUTHWEST OF LLANADA. 11/18/1960 04-36-44 36.38 121.20 C 3.0 NORTH-NORTHWEST OF KING CITY.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.5-1 Sheet 34 of 43 Revision 17 November 2006 MM/DD/YY HR/MN/SE NORTH LAT WEST LONG QUALITY MAG. STA. REC. FELT MAXIMUM INTENSITY - COMMENTS 12/01/1960 14-23-49 34.33 119.85 B 3.2 OFF SANTA BARBARA. 12/15/1960 08-28-08 36.40 121.30 D 3.0 SOUTH OF HOLLISTER. 12/27/1960 03-57-55 36.00 121.10 D 3.3 SOUTH OF KING CITY. 01/06/1961 20-46-36 35.80 120.20 D 3.4 SE OF PARKFIELD. 02/02/1961 12-31--? 36.35 121.20 D 2.2 NORTHWEST OF KING CITY. 02/21/1961 15-46-58 34.37 119.53 C 2.8 SE OF SANTA BARBARA. 03/14/1961 04-15--? 36.40 121.20 D 3.4 SOUTHEAST OF VINEYARD. 03/29/1961 16--?-11 36.50 121.50 D 2.5 SOUTH OF VINEYARD. 04/07/1961 12-21-19 36.20 120.40 D 2.9 NORTH OF COALINGA. 04/08/1961 04-55-26 36.00 121.20 D 2.7 SOUTH OF KING CITY. 04/08/1961 09-29-47 36.10 120.43 B 3.4 NEAR COALINGA. 04/08/1961 12-52-16 36.12 120.43 C 2.7 AFTERSHOCK OF QUAKE AT 09-29-47. 04/11/1961 09-08-11 36.00 120.10 D 2.7 SOUTHEAST OF KING CITY. 04/12/1961 04-59-08 35.92 120.50 C 2.6 SOUTHWEST OF COALINGA.

04/19/1961 18-16-35 36.40 121.58 C 3.3 SOUTHEAST OF MONTEREY. 05/25/1961 14-19-05 36.33 121.00 C 3.4 NORTHEAST OF KING CITY. 05/25/1961 14-19-35 36.33 121.00 B 3.4 NORTHEAST OF KING CITY. 06/01/1961 06-47-20 36.33 121.32 B 2.7 NORTHWEST OF KING CITY. 06/01/1961 14-11-30 36.45 121.20 C 2.6 NORTH OF KING CITY. 06/18/1961 12-50-59 36.18 120.83 C 2.1 EAST OF KING CITY. 06/25/1961 13-15-26 36.48 121.35 C 3.6 F SOUTH OF HOLLISTER; FELT IN HOLLISTER AREA. INTENSITY IV 7.5 MI. SOUTH OF HOLLISTER AT HARRIS RANCH. 06/26/1961 11-30-22 35.77 122.00 C 2.5 OFF SAN SIMEON COAST. 07/22/1961 18-01-55 36.40 121.20 C 4.0 F NORTHEAST OF PARAISO; FELT AT PINNACLES NATIONAL MONUMENT (ABOUT 25 MI. SOUTHEAST OF HOLLISTER). 07/31/1961 -?-07-09 35.82 120.37 C 4.7 F SAN LUIS OBISPO; FELT OVER AN AREA OF 5000 SQ. MI. OF WEST CENTRAL CALIFORNIA. INTENSITY V AT ATASCADERO, CHOLAME, CRESTON, PARKFIELD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, AND TEMPLETON. 08/01/1961 06-12-54 36.43 120.85 C 3.1 SOUTH OF LLANADA. 08/17/1961 17-14-45 36.33 120.95 B 3.1 NORTHEAST OF KING CITY. 09/14/1961 15-12-20 34.32 119.63 C 2.7 09/14/1961 15-14-38 34.32 119.63 C 2.8 09/27/1961 02-02-06 36.33 121.25 C 2.7 EAST OF PARAISO. 09/29/1961 15-39-58 36.33 120.88 B 2.4 SOUTH OF LLANADA. 10/12/1961 06-31-11 35.80 121.30 D 2.3 NORTH OF SAN SIMEON. 10/29/1961 11-47-33 36.33 120.92 C 2.0 EAST OF PARAISO. 11/05/1961 10-43-57 36.03 120.10 D 2.0 EAST OF LLANADA. 11/29/1961 04-49-03 35.15 120.13 C 3.0 SOUTHEAST OF KING CITY. 12/06/1961 03-27-30 36.43 121.85 B 2.4 SOUTH OF MONTEREY. 12/14/1961 07-28-44 36.48 121.08 B 2.1 SOUTHWEST OF LLANADA.

01/04/1962 03-56-10 36.40 121.40 C 3.0 11 NORTHWEST OF KING CITY.

01/31/1962 08-33-15 34.88 120.68 C 3.6 02/01/1962 06-37-57 34.88 120.68 C 4.5 F WEST OF GUADALU PE; FELT OVER AN AREA OF 3000 SQ. MI. V AT ARROYO GRANDE, AVILA BEACH, CASMALIA, GROVER CITY, GUADALUPE, HALCYON, OCEANO, POINT ARGUELLO, AND SHELL 02/01/1962 07-58-12 34.38 120.68 C 3.7 02/04/1962 11-43-34.1 36.42 121.27 C 3.2 12 DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.5-1 Sheet 35 of 43 Revision 17 November 2006 MM/DD/YY HR/MN/SE NORTH LAT WEST LONG QUALITY MAG. STA. REC. FELT MAXIMUM INTENSITY - COMMENTS 02/07/1962 13--?-70 34.30 122.10 D 3.9 03/05/1962 07-44-01 34.60 121.60 4.5 F OFF COAST NEAR LOMPOC; V AT MORRO BAY AND PISMO BEACH. 03/06/1962 03-40-22 34.60 121.60 D 3.6 03/10/1962 08-07-21 34.60 121.60 D 4.2 OFF COAST NEAR LOMPOC. 03/10/1962 13-40-48 34.60 121.60 D 4.0 OFF COAST NEAR LOMPOC. 03/10/1962 15-24-21 34.60 121.60 D 3.5 03/12/1962 21-32-09 34.60 121.60 D 3.9 03/23/1962 22-10-18 34.28 120.20 C 2.9 03/24/1962 03-38-41.8 36.20 119.78 B 3.4 19 SOUTH OF FRESNO.

04/02/1962 03-06-03.2 36.25 120.10 B 3.7 16 F EAST OF COALINGA; V IN TEHACHAPI.

04/15/1962 08-41-02.3 36.42 120.62 B 4.7 23 F SOUTHEAST OF LLANADA; V AT IDRIA.

05/04/1962 20-52-32 35.27 119.55 B 2.8 05/05/1962 -?-55-20 34.20 121.50 D 3.3 09/03/1962 17-53-33.1 36.47 121.07 C 2.6 8 F SOUT HWEST OF LLANADA; FELT IN HOLLISTER. 09/11/1962 01-34-31 36.03 121.23 B 3.3 16 SOUTHWEST OF KING CITY.

09/16/1962 18-12-35 34.48 119.68 B 4.0 F NEAR SANTA BARBARA; V AT LOS PRIETOS. 09/16/1962 18-17-09 34.48 119.68 C 2.2 09/16/1962 18-31-17 34.52 119.77 B 2.9 09/21/1962 05-07-18 34.47 119.58 B 3.0 09/29/1962 19-47-32 34.47 119.70 B 2.9 10/13/1962 17-49-39.5 36.35 120.42 B 3.7 17 NORTHEAST OF PRIEST.

12/15/1962 -?-40-20.9 36.47 120.63 B 2.9 13 NORTH OF PRIEST.

01/09/1963 06-04-25.7 35.98 120.35 B 3.2 14 F SE OF PRIEST; III AT WHEELER RIDGE.

02/09/1963 02-52-14.5 35.98 121.69 C 2.8 8 OFF COAST S OF BIG SUR. 02/12/1963 03-44-30.9 36.50 121.32 B 2.6 10 S OF VINEYARD.

02/22/1963 15-56-21.9 35.11 121.44 C 3.3 15 OFF COAST, SW OF MORRO BAY. 02/22/1963 15-56-36.0 35.67 120.83 D 3.6 04/04/1963 01--?-58 35.80 121.50 2.5 6 NW OF SAN SIMEON.

04/10/1963 01-38-56.8 36.42 121.05 2.9 11 SW OF LLANADA.

04/11/1963 14-02-31.8 36.20 120.87 2.9 13 NW OF PRIEST.

04/20/1963 16-37-33.0 36.38 120.96 3.0 14 SOUTH OF LLANADA.

05/10/1963 10-17-57.1 36.37 120.98 2.5 9 SOUTH OF LLANADA.

06/01/1963 05-19--0.2 34.33 119.54 B 2.0 07/02/1963 12--?-24.9 34.86 119.80 C 2.0 07/04/1963 03-20-41.0 34.77 120.02 C 3.2 07/06/1963 23-32-30.4 34.78 120.63 B 3.3 08/15/1963 21-02-32.2 35.97 121.02 3.6 15 NEAR JOLON; FORESHOCK OF FOLLOWING-- 08/15/1963 21-21-32.1 35.91 121.06 3.9 18 F NEAR JOLON; FELT AT HARRIS RANCH.

08/16/1963 08-12-13.6 36.06 121.01 3.2 10 NEAR JOLON; AFTERSHOCK OF PRECEDING.

09/06/1963 03-54-34 36.22 121.48 2.6 8 WEST OF PARAISO.

11/01/1963 14-05-56.0 35.56 120.23 3.4 9 EAST OF ATASCADERO.

11/01/1963 14-06--0.4 35.75 120.47 C 3.2 11/18/1963 07-31-38.5 36.22 120.30 C 3.5 F IV 15 MI. NE OF SAN MIGUEL. 11/18/1963 10-54-45.4 36.38 120.32 2.7 11 NE OF COALINGA.

11/19/1963 03-33-09.2 36.42 121.03 2.9 10 SW OF LLANADA.

12/12/1963 17-10-48.5 34.98 119.51 C 3.1 02/10/1964 05-47-25.0 35.75 120.94 3.9 19 NE OF PASO ROBLES.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.5-1 Sheet 36 of 43 Revision 17 November 2006 MM/DD/YY HR/MN/SE NORTH LAT WEST LONG QUALITY MAG. STA. REC. FELT MAXIMUM INTENSITY - COMMENTS 03/20/1964 13-15-51.0 36.40 121.03 2.6 7 SW OF LLANADA. 04/28/1964 15-01-48.3 36.23 121.08 2.8 7 NEAR KING CITY.

05/07/1964 17-53-58.3 36.43 120.54 2.5 5 N OF PRIEST.

06/06/1964 11-47-39.0 34.63 121.40 D 4.3 06/20/1964 09-21-51.4 34.13 120.67 C 3.1 07/24/1964 07-09-35.9 36.47 121.18 2.9 15 NE OF PARAISO.

08/30/1964 03-41-10.4 36.29 121.94 2.9 7 OFF COAST NW OF POINT SUR.

09/12/1964 01-45-53.5 36.08 120.49 3.1 10 SE OF PRIEST.

10/17/1964 23-43-22.6 36.21 120.92 3.3 14 NW OF PRIEST.

11/08/1964 01-19-19.0 36.00 120.00 4.0 15 E OF AVENAL.

11/08/1964 13-45-51.1 36.34 121.32 3.1 16 NEAR PARAISO.

11/18/1964 01-47-34.0 35.98 121.13 2.7 8 SW OF KING CITY.

11/25/1964 12-49-41.8 36.21 120.78 2.8 15 NW OF PRIEST.

12/05/1964 13-55-57.5 36.02 121.08 2.6 12 W OF SAN ARDO.

12/11/1964 03-35-38.8 34.24 119.76 B 3.5 12/25/1964 11-21-13.2 35.97 121.18 2.6 5 N OF LAKE NACIMIENTO.

12/27/1964 18-58-59.4 36.46 121.06 2.6 7 SW OF LLANDA.

01/13/1965 04-20-48.2 36.45 120.58 2.6 9 NE OF PRIEST.

01/26/1965 08-34-30.7 35.72 120.54 3.0 12 SE OF PRIEST.

01/26/1965 08-36-36.6 35.92 120.27 C 3.1 01/26/1965 08-38-16.4 36.04 120.26 C 3.1 02/21/1965 18-39-18.3 35.67 120.43 3.1 12 E OF PASO ROBLES.

03/28/1965 02-32-21.0 36.20 120.40 3.5 (USCGS) 04/06/1965 20-49-24.4 35.95 121.46 2.5 7 N OF SAN SIMEON.

04/08/1965 01-05-40.6 36.03 121.40 3.0 10 N OF SAN SIMEON.

04/09/1965 12-50-19.3 36.03 120.64 3.0 10 S OF PRIEST.

04/18/1965 03-58-52.4 36.50 121.23 2.7 7 NEAR PINNACLES NATIONAL MONUMENT 04/24/1965 07-29-47.1 34.91 120.14 C 3.6 05/12/1965 17-55-08.7 35.49 121.17 3.0 6 SW OF SAN SIMEON.

06/07/1965 15-06-47.6 36.50 121.13 2.5 10 NEAR PINNACLES NATIONAL MONUMENT.

06/20/1965 02-56-43.5 36.33 120.37 2.7 11 N OF COALINGA.

06/30/1965 15-21-27.7 36.35 120.71 2.5 9 N OF PRIEST.

07/23/1965 05-31-52.7 35.71 121.23 3.4 13 N OF SAN SIMEON.

07/24/1965 15-25-57.4 36.36 120.98 2.5 7 SW OF LLANADA.

08/01/1965 06-47-27.3 36.23 120.85 2.5 7 NW OF PRIEST.

08/01/1965 13-28-32.9 36.23 120.84 2.5 6 AFTERSHOCK OF 06-47-27.3.

08/13/1965 07-36-08.4 36.46 121.08 2.6 9 SW OF LLANADA.

08/13/1965 13-46-16.5 34.35 119.63 B 3.7 F IV AT CARPINTERIA AND SANTA BARBARA. 08/13/1965 21-28-51.8 36.48 121.13 2.4 8 W OF LLANADA.

08/15/1965 23-06-52.5 36.00 120.20 4.0 F AT PAICINES.

08/21/1965 20-09-35.4 36.46 121.07 2.5 8 SW OF LLANADA.

09/06/1965 18--?-57.8 35.96 120.36 C 3.4 09/12/1965 08-50-05.5 36.49 121.12 2.5 7 W OF LLANADA.

09/19/1965 15-42-07.8 35.98 120.34 C 4.8 F V AT ARMONA, AVENAL, CHOLAME, KETTLEMAN CITY, AND STRATFORD.

10/22/1965 02-29-22 36.00 121.70 2.7 6 OFF COAST, W OF KING CITY.

12/02/1965 22-29-13.0 36.20 121.68 2.8 9 W OF PARAISO.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.5-1 Sheet 37 of 43 Revision 17 November 2006 MM/DD/YY HR/MN/SE NORTH LAT WEST LONG QUALITY MAG. STA. REC. FELT MAXIMUM INTENSITY - COMMENTS 01/28/1966 01-49-47.4 35.83 120.45 3.0 F PARKFIELD SEQUENCE; MC EVILLY, ET AL, (1967) THE PARKFIELD, CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE OF 1966, BULL. SEISM. SOC. AM. 02/01/1966 -?-20-44.3 36.03 120.57 2.9 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE - SEE 01/28/1966 AT 01-49-47.4. 02/14/1966 -?-24-03.9 36.02 120.57 2.4 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE - SEE 01/28/1966 AT 01-49-47.4. 02/25/1966 01-34-38.0 36.05 120.63 2.4 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE - SEE 01/28/1966 AT 01-49-47.4. 03/31/1966 21-38-45.2 36.05 120.60 2.5 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE - SEE 01/28/1966 AT 01-49-47.4. 04/05/1966 20-44-58.7 36.24 120.85 2.7 9 10 KM NW OF PRIEST (UC BERKELEY SEISMOGRAPH STATION (SS)). 04/12/1966 15-31-39.8 36.07 120.70 2.3 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE. 05/11/1966 17-37-01.1 35.98 120.57 2.3 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

05/23/1966 08-07-37.6 36.02 120.57 2.5 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

05/23/1966 08-11-07.0 36.02 120.57 2.2 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

05/27/1966 15-36-03.7 35.98 120.49 2.7 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/18/1966 16-32-17.6 35.96 120.53 2.0 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/20/1966 23-19-18.8 36.33 120.96 2.8 9 NE OF KING CITY.

06/24/1966 21-42-50.4 36.50 120.85 3.1 10 SE OF LLANADA.

06/28/1966 01--?-31.5 35.95 120.52 3.1 F PARKFIELD SEQUENCE; FELT AT CHOLAME, PARKFIELD, VALLETON, AND WORK RANCH. 06/28/1966 01-14-55 35.95 120.50 1.8 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 04-08-55.2 35.97 120.50 5.1 PARKFIELD SEQ UENCE FIRST MAIN SHOCK (FELT REPORTS FOR THE 2 MAIN SHOCKS ARE NOT SEPAR ATED.) FELT OVER 20,000 SQ. MI., MINOR SURFACE FAULTING ALONG SAN ANDREAS FAULT FROM PARKFIELD TO CHOLAME (20 MI.), MAXIMUM DISPLACEMENT 4 IN. VII AT CHOLAME AND PARKFIELD, VI AT ANNETTE, BITTERWATER VALLEY, COALINGA, HIDDEN VALLEY RANCH, PASO ROBLES, SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN MIGUEL, SHAFTER, SHANDON, SLACK CANYON, VALLETON, WAITI RANCH, AND WORK RANCH, AND V AT ADELAIDA, ALPAUGH, ARROYO GRANDE, ATASCADERO, AVILA BEACH, BAKERSFIELD, BAYWOOD PARK, BRYSON, BURREL, BUTTONWILLOW, EARLIMART, FELLOWS, FRAZIER PARK, GREENFIELD, HARMONY, INDIAN VALLEY, KETTLEMAN CITY, KING CITY, LAPANZA, LOST MARICOPA, MEE RANCH, MORRO BAY, MOSS LANDING, MUSICK, NIPOMO, OCEANO, OLD RIVER, PANOCHE, PINE CANYON, PISMO BEACH, POZO, PRIEST VALLEY, SAN ARDO, SAN JOAQUIN, SAN LUCAS, SAN SIMEON, SIMMLER, STRATFORD, TEMPLETON, AND VANDENBURG A.F.B. 06/28/1966 04-09-53 35.95 120.50 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE. 06/28/1966 04-18-34.0 35.95 120.53 2.6 F PARKFIELD SEQUENCE - FELT AT CANTUA CREEK AND SOQUEL. 06/28/1966 04-26-13.4 35.95 120.50 5.5 F PARKFIELD SEQUENCE - SECOND MAIN SHOCK. 06/28/1966 04-26-28 35.95 120.50 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE. 06/28/1966 04-26-34 35.95 120.50 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE. 06/28/1966 04-27-37 35.95 120.50 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE. 06/28/1966 04-27-58 35.95 120.50 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE. 06/28/1966 04-28-19 35.95 120.50 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE. 06/28/1966 04-28-36 35.95 120.50 4.5 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 04-28-46 35.95 120.50 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.5-1 Sheet 38 of 43 Revision 17 November 2006 MM/DD/YY HR/MN/SE NORTH LAT WEST LONG QUALITY MAG. STA. REC. FELT MAXIMUM INTENSITY - COMMENTS 06/28/1966 04-29-13 35.95 120.50 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE. 06/28/1966 04-31-55 35.95 120.50 3.0 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE. 06/28/1966 04-32-50 35.95 120.50 3.5 F PARKFIELD SEQUE NCE - FELT AT CANTUA CREEK, CHOLAME, AND HERNANDEZ. 06/28/1966 04-34-59.1 35.81 120.40 3.0 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 04-39-08.1 35.95 120.50 3.0 F PARKFIELD SEQ UENCE - FELT AT PARKFIELD AND WORK RANCH. 06/28/1966 04-42-33.6 35.83 120.38 2.4 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 04-43-54.8 35.95 120.57 2.7 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 04-46-22 35.95 120.50 3.0 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 04-51-43 35.95 120.50 2.4 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 05--?-59.5 35.85 120.40 3.1 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 05-03-44.7 35.88 120.45 2.4 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 05-09-48.3 35.83 120.13 2.5 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 05-12-42.5 35.92 120.47 2.9 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 05-17-05 35.95 120.50 2.1 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 05-21-05 35.95 120.50 2.0 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 05-29-14.9 35.92 120.48 2.1 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 05-37-04.6 35.88 120.44 2.5 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 05-40-19.4 35.94 120.48 2.7 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 05-45-59.1 35.75 120.33 3.2 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 05-48-26 35.95 120.50 2.2 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 05-51-34.0 35.86 120.44 2.1 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 05-52-06 35.95 120.50 2.3 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 05-52-58 35.95 120.50 2.4 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 05-56--? 35.95 120.50 2.1 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 06-11-03.5 35.81 120.35 2.6 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 06-32-17.9 35.94 120.52 3.4 F PARKFIELD SEQ UENCE - FELT AT CHOLAME, COALINGA, AND PARKFIELD.

06/28/1966 06-35-11.4 35.80 120.38 3.0 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 06-39-31.2 35.90 120.47 2.2 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 07-01-03.8 35.92 120.48 2.2 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 07-33-52.7 35.90 120.45 2.7 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 07-41-43 35.95 120.50 2.3 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE. 06/28/1966 07-45-48.3 35.90 120.47 3.0 F PARKFIELD SEQUENCE - FELT AT CHOLAME AND PARKFIELD. 06/28/1966 08-14-48.6 35.83 120.42 2.4 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 08-47-52.4 35.85 120.42 2.0 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 08-54-49.5 35.92 120.50 2.3 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 08-59-52.3 35.85 120.42 2.5 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 09-31-26.5 35.77 120.35 2.4 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 09-35-54.3 35.77 120.36 2.2 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 09-56-09.7 35.83 120.40 2.5 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 10-15-53.3 35.92 120.53 2.1 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 10-20-16.4 35.85 120.42 2.3 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 10-23-22.8 35.55 120.42 2.0 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 10-23-22.8 35.94 120.48 2.5 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 10-46-22.9 35.94 120.50 2.0 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 11-15-13.9 35.85 120.42 2.0 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.5-1 Sheet 39 of 43 Revision 17 November 2006 MM/DD/YY HR/MN/SE NORTH LAT WEST LONG QUALITY MAG. STA. REC. FELT MAXIMUM INTENSITY - COMMENTS 06/28/1966 11-28-41.4 35.85 120.38 2.0 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE. 06/28/1966 11-30-14.0 35.90 120.47 2.2 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 12-31-52.1 35.94 120.48 2.5 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 12-52-22.0 35.97 120.53 2.3 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 13-48-22 35.97 120.53 2.7 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 14-13-09.3 35.94 120.48 2.6 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 14-21-36.3 35.94 120.48 2.2 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 14-51-53.6 35.90 120.47 2.3 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 18-12-19.4 35.92 120.50 2.3 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 18-22-32.4 35.92 120.50 2.0 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 18-54-55.3 35.88 120.45 2.5 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 19-59-37.8 35.92 120.47 2.8 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 20--?-38.7 35.92 120.48 2.5 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 20-46-56.4 35.77 120.40 3.1 F PARKFIELD SEQUENCE - FELT AT BAR B RANCH AND WORK RANCH. 06/28/1966 22-01-13.9 35.85 120.44 2.0 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 22-37-56.7 35.88 120.42 2.0 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/28/1966 23-57-22.3 35.77 120.35 2.5 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/29/1966 -?-17-32.6 35.85 120.44 2.3 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/29/1966 02-19-39.9 35.92 120.52 3.6 F PARKFIELD SEQUENCE - FELT AT CHOLAME, PARKFIELD, AND WORK RANCH. 06/29/1966 04-06-40.3 35.92 120.53 2.8 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/29/1966 07-28-59.4 35.92 120.48 2.3 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/29/1966 08-55-52.4 35.88 120.45 2.9 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/29/1966 09-20-50.1 35.78 120.36 2.5 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/29/1966 10-13-44.0 35.97 120.50 2.3 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/29/1966 10-56-58.8 35.75 120.33 3.0 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/29/1966 12-30-09.0 35.94 120.50 2.4 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/29/1966 13-11-59.7 35.82 120.38 3.1 F PARKFIELD SEQUENCE - FELT AT CHOLAME AND PARKFIELD. 06/29/1966 15-18-38.9 35.95 120.33 2.0 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/29/1966 15-34-22.2 35.92 120.48 2.3 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/29/1966 16-03-30.1 35.86 120.45 2.1 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/29/1966 17-10-28.3 35.82 120.36 2.0 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/29/1966 19-53-25.9 35.95 120.53 5.0 F PARKFIELD SEQUENCE - FELT AT ADELAIDA, BITTERWATER, CHOLAME, COALINGA, FRESNO, MEE RANCH, MORRO BAY, SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN MIGUEL, SANTA MARGARITA, SHANDON, AND

WORK RANCH. 06/29/1966 20-44-40.0 35.74 120.28 2.5 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/29/1966 23-48-12.0 35.74 120.28 2.3 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/30/1966 01-17-36.1 35.86 120.45 4.1 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/30/1966 03-36-16.8 35.92 120.47 2.6 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/30/1966 05-04-12.9 35.88 120.45 2.0 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/30/1966 06-07-21.5 35.94 120.48 2.4 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/30/1966 06-23-32.4 35.90 120.47 2.1 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/30/1966 07-37-12.1 35.90 120.47 2.0 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/30/1966 08-01-38.4 35.90 120.47 2.9 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/30/1966 11-07-55.1 35.78 120.33 2.8 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.5-1 Sheet 40 of 43 Revision 17 November 2006 MM/DD/YY HR/MN/SE NORTH LAT WEST LONG QUALITY MAG. STA. REC. FELT MAXIMUM INTENSITY - COMMENTS 06/30/1966 13-26-05.7 35.78 120.35 2.3 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE. 06/30/1966 13-29-56.6 35.86 120.40 2.0 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/30/1966 13-40-50.9 35.83 120.38 2.1 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/30/1966 16-05-02.7 35.97 120.50 2.3 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

06/30/1966 19-06-17.5 35.86 120.42 2.1 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

07/01/1966 09-41-21.9 35.94 120.52 3.2 F PARKFIELD SEQUENCE - FELT AT WORK RANCH. 07/02/1966 12-08-34.8 35.79 120.33 3.7 F PARKFIELD SEQUENCE - FELT AT PARKFIELD. 07/02/1966 12-16-15.8 35.81 120.35 3.4 F PARKFIELD SEQUENCE - FELT AT PARKFIELD. 07/02/1966 12-25-06.8 35.80 120.35 3.1 F PARKFIELD SEQUENCE - FELT AT PARKFIELD. 07/05/1966 18-54-54.5 35.92 120.48 3.0 F PARKFIELD SEQUENCE - FELT AT PARKFIELD. 07/25/1966 22-49-39 36.40 120.30 2.5 4 NE OF COALINGA.

07/27/1966 08 0.2 35.90 120.48 3.0 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE. 08/03/1966 12-39-05.8 35.80 120.38 3.4 F PARKFIELD SEQUENCE; V AT CHOLAME, PARKFIELD, AND WORK RANCH. 08/04/1966 -?-54-24.5 35.74 121.35 3.0 8 NW OF SAN SIMEON.

08/07/1966 17-03-24.9 35.94 120.55 3.0 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

08/19/1966 22-51-20.1 35.90 120.45 3.3 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

09/07/1966 -?-20-50.5 35.83 119.94 3.2 9 SE OF COALINGA.

09/18/1966 15-09-55.7 35.74 120.35 3.1 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

10/27/1966 12-06-03.9 35.94 120.50 3.8 F PARKFIELD SEQUENCE; V AT ATASCADERO, AVENAL, COALINGA, PARKFIELD, SAN MIGUEL, TEMPLETON, AND WORK RANCH. 11/05/1966 13-31-31.2 35.94 120.50 3.3 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

11/18/1966 23-39-42.3 35.75 120.33 3.3 PARKFIELD SEQUENCE.

12/30/1966 10-23-48 36.47 120.40 2.5 4 N OF COALINGA.

01/08/1967 23-03-50.9 35.90 120.40 2.8 8 35 KM SE OF PRIEST (UC BERKELEY SS).

01/09/1967 23-18-59.5 35.86 120.10 3.1 9 SE OF COALINGA.

02/01/1967 13-55-54.1 35.70 120.25 3.0 8 NE OF SAN LUIS OBISPO.

02/26/1967 15-17-53.9 36.40 121.06 2.5 9 SW OF LLANADA.

03/13/1967 21-59-48.4 36.00 120.61 3.1 8 F 15 KM S OF PRIEST (UC BERKELEY SS). IV AT SAN MIGUEL; FELT AT INDIAN VALLEY AND RANCHITO CANYON. 03/21/1967 02-24-28.3 36.21 120.85 2.8 8 17 KM NW OF PRIEST (UC BERKELEY SS).

03/23/1967 11-39-56.4 36.16 120.18 3.0 5 20 KM E OF COALINGA.

04/13/1967 09-06-42.5 36.15 120.80 2.7 8 13 KM W OF PRIEST (UC BERKELEY SS).

05/17/1967 14-16-52.2 35.95 120.73 3.0 6 30 KM S OF PRIEST (UC BERKELEY SS).

06/03/1967 20-10-53.0 35.71 121.48 2.6 7 OFF COAST NW OF SAN SIMEON.

06/06/1967 06-11-38.5 35.81 120.43 3.0 10 F 40 KM SE OF PRIEST (UC BERKELEY SS); IV AT WORK RANCH; FELT IN INDIAN VALLEY, SOUTHERN MONTEREY COUNTY, AND VINEYARD CANYON. 06/13/1967 12-54-10.7 35.81 121.50 3.3 10 OFF COAST, 35KM NW OF SAN SIMEON.

07/24/1967 07-08-52.9 35.96 120.50 3.7 9 PARKFIELD AREA.

07/28/1967 14-44-40.1 35.75 121.38 3.0 6 NEAR SAN SIMEON.

08/01/1967 22-14-13.0 35.75 121.40 2.7 6 NW OF SAN SIMEON.

08/08/1967 18-11-20.3 36.42 120.42 2.5 7 N OF COALINGA.

08/12/1967 18-57-40.4 35.80 120.45 4.1 18 F PARKFIELD AREA; V AT ESTRELLA AREA, HOG

CANYON ROAD TO PARKFIELD, AND SHANDON, AND IV AT CHOLAME.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.5-1 Sheet 41 of 43 Revision 17 November 2006 MM/DD/YY HR/MN/SE NORTH LAT WEST LONG QUALITY MAG. STA. REC. FELT MAXIMUM INTENSITY - COMMENTS 08/12/1967 23-21-07.8 36.11 120.80 2.8 6 SE OF KING CITY. 08/12/1967 23-22-05.3 36.13 120.76 2.5 7 SE OF KING CITY.

08/17/1967 23-12-02.7 35.91 121.50 2.6 5 NW OF SAN SIMEON.

08/25/1967 02-28-14.4 35.81 121.27 2.7 6 NW OF SAN SIMEON.

08/25/1967 16-35-27.8 36.05 120.00 3.2 7 SE OF COALINGA.

08/25/1967 16-40-50.2 36.01 119.95 3.0 7 SE OF COALINGA.

08/31/1967 18-10-40.4 35.86 121.35 2.8 7 NW OF SAN SIMEON.

09/09/1967 21-35-05.6 35.81 121.63 2.4 3 OFF SHORE SAN SIMEON.

10/14/1967 12-02-43.6 36.50 120.61 2.7 5 NEAR MT. CIERVO.

10/21/1967 12-05-21.8 35.83 120.46 3.1 7 PARKFIELD AREA.

10/25/1967 23-05-30.5 35.73 121.45 2.6 4 NEAR SAN SIMEON.

11/11/1967 22-10-06.8 36.50 120.81 3.3 9 S OF PANOCHE VALLEY.

11/11/1967 22-33-47.5 36.48 120.78 2.8 6 S OF PANOCHE VALLEY.

11/12/1967 07-11-20.4 36.48 120.80 2.6 7 S OF PANOCHE VALLEY.

11/14/1967 -?--?-51.7 35.78 120.53 3.1 3 PARKFIELD.

11/25/1967 15-27-43.4 36.46 121.06 2.5 6 BEAR VALLEY.

12/21/1967 05-13-11.3 35.36 120.85 2.6 3 S OF SAN SIMEON.

12/21/1967 19-08-53.8 35.91 119.53 3.1 5 NW OF DELANO.

12/21/1967 23-58-60.2 35.93 120.56 3.0 3 PARKFIELD.

12/31/1967 23-48-13.5 35.75 120.45 4.3 3 F PARKFIELD AREA; V AT CRESTON, PARKFIELD,

SALINAS DAM, SAN MIGUEL, SHANDON, TEMPLETON, AND WORK RANCH. 02/03/1968 19-07-26.4 35.73 121.25 2.8 5 NEAR SAN SIMEON.

02/23/1968 20-20-57.9 35.86 121.31 2.5 7 EAST OF HOLLISTER.

03/25/1968 11-32-07.4 36.37 120.70 3.6 8 F SE OF LLANADA; MAXIMUM INTENSITY V.

03/28/1968 04-53-26.5 36.36 120.19 3.1 5 F SE OF COALINGA; FELT AT AVENAL - INTENSITY IV.

04/14/1968 06-20-54.6 36.18 121.65 2.5 6 SE OF MONTEREY.

04/23/1968 15-09-14.9 35.52 120.82 3.4 7 SE OF SAN SIMEON.

04/27/1968 14-32-37.4 36.22 120.83 2.7 7 NW OF PRIEST (UC BERKELEY SS).

04/28/1968 06-31-32.9 35.46 120.83 3.5 7 NW OF SAN LUIS OBISPO.

05/31/1968 07-07-37.9 35.80 120.60 3.0 5 S OF COALINGA.

06/11/1968 11-43-28.1 35.90 121.70 3.3 9 OFFSHORE, NW OF SAN SIMEON.

06/22/1968 12-50-50.1 36.43 121.04 2.9 9 S OF LLAN 07/03/1968 17-52-52 35.80 121.50 2.5 7 NW OF SAN SIMEON.

07/29/1968 04-27-51.9 36.38 120.69 2.7 9 N OF PRIEST (UC BERKELEY SS).

07/29/1968 05-29-19.9 36.37 120.70 2.8 9 N OF PRIEST (UC BERKELEY SS).

07/31/1968 -?-49-25.4 36.37 120.70 2.9 9 N OF PRIEST (UC BERKELEY SS).

08/19/1968 16-30-18.2 36.40 121.91 3.3 9 S OF CARMEL.

09/01/1968 21-56-24.4 36.45 121.02 2.7 8 E OF PINNACLES NATIONAL MONUMENT.

11/06/1968 08-58-23.2 35.88 120.45 2.8 10 F NEAR PARKFIELD; FELT NEAR SAN MIGUEL.

11/10/1968 04-06-03.9 35.70 121.18 3.2 9 NEAR SAN SIMEON.

11/17/1968 01-03-47.0 36.29 120.94 3.0 6 NEAR KING CITY.

12/11/1968 12-19-52.4 35.81 120.48 3.0 10 NEAR PARKFIELD.

12/16/1968 01-14-10.9 36.17 120.85 2.7 7 W OF PRIEST (UC BERKELEY SS).

01/09/1969 09-42-47.2 35.94 120.57 3.8 7 F CHOLAME VALLEY; FELT IN PARKFIELD AND SLACK CANYON - MAXIMUM INTENSITY V. 02/04/1969 -?-45-25 36.40 120.38 3.0 4 NORTH OF COALINGA.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.5-1 Sheet 42 of 43 Revision 17 November 2006 MM/DD/YY HR/MN/SE NORTH LAT WEST LONG QUALITY MAG. STA. REC. FELT MAXIMUM INTENSITY - COMMENTS 06/19/1969 07-05-08 36.12 119.58 3.5 8 F NEAR TULARE; FE LT IN CORCORAN, DINUBA, HANFORD, IVANHOE, LEMON COVE, STRATHMORE, AND TIPTON. MAXIMUM INTENSITY IV. 06/24/1969 14-25-37 36.42 120.13 3.0 4 SOUTHWEST OF FRESNO.

07/16/1969 04-06-35 35.83 120.28 3.2 7 15 KM SOUTHEAST OF PARKFIELD.

09/06/1969 13-44-45 35.30 121.10 3.8 10 F 50 KM WEST OF SAN LUIS OBISPO.

09/16/1969 03-32-24 36.18 120.80 2.5 8 13 KM WEST OF PRIEST (UC BERKELEY SS).

10/02/1969 06--?-58.9 36.32 120.32 3.3 10 10 KM NORTH OF COALINGA.

11/17/1969 20-49-10.4 36.43 121.05 4.4 10 F NNE OF KING CITY; FELT IN MONTEREY - SWAYED BUILDINGS IN SALINAS 11/19/1969 06-23-50 36.45 121.52 4.2 8 F GONZALES AND SALINAS VALLEY; FELT IN SALINAS AND SANTA CRUZ - RATTLED WINDOWS IN MONTEREY. 11/26/1969 -?-06-59 36.48 120.60 2.5 6 50 KM NORTHEAST OF KING CITY.

11/30/1969 15-11-54 35.30 120.90 2.5 10 20 KM EAST OF KING CITY; 2 SMALL FORESHOCKS RECORDED.

12/10/1969 13-25-31 35.75 120.40 3.5 7 40 KM SOUTH OF COALINGA.

12/14/1969 19-07-57 35.92 120.68 3.2 9 20 KM NORTH OF PASO ROBLES.

01/29/1970 02-49-12.9 36.11 120.99 2.5 6 20 KM SOUTHWEST OF KING CITY.

02/01/1970 21-19-45.7 36.41 121.08 2.6 12 30 KM EAST OF PARAISO.

02/08/1970 -?-14-13.3 36.40 120.97 2.7 13 25 KM SOUTH OF LLANADA.

02/09/1970 16--?-46.1 35.77 120.35 3.1 16 60 KM SOUTH OF PRIEST (UC BERKELEY SS).

02/14/1970 15-44-58.0 36.09 120.64 2.8 14 5 KM SOUTH OF PRIEST (UC BERKELEY SS). 04/18/1970 13-16-53.4 36.49 120.01 3.0 15 35 KM SOUTHWEST OF FRESNO.

04/21/1970 22-29-25.9 35.66 120.43 3.0 8 65 KM SOUTH OF PRIEST (UC BERKELEY SS). 04/23/1970 03-25-18.9 35.97 121.45 2.5 10 25 KM SOUTHWEST OF KING CITY.

05/27/1970 10-42-19.3 35.99 120.91 3.4 8 40 KM SOUTHWEST OF PRIEST (UC BERKELEY SS). 07/20/1970 23-24-55 35.95 121.57 2.5 5 8 KM SOUTH OF LOPEZ POINT - OFFSHORE. 07/21/1970 05-24-16.1 35.99 121.57 2.5 5 5 KM SOUTHEAST OF LOPEZ POINT. 08/05/1970 06-47-36.4 35.82 119.94 2.9 8 KETTLEMAN HILLS.

08/05/1970 16-51-45.7 36.23 121.69 3.0 11 25 KM SOUTHWEST OF PARAISO.

08/13/1970 05-06-19.8 36.17 121.70 3.7 11 20 KM WEST OF LOPEZ POINT.

09/05/1970 11-29-11 36.20 120.10 3.1 4 EAST-NORTHEAST OF COALINGA.

09/10/1970 23-45-59 36.40 120.50 3.2 11 30 KM NORTHWEST OF COALINGA.

09/11/1970 15-20-08 35.98 120.05 3.3 9 8 KM EAST OF AVENAL.

09/16/1970 18-22-10.7 35.96 121.27 2.6 7 NEAR MILPITAS.

10/07/1970 17-57-06.3 36.30 121.40 2.5 9 30 KM NORTHWEST OF KING CITY.

12/01/1970 06-05-59 35.38 121.13 3.3 7 F 25 KM WEST OF MORRO BAY; INTENSITY V AT BRYSON - NO DAMAGE. 12/12/1970 22-29-20 35.65 121.55 2.5 6 30 KM WEST OF SAN SIMEON.

01/02/71 06-27-37.5 35 55.1' 12032.2' 3.0 10 km NW of Parkfield 01/16/71 05-33-27.8 36 00' 12012' 3.1 Kettleman Hills 01/26/71 21-53-53 35 12' 12042' 3.0 Near San Luis Obispo. 01/31/71 12-22-49.5 35 55.6' 12030.6' 3.0 NW of Parkfield; sharp, rapid jolting at Shandon. 04/05/71 01-40-34.2 36 24.8' 12059.0' 3.0 20 km SE of Pinnacles National Monument. 04/19/71 09-35-58.8 36 13.7' 12050.3' 3.0 25 km E of King City. 04/29/71 02-13-15.7 36 30.3' 12032.5' 3.0 40 km NW of Coalinga. 06/20/71 12-41-39.8 35 3' 12020' 3.4 Near Cholame. 07/06/71 09-24-35 35 34' 12135' 3.0 SW of San Simeon.

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.5-1 Sheet 43 of 43 Revision 17 November 2006 MM/DD/YY HR/MN/SE NORTH LAT WEST LONG QUALITY MAG. STA. REC. FELT MAXIMUM INTENSITY - COMMENTS 07/21/71 09-14-26.2 36 13.7' 12050.8' 3.2 Near Coalinga. 08/06/71 20-03-16.3 36 00.8' 12002.2' 3.0 Near Coalinga. 10/06/71 14-43-30.6 35 51.3' 12022.5' 3.5 S of Coalinga; intensity IV at Cholame, Parkfield, and Shandon. 10/21/71 22-09-45.4 35 58.8' 12050.2' 3.7 SE of King City; intensity V at San Ardo (small objects shifted) and intensity IV at Jolon, King City, Lockwood, Pine Canyon, and San Lucas. 11/07/71 14-03-30.4 35 31.2' 11950.2' 4.0 SE of Coalinga. 11/18/71 04-03-52.4 36 14.5' 12050.6' 3.4 NE of King City. 11/30/71 09-45-42.8 36 03.6' 11953.4' 3.0 SE of Coalinga.

END OF SELECTED EARTHQUAKES

END OF QUAKES PROGRAM FOR SELECTION OF EARTHQUAKES

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.5-2 Sheet 1 of 2 Revision 11 November 1996

SUMMARY

, REVISED EPICENTERS OF REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLES OF EARTHQUAKES OFF THE COAST OF CALI FORNIA NEAR SAN LUIS OBISPO

Original Hypocenter Revised Hypocenter

Date

Event Number

Lat.

Long. Distance Hypocenter Moved, km Error Ellipse km

Mag., M L May 27, 1935 1 35.370 120.960 66NW 7 x 14 3.0 35.621 121.639 Sept. 7, 1939 6 35.420 121.070 40W 8 x 8 3.0 35.459 121.495 Oct. 6, 1939 7 35.800 121.500 54NW 16 x 31 3.5 36.232 121.763 July 11, 1945 8 35.670 121.250 21NW 7 x 24 4.0 35.809 121.408 Mar. 23, 1947 12 35.150 121.300 66S 12 x 24 3.7 34.577 121.137 Mar. 27, 1947 15 35.000 121.000 32SW 20 x 20 4.2 34.739 120.896 Dec. 20, 1948 9 35.800 121.500 16SE 9 x 38 4.5 35.683 121.364 Dec. 31, 1948 10 35.670 121.400 17SE 8 x 29 4.6 35.598 121.226

Nov. 22, 1952 Bryson Earthquake 17 35.730 35.830 35.836 121.190 121.170 121.204 U.C. Berkeley

Richter (1969)

12N 7 x 24 6.0 Mar. 13, 1954 21 35.000 120.690 19E 9 x 18 3.4 34.960 120.490 Mar. 5, 1955 23 35.600 121.400 38NE 15 x 29 3.3 35.863 121.149 June 21, 1957 25A 35.100 120.900 15NW 10 x 19 3.7 35.255 120.951 Jan. 2, 1960 26 35.400 121.190 44NE 15 x 29 4.0 35.778 121.066 Feb. 1, 1962 52 34.880 120.670 22NW 6 x 16 4.5 35.031 120.846 DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.5-2 Sheet 2 of 2 Revision 11 November 1996 Original Hypocenter Revised Hypocenter

Date

Event Number

Lat.

Long. Distance Hypocenter

Moved, km

Error Ellipse

km

Mag., M L Mar. 5, 1962 54 34.600 121.590 17E 8 x 10 4.5 34.622 121.416 Mar. 10, 1962 54A 34.600 121.590 22NE 6 x 20 4.2 34.667 121.372 Feb. 22, 1963 28 35.110 121.440 42S 7 x 28 3.3 34.730 121.400 Sept. 6, 1969 31 35.300 121.090 9NE 5 x 10 3.6 35.355 121.033 Oct. 22, 1969 56 34.830 121.340 23SW 14 x 50 5.4 34.649 121.471

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.5-3 Sheet 1 of 2 Revision 11 November 1996 DISPLACEMENT HISTORY OF FAULTS IN TH E SOUTHERN COAST RANGES OF CALIFORNIA

Fault Distance From Diablo Site, miles Time of Principal Activity Youngest Formation Cut By Fault Oldest Formation Capping Fault San Andreas 45 Mid-Tertiary - present Currently active Faults in ground between San

Andreas and Sur-Nacimiento-Rinconada, La Panza, Cuyama, Red Hills, East Huasna 18-45 Tertiary Pleistocene (possible Holocene) (Ref. 14) Not Known Sur-Nacimiento (zone) 18 Late Mesozoic, (Benioff-subduction zone)

Pleistocene (possible Holocene)

(Ref. 14) Late Quaternary terrace deposits (Ref. 11)

West Huasna-Suey 11 Late Tertiary Post late-Miocene Late Quaternary terrace deposits (Ref. 36)

Edna 4.5 Late Tertiary Plio-Pleistocene (Paso Robles Fm)

Late Pleistocene (Ref. 20)

Miguelito 5 Late Tertiary Early Pliocene (Miguelito Member of Careaga

Fm) (Ref. 21) Poss. capped by mid-Pliocene

Squire Member of Careaga Fm;

Plio-Pleistocene Paso Robles Fm DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE TABLE 2.5-3 Sheet 2 of 2 Revision 11 November 1996

Fault Distance From Diablo Site, miles Time of Principal Activity Youngest Formation Cut By Fault Oldest Formation Capping Fault Faulting in the Mesozoic rocks

near Pt. San Luis 4 Mesozoic Mesozoic Late Pleistocene (Ref. 20)

Unnamed faults near Pt. San

Simeon 35 Probable Tertiary Not known; possible Holocene Not known Offshore structural zone 4.5 Late Tertiary Possible Holocene (Ref. 19) (northern part)

Holocene-upper Pliocene (Ref.

19) (southern part)

Faults in the Santa Maria Basin 40 Not known Possible Pleistocene (orcutt Fm) (Ref. 23)

Pleistocene-Holocene

Revision22May2015

Revision22May2015 Revision22May2015 Revision22May2015 Revision22May2015 Revision22May2015 Revision22May2015 Revision22May2015 Revision22May2015 Revision23December2016 Revision23December2016

FSAR UPDATE UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 2.3-4 LOCATION OF METEOROLOGICAL MEASUREMENT SITES AT DIABLO CANYON AND VICINITY Revision 20 November 2011

Revision 11 November 1996 FIGURE 2.5-1 PLANT SITE LOCATION AND TOPOGRAPHY UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FSAR UPDATE Revision 11 November 1996 FIGURE 2.5-2 EARTHQUAKE EPICENTERS WITHIN 200 MILES OF PLANT SITE UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FSAR UPDATE Revision 11 November 1996 FIGURE 2.5-3 FAULTS AND EARTHQUAKE EPICENTERS WITHIN 75 MILES OF PLANT SITE (FOR EARTHQUAKES WITH ASSIGNED MAGNITUDES)

UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FSAR UPDATE Revision 11 November 1996 FIGURE 2.5-4 FAULTS AND EARTHQUAKE EPICENTERS WITHIN 75 MILES OF PLANT SITE (FOR EARTHQUAKES WITH ASSIGNED INTENSITIES ONLY)

UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FSAR UPDATE Revision 11 November 1996 FIGURE 2.5-5 GEOLOGIC AND TECTONIC MAP OF SOUTHERN COAST RANGES IN THE REGION OF PLANT SITE (SHEET 1 OF 2)

UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FSAR UPDATE Revision 11 November 1996 FIGURE 2.5-5 GEOLOGIC AND TECTONIC MAP OF SOUTHERN COAST RANGES IN THE REGION OF PLANT SITE (SHEET 2 OF 2)

UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FSAR UPDATE

"

Revision 11 November 1996 FIGURE 2.5-7 GEOLOGIC SECTION THROUGH EXPLORATORY OIL WELLS IN THE SAN LUIS RANGE UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FSAR UPDATE Revision 11 November 1996 FIGURE 2.5-8 GEOLOGIC MAP OF DIABLO CANYON COASTAL AREA UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FSAR UPDATE Revision 11 November 1996 FIGURE 2.5-9 GEOLOGIC MAP OF SWITCHYARD AREA UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FSAR UPDATE Revision 11 November 1996 FIGURE 2.5-10 GEOLOGIC SECTION THROUGH THE PLANT SITE UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FSAR UPDATE

Revision 11 November 1996 FIGURE 2.5-12 GEOLOGIC SECTIONS AND SKETCHES ALONG EXPLORATORY TRENCHES UNIT 1 DIABLO CANYON SITE FSAR UPDATE Revision 11 November 1996 FIGURE 2.5-13 GEOLOGIC SECTION THROUGH ALONG EXPLORATORY TRENCHES UNIT 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FSAR UPDATE Revision 11 November 1996 FIGURE 2.5-14 RELATIONSHIPS OF FAULTS AND SHEARS AT PLANT SITE UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FSAR UPDATE Revision 11 November 1996 FIGURE 2.5-15 GEOLOGIC MAP OF EXCAVATIONS FOR PLANT FACILITIES UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FSAR UPDATE Revision 11 November 1996 FIGURE 2.5-16 GEOLOGIC SECTIONS THROUGH EXCAVATIONS FOR PLANT FACILITIES UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FSAR UPDATE Revision 11 November 1996 FIGURE 2.5-17 PLAN OF EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FSAR UPDATE Revision 11 November 1996 FIGURE 2.5-18 SECTION A-A EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FSAR UPDATE Revision 11 November 1996 FIGURE 2.5-19 SOIL MODULE OF ELASTICITY AND POISSON'S RATIO UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FSAR UPDATE

Revision 11 November 1996 FIGURE 2.5-21 SMOOTH RESPONSE ACCELERATION SPECTRA - EARTHQUAKE "D" MODIFIED UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FSAR UPDATE Revision 11 November 1996 FIGURE 2.5-22 POWER PLANT SLOPE PLAN UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FSAR UPDATE Revision 11 November 1996 FIGURE 2.5-23 POWER PLANT SLOPE LOG OF BORING 1 UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FSAR UPDATE Revision 11 November 1996 FIGURE 2.5-24 POWER PLANT SLOPE LOG OF BORING 2 UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FSAR UPDATE Revision 11 November 1996 FIGURE 2.5-25 POWER PLANT SLOPE LOG OF BORING 3 UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FSAR UPDATE

Revision 11 November 1996 FIGURE 2.5-27 POWER PLANT SLOPE LOG OF TEST PIT 3 UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FSAR UPDATE Revision 11 November 1996 FIGURE 2.5-28 POWER PLANT SLOPE SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART AND KEY TO TEST AREA UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FSAR UPDATE Revision 11 November 1996 FIGURE 2.5-29 FREE FIELD SPECTRA HORIZONTAL HOSGRI 7.5M/BLUME UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FSAR UPDATE Revision 11 November 1996 FIGURE 2.5-30 FREE FIELD SPECTRA HORIZONTAL HOSGRI 7.5M/NEWMARK UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FSAR UPDATE Revision 11 November 1996 FIGURE 2.5-31 FREE FIELD SPECTRA VERTICAL HOSGRI 7.5M/BLUME UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FSAR UPDATE Revision 11 November 1996 FIGURE 2.5-32 FREE FIELD SPECTRA VERTICAL HOSGRI 7.5M/NEWMARK UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FSAR UPDATE

NOTES: 1. This figure is based on Reference 42, Figure 2.4 FIGURE 2.5-33 FREE FIELD SPECTRUM HORIZONTAL 1991 LTSP (84 TH PERCENTILE NON-EXCEEDANCE)

AS MODIFIED PER SSER-34UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FSAR UPDATE Revision 21 September 2013

NOTES: 1. This Figure is based on Reference 42, Figure 2.5.

FIGURE 2.5-34 FREE FIELD SPECTRUM VERTICAL 1991 LTSP (84 TH PERCENTILE NON-EXCEEDANCE) AS MODIFIED PER SSER-34 UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FSAR UPDATE Revision 21 September 2013 NOTES: 1. This Figure is based on Reference 40, Figure 7-2; however, the LTSP response spectrum has been adjusted in accordance with Reference 42, Figure 2.5. 2. This Figure is for comparison purposes only. Do not use for design. 3. Legend: 1977 Hosgri (Newmark) corresponds to the spectrum shown in Figure 2.5-30 1991 LTSP corresponds to the spectrum shown in Figure 2.5-33

FIGURE 2.5-35 FREE FIELD SPECTRA HORIZONTAL LTSP (PG&E 1998) GROUND MOTION VS. HOSGRI (NEWMARK 1977)

UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FSAR UPDATE Revision 21 September 2013Revision23December2016 NOTE: 1. This figure is based on Reference 52, Figure 1-1.

Revision 21 September 2013 FIGURE 2.5-36 MAP OF SHORELINE FAULT STUDY AREA UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FSAR UPDATE