ML23319A064

1 to Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Chapter 2, Site Characteristics

ML23319A064
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	10/31/2023
From:	Southern Nuclear Operating Co
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML23318A074	List: ML23318A067 ML23318A070 ML23319A062 ML23319A063 ML23319A064 ML23319A065 ML23319A066 ML23319A067 ML23319A068 ML23319A069 ML23319A071 ML23319A073 ML23319A075 ML23319A076 ML23319A077 ML23319A078 ML23319A079 ML23319A080 ML23319A082 ML23319A083 ML23319A084 NL-23-0806, Technical Requirements Manual
References
NL-23-0806
Download: ML23319A064 (1)

Text

FNP-FSAR-2 2.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2.1 GEOGRAPHY AND DEMOGRAPHY..................................................................2.1-1 2.1.1 Site Location ..................................................................................2.1-1 2.1.2 Site Description ..............................................................................2.1-1 2.1.2.1 Exclusion Area Control ..................................................................2.1-1 2.1.2.2 Boundaries for Establishing Effluent Release ................................2.1-2 2.1.3 Population and Population Distribution ..........................................2.1-2 2.1.3.1 Population within 10 Miles .............................................................2.1-3 2.1.3.2 Population Between 10 and 50 Miles .............................................2.1-3 2.1.3.3 Low Population Zone .....................................................................2.1-3 2.1.3.4 Transient Population ......................................................................2.1-3 2.1.3.5 Population Center ..........................................................................2.1-4 2.1.3.6 Public Facilities and Institutions .....................................................2.1-4 2.1.4 Uses of Adjacent Lands and Waters ..............................................2.1-5 2.2 NEARBY INDUSTRIAL, TRANSPORTATION, AND MILITARY FACILITIES.....2.2-1 2.2.1 Locations and Routes ....................................................................2.2-1 2.2.2 Descriptions ...................................................................................2.2-2 2.2.3 Evaluation ......................................................................................2.2-3 2.2.3.1 Effects of Accidents from Navigation on the Chattahoochee River .....................................................................2.2-3 2.2.3.2 Effects of Explosion of Chemicals, Flammable Gases, or Munitions .......................................................................2.2-4 2.2.3.3 Effects of Onsite Releases of Toxic Gases ....................................2.2-5 2.2.3.4 Effects of Air Traffic in the Vicinity of the Plant ..............................2.2-5 2.2.3.5 Collapse of Tall Structures .............................................................2.2-5 2.2.3.6 Effects of Nearby Fires ..................................................................2.2-5 2.3 METEOROLOGY ................................................................................................2.3-1 2.3.1 Regional Climatology .....................................................................2.3-1 2.3.1.1 Data Sources .................................................................................2.3-1 2.3.1.2 General Climate .............................................................................2.3-2 2.3.1.3 Severe Weather .............................................................................2.3-3 2.3.2 Local Meteorology ..........................................................................2.3-5 2.3.2.1 Data Sources .................................................................................2.3-5 2.3.2.2 Normal and Extreme Values of Meteorological Parameters ..........2.3-6 2-i REV 30 10/21

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2.3.2.3 Potential Influence of the Plant and its Facilities on Local Meteorology ..........................................................................2.3-8 2.3.2.4 Topographical Description .............................................................2.3-8 2.3.3 Onsite Meteorological Measurements Program .............................2.3-9 2.3.4 Short Term (Accident) Diffusion Estimates ....................................2.3-11 2.3.4.1 Objective ........................................................................................2.3-11 2.3.4.2 Calculations ...................................................................................2.3-11 2.3.5 Long Term (Routine) Diffusion Estimates ......................................2.3-15 2.3.5.1 Objective ........................................................................................2.3-15 2.3.5.2 Calculations ...................................................................................2.3-16 2.4 HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING ..........................................................................2.4-1 2.4.1 Hydrologic Description ...................................................................2.4-1 2.4.1.1 Site and Facilities ...........................................................................2.4-1 2.4.1.2 Hydrosphere ..................................................................................2.4-1 2.4.2 Floods ............................................................................................2.4-2 2.4.2.1 Flood History ..................................................................................2.4-2 2.4.2.2 Flood Design Considerations .........................................................2.4-2 2.4.3 Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) on Streams and Rivers..............2.4-3 2.4.3.1 Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) ........................................2.4-3 2.4.3.2 Precipitation Losses .......................................................................2.4-4 2.4.3.3 Runoff Model ..................................................................................2.4-4 2.4.3.4 Probable Maximum Flood Flow......................................................2.4-5 2.4.3.5 Water Level Determinations ...........................................................2.4-6 2.4.3.6 Coincident Wind Wave Activity ......................................................2.4-6 2.4.4 Potential Dam Failures (Seismically Induced)................................2.4-6 2.4.4.1 Reservoir Description .....................................................................2.4-6 2.4.4.2 Dam Failure Permutations .............................................................2.4-7 2.4.4.3 Unsteady Flow Analysis of Potential Dam Failures........................2.4-8 2.4.4.4 Water Level at Plant Site ...............................................................2.4-8 2-ii REV 30 10/21

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2.4.5 Probable Maximum Surge and Seiche Flooding ............................2.4-9 2.4.6 Probable Maximum Tsunami Flooding...........................................2.4-9 2.4.7 Ice Flooding ...................................................................................2.4-9 2.4.8 Cooling Water Canals and Reservoirs ...........................................2.4-9 2.4.8.1 Reservoirs ......................................................................................2.4-9 2.4.8.2 Spillway Intake and Discharge Canals ...........................................2.4-11 2.4.9 Channel Diversions ........................................................................2.4-12 2.4.10 Flooding Protection Requirements .................................................2.4-12 2.4.11 Low Water Considerations .............................................................2.4-14 2.4.11.1 Low Flow in Rivers and Streams ...................................................2.4-14 2.4.11.2 Low Water Resulting From Surges ................................................2.4-15 2.4.11.3 Historical Low Water ......................................................................2.4-15 2.4.11.4 Future Control ................................................................................2.4-15 2.4.11.5 Plant Requirements .......................................................................2.4-16 2.4.11.6 Heat Sink Dependability Requirements .........................................2.4-16 2.4.12 Environmental Acceptance of Effluents .........................................2.4-16 2.4.13 Ground Water ................................................................................2.4-17 2.4.13.1 Description and Onsite Use ...........................................................2.4-17 2.4.13.2 Sources ..........................................................................................2.4-22 2.4.13.3 Accident Effects .............................................................................2.4-26 2.4.13.4 Monitoring and Safeguard Procedures ..........................................2.4-27 2.4.13.5 Water Quality .................................................................................2.4-27 2.4.14 Mechanical Specifications and Emergency Operation Requirements ................................................................2.4-27 2.4.14.1 River Intake ....................................................................................2.4-27 2.4.14.2 Emergency Cooling Pond Spillway ................................................2.4-28 2.5 GEOLOGY AND SEISMOLOGY .........................................................................2.5-1 2.5.1 Basic Geologic and Seismic Information........................................2.5-2 2.5.1.1 Regional Geology ..........................................................................2.5-2 2.5.1.2 Site Geology ..................................................................................2.5-17 2.5.2 Vibratory Ground Motion ................................................................2.5-25 2-iii REV 30 10/21

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2.5.2.1 Site Geologic Conditions ................................................................2.5-25 2.5.2.2 Underlying Tectonic Structures ......................................................2.5-25 2.5.2.3 Behavior During Prior Earthquakes ...............................................2.5-25 2.5.2.4 Engineering Properties of Site Materials ........................................2.5-25 2.5.2.5 Earthquake History ........................................................................2.5-25 2.5.2.6 Correlation of Epicenters with Geologic Structures........................2.5-26 2.5.2.7 Identification of Active Faults .........................................................2.5-26 2.5.2.8 Description of Active Faults ...........................................................2.5-26 2.5.2.9 Maximum Earthquake ....................................................................2.5-26 2.5.2.10 Safe Shutdown Earthquake ...........................................................2.5-27 2.5.2.11 1/2 Safe Shutdown Earthquake .....................................................2.5-27 2.5.3 Surface Faulting .............................................................................2.5-27 2.5.3.1 Geologic Conditions of the Site ......................................................2.5-28 2.5.3.2 Evidence of Fault Offset .................................................................2.5-28 2.5.3.3 Identification of Active Faults .........................................................2.5-28 2.5.3.4 Earthquakes Associated with Active Faults ...................................2.5-29 2.5.3.5 Correlation of Epicenters with Active Faults...................................2.5-29 2.5.3.6 Description of Active Faults ...........................................................2.5-29 2.5.3.7 Faulting Investigation Zone ............................................................2.5-29 2.5.3.8 Justification for Nonexistence of Surface Faulting .........................2.5-29 2.5.4 Stability of Subsurface Materials ....................................................2.5-29 2.5.4.1 Geologic Features ..........................................................................2.5-29 2.5.4.2 Properties of Underlying Materials .................................................2.5-30 2.5.4.3 Plot Plan .........................................................................................2.5-30 2.5.4.4 Soil and Rock Characteristics ........................................................2.5-30 2.5.4.5 Excavations and Backfill ................................................................2.5-31 2.5.4.6 Ground Water Conditions ..............................................................2.5-31 2.5.4.7 Dynamic Loading Response ..........................................................2.5-31 2.5.4.8 Liquefaction Potential .....................................................................2.5-31 2.5.4.9 Earthquake Design Basis ...............................................................2.5-32 2.5.4.10 Static Analyses ..............................................................................2.5-32 2.5.4.11 Criteria and Design Methods .........................................................2.5-32 2.5.4.12 Techniques to Improve Subsurface Conditions .............................2.5-33 2.5.5 Slope Stability ................................................................................2.5-33 2.5.5.1 Slope Characteristics .....................................................................2.5-33 2.5.5.2 Design Criteria and Analyses .........................................................2.5-33 2.5.5.3 Logs of Core Borings .....................................................................2.5-34 2-iv REV 30 10/21

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2.5.5.4 Compaction Specifications .............................................................2.5-34 APPENDIX 2A SELECTION OF TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE CATEGORIES TO DEFINE AVERAGE PASQUILL STABILITY CATEGORIES BASED ON DATA COLLECTED AT THE FARLEY SITE APPENDIX 2B SUBSURFACE AND FOUNDATIONS 2-v REV 30 10/21

FNP-FSAR-2 LIST OF TABLES 2.1-1 Public Facilities and Institutions - Houston County, Alabama 2.1-2 Churches Within 5-Mile Radius of Plant Site - Houston County, Alabama 2.1-3 Churches Within 5-Mile Radius of Plant Site - Early County, Georgia 2.1-4 Agricultural Products 2.1-5 Commercial and Sport Fish Species Near Plant Site 2.1-6 Estimated Annual Quantity of Fish and Shellfish Taken from the River System and Apalachicola Bay 2.1-7 Recreation Facilities Within a 5-Mile Radius of Plant Site 2.2-1 Industrial Facilities Within 5 Miles of Farley Site 2.2-2 Deleted 2.2-3 Chlorine Storage Locations and Quantities 2.3-1 Estimate of Recurrence Interval for Various Rainfall Rates for Dothan 2.3-2 Maximum Precipitation Recorded for Dothan (1941-1950) 2.3-3 Precipitation Averages and Comparative Data for Dothan, Alabama 2.3-4 Temperature Averages and Comparative Data for Dothan, Alabama 2.3-5 Frequency of Precipitation and Temperature, Dothan, Alabama 2.3-6 Climatological Summary 2.3-7 Average Hourly Relative Humidity, Dothan, Alabama 2.3-8 Joint Frequency of Wind Speed (33 ft) and Direction vs.

Vertical Temperature 2.3-8A Joint Frequency of Wind Speed and Direction vs. T - 4/72 - 3/73 2.3-8B Joint Frequency Tables of Wind Speed and Direction 2.3-8C Joint Frequency Tables of Wind Speed and Direction 2.3-9 Joint Frequency of Wind Speed (33 ft) and Direction vs. Wind Direction Range (50 ft) 2.3-10 Meteorological Instrumentation at Farley Site 2.3-11 Joint Frequency of Vertical Temperature Difference and Wind Range vs. Wind Speed (33 ft) 2.3-12 Estimates of Atmospheric Diffusion for Use in Accident Evaluations 2-vi REV 30 10/21

FNP-FSAR-2 LIST OF TABLES 2.3-12A Estimates of Atmospheric Diffusion for Use in Accident Evaluations Based on Farley Site Data (4/1/72 - 3/31/73) 2.3-13 Temperature Difference and Range Groups for Determining Pasquill Stability Categories 2.3-14 List of Computer Runs 2.3-15 Gaseous Discharge Points 2.3-16 Vent Design Information 2.3-17 Tabulation of Input Assumptions for Calculations at Farley Plant Site 2.3-18 Atmospheric Dispersion Factors 2.3-19 Atmospheric Dispersion Factors 2.3-20 Atmospheric Dispersion Factors 2.3-21 Diffusion and Deposition Estimates for All Receptor Locations 2.3-22 Diffusion and Deposition Estimates for All Receptor Locations 2.4-1 Gauging Station Records - Chattahoochee River Basin - Chattahoochee at Alaga and Columbia, Alabama - Annual Flood Peaks 2.4-2 Reservoir Elevations at Commencement of Storm 2.4-3 Ground Water Use, Houston County, Alabama, 1970 2.4-4 Public Water Supplies in Houston County, Alabama, 1971 2.4-5 Water Wells Within 3 Miles of Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, February 1973.

2.4-6 Piezometer Installation Data 2.4-7 Results of Water Analyses 2.4-8 6-Hour Unit Hydrographs Used Above Columbia Lock and Dam in Development of Maximum Flood (Instantaneous Discharge in ft3/s) 2.4-9 Farley Well Water System - Well Data 2.5-1 Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale, 1931 2.5-2 Chronological Listing of Earthquakes Within 250 Miles of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant 2.5-3 Correlation of Epicenters With Tectonic Provinces 2-vii REV 30 10/21

FNP-FSAR-2 LIST OF FIGURES 2.1-1 Plant Location 2.1-2 Plant Site and Vicinity 2.1-3 Plant Boundary, Exclusion Areas, and Easements 2.1-4 Plant Boundary for Effluent Release 2.1-5 Population Distribution 0-3 Miles 2.1-6 Population Distribution 3-5 Miles 2.1-7 Population Distribution 5-30 Miles 2.1-8 Population Distribution 30-50 Miles 2.1-9 Population Centers - 50 Mile Radius 2.1-10 Facilities and Institutions - Alabama 2.1-11 Facilities and Institutions - Georgia 2.2-1 Alert Area A-211 2.3-1 Total Hail Reports 3/4 Inch and Greater 1955-1967 By 2°Squares 2.3-2 Total Number of Hail Reports 3/4 Inch and Greater, 1955-1967 By 1° Squares 2.3-3 Total Tornadoes 1955-1967 By 2° Squares 2.3-4 Total Tornadoes 1955-1967 By 1° Squares 2.3-5 Total Windstorms, 50 Knots and Greater 1955-1967, By 2° Squares 2.3-6 Total Number of Windstorms, 50 Knots and Greater 1955-1967, By 1° Squares 2.3-7 Monthly Wind Roses for Dothan Airport (1950-1954) 2.3-8 Seasonal Wind Roses for Dothan Airport (1950-1954) 2.3-9 Annual Wind Rose for Dothan Airport (1950-1954) 2.3-10 Monthly Average and Average Daily Extremes of Dry Bulb Temperature (Dothan Airport 1950-1954) 2.3-11 Monthly Average and Average of Daily Extremes of Wet Bulb Temperature (Dothan Airport 1950-1954) 2.3-12 Monthly Average and Average of Daily Extremes of Dew Point Temperature (Dothan Airport 1950-1954) 2.3-13 Monthly Average and Average of Daily Extremes of Relative Humidity (Dothan Airport 1950-1954) 2-viii REV 30 10/21

FNP-FSAR-2 LIST OF FIGURES 2.3-14 Monthly Average and Average of Daily Extremes of Absolute Humidity (Dothan Airport 1950-1954) 2.3-15 Annual Precipitation Wind Rose for Dothan Airport (1950-1954) 2.3-16 Seasonal Precipitation Wind Rose for Dothan Airport (1950-1954) 2.3-17 Monthly Average and Average of Daily Extremes of Visibility (Dothan Airport 1950-1954) 2.3-18 Monthly Wind Roses for Farley Site Data (50 ft) (4/71-3/72) 2.3-19 Seasonal Wind Roses for Farley Site Data (50 ft) (4/71-3/72) 2.3-20 Annual Wind Rose for Farley Site Data (50 ft) (4/71-3/72) 2.3-21 Cumulative Probability of Hourly Diffusion Conditions 2.3-22 Cumulative Probability of Hourly Diffusion Conditions 2.3-23 Cumulative Probability of Hourly Diffusion Conditions During Various Periods Following an Accident (NRC T Model) 2.3-24 Plant Site and Vicinity Topography (50-Mile Radius) 2.3-25 Plant Site and Vicinity Topography (5-Mile Radius) 2.3-26 Plant Site and Vicinity Topographic Cross-Sections 2.3-27 Unit 1 Plan Showing Site Topography and Plant Structures 2.4-1 Site Topographic Map 2.4-2 Probable Maximum Precipitation Adjustment Factors 2.4-3 Isohyetal Map of Probable Maximum Precipitation-Chattahoochee River 2.4-4 Probable Maximum Flood Hydrographs 2.4-5 Storm Hydrograph - Area 15 2.4-6 Probable Maximum Flood Hydrographs Without Upstream Reservoir Effects 2.4-7 Chattahoochee River - Location of River Valley Cross Sections 2.4-8 Chattahoochee River - River Valley Cross Sections 2.4-9 Chattahoochee River - River Valley Cross Sections 2.4-10 Computed Profile of Various Floods 2.4-11 Stage Discharge Relationship at River Mile 44.3 2-ix REV 30 10/21

FNP-FSAR-2 LIST OF FIGURES 2.4-12 Chattahoochee-Flint-Apalachicola Drainage Basin 2.4-13 Middle Chattahoochee Project Stream Profiles 2.4-14 Summary of Data on Dams 2.4-15 Walter F. George Lock and Dam 2.4-16 West Point Dam 2.4-17 Dam Failure Surge on Standard Project Flood 2.4-18 Storage Cooling Pond Spillway Drop Basin and Outfall 2.4-19 Cooling Pond Spillway Rating Curve 2.4-20 Cooling Pond Inflow-Outflow Curves 2.4-21 Cooling Pond Storage Curve 2.4-22 Well Locations and Unconfined Water Contours 2.4-23 Natural Ground Water Conditions 2.4-24 Post Construction Ground Water Conditions 2.4-25 Typical Piezometer Installation 2.4-26 through Elevations in P-2 Piezometers - Moodys Branch 2.4-32 2.4-33 through Elevations in P-3 Piezometers - Upper Lisbon Formation 2.4-46 2.4-47 through Elevations in P-4 Piezometers - Lower Lisbon Formation 2.4-53 2.4-54 through Elevations in P-5 Piezometers - Tallahatta Formation 2.4-60 2.4-61 (Sheet 1 of 10) Hydrographs of Group No. 625 Piezometers P-1, P-2, P-4, P-5 2.4-61 (Sheet 2 of 10) Hydrographs of Group No. 631 Piezometers P-1, P-2, P-3, P-4, P-5 2.4-61 (Sheet 3 of 10) Hydrographs of Group No. 640 Piezometers P-1, P-2, P-3, P-4, P-5 2-x REV 30 10/21

FNP-FSAR-2 LIST OF FIGURES 2.4-61 (Sheet 4 of 10) Hydrographs of Group No. 647 Piezometers P-1, P-2, P-3, P-4, P-5 2.4-61 (Sheet 5 of 10) Hydrographs of Group No. 655 Piezometers P-2, P-3, P-4, P-5 2.4-61 (Sheet 6 of 10) Hydrographs of Group No. 661 Piezometers P-2, P-3, P-4, P-5 2.4-61 (Sheet 7 of 10) Hydrographs of Piezometers 711 & 712 2.4-61 (Sheet 8 of 10) Hydrographs of Group No. 713 Piezometers P-1, P-2, P-3, P-4, P-5 2.4-61 (Sheet 9 of 10) Hydrographs of Group No. 714 Piezometers P-1, P-2, P-3, and Observation Well No. 1 2.4-61 (Sheet 10 of 10) Hydrographs of Group No. 715 Piezometers P-1, P-2, P-3, and Observation Well No. 2 2.4-62 P-1(b) and P-2 Unconfined Water Levels 2.4-63 P-3 Unconfined Water Levels 2.4-64 P-5 Unconfined Water Levels 2.4-65 Typical Observation Well Installation 2.4-66 Spillway-Rating, Area Capacity Curves for Major Upstream Dams through 2.4-68 2.4-69 Spillway-Rating, Area Capacity Curves for Major Upstream Dams 2.4-70 Decay of Amplitude for Surge Wave 2.4-71 Walter F. George Dam Break Surge Stage 2.5-1 Regional Physiographic Map 2.5-2 Regional Geologic Map 2.5-3 Regional Tectonic Map 2.5-3A Supplemental Tectonic Map 2.5-4 Regional Geologic Column 2.5-5 Regional Geologic Profile, East-West 2.5-6 Regional Geologic Profile, North-South 2.5-7 Crustal Movement Map 2.5-8 Top of Lisbon Formation 2-xi REV 30 10/21

FNP-FSAR-2 LIST OF FIGURES 2.5-9 Site Geologic Map 2.5-10 Aerial Geologic Map 2.5-11 Site Geologic Column 2.5-12 Seismic Risk Map of the U.S.

2.5-13 Tectonic and Epicenter Map 2.5-14 Isoseismal Map of 1886 Charleston, S.C., Earthquake 2.5-15 Letter of Review, Rev. D. Lineham, S.J. Weston Observatory 2-xii REV 30 10/21

FNP-FSAR-2 2.0 - SITE CHARACTERISTICS 2.1 GEOGRAPHY AND DEMOGRAPHY 2.1.1 SITE LOCATION The site is located in southeast Alabama on the west side of the Chattahoochee River about 6 miles north of the intersection of U. S. Highway No. 84 and State Highway No. 95. It is in the northeastern section of Houston County, Alabama, just across the river from Early County, Georgia. The site is about 100 miles southeast of Montgomery, Alabama, and about 180 miles south-southwest of Atlanta, Georgia. The location of the site is shown in figures 2.1-1 and 2.1-2.

The coordinates of the reactor centerlines are as follows:

Unit Latitude and Longitude UTM Coordinates 1 31 degrees - 13 min - 21.23s N N 3,455,620.1 meters 85 degrees - 06 min - 41.93s W E 679,872.5 meters 2 31 degrees - 13 min - 24.01s N N 3,455,705.8 meters 85 degrees - 06 min - 41.91s W E 679,871.6 meters 2.1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION Alabama Power Company owns the 1850-acre site with boundaries as indicated on figure 2.1-3.

The exclusion area and U. S. Army Corps of Engineers spoilage and flowage easements are also indicated on figure 2.1-3. The exclusion area is bounded by circles with radii 4140 ft centered on the reactor containment centerlines.

2.1.2.1 Exclusion Area Control Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC) retains the right to control any and all activities within the exclusion area. The responsibility for implementing this authority lies with the plant supervisory staff. There is no one living on site. There is no one working within the exclusion area except for employees of SNC or its agents. The only activity unrelated to plant operations contemplated within the exclusion area is operation of the visitor information center indicated on figure 2.1-3.

Procedures have been established for control of visitors to the site.

2.1-1 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 2.1.2.2 Boundaries for Establishing Effluent Release 2.1.2.2.1 Limits The property lines as shown on figure 2.1-4 are the boundary lines for determining effluent release limits with the exception that credit is not taken for ownership of the river bed. Control of access to this area will be maintained through implementation of the security plan described in subsection 13.7.2. Effluent releases will not exceed the limits of the Technical Specifications at the boundary.

The distance from the containment vent stacks to the boundary line is shown on figure 2.1-4. The location of the waste discharge structure is found on drawing D-170180, Sh. 1. The nearest boundary to the vent stacks is at a distance of 4120 ft for Unit 1 and 4150 ft for Unit 2.

2.1.3 POPULATION AND POPULATION DISTRIBUTION Population projections within the 0- to 5-mile radius of the plant site were based on a dwelling count of the area. Population was then estimated on the "average population per occupied unit" from the 1960 census. Since the study was undertaken prior to 1970 census data, a comparison indicated the 1960 data gave a higher or more conservative estimate than the 1970 census.

Population projections within the 5- to 50-mile radius are based on estimates derived from reference 1.

Population projections for the 5- to 50-mile radius were made in the following manner:

1. Total population and rural population for each county was projected for the years 1975, 1985, 1995, 2005, and 2015, by linear interpolation of the estimates mentioned above.

2. The major city population projections were based on percentage growth as estimated for the county.

3. The rural population of each county was divided by the area of that county.

4. The area of each county in the radial sectors was determined.

5. Rural population in a sector was determined as the product of the area and the population per square mile.

6. Total population was the sum of the rural population and the population of any cities in the sector.

2.1-2 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 2.1.3.1 Population Within 10 miles The site is located in a sparsely populated region of approximately 2,300 permanent residents within a 5-mile radius. This estimate is based on a count of occupied dwellings within a 5-mile radius. Approximately one-half of this number are located in and around the town of Columbia, the center of which is approximately 5 miles north of the plant. The city and community populations shown on figure 2.1-2 are from the 1970 Census.

The largest town within a 10-mile radius is Ashford, 8.3 miles southwest of the plant, with an estimated 1975 population of 2,220.

The projected population distributions in the site region for the years 1975, 1985, 1995, 2005, and 2015 are shown on figures 2.1-5, 2.1-6, and 2.1-7. The projections are distributed over 16 direction sectors and increments of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10-mile distances from the plant.

2.1.3.2 Population Between 10 and 50 miles Figures 2.1-7 and 2.1-8 show the projected population in the site region for the years 1975, 1985, and 1995, 2005, and 2015 in the same manner as used in subsection 2.1.3.1 for increments of 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50-mile distances from the plant site. A map showing location of major population centers within a radius of 50 miles from the plant site is found in figure 2.1-9.

2.1.3.3 Low Population Zone Although the population as shown in subsection 2.1.3.1 is low up to distances greater than 10 miles, the low population distance for licensing purposes has been conservatively assumed to be 2 miles. The projected population within this zone is shown on figure 2.1-5.

2.1.3.4 Transient Population Variation in population on a seasonal basis is insignificant. Highway traffic causes the major variation in population distribution during the working day and, except for employees of the Farley Plant, all of this traffic has as its destination points outside the low population zone. Elizabeth Church, 1 mile west of the plant, is the only public facility or institution located within the low population zone.

Transient population for recreational activities at parks along the Chattahoochee River is slight.

The estimated annual visitor-days at Columbia Lock and Dam is 200,000, with an estimated daily peak attendance of 2350. The estimated annual visitor-days for Omusee Park is 35,000, with an estimated daily peak attendance of 800. Both of these public facilities are outside the low population zone. Annual estimates are based on 1972 total visitations. The 1973 Labor Day weekend count was used for daily peak visitations.

2.1-3 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 2.1.3.5 Population Center The population center as defined in 10 CFR Part 100 is Dothan, Alabama, located 16.5 miles west of the plant, with projected 1975 population of 38,000.

2.1.3.6 Public Facilities and Institutions There are no schools, hospitals, prisons, city halls, camps, parks, churches, or fire departments in Henry County, Alabama, within a 10-mile radius of the plant site. Firefighting activities within this area are carried out by the County Forestry Service. Public facilities and institutions located in Houston County, Alabama, within a 10-mile radius of the plant site are shown in table 2.1-1. The only public facilities in Early County, Georgia, within a 10-mile radius of the plant site are George Andrews Lock and Dam and Fanny Askew Memorial D.A.R. Park. As in Henry County, firefighting activities within this area are carried out by the County Forestry Service. Churches located in Houston County, Alabama, and Early County, Georgia, are shown in tables 2.1-2 and 2.1-3, respectively.

Figures 2.1-10 and 2.1-11 show the locations of all public facilities and institutions within a 10-mile radius of the plant site.

2.1.4 USES OF ADJACENT LANDS AND WATERS About 45 percent of the land area in the site region is wooded and is used for the production of pulp wood and timber. The remaining land area is used for various agricultural purposes as indicated in table 2.1-4.

Milk is produced in the general area for both local consumption and shipment to processors.

However, there are no commercial dairy farms within a 10-mile radius of the site. The nearest dairy farm is the Brooks Silcox Farm, Route 1, Ashford, Alabama. This farm is located 5 miles west-southwest of Ashford, a distance of 10.1 miles from the plant site.

Commercial and sport fish species occurring in the Chattahoochee River and its impoundments are listed in table 2.1-5. The river is used to some extent for recreation and sports fishing, with catches consisting mainly of catfish, bream, and bass. However, the majority of such activities take place in Columbia Reservoir, 3 river miles upstream, and downstream in Lake Seminole.

Forty-four river miles downstream from the plant site the Chattahoochee River joins the Flint River to form the Apalachicola River. Located at this confluence is Jim Woodruff Dam, which forms 37,500 acre Lake Seminole.

In the coastal waters near the mouth of the Apalachicola River (144 miles downstream from the site), shrimp, oysters, crabs, mullet, and other estuarine species are harvested. Estimates of annual fish, oyster, and shrimp harvests are given in table 2.1-6.

There are four manufacturing concerns located on the east side of the river about 3.5 to 4 miles south of the plant. These are: Ross-Wright Chemical Company; Gulf Fiber Mill; the plywood plant at Cedar Springs, Georgia; and the paper mill at Cedar Springs, Georgia. The paper company at 2.1-4 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 Cedar Springs, Georgia, is the only one of these utilizing water from the Chattahoochee for processing. Industries below Jim Woodruff Lock and Dam which use the river are Gulf Power Company's Scholz Steam Plant, St. Joe Paper Company, and Basic Magnesium Company. The city of Port St. Joe, Florida, uses water purchased from the St. Joe Paper Company for municipal water supply. River water has been used intermittently for irrigation by two downstream farms.

Locations and quantities of river water used are given in paragraph 2.4.1.2 for agricultural, industrial, and municipal users.

Recreation facilities located within a 10-mile radius of the plant site are listed in table 2.1-7.

2.1-5 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 REFERENCES

1. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV. Population By County - Historic (1940-1970) and Protected (1980-2020) Region IV. Atlanta, Georgia. EPA, 1972.

2.1-6 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.1-1 PUBLIC FACILITIES AND INSTITUTIONS HOUSTON COUNTY, ALABAMA Enrollment/ Distance from Classification Name Location Capacity Plant (Miles)

Schools Houston Co. High Columbia 574 5 Webb Junior High Houston Co. 447 10 Ashford Elem. Houston Co. 1,373 8 Ashford Jr. High (Football Stadium) 4,000 Ashford High (Gymnasium) 1,100 Ashford Academy Houston Co. 378 (Football Stadium) 1,400 (Gymnasium) 500 Harmon School Houston Co. 170 9.5 Police Depts. Columbia Police Dept. Columbia 5 Ashford Police Dept. Ashford 8 Fire Depts. Columbia Fire Department Columbia 5 Ashford Fire Department Ashford 8 Webb Volunteer Fire Dept. Webb 10 Houston Co. Fire Tower Houston Co. 8 Ambulance Co. Ashford Ambulance Co. Ashford 8 Hospitals None Prisons None City Halls None Parks Chattahoochee State Park South of Gordon 12 Columbia Lock and Dam South of Columbia 3 Omussee Park South of Columbia 4 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.1-2 CHURCHES WITHIN 5-MILE RADIUS OF PLANT SITE HOUSTON COUNTY, ALABAMA Distance From True Name Location Plant (Miles) Bearing Ebenezer Houston Co. 4.75 306 degrees Mount Zion Houston Co. 4 300 degrees Macedonia Houston Co. 2.25 280 degrees Elizabeth Houston Co. 1 280 degrees Oak Grove Houston Co. 4.75 268 degrees Union Springs Houston Co. 4.25 231 degrees Philadelphia Houston Co. 4.25 185 degrees United Methodist Columbia 5 355 degrees First Baptist Columbia 5 355 degrees Presbyterian Columbia 5 355 degrees St. Luke Columbia 5 355 degrees St. Stephen's Columbia 5 355 degrees First Baptist Columbia 5 355 degrees CHURCHES WITHIN 10-MILE RADIUS OF PLANT SITE HOUSTON COUNTY, ALABAMA Pleasant Plain Houston Co. 8.75 310 degrees Spring Hill Houston Co. 8.50 184 degrees Cedar Springs Houston Co. 5.75 290 degrees Spring Field Houston Co. 7.25 270 degrees Pleasant Grove Houston Co. 6.25 245 degrees Liberty Houston Co. 5.50 223 degrees Antioch Houston Co. 9 225 degrees Rocky Creek Houston Co. 9 215 degrees Pleasant Hill Houston Co. 9.25 193 degrees Spring Hill Houston Co. 6 334 degrees Center Houston Co. 8.50 300 degrees First Baptist Ashford 8 250 degrees Wayside Baptist Ashford 8 250 degrees United Methodist Ashford 8 250 degrees Assembly of God Ashford 8 250 degrees Church of God Ashford 8 250 degrees Church of God by Faith Ashford 8 250 degrees Mt. Carmel Ashford 8 250 degrees Pilgrim Rest Ashford 8 250 degrees United Methodist Ashford 8 250 degrees REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.1-3 CHURCHES WITHIN 5-MILE RADIUS OF PLANT SITE EARLY COUNTY, GEORGIA Distance From True Name Plant (Miles) Bearing Assembly of God 5.0 113 degrees Ebenezer 4.1 30 degrees Good Hope 4.4 130 degrees Liberty 3.8 138 degrees CHURCHES WITHIN 10-MILE RADIUS OF PLANT SITE EARLY COUNTY, GEORGIA Freeman Chapel 9.4 19 degrees Shiloh 9.6 18 degrees Zion Watch 8.2 46 degrees Morning Star 6.1 31 degrees Sawhatchee 8.1 55 degrees Zion Missionary Baptist 8.0 62 degrees Seventh Day Adventist 6.5 83 degrees Allen's Chapel A.M.E. 7.7 86 degrees Pineview Baptist 10.0 88 degrees Bethel Springs Assembly of 9.3 101 degrees God Bethel 9.1 107 degrees Freewill Baptist 5.4 105 degrees Cedar Springs Baptist 5.4 121 degrees Cedar Springs Methodist 5.4 116 degrees St. Paul A.M.E. 6.6 139 degrees Bethel A.M.E. 8.3 140 degrees REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.1-4 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS(a)

HOUSTON COUNTY EARLY COUNTY Crop Acres Planted Yield Per Acre Acres Planted Yield Per Acre Peanuts 32,400 2,438 lb 30,950 2,273 lb Cotton 8,000 200 lb 6,200 350 lb Soybeans 4,500 30 bu 2,500 30 bu Corn 40,000 55 bu 29,021 70 bu Grain Sorghum 6,000 30 bu 8,000 1.5 tons Wheat 5,000 30 bu 8,500 35 bu Oats 800 60 bu 12,000 24 tons (b) (b)

Vegetables 9,800 (75% (b) tomatoes)

Pecan 10,000 trees 600,000 lb (b) (b)

Timber 46,000 cords 25,000 cords 5,620,000 board ft 3,000,000 board ft Poultry 280,000 chickens 12,000 chickens 3,000,000 doz eggs 131,000 doz eggs Hogs 102,300 head 40,000 head Beef 17,000 head 20,000 head

a. Figures are for the year 1971.

b. Not available.

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.1-5 COMMERCIAL AND SPORT FISH SPECIES NEAR PLANT SITE (Chattahoochee River)

Relative Scientific Name Common Name Abundance Amia Calva Bowfin Fair Esox americanus Redfin Pickerel Abundant Esox niger Chain Pickerel Abundant Cyprinus carpio Carp Abundant Carpiodes cyprinus Quillback Abundant Erimyzon sucetta Lake Chubsucker Fair Exnytrema melanops Spotted Sucker Abundant Moxostoma carinatum River Redhorse Abundant Moxostoma lachneri Great Jumprock Abundant Moxostoma poecilurum Blacktail Redhorse Abundant Moxostoma Sp. Redhorse Abundant Ictalurus brunneus Snail Bullhead Abundant Ictalurus catus White Catfish Rare Ictalurus natalis Yellow Bullhead Abundant Ictalurus nebulosus Brown Bullhead Abundant Ictalurus punctatus Channel Catfish Abundant Ictalurus serracanthus Spotted Catfish Abundant Morone Chrysops White Bass Abundant Ambloplites rupestris Rock Bass Rare Contrarchus macropterus Flier Rare Lepomis gulosus Warmouth Fair Lepomis auritus Redbreast Sunfish Fair Lepomis cyanellus Green Sunfish Abundant Lepomis humilis Orange spotted Sunfish Rare Lepomis macroshirus Bluegill Abundant Lepomis marginatus Dollar Sunfish Fair Lepomis megalotis Longear Sunfish Abundant Lepomis microlophus Redear Sunfish Abundant Lepomis punctatus Spotted Sunfish Fair Mecropterus coosae Redeye Bass Rare Micropterus punctulatus Spotted Bass Fair Micropterus salmoides Largemouth Bass Abundant Pomixis annularis White Crappie Abundant Pomixis nigromaculatus Black Crappie Abundant Perca Flavescens Yellow Perch Rare REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.1-6 ESTIMATED ANNUAL QUANTITY OF FISH AND SHELLFISH TAKEN FROM THE RIVER SYSTEM AND APALACHICOLA BAY Category Quantity Fish Chattahoochee River 1,025,000 lb and Lake Seminole (including the Flint River portion of the lake)

Apalachicola River 900,400 lb (north of the bay)

Apalachicola Bay 264,000 lb Oysters Apalachicola 2,000,000 lb (meat)

Shrimp Apalachicola Bay 265,000 lb REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.1-7 RECREATION FACILITIES WITHIN 5-MILE RADIUS OF PLANT SITE Name Location Facilities and Uses Columbia Lock 1 Mile S. Water Impoundment, and Dam of Columbia Water Transportation, Picnicking, Fishing, and Water-skiing Chattahoochee Cottages, Trailers River and Campsites -

Boating, Fishing and Water-Skiing Omussee Park 1 Mile S. Parking Area, Picnic of Columbia Tables, and Boat Launching Ramp -

Picnicking, and Fishing RECREATION FACILITIES WITHIN 10-MILE RADIUS OF PLANT SITE Chattahoochee Forested Area State Park 7 Miles S. 17-Acre Fresh-water of Gordon off Lake U.S. 84 (just Fresh-Water Stream connects with 10-mile radius)

REV 21 5/08

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY PLANT LOCATION NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.1-1

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY PLANT SITE AND VICINITY NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.1-2

REV 25 4/14 JOSEPH M. FARLEY PLANT BOUNDARY, EXCLUSION AREAS AND EASEMENTS NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.1-3

REV 25 4/14 JOSEPH M. FARLEY PLANT BOUNDARY FOR EFFLUENT RELEASE NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.1-4

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [POPULATION DISTRIBUTION 0 - 3 MILES NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.1-5]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [POPULATION DISTRIBUTION 3 - 5 MILES NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.1-6]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [POPULATION DISTRIBUTION 5 - 30 MILES NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.1-7]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [POPULATION DISTRIBUTION 30 - 50 MILES NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.1-8]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY POPULATION CENTERS 50 MILE RADIUS NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.1-9

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY FACILITIES AND INSTITUTIONS ALABAMA NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.1-10

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY FACILITIES AND INSTITUTIONS GEORGIA NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.1-11

FNP-FSAR-2 2.2 NEARBY INDUSTRIAL, TRANSPORTATION AND MILITARY FACILITIES 2.2.1 LOCATIONS AND ROUTES Figures 2.1-10 and 2.1-11 are maps indicating the location of all manufacturing plants, chemical plants, storage facilities, airports, and land and water transportation routes. No military bases or firing ranges, oil pipelines, or tank farms are located within a 10-mile radius of the plant site. A 6-in. gas pipeline serves the paper company at Cedar Springs, Georgia, as shown on figure 2.1-11. This line is approximately 2.5 miles east of the main plant building.

Traffic of the Farley Plant employees not being included, county and farm-to-market roads within a 10-mile radius of the plant site have fewer than 100 vehicles per road per day. Most truck traffic on these roads consists of pulpwood loads and local delivery of commodities and farm products. State Highway 95, a hard surface secondary road, forms the west boundary of the site property and is used principally for local transportation. It has an average traffic per 24-h period of 503. Located about 6 miles south of the plant site is U. S. Highway 84, with average traffic for a 24-h period of 3110. State Highway 52, about 5 miles to the north, has an average traffic per 24 h of 2032. Commercial truck traffic occurs on both U. S. 84 and State 52.

(The above are 1970 figures for average traffic within a 10-mile radius of the plant site.)

Two commercial railroads traverse the region within a 10-mile radius of the plant site. The Central of Georgia Railroad, passing about 5 miles north of the plant, has one freight train making one round trip daily. There are no restrictions as to what is hauled. Passing about 6 miles south is the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad, having four through freights and two passenger trains per day. The freights have no hauling restrictions. (The above represents information obtained at the time of plant licensing.)

Also within a 10-mile radius of the plant site are two privately owned industrial railroads: The Chattahoochee Railroad, owned by the paper company at Cedar Springs, Georgia, and the Alabama Power Company lead track from the Farley Plant to the Central of Georgia.

Commercial barge traffic occurs on the Chattahoochee River 4300 ft east of the plant location.

The channel is maintained 9 ft deep and 100 ft wide by the Corps of Engineers. Columbia Lock and Dam, approximately 3 river miles upstream of the site, had an average annual barge traffic of 200-240 at the time of plant licensing. In 1993, a total of 588 loaded barges passed through the Jim Woodruff Lock and Dam, located approximately 50 miles downstream of the site.

Current FAA manuals and air navigation charts indicate no designated high-speed, low-level military air routes within a 5-nautical-mile radius of the plant site. FAA manuals give the coordinates of operational nuclear power plants with the notation that no military low-level flights will be conducted within a 5-nautical-mile radius of a nuclear plant. The Farley Plant site is not listed in appropriate FAA manuals, nor is it identified on current air navigation charts.

The site is located approximately 3/4 nautical miles from the eastern boundary (the Chattahoochee River) of Alert Area A-211, which is designated as a high volume rotary and fixed-wing training area for use by the Army Aviation Training Center at Fort Rucker, Alabama.

2.2-1 REV 30 10/21

FNP-FSAR-2 The center of the Fort Rucker aviation training complex is approximately 30 nautical miles west of the plant site. Figure 2.2-1 shows these site parameters.

The FAA air traffic control representative at Fort Rucker has indicated that Army military training flights in the eastern portion of A-211 are generally conducted at altitudes of 3000 ft mean sea level (MSL) or above. Applications for additional low-level routes are filed with Jacksonville, Florida, Air Traffic Control Center and any affecting the Fort Rucker area are coordinated with the FAA office at Fort Rucker. No student training flight from Fort Rucker will be conducted within a 10-statute-mile radius of the plant site at a level below 2000 ft. There will be training flights 5 miles north of the plant site at levels 2000 ft or higher. The Department of Defense regulations for low altitude, high-speed training routes state that the route shall avoid nuclear power plants by 5 nautical miles. The frequency of military training flights will be a maximum of 20 a day for 5 days a week for the 5- and 10-mile distances inclusive. The aircraft will be UH-1 helicopters with a gross weight of 9500 lb. traveling at an average speed of 90 knots. The flight crews will always have at least one experienced instructor. No aircraft from Fort Rucker carrying either live or dummy ordinance will be closer than 35 statute miles from the plant. No parachute drops will be conducted closer than 35 statute miles from the plant. The predominance of aircraft originating from Fort Rucker will be UH-1 (helicopter) with a gross weight of 9500 lb.

There are currently no landing strips that exist within a 5-nautical-mile radius of the plant site.

The nearest landing strip is located approximately 7-nautical-miles southeast of the plant site, as indicated on figure 2.1-11. This strip is owned by the paper company at Cedar Springs, Georgia, and began operation in October 1975. It is 5612 ft. long and is capable of handling jet engine aircraft. The strip is oriented NW-SE and accepts approaches from either direction. It is utilized approximately six to eight times per month by turbo-prop aircraft, and approximately once a month by jet engine aircraft. Both of these aircraft have a gross weight of approximately 12,500 lb. The strip is also utilized by twin-engine and single-engine aircraft (approximate gross weight of 6,300 lb.) roughly 600 times per year. The company has instructed all pilots to avoid the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant site during both takeoff and landing operations.

A private dirt strip (Wright), 2,400 ft in length, is located approximately 7 nautical miles SW of the plant site. This strip receives only limited use by light, single-engine, private aircraft.

The Headland, Ala., Airport is located approximately 13 nautical miles NW of the site. This airport has one paved strip 3,400 ft in length. Its traffic consists of light-engine private aircraft and aircraft used in agricultural work. The nearest airport utilized by commercial jet traffic and occasional military jet traffic is the Dothan Airport, located approximately 22 nautical miles NW of the plant site. This airport also handles large multi-engine military and light multi-engine business and military aircraft as well as light single-engine and multi-engine private aircraft.

2.

2.2 DESCRIPTION

S Table 2.2-1 shows the industrial facilities located within 5 miles of the plant, their actual distance from the plant, and the products stored or manufactured at the facility. As evaluated in the Individual Plant Examination of External Events in response to Generic Letter 88-20, Supplement 4, all previously unevaluated materials which are currently stored or transported in 2.2-2 REV 30 10/21

FNP-FSAR-2 the vicinity of the plant have been assessed for control room habitability and explosive overpressure hazards and determined to pose no threat to the plant.

The main products transported by barge past the plant are as follows: chemicals, diesel fuel and gasoline, oil, dredging equipment, pipelines, fertilizer, anti-freeze, liquid feed, corn and soybeans, and steel.

The largest barges carry 32,000 barrels which is equivalent to 1,600,000 gallons, whereas the average barge carries approximately 24,000 barrels.

In accordance with NRC acceptance criteria contained in Regulatory Guide 1.78, it has been evaluated and confirmed that there are no identified chlorine hazards to the plant posed either by commercial facilities or the infrequent transportation of chlorine by barge, truck, or railroad, within 5 miles of the plant (also see RG 1.78 in Appendix 3A).

Onsite chlorine use and storage is discussed in chapter 9.

2.2.3 EVALUATION 2.2.3.1 Effects of Accidents from Navigation on the Chattahoochee River The river intake structure is located on a canal approximately 160 ft from the river bank at normal water level. Therefore, due to the physical location of the river intake structure relative to the river, at seasonal high water levels (el 110 ft MSL), a barge propelled by river current cannot physically come in contact with the river intake structure and its associated equipment.

For river water levels at elevation 123 ft MSL or above, a loose barge propelled by river current could strike the river intake structure on the upstream side. This is considered to be an improbable event since there would be no barge traffic on the river at these high flood stages.

However, if a barge should strike the intake structure and render it temporarily out of service, water from the storage pond could be used to bring the plant to a safe shutdown.

In the event of a barge accident which might release petroleum products or corrosive chemicals into the river, the river flow would tend to carry these substances past the channel leading to the intake with only small amounts being carried to the intake. The petroleum products would float on the surface of the water. Because of net positive suction head (NPSH) requirements, the river water pumps withdraw water well beneath the surface and therefore only small quantities of petroleum products could be entrained. These small quantities would have no effect on the plant operation. Corrosive chemicals would be diluted by the water in the storage pond so that they would become very diluted and not damage components with which the river water comes into contact. Further, plant operators would become aware of the occurrence of such an event and could cut off the river water supply and utilize the storage pond until any such substances had been cleared by the river flow. Accidental upstream releases would have less severe consequences than a barge accident.

2.2-3 REV 30 10/21

FNP-FSAR-2 With regard to the release of noxious gaseous chemicals due to barge accidents, it should be noted that, at the closest point, the river is more than 3/4 of a mile from the plant. In the event that noxious gases were released due to a barge accident in the vicinity of the plant at the exact time the wind was blowing in the direction of the plant, these gases would be diluted considerably before reaching the plant. Even if these gases reached the plant in sufficient concentration to be harmful, the control room ventilation system can be isolated to prevent the entry of these fumes into the control room.

As evaluated in the Individual Plant Examination of External Events in response to Generic Letter 88-20, Supplement 4, all previously unevaluated materials which are currently stored or transported in the vicinity of the plant have been assessed for control room habitability and explosive overpressure hazards and determined to pose no threat to the plant.

The plant is located in a region where temperatures are not low enough to indicate that the intake structure could be affected by ice blockage or damage.

2.2.3.2 Effects of Explosion of Chemicals, Flammable Gases, or Munitions There are no nearby industrial or military facilities that have the potential for an explosion that would seriously affect FNP.

Security Se Related Information Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390 As evaluated in the Individual Plant Examination of External Events in response to Generic Letter 88-20, Supplement 4, all previously unevaluated materials which are currently stored or 2.2-4 REV 30 10/21

FNP-FSAR-2 transported in the vicinity of the plant have been assessed for control room habitability and explosive overpressure hazards and determined to pose no threat to the plant.

2.2.3.3 Effects of Onsite Releases of Toxic Gases Chlorine is the only toxic gas located on the plant site that could affect plant safety if released. Single container quantities at 150 lb or less of gaseous chlorine are stored onsite in one location, as delineated in table 2.2-3. Onsite storage of gaseous chlorine is in accordance with the NRC acceptance criteria contained in Regulatory Guide 1.95 (also see RG 1.95 in Appendix 3A). An analysis of the hazard of a potential chlorine accident is discussed in section 9.4.

2.2.3.4 Effects of Air Traffic in the Vicinity of the Plant Currently there are no landing strips that exist within 5 nautical miles of the plant site. However, a landing strip that was located about 3 nautical miles to the southeast was evaluated. Its approaches were oriented northeast and southwest, which is not in the direction of the plant site. The nearest air routes pass no closer than 4 nautical miles of the plant site and are used for high altitude, high speed, commercial and military jet traffic, and for private and business aircraft on VFR and IFR flights. Also, FAA manuals provide that there will be no military low level flight paths within a 5-mile radius of the plant site.

As evaluated in the Individual Plant Examination of External Events in response to Generic Letter 88-20, Supplement 4, all aircraft hazard screening criteria were met and no obvious aircraft hazards currently exist. However, to support continued safe operation of the plant, a general guideline was issued concerning the conduct of company aircraft operations in the vicinity of the plant. The following guideline has been incorporated into the System Aircraft Departments Operations Manual, Section 4, (Flight Operations):

During take-off and approach to nuclear facility helipads, the pilot will avoid taking the aircraft directly over structures. In general, care shall be taken to avoid flying any aircraft directly over nuclear facility structures.

For the above reasons, plane accidents are not considered in the Farley plant design.

2.2.3.5 Collapse of Tall Structures Locations of tall structures are such that their collapse will not damage safety-related structures.

2.2.3.6 Effects of Nearby Fires Fires at adjacent industrial facilities do not present a hazard to FNP. Wooded areas are far enough from plant structures that brush and forest fires do not present a hazard.

2.2-5 REV 30 10/21

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.2-1 INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES WITHIN 5 MILES OF FARLEY SITE Facility Distance Products Halls Milling Company 4.7 miles Corn milling*

Lewis Dreyfuss Energy-Blakely 4.6 miles Oil product storage*

Georgia Pacific-Plywood Plant 4 miles Softwood, plywood*

Georgia Pacific - Paper Mill 4 miles Kraft linerboards, corrugating mediums*

Star Papertube 4.3 miles Paper mill cores, draw winder tubes*

Peridot Chemical 4.5 miles Aluminum sulphate*

General Chemical Corp. 4.5 miles Liquid Aluminum Town of Columbia, AL 4.9 miles Gaseous Chlorine

• Information obtained from the Georgia Manufacturing Directory 1993-1994 and the Alabama Industrial Directory 1993-1994.

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.2-2 (This table has been deleted.)

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.2-3 CHLORINE STORAGE LOCATIONS AND QUANTITIES Distance Maximum No.

From of Containers Control Maximum Size Headered Room Amount of Together Location (ft) Stored Containers Simultaneously

[HISTORICAL]

[Circulating 450 12 tons 1 ton(a) 2 water chlorination building (Unit 1)

Circulating water 550 12 tons 1 ton(a) 2 chlorination building (Unit 2)

Sanitary water 900 300 lb 150 lb(a) 2 chlorination Sewage treatment 1700 1500 lb 150 lb(a) 2]

plant Water treatment 600 300 lb 150 lb 2 (b) plant

a. Chlorine is no longer stored at these locations. These locations are listed for historical purposes.

b. Containers are interconnected in such a manner that failure of a single container could not cause a chlorine release from another container.

REV 21 5/08

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY ALERT AREA A-211 NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.2-1

FNP-FSAR-2 2.3 METEOROLOGY 2.3.1 REGIONAL CLIMATOLOGY 2.3.1.1 Data Sources A. "Climatography of the United States," No. 60-1, Climates of the States -

Alabama, U. S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, 1960.

B. Wolford, L. V., "Tornado Occurrences in the U. S.," Technical Paper No. 20, ESSA (now NOAA), U. S. Department of Commerce, 1960.

C. Miller, J. F. and Frederick, R. H., "Normal Monthly Number of Days with Precipitation of .5, 1.0, 2.0 and 4.0 Inches or More in the Coterminous United States," U. S. Weather Bureau, Paper No. 57, 1966.

D. "Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the U. S." (prepared by D. M. Hershfield),

Technical Paper No. 40, U. S. Department of Commerce, U. S. Weather Bureau, 1963.

E. Fujita, T. T., "Lubbock Tornadoes of 11 May 1970," Report No. 88, Megometeorology Project, Department of Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, 1970.

F. Miller, J. F., "Two-to-Ten Day Precipitation for Return Periods of Two-to-One Hundred Years in the Contiguous United States," Technical Paper No. 49, U. S.

Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, 1964.

G. Jennings, A. H., "Maximum Recorded United States Point Rainfall for Five Minutes to Twenty-Four Hours at 296 First Order Stations," U. S. Weather Bureau, Technical Paper No. 2, 1963.

H. Pautz, M. E. (ed), "Severe Local Storm Occurrences, 1955-1967,"

Technical Memorandum, WBTM, FCST, 12, ESSA (now NOAA), U. S.

Department of Commerce, 1969.

I. Bennett, I., "Glaze, Its Meteorology and Climatology, Geograhical Distribution and Economic Effects," U. S. Army, Quartermaster Research and Engineering Command, Technical Paper EP-105, 1959.

J. Gumbel, E. J., "Statistics and Extremes," Columbia University Press, 1958, Technical Paper Number 40.

K. 1955 Climatological Summary Dothan, Alabama, 1902-1954, (U. S. Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau.)

2.3-1 REV 25 4/14

FNP-FSAR-2 L. Climatological Summary-Blakely, Georgia, Environmental Data Service, NOAA, 1971.

M. Thom, H. C. S., "New Distributions of Extreme Winds in the U. S.,"

Journal of the Standards Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 94, Number ST7, pp. 1787-1801, 1968.

N. Korshhover, J., "Climatology of Stagnating Anticyclones East of the Rocky Mountains, 1936-1970," Technical Memorandum ERL APR-34, 1971.

O. Cry, George W., "Effects of Tropical Cyclone Rainfall on the Distribution of Precipitation over the Eastern and Southern United States," ESSA Professional Paper No. 1, U. S. Department of Commerce.

2.3.1.2 General Climate The Farley site is in the southeastern corner of Alabama on the Chattahoochee River, which partially forms the boundary between Alabama and Georgia. The area is rolling plain, with variations in elevation to the west of the site of 50 to 100 ft. To the east, terrain is flatter and lower, with undulations of 20-50 ft.

The climate is humid and subtropical, with continental influences, especially in winter. The summers are long, hot and humid, with little day to day temperature change. In winter there are frequent shifts between warm moist air from the Gulf of Mexico and dry, cool continental air.

Severely cold weather seldom occurs, but freezing morning temperatures are quite common in winter. Precipitation occurs almost entirely as rain. In summer nearly all precipitation is due to thunderstorms, which occur mainly in the afternoon. From August through early October widespread heavy rain falls with an occasional tropical disturbance or hurricane moving inland from the Gulf. Winter rain is due mainly to extratropical weather systems. There is a marked minimum in the average precipitation in September and October, and a lesser one in spring; however, there are still occasional heavy falls due to tropical disturbances.

Due to the low relief of this region, the terrain has relatively little influence on the meterology.

However, the topography affects the drainage of cold air in winter, as illustrated by the statement that "there is considerable irregularity in the distribution of last spring or first fall freezes in all sections." (See reference A. of 2.3.1.1.) Due to the inland location of the site, the strong winds associated with tropical storms and hurricanes are much reduced.

Two hurricanes affected Alabama in the 1931 to 1960 period. Both affected Georgia as tropical storms; thus, the Farley site may have been affected by hurricane winds. In addition, 16 tropical storms that affected the area in the same period were classified as hurricanes earlier in their life cycles before moving over land. Data on strong winds and heavy precipitation associated with hurricanes and tropical storms are included in the statistics discussed in subsection 2.3.1.3.

2.3-2 REV 25 4/14

FNP-FSAR-2 2.3.1.3 [HISTORICAL] [Severe Weather Heavy Precipitation Unusually heavy rain lasting for several hours in this region is associated with tropical storms or hurricanes. Heavy rainfall for shorter times is caused by thunderstorms in summer. Significant accumulation of snow is rare.

Recurrence periods for rainfall accumulated in periods of 30 minutes to 10 days, derived from long records, have been presented in Technical Papers Nos. 40 and 49 (references D. and F. in subsection 2.3.1.1) in the form of maps. Estimates for the site extrapolated from the maps are shown in table 2.3-1. The maximum recorded rainfalls for Dothan, 16 miles west of the site, in a 10-year period, 1941-1950, when a recording rain gauge was in use, are listed in table 2.3-2 for periods of 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. These data are seen to be in approximate agreement with recurrence intervals for the corresponding times in table 2.3-1.

Hail Severe hailstorms are infrequent in the area. The occurrences of heavy hail, greater than 3/4 in., in the area number approximately 5 in 13 years, about one every 2 or 3 years, for a 1-degree (latitude and longitude) square. (See figure 2.3-2.) Figure 2.3-1 shows frequency of hailstorms by 2-degree squares.

Ice Storms Freezing rain resulting in heavy ice loading is very rare in this area. Bennett (reference I. in 2.3.1.1) refers to one study in which no glaze storms were reported for the 28-year period ending with the winter of 1952-1953. However, one study referred to by Bennett showed at least one storm was observed in this area during the 9-year period 1928-1929 to 1936-1937. According to this study, the accumulation of ice did not reach 0.25 in. The discrepancy appears to be due to different definitions and methods of observation.

In February 1973, a storm which started as freezing rain and changed to snow passed just north of the Farley site, causing heavy damage to pine trees and power lines. No information was found concerning the thickness of ice in the Farley region. However, instruments on the meteorology tower functioned normally throughout the storm.

Thunderstorms The incidence of thunderstorms is significant in relation to associated weather, including strong winds, heavy precipitation, and lightning. The frequency of strong winds associated with thunderstorms is included under the heading, Strong Winds. Heavy precipitation and hail are discussed elsewhere.

The average number of thunderstorms per year reported by the observers at Montgomery, 100 miles to the northwest, is 61; the majority occurring from April to September, and the peak in July. At Apalachicola, Florida, 110 miles to the south southeast, the distribution is similar except that the peak number occurs in August, with an annual average of 62. The incidence of strong winds and precipitation during storms (including severe thunderstorms) is discussed in other subsections of this severe weather section.

2.3-3 REV 25 4/14

FNP-FSAR-2 Tornadoes The probability of a particular point being affected by a tornado is a function of the number of tornadoes occurring, on the average, in a given region and the average area covered by a tornado. Figures 2.3-3 and 2.3-4 give tornado occurrences in the United States by 2-degree and 1-degree squares, respectively.

Based on a 40-year record (reference B. of subsection 2.3.l.1), the number of tornadoes reported for the 2-degree square in which the site is located is one to two per year. In 1955-67 the average number of tornadoes for the 1-degree square, including the site, was about one and one half per year, corresponding to approximately six per year for the 2-degree square. This apparent increase is typical for this kind of data, and arises in part from increased public awareness of tornadoes and more complete reporting. Since even the latter frequency is likely to be an underestimate of the true frequency, a reasonable conservative estimate is that the true frequency is twice that reported for the latter period or three per year for the 1-degree square.

A typical tornado is about 1/4 mile wide, is in contact with the ground for about 10 miles, and covers an area of about 2 1/2 square miles. The 1-degree square at this latitude has an area of approximately 4000 square miles. A conservative estimate of a given point being affected by a tornado is therefore approximately:

2 1/2 x 3 1

=

4000 500 Thus, a given point can be expected to be affected by a tornado once in 500 years, on the average.

Strong Winds The frequency of strong winds, 50 knots or greater, as estimated from damage reports, has been analyzed in WBTM, FCST 12 (reference H. of subsection 2.3.1.1) for the 13-year period 1955 through 1967. The results are shown in figures 2.3-5 and 2.3-6, showing frequencies for 2-degree and 1-degree squares, respectively. For the site, the number of occurrences for the 13-year period are about 50 per 2-degree square and 16 for the 1-degree square. Since a considerable number of occurrences are likely to be overlooked or unreported, a reasonable, conservative estimate would be about twice the given frequencies, or approximately 2-1/2 per year for the 1-degree square of about 4000 square miles.

Probabilities of High Wind Speeds Due to Tornadoes The probability of a given point in the site being exposed to strong winds, greater than a given value, has been estimated considering the joint probability of the following three events:

A. The path of a tornado encompasses the site.

B. The area covered by the very strong winds in a tornado includes the point considered, if the path of the tornado encompasses the site. This probability is estimated from the fraction of the area swept by a tornado that is subject to destructive winds, which is considerably less than one. (See reference E. of subsection 2.3.1.1.)

C. The destructive winds (consistent with the definition adopted under B above) are greater than a given value.

2.3-4 REV 25 4/14

FNP-FSAR-2 The joint probability is the product of the individual probabilities of these (presumed) independent events.

The above individual probabilities were estimated from observations mainly in the Midwest and South Central United States, reported by Fujita. (See reference E. of subsection 2.3.1.1.) Item 1, the probability that a point in the site will be affected by a tornado, has already been estimated above. Little information is available for the estimation of the probabilities under C. For the present purpose, we assume an average of 200 mph for the destructive winds in tornadoes, based mainly on Fujita's observations. The winds are assumed to be normally distributed with a standard deviation of 25 mph.

Since there are few reliable estimates of wind speeds in tornadoes, the probabilities of the higher wind speeds given below may be subject to considerable uncertainty. Based on the above considerations, expected recurrence periods for winds greater than a given speed striking a given point are given in the following table:

Maximum Wind (mph) Recurrence Period (Years) 150 3,200 175 3,700 200 6,200 225 19,700 250 136,000 275 3,100,000 High Air Pollution Potential The region is one of moderately high incidence of slow moving anticyclones, resulting in high air pollution potential, especially in autumn. Korshhover has reported on the climatology of stagnating anticyclones east of the Rocky Mountains, covering the period 1936-1970. (See reference N. of subsection 2.3.1.1.) He reports that in the site region there are approximately 8 "stagnation days" per year.

Another useful indication of the incidence of high air pollution in the area is given by a recent analysis of high air pollution potential forecast by the National Environmental Research Center, Environmental Protection Agency, which showed approximately 35 days of forecast high air pollution potential in the region in the period August 1, 1960, to April 3, 1970. These forecasts are based mainly on expected wind speed and atmospheric stability and the expected duration of conditions that cause accumulation of pollutants over a large area.]

2.3.2 LOCAL METEOROLOGY 2.3.2.1 Data Sources Regular meteorological observations have been made at Dothan, Alabama, 16 miles to the west, and at Blakely, 15 miles northeast. Observations of temperature, precipitation (24-hour rainfall), and wind were taken over a period of between 30 and 50 years during 1902 to 1954, at Dothan, as summarized in a Climatological Summary for Dothan. (See reference K. of subsection 2.3.1.1.) Observations of temperature and precipitation have been made at Blakely 2.3-5 REV 25 4/14

FNP-FSAR-2 from 1877 to the present. Hourly temperatures, including wet bulb temperatures, were obtained from the Dothan Airport during 1940-1952. Maximum and minimum temperatures were recorded for about 30 years ending in 1954. Records were also obtained from a rain gauge which was operated at the airport during the 10 year period 1940-1950.

The site elevation is about 150 ft lower than the meteorological station at Dothan Airport and the other locations in or near Dothan where the temperature observations were made before the airport weather station was established. The site elevation is about 100 ft lower than the locations at which the Blakely observations have been made. Therefore, the site should have slightly higher maximum temperatures than those discussed below for Dothan and Blakely, but probably by no more than 1 or 2 degrees. At the site, minimum temperatures are likely to be somewhat lower because of the more "valley like" location, but differences are not expected to be significant in magnitude.

The nearest first order meteorological stations are at Montgomery, Alabama, 100 miles to the northwest, and Apalachicola, Florida, 110 miles to the south southeast. The estimates of frequencies of strong winds, heavy precipitation over periods less than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, and humidity are derived mainly by interpolation between these and other first order stations. This procedure is sufficiently accurate for general meteorological information when the topography is relatively flat as it is in this region.

The site meteorological measurement program described in subsection 2.3.3 has been in operation since March, 1971. A 1-year period of these data has been summarized in the appropriate sections of this report. A magnetic tape containing 5 years of WBAN records from the Dothan Airport was obtained from the National Climatic Center, and was evaluated for the period 1950-1954. These data appear in the appropriate subsections below, and are referred to as "5 years of record from Dothan Airport."

2.3.2.2 Normal and Extreme Values of Meteorological Parameters Wind The mean wind speed for each month and the most frequent wind direction are listed in table 2.3-3 (from reproduced reference K. of 2.3.1.1) for Dothan. The fastest monthly average winds occur in winter and spring, with a maximum of 10 mph in March; and the slowest in summer, about 6 mph. Figures 2.3-7, 2.3-8 and 2.3-9 are monthly, seasonal, and annual wind roses for the 5 years of record from the Dothan Airport. These airport wind roses exhibit a more predominant NE-SW component than the site wind roses. (See figures 2.3-18 through 2.3-20.)

These differences can be explained by the differences in terrain. At the Farley site, the prevailing winds are more N- S, which is in line with the terrain depression due to the river which runs generally north-south at this location.

The strongest sustained winds on record are given in terms of the "fastest mile" of wind. This information is not available for Dothan or Blakely, but at Apalachicola, where the strongest sustained winds are due to hurricanes, the speed for the "fastest mile" during the period of record (26 years to 1970) was 67 mph in September, 1947. At Montgomery, the speed for the fastest mile on record is 69 mph, which occurred in March, presumably associated with an extratropical storm, though this has not been verified. Fastest sustained winds at the site are 2.3-6 REV 25 4/14

FNP-FSAR-2 expected to be due to extratropical storms in winter and spring, as at Montgomery. From the distribution of extreme winds analyzed by Thom (reference M. of subsection 2.3.1.1) it is expected that the magnitudes of extreme sustained winds at Dothan are somewhat less than those at Montgomery. Thom has fitted extreme winds to a statistical distribution allowing extrapolation to higher speeds. At the site, it is estimated that speeds of 70 mph occur once in 50 years, and speeds of approximately 80 mph occur once in 100 years.

Temperature Average daily mean, maximum, and minimum temperatures, absolute highest and lowest temperatures during the period of record, frequencies that temperatures were above and below various limits in different calendar months, and other temperature statistics for Dothan and Blakely are listed in tables 2.3-4, 2.3-5, and 2.3-6. The periods of these records are not the same, being about 30 years from 1925-1954 at Dothan, and 20 years from 1951-1970 at Blakely. Some of the differences in the average temperatures for the two stations are probably due to the general cooling trend during the last two or three decades.

The average daily maximum is highest from June through August, averaging 92°F at Dothan and 91°F at Blakely. The average maximum is 62°F in December and 63°F in January at Dothan; at Blakely it is 62°F in December and 61°F in January. The daily minimum temperature averages 41°F at Dothan and 40°F at Blakely in December and January. The maximum on record at Dothan is 104°F, and 107°F at Blakely. The lowest minimum temperature recorded for either station was -1°F at Blakely on February 13, 1899. The lowest recorded at Dothan was 12°F. During the periods of the observations summarized in the references, the temperature at Dothan and Blakely remained at or below 32°F on less than 1 day in 2 years. The maximum temperature exceeds 90°F on about 100 days a year at Dothan and 89 days at Blakely.

Figure 2.3-10 shows the monthly averages and the average of the daily extremes of dry bulb temperature based on 5 years of record from the Dothan Airport.

Water Vapor Average hourly relative humidities for the months of the year from observations during 1940-1952 at Dothan are listed in table 2.3-7. They illustrate the humid climate, with average afternoon humidities around 60 percent in winter and 55 percent in summer. The air is driest in spring and autumn, with average afternoon relative humidity of about 45 percent in May.

Figures 2.3-11 and 2.3-12 show the monthly averages and averages of the daily extremes of wet bulb temperature and dew point temperature, respectively, based on 5 years of record from the Dothan Airport. Figures 2.3-13 and 2.3-14 show the monthly averages and the averages of the daily extremes of relative and absolute humidity, respectively, based on the same airport data. Although these records are relatively short, they are considered representative of the site area. Longer hourly records from Dothan Airport are not available on magnetic tape.

Precipitation Table 2.3-3 lists the average total monthly precipitation, the maximum and minimum observed in a month, and the maximum 24-, 48-, and 72-hour amounts observed at Dothan during the approximately 33-year period during which observations were made. The greatest monthly totals occur in summer. The largest monthly total on record is 20 in. The maximum 24-hour 2.3-7 REV 25 4/14

FNP-FSAR-2 precipitation recorded at Dothan was 9.0 in. At Blakely, the maximum 24-hour rainfall during the 1941-1970 period was 6.7 in. Figures 2.3-15 and 2.3-16 are annual and seasonal precipitation wind roses, respectively, based on 5 years of record from Dothan Airport.

Fog Due to the absence of considerable topographical effects, it is expected that the incidence of heavy fog at the site is similar to that at Dothan. At that station heavy fog with visibilities less than 1/4 miles occurred on the average about 1.3 percent of the hours per year. Figure 2.3-17 shows the monthly average and the averages of daily extremes of visibility for the 5 year period record from Dothan Airport.

Atmospheric Stability Parameters which can be used to determine atmospheric stability are being measured at low levels (i.e., less than 200 ft) in the site meteorology program. (See subsection 2.3.3.) Table 2.3-8 shows joint frequencies of occurrence of wind speed and direction for several vertical temperature difference groups based on the first full year of site data collected. The calm hours are given in the first row with the heading "0 mph". Table 2.3-9 shows joint frequency of occurrence of wind speed and direction for seven direction range groups based on the site data.

Both tables are from the 50 ft speed and direction instrument with wind speed extrapolated to the 33 ft level. Vertical temperature difference is measured between 200 ft and 33 ft deep.

Persistence The persistence of combined wind speed, direction and stability (the parameters that affect diffusion) is computed in terms of probability for periods up to 30 days using site data. These calculations are described in subsection 2.3.4.2 and results are given in table 2.3-12.

2.3.2.3 Potential Influence of the Plant and its Facilities on Local Meteorology Mechanical draft cooling towers will be utilized at the Farley Plant. Although visible vapor plumes will be generated by the towers, most of these will not reach the ground. At the present time, it appears that the occurrence of significant adverse effects such as increased fogging or icing due to cooling tower operation will be highly unlikely.

2.3.2.4 Topographical Description The general topographical features of the plant site are shown on figure 2.4-1. In general, the terrain is flat with the river located in a depression of about 50 to 100 ft. The effect of terrain on the general climate is discussed in subsection 2.3.1.2. Topographic maps out to 5 miles and 50 miles and topographic cross sections are provided in figures 2.3-24 through 2.3-29.

It is planned that releases of radioactive gases will occur from ventilation openings near the top of plant structures; however, no account is taken of the effects of an elevated release point in lowering offsite concentrations. Models used to describe diffusion assume essentially a ground 2.3-8 REV 25 4/14

FNP-FSAR-2 level release in the turbulent wake of the building. The small variability in local terrain is not expected to significantly increase the offsite concentration estimate in this report.

2.3.3 ONSITE METEOROLOGICAL MEASUREMENTS PROGRAMS The onsite meteorological measurement program commenced operation in March 1971.

Instruments for measuring pertinent meteorological parameters are installed on a 60-m (197-ft) tower located in a cleared area north of the plant site, as shown on figure 2.4-1. The tower is not affected by large plant structures. The area surrounding the met tower is maintained clear of obstructions consistent with NUREG-0654, Rev. 1 and proposed Rev. 1 to Regulatory Guide 1.23. Instrument elevations and descriptions are given in table 2.3-10.

[HISTORICAL][The tower is located in a relatively flat field, which is surrounded by trees, of approximately 40-50 ft in height, at a distance greater than 600 ft in all directions. Beyond the trees to the East is a sharp drop in terrain toward the river plain. (See figure 2.4-1.) To the West and South, there are several undulations in terrain where small streams flow through the site area.] Inspection of the site wind rose shows an apparent predominant wind flow North and South. This is probably partially due to the winds being oriented along the river depression, which also runs north south.

The tower is located in the same relative location to the river plain as is the plant; i.e., the tower and general plant area are about the same distance from the river in similar terrain. Therefore, it is expected that the tower is in a good position to measure conditions representative of the reactor site, taking into account terrain conditions and available locations for the tower.

The data are continuously recorded on the integrated plant computers (IPCs), data loggers, and local workstations. The instruments are monitored three times a week by onsite personnel.

Preventive maintenance is performed in accordance with the instrument manuals. These personnel are also available on a "rapid call" basis for emergency repair work to minimize outages and to assure maximum data recovery. Calibrations are performed at approximately 6-month intervals, in accordance with the instrument manuals. An inventory of spare parts is maintained by the repair personnel, and new parts are ordered as the spares are used.

During plant operation, wind speed and direction and vertical temperature difference are recorded on the IPCs, data loggers, and local workstations. Wind speed and direction are measured at 10 m above ground level (AGL) and 45.7 m AGL. Differential temperature (T) is measured between elevations 10 m AGL and 60 m AGL. If an accidental release of radioactive material occurs, the diffusion condition (X/Q value) will be calculated as a function of distance downwind, stability class (as determined by T), and wind speed. Fifteen-minute averages of meteorological values are calculated by the IPC and used for dose assessment.

The post operational meteorological measurements program will continue as outlined above including calibration, maintenance, and inventory of spare parts. Data will be reduced as needed and stored on electronic media. The meteorological instrumentation is located on the 60-m meteorological tower, which is 400 ft southwest of the microwave tower. See table 2.3-10 for instrumentation and heights.

Hourly records from the period April 1, 1971 through March 31, 1972, collected from the site weather tower have been analyzed. Analog chart data were routinely digitized. After editing, these data were converted to engineering units and summarized to provide averages 2.3-9 REV 25 4/14

FNP-FSAR-2 representative of each hour of data. These hourly averages were stored on magnetic tape from which monthly, seasonal, and yearly summaries can be tabulated as required. During this period the following approximate percentages of data recovery were achieved for each parameter used in this report:

Parameter Percentage Recovery 50-ft wind speed(a) 94.3 50-ft wind direction(a) 97.8 T 200 ft-35 ft 99.5 Figures 2.3-18, 2.3-19 and 2.3-20 are monthly, seasonal, and annual wind roses, respectively, for the 1-year period of record from the 50-ft instrument. Joint frequency of wind speed and direction by temperature difference group (from T 200 ft 35 ft) is shown in table 2.3-8 for the 50 ft instrument. Joint frequency of wind speed and direction by stability group, as determined using wind direction range, is shown in table 2.3-9. Summary tables of joint frequency of wind direction range and vertical temperature difference for five speed groups, which are used for "split sigma" model calculations, are given in table 2.3-11. Wind speeds on tables 2.3-8, 2.3-9 and 2.3-11 have been extrapolated to the 33 ft level using the method described in subsection 2.3.4.4.

For use in a special study (last of subsection 2.3.4.1) the 1-year period of Farley data (temperature difference and 50 ft wind speed and direction) were reduced twice per hour from the strip charts. Fifteen-minute averages, centered on the hour and half hour, were stored on magnetic tape for this study. Data collected from April 1, 1972, through March 31, 1973, have also been reduced. Analysis of these data show close similarity to the first year of data. Table 2.3-8A gives the same joint frequency information as table 2.3-8, using the 1972-73 site data.

Other tables summarizing the second year of data are discussed later in this section.

Data used in the analysis outlined in section 2.3.5 are presented as joint frequency tables.

These tables were compiled for the lower (50 ft) instrument over a 4-year period. Table 2.3-8B is a joint frequency table of wind speed, wind direction, and stability group for the 50-ft level using delta-T between 200 ft and 35 ft. A slight adjustment is made to the 50-ft speed measurements to make them representative of 33-ft conditions. Table 2.3-8C is a 50-ft joint frequency table similar to Table 2.3-8B for each of the 12 months.(7)

a. Wind speed and direction are now measured at 32.8 ft and 150 ft. Measurements are no longer made at 50 ft.

2.3-10 REV 25 4/14

FNP-FSAR-2 2.3.4 SHORT TERM (ACCIDENT) DIFFUSION ESTIMATES 2.3.4.1 Objective Atmospheric diffusion estimates developed for use in evaluating accidents hypothesized in chapter 15.0 are shown in table 2.3-12 for various periods after the accident. This table includes estimates for the 5 percent and 50 percent probability level based on three different diffusion models. Values in columns 1 and 2 are based on vertical temperature difference groups proposed in Regulatory Guide 1.23; these values are used in this report for making conservative dose estimates described in chapter 15.0.

Estimates shown in columns 3 and 4 of table 2.3-12 are based on vertical temperature difference groups determined from a study that correlated vertical and horizontal wind fluctuations with vertical temperature difference described in appendix 2A. Estimates in columns 5 and 6 are based on the "split sigma" model. The estimates in table 2.3-12 are based on the 1-year period of data collected at the site.

Methods used to estimate diffusion conditions for evaluating short-term accident releases are discussed in paragraph 2.3.4.1 and methods for assessing the consequences of longer term accident releases (up to 30 days) are discussed in paragraph 2.3.4.2.2.

Table 2.3-12A summarizes results of the analyses described above using the second year of data. Comparison of the two tables, 2.3-12 and 2.3-12A, shows that values for the second year are very close to those derived from the first year of data.

The diffusion estimates described in this section, and which are used in calculating dose estimates in chapter 15.0, conservatively neglect the "meander" effect during low wind speed conditions and neutral and stable atmospheric stability conditions. The NRC issued Regulatory Guide 1.145 "Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants" to recognize the "meander" effect which was confirmed during tests. The Implementation Section of the Regulatory Guide states "For operating reactors, the licensee may use the method described in this guide or may continue to use the method previously contained or referenced in the FSAR for such facilities." When evaluating the consequences of accidents, subsequent to the issuance of the operating license, the calculational methodology of Regulatory Guide 1.145 has been used and may continue to be used.

2.3.4.2 Calculations 2.3.4.2.1 Accident Diffusion Estimates (1-h Duration)

For determining the atmospheric dispersion that exists for short term releases (an hour or so),

plots (figures 2.3-21 and 2.3-22) of cumulative centerline X/Q values as a function of probability of occurrence are made using the hourly data from the site meteorological program.

Figure 2.3-21 is for the site boundary (1260 m) and figure 2.3-22 is for the low population distance (2 miles). These figures have one curve for each of the three models. The statistical 2.3-11 REV 25 4/14

FNP-FSAR-2 distributions plotted in this figure were constructed by computing X/Q values for each hour of the 1-year period of record used and then counting all of the hours that had X/Q values equal to or greater than a selected value.

The number of hours so obtained was then divided by the number of hours in the total period of record to obtain the probability that the selected X/Q value would be equaled or exceeded. This procedure is repeated for a number of X/Q values which are then plotted. The resulting probabilities are independent of wind direction.

The equations and methods used to compute the X/Q values are discussed in subsection 2.3.4.2.4. The Pasquill diffusion categories for each hour are given in subsection 2.3.4.3.3 based on vertical temperature difference or wind direction range and measurements. Building wake was accounted for as described in subsection 2.3.4.2.4.

For conservatism and in accordance with recent NRC licensing practice, the wind speed measured at 50 ft was extrapolated down to the 33 ft level, as described in subsection 2.3.4.2.4.

As shown in figure 2.3-21, the 5 percent probable X/Q value (based on hourly data) at the site boundary using the NRC DT model is 7.6 x 10-4s/m3 and, as shown in figure 2.3-22, at the low population zone it is 2.8 x 10-4s/m3. Five percent probable X/Q values for all three models are given in table 2.3-12. As shown in this table, the NRC DT model results in the most conservative values and these values are used in the chapter 15.0 accident evaluations.

One further measure of conservatism in the NRC T model used for accident evaluation in this report is the result of a study made with the Farley site data which were reduced twice per hour as described in subsection 2.3.3. The purpose of this study was to show how wind and diffusion condition changes from 1/2 hour to the next would affect the probability distributions.

More than one sample is required to describe the smaller release period considered. (For example, a 1-hour period would be described by two 1/2-hour samples, and a 2-hour period would require four 1/2-hour samples.) Therefore, the method described in paragraph 2.3.4.2 was used. The results of this study are given in the following table:

Time - 5% Probable Average X/Q (s/m3)

Period - During Release Time Period(a)

Hourly Data Hourly Data (h) 71-72 Data 72-73 Data 71-72 Data 72-73 Data 0-1 7.6 x 10-4 7.5 x 10-4 6.0 x 10-4 5.5 x 10-4 0-2 5.9 x 10-4 5.5 x 10-4 4.2 x 10-4 4.1 x 10-4 From this table (71-72 data) it can be seen that if changes in stability, direction, and speed every 1/2 hour are accounted for, the maximum X/Q values to a stationary receptor would be reduced from 7.6 x 10-4 s/m3 to 6.0 x 10-4 s/m3 for the 0-2 hour case. Of most significance is the factor of almost two difference between the 0-1 hour value (based on hourly data, which is 2.3-12 REV 25 4/14

FNP-FSAR-2 usually used by NRC to determine the 2-hour accident) and the more realistic value for 0-2 hours based on half-hourly data. Similar results are obtained using the 72-73 data.

2.3.4.2.2 Accident Diffusion Estimates (Up To 30 Day Duration)

For releases that occur over a longer period it is appropriate to consider wind direction changes and the resulting lower concentration at any given point. Using the 1-year period of data from the site, a computer evaluation estimated the probability that any particular average diffusion condition (or poorer one) would exist during a selected interval of time at any offsite location.

Starting with each hour of data, the computed X/Q values are added in each of 16 assumed direction sectors for the duration of the release time period being evaluated. The maximum integrated value of all the 16 directions is stored and new integration period is started spaced 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> later. Again, the maximum value for this next integration period is stored regardless of the direction sector in which it occurred, and so on. After processing all hours of data, cumulative probability plots are made for each release time period considered, as shown in figure 2.3-23 for the low population distance using the NRC T model. Similar plots (not shown) were also constructed for determining site boundary and low population values given in table 2.3-12 using both the T model developed in the correlation study and the "split sigma" model. Again, the NRC T model is more conservative and is used for the long term accident analyses in chapter 15.0.

The diffusion models and assumptions are described in subsections 2.3.4.2.3 and 2.3.4.2.4.

2.3.4.2.3 Derivation of Stability Classifications Table 2.3-13 gives the temperature difference and wind direction range categories used to classify the data into Pasquill groups for use in computing y and z in the diffusion equations.

Column 1 represents the NRC Regulatory Guide 1.23 T groupings. Values in column 2 are based on a statistical fit of horizontal and vertical wind angle data taken at the Farley site. This work was directed by Dr. James Halitsky and is presented as appendix 2A. Column 3 gives Pasquill categories based on wind direction range as suggested by Slade.(1)

a. Uses NRC T Model for all cases.

2.3-13 REV 25 4/14

FNP-FSAR-2 2.3.4.2.4 Analytical Methods for Dispersion Computations Plume centerline values of X/Q were estimated using the following relationships:

1 X/Q =

u ( y z + cA) where: X = Concentration (Ci/m3)

Q = Release rate (Ci/sec) u = Average wind speed extrapolated to 33 ft (m/s) y = Horizontal diffusion coefficient based on T (m) z = Vertical diffusion coefficient based on T (m) cA = Building wake factor (750m2)

The sector average X/Q values were determined using the general equation and methods described in subsection 2.3.5. Plume centerline X/Q values were used for postaccident time periods less than 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> and sector average values were used for time periods greater than 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />. The site boundary is assumed to be 1260 meters and the low population distance is assumed to be 2 miles. Since the plant is approximately centered in the middle of the square shaped site, the site boundary was assumed to be circular. The method used for extrapolating the 50 ft level wind speed data to the 33 ft level uses the following general equation from reference (2):

u33 = um (1/ z) n where: u33 = Extrapolated speed at 33 ft level (mph) um = Measured speed at 50 ft level (mph) h = Height to which extrapolation is made (ft) z = Height at which measurement is made (ft) n = Exponent based on stability 2.3-14 REV 25 4/14

FNP-FSAR-2 Values of n used for each stability group are assumed to be as follows:

Stability Group n A 0.25 B 0.25 C 0.25 D 0.33 E 0.5 F 0.5 G 0.5 The "split sigma" model is used to more realistically represent the diffusion process. The T models used above are based upon use of vertical temperature profiles alone to represent mixing and/or turbulence in the atmosphere. Whereas T may be a good indication of diffusion vertically, tests (3)(4) have shown that it is not a good indication of lateral diffusion during low wind speed inversion conditions. The "split sigma" model uses horizontal wind direction fluctuations to determine the lateral diffusion parameter ( ). Vertical diffusion is based on T as before. Therefore, plum centerline values of X/Q are computed using equation (1) above with based on the range categories given in table 2.3-13.

2.3.5 LONG TERM (ROUTINE) DIFFUSION ESTIMATES 2.3.5.1 Objective This subsection includes realistic estimates of atmospheric dilution and deposition out to a distance of 50 miles from the plant, based on annual average meteorological conditions. These estimates are used for estimating offsite doses resulting from routine releases of gaseous effluent from Farley Nuclear Plant.(7)

The estimates were calculated to confirm that the Farley Nuclear Plant conforms with the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix I. Actual plant releases during normal operation are governed by the Farley Nuclear Plant Technical Specifications.

2.3-15 REV 25 4/14

FNP-FSAR-2 2.3.5.2 Calculations 2.3.5.2.1 General Calculations are made using 4 years of meteorological data collected from the site meteorological tower. The tower configuration and these data are discussed and summarized in subsection 2.3.3. The 4-year period of data provides a good representation of long-term conditions at the site.

Topography is gently rolling to the west of the site and generally flat to the east; therefore, it should have little effect on wind trajectory. During periods of light winds, local terrain may affect wind trajectory. The most pronounced terrain feature is the river depression. This, however, is a relatively small, wide depression which has little influence. Since it is not considered practical at the present time to compute estimates using particle-in-cell or puff trajectory diffusion models, correction factors suggested in Regulatory Guide 1.111(9) for open terrain are utilized in this analysis. Furthermore, since the diffusion models used assume the release is essentially at ground level and there are no significant topographic features, no correction factors for recirculation are used.

Atmospheric dispersion models described in this subsection follow those described in Regulatory Guide 1.111. The paragraphs below describe the models used in these evaluations with frequent references to Regulatory Guide 1.111, since most assumptions are identical to those in the guide. These models are used to determine routine (average) X/Q and D/Q values applicable to the site.

2.3.5.2.2 Atmospheric Diffusion Model Average atmospheric dispersion evaluations are made using the straight line airflow model from Regulatory Guide 1.111, as shown below:

nij (X/Q' ) D = 2.032 [Nx ui zj (x)]1 exp [ h 2 e/2 2 zj(x) ]

ij where:

he = effective release height.

nij = length of time (hours of valid data) weather conditions are observed to be at a given wind direction, wind speed class, i, and atmospheric stability class, j.

N = total hours of valid data.

ui = geometrical mean of all speeds in the wind speed class, i, at a height representative of release; calms are one-half the threshold anemometer speed or less; extrapolation to 2.3-16 REV 25 4/14

FNP-FSAR-2 higher levels, if necessary is done by raising the ratio of the two heights to the n power, where n = 0.25, 0.33 and 0.5 for unstable, neutral, and stable conditions, respectively.

zj(x) = vertical plume spread without volumetric correction at distance, x, for stability class, j (see figure 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.111) based on vertical temperature difference (T) and Regulatory Guide 1.23 categorization of Pasquill groups by T.

zj(x) = vertical plume spread with a volumetric correction for a release within the building wake cavity, at a distance, x, for stability class, j; otherwise zj(x) = zj(x).

(X/Q' ) D = average effluent concentration, X, normalized by source strength, Q, at distance, x, in a given downwind direction, D.

2.032 = (2/)1/2 divided by the width in radians of a 22.5° sector.

In some cases, hourly data are used and the summation over i and j in the above equation is deleted, and the summation is accomplished for all hours at all distances for each direction.

Dilution was decreased according to terrain correction factors shown in figure 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.111. These factors were multiplied by the results from the equation above and varied in accordance with the direction and distance being evaluated.

2.3.5.2.3 Source Configuration Considerations If the release point is elevated and there are no buildings which would obstruct the plume in its normal trajectory, equation 1 is used with the height of release defined as follows (from equation 4 of Regulatory Guide 1.111):

he = hs + hpr - ht - c where:

c = correction for low relative exit velocity equation 5 of Regulatory Guide 1.111).

he = effective release height.

hpr = rise of the plume above the release point based on Briggs.

(See below.)

hs = physical height of the release point. (The elevation of the stack base should be assumed to be zero.)

2.3-17 REV 25 4/14

FNP-FSAR-2 ht = maximum terrain height between the release point and the point for which the calculation is made.

Values of hpr are computed as follows for a "jet," since nuclear plant vents have an insignificant amount of buoyancy due to heated discharges:

up to the point where hpr is the minimum of the following two equations:

13 W F hpr = 3 o D or hpr = 1.5 m s 1 6 max u max u where symbols are as before, and:

D = stack or vent effective inside diameter (m).

Wo = stack or vent exit velocity (m/s).

u = wind speed at discharge level (m/s).

F = momentum flux (m4/s2).

s = stability parameter (s-2).

If the plume trajectory from a release point does not remain outside of building wake influences near large structures, all or portions of the plume are considered to be entrapped and brought to ground level in the turbulent wake of the building. The criteria for determining the portion of the plume treated as an elevated or ground release follows from equations 6, 7, and 8 of Regulatory Guide 1.111 and are repeated here for completeness:

If Wo / u > 5.0 h e as calculated above If Wo / u 1.0 he = 0 W

If 1 < Wo / u 1.5 E t = 2.58 1.58 o u

W If 1.5 < Wo / u 5.0 E t = 0.3 0.06 o u

The appropriate diffusion estimate is then computed by assuming an elevated release 100 (1 - Et) percent of the time and by assuming ground release 100 Et percent of the time.

Calculations utilizing this mixed model are referred to as "wake-split" calculations in this report.

2.3-18 REV 25 4/14

FNP-FSAR-2 A building wake correction is computed for all ground releases near structures in accordance with the following general equation from Regulatory Guide 1.111:

where:

cH 2

= z +

2 1.73 z where:

= effective dispersion coefficient for use in the equation for (X Q)D (m) .

c = building wake coefficient (c = 0.5).

H = height of tallest structure in the nuclear plant power block (m).

As radioactive effluent in a plume travels downwind, it is subject to several removal mechanisms, including radioactive decay, dry deposition, and wet deposition (during rain).

Corrections for radioactive decay are not made in the dispersion estimates reported in this subsection.

Dry deposition which results in depletion of halogen and particulate isotopes from the plume is calculated using figures 2 through 6 in Regulatory Guide 1.111. Depletion factors in these curves are a function of height and distance. Therefore, for sites where elevated releases occur the terrain must be subtracted from the plume height before entering the curves at the appropriate distance. Each elevated or ground level X/Q is multiplied by the depletion correction factor to estimate the depleted X/Q value.

To determine the relative disposition rate as a function of distance and stability, the curves given in figures 7 through 10 of Regulatory Guide 1.111 are used in a computerized table look-up routine. Terrain heights are subtracted before the table look-up is made. Values from the curves are divided by the sector cross-width (arc) at the point of calculation to give units of m-2.

Table 2.3-14 lists computer runs made using the diffusion models described above. Since the grazing season is assumed to exist all year, separate runs for the grazing season are not necessary.

A summary of plant vent information for each discharge point is given in tables 2.3-15 and 2.3-16. Only vents used during routine operation are considered in this evaluation. Inspection of these tables shows that a separate calculation is required to determine diffusion conditions applicable for each vent.

Table 2.3-17 summarizes key assumptions utilized in making the model calculations.

Figure 2.3-26 gives terrain elevations for all distances out to 10 miles. Terrain height is 2.3-19 REV 25 4/14

FNP-FSAR-2 conservatively not allowed to decrease with increasing distance nor to decrease below plant grade in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.111.

A series of three runs is made using different meteorological data bases and vent locations.

Resulting X/Q, depleted X/Q, and D/Q values are listed in tables 2.3-18 through 2.3-20 for each direction sector for 10 distances. Comparisons of the results for the plant vent, using joint frequency table 2.3-18, compared favorably with those using the hourly data for one year (table 2.3-20). Therefore, the 4-year results are used for determining the appropriate dispersion factor for each receptor location in tables 2.3-21 and 2.3-22. Table 2.3-21 shows the results of calculations made for the plant (wake-split model), and table 2.3-22 provides results from the second set of calculations made for all other release points that discharge into the building wake cavity, resulting in a ground level release.

2.3-20 REV 25 4/14

FNP-FSAR-2 REFERENCES

1. Slade, D. H., Estimates of Dispersion from Pollutant Releases of a Few Seconds to 8 Hours Duration, Environmental Science Services Administration, Technical Note 39-APR-3, April 1966.

2. Smith, M. (editor), Recommended Guide for the Prediction of Dispersion of Airborne Effluents, ASME, p. 55, 1968.

3. "Atmospheric Diffusion Experiments with SF Tracer Gas at Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Under Low Wind Speed Inversion Conditions", Amendment 24, Three Mile Island Unit-1 FSAR, US NRC Docket No. 50-289, January, 1972.

4. Yanskey, F. R., et al, Climatology of the National Reactor Testing Station, IDO-12048, pp. 3-3 through 3-10, January, 1966.

5. Gifford, F. A., "Consequences of Activity Release", Nuclear Safety, Vol. 2, p. 57, 1960.

6. Pasquill, F., "Estimation of the Dispersion of Windborne Material", Meteorology Magazine, Vol. 90, pp. 33-49, 1963.

7. Alabama Power Company letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Dose Calculations to Conform with Appendix I Requirements," U.S. NRC Docket No. 50-348 and No. 50-364, June 3, 1976.

8. US NRC Regulatory Guide 1.145, Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants, Revision 1, November 1982.

9. US NRC Regulatory Guide 1.111, Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases From Light-Water-Cooled Reactors.

2.3-21 REV 25 4/14

FNP-FSAR-2

[HISTORICAL][TABLE 2.3-1 ESTIMATE OF RECURRENCE INTERVAL FOR VARIOUS RAINFALL RATES FOR DOTHAN (in.)

Recurrence Interval (years)

Period of Rainfall 1 2 5 10 50 100 30 min 1.5 1.7 2.0 2.2 2.8 3.0 1 hr 1.8 2.1 2.6 2.8 3.5 3.8 2 hrs 2.2 2.5 3.2 3.7 4.5 5.0 3 hrs 2.4 2.8 3.5 4.0 5.0 5.5 6 hrs 2.8 3.4 4.3 5.0 6.5 7.0 12 hrs 3.3 4.0 5.2 6.0 7.7 8.5 24 hrs 3.8 4.7 6.0 7.0 9.0 10.0 2 days 5.5 7.0 8.3 11.0 11.5 4 days 6.7 8.5 9.5 13.0 14.0 7 days 7.5 9.5 11.0 14.0 14.5 10 days 8.5 10.5 12.5 15.0 17.0]

REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2

[HISTORICAL][TABLE 2.3-2 MAXIMUM PRECIPITATION RECORDED FOR DOTHAN (1941-1950)

Period of Rainfall Amount (hour) (in.)

1 3.28 2 3.60 3 3.65 6 3.67 12 4.39 24 6.75]

REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-3 PRECIPITATION AVERAGES AND COMPARATIVE DATA FOR DOTHAN, ALABAMA (INCHES)

Average Hourly Greatest Greatest Greatest Prevailing Wind Record 24-hour 48-hour 72-hour Greatest Last Average Wind Velocity Month Normal Mean Amounts Year Amounts Year Amounts Year Monthly Year Monthly Year Snowfall Direction (mph)

Jan 4.49 4.24 6.42 1936 6.42 1936 7.30 1925 16.88 1936 0.34 1927 T SE 8.8 Feb 5.24 4.68 4.26 1937 4.92 1940 5.77 1929 10.36 1939 0.93 1951 T SW 9.7 Mar 5.15 6.15 9.00 1929 11.68 1929 12.34 1929 16.40 1929 0.89 1945 T NW 10.0 Apr 4.16 4.18 4.75 1946 4.99 1946 4.99 1946 12.60 1928 0.60 1902 0 SE 8.2 May 3.18 3.10 4.10 1903 4.39 1903 4.59 1903 8.73 1947 0.58 1927 0 SW 6.6 Jun 4.63 4.47 4.76 1940 4.76 1940 4.83 1940 8.52 1942 1.10 1945 0 SW 6.6 Jul 5.92 6.07 6.73 1948 7.44 1948 7.45 1948 12.73 1948 2.22 1903 0 SW 6.3 Aug 5.43 5.38 5.80 1939 6.23 1939 6.96 1939 20.85 1939 2.20 1925 0 NE 5.8 Sep 5.16 5.08 8.00 1929 9.20 1926 10.45 1926 13.86 1929 0.63 1940 0 NE 7.3 Oct 2.77 1.88 7.37 1932 7.37 1932 7.37 1932 12.41 1932 T 1939 T NE 6.9 Nov 3.05 3.44 4.50 1912 4.50 1912 4.50 1912 10.29 1930 0.05 1931 T NE 7.7 Dec 4.85 4.74 3.90 1945 5.50 1927 5.50 1927 13.61 1953 0.53 1946 T NW 9.3 Mar Mar Mar Aug Oct Year 54.03 53.41 9.00 1929 11.68 1929 12.34 1929 20.85 1939 T 1939 T SW 7.8 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-4 TEMPERATURE AVERAGES AND COMPARATIVE DATA FOR DOTHAN, ALABAMA (DEG°F)

Average Average Number Hourly Average Average Average Heating Hours Average Average Average Relative Daily Daily Daily Absolute Absolute Degree 45° or Hourly Hourly Hourly Humidity Month Maximum Minimum Average Range Highest Year Lowest Year Days Below Dry-Bulb Wet-Bulb Dewpoint (%)

Jan 63.4 41.4 52.4 22.0 83 1949 12 1940 400 228 52 48 45 77 Feb 65.3 43.0 54.2 22.3 84 1944 12 1941 322 181 54 49 45 73 Mar 71.1 48.1 59.6 23.0 88 1954(a) 21 1943 212 99 59 56 49 71 Apr 78.9 54.9 66.9 24.0 95 1942 31 1940 57 15 67 60 55 69 May 86.8 62.4 74.6 24.4 99 1953 44 1954 5 0 74 66 62 68 Jun 92.2 69.8 81.0 22.4 104 1952 52 1954 0 0 80 73 70 73 Jul 91.7 71.1 81.4 20.6 103 1952 62 1953(a) 0 0 80 74 72 80 Aug 92.2 70.6 81.4 21.6 103 1954(a) 60 1952(a) 0 0 80 74 72 79 Sep 87.6 66.2 76.9 21.4 100 1951(a) 47 1949(a) 2 0 75 70 67 78 Oct 80.9 55.9 68.4 25.0 98 1954 30 1952 43 11 67 61 57 72 Nov 69.4 44.8 57.1 24.6 88 1950(a) 17 1950 253 145 57 52 48 73 Dec 62.5 40.8 51.7 21.7 82 1951 18 1945 414 271 51 48 45 81 Year 78.5 55.8 67.2 22.7 104 Jun1952 12 Jan 1940 1708 950 66 61 57 75 Feb 1951

a. Also on earlier dates.

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-5 FREQUENCY OF PRECIPITATION AND TEMPERATURE, DOTHAN, ALABAMA Temperature (°F)

Precipitation (in.) Maximum Minimum

.01 .05 .10 .25 .50 1.00 2.00 90° 95° 100° 105° 32° 30° 25° 20° 15° 10° 5° or or or or or or or or or or or or or or or or or or Month more more more more more more more above above above above below below below below below below below Jan 8 7 6 4 3 1 - 0 0 0 0 7 4 2 1 - 0 0 Feb 8 7 6 5 3 1 - 0 0 0 0 4 3 1 - - 0 0 Mar 9 7 7 5 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 - 0 0 0 0 Apr 6 6 5 4 3 1 - 1 - 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 May 7 6 5 4 2 1 - 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jun 10 9 7 5 3 1 - 23 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jul 13 11 10 7 4 2 - 22 8 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Aug 11 9 8 6 4 2 - 24 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sep 8 7 6 5 3 2 1 13 4 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oct 4 4 3 2 1 - - 2 - 0 0 - - 0 0 0 0 0 Nov 6 5 4 3 2 1 - 0 0 0 0 3 1 - - 0 0 0 Dec 8 7 6 5 3 2 - 0 0 0 0 6 4 1 - 0 0 0 Year 98 85 73 55 35 16 4 100 35 3 0 22 13 4 1 0 0 0

- Less than one.

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-6 (SHEET 1 OF 3)

CLIMATOLOGICAL

SUMMARY

(Means and Extremes for Period 1941-1970)

Temperature (°F)

Means Extremes Daily Daily Record Record Month Maximum Minimum Year Highest Year Highest Year (a) 30 30 30 30 30 Jan 61.2 39.6 50.4 82 1949 7 1966 Feb 64.3 44.6 53.0 85 1962 10 1951 Mar 70.2 46.8 58.5 88 1967+ 18 1943 Apr 79.0 54.5 66.8 93 1942 32 1950 May 86.0 61.6 78.8 101 1941 43 1944 June 90.5 68.1 79.3 107 1954 49 1956 July 91.1 70.2 80.7 102 1952+ 57 1967 Aug 91.2 69.7 80.5 104 1954 59 1967 Sep 87.5 66.0 76.8 100 1954+ 40 1967 Oct 79.7 55.6 67.7 100 1954 30 1952 Nov 69.3 45.0 57.2 88 1961 15 1950 Dec 62.4 39.9 51.2 81 1955+ 6 1962 Year 77.7 54.9 66.3 197 1954 6 1962 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-6 (SHEET 2 OF 3)

Precipitation Totals (inches)

Snow, Sleet Mean Degree Greatest Maximum Greatest Month Days** Mean Daily Year Mean Monthly Year Daily Year (a) 30 30 30 30 30 30 Jan 470 4.24 3.92 1963 0.1 1.5 1955 1.5 1955 Feb 350 4.60 4.57 1962 T 0.5 1958 0.5 1958 Mar 250 6.13 6.74 1944 T T 1969+ T 1969+

Apr 50 4.68 4.96 1946 0 0 0 May 0 4.20 5.69 1961 0 0 0 June 0 4.60 4.12 1946 0 0 0 July 0 6.62 4.14 1948 0 0 0 Aug 0 5.13 4.75 1969 0 0 0 Sep 0 4.33 4.47 1956 0 0 0 Oct 50 2.12 4.11 1948 0 0 0 Nov 250 2.85 2.81 1947 0 0 0 Dec 440 4.81 5.33 1964 0.1 1.5 1943 1.5 1943 Year 1860 54.31 6.74 1944 0.2 1.5 1955+ 1.5 1955+

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-6 (SHEET 3 OF 3)

Mean number of days Temperature Max. Min.

Precipitation 90° 32° 32° 0°

.10 inch or and and and and Month more above below below below (a) 30 30 30 30 30 Jan 7 0

• 9 0 Feb 7 0 0 6 0 Mar 7 0 0 3 0 Apr 6 1 0

• 0 May 6 10 0 0 0 June 8 19 0 0 0 July 11 21 0 0 0 Aug 8 22 0 0 0 Sep 6 14 0 0 0 Oct 3 2 0

• 0 Nov 5 0 0 3 0 Dec 7 0 0 8 0 Year 81 89

• 29 0

a. Average length of record, years.

T Trace, an amount too small to measure.

• • Base 65°F (estimated from mean temperature).

+ Also on earlier dates, months, or years.

• Less than one half.

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-7 AVERAGE HOURLY RELATIVE HUMIDITY, DOTHAN, ALABAMA (PERCENT)

A.M. P.M.

Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Jan 87 88 88 89 90 90 91 89 85 79 72 65 62 59 57 57 61 67 72 76 79 81 83 85 Feb 81 84 86 86 86 88 86 85 80 72 66 61 57 53 52 53 54 61 66 72 75 77 79 81 Mar 82 83 84 86 86 87 86 84 79 70 63 59 55 53 51 51 52 55 62 69 73 75 78 81 Apr 82 84 86 87 88 90 87 81 73 65 59 56 52 49 48 48 50 53 59 65 70 74 78 80 May 83 86 88 89 90 90 85 78 69 62 56 52 49 47 46 47 43 51 57 64 71 74 78 81 Jun 87 89 91 92 93 91 87 80 72 66 61 57 54 52 51 52 54 59 64 71 77 81 84 86 Jul 92 93 94 94 95 95 89 85 78 71 68 64 62 62 62 62 65 69 76 82 85 87 89 91 Aug 91 92 93 94 95 96 90 87 79 72 66 63 60 59 59 60 63 68 75 81 84 83 89 90 Sep 89 90 92 93 94 94 89 86 78 72 66 62 59 59 60 60 61 66 73 79 82 84 86 87 Oct 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 84 74 65 58 54 50 49 49 50 54 62 69 74 78 79 81 83 Nov 83 85 86 87 87 88 89 85 79 67 61 58 54 53 52 52 58 66 70 74 77 79 81 82 Dec 87 88 89 90 91 91 90 89 85 79 74 70 68 66 65 66 71 76 78 80 83 85 86 87 Mean 86 87 89 90 90 91 90 89 78 70 64 60 57 55 54 55 58 63 68 74 78 80 83 85 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8 (SHEET 1 OF 4)

JOINT FREQUENCY OF WIND SPEED (33 FT) AND DIRECTION VS. VERTICAL TEMPERATURE REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8 (SHEET 2 OF 4)

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8 (SHEET 3 OF 4)

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8 (SHEET 4 OF 4)

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8A (SHEET 1 OF 4)

JOINT FREQUENCY OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION VS. T - 4/72 - 3/73 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8A (SHEET 2 OF 4)

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8A (SHEET 3 OF 4)

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8A (SHEET 4 OF 4)

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8B (SHEET 1 OF 4)

JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-25R2 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -1.0 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 .1 .30 CALM+ - 1.5 1 1 3 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 4 18 .5 .98 1.6 - 2.5 10 17 15 11 11 8 3 7 7 4 6 6 8 6 7 4 130 3.3 2.05 2.6 - 3.5 46 45 34 34 33 23 19 18 9 11 20 15 15 13 13 30 376 9.4 3.00 3.6 - 7.5 241 189 193 234 232 163 95 68 64 52 83 90 122 79 113 150 2168 54.5 5.17 7.6 - 12.5 86 66 110 95 67 50 62 49 39 53 72 49 41 63 136 106 1144 28.7 9.16 12.6 - 18.5 6 6 1 1 2 0 0 12 5 16 18 3 4 10 41 10 137 3.4 14.15 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 4 .1 19.07 TOTAL 393 325 356 380 345 245 179 152 124 137 200 164 192 171 314 304 3981 100.0 5.14 PERCENT 9.9 8.2 8.9 9.5 8.7 6.2 4.5 3.8 3.1 3.4 5.0 4.1 4.8 4.3 7.9 7.6 100.0 AV SPD 5.9 5.7 6.2 5.9 5.8 5.7 6.5 7.2 6.6 7.9 7.5 6.2 5.9 7.2 8.6 6.8 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 6.5 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 301 REQUEST NUMBER 604-25R2 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -1.0 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -.9 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 CALM+ - 1.5 1 1 2 3 1 2 0 2 0 2 2 0 1 2 1 1 21 1.3 1.26

.6 - 2.5 5 10 10 7 7 5 4 6 1 9 2 5 4 7 11 4 97 6.0 2.05 2.6 - 3.5 12 18 14 10 20 20 10 8 10 8 10 13 16 14 14 13 210 13.0 2.98 3.6 - 7.5 69 62 73 72 67 62 45 50 47 28 60 56 50 56 61 47 905 56.0 5.04 7.6 - 12.5 20 24 23 23 8 19 10 21 22 24 22 10 23 26 36 34 345 21.4 9.27 12.6 - 18.5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 4 8 0 2 3 8 3 35 2.2 13.78 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 .1 20.49 TOTAL 109 115 122 115 103 108 69 88 84 76 104 84 96 108 132 102 1615 100.0 4.57 PERCENT 6.7 7.1 7.6 7.1 6.4 6.7 4.3 5.4 5.2 4.7 6.4 5.2 5.9 6.7 8.2 6.3 100.0 AV SPD 5.6 5.3 5.4 5.6 4.8 5.3 5.3 5.8 6.8 6.5 6.6 5.2 5.7 6.2 6.6 6.6 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 5.8 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 137 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8B (SHEET 2 OF 4)

REQUEST NUMBER 604-25R2 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -.9 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO .8 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 CALM+ - 1.5 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 10 1.8 1.12 1.6 - 2.5 3 10 6 3 5 4 3 2 1 2 4 0 4 1 4 4 56 10.0 2.05 2.6 - 3.5 4 8 2 7 10 5 9 3 3 1 4 3 10 9 3 0 81 14.5 3.00 3.5 - 7.5 25 20 22 12 20 17 19 10 15 14 14 20 19 20 17 13 277 49.6 5.04 7.6 - 12.5 3 5 10 10 3 4 2 4 5 12 11 8 4 8 9 21 119 21.3 9.27 12.6 - 18.5 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 3 0 0 2 2 0 13 2.3 13.74 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 .4 18.88 TOTAL 36 44 42 32 39 32 34 20 26 32 38 32 38 40 35 38 558 100.0 4.22 PERCENT 6.5 7.9 7.5 5.7 7.0 5.7 6.1 3.6 4.7 5.7 6.8 5.7 6.8 7.2 6.3 6.8 100.0 AV SPD 5.1 4.4 5.7 5.5 4.9 4.9 5.2 5.3 6.5 7.3 7.0 5.8 40.4 5.9 6.0 7.6 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 5.7 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 55 REQUEST NUMBER 604-25R2 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -.8 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -.3 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 3 2 1 2 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 17 .2 .30 CALM +- 1.5 13 9 18 21 23 13 9 9 11 8 10 9 11 12 18 7 201 2.4 1.15 1.6 - 2.5 43 57 47 43 49 55 35 42 35 30 41 48 50 25 27 33 660 8.0 2.01 2.6 - 3.5 78 92 77 78 60 74 53 63 81 63 82 81 49 44 41 64 1080 13.1 3.01 3.5 - 7.5 286 323 370 308 284 198 192 247 254 274 278 195 185 175 220 303 4092 49.6 5.11 7.6 - 12.5 89 80 84 91 46 32 65 129 183 233 183 67 72 109 182 195 1840 22.3 9.27 12.6 - 18.5 6 6 5 2 2 1 10 19 32 86 75 13 3 20 52 18 350 4.2 14.24 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 2 2 0 1 0 0 12 .1 19.66 TOTAL 518 569 602 545 466 376 366 509 597 700 671 415 370 386 541 621 8252 100.0 4.25 PERCENT 6.3 6.9 7.3 6.6 5.6 4.6 4.4 6.2 7.2 8.5 8.1 5.0 4.5 4.7 6.6 7.5 100.0 AV SPD 5.2 5.1 5.3 5.3 4.8 4.5 5.5 6.1 6.7 7.7 7.0 5.3 5.3 6.5 7.3 6.5 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 6.0 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 345 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8B (SHEET 3 OF 4)

REQUEST NUMBER 604-25R2 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -.3 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO .8 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 10 7 7 7 2 4 8 2 6 1 2 3 3 1 6 5 74 .8 .30 CALM+ - 1.5 56 47 52 53 43 44 51 56 48 33 56 71 58 47 39 56 810 8.8 1.01 1.6 - 2.5 151 114 94 106 107 99 86 89 87 71 87 115 99 67 68 128 1568 17.0 1.97 2.6 - 3.5 206 186 160 147 157 117 114 133 129 103 122 104 87 64 88 184 2083 22.6 2.96 3.6 - 7.5 255 202 203 169 167 188 209 262 351 396 315 114 93 154 331 395 3804 41.3 4.87 7.6 - 12.5 30 21 18 15 10 10 23 60 139 135 119 20 31 30 53 70 784 8.5 9.04 12.6 - 18.5 4 0 3 0 0 1 6 6 17 24 21 1 1 4 1 5 94 1.0 13.93 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 .0 19.17 TOTAL 714 557 537 497 486 463 497 608 778 763 722 428 372 367 586 843 9218 100.0 2.69 PERCENT 7.7 6.0 5.8 5.4 5.3 5.0 5.4 5.6 8.4 8.3 7.8 4.6 4.0 4.0 6.4 9.1 100.0 AV SPD 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.8 4.3 5.2 5.5 5.1 3.2 3.5 4.1 4.6 4.3 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 4.1 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 146 REQUEST NUMBER 604-25R2 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN .8 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 2.2 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 11 8 7 9 8 6 9 13 13 5 2 3 9 7 7 6 123 3.2 .30 CALM+ - 1.5 44 40 66 38 27 32 31 38 29 45 47 36 44 46 56 61 680 17.5 .96 1.6 - 2.5 138 77 76 57 54 46 57 59 62 41 41 64 42 47 60 109 1030 26.5 1.96 2.6 - 3.5 182 116 95 67 50 53 39 55 68 53 45 39 51 39 66 128 1146 29.4 2.93 3.6 - 7.5 84 84 35 33 27 36 33 47 61 41 47 21 36 85 137 89 896 23.0 4.39 7.6 - 12.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 16 .4 9.12 12.6 - 18.5 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 .1 13.62 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 460 326 282 205 167 174 170 214 235 185 182 163 183 226 328 393 3893 0.0 1.74 PERCENT 11. 8.4 7.2 5.3 4.3 4.5 4.4 5.5 6.0 4.8 4.7 4.2 4.7 5.8 8.4 10.1 100.0 8

AV SPD 2.7 2.8 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.3 2.5 3.0 3.2 2.7 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 2.7 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 54 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8B (SHEET 4 OF 4)

REQUEST NUMBER 604-25R2 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN 2.2 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 29 26 10 6 13 16 13 13 10 12 8 11 22 22 32 36 279 7.6 .30 CALM+ - 1.5 153 88 44 41 34 31 42 49 82 53 44 40 47 49 82 145 1004 27.2 .92 1.6 - 2.5 261 97 67 29 25 25 25 39 57 40 57 15 33 37 90 209 1086 29.5 1.94 2.6 - 3.5 253 85 42 23 29 16 17 35 40 18 18 19 16 13 77 199 900 24.4 2.93 3.6 - 7.5 100 15 14 14 16 6 8 13 30 10 10 7 8 25 33 97 406 11.0 4.10 7.6 - 12.5 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 .1 9.80 12.6 - 18.5 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 .2 15.97 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 796 312 185 113 117 95 105 149 199 133 117 92 126 147 314 686 3686 0.0 1.23 PERCENT 21.6 8.5 5.0 3.1 3.2 2.6 2.8 4.0 5.4 3.6 3.2 2.5 3.4 4.0 8.5 18.6 100.0 AV SPD 2.3 1.9 2.6 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.9 2.1 1.7 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.9 2.1 2.3 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 2.1 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 75 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 1 OF 48)

JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -1.0 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 CALM+ - 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 1.6 - 2.5 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 2.2 2.16 2.6 - 3.5 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 8 5.8 3.00 3.6 - 7.5 10 3 4 3 4 6 3 4 1 0 6 1 1 3 2 3 54 39.4 5.73 7.6 -12.5 11 4 3 1 1 4 0 2 3 5 1 2 0 5 14 4 60 43.8 9.21 12.6 -18.5 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 1 12 8.8 14.14 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 27 12 8 4 6 11 3 7 4 6 9 3 1 10 18 8 137 0.0 6.57 PERCENT 19.7 8.8 5.8 2.9 4.4 8.0 2.2 5.1 2.9 4.4 6.6 2.2 .7 7.3 13.1 5.8 100.0 AV SPD 8.2 8.9 6.7 6.0 6.1 6.5 6.5 6.8 8.6 8.6 8.9 8.0 4.4 8.5 8.9 8.3 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 7.9 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 4 JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -1.0 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -.9 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 CALM+ - 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 1.6 - 2.5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 2.7 1.82 2.6 - 3.5 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 3.6 3.02 3.6 - 7.5 6 8 6 11 4 5 2 5 2 3 6 2 2 5 2 1 70 62.5 4.99 7.6 -12.5 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 4 3 1 1 3 1 1 6 3 28 25.0 9.85 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 6 5.4 13.25 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 .9 21.00 TOTAL 8 11 6 11 5 6 4 9 6 7 8 5 4 6 10 6 112 100.0 5.49 PERCENT 7.1 9.8 5.4 9.8 4.5 5.4 3.6 8.0 5.4 6.3 7.1 4.5 3.6 5.4 8.9 5.4 100.0 AV SPD 6.6 4.9 4.9 5.0 4.8 4.0 6.2 7.2 9.5 8.9 6.5 7.0 6.4 7.2 8.9 10.9 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 6.8 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 6 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 2 OF 48)

JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -.9 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -.8 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 CALM+ - 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 1.6 - 2.5 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 13.2 2.13 2.6 - 3.5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5.3 2.96 3.6 - 7.5 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 3 1 1 0 1 2 0 16 42.1 5.31 7.6 -12.5 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 6 12 31.6 9.46 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5.3 13.88 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.6 19.02 TOTAL 2 3 3 0 1 4 3 1 4 3 3 2 0 1 2 6 38 100.0 5.07 PERCENT 5.3 7.9 7.9 0.0 2.6 10.5 7.9 2.6 10.5 7.9 7.9 5.3 0.0 2.6 5.3 15.8 100.0 AV SPD 4.6 4.1 3.9 0.0 3.5 9.4 8.5 1.7 6.6 6.0 11.7 6.9 0.0 6.6 5.1 9.6 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 7.1 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 3 JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -.8 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -.3 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 CALM+ - 1.5 0 0 2 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 10 1.1 1.14 1.6 - 2.5 5 6 2 2 3 3 5 3 1 4 4 4 4 0 3 2 51 5.6 2.02 2.6 - 3.5 11 4 4 4 5 3 5 12 8 7 9 2 2 3 3 1 83 9.1 2.99 3.6 - 7.5 57 60 28 25 28 15 25 28 32 42 25 15 15 16 19 47 477 52.5 5.23 7.6 -12.5 16 11 4 6 7 6 5 14 37 33 12 6 5 9 25 28 224 24.7 9.24 12.6 -18.5 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 3 5 10 14 4 0 4 11 4 62 6.8 14.50 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 .1 20.14 TOTAL 91 81 40 37 46 28 45 61 83 97 64 31 26 32 63 83 908 100.0 5.00 PERCENT 10.0 8.9 4.4 4.1 5.1 3.1 5.0 6.7 9.1 10.7 7.0 3.4 2.9 3.5 6.9 9.1 100.0 AV SPD 5.7 5.4 4.8 5.4 5.3 5.3 6.1 6.1 7.6 7.7 7.9 6.5 5.3 7.5 8.7 7.4 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 6.6 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 23 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 3 OF 48)

JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -.3 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO .8 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 .3 .30 CALM+ - 1.5 4 5 5 6 2 5 2 8 3 8 5 6 3 3 3 6 74 7.7 .96 1.6 - 2.5 14 8 11 4 13 9 4 8 14 9 9 7 5 5 3 8 131 13.6 1.99 2.6 - 3.5 19 9 12 18 17 12 11 15 12 14 11 5 4 5 5 15 184 19.1 3.00 3.6 - 7.5 33 29 11 13 15 38 34 23 62 63 33 15 7 19 39 47 481 50.1 4.95 7.6 -12.5 1 2 3 0 1 1 2 4 21 16 10 2 1 3 7 1 75 7.8 8.78 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 2 1 2 0 0 1 0 1 13 1.4 13.90 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 71 54 42 42 48 65 56 61 114 111 70 35 20 36 58 78 961 0.0 2.99 PERCENT 7.4 5.6 4.4 4.4 5.0 6.8 5.8 6.3 11.9 11.6 7.3 3.6 2.1 3.7 6.0 8.1 100.0 AV SPD 3.7 3.8 3.4 3.0 3.3 3.9 4.9 4.4 5.5 5.0 5.0 3.8 3.5 4.7 5.3 4.2 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 4.4 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 13 JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN .8 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 2.2 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 8 3.4 .30 CALM+ - 1.5 2 2 4 3 2 1 3 3 1 3 4 1 2 1 1 2 35 15.0 .97 1.6 - 2.5 2 1 6 2 4 3 4 7 6 2 7 3 2 0 2 1 52 22.3 2.03 2.6 - 3.5 11 6 2 4 4 3 3 9 8 6 6 0 1 0 3 1 67 28.8 2.98 3.6 - 7.5 4 6 1 3 3 3 1 5 11 6 3 4 1 2 7 8 68 29.2 4.24 7.6 -12.5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1.3 8.42 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 19 16 13 13 13 12 11 25 28 17 20 8 6 4 14 14 233 0.0 1.83 PERCENT 8.2 6.9 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.2 4.7 10.7 12.0 7.3 8.6 3.4 2.6 1.7 6.0 6.0 100.0 AV SPD 3.0 3.1 2.1 2.4 2.7 3.1 2.2 2.7 3.7 3.2 2.4 3.2 2.2 2.5 3.0 2.8 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 2.9 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 4 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 4 OF 48)

JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN 2.2 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 0 1 2 0 4 4 8 1 32 11.3 .30 CALM+ - 1.5 6 2 6 7 6 3 7 5 4 8 4 1 3 2 4 10 78 27.7 .87 1.6 - 2.5 21 8 6 2 2 4 5 8 4 3 4 2 5 2 6 9 91 32.3 1.86 2.6 - 3.5 22 0 3 1 3 0 2 3 2 5 2 3 0 0 2 9 57 20.2 2.96 3.6 - 7.5 9 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 24 8.5 4.15 7.6 -12.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 58 15 16 11 13 9 17 19 15 18 13 6 12 8 20 32 282 0.0 1.04 PERCENT 20.6 5.3 5.7 3.9 4.6 3.2 6.0 6.7 5.3 6.4 4.6 2.1 4.3 2.8 7.1 11.3 100.0 AV SPD 2.6 1.9 1.7 1.4 1.7 1.1 1.6 1.7 2.5 1.8 1.8 2.3 1.1 .8 1.2 2.1 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 1.9 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 6 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 5 OF 48)

MONTH OF FEBRUARY JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -1.0 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 .9 .30 CALM+ - 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 1.6 - 2.5 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2.3 2.16 2.6 - 3.5 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 3 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 13 6.0 3.08 3.6 - 7.5 11 12 15 5 8 6 4 4 4 1 1 4 4 5 2 6 92 42.8 5.37 7.6 -12.5 3 9 5 4 0 0 0 4 3 0 2 6 4 8 19 14 81 37.7 9.45 12.6 -18.5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 11 0 19 8.8 14.89 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 1.4 19.22 TOTAL 16 25 20 11 9 8 5 11 10 1 6 11 10 16 35 21 215 100.0 5.33 PERCENT 7.4 11.6 9.3 5.1 4.2 3.7 2.3 5.1 4.7 .5 2.8 5.1 4.7 7.4 16.3 9.8 100.0 AV SPD 7.7 6.3 6.5 6.3 5.6 4.5 5.8 6.4 5.8 7.5 5.8 7.3 8.6 9.6 12.3 8.5 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 7.9 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 16 JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -1.0 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -.9 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 CALM+ - 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 1.6 - 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1.1 2.16 2.6 - 3.5 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 3.2 3.30 3.6 - 7.5 4 5 6 3 5 5 3 4 2 0 1 3 2 3 4 2 52 54.7 5.34 7.6 -12.5 4 2 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 2 2 0 2 3 8 4 33 34.7 9.41 12.6 -18.5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 5 5.3 14.51 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1.1 20.01 TOTAL 11 7 9 4 5 7 4 4 2 2 3 3 5 8 15 6 95 100.0 6.33 PERCENT 11.6 7.4 9.5 4.2 5.3 7.4 4.2 4.2 2.1 2.1 3.2 3.2 5.3 8.4 15.8 6.3 100.0 AV SPD 8.6 5.7 6.8 6.1 5.1 6.0 5.7 5.4 4.8 11.5 9.0 6.2 8.2 7.2 10.1 9.1 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 7.5 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 6 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 6 OF 48)

JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -.9 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -.8 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 CALM+ - 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 1.6 - 2.5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 5.6 2.39 2.6 - 3.5 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5.6 2.90 3.6 - 7.5 0 2 1 1 3 2 1 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 15 41.7 4.86 7.6-12.5 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 3 2 3 15 41.7 9.67 12.6-18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 5.6 13.88 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 0 4 2 2 3 3 1 0 1 1 2 4 3 3 4 3 36 0.0 5.70 PERCENT 0.0 11.1 5.6 5.6 8.3 8.3 2.8 0.0 2.8 2.8 5.6 11.1 8.3 8.3 11.1 8.3 100.0 AV SPD 0.0 6.0 6.3 3.2 5.1 4.7 5.6 0.0 7.7 4.6 8.1 7.6 7.4 9.6 9.6 12.3 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 7.3 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 4 JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -.8 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -.3 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 CALM+ - 1.5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 .3 1.10 1.6 - 2.5 2 1 2 0 1 1 0 3 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 16 2.4 2.07 2.6 - 3.5 1 5 4 3 4 2 1 4 7 2 5 2 1 2 2 3 48 7.3 3.03 3.6 - 7.5 19 22 40 26 16 15 11 13 12 16 14 12 13 17 19 18 283 43.1 5.18 7.6 -12.5 20 7 8 8 8 5 4 11 14 13 19 13 16 25 50 46 267 40.6 9.46 12.6 -18.5 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 2 4 5 0 1 7 13 2 40 6.1 14.28 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 .2 19.97 TOTAL 44 36 55 37 29 23 17 34 38 36 44 27 32 52 84 69 657 100.0 5.92 PERCENT 6.7 5.5 8.4 5.6 4.4 3.5 2.6 5.2 5.8 5.5 6.7 4.1 4.9 7.9 12.8 10.5 100.0 AV SPD 7.0 5.8 5.7 6.0 5.8 5.6 6.4 7.3 6.7 7.7 8.1 6.8 7.9 9.0 9.7 8.4 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 7.4 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 11 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 7 OF 48)

JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -.3 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO .8 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 .7 .30 CALM+ - 1.5 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 1 2 0 1 5 1 0 0 1 16 2.2 1.24 1.6 - 2.5 1 7 3 3 3 3 2 5 3 0 2 4 3 8 1 6 54 7.5 1.94 2.6 - 3.5 10 3 1 6 7 7 4 7 10 2 9 7 5 5 2 12 97 13.5 3.03 3.6 - 7.5 24 8 12 13 15 9 18 37 35 48 36 14 18 21 39 47 394 54.8 5.13 7.6 -12.5 13 10 4 0 2 0 1 10 18 21 21 4 4 8 12 8 136 18.9 9.23 12.6 -18.5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 1 1 0 0 2 1 1 17 2.4 14.10 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 52 28 22 25 27 20 27 61 75 72 71 34 31 44 55 75 719 0.0 3.95 PERCENT 7.2 3.9 3.1 3.5 3.8 2.8 3.8 8.5 10.4 10.0 9.9 4.7 4.3 6.1 7.6 10.4 100.0 AV SPD 6.3 5.6 5.2 3.8 4.3 3.4 4.2 5.7 6.7 6.5 6.4 4.3 4.9 5.7 6.4 5.2 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 5.6 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 9 JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN .8 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 2.2 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 6 3.0 .30 CALM+ - 1.5 0 2 2 2 0 0 1 3 0 1 0 3 6 0 0 1 21 10.7 .98 1.6 - 2.5 9 1 6 0 1 2 3 5 3 3 3 2 2 4 2 3 49 24.9 2.00 2.6 - 3.5 8 5 2 3 4 2 1 3 10 4 2 3 4 4 6 3 64 32.5 2.93 3.6 - 7.5 2 3 0 0 1 2 0 1 4 4 3 5 2 4 19 7 57 28.9 4.49 7.6 -12.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 19 11 10 5 7 6 7 12 18 12 9 13 14 12 28 14 197 0.0 1.96 PERCENT 9.6 5.6 5.1 2.5 3.6 3.0 3.6 6.1 9.1 6.1 4.6 6.6 7.1 6.1 14.2 7.1 100.0 AV SPD 2.7 3.1 2.1 2.1 2.6 3.0 1.6 2.1 2.9 3.1 2.9 2.9 2.3 3.2 4.2 3.4 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 2.9 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 0 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 8 OF 48)

JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN 2.2 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 1 2 1 1 0 2 15 6.6 .30 CALM+ - 1.5 12 10 3 2 3 4 3 5 7 3 4 1 3 3 3 7 73 32.0 .84 1.6 - 2.5 13 8 6 3 1 2 1 7 5 6 0 1 2 2 6 8 71 31.1 1.92 2.6 - 3.5 9 4 3 3 4 1 3 3 3 2 1 1 2 0 1 4 44 19.3 2.98 3.6 - 7.5 3 2 0 1 3 0 0 1 5 1 1 0 0 0 3 4 24 10.5 4.20 7.6 -12.5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 .4 8.04 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 39 26 12 9 11 7 9 16 21 14 7 5 8 6 13 25 228 0.0 1.17 PERCENT 17.1 11.4 5.3 3.9 4.8 3.1 3.9 7.0 9.2 6.1 3.1 2.2 3.5 2.6 5.7 11.0 100.0 AV SPD 2.0 1.9 1.9 2.4 2.5 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.3 1.9 1.6 1.3 1.6 1.4 2.4 2.2 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 2.0 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 6 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 9 OF 48)

JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTIONREQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -1.0 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 CALM+ - 1.5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 .4 1.26 1.6 - 2.5 0 1 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 3.5 2.16 2.6 - 3.5 0 0 4 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 13 5.1 3.11 3.6 - 7.5 6 7 12 9 8 26 4 5 5 7 5 9 2 1 3 6 115 44.7 5.13 7.6 -12.5 7 8 12 1 2 5 6 0 3 5 6 2 1 5 21 16 100 38.9 9.68 12.6 -18.5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 11 4 19 7.4 13.90 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 13 16 30 11 15 32 12 5 9 12 13 12 4 10 35 28 257 0.0 5.94 PERCENT 5.1 6.2 11.7 4.3 5.8 12.5 4.7 1.9 3.5 4.7 5.1 4.7 1.6 3.9 13.6 10.9 100.0 AV SPD 6.8 7.0 6.7 5.4 5.2 5.9 7.1 5.2 6.1 7.2 7.0 5.6 6.1 10.5 11.7 9.4 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 7.5 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 15 JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -1.0 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -.9 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 CALM+ - 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 1.6 - 2.5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2.3 2.20 2.6 - 3.5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2.3 3.38 3.6 - 7.5 2 3 7 5 2 1 1 3 1 0 4 2 1 2 1 3 38 44.2 5.25 7.6 -12.5 4 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 3 3 4 1 2 4 5 6 36 41.9 9.34 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 4 1 8 9.3 13.18 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 8 4 9 5 3 2 1 4 4 3 10 3 3 7 10 10 86 0.0 6.52 PERCENT 9.3 4.7 10.5 5.8 3.5 2.3 1.2 4.7 4.7 3.5 11.6 3.5 3.5 8.1 11.6 11.6 100.0 AV SPD 5.8 3.9 6.3 6.1 6.9 6.7 5.6 5.4 8.3 9.6 8.7 6.9 9.2 9.4 10.8 8.6 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 7.8 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 8 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 10 OF 48)

JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -.9 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -.8 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 CALM+ - 1.5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.3 .63 1.6 - 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 2.6 - 3.5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 4 13.3 3.21 3.6 - 7.5 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 1 3 1 1 1 0 2 0 14 46.7 4.88 7.6 -12.5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 3 10 33.3 9.42 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3.3 14.06 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 0 2 2 0 3 0 0 1 1 4 3 4 2 3 2 3 30 0.0 4.39 PERCENT 0.0 6.7 6.7 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 3.3 13.3 10.0 13.3 6.7 10.0 6.7 10.0 100.0 AV SPD 0.0 2.2 5.6 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 5.2 4.8 6.5 5.1 5.8 7.4 11.9 5.0 9.8 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 6.5 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 3 JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -.8 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -.3 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 .2 .30 CALM+ - 1.5 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 7 1.4 1.05 1.6 - 2.5 1 1 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 1 2 4 3 1 1 0 19 3.8 2.05 2.6 - 3.5 0 3 4 0 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 6 2 2 1 4 35 7.1 3.11 3.6 - 7.5 8 10 6 4 8 14 7 14 16 21 10 15 10 8 10 18 179 36.1 5.21 7.6 -12.5 13 11 6 8 1 0 1 5 23 35 35 14 7 10 19 15 203 40.9 9.43 12.6 -18.5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 16 21 1 1 0 10 0 51 10.3 13.78 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 .2 18.83 TOTAL 24 26 17 15 12 16 10 22 44 75 71 40 25 21 41 37 496 100.0 5.50 PERCENT 4.8 5.2 3.4 3.0 2.4 3.2 2.0 4.4 8.9 15.1 14.3 8.1 5.0 4.2 8.3 7.5 100.0 AV SPD 7.1 6.7 6.1 6.5 5.1 4.3 4.9 6.2 8.1 9.3 9.9 6.5 6.0 6.9 9.4 7.1 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 7.7 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 27 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 11 OF 48)

JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -.3 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO .8 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 1.0 .30 CALM+ - 1.5 0 0 1 2 0 4 6 4 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 0 28 4.6 1.05 1.6 - 2.5 2 4 6 5 4 8 1 6 1 1 4 2 0 3 2 2 51 8.4 1.98 2.6 - 3.5 3 10 5 9 9 8 3 9 8 2 7 2 6 5 2 5 93 15.2 3.01 3.6 - 7.5 16 9 6 15 9 7 8 29 17 51 50 12 3 7 15 37 291 47.7 5.14 7.6 -12.5 5 6 8 4 1 0 1 1 12 16 40 4 4 0 2 15 119 19.5 9.06 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 12 0 0 0 0 0 22 3.6 13.61 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 30 29 27 35 23 27 19 49 40 81 115 21 14 17 23 60 610 0.0 3.49 PERCENT 4.9 4.8 4.4 5.7 3.8 4.4 3.1 8.0 6.6 13.3 18.9 3.4 2.3 2.8 3.8 9.8 100.0 AV SPD 4.6 4.9 4.9 4.3 3.7 2.8 3.4 4.0 5.9 7.0 7.5 5.3 5.3 3.7 4.7 6.2 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 5.5 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 8 JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN .8 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 2.2 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 .5 .30 CALM+ - 1.5 2 3 0 3 0 0 2 2 1 3 2 1 0 2 0 1 22 11.1 1.02 1.6 - 2.5 7 1 0 0 1 1 4 6 5 2 3 3 4 7 0 4 48 24.1 2.02 2.6 - 3.5 7 0 2 0 1 1 3 5 7 6 3 2 2 5 2 4 50 25.1 2.93 3.6 - 7.5 3 2 1 0 0 0 2 3 9 7 10 3 6 9 15 8 78 39.2 4.64 7.6 -12.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 19 6 3 3 2 2 11 16 22 18 18 9 12 23 17 18 199 0.0 2.41 PERCENT 9.5 3.0 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.0 5.5 8.0 11.1 9.0 9.0 4.5 6.0 11.6 8.5 9.0 100.0 AV SPD 2.8 2.1 3.4 1.1 2.6 2.2 2.4 2.6 3.5 3.2 3.9 2.8 3.4 3.5 4.8 3.3 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 3.3 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 4 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 12 OF 48)

JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN 2.2 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 2 1 0 1 2 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 15 8.5 .30 CALM+ - 1.5 9 3 4 4 3 4 5 5 6 2 2 3 2 2 3 8 65 36.7 .91 1.6 - 2.5 10 4 3 1 2 0 3 2 7 2 4 0 1 3 1 6 49 27.7 1.92 2.6 - 3.5 8 0 1 1 0 1 3 5 2 2 2 1 0 1 1 1 29 16.4 2.94 3.6 - 7.5 4 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 1 2 0 1 3 0 0 18 10.2 4.53 7.6 -12.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 .6 7.56 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 33 11 8 7 7 10 11 13 18 7 10 4 6 10 5 17 177 0.0 1.10 PERCENT 18.6 6.2 4.5 4.0 4.0 5.6 6.2 7.3 10.2 4.0 5.6 2.3 3.4 5.6 2.8 9.6 100.0 AV SPD 2.1 2.3 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.8 1.5 1.7 3.5 1.6 1.3 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 1.9 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 13 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 13 OF 48)

JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -1.0 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 CALM+ - 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 1.6 - 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 2.6 - 3.5 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 1.5 3.05 3.6 - 7.5 4 3 7 7 6 6 12 5 9 5 11 14 6 8 11 5 119 36.0 5.82 7.6 -12.5 8 2 4 5 13 11 18 13 5 6 31 12 3 9 14 15 169 51.1 9.52 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 7 3 9 14 2 0 0 1 0 37 11.2 14.24 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 .3 18.66 TOTAL 12 5 11 13 20 18 30 25 18 21 57 28 9 17 26 21 331 100.0 7.79 PERCENT 3.6 1.5 3.3 3.9 6.0 5.4 9.1 7.6 5.4 6.3 17.2 8.5 2.7 5.1 7.9 6.3 100.0 AV SPD 8.7 6.9 6.9 7.2 8.6 7.5 8.2 10.6 8.0 10.4 10.4 7.9 7.1 8.2 8.9 8.7 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 8.8 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 17 JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -1.0 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -.9 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 CALM+ - 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 1.6 - 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 2.6 - 3.5 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 9 7.0 2.94 3.6 - 7.5 1 2 4 2 6 6 5 3 4 6 8 6 3 5 5 3 69 53.5 5.21 7.6 -12.5 1 1 0 0 0 6 3 3 2 3 5 4 0 6 3 8 45 34.9 9.62 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 1 1 0 6 4.7 14.89 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 3 4 4 3 7 13 8 6 7 10 19 10 3 12 9 11 129 0.0 6.03 PERCENT 2.3 3.1 3.1 2.3 5.4 10.1 6.2 4.7 5.4 7.8 14.7 7.8 2.3 9.3 7.0 8.5 100.0 AV SPD 5.9 5.9 5.2 4.7 5.2 7.4 6.9 7.5 8.8 6.2 7.7 7.5 5.2 8.2 7.8 8.6 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 7.2 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 14 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 14 OF 48)

JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -.9 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -.8 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 CALM+ - 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 1.6 - 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 3.8 1.92 2.6 - 3.5 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 7.5 3.05 3.6 - 7.5 1 2 0 0 0 2 5 0 1 2 3 4 3 2 1 0 26 49.1 5.51 7.6 -12.5 1 1 0 2 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 1 2 17 32.1 9.60 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 5.7 14.26 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.9 18.75 TOTAL 2 5 1 2 3 2 6 2 2 4 8 5 4 3 2 2 53 100.0 5.82 PERCENT 3.8 9.4 1.9 3.8 5.7 3.8 11.3 3.8 3.8 7.5 15.1 9.4 7.5 5.7 3.8 3.8 100.0 AV SPD 8.7 5.2 2.5 8.2 6.5 6.2 6.5 10.8 8.4 10.3 8.4 6.6 4.8 8.8 6.8 10.9 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 7.4 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 6 JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -.8 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -.3 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 CALM+ - 1.5 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 7 1.0 1.21 1.6 - 2.5 2 0 3 2 2 1 1 3 2 2 3 2 2 0 0 0 25 3.5 2.00 2.6 - 3.5 2 5 3 2 0 9 3 4 7 9 3 2 5 1 2 1 58 8.1 3.04 3.6 - 7.5 15 10 18 12 20 15 27 18 17 29 33 30 22 8 21 15 310 43.4 5.42 7.6 -12.5 8 2 0 3 2 2 14 11 34 53 46 9 3 5 20 19 231 32.4 9.45 12.6 -18.5 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 12 28 25 5 0 0 0 0 75 10.5 14.60 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 8 1.1 19.72 TOTAL 28 18 25 19 25 27 46 39 73 125 112 51 32 14 45 35 714 100.0 5.73 PERCENT 3.9 2.5 3.5 2.7 3.5 3.8 6.4 5.5 10.2 17.5 15.7 7.1 4.5 2.0 6.3 4.9 100.0 AV SPD 6.1 4.8 4.6 5.3 5.5 4.9 6.8 7.0 8.8 9.8 9.6 7.2 5.2 7.0 7.2 7.7 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 7.7 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 35 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 15 OF 48)

JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -.3 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO .8 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 CALM+ - 1.5 2 1 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 2 3 1 2 31 4.5 .99 1.6 - 2.5 5 3 4 1 6 2 3 5 2 2 1 6 4 1 4 3 52 7.5 1.99 2.6 - 3.5 8 7 11 7 11 11 9 8 11 12 13 8 4 4 7 6 137 19.9 2.99 3.6 - 7.5 16 16 6 8 11 23 28 16 35 52 52 13 9 14 31 22 352 51.0 5.02 7.6 -12.5 6 1 1 0 0 1 3 4 17 32 21 0 0 1 5 13 105 15.2 9.00 12.6 -18.5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 4 0 0 0 0 1 13 1.9 14.39 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 38 28 25 18 29 39 45 35 69 104 94 29 19 23 48 47 690 0.0 3.71 PERCENT 5.5 4.1 3.6 2.6 4.2 5.7 6.5 5.1 10.0 15.1 13.6 4.2 2.8 3.3 7.0 6.8 100.0 AV SPD 4.8 4.2 3.1 3.5 3.2 4.1 4.5 4.3 6.0 7.0 6.2 3.5 3.6 4.2 5.0 5.8 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 5.1 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 16 JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN .8 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 2.2 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 CALM+ - 1.5 1 0 3 2 2 0 1 2 2 1 5 1 2 1 2 0 25 10.0 1.02 1.6 - 2.5 7 3 2 2 4 6 3 1 7 3 7 9 3 2 1 1 61 24.3 1.92 2.6 - 3.5 4 4 5 5 8 8 2 5 4 5 6 5 2 3 0 4 70 27.9 3.05 3.6 - 7.5 7 5 0 5 3 3 7 9 8 5 10 3 4 4 9 12 94 37.5 4.49 7.6 -12.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 .4 10.97 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 19 12 10 14 17 17 13 18 21 14 28 18 11 10 12 17 251 0.0 2.51 PERCENT 7.6 4.8 4.0 5.6 6.8 6.8 5.2 7.2 8.4 5.6 11.2 7.2 4.4 4.0 4.8 6.8 100.0 AV SPD 2.9 3.3 2.2 3.1 2.8 2.9 3.6 4.2 3.2 3.3 3.0 2.8 2.8 3.3 4.1 4.3 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 3.2 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 4 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 16 OF 48)

JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN 2.2 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 2 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 3 1 14 3.9 .30 CALM+ - 1.5 15 13 4 4 3 1 4 3 5 7 6 8 9 2 8 11 103 28.7 .97 1.6 - 2.5 27 9 4 4 1 1 2 3 12 4 8 4 3 3 7 12 104 29.0 1.93 2.6 - 3.5 22 11 1 3 2 5 1 3 7 4 2 2 2 0 4 25 94 26.2 2.94 3.6 - 7.5 10 0 1 0 5 1 1 3 2 2 2 2 0 4 5 6 44 12.3 4.16 7.6 -12.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 76 35 10 11 11 9 9 13 27 17 18 17 15 9 27 55 359 0.0 1.44 PERCENT 21.2 9.7 2.8 3.1 3.1 2.5 2.5 3.6 7.5 4.7 5.0 4.7 4.2 2.5 7.5 15.3 100.0 AV SPD 2.3 1.8 1.9 1.8 2.8 2.7 1.5 2.5 2.1 2.2 2.2 1.7 1.5 2.7 2.2 2.4 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 2.2 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 13 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 17 OF 48)

JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -1.0 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 CALM+ - 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 1.6 - 2.5 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 .6 2.24 2.6 - 3.5 0 1 5 0 3 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 2 18 5.8 3.02 3.6 - 7.5 28 13 11 5 3 4 8 8 2 4 6 4 9 2 16 16 139 44.6 5.52 7.6 -12.5 15 10 14 7 2 7 15 8 4 4 6 5 7 8 20 13 145 46.5 9.18 12.6 -18.5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 8 2.6 13.22 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 44 25 30 12 9 11 23 17 8 11 15 10 17 12 37 31 312 0.0 6.45 PERCENT 14.1 8.0 9.6 3.8 2.9 3.5 7.4 5.4 2.6 3.5 4.8 3.2 5.4 3.8 11.9 9.9 100.0 AV SPD 6.8 7.4 6.9 7.6 4.8 7.9 7.9 8.5 8.3 8.4 8.1 6.8 6.7 7.6 8.2 6.9 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 7.4 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 26 JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -1.0 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -.9 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 CALM+ - 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 2.5 1.34 1.6 - 2.5 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 12 7.5 2.01 2.6 - 3.5 1 1 0 2 4 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 17 10.7 3.02 3.6 - 7.5 11 6 6 4 4 4 2 4 3 2 5 6 4 7 11 4 83 52.2 5.00 7.6 -12.5 1 3 1 5 1 1 1 4 6 2 2 0 6 0 5 2 40 25.2 9.13 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1.9 13.32 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 13 11 7 12 10 6 6 11 10 8 9 6 12 12 19 7 159 0.0 4.44 PERCENT 8.2 6.9 4.4 7.5 6.3 3.8 3.8 6.9 6.3 5.0 5.7 3.8 7.5 7.5 11.9 4.4 100.0 AV SPD 5.1 5.6 5.3 6.1 4.0 5.7 4.7 7.2 7.7 7.4 5.8 5.8 6.5 4.7 5.8 5.9 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 5.8 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 25 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 18 OF 48)

JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -.9 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -.8 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 CALM+ - 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 1.6 - 2.5 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 9 18.7 2.14 2.6 - 3.5 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 9 18.7 2.92 3.6 - 7.5 0 0 2 1 0 2 1 1 3 0 2 1 1 4 1 3 22 45.8 5.09 7.6 -12.5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 6 12.5 8.65 12.6 -18.5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4.2 12.62 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 3 3 4 2 2 3 2 2 3 1 4 2 4 6 3 4 48 0.0 0.00 PERCENT 6.3 6.3 8.3 4.2 4.2 6.3 4.2 4.2 6.3 2.1 8.3 4.2 8.3 12.5 6.3 8.3 100.0 AV SPD 2.7 4.5 6.4 2.9 2.3 4.1 4.0 3.6 5.6 12.5 5.7 7.1 3.8 5.1 7.4 5.6 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 5.0 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 11 JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -.8 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -.3 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 .1 .30 CALM+ - 1.5 3 0 6 3 5 1 1 2 0 1 1 3 4 4 3 1 38 5.2 1.16 1.6 - 2.5 4 7 3 7 9 12 3 4 6 3 6 6 9 5 5 4 93 12.8 1.99 2.6 - 3.5 5 8 4 5 6 6 15 7 12 6 7 13 4 3 3 6 110 15.1 3.00 3.6 - 7.5 18 19 21 11 15 19 13 26 15 24 40 35 18 11 22 27 334 45.9 5.08 7.6 -12.5 2 18 8 3 4 9 10 14 6 18 15 5 1 3 10 9 135 18.5 9.23 12.6 -18.5 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 17 2.3 13.97 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 33 55 42 29 40 47 42 56 42 58 70 62 36 26 43 47 728 0.0 3.62 PERCENT 4.5 7.6 5.8 4.0 5.5 6.5 5.8 7.7 5.8 8.0 9.6 8.5 4.9 3.6 5.9 6.5 100.0 AV SPD 4.5 6.5 5.1 4.1 3.9 4.9 4.9 6.0 5.6 7.1 5.7 4.7 3.7 4.2 5.5 5.6 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 5.3 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 43 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 19 OF 48)

JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -.3 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO .8 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 1.2 .30 CALM+ - 1.5 4 3 4 3 6 6 4 7 4 1 6 11 5 4 5 4 77 11.3 1.00 1.6 - 2.5 9 3 3 5 9 4 6 9 11 9 12 22 14 6 8 14 144 21.1 1.98 2.6 - 3.5 13 8 5 6 9 7 10 6 14 12 10 20 9 4 4 19 156 22.8 2.95 3.6 - 7.5 21 15 14 3 11 5 13 17 19 22 28 10 0 5 35 45 263 38.5 4.89 7.6 -12.5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 9 5 9 3 0 0 3 1 35 5.1 8.81 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 .1 18.28 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 47 29 26 18 36 24 36 44 59 49 65 66 28 19 55 83 684 0.0 2.38 PERCENT 6.9 4.2 3.8 2.6 5.3 3.5 5.3 6.4 8.6 7.2 9.5 9.6 4.1 2.8 8.0 12.1 100.0 AV SPD 3.6 3.6 3.7 2.6 2.9 3.0 3.2 4.2 4.3 4.5 4.6 2.9 2.1 2.6 4.1 3.9 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 3.7 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 11 JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN .8 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 2.2 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 1 1 2 1 2 0 3 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 15 5.6 .30 CALM+ - 1.5 5 0 5 4 2 1 6 7 2 4 3 6 1 3 2 6 57 21.2 .92 1.6 - 2.5 6 2 6 6 4 5 4 3 1 3 2 5 4 4 4 11 70 26.0 1.93 2.6 - 3.5 10 4 4 5 5 2 3 6 6 2 0 1 5 2 9 10 74 27.5 2.89 3.6 - 7.5 4 5 3 2 0 3 1 1 7 0 4 0 3 10 7 3 53 19.7 4.48 7.6 -12.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 26 12 20 18 13 11 17 19 16 11 9 12 13 19 23 30 269 0.0 1.45 PERCENT 9.7 4.5 7.4 6.7 4.8 4.1 6.3 7.1 5.9 4.1 3.3 4.5 4.8 7.1 8.6 11.2 100.0 AV SPD 2.4 3.3 2.1 2.3 2.0 2.6 1.6 1.9 3.4 1.6 2.8 1.6 2.8 3.3 3.0 2.4 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 2.5 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 5 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 20 OF 48)

JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN 2.2 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 3 1 5 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 0 1 1 25 9.7 .30 CALM+ - 1.5 19 15 2 4 2 2 2 6 10 7 2 0 1 1 6 10 89 34.4 .83 1.6 - 2.5 8 5 2 0 0 0 5 0 6 5 1 0 2 2 9 14 59 22.8 1.87 2.6 - 3.5 15 0 1 2 2 1 3 2 5 0 0 2 0 3 15 16 67 25.9 2.90 3.6 - 7.5 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 4 1 7 19 7.3 4.08 7.6 -12.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 45 21 10 8 6 4 12 9 26 14 5 4 5 10 32 48 259 0.0 1.04 PERCENT 17.4 8.1 3.9 3.1 2.3 1.5 4.6 3.5 10.0 5.4 1.9 1.5 1.9 3.9 12.4 18.5 100.0 AV SPD 1.7 1.2 1.0 2.2 1.9 1.3 2.0 1.4 1.8 1.1 .9 1.6 1.3 3.0 2.3 2.3 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 1.8 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 1 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 21 OF 48)

JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -1.0 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 CALM+ - 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 .3 1.17 1.6 - 2.5 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 12 3.2 2.12 2.6 - 3.5 2 1 3 2 2 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 5 25 6.6 2.93 3.6 - 7.5 21 17 14 26 21 12 10 5 5 4 4 10 22 22 15 15 223 59.3 5.12 7.6 -12.5 7 2 1 17 13 7 4 1 1 1 7 15 8 7 11 4 106 28.2 8.73 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 5 0 9 2.4 14.84 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 31 22 19 47 37 24 15 9 6 7 11 26 31 31 36 24 376 0.0 5.27 PERCENT 8.2 5.9 5.1 12.5 9.8 6.4 4.0 2.4 1.6 1.9 2.9 6.9 8.2 8.2 9.6 6.4 100.0 AV SPD 5.9 5.4 4.8 6.4 6.6 5.9 6.1 5.0 5.6 5.5 8.3 7.8 6.2 6.5 7.3 5.5 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 6.3 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 27 JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -1.0 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -.9 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 CALM+ - 1.5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1.0 1.35 1.6 - 2.5 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 0 12 5.8 2.07 2.6 - 3.5 0 0 3 3 3 4 1 4 2 3 1 4 5 1 6 2 42 20.3 3.02 3.6 - 7.5 10 5 8 6 2 3 6 9 0 4 6 14 18 12 14 10 127 61.4 5.01 7.6 -12.5 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 6 6 0 1 22 10.6 9.38 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 1.0 14.05 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 10 5 14 13 8 8 7 16 2 9 11 18 31 21 21 13 207 0.0 4.22 PERCENT 4.8 2.4 6.8 6.3 3.9 3.9 3.4 7.7 1.0 4.3 5.3 8.7 15.0 10.1 10.1 6.3 100.0 AV SPD 5.1 5.9 3.7 5.8 4.2 4.0 5.1 4.7 2.9 3.7 7.3 4.7 5.4 6.6 4.5 5.4 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 5.1 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 21 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 22 OF 48)

JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -.9 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -.8 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 CALM+ - 1.5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 3.6 1.23 1.6 - 2.5 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 5 6.0 2.11 2.6 - 3.5 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 0 12 14.5 2.99 3.6 - 7.5 8 5 1 1 2 1 3 2 0 0 1 4 8 5 5 3 49 59.0 4.88 7.6 -12.5 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 1 0 2 12 14.5 8.81 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2.4 14.00 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 8 8 2 5 5 3 5 2 1 0 4 6 12 10 7 5 83 0.0 4.08 PERCENT 9.6 9.6 2.4 6.0 6.0 3.6 6.0 2.4 1.2 0.0 4.8 7.2 14.5 12.0 8.4 6.0 100.0 AV SPD 5.1 4.0 3.3 5.8 8.4 5.0 5.1 5.5 14.4 0.0 7.1 6.2 4.2 4.3 4.1 6.2 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 5.2 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 7 JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -.8 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -.3 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 .1 .30 CALM+ - 1.5 1 3 1 1 2 2 2 0 3 0 3 2 0 1 2 1 24 3.5 1.05 1.6 - 2.5 5 8 6 9 7 14 3 3 6 5 5 7 4 5 1 4 92 13.4 1.99 2.6 - 3.5 6 6 7 9 7 6 5 6 5 12 6 16 7 8 4 9 119 17.4 3.01 3.6 - 7.5 25 25 22 25 18 11 12 10 11 23 42 32 25 23 16 21 341 49.8 4.98 7.6 -12.5 0 0 4 12 9 1 2 2 5 9 19 7 6 6 8 2 92 13.4 9.11 12.6 -18.5 0 0 3 2 0 1 0 2 1 4 1 0 0 2 0 0 16 2.3 14.36 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 37 42 43 59 43 35 24 23 31 53 76 64 42 45 31 37 685 0.0 3.57 PERCENT 5.4 6.1 6.3 8.6 6.3 5.1 3.5 3.4 4.5 7.7 11.1 9.3 6.1 6.6 4.5 5.4 100.0 AV SPD 4.4 4.1 5.3 5.6 4.9 3.8 4.2 4.8 4.9 5.8 6.0 4.5 4.9 5.5 5.8 4.2 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 5.0 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 38 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 23 OF 48)

JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -.3 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO .8 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 .6 .30 CALM+ - 1.5 7 1 6 9 3 5 4 2 5 3 10 8 8 7 4 8 90 12.4 1.07 1.6 - 2.5 14 6 5 9 11 10 17 13 5 12 14 14 15 9 6 11 171 23.6 1.95 2.6 - 3.5 18 11 9 11 13 9 6 12 9 7 15 16 16 3 11 19 185 25.5 2.99 3.6 - 7.5 21 6 7 7 11 12 14 6 14 28 29 11 16 20 17 26 245 33.8 4.66 7.6 -12.5 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 2 2 4 2 7 3 2 0 27 3.7 9.28 12.6 -18.5 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 .4 16.18 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 60 24 30 37 40 38 42 34 36 52 72 51 63 42 40 64 725 0.0 2.40 PERCENT 8.3 3.3 4.1 5.1 5.5 5.2 5.8 4.7 5.0 7.2 9.9 7.0 8.7 5.8 5.5 8.8 100.0 AV SPD 3.1 3.1 4.2 2.5 3.3 3.3 2.9 3.1 3.7 4.1 3.6 3.0 3.7 3.9 4.0 3.2 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 3.4 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 14 JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN .8 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 2.2 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 1.2 .30 CALM+ - 1.5 6 7 6 1 6 3 1 4 2 7 7 4 9 8 7 8 86 25.3 .91 1.6 - 2.5 10 5 4 4 4 2 5 6 3 1 4 9 5 8 9 13 92 27.1 1.93 2.6 - 3.5 8 8 8 6 4 4 5 6 4 5 9 5 5 7 5 8 97 28.5 2.95 3.6 - 7.5 8 2 2 3 3 4 7 4 4 4 0 0 4 4 5 3 57 16.8 4.22 7.6 -12.5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 .6 10.75 12.6 -18.5 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 .6 13.62 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 32 23 22 14 18 13 18 21 14 17 20 18 24 28 26 32 340 0.0 1.68 PERCENT 9.4 6.8 6.5 4.1 5.3 3.8 5.3 6.2 4.1 5.0 5.9 5.3 7.1 8.2 7.6 9.4 100.0 AV SPD 2.6 2.1 3.4 2.8 2.7 2.8 3.1 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.5 2.4 2.2 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 2.5 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 6 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 24 OF 48)

JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN 2.2 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 4 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 8 3.2 .30 CALM+ - 1.5 4 4 2 2 3 4 4 5 3 4 4 2 6 4 6 6 63 25.5 .94 1.6 - 2.5 16 3 3 2 2 3 1 2 2 3 2 0 5 4 20 19 87 35.2 1.95 2.6 - 3.5 7 0 2 1 4 0 2 3 3 0 3 1 3 2 11 12 54 21.9 2.94 3.6 - 7.5 4 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 2 3 8 27 10.9 4.04 7.6 -12.5 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1.2 11.83 12.6 -18.5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2.0 16.06 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 31 11 15 6 11 9 8 12 9 9 10 4 15 12 40 45 247 0.0 1.51 PERCENT 12.6 4.5 6.1 2.4 4.5 3.6 3.2 4.9 3.6 3.6 4.0 1.6 6.1 4.9 16.2 18.2 100.0 AV SPD 2.4 1.0 8.7 2.2 2.0 1.5 2.3 2.2 2.1 1.7 2.0 2.2 1.7 2.2 2.3 2.5 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 2.5 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 8 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 25 OF 48)

JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -1.0 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 CALM+ - 1.5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 .5 1.26 1.6 - 2.5 2 2 2 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 16 3.8 1.98 2.6 - 3.5 8 3 1 7 6 3 1 1 1 1 3 6 3 1 1 3 49 11.5 2.95 3.6 - 7.5 22 18 24 27 34 15 11 5 10 12 21 21 25 9 15 13 282 66.2 5.17 7.6 -12.5 1 2 4 6 8 1 2 4 3 16 12 1 7 2 2 3 74 17.4 9.03 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 .7 14.85 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 33 25 32 42 49 20 14 11 14 33 27 29 37 12 19 19 426 0.0 4.77 PERCENT 7.7 5.9 7.5 9.9 11.5 4.7 3.3 2.6 3.3 7.7 8.7 6.8 8.7 2.8 4.5 4.5 100.0 AV SPD 4.4 4.7 5.5 5.5 5.6 4.7 5.0 6.9 6.1 8.3 6.5 5.0 5.6 6.2 6.1 5.6 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 5.7 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 45 JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -1.0 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -.9 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 CALM+ - 1.5 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 4 2.0 1.37 1.6 - 2.5 1 3 2 3 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 15 7.7 2.17 2.6 - 3.5 3 4 2 0 2 5 3 1 2 0 2 2 5 6 3 4 44 22.4 2.90 3.6 - 7.5 5 3 7 3 7 12 6 7 9 8 15 7 7 6 8 3 113 57.7 4.68 7.6 -12.5 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 5 6 0 1 2 0 1 1 20 10.2 8.69 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 9 11 11 8 11 17 9 12 16 15 18 10 14 12 15 8 196 0.0 3.81 PERCENT 4.6 5.6 5.6 4.1 5.6 8.7 4.6 6.1 8.2 7.7 9.2 5.1 7.1 6.1 7.7 4.1 100.0 AV SPD 3.8 3.7 4.1 3.3 4.7 4.0 4.1 4.4 6.0 6.4 5.1 5.0 4.4 3.7 4.2 4.3 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 4.6 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 27 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 26 OF 48)

JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -.9 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -.8 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 CALM+ - 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3.3 1.35 1.6 - 2.5 0 2 1 0 2 1 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 2 2 15 24.6 1.92 2.6 - 3.5 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 10 16.4 2.97 3.6 - 7.5 1 0 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 5 4 2 2 1 1 29 47.5 4.68 7.6 -12.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 8.2 9.21 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 1 2 3 2 5 4 5 5 3 7 7 4 4 3 3 3 61 0.0 3.15 PERCENT 1.6 3.3 4.9 3.3 8.2 6.6 8.2 8.2 4.9 11.5 11.5 6.6 6.6 4.9 4.9 4.9 100.0 AV SPD 5.0 2.0 4.6 5.4 2.6 3.8 3.0 3.3 6.5 6.5 5.3 3.7 3.7 3.5 2.7 2.9 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 4.1 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 10 JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -.8 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -.3 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 .1 .30 CALM+ - 1.5 2 2 2 1 3 4 1 1 3 3 4 1 1 1 3 1 33 4.5 1.09 1.6 - 2.5 7 7 5 3 6 4 6 5 3 4 6 11 11 6 4 3 91 12.4 1.99 2.6 - 3.5 12 9 5 10 10 15 4 7 16 15 20 13 12 8 11 13 180 24.5 3.02 3.6 - 7.5 14 15 11 28 25 12 12 21 31 37 41 23 33 35 13 22 373 50.7 4.75 7.6 -12.5 0 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 6 15 5 1 4 5 2 3 52 7.1 8.78 12.6 -18.5 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 5 .7 14.38 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 36 34 24 43 47 36 27 36 59 75 76 50 61 55 34 42 735 0.0 3.29 PERCENT 4.9 4.6 3.3 5.9 6.4 4.9 3.7 4.9 8.0 10.2 10.3 6.8 8.3 7.5 4.6 5.7 100.0 AV SPD 3.7 3.5 3.9 4.3 4.1 3.6 4.4 4.2 4.6 5.3 4.1 4.0 4.3 4.9 4.4 4.1 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 4.3 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 33 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 27 OF 48)

JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -.3 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO .8 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 1 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 10 1.1 .30 CALM+ - 1.5 7 7 5 7 5 3 9 12 8 4 11 7 9 8 7 8 117 13.0 .99 1.6 - 2.5 29 11 10 12 19 20 16 19 16 15 20 20 17 8 13 21 266 29.6 1.95 2.6 - 3.5 18 18 18 16 8 17 25 27 30 22 23 21 16 8 12 16 295 32.9 2.92 3.6 - 7.5 3 10 14 11 12 13 10 21 14 20 23 8 7 7 14 7 194 21.6 4.46 7.6 -12.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 4 2 0 0 0 1 1 14 1.6 9.19 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 .1 12.84 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 .1 19.17 TOTAL 58 47 48 46 45 53 62 83 73 65 80 56 50 31 47 54 898 100.0 2.07 PERCENT 6.5 5.2 5.3 5.1 5.0 5.9 6.9 9.2 8.1 7.2 8.9 6.2 5.6 3.5 5.2 6.0 100.0 AV SPD 2.3 2.7 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.9 2.6 3.1 3.2 3.6 3.2 2.5 2.8 2.6 2.9 2.6 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 2.9 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 25 JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN .8 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 2.2 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 3 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 2 1 1 19 4.7 .30 CALM+ - 1.5 7 5 12 5 3 5 1 3 8 9 6 2 5 10 14 4 99 24.3 .98 1.6 - 2.5 11 8 11 7 7 10 8 10 8 7 6 12 7 4 8 14 138 33.9 1.95 2.6 - 3.5 11 8 4 7 5 9 2 5 7 5 9 9 7 4 3 8 103 25.3 2.83 3.6 - 7.5 3 11 0 0 0 3 2 3 4 4 1 3 2 3 4 2 45 11.1 4.22 7.6 -12.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 .7 9.48 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 35 34 28 21 16 27 14 22 30 25 22 26 25 23 30 29 407 0.0 1.44 PERCENT 8.6 8.4 6.9 5.2 3.9 6.6 3.4 5.4 7.4 6.1 5.4 6.4 6.1 5.7 7.4 7.1 100.0 AV SPD 2.2 2.5 1.6 1.9 1.9 2.3 2.9 2.7 2.0 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.4 1.9 1.9 2.3 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 2.2 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 12 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 28 OF 48)

JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN 2.2 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 8 6.0 .30 CALM+ - 1.5 13 2 3 3 3 3 2 0 1 2 1 5 1 2 7 6 54 40.6 .87 1.6 - 2.5 9 2 1 0 3 0 1 2 2 2 1 0 4 1 4 8 40 30.1 1.90 2.6 - 3.5 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 14 10.5 3.01 3.6 - 7.5 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 2 3 16 12.0 4.06 7.6 -12.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 .8 15.52 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 34 6 4 4 6 5 3 3 4 5 4 7 6 6 15 21 133 0.0 1.12 PERCENT 25.6 4.5 3.0 3.0 4.5 3.8 2.3 2.3 3.0 3.8 3.0 5.3 4.5 4.5 11.3 15.8 100.0 AV SPD 2.0 1.6 1.3 1.7 1.5 3.7 1.0 2.7 1.9 1.7 2.3 1.7 2.0 1.8 1.6 2.1 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 1.9 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 2 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 29 OF 48)

JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -1.0 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 .3 .30 CALM+ - 1.5 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 8 2.1 .96 1.6 - 2.5 1 0 4 5 2 1 0 2 2 2 1 2 0 2 1 0 25 6.7 1.99 2.6 - 3.5 9 7 3 6 2 7 6 3 1 1 3 2 1 2 3 2 58 15.5 2.96 3.6 - 7.5 32 25 25 29 37 17 11 4 7 3 7 7 19 7 15 15 260 69.3 4.82 7.6 -12.5 2 5 4 2 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 2 23 6.1 8.64 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 45 37 37 44 43 25 18 9 10 7 12 12 22 11 22 21 375 0.0 3.73 PERCENT 12.0 9.9 9.9 11.7 11.5 6.7 4.8 2.4 2.7 1.9 3.2 3.2 5.9 2.9 5.9 5.6 100.0 AV SPD 4.5 5.1 5.1 4.5 5.1 4.3 4.5 3.1 3.7 3.7 4.6 3.7 4.7 4.2 4.8 4.9 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 4.6 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 33 JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -1.0 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -.9 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 CALM+ - 1.5 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 4.5 1.25 1.6 - 2.5 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 3 1 18 13.5 2.00 2.6 - 3.5 4 5 6 0 4 2 0 0 1 1 1 4 0 1 1 3 33 24.8 2.97 3.6 - 7.5 9 5 3 8 9 5 5 2 5 1 5 4 2 3 2 6 74 55.6 4.53 7.6 -12.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1.5 8.54 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 14 12 14 9 15 9 6 3 6 5 6 9 3 4 7 11 133 0.0 3.21 PERCENT 10.5 9.0 10.5 6.8 11.3 6.8 4.5 2.3 4.5 3.8 4.5 6.8 2.3 3.0 5.3 8.3 100.0 AV SPD 3.7 3.2 3.1 4.6 3.8 3.6 4.1 2.8 5.1 2.7 4.7 3.8 3.2 4.3 4.1 4.5 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 3.8 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 8 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 30 OF 48)

JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -.9 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -.8 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 CALM+ - 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 4.7 1.02 1.6 - 2.5 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 9.3 1.94 2.6 - 3.5 0 2 1 2 2 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 3 1 2 0 17 39.5 3.03 3.6 - 7.5 0 1 3 2 5 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 18 41.9 4.70 7.6 -12.5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4.7 9.46 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 1 4 6 4 7 2 2 2 2 3 0 1 3 2 3 1 43 0.0 3.14 PERCENT 2.3 9.3 14.0 9.3 16.3 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 7.0 0.0 2.3 7.0 4.7 7.0 2.3 100.0 AV SPD 2.1 2.8 4.9 4.4 4.8 3.3 4.3 3.4 3.8 4.5 0.0 .9 3.0 3.7 3.2 5.0 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 3.9 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 4 JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -.8 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -.3 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 .6 .30 CALM+ - 1.5 2 1 3 2 4 3 2 4 1 2 0 0 0 2 4 2 32 5.9 1.17 1.6 - 2.5 6 11 8 4 4 6 5 6 4 4 4 5 2 2 8 5 84 15.6 2.11 2.6 - 3.5 5 16 15 10 11 13 4 4 5 3 7 10 8 7 3 4 125 23.2 3.01 3.6 - 7.5 11 21 37 30 25 14 14 20 20 16 21 4 9 7 12 8 269 49.9 4.67 7.6 -12.5 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 4 9 3 1 1 0 0 0 1 24 4.5 8.88 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 .4 14.46 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 25 50 64 48 45 37 27 38 40 28 33 20 19 18 27 20 539 0.0 3.01 PERCENT 4.6 9.3 11.9 8.9 8.3 6.9 5.0 7.1 7.4 5.2 6.1 3.7 3.5 3.3 5.0 3.7 100.0 AV SPD 3.0 3.9 4.0 4.5 3.6 3.3 4.3 4.7 5.4 4.8 4.3 3.4 3.6 3.3 3.0 3.4 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 4.0 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 22 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 31 OF 48)

JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -.3 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO .8 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 3 1 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 2 0 0 2 2 16 2.0 .30 CALM+ - 1.5 19 9 15 8 11 7 9 11 13 9 9 11 16 8 10 13 178 21.9 .97 1.6 - 2.5 27 24 22 21 9 17 10 5 16 12 7 8 11 7 11 17 224 27.5 1.93 2.6 - 3.5 24 23 34 17 18 4 9 11 13 8 11 8 7 6 11 14 218 26.8 2.90 3.6 - 7.5 16 15 13 10 6 16 7 11 18 18 6 3 1 5 5 8 158 19.4 4.35 7.6 -12.5 0 0 0 0 3 2 2 3 4 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 19 2.3 8.93 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 .1 13.89 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 86 74 85 56 47 47 39 43 65 50 33 33 36 26 40 54 814 0.0 1.74 PERCENT 10.6 9.1 10.4 6.9 5.8 5.8 4.8 5.3 8.0 6.1 4.1 4.1 4.4 3.2 4.9 6.6 100.0 AV SPD 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.9 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.3 2.4 2.2 2.0 2.3 2.4 2.3 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 2.7 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 15 JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN .8 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 2.2 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 19 4.3 .30 CALM+ - 1.5 8 7 9 2 3 5 8 3 6 6 12 10 4 13 15 21 132 29.7 .98 1.6 - 2.5 24 18 12 7 6 1 10 11 13 6 2 4 6 6 8 21 155 34.8 1.98 2.6 - 3.5 17 19 9 2 2 7 2 4 4 0 1 5 2 3 6 20 103 23.1 2.88 3.6 - 7.5 5 5 2 1 2 2 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 4 3 5 35 7.9 4.05 7.6 -12.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 .2 9.18 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 55 50 35 13 14 16 22 20 27 12 18 20 15 27 34 67 445 0.0 1.39 PERCENT 12.4 11.2 7.9 2.9 3.1 3.6 4.9 4.5 6.1 2.7 4.0 4.5 3.4 6.1 7.6 15.1 100.0 AV SPD 2.3 2.4 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.3 1.8 1.9 2.0 1.4 1.6 1.5 1.9 1.8 2.1 2.2 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 2.0 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 11 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 32 OF 48)

JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN 2.2 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 3.1 .30 CALM+ - 1.5 9 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 8 6 12 50 39.1 .90 1.6 - 2.5 9 7 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 2 3 2 12 43 33.6 1.95 2.6 - 3.5 5 8 5 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 27 21.1 2.80 3.6 - 7.5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 3.1 3.61 7.6 -12.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 25 22 13 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 5 12 9 29 128 0.0 1.26 PERCENT 19.5 17.2 10.2 .8 1.6 .8 .8 .8 .8 1.6 1.6 1.6 3.9 9.4 7.0 22.7 100.0 AV SPD 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.1 2.8 3.3 .3 1.9 3.6 .4 1.7 .8 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.7 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 1.8 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 0 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 33 OF 48)

JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -1.0 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 CALM+ - 1.5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 .4 .76 1.6 - 2.5 2 3 0 2 1 2 1 2 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 20 4.5 2.09 2.6 - 3.5 8 13 7 4 6 4 6 3 1 2 6 1 7 3 5 3 79 17.6 3.00 3.6 - 7.5 19 24 24 45 42 38 11 13 6 3 8 9 12 9 8 14 285 63.6 4.94 7.6 -12.5 1 2 11 9 6 9 4 3 2 2 3 1 0 0 6 3 62 13.8 8.77 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 30 43 42 60 55 53 22 21 9 8 18 13 21 13 20 20 448 0.0 4.34 PERCENT 6.7 9.6 9.4 13.4 12.3 11.8 4.9 4.7 2.0 1.8 4.0 2.9 4.7 2.9 4.5 4.5 100.0 AV SPD 4.0 4.4 6.0 5.5 5.4 5.8 5.5 5.3 5.3 5.7 4.8 4.4 4.1 4.0 5.4 4.9 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 5.2 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 35 JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -1.0 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -.9 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 CALM+ - 1.5 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 2.4 1.11 1.6 - 2.5 1 1 1 2 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 2 0 4 2 2 21 12.6 2.03 2.6 - 3.5 1 3 0 0 4 1 1 0 1 0 0 2 2 3 3 1 22 13.2 2.96 3.6 - 7.5 4 5 4 12 14 12 7 2 5 2 4 6 3 4 4 2 90 53.9 5.09 7.6 -12.5 2 4 6 4 1 5 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 2 1 0 30 18.0 9.20 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 9 13 11 19 21 19 10 3 6 4 9 10 5 13 10 5 167 0.0 3.94 PERCENT 5.4 7.8 6.6 11.4 12.6 11.4 6.0 1.8 3.6 2.4 5.4 6.0 3.0 7.8 6.0 3.0 100.0 AV SPD 4.7 5.6 7.1 5.5 4.8 6.2 4.9 5.2 6.1 3.5 7.0 4.2 4.1 4.4 4.4 3.6 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 5.3 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 11 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 34 OF 48)

JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -.9 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -.8 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 CALM+ - 1.5 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4.8 1.35 1.6 - 2.5 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 5 11.9 1.91 2.6 - 3.5 0 1 0 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 0 0 13 31.0 2.98 3.6 - 7.5 2 0 1 2 3 3 2 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 19 45.2 4.81 7.6 -12.5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 7.1 8.96 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 4 1 2 3 5 7 4 1 1 0 4 0 4 3 1 2 42 0.0 3.29 PERCENT 9.5 2.4 4.8 7.1 11.9 16.7 9.5 2.4 2.4 0.0 9.5 0.0 9.5 7.1 2.4 4.8 100.0 AV SPD 2.6 3.1 7.3 4.2 4.4 3.7 4.4 4.1 3.7 0.0 5.5 0.0 3.7 3.2 8.3 3.4 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 4.2 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 0 JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -.8 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -.3 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 .2 .30 CALM+ - 1.5 1 0 1 3 3 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 4 1 1 0 19 3.1 1.15 1.6 - 2.5 2 3 5 6 8 6 6 5 1 4 4 5 4 3 1 4 67 11.0 1.99 2.6 - 3.5 7 10 8 13 6 5 1 4 2 1 11 7 5 6 2 5 93 15.3 3.02 3.6 - 7.5 25 21 33 53 47 31 15 20 18 19 19 8 5 5 5 20 344 56.7 5.12 7.6 -12.5 3 7 11 11 1 5 1 3 5 7 12 3 1 3 0 7 80 13.2 8.76 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 .3 17.35 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 .2 19.27 TOTAL 38 42 58 86 65 47 25 33 27 34 47 23 19 18 9 36 607 100.0 3.78 PERCENT 6.3 6.9 9.6 14.2 10.7 7.7 4.1 5.4 4.4 5.6 7.7 3.8 3.1 3.0 1.5 5.9 100.0 AV SPD 4.7 5.0 5.6 5.1 4.7 5.1 3.9 4.9 5.6 6.4 5.5 4.2 3.3 4.6 3.5 5.1 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 5.0 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 17 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 35 OF 48)

JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -.3 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO .8 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 9 1.0 .30 CALM+ - 1.5 4 8 6 11 10 6 5 3 3 2 7 9 6 6 2 5 93 10.1 1.00 1.6 - 2.5 19 21 17 20 15 13 8 8 3 5 11 14 10 6 3 13 186 20.2 1.99 2.6 - 3.5 35 37 21 23 26 20 14 8 4 4 12 3 5 4 4 20 240 26.1 2.95 3.6 - 7.5 24 35 64 54 47 25 8 8 18 14 19 7 2 3 17 25 370 40.2 4.76 7.6 -12.5 0 1 2 11 1 2 1 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 23 2.5 8.47 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 83 104 111 120 99 66 36 27 28 28 49 35 24 20 28 63 921 0.0 2.43 PERCENT 9.0 11.3 12.1 13.0 10.7 7.2 3.9 2.9 3.0 3.0 5.3 3.8 2.6 2.2 3.0 6.8 100.0 AV SPD 3.1 3.3 4.2 4.0 3.6 3.3 3.2 2.9 3.9 4.3 3.3 2.6 2.1 2.2 4.3 3.3 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 3.5 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 9 JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN .8 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 2.2 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 2 1 0 2 2 18 4.0 .30 CALM+-1.5 9 10 13 9 6 7 2 3 4 5 5 6 12 1 9 10 111 24.8 .92 1.6 -2.5 16 18 11 11 6 4 3 2 3 7 2 8 6 5 11 9 122 27.3 1.97 2.6 -3.5 39 16 21 5 4 2 2 0 3 9 2 2 2 1 9 14 131 29.3 2.89 3.6 -7.5 13 10 7 3 3 3 2 1 0 1 4 0 1 2 7 4 61 13.6 4.33 7.6 -12.5 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 .9 8.90 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 80 55 54 30 21 16 9 8 13 22 13 18 22 9 38 39 447 0.0 1.48 PERCENT 17.9 12.3 12.1 6.7 4.7 3.6 2.0 1.8 2.9 4.9 2.9 4.0 4.9 2.0 8.5 8.7 100.0 AV SPD 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.3 2.0 2.0 2.5 1.9 1.5 2.2 2.3 1.6 1.7 2.5 2.3 2.3 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 2.4 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 4 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 36 OF 48)

JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN 2.2 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 3 2 3 18 7.4 .30 CALM+ - 1.5 12 7 4 1 2 1 2 0 5 4 8 6 2 5 8 14 81 33.2 .97 1.6 - 2.5 21 6 8 3 3 0 0 1 1 2 4 3 0 2 3 9 66 27.0 1.97 2.6 - 3.5 18 13 4 4 0 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 7 12 64 26.2 2.87 3.6 - 7.5 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 5 15 6.1 4.04 7.6 -12.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 56 29 18 8 5 4 2 4 6 9 13 10 4 12 21 43 244 0.0 1.20 PERCENT 23.0 11.9 7.4 3.3 2.0 1.6 .8 1.6 2.5 3.7 5.3 4.1 1.6 4.9 8.6 17.6 100.0 AV SPD 2.3 2.1 1.9 2.4 1.7 2.6 1.1 .8 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.1 2.2 1.4 1.9 2.1 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 1.9 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 2 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 37 OF 48)

OINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -1.0 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 CALM+ - 1.5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 .4 1.31 1.6 - 2.5 2 5 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 3 3 0 1 21 4.0 2.05 2.6 - 3.5 9 12 5 7 8 2 3 2 1 1 2 3 0 1 2 5 63 12.0 3.02 3.6 - 7.5 44 33 36 50 42 13 9 5 4 1 5 3 16 4 13 31 309 59.1 5.24 7.6 -12.5 12 8 33 25 8 1 5 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 11 12 123 23.5 8.76 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 5 1.0 13.28 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 67 58 78 83 58 16 17 13 8 2 8 7 19 9 29 51 523 0.0 4.93 PERCENT 12.8 11.1 14.9 15.9 11.1 3.1 3.3 2.5 1.5 .4 1.5 1.3 3.6 1.7 5.5 9.8 100.0 AV SPD 5.3 5.3 6.7 6.4 5.7 5.0 6.3 6.0 5.9 4.0 3.6 3.6 4.5 5.0 7.9 6.1 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 5.9 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 58 JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -1.0 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -.9 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 CALM+ - 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 1.6 - 2.5 0 2 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 8 5.6 2.08 2.6 - 3.5 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 14 9.7 3.02 3.6 - 7.5 7 9 13 15 5 1 2 1 2 0 1 2 2 5 6 9 80 55.6 5.34 7.6 -12.5 5 9 8 3 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 3 4 42 29.2 9.08 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 13 21 24 19 7 6 4 4 4 0 4 4 3 8 9 14 144 0.0 5.13 PERCENT 9.0 14.6 16.7 13.2 4.9 4.2 2.8 2.8 2.8 0.0 2.8 2.8 2.1 5.6 6.3 9.7 100.0 AV SPD 6.9 6.3 6.7 6.4 6.2 3.9 7.7 7.1 5.1 0.0 3.3 3.4 4.3 6.8 6.4 6.1 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 6.2 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 3 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 38 OF 48)

JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -.9 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -.8 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 CALM+ - 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 1.6 - 2.5 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 5 11.1 2.22 2.6 - 3.5 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4.4 2.57 3.6 - 7.5 3 4 5 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 2 23 51.1 5.43 7.6 - 2.5 2 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 15 33.3 8.94 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 5 5 8 7 3 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 6 3 45 0.0 5.03 PERCENT 11.1 11.1 17.8 15.6 6.7 2.2 2.2 0.0 2.2 4.4 0.0 0.0 4.4 2.2 13.3 6.7 100.0 AV SPD 6.9 6.0 6.8 6.3 4.8 2.3 2.6 0.0 8.4 9.1 0.0 0.0 3.3 7.4 6.4 6.7 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 6.2 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 5 JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -.8 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -.3 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 .5 .30 CALM+ - 1.5 1 0 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 1.6 1.22 1.6 - 2.5 3 10 3 4 2 3 2 2 4 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 42 7.6 2.01 2.6 - 3.5 17 12 12 9 4 2 1 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 3 5 73 13.2 3.01 3.6 - 7.5 27 54 87 42 20 19 12 16 11 3 5 2 5 5 10 32 350 63.4 5.06 7.6 -12.5 9 12 9 7 1 0 2 6 2 1 5 0 0 8 11 2 75 13.6 8.58 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 58 88 112 65 28 25 18 26 20 9 12 3 6 14 26 42 552 0.0 3.93 PERCENT 10.5 15.9 20.3 11.8 5.1 4.5 3.3 4.7 3.6 1.6 2.2 .5 1.1 2.5 4.7 7.6 100.0 AV SPD 4.7 4.8 5.3 5.2 4.9 4.6 5.2 5.7 4.2 4.0 6.1 4.0 4.7 6.9 6.3 4.8 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 5.1 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 15 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 39 OF 48)

JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -.3 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO .8 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 5 .9 .30 CALM+-1.5 6 4 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 0 5 3 3 2 5 42 7.8 1.09 1.6 - 2.5 18 11 5 12 4 8 3 2 3 2 3 7 7 7 10 10 112 20.7 1.97 2.6 - 3.5 26 17 23 16 9 3 3 1 3 4 1 8 5 7 11 21 158 29.2 2.96 3.6 - 7.5 28 28 26 16 11 4 3 11 4 1 4 7 3 12 31 23 212 39.2 4.50 7.6 -12.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 4 3 0 12 2.2 9.16 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 78 60 58 46 26 16 12 17 11 9 10 27 20 33 58 60 541 0.0 2.53 PERCENT 14.4 11.1 10.7 8.5 4.8 3.0 2.2 3.1 2.0 1.7 1.8 5.0 3.7 6.1 10.7 11.1 100.0 AV SPD 3.2 3.4 3.4 3.1 3.3 2.8 2.6 4.6 3.5 3.9 4.7 2.7 2.8 3.9 4.0 3.4 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 3.4 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 4 JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN .8 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 2.2 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 9 2.2 .30 CALM+ - 1.5 2 1 4 1 0 1 1 2 2 4 2 2 2 5 2 5 36 8.7 1.00 1.6 - 2.5 21 11 7 1 5 2 5 0 4 3 1 6 3 4 6 13 92 22.3 1.99 2.6 - 3.5 29 23 17 14 4 3 4 5 4 0 0 1 3 7 16 24 154 37.3 2.96 3.6 - 7.5 15 12 5 8 5 3 2 4 1 1 4 0 0 12 28 21 121 29.3 4.20 7.6 -12.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 .2 8.29 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 69 47 33 24 14 9 13 13 12 9 7 9 9 30 52 63 413 0.0 2.14 PERCENT 16.7 11.4 8.0 5.8 3.4 2.2 3.1 3.1 2.9 2.2 1.7 2.2 2.2 7.3 12.6 15.3 100.0 AV SPD 2.8 3.0 2.8 3.2 3.0 3.0 2.4 2.6 2.3 1.8 2.6 1.9 1.7 3.2 3.6 3.1 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 2.9 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 1 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 40 OF 48)

OINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN 2.2 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 5 5 0 3 3 2 0 1 2 0 2 2 6 3 6 11 51 7.5 .30 CALM+ - 1.5 14 10 8 2 0 1 4 6 7 1 5 5 8 8 15 32 126 18.4 .93 1.6 - 2.5 51 19 10 1 4 3 1 5 2 4 3 3 0 7 19 64 196 28.7 1.99 2.6 - 3.5 79 24 12 2 4 1 0 4 4 0 2 2 2 6 17 53 212 31.0 2.96 3.6 - 7.5 35 3 11 4 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 4 5 31 99 14.5 4.13 7.6 -12.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 184 61 41 12 12 8 5 17 17 5 13 12 16 28 62 191 684 0.0 1.37 PERCENT 26.9 8.9 6.0 1.8 1.8 1.2 .7 2.5 2.5 .7 1.9 1.8 2.3 4.1 9.1 27.9 100.0 AV SPD 2.8 2.1 2.6 2.3 2.2 1.8 1.3 1.8 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.0 2.1 2.1 2.4 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 2.3 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 12 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 41 OF 48)

JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -1.0 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 .3 .30 CALM+ - 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 .3 .99 1.6 - 2.5 1 3 2 1 3 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 17 4.8 1.97 2.6 - 3.5 6 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 4 28 7.8 3.04 3.6 - 7.5 27 24 10 18 21 12 9 7 3 7 4 3 5 6 8 20 184 51.5 5.17 7.6 -12.5 14 8 8 11 11 3 2 1 7 6 1 3 5 8 12 15 115 32.2 8.96 12.6 -18.5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 11 3.1 13.58 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 50 39 23 32 37 17 12 9 14 15 6 6 11 15 26 45 357 0.0 5.00 PERCENT 14.0 10.9 6.4 9.0 10.4 4.8 3.4 2.5 3.9 4.2 1.7 1.7 3.1 4.2 7.3 12.6 100.0 AV SPD 6.3 6.0 5.8 6.2 6.1 5.6 5.9 5.4 6.4 7.0 4.9 7.6 7.1 7.1 8.9 6.7 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 6.5 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 19 JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -1.0 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -.9 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 CALM+ - 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1.1 1.17 1.6 - 2.5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 3.4 1.97 2.6 - 3.5 0 1 1 3 0 2 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 14.8 3.11 3.6 - 7.5 6 4 4 2 7 5 2 3 10 0 1 2 2 1 2 2 53 60.2 5.45 7.6 -12.5 1 0 3 1 1 3 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 1 1 2 18 20.5 8.82 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 7 6 8 6 8 10 4 6 12 3 1 2 4 2 3 6 88 0.0 4.80 PERCENT 8.0 6.8 9.1 6.8 9.1 11.4 4.5 6.8 13.6 3.4 1.1 2.3 4.5 2.3 3.4 6.8 100.0 AV SPD 6.5 5.0 6.1 4.8 6.1 6.1 4.3 6.1 5.1 7.8 4.8 4.2 6.1 7.3 5.9 6.4 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 5.8 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 6 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 42 OF 48)

JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -.9 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -.8 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 CALM+ - 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 1.6 - 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.1 2.34 2.6 - 3.5 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 9.4 3.17 3.6 - 7.5 4 3 0 1 1 1 1 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 18 56.3 5.22 7.6 -12.5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 3 10 31.3 9.03 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 4 5 0 3 1 1 2 1 4 3 1 1 0 1 0 5 32 0.0 5.40 PERCENT 12.5 15.6 0.0 9.4 3.1 3.1 6.3 3.1 12.5 9.4 3.1 3.1 0.0 3.1 0.0 15.6 100.0 AV SPD 6.0 4.3 0.0 5.4 4.4 6.4 3.7 10.3 6.4 7.8 9.8 3.7 0.0 7.8 0.0 8.3 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 6.3 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 0 JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -.8 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -.3 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 1 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 .8 .30 CALM+ - 1.5 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 1.0 1.38 1.6 - 2.5 4 1 4 4 2 2 2 3 1 0 1 1 2 2 1 5 35 4.8 1.99 2.6 - 3.5 8 9 8 8 4 3 8 10 7 1 4 4 2 2 6 9 93 12.6 2.97 3.6 - 7.5 35 34 31 35 40 12 8 23 25 13 13 8 12 15 28 42 374 50.8 5.16 7.6 -12.5 12 3 5 9 6 2 7 17 16 16 10 3 14 26 18 37 201 27.3 9.21 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 9 2 0 1 3 1 1 20 2.7 13.63 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 60 49 49 59 52 22 27 54 50 39 30 16 31 48 55 95 736 0.0 4.34 PERCENT 8.2 6.7 6.7 8.0 7.1 3.0 3.7 7.3 6.8 5.3 4.1 2.2 4.2 6.5 7.5 12.9 100.0 AV SPD 5.5 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.4 4.4 5.5 6.3 6.8 9.2 6.7 5.3 7.1 8.1 6.5 6.5 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 6.2 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 54 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 43 OF 48)

JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -.3 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO .8 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 .7 .30 CALM+ - 1.5 2 5 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 0 2 2 2 3 0 3 34 4.5 1.07 1.6 - 2.5 9 6 2 9 9 1 5 2 4 1 2 3 6 2 4 18 83 11.0 2.06 2.6 - 3.5 29 15 10 7 13 8 9 14 8 6 1 2 5 6 10 24 167 22.1 2.95 3.6 - 7.5 28 23 19 7 10 9 22 26 53 34 18 7 16 19 33 58 382 50.7 5.01 7.6 -12.5 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 14 17 6 4 0 4 3 8 17 79 10.5 8.77 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 .5 13.68 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 76 50 33 24 34 22 41 59 85 48 27 14 33 33 55 120 754 0.0 3.27 PERCENT 10.1 6.6 4.4 3.2 4.5 2.9 5.4 7.8 11.3 6.4 3.6 1.9 4.4 4.4 7.3 15.9 100.0 AV SPD 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.1 3.1 3.6 4.3 5.1 5.7 6.0 5.4 3.6 4.7 4.5 5.2 4.8 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 4.6 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 7 JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN .8 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 2.2 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 1 0 0 1 1 3 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 12 3.0 .30 CALM+-1.5 1 1 4 2 3 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 2 23 5.8 1.07 1.6 -2.5 18 7 5 13 5 6 4 3 2 2 2 1 0 1 7 13 89 22.5 1.95 2.6 -3.5 32 17 13 11 2 6 5 3 4 7 5 3 7 2 4 22 143 36.1 2.98 3.6 -7.5 13 20 11 6 2 7 1 6 5 8 6 1 10 15 7 11 129 32.6 4.47 7.6 -12.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 65 45 33 33 13 24 14 14 12 17 13 5 18 20 22 48 396 0.0 2.15 PERCENT 16.4 11.4 8.3 8.3 3.3 6.1 3.5 3.5 3.0 4.3 3.3 1.3 4.5 5.1 5.6 12.1 100.0 AV SPD 2.9 3.4 3.0 2.6 2.3 2.8 2.1 3.0 3.2 3.8 3.7 2.8 4.0 4.1 3.0 3.0 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 3.1 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 0 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 44 OF 48)

JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN 2.2 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 5 5 1 0 2 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 5 6 11 50 9.8 .30 CALM+ - 1.5 25 10 1 7 3 3 1 6 5 5 2 3 2 6 10 21 110 21.5 .94 1.6 - 2.5 38 17 12 9 2 6 3 2 5 3 4 2 1 5 8 33 150 29.3 1.97 2.6 - 3.5 40 13 5 1 4 1 2 3 3 0 2 5 3 1 13 42 138 27.0 2.92 3.6 - 7.5 14 2 1 3 0 1 1 2 2 4 1 2 2 4 7 18 64 12.5 3.95 7.6 -12.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 122 47 20 20 11 12 9 15 18 13 10 14 11 21 44 125 512 0.0 1.21 PERCENT 23.8 9.2 3.9 3.9 2.1 2.3 1.8 2.9 3.5 2.5 2.0 2.7 2.1 4.1 8.6 24.4 100.0 AV SPD 2.3 1.9 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8 2.0 2.0 2.1 1.9 1.8 2.1 2.3 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 2.1 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 3 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 45 OF 48)

JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -1.0 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 CALM+ - 1.5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 .4 .63 1.6 - 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 2.6 - 3.5 2 2 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 3 17 7.6 3.00 3.6 - 7.5 17 10 11 10 6 8 3 3 8 5 5 5 1 3 5 6 106 47.3 5.26 7.6 -12.5 5 6 11 7 1 2 5 8 5 7 2 2 5 11 4 5 86 38.4 9.56 12.6 -18.5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 2 0 0 2 1 2 1 14 6.3 14.15 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 25 18 26 21 7 10 8 15 14 14 8 7 10 15 11 15 224 0.0 5.99 PERCENT 11.2 8.0 11.6 9.4 3.1 4.5 3.6 6.7 6.3 6.3 3.6 3.1 4.5 6.7 4.9 6.7 100.0 AV SPD 6.4 6.2 6.5 6.1 6.4 6.2 7.7 10.3 8.4 9.3 6.6 6.4 8.9 8.9 9.1 7.7 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 7.5 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 6 JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -1.0 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -.9 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 CALM+ - 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 1.6 - 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 2.0 2.39 2.6 - 3.5 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 7 7.1 2.93 3.6 - 7.5 4 7 5 1 2 3 4 7 4 2 4 2 4 3 2 2 56 56.6 5.35 7.6 -12.5 0 2 0 5 1 1 1 3 2 5 1 1 3 0 2 2 29 29.3 9.44 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 5 5.1 13.67 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 4 10 5 6 3 5 6 10 9 10 6 4 9 3 4 5 99 0.0 5.78 PERCENT 4.0 10.1 5.1 6.1 3.0 5.1 6.1 10.1 9.1 10.1 6.1 4.0 9.1 3.0 4.0 5.1 100.0 AV SPD 5.7 6.5 6.6 8.7 6.3 6.0 5.4 6.0 8.6 7.6 7.4 4.8 7.4 6.3 8.3 7.1 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 6.9 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 2 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 46 OF 48)

JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -.9 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -.8 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 CALM+ - 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 1.6 - 2.5 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 6.4 2.15 2.6 - 3.5 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 6.4 3.15 3.6 - 7.5 5 2 4 0 0 2 2 2 3 2 0 2 0 4 0 0 28 59.6 5.37 7.6 -12.5 0 0 3 2 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 12 25.5 9.57 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2.1 13.25 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 6 2 9 2 1 2 3 3 3 4 2 3 0 4 2 1 47 0.0 5.29 PERCENT 12.8 4.3 19.1 4.3 2.1 4.3 6.4 6.4 6.4 8.5 4.3 6.4 0.0 8.5 4.3 2.1 100.0 AV SPD 5.4 5.8 6.3 8.7 3.1 5.3 7.1 7.2 6.0 7.5 6.6 4.9 0.0 5.3 11.6 8.3 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 6.5 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 2 JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -.8 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO -.3 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 CALM+ - 1.5 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 3 0 0 13 1.5 1.29 1.6 - 2.5 2 2 6 1 3 2 2 5 3 1 3 2 7 0 2 4 45 5.0 2.01 2.6 - 3.5 4 5 3 5 2 9 4 0 8 2 7 6 1 2 1 4 63 7.0 3.00 3.6 - 7.5 32 32 36 17 22 21 36 38 46 31 15 11 18 25 45 33 458 51.2 5.43 7.6 -12.5 6 7 27 21 4 1 16 40 26 30 4 5 15 9 19 26 256 28.6 9.48 12.6 -18.5 0 2 1 0 2 0 0 4 6 7 5 2 0 4 16 11 60 6.7 14.08 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 44 48 73 48 34 33 58 87 90 71 36 28 41 43 83 78 895 0.0 5.29 PERCENT 4.9 5.4 8.2 5.4 3.8 3.7 6.5 9.7 10.1 7.9 4.0 3.1 4.6 4.8 9.3 8.7 100.0 AV SPD 5.5 5.9 6.7 6.9 5.4 4.5 6.4 7.7 7.1 8.5 6.1 5.8 6.3 6.9 8.5 8.2 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 7.0 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 27 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 47 OF 48)

JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN -.3 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO .8 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 .3 .30 CALM+ - 1.5 1 4 2 1 1 2 3 1 3 2 0 4 2 0 3 1 30 3.3 1.19 1.6 - 2.5 4 10 6 5 5 4 11 7 9 3 2 8 7 5 3 5 94 10.4 1.98 2.6 - 3.5 5 8 11 11 17 11 11 15 7 10 9 4 5 7 9 13 153 17.0 2.98 3.6 - 7.5 25 8 11 12 9 27 44 57 62 45 17 7 11 22 55 50 462 51.3 4.99 7.6 -12.5 0 0 0 0 0 1 13 14 37 27 6 3 9 8 8 14 140 15.5 9.25 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 7 2 1 0 1 0 2 19 2.1 13.53 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 35 30 30 30 32 46 82 95 123 94 36 27 34 43 79 85 901 0.0 3.70 PERCENT 3.9 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.6 5.1 9.1 10.5 13.7 10.4 4.0 3.0 3.8 4.8 8.8 9.4 100.0 AV SPD 4.1 3.0 3.4 3.3 3.3 4.3 5.0 5.2 6.5 6.6 5.7 4.0 5.1 5.7 5.3 5.4 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 5.2 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 15 JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN .8 BUT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 2.2 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 12 4.1 .30 CALM+ - 1.5 1 2 4 4 0 7 2 6 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 33 11.1 1.03 1.6 - 2.5 7 2 6 4 7 4 4 5 7 2 2 2 0 2 2 6 62 20.9 1.91 2.6 - 3.5 6 6 8 5 7 6 7 4 7 4 2 3 11 1 3 10 90 30.4 2.94 3.6 - 7.5 7 3 3 2 5 3 7 10 6 1 0 2 2 16 26 5 98 33.1 4.59 7.6 -12.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 .3 8.04 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 22 15 21 17 19 21 21 26 22 11 5 7 14 21 32 22 296 0.0 1.89 PERCENT 7.4 5.1 7.1 5.7 6.4 7.1 7.1 8.8 7.4 3.7 1.7 2.4 4.7 7.1 10.8 7.4 100.0 AV SPD 3.0 2.6 2.5 2.1 2.9 2.3 3.0 2.8 2.9 2.1 2.2 2.7 3.1 4.1 5.0 3.0 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 3.1 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 3 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-8C (SHEET 48 OF 48)

JOINT FREQUENCY TABLES OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION REQUEST NUMBER 604-45 FOR TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE (DEG F/100 FT) GREATER THAN 2.2 SITE FARLEY PERIOD OF RECORD FROM 71040101 TO 75033124 SPEED AND DIRECTION FROM 50 FT LEVEL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 200 FT AND 35 FT SPEED MEASURED AT 50 FT ADJUSTED TO 33 FT WIND DIRECTION SPEED (MPH) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW TOTAL PERCENT GEO MEAN SPD (MPH)

CALM 7 0 2 1 3 3 4 2 1 2 0 1 2 3 4 4 39 9.0 .30 CALM+ - 1.5 15 6 4 5 6 5 8 8 9 9 6 4 7 6 6 8 112 25.9 .92 1.6 - 2.5 38 9 7 4 5 6 3 6 11 6 4 0 8 3 5 15 130 30.0 1.93 2.6 - 3.5 23 11 5 4 4 2 1 8 10 3 2 2 3 0 5 17 100 23.1 2.91 3.6 - 7.5 10 2 0 2 4 1 3 3 6 0 0 0 3 1 6 11 52 12.0 4.12 7.6 -12.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 12.6 -18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 18.6 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 93 28 18 16 22 17 19 27 37 20 12 7 23 13 26 55 433 0.0 1.18 PERCENT 21.5 6.5 4.2 3.7 5.1 3.9 4.4 6.2 8.5 4.6 2.8 1.6 5.3 3.0 6.0 12.7 100.0 AV SPD 2.1 2.4 1.8 2.0 2.1 1.5 1.5 2.1 2.4 1.5 1.8 1.5 1.9 1.2 2.2 2.5 AVERAGE SPEED FOR THIS TABLE EQUALS 2.1 HOURS IN ABOVE TABLE WITH VARIABLE DIRECTION = 9 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-9 (SHEET 1 OF 4)

JOINT FREQUENCY OF WIND SPEED (33 FT) AND DIRECTION VS. WIND DIRECTION RANGE (50 FT)

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-9 (SHEET 2 OF 4)

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-9 (SHEET 3 OF 4)

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-9 (SHEET 4 OF 4)

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-10 (SHEET 1 OF 2)

METEOROLOGICAL INSTRUMENTATION AT FARLEY SITE Approximate Height Minimum Above Tower Sensed Recorded Instrument Base (ft) Parameter Parameter Characteristics Ground Rainfall Rainfall Tipping bucket rain gauge.

Accuracy 1/2% at 1/2 in./h.

10/32.8 Wind speed and Wind speed Speed - Accuracy of +0.15 m/s (Channel 1) wind direction(b) and wind 5 m/s or +2% 5 m/s.

direction Direction - Accuracy + 3 degrees.

10/32.8 Wind speed and Wind speed Speed - Accuracy of +0.15 m/s (Channel 2) wind direction(a) and wind 5 m/s or +2% 5 m/s.

direction Direction - Accuracy + 3 degrees.

10/32.8 Temperature(b,c) Reference for Matched pair thermistors in (Channel 1) T aspirated solar radiation shield -

T Accuracy + 0.01ºC.

REV 25 4/14

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-10 (SHEET 2 OF 2)

Approximate Height Minimum Above Tower Sensed Recorded Instrument Base (ft) Parameter Parameter Characteristics 10/32.8 Temperature(b,c) Reference for Matched pair thermistors in (Channel 2) T aspirated solar radiation shield -

T Accuracy + 0.01ºC.

45.7/150 Wind speed and Wind speed Speed - Accuracy of +0.15 m/s (Channel 1) wind direction(a) and wind 5 m/s or +2% 5 m/s.

direction Direction - Accuracy + 3 degrees.

45.7/150 Wind speed and Wind speed Speed - Accuracy of +0.15 m/s (Channel 2) wind direction(a) and wind 5 m/s or +2% 5 m/s.

direction Direction - Accuracy + 3 degrees.

60/197 Temperature(b,c) Reference for Matched pair thermistors in (Channel 1) T aspirated solar radiation shield -

T Accuracy + 0.01ºC.

60/197 Temperature(b,c) Reference for Matched pair thermistors in (Channel 2) T aspirated solar radiation shield -

T Accuracy + 0.01ºC.

a. Mounted on N.E. side of the tower.

b. Mounted on N.W. side of the tower.

c. T aspirators are oriented north.

Note: All heights are given above ground level (AGL).

REV 25 4/14

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-11 (SHEET 1 OF 2)

JOINT FREQUENCY OF VERTICAL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE AND WIND RANGE VS. WIND SPEED (33 FT)

SPEED LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 1.0 DELTA TEMP. RANGE (F/100FT) LE 12 LE 22 LE 45 LE 75 LE 105 LE 135 GT 135 TOTAL LE -1.0 0 1 0 2 6 4 0 13 LE -0.9 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 3 LE -0.8 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 LE -0.3 4 0 5 8 5 1 1 24 LE 0.8 11 3 15 14 8 3 4 58 LE 2.2 13 20 42 18 7 2 2 104 GT 2.2 76 39 72 41 16 5 6 255 TOTAL 105 63 134 84 43 17 13 459 SPEED LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 3.0 DELTA TEMP. RANGE (F/100FT) LE 12 LE 22 LE 45 LE 75 LE 105 LE 135 GT 135 TOTAL LE -1.0 0 0 9 83 129 80 80 381 LE -0.9 0 0 4 26 9 0 2 41 LE -0.8 0 0 7 14 11 0 0 32 LE -0.3 1 4 60 105 33 3 8 214 LE 0.8 3 29 209 171 38 9 12 471 LE 2.2 6 48 175 113 22 5 3 375 GT 2.2 22 94 386 140 31 8 17 698 TOTAL 32 175 853 652 273 105 122 2212 SPEED LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 7.0 DELTA TEMP. RANGE (F/100FT) LE 12 LE 22 LE 45 LE 75 LE 105 LE 135 GT 135 TOTAL LE -1.0 0 0 41 526 634 212 140 1553 LE -0.9 0 0 31 102 36 4 1 174 LE -0.8 0 0 22 55 14 0 0 91 LE -0.3 1 6 158 375 80 10 3 633 LE 0.8 1 15 239 288 54 6 5 608 LE 2.2 1 13 221 97 18 4 0 354 GT 2.2 6 43 250 61 5 0 1 366 TOTAL 9 77 962 1504 841 236 150 3779 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-11 (SHEET 2 OF 2)

SPEED LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 12.0 DELTA TEMP. RANGE (F/100FT) LE 12 LE 22 LE 45 LE 75 LE 105 LE 135 GT 135 TOTAL LE -1.0 0 0 44 468 386 47 3 948 LE -0.9 0 1 16 51 11 0 0 79 LE -0.8 0 0 15 40 6 1 1 63 LE -0.3 0 2 71 116 29 5 1 224 LE 0.8 0 2 32 35 11 1 0 81 LE 2.2 0 0 2 4 1 0 0 7 GT 2.2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 TOTAL 0 5 181 715 444 54 5 1404 SPEED LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 999.0 DELTA TEMP. RANGE (F/100FT) LE 12 LE 22 LE 45 LE 75 LE 105 LE 135 GT 135 TOTAL LE -1.0 0 1 23 106 49 1 0 180 LE -0.9 0 0 5 9 3 0 0 17 LE -0.8 0 0 4 6 1 0 0 11 LE -0.3 0 0 12 23 4 1 1 41 LE 0.8 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 4 LE 2.2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 GT 2.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 1 45 147 57 3 1 254 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-12 ESTIMATES OF ATMOSPHERIC DIFFUSION FOR USE IN ACCIDENT EVALUATIONS 5% Probable X/Q (s/m3)

NRC T Model(a) Correlation Study T Model "Split Sigma" Model Elapsed Low Low Low Release Site Population Site Population Site Population Time (h) Boundary Distance Boundary Distance Boundary Distance 0-1 7.6(-4)(b) 2.8(-4) 3.8(-4) 9.4(-5) 5.3(-4) 1.6(-4) 0-2 5.9(-4)(c) 2.1(-4)(c) 2.1(-4) 6.0(-5) 3.8(-4) 1.1(-4) 2-8 2.9(-4) 1.1(-4)(c) 1.3(-4) 3.4(-5) 2.0(-4) 6.5(-5) 8-24 3.3(-5) 1.0(-5) 2.5(-5) 6.0(-6) 3.2(-5) 8.5(-6) 24-96 1.9(-5) 5.4(-6) 1.4(-5) 3.4(-6) 2.0(-5) 5.2(-6)96-720 1.1(-5) 2.9(-6) 8.0(-6) 1.9(-6) 1.0(-5) 2.9(-6) 50% Probable X/Q (s/m3)

NRC T Model Correlation Study T Model "Split Sigma" Model Elapsed Low Low Low Release Site Population Site Population Site Population Time (h) Boundary Distance Boundary Distance Boundary Distance 0-1 6.1(-5) 1.7(-5) 5.0(-5) 1.2(-5) 5.3(-5) 1.2(-5) 0-2 5.0(-5) 1.3(-5) 4.0(-5) 9.5(-6) 4.1(-5) 1.0(-5) 2-8 4.4(-5) 1.2(-5) 3.2(-5) 8.0(-6) 3.7(-5) 9.0(-6) 8-24 1.3(-5) 3.1(-6) 1.1(-5) 2.5(-6) 1.2(-5) 3.0(-6) 24-96 8.7(-6) 2.2(-6) 7.1(-6) 1.6(-6) 9.0(-6) 2.3(-6)96-720 5.9(-6) 1.4(-6) 4.6(-6) 1.2(-6) 6.0(-6) 1.5(-6)

a. Used in Accident Evaluation in chapter 15.

b. Numbers in parentheses are powers of ten.

c. In accordance with NRC practice the 0-2 hour period of the LOCA is evaluated using the 0-1 hour X/Q value.

REV 21 5/08

TABLE 2.3-12A ESTIMATES OF ATMOSPHERIC DIFFUSION FOR USE IN ACCIDENT EVALUATIONS Based on Farley Site Data (4/1/72-3/31/73) 5% Probable X/Q (s/m3)

NRC T Model(a) Correlation Study T Model "Split Sigma" Model Elapsed Low Low Low Release Site Population Site Population Site Population Time (h) Boundary Distance Boundary Distance Boundary Distance 0-1 7.5(-4)(b) 2.6(-4) 3.4(-4) 8.7(-5) 7.5(-4) 2.6(-4) 0-2 5.5(-4)(c) 2.0(-4)(c) 1.9(-4) 4.9(-5) 5.3(-4) 1.9(-4) 2-8 2.7(-4) 1.0(-4)(c) 1.1(-4) 3.0(-5) 2.6(-4) 9.4(-5) 8-24 3.4(-5) 9.4(-6) 2.5(-5) 5.8(-6) 3.4(-5) 9.5(-6) 24-96 1.8(-5) 5.0(-6) 1.7(-5) 3.4(-6) 1.8(-5) 5.0(-6)96-720 9.0(-6) 2.3(-6) 7.2(-6) 1.6(-6) 9.0(-6) 2.4(-6) 50% Probable X/Q (s/m3)

(a)

NRC T Model Correlation Study T Model "Split Sigma" Model Elapsed Low Low Low Release Site Population Site Population Site Population Time (h) Boundary Distance Boundary Distance Boundary Distance 0-1 5.5(-5) 1.3(-5) 4.6(-5) 1.1(-5) 4.6(-5) 1.1(-5) 0-2 4.6(-5) 1.2(-5) 3.7(-5) 9.0(-6) 4.0(-5) 9.0(-6) 2-8 4.5(-5) 1.1(-5) 3.3(-5) 8.0(-6) 3.9(-5) 1.0(-5) 8-24 1.3(-5) 3.3(-6) 1.1(-5) 2.5(-6) 1.3(-5) 3.2(-6) 24-96 8.5(-6) 2.2(-6) 7.0(-6) 1.6(-6) 8.5(-6) 2.2(-6)96-720 5.5(-6) 1.4(-6) 4.4(-6) 1.1(-6) 5.5(-6) 1.4(-6)

a. Used in Accident Evaluation in chapter 15.

b. Numbers in parentheses are powers of ten.

c. In accordance with NRC the 0-8 hour period of the LOCA in chapter 15 is evaluated using the 0-1 hour X/Q value.

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-13 TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE AND RANGE GROUPS FOR DETERMINING PASQUILL STABILITY CATEGORIES Correlation Study Wind Direction (a)

Pasquill NRC T Model T Model Range Category (°F/100) (°F/100) (deg)

A T < -1.0 - 135 R B -1.0 T < -0.9 T < -1.3 135 R > 105 C -0.9 T < -0.8 -1.3 T < -0.9 105 R > 75 D -0.8 T < -0.3 -0.9 T < 0 75 R > 45 E -0.3 T < 0.8 0 T < 5.0 45 R > 22 F 0.8 T < 2.2 5.0 T 22 12 R G 2.2 T

a. In conversion from °C/100m (Regulatory Guide 1.23) to °F/100 ft, values were rounded to the nearest tenth of a degree.

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-14 LIST OF COMPUTER RUNS Farley Plant Site To Be Used for Eval-Hourly or Grazing Season uating Releases From Run Vent Data Type of Joint Frequency or the Following Vents Location of Results Number Identification Used Run Data Used Annual Data (refer to Figure 2.3-15) In the Report FX-1 Plant vent 71-72 Wake split Joint frequency Annual Used for comparison Table 2.3-20 Farley with FX-2 FX-2 Plant vent 4 yr Wake split Joint frequency Annual All systems Tables 2.3-18 & 2.3-21 Farley discharging to plant vent FX-3 Turbine 4 yr Ground re- Joint frequency Annual Turbine building Tables 2.3-19 & 2.3-22 building Farley lease in ventilation, air building ejector wake REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-15 GASEOUS DISCHARGE POINTS Site: Farley Units: 1 and 2 System Vent Mode ID Number* Months Operating Spent fuel pool ventilation Plant vent 1, 2 All Penetration room filtration system Plant vent 1, 2 Standby Containment purge Plant vent 1, 2 All Radwaste ventilation Plant vent 1, 2 All Turbine building ventilation Into building wake - All Steam jet air ejector Into building wake - All

• 1 - normal and winter purge 2 - summer purge REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-16 VENT DESIGN INFORMATION Farley Height of Discharge Discharge Above Velocity at Operating Mode Elevation Above Maximum Building Effective Vent Point of Discharge Identification Vent Location Grade (m) Elevation (m) Diameter (m) (m/sec) Number Plant vent Above auxiliary 44.2 2.5 1.8 14.0* 1 building 28.1 2 All other vents Turbine building Assumed ground re- 0.0 N/A N/A -

lease in building wake

• Used smaller velocity for wake split calculations REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-17 TABULATION OF INPUT ASSUMPTIONS FOR CALCULATIONS AT FARLEY PLANT SITE Parameter Assumed Value or Characteristic Height of meteorological 150 ft instruments for hourly wake split runs Height of meteorological 50 ft extrapolated to vent height instruments for wake-split runs using joint frequency tables Method for determining Temperature difference using stability and diffusion Regulatory Guide 1.23 and coefficients Pasquill curves Calms treatment Assumed 0.3 mph (threshold for Climet is about 0.6 mph).

Assumed to have same direction as measured Upper limit for z (m) 1000 Height of tallest structure 41.7 for computation of effective (m)

Vent exit conditions From Table 2.3-16 Delta-temperature correction None factor Terrain height See Figure 2.3-28 Terrain correction factors Figure 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.111 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-18 ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION FACTORS ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION FACTORS FOR-FARLEY VENT REACTOR BLDG SEASON-ANNUAL IN RUN TYPE - X/Q SEC/M3 DISTANCE (METERS) REQ-FX-2 4YRS JFT SPLIT DIRECTION SECTOR 804 2413 4022 5631 7240 12067 24135 40225 56315 72405 N 9.17E-07 3.80E-07 1.77E-07 1.09E-07 7.94E-08 3.67E-08 1.31F-08 7.56E-09 5.20F-09 3.90E-09 NNE 1.01E-06 3.79E-07 1.67E-07 1.00E-07 7.16E-08 3.19E-08 1.11F-08 6.32E-09 4.33E-09 3.23E-09 NE 9.56E-07 3.83E-07 1.73E-07 1.04E-07 7.46E-08 3.29E-08 1.24E-08 6.82E-09 4.60E-09 3.40E-09 ENE 5.01E-07 2.64E-07 1.31E-07 8.20E-08 5.99E-08 2.73E-08 1.09E-08 6.08E-09 4.12E-09 3.07E-09 E 5.19E-07 2.43E-07 1.20E-07 7.60E-08 5.64E-08 2.85E-08 1.10E-08 6.48E-09 4.50E-09 3.41E-09 ESE 6.40E-07 2.43E-07 1.15E-07 7.24E-08 5.37E-08 2.70E-08 1.01E-08 6.06E-09 4.24E-09 3.23E-09 SE 9.63E-07 3.45E-07 1.62E-07 1.02E-07 7.59E-08 3.71E-08 1.43E-08 8.77E-09 6.20E-09 4.75E-09 SSE 1.07E-06 4.31E-07 2.10E-07 1.34E-07 1.02E-07 5.16E-08 2.07E-08 1.30E-08 9.26E-09 7.14E-09 S 9.32E-07 4.06E-07 2.09E-07 1.37E-07 1.06E-07 5.52E-08 2.25E-08 1.42E-08 1.01F-08 7.79E-09 SSW 8.25E-07 4.13E-07 1.97E-07 1.26E-07 1.04E-07 4.96E-08 1.83E-08 1.08E-08 7.49E-09 5.67E-09 SW 8.30E-07 5.04E-07 2.30E-07 1.40E-07 1.10E-07 4.93E-08 1.68E-08 9.31E-09 6.30E-09 4.70E-09 WSW 7.37E-07 4.62E-07 2.07E-07 1.36E-07 9.74E-08 4.56E-08 1.53E-08 8.19E-09 5.47E-09 4.03E-09 W 6.71E-07 4.09E-07 1.82E-07 1.46E-07 1.03E-07 4.53E-08 1.49E-08 8.02E-09 5.37E-09 3.97E-09 WNW 5.95E-07 3.12E-07 1.74E-07 1.47E-07 1.04E-07 4.38E-08 1.43E-08 7.74E-09 5.20E-09 3.85E-09 NW 5.62E-07 2.67E-07 1.40E-07 1.15E-07 9.18E-08 4.07E-08 1.43F-08 7.79E-09 5.25E-09 3.89E-09 NNW 7.18E-07 3.21E-07 1.53E-07 1.07E-07 8.16E-08 4.57E-08 1.69E-08 9.18E-09 6.19E-09 4.60E-09 IN RUN TYPE - DEPLETED X/Q SEC/M3 DISTANCE (METERS)

DIRECTION SECTOR 804 2413 4022 5631 7240 12067 24135 40225 56315 72405 N 8.08E-07 3.46E-07 1.62E-07 9.95E-08 7.26E-08 3.37E-08 1.20E-08 6.92E-09 4.73E-09 3.52E-09 NNE 8.90E-07 3.42E-07 1.51E-07 9.02E-08 6.45E-08 2.88E-08 9.96E-09 5.67E-09 3.86E-09 2.86E-09 NE 8.47E-07 3.48E-07 1.58E-07 9.48E-08 6.76E-08 2.98E-08 1.10E-08 5.95E-09 3.95E-09 2.87E-09 ENE 4.53E-07 2.47E-07 1.23E-07 7.67E-08 5.59E-08 2.54E-08 9.93E-09 5.43E-09 3.62E-09 2.64E-09 E 4.70E-07 2.26E-07 1.12E-07 7.08E-08 5.25E-08 2.66E-08 1.02E-08 5.99E-09 4.13E-09 3.09E-09 ESE 5.72E-07 2.21E-07 1.05E-07 6.63E-08 4.92E-08 2.49E-08 9.34E-09 5.59E-09 3.89E-09 2.93E-09 SE 8.54E-07 3.11E-07 1.47E-07 9.27E-08 6.93E-08 3.42E-08 1.32E-08 8.12E-09 5.71E-09 4.34E-09 SSE 9.50E-07 3.92E-07 1.93E-07 1.24E-07 9.42E-08 4.82E-08 1.94E-08 1.22E-08 8.69E-09 6.64E-09 S 8.33E-07 3.75E-07 1.94E-07 1.28E-07 9.89E-08 5.20E-08 2.13E-08 1.34E-08 9.54E-09 7.29E-09 SSW 7.44E-07 3.84E-07 1.83E-07 1.17E-07 9.70E-08 4.61E-08 1.67E-08 9.69E-09 6.61E-09 4.92E-09 SW 7.48E-07 4.68E-07 2.14E-07 1.31E-07 1.02E-07 4.52E-08 1.49E-08 7.90E-09 5.17E-09 3.74E-09 WSW 6.67E-07 4.31E-07 1.93E-07 1.27E-07 9.01E-08 4.14E-08 1.30E-08 6.46E-09 4.07E-09 2.86E-09 W 6.08E-07 3.82E-07 1.69E-07 1.36E-07 9.49E-08 4.07E-08 1.24E-08 6.08E-09 3.78E-09 2.64E-09 WNW 5.38E-07 2.91E-07 1.63E-07 1.38E-07 9.63E-08 3.96E-08 1.19E-08 5.91E-09 3.69E-09 2.58E-09 NW 5.03E-07 2.47E-07 1.31E-07 1.08E-07 8.59E-08 3.74E-08 1.23E-08 6.24E-09 3.96E-09 2.81E-09 NNW 6.39E-07 2.95E-07 1.41E-07 9.87E-08 7.56E-08 4.20E-08 1.44E-08 7.26E-09 4.59E-09 3.25E-09 IN RUN TYPE - DEPOSITION D/Q M-2 DISTANCE (METERS)

DIRECTION SECTOR 804 2413 4022 5631 7240 12067 24135 40225 56315 72405 N 1.76E-08 3.35E-09 9.75E-10 4.49E-10 2.75E-10 8.83E-11 1.91E-11 7.85E-12 4.66E-12 3.28E-12 NNE 2.07E-08 3.84E-09 1.11E-09 5.11E-10 3.09E-10 9.97E-11 2.14E-11 8.71E-12 5.07E-12 3.50E-12 NE 2.18E-08 3.99E-09 1.15E-09 5.31E-10 3.21E-10 1.05E-10 2.26E-11 9.58E-12 5.90E-12 4.16E-12 ENE 1.32E-08 2.51E-09 7.36E-10 3.39E-10 2.06E-10 6.81E-11 1.48E-11 6.43E-12 4.02E-12 2.85E-12 E 1.39E-08 2.53E-09 7.36E-10 3.38E-10 2.06E-10 6.81E-11 1.52E-11 6.55E-12 3.97E-12 2.77E-12 ESE 1.52E-08 2.67E-09 7.71E-10 3.53E-10 2.14E-10 7.07E-11 1.57E-11 6.70E-12 3.98E-12 2.76E-12 SE 2.35E-08 3.97E-09 1.14E-09 5.20E-10 3.14E-10 1.04E-10 2.31E-11 9.83E-12 5.83E-12 4.04E-12 SSE 2.33E-08 4.14E-09 1.20E-09 5.49E-10 3.32E-10 1.09E-10 2.42E-11 1.03E-11 6.27E-12 4.50E-12 S 2.28E-08 3.95E-09 1.14E-09 5.24E-10 3.18E-10 1.06E-10 2.40E-11 1.04E-11 6.41E-12 4.61E-12 SSW 2.09E-08 3.92E-09 1.13E-09 5.15E-10 3.11E-10 1.02E-10 2.29E-11 1.01E-11 6.45E-12 4.63E-12 SW 2.26E-08 4.34E-09 1.22E-09 5.52E-10 3.31E-10 1.09E-10 2.46E-11 1.11E-11 7.08E-12 4.97E-12 WSW 2.16E-08 4.07E-09 1.14E-09 5.20E-10 3.10E-10 1.05E-10 2.61E-11 1.21E-11 7.69E-12 5.19E-12 W 1.92E-08 3.58E-09 1.01E-09 4.74E-10 2.86E-10 1.06E-10 2.94E-11 1.33E-11 8.04E-12 5.22E-12 WNW 1.55E-08 2.82E-09 8.20E-10 4.00E-10 2.51E-10 9.57E-11 2.67E-11 1.19E-11 7.09E-12 4.56E-12 NW 1.34E-08 2.43E-09 7.12E-10 3.31E-10 2.01E-10 6.88E-11 1.96E-11 9.22E-12 5.83E-12 3.89E-12 NNW 1.54E-08 2.94E-09 8.58E-10 3.97E-10 2.39E-10 8.12E-11 2.44E-11 1.13E-11 7.08E-12 4.69E-12 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-19 ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION FACTORS ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION FACTORS FOR-FARLEY VENT-ASSUMED GROUND LEVEL SEASON-ANNUAL REQ-FX-3 4YRS JFT IN RUN TYPE - X/Q SEC/M3 DISTANCE (METERS)

DIRECTION SECTOR 804 2413 4022 5631 7240 12067 24135 40225 56315 72405 N 2.36E-05 3.97E-06 1.31E-06 6.80E-07 4.44E-07 1.66E-07 4.91E-08 2.48E-08 1.63E-08 1.20E-08 NNE 2.01E-05 3.36E-06 1.10E-06 5.72E-07 3.73E-07 1.40E-07 4.12E-08 2.07E-08 1.36E-08 9.99E-09 NE 1.93E-05 3.21E-06 1.04E-06 5.38E-07 3.50E-07 1.30E-07 3.80E-08 1.90E-08 1.25E-08 9.10E-09 ENE 1.73E-05 2.89E-06 9.43E-07 4.88E-07 3.18E-07 1.18E-07 3.47E-08 1.74E-08 1.14E-08 8.36E-09 E 2.01E-05 3.37E-06 1.12E-06 5.85E-07 3.83E-07 1.45E-07 4.32E-08 2.19E-08 1.45E-08 1.06E-08 ESE 1.96E-05 3.30E-06 1.10E-06 5.78E-07 3.79E-07 1.44E-07 4.32E-08 2.19E-08 1.45E-08 1.07E-08 SE 2.99E-05 5.01E-06 1.69E-06 8.90E-07 5.85E-07 2.24E-07 6.77E-08 3.45E-08 2.29E-08 1.69E-08 SSE 4.52E-05 7.56E-06 2.57E-06 1.36E-06 8.96E-07 3.45E-07 1.05E-07 5.37E-08 3.57E-08 2.65E-08 S 4.84E-05 8.11E-06 2.76E-06 1.46E-06 9.63E-07 3.70E-07 1.13E-07 5.77E-08 3.84E-08 2.85E-08 SSW 3.10E-05 5.18E-06 1.73E-06 9.11E-07 5.97E-07 2.27E-07 6.84E-08 3.47E-08 2.30E-08 1.70E-08 SW 2.38E-05 4.01E-06 1.32E-06 6.84E-07 4.46E-07 1.67E-07 4.90E-08 2.47E-08 1.63E-08 1.19E-08 WSW 1.96E-05 3.27E-06 1.06E-06 5.49E-07 3.57E-07 1.32E-07 3.86E-08 1.94E-08 1.27E-08 9.27E-09 W 1.87E-05 3.10E-06 1.01E-06 5.25E-07 3.42E-07 1.28E-07 3.75E-08 1.89E-08 1.24E-08 9.08E-09 WNW 1.80E-05 3.00E-06 9.83E-07 5.09E-07 3.32E-07 1.24E-07 3.65E-08 1.84E-08 1.21E-08 8.86E-09 NW 1.85E-05 3.10E-06 1.02E-06 5.28E-07 3.45E-07 1.29E-07 3.79E-08 1.91E-08 1.26E-08 9.20E-09 NNW 2.14E-05 3.61E-06 1.19E-06 6.19E-07 4.04E-07 1.51E-07 4.46E-08 2.25E-08 1.48E-08 1.09E-08 IN RUN TYPE - DEPLETED X/Q SEC/M3 DISTANCE (METERS)

DIRECTION SECTOR 804 2413 4022 5631 7240 12067 24135 40225 56315 72405 N 2.01E-05 3.02E-06 9.26E-07 4.54E-07 2.84E-07 9.68E-08 2.38E-08 1.01E-08 5.77E-09 3.79E-09 NNE 1.71E-05 2.55E-06 7.81E-07 3.82E-07 2.39E-07 8.13E-08 1.99E-08 8.42E-09 4.83E-09 3.17E-09 NE 1.64E-05 2.44E-06 7.39E-07 3.59E-07 2.24E-07 7.57E-08 1.84E-08 7.74E-09 4.42E-09 2.89E-09 ENE 1.47E-05 2.19E-06 6.67E-07 3.25E-07 2.03E-07 6.89E-08 1.68E-08 7.08E-09 4.05E-09 2.65E-09 E 1.71E-05 2.56E-06 7.92E-07 3.90E-07 2.45E-07 8.42E-08 2.09E-08 8.89E-09 5.12E-09 3.38E-09 ESE 1.67E-05 2.50E-06 7.80E-07 3.86E-07 2.43E-07 8.37E-08 2.09E-08 8.90E-09 5.14E-09 3.40E-09 SE 2.54E-05 3.80E-06 1.20E-06 5.94E-07 3.74E-07 1.30E-07 3.27E-08 1.40E-08 8.10E-09 5.37E-09 SSE 3.85E-05 5.74E-06 1.82E-06 9.08E-07 5.73E-07 2.01E-07 5.09E-08 2.18E-08 1.27E-08 8.39E-09 S 4.12E-05 6.16E-06 1.95E-06 9.75E-07 6.16E-07 2.15E-07 5.47E-08 2.35E-08 1.36E-08 9.03E-09 SSW 2.64E-05 3.93E-06 1.23E-06 6.08E-07 3.82E-07 1.32E-07 3.31E-08 1.41E-08 8.15E-08 5.39E-09 SW 2.03E-05 3.04E-06 9.32E-07 4.56E-07 2.85E-07 9.70E-08 2.37E-08 1.00E-08 5.76E-09 3.79E-09 WSW 1.67E-05 2.48E-06 7.53E-07 3.66E-07 2.28E-07 7.71E-08 1.86E-08 7.87E-09 4.49E-09 2.94E-09 W 1.59E-05 2.35E-06 7.18E-07 3.50E-07 2.19E-07 7.43E-08 1.81E-08 7.68E-09 4.40E-09 2.88E-09 WNW 1.53E-05 2.28E-06 6.96E-07 3.40E-07 2.13E-07 7.22E-08 1.77E-08 7.48E-09 4.29E-09 2.81E-09 NW 1.57E-05 2.36E-06 7.21E-07 3.53E-07 2.20E-07 7.50E-08 1.83E-08 7.76E-09 4.45E-09 2.92E-09 NNW 1.82E-05 2.74E-06 8.42E-07 4.13E-07 2.58E-07 8.81E-08 2.16E-08 9.15E-09 5.25E-09 3.45E-09 IN RUN TYPE - DEPOSITION D/Q M-2 DISTANCE (METERS)

DIRECTION SECTOR 804 2413 4022 5631 7240 12067 24135 40225 56315 72405 N 7.77E-08 9.49E-09 2.50E-09 1.14E-09 6.56E-10 2.08E-10 4.27E-11 1.57E-11 7.95E-12 4.94E-12 NNE 7.71E-08 9.41E-09 2.48E-09 1.13E-09 6.50E-10 2.06E-10 4.23E-11 1.56E-11 7.89E-12 4.90E-12 NE 7.74E-08 9.45E-09 2.49E-09 1.13E-09 6.53E-10 2.07E-10 4.25E-11 1.56E-11 7.92E-12 4.92E-12 ENE 5.24E-08 6.40E-09 1.68E-09 7.67E-10 4.42E-10 1.40E-10 2.88E-11 1.06E-11 5.36E-12 3.33E-12 E 5.24E-08 6.40E-09 1.68E-09 7.66E-10 4.42E-10 1.40E-10 2.88E-11 1.06E-11 5.36E-12 3.33E-12 ESE 5.50E-08 6.71E-09 1.77E-09 8.04E-10 4.64E-10 1.47E-10 3.02E-11 1.11E-11 5.62E-12 3.49E-12 SE 8.56E-06 1.05E-08 2.75E-09 1.25E-09 7.22E-10 2.29E-10 4.70E-11 1.73E-11 8.76E-12 5.44E-12 SSE 1.14E-07 1.39E-08 3.65E-09 1.66E-09 9.59E-10 3.04E-10 6.24E-11 2.29E-11 1.16E-11 7.22E-12 S 1.15E-07 1.41E-08 3.70E-09 1.68E-09 9.71E-10 3.08E-10 6.32E-11 2.32E-11 1.18E-11 7.31E-12 SSW 8.55E-08 1.04E-08 2.75E-09 1.25E-09 7.22E-10 2.29E-10 4.70E-11 1.73E-11 8.75E-12 5.43E-12 SW 8.09E-08 9.88E-09 2.60E-09 1.18E-09 6.83E-10 2.16E-10 4.44E-11 1.63E-11 8.28E-12 5.14E-12 WSW 7.18E-08 8.77E-09 2.31E-09 1.05E.09 6.06F-10 1.92E-10 3.94E-11 1.45E-11 7.35E-12 4.56E-12 W 6.55E-08 8.00E-09 2.11E-09 9.59E-10 5.53E-10 1.75E-10 3.60E-11 1.32E-11 6.71E-12 4.16E-12 WNW 5.68E-08 6.94E-09 1.82E-09 8.31E-10 4.79E-10 1.52E-10 3.12E-11 1.15E-11 5.81E-12 3.61E-12 NW 5.40E-08 6.60E-09 1.74E-09 7.90E-10 4.56E-10 1.44E-10 2.97E-11 1.09E-11 5.53E-12 3.43E-12 NNW 6.62E-08 8.08E-09 2.13E-09 9.69E-10 5.59E-10 1.77E-10 3.63E-11 1.34E-11 6.77E-12 4.31E-12 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-20 ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION FACTORS ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION FACTORS FOR-FARLEY VENT-REACTOR BLDG SEASON-ANNUAL REQ-FX-1 71-72HRLY SPLT IN RUN TYPE - X/Q SEC/M3 DISTANCE (METERS)

DIRECTION SECTOR 804 2413 4022 5631 7240 12067 24135 40225 56315 72405 N 1.14E-06 4.88E-07 2.26E-07 1.38E-07 9.96E-08 4.47E-08 1.55E-08 8.74E-09 5.95E-09 4.43E-09 NNE 1.10E-06 4.53E-07 1.98E-07 1.17E-07 8.23E-08 3.48E-08 1.12E-08 5.98E-09 3.96E-09 2.88E-09 NE 1.08E-06 4.02E-07 1.77E-07 1.05E-07 7.40E-08 3.14E-08 1.10E-08 5.86E-09 3.89E-09 2.84E-09 ENE 7.40E-07 3.08E-07 1.43E-07 8.74E-08 6.26E-08 2.71E-08 9.99E-09 5.46E-09 3.67E-09 2.71E-09 E 7.74E-07 2.82E-07 1.35E-07 8.43E-08 6.17E-08 2.91E-08 1.01E-08 5.57E-09 3.76E-09 2.78E-09 ESE 1.01E-06 2.76E-07 1.24E-07 7.61E-08 5.54E-08 2.65E-08 9.39E-09 5.30E-09 3.63E-09 2.73E-09 SE 1.36E-06 4.01E-07 1.83E-07 1.12E-07 8.13E-08 3.65E-08 1.26E-08 7.01E-09 4.76E-09 3.54E-09 SSE 2.07E-06 5.52E-07 2.37E-07 1.44E-07 1.05E-07 4.98E-08 1.86E-08 1.10E-08 7.66E-09 5.82E-09 S 1.80E-06 5.98E-07 2.92E-07 1.86E-07 1.39E-07 6.68E-08 2.50E-08 1.49E-08 1.04E-08 7.90E-09 SSW 1.26E-06 5.96E-07 2.77E-07 1.73E-07 1.35E-07 6.00E-08 2.01E-08 1.09E-08 7.27E-09 5.34E-09 SW 1.41E-06 7.23E-07 3.02E-07 1.76E-07 1.29E-07 5.31E-08 1.67E-08 8.82E-09 5.83E-09 4.25E-09 WSW 1.04E-06 5.35E-07 2.29E-07 1.42E-07 9.87E-08 4.19E-08 1.29E-08 6.62E-09 4.32E-09 3.12E-09 W 8.13E-07 3.91E-07 1.71E-07 1.27E-07 8.74E-08 3.57E-08 1.09E-08 5.55E-09 3.62E-09 2.61E-09 WNW 5.97E-07 3.10E-07 1.68E-07 1.34E-07 9.28E-08 3.77E-08 1.17E-08 6.06E-09 3.98E-09 2.90E-09 NW 6.05E-07 2.67E-07 1.41E-07 1.18E-07 9.33E-08 4.08E-08 1.37E-08 7.22E-09 4.79E-09 3.52E-09 NNW 7.88E-07 3.63E-07 1.74E-07 1.18E-07 8.73E-08 4.31E-08 1.41E-08 7.31E-09 4.81E-09 3.50E-09 IN RUN TYPE - DEPLETED X/Q SEC/M3 DISTANCE (METERS)

DIRECTION SECTOR 804 2413 4022 5631 7240 12067 24135 40225 56315 72405 N 1.01E-06 4.45E-07 2.06E-07 1.25E-07 8.98E-08 4.02E-08 1.38E-08 7.72E-09 5.21E-09 3.84E-09 NNE 9.89E-07 4.14E-07 1.80E-07 1.05E-07 7.38E-08 3.09E-08 9.77E-09 5.13E-09 3.35E-09 2.40E-09 NE 9.66E-07 3.65E-07 1.59E-07 9.37E-08 6.58E-08 2.76E-08 9.24E-09 4.75E-09 3.06E-09 2.17E-09 ENE 6.80E-07 2.86E-07 1.32E-07 8.01E-08 5.70E-08 2.45E-08 8.64E-09 4.55E-09 2.97E-09 2.13E-09 E 6.97E-07 2.56E-07 1.23E-07 7.65E-08 5.58E-08 2.62E-08 8.94E-09 4.81E-09 3.18E-09 2.30E-09 ESE 8.99E-07 2.43E-07 1.09E-07 6.69E-08 4.86E-08 2.33E-08 8.12E-09 4.51E-09 3.04E-09 2.24E-09 SE 1.20E-06 3.54E-07 1.62E-07 9.85E-08 7.10E-08 3.17E-08 1.06E-08 5.85E-09 3.90E-09 2.85E-09 SSE 1.80E-06 4.74E-07 2.04E-07 1.23E-07 9.00E-08 4.29E-08 1.59E-08 9.40E-09 6.48E-09 4.86E-09 S 1.58E-06 5.33E-07 2.62E-07 1.67E-07 1.25E-07 6.02E-08 2.24E-08 1.33E-08 9.21E-09 6.93E-09 SSW 1.14E-06 5.51E-07 2.55E-07 1.59E-07 1.24E-07 5.44E-08 1.78E-08 9.37E-09 6.12E-09 4.40E-09 SW 1.28E-06 6.64E-07 2.75E-07 1.58E-07 1.15E-07 4.64E-08 1.39E-08 6.98E-09 4.43E-09 3.12E-09 WSW 9.43E-07 4.93E-07 2.09E-07 1.29E-07 8.83E-08 3.65E-08 1.03E-08 4.82E-09 2.92E-09 1.98E-09 W 7.33E-07 3.59E-07 1.55E-07 1.14E-07 7.80E-08 3.09E-08 8.58E-09 3.96E-09 2.37E-09 1.60E-09 WNW 5.42E-07 2.88E-07 1.55E-07 1.23E-07 8.39E-08 3.31E-08 9.50E-09 4.52E-09 2.77E-09 1.91E-09 NW 5.47E-07 2.48E-07 1.31E-07 1.10E-07 8.66E-08 3.72E-08 1.17E-08 5.72E-09 3.57E-09 2.50E-09 NNW 7.09E-07 3.36E-07 1.61E-07 1.08E-07 8.02E-08 3.86E-08 1.15E-08 5.38E-09 3.26E-09 2.22E-09 IN RUN TYPE - DEPOSITION D/Q M-2 DISTANCE (METERS)

DIRECTION SECTOR 804 2413 4022 5631 7240 12067 24135 40225 56315 72405 N 2.08E-08 4.17E-09 1.23E-09 5.68E-10 3.46E-10 1.13E-10 2.45E-11 1.01E-11 5.90E-12 4.06E-12 NNE 2.44E-08 4.76E-09 1.39E-09 6.42E-10 3.90E-10 1.27E-10 2.77E-11 1.14E-11 6.51E-12 4.39E-12 NE 2.19E-08 4.11E-09 1.20E-09 5.53E-10 3.36E-10 1.11E-10 2.42E-11 1.04E-11 6.33E-12 4.38E-12 ENE 1.41E-08 2.59E-09 7.62E-10 3.50E-10 2.13E-10 7.18E-11 1.60E-11 7.13E-12 4.45E-12 3.12E-12 E 1.58E-08 2.73E-09 7.93E-10 3.63E-10 2.21E-10 7.43E-11 1.69E-11 7.44E-12 4.52E-12 3.13E-12 ESE 1.63E-08 2.59E-09 7.40E-10 3.37E-10 2.04E-10 6.86E-11 1.57E-11 6.91E-12 4.17E-12 2.90E-12 SE 2.75E-08 4.34E-09 1.24E-09 5.63E-10 3.40E-10 1.14E-10 2.58E-11 1.12E-11 6.58E-12 4.49E-12 SSE 2.66E-08 4.58E-09 1.32E-09 6.04E-10 3.66E-10 1.21E-10 2.68E-11 1.14E-11 6.89E-12 4.89E-12 S 2.64E-08 4.56E-09 1.32E-09 6.05E-10 3.68E-10 1.23E-10 2.78E-11 1.21E-11 7.35E-12 5.20E-12 SSW 2.87E-09 5.52E-09 1.60E-09 7.31E-10 4.42E-10 1.46E-10 3.26E-11 1.42E-11 8.63E-12 5.94E-12 SW 3.48E-08 7.06E-09 1.99E-09 9.04E-10 5.41E-10 1.77E-10 3.95E-11 1.71E-11 1.04E-11 7.03E-12 WSW 2.45E-08 4.76E-09 1.34E-09 6.10E-10 3.64E-10 1.21E-10 2.94E-11 1.33E-11 8.25E-12 5.49E-12 W 1.67E-08 3.20E-09 9.07E-10 4.23E-10 2.54E-10 9.23E-11 2.47E-11 1.09E-11 6.46E-12 4.15E-12 WNW 1.15E-08 2.23E-09 6.60E-10 3.20E-10 1.99E-10 7.44E-11 2.02E-11 8.88E-12 5.27E-12 3.38E-12 NW 1.23E-08 2.27E-09 6.70E-10 3.11E-10 1.89E-10 6.42E-11 1.80E-11 8.48E-12 5.35E-12 3.56E-12 NNW 1.62E-08 3.16E-09 9.29E-10 4.30E-10 2.60E-10 8.69E-11 2.51E-11 1.17E-11 7.34E-12 4.86E-12 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-21 (SHEET 1 OF 2)

DIFFUSION AND DEPOSITION ESTIMATES FOR ALL RECEPTOR LOCATIONS Site: Farley Release Point: Plant Vent - Wake Split Season: Annual Computer Run ID: FX-2 604-86 Distance Distance Distance to to to Nearest Nearest Nearest Milk Depleted Meat Depleted Milk Depleted Cow X/Q X/Q D/Q Animal X/Q X/Q D/Q Goat X/Q X/Q D/Q Direction (m) (sec/m3) (sec/m3) (m-2) (m) (sec/m3) (sec/m3) (m-2) (m) (sec/m3) (sec/m3) (m-2)

N - 6.9E-08 N/A 2.2E-10 3680 1.9E-07 N/A 1.1E-09 - 6.9E-08 N/A 2.2E-10 NNE - 6.2E-08 2.4E-10 4340 1.4E-07 9.0E-10 - 6.2E-08 2.4E-10 NE - 6.4E-08 2.6E-10 3860 1.8E-07 1.3E-09 - 6.4E-08 2.6E-10 ENE - 5.2E-08 1.6E-10 3860 1.3E-07 8.3E-10 - 5.2E-08 1.6E-10 E - 4.9E-08 1.6E-10 4340 1.0E-07 5.8E-10 - 4.9E-08 1.6E-10 ESE - 4.7E-08 1.7E-10 4800 8.6E-08 4.9E-10 - 4.7E-08 1.7E-10 SE - 6.7E-08 2.5E-10 4800 1.2E-07 7.2E-10 - 6.7E-08 2.5E-10 SSE - 9.0E-08 2.6E-10 1930 5.3E-07 6.8E-09 - 9.0E-08 2.6E-10 S - 9.5E-08 2.5E-10 1610 5.9E-07 9.1E-09 - 9.5E-08 2.5E-10 SSW - 9.1E-08 2.5E-10 1610 6.3E-07 9.1E-09 - 9.1E-08 2.5E-10 SW - 9.6E-08 2.6E-10 1450 8.4E-07 1.2E-08 - 9.6E-08 2.6E-10 WSW - 8.4E-08 2.5E-10 1770 3.5E-07 8.0E-09 - 8.4E-08 2.5E-10 W - 8.8E-08 2.3E-10 1930 5.1E-07 5.9E-09 - 8.8E-08 2.3E-10 WNW - 8.9E-08 2.1E-10 2575 2.9E-07 2.4E-09 - 8.9E-08 2.1E-10 NW - 7.9E-08 1.6E-10 1930 3.4E-07 4.0E-09 - 7.9E-08 1.6E-10 NNW - 7.1E-08 1.9E-10 2410 3.2E-07 3.0E-09 - 7.1E-08 1.9E-10 Note: N/A indicates that diffusion information for this run was not used in dose calculations for receptors in this column.

(-) indicates receptor distance is greater than 8000m, diffusion values given are for 8000m.

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-21 (SHEET 2 OF 2)

Site: Farley Release Point: Plant Vent - Wake Split Season: Annual Computer Run ID: FX-2 604-86 Distance Distance to to Nearest Nearest Nearest Depleted Veg. Depleted Site Depleted Residence X/Q X/Q D/Q Garden X/Q X/Q D/Q Boundary X/Q X/Q D/Q Direction (m) (sec/m3) (sec/m3) (m-2) (m) (sec/m3) (sec/m3) (m-2) (m) (sec/m3) (sec/m3) (m-2)

N 5470 1.1E-07 1.0E-07 5.6E-10 5470 1.1E-07 N/A 5.6E-10 1280 6.7E-07 6.0E-07 9.9E-09 NNE 3860 1.7E-07 1.6E-07 1.2E-09 3860 1.7E-07 1.2E-09 1450 6.5E-07 5.8E-07 9.9E-09 NE 3860 1.8E-07 1.7E-07 1.3E-09 3860 1.8E-07 1.3E-09 1450 6.4E-07 5.8E-07 1.0E-08 ENE 3860 1.3E-07 1.3E-07 8.3E-10 3860 1.3E-07 8.3E-10 1450 3.9E-07 3.5E-07 6.4E-09 E 4340 1.0E-07 9.7E-08 5.8E-10 4340 1.0E-07 5.8E-10 1280 3.8E-07 3.6E-07 7.6E-09 ESE 4827 8.6E-08 7.9E-08 4.9E-10 4830 8.6E-08 4.9E-10 1280 4.2E-07 4.0E-07 8.2E-09 SE 4827 1.2E-07 1.1E-07 7.2E-10 4830 1.2E-07 7.2E-10 1450 5.9E-07 5.2E-07 1.0E-08 SSE 6920 1.0E-07 9.7E-08 3.5E-10 6920 1.0E-07 3.5E-10 1610 6.6E-07 5.9E-07 9.5E-09 S 5150 1.5E-07 1.3E-07 6.4E-10 5150 1.5E-07 6.4E-10 1610 5.9E-07 5.4E-07 9.1E-09 SSW 4660 1.5E-07 1.4E-07 7.9E-10 5150 1.3E-07 6.3E-10 1610 6.3E-07 5.8E-07 9.1E-09 SW 1930 6.7E-07 4.3E-07 7.4E-09 1770 7.2E-07 7.3E-09 1450 8.4E-07 7.8E-07 1.2E-08 WSW 1450 7.7E-07 3.1E-07 1.1E-08 1450 7.7E-07 1.1E-08 1450 7.7E-07 3.1E-07 1.1E-08 W 1450 6.0E-07 5.6E-07 9.6E-09 1930 5.1E-07 5.9E-09 1280 6.2E-07 5.8E-07 1.1E-08 WNW 3375 2.0E-07 1.9E-07 1.2E-09 3380 2.0E-07 1.2E-09 1280 4.4E-07 4.1E-07 8.4E-09 NW 3860 1.4E-07 1.3E-07 8.0E-10 3860 1.4E-07 8.0E-10 1450 4.0E-07 3.6E-07 6.3E-09 NNW 3210 2.1E-07 1.9E-07 1.4E-09 3200 2.1E-07 1.4E-09 1450 5.0E-07 4.6E-07 7.5E-09 Note: N/A indicates that diffusion information for this run was not used in dose calculations for receptors in this column.

(-) indicates receptor distance is greater than 8000m, diffusion values given are for 8000m.

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-22 (SHEET 1 OF 2)

DIFFUSION AND DEPOSITION ESTIMATES FOR ALL RECEPTOR LOCATIONS Site: Farley Release Point: Assumed Ground Release Season: Annual Computer Run ID: FX-3 in Building Wake 604-87 Distance Distance Distance to to to Nearest Nearest Nearest Milk Depleted Meat Depleted Milk Depleted Cow X/Q X/Q D/Q Animal X/Q X/Q D/Q Goat X/Q X/Q D/Q Direction (m) (sec/m3) (sec/m3) (m-2) (m) (sec/m3) (sec/m3) (m-2) (m) (sec/m3) (sec/m3) (m-2)

N - 3.7E-07 N/A 5.3E-10 3860 1.4E-06 N/A 2.7E-09 - 3.7E-07 N/A 5.3E-10 NNE - 3.1E-07 5.3E-10 4340 9.4E-07 2.0E-09 - 3.1E-07 5.3E-10 NE - 2.9E-07 5.3E-10 3860 1.1E-06 2.7E-09 - 2.9E-07 5.3E-10 ENE - 2.6E-07 3.6E-10 3860 1.0E-06 1.8E-09 - 2.6E-07 3.6E-10 E - 3.2E-07 3.6E-10 4340 9.3E-07 1.4E-09 - 3.2E-07 3.6E-10 ESE - 3.2E-07 3.8E-10 4800 7.6E-07 1.1E-09 - 3.2E-07 3.8E-10 SE - 4.9E-07 5.9E-10 4800 1.2E-06 1.7E-09 - 4.9E-07 5.9E-10 SSE - 7.5E-07 7.8E-10 1930 1.1E-05 2.3E-08 - 7.5E-07 7.8E-10 S - 8.1E-07 7.9E-10 1610 1.7E-05 3.8E-08 - 8.1E-07 7.9E-10 SSW - 5.0E-07 5.9E-10 1610 1.1E-05 2.8E-08 - 5.0E-07 5.9E-10 SW - 3.7E-07 5.5E-10 1450 9.8E-06 3.1E-08 - 3.7E-07 5.5E-10 WSW - 3.0E-07 4.9E-10 1770 5.9E-06 1.9E-08 - 3.0E-07 4.9E-10 W - 2.9E-07 4.5E-10 1930 4.8E-06 1.3E-08 - 2.9E-07 4.5E-10 WNW - 2.8E-07 3.9E-10 2575 2.5E-06 6.0E-09 - 2.8E-07 3.9E-10 NW - 2.9E-07 3.7E-10 1930 4.8E-06 1.1E-08 - 2.9E-07 3.7E-10 NNW - 3.4E-07 4.5E-10 2410 3.7E-06 8.2E-09 - 3.4E-07 4.5E-10 Note: N/A indicates that diffusion information for this run was not used in dose calculations for receptors in this column.

(-) indicates receptor distance is greater than 8000m, diffusion values given are for 8000m.

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.3-22 (SHEET 2 OF 2)

Site: Farley Release Point: Assumed Ground Release Season: Annual Computer Run ID: FX-3 in Building Wake 604-87 Distance Distance to to Nearest Nearest Nearest Depleted Veg. Depleted Site Depleted Residence X/Q X/Q D/Q Garden X/Q X/Q D/Q Boundary X/Q X/Q D/Q Direction (m) (sec/m3) (sec/m3) (m-2) (m) (sec/m3) (sec/m3) (m-2) (m) (sec/m3) (sec/m3) (m-2)

N 5470 7.0E-07 4.7E-07 1.2E-09 5470 7.0E-07 N/A 1.2E-09 1280 1.2E-05 9.5E-06 3.6E-08 NNE 3860 1.1E-06 8.6E-07 2.8E-09 3860 1.1E-06 2.8E-09 1450 8.5E-06 6.8E-06 2.9E-08 NE 3860 9.8E-07 8.0E-07 2.8E-09 3860 9.8E-07 2.8E-09 1450 8.1E-06 6.5E-06 2.9E-08 ENE 3860 9.5E-07 6.9E-07 1.9E-09 3860 9.5E-07 1.9E-09 1450 7.2E-06 5.9E-06 2.0E-08 E 4340 9.5E-07 6.7E-07 1.3E-09 4340 9.5E-07 1.3E-09 1280 1.0E-05 8.0E-06 2.4E-08 ESE 4827 7.5E-07 5.2E-07 1.1E-09 4830 7.5E-07 1.1E-09 1280 9.6E-06 7.8E-06 2.5E-08 SE 4827 1.1E-06 8.2E-07 1.7E-09 4830 1.1E-06 1.7E-09 1450 1.2E-05 1.0E-05 3.3E-08 SSE 6920 9.6E-07 6.1E-07 1.0E-09 6920 9.6E-07 1.0E-09 1610 1.6E-05 1.3E-05 1.8E-08 S 5150 1.7E-06 1.1E-06 2.0E-09 5150 1.7E-06 2.0E-09 1610 1.7E-05 1.4E-05 3.7E-08 SSW 4660 1.2E-06 8.8E-07 1.9E-09 5150 1.0E-06 1.5E-09 1610 1.1E-05 8.9E-06 2.7E-08 SW 1930 6.2E-06 4.8E-06 1.7E-08 1770 7.2E-06 2.1E-08 1450 9.8E-06 8.0E-06 3.1E-08 WSW 1450 8.3E-06 6.7E-06 2.7E-08 1450 8.3E-06 2.7E-08 1450 8.3E-06 6.7E-06 2.7E-08 W 1450 7.8E-06 6.4E-06 2.6E-08 1930 6.6E-06 1.4E-08 1280 9.2E-06 7.5E-06 3.0E-08 WNW 3375 1.4E-06 9.9E-07 2.7E-09 3380 1.4E-06 2.7E-09 1280 8.9E-06 7.2E-06 2.6E-08 NW 3860 9.8E-07 7.5E-07 1.9E-09 3860 9.8E-07 1.9E-09 1450 7.8E-06 6.2E-06 2.1E-08 NNW 3210 1.9E-06 1.4E-06 3.6E-09 3200 1.9E-06 3.6E-09 1450 9.0E-06 7.3E-06 2.5E-08 Note: N/A indicates that diffusion information for this run was not used in dose calculations for receptors in this column.

(-) indicates receptor distance is greater than 8000m, diffusion values given are for 8000m.

REV 21 5/08

REV 22 8/09

[HISTORICAL][TOTAL HAIL REPORTS 3/4 INCH AND GREATER JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT 1955-1967 BY 2° SQUARES UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.3-1]

REV 22 8/09

[HISTORICAL][TOTAL NUMBER OF HAIL REPORTS 3/4 INCH JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT AND GREATER, 1955-1967 BY 1° SQUARES UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.3-2]

REV 22 8/09 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [HISTORICAL][TOTAL TORNADOES 1955-1967 BY 2° SQUARES NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.3-3]

REV 22 8/09 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [HISTORICAL][TOTAL TORNADOES 1955-1967 BY 1° SQUARES NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.3-4]

REV 22 8/09

[HISTORICAL][TOTAL WINDSTORMS, 50 KNOTS AND GREATER JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT 1955-1967, BY 2° SQUARES UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.3-5]

REV 22 8/09

[HISTORICAL][TOTAL NUMBER OF WINDSTORMS 50 KNOTS JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT AND GREATER 1955-1967 BY 1° SQUARES UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.3-6]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY MONTHLY WIND ROSES FOR DOTHAN AIRPORT (1950-1954)

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.3-7 (SHEET 1 OF 3)

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY MONTHLY WIND ROSES FOR DOTHAN AIRPORT (1950-1954)

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.3-7 (SHEET 2 OF 3)

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY MONTHLY WIND ROSES FOR DOTHAN AIRPORT (1950-1954)

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.3-7 (SHEET 3 OF 3)

REV 21 5/08 SEASONAL WIND ROSES FOR DOTHAN AIRPORT JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT (1950-1954)

UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.3-8

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY ANNUAL WIND ROSE FOR DOTHAN AIRPORT (1950-1954)

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.3-9

REV 21 5/08 MONTHLY AVERAGE AND AVERAGE DAILY EXTREMES OF JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT DRY BULB TEMPERATURE (DOTHAN AIRPORT 1950-1954)

UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.3-10

REV 21 5/08 MONTHLY AVERAGE AND AVERAGE OF DAILY EXTREMES JOSEPH M. FARLEY OF WET BULB TEMPERATURE NUCLEAR PLANT (DOTHAN AIRPORT 1950-1954)

UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.3-11

REV 21 5/08 MONTHLY AVERAGE AND AVERAGE OF DAILY EXTREMES JOSEPH M. FARLEY OF DEW POINT TEMPERATURE NUCLEAR PLANT (DOTHAN AIRPORT 1950-1954)

UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.3-12

REV 21 5/08 MONTHLY AVERAGE AND AVERAGE OF DAILY EXTREMES JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT OF RELATIVE HUMIDITY (DOTHAN AIRPORT 1950-1954)

UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.3-13

REV 21 5/08 MONTHLY AVERAGE AND AVERAGE OF DAILY EXTREMES JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT OF ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY (DOTHAN AIRPORT 1950-1954)

UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.3-14

REV 21 5/08 ANNUAL PRECIPITATION WIND ROSE FOR DOTHAN JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT AIRPORT (1950-1954)

UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.3-15

REV 21 5/08 SEASONAL PRECIPITATION WIND ROSE FOR DOTHAN JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT AIRPORT (1950-1954)

UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.3-16

REV 21 5/08 MONTHLY AVERAGE AND AVERAGE OF DAILY EXTREMES JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT OF VISIBILITY (DOTHAN AIRPORT 1950-1954)

UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.3-17

REV 21 5/08 MONTHLY WIND ROSES FOR FARLEY SITE DATA (50 FT.)

JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT (4/71-3/72)

UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.3-18 (SHEET 1 OF 3)

REV 21 5/08 MONTHLY WIND ROSES FOR FARLEY SITE DATA (50 FT.)

JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT (4/71-3/72)

UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.3-18 (SHEET 2 OF 3)

REV 21 5/08 MONTHLY WIND ROSES FOR FARLEY SITE DATA (50 FT.)

JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT (4/71-3/72)

UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.3-18 (SHEET 3 OF 3)

REV 21 5/08 SEASONAL WIND ROSES FOR FARLEY SITE DATA (50 FT.)

JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT (4/71-3/72)

UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.3-19

REV 21 5/08 ANNUAL WIND ROSE FOR FARLEY SITE DATA (50 FT.)

JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT (4/71-3/72)

UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.3-20

REV 21 5/08 CUMULATIVE PROBABILITY OF HOURLY JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT DIFFUSION CONDITIONS UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.3-21

REV 21 5/08 CUMULATIVE PROBABILITY OF HOURLY JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT DIFFUSION CONDITIONS UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.3-22

REV 21 5/08 CUMULATIVE PROBABILITY OF HOURLY DIFFUSION JOSEPH M. FARLEY CONDITIONS DURING VARIOUS PERIODS FOLLOWING AN NUCLEAR PLANT ACCIDENT (NRC T MODEL)

UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.3-23

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY PLANT SITE AND VICINITY TOPOGRAPHY (50-MILE RADIUS)

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.3-24

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY PLANT SITE AND VICINITY TOPOGRAPHY (5-MILE RADIUS)

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.3-25

REV 21 5/08 PLANT SITE AND VICINITY TOPOGRAPHIC JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT CROSS SECTIONS UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.3-26 (SHEET 1 OF 3)

REV 21 5/08 PLANT SITE AND VICINITY TOPOGRAPHIC JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT CROSS SECTIONS UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.3-26 (SHEET 2 OF 3)

REV 21 5/08 PLANT SITE AND VICINITY TOPOGRAPHIC JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT CROSS SECTIONS UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.3-26 (SHEET 3 OF 3)

REV 25 4/14 UNIT 1 PLAN SHOWING SITE TOPOGRAPHY AND JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT PLANT STRUCTURES UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.3-27

FNP-FSAR-2 2.4 HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING 2.4.1 HYDROLOGIC DESCRIPTION 2.4.1.1 Site and Facilities Farley Nuclear Plant (FNP) is located on the west bank of the Chattahoochee River at river mile 44.3 and about 15 air miles easterly from Dothan, Alabama. The plant is located with the yard grade at el 154.5 ft mean sea level (msl). As shown on figure 2.4-1, one small stream flows across the northern portion of the site and a wet weather stream crosses the southern part. An emergency pond is on this southern part to hold cooling water, as discussed in paragraph 2.4.8.2. A nominal number of drainage changes have been made, incidental to site grading, all to improve safety and drainage of the plant area.

Drawing D-171426 shows finished plant grade, storm drainage, and all plant structures. The topography in the vicinity of FNP is shown on United States Geological Survey (USGS) sheets:

Sigma, Ala.; Ashford, Ala.; Columbia, Ga-Ala; and Gordon, Ga.-Ala.

2.4.1.2 Hydrosphere The Chattahoochee River at the site location is about 300 ft wide, with an average depth of 12 ft and average velocity of 2 mph. The maximum flood of record has been estimated to be 207,000 ft3/s. The average flow is 11,500 ft3/s, unadjusted for reservoir effects. The minimum average daily flow is 1230 ft3/s since construction of Columbia Lock and Dam in 1960.

Paragraph 2.4.4.1 describes the river control structures upstream and downstream of the site.

The following are downstream users:

City of Port St. Joe, Florida, purchases water from St. Joe Paper Company for municipal water supply - intake 122 river miles downstream from site - maximum use 20,000,000 gallons per month.

St. Joe Paper Company uses 30,000,000 to 45,000,000 gal/day - intake 122 river miles downstream from site.

Basic Magnesium Company uses 60,000,000 gallons per month - intake 122 river miles downstream from site.

The paper company at Cedar Springs, Georgia, uses an average of 112,000,000 gal per day - intake 4 river miles downstream of site.

Mr. Lemuel Mercer uses a maximum of 576,000 gal per day during dry weather for farming - intake about 20 river miles downstream of site.

2.4-1 REV 31 10/23

FNP-FSAR-2 Mr. Herman Rowan uses a maximum of 1,728,000 gal per day during dry weather for farming - intake about 20 river miles downstream of site.

See paragraph 2.4.13.2 for ground water users.

2.4.2 FLOODS 2.4.2.1 Flood History The annual flood peaks at Alaga gage and Columbia gage are shown on table 2.4-1. The annual flood peaks at Alaga gage are from 1905 through 1929 and from 1962 through 1970.

From 1971 through 1974 only the maximum flood stages are available. After February 1975 the gage was removed and the recording of the river stage was discontinued. The annual flood peaks at Columbia gage are from 1930 through 1961. From 1962 through 1974 only maximum river stages are available. In February 1975 the gage was removed and recording of stage was discontinued. There are no rating curves available at Alaga and Columbia gates; therefore, the peak stages cannot be related to peak discharges. The maximum historical flood was estimated to be 207,000 ft3/s by the site during the flood of 1929 (LMV 2-20). This flow corresponds to an estimated maximum stage at the site of about el 124 ft msl.

2.4.2.2 Flood Design Considerations All structures and equipment necessary for maintaining long term safe conditions are located on, above, or protected to the plant grade level at el 154.5 ft msl. The river water intake structure, which has no safety-related function, is flood protected to el 127 ft msl, about 3 ft above the flood of record. A review of various large storms that could reasonably be transposed to and positioned on the 8246 square mile basin above the site showed that the Storm LMV 2-20 (Elba, Ala.), when used on the basin by current procedures, would produce the highest peak discharge at the site. The review of large storms included the following storms: GM 122, December 6-10, 1919; SA 2-9, July 13-17, 1916; LMV 2-20, March 11-16, 1929; Nov. 26-28, 1948; and February 17-25, 1961.

Using accepted practice for transposing and maximizing storms, the storm of LMV 2-20 with the primary center located at 84-51-10W, 32-20-20N, with the isohyetal pattern rotated 20 degrees counter clockwise from its original bearing, would produce the maximum volume of precipitation in the drainage basin above the site. It is considered that the "reasonably possible" maximum runoff has been obtained in this study, with the computed maximum flood water at el 144.2 ft msl and the wave effect at el 153.3 ft msl. This is also the condition that might occur at the site producing the highest flood level.

The storage pond dam embankment is protected by a downstream fill which extends 200 ft out from the toe. This fill is basically a spoil area and is not necessary for the stability of the dam.

The top of this fill varies from el 153 ft msl to el 158 ft msl at the intersection of the dam embankment. With the maximum flood water level at el 144.2 ft msl, the storage pond dam is protected from flood effects. Therefore, while waves can reach el 153.3 ft msl, they cannot extend to any portion of the main dam.

2.4-2 REV 31 10/23

FNP-FSAR-2 The effect of landslides upstream and downstream is discussed in paragraph 2.4.4.2 and subsection 2.4.9.

2.4.3 PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD (PMF) ON STREAMS AND RIVERS The probable maximum discharge and stage of the Chattahoochee River at the FNP site, in the general vicinity of the 2 river miles below Columbia Lock and Dam, have been determined from a detailed study. The primary consideration in determining the flood potential is the probable maximum depth of precipitation occurring over the drainage basin above the plant site aggregating approximately 8246 square miles. The resulting peak discharge would produce the probable maximum stage at the FNP location, with the river channel and flood plains in their present condition.

2.4.3.1 Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP)

The probable maximum precipitation (PMP) in the storm of LMV 2-20 in its transposed position over the Chattahoochee River basin has been determined by assuming that the amount of precipitable water is proportional to the moisture charge and the storm efficiency. The basic method described in U.S. Weather Bureau Hydrometeorological Report No. 33 was used in this analysis. Maximum possible moisture charge at any location and time is related to the maximum possible 12 -h 1000-millibar dewpoint for that location and time. Storm efficiency at any location and time is assumed to vary as the temperature contrast for that location and time.

Inasmuch as maximum possible dewpoint and temperature contrast vary by months, it was necessary to determine the month in which the resulting moisture charge is maximum.

However, in the case of the 1929 storm which was a frontal type, the months considered were limited to April, May, and June, with the month of May giving the largest probable maximum precipitation. The probable maximum precipitation is computed for each reporting station within the basin in the transposed position, with appropriate adjustment made in the moisture charge to account for the elevation of inflow barrier. The computation procedures used to relate, by stations, the probable maximum precipitation resulting from the storm in its transposed position to the actual rainfall depths are shown on figure 2.4-2. The computed probable maximum depth at each station was used to prepare an isohyetal map of the storm in the transposed position described in the preceding paragraph. The resulting map of the maximum probable storm precipitation is shown on figure 2.4-3. The total storm volume over the drainage basin above the FNP site is computed from the maximized isohyetal map. The portion of the total volume within each Thiessen polygon in each drainage area is distributed by 6-h periods in the same proportion as the rainfall depths at the respective precipitation stations. The average total depth of storm rainfall on the 8246 square miles above the plant site amounts to 15.7 in., and is shown by 6-h increments in the hyetograph on figure 2.4-4.

For each Thiessen polygon the 6-h increments of rainfall excess are obtained by deducting from the respective 6-h volumes of rainfall the portions thereof required to satisfy infiltration. The volume of rainfall excess over the basin above the plant site for each 6-h period equals the sum of the volumes within each Thiessen polygon or portion thereof, for each respective period, and is presented in the hyetograph on figure 2.4-4. The average depth of rainfall excess over the drainage basin amounts to 12.9 in. This is in agreement with a storm study dated 1968 by the Mobile District of the Corps of Engineers.

2.4-3 REV 31 10/23

FNP-FSAR-2 2.4.3.2 Precipitation Losses The ground was assumed to be saturated at the start of the storm as the result of antecedent rainfall, and accordingly no initial infiltration loss was considered. A study of several historical storms and related floods indicated that an average storm infiltration rate equal to 0.05 in./h would be a conservative value. This value was used in the study.

2.4.3.3 Runoff Model The drainage basin above Columbia Lock and Dam was subdivided into 16 areas as shown on figure 2.4-3. A 6-h unit hydrograph was developed for each of these areas by the Corps of Engineers from various storm and flood records. The 6-h unit hydrograph from area No. 15 is shown on figure 2.4-5 and is typical for the other areas. This figure 2.4-5 also shows the storm hydrograph from area No. 15. A tabulation of the 6-h unit hydrographs used in runoff determination from the 16 areas is shown in table 2.4-9. The 6-h increments of rainfall excess for each of the 16 areas were routed down the river by the progressive average lag method and, through the Corps of Engineers' reservoirs, were controlled with rules adopted or proposed by the Corps of Engineers. The starting reservoir levels were as shown in table 2.4-2.

The Regulations Manual for Walter F. George Reservoir states that during December through April the normal pool elevation is to be el 185 and to be operated using an induced surcharge schedule with full gate openings above el 198. During May through November the pool is to be operated along top-of-power-pool curve with maximum pool el 190 with full gate openings above el 201.5.

West Point Reservoir is proposed to be operated using an induced surcharge schedule with maximum power pool at el 635 and maximum reservoir el 641 before all gates are opened.

Oliver and Goat Rock Reservoirs are operated by Georgia Power Company as run of river plants.

Bartletts Ferry Reservoir is operated by Georgia Power Company. The project was redeveloped to update the spillway design. The spillway modifications were completed in 1985.

The normal operating pool level continues to be 521 ft msl.

The Regulation Manual for Buford Reservoir has a power guide curve that shows the reservoir can be varied from el 1063.5 ft msl to el 1069.5 ft msl depending on time of year. This curve is upper limit of operations: Beginning on January 1 with el 1063.5 ft msl and gradually increasing to el 1069.5 ft msl by about May 15, held at this level until about July 31 and then gradually decreasing to el 1063.5 to December 31.

The PMF was routed from West Point Dam through Bartletts Ferry, Goat Rock, and Oliver to Walter F. George Reservoir by the progressive average lag method. No reservoir routing was computed for these three reservoirs as there is only minor storage effect involved during PMF routing.

The spillway rating and capacity curves for five major upstream dams are shown on figures 2.4-66 through 2.4-69. The starting reservoir levels were as shown in table 2.4-2.

2.4-4 REV 31 10/23

FNP-FSAR-2 2.4.3.4 Probable Maximum Flood Flow The Chattahoochee River Basin has its headwater in the mountain region of north Georgia, then flows through the Piedmont Belt area into the Coastal plain and on to the Gulf of Mexico. The FNP site is in the Coastal Plain area where the river has a fairly uniform width and a gradual fall.

The major dams above the site that could affect the maximum water level at FNP have been designed by the Corps of Engineers and pertinent data are included in paragraph 2.4.4.1.

Additional details are given in the project reports for each dam. These dams are designed to withstand the PMF flow and were not considered as failing under this condition. Of the other dams that might affect the conditions at FNP, Bartletts Ferry Dam is the primary one that needs to be considered. An analysis of the concrete structures indicates no imminent danger of failure even at the overtopping water level reached during Bartletts Ferry's spillway design flood (equivalent to PMF, Corps of Engineers definition). Even if this dam were to breach during its spillway design flood the effect at FNP would be nominal, as the water released by the failure could be contained in Walter F. George reservoir under current operating regulations. This conclusion is based on the assumption that Bartletts Ferry Reservoir would be drawn down during failure from el 530 to el 450, releasing about 215,000 acre-ft of water. However, the Bartletts Ferry dam has been redeveloped to increase the existing spillway capacity. On August 20, 1981, GPC filed with the FERC revised Exhibit L drawings for Bartletts Ferry which showed a revision in the design of the new auxiliary spillway. GPC chose to install a labyrinth type spillway design rather than the fuse plug spillway design. The labyrinth type design provides a maximum length of spillway crest in a limited area. The Bartletts Ferry auxiliary spillway was completed in 1985 and the flood levels and discharges at Plant Farley were not impacted. If Walter F. George Reservoir at the time of this failure is at maximum top-of-power-pool el 190, this flow from Bartletts Ferry Dam failure could be contained in a 4-ft raise of Walter F. George Reservoir, not considering the quantity that would outflow. However, this failure could also be considered to occur during the passing of the PMF for FNP by Bartletts Ferry Dam. Assuming complete failure could create a 49-ft surge wave below the dam. By domino type failure Goat Rock and Oliver Dams would fail resulting in a 2-ft surge wave at Walter F.

George Dam, 89 miles below Oliver Dam, which would reflect from the dam. (The basis for the wave decay is discussed in paragraph 2.4.4.2). Assuming the surge reached Walter F. George Dam at the same time as the peak PMF flow is passing, which is highly unlikely, it would add about 4 ft to the reservoir level and cause an additional 88,000 ft3/s discharge through the spillway. Assuming this additional flow continues to FNP, this would raise the water level to el 146.5 ft msl, based on rating curve on figure 2.4-11. If a coincidental sustained wind velocity of 40 mph is considered occurring during this peak flow, it could cause a runup of the significant wave of 7.2 ft on 3:1 slope to el 153.7 ft msl. This is 0.4 ft higher than el 153.3 ft msl given in paragraph 2.4.3.6, but it is improbable to have all three events (peak PMF, dam failure and 40 mph wind) to occur simultaneously at FNP. This type of failure need not be further considered, as it does not endanger the plant. Therefore, under any probable condition the failure of Bartletts Ferry Dam would not affect the maximum water level at FNP as determined in this report. No other failure conditions need be considered during this PMF study. Using the routing procedure stated in paragraph 2.4.3.3, the resulting discharge hydrograph is the probable maximum flood hydrograph at the site, with a peak discharge of 642,000 ft3/s as shown on figure 2.4-4. Considering no upstream reservoirs (natural condition), the resulting probable maximum flood hydrograph at the site is shown in figure 2.4-6.

2.4-5 REV 31 10/23

FNP-FSAR-2 2.4.3.5 Water Level Determinations A stage discharge relationship was developed for the FNP site, River Mile 44.3, by using a computer program obtained from the Corps of Engineers, designated "HEC-2 Water Surface Profiles." Eighty-five river valley cross-sections were obtained from Corps of Engineers contour maps with 10-ft contour intervals for the Chattahoochee River extending from river mile 10.54 to 75.1 (Walter F. George Lock and Dam). The location of the cross-sections are shown on figure 2.4-7. Seven of these cross sections were verified by field survey and performed by the applicant's survey crews in October 1969 and March 1970. The river mile locations of these cross-sections are 23.69, 35.26, 38.86, 39.90, 41.80, 43.50 and 44.80. Cross-sections near FNP are shown on figures 2.4-8 and 2.4-9. The computer program was used to determine river channel and bank "n" values (channel roughness coefficient) to provide water surface profiles to match the known highwater marks for the two greatest floods of record (March 1929 and February 1961). The "n" values, water surface profiles, and highwater marks are shown on figure 2.4-10. The "n" values for the 1929 flood were used in the computer program to develop water surface profiles for higher discharges; these are also shown on figure 2.4-10. Since "n" values generally decrease with increase in flow, these developed profiles are conservatively high. The stage discharge relationship (figure 2.4-11) at river mile 44.3 was obtained by plotting the steady flow discharge against the stage (elevation). These data do not include wind wave or runup effects.

2.4.3.6 Coincident Wind Wave Activity A wave height analysis was based on procedures by Saville et al.(1) A reasonably possible sustained wind velocity for this site is considered to be 50-mph. The wave study indicated that for the 50 mph wind the runup of the significant wave would be 9.1 ft or el 153.3 ft msl on a 3:1 slope at the cooling tower fill. However, the top of the slope is el 149 ft msl on the river side of this fill. Thus, the wave run up will extend above the top of the slope on a trajectory and fall onto the fill some 12 ft from the edge, where momentum will carry some flow a short distance away from the top of the slopes. The distance is determined by the amount of adverse slope and the friction loss. A loop road at el 153 ft msl surrounds the main plant area. The distance from this road to the nearest edge of fill at el 1149 ft msl is 550 ft in a northeasterly direction.

Near the southeast corner of the loop road waves can approach over a section of natural terrain which is at a slope of 5:1 up to el 152 ft msl. The runup in this area will reach el 150 ft msl. It is concluded that wave water will not reach the main plant area.

HISTORICAL

[2.4.4 POTENTIAL DAM FAILURES (SEISMICALLY INDUCED) 2.4.4.1 Reservoir Description There are 13 dams on the Chattahoochee River upstream of the FNP site and one dam downstream, as shown on the basin map, figure 2.4-12. A profile of the river is shown on figure 2.4-13. Data on the dams are listed on figure 2.4-14. A plan and sections of Walter F. George Lock and Dam, a large dam 30.7 miles above FNP, and West Point Dam 157 miles above FNP are shown on figures 2.4-15 and 2.4-16, respectively.

2.4-6 REV 31 10/23

FNP-FSAR-2 The concrete sections of the following Georgia Power Company dams have been analyzed using 0.1g horizontal seismic criteria: North Highland, Oliver, Goat Rock, Bartletts Ferry, and Morgan Falls. The earth dike sections have not been reanalyzed recently. These dams are considered safe and are included in the regular 5-year inspection reports to the Federal Power Commission. Designs for Corps of Engineers dams are given in the project report for each dam. Figure 2.4-14 contains a summary of data on each dam.

2.4.4.2 Dam Failure Permutations Columbia Lock and Dam with a normal head differential of 25 ft is 2.2 miles upstream from the FNP site.

However, since this dam submerges under annual floods, Walter F. George Dam is considered to be the nearest major dam to the FNP site. Walter F. George Dam is a Corps of Engineers dam with normal operating head of 88 ft, which was designed to provide adequate safety factors for reservoir conditions up to and including the probable maximum flood. In the applicant's study, Walter F. George Dam was considered to be breached, during the crest of a standard project flood discharge of 357,000 ft3/s with the reservoir at 201 ft msl and the tailwater at el 168 ft msl, by a seismic event. Breaching was very conservatively assumed to be the complete removal of the 9000-ft earth dike section over a period of 18 minutes (selected to facilitate computer analysis). This gave the most critical condition that could reasonably possibly occur.

The above conclusion was reached after a study was made of the possible failure of Buford dam and subsequent downstream domino type failures from wave action. Assumption was made that the earth dike section of Buford Dam failed during standard project flood due to an earthquake. The breach at Buford Dam could cause a 54-ft surge wave below the dam. This wave would be 11 ft high at Morgan Falls Dam, 40 miles downstream, and would overtop the dam causing a 24-ft wave to progress downstream.

By the time the wave reached West Point, 109 miles downstream, it would be about 2 ft high and would reflect from the dam, causing no failure. Then a further assumption was made that the earth dike section of West Point Dam had failed, causing a 19-ft wave to start downstream. This wave would be 10 ft high at Bartletts Ferry Dam 23 miles downstream, and would overtop the dam causing a 51-ft surge wave. By domino-type failure, Goat Rock and Oliver dams would fail causing a 4 ft surge wave at Walter F.

George Dam, 89 miles below Oliver Dam, which would reflect and be contained within the reservoir.

Therefore, the assumed failure of Walter F. George Dam stated above would present the worst permutation.

The decay of amplitude for the surge wave as given above was derived from discussions given on solitary wave decrease with distance in Engineering Hydraulics by Hunter Rouse, page 724, and the magnitude and time of waves generated by failure of Walter F. George Dam under various conditions as determined by the same computer program referred to in paragraph 2.4.4.3. The results of these wave studies are shown on figure 2.4-70. The elevation of water surface just below a failure dam, as used in this report, is determined by the general formula: rise of water surface below failure dam is equal to 4/9 of the difference between the water surfaces above and below the dam just before failure. This is discussed in Engineering Hydraulics by Rouse, page 755. These procedures for ascertaining the effect of dam failures are based on past failures and experiments which provide reasonable results.

Also considered was the potential flooding during a flood similar to the floods of 1916 and 1961, when the peak water surface by the plant site was about el 115 and coincident seismically induced dam failures occurring. As Walter F. George Dam spillway can pass these floods with the maximum pool level about 2.4-7 REV 31 10/23

FNP-FSAR-2 el 193, there is no possibility that this condition could produce a higher water level at the plant site than discussed above for failure during standard project flood.

As the flood plains of the river below FNP are wide relative to the height of the banks, if a landslide were to occur before a maximum flood, the flow would not be blocked sufficiently during the peak period to raise the flood level above that provided for in this study.

2.4.4.3 Unsteady Flow Analysis of Potential Dam Failures The hydrograph for the failure of Walter F. George Dam by seismic event during the peak of the standard project flood was run on the computer using 33 selected sections along the river from Walter F. George Dam to within 10 miles of Jim Woodruff Dam, at 1.8 mile intervals. The same roughness values were used in "Water Level Determinations", paragraph 2.4.3.5, a hypothetical hydrograph to assimilate the failure of Walter F. George Dam and the rating curve for Jim Woodruff spillway. The computer program for unsteady nonuniform flow used in this analysis was developed by J. J. Stoker et al.(2)

In a 1979 study on Walter F. George Dam break done by the Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, it is shown (see ref. 6) that flood stage near the FNP site (at RM 45.5) due to the dam break is 130.4 N.G.V.D.

(National Geodetic Vertical Datum).

The assumed conditions of failure as stated in the study are as follows:

1. Walter F. George Reservoir was at normal pool of 190 ft msl before failure.

2. The 1300-ft-wide concrete structure failed instantly. (This is considered the most severe failure which would possibly occur by natural cause.)

3. The river channel below the dam before failure was passing a discharge of 60,000 ft3/s.

4 Only the lock gates at George Andrews were assumed to fail since Andrews was designed to overtop.

It is also staged in the study that the inundation areas shown on maps are for the most severe failure assumed possible for this dam and is based on the philosophy that if a structure is safe in the most severe case it will withstand the less severe case. The inundated area in the vicinity of FNP site due to the break of Walter F. George Dam is shown on figure 2.4-71.

2.4.4.4 Water Level at Plant Site The initial condition of the water level in the river before the dam breach was assumed to be the same as the steady flow for 357,000 ft3/s, the peak flow for the standard project flood, which is shown on figure-2.4-10. The water level in the tailrace below Walter F. George Dam is at el 169.2 ft msl and the head water at el 201.1 ft msl. As stated in paragraph 2.4.4.2, the breach is assumed to open the 9000 ft earth dike section in 18 minutes, raising the tailrace water level to el 183.1 ft msl. This elevation is maintained for 1 h and 18 minutes, then gradually decreased for 7 h until the initial elevation of 169.2 ft msl is reached. This permits the reservoir to empty through the breach in a reasonable time.

2.4-8 REV 31 10/23

FNP-FSAR-2 The results at FNP are shown on figure 2.4-17. The peak stage is el 137.5 ft msl.

The unsteady nonuniform program described in paragraph 2.4.4.3 has given reasonable results on this type of flow and is being used by the Corps of Engineers for this type of problem.

The same wind velocity of 50 mph as stated in paragraph 2.4.3.6 is also considered for this condition.

The runup on a 3:1 slope at the cooling tower fill under the above conditions for the significant wave coincident with the dam failure surge wave at FNP, as stated above, would reach el 146.6 ft msl. This is less than el 153.3 ft msl for the PMF, as stated in paragraph 2.4.3.6.

Also from the Corps of Engineers 1979 study, as explained in the latter part of paragraph 2.4.4.3, the maximum elevation reached in the vicinity of FNP site (RM 45.5) is 130.4 ft. msl. The assumptions on which this elevation is based are also givenin the latter part of paragraph 2.4.4.3.

The flood-frequency stage discharge data are given in table 2.4-8.]

2.4.5 PROBABLE MAXIMUM SURGE AND SEICHE FLOODING As FNP is not near a large body of water, this section does not apply.

2.4.6 PROBABLE MAXIMUM TSUNAMI FLOODING This section does not apply to FNP.

2.4.7 ICE FLOODING Icing does not normally occur on the Chattahoochee River at FNP. The only recent incidence of icing occurred in 1961 along the banks in slack water areas. No record of the river being iced over at this location has been found. Therefore, there would be no interference with the flow of water into the river water intake due to ice. Even if the surface did become frozen there would be no interference with withdrawal of water by the river water intake due to depth of water in river.

2.4.8 COOLING WATER CANALS AND RESERVOIRS 2.4.8.1 Reservoirs Southwest of the plant, a storage pond has been built to serve as the ultimate heat sink. The storage pond also provides a detention and settling reservoir for water pumped from the river prior to its use in the plant service water system and cooling towers. The drainage basin that feeds the pond is approximately 325 acres and is roughly circular in shape. The time of concentration of runoff is estimated to be 30 minutes. The approximate crest length of the dam and dike is 3900 ft with the crest at el 195 ft msl. It is approximately 55 ft high at the lowest point in the valley bottom. As indicated by a 1989 survey, the surface area of this storage pond 2.4-9 REV 31 10/23

FNP-FSAR-2 is approximately 95 acres at el 184.0 with an average depth of approximately 15 ft and about 1400 acre ft storage capacity.

In order to assess any change of cooling water storage pond geometry due to sedimentation, a sounding survey is conducted on a periodic basis. These sounding surveys are used to verify that the pond contains sufficient volume and surface area to perform as the ultimate heat sink as described in subsection 9.2.5.

During normal operation the pond water level is controlled between el 185.0 and el 185.5. With two units on line, it is expected that six to eight river water pumps will be required to maintain the pond water level. Typically, one or more river water pump(s) on each train is placed in the auto position. When the water level in the pond reaches el 185.5, the wetpit level switches turn off the river water pump(s) which is in the auto position. In the event these switches fail to operate, the wetpit level transmitters give the service water structure high pond level alarm in the control room at el 185.75. The operator is then required to reduce the number of running river water pumps as necessary to return the SW pond to normal level range.

The PMF will raise the pond to el 192.2 ft msl. This elevation is based on the pond being at el 186 ft msl at the start of the storm, disregarding all withdrawal from the pond for cooling purposes and the river pumps being shut down.

If the pond level drops to el 184.33, an annunciator in the control room is energized to alert the operator to the condition. The operator is required by a technical specification to initiate shutdown procedures if the pond level drops below el 184.0. The minimum pond level required for proper functioning of the service water system is el 161.0 ft. This level is based on the head necessary to force the required two-unit service water flow over the lip of the intake structure.

The lip of the intake structure is at el 159.0 ft with a 2-ft head required to produce a flow check of 71,939 gal/min into the wetpit of the intake structure. Pond level (from el 159.0 to 193.0) is continuously measured.

The pond spillway structure is located at the north leg of the storage pond, as shown on figure 2.4-18. This structure is a reinforced concrete three-bay culvert bridge with the drop in each bay 16 ft wide at el 186 ft msl. The approach canal is described in paragraph 2.4.8.2. The bottom for 20 ft upstream of the drop is paved with concrete. The design discharge flow of 2020 ft3/s is carried over a 15-ft drop to discharge in a dug canal, thence to Rock Creek. The drop is designed by criteria shown in a Bureau of Reclamation book.(3) This drop was considered an impact block type basin which dissipates the energy, principally by turbulence induced by the impingement of the incoming flow upon the impact blocks. This requires maintaining a deep tailwater below the drop. The design has been verified by using Chow's book on its use as an energy dissipator.(4) The flow below the drop is in a dug canal with maximum average velocity of 5 ft per second, as described in paragraph 2.4.8.2.

The spillway rating for use in the flood routing is based on the formula:

Q = C [L - 2 Ka H] H1.5 taken from USCE Hydraulic Design Chart 111-3/1, WES 8-60. A conservative coefficient value for C of 2.95 was selected to include an allowance for entrance and friction loss. This 2.4-10 REV 31 10/23

FNP-FSAR-2 coefficient was based on data in U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 200. A value for Ka of 0.1 was obtained from design chart 111-e/1. This rating curve is shown on figure 2.4-19.

The design storm for this basin was assumed to be a 6-h storm with a probable maximum precipitation of 29.9 in., based on U.S. Weather Bureau Hydrometeorological distribution found in the U.S. Corps of Engineers Bulletin 52-8, and is shown on figure 2.4-20. A simple triangular unit hydrograph was used to develop the inflow hydrograph and is also shown on figure 2.4-20.

The spillway discharge rating curve is shown on figure 2.4-20. For the maximum outflow of 2020 ft3/s, the maximum pond elevation is 192.2 ft msl. The pond storage curve is shown on figure 2.4-21. The storm runoff will have passed through the reservoir and receded in 48 h.

A wave height analysis was made based on procedures described by Saville, et al.(1) The most critical wind direction for the wave formation was found to be from the northwest.

The required duration of wind velocity for wave formation is found to be approximately 7 min. A wind velocity of 50 mph over land would produce a significant wave height of 1.4 ft. (The significant wave height is that height exceeded by only 13 percent of the waves.) On the 3-1/2:1 riprapped upstream face of the low section of the dam, this wave runup would be approximately 1.4 ft including 0.1 ft for wind setup. The maximum wave would produce a runup of approximately 1.8 ft to el 194.0 ft msl; such a wave would be expected to occur once every 12 min. On the 4:1 riprapped face of the high section of the dam the wave runup would be approximately 0.2 ft less than that given for the 3-1/2:1 slope. The runups are measured above the average water surface.

2.4.8.2 Spillway Intake and Discharge Canals There is a canal about 600 ft long leading from the storage pond to the spillway structure. The location and a section of this canal are shown on figure 2.4-l8. The average velocity during the peak of probable maximum flood would be 2.6 ft/s. The bottom of the canal is at el 186 ft msl, at upper operating pond level. For protection during flood flows the canal is grassed.

Below the spillway structure is the outflow canal about 600 ft long which discharges into a natural drainage valley leading to Wilson Creek. In the dug canal just below the structure with bottom at el 171 ft msl the average velocity during the peak of PMF would be 5 ft/s. The channel is protected by Bermuda grass. A sheet pile cutoff wall is provided to prevent under cutting at the end of the concrete of the spillway structure. Additional erosion protection is not required since the spillway structure is designed to prevent impairment of emergency cooling pond banks in the unlikely event of extreme channel erosion and degradation. The drop structure and basin are supported on reinforced concrete caissons founded in the Lisbon formation at approximately el 90 ft. The roadway embankment which connects the drop structure and high ground on either side is placed between parallel tied rows of sheet piling set to el 137 ft msl. Erosion at the end of the spillway basin even to el 137 msl would not affect the integrity of this closure embankment. About 2000 ft downstream of the structure a construction road fill crosses the drainage channel. Drainage is normally maintained through a 48 in. culvert.

This road slopes from a hump of el 175 ft msl on the plant side toward the west. The average top of roadway across the drainage way is considered at el 171.7 ft msl.

2.4-11 REV 31 10/23

FNP-FSAR-2 The discharge across this road was computed using the backwater profile computer program to develop a rating curve. A crest length of 660 ft was assumed with no allowance for flow to the west along the road. To simplify the computation and to be conservative the flow was not routed down the channel.

For the spillway flow of 2020 ft3/s a maximum elevation of 174.3 ft msl was indicated upstream of the roadway with a minimum allowance of 166 ft3/s for flow through the 48 in. culvert based on the simultaneous PMF flood stage in Rock Creek of el 156 ft msl below the construction road. The backwater at the spillway drop structure was computed using an "n" of 0.125 in the natural drainage valley, to be not more than el 177 ft msl. This stage will not interfere with drop functioning.

The construction along the east side of the spillway drainage way from the plant access road around to the Wilson Creek railroad crossing was reviewed to check for possible low areas where flow unto the plant area could occur. From the plant access road the lowest elevation is the construction access road. This road passes through a cut with a control elevation of 175 ft msl and with the ditch on the upstream side of the road at el 174.5 ft msl. Thus, even if all the extremes should coincide, no flow toward the plant area should result. North of the construction access road and around to the railroad is a construction area. The water overtopping the access road discharges to the west of this construction area and thus will not flood it. The PMF stage in Wilson Creek slopes from el 156 ft msl at the construction access road channel crossing down to el 144 ft msl at the railroad crossing where the flow has an average velocity of 13 ft/s through the trestle.

Wilson Creek, which is along the northern edge of FNP, has a drainage area of 7.32 square miles with the highest point on the divide approximately at el 300 ft msl and the ground gradually sloping to the R.R. crossing at el 110 ft msl. The time of concentration is estimated at 1.6 h. The procedures used to obtain the PMF for Wilson Creek at the R.R. crossing were from Soil Conservation Service (SCS) for design of emergency spillways for small water sheds in high risk areas. The PMP for this basin was assumed to be a 6-h storm with a conservatively high total precipitation value of 31 in. as obtained from Hydrometeorological Report No. 33 and the distribution as shown in U. S. Corps of Engineers Bulletin 52-8. This gave the PMF for Wilson Creek with a peak runoff of 54,700 ft3/s, which was used in the studies relative to Wilson Creek PMF.

2.4.9 CHANNEL DIVERSIONS The river upstream from the site does not have sufficiently high banks to cause a potential diversion of the river and bypass of the intake structure. With Lake Seminole varying between el 76 ft msl and el 78 ft msl, a temporary blockage of the river upstream from FNP would not seriously affect the quantity of water available to the river water intake structure. Even if the river was temporarily blocked, cooling water could be obtained from the storage pond as described in paragraph 2.4.8.1.

2.4.10 FLOODING PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS All structures and equipment necessary for maintaining long-term safe conditions are located on, above, or protected to the plant grade el 154.5 ft msl. The river water intake structure, 2.4-12 REV 31 10/23

FNP-FSAR-2 which is not required for safe shutdown, is flood protected to el 127 ft msl; 3 ft above the flood of record. Flooding of plant area by river flow is discussed in paragraph 2.4.3.6 and by Wilson Creek and storage pond in paragraph 2.4.8.2. The storage pond dam and dikes are very conservatively designed, as the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) and also the probable maximum flood with coincident high winds were included as design factors. In the unlikely and highly improbable event that some failure should occur, these cooling pond dikes are located so that the resulting discharge of water would not be directed into the plant area. The maximum possible resulting surge wave coincident with even the highest possible water elevation on the flood plain would not adversely affect the plant area. Should such failure occur under ordinary river stages, debris could be carried down the natural drain and deposited in the river about 2000 ft downstream from the waste discharge pipe outfall. This might result in a damming effect with increased upstream stages, but would not endanger plant operation.

Another source of flooding is severe rainfall. (See paragraph 2.4.3.1.) The power block area is located on a small plateau. (See figure 2.4-1.) The topography is such that the runoff of rainfall is directed away from the power block area by a combined system of culverts and open ditches to natural drainage channels. Therefore, the drainage system for the site precludes flooding.

The plant drainage system is designed for a maximum precipitation of 6 in./h and was checked to ensure that flooding of safety-related equipment will not occur as a result of the probable maximum precipitation (PMP) as determined below for the roofs. The roofs of all safety-related structures are designed to pass the local PMP corresponding to the time of concentration of flow. The PMP was selected from the world record envelope curve as shown on figure 9-44 in Chow's Handbook.(5)

Rainfall in. = 15.3 x (duration in hours) 0.486 The design includes measures to guard against hurricane wind induced seepage through roof penetrations, windows, and doors where safety-related equipment could be damaged.

Drawing D-171488 shows site grades without the storm drainage system as shown on drawing D-171426 and referred to in paragraph 2.4.1.1. The runoff from local PMP across the plant area was checked using the rational method:

Q = CiA where: Q = peak rate of runoff in ft3/s; C = weighted runoff coefficient expressing the ratio of rate of runoff to rate of rainfall; i = average intensity of rainfall in inches per hour for PMP during the time of concentration; and A = area in acres that drains to the check location.

In checking the plant area the "i" used was taken from the world record envelope curve given above for the time of concentration determined for each area checked. The "C" used is discussed in Design and Construction of Sanitary and Storm Sewers, ASCE - Manuals and Reports of Engineering Practice No. 37, page 51. There is a statement: "Higher intensity storms will require the use of higher coefficients because infiltration and other losses have a proportionally smaller effect on runoff." A discussion on estimating storm runoff from small areas is given in Design of Roadside Drainage Channels, Bureau of Public Roads, 1965, Chapter 11.

As the runoff areas around the safety-related structures are largely grassed, a "C" of 0.6 was used for each area including roofed areas, which is conservative when consideration is given to the roof drainage design where scupper holes are provided on structures with outside parapet 2.4-13 REV 31 10/23

FNP-FSAR-2 walls permitting pondage of rainfall on these roofs, then being released gradually after the storm has ceased.

The depth of water at check locations was determined by using the Manning equation:

AR2/3 = Qn/1.486 s1/2 where: A = cross-sectional area of the flowing water in square feet taken at right angles to the direction of flow; R = hydraulic radius; Q = discharge as determined from rational method; n =

Manning coefficient of channel roughness; and S = slope of the water surface in feet per foot.

In ascertaining the surface water depth in the plant area, a "n" of 0.050 was used. This was obtained by assuming conservatively that grassed areas were adjacent to the doorways and openings.

In the calculations an assumption was also made that all of the buried storm drainage system was inoperative and the PMP runoff was carried off on the ground.

Based on these calculations, no doorway or opening of a safety-related building will be flooded by the runoff from the PMP and the runoff carried by an operating storm drainage system will be an added safeguard. The maximum water depth adjacent to the turbine building was 6 in.,

which is 6 in. below slab grade.

As discussed in paragraph 2.4.8.1, the maximum wave in the storage pond would be to el 194.6. The pumps in the service water intake structure are flood protected to el 195.6 and 50-mph wind would not endanger safe shutdown operations.

2.4.11 LOW WATER CONSIDERATIONS 2.4.11.1 Low Flow in Rivers and Streams At the present time, the river flow past the site during periods of low flow is influenced by a number of factors:

• The intermittent operation of Walter F. George Dam for the production of electric power and for navigation control.

• The operation of Columbia Lock and Dam (located about 3 river miles upstream) for navigation control.

• The operation of Jim Woodruff Dam (located about 44 river miles downstream) for the production of electric power and navigation.

During May 1960, the construction of Columbia Lock and Dam was begun. Prior to this time there are discharge records at the gauging station at Columbia, Alabama, (located about 6 river miles upstream from FNP) for a 32-year period. The minimum average daily flow during this period was 1210 ft3/s. This occurred in 1954 which is a record dry year. That year the average 2.4-14 REV 31 10/23

FNP-FSAR-2 daily flow was less than 2000 ft3/s from September 3 through November 13, a period of over 2 months.

Due to the future flooding of the gauge at Columbia, Alabama, at the Columbia Reservoir, it was removed and a gauge installed at Alaga, Alabama, (located about 8 river miles downstream from FNP). Records at this location were begun in October, 1960. The minimum average daily flow at this gauge as recorded by USGS is 1230 ft3/s, which occurred October 29, 1962. At this time, there were 9 days when the discharge was below 2000 ft3/s. However, the records show that during this month, Walter F. George Reservoir stored the equivalent of 892 ft3/s. This could have occurred during the recorded low flow period, thereby reducing the natural flow.

An examination of the records since 1964, when Walter F. George Lock and Dam were completed, shows the minimum average daily flow as 1760 ft3/s; occurring when discharge was 4010 ft3/s the day before and 5290 ft3/s the day after. Also during the month this occurred Walter F. George Reservoir stored the equivalent of 1539 ft3/s. This indicates that low flow is presently being controlled by operation of upstream dams.

The availability of water in the river does not depend on flow past the plant site, however, because of the lake (Lake Seminole) produced by Jim Woodruff Dam. According to the Corps of Engineers, Lake Seminole varies between el 76 ft msl and el 78 ft msl. The Corps of Engineers maintains a 9 ft deep navigation channel in the Chattahoochee River which corresponds to a river elevation of 76 ft msl at the plant site. Therefore, FNP should be operational even under a reasonably possible severe hydrometeorological condition.

2.4.11.2 Low Water Resulting from Surges With Jim Woodruff Dam in place, the minimum operating level for navigation is at el 76 ft msl.

The invert of the river intake channel is set at el 64 ft msl. No reasonable probable event could cause a surge in the river during normal operation to deprive the intake of water. In the event of the failure of one or more gates to close, or failure of any section of Jim Woodruff Dam, the water level at FNP could be lowered until repairs are made. For this to occur during an extreme low flow period is beyond a reasonable possibility. In any event, operation of the river water system is not required for safe shutdown of the plant because the storage pond in conjunction with the service water system provides the ultimate heat sink.

2.4.11.3 Historical Low Water As stated in paragraph 2.4.11.1, the minimum average daily flow as recorded is 1230 ft3/s.

When this occurred the flow was being controlled by Walter F. George Dam. The natural flow at this time could have been more or less than the 1230 ft3/s recorded. However, because FNP is served by the lake produced by Jim Woodruff Dam and the river water system provides no safety-related functions, extreme low flow in the river poses no safety risk to FNP.

2.4-15 REV 31 10/23

FNP-FSAR-2 2.4.11.4 Future Control As the minimum flow condition is controlled mainly by upstream dam releases and no future users of large amounts of water are known, the future minimum should be similar to past minimum.

2.4.11.5 Plant Requirements The required minimum cooling water flow from the river for normal operating conditions is shown in table 9.2-1. The sump invert for river water pumps is el 61.5 ft msl and the minimum design operating level is el 67 ft msl. The bottom of the pump is set at el 62.5 ft msl. The invert of the short intake channel is el 64 ft msl. The capability of the service water system is discussed in subsection 9.2.1. Under normal operating conditions the minimum water surface in the river is el 76 ft msl. The possible failure of Jim Woodruff Dam is discussed in paragraph 2.4.11.2.

Temperature records indicate that icing of ponds and rivers is not a factor to be considered.

2.4.11.6 Heat Sink Dependability Requirements The ultimate heat sink is provided by the service water storage pond. As described in subsection 9.2.5, the storage pond is capable of providing sufficient cooling water for at least 30 days. Neither the river nor the river water system are required to function as a part of the ultimate heat sink (see subsection 9.2.1). Therefore, indication and alarm of low flow in the river is not a concern for heat sink dependability requirements.

The service water storage pond is a highly reliable source of water and, as such, is designed as a Class I structure. Additionally, a detailed analysis was performed to demonstrate the reliability of the pond dam, and the results of the analysis indicated that the possibility of a dam failure is approximately 1.9 x 10-7 failures per year. Therefore, the loss of the storage pond dam is not considered to be a credible event and such an event is not postulated as part of the design basis of the ultimate heat sink. Operation of the storage pond under PMP is described in subsection 2.4.8.

The fire protection system water source is normally supplied from wells. As a backup, the fire protection system can draw water from the service water system; however, the fire protection system cannot draw water from the service water pond when the service water system is in the recirculation-to-pond mode of operation and the pond is serving as the ultimate heat sink.

2.4.12 ENVIRONMENTAL ACCEPTANCE OF EFFLUENTS During normal operation, there are no liquid releases which have a path into ground water.

The only radioactive liquid releases are to the Chattahoochee River, and these are diluted to well within the limits defined in technical specifications prior to discharge as discussed in section 11.2. Thermal and chemical effluents meet water quality standards of both the States of Georgia and Alabama.

2.4-16 REV 31 10/23

FNP-FSAR-2 Release points are discussed and identified in subsection 11.2.7 which references drawings D-70084, D175042, sheet 4, and D-205042, sheet 4.

In subsection 11.2.8, instantaneous and complete mixing is assumed to occur at the discharge structure. This is justified because mixing will be essentially complete a few hundred feet downstream of the discharge structure. Several turns and bends in the river further downstream from the discharge structure will promote additional mixing.

A diffuser system for the Farley discharge is not considered practical since dredging operations are performed by the Corps of Engineers to maintain navigation on the Chattahoochee River.

Accidental releases from spills from outside tanks are prevented from entering surface water by earthen dikes around outside tanks which contain significant quantities of radioactive liquids.

The effects of such accidental releases on ground water are discussed in paragraph 2.4.13.3.

Users of surface water and ground water are discussed in paragraphs 2.4.1.2 and 2.4.13.2, respectively.

2.4.13 GROUND WATER This section presents the results and conclusions of the ground water investigations for the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant. The investigations were performed by Law Engineering Testing Company, Alabama Power Company, and Bechtel Corporation.

2.4.13.1 Description and Onsite Use Topography at the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant is characterized by the Chattahoochee River Valley on the east and the Upland on the west. The Chattahoochee River Valley is essentially flat, while the Upland ranges in elevation from 130 ft msl to 250 ft msl.

The average annual rainfall for Houston County is 53 in., which is fairly evenly distributed throughout the year. Average annual runoff is approximately 20 in., or 0.95 million gal/day per square mile. This runoff includes direct surface runoff and discharge from springs.(6)

Houston County is drained by tributaries of the Chattahoochee, Choctawatchee, and Apalachicola rivers. The flow of surface and ground water generally follows the southward dip of geologic structure in the area.(6) 2.4.13.1.1 Regional Aquifers Principal sources of ground water in southeastern Alabama are the major deep aquifer, the major shallow aquifer and, where present, the surficial residuum, alluvium, and terrace deposits.

Water bearing formations of Late Cretaceous age underlie the principal aquifers. These aquifers are recharged by precipitation where they are exposed, and by infiltration from streams 2.4-17 REV 31 10/23

FNP-FSAR-2 crossing the outcrops.(7) Geologic descriptions of the formations comprising the various aquifers are included in paragraph 2.5.1.2.7, Site Geologic Conditions.

Surficial deposits of residuum, alluvium, and river terrace materials occur discontinuously throughout southeastern Alabama. Groundwater in these units is unconfined. The alluvium consists of gravelly sand and clay, and is restricted to the floodplains of the major streams and their tributaries. Terrace deposits of sand and gravel are found in Early County, Georgia, and Henry County, Alabama, adjacent to the flood plain of the Chattahoochee River. The residuum is the most extensive surficial unit in the area. It consists of the insoluble remains of the weathered Moodys Branch and Ocala limestones, and ranges in lithology from an upper, sand silt clay unit to a basal, silty, fine- to medium-grained sand unit. The basal sand is hydraulically connected with and considered a part of the upper section of the major shallow aquifer.(7)

Because of the lenticular nature of water bearing strata in the surficial deposits, they are not important as regional aquifers. Ground water in alluvial deposits is hydraulically connected to the streams flowing through the deposits and responds to changes in the stream levels. Ground water levels in the terrace deposits and Upper Residuum unit reflect changes in precipitation. A number of shallow, dug wells collect water from these deposits in Houston and Henry counties, Alabama, and Early County, Georgia. These deposits may yield about 15,000 gal/day per well.(7)

The major shallow aquifer is divided into lower and upper hydraulic sections which are separated by an aquiclude. The upper section consists of sandstones in the upper part of the Lisbon formation and limestones in the Moodys Branch and Ocala formations, all of Eocene age. The formations are recharged in central and southern Henry County and northern Houston County. Ground water in these formations is unconfined, and may be withdrawn by individual wells at the rate of 15,000 gal/day. The lower section consists of sands and limestones in the Hatchetigbee, Tallahatta, and lower Lisbon formations of Eocene age. These formations are exposed in central Henry County. Ground water in the lower section is confined. Individual wells producing from this section may yield about 15,000 gal/day.(7)

The major deep aquifer consists of sands and limestones in the Clayton formation of Paleocene age and the Nanafalia and Tuscahoma formations of Eocene age. The formations are recharged in their exposure area in northern Henry County, Alabama, between 30 and 40 miles north of the site. Wells developed in these formations may produce 1,000,000 gal/day. The ground water is confined. The major deep aquifer is separated from the overlying major shallow aquifer by an aquiclude in the upper part of the Tuscahoma formation.(7)

The Ripley and Providence formations of Late Cretaceous age are potential sources of large amounts of ground water. In northern and central Dale County, Alabama, about 40 miles northwest of the site, wells tapping sands in the Providence formation and overlying aquifers are capable of yielding 1,000,000 gal/day or more per well. Aquifers in the Ripley formation, which underlies the Providence formation, are capable of yielding 2,000,000 gal/day or more per well.

In Houston County and southward, water in these formations may be excessively mineralized.(7) 2.4-18 REV 31 10/23

FNP-FSAR-2 2.4.13.1.2 Local Aquifers Aquifers underlying the site vicinity are the residuum and alluvium deposits, major shallow aquifer, and major deep aquifer. The water-bearing Late Cretaceous formations also underlie the site at depth.

Recent and Pleistocene alluvial sand, clay, and gravel deposits immediately underlie the floodplain or eastern portion of the site. North of the intake structure on the Chattahoochee River, sand and gravel deposits extend to a depth of 55 ft. Elsewhere in the floodplain, the alluvial deposits range from 10 ft to 30 ft in thickness. Ground water in the alluvium is unconfined, and water is generally within 5 to 10 ft of the ground surface. The primary source of recharge is precipitation. However, the Chattahoochee River controls ground water levels in the floodplain to a large extent and provides recharge during high river stages.

The Upland or western portion of the site is blanketed by up to 120 ft of Residuum of Oligocene and Miocene ages. The residuum consists of an upper, sandy and silty clay that contains lenticular sands, and a basal, silty, fine- to coarse-grained sand. The upper unit is generally above el 135 ft msl and above the principal water table. However, saturated sandy zones in the upper residuum are locally perched immediately above impervious clay and silty clay layers.

Dug wells up to 70 ft deep in the upper residuum draw water from similar sand lenses and layers within 3 miles west of the site. The water table in these perched zones ranges in elevation from about el 140 ft msl to el 190 ft msl, depending on the elevation of the sand lenses and layers.

The basal sand portion of the residuum, alluvial deposits in the Chattahoochee River floodplain, Moodys Branch limestone, and upper sandy portion of the Lisbon formation constitute the unconfined ground water system in the site area. This system is also referred to as the upper section of the major shallow aquifer. The residuum basal sand is below approximately 135 ft msl and above the irregular top of the weathered Moodys Branch formation. Within the basal sand is the unconfined ground water table; generally at or near el 130 ft msl. The basal sand is hydraulically connected with the underlying Moodys Branch formation in the Upland area, and with the alluvial deposits in the floodplain to the east. Porous, sandy limestone of the Moodys Branch formation is up to 18 ft thick. In some areas, the limestone has been completely removed by leaching of soluble calcareous material, and the residuum basal sand lies directly on the upper portion of the Lisbon formation. The upper Lisbon formation, whose top is between el 90 ft msl and el 103 ft msl under most of the site, is characterized by sandstone, silty sandstone, sandy claystone, and thin layers of uncemented sand. That portion of the Lisbon included in the unconfined ground water system extends downward to the top of a claystone aquiclude, between el 55 ft msl and el 65 ft msl.

Individual water wells open to the unconfined ground water system (upper section of the major shallow aquifer) may yield 15,000 gal/day. Within 3 miles of the site, these wells are between 72 and 150 ft deep, depending on the surface elevation of the well. The system is recharged by direct precipitation locally and in the exposure area in northern Houston and southern Henry counties.(7)

The aquiclude separating the upper and lower sections of the major shallow aquifer consists of silty claystone and siltstone. It is between 20 and 40 ft thick, and is continuous under the entire site.

2.4-19 REV 31 10/23

FNP-FSAR-2 The lower part of the Lisbon formation and the Tallahatta and Hatchetigbee formations constitute the lower section of the major shallow aquifer. The top of this aquifer ranges in elevation from 25 ft msl to 45 ft msl. The lower part of the Lisbon consists of about 50 to 60 ft of fine- to medium-grained sand, shell fragments, and sandy limestone.

The Tallahatta contains 135 ft of silty sand, sandy limestone, and sandy claystone. The Hatchetigbee formation is between 35 and 45 ft thick beneath the site, and consists of fossiliferous sand and sandstone. Claystone and silty clay layers occur in these formations.

However, these layers are discontinuous, and the three water-bearing units are hydraulically interconnected.

Ground water in the lower section of the major shallow aquifer is confined. The recharge area is in central Henry County, where the formations comprising this aquifer are exposed. Individual wells drilled into the aquifer yield 15,000 gal/day. One million gal/day or more may be withdrawn by individual wells developed in both the upper and lower sections of the major shallow aquifer. Within 3 miles of the site, wells tapping the lower section are between 210 and 360 ft deep.(7)

Between the major shallow aquifer and the major deep aquifer is an aquiclude in the Tuscahoma formation consisting of about 220 ft of laminated clays and silty sandstone. This aquiclude prohibits migration of ground water between the two aquifers.

The top of the major deep aquifer is at approximate el 419 ft msl below the site. This aquifer consists of the basal 20 ft of the Tuscahoma formation, the Nanafalia formation, and the Clayton formation. The basal Tuscahoma is a very coarse-grained gravelly sand. The underlying Nanafalia consists of about 115 ft of medium- to coarse-grained gravelly sand and sandy, fossiliferous limestone. A coarse-grained gravelly sand is also found at the base of the Nanafalia. The Clayton formation is over 300 ft thick and contains sandy limestone with minor amounts of interbedded coarse-grained sand and sandy clay.

Two wells within 3 miles of the site withdraw water from the confined ground water system of the major deep aquifer. (Wells 1 and 35: figure 2.4-23, table 2.4-6). These wells are screened at depths of 500 and 620 ft. The deeper well reportedly flows under artesian pressure at a rate of over 200,000 gal/day. Individual wells drilled into this aquifer elsewhere in Houston County are capable of yielding over 1,000,000 gal/day.(6)

Underlying the major deep aquifer is the Providence formation, whose top is at el 854 ft msl beneath the site. The Providence consists of fine-to-coarse grained sand, sandy clay, and sandy limestone.

The recharge area for the Providence is in northern Henry County.

The underlying Ripley formation is not locally used as a source of ground water.(7) 2.4-20 REV 31 10/23

FNP-FSAR-2 2.4.13.1.3 Regional and Local Withdrawal There are no industries or municipalities in the region that utilize significantly large amounts of ground water. Localized cones of depression occur where ground water is pumped from a limited area for municipal and industrial purposes, such as Dothan, Alabama. Municipalities and industries near the site do not require or utilize large amounts of ground water.(7) As a result, no significant cones of depression exist in the area surrounding the site.

Dewatering activities for plant construction temporarily modified ground water levels in the unconfined and confined sections of the major shallow aquifer. These levels returned to the preconstruction configuration after cessation of dewatering at the plant. The cone of depression created during construction dewatering is discussed in paragraph 2.4.13.2.5, Existing and Potential Cones of Influence.

2.4.13.1.4 Utilization of Ground Water at the Plant Ground water supplies approximately 60 gal/min to the sanitary water system. Additionally, ground water is used to maintain the level in the fire protection storage tank. This normal supply is not expected to exceed 60 gal/min. As discussed in subsection 9.2.9, ground water is the backup supply to the filtered water storage tank. The filtered water storage tank is part of the plant water treatment system as discussed in section 9.2.8. The plant water treatment system has a design flow of 550 gal/min and uses the service water system as its primary water source.

The well water system is capable of supplying 600 gal/min. The system capacity will meet the normal system demand of approximately 120 gal/min and have almost 500 gal/min available to supplement the water treatment system supply during service water system low flow conditions.

The maximum plant ground water usage is 885,600 gal/day.

Ground water is not used for emergency cooling. However, ground water is used as the normal makeup for the fire protection system.

Three onsite water wells provide ground water for plant operation. Two of the wells, No. 2 and No. 4, draw from the major deep aquifer at a depth of approximately 775 ft and 857 ft, respectively. The other well, No. 3, draws from the major shallow aquifer at a depth of approximately 392 ft. Refer to table 2.4-9 for additional well data. The combined producing capacity of the three wells is greater than the normal plant usage.

Plant operations utilizing ground water are provided with large capacity storage tanks:

Capacity (gal)

Sanitary water tank 20,000 Fire protection tanks (2) 600,000 Filtered water storage tank 200,000 2.4-21 REV 31 10/23

FNP-FSAR-2 2.4.13.2 Sources 2.4.13.2.1 Present and Projected Ground Water Use Over 7,300,000 gal of ground water are withdrawn daily in Houston County.(7,8) The amounts of withdrawal for the various uses are listed on table 2.4-4. Data for public water systems, which supply over 5,400,000 million gal/day,(8) are shown on table 2.4-5.

To determine the general ground water environment surrounding the site, a survey of water users within a 3-mile radius of the plant was conducted. The results of the survey are presented on table 2.4-5, with the well locations shown on figure 2.4-22. Of the 43 wells surveyed, 13 draw water from the upper part of the residuum, 19 are screened in the upper or unconfined portion of the major shallow aquifer, 9 draw from the confined portion of the major shallow aquifer, and 2 are screened in the major deep aquifer. There are no wells that produce from the Chattahoochee River alluvium. The primary use of the ground water is for domestic needs, with a small percentage for stock watering and irrigation. A pipe fabricating plant about 6 miles south of the plant in Early County, Georgia, uses ground water. The water is withdrawn periodically from a well screened in the lower part of the major shallow aquifer.

An estimated 223 people live within 3 miles of the plant. The Geological Survey of Alabama has suggested 50 gal/day to be the normal per capita. Therefore, the total present usage from all of the aquifers is estimated to be 11,150 gal/day, or 7.7 gal/min. The population within the same area is expected to increase to 347 by the year 2015. (See figure 2.1-5, section 2.1.) By conservatively assuming that per capita use will increase to 100 gal/day, the total projected ground water usage by the year 2015 is estimated to be 34,700 gal/day, or 24 gal/min.

HISTORICAL

[2.4.13.2.2 Piezometer Installations and Piezometric Levels Fifteen piezometer nests, each consisting of one to five piezometers, were installed at the site. Ten of the nests were installed in 1968 for the purpose of monitoring ground water levels prior to and during construction dewatering operations. Two of these original nests (683 and C-5) were destroyed in 1972 by excavation operations. In 1972 and early 1973, five additional nests were installed: two at the river intake structure (711,712); one south of the storage pond dam (713); and two in the cooling tower area (714, 715). The remaining piezometer nests will be used to monitor ground water levels throughout the life of the plant. The locations of the nests are shown on figure 2.4-24.

Each piezometer has been assigned a "P"-number according to the geologic formation in which it is developed. The piezometer numbers correspond with the following formations:

2.4-22 REV 31 10/23

FNP-FSAR-2 Piezometer No. Geologic Formation P-1(a) Upper Residuum P-1(b) Chattahoochee River Alluvium P-2 Basal Residuum and Moodys Branch P-3 Upper Lisbon P-4 Lower Lisbon P-5 Tallahatta Piezometers P-1(a) detect and monitor possible perched water in the upper part of the Residuum. Thus far, water has been observed in only one P-1(a) piezometer, at nest 680. Piezometers P-1(b), P-2, and P-3 monitor ground water levels within the unconfined aquifers in the upper portion of the major shallow aquifer. Piezometers P-4 and P-5 determine ground water levels in the confined aquifers of the major shallow aquifer. A list containing data on each piezometer and piezometer nest is presented on table 2.4-

6. Diagrams of the two types of piezometers are shown on figure 2.4-25.

The water levels in each piezometer are shown on figures 2.4-26 through 2.4-60. Water under artesian pressure originally flowed from the P-4 and P-5 piezometers at nests 640, 643, and 647 on the Chattahoochee River flood plain. Dewatering operations for plant construction lowered the ground water levels in these piezometers as much as 43 ft, while the ground water levels in the immediate plant area were reduced as much as 73 ft. A discussion of these lowered levels is included in subsection 2.4.13.2.5, Existing and Potential Cones of Influence.

Water levels in the piezometers indicate that the natural surfaces of both the unconfined and confined ground water systems slope eastward across the site toward the Chattahoochee River. The natural slope of the unconfined portion of the major shallow aquifer is approximately 36.2 ft per mile (0.0068),

measured between nest 680 and nest 643 through the plant area. Between the same nests, the natural gradient of the confined portion of the major shallow aquifer is approximately 7.4 ft per mile (0.0014).

The natural ground water conditions prior to construction are shown on figure 2.4-23.

The ground water levels in the storage pond area have risen, as expected, after construction and filling of the reservoir. The occurrence of the pond filling and the subsequent impact on the ground water levels is shown by hydrographs of piezometer nests 625 and 713. (See figure 2.4-61.) The ground water levels in the P-1 and P-2 piezometers of these nests have risen about 13 feet, 7 months after pond filling commenced. The water levels in the P-4 and P-5 piezometers have not been affected by filling of the pond. Observation wells (figure 2B7-41) have been installed along the dike and perimeter of the pond to monitor the ground water levels in the storage pond area. The postconstruction water level configuration of the unconfined major shallow aquifer is shown in figure 2.4-24.]

2.4.13.2.3 Reversibility of Ground Water Flow No reversal of the eastward ground water gradient should occur at the site as a result of present or future offsite or onsite pumping.

The closest area of concentrated ground water withdrawal is at Columbia, Alabama, 5 miles north of the site. Pumpage for the municipal water system has no effect on unconfined water levels at the site for the following reasons: the present withdrawal of ground water at Columbia 2.4-23 REV 31 10/23

FNP-FSAR-2 is relatively small (89,100 gal/day); water is extracted exclusively from the major shallow aquifer, which is hydraulically isolated from the major shallow aquifer(9); the wells are over 5 miles from the plant, and are not up gradient from the plant. Even if the municipal system at Columbia withdrew water from the major shallow aquifer, neither the present nor projected demand would affect site water levels.

Present and projected pumping of low yield, offsite, domestic wells will not cause a reversal of the site ground water gradient. A water well survey conducted in February 1973 revealed that there are 43 wells within 3 miles of the plant. (See table 2.4-5.) Five of these wells produce from the unconfined portion of the major shallow aquifer in Georgia, and are isolated from aquifers underlying the plant by the Chattahoochee River. Four other wells in Georgia produce from deeper confined aquifers down gradient from the plant, and three wells are developed in perched water zones. Of the remaining 31 wells, 14 withdraw water from the unconfined portion of the major shallow aquifer in Alabama, supplying the daily requirements of an estimated 61 people. The Geological Survey of Alabama has suggested 50 gal/day as the per capita use of water in this area.(7) Therefore, a total of 3050 gal/day (2.1 gal/min) is withdrawn from the unconfined portion of the major shallow aquifer from the 14 existent wells. Each well withdraws about 218 gal/day (0.15 gal/min).

The projected withdrawal from the unconfined portion of the major shallow aquifer is based on the following:

1. The population in the year 2015 for the area west of the Chattahoochee River within 3 miles of the site will be 207 people. (See figure 2.1-5, section 2.1.)

2. The ratio of wells drawing from the unconfined portion of the major shallow aquifer to the total number of wells in the area will remain the same (1:2).

3. The ratio of the number of people to the number of wells will remain the same (4.3:1).

From these assumptions, the projected number of wells drawing from the unconfined portion of the major shallow aquifer is 26, and the projected number of people served by these wells is 112. If it is conservatively estimated that the per capita use will increase to 100 gal/day, then a total of 11,200 gal/day (7.8 gal/min) will be withdrawn from the 26 projected wells. Each well will withdraw about 430 gal/day (0.3 gal/min).

Only wells situated to the west of the plant area are considered to influence withdrawal and possible reversal of the unconfined ground water surface. This is due to the natural eastward gradient toward the Chattahoochee River. To the north, Wilson Creek intercepts the natural flow of water within the unconfined portion of the major shallow aquifer. To the south, the natural ground water flow will be modified somewhat by the small infiltration of water from the storage pond (see paragraph 2B.7.7.7, appendix 2B). Considering these limits, there is approximately 5000 ft of western boundary along which wells could be placed that might affect the unconfined ground water surface.

2.4-24 REV 31 10/23

FNP-FSAR-2 HISTORICAL

[Two methods were used to determine the amount of water available within the unconfined portion of the major shallow aquifer along the western site boundary.

A. From field permeability tests (table 2B-2, appendix 2B), the average permeability of the unconfined portion of the major shallow aquifer is 88 gal/day per square foot. The amount of water available in this aquifer, assuming a thickness of 40 ft along the 5000-ft western boundary and a gradient of 0.005, is 88,000 gal/day, or 61 gal/min. This is nearly 8 times the withdrawal of the 26 wells projected for the year 2015. Even if all 26 wells were placed along the 5000-ft western boundary, there would be a surplus of 76,800 gal/day, and no reversal of the unconfined ground water surface would occur.

B. Utilization of values obtained from piezometer readings in conjunction with the site dewatering operation indicates an approximate transmissivity in the unconfined portion of the major shallow aquifer of 12,320 gal/day-foot. Assuming a natural gradient of 0.005 and a western boundary of 5000 ft, there is a calculated underflow of 308,000 gal/day (214 gal/min) along the western boundary. This is over 27 times the withdrawal of the 26 wells projected for the year 2015. Even if all 26 wells were placed along the western plant boundary, there would be a surplus underflow of 296,800 gal/day, and no reversal of the unconfined ground water gradient would occur.

The construction dewatering system withdrew water from the unconfined portion of the major shallow aquifer at 350 gal/min with no reversal in the slope of the unconfined ground water surface along the western plant boundary. This pumping rate was greater than the projected rates of withdrawal. This indicates that there will be no reversal of the unconfined ground water gradients due to offsite or onsite pumping.]

A reversal of the ground water gradient due to flooding by the Chattahoochee River is unlikely.

Such a reversal would require a rise of 30 feet or more in the ground water levels in the eastern part of the site. A rise of this magnitude through the relatively impermeable Upper Residuum silts and clays in the plant area would take much longer than the probable duration of flooding.

2.4.13.2.4 Recharge Areas Within Plant Influence There are no significant areas of recharge within influence of the plant. Since the boundary of the plant site extends to the Chattahoochee River, the alluvium in the river valley at the site will not be used as a source of ground water for local residents. All other recharge areas are up gradient from the plant and are not influenced by plant activities.

2.4.13.2.5 Existing and Potential Cones of Influence HISTORICAL

[The dewatering operation for plant construction caused a temporary cone of depression in the immediate plant area. The strata affected were the upper part of the Lisbon formation in the unconfined portion of the major shallow aquifer, and the lower Lisbon and Tallahatta formations in the confined portion of the major shallow aquifer. Perched water tables and ground water in the Residuum basal sand and Moodys Branch limestone were not affected.

2.4-25 REV 31 10/23

FNP-FSAR-2 The dewatering system consisted of 350 well points that withdraw 350 gal/min from the unconfined portion of the major shallow aquifer. Half of these well points had tip elevations of 60 ft msl, and half had tip elevations of 100 ft msl. The well points surrounded the excavation in the main plant area. In addition, two relief wells extended to el 30 ft msl and withdrew 250 gal/min from the confined portion of the major shallow aquifer.

Water levels in P-1(a), P-1(b), and P-2 piezometers did not decline as a result of dewatering.

However, the water levels were lowered in the immediate plant area. Contours of the unconfined water table during its dewatering operations are shown on figure 2.4-62. At the excavation, the water table of the upper part of the Lisbon formation was reduced 66 ft, to el 54 ft msl. P-3 piezometers monitoring this stratum elsewhere at the site have recorded reductions in water level of 20 ft or less.

The temporary cone of depression in the upper Lisbon covered an area of about 1 square mile.

Contours of the reduced levels are shown on figure 2.4-62. No offsite wells producing from this aquifer were affected by dewatering activities.

The relief wells caused a lowering of water levels in P-4 and P-5 piezometers from 20 to 43 ft. Contours of the reduced levels are shown on figure 2.4-63. The greatest amount of reduction was 73 ft in the main plant area. The temporary cone of depression in the confined aquifer covered slightly more than 1 square mile. No offsite wells producing from this aquifer were affected by dewatering activities. After cessation of dewatering at the plant, ground water conditions in both portions of the major shallow aquifer returned to preconstruction levels.]

Post-dewatering water level contours of the unconfined and confined major shallow aquifer are shown in figure 2.4-24A. The water levels in the unconfined major shallow aquifer have risen higher than the 1969 preconstruction levels due to the infiltration from the storage pond.

The two site deep water wells, No. 2 and No. 4, withdraw a maximum of about 885,600 gal/day from the major deep aquifer. This aquifer is capable of yielding 1,000,000 gal/day to individual wells.(7) There are only two wells within 3 miles of the site that presently produce from the major deep aquifer. Site water wells should not adversely affect present or future wells screened in the major deep aquifer.

2.4.13.3 Accident Effects Normal operation of the plant will have no effect on the unconfined ground water system in the site vicinity. All water for plant usage will be derived from wells screened in the major deep aquifer and underlying Cretaceous aquifers.

In the unlikely event of an accidental release of radioactive contaminants onto the ground surface at the site, dispersion contaminants into the ground water system would be affected by several factors. First, ion exchange and absorption properties of the soil deposits would restrict the migration of the contaminants to some extent. Secondly, downward movement of the contaminants would be limited to the unconfined aquifers of the upper portion of the major shallow aquifer. This limitation is due to the extensive claystone and siltstone aquiclude within the Lisbon formation, and to upward artesian pressures associated with the underlying confined aquifers. Seepage of contaminants into the major deep aquifer is unlikely because of an additional aquiclude formed by clays in the upper part of the Tuscahoma formation.

2.4-26 REV 31 10/23

FNP-FSAR-2 Construction of the plant water wells (completed in the major deep aquifer) includes a cement grout seal to prevent seepage downward along the well bore.

The general direction of ground water flow in the site vicinity is eastward, toward the Chattahoochee River. Since the plant property extends to the river, there are no potential ground water recharge areas within the influence of the plant. Therefore, the possibility of contaminating existing or future water well systems following an accidental spill at the plant site is extremely remote.

For an analysis of the rate of movement of the radioactive contaminants toward the river, it is assumed that the spill will occur in the immediate plant area. Inasmuch as the exact location and elevation of the spill are unknown, it is conservatively assumed that there will be a rapid downward infiltration of the contaminants into the unconfined ground water system. Once into the eastward flowing unconfined system, the shortest flow path to the river would be about 3500 ft. The average hydraulic gradient along this path is approximately 0.011 based on 1969 predewatering contours shown on figure 2.4-23. The average permeability of the soil deposits along the flow path is conservatively estimated to be 3 x 10-2 cm/s, or approximately 3 x 104 ft per year. This indicates an average rate of movement of approximately 325 ft per year. It is therefore conservatively estimated that at least 10 years would be required for migration of the contaminants to the Chattahoochee River.

2.4.13.4 Monitoring and Safeguard Procedures HISTORICAL

[The post construction piezometer nests will be monitored throughout the life of the plant to ensure that no reversals in the natural ground water gradients will occur.

Observation wells, designated OW-1, OW-2, OW-3 and OW-4, have been installed in the plant area.] A typical installation is shown on figure 2.4-65, and the locations are shown on figure 2.4-23. In the event of a spill of contaminants, the wells will be monitored continuously to detect the flowpath and dispersion of contaminants.

HISTORICAL

[2.4.13.5 Water Quality Potable water from both surface and subsurface sources is available in the area surrounding the site.

Analyses of water samples are shown on table 2.4-7.]

2.4.14 MECHANICAL SPECIFICATIONS AND EMERGENCY OPERATION REQUIREMENTS 2.4.14.1 River Intake Farley Nuclear Plant is situated at an elevation that places the main plant above even the most incredible combination of flood events. The river water intake structure is the only structure 2.4-27 REV 31 10/23

FNP-FSAR-2 subject to submergence by floods and it is protected from a flood which is greater than the flood of record. Flooding can also occur from a dam failure wave. Storm flood stages can be predicted well in advance. These predictions are part of the Weather Bureau Service and are available to Alabama Power Company. However, advance warning of flood stages is not necessary for safe shutdown because of the water supply arrangement. Water from the river is pumped into the storage pond safely above any river flood. The service water system withdraws water from the storage pond to supply the plant. Water will generally be pumped continuously from the river into the pond with the water level maintained between el 185.0 and 185.5. Although the river system normally provides makeup to the pond, the river water system is not required to operate under emergency conditions.

Loss of the river water intake structure and equipment is indicated by a decrease in the elevation of the service water pond as discussed in paragraph 9.2.5.2.

2.4.14.2 Emergency Cooling Pond Spillway The emergency cooling pond spillway is an uncontrolled spillway with crest at el 186.0.

Normal operation of the cooling pond will result in pool levels between el 185.0 and 185.5.

Spillage through the spillway is expected to be infrequent. The pond storage between normal upper pool el 185.5 and the crest at el 186.0 is sufficient to accommodate the runoff from the maximum 5-year storm without discharge. This includes credit for water withdrawn for two unit operation. A pool level of 187.0 is expected to be exceeded only by rainfall from a storm of greater than 100-year frequency. The spillway channel shall be inspected after each operation of sufficient magnitude to have a potential for erosion. A discharge of 80 ft3/s corresponding to a pool at el 187.0 has been selected as the minimum flow for which inspection shall be required. At this discharge the flow in the grassed discharge channel would have an average velocity of about 1.3 ft/s with a flow depth of 1.3 ft. The pond level will be monitored in the control room. Whenever the operator observes or inspection of the chart indicates that the pool level is greater than or equal to el 187.0, the channels and structure shall be inspected at the end of the discharge period. Eroded areas that affect or can affect the channel bank slopes or that are more than 4 ft deep should be promptly repaired. Because of the expected infrequent use of the spillway, the channels and structure shall also be inspected biennially.

2.4-28 REV 31 10/23

FNP-FSAR-2 REFERENCES

1. Saville, McClendon, and Cochran, "Freeboard Allowances for Waves in Inland Reservoirs," Journal of Waterways and Harbors Division, ASCE, May 1962.

2. Stoker, J. J. et al., Numerical Solution of Flood Prediction and River Regulation Problems, Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York University, for U.S. Army Engineer Corps, Ohio River Division, 1953-54.

3. "Spillways," (Chapter 8), Design of Small Dams, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Washington, D.C.

4. Chow, Ven Te, "Hydraulic Jump," (Chapter 15) Open-Channel Hydraulics, McGraw Hill Book Company, New York, 1959.

5. Chow, Ven Te, Handbook of Applied Hydrology.

6. Walter F. George Dam Break Study, 1979.

7. Mineral and Water Resources, Houston County, Alabama: Geological Survey of Alabama, Information Series 38, 1969, 36 pp.

8. Use of Water in Alabama 1970: Geological Survey of Alabama, Information Series 42, 1972, 77 pp.

9. Comprehensive Regional Water and Sewer Plant for Southeast Alabama - Phase I:

Polyengineering, Inc., Dothan, Alabama, and Southeast Alabama Regional Planning and Development Commission, Dothan, Alabama, 1972, 420 pp.

2.4-29 REV 31 10/23

FNP-FSAR-4 TABLE 2.4-1 (SHEET 1 OF 2)

GAUGING STATION RECORDS CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER BASIN CHATTAHOOCHEE AT ALAGA AND COLUMBIA, ALABAMA ANNUAL FLOOD PEAKS Water Discharge Water Discharge Year Month Day ft3/s Year Month Day ft3/s ALAGA GAUGE COLUMBIA GAUGE 1905 Feb 14 67,100 1938 Apr 11 91,500 1906 Mar 23 51,400 1939 Mar 3 77,600 1907 Oct 21 44,300 1940 Feb 19 51,200 1908 Apr 30 92,000 1941 Mar 9 18,400 1909 Mar 16 73,500 1942 Mar 24 81,300 1910 Apr 19 46,100 1943 Mar 24 119,000 1911 Jan 6 27,900 1944 Mar 25 97,000 1912 Apr 23 97,600 1945 Apr 28 59,600 1913 Mar 18 110,000 1946 Mar 30 72,600 1914 Apr 17 21,400 1947 Mar 9 59,900 1915 Jul 5 43,700 1948 Jul 14 81,200 1916 Jul 9 162,000 1949 Dec 1 111,000 1917 Mar 7 82,900 1950 Mar 7 28,300 1918 Oct 1 44,800 1951 Apr 24 28,800 1919 Dec 25 116,000 1952 Mar 26 71,100 1920 Dec 14 115,000 1953 May 4 92,000 1921 Feb 13 58,300 1954 Dec 7 57,300 1922 Mar 10 87,800 1955 Apr 16 39,500 1923 Mar 20 70,000 1956 Mar 19 51,200 (2) 1924 Jan 26 44,800 1957 Apr 8 74,000 1925 Jan 21 173,000 1958 Mar 10 74,900 1926 Apr 2 67,100(1) 1959 Jun 4 51,700 1927 Feb 17 28,300 1960 Apr 5 84,800 1928 Apr 24 104,000 1961 Mar 1 110,000 (3) 1929 Mar 18 207,000 COLUMBIA GAUGE ALAGA GAUGE 1930 Oct 2 105,000 1962 Apr 15 66,700 (4) 1931 Nov 18 69,300 1963 Jan 22 55,600 (5) 1932 Feb 24 42,100 1964 Apr 10 110,000 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-4 TABLE 2.4-1 (SHEET 2 OF 2)

Water Discharge Water Discharge Year Month Day ft3/s Year Month Day ft3/s COLUMBIA GAUGE ALAGA GAUGE 1933 Mar 22 63,800 1965 Apr 10 76,200 1934 Mar 6 63,200 1966 Mar 5 102,000 1935 Mar 8 49,100 1967 Jan 3 66,900 1936 Apr 12 102,000 1968 Mar 14 64,000 1937 Mar 22 57,200 1969 Apr 20 60,600 (1) Storage Lake Harding (Bartletts Ferry Dam) began 1926.

(2) Storage Lake Sidney Lanier began January 1956 (Buford Dam).

(3) Some regulated by construction of Walter F. George Lock and Dam.

(4) Storage began in Lake George in June 1962.

(5) Regulated by Sidney Lanier, Bartletts Ferry, Walter F. George and Columbia L and D.

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.4-2 RESERVOIR ELEVATIONS AT COMMENCEMENT OF STORM Initial Pool Dam Elevation (ft) Remarks Buford 1081 Maximum elevation of routed flood of record at Buford West Point 635 Maximum power pool (under construction) level Walter F. George 185 Normal operating pool level from November to April Columbia 102 Normal operating pool level REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.4-3 GROUND WATER USE, HOUSTON COUNTY, ALABAMA, 1970 Gal per Pop.

User Gal/day Capita Day Served Public Water Supply 5,435,500 130 42,000 (includes domestic and industrial)

Rural Domestic 750,000 52 14,600 Self-supplied Industry 650,000 Stock, Irrigation, 560,000 Catfish TOTAL 7,395,500 56,600

References:

"Use of Water in Alabama, 1970": Geological Survey of Alabama, Information Series 42, 1972, 77 p.

"Comprehensive Regional Water and Sewer Plan for Southeast Alabama -

Phase I": Polyengineering, Inc., Dothan, Alabama, and Southeast Alabama Regional Planning and Development Commission, Dothan, Alabama, 1972, 420 p.

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.4-4 PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES IN HOUSTON COUNTY, ALABAMA, 1971 Dist. &

Direction No. of Well Avg. Daily from Site Town Wells Depth (ft) Use (gal) Aquifer (mile)

Ashford 3 100-370 198,000 Major 8W shallow Columbia 2 465-490 89,100 Major 5N deep Cottonwood 1 242 114,900 Major 16SW shallow Cowarts 1 330 35,000 Major 11W shallow Dothan 12 467-850 4,910,000 (a) Major 16.5W deep 1 335 Major shallow Gordon 1 366 31,200 Major 5S shallow Kinsey 1 250 21,900 Major 15NW shallow Webb 1 300 35,400 Major 6W shallow

References:

"Comprehensive Regional Water and Sewer Plan for Southeast Alabama -

Phase I": Polyengineering, Inc., Dothan, Alabama, and Southeast Alabama Regional Planning and Development Commission, Dothan, Alabama, 1972, 420 p.

"Mineral and Water Resources, Houston County, Alabama": Geological Survey of Alabama, Information Series 38, 1969, 36 p.

a. Includes 1,237,000 gal/day for industrial use.

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.4-5 WATER WELLS WITHIN 3 MILES OF THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT, FEBRUARY 1973 Elevation Depth Diameter Yield Well No. Owner Type (ft MSL) (ft) (in.) (gal/min) Source of Water Use of Water: Comments 1 W. B. Whatley Drilled 120 2840 8 35 Major deep aquifer Irrigation, stock 2 W. B. Whatley Drilled 255 360 4 12 Confined major shallow aquifer Domestic; serves 3 houses 3 C. Calhoun Drilled 220 360 5 5-10 Confined major shallow aquifer Domestic; serves 2 houses, 1 store 4 C. Respress Drilled 250 150 3 5-10 Unconfined major shallow aquifer Domestic; temporarily unused 5 R. Solomon Drilled 240 120 3 5-10 Unconfined major shallow aquifer Domestic 6 M. Miller Dug 240 40-50 48 Square Perched (Residuum) Domestic 7 L. D. Miller Drilled 230 130 3 5-10 Unconfined major shallow aquifer Domestic 8 B. Miller Drilled 225 120 3 5-10 Unconfined major shallow aquifer Domestic; serves 2 houses 9 S. Miller Drilled 205 110 2.5 5-10 Unconfined major shallow aquifer Domestic 10 R. D. Williams Dug 200 42 48 Square Perched (Residuum) Domestic 11 R. W. Burnett Dug 195 52 48 Square Perched (Residuum) Domestic 4 outside 12 F. Lamp Drilled 180 82 5-10 Unconfined major shallow aquifer Domestic 2.5 inside 13 F. Lamp Drilled 180 79 2 Unconfined major shallow aquifer Stock; temporarily unused 14 L. Lamp Drilled 195 320 4 6 Confined major shallow aquifer Domestic 15 P. Lamp Drilled 195 60 2 5-10 Unconfined major shallow aquifer Domestic; temporarily unused 16 Kings Trailer Court Drilled 210 325 3 5-10 Confined major shallow aquifer Domestic; serves 10 mobile homes 17 C. Calhoun Drilled 160 33 3.5 Unconfined major shallow aquifer Domestic; abandoned 18 H. Money Drilled 155 72 2 5-10 Unconfined major shallow aquifer Stock 19 H. Money Drilled 190 330 4 Confined major shallow aquifer Domestic, stock 20 Oakley Estate Drilled 200 90 2 5 Unconfined major shallow aquifer Domestic 21 Oakley Estate Dug 200 40 48 Square Perched (Residuum) Domestic 22 S. Stringfellow Drilled 225 210 4 5-10 Confined major shallow aquifer Domestic 23  ? Dug 200 30 48 Square Perched (Residuum) Domestic 24 L. Stringfellow Dug 210 40 48 Square Perched (Residuum) Domestic; abandoned 25 J. Angland Dug 200 30 48 Square Perched (Residuum) Domestic 26 K. E. Conrad Drilled 205 120 3.5 5-10 Unconfined major shallow aquifer Domestic 27 K. E. Conrad Dug 205 80 48 Square Unconfined major shallow aquifer Irrigation, stock 28  ? Dug 220 50 48 Square Perched (Residuum) Domestic, stock 5 outside 29 Oakley Estate Drilled 250 98 5-10 Perched (Residuum) Domestic; temporarily unused 3 inside 30 P. Reynolds Dug 245 25 48 Square Perched (Residuum) Domestic; abandoned 31 Macedonia Church Drilled 256 150 3 5-10 Unconfined major shallow aquifer Domestic 32 U. S. Govt. Drilled 130 280 6 Confined major shallow aquifer Domestic; abandoned 33 U. S. Govt. Drilled 170 315 6 Confined major shallow aquifer Domestic; flowed until capped 34 Kidd Drilled 155 60 3 5-10 Unconfined major shallow aquifer Domestic Domestic; serves 1 house, 35 Kidd Drilled 155 500 4 5-10 Major deep aquifer 1 restaurant, 3 mobile homes 36 Kidd Drilled 155 40 2 5 Unconfined major shallow aquifer Domestic 37 T. Biddings Drilled 160 42 3 5-10 Unconfined major shallow aquifer Domestic 38 C. H. Freeman Drilled 135 22 3 5-10 Unconfined major shallow aquifer Domestic 39 M. F. Freeman Drilled 135 250 4 5-10 Confined major shallow aquifer Domestic 40 B. Register Drilled 135 35 2.5 5-10 Unconfined major shallow aquifer Domestic, stock 41 T. B. Wright Drilled 200 40 3 5-10 Perched (Residuum) Domestic 42 J. Grier Drilled 190 28 3 5-10 Perched (Residuum) Domestic 43 J. Grier Drilled 195 30 3 5-10 Perched (Residuum) Domestic REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2

[HISTORICAL]

[TABLE 2.4-6 (SHEET 1 OF 2)

PIEZOMETER INSTALLATION DATA (See figure 2.4-26)

A B C NEST NO. P-NO. TYPE (ft MSL) (ft MSL) (ft MSL) 625 1(a) I 220.88 149 143 2 I 220.95 117 111 3 II 220.87 80 74 4 II 220.60 -8 -13 5 II 221.17 -32 -37 631 1(a) I 183.45 148 142 2 I 184.96 117 111 3 I 182.76 88 82 4 I 181.05 -10 -15 5 II 184.06 -32 -37 640 1(b) I 120.01 116 110 3 II 119.62 84 79 4 II 120.23 -8 -13 5 II 119.72 -34 -38 643 1(b) I 115.51 109 103 3 II 114.85 55 50 4 II 115.09 -10 -15 5 II 113.94 -34 -39 647 1(b) I 118.94 114 108 3 II 118.75 82 78 4 II 118.04 15 11 5 II 117.96 -19 -24 655 1(a) I 174.15 155 150 2 I 172.86 110 104 3 II 174.63 88 83 4 II 174.26 5 0 5 II 172.21 -22 -27 661 2 I 135.06 119 114 3 II 134.28 69 63 4 II 134.86 20 14 5 II 133.47 -18 -23 680 1(a) I 188.46 157 151 2 I 189.54 112 107 3 II 187.59 85 79 4 II 187.90 18 13 5 II 188.43 -20 -24 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.4-6 (SHEET 2 OF 2)

A B C Nest No. P-No. Type (ft msl) (ft msl) (ft msl) 683(1) 1(a) I 171.64 155 150 2 I 170.35 108 102 3 II 170.75 70 65 4 II 171.39 0 -5 5 I 171.58 -35 -40 711 4 II 116.18 2 -3 712 5 II 120.20 -35 -40 713 1(a) II 169.49 147 142 2 II 171.51 114 110 3 II 170.23 84 79 4 II 170.50 0 -6 5 II 169.63 -37 -42 714 1(a) II 153.52 126 121(Fill) 2 II 153.52 112 107 3 II 153.71 87 82 715 1(a) II 158.90 136 131 2 II 158.76 111 107 3 II 159.14 85 79

1. This nest destroyed in 1972 by excavation operations.]

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2

[HISTORICAL]

[TABLE 2.4-7 (SHEET 1 OF 2)

RESULTS OF WATER ANALYSES A B C D E F G H I Silica (SiO) 7.9 -- -- 10.7 15.0 28.5 22.1 36.0 25.0 Iron (Fe) 0.2 0.2 1.2 0.63 0.13 0.13 0.05 0.85 1.5 Calcium (Ca) 5.6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Calcium (CaCO ) -- -- -- 16.8 10.8 83.0 15.6 66.0 72.0 Magnesium (MgCO ) 0.9 -- -- 4.2 7.2 67.0 36.4 69.0 44.0 Sodium (Na) 3.9 -- -- 2.9 2.4 4.4 9.6 482.0 48.0 Potassium (K) 1.4 144.0 164.0 0.2 0.6 2.2 3.4 -- --

Alkalinity as (CaC0 ) -- -- 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 PP MO (Bicarbonate) 25.0 -- -- 22.0 24.0 163.0 48.0 206.0 142.0 Sulfate (SO ) 4.4 -- -- 3.0 2.0 12.0 9.0 300.0 17.0 Chloride (Cl) 2.8 5.6 5.6 4.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 110.0 5.0 Nitrate (NO ) 0.8 -- -- 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.25 0.0 Total Solids -- -- -- 48.0 45.0 217.0 105.0 -- --

Dissolved Solids 40.0 -- -- 40.0 41.0 197.0 101.0 496.0 204.0 Suspended Solids -- -- -- 8.0 4.0 20.0 4.0 -- --

Hardness as CaCO 18.0 92.2 150.0 21.0 18.0 150.0 52.0 135.0 116.0 Dissolved Carbon Dioxide -- -- -- 8.0 28.0 5.0 0.0 3.0 2.0 Aluminum (Al) -- -- -- 1.6 0.10 0.05 0.10 -- --

Arsenic (As) -- -- -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -- --

Copper (Cu) -- -- -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -- --

Lead -- -- -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -- --

Manganese (Mn) -- -- -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02 Zinc (Zn) -- -- -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -- --

2 Conductivity, micromhes/cm 59.0 -- -- 58.0 58.0 317.0 161.0 -- --

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.4-7 (SHEET 2 OF 2)

A B C D E F G H I pH 7.3 8.3 8.5 6.3 5.7 7.5 8.3 7.7 7.9 Color -- -- -- 27.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 7.0 Turbidity after shaking -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1.8 5.9 Sediment Color -- -- -- -- -- -- -- None None Sediment Nature -- -- -- -- -- -- -- None None Odor -- -- -- -- -- -- -- None None A Chattahoochee River at Columbia, Alabama(a)

B Tallahatta and Hatchetigbee formations (confined major shallow aquifer), Well No. 2(b)

C Nanafalia ( ) formation (Major deep aquifer), Well No. 1(b)

D Surface sample at Wilson Creek E Surface sample at unnamed creek southeast of storage pond F Lower Lisbon formation (Confined major shallow aquifer), Piezometer group 643 G Tallahatta formation (Confined major shallow aquifer), Piezometer group 643 H Lower Tuscahoma and Nanafalia formations (Major deep aquifer), and Cretaceous Providence formation, Site Water Well No.

1 I Lower Tuscahoma and Nanafalia formations (Major deep aquifer), Site Water Well No. 2

a. U.S.G.S. sample collected August, 1960.

b. See figure 2.4-22 for well locations; U.S.G.S. samples collected August, 1955.

-- Denotes none, trace amount, or not measured.]

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2

[HISTORICAL]

[TABLE 2.4-8 6-HOUR UNIT HYDROGRAPHS USED ABOVE COLUMBIA LOCK AND DAM IN DEVELOPMENT OF MAXIMUM FLOOD (INSTANTANEOUS DISCHARGE IN ft3/s)

TIME AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA IN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 DAYS ft3/s ft3/s ft3/s ft3/s ft3/s ft3/s ft3/s ft3/s ft3/s ft3/s ft3/s ft3/s ft3/s ft3/s ft3/s ft3/s 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20600 5200 600 600 400 800 1800 300 600 700 1500 1100 900 1100 1000 400 32400 13300 1900 1800 1400 2300 4000 1000 2400 2400 4400 2500 2100 2800 2300 1400 24500 24500 5300 3200 3000 4000 6700 2000 5900 4800 8300 4000 4700 4800 4200 2900 1 15600 27500 7000 4400 4000 5400 10000 3600 8000 6200 9200 6200 5100 6200 7000 3900 6300 18100 5700 5300 3700 3700 4500 13600 7000 9100 6300 7000 7700 4400 7200 10000 2600 11200 3700 4900 2900 3200 16000 8500 9400 4200 3900 8200 3100 7300 11200 2800 1400 9700 2300 4000 1700 1700 16300 5300 8500 2400 1900 7500 1700 7200 10900 1700 2 700 8300 1400 2700 800 900 15400 3400 5900 1500 900 5500 1100 4100 9500 800 400 7100 800 1400 500 400 12200 2600 3500 1000 500 3800 700 2700 7700 500 200 6000 400 900 300 300 8800 1800 2400 600 300 2600 400 1900 5600 300 0 5000 300 500 200 200 7100 1400 1800 300 100 1800 100 1300 3800 200 104700 3 4000 200 400 100 200 5800 1000 1300 0 0 100 0 900 2600 100 3100 200 200 100 100 4600 500 900 30400 38000 500 24300 600 1800 0 2400 100 200 100 100 3600 100 600 0 400 1300 18600 1800 100 100 100 0 2600 0 400 52500 200 900 24100 38500 0 4 1200 100 100 0 1800 300 48700 600 700 100 100 19300 1200 200 300 300 0 0 600 100 200 100 30200 30800 200 0 100 0 123200 61300 0 149500 81000]

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.4-9 FARLEY WELL WATER SYSTEM - WELL DATA Parameter Well No. 1(1) Well No. 2 Well No. 3 Well No. 4 Well Location(3) N-261,500 N-261,440 N-267,069 N-264,391 E-724,950 E-724,900.5 E-726,283.49 E-726,672 Well Depth (approx) 750 ft 775 ft 392 ft 857 ft Aquifer Name Nanafalia & Nanafalia & Ocala Limestone Nanafalia &

Clayton Tuscahoma Clayton Casing Size 18 in. 18 in. 12 in. 16 in.

Casing Material API-5L or A53 API-5L or A53 API-5L or A53 API-5L or A53 Casing Depth 590 ft 575 ft 304 ft 540 ft Depth of Grout 590 ft 575 ft 304 ft 540 ft Pumping Rate 250 500 200 (2) 300 (gal/min)

Year of 1972 1971 1976 2009 Construction NOTES:

(1) FNP Water Well No. 1 was abandoned.

(2) The original 200-gal/min pump on Water Well No. 3 was changed to a 100-gal/min pump per MDC C04092701 to match wells yield.

(3) Well locations based on FNP Drawing D-170223, Sheet 1.

REFERENCES:

FNP88-0921, Dated June 8, 1988 REV 23 5/11

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY SITE TOPOGRAPHIC MAP NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-1

REV 21 5/08 PROBABLE MAXIMUM PRECIPITATION JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT ADJUSTMENT FACTORS UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-2

REV 21 5/08 ISOHYETAL MAP OF PROBABLE MAXIMUM PRECIPITATION JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-3

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD HYDROGRAPHS NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-4

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY STORM HYDROGRAPH - AREA 15 NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-5

REV 21 5/08 PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD HYDROGRAPHS WITHOUT JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT UPSTREAM RESERVOIR EFFECTS UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-6

REV 21 5/08 CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER LOCATION OF RIVER VALLEY JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT CROSS SECTIONS UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-7

REV 21 5/08 CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT RIVER VALLEY CROSS SECTIONS UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-8

REV 21 5/08 CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT RIVER VALLEY CROSS SECTIONS UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-9

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [COMPUTED PROFILE OF VARIOUS FLOODS NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-10]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY STAGE DISCHARGE RELATIONSHIP AT RIVER MILE 44.3 NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-11

REV 21 5/08

[CHATTAHOOCHEE-FLINT-APALACHICOLA JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT DRAINAGE BASIN UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-12]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [MIDDLE CHATTAHOOCHEE PROJECT STREAM PROFILES NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-13]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [

SUMMARY

OF DATA ON DAMS NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-14]

Se Security Related Information Figure Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390 REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [WALTER F. GEORGE LOCK & DAM NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-15]

Se Security Related Information Figure Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.390 REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [WEST POINT DAM NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-16]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [DAM FAILURE SURGE ON STANDARD PROJECT FLOOD NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-17]

REV 25 4/14 STORAGE COOLING POND SPILLWAY DROP BASIN AND JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT OUTFALL UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-18 (SHEET 1 OF 3)

REV 21 5/08 STORAGE COOLING POND SPILLWAY DROP BASIN AND JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT OUTFALL UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-18 (SHEET 2 OF 3)

REV 21 5/08 STORAGE COOLING POND SPILLWAY DROP BASIN AND JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT OUTFALL UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-18 (SHEET 3 OF 3)

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY COOLING POND SPILLWAY RATING CURVE NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-19

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY COOLING POND INFLOW-OUTFLOW CURVES NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-20

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY COOLING POND STORAGE CURVE NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-21

REV 23 5/11 JOSEPH M. FARLEY WELL LOCATIONS AND UNCONFINED WATER CONTOURS NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-22

REV 25 4/14 JOSEPH M. FARLEY NATURAL GROUND WATER CONDITIONS NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-23

REV 25 4/14 JOSEPH M. FARLEY POST CONSTRUCTION GROUND WATER CONDITIONS NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-24

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [TYPICAL PIEZOMETER INSTALLATION NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-25]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [ELEVATIONS IN P-2 PIEZOMETERS MOODYS BRANCH NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-26]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [ELEVATIONS IN P-2 PIEZOMETERS MOODYS BRANCH NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-27]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [ELEVATIONS IN P-2 PIEZOMETERS MOODYS BRANCH NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-28]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [ELEVATIONS IN P-2 PIEZOMETERS MOODYS BRANCH NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-29]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [ELEVATIONS IN P-2 PIEZOMETERS MOODYS BRANCH NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-30]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [ELEVATIONS IN P-2 PIEZOMETERS MOODYS BRANCH NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-31]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [ELEVATIONS IN P-2 PIEZOMETERS MOODYS BRANCH NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-32]

REV 21 5/08

[ELEVATIONS IN P-3 PIEZOMETERS UPPER LISBON JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT FORMATION UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-33]

REV 21 5/08

[ELEVATIONS IN P-3 PIEZOMETERS UPPER LISBON JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT FORMATION UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-34]

REV 21 5/08

[ELEVATIONS IN P-3 PIEZOMETERS UPPER LISBON JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT FORMATION UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-35]

REV 21 5/08

[ELEVATIONS IN P-3 PIEZOMETERS UPPER LISBON JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT FORMATION UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-36]

REV 21 5/08

[ELEVATIONS IN P-3 PIEZOMETERS UPPER LISBON JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT FORMATION UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-37]

REV 21 5/08

[ELEVATIONS IN P-3 PIEZOMETERS UPPER LISBON JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT FORMATION UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-38]

REV 21 5/08

[ELEVATIONS IN P-3 PIEZOMETERS UPPER LISBON JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT FORMATION UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-39]

REV 21 5/08

[ELEVATIONS IN P-3 PIEZOMETERS UPPER LISBON JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT FORMATION UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-40]

REV 21 5/08

[ELEVATIONS IN P-3 PIEZOMETERS UPPER LISBON JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT FORMATION UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-41]

REV 21 5/08

[ELEVATIONS IN P-3 PIEZOMETERS UPPER LISBON JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT FORMATION UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-42]

REV 21 5/08

[ELEVATIONS IN P-3 PIEZOMETERS UPPER LISBON JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT FORMATION UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-43]

REV 21 5/08

[ELEVATIONS IN P-3 PIEZOMETERS UPPER LISBON JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT FORMATION UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-44]

REV 21 5/08

[ELEVATIONS IN P-3 PIEZOMETERS UPPER LISBON JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT FORMATION UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-45]

REV 21 5/08

[ELEVATIONS IN P-3 PIEZOMETERS UPPER LISBON JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT FORMATION UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-46]

REV 21 5/08

[ELEVATIONS IN P-4 PIEZOMETERS LOWER LISBON JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT FORMATION UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-47]

REV 21 5/08

[ELEVATIONS IN P-4 PIEZOMETERS LOWER LISBON JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT FORMATION UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-48]

REV 21 5/08

[ELEVATIONS IN P-4 PIEZOMETERS LOWER LISBON JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT FORMATION UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-49]

REV 21 5/08

[ELEVATIONS IN P-4 PIEZOMETERS LOWER LISBON JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT FORMATION UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-50]

REV 21 5/08

[ELEVATIONS IN P-4 PIEZOMETERS LOWER LISBON JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT FORMATION UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-51]

REV 21 5/08

[ELEVATIONS IN P-4 PIEZOMETERS LOWER LISBON JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT FORMATION UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-52]

REV 21 5/08

[ELEVATIONS IN P-4 PIEZOMETERS LOWER LISBON JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT FORMATION UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-53]

REV 21 5/08

[ELEVATIONS IN P-5 PIEZOMETERS TALLAHATTA JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT FORMATION UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-54]

REV 21 5/08

[ELEVATIONS IN P-5 PIEZOMETERS TALLAHATTA JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT FORMATION UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-55]

REV 21 5/08

[ELEVATIONS IN P-5 PIEZOMETERS TALLAHATTA JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT FORMATION UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-56]

REV 21 5/08

[ELEVATIONS IN P-5 PIEZOMETERS TALLAHATTA JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT FORMATION UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-57]

REV 21 5/08

[ELEVATIONS IN P-5 PIEZOMETERS TALLAHATTA JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT FORMATION UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-58]

REV 21 5/08

[ELEVATIONS IN P-5 PIEZOMETERS TALLAHATTA JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT FORMATION UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-59]

REV 21 5/08

[ELEVATIONS IN P-5 PIEZOMETERS TALLAHATTA JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT FORMATION UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-60]

REV 21 5/08

[HYDROGRAPHS OF GROUP NO. 625 PIEZOMETERS JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT P-1, P-2, P-4, P-5 UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-61 (SHEET 1 OF 10)]

REV 21 5/08

[HYDROGRAPHS OF GROUP NO. 631 PIEZOMETERS JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT P-1, P-2, P-4, P-5 UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-61 (SHEET 2 OF 10)]

REV 21 5/08

[HYDROGRAPHS OF GROUP NO. 640 PIEZOMETERS JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT P-1, P-2, P-4, P-5 UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-61 (SHEET 3 OF 10)]

REV 21 5/08

[HYDROGRAPHS OF GROUP NO. 647 PIEZOMETERS JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT P-1, P-2, P-4, P-5 UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-61 (SHEET 4 OF 10)]

REV 21 5/08

[HYDROGRAPHS OF GROUP NO. 655 PIEZOMETERS JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT P-1, P-2, P-4, P-5 UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-61 (SHEET 5 OF 10)]

REV 21 5/08

[HYDROGRAPHS OF GROUP NO. 661 PIEZOMETERS JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT P-1, P-2, P-4, P-5 UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-61 (SHEET 6 OF 10)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [HYDROGRAPHS OF PIEZOMETERS 711 AND 712 NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-61 (SHEET 7 OF 10)]

REV 21 5/08

[HYDROGRAPHS OF GROUP NO. 713 PIEZOMETERS JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT P-1, P-2, P-3, P-4, P-5 UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-61 (SHEET 8 OF 10)]

REV 21 5/08

[HYDROGRAPHS OF GROUP NO. 714 PIEZOMETERS JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT P-1, P-2, P-3 AND OBSERVATION WELL NO. 1 UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-61 (SHEET 9 OF 10)]

REV 21 5/08

[HYDROGRAPHS OF GROUP NO. 715 PIEZOMETERS JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT P-1, P-2, P-3, AND OBSERVATION WELL NO. 2 UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-61 (SHEET 10 OF 10)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [P-1 (B) AND P-2 UNCONFINED WATER LEVELS NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-62]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [P-3 UNCONFINED WATER LEVELS NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-63]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [P-5 UNCONFINED WATER LEVELS NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-64]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY TYPICAL OBSERVATION WELL INSTALLATION NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-65

REV 21 5/08 SPILLWAY-RATING, AREA CAPACITY CURVES FOR MAJOR JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT UPSTREAM DAMS UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-66 (SHEET 1 OF 2)

REV 21 5/08 SPILLWAY-RATING, AREA CAPACITY CURVES FOR MAJOR JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT UPSTREAM DAMS UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-66 (SHEET 2 OF 2)

THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN DELETED.

REV 27 4/17 SPILLWAY RATING, AREA CAPACITY CURVES FOR MAJOR JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT UPSTREAM DAMS UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-67 (SHEET 1 OF 2)

THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN DELETED.

REV 27 4/17 SPILLWAY RATING, AREA CAPACITY CURVES FOR MAJOR JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT UPSTREAM DAMS UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-67 (SHEET 2 OF 2)

REV 21 5/08 SPILLWAY-RATING AREA CAPACITY CURVES FOR MAJOR JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT UPSTREAM DAMS UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-68 (SHEET 1 OF 2)

REV 21 5/08 SPILLWAY-RATING AREA CAPACITY CURVES FOR MAJOR JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT UPSTREAM DAMS UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-68 (SHEET 2 OF 2)

REV 21 5/08 SPILLWAY-RATING, AREA CAPACITY CURVES FOR MAJOR JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT UPSTREAM DAMS UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-69

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [DECAY OF AMPLITUDE FOR SURGE WAVE NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-70]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [WALTER F. GEORGE DAM BREAK SURGE STAGE NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.4-71]

FNP-FSAR-2

[HISTORICAL][2.5 GEOLOGY AND SEISMOLOGY In compliance with the criteria provided in Appendix A, "Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants," of 10 CFR 100, this section provides information regarding the geologic and seismic characteristics of the site and the region surrounding the site.

The Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant site is located on the west bank of the Chattahoochee River in Houston County, southeastern Alabama. This area is in the Southern Red Hills subprovince of the East Gulf Coastal Plain physiographic province. The site is underlain by approximately 7000 ft of relatively unconsolidated Mesozoic and Cenozoic sands, gravels, clays, claystones, sandstones, and limestones.

These strata, overlying unmetamorphosed Paleozoic consolidated sedimentary units, dip uniformly to the south. No structural features affect the material underlying the site. No major or minor fault zones are near the site, nor were any local faults discovered during field mapping, exploratory drilling, and construction.

The site is within an area of infrequent seismic activity. No earthquakes of Modified Mercalli intensity greater than V have occurred in the East Gulf Coastal Plain within 200 miles of the site. Historically reported earthquakes occurring in other areas have not produced intensities greater than V at the site.

The safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) is conservatively selected as a low to moderate VI in Modified Mercalli intensity.

The Lisbon formation of Eocene age is the foundation bearing stratum for the major plant structures. It consists of materials ranging from claystone to sandstone, with occasional very dense sand layers. There are no zones of deformation, alteration, or weakness within the Lisbon formation.

The site is underlain by confined and unconfined aquifers. Local and regional ground water conditions will not be altered by construction and operation of the plant.

The scope of site investigations included the geologic, geohydrologic, and seismologic conditions of the area, and evaluation of these conditions regarding their effects on the design, construction, and operation of a nuclear plant at the site. The purpose of the investigations was to determine the following: the characteristics of the foundation materials, especially in regard to their suitability for supporting plant structures; the extent of geologic structures affecting the site; the seismicity of the area; the depth and configuration of the ground water table; and the characteristics of soil and rock with respect to their effects on the migration of radioactive solutions, should such solutions come in contact with them. This purpose was accomplished by conducting programs of geological and geophysical field exploration, foundation analysis and evaluation, installation of a ground water monitoring system, and review of pertinent literature.

The following consultants in the fields of geology and seismology were retained to evaluate the results of the field investigations:

2.5-1 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2 Rev. D. Linehan, S.J. Weston Observatory W. B. Jones G.W. Jones and Sons W. McGlamery G.W. Jones and Sons G. Housner California Institute of Technology Drilling and sampling for site selection and evaluation were completed in four phases. During the initial phase, Dames and Moore of Atlanta, Georgia, conducted a preliminary survey along a 50-mile stretch of the Chattahoochee River in the site vicinity. The purpose of the survey was to determine the local stratigraphy and to locate any structural deformation of exposed rock units at eight possible site locations. Law Engineering Testing Company of Birmingham, Alabama, completed the second and third phases. These studies involved drilling and sampling at three possible site locations, including the present location of the plant. The fourth phase, completed by Alabama Power Company under the supervision of Bechtel personnel, included the final drilling and sampling at the present plant location.

Laboratory testing of soil samples was done by Law Engineering Testing Company of Birmingham, Alabama; Alabama Power Company at their Lay Dam Laboratory; and Woodward-Lundgren and Associates of Oakland, California. Laboratory testing of rock samples was done by Bechtel's San Francisco rock testing laboratory and by Geotesting, Inc., of San Rafael, California. Chemical analyzes of site water samples were performed by Gulf Coast Laboratories, Inc., Pensacola, Fla., and Graver Water Conditioning Co., Union, N.J.

2.5.1 BASIC GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC INFORMATION The following sections and subsections contain the results and conclusions of the regional and site geologic and seismic investigations. Information on regional and local ground water conditions is discussed in subsection 2.4.13, Ground Water, and is only summarized in the following geology subsections. The characteristics of soils and rocks with respect to the support of major plant structures are discussed in detail in appendix 2B and cross-referenced in this section.

2.5.1.1 Regional Geology 2.5.1.1.1 Regional Physiography The Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant site is located on the west bank of the Chattahoochee River approximately 16.5 miles east of Dothan, Alabama, and 5 miles south of Columbia, Alabama. The site is within the East Gulf Coastal Plain physiographic province.(1) Within 200 miles of the site are parts of five other major physiographic provinces: Cumberland Plateau, Valley and Ridge, Blue Ridge, Piedmont, and Atlantic Coastal Plain. The first four provinces are associated with the Appalachian mountain system. They are separated from the coastal plain provinces by the Fall Line, about 100 miles north of the site.(2) The regional physiography is shown on figure 2.5-1.

2.5-2 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2 The Cumberland Plateau in Alabama, over 180 miles northwest of the site, is a maturely eroded, southward sloping peneplain, with numerous mesa-like interstream divides. The boundary between the Plateau and the Gulf Coastal Plain is gradational, with no marked escarpment. To the east, however, the boundary with the Valley and Ridge province is marked by the Cumberland Front, a westward facing escarpment formed by closely spaced folds.

The Alabama portion of the Valley and Ridge province is characterized by broad valleys on the southeast and closely spaced ridge and valley belts on the northwest. The valleys trend northeast-southwest along the trend of monoclinal folds and thrust faults. Crests of the ridges may be as high as the surface of the adjacent Cumberland Plateau, about 1400 ft mean sea level (MSL). The Valley and Ridge province is within 175 miles of the site.(2)

East of the Cartersville thrust fault, the topography changes markedly. The low valleys of the Valley and Ridge province are replaced by the rolling hills of the Blue Ridge province. In Alabama, the Blue Ridge is little more than a remnant of the high mountains present farther north in the province, but local relief approaches 2000 ft in Georgia. Near the Fall Line, the Blue Ridge has been reduced to the level of the Piedmont, which it borders on the southeast. The Blue Ridge province is 115 miles northwest of the site.(2)

The Piedmont is a vast plain, developed on Precambrian basement and metasedimentary rocks and Paleozoic granite intrusives, which is maturely dissected to a local relief of a few hundred feet. The general plains surface is broken by numerous hills and ridges that rise as monadnocks 200 to 1000 ft high.(3) The Brevard fault zone marks the boundary between the Piedmont and Blue Ridge provinces.(4)

The Piedmont is about 100 miles north of the site.

The Atlantic and East Gulf Coastal Plain provinces extend from the Fall Line to the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico, respectively. The Atlantic Coastal Plain is characterized by nearly flat-lying terraces, underlain by limestone or unconsolidated sand and clay, that are arranged in narrow belts parallel to the coast. By contrast, the wider belted subprovinces of the East Gulf Coastal Plain consist of numerous ridges or cuestas separated by low valleys or inner lowlands. Rocks underlying the subprovinces vary in their resistance to erosion, and range from sandstone, shale, and limestone to softer clay, sand, and marl.

The transition zone between the two provinces is in central Georgia, about 120 miles northeast of the site, between the eastward flowing Ocmulgee River and the southward flowing Flint River.(2)

The Fall Line Hills, Red Hills, Dougherty Plain, Tifton Upland, and Brandywine Terrace subprovinces are common to both coastal plain provinces. The Fall Line Hills extend from the Tennessee River on the west to the central Carolinas on the east. The maturely dissected topography, with relief approaching 350 ft, is developed on predominantly sand bearing formations of Cretaceous age. The Red Hills, with a similar topography, lie immediately seaward of the Fall Line Hills in Georgia, and are developed on Eocene rocks weathered bright red. The Dougherty Plain extends from southeastern Alabama and the Florida panhandle into central Georgia. This wide, largely flat upland plain contains shallow solution depressions developed in Eocene limestone. The Tifton Upland is a region of gently rolling hills with broad rounded summits located seaward of the Dougherty Plain. Relief in this region underlain by Miocene sand is generally less than 50 ft, but may approach several hundred feet near the wide, flat bottomed river valleys. The Brandywine and Coharie terraces are lower in elevation than the adjacent Tifton Upland. A low scarp separates the landward rolling hills of the Upland from the nearly flat, often swampy terraces.(2) 2.5-3 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2 The physiography of that part of Florida within 200 miles of the site is influenced by Pleistocene terracing, solution of underlying rocks, and stream erosion. The subprovinces affected by these factors are the Late Pleistocene terraces, East Florida Flatwoods, Lake Region, Lime Sink Region, and Flatwoods and Hammock Lands.(2)

The Late Pleistocene terraces, below elevation 40 to 45 ft MSL, 65 to 75 ft MSL, and 95 to 100 ft MSL, extend from Georgia into Florida without change of character. The surfaces are nearly flat with a slight seaward dip and are often swampy. This terrace belt merges with the East Florida Flatwoods near Jacksonville, Florida. The East Florida Flatwoods represents a low swell developed on coquina of recent origin between the shore and the St. Johns River. The Lake Region to the west is higher in elevation (about 100 ft MSL) and is characterized by large lake basins enclosed primarily by sand. By contrast, the Lime Sink Region further west has numerous smaller solution depressions and lakes developing up to 50 ft of relief. Late Eocene limestone underlies Miocene sand in both regions. The Flatwoods and Hammock Lands extend along the west coast of Florida to Mobile Bay, where they merge with the Pine Meadows of the East Gulf Coastal Plain. Between Tampa Bay and the Apalachicola River, old sink holes are discontinuously covered by more recent thin sand deposits, and a general low relief is typical. West of the Apalachicola River, the lowland contains delta plains and sand ridges.(2)

Physiographic subprovinces exclusive to the Gulf Coastal Plain are the Black Belt, Chunnennuggee Hills, Southern Red Hills, Jackson Prairie, Southern Pine Hills, and Pine Meadows. The Black Belt lies immediately seaward of the Fall Line Hills in eastern Mississippi and Alabama. It is a lowland of small relief developed on Upper Cretaceous chalk and bordered on both sides by hills rising several hundred feet about the plain.(2) The Chunnennuggee Hills is a series of ridges or cuestas formed by resistant, southward dipping Upper Cretaceous sandstone and clay.(1) It lies south and east of the Black Belt. The Flatwoods is a lowland, extending from the Tennessee River into western Alabama, developed on easily degraded Lower Eocene clay. In Alabama, it is bordered on the south by the Southern Red Hills. These hills rise 200 to 400 ft above the Flatwoods and valleys within the Chunnennuggee Hills. Bright colored soils and immature topography are typical of the Southern Red Hills. The Jackson Prairie is a gently rolling lowland developed on nonresistant Upper Eocene clays in Mississippi and western Alabama. To the south is the Southern Pine Hills subprovince, which is between 500 ft MSL and 100 ft MSL.(2) This subprovince is an elevated, cuesta-like, dissected plain developed on Miocene estuarine deposits and Pliocene sand and gravel.(1) Relief may be as much as 250 ft. Along the coast is the Pine Meadows, a terraced lowland below 100 ft MSL, marked by delta plains, low scarps, and sand ridges.(2)

The site is located within the southern part of the Southern Red Hills subprovince.(1) The typical immature topography of the Southern Red Hills has been modified somewhat by fluvial processes of the Chattahoochee River and by nearly complete solution of the Ocala Limestone.(5) The site area is characterized by gently sloping hills and nearly flat terraces developed on insoluble residuum and alluvial deposits.(6) 2.5.1.1.2 Regional Geologic Maps The geology of the region is characterized by Precambrian and Early Paleozoic rocks inland from the Fall Line, and Cretaceous to Recent sediments from the Fall Line to the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. The rocks within the Appalachian provinces are largely folded, faulted, and metamorphosed.(4) Those in the coastal plain provinces dip seaward at low angles and have undergone comparatively minor structural deformation.(6) 2.5-4 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2 Regional maps depicting the surface geology and tectonic features are presented as figures 2.5-2 and 2.5-3, respectively.

2.5.1.1.3 Regional Geologic Setting Since the physiography of a province is determined largely by the character of its underlying rocks, the names and boundaries of the geologic and physiographic provinces within 200 miles of the site are the same.(7)

The geology of the region within 200 miles of the site may be divided into two categories: areas in which Precambrian and Paleozoic rocks are exposed; and areas containing exposures of Mesozoic and Cenozoic sediments, underlain by Precambrian and Paleozoic rocks. The Cumberland Plateau, Valley and Ridge, Blue Ridge, and Piedmont provinces contain Precambrian and Paleozoic rocks at the surface.

Mesozoic and Cenozoic sediments are at the surface in the Atlantic and Gulf coastal plains.

The rocks in the Cumberland Plateau include clastic and carbonate strata of Late Cambrian to Pennsylvanian age.(1) They are generally flat lying, occupying a broad, gentle, synclinal basin.(3) Local thrust faults and folds modify the plateau surface.(7)

The Valley and Ridge province contains Cambrian and Ordovician limestones, Ordovician shales, and more resistant Silurian and Mississippian sandstones and conglomerates.(3) The strata are generally more calcareous and clayey to the northwest and more sandy to the southeast.(7) The more resistant rocks form ridges that trend northeast-southwest. A few exposures of Early Paleozoic metasediments are found along the southeast edge of the province, in a zone of shallow, flat thrust sheets. The province is characterized by Paleozoic thrust faults and long anticlines and synclines, with their strikes or axes trending northeast-southwest. The thrust sheets have been deformed by pre- and postfault folding.

Displacements of the thrust sheets, generally in a northwest direction, may approach 10 miles.(3)

The Blue Ridge province, included in the western Piedmont by some authors,(8) extends from the Cartersville fault to the Brevard fault zone.(4) It has been interpreted as a synclinorium modified by doming and faulting subsequent to deposition and metamorphism of Middle Devonian to Early Mississippian sediments,(9) or an anticlinorium, consisting of middle Precambrian basement rocks flanked by younger rocks that were folded in the mid-Paleozoic and then broken and transported westward by later Paleozoic thrusting. The metamorphic grade generally increases southeastward. Granitic plutons and ultrabasic intrusives of Paleozoic age are common in the southeastern part of the province.(3) Two belts of low grade metasediments, the Talladega and Murphy belts, are found in the northwest.(4)

East and south of the Brevard fault zone is the Piedmont province. Rocks in the province range in age from middle Precambrian to early mid-Paleozoic, and consist of granite and metamorphics of various grades. On the northwestern edge, Chauga Belt late Precambrian to Early Cambrian low grade metamorphics form a synclinorium separating the Blue Ridge from the Inner Piedmont. Rocks in the Inner Piedmont are mostly granitized, high grade metamorphics.(4) They have been overturned and overthrust to the northwest,(7) forming a large anticlinal mass of northwest directed nappes rooted to the southeastern side of the Inner Piedmont. The Kings Mountain Belt in Alabama and Georgia is an anticlinal belt of late Precambrian to Cambrian, weak to low grade metamorphics, similar to the Chauga Belt. The Charlotte Belt, southeast of the Kings Mountain Belt, consists of an isoclinally folded anticlinorium cored by middle Precambrian basement rocks and overlain by late Precambrian high grade metasediments and metavolcanics. A few early mid-Paleozoic plutons intrude the metamorphics. A low 2.5-5 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2 rank assemblage of late Precambrian to middle Paleozoic metasediments and metavolcanics is found in the Carolina Slate Belt. The belt is interpreted as a synclinorium, with northeast trending folds that are either open or are tightly compressed and overturned.(4)

Rocks underlying the Mesozoic and Cenozoic coastal plain deposits vary in age and lithology. In Georgia, the basement consists of Precambrian and Paleozoic high grade metamorphics and granitic and dioritic rocks. Volcanic rhyolites are found in the subsurface in southeast Georgia. In the tri-state area of southeastern Alabama, southwestern Georgia, and northern Florida, the coastal plain sediments are underlain by early Paleozoic, tightly consolidated, clastic sedimentary rocks. The rocks contain many fossils which range in age from Cambrian to Silurian.(7) A well drilled in Houston County, Alabama, penetrated calcareous sandstone and shale of Ordovician age at a depth of 8100 ft.(1) Calcareous rocks of Cambrian and Ordovician ages also exist in the basement in western Alabama.(7) The basement in extreme southwestern Alabama consists of igneous and metamorphic rocks of unknown age at a depth of 25,000 ft.(10)

The top of basement rock beneath the Gulf and Atlantic coastal plains represents a portion of the erosional surface developed on deformed Appalachian and Ouachita rocks prior to the Jurassic. The surface is exposed inland from the Fall Line, where the overlapping wedge of younger coastal plain material terminates. Geophysical data suggest the presence of general north to northeasterly trends in the basement underlying the Atlantic Coastal Plain. These trends may be due to lithologic or structural variations in the basement rocks, or to topographic relief developed on the pre-Jurassic erosion surface.

Details of the structures, if they exist, are unknown. Seismic surveys and well borings reveal an irregular surface with a general Gulfward slope for the top of basement rocks underlying the Gulf Coastal Plain.(7)

Overlying the Paleozoic basement rocks, the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain sediments range in age from Jurassic to Recent.(7) A regional geologic column showing these strata is shown on figure 2.5-4. These sediments generally consist of alternating layers of relatively unconsolidated sand, sandstone, shale, clay, and limestone.(10) Triassic deposits in the form of red beds may occur in isolated grabens of the Atlantic Coastal Plain. Jurassic deposits in the Gulf area include clastics, carbonates, and evaporites. No Jurassic strata are known to exist in the Atlantic Coastal Plain, and pre-Cretaceous rocks are not exposed in either coastal plain province.(7)

Cretaceous through Recent sediments are found at the surface in both coastal plain areas. The outcrop pattern, with bands of older strata lying landward of younger strata, reflects the gentle seaward dip of the deposits.(3) In Alabama, this dip is between 10 and 30 ft/mile.(1) Regionally, the dip increases with depth, a result of seaward thickening of the coastal plain deposits.(3) The sediments consist of gravels, sands, silts, clays, marls, and their consolidated equivalents, such as sandstone and limestone. Numerous transgressions and regressions of the sea have resulted in the interfingering of marine and nonmarine deposits.(11) The total thickness of these units ranges from a feather edge along the Fall Line to more than 25,000 ft in southwestern Alabama.(10)

Geologic structure in the coastal plain provinces within 200 miles of the site has been influenced, directly or indirectly, by the presence or absence of thick Jurassic salt deposits in the subsurface, and pre-Mesozoic structural trends.(7) The numerous surface grabens in southwestern Alabama and westward may be attributed to subsurface salt flowage in response to adjacent salt dome development.(10) In southeastern Alabama and eastward, where Jurassic salt deposits are absent, very few structures exist.

These structures, discussed in subsection 2.5.1.1.6.1, may be associated with hypothetical trends in the Paleozoic basement rocks. Apparent deformation within Cretaceous and younger strata may not be 2.5-6 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2 actual folding as a result of tectonic disturbance of the basement, but merely deposition upon a previously deformed surface.(7) 2.5.1.1.4 Regional Geologic History The geologic history of the region is characterized by mountain building and erosion in the Appalachian areas, and by deposition of marine and nonmarine sediments in the coastal plain provinces.(7)

During the Precambrian and early Paleozoic, a large sedimentary basin, the Appalachian geosyncline, extended along the eastern portion of the United States.(3) Subsidence within the geosyncline, especially in West Virginia, Tennessee, and Alabama, allowed great thicknesses of sediments to collect. In the middle and late Paleozoic this basin sustained mountain building forces that metamorphosed portions of the early Paleozoic and older sediments, injected plutonic masses into them, and raised them by folding and faulting. The metamorphosed area includes the Piedmont and Blue Ridge provinces. The Valley and Ridge province was not metamorphosed but underwent folding and faulting. To the west, the Cumberland Plateau was uplifted with only minor structural deformation.(7)

In the Triassic, the eastern Appalachian provinces were again faulted and injected with northwest trending dikes. Terrigenous deposition occurred in northeast trending, graben- like basins.(3) Erosion of all the Appalachian areas continued until the Late Jurassic, when large amounts of salt and clastic material were deposited in shallow seas in the coastal plain area around the Gulf of Mexico.(7)

Deposition of marine and nonmarine sediments in the coastal plain areas began in the Jurassic and continues at the present time.(7) The sediments were deposited in seas that originally invaded the margin of the continent up to the Fall Line.(11) During the Cretaceous, several rivers draining the Appalachian highlands and the central part of the continent contributed vast amounts of material to the slowly subsiding continental margin.(7) After the Late Cretaceous, the seas began a persistent, although irregular, retreat, with progressively younger marine and marginal marine sediments being deposited on older strata in belts generally parallel to the present coastline.(1) As a result, the seaward thickening wedge of coastal plain sediments was built up.(11) Domal growth in western Alabama, in response to sediment accumulation on top of Jurassic salt beds, was initiated in the Late Cretaceous and ceased in the Oligocene, with no evidence of subsequent movement.(12) No salt is present below the site.

2.5.1.1.5 Regional Geologic Conditions The coastal plain region within 200 miles of the site contains elements of both the East Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plain provinces.(7) The geologic conditions of each province are related to the presence or absence of Jurassic salt deposits beneath the coastal plain sediments, the rate of subsidence of the buried Paleozoic fold belts during deposition of the sediments, and the source of the coastal plain deposits.(13)

The coastal plains began to form after tilting and subsidence of the Paleozoic fold systems. The truncated surfaces of these systems dip southward and southeastward beneath the coastal plains. Material eroded from the Paleozoic rocks was laid down in seas or on the margins of seas that overlapped inland from the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. Mesozoic and Cenozoic deposits that cover the Paleozoic surfaces dip and thicken toward the coast.(13) 2.5-7 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2 The first coastal plain deposition within 200 miles of the site occurred in the Jurassic. The Eagle Mills-Werner-Louann Salt sequence is considered to be Early and Middle Jurassic in age, consisting of red beds with variable amounts of evaporites.(7) Late Jurassic deposits overlying the Louann Salt include red beds, limestone, and evaporites of the Louark group, and sand and gravel of the Cotton Valley group.(14) The Jurassic deposits are not exposed at the surface. They are restricted to areas Gulfward of fault systems, such as the Pickens- Gilbertown and Pollard systems, that mark the inner boundary of the Mississippi Salt Basin. The nature of the Jurassic deposits indicates that they were laid down in large enclosed basins subject to periodic flooding by highly concentrated waters.(7) Beds of definite Jurassic age have not been found east of central Alabama.(13)

Lowermost Cretaceous deposits of the Coahuilan series extend from Mexico into eastern Alabama, and have been identified by some geologists as far east as Georgia and northern Florida. This series is represented in Alabama by a lower, landward, red bed facies (Hosston formation), and an upper, Gulfward, carbonate-clastic facies (Sligo formation). The Coahuilan series is overlain by the Comanche series, which includes Lower Cretaceous strata of the Trinity, Fredericksburg, and Washita stages.

Comanchean deposits probably exist beneath the entire coastal plain area within 200 miles of the site.

They typically consist of red beds in updip areas and interbedded evaporites, shale, and carbonates downdip. These strata are generally conformable with and transitional from the underlying Coahuilan.

No Lower Cretaceous deposits are exposed within 200 miles of the site.(7)

Upper Cretaceous Gulf series deposits overlying the Comanche series include, in ascending order, the Tuscaloosa group, the McShan and Eutaw formations, and the Selma group. These units underlie the coastal plain areas within 200 miles of the site and are exposed in belts seaward of the Fall Line.(10) The Tuscaloosa generally has a lower, terrigenous sand and gravel unit, a middle silt and clay sequence (mostly marine), and an upper sand to gravel unit. The McShan and Eutaw formations are lithologically similar to the Tuscaloosa, but interfinger downdip with predominantly calcareous beds. Sediments of the Selma group are mostly marine and include chalk, marl, and calcareous sand and clay. Gulfian deposits rest in updip areas with angular unconformity on Comanchean and older strata, while in seaward areas the contact appears transitional.(7)

The preceding Mesozoic deposits were laid down during a time of transgression and submergence.(13)

Numerous landward unconformities indicate that submergence was interrupted by sporadic emergence.(7)

The initial sediments (Jurassic) were deposited toward the present coast in the subsided interior zones of the Ouachita and Appalachian systems. Later Mesozoic deposits overlap the earlier finally spreading beyond the coastal plain into the continental interior.(13) Deposition of Cretaceous strata was centered in areas of subsidence (depocenters) adjacent to the Paleozoic fold belts. Subsidence contemporaneous with deposition was necessary to contain the great thickness of sediments. The Apalachicola embayment, in southwestern Georgia and northern Florida, contains thin, near- surface Quaternary and Tertiary rocks overlying thick deposits of Cretaceous and older Mesozoic strata. This basin was subsiding during the Jurassic and Early Cretaceous, and was receiving coarse deposits from the adjacent uplifted highlands. As the Cretaceous sea spread inland over the eroded fold belts, Gulfian (Late Cretaceous) marine sediments were deposited in the embayment, while the coarser sediments were deposited inland.

The thin layers of Cenozoic material indicate that subsidence had ceased before their deposition. The pattern of deposition was further modified by positive features, such as the Peninsular arch. This subsurface arch extends from south- central Georgia into east-central Florida. Lower Cretaceous strata are absent on the apex of the arch and pinch out against the flanks, indicating that the feature was positive and possibly forming during the Jurassic and Early Cretaceous. Erosion of the Paleozoic core supplied coarse material to the basin on the western flank of the arch during the Early Cretaceous.

2.5-8 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2 Development of the arch apparently had ceased by the Late Cretaceous, since Gulfian marine deposits are found undeformed on the arch.(7)

Paleocene strata include the Clayton, Porters Creek, and Naheoaa formations of the Midway group.(7)

The deposits are predominantly sandy carbonates and limestone in eastern Alabama and western Georgia, and clay, marl, and shale to the west.(14) Limestones, oolitic beds, and evaporites are common in downdip areas.(7) Midwayan beds lie unconformably on the Cretaceous. Although containing a different fauna, the Midwayan beds are lithologically similar to Cretaceous beds and were probably deposited in similar near shore and shallow marine environments.(13) In some places, Paleocene strata lack considerable thickness because of erosion or nondeposition or both.(7)

Eocene strata lie disconformably on Paleocene and older deposits in both the Atlantic and Gulf Coast areas. The deposits are exposed in belts seaward of Cretaceous formations, and are mapped to include deposits of Paleocene age. (See figure 2.5-2.) The Eocene is represented by, in ascending order, the Wilcox, Claiborne, and Jackson groups.

Wilcox deposits include the Nanafalia, Tuscahoma, and Hatchetigbee formations. These strata are generally sandy and lignitic to carbonaceous. They contain continental and sandy materials in updip areas, and become finer grained, more calcareous, and generally more marine Gulfward in the subsurface. Deposition probably occurred in deltaic, marginal marine, and shallow marine areas.(7)

Middle Eocene Claiborne group deposits rest disconformably on the Lower Eocene Wilcox group.(10) The Tallahatta formation contains mainly unconsolidated sand and lignitic and calcareous micaceous silty clay and limestone in southeastern Alabama and western Georgia. To the west, the formation is a glauconitic sand and siliceous claystone, while downdip it becomes more calcareous and fossiliferous.(7)

The Tallahatta is overlain by the Lisbon formation, which consists of fossiliferous clay, marl, and calcareous sand.(10) Gulfward the Lisbon is more calcareous and is partly dolomitized. Claiborne sediments were deposited in warm, shallow seas.(7)

The Upper Eocene is represented by the Moodys Branch and Ocala formations of the Jackson group. In southern Georgia, Florida, and east and central Alabama, Jackson strata are predominantly calcareous.

The Moodys Branch formation consists of a lower sand and sandy or chalky limestone unit and an upper calcareous silty clay and sand unit. Westward in Alabama it becomes less calcareous and finer grained, except near the Wiggins uplift, where reef or bank carbonates are present. The Moodys Branch formation and the Claiborne group deposits are exposed in belts seaward of Lower Eocene deposits. The Ocala formation is a highly fossiliferous calcareous clay and limestone. It is found at the surface eastward from western Georgia, and is either exposed in or underlies most of Florida.(7) The Ocala is found discontinuously in southeastern Alabama where the limestone has been leached away and a chert to sandy and clayey residue remains.(15) Jackson group deposits represent an extensive marine invasion of the continental margin in the Late Eocene.(7)

In central and western Alabama, the Oligocene is represented by marine sediments of the Vicksburg group. These deposits range from crystalline to chalky, dense, or porous limestones. In southeastern Alabama, northern Florida, and Georgia, the Oligocene includes the Marianna and Suwannee limestones. The Marianna is a fossiliferous, calcareous clay and marl. The overlying Suwannee is a fossiliferous to coquinoid, partly dolomitized limestone.(7) In southeastern Alabama, the Suwannee is replaced by the Chickasawhay formation, which has a similar lithology modified by layers of darker marl.(1) The litholoiies of the Oligocene formations indicate that deposition occurred in a warm, shallow marine environment. The outcrop pattern in the eastern areas is directly related to the topography.

2.5-9 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2 Topographically high areas may have Oligocene material at the surface, while adjacent low areas may lack Oligocene deposits altogether.(16) Neither the Marianna nor the Suwannee is present at the site.

Miocene deposits in the coastal plain areas include shallow marine and nonmarine rocks of the Tampa, Alum Bluff, and Choctawhatchee stages.(7) The lower stage (Tampa) in Georgia and northern Florida is a series of dolomitic limestone interbedded with clays and sands in updip areas.(17) The middle and upper stages (Alum Bluff and Choctawhatchee) are predominantly clastics, consisting of sandy micaceous clays and arkosic sands.(18) In south-central Alabama and westward, the Miocene strata are mostly fluvial and deltaic sands and clays. Variable amounts of volcanic materials are also present.(7) No Miocene deposits exist at the site. The sequence rests unconformably on Oligocene and older material,(17) and thickens downdip across the fault systems located near the coast.(7) A thick sequence of Miocene strata also fills the Gulf trough in southeastern Georgia.(16)

Sand and gravel deposits generally recognized as Pliocene in age occur in a discontinuous belt westward from the Apalachicola River in northern Florida. Some marl may be present in downdip areas.(7) The deposits are predominantly fluvial and deltaic.(11)

Pleistocene deposits along the Gulf coast consist of non-marine, marginal, and marine sands and clays underlying coastal terraces or terrace surfaces. They merge inland along the major river valleys with fluvial deposits.(7)

Cyclic advances and retreats of the sea determined depositional patterns in the Tertiary following a period of erosion at the end of the Cretaceous. During the Paleocene, Midway sediments were deposited to within 50 miles of the Fall Line over the eroded Cretaceous deposits. Erosion then resulted from a general lowering of sea level. This pattern of transgression and deposition followed by regression and erosion was repeated throughout the Tertiary. Each succeeding stage encroached inland to a lesser extent over the eroded remains of the previous stage.(11)

Various structural features modified Tertiary depositional patterns. Erosion of the Wiggins uplift from the Eocene into the Miocene provided material for surrounding areas of deposition. During the same period, materials were thinly deposited and slightly folded in the area of the rising Ocala uplift. The Hatchetigbee anticline, a positive feature, was a source area for Miocene sediment. Accumulation of great thicknesses of Miocene and earlier materials took place in negative areas, such as the Apalachicola embayment and Gulf trough. The down-faulted areas adjacent to the Pickens- Gilbertown and related systems were also depositional centers. The present outcrop pattern reflects the influence of these features, which were developed by the close of the Miocene, on Tertiary deposition.(7) 2.5.1.1.6 Regional Tectonic Structures Sediments of the Atlantic and East Gulf provinces appear to be only slightly modified by post-Paleozoic orogenies. Tectonic structures underlying the coastal plain region within of the site include the Wiggins uplift, Hatchetigbee anticline, Mobile graben, Jackson fault, salt 200 miles domes of the Mississippi Salt Basin, Pickens-Gilbertown and related fault systems, Peninsular arch, Ocala uplift, and Apalachicola embayment.(7) Several structures of questionable existence, shown on figure 2.5-3A, may also underlie coastal plain deposits. Development of these features ceased before the Pleistocene, and none is considered significant to the site.(7) 2.5-10 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2 The relationship of these structures to the geologic history of the area is discussed in subsection 2.5.1.1.5, Regional Geologic Conditions. A regional tectonic map is presented as figure 2.5-3. The possibility of uplift, subsidence, or collapse related to tectonic structures is discussed in subsection 2.5.1.1.6.2, Areas of Potential Instability.

2.5.1.1.6.1 Description of Tectonic Structures.

Wiggins Uplift The Wiggins uplift is an irregular, partly arcuate, bifurcating structural high located principally in southwestern Alabama and southeastern Mississippi. The axis of the uplift trends southwest from the vicinity of the Mobile graben and arcs to the west near the Mississippi state line. It maintains a westward trend into Stone County, Mississippi, where it appears to bifurcate. The southern branch may be a continuation of Appalachian structural trends. South and west dipping late Tertiary and Quaternary strata are exposed throughout the uplift area.(7)

Uplift occurred in the Early or Middle Eocene, and the feature remained positive until the early Miocene.

Relatively gentle subsidence took place during the Miocene. No faulting was associated with either vertical movement. Deposition and a general Gulfward migration of the shoreline occurred in the area during the late Tertiary and Quaternary. There is no evidence of movement subsequent to Miocene time.(7) The Wiggins uplift is located about 170 miles west of the site.

Mobile Graben The Mobile graben extends southward from Jackson, Alabama, to just north of Mobile Bay, where it turns westward. The Jackson fault is the northernmost fault on the east flank of the graben system.(1) In this northern part of the graben, surface displacements up to 500 ft place Eocene strata adjacent to Miocene beds. Further south the displacement increases to about 1000 ft on top of the Cretaceous at a depth of several thousand feet. Late Tertiary sediments may be displaced in the south, as indicated by the course of the Tombigbee-Alabama-Mobile River system,(7) and by minor topographic escarpments along Mobile Bay.(1)

The faults of the Mobile graben are similar in behavior and characteristics to faults of the Pickens-Gilbertown system. The graben may be an integral part or direct continuation of the system, with the same genesis and history.(7) This would require development of the graben no later than the Pliocene.(19) Another possibility is that the Mobile graben represents the eastern margin of the Mississippi Salt Basin.(7) In this case, development of the graben would have ceased in the Oligocene with termination of domal growth.(12) The Mobile graben is over 160 miles west of the site.

Jackson Fault The Jackson fault trends northerly about 18 miles from its known southern extent to a point northwest of Jackson, Alabama. It merges in an unknown relationship with the southeast end of the Hatchetigbee anticline. It is a normal fault, downthrown to the west, with a minimum displacement of 1350 feet at the surface. Displacement is approximately 5000 ft at a depth of 2450 ft. This large displacement is probably the result of the downthrown side subsiding as salt was removed to supply domal growth of the Klepac dome on the upthrown side. Sediments no younger than Miocene have been displaced.(1) The Jackson fault is about 165 miles west of the site.

2.5-11 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2 Pickens-Gilbertown Fault Zone The Pickens-Gilbertown fault zone extends southeastward from western Mississippi into southwestern Alabama. It continues into extreme western Florida, where it becomes the Pollard fault zone.(10) It is considered to be a zone of inactive contemporaneous or growth faults overlying a graben trend developed in basement rock south of the Ouachita system.

The faults within the zone are normal faults downthrown and upthrown toward the Gulf. As a result, they form major regional grabens along the trace of the fault zone.(7) They occur near the updip limit of the Louann Salt and probably represent the periphery of the salt basin. Consequently, development of the faults may have accompanied salt movement.(1 Surface displacements of nearly 200 ft occur, with the normal or average displacement closer to 100 ft.

With depth, the displacement increases to a minimum of 1000 ft. In western Alabama, the faults displace surface and subsurface material as young as Miocene. Movement on some of the faults has occurred sufficiently late for some of the grabens to be distinct topographic lows.(7) In the vicinity of the Alabama River, however, unfaulted late Pliocene-early Pleistocene terrace material overlies the graben trend. The fault zone is consequently considered inactive.(19)

The Bethel and Coffeeville-West Bend fault zones are part of the Pickens-Gilbertown system and have similar characteristics.(1) The nearest approach of this system to the site is 120 miles.

Hatchetigbee Anticline The Hatchetigbee anticline is located in southwestern Alabama and extends into eastern Mississippi. The anticline is asymmetric, with a prominent northwest-southeast elongation. Dips on the southwest flank are steep, while those on the northeast flank are relatively gentle. Middle Eocene rock (Hatchetigbee formation) occurs as inliers surrounded by material as young as Oligocene.(7)

Both the form and position of the anticline reflect the effect of the Pickens-Gilbertown system and related faults. The faults form an en echelon system of grabens on the northeast side of the anticline. The southeast end of the anticline plunges into the north end of the Mobile graben in an unknown relationship.(7)

Materials surrounding the anticline indicate that it was developed no later than the Miocene.(7) Under the site, the Hatchetigbee formation has not been affected by the structural movements in western Alabama. The anticline is about 170 miles west of the site.

Mississippi Salt Basin The Interior or Mississippi Salt Basin consists of a zone of salt structures that extends discontinuously from eastern Texas, through northern Louisiana and central Mississippi, into southwestern Alabama.(12)

There are no salt structures in southeastern Alabama. The updip limit of the underlying salt is represented by the Pickens-Gilbertown, Pollard, and related fault systems.(10) The maximum width of the basin is about 100 miles.(12 Salt structures in the basin occur as domal or anticlinal to ridge-like diapiric folds, and are present in the subsurface or exposed at the surface.(7) 2.5-12 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2 The depth to the "mother salt" (Louann Salt) is about 15,000 ft or less. Structures associated with the domes are simple, with no complicated folding. The shear folding that exists is typical of solids under high confining pressure. The great competence of salt in the salt basin indicates a tectonic history with little movement or recrystallization.(12)

The age of the "mother salt" is probably Late Triassic or Early Jurassic. Principal domal growth occurred from Late Cretaceous to Oligocene or early Miocene. There is no evidence of subsequent domal growth within the salt basin.(12)

The dome nearest the site is the Klepac Dome, associated with the Jackson fault.(1) It is about 160 miles from the site.

Peninsular Arch The Peninsular arch is a buried arch-like fold trending northwesterly from east-central Florida into south-central Georgia. Early Paleozoic strata make up the core of the arch. They are flanked by Lower Cretaceous and possibly older Mesozoic deposits. Lower Cretaceous strata are absent on the apex of the arch, indicating that the feature was positive and possibly forming during the Jurassic and Early Cretaceous. The arch was apparently inactive and covered by seas during and after the Late Cretaceous, since Gulfian and younger deposits are found over the arch.(7) The northern end of the buried Peninsular arch is about 130 miles east of the site.

Ocala Uplift The Ocala uplift is a broad, northwest trending anticline with its axis west of the older Peninsular arch.

The two folds are apparently unrelated. The uplift is reflected at the surface by a broad outcrop of Ocala limestone.(7)

Undeformed late Miocene beds overlie upwarped beds of earlier Miocene and Eocene ages in the southern part of the uplift, indicating that development of the uplift may have begun in Eocene time and ceased before the end of the Miocene.(20) The Ocala uplift is over 150 miles southeast of the site.

Apalachicola Embayment The Apalachicola embayment is located in southwestern Georgia and northern Florida.(16) It is a relatively shallow basin or syncline representing a change in strike of coastal plain strata, from predominantly east-west in eastern Alabama to approximately north-south in southwestern Georgia and northern Florida. The embayment narrows in the northeast; its axis is generally aligned northeast-southwest.(7)

Magnitude of the basin increases with depth, thereby indicating a long and continued development. Near surface late Tertiary and Quaternary rocks are scarcely downwarped, while Cretaceous and earlier Mesozoic rocks are downwarped to a progressively greater extent. Correspondingly, the older strata are generally thicker.(7)

The basin area contains early Paleozoic flat lying unmetamorphosed sediments that apparently were not involved in the severe folding of the Appalachian or Ouachita orogenic belts. These sediments are overlain by early and middle Mesozoic red beds, which are in turn covered by later Cretaceous marine 2.5-13 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2 deposits. The presence of shallow marine sediments throughout the Tertiary and the lack of near surface faulting in the basin indicate that the area is relatively stable at present.(7)

The western edge of the basin is about 30 miles east of the site, while the axis is over 60 miles southeast of the site.

Other major and minor structural features have been proposed or identified in the coastal plain area within 200 miles of the site. These features, shown on figure 2.5-3A, include several small anticlines in eastern Alabama (Shorterville, McWilliams, Jacob's Hill, Geneva, and Four Mile), Fort Gaines fault, Cypress fault, Chattahoochee anticline, Gordon anticline, Andersonville fault, Gulf trough, Ochlockonee fault, and Barwick arch. None of these features is of significance to the site.

The Shorterville anticline in Henry County, the McWilliams anticline in Wilcox County, the Jacob's Hill anticline in Pike County, and the Geneva and Four Mile anticlines in Geneva County, Alabama, were investigated by G. I. Adams between 1921 and 1928.(21) The locations and magnitudes of the structures were based only on surface outcrops of Eocene marine beds in various river valleys. The structures reportedly showed minor reversals in dip and closures up to 20 ft. Adams and his investigators admitted that the beds were difficult to identify and that, "There are no beds . . . that can be followed with any fair degree of accuracy because of the local variations in bedding and in fauna."(21) No reports subsequent to those made by Adams have acknowledged the existence of these features. They may represent local changes in dip caused by deposition on an irregular surface or by solution of underlying calcareous strata.

The Fort Gaines fault, near Fort Gaines, Clay County, Georgia, about 30 miles north of the site, was first reported by Herrick (1961).(22) The east-west trending fault was postulated on the basis of two borings near the Chattahoochee River that had different stratigraphic sections. Herrick and Vorhis (1963) mentioned the same evidence.(18) More recent literature does not acknowledge the existence of the Fort Gaines fault. Zapp and Clark (1965) do not include any fault in Clay County on their detailed geologic map.(23) Discussion with personnel of the Georgia Geological Survey indicate that the structure, if existent, may be the result of slump failure on top of karst topography.

The Cypress fault, tentatively located about 7 miles east of Marianna, Florida, and extending 28 miles northeasterly to the Georgia border, was first described in the literature by W. E. Moore in 1955.(24) He reported that the fault, about 40 miles south of the site, has a maximum displacement of 100 ft.

Displacement of the Tampa formation across the fault supposedly indicates movement at least through early Miocene time.(24) Puri (1957) indicates that the fault may be a downdip facies change of the of the Ocala group.(25) The existence of the fault is also questioned by the staff of the Florida Geological Survey and by geologists of several oil companies, as mentioned in the letter of transmittal of Moore's publication.(24) Rainwater (1956) suggested that the fault may be an erosional feature rather than a tectonic structure.(25)

According to Patterson and Herrick (1971),(16) the Chattahoochee anticline was first postulated by Veatch in 1911. It reportedly extends from the Fall Line to the Florida state line and straddles the Chattahoochee River. Veatch's proposition was based on the north-south alignment of the Chattahoochee River along the axial part of the postulated anticline, and the entrenchment of that river.(16) Other authors (Stephenson, 1928; Leet, 1940; Toulmin 1955)(11, 27, 28) show a similar position for the anticline. Sever (1964)(25) shows the anticline trending northeast for about 225 miles from Panama City, Florida, into central Georgia. This position was based on mapped outcrops of Eocene rock flanked on the northwest and southeast by Oligocene rock in the Georgia coastal plain.

2.5-14 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2 An evaluation of the evidence supporting the existence of the Chattahoochee anticline (Patterson and Herrick, 1971)(16) indicates that the existence of the anticline is little more than speculation. The evaluation found that:

...most published reports in which structural features are proposed in the area of concern fail to spell out supporting evidence in a convincing manner.

Many articles simply illustrate the axis of an anticline on a small scale map and mention the feature by formal name in the text. Most of the questionable evidence in support of the Chattahoochee anticline was outlined by Veatch [1911] in his original proposal, and by Sever (1964) in his redefinition. The results of several investigations, both published and unpublished, are in opposition to the ideas advanced by Veatch and Sever . . . His [Veatch's] ideas regarding this anticline are suspect for the following reasons: 1. The course of the Chattahoochee River is nowhere diverted as it should be, if it were influenced by an uplift, and the proposed axial position of this river is an unlikely one; 2. The entrenchment of the river is not sound evidence for an anticline along it, because similar entrenchment has been noted further west in Alabama where it is attributed to regional uplift in Pliocene time . . . (Patterson and Herrick, 1971,

p. 3-5)(16)

Sever's proposition was disputed because there is no evidence for the reversal of regional dip necessary for an anticline to occur, and because the outcrop pattern (Eocene material surrounded by Oligocene material) is the result of topographic differences, with Oligocene material exposed at higher elevations than Eocene material.(16) Furthermore, the North-South and East-West Regional Geologic Profiles (figures 2.5-5 and 2.5-6) show no reversal of regional dip in the vicinity of the Chattahoochee River.

Accordingly, interpretations of the Chattahoochee anticline, without sufficient evidence, should be considered as no more than hypothetical.(16)

The Gordon anticline was initially defined by Hager in 1918 to be near Gordon, in southeast Alabama.(29)

He described it as having a closure of 40 ft and an area of 10 square miles about an east-west axis.

Adams (1929)(30) noted some irregularities of dip in outcrops along the Chattahoochee River near Gordon, but no well defined structure. Toulmin and La Moreaux (1963, figure 4)(31) show a reversal of dip in the vicinity of Gordon on their geologic section. D. B. Moore of the Alabama Geological Survey, however, visited the area of the Gordon anticline and could find no evidence of dip reversal along the Chattahoochee River (verbal communication, 1973). His study was done after the area was flooded by a reservoir. It appears that the Gordon anticline actually exists, but its influence is minor, and it does not affect the uppermost (Upper Eocene) beds. The anticline is over 10 miles south of the site and shows no influence on strata underlying the site.

An east trending fault having a maximum vertical displacement of 100 ft and a length of about 5 miles was named the Andersonville fault by Zapp (1965).(32) The fault is located near Andersonville, Georgia, about 90 miles northeast of the site, and displaces Middle Eocene Claiborne deposits but not Upper Eocene Jackson deposits. It is not known whether the fault is normal or reverse, as the fault plane was not observed. Other minor structural irregularities in the same area have been attributed to underground solution of limestone in the Paleocene Midway group and consequent irregular slumping of the overlying sediments. Although the fault passes westward into a monocline that dies out further west, the Andersonville fault may also be a solution feature.(32)

The name "Gulf Trough of Georgia" was proposed by Herrick and Vorhis (1963)(18) for a major linear structural feature of the subsurface in southwest Georgia. As first recognized by Applin and Applin in 1944,(33) this feature extends northeastward from the Gulf of Mexico, through the Tallahassee, Florida, 2.5-15 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2 area and into south central Georgia. It has subsequently been recognized as a sediment filled depression and termed "Gulf Trough."(20) Various authors have described the Gulf trough as a graben, downfaulted embayment, syncline, faulted syncline, structural basin or depression, trough or channel, submarine valley or strait, and a solution valley.(16)

Arguments favoring faulting or graben faulting as the origin for the trough do not present convincing evidence of the existence of faulting and a downthrown central block.(16) Sever's (1966)(34) proposed Ochlockonee fault would be on the southeast side of such a central block. After re-examination of Sever's data, however, Patterson and Herrick (1971)(16) conclude that there is no evidence to suggest that movement along a fracture has occurred. A thick elongate belt of Miocene sediments fills the trough, indicating the feature is a depression of major dimensions. It apparently merges with the Apalachicola embayment to the southwest and may have been an extension of the embayment during part of its history.

The shape of the trough is indicative of a sediment filled strait or marine valley formed by erosion.

Evidence of deep carbonate solution makes it likely that the shape of the trough has been modified by this process. Carbonate solution has been suggested as the origin of a similar trough like feature farther east in Georgia.(16)

A related feature, the Barwick arch, was proposed by Sever (1966)(34) to lie about 9 miles southeast of his proposed Ochlockonee fault. The arch was based on contours drawn on the top of the subsurface Suwanee limestone of Oligocene age that show about 100 ft of closure.

No water wells in the vicinity of the arch penetrate through Oligocene rock, so little information is available to prove or disprove the existence of such a feature. Sever's (1966) assertion, based on well date that the Suwanee has a uniform thickness in the region, is invalid.(16) One possibility is that the apparent reversal of regional dip from the arch northwestward into the adjacent Gulf trough is an initial dip resulting from deposition on the southeast side of a strait or marine valley. Structure contour maps of the top of the Oligocene in areas south of the arch show a buried karst topography having high areas of the same magnitude as Sever's Barwick arch. This indicates that carbonate solution also may have significantly modified the apparent dips in the vicinity of the arch. The Barwick arch, like the Ochlockonee fault, is probably an erosional or solution feature rather than a tectonic structure.(16) 2.5.1.1.6.2 Areas of Potential Instability. The East Gulf and Atlantic coastal plains within 200 miles of the site appear to be relatively stable. As seen on the Crustal Movement Map (figure 2.5-7),

the greatest uplift within the coastal plains is less than 5 millimeters per year. The map is based on measurements made over the past 100 years by the National Geodetic Survey. Much of it is based on interpolation between widely spaced lines of elevation that have been measured by geodetic field parties.

The elevations are relative to each other and are referred to the 1929 Sea Level Datum. The site is located just inside the southern Appalachian uplift area. The uplift in regional in character is not associated with a specific tectonic feature.(35)

Tectonic depressions within 200 miles of the site are the Apalachicola embayment and the Mobile graben.

Both of these features are discussed in subsection 2.5.1.1.6.1, Description of Tectonic Features. No differential movement is shown in the area of these structures on the Crustal Movement Map (See figure 2.5-7.) In the Apalachicola embayment, near surface late Tertiary and Quaternary deposits are scarcely downwarped. Late Tertiary sediments may be displaced at the south end of the Mobile graben, as indicated by minor topographic escarpments. The topographic features may also be due to sea level fluctuations. The Apalachicola embayment and Mobile graben appear to be stable at present.

2.5-16 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2 Buried and surficial karst terrains exist in the area of regional consideration. A buried karst surface has been developed on the Suwanee limestone of Oligocene age in south central Georgia.(34) The Marianna limestone of Oligocene age outcrops 30 miles south of the site near Marianna, Florida. Numerous caves have been formed in the limestone. Similar features do not exist in the site vicinity because these formations are not present. The Moodys Branch limestone underlies the western part of the site.

However, all Category I plant structures are founded on the Lisbon formation, below the Moodys Branch limestone.

No petroleum-producing areas are located within 200 miles of the site in Georgia.(36) Production of petroleum in Alabama is limited to areas in central and western Alabama underlain by Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous producing formations.(14) Production in Florida is similarly limited. These formations do not exist in the vicinity of the site. No other mineral extraction or subsurface mining occurs or has occurred in the site area.(6) Withdrawal of ground water from the area, discussed in subsections 2.4.13.2, and 2.4.13.2.5, will not cause subsidence. Future subsidence does not appear to be of concern at the site.

2.5.1.1.7 Regional Ground Water Conditions The regional ground water conditions are discussed in detail in subsection 2.4.13.1.1. In general, the principal sources of ground water in southeastern Alabama and southwestern Georgia are two confined aquifers and one unconfined aquifer. The confined aquifers consist of sands and limestones in the Clayton formation of Paleocene age and the Nanafalia and Tuscahoma formations of Early Eocene age; and sands and limestones in the Hatchetigbee, Tallahatta, and lower Lisbon formations of Early to Middle Eocene ages. The unconfined aquifer consists of sands and limestones in the upper Lisbon, Moodys Branch, and Ocala formations of Middle to Late Eocene ages, and silty or gravelly sands in the Residuum and alluvium deposits of Oligocene to Recent ages. Water-bearing formations of Late Cretaceous age underlie the principal aquifers and are potential sources of large quantities of ground water.

The aquifers provide adequate amounts of potable water to individual rural users as well as municipal systems. No significant cones of depression exist in the region.

2.5.1.2 Site Geology 2.5.1.2.1 Site Physiography The site is within the Southern Red Hills subprovince of the East Gulf Coastal Plain physiographic province. The Southern Red Hills subprovince is characterized by hills rising 200 to 400 ft above adjacent valleys. This relief is developed on limestones of Eocene and Oligocene age. At the site, these limestones have been severely weathered into a residue of non-calcareous sand, silt, and clay, referred to as residuum. As a result, the typical karst topography of the Southern Red Hills is not present and local relief is only 50 to 100 ft.

The Upland and the Chattahoochee River Valley constitute the two basic topographic features at the site.

The Upland surface is gently undulating and ranges from about 170 ft MSL to over 240 ft MSL. It has been developed on residual sands, silts, and clays. The surface slopes generally eastward toward the 2.5-17 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2 floodplain of the Chattahoochee River. Some gullying has progressed from the lower elevations to etch irregularities into the Upland surface. Rock Creek drains the Upland below elevation 130 ft MSL.

The eastern border of the Upland, at approximately 170 ft MSL, corresponds with the western rim of the Chattahoochee River Valley. The ground surface slopes steeply from 170 ft MSL to the floodplain below 130 ft MSL. The floodplain is essentially flat, although narrow gullies and low dunes result in 30 ft of relief. The width of the floodplain near the site ranges from 2500 to 3000 ft. The Chattahoochee River generally flows 20 to 30 ft below the floodplain surface. The site topography is shown on drawing D-176901, Site Boring Plan.

The present topography was developed by chemical weathering, fluvial erosion, and fluvial deposition.

Limestones of Late Eocene age that are present in areas surrounding the site have been leached of calcareous material at the site. Erosion of the residual soils by small streams resulted in the present configuration of the Upland. The Chattahoochee River shaped the landforms in the river valley east of the Upland. The steep slopes separating the Upland from the floodplain were probably formed by river erosion, occurring when the river flowed either west of its present channel or at a higher water stage.

The floodplain material, which consists of gravelly sand and clay, was deposited by the Chattahoochee River over a wide area. The courses of streams entering the river valley, such as Rock Creek, have been modified by deposition on the floodplain during floods. Rock Creek apparently occupies an old channel of the Chattahoochee River adjacent to the Upland. Its northward course was probably taken when material deposited from the Chattahoochee during floods filled the eastern extension of Rock Creek on the Chattahoochee River floodplain.

2.5.1.2.2 Site Geologic Conditions The site is within a transitional zone between the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain provinces. However, the stratigraphy of the area is more closely allied with the Gulf Coastal Plain province.(7) Scattered deep borings in Houston County, Alabama, and Early County, Georgia, indicate that pre-Cretaceous basement rock underlying the site consists of flat lying, consolidated, unmetamorphosed Paleozoic formations.

Overlying the basement rock are relatively unconsolidated sedimentary units that range in age from Triassic(?) to Recent. (See figures 2.5-4, -5, and -11.) These units dip Gulfward at about 10 ft/mile and thicken downdip. Sea level fluctuations resulted in erosion of the units after their deposition.

Moderate relief was developed on the units during low sea level stands and before deposition of the next unit. The only structural feature near the site is the Gordon anticline, about 10 miles to the south. (See paragraph 2.5.1.1.6.1.) The anticline has had no influence on geologic formations underlying the site.

Materials from the following geologic units, listed from oldest to youngest, were found in geologic and foundation borings drilled at the site: Tallahatta, Lisbon, and Moodys Branch formations of Eocene age; Residuum of Oligocene and Miocene age; and floodplain deposits of Pleistocene and Recent age. Pilot holes for two water wells drilled at the site penetrated below the Tallahatta formation. One of the holes extended into the following geologic units, listed from oldest to youngest: Ripley and Providence formations of Late Cretaceous age; Clayton formation of Paleocene age; and Nanafalia, Tuscahoma, and Hatchetigbee formations of Early Eocene age.

The Ripley formation consists of light gray, very fine- to medium-grained, calcareous, micaceous, glauconitic sand; sandstone; and calcareous sandy clay. Seventy-three ft of Ripley material was found 2.5-18 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2 below the top of the unit at elevation 939 ft MSL. The total thickness of the unit was not penetrated below the site.

An unconformity separates the Ripley formation and the overlying Providence formation. The Providence is about 85 ft thick, with the top of the formation at elevation 854 ft MSL. It is composed of fine- to coarse-grained, micaceous, glauconitic, fossiliferous sand; sandy, calcareous, fossiliferous clay; and sandy, fossiliferous limestone.

The Ripley and Providence formations are representative of Selma group strata found elsewhere in the region. They were probably deposited in a shallow to moderately deep marine environment. The unconformity between the formations was the result of a minor retreat of the sea before advancement and deposition of Providence materials.(14)

The Clayton formation of Paleocene age consists of over 300 ft of sandy and fossiliferous limestone and minor amounts of interbedded, coarse-grained sand and micaceous, sandy clay. The top of the formation is at 554 ft MSL. The disconformity separating the Clayton from the underlying Providence formation represents a long interval of time, as indicated by the great faunal change. As the Paleocene sea spread inland over the eroded Cretaceous strata, clay, marl, and shale were deposited in southwest Alabama. In central Alabama, these sediments became more calcareous. Farther east, they are predominately limestone, such as that found in the Clayton formation beneath the site.(14)

Below 439 ft MSL are 115 ft of sand and limestone of the Nanafalia formation. The sand is greenish gray, medium- to coarse-grained, and overlies the light gray, sandy, fossiliferous limestone. Calcareous sandy clay separates the above lithologies from a basal coarse-grained gravelly sand.

The Nanafalia is conformable with the overlying Tuscahoma formation. The Tuscahoma consists of silty and sandy, dark gray, laminated carbonaceous clay overlying light gray, calcareous, silty sandstone.

The basal part of the unit consists of about 20 ft of very coarse-grained, fossiliferous, gravelly sand. The top of the Tuscahoma is at 199 ft MSL; the formation is about 240 ft thick.

The Hatchetigbee formation, also known as the Bashi marl, conformably overlies the Tuscahoma formation. The Hatchetigbee is between 34 and 45 ft thick beneath the site, with the top of the formation at about 160 ft MSL. It consists of fossiliferous, calcareous, glauconitic, quartz sand or sandstone.

The Nanafalia, Tuscahoma, and Hatchetigbee formations of Early Eocene age represent deposition during a gradual advance and retreat of the sea in Wilcox time. Basal strata, such as those in the Nanafalia formation, represent non-marine and marginal-to-shallow marine deposition as the sea first encroached on eroded Paleocene deposits. As the shoreline continued to move inland, modified by minor stillstands and retreats, shallow to moderately deep marine materials of the Tuscahoma were deposited.

The Hatchetigbee represents marine deposition as the seal level began to slowly fall. These uppermost deposits were severely eroded before the deposition of later formations.(11)

The Tallahatta formation of Middle Eocene age unconformably overlies the Hatchetigbee formation. The top of the Tallahatta ranges from 13 ft MSL to 41 ft MSL. Total thickness of the unit is about 135 ft. The Tallahatta consists of sandy, fossiliferous limestone overlain by sand and clay beds; sandy, calcareous claystone; and glauconitic, fossiliferous, calcareous quartz sand. These materials were deposited in a shallow to moderately deep marine environment. In the site area, the Tallahatta was eroded following deposition.

2.5-19 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2 Materials in the overlying Middle Eocene Lisbon formation include calcareous claystone, sandy claystone, silty sandstone, sandstone, and thin layers of uncemented sand. The indurated sediments are variable, grading from claystone to sandstone in short vertical and horizontal distances. The thickness of the Lisbon at the site averages about 132 ft. The top of the unit over most of the site ranges from 90 ft MSL to 103 ft MSL, although near the Chattahoochee River the top may be as low as 50 ft MSL. The Lisbon was deposited in a warm, shallow water environment during Claiborne time. The Lisbon provides the foundation for the major plant structures.

The Moodys Branch formation of Late Eocene age consists of a white and tan, porous, fossiliferous limestone that contains fine- to coarse-grained quartz sand. The top of this limestone is between 111 ft MSL and 98 ft MSL in the Upland area. Maximum thickness of the unit is 18 ft. Under the floodplain surface, the limestone is much thinner and only locally present, owing to erosion by the Chattahoochee River. The Moodys Branch formation was deposited on the eroded Lisbon surface in a warm, near shore, shallow marine environment.

The Moodys Branch limestone is overlain by Residuum deposits in the Upland area and by floodplain deposits in the Chattahoochee River Valley. The lower part of the Residuum consists of a yellow and orange, silty, fine- to coarse-grained sand. This basal sand is overlain by discontinuous layers of silty clay, silty sand, and sand that contain silicified, fossiliferous limestone or chert boulders in the higher Upland areas. Under the dam section of the storage pond dam and dike, the basal sand lies directly on the Lisbon formation, with no intervening layer of Moodys Branch limestone. In most borings on the floodplain, both the limestone and upper and lower Residuum units are absent, and floodplain deposits up to 50 ft thick rest on the eroded Lisbon surface. Thickness of the Residuum is between 30 and 120 ft.

The basal, coarser sand is probably the insoluble portion of the Moodys Branch limestone. The angular, fine to coarse quartz grains in the basal sand are similar to the coarse clastics found in the Moodys Branch formation. The upper part of the Residuum is probably insoluble material from a limestone deposited immediately after the Moodys Branch. The contact between the basal and upper Residuum units is gradational, which indicates continual deposition. Evidence supporting a limestone origin for this upper portion includes scattered boulders of silicified limestone or chert in the upper silty sand layers, and clay-filled joint patterns in outcrops of Residuum in the Upland area. The limestone from which these upper deposits were derived was probably the Ocala limestone of Late Eocene age.

Outcrops of Ocala exist about 95 miles south of the site. The contact between the Ocala and underlying Moodys Branch at this location is conformable and gradational. Clastic material within the Ocala is similar to that found in the upper part of the Residuum.(31) At the site, calcareous material within the Ocala has been completely removed by solution, leaving insoluble sands, silts, and clays. Leaching of the Moody Branch is nearly complete, with a relatively thin section of limestone underlying in insoluble fine-to coarse- grained sand.

Deposits in the floodplain consist of sand and gravel overlain by mixtures of sand, silt, and clay. The floodplain deposits are not found above 138 ft MSL and are generally found below 125 ft MSL. There are no river terrace deposits between the Upland and the floodplain surface. The floodplain material was deposited during Pleistocene or Recent times when the Chattahoochee River flowed over a much greater area than at present.

2.5-20 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2 2.5.1.2.3 Site Structural Geology Structural features in the vicinity of the site include the Gordon anticline and the Apalachicola embayment. Other features of questionable existence in the site vicinity include the Chattahoochee anticline, Ft. Gaines fault, Cypress fault, and several small anticlines in southeastern Alabama. None of these structural units are of significance to the site. These features are discussed in detail in subsection 2.5.1.1.6.1, Description of Tectonic Structures.

A site structural geologic map showing contours of the top of the Lisbon formation is presented on figure 2.5-8. The Lisbon is the foundation for the major plant structures. The contours indicate that the Lisbon surface has been modified by post- depositional erosion. The erosion occurred before deposition of the Moodys Branch formation in the Upland and western floodplain areas, and is presently occurring near the channel of the Chattahoochee River. Structural features do not appear to influence the Lisbon surface.

2.5.1.2.4 Site Geologic Map A geologic map of the site is presented on figure 2.5-9. This map shows the locations of major structures of the plant including Category I structures and the known and inferred contacts between surficial materials. Figure 2.5-10, Areal Geologic Map, shows the relationship of the site geology to the surrounding area.

2.5.1.2.5 Site Geologic History The geologic history of the site is closely allied with the geologic history of the East Gulf Coastal Plain province. Underlying the site are rocks of Triassic(?) to Recent ages that extend to or have equivalents in other areas of the Gulf Coast. Structural features found elsewhere in the Gulf or Atlantic coastal plains have not influenced the geology of the site.

Data from oil test wells in southeastern Alabama indicate that Triassic(?) sedimentary rocks may overlie unmetamorphosed Paleozoic sediments beneath the site. The test well nearest the site penetrating Triassic(?) material is 9 miles to the north.(14) The Triassic(?) rocks were probably laid down as continental deposits in inland basins or graben-faulted areas. During the Jurassic, the Triassic(?) rocks were eroded. Deposition of Jurassic formations did not occur in the area of the site.(7)

Initial deposition of marine and fluvial coastal plain sediments under the site occurred in the Cretaceous.

Comanchean and Gulfian materials were deposited as the sea transgressed over eroded Triassic(?) units.

The Ripley and Providence formations represent Late Cretaceous deposition below the site. A period of erosion marked the end of the Cretaceous.(7)

Tertiary depositional patterns were determined by cyclic advances and retreats of the sea. As the sea spread inland, near shore to moderately deep marine deposits were laid down on the eroded surface of older units. As the sea retreated, newly deposited material was eroded. This pattern of transgression and deposition followed by regression and erosion was repeated throughout the Tertiary, and is found in the strata beneath the site.(11) 2.5-21 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2 The Late Eocene limestones deposited in the vicinity of the site have been weathered since the Oligocene.

Leaching of calcareous material by solution formed the residual sand, silt, and clay soils. The surficial deposits in the western part of the site have been eroded by streams flowing through the area.

The Chattahoochee River has modified the eastern part of the site by eroding residual soils and depositing floodplain materials.(31)

Details of the history of each formation found at the site are included in subsection 2.5.1.2.2, Site Geologic Conditions. A site geologic column is shown on figure 2.5-11.

2.5.1.2.6 Plot Plan Information concerning the locations of major structures of the plant, including all Category I structures, and borings made at the site are presented on figures 2B1-1 through 2B1-4 and drawings D-176900, D-176901, and D-176902. The coordinates of the borings are listed on figure 2B2-1. The graphic logs of the borings are shown on figures 2B2-2 and 2B2-3, and drawings D-176940, D-176941, D-176942, D-176943, D-176944, D-176945, D-176946, D-176947, D-176948, D-176949, D-176950, D-176951, D-176952, D-176953, D-176954, D-176955, D-176956, D-176963, D-176957, D-176958, D-176959, D-176970, D-176971, D-176972, D-176973, D-176974, D-176975, D-176976, D-176960, D-176961, D-176964, D-176962, D-176965, D-176966, D-176967, D-176968, D-176969, D-176979, D-176996, D-176977 and D-176978. Discussion of findings is presented in appendix 2B, subsection 2B.4.3, Subsurface Conditions.

2.5.1.2.7 Geologic Profiles and Plant Foundations The relationship of the major foundations to subsurface materials is presented in the form of generalized subsurface profiles which are shown on figures 2B4-10 through 2B4-15, 2B4-21, and drawings D-176920, D-176921, D-176922, D-176923, D-176924, D-176925, D-176926, D-176927, D-176928, D-176929, D-176930, D-176931, D-176933, and D-176934. The subsurface and ground water conditions are discussed in subsections 2B.3.4 and 2B.4.4. The significant engineering characteristics of the subsurface materials are discussed in subsection 2B.7.2 and are shown graphically on figures 2B5B-1 through 2B5B-21. All Category I buildings are founded on siltstone, sandstone, and claystone of the Lisbon formation.

2.5.1.2.8 Excavations and Backfill The methods of excavation and compaction of fills are presented in appendix 2B, section 2B.10. The plant area excavation plan and sections are shown on figure 2B1-5. The storage pond dam and dike foundation excavations are shown on drawings D-176983 and D-176997. Compaction criteria are 95 percent (minimum) of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 698 for fills in the plant area. In the storage pond area, the dam, and dike embankments are compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum standard Proctor dry density (ASTM D 698) except for material with a plasticity index less than 13, placed in the dam embankment between stations 10+00 and 16+00, upstream of the chimney drain and beneath the horizontal filter blanket. Such material is compacted to a minimum of 98 percent of ASTM D 698. (See appendix 2B, subsection 2B.7.6.8.A.)

2.5-22 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2 2.5.1.2.9 Evaluation of Local Geology 2.5.1.2.9.1 Prior Earthquake Effects. There is no evidence to suggest that surficial or subsurface materials at the site have been affected by prior earthquakes. No fault planes were penetrated by the numerous site borings or exposed in any of the excavations. The tops of formations and beds within the formations do not exhibit offset due to faulting or slumping. The steep slopes between the Upland and the floodplain are not marked by slumps. Stream courses are not offset along any lineations associated with structural features. No topographic features can be attributed to prior earthquakes. Earthquake activity apparently has had no effect on the materials at the site.

2.5.1.2.9.2 Deformational Zones. Inspection of outcrops and subsurface samples of the Lisbon formation, which is the foundation material for the major plant structures, has revealed that there are no deformational zones within Lisbon material. The top of the Lisbon is between 90 ft MSL and 103 ft MSL under most of the site, and between 50 ft MSL and 90 ft MSL near the eastern boundary of the site. This relief is due to erosion of the surface rather than structural deformation. The top of the Lisbon generally dips southward at about 12 ft per mile, which is similar to the regional dip of coastal plain strata. There are no reversals of dip of the Lisbon in the vicinity of the site. Exposures approximately 1 mile and 5 miles north of the site do not contain joints or fractures. Cores of the Lisbon formation at the site do not exhibit shear zones or fractures. The site foundation material does not contain deformational zones of any kind.

2.5.1.2.9.3 Zones of Alteration or Weakness. The foundation material (Lisbon formation) has not been altered by chemical weathering. Fluvial and marine erosion shaped the top of the Lisbon into its present configuration (figure 2.5-8) before deposition of succeeding formations.

The top of the Moodys Branch formation exhibits an irregular weathering profile. This profile is due to solution of carbonate material within the limestone. The foundations of the major plant structures are well below the limestone and are not affected by solution activity. Under the storage pond dam section the Moodys Branch is absent. There is no evidence that solution activity will affect structures in that area.

There are no zones of structural weakness composed of crushed or disturbed materials underlying the site.

2.5.1.2.9.4 Bedrock Stress. Almost 7000 ft of coastal plain deposits overlie Paleozoic bedrock beneath the site. Therefore, bedrock stresses are not applicable in considering the design and operation of the plant.

2.5.1.2.9.5 Potentially Unstable Soils. There are no potentially unstable soils at the site under any of the plant structures. The characteristics of the soils and rocks underlying the site are discussed in detail in appendix 2B: the site conditions in section 2B.4, and the properties of soil and rock and the foundation evaluations in section 2B.7.

2.5-23 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2 There are no soils or rocks under any plant structures that have potentially undesirable responses to seismic events. Sandy overburden soils were analyzed for liquefaction potential (see subsection 2B.7.5) and found not susceptible to liquefaction.

2.5.1.2.9.6 Effects of Man's Activities. The effects of man's activities on geologic conditions at the site are discussed in subsection 2.5.1.1.6.2, Areas of Potential Unstability. There are no mining or mineral extraction activities occurring near the site, and ground water extraction is nominal in this area of low population. Therefore, there are no human activities that will affect site geologic conditions.

2.5.1.2.10 Site Ground Water Conditions.

Site ground water conditions are described in detail in subsections 2.4.13.1.2 and 2.4.13.2.2. In general, there is one unconfined aquifer and two confined aquifers underlying the site. The three aquifers slope eastward toward the Chattahoochee River between 36 ft/mile and 6 ft/mile. Present and projected usage of ground water in the vicinity of the site, discussed in subsections 2.4.13.2.1 and 2.4.13.2.3, will not affect the present ground water conditions. Ground water for plant usage is withdrawn from a deep, confined aquifer at a maximum rate of 615 gal/min. Wells in the vicinity of the site are not affected by withdrawal for plant usage.

2.5.1.2.11 Geophysical Survey Results Results of refractive and downhole geophysical surveys conducted at the site are shown on drawings D-176990 and D-176991, respectively. Refractive geophysical surveys are also shown in figures 2B3-3 through 2B3-10. Crosshole geophysical survey is shown in figure 2B3-10. A discussion of the significance of the geophysical results is included in subsections 2B.3.3 and 2B.7.2.2 in appendix 2B.

2.5.1.2.12 Static and Dynamic Properties The static and dynamic properties of site materials are discussed in subsection 2B.7.2.1, Static Properties, and subsection 2B.7.2.2, Dynamic Properties, in appendix 2B. The results of laboratory testing are shown on figures 2B5-1 through 2B5-47, Soil Test Results Summary; figures 2B5A-1 through 2B5A-4, Summary Rock Test Data; figures 2B5B-1 through 2B5B-5, Static Soil Properties; figure 2B5B-6, Static Rock Properties; figure 2B5B-7, Dynamic Soil and Rock Properties; and figure 2B6-1, Laboratory Cyclic Test Results. These figures are found in appendix 2B.

2.5.1.2.13 Safety Criteria and Analysis Techniques The safety criteria and methods of analysis are discussed in detail in appendix 2B. Section 2B.7, Foundation Evaluation, presents the results of all analyses performed. The foundation conditions provide the safe support of all structures.

2.5-24 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2 2.5.2 VIBRATORY GROUND MOTION 2.5.2.1 Site Geologic Conditions The lithologic, stratigraphic, and structural geologic conditions of the site, including its geologic history, are discussed in subsection 2.5.1.1.5, Regional Geologic Conditions; subsection 2.5.1.2.2, Site Geologic Conditions; subsection 2.5.1.2.3, Site Structural Geology; and subsection 2.5.1.2.5, Site Geologic History.

Nearly 7000 ft of coastal plain sediments, ranging in age from Cretaceous to Recent, underlie the site.

These sediments consist of sand, clay, marl, sandstone, shale, and limestone. No structural features affect materials underlying the site.

The Lisbon formation of Eocene age is the bearing stratum for the plant Category I structures. It consists of sandstone, siltstone, claystone, and thin layers of sand. Engineering properties of the Lisbon formation are discussed in subsection 2B.7.2 in appendix 2B.

2.5.2.2 Underlying Tectonic Structures Tectonic structures underlying the site and the region surrounding the site are discussed in subsection 2.5.1.1.6.1, Description of Tectonic Structures, and shown on figures 2.5-3 and 2.5-3A. All structural features, whether existent or hypothetical, are beyond 9 miles from the site. None have been active since Miocene time. Therefore, no structural features are of significance to the site.

2.5.2.3 Behavior During Prior Earthquakes The effects of prior earthquakes on materials at the site are discussed in subsection 2.5.1.2.9.1, Prior Earthquake Effects. Earthquake activity has apparently had no effect on site materials.

2.5.2.4 Engineering Properties of Site Materials The properties of the underlying site materials are discussed in detail in appendix 2B, subsection 2B.7.2 2.5.2.5 Earthquake History The site is located within a broad region of infrequent seismic activity encompassing southern Alabama, southern Georgia, and adjacent Florida. Figure 2.5-12, Seismic Risk Map of the U.S., shows that the site is in an inactive seismic region, characterized by a few low magnitude and low intensity shocks. The site is located in Zone 1, near the Zone 0-Zone 1 border. The nearest Zone 2 is 85 miles away, and the nearest Zone 3 is 255 miles distant. Zone 1 is described as follows: "Minor damage; distant earthquakes may cause damage to structures with fundamental periods greater than 1.0 second; corresponds to intensities V and VI of the MM Scale" (Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale of 1931, table 2.5-1).

2.5-25 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2 Table 2.5-2 is a list of historically reported earthquakes having epicenters within 250 miles of the site.

The locations of these earthquakes are shown on figure 2.5-13, Tectonic and Epicenter Map. Of the 31 earthquakes listed, 15 had epicenters within the coastal plain provinces. No earthquakes occurring in the coastal plains had an intensity greater than VI (MM), and none within the East Gulf Coastal Plain had an intensity greater than V (MM).(37 38 39)

A review of the literature indicates that none of the 31 shocks had damaging effects within the plant vicinity or in Dothan, Alabama, approximately 16.5 miles to the west.(37) The microfilm files of the Dothan Eagle newspaper, published in Dothan, were researched to determine if any of the earthquakes were felt by local residents. Records for the period 1905 through 1966 were available for review. No accounts of local earthquake damage nor of any earthquake being felt by local residents were reported.

2.5.2.6 Correlation of Epicenters with Geologic Structures Earthquakes having epicenters within 250 miles of the site are listed on table 2.5-2 and shown on figure 2.5-13, Tectonic and Epicenter Map. The epicenters are associated with tectonic provinces. Those earthquakes with epicenters inland from the Fall Line are assigned to various provinces of the Appalachian mountain system. Those having epicenters seaward of the Fall Line are assigned to the coastal plain provinces. Table 2.5-3 is a list of the earthquakes and their associated tectonic provinces.

2.5.2.7 Identification of Active Faults There are no faults within 200 miles of the site that are considered significant to the site. Faults within the Appalachian mountain system are over 100 miles from the site and are in a separate tectonic province. If movement along these faults has caused earthquakes in historic times, none has had a greater intensity than VII (MM) (see figure 2.5-13 and table 2.5-3), and their intensities at the site would be much lower. They are therefore not significant in establishing the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE).

No faults in the coastal plain provinces within 200 miles of the site are considered active. A discussion of coastal plain faults is included in subsection 2.5.1.1.6.1, Description of Tectonic Structures.

2.5.2.8 Description of Active Faults No active faults exist within 200 miles of the site. Active faults, therefore, are not a factor in establishing the safe shutdown earthquake.

2.5.2.9 Maximum Earthquake Because the earthquakes listed on table 2.5-2 did not produce intensities at the site capable of causing damage, a review of distant earthquakes having high intensities was made. Of the two studied, neither was felt at the site with an intensity high enough to cause damage.

Perhaps the largest intensities to be felt at the site would have been caused by the New Madrid, Missouri, earthquakes of 1811 and 1812, and by the Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake of 1886. The earthquakes that occurred in the vicinity of New Madrid on December 16, 1811, and February 7, 1812, 2.5-26 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2 have been assigned epicentral intensities of XII (MM) and Richter magnitudes greater than 8.0 by seismologists. Although New Madrid is 450 miles from the site, those earthquakes have been considered the most widely felt in the seismic history of the United States. An area of 2,000,000 square miles may have been affected. No damage was cited for the southeastern part of Alabama, but some chimneys were partially damaged in northern Georgia. The intensity at the site may have been as high as V (MM).(37)

The Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake of 1886 occurred approximately 320 miles from the site.

Although no damage was reported for Dothan, Alabama, an isoseismal of Rossi-Forel intensity VI (Modified Mercalii V) from this seismic event passes very near the site. (See figure 2.5-14, Isoseismal Map of 1886 Charleston, S.C., Earthquake.)(37) This intensity corresponds with a surface acceleration of 0.017 g on Hershberger's (1956) curve and 0.03 g on Neumann's (1954) curve.

2.5.2.10 Safe Shutdown Earthquake For the safe shutdown earthquake that is considered for safe plant shutdown and which exceeds in intensity any probable earthquake to be experienced at the site, an intensity of low to moderate VI (MM) is selected. No earthquakes with an intensity greater than V (MM) have occurred in the East Gulf Coastal Plain, and it is unlikely that an intensity of VI (MM) has ever been felt at the site. An intensity of VI (MM) is equivalent to 0.046 g and 0.062 g on Hershberger's (1956) and Neumann's (1954) curves, respectively. However, a horizontal surface acceleration of 0.1 g is conservatively selected for the safe shutdown earthquake. The selected maximum vertical surface acceleration is two-thirds the maximum horizontal surface acceleration.

The Rev. Daniel Linehan was retained to evaluate independently the seismic conditions at the site. A letter summarizing his conclusions is included as figure 2.5-15.

A detailed discussion of response spectra, critical damping factors, and time history accelerogram is presented in subsection 3.7.1.1. Response spectra for the safe shutdown earthquake are presented on figure 3.7-1.

2.5.2.11 1/2 Safe Shutdown Earthquake Although intensity V (MM) correlates with a horizontal acceleration of 0.017 g on Hershberger's curve and 0.03 g on the Neumann curve, a conservative value of 0.05 g is selected for the 1/2 safe shutdown earthquake. The selected maximum vertical surface acceleration is two-thirds the maximum horizontal surface acceleration. Response spectra for the 1/2 SSE are shown on figure 3.7-2.

2.5.3 SURFACE FAULTING Because of the absence of surface faulting in the vicinity of the site, there is no need for the plant to be designed for surface faulting. The nearest occurrence of known surface faulting is the Andersonville fault, 85 miles north of the site. There are no active faults within 200 miles of the site. (See subsection 2.5.1.1.6.1.)

2.5-27 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2 2.5.3.1 Geologic Conditions of the Site The lithologic, stratigraphic, and structural geologic conditions of the site and vicinity, including geologic history, are discussed in subsection 2.5.1.1.5, Regional Geologic Conditions; subsection 2.5.1.2.2, Site Geologic Conditions; subsection 2.5.1.2.3, Site Structural Geology; and subsection 2.5.1.2.5, Site Geologic History.

2.5.3.2 Evidence of Fault Offset Pertinent publications, geologic investigations in the site vicinity, and investigations of construction excavations indicate that there is no fault offset at or near the ground surface at or near the site.

2.5.3.3 Identification of Active Faults No faults in the coastal plain provinces within 200 miles of the site are considered active. A discussion of coastal plain faults is included in subsection 2.5.1.1.6.1, Description of Tectonic Structures.

2.5.3.4 Earthquakes Associated with Active Faults None of the earthquakes within 200 miles of the site can be reasonably associated with active faults.

Earthquakes for this area are listed in table 2.5-2, and none is associated with faults within 5 miles of the site.

2.5.3.5 Correlation of Epicenters with Active Faults No epicenters of historically reported earthquakes can be correlated with active faults within 5 miles of the site.

2.5.3.6 Description of Active Faults There are no active faults within 5 miles of the site. A discussion of coastal plain faults is included in subsection 2.5.1.1.6.1, Description of Tectonic Structures.

2.5.3.7 Faulting Investigation Zone Published reports of the site area and geologic investigations at the site indicate that the area contains no faults. The coastal plain strata dip southward, with no reversals of dip or offset in the beds. A detailed faulting investigation was not required.

2.5-28 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2 2.5.3.8 Justification for Nonexistence of Surface Faulting Data presented in subsection 2.5.1.1.6.1, Description of Tectonic Structures; subsection 2.5.1.2.3, Site Structural Geology; and on figure 2.5-10, Areal Geologic Map, indicate that no faulting exists in the vicinity of the site. No surface offsets were found in geologic investigations at the site or in the area surrounding the site. Coastal plain strata in southeastern Alabama dip uniformly southward at about 10 ft/mile. No fault planes were penetrated by site geologic or foundation borings. Published reports on the geology of the area do not acknowledge any faults. It is concluded that surface faulting need not be taken into account.

2.5.4 STABILITY OF SUBSURFACE MATERIALS Information presented in this section concerns the stability of soils and rock underneath the plant foundations during the vibratory motion associated with the safe shutdown earthquake. In general, this information is included elsewhere in section 2.5 and appendix 2B, and is cross-referenced to appropriate subsections.

2.5.4.1 Geologic Features 2.5.4.1.1 Areas of Potential Instability A discussion of areas of actual or potential surface or subsurface subsidence, uplift, or collapse is included in subsection 2.5.1.1.6.2, Areas of Potential Instability. The plant foundations will not be affected by movement in the areas discussed. No areas of potential surface or subsurface subsidence exist at the plant site.

2.5.4.1.2 Deformational Zones The site foundation material does not contain deformational zones of any kind. A discussion of the foundation material with respect to zones of deformation is included in subsection 2.5.1.2.9.2, Deformational Zones.

2.5.4.1.3 Zones of Alteration or Weakness Subsection 2.5.1.2.9.3, Zones of Alteration or Weakness, contains a discussion of these aspects of materials underlying the site. The only material exhibiting alteration is the Moodys Branch limestone, which is above the foundation grade for the major plant structures. Future solution of the limestone will not affect the plant structures.

2.5-29 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2 2.5.4.1.4 Bedrock Stress Almost 7000 ft of coastal plain deposits overlie Paleozoic bedrock beneath the site. The Paleozoic unmetamorphosed sedimentary rock was eroded before deposition of Mesozoic and Cenozoic sedimentary deposits. It is unlikely that unrelieved residual stresses exist in bedrock. Major deformation has not occurred since pre-Triassic time.(7) 2.5.4.1.5 Potentially Unstable Soils The characteristics of soils underlying the site are discussed in appendix 2B, subsection 2B.7.2, Properties of Soil and Rock. Materials in the foundation stratum (Lisbon formation) are not potentially unstable. Sand, sandstone, and claystone in the underlying Tallahatta formation are highly stable.

2.5.4.2 Properties of Underlying Materials The properties of the underlying materials are discussed in detail in appendix 2B, subsection 2B.7.2.

2.5.4.3 Plot Plan Information concerning the locations of major structures of the plant, including all Category I structures, and borings made at the site are presented on figures 2B1-1 through 2B1-4 and drawings D-176900, D-176901, and D-176902. The coordinates of the borings are listed on figure 2B2-1. The graphic logs of the borings are shown on figures 2B2-2 and 2B2-3, and drawings D-176940, D-176941, D-176942, D-176943, D-176944, D-176945, D-176946, D-176947, D-176948, D-176949, D-176950, D-176951, D-176952, D-176953, D-176954, D-176955, D-176956, D-176963, D-176957, D-176958, D-176959, D-176970, D-176971, D-176972, D-176973, D-176974, D-176975, D-176976, D-176960, D-176961, D-176964, D-176962, D-176965, D-176966, D-176967, D-176968, D-176969, D-176979, D-176996, D-176977 and D-176978. Discussion of findings is presented in appendix 2B in subsection 2B.4.3, Subsurface Conditions.

2.5.4.4 Soil and Rock Characteristics The site subsurface conditions are discussed in detail in appendix 2B. Boring locations, logs, and generalized velocity and subsurface profiles are presented on figures 2B1-1 through 2B1-4, and drawings D-176900, D-176901, D-176902, D-176940, D-176941, D-176942, D-176943, D-176944, D-176945, D-176946, D-176947, D-176948, D-176949, D-176950, D-176951, D-176952, D-176953, D-176954, D-176955, D-176956, D-176963, D-176957, D-176958, D-176959, D-176970, D-176971, D-176972, D-176973, D-176974, D-176975, D-176976, D-176960, D-176961, D-176964, D-176962, D-176965, D-176966, D-176967, D-176968, D-176969, D-176979, D-176996, D-176977, D-176978, figures 2B3-3 through 2B3-10, drawings D-176990, D-176991, figures 2B4-10 through 2B4-15, 2B4-21, and drawings D-176920, D-176921, D-176922, D-176923, D-176924, D-176925, D-176926, D-176927, D-176928, D-176929, D-176930, D-176931, D-176933, and D-176934.

2.5-30 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2 2.5.4.5 Excavations and Backfill The methods of excavation and compaction of fills are presented in appendix 2B, section 2B.10. The plant area excavation plan and sections are shown on figure 2B1-5. The storage pond dam and dike foundation excavations are shown on drawings D-176983 and D-176997. Compaction criteria are 95 percent (minimum) of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 698 for fills in the plant area. In the storage pond area, the dam and dike embankments are compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum standard Proctor dry density (ASTM D 698) except for material with a plasticity index less than 13, placed in the dam embankment between stations 10+00 and 16+00, upstream of the chimney drain and beneath the horizontal filter blanket. Such material is compacted to a minimum of 98 percent of ASTM D 698. (See appendix 2B, subsection 2B.7.6.8.A.)

2.5.4.6 Ground Water Conditions Regional and site ground water conditions are discussed in subsection 2.4.13, Ground Water. One unconfined aquifer and two confined aquifers underlie the site. The ground water surfaces in the three aquifers slope eastward across the site toward the Chattahoochee River. No present or future ground water demands will affect the present site ground water conditions.

2.5.4.7 Dynamic Loading Response Dynamic laboratory testing was performed on undisturbed and compacted soil samples. The results of cyclic triaxial tests and the dynamic response of site soils are presented in subsection 2B.7.5.

Fresh rock specimens were also subjected to dynamic testing. The responses of the rock specimens indicate that there were no deleterious effects on the rock samples under dynamic loading. The shear moduli, determined from the resonant column test, ranged from 36,000 psi for soft clayey siltstone to 65,000 psi for hard sandstone. Damping ratio, determined from the decay curve of the resonant column test, ranged from 2 to 6 percent. Cyclic triaxial tests were performed on representative rock core specimens to determine the magnitude of strain under dynamic loading conditions. Confining pressures of 60 and 80 psi were used and axial loadings of 0.4 to 1.6 times the confining pressure were applied at the rate of 2 cycles per second. The peak to peak axial strain ranged from 0.03 to 0.49 percent. The higher strains were associated with the higher axial loading conditions. The results of the resonant column and cyclic triaxial tests are presented on figure 2B5B-7. The laboratory testing procedures are presented in subsection 2B.5.4.

2.5.4.8 Liquefaction Potential There are no liquefaction susceptible soils under any of the plant structure foundations. Sandy overburden soils were evaluated and found not to be susceptible to liquefaction. Detailed discussions of the procedures used and results obtained are presented in appendix 2B, subsection 2B.7.5. The minimum computed factor of safety for the sandy overburden soils against initial liquefaction is 1.4. (See Storage Pond, subsection 2B.7.6.5.) It is therefore concluded that foundation instability does not occur during the postulated seismic motion.

2.5-31 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2 2.5.4.9 Earthquake Design Basis Basis of earthquake design is the safe shutdown earthquake, with a maximum horizontal acceleration equal to 10 percent of the acceleration of gravity. Background for selection of the safe shutdown earthquake is provided in subsection 2.5.2.10, safe shutdown earthquake.

2.5.4.10 Static Analyses The stability of soil and rock foundations for static as well as dynamic loads and for adverse ground water level conditions was evaluated by performing bearing capacity, settlement, liquefaction, and slope stability analyses. These analyses are discussed in detail in appendix 2B, section 2B.7.

2.5.4.11 Criteria and Design Methods Bearing capacity analyses were based on the equations developed by Terzaghi. Drilled piers that penetrate into the Lisbon formation were considered to be end bearing only with no shaft frictional resistance. Mat foundations, which rest either on the Lisbon formation or on compacted fill, were considered flexible or rigid depending on the stiffness of the structure relative to the foundation material.

A minimum factor of safety against a static bearing capacity or shear failure was established at 3 and was defined as:

q FS = ult - qs q

a - qs where FS = factor of safety against static shear failure q

ult = gross ultimate bearing capacity of foundation soil or rock - lb/ft2 q

s = intensity of effective surcharge material above foundation base - lb/ft2 q

a = total or gross applied pressure at the foundation base - lb/ft2.

The minimum factor of safety against a dynamic shear failure was established as 2. Settlement analyses were based on the theory of consolidation in the case of saturated primarily cohesive soil, and on the theory of elasticity in the case of nonsaturated or primarily frictional soils. Settlements of Category I structures were measured and found to be small. A discussion is presented in subsection 2B.7.3.1 of appendix 2B.

Liquefaction analyses were made using laboratory cyclic triaxial test results of relatively undisturbed and compacted soil samples. (See subsection 2B.7.5, appendix 2B.)

Slope stability during static and dynamic loading was evaluated by means of the circular arc and slices method of analysis. (See section 2B.8, appendix 2B.) The minimum factors of safety against sliding or shear failure for all slopes are established as follows:

2.5-32 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2 A. Normal conditions: For normal operating conditions without the earthquake and with the most adverse water level, the minimum factor of safety is 1.5.

B. Earthquake conditions: For the addition of the effect of the SSE to the normal operating conditions, the minimum factor of safety is 1.1.

C. Construction conditions: For temporary construction conditions, the minimum factor of safety is 1.3.

All slopes at the site are designed to meet the above criteria.

The results of the stability analyses are given in section 2B.8, appendix 2B, and on figures 2B7-18 through 2B7-20.

2.5.4.12 Techniques to Improve Subsurface Conditions The site and foundation materials are stable and capable of supporting the plant loads under static as well as dynamic conditions. Therefore, the improvement of subsurface conditions was not needed.

2.5.5 SLOPE STABILITY 2.5.5.1 Slope Characteristics The site slopes analyzed for stability under static and earthquake conditions included the following:

storage pond dam and dike embankments, river intake channel, pond service water intake channel, reservoir spillway channel, yard fill, and natural terrace near the pond. The slope cross sections, soil properties, and design conditions for the storage pond dam and dike are shown on figure 2B7-18, and for all other slopes on figures 2B7-19 and 2B7-20 of appendix 2B.

2.5.5.2 Design Criteria and Analyses Slope stability during static and dynamic loading was evaluated by means of the circular arc and slices method of analyses.

The conventional pseudo-static approach was used to analyze the earthquake condition. This approach assumes that the earthquake imparts an additional static horizontal force which increases the driving moments tending to produce rotation. The SSE earthquake acceleration used is equal to 10 percent of the acceleration of gravity. Detailed discussions of the various slopes and conditions are presented in section 2B.8 in appendix 2B, and on figures 2B7-18 through 2B7-20. The computed minimum factors of safety for all slopes meet or exceed the minimum requirements. The minimum computed factors of safety of the site slopes for the earthquake condition are presented below:

2.5-33 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2 Height Slope Minimum Factor Location ft H:V of Safety Dam 60 4:1 1.4 UPSTREAM 3:1 1.4 DOWNSTREAM Dike 16 3.5:1 1.2 UPSTREAM 2.5:1 1.2 DOWNSTREAM Pond intake 25 3:1 1.6 channel Reservoir spillway 24 3:1 1.5 channel River intake 40 3:1 1.2 channel Yard fill 40 3:1 1.4 Natural terrace 51 6:1 1.3 near pond 2.5.5.3 Logs of Core Borings The test boring programs for the site are presented in appendix 2B, along with a discussion of the methods used and results obtained. (See sections 2B.3 and 2B.4.) The boring locations are shown on drawings D-176900, D-176901, and D-176902. The boring coordinates are listed on figure 2B2-1. The graphic logs are presented on figures 2B2-2 and 2B2-3, and drawings D-176940, D-176941, D-176942, D-176943, D-176944, D-176945, D-176946, D-176947, D-176948, D-176949, D-176950, D-176951, D-176952, D-176953, D-176954, D-176955, D-176956, D-176963, D-176957, D-176958, D-176959, D-176970, D-176971, D-176972, D-176973, D-176974, D-176975, D-176976, D-176960, D-176961, D-176964, D-176962, D-176965, D-176966, D-176967, D-176968, D-176969, D-176979, D-176996, D-176977, and D-176978.

2.5.5.4 Compaction Specifications In the plant area, the backfill materials are obtained from the excavations for the structures, placed in 8-in. loose layers, and compacted to 95 percent of the maximum standard Proctor dry density (ASTM D 698). Excavation slopes and backfill in the plant area are shown in appendix 2B on figures 2B4-10 through 2B4-14.

In the storage pond area, the dam and dike embankment fill materials are obtained from an onsite borrow and placed in thin layers. The dam and dike embankments are compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum standard Proctor dry density (ASTM D 698), except for material with a plasticity index less than 13, placed in the dam embankment between stations 10+00 and 16+00, upstream of the chimney 2.5-34 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2 drain and beneath the horizontal filter blanket. Such material is compacted to a minimum of 98 percent of ASTM D 698. (See appendix 2B, subsection 2B.7.6.8.A.) Details of excavation and earthwork in the storage pond area are presented in appendix 2B on figures 2B7-14 through 2B7-23, and drawings D-176980, D-176984, D-176985, D-176986, D-176987, D-176988, D-176989, D-176983, D-176997, D-176994, D-176995, D-176981, D-176982, and D-176939. Field moisture and density tests are made to assure compliance with the specified compaction criteria. A complete discussion of the storage pond embankment design, analysis, construction, pond filling, and performance is presented in subsection 2B.7.6 of appendix 2B.

2.5-35 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2 REFERENCES

1. Copeland, C.W., 1968, Geology of the Alabama Coastal Plain - A Guidebook, Geological Survey of Alabama, Circ. 47, 97 p.

2. Fenneman, N.M., 1938, Physiography of Eastern United States McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 714 p.

3. Eardley, A.J., 1962, Structural Geology of North America, 2nd Edition, Harper & Row, New York, 743 p

4. Hatcher, R.D., Jr., 1972, "Developmental Model for the Southern Appalachians,"

Geol. Soc. of America Bull., v. 83, p. 2735 - 2760.

5. Sever, C.W., 1964, "The Chattahoochee Anticline in Georgia," Georgia Mineral Newsletter, v.

17, p. 39 - 43.

6. Mineral and Water Resources - Houston County, Alabama, Geological Survey of Alabama, Information Series 38, 1969, 36 p.

7. Murray, G.E., 1961, Geology of the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Province of North America, Harper & Brothers, New York, 961 p

8. Bentley, R.D., and Neathery, T.L., 1970, Geology of the Brevard Fault Zone and Related Rocks of the Inner Piedmont of Alabama, - Alabama Geological Society, Guidebook for the Eighth Annual Field Trip, 119 P.

9. Neathery, T.L., and Reynolds, T.W., 1973, "Stratigraphy and Metamorphism of the Wedowee Group: A Reconnaissance," Preliminary draft for publication in the American Journal of Science.

10. Moore, D.B., 1971, Subsurface Geology of Southwest Alabama, Geological Survey of Alabama, Bull. 99, 80 p.

11. Stephenson, L.W., 1928, "Marine Transgressions and Regressions of the Gulf Coastal Plain, American Journal of Science, 5th Ser., v. 16, no. 94, p. 281 - 298.

12. Kupfer, D.H., ed. 1967, Geology and Technology of Gulf Coast Salt, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, La., 1970, 192 p.

13. King, P.B., 1969, The Tectonics of Middle North America, Hafner Publishing Co., New York, 203 p.

14. Moore, D.B., and Joiner, T.J., 1969, A Subsurface Study of Southeast Alabama, Geological Survey of Alabama, Bull. 88, 33 p.

2.5-36 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2

15. Hastings, E.L., and Toulmin, L.D., 1963, Summary of Paleocene and Eocene Stratigraphy and Economic Geology Southeastern Alabama, Southeastern Geological Society, Tenth Annual Field Trip, 31 p.

16. Patterson, S.H., and Herrick, S.M., 1971, Chattahoochee Anticline, Apalachicola Embayment, Gulf Trough and Related Structural Features, Southwestern Georgia, Fact or Fiction: Geological Survey of Georgia, Inf. Circ. 41, 16 p.

17. Olson, N.K., ed., 1966, Geology of the Miocene and Pliocene Series in the North Florida-South Georgia Area: Atlantic Coastal Plain Geological Association and Southeastern Geological Society, Guidebook for 1966 Annual Field Conference, 94 p.

18. Herrick, S.M., and Vorhis, R.C., 1963, Subsurface Geology of the Georgia Coastal Plain, Geological Survey of Georgia, Inf. Circ. 25, 79 p.

19. Maxwell, R.W., Jr., 1971, "Origin and Chronology of Alabama River Terraces:"

Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Societies, Transactions, v. XXI, p. 83 - 95.

20. Sever, C.W., Cathcart, J.B., and Patterson, S.H., 1967, Phosphate Deposits of South-Central Georgia and North-Central Peninsular Florida: Geological Survey of Georgia, South Georgia Minerals Program, Project Report No. 7, 62 p.

21. Adams, G.I., 1921, 1922, 1928, Reports on the Geneva, Four Mile, Shorterville, Jacob's Hill, and McWilliams Anticlines, Manuscript file of the Geological Survey of Alabama.

22. Herrick, S.M., 1961, Well Logs of the Coastal Plain of Georgia, Geological Survey of Georgia Bull. 70, 462 p.

23. Zapp, A.D., and Clark, L.D., 1965, Bauxite in Areas Adjacent To and Between the Springvale and Andersonville Districts, Georgia: U.S.G.S., Bull. 1199-H, 10 p.

24. Moore, W.E., 1955, Geology of Jackson County, Florida, Florida Geological Survey Bull. 37, 101 p.

25. Puri, H.S., 1957, Stratigraphy and Zonation of the Ocala Group, Florida Geological Survey, Bull. 38, 248 p.

26. Rainwater, E.H., 1956, "Geology of Jackson County, Florida, by Wayne E. Moore" [a review]:

AAPG Bu11., v. 40, no. 7, p. 1727 - 1729.

27. Leet, L.D., 1940, "Status of Geological and Geophysical Investigations on the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain,, Geol. Soc. of America Bull., v. 51, no. 6, p. 873 - 886.

28. Toulmin, L.D., 1955, "Cenozoic Geology of Southeastern Alabama, Florida, and Georgia,"

AAPG Bull., v. 39, no. 2, p. 207 - 236.

29. Hager, D., 1918, "Possible Oil and Gas Fields in the Cretaceous Beds of Alabama,"

Amer. Inst. of Mining Engineers, Transactions, v. 59.

2.5-37 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2

30. Adams, G.I., 1929, "The Streams of the Coastal Plain of Alabama and the Lafayette Problem,"

Journal of Geology, v. 37.

31. Toulmin, L.D., and LaMoreaux, P.E., 1963: Stratigraphy Along Chattahoochee River, Connecting Link Between Atlantic and the Gulf Coastal Plain: Geological Survey of Alabama, Reprint Series 4, p. 385 - 404.

32. Zapp, A.D., 1965, Bauxite Deposits of the Andersonville District, Georgia: U.S.G.S., Bull.

1199 - G, 37 p.

33. Applin, P.L., and Applin, E.R., 1944, "Regional Subsurface Stratigraphy and Structure of Florida and Southern Georgia," AAPG Bull., v. 28, no. 12, p. 1673 - 1753.

34. Sever, C.W., 1966, Miocene Structural Movements in Thomas County, Georgia, U.S.G.S., Prof.

Paper 550-C, p. C12 - C16.

35. U.S. Dept. of Commerce NEWS, Release NOAA 72-122, September 22, 1972, 3 p.

36. Marsalis, W.E., 1970, Petroleum Exploration in Georgia, Geological Survey of Georgia, Inf.

Circ. 38, 52 p.

37. Eppley, R.A., 1965, Earthquake History of the United States, Part I: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Coast and Geodetic Survey, 120 p.

38. Seismic History of the Southeast Region of the United States: Computer Printout from Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee; includes area bounded by 27.0-degree North lat.,

35.4-degree North lat., 80.0-degree West long., 90.0-degree West long.

39. Hypocenter Data File: Computer Printout from Earthquake Information Center, Boulder, Colorado; includes area bounded by 27.0 - 35.4-degree North lat., 80.0 - 90.0-degree West long.,

1961 - 1971. ]

2.5-38 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2

[HISTORICAL][TABLE 2.5-1 (SHEET 1 OF 6)

MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE, 1931 Adapted from Sieberg's (1923) Mercalli-Cancani scale, modified and condensed.

Quoted from Wood and Neumann (1931)

I. Not feltor, except rarely under especially favorable circumstances. Under certain conditions, at and outside the boundary of the area in which a great shock is felt:

sometimes birds, animals, reported uneasy or disturbed; sometimes dizziness or nausea experienced; sometimes trees, structures, liquids, bodies of water, may swaydoors may swing, very slowly.

II. Felt indoors by few, especially on upper floors, or by sensitive or nervous persons.

Also, as in grade I, but often more noticeably: sometimes hanging objects may swing, especially when delicately suspended; sometimes trees, structures, liquids, bodies of water, may sway, doors may swing, very slowly; sometimes birds, animals, reported uneasy or disturbed; sometimes dizziness or nausea experienced.

III. Felt indoors by several, motion usually rapid vibration.

Sometimes not recognized to be an earthquake at first.

Duration estimated in some cases.

Vibration like that due to passing of light, or lightly loaded trucks, or heavy trucks some distance away.

Hanging objects may swing slightly.

Movements may be appreciable on upper levels of tall structures.

Rocked standing motor cars slightly.

IV. Felt indoors by many, outdoors by few.

Awakened few, especially light sleepers.

Frightened no one, unless apprehensive from previous experience.

Vibration like that due to passing of heavy, or heavily loaded trucks.

Sensation like heavy body striking building, or falling of heavy objects inside.

Rattling of dishes, windows, doors; glassware and crockery clink and clash.

Creaking of walls, frame, especially in the upper range of this grade.

Hanging objects swung, in numerous instances.

Disturbed liquids in open vessels slightly.

Rocked standing motor cars noticeably.

V. Felt indoors by practically all, outdoors by many or most: outdoors direction estimated.

Awakened many, or most.

Frightened few--slight excitement, a few ran outdoors.

Buildings trembled throughout.

Broke dishes, glassware, to some extent.

Cracked windows--in some cases, but not generally.

Overturned vases, small or unstable objects, in many instances, with occasional fall.

Hanging objects, doors, swing generally or considerably.

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.5-1 (SHEET 2 OF 6)

Knocked pictures against walls, or swung them out of place.

Opened, or closed, doors, shutters, abruptly.

Pendulum clocks stopped, started, or ran fast, or slow.

Moved small objects, furnishings, the latter to slight extent.

Spilled liquids in small amounts from well-filled open containers.

Trees, bushes, shaken slightly.

VI. Felt by all, indoors and outdoors.

Frightened many, excitement general, some alarm, many ran outdoors.

Awakened all.

Persons made to move unsteadily.

Trees, bushes, shaken slightly to moderately.

Liquid set in strong motion.

Small bells rangchurch, chapel, school, etc.

Damage slight in poorly built buildings.

Fall of plaster in small amount.

Cracked plaster somewhat, especially fine cracks chimneys in some instances.

Broke dishes, glassware, in considerable quantity, also some windows.

Fall of knick-knacks, books, pictures.

Overturned furniture in many instances.

Moved furnishings of moderately heavy kind.

VII. Frightened allgeneral alarm, all ran outdoors.

Some, or many, found it difficult to stand.

Noticed by persons driving motor cars.

Trees and bushes shaken moderately to strongly.

Waves on ponds, lakes, and running water.

Water turbid from mud stirred up.

Incaving to some extent of sand or gravel stream banks.

Rang large church bells, etc.

Suspended objects made to quiver.

Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction, slight to moderate in well-built ordinary buildings, considerable in poorly built or badly designed buildings, adobe houses, old walls (especially where laid up without mortar), spires, etc.

Cracked chimneys to considerable extent, walls to some extent.

Fall of plaster in considerable to large amount, also some stucco.

Broke numerous windows, furniture to some extent.

Shook down loosened brickwork and tiles.

Broke weak chimneys at the roofline (sometimes damaging roofs).

Fall of cornices from towers and high buildings.

Dislodged bricks and stones.

Overturned heavy furniture, with damage from breaking.

Damage considerable to concrete irrigation ditches.

VIII. Fright general--alarm approaches panic.

Disturbs persons driving motor cars.

Trees shaken strongly--branches, trunks, broken off, especially palm trees.

Ejected sand and mud in small amounts.

Changes: temporary, permanent; in flow of springs and wells; dry wells renewed flow; in temperature of spring and well waters.

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.5-1 (SHEET 3 OF 6)

Damage slight in structures (brick) built especially to withstand earthquakes.

Considerable in ordinary substantial buildings, partial collapse: racked, tumbled down, wooden houses in some cases; threw out panel walls in frame structures, broke off decayed piling.

Fall of walls.

Cracked, broke, solid stone walls seriously.

Wet ground to some extent, also ground on steep slopes.

Twisting, fall, of chimneys, columns, monuments, also factory stacks, towers.

Moved conspicuously, overturned, very heavy furniture.

IX. Panic general.

Cracked ground conspicuously.

Damage considerable in (masonry) structures built especially to withstand earthquakes:

threw out of plumb some wood-frame houses built especially to withstand earthquakes; great in substantial (masonry) buildings, some collapse in large part; or wholly shifted frame buildings off foundations, racked frames; serious to reservoirs; underground pipes sometimes broken.

X. Cracked ground, especially when loose and wet, up to widths of several inches; fissures up to a yard in width ran parallel to canal and stream banks.

Landslides considerable from river banks and steep coasts.

Shifted sand and mud horizontally on beaches and flat land.

Changed level of water in wells.

Threw water on banks of canals, lakes, rivers, etc.

Damage serious to dams, dikes, embankments.

Damage severe to well-built wooden structures and bridges, some destroyed.

Developed dangerous cracks in excellent brick walls.

Destroyed most masonry and frame structures, also their foundations.

Bent railroad rails slightly.

Tore apart, or crushed endwise, pipe lines buried in earth.

Open cracks and broad wavy folds in cement pavements and asphalt road surfaces.

XI. Disturbances in ground many and widespread, varying with ground material.

Broad fissures, earth slumps, and land slips in soft, wet ground.

Ejected water in large amount charged with sand and mud.

Caused sea-waves (tidal waves) of significant magnitude.

Damage severe to wood-frame structures, especially near shock centers.

Great to dams, dikes, embankments, often for long distances.

Few, if any (masonry), structures remained standing.

Destroyed large well-built bridges by the wrecking of supporting piers, or pillars.

Affected yielding wooden bridges less.

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.5-1 (SHEET 4 OF 6)

Bent railroad rails greatly, and thrust them endwise.

Put pipe lines buried in earth completely out of service.

XII. Damage total--practically all works of construction damaged greatly or destroyed.

Disturbances in ground great and varied, numerous shearing cracks.

Landslides, falls of rock of significant character, slumping of river banks, etc., numerous and extensive.

Wrenched loose, tore off, large rock masses.

Fault slips in firm rock, with notable horizontal and vertical offset displacements.

Water channels, surface and underground, disturbed and modified greatly.

Dammed lakes, produced waterfalls, deflected rivers, etc.

Waves seen on ground surfaces (actually seen, probably, in some cases).

Distorted lines of sight and level.

Threw objects upward into the air.

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.5-1 (SHEET 5 OF 6)

MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE OF 1931 (Abridged)

I. Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances.

II. Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings. Delicately suspended objects may swing.

III. Felt quite noticeably indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings, but many people do not recognize it as an earthquake. Standing motor cars may rock slightly. Vibration like passing of truck. Duration estimated.

IV. During the day felt indoors by many, outdoors by few. At night some awakened. Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; walls made cracking sound. Sensation like heavy truck striking building. Standing motor cars rocked noticeably.

V. Felt by nearly everyone; many awakened. Some dishes, windows, etc., broken; a few instances of cracked plaster; unstable objects overturned. Disturbance of trees, poles and other tall objects sometimes noticed. Pendulum clocks may stop.

VI. Felt by all; many frightened and run outdoors. Some heavy furniture moved; a few instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys. Damage slight.

VII. Everybody runs outdoors. Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction; slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures; considerable in poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken. Noticed by persons driving motor cars.

VIII. Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse; great in poorly built structures. Panel walls thrown out of frame structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls. Heavy furniture overturned. Sand and mud ejected in small amounts. Changes in well water. Disturbed persons driving motor cars.

IX. Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well designed frame structures thrown out of plumb; great in substantial buildings, with partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations.

Ground cracked conspicuously. Underground pipes broken.

X. Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations; ground badly cracked. Rails bent. Landslides considerable from river banks and steep slopes. Shifted sand and mud. Water splashed (slopped) over banks.

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2 TABLE 2.5-1 (SHEET 6 OF 6)

XI. Few, if any (masonry), structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Broad fissures in ground.

Underground pipe lines completely out of service. Earth slumps and land slips in soft ground.

Rails bent greatly.

XII. Damage total. Waves seen on ground surfaces. Lines of sight and level distorted. Objects thrown upward into the air.]

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2

[HISTORICAL][TABLE 2.5-2 CHRONOLOGICAL LISTING OF EARTHQUAKES WITHIN 250 MILES OF THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Distance Focal Latitude Longitude From Site Felt Depth Intensity Date N W Locality (mile) (sq mile) Magnitude (KM) (MM) 1872, 6/7 (33.1 83.3) Milledgeville, Georgia 175 V 1875, 11/2 (33.8 82.5) Northern Georgia 240 25,000 VI 1879, 1/13 (29.5 82.0) Northern Florida 225 25,000 VI 1885, 10/17 (33.0 82.8) Sandersville, Georgia 185 IV 1886, 2/5 (32.8 88.0) Sumter County, Alabama 205 1,600 V 2/13 1886, 9/3 (29.1 83.1) Cedar Keys, Florida 195 III 1900, 10/13 (30.4 81.7) Jacksonville, Florida-- 218 V 8 shocks 1903, 1/24 (32.1 81.1) Near Savannah, Georgia 245 10,000 VI 1905, 1/27 (34.0 86.0) Near Gadsden, Alabama 205 250,000 VII 1/28 1909, 10/8 (34.8 85.0) Northwestern Georgia 247 800 IV 1912, 6/20 (32.0 81.0) Savannah, Georgia 250 V 1912, 10/23 (32.7 83.5) Central Georgia 145 1,500 IV 1913, 3/13 (34.5 85.0) Calhoun County, Georgia 230 IV 1914, 3/5 (33.5 83.5) Near Atlanta, Georgia 190 100,000 VI 1916, 10/18 (33.5 86.2) Birmingham, Alabama-- 180 170,000 VII 4 shocks 1917, 6/30 (32.7 87.5) Rosemary, Alabama-- 175 V 2 shocks 1927, 6/16 (34.7 86.0) Near Scottsboro, Alabama 245 2,500 V 1928, 5/23 (30.8 83.3) Valdosta, Georgia 115 III 1929, 6/13 (30.7 88.0) Mobile Alabama 175 III 1931, 5/5 (33.7 86.6) Northern Alabama 195 6,500 VI 1935, 11/14 (29.9 81.3) St. Augustine, Florida-- 235 IV 2 shocks 1939, 5/5 (33.7 85.8) Anniston, Alabama 180 V 1952, 2/6 (33.5 86.8) Birmingham, Alabama 190 100 IV 1952, 11/18 (30.6 84.6) Quincy, Florida 55 IV 1955, 2/1 (30.4 89.1) Gulfport, Mississippi 250 V 1957, 4/23 (34.5 86.8) Northern Alabama 245 11,500 VI 1958, 4/8 (31.4 83.5) Tift County, Georgia 95 III 1964, 3/13 (33.2 83.4) Central Georgia 170 400 4.4 40 V 1971, 3/14 (33.1 87.9) Carrolton, Alabama 210 4.5 1 V

References:

Seismic History of the Southeast Region of the United States: Computer Printout from Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee; includes area bounded by 27.0-degree North lat., 35.4-degree North lat.,

80.0-degree West long., 90.0-degree West long.

Hypocenter Data File: Computer Printout from Earthquake Information Center, Boulder, Colorado; includes area bounded by 27.0- 35.4-degree North lat., 80.0- 90.0-degree West long., 1961-1971.

Parentheses around coordinates indicate an approximate epicentral location.]

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2

[HISTORICAL][TABLE 2.5-3 CORRELATION OF EPICENTERS WITH TECTONIC PROVINCES Latitude Longitude Date N W Locality Intensity (MM) Tectonic Province 1872, 6/7 (33.1 83.3) Milledgeville, Georgia V Piedmont 1875, 11/2 (33.8 82.5) Northern Georgia VI Piedmont 1879, 1/13 (29.5 82.0) Northern Florida VI Atlantic Coastal Plain 1885, 10/17 (33.0 82.8) Sandersville, Georgia IV Atlantic Coastal Plain 1886, 2/5 (32.8 88.0) Sumter County, Alabama V East Gulf Coastal Plain 2/13 1886, 9/3 (29.1 83.1) Cedar Keys, Florida III East Gulf Coastal Plain 1900, 10/13 (32.1 81.1) Near Savannah, Georgia VI Atlantic Coastal Plain 1903, 1/24 (32.1 81.1) Near Savannah, Georgia VI Atlantic Coastal Plain 1905, 1/27 (34.0 86.0) Near Gadsden, Alabama VII Valley and Ridge 1/28 1909, 10/8 (34.8 85.0) Northwestern Georgia IV Valley and Ridge 1912, 6/20 (32.0 81.0) Savannah, Georgia V Atlantic Coastal Plain 1912, 10/23 (32.7 83.5) Central Georgia IV Atlantic Coastal Plain 1913, 3/13 (34.5 85.0) Calhoun County, Georgia IV Valley and Ridge 1914, 3/5 (33.5 83.5) Near Atlanta, Georgia VI Piedmont 1916, 10/18 (33.5 86.2) Birmingham, Alabama VII Valley and Ridge 1917, 6/30 (32.7 87.5) Rosemary, Alabama V East Gulf Coastal Plain 1927, 6/16 (34.7 86.0) Near Scottsboro, Alabama V Cumberland Plateau 1928, 5/23 (30.8 83.3) Valdosta, Georgia III East Gulf Coastal Plain 1931, 5/5 (33.7 86.6) Northern Alabama VI Cumberland Plateau 1935, 11/14 (29.9 81.3) St. Augustine, Florida IV Atlantic Coastal Plain 1939, 5/5 (33.7 85.8) Anniston, Alabama V Valley and Ridge 1952, 2/6 (33.5 86.8) Birmingham, Alabama IV Valley and Ridge 1952, 11/18 (30.6 84.6) Quincy, Florida IV East Gulf Coastal Plain 1955, 2/1 (30.4 89.1) Gulfport, Mississippi V East Gulf Coastal Plain 1957, 4/23 (34.5 86.8) Northern Alabama VI Cumberland Plateau 1958, 4/8 (31.4 83.5) Tift County, Georgia III East Gulf Coastal Plain 1964, 3/13 (33.2 83.4) Central Georgia V Piedmont 1971, 3/14 (33.1 87.9) Carrolton, Alabama V East Gulf Coastal Plain ]

REV 21 5/08

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [REGIONAL PHYSIOGRAPHIC MAP NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.5-1]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.5-2]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [REGIONAL TECTONIC MAP NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.5-3]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SUPPLEMENTAL TECTONIC MAP NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.5-3A]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [REGIONAL GEOLOGIC COLUMN NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.5-4]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [REGIONAL GEOLOGIC PROFILE, EAST-WEST NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.5-5]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [REGIONAL GEOLOGIC PROFILE, NORTH-SOUTH NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.5-6]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [CRUSTAL MOVEMENT MAP NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.5-7]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [TOP OF LISBON FORMATION NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.5-8]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SITE GEOLOGIC MAP NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.5-9]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [AERIAL GEOLOGIC MAP NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.5-10]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SITE GEOLOGIC COLUMN NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.5-11]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SEISMIC RISK MAP OF THE U.S.

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.5-12]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [TECTONIC AND EPICENTER MAP NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.5-13]

REV 21 5/08

[ISOSEISMAL MAP OF 1886 CHARLESTON, S.C.

JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT EARTHQUAKE UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2.5-14]

' ,.r:nn

<i , ... ,. ", '.,

" '(8'--":..

1 .

~.' '.'

..-.-.-~.' ,

BostonCol!Ege. We;ton Observatory, Weston, MassachuseltS 02193 QMko.lll! School of Arts .lntl SCil!llces December 4, 1972 Mr. M. ~lcom, Project Engineer, Bechtel Power Corporation P.O. Box 607 15740 Shady Grove Road.

Gaitheraburg, Maryland, 20760 Ref; Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Final Safety Analysts Report

Dear ~. Malcom:

I have recently reviewed Section 2.5 - Geology and Seismology -

of the Joseph K. Parley Nuclear Plant ltDal Safety Analysis Report. I believe my review baa been carefully made.

the seis.ic history is in agreeMent with the one I had previously reported and then reviewed in 1IIy letter of SepteDlber 19, 1969.

Since that date one other earthquake has been reported a little more tbml 200 mil** from the slte, the one of March 14, 1971., However, it is sufficiently distant and of such waak Intensity, V (MM),

that it does not alter the fonner conclusions concerning the Safety Analysis of the site.

1 fully concur with the desigtl&tion of the "Safe Shutdown Earthquake" and the "Oparating Basls Earthquake" chosen for this site. The..

are conservative values.

Sincerely yours"

~4et~~ .f!J (Rev) Daniel Linehan, 8.J.

Director lmeritus.

REV 21 5/08

[LETTER OF REVIEW REV D. LINEHAM SJ WESTON JOSEPH M. FARLEY SOUTHERN'\ NUCLEAR PLANT OBSERVATORY COMPANY UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 Energy to Serve Your Warld e FIGURE 2.5-15J

FNP-FSAR-2A APPENDIX 2A SELECTION OF TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE CATEGORIES TO DEFINE AVERAGE PASQUILL STABILITY CATEGORIES BASED ON DATA COLLECTED AT THE FARLEY SITE Page 2A.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 2A-1 2A.2 EXPERIMENTAL DATA............................................................................................................ 2A-2 2A.3 INTERPRETATION OF DATA .................................................................................................. 2A-3 2A.4 VERIFICATION OF T RANGES USING THE EXPERIMENTAL CURVE ............................ 2A-5 2A-i REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2A LIST OF FIGURES 2A-1 20-Minute Average Horizontal Ranges at Farley Site 2A-2 20-Minute Average Vertical Ranges at Farley Site 2A-3 Stability Bands Compared With Horizontal Bivane Angles 2A-4 Stability Bands Compared With Vertical Bivane Angles 2A-ii REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2A

[HISTORICAL] [APPENDIX 2A SELECTION OF TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE CATEGORIES TO DEFINE AVERAGE PASQUILL STABILITY CATEGORIES BASED ON DATA COLLECTED AT THE FARLEY SITE 2A.1 INTRODUCTION`

The purpose of this appendix is to validate a procedure for defining Pasquill stability classes, solely in terms of vertical temperature difference classes, for use in calculating values of X u /Q. The X u /Q values obtained represent the average value which occurs under the given temperature difference classes on an annual basis at the Farley site. It is believed that these classes are also applicable at other sites with similar terrain and geographic features.

The calculation of this X u /Q requires the calculation of Xu/Q for each hour, or for each of a large number of representative hours, of a calendar year. The hourly Xu/Q is readily calculated with the bi-Gaussian equation employing dispersion coefficients defined by the atmospheric stability during the hour. The NRC-DRL(1) accepts the Pasquill stability classification scheme as given in Meteorology and Atomic Energy,(2) but in order to apply Pasquill's scheme it is necessary to define his stability classes A through F in terms of measured meteorological parameters.

The measured parameters of the site chosen for this study (i.e., Farley site) are continuously recorded wind speed, vertical temperature difference, and vertical and horizontal wind angles. The Pasquill scheme assigns stability classes to specific combinations of wind speed, time of day, and cloud cover.

Wind speed is seen to be common to both systems although Pasquill does not specify the anemometer height. Pasquill's time of day and cloud cover imply a degree of net radiation which is believed to be strongly correlated to vertical temperature difference. Thus, combinations of hourly average wind speed and temperature difference of the site, theoretically, are adequate to define the Pasquill stability class for that hour, if the conversion scheme can be calibrated.

Preliminary examination of the data from the Farley site has shown that vertical temperature difference, with or without wind speed, is not a suitable predictor of turbulence since different average wind angle ranges are observed for different hours, even though the vertical temperature difference is the same. This may be due to nonuniform heating and cooling of hillsides having different exposures to solar radiation and different albedos. Buoyancy-generated slope currents apparently settle irregularly into the valleys at night, or interact with thermals during the day to produce wind meander and augmented turbulence.

Therefore, it does not seem probable that a Pasquill stability class can be assigned to any given hour, even though the wind speed and temperature difference are specified, without the introduction of some function of topography. Such an investigation is beyond the scope of this appendix.

However, this appendix deals with the average of a large number of apparently random wind motions under presumably identical conditions of measured wind speed and vertical temperature difference. It seems probable that such an average is repeatable from year to year and, therefore, is used to calculate the probability of occurrence of any given condition.

The following sections present the case for assigning specific Pasquill diffusion classes to specific groupings of vertical temperature difference, using the reciprocal average range of horizontal wind 2A-1 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2A angles as the basic correlation parameter between the two systems and checking these with the reciprocal average of vertical angle ranges.

2A.2 EXPERIMENTAL DATA Figures 2A-1 and 2A-2 show individual data points for simultaneous measurements of vertical temperature difference (measured between 200 feet and 35 feet but expressed as T °F/100) and horizontal wind angle range, R, or vertical wind angle range R, at an elevation of 50 ft when the wind speed was between 2 and 4 mph at an elevation of 50 ft. Additional data are available for the entire range of wind speeds, but are not presented since the density of data points is too great for visual clarity.

Using a site boundary distance of 1 km and Figures 3.10 and 3.11 of Meteorology and Atomic Energy, we obtain the following equivalent values of :

At 1000 m Slade Stability Class y z z/y B 150 150 20° 20° C 105 65 15° 9.3° D 72 34 10° 4.7° E 52 23 5° 2.2° F 37 14.5 2.5° 1.0° When these values of are introduced into figure 2A-4, the T values at the intersections with the curve are almost identical with those found in figure 2A-3 for the same stability classes. Moreover, the shapes of the and curves are similar, even to the local decrease in stability at T = 4°F.

It follows, therefore, that the stability bands defined in terms of T ranges create no inconsistency when used with either the vertical or horizontal angle experimental data.

2A.3 INTERPRETATION OF DATA In both figure 2A-1 and figure 2A-2, it is clear that for any given hour T alone cannot be used as a predictor of values of or since the observed variation of each of these quantities in any given T band is very large. On the other hand, the previous analysis demonstrates that using a large data base, the selected T ranges can be used to predict the probabilities of having vertical and lateral turbulence intensities which are mutually consistent in the context of the Pasquill-Slade classification systems.

It is evident that a variety of range angles occurred within any narrow T band. Therefore, the concentrations predicted for each hour are equally varied, as may be seen by substituting the approximations:

2A-2 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2A y = XR/6 x 57.3 z = XR/6 x 57.3 into the bi-Gaussian equation.

The average of a large number of calculated concentrations within the same T band can be obtained by using the reciprocal average ranges R and R in the bi-Gaussian equation, provided that the hourly average values of R, R and u are not correlated. Although the absence of such a correlation has not been demonstrated, we shall proceed on that basis.

Figures 2A-3 and 2A-4 show reciprocal averages of (= R /6) and (= R /6) in T bands of 0.2°F/100. The solid circles correspond to the 2-4 mph data from figures 2A-1 and 2A-2. The open circles include measurements at all speeds. The reciprocal averages were computed by:

N

-1 R = N -1 Ri -1 i=1 The values of and under lapse and inversion conditions are smaller for the all-speed case than for the 2-4 mph speeds, but are about the same when the temperature difference is small. This may be attributed to the existence of relatively strong slope currents at low wind speeds and strong temperature stratification, with attendant increase of wind angle range. These currents are not generated under neutral stratification, and neutral stratification is rarely accompanied by low wind speed.

In order to be conservative, we shall base the selection of temperature ranges on the all speed data, since this will yield higher predicted concentrations. The solid curves in figures 2A-3 and 2A-4 were drawn by eye through the open circle points.

T ranges were correlated with Pasquill stability classes through Slade's experimentally based conversions, i.e., = 25°, 20°, 15°, 10°, 5° and 2.5° for Pasquill stabilities A, B, C, D, E and F, respectively.(3) These are shown as dashed lines in figures 2A-3 and 2A-4. The T range limits were selected such that Slade's values coincided approximately with the midrange of the experimental data points. The T range limits are as follows:

Stability Class T Range (°F/100)

B T < -1.3 C -1.3 T < -0.9 D -0.9 T < 0 E 0 T < 5.0 F 5.0 T It is seen that the center of the D (neutral stability) band falls at T = -0.45°F, which is very close to the adiabatic value of -0.55°F. Also, the stable region begins at the isothermal condition T = 0°F and extends over all positive values of T. The experimental curve is almost always within the E band for 2A-3 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2A stable conditions. A local decrease in stability is observed in the vicinity of T = 4°F and type F stability occurs only when temperature differences reach 5°F/100 or greater.

2A.4 VERIFICATION OF T RANGES USING THE EXPERIMENTAL CURVE A direct selection of T ranges using the same procedure as previously described but employing the curve is not possible since Slade provides no vertical angle equivalents to the Pasquill stability categories.

However, we may postulate that the ratio / should be equal to the ratio z/y at a distance from the source equal to the site boundary distance from the reactor.

This implies that the standard deviations of plume concentrations increase according to power laws having the same exponent, which is approximately true for the relatively short distance to the site boundary.

2A-4 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2A REFERENCES

1. "Division of Reactor Standards, Safety Guides for Water Cooled Nuclear Power Plants," Safety Guide Number 3 and 4, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (December 1970).

2. Meteorology and Atomic Energy, 1968 pp. 102-103.

3. Slade, D. H., "Estimates of Dispersion from Pollutant Releases of a Few Seconds to 8 Hours in Duration," Environmental Sciences Services Administration, Technical Note 39-ARL-3, April 1966.]

2A-5 REV 21 5/08

REV 21 5/08

[20-MINUTE AVERAGE HORIZONTAL RANGES AT JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT FARLEY SITE UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2A-1]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [20-MINUTE AVERAGE VERTICAL RANGES AT FARLEY SITE NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2A-2]

REV 21 5/08

[STABILITY BANDS COMPARED WITH HORIZONTAL JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT BIVANE ANGLES UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2A-3]

REV 21 5/08

[STABILITY BANDS COMPARED WITH VERTICAL JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT BIVANE ANGLES UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2A-4]

FNP-FSAR-2B

[HISTORICAL][APPENDIX 2B SUBSURFACE AND FOUNDATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2B.1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................... 2B-1 2B.2 SCOPE OF INVESTIGATIONS ............................................................................... 2B-2 2B.3 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS....................................................................................... 2B-3 2B.3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 2B-3 2B.3.2 Test Boring Program ........................................................................... 2B-3 2B.3.3 Geophysical Explorations..................................................................... 2B-4 2B.3.4 Ground Water investigations ............................................................... 2B-5 2B.3.5 Plate Load Testing ................................................................................ 2B-6 2B.4 SITE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................. 2B-7 2B.4.1 Site Topography.................................................................................... 2B-7 2B.4.2 Site Geology ......................................................................................... 2B-7 2B.4.3 Subsurface Conditions .......................................................................... 2B-9 2B.4.3.1 General ................................................................................................. 2B-9 2B.4.3.2 Plant Area .......................................................................................... 2B-10 2B.4.3.3 Floodplain and Storage Pond Areas .................................................. 2B-11 2B.4.4 Ground Water Conditions................................................................... 2B-11 2B.5 LABORATORY TESTING....................................................................................... 2B-13 2B.5.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 2B-13 2B.5.2 Static Soil Testing .............................................................................. 2B-14 2B.5.2.1 Classification Tests ............................................................................. 2B-14 2B.5.2.2 Consolidation Tests ............................................................................ 2B-14 2B.5.2.3 Triaxial Shear Tests ........................................................................... 2B-14 2B.5.3 Static Rock Testing ............................................................................. 2B-15 2B.5.4 Dynamic Soil Testing .......................................................................... 2B-15 2B.5.5 Dynamic Rock Testing ........................................................................ 2B-17 2B-i REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2B.6 STRUCTURAL DATA ............................................................................................ 2B-18 2B.6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 2B-18 2B.6.2 Containment Structures ...................................................................... 2B-18 2B.6.3 Auxiliary Buildings ............................................................................. 2B-19 2B.6.4 Cooling Water System Lines and Facilities ........................................ 2B-19 2B.6.5 Diesel Generator Building.................................................................. 2B-20 2B.6.6 Outdoor Tanks .................................................................................... 2B-21 2B.6.7 Storage Pond ...................................................................................... 2B-21 2B.6.8 Pond Spillway Structure ..................................................................... 2B-21 2B.6.9 Non-Category I Structures.................................................................. 2B-22 2B.7 FOUNDATION EVALUATION.............................................................................. 2B-22 2B.7.1 General ............................................................................................... 2B-22 2B.7.2 Properties of Soil and Rock ................................................................ 2B-24 2B.7.2.1 Static Properties ................................................................................. 2B-24 2B.7.2.2 Dynamic Properties ............................................................................ 2B-25 2B.7.3 Foundation Analysis of Category I Structures.................................... 2B-26 2B.7.3.1 Settlement of Category I Structures. .2B-28 2B.7.4 Foundation Analysis of Non-Category I Structures............................ 2B-28 2B.7.5 Liquefaction Potential Evaluation ...................................................... 2B-29 2B.7.5.1 Liquefaction Criteria and Methods of Analysis .................................. 2B-29 2B.7.5.2 Cyclic Triaxial Testing........................................................................ 2B-32 2B.7.5.3 Representative Profiles ....................................................................... 2B-36 2B.7.5.4 Computed Minimum Factors of Safety ............................................... 2B-37 2B.7.6 Storage Pond ...................................................................................... 2B-38 2B.7.6.1 General ............................................................................................... 2B-38 2B.7.6.2 Subsurface Conditions and Embankment Materials........................... 2B-39 2B.7.6.3 Soil Testing and Design Parameters for the Storage Pond ...................................................................................... 2B-41 2B.7.6.4 Stability Analysis ................................................................................ 2B-44 2B.7.6.5 Dynamic Analyses - Liquefaction Potential for the Storage Pond Dam and Dikes .......................................................................... 2B-46 2B-ii REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2B.7.6.6 Other Stability Features...................................................................... 2B-66 2B.7.6.7 Permeability Tests and Seepage Analysis........................................... 2B-68 2B.7.6.8 Construction Phase Borrow Area No. 1 Evaluation.......................... 2B-69 2B.7.6.9 Borrow Area No. 2 Evaluation .......................................................... 2B-74 2B.7.6.10 Borrow Area No. 1 Extension and Borrow Area No. 3 .................... 2B-75 2B.7.6.11 Dam and Dike Instrumentation and Monitoring Schedule.............................................................................................. 2B-76 2B.7.6.12 Embankment Construction, Pond Filling, and Performance................................................................................. 2B-77 2B.8 SLOPE STABILITY................................................................................................. 2B-79 2B.9 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES ............................................................................ 2B-80 2B.10 EXCAVATION AND COMPACTION OF BACKFILL ........................................... 2B-82 2B-iii REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B LIST OF TABLES 2B-1 Foundation Analysis Summary for Category I Structures 2B-2 Field Permeability Test Data 2B-3 Summary of Laboratory Determined Coefficients of Permeability for In-Situ Soil 2B-4 Summary of Laboratory Determined Coefficients of Permeability of Compacted Embankment Soils 2B-5 Shear Modulus and Damping Values Determined from Resonant Column Tests 2B-6 Shear Modulus and Damping Values Determined from Stain-Controlled Cyclic Triaxial Test 2B-7 Soil Parameters Used in Nonlinear Static Analysis 2B-8 Embankment Materials - Results of Stress-Controlled Cyclic Triaxial Tests - Isotropic Consolidation (Kc=1) 2B-9 Embankment Materials - Results of Stress-Controlled Cyclic Triaxial Test - Anisotropic Consolidation (Kc>1) 2B-10 Classification and Compaction Characteristics of Fill Material 2B-11 Pore Pressure Data for Test No. C-2-D2 2B-12 Pore Pressure Data for Test No. C-2-F2 2B-13 Pore Pressure Data for Test No. C-2-D5 2B-14 Pore Pressure Data for Test No. C-2-E5 2B-15 Pore Pressure Data for Test No. C-2-D1 2B-16 Pore Pressure Data for Test No. C-2-G2 2B-17 Pore Pressure Data for Test No. C-2-E2 2B-18 Pore Pressure Data for Test No. C-2-H3 2B-19 Classification and Compaction Characteristics of Fill Material 2B-20 Shear Modulus and Damping Values from Resonant Column Tests 2B-21 Shear Modulus and Damping Values from Stain-Controlled Cyclic Triaxial Tests 2B-iv REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B LIST OF TABLES 2B-22 Embankment Materials - Results of Stress-Controlled Cyclic Triaxial Tests - Isotropic Consolidation (Kc=1) 2B-23 Embankment Materials - Results of Stress-Controlled Cyclic Triaxial Tests - Anisotropic Consolidation (Kc>1) 2B-24 Results of Stress-Controlled Cyclic Triaxial Tests Isotropic Consolidation (Kc=1) 2B-25 Results of Stress-Controlled Cyclic Triaxial Tests Anisotropic Consolidation (Kc>1) 2B-26 Record Tests in Dam and Dike Embankment 2B-v REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B LIST OF FIGURES 2B1-1 River Intake Structure and Channel 2B1-2 Storage Pond Intake Structures 2B1-3 Diesel Generator Building 2B1-4 Storage Pond Spillway Structure 2B1-5 Plant Area Excavation - Plan and Section 2B1-6 Storage Pond Dam - Borrow Area No. 2 Boring Location Plan 2B1-7 Pond Fill Discharge Structure 2B1-8 Recirculating Water Discharge Structure 2B2-1 Boring Location Index 2B2-2 Boring Logs and 2B2-3 2B3-3 through Refractive Geophysical Survey 2B3-9 2B3-10 Crosshole Geophysical Survey 2B4-10 through Generalized Soil Profiles 2B4-15 2B4-21 Generalized Soil Properties 2B4-22 Storage Pond Dam Borrow Area No. 2 Section 2A Profile 2B4-23 Storage Pond Dam Borrow Area No. 2 Section 2B Profile 2B4-24 Storage Pond Dam Borrow Area No. 2 Section 2C Profile 2B4-25 Storage Pond Dam Borrow Area No. 2 Section 2D Profile 2B4-26 Storage Pond Dam Borrow Area No. 2 Section 2E Profile 2B4-27 Storage Pond Dam Borrow Area No. 2 Section 2F Profile 2B-vi REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B LIST OF FIGURES 2B4-28 Storage Pond Dam Borrow Area No. 2 Section 2G Profile 2B4-29 Storage Pond Dam Borrow Area No. 2 Section 2H Profile 2B4-30 Storage Pond Dam Borrow Area No. 2 Section 2I Profile 2B5-1 through Soil Test Results Summary 2B5-40 2B5-41 Soil Test Results Summary (R-24 and R-31) 2B5-42 Soil Test Results Summary (AH-101 Through AH-115) 2B5-43 Soil Test Results Summary (AH-118 Through AH-152) 2B5-44 Soil Test Results Summary (AH-155 Through AH-175) Test Pits 1 and 2 2B5-45 Soil Test Results Summary (Bag Samples Compacted 1, 1B, 2A, 2B, 2C - Storage Pond Borrow Area No. 2) 2B5-46 Soil Test Results Summary (Bag Samples Compacted 3 - Storage Pond Borrow Area No. 2) 2B5-47 Soil Test Results Summary (Bag Samples Compacted C-1, C-2, C Storage Pond Borrow Area) 2B5A-1 through Summary Rock Test Data 2B5A-4 2B5B-1 Static Soil Properties 2B5B-2 Static Soil Properties 2B5B-3 Compacted Static Soil Strength Properties 2B5B-4 Static Soil Shear Strength Properties 2B5B-5 Static Soil Shear Strength Properties 2B5B-6 Static Rock Properties 2B5B-7 Dynamic Soil and Rock Properties 2B5B-8 Stress-Strain Diagrams for Dam Embankment Materials - Compacted Soil C-1 2B-vii REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B LIST OF FIGURES 2B5B-9 Stress-Strain Diagrams for Dam Embankment Materials - Compacted Soils C-1 and C-2 2B5B-10 Stress-Strain Diagrams for Dam Embankment Materials - Compacted Soils C-2 and C-3 2B5B-10A Stress-Strain Diagrams for Dam Embankment, Compacted Soils R-24, R-31 2B5B-11 Stress-Strain Diagrams for Plant Area Backfill - Compacted Soil I 2B5B-12 Stress-Strain Diagrams for Plant Area Backfill - Compacted Soils I and II 2B5B-13 Stress-Strain Diagrams for Plant Area Backfill - Compacted Soils II and III 2B5B-14 Stress-Strain Diagrams for Foundation Materials - Plant Area and Spillway Structure 2B5B-15 Stress-Strain Diagrams for Foundation Materials - River Water Supply Line 2B5B-16 Stress-Strain Diagrams for Foundation Materials - River Intake Structure and Storage Pond Intake Structure 2B5B-17 Stress-Strain Diagrams for Foundation Materials - Storage Pond Dam and Dike 2B5B-18 Stress-Strain Diagrams for Foundation Materials - Storage Pond Dam and Dike 2B5B-19 Stress-Strain Diagrams for Dam Embankment Materials - Compacted Soils 1A, 1B, 2B, 2C, 3 2B5B-20 Stress-Strain Diagrams for Dam Embankment Materials, Borrow Area No. 1 Compacted Soils C-1, C-2, C-3 2B5B-21 Stress-Strain Diagrams for Dam Embankment Materials, Borrow Area No. 1 Compacted Soils C-2, C-3 2B6-1 Laboratory Cyclic Test Results Undisturbed Samples 2B6-1A Dynamic Analysis of Dam and Dikes, Record of a Typical Stress-Controlled Cyclic Triaxial Test 2B6-2 Case I - Switchyard 2B6-3 Case II - Plant Area 2B6-4 Case III - Slopes 2B-viii REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B LIST OF FIGURES 2B6-5 Case III Slopes 2B6-6 Case IV - Cooling Tower Area 2B6-7 Case V - River Intake Area 2B6-8 Case VI - Storage Pond Intake Area 2B6-9 Dynamic Analysis of Dam and Dikes - Maximum Dam Section 2B6-10 Dynamic Analysis of Dam and Dikes - Typical Dike Section 2B6-11 Dynamic Analysis of Dam and Dikes - Accelerogram Representing the Postulated Safe Shutdown Earthquake 2B6-12 Dynamic Analysis of Dam and Dikes - Safe Shutdown Earthquake Response Spectra for 5%

Spectral Drawing 2B6-13 Dynamic Analysis of Dam and Dikes - Comparison of Induced Shear Stressed with Stresses Required to Cause 5% Strain Along A Typical Plane - Maximum Dam Section, Average Properties 2B6-14 Dynamic Analysis of Dam and Dikes Local Factors of Safety with Respect to Development of 5% Strain Along Selected Horizontal Planes - Maximum Dam Section, Average Properties 2B6-15 Dynamic Analysis of Dam and Dikes Local Factors of Safety with Respect to Development of 5% Strain Along Selected Horizontal Planes - Maximum Dam Section, Upper Bound Properties 2B6-16 Dynamic Analysis of Dam and Dikes Local Factors of Safety with Respect to Development of 5% Strain Along Selected Horizontal Planes - Dike Section, Average Properties 2B6-17 Local Factors of Safety with Respect to Development of 5% Strain Along Centerline of Dike, Average Properties 2B6A-1 Dynamic Analysis of Dam and Dikes Material C Shear Modulus vs. Effective Mean Normal Stress 2B6A-2 Dynamic Analysis of Dam and Dikes Material C Shear Moduli at Effective Mean Normal Stress of 1000 lb/ft2 2B6A-3 Dynamic Analysis of Dam and Dikes Material C Shear Moduli at Effective Mean Normal Stress of 1000 lb/ft2 2B-ix REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B LIST OF FIGURES 2B6A-4 Dynamic Analysis of Dam and Dikes Material C Shear Moduli at Effective Mean Normal Stress of 1000 lb/ft2 2B6A-5 Dynamic Analysis of Dam and Dikes Material C Damping Ratio vs. Shear Strain 2B6A-6 Dynamic Analysis of Dam and Dikes Material C Damping Ratio vs. Shear Strain 2B6A-7 Dynamic Analysis of Dam and Dikes Material C Damping Ratio vs. Shear Strain 2B6A-8 Dynamic Analysis of Dam and Dikes Embankment Material, Strain-Compatible Soil Properties Used in Analysis 2B6A-9 Dynamic Analysis of Dam and Dikes Material C Results of Stress-Controlled Cyclic Triaxial Tests (Kc=1.0, 5% Strain) 2B6A-10 Dynamic Analysis of Dam and Dikes Material C Results of Stress-Controlled Cyclic Triaxial Tests (Kc=1.5, 5% Strain) 2B6A-11 Dynamic Analysis of Dam and Dikes Material C Results of Stress-Controlled Cyclic Triaxial Tests (Kc=1.0, 5% Strain) 2B6A-12 Dynamic Analysis of Dam and Dikes Material C Results of Stress-Controlled Cyclic Triaxial Tests (Kc=1.5, 5% Strain) 2B6A-13 Dynamic Analysis of Dam and Dikes Material C Results of Stress-Controlled Cyclic Triaxial Tests (Kc=2.0, 5% Strain) 2B6A-14 Dynamic Analysis of Dam and Dikes Material C Results of Stress-Controlled Cyclic Triaxial Tests (Kc=1.0, 5% Strain) 2B6A-15 Dynamic Analysis of Dam and Dikes Material C Results of Stress-Controlled Cyclic Triaxial Tests (Kc=1.5, 5% Strain) 2B6A-16 Dynamic Analysis of Dam and Dikes - Procedure for interpreting Stress-Controlled Cyclic Triaxial Test Data for Anisotropically Consolidated (Kc>1.0) Specimens 2B6A-17 Dynamic Analysis of Dam and Dikes Materials C Cyclic Shear Stress Required to Cause 5% Strain in 10 Cycles 2B6A-18 Dynamic Analysis of Dam and Dikes Material C Cyclic Shear Stress Required to Cause 5% Strain in 10 Cycles 2B-x REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B LIST OF FIGURES 2B6A-19 Dynamic Analysis of Dam and Dikes Material C Cyclic Shear Stress Required to Cause 5% Strain in 10 Cycles 2B6A-20 Dynamic Analysis of Dam and Dikes Foundation Soils - Cyclic Shear Stress Required to Cause 5% Strain in 10 Cycles 2B6A-21 Dynamic Analysis of Dam and Dikes Material C Compaction Test Results 2B6A-22 Dynamic Analysis of Dam and Dikes Material C Compaction Test Results 2B6A-23 Dynamic Analysis of Dam and Dikes Material C Compaction Test Results 2B6A-24 Dynamic Analysis of Dam and Dikes Material C Grain Size Distribution 2B6A-25 Dynamic Analysis of Dam and Dikes Material C Grain Size Distribution 2B6A-26 Dynamic Analysis of Dam and Dike Material C Grain Size Distribution 2B7-14 Storage Pond Downstream Fill Cross-Sections 2B7-15 Storage Pond Downstream Fill Cross-Sections 2B7-16 Storage Pond Upstream Blanket Cross-Sections 2B7-17 Storage Pond Embankment Crest Detail and Compaction Data 2B7-18 Storage Pond Dam and Dike Slope Stability Analysis 2B7-19 Slope Stability Analysis, Site Slopes 2B7-20 Slope Stability Analysis, Site Slopes 2B7-21 Borrow Material Properties for Redesign of Dam and Dike 95% ASTM D-698 2B7-22 Grain Sized - Compacted Blanket and Underlying Soil 2B7-23 Comparison of Material Properties, Borrow Area No. 1 and Borrow Area No. 2, 95% ASTM D-1557 2B7-24 Material C-5 Compaction Test Results 2B7-25 Material C-5 Grain Size Distribution 2B-xi REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B LIST OF FIGURES 2B7-26 Material C-5 95% ASTM D698 Compaction Shear Moduli Normalized to an Effective Mean Normal Stress of 1000 lb/ft2 2B7-27 Material C 95% ASTM D698 Compaction Damping Ratio vs. Shear Strain 2B7-28 Material C 95% ASTM D698 Compaction Results of Stress-Controlled Cyclic Triaxial Tests (Kc=1.0, 5% Strain) 2B7-29 Material C 95% ASTM D698 Compaction Results of Stress-Controlled Cyclic Triaxial Tests (Kc=1.5, 5% Strain) 2B7-30 Material C 95% ASTM D698 Compaction Cyclic Shear Stress Required to Cause 5%

Strain in 10 Cycles 2B7-31 Material C 98% ASTM D698 Compaction Results of Stress-Controlled Cyclic Triaxial Tests (Kc=1.0, 5% Strain) 2B7-32 Material C 98% ASTM D698 Compaction Results of Stress-Controlled Cyclic Triaxial Tests (Kc=1.5, 5% Strain) 2B7-33 Material C 98% ASTM D698 Compaction Cyclic Shear Stress Required to Cause 5%

Strain in 10 Cycles 2B7-34 Local Factors of Safety with Respect to Development of 5% Strain Along Selected Horizontal Planes - Maximum Dam Section - Upper Bound Properties - Cyclic Strength Material C 95% ASTM D698 Compaction 2B7-35 Local Factors of Safety with Respect to Development of 5% Strain Along Centerline of Maximum Dam Section - Upper Bound Properties Cyclic Strength Material C 95% ASTM D698 Compaction 2B7-36 Local Factors of Safety with Respect to Development of 5% Strain Along Selected Horizontal Planes - Maximum Dam Section Upper Bound Properties - Cyclic Strength Material C-5 At 98% ASTM D698 Compaction 2B7-37 Local Factors of Safety with Respect to Development of 5% Strain Along Centerline of Maximum Dam Section - Upper Bound Properties - Cyclic Strength Material C-5 At 98%

ASTM D698 Compaction 2B7-38 Comparison of Stresses at Dam Computed by the Finite Element and the Shear Slice Procedure 2B7-39A Dam Excavation Plan and Geologic Maps 2B-xii REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B LIST OF FIGURES 2B7-39B Dam Foundation Geologic Map North and South Elevations 2B7-39C Dam Foundation Geologic Map East and West Elevations 2B7-40 Storage Pond Dam and Dike Compacted Fill Record Tests 2B7-41 Storage Pond Dam and Dike Instrumentation Locations 2B7-42 Storage Pond Dam and Dike Centerline Subsurface Profiles and Groundwater Levels 2B7-43 Storage Pond Dam and Dike Observation Wells and Drain Discharge Rates 2B7-44 Storage Pond Dam and Dike Gravity Relief Wells and Discharge Rates 2B-xiii REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B APPENDIX 2B SUBSURFACE AND FOUNDATIONS 2B.1 INTRODUCTION This appendix presents the results of the subsurface investigations and foundation engineering analyses for Units 1 and 2 of Alabama Power Company's Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Power Plant. The data and results of analyses presented in this appendix demonstrate the safe support of the power plant and related structures. The references are noted in parentheses in the following sections, and a list of references is given at the end of the text. All numbered tables and figures, including some graphic boring logs and laboratory test results, are presented at the end of this appendix. Other graphic boring logs are shown on project drawings as referenced. All elevations given refer to the United States Coastal and Geodetic Survey (USCGS) mean sea level (MSL) datum.

The Farley Nuclear Plant (FNP) is located in Houston County in southeastern Alabama. It is 16 miles east of Dothan, Alabama, and 5 miles south of Columbia, Alabama. The site has the Chattahoochee River as the eastern property boundary and State Highway 95 as the western property boundary, and consists of approximately 1850 acres. The Columbia Lock and Dam is located 2 miles north of the site.

Figures 2.1-1 and 2.1-2 show the site location.

The geologic and foundation studies for the site were made under the direction of the Alabama Power Company (APC); Southern Company Services, Incorporated (SCS); and the Bechtel Power Corporation.

The field and laboratory work for these studies were done in three stages:

1. A regional reconnaissance and survey.

2. A site area reconnaissance and survey.

3. A design phase investigation and evaluation.

For the most recent design phase, all field drilling and sampling were done by the Alabama Power Company's own forces under the field supervision of Bechtel Power Corporation's soils engineers and geologists.

The following testing laboratories were used for this phase of the investigations:

Alabama Power Company's Lay Dam soils laboratory for static soil testing.

Woodward-Lundgren and Associates soils laboratory for static and dynamic soil testing.

Bechtel Corporation's rock testing laboratory for static rock testing.

Geo-Testing, Incorporated; earth materials laboratory for static and dynamic rock testing.

Refraction, uphole, and cross hole geophysical surveys were made by Weston Geophysical Engineers, Incorporated. The downhole survey was done by the Birdwell Division, Seismograph Service 2B-1 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B Corporation of the Raytheon Corporation. Dr. I. M. Idriss of the University of California at Berkeley performed seismic consulting studies. Geologic and mineralogic consulting studies were made by the Alabama Geological Survey.

2B.2 SCOPE OF INVESTIGATIONS The purpose of the subsurface and foundation investigations was to determine the most satisfactory foundation systems for the support of plant structures, and to develop detailed criteria for the design and construction of plant foundations and related earthwork. The use of these criteria in the design of the foundations and earthwork assures safe support of the plant structures. The subsurface and foundation investigations consisted of the following:

A. Site and area reconnaissance.

B. Field drilling and sampling of soil and rock.

C. Field geophysical surveys.

D. Laboratory testing of soil and rock under static and dynamic loads.

E. Review of previous foundation studies of the site area and review of pertinent literature.

F. Foundation analysis and evaluation.

2B.3 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS 2B.

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The field foundation investigations consisted of the following:

A. Soil test borings, parallel undisturbed sampling borings, auger borings, and rock coring.

B. Geophysical explorations.

C. Ground water investigations.

D. Plate load testing.

During all these field operations, either a geologist or a soils engineer from Bechtel Power Corporation was at the site to provide direction, inspection, and review of the various field programs.

A geologist from Alabama Power Company was also present during the drilling and sampling operations and the geophysical surveys. Supervisory personnel from Alabama Power Company and from Bechtel Power Corporation made frequent field visits to review progress and to modify the investigation programs as the subsurface data were developed.

2B-2 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B 2B.3.2 TEST BORING PROGRAM A test boring program was developed for the site to determine the subsurface conditions and to obtain representative soil and rock samples for laboratory testing. The boring locations are shown on drawings D-176900, D-176901, and D-176902. The graphic logs for all borings are shown on figures 2B2-2 and 2B2-3, and drawings D-176940, D-176941, D-176942, D-176943, D-176944, D-176945, D-176946, D-176947, D-176948, D-176949, D-176950, D-176951, D-176952, D-176953, D-176954, D-176955, D-176956, D-176963, D-176957, D-176958, D-176959, D-176970, D-176971, D-176972, D-176973, D-176974, D-176975, D-176976, D-176960, D-176961, D-176964, D-176962, D-176965, D-176966, D-176967, D-176968, D-176969, D-176979, D-176996, D-176977, and D-176978. All split spoon samples, undisturbed samples, and rock cores were examined in the field by a geologist or a soil engineer prior to the preparation of the boring logs.

All soil test borings were made with rotary drilling methods. Split spoon sampling and penetration testing were made at regular intervals. The boring procedure and penetration resistance testing were done in accordance with ASTM Standard D-1586-67(1). At the initial phase of subsurface investigation at the site, boreholes were advanced using solid stem augers above the ground water table and using bentonite drilling fluid below the ground water table. This was done to establish the general ground water levels in the various areas of the site. Later in the subsurface investigation operations, drilling fluid was used starting from the ground surface. In all cases the top of the casing was approximately 1 foot above the ground surface and passed through the bottom of the drilling fluid tub, thus keeping the fluid level at or near the ground surface at all times. Upon completion, all boreholes were grouted with a mixture of cement, bentonite, and water.

Undisturbed soil samples representative of the site soils were obtained in borings made parallel to the soil test borings and were sent to the laboratory for testing. The sampling procedures followed those described in ASTM Standard D-1587- 67(1) for thin walled tube sampling.

Bulk soil sampling was done from auger drilled holes in planned areas of excavation and borrow. The auger borings were made in accordance with ASTM Standard D-1452-65.(1)

Rock coring was done using an NX double tube core barrel with a diamond bit. Bentonite drilling mud was used to recover rock cores, which were classified immediately after recovery, prior to loss of any moisture. Portions of representative rock cores were sealed with wax to preserve the natural moisture and shipped to the laboratory for testing.

2B.3.3 GEOPHYSICAL EXPLORATIONS The geophysical exploration program was used to amplify and augment the test boring program and to determine the dynamic engineering properties of the subsurface materials. The subsurface profiles developed as the result of the geophysical explorations are shown on figures 2B3-3 through 2B3-10 and drawings D-176990 and D-176991.

This program consisted of the following:

A. Downhole survey of the foundation materials at the terrace and flood plain locations.

2B-3 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B B. Refraction surveys at the locations of the plant structures; the river and pond intake structures; the storage pond dam and dikes; and portions of the service and river water supply pipelines and in the plant area compacted backfill.

C. Uphole survey in the plant area.

D. Cross-hole surveys in the areas of the plant, river and pond intake structures, and the storage pond dam.

The downhole survey was done with a continuous velocity logging device, which consists of a transmitter and a receiver separated by an acoustic isolator. This logging device is lowered into the borehole. The various wave forms picked up by the receiver are recorded by a magnetic tape recorder. By controlling the rate of movement of the logging device in the borehole, a continuous well log was made. The velocity differences of the various wave forms permit easy recording and interpretation of the log data. From these data, the compression wave and shear wave velocities were recorded and Poisson's ratio was computed. This data was compiled at B-640 and B-655 and are shown on drawing D-176991.

The refraction survey was made by means of a twelve trace seismic refraction system with a recording oscillograph. A continuous profiling technique with 200-ft and 600-ft long geophone spreads was used.

Compression and shear wave velocities were determined. These velocity values were used to compute the elastic moduli and the Poisson's ratios for the various foundation materials.

Uphole data were obtained by detonating small explosive charges at various depths in a borehole with detectors positioned at the ground surface. Shots were spaced at vertical increments of 10 ft in the borehole. Uphole velocity determinations were made in borings No. 505, 507, and 521 in the plant area.

Cross-hole velocity measurements were made by lowering three component detectors down a pattern of four boreholes and detonating an explosive charge at the same depth as the detectors in a fifth hole.

Explosive charges and detectors were raised simultaneously in 10-ft increments after each detonation. in the plant area, B-505, B-507, B-521, B-522, and B-523 were used in the cross hole pattern. Cross-hole velocity measurements at the storage pond dam, reservoir intake and river intake structures were made using a five-hole array near existing borings.

The cross-hole pattern at the storage dam was midway between B-540 and B-526; at the pond intake structure it was between borings B-549 and B-549B; and at the river intake structure it was between B-573A and B-571A. The boring locations are shown on drawings D-176900, D-176901, and D-176902.

A summary of the geophysical data is shown on figure 2B5B-7.

2B.3.4 GROUND WATER INVESTIGATIONS Regional and general site ground water conditions were studied extensively as part of the geology phase of the field investigations. Details of this phase of field work are presented in subsection 2.4.13. The findings and conclusions applicable to foundation engineering are presented in subsection 2B.4.4. The procedures used in the ground water investigations are described in the following paragraphs.

A. In some of the borings, the natural ground water levels were determined during and after the drilling. While each boring was in progress, the depth was noted at which water first 2B-4 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B appeared in the boring, and if the circulation of drilling fluid was lost, this depth was noted too.

B. Piezometer nests were installed at various locations on the site to monitor ground water levels and fluctuations. (See figure 2.4-23.) Each nest consisted of from one to five piezometers placed in different strata, specifically the upper Residuum, Chattahoochee River floodplain alluvium, Moodys Branch, upper Lisbon, lower Lisbon, and Tallahatta.

Subsection 2.4.13.2.2 describes the piezometer installation in more detail.

C. The piezometers have been monitored on a long term basis as described in subsection 2.4.13.4.

D. Chemical tests were performed to determine the quality of the water as described in subsection 2.4.13.5.

E. Field permeability tests were performed according to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation field test procedures E-18 and E-19.(2) Nine borings were tested in the reservoir area and two were tested in the plant area.

The results are given in subsection 2B7.6.7.

2B.3.5 PLATE LOAD TESTING Soil load tests were conducted on compacted fill and on in-situ soils in the plant area in order to determine the modulus of subgrade reaction for the design of Category I tanks. The modulus of subgrade reaction is defined as the ratio between the soil pressure and corresponding settlement. This value is determined by performing plate load tests and plotting a curve of pressure versus settlement. Two tests were made at each of three selected locations in the plant area. The procedure for the plate load tests was based on ASTM D 1196-64.(1) The results are given in subsection 2B.7.3.

2B.4 SITE CONDITIONS 2B.4.1 SITE TOPOGRAPHY The site ground elevations vary from elevation 100 ft at the Chattahoochee River to approximately elevation 240 ft near the west boundary. The eastern side of the site has been modified by the Chattahoochee River. The present Chattahoochee River floodplain is 2500 to 3000 ft wide in the vicinity of the site and attains an elevation of 118 ft.

The Upland and the Chattahoochee River Valley constitute the two basic topographic features at the site.

The Upland surface is gently undulating and ranges from about elevation 170 to 240. Its surface generally slopes eastward toward the floodplain of the Chattahoochee River. Some gullying has progressed from the lower elevations to etch irregularities into the upland surface Rock Creek traverses the northern part of the site and an unnamed creek traverses the southern portion of the site. Rock Creek flows north, then turns east toward the river. The southern unnamed creek flows 2B-5 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B southeastward to the river. The boring plot plans, drawings D-176900, D-176901, and D-176902, show the original site contours. Figure 2.1-1 is the general site plot plan.

2B.4.2 SITE GEOLOGY In terms of physiography and geology, the site is located within a transitional zone between the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain provinces. However, the stratigraphy of the area is more closely allied with the Gulf Coastal Plain Province.

Scattered deep borings indicate that pre-Cretaceous basement rock immediately underlying the area consists of unmetamorphosed Paleozoic formations. Sedimentary units underlying the site range in age from Cretaceous to Recent. They form an integral part of the wedge of sediments deposited within the eastern Gulf Coastal Plain Province.

The Tallahatta and Lisbon formations of Middle Eocene age, together with Residuum of Oligocene to Recent age, comprise the principal sedimentary units exposed within 25 miles of the site. Erosional remnants of the Late Eocene Moodys Branch formation were observed immediately below the Residuum unit. The Ocala limestone of Late Eocene age crops out in limited extent about 5 miles south of the site along the Chattahoochee River near Gordon. Floodplain deposits are Pleistocene to Recent in age.

The thickness of the Cretaceous and Cenozoic deposits in the area is approximately 7000 ft. The maximum thickness of Eocene through Recent deposits is about 750 ft. The Tertiary units dip and thicken toward the south, with the dip ranging from 10 to 25 ft per mile.

Site borings encountered the following geologic units, listed from youngest to oldest: The Recent and Pleistocene floodplain soils; Residuum of Miocene and Oligocene age; and the Moodys Branch, Lisbon, and Tallahatta formations of Eocene age. The site geological map, showing the location of known and inferred contacts between surficial materials, is shown on figure 2.5-9.

Borings on the floodplain encountered a veneer of alluvium, composed of loose to dense gravelly sand and clay. At higher elevations, between about elevation 135 and 175, the surface deposits are predominantly tan to red mixtures of silt, clay, and sand. These soils have been commonly termed Residuum to denote in-situ weathering through leaching of the Moodys Branch formation and the Ocala limestone.

The Moodys Branch Formation of Late Eocene age consists of a white and tan, porous, fossiliferous limestone that contains fine- to coarse-grained quartz sand. The top of this limestone varies between elevation 111 and elevation 98 in the Upland area. Maximum thickness of the unit is 18 ft. Under the floodplain surface, the limestone is much thinner and only locally present, owing to erosion by the Chattahoochee River.

Beneath the Moodys Branch is the Lisbon formation, the top of which ranges from elevation 90 to 103.

Claystone, sandy claystone, silty sandstone, sandstone, and uncemented sand are encountered at various elevations. The indurated sediments grade from claystone to sandstone in short vertical and horizontal distances. Excellent exposures of the Lisbon formation can be found in the river banks upstream from the site. Locally, the sandstone is harder than the underlying calcareous claystone and forms overhanging ledges. The Lisbon formation is about 132 ft thick beneath the site, and is the prime load bearing stratum for the site. The top of Lisbon formation contour map is shown on figure 2.5-8.

2B-6 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B Underlying the Lisbon formation is the Tallahatta formation. The top of the Tallahatta formation ranges from elevation 13 to 41 ft. This unit consists of sand and clay beds, sandy claystone, glauconitic quartz sand, and sandy, fossiliferous limestone. The limestone grades upward into irregularly indurated calcareous sandstone. The sand beds are very argillaceous, medium to coarse-grained, and poorly sorted. Total thickness of the Tallahatta formation is approximately 135 ft along the Chattahoochee River.

2B.4.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 2B.4.3.1 General The graphic logs of all site borings are shown on figures 2B2-2 and 2B2-3, and drawings D-176940, D-176941, D-176942, D-176943, D-176944, D-176945, D-176946, D-176947, D-176948, D-176949, D-176950, D-176951, D-176952, D-176953, D-176954, D-176955, D-176956, D-176963, D-176957, D-176958, D-176959, D-176970, D-176971, D-176972, D-176973, D-176974, D-176975, D-176976, D-176960, D-176961, D-176964, D-176962, D-176965, D-176966, D-176967, D-176968, D-176969, D-176979, D-176996, D-176977, and D-176978. Generalized subsurface profiles for the site are shown on figures 2B1-1 through 2B1-4, 2B4-10 through 2B4-15, 2B4-21, and drawings D-176920, D-176921, D-176922, D-176923, D-176924, D-176925, D-176926, D-176927, D-176928, D-176932, D-176929, D-176930, D-176931, D-176933,and D-176934.

In the Upland area, where the plant is located, the general profile includes approximately 60 ft of soil which is underlain by Moodys Branch limestone approximately 10 ft thick, which is in turn underlain by the Lisbon formation. The Lisbon formation series is the foundation for the plant structures and is about 132 ft thick. The Tallahatta formation underlies the Lisbon formation. In the south Upland area, where the storage pond is located, the materials consist of terrace and Residuum deposits overlying scattered remnants of the Moodys Branch limestone.

A field hardness scale for fresh rock core is shown on the boring logs because the sediments of the Coastal Plain vary considerably in composition and degree of consolidation and cementation. After exposure to air, evaporation alters the distinguishing characteristics of the rock material. This can cause an erroneous description of the material when the core is logged after it has dried out. For this reason the core was tested for hardness immediately after it was removed from the hole according to a field hardness scale, which is shown on drawing D-176940.

During most of the coring, the material exhibiting low recovery was checked by a penetration resistance test between core runs. Some of the early borings were drilled without regard to whether or not the material was rock-like or soil-like. In many instances, low recovery or zero recovery material should not have been drilled as rock. However, subsequent soil sampling by standard penetration testing indicated such materials to be very dense and adequate for support of foundation loads.

2B.4.3.2 Plant Area At the plant area, where the ground surface is at approximate elevation 175, the uppermost soil deposit encountered is the Residuum which consists of an upper part and a lower part. The boundary between the parts is approximately at elevation 135 ft. The soil in the upper part is quite variable in color and 2B-7 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B grain size. It is predominantly tan or reddish tan silty sand with intermingled red and white silty clay.

The penetration resistance values generally vary from 20 to 30 blows/ft.

The lower part of the Residuum is a medium dense to dense silty sand layer which is believed to be the insoluble remains of the immediately underlying Moodys Branch limestone. This layer was encountered in most of the borings in the plant area. The penetration resistance values generally ranged from 10 to 50 blows/ft.

The Moodys Branch limestone lies below the overburden soils in the plant area. Fossiliferous sandy limestone of the Moodys Branch formation was encountered in all the borings in the plant area, and has a maximum thickness of 10 ft. The top of this material ranges between elevation 111 and elevation 99 ft.

Ground water was encountered at approximately elevation 120 to 130 ft within the overburden material above the limestone.

Beneath the Moodys Branch limestone lies the Lisbon formation, which is the prime load bearing stratum for the Farley site. The Lisbon formation consists of three basic types of material: a calcareous silty sandstone, a calcareous slightly clayey siltstone, and calcareous very dense olive gray sand. The material is composed of approximately 70 percent fine sand and 30 percent silt or clay size fractions.

The siltstone is fresh, with almost no weathering, and is green gray, waxy looking, firm to moderately hard, massive material that locally contains small pockets or lenses of fine silty sand and fine sand.

Upon drying out some portions that contain calcium carbonate become lighter gray and hard. This often causes them to be mistaken for an earthy limestone, while other portions slake or crumble and become quite friable to the touch. This siltstone occurs at several places within the depth of the foundation material intermingled in layers with the silty sandstones. Essentially the upper two thirds of the Lisbon formation is the sandstone or siltstone material. Within this upper portion, there is a thin variable layer of what could be considered a very limy silty sandstone. It varies from gray to olive gray and contains indurated calcareous sand. These variable limy sandstones grade laterally and vertically and are not regular or uniform in their location.

The lower third of the Lisbon formation, between elevations 15 and 20 ft, is a medium to fine grained calcareous sand with some silt or clay, having an olive gray color when fresh and moist. It is not completely cemented but is sufficiently consolidated to be very dense to extremely dense with penetration test values ranging from 60 to 200 blows per foot. This sandy material is calcareous and reacts moderately well with hydrochloric acid. This sand horizon contains an artesian aquifer under a low pressure as discussed in subsections 2B.4.4 and 2.4.13.

2B.4.3.3 Floodplain and Storage Pond Areas The subsurface investigation in the floodplain area encountered a thin veneer of recent alluvium at the surface. This material varies from silty sands at the ground surface to silty and gravelly sands with depth. The consistency varies from loose to dense. Underlying the alluvial material is the top of the Lisbon formation. In the floodplain the Moodys Branch limestone has been removed by erosion near the river. The Lisbon formation in the floodplain is similar to that encountered in the plant site; however, the upper 5 to 10 ft is slightly softer than the top portion of the Lisbon formation encountered in the plant area.

2B-8 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B The soils encountered at the location of the storage pond are similar to those encountered in the plant area. The upper few feet of overburden in the dam site and reservoir consists of a clayey or silty sand.

Underlying this is a firm sandy clay approximately 10 ft thick. The sandy clay forms an impervious barrier to underseepage beneath the dam and the dikes. Under the clay is a zone of silty sand and sand approximately 30 ft thick extending to the Lisbon formation.

Borrow areas for the dam and dike are at the west of the storage pond dam. Shallow material to an approximate depth of 10 ft consists of a red tan sandy clay underlain by approximately 10 ft of tan to brown clayey sand.

The borrow materials were sampled by auger and test borings, and bag samples were obtained for laboratory testing.

2B.4.4 GROUND WATER CONDITIONS Three ground water systems exist beneath the site within the depths applicable to foundation engineering.

They are the perched water table within the upper Residuum, the unconfined (upper) portion of the major shallow aquifer, and the confined (lower) portion of the major shallow aquifer.

The Upland central and western portion of the site is blanketed by Residuum which consists of an upper unit of clayey sand and sandy clay and a lower unit of silty sand. The upper unit is generally above elevation 135 ft. Water is locally perched in the upper Residuum immediately above the clay which forms an aquiclude above the lower Residuum sand.

The upper section of the major shallow aquifer consists of the basal sand portion of the Residuum, the alluvial deposits in the Chattahoochee River floodplain, the Moodys Branch limestone, and the upper sandstone portion of the Lisbon formation. The Residuum basal sand is below approximate elevation 135 ft. Alluvial sand, clay, and gravel deposits immediately underlie the floodplain in the eastern portion of the site. The Moodys Branch limestone is porous and sandy. The upper Lisbon formation, whose top is between elevation 90 ft and 103 ft under most of the site, is characterized by sandstone, silty sandstone, sandy claystone, and thin layers of uncemented sand. The aquiclude separating the upper and lower sections of the major shallow aquifer consists of silty claystone and siltstone of the Lisbon formation. The top of this aquiclude lies between elevation 55 and 65 ft, and is continuous under the entire site.

The lower section of the major shallow aquifer consists of sands and limestones in the Hatchetigbee, Tallahatta, and lower Lisbon formations. The lower part of the Lisbon consists of about 50 to 60 ft of fine- to medium-grained sand, shell fragments, and sandy limestone. The Tallahatta contains 135 ft of silty sand, sandy limestone, and sandy claystone. The Hatchetigbee formation is between 35 and 45 ft thick and consists of fossiliferous sand and sandstone.

The preconstruction ground water conditions were determined from observations of water levels in the boreholes and piezometers. A map of the preconstruction ground water contours is shown on figure 2.4-23. Water under artesian pressure originally flowed from three piezometers in the lower section of the major shallow aquifer on the Chattahoochee River floodplain. The unconfined ground water table formed a preconstruction phreatic surface at about elevation 120 to 130 ft in the plant area and at about elevation 140 in the spillway area. The natural surfaces of both the upper section and the lower section of the major shallow aquifer sloped eastwardly across the site toward the Chattahoochee River. The slope of the phreatic surface of the upper section under the Upland ranged from 0.01 to 0.02 and under 2B-9 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B the floodplain decreased to about 0.003. Under both areas, the natural gradient of the lower section was approximately 0.0014 toward the east and the piezometric levels generally were at about elevation 130 in the lower section. Natural fluctuations in water levels are caused by influence of streams and precipitation. The phreatic surface of the upper section of the major shallow aquifer reflects in subdued form the shape of the ground surface, but the lower section reflects only the general slope of underlying strata toward the river.

The dewatering system for plant construction consisted of 350 well points extending into the unconfined portion of the major shallow aquifer and two deeper wells extending into the confined portion.

The deeper wells were installed before the plant area was excavated in order to reduce the hydrostatic uplift within the area of excavation.

The dewatering operation caused a temporary cone of depression in the immediate plant area. The strata affected were the upper part of the Lisbon formation in the unconfined portion of the major shallow aquifer, and the lower Lisbon and Tallahatta formations in the confined portion. Ground water in the Residuum basal sand and Moodys Branch limestone were not affected except within the excavation area.

Water levels in the upper Residuum and the Chattahoochee River alluvium did not drop as a result of dewatering. Piezometric level contours in their dewatered configuration are shown on figures 2.4-60 through 2.4-63.

During excavation, the water level of the upper part of the Lisbon formation was reduced by 66 ft to 54 ft MSL. Elsewhere at the site the water level was reduced by 20 ft or less. The temporary cone of depression in the upper Lisbon covered an area of about 1 square mile. The dewatering operations lowered the ground water levels in the lower Lisbon and the Tallahatta up to 38 ft, while the ground water levels in the immediate plant area were reduced as much as 57 ft. The temporary cone of depression in the lower section of the major shallow aquifer covered slightly more than 1 square mile.

Phreatic ground water levels in the Upland have generally increased, attaining elevations in July, 1972, 10 to 15 ft above those in 1969. In the spillway area the perched water level fluctuates between elevation 168 and 184 ft. in the floodplain the ground water is generally within 5 to 10 ft of the ground surface.

2B.5 LABORATORY TESTING 2B.

5.1 INTRODUCTION

The laboratory testing program provided data for static and dynamic design of the foundations. The testing was conducted in accordance with currently accepted procedures.(3)(4)(5)(6) The data were used for evaluating the stability and bearing capacity of the plant foundations and site slopes. Three types of soil samples were tested during this program: undisturbed samples, bag samples, and split spoon samples.

The undisturbed samples were secured by thin-walled tube and Denison barrel sampling methods. Rock samples were tested which were obtained either from the NX core or from Denison sampling.

2B-10 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B 2B.5.2 STATIC SOIL TESTING 2B.5.2.1 Classification Tests Grain size, specific gravity, and Atterberg limit tests were performed on representative samples from the site. The grain size tests were performed to determine the particle size distribution.

The Atterberg limit tests were made to determine the soil plasticity characteristics. The void ratios were determined for the undisturbed samples used in the triaxial shear tests and the consolidation tests.

All laboratory data are shown and tabulated on figures 2B5-1 through 2B5-47.

2B.5.2.2 Consolidation Tests Consolidation tests on representative undisturbed samples were made to determine soil settlement characteristics. The load on each sample was increased in progressive increments to a maximum pressure. Each increment was maintained until the sample had fully consolidated under the incremental load. The rate of consolidation was measured for each load increment. After consolidation to the maximum pressure, the sample was unloaded in progressive increments.

2B.5.2.3 Triaxial Shear Tests Triaxial compression tests(5)(6) were made on representative undisturbed and compacted samples to determine the soil strength parameters to be used in bearing capacity and slope stability calculations.

Tests were made at three different confining pressures to develop the Mohr strength envelopes. When an insufficient amount of sample was available, a multiple stage triaxial shear test(5)(6) was carried out on one specimen to obtain the maximum amount of information.

Unconsolidated-undrained (UU) triaxial shear tests were performed by loading three different cylindrical soil specimens. Each specimen was loaded by an all-around confining pressure and sheared without permitting drainage. This procedure simulates rapid loading of the soil with no drainage and gives a reliable indication of the in-situ strength.

Consolidated-undrained (CU) triaxial compression tests were made on undisturbed samples. in the CU triaxial test procedure three soil specimens were loaded to three different confining pressures and were allowed to consolidate. Then, each specimen was sheared rapidly by increasing the axial load and allowing no drainage. Pore water pressure measurements were made during some CU tests to determine the effective strength parameters. All soil specimens were loaded by a constant rate of axial deflection and the resulting stresses were recorded. Plots of major principal stress versus strain and pore pressure versus strain were made and the principal stresses for each specimen were plotted as Mohr's circles. The effective and total cohesion and angle of internal friction for each sample as determined from the Mohr's circles are given on the Soil Test Results Summary, figures 2B5-13 through 2B5-47.

2B-11 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B 2B.5.3 STATIC ROCK TESTING Static unconfined and triaxial compression tests were performed on selected rock samples. The samples tested were representative rock cores obtained in the drilling program. In addition to the unconfined and triaxial compression tests, the samples were tested to determine the modulus of elasticity and the Poisson's ratio. Sections of the NX size core samples, approximately 2 diameters in length, were cut with parallel end faces. The parallel ends were capped and strain gauges were attached vertically and horizontally to the sides to obtain the strain readings during the compression tests. From this data the stress strain curves were plotted. The center diameter increase was used to determine Poisson's ratio.

Summaries of the rock test data are presented on figures 2B5A-1 through 2B5A-4.

2B.5.4 DYNAMIC SOIL TESTING Cyclic loading triaxial tests were made on undisturbed soil specimens to evaluate the liquefaction potential of the site soils. Each specimen was initially isotropically consolidated under a cell pressure and then subjected to a cyclic deviator stress. The value of the cell pressure was based on the field effective overburden pressure for the sample. Saturation of the sample was verified by checking the value of Skempton's pore water pressure parameter B.(5) For all tests, a value of B equal to unity was obtained prior to the application of the cyclic load. A sinusoidal load trace was applied to each sample. The load trace, the deflection of the sample, and the pore water pressure developed in the sample were recorded for the duration of the test. The number of load cycles required to cause initial liquefaction (i.e., when the pore water pressure first equals the effective confining pressure), +5 percent strain, and +10 percent strain were then evaluated from these recorded traces. The results of the soil cyclic triaxial tests are summarized in figure 2B6-1.

Reconstituted specimens were prepared by the wet-tamping method. The soil was compacted at the specified moisture content in eight layers to form a specimen 1.95 in. in diameter and 4 in. in height. For each layer, one-eighth of the total specimen weight was compacted to a specified thickness, being slightly greater than 1/2 in. for the bottom layer and slightly less than 1/2 in. for the top layer. Compactive effort was applied by hand tamping using a spring loaded tamping tool with a 3/4 in. diameter tamping foot.

The top of each layer was scarified prior to placement of the next layer.

Each remolded specimen was encased in two membranes and fitted with porous stones on top and bottom. The specimen was then placed in a standard triaxial cell and allowed to consolidate under the specified confining pressure at which it was to be tested. The specimen was allowed access to water at both the top and bottom platens. A small difference in hydraulic head was maintained between the bottom and the top platens to establish a flow through the specimen. After 1 day the back pressure was slowly increased at a rate of 0.2 Kg/cm2 per day to facilitate saturation of the specimen. A constant effective stress was maintained on the specimen by increasing the cell pressure in equal increments. The specimen was allowed to saturate for a minimum period of 1 week. During the saturation consolidation period, change in length of the specimen was monitored.

The specimen was then transferred from the standard triaxial cell to a cyclic triaxial testing cell. During transfer the outer membrane was inspected for leakage and replaced if necessary. The inner membrane and the porous stones at each end were left in contact with the specimen.

The specimen in the cyclic triaxial cell was then placed in the MTS testing frame for back pressuring.

The back pressure was applied gradually over a period of 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> to a value of 5 Kg/cm2, with an 2B-12 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B effective confining stress of 0.2 Kg/cm2 maintained on the specimen. The pore pressure parameter, B, was measured and the sample was assumed to be saturated when the value of B approached unity (B 1).

The specified effective confining pressure was then reapplied and the sample allowed to come to equilibrium. If an initially anisotropic stress state (Kc 1) was desired the sample was first consolidated isotropically and then the static deviator stress was applied in small increments, allowing the specimen to adjust slowly to the applied shear stress.

The specimens were tested under cyclic loading without drainage using an electrohydraulic closed-loop loading system manufactured by MTS Systems Corporation. A sinusoidally varying cyclic load was applied at a frequency of 1 Hz, producing a cyclic axial deviator stress, +/- d, varying about the initial value of 1. The value of the cell pressure, 3, was maintained at a constant value. During the test the axial deformation, axial load, and pore pressure were monitored and recorded on photographic paper. A typical test trace is shown in figure 2B6-1A. The upper trace is the record of platen-to-platen deformation of the sample. The middle trace is the record of the amplitude of the applied cyclic axial load. The lower trace represents the average of the pore pressures recorded at the top and bottom platens. The test was continued until either a value of 20 percent total axial strain or 1000 load cycles was reached.

2B.5.5 DYNAMIC ROCK TESTING Cyclic triaxial compression and resonant column tests were performed to determine the dynamic strength parameters of rock foundation materials from the site. All test specimens were prepared from core samples by cutting the ends perpendicular to the specimen axis with a diamond saw in which no water or cutting fluid was employed.

Resonant column tests were performed on rock core specimens to determine the shear modulus (G) and damping ratio (D) of cylindrical specimens under triaxial confinement. Shear moduli and damping ratios were determined by the free vibration Method using a Hardin resonant column oscillator following procedures outlined in ASTM publication STP 479.(35)

Triaxial compression tests incorporating cyclic dynamic loading under controlled stress conditions were also performed on saturated rock core test specimens. Upon completion of primary consideration, the drainage valves were closed and a predetermined reversing cyclic axial stress was applied at a frequency of approximately 2 hertz. Stress reversal was accomplished for most tests within several milliseconds, thus producing a "square wave" loading. Measurement of hydrodynamic pressure, strains, and axial loads was accomplished with electronic transducers and traces of the analog values were simultaneously recorded throughout the entire test. in order to accomplish the desired principal effective stress reversal, it was necessary to apply external tensile forces to the loading piston during one half of each cycle. In this manner, the direction of s1 and the resulting principal stress difference (1 - 3) was reversed as the confining pressure (ch) was being applied both on the specimen sides and top of the loading ram. Since the samples were in a saturated state, the reversing stress applied axially had the same effect as applying simultaneous axial and lateral stress changes (in reversed direction) which are necessary to cause the desired shear stress reversal in simulating seismic loading.

The results obtained from the rock dynamic tests are presented in tabular form on figure 2B5B-7.

2B-13 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B 2B.6 STRUCTURAL DATA 2B.

6.1 INTRODUCTION

The switchyard area, which is west of the plant, had a maximum original ground elevation of approximately 215 ft.

In the plant area the average ground surface elevation was 172 ft. The plant area was graded approximately to elevation 155 ft west of the plant, between the west side of the turbine building and the east side of the switchyard area, an excavation slope was made from elevation 200 ft at the switchyard level to elevation 155 ft at the plant area.

The normal ground water level in the plant area is at elevation 125 ft. The design ground water level is at elevation 140 ft. After the ground water level was lowered, an open excavation was dug for the foundations of the containment and auxiliary buildings with the general foundation level in the Lisbon formation at elevation 95 ft. After construction of the substructure the excavation was backfilled to yard grade.

The plant area structures and subsurface profiles are shown on drawings D-176921, D-176922, D-176923, D-176924, and figures 2B4-10 through 2B4-14.

2B.6.2 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURES Each containment structure is supported on a rigid mat foundation. The bottom of the base slab is at elevation 95 ft with the bottom of the tendon access gallery at elevation 83.5 ft and the bottom of the reactor cavity at elevation 73 ft. The total weight of each containment structure, including the base slab and the installed equipment, is approximately 60,000 tons. The base slab has a diameter of approximately 146 ft and the average static gross foundation pressure is 7200 lb/ft2.

2B.6.3 AUXILIARY BUILDINGS There are two auxiliary buildings on a common mat which is rectangular in shape, with dimensions of 400 and 232 ft. The auxiliary building column and wall loads vary from 500 to 1700 tons and the total weight is approximately 87,000 tons. The average static gross foundation pressure on the rigid mat foundation is approximately 5800 lb/ft2. The foundation level is at approximate elevation 95 ft with small deeper set sections at elevation 72 and 78 ft.

2B.6.4 COOLING WATER SYSTEM LINES AND FACILITIES The following structures and components of the plant cooling water system are designed as seismic Category I: The service water intake structure, storage pond intake channel, the river water supply lines and service water lines, the pond fill discharge structure, and the recirculating water discharge structure.

The river intake structure and channel were originally designed as Category I Structures, but are no longer maintained as such. (See section 3.8.4.1.C for additional information.)

2B-14 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B The river water intake structure has a total weight of 22,100 tons. It is supported on flexible mat foundations at two levels: at elevation 55.5 ft and at elevation 61 ft. The average static gross foundation pressure is 4800 lb/ft2. The invert of the intake channel is at elevation 64 ft. The normal ground water level is at elevation 76 ft. The design flood level is at elevation 127 ft.

The river intake structure and channel and the subsurface profiles are shown on figures 2B1-1 and 2B4-15.

The storage pond service water intake structure is founded on large diameter straight shaft drilled piers (caissons) extending into the Lisbon formation. In the northern half of the structure, the drilled piers have a diameter of 6 ft, a top elevation of 162.5 ft, and a bottom elevation of 86 ft, or a minimum penetration of 17.5 ft into the Lisbon formation, whichever is lower. All other drilled piers have diameters of 6, 7, or 10 ft, top elevations from 147 to 153 ft, and bottom elevations of 98 ft or a minimum penetration of 2 ft in the Lisbon, whichever is lower. The total weight of the structure with wet wells full is 24,000 tons. The maximum static gross drilled pier foundation pressure is 22,100 lb/ft2. The normal ground water level is at elevation 186 ft with the design flood level at elevation 192.2 ft. The storage pond intake structure and subsurface profile are shown on figure 2B1-2 and drawing D-176929.

The service water piping at the site has some segments that are completely buried and other segments that are on footings resting on grade. Buried pipelines are founded on soil which has a bearing capacity of at least 2000 lb/ft2. Bearing capacity is not a problem since the weight of the pipeline will generally approximate the weight of the soil removed from the trench. In the floodplain area, where recent alluvium is present, the foundation soils were proof compacted to provide uniformity. Also, in the floodplain, any rock present was undercut and compacted soil was placed as the foundation; this established a uniform foundation. The trench backfill and cover were placed in thin layers (6-9 in.) and compacted to a minimum 95-percent maximum dry density as determined by the standard Proctor test, ASTM D-698.(7)(8)

Subsurface profiles for the Category I plant cooling water pipelines are shown on drawings D-176930 and D-176931. Pipes placed on grade are supported by foundation footings (sleepers) placed at each joint. The contact pressure, which depends on pipe size, does not exceed 2000 lb/ft2. The site soils are capable of carrying such a load. Category I pipelines are seismically designed as described in paragraph 3.7.3.12. Liquefaction of the foundation soils will not occur under the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE). The evaluation and the factors of safety against liquefaction appear in subsection 2B.7.5. The pond fill discharge structure has a total weight of about 300 tons. The 30-ft by 30-ft base slab, which is founded at elevation 178.25 ft, supports the structure. The average static gross foundation pressure is 640 lb/ft2. The pond fill discharge structure and subsurface profile are shown on figure 2B1-7. The recirculating water discharge structure is similar to the pond fill discharge structure but is smaller, weighing about 220 tons. The 23-ft by 23-ft base slab, which is founded at elevation 181.0 ft, supports the structure. The average static gross foundation pressure is 810 lb/ft2. The recirculating water discharge structure and subsurface profile are shown on figure 2B1-8.

2B.6.5 DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING The emergency diesel generator building, which is 180 ft by 120 ft in size, is founded on 5-ft-diameter straight shaft drilled piers that extend a minimum of 10 ft into the Lisbon formation. The top of drilled piers is at elevation 151 ft. The total weight of the building, including the equipment, is 23,600 tons. The 2B-15 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B maximum static gross drilled pier foundation pressure is 36,300 lb/ft2. The diesel generator building and the subsurface profile are shown on figure 2B1-3.

2B.6.6 OUTDOOR TANKS Miscellaneous Category I outdoor tanks vary in size. The condensate and refueling water storage tanks are 46 ft in diameter and 41 ft high. The reactor makeup storage tank is 35 ft in diameter. The foundations for the condensate and refueling water storage tanks are octagonally shaped, reinforced concrete mats, 58 ft across the flats and 4 ft thick. The mats are founded on compacted fills at elevation 151 ft. The foundation for the reactor makeup water storage tank is an octagonally shaped, reinforced concrete mat, 51 ft across the flats and 4 ft thick. The bottom of the mat is on compacted fill at elevation 151 ft.

2B.6.7 STORAGE POND The storage pond serves as the plant's ultimate heat sink. During normal operation it is a reservoir for water pumped from the river prior to its use in the plant service water system and cooling towers.

Though not required for safe shutdown of the plant, the river intake channel, the river intake structure, and the pipelines leading from the river to the reservoir, are designed to Category I requirements. The storage pond dam and dike are also designed to Category I requirements.

The storage pond is located on the south portion of the site and is formed by a dam across the valley of an unnamed creek. It is shown in general outline on drawings D-176900 and D-176902. The approximate crest length of the dam and dike is 3900 ft with a crest elevation at 195 ft. The maximum height is 58 ft at the lowest point of the valley bottom. The average height is approximately 30 ft. Detailed descriptions of the pond, dam, and the dikes are given in subsection 2B.7.6.1.

This storage pond inundates an existing small farm pond to the north, which was previously used for stock watering. The small pond dam was removed before inundation.

2B.6.8 POND SPILLWAY STRUCTURE The pond spillway structure is located at the north end of the reservoir as shown on drawing D-176902.

The spillway crest will be 40 ft wide at the crest elevation of 186 ft. The spillway structure is supported on 6-ft-diameter drilled piers that extend into the Lisbon formation. The top elevation of the drilled piers is 165.8 ft and the bottom elevation is 84 ft. The total weight of the structure is approximately 8,630 tons.

The maximum static gross drilled pier foundation pressure is 21,800 lb/ft2 and the maximum dynamic pressure is 40,300 lb/ft2. The storage pond spillway structure and subsurface profile are shown on figure 2B1-4.

2B.6.9 NON-CATEGORY I STRUCTURES The most significant non-Category I structure is the turbine building which is located adjacent to the west side of the auxiliary building. The turbine building is founded on straight shaft drilled piers 3 to 10 ft in diameter that extend into the Lisbon formation. The top elevation of the drilled piers is 132 ft. The total 2B-16 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B weight of the structure is 71,200 tons. The maximum static gross drilled pier foundation pressure is 18,600 lb/ft2.

Other significant non-Category I structures are the service building at the south end of the turbine building, cooling towers east and north of the plant, and minor accessory structures located around the plant. The service building is supported on 4- to 7-ft-diameter drilled piers bearing on the Lisbon formation. The other structures have light foundation loads on the order of 500 to 3000 lb/ft2 and are located on compacted fill.

2B.7 FOUNDATION EVALUATION 2B.7.1 GENERAL The stability of soil and rock foundations for static and dynamic loads and for adverse ground water conditions has been evaluated by performing bearing capacity, settlement, liquefaction and slope stability analyses. The basis for dynamic loading is the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) which has a maximum horizontal acceleration of 10 percent of gravity. Bearing capacity analyses have been made based on the equations developed by Terzaghi.(9) Drilled piers that penetrate into the Lisbon formation were considered to be end bearing only and were assumed to have no shaft frictional resistance. Mat foundations, which rest either on the Lisbon formation or on compacted fill, were considered flexible or rigid depending on the stiffness of the structure relative to the foundation material. A minimum factor of safety against a static bearing capacity or shear failure was established at 3 and was defined as follows:

FS = qult - qs qa - qs where FS = factor of safety against static shear failure q

ult = gross ultimate bearing capacity of foundation soil or rock (lb/ft2) qs = intensity of effective surcharge material above foundation base (lb/ft2) qa = total or gross applied pressure at the foundation base (lb/ft2)

The minimum factor of safety against a dynamic shear failure was established at 2. Settlement analyses were made based on the theory of consolidation(10) in the case of saturated primarily cohesive soil and on the theory of elasticity in the case of nonsaturated or primarily frictional soils. The equations used in the analyses are presented in reference 11.

Liquefaction analyses were made using cyclic triaxial test results of relatively undisturbed soil samples and the computational procedures described in subsection 2B.7.5.1.

Slope stability during static and dynamic loading has been evaluated by means of the circular arc Method of slices procedure. The minimum factors of safety against sliding or shear failure for all slopes are established as follows:

2B-17 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B A. Normal conditions: For normal operating conditions without the earthquake and with the most adverse water level, the minimum factor of safety is 1.5.

B. Earthquake conditions: For the addition of the effect of the SSE to the normal operating conditions, the minimum factor of safety is 1.1.

C. Construction conditions: For temporary construction conditions, the minimum factor of safety is 1.3.

2B.7.2 PROPERTIES OF SOIL AND ROCK 2B.7.2.1 Static Properties Results of field and laboratory tests performed on soil and rock samples obtained from various areas and elevations within the site are shown graphically on figures 2B5B-1 through 2B5B-7. The properties include grain size characteristics, Atterberg limits, moisture content, dry density, specific gravity, permeability, compressibility, and strength characteristics. The results of the soil classification and Atterberg limits tests are shown on figure 2B5B-1. The soil moisture contents generally vary between 10 and 30 percent. The soil dry densities vary between 85 and 120 lb/ft3. The soil specific gravity ranges between 2.6 and 2.7. The grain size characteristics of the site soils are represented by a plot of the percentage of weight passing the No. 200 sieve (0.074 mm particle size).

Atterberg limits results are presented on the plasticity chart and indicate a liquid limit between 20 and 70 percent and a plasticity index between 5 and 45 percent. Permeability and compression characteristics are shown on figure 2B5B-2. As expected, the permeability coefficient of undisturbed and compacted soil samples decreases with increasing amounts of material passing the No. 200 sieve.

Strength characteristics of undisturbed and compacted soil samples are shown on figures 2B5B-3 through 2B5B-6. Triaxial compression test results are represented by the straight line Mohr-Coulomb strength equation:

s = c + N tan where s= shear strength c= cohesion N= normal stress

= angle of internal friction Total stress parameters were determined by unconsolidated or consolidated undrained tests, and effective stress parameters were obtained by consolidated-undrained tests with pore pressure measurement.

2B-18 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B Static properties of the Lisbon rock are shown on figure 2B5B-6. The rock total unit weight varied from 115 to 135 lb/ft3. The modulus of elasticity ranged from 50,000 to 450,000 psi. Triaxial compression tests on rock specimens indicated Mohr-Coulomb shear strength parameters varying from a maximum of 200 psi cohesion and 38 degrees friction angle to a minimum of 20 psi cohesion and 25 degrees friction angle.

2B.7.2.2 Dynamic Properties Geophysical data were used to evaluate the dynamic moduli for the overburden soils and underlying rock, because the magnitude of shear strain expected during the earthquakes is similar to the magnitude of strain induced during the geophysical survey. Refraction, uphole, and cross-hole methods were employed. These dynamic properties were computed from compression and shear wave velocity measurements. A summary of the results are shown on figure 2B5B-7.

The dynamic elastic and shear moduli for soils varied from 21,000 to 59,000 psi and from 8,000 to 21,000 psi, respectively. The higher values are for the more compact material. The dynamic elastic and shear moduli for the Lisbon formation varied from 150,000 to 2,500,000 psi and from 50,000 to 970,000 psi, respectively. The higher values are for the harder rock material.

In addition to the field geophysical data, dynamic laboratory testing was performed on undisturbed and compacted soil samples. The results of cyclic triaxial test and the dynamic response of site soils are presented in subsection 2B.7.5.

Fresh rock specimens were also subjected to dynamic testing. Resonant column tests were performed to determine the shear modulus and damping ratio for representative types of foundation rock. The shear moduli ranged from 36,000 psi for soft clayey siltstone to 650,000 psi for hard sandstone. Damping ratio was determined from the decay curve of the resonant column test and ranged from 2 to 6 percent. The lower values were generally associated with the harder rock materials. The results of the resonant column tests are presented on figure 2B5B-7. Cyclic triaxial tests were performed on representative rock core specimens to determine the magnitude of strain under dynamic loading conditions. Confining pressures of 60 and 80 psi were used and axial loadings of 0.4 to 1.6 times the confining pressure were applied at the rate of 2 hertz. The peak to peak axial strain ranged from 0.03 to 0.49 percent. The higher strains were associated with the higher axial loading conditions. The responses of the rock specimens indicate that there were no deleterious effects on the rock samples under dynamic loading.

The results of the cyclic triaxial tests are presented on figure 2B5B-7.

2B.7.3 FOUNDATION ANALYSIS OF CATEGORY I STRUCTURES The Lisbon formation is the prime load bearing stratum for all Category I plant building structures.

Final foundation loads and geometry were determined as a result of the structural design. Bearing capacity was evaluated for drilled pier and mat foundations using Terzaghi's equations(9)(10) and the most adverse ground water levels. Plant building settlements were determined using the general settlement equation based on the theory of elasticity(11) because consolidation theory does not apply for the foundation materials.

The laboratory tests performed on the Lisbon formation samples were evaluated and the following static material properties were selected as design values for all structures supported on the Lisbon formation:

2B-19 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B Static Modulus of Elasticity, E = 150,000 lb/in.2 Total unit weight, = 120 lb/ft3 Poisson's ratio, = 0.15 Angle of internal friction, = 32 degrees Unit cohesion, c = 50 psi The calculated ultimate bearing capacities for the various structures on the Lisbon formation are shown on table 2B-1. The maximum allowable static gross bearing pressure for the Lisbon formation varied from 30 to 40 ksf and the maximum allowable dynamic gross bearing capacity varied from 44 to 60 ksf.

The maximum settlement under the worst loading conditions for the Category I plant structures was less than 1 in. Results of the foundation analyses are presented for each Category I structure in table 2B-1.

It should be noted that the total thickness of compacted silty clayey sand fill at the maximum dam section is 95 ft and extends from the top of rock at approximately elevation 100 to the nominal embankment crest at elevation 195. Compression of the embankment was estimated to be less than 1.5 percent of its total height based on published measured data(37) for embankments or similar soil types. The Lisbon foundation will undergo elastic deformation as the construction proceeds. This settlement will be small and will not affect the long term settlement of the dam or the section of the camber for the dam.

An additional 1.5 percent was provided for camber. As a result the dam embankment height was increased 3 ft to elevation 198 at this section to account for expected embankment compression and to provide camber to the dam. The elevations of the stations are shown on drawing D-176980.

Plate load tests were conducted to determine the modulus of subgrade reaction for the design of the Category I tank foundations.(12) The test results indicated the plant area backfill compactive effort generally exceeded the specifications of 95 percent standard Proctor dry density (ASTM D-698-70 Method A). The moduli of subgrade reaction for various degrees of compaction were as follows:

Degree of Modulus of Compaction Subgrade Reaction

(%) (lb/in3) 90 100 95 150 100 200 105 250 On the basis of unconsolidated and consolidated undrained triaxial laboratory tests, the static material properties of the plant area compacted backfill were selected. Because the in-situ soils are at least equal to these values, the properties presented for compacted fill were used for the soil foundation analyses in the plant area, including bearing capacity calculations. Strength comparisons are shown on figure 2B5B-5.

2B-20 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B Static Modulus of Elasticity, E = 9,500 psi Total unit weight, = 120 lb/ft3 Poisson's ratio, = 0.35 (assumed)

Angle of internal friction, = 16 degrees Unit cohesion, c = 900 lb/ft2 The only Category I structures on the plant compacted backfill are the condensate, reactor makeup, and refueling water storage tanks. The minimum safety factors against shear failure of foundation mats are shown on table 2B-1. The maximum settlement for these tanks is approximately 1.0 in. or less.

2B.7.3.1 Settlement of Category I Structures The settlement monitoring program consisted of establishing 3 to 4 marker points around the perimeter of each Category I building and tank foundation; and measuring the vertical movements of these points by precision surveying methods on a monthly basis. Reference bench marks were located outside the influence of structure settlements. Since subsurface conditions indicated that settlements would be small, a criterion was established to terminate readings when no further appreciable settlement was recorded after a period of observation. Specifically, for any building, after the structure was substantially completed, if the difference between the highest and lowest readings remained within 0.02 feet during six consecutive monthly readings, then additional readings were discontinued. Readings were terminated for some structures in conformance with this criterion. However, in December 1976, another check of all markers was performed. The results verified the validity of the above criterion.

Settlement markers were established on each structure as soon as the construction conditions permitted, and consecutive monthly readings were taken from periods varying from 6 to 30 months depending on the construction period of the structure. A certain amount of fluctuation in the data is inevitable because of human factors, temperature effects, instrument precision, and environmental effects. Other factors such as temporary construction loads are probably also reflected. The maximum measured settlement of each marker on a structure was used to compute the average settlement for that structure. The maximum settlements were not necessarily recorded at the last measurement. Therefore, in general, the average settlement values are consecutive.

All measured settlements are small. There have been no construction problems experienced due to total or differential settlement of foundations. Structures founded on the Lisbon formation using either mats or drilled piers have settled less than 0.5 inch. All tanks have settled less than 0.8 inch and these are supported by approximately 50 feet of compacted fill. Pond fill and recirculation discharge structures have settled less than 0.3 inch and these are supported on natural residual. Tilt of all structures is less than 0.05 percent. Tilt is defined as the ratio of the relative movement of two points on a structure to the distance between these points.

2B-21 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B 2B.7.4 FOUNDATION ANALYSIS OF NON-CATEGORY I STRUCTURES The turbine building is supported on drilled piers extending into the Lisbon formation. The maximum static and dynamic gross foundation pressures under the drilled piers are 18,600 and 19,900 lb/ft2, respectively. The maximum settlement was calculated to be 0.1 in.

The 45-ft by 505-ft cooling towers are supported on fill compacted to 95-percent standard Proctor dry density (ASTM D-698-70)-Method A. The maximum static gross foundation pressure for the cooling towers is 1600 lb/ft2, and the resulting maximum total and differential settlements are 1.4 and 0.7 in.,

respectively.

The wooden cooling towers are being replaced by fiberglass towers which are 108 ft by 450 ft (400 ft for C tower). The maximum static ground pressure is < 1600 lb/ft2 such that the resulting settlements are less than predicted above. The fill in the cooling tower area is compacted to a minimum of 95-percent standard Proctor.

2B.7.5 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL EVALUATION 2B.7.5.1 Liquefaction Criteria and Methods of Analysis A loose saturated sandy soil subjected to ground vibrations tends to compact and decrease in volume. If the soil cannot drain during the rapid load fluctuations imposed by an earthquake, there may be a buildup in pore pressure until it is equal to the overburden pressure. The effective stress will then become zero and the soil will lose its strength and develop a "quick" or liquefied condition. If this condition is of a general areal extent and the pressure not otherwise relieved, it can cause a flow or bearing capacity failure.(13)(14)(15)(16) However, for dense, sandy soils, this loss of strength can be a rapidly occurring phenomenon that may not cause either a flow or a complete failure.(17)

To evaluate the liquefaction potential of a soil deposit, it is necessary that the initial effective normal pressure on the potential plane of failure in the field be related to that of the laboratory sample. In the field, the potential plane of failure is horizontal; therefore, the initial effective normal pressure is equal to the effective overburden pressure, o. In the laboratory sample, the initial normal effective pressure is equal to the initial effective confining pressure, o, because the samples were isotropically consolidated.

This temporary loss of strength is designated as "initial liquefaction." The denser sandy soils sustain the applied load beyond this initial state but incur additional straining. Therefore, for the denser sandy soils it is more appropriate to define a liquefaction criterion in terms of levels of strain.

The soil test borings were advanced at the Farley site using bentonite drilling fluid with a 5-ft or 10-ft section of casing tightly pushed into the boring at the top so that the fluid would return out the top of the casing. The top of the casing was approximately 1 ft above the ground surface and passed through the bottom of the drilling fluid tub, thus keeping the fluid level at or near the ground surface while drilling and while making standard penetration tests; driven casing to the bottom of the boring was not used.

2B-22 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B According to the standard penetration resistances, the condition of the sandy soils at the plant site ranges from medium dense to dense, based on the relationship between densities and standard penetration test blow counts given and referenced on drawing D-176940. Three liquefaction categories have been established for evaluation of soil liquefaction potential: initial, +/- 5-percent axial strain, and +/-

10-percent axial strain liquefaction. The potential for liquefaction at this site has been evaluated in terms of a factor of safety against the development of each of these liquefaction categories.

This factor of safety is computed at the ratio of the stresses required to cause liquefaction (l) to the stresses developed during the postulated ground motions (d); i.e.,

S.F. = l/d The stresses required to cause liquefaction have been determined based on the laboratory test data presented in paragraph 2B.7.5.2. Cyclic triaxial tests were performed on undisturbed samples of saturated silty sands and sands overlying the Moodys Branch limestone that are representative of the lowest densities at the site. The stresses required to cause initial +/- 5-percent strain, and +/- 10-percent strain liquefaction (l) in ten cycles under triaxial conditions were determined from these test results.

The stresses required to cause these states of liquefaction in the field, however, would be lower than those obtained in cyclic triaxial tests.(16)(18) A correction factor was, therefore, applied to the triaxial tests results to obtain the stresses representative of field conditions. The stresses required to cause liquefaction in ten cycles under triaxial conditions and under field conditions (normalized with respect to the effective confining pressure) are summarized in the following table.

REQUIRED STRESS RATIO FOR LIQUEFACTION Initial +/-5-percent Strain +/-10-percent Strain TRIAXIAL (+/- d /c) 0.66 0.75 0.90 FIELD (+/- l /o) 0.20 0.23 0.28 Where +/- d is the applied deviator stress and c is the effective confining pressure in the cyclic triaxial test; +/- l is the shear stress and o is the effective overburden pressure in the field.

To evaluate the liquefaction potential of a soil deposit, it is necessary that the initial effective normal pressure on the potential plane of failure in the field be related to that of the laboratory sample. In the field, the potential plane of failure is horizontal; therefore, the initial effective normal pressure is equal to the effective overburden pressure, o. In the laboratory sample, the initial normal effective pressure is equal to the initial effective confining pressure, c, because the samples were isotropically consolidated.

The interrelationship between c, and o is expressed by the equation given on page 2B-35.

The value of o at depth, y, below the ground surface and depth, z, below the water table is given by o = y - 62.4z, where is the total unit weight of the soil.

2B-23 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B The stresses developed during the postulated ground motions were evaluated using the following procedure: The peak shear stress at any depth in the soil profile is obtained by multiplying the total overburden at the depth being investigated by the maximum surface acceleration at the site. Due to the flexibility of soils, the stresses computed by this simplified procedure should be reduced as a function of depth below the surface of the soil profiles, however, the flexibility of the soil was not taken into account.

The developed peak shear stresses were computed considering the soil profile to behave as a rigid body, thus the acceleration values throughout the soil profile are equal to the 1/2 SSE and SSE acceleration values, 0.05 g and 0.10 g, respectively. The peak shear stress, max, developed at a depth, y, below the surface is then given by:

max = a y Where a is the maximum acceleration (0.1 g for SSE and 0.05 g for 1/2 SSE) and is the total unit weight of the soil.

The equivalent uniform shear stress, developed in ten cycles during ground shaking, is obtained by multiplying the above equation by 0.7. Thus, the values of the d for the 1/2 SSE and SSE can be evaluated from 1/2 SSEd = 0.035 y lb/ft2 SSEd = 0.07 y lb/ft2 2B.7.5.2 Cyclic Triaxial Testing 2B.7.5.2.1 Introduction This section is based on a report(36) by Dr. I.M. Idriss, Woodward-Lundgren Associates, on cyclic triaxial testing of soils at the site. These included tests on relatively undisturbed samples from the storage pond and plant areas.

The sampling procedure used to obtain the undisturbed samples included the use of 3 in. diameter tube samples obtained from parallel holes approximately 5 ft from the existing borings. The holes were advanced from the ground surface to predetermined levels of low blowcount materials by rotary drilling methods, using bentonite drilling fluid with a minimum specific gravity of 1.05 and a Marsh funnel viscosity of 50 sec. At the desired depth, each tube was slowly pushed. The tube was allowed to set approximately 5 minutes before being carefully rotated, to break the friction, and slowly withdrawn.

Portable drying ovens and scales were set up at each boring where samples were taken. Immediately after recovery from the borehole and prior to sealing the ends of the sample tubes, representative soil samples were taken from the tops and bottoms of the tubes to determine the natural water content. The sample ends were then trimmed, total unit weight determined, and the dry unit weight computed. The ends were then sealed with a nonshrinking wax, taped, waxed again, and taped again. Samples were than surrounded by 3 to 4 in. of packing material and packed in sturdy cardboard boxes. No more than four tubes were shipped in any one box. The boxes were marked "Extremely Fragile", "Do Not Drop",

and "Keep From Freezing" and shipped, via air freight, to the Woodward- Lundgren and Associates soils 2B-24 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B laboratory in Oakland, California. A comparison of the field and laboratory determinations of moisture content and dry density was made for each sample to verify the absence of significant disturbance.

The undisturbed samples of soil obtained in 3.0 in. O.D., thin-wall (16-gauge) steel shelby tubes were prepared for testing in the following manner:

A. The sealed sample tubes were continuously stored in a humid room unit just prior to sample preparation.

B. One to two test specimens were obtained by cutting the sample tube into 8- to 9- in. long segments using a band saw. The band saw is floor mounted and the sample tube is securely positioned in a vise arrangement attached to the band saw table. The segments were obtained starting from the bottom (cutting edge) portion of the sample tube.

C. The ends of a tube segment were examined for signs of sample disturbance, such as possible settlement away from the walls of the tube.

D. If the specimen appeared to be of good quality and of uniform composition, it was then extruded. A mechanical hydraulic extruder with piston diameter just smaller than that of the sample tube was used.

The specimen was extruded into a smooth metal sleeve (16-gauge) approximately 9 in.

long. The metal sleeve has a slot cut longitudinally along one side and is equipped with external clamps which can adjust to diameter. The clamps were adjusted to provide a sleeve diameter that is just slightly larger than that of the specimen.

E. Using metal blocks the same diameter as the test specimen, the position of the specimen in the metal sleeve was then adjusted so that one end of the specimen protruded from the end of the sleeve. This end was then trimmed square to the sample axis. The opposite end of the specimen was trimmed in a similar manner. Porous stones were placed at the ends of the specimen and the metal sleeve was removed. The final length of the specimen after trimming of the ends was 6 to 7 in. Lateral trimming of the specimens to a smaller diameter was not performed for these samples.

F. The specimen was again examined for any signs of disturbance, such as cracking, and for uniformity. If found to be of good quality, it was enclosed in a rubber membrane. The membrane was placed over the sample, using a vacuum device which allows the membrane to be expanded to a larger diameter than the specimen, and then collapsed onto the full length of the specimen when the vacuum is removed.

G. The specimen was then carefully placed in the triaxial cell for subsequent saturation, consolidation, and cyclic triaxial testing.

The results of these tests were used to arrive at representative values of the field shear stresses required to cause initial, +/- 5 percent strain, and +/- 10 percent strain liquefaction in 10 cycles.

2B-25 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B 2B.7.5.2.2 Test Results Twenty-nine cyclic triaxial tests were conducted on soil samples from the plant site. The properties, classification and mechanical analysis of these samples are tabulated in table 2B-6. All tests were isotropically consolidated under a stress c and then subjected to a cyclic deviator stress, +/- d. Several studies (summarized in ref. 18) have shown that for any given test condition the cyclic stress causing liquefaction is almost directly proportional to the initial effective confining pressure, c. It should be noted that for isotropically consolidated samples c is also equal to the effective confining pressure in the cyclic triaxial test. Therefore, all the test results have been normalized with respect to the initial effective confining pressure, c, in the triaxial tests.

The values of d/c required to cause initial +/- 5-percent strain and +/- 10-percent strain liquefaction are presented in figure 2B6-1. A best average curve is established through the data points for each failure criterion as shown in figure 2B6-1. The average curve represents a reasonable engineering average for the data obtained.

The stress ratios, +/-d/c, required to cause initial +/- 5-percent strain and +/- 10-percent strain liquefaction in 10 cycles have been determined from these average curves and are as follows:

Liquefaction Triaxial Stress Failure Criterion Ratio,+/- d/c Initial 0.66

+/- 5-percent strain 0.75

+/- 10-percent strain 0.90 2B.7.5.2.3 Field Behavior Studies(16)(18)(19) have shown that the cyclic triaxial test provides stress values that are higher than those causing failure in the field. Based on a review of available data from laboratory test results and field behavior, a correction factor to cyclic triaxial tests data was established.(16)(18) This correction factor was presented in terms of the relative density for a clean sand.

The samples obtained from the site contain varying amounts of fines; therefore, it would be difficult to describe their general behavior in terms of relative density. However, a comparison of the cyclic triaxial data obtained for these samples with those previously determined for a clean sand(20) indicates that these soils have cyclic strength characteristics similar to those of a clean sand having a relative density of approximately 60 to 70 percent. The correction factor(16 18) for a clean sand with a relative density of 60 percent is 0.60 and for a clean sand with a relative density of 70 percent is 0.64. Therefore, an average correction factor of 0.62 was used in reducing the triaxial data at the site to obtain the shear stresses corresponding to field conditions.

The field cyclic shear stresses required to cause initial, +/- 5 percent strain, and +/- 10 percent strain liquefaction in 10 cycles were evaluated using the average correction factor of 0.62 and the triaxial test results tabulated in the previous section. Thus, l /o = 0.62 x 1/2(d /c) 2B-26 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B where l = field shear stress, o = initial effective normal stress on the potential plane of failure in the field.

The values of l /o for each failure criterion are listed below:

Liquefaction Failure Criterion Field l /o Initial 0.20

+/- 5 percent strain 0.23

+/- 10 percent strain 0.28 2B.7.5.2.4 Summary and Conclusions The results of cyclic triaxial tests performed on relatively undisturbed samples of the soils at the site are presented in this section. These results were used to establish representative values of field shear stresses required to cause initial, +/- 5 percent strain, and +/- 10 percent strain liquefaction in 10 cycles. The field shear stresses were normalized with respect to the initial effective normal stresses on potential planes of failure for convenience in evaluating the liquefaction potential at the site.

The ratios of l /o presented in subsection 2B.7.5.2.3 were used to evaluate the field shear stress required to cause liquefaction in 10 cycles. A comparison of this stress value with the shear stress developed during the postulated earthquake motion in 10 cycles would then provide an assessment of the liquefaction potential at the site.

The field stress ratios presented on figure 2B6-1 would be applicable to sandy soils at the site.

2B.7.5.3 Representative Profiles The soil profiles outlined below have been considered in the present liquefaction studies. These profiles are representative of the entire site except the storage pond dam area (which is discussed in subsection 2B.7.6) and have been established based on the results of the detailed subsurface investigations made at the site. (See figures 2B6-2 through 2B6-8.)

Case I:

Ground surface at elevation 183 ft, water table at elevation 125 ft and rock at elevation 104 ft - This case is applicable to the storage pond spillway structure, the switchyard area, the Upland areas of the site with ground surface elevations of approximately 180-190 ft, and the pipeline and recirculating water lines from the storage pond intake area to the plant area. The only Category I structures that will be imposed on the soil profile for this case are the pipelines from the storage pond intake to the plant and the Upland portion of the pipeline from the river to the storage pond intake structure. The dike foundation, while similar to Case I, is evaluated as a separate case in subsection 2B.7.6.

Case II:

2B-27 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B Ground surface at elevation 155, water table at elevation 125, and rock at elevation 107 ft - This case is applicable to the plant area after final grading and construction, the soil around the caisson foundation of the diesel generator building, and the water supply pipeline foundation in the vicinity of the plant. The Category I structures that will be imposed on the soil profile of this case are the diesel generator building, which is supported on caissons, and a segment of the water supply pipeline in the vicinity of the plant.

Case III - 1:

Ground surface at elevation 155, water level at elevation 120, and rock at elevation 101 ft - This case is applicable to the filled slope area east of the plant. There are no Category I structures imposed on this soil profile.

Case III - 2:

Ground surface at elevation 143 ft, water level at elevation 119, and rock at elevation 99 ft - This case is applicable to the slopes around the plant area that will not have the superimposed fill. It is also applicable to the slope traversed by the water supply pipeline that extends from the flood plain to the vicinity of the storage pond intake structure. The only Category I structure to be placed on the profile of this case is a segment of the water supply pipeline.

Case IV:

Ground surface at elevation 155, water table at elevation 116, and rock at elevation 104 ft - This case is applicable to the area of the floodplain, east of the plant, which has been filled to approximately elevation 155. There are no Category I structures to be imposed on this soil profile.

Case V:

Ground surface at elevation 113, water table at elevation 86, and rock level at elevation 68 - This case is applicable to the area around the river intake structure, including the river banks, floodplain, intake channel, and river bank slopes. It is also applicable to the floodplain and the floodplain area traversed by the water supply pipelines. The Category I structures to be imposed on the soil profile are the river water intake, river water intake channel, and segments of the water supply pipelines.

Case VI:

Ground surface at elevation 195, water table at elevation 186, and rock at elevation 100 ft - This case is applicable to the Category I storage pond intake area. The intake structure, which is supported on drilled caissons, is located at the north end of the storage pond. The water level at elevation 186 is the normal maximum pond level.

The evaluation of the failure potential of the main dam embankment, dike embankments, and the foundation soils below the embankments is in subsection 2B.7.6.

2B.7.5.4 Computed Minimum Factors of Safety The factors of safety for each case were computed using the procedure outlined in the previous sections.

For each profile, a minimum factor of safety was obtained. Plots of the computed safety factors versus 2B-28 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B depth for each case are shown on figures 2B6-2 through 2B6-8. The minimum factor of safety for each case is listed below. Based on these factors of safety, it is concluded that none of the Category I structures listed above will experience foundation instability due to soil liquefaction in the event of the postulated seismic motions.

COMPUTED MINIMUM FACTORS OF SAFETY AGAINST LIQUEFACTION SSE (0.10 g)

+/- 5-percent +/- 10-percent Case Initial Strain Strain I 2.4 2.8 3.4 II 2.3 2.6 3.2 III-1 2.3 2.7 3.2 III-2 2.2 2.5 3.1 IV 2.5 2.9 3.5 V 2.2 2.6 3.1 VI 1.5 1.8 2.1 2B.7.6 STORAGE POND 2B.7.6.1 General The storage pond layout is shown on drawings D-176900 and D-176902. The reservoir is located immediately south of the plant in a shallow valley with a drainage area of 0.5 mi2. As shown by drawing D-176900, the pond is contained by earth dam and dikes and has an area of 95 acres at elevation 184 ft.

During normal operation, pond level is controlled between elevation 185 and 185.5.

A surcharge of 7 ft above normal pool is provided for the probable maximum runoff. The total pond volume of 2310 acre-ft is allocated as follows:

1. Storage at elevation 184 ft 1400 acre ft

2. Active storage, between elevation 184 - 186 200 acre-ft

3. Runoff control, between elevation 186 - 192.2 710 acre-ft The homogeneous earth embankments compacted to a minimum 95 percent of ASTM D-698 consist of a dam 58 ft high at the maximum section with side slopes of 3(H): 1-(V) downstream and 4(H): 1(V) upstream; and of 10- to 15-ft high dikes on the east and west abutments with side slopes of 2.5(H): 1(V) downstream and 3.5(H): 1(V) upstream. The dam and dikes have a crest elevation of 195 ft. This accommodates a normal maximum pool level elevation of 186 ft. A maximum drawdown to elevation 161 ft can occur. The dam and dike have a total crest length of about 3900 ft. The maximum section of the dam is founded on Lisbon formation rock. Suitable local soils are utilized to construct the dam as a 2B-29 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B homogeneous compacted fill. The dam has a downstream horizontal and a vertical drain; the dikes have downstream toe drains. The downstream earth slopes are seeded with grass and the upstream slopes have dumped riprap erosion protection. The dam and dikes are designed with factors of safety adequate to resist all static and earthquake dynamic forces. The uncontrolled emergency spillway is designed to pass the runoff from the design storm. The dam is 30 ft wide at the crest with a 9-ft freeboard above the normal maximum pond level. The general arrangement, the dam and dike sections and details are shown on figures 2B7-14 through 2B7-18, and drawings D-176980, D-176984, D-176985, D-176986, D-176987, D-176988, D-176989, D-176983, D-176997, D-176994, D-176995, D-176981, D-176982, and D-176939.

2B.7.6.2 Subsurface Conditions and Embankment Materials The topography in the vicinity of the storage pond varies from elevation 135 ft in the valley bottom at the maximum dam section to elevation 180 ft on the east side and to above elevation 200 ft on the west side of the valley. The overburden soils, above the Lisbon rock formation at elevation 100 ft, can be divided into two general groups. Clayey sands, silty sands, and sandy clays are present above elevation 130 and above the ground water table; slightly silty sands are present between elevation 130 ft and elevation 100 ft and below the water table. A layer of low plasticity silty clay exists between elevation 160 ft and elevation 145 ft throughout most of the pond area. This clay layer provides a natural impervious blanket except in the area under the dam section where the natural clay blanket has been eroded away and replaced by recent alluvium of slightly silty sand within the confines of the intermittent stream channel.

The boring location plan in the storage pond area is shown on drawing D-176902. The results of 68 test borings indicate that the average standard penetration resistance for the overburden soils is 28 blows per foot above elevation 130 ft and 25 blows per foot below elevation 130 ft. Between elevation 130 and elevation 110 ft, under the dam section at the valley bottom, the relatively low density sands have an average penetration resistance of 15 blows per foot. These low density soils are localized near elevation 120. The results of the geophysical cross-hole survey indicate a shear wave velocity of 450 to 650 feet per second for this zone. The materials above and below it have a shear wave velocity of 850 to 950 feet per second.

Geophysical explorations indicate the same average shear wave velocity of 900 ft per second for the overburden soils above elevation 100 ft and a shear wave velocity of 2200 ft per second for the Lisbon rock below elevation 100 ft. The compression wave velocity is 2500 ft per second for the overburden soils above elevation 130 ft, 5000 ft per second for the soils between elevation 130 and elevation 100 ft, and 6400 ft per second for the Lisbon below elevation 100 ft. The locations of the geophysical explorations at the storage pond area are shown on figure 2B3-3 and the generalized velocity profiles are shown on figures 2B3-4 through 2B3-10. The combination of soil borings and geophysical exploration provides a good description of the subsurface conditions in the storage pond area. Subsurface profiles for the dam and dikes are shown on drawings D-176925, D-176926, D-176927, D-176933, and D-176934.

An upper aquifer exists above the aquiclude formed by the upper portion of the Lisbon formation. The phreatic or free water surface ranges between elevation 125 and elevation 130 ft in the storage pond area, and the soils below elevation 130 ft are generally saturated. The ground water water surface is well defined by borings and geophysical explorations. The compression wave velocity increases to 5000 ft per second in a saturated granular soil. This upper aquifer ultimately discharges into the Chattahoochee River. Beneath the aquiclude formed by the upper two-thirds portion of the Lisbon, 2B-30 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B another aquifer exists. The piezometric levels of this lower aquifer are essentially the same as the levels of the upper aquifer and range between elevation 125 and elevation 135.

A study of the soil types and the standard penetration resistances was made of the subsurface soils in the storage pond dam and dike area. The results show that the relatively low density soils are localized at the dam primarily within the area bounded by the 150-ft contour and at various isolated elevations under the dam. The R-series of borings was made to establish the extent of the natural clayey soils in the pond bottom. An upstream blanket of compacted clayey soils will be keyed into the existing natural clayey soils. The in-place soil bounded by the 150-ft contour and located beneath the dam will be removed to the Lisbon rock as shown on drawing D-176983. Excavation and foundation are discussed further in subsection 2B.7.6.6.

Cyclic triaxial tests were performed on samples of the overburden sands taken from seven borings under and downstream of the dam. These borings were 526B, 527, 533, 595, 595A, 595C, and 595D. The material tested was medium to fine sand having 5 to 10 percent, by weight, passing No. 200 sieve, and having blow counts ranging from 4 to 22 blows per foot. Most of the tests were performed on material having blow counts between 4 and 8, inclusive. Borings 534, 540, 541, 543, and 556, all of which are either upstream from the centerline or upstream of the toe of the dam, have been compared with the borings from which samples were taken for cyclic triaxial tests. The descriptions are similar for the lower overburden sand. The standard penetration resistances in the lower overburden sand average 20 blows per foot in the borings under the dam and downstream, and 21 blows per foot in the borings upstream of the dam. Also, for the samples tested upstream of the dam, between 6 and 10 percent by weight pass the No. 200 sieve. Therefore, the lower overburden sands immediately upstream of the dam and under the upstream blanket are similar to those tested from under the dam and downstream of the dam.

All bag samples recovered from borrow area No. 1 were composited in stages into several basic soil types. The composite samples were made so that the laboratory testing would be representative of the materials as they come from the borrow area during construction. The composites reflected the distribution of the sandy clay with respect to the overlying and underlying sands and resulted in two basic types of clayey sands in addition to the readily distinguishable clay layer.

The borrow area No. 1 soil characteristics as determined from the borrow area boring program are as follows:

C-1: Clayey sand of relatively low plasticity.

C-2: Clayey sand of relatively higher plasticity and relatively higher percentage of fines (-

1. 200 sieve).

C-3: Inorganic clay of medium to high plasticity.

2B.7.6.3 Soil Testing and Design Parameters for the Storage Pond Laboratory soil test results are presented in summary form in figures 2B5-25 through 2B5-47. Static soil testing was performed in the Alabama Power Company soils laboratory. Static and dynamic soil testing was performed in the Woodward-Lundgren Associates Laboratory in Oakland, California. The results of the dynamic soil testing are presented in figure 2B6-1.

2B-31 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B The following laboratory tests were made on the soils of the storage pond area. The procedures used are discussed in detail in section 2B.5 of this appendix.

Compaction tests (Standard Proctor - ASTM Designation D 698, Method A and Modified Proctor D 1557 Method A) were run on each soil type from the borrow area. Grain size, specific gravity, and Atterberg limits tests were performed on representative foundation and embankment soil samples. (See figure 2B7-17.) Triaxial tests were performed on representative undisturbed samples of foundation materials to evaluate the foundation stability. Tests were also run on compacted specimens to determine the embankment strength values. Consolidation tests of representative undisturbed and compacted samples were made to determine the soil settlement characteristics. Compacted soil samples were tested in the laboratory for permeability under constant head conditions for sands and under variable head conditions for clays. Cyclic triaxial testing of undisturbed samples was discussed in subsection 2B.7.5. Compacted embankment soil specimens were also tested for dynamic strength characteristics. The cyclic tests were done under both initially isotropically consolidated and anisotropically consolidated conditions.

Field permeability tests were run in the pond area. These tests are discussed along with the seepage analysis in subsection 2B.7.6.7.

The results of static strength tests are shown graphically on figure 2B5B-4. The following embankment and foundation strength parameters were used for the design of the dam and the dikes.

Total Material Unit Design Shear Strengths Type and Location Weight Total Stress Effective Stress lb/ft3 -deg c-lb/ft2 - deg c-lb/ft2

1. Embankment, dam 125 10 600 33 0 and dike-compacted clayey sand

2. Overburden sands 120 25 100 33 0 under dam and dike between El 100-130

3. Overburden clayey 120 19 500 25 400 sands and sandy clays under dam and dike between El 130-180 In addition, the stress-strain curves for the embankment and foundation materials are shown as figures 2B5B-8 through 2B5B-21. Both the embankment and the Lisbon formation materials show expected behavior under load without unusual brittleness or plasticity. The Lisbon formation consists of layers of relatively harder and softer materials that vary from hard sandstones to very dense sands to soft siltstones. Tests on samples taken on individual layers should be considered with this in mind. The field and laboratory test results presented in appendix 2B show all the Lisbon layers to be competent to support the loads imposed on them.

2B-32 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B Approximately 10 percent of the dam and dike embankment immediately above the foundations has been placed at a minimum of 95 percent of modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM-D 1557). For these embankment materials, the moisture limits specified as -3 percent and +5 percent moisture from the optimum held the plasticity within a moderate range, without resulting in possible higher brittleness if the embankment had been placed totally on the dry side of the optimum. After the compaction specification was changed, the remaining 90 percent of the embankment was compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM-D 698).

The stress-strain curves for samples compacted in 95 percent of standard Proctor dry density are given on figures 2B5B-20 and -21. These curves and the plasticity characteristics (figures 2B5-45 and -46) show that these materials are not unusually brittle or plastic.

The embankment foundations are proofrolled to delineate any localized areas that might be relatively softer, so that materials may be taken out and replaced with compacted fill. This measure will minimize differential settlements. Although a conservatively high camber is provided for the dam, the actual long-term settlement is expected to be much less. The embankment soils are plastic enough to tolerate the small movements due to any differential settlement or due to the safe shutdown earthquake of 0.10g maximum acceleration, as demonstrated by the finite-element analysis of the dam and dikes presented in subsection 2B.7.6.5.

The stress-strain curves of two samples compacted on the dry side of optimum moisture and tested in triaxial shear appear on figure 2B5B-11. Both samples were compacted to 95 percent of modified Proctor and had a 46 percent saturation at the time of compaction. One sample was tested in the unconsolidated- undrained mode without further saturation. The stress-strain curves exhibited a relative brittle behavior but the strength parameters exceeded the design parameters even in the residual strength portion of the stress-strain curves. Such relative brittleness should not be characterized as "erratic."

When the other sample was saturated and tested in the consolidated-undrained mode with pore pressure measurements, no brittle behavior was exhibited. For both samples the three Mohr's circles formed the typical straight envelope, indicating consistency with each mode of testing. Eight more stress- strain curves for soils used in the dam and dike embankment have been added to figures 2B5B-8 and -9. The specimens for these curves, taken out of the design files, were compacted to standard Proctor densities on both the wet side and the dry side. The stress-strain curves compacted on the dry side do not show the relative brittle behavior of the sample of figure 2B5B-11.

2B.7.6.4 Stability Analyses 2B.7.6.4.1 Method of Analysis and Design Criteria Sliding plane, wedge and block type analyses were made using the Morgenstern-Price method(21), but yielded higher factors of safety.

The ordinary Method of slices was used in the final analysis of the dam and dike embankments. The Method is based on the static analysis of the mass above any failure arc. The movement of all forces about the center of the arc tending to produce rotation are termed driving moments, and the moments of all forces tending to resist rotation are termed resisting moments. The factor of safety is defined as the ratio of the resisting moments to the driving moments.

2B-33 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B Circular arc, slope-stability analyses are made by using McDonnell Automations' ICES (Integrated Civil Engineering System) SLOPE computer program.(21)

The cases for which stability analyses are performed are end of construction, sudden drawdown from maximum pool, steady seepage with maximum pool, and earthquake. The end of construction condition is analyzed using the total shear strength, and c, parameters as determined by unconsolidated undrained and consolidated undrained triaxial tests. The remaining conditions are analyzed using the effective shear strength parameters and c as determined by consolidated drained and consolidated undrained with pore pressure measurement triaxial tests.(22)

The assumptions made for the rapid drawdown condition are that the water level is instantaneously lowered from elevation 186 to 161 ft and that the pore pressure beneath the upstream slope is hydrostatic with the surface of the upstream slope.(9) The conventional pseudo-static approach of analyzing the earthquake condition for the circular arc is used. This approach assumes that the earthquake imparts an additional static horizontal force which increases the driving moments tending to produce rotation. The earthquake force for a slice within the circular arc is equivalent to the mass of that slice times a percent of the acceleration of gravity and is applied horizontally through the center of gravity of that slice.(21) The design earthquake acceleration used is equal to 10 percent of the acceleration of gravity.

The maximum dam section with foundation soil removed to rock and the maximum dike section are shown on figure 2B7-17. The critical circular arcs, assumed seepage lines, and design soil properties are also presented.

The minimum acceptable factors of safety for the various design conditions and respective slopes were established as follows:

Minimum Factor of Case Design Condition Safety Slope 1 End of construction 1.3 Upstream Downstream 2 Sudden drawdown from 1.5 Upstream maximum pool 3 Steady seepage with 1.5 Downstream maximum pool 4 Earthquake - steady 1.1 Upstream seepage with maximum Downstream pool 2B-34 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B 2B.7.6.4.2 Results of Circular Arc Analysis The maximum dam and dike sections analyzed along with the critical circles are presented in figure 2B7-18. A summary of the computed factors of safety are presented below. For all design conditions, the factors of safety exceed the minimum requirements.

Design Factor of Safety Case Condition Slope Dam Dike Required 1 End of construction Upstream 1.5 2.5 1.3 Downstream 1.3 2.6 1.3 2 Sudden drawdown from Upstream 1.5 1.7 1.5 maximum pool 3 Steady seepage with Upstream 2.3 1.7 1.5 maximum pool Downstream 1.9 1.6 1.5 4 Earthquake - steady Upstream 1.4 1.2 1.1 seepage with maximum Downstream 1.4 1.2 1.1 pool 2B.7.6.5 Dynamic Analyses - Liquefaction Potential for the Storage Pond Dam and Dikes 2B.7.6.5.1 Introduction In addition to the earthquake case of the circular arc Method of analysis, Newmark's pseudostatic method(23) was used to analyze the maximum dam section using 0.10 g acceleration factor. Newmark's pseudo-static Method of slope stability analysis is based on the conventional statically determined factor of safety. The pseudo-static Method is used to estimate the effects of an earthquake on a slope. The static factor of safety is the ratio of resisting to the driving moments in the case of the circular arc method. The basis for Newmark's dynamic factor of safety is a critical earthquake acceleration which causes incipient movement of the soil mass; and for accelerations less than the critical value, but greater than zero, static factor of safety is reduced. Circular, plane, and block sliding analyses were also performed.

The liquefaction potential of the soils under the dike and areas upstream and downstream of the dam and dike were analyzed using the methods, data, and criteria discussed in subsection 2B.7.5. In analyzing the liquefaction potential of the soil profiles immediately upstream and immediately downstream of the dam embankment, steady state seepage under the dam was assumed. The effect of seepage forces was considered in establishing the intergranular pressures to demonstrate the seepage effects.(51) The combination of weight and water forces is submerged weight and seepage force rather than total weight and neutral (water) pressure. Under vertical flow conditions, both these approaches give identical intergranular pressures. Seepage forces act along flow lines in isotropic soils. For the conditions under investigation, the seepage forces were assumed to the vertical. The seepage forces, which are downward in the upstream case, were omitted to obtain a more conservative (lower) intergranular pressure. These forces were included in the areas downstream of the dam, where they act upward. The beneficial effects 2B-35 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B of the upstream blanket and the downstream fill were not included in the liquefaction analysis. This provides an added measure of conservation. The following minimum factors of safety were calculated for the various areas:

Minimum Factor of Safety Case Against Initial Liquefaction Dike foundation and abutments 1.4 Dam upstream 1.4 Dam downstream (without the uncompacted fill) 1.4 Woodward-Lundgren and Associates has performed a finite element analysis of the stability of the dam and dike embankments as described below. The firm analyzed the dam and dike to evaluate their stability under the postulated design earthquake loading conditions. This was accomplished by carrying out a program of cyclic testing, static and dynamic finite element analyses, and evaluation of the stability of representative sections of the dam and dike.

The potential behavior of the embankments and underlying foundation soils was evaluated during the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) using currently available analytical procedures. The results of this evaluation are presented below.

2B.7.6.5.2 Evaluation Procedure The procedure utilized in evaluating the seismic stability of the dam and dike during the postulated earthquake involved the following sequence of operations:

A. Development of an accelerogram of motions at the base of the embankment representative of the postulated safe shutdown earthquake (SSE).

B. Establishment of representative cross-sections of the dam and dike for analysis purposes.

C. Determination of the induced shear stresses during the postulated base motions by means of a ten-cycle dynamic finite element analysis, and representation of these induced shear stresses by means of an equivalent number of shear stress applications. The number of equivalent stress cycles and the amplitude of the equivalent uniform shear stress were determined using the procedure developed by Idriss and Seed (unpublished, 1967). This procedure has been used in numerous studies including evaluations of the Sheffield Dam failure(27), the slides of San Fernando Dams(40), liquefaction potential at the site of the Barnwell Nuclear Fuel Plant (Docket No. 50-332), seismic stability of earth dams at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (Docket No. 50-395), and Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (Docket No. 50-400 through 50-403), and others. The procedure was summarized in a publication by Lee and Chan.(41)

D. Determination of the stresses existing in the embankment-foundation system prior to the occurrence of the earthquake (i.e., the static stresses) by means of a static finite element analysis.

E. Evaluation, by means of appropriate cyclic load tests on representative samples, of the cyclic strength characteristics of the soils comprising the embankment and foundation.

2B-36 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B F. Comparison of the shear stresses required to cause 5-percent strain, with the equivalent uniform shear stresses induced by the earthquake motions to evaluate the stability of the dam and dike during the postulated design earthquake.

This procedure was recently developed(28)(29) and has provided reasonable estimates of field behavior in a number of cases.(25) (27)(40) The procedure utilizes the computed time history of shear stress and the cyclic strength characteristics (in terms of shear stress as a function of number of cycles). The use of the cyclic strength characteristics thus provides a unique measure of the ratio of the available strength to the induced stress (i.e., factor of safety) independently of the number of cycles selected for conversion purposes. In other words, if the number of cycles is decreased, then the amplitude of the equivalent uniform stress is increased. An increase in the number of cycles results in a decrease of this amplitude.

The resulting effect on the computed factor of safety is nil because of the consistency employed in determining the number of cycles and the corresponding amplitude of equivalent uniform stress.

Damping values for the embankment soils were selected based on published data(39) for sandy soils.

Strain dependent values were used in the analysis.

In addition, the responses of the 16-ft-high dike and the 60-ft-high dam were evaluated by a detailed finite element analysis. The shear slice procedure was used to compute the response of triangular embankments with heights of 16, 30, 40, 50 and 60 ft. The results of these analyses for the 16- and 60-ft-high embankments were adjusted to give values of stresses and accelerations equal to those obtained using the finite element procedure. The results for the other embankment heights were similarly adjusted (by interpolation using the correction factors for the 16- and 60-ft-high embankments as a basis) to obtain reasonable estimates of the values of stresses and accelerations for these embankments.

The Method used to adjust the shear slice "results" was a direct comparison of the stresses computed by the two procedures.

The stresses along the center-line of the 60-ft-high dam computed by the finite element procedure are shown in figure 2B7-38, Graph "A". The stresses computed by the shear slice procedure for the same dam height are also shown in Graph "A".

The results of the shear slice procedure can be readily adjusted to be equal to those obtained by the finite element Method by direct proportioning using the data in figure 2B7-38, Graph "A". For example, depths of 15, 30, 45, and 60 ft below the crest of the dam, the following values are obtained:

Depth Below Crest of Dam/y in ft y/H FE SS R= FE/ SS 15 1/4 200 149 1.34 30 1/2 358 211 1.70 45 3/4 490 263 1.86 60 1 385 305 1.92 Where H is the height of the dam and SS are as shown in Graph "A".

2B-37 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B Similarly, for the 16-ft-high dike, the results at y/H = 1/4, 1/2, 3/4, and 1 are:

y/H FE SS R= FE/ SS 1/4 46 35 1.31 1/2 78 53 1.47 3/4 107 67 1.60 1 134 71 1.89 The values of R for these cases are presented in figure 2B7-38, Graph "B", which relates to the height of the dam. A straight line was assumed to represent the relationship between R and height of dam; H. The data in Graph "B" together with the results of the shear slice procedure were used to obtain the "corrected" values of shear stress for the other heights of the dam. For example, the computed and corrected stress for a 40 ft-high dam are:

R y/h Depth, y, ft SS (From Graph "B") Corrected 1/4 10 97 1.33 129 1/2 20 136 1.59 216 3/4 30 172 1.74 299 1 40 199 1.91 380 The corrected values of were then used to evaluate the failure potential for the intermediate sections of the dam. In all cases, it was found that the least factors of safety were obtained for the maximum cross-section of the dam. The stresses for the maximum cross-section of the dam were calculated in detail by the finite element method. The evaluation of the failure potential for this section is presented in subsection 2B.7.6.5.

2B.7.6.5.3 Cases Studied Dynamic stability evaluations have been made for the maximum section of the dam (figure 2B6-9) and a typical section of the dike. (See figure 2B6-10.) Each cross-section was analyzed for the postulated design earthquake using "average" or "basic" dynamic material properties for the soils. The dam section was also analyzed using "upper bound" values of dynamic properties. For each of these three cases, the response during the postulated design earthquake was computed using the dynamic finite element Method of analysis.(24)

An artificial accelerogram, constructed to envelop the smooth design spectrum associated with the postulated SSE, is presented in figure 2B6-11.(a) The acceleration spectrum computed for this accelerogram, together with the smooth design spectrum, for a spectral damping of 0.05, is shown in

a. This is the same accelerogram as the one given on figure 3.7-3 used in the seismic design of plant structures.

2B-38 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B figure 2B6-12. From this figure it can be observed that the spectrum of the artificial accelerogram provides a conservative envelope to the smooth design spectrum. This artificial accelerogram was used as input motion in each case.

The static stresses were computed using currently available static finite element procedures.(26) The evaluation of the stability of the embankment and the underlying foundation soils for each case was made using the cyclic strength characteristics obtained from appropriate laboratory tests performed on representative specimens. The embankment will be constructed mostly using material C-2; a full testing program was therefore conducted on specimens of this material. A series of verification tests were performed on materials C-1 and C-3 to establish their relative cyclic strength as compared to material C-2.

The potential behavior of the dam and dike during the postulated SSE has been evaluated using the dynamic material properties and cyclic strength characteristics of material C-2. However, seismic stability of the dam and dike considering the cyclic strength characteristics of materials C-1 and C-3 have also been investigated 2B.7.6.5.4 Seismic Stability Evaluations General The stability of the dam and dike sections during the SSE has been evaluated using the procedure described previously. The induced stresses, d, at any location within the embankments are compared to the stresses, f, required to cause a prescribed level of strain at that location.

A criterion of 5 percent strain is used for evaluating the stability of the dam during the SSE. This criterion has been established on the basis of correlations between the results of seismic stability evaluations by the procedure used for the present studies and the performance of earth dams which have been subject to significant earthquake loading.(27 40) Case histories of earth dams which have been subjected to earthquake loading show that if the strain at any location within the dam and its foundation is smaller than 5 percent, the earthquake had no effect on the stability and integrity of the dam. It should not be concluded that the stability and integrity of the dam is impaired if the strain exceeds 5 percent at some locations within the dam and its foundation. The effect of strains exceeding 5 percent depend on the zone of the dam where they occur, and on the relative extent and location within a specific zone.

The ratio, f /d, which has been considered to represent a local factor of safety against the development of 5 percent strain, is then computed at each location. On the basis of the explanation given in the preceding paragraph, a minimum value of this stress ratio greater than approximately 1.1 indicates an ample margin of safety. The variation of this stress ratio is assessed within each zone of the dam to investigate the potential behavior and stability of the dam during the SSE.

A typical determination of the ratio f /d, is shown in figure 2B6-13 along a selected horizontal plant through the dam (for case with average modulus values). The stresses induced by the SSE and the stresses required to cause 5 percent strain in ten cycles, together with the values of the ratio, f /d, along this plane, are shown in this figure. As can be noted, the values of this ratio (or the local factor of safety) are well over unity along this plane.

2B-39 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B Similar determinations were made, along several horizontal planes and vertical sections, of the local factor of safety against the development of 5 percent strain for all cases studied as will be discussed below. These results provided the means to assess the stability of the dam and dike during the SSE.

Results of Seismic Stability Evaluations of Dam The evaluation of the seismic stability of the maximum dam section along three selected planes is illustrated in figures 2B6-14 and 2B6-15. Figure 2B6-14 presents the results for the case using average modules values and figure 2B6-15 presents similar results for the case with upper bound modulus values.

The ratio, f /d (or local factor of safety) against the development of 5 percent strain, are well over unity.

The values of local factor of safety presented in figures 2B6-14 and 2B6-15 were computed using the cyclic strength characteristics of material C-2. The values of local factor of safety along section A-A (see figure 2B6-13) using cyclic strength characteristics of materials C-1 or C-3 are compared in the following table with those presented in figures 2B6-14 and 2B6-15.

LOCAL FACTOR OF SAFETY ALONG SECTION A-A CYCLIC STRENGTH BASED ON RESULTS FOR MATERIAL Distance C-2 C-1 C-3 from Modulus Values Modulus Values Modulus Values Centerline Upper Upper Upper (ft) Average Bound Average Bound Average Bound

-200 2.13 2.05 2.25 2.16 1.97 1.89

-100 1.51 1.33 1.44 1.27 1.42 1.25 0 1.36 1.19 1.26 1.10 1.34 1.17 100 1.60 1.46 1.83 1.67 1.58 1.44 200 2.88 2.82 3.67 3.59 2.69 2.63 There is ample factor of safety in the dam against the development of 5 percent strain during the postulated SSE.

Results of Seismic Stability Evaluations of Dike The induced shear stresses within the embankment were obtained using the artificial time history representing the SSE (peak acceleration of 0.1 g) as input motion at the base of the dike (El 174). The acceleration value within the foundation layer underlying the dike was considered constant and equal to 0.1 g. Therefore, the induced stresses within the foundation soils were obtained by adding to the stresses at the base of the dike incremental values of stress equal to the total unit weight of the soil beneath the base of the dike multiplied by 0.1 g.

The results of the evaluation of the seismic stability of the dike section analyzed (using average modulus values) along three selected planes through the embankment are presented on figure 2B6-16. Similarly, the variation of local factor of safety with depth down to the Lisbon formation along the centerline of the dike is presented on figure 2B6-17.

The "average" material properties described in subsection 2B.7.6.5.5 were used in the analysis of the dike section. The values of the local factor of safety presented for the dike embankment on figures 2B6-16 and 2B-40 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B 2B6-17 were computed using the cyclic strength characteristics of material C-2. The local factor of safety values for the foundation soils was determined using the cyclic strength characteristics presented on figure 2B6A-20.

The results shown on figures 2B6-16 and 2B6-17 are in terms of the local factor of safety against the development of 5 percent strain. The values of the local factor of safety in the embankment vary from approximately 2.4 to greater than 8.0. The values of the local factor of safety in the foundation soils vary from approximately 1.2 to 1.5. Therefore, it is concluded that there is a considerable margin of safety for this embankment during the safe shutdown earthquake.

2B.7.6.5.5 Dynamic Material Properties Introduction The material properties required for dynamic analyzes are: unit weight,; Poisson's ratio, ; the ratio of horizontal to vertical effective stresses, Ko; shear modulus, G; and damping ratio, .

The properties , , and Ko can be estimated with reasonable accuracy within a relatively narrow band.

Additionally, reasonable variation of these properties would have only minor effects on the computed dynamic response. For the analyses, the following values of , , and Ko were assigned:

moist saturated Material lb/ft3 lb/ft3 Ko Embankment 128 130 0.40 0.60 Lower overburden 120 126 0.35 0.55 Filter 110 116 0.30 0.60 The parameters that have the largest effect on response are the shear modulus, G, and the damping ratio,

. Both of these parameters are highly strain dependent. With increasing strain, shear modulus decreases and damping increases. Therefore, the variations of shear modulus with shear strain and of damping with shear strain must be known for a response computation. The curve describing the variation of shear modulus with shear strain is frequently referred to as the modulus reduction curve.

The shear modulus is also dependent on the effective mean normal stress. The relationship between the shear modulus at very low strains, Gmax, and the effective mean normal stress, m, can be represented by an equation of the form.(39)

Gmax = Kmaxnm Where Kmax and n are constants determined from laboratory testing.

For the proposed embankment materials (C-1, C-2, and C-3), the modulus and damping relationship described above were evaluated from a laboratory testing program. A full testing program was performed on material C-2 since, based on the moisture density relationship and grain size data obtained to date in the field, most of the embankment is to be constructed of this material. Verification tests were performed on materials C-1 and C-3 to establish their material properties in comparison with material 2B-41 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B C-2. Available published information(29) (30) (39) was also utilized to establish the modulus and damping relationships for the proposed drain fill and filter material and foundation soils for the analysis.

Tests for Dynamic Material Properties Tests made to determine dynamic material properties of the embankment materials included resonant column and strain controlled cyclic triaxial tests. Resonant column tests provide values of modulus and damping at low strains, and strain controlled cyclic triaxial tests provide values at intermediate to high strains.

The soil specimens were reconstituted to 95 percent of maximum density as determined by the ASTM D-698 procedure. Classification data and compaction characteristics of the soils tested are presented in paragraph 2B.7.6.5.8. The specimens were compacted at a moisture content wet of optimum. The specific dry densities and moisture contents are summarized below.

Compacted Dry Density Compacted Water Content Material lb/ft3 (%)

C-1 114.0 14.7 C-2 106.0 18.0 C-3 100.7 21.8 The procedures used to reconstitute, saturate, and consolidate the test specimens are described in detail in subsection 2B5.4.

Resonant Column Tests - Resonant column tests were performed by Geo-Testing, Inc. of San Rafael, California. The tests were conducted using a resonant column oscillator, as outlined by Hardin.(35) A vibrating head is attached to the top of the specimen and the resonant frequency of the system and the corresponding amplitude are determined. The vibration decay response of the system is recorded. The sample is then consolidated at a higher confining pressure and the tests for modulus and damping repeated. Individual values of shear modulus and damping ratio determined based on resonant column tests of the embankment materials are summarized in table 2B-5.

Strain-Controlled Cyclic Triaxial Tests - Strain controlled cyclic triaxial tests of isotropically consolidated specimens were performed in Woodward-Lundgren and Associates' (WL&A) laboratory using the Modular Test System (MTS) equipment. The tests are performed by subjecting the samples to a sinusoidally varying axial strain of peak amplitude at a frequency of 1 hz. The deformations, axial load, and pore pressures in the specimens are continuously recorded.

Analysis of the test record provides directly, damping ratio, and, indirectly, shear modulus and shear strain. The shear strain , is related to the axial strain, , by the expression

= (1 + )

Where is Poisson's Ratio. Because the tests are conducted on saturated specimens under undrained conditions the value of is assumed equal to 0.5. Data in the files of WL&A indicate that the platen-to-platen measured strains should be reduced by a factor, of the order of 1.5, to account for end effects and non-uniform strains in the sample. Therefore, the measured values of axial strain, , were 2B-42 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B reduced by a factor of 1.5 to correct the measured platen-to-platen strains to the average strain within the specimen.

The shear modulus, G, is related to the compression modulus (Young's Modulus), E, by the expression:

G = E/2(1+)

Values of shear modulus and damping ratio determined based on strain-controlled cyclic triaxial tests of embankment materials are presented in table 2B-6.

Dynamic Material Properties of Embankment Materials The variation of shear modulus with effective mean normal stress for material C-2 is shown in figure 2B6A-1. At each strain level the test data indicate that the relationship between the shear modulus, G, and the effective mean normal stress, m can be defined as follows:

G m 0.2 for m < 1000 lb/ft2 G m 0.5 for m > 1000 lb/ft2 Using the above relationships the modulus values for material C-2 were normalized to an effective mean normal stress of 1000 lb/ft2 and plotted against shear strain level in figure 2B6A-2. A best fit curve was then constructed establishing the generalized shear modulus reduction curve to be used in the analysis.

This curve is shown on figure 2B6A-8.

The test data for materials C-1 and C-3 indicate that the shear modulus effective mean normal stress relationship defined for material C-2 is also valid for these materials. Figures 2B6A-3 and 2B6A-4, respectively, show the modulus values for materials C-1 and C-3 at a normalized to an effective mean normal stress of 1000 lb/ft2. The generalized shear modulus reduction curve has been fitted to the data for materials C-1 and C-3 in these figures. The values of maximum shear modulus strain level of 10-4 percent are then determined for each material at equal to 1000 lb/ft2. Using the relationships between shear modulus and effective stress established earlier the following maximum shear modulus equations were obtained for the embankment materials.

Effective Mean Normal Stress 2

Material m 1000 lb/ft m 1000 lb/ft2 C-1 Gmax = 655.3 m0.2 (ksf) Gmax = 82.5 m0.5 (ksf)

C-2 Gmax = 536.2 m0.2 (ksf) Gmax = 67.5 m0.5 (ksf)

C-3 Gmax = 472.6 m0.2 (ksf) Gmax = 59.5 m0.5 (ksf)

The variation of damping ratio with shear strain for material C-2 is shown in figure 2B6A-5. A generalized damping strain relationship was developed for the test data shown in figure 2B6A-5. This curve is also shown in figure 2B6A-8. The values of damping ratio obtained for materials C-1 and C-3 are presented in 2B6A-6 and 2B6A-7, respectively. In each figure the generalized relationship used in the analysis is also shown.

2B-43 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B The "average" or "basic" material properties selected for the embankment fill were based on the relationships obtained for material C-2. Therefore, for the "basic set" analysis, the relationship between the maximum shear modulus, Gmax, and the effective mean normal stress, m, for the embankment fill was defined as follows:

Gmax(ksf) = 536.2 m0.2 for m 1000 lb/ft2 Gmax(ksf) = 67.5 m0.5 for m 1000 lb/ft2 Dynamic Material Properties of the Lower Overburden Soils and Filter Drain Materials Previous test data on the lower overburden soils indicate that they consist mainly of uniformly graded sand. Published data on granular materials(39) were used to establish the generalized shear modulus and damping relationships for the lower overburden soils. The values of maximum shear modulus used in the analysis were obtained from field shear wave measurements performed by Weston Geophysical Engineers.

The project specifications indicate that the drain fill will be a uniformly graded fine gravel and the filter material will be a well graded sand. Both materials will be well compacted. The published data(30)(39) were also used to define the shear modulus and damping relationships for this material. The maximum shear modulus used in the analysis was defined by the expression Gmax = 70 m0.5 (ksf) 2B.7.6.5.6 Static Material Properties General The stress strain behavior of any type of soil depends on a number of factors including density, water content, structure, drainage conditions, duration of loading, stress history, confining pressure, and shear stress. In many cases, it may be possible to take account of these factors by selecting soil specimens and testing conditions which simulate the corresponding field conditions. Even when the soil specimens and test conditions are carefully selected to duplicate field conditions, it is commonly found that soil behavior over a wide range of stresses is nonlinear and dependent upon the magnitude of the confining pressure employed in the tests.

A simplified, practical procedure has been developed for representing nonlinear, stress dependent soil stress strain behavior in a form which is very convenient for use in incremental finite element stress analyses.(36)(42) The procedure accounts for inelastic soil behavior by utilizing one relationship for primary loading and another for unloading or reloading.

Modulus Values Primary Loading - Using the hyperbolic stress strain relationship(43)(44) it has been shown that the tangent modulus for primary loading (Et) is related to the principal stress (1 and 3) by:

2B-44 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B 2

1 R f (1 - sin ) ( 1 3 )

E = E1 t 2 c cos + 2 3 sin in which c and are the Mohr-Coulomb shear strength parameters; Et is the initial tangent modulus; and Rf is the failure ratio or ratio between the compressive strength (1 - 3) and the value of the asymptotic stress difference for the hyperbolic stress strain curve (1 - 3)ult. The variation of the initial tangent modulus value with confining pressure is represented by an empirical equation suggested by Janbu.(45)

E1 = Kpa [3/pa]n in which the modulus number, K, and the modulus exponent, n, are both pure numbers, and pa is the value of atmospheric pressure expressed in appropriate units. The values of the five parameters, c, , Rf, K, and n may be determined conveniently from the results of a series of triaxial or plane strain compression tests. The drainage conditions employed in the compression tests are chosen to correspond to the condition to be analyzed.

Unloading-Reloading - For unloading and reloading, many soils are nearly linear and elastic, and their behavior may thus be accurately represented by a single modulus value which is independent of the percentage of strength mobilized. The value of this unloading reloading modulus, Eur, has, however, been found to be related to the value of confining pressure in the same manner as shown in the above given equation for the initial tangent modulus. The value of the modulus exponent, n, in this relationship has been found to be essentially the same for unloading and reloading as for primary loading. The value of the modulus number of unloading-reloading, Kur, may be determined readily from the results of tests involving one or more cycles of unloading, and is always somewhat larger than the modulus number of primary loading.

Poisson's Ratio A procedure has been developed for incorporating volume change characteristics of soil, in terms of tangent Poisson's Ratio, in the stress analyses.(46) The initial Poisson's Ratio for many soils may be expressed by i = G - F log [3/Pa]

The value of tangent Poisson's Ratio may be expressed by i

t =

1

(

d 1 3 )

n R f 1

( 3 )(1 sin )

kp a 3 1 P 2 c cos + 2 sin a 3 2B-45 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B The modulus parameters K, n c, , and Rt, and three Poisson's Ratio parameters, G, F, and d, used in the static analyses of stress in the embankments are summarized in table 2B-7. These parameters have been selected based on test results conducted on similar materials by others.(42)(46) 2B.7.6.5.7 Cyclic Strength Characteristics Introduction A series of cyclic triaxial tests was made to determine the strength of the embankment soils under simulated earthquake loading conditions. A total of 40 cyclic tests on reconstituted samples of embankment materials were made, as summarized below:

Material No. of Test C-1 7 C-2 26 C-3 7 Because C-2 will be the predominant material used for embankment construction, a full testing program was conducted for this material.

A series of verification tests were performed on materials C-1 and C-3 to establish their relative cyclic strengths as compared to material C-2.

A full testing program was previously conducted on undisturbed samples of the foundation soils. The results of the testing program have been reanalyzed to evaluate the cyclic strength characteristics of these materials.

The proposed dam and dike also contain layers of drain fill and filter material. Portions of these materials will be submerged, and, therefore, it is necessary to evaluate their cyclic strength characteristics. This was done using available published data for granular materials.

Testing Procedure All embankment soil specimens for cyclic triaxial tests were reconstructed to 95 percent of maximum density as determined by the ASTM D 698 procedure. Classification data and compaction characteristics of the soils tested are presented in subsection 2B7.6.5.8. The specimens were compacted at a moisture content wet of the optimum. The specific dry densities and moisture contents are summarized below.

Compacted Dry Density Compacted Water Content Material lb/ft2 (%)

C-1 114.0 14.7 C-2 106.0 18.0 C-3 100.7 21.8 2B-46 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B Selected samples of the embankment soils were saturated and then consolidated isotropically, i.e., under a vertical stress, 1c, equal to the lateral stress produced by the cell pressure, 3c. Additional samples were saturated and consolidated anisotropically, i.e., under a vertical stress 1c, greater than the lateral stress, 3c. Thus, for these samples, the consolidation ratio, Kc = 1c/3c was greater than 1.0. The values of the consolidation ratio in this testing program, ranged from Kc = 1.0 to Kc = 2.0. The procedures used to reconstitute saturate, consolidate, and test the specimens are described in detail in subsection 2B.5.4.

The cyclic tests of isotropically consolidated samples simulate the condition in the constructed embankment and the foundation soils where there are no initial static shear stresses on the potential failure planes. Such a condition is approached on horizontal planes near the center of the embankment foundation system. Conversely, tests on anisotropically consolidated samples simulate conditions within the embankment where there are initial static shear stresses on the potential failure planes.

Test Results The results of cyclic triaxial tests on embankment materials are summarized in tables 2B-8 and 2B-9.

For isotropically consolidated (Kc = 1.0) specimens of embankment materials, the relationships between cyclic deviator stress and the number of cycles causing +/-5 percent axial strain are presented in figures 2B6A-9, -11, -14. For anisotropically consolidated specimens of embankment materials, the relationships between cyclic deviator stress and the number of cycles causing +/-5 percent strain are presented in figures 2B6A-10, -12, -13, and -15.

The pore pressure traces for selected tests on material C-2 have been interpreted in terms of the peak positive pore pressure in each cycle of loading; these values together with the corresponding cycle numbers are presented in tables 2B-11 through 2B-18, respectively. Furthermore, the developed pore pressure values listed are normalized with respect to the initial effective confining pressure and listed in these tables. These tables present the pore pressure results for the tests that are believed to provide the more significant pore pressure data. A record of a typical test is provided, with figure 2B6-1A as an example illustrating the development of pore water pressure as the test progresses.

Interpretation of Cyclic Triaxial Test Data Specimens Consolidated Isotropically - It has been shown(18)(27) that cyclic triaxial tests of isotropically consolidated samples yield stress values that are higher than those causing failure or excessive deformation in the field. Therefore, correction factors must be applied to the test data before using the data to assess the cyclic behavior of the soils tested.

Correction factors to cyclic triaxial test data are presented by Seed and Peacock.(18) The correction factors presented therein are in terms of the relative density of a clean sand. Because the embankment materials are partially cohesive, it is difficult to ascribe a relative density to these materials. However, by means of a comparison of the test results for 5-percent strain presented in tables 2B-8 and 2B-9 with published data, an equivalent relative density can be determined for these materials (i.e., would indicate that the cyclic strength characteristics of the materials at the 5 percent strain level are comparable to those of a sand having a certain relative density). Using such a comparison with the data for Sacramento River Sand(20) the following equivalent average relative densities and correction factors, Cr, are obtained.

2B-47 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B Material Equivalent Average Relative Density (%) Cr C-1 69 0.63 C-2 73 0.65 C-3 69 0.63 In the cyclic triaxial tests (K = 1.0), the maximum shear stress is equal to d/2 (one-half the maximum cyclic deviator stress). The cyclic shear stress causing the same level of strain in the field would then equal (d /2xCr).

Specimens Consolidated Anisotropically - The procedures described by Seed et al(27) have been used to interpret the test data for the anisotropically consolidated (K>1.0) specimens of the foundation and embankment soils. These procedures utilized Mohr's circle relationships to find the static stresses and the superimposed cyclic shear stresses on the plane of failure in the specimen. The relationships used are defined in figure 2B6A-16.

The ratio of the initial static shear stress, fc, to the normal stress, fc on potential failure planes is designated . For the constructed embankment, the value of on a horizontal plane is determined by the static finite element analysis described earlier. For the laboratory samples the plane of failure is assumed to act at an angle of (45°+ /2) to the horizontal. A value of equal to 30 degrees was used.

The values of computed stresses are relatively insensitive to reasonable variations in . The ratio is then dependent on the consolidation conditions as follows:

K = 1c/3c = fc/fc 1.0 0 1.5 0.19 2.0 0.35 The cyclic superimposed shear stress on the failure plane, f , causing 5 percent strain is then determined from the cyclic deviator stress as shown. As described by Seed et al.(27), correction factors are not required for the values of f determined from anisotropically consolidated specimens.

Cyclic Strength Characteristics of Embankment Materials The cyclic strength characteristics of the embankment materials have been determined using the test results presented in figures 2B6A-9 through -15 and the procedures described above. The relationship between effective normal stress and the cyclic shear stress required to cause 5-percent strain in 10 cycles of ground motion for material C-2 is shown in figure 2B6A-17. Cyclic shear strength curves are shown for values of equal to 0 and greater than or equal to 0.2. The test data indicate that no increase in cyclic strength is obtained for values beyond 0.2. As most of the embankment will be constructed from material C-2, based on field data of moisture density and grain size distribution obtained to date, the cyclic strength relationship developed in figure 2B6A-17 was used in the evaluations of the embankment stability.

The cyclic strength values for materials C-1 and C-3 are shown in figures 2B6A-18 and -19, respectively.

Also shown on these figures are the cyclic strength relationships for material C-2 used in the evaluations.

2B-48 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B Cyclic Strength Characteristics of Foundation Soils The testing program conducted on the foundation soils is described in paragraph 2B.7.5.2. The test data were re-evaluated to develop the cyclic strength characteristics for use in the current evaluation. Figure 2B6A-20 presents the revised relationship between effective normal stress and cyclic shear stress required to cause 5-percent strain in 10 cycles of ground motion for the foundation soils. Because only isotropically consolidated tests were performed on the foundation soils, only the relationship for = 0 is presented.

Cyclic Strength Characteristics of Drain Fill and Filter Material The proposed drain fill is a uniformly graded fine gravel and the filter material is a well graded sand.

There are abundant data in published literature on the behavior of saturated sands under cyclic loading conditions, and some data on the behavior of gravels.

The cyclic strength characteristics of the filter material and drain fill were estimated using data presented for Sacramento River sand.(20)(47) This sand was used as a basis because it has been studied in detail, and it is, therefore, possible to develop the cyclic strength characteristics over the range of confining pressures within the embankment and for variations in relative density. The Sacramento River sand is finer-grained than the proposed drain fill and filter materials. However, recent cyclic test data on gravels(30) would indicate little beneficial effect of the larger grain sizes for relatively low strains (5 percent). These data would, however, indicate that the drain fill (gravel) should be significantly more resistant than a sand to developing larger strains (10 percent). Any increases in strength due to grain size effects have been ignored in assessing the cyclic strengths of the filter drain fill.

The cyclic strength characteristics of clean granular materials are significantly affected by the initial static shear stress conditions within the materials, as demonstrated by Lee and Seed(47) and Seed et al.(27)

As the ratio of initial static shear stress to effective normal stress increases, the strength under cyclic loading conditions also increases.

Shear stresses will be present in the horizontal drain fill and filter layers in the proposed dams under static loading conditions, as indicated by the results of static finite element analyses. Therefore, the effect of these initial stress conditions was included in evaluating the cyclic strength characteristics; data by Lee and Seed (47) were utilized in this evaluation.

A minimum relative density of 60 percent for the filter and drain material was used in estimating their cyclic strengths. It is understood that these materials will be compacted to higher relative densities and therefore would have a higher resistance to deformation under cyclic loading.

2B-49 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B 2B.7.6.5.8 Laboratory Classification Test Data Laboratory Compaction Tests: Laboratory compaction tests were performed on materials designated as:

C-1, C-2, and C-3.

The tests were performed according to ASTM Test Designation: No. D-698, Method A. The results of the laboratory compaction tests are shown in figures 2B6A-21 through -23.

Grain Size Analyses: Grain size analyses, including sieve analyses and hydrometer analyses, were performed on the embankment materials. The results of grain size analyses are presented in figures 2B6A-24 through -26.

Atterberg Limits: The liquid and plastic limits were determined for materials C-1, C-2, and C-3. The results of these tests are summarized in the same figures as the compaction curves and the grain size curves for the corresponding materials.

A summary of the laboratory classification test data is presented in table 2B-10.

2B.7.6.6 Other Stability Features The dam foundation and the embankments for the dam and dikes are quality controlled, compacted fills.

The in-situ soils are excavated to Lisbon rock under the dam. The plan and cross sections of this excavation are shown on drawings D-176983 and D-176997.

A geologic map of the storage pond dam excavation is presented attached as figures 2B7-39A, B, C.

Over most of the excavation, the Lisbon formation consists of unweathered, light greenish-gray, calcareous, silty claystone of low to moderate hardness. It grades to calcareous, sandy claystone in the southwest corner of the excavation. Twelve soft areas on the exposed Lisbon surface, noted on the geologic map, contained higher amounts of clay than elsewhere. These areas were revealed by proofrolling, and were excavated up to 12 in. to sound Lisbon material before placement of backfill.

There are no layers of uncemented sand as observed elsewhere at the site. Voids and concentrations of loose material, which may indicate active solution, are also absent.

In the walls of the excavation, the contact between the Lisbon formation and overlying material was generally visible as a thin ledge of light colored rock extending outward beneath a thick layer of sand eroded from the walls. In some places, as a result of local erosion of the excavation slopes, the ledge was extensively covered by loose, wet sand that laborers could not satisfactorily remove. These areas are shown on the map of the excavation. The Lisbon over-burden contact had as much as 6 in. local relief, owing to erosion of the Lisbon before deposition of the overlying strata. This contact ranged from a high of 99.46 ft MSL at the northern end of the west wall to a low of 96.80 ft MSL in the south wall. The gentle southward slope of the contact is similar to the regional dip of strata in the area. There were no offsets or fractures of Lisbon material observed in the walls of the excavation.

The Moodys Branch limestone rests disconformably on the Lisbon formation in the north wall, between Stations 3 and 7. An additional area of limestone, shown on figure 2B7-39A, had been removed prior to the geologic investigation.

2B-50 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B The Moodys Branch consists of white to tan, fossiliferous, fine-to medium-grained sandy limestone, with a maximum thickness of 1.5 ft. Solution of some of the fossil shells had created voids up to 1 in. in diameter. These voids are partially filled with transparent calcite crystals over 1/8 in. long. The size of the crystals and the sharpness of their edges indicate that precipitation of calcite, rather than solution, is currently active at this location.

The investigation reveals no evidence of faulting in the excavation. Precipitation of calcite in Moodys Branch limestone is indicated. The top of the Lisbon formation in the excavation is free from any deformation or unstable zones.

The excavated foundation materials are placed at the downstream toe of the dam as a fill to add to the stability of the dam. The plan of the downstream fill is shown on drawing D-176980. This fill is graded and seeded for erosion protection.

Explorations in the embankment and pond area indicate the presence of a natural clay blanket as shown in drawings D-176925, D-176926, and D-176927. This natural blanket helps to prevent seepage from the reservoir from entering into the underlying sand strata. The explorations also indicate that this natural clay blanket is missing in the approximate area contained by the 150-ft contour. Therefore, a 4-ft thick compacted blanket of clayey sand embankment fill material is provided in areas where this clay blanket is thin or missing. It is tied into the edges of the natural clay blanket and also into the embankment fill by a transition berm. The plan view is shown on drawing D-176980 and a section view is shown on figure 2B7-16.

To control seepage, to prevent a buildup of ground water pressure within the lower sand stratum downstream of the dam, and to increase stability against liquefaction, gravity relief wells are provided.

Gravity relief wells are also placed along the dikes. The plan location, cross-section, and details of these gravity relief wells are shown on drawings D-176980, D-176981, D-176982, and D-176939. in addition, piezometers and observation wells are installed in the main dam and dike sections.

The horizontal and vertical drains for the dam as well as the toe filter for the dikes are graded filters with the drainage collection system separate from the relief well drainage system to allow separate monitoring. The drainage plans, sections, and details are shown on drawings D-176981 and D-176982.

Water from the postulated high river flood level (El 149 ft) is prevented from reaching the downstream slope of the dam by the downstream fill. The discharge pipe exit end at the toe of the downstream fill has a flap valve to prevent flooding of the drainage system during the postulated flood.

The dam maximum section is provided with a 36-in. camber to ensure that the freeboard is not diminished by foundation settlement and embankment consolidation.

The dam and dike cross sections were analyzed for static and dynamic stability without including the beneficial effects of the upstream blanket, the downstream fill, and the gravity relief wells.

2B.7.6.7 Permeability Tests and Seepage Analysis Field permeability tests were performed in the pond area. The testing program consisted of two types of field permeability tests:

2B-51 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B A. Field permeability tests in boreholes (Bureau of Reclamation Standard Test Designation E-18)(2) to determine the permeability of the saturated deep sands overlying the Lisbon Formation.

B. Field permeability tests by the Well Permeameter Method (Bureau of Reclamation Test E-19)(2) to determine the permeability characteristics of the pond area surficial soils.

The borehole permeability tests were conducted at three locations, for two different elevations of the casing tip. The well permeameter tests were run at seven different locations in the pond. The summary of test results is presented in table 2B-2.

Laboratory tests were performed on compacted and undisturbed samples. The summary of test results is presented in tables 2B-3 and 2B-4. The following coefficients of permeability were used for design for the various site soils:

Design Coefficient of Permeability Soil Type cm/s General Location Compacted fill 2.0 x 10-4 Embankment and upstream blanket Slightly silty 6.6 x 10-3 Lower overburden below sand El 130 Silty sand 6.0 x 10-3 Upper overburden surface and pockets above El 130 Clayey sand Less than 10-4 Upper overburden blanket above El 130 Silty clay Less than 10-5 Upper overburden blanket above El 130 The seepage loss from the storage pond was estimated by approximate methods and simplified conditions.

The loss was computed by Darcy's formula(31). For the maximum dam section the underlying Lisbon formation was assumed to be impermeable. A flow net was constructed for the embankment and the backfilled foundation. For the dike sections, calculation was made for seepage through the embankments and through the underlying overburden consisting of silty sands. Vertical seepage from the pond downward through the natural clay soils into the lower overburden sand stratum was calculated. During steady state seepage conditions, the total seepage loss is estimated to be less than 2.5 ft3/s. The estimated seepage loss from the storage pond is considered conservative because high coefficient of permeability values were used in the computations.

2B-52 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B 2B.7.6.8 Construction Phase Borrow Area No. 1 Evaluation Laboratory tests were conducted on the potential borrow area No. 1 materials and the results were used in selecting design parameters for the materials in the dam and the dikes as discussed in subsection 2B.7.6.3. At the start of field operations, trenches were developed using the borrow Method planned for the embankment construction. Since the borrow area consists of lenses of randomly distributed materials, a Method of borrow excavation that would result in mixing of the materials was required.

Elevating scrapers excavating on a downhill incline across the random lenses were found suitable for this. The resulting materials were tested and compared to the pre-design laboratory composites.

A. The grain size distribution of the borrow samples fell within the same range as the laboratory composites. The borrow samples had percent passing No. 200 sieve that ranged from 30 to 70; the laboratory composites ranged from 30 to 60 percent (figure 2B7-21). The minimum allowable percentage passing a No. 200 sieve is 30.

B. The plasticity index (PI) of the borrow samples was above 7, but the results did not always plot above the A-line (figure 2B7-23). Since the minimum allowable IP of the placed embankment soils was 7 and the three borrow-area composites used in the design phase had the lowest IP of 13 (material C-1), the effect of the low PI on the dynamic response characteristics was evaluated by a separate testing and analytical program which is described below in subsection 2B.7.6.8.A.

2B.7.6.8.A Construction Phase Dynamic Testing and Analyses A new composite sample with percentage passing No. 200 sieve equal to or greater than 30 and a PI between 7 and 13, as close to 7 as possible, was searched in the borrow area. Difficulty was experienced in finding such material in the borrow area; therefore, a composite material C-5 had to be hand mixed to meet the requirements, and this material with a PI of 8 was used for laboratory testing and associated analyses. This evaluation has resulted in a change in the specified compaction requirement for any fill material with PI less than 13 from a minimum of 95 percent of ASTM D-698 to a minimum of 98 percent of ASTM D-698 in a portion of the dam embankment. The following section describes the laboratory testing and the results of the analyses.

Results of Laboratory Investigations The results of grain-size analyses, Atterberg Limits determination, and laboratory compaction test performed on material C-5 are summarized in table 2B-19. The results of the laboratory compaction test are shown in figure 2B7-24, and those of the grain-size analysis are presented in figure 2B7-25.

Laboratory tests were performed to develop the dynamic modulus and damping characteristics of material C-5 in comparison with those of materials C-1, C-2, and C-3. The tests were performed on specimens reconstituted to a dry density of 112.4 lb/ft3, which is at 95 percent of the maximum density as determined by the ASTM D-698 procedure. The specimens were compacted at a moisture content of 14.2 percent, which is wet of optimum. The procedure used to reconstitute, saturate, and consolidate the test specimens is described in detail in subsection 2B.5.4.

2B-53 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B Resonant column tests were conducted to establish the modulus and damping values at very low strains.

The tests were conducted using a resonant column oscillator as outlined by Hardin.(35) The individual values of shear modulus and damping ratio determined from these tests are summarized in table 2B-20.

Strain controlled cyclic triaxial tests of isotropically consolidated specimens were performed to determine the modulus and damping values at intermediate to high strains. The results of these tests are summarized in table 2B-21.

The test data for material C-5 indicate that the relationship between shear modulus, G, and effective mean normal stress, m, is the same as for materials C-1, C-2, and C-3, that is:

Gm0.5 for m > 1000 lb/ft2 Using this relationship, the modulus values for material C-5 were normalized to an effective mean normal stress of 1000 lb/ft2 and plotted against shear strain level in figure 2B7-26. The generalized shear modulus reduction previously established for the embankment soils was fitted to the data in figure 2B7-26. The value of maximum shear modulus is then determined for material C-5 at m equal to 1000 lb/ft2, establishing the maximum shear modulus equation:

Gmax = 64.4 m 0.5 (ksf) for m > 1000 lb/ft2 The variation of damping ratio with shear strain for material C-5 is shown in figure 2B7-27. Also shown in this figure is the damping strain relationship previously used for the embankment materials.

A series of stress controlled cyclic triaxial tests was conducted to determine the strength of material C-5 in relationship to the other embankment soils. The specimens were reconstituted to 95 and 98 percent of maximum density as determined by the ASTM D-698 procedure at moisture contents of 14.2 and 12.6 percent, respectively, which are wet of optimum. Tests were performed on samples consolidated both isotropically and anisotropically. The procedures used to reconstitute, saturate, consolidate, and test the specimens are described in detail in subsection 2B.5.4.

As indicated in paragraph 2B.7.6.5.7, cyclic triaxial tests on isotropically consolidated samples yield stress values that are higher than those causing failure or excessive deformation in the field. Therefore, correction factors must be applied to the test data before they can be used to assess the cyclic behavior of the soil tested. Correction factors are provided by Seed and Peacock(18) in terms of the relative density of a clean sand. By means of a comparison of the cyclic strength characteristics of material C-5 with published data for Sacramento River Sand(20), an apparent average relative density of 64 percent is obtained for material C-5 at 95-percent ASTM D-698. An apparent relative density of 71 percent is obtained for 98-percent ASTM D-698. From Seed and Peacock(18) the correction factors of Cr = 0.61 and 0.64 are obtained for material C-5 at 95 and 98 percent of ASTM D-698, respectively. In the cyclic triaxial tests (Kc = 1.0), the maximum shear stress is equal to d/2 (one-half the maximum cycle deviator stress). The cycle shear stress causing the same level of strain in the field would then equal (d/2 x Cr).

2B-54 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B The procedures described by Seed, et al(27) were used to interpret the test data for the anisotropically consolidated (Kc> 1.0) specimens of material C-5. As indicated by Seed, et al(27), correction factors are not required for the results from anisotropically consolidated specimens.

The cyclic triaxial test results for material C-5 at 95-percent ASTM D-698 compaction are summarized in tables 2B-22 and 2B-23. For the isotropically consolidated specimens, the relationship between cyclic deviator stress and the number of cycles causing +/- 5-percent axial strain is presented in figure 2B7-28.

For the anisotropically consolidated specimens, the relationship between cyclic deviator stress and the number of cycles causing 5-percent strain is shown in figure 2B7-29.

The cyclic strength characteristics of material C-5 compacted to 95-percent ASTM D-698 compaction have been determined using the test data presented in figures 2B7-28 and 2B7-29 and the procedure described above. The relationship between effective normal stress and the cyclic stress required to cause 5-percent strain in 10 cycles of ground motion is shown in figure 2B7-30. Cyclic shear strength curves are shown for values of equal to 0 and greater than or equal to 0.2 ( is the ratio of initial static shear stress to initial static normal stress on the failure plane). (See paragraph 2B.7.6.5.7.)

The cyclic triaxial test results for material C-5 at 98-percent ASTM D-698 compaction are summarized in tables 2B-24 and 2B-25. For the isotropically consolidated specimens, the relationship between cyclic deviator stress and the number of cycles causing +/- 5-percent axial strain is presented in figure 2B7-31.

For the anisotropically consolidated specimens, the relationship between cyclic deviator stress and the number of cycles causing 5-percent strain is shown in figure 2B7-32.

The cyclic strength characteristics of material C-5 at 98 percent ASTM D-698 compaction have been determined using the test data presented in figures 2B7-31 and 2B7-32. The relationship between effective normal stress and the cyclic stress required to cause 5-percent strain in 10 cycles of ground motion is shown in figure 2B7-33. Cyclic shear strength curves are shown for values of equal to 0 and greater than or equal to 0.2. A detailed laboratory testing program was performed to establish the cyclic strength characteristics of material C-5 at 95-percent ASTM D-698 for 0.2. However, only check tests were performed on material C-5 at 98 percent ASTM D-698 compaction to establish cyclic strength at values 0.2.

To establish the cyclic strength relationship for values of 0.2 shown on figure 2B7-33, it was assumed that the ratio between cyclic strength at 0.2 and cyclic strength at = 0 for material C-5 will be the same at 98 percent ASTM D-698 as at 95 percent ASTM D-698 compaction. The cyclic strength characteristics of material C-5 at 95 percent ASTM D-698 relative compaction are shown in Figure 2B7-30. The ratio between the cyclic strengths at 0.2 and a = 0 shown in figure 2B7-30 were used to define the cyclic strength of material C-5 for values of 0.2 at 98 percent ASTM D-698. Two anisotropically consolidated cyclic triaxial tests were performed to verify this assumption. As shown on figure 2B7-33, the strength curve used for a value of 0.2 provides a conservative assumption of the cyclic strength.

Seismic Stability Evaluations The results of tests conducted to determine the modulus and damping characteristics indicate that the dynamic material properties of material C-5 at 95 percent ASTM D-698 compaction are very similar to those of material C-2 and thus correspond to the average material properties used for the embankment 2B-55 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B soils. Analytical evaluations using appropriate published relationships(29) indicate that the increase in density from 95 to 98 percent ASTM D-698 compaction would result in less than a 10 percent increase in the shear modulus. The dynamic stresses induced by the SSE calculated using the upper bound properties for materials C-1, C-2, and C-3 should therefore represent the induced shear stresses using the upper bound values of modulus for material C-5 at 98 percent ASTM D-698 compaction.

Initial cyclic triaxial tests performed on C-5 material specimens reconstituted at 95 percent ASTM D-698 compaction indicate that the cyclic strength of the material at that compaction requirement is approximately 25 percent lower than that of material C-2 and 15 percent lower than that of material C-1.

The evaluation of the seismic stability of the maximum dam section using the cyclic strength of material C-5 at 95 percent ASTM D-698 compaction and the induced shear stresses using upper bound values of modulus shows that a limited zone at the center of the dam has local factors of safety less than 1.0 against the development of 5 percent strain. (See figures 2B7-34 and 2B7-35.)

The cyclic strength of material C-5 at 98 percent ASTM D-698 compaction is approximately the same as that of material C-2 at 95 percent ASTM D-698 and 5 to 10 percent greater than the strength of material C-1 at 95 percent ASTM D-698. The evaluation of the seismic stability of the maximum dam section using the cyclic strength of material C-5 at 98 percent ASTM D- 698 compaction and the induced shear stresses using the upper bound values of modulus is presented in figures 2B7-36 and 2B7-37.

Figure 2B7-36 shows the local factors of safety against development of 5 percent strain along selected horizontal planes.

Similarly the variation of the local factor of safety along the centerline of the dam is shown in figure 2B7-37. As can be seen from these two figures, the local factors of safety are well over unity with a minimum value of approximately 1.15. These results indicate that there would be ample factor of safety against the development of 5 percent strain during the postulated safe shutdown earthquake if the embankment were constructed entirely of material C-5 at 98 percent ASTM D-698 compaction.

Subsection 2B.7.6.5.4 indicates that there is considerable margin of safety for the dike against development of 5 percent strain based on the cyclic strength of material C-2. Evaluation of the stability of the dike embankment using the cyclic strength characteristics of material C-5 at 95 percent ASTM D-698 compaction indicates that there is ample margin of safety during the safe shutdown earthquake.

As a result of the findings and analysis described above and shown on figures 2B7-34 through 2B7-37, the specified compaction requirement for C-5 material (i.e., any fill material with a plasticity index less than 13) was increased from a minimum of 95 percent to a minimum of 98 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D-698 in the dam embankment between stations 10 + 00 and 16 + 00.

(The height of the dam in this section varies, at the centerline, from 25 to 58 ft above the existing ground.)

The specified compaction requirement was not changed for that portion of the dam embankment above the horizontal filter blanket and downstream of the chimney drain, where 95 percent ASTM D-698 is still adequate.

2B-56 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B 2B.7.6.9 Borrow Area No. 2 Evaluation After the start of dam and dike construction, an investigation was made to evaluate the suitability of the soils in borrow area No. 2 as a supplement to the soils in borrow area No. 1 in case of a need. Borrow area No. 2 is shown on drawing D-176900 and figure 2B1-6.

The field investigation was conducted in June 1974. A total of 75 auger soil borings were made for identifying the subsurface materials and for obtaining representative bulk samples. The boring locations are shown on figure 2B1-6.

The soil profiles are shown on figures 2B4-22 through 2B4-30. The soil sampling procedures are discussed in subsection 2B.3.2.

The borrow area No. 2 soil characteristics are as follows:

1. Sandy clay of high plasticity.

2. Clayey sand of medium plasticity.

3. Clayey silt of medium plasticity.

Preliminary laboratory tests included moisture content, Atterberg limits and gradation determination.

Based on the field classifications and on these laboratory tests, the materials in borrow Area No. 2 were grouped into three representative composite materials for further laboratory testing. These additional laboratory tests included specific gravity, gradation, Atterberg limits and Proctor tests. The tests performed on remolded compacted samples included unconfined compression, consolidated undrained triaxial with pore pressure measurements, permeability, and consolidation tests. The laboratory testing procedures are discussed in subsection 2B.5.2. A summary of all laboratory tests made on these materials is shown on figures 2B5-42 through 2B5-46. The stress strain diagrams of the triaxial shear tests are shown on figure 2B5B-19. The borrow area No. 2 soils have plasticity characteristics and grain size distributions similar to those of borrow area No. 1 soils, as shown on figure 2B7-23. In conclusion, soils available in borrow are suitable as a supplemental source of fill material.

The southeastern portion of borrow area No. 2 will not be cut below elevation 180 ft, so that the original planned geometry of the adjacent reservoir spillway channel will be maintained.

2B.7.6.10 Borrow Area No. 1 Extension and Borrow Area No. 3 In December 1975, due to economic considerations related to haul distances, the contractor requested the enlargement of Borrow Area No. 1 instead of utilizing Borrow Area No. 2. The soils in the extension area were sampled by auger borings and test pits, and tested for grain size distributions, water content, plasticity characteristics, compaction and strength. These soils were found to be essentially the same as those encountered at Borrow Area No. 1. In June 1976, additional test pits were excavated in an area at the north end of the reservoir, and on the west side of the service water intake. This area, designated Borrow Area No. 3, was investigated to determine the soil characteristic in case additional fill was required. On the basis of visual classification and laboratory test results the majority of the soils above elevation 190 were found to be suitable for embankment fill.

2B-57 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B 2B.7.6.11 Dam and Dike Instrumentation and Monitoring Schedule Seepage control is accomplished with two independent systems, a horizontal blanket and vertical chimney drain at the main dam section; and gravity relief wells downstream of the dam and dike sections. These systems each have their own discharge pipe so that the seepage from each system can be individually monitored. The relief wells are to be inspected by visual methods from within the concrete manhole. Any required repairs can be made using the access provided by the manhole. The effectiveness of the seepage collection systems is measured by the seepage quantity from the discharge pipe and the measurements from the piezometer and observation wells.

The purpose of the instrumentation for the storage pond dam and dike embankments is to monitor conditions such as pore water pressures and seepage quantities that relate directly to the stability of the dam, and to aid in any maintenance or modifications that might be required during the service life of the storage pond. The data from the instrumentation are to be reviewed and compared to the conditions assumed in the stability analysis of the dam and dikes. The effects of any conditions that are different from the assumed conditions are to be evaluated to assure the continued safety of the dam and the dikes.

The dam and dike instrumentation consists of the following:

A. Sealed piezometers to measure pore water pressures in the embankment and foundation of the dam; B. Observation wells to measure ground water levels in the dam and dike embankments; C. Surface markers to monitor the vertical and the horizontal movements of the dam and dike embankments; D. Gravity relief wells to reduce seepage pressures at the downstream areas along with the toe drain system for the dam and dike embankments.

The instrumentation details are shown on drawings D-176980, D-176981, D-176982, D-176939, and figure 2B7-39.

Hydrotesting of plant systems required an early source of water. Therefore, the pond was partially filled to elevation 175 after an interim instrumentation program for the dam and the dikes was developed and installed. This interim progress consisted of 9 observation wells (OW-10I, 11I, 12I, 13I, 19I, 30I, 38I, 40I, and 46I); 7 surface markers (BM-1I, 2I, 3I, 4I, 5I, 6I, and 7I); and 1 piezometer (P-1I). Water was maintained at elevation 175 until all the instrumentation was installed functioning. The interim instrumentation was monitored daily during pond filling to elevation 175 and weekly thereafter. As each observation well, piezometer, gravity relief well, or surface marker making up the rest of the instrumentation program was completed, readings were started. The schedule for reading the observation wells, piezometers, drain seepage, and gravity relief well discharge was daily during initial pond filling to elevation 184, weekly for the first 6 months after filling, and then monthly for the next 18 months. The schedule for surveying the surface markers was daily during pond filling, weekly for the next 6 months, then once every 3 months.

2B-58 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B 2.B.7.6.12 Embankment Construction, Pond Filling and Performance The storage pond dam and dike embankments were constructed under the following material and compaction specifications, the basis for which are discussed in detail in paragraphs 2.B.7.6.1 through 2.B.7.6.9.

Materials: a. Minimum plasticity index (PI) = 7 percent.

b. Minimum fines (passing No. 200 sieve) = 30 percent by weight.

Compaction: a. In the dam(a) for material with a PI higher than 13, minimum compaction to 95 percent of ASTM D- 698-70 (Method A) maximum dry density.

b. In the dam(a) for material with a PI between 7 and 13, minimum compaction to 98 percent of ASTM D-698-70 (Method A) maximum dry density.

c. In the dike(b) minimum compaction at 95 percent of ASTM D-698-70 (Method A).

Embankment materials were obtained from Borrow Area No. 1 and its extension. Borrow Area No. 2 was not used due to its greater distance from the embankments. Toward the end of the construction, a small amount of fill was obtained from Borrow Area No. 2. The material was spread in 9 inch loose lifts, and compacted by self-propelled pad foot rollers.

The fill was controlled by Quality Control inspectors supported by a full time field soils laboratory (section 17.1). Field control test data were made part of the QA documentation and are available for inspection at the plant site. There is approximately 100,000 cubic yards of fill compacted to a minimum 95 percent ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density which was placed before the embankments were redesigned. The majority of this fill is in the bottom levels of the dam foundation; the remainder is the lower portion of the east dike embankment.

After earlier clearing of the area, work began on the construction of the embankments and associated structures in June 1973, with the installation of the dewatering system and foundation excavation.

Eductor wellpoints, 9 feet on centers, were installed 1 foot into the Lisbon formation. Additionally, 13 pressure relief wells were installed to depressurize the lower aquifer and maintain a stable foundation.

Throughout the embankment construction a record test program was conducted. For this program, 1 cubic foot block samples of the compacted fill were obtained for laboratory testing. The purpose of this program was to assure that the engineering properties of the fill were equal to or greater than those used for design. A total of 26 block samples were obtained and tested.

Figure 2B7-40 shows the liquid limit and plasticity index, compaction density and moisture, strength test results in the forms of p-q diagrams, and vertical and horizontal permeability of the record test samples.

These record test showed the design strengths were met or exceeded.

a. For purposes of compaction control, the dam was defined as fill between station 10 + 100 and station 16 + 00, except for that portion above the filter blanket and downstream of the chimney drain.

b. All fill between station 0 + 00 and station 44 + 00 except as defined above.

2B-59 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B The extent of the compacted blanket (subsection 2B.7.6.6) in the reservoir area was determined by a system of shallow auger holes which established the areas where the natural clay blanket was missing.

This work was done under the supervision of a soils engineer. Between August and November 1977 instrumentation for observation measurements was installed (subsection 2B.7.6.10). The locations are shown on figure 2B7-41. Some interim instrumentation was installed before water was allowed to be pumped into the reservoir. The pond was partly filled to elevation 175 between August 18 and September 4, 1976 to provide water for hydrotesting of plant systems. This level was maintained until all the gravity relief wells, observation wells, piezometers and surface movement markers were installed and initial readings were taken. The pond was filled to elevation 185 between November 13 and 19, and the level has been maintained between the normal operating levels of elevation 184 and elevation 186. In August 1977, the measured vertical movement of the embankments was 0.7 inches at the maximum dam section, where the fill thickness is 100 feet. Maximum horizontal movement of the embankments measured after filling the pond was less than 0.3 inch, also at the main dam section. As of August 1977 only one of the gravity relief wells (GW 8) was flowing at the rate of 0.025 ft3/s. The dam downstream drain system was discharging water at the rate of 0.0005 ft3/s. Measured ground water levels under the centerline of the dam and like embankments are shown on figure 2B7-42. Typical plots showing the rise of the ground water, and seepage rates from the two discharge pipes as a function of reservoir level and time are shown on figures 2B7-43 and 2B7-44. Postconstruction ground water conditions in the storage pond area are discussed in subsection 2.4.13.2.2 and the ground water contours are shown on figure 2.4-24.

In summary, the engineering properties of the compacted fill as determined by testing the record samples are equal or better than those used for design. Instrumentation installed to monitor performance shows no unusual conditions. Average degree of compaction for the embankment fill is 98.5 percent ASTM D-698, and the measured combined seepage from the vertical chimney-horizontal drain system and gravity relief well is less than 0.03 ft3/s.

Field inspections are conducted on a regular basis. A checklist is used for each inspection. This checklist covers inspections for leakage, erosion, seepage, slope instability, undue settlement, displacement, tilting, cracking, deterioration and improper functioning of drains, observation wells and relief wells.

2B.8 SLOPE STABILITY In addition to the Category I dam and dikes, slope stability analyses were made for five other slopes on the site. These included the river intake channel, pond service water intake channel, reservoir spillway channel, yard fill, and the natural slopes. The circular arc method was used in the final analysis because sliding plane, block, and wedge type analyses yielded higher computed factors of safety. The geometry, soil properties, and results of the minimum static and earthquake analyses are shown on figures 2B7-19 and 2B7-20.

The calculated minimum factors of safety for the static (steady seepage or rapid drawdown) and earthquake (10 percent acceleration of gravity) loading conditions are summarized below:

2B-60 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B Slope Minimum Factor of Safety Static Earthquake River intake channel 1.8 1.2 Pond service water 2.3 1.6 intake channel Reservoir spillway 2.4 1.5 channel Yard fill 1.7 1.4 Natural slopes 2.1 1.3 near reservoir All of the calculated factors of safety exceed the established minimum criteria given in subsection 2B.7.1.

2B.9 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES The structures for which soil backfill forces were considered in the design consist of the containments, auxiliary buildings, service water and river intake structures, and the other Category I buildings, including the two Category I retaining walls at the site, wing walls at the river water intake, and wing walls at the service water (pond) intake. The latter consists of parallel walls which are internally braced.

Since they are restrained from moving, the horizontal component of earth pressure is called the 'at-rest' earth pressure. The magnitude of this pressure depends on the type of soil backfill and the procedures and degree of compaction.

The 'at-rest' lateral earth pressure coefficient (Ko), for an in situ sandy soil, varies from about 0.30 for soil in a dense state to 0.50 for a loose state. The backfill at the site was compacted using hand tampers within 10 feet of the wall to 95 percent of maximum dry density determined by ASTM D-698, corresponding to a dense state of compaction. A value of 0.4 was selected for the 'at-rest' earth pressure coefficient, Ko .

The dynamic soil forces, however, do not control the structural design. The lateral earth pressures for the walls above and below grade were evaluated for static and dynamic conditions. That is, the lateral earth pressure developed on the buried portion of the building walls, as the building responds to the SSE, has been incorporated into the structural design of the walls. The rigidity of the walls, the backfilling, and the framing at the top do not allow sufficient movement for the development of the active earth pressure. However, the reinforced concrete cantilever retaining wing walls of the river are designed for active earth pressure, as determined from the Culmann method. Dynamic (earthquake) increment of pressure is also included. Any residual stresses developed during the compaction of backfill will be dissipated by the yielding of the retaining wall as the active earth pressure condition is developed. The "at-rest" pressures were considered in the design of all other subgrade structures.

It should be noted that several investigators(44)(49)(50) have attempted to measure the lateral pressures that exist in the ground and on retaining and basement walls during and after compaction. They have found that the 'at-rest' earth pressure developed in backfill at times exceeded the theoretical 'at- rest' values at 2B-61 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B the time of compaction, due to unrelieved stresses induced by the compaction process. However, these residual stresses are expected to dissipate with time.(1) An investigation(2) at the Pleasant Valley Pumping Plant included earth pressure measurements on large-scale rigid basement walls with compaction techniques comparable to those used at the site. Measurement indicated effective lateral earth pressures approximately equal to the Ko values, based on laboratory tests and theoretical relationships. Therefore, the lateral earth pressure on the wing walls at the Farley site can be approximated using an applied Ko value 0.4. The walls are designed structurally to a total pressure that includes an additional dynamic increment. This increment is adequate to accommodate the temporary additional loading compaction.

In the analytical model, the earth pressure was converted to a hydrostatic equivalent fluid pressure corresponding to 40 lb/ft3 for earth pressures above the water table and 80 lb/ft3 for earth pressures below the water table. This utilizes the Rankine approach which is a conservative estimate of static lateral pressures. The earth pressure was determined based on the characteristics of the materials used for backfill from the site grading and excavation.

The dynamic earth pressures were also considered for this plant. The analysis was based on work by Newmark(32), Ishii(33), Terzaghi(10), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.(34) The references provide the pressure coefficients which depend upon the magnitude of the acceleration factor of the earthquake.

Although there is uncertainty concerning the behavior of backfill during earthquakes, the dynamic earth pressure can be approximated by the methods outlined in these references.

The horizontal earthquake acceleration is combined with the static earth pressure acting on the wall. The value of the dynamic pressure is dependent on the type of backfill. For the sand or silty sand backfill material, the above references show that the dynamic earth pressure is equivalent to the static earth pressure plus the static earth pressure times 2 ag, where "a" is the ratio between the acceleration produced by an earthquake shock and the acceleration of gravity, and "g" is the acceleration of gravity.

Based on this information, the dynamic earth pressure equals 1.20 times the static earth pressure for safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) in the design.

These design pressures have been verified and found to be conservative by comparison with the recent publications by Seed and Whitman. (See, Seed, H. B., Whitman, R. V., "Design of Earth Retaining Structures for Dynamic loads," Proceedings of the Specialty Conference on Lateral Stresses in the Ground and Design of Earth-Retaining Structures, Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, June, 1970.) Although there are uncertainties as to the behavior of backfills during earthquakes, the pressure on the walls can be approximated such that the safety of the walls can be assured.

2B.10 EXCAVATION AND COMPACTION OF BACKFILL The plant area excavation plan and sections are shown on figure 2B1-5. The general site grading was done by means of conventional earth moving equipment. Excavation below the water table was accomplished after the installation of an eductor wellpoint system or a combination of sumps and ditches.

Where the Moodys Branch and the Lisbon formations required light blasting, the maximum particle velocity was limited to 2 in./s at 100 ft from the charge. All blasting was instrumentally monitored.

The soils beneath the topsoil layer were used for backfill. In the plant area, the backfill was placed in 8-in. loose layers and compacted to a minimum 95 percent of the maximum standard Proctor dry density (ASTM D-698). The moisture content was maintained within 5 percentage points of optimum. Table 2B-62 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B 2B-26 documents the water content of all fill compacted according to specifications for the dam and dike embankment from the beginning of construction through May 8, 1974. These data represent approximately 10 percent of the total fill volume. The placement water contents lie within the following ranges:

In relation to the optimum moisture:

68 percent of tests show placement at optimum moisture or higher 17 percent of tests show placement from 0.1 to 1.0 percent drier than optimum 6 percent of tests show placement from 1.1 to 2.0 percent drier than optimum 7 percent of tests show placement from 2.1 to 3.0 percent drier than optimum Of the total in-place moisture content tests:

90 percent are at 10.0 percent moisture or higher 9 percent are between 9.0 and 9.9 percent moisture 1 percent are between 8.0 and 8.9 percent moisture As can be seen on 2B-26, the driest soil compacted in the field has a compaction moisture content of 8.7 percent. The sample displaying the relative brittle behavior on figure 2B5B-11 was compacted in the laboratory at a moisture content of 6.8 percent. According to the test results shown on figures 2B5-24 and 2B5-26, Soil I is similar to Soil C-1, which is one type soil used in the dam and dike embankment.

When Soil C-1 was tested in the unconsolidated-undrained mode at 7.7 percent moisture as shown on revised figure 2B5-8, the stress-strain curves showed much less relative brittle behavior than when Soil I was tested at 6.8 percent moisture.

The modified Proctor compaction tests performed for quality control of fill placement have exhibited curves with peaks similar to those of curves C-1, C-2, and C-3 as shown on figure 2B7-17.

These curves have relatively sharp peaks so that on each side of optimum moisture there is only a 2.0 percent to 2.5 percent moisture interval within which the soil can be compacted to the specified 95 percent of maximum dry density. Although the earthwork specifications require the moisture content at the time of compaction to be within 3 percent moisture of optimum moisture on the dry side and within 5 percent moisture on the wet side for allowable total placement range of 8 percent moisture, the characteristics of the soils effectively limit this placement range to 4 or 5 percent moisture. Since the borrow soils in their natural state are not a homogeneous deposit, this range is needed to enable the placement of the embankment from a practical point of view. A reduction of this total moisture range to 2 to 2.5 would be impractical.

Table 2B-26, which documents the water content of placed fill, has been compiled from field records on file at the jobsite. Excavation slopes and backfill in the plant area are shown on figures 2B4-10 through 2B4-14. In the storage pond area, the dam and dike embankments are compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum standard Proctor dry density (ASTM D- 698) except for material with a plasticity index less than 13, placed in the dam embankment between stations 10+00 and 16+00, upstream of the chimney drain and beneath the horizontal filter blanket. Such material is compacted to a minimum of 98 percent of ASTM D-698. (See subsection 2B.7.6.8.A). Details of excavation and earthwork in the storage pond area are presented on figures 2B7-14 through 2B7-23, and drawings D-176980, D176984, D-176985, D-176986, D-176987, D-176988, D-176989, D-176983, D-176997, 2B-63 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B D-176994, D-176995, D-176981, D-176982, and D-176939. Field moisture and density tests are made at a minimum frequency of one test for every 5000 cubic yards of fill placed, or one test per day, to ensure compliance with the specified compaction criteria in the storage pond dam and dike embankments. The rapid compact control procedure given in the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Earth Manual(2) (Designation E-25) may be used for compaction control.

Initially, twenty correlation tests, between E-25 and ASTM D-698, were performed to establish the correlation factor which converted E-25 to ASTM D-698 results. The correlation program determined that 98 percent of E-25 was equal to 95 percent of ASTM D-698. The correlation factor was subsequently checked during fill placement, by performing one ASTM D-698 test for every ten E-25 tests.

The backfill placement program was monitored according to the following quality control program.

A. Storage Pond Area The various soil tests are performed according to specified procedures and frequency.

The embankments for the dam and the dikes are compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D-698-70. The fill material was compacted when the moisture content was within the range necessary to obtain the specified density.

Liquid limit, plastic limit, and sieve gradation of materials placed as fill were determined for every 10,000 cubic yard, or more often as required by changes in material. The gradation was determined by the procedure described in ASTM D-422-63. The liquid limit and plastic limit were determined by the procedures described in ASTM D-423-66 and ASTM D-429-59.

In large work areas where machine operation and compaction was performed, at least one set of tests (water content, ASTM D-2216-71; field density, ASTM D-1556-64) was made at a sufficient depth below the surface to be in material that is undisturbed by the compaction process at a minimum frequency of one for every 5,000 cubic yards of fill placed, but not less than one test per day.

The moisture-density relationship test in accordance with ASTM D-698-70 was performed on material taken from the same location as the field density test. The U.S.

Bureau of Reclamation Test Designation E-25 is an acceptable substitute for ASTM D-698-70 for the determination of percent compaction. If U.S. Bureau of Reclamation E-25 procedure was used, a correlation of percent compaction as determined by E-25 and by ASTM D-698 was made. After an initial correlation factor between these two methods had been established, one correlation test was performed between E-25 and ASTM D-698 for every tenth field density test.

In small work areas (less than 16,000 ft2) where machine operation and compaction are performed, at least one test was made for each 100 cubic yard of fill, but not less than one test for every fifth layer.

2B-64 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B B. Plant Area The plant area backfill is compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D-698. All fill material is placed at a moisture content within +

5 percent moisture of the optimum moisture content. Optimum moisture-density data are determined on a continuous basis. In-situ water content of excavation materials used as fill was determined each morning prior to start of operations, and was checked at least twice during the day or if the source of material changed.

In large work areas (more than 8,000 ft2 in area) where machine operation and compaction was performed, at least one test (water content and/or density or gradation) was made for each 8,000 ft2 area for every lift. In small work areas (less than 5,000 ft2 in area) where machine operation and compaction was performed, at least one test was made for each 50 cubic yards of fill, but not less than one test for every fourth layer. In smaller manual compacted areas, such as around conduits or walls, at least one test for every third layer was made.

If the density was below the required percentage, or if the water content was not within the required range or if both occur, either of two courses of action was followed:

1. Two retests were made in the near vicinity (5-ft radius) of the failing test. If both retests passed the requirements, the area was accepted. Even if one of the two retests fails, item "2" was followed.

2. The area was reworked, or the fill material was taken out and replaced with suitable material, until a passing test is achieved. If the soil classification as determined by the plastic limit and gradation tests did not meet specification requirements, two additional samples were obtained from the same lot of material originally tested and were retested for gradation and plastic limit. If both samples met classification requirements the material was accepted. If one or both of the samples failed to meet the classification requirements, the material was removed and replaced with acceptable material or was blended with acceptable material by discing or other approved method for the full thickness of the material involved until an acceptable situation was obtained as indicated by retesting.

2B-65 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B REFERENCES

1. American Society for Testing and Materials, Book of ASTM Standards, Part II, "Bituminous Materials for Highway Construction, Waterproofing, and Roofing; Soils; Skid Resistance,"

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, March, 1969.

2. U.S. Department of the Interior - Bureau of Reclamation, Earth Manual, First Edition, Revised Reprint, Denver, Colorado, 1963.

3. American Society for Testing and Materials, Procedures for Testing Soils, Fourth Edition, Philadelphia, 1964.

4. Akroyd, T. N. W., Laboratory Testing in Soil Engineering, Geotechnical Monograph No. 1, Soil Mechanics, Ltd., London, 1964.

5. Bishop, A. W., and Henkel, D. J., The Measurement of Soil Properties in the Triaxial Test, Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd., Second Edition, London, 1964.

6. Lambe, T. W., Soil Testing for Engineers, John Wiley and Sons, Incorporated, New York, 1951.

7. Watkins, R. K., "Pipeline Economy Through Design of Backfill," Journal of the Pipeline Division, ASCE, Proceedings Paper 5586, New York, June, 1969.

8. Pettibone, H. C., and Howard, A. K., Distribution of Soil Pressures on Concrete Pipe, Conference Preprint No. 352, ASCE, New York, June, 1969.

9. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Design Manual, Soil Mechanics, Foundations, and Earth Structures DM-7, March, 1971. March, 1971.

10. Terzaghi, K., Theoretical Soil Mechanics, John Wiley and Sons, Incorporated, New York, 1943.

11. Bowles, J. E., Foundation Analysis and Design, McGraw- Hill, New York, 1968.

12. Bechtel Corporation, Report of Plate Load Tests on Soil Foundations, Alabama Power Co.,

Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, December, 1972.

13. Nuclear Reactors and Earthquakes, USNRC, TI 7024, Washington, D. C., 1963, p. 181.

14. Seed, H. B., "Land Slides during Earthquakes due to Soil Liquefaction," Fourth Terzaghi Lecture, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Proceedings, Paper No. 6110, September 1968.

15. Proceedings, Symposium on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., 1965.

16. Seed, H. B. and Idriss, I. M., A Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential, Earthquake Engineered Research Center Report No. EERC 70-9, University of California, Berkeley, November 1970.

2B-66 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B

17. Seed, H. B. and Lee, K. L., "Liquefaction of Saturated Sands during Cyclic Loading,"

Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, New York, November 1966.

18. Seed, H. B. and Peacock, W. H., Applicability of Laboratory Test Procedures for Measuring Soil Liquefaction Characteristics Under Cyclic Loading, Earthquake Engineering Research Center Report No. EERC 70- 8, November 1970.

19. Finn, W. D. Liam, Pickering, D. J., and Bransby, P. L., Sand Liquefaction in Triaxial and Simple Shear Tests, Soil Mechanics Research Report Series No. 11, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, August 1969.

20. Lee, K. L. and Seed, H. B., "Cyclic Stress Conditions Causing Liquefaction of Sand,"

Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Paper No. 5058, New York, January 1967.

21. McDonnell Automation, SLOPE-Slope Stability Analysis System, November 1970.

22. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Stability of Earth and Rock-Fill Dams, Engineering and Design Manual EM-1110-2-1902, 1970.

23. Newmark, N. M., "Effects of Earthquakes on Dams and Embankments," Fifth Rankine Lecture, Institution of Civil Engineers, Geotechnique, London, June 1965.

24. Idriss, I. M., Lysmer, J., Hwang, R., and Seed, H. B., "Computer Programs for Evaluating the Seismic Response of Soil Structures by Variable Damping Finite Elements,"

Eqk. Engr. Res. Ctr, Report No. EERC 73-16, University of California, Berkeley, August 1973.

25. Lee, K. L., and Walters, H. G., "Earthquake Induced Cracking of Dry Canyon Dam," Fifth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Rome, Italy, 1973.

26. Ozawa, Y. and Duncan, J. M., "ISBUILD: A Computer Program for Analysis of Static Stresses and Movements in Embankments," Report No. TE 73-4,Off. of Res. Serv University of California, Berkeley, 1973.

27. Seed, H. B., Lee, K. L., and Idriss, I. M., "Analysis of Sheffield Dam Failure," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol 95, No. SM 6, November 1969.

28. Seed, H. B., "A Method for Earthquake-Resistant Design of Earth Dams," Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 92, No. SM1, January 1966, pp. 13-41.

29. Hardin, B. O., and Drnevich, V. P., "Shear Modulus and Damping in Soils: Design Equations and Curves," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, New York, July 1972.

30. Wong, R. T., "Deformation Characteristics of Gravels and Gravelly Soils Under Cyclic Loading Conditions," Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, 1970.

2B-67 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B

31. Bureau of Reclamation, Design of Small Dams, A Water Resources Technical Publication, Government Printing Office, Washington, 1960.

32. Newmark, N. M., "Principle and Practices for Design of Hardened Structures," Technical Documentary Report Number AFSWC TDR-62-138, Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico, December, 1962.

33. Ishii, Y., et al., "Lateral Earthpressure in an Earthquake," Proceedings of the Second World Conference of Earthquake Engineering, Science Council of Japan, Tokyo, and Kyoto, 1960.

34. Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army, Retaining Walls, EM1110-2-2502, Washington, D. C., 1961.

35. Hardin, B. O., "Suggested Methods of Test for Shear Modulus and Damping of Soils by the Resonant Column," ASTM Special Technical Publication 479, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA., 1970.

36. Duncan, J. M., and Chang, C. Y., "Nonlinear Analysis of Stress and Strain in Soils," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, New York, September 1970.

37. Sherard, J. L. et al., Earth and Earth-Rock Dams, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1966.

38. Chopra, A. and Clough, R. W. "Earthquake Response of Homogeneous Earth Dams", Report No. TE-65-11, Institute of Transportation and Traffic Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, November, 1966.

39. Seed, H. Bolton and Idriss, I. M., "Soil Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic Response Analyses," Earthquake Engineering Research Center Report No. EERC 70-10, University of California, Berkeley, December, 1970.

40. Seed, H. B. et al., "Analysis of the Slides in the San Fernando Dams During the Earthquake of Feb. 9, 1971", EERC Report No: 73-2, University of California, Berkeley, June 1973.

41. Lee, K. L., Chan, K., "Number of Equivalent Significant Cycles in Strong Motion Earthquakes",

Proc. The International Conference on Microzonation for Safer Construction Research and Application, Seattle, November 3, 1972, Vol.1, pp 609-627.

42. Wong, K. S. and Duncan, J. M., "Hyperbolic Stress-Strain Parameters for Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis of Stresses and Movements in Soil Masses," Report No: TE-74-3, Office of Research Services, University of California, Berkeley 1974.

43. Konder, R. L., "Hyperbolic Stress-Strain Response: Cohesive Soils," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, New York, January 1963.

44. Konder, R. L. and Zelasko, J. S., "A Hyperbolic Stress-Strain Foundation for Sands,"

Proceedings of Pan-American Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Brazil, Vol. I, 1963.

45. Janbu, N., "Soil Compressibility as Determined by Oedometer and Triaxial Tests," Proceedings, European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Wiesbaden, Vol. I, 1963.

2B-68 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B

46. Kulhawy, F. H., Duncan, J. M., and Seed, H. B., "Finite Element Analyses of Stresses and Movements in Embankments During Construction," Report No: TE-69-4, Office of Research Services, University of California, Berkeley, California, 1969.

47. Lee, K. L. and Seed, H. B., "Dynamic Strength of Anisotropically Consolidated Sand," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, New York, September 1967.

48. D'Appolinia, D. J., Whiteman, R. V. and D'Appolonia, I., "Sand Compaction with Vibratory Rollers," Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 95, SM 1, January 1969.

49. Gould, J. P., "Lateral Pressures on Rigid Permanent Structures," 1970 Specialty Conference, Lateral Stresses in the Ground and Design of Earth-Retaining Structures, ASCE, Cornell University, New York, June 1970.

50. Sowers, G. F., Robb, A. D., Mullis, C. H. and Glenn, A. T., "The Residual Lateral Pressures Produced by Compacting Soils," Proceedings, 4th International Conference on Soil on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol II, London, 1957.

51. Taylor, D. W., Fundamentals of Soil Mechanics, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1956, pp.

132-133 and 200-204.

2B-69 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B BIBLIOGRAPHY Bechtel Corporation, Project Report on "Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Bolsa Island Nuclear Desalting Facility," prepared for the Los Angeles Metropolitan Water District, et al., 1967.

Bechtel Corporation, "Site Exploration, Geology, Seismology, and Ground Water Hydrology of the Barnwell Nuclear Fuel Plant," - Appendix D-Liquefaction Study, October 1968.

Bishop, A. W., "The Use of the Slip Circle in the Stability Analysis of Slopes," Geotechnique, Vol. 5, pp.

7-17, The Institution of Civil Engineers, London, England, 1955.

Brown, F. S., "Foundation Investigations for the Franklin Falls Dam,Journal of the Boston Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 28, No. 2, Boston, 1941.

D'Appolonia, D. J., Whiteman, R. V., and D'Appolonia, E., "Sand Compaction with Vibratory Rollers,"

Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ACSE, Vol. 95, SM 1, January 1969.

Dawkins, W. P., "Analysis of Tunnel Liner Packing Systems," Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, Proceedings Paper No. 6622, New York, June 1969.

Duke, C. M. and Leeds, D. J., Response of Soils, Foundations, and Earth Structures, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Special Issue - An Engineering Report on the Chilean Earthquakes of May 1960, Vol. 53, No. 2, February 1963.

Ellis, W. and Hartman, V. B., "Dynamic Soil Strength and Slope Stability," Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations, ASCE, Paper No. 5321, New York, 1967.

Goodman, R. E. and Seed, H. B. "Earthquake Induced Displacements in Sand Embankments," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, Proceedings Paper 4736, New York, March 1966.

Gould, J. P., "Lateral Pressures on Rigid Permanent Structures," 1970 Specialty Conference, Lateral Stresses in the Ground and Design of Earth-Retaining Structures, ASCE, Cornell University, New York, June 1970.

Hansen, Brinch J., Earth Pressure Calculation, The Danish Technical Press, the Institution of Danish Civil Engineers, Copenhagen, 1953.

Hansen, W. R., et al., The Alaska Earthquake, March 27, 1964: Field Investigations and Reconstruction Effort, U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey Professional Paper 541, Washington, 1966.

Healy, K. A., Triaxial Tests upon Saturated Fine Silty Sand, MIT , Department of Civil Engineering, Boston, 1962.

Heck, N.H., Earthquake Problems of the Atlantic Coastal Plain, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 1940.

2B-70 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B Himelright, L. K., "Foundation Conditions in Charleston, S.C., "Proceedings, American Society of Civil Engineers, Paper No. 753, Volume 81, New York, 1955.

Housner, G. W., "Behavior of Structures during Earthquakes," Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, Proceeding Papers 2220, with discussions 2455, 2532, and 2632, ASCE, New York, 1959 and 1960.

Housner, G. W., "Geotechnical Problems of Destruction Earthquakes," Geotechnique, Vol. IV, No. 4, London, December 1954.

Housner, G. W., "Vibration of Structures Induced by Seismic Waves," Part I, Earthquakes, Volume III, Handbook of Shock and Vibration, Ed. by Harris, C.M. and Crede, C.E., McGraw Hill, New York 1961.

Idriss, I. M., Cyclic Test Results, Woodward-Lundgren Associates, Project S12159, May 24, 1971 Idriss, I. M., and Seed, H. B., "Seismic Response of Horizontal Soil Layers," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 94, No. SM-4, July 1968.

Jacobsen, L. S., Motion of a Soil Subject to a Simple Harmonic Ground Vibration, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Volume 20, 1930.

Kerr, William C., Dynamic Response of a Particulate Soil System, M.I.T., Department of Civil Engineering, March 1964.

Kuesel, T. R., "Earthquake Design Criteria for Subways, "Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Proceedings Paper No. 6616, New York, June 1969.

Lee, K. L. and Seed, H. B., "Dynamic Strength of Anisotropically Consolidated Sand," Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations, ASCE, New York, September 1967.

Morgenstern, N. R. and Price, V. E., "The Analysis of the Stability of General Slip Surfaces,"

Geotechnique, Vol. 15, No. 1, The Institution of Civil Engineers, London, England, March 1965.

Newmark, N. M., Design Criteria for Nuclear Reactors Subjected to Earthquake Hazards, Urbana, Illinois, 1967.

Newmark, N. M., "Problems in Wave Propagation in Soil and Rock," Keynote address, Proceedings International Symposium on Wave Propagation and Dynamic Properties of Earth Materials of Albuquerque, N.M., August 1967.

Peacock and Seed, "Sand Liquefaction under Cyclic Loadings, Simple Shear Conditions," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 94, May 1968.

Sakurai, A. and Takahashi, T., "Dynamic Stresses of Underground Pipe Lines during Earthquakes,"

Proceedings, Fourth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Volume II, p. B-4:81, Santiago, Chile, 1969.

2B-71 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B Seed, H. B., "Slope Stability During Earthquakes," Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations, ASCE, Paper No. 5319, New York, 1967.

Seed, H. B. and Idriss, I. M., "Analysis of Soil Liquefaction: Niigata Earthquake," Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations, ASCE, Paper No. 5233, New York 1967.

Seed, H. B. and Idriss, I. M., "Influence of Soil Conditions and Ground Motions during Earthquakes,"

Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 95, No. SM-2, January 1969.

Seed, H. B. and McNeill, R. L., "Soil Deformations under Repeated Stress Applications," Conference Papers, Conference on Soils for Engineering Purposes, American Society for Testing Materials Special Technical Publication STP No. 232, Mexico, D.F., Mexico and Philadelphia, 1957.

Seed, H. B. and Wilson, S. C., "The Turnagain Heights Landslide, Anchorage, Alaska," Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations, ASCE, Paper No. 5320, New York, 1967.

Sherard, J. L., et al., Earth and Earth-Rock Dams, John Wiley and Sons, Incorporated, New York, 1966.

Sowers, G. F., Earth and Rockfill Dam Engineering, Asia Publishing House, New York, 1962.

Sowers, G. F., Robb, A. D., Mullis, C. H. and Glenn, A. T., "The Residual Lateral Pressures Produced by Compacting Soils, "Proceedings, 4th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol II, London, 1957.

Taylor, D. W., Fundamentals of Soil Mechanics,, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1956, pp. 132-133 and 200-204.

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Columbia Lock and Dam, Chattahoochee River, Georgia and Alabama.

Design Memo No. 2, Geology and Foundation, unpublished report, 1953.

Whitman, R. V., Analysis of Foundation Vibrations, M.I.T., Department of Civil Engineering, Boston, 1962.

Wilson, S. D., and Squier, L. R., Earth and Rockfill Dams-State of the Art Report, Seventh International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico, D.F., 1969.]

2B-72 REV 22 8/09

FNP-FSAR-2B

[HISTORICAL][TABLE 2B-1 FOUNDATION ANALYSIS

SUMMARY

FOR CATEGORY I STRUCTURES Ultimate Maximum Gross Factor Bearing Bearing Pressure of Maximum Total Foundation Capacity Static Dynamic Safety(a) Settlement Structure Type (ksf) (ksf) (ksf) Static Dynamic (in.)

Diesel Drilled 410 36.3 46.2 10 9 0.1 Generator piers Service water Drilled 430 22.1 43.9 23 10 0.1 intake piers River intake Mat 430 6.4 7.7 140 96 0.3 Spillway Drilled 450 21.8 40.3 25 11 0.1 piers Auxiliary Mat 480 6.5 8.1 197 109 0.6 Containment Mat 460 8.1 12.7 109 48 0.6 Reactor makeup Mat 11 2.1 3.1 6 4 0.9 water storage tank Condensate Mat 11 2.3 4.1 5 3 0.8 storage tank Refueling water Mat 11 2.6 4.3 5 3 1.0 storage tank Recirculating water Mat 14 .6 .8 29 21 1.0 discharge structure Pond fill discharge Mat 15 .6 .8 31 23 0.8 structure

a. Factor of safety, FS = qult - qs / qa - qs where FS = factor of safety against static shear failure.

q ult = gross ultimate bearing capacity of foundation soil or rock (lb/ft2).

q s = intensity of effective surcharge material above foundation base (lb/ft2).

q 2 a = maximum total or gross bearing pressure at the foundation base (lb/ft ).]

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2B

[HISTORICAL][TABLE 2B-2 FIELD PERMEABILITY TEST DATA Coefficient of Test Elevation Permeability Vicinity of Boring Test Type (ft) (cm/s) 526 E-18 120 7.7 x 10-4 110 3.6 x 10-3 527 E-18 127 7.9 x 10-3 117 1.6 x 10-3 539 E-18 117 1.3 x 10-3 107 8.4 x 10-3 534 E-19 139 9.6 x 10-5 538 E-19 172 6.5 x 10-5 543 E-19 149 2.0 x 10-4 553 E-19 162 1.5 x 10-4 555 E-19 160 1.2 x 10-4 556 E-19 150 9.0 x 10-5 557 E-19 173 6.9 x 10-3 ]

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2B

[HISTORICAL][TABLE 2B-3

SUMMARY

OF LABORATORY DETERMINED COEFFICIENTS OF PERMEABILITY FOR IN-SITU SOIL Coefficient of Elevation Permeability Condition Boring (ft) (cm/s)

U.D.-Sample 504 76.5 3.7 x 10-4 U.D.-Sample 517 106.2 5.1 x 10-3 U.D.-Sample 526 131.7 5.0 x 10-6 U.D.-Sample 526 121.2 7.0 x 10-4 U.D.-Sample 533 111 8.92 x 10-4 U.D.-Sample 533 107 2.24 x 10-3 U.D.-Sample 533 101 1.23 x 10-3 U.D.-Sample 533 136 1.8 x 10-3 U.D.-Sample 533 130 1.8 x 10-6 U.D.-Sample 549F 131 3.2 x 10-4 U.D.-Sample 550C 131 2.47 x 10-4 U.D.-Sample 550C 125 1.45 x 10-3 U.D.-Sample 549F 173 8.0 x 10-3 U.D.-Sample 574 167 6.3 x 10-3 ]

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2B

[HISTORICAL][TABLE 2B-4

SUMMARY

OF LABORATORY DETERMINED COEFFICIENTS OF PERMEABILITY OF COMPACTED EMBANKMENT SOILS Coefficient of Permeability - cm/s Compacted Condition Soil C-1 Soil C-2 Soil C-3 95% STD + w (VER) 3.7 x 10-7 8.6 x 10-7 4.2 x 10-3 95% STD - w (VER) 3.7 x 10-4 2.0 x 10-4 4.7 x 10-6 100% STD opt w (VER) 8.0 x 10-6 4.0 x 10-7 6.9 x 10-8 95% MOD + w (VER) 8.7 x 10-6 1.6 x 10-6 95% MOD - w (VER) 1.3 x 10-5 5.1 x 10-6 95% MOD + w (SAT)(VER) 3.7 x 10-7 3.6 x 10-7 95% MOD + w (SAT)(VER) 1.7 x 10-7 7.7 x 10-8 95% MOD - w (SAT)(VER) 9.6 x 10-5 2.7 x 10-5 95% STD + 3%w (SAT)(HOR) 3.2 x 10-5 4.0 x 10-5 95% STD + 3%w (SAT)(VER) 1.9 x 10-5 2.2 x 10-6 95% STD + 3%w (SAT)(VER) 9.2 x 10-4 5.4 x 10-5 95% STD + 3%w (SAT)(VER) 1.6 x 10-4 1.4 x 10-5 Key To Abbreviations:

+w = compacted wet of optimum moisture.

-w = compacted dry of optimum moisture.

SAT = Sample was saturated prior to testing. Other samples were tested as compacted.

STD = Standard Proctor.

MOD = Modified Proctor.

HOR = Tested in horizontal direction.

VER = Tested in vertical direction.]

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2B

[HISTORICAL][TABLE 2B-5 SHEAR MODULUS AND DAMPING VALUES DETERMINED FROM RESONANT COLUMN TESTS Normalized Effective Shear Damping Shear Confining Shear Modulus Ratio Modulus Pressure Strain G G(a)

Material (lb/ft2) (%) (ksf) (%) (ksf)

C-1 1000 1.0 x 10-4 3038 5.3 3038 9.7 x 10-4 2578 6.5 2578 2.7 x 10-3 2131 9.1 2131 3000 7.7 x 10-5 4781 4.9 2760 6.5 x 10-4 4666 5.1 2694 2.0 x 10-3 3917 6.3 2261 3.0 x 10-3 3917 6.9 2261 C-2 500 1.1 x 10-4 1886 5.3 2166 8.0 x 10-4 1786 6.3 2052 1.1 x 10-3 1670 7.1 1918 1000 1.1 x 10-4 2101 5.8 2102 1.1 x 10-3 2102 5.6 2102 2.6 x 10-3 1886 6.8 1866 3000 1.4 x 10-4 3283 4.5 1895 5.7 x 10-4 3283 4.3 1895 8.8 x 10-4 3283 4.4 1895 4.6 x 10-3 2828 6.1 1633 6000 8.5 x 10-5 5126 4.4 2093 8.3 x 10-4 4876 4.5 1991 1.8 x 10-3 4876 4.9 1991 3.4 x 10-3 4565 5.4 1864 1000 1.1 x 10-4 1526 6.9 1526 8.0 x 10-4 1526 7.0 1526 2.7 x 10-3 1426 8.4 1427 3000 1.0 x 10-4 3110 4.7 1796 4.8 x 10-4 3110 4.9 1796 2.2 x 10-3 3110 5.4 1796 4.3 x 10-3 2794 6.8 1613

a. Shear Modulus at effective mean normal stress of 1000 lb/ft2.]

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2B

[HISTORICAL][TABLE 2B-6 (SHEET 1 OF 2)

SHEAR MODULUS AND DAMPING VALUES DETERMINED FROM STAIN-CONTROLLED CYCLIC TRIAXIAL TEST Normalized Effective Shear Damping Shear Confining Shear Modulus Ratio Modulus Pressure Strain G G(a)

Material (lb/ft2) (%) (ksf) (%) (ksf)

C-1 1000 0.009 1816 7.7 1816 0.037 1257 12.7 1257 0.097 747 20.9 747 0.304 251 23.9 251 3000 0.006 3583 8.5 2069 0.038 1939 13.6 1119 0.112 893 21.1 516 0.319 276 23.0 159 C-2 500 0.012 1711 15.9 1965 0.033 1123 21.4 1290 0.103 491 24.2 564 0.312 184 21.9 211 1000 0.010 1809 7.5 1809 0.033 1138 12.7 1138 0.102 568 19.6 568 0.319 214 23.6 214 3000 0.009 3971 9.4 2293 0.035 2277 15.1 1315 0.099 1097 20.2 633 0.308 339 22.2 196 6000 0.009 3986 4.8 1627 0.033 2871 9.1 1150 0.102 1421 16.7 580 0.309 482 25.5 197 C-3 1000 0.010 1352 9.5 1352 0.061 599 19.5 599 0.103 450 23.9 450 0.323 168 30.5 168

a. Shear Modulus at effective mean normal stress of 1000 lb/ft2.

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2B TABLE 2B-6 (SHEET 2 OF 2)

Normalized Effective Shear Damping Shear Confining Shear Modulus Ratio Modulus Pressure Strain G G(a)

Material (lb/ft2) (%) (ksf) (%) (ksf) 3000 0.009 2802 17.0 1618 0.025 1892 16.9 1092 0.100 768 25.9 443 0.305 298 32.2 172

a. Shear Modulus at effective mean normal stress of 1000 lb/ft2.]

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2B

[HISTORICAL][TABLE 2B-7 SOIL PARAMETERS USED IN NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS Values Used in Analysis For:

Embankment Upper Lower Filter and Soil Parameter Symbol (C-1, C-2, C-3) Overburden Overburden Drain Material m

Moist unit weight lb/ft 128 121 120 110 b

Buoyant unit weight lb/ft 68 65 64 -

c Cohesion lb/ft 0 400 300 0 Fraction angle 31° 33° 33° 35° Coefficient of earth pressure at rest Ko - 0.55 0.40 -

Modulus number K 200 200 400 300 Modulus exponent n 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Failure ratio Rf 0.65 0.65 0.75 0.80 Poisson's ratio G 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.35 parameters F 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 D 2.5 2.5 5.0 5.0 ]

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2B

[HISTORICAL][TABLE 2B-8 (SHEET 1 OF 3)

EMBANKMENT MATERIALS RESULTS OF STRESS-CONTROLLED CYCLIC TRIAXIAL TESTS ISOTROPIC CONSOLIDATION (Kc = 1)

Initial Effective Peak Cyclic Confining Deviator Pressure Stress Number of Cycles to Cause 3c +/-d +/-2.5% +/-5% +/-10%

Materials (lb/ft2) (lb/ft2) u=3 Strain Strain Strain C-1 3000 2244 12 11.3 14.2 -

2226 - - - 19.3 C-1 3000 2592 - 4.9 - -

2574 - - 6.1 -

2514 8 - - 7.9 C-1 3000 1944 37 - - -

1932 - 39.5 - -

1920 - - 45.5 -

1896 - - - 55 C-1 6000 2350 - 56.5 - -

2340 - - 61.5 -

2330 65 - - 70.5 C-1 6000 2997 - 9 - -

2994 - - 11.2 -

2978 15 - - 14.8 C-2 1000 877 +/-0.13 % strain at 1000 cycles C-2 1000 1000 +/-0.15 % strain at 1000 cycles C-2 3000 2844 - 5.5 - -

2784 - - 7 -

2670 10 - - -

2580 - - - 12.9 C-2 3000 2646 - 19 - -

2634 20 - - -

2616 - - 21.1 -

2526 - - - 27.8 C-2 3000 2118 - 49 - -

2112 - - 54 -

2106 57 - - 68]

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2B TABLE 2B-8 (SHEET 2 OF 3)

Initial Effective Peak Cyclic Confining Deviator Pressure Stress Number of Cycles to Cause 3c +/-d +/-2.5% +/-5% +/-10%

Materials (lb/ft2) (lb/ft2) u=3 Strain Strain Strain C-2 6000 5016 - <1 <1 1 C-2 6000 4248 - <1 - -

4200 - - 1.2 -

3900 - - - 2.1 3852 3 - - -

C-2 6000 3924 - 1.9 - -

3864 - - 2.4 -

3816 - - - 2.9 C-2 6000 3768 - 3.1 - -

3732 - - 3.6 -

3684 - - - 4.5 C-2 6000 2508 - 82 - -

2496 - - 90 -

2472 106 - - 110 C-2 6000 3564 - 11 - -

3552 - - 12.2 -

3504 - - - 14.3 3468 16 - - -

C-2 6000 2928 - 27 - -

2880 - - 34.5 -

2844 42 - - -

2832 - - - 53 C-3 3000 2142 - 22 - -

2142 28 - - -

2124 - - 30 -

2088 - - - 10 C-3 3000 2370 - 7.7 - -

2320 - - 11.4 -

2334 18 - - -

2346 - - - 21.6 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2B TABLE 2B-8 (SHEET 3 OF 3)

Initial Effective Peak Cyclic Confining Deviator Pressure Stress Number of Cycles to Cause 3c +/-d +/-2.5% +/-5% +/-10%

Materials (lb/ft2) (lb/ft2) u= 3 Strain Strain Strain C-3 3000 2442 - 4.3 - -

2382 - - 7.1 -

2352 10 - - 15.7 C-3 6000 2460 - 62.5 - -

2436 180 - 105 870 C-3 6000 3252 - 12 - -

3264 28 - 16 33]

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2B

[HISTORICAL][TABLE 2B-9 (SHEET 1 OF 2)

EMBANKMENT MATERIALS RESULTS OF STRESS-CONTROLLED CYCLIC TRIAXIAL TEST ANISOTROPIC CONSOLIDATION (Kc > 1)

Initial Effective Peak Cyclic Confining Deviator Pressure Stress Number of Cycles to Cause 3 +/-d 2.5% 5% 10%

Material (lb/ft) Kc (lb/ft) u = 3 Strain Strain Strain C-1 3000 1.5 2400 - 15 - -

2394 26 - 21 28.5 C-1 3000 1.5 2808 - 6.2 - 12 2814 - - 8.7 -

2802 14 - - -

C-2 1000 1.5 1454 - 24.3 - -

1444 31 - 31.5 -

1440 - - - 40.5 C-2 1000 1.5 1534 - 45 - -

1522 - - 53 -

1508 63 - - 63 C-2 1000 1.5 1340 0.38% Strain at 1000 cycles C-2 1000 2.0 1676 - 36 - -

1666 - - 50 -

1648 - - - 73 1640 103 - - -

C-2 1000 2.0 1620 - 9.2 - -

1598 - - 16 -

1576 - - - 29 C-2 1000 2.0 1548 - 14 - -

1574 - - 23 -

1570 - - - -

1600 95 - - -

C-2 1000 2.0 1742 - 5.4 - -

1732 9 - 8.2 -

1736 - - - 11.5 C-2 3000 1.5 2544 - 6.2 - -

2490 - - 8.3 -

2424 - - - 11.5 2418 1 - -

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2B TABLE 2B-9 (SHEET 2 OF 2)

Initial Effective Peak Cyclic Confining Deviator Pressure Stress Number of Cycles to Cause 3 +/-d 2.5% 5% 10%

Material (lb/ft) Kc (lb/ft) u = 3 Strain Strain Strain C-2 3000 1.5 2178 - 20.3 - -

2154 - - 23.5 --

2124 - - - 29.5 2106 39 - - -

C-2 3000 1.5 2694 - 3.1 - -

2650 - - 4.3 -

2634 - - - 6 2646 7 - - -

C-2 6000 1.5 3084 - 2.2 - -

3048 - - 3 -

3060 - - - 3.9 3144 8 - - -

C-2 6000 1.5 3360 - 1.3 - -

3336 - - 2 -

3348 - - - 2.9 C-2 6000 1.5 2664 - 8.1 9.3 -

2652 - - - 10.9 C-3 3000 1.5 2262 - 3.3 - -

2220 - - 5.8 -

2202 10 - - 10.5 C-3 3000 1.5 2502 - 2.4 - -

2472 - - 4 -

2454 - - - 7.8 2460 12 - - -]

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2B

[HISTORICAL][TABLE 2B-10 CLASSIFICATION AND COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS OF FILL MATERIAL Fill Material: C-1 C-2 C-3 Classification: Clayey Fine Clayey Fine Sandy Clay to Coarse to Medium Sand (SC) Sand (SC) (CH)

Percent passing #200 31.6 46.6 65.3 before Compaction:

Liquid limit 31 41 51 Plasticity index 13 18 27 Maximum dry density 120.0 lb/ft3 111.6 lb/ft3 106.0 lb/ft3 ASTM D-698 Optimum water 11.8% 14.9% 18.1%

content Values at 95% of maximum dry density:

dry density 114.0 lb/ft3 106.0 lb/ft3 100.7 lb/ft3 water content 9.3% 13.1% 15.8%

dry of optimum wet of optimum 14.7% 18.0% 21.8%]

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2B

[HISTORICAL][TABLE 2B-11 PORE PRESSURE DATA FOR TEST NO. C-2-D2 Material C-2, 3c(2) = 1000 lb/ft2, Kc = 1.5, d(3)/23c = 0.72 Cycle No. u(1)(lb/ft2) u /3c 1 660 0.66 3 750 0.75 5 780 0.78 7 800 0.80 9 830 0.83 11 840 0.84 13 860 0.86 15 870 0.87 17 880 0.88 19 900 0.90 21 910 0.91 23 930 0.93 25 950 0.95 27 960 0.96 29 980 0.98 31 1000 1.00 35 1060 1.06 40 1090 1.09 (1) u = Peak positive pore pressure (2) 3c = Initial effective confining pressure (3) d = Peak cyclic deviator stress]

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2B

[HISTORICAL][TABLE 2B-12 PORE PRESSURE DATA FOR TEST NO. C-2-F2 Material C-2, 3c(2) = 1000 lb/ft2, Kc = 2.0, d(3)/23c = 0.87 Cycle No. u(1)(lb/ft2) u/3c 1 570 0.57 2 660 0.66 3 710 0.71 4 760 0.76 5 800 0.80 6 840 0.84 7 910 0.91 8 960 0.96 9 1000 1.00 10 1040 1.04 11 1070 1.07 12 1080 1.08 (1) u = Peak positive pore pressure (2) 3c = Initial effective confining pressure (3) d = Peak cyclic deviator stress]

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2B

[HISTORICAL][TABLE 2B-13 PORE PRESSURE DATA FOR TEST NO. C-2-D5 Material C-2, 3c(2) = 3000 lb/ft2, Kc = 1.0, d(3)/23c = 0.48 Cycle No. u(1)(lb/ft2) u/3c 1 1160 0.39 2 1580 0.53 3 2040 0.68 4 2420 0.81 5 2690 0.90 6 2840 0.95 7 2940 0.98 8 2960 0.99 9 2980 0.99 10 3000 1.00 11 3030 1.01 12 3040 1.01 13 3070 1.02 (1) u = Peak position pore pressure (2) 3c = Initial effective confining pressure (3) d = Peak cyclic deviator stress]

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2B

[HISTORICAL][TABLE 2B-14 PORE PRESSURE DATA FOR TEST NO. C-2-E5 Material C-2, 3c(2) = 3000 lb/ft2, Kc = 1.5, d(3)/23c = 0.42 Cycle No. u(1)(lb/ft2) u /3c 1 1230 0.41 2 1510 0.50 3 1720 0.57 4 1860 0.62 5 2000 0.67 6 2150 0.72 7 2250 0.75 8 2360 0.79 9 2440 0.81 10 2510 0.84 11 2570 0.86 12 2660 0.89 13 2760 0.92 14 2860 0.95 15 2890 0.96 16 2960 0.99 17 2970 0.99 18 3000 1.00 (1) u = Peak positive pore pressure (2) 3c = Initial effective confining pressure (3) d = Peak cyclic deviator stress ]

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2B

[HISTORICAL][TABLE 2B-15 PORE PRESSURE DATA FOR TEST NO. C-2-D1 Material C-2, 3c(2) = 6000 lb/ft2, Kc = 1.0, d(3)/23c = 0.32 Cycle No. u(1)(lb/ft2) u /3c 1 2660 0.44 2 2550 0.91 3 6000 1.00 (1) u = Peak positive pore pressure (2) 3c = Initial effective confining pressure (3) d = Peak cyclic deviator stress ]

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2B

[HISTORICAL][TABLE 2B-16 PORE PRESSURE DATA FOR TEST NO. C-2-G2 Material C-2, 3c(2) = 6000 lb/ft2, Kc = 1.0, d(3)/23c = 0.31 Cycle No. u(1)(lb/ft2) u /3c 1 2190 0.37 2 3690 0.61 3 4590 0.76 4 5160 0.86 5 5800 0.97 6 6000 1.00 (1) u = Peak positive pore pressure (2) 3c = Initial effective confining pressure (3) d = Peak cyclic deviator stress]

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2B

[HISTORICAL][TABLE 2B-17 PORE PRESSURE DATA FOR TEST NO. C-2-E2 Material C-2, 3c(2) = 6000 lb/ft2, Kc = 1.0, d(3)/23c = 0.29 Cycle No. u(1)(lb/ft2) u /3c 1 1450 0.24 2 2050 0.34 3 2480 0.41 4 2870 0.48 5 3240 0.54 6 3650 0.61 7 3990 0.67 8 4420 0.74 9 4790 0.80 10 5120 0.85 11 5390 0.90 12 5630 0.94 13 5840 0.97 14 5940 0.99 15 5940 0.99 16 6000 1.00 (1) u = Peak positive pore pressure (2) 3c = Initial effective confining pressure (3) d = Peak cyclic deviator stress]

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2B

[HISTORICAL][TABLE 2B-18 PORE PRESSURE DATA FOR TEST NO. C-2-H3 Material C-2, 3c(2) = 6000 lb/ft2, Kc = 1.5, d(3)/23c = 0.26 Cycle No. u(1)(lb/ft2) u /3c 1 2050 0.34 2 3520 0.59 3 4400 0.73 4 5120 0.85 5 5450 0.91 6 5740 0.96 7 5900 0.97 8 6000 1.00 (1) u = Peak positive pore pressure (2) 3c = Initial effective confining pressure (3) d = Peak cyclic deviator stress]

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2B

[HISTORICAL][TABLE 2B-19 CLASSIFICATION AND COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS OF FILL MATERIAL Fill Material C-5 Classification Clayey Fine to Coarse Sand (SC)

Percent Passing #200 32.6 before compaction Liquid Limit 27 Plasticity Index 8 Maximum dry density 118.3 lb/ft3 ASTM D-698 Optimum Water Content: 11.2 %

dry density 112.4 lb/ft3 water content dry of optimum 9.9 %

wet of optimum 14.2 %]

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2B

[HISTORICAL][TABLE 2B-20 SHEAR MODULUS AND DAMPING VALUES FROM RESONANT COLUMN TESTS Normalized Effective Shear Damping Shear Confining Shear Modulus Ratio Modulus Pressure Strain G G(a)

Material (lb/ft2) (%) (ksf) (%) (ksf)

C-5-95(b) 1000 1.6 x 10-4 2102 3.5 2102 5.9 x 10-4 2016 3.5 2016 2.5 x 10-3 1310 6.3 1310 3.2 x 10-3 1210 7.5 1210 4.1 x 10-3 1210 9.1 1210 C-5-95 3000 1.3 x 10-4 3355 2.6 1937 2.9 x 10-4 3355 2.6 1937 9.5 x 10-4 3254 2.7 1879 2.3 x 10-3 2693 3.9 1555 3.4 x 10-3 2578 4.9 1488

a. Shear Modulus at effective mean normal stress of 1000 lb/ft2.

b. 95-percent ASTM D-698 compaction.]

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2B

[HISTORICAL][TABLE 2B-21 SHEAR MODULUS AND DAMPING VALUES FROM STAIN-CONTROLLED CYCLIC TRIAXIAL TESTS Normalized Effective Shear Damping Shear Confining Shear Modulus Ratio Modulus Pressure Strain G G(a)

Material (lb/ft2) (%) (ksf) (%) (ksf)

C-5-95(b) 1000 0.009 2287 17.0 2287 0.026 1371 19.9 1371 0.095 499 23.3 499 0.304 162 21.5 162 C-5-95 3000 0.010 3595 12.7 2075 0.026 2427 15.9 1410 0.096 864 21.3 499 0.308 241 21.9 139

a. Shear Modulus at effective mean normal stress of 1000 lb/ft2.

b. 95-percent ASTM D-698 compaction.]

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2B

[HISTORICAL][TABLE 2B-22 EMBANKMENT MATERIALS RESULTS OF STRESS-CONTROLLED CYCLIC TRIAXIAL TESTS ISOTROPIC CONSOLIDATION (Kc = 1)

Initial Effective Peak Cyclic Confining Deviator Pressure Stress Number of Cycles to Cause 3c +/-d +/-2.5% +/-5% +/-10%

Materials (lb/ft2) (lb/ft2) u= 3 Strain Strain Strain C-5-95(a) 3000 2047 - 13.2 - -

2042 14 - - -

2023 - - 16 -

1999 - - - 20 C-5-95 3000 2265 - 4 - -

2269 - - 5.3 -

2249 - - - 7.5 2248 8 - - -

C-5-95 6000 2850 - 5.1 - -

2840 - - 6 -

2823 7 - - -

2809 - - - 7.6 C-5-95 6000 2555 - 10.9 - -

2513 13 - 12.9 -

2389 - - - 19 C-5-95 6000 2416 - 18.2 - -

2397 - - 21 -

2373 - - - 25.3 2370 26 - - -

a. 95-percent ASTM D-698 compaction]

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2B

[HISTORICAL][TABLE 2B-23 EMBANKMENT MATERIALS RESULTS OF STRESS-CONTROLLED CYCLIC TRIAXIAL TESTS ANISOTROPIC CONSOLIDATION (Kc > 1)

Initial Effective Peak Cyclic Confining Deviator Pressure Stress Number of Cycles to Cause 3c +/-d 2.5% 5% 10%

Material (lb/ft2) Kc (lb/ft2) u=3 Strain Strain Strain C-5-95(a) 3000 1.5 2496 - 2.8 - -

2400 - - 5.4 -

2385 - - - 7 2403 8 - - -

C-5-95 3000 1.5 2151 - 7.8 - -

2115 - - 12.4 -

2098 - - - 17.5 2096 18 - - -

C-5-95 6000 1.5 2647 - 3.2 - -

2620 - - 5 -

2643 - - - 9.7 C-5-95 6000 1.5 2394 - 7 - -

2392 - - 11 -

2432 - - - 27

a. 95-percent ASTM D-698 compaction ]

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2B

[HISTORICAL][TABLE 2B-24 RESULTS OF STRESS-CONTROLLED CYCLIC TRIAXIAL TESTS ISOTROPIC CONSOLIDATION (Kc = 1)

Initial Effective Peak Cyclic Confining Deviator Pressure Stress Number of Cycles to Cause 3c +/-d +/-2.5% +/-5% +/-10%

Materials (lb/ft2) (lb/ft2) u=3 Strain Strain Strain C-5-98(a) 3000 2461 - 6.1 - -

2451 8 - - -

2450 - - 8.2 -

2417 - - - 12.2 C-5-98 3000 2350 - 9.8 - -

2346 12 - - -

2344 - - 12.5 -

2337 - - - 17.2 C-5-98 6000 2941 - 17 - -

2908 - - 20.6 -

2904 21 - - -

2851 - - - 26.7 C-5-98 6000 3268 - 10.2 - -

3242 - - 12.3 -

3278 - - - 16.1 3164 17 - - -

C-5-98 6000 3409 - 4.7 - -

3365 - - 6.2 -

3284 - - - 9.1 3254 11 - - -

a. 98 percent ASTM D-690 compaction ]

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2B

[HISTORICAL][TABLE 2B-25 RESULTS OF STRESS-CONTROLLED CYCLIC TRIAXIAL TESTS ANISOTROPIC CONSOLIDATION (Kc > 1)

Initial Effective Peak Cyclic Confining Deviator Pressure Stress Number of Cycles to Cause 3c +/-d 2.5% 5% 10%

2 Material (lb/ft ) Kc (lb/ft2) u=3c Strain Strain Strain C-5-98 6000 1.5 2953 - 48 - -

2945 - - 64 -

2941 - - - 99 C-5-98 6000 1.5 3530 - 8.6 - -

3508 - - 11.3 -

3476 - - - 16.3]

REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2B

[HISTORICAL][TABLE 2B-26 (SHEET 1 OF 7)

RECORD TESTS IN DAM AND DIKE EMBANKMENT Maximum Day Optimum Moisture Elevation Density Content Dry Compaction W-OMC Station Distance (ft) (MDD lb/ft3) (OMC % ) (lb/ft3) (W.%) (%) (%)

14+00 CL 98.6 126.4 11.0 121.5 11.1 96.1 0.1 14+00 160S CL 97.3 126.4 11.0 120.5 11.6 95.3 0.6 14+00 CL 98.6 126.4 11.0 123.5 11.7 97.7 0.7 14+25 25N CL 97.5 120.7 13.1 115.4 15.7 95.6 2.6 14+00 20N CL 97.7 120.7 13.1 118.5 14.8 98.2 1.7 13+00 180S CL 95.8 120.7 13.1 117.2 14.8 97.1 1.7 14+00 160N CL 99.6 120.7 13.1 118.7 16.6 98.3 1.5 13+00 160N CL 99.5 120.7 13.1 117.7 12.6 97.5 0.5 13+00 160N CL 96.9 120.7 13.1 115.5 15.6 95.7 2.5 13+00 160S CL 96.9 120.7 13.1 116.5 14.6 96.5 1.5 14+00 CL 98.0 120.7 13.1 125.0 12.0 103.6 0.9 13+00 CL 98.3 120.7 12.7 118.0 12.7 97.8 .0 13+00 CL 98.3 120.7 13.2 119.7 13.2 99.2 .0 13+00 160S CL 97.2 120.7 13.2 117.9 13.2 97.7 .0 13+00 160S CL 97.2 120.7 12.9 118.5 12.9 98.2 .0 14+00 CL 98.6 120.7 13.1 115.0 15.2 95.3 2.1 14+00 CL 98.6 120.7 13.1 117.5 14.5 97.5 1.4 14+00 160S CL 97.6 120.7 13.1 116.2 14.5 96.3 1.4 14+00 160S CL 97.6 120.7 13.1 116.7 15.3 96.7 2.2 14+00 CL 99.0 126.5 10.6 121.9 12.6 96.4 2.0 14+00 CL 99.0 126.5 10.6 124.5 12.4 98.4 1.8 13+00 160N CL 100.4 126.5 10.6 121.5 13.4 96.0 2.8 13+00 CL 93.8 126.5 10.6 124.2 12.9 98.2 2.5 13+00 160S CL 97.8 126.5 10.5 122.2 13.3 96.6 2.8 13+00 160S CL 97.8 126.5 10.5 121.0 15.3 95.6 4.0 14+00 160N CL 97.8 126.5 10.5 122.5 13.5 96.8 3.0 13+00 160S CL 97.8 126.5 10.5 120.2 14.0 95.0 3.5 13+00 160S CL 97.8 126.5 10.5 124.7 11.9 98.6 1.6 14+00 160N CL 101.0 112.3 16.7 107.2 20.8 95.5 4.1 14+00 CL 99.9 112.3 16.7 107.2 19.9 95.5 3.2 13+00 160N CL 100.9 112.3 16.7 109.0 20.2 97.1 3.5 13+00 CL 99.4 112.3 16.7 110.0 19.1 98.0 2.4 14+00 160S CL 98.5 112.3 16.7 113.7 19.6 101.2 2.9 13+00 160S CL 98.4 112.3 16.7 106.7 20.9 96.0 4.2 13+00 CL 99.0 112.3 16.7 108.7 21.4 96.8 4.7 14+00 160N CL 101.2 112.3 16.7 107.7 20.2 95.9 3.5 13+00 160N CL 100.7 112.3 16.7 107.2 20.3 95.5 3.6 13+00 CL 100.0 112.3 16.7 106.7 20.9 95.0 4.2 14+00 CL 100.4 112.3 16.7 106.0 20.0 95.0 3.3 13+00 160S CL 98.5 112.3 16.7 111.0 18.5 98.8 1.8 14+00 160S CL 98.8 112.3 16.7 109.5 20.5 97.5 3.8 13+00 160S CL 98.6 112.3 16.7 107.7 21.2 95.9 4.5 14+00 160S CL 98.8 112.3 16.7 110.7 20.6 98.6 3.9 14+00 N CL 100.9 112.3 16.7 113.5 18.5 101.1 1.8 14+00 N CL 100.9 112.3 16.7 108.5 18.4 96.6 1.7 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2B TABLE 2B-26 (SHEET 2 OF 7)

Maximum Day Optimum Moisture Elevation Density Content Dry Compaction W-OMC Station Distance (ft) (MDD lb/ft3) (OMC % ) (lb/ft3) (W.%) (%) (%)

14+00 N CL 100.9 112.3 16.7 113.5 18.5 101.1 1.8 14+00 N CL 100.9 112.3 16.7 108.7 19.6 96.8 2.9 13+00 S CL 100.6 112.3 16.7 111.0 19.8 98.8 3.1 13+00 S CL 100.6 112.3 16.7 112.0 19.6 99.7 2.9 13+00 160S CL 98.8 112.3 16.7 110.2 20.2 98.1 3.5 13+00 160S CL 98.8 112.3 16.7 110.5 19.5 98.4 2.5 14+00 N CL 101.2 112.3 16.7 107.2 19.9 95.5 3.2 14+00 N CL 101.2 112.3 16.7 110.7 18.7 98.6 2.0 13+00 S CL 100.6 112.3 16.7 113.0 19.0 100.6 2.3 14+00 N CL 101.3 112.3 16.7 109.7 21.2 97.7 4.5 13+00 S CL 100.8 112.3 16.7 109.2 20.0 97.7 3.3 14+00 S CL 101.3 112.3 16.7 107.7 21.2 95.9 4.5 13+00 160S CL 99.3 112.3 16.7 112.2 19.0 99.9 2.3 14+00 160S CL 99.6 112.3 16.7 112.5 19.1 100.2 2.4 CL - 112.3 16.7 110.2 19.3 98.1 2.6 160S CL - 112.3 16.7 110.5 19.9 98.4 3.2 CL - 112.3 16.7 114.2 18.7 101.7 2.0 160N CL - 112.3 16.7 112.2 19.9 99.9 3.2 160N CL 99.4 112.3 16.7 109.7 18.3 97.7 1.8 160 N CL 99.4 112.3 16.7 113.7 17.4 101.2 0.7 CL 98.9 112.3 16.7 110.7 21.0 98.5 4.3 CL 98.6 112.3 16.7 109.7 19.0 97.7 2.3 CL 96.4 112.3 16.7 108.5 18.0 96.6 1.3 CL 96.4 112.3 16.7 111.2 17.8 99.0 1.1 CL 98.6 112.3 16.7 110.5 18.9 101.1 2.2 160S CL 96.0 112.3 16.7 110.7 20.6 98.6 3.9 160S CL 96.0 112.3 16.7 108.2 21.1 96.3 4.4 13+00 160N CL 102.3 112.3 16.7 114.2 18.2 101.7 1.5 14+00 160N CL 102.5 112.3 16.7 113.5 18.5 101.1 1.8 14+00 CL 101.4 112.3 16.7 112.0 16.5 99.7 -0.2 13+00 CL 101.7 112.3 16.7 113.0 18.1 100.6 1.4 13+00 CL 101.5 112.3 16.7 115.2 15.9 102.6 -0.8 14+00 CL 101.5 112.3 16.7 115.5 15.2 102.8 -1.5 14+00 160S CL 100.5 112.3 16.7 115.2 14.1 102.6 -2.6 13+00 160S CL 100.0 112.3 16.7 113.5 15.9 101.1 -0.8 14+00 160S CL 103.2 122.7 12.6 118.7 13.7 96.0 1.1 13+00 CL 101.8 122.7 12.6 119.0 13.0 97.0 0.4 13+00 CL 101.8 122.7 12.6 117.5 14.5 95.8 1.9 14+00 CL 102.1 122.7 12.6 118.0 13.1 96.2 0.5 14+00 160N CL 103.5 124.3 11.7 120.2 11.5 96.7 0.2 14+00 160S CL 100.4 126.5 10.6 124.0 12.1 98.0 1.5 13+00 160S CL 100.4 126.5 10.6 123.5 13.0 97.6 2.4 13+00 160S CL 100.4 126.5 10.6 123.2 12.8 97.4 2.2 13+00 160N CL 103.2 124.5 11.7 120.0 12.9 96.4 1.2 14+00 160N CL 103.5 124.5 11.7 118.5 11.0 95.2 -0.7 13+00 CL 102.4 124.5 11.7 121.5 12.8 97.6 1.1 160S CL 100.5 124.5 11.7 119.0 14.3 95.6 2.6 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2B TABLE 2B-26 (SHEET 3 OF 7)

Maximum Day Optimum Moisture Elevation Density Content Dry Compaction W-OMC Station Distance (ft) (MDD lb/ft3) (OMC % ) (lb/ft3) (W.%) (%) (%)

14+00 CL 102.5 124.5 11.7 122.2 12.9 98.2 1.2 14+00 160S CL 101.1 124.5 11.7 121.7 13.4 97.8 1.7 13+00 160N CL 103.5 124.5 11.7 119.0 14.3 95.6 2.6 13+00 CL 102.3 124.5 11.7 121.7 12.2 97.8 0.5 14+00 CL 102.7 124.5 11.7 119.5 12.1 96.0 0.4 13+00 160S CL 100.5 124.5 11.7 118.7 12.9 95.3 1.2 14+00 CL 103.0 124.5 11.7 121.5 12.8 97.6 1.1 14+00 160N CL 103.7 124.5 11.7 118.5 13.9 95.2 2.2 13+00 CL 102.6 124.5 11.7 119.0 12.6 95.6 0.9 14+00 160S CL 100.8 124.5 11.7 118.7 13.3 95.3 1.6 13+00 160S CL 100.8 124.5 11.7 118.7 13.7 95.3 2.0 24+00 E CL 173.9 124.5 11.7 120.7 12.7 96.9 1.0 25+00 E CL 175.3 124.5 11.7 118.5 13.9 95.2 2.2 26+00 E CL 175.6 124.5 11.7 121.7 13.0 97.8 1.3 28+00 E CL 176.5 124.5 11.7 119.7 13.6 96.1 1.9 24+00 E CL 175.8 124.5 11.7 120.5 9.5 96.8 -2.2 28+00 E CL 176.5 124.5 11.7 127.2 11.6 102.2 -0.1 29+00 E CL 176.7 124.5 11.7 118.7 14.2 95.3 2.5 25+00 W CL 176.1 124.5 11.7 119.0 13.0 95.6 1.3 24+00 SE CL 175.4 124.5 11.7 120.0 13.8 96.4 2.1 26+00 E CL 176.2 124.5 11.7 118.7 13.7 95.3 2.0 30+00 E CL 177.0 124.5 11.7 119.2 13.3 95.7 1.6 31+00 E CL 177.3 124.5 11.7 121.5 12.8 97.6 1.1 29+00 W CL 176.1 124.5 11.7 118.7 13.3 95.3 1.6 31+00 W CL 176.9 124.5 11.7 120.2 12.3 96.5 0.6 28+00 W CL 175.9 124.5 11.7 120.2 11.5 96.5 -0.2 30+00 W CL 176.6 124.5 11.7 120.2 12.7 96.5 1.0 25+00 SE CL 176.0 124.5 11.7 120.5 14.9 96.8 3.2 26+00 SE CL 176.4 124.5 11.7 122.0 12.3 98.0 .6 27+00 SE CL 176.4 124.5 11.7 118.7 14.2 95.3 2.5 24+00 W CL 175.8 124.5 11.7 121.7 13.4 97.8 1.7 25+00 W CL 176.2 124.5 11.7 120.7 13.1 96.9 1.4 26+00 W CL 176.4 124.5 11.7 118.5 13.9 95.2 2.2 27+00 W CL 176.8 124.5 11.7 121.0 12.0 97.2 0.3 28+00 E CL 177.3 128.1 9.4 125.2 10.6 97.7 1.2 28+99 W CL 176.5 124.5 11.7 122.5 11.8 98.4 0.1 31+00 NW CL 177.8 124.5 11.7 119.7 13.2 96.1 1.5 25+00 E CL 176.2 128.1 9.4 122.0 12.7 95.2 3.3 26+00 E CL 176.9 128.1 9.4 122.3 11.6 95.5 2.2 26+00 E CL 176.9 128.1 9.4 122.8 11.6 95.9 2.2 25+00 SW CL 176.2 124.5 11.7 119.5 13.8 96.0 2.1 26+00 SW CL 176.9 124.5 11.7 121.0 12.4 97.2 0.7 29+00 NW CL 176.1 124.5 11.7 122.5 12.2 98.4 0.5 31+00 NW CL 177.3 124.5 11.7 121.0 11.6 97.2 -0.1 30+00 NW CL 177.0 124.5 11.7 120.7 11.4 96.9 -0.1 28+00 E CL 176.5 128.1 9.4 123.0 12.2 96.0 2.1 29+00 E CL 177.4 128.1 9.4 126.5 8.7 98.8 -0.7 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2B TABLE 2B-26 (SHEET 4 OF 7)

Maximum Day Optimum Moisture Elevation Density Content Dry Compaction W-OMC Station Distance (ft) (MDD lb/ft3) (OMC % ) (lb/ft3) (W.%) (%) (%)

31+00 E CL 177.8 128.1 9.4 123.8 9.5 96.6 0.1 26+00 E CL 175.5 128.1 9.4 125.5 12.0 98.0 2.6 25+00 E CL 176.2 128.1 9.4 122.5 11.4 95.6 2.0 27+00 E CL 177.2 128.1 9.4 124.7 11.5 97.3 2.1 30+00 E CL 177.6 128.1 9.4 126.7 9.7 98.9 0.3 25+00 W CL 176.5 128.1 9.4 124.0 12.1 96.8 2.7 26+00 W CL 177.0 128.1 9.4 123.0 11.8 96.1 2.4 27+00 W CL 177.0 128.1 9.4 122.5 12.2 95.6 2.8 29+00 W CL 177.4 128.1 9.4 123.2 12.4 96.2 3.0 30+00 W CL 177.8 128.1 9.4 121.7 12.2 95.0 2.8 24+00 W CL 175.8 128.1 9.4 126.0 11.1 98.4 1.7 28+00 W CL 177.2 128.1 9.4 125.0 11.6 97.6 2.2 31+00 W CL 178.4 128.1 9.4 121.7 12.2 95.0 2.8 28+00 E CL 177.5 128.1 9.4 126.7 10.9 98.9 1.5 29+00 E CL 177.8 128.1 9.4 122.0 12.3 95.2 2.9 32+00 W CL 178.5 128.1 9.4 123.0 12.2 96.0 2.8 26+00 E CL 177.2 124.5 11.7 118.5 13.9 95.2 2.2 27+00 E CL 177.4 124.5 11.7 125.7 11.4 101.0 -0.3 30+00 E CL 177.9 128.1 9.4 123.5 12.1 96.4 2.7 32+00 E CL 178.6 128.1 9.4 127.0 10.2 99.1 0.8 24+00 E CL 176.4 124.5 11.7 121.7 12.2 97.8 0.5 25+00 E CL 176.8 124.5 11.7 120.2 9.8 96.5 -1.9 31+00 E CL 178.2 128.1 9.4 123.8 11.1 96.6 1.7 24+00 W CL 177.6 124.5 11.7 120.2 13.1 96.5 1.4 26+00 178.2 124.5 11.7 119.2 13.7 95.7 2.0 27+00 178.1 124.5 11.7 122.5 12.7 98.4 1.0 28+00 W CL 177.1 128.1 9.4 126.0 12.3 98.4 2.9 29+00 E CL 177.9 124.5 11.7 118.5 13.5 95.2 1.8 30+00 178.5 128.1 9.4 121.8 12.9 95.1 3.5 31+00 178.9 124.5 11.7 118.7 14.2 95.3 2.5 25+00 E CL 177.7 128.1 9.4 123.7 0.7 96.6 -0.7 28+50 E CL 178.4 128.1 9.4 125.2 10.6 97.7 1.2 30+50 E CL 178.9 128.1 9.4 124.8 11.8 97.4 2.4 31+50 W CL 179.4 124.5 11.7 118.7 13.7 95.3 2.0 32+50 E CL 179.5 128.1 9.4 124.7 11.9 97.3 2.5 29+50 W CL 178.4 124.5 11.7 119.2 13.3 95.7 1.6 24+50 E CL 178.1 124.5 11.7 118.7 11.2 95.3 -0.5 25+50 W CL 178.0 124.5 11.7 121.2 11.0 97.3 -0.7 26+50 E CL 178.4 124.5 11.7 120.1 12.0 96.5 0.3 27+50 W CL 178.5 124.5 11.7 119.0 10.5 95.6 -1.2 29+50 E CL 178.9 124.5 11.7 119.8 12.3 96.2 0.6 24+50 CL 178.0 124.5 11.7 122.1 13.4 98.1 1.7 25+50 CL 178.5 124.5 11.7 120.6 13.6 96.9 1.9 26+50 CL 178.9 124.5 11.7 120.0 13.8 96.4 2.1 24+50 CL 179.1 124.5 11.7 118.7 13.3 95.3 1.6 25+50 CL 178.4 124.5 11.7 118.5 12.7 95.2 1.0 28+50 CL 179.2 124.5 11.7 118.5 13.1 95.2 1.4 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2B TABLE 2B-26 (SHEET 5 OF 7)

Maximum Day Optimum Moisture Elevation Density Content Dry Compaction W-OMC Station Distance (ft) (MDD lb/ft3) (OMC % ) (lb/ft3) (W.%) (%) (%)

26+50 CL 178.9 124.5 11.7 119.8 13.1 96.2 1.4 27+50 CL 179.0 124.5 11.7 120.3 13.0 97.0 1.3 30+50 CL 179.5 124.5 11.7 120.0 11.7 96.4 0.0 31+50 CL 180.0 124.5 11.7 119.2 9.0 95.8 -2.7 29+50 CL 179.0 124.5 11.7 119.6 12.5 96.1 0.8 32+50 CL 180.1 124.5 11.7 119.0 10.9 95.6 -0.8 24+50 E CL 178.7 124.5 11.7 123.8 9.8 99.4 -1.9 26+50 E CL 179.4 124.5 11.7 124.0 10.5 99.6 -1.2 25+50 W CL 178.8 124.5 11.7 121.0 10.7 97.2 -1.0 27+50 W CL 175.4 124.5 11.7 120.5 10.4 96.8 -1.3 CL 181.1 124.0 11.8 121.0 11.7 97.6 0.1 38+00 G-98 181.4 124.5 11.7 118.5 14.9 95.2 3.2 CL 180.3 124.0 11.8 119.8 14.0 96.6 2.2 14+00 G-31 104.1 124.5 11.7 120.7 11.8 96.9 0.1 13+00 G-34 103.9 124.5 11.7 120.1 11.0 96.5 -0.7 13+00 N CL S-30 103.9 124.5 11.7 122.7 11.7 98.6 0.0 14+00 N CL S-35 103.3 124.5 11.7 119.6 11.5 96.1 -0.2 14+00 S CL G-41 102.4 124.5 11.7 120.0 11.7 96.4 0.0 13+00 S CL G-31 101.4 124.5 11.7 122.3 11.4 98.2 -0.3 13+00 160S CL G-32 100.7 124.5 11.7 120.8 13.7 97.0 2.0 14+00 160S CL G-4 101.9 124.5 11.7 122.9 12.7 98.7 1.0 36+50 G-95 180.7 124.5 11.7 120.7 13.1 96.9 1.4 39+00 G-102 181.3 124.5 11.7 119.5 11.7 96.0 0.0 13+00 160N CL G-29 104.2 124.5 11.7 122.4 11.6 98.3 -0.1 14+00 160N CL G-34 104.5 124.5 11.7 119.0 12.0 95.6 0.3 13+00 N CL G-35 103.6 124.5 11.7 122.0 11.5 98.0 -0.2 14+00 N CL G-40 103.9 124.5 11.7 123.5 13.0 99.2 1.3 39+00 G-100 181.6 124.5 11.7 120.0 13.2 96.4 1.5 37+00 G-95 181.4 124.5 11.7 119.8 12.9 96.2 1.2 38+00 G-98 181.3 124.5 11.7 119.6 13.4 96.1 1.7 14+00 S CL G-36 101.9 124.5 11.7 122.3 12.8 98.2 1.1 13+00 S CL G-31 102.1 124.5 11.7 123.3 11.5 99.0 0.2 14+00 160S CL G-42 102.1 124.5 11.7 124.5 11.2 100.0 -0.5 13+00 160S CL G-32 101.1 124.5 11.7 124.5 9.9 100.0 -1.8 13+00 160N CL G-34 105.1 124.5 11.7 127.1 10.9 102.1 -0.8 13+00 160N CL G-29 104.9 124.5 11.7 120.2 11.9 96.5 0.2 13+00 160S CL G-32 101.0 124.5 11.7 122.0 9.0 98.0 -2.7 38+00 G-97 183.2 125.6 10.3 122.4 10.0 97.5 -0.3 38+00 G-97 181.9 125.6 10.3 125.5 9.6 99.9 -0.7 34+00 G-66 179.3 124.5 11.7 119.0 12.2 95.6 0.5 26+00 G-67 179.4 124.5 11.7 120.7 11.4 96.9 -0.3 29+00 G-76 179.7 124.5 11.7 125.3 10.4 100.6 -1.3 30+00 G-77 180.0 124.5 11.7 118.5 12.1 95.2 0.4 31+00 G-79 180.5 124.5 11.7 118.7 14.2 95.3 2.5 32+00 G-82 180.5 124.5 11.7 122.1 11.1 98.1 -0.6 38+00 G-100 183.1 125.6 10.3 122.2 10.5 97.3 0.2 14+00 N CL G-40 105.3 125.6 10.3 120.7 12.3 96.1 2.0 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2B TABLE 2B-26 (SHEET 6 OF 7)

Maximum Day Optimum Moisture Elevation Density Content Dry Compaction W-OMC Station Distance (ft) (MDD lb/ft3) (OMC % ) (lb/ft3) (W.%) (%) (%)

39+00 G-101 181.5 125.6 10.3 124.8 10.7 99.4 0.4 13+00 N CL C-30 105.11 125.6 10.3 121.7 10.1 96.9 -0.2 27+00 G-72 180.1 124.5 11.7 126.5 10.3 101.6 -1.4 28+00 G-73 179.9 124.5 11.7 124.0 10.5 99.6 -1.2 26+00 G-70 179.7 124.5 11.7 126.5 9.5 101.6 -2.2 26+00 G-70 179.7 124.5 11.7 127.0 9.1 102.0 -2.6 24+00 G-66 179.1 124.5 11.7 119.5 11.1 96.0 -0.6 29+00 G-76 179.8 125.6 10.3 121.2 12.6 96.5 2.3 36+00 G-91 172.3 124.5 11.7 118.7 12.9 95.3 1.2 30+00 G-77 180.6 125.6 10.3 119.7 12.1 96.3 1.8 14+00 N CL G-40 105.3 124.5 11.7 121.3 10.7 97.4 -1.0 36+00 G-91 172.1 124.5 11.7 118.5 9.3 95.2 -2.4 32+00 G-82 181.1 125.6 10.3 120.9 12.1 96.3 1.8 13+00 N CL G-30 105.1 124.5 11.7 122.7 11.2 98.6 -0.5 13+00 N CL G-30 105.1 124.5 11.7 125.4 9.0 100.7 -2.7 14+00 N CL G-41 103.0 124.5 11.7 121.2 13.0 97.3 1.3 13+00 160S CL G-32 101.6 124.5 11.7 118.5 11.0 95.2 -0.7 13+00 CL G-36 102.5 124.5 11.7 121.9 10.7 97.9 -1.1 13+00 S CL G-36 102.5 124.5 11.7 122.1 11.4 98.1 -0.3 14+00 160S CL G-42 102.6 124.5 11.7 120.3 11.0 96.6 -0.7 38+50 G-101 182.2 125.6 10.3 121.7 10.5 96.9 0.2 37+00 G-98 183.6 125.6 10.3 121.7 10.5 96.9 0.2 31+00 G-79 180.9 125.6 10.3 120.8 9.7 96.2 -0.6 38+00 G-100 183.1 125.6 10.3 124.5 10.0 99.1 -0.3 39+00 G-102 183.4 125.6 10.3 119.9 11.2 95.5 0.9 39+00 G-101 183.4 125.6 10.3 121.4 12.0 96.7 1.7 13+00 G-29 106.0 125.6 10.3 125.2 10.2 99.7 -0.1 14+00 G-39 105.7 125.6 10.3 126.2 10.5 100.5 0.2 14+00 G-35 105.5 119.8 13.0 115.0 13.9 96.0 0.9 13+00 N CL G-39 105.1 119.8 13.0 115.1 13.4 96.1 0.4 31+00 G-80 180.9 125.6 10.3 123.1 10.7 98.0 0.4 32+00 G-81 181.1 125.6 10.3 119.8 9.8 95.4 -0.5 13+00 S CL G-31 104.0 122.3 11.7 120.5 9.5 98.5 -2.2 24+00 160S CL G-42 103.3 122.3 11.7 116.5 9.4 95.3 -2.3 25+00 G-67 179.8 126.4 11.0 121.2 10.6 95.9 -0.4 26+00 G-70 180.2 126.4 11.0 123.5 8.9 97.7 -2.1 27+00 G-71 180.3 126.4 11.0 126.8 9.6 100.3 -1.4 29+00 G-75 179.6 126.4 11.0 123.2 10.4 97.5 -0.6 30+00 G-78 180.1 126.4 11.0 122.1 9.7 96.6 -1.3 24+00 G-66 180.4 124.8 11.3 118.9 11.0 95.3 -0.3 28+00 G-74 179.9 125.7 11.3 124.4 10.5 99.0 -0.8 24+00 G-66 180.4 123.5 12.0 120.5 9.5 97.6 -2.5 25+00 G-67 180.3 123.5 12.0 120.8 10.5 97.8 -1.5 26+00 G-70 180.7 123.5 12.0 121.0 12.4 98.0 0.4 28+00 G-74 180.6 123.5 12.0 120.0 11.3 97.2 -0.7 29+00 G-75 180.5 123.5 12.0 122.6 11.7 99.3 -0.3 30+00 G-78 180.9 123.5 12.0 121.3 10.9 98.2 -1.1 REV 21 5/08

FNP-FSAR-2B TABLE 2B-26 (SHEET 7 OF 7)

Maximum Day Optimum Moisture Elevation Density Content Dry Compaction W-OMC Station Distance (ft) (MDD lb/ft3) (OMC % ) (lb/ft3) (W.%) (%) (%)

31+00 G-79 181.5 123.5 12.0 121.8 10.8 98.6 -1.2 35+00 S CL G-91 173.4 123.5 12.0 123.5 9.1 100.0 -2.9 27+00 G-71 180.8 123.5 12.0 124.9 10.5 101.1 -1.5 35+00 CL 173.1 123.5 12.0 119.1 13.4 96.4 1.4 32+00 G-82 181.7 123.5 12.0 124.7 10.7 101.0 -1.3 36+00 CL G-91 173.2 121.3 12.5 116.2 9.7 95.8 -2.8 36+00 G-91 178.7 122.7 12.6 122.1 11.4 99.5 -1.2 36+00 G-91 175.2 122.7 12.6 119.3 10.6 97.2 -2.0 35+00 G-91 176.1 122.7 12.6 120.5 10.2 98.2 -2.4 31+00 G-80 182.0 119.4 14.1 117.4 11.2 98.3 -2.9 13+00 S CL G-31 103.6 122.3 11.7 120.2 13.6 98.3 1.9 36+00 N CL G-91 176.1 124.6 11.7 119.7 12.8 96.1 1.1 26+00 G-69 181.4 119.4 14.1 115.7 14.5 96.9 0.4 14+00 S CL G-41 122.7 12.6 121.9 12.0 99.3 -0.6 35+00 S CLG-91 175.6 124.3 11.7 119.4 13.1 96.1 1.4 36+00 CLG-91 175.3 124.3 11.7 124.8 11.8 100.4 0.1 13+00 160S CL G-32 101.8 123.5 12.0 119.1 11.9 96.4 -0.1 14+00 160S CL G-42 102.6 122.7 12.6 119.6 12.0 97.5 -0.6 36+00 G-91 177.4 124.3 11.7 119.4 13.9 96.1 2.2 13+00 S CL G-31 105.7 124.3 11.7 118.5 9.3 95.3 -2.4 14+00 S CL G-41 104.7 124.3 11.7 122.8 9.9 98.8 -1.8 14+00 S CL G-41 104.7 124.3 11.7 123.3 8.8 99.1 -2.9 13+00 160S CL G-32 102.8 125.6 10.9 121.0 9.9 96.3 -1.0 14+00 160S CL G-42 103.0 125.6 10.9 123.0 11.4 97.9 0.5 24+00 G-65 880.4 119.4 14.1 116.6 13.6 97.7 -0.5 25+99 G-68 181.0 119.4 14.1 119.4 13.7 100.0 -0.4 27+00 G-72 181.6 119.4 14.1 115.2 16.0 96.6 1.9 31+00 G-80 182.0 119.4 14.1 113.9 12.8 95.4 -1.3 32+00 G-81 182.3 119.4 14.1 119.9 11.3 100.4 -2.8 13+00 S CL G-31 104.0 124.6 11.7 122.2 10.1 98.1 -1.6 14+00 S CL G-41 104.6 124.8 11.3 122.4 9.1 98.1 -2.2 13+00 N CL G-30 105.3 121.3 12.5 116.1 10.7 95.7 -1.8 14+00 160N CL G-39 106.4 124.8 11.3 120.1 9.1 96.2 -2.2 13+00 160N CL G-29 106.4 125.7 11.3 119.4 9.7 95.0 -1.6 14+00 N CL G-40 105.6 124.0 11.8 121.0 9.5 97.6 -2.3 13+00 160S CL G-32 103.3 124.0 11.8 121.6 12.7 98.1 0.9 14+00 160S CL G-32 104.1 124.0 11.8 118.5 12.2 95.6 0.4 14+00 S CL G-36 105.5 124.0 11.8 119.2 11.6 96.1 -0.2 13+00 S CL G-31 105.1 124.3 11.7 120.3 8.9 96.8 -2.8 14+00 N CL G-40 106.3 124.3 11.7 118.6 12.1 95.4 0.4 14+00 160N CL G-39 106.9 124.3 11.7 122.7 11.7 98.7 0.0 13+00 160N CL G-29 106.8 124.3 11.7 122.6 12.2 98.6 0.5 13+00 N CL G-30 105.9 124.3 11.7 121.0 11.6 97.3 -0.1 20+00 G-58 184.8 119.4 14.1 113.6 14.0 95.1 -0.1 22+00 G-62 175.4 119.4 14.1 117.4 11.6 98.3 -2.5]

REV 21 5/08

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [RIVER INTAKE STRUCTURE AND CHANNEL NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B1-1 (SHEET 1 OF 3)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [RIVER INTAKE STRUCTURE AND CHANNEL NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B1-1 (SHEET 2 OF 3)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [RIVER INTAKE STRUCTURE AND CHANNEL NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B1-1 (SHEET 3 OF 3)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [STORAGE POND INTAKE STRUCTURES NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B1-2 (SHEET 1 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [STORAGE POND INTAKE STRUCTURES NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B1-2 (SHEET 2 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B1-3 (SHEET 1 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B1-3 (SHEET 2 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [STORAGE POND SPILLWAY STRUCTURE NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B1-4 (SHEET 1 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [STORAGE POND SPILLWAY STRUCTURE NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B1-4 (SHEET 2 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [PLANT AREA EXCAVATION - PLAN & SECTION NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B1-5 (SHEET 1 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [PLANT AREA EXCAVATION - PLAN & SECTION NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B1-5 (SHEET 2 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08

[STORAGE POND DAM BORROW AREA NO. 2 BORING JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT LOCATION PLAN UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B1-6]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [POND FILL DISCHARGE STRUCTURE NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B1-7 (SHEET 1 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [POND FILL DISCHARGE STRUCTURE NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B1-7 (SHEET 2 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [RECIRCULATING WATER DISCHARGE STRUCTURE NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B1-8 (SHEET 1 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [RECIRCULATING WATER DISCHARGE STRUCTURE NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B1-8 (SHEET 2 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [BORING LOCATION INDEX NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B2-1 (SHEET 1 OF 3)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [BORING LOCATION INDEX NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B2-1 (SHEET 2 OF 3)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [BORING LOCATION INDEX NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B2-1 (SHEET 3 OF 3)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [BORING LOGS NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B2-2 (SHEET 1 OF 3)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [BORING LOGS NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B2-2 (SHEET 2 OF 3)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [BORING LOGS NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B2-2 (SHEET 3 OF 3)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [BORING LOGS NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B2-3 (SHEET 1 OF 3)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [BORING LOGS NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B2-3 (SHEET 2 OF 3)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [BORING LOGS NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B2-3 (SHEET 3 OF 3)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [REFRACTIVE GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B3-3]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [REFRACTIVE GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B3-4]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [REFRACTIVE GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B3-5]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [REFRACTIVE GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B3-6]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [REFRACTIVE GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B3-7]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [REFRACTIVE GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B3-8]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [REFRACTIVE GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B3-9]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [CROSSHOLE GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B3-10]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILES NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B4-10]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILES NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B4-11]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILES NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B4-12]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILES NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B4-13]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILES NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B4-14]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILES NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B4-15 (SHEET 1 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILES NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B4-15 (SHEET 2 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [GENERALIZED SOIL PROPERTIES NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B4-21 (SHEET 1 OF 3)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [GENERALIZED SOIL PROPERTIES NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B4-21 (SHEET 2 OF 3)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [GENERALIZED SOIL PROPERTIES NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B4-21 (SHEET 3 OF 3)]

REV 21 5/08

[STORAGE POND DAM BORROW AREA NO. 2 SECTION 2A JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT PROFILE UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B4-22]

REV 21 5/08

[STORAGE POND DAM BORROW AREA NO. 2 SECTION 2B JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT PROFILE UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B4-23]

REV 21 5/08

[STORAGE POND DAM BORROW AREA NO. 2 SECTION 2C JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT PROFILE UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B4-24]

REV 21 5/08

[STORAGE POND DAM BORROW AREA NO. 2 SECTION 2D JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT PROFILE UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B4-25]

REV 21 5/08

[STORAGE POND DAM BORROW AREA NO. 2 SECTION 2E JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT PROFILE UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B4-26]

REV 21 5/08

[STORAGE POND DAM BORROW AREA NO. 2 SECTION 2F JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT PROFILE UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B4-27]

REV 21 5/08

[STORAGE POND DAM BORROW AREA NO. 2 SECTION 2G JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT PROFILE UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B4-28]

REV 21 5/08

[STORAGE POND DAM BORROW AREA NO. 2 SECTION 2H JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT PROFILE UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B4-29]

REV 21 5/08

[STORAGE POND DAM BORROW AREA NO. 2 SECTION 2I JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT PROFILE UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B4-30]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SOIL TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5-1]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SOIL TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5-2]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SOIL TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5-3]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SOIL TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5-4]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SOIL TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5-5]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SOIL TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5-6]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SOIL TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5-7]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SOIL TEST RESULT

SUMMARY

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5-8]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SOIL TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5-9]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SOIL TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5-10]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SOIL TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5-11]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SOIL TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5-12]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SOIL TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5-13]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SOIL TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5-14]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SOIL TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5-15]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SOIL TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5-16]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SOIL TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5-17]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SOIL TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5-18]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SOIL TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5-19]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SOIL TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5-20]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SOIL TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5-21]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SOIL TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5-22]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SOIL TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5-23]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SOIL TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5-24]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SOIL TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5-25]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SOIL TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5-26]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SOIL TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5-27]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SOIL TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5-28]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SOIL TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5-29]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SOIL TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5-30]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SOIL TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5-31]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SOIL TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5-32]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SOIL TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5-33]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SOIL TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5-34]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SOIL TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5-35]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SOIL TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5-36]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SOIL TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5-37]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SOIL TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5-38]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SOIL TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5-39]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SOIL TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5-40]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SOIL TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

(R-24 AND R-31)

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5-41]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SOIL TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

(AH-101 THROUGH AH-115)

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5-42]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SOIL TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

(AH-118 THROUGH AH-152)

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5-43]

REV 21 5/08

[SOIL TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

(AH-155 THROUGH AH-175)

JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT (TEST PITS 1 AND 2)

UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5-44]

REV 21 5/08

[SOIL TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

JOSEPH M. FARLEY (BAG SAMPLES COMPACTED 1, 1B, 2A, 2B, 2C - -

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 STORAGE POND BORROW AREA NO. 2)

FIGURE 2B5-45]

REV 21 5/08

[SOIL TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

JOSEPH M. FARLEY (BAG SAMPLES COMPACTED 3 - -

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 STORAGE POND BORROW AREA NO. 2)

FIGURE 2B5-46]

REV 21 5/08

[SOIL TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

JOSEPH M. FARLEY (BAG SAMPLES, COMPACTED C-1, C-2, C -

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 STORAGE POND BORROW AREA)

FIGURE 2B5-47]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [

SUMMARY

ROCK TEST DATA NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5A-1]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [

SUMMARY

ROCK TEST DATA NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5A-2]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [

SUMMARY

ROCK TEST DATA NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5A-3]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [

SUMMARY

ROCK TEST DATA NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5A-4]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [STATIC SOIL PROPERTIES NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5B-1 (SHEET 1 OF 3)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [STATIC SOIL PROPERTIES NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5B-1 (SHEET 2 OF 3)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [STATIC SOIL PROPERTIES NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5B-1 (SHEET 3 OF 3)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [STATIC SOIL PROPERTIES NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5B-2 (SHEET 1 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [STATIC SOIL PROPERTIES NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5B-2 (SHEET 2 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [COMPACTED STATIC SOIL STRENGTH PROPERTIES NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5B-3 (SHEET 1 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [COMPACTED STATIC SOIL STRENGTH PROPERTIES NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5B-3 (SHEET 2 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [STATIC SOIL SHEAR STRENGTH PROPERTIES NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5B-4 (SHEET 1 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [STATIC SOIL SHEAR STRENGTH PROPERTIES NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5B-4 (SHEET 2 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [STATIC SOIL SHEAR STRENGTH PROPERTIES NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5B-5 (SHEET 1 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [STATIC SOIL SHEAR STRENGTH PROPERTIES NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5B-5 (SHEET 2 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [STATIC ROCK PROPERTIES NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5B-6 (SHEET 1 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [STATIC ROCK PROPERTIES NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5B-6 (SHEET 2 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [DYNAMIC SOIL AND ROCK PROPERTIES NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5B-7 (SHEET 1 OF 3)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [DYNAMIC SOIL AND ROCK PROPERTIES NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5B-7 (SHEET 2 OF 3)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [DYNAMIC SOIL AND ROCK PROPERTIES NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5B-7 (SHEET 3 OF 3)]

REV 21 5/08

[STRESS-STRAIN DIAGRAMS FOR DAM EMBANKMENT JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT MATERIALS - - COMPACTED SOIL C-1 UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5B-8 (SHEET 1 OF 3)]

REV 21 5/08

[STRESS-STRAIN DIAGRAMS FOR DAM EMBANKMENT JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT MATERIALS - - COMPACTED SOIL C-1 UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5B-8 (SHEET 2 OF 3)]

REV 21 5/08

[STRESS-STRAIN DIAGRAMS FOR DAM EMBANKMENT JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT MATERIALS - - COMPACTED SOIL C-1 UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5B-8 (SHEET 3 OF 3)]

REV 21 5/08

[STRESS-STRAIN DIAGRAMS FOR DAM EMBANKMENT JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT MATERIALS - - COMPACTED SOILS C-1 AND C-2 UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5B-9 (SHEET 1 OF 3)]

REV 21 5/08

[STRESS-STRAIN DIAGRAMS FOR DAM EMBANKMENT JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT MATERIALS - - COMPACTED SOILS C-1 AND C-2 UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5B-9 (SHEET 2 OF 3)]

REV 21 5/08

[STRESS-STRAIN DIAGRAMS FOR DAM EMBANKMENT JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT MATERIALS - - COMPACTED SOILS C-1 AND C-2 UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5B-9 (SHEET 3 OF 3)]

REV 21 5/08

[STRESS-STRAIN DIAGRAMS FOR DAM EMBANKMENT JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT MATERIALS - - COMPACTED SOILS C-2 AND C-3 UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5B-10 (SHEET 1 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08

[STRESS-STRAIN DIAGRAMS FOR DAM EMBANKMENT JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT MATERIALS - - COMPACTED SOILS C-2 AND C-3 UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5B-10 (SHEET 2 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08

[STRESS-STRAIN DIAGRAMS FOR DAM EMBANKMENT JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT COMPACTED SOILS R-24, R-31 UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5B-10A (SHEET 1 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08

[STRESS-STRAIN DIAGRAMS FOR DAM EMBANKMENT JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT COMPACTED SOILS R-24, R-31 UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5B-10A (SHEET 2 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08

[STRESS-STRAIN DIAGRAMS FOR PLANT AREA JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT BACKFILL - - COMPACTED SOIL I UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5B-11 (SHEET 1 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08

[STRESS-STRAIN DIAGRAMS FOR PLANT AREA JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT BACKFILL - - COMPACTED SOIL I UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5B-11 (SHEET 2 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08

[STRESS-STRAIN DIAGRAMS FOR PLANT AREA JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT BACKFILL - - COMPACTED SOILS I AND II UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5B-12 (SHEET 1 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08

[STRESS-STRAIN DIAGRAMS FOR PLANT AREA JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT BACKFILL - - COMPACTED SOILS I AND II UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5B-12 (SHEET 2 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08

[STRESS-STRAIN DIAGRAMS FOR PLANT AREA JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT BACKFILL - - COMPACTED SOILS II AND III UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5B-13 (SHEET 1 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08

[STRESS-STRAIN DIAGRAMS FOR PLANT AREA JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT BACKFILL - - COMPACTED SOILS II AND III UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5B-13 (SHEET 2 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08

[STRESS-STRAIN DIAGRAMS FOR FOUNDATION JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT MATERIALS - - PLANT AREA AND SPILLWAY STRUCTURE UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5B-14 (SHEET 1 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08

[STRESS-STRAIN DIAGRAMS FOR FOUNDATION JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT MATERIALS - - PLANT AREA AND SPILLWAY STRUCTURE UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5B-14 (SHEET 2 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08

[STRESS-STRAIN DIAGRAMS FOR FOUNDATION JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT MATERIALS - - RIVER WATER SUPPLY LINE UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5B-15 (SHEET 1 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08

[STRESS-STRAIN DIAGRAMS FOR FOUNDATION JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT MATERIALS - - RIVER WATER SUPPLY LINE UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5B-15 (SHEET 2 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08

[STRESS-STRAIN DIAGRAMS FOR JOSEPH M. FARLEY FOUNDATION MATERIALS - - RIVER INTAKE STRUCTURE NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 AND STORAGE POND INTAKE STRUCTURE FIGURE 2B5B-16 (SHEET 1 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08

[STRESS-STRAIN DIAGRAMS FOR JOSEPH M. FARLEY FOUNDATION MATERIALS - - RIVER INTAKE STRUCTURE NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 AND STORAGE POND INTAKE STRUCTURE FIGURE 2B5B-16 (SHEET 2 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08

[STRESS-STRAIN DIAGRAMS FOR FOUNDATION JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT MATERIALS - - STORAGE POND DAM AND DIKE UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5B-17 (SHEET 1 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08

[STRESS-STRAIN DIAGRAMS FOR FOUNDATION JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT MATERIALS - - STORAGE POND DAM AND DIKE UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5B-17 (SHEET 2 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08

[STRESS-STRAIN DIAGRAMS FOR FOUNDATION JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT MATERIALS - - STORAGE POND DAM AND DIKE UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5B-18 (SHEET 1 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08

[STRESS-STRAIN DIAGRAMS FOR FOUNDATION JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT MATERIALS - - STORAGE POND DAM AND DIKE UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5B-18 (SHEET 2 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08

[STRESS-STRAIN DIAGRAMS FOR DAM EMBANKMENT JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT MATERIALS - - COMPACTED SOILS 1A, 1B, 2B, 2C, 3 UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5B-19 (SHEET 1 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08

[STRESS-STRAIN DIAGRAMS FOR DAM EMBANKMENT JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT MATERIALS - - COMPACTED SOILS 1A, 1B, 2B, 2C, 3 UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B5B-19 (SHEET 2 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08

[STRESS-STRAIN DIAGRAMS FOR DAM EMBANKMENT JOSEPH M. FARLEY MATERIALS, BORROW AREA NO. 1 NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 COMPACTED SOILS C-1, C-2, C-3 FIGURE 2B5B-20 (SHEET 1 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08

[STRESS-STRAIN DIAGRAMS FOR DAM EMBANKMENT JOSEPH M. FARLEY MATERIALS, BORROW AREA NO. 1 NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 COMPACTED SOILS C-1, C-2, C-3 FIGURE 2B5B-20 (SHEET 2 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08

[STRESS-STRAIN DIAGRAMS FOR DAM EMBANKMENT JOSEPH M. FARLEY MATERIALS, BORROW AREA NO. 1 NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 COMPACTED SOILS C-2, C-3 FIGURE 2B5B-21]

REV 21 5/08

[LABORATORY CYCLIC TEST RESULTS UNDISTURBED JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT SAMPLES UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B6-1 (SHEET 1 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08

[LABORATORY CYCLIC TEST RESULTS UNDISTURBED JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT SAMPLES UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B6-1 (SHEET 2 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08

[DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF DAM & DIKES RECORD OF A JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT TYPICAL STRESS-CONTROLLED CYCLIC TRIAXIAL TEST UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B6-1A]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [CASE 1 - SWITCHYARD NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B6-2]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [CASE II - PLANT AREA NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B6-3]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [CASE III - SLOPES NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B6-4]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [CASE III SLOPES NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B6-5]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [CASE IV - COOLING TOWER AREA NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B6-6]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [CASE V - RIVER INTAKE AREA NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B6-7]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [CASE VI - STORAGE POND INTAKE AREA NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B6-8]

REV 21 5/08

[DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF DAM AND JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT DIKES MAXIMUM DAM SECTION UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B6-9]

REV 21 5/08

[DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF DAM AND JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT DIKES TYPICAL DIKE SECTION UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B6-10]

REV 21 5/08

[DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF DAM AND DIKES JOSEPH M. FARLEY ACCELEROGRAM REPRESENTING THE POSTULATED NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 SAFE SHUTDOWN EARTHQUAKE FIGURE 2B6-11]

REV 21 5/08

[DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF DAM AND JOSEPH M. FARLEY DIKES SAFE SHUTDOWN EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 SPECTRA FOR 5% SPECTRAL DRAWING FIGURE 2B6-12]

REV 21 5/08

[DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF DAM AND DIKES COMPARISON OF INDUCED SHEAR STRESSED WITH STRESSES JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT REQUIRED TO CAUSE 5% STRAIN ALONG A TYPICAL UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 PLANE - MAXIMUM DAM SECTION AVERAGE PROPERTIES FIGURE 2B6-13]

REV 21 5/08

[DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF DAM AND DIKES LOCAL FACTORS OF SAFETY WITH RESPECT TO DEVELOPMENT OF 5%

JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT STRAIN ALONG SELECTED HORIZONTAL PLANES -

UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 MAXIMUM DAM SECTION, AVERAGE PROPERTIES FIGURE 2B6-14]

REV 21 5/08

[DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF DAM AND DIKES LOCAL FACTORS OF SAFETY WITH RESPECT TO DEVELOPMENT OF 5%

JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT STRAIN ALONG SELECTED HORIZONTAL PLANES -

UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 MAXIMUM DAM SECTION, UPPER BOUND PROPERTIES FIGURE 2B6-15]

REV 21 5/08

[DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF DAM AND DIKES LOCAL FACTORS OF SAFETY WITH RESPECT TO DEVELOPMENT OF 5%

JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT STRAIN ALONG SELECTED HORIZONTAL PLANES - DIKE UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 SECTION, AVERAGE PROPERTIES FIGURE 2B6-16]

REV 21 5/08

[LOCAL FACTORS OF SAFETY WITH RESPECT TO JOSEPH M. FARLEY DEVELOPMENT OF 5% STRAIN ALONG CENTERLINE OF NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 DIKE, AVERAGE PROPERTIES FIGURE 2B6-17]

REV 21 5/08

[DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF DAM AND DIKES MATERIAL C JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT SHEAR MODULUS VS EFFECTIVE MEAN NORMAL STRESS UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B6A-1]

REV 21 5/08

[DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF DAM AND DIKES MATERIAL C JOSEPH M. FARLEY SHEAR MODULI AT EFFECTIVE MEAN NORMAL STRESS OF NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 1000 LB/FT2 FIGURE 2B6A-2]

REV 21 5/08

[DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF DAM AND DIKES MATERIAL C JOSEPH M. FARLEY SHEAR MODULI AT EFFECTIVE MEAN NORMAL STRESS OF NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 1000 LB/FT2 FIGURE 2B6A-3]

REV 21 5/08

[DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF DAM AND DIKES MATERIAL C JOSEPH M. FARLEY SHEAR MODULI AT EFFECTIVE MEAN NORMAL STRESS OF NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 1000 LB/FT2 FIGURE 2B6A-4]

REV 21 5/08

[DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF DAM AND DIKES MATERIAL C JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT DAMPING RATIO VS. SHEAR STRAIN UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B6A-5]

REV 21 5/08

[DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF DAM AND DIKES MATERIAL C JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT DAMPING RATIO VS. SHEAR STRAIN UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B6A-6]

REV 21 5/08

[DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF DAM AND DIKES MATERIAL C JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT DAMPING RATIO VS. SHEAR STRAIN UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B6A-7]

REV 21 5/08

[DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF DAM AND DIKES EMBANKMENT JOSEPH M. FARLEY MATERIAL, STRAIN-COMPATIBLE SOIL PROPERTIES USED NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 IN ANALYSIS FIGURE 2B6A-8]

REV 21 5/08

[DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF DAM AND DIKES MATERIAL C JOSEPH M. FARLEY RESULTS OF STRESS-CONTROLLED CYCLIC TRIAXIAL NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 TESTS (KC = 1.0, 5% STRAIN)

FIGURE 2B6A-9]

REV 21 5/08

[DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF DAM AND DIKES MATERIAL C JOSEPH M. FARLEY RESULTS OF STRESS-CONTROLLED CYCLIC TRIAXIAL NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 TESTS (KC = 1.5, 5% STRAIN)

FIGURE 2B6A-10]

REV 21 5/08

[DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF DAM AND DIKES MATERIAL C JOSEPH M. FARLEY RESULTS OF STRESS-CONTROLLED CYCLIC TRIAXIAL NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 TESTS (KC = 1.0, 5% STRAIN)

FIGURE 2B6A-11]

REV 21 5/08

[DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF DAM AND DIKES MATERIAL C JOSEPH M. FARLEY RESULTS OF STRESS-CONTROLLED CYCLIC TRIAXIAL NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 TESTS (KC = 1.5, 5% STRAIN)

FIGURE 2B6A-12]

REV 21 5/08

[DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF DAM AND DIKES MATERIAL C JOSEPH M. FARLEY RESULTS OF STRESS-CONTROLLED CYCLIC TRIAXIAL NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 TESTS (KC = 2.0, 5% STRAIN)

FIGURE 2B6A-13]

REV 21 5/08

[DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF DAM AND DIKES MATERIAL C JOSEPH M. FARLEY RESULTS OF STRESS-CONTROLLED CYCLIC TRIAXIAL NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 TESTS (KC = 1.0, 5% STRAIN)

FIGURE 2B6A-14]

REV 21 5/08

[DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF DAM AND DIKES MATERIAL C JOSEPH M. FARLEY RESULTS OF STRESS-CONTROLLED CYCLIC TRIAXIAL NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 TESTS (KC = 1.5, 5% STRAIN)

FIGURE 2B6A-15]

REV 21 5/08

[DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF DAM AND DIKES PROCEDURE FOR INTERPRETING STRESS-CONTROLLED CYCLIC JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT TRIAXIAL TEST DATA FOR ANISOTROPICALLY UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 CONSOLIDATED (KC > 1.0) SPECIMENS FIGURE 2B6A-16]

REV 21 5/08

[DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF DAM AND DIKES MATERIAL C JOSEPH M. FARLEY CYCLIC SHEAR STRESS REQUIRED TO CAUSE 5% STRAIN NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 IN 10 CYCLES FIGURE 2B6A-17]

REV 21 5/08

[DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF DAM AND DIKES MATERIAL C JOSEPH M. FARLEY CYCLIC SHEAR STRESS REQUIRED TO CAUSE 5% STRAIN NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 IN 10 CYCLES FIGURE 2B6A-18]

REV 21 5/08

[DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF DAM AND DIKES MATERIAL C JOSEPH M. FARLEY CYCLIC SHEAR STRESS REQUIRED TO CAUSE 5% STRAIN NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 IN 10 CYCLES FIGURE 2B6A-19]

REV 21 5/08

[DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF DAM AND DIKES FOUNDATION JOSEPH M. FARLEY SOILS - CYCLIC SHEAR STRESS REQUIRED TO CAUSE 5%

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 STRAIN IN 10 CYCLES FIGURE 2B6A-20]

REV 21 5/08

[DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF DAM AND DIKES MATERIAL C JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT COMPACTION TEST RESULTS UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B6A-21]

REV 21 5/08

[DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF DAM AND DIKES MATERIAL C JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT COMPACTION TEST RESULTS UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B6A-22]

REV 21 5/08

[DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF DAM AND DIKES MATERIAL C JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT COMPACTION TEST RESULTS UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B6A-23]

REV 21 5/08

[DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF DAM AND DIKES MATERIAL C JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B6A-24]

REV 21 5/08

[DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF DAM AND DIKES MATERIAL C JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B6A-25]

REV 21 5/08

[DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF DAM AND DIKES MATERIAL C JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B6A-26]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [STORAGE POND DOWNSTREAM FILL CROSS-SECTIONS NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B7-14]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [STORAGE POND DOWNSTREAM FILL CROSS-SECTIONS NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B7-15]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [STORAGE POND UPSTREAM BLANKET CROSS-SECTIONS NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B7-16 (SHEET 1 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [STORAGE POND UPSTREAM BLANKET CROSS-SECTIONS NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B7-16 (SHEET 2 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08

[STORAGE POND EMBANKMENT CREST DETAIL AND JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT COMPACTION DATA UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B7-17 (SHEET 1 OF 5)]

REV 21 5/08

[STORAGE POND EMBANKMENT CREST DETAIL AND JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT COMPACTION DATA UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B7-17 (SHEET 2 OF 5)]

REV 21 5/08

[STORAGE POND EMBANKMENT CREST DETAIL AND JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT COMPACTION DATA UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B7-17 (SHEET 3 OF 5)]

REV 21 5/08

[STORAGE POND EMBANKMENT CREST DETAIL AND JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT COMPACTION DATA UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B7-17 (SHEET 4 OF 5)]

REV 21 5/08

[STORAGE POND EMBANKMENT CREST DETAIL AND JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT COMPACTION DATA UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B7-17 (SHEET 5 OF 5)]

REV 21 5/08

[STORAGE POND DAM AND DIKE SLOPE STABILITY JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT ANALYSIS UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B7-18 (SHEET 1 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08

[STORAGE POND DAM AND DIKE SLOPE STABILITY JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT ANALYSIS UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B7-18 (SHEET 2 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SITE SLOPES NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B7-19 (SHEET 1 OF 4)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SITE SLOPES NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B7-19 (SHEET 2 OF 4)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SITE SLOPES NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B7-19 (SHEET 3 OF 4)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SITE SLOPES NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B7-19 (SHEET 4 OF 4)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SITE SLOPES NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B7-20]

REV 21 5/08

[BORROW MATERIAL PROPERTIES FOR REDESIGN OF DAM JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT AND DIKE 95% ASTM D-698 UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B7-21 (SHEET 1 OF 4)]

REV 21 5/08

[BORROW MATERIAL PROPERTIES FOR REDESIGN OF DAM JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT AND DIKE 95% ASTM D-698 UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B7-21 (SHEET 2 OF 4)]

REV 21 5/08

[BORROW MATERIAL PROPERTIES FOR REDESIGN OF DAM JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT AND DIKE 95% ASTM D-698 UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B7-21 (SHEET 3 OF 4)]

REV 21 5/08

[BORROW MATERIAL PROPERTIES FOR REDESIGN OF DAM JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT AND DIKE 95% ASTM D-698 UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B7-21 (SHEET 4 OF 4)]

REV 21 5/08

[GRAIN SIZED - - COMPACTED BLANKET AND JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT UNDERLYING SOIL UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B7-22]

REV 21 5/08

[COMPARISON OF MATERIAL PROPERTIES BORROW AREA JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT NO. 1 AND BORROW AREA NO. 2 95 PERCENT ASTM D-1557 UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B7-23 (SHEET 1 OF 4)]

REV 21 5/08

[COMPARISON OF MATERIAL PROPERTIES BORROW AREA JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT NO. 1 AND BORROW AREA NO. 2 95 PERCENT ASTM D-1557 UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B7-23 (SHEET 2 OF 4)]

REV 21 5/08

[COMPARISON OF MATERIAL PROPERTIES BORROW AREA JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT NO. 1 AND BORROW AREA NO. 2 95 PERCENT ASTM D-1557 UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B7-23 (SHEET 3 OF 4)]

REV 21 5/08

[COMPARISON OF MATERIAL PROPERTIES BORROW AREA JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT NO. 1 AND BORROW AREA NO. 2 95 PERCENT ASTM D-1557 UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B7-23 (SHEET 4 OF 4)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [MATERIAL C-5 COMPACTION TEST RESULTS NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B7-24]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [MATERIAL C-5 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B7-25]

REV 21 5/08

[MATERIAL C 95% ASTM D698 COMPACTION SHEAR JOSEPH M. FARLEY MODULI NORMALIZED TO AN EFFECTIVE MEAN NORMAL NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 STRESS OF 1000 LB/FT2 FIGURE 2B7-26]

REV 21 5/08

[MATERIAL C 95% ASTM D698 COMPACTION DAMPING JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT RATIO VS. SHEAR STRAIN UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B7-27]

REV 21 5/08

[MATERIAL C 95% ASTM D698 COMPACTION RESULTS JOSEPH M. FARLEY OF STRESS-CONTROLLED CYCLIC TRIAXIAL TESTS NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 (KC = 1.0, 5% STRAIN)

FIGURE 2B7-28]

REV 21 5/08

[MATERIAL C 95% ASTM D698 COMPACTION RESULTS JOSEPH M. FARLEY OF STRESS-CONTROLLED CYCLIC TRIAXIAL TESTS NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 (KC = 1.5, 5% STRAIN)

FIGURE 2B7-29]

REV 21 5/08

[MATERIAL C 95% ASTM D698 COMPACTION CYCLIC JOSEPH M. FARLEY SHEAR STRESS REQUIRED TO CAUSE 5% STRAIN IN 10 NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 CYCLES FIGURE 2B7-30]

REV 21 5/08

[MATERIAL C 98% ASTM D698 COMPACTION RESULTS JOSEPH M. FARLEY OF STRESS-CONTROLLED CYCLIC TRIAXIAL TESTS NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 (KC = 1.0, 5% STRAIN)

FIGURE 2B7-31]

REV 21 5/08

[MATERIAL C 98% ASTM D698 COMPACTION RESULTS JOSEPH M. FARLEY OF STRESS-CONTROLLED CYCLIC TRIAXIAL TESTS NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 (KC = 1.5, 5% STRAIN)

FIGURE 2B7-32]

REV 21 5/08

[MATERIAL C 98% ASTM D698 COMPACTION CYCLIC JOSEPH M. FARLEY SHEAR STRESS REQUIRED TO CAUSE 5% STRAIN IN NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 10 CYCLES FIGURE 2B7-33]

REV 21 5/08

[LOCAL FACTORS OF SAFETY WITH RESPECT TO DEVELOPMENT OF 5% STRAIN ALONG SELECTED JOSEPH M. FARLEY HORIZONTAL PLANES - MAXIMUM DAM SECTION - UPPER NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 BOUND PROPERTIES - CYCLIC STRENGTH MATERIAL C-5 95% ASTM D698 COMPACTION FIGURE 2B7-34]

REV 21 5/08

[LOCAL FACTORS OF SAFETY WITH RESPECT TO DEVELOPMENT OF 5% STRAIN ALONG CENTERLINE OF JOSEPH M. FARLEY MAXIMUM DAM SECTION - UPPER BOUND PROPERTIES NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 CYCLIC STRENGTH MATERIAL C-5 95% ASTM D698 COMPACTION FIGURE 2B7-35]

REV 21 5/08

[LOCAL FACTORS OF SAFETY WITH RESPECT TO DEVELOPMENT OF 5% STRAIN ALONG SELECTED JOSEPH M. FARLEY HORIZONTAL PLANES - MAXIMUM DAM SECTION UPPER NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 BOUND PROPERTIES - CYCLIC STRENGTH MATERIAL C-5 AT 98% ASTM D698 COMPACTION FIGURE 2B7-36]

REV 21 5/08

[LOCAL FACTORS OF SAFETY WITH RESPECT TO DEVELOPMENT OF 5% STRAIN ALONG CENTERLINE OF JOSEPH M. FARLEY MAXIMUM DAM SECTION - UPPER BOUND PROPERTIES -

NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 CYCLIC STRENGTH MATERIAL C-5 AT 98% ASTM D698 COMPACTION FIGURE 2B7-37]

REV 21 5/08

[COMPARISON OF STRESSES AT DAM COMPUTED BY THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT FINITE ELEMENT AND THE SHEAR SLICE PROCEDURE UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B7-38 (SHEET 1 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08

[COMPARISON OF STRESSES AT DAM COMPUTED BY THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT FINITE ELEMENT AND THE SHEAR SLICE PROCEDURE UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B7-38 (SHEET 2 OF 2)]

REV 21 5/08 JOSEPH M. FARLEY [DAM EXCAVATION PLAN AND GEOLOGIC MAPS NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B7-39A]

REV 21 5/08

[DAM FOUNDATION GEOLOGIC MAP NORTH AND SOUTH JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT ELEVATIONS UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B7-39B]

REV 21 5/08

[DAM FOUNDATION GEOLOGIC MAP EAST AND WEST JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT ELEVATIONS UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B7-39C]

REV 21 5/08

[STORAGE POND DAM AND DIKE COMPACTED FILL JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT RECORD TESTS UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B7-40 (SHEET 1 OF 3)]

REV 21 5/08

[STORAGE POND DAM AND DIKE COMPACTED FILL JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT RECORD TESTS UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B7-40 (SHEET 2 OF 3)]

REV 21 5/08

[STORAGE POND DAM AND DIKE COMPACTED FILL JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT RECORD TESTS UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B7-40 (SHEET 3 OF 3)]

REV 21 5/08 STORAGE POND DAM AND DIKE INSTRUMENTATION JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT LOCATIONS UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B7-41

REV 21 5/08

[STORAGE POND DAM AND DIKE CENTERLINE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT SUBSURFACE PROFILES AND GROUNDWATER LEVELS UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B7-42]

REV 21 5/08

[STORAGE POND DAM AND DIKE OBSERVATION WELLS JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT AND DRAIN DISCHARGE RATES UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B7-43]

REV 21 5/08

[STORAGE POND DAM AND DIKE GRAVITY RELIEF WELLS JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT AND DISCHARGE RATES UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 FIGURE 2B7-44]