ML15114A382

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Revision 19 to Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Chapter 2 - Redacted
ML15114A382
Person / Time
Site: Fermi DTE Energy icon.png
Issue date: 10/31/2009
From:
Detroit Edison, Co
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
Download: ML15114A382 (569)


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:FERMI 2 UFSAR CHAPTER 2: SITE CHARACTERISTICS 2.1 GEOGRAPHY AND DEMOGRAPHY Section 2.1 was prepared circa 1974 at the time of preparation of the original FSAR. It has not been updated in the area of geography and demography since it represents the area at the time the Construction Permit was issued. Minor changes were made in Subsection 2.1.3.5 in response to questions from the NRC in 1979. 2.1.1 Site Location The Fermi 2 power plant is located at the Fermi site on the western shore of Lake Erie at Lagoona Beach, Frenchtown Township, Monroe County, Michigan (see Figures 2.1-1 through 2:1 -3). The plant is approximately 8 miles east-northeast of Monroe, Michigan; 30 miles southwest of downtown Detroit, Michigan; and 25 miles northeast of downtown Toledo, Ohio. The coordinates of the Fermi 2 reactor containment structure are latitude 41'57'48"N, and longitude 83'15'3 I"W. The Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates are 4,647,950 m north and 312,930 m east, Zone 17T. 2.1.2 Site Description The Fermi site comprises approximately 1260 acres of land solely owned by The Detroit Edison Company (Edison). The site is bounded on the north by Swan Creek, on the east by Lake Erie, on the south by Pointe Aux Peaux Road, and on the west by Toll Road. Entrance to the site is from the west by way of Enrico Fermi Drive, a private road owned by Edison, and from the south via Pointe Aux Peaux Road to another private road also owned by Edison. The northern and southern areas of the site are dominated by large lagoons. The western areas are dominated by several woodlots and quarry lakes. Site elevation ranges from the level of Lake Erie, on the eastern edge of the site, to approximately 25 ft above the lake level, on the western edge of the site. An aerial photograph of the site taken May 5, 1983, is presented in Figure 2.1-4. A plot plan of the Fermi site showing the plant, its natural draft cooling towers, and other major structures is presented in Figure 2.1-5. In accordance with 10 CFR 100, the exclusion area for Fermi 2 has been defined as that area within 915 m of the reactor containment structure. As indicated in Figure 2.1-5, this area encompasses a portion of adjoining Lake Erie. 2.1.2.1 Exclusion Area Control The land portion of the exclusion area for Fermi 2 is entirely within the Fermi site. Consequently, Edison has the authority to determine all activities within the land portion of the exclusion area, including authority for the exclusion of personnel and property. No public roads, waterways, or railroads traverse the land portion of the exclusion area. 2.1-1 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR The Lake Erie shoreline of the plant site is unsuitable for beach activities. The limited beach area available is inaccessible to the public from the land side and is posted as private property. Few plant-unrelated activities are expected to take place on Lake Erie adjacent to the plant site. These will be primarily fishing from boats and pleasure craft; however, due to poor fishing and the shallow characteristics of the lake in this area, boating activities are not carried out in proximity to the shoreline. Past experience at the site has indicated the public has made little or no attempt to use the shoreline area or to approach the site from the lake. The emergency plans are described in Section 13.3. 2.1.2.2 Boundaries for Establishing Effluent Release Limits The boundary used to establish Technical Specifications limits for the release of gaseous effluents from Fermi 2, in accordance with 10 CFR 20.106(a) and other related as-low-as-reasonably-achievable provisions, is based on the boundary of the Fermi site. The site boundaries for gaseous effluents and for liquid effluents shall be as shown in Figure 2.1-5. As shown in Figure 2.1-5, the closest on-land boundary line is approximately 915 m from the center line of the reactor building. This closest On-land boundary line corresponds to the maximum site boundary value of the meteorological dispersion parameter (c/Q) calculated for the baseline year 1974-1975. Virtually all of the 1120-acre site is enclosed by a perimeter fence, restricting casual access to the property. Additionally, a fenced-in area surrounds the immediate plant area within the Fermi site, shown in Figure 2.1-5. Access to the plant area will be continually and actively controlled by Edison. Only those persons specifically authorized will have access to this area. In those areas of the southern portion of the Fermi site outside the plant fenced-in area, the public will be permitted to use only those facilities specifically designated by Edison. Normal surveillance of these areas will be maintained by Edison, which, as sole owner of the entire Fermi site, has the authority to exclude personnel and property from the designated areas. 2.1.3 Population and Population Distribution Figure 2.1-3 shows the locations of the municipalities and other cultural features surrounding the plant within 10 miles. Towns and cities in the region surrounding the plant within 50 miles are shown in Figure 2.1-2. These centers of population are listed in Table 2.1-1, along with their 1970 resident populations and their distances and directions from the plant. 2.1.3.1 Population Within 10 Miles Within 10 miles of the plant, the estimated 1970 population was 63,963 persons; within 5 miles, it was 11,135 persons. The following communities, as identified by the 1970 Census of Population, and indicated in Figure 2.1-3, are within 10 miles of the plant: 2.1-2 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR 1973 Distance (miles) and Population Direction from Plant Stony Point 1,370 1 SSW Estral Beach 419 2 NE Woodland Beach 2,249 3 WSW Detroit Beech 2,053 4 WSW Monroe (closest point) 23,894 5.5 SW South Monroe 3,012 6 SW South Rockwood 1,477 8 N Rockwood 3,119 9 N Carleton 1,503 9 NW Patterson Gardens 2,169 9 W The City of Monroe and the villages of Estral Beach, South Rockwood, and Carleton are the only incorporated communities. Estimates of the 1970 resident population within 5 miles of the plant were determined from house counts and 1970 census data. The house counts were determined from June 1970 aerial photographs obtained from the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) (Reference 1). House counts were converted to population by applying the ratios of persons to housing units obtained from 1970 census data (Reference 2). For the townships concerned (all in Monroe County), these ratios are Berlin 3.53 Frenchtown 3.62 Ash 3.71 The resultant population data were assumed to be applicable, without adjustments, to April 1970. Beyond the 5-mile radius, population estimates were based on 1970 census data (Reference

3) and the corresponding state map, account being taken of the population estimated to be within 5 miles of the plant. Use was made of data for the smallest applicable census unit (e.g., village, town, city, or township). From this state map, census units within each segment of the population wheel were identified, and their fractions within each segment determined.

It was assumed that the population within each census unit was uniformly distributed. Population projections for areas within 10 miles for the years 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2020 were based on corresponding projections for the individual counties concerned. There were no population projections available for census units smaller than counties. It was assumed that each component (or fraction) of a county had the same decennial rate of growth as that for the county as a whole. Monroe and Wayne are the only counties with areas within 10 miles of the plant. Projections by SEMCOG were available for both counties for 1970, 1980, and 1990 (Reference 1). The 2.1-3 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR 1970-1980 and 1980-1990 decennial rates of growth derived from these projections were applied to the 1970 census data to obtain the projected 1980 and 1990 populations. The projected 2000, 2010, and 2020 populations of the counties were derived by assuming their decennial rate of growth from 1990 to 2020 to be constant and equal to the average of the 1970-1980 and 1980-1990 rates of growth. Figure 2.1-6 shows the estimated 1970 population distribution within 10 miles of the plant. Figures 2.1-7 through 2.1-11 show corresponding projected populations for the years 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2020. These projected population data are the unrounded mathematical results of the methods described above. 2.1.3.2 Population Between 10 and 50 Miles The 1970 population and projections between 10 and 50 miles were determined in accordance with the method used for the area between 5 and 10 miles from the plant. For the areas within Canada, use was made of the June 1, 1971, Canadian census data (Reference 4) and corresponding provincial map. Using data from the previous Canadian census of June 1, 1966 (Reference 5), and assuming linearity, the 1971 Canadian census data were adjusted to April 1, 1970, so they would coincide with the 1970 U.S. census data. For population projection purposes, counties between 10 and 50 miles of the plant were divided into four groups:

a. SEMCOG counties
b. Other Michigan counties
c. Ohio counties
d. Canadian counties.

The SEMCOG counties are Monroe, Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, Livingston, and Washtenaw. Wayne County was separated into two parts consisting of Detroit, and Wayne County minus Detroit. Projected populations for these counties for the years 1980-2020 were obtained as explained in Subsection 2.1.3.1 for Monroe and Wayne County projections at 5 to 10 miles. The projected 1980 and 1990 populations for Detroit were similarly derived; however, its population was assumed to remain unchanged (rather than to continue decreasing) from 1990 to 2020. Other Michigan counties consist of Jackson and Lenawee. The projected populations for each of these counties were derived by assuming their decennial rates of growth from 1970 to 2020 to be constant and equal to the average of their 1960-1970 rates of growth, obtained from census data, and their 1970-1980 rates of growth, derived from 1970 census data and their 1978 population estimated by the State of Michigan (Reference 6). The Ohio counties consist of Seneca, Sandusky, Ottawa, Lucas, Huron, Henry, Fulton, Erie, and Wood. The projected populations for each of these counties were derived by assuming their decennial rates of growth from 1970 to 2020 to be constant and equal to the 1970 to 1980 rates of growth obtained from 1970 to 1975 to 1980 to 1985 projections by the State of Ohio (Reference 7). 2.1-4 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR Official projections for Essex and Kent, the two Canadian counties, were not available. Projected 1980-2020 populations of these counties were based on their adjusted April 1, 1970, populations and were derived by assuming their decennial rates of growth from 1970 and 2020 to be constant and equal to their 1961-1971 rates of growth determined from Canadian census data. Figure 2.1-6 shows the estimated 1970 population distribution between 10 and 50 miles from the plant. Figures 2.1-7 through 2.1-11 show corresponding projected populations for the years 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2020. These projected population data are the unrounded mathematical results of the methods described above. 2.1.3.3 Low-Population Zone In accordance with criteria specified in 10 CFR 100, the outer boundary of the low-population zone (LPZ) for Fermi 2 will be 3 miles (4827 m) from the containment structure. The estimated resident population distribution within this distance for the years 1970 through 2020 is shown in Table 2.1-2. Population distribution for distances up to 50 miles from the plant is shown in Figures 2.1-6 through 2.1 -11; a detailed map of the LPZ is shown in Figure 2.1-12. The area within the LPZ does not contain either agricultural or industrial activities that would create a daily transient population of any magnitude. Therefore, other than the recreational activities that draw daily users, the daily population is relatively stable. As stated in Subsection 2.1.4.2.3, the population in the communities within the LPZ that have beach and boating facilities is predominantly permanent, and the facilities are for resident use. The schools, hospitals, institutions, and recreational areas are shown in Tables 2.1-3 through 2.1-5. Sterling State Park and Point Mouillee State Game Area are approximately 5 miles from the Fermi 2 site and annually attract about 385,000 and 180,000 visitors, respectively, as shown in Table 2.1-5. Approximately 70 percent of use occurs between April and November. 2.1.3.4 Transient Population 2.1.3.4.1 Seasonal Agricultural and Horticultural Labor Needs for seasonal agricultural and horticultural labor (including migrant workers) in Monroe County are listed in Table 2.1-6. Peak requirements, which occur in the month of October, are for a total of about 2335 seasonal workers, 34 percent of whom are expected to be migrant workers. Needs for such seasonal labor are at a minimum during the winter months, down to a total of about 230 workers, 12 percent of whom would be migrant workers. Following are 1972 data on migrant workers within 10 miles of Fermi 2 (Reference 8): Number of Distance (miles) and Employers Migrant Workers Direction From Plant Smith and Son 75 8 NW J. F. Ilgenfritz 30 10 WSW 2.1-5 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR Number of Distance (miles) and Employers Migrant Workers Direction From Plant Tracy Gaynier 12 11 SW Don Wolmer 20 12 WSW Walter Iott 20 12 WSW 2.1.3.4.2 Historical Attractions There are two facilities in the City of Monroe that draw large numbers of visitors each year: the Custer Museum, 8 miles west-southwest of the plant; and the Monroe County Historical Museum, 8 miles west-southwest of the plant. In 1972, the former had approximately 12,000 visitors and the latter about 45,000 (Reference 9). 2.1.3.4.3 Commuters Monroe and Wayne are the only two counties with areas within 10 miles of the plant site. Monroe County has an inflow of 1500 commuters and an outflow of 19,292 commuters, a net loss of 17,792 individuals per day. Wayne County, with an inflow of 139,305 and an outflow of 165,754 commuters, has a net loss of 26,449 individuals per day (Reference 10). 2.1.3.4.4 Seasonal Homes Within 10 miles of the plant, according to the 1970 census data, there were 51 seasonal homes in Monroe County and 26 in Wayne County (Reference 11). Many of the houses that had been used in the past as summer cottages are currently used as permanent homes. 2.1.3.5 Population Center The nearest population center, as defined in 10 CFR 100, is the City of Monroe, which had a 1970 population of 23,894. Its nearest corporate boundary is approximately 5.5 miles southwest of Fermi 2. The residential population distribution of the city and the surrounding jurisdiction (Frenchtown Township) shows this distance to be a valid, conservative figure for use as the population center distance. The concentrated residential section of the city is farther distant from the plant site, with the closest portion of the city along the northeastern boundary being predominantly open for industrial development (Reference 12). Frenchtown Township in 1977 was composed of scattered, small residential clusters and a few small communities along the shore of Lake Erie (Reference 13). The 1975 total population was estimated to be 15,900 over a land area of 27,000 acres an average density of about 0.6 person/acre (Reference 13). Future land use and residential population distribution for the city and township were also examined to determine the potential influence of proposed growth on the population center distance. The Monroe land use plan did not propose further expansion on the northeast edge of the city. Some annexation had taken place on the west, but further annexation was not considered likely in 1979 (Reference 14). 2.1-6 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR The land area within the city boundary was slated to remain predominantly open or industrial. One small tract (approximately 39 acres) was proposed for potential residential development (Reference 12). The future growth of Monroe based on data available in 1979 would not create any densely populated residential land closer than 5.5 miles from Fermi 2. Land use plans for Frenchtown Township indicated that future residential growth will take place in the vicinity of Fermi 2. Land use plans call for development of the corridor between Monroe and Fermi 2 and along the Lake Erie shore (Reference 13). A mixture of land uses was proposed; however, it was mainly recreational and low density (average of one dwelling unit per acre) and medium density (1 to 4 dwelling units per acre) residential. A 450-acre tract on the northeastern comer of the growth area had been rezoned from agricultural to residential use. This land, like most of the area, had severe soil limitations based on high water table, fair-to-poor bearing capacity, and moderate volume change. For this reason, the staff of the Monroe County Planning Commission had reservations about the residential rezoning of the site and suggested rezoning only for low density (Reference 15) (one dwelling unit per acre). Based on the distribution and density of the proposed future land use, Frenchtown Township was not expected to form a contiguous extension of the population center of Monroe or develop into a separate densely populated center. From these facts it was apparent that the 5.5-mile population center distance would remain valid in the future. 2.1.3.6 Public Facilities and Institutions A survey was conducted to locate public facilities and institutions, such as schools, hospitals, prisons, and parks, within 10 miles of the plant. 2.1.3.6.1 Schools Schools within 10 miles of the plant are listed in Table 2.1-3 and indicated in Figure 2.1-13 (References 16 through 20). Closest to the plant is the Brest School at Woodland Beach (2.5 miles west-southwest) with a 1972 enrollment of 163. The Monroe County Community College, a 2-year college, is located 11 miles west-southwest of the plant and had a 1972 enrollment of 1676 students. 2.1.3.6.2 Hospitals Data on hospitals and nursing facilities are contained in Table 2.1-4 (References 21 through 26). The closest facility to the plant is the Frenchtown Convalescent Center, 6 miles west, with 226 beds. 2.1.3.6.3 Prisons The only jail within 10 miles of the plant is the Monroe County Jail, located in the City of Monroe. It has an average of 50 inmates per day (Reference 27). 2.1-7 REV 16 10/091

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.1.3.6.4 Recreational Areas Recreational areas within 10 miles of the plant are listed in Table 2.1-5 and indicated in Figure 2.1-14 (References 9 and 28 through 30). The recreational facilities closest to the plant are Stony Point Beach, about 2 miles south, and Estral Beach, 2 miles northeast. Swimming is reported to take place there. The largest facility in the area is Sterling State Park, 5 miles southwest of the plant. 2.1.4 Uses of Adjacent Lands and Waters 2.1.4.1 Agricultural Activities Approximately 95 percent of the land area within 10 miles of Fermi 2 is within Monroe County, with the remaining 5 percent in Wayne County. About 71 percent of the land in Monroe County was used for farming; however, only 55 percent of the land within 10 miles of the plant consisted of farms. Farmland use within 10 miles of the plant in 1973 was as follows (Reference 31): Crop Percentage of Farmland Soybeans 50 Corn 22 Wheat 7 Miscellaneous (vegetables, hay, oats, and grazing and pastureland) Idle Cropland 14 Total 100 Data on the principal crops grown within 10 miles of the plant site in 1973 (Reference 31) were as follows: Annual Production Crop Acreage (bushels) Value Soybeans 21,000 840,000 $2,940,000 Corn 9,500 902,500 $1,173,250 Wheat 3,150 126,000 $252,000 All soybeans and wheat were sold as cash crops. Approximately 75 percent of the corn was sold as a cash crop; the remaining 25 percent was used for feed. The large livestock, poultry, and crop farms located within the environs of the Fermi site in 1973 are listed below: 2.1-8 REV 16 10/09

FERMI 2 UFSAR Distance (miles) and Direction Owner Farm Type and Information From Plant Ronald Welb Poultry - 2,500 laying hens 5 NW Del Chapman Livestock - 1,500 sheep 7 N Smith and Sons Vegetables and greenhouse products 8 NW Butler Farms Livestock - 500 beef cattle 10 W St. Mary's Farm Livestock - 200 beef cattle 10 W Clayton Dick Poultry - 15,000 to 20,000 laying hens 16 WSW Lennard and Sons Potato farm - 2,000 acres 16 WSW The Lennard and Sons farm was the largest potato farm in the State of Michigan, with a gross annual income of approximately $1.8 million. The Smith and Sons farm was one of the largest vegetable and greenhouse-product producers in the State of Michigan, with a gross annual income exceeding $500,000. Table 2.1-7 contains data on the 29 dairy farms within 18 miles of the plant in 1971, and Figure 2.1-15 indicates their locations. Ten of these dairy farms were within 10 miles. The closest, owned by John Reiger and containing about 30 milking cows, was approximately 4 miles west of the plant. The only other dairy farm within 5 miles was that of Henry Noel. This dairy farm was approximately 5 miles northwest of the plant and had approximately 25 milking cows in 1973 (References 32, 33, and 34). The productive cows nearest the plant were located 3 miles north-northwest. Milk from these four cows was used for home consumption. Livestock and dairy operations within 10 miles of the plant had been going out of business. Tax increases over the past years (an increase of $40 per acre in 1972) and attractive offers for farmland ($ 1000 to $1500 per acre) resulted in many farmers selling their grazing and pastureland and accepting employment with local industries (Reference 31). Agricultural statistics for Monroe County indicated that in 1964 there were approximately 3549 dairy cattle. In 1972 there were only 2100 dairy cattle. The County Agricultural Cooperative Extension Service was then discouraging new livestock and dairy operations within the county; however, it was assisting established farms to remain in operation. Crop farmers in the county were able to continue their operations due to the high productivity of the land, which compensated for the large tax increases (Reference 31). In 1967, approximately 10 percent (approximately 37,700 acres) of the county's land was developed. However, agricultural land was being rapidly developed for nonagricultural purposes as the county became more urbanized. The comprehensive development plan of 1967 (Reference 35) for Monroe County called for the retention of agricultural land to serve as buffers between recommended major development corridors. Accordingly, this plan specified that the majority of land located west of U.S. Route 23 and U.S. Route 24, and west of Interstate 75 in the northeast quadrant of the county, be reserved primarily for agricultural use (Figure 2.1-16). 2.1-9 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR Economic projections showed that as the county grew and became more urbanized, some farmlands would be lost to urban development and farm employment would decrease. Farm employees would continue to be attracted to high-paying nonagricultural occupations, and farms would adopt additional labor-saving methods and machinery. It was estimated that by 1980 farm employment in the county would decrease to about 2 percent of the labor force as compared to 5.8 percent in 1960 (Reference 35). The small portion of Wayne County within 10 miles of the plant was predominantly a residential area and had only a limited amount of agricultural activity: small crops of field corn, soybeans, hay, and some fresh market vegetables. There were no dairy farms in this area in 1973 (Reference 36). Agricultural statistics of all counties within 50 miles of the plant site are presented in Tables 2.1-8 through 2.1-11 for the 1969 to 1971 time period (References 37 and 38). 2.1.4.2 Water Uses The most prominent body of water in the environs of the Fermi site is Lake Erie. Rivers and streams entering Lake Erie within 10 miles of the site are shown in Figure 2.1-17. The five drainage basins within a 10-mile radius of the site are as follows (Reference 39): Drainage Area Drainage Basin (square miles) Area between the Huron and 120 Rouge Basins Huron River 923 Stony and Swan Creeks 290 River Raisin 1,043 Southeast Monroe County 189 A detailed description of the hydrology of the region is presented in Section 2.4. 2.1.4.2.1 Potable Water Supplies As shown in Figure 2.1-18, privately owned wells and four municipal water systems served the area within 10 miles of the Fermi site in the 1970 time period. The four municipal systems are those of Detroit, Monroe, Flat Rock, and Toledo (Ohio). The Detroit system served most of Wayne County. In the area within 10 miles of the plant, this water system served portions of Brownstown Township, Rockwood, South Rockwood, the City of Carleton, and Berlin Township. The Flat Rock system served portions of Brownstown Township and Rockwood. The Monroe system, which has its intake on Lake Erie, served most of Frenchtown Township, the City of Monroe, and Monroe Township. The service area of the Toledo system included portions of La Salle and Erie Townships. Although these municipal water systems provided services in these areas, homeowners who had wells prior to the construction of the municipal water services were not obligated to use them. Consequently, about 15 percent of the homeowners in the service areas of these municipal systems were still obtaining their potable water from individually owned wells.

                                              . 2.1-10                           REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR Owners of newly constructed dwellings in these service areas, however, were obligated to obtain their potable water from the municipal system. Within 10 miles of the plant, homeowners outside the service areas of the municipal systems obtained their potable water from individually owned wells. These wells ranged in depth from 50 to 120 ft; however, well depths generally do not exceed 70 ft (Subsection 2.4.13.2). Throughout Monroe County there were approximately 6000 active wells in 1972, mostly in the western half of the county. The number of wells drilled from 1964 to 1972 in each of the townships wholly or partially within a 10-mile radius of the Fermi site was reported (Reference 40) to be as follows: Frenchtown 336 Ash 216 Raisinville 324 Berlin 207 Monroe 115 Exeter 132 La Salle 288 Figure 2.1-19 shows the approximate number of wells in use in 1972 and their distribution within 10 miles of the currently unused quarry at the Fermi site (Reference 41). The quality of well-water in Monroe County is generally poor. Efforts were being made for expanded use of municipal water services from the Detroit, Monroe, and Toledo systems. Plans in 1973 showed that Toledo would eventually serve not only La Salle and Erie Townships, but Bedford and Whiteford Townships as well (Reference 40). The Monroe system was planning a new treatment facility in the same region as the 1973 facility to increase the intake capacity to 4.5 billion gal per year, an increase of approximately 125 percent over the 1973 capacity. Future plans called for the servicing of the entire Frenchtown region, Raisinville, Dundee, and parts of London Township. No data on initial construction were available in 1972 (Reference 42). The Monroe water system has its intake on Lake Erie, in the Pointe Aux Peaux region, approximately 1 mile south of the Fermi site. The intake is 5260 ft long and 2.5 ft in diameter (Reference 43). The 1973 plans for the Detroit water system showed that Ash Township was considering the use of Detroit water, while Exeter and London Townships were negotiating for service (Reference 40). At one time, bottled water was being used as potable water by the communities along the Lake Erie shoreline because of the poor quality of the well-water. This condition has since been alleviated as a result of the services provided by the municipal water systems (Reference 40). The following 1973 data on other municipal water systems in Monroe County (Reference 43) are provided for reference: 2.1-11 REV 16 10/091

FERMI 2 UFSAR Distance (miles) and Direction Yearly Production System Source From Plant (millions of gallons) Area Served Village of River Raisin 19 W 70.8 Village of Dundee Dundee Village of 2 wells 21 WSW 53.0 Village of Petersburg Petersburg The Flat Rock water intake is located on the Huron River at a point about 10 miles north of the plant. Its average withdrawal is about 750,000 gal per day (Reference 44). Data on municipal water intakes (including those of Toledo and Monroe) from Lake Erie are presented in Table 2.1-12 (1969-1972 data). The locations of the intakes for these municipal water systems are shown in Figure 2.1-20 (References 31, 45, and 46). 2.1.4.2.2 Agricultural Water Supplies Within 10 miles of the plant in 1973, the Smith and Sons farm was the only agricultural user of surface water. The intake of this farm was on Swan Creek, at a point about 8 miles northwest of the plant. Water from this intake was used for irrigation and cattle watering. Within 50 miles of the plant, there were no known withdrawals of water from Lake Erie for agricultural irrigation or livestock watering. Previously existing withdrawals for agricultural purposes had been discontinued in this area. This was primarily a result of the residential development along the lakeshore (Reference 31). 2.1.4.2.3 Recreational Water Uses Along the shoreline of Lake Erie in Monroe County there are numerous communities with beach and boating facilities. Recreational activities at these places include swimming, water-skiing, motorboating, and sportfishing. The following are the principal recreational areas in the environs of the Fermi site: Distance (miles) and Community Direction From Plant Pointe Aux Peaux 1 S Stony Point 1 SSW Estral Beach 2 NE Woodland Beach 3 WSW Detroit Beach 4 WSW Avalon Beach 9. SW Toledo Beach 11 SW Luna Pier 15 SW The majority of the homes in these communities were at one time used as summer cottages; however, most of them were being used as permanent homes in 1973. The water quality along the beaches of these communities was below that required by applicable standards for sports involving body contact with the water. Sterling State Park, located along the Lake 2.1-12 REV 16 10/091

FERMI 2 UFSAR Erie shoreline 5 miles southwest of the plant site, was closed for swimming because of poor water quality. However, in spite of water quality and water-quality standards, water-sport activities continued to take place on the shoreline area in 1973 (Reference 40). 2.1.4.2.4 Fishing Sportfishing activities in the general environs of the Fermi site are conducted off the shores of Lake Erie and along the shores of the River Raisin, and Stony and Swan Creeks. Lake Erie fish include carp, sheepshead, bullheads, suckers, channel catfish, white bass, yellow perch, and walleye. Fish in the River Raisin and Stony and Swan Creeks include panfish, suckers, catfish, perch, and bass (Reference 47). There were approximately six commercial fishermen in 1973 who used the shores of Lake Erie in the Monroe County area. In 1971, the fish catch was approximately 172,736 lb, representing an estimated value of $24,343 (Reference 47). Commercial fishing in this area slackened over the 2-year period of 1972 and 1973 because of low availability of fish. However, as a result of improving conditions, it was predicted that commercial fishing would increase. A summary of commercial fish landings taken from Lake Erie statistical districts in 1971 is presented in Table 2.1-13 for the Province of Ontario, and Table 2.1-14 for the State of Ohio (References 48 and 49). The respective districts are illustrated in Figure 2.1-21. 2.1.4.2.5 Industrial Water Use Within 10 miles of the plant site, 1974 industrial users of Lake Erie water included the Fermi 1 Power Plant, the Monroe Power Plant, Union Camp Corporation, and Consolidated Packaging Corporation. The Fermi 1 plant, an oil-fired peaking unit located on the Fermi site, drew both potable and cooling water from Lake Erie. Potable water usage during 1971 and 1972 was 25 million gal per year and 19 million gal per year, respectively. It should be noted that the potable water system for Fermi 1 was the source of demineralized water for the construction of Fermi 2. Cooling water use averaged approximately 72 million gal per day when Fermi 1 was in operation. The Fermi 1 breeder reactor and oil-fired power plant have been permanently decommissioned. Four combustion turbine peakers are still in use on the site. The Monroe Power Plant, which is approximately 6 miles south-southwest of the Fermi site, obtains the major portion of its cooling water from Lake Erie at an intake located about 1300 ft from Lake Erie on the River Raisin. Monroe Unit I began operating in 1971, Unit 2 in 1972, Unit 3 in 1973, and Unit 4 in 1974. Each of these four units requires an average of 350,000 gpm for cooling purposes. Discharge is through a canal to Lake Erie. Their potable water supply is obtained from the City of Monroe (Reference 50). The Union Camp Corporation (Reference 51) and the Consolidated Packaging Corporation (Reference 52), both located in the City of Monroe, have their Lake Erie intakes in the Sterling State Park region, which is approximately 5 miles southwest of the Fermi site. The water is piped approximately 3 miles overland to the corporate sites. After usage, it is discharged into the River Raisin at a point approximately 2 miles inland from Lake Erie. Both of these industries share the same pumping and discharging facilities. Their average daily withdrawals are approximately 3 million and 2.6 million gal, respectively. Both facilities obtain their potable water supplies from the Monroe municipal water system. 2.1-13 REV 16 10/091

FERMI 2 UFSAR In Monroe, the Ford Motor Company has a large manufacturing plant (2700 employees) that has a water intake on the River Raisin at a point approximately 1.2 miles upriver from Lake Erie. From this intake, the Ford plant draws an average of approximately 12 million gal per day. This water is used for industrial purposes only. The potable water required for the plant is obtained from the City of Monroe at the rate of 200,000 gal per day (Reference 53). 2.1-14 REV 16 10/091

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.1 GEOGRAPHIC AND DEMOGRAPHY REFERENCES

1. Small Area Forecasting System for S. E. Michigan, 1972, Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, Detroit, Michigan, 1972.
2. 1970 Census of Population: General Population Characteristics, Report PC (I)-

B24, Michigan, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, August 1971.

3. 1970 Census of Population: Number of Inhabitants, Reports PC (1)-A24, Michigan, July 1971, and PC (1)-A37, Ohio, August 1971, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce.
4. Advance Bulletin: 1971 Census of Canada, Catalogue 92-753 (AP-2), Statistics, Ministry of Industry, Trade, and Commerce; Ottawa, Canada, June 1972.
5. 1966 Census of Canada Population of Counties and Subdivisions of Ontario, Catalogues No. 92-605, Vol. 1, Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Ministry of Industry, Trade, and Commerce, Ottawa, Canada 1967.
6. Michigan Population by County, 1960, 1970-1978, Research Division, Bureau of Programs and Budget, Executive Office, State of Michigan, 1972.
7. Ohio Population Forecasts, by County, Ohio Department of Development, Division of Economic and Community Affairs, State of Ohio, 1970.
8. Edgar C. Kidd, Needs for Seasonal Agricultural and Horticultural Labor in Monroe County, Extension Agricultural Agent, Monroe County, Monroe, Michigan, May 9, 1972.
9. Gerald Edgley, NUS Corporation, and Mr. Switlik, Museum Director, Monroe County Historical Museum, Monroe, Michigan, Telephone Conversations, March 3, 1973.
10. Place of Work, Residents 1970, Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, Detroit, Michigan, February 2, 1972.
11. 1970 Census Data, 1st Count, Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, Detroit, Michigan, February 2, 1972.
12. City of Monroe Land Use Plan, The Department of Community Development, Monroe, Michigan, August 1978.
13. Land Use Plan - Frenchtown Township, Monroe County, Michigan, Frenchtown Township Planning Commission, Parkins, Rogers and Associates, May 1977.
14. Personal conversation, Mr. Eric Anderson, Planner, City of Monroe, Michigan, Office of Community Development, March 20, 1979.
15. Staff Memorandum, Monroe County Planning Commission Staff, February 8, 1979.

2.1-15 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.1 GEOGRAPHIC AND DEMOGRAPHY REFERENCES

16. Louise Moore and Lawrence Kolbicka, NUS Corporation, and Barbara Needham, Director of Business and Administrative Services, Monroe County Intermediate School District, Monroe, Michigan, Meeting, February 1, 1973.
17. The Wayne County Intermediate School District Directory, 1972-73, The Wayne County Intermediate Office of Education, Wayne County, Michigan, 1972.
18. Gerald Edgley, NUS Corporation, and Mr. Kruse, Business Manager, Wayne County Intermediate School District, Telephone Conversation, February 14, 1973.
19. Gerald Edgley, NUS Corporation, and Mr. Peake, Superintendent of Schools, Monroe County Intermediate School District, Monroe, Michigan, Telephone Conversation, February 14, 1973.
20. Louise Moore, NUS Corporation, and Clerk, Registrar's Office, Monroe County Community College, Monroe, Michigan, Meeting, February 1, 1973.
21. Louise Moore, NUS Corporation, and Mrs. Kirkey, Beech Nursing Home, Monroe, Michigan, Conversation, February 1, 1973.
22. Louise Moore, NUS Corporation, and Clerk, Frenchtown Convalescent Center, Monroe, Michigan, Conversation, February 1, 1973.
23. Louise Moore, NUS Corporation, and Mrs. Gittleman, Lutheran Home for the Aged, Monroe, Michigan, Conversation, February 1, 1973.
24. Louise Moore, NUS Corporation, and Clerk, Monroe Convalescent Center, Monroe, Michigan, Conversation, February 1, 1973.
25. Louise Moore, NUS Corporation, and Mr. Joyner, Monroe Care Center, Monroe, Michigan, Conversation, February 1, 1973.
26. Louise Moore, NUS Corporation, and Miss Graizyk, Rockwood Children's Home, Rockwood, Michigan, Conversation, February 21, 1973.
27. Louise Moore, NUS Corporation, and Lieutenant Brown, Monroe County Sheriffs Office, Monroe, Michigan, Meeting, February 1, 1973.
28. Gerald Edgley, NUS Corporation, and Mr. James Akers, Director of Environmental Health, Monroe County, Monroe, Michigan, Telephone Conversation, February 17, 1973.
29. Gerald Edgley, NUS Corporation, and Mr. Smith, Park Authority, Monroe, Michigan, Telephone Conversation, February 17, 1973.
30. Gerald Edgley, NUS Corporation, and Mr. Scott, Fairgrounds Manager, Monroe County Fairgrounds, Monroe, Michigan, Telephone Conversation, March 3, 1973.
31. Lawrence R. Kolbicka, NUS Corporation, and Edgar C. Kidd, Extension Agricultural Agent, Monroe County, Monroe, Michigan, Meeting, February 2, 1973.

2.1-16 REV 16 10/091

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.1 GEOGRAPHIC AND DEMOGRAPHY REFERENCES

32. Lawrence R. Kolbicka, NUS Corporation, and Paul Nevel, Extension Dairy Agent, Monroe County, Monroe, Michigan, Meeting, February 2, 1973.
33. Lawrence R. Kolbicka, NUS Corporation, from Kenneth Van Pattern, Chief, Dairy Division, Department of Agriculture, Letter.
34. Lawrence R. Kolbicka, NUS Corporation, from R. N. Baker, D. V. M., Chief, Bureau of Consumer Health Protection, Board of Health, Toledo, Ohio, Letter, January 9, 1973.
35. Complan 2000, Comprehensive Development Plan for Monroe County, Monroe County Regional Planning Commission, Monroe County, Michigan, August 1967.
36. Lawrence R. Kolbicka, NUS Corporation, and Mr. Juchartz, Extension Agricultural Agent, Wayne County, Detroit, Michigan, Telephone Conversation, February 21, 1973.
37. 1969 Census of Agriculture - County Data, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, February 1973.
38. 1971 Census of Canada, Advanced Bulletin on Agricultural Statistics: (a) Census Farms by Size, Area, and Use of Farm Land; Catalogue 96-721 (AA-4), August 1972; (b) Areas and Census-Farms Reporting Field Crops; Catalogue 96-718 (AA- 1), July 1972; (c) Livestock and Poultry on Census-Farms; Catalogue 96-719 (AA-2), August 1972, Ministry of Industry, Trade, and Commerce, Ottawa, Canada.
39. The Water Resources of Southeastern Michigan, Lansing, Michigan, Michigan Water Resources Commission, Department of Conservation, February 1968.
40. Lawrence R. Kolbicka, NUS Corporation, and James E. Akers, Director, Environmental Health Department, Monroe County Health Department, Monroe, Michigan, Meeting, February 2, 1973.
41. The Detroit Edison Company, Answers to U.S. Atomic Energy Commission's Letter of April 20, 1972, on Quarry Operations, Enrico Fermi Unit 2, Docket 50-341, May 5, 1972.
42. Lawrence R. Kolbicka, NUS Corporation, and Mr. J. D. D'Haene, Supervisor of Filtration, Monroe Municipal Water System, Monroe, Michigan, Telephone Conversation, February 27, 1973.
43. Lawrence R. Kolbicka, NUS Corporation, and Mr. T. L. Vander Velde, Chief, Division of Water Supply, Bureau of Environmental Health, State of Michigan, Lansing, Michigan, Letter, January 12, 1973.
44. Lawrence R. Kolbicka, NUS Corporation, and Floyd Bransheau, Operator, Flat Rock Water Company, Flat Rock Township, Michigan, Telephone Conversation, February 27, 1973.

2.1-17 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.1 GEOGRAPHIC AND DEMOGRAPHY REFERENCES

45. Gerald Edgely, NUS Corporation, and the following officials, Telephone Communications:

Water Systems Name Title Ashtabula Mr. Smith Administrative Assistant Conneaut Mr. Coates Chief Operator Vermilion Mr. Strittrather Superintendant of Water Lorain Mr. Emerick Superintendant of Water Cleveland Mr. Mash Duty Project Engineer Fairport Mr. Killimen Superintendant of Water Erie Mr. Prazer Bureau Chief Buffalo Mr. Martin Senior Administrative Assistant Dunkirk Mr. Smagner Assistant Operator Port Colborne Mr. Farbiak Area Foreman Port Maitland Mr. Sakamopo Project Service Manager Port Stanley Mrs. Taylor Secretary-Treasurer Blenheim Mr. Gawley Secretary-Treasurer Leamington Mr. Sanger Secretary-Treasurer Kingsville Mr. Sanger Secretary-Treasurer Detroit Mr. Janeczko Public Information Monroe Mr. J. D. D'Haene Supervisor of Filtration Toledo Mr. Hixson Chief Engineer for Water Port Clinton Mr. Held Chief Operator Sandusky Mr. Showalter Assistant Superintendant Huron Mr. Hetrick Director of Utilities Port Dover Mr. Barry Foreman Wheatly Mr. Thompson Secretary-Treasurer

46. Lake Erie, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York Intake Water Quality, Summary 1970, Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, August 1971.
47. Lawrence R. Kolbicka, NUS Corporation, and Ned Fogie, Great Lakes Fish Specialist, Great Lakes Section, Fishery Division, Lansing, Michigan, Telephone Conversation, January 9, 1973.
48. Lawrence R. Kolbicka, NUS Corporation, and J. W. Rousom, Supervisor, Commercial Fish Section, Ministry of Natural Resources, Province of Ontario, Canada, Information Received, January 23, 1973.

2.1-18 REV 16 10/091

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.1 GEOGRAPHIC AND DEMOGRAPHY REFERENCES

49. Lawrence R. Kolbicka, NUS Corporation, and R. L. Scholl, Fish Management Supervisor, Lake Erie Fisheries Research Unit, Sandusky, Ohio, Information Received, January 11, 1973.
50. Lawrence R. Kolbicka, NUS Corporation, and Paul Murphy, Plant Superintendent, Monroe Power Plant, Monroe, Michigan, Telephone Conversation, February 27, 1973.
51. Gerald Edgely, NUS Corporation, and L. Mandwehr, Industrial Relations, Union Camp Corporation, Monroe, Michigan, Telephone Conversation, February 28, 1973.
52. Gerald Edgely, NUS Corporation, and Mr. Duval, Senior Plant Engineer, Consolidated Packaging Corporation, Monroe, Michigan, Telephone Conversation, February 28, 1973.
53. Lawrence R. Kolbicka, NUS Corporation, and Mr. Ash, Supervisor of Water and Waste Treatment, Ford Motor Company, Monroe, Michigan, Telephone Conversation, February 27, 1973.

2.1-19 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.1-1 TOWNS AND CITIES WITHIN 50 MILES OF THE FERMI SITE Distance (miles) and Town/Citya 1970 Population Direction From Site 0-10 Miles Stony Point 1,370 1 SSW Estral Beach 419 2NE Woodland Beach 2,249 3 WSW Detroit Beach 2,053 4 WSW Monroe (closest point) 23,894 5.5 SW South Monroe 3,012 6 SW South Rockwood 1,477 8N Patterson Gardens 2,169 9W Rockwood 3,119 9N Carleton 1,503 9 NW 10-20 Miles Flat Rock 5,643 11 N Gibralter 3,325 11 NNE Amherstburg, Ontario (Canada) 5,045 12 NE Luna Pier 1,418 12 SW Woodhaven 3,330 13 N Trenton 24,127 13 NNE Maybee 485 14 WNW Grosse Ile 7,799 15 NNE Riverview 11,342 17 NNE Harrow, Ontario (Canada) 1,964 18 ENE Southgate 33,909 18 N Harbor View, Ohio 238 19 SSW Reno Beach, Ohio 1,049 19S Wyandotte 41,061 19 NNE 20-30 Miles Dundee 2,472 20 W Taylor 70,020 20 N Belleville 2,406 21 NNW Allen Park 40,747 22 N Ecorse 17,515 22 NNE Page I of 5 REV 16 10/09 I

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.1-1 TOWNS AND CITIES WITHIN 50 MILES OF THE FERMI SITE Distance (miles) and Town/Citya 1970 Population Direction From Site Lambertville 5,721 22 SW Lincoln Park 52,984 22 NNE Melvindale 13,862 23 NNE Petersburg 1,227 23 W River Rouge 15,947 23 NNE Milan 4,533 24 WNW

Dearborn 109,

358 25N Inkster 38,420 25N Norwood 30,420 25 SSW Toledo, Ohio 383,818 25 SW Wayne 21,054 25 NNW Clay Center 370 26 S Essex, Ontario (Canada) 3,941 26 NE Deerfield 834 27 W Detroit 1,511,482 27 NE Garden City 41,864 27N Kingsville, Ontario (Canada) 3,952 27 ENE Ottawa Hills, Ohio 4,270 27 SW

Dearborn Heights 80,

069 28N Milbury, Ohio 771 28 SSW Sylvania, Ohio 12,031 28 SW Windsor, Ontario (Canada) 200,790 28 NNE Westland 86,749 28 NNW Ypsilanti 29,538 28 NW Britton 697 29 W Genoa, Ohio 2,139 29 S Rocky Ridge, Ohio 385 29 S Rossford, Ohio 5,302 29 SSW Walbridge, Ohio 3,208 29 SSW 30-40 Miles Highland Park 35,444 31 NNE Oak Harbor, Ohio 2,807 31 SSE Put-bn-Bay, Ohio 135 31 SE Saline 4,811 31 WNW Tecumseh, Ontario (Canada) 124 31 NE Blissfield 2,758 32 WSW Page 2 of 5 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.1-1 TOWNS AND CITIES WITHIN 50 MILES OF THE FERMI SITE Distance (miles) and Town/Citya 1970 Population Direction From Site Elmore, Ohio 1,316 32 S Holland, Ohio 1,108 32 SW Maumee, Ohio 15,937 32 SW Perrysbury, Ohio 7,693 32 SW Plymouth 11,758 32 NNW St. Clair Beach, Ontario (Canada) 1,931 32 NE Ann Arbor 99,797 33 WSW Berkey, Ohio 294 33 S Woodville, Ohio 1,834 33 S Hamtramck 27,245 34 NNE Hazel Park 23,784 34 NNE Leamington, Ontario (Canada) 10,229 34 E Port Clinton, Ohio 7,202 34 SSE Grosse Pointe Park 15,585 35 NNE Grosse Pointe 6,637 36 NNE Luckey, Ohio 996 36 SSW Oak Park 36,762 36 N Tecumseh 7,120 36W Farmington 13,337 37N Belle River, Ontario (Canada) 2,739 37 NE Metamora, Ohio 594 37 WSW Northville 5,400 37 NNW Clinton 1,677 37 WNW Femdale 30,850 38 NNE Gibsonbury, Ohio 2,585 38 S Grosse Pointe Farms 11,701 38 NNE Huntington Woods 8,536 38N Lathrup Village 1,429 38N Novi 9,668 38 NNW Pemberville, Ohio 1,301 38 SSW Quaker Town 837 38N Pleasant Ridge 3,989 38N Berkley 22,618 39 N Center Line 10,379 39 NNE Grosse Pointe Shores 3,042 39 NNE Grosse Pointe Woods 21,878 39 NE Harper Woods 20,186 39N Marblehead, Ohio 726 39 SE Page 3 of 5 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.1-1 TOWNS AND CITIES WITHIN 50 MILES OF THE FERMI SITE Distance (miles) and Town/City' 1970 Population Direction From Site Wood Creek Farms 1,090 39 N 40-50 Miles Adrian 20,382 40 W Franklin 10,075 40 N Haskins, Ohio 549 40 SW Quaker Town North 7,101 40 N Royal Oak 85,499 40 N Bay View 798 41 SE Beverly Hills 13,598 41 N Bingham Farms 566 41 N East Detroit 45,920 41 NNE Helena, Ohio 298 41 S Madison Heights 38,599 41 NNE Southfield 69,285 41 N South Lyon 2,675 41 NNW Warren 179,260 41 NNE Waterville, Ohio 2,940 41 SW Wheatley, Ontario (Canada) 1,631 41 ENE Ballville, Ohio 1,652 42S Birmingham 26,170 42 N Clawson 17,617 42 N Dexter 1,729 42 NW Fremont, Ohio 18,490 42 SSE Manchester 1,650 42 WNW St. Clair Shores 88,093 42 NNE Stoney Prairie, Ohio 1,913 42S Witmore Lake 2,763 42 NW Wixom 2,010 42 NNW Bowling Green, Ohio 21,760 43 SSW Bradner, Ohio 1,140 43S Roseville 60,529 43 NNE Tontogany, Ohio 395 43 SW Walled Lake 3,759 43 NNW Bloomfield Hills 3,672 44 N Castalia, Ohio 1,045 44 SSE Fraser 11,868 44 NNE Page 4 of 5 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.1-1 TOWNS AND CITIES WITHIN 50 MILES OF THE FERMI SITE Distance (miles) and Town/Citya 1970 Population Direction From Site Sandusky, Ohio 32,674 45 SE Lyons, Ohio 630 45 WSW Troy 39,419 45 N Wayne, Ohio 921 45 SSW Wolverine Lake 4,301 45 NNW Delta, Ohio 2,544 46 WSW Orchard Lake Village 1,487 46 N Sterling Heights 61,365 46 NNE Burgoon, Ohio 221 47 S Clyde, Ohio 5,503 47 SSE Portage, Ohio 494 47 SSW Chelsea 3,858 48 NW Bettsville, Ohio 833 48 S Brighton 2,457 48 NNW Grand Rapids, Ohio 976 48 SW Keego Harbor 3,092 48 N Milford 4,699 48 NNW Onsted 555 48 W Rising Sun, Ohio 730 48 S Sandusky South, Ohio 8,501 48 SE Sylvan Lake 2,219 48 N Tilbury, Ontario (Canada) 2,572 48 ENE Green Springs, Ohio 1,279 49 SSE Pontiac 85,279 49 N Utica 3,504 49 NNE West Milgrove, Ohio 215 49 SSW Weston, Ohio 1,269 49 SSW Clair Haven West 1,367 50 NNE Clayton 773 50W Mt. Clemens 20,476 50 NNE Jerry City, Ohio 470 50 SSW Pinckney 921 50 NW Towns and cities identified by the 1970 Census of Population. Page 5 of 5 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.1-2 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION WITHIN THE LOW-POPULATION ZONE Direction 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 N 387 504 612 771 970 1,021 NNE 267 348 422 532 669 842 NE 428 557 678 863 1,073 1,350 ENE 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 ESE 0 0 0 0 0 0 SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 SSE 0 0 0 0 0 0 S 445 579 705 886 1,116 1,404 SSW 1,682 2,191 2,662 3,349 4,216 5,307 SW 225 293 356 448 564 710 WSW 940 1,224 1,487 1,872 2,356 2,966 W 144 167 128 287 361 455 WNW 91 118 144 182 228 287 NW 184 240 291 367 462 581 NNW 603 785 954 1,201 1,512 1,902 TOTAL 5,396 7,006 8,439 10,748 13,527 16,825 Page I of I REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.1-3 SCHOOLS WITHIN 10 MILES OF THE FERMI SITE Distance (miles) and School' 1972 Enrollment Direction From Plant Site

1. Brest 163 2.5 WSW
2. Jefferson High 848 2.8 W
3. Jefferson Jr. High 928 2.8 W Jefferson Elementary 155
4. St. Charles Schools 257 3 NNW
5. St. Anne School 205 4 WSW
6. Henry Niedermeir Elementary 230 4 NW
7. Hurd Road Elementary 752 5 WSW
8. Pt. Moulier School 57 5 NNE
9. Airport Elementary 340 6 NW
10. Golden Elementary 166 7W
11. Zion Lutheran School 174 7 WSW
12. Cantrick Jr. High 1,437 7 WSW
13. Hollywood Elementary 455 7 WSW
14. Fred W. Riter Elementary 396 7N
15. Christiancy Elementary 406 7 WSW
16. St. Mary Parish School 357 7 WSW
17. Orchard Elementary 137 8 WSW
18. Lincoln Elementary 700 8 WSW
19. Monroe Catholic Central 454 8 WSW
20. Riverside Elementary 298 8 WSW
21. Trinity Lutheran School 275 8 WSW
22. Monroe High 2,842 8 WSW
23. St. Mary Academy 526 8 WSW
24. Hall of the Divine Child 218 8 WSW
25. St. John School 230 8 WSW
26. St. Michael's School 350 8 WSW
27. Manor Elementary 339 8 WSW
28. Chapman Elementary 378 8N
29. Rockwood Elementary 286 8N
30. Borrow Elementary 170 9N
31. Airport Community High 1,417 9 NW
32. South Monroe Townsite Elementary 357 9 WSW
33. Waterloo Elementary 257 9 WSW
34. Holy Ghost Lutheran School 101 9 WNW
35. Parsons Elementary 748 9 NW
36. Church Street Elementary 345 9 NW
37. St. Mary 345 9 NW
38. Carleton High and Jr. High 1,782 9 NW
39. Raisinville Elementary 654 loW
40. St. Patrick School 240 1OWNW
41. Carleton Elementary 227 .10 NW
42. Custer Elementary I 949 10 WSW Page I of 2 REV 17 05/11

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.1-3 SCHOOLS WITHIN 10 MILES OF THE FERMI SITE Distance (miles) and Schoola 1972 Enrollment Direction From Plant Site

43. Custer Elementary II 428 10 WSW
44. Monroe County Community College 1,676 11 WSW TOTAL (within 10 miles) 23,183 a Numbers refer to Figure 2.1-13.

Page 2 of 2 REV 17 05/11

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.1-4 HOSPITALS AND NURSING FACILITIES WITHIN 10 MILES OF THE FERMI SITE Distance (miles) and Hospital/Nursing Home Number of Beds Direction From Plant Site Frenchtown Convalescent Center 226 6W Memorial Hospital of Monroe 78 7W Mercy Hospital 126 7 WSW Monroe Convalescent Center 85 7 WSW Rockwood Children's Home 8 8N Monroe County Shelter 17 8 WSW Beech Nursing Home 123 8 WSW Lutheran Home for the Aged 102 9 WSW Monroe Care Center (a nursing facility) 103 9 WSW TOTAL 868 Page I of I REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.1-5 RECREATIONAL AREAS WITHIN 10 MILES OF THE FERMI SITE Park/Recreational Facility /Museuma Distance (miles) and Direction

1. Estral Beach 2 NNE
2. Stony Point Beach 2S
3. Woodland Beach 3 WSW
4. Frenchtown Parkb 4W
5. Willow Beach 4 WSW
6. Detroit Beach 4 WSW
7. Sterling State Parkb 5 SW
8. Point Mouillee State Game Areab 5 NE
9. Point Mouillee State Game Areab 6 NE
10. Custer Park 6 WSW
11. Lake Erie Marshes 7 WSW
12. Heck Park 7 WSW
13. Soldiers and Sailors Park 8 WSW
14. Custer Museumb 8 WSW
15. Monroe County Historical Museumb 8 WSW
16. Bolles Harbor Public Boat Ramp 9 SW
17. Plum Creek Park 9 WSW
18. Waterloo Park 9 WSW
19. Avalon Beach 10 SW
20. Monroe County Fairgroundsb 10W
21. Huron River (canoeing) 12 WNW a Numbers refer to Figure 2.1-14.

b Attendance data were available for the following six facilities: Number of Visitors Annually Sterling State Park 385,394 Custer Museum 12,000 Monroe County Historical Museum 45,000 Monroe County Fairgrounds 110,000 Frenchtown Park 20,000-30,000 (1974 estimates) Point Mouillee State Game Area 180,000 User Days* A User Day is defined as one person using the facility for at least several hours at a time. Page I of I REV 16 10/09 I

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.1-6 NEEDS FOR SEASONAL AGRICULTURAL AND HORTICULTURAL LABOR IN MONROE COUNTYa Winter Peak Only March April May June July Augus September October November Nursery and Landscape Number of 300 - 200 300 300 200 175 175 300 300 200 Workers Percent Migrants 15 - 0 5 15 20 20 10 10 10 10 Commercial Fruits Number of 140 10 20 40 40 120 40 40 140 140 60 Workers Percent Migrants 40 0 0 10 10 40 10 10 40 40 20 Greenhouse Produce Number of 120 120 60 60 50 30 10 10 10 20 20 Workers Percent Migrants 20 20 25 25 25 10 10 10 10 10 10 Commercial Vegetables, Tomatoes Number of 1200 30 40 250 300 300 500 1000 1200 1200 150 Workers Percent Migrants 50 0 0 10 10 10 30 45 45 50 10 General Farm Produce Number of 500 50 50 250 300 200 250 250 450 500 250 Workers Percent Migrants 5 0 0 0 5 10 10 5 5 5 0 Potatoes Number of 75 20 10 20 25 25 40 60 75 75 40 Workers Percent Migrants 60 20 0 10 10 10 20 50 60 60 20 Page I of 2 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.1-6 NEEDS FOR SEASONAL AGRICULTURAL AND HORTICULTURAL LABOR IN MONROE COUNTYa Winter Peak Only March Apri May June July August September October November Totals Number of 2335 230 380 920 1015 875 1015 1535 2165 2335 720 Workers Percent 12 4 7 11 17 11 30 32 34 8 Migrants Average Number 795 28 15 61 110 144 223 515 695 795 57 Migrants "Seasonal worker" does not include farm manager, year-round hired labor, paid or unpaid year-round workers of the immediate farm family, or pick-your-own consumers. "Seasonal worker" includes migrant laborers, students, neighbors, trade-off time efforts, and others who work for I week or more during the year, at one location. Page 2 of 2 REV 16 10/09 I

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.1-7 DAIRIES WITHIN 18 MILES OF THE FERMI SITE Distance (miles) and Direction From Number and Ownera Number of Cows Plant Site

1. Fred Kemp 35 10 NW
2. Henry Noel 25 5 NW
3. William King 12 7 NNW
4. Robert Reaume 25 6 NW
5. Irving Langton 25 I0NW
6. F. Hawley and 50 8 NW J. Van Buskirk
7. Laurence Mieden 25 10 NW
8. John Reiger 30 4W
9. Fred Falkenberg 35 9 WNW
10. Frank Kominek 25 11 WNW II. William McGowan 30 12 WNW
12. Earl and Robert Nowitzke 40 10 NW
13. William Barnaby, Jr. 15 16W
14. George and Ruth Doty 49 13W
15. Wilbert Knapp 20 15 W
16. Rolland Lemerand 30 16W
17. Stella Opferman 30 14W
18. Alvin Parron 44 14W
19. Lloyd Schafer 29 15 W
20. M. Knapp and W. Young 50 17W
21. Glenn Lassey 45 13 WSW
22. Arnold Hotchkiss 40 15W
23. Donald Doty 35 12W
24. Jerome Verhille 6 13 WNW
25. Robert Doty 20 13 WNW
26. St. Mary's Farm 93 11W
27. Glen Johnson 49 11 WSW
28. Reuhs Bros. 149 18W
29. Julius Jaworski 71 18W Numbers refer to Figure 2.1-15.

Page I of I REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.1-8 FARM SIZE. FARMLAND USE, AND FARM SALES OF COUNTIES WITHIN 50 MILES OF THE FERMI SITE (1969) FARMLAND USE (ACRES) FARM SALES (THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) CROPLAND Value of All Average Agricultural Crops Including Livestock, Land Area Land in Percent Fann Products Sold Nursery Poultry, of County Farms of Land Number Size Pasture or All Other All Other Irrigated Average Products and Forest and their COUNTY (Acres) (Acres) in Farms of Farms (Acres) Total Harvested Grazing Cropland' Woodland Land Land Total Per Farm Hay Products Products MICHIGAN Monroe 356,544 253,927 71.2 2.000 126.9 221,396 162,585 4,001 54.810 15,292 17,239 726 20,052 10.0 2 40 6,317 Wayne 387,200 49,527 12.8 597 82.9 38.887 25,562 2,378 10,947 4,567 6,073 326 5,865 9.8 4,866 6 993 Macomb 307,328 96,934 31.5 997 97.2 77,368 47,335 6,901 23,132 9.029 10,537 1,248 13,382 13.4 9,122 22 4.237 Oakland 554.560 101,820 18.4 863 117.9 68,085 33,362 14,182 20,541 13,706 20,029 499 8,852 10.2 4,387 43 4.421 Livingston 366,080 174,047 47.5 1,099 158.3 119,832 71,810 16,496 31,526 21,125 33.090 702 11,228 10.2 2,855 56 8.317 Washtenaw 464,720 260,283 57.2 1,699 153.1 196,810 126,019 24,074 46,717 26.136 37.337 490 18,439 10.8 5,293 50 13,097 Jackson 446.848 258,094 57.8 1,577 163.6 175,259 100,751 25.618 48,890 27,559 55,276 573 16,923 10.7 3.516 62 13.346 Lenawee 481,856 403,602 83.8 2,558 157.7 335,283 241.044 12,293 81,946 30.913 37.406 640 31,912 12.5 13,427 33 18,453 OHIO Fulton 260,288 239,839 92.1 1.738 137.9 207,129 166,959 4,477 35,693 15,942 16,768 119 35,663 20.5 10,302 35 25.327 Lucas 219,776 98,521 44.8 785 125.5 88,640 74,932 1,726 11,982 4,264 5.617 279 12,386 15.8 9,646 6 2,739 Henry 265,920 266,064 100.1 1,695 156.9 238,297 200,319 5.062 32,916 11,632 16.135 13 25,876 15.3 15,088 12 10.776 Wood 396,288 371.279 93.7 2.181 170.2 333,725 280,223 7,411 46.091 16,998 20.556 326 28.256 12.9 18,202 I 10.053 Putman 311.040 306,085 98.4 1,975 154.9 272,049 231,113 9.436 31.500 16,129 17,979 123 30,056 15.2 15.738 21 14,297 Seneca 352,640 329,755 93.5 1.887 174.7 271.501 207,941 13.167 50,393 31,816 26,438 112 20.873 11.1 11,562 33 9.277 Ottawa 167,296 130,272 77.9 976 133.0 115,093 87,620 1,910 25,563 5,493 9,686 302 9.254 9.4 6.212 7 3,035 Sandusky 261,888 240,924 92.0 1,488 161.9 208.239 160,598 6,939 40,702 13.852 18.903 566 21,225 14.2 13,188 17 8.020 Erie 168,832 106,733 63.2 702 152.0 87,830 64.461 3,434 19,935 7,869 11,034 207 9,026 12.8 4.863 15 4,143 ONTARIO CANADA Kent 616.320 559.811 d 3,748 d 484,482 d 21,229 11.076 16.296 32,911 d d d d d d Essex 460,160 353,203 d 3,768 d 318,138 d 5.573 9.978 9,279 8,248 d d d d d d Includes cropland used for soil-improvement crops, crops failure, cultivated summer fallow and idle cropland. bIncludes pastureland other than cropland and woodland pasture, rangeland. and land in house lots, bam lots, ponds, roads, etc. Represents market value, before taxes and expenses, of all agricultural products sold by all farms in the census areas. 'Data not available. Page I of I REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.1-9 CROPS HARVESTED IN U.S. COUNTIES WITHIN 50 MILES OF THE FERMI SITE (1969) Field Corn Sorphum Other Green House _______ + _______ Small Veg. and Land in Other Products Under Grain Silage Grain Silage Wheat Grains Soy Beans Hay Potatoes Melons Berries Orchards Crops Glass County Acres Bushels Acres Acres Bushels Acres Acres Bushels Acres Bushels Tons Acres Snuiare feet MICHIGAN Lenawee 77,037 7,069,410 12.682 104 4,492 96 31,343 1,379,556 15,532 78.292 2.213.558 61.216 276 1.340 5 719 3.932 128,400 Jackson 31.384 2,389.527 9,211 - - 114 9.963 577,637 10.287 1,431 25.999 87,817 184 961 64 1,126 2.443 36,000 Washtenaw 37,167 3,058.604 7,423 159 4,208 265 15,489 596,895 14.486 11.439 287,359 89.833 340 1.929 66 773 1.991 357.921 Livingston 19.418 1,479.003 8,061 - - 134 6,418 233,206 5.688 723 16.108 77,040 23 475 19 763 2,324 21.136 Oakland 7.862 603,518 1,792 3 180 23 3,540 130,298 2,907 355 7,351 33,208 96 615 52 1,232 607 984,360 Macomb 10,188 796.486 3.789 25 800 24 4.837 176.756 4,514 3,021 76.976 29,855 482 5.480 28 1.458 1,962 1,770,327 Wayne 4,275 295,448 448 - - - 2,177 74,820 1,258 11,537 237.768 5,597 8 2,174 39 469 716 1,196,462 Monroe 39,262 3.518.839 3.524 66 4,030 48 22,684 902.666 9.283 70,220 1,826,878 16,125 2,670 4,899 70 503 4.694 630,306 OHIO Erie 17,754 1,396,548 2,097 112 3,770 20 10,810 393,438 4,636 17,174 422,382 14,742 114 3.946 28 1.305 2,378 645.000 Sandusky 43,863 3,451,504 3,449 1.341 80,513 45 20,595 769,702 8,237 54,651 1,481,979 33,877 357 7.254 46 1.409 8,159 86,840 Ottawa 10,124 670,171 1.285 270 18.250 18 13,109 429.732 5,939 37,348 791.278 28,920 2 2,827 9 1.741 4.112 33,480 Seneca 57,490 4.801,680 2,959 22 1,650 48 31.221 1,443.581 13,710 81.916 2.269.753 40.243 181 1,694 16 24 4.183 111,600 Putman 64,934 5,575.890 2,789 223 14,763 28 27.129 1.091.547 11,314 96,768 2.650,298 33.322 261 5.236 9 14 10.995 - Wood 85,879 6,313,301 3,445 30 2,975 80 40,787 1,688,582 20,604 103,803 2,749,362 48,286 13 3,336 36 69 6,513 431.796 Henry 64.190 5,627,260 2,947 12 550 6 26,306 1.141,355 10,060 78.233 2,336,747 27.171 57 3,888 5 22 7,067 3.000 Lucas 22,048 1.878.614 877 - - 7.628 323,785 2,760 31,038 787,416 9.631 771 3.653 23 612 2,844 3,203,755 Fulton 69.122 6.330,547 10.556 50 1.000 46 17.326 742.313 6.529 50,984 1,454,446 24,669 839 2,834 21 124 695 40.148 Page I of I REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.1-10 CROPS HARVESTED IN CANADIAN COUNTIES WITHIN 50 MILES OF THE FERMI SITE (1971) Ontario Province County-Kent Essex Corn Grain 233,745 81,002 Silage 18,013 6,479 Wheat 43,299 48,724 Oats Grain 18,453 12,719 Silage 267 350 Barley 4,962 2,068 Mixed grain 2,226 .516 Rye 340 158 Field beans 11,719 492 Tame hay 10,537 13,521 Soy beans 115,119 118,703 Potatoes 505 3,186 Tobacco 2,005 963 Other field crops 1,322 661 a All figures are in acres. Page I of I REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2. 1-11 LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY OF COUNTIES WITHIN 50 MILES OF THE FERMI SITE (1969) Chickens County Cattle Milk Cows Hogs Sheep Horses Total Hens Monroe 13,984 2,190 15,408 4,441 942 106,870 104,781 Wayne 2,328 537 1,584 500 669 32,362 31,758 Macomb 12,574 4,966 2,649 1,683 737 62,489 61,306 Oakland 12,008 2,820 3,009 2,584 2,442 58,162 57,779 Livingston 27,660 9,508 5,812 7,497 1,426 10,550 8,721 Washtenaw 33,588 10,550 23,890 53,361 1,961 126,700 111,633 Jackson 40,794 9,566 15,283 17,327 1,616 64,048 59,572 Lenawee 46,691 10,822 39,036 12,765 1,523 284,342 258,350 Fultonfa 39,548 6,340 71,393 2,922 670 566,494 436,571 Lucasa 3,968 499 10,470 421 250 113,068 112,861 Henrya 13,744 3,686 23,026 4,103 412 513,142 416,951 Wooda 23,376 1,622 23,093 7,160 812 109,996 108,852 Putnam a 20,686 6,348 57,715 6,713 285 571,304 478,747 Senecaa 19,352 7,587 38,744 22,911 680 106,832 99,468 Ottawa a 5,645 1,876 5,643 1,040 200 140,324 123,916 Sandusky' 18,801 3,973 21,959 6,465 566 137,632 110,883 Erie' 8,212 3,604 7,108 2,489 437 71,477 31,808 Kentb 47,883 1,500 113,070 3,934 1,132 452,558 286,199 Essexb 16,162 6,505 27,520 865 1,133 381,461 199,870 a Counties located in Ohio. b Counties located in Canada. Page I of I REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.1-12 MUNICIPAL WATER INTAKES FROM LAKE ERIE Percent Distance Withdrawal Number of People to Percent to (miles) From Intake Point Year (106 gal/year) Served Industry Residents Plant Sitea Monroe 1972 2,000 40,000 35 65 6 Toledo 1972 29,200 500,000 40 60 28 Kingsville 1972 156 1,400 10 90 28 Leamington 1972 450 10,000 50 50 32 Port Clinton 1971 577 12,000 10 90 37 Wheatley 1972 114 1,059 54 46 42 Sandusky 1972 3,960 47,000 60 40 48 Huron 1972 450-500 7,500 33 67 53 Vermilion 1972 33 9,000 62 Lorain 1972 5,027 85,000 39 61 70 Blenheim 1972 90 4,000 5 95 70 Cleveland 1972 130,875 2,000,000 52 48 93 Fairport 1971 274 36,000 66 34 108 Port Stanley 1971 88 (summer 0 100 112 residents only) Ashtabula 1972 1,900 34,000-36,000 45 55 130 Conneaut 1969 477 15,000 52 48 140 Erie 1972 16,700 180,000 35 65 167 Port Dover 1972 165 4,000-7,000 10 90 170 Port Maitland 1972 4,100 1,000 90 10 197 Dunkirk 1972 1,487 30,000 51 49 207 Port Colbome 1972 1,191 20,000 5 95 212 Buffalo 1972 47,950 500,000 30 70 233 See Figure 2.1-20 for locations. Page I of I REV 16 10/09 j

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.1-13

SUMMARY

OF COMMERCIAL FISH LANDINGS (POUNDS) BY STATISTICAL DISTRICT FOR 1971 FOR THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIOa Totals Species S.D. 1 S.D. 2 S.D. 3 S.D. 4 S.D. 5 Pounds Dollars Bowfin 19,640 - 19,640 589 Bullhead 34,259 383 34,642 5,307 Carp 27,052 522 23,233 1,793 52,600 3,548 Catfish 38,514 40,949 11,159 9,207 1,207 101,036 24,474 Northern Pike 15 1,642 410 2,067 323 Yellow Perch 3,770,391 6,383,547 2,880,354 360,175 523,144 13,917,611 3,563,039 Suckers 4,536 262 65 5,488 2,192 12,543 1,248 Rock Bass 284 18,439 8,271 26,994 5,987 Freshwater Drum 355 65,946 9,460 8,424 8,788 92,973 2,953 Smelt 12,324 958,481 1,117,242 11,041,802 526 13,130,375 571,461 Sunfish 84,271 - 84,271 23,664 White Bass 3,210 9,274 44,006 23,869 11,668 92,027 22,182 Lake Whitefish 630 21 179 2 832 312 Yellow Pickerel 5,300 1,703 6 117 23,049 30,175 15,272 Others 371,153 985,503 16,451 25,900 78,766 1,477,773 14,333 Total Catch (lb) 4,233,465 8,446,492 4,078,758 11,656,645 660,199 29,075,559 Total Value ($) 896,694 1,719,527 852,174 613,199 173,098 4,254,692 a See Figure 2.1-21 for district areas. Page I of I REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.1-14

SUMMARY

OF COMMERCIAL FISH LANDINGS (POUNDS) BY STATISTICAL DISTRICT FOR 1971 FOR THE STATE OF OHIOa Species S.D. 6 S.D. 7 S.D. 8 S.D. 9 Totals Buffalo 6,628 35 100 2,347 9,110 Bullhead 14,753 55 4 21,657 36,469 Carp 2,237,111 10,058 44 912,211 3,159,424 Catfish 423,822 9,882 78 193,518 627,300 Freshwater Drum 245,313 138,085 856 441,982 826,236 Goldfish 2,754 1 76,821 79,576 Quillback 27,644 412 28,056 Smelt 230 183 413 Suckers 67,675 19,636 138 31,020 118,469 White Bass 676,287 62,989 4,687 184,949 928,912 Yellow Perch 691,726 937,868 531,917 27,395 2,188,906 Total Catch 4,393,943 2,358,408 537,824 1,891,900 8,002,871 a See Figure 2.1-21 for district areas. Page I of I REV 16 10/09 1

N OAv WISCONSIN Buffalo Milvmuke' NEW YORK Chicago Cleveland I ILLINOIS INDIANA OHIO PENNSYLVANIA 0 Indianapolis WEST 4 Cincinnati VIRGINIA Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT 0 50 100 SI I II SCALE IN MILES FIGURE 2.1-1 SITE LOCATION

BRANCH

  ------                r    +on~
  • cowpmam Dosusdiy, A. Cm.s&Toww UPD~~ED 2 Fern~t FiNAL SAFElY ANAI.YSIS ~EPQRI~

Fermi FINAL. SAFETY UPWWTE 2 ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.1-2 SITE - SURROUNDING REGION

LEGEND County Lines Towns & Cities Interstate & U.S. Highway Numbers, Latitude Lines Railroads Township Lines 0 4 8 12 I

  • a . . .

SCALE IN MILES Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 21-3

REFERENCE:

SITE - IMMEDIATE ENVIRONS ADAPTED FROM DETROIT EDISON COMPANY SERVICE AREA GENERAL MAP. 1971

1*

                                  '.4j Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.1-4 SITE AERIAL VIEW

NORMALRAOIOLOGICAL RELEASEPOINATS rl GASEOUS A uoo

                                                                -      -    -     LIQU0U        -    nICED AREA BOUDART
                                                                     .      -    GASEOUS          ElESM GASEOUS    RELEASE  ELEVATION IREACTOR    AULDOING        -051 ft.
3. ONSESTORAGE SUILDHIG -6`78 A.
4. BUTERILDING -8,m M.
5. TUR-BIE BUILDING -720 fl.

ITSDURAING WASPREPARED FROM C*OSRHYIS GENERAL YARDA FILESANDAEpItL PHOTOGRAPH OUTEDA INS. My CES OR REVISIONS SMALL BE REPERRED TO TrEARC-I/CIVIL]*ESION OF GENERATION ENGINEERING ODEpTSENT. ALL PREVOLSREVISIONS TO THIS OCUMENT RAVE BEONAPPROVD BY DETROT EDISON AD AMEON GICROPZLM IN OCIMRNT CONTROL. Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2i1-5 SITE PLOT PLAN DETROrr EDISON COMPANY DRAVANGNO. SA721-2102, .REV. V (MARKUP) REV 19 10/14

Annulus 0-1 Mi. 1-2 Mi. 2-3 Mi. 3-4 Mi._ 4-5 Mi. 5-10 Mi. Total 20-30 Mi. 30-40 Mi. 40-50 Mi. Total Total Annulus 10-20 Mi. I 0-10 Mi. P 1 0-50 -504926 3035 2094 3103 2636 52828 63963 Population 268181 11631606 12402120 [1132390 1 5434297 154982 60 Population 267 NOTE: See Corresponding Maps, Figures 2.1-2 And 2.1-3 S ValuesFoe0-1 MileAensus N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE 01 0 0 0 0 0 i:0 0 1t951 68 0 0 0 1 0i 1 4 10 1 Fermi 2 S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.1-6 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION - 1970 0-10 MILES AND 10-50 MILES

I I I I I51D~1 Total Annulus 0-1 Mi. 1-2 Mi. 2-3 Mi. 3-4 Mi. 4-5 Mi. -10 mi. 0-10Mi. 20-30 Mi. 30-40 Mi Mi.4 Total Totl Annulus 10-20 Mi. I I 3040 ~oo 110-50 Mi. II0-50 Mi. Population 348 3952 2726 4040 3431 65814 80311 Population 290487 1714400 12464003 1549577 601846711 6098778 N IN Note: See Corresponding Maps, Figures 2.1-2 And 2.1-3 S ValueFor 0-1 MileAnnulus N NNE E ENE E ESE SE SSE Fo I 0 1 0 1 I 0 0l 0 1 0 Fermi 2 1254 191 91 0 1 0 10 1 51 0 1 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT

                      $   SW      SW    WSW       W    WNW     NW NNW FIGURE 2.1-7 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION - 1980 0-10 MILES AND 10-40 MILES

0-1 Mi. 1-2 Mi. 2-3 Mi. 3-4 Mi. 4-5 Mi. 5-10 Mi. Total Annulus I I I I 11 0-10 Mi. Annulus 10-20 Mi. 20-30 Mi. 30-40 Mi. 40-50 Mi. Total Total SI 10- Mi. 0-50 Mi. Population 423 4802 3314 4909 4171 79597 97216 Population 342833 1962184 2699620 1839752 6844389 6941605 Nd w Note: See Corresponding Maps, Figures 2.1-2 And 2.1-3 ValuesFor 0-1 MileAnnulus N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE [o1l0 l0l1 0o1 10 10 1 13091108 1 0 1 0 0I I 6 1o I Fermi 2 S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.1-8 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION - 1990 0-10 MILES AND 10-60 MILES

Total 0-1 Mi. 1-2 Mi. 2-3 Mi. 3-4 Mi. 4-5 Mi. 5-10 Mi. 0-0al Total Total Annulus Annulus 10-20 Mi. 20-30 Mi. 30-40 Mi. 40-50 Mi. o 51 0-10 Mi. mi. 0-50 mi. 2 1 PIp1io10-50 Population 531 16045 14172 161791 5250 198161 1120338 Population 3898 12 12 211899 130794 97 123 698711805 10791181714 17 w I Note: See Corresponding Maps, Figures 2.1-2 And 2.1-3 S Values Foe0-1 MileAnnulus N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE 0 1 0 0 0 0 1i Fermi 2 L 188 1135 0 0 0 1 0 1 8 10 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT S SSW SW "W W -WNW NW NNW FIGURE 2.1-9 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION - 2000 0-10 MILES AND 10-80 MILES

Annulus 10-20 Mi. 20-30 Mi. 30-40Mi. 40-50Mi. Total Total Annulus 0-1 Mi. 1-2 Mi. 2-3 Mi. 3-4 Mi. 4-5 Mi. 5-10 Mi. 01TotMi SI I I 1 10-50 Mi. 0-50 Mi. Population 669 7608 5250 7778 6607 121322 149234 Population 444484 250601 3556762 3070040 9577887 9727121 N IN Note: See Corresponding Maps, Figures 2.1-2 And 2.1-3 Valms For 0-1 MilsAnnulus N noINNEnI NEnIon ENE InE I ESE nI SEn o552 Fermi 2 4I 170o I0n 0 10 10 I UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW FIGURE 2.1-10 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION - 2010 0-10 MILES AND 10-50 MILES

Total 0-1 Mi. 1-2 Mi. 2-3 Mi. 3-4 Mi. 4-5 Mi. 5-10 Mi. T-tal Tota Total Annulus Annulus 10-20 Mi. I 20-30 67 9 8 0-10 m5. I Mi. I 30-40 Mi.I 40-50 Mi. t Me 10-050 -50M. T.taM P 3 5 Population 843 19575 16607 19790 18314 1150242 1118 5371 4158690 4003471 11527082 11712453 Population 508370 2856551 w Note: See Corresponding Maps. Figures 2.1-2 And 2.1-3 S Valuas Foe0-1 MileAnnutlu N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE 0 1 0 o0 o l00 0 0 Fermi 2 1615 1215 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 131L 0 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT S SSW W WSW W NW NW NNW FIGURE 2.1-11 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION - 2020 0-10 MILES AND 10-60 MILES

                                       -MM                                                            91 E

I ~ ~V ~E JiM I

                                                      "C-
  • U
  • 71
                                                                                      'CE r

3",I.E f

  • C' Wl M 'ý.pm li 111 L4
                                                                   -5' IL Ai4*~~

IJ

                                                                                                                                                               ~ I MI *~I U., 1 si~ t- W~AN
                                                                                                                                                                                        '~ ~-              ~          lUlJ
  • II f '11 ,IF.,- *'qp q? E*I*

Iq

                                                                                                                                                                         ~iiI! VN$4flj~¶L~U~ ~ I/M/~I                                               ~C         I35   OK
                                                                              ][

1ý UXý4j' L I 5 4 *Dle TAS

  • v CEO
                                                                                                                                                                                                     .C-
                                                                                                                                                                                                       */on
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   £L)CAJI (fT   1 A?
                                                              ]'             A                                          dOle                                                J INH I lN'-

NUSCO U 6, I', Utt

                                                      -                                                                                                                      TI Am                                                                                                                                                                                                7A  -

i~I I

                                                                                                                                                                                                  'j      Tv                       ERIEsi
                   '.-                                                                                                                                 lt~o              C B.                       tCfl                      6         I ,

CE Ck,, Nor O st

                                                                                                                                                   -t   l.C          U fl
                                                                        -~               C'                                                                         'C, 62 ERIEM1 CooU..t 0

I W bOo ~' At' 0

                             .495.                                                                                                                                                                                                            o     0 Mil
  'C.

A 5 'Wlkam B6w 4?

                                                                                        'do M~        9j~d 0

ncAU

      ,Jv~                                                S I
                                                                                                                                                 ý4-
                                                                                                                                                 ý/

7'7-AJ4 B I

                                     ~

A'

                                                    '                                                                              pi.

N pbt

             'Co                                                             ht                 T'..

9'.? 00 so.ejs~w I FGUR 2.-1 LOWpopLATO93dZONE.L 4MV? LM 1-- Lo p;. ,r.~ U* r * * *l* J I B

  • E I
                                                                                                                            - CýU-NT;-

1.11AWHA CIUNVA

                                                                                                                                          / ~91I. NA 9
                                                                                                                                                    -"         &'0CEOAR    POIIT
                                                                                                                                    'IA

LEGEND County Lines Towns & Cities Interstate & U.S. Highway Numbers Latitude Lines Railroad Schools NUMBER a (SeeTable 2.1-3) 0 4 8 12 SCALE IN MILES Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.1-13 SCHOOLS IN THE VICINITY

REFERENCE:

ADAPTED FROM DETROIT EDISON COMPANY SERVICE AREA GENERAL MAP, 1971 REV 6 3/93

LEGEND County Lines Towns & Cities Interstate & U.S.Highway Numbers (9y Latitude Lines Railroad Recreational Areas NUMBER 1 ISeeTable 2.1-3) I0 4 8 12 SCALE IN MILES Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.1-14 RECREATION AREAS IN THE VICINITY

REFERENCE:

ADAPTED FROM DETROIT EDISON COMPANY SERVIC9 AREA GENERAL MAP, 1971 REV 6 3/93

Augusta Sumpter Huron LWoodhaven I ~I 19 18 30 ' London

      'm WASHTENAW CO      aWAYNE I Exeter CO m    Ash CANADA II7 9LOeton O12~
             ~MONROE~ 0 r - I Frenchtawt 15 Mi             10 Mi Idle Bedford                -Erie LAKE ERIE MICHIGAN OHIO LEGEND:

0 DAIRY (SEE TABLE 2.1-7) Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.1-15

REFERENCE:

ADAPTED FROM SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN COUNCIL DAIRY FARMS IN THE VICINITY OF GOVERNMENTS - COUNTY-TOWNSHIP-CITY-VILLAGE MAP, 1971

N a.

                                                               Ž1'S'O 0          1          2         3 SI           IE SCALE IN MILES Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.1-16 MONROE COUNTY LAND USE PLAN

REFERENCE:

ADAPTED FROM MONROE COUNTY COMPLAN, 2000, 167

19*18-30" Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.1-17 LAKES, RIVERS, AND STREAMS IN THE VICINITY

J Auguste

               ~I j Sumpter WASHTENAW CO      WAYNE CO London Bedor Id
          .r            F° I6/

I S/,/'//'i Legend: 7

                                                    .......... Monroe Water Distribution
         -   -            ////

OHIO////J*' -/////,' Toledo Water Distribution

                                                             ~m(Well   water LAKE ERIE                Detroit Water Distribution Detroit And Flat Rock Distribution Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.1-18 POTABLE WATER SUPPLIES IN THE VICINITY

Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.1-19 DISTRIBUTION OF WATER WELLS WITHIN A 10 MILE RADIUS OF THE SITE

N* MICHIGAN Cb~ANAD Port Port Bruce V Port Burwell Detroit Barcelona Lake Erie Ei Erie I NEW YORK Astbl P9WN6'YVANIA Sandusky Cleveland HuronVrnlo OHIO Legend: Water Intake Points .............. 0 (Refer to Table 2.1-12) 0 10 20 30 SCALE IN MILES Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.1-20 POTABLE WATER INTAKES ON LAKE ERIE

19 18 30 ONTARIO PROVINCE (CANADA) I Norfolk Elgin r-l* Port Dover Port Stanley o0.. MICHIGAN Kent S.D. 3

                               \

SITE LAKE S. D. 9 S.D. 2 II I t S.D. 8 PENNSYLVANIA Fairport HWon OHIO (Refer to Tabls 2.1-13 and 2.1-14) 0 10 20 30 SCALE IN MILES Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.1-21 COMMERCIAL FISHING STATISTICAL DISTRICTS IN LAKE ERIE

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.2 NEARBY INDUSTRIAL, TRANSPORTATION, AND MILITARY FACILITIES Section 2.2 was prepared circa 1974 at the time of preparation of the original FSAR. It has not generally been updated in the area of nearby industrial, transportation, and military facilities since it represents the area at the time the Construction Permit was issued. However, changes have been made based on additions/modifications of facilities in the area. 2.2.1 Locations and Routes 2.2.1.1 Industrial Facilities Industrial (and commercial) facilities within 5 miles of Fermi 2 are listed in Table 2.2-1, along with their products and number of employees (Reference 1). The Fermi I breeder reactor, also on the Fermi site, is not operating and has been permanently shut down. The Fermi I plant is located on the site with Fermi 2. The Fermi I oil-fired plant has also been decommissioned, and it has been demolished. The 800,000-gal oil storage tank, which supplied the oil-fired boiler, presently supplies the four combustion turbine peakers. There is an additional nuclear power plant site within 30 miles of the Fermi site (Reference 2). This is Toledo Edison Company's Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, approximately 26 miles to the south-southeast. There are three extractive industries within 10 miles of the site. The France Stone Co n north of the site. of the site. Redacted (Reference 4). Rockwood Stone, Inc., o erates a ua 3 miles north-northeast of the site. in As reported to the NRC in July 10 .accordance

                         ~with                                                                          10 CFR 2.390 The Monroe Branch of the Austin Powder Company maintains a maximum storage of at a site 6.7 miles west-southwest of the Fermi site.

The Frenchtown Township water treatment facility is located approximately 2.5 miles south of the site. There are no explosives stored at this facility. The facility has a 1,000 gallon underground fuel oil storage tank for an onsite emergency generator. (Reference 5a). 2.2.1.2 Transportation Facilities There are two major roads within 10 miles of the plant, Interstate 75 and U.S. Routes 24/25, shown in Figure 2.1-3. Their closest approach to the plant is 4.1 miles and 5.8 miles north-west of the plant site, respectively, with average 24-hr traffic flows of 27,300 and 9200 vehicles, respectively (Reference 6). 2.2-1 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR Within 10 miles of the plant, there are four Class I railroads. The Detroit and Toledo Shore Line Railroad, 4 miles northwest of the site, passes closest to and serves the Fermi site through the use of a single spur track. This company operates a freight service only between Detroit, Michigan, and Toledo, Ohio. At their closest approach to the plant, the other three lines (the Penn Central Railroad, the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad, and the Detroit Toledo and Ironton Railroad) come to within 4 miles northwest, 7 miles west-northwest, and 9 miles northwest, respectively. The railroad yard in Monroe is the nearest yard to the plant. It is operated by the Penn Central Railroad and has a capacity of 230 cars (Reference 7). Airports within 25 miles of the plant are listed in Table 2.2-2 and indicated in Figure 2.2-1. There are no major airports within 15 miles of the site. Three smaller airports are located about 9 miles from the site (Custer), 5 miles (Carl), and 2 miles (Marshall). The closest airport, Marshall Field, is 2 miles west of the plant. This is a small airfield with two sod runways, the longer being 1962 ft. This runway is oriented about northeast-southwest, approximately 30 degrees offset from the reactor site. Only light aircraft use this field. The weight of the heaviest aircraft using this field is about 3400 lb. The closest major airports are Detroit Metropolitan and Willow Run, which are 19 miles north-northwest and 24 miles northwest of the plant, respectively (Reference 8). Figure 2.2-2 illustrates the approach patterns for Custer, Grosse Ile, and Detroit Metropolitan Airports. None of these approach patterns lie within 5 miles of the Fenii site. There are three low level federal airways within 5 miles of the plant: V297, V96, and V10-188. The center line of airway V297 passes directly over the Fermi 2 plant and follows a southeast-northwest path. The center lines of airways V96 and V 10-188 are 6.5 miles to the southeast and 4.0 miles north of the plant, respectively (Reference 8). (Airways are 4 miles wide.) The shipping port nearestthe plant is the Port of Monroe. Shipping traffic to this port is through an unobstructed channel, approximately 4.5 miles long, east-southeast of the site and extending from the head of navigation of River Raisin to the deep water in Lake Erie. As shown in Figure 2.2-3, the nearest approach of this channel to the Fermi site is approximately 6 miles south of the plant. Shipping traffic to the Port of Monroe is minimal in comparison to the traffic through the Detroit River. In 1964 there were only six commercial vessel trips inbound to the Port of Monroe, as compared to 10,999 upbound and 9693 downbound through the Detroit River (Reference 7). As shown in Figure 2.2-3, the Detroit River navigation channel connects to the West Outer Channel and the East Outer Channel in Lake Erie at a point approximately 7 miles northeast of the plant. The majority of the Detroit River traffic utilizes the East Outer Channel. Traffic on the West Outer Channel has a 5-mile nearest approach to the plant. a of the Fermi site are shown in Figure 2.2-4 and Redacted are described in Subsection 2.2.2.2.* in 2.2.1.3 Military Facilities accordance with 10 There are currently no niilitarv facilities within 10 miles of the nlhnt CFR 2.390 2.2-2 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR Redacted (Reference 9). in accordance 2.2.2 Descriptions with 10 CFR 2.390 2.2.2. 1 Industrial Facilities The Fermi I power plant and the storage tank supporting the combustion turbine peakers of that plant are described in Subsection 2.2.1.1. The industrial facilities within 5 miles of the plant, including a description of their products and/or services and number of employees, are listed in Table 2.2-1. The Frenchtown Township water treatment facility is a water processing plant for Frenchtown Township. The water treatment plant has the capacity to process 4,000,000 gallons of water per day. The chemicals used for water processing are not a hazard to Fermi 2 (Reference 5a). 2.2.2.2 Transportation Facilities Redacted in accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 222.23 Evaluations 2.2.3.1 Cooling Water Intake Structure The cooling water intake structure for Fermi 2 is a shoreline structure located adjacent to the existing Fermi I intake channel. This channel is protected by two rock jetties that extend into the lake. This intake provides cooling water and makeup water to the 5.5-acre pond, which is part of the closed-loop source of cooling water to operate the plant; the lake level at the mouth of the intake varies from 3 ft to 10 ft, depending on the status of the sandbar that continually forms at the end of the jetties and the prevailing level of Lake Erie. (Refer to Figure 2.4-9.) Navigation by large ships and barges in the Western Basin does not normally approach within approximately 5 miles of the Fermi site. As a result of the very shallow water in the vicinity of the site, no large vessel could be expected to reach the site and damage the intake structure, even if this were attempted. 2.2-3 REV 16 10/09 I I

FERMI 2 UFSAR In addition, assuming that the intake structure is damaged sufficiently to prevent normal cooling water intake for an extended period of time, the 5.5-acre closed-cycle circulating water reservoir is of sufficient size to allow limited periods of normal plant operation with sufficient reserve to accomplish normal shutdown. If it were ascertained that the intake structure were to be inoperable for an extended period of time, reduction in load and shutdown would be initiated in a timely manner. In addition to the circulating water reservoir, the ultimate heat sink [residual heat removal (RHR) complex] provides cooling for 7 days in confornance with Regulatory Guide 1.27. 2.2,.3.2 Industrial Facilities The industrial facilities within 5 miles of the site (Table 2.2-1) do not present any potential danger to the safe operation of Fermi 2. Redacted in accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 The Frenchtown Township water treatment plant is located approximately 2.5 miles south of the site. No chemicals with a potential to cause an explosion are used at this facility. Sodium hypochlorite is used for water treatment. This is not considered a hazard to Fermi 2 and it does not impact the chlorine release accident analysis as described in Section 6.4. 2.2.3.3 Offsite Transportation Facilities As described in Subsections 2.2.1.2 and 2.2.2, no roads, railroads, or pipelines cross or pass close to the plant except for the site access road and railroad spur. No conceivable event associated with offsite highways, railroads, and pipelines in the area could be expected to influence normal operation of the plant. The two principal shipping channels (described in Subsection 2.2.1.2) are 5 and 6 miles away from the Fermi 2 site. There is no potential for fire or explosion from any ship in one of these lanes to interfere with normal plant operation. 2.2- 4 REV 16 10/09 1

Redacted in FERMI 2 UFSAR accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 Table 2.2-2 and Figures 2.2-1 and 2.2-2 indicate the nearest airports to the Fermi site and the approach patterns for Custer, Grosse lie, and Detroit Metropolitan airports. The annual aircraft flights along the three low level federal airways V297, V96, and VIO-188, described in Subsection 2.2.1.2, are provided in Table 2.2-3, along with the aircraft types using these airways and an estimate of the probability of a crash at the Fermi site involving one of these aircraft. Also provided in Table 2.2-3 are estimates of the probabilities of crashes of private and corporate aircraft into the Fermi 2 spent fuel pool. The Detroit Flight Service Center, which handles air traffic along 15 airways, including V297, V96, and V 10-188, makes an average of about 34,000 radio contacts per year (References 11, 12, and 13). Between one-third and one-half of all flights along these airways make at least one radio contact with the Detroit Flight Service Center; thus a conservative estimate of the total flights per year along these 15 airways is about 100,000 or about 7000 per airway. About 40 percent of these flights are by commercial aircraft. Aircraft crash data for the years 1970 through 1972 indicate that the probability of a crash during level or near-level flight is about 0.2 per million miles of operation for private and corporate aircraft (References 12, 14, and 15) and about 0.003 per million miles of operation for commercial air carriers (Reference 16). Aircraft crash probabilities provided in Table 2.2-3 are based on crash bands of 13 miles for V96, 8 miles for V10-188, and 2 miles for V297. The target area for the plant was conservatively assumed to be 0.015 square miles (References 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21). The conservatively estimated probability of a commercial aircraft crash into the Fermi 2 plant is 8.9 x 10-1 per year and for a private aircraft 8.9 x 10-6 per year. The target area for the spent fuel pool was taken to be 0.0001 square miles. A conservatively estimated probability of a private aircraft crash into the spent fuel pool is 5.9 x 10-8 per year. The exterior walls of the Category I reactor/auxiliary building were analyzed for the crash of the largest private aircraft capable of using Marshall Field and were found able to withstand such a postulated event. 2.2.3.4 Onsite Storage of Fuels and Explosives The site access rail spurs are not used for the transportation of explosives or fuel oil. Fuel oil is transported by truck to the fuel-oil storage tanks onsite. A winter blend of #2 and #1 fuel oil is required for operation of the 62.2 MWe combustion turbine peakers south of Fermi 1. The 800,000-gal fuel-oil storage tank for the Fermi I combustion turbine units is located approximately 1/3 mile south from the plant and safety-related plant structures. The results of any event related to the transportation and storage of fuel oil at this tank would have no effect on the normal operation of Fermi 2 or endanger safety-related plant structures or equipment. The tank is surrounded by a conservatively sized clay-lined dike with a polyethylene geomembrane inner dike liner and is equipped with piping to a foam distribution manifold on the tank. In the event of a fire involving the tank, a foam-generating fire truck can be connected to a nearby hydrant (furnished for the purpose). The foam 1.-5 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR discharge lines from the truck can be connected to the tank manifold piping using the provided fire department connection, and foam distributed within the tank. Should the tank rupture, the tank contents will be contained within the dike, and any fire extinguished using conventional fire fighting methodologies as well as the manifold. The fuel storage facility has been designed in accordance with applicable fire codes. A 20,000 gallon liquid hydrogen storage tank is located at the HWC gas supply facility. The gas supply facility is approximately 1100 feet northwest of the RHR Complex. The tank location has been chosen to ensure that the results of any event related to transportation or storage of hydrogen at this tank would have no effect on the safe operation of Fermi 2 or endanger safety-related plant structures or equipment. The gas supply facility has been designed in accordance with applicable fire codes and the nuclear industry guidelines for permanent HWC installations. Other onsite fuel storage facilities are identified and evaluated in Subsection 9.5.1 and Appendix 9A. The only storage of explosives in the vicinity of the unit will be in quantities sufficiently small and at such a distance that no postulated accident can endanger the safe operation of the unit. 2.2.3.5 Onsite Storage of Toxic Chemicals Sodium hypochlorite and a small quantity of acids are stored onsite. Sulfuric acid for circulating water is transported in accordance with all applicable regulations. Safety measures are taken near handling and storage facilities. Any spills during transfer operations will soak into the ground and be neutralized or will drain to a chemical sump for neutralization. Sodium hypochlorite used to treat the circulating water is stored at the circulating water pumphouse in a tank located within a nominal 150 percent tank capacity retention dike and pad. Sodium hypochlorite used to treat the GSW System is stored at the GSW pumphouse in a tank located within a nominal 150 percent tank capacity retention dike and pad. 2.2.3.6 Cooling Tower Collapse The cooling towers are hyperbolic in design and any postulated failure of this tower would cause it to collapse inwardly. This failure would in no way endanger the safe shutdown of the unit. 2.2-6 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.2 NEARBY INDUSTRIAL, TRANSPORTATION, AND MILITARY FACILITIES REFERENCES

1. Monroe County Manufacturers Directory, Monroe County Library System and the Greater Monroe Chamber of Commerce, Monroe, Michigan.
2. Electricity from Nuclear Power, Central Station Nuclear Power Plants in the U.S.,

Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc.

3. G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and Mr. Elson, Plant Supervisor, France Stone Company, Monroe, Michigan, Telephone Conversation, February 28, 1973.
4. G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and W. Jarvi, Research and Development, Dow Chemical Company, Telephone Conversation, May 1, 1974.
5. G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and G. Dridalt, Austin Powder Company, Monroe, Michigan, Telephone Conversation, February 28, 1973.

5a. Letter from M. P. Faeth, P.E., McNamee, Porter & Seeley, Inc., to E. F. Madsen, Detroit Edison,

Subject:

Frenchtown Charter Township WTP, dated April 25, 1994.

6. 1971 Average 24 Hour Traffic Flow Map, Report No. 223, Michigan Department of State Highways.
7. Inventory of Airports, Harbors, Railroads, Pipelines, and Truck Terminals; Detroit Regional Transportation and Land Use. Study, January 1968.
8. Sectional Aeronautical Chart (Scale 1:500,000) - Detroit - 4th Edition; U.S.

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Survey, Washington, D.C., May 25, 1972.

9. Preliminary Safety Analysis Report for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Appendix 2A, pp. 2A-l through 2A-14 and Amendment No. 6, pp. 2A-13 through 2A-15, Docket No. 50-346, The Toledo Edison Company and Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company.
10. Letter from J. J. Stefano, NRC, to B. R. Sylvia, Detroit Edison,

Subject:

Fermi 2 Site Potential Hazards Due to Operation of the Nearby Rockwood Stone, Inc., Quarry, dated October 15, 1987.

11. Telephone conversations with G. Brainerd, Supervisor, Detroit Center, Flight Service Station, FAA, 11499 Conner Avenue, Detroit, Michigan 48213. February 22 to February 28, 1975.
12. FAA Statistical Handbook of Aviation, Department of Transportation, 1972 Edition (Stock Number 5007-0188).
13. Detroit Sectional Aeronautical Chart, Lambert Conformal Projection Standard Parallels 41'20' and 45'40', 9th Edition, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C.
14. K. A. Solomon, et al., Airplane Crash Risk to Ground Population, UCLA-ENG 7424, March 1974.

2.2-7 REV 16 10/09 J

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.2 NEARBY INDUSTRIAL, TRANSPORTATION, AND MILITARY FACILITIES REFERENCES

15. Annual Review of Aircraft Accident Data, U.S. General Aviation, Adopted May 29, 1974, NTSB-74-2.
16. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Standard Review Plan, Section 3.5.1.6, Aircraft Hazards, June 1975.
17. Darrell G. Eisenhut, "A Review of Testimony by the Division of Reactor Licensing, Long Island Lighting Company, Unit 1," May 3, 1971.
18. Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Amendment 3, USAEC Docket No. 150-322, February 5, 1969.
19. "Zion Station Amendment," USAEC 18-Docket 50-295, December 1971.
20. Karl Homyik, "Airplane Strike Probability Near a Flight Target," ANS Annual Meeting, Chicago, Illinois, June 10-15, 1973.
21. "Probability of an Airplane Strike," Appendix D and Appendix E, USAEC 5-Docket-50-289, February 23, 1968.

2.2-8 REV 16 10/09 I

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.2-1 INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES WITHIN 5 MILES OF THE FERMI SITE Number of Companya Products and/or Services Employees B&M Industry, Inc. Metal stamping 50 Lisowski Brothers, Inc. Plating equipment and supplies 9 Marshall (Olen) Hardware Hardware, paint, Dumps: plumbing and 2 and Airport electrical supplies; airport-flight instruction, tie down, gas and oil Neidermeier Oil Company Distribution of Union 76 fuel oil 4 Newport State Bank General banking services 16 Ohio China Company Retail and wholesale china 28 Rockwood Stone, Inc. Limestone quarry 30 Frenchtown Township Water Potable water 4 Treatment Plant All of these facilities, except Rockwood Stone, Inc., are in Frenchtown Township, Monroe County, Michigan. Rockwood Stone is in Berlin Township, Monroe County, Michigan. Page I of I REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.2-2 AIRPORTS WITHIN 25 MILES OF THE FERMI SITE Distance Largest Type of (miles) and Number and Type Aircraft Likely Runway Average Direction of Aircraft Based to Land at Direction/and Runway Hours Weekly Flight Airport From Site at the Airport Airport Length (ft) Composition Attended Operations Marshall 2W 6 single-engine Piper Aztec 500-230*/1962 Sod 0800-dusk 10 Carl 6 NNW 21 single-engine Cessna 310 180'-360'/2400 Turf 0800-dusk 10 90'-270'/2300 Wickenheiser 7 NW 3 single-engine Cessna 172 90'-270'/1900 Turf 2 80'-360'/2600 Custer 9W 53 single-engine DC-3 20'-200*/3500 Blacktop 0800-2000 150 3 multi-engine Grosse lie I I NNE 142 single-engine Convair 440 30'-210'/4980 Blacktop 0700-2400 1000 6 multi-engine 170'-3500/5480 Blacktop 2 helicopters Detroit Metro 19 NNW 90 single-engine Boeing 747 30'L-210'R/ 10500 Concrete 24hrs 5544 60 multi-engine 30'L-210°L/ 8500 Concrete 90'-270'/ 8700 Concrete 150'-330'/ 4331 Concrete Bielec 21 WNW Information not 180'-3600'/ 1900 Turf available 50'-1750*/ 1750 Turf Frankman 21 NW 3 single-engine Piper-Apache 60'-240'/ 1930 Turf 12 Ranchero 90'-270'/ 1340 Turf Larsen 21 NW 48 single-engine Twin Beach 45 180'-360'/ 1752 Turf Not Given 300 Lada 22 W I single-engine Piper Navajo 180'-3600'/2600 Sod Daylight 1 Willow Run 24 NW 69 single-engine DC-8 90'L-270'R/ 7294 Concrete- 24hrs 3800 asphalt 105 multi-engine 90'R-270L/ 7294 Concrete 50'L-230*R/ 6656 Concrete-50"L-230L/ 7526 asphalt 140'-320'/ 6911 Concrete-asphalt Chippewa 25 S Information not 90'-270'/ 2600 Turf None available Gradolph 25W 10 single-engine 90'-270'/ 2600 Turf Jan-Dec/ 18 I multi-engine Mon-Sat 0800-1800 Page I of I REV 16 10/09 I

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.2-3 AIRCRAFT CRASH PROBABILITY FOR THE FERMI SITE Estimated Estimated Crash Airway Aircraft Typea Flights Per Year Target Probability Per Year V297 U.S. Air Carrier 2800 Plant 6.3 x 10-8 General Aviation 4200 Plant 6.3 x 10-6 General Aviation 4200 Spent Fuel Pool 4.2 x 10-8 V96 U.S. Air Carrier 2800 Plant 9.7 x 10-9 General Aviation 4200 Plant 9.7 x 10-7 General Aviation 4200 Spent Fuel Pool 6.5 x 10-9 VIO-188 U.S. Air Carrier 2800 Plant 1.6 x 10-8 General Aviation 4200 Plant 1.6 x 10-6 General Aviation 4200 Spent Fuel Pool 1.1 x 10-8 a U.S. Air Carrier flights include such planes as the C-747, B-707, B-720, B-727, DC-8, DC-9, DC-10, L-1011, and others. General Aviation includes flights by U.S. Civil Aircraft owned and operated by persons, corporations, etc., other than those engaged in air carrier operations authorized by a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. Page I of I REV 16 10/09 I

LEGEND County Lines Towns & Cities Interstate & U.S. Highway Numbers Latitude Lines Airports I Refer to Table 2.2-2 ) 0 4 12

                             .1l 8   I SCALE IN MILES Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2-2-1 AIRPORTS IN THE VICINITY

LEGEND County Lines Towns and Cities Interstate and U.S. Highway Numbers Latitude Lines Airports Approach Patterns .. o........ 0 4 8 12 1I III I I I Ii SCALE IN MILES Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.2-2 SELECTED AIRPORTS AND APPROACH PATTERNS IN THE VICINITY

                                                                                                                                 ,2 - a GOVA
    -K-
                  ' sa s
                                                                                                          '0 2'

23 2 2

            -s 2-'.         --                               22
                                                             ?
         -'    -       .4            .4

_;3 Z2 22 Z5

ý3
                                                                            '.-v~l 1                 5 20      2' 2-.

23 22 24. 2- 23 LU 0 7' 2 3 4 I I I I 22 SCALE IN MILES 74, I 'I; i- Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT

 \..   'Cp-      fl     ..iZ.    "     :*   -*.*' I.   .-
                    "I.*

__,, *_ ' ' " FIGURE 2.2-3 LAKE ERIE NAVIGATION CHANNELS IN THE

REFERENCE:

VICINITY U.S. LAKE SURVEY CHART NO. 39, 1968

Redacted in* o *

  • accordance SCALE IN MILES with 10 CFR 2.390 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.2-4 OIL AND NATURAL GAS PIPELINES IN THE VICINITY m

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.3 METEOROLOGY 2.3.1. Regional Climatology 2.3.1.1. Data Sources The regional climatology pertinent to the Fermi site was determined from data acquired by the National Weather Service and summarized by the Environmental Data Service. The 1971 through 1974 local climatological data were obtained for the Detroit Metropolitan Airport (Reference 1), Detroit City Airport (Reference 2), and for Toledo, Ohio (Reference 3). The climatological summary was obtained for the cities of Monroe (Reference 4) and Willis (Reference 5), Michigan. These data provided sufficient information to determine the climatological characteristics of the area surrounding the Fermi site. Extreme wind data were obtained from studies by Thom (Reference 6). Severe storm and tornado data were obtained from monthly storm data (Reference 7), climatological data national summary (Reference 8), the tornadoes of western Canada (Reference 9), and tornado probabilities (Reference 10). The data for meteorological extremes were obtained for Detroit Metropolitan Airport, Detroit City Airport, and for Toledo Express Airport from the local climatological data for each station. Extremes for Monroe and Willis, Michigan, were obtained from the climatological summary for each station. Monthly storm data were used to determine the number of occurrences of hailstorms and ice storms. Climatological data for restrictive dilution conditions were obtained from a variety of sources concernedwith stagnating conditions in the United States (References 11 and 12). 2.3.1.2. General Climate The Fermi site is located in the southeast lower climatic district of Michigan on the western shore of Lake Erie. The lake smooths out most climatic extremes, with the most pronounced lake effect occurring in the coldest part of the winter when there is an excess of cloudiness and very little sunshine. Prevailing winds are from the western sectors in winter. Periods of easterly winds (off Lake Erie) and local lake breezes modify temperatures during the summer months. The climate in the area alternates between semi-marine and continental (Reference 4). The predominant wind in the area is from the southwest, averaging approximately 10 mph (Reference 1). The average afternoon (1:00 p.m.) relative humidity for the Fermi site area is 58 percent, and varies from 52 percent in May to 71 percent in December (Reference 1). The highest temperature recorded in the area was 105'F (Reference 2) and the lowest was -19'F (References 1 through 5). Precipitation is well distributed throughout the year. The Fermi site area receives an average of 31.15 in. of precipitation per year, with 56 percent occurring between the months of May and October. Minimum amounts of precipitation generally occur during the winter months (December, January, and February) and average approximately 2.0 in. per month. Maximum 2.3-1 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR amounts of precipitation generally occur during the summer months (June, July, and August) and average approximately 3.0 in. per month (References 1 through 3). The mean annual snowfall in the area is 33.7 in. (References 1 through 5). 2.3.1.3. Severe Weather 2.3.1.3.1, Extreme Winds According to a compilation by Thom (Reference 6) for characterizing extreme winds, the extreme mile wind speed at 30 ft above the ground, which is predicted to occur once in 100 years, is approximately 90 mph. The approximate values for other recurrence intervals are listed in Table 2.3-1, with the extrapolated value of 117 mph for the 1000-year recurrence interval (Reference 6). The extreme mile wind speed is defined as being the 1-mile passage of wind with the highest speed for the day. Based on the gustiness factor of 1.3, the highest instantaneous gust expected in 100 years is 117 mph. The highest mile wind recorded at Detroit City Airport, based on the 1934 through 1965 period of record, was 77 mph from the northwest (Reference 2). Based on the 1956 through 1972 period of record, the highest mile wind recorded at Toledo, Ohio, was a 72-mph wind from the southwest (Reference 3). The Category I structures of Fermi 2 are designed to withstand a 90 mph fastest mile sustained wind velocity, 30 ft above ground level. This wind velocity has a 100-year recurrence interval. The relationships to determine the vertical velocity distribution of the wind are obtained from Page 1139 of ASCE Paper No. 3269 for coastal areas and are as follows: for V30 < 60 mph VZ= V3o0 ( 30 ) for V 30 > 60 mph VZ= V30 (- where V 30 = basic wind velocity (mph) at a height 30 ft above ground level (grade) x = factor which varies from 0.3 when V30 = 60 mph to 0.143 when V 30= 130 mph (Reference 3) V, wind velocity (mph) at a height (z) above grade Z = distance above grade in ft Thus, at heights between 100 and 150 ft above grade, the height of the upper portion of the reactor building, the wind velocity is calculated to be 123.5 mph. Gust factors have also been determined by the methods given on pages 1124 through 1198 in ASCE Paper No. 3269. For all Category I structures, the gust factor varies linearly from 1.1 at grade level to 1.0 at 400 ft. However, a gust factor of 1.1 was used for the full height of both the reactor/auxiliary building and the residual heat removal complex except for the blow-away siding design during the design tornado, where a factor of 1.0 was used. 2.3-2 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.3.1.3.2. Tornadoes 2.3.1.3.2.1. Frequency During the period January 1951 through December 1974, a total of 51 tornadoes were reported within a 50-mile radius of the Fermi site (References 8 and 9). These 51 tornadoes occurred within the United States. This is an average of two tornadoes per year within this radius. There were no tornadoes reported within 50 miles of the site in Canada for the period 1951 through 1960 (Reference 9). Canadian tornado data were not available for the period 1961 to 1974. There was one tornado reported at Tecumseh, Ontario, on August 1, 1973. This tornado was not included in this analysis. According to the statistical methods proposed by Thom (Reference 10), the probability of a tornado striking a point within a given area may be estimated as follows: A where P = mean probability per year S

                =      geometric mean tornado path area S      =      mean number of tornadoes per year A       =      area of concern For the region surrounding the Fermi site, the geometric mean path length computed was approximately 2.15 miles, and the geometric mean path width computed was approximately 75 yd (References 7 and 10), yielding a mean path area (Z) of 0.092 square mile, based on the January 1951 through December 1974 period of record. The use of a 50-mile radius to compute A (excluding the water area of Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie and the land area in Canada) and a value of 2.125 for F yields a tornado probability of 4.075 x 10-5 per year, or a recurrence interval of 24,500 years.

It should be noted that the June 8, 1953, tornado in northern Ohio had a reported path length of 100 miles and a path width of 440 to 1760 yd. These data were not used in the computation of f, as recommended by Thom (Reference 10), who states that tornadoes with reported paths longer than 100 miles and paths wider than 1000 yd are considered doubtful observations. However, including this tornado, this yields a probability of 4.7 x 10-, or a recurrence interval of 21,200 years. During the period of record studied, three tornadoes occurred within 5.5 miles of the Fermi site, but it is difficult to determine which occurred closest to the site. These were (1) on June 28, 1973, a tornado was observed 3 miles south of Estral Beach; no data on path length or width were given; (2) on June 12, 1973, a tornado occurred 3 miles west of South Rockwood with a path length of 0.1 mile and width of 40 yd; and (3) another nearby tornado occurred on June 11, 1968, at Monroe, Michigan. The path length reported was "short" and no path width was given. No persons were reported killed or injured, and the damage was estimated at from $500 to $5000 (References 7 and 8). 2.3-3 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2UFSAR Not included in the above tornado discussion were water spouts and funnel clouds sighted in the area that did not touch the ground. Only one water spout was sighted within 50 miles of the site during the period 1965 through 1974. This occurred on August 1, 1965, 13 miles southeast of Mt. Clemens; there was no damage reported. 2.3.1.3.2.2. Parameters Category I structures housing the systems required for a safe shutdown of the plant in the event of a tornado are designed to withstand the effects of a tornado by providing either sufficiently strong structures or appropriate venting. The design parameters of the Fermi 2 design-basis tornado are

a. A rotational wind velocity of 300 mph
b. A translational wind velocity of 60 mph
c. An external pressure drop of 3 psi at the rate of 1 psi/sec.

2.3.1.3.3. Precipitation Extremes Tables 2.3-2 through 2.3-6 list extremes of precipitation and other meteorological parameters for several stations that surround the Fermi site. The maximum amount of precipitation recorded for a 24-hr period was 4.39 in. at Toledo, Ohio, in July 1969. The maximum monthly snowfall measured in the region was 28.5 in. at Monroe, Michigan, in March 1954 (Reference 1 through Reference 5). A December 1 and 2, 1974, snowstorm deposited 19.3 in. of snow at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport. The 100-year recurrence snowpack and 100-year recurrence daily snowfall were computed using data from the Detroit Metropolitan Airport for the years 1971-1974 inclusive (see Figures 2.3-1 and 2.3-2). Each of these had the data ranked according to the amount and number of occurrences in the 4-year period. From these ranked amounts, a cumulative distribution table was generated. This cumulative percentage was graphed as a function of amount and the curve visually extrapolated to the value occurring in 100 years. Snowpack Number of Maximum Cumulative Number Cumulative Occurrences Snowpack (in.) of Occurrences Percentage 10 Trace 36 100.00 8 1 21 72.22 3 2 18 50.00 5 3 15 41.67 3 4 10 27.78 1 5 7 19.41 2 7 6 16.67 1 8 4 11.11 1 9 3 8.33 2 11 2 5.56 2.3-4 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR The average number of observations per year is nine for this calculation, so that 100 years would provide 900 samples. The 100-year recurrence percentage would therefore be 0.11 percent. Referring to the graph of the cumulative frequency of snowpack versus amount, the extrapolated 100-year recurrence value is 27.8 in. Daily Snowfall Number of Maximum Daily Cumulative Number Cumulative Occurrences Snowfall (in.) of Occurrences Percentage 4 Trace 28 100.00 2 0.1 24 85.71 1 0.5 22 78.57 1 0.6 21 75.00 2 1.0 20 71.43 1 1.3 18 64.29 1 1.5 17 60.71 1 1.6 15 57.14 1 1.7 15 53.14 1 2.5 14 50.00 2 2.7 13 46.43 1 2.8 11 39.29 1 2.9 10 35.71 1 3.1 9 32.14 1 3.2 8 28.57 1 3.7 7 25.00 1 3.8 6 21.43 1 4.7 5 17.86 1 5.2 4 14.29 1 8.4 3 10.71 1 8.7 2 7.14 1 19.3 1 3.75 The average number of observations per year is seven for this calculation, so that 100 years would provide 700 samples. The 100-year recurrence percentage would therefore be 0.15 percent. Referring to the graph of the cumulative frequency of maximum daily snowfall versus amount, the extrapolated 100-year recurrence value is 28.2 in. 2.3.1.3.4. Hailstorms A review of hailstorm data for the period of 1962 through 1974 is reported in storm data for Monroe County and the immediately surrounding counties of Lenawee, Washtenaw, Wayne, Lucas (Ohio), and Ottawa (Ohio). This review indicates that there were 93 days with 2.3-5 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR hailstorms in this area. Generally, these hailstorms occurred with scattered thunderstorms which covered a wide area (i.e., northern Ohio or southern Michigan). One of the most severe storms in the area occurred on July 19, 1967, in Wayne and Monroe Counties. Hailstones varying in size from "small peas to larger than golf balls" were reported to have accumulated to depths of 6 to 7 in. in spots. Damage to both crops and property ranged from $5000 to $50,000 (Reference 7). 2.3.1.3.5. Ice Storms A study of ice storm data for the 1962 through 1974 period for Monroe County and the immediately surrounding counties indicates that there were 26 storms in this region. The storms were rarely limited to a small area, but were widespread over the state. The greatest accumulation of ice in the region came from the January 26 and 27, 1967, storm, which deposited up to 3 in. of ice in northern Ohio (Reference 7). 2.3.1.3.6. Thunderstorms Thunderstorms occur on an average of 35 days per year, approximately 80 percent occurring in the months of June, July, and August (References 1 through 3). Generally, these thunderstorms encompass a large area (on the order of several hundred square kilometers each) and are associated with strong winds, intense precipitation for short time intervals, and lightning. Lightning incidence is estimated at about 10 flashes per year per square kilometer. Each thunderstorm produces an average of about 120 independent flashes to ground (an average of one every 20 sec. for an interval of about 40 minutes). Each thunderstorm (isolated) encompasses an area of about 400 km2 (20 kmn on a side). With 35 days per year associated with thunderstorms, these estimates give 35 Storms flashes flashes 2 2 400 km x120 storm Km 2.3.1.3.7. Restrictive Dilution Conditions The frequency of occurrence of low-level inversions or isothermal layers based at or below a 500-ft elevation in the site region is approximately 28 percent of the total hours on an annual basis, according to Hosler (Reference 11), who takes into account lake and ocean effects on inversion frequencies. Seasonally, the greatest frequencies of inversions based on percent of total hours are 30 percent during the summer and fall. The inversion frequencies are 25 percent in the spring and 20 percent in the winter. The majority of these inversions are nocturnal in nature. The mean mixing depth is another restriction to atmospheric dilution. The mixing depth is the thickness of the atmospheric layer, measured from the surface upward, in which convective overturning is taking place, caused by the daytime heating at the surface. The mixing depth is usually at its shallowest during the early morning hours, just after sunrise, when the nocturnal inversion is being modified by solar heating at the surface. The mixing depth is at its greatest during the later part of the afternoon, 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., when the maximum surface temperature of the day is reached. The monthly mean daily mixing depths, based on Flint, Michigan, upper air data for the period January 1960 through December 2.3-6 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR 1964, are presented in Table 2.3-7 (Reference 12). Shallow mixing depths have a greater frequency of occurrence during the fall and winter months. Periods of high air pollution potential are usually related to a stagnating anticyclone, with the average wind speed less than or equal to 9.0 mph (4.0 m/sec), no precipitation, and a mixing depth of less than 1600 ft (Reference 14). The greatest air pollution potential in the site region occurs during the months of August, September, and October, when the tendency is greatest for a quasi-stationary anticyclone to develop in the region (Reference 15). According to Korshover (Reference 15), there were approximately 19 anticyclone stagnation cases, each 4 days or more, reported in the site region during the period 1936-1967. 2.3.1.3.8. Maximum Roof Loadings The following data itemize the maximum snow and ice load in inches of water that the roofs of safety-related structures are capable of withstanding during plant operation. The operating- basis conditions are based on the service conditions allowable stresses or strengths. The design-basis conditions are based on the strength of the structure at yield stresses with a load factor of 1.0. Operating-Basis Design-Basis Safety-Related Snow and Ice Water Snow and Ice Water Structure Load (psf) Equivalent (in.) Load (psf) Equivalent (in.) Reactor / 30 5.8 87 16.7 auxiliary building RHR Complex 70 13.5 276 53.0*

  • This depth exceeds parapet height 2.3.2. Local Meteorology 2.3.2.1. Data Sources The original Fermi 2 FSAR was filed with 12 months (June 1, 1974, to May 31, 1975) of onsite data obtained from a 60-m tower equipped with sensors that meet the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.23 (Reference 16). Data from previous site meteorological systems and offsite National Weather Service sources were included as appropriate.

Offsite wind, stability, precipitation, temperature, relative humidity, and fog data were based on meteorological observations from Detroit Metropolitan Airport and Toledo Express Airport, both first-order National Weather Service stations (References 1 and 3). Additional temperature and precipitation data were obtained from National Weather Service cooperative stations at Monroe and Willis, Michigan (References 4 and 5). The 1956 to 1959 period site wind, stability, and precipitation data were obtained and summarized by the University of Michigan from the Fermi 1 100-ft meteorological tower (Subsection 2.3.3.1.1) (References 17 and 18). Additional onsite data from a low-level 33-ft tower at Langton Road are presented in this section, based on data obtained and reduced by the University of Michigan for the period January 1, 1972, to December 31, 1972. These data include ambient 2.3-7 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR temperature and relative humidity; however, the low-level wind data are only briefly discussed because of unfavorable (42 percent) data recovery. Wind stability and fog data summaries for Detroit Metropolitan Airport and Toledo Express Airport were also obtained. 2.3.2.2. Normal and Extreme Values of Local Meteorological Parameters The distribution of wind direction and speed is an important factor when considering transport conditions relevant to site diffusion climatology. The monthly, seasonal, and annual distributions of wind direction and speed from the 60-m tower at the Fermi site (June 1, 1974, to May 31, 1975) are presented in Figures 2.3-3 through 2.3-19. For comparative purposes, data from Detroit City Airport (81-ft level, 1951 to 1960) and Toledo Express Airport (20-ft level, 1950 to 1955) are presented in Figures 2.3-20 through 2.3-3 1; each month presented represents averaged data for the years reported. These data are summarized and presented in annual wind roses in Figure 2.3-32. Average wind directions for all locations show a predominance of winds from the southwest through west-southwest. Limited site data from the Langton Road Tower (33-ft level) for the January 1, 1972, to December 31, 1972, period indicate a predominance of winds from the south through west-southwest. Atmospheric dilution is directly proportional to the wind speed, with other factors remaining constant. Table 2.3-8 presents the average wind speeds and frequencies of calms for the Fermi site, the Detroit Metropolitan Airport, and the Toledo Express Airport. A calm is defined as a wind speed of <1.0 mph for the Fermi site 60-m and 150-m tower data and <1.2 mph for data recorded at National Weather Service stations and the Fermi site 100-ft tower. The threshold of the anemometer was used as the determining value of calm conditions. The highest average speed of the four stations, summarized in Table 2.3-8, is at the Fermi site at the 60-m level. This can be attributed to the higher exposure height of the wind sensors at the Fermi site and the shoreline location of the site, since wind speeds during onshore wind flows may be greater, and a lake breeze situation can develop during periods when light winds or calms are recorded at inland meteorological stations. Variations in speed can also be attributed to differences in instrumentation, data reduction techniques, and periods of record. 2.3.2.2.1. Wind Direction Persistence Wind direction persistence is important when considering potential effects from a contaminant release. Wind direction persistence is defined as a continuous flow from a given direction or range of directions. Figure 2.3-33 shows the probability of occurrence of a 22-1/2' sector wind flow persistence as a function of duration, based on data from the 60-m tower (June 1, 1974, to May 31, 1975) and offsite data from the Detroit Metropolitan Airport (1959 to 1962 data period) and the Toledo Express Airport (1959 to 1963 data period). The wind persistence summary from onsite data (60-m tower) is shown in Table 2.3-9 in increments of I hr. Based on the onsite observation time (12 months), the 10-m level data indicate a 5 percent probability of continuous wind direction persistence of about 7 hr and a 1 percent probability of 11-hr duration. At the 60-m level, these same percentages are 7 hr and 13 hr, respectively. 2.3-8 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR The 5 and 1 percent probabilities of continuous wind direction persistences at the 60-m level were greater than those observed at the 10-m level, as should be expected. The Detroit Metropolitan Airport data at 58 ft indicate a 5 percent probability of continuous wind direction persistence periods greater than 9 hr and a 1 percent probability of continuous wind direction persistence periods greater than 15.5 hr. The Toledo Express Airport data at 20 ft indicate a 5 percent probability of continuous wind direction persistence for periods greater than about 16 hr. The maximum wind persistence at the Fermi site within a 22-1/2' sector, recorded on the 60-m tower during the June 1, 1974, to May 31, 1975, period, was one period lasting for 32 hr at the 10-m level from the south, associated with an average speed of 21 mph. The maximum wind persistence at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport within a 22-1/2' sector, recorded during the 1959 to 1963 period, was a 37-hr wind from the east-southeast, associated with an average speed of 17 mph. The maximum wind persistence at the Toledo Express Airport within a 22-1/2' sector, recorded during the 1959 to 1963 period, was a 37-hr wind from the east-northeast associated with an average wind speed of 17.0 mph. Episodes of maximum wind persistence within a 22-1/20 sector for the Fermi site 10-m level (60-m tower) data, Detroit Metropolitan Airport, and the Toledo Express Airport are presented in Figure 2.3-34. 2.3.2.2.2. Atmospheric Stability Stability is a measure of the degree of atmospheric turbulence. A low degree of wind turbulence can be expected for stable conditions, resulting in relatively suppressed diffusion conditions. Conversely, during periods of instability, a high degree of wind turbulence can be associated with relatively enhanced diffusion conditions. The seasonal and annual frequencies of stability indices for the Detroit Metropolitan Airport, Toledo Express Airport, and the Fermi site 60-m tower are presented in Tables 2.3-10 and 2.3-11. The stability data for the two airports were classified according to the Pasquill-Turner approach (Reference 19). This method is an indirect approach and involves the utilization of factors such as cloud cover, solar insulation, time of day, and wind speed to classify data that are generally available at National Weather Service observation stations. The onsite stability data were determined for the 60-m tower for the June 1, 1974, to May 31, 1975, period. The stabilities were classified from AT( 60 m-1o m)data, using the procedure outlined in Regulatory Guide 1.23 (Reference 16). Examination of Tables 2.3-10 and 2.3-11 indicates the predominance of neutral conditions. The frequency of stable (E, F, and G) conditions for both Detroit Metropolitan Airport and Toledo Express Airport is similar to the frequency of inversions based on Fermi site AT(,It-25 00 fl) data from the 100-ft tower on a seasonal and annual basis (Table 2.3-12). The onsite data from the 60-m tower show a larger spread in the stability data. Onsite stability data for the 1956 to 1959 period were compiled on a seasonal and annual basis and summarized in reports by the University of Michigan (References 17 and 18). The data were based on a AT(,oo00-25 ft) and were obtained from the 100-ft tower described in Subsection 2.3.3.1. The data were classified into the following three groups:

a. Strong vertical temperature gradients (AT(loo ft-25 ft) < 0.98°C/100 m or
              -5.4'F/1000 ft) 2.3-9                               REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR

b. Weak vertical temperature gradients (AT(,oo ft-25 ft) >0.98°C/100 m or 5.4°F/1000 ft, and _O)
c. Inversions (temperature increases with height).

In addition, AT(300 fl-20 ft) data are available from the WJBK-TV tower located in the northwest suburbs of Detroit, approximately 35 miles north of the Fermi site. Data from this tower were analyzed for the 1956 to 1959 period for inversion conditions only. Fermi site AT(60 m-10 i) data from the 60-m tower are presented on an hourly basis over the June 1, 1974, to May 31, 1975, period in Tables 2.3-13 and 2.3-14. Additional Fermi site AT(I00 ft-25 ft) data from the 100-ft tower are presented on a seasonal and annual basis in Table 2.3-12. WJBK-TV AT( 300 ft-20 fl) data for inversion conditions only are presented in Table 2.3-15 for comparative purposes. These two locations compare favorably as to frequency of occurrence of inversion conditions. Both have a maximum during the summer and a minimum during the spring. The diurnal distribution of frequency of inversions at the WJBK-TV tower compares well with that at the Fermi site using data from the 60-m tower. The maximum frequency of inversions occurs in the midmorning hours (5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.), while the maximum frequency of unstable conditions occurs in the early afternoon hours (1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.). Table 2.3-16 shows the inversion persistence derived from the 60-m tower measurements over the June 1, 1974, to May 31, 1975, period. The stability classes were determined from AT(60 m-r10o in) 60-m tower data using the classification scheme outlined in Regulatory Guide 1.23. For Table 2.3-16, an inversion was defined as the existence of a temperature difference between the 60-m level and the 10-m level of greater than -0.0 0 C (i.e., temperature change with height (°C/100 m) >-0.0). Figure 2.3-35 presents the probability of inversion persistence for durations greater than 6 hr, based on the frequency of occurrence with respect to surface-based inversions only. These data are based on Fermi AT site data from the 100-ft tower for the 1956 to 1959 period and AT site data from the 60-m tower for the June 1, 1974, to May 31, 1975, period. Figure 2.3-35 shows a 5 percent probability of an inversion lasting longer than 25 hr and a 1 percent probability of an inversion lasting longer than 43 hr, using the 100-ft tower data. For the 60-m tower data, these same percentages produce inversions of 18 hr and 30 hr, respectively. Joint frequency tables of wind directions and speed by stability class are presented in Appendix 2A of the original FSAR for onsite Fermi data from the 60-m tower from June 1, 1974, to May 31, 1975. Current data for the 10-m level and 60-m level are provided by the operational meteorological system (Subsection 2.3.3.2). Annual summaries of meteorological data are prepared as required by the Technical Specifications. 2.3.2.2.3. Distribution and Frequency of Precipitation Distribution of precipitation as a function of wind direction is presented in Table 2.3-17 for the Fermi site, using data from 1956-1959 from the 100-ft tower and from June 1, 1974, to May 31, 1975, from the 60-m tower. The 100-ft tower data show that the highest frequency of precipitation occurs when associated with winds from the southwest through west-northwest. The average wind speeds (100-ft level) during precipitation are 11.0 mph for all 2.3-10 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR directions. The frequency of precipitation during calm conditions is 0.2 percent of the total hours of precipitation (Reference 18). The 60-m tower data show a larger spread, which may be due to the smaller sample size (12 months). A wind rose showing the distribution of wind speed versus wind direction with respect to precipitation only is presented in Figure 2.3-36. 2.3.2.2.4. Natural Fog Occurrences Fog is essentially a cloud that has developed on the ground. Therefore, the processes leading to fog formation are similar to those for cloud formation. In general, the conditions that promote water-vapor condensation in ground-level air may lead to fog conditions. Aside from the interrelated thermodynamics of the ambient air and the ground surface, a number of other factors may influence the formation of fog. These factors include the size, character, and number of condensation nuclei; the extent of cloud cover; the wind speed and direction; the time of day; and the atmospheric turbulence. The surface air may generally be treated as a mixture of dry air and water vapor. The most frequent and effective cause of fog is the cooling of humid surface air to a point where vapor condensation occurs. The condensation generally takes place on larger and more active condensation nuclei, and may occur somewhat before the dewpoint temperature (saturation) is reached. However, as long as the moisture content is sufficiently below the saturation value, condensation does not occur and fog conditions do not exist. According to Byers, there are three types of fog which predominate in the Great Lakes area (Reference 20). Spring and early summer conditions (warm atmosphere and cold lake) contribute to the formation of land and lake breeze fogs. In the fall, advection-radiation fogs form over the land. During the fall and winter, steam fogs form over the lakes. In the formation of a land and lake breeze fog, warm moist air from the land is transported out over the cold lake and, if the winds are light, a dense surface fog may develop over the lake. The fog may then be carried out over the land by a lake breeze during the day and may recede at night during a land breeze flow. These fogs rarely penetrate very far inland (i.e., 2 or 3 miles). An advection-radiation fog is formed by nighttime radiational cooling of air of high humidity that has been advected inland from the lake during the day. This advection of lake air with a high relative humidity makes possible the formation of fog with normal nocturnal cooling. Steam fog will form when cold air with a low vapor pressure passes over warm water. Steam fog is generally shallow in depth (i.e., 50 ft to 100 ft thick). According to Rondy, the western end of Lake Erie will have 70 percent to 90 percent ice coverage out to 35 miles by January 15 during a normal winter. The extreme western shoreline, where the Fermi site is located, will have 100 percent coverage out to 5 miles from the shore by January 15 (Reference 21). Therefore, steam fog in the Fermi site area will occur mostly during the fall. Fog occurs predominantly during the early morning hours when the moisture-bearing air is cooled to the lowest temperature and the vapor saturation of the air is most closely approached. This effect is illustrated in Figure 2.3-37 where the probability of fog occurrence at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport, for the December 1, 1958, to September 1, 1962, period, is plotted versus the hour of the day for the annual average. Over the year, the peak frequency of fog occurrence is about 32.1 percent of the total hours of fog and occurs 2.3-11 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR between 5:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. There is a notably higher frequency of fog between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m. Fog (other than frontal fog) is normally expected to dissipate during the late morning hours, particularly on clear, sunny days. However, cloud cover can extend the period of fog well into the daytime hours. The monthly percentage occurrences of fog based on Detroit Metropolitan Airport data are presented in Figure 2.3-38. As can be seen in Figure 2.3-38, the monthly distribution of fog at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport does not show the distribution of fog for a Great Lakes area station predicted by Byers. Great Lakes area fogs have peak occurrences in the spring, early summer, and fall. The Detroit Metropolitan Airport shows peaks in the fall and winter. The major cause of the difference between occurrences observed at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport and those predicted by Byers is the location of the airport with respect to Lake Erie. Detroit Metropolitan Airport is located approximately 20 miles from Lake Erie. Because of this, lake- land breeze-type fogs, which rarely penetrate more than 2 to 3 miles inland, will not be evident at the airport. Because the Toledo Express Airport is 20 miles from Lake Erie, these types of fogs will not be evident there either. However, in a location such as the Fermi site, the lake will have a greater effect on natural fog occurrences, and the types and frequencies of fog should be the same as outlined by Byers. The presence of fog onsite (at the shoreline) is associated with, for the most part, calm wind conditions. The ability of the natural draft cooling tower plume to rise to considerable heights is a significant factor in reducing the potential of adverse ground-level environmental effects. For example, under calm wind conditions, a typical plume penetration height for the Fermi 2 cooling towers is about 1000 ft above the top of the towers. In addition, the major roadways in the vicinity of the site are Interstate 75 and U.S. 24/25, whose closest approaches are 5.1 and 5.8 miles to the northwest, respectively. Dixie Highway, Pointe Aux Peaux Road, and Toll Road are closer, but are not considered major highways (Reference 22). 2.3.2.2.5. Meteorological Parameters The extremes and means of meteorological parameters have been tabulated in Tables 2.3-2 through 2.3-6 for the Detroit City Airport, Detroit Metropolitan Airport, Toledo Express Airport, and Monroe and Willis, Michigan. Table 2.3-18 presents the average temperature and relative humidity by month during the January 1, 1972, through December 31, 1972, period at the Fermi site (Langton Road Tower), the Detroit City Airport, and the Toledo Express Airport, for comparative purposes. However, the average relative humidity values by month for Fermi site data seem somewhat high and may, to some extent, be attributed to instrumentation and calibration inaccuracies. (Prevailing winds for the period were from the south through west-southwest.) Figures 2.3-39 and 2.3-40 show the means of the daily averages and extremes of ambient air temperature and relative humidity, respectively. Relative humidity data were derived from ambient air temperature and dewpoint temperature data collected at the 10-m level of the 60-in tower from June 1, 1974, through May 31, 1975. A comparison of monthly average temperatures and monthly high and low temperatures between the Fermi site data and National Weather Service data nearby, for the June 1, 1974, through May 31, 1975, period, is shown in Table 2.3-19. 2.3-12 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.3.2.3. Potential Influence of the Plant and the Facilities on Local Meteorology The physical structures of the plant, especially the large natural draft cooling towers, are expected to locally increase atmospheric turbulence. There is also a potential for somewhat decreased low-level wind speeds in the immediate vicinity of the physical structures of the plant due to a wind-shielding effect. A study has shown that a cooling tower has an extended downwind wake upward to at least one and one-half times the tower height and downwind approximately two to three times the tower diameter. This will occur for wind speeds greater than 5 to 8 mph. Analysis has shown that any increase in precipitation due to the natural draft system will be minimal. Maximum precipitation from drift is predicted to occur at a distance of 3 km (1.8 miles) both northeast and west-southwest of the cooling towers at a total rate of approximately 0.008 in. annually. The increase in surface relative humidity is insignificant. The greatest relative humidity increase (nearly 21 percent at 1500 m downwind) will occur on winter mornings at an approximate height of 470 m (1542 ft). This 21 percent increase is ample to cause a visible plume from the natural draft cooling tower to extend downwind approximately 1000 m during the winter. There will be no significant fogging problems offsite on an annual basis. The offsite ground-level visibility reduction (to <1000 m) is predicted to occur only about 1 hr per year (Reference 22). The cited cooling tower studies were conducted specifically for the Fermi 2 cooling towers by the NUS Corporation. The parameters used and the results of these studies are presented in the Fermi 2 Environmental Report in Section 5.1. The models used are described in Section 6.1 and were filed with the NRC on August 30, 1974, as the reports listed below as supporting documents to Docket Nos. 50-500 and 50-501.

a. Langrangian Vapor Plume Model - Version 3 (LVPM-3), NUS-TM-S-184
b. FOG Model Description, NUS-TM-S-185
c. ICE Model Description, NUS-TM-S-186.

2.3.2.4. Topographic Description 2.3.2.4.1. General Description The terrain in the region of the Fermi site is characterized by flat plains, with the relief varying from 0 to 100 ft. More than 80 percent of the area is gently sloping. However, the actual site area is relatively flat and characterized by marshlands. Figures 2.3-41 and 2.3-42 are topographic maps of the area within 5- and 50-mile radii, respectively. Figure 2.3-43 is a topographic cross section of the Fermi site area out to 5 miles from the plant site and Figure 2.3-44 is a topographic cross section of the Fermi site out to 50 miles. 2.3.2.4.2. Topographic Influences on Meteorological Diffusion Estimates The major local topographic effect on site meteorology is the presence of Lake Erie and the resultant occurrences of lake and land breeze circulations. Lake and land breeze circulations are driven by horizontal pressure gradients across the shoreline. These pressure gradients are the result of the temperature variation between water and land. This temperature differential between water and land can be most readily explained by the turbulent mixing and transport of surface heat by wave action and currents in a lake. This turbulent mixing process within 2.3-13 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR the lake effects a continuous downward transport of surface heat through the water, thus lowering the surface water temperature (and also lowering the temperature of the overlying air), in contrast with the strong surface heating of the air over the shoreline region. This contrast is also intensified because the lake water has a higher thermal capacity than that of the soil. The temperature differential across the shoreline is enhanced under clear skies and light geostrophic winds. Because the land is heated faster than the lake, the air above the land becomes warmer than the air above the lake. The warmer air over the land begins to rise as it expands and becomes less dense. At an average height aloft of 700 m, a pressure gradient from the land to the lake is formed (Reference 23). Because of this pressure gradient, air begins to flow from the land toward the lake. This offshore flow aloft is known as the return flow. Typical return flows extend above 1500 m and have velocities that can exceed 5 m/sec. Because air is advected from the land to over the lake aloft, a surface low is formed over the land and a surface high is formed over the water. With a surface pressure gradient thus formed, an onshore wind flow at the surface (the lake breeze) is started. To complete the circulation cell of the lake breeze, there is strong upward motion (with average updrafts of over 1 mph) over the land and subsiding air over the lake. Figure 2.3-45 is a schematic representation of the streamlines during a well-developed lake breeze cell (Reference 23). Although formation of the lake breeze circulation is usually perpendicular to the shoreline, Coriolis forces become significant as the system matures. During the later afternoon, the lake breeze can be expected to have a major component parallel to the shore (i.e., to the right of the original trajectory). In the middle latitudes, lake breezes can occur during 30 to 60 percent of the days in the spring and summer months of the year. Lake breezes can also occur during the fall and winter seasons, although less frequently than during the spring and summer. Land breezes are the converse of lake breezes and may develop when lake temperatures are warmer than land temperatures, such as during the fall and early winter, or during the night in the summer. However, land breezes are generally weaker and less frequent than lake breezes. Once the lake becomes covered by ice, the temperature differential between lake and land becomes minimal, and the lake effect becomes nonexistent. The front edge of the lake breeze flow has the basic characteristics of a cold front with cool, moist lake air behind the front advancing inland. This lake breeze front may advance 30 km or more inland (Reference 24). During onshore wind flow, such as a lake breeze, cool air flowing off the lake is modified by thermal surface heating and by surface roughness effects as the air flows over the land. The air from the lake is modified significantly as it flows over the land, especially during the spring and early summer. The air is heated from below, resulting in an unstable vertical temperature gradient and hence enhanced diffusion conditions. Surface roughness effects over the land increase atmospheric turbulence (also resulting in enhanced diffusion conditions), although low-level wind speeds will decrease. The thermal and roughness effects occur at the shoreline and form a "boundary layer" which increases vertically with distance inland. Within this boundary layer is unstable air, with stable air and an intense elevated inversion (suppressed diffusion) above the boundary layer. During the late fall and winter seasons, especially when there is not as large a temperature differential between the 2.3-14 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR lake and the land as during the spring and early summer, the boundary layer is more shallow and the surface-based inversion (suppressed diffusion), normally formed right at the lakeshore, penetrates further inland. Offshore wind flows generally result in somewhat suppressed diffusion conditions. The warm air advected from over the land is cooled from below, resulting in a stable vertical temperature gradient (inversion) and less diffusion for the over-water flow than for an overland flow. There is also a decrease in wind turbulence, although wind speeds will increase as the air flows from the relatively rough land surface over the smooth water surface. In addition to lake land breezes near a shoreline, there are also downwash and upwash effects. The primary cause of a downwash or upwash condition is the difference in surface roughness between the land and the lake (Reference 24). The upwash situation occurs with the winds blowing off the lake. The air flows from the relatively frictionless lake surface over the rough land, and a reduction in low-level wind speed occurs. This reduction in wind speed enhances plume rise to the extent that the plume can more easily escape the dynamic downwash effects of the plant structure. Downwash effects occur primarily with an offshore wind. The low-level winds coming off the relatively rough land over the smooth lake increase in speed. This increase in wind speed enhances plume downwash toward the lake surface. A qualitative study of the surface characteristics of lake breezes at and in the near vicinity of the Fermi 2 site has been reported in Reference 25. The preliminary results of this study confirm the aforementioned factors. During the summer months, about one-third of the days were determined to give rise to a lake breeze situation. The inland penetration of these airflows averaged about 4 miles with a mean temperature decrease at the site of about 2°F and a relative humidity increase at the site of about 10 percent. The mean wind speed change due to a lake breeze situation was small (1 to 2 mph) when the lake breeze was in a direction so as to enhance the wind speed. Under conditions when the lake breeze occurred in opposition to a gradient wind, some wind direction changes were found. However, the infrequency of these situations makes it doubtful that the lake breeze could significantly change the atmospheric dispersion of effluents on an annual basis. Edison performed a short-term meteorological study, specifically for emergency planning application, during the lake breeze seasons of 1983 and 1984 to determine the effect of Lake Erie on plume transport characteristics at the Fermi 2 site. 2.3.3. Onsite Meteorological Programs 2.3.3.1. Preoperational Onsite Meteorological Program 2.3.3.1.1. Meteorological Facility Operations Onsite data presented in this report were collected from three different locations within the site boundary: from a 60-m tower approximately 2400 ft southwest of the Fermi 2 reactor building (since June 1, 1974) (Data from the 60-m tower were used for the diffusion estimate modeling); from the Fermi 1 100-ft tower located approximately 500 ft south-southeast of the Fermi 1 turbine building (December 1, 1956, to November 30, 1959); and from a 10-m (33-ft) tower located near Langton Road (January 1, 1972, to December 31, 1972). 2.3-15 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR Data were also collected from a 150-m tower that was located approximately 2400 ft south of Fermi 2 on the Lake Erie shoreline. One year of data (June 1, 1974, to May 31, 1975) from the 150-m tower and the 60-m tower were compared (Reference 26). The results of that study show that the 60-m tower data are representative of the Fermi 2 onsite meteorological conditions. When the Fermi 2 preoperational meteorological program was completed May 31, 1976, the 150-m tower was decommissioned. At that time, the 60-m tower operations were also discontinued until approximately 18 months prior to Fermi 2 fuel load (Reference 27). Following this, meteorological data have been collected only from the 60-m tower; thus the 60-m tower data are presented in this section. The 60-m tower data were collected, developed, and analyzed according to Regulatory Guides 1.23 and 1.111, Revision 1 (Reference 26). The bases for decommissioning the 150-m tower, which was approved by the NRC (Reference 27), were as follows:

a. The analysis of the meteorological data collected shows the 60-m tower data are, for most parameters including X/Q values, a more conservative characterization of the Fermi 2 conditions
b. The inland location of the 60-m tower is more representative of the air layer into which the plant effluent will be released since the gaseous release point is approximately 250 in from the shoreline on the west side (inland) of the building complex
c. Gas turbine peaking units located north of the 150-m tower affect the temperature measurements at the 10-m and 60-m levels, and consequently AT values, when the winds are from the north-northwest sector. During these periods, the data have to be rejected, which can seriously jeopardize the 90 percent data-recovery requirement of Regulatory Guide 1.23
d. The Fermi 1 plant structures are located such that building wake may bias the wind data for the 150-m tower for northerly directions
e. The 60-m tower is less susceptible to the icing conditions and localized lake shoreline effects experienced at the 150-m tower
f. The 2 years of data collected on the 150-m tower compare favorably, indicating only minor variations between seasons that are considered to be within the expected statistical variations between years. Thus 1 year of data at either tower, since it can be assumed the 60-m tower correlations would be valid for any year period, can be considered representative of site meteorology.

Data and discussions for the 100-ft and Langton Road towers are presented to provide supplementary site information. Data reduction on the 100-ft tower covered only the period from 1956 to 1959 to obtain data for the Fermi 1 plant; therefore, neither the instruments, data collection methods, nor data-reduction methods meet Regulatory Guide 1.23 requirements. The 33-ft Langton Road tower was originally installed as a satellite to the 150-m tower and was not instrumented to meet Regulatory Guide 1.23 requirements. A brief description of the 100-ft and 33-ft towers is presented in the following paragraphs. On the 100-ft tower, wind speed and direction were measured at the 24-ft (7 m) level, 56-ft (17 in) level, and the 100-ft (30 m) level. Temperature sensing elements were located at 5 ft (1.5 m), 25 ft (7.6 m), 57 ft (17 m), and 100 ft (30 m). A standard National Weather Service 2.3-16 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR rain gage was located near the base of the tower. Specifically, the instrumentation of the 100-ft tower included

a. Wind instrumentation - three Bendix aerovanes
b. Temperature instrumentation - four ventilated and shielded iron-constantan thermojunctions
c. Precipitation instrumentation - one standard National Weather Service rain gage located at the base of the tower.

Data analyses are available from the above station for the December 1, 1956, to November 30, 1959, period and include only the 100-ft wind and temperature measurements AT(100 ft-25 ft). The Langton Road tower (33 ft) was onsite in an open field, approximately 3500 ft west of the plant. This 10-m tower was maintained and operated by the University of Michigan. Wind data at Langton Road were collected at the 10-m level; temperature and relative humidity were recorded on a hygrothermograph housed in a conventional instrument shelter at a height of approximately 5 ft (1.5 mi). Specifically, the instrumentation at the Langton Road tower included

a. Wind instrumentation - Gill propeller vane direction and speed sensors at the 10-m level
b. Temperature and humidity instrumentation - Belfort hygrothermograph housed in a conventional instrument shelter.

The specifications for the above equipment are summarized in Table 2.3-20. Data have been collected and reduced from this station for the January 1, 1972, to December 31, 1972, period. 2.3.3.1.2. Preoperational 60-Meter Tower Meteorological Data System All the preoperational meteorological data systems that have been used during the Fermi 2 program are described in this section. The data are available from the 150-m tower (Reference 26), but are not reported herein. 2.3.3.1.2.1 .Instrumentation A revised Fermi 2 site meteorological program was initiated in November 1973 that more adequately measured meteorological conditions at the Fermi site and met the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.23. The revised program included the reinstrumentation of the 150-m tower on January 23, 1974, and the installation of a 60-m tower with identical instrumentation. The two-tower program monitored most meteorological conditions, with the 150-m tower measuring undisturbed onshore flow off Lake Erie, and the 60-m tower measuring the perturbed onshore flow characteristic of conditions that could affect gaseous effluent releases during overland flow conditions. Figure 2.3-46 is a map of the Fermi site area with the meteorological tower locations. Instrumentation on the 60-m tower measured wind speed, wind direction, and temperature at the 10-m level and the 60-m level. In addition, dewpoint was measured at the 10-m level, and precipitation was measured at ground level. 2.3-17 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR The interface electronics and backup analog recorders were located at the base of the 60-m tower in an environmentally controlled instrument shelter. The primary recording was accomplished using a digital system with teletype printout in engineering units and a computer-compatible paper tape. A minicomputer, located in the instrument shelter at the base of the 150-m tower, provided continuous automatic sensor polling every 15 sec and printed out averages of the data collected from the last 15 minutes once every hour. During periods when data might be desired more often than once an hour, the operator could call for a printout at any desired time interval. The 60-m tower instrumentation was interconnected to the 150-m tower system by a 2500-ft data-transmission line. Thus, the tower was controlled by the minicomputer. The 2500-ft data-transmission line was protected at each end by optical isolators designed to withstand 10 kV. This minimized the interface effects of all but the closest lightning flashes. The revised meteorological program instrumentation specifications are shown in Table 2.3-

21. The revised site meteorological program was fully operational in May 1974. Onsite data from the preoperational test program were acquired and analyzed from the 60-m tower from June 1, 1974, to May 31, 1975, from the digital printouts and the computer-compatible paper tape. AST operational onsite program data were also selected and analyzed from the 60-m tower for the period January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1999.

2.3.3.1.2.2.Calibration Analog. Every 6 months, all sensors, electronics, and recording equipment were calibrated. Additional onsite calibrations were performed during the service visits. Any necessary adjustments were made onsite and equipment that malfunctioned was either corrected onsite or replaced with similar spare equipment. After any adjustments or repairs, the calibration was repeated. Electronics calibrations were performed by simulating the output of each of the sensors with precision test equipment and monitoring the recorded values for each parameter. Wind speed sensors were replaced by a square wave frequency generator (with its output monitored by a frequency counter) that was adjusted to provide frequencies corresponding to known wind speeds. Wind direction sensors were replaced by a stable voltage source (with its output monitored by a digital voltmeter), which was adjusted to provide an output corresponding to known wind vane orientations. Temperature sensors were replaced with a stable decade resistance box, which was adjusted to provide accurate resistances corresponding to known temperatures. In all cases, the test instrument settings used were those for which the sensor manufacturer published calibration equivalents. Sensor calibrations are performed by the manufacturer. All results of both electronics and sensor calibrations are kept and filed onsite. Digital. The complete instrumentation system was calibrated every 6 months. Electronics calibrations were virtually the same as were performed on the analog system. Dewpoint electronics calibrations were performed in the same manner as those for air temperature electronics. With the exception of precipitation, sensor calibrations were performed by the manufacturer. The precipitation sensor and electronics were calibrated by placing known weights in the emptied weighing bucket corresponding to a known amount of rainfall. All results of both electronics and sensor calibration were kept and filed onsite. 2.3-18 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.3.3.1.2.3.Service and Maintenance Analog. Visits were made twice a week to the 150-m tower to change chart paper, fill inkwells and pens, and change ribbons. A visual inspection of the sensors was made to see if they had been damaged. Using the same precision test equipment used for calibration, all instrumentation was checked to ensure reliable operation. Digital. Daily operational checks and service were performed by a resident technician. These checks included inspection of the data to determine that all sensors were functioning correctly and of the strip charts to ensure accurate recording. In addition, the technician marked the correct time to the nearest minute on the strip chart and verified the correct time of the digital system. Visual inspections of sensors were also performed to ensure that they had not been physically damaged. 2.3.3.1.3. Data Analysis Procedures The data analysis procedures discussed in this subsection were those used for the data reported herein, which includes data from the 60-m tower, 100-ft tower, and Langton Road tower. The total preoperational meteorological program also included the 150-m tower from which data were collected and analyzed over the period from July 3, 1973, to May 31, 1975. However, approximately 170 m north of the 150-m tower, four peaking units were located that were operated during periods of high electrical demand. When the peaking units were in operation and the wind was from the north, it was occasionally noticed that significant increases in temperature at the 60-m and 150-m levels occurred. Because of this, it was deemed necessary to delete periods during which peaking unit operation influenced the determination of the lapse rate. This influence was apparent several times during the course of the annual data collection. Because of the problems associated with the 150-m tower's location, the 60-m tower was installed. An analysis of 1 year of simultaneous meteorological data from the 150-m tower and 60-m tower (Reference 26) showed that the 60-m tower data were representative of the onsite meteorology. Thus, after the Fermi 2 preoperational onsite meteorological data collection was completed, the 150-rn tower was decommissioned. Future data will be collected using the 60-m tower only (Reference 26). 2.3.3.1.3.1.60-Meter Tower Data Reduction The meteorological monitoring systems for the Fermi site are described in Subsection 2.3.3.1.2. The data acquisition system utilized two levels of instrumentation (10-m and 60-m) on the 60-m tower located approximately 2400 ft southwest of the Fermi 2 plant. The atmospheric stability conditions were determined from the temperature differences (AT) between the 10-m and 60-m temperature measurements, in accordance with the Pasquill Stability Criteria, Conditions A through G. Data from the 60-m tower were read by computer from paper tape to an IBM computer-compatible disk pack and magnetic tape for further use in modeling the site meteorological conditions and x/Q calculations for various time periods. Strip charts were used only for backup. The strip- chart data, when needed, were read manually and the data put on IBM cards. Data from the charts were recovered by averaging the 15-minute period immediately preceding the hour. As long as 90 percent of the time span (13.5 minutes) was available for averaging, the data were deemed valid. 2.3-19 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR As a continuing operational verification of data validity, comparisons for all sensors at all levels on the tower between analog and digital averages were made on a random basis during the preoperational phase. The results of these comparisons for all parameters at the 10-m level and the air temperature at the 60-m level of the 60-m tower are shown in Table 2.3-22. For all checks the correlations are excellent. Differences can be attributed to strip-chart-reading error combined with the greater resolution of the digital system. Precipitation at ground level was recorded onsite starting December 7, 1973. With the digital system operational, the strip charts were used only for backup, thus eliminating the strip-chart-reading task. Digital data were verified periodically against strip charts. 2.3.3.1.3.2. Langton Road Tower and 100-Ft Tower Data Reduction Data from the 10-m Langton Road tower were recorded on strip charts and manually reduced. One 10-minute sample for each 1-hr available-data period was obtained for values of the wind direction range (i.e., the extremes of the direction trace peaks). Average values of wind direction and wind speed were obtained by visually estimating a median for the 1-hr sample of the analog traces. One reading was taken for each 1 hr of data available to obtain instantaneous values of temperature and relative humidity. The manually reduced data were transcribed on cards and were used as computer input for data analysis and summary. Data from the 100-ft tower were also recorded on strip charts and manually reduced. Hourly averages of wind direction, wind speed, and temperature were obtained by estimating a median for the analog trace. 2.3.3.1.4. Meteorological Data Recovery 2.3.3.1.4.1. 60-Meter Tower Data Recovery The meteorological data recovery rates for the 60-m tower data for the June 1, 1974 through May 31, 1975 period are listed in Table 2.3-23. The joint data recovery (AT, wind speed, wind direction) for the June 1, 1974, to May 31, 1975, period of 91.16 percent meets the 90 percent required by Regulatory Guide 1.23 The joint data recovery of wind speed and direction and AT for the January 1, 1995 through December 3 1, 1999 10-meter tower data that was utilized in the PAVAN model for accidental releases at offsite locations is 96.2 percent, also meeting the NRC 90 percent criterion. For the calculations presented herein, only 10-m wind speed and direction, and temperature differences between 60-m and 10-m were used to calculate the short-term postulated accidental release diffusion estimates based on the 1995-1999 data. The 10-m and 60-m wind speeds were used to calculate the long-term mixed-mode annual average X/Q and D/Q values based on the June 1974 through May 1975 period. 2.3.3.1.4.2. Langton Tower and 100-Ft Tower Data Recovery The meteorological data-recovery rates for the 33-ft Langton Tower data are listed in Table 2.3-24. Wind data for the January 1, 1972, to December 31, 1972, period have not been included in this report due to a low data-recovery rate. The recovery was 94 percent for the 2.3-20 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR temperature and relative humidity data for the report period. The data-recovery rate for the 100-ft tower was 77 percent for temperature data, and 96 percent for the 100-ft- level wind data for the December 1, 1956, to November 30, 1959, period. Data-recovery information for other levels of the 100-ft tower are not readily available. 2.3.3.2. Operational Meteorological Monitoring System The previously described preoperational meteorological program was upgraded for plant operation. The upgraded program is composed of two independent meteorological trains of instrumentation - a primary train and a secondary train - mounted on the 60-m tower. Both trains feed the data acquisition equipment of the Integrated Plant Computer System (IPCS) located in the Fermi 2 control center. The IPCS has the capability to share the meteorological data with other plant computers, display the data on IPCS terminals at various plant locations, and perform plume dispersion analysis in support of Emergency Plan activities. Users at remote locations can access the meteorological data on IPCS through dedicated remote access devices. The NRC can also receive selected meteorological data through the Emergency Response Data System (ERDS). The operational meteorological monitoring system is described in further detail in the following subsections and is illustrated in Figure 2.3-47. 2.3.3.2.1. Instrumentation Table 2.3-25 lists the meteorological parameters monitored, the sampling height(s), and the sensing technique for the primary and secondary systems. To minimize data loss due to ice storms, external heaters are installed on all primary wind sensors. The heaters are thermostatically controlled and are of the slip-on/slip-off design for easy attachment. The wind sensor specifications are not affected by these heaters. A windscreen is mounted around the precipitation gage to minimize the amount of windblown snow and debris deposited in the gage. Electrical power is supplied to the primary and secondary systems by independent power supplies. One source of power is Fermi 2; the other is an offsite source. If one supply fails, the other automatically supplies the necessary power for both systems. Two precautions are taken to minimize lightning damage to the system. Two of the three legs are grounded and the signal cables are routed through a lightning protection panel. Each signal line is protected by transient protection diodes specifically designed to stay below the individual line voltage breakdown point. 2.3.3.2.2. Signal Conditioning Inside the environmentally controlled instrument shelter, sensor signals are conditioned. Each sensor signal requires a single printed-circuit board to perform the necessary conversion, amplification, and scaling to provide a pair of analog outputs for each parameter. Zero and full-scale test switches are front-panel mounted on each printed-circuit board to facilitate parameter testing. 2.3-21 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR After conditioning through their respective printed-circuit boards, the 10m horizontal wind direction and vertical wind speed signals pass into the Climatronics Standard Deviation Computer boards to compute the 15-minute average sigma theta and sigma phi. The primary and secondary signal conditioner and standard deviation computer boards are completely independent of each other. 2.3.3.2.3. Data Transmission The outputs of the instrument signal conditioning equipment is transmitted to the control center via two independent transmission lines. The one line incorporates a phone line between the shelter and the nuclear operations center, where information is microwaved to the Office Service Building. From the Office Service Building, the signals are transmitted to the control center. The second line uses a separate phone line from the shelter to the nuclear operations center, where the data are transmitted to the office service building via a phone line. From the office service building, the signals are transmitted to the control center. The two signals are electrically separated from one another from the 60-m tower to the control center. The instrumentation at the 60-m tower is electrically isolated from the equipment in the control center computer room. 2.3.3.2.4. Data Acquisition The dual IPCS data acquisition multiplexors accept two trains of data from the Meteorological system primaly and secondary data acquisition equipment. This data is provided to the IPCS computers to perform meteorological calculations, update the data archive, display the information on the man-machine interface, and output the data to communication devices. The IPCS provides redundant computers that provide a main (Master) and backup (Slave) capability. The redundant computers in conjunction with the two trains of data acquisition provide two independent paths of data. The IPCS system monitors available error signals to determine equipment status. If an instrument input malfunctions, if data are suspect, or an instrument input is manually removed from service, the IPCS will substitute the reading from the next level of redundancy as listed in Table 2.3-26 and indicate the substitution on the IPCS computers. Meteorological data are available in five different formats: instantaneous values, 1-minute blocked averages, 15-minute rolling averages, 15-minute blocked averages, and 1-hour blocked averages. In the event that a data path to IPCS is unavailable, a recorder is available on each train of instrumentation at the meteorological instrument building to archive the raw data. 2.3.4. Short-Term (Accident) Diffusion Estimates 2.3.4.1. Calculation of Offsite Atmospheric Diffusion Coefficients 2.3.4.1.1. Objective To evaluate the dispersion potential of the atmosphere in the Fermi site area, calculations were made of concentrations of effluents normalized by the source strength of the power 2.3-22 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR plant release. These atmospheric dilution factors were calculated using the meteorological data collected onsite from January 1, 1995 - December 31, 1999. Short-term offsite transport was modeled using the PAVAN software (Reference 28), which is based on the NRC design-basis-accident methodology in Regulatory Guide 1.145 (Reference 31). PAVAN is a commercial software package applicable to nuclear safety-related analyses as well as non-safety related studies and evaluations. Its use is applicable for determining normalized offsite concentrations as required for the Exclusion Area Boundary (EAB) and the Low Population Zone (LPZ). These locations are defined in UFSAR Sections 2.1.2 and 2.1.3.3 as radial distances of 915 m and 4827 m, respectively, from the containment building. Six different x/Q values, corresponding to six different time periods following an accident, were calculated. The time periods postulated to follow an accident are those specified by the NRC in Regulatory Guide 1.145. These are 0-2 hr, 0-8 hr, 8-24 hr., 1-4 days, 4-30 days and the annual period. 2.3.4.1.2. Dispersion Equations This section describes the governing atmospheric dispersion modeling equations and assumptions in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.145. Ground-levelx/Q values were calculated for the 2 hours following the accident for the EAB and LPZ, and for the annual period for the LPZ. Calculations were based on the following equations: XQ = 1 (2.3-1)

            /QUJ (Trcryaz +A/2)

X//q - =,0o(3.iTOyOrz) 1 (2.3-2) X/- 1 (2.3-3) Where: X/Q is relative concentration, in sec/m 3 71 is 3.14159 U1 0 is wind speed at 10 meters above plant grade, in m/sec ay is lateral plume spread, in m, a function of atmospheric stability and distance (z is vertical plume spread, in m, a function of atmospheric stability and distance XY_ is lateral plume spread with meander and building wake effects (in meters), a function of atmospheric stability, wind speed, and distance [for distances of 800 m or less, Xy=Ma'y, where M is determined from Regulatory Guide 1.145 Figure 3; for distances greater than 800 m, YXy=(M- 1)aTy800m'+C-y A is the smallest vertical-plane cross-sectional area of the reactor building, in m2 (other structures or a directional consideration may be justified when appropriate). Offsite x/Qs are calculated assuming a minimum cross-sectional 2.3-23 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR area, A, of the combined reactor/auxiliary building of 2300 m2 , as shown in Figure 2.3-48 Plume meander is only considered during neutral (D) or stable (E, F, or G) atmospheric stability conditions where the highest X/Q values resulting from equations 2.3-1, 2.3-2 and 2.3-3 is selected. For all other conditions (stability classes A, B, or C), meander is not considered and the highest X/Q value of equations 2.3-1 and 2.3-2 is selected. The X/Q values calculated at the EAB based on meteorological data representing a 1-hour average is assumed to apply for the entire 2-hour period. 2.3.4.1.3. Determination of Max Sector and Overall 5 Percent Site X/Q Values 2.3.4.1.3.1 .Maximum Sector X/Q To determine the maximum sector X/Q value at the EAB, a cumulative frequency probability distribution (probabilities of a given x/Q value being exceeded in that sector during the total time) is constructed for each of the 16 sectors using the x/Q values calculated for each hour of data. This probability is then plotted versus the X/Q values and a smooth curve is drawn to form an upper bound of the computed points. For each of the 16 curves, the X/Q value that is exceeded 0.5 percent of the total hours is selected and designated as the sector X/Q value. The highest of the 16 sector X/Q values is the maximum sector X/Q. Determination of the LPZ maximum sector z/Q is based on a logarithmic interpolation between the 2-hour sector x/Q and the annual average X/Q for the same sector. For each time period, the highest of these 16 sector X/Q values is identified as the maximum sector X/Q value. The maximum sector x/Q values will, in most cases, occur in the same sector. If they do not occur in the same sector, all 16 sets of values will be used in dose assessment requiring time-integrated concentration considerations. The set that results in the highest time-integrated dose within a sector is considered the maximum sector x/Q. 2.3.4.1.3.2. 5 Percent Overall Site XLQ The 5 percent overall site z/Q value for the EAB and LPZ is determined by constructing an overall cumulative probability distribution for all directions. X/Q versus the probability of being exceeded is then plotted and an upper bound curve is drawn. From this curve, the 2-hour x/Q value that is exceeded 5 percent of the time is found. The 5 percent overall site X/Q at the LPZ for intermediate time periods is determined by logarithmic interpolation of the maximum of the 16 annual average X/Q values and the 5 percent 2-hour x/Q values. 2.3.4.1.4. Wind Speed Categorization The meteorological database was prepared for use in PAVAN by transforming the five years (i.e., 1995-1999) of hourly meteorological tower data observations into a joint wind speed-wind direction-stability class occurrence frequency distribution. Seven (7) wind speed categories were defined according to Regulatory Guide 1.23 (Reference 16) with the first category identified as "calm". The higher of the starting speeds of the wind vane and anemometer (i.e., 0.75 mph) was used as the threshold for calm winds, per Regulatory Guide 1.145, Section 1.1. A midpoint was also assumed between each of the Regulatory Guide 1.23 2.3-24 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR wind speed categories, Nos. 2-6, as to be inclusive of all wind speeds. The wind speed categories have therefore been defined as follows: Regulatory Guide 1.23 PAVAN-Assumed Category No. Speed Interval (mph) Speed Interval (mph) 1 (Calm) 0 to< 1 0 to < 0.75 2 1 to 3 > 0.75 to < 3.5 3 4 to 7 > 3.5 to < 7.5 4 8 to 12 > 7.5 to < 12.5 5 13 to 18 > 12.5 to < 18.5 6 19 to 24 > 18.5 to < 24 7 >24 >24 In the equations shown in Section 2.3.4.1.2, it should be noted that wind speed appears as a factor in the denominator. This causes difficulties in making calculations for periods of calm. The procedures used by PAVAN to assign a direction to each calm period according to the directional distribution for the lowest wind-speed class. This is done separately for the calms in each stability class. 2.3.4.1.5. Short-Term X/Q Modeling Results Atmospheric diffusion estimates developed for use in evaluating accidents are summarized in Table 2.3-27 for the above-mentioned periods following the accident. This table includes estimates for the maximum sector and overall 5 percent site x/Q. 2.3.4.2. Calculation of Onsite (Control Room) y/Q Values 2.3.4.2.1. Objective To evaluate the dispersion potential of the atmosphere in the Fermi site area, calculations were made of concentrations of effluents normalized by the source strength of the power plant release. These atmospheric dilution factors were calculated using the meteorological data collected onsite from January 1, 1995-December 31, 1999. Short-term onsite transport was modeled using the ARCON96 software, which is a commercially available general code for assessing atmospheric relative concentrations in the presence building wakes that is based on the NRC design-basis-accident methodology in Regulatory Guide 1.194 (Reference 32). The code user documentation and calculation methodology is documented in Revision 1 of NUREG/CR-633 1, "Atmospheric Relative Concentrations in Building Wakes" (Reference 33). ARCON calculates relative concentrations for a specified source-to-receptor configuration with the user supplied hourly meteorological data. It then combines the hourly averages to estimate concentrations for periods ranging in duration from 2 hours to 30 days. Wind direction is considered as the averages are formed. As a result, the averages account for persistence in both diffusion conditions and wind direction. Cumulative frequency distributions are prepared from the average relative concentrations. Relative concentrations that are exceeded no more than five percent of the time (95th percentile relative concentrations) are determined from the cumulative frequency distributions for each averaging period. Finally, the relative concentrations for five standard averaging periods (0-2.3-25 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2 hr, 2-8 hr, 1-4 days and 4-30 days) are calculated from the 95th percentile relative concentrations. 2.3.4.2.2. Dispersion Equations This section describes the governing atmospheric dispersion modeling equations and assumptions (with noted exceptions) in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.194. The basic diffusion model implemented in the ARCON96 is a straight-line Gaussian model that assumes the release rate is constant for the entire period of release. This assumption is made to permit evaluation of potential effects of accidental releases without having to specify a complete release sequence. X_ 1 exp [0.5 ( Y ) (2.3-4) where: X is relative concentration, in sec/mi3 Q 7t is 3.14159 U is wind speed at 10 meters above plant grade, in m/sec. cTy is lateral diffusion coefficient (m) Crz is vertical diffusion coefficient (in), and y is distance from the center of the plume (m) This equation represents a ground level release that is assumed to be continuous, constant, and of sufficient duration to establish a relative mean concentration. It also assumes that the material being released is reflected by the ground. Diffusion coefficients are typically determined from atmospheric stability and distance from the release point using empirical relationships. ARCON96 uses the same diffusion coefficient (cy, and cy) parameterizations utilized in the NRC PAVAN code for calculating the short-term post-accident offsite atmospheric dispersion. Calculation of the onsite X/Q values associated with stack releases (i.e., SGTS, RBHVAC, and the TBHVAC), the "vent release" option was specified in conjunction with a zero-vent velocity. According to Regulatory Guide 1.194, the NRC specifies a ground release as the acceptable release mode for performing atmospheric dispersion calculations, consistent with this philosophy, the NRC does not accept the ARCON96 vent release calculation methodology. However, ARCON96 is coded to use the ground release equations when the vent exiting velocity is less than the wind-speed. Thus, in specifying a zero vent exiting velocity for cases where the vent release option was selected, the ground release equations were implemented and the intent of Regulatory Guide 1.194 was met. The purpose for specifying the zero-velocity vent release option was to allow for consideration of the 60-meter meteorological data in the calculation of the atmospheric relative concentration. Alternatively, the ground release option could have been specified with same inputs for the release and receptor elevations with the same result. In addition, in specifying the vent release, no credit was assumed for pre-dilution of the relative source term concentration 2.3-26 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR inside the secondary containment or turbine building free air volumes or in the volumetric flows of the HVAC system associated with a particular vent location. ARCON 96 includes the effects of low wind speed and building wake by replacing cY and ay above by composite wake diffusion coefficients of the following form:

        -y =   (c2 + ACF21 +3/4 AF22)1/2   and  Z, = (r2    + Act21 + AGz22)1/2            (2.3-5) where cz and ay are the normal diffusion coefficients and Acrzl and Acyy are the low wind speed corrections and Acy, 2 and AMyy2 correct for building wake. The building wake correction is calculated based on a 2300 m 2 building area cross-section.

ARCON96 was run assuming the default surface roughness factor of 0.1 meters. This value is representative of a terrain having low-lying vegetation; i.e., farmland, wetland, etc. 2.3.4.2.3. Wind Speed Categorization The meteorological database was prepared for use in ARCON96 by transforming the five years (i.e., 1995-1999) of hourly meteorological tower data observations into the format required by ARCON96. The required input consists of the Julian day, hour, 10-meter wind direction, 10-meter wind speed, stability class, 60-meter wind direction, and 60-meter wind speed for each of these years. ARCON96 requires the specification of the calm threshold. X/Q values calculated using wind velocities below the calm threshold are automatically included in the statistical evaluation of a specific x/Q regardless of the associated wind direction. Regulatory Guide 1.194 suggests a minimum calm threshold of 0.5 m/s; however, the ARCON96 performed in support of Alternate Source Term implementation were reviewed and approved with a calm threshold of 0.33 m/s. Based on NRC endorsement of the regulatory guide and endorsement of the original AST submittal, both values are acceptable. 2.3.4.2.4. Physical Orientation of Source-Receptor Combinations and Dual Inlet Credit Consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.194, Position 3.4, the source-to-receptor distances used to calculate the atmospheric dispersion coefficients were calculated as the slant distance or direct line-of-site distances. Conservatively, the values of relative air concentrations used to evaluate vital area doses do not credit the additional distance incurred in circumventing intervening plant structures. However, such credit is permitted in accordance with the NRC methodology and was considered in evaluating the relative importance of postulated potential MSIV and secondary containment bypass leak release locations against the Turbine Building exhaust stack as a single representative release point. 2.3.4.2.4.1. DBA LOCA Post LOCA atmospheric dispersion of ECCS and primary containment leakage was evaluated based on an assumed release via the SGTS stack to the control room north and south emergency air intakes. The TBHVAC stack was the assumed release point for Main Steam Line Leakage, also having the main control room north and south emergency air intakes as receptors. The table below identifies the horizontal and vertical separation distances between the postulated source and receptor locations. The RBHVAC stack and 2.3-27 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR secondary containment wall were not assumed release locations evaluated in support of the LOCA analysis performed using the Alternate Source term. Nevertheless, their physical. locations with respect to the control center emergency air intakes are included for historical purposes. Intake Separation Distance, meters Source Release Location rHorizontal/Vertical] South Emergency/Normal* North Emergency SGTS Stack 39.4/24.9 17.2/35.8 TBHVAC Stack 69.1/10.7 111.1/21.6 RBHVAC Stack 11.6/24.9 48.8/35.8 Secondary Containment Wall 13.9/0 13.9/0

  • Note that the vertical distance used to calculate the atmospheric dispersion coefficients for transport to the south emergency air intake for the LOCA analysis credits only the upper, missile-proof portion of the inlet plenum. The south emergency air intake also includes a safety-related sided enclosure that extends the intake down an additional 10.9 meters.

The Fermi 2 Control Center HVAC system is designed with dual emergency makeup air inlets located on the North and South sides of the Auxiliary Building. With the exception of the TBHVAC exhaust stack, the emergency air inlets have a separation distance that is sufficient to place them outside of a 900 wind direction window centered on the line-of-sight from any of the stack locations above to the opposite emergency air intakes. Thus, consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.194, Position 3.3.2, they are configured such that neither release point is capable of simultaneously impacting both air inlets. Furthermore, the Control Room Emergency Filtration System associated with CCHVAC is capable of automatically selecting the inlet with the lowest dose. However, the operators are procedurally instructed to take manual control of the inlet selection. On this basis, consistent with Regulatory Guides 6.4 and 1.194, Position 3.3.2.3, the x/Q associated with the most favorable intake is assumed and divided by a factor of four. Fermi differs from the Regulatory Guide 1.194, Position 3.3.2.3 in that the factor of four is applied from the start of the accident rather than from the time the manual action is assumed to occur. The TBHVAC stack is the assumed release point for the source term associated with Main Steam Isolation Valve leakage. This stack location does not have sufficient separation relative to the two inlets to allow dual inlet credit. The value of X/Q calculated by ARCON96 is used directly (i.e., with no correction or reduction) to represent MSIV leakage transport to the control center with only credit for the ability of the operator to select the most favorable inlet. In this manner, the transport to the control center occurs instantaneously as the leakage occurs as if TBHVAC were in operation with no credit for any dilution in the TBHVAC airflow or the very large volume above the turbine deck. Each of the thirteen smoke vents on the Turbine Building roof and the external doors associated with the turbine and auxiliary buildings were also considered in selecting an appropriate release location. While the x/Qs calculated for these locations were potentially larger than that associated with the TBHVAC stack value, the conservatism in the application of the stack value with no credit taken for mixing or deposition was considered adequately compensating. 2.3-28 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.3.4.2.4.2.Fuel Handling Accident Fermi considers two types of fuel handling accidents, one that occurs 24 hours post-scram that involves a drop of recently irradiated fuel and credits only secondary containment and the operation of the SGTS for mitigation. The second type of fuel handling accident involving fuel that is no longer "recently irradiated," which occurs following a post-scram delay period sufficient such that credit for secondary containment and SGTS operation is not required. Although not specifically required in Regulatory Guides 1.183 and 1.194, the FHA analyses submitted in support of Amendments 144 and 160, conservatively applied the 0-2 hr control room x/Q values calculated by ARCON96 to the entire 30-day duration of accident. Neither type of fuel handling accident assumes credit for the operation of the Control Room Emergency Filtration System. Consequently, the factor associated with the dual inlet configuration is not credited for reducing the value ofx/Q calculated by the ARCON96 software. Adequate separation is credited, however, to ensure that only the single most limiting air intake is specified. The release and receptor locations used to evaluate the radiological consequences of the fuel handling accident differ from those associated with the DBA LOCA and depend on which of the two types of fuel handling accidents is to be evaluated. 2.3.4.2.4.2.1. 24-Hour Fuel Handling Accident Involving Recently Irradiated Fuel This accident postulates an initial brief period of unfiltered release via the RBHVAC stack prior to secondary containment isolation and operation of the SGTS. ARCON96 was used to calculate the atmospheric dispersion coefficient representing transport from these stacks to each emergency air intake. The source-to-receptor distances are as specified in the table in Section 2.3.4.2.4.1 except the additional vertical distance of 10.9 meters associated with the full length of the south emergency air intake is credited. 2.3.4.2.4.2.2. Fuel Handling Accident Involving Fuel No Longer Considered Recently Irradiated This accident assumes no credit for secondary containment isolation or operation of the SGTS. Consequently, the most likely release path would be via the RBHVAC stack as a consequence of continued RBHVAC operation. Several source-to-receptor locations were considered in establishing the limiting plant configuration, these included the SGTS and RBHVAC stacks as well as the reactor building railroad bay and first floor personnel air-lock (via the Outage Building front) doors. While RBHVAC was identified and the most credible release point, the outage building front doors were conservatively selected as a bounding release location. Due to the location of the outage doors on the south side of the reactor building, the corresponding limiting receptor location is the south emergency air intake. The horizontal and vertical distances between these source and receptor locations are 29.3 m and 18.6 m for an overall slant distance of 34.7 m. The overall slant distance was input to ARCON96 in evaluating the associated atmospheric dispersion as a ground release. 2.3-29 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR This source-to-receptor pathway presumes the source term is removed from the building and is transported to the control room via the normal/emergency makeup air intakes. Thus, the control room envelope is effectively assumed to be intact and any maintenance that involves breaches of the control room envelope must include the controls necessary to preserve this assumption. 2.3.4.2.5. Short-Term Onsite X/Q Modeling Results Atmospheric diffusion estimates developed for use in evaluating accidents are summarized in Table 2.3-28. 2.3.5. Long-Term Diffusion and Deposition Calculations To evaluate the long-term dispersion potential of the atmosphere in the Fermi site area, calculations were made of effluent concentrations normalized by source strength of the power plant release and relative deposition rate. These atmospheric dilution and deposition factors were calculated using meteorological data collected onsite at the 60-m tower over the period June 1, 1974, to May 31, 1975. The long-term calculations are based on the straight line trajectory airflow model where a mixed-mode release, depending on wind speed, is assumed as described in Regulatory Guide 1.111, Revision 1 (Reference 30). The models used to evaluate the long-term (annual) estimates of x/Q and D/Q are described in Annex B of Appendix 11 A. The analyses reported herein were performed for three separate sources at the Fermi 2 site: the containment building vent, the turbine building vent, and the radwaste building vent. Since the calculations were performed assuming a mixed-mode release based on wind speed, the release characteristics of each source are given in Table 2.3-28. It should be noted that the results of the calculations performed for x/Q (undecayed and undepleted, and decayed and depleted for radioiodines) and D/Q for radioiodines and particulates are presented in Appendix 2A. 2.3.5.1. Undecayed and Undepleted X/Q Estimates Values of X/Q assuming no decay or depletion were calculated for the three air effluent releases using the mixed-mode techniques referenced in Annex B to Appendix 1 Aand Regulatory Guide 1.111, Revision 1, July 1977. The calculations were performed for all 22-1/2' sectors at distances of

a. 0.4 to 1.6 km in 0.4-km increments
b. 1.6 to 16 km in 0.8-km increments
c. 16 to 80 km in 8-km increments.

These values of undecayed and undepleted x/Q in units of seconds per cubic meter are presented in "wheel diagrams" for each source in Figures 2.3-52 through 2.3-54. Note that each figure provides values for the three distances for each release point. The numerical X/Q values are presented by distance and sector in Appendix 2A. 2.3-30 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.3.5.2. Decayed and Depleted X/Q Estimates Values of X/Q, assuming a radioactive effluent with a half-life of 8 days and using the plume depletion effect curves in Regulatory Guide 1.111, Revision 1, July 1977, in conjunction with the mixed-mode techniques, were calculated for the distances noted in Subsection 2.3.5.1. These values of decayed and depleted x/Q in units of seconds per cubic meter are presented for each of the three sources in Figures 2.3-55 through 2.3-57. The numerical values are presented by distance and sector in Appendix 2A. 2.3.5.3. Relative Deposition Estimates Values of relative deposition (D/Q) per unit area were calculated for the three sources also using the mixed-mode techniques. The relative deposition-rate curves in Figures 6 through 9 of Regulatory Guide 1.111, Revision 1, July 1977, were used for the same distances as described above. These values of relative deposition per unit area (square meters) are presented for each of the three sources in Figures 2.3-58 through 2.3-60. The numerical values are presented by distance and sector in Appendix 2A. 2.3-31 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.3 METEOROLOGY REFERENCES

1. Detroit (Metropolitan Airport), Michigan Local Climatological Data, Annual Summary with Comparative Data, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Service Environmental Data Service, Asheville, North Carolina, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974.
2. Detroit (City Airport), Michigan Local Climatological Data, Annual Summary with Comparative Data, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Service Environmental Data Service, Asheville, North Carolina, 1969, 1971, and 1972.
3. Toledo, Ohio Local Climatological Data, Annual Summary with Comparative Data, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Service Environmental Data Service, Asheville, North Carolina, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974.
4. Monroe, Michigan Climatological Summary (revised December 1971),

Climatography of the United States, No. 20-20, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Service, Environmental Data Service, Asheville, North Carolina, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974.

5. Willis, Michigan Climatological Summary (revised December 1971),

Climatography of the United States, No. 20-20, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Service Environmental Data Service, Asheville, North Carolina, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974.

6. H. C. S. Thom, "New Distributions of Extreme Winds in the United States," Journal of the Structural Division Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers",

July 1968.

7. Storm Data, National Weather Records Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Service, Environmental Data Service, Asheville, North Carolina, Monthly from February 1965 to December 1974.
8. Climatological Data, National Summary - Annual, United States Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, 1951-1958.
9. A. B. Lowe and G. A. McKay, The Tornadoes of Western Canada, Meteorological Branch, Department of Transport, Cat. No. T56-2462, Ottawa, Canada, 1962.
10. H. C. S. Thom, "Tornado Probabilities," Monthly Weather Review, 91 (10-12), pp.

730-736, October-December 1963.

11. C. R. Hosler, "Low Level Inversion Frequency in the Contiguous United States,"

Monthly Weather Review, 98 (9) pp. 319-332, 1961.

12. G. C. Holzworth, "Mixing Heights, Wind Speeds, and Potential for Urban Air Pollution Throughout the Contiguous United States", Environmental Protection Agency, January 1972.
13. Deleted.

2.3-32 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.3 METEOROLOGY REFERENCES

14. J. D. Stackpole, The Air Pollution Potential Forecast Program, Weather Bureau Technical Memo NMC-43, National Meteorological Center, Suitland, Maryland, 1967.
15. J. J. Korshover, Climatology of Stagnating Anticyclones East of the Rocky Mountains, 1936-1965, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1967.
16. USAEC Regulatory Guide 1.23, February 1972.
17. W. E. Hewson, et al., Third, Fourth, and Fifth Progress Reports, Meteorological Analysis, UMRI Project 2515, the University of Michigan Research Institute, Ann Arbor, Michigan, January 1960.
18. W. E. Hewson, G. C. Gill, and E. W. Bierly, Final Report, Meteorological Analysis, UMRI Project 2515, the University of Michigan Research Institute, January 1961.
19. B. D. Turner, "A Diffusion Model for an Urban Area," Journal of Applied Meteorology, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 81-83, February 1964.
20. H. R. Byers, General Meteorology, McGraw-Hill, Chapter 20, 1959.
21. D. R. Rondy, Great Lakes Ice Atlas, COM-71-01052, U.S. Department of Commerce, September 1971.
22. Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2, Environmental Report (Operating License Stage), Docket 50-341, Section 5.1, April 1975.
23. W. A. Lyons and L. E. Olsson, "Mesoscale Air Pollution Transport in the Chicago Lake Breeze," Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, Vol. 22, No. 11, pp.

876-881, November 1972.

24. Isaac Van der Hoven, "Atmospheric Transport and Diffusion at Coastal Sites,"

Nuclear Safety, Sept.-Oct., 1967, Vol. No. 5.

25. Edward Ryznar, An Investigation of Atmospheric Diffusion in the Vicinity of the Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant: Report No. 2., for the Detroit Edison Company under administration by the Office of Research Administration, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
26. Letter from A. B. Harris, Detroit Edison, to K. Kniel, NRC, EF2-32699, December 22, 1975, transmitting "Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2 Docket No. 50-341, Analysis of the Meteorological Data from the 150 Meter and 60 Meter Towers." EG&G Report No. ECR-75-027, November 18, 1975.
27. Letter from G. W. Knighton, NRC, to H. Tauber, Detroit Edison, April 26, 1976.
28. Atmospheric Dispersion Code System for Evaluating Accidental Radioactivity Releases from Nuclear Power Stations, PAVAN, Revision 2, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, December 1990.
29. D. H. Slade, Editor, Meteorology and Atomic Energy, National Technical Information Service, TID-24190, pp. 102-103, 1971.

2.3-33* REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.3 METEOROLOGY REFERENCES

30. Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light-Water- Cooled Reactors. Regulatory Guide 1.111, Revision 1, July 1977.
31. Regulatory Guide 1.145, Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants (Revision 1), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, November 1982.
32. Regulatory Guide 1.194, Atmospheric Relative Concentrations for Control Room Radiological Habitability Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June 2003.

2.3-34 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.3-1 EXTREME WIND SPEED OCCURRENCE PROBABILITIES (AT 30 FT ABOVE GROUND) Probability Recurrence Interval (years) Extreme Wind Speed (mph) 0.500 2 50 0.100 10 62 0.040 25 70 0.020 50 82 0.010 100 90 0.001 1000 117 Page I oflI REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.3-2 DETROIT. MICHIGAN METROPOLITAN AIRPORT NORMALS. MEANS. AND EXTREMES Temperature Precipitation RelativeHumidity Wind' Meannumberof days Normal Extremes Snow.Ice Pellets FastestMehSunrise to Soaset Temperatures Cl E S Maximum Mtntusum -. EuE

                                                                                                  -               Cr                                  E                                                                                                                                                     .2 EE                .2                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        .

x2 22 2E 2 2 2ZC 2 0U -- (Locallime) IN1 6b) 1b) 14 14 16N (b6 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 6 7 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 33.3 t9.0 26.2 62 1961 -14 1972 1203 1.93 3.63 1063 8.27 1961 1.72 1967 8.1 13.4 1939 6.6 1968 77 78 69 73 11.3 50 0- 1971 38 7.5 20 13 3 17 30 WSW 0 34-4 18.9 26.7 38 1966 -9 1971 1072 1.95 2.68 1971 0.15 1069 1.23 1965 0.3 17.4 1962 10.3 1965 75 77 64 69 11.3 32 SW 1967 45 7.2 6 17 2 12 27 8 W/SW 11 8 23.9 34.4 77 I 1963 2.41 1965 0.92 1960 1.18 6.3 16.1 1965 6.5 1968 76 11.2 7.2 18 8 42.8 1963 949 3.59 1972 78 61 63 36 00- 1969 52 3 2 23 WSW 13 197CO AM 56.7 36.2 46.3 83 17 toot 555 3.05 5.40 1961 (102 1971 1.97 1065 1.6 7.4 1961 4.2 1961 75 79 53 59 11.2 45 50/ 1968 54 6.8 6 17 4 1 10 0 WSW 13 68.8 46.4 57.6 92 1962 25 1966 259 3.54 5.88 1968 1.13 1965 2.87 1968 (e) 1c1 1970d (I) 19701 75 78 53 36 10.1 40 SW 1970 61 6.3 10 14 4 (C) IN) 0 WSW 0 0 0 79.0 36.8 67.9 99 1971 36 61 3.31 6.60 1960 2.12 1095 2.62 1960 0.0 0.0 0.0 800 80 54 59 8.8 39) 0/ 1970 62 3.0 12 It. 6 I 0 0 83.9 60.9 72.4 90 1966 1965 0 2.60 1960) 1.11 loot 0.01 0.0 SW 41 6.02 319 1066 0.0 81 82 53 30 0.3 50 1068 65 5.7 13 10 10 1 II 0 It A 82.1 59.4 70.8 97 1964 40 0964 2.84 7.70 1964 1.00 1969 3.21 Io64 0.8 6.8 0.6 84 87 56 64 0.2 36 NW 1971 71 5.4 10 It to 6 2 1971' 0 74.5 52.0 63.3 94 33 9178W III 2.32 5.83 1961 0.43 19ff0 2.07 1961 0.0 0.0 0.0 84 87 57 60 0.6 OW 34 W 1970 58 6.4 13 10 4 2 0 10 0I 0 63.1 41.3 91 1963 18 1963 405 2.57 4.87 1967 0.35 loot 2.11 1959 1972' 1e) 1072d 81 84 56 68 9.2 WSW 33 00- 1968' 52 6.1 10 13 3 9 10 N 47.3 31.2 39.2 77 1968 1969' 771 2.27 3.31 1966 0.800 loot 1.52 1968 8.0 1966 5.2 1966' 06 83 66 74 101.6 00- 37 SW 1068 28 7.8 20 2 17 D3 35.8 21.9 28.9 66 1966 -9 10Y66 1119 1.92 6.00 1961 0.46 1966 3.71 1965 17.3 1062 5.7 1966 79 81 71 76 16.8 OW 50 3/ 1972 23 7.0 21 13 3 0 13 26 35.2 lone Jan. Aug. F66. Dew. Feb. Feb. Feb.I ' YR 1 50.3 39.2 48.9 I 99 1971 .14 1972 6516 I 30.80 1 7.70 toot 0.15 1 1960 1 3.71 1965 17.4 1462 10.3 1 19651 79 1 8t 1 60 1 66 1 10.01 SW0 1 32 1 SW 1%67 533 6. 75 105 1 185 1 1311 13 1 33I 23 It j 46 1401 7 Length ofrecord, years, based on January data. Other months may be for more or feoer .ears if there have been breaks in the record. Below zero temperatures are preceded by a minus sign. Climatological standard normals (1931-1960) Less than one half The prevailing direction for wind in the Normals, Means, and Extremes table is from records through 1963. 1 Unless otherwise indicated, dimensional units used in this bulletin are: temperature in F: precipitation, including snowfall in in.: wind movement in Also on earlier dates, months, or years. mph: and relative humidity m percent. Heattmgdegree day totals are the sums of negative departures of average daily temperatures from 65°F. Sleet Trace. an amount too small to measure. was included in snowfall totals beginning with July 1948. The term "Ice Pellets" includes solid grains of ice (sleet) and particles consisting of snow at Alaskan stations. pellets encased in a thin layer of ice. Heavy fog reduces visibiltty to 1/4mile or less. 09 Figures instead ofleoners in a direction column indicate direction in tens of degrees from true North; i.e., - East,18- South. 27 - West, 36 - North, Sky cover isexpressed in a range of 8 for no clouds or obscuring phenomena to I0 for complete sky coser. The number of clear days isbased on and 08-Calm. Resultant wind is the vector sum of wind directions and speeds divided by the number of observations. If figures appear in the averaqe cloudiness 0-3, partly cloudy days 4-7, and cloudy days 8-10 tenths. direction colunm under "Fastest Mile" the corresponding speeds are fastest observed I-minate values. . h For period May 1966through current year. Solar radiation data are the averages of direct and diffuse radiation on a horizontal surface. The langley denotes I g/calrcm- ' To eight compass points only. Page I of I REV 16 10/091

FERMI 2 LUFSAR TABLE 2.3-3 DETROIT. MICHIGAN CITY AIRPORT NORMALS, MEANS. AND EXTREMES Temnperatueen Presipitanuo Relative Humidity Wind' Mean number ofdays Normal Esee.os Snow. Ice Pellets Fastest Mile Suonseto sunset' Teotperuttres E -

                   -2                                                                                                              2                                                                                                                 .                             .2                                      4tý.          q..5
                                                          -   0. Lv.-     Z      .                                                .0                                                                                                                                                                  J (Locn)time)

(a) (b) (b) (b) 39 39 (b) 35 35 35 37 37 32 35 39 33 39 39 114 6 32 32 32 32 32 35 39 39 39 39 39 33.0 20.7 26.9 67 1950 -13 1963 1181 2.05 4.38 1950 0.73 1961 1.63 1960 21.1 1939 8.4 79 69 74 W 7,8 4 21 13 33 (01 28 1 8.1 71 40 1971 32 16 1937 33.9 20.4 27.2 68 1944 -16 1934 1058 2.08 4.95 1938 0.10 1969 2.43 1950 7.6 15.8 1965 1965 76 79 63 71 197 43 4 17 12 26 1 NW 40 7.3 13 15.5 35 42.3 27.3 34.8 82 1945 -1 1943 93t 2.42 4.40 1938 6.47 1958 1.85 1O49 5.4 1954 9.8 1934 74 78 60 66 NW 40 1972 49 7.o 5 18 13 3c c) 11 A 56.4 87 1942' 14 1954 322 3.60 6.89 1947 0.74 1.2 6.8 1943 1967 6 16 12 3 0 38.8 47.6 1946 2.94 1947 4.2 19Q42 71 74 53 58 11.0 NW 37 52 6.8 18 0c M 68.6 49.4 59.0 93 1962' 30 1966' 220 8.05 1943 6.36 1934 2.53 1948 le. 0.1 1954 0.1 1954 71 71 1972' 7 14 12 4 0 3.3 3) 56 33 59 6.4 11.3 79.1 60.3 69.7 104 1934 38 1969" 42 2.83 6.58 1960 1.0t 1953 3.53 1068 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 74 33 1971' 65 7 12 II 11 0 57 40 6.0 6 0 11.1 N Wc) 898 (cl 83.9 64.8 74.4 105 1934 42 1972 0 7.05 1969 0.61 1436 3.80 1957 6.0 9 9 0 2.82 0.0 0.0 75 73 51 33 40 1966 70 5.3 13 0 01 9.0 9 5 A 81.9 63.6 72.8 Lot 1936 43 1934 2.86 7.51 1940 1.07 1936 3.65 1956 0.0 0.0 0.0 78 80 533 60 46 1968 65 5.4 0 0 SW 10 74.2 56.0 65.1 1t0 19533 32 1942 087 2.44 5."o 1936 0.53 19W9 2.36 0.0 0.0 0.0 79 83 34 1971' 10 10 0 64 36 61 5.4 0 9 62.8 44.7 53.8 Y2 1963 24 1972' 368 2.63 7.80 M94 0.36 1964 3.72 let 1.0 1943 1.0 1943 77 71 33 66 2S 1969 56 5.6 12 0. 0 91.3 N0 47.1 33.7 404 81 1950 1958 738 2.21 4.14 1948 0.37 1939 2.18 1951 2.5 6.2 1950 5.6 1951 76 79 64 70 30 1970 35 7.5 19 II (c) 10 13 0 11.3 SW 12 1D 35.7 24.1 29.9 66 1971 1960 1088 2.08 4.60 1957 0.43 1943 2.45 1965 6.8 24.0 1951 6.8 1Q31 77 79 70 74 43 1971 32 7.7 21 13 Mc 25 (c) 2I July Feb. May Feb. Oct. D-c. Fob. Aug. YR 158.2 42.0 50.1 105 11934 -lb 1934 16232 130.95 18.05 11943 10.10 16t 13.72 I1034 131.6 124.0 11951 l0.0 1963 75 70 36 64 10.1 is 46 1968 54 6.5 80 108 177 131 111 125 12 48 Length of record, years. based on Jansary data. Other months may be for more or teweryears if there have been breaks in the record. Means and extremes above are from esinting and comparable esposures. 7 Annual extremes have been exceeded at other sites in the localily as follows: Lowest Climaiologincalstandard norrnals 01931-19W01. temperature -24 in December 1872: masimtmnmonthlypreeipitation 8. 6 inJuly 1878; minimum monthly precipitation 0.04 in February 1887; ntaimum precipitation in Less than one half. 24 hours 4.75 inJuly 1925; masinmummonthly sno-fall 38.4 in Februar. 1906; minimum snowfall in 24 hours 24.5 in April 1886; featestntileof wind 95 from " Also on earlier dates, montun.or years. North-es in Jun, 1890. Trace. an oni tan small to measum. BeIonwzero temperatures are preceded by a minus sign. utAlaskan stations. The preoailing direction for wind in the Nonmals.Mears, and Extrenes tableis from -reordsthrough 1963. Figures insteadof lonersin.adirection cum- indica edirectiion itlens ofdegrees fbom true Noth:ie.. -East, 18- South, 27- est. 36 -North. and o6- Unless othersse indicated dimensional unitsused in this bulletin ame:temperatore in oF; premipitaeaon.including snowsfall. in in.; wind movetent in mph; andrelative 5 Cahn. Resuhmi wind is the vector sum of wind directions and speeds divided by the number of'observations If figures appear in thedirdectioncolunn tnder humidity in perent. Heating degreeday (n*ls are the suns of5negativedeparetros ofaveragedaily temperatures frem 6 F.Cooling degree daytooksaremHoes"yasof "Fastest Mile" the correvpondingspeeds are fastest obseored I-minute values positive departmes ofaserage daily temperatures from from W F. Sleet was included in snowfall iotals beginning iithJuly 1948. The eron"Ice Pellets" includes solid Dao accumulated through 1065. grams of ice (sleit) and panriclesconsisting ot'snow pellets encased o a thin layer of ice. Heavy fog reduces visibility to 1,4 mile or less To eight compass points only. Sky cover is expressed m a rangeufO for no clouds or obscuring phenomena to 10 for complete sky cover. The number ofclear day, is based on average cloudiness 0-3. partly cloudy days4-7. and cloudy days 8-10 tenths. Solor radiition damam the aserages of direct and diffuse radiation on a honzontal surface. The langley denotes I gcaltcmý. Page IloflI REV 16 10,09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.3-4 TOLEDO. OHIO NORMALS. MEANS. AND EXTREMES Terepercasr Precipitation Relain- Huidity Wfind' Man numsberof days Normal Enseotns Snoew. IcePellets FastestMil Sunriseto Sunset Temnpra-ns 8 a L- Maximutt Mastenuo

                                                     .0                 as      s        a                                                                                                                                                                       2.                                                           s                   aE
2. .2.0E E0 -

_ ~-.. Ž5 Z-5 _- 4 o

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           .8 I- i      i-5'5:

(Local time) ta) (b) lbt (b) 17 17 (b) (b) 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 07 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 Is 17 17 17 17 17 17 J 34.1 034 26.3 62 1967' .17 1972' 120D 2.33 4.01 1965 0.27 1961 1.78 1959 8.8 14.2 197o 6.o 1957 72 78 69 73 10.9 WSWF 47 60 1972d 45 7.4 5 I. 13 1 o F 35.7 18S.8 27.3 68 1957 -14 1Q07 1056 1.88 3.13 1960 0.27 1969 1.35 1959 7.9 14.4 10Q67 7.4 1967 72 78 65 70 10.9 W6SW 56 SW6 1967 47 7.3 4 17 11 2 0 12 27 44.7 25.6 35.2 so 1963 1966 924 2.26 4.88 1964 0.58 1958 1.56 1964 6.9 11.6 1964 7.5 1962 73 81 61 66 11.0 WSW 56 W 1957' 50 7.4 19 14 25 N4 -I 5 2 0 A 58.4 35.4 46.9 87 1960 1964 543 2.77 4.94 1961 0.88 1962 2.39 1956 1.9 12.0 1957 9.8 1957 76 80 55 10.9 E 72 SW 1956 54 6.9 6 I7 I3 1 0 11 0 M 70t.4 46.1 58.3 95 1962 26 1968 242 3.04 5.13 1968 0.960 1964 1.96 1970 (et let 1966' tel 1966' 76 79 I 10.0 WSWO 45 W0 1957 63 6.3 6 14 12 1 1 0 80.3 56.3 68.3 99 1971 32 1972 3.79 4.86 1960 1.89 1964 2.50 1956 0.0 00 0.6 02 82 14 8.4 OW 50 W 1960 65 6.0) 7 12 Wt 1 4 60 0 1966' 0 0 85.1 60.22 727 96 43 1972' 2.59 b.75 1969) 1.58 1964 4.39 1969 0.0 0.0 0.0t 64 86 55 61 7.5 WSWW 34 NWV 1470 66 5.8 7 14 10 10 1 4 83.0 58.8 70.9 98 1964 37 1965 16 3.33 8.47 1965 0.81 1967 242 1972 0.0 0.0 0.0 06 89 57 65 7.3 OW 47 w 1965 66 5.5 12 10 6 40 0 A 2 4 S 75.5 51.3 63.4 95 1960 29 1961 2.13 8.10 1072 0.58 1963 3.97 1972 let let 1967 let 1967 86 90 57 70 7.8 SSW 47 NW 1069 62 5.9 8 10 12 2 1 0 10 0 63.8 40.3 52.1 Q1 1963 16 1965 406 2.39 3.72 1959 6.28 1964 1.71 1957 0.2 1972' 0.2 1972' 91 85 55 69 8.7 WSWV 40 OW 1956 59 3.8 9 10 12 10 2 (c) 0 47.3 29.9 38.6 78 1968 2 1958 792 2.04 4.63 1966 0.77 1964 2.06 1969 3.6 17.9 1966 8.3 1966 83 67 74 WSW6 65 866 19 N 81 10.3 1957 39 7.7 4 2 0 D 35.8 20.8 28.3 67 1971 -II 1960 1138 1.95 o.,1 1967 0.54 19is 3.53 1967 7.7 19.0 1960 901 1069) 82 83 73 78 10.3 066 45 066 147lId 36 7.8 3 21 14 2 0 12 77 Jun. Jan. Autg Feb. Jul. Dea. Ape. Apr. YR 1 59.5 38.5 49.0 1971 -17 1972d 6494 1 30.50 1 8.47 1 1965 1 0.27 I1960~ 4.39 1969 36.7 1 19.0 1969 1957 79 83 60 07 9.5 1WOW 172 1SW 1956 56 6.7 1 I7 110 2 1 134 12 191 4 1 49 1146 Means and extremes anose am from existing and comparable exposurmes.Annual extremes have been exeeeded at other sites inthe locality as follows: Highest temperatrun Length of encord,yean. based on Jntua*y data. Other months may be for more or fewer yearn if there have been breaks in the recorl. 9 105' inJuly 193o; masintam nmonthlyprecipitation 8.49 inOctober 18891;minimum monthly preeipitation 0.04 in November 1904; nmroimtanprecipitation in 24 hr 5. h in b Climatological statdard normais 1931-1960). September 1010;erairaxintnmonthly snow-Call 26.2 in January 1918; t-ximum snowfall in 24 hr 19.Oin fehrnary 1900:;tastosmile 87 in March 1948. Less than one half Below .ero temperatures ate preceded by a mno.s sign. a lsoon earlier dattes,months. or yars. The prevailing dimction tor wind in the Normals. Mears. andExtremes table is firo records through 19o3. Trace an amoont tno -Hsml to measur. Unless othersise indicated. dimensional units used in this bulletin ate:tempeaturse in OF;pmecipitation,includingsnowfall. in in.: wind movement in mph; and relative humidity in percent. Hading degree day totals ate the sums ofnegatise deparres ofaverage daily temperatures from 650F.Coolingdegree day totals are the sums of positive at Alaskan stations. deparnres ofdaly temnperaturesfrom 65F. Sleet was included in snowfall totals beginning with July 1948. The term "lce Pellets" inclodes solid grains of ice (sleet) and Figures instead of le] s in a direction coluon indicate direction astees of degrees from true Nosh; i.e.. 9 - East, 18- South. 27 - West. 36. - North. andO6 -Caln. particlesconsisting of snow pellets encased in a thin laye of tce. Heavy fog reduces vissbilityto 114mile or less. Resultant wind is the vector sum of wind directions and speeds divided by the number ofobserations. If figures appear in the direction columr under "FastestMile" the Skycover is expressed in a range ofO for no clouds or obscuring phenomenato l0 for complete sky cover. The number ofclear days is based on average cloudiness 0-3. corresponding speeds are fastest observed I -minute saloes. partlycloudy days 4-7. and cloudy days 8-10 tenths. To eight compass points only. Solar radiation dataare the .verages of direct anddrtffse radiation on a horizonral surface. The langley denotes I glcalern". Page I of I REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.3-5 CLIMATOLOGICAL

SUMMARY

MONROE, MICHIGAN (MEANS AND EXTREMES FOR PERIOD 1940-1969) Latitude 410 54' Longitude 830 22' Station Monroe. Michigan. Monroe County rQ' f'-~ Temperature ('F) Precipitation Totals (inches) Mean number of days Temperatures Means Extremes Snow, Ice Pellets

                                                                          .O                                                                               Max.          Min.

E0C) 2oC .CC._. C C.._.0= 00 E~ 0 W~ ca - 0 2. E~ E0. (a) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 33 JANUARY 32.9 18.5 25.7 70 1950 -16 1953 1218 1.95 1.74 1959 6.6 17.8 1943 7.0 1957 5 0 15 29 2 JANUARY FEBRUARY 35.3 19.8 27.6 70 1944 -8 1951 1057 1.73 1.74 1950 7.5 20.3 1962 12.8 1965 5 0 11 26 1 FEBRUARY MARCH 44.1 27.1 35.6 81 1945 -2 1943 911 2.39 1.99 1954 6.0 23.5 1954 9.0 1954 6 0 4 23

  • MARCH APRIL 58.0 38.2 48.1 91 1942 16 1954 507 3.13 2.25 1965 .9 12.0 1957 8.5 1957 7 *
  • 8 0 APRIL MAY 69.0 48.7 53.9 95 1952+ 29 1966 233 3.41 2.52 1968 T .3 1954 .3 1954 7 1 0 I 0 MAY JUNE 79.9 69.2 69.6 100 1944 39 1949 42 3.47 2.74 1944 0 0 0 7 4 0 0 0 JUNE JULY 83.9 62.9 73.4 102 1941+ 43 1945 3 2.80 2.57 1948 0 0 0 5 6 0 0 0 JULY AUGUST 82.3 61.1 71.7 101 1964 42 1965 12 3.16 2.12 1964 0 0 0 6 4 0 0 0 AUGUST SEPTEMBER 75.6 54.2 64.9 100 1954 30 1942 72 2.40 2.20 1959 0 0 0 5 2 0
  • 0 SEPTEMBER OCTOBER 64.9 43.6 54.4 91 1951 23 1952 344 2.58 2.67 1949 T T 1969 T 1969 5
  • 0 3 0 OCTOBER NOVEMBER 48.9 33.3 41.1 81 1950 1 1958 717 2.11 1.66 1968 2.5 10.4 1966 4.0 1966 5 0 1 14 0 NOVEMBER DECEMBER 36.5 22.7 29.5 64 1966+ -8 1960 1097 2.08 2.75 1957 7.2 27.0 1951 8.0 1951 5 0 11 26 1 DECEMBER July Jan. Dec. Mar. Feb.

Year 59.3 40.8 50.1 102 1941+ -16 1963 6213 31.29 2.75 1967 30.7 28.5 1954 12.8 1965 68 17 42 130 4 Year (a) Average length of record, years. + Also on earlier dates, months, or years. T Trace, an amount too small to measure.

  • Less than one half.
                        ** Base 65'F (H. C. S. Thorn, Monthly Weather Review, January 1954)

Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 I

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.3-6 CLIMATOLOGICAL

SUMMARY

WILLIS, MICHIGAN (MEANS AND EXTREMES FOR PERIOD 1940-1969) Latitude 41' 05' Longitude 83' 35' Station WILLIS, MICHIGAN, WASHTENAW COUNTY Elev. (Ground) 660 feet Temperature ('F) Precipitation Totals (inches) Mean number of days Temperatures Means Extremes  : *. Snow, Ice Pellets *Max. Min. 0* ,0 .- _ E E 2 1-. 9.4 .2ECL01 0> -. rn . o -1) - (a) 33 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 33 JANUARY 31.4 15.6 23.5 69 1950 -18 1957 1287 1.95 1.52 1960 7.9 19.5 1943 5.0 1968+ 5 0 17 30 4 JANUARY FEBRUARY 34.0 17.2 25.6 67 1944 -14 1963 1113 1.71 1.35 1949 7.5 19.5 1962 7.5 1950 5 0 12 27 2 FEBRUARY MARCH 43.5 25.1 34.3 80 1915 -13 1943 952 2.46 1.84 1954 6.4 21.5 1954 9.0 1956 6 0 5 25 1 MARCH APRIL 54.0 35.5 46.8 85 1942 12 1964 546 3.22 2.48 1956 1.3 8.3 1957 4.0 1947 8 0

  • 13 0 APRIL MAY 69.0 45.6 57.3 92 1962 22 1966 267 3.41 2.03 1968 T .3 1940 .3 1940 7
  • 0 2 0 MAY JUNE 79.2 55.6 67.4 99 1952 35 1965+ 65 3.53 3.05 1967 0 0 0 7 3 0 0 0 JUNE JULY 83.2 63.7 71.0 100 1941 38 1965 12 2.97 2.74 1951 0 0 0 6 4 0 0 0 JULY AUGUST 81.6 66.8 69.2 93 1948 35 1965 31 3.45 3.95 1949 0 0 0 6 4 0 0 0 AUGUST SEPTEMBER 74.5 49.4 62.0 101 1953 25 1942 144 2.27 2.22 1945 T T 1967 T 1957 5 1 0 1 0 SEPTEMBER OCTOBER 64.1 33.6 51.9 91 1963+ 15 1965+ 400 2.62 2.42 1945 T .7 1943 .7 1943 5
  • 0 8 0 OCTOBER NOVEMBER 47.7 30.1 39.0 81 1950 -4 1969 780 2.39 1.76 1958 3.7 14.0 1966 8.0 1951 6 0 2 19
  • NOVEMBER DECEMBER 35.1 19.7 27.4 65 1966 -19 1960+ 1165 2.21 2.85 1957 7.1 21.0 1951 7.0 1951 5 0 13 27 2 DECEMBER Sep. Dec. Aug. March March Year 58.5 37.4 48.0 101 1953 -19 1950+ 6773 32.19 3.55 1943 33.9 21.5 1954 9.0 1956 71 12 49 152 9 Year (a) Average length of record, years. + Also on earlier dates, months, or years.

T Trace, an amount too small to measure.

  • Less than one half.
                      ** Base 65°F                                                    (H. C. S. Thom, Monthly Weather Review, January 1954)

Page I of I REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.3-7 MONTHLY MEANS OF DAILY AFTERNOON ATMOSPHERIC MIXING DEPTHS (FLINT, MICHIGAN, 1960-1964) Month Depth (m) Depth (ft) January 700 2300 February 780 2560 March 1110 3650 April 1680 5500 May 1640 5380 June 1680 5510 July 1820 5970 August 1580 5180 September 1350 4430 October 1340 4400 November 910 2990 December 800 2620 Page I of I REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.3-8 AVERAGE WIND SPEEDS AND FREQUENCY OF CALMS FOR THE FERMI SITE, 100-FT TOWER; DETROIT CITY AIRPORT; TOLEDO EXPRESS AIRPORT; AND FERMI SITE 60-M TOWER Average Frequency Speed of Calms Sensor Height Data Period (mph) (percent) Fermi site - 10 m 60-m 1 June 1974 - 31 May 1975 8.85 0.4a Fermi site - 60 m tower 1 June 1974 - 31 May 1975 14.64 0.6a Fermi site - 100 ft 1 December 1956 - 30 November 1959 12.4 Detroit City Airport - 58 ft 1956- 1959 10.3 1.1 0 b Toledo Express Airport - 20 ft 1950- 1955 11.01 a Calms defined as wind speeds < 1.0 mph. bCalms defined as wind speeds < 1.2mph. Page I of I REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.3-9 WIND DIRECTION PERSISTENCE. 60-METER TOWER (Instrument Height - 10 M) I June 1974 to 31 May 1975 Number of Occurrences by Direction Total Hours of Cumulative Persistence N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW Percentage 105 85 85 92 120 122 129 137 138 150 142 125 123 127 100.000 47 38 30 26 61 57 55 62 57 70 56 61 36 48.168 19 13 16 29 25 26 24 30 32 38 26 31 20 26.406 9 12 9 11 12 12 13 20 22 15 14 7 15.720 3 7 3 3 3 3 10 16 16 13 5 7 4 9.706 1 4 5 6 8 4 4 7 7 8 7 4 1 6.573 1 4 4 2 5 3 5 6 2 6 4 2 3 4.448 0 1 0 4 3 I 3 4 2 1 0 4 1 2.937 0 3 I 0 0 2 0 4 0 2 4 1 1 2.210 0 2 0 1 3 1 0 5 2 3 0 0 1.566 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 I 0 0 0 0.951 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.727 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.643 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.531 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.448 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.392 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.364 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.308 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.280 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0.196 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.112 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.084 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.056 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.056 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.056 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.056 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.056 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.056 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.056 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.056 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.056 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0.028 (Instrument Height - 60 M) Page I of 2 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.3-9 WIND DIRECTION PERSISTENCE, 60-METER TOWER I June 1974 to 31 May 1975 Number of Occurrences by Direction Total Hours of Cumulative N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW Percentage Persistence Percentage 68 66 81 84 100 111 126 112 129 156 150 124 101 66 100.000 26 39 43 37 35 39 71 62 79 65 52 52 55 28 52.011 8 23 16 16 21 26 31 25 35 36 28 33 26 22 29.997 11 14 8 17 12 9 14 14 33 26 21 11 19 10 18.873 3 7 9 3 3 5 4 6 16 12 12 5 10 1 11.741 6 3 3 5 2 3 9 12 15 10 9 7 2 8.659 5 5 5 2 4 4 5 7 9 6 6 3 4 5.782 2 2 2 1 0 1 3 1 3 7 3 4 2 1 3.698 0 3 0 0 1 0 2 2 3 2 3 0 0 1 2.700 0 3 0 1 0 1 1 3 2 5 3 0 2 0 2.143 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 2 0 1.438 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 4 2 2 2 1 1 1.203 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0.704 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0. 0 0 0.528 0 I 0 1 0 0 0 I 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.440 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.323 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0.235 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0.176 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0.147 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0.117 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.088 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.088 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0.088 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.059 Page 2 of 2 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.3-10 SEASONAL AND ANNUAL FREQUENCES OF STABILITY CATEGORIES AND ASSOCIATED WIND SPEEDS FOR DETROIT METROPOLITAN AIRPORT AND TOLEDO EXPRESS AIRPORT Detroit Metropolitan Airport (1958 - 1962) A B C D E F G Spring'  % 0.23 3.39 11.70 61.81 12.42 8.50 1.95 mph 5.40 7.00 10.40 13.60 9.10 5.90 3.30 Summer'  % 1.39 8.89 18.56 39.95 11.89 14.48 4.84 mph 5.10 7.00 10.00 11.20 8.40 5.80 3.30 Fall'  % 0.11 3.24 9.67 55.90 13.03 13.48 4.56 mph 0.00 5.90 8.40 11.80 8.60 5.80 3.50 Wintera  % 0.02 0.92 4.11 74.41 10.89 7.42 2.23 mph 0.00 4.00 7.80 12.90 9.20 5.60 2.90 Annual  % 0.44 4.13 11.05 57.95 12.06 10.98 3.39 mph 5.20 6.80 9.60 12.50 8.90 5.80 3.30 TOLEDO EXPRESS AIRPORT (1959 - 1963) A B C D E F G Springa  % 0.41 4.26 11.52 58.04 9.34 10.85 5.59 mph 5.00 6.60 9.70 12.60 8.30 5.50 3.00 Summer'  % 2.34 12.80 20.34 30.34 6.85 15.20 12.13 mph 5.00 6.60 8.50 9.70 7.10 5.20 3.06 Falla  % 0.06 4.05 11.56 50.29 10.23 14.52 9.20 mph 0.00 5.60 7.80 10.90 8.10 5.40 3.04 Winter'  % 0.00 0.37 5.46 72.06 9.81 8.47 3.84 mph - 4.30 7.60 11.80 8.90 5.50 3.07 Annuala  % 0.71 5.40 12.26 52.58 9.05 12.27 7.76 mph 5.00 6.30 8.50 11.40 8.20 5.40 3.01 Seasons Spring = March, April, May: Summer = June, July, August; Fall = September, October, November; Winter = December, January, February. Page I of I REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.3-11 MONTHLY AND ANNUAL FREQUENCIES OF STABILITY CATEGORIES AND ASSOCIATED WIND SPEEDS FOR 10-METER LEVEL FERMI SITE DATA Stabilities are determined from AT (10 - 60 M) 1 June 1974 to 31 May 1975 A B C D E F G Total June 74 % 8.93 2.38 2.68 21.13 51.04 11.16 2.68 100 mph 18.97 8.28 9.53 9.09 9.41 6.54 4.39 8.82 July 74 % 12.05 0.57 1.29 19.23 46.92 11.48 8.46 100 mph 8.17 6.46 9.32 8.51 8.86 5.43 4.10 7.91 Aug 74  % 25.96 2.61 2.47 23.08 35.71 6.87 3.30 100 mph 7.74 8.10 8.01 8.22 7.75 5.01 4.74 7.58 Sept 74 % 2.46 0.49 0.66 20.85 55.50 9.03 11.00 100 mph 11.39 7.76 7.53 10.33 8.78 6.05 5.83 8.58 Oct 74  % 40.18 4.68 2.34 10.45 15.68 15.14 11.53 100 mph 9.83 8.79 9.25 9.01 7.69 6.37 5.63 8.34 Nov 74  % 0.42 0.00 0.14 7.38 75.77 11.00 5.29 100 mph 7.08 0.00 12.20 10.41 9.70 6.87 4.21 9.14 Dec 74  % 1.43 0.57 0.86 7.73 76.82 10.01 2.58 100 mph 9.95 13.08 7.25 7.59 8.57 6.32 3.96 8.18 Jan 75  % 2.86 0.82 1.77 61.04 25.20 7.08 1.23 100 mph 8.27 8.14 14.09 10.48 9.85 9.71 7.32 10.21 Feb 75  % 0.34 1.52 3.21 63.79 24.53 5.08 1.52 100 mph 4.24 9.16 9.28 10.38 7.77 5.89 7.04 9.39 Mar 75  % 4.73 4.43 4.73 54.36 22.90 5.76 3.10 100 mph 11.10 12.85 11.34 12.00 8.71 8.32 8.26 10.88 Apr 75  % 3.81 3.02 4.29 46.19 21.75 14.76 6.19 100 mph 11.68 11.90 11.71 10.23 9.27 9.123 5.83 9.76 May 75  % 10.24 4.45 4.75 29.38 25.52 17.21 8.46 100 mph 8.16 9.68 9.11 8.37 6.84 6.30 5.96 7.49 Annual  % 9.17 2.08 2.40 30.29 40.46 10.31 5.30 100 mph 8.95 9.94 10.08 10.04 8.79 6.82 5.41 8.86 Page I of I REV 16 10/09 I

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.3-12 THREE YEAR

SUMMARY

OF TEMPERATURE LAPSE RATE DATA FOR THE FERMI SITE (1956-1959) Fermi Site Data (AT 1 00 0-25 0) Strong Vertical Weak Vertical Season Temperature Gradients Temperature Gradients Inversion (Temperature AT <- 0.98°C/100m or AT > - 0.98°C/100m or Increases with Height) (%)

                        -5.4-F/1000 ft (%)      -5.4-F/1000 ft (%) < 0 Spring (March, April, May)            61.3                       15.5                     23.1 Summer (June, July, August)           38.0                      27.3                      34.8 Fall (September, October, 42.9                      26.2                      30.9 November)

Winter (December, January, 40.6 35.5 23.8 February) ANNUAL 45.4 26.7 27.9 Page I of I REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.3-13 METEOROLOGICAL DATA ANALYSIS HOURLY TEMPERATUREa AVERAGE OVER A 24-HR INTERVAL Hours of Missing Data 10 - Meter 282 60 - Meter 211 Total No. of Observations 10 - Meter 8478 60 - Meter 8549 Hour 10-M 60-M 1 8.88 9.10 2 8.50 8.77 3 8.25 8.54 4 7.96 8.28 5 7.64 8.05 6 7.44 7.95 7 7.35 7.79 8 7.32 7.63 9 7.95 7.86 10 8.69 8.36 11 9.55 8.97 12 10.19 9.60 13 10.75 10.20 14 11.00 10.38 15 11.40 10.80 16 11.51 11.00 17 11.56 11.15 18 11.55 11.22 19 11.22 10.98 20 10.84 10.74 21 10.26 10.32 22 9.85 10.02 23 9.53 9.66 24 9.22 9.37 Minimum -19.30 -19.30 Maximum 34.89 34.80 Annual Average 9.52 9.45 Al I units in 'C Page I of 1 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.3-14 PASOUILL CATEGORIES HOURLY STABILITY INDEX DISTRIBUTION 1 June 1974 to 31 May 1975 hin Percent of Total Obs In Percent of Hourly Obs Hour A B C D E F G A B C D E F G 1 0.27 0.04 0.01 0.93 1.94 0.65 0.35 6.53 0.85 0.28 22.16 46.31 15.62 8.24 2 0.19 0.04 0.04 1.04 1.92 0.56 0.40 4.56 0.85 0.85 24.79 45.87 13.39 9.69 3 0.14 0.06 0.02 0.95 2.01 0.60 0.39 3.42 1.42 0.57 22.79 48.15 14.2)5 9.40 4 0.14 0.02 0.05 0.99 1.80 0.67 0.49 3.44 0.57 .1.15 23.78 43.27 16.05 11.75 5 0.18 0.02 0.06 0.90 1.76 0.75 0.48 4.30 0.57 1.43 21.78 42.41 18.05 11.46 6 0.13 0.02 0.02 1.02 1.79 0.62 0.52 3.17 0.58 0.58 24.78 43.23 14.99 12.68 7 0.17 0.06 0.02 1.04 1.79 0.52 0.56 4.01 1.43 0.57 24.93 42.98 12.61 13.47 8 0.21 0.02 0.08 1.08 1.89 0.50 0.30 5.23 0.58 2.03 26.45 46.22 12.21 7.27 9 0.44 0.10 0.07 1.30 1.83 0.23 0.17 10.66 2.31 1.73 31.41 44.38 5.48 4.03 t0 0.67 0.06 0.10 1.51 1.60 0.12 0.11 16.05 1.43 2.2)9 36.39 38.40 2.87 2.58 11 0.64 0.15 0.20 1.58 1.39 0.11 0.07 15.47 3.72 4.87 38.11 33.52 2.58 1.72 12 0.81 0.13 0.14 1.61 1.23 0.12 0.05 19.83 3.21 3.50 39.36 30.03 2.92 1.17 13 0.82 0.25 0.27 1.36 1.21 0.12 0.04 20.12 6.12 6.71 33.53 29.74 2.92 0.87 14 0.81 0.2)6 0.24 1.44 1.26 0.08 0.06 19.48 6.30 5.73 34.67 30.37 2.01 1.43 15 0.79 0.14 0.33 1.46 1.18 0.18 0.05 19.02 3.46 8.07 35.45 28.53 4.32 1.15 16 0.73 0.18 0.18 1.57 1.21 0.19 0.08 17.53 4.31 4.31 37.93 2)9.3 1 4.60 2.01 17 0.61 0.10 0.17 1.64 1.38 0.20 0.11 14.45 2.27 3.97 39.09 32.86 4.82 2.55 18 0.48 0.08 0.15 1.58 1.50 0.26 0.13 11.36 1.99 3.69 37.78 35.80 6.25 3.12 19 0.38 0.06 0.05 1.38 1.89 0.33 0.12 9.04 1.41 .1.13 32.77 44.92 7.91 2.82 20 0.27 0.10 0.04 1.21 1.89 0.56 0.14 6.50 2.26 0.85 28.81 44.92 13.28 3.39 21 0.27 0.05 0.05 1.13 1.83 0.75 0.15 6.46 1.12 1.12 26.69 43.26 17.70 3.65 22 0.29 0.06 0.02 1.08 1.77 0.77 0.24 6.74 1.40 0.56 25.56 41.85 18.26 5.62 23 0.23 0.06 0.06 1.17 1.75 0.67 0.29 5.37 1.41 1.41 27.68 41.53 15.82 6.78 24 0.25 0.02 0.05 1.06 1.92 0.61 0.32 5.92 0.56 1.13 25.07 45.35 14.37 7.61 Page I of I 16 10/09 1 Page of 1REV

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.3-15 THREE YEAR

SUMMARY

OF TEMPERATURE LAPSE RATE (AT~oo FT - 20 FT) DATA FOR THE WJBK-TV TOWER (1956-1959) Inversions (Temperature Season increasing with height) (percent) Spring (March, April, May) 23.0 Summer (June, July, August) 35.5 Fall (September, October, November) 33.1 Winter (December, January, February) 23.0 ANNUAL 28.6 Page I of I REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.3-16 PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE OF INVERSIONSa FOR A GIVEN LENGTH OF TIME AT FERMI SITE Probability (percent) That Inversion Persisted for Number of Hours of Persistence t Periods Greater Than t 1 100.00 2 65.21 3 51.52 4 45.06 5 40.30 6 36.50 7 32.51 8 29.47 9 25.67 10 23.76 11 21.48 12 19.01 13 15.97 14 13.49 15 11.03 16 8.555 17 6.844 18 4.753 19 3.992 20 3.612 21 3.042 23 2.281 25 2.091 26 1.711 27 1.331 28 1.141 33 0.951 41 0.760 43 0.570 44 0.380 46 0.190 From data from 60-m tower, 1 June 1974 through 31 May 1975. Page I of I REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.3-17 THE DISTRIBUTION AND FREQUENCY OF PRECIPITATION BY WIND DIRECTION AND SPEED FOR THE FERMI SITE (1956 -1959) 100 - Ft Tower (June 74 - May 75) 60-M Tower Average Wind Frequency With Average Wind Frequency With Speed (100 ft Level) Respect to Speed (10-m Level) Respect to Wind During Precipitation Precipitation Only During Precipitation Direction (mph) (percent) Precipitation (mph) Only (percent) NNE 12.5 4.1 7.5 7.6 NE 16.0 6.1 9.7 5.9 ENE 16.8 5.3 10.4 6.7 E 17.9 5.3 11.8 10.9 ESE 15.3 3.4 10.3 11.8 SE 14.4 3.2 10.2 5.0 SSE 13.3 3.9 9.5 8.4 S 12.5 5.3 11.7 5.9 SSW 12.6 7.3 13.6 5.0 SW 14.1 9.6 9.9 5.0 WSW 14.7 13.8 11.2 5.0 W 16.6 11.1 9.1 2.5 WNW 14.0 8.3 12.2 9.2 NW 12.5 6.4 7.4 5.9 NNW 12.9 5.1 4.2 1.7 N 11.2 3.4 8.3 3.4 CALM 0.2 Page I of I REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.3-18 AVERAGE TEMPERATURE AND RELATIVE HUMIDITY

SUMMARY

FOR THE FERMI SITE, DETROIT CITY AIRPORT, AND TOLEDO EXPRESS AIRPORT (1 January 1972 to 31 December 1972) Fermi Site (Langton Detroit Toledo Rd) Relative Relative Relative Temperature Humidity Temperature Humidity Temperature Humidity Month (OF) (percent) (OF) (percent) (OF) (percent) January 26 85 26 66 23 69 February 25 86 25 64 24 69 March 29 83 33 62 34 57 April 42 80 45 48 46 51 May 58 82 61 58 60 61 June 63 78 65 62 64 70 July 69 80 73 62 71 73 August 67 90 70 74 68 79 September 62 88 64 75 62 78 October 48 78 49 70 47 71 November 37 84 39 74 37 74 December 29 84 31 76 30 76 Annual 47 83 48 66 47 69 Page 1 of I REV 16 10/09 I

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.3-19 COMPARISON OF MONTHLY TEMPERATURE HIGH, LOW, AND AVERAGE BETWEEN FERMI 2 SITE DATA AND NATIONAL WEATHER BUREAU DATA COLLECTED AT THE NEAREST LOCATIONS FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 1974 THROUGH MAY 1975 June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May High 84.8 94.2 89.5 81.0 74.4 72.7 42.9 52.9 44.7 60.8 62.9 84.7 Fermi 2 Avg. 68.4 76.3 74.2 61.5 50.5 41.9 30.4 29.5 27.3 32.5 39.6 62.5 Low 47.0 52.0 55.0 34.5 24.3 15.9 11.3 8.6 -2.7 16.8 20.4 44.3 Monroe High 88.0 100.0 93.0 89.0 81.0 76.0 44.0 57.0 53.0 68.0 70.0 93.0 Sewage Plant 6.6 miles Avg. 68.4 76.3 74.2 63.8 51.6 42.8 30.1 28.9 28.2 33.5 42.5 63.8 NW Low 47.0 52.0 55.0 34.0 24.0 15.0 11.0 7.0 -5.0 12.0 17.0 38.0 High 85.0 95.0 88.0 85.0 77.0 75.0 40.0 57.0 49.0 64.0 69.0 88.0 Willis 21.6 miles NW Avg. 65.0 70.7 69.1 57.7 48.2 39.2 26.9 27.5 26.7 32.3 40.7 62.2 Low 45.0 43.0 45.0 26.0 13.0 11.0 -2.0 4.0 -11.0 8.0 18.0 36.0 High 86.0 97.0 90.0 87.0 77.0 74.0 41.0 53.0 46.0 63.0 69.0 88.0 Detroit Metro Airport 20 Avg. 65.9 72.5 72.3 59.7 48.8 40.6 28.6 28.3 27.5 32.5 40.9 62.8 miles North Low 47.0 50.0 50.0 29.0 17.0 14.0 6.0 6.0 -6.0 10.0 19.0 40.0 High 89.0 97.0 89.0 87.0 79.0 75.0 44.0 57.0 50.0 66.0 70.0 91.0 Detroit City Airport 33.7 Avg. 57.6 75.1 73.8 62.9 52.2 43.0 32.3 31.1 29.7 33.9 43.3 66.1 miles NNE Low 48.0 52.0 58.0 34.0 28.0 19.0 21.0 10.0 4.0 15.0 21.0 42.0 Page I of I REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.3-20 METEOROLOGICAL SYSTEM EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS (33-FT TOWER) Instrument Manufacturer Model Level Specifications Wind speed Gill Model 35001 33 ft Wind Direction Range: and direction propeller vane (10 m) 3600, mechanical 342', electrical Wind Speed Range: variable 0-15 mph, 0-30 mph, 0-50 mph Threshold: Vane - 0.3-0.5 mph Propeller - 0.4-0.7 mph Temperature Belfort Model 5-592 Shelter (Base Accuracy: and relative hygrothermograph approximately Temperature: + 1F humidity 4-1/2 ft above between -20'F to ground level) +100I F Humidity: +3% RH between 20% and 95%, +/-5% at extremes Page I of I REV 16 10/09 I

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.3-21 60-M TOWER ANALOG/DIGITAL METEOROLOGICAL SYSTEM INSTRUMENTATION (PREOPERATIONAL PROGRAM) WIND SPEED SENSORS: All Levels Sensor: Climet Instruments model #WS-0 11-1. Wind speed transmitter and cup assembly. Distance constant: 5 ft maximum Threshold wind: 0.6 mph Accuracy: +/- 0.1% or 0.15 mph, whichever is greater Electronics: Analog signal conditioner constructed by EG&G, Albuquerque.. Accuracy: + 0.1% full scale Recorder: Digital representation of Datel Systems, Inc. model #ADC-E 3-digit (BCD) analog to digital converter. OVERALL SYSTEM ACCURACY: + 1% or 0.15 mph Recorder: Esterline Angus Model #EAL1 102S dual analog recorder (Backup) Accuracy: + 0.25% full scale OVERALL SYSTEM ACCURACY: + 1.04% or 0.38 mph, whichever is greater WIND DIRECTION SENSORS: All Levels Sensor: Climet Instruments model #WD-012-03 wind direction transmitter and wind vane assembly. Distance constant: 1 m maximum Damping ratio: 0.4 standard Threshold: 0.75 mph Accuracy: + 30 Electronics: Analog signal conditioner constructed by EG&G, Albuquerque Accuracy: + 0.10% full scale Recorder: Digital representation of Datel Systems, Inc. model #ADC-E 3-digit (BCD) analog to digital converter. Accuracy: + 1/2/LSB Pagel of3 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.3-21 60-M TOWER ANALOG/DIGITAL METEOROLOGICAL SYSTEM INSTRUMENTATION (PREOPERATIONAL PROGRAM) Recorder: Esterline Angus Model #EAL 1 102S dual analog recorder. (Backup) Accuracy: +/- 0.25% full scale OVERALL SYSTEM ACCURACY: +/- 3.2' TEMPERATURE SENSORS: All Levels Sensors: Rosemount Engineering model #171BM platinum resistance thermometer. Linearity: 0.01% full scale Stability: 0.01 'C per year Aspiration rate: 24 ft/sec flow over sensor Electronics: Analog signal conditioner constricted by EG&G, Albuquerque. Accuracy: + 0.10% full scale Recorder: Digital representation of Datel Systems, Inc. model #ADC-E 3-digit (BCD) analog to digital converter. Accuracy: - 1/2 LSB Recorder: Esterline Angus Model #EAL 1102S dual analog recorder. (Backup) Accuracy: + 0.25% full scale OVERALL SYSTEM ABSOLUTE ACCURACY: +/- 0.2 0 C OVERALL SYSTEM DIFFERENCE ACCURACY: + 0.1°C DEWPOINT SENSOR: Sensor: Environmental Equipment Division of EG&G, model #11 OS-M dewpoint measuring set. Range: -80'F to +120'F Accuracy: + 0.5°F maximum Electronics: Analog signal conditioner constructed by EG&G, Albuquerque. Accuracy: + 0.1% fill scale Page 2 of 3 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.3-21 60-M TOWER ANALOG/DIGITAL METEOROLOGICAL SYSTEM INSTRUMENTATION (PREOPERATIONAL PROGRAM) Recorder: Digital representation of Datel Systems, Inc. model #ADC-E 3-digit (BCD) analog to digital converter. Recorder: Esterline Angus Model #EAL1 102S dual analog recorder (Backup) Accuracy: + 0.25% full scale OVERALL SYSTEM ACCURACY: + 0.35°C PRECIPITATION SENSOR: Sensor: Fisher & Porter Company model #35-1559 EA1O, precipitation gage recorder. Range: 0 to 19.5 in. precipitation Accuracy: +/- 0.0 15 in. of range span Sensitivity: 0.025 in. response OVERALL SYSTEM ACCURACY: +/- 0.1 in. Page 3 of 3 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.3-22 COMPARISON BETWEEN MANUALLY READ ANALOG AVERAGES AND DIGITAL AVERAGES FOR ALL PARAMETERS AT THE 10-METER LEVEL AND THE TEMPERATURE AT THE 60-METER LEVEL ON THE 60-METER TOWER Temperature at 10-m level Dewnoint Temperature at Wind Speed at 10- Wind Direction at 60-m level rn Level 10-m Level Date Time Digital Analog Digital Analog Digital Analog Digital Analog Digital Analog 1974 June 15 04:00 18.46 18.42 15.71 15.74 18.41 18.45 12.6 12.7 198.4 198.4 June 15 14:00 18.83 18.84 16.33 16.31 18.93 18.96 12.5 12.5 191.8 192.4 June 25 03:00 11.45 11.46 6.23 6.25 11.98 11.93 6.7 6.8 341.3 341.5 June 29 09:00 19.92 19.96 14.44 14.40 20.20 20.28 5.7 5.7 231.6 230.9 July 10 16:00 23.40 23.41 21.12 21.19 23.20 23.22 12.2 12.2 042.3 042.6 July 14 03:00 25.35 25.31 16.37 16.37 25.62 25.69 7.4 7.4 244.4 244.0 July 24 06:00 14.06 14.05 13.86 13.83 17.20 17.25 2:1 2.1 319.5 319.3 July 29 09:00 24.06 24.00 19.46 19.46 23.52 23.51 6.9 6.8 274.6 274.7 August 8 13:00 23.35 23.39 18.23 18.22 22.63 22.68 8.8 8.8 137.3 136.4 August 11 02:00 23.08 23.07 19.38 19.31 23.01 23.04 11.7 11.7 159.8 160.9 August 22 02:00 20.53 20.53 16.06 16.01 20.45 20.46 7.7 7.8 057.4 056.2 August 25 02:00 16.85 16.86 14.14 14.12 18.45 18.42 5.8 5.7 027.6 027.2 September 1'a 13:00 25.51 25.88 18.98 19.22 26.12 26.07 9.9 10.1 207.3 204.6 September 11 15:00 26.28 26.21 19.35 19.24 25.99 25.75 11.9 11.7 211.9 208.7 October 26 14:00 15.95 16.43 -03.15 -02.97 15.75 15.62 13.2 12.8 279.7 280.6 October 28 12:00 03.64 03.53 06.90 06.88 16.12 16.10 7.3 7.1 127.7 127.4 November 6 04:00 04.09 03.86 02.51 02.40 04.13 04.22 5.5 5.2 287.2 282.8 November 10 14:00 09.51 09.28 06.54 06.59 09.24 09.21 9.4 9.3 127.3 122.8 November 22 20:00 04.14 04.13 01.28 01.33 04.5 04.5 5.9 5.6 244.7 239.9 November 24 10:00 12.23 12.14 11.20 11.18 11.89 11.89 11.2 10.9 255.2 249.9 December 4 17:00 03.79 -03.58 -08.95 -08.58 -03.45 -03.72 3.5 3.1 281.3 279.2 December 9 11:00 -05.20 -05.20 -09.68 -09.22 -05.18 -05.37 12.3 11.9 285.1 282.6 December 19 11:00 0.61 00.64 -00.91 00.90 00.31 0.18 12.0 12.1 253.2 248.8 December 23 12:00 04.80 04.57 00.53 00.86 05.30 05.10 9.1 8.8 249.3 245.7 Page I of 2 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.3-22 COMPARISON BETWEEN MANUALLY READ ANALOG AVERAGES AND DIGITAL AVERAGES FOR ALL PARAMETERS AT THE 10-METER LEVEL AND THE TEMPERATURE AT THE 60-METER LEVEL ON THE 60-METER TOWER Temperature at 10-m level Dew~oint Temperature at Wind Speed at 10- Wind Direction at 60-m level m Level 10-m Level Date Time Digital Analog Digital Analog Digital Analog Digital Analog Digital Analog 1975 January 3 10:00 1.48 1.58 0.25 0.32 1.04 1.01 13.3 13.0 226.7 222.7 January 6 14:00 0.48 0.53 0.23 0.25 0.18 0.21 10.7 10.9 180.0 177.8 January 12 16:00 -6.15 -6.17 -16.66 -16.76 -6.83 -6.86 9.0 8.8 246.0 243.7 January 17 03:00 -7.60 -7.36 -14.26 -14.56 -7.96 -7.76 1.4 1.4 299.1 297.1 February 5 16:00 0.23 -0.15 -0.09 0.05 -0.22 -1.03 6.6 6.1 042.9 038.7 February 10 03:00 -17.25 -16.87 -22.99 -22.61 -17.22 -16.89 4.9 4.5 248.6 249.2 February 14 23:00 -4.21 -4.52 -08.9 -9.13 -4.62 -4.74 6.5 6.0 115.5 110.3 February 15 01:00 -4.11 -4.40 -8.38 -8.36 -4.48 -4.61 7.7 7.2 118.6 117.0 March 13 23:00 -2.49 -2.62 -9.76 -9.63 -2.97 -3.14 14. 3 13.8 050.9 047.3 March 14 01:00 -2.55 2.73 -12.77 -12.26 -3.07 -3.41 16.18 16.3 065.7 063.1 March 17 10:00 0.02 0.08 -1.79 -1.92 -0.73 0.94 5.8 6.0 046.4 042.0 March 24 03:00 3.39 4.22 1.38 1.71 2.73 3.10 18.18 18.5 079.6 081.0 April 4 22:00 -1.91 -2.11 -11.72 -11.32 N/A N/A N// N/A N/A N/A April 5 04:00 -6.14 -6.13 -11.84 -11.43 N/A N/A N/, N/A N/A N/A April 10 18:00 N/A N/A N/A N/A 3.48 3 .6 1b 12. 5 12.4 060.2 056.7 April I1 13:00 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.86 3 .0 2 b 7.2 7.8 159.1 156.2 April 25 19:00 8.07 8.01 2.19 2.40 7.75 7.90 8.3 7.5 358.3 355.0 April 26 01:00 5.13 4.72 0.60 0.71 5.92 6.44 3.2 3.4 062.5 061.2 May 17 09:00 11.13c 11.01 9.99 9.73c 12.33 12.32 8.1 8.0 080.9 074.3 May 19 23:00 22.48 22.83 14.31 14.56 19.39 19. 0 0 d 10.' 4 10.4 201.6 197.6 May 27 21:00 20.97 21.04 8.36 8.24 21.96 21.87 4.0 3.6 314.9 312.3 May 28 07:00 16.02 16.51 7.05 6.67 15.44 15.86 9.5 9.4 069.7 064.7 a Digital system of the 60-meter tower was down from 9/17/74 to 10/26/74. Comparison checks for this time period are not available. b Reading 1 hr later than indicated time. ' Reading 2 hr prior to indicated time. d Reading 16 hr prior to indicated time. Page 2 of 2 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.3-23 PERCENTAGE OF DATA RECOVERY FOR THE 60-M METEOROLOGICAL TOWER AT THE SITE I June 1974 through May 1975 June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. March April May Annual Regulatory Guide 1.23a 93.47 93.95 98.79 87.36 74.73 100.00 94.22 98.92 97.77 82.39 87.50 90.73 91.16 10-m wind speed 96.53 94.62 99.87 97.36 95.30 99.86 94.89 98.92 87.80 96.10 99.72 99.33 96.87 10-m wind direction 97.08 94.22 98.25 86.39 78.23 99.86 96.64 99.60 96.73 94.76 99.44 99.19 95.15 10-m air temperature 93.33 96.77 99.60 99.03 99.60 99.72 95.97 99.19 97.47 92.47 87.78 98.66 96.78 10-m dewpoint temp. 93.33 96.64 99.33 97.92 95.83 99.72 95.03 96.37 97.47 92.34 98.47 89.52 96.11 60-m wind speed 99.58 96.24 99.73 97.64 98.66 99.72 96.64 99.60 91.82 96.10 97.92 97.58 97.77 60-m wind direction 98.33 96.37 99.33 90.14 95.03 99.58 96.64 99.60 97.32 95.70 97.92 99.19 97.24 60-m air temperature 99.58 96.10 99.60 98.89 99.46 99.72 95.70 99.60 97.47 92.74 99.58 91.26 97.59 Joint recovery between 10-m wind speed, 10-m wind direction, 10-m temperature, 60-m temperature. Page I of I REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.3-24 METEOROLOGICAL DATA RECOVERY (PERCENT) FOR 33-FT TOWER (January 1, 1972 - December 31, 1972) Temperature Data Relative Humidity Data Spring (March, April, May) 94 93 Summer (June, July, August) 96 96 Fall (September, October, November) 96 96 Winter (December, January, February) 90 90 ANNUAL 94 94 Page I of I REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.3-25 METEOROLOGICAL MONITORING NETWORK (OPERATIONAL PROGRAM) Parameter Sampling Height (m) Sensing Technique Primary Monitoring System Wind speed 10 and 60 Cups/light chopper Wind direction 10 and 60 Vane/potentiometer Vertical wind speed 10 Propeller Differential temperature 10 to 60 Matched thermistors Ambient temperature 10 Thermistor Dewpoint 10 Lithium Chloride Type Precipitation 1.5 Tipping bucket Secondary Monitoring System Wind speed 10 and 60 Cups/light chopper Wind direction 10 and 60 Vane/potentiometer Vertical wind speed 10 Propeller/light chopper Differential temperature 10 to 60 Matched thermistors Ambient temperature 10 Thermistor Page I of I REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.3-26 METHOD FOR SUBSTITUTING REDUNDANT PARAMETERS FOR THE CRITICAL METEOROLOGICAL MEASUREMENTS Level of 10-Meter Level 10-Meter Level Redundancy Wind Speed Wind Direction Stability Indicator 0 Primary WS 10 Primary WD 10 Primary delta T 1 Secondary WSlO Secondary WD 10 Secondary delta T 2 Primary sigma theta 3 Secondary sigma theta Page I of I REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.3-27

SUMMARY

OF MAXIMUM SECTOR AND 5 PERCENT OVERALL SITE LIMIT y/O VALUES AT THE EAB AND LPZ FOR REGULATORY POST-ACCIDENT TIME PERIODS EAB* LPZ" (915 m) (4827 m) Annual 0-2 Hours 0-2 Hours 0-8 Hours 8-24 Hours 1-4 Days 4-30 Days Average Max Sector Site Limit Max Sector Site Limit Max Sector Max Sector Max Sector Max Sector Max Sector 2.09 E-04 1.54 E-04 4.86 E-05 2.98 E-05 2.17 E-05 1.45 E-05 6.02 E-06 1.71 E-06 3.66 E-07 (ESE) (ESE) (ESE) (ESE) (ESE) (ESE) (ESE) For the EAB and LPZ, the 0-2 hour maximum sector X/Q value is based on the highest sector-specific 0.5% x/Q sector value: and the 0-2 hour site limit is based on the 5 percent overall site X/Q value. In accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.145, the higher of these is selected as the controlling 0-2 hour X/Q. Also, for the LPZ, per Regulatory Guide 1.145, logarithmic interpolation between the controlling 0-2 hour value and the maximum annual average X/Q in any sector is performed to derive the approximate LPZ 7/Q value for each of the post-accident time periods. Page I of I REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.3-28

SUMMARY

OF W/O (s/m 3) VALUES AT THE CONTROL CENTER COMPLEX FOR REGULATORY POST-ACCIDENT TIME PERIODS Accident Time Interval (source-to-receptor) LOCA 0-2 Hours 2-8 Hours 8-24 Hours 1-4 Days 4-30 Days SGTS and ECCS leakage 6.18E-4 4.53E-4 1.88E-4 1.26E-4 8.70E-5 (SGTS stack-to-South control center intake) MSIV Leakage (TBHVAC 4.75E-4 3.78E-4 1.45E-4 9.80E-5 7.19E-5 Stack-to-North control center intake) Fuel Handling Accident 0-2 Hours 2-8 Hours 8-24 Hours 1-4 Days 4-30 Days 24-hr Drop of Recently 4.03E-3" The two-hour value is conservatively applied for Irradiated Fuel (SGTS-to- 3.65E-3 the duration of accident. North Emergency Intake) Fuel No Longer Recently 4.25E-3 The two-hour value is conservatively applied for Irradiated without SGTS the duration of accident. (Outage Building-to-South Emergency Intake) . This value applies during the initial unfiltered release via RBHVAC. Page I of I REV 16 10/09 1

Jul N N. 30 N 25 zN uN NN zN N SBESTFIT TO PLOTTED POINTS Y - 3.921p X +17.43 z 0 N4-IL SN 0

0. 0. O E1 to PERCENT OF TIME ORDINATE IS EOUALLED 01R EXCEEDEO Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-1 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF SNOWPACK

z U z -j -I 4 q 2 S 'C 4 N PERCENT OF TIME ORDINATE IS EQUALLED Oft EXCEEDED Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-2 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF SNOWFALL

N .15 A II

                                                                                           .10 5

10 15 1 1 SPEED CLASS (MPH) SPEED CLASS (MPH) 1.0 3.0 70 12.0 18.0 24.0 1.0 3.0 7.0 12.0 180 24.0 D 0- R W INS DET ED 10 METER WIND ROSE 6/74 DET ED 60 METER WIND ROSE 6/ 74 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-3 WIND ROSE DATA FOR JUNE 1974

N

                                       .4..
                         ~t1     10 .15 1

10 15 I 1 SPEED CLASS (MPH) SPEED CLASS (MPH) 1.0 3.0 7.0 12.0 180 240 1.0 3.0 7.0 12.0 180 24.0

                                                     *          : LLJ DET ED   10METER WIND ROSE 7/74            DETED 60 METER WIND ROSE       7/74 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-4 WIND ROSE DATA FOR JULY 1974

N 15

                  .10 10 5

SPEED CLASS (MPH) SPEED CLASS (MPH)0 10 3.0 7.0 12.0 180 24.0 1.0 3.0 70 120 180 24.0

              . C II     =
                                                            , , Ial l DET ED 10 METER WIND ROSE       8/74         DET ED 60 METER WIND ROSE     8 / 74 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-5 WIND ROSE DATA FOR AUGUST 1974

N 4 H

                                                                                 / .5
                             /5
                                                                                         .10
                                  /o10                                                 /

15

                                       / 15
                                                                                             /

SPEED CLASS (MPH) SPEED CLASS (MPH) 1.0 10 7.0 12.0 180 24.0 1.0 3.0 7.0 12.0 180 24.0 DET ED 1OMETER WIND ROSE 9/74 DET ED 60 METER WIND ROSE 9 / 74 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-6 WIND ROSE DATA FOR SEPTEMBER 1974

N 25 20 N 15 10 \ 5 10 15 I I I SPEED CLASS (MPH) -SPEED CLASS (MPH) tO 3.0 70 12.0 180 240 1.0 3.0 70 12.0 18 24.0

                                                               ,    I Z1I DET ED 10 METER WIND ROSE 10/ 74             DIET ED 60 METER WIND ROSE    10 / 74 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-7 WIND ROSE DATA FOR OCTOBER 1974

N A I aý-4a=:]:=ýa col 5 10 15 5 10 15 I I I SPEED CLASS (MPH) SPEED CLASS (MPH) 1.0 3.0 70 12.0 180 24.0 1.0 3.0 70 12.0 180 24.0 DET ED 10 METER WIND ROSE 11/74 DET ED 60 METER WIND ROSE 11 1 74 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-8 WIND ROSE DATA FOR NOVEMBER 1974

N 15 m 10 J5

                                  / 5
                                       / .10 15
                                             /

SPEED CLASS (MPH) SPEED CLASS (MPH) 1.0 3.0 7.0 12.0 180 24.0 1.0 3.0 70 12.0 180 24.0 DET ED 10 METER WIND ROSE 12/ 74 DET ED 60 METER WIND ROSE 12/74 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-9 WIND ROSE DATA FOR DECEMBER 1974

N A F 25 20 10 \ 5 LL~m ] ~zzz _

                                        .5   10  I5I*

15 I I SPEED CLASS (MPH) -SPEED CLASS (MPH) 1.0 3.0 70 12.0 18.0 24.0 1.0 3.0 7.0 12.0 180 24.0

                                                                -- '          EaI DET ED 10 METER WiNO ROSE       1/75             DET ED 60 METER WIND ROSE       1/ 75 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-10 WIND ROSE DATA FOR JANUARY 1975

15 N 15 10 10 5 5-SPEED CLASS (MPH) SPEED CLASS (Mf-10 3.0 7.0 2.0 180 24.0 1.0 3.0 70 12.0 180 24.0 DET ED 10 METER WIND ROSE 2175 DET ED 60 METER WIND ROSE 2/75 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-11 WIND ROSE DATA FOR FEBRUARY 1975

15 N 10

          ,0 zpezy
                                                            - 5
                                                            -   10 SPEED CLASS %aP"                            SPEED CLASS (MPH) 1.0 3.0 70 12.0 10 24.0                     1.0  3.0 20 12.0 180 24.0 DI=           E DET ED) 10 METER WIND ROSE   3/ 75 DET ED 6 METER WIND ROSE       3 /75 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3112 WIND ROSE DATA FOR MARCH 1975

N 5 8 10 10\ 15 15 SPEED CLASS (MPH) SPEED CLASS (MPH) 1.0 3.0 7.0 1.0 18.0 24.0 1.0 3.0 70 12.0 180 24.0 T EDM ' IS I D E6E WN O 4 DIET ED 10 METER WIND ROSE 4 / 75 DET ED 60 METER WIND ROSE 4 /75 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-13 WIND ROSE DATA FOR APRIL 1975

15 N 10

                                         *11=                          5 5

10 \ 15 SPEED CLASS (MPH) SPEED CLASS (MPH) 1.0 3-0 70 12.0 180 24.0 1.0 3.0 7.0 12.0 180 24.0 2 ' ' 1 I DET ED 10METER WIND ROSE 5/75 DET ED 60 METER WIND ROSE 5/ 75 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-14 WIND ROSE DATA FOR MAY 1975

N 15 q.4 15 10 10 5 5 SPEED CLASS (MPH) SPEED CLASS (MPH) tO 3.0 7.0 12.0 180 240 1.0 3.0 7.0 12.0 180 24.0 DET ED 10 METER WIND ROSE SU (74) DET ED 60 METER WIND ROSE SU (74) Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-15 FERMI SITE WIND ROSE DATA FOR SUMMER 1974

N H1= A 15 10 15 5 10 SPEED CLASS (MPH) SPEED CLASS (MPH) 10 3.0 70 12.0 18.0 24.0 1.0 3.0 70 12.0 180 24.0 DET ED 10 METER WIND ROSE F (74) DIET ED 60 METER WIND ROSE F (74) Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-16 FERMI SITE WIND ROSE DATA FOR FALL 1974/75

15 15 N 5 10 4t 10 5 SPEED CLASS (MPH) SPEED CLASS (MPH) 1D 3.0 7.0 12.0 18.0 240 1.0 3.0 7.0 12.0 18) 24.0 DET ED 1o METER WIND ROSE W (75) OfT ED 6 METER WIND ROSE W 175) Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-17 FERMI SITE WIND ROSE DATA FOR WINTER 1975

15 N 15 io t0 SPEE CLASS (MPH) SPEED CLASS (MPI 10 3.0 7.0 12.0 180 24.0 1.0 3.0 7.0 12.0 180 24.0 DET ED 10METER WINO ROSE SP 75 OET ED So METER WIND ROSE SP 75 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-18 FERMI SITE WIND ROSE DATA FOR SPRING 1975

15 15 N 10 10 5 5 SPEED CLASS (MPH) SPEED CLASS (MPH) tO 3.0 7.0 12.0 1i0 240 1.0 ao 70 12.0 10 24.0 DET ED 10 METER WINO ROSE 74/ 75 DET ED 60 METER WIND ROSE 74 / 75 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-19 FERMI SITE WIND ROSE DATA FOR ANNUAL PERIOD 1 JUNE 1974 - 31 MAY 1975

SPEED CLASS (IPH) SPEED CLASS (MPH)

1. 2.0 2.11 1l. 24.8
        .8 12.                      1.8 3.9   7.8 12.9 II. 24.8 DIThOIT CITY AIRPORT                  TOLEDO EXNPNU AIRPORT 1951 - 1960                            1950  -  1955 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-20 WIND ROSE DATA FOR SEPTEMBER

I SPEED CLASS (MPH) SPEED CLASS CHII) 1.8 3.0 7J 12J 18 1.84J 1.8 J . I7 J 7J S1J84J ODTROIT CITY AIRPORT TOLEDO EXPRESS AIRPORT 1961 - 1960 190 - 195 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-21 WIND ROSE DATA FOR OCTOBER

0 SPEED CLASS (ITCH) SPEED CLASS (WPH) IJ S 7J 12J3 19, 24J 1.0 J 7J e2J10.2 24J OWTOMY CITY AIRPORT TOLEDO EXPREESAINPORT 1961 - 1960 1950 - 1955 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-22 WIND ROSE DATA FOR NOVEMBER

0 SPEED CLASS (MPH) SPEED CLASS (MPH)

1. 3.8 7.2 12.8 10.0 a4.8 1.9 3.8 7.8 12.5106 24.

ODTROIT CITY AIRPORtT TOLEOO IXPRIS AIRPORT 1051-1960 1950-1965 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-23 WIND ROSE DATA FOR DECEMBER

N SPEED CLASS (MPH) SPEED CLASS (MPH) 1.3 I. 7.3 12.8 I1A 248 1. SJ 7J 12J I.J 24J DElTROIT CITY AIRPORT TOLIDO EXPRESS AIRPORT 1961 - 1960 190 - 1NS Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-24 WIND ROSE DATA FOR JANUARY

SPEE CLASS (MPH) SPEED CLASS (MIPH) 1.0 JI 741.9 12.0 3 4 18. .0 .1 7A 1.8 aisJ " DETROIT CITY AIRPORT TOLEDO EXlPRES AINPORT 1951 -1960 1950 - 1966 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-25 WIND ROSE DATA FOR FEBRUARY

SPEED CLASS (MPH) SPEED CLASS (PIPH) 1.2 2.8 7.8 12.3 13t.3 24.0 1.9 " 7.9 2.8 10. 24. DETROIT CWTY AIRPONT TOLEDO EXPRESSAIRPORT 1961-1960 1950-1955 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-26 WOND ROSE DATA FOR MARCH

0 SPEED CLASS (MPH) SPEED CLASS (MPH) 1.9 .6 1.9 12.1 10.8 24.1 1I. 3. 1.1 12.o 21,1 24.1 DTOIftT CITV AIRPORT TOt ADOEXPRUU AIRPORT 1961 - 1960 19W0- 196 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-27 WIND ROSE DATA FOR APRIL

SPEED CLASS (MPH) SPEED CLASS (MPH)

1. 2.8 . .012.0 1Ll 24.8 .8 2.o 7.8 12.8 16.1 24.0 OETROIT ITY AIPOROT TOLIDO IEXPR2U AIRPORT 1961 -- 0 1960 - 1965 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-28 WIND ROSE DATA FOR MAY

SPEED CLASS (MPH) SPEED CLASS (MPH) 1 8.83 7.8 12.3 198 24.5 1. I. 7J 12.3 1.J 24J OGTROIT CITY AIUPOOT TOLEDO EXPINU AII*01T 1951-190 190 - 1965 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-29 WIND ROSE DATA FOR JUNE

SPEED CLASS (MPH) SPEED CLASS (MPH) 1.0 2.8 7.8 12.9 10.2 24.j 1.2 8.8 7 12J 41J 24.8 DETROIT CITY AIRPORT TOLEDOEXPREW AIRPORT 1961 - 1960 1950 - 1955 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-30 WIND ROSE DATA FOR JULY

0 0 SPEED CLASS (MPH) SPEED CLASS (MPH) 1.. a3. 1.0 12.3 .81.2 24.3 1.3 7A 12.3 13.8 24. OIETROIT CITY AIRPORT TOLEOO EXPRESS AIRPORT 1951 - Iwo 195 - 195 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-31 WIND ROSE DATA FOR AUGUST

cLflS ~ ALMS S PEED CLASS (MPH) SPEED CLASS (MPH) 1.8 a'. 7.8 12J. 10.8 Z4.9 1.9 a.6 1.2 12.8 i8 24.9 OETROIT CITY AIRPORT TOLEDO EXSNPNUAIRPORT 1911-1960 1950-1905 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-32 ANNUAL WIND ROSE DATA

100 80 s0 40 20 0-2 4 10 U a, 8 M W MI-0 10

--    4
        .1 .2 .4    .6   .8   1           2          4       6    8  10    20 PROBABILITY OF PERSISTENCE > t Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-33 ONE SECTOR (22%Io) WIND DIRECTION PERSISTENCE PROBABILITY

HOURS 0 TOLEDO EXPRESS 0 DETROIT METROPOLITAN FERMI SITE 10-METER LEVEL Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-34 MAXIMUM WIND PERSISTENCE ROSE

100 80 60 40 20 A 1. 2 'U U

'U
a. 10
-a   a i

I a. 6 4 2 I 2 6 8 10 20 40 60 80 100 HOURS OF INVERSION PERSISTiNCE Itl Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-35 INVERSION PERSISTENCE PROBABILITY

15 10 5 SPEED CLASS (MPH) 1.0 3.0 7.0 12.0 18.0 24.0 DETROIT EDISON 60-METER TOWER 10-METER WIND ROSE PRECIPITATION 1974-1975 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-36 DISTRIBUTION OF WIND SPEED VERSUS WIND DIRECTION (PRECIPITATION ONLY)

-, 26-0cc

& 24, LO 22-M 20.

-I 03  16
 < 14-0 2 0-IL 06 w

u. 4 -

u. 2 0 tj 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 HOURS OF DAY Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-37 FOG - OCCURANCE BY HOUR OF DAY (DETROIT METROPOLITAN AIRPORT 1958-1962)

16-" 14-12-LU 10-74 U. 0 uh 8-0 w 6-7 w 4-2- a-Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-38 FOG - MONTHLY PERCENTAGE OCCURANCE (DETROIT METROPOLITAN AIRPORT 1958-1962)

300 C Z- 20 0 C w W -100C

  -150C 20 C JUN. JUL. AUG SEP flirT NOV%   DEt     JAN. FEB   MAR   APR     MAY Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-39 MINIMUM, AVERAGE, AND MAXIMUM DAILY AIR TEMPERATURE AT THE FERMI SITE FROM 10-METER LEVEL DATA FROM JUNE 1974 THROUGH MAY 1975

DAILY MAXIMUM 2 100% w U 90 g w so 0. I.- 70 5 I so z 50 DALLY G AtNRMUt w ' A, 40 -I 30 'U U 20 'U I- 10 'U 0 JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC. JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY 1974 1975 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-40 MINIMUM, AVERAGE, AND MAXIMUM DAILY RELATIVE HUMIDITY FROM JUNE 1974 THROUGH MAY 1975

N

                     ,a.-30,.

Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-41 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF THE AREA WITHIN A 5-MILE VICINITY

N 2*'*30 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-42 MAP OF THE AREA WITHIN A 50-MILE VICINITY

G00 $90 580 570 600 t i ENE 590 $80 $70 L 1 2 NE 3 4 I 5 ESE SE *" SSE.. G00 $90 $80

                                          ~~~~~~.........

S

                                           .. =............... H./* ..........     .,.'n,,nn///'/////-i//,"'//,*"'t.' - ...

I 1 570 5 2 3 4 5 NOTE: WATER NE, ENE, ESE, SE, AND SSE DIRECTION ARE ALL I-- LAND IDENTICAL. ELEVATIONS IN FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL (NEW YORK MEAN TIDE, 1935). SECTION TAKEN IN DIRECTION INDICATED. Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-43, SHEET 1 TOPOGRAPHIC CROSS SECTION OUT TO 5 MILES

Hill I 600- WSW 590-580-r,7n - 1 2 3 4 610 600 w 590 580 570 1 2 3 4 610 600 590 580 570 610 I NW _ 600 590 580 570 1 2 3 4 5 610 600 NNW 590 580 I I-570 1 2 3 4 5 NOTE: 0 WATER NE, ENE, ESE, SE, AND SSE DIRECTION ARE ALL IDENTICAL ELEVATIONS IN FEET ABOVE SEA W LAND LEVEL (NEW YORK MEAN TIDE, 1935). SECTION TAKEN IN DIRECTION INDICATED. Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-43, SHEET 2 TOPOGRAPHIC CROSS SECTION OUT TO 5 MILES

WATER Fermi 2 "El LAND UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT NOTE: FIGURE 2.3-44, SHEET 1 ELEVATION 1 IN FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL. TOPOGRAPHIC CROSS SECTION OUT TO 50 MILES IN.Y, MEAN TIDE. 19W). SECTION TAKEN IN DIRECTION INDICATED.

013C 800 WNW 775 750 725 700 675 850 625 600 575 ca=n I I I II I I I I I I I 2 .4 6 8 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 i0 WATER i-] LAND Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT NOTE: ELEVATION I IN FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL. FIGURE 2.3-44, SHEET 2 (N.Y, MEAN TIDE, 1935). SECTION TAKEN IN DIRECTION INDICATED. TOPOGRAPHIC CROSS SECTION OUT TO 50MILES

725 700 675 650 625 600 575 550 700 I I I I I I I I I I I 41YE 650-625 - 600-575 AgI I I I I I I, I 2 4 6 8 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 WATER L] LAND Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT NOTE: ELEVATION IS IN FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL. FIGURE 2.3-44, SHEET 3 IN.Y. MEAN TIDE, 135). SECTION TAKEN IN DIRECTION INDICATED. TOPOGRAPHIC CROSS SECTION OUT TO 50 MILES

700 I I I I I I I r I I 675 650 F-625 F-S00 575 NA SSW S SW 2 4 6 8 10 15 20 25 30 35 4 45 50 700 875 DUE SOUTH 650 625 600,- 575 / 2 4 68 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 SO 700 675-SSE 650 625-600 575 - 5 5 0O 246 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 6005 i I i , I iS 2 4 6 8 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 o I I I I I I I ESE I I MCA7 2 4 6 8 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 M' WATER EJ LAND NOTE: Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT ELEVATION IS IN FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL. (N.Y, MEAN TIDE. 1935). SECTION TAKEN IN DIRECTION INDICATED. FIGURE 2.3-44, SHEET 4 TOPOGRAPHIC CROSS SECTION OUT TO 50 MILES

7mM 7tit] I I I I I I I IIII I 675 ENE 65O 625 600 575 l 55 4 6 18 1 15 20 2"5 30 35 40 45 50 7151nn.. ..... VI _ NE 675 650 625 wo .575 a*i E A 550, 2 4' 6 8 10=" is 20 25 30 35 40 45 5 675 - NNE 650-575 * " 550 4 6 8 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 WATER [-'- LAND Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT ELEVATKIO 13 IN FEET ANOVE SEA LEVEL. (N.Y, MEAN TIDE, 19M)8. SECTrION TAKEN IN DIRECTION INDICATED. FIGURE 2.3-44, SHEET 5 TOPOGRAPHIC CROSS SECTION OUT TO 50 MILES

1500 - l....Land Air Heated by Subsidence W, Slight Inversion)

 -1000 Z    500    *Cool Lake i                                                                                    Heated Land Air, (Slight Inversion)----.                                Heated sprdaaiLake Air                       (Supradiab 0*                                                   Land (a) Adiabatic Temperature Gradient a -. 98 C 100m or -5.4 F 1000 ft (b) Inversion a Temperature Increasing With Height Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-45 STREAMLINES DURING A LAKE BREEZE SITUATION

7/

                                       \\,.3.

ROAD 33-ft LANGTON TOWER

                  //

I-TOWER FERMI I 100-ft ISO METER

6 - oe 1. ,O M IrL i9 F erm 0 Mt e To wern WaindS edlity id S ed (oiz Wind Speed (ireio) Wind Speed (toar) Wind Speed (Hoar) Wind Speed (HoMcz) wind Direction WindSpeed (Sort) Wind Direction Wind Speed (Vert) Temperoture Wind Direction Temperoture wind O nrecton Temperoture Temperature Dee Point Surge Protection Surge Protection I i r; ........ tu roln Snao t... tr.......t Train Borometric Signol Conditioners TO Phone Ta Fhone Pressure Delto Temperoture Conditioner SpTe SYstoimo Thpetoral Conditioner Sigmo Theta Computer te Sigmo Thetu Co ter Sigmo Phi Computer J ,Sigma Phi Cmue Radiation Reference Voltoge Reference V Recorder Pern Printer Personol Rmcrder Comuter Comuter u utpe.01 Multpexor Ethernet Hub/Switch Ethernet Hub/Swntch I Nactear DOeratiosCno ateor-k

                                                                                                .Ntorrk                                                                         Fiber Optic tatertace P                 oamt                           tr            net       tntertoce Facet                                           terfoce    Panel Microwave                                                                                                                                                Fiber Optic Cable rIOffice Service   Ruildino             Mictro,*

PonepReudatFie O MIntrfaceoa~ne Reot SF5Accers Firewall ProtectedInelcFat Nover Interfc Panel Fermi 2 Control Room DemotiptnorDemultiplnoar IFCD Dta OcgbilanIFCS DataMogoition Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT To Non-IPCS Site Network FIGURE 2.3-47 BLOCK DIAGRAM OF DETROIT EDISON METEOROLOGICAL DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEM REV 18 10/12

Redacted in accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-48 CROSS SECTIONAL AREAS OF REACTOR BUILDING DETROIT EDISON COMPANY DRAWING NO. 6A721-2042. REV. E AND AUXILIARY BUILDING REV 15 05/08

FIGURES 2.3-49 THROUGH 2.3-51 HAVE BEEN DELETED THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK REV 16 10/09

Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-52 ANNUAL AVERAGE X/O VALUES CONTAINMENT BUILDING SOURCE (UNDECAYED AND UNDEPLETED)

Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-63 ANNUAL AVERAGE X/O VALUES RADWASTE BUILDING SOURCE (UNDECAYED AND UNDEPLETED)

Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-14 ANNUAL AVERAGE X/I VALUES TURBINE BUILDING SOURCE (UNDECAYED AND UNDEPLETED)

Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-65 ANNUAL AVERAGE X/O VALUES CONTAINMENT BUILDING SOURCE (DECAYED AND DEPLETED)

- ."-I Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-56 ANNUAL AVERAGE X/a VALUES RADWASTE BUILDING SOURCE (DECAYED AND DEPLETED)

Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-57 ANNUAL AVERAGE X/O VALUES TURBINE BUILDING SOURCE (DECAYED AND DEPLETED)

Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 23-58 RELATIVE DEPOSITION D/O VALUES CONTAINMENT BUILDING SOURCE

I Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-9 RELATIVE DEPOSITION D0/ VALUES RADWASTE BUILDING SOURCE

Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.3-60 RELATIVE DEPOSITION D/O VALUES TURBINE BUILDING SOURCE

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.4. HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING 2.4.1. Hydrologic Description 2.4.1.1. Site and Facilities The Fermi site is located adjacent to the western shore of Lake Erie (Figure 2.4-1). Prior to construction of Fermi 2, the site area was a lagoon separated from Lake Erie by a barrier beach, known as Lagoona Beach, which formed the eastern site boundary. The Fermi 2 preconstruction topography is shown in Figure 2.4-2. The lagoon was connected to Lake Erie by Swan Creek, a perennial stream that discharges into Lake Erie about 1 mile north of the Fermi plant site. The site for Fermi 2 was prepared by excavating soft soils and rock, and constructing rock fill to a nominal plant grade elevation of 583 ft. All elevations refer to New York Mean Tide, 1935. The topography of the developed site as of December 10, 1972, is shown in Figure 2.4-3. Category I structures housing safety-related equipment consist of the reactor/auxiliary building and the residual heat removal (RHR) complex. These structures are indicated in Figure 2.1-5. The plant site is not susceptible to flooding caused by surface runoff because of the shoreline location and the distance of the site from major streams. Plant grade is raised approximately 11 ft above the surrounding area to further minimize the possibility of flooding. Flooding of the site is conceivable only as the result of an extremely severe storm with a storm-generated rise in the level of Lake Erie. Protection of safety-related structures and equipment against this type of flooding is provided through the location, arrangement, and design of the structures with respect to the shoreline and possible storm-generated waves. After the excavation of topsoil, peat, and soft clay, construction of the plant site to grade Elevation 583 ft (nominal) was accomplished using the following fill materials:

a. Crushed rock (1-1/2-in. maximum) within 10 ft from the building walls (water has been observed to run off rather than drain through this evenly graded crushed rock)
b. Crushed rock (6-in. maximum) inside the perimeter road (surrounding the plant main structures), except adjacent to buildings (this permits water to drain quite well)
c. Quarry run rock for most fill areas outside the perimeter road (surrounding the plant main structures) (providing good drainage for water under almost all circumstances)
d. Topsoil for grass was placed on a layer of 1-ft-deep crushed-rock fill, 1-1/2-in.

maximum, to avoid being washed down. Roof water that is collected through drainage systems from all structures and catch basins inside the perimeter road is collected and routed to the station storm-water drain system to prevent ponding of water adjacent to structures. Water in the plant storm-water drain system is then discharged into the overflow canal. In grassy areas outside the perimeter road, and in gravel areas, catch basins discharge water into the quarry run fill. In paved areas, the catch basins are usually tied to the storm-water drain system. The plant circulating water is treated within the closed loop circulating water system, which includes the 5.5-acre circulating water reservoir. 2.4-1 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.4.1.2. Hydrosphere 2.4.1.2.1. Regional Conditions The region of the Fermi site is located within the western part of the Lake Erie drainage basin. The divide between the Lake Michigan and the Lake Erie watersheds lies about 50 miles west of the site. Perennial streams in the region generally flow in a southeasterly direction and discharge into Lake Erie. Tributaries of these streams are intermittent and form a dendritic drainage pattern. The average precipitation in the region ranges from 30 in. to 36 in./yr (Subsection 2.3.1.2). Average annual runoff ranges from 10 to 16 in. Infiltration is highest in the western part of the region in areas where permeable soils occur in end moraines and beach lacustrine deposits. High runoff coefficients are characteristic of the relatively impermeable lacustrine soils in the eastern part of the region. 2.4.1.2.2. Swan Creek The Fermi site is in the Swan Creek drainage basin. The watershed is an area of 109 square miles, elongated in shape from northwest to southeast (Figure 2.4-4). The basin is about 25 miles long with a maximum topographic relief of about 130 ft. The drainage area topography is flat to gently undulating and varies from about 700 ft elevation in the upper watershed to about 570 ft elevation at Lake Erie. Land in the basin is mixed in use for residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural purposes. The surface soils are primarily lacustrine clay with some lacustrine sand ridges at the head of the watershed. The infiltration capacity of the basin soils is low. Surface drainage is poor and drainage ditch improvements are common in the upper part of the basin. Stream channel flow is retarded by typical vegetative cover of deciduous trees and brush undergrowth. There are no flow-control structures on Swan Creek. Stream level near the site is controlled by the level of Lake Erie. Gages were placed along Swan Creek in 1971 and the collected data indicate that runoff is greatest during the spring and early summer (Reference 1). Data on the adjacent River Raisin and Huron River also indicate that runoff is highest during spring and summer. However, Swan Creek stream flow is normally too low for water supply use. 2.4.1.2.3. Lake Erie 2.4.1.2.3.1. Lake Characteristics Lake Erie is approximately 240 miles long and has a mean width of 40 miles. The lake is divided into three principal subbasins: (1) a small, shallow basin at the west end which borders the site and is partially restricted by a chain of barrier beaches and islands; (2) a flat, unrestricted, and rather shallow basin in the center; and (3) a small, relatively deep eastern basin. The average depth of the lake is 61 ft and the maximum depth is 210 ft. The longitudinal axis of the lake trends northeast-southwest, a direction coincident with strong and persistent winds that predominate under normal meteorological conditions. Wind 2.4-2 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR stresses acting upon the lake surface over a sustained period can have a considerable effect on the level of the lake. The most significant lake level variations are observed mainly at the western and eastern ends of the lake and are caused by transport of water as a result of sustained wind actions. Historical records show that in about 96 percent of all extreme cases, high water occurred at the eastern end of the lake and low water occurred at the western end. This is a result of the predominantly westerly winds causing the lake to set up at the eastern end. The lake bottom in the vicinity of the site slopes very gently toward the east, reaching a depth of approximately 12 ft about 1/2 mile offshore. The soil deposits below the west end of the lake consist primarily of sand with intermittent layers of gravel and/or clay. Two primary current patterns exist in the Lagoona Beach embayment. Winds moving from the northwest clockwise through northeast result in a general southwestward airflow over the entire embayment. This airflow creates the pattern of water movement shown in Figure 2.4-

5. When the winds are from east-southeast clockwise through west, northward longshore currents are found to exist with a pronounced clockwise eddy formed south of the Point Mouillee marshes. This current pattern is shown in Figure 2.4-6.

When onshore winds from east clockwise through east-southeast and offshore winds from west-northwest clockwise through northwest occur, phase systems of current flow develop that produce variable patterns. The longshore currents shift from one primary current pattern to the other, reflecting changes in the local wind system. These phase changes are generally of short duration. Under ice cover, variations occur in the southward current flow and result in divergence of the currents immediately south of the existing plant intake and convergence north and east of Pointe Aux Peaux as shown in Figure 2.4-7. 2.4.1.2.3.2. Water Use The use of potable and agricultural surface water within 10 miles of the plant site is presented in Subsection 2.1.4.2. Surface-water users withdrawing water from intakes in Lake Erie are the only surface-water users subject to the effects of accidental or normal releases of contaminants from the plant into the hydrosphere. The existing intakes along the western shore of Lake Erie have been examined to ensure that the dilution capacity of Lake Erie is sufficient to preclude adverse effects on users from releases of contaminants (Subsection 2.4.12). It is expected that future intakes will be located in the same approximate area and likewise will not be exposed to adverse effects of contaminants. Municipalities with Lake Erie intakes, listed in Table 2.1-12, are located as shown in Figure 2.1-20. The municipal water intake nearest to the plant is the Monroe intake near Pointe Aux Peaux, approximately 2 miles southeast of the site, as shown in Figure 2.4-1. The Toledo intake is located about 18.6 miles due south of the plant site. The 1972 annual withdrawals at the Monroe and Toledo intakes were 2000 x 106 gal and 29,200 x 106 gal, respectively. 2.4.1.2.4. Ground Water Regional ground water features are discussed in Subsection 2.4.13.1.1. Ground water in the site area occurs in a dolomite aquifer, underlying a mantle of relatively impermeable glacial deposits and recent sediments. This mantle ranges up to 40 ft in thickness. Water wells are 2.4-3 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR of low yield and the water is highly mineralized. The aquifer characteristics and ground water uses are described in more detail in Subsection 2.4.13.2. 2.4.2. Floods 2.4.2.1. Flood History 2.4.2.1.1. Maximum Mean Monthly Lake Levels Based upon data collected by the U.S. Lake Survey, Detroit, Michigan (Reference 2), the highest observed monthly mean water level during the period of record from 1860 to 1973 was +4.9 ft above Low Water Datum. This level occurred during June 1973, at Monroe, Michigan. During 1973, the monthly mean water level varied between +3.0 and +4.9 ft above Low Water Datum, a vertical variation of 1.9 ft (Figure 2.4-9). 2.4.2.1.2. Maximum Wind Tide Lake gaging records at Monroe have been collected for the periods from 1932 to 1939 and from 1952 to the present. Data from gages at Gibraltar and Toledo have been in existence since 1897 and have been correlated with records from the Monroe gage. Based on this relationship, the calculated maximum wind tide at Monroe was +4.5 ft on January 30, 1939. In an earlier report covering the period 1886 to 1896, a maximum wind tide of +5.5 ft was reported at Monroe. The description of the easterly gales that produced this wind tide suggests that they were more intense than those reported during the past 77 years. Therefore, it is reasonable to accept +5.5 ft (Elevation 576.0 ft) as the maximum wind tide occurrence since 1886. 2.4.2.1.3. Seiche History Seiche history is discussed in Subsection 2.4.5.2. 2.4.2.1.4. Swan Creek Complete flood data are not available for Swan Creek as gages were not installed until 1971. Long-term information exists from gages on adjacent drainage basins. On the River Raisin near Monroe, the largest flood (record begins in 1938) occurred on March 29, 1950, and the second largest on April 6, 1947. On the Huron River at Ann Arbor, the largest flood (record begins in 1918) occurred on April 5, 1947. Maximum annual floods occur principally in April and May. Discharge frequencies at the mouth of Swan Creek, estimated using standard methods (References 3 and 4), are shown in Table 2.4-1. The estimated 100-year frequency discharge of 9300 cfs on Swan Creek is significantly less than the probable maximum flood (PMF) flow of 89,000 cfs (Subsection 2.4.3.4). In Subsection 2.4.3.5, it is demonstrated that the PMF flow on Swan Creek could not cause flooding at plant grade Elevation 583.0 ft. Therefore, water levels for the estimated discharges in Table 2.4-1 are not pertinent to site flood considerations. 2.4.2.1.5. Recent Storms 2.4-4 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.4.2.1.5.1. April 1966 Storm and Flood Analysis On April 27, 1966, a persistent storm system moved into the Lake Erie drainage basin. During the month of the storm, the mean lake level at Toledo, Ohio, was 1.7 ft above the Low Water Datum of 570.5 ft. The maximum surge on Lake Erie occurred at Toledo while proportionately smaller surges were measured at distances from Toledo. The water level at Toledo reached 577.50 ft, which was 7.0 ft above the datum. The surge was driven by steady northeast winds with a directional duration of about 48 hr. At the time of peak surge, 1000 hr on the 27th, the maximum wind velocity measured at the Detroit River Light Station was 38 knots. However, a maximum wind velocity of 42 knots from the east-northeast was measured at 1300 hr, by which time the surge elevation had dropped to 575.93 ft. Wave heights ranging from 6 to 7 ft were reported at the Toledo Harbor Light Station. To supplement the available wave data, a wave hindcast analysis was performed for the Fermi site. As discussed above, the times of peak surge and of peak wind velocity do not coincide, and this was considered in the hindcast analysis. The critical wind speed measured at the Detroit River Light Station was 38 knots from the northeast. This wind speed was increased by a factor of 1.30 to obtain a velocity representative of open-water conditions. The fetch aligned with the wind direction was 51,650 ft long and had associated with it a depth of approximately 13 ft at high water. A significant wave height and period of 3.8 ft and 3.2 sec, and a maximum wave height and period of 6.8 ft and 3.8 sec,. would have been generated during this storm. Because the shoreline north of the Fermi site is oriented northeast,. the waves that approached the site would have been attenuated by refraction and by the available depth of water over the sloping lake bottom. A conservative approximation of the lake bottom slope in this area is 1:100. Using this slope and the maximum wave period, the maximum supported wave height reaching the beach at the highest water level would have been about 1.3 ft. Waves larger than this would have broken too far seaward of the beach berm to have affected the site. The maximum runup elevation that would have been reached during this storm is 579.6 ft. This elevation is considerably less than the plant grade at the Fermi site of 583.0 ft and the probable maximum meteorological event (PMME) water level of 586.9 ft (Subsection 2.4.5). 2.4.2.1.5.2. November 1972 Storm and Flood Analysis On November 13, 1972, a sudden storm moved into the Lake Erie drainage basin. The storm produced widespread flooding after the storm winds shifted from south to northeast, resulting in local evacuation within the low-lying areas along the western and southwestern shores. The total effect of the storm was that of a wind tide plus the abnormally high water level of Lake Erie, which existed at the time. In November, the mean lake level at Toledo was 3.6 ft above the Low Water Datum of 570.5 ft. The maximum surge on Lake Erie occurred at Toledo, while proportionately smaller surges were measured at distances from Toledo. The water level at Toledo reached 577.9 ft, which is 7.4 ft above the datum, while the maximum level at the Fermi site was 576.8 ft, which is 6.3 ft above the datum. Marblehead and Cleveland, Ohio, experienced maximum surges to Elevations 577.0 and 576.2 ft, respectively. The surge was driven by northeast winds with a directional duration of approximately 24 hr and a maximum velocity of about 40 knots over the central portion of the lake. 2.4-5 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR For most of November 12, 1972, winds were light and out of the southwest. Very late on the 12th and throughout the 13th, winds shifted gradually to northwest, then to northeast. By midday on November 13, the northeast winds were established and the velocity increased to 20 knots. The water level began rising at the Fermi site at 0800 hr on November 13. The maximum wind speed at Toledo was 25 knots and was reached early on November 14. By midday on the 14th, when the wind direction was changing to north, the water level at the Fermi site had reached its maximum elevation, 576.8 ft. The water level dropped rapidly, reaching a minimum level of elevation at 1800 hr on the 14th. Wind direction remained northerly throughout the 15th and velocity varied from 5 to 14 knots. Secondary and tertiary seiches were experienced on the 15th, but decayed rapidly from bottom friction. The troughs of these seiches resulted in lake elevations of 573.5 and 573.3 ft at the Fermi site. By November 16, the water level had stabilized at approximately Elevation 574.3 ft. Waves during this storm were not measured at the site. Sufficient data describing the storm are available to hindcast the probable wave attack at the site. Waves were estimated at the Detroit River Light Station as ranging between 5 and 8 ft. Wind speed reached a maximum of 35 knots from the northeast at the Detroit River Light Station while Toledo Express Airport reported a maximum of 25 knots from direction N50°E. Applying a factor of 1.3 to the Detroit River Light Station yields an over-water wind velocity of 45.5 knots. The fetch aligned with the wind direction was approximately 51,000 ft long and had associated with it a depth of approximately 20 ft at high water. A significant wave height and period of 4.2 ft and 3.3 sec, and a maximum wave height and period of 7.6 ft and 4.0 sec, would have been generated during this storm. The waves that approached the Fermi site would have been limited in height by the available depth of water over the gradually sloping lake bottom. Figure 2.4-10 shows the bathymetry offshore of the site. A conservative approximation of the lake bottom slope in this area is 1:100. Using this slope and the maximum wave period, the maximum supported wave height reaching the beach at highest water level would have been 1.7 ft. Waves larger than this would have broken too far seaward of the beach berm to have affected the site. The maximum runup elevation which would have been reached during this storm is 579.6 ft. This elevation is considerably less than the plant grade at the Fermi site of 583.0 ft and the PMME water level of 586.9 ft. 2.4.2.1.5.3. April 1973 Storm and Flood Analysis Another storm moved into the Lake Erie Basin on April 9, 1973. Although this storm was less intense than the November 1972 storm, its total impact was nearly equal to the November storm because of the extremely high static lake level at the time. In April 1973, the mean lake level at Toledo was measured by the U.S. Lake Survey as +4.76 ft above the Low Water Datum of 570.5 ft. The maximum surge associated with this spring storm was measured as +3.3 ft at Toledo, which brought the total stillwater level to 578.6 ft. This is 0.7 ft higher than the level reached by the November 1972 storm. On April 8, 1973, wind speeds ranged from 15 to 20 knots, blowing steadily from the northeast. On the morning of the 9th, the wind speed increased, reaching a maximum value 2.4-6 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR of 35 knots and shifting gradually to the east-northeast by 1430 hr. The water level began rising at Toledo, Ohio, at 0100 hr on April 9 and reached maximum Elevation 578.57 ft at 1600 hr on the 9th. The water level dropped rapidly, reaching minimum level Elevation 573.2 ft at 0100 hr on the 10th. Secondary and tertiary seiches were experienced on the 10th, but decayed rapidly from bottom friction. By April 11, the water level had stabilized at approximate Elevation 574.6 ft. At the height of the storm, an 8-ft wave height was reported at the Detroit River Light Station. To supplement the available wave data, a wave hindcast analysis was performed for the Fermi site. The maximum wind speed measured at the Detroit River Light Station was 35 knots from direction N67.5°E. This wind speed was increased by a factor of 1.30 to obtain an over-water velocity. The fetch aligned with the wind direction was 66,900 ft long and had associated with it a depth of approximately 20 ft at high water. A significant wave height and period of 4.8 ft and 3.6 sec, and a maximum wave height and period of 8.6 ft and 4.3 sec, would have been generated during this storm. The waves that approached the Fermi site would have been limited in height by the available depth of water over the gradually sloping lake bottom. A conservative approximation of the slope of the lake bottom is 1:100. Using this slope and the maximum wave period, the maximum supported wave height reaching the beach at highest water level Would have been 2.0 ft. Waves larger than this would have broken too far seaward of the beach berm to have affected the site. The maximum runup elevation that would have been reached during this storm is 581.7 ft. This elevation is less than the plant grade at the Fermi site of 583.0 ft and the PMME water level of 586.9 ft. 2.4.2.1.5.4. June 1973 Storm and Flood Analysis High static lake levels continued through 1973. During June the mean lake level measured at Toledo by the U.S. Lake Survey was approximately 4.9 ft above the Low Water Datum of 570.5 ft. The earlier April 1973 storm occurred at a time when the lake was approximately 4.8 ft above the Low Water Datum. The maximum instantaneous surge associated with this June storm was measured at +3.4 ft at Toledo, which brought the total stillwater level to 578.7 ft. This was 0.1 ft above the April 1973 storm and 0.8 ft higher than the November 1972 storm. At the Fermi site, maximum stillwater levels recorded by the U.S. Lake Survey reached a peak hourly reading of 577.75 (Low Water Datum) at 0200 hr on June 17, 1973. The Fermi water-level recorder does not record instantaneous water levels; however, interpolation from stations at Toledo, Ohio, and Gibraltar, Michigan, yields an instantaneous high of approximately 578.6 ft. Detroit area newspapers reported a maximum flood stage of 578.4 ft. Wind speeds with an easterly component at the west end of Lake Erie between June 17 and June 18 were generally light to moderate. The Toledo Express Airport recorded fastest 1-minute velocities of only 9.6 knots, while the. Detroit River Light Station recorded velocities between 10 and 15 knots. In addition, the Canadian government reported easterly gusts to 34 knots with an average of 20.9 knots at their Southeast Shoal lighthouse near Pt. Pelee, Ontario. The duration of these easterly winds was about 25 hr with peak velocities reached in the first 6 hr. 2.4-7 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR Winds at the east end of the lake, at Buffalo, were only slightly higher but maintained an easterly component for approximately 34 hr. It was this long-duration, moderate-wind regime at the east end of Lake Erie that was primarily responsible for the flooding at the west end. Buffalo reported east winds 12 hr before Toledo. The east winds from Buffalo were met by westerly winds from Toledo, which resulted in a temporary water buildup (to Elevation 576.3 ft 4 in.) at Cleveland. When the Toledo winds finally switched from west to east, the light to moderate velocities were enough to push the surge into the western end of the lake. Wave heights, which were estimated during the storm at the Detroit River Light Station, ranged from 2 to 5 ft. To supplement available data, a wave hindcast analysis was performed at the Fermi site. Assuming a maximum steady-state wind velocity of 21 knots blowing from the east (N90°E), and applying a factor of 1.3, an over-water wind velocity of 27.3 knots is obtained. The maximum fetch aligned with the wind direction was 199,500 ft and had associated with it a depth of approximately 25 ft at high water. A significant wave height and period of 3.9 ft and 3.2 sec, and maximum wave height and period of 7.0 ft and 3.8 sec, would have been generated during this storm. The waves that approached the Fermi site would have been limited in height by the available depth of water over the gradually sloping lake bottom. A conservative approximation of the slope of the lake bottom is 1:100. Using this slope and the maximum wave period, the maximum supported wave height reaching the beach at highest water level would have been 1.3 ft. Waves higher than this would have broken too far seaward of the beach berm to have affected the site. The maximum runup elevation that would have been reached during this storm is 581.0 ft. This elevation is less than the plant grade at the Fermi site of 583.0 ft and the PMME water level of 586.9 ft. 2.4.2.1.5.5. April 1974 Storm and Flood Analysis In 1974 the highest water level measured by the U.S. Lake Survey at Toledo occurred on April 8 at 12 noon. The maximum reading was the result of sustained high static lake levels and an early spring storm. In March and April the mean lake level at Toledo was approximately 4.4 ft above the Low Water Datum of 570.5. The maximum surge associated with the storm that moved through the area on April 7 and 8 was measured at +3.6 ft, which brought the total stillwater level to 578.5 ft. This was 0.2 ft below the June 1973 storm and 0.1 ft below the spring storm of April 1973. At the Fermi site, the maximum stillwater level recorded by the U.S. Lake Survey was at Elevation 577.6 ft, which occurred at 12 noon on April 8. Fastest 1-minute wind speeds measured at the Toledo Express Airport had a northeasterly direction and obtained a maximum of 26 knots with an average of 16.3 knots. At the Detroit River Light Station, a maximum wind velocity of 28 knots from the northeast and an estimated wave height of 4 to 5 ft were recorded at 1030 hr on April 8. At 1630 hr on April 8, the light station recorded an east-northeast wind at 25 knots and a wave height of 5 to 6 ft. At this time water levels were already dropping at both Toledo and the Fermi site. To supplement the available wave data, a wave hindcast analysis was performed for the Fermi site. Assuming a maximum steady-state wind velocity of 28 knots from direction 2.4-8 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR N67.5°E and applying a factor of 1.3, an over-water wind velocity of 36.4 knots is obtained. The maximum fetch aligned with the wind direction was 66,900 ft long and had associated with it a depth of approximately 20 ft at high water. A significant wave height and period of 3.8 ft and 3.2 sec, and a maximum wave height and period of 6.8 ft and 3.7 sec, would have been generated during this storm. The waves that approached the Fermi site would have been limited in height by the available depth of water over the gradually sloping lake bottom. A conservative approximation of the slope of the lake bottom is 1:100. Using this slope and the maximum wave period, the maximum supported wave height would have been 1.6 ft. Waves larger than this would have broken too far seaward of the beach berm to have affected the site. The maximum runup elevation that would have been reached during this storm is 581.3 ft. This elevation isless than the plant grade at the Fermi site of 583.0 ft and the PMME water level of 586.9 ft. 2.4.2.2. Flood Design Consideration 2.4.2.2.1. Conditions Considered The following basic types of hypothetical flooding conditions were considered in the design:

a. The PMF of 89,000 cfs on Swan Creek coincides with the mean monthly maximum water level of 575.3 ft in Lake Erie. In the discussion of backwater computations (Subsection 2.4.3.5), the resulting PMF flow elevation of 577.3 ft would provide a safety margin of 5.7 ft. Even by the use of a conservative slope/area computation (Subsection 2.4.3.5), the PMF elevation would be less than 582 ft, or 1 ft below plant grade at 583 ft and 1.5 ft below the elevation of plant door sills
b. The maximum probable wind tide of 11.6 ft coincides with a maximum monthly mean lake level of 575.3 ft. The resulting stillwater flood elevation at the plant site area in this case is 586.9 ft, or 3.90 ft above the plant grade elevation (Subsection 2.4.5.3)
c. Local probable maximum precipitation (PMP) runoff on the plant site coincident with runoff from the 2-square mile area above the plant site, assuming blockage of plant drainage, would result in no adverse effects on the safety-related (Category I) facilities. The estimated PMF of 25,300 cfs with a corresponding elevation of less than 582 ft, and the 15-minute PMP of 4.9 in.

over the plant site with a grade elevation of 583 ft and door sills at 583.5 ft would not result in adverse plant site flooding, as further discussed in Subsection 2.4.2.3. The temporary local water buildup due to the failure of the plant drainage system will flow into the lower land and swamps at the northern end of the plant area and eventually discharge into Lake Erie through estuaries. The local temporary water buildup elevation will be substantially lower than the flood elevation due to the maximum wind tide, as described in item b. above

d. The potential dam failure effect is not applicable, as described in Subsection 2.4.4 2.4-9 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR

e. The water level at the site is controlled by Lake Erie. The PMF flow from Swan Creek has no significant effect on the design water level at the site. The maximum lake stillwater level due to storm surge is Elevation 586.9 ft (Subsection 2.4.5.3). Plant grade is at Elevation 583.0 ft. At plant grade elevation, the lake water would extend approximately 2.5 miles inland from the plant site (Figure 2.4-11) and even further inland at maximum stillwater level.

The case (item b) above is clearly the most critical condition and is defined as the PMME. 2.4.2.2.2. Reactor/Auxiliary Building Flood Criteria The Category I reactor/auxiliary building, which houses safety-related systems and components, is designed against flooding to Elevation 588.0 ft, or 1.1 ft above the PMME stillwater flood elevation of 586.9 ft. All doors and penetrations through the outside walls below the design flood elevation are of watertight design. All safety-related systems and equipment located inside this Category I structure are protected from the PMME flood. The reactor/auxiliary building is also designed to withstand wave action associated with this flooding. Maximum wave effects and forces are discussed in Subsection 2.4.5.4. All interior floor drain systems inside the reactor/auxiliary building are not connected to the yard storm drainage system and, therefore, no potential water backflow into the structure is anticipated during the design flood condition. Shore protection is not required to preclude flooding of this structure. The reactor/auxiliary building has only a few essential penetrations in the exterior walls. All of these penetrations below Elevation 588 ft are watertight. The presence of the turbine building prevents waves and wave runup above the sill elevations on the east wall of the reactor/ auxiliary building, thereby preventing flooding of the buildings. The south wall of the reactor/auxiliary building has two large openings, two rail pockets with waterproofed seals and several waterproofed pipe-sleeved openings. These large openings are in an air-locked rail-car door and an air-locked personnel door. Both of these doors, however, will be air-locked and completely waterproofed to preclude wave runup flooding. The reactor/auxiliary building roof is designed for a live load of 30 lb/ft2 . This load is equivalent to approximately 6 in. of water, or its equivalent in snow, or snow and ice load combined. Roof drains are designed for a rainfall of 4 in./hr. The reactor building roof water drains through openings in the parapet wall into scuppers and then down through conductors to the auxiliary building roof. Roof drains in the auxiliary building roof carry the runoff into the buried site drainage system by first passing through the turbine building roof drainage system. 2.4.2.2.3. Residual Heat Removal Complex Flood Criteria The RHR complex is watertight to Elevation 590.0 ft. The north, south, and west walls have no openings. The east wall has approximately 30 waterproofed pipe-sleeved openings. The east wall also has four sets of double 3 ft by 7 ft doors for access to the building. These doors are normally closed and locked, and have their thresholds at Elevation 590.0 ft and extend to Elevation 597.0 ft. They are of steel construction and are shielded behind 2.4-10 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR reinforced-concrete missile walls. The east wall also has eight 4" diameter openings with water tight seals located within each of the two RHR cable vaults at elevations above 590'-6". Waves reaching the east wall of the RHR complex across the flooded site would be diminished considerably by the stairs, the missile wall, and the landing at Elevation 590.0 ft in front of the doors. The insignificant amount of runup above the flooded elevation of 586.9 ft, or generated by the reduced waves, may find its way through the door threshold and door jambs, at Elevation 590.0 ft, and be diverted into the floor drain system in the building. The structure is also designed to withstand the wave action associated with this flooding. Shore protection is not required to preclude flooding of this structure. The roofs of the RHR complex are provided with an adequate number of drainage pipes to pass runoff resulting from the PMP. The PMP was obtained from U.S. Weather Bureau (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) information (Reference 5). Further, the storm-drainage provisions surrounding the RHR complex are designed to pass the discharge from the drain pipes as well as the runoff from surrounding areas. The plant area drainage system is designed so that there is no possibility of ponding near the RHR complex. The roofs of the RHR complex are designed for a postulated maximum ice and snow load of 70 lb/ft2 . This load is based on the simultaneous accumulation of the most severe postulated ice resulting from the mechanical draft cooling towers drift loss (21 lb/ft2) plus the seasonal snowpack (30 lb/ ft2 ), and on an additional ice load (19 lb/ft2). The mechanical draft cooling tower drift loss is based on an assumed drift loss of 0.015 percent, with the fans operating at full speed. For evaluating the ice loading on the RHR complex roof, a conservative value of 0.1 percent for drift loss was used at full speed. Under freezing conditions, the fans operate at half speed or are completely shut off. The total water loss under these conditions is less than 390 gal/hr. Based on the above, it is estimated that, with two towers operating for 30 days with no wind drift, and with the temperature below freezing, the maximum ice accumulation is less than 4-1/2 in. This amount of ice is equivalent to about 21 lb/ft2 live load. The seasonal snowpack load is based on results of reported research (Reference 6). According to this reference, the seasonal snowpack load is 30 lb/ft2 . 2.4.2.2.4. Category I Yard Structures Flood Design Criteria The Category I piping and electrical ducts between the RHR complex and the reactor building are below the site flood elevation of 586.9 ft during the PMME. The RHR supply, RHR return, and emergency equipment service water pipelines to both divisions will continue to function during the flood. There are two sets of Category I ductbanks between the RHR complex and the Reactor/Auxiliary building, with a Division I and Division II ductbank in each set. In each case, the buried cable ducts between the RHR complex and the Reactor/Auxiliary building provide adequate cable separation to maintain independence of redundant circuits. The first set of ductbanks was installed during plant construction. The physical separation of the two redundant, below-grade circuits is 30 ft at the point the cable ducts leave the southeast corner of the reactor building. The ducts make a sweeping bend with a minimum 2.4-11 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR separation of 20 ft between them. After the bend, the ducts parallel the reactor building in a westerly direction, with 24-ft separation. This separation is constant until the ducts pass under the rail-car air lock, where the separation widens until the ducts enter (still below grade) the RHR complex. Each circuit is separately housed in a cast-in-place, rectangular reinforced-concrete duct. The duct is covered by successive layers of compacted rock fill placed up to the finished site grade of 583.0 ft. The duct runs vary in elevation from 573.0 ft minimum to 580.0 ft maximum. Since maximum ground water elevation is 576.0 ft, the cables are not specifically designed for continuous underwater service. For low voltage power, control and instrumentation cables, there is no long term mechanism for water related insulation degradation due to lack of voltage stressor or a credible common mode failure mechanism. Therefore, low voltage cables perform their design functions while their external surface remains continuously wetted due to surrounding water. 4160-V essential power circuits are not routed within these ductbanks. The second set of ductbanks, associated manholes, and cable vaults is installed above the maximum ground water elevation of 576.0 ft with ducts sloped to the manholes, such that circuits contained are not subject to continuous wetting. These are also cast-in-place, rectangular reinforced concrete ductbanks, but are located with the ductbank top approximately six inches below the surface and manhole covers at grade level. The ductbanks rise above grade and enter above ground cable vaults at the RHR complex and also rise above grade at the entrance to the Reactor/Auxiliary building cable vaults. 4160-V essential power circuits are routed within these ductbanks. The minimum elevation for cable termination in either the RHR complex or reactor building is 588.7 ft, which is above the site maximum probable stillwater elevation of 586.9 ft. 2.4.2.2.5. Site Drainage Flood Design Criteria The storm drainage system is not used to protect Category I structures from local PMP flooding, as further discussed in Subsection 2.4.2.3. Inlet manholes in the immediate plant vicinity are located at the low points of relatively flat roadside and railroad track areas, and in local area depressions. The storm-drainage conduit discharges westward into the existing overflow canal for Fermi 1 and eventually into Lake Erie through estuaries. The storm-drainage system is designed as a gravity system with a minimum velocity of 3 fps flowing full for a rainfall intensity of 4 in./hr. Runoff coefficients used are 1.0 for roofs and paved areas and 0.5 for gravel and grassed areas. The closed storm-drainage system provides the normal means of drainage for the plant site and building roofs. The sedimentation potential of the site drainage system for anticipated rainfall conditions is negligible since the site consists principally of firmly compacted crushed-rock fill and grassed areas, and the slopes of the ditches feeding the inlet of manholes are relatively flat. The resulting velocity of the drainage flow is nonscouring. Riprap or paving is provided for protection of outlet ends at all discharge points of the storm sewer system. 2.4-12 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.4.2.3. Effects of Local Intense Precipitation Flooding due to a local PMP on the adjacent 2-square mile drainage area west of the plant site, as shown in Figure 2.4-4, was examined. The local PMP shown in Table 2.4-2 was determined by use of Reference 5. The hourly distribution of the maximum 6-hr rainfall was determined by procedures presented in Reference 7. The shorter 15-minute-duration PMP was extrapolated by use of similar procedures. Due to its small area, the rational formula with a runoff coefficient of 1.0 and concentration time of 15 minutes was applied to compute the peak discharge (Reference 8). The maximum PMP intensity of 15 minutes is assumed to be 4.9 in., as shown in Table 2.4-2. The calculated peak discharge due to the local PMP is 25,000 cfs, which is 10,000 cfs greater than indicated by the PMF peak envelope curve for the Great Lakes region. The Great Lakes PMF peak discharge envelope curve indicates a maximum flow of 15,000 cfs, which represents a more severe flood than would result from the relatively flat 2-square mile local area if determined by the unit hydrograph PMP calculation procedure. The calculated peak discharge due to the local PMP is 25,000 cfs. Assuming, conservatively, that the peak discharge would pass the plant site only along the axis of the overflow canal (Figure 2.1-5), a hypothetical cross section approximately 1 mile in length and normal to the axis of the overflow canal was constructed to intersect the southernmost chimney on the plant site and the intersection of Langton and Leroux roads to the west of the site (Figure 2.4-3). Using the slope/area method and conservative values of slope and roughness coefficient, 0.001 ft/ft and 0.07, respectively, a flow of 31,500 cfs was determined as passing through the cross section with a maximum water surface elevation of 582 ft (New York Mean Tide, 1935). The peak flow due to a local PMP, 25,000 cfs, would pass through the cross section at an even lower water surface elevation. In this analysis, channel or cross-section bottom was assumed to be at maximum monthly mean lake level. And, as stated earlier, all flow due to a local PMP was assumed to pass through the hypothetical cross section. Under actual conditions, a peak flow due to the local PMP would flow both south of the plant site and to Lake Erie, as well as through the hypothetical cross section. Water surface elevations due to a local PMP would therefore be lower in actuality than those determined in our analysis. At a hypothetical water surface elevation of less than 582 ft (New York Mean Tide, 1935), as determined in the above analysis, the maximum water elevation at peak flow due to a local PMP would be more than 1 ft below plant grade (583 ft, New York Mean Tide, 1935) and would not pose a threat to safety-related structures onsite. With respect to that portion of a local PMP falling on the plant site itself, including roof structures, runoff overflowing the roof parapets and from the downspouts, assuming that the site drainage system was completely blocked, would flow overland under conditions of site gradient (Figure 2.1-5) to lower elevations surrounding the site and then to Lake Erie itself. All door sills on safety-related structures are at least 6 in. above plant grade. Because there are no downspouts or scuppers located near doors on safety-related structures, ponded water under local PMP conditions, with the event of a blocked site drainage system, should drain overland, as described above, prior to reaching the base of door sills on safety-related structures. 2.4-13 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR The local PMP is shown in Table 2.4-2, and the description of the runoff model is given in Subsection 2.4.3.3. The drainage system in the plant site area is designed with inlet manholes located at the low points of relatively flat roadside and railroad ditches and in local area depressions. The storm-drainage system is not used to protect Category I structures from local PMP flooding, as described in Subsection 2.4.2.2. 2.4.3. Probable Maximum Flood on Swan Creek The PMF is an estimated flood that may be expected from the most severe combination of critical meteorologic and hydrologic conditions that are reasonably possible in the region (References 5 and 7). The PMF on Swan Creek was estimated as the maximum flood runoff resulting from a PMP occurring on the entire drainage basin of 109 square miles, as shown in Figure 2.4-4. 2.4.3.1. Probable Maximum Precipitation The estimation of a PMP includes both time and areal distributions. Due to its small drainage area (109 square miles), the PMP is assumed uniformly distributed throughout the entire Swan Creek watershed. The time distribution of a PMP is obtained as follows. The PMP for various durations shown in Table 2.4-3 was obtained from the all-season PMP (Reference 5). Its 2-hr time distribution for the maximum 6-hr rainfall and time sequence were based on procedures presented in Reference 7. Table 2.4-3 shows the synthesized PMP for the Swan Creek watershed. 2.4.3.2. Precipitation Losses An estimate of precipitation losses was obtained using data from References 9 and 10 and studies of other similar areas. Surface soils in the Swan Creek drainage area are largely comprised of lacustrineclays, which have low infiltration capacity (Reference 11). The land use is estimated as follows: 30 percent small grain, 30 percent forage and pasture, 25 percent row crops, and 15 percent wooded land and buildings. Considering the Swan Creek type ground cover and soil surface as compared to similar type areas in other locations where studies have been made, minimum loss rates are higher in the summer months than in the winter months. These minimum losses can be characterized as follows.

a. Winter initial losses vary from 0.0 to 0.2 in., and winter infiltration losses vary from 0.01 to 0.02 in./ hr
b. Summer initial losses vary from 0.5 to 1.2 in., and minimum summer infiltration rates are approximately 0.05 in./hr.

The Swan Creek losses adopted are initial losses of 0.5 in. and an infiltration rate of 0.02 in./hr during the probable maximum storm. This is assumed as occurring during a wet period with the most favorable antecedent conditions when the moisture capacity of the topsoil would be essentially satisfied. The adopted minimum losses for the Swan Creek area assuming the most favorable (to high runoff) antecedent (ground and rainfall) conditions are based on a conservative estimate for these conditions. The Swan Creek rainfall-excess relationships were determined by use of the minimum conservative losses during the PMP 2.4-14 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR storm as shown in Table 2.4-4. The estimated precipitation losses and runoff are shown in Table 2.4-4. 2.4.3.3. Runoff Model Because Swan Creek was ungaged prior to 1971, a synthetic unit hydrograph was developed for the 109-square mile basin, as shown in Figure 2.4-4, by using Snyder's method (Reference 12). The runoff was determined at the mouth of Swan Creek north of the site. Figure 2.4-12 shows the synthetically derived unit hydrograph of 2-hr duration for the Swan Creek watershed. The hydrograph ordinates are shown in Table 2.4-4. Coefficients used in the derivation of the synthetic unit hydrograph are as follows: L = 25.4 miles, Lca = 16.7 miles, C, = 2.0, W5 0 = 16 hr, and W 75 = 9 hr. The terms L and Lca are distances measured on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographical map for the site area. Time in hours, from start of rise to peak rate, or tp, was determined using the formula 0 3 tp = ct(L

  • Lca) .

The value of tp was determined to be 12.3 hr using a basin parameter CQ of 2.0. Comparison of synthetic unit hydrograph values for Swan Creek with values for nearby stations with similar runoff characteristics as obtained from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers unpublished unit hydrographs is given in Table 2.4-5. Table 2.4-5 illustrates the conservatism of the coefficients selected for the Swan Creek watershed. For example, a curve enveloping the qp values would yield a unit hydrograph peak of about 3100 cfs for the 109 square miles as compared to the 4000 cfs peak adopted. The utilization of the extreme coefficient value was intended to include the possible nonlinear runoff response of Swan Creek due to high rainfall intensities. 2.4.3.4. Probable Maximum Flood Flow The PMF for the 109-square mile watershed of Swan Creek was determined by appropriate application of the preceding analysis described in Subsections 2.4.3.1, 2.4.3.2, and 2.4.3.3. Base flow was assumed to be 100 cfs. The computed PMF hydrograph components are shown in Table 2.4-4. The calculated basin-wide peak flow in Swan Creek due to the synthesized PMP is 89,000 cfs at the mouth of Swan Creek, as shown in Figure 2.4-13. There are no dams or other regulating hydraulic structures on Swan Creek that could affect the hydrograph. The exact PMF stream course response cannot be assessed since Swan Creek has not been gaged for a sufficient period of time. 2.4.3.5. Water-Level Determinations The water level at the site is controlled by Lake Erie. The PMF flow from Swan Creek has no significant effect on the design water level at the site. The maximum lake stillwater level due to storm surge is Elevation 586.9 ft (Subsection 2.4.2.2.1). Plant grade is at Elevation 583.0 ft. At plant grade elevation, the lake water would extend approximately 2.5 miles inland from the plant site (Figure 2.4-11) and even further inland at maximum stillwater level. 2.4-15 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR To estimate the maximum floodwater level, a section through the east end of the plant site and normal to Swan Creek was selected to compute backwater effects due to the PMF flow on Swan Creek. This section is 3.5 miles wide and is bounded by Port Sunlight Road to the north and Pointe Aux Peaux Road to the south (Figure 2.4-1). Neither of the roads was constructed as a flood-protection levee. In the vicinity of the control section, the land is flat, approximately at Elevation 572.5 ft (Figure 2.4-11). The backwater calculations were done with the assumptions that the selected section has a water level at Elevation 575.3 ft, mean monthly maximum lake level, and the main plant structures are located 1500 ft west of this section. By applying the Manning formula (Reference 13) on a rectangular channel with a width of 3.5 miles and a bottom elevation of 572.5 ft, with a Manning's roughness coefficient of 0.07, the estimated rise of water level during a peak flood flow of 89,000 cfs is less than 2.0 ft. Therefore, the maximum flood level at the plant site due to the PMF flow from Swan Creek at the mean monthly maximum lake level is at approximately Elevation 577.3 ft, which provides a safety margin of more than 5.7 ft below the established plant grade of Elevation 583.0 ft. The same procedures were applied using a higher peak flood flow of 115,000 cfs, resulting in an estimated maximum flood level at the plant site at Elevation 579.1 ft, which is 3.9 ft below the plant grade. Therefore, the PMF flow from Swan Creek has no flooding potential with respect to the plant site. Additional computations, utilizing the slope/area method at a hypothetical cross section through Swan Creek above the plant site (Figure 2.4-4) determined that a flow of 106,000 cfs in Swan Creek would represent a maximum water surface elevation at the cross section of 582 ft (New York Mean Tide, 1935). The PMF of 89,000 cfs on Swan Creek (Subsection 2.4.3.4) should not cause flooding affecting safety-related structures at plant grade Elevation 583 ft (New York Mean Tide, 1935). In the above computations by the slope/area method, a hypothetical cross section normal to Swan Creek and approximately 1.8 miles in length was chosen. Channel base or the bottom of the cross section was assumed to be at the elevation of the maximum monthly mean lake level. A slope of 0.001 ft/ft and a roughness coefficient of 0.07 were used in the computations. 2.4.3.6. Coincident Wind Wave Activity A flood on Swan Creek would result in a landward extension of the lake. Therefore, wind activity determined for the lake would apply to the stream flood condition. Wave activity in Lake Erie is described in Subsection 2.4.5.4. 2.4.4. Potential Dam Failures (Seismically Induced) There are no regulatory structures on Swan Creek. Nor are there dams on other streams or rivers in southeastern Michigan that should failure result because of seismic or other disturbances would affect water levels in Lake Erie along the plant shoreline. 2.4.5. Probable Maximum Surge and Seiche Flooding 2.4-16 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.4.5.1. Probable Maximum Winds and Associated Meteorological Parameters Extensive studies have been made regarding the effects of wind setup on Lake Erie. Data developed by Platzman (Reference 14), which relate lake levels at Toledo and Buffalo to various wind conditions, were used to establish the wind setup for the site. The Platzman one-dimensional wind setup model has been verified using four storms producing peak setup at Toledo (Reference 15). The model, valid for setup along the longitudinal axis of Lake Erie, has been shown to consistently calculate peak longitudinal setup greater than the measured peak longitudinal setup at Toledo when using the wind stress and bottom friction coefficients proposed by Platzman. Verification of this model is valid for input winds measured at the Ashtabula Coast Guard Station. The verification for one storm, and possibly a second, indicates that cross-lake wind setup can, at times, be significant and should be considered. The conservatism of the model in predicting the longitudinal setup increases with increasing wind speed. For a maximum 3-hr average wind speed of 74 knots, the model is estimated to compute a longitudinal wind setup at Toledo 2 ft above the value which would be measured. Whereas an allowance should be made for the possibility of cross-lake setup occurring simultaneously with longitudinal setup at Toledo, an allowance is not required at the Fermi site near Monroe since Monroe is in the vicinity of the nodal point for cross-lake setup. The nodal point is the location where the change in stillwater level due to cross-lake setup is zero. To establish meteorological conditions appropriate for calculation of the maximum probable wind setup for the site, winds with an easterly or northeasterly component that would be sustained for 6 to 9 hr were examined. The National Weather Records Center in Asheville, North Carolina, was commissioned to examine 25 years of wind records for eight stations in the vicinity of Lake Erie. The eight stations were Toledo, Windsor (Ontario), Sandusky, Cleveland, London (Ontario), Youngstown, Erie, and Buffalo. The National Weather Records Center tabulated (Reference 16) the speed, direction, and date of the fastest 1-minute wind having an easterly component. The maximum, easterly 1-minute wind speeds observed for the 25-year period at the eastern four stations (London, Youngstown, Erie, and Buffalo) were 65, 37, 60, and 44 mph, respectively. The companion maximum, easterly 1-minute wind speeds observed at the western four stations (Toledo, Windsor, Sandusky, and Cleveland) were 40, 45, 35, and 35 mph respectively. Comprehensive analysis of these and other data (Reference 17) led to the conclusions that:

a. Maximum easterly wind speeds are substantially less than maximum westerly wind speeds
b. Maximum easterly wind speeds over the western portion of Lake Erie are somewhat less than maximum easterly wind speeds over the eastern portion of Lake Erie.

On this basis, a maximum, 1-minute easterly wind speed of 45 mph was selected as representative for the 25-year period of record for the site. This 1-minute value was converted to the probable maximum easterly wind as follows: 2.4-17 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR

a. Overland wind speed was converted to over-water wind speed by multiplying the land value by 1.33. The maximum easterly wind speed over water is thus calculated as 60 mph. This wind speed is assumed to have a probability of once in 25 years
b. The maximum 1-minute easterly wind speed with a probability of once in 1000 years was calculated, using the method of Thom (Reference 18), to be 86 mph
c. A maximum 10-minute wind speed of 74 mph was calculated (Reference 19) by multiplying the maximum 1-minute easterly wind speed by 0.86
d. The 1000-year maximum easterly wind was taken as the maximum 10-minute wind speed of 74 mph.

The PMME data used to calculate the probable maximum wind tide at the Fermi site were obtained from the table of probable maximum wind estimates (over-water wind speeds) supplied by the AEC. The PMME wind speeds over the lake varied with time and distance along the lake axis. The peak 10-minute wind speed was 100 mph. Since the model used to calculate the probable maximum wind tide (Reference 14) is one dimensional, the PMME winds were directed along the axis of Lake Erie (N67.5°E). The PMME had a translational velocity of 20 mph moving from east to west, and duration of 60 hr. 2.4.5.2. Surge and Seiche History 2.4.5.2.1. Maximum Monthly Mean Lake Level Historical maximum monthly mean water levels are discussed in Subsection 2.4.2.1.1. 2.4.5.2.2. Maximum Wind Tide Historical maximum wind tides are discussed in Subsection 2.4.2.1.2. 2.4.5.2.3. Seiches Seiches are periodic oscillations of the lake water level that are caused by changes in wind stress or barometric pressure acting upon the water surface. As the wind stress diminishes, the adverse gradient of the surface water cannot be maintained and an inertial surge of water occurs. Seiches also may result from very rapid changes in barometric pressure, usually associated with squall lines. However, sudden barometric disturbances are very infrequent on Lake Erie. Analysis of gage records of Lake Erie indicates that the average period of oscillation for a seiche traveling between Toledo, Ohio, and Buffalo, New York, is approximately 14 to 15 hr. As a result of the greater depth of water at the east end of the lake and the generally higher wind speeds associated with the prevailing westerly winds, the maximum amplitudes of a seiche on Lake Erie occur at Buffalo. Gages at Buffalo and Toledo indicate that the amplitude of the oscillations of a seiche decays rapidly with each subsequent oscillation. The rise in water level induced by the initial wind setup is greater than any subsequent rise associated with the seiche. 2.4-18 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR In addition to the general seiche that occurs over the entire lake surface, a local seiche may occur between the west end of Lake Erie and Point Pelee. Local seiches with amplitudes of up to 0.8 ft have been detected from gage records at Toledo and Monroe (Reference 20). These seiches can occur when the water body is in a state of equilibrium or constant stillwater level. The stillwater level of Lake Erie near the Fermi site constantly changes in elevation, with respect to the rest of the lake during the PMME. This difference in water levels effectively damps out any seiche activity near the site. It is unlikely, therefore, that any seiche will occur simultaneously with the PMME. Consequently, for design purposes, no rise in water elevation from a seiche is considered. 2.4.5.3. Surge and Seiche Sources The maximum PMME wind tide of 11.4 ft was calculated for the Fermi site with the PMME wind speeds as input to the verified Platzman one-dimensional wind setup model of Lake Erie (Reference 15). As an additional conservatism, the previously accepted wind tide of 11.6 ft was used for design purposes. This value does not include an allowance for cross-lake setup as none is required. Monroe is in the vicinity of the nodal point for cross-lake setup, where the change in stillwater level due to cross-lake setup is zero. A total stillwater elevation of +16.4 ft (586.9 ft) was selected as the design maximum. This was based on the PMME defined by the AEC with a storm path along the axis of Lake Erie (N67.5 0 E). Elevation +16.4 ft results from a calculated wind tide of +11.6 ft superimposed on a maximum monthly mean lake level of +4.8 ft. This storm surge would occur at the Fermi site approximately 9 hr after the maximum wind reaches the shore. The storm surge hydrograph resulting from the PMME is shown in Figure 2.4-14. No rise in water elevation resulting from a seiche was used in the design (Subsection 2.4.5.2.3). 2.4.5.4. Wave Action 2.4.5.4.1. Wind-Generated Waves Wave characteristics are dependent upon wind speed, wind duration, water depth, and fetch length. Generated waves were calculated coincidental with the maximum storm surge hydrograph to determine the maximum flood elevations at the site. Fetch lengths were measured to the site from the axis of the lake (N67.50 E), from N78.750 E, and from due east (Figure 2.4-15). These fetches, hereafter referred to as degrees clockwise from north, have fetch lengths ranging from 11 to 33 nautical miles. Average lake depths range from 32 to 42 ft during probable maximum stillwater levels. Using the AEC definition of probable maximum winds, component wind velocity profiles were plotted for fetch directions 67.50, 78.75', and 90.0' (Figure 2.4-16). Component wind velocities for fetch directions 78.75' and 90.00 were based on the wind velocity profile from 67.50, the path of the storm. The shallow water depths over the fetch approaching the Fermi site preclude deep-water wave activity; only shallow-water waves are generated during the PMME. The shallow-2.4-19 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR water wave generation curves of Bretschneider (Reference 21) were used to calculate significant wave heights and periods (Figure 2.4-14). The generated wave height and period profiles have a phase shift in time of +1.5 hr over the wind profiles to allow for the generation and travel of waves to the site. The significant wave height is the normal available parameter from statistical analysis of synoptic weather charts. Approximate relations of the significant wave heights to other parameters of the normal wave spectra in nature have been defined. Assuming that the most probable maximum wave height, Hm, is given by the deep water simplified theoretical solution of Equation 2.4-1, then the ratio of H,, to Hs is 1.8 to 1. Hm = 0.707Hs loge N (2.4-1) where N = number of waves during a period of steady-state conditions Hs= significant wave height This value is conservative, as the wave spectrum curve is flatter for shallow-water conditions near the Fermi site than for deep-water conditions applicable to the solution. Curves of Hm are presented in Figure 2.4-16. 2.4.5.4.2. Design Waves 2.4.5.4.2.1. Selection Bases Selection of design waves depends on the wave climate at the site, the structures being considered, and the available water depths fronting the structures. Generated wave conditions during the PMME occurrence, offshore of the site location (Figure 2.4-16), are propagated shoreward to the various plant structures. In selecting design waves for various structures, the possible range of wave periods, heights, and approach directions during various times of the storm are considered to occur at critical conditions. 2.4.5.4.2.2. Incident Wave at Shoreline The maximum stillwater level and the maximum offshore generated wave height do not occur simultaneously. Therefore, various stillwater levels are considered in selecting the critical wave conditions. The maximum generated wave height, significant wave height, and wave period (offshore of the plant site) are 21.9 ft, 12.2 ft, and 9.0 sec, respectively. These occur during the stillwater level of 582.8 ft, 1.50 hr after the maximum winds have crossed the shoreline (Figure 2.4-14). During the maximum stillwater level of 586.9 ft and 9 hr after the maximum winds have crossed the shoreline, the maximum wave height, significant wave height, and wave period are 14.0 ft, 7.8 ft, and 7.7 sec, respectively. Design waves were generated offshore of the site location from approach directions 67.5' (path of PMME), 78.750, and 90.0'. There should be no significant wave action south of 1100 (i.e., normal to the shoreline) during the occurrence of the PMME, as this direction is a 42.50 departure from the wind direction. Waves north of 67.5' also are insignificant because of diminishing fetch length, shallow water depths, and change of direction through wave refraction. An 8-sec wave period generated from 67.50 would approach the plant site 2.4-20 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR shoreline from due east because of refraction effects (Figure 2.4-10). A shorter wave period would not be affected by refraction as much as the 8-sec wave period. As waves approach the shoreline, they start breaking in water depths approximately equal to their wave heights. Figure 2.4-14 shows breaking wave heights for shoreline toe elevations of 569 ft, 572 ft, and 575 ft. The upper breaking wave height limit considers the effects of wave setup. With continuous heavy wave action breaking against the shoreline, it is possible that the return flow of water lakeward will be slower, thus causing a pileup of water (wave setup) along the shoreline. The possibility of this wave setup was assumed to raise the stillwater level by an amount equal to one-tenth the breaking wave height. With this increase in stillwater level, a slightly higher wave could be supported before breaking. In selecting the proper design wave that can attack the shoreline, Figure 2.4-14 is used. Design H, and Hm curves were plotted from the maximum values of Figure 2.4-16. For a particular shoreline or shore barrier toe elevation, the breaking wave height is the controlling factor if it is less than the unbroken wave height during a given stillwater level. In Figure 2.4-14, which includes the storm surge hydrograph, the stillwater level is read off the right-hand ordinate while the wave parameters, H,, H,, and Hb, are read off the left-hand ordinate. In using either the significant wave height curve (Hs) or the maximum wave height curve (Hm.), the breaking wave height curve (Hb) controls until it intersects (progressing positively from left to right along the TIME axis) the Hm or H, curve. Thereafter, the unbroken wave height controls. When using significant wave conditions and a toe elevation of 575.0 ft, the following applies:

a. For a time of +3 hr after the maximum winds reach shore, the design wave is a breaking wave of 7.9 ft to 8.6 ft, with a period of 8.8 sec, during a stillwater elevation of 584.0 ft
b. For a time of +9 hr, the design wave is a significant wave of 7.8 ft
c. The maximum design wave is a wave of 10.2 ft with a period of 8.4 sec and occurs during a stillwater elevation of 585.6 ft at a time of +5.1 hr.

2.4.5.4.2.3. Transmitted Wave During the occurrence of the PMME, plant grade Elevation 583.0 ft is flooded for approximately 17 hr. Therefore, incident waves attacking the shoreline can be transmitted inland across the flooded plant grade. These transmitted wave heights depend on the available water depth above plant grade, the incident wave characteristics attacking the shoreline, the configuration of the shore barrier, and the location and configuration of other obstacles. A rock shore barrier has been constructed in front of Fermi 2 along the shore between Plant Coordinate System Grid N6800 and N7800. The rock shore barrier crest elevation is 583 ft nominal; the toe elevation will be 572 ft nominal. For design wave considerations, a design toe elevation of 569.0 ft was used to allow for 3 ft of scour at the toe. Transmitted wave heights (Reference 20) over the shore barrier are shown in Figure 2.4-17 for maximum and significant incident wave heights at the shore barrier. The incident water 2.4-21 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR depth at the shore barrier toe and the inland depth of water above a plant grade elevation of 583.0 ft are also indicated in Figure 2.4-17. Using this inland depth of water caused by flooding of plant grade, a curve indicating the maximum wave height that can be supported over the flooded plant grade, without breaking, is presented in Figure 2.4-17. During the maximum flooding of plant grade, the maximum supported wave height is less than the transmitted wave heights. Therefore, the maximum supported wave height is the controlling factor for plant structures located more than a few hundred feet inland from the shoreline. The maximum inland supported wave heights for plant grade Elevation 583.0 and 580.0 ft are 3.0 and 5.4 ft., respectively. The actual site grade at a given location may vary from the reference elevation of 583.0 ft. However, the resultant difference in the hydrostatic pressure due to the difference of supported wave heights would be insignificant. Waves that are transmitted over the shore barrier will attack the office service and radwaste buildings of Fermi 2. These buildings are not Category I structures and, therefore, could be damaged during the storm without causing a safety concern to the public. Small waves can reach the Category I structures by traveling around the northerly and southerly ends of the shore barrier. Waves traveling around the ends of the shore barrier undergo several effects, including the following:

a. Breaking caused by the shallow depths of the flooded plant grade
b. Diffraction around the ends of the other plant structures
c. Reflection off plant structures before reaching the Category I structures
d. Reduction caused by plant grade bottom friction and side friction of obstructing structures.

The significant wave period of 7.7 sec will approach the plant sites from due east, while lower period waves can approach the northerly end of the shore barrier from 650 (N650 E), and possibly approach the southerly end from 1100 (E20°S). Waves approaching the north end of the shore barrier will be reduced to the maximum inland support wave heights of 3.0 and 5.4 ft for plant grade Elevations 583.0 and 580.0 ft, respectively, in approaching Category I structures. Waves approaching the southerly end of the shore barrier will be reduced in height approaching Category I structures as a result of the maximum inland supported wave height and the protection provided by the office service and turbine buildings. Neglecting any reduction effects from protection provided by the office service and turbine buildings, waves approaching Category I structures from the south will be reduced to the maximum inland supported wave height of 3.0 ft for the plant grade elevation of 583.0 ft. 2.4.5.4.2.4. Wave Stability In selecting the proper design wave for wave runup and wave forces against Category I structures, the wave period spectra must be considered since the significant wave period might not control. In calculating minimum wave periods, Equation 2.4-2 was used to determine the limiting wave steepness in shallow water (Reference 22). 2.4-22 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR H = 1/7 tanh[- (2.4-2) As mentioned in Subsection 2.4.5.4.2.3, waves attacking Category I structures are controlled by the available water depth over the flooded plant grade elevations. For plant grades with very flat slopes, the maximum supported wave height is approximately 0.78 times the water depth. The plant grade of Fermi 2 is Elevation 583 ft 0 in., and therefore a maximum wave height of 3.0 ft can be supported. Where the plant grade elevation is 580 ft 0 in., a maximum wave height of 5.4 ft can be supported. With the plant grade elevation changing from 580.0 ft to 583.0 ft in the vicinity of Grid N8000, it would be possible for either the 3.0-ft or the 5.4-ft wave to strike the north or east sides of Category I structures. Minimum wave periods calculated for wave heights of 3.0 ft and 5.4 ft are 3.4 sec and 4.5 sec, respectively. The maximum wave period of about 9 sec (Reference 22) is for a significant wave height of 7.8 ft and a significant wave period of 7.7 sec. 2.4.5.5. Resonance Resonance generated by waves can be a problem in enclosed bays or harbors when the natural period of oscillation of the bay is equal to the period of the incident waves. However, the Fermi site is not located in an enclosed embayment. The full exposure of the site to Lake Erie during PMME conditions, plus the flat slopes surrounding the site area, result in a natural period of oscillation of the flooded area that is much greater than that of the incident shallow-water storm waves. Consequently, resonance is not a problem at the site during the PMME occurrence. 2.4.5.6. Runup 2.4.5.6.1. Flood Levels Refer to Subsection 2.4.2.2 for a discussion of flood levels. 2.4.5.6.2. Maximum Runup Elevations Maximum runup elevations on the exposed north faces of the reactor/auxiliary building and the RHR complex are 593.0 and 598.0 ft for the 3.0-ft and 5.4-ft waves, respectively. The maximum runup elevation on the exposed south faces of the reactor/ auxiliary building and the RHR complex, the exposed east face of the RHR complex, and the west face of the reactor/auxiliary building is 593.0 ft for the 3.0-ft wave. This wave could possibly reach the west face of the reactor/auxiliary building by reflection from the east face of the RHR complex. The east face of the reactor/auxiliary building is not exposed to waves and wave runup. The west face of the RHR complex is landward of the storm direction and not subject to waves and wave runup. As previously stated, no shore protection is required to preclude flooding of these structures. 2.4.5.6.3. Wave Forces Maximum wave pressures and forces against Fermi 2 Category I structures can result from a 3.0-ft or possibly a 5.4-ft wave striking the north or east faces of Category I structures. These wave heights are the maximum supported wave heights for plant grade Elevations 2.4-23 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR 583.0 and 580.0 ft. Wave pressures and thrusts against smooth vertical walls have been calculated from nonbreaking, broken, and breaking wave conditions. The wave periods have been varied from the minimum wave period to the maximum wave period. The instantaneous impact forces produced by waves breaking against a structure result in intense shock pressure with a duration in the range of 1/100 to 1/1000 sec. The intense pressures occur when a thin cushion is entrapped by waves breaking on a structure. The breaking wave conditions are calculated from Minikin's formula. In adapting Minikin's formula, unrealistic results are predicted for very flat slopes (slopes fronting a vertical wall). Therefore, when the actual slope is flatter than 20:1 or even 10:1 (horizontal to vertical), pressures derived from a 20:1 or 10:1 slope should be used. Pressures and thrusts from breaking wave conditions were calculated for both slope conditions. Porous fill material, which can become completely saturated during flooded conditions, is placed from the top of slab elevation of the Category I structure to the plant grade elevation. Therefore, hydrostatic pressures against Category I structures are considered to the depth of the upper surface of the slab of both buildings. Wave pressure and thrust results for the reactor/auxiliary building and the RHR complex are presented in Figures 2.4-18 and 2.4-19. Wave pressure distribution diagrams are presented in Figures 2.4-20 and 2.4-21. The critical static pressure and thrust occur under the broken wave conditions, whereas the critical dynamic pressure and thrust occur under the breaking wave conditions for an assumed slope of 20:1 and the minimum wave periods of 3.4 to 4.5 sec. All Fermi 2 Category I structures are designed to withstand these forces. 2.4.5.7. Protective Structures The importance of the shore barrier in providing protection for Category I structures during the PMME has been greatly reduced from the originally approved concept for the following reasons:

a. Category I structures are not susceptible to flooding from storm surge and wave runup
b. Category I structures are largely protected by other plant facilities
c. Category I structures are not subject to damage from transmitted waves behind the barrier
d. Category I structures are not endangered by wave forces from 3.0-ft to 5.4-ft waves
e. Damage to the shore barrier will not enable waves larger than 5.4 ft to break against Category I structures since these structures are located a minimum distance of 800 ft inland from the shoreline. Safety-related structures that are located this distance away would remain safe during the extreme high stillwater levels of the PMME.

The shore barrier design and location are shown in Figure 2.4-22. The parameters used in the shore barrier design are discussed in detail in this section. The shore barrier ends are to be constructed on a side slope of 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) as compared to the design slope of 2:1 used for the shore barrier. The ends of the shore barrier rubble-mound structures are of 2.4-24 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR the same design as determined for the 2:1 slope. Criteria for construction of the multilayered barrier are shown in Figure 2.4-22. The ends have been flattened to a 3:1 slope to ensure that they can withstand conditions more severe than the design conditions. A shore-barrier-slope-stability analysis was performed to deter-mine the factor of safety against sliding of the shore barrier, and it was concluded that the shore barrier has a sufficient factor of safety with regard to a sliding failure occurring at any soil layer. A report of this analysis was submitted to the NRC in July 1981. The shore barrier, which allows for the possibility of 6 to 8 percent stone displacement during the PMME, extends from Grid N6800 to N7800 and preserves the integrity of the plant site fill placed to Elevation 583.0 ft. The shore barrier, including the ends, consists of a rubble-mound structure using an armor cover of stone. A toe elevation of 572.0 ft, a crest elevation of 583.0 ft, and a lakeward-side slope of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) were considered in its design. The design wave was based on the probable maximum storm event and a design shore barrier toe elevation of 569 ft., allowing for 3 ft of scour. Hudson's stability equation was used for determining the weights of armor units (Reference 21). Stability coefficients (KD) listed in Reference 21 were used for significant wave conditions and are conservative values based on zero damage criteria for model studies. By allowing for some shore barrier damage (displacement of armor stones), a higher stability coefficient was used. An armor cover was calculated using rough angular stone (density 165 lb/fl3) placed on a 2:1 slope. Using a design toe elevation of 569.0 ft, the maximum significant breaking wave height (Figure 2.4-14) is found to be 12.2 ft during the probable maximum storm event. The possibility of some stone displacement (6 percent to 8 percent) was allowed for, with any displaced stones being replaced after the storm passed. A stability coefficient of 5.0 was used for two layers of stone placed randomly. This results in an armor layer 7.5 ft thick using 3.3-ton to 5-ton stone, as shown in Figure 2.4-22. The secondary layer is 3.5 ft thick with 600-lb to 1000-lb stone, while the filter layer is 1.5 ft thick, consisting of 30-lb to 50-lb stone. Below the filter layer is 1 ft of crushed rock (20 lb and under). Where the plant grade elevation slopes from 580.0 to 583.0 ft, to the north of the Fermi 2 location, the slope is protected against the possibility of breaking 5.4-ft waves during the maximum stillwater level. Protection of the slope is achieved by lining it with suitable rock. The NRC evaluated the as-built condition of the shore barrier and concluded that it met the requirements of General Design Criterion (GDC) 2 and was, therefore, acceptable on the basis that the inspection and maintenance program required by the Technical Requirements Manual provided reasonable assurance that the shore barrier would not be allowed to deteriorate significantly from its as-built configuration. The Technical Specifications require that the shore barrier be inspected on an annual basis and after major storms and seismic events exceeding operating-basis earthquake (OBE) intensity and be promptly restored to its prior condition in the event of any significant damage. 2.4-25 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.4.6. Probable Maximum Tsunami Flooding The Fermi site is located in an area of the United States designated as having potentially minor seismic activity. Any tsunami activity in Lake Erie could only be generated by local seismic disturbances. Based on the history of the area, local seismic disturbances would result only in minor excitations in the lake. No tsunami has been recorded in Lake Erie; the only remotely similar phenomena observed have been low-amplitude seiches resulting from sudden barometric pressure differences. The low-amplitude seiches that could occur would be of negligible concern to the site. 2.4.7. Ice Flooding Ice flooding is not a design basis at the Fermi site. The grade elevation of the plant site is at least 10 ft above the normal winter level of Lake Erie, and the emergency supply of water for cooling is not dependent upon natural bodies of water or the operation of intakes located where ice flooding could occur. 2.4.8. Cooling Water Canals and Reservoirs 2.4.8.1. Canals A discharge canal is provided between the natural draft cooling towers and the circulating water reservoir. The canal is not part of a Category I system and is not safety related or necessary for the safe shutdown of the reactor. 2.4.8.2. Reservoirs An open pond reservoir is provided as a collection basin from the natural draft cooling tower discharge to the circulating water pump house. The reservoir is not part of a Category I system and is not safety related or necessary for the safe shutdown of the reactor. In addition, a reservoir is provided in the RHR complex. This is a Category I reservoir that is part of a closed cycle system that is not dependent upon natural bodies of water for makeup. The design basis for this complex in relation to water levels is described in Section 3.4. 2.4.9. Channel Diversions The plant does not use water from channels; therefore, this subsection is not applicable. 2.4.10. Flooding Protection Reguirements All safety-related plant features are designed to withstand combinations of flood conditions and wave runup as discussed in Subsections 2.4.2.2 and 2.4.5.4. Protection of safety-related structures and components, including the effects of floods and waves, is discussed in Section 3.4 and Subsection 2.4.5.7. 2.4.11. Low Water Consideration 2.4-26 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.4.11.1. Low Flow in Rivers and Streams Plant water sources are not related to the flow of rivers and streams in the area, except to the minor extent that these flows affect the general water level of Lake Erie. 2.4.11.2. Low Water Resulting From Surges, Seiches, or Tsunamis 2.4.11.2.1. Minimum Monthly Mean Lake Level A summary of the historical minimum monthly mean lake levels was recorded by the U.S. Lake Survey during the period 1860 to 1973 and is presented in Figure 2.4-9. The minimum historic monthly mean lake level was reduced by approximately 40 percent of the recorded range of low water conditions (0.9) to give a minimum monthly mean design lake level of -1.5 ft below Low Water Datum. 2.4.11.2.2. Wind Setdown Using the computer model prepared by Platzman (Reference 14 and Subsection 2.4.5.1), values were obtained for winds of varying speed from a westerly direction. Calculations based upon U.S. Weather Bureau data at Asheville, North Carolina, indicate that westerly winds of 70 mph sustained over a period of 6 hr would have a recurrence interval of one in 250 years. Using these values, the decrease in water level resulting from wind setdown at the site would be -9.2 ft (Elevation 561.3 ft). Based upon probable maximum estimates of westerly winds furnished by the AEC, maximum wind setdown of the lake water level was calculated by Platzman's method (Reference 14) as -11.2 ft. The selected design wind setdown is -11.6 ft (Elevation 558.9 ft). This is identical to the calculated design PMME storm surge except with a minus instead of a plus sign. 2.4.11.2.3. Local Seiches and Tsunamis For the same reasons as given in Subsections 2.4.5.2.3 and 2.4.6, no decrease in water level is assumed to occur from seiche and tsunami activity. 2.4.11.2.4. Design Level Assuming that the effect of wind setdown occurs simultaneously with extreme minimum monthly lake levels, the resulting design stillwater level is Elevation -13.1 ft (Low Water Datum), or Elevation 557.4 ft. The cooling water supply for safety-related systems is provided by the RHR complex, which contains its own water reservoir and is independent of ground water or lake-water level conditions. See Subsection 9.2.5 for a discussion of the RHR service water system. 2.4.11.3. Historical Low Water The lowest observed monthly mean lake level during the period of record (1860 to 1973) was during February 1936, when Elevation -1.2 ft (Low Water Datum) was recorded. Low lake levels are generally recorded during the month of February. The most extreme setdown on 2.4-27 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR record (1897 to present) was -7.1 ft on March 22, 1955. This level was calculated from gage records obtained at Gibraltar and Toledo. If coincident occurrence of the minimum historical lake level and setdown is assumed (-8.3 ft), a minimum probable low water elevation of 562.2 ft is obtained. The conservatism of the design values is realized by comparing these figures with the respective -1.5-ft and -11.6-ft values that were combined for the design level elevation of-13.1 ft. 2.4.11.4. Future Control There is no future control anticipated for Lake Erie (Reference 23). Drainage improvements on Swan Creek have been made, but no additional controls are planned (Reference 24). 2.4.11.5. Plant Requirements As described in Subsection 9.2.5, the cooling water supply for safety-related systems is provided by the RHR service water system, which contains its own water reservoir and is independent of ground- or lake-water supplies. The main plant cooling water supply is provided by the circulating water pond (Subsection 10.4.5) and requires only makeup water from Lake Erie. 2.4.11.6. Heat Sink Dependability Requirements The RHR complex contains the ultimate heat sink for Fermi 2, which is the RHR service water system. The RHR complex includes a man-made structure with a self-contained reservoir and is discussed in Subsection 9.2.5. This service water complex is independent of local water-level conditions. 2.4.12. Environmental Acceptance of Effluents Discharge of liquid radwaste effluents is through a decant line into Lake Erie. The release point is indicated in Figure 2.1-5. Liquid effluent accidentally released at the surface from the plant eventually flows either eastward into Lake Erie or into the north lagoon after percolation downward through the crushed-rock fill. The configuration of the surface-area drainage pattern does not permit flow westward toward inland areas. Since the lagoon drains into the lake via Swan Creek, liquid surficial discharges would ultimately reach and be diluted by waters of Lake Erie. Any percolation into ground water ultimately reaches Lake Erie (Subsection 2.4.13). The locations and users of surface and ground water pertinent to effluent releases from the plant are provided in Subsections 2.4.1.2 and 2.4.13. The effects of plant effluent releases to Lake Erie were examined by calculating dilution factors at the Monroe intake and the Toledo intake. Studies of the currents and dilution capacity of Lake Erie were made by Ayers (Reference

25) who found that except under ice-cover conditions there are two primary current patterns, northward and southward, with a velocity range from 0.1 to 0.3 mph. During ice-cover periods, the current is predominantly southerly with a velocity of less than 0.1 mph. The probable percentages of occurrence of the current patterns are 30 percent, southerly; 50 2.4-28 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR percent, northerly; and 20 percent, phase system. The duration of ice-cover ranges from 1 to 4 months. Based on Ayers' measurements, dilution factors for the Monroe intake and the Toledo intake were estimated and are summarized in Table 2.4-6. The dilution factors were determined using the plant blowdown discharge line into Lake Erie as the effluent release -point. The annual average dilution factor was calculated on the basis of 40 percent (southerly) and 60 percent (northerly) current directions, with an ice-cover duration of 2 months occurring during southerly current conditions. Current velocities used in the calculations are 0.394 fps under ice-free conditions and 0.117 fps under ice-cover conditions. The worst condition for dilution factors is based on a southerly current under ice-cover conditions with a current velocity of 0.04 fps. The subsurface diffusion of accidental releases of liquid radioactive effluents is considered in Subsection 2.4.13. 2.4.13. Ground Water 2.4.13.1. Description and Onsite Use Ground water is not used as a source of water supply for the plant. Ground water features are subsequently described. 2.4.13.1.1. Regional Ground Water Features The project area is located in the eastern lake section of the central lowlands physiographic province (Figure 2.5-1). Bedrock formations dip northwest into the Michigan Basin. They are generally covered by glacial drift deposits that vary considerably in thickness and composition. The bedrock topography at the base of the drift is irregular as a result of erosion and differential scouring by Pleistocene glaciation. The drift deposits range from nearly impervious till to coarse channel deposits of gravel and boulders. To the northwest of the site, drift deposits occur that are sufficiently thick and permeable enough to allow development of ground water. To the south, soluble limestone and dolomite formations compose the principal aquifers. The distribution of these regional aquifers, as described by the USGS (Reference 26), is shown in Figure 2.4-23. Regional aquifers capable of furnishing public ground water supplies do not exist near the site because the bedrock formations are not highly pervious and contain poor quality water. The drift is thin and consists of nearly impervious till. Ground water conditions in Monroe County are described by Sherzer (Reference 27) and by Mozola (Reference 11). Bordering Lake Erie and surrounding the site area are soils associated with former higher stages of Lake Erie. The soils are thin, generally organic, and do not serve as aquifers. The soil units are described in Subsection 2.5.1.1.2. Geologic units in the site region, principally the bedrock formations, are described in detail in Subsection 2.5.1.1. 2.4-29 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.4.13.1.2. Local Ground Water Features In the site area, geologic units consist of bedrock formations that are overlain by thin and nearly impervious till and lacustrine deposits (Subsection 2.5.1.2). At the site, the lacustrine and till units have been partially excavated and replaced with crushed-rock fill (Subsection 2.4.1.1). The till and lacustrine deposits are too thin and impervious to serve as aquifers. They are about 14 ft thick at the site. Descriptions of these deposits are given in Subsection 2.5.1.2.7. The test borings explored the bedrock formations beneath the site to depths of 324.7 ft, penetrating the Bass Islands Group and part of the Salina Group. The formations dip slightly to the northwest (Subsection 2.5.1.2.3.2). The uppermost bedrock formation at the site is the Bass Islands Group; the upper surface of the Bass Islands is erosional and somewhat irregular. It is covered with till and lacustrine deposits less than 20 ft thick. At the site, the upper surface of the Bass Islands is about 550 ft elevation (Subsection 2.5.1.2.2) and exists to a depth of about 100 ft (Figure 2.5-15). It is directly below glacial drift in a 7-mile-wide band bordering Lake Erie (Figure 2.5-5). The Bass Islands Group consists of thin-bedded, fractured, locally vuggy, gray-brown dolomite, with carbonaceous shale partings. The formation is described in greater detail in Subsection 2.5.1.2.2. The Bass Islands Group comprises a confined aquifer at the site. During the exploration borings program, there was artesian flow from a number of borings penetrating the Bass Islands Group (Figures 2.5-24 through 2.5-56). Ground water in the Bass Islands Group is confined by the overlying till and lacustrine deposits. During construction dewatering, the ground water is drawn down below the confining layer. Below the Bass Islands Group are fractured limestone and dolomite formations of the Salina Group. The Salina Group formations appear to comprise aquifers even in the argillaceous beds because test borings at the plant site encountered artesian flows from them. Water quality was sampled at various zones. The water is highly mineralized. Sulfate content was similar in all formations. Results of the chemical analyses of the zones tested are shown in Table 2.5-16 and discussed in Subsection 2.5.1.2.4. The aquifers receive recharge by infiltration of precipitation on higher ground areas west of the site as indicated by a mapping of the regional ground water level, shown in Figure 2.4-24. Because the ground water surface approximates the shape of the land surface, water apparently can percolate through the till. The map was prepared from water levels measured in wells completed within the Bass Islands dolomite. These well locations are shown in Figure 2.4-25. Water-level measurement data for the wells are presented in Table 2.4-7. The slope of the water level toward Lake Erie indicates that the lake comprises the ultimate sink for ground water flow. The permeability data developed from pressure tests of borings at the Fermi site are described in Subsection 2.5.4.6. Of 29 tests in four borings, permeability varied from 210 to 2220 ft/yr. The average was 763 ft/yr. Because permeability is developed in rock joints and fractures, it can vary considerably from place to place. Ground water is not a water supply source for the plant or any of its supporting facilities. 2.4-30 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.4.13.2. Sources All municipal supplies within 25 miles of the site are from streams or lakes (Reference 28). In areas not served by municipal water systems, water supplies for domestic use are generally obtained from private wells. There are no industrial or municipal water wells in the site area (Reference 7). The network of private wells presently in use forms the source of water for domestic and livestock purposes in farms and homes west and north of the site, and for residences in the Stony Point area to the south, where the largest concentration of wells in the area occurs. The distribution of private water wells surrounding the site area is shown in Figure 2.4-26. This figure shows that there are about 4000 wells within 10 miles of the site. A survey of available drillers' records on approximately 400 wells in the site vicinity, filed at the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, shows that well depths generally do not exceed 70 ft. The wells are 4 to 6 in. in diameter, drilled into dolomite bedrock, and cased only through overburden soils into bedrock. Casings are uncemented, and the remainder of the hole below the casings is left open. Pumps are submersible or centrifugal (suction) type, having a capacity of about 10 gpm or less. The pumpage of water per well is probably on the order of 200 to 400 gal per day, typical of residential use. A certain amount of seasonal variation in water use can be expected because in summer months lawns and gardens are irrigated. There has been virtually no long-term ground water level decline in the site area. The largest concentration of wells is in Stony Point. Pumping there may have lowered the water levels by 5 to 10 ft, on the basis of water levels reported on numerous drillers' logs since the 1940s. The radius of influence of pumping from these wells cannot be detected more than 1 mile away from Stony Point, on the basis of water-level data. Pumping from an onsite rock quarry operation in 1969-1972 caused a temporary lowering of water level. Pumping was terminated in June 1972 and the abandoned quarry was allowed to fill with ground water. The piezometric surface in the vicinity of the quarry returned to its normal level by the summer of 1973. The ground water level was monitored during the quarry dewatering and the data are shown in Table 2.4-7. Water level in the quarry is now approximately at land surface. At the site, the confining layers have been stripped to permit the excavation for subgrade structures constructed in the aquifer. Backfill around the completed structures will not permit percolation into the aquifer at the site (Subsection 2.4.1.1). The water use trend in the area is from ground water to surface water. The low transmissibility of the formation will not permit large-yielding water wells. Undesirable water quality is typical. As described in Subsection 2.5.1.2.9 and noted on boring logs, the ground water is high in sulfate content and hydrogen sulfide. Many neighboring communities, for example Woodland Beach and Berlin Township, have recently abandoned individual water wells in favor of a surface-water treatment-distribution system. Because surface water is available from nearby municipal systems for the communities in the area, the trend of increasing surface-water use and decreasing ground water use can be expected to continue in dense population areas. Isolated homesites, as on farms, will probably continue to use ground water. 2.4-31 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR Because of the trend toward decreasing use of ground water, it is improbable that any significant change in ground water gradient will occur from well pumping. The gradient is to the east, toward Lake Erie. There are no domestic wells downgradient from the site. If, for any reason, a reversal of ground water gradient from the site to the water wells were to occur, it would have to be for some reason other than pumping from the wells. This is true because, in order to create a gradient from the site to the water wells, the water level at the wells would have to be drawn down below their depth. It is therefore considered highly improbable that there will be any ground water condition in the future resulting in gradient reversal from the site toward the water wells. The regional lakeward gradient is shown on the contour map of Figure 2.4-25. Water-level data used to prepare the map are shown in Table 2.4-7. Water levels at the site were depressed as a result of dewatering for Fermi 2 quarry operation. Prior to construction of Fermi 2, water flowed naturally from many of the borings in the area, as indicated on the boring logs in Figures 2.5-24 through 2.5-56. On the basis of the above-grade static level implied by these flows and water levels in wells in peripheral areas, it is suggested that ground water level at the site is normally above 575 ft. Water levels in wells fluctuate seasonally, generally highest in spring and lowest in fall. Seasonal fluctuations are not related to Lake Erie fluctuations, although seasonal peaks are somewhat coincidental. The Lake Erie fluctuations are of lower magnitude (Subsection 2.4.2) than ground water fluctuations. It is suggested that the fluctuations coincide because both water bodies respond to the same influences of recharge and evapotranspiration. Water-level fluctuations in the site vicinity since 1970 are provided by the data in Table 2.4-7. The nearest government agency observation well is approximately 20 miles to the west, in the Dundee area. It is monitored by the USGS. Because the well is completed in glacial drift, water-level fluctuations in the well cannot be considered representative of water-level fluctuations that would occur in the bedrock formation wells in the site area. Flow rates within the aquifer are highly variable, owing to the fractured and jointed nature of the bedrock. The width, density, and directional pattern of openings can vary from place to place, as indicated by exposures of rock in excavations of the Fermi 2 site and in the onsite rock quarry to the south. An average velocity of flow in the bedrock aquifer is derived on the following basis: Porosity, n = 0.01, conservatively assumed (Reference 29) Permeability, k = 2 ft/day, from tests in borings 3 ft Hydraulic gradient, I = 2,500 ft = 0.0012, determined between wells 17M2 and 17Q1 (12/31/1973) Velocity, V = kI/n = 0.24 ft/day It is noted that the natural water-level gradient at the site is not available owing to construction dewatering at Fermi 2. 2.4-32 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.4.13.3. Accident Effects Ground water conditions of the site (Subsection 2.4.13.1F) consist of a bedrock aquifer confined under artesian pressure beneath a cap of relatively impervious glacial deposits. Under natural conditions, the ground water gradient is toward Lake Erie. Ground water moves in this direction and eventually discharges into the lake by moving upward through till and lake-bottom sediments. In the unlikely event of an earthquake, minor cracking in the walls of at least the subgrade portion of the radwaste building structure could occur. The radwaste liquid storage tanks could also undergo stress cracking and leaking to allow fluid flow between the interior of the structure and the surrounding earth. Initially, liquid would be retained within the structure and diluted by inflowing ground water from the dolomite aquifer in contact with the structure. There would be a slow inflow of ground water and the water level inside the structure would rise until it attained the elevation of the piezometric level of the aquifer, approximately Elevation 575.0 ft. At this time, the radioactive material will have been diluted 10:1 or greater. The time required to fill the structure would be on the order of 3 to 4 weeks. This length of time is determined on the basis of the following information:

a. During construction dewatering of the reactor building basement, pumping was stopped overnight and on weekends. The excavation became flooded up to 3 ft as a result of inflowing ground water. On one such occasion, the water-level rise in the excavation was measured. The rate of rise was 0.0281 ft/hr
b. It is assumed that this same rate of rise could occur in the radwaste building excavation, but adjusted to account for the space occupied by masonry and equipment, which is approximately one-third of the total floor area. The adjusted rate of rise is somewhat higher, almost 0.042 ft/hr
c. The rate of rise decreases continuously as the water level in the structure approaches ground water level. The assumption of a steady rate of water level rise of 0.042 ft/hr is therefore conservative.

During the 3- to 4-week period during which water is rising in the structure, equipment can be mobilized for pumping, storage, processing, and disposal of radioactive material. If the structure is allowed to fill completely, diluted material would move into and through the aquifer at the same rate of flow and direction of movement as the existing ground water in the aquifer. The direction of movement would be to the east at a rate of 0.24 ft/day (Subsection 2.4.13.2). The length of time required to travel the 460-ft distance from the structure to the Lake Erie shoreline is 1920 days. By this time, the specific activity of the radioactive material will have been below the limits set forth in 10 CFR 20. (For details of this accident analysis, see Subsection 15.7.3.) For a discussion of flood protection of the onsite storage building, see Subsection 11.7.2.2.5. 2.4-33 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.4.13.4. Monitoring and Safeguard Requirements It was demonstrated in Subsection 2.4.13.2 that no water wells are located downgradient from the site. As part of the operational radiological environmental monitoring program, Edison will measure the water level monthly in existing observation wells. The comparison of the data will show flow reversal if it occurs. Should a reversal in flow occur, grab samples would be taken and analyzed for gross beta and gamma isotopes if a path is available from the plant to the ground water. Results would be reported in accordance with the requirements of the Technical Specifications 5.6.2 and 5.6.3. Under accident conditions, postulated in Subsection 2.4.13.3, monitoring wells will be drilled between the affected structures and the Lake Erie shoreline to monitor subsurface travel and dispersion of radioactive material. Exploratory drilling experience at the Fermi site indicates that truck-mounted drilling rigs are available from Detroit and Toledo and that an observation well could be drilled within several days. 2.4.13.5. Design Bases for Subsurface Hydrostatic Loadings As described in Subsection 2.4.13.2, the natural ground water level at the site is on the order of 575 ft. As a conservative value for computing normal subsurface hydrostatic loadings, the ground water level is assumed to be 576.0 ft. Because of the ground-level conditions, construction dewatering is necessary during all major building excavations. In the Fermi 2 construction, dewatering was done by sump pumps placed in the excavations. At the reactor building, grout curtains were installed to minimize ground water inflow and to prevent seepage that would cause falling rock from the walls of the excavations. The Fermi 2 reactor building excavation is 204 by 154 ft, with floor elevations of 540.0 and 551.0 ft. Bedrock beneath the structure is dolomite, and was pressure grouted for added strength. The dewatering does not affect the structural integrity of the rock. All major safety-related structures have their foundations on bedrock and not within the overburden soils or drift (Subsection 2.5.4.11). Water supply wells will not be used at the facility. 2.4.14. Technical Specifications and Emergency Operation Requirements Fermi 2, together with its associated safety-related facilities, is designed to function in a safe manner despite the occurrence of any of the adverse hydrologic events previously discussed. These events have been postulated to occur in appropriate combinations, and such provisions for the safe operation of the plant have been incorporated into the design. 2.4.14.1. Flooding The probable maximum water levels in Swan Creek resulting from precipitation or flood are discussed in Subsection 2.4.3. These levels are less than those anticipated from the probable maximum surge on Lake Erie. 2.4-34 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.4.14.2. Dam Failures Potential dam failures are discussed in Subsection 2.4.4. It has been found that there are no regulatory structures on Swan Creek. In addition, there are no dams on other streams and rivers in southeastern Michigan, the failure of which would affect water levels in Lake Erie along the plant shoreline. 2.4.14.3. Surge and Seiche Flooding The PMME is caused by storm surge. This event, discussed in Subsection 2.4.5, causes a stillwater level at the site of 586.9 ft, or 3.9 ft above plant grade elevation. As described, the Category I structures are designed for the PMME flood level plus runup from small waves generated on the flooded site. The openings in the structures are watertight and designed for the high-water levels. The water levels associated with the seiche, discussed in Subsection 2.4.5, have been found to be less than the storm surge. 2.4.14.4. Tsunami Tsunami is discussed in Subsection 2.4.6. Water levels associated with this event have been found to be less than for the storm surge. 2.4.14.5. Ice Flooding Ice flooding is discussed in Subsection 2.4.7. 2.4-35 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.4 HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING REFERENCES

1. R. L. Knutilla, Assistant District Chief, U.S. Geological Survey, Department of Interior, Michigan, Oral Communication.
2. U.S. Army, Monthly Bulletin of Lake Levels for December 1972, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 6 pages.
3. S. W. Wiitala, "Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in the U.S.," USGS Water Supply, 1965, Paper 1677.
4. Dalrymple, T. "Flood-Frequency Analysis," USGS Water Suppl_, 80 pages, 1960, Paper 1543-A.
5. U.S. Weather Bureau, Hydrometeorological Report No. 33, (NOAA).
6. U.S. Home and Housing Finance Agency, Snow Load Studies, Research Paper 19, May 1952.
7. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Standard Project Flood Determinations, EM 1110 1411, U.S. Army, 1965.
8. R. K. Lindsley, M. A. Kohler, and J. H. Paulhus, Hydrology for Engineers, pages 212-213, McGraw-Hill, 1958.
9. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Design of Small Dams, Bureau of Reclamation, 611 pages, 1961.
10. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Hydrology Guide for Use in Watershed Planning, Soil Conservation Service.
11. A. J. Mozola, Geology for Environmental Planning in Monroe County, Michigan, Report for Investigation 13, Michigan Geological Survey, 34 pages, 1970.
12. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Flood Hydrograph Analysis and Computations, EM 1110-2-1405, 1959.
13. Chow, V. T., Open Channel Hydraulics, McGraw-Hill, 1959, p. 99.
14. G. W. Platzman, A Procedure for Operations Prediction of Wind Setup on Lake Erie, Technical Report No. 11, ESSA Weather Bureau, 94 pages, 1967.
15. Dames & Moore, Platzman's Wind Setup Model for Lake Erie with Application to Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant Unit 2, Report, Verification Study, for the Detroit Edison Company, 21 pages, November 27, 1970.
16. National Weather Records Center, Compilation - Fastest One Minute Easterly Winds for Eight Proximal Weather Stations near Lake Erie: Job 12085, NWRC, Asheville, N.C., 12 pages, 1970.
17. Dames & Moore, Probable Maximum Easterly Winds over the Western Portion of Lake Erie, Report for the Detroit Edison Company, 18 pages, August 27, 1970.
18. H. C. S. Thom, "New Distribution of Extreme Winds in the United States," ASCE Journal of Structural Divisions, 94, No. ST 7, 14 pages, July 1968.
19. U.S. Air Force, Cambridge Research Center, Handbook of Geophysical and Space Environment, McGraw-Hill, 1965.

2.4-36 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.4 HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING REFERENCES

20. I. A. Hunt, Winds, Wind Setups and Seiches on Lake Erie, Research Report 1-2, U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, 59 pages, 1959.

21. Shore Protection, Planning and Design, Technical Report No. 4, U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center, U.S. Army, 571 pages, 1966.
22. R. L. Wiegel, Oceanographic Engineering, Prentice-Hall, 1964
23. C. Gilbert, North Central Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago, Ill., Oral Communication.
24. D. Burton, Monroe County Drain Commission, Monroe, Michigan, Oral Communication.
25. J. C. Ayers, Hydrographic Studies of the Lagoona Beach Embayment, Great Lakes Research Institute, University of Michigan.
26. C. L. McGuiness, The Role of Ground Water in the National Water Situation, USGS Water Supply, Paper No. 1809, p. 1121, 1963.
27. W. H. Sherzer, Geological Survey of Michigan's Lower Peninsula, 1896-1900, Geologic Report on Monroe County, Michigan, Vol. VII, Part 1, Michigan Geological Survey, 1900.
28. Anonymous, Data on Public Water Supplies in Michigan.
29. D. K. Todd, Ground Water Hydrology, p. 336, John Wiley & Sons, 1959.

2.4-37 REV 18 10/12

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.4-1 ESTIMATED DISCHARGE FREQUENCY - SWAN CREEK Recurrence Interval (years) Maximum Discharge (ft3/sec) 2 2250 5 3500 10 4500 20 5800 50 7700 100 9300 Page 1 oflI REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.4-2 SYNTHESIZED LOCAL MAXIMUM PRECIPITATION 4 Time (hr) Cumulative Rainfall (in.) Incremental Rainfall (in.) 1/4 4.9 4.9 1/2 7.0 2.1 3/4 8.8 1.8 1 10.2 1.4 2 14.3 4.1 3 18.0 3.7 4 21.3 3.3 5 24.2 2.9 6 26.9 2.7 12 29.2 2.3 18 31.0 1.8 24 32.4 1.4 30 33.2 0.8 36 33.8 0.6 42 34.3 0.5 48 34.7 0.4 a Data from Reference 5. Page I of I REV 16 10/09

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.4-3 SYNTHESIZED PROBABLE MAXIMUM PRECIPITATION FOR THE SWAN CREEK WATERSHED"k Maxima for Durations Indicated Cumulative Rainfall Incremental Rainfall Increments of Storm Time (hr) (in.) (in.) Sequence (2-hr periods) 2 10.7 10.7 0.2 4 16.0 5.3 0.2 6 20.2 4.2 0.2 8 21.4 1.2 0.2 10 22.0 0.6 0.2 12 22.5 0.5 0.2 14 23.0 0.5 0.2 16 23.4 0.4 0.2 18 23.8 0.4 0.2 20 24.2 0.4 0.2 22 24.5 0.3 0.3 24 24.8 0.3 0.3 26 25.1 0.3 0.3 28 25.4 0.3 0.3 30 25.6 0.2 0.4 32 25.8 0.2 0.5 34 26.0 0.2 0.6 36 26.2 0.2 1.2 38 26.4 0.2 5.3 40 26.6 0.2 10.7 42 26.8 0.2 4.2 44 27.0 0.2 0.5 46 27.2 0.2 0.4 48 27.4 0.2 0.4 a Drainage area 109 square miles. b Data from Reference 5. Page I of I REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.4-4 ESTIMATED PRECIPITATION LOSSES AND RUNOFF, PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD, SWAN CREEKa Surface Runoff Unit Hydrograph From Rainfall Base Flow Total Discharge Time (hr) (ft3 /sec) PMP Loss Runoff Excess (ft3 /sec) (ft3 /sec) (,ft3 /sec) 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 2 410 0.2 0.2 0 0 100 100 4 1070 0.2 0.2 0 0 100 100 6 1860 0.2 0.2 0 0 100 100 8 2640 0.2 0.04 0.16 66 100 166 10 3420 0.2 0.04 0.16 236 100 336 12 4000 0.2 0.04 0.16 534 100 634 14 3820 0.2 0.04 0.16 957 100 1,057 16 3440 0.2 0.04 0.16 1,504 100 1,604 18 3010 0.2 0.04 0.16 2,144 100 2,244 20 2520 0.2 0.04 0.16 2,755 100 2,855 22 2060 0.3 0.04 0.26 3,347 100 3,447 24 1710 0.3 0.04 0.26 3,935 100 4,035 26 1410 0.3 0.04 0.26 4,524 100 4,624 28 1160 0.3 0.04 0.26 5,188 100 5,218 30 900 0.4 0.04 0.36 5,775 100 5,875 32 700 0.5 0.04 0.46 6,548 100 6,648 34 510 0.6 0.04 0.56 7,450 100 7,550 36 350 1.2 0.04 1.16 8,741 100 8,841 38 160 5.3 0.04 5.26 12,269 100 12,369 40 22 10.7 0.04 10.66 21,325 100 21,425 42 0 4.2 0.04 4.16 35,034 100 35,134 44 0.4 0.04 0.46 50,805 100 50,905 46 0.4 0.04 0.36 66,564 100 66,664 48 0.4 0.04 0.36 80,588 100 80,688 50 88,432 100 88,532 Drainage area 109 square miles. Page I of I REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.4-5 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS UNIT HYDROGRAPHS Drainage Basin Station Area (mi 2) CI, tp CP 640 C, (LLca)° 3 L Lca tr (hr) Swan Mouth, 109 36.7 12.3 451 2 6.14 25.4 16.67 2 Creeka Michigan Cedar River East Lansing, 355 7.6 36.5 279 5.1 7.1 37 18 6 Michigan Sandusky Bucyrus, 89.8 27.1 21.0 569 3.39 6.2 27.5 16.3 6 River Ohio Sebewaing Sebewaing, 105 28.46 11.0 313 2.50 4.44 16 9 6 River Michigan Juscarawas Massillon, 507 8.06 44.4 358 6.34 7.0 41.0 16.0 6 River Ohio Clinton Mt. Clemens, 733 17.5 22.2 441 3.81 6.62 32 17 6 River Michigan Grand River Lansing, 1230 6.8 38.5 260 3.4 11.2 75 42 6 Michigan a Synthetic unit hydrograph. Page I of I REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.4-6 DILUTION FACTOR ESTIMATES - LAKE ERIE INTAKES Normal Conditions South Current North Current Annual Worst Location Ice-Free Ice-Cover Ice-Free Ice-Cover Average Condition Monroe intake 320 290 1.6 x 10 1.0 x 101° 770 26 Toledo intake 1.6 x1016 9. XIloll 3.1 x10 2 1 1.1 x 1022 5.4 x 1013 4.3 x 105 Page I of I REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.4-7 WATER WELL DATAa Map Reference Elevation of Number Well Number Depth (ft) Water Level (ft) Date RI 5S/8E-36Rlb 77 594.0 9/9/64 597.6 4/28/72 DI 5S/9E-2D Ib 33 590.0 5/20/65 588.11 4/28/72 SII 6S/9E-l 1Jjb 581.22 2/3/72 KI 6S/9E-13KI 577.02 12/29/70 577.25 12/30/70 576.68 10/22/71 CI 6S/9E-23C I 35 580.74 2/3/72 583.0 11/13/54 KI 6S/9E-23K1 95 572.0 11/24/69 570.64 9/8/70 Q4C 6S/9E-23QI 76 572.0 11/6/69 575.4 9/8/70 574.65 10/27/70 576.39 12/29/70 575.8 2/26/71 577.0 3/26/71 576.25 4/30/71 576.3 5/28/71 574.8 7/2/71 573.0 7/30/71 572.8 8/24/71 573.52 10/22/71 572.3 10/30/71 579.13 4/28/72 CI 6S/9E-24C I 576.87 12/29/70 QiC 6S/9E-24Q I 50 575.0 9/19/69 574.76 9/8/70 573.84 10/27/70 575.97 12/29/70 573.4 11/5/71 Page 1 of 12 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.4-7 WATER WELL DATAa Map Reference Elevation of Number Well Number Depth (ft) Water Level (ft) Date 573.4 12/3/71 574.4 1/7/72 575.4 2/4/72 576.1 3/3/72 579.8 4/7/72 580.5 4/21/72 580.73 4/29/72 582.15 5/26/72 578.57 6/23/72 578.23 7/7/72 577.73 8/23/72 578.57 10/6/72 581.90 11/24/72 582.07 12/29/72 Q2 6S/9E-24Q2 70 571.0 11/6/53 Q3 6S/9E-24Q3 65 577.0 6/13/53 RI 6S/9E-24R I 127.5 577.0 3/27/51 LI 6S/9E-25LI 32 568.0 8/2/56 L2 6S/9E-25L2 45 572.0 7/9/52 L3 6S/9E-25L3 41.5 570.0 4/28/50 L4 6S/9E-25L4 50.5 565.0 7/3/50 L5 6S/9E-25L5 28.5 572.0 6/17/53 575.04 2/3/72 MI 6S/9E-25M1 49.5 574.0 4/17/53 MIA 6S/9E-25M 1A 37 570.0 10/18/55 M2 6S/9E-25M2 39 575.0 4/12/48 6S/9E-35HI 34.5 569.0 1/20/49 Jl 6S/0E-6J1Ib 52 575.0 8/31/63 QI 6S/I0E-6Q Ib 55 570.0 10/17/53 Q2 6S/1OE-6Q2b 56.5 575.0 7/3/47 AI 6S/10E-7A1b 55 576.0 9/18/53 A2 6S/IOE-7A2b 116 570.0 12/12/69 Page 2 of 12 REV 16 10/091

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.4-7 WATER WELL DATAa Map Reference Elevation of Number Well Number Depth (ft) Water Level (ft) Date 570.7 2/3/72 HI 6S/IOE-7HIb 52 567.0 6/12/56 KI 6S/1OE-7K Ib 67 576.0 6/6/68 Li 6S/10E-7 1 b 35 572.0 7/1/50 ii 6S/10E-8J0I 49 575.0 12/21/55 KI 6S/10E-8KIb 36 571.0 11/26/57 R1 6S/10E-8RIb 51 571.0 1/30/66 570.63 9/8/70 570.03 2/3/72 BI 6S/IOE-16B 1 b 52 572.0 C! 6S/IOE-16C1 49 570.0 6/25/54 F1 6S/1OE-17F1 59 562.0 2/17/64 568.91 9/8/70 M2 6S/1OE-17M2 567.59 10/27/70 571.75 2/3/72 PIC 6S/IOE-18PI 60 572.1 9/8/70 571.84 12/30/70 576.3 2/26/71 576.6 1/26/71 573.2 5/28/71 18PIc 6S/IOE-19P1 574.0 7/2/71 575.0 7/29/71 573.25 8/27/71 573.30 9/24/71 573.30 10/30/71 571.2 12/3/71 573.5 1/7/72 573.6 2/4/72 574.0 3/3/72 577.3 4/7/72 578.3 4/21/72 576.67 4/29/72 Page 3 of 12 REV 16 10/09 I

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.4-7 WATER WELL DATAa Map Reference Elevation of Number Well Number Depth (ft) Water Level (fi) Date 579.00 5/26/72 576.92 6/23/72 576.17 7/7/72 573.50 8/25/72 576.58 10/6/72 581.17 11/24/72 581.50 12/29/72 RI 6S/IOE-18RI 80 573.49 9/8/70 569.24 10/27/70 569.56 12/29/70 BI 6S/IOE-19BI 65 577.0 12/22/64 B2 6S/1IOE- 19B2 65 583.0 2/17/69 576.86 9/8/70 571.86 10/27/70 568.94 12/29/70 583.0 2/17/69 576.42 9/8/70 571.42 10/27/70 568.3 12/29/70 571.33 8/6/71 570.26 8/27/71 570.21 9/24/71 570.14 10/30/7 i 570.94 12/10/71 570.94 1/7/72 571.84 2/4/72 572.34 3/3/72 575.02 4/7/72 578.19 4/21/72 576.69 4/29/72 576.76 5/26/72 574.69 6/23/72 Page 4 of 12 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.4-7 WATER WELL DATAa Map Reference Elevation of Number Well Number Depth (ft) Water Level (ft) Date 573.69 7/7/72 573.94 10/6/72 579.11 11/24/72 B3 6S/IOE-19B3 45 581.0 10/30/53 GI 6S/IOE-19G1 591.0 3/2/56 H1C 6S/IOE-19H1 570.7 5/12/71 570.4 6/1/71 570.75 7/2/71 570.32 8/2/71 570.21 8/27/71 570.57 10/1/71 569.8 11/5/71 569.5 12/3/71 570.25 12/23/71 572.0 1/31/72 571.3 2/25/72 573.0 3/14/72 574.4 4/7/72 578.0 4/21/72 576.67 4/29/72 575.58 5/26/72 573.25 6/23/72 572.50 7/7/72 570.67 8/25/72 572.67 10/6/72 578.17 11/24/72 578.92 12/29/72 MI 6S/IOE-19MI 56 580.0 5/17/68 570.03 9/8/70 572.36 2/3/72 M2 6S/IOE-19M2 40.5 580.0 12/8/45 M3 6S/10E-19M3 31 582.0 4/12/49 Page 5 of 12 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.4-7 WATER WELL DATAa Map Reference Elevation of Number Well Number Depth (ft) Water Level (ft) Date PI 6S/IOE-19PI 58 569.0 10/6/64 RI 6S/IOE-19R1 45 566.72 9/8/70 573.94 4/28/72 PIC 6S/IOE-20P1 84 568.0 3/18/70 568.0 4/1/70 567.3 5/6/70 559.8 8/10/70 562.2 8/19/70 563.58 3/1/71 565.38 4/1/71 562.58 5/3/71 554.48 6/1/71 548.38 7/1/71 544.78 7/23/71 Destroyed P2c 6S/1OE-20P2 568.0 3/18/70 567.2 5/6/70 564.3 6/25/70 563.9 7/30/70 563.8 8/18/70 566.92 3/1/71 567.62 4/1/71 565.92 5/3/71 564.52 6/1/71 559.12 7/1/71 556.77 8/2/71 552.02 8/27/71 551.81 10/1/71 550.94 11/5/71 549.61 12/3/71 549.14 12/23/71 El 6S/1OE-20EI 62 583.0 10/27/70 Page 6 of 12 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.4-7 WATER WELL DATAa Map Reference Elevation of Number Well Number Depth (ft) Water Level (ft) Date 585.18 4/28/72 E2 6S/IOE-20E2 580.51 12/29/70 NI 6S/LOE-20N I 53.5 565.0 5/26/50 Cl 6S/IOE-28C1 58 569.0 12/12/50 DI 6S/1OE-28DI 39 568.19 10/22/71 D2 6S/I0E-28D2 51.5 571.0 3/12/51 E1C 6S/IOE-28E1 567.97 9/8/70 567.88 10/27/70 569.84 12/29/70 571.5 2/26/7! 572.1 3/26/71 571.75 4/30/71 570.4 5/28/71 568.5 7/2/71 566.0 7/30/71 566.17 8/27/71 565.82 9/24/71 565.9 10/30/71 566.17 12/3/71 567.5 1/7/72 569.3 2/4/72 570.84 3/3/72 572.1 4/7/72 572.8 4/21/72 572.42 4/29/72 571.50 5/26/72 570.00 6/23/72 569.58 7/7/72 569.17 8/25/72 570.92 10/6/72 573.00 11/24/72 573.42 12/29/72 Page 7 of 12 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.4-7 WATER WELL DATAa Map Reference Elevation of Number Well Number Depth (ft) Water Level (fit) Date E2 6S/1OE-28E2 74.5 574.5 6/30/51 E3 6S/1OE-28E3 43 577.0 5/1/56 E4 6S/1OE-28E4 56.5 575.0 4/19/52 E5 6S/10E-28E5 51 572.0 7/28/65 E6 6S/1OE-28E6 568.8 10/22/71 E7 6S/IOE-28E7 569.4 10/22/71 576.4 5/1/72 F1 6S/IOE-28F1 68 573.0 11/20/67 571.81 10/22/71 MI 6S/1OE-28MI 68 572.0 5/17/49 Al 6S/1OE-29AI 566.52 10/22/71 570.65 4/28/72 BIc 6S/1OE-29B I 567.45 7/1/70 567.42 8/3/70 566.22 9/1/70 566.37 10/1/70 566.87 11/2/70 567.07 12/2/70 567.17 1/4/71 566.6 2/1/71 568.57 3/1/71 569.57 4/1/71 568.43 5/3/71 567.87 6/1/71 565.97 7/1/71 564.82 8/2/71 564.15 8/27/71 564.15 10/1/71 563.57 11/5/71 563.57 12/3/71 563.77 12/23/71 564.57 1/31/72 Page 8 of 12 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.4-7 WATER WELL DATAa Map Reference Elevation of Number Well Number Depth (ft) Water Level (ft) Date 563.87 2/25/72 564.37 3/14/72 565.27 4/7/72 566.24 4/21/72 566.40 4/29/72 567.07 5/26/72 564.99 6/23/72 564.90 7/7/72 566.24 8/25/72 567.07 10/6/72 569.74 11/24/72 570.07 12/29/72 Di 6S/1OE-29D I 28.5 570.0 10/2/54 563.25 10/22/71 567.45 4/28/72 El 6S/lOE-29EI 38.5 572.0 7/16/53 E2 6S/IOE-29E2 31 567.0 8/31/55 E3 6S/IOE-29E3 60.5 572.0 7/13/62 E4 6S/I OE-29E4 40 572.2 1970 562.4 10/22/71 HI 6S/1OE-29H I 39 571.0 H2 6S/1OE-29H2 38.5 569.0 10/15/47 Jil 6S/IOE-29JI 37 570.0 5/27/60 J2 6S/1OE-29J2 35 567.0 6/4/56 570.55 2/3/72 J3 6S/1OE-29J3 35 572.0 1/8/53 J4 6S/IOE-29J4 74 566.0 11/18/52 J5 6S/1OE-29J5 46 568.0 7/25/64 J6 6S/IOE-29J6 40 572.0 6/2/52 J7 6S/1OE-29J7 45 571.0 6/13/53 J8 6S/1OE-29J8 28 572.0 4/12/49 J9 6S/1OE-29J9 38 570.0 5/13/50 Page 9 of 12 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.4-7 WATER WELL DATA"a Map Reference Elevation of Number Well Number Depth (ft) Water Level (ft) Date Jl0 6S/IOE-29J10 31 570.0 7/29/53 Jill 6S/IOE-29J1 1 36 572.0 6/14/57 KI 6S/IOE-29KI 30 575.0 3/19/52 K2 6S/1OE-29K2 47 573.0 6/7/63 Ql 6S/1OE-29Q I 40 566.0 RI 6S/1IOE-29R I 30 573.0 4/18/57 R2 6S/10E-29R2 50 564.0 11/16/54 BI 6S/10E-30B1 60 569.0 10/7/68 CI 6S/IOE-30CI 40 569.0 11/26/63 568.93 2/3/72 El 6S/I 0E-30E I 29 571.0 8/8/45 HI 6S/1I0E-30H I 42.5 570.0 9/18/65 H2 6S/IOE-30H2 49 572.0 10/28/57 AI 6S/I0E-32AI 49 570.0 6/7/56 A2 6S/1OE-32A2 41.5 575.0 6/11/51 P2c 6S/IOE-20P2 546.94 1/31/72 547.14 2/25/72 540.34 3/14/72 537.99 4/7/72 540.77 4/21/72 541.86 4/29/72 542.94 5/26/72 539.11 6/23/72 540.44 7/7/72 552.86 8/25/72 557.19 10/6/72 561.52 11/24/72 564.69 12/29/72 P3 6S/IOE-20P3 62 576.0 12/15/65 551.55 7/25/72 Ele 6S/IOE-21EI 42 557.91 7/1/70 559.59 8/3/70 Page 10 of 12 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.4-7 WATER WELL DATAa Map Reference Elevation of Number Well Number Depth (ft) Water Level (ft) Date 555.02 9/1/70 555.74 10/1/70 556.74 11/2/70 556.60 12/2/70 556.94 1/4/71 556.1 2/1/71 557.14 3/1/71 556.94 4/1/71 555.49 5/3/71 556.54 6/1/71 555.94 7/1/71 555.99 8/2/71 556.53 8/28/71 557.12 10/1/71 556.24 11/5/71 556.24 12/3/71 556.64 12/23/71 558.14 1/31/72 559.44 2/25/72 559.64 3/14/72 562.16 4/7/72 562.99 4/21/72 561.91 4/29/72 561.99 5/26/72 564.16 6/23/72 563.99 7/7/72 560.32 8/25/72 560.37 10/6/72 560.91 11/24/72 563.74 12/29/72 Page 11 of 12 REV 16 10/091

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.4-7 WATER WELL DATAa Map Reference Elevation of Number Well Number Depth (Ift) Water Level (ft) Date a Shown in Figure 2.4-25. h Not shown in Figure 2.4-25. c Monitor wells are underlined. Explanation of well numbering system: The well locations are identifiable by the well number. The well numbering system, which is commonly used by water resource agencies, including the U.S. Geological Survey, designates the location of the well within a 40-acre parcel of land. The standard one-square-mile section is subdivided into 40-acre parcels as follows: D C B A E F G H M L K J N P Q R As an example, suppose a given well is located as follows:

a. Township 7 South
b. Range 10 East
c. Section 32
d. northeast corner.

That well would be given the number, 7S/OE-32A1. The number I following the letter A indicates that this is the first well inventoried in the 40-acre parcel lettered A. All the wells within the immediate vicinity of the site are shown in Figure 2.4-25. These wells are identified and located by the last two digits of the previously described well numbering system and listed under the heading, "MAP Reference Number." Page 12 of 12 REV 16 10/091

                                                                                                       -   N
                                                                / b MONIIO INIAKI              .
                                                 ,                                L A K E R I' E SCALE T -                /                         CONTOUR INTERVAL 5 FT
                                                         ..                    N                     CONTOUR INTERVAL OFFSHORE 6 FT
                                /                                                   +

Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT

REFERENCE:

FIGURE 2.4-1 THIS MAP WAS PREPARED FROM PORTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING U.S.G.S. GUADRANGLES: ESTRAL BEACH, MICH.. 1942, STONY SITE VICINITY MAP POINT. MICH.. 1962, ROCKWOOD, MICH., 1952. AND FLAT ROCK, MICH., 1952.

                                                                                                   ,~-.-.--   /        7                   7  ~      r -
                                                                                                            ~        /                   */                    -- ~ -

CREEK SCEANINF

                                                     "              .FIGELAKE                                                                               ERIE
                                                          "    "        ,* . ,, .,.                                                                                    T    R"OENORTH
  • LAGOON REFERNCE: i- "~ j ..

PORIOOTE TITEO TOPORAPHICFERMI I ONTUTO 7/ ~~~~~ /*"1000 ~ ~ EM AFE2EM0 NDBFR EM 1000 2000

                                                        '"i/         *-.Z._                      "SAOUTH"i-,m                                                                      SCALE IN FEET
                                                                     .                 ,"                                  .'                     iFermi
                                                                       /"b      *U                                                                                    PDATED 2FINAL SAET ANALYSIS REPORT
                                                                                        ... ;FIGURE                      ,      ...                                                        2A4-2 4..          -    I                                                                       TOPOGRAPHY OF THE SITE AND ENVIRONS
                                                                     ... ..                  * .                , "*AFTER                                                      FERMI 1 AND BEFORE FERMI 2 PORTION OF THE DETROIT EDISONTOPOGRAPHICAL MAP - 19E6         /         ,

CREEK -- E, .... P "" TE- . TOPGRPHCA MA -/ -1972 low 0 Io0 2000 SCALE IN FEET T . MAP R 1 .- - ,, ............... _. ..--- _. Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.4-3 SITE TOPOGRAPHIC MAP

49) x Lýr. 4e i ~ I.E. ~ I 4 1 N

                                            ]~fi1:LA~

W~1~ I ~ ~' mm mu i wil 716 I i i Ur I K It

                                                 *E                    q I-r       £  ý   !      ý                  U-
     *o*

w~t

     -       -    .1 -~        I K~             *~ ~4..       4..4 4'i m   -   'I w-M~ o      ~ I I mu-             ~                                       R-1cr IoI                   ckE AE I         ifJ o -~
                                                   ~44 S                   I      *   -          ~S baii                                                Vvi
   -C-C,-, &-~-~g---

y I - 1ý41

                                          .q.~ ~

insvti I- toy PointsIT WooIan ri

                                                                                            -- C,,          __________________________________________

r f--'

                                                                                                   -L4                                                 a.IJWab~

praoe

            -1                            7- S N

urg

7 OT UWATERSHED BOUNDARIES a piel Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT war plant FIGURE 2.4-4 SWAN CREEK WATERSHED

REFERENCE:

PORTIONS OF DETROIT AND TOLEDO U.S.G.S. TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS.

N ~N 4/'13, G-RE.E GROUND

                                                                                                             * *                   " )/'1
                               *      *   "*7U         *                   -.'*-" [RIGO    FERI  ....             7_             '       -'"

[ENA¢ro FERMIii 1/ /i! 6 MONROE IN 1 / UPWELLNG/INGA K( E SCAL E IN MILES 6 V +CONTOUR INTERVAL 5 FT Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT

REFERENCE:

FIGURE 2.4-5 THIS MAP WAS PREPARED FROM PORTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING U.S.G.S. TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLES: ESTRAL BEACH, MICHIGAN, 1942, WATER CURRENT PATTERNS WITH WINDS FROM STONY POINT. MICHIGAN, 1952, ROCKWOOD, MICHIGAN, 1962, AND NORTHWEST THROUGH NORTHEAST FLAT ROCK. MICHIGAN, 1962.

JON N ~GROUND/ C - -. : N~.R~m6 PERU UNT '

  • FEM /"T Lx' -STE 23 i./
                                                                                                            -G E

SCALE'N oo N MILES

                                                         +                         I CONTOURIN ITERVAL 5 FT Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT

REFERENCE:

FIGURE 2.4-4 THIS MAP WAS PREPARED FROM PORTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING U.S.G.S. TOPOGRAPHIC OUADRANGLES: ESTRAL BEACH, MICHIGAN, 1942, WATER CURRENT PATTERNS WITH WINDS FROM STONY POINT, MICHIGAN, 1952, ROCKWOOD, MICHIGAN, 1952, AND EAST-SOUTHEAST THROUGH WEST FLAT ROCK, MICHIGAN. 1952.

N a,~ CUMPING GROUND

                                                                        .1 DUMPING GROUND K\

E SCALE IN MILES CONTOUR INTERVAL S FT Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.4-7

REFERENCE:

THIS MAP WAS PREPARED FROM PORTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING U.S.G.S. WATER CURRENT PATTERNS UNDER ICE TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLES: ESTRAL BEACH, MICHIGAN. 1942, CONDITIONS STONY POINT, MICHIGAN, 1952. ROCKWOOD, MICHIGAN, 1952, AND FLAT ROCK, MICHIGAN. 1952.

FERMI 2 UFSAR FIGURE 2.4-8 HAS BEEN DELETED THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LAKE ERIE (PERIOD OF RECORD 1140-t973)

      +6           MAIUMUM     MONTHLY    MEAN LAKE     LEVELS W073 1073  17373                                   03I       s I7 s 73 0

0 2 +4 03 I.- 41

      +3 0      +2
       -41                                                                                                                          41 LOW WATER DATUM 568.6 N.Y.M.T., IGLD*

0 HISTORICAL MINIMUM 0 MONTHLY LAKE LEVELS -

        -334                           o  344 0l                                 031934    1"3 4                               1934 3                             -5671.4 4

Is4 I,o4 567.49' 1it" low 1'111 114 1334.61on4 3i34 034 IiaI Il1 1934

       -2                           v    MINIMUM    MONTHLY MEAN LAKE LEVELS         (DESIGN)                                        -2 1973                                             1974                               1975
                                                                                                        *ADD 1.94' TO CONVERT TO N.Y.M.T., 1935 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.4-9

REFERENCE:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM MONTHLY MEAN MONTHLY BULLETIN OF LAKE LEVELS LAKE LEVELS FOR JANUARY 1974, NATIONAL OCEAN SURVEY, LAKE SURVEY CENTER.

y 1 9*1 8'30-1 Lke o.- Erie

                                            -   /           ORTHOGONAL$

ENRICO WAVE CRESTS _ WAVE ADVANCE - 25.5 WAVE LENGTHS TIME INTERVAL a 204 SECONDS LEGEND:

                                       -  - - -   LAKE BOTTOM CONTOURS SOUNDING DATUM: NYMT 1935 WAVES REFRACTED DURING TIDE - +16.4 FEET NYMT 1935 WAVE PERIOD - 1.0 SECONDS WAVE DIRECTION FROM N67.50E 100,000 30.000 0       100,000 SCALE IN FEET Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.4-10 WAVE REFRACTION

REFERENCE:

U.S. LAKE SURVEY, CHART NO. 39, 1968

N cov f 190Y o/ Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.4-11 SITE AREA TOPOGRAPHY SHOWING 583-FT CONTOUR

REFERENCE:

U.S.G.S. TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE STONY POINT, MICHIGAN - 1967.

5 4 u 03 0) z z, 0 0 0 10 .20 30 40 TIME, HOURS Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.4-12 UNIT HYDROGRAPH - SWAN CREEK AT MOUTH

U. IL ° 60 'a. 0 0 z I 0 us\ aJ 1-20 0I 0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 TIME, HOURS Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.4-13 PMF HYDROGRAPH - SWAN CREEK AT MOUTH

22 588 20 _ 8 M_ 1I8 584M 16 Hb--TOE EL.569- 582 z b- z 14 ft 580 H *TOE EL.57"2' 12 578 O E E L.57O 0HM ET

             --      1    --         -           +   .+11 6

S-15 WA9 -3T0 +3EFr 5 Su Nb~ ~ EGT~ O HR ~ ~ -. em

                                                             ~        ~          -       0RAIGWV ONIDRS AV (UPERLIIT              STIMU    (OUS WAVE ERIO SIGNIFICANT H ,, SIGNIFICANT WAVE HERIGHTD FIGURE 2.4-14 STORM SURGE HYDROGRAPH FOR PMME

N ~'. 8"..s' 6,17I0

                                                                    ~3o Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.4-16 FETCH DIRECTIONS

REFERENCE:

U.S. LAKE SURVEY, CHART NO. 39,1968

22 105 20 H 900e 95 96 ~ ~~ m-78.750 m _____1 18 85 16 75 w e m -90 ° x: ww 65 12 558 , 10 r "U-78.75' 4 -a U-90 _*~ ~ -8.. \ 5-.

2. 7 - -- o b4 2
         -15      a-12                -6                   +6     +12          +15 U   -COPOEN         WNOVEOCTYI                      m~am   '

TIME (HOURS) LEGEND: Hm = MAXIMUM HEIGHT H ,, SIGNIFICANT WAVE HEIGHT T ,, SIGNIFICANT WAVE PERIOD U CI UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.4-16 WIND AND WAVE CHARACTERISTICS VERSUS TIME

w 11 F I. w LL. 1 I--H-z I w w I-

               -                                                                   4
                -12       -6           0         +6       +12       +18        +24 TIME (HOURS)

LEGEND: ALL ELEVATIONS REFER TO NYMT, 1935. FOR A SHORE BARRIER TOE ELEVATION OF 569.0 FT AND CREST ELEVATION OF 583.0 FT: Htm - WAVE HEIGHT TRANSMITTED OVER SHORE BARRIER FOR INCIDENT MAXIMUM WAVEHEIGHTS Hts -WAVE HEIGHT TRANSMITTED OVER Fermi 2 SHORE BARRIER FOR INCIDENT UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT SIGNIFICANT WAVE HEIGHTS Hsup" MAXIMUM WAVE HEIGHT SUPPORTED OVER INLAND FLOODED PLANT FIGURE 2.4-17 GRADE IELEVATION 583.0 FT) WITHOUT BREAKING dt - DEPTH OF WATER AT SHORE BARRIER TRANSMITTED AND SUPPORTED WAVE HEIGHTS WITH A TOE ELEVATION OF 569.0 FT VERSUS TIME d -:INLAND DEPTH OF WATER ABOVE PLANT GRADE ELEVATION OF 583.0 FT.

STATIC FORCES BREAKING WAVE NO-BREAKING WAVE(I) BROKEN WAVE (MINIKIN METHOD) (SAINFLOU METHOD) PRESSURE (PSF) 2,960 2.925 3,060 THRUST (LBS./FT. OF WALL) 70.100 68,700 75.000 DYNAMIC WAVEPERIOD FORCES ARE 3.4 7.7 9.0 INDEPENDENT OF FORCES (SECONDS) 3.4 7.7 9.0 WAVE PERIOD 10i SLOPE 2,460 660 520 PRESSURE (PSF) ISO 15 180 1B2 122 S% SLOPE 3.000 go0 700 10% SLOPE 2,460 660 520 THRUST (LBS./FT. - 1,125 1.235 1.245 256 OF WALL) 5K SLOPE 3,000 900 700 CASE I 0 - 46.9' (DEPTH FROM STILLWATER LEVEL TO TOP OF REACTOR SLAB) d - 3.9' (DEPTH FROM STILLWATER LEVEL TO TOP OF PLANT GRADE) H - 3.0- (WAVE HEIGHT) BREAKING WAVE NON-BREAKING WAVE (I) BROKEN WAVE STATIC FORCES (MINIKIN METHOD) SAINFLOU METHOD) PRESSURE (PSF) 3.100 2.925 3.160 THRUST (LBS./FT. OF WALL) 77.000 68.700 80.100 DYNAMIC WAVE PERIOD FORCES ARE FORCES (SECONDS) 4.5 7.7 9.0 4.5 7.7 9.0 INDEPENDENT OF _ORCES__ _SCONDS_ WAVE PERIOD 10% SLOPE 4.480 1.870 1.460 PRESSURE (PSF) 268 312 319 215 5K SLOPE 5.500 2.460 1.9S0 10 SLOPE 8,060 3.360 2.640 THRUST ____________ ____ ____ (LBS./FT. 3.664 3.900 3,9So 814 IF WALL) 5% SLOPE 9.900 4.430 3.520 (I) DYNAMIC FORCES OF NON-BREAKING WAVES RESULT FROM CLAPOTIS AFFECT. CASE 2 0- 46.9'(DEPTH FROM STILLWATER LEVEL TO TOP OF REACTOR SLAB) d - 6.91 (DEPTH FROM STILLWATER LEVEL TO TOP OF PLANT GRADE) H - S.41 (WAVE HEIGHT) Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.4-18 WAVE PRESSURE AND FORCES AGAINST REACTOR BUILDING

BREAKING METHOD) WAVE NON-SREAKING WAVE(I) BROKEN WAVE STATIC FORCES (MINIKN (SAINFLOU METHOD) PRESSURE (PSF) 2.334 2.240 23) THRUST (LBS./FT. OF WALL) 43.641 40.208 4J.4 DYNAMIC WAV:CPERIOD FORCES ARE FORCES (s oNos) 3.4 7.7 9.0 3.4 7.7 9.0 INDEPENDENT OF WAVE PERIOD 10 SLOPE 2,460 660 520 PRESSURE ISO ISO 182 122 (PSF) S% SLOPE 3,000 900 700 10 SLOPE 2,460 660 520 THRUST 1,125 1,235 1,245 256 (LBS./FT. OF WALL) S% SLOPE 3.000 900 700 CASE I 0- 35X (DEPTH FROM STILLWATER LEVEL TO TOP OF HHR SLAB) d - 3.9' (DEPTH FROM STILLWATER LEVEL TO TOP OF PLANT GRADE) H - 3.0' (WAVE HEIGHT) iREAKING WAVE NON-BREAKING WAVE(1) BROKEN WAVE STATIC FORCES (HINIKIN MFETHOO) (SAINFLOU METHOD) PRESSURE (PSF) 2,409 2.240 2.477 THRUST (LSS./FT. OF WALl.) 48.487 40.208 49,174 DYNAMIC WAVEPERIO0 FORCES ARE INDEPENDENT OF FORCES (SECONDS) 4.5 7.7 9.0 I_ WAVE PERIOD 10% SLOPE 4.480 1,070 1.460 PSF) PRESSURE 268 312 319 215 5% SLOPE 5.500 2.460 1.950 10 S SLOPE 8,060 3,360 2.640 (LTIS.M.T' 3.664 3.900 3.950 814 OF WALL) S SLOPE 9.900 4,430 3,520 ( I) DYNAMIC FORCES OF NON-SREAKING WAVES RESULT FROM CLAPOTIS AFFECT. CASE 2 D - 32Jr (DEPTH FROM STILLWATER LEVEL TO TOP OF RHR SLAB) d - 6.9' (DEPTH FROM STILLWATER LEVEL TO TOP OF PLANT GRADE) H - 5.4' (WAVEHEIGHT) Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.4-19 WAVE PRESSURE AND FORCES AGAINST RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL COMPLEX

St4.$ CREST2r (LAPOrI$ SoI. -LAELL 111:1_STILLWATERl LEVEL

                                                                                                                            ).ISO LIS.#FT. OF WALL        IOTN&MI¢ FORCEl I. V&LIS              AL        Tun     MC I V

I FII 4TOP Go toOFPANLRAI 10.

                                  -TUB611K               SLAB                                                             (S TICTA 164.0                                                                                   NO C MNI   1 1)1 g                                                                                 I SSS.6               o     LOS/fl.

FWALL IA I TOPtTI STATICFORCE) CONDINION TOP or

                  $40.0                                00             ... .PIt 05 pR0ssut    (PSFl          (STATICPRESSURE)

WAVE PARAMITERS

                            .* 5.O9(AIUIT*OF OOIGINALFREEWAVE)

I. tV.0ECO$10s, (wAVEPWIO t I A - 5.09(OEPIVTAOSSITILLWATE LEVELTO TOPOF PLANTGRASE) NON-BREAKING WAVE S

                                                                                                    .=

PRESSURE(PSI) (Sill WAVE PAUFAETENS WAVEPARAMRETERS 5-)09 (EAIIRE WAVEi VEIGNES Vj.5.4- (MAKWING WAVEVEIGHT) I - 1ISOEPENOiNT VP WAVE '[IAOI I-. IIVSEPEROENT OFWAVEPEISIOSi 1b. 3.V I9-(SECAKIlG WAITE H) dA.A.V (SNEAKING ASTERSIPLI BROKEN WAVE CONDITION

                                    .-   ),OOWLIS./FT.OF WALL(OAA.IT           c FORCE)

ENl.0- II . -- -V .000 LAS ,/FT. OF WALL(OIYNR IC FOICE) 555.9- . IS" .000 PSF 1 V'IONMICPRiSSVAG) (.TRISArIPRESSURE)I

                                                                        'A1U                           616.0 7

POROUS ruTiiMPSIFA topor FILL

                                                                                                                                    ?TUSIE $LAS S

8 WI URIE LA SS*.S 5 .000 LIS./FT LSU.IFT. GsO. ;I WALL O LWALL (STATIC FORCEI) lOP Si TOPSF LEACSOR SLAll .0W

                                                                                                                                                        ,            A SRU lEACTOS
                   *IUU                   I          + I            i                 -T               540.0-               us          5 I       T0           1O"              21"0 Psi                                                        000ZGO           1.00 PE PRESSUREiPst)               (StATICPRESSURE)                                       PE11$U$E(F/iF             (STATICPRESSURE)

WAVEPAWWIETERS

                                                                                                                  %ll V.W, (EAIIRE        WAV VEIGWTIlml I-. W.VSEC$ONO If%191     I1T4AING (WAVE   PESISSI AIAVE OIWIT) di. S.9'       ISREAINQWATER EPTINi BREAKING WAVE CONDITION NOTES:
1. ALL ELEVATIONS REFER TO NYMT, 1935 DATUM
2. 5 PERCENT SLOPE ASSUMED Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.4-20 WAVE PRESSURE DISTRIBUTIONS AGAINST REACTOR/AUXILIARY BUILDING

CREST OF CLAPOTIS CREST OF CLAPOTIS EL.591 .1 STILLWATER LEVEL 5868 STILLWATER LEVEL 585.9 1245 LBS/FT OF WALL (DYNAMIC FORCE? 585.8 3950 LRSIFT. OF WALL IDYNAMIC FOfRCE) 5882 TOP OF PLANT GRADE 583.0 1,

           --     1-    182 PSF (DYNAMIC PRESSUREI                                                                                                                                           TOP OF PLANT GRADE 580..JF        -
                                                                                                                        "--W        I    319 PS*P DYNAMIC PRESSUREI 4

S 4 S 4 U 4 I- U I-P1OROUS FILL PFOROUS ILL 40208 LBS/FT. 563.0 40208 LBS.\/FT. 583.0 OF WALL OF WALL (ST7ATIC FORCEI (STATIC FORCE) EL.557.0 I TOP OF RHR SLAB I I TOP OF RHR SLAB 1000 2000 2240 1000 2000 2240 PRESSURE (PSFI ISTATIC PRESSURE) PRESSURE (PSF) (STATIC PRESSURE) WAVE PARAMETERS WAVE PARAMETERS H = 5.4' (HEIGHT OF ORIGINAL FREE WAVE) H = 3.0' (HEIGHT OF ORIGINAL FREE WAVE) T - 9.0 SECONDS (WAVE PERIOD) T = 9.0 (SECONDS (WAVE PERIOD) d - 3.9' IDEPTH FROM STILLWATER LEVEL TO TOP OF PLANT GRADE) d = 8.9' (DEPTH FROM STILLWATER LEVEL TO TOP OF PLANT GRADEI NON-BREAKING WAVE CONDITION Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.4-21, SHEET 1 WAVE PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION AGAINST RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL COMPLEX

WAVE CREST WAVE CREST 589.0 688.9 S\ STILLWATER LEVEL 586.9 5STILLWATER LEVEL TOP OF PLANT GRADE 583.0 I TOP OF PLANT GRADE F9 IROUS POROUS FILL FILL 564.2 I-491 74 LBS./T. 563.7 4- -45049

           \LBS./PT.

0 'F WALL OP WALL ISTA TIC FORCE) (STATIC PORCE) 551.0 I I

  • TOP OF RHR SLAB 551.0 I TOP OF RHR SLAB 1000 2000 2371 1000 2000 2477 PRESSURE (PSF) (STATIC PRESSURE) PRESSURE (PSF) (STA*IC PRESSURE)

WAVE PARAMETERS WAVE PARAMETERS Hb 3.0' (BREAKING WAVE HEIGHT) Hb - 5.4 (BREAKING WAVE HEIGHT) T = (INDEPENDENT OF WAVE PERIOD) T = (INDEPENDENT OF WAVE PERIOD) db 3.9' (BREAKING WATER DEPTH) db = 6.9' (BREAKING WATER DEPTH) BROKEN WAVE CONDITION Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2-4-21, SHEET 2 WAVE PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION AGAINST RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL COMPLEX

WAVE CREST WAVE CREST 589.9 5STILLWATER 588A LEVEL 586.9 56 STILLWATER LEVEL 6863 1 583.O TOP OF PLANT GRADE TOP OF PLANT GRADE 580.0 POROUS FILL POROUS FILL 563.5 43641 LBS./FT. 563.9 46487 LBS/FT. OF WALL OF WALL (STATIC FORCE)

                .STATIC FORCE) 531.0'                                          TOP OR RHR SLAB                                                                                  TOP OF RHR SLAB 551.      1             1 1000         2000  2334                                                                         1000         2000  2409 PRESSURE IPSFI         (STATIC PRESSURE)                                                      PRESSURE (PSF)           (STATIC PRESSUREJ WAVE PARAMETERS WAVE PARAMETERS Hb - 3.0' (BREAKING WAVE HEIGHT)

Hb .4' (BREAKING WAVE HEIGHTI T - 3.4 SECONDS (WAVE PERIODI T - 4.5 SECONDS (WAVE PERIOD) db - 3.9' WBREAKING WATER DEPTH) db = 6.9 WBREAKING WATER DEPTH) BREAKING WAVE CONDITION Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.4-21, SHEET 3 WAVE PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION AGAINST RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL COMPLEX

LEGEND CAP STONE 2 LAYERSTOTAL7.5 THICKAND 4.0' GTOE STONE: THICKRESP. MIN. SIZE - 3.0 TONS MAX SIZE - S5OTONS 50% BYWEIGHTSHALLCONSIST OF PIECES WEIGHINGOVER 4 TONS

                                                                                                                                                                                                                             -A- STONE:     2 LAYERS.TOTAL3.5' THICK LESS THAN 10% BYWEIGHT UNDERB00 POUNDS LESS THAN 50%BYWEIGHT UNDERBOG POUNDS
                                                                                *,.                                                                         VCTCCICAT*                  SCTiOME-E    (AS NOTED)                             LESS THAN 10% BYWEIGHT OVER2000
                                                                                                                                                            *W t,, ,             T9PICA. SHOREBARREREND                                       POUNDS "S" STONE;     2 LAYERSTOTAL1.5' THICK MAX.SIZE - 200 POUNDS NOT LESS THAN10% NOR MORE THAN 35%

BYWEIGHTCONSISTING OF PIECES I0 - T04 - WEIGHINGLESS THAN 20 POUNDS CRUSHED MINIMUM1.0, THICK STONE: MAXIDIAMETER - 6 INCHES JBARRIER) NOT LESS THAN10% NOR MORE THAN 31% SECIO E-E, (A NOTED)N BYWEIGHTCONSISITNG OF FINESWITH DIAMETERSLESS THAN3 INCHES ALTERNATE: CAP STONE. TOE STONE AND "A STONE SUBSTITUTEDBY CONCRETEBLOCKS - 4000 PSI TYPEV CEMENT AIR ENTRAINED

                                                         -                          I-rC                             u   I             N I.T                                                      O                                        CONCRETE ISEE SPEC. 3071-170)

S / ILA ~l C.N f I CCI A S EXCAVATEPEATAND OTHER UNSUITABLEMATERIALTO C4L EXPOSEACCEPTBLE SEARING STRTA PER S&PEC. I*I CT .- sr 3071-176. BORINGSINDICATETHIS STRATASTARTSAT C. IT r APPROX. 567'. coN

                                                     *0 1C II         In     C2.*                                                                                              BACKFILLWITHCLAY FILLSEALOR CRUSHED STONE IC(-~tII I 165 10*11CIC                   .      SECTION B-B                                                 3. FILLAREASBETWEENBARRIER AND EXISTINGSITE FILL CCI
                                                    ;wv MI       EL     OlV                                                                                              WITHCRUSHED STONETO EL 583.0 FT. A SMOOTH TRANSITIONTO THE EXISTINGPLANTGRADE IS REQUIRED. CRUSHEDSTONE SHALLCONFORM TO MOOTSTANDARDSPEC. FOR CONSTRUCTIONCLASS 1,A. PLACEDAT 120 PCFIN 12' LAYERS.                            NOTE.

01111~A CNIWC -n

4. MEA SEGMENTOF SHORE BARRIER END SHALLBE VARIATIONSBETWEENTHE AS BUILT ELE-FILLEDWITHA COMPOSITE OF CAP STONE. "'A" STONE. VATIONSAND DESIGNN ELEVATIONSOFCAP AND"'S"*BTONEWITHTHE HEAVIERSTONES ON OUTE1I STONEEXCEEDTHE SPECIFIED TOLERANCE
                                                                                                                                                ,      OI"
                                                                                                                                                        %                LAYERS. THE MATERIALSHALLBEPLACED IN A                         OF IS INCHESFOR MANY AREASOF THE MANNER TO PROVIDEA SMOOTHTRANSITION                            ISORE BARRIER.THEIB VARIATIONSHAVE MEN EVALUATEDBYTHE SHOREBARRIER BETWEENTHE HORIZONTALGRADE AT THE REAR OF                       ENGINEER  AND ARE ACCEPTABLE  AS THE BARRIERAND THE 3 ON 1 SLOPE ON THE FLANK.                   REPORTEDIN DAMESKM00E LTrrrR S. EXPECTEDNORMALMEANS MONTHLYLAKELEVELAN*                         DMO-01 DATEDJULY1.11 IM ANDSARGENT MEANTIDElN.Y.M.T., $SSS&).                     I A LUNDY LETTERSIJ MEL
                                                                                                                             +"P+            -*"
                                                                                                                                             "l
                                                                                                                                                       -a          ,    LOWWATERDATUMARE IN REFERENCE        TO NEW YORKr EHEET  PIUNG SHALL  BE P27  (UNITED DESIGNATION)  OR EQUAL  WITH STEELSTATES STEEL BRAND OR r

GRADE OF ASTIM-325 AND MINIMUMYIELDPOINT OF ICCICE 0 /m 385100 PSIl I *{L t , . 7, DRIVE SHEETPIUNG TO BEDROCKOR A MAXIMUM DEPTHOF EL'560.0' PRIOR TO EXCAVATIONWITH TOP m 111 AT EL $76.0' AND CUTTO EL 672.0' AFTER ARMOR UNITBHAVEBEENPLACED. SHEET PILINGLENGTH APPROX. 21-0". ,.

a. THISWORK IS GOVERNE BY30T7-176 PRIORTO SECTION C-C ECxcAVATIOL THE GROOUINDEITHER SUB OPTHE SI4EaING MUST9E EXCAVATEDTO SLIV. Srt-0".

Fermi 2 TVKB.INM MIKEAfeCES n.E.S B. SIORE BARRIERGA LEVELEHALLBEAR UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT NOTEDON SECTIONA-A. 10B.DEETING MATEBIAL & INSTALLATION SHALLBEGA LEVEL IlL 11411EC. 3071-1lU FOR GA REGIJIRIMENTS. FIGURE 2.4-22 SHORE BARRIER DESIGN DETROIT EDISON COMPANY DRAWING NO. 6C721-0040. REV. N REV 2 3/89

N 19 18 30' cA 10'I CANADA INDIANA -, ,.!,, .

  • EXPLANATION FOR THE UNITED STATES:

PATTERNS INDICATE AREAS UNDERLAIN BY ONE OR MORE AQUIFERS GENERALLY CAPABLE OF YEILDING TO A WELL AT LEAST 50 gpm OF WATER CONTAINING NOT MOR THAN 2000 ppm OF DISSOLVED SOLIDS (INCLUDING AREAS WHERE MORE HIGHLY MINERALIZED WATER IS ACTUALLY USED). LEGEND: UNCONSOLIDATED AND SEMICONSOLIDATED AQUIFERS

  • ALLUVIAL SAND AND GRAVEL

[7 WATERCOURSE - ALLUVIAL VALLEY TRAVERSED BY PERENNIAL STREAM FROM WHICH RECHARGE CAN BE INDUCED so ______ii__ii 0 SCALE, MILES SURFICIAL ALLUVIAL VALLEY NO LONGER TRAVERSED BY PERENNIAL STREAM (ABANDONED WATERCOURSE). OR BURIED ALLUVIAL VALLEY CONSOLIDATED - ROCK AQUIFERS Fermi 2 SANDSTONE (INCLUDES SOME SAND) UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT

        -C   ARBONATE ROCKS (LIMESTONE AND DOLOMITE; LOCALLY INCLUDE GYPSUM)

FIGURE 2.4-23 REGIONAL AQUIFER DISTRIBUTION

REFERENCE:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER SUPPLY PAPER NO. 1800, 1963.

0.

                                                                                                                    ~~*1
                                                                                                                                                              ** I6 30.

I I I I I I, I jj I I R0U30 Ii, j \3 ~%

                                                                                                                                                  '.   '6) r                    )         ~

L.. jj~

                                                                                                                                            I
                                                                                                      ~~--4            I~I                    I~       ~

IsI 3 I II II I I ii

                                                                                                                'I
                                                                                                               'I II II 3WI~Q, 3u~ 3
                                                                                             *4-j L-IiV..-.

LEGEND:

                                                                                                                                   -     570-            ELEVATION OF PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE DASHED WHERE INFERRED.

L, A K E £ E R .. ' E

                                                                                                                                                                            'IN"'"

SCALE IN MILES Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT

REFERENCE:

FIGURE 2.4-24 THIS MAP WAS PREPARED FROM PORTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING U.S.G.S. TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLES: ESTRAL BEACH, MICHIGAN, 1942, PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE 1961-1966 STONY POINT, MICHIGAN, 1952, ROCKWOOD, MICHIGAN, 1952. AND FLAT ROCK, MICHIGAN, 1952.

N G

       '.                      14                                                                                           /                 1 4

R E IN C Po T .~~ 7.7

  • N L . /.
                                      =,;.,   ,

2 4. "'* ] -* : '*' ." " ..

                                                                                            ...          *, (   / ... ,   U       -

A"- zn FERMI UNIT 1Fe FERM I U N IT I LEGEND: 8.* i~ ,.4-r...) 7' g 0 WELL LOCATION (SEE TABLE 2.4-7 FOR EXPLANATION OF WELL 59-,..I . NUMBERING SYSTEM.)

                                                                                                      /      "+i                                                     WELL WITH HYDROGRAPH PLOT.
                                                                                                                          *     *         *x P~rwx etmlt  ~           d        BeeachntUP rml 2
                                                                                                                                                                )ATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT CONTOUR INTERVALSS FEET FIGURE 2.4-25 WELL LOCATIONS

REFERENCE:

U.S.G.S. TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE STONY POINT. MICHIGAN - 1967.

19-1 8'30 LEGEND: o 1 3

  • 4 5 NUMBERS REFER TO NUMBER OF GROUNDWATER WELLS IN EACH SECTOR. SCALE IN MILES Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.4-26 WATER WELL DISTRIBUTION

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5. GEOLOGY AND SEISMOLOGY The Fermi site is located on the shore of the western end of Lake Erie at Lagoona Beach, Frenchtown Township, Monroe County, Michigan. Geologic and seismic studies of the Fermi site were conducted for Fermi 2 in 1968 and 1969. Detailed foundation studies were performed for the Fermi 2 reactor/auxiliary building in 1969, and rock foundation grouting for these structures was performed in 1970. Detailed foundation studies were performed in 1972 for the Fermi 2 residual heat removal (RHR) complex. Foundation grouting for the RHR complex has been completed. The geologic, seismic, and foundation studies for Fermi 2 were conducted by Dames & Moore (D&M) with the results of a few of the studies presented in the Fermi 2 PSAR. The location of Fermi 2 is shown in Figure 2.4-1. The topography of the site with the location of the principal plant facilities is shown in Figure 2.4-3. The site is located within the Central Stable Region tectonic province of the North American continent. Some regional faulting and seismic activity is known, but the region is characteristically one of relative stability. There are no known faults within 25 miles of the site and there are no capable faults within 200 miles of the site. Approximately 3100 ft of Paleozoic sedimentary rocks overlie the Precambrian basement in the area. Overlying the Paleozoic sedimentary rock strata are Pleistocene soils of glacial origin that are less than 20 ft thick at the site. The site is located on the southeast side of the Michigan Basin. The sedimentary rock strata generally dip to the northwest toward the center of the Michigan Basin. The bedrock immediately underlying the site consists of dolomites of the Bass Islands Group of the Silurian System. The Bass Islands Group is competent dolomite with thin shale beds and is variably fractured and contains some vuggy zones. No geologic conditions are known that could have an adverse effect on the safety of plant facilities. All major Fermi 2 Category I structures are supported in the Bass Islands dolomite. Foundation pressure grouting of the bedrock was performed to improve subsurface conditions. A test blasting program was conducted, and blast monitoring was provided during construction. Criteria for foundation treatment and design were formulated, based on foundation studies performed at the locations of Category I and other major structures. All Category I structures are designed to respond to peak horizontal ground accelerations of the rock surface at foundation levels of 8 and 15 percent of gravity for the operating-basis earthquake (OBE) and safe-shutdown earthquake (SSE), respectively. Site-related response spectra were used to analyze the response of structures to earthquake ground motion. The results of the geologic and seismic studies for Fermi 2 are summarized in Subsections 2.5.1 through 2.5.3. The stability of subsurface materials at the locations of Fermi 2 Category I and major structures is summarized in Subsection 2.5.4. 2.5.1. Basic Geologic and Seismic Information Basic geologic and seismic data were obtained by D&M for the Fermi site from 1968 through 1972 in three major programs:

a. Geologic and seismic studies in 1968 for the Fermi 2 site 2.5-1 REV 16 10/09

FERMI 2 UFSAR

b. Foundation studies in 1969 for the reactor/auxiliary building
c. Foundation studies in 1972 for the RHR complex.

The general scope of these studies is outlined in the following paragraphs. The geologic and seismic program of investigation conducted in 1968 at the Fermi site for Fermi 2 (Reference 1) included the following:

a. A thorough review of pertinent geologic literature (published and unpublished) and interviews with university and state geologists
b. A geologic reconnaissance of the site and surrounding area, and a review of maps and aerial photographs
c. Field explorations that were performed to evaluate the geologic and seismologic characteristics of the site, consisting of the following:
1. Geologic test boring program
2. Geologic inspection of the site and surrounding area
3. Geophysical refraction survey
4. Blast monitoring observations
5. Micromotion measurements
6. Borehole geophysical measurements
7. Ground water observations
d. A laboratory soil- and rock-testing program for Fermi 2 was conducted.

In 1969, a comprehensive foundation investigation was performed at the Fermi 2 reactor/auxiliary building and adjacent structures (Reference 2). The field explorations consisted of the following:

a. Test boring program
b. Water pressure testing in selected borings
c. Ground water observations
d. Ground water sampling.

Laboratory testing during this investigation consisted of density and unconfined compression tests on selected rock cores and chemical analyses of ground water. In 1972, a comprehensive foundation investigation was performed at the location of the Fermi 2 RHR complex (Reference 3). The field exploration program consisted of the following:

a. Test boring program
b. Water pressure testing
c. Piezometer installation
d. Geologic reconnaissance.

2.5-2 REV 16 10/091

FERMI 2 UFSAR Laboratory testing for this investigation consisted of pulsating load triaxial tests, unconfined compression tests, consolidation tests, moisture-density tests on soil samples, and unconfined compression tests on rock cores. Supplementary seismic evaluations were completed for the Fermi 2 site in October 1982 by Weston Geophysical Corporation. These evaluations led to the establishment of facility site specific response spectra that were subsequently used to validate the satisfactory nature of the original facility design-basis earthquake provisions. The site-specific earthquake was characterized in terms of Richter magnitude (from 4.9 to 5.9) and epicentral distance (25 km). Site-specific response spectra were developed from real-time histories for the appropriate magnitude and distance, and foundation conditions similar to the Fermi site. (Weston Geophysical Corporation, Draft Site Specific Response Spectra for Enrico Fermi 2; October 1982.) 2.5.1.1. Regional Geology 2.5.1.1.1. Physiography The Fermi site is located in the northern portion of the midwestern United States in the Central Lowlands Physiographic Province. This physiographic province has been subdivided into eight physiographic sections. Michigan is located in the Eastern Lake Section (Figure 2.5-1). The Eastern Lake Section is characterized by glacial landforms (including end moraines, ground moraines, outwash plains, kames, eskers, and drumlins) and by beach and lacustrine deposits formed during the fluctuations of the Great Lakes. The glacial deposits overlie maturely dissected bedrock cuestas and broad areas of relatively flat-lying bedrock. The bedrock is exposed locally. The bedrock surface was dissected prior to being covered with glacial drift. The rock surface tends to be gently rolling with well-developed valley systems. The Fermi site is located on a lake plain formed during the high-water stages of Lake Erie. There is little topographic relief on the lake plain, which results in poor surface drainage. It has been dissected by eastward-flowing creeks and rivers. The relief on the lake plain within the vicinity of the project area is approximately 25 ft. 2.5.1.1.2. Stratigraphy 2.5.1.1.2.1. Soil Units The soil units in the region include Pleistocene-aged deposits consisting of alluvium, lacustrine materials, peats, tills, outwash, glaciofluvial materials, glaciolacustrine materials, and residual soil. Figure 2.5-2 shows the distribution of surface Pleistocene glacial deposits of the southern peninsula of Michigan and portions of surrounding states. The site area is located in a glaciolacustrine section on the western edge of Lake Erie. The distribution of surface soil units within eastern Monroe County is shown in Figure 2.5-3. The soil deposits in Monroe County range in thickness from 0 to over 150 ft (Reference 4). 2.5-3 REV 16 10/09 I

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5.1.1.2.2. Rock Units The distribution of the rock units that form the bedrock surface within the region is shown in Figure 2.5-4 and the stratigraphic sequence of the various-aged rock units is shown in the legend. The rock units in the Michigan Basin consist of sedimentary strata of Jurassic, Pennsylvanian, Mississippian, Devonian, Silurian, Ordovician, and Cambrian ages, as well as an igneous and/or metamorphic complex of Precambrian-aged rocks. The sedimentary sequence in the Monroe County area includes Devonian- through Cambrian-aged strata. The local distribution of these strata is shown in Figure 2.5-5. These strata consist of 2500 to 3500 ft of limestones, dolomites, sandstones, and shales. The Precambrian basement in southeastern Michigan consists of crystalline rocks of igneous and metamorphic origin (Reference 4) and occurs at a depth of about 3100 ft. 2.5.1.1.3. Structural Geology The Fermi site is located within the Central Stable Region tectonic province of the North American continent. This tectonic province is characterized by a thick sequence of sedimentary strata overlying the Precambrian basement. The Precambrian basement is exposed in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and the upper peninsula of Michigan. During Paleozoic and early Mesozoic time, the area was subjected to a series of vertical crustal movements that formed broad basins and arches. The arches and basins have been modified by local folding and faulting. Major geologic structures are shown in Figures 2.5-6 and 2.5-7. The relation between structures and gravimetric and magnetic anomalies is discussed in Subsection 2.5.1.1.5.2. 2.5.1.1.3.1. Folding The distribution of major folds in the region is shown in Figure 2.5-6 and the characteristics of these folds are presented in Table 2.5-1. The Fermi site is located on the southeast side of the Michigan Basin, which corresponds to the northwest flank of the northeast-trending Findlay Arch. Ells (Reference 5) has proposed the name "Washtenaw Anticlinorium" to describe a broad northwesterly plunging structure in southeast Michigan that is composed of several smaller folds. This broad structural feature covers about 4500 square miles within Michigan and continues into Ohio, Ontario, and Lake Erie. Local structures within this broad structurally high region include the Howell Anticline, the Freedom Anticline, and the Lucas Monocline. The northwest-trending Howell Anticline is located north and northwest of the project area. The northwest-trending Freedom Anticline is located west of the project area, and the north-to-northwest-trending Lucas Monocline lies southeast of the project area and along the projected trend of the Bowling Green Fault. The direction and amount of regional dip of the strata in south-eastern Michigan are variable. in the vicinity of the site, the strata dip northwest toward the Michigan Basin at 0.50 or less (Reference 4). The Howell Anticline approaches to within about 25 miles north of the site and extends approximately 80 miles to the northwest. The northwest-southeast-trending fold is located on the southeast flank of the Michigan Basin and has a maximum structural relief, in the early Paleozoic rocks, of about 1000 ft (Reference 22 in Reference 5). The relief is less 2.5-4 REV 16 10/091

FERMI 2UFSAR pronounced in the younger strata. It has been suggested that faulting is associated with the Howell Anticline (References 5, 6, and 7) as discussed in Subsection 2.5.1.1.3.2. The Lucas Monocline is a north-to-northwest-trending series of folds in southeastern Michigan located approximately 30 miles southwest of the site. It has been inferred by Ells (Reference 5) that the Lucas Monocline may connect with or be associated with the Bowling Green Fault, which is mapped in northwest Ohio (References 6 and 8). Other researchers (Reference 9) have inferred that the Lucas Monocline is actually a fault structure. The folds bend northwestward in southern Michigan where they join the Freedom Anticline. The early Paleozoic rocks in this folded area have a maximum structural relief on the order of 500 ft. The Chatham Sag (References 5 and 10) is a broad, gentle northwest-trending syncline that has been mapped as far south as the north shore of Lake Erie. The axis of the syncline lies about 50 miles northeast of the site. The Chatham Sag crosses the Findlay-Algonquin Arch System and is virtually unrecognizable in the early Paleozoic strata. A system of small faults, the most prominent of which is the Electric Fault, is associated with this structure. Several small earthquakes have occurred near the juncture of the Findlay, Cincinnati, and Kankakee Arches. These earthquakes cannot be associated with any known structures, but are believed to have occurred along a zone of structural weakness that separates the three arches. A portion of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) tectonic map of the United States is shown in Figure 2.5-8. This map shows the detail of some of the structural features in the Michigan Basin area. 2.5.1.1.3.2. Faulting The distribution of major faults in the region is shown in Figure 2.5-7, and their characteristics are presented in Table 2.5-2. The Bowling Green, Electric, Tekonsha Trend, and Albion-Scipio Trend faults are the four major faults within 100 miles of the project area. The Bowling Green Fault is located approximately 35 miles southwest of the site. It has been inferred by some workers (Reference 9) that faulting extends northward into southeast Michigan. Some (Reference 5) have inferred that major faulting is not present in this area in Michigan and have interpreted the structure to be a result of folding. Others (Reference 11) believe no major faulting to be affiliated with the structure at all, and interpret it as being a monocline. Since the very existence of the fault is in question, no clear-cut evidence is available that would either indicate age of last movement or definition of the fault. For purposes of conservatism, the Bowling Green structure is assumed to be a fault. The fault is not believed to extend into Michigan (Reference 12). The evidence available for faulting is described as follows (Reference 7): A drop by faulting of more than 200 feet in the top of the Trenton Limestone is indicated between well locations in the vicinity of Findlay, Cygnet, and Bowling Green, Ohio. The fault which is down-thrown on the west extends northward and connects with the Lucas County (Ohio) - Monroe County (Michigan) monocline. 2.5-5 REV 16 10/09

FERMI 2 UFSAR Thus, the only evidence of the age of last faulting is Middle Ordovician (based upon evidence in the Trenton Limestone). Evidence of faulting along the west flank of the Howell Anticline has been presented (References 7 and 13) and it has been suggested that total vertical displacement may be as much as 1000 ft (Reference 13). The type of faulting, amount of displacement, and orientation have not been absolutely determined. More recent work (Reference 5) has revealed that faults of major displacement are not believed to exist in connection with the immediate west flank of the Howell Anticline and it is shown that, although minor faulting may have occurred along the west flank or across the structure, it is not of the magnitude generally described by earlier investigators. Developments of the Howell Anticline associated with major faulting may have begun as early as Late Ordovician and continued throughout most of the Paleozoic. If the presence of Jurassic-aged rock in the Michigan Basin is considered, developments may have taken place as late as Cretaceous time. The age of last faulting within the State of Michigan, however, appears to be Paleozoic (Reference 14). A system of faults located 45 miles northeast of the site is associated with the Chatham Sag. The Electric Fault in this fault system has a reported maximum vertical displacement of 300 ft (Reference 15). Maximum displacements of less than 100 ft have been reported for other faults in this system (Reference 15). Faulting has been postulated along the Tekonsha oil field structure, and several small seismic events have been tentatively correlated to these. The structure trends northwest-southeast for an inferred length of 60 miles. Only limited, minor structural indications of this fault have been recorded. The age of the faulting in the southeastern portion of the Michigan Basin is assumed to be Ordovician, although some evidence exists of minor movement in post-Ordovician time (Ells, personal communication). The Keweenawan-Lake Owen Fault System lies northwest of the Michigan Basin, approximately 430 miles northwest of the site. It has a northeast trend on the Keweenawan Peninsula in Lake Superior. Vertical displacements on this fault system of a few thousand feet to more than 9000 ft are known (Reference 16). This fault system is not associated with the Michigan Basin. The Rough Creek-Kentucky River Fault System in southern Illinois and central Kentucky is approximately 350 miles south of the site. 2.5.1.1.3.3. Pop-up and Affiliated Structural Features Pop-up features in bedrock have been identified in various parts of western New York State, and in Canada. The existence of several of these features has been documented (Reference

17) in various parts of the North American continent and their existence has been attributed to the release of postglacial horizontal compressive stresses. In addition to occurring in regions where activities of Man have been limited, these and affiliated phenomena have been seen in man-made structures such as excavations into bedrock.

2.5-6 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR Actual pop-ups have not been noted in southeastern Michigan or adjacent portions of Ohio, Indiana, or Canada, but surficial folding of Devonian shales has been observed in northwestern Ohio. Although pop-ups have not been specifically documented in the site region, pop-ups or "heave" are fairly common occurrences in quarries in a wide range of localities due to a reduction of lithostatic load. The small mound-like features noted during the mapping of excavation at the site are believed to be of organic origin. During the excavation process, no rockbursts, pop-ups, or heaves were seen. This can be attributed to a lack of compressive stresses as described in Reference 17 and insufficient depth of excavation to reduce lithostatic loading sufficiently to cause such features to occur. 2.5.1.1.4. Ground Water In the region surrounding the site, ground water aquifers are present in two types of material: glacial outwash deposits and Paleozoic bedrock. An expanded discussion of regional ground water conditions is found in Subsection 2.4.13. 2.5.1.1.5. Geologic History 2.5.1.1.5.1. General The study of geologic history provides an insight as to the tectonic stability of a region and a better understanding of stratigraphic relationships between various soil and rock units. It also furnishes correlative data that assist in the interpretation of events in adjacent regions. An accurate interpretation of geologic history is the result of years of cumulative effort. It is based on numerous examinations of soil and rock units in exposures, and from borings with regard to lithology and fossil content. The generalized stratigraphic succession and the distribution of the bedrock units in Michigan are presented in Figure 2.5-4. They are composite in nature. The entire series of stratigraphic units is not likely to be encountered at any given locality; however, it is a graphic illustration of the changing geologic history. Individual time units are discussed in the following paragraphs, and the tectonic and structural features mentioned are shown in Figures 2.5-6 and 2.5-7. 2.5.1.1.5.2. Precambrian The basement rocks of Michigan are Precambrian in age. They include granite, felsic and mafic gneiss, volcanics, metavolcanics, metasediments, mafic volcanics, and mafic intrusives (Reference 18). Radiometric dates range from approximately 600 to 3500 million years (Reference 19). These rocks represent a complex series, of geologic events that include sedimentation, uplift and erosion, subsidence and deposition, mountain building, volcanism, and igneous intrusions followed by erosion, which have produced an irregular surface upon which the overlying Paleozoic sediments have been unconformably deposited. The regional Bouguer gravity map (Figure 2.5-9) and the regional magnetic map (Figure 2.5-

10) of the Southern Peninsula of Michigan substantiate the conclusion that the basement 2.5-7 REV 16 10/09 I

FERMI 2 UFSAR rocks are both structurally and lithologically complex. The Mid-Michigan Anomaly, the dominant feature of the gravity map and to a lesser degree of the magnetic map, has been interpreted by Hinze (Reference 20) as originating from the mafic rocks of Keweenawan age similar to those that outcrop in the Lake Superior region. This feature consists of a positive gravity anomaly and a correlative magnetic high. Pirtle (Reference 21) states, "...it is believed that the principal folds now existing in the later sediments are controlled by trends of folding or lines of structural weakness which existed in the basement rocks." This opinion is still the prevalent one shared by most workers (Reference 20). The most obvious example of this correlation is the alignment of the Washtenaw Anticlinorium with the Mid-Michigan Anomaly in Washtenaw and Livingston Counties. 2.5.1.1.5.3. Cambrian At the beginning of the Cambrian Period, a mountainous belt extended across most of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Erosion of topographic highs dominated while clastic sediments accumulated in the surrounding lowlands. Paleozoic deposition in southern Michigan began when Late Cambrian seas spread across the interior of the continent, depositing clean sandstones, dolomites, and limestones characteristic of shallow, clear seas with bordering land masses of low relief. The accumulation of sediments in the Michigan Basin originated with Late Cambrian subsidence. During this period of geologic history, the Michigan and Illinois Basins were not separated. This early, undifferentiated basin is known as the Eastern Interior Basin. 2.5.1.1.5.4. Ordovician The Ordovician was the period during which Paleozoic seas became fully established in Michigan. The variable nature of the rocks in southern Michigan, as revealed by deep-boring data, suggests fluctuating marine conditions. Deposition of Lower Ordovician dolomite and sandstone indicates that seas were present in the Lower Peninsula while absent in the Upper Peninsula. Two regressions of the sea during the Ordovician are indicated by unconformities within the sedimentary sequence of southern Michigan, one at the top of the Prairie du Chien Group during the Early Ordovician and the other at the top of the Eden Group during the Late Ordovician. 2.5.1.1.5.5. Silurian Seas persisted in Michigan from Ordovician into Silurian time. Apparently, the entire state was occupied by offshore waters so that the Silurian marine deposits in Michigan are mainly chemical precipitates formed in clear seas. Locally, shallow banks supported reefs. It is believed that coral reef formations along the margins of the Michigan Basin effectively isolated the basin area from the main marine body and formed an evaporation basin. Great accumulations of Silurian salt, anhydrite, and gypsum were formed. The Silurian was. a time of accelerated downwarping of the Michigan Basin. Slight expressions of the Findlay and Kankakee Arches are seen in the Upper Silurian sediments in the southeast and southwest corners of Michigan, respectively. 2.5-8 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR Near the close of the Silurian Period, the seas withdrew from the Michigan Basin. 2.5.1.1.5.6. Devonian During Early Devonian time, the southeastern portion of the Michigan Basin was subjected to erosion and/or nondeposition. To the north and northwest, however, marine sedimentation continued. By Middle Devonian time, the Michigan Basin was fully occupied by the sea, which deposited limestones and, finally, shales in a relatively shallow-water environment. 2.5.1.1.5.7.Mississippian Marine waters that existed since Middle Devonian time continued into Early Mississippian time. Alternating shales, siltstones, and sandstones are representative of sediments of Mississippian age. Tilting of the Michigan Basin area is believed to have occurred in Early Mississippian time, resulting in a marked expression of the Findlay Arch and possibly the northeast-southwest trending folds in the central portion of the Michigan Basin. Toward the close of Early Mississippian time, a major regression of the sea maintained much of southern Michigan as a near-shore and beach environment. Middle Mississippian rocks are absent, which indicates that either there was no deposition due to a complete withdrawal of the sea from Michigan., or there was deposition and subsequent erosion. Upper Mississippian deposits indicate a transgression of the sea. Some evaporite deposits similar to those found in Silurian sediments are present. Near the close of the period, the seas freshened and limestone was deposited. In latest Mississippian time, the Michigan Basin was subjected to uplifting and folding that involved the Precambrian basement features. This activity produced many of the structures in Paleozoic rocks of the Michigan Basin in which gas and oil later accumulated (References 19 and 22). 2.5.1.1.5.8. Pennsylvanian The pattern of alternating sedimentation established during the Mississippian Period continued into Pennsylvanian time and reached its peak with a characteristic cyclical sedimentation of alternating marine, brackish-water, and terrestrial deposits. Organic accumulation in the brackish-water swamps formed widespread coal beds. From Pennsylvanian time to the Pleistocene Epoch, the area remained above sea level. Erosion prevailed in post-Pennsylvanian time with the exception of some terrestrial sandstone and shale deposition during the Jurassic Period. The entire Mesozoic Era was relatively inactive, although broad uplift and some erosion did occur. Minor fault activity is believed to have taken place along the Keweenawan Fault System into Cretaceous time. 2.5-9 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR Geologic evidence suggests that southern Michigan existed as a low stable land mass for over 200,000,000 years, while the Appalachian Mountains, Rocky Mountains, and other structural features in North America were being formed or were undergoing additional movements. 2.5.1.1.5.9. Jurassic The geologic record is almost completely missing from the end of Pennsylvanian time until the Pleistocene. The only rocks representing this long span of time are some sedimentary strata that for many years were referred to simply as "red beds." Their age was long uncertain but was thought to be Pennsylvanian. Early maps showed them as such. In recent years, fossilized microscopic plant spores have been found in well samples from the red beds. They have been identified as being Late Jurassic in age (Reference 19). Surface exposures of the rocks have not been found, and their presence beneath the glacial drift has been demonstrated only by well samples. The Jurassic red beds are normally about 100 ft thick, but in places attain thicknesses of 300 to 400 ft (References 19 and 22). The rock consists mainly of sandstone, shale, and clay, with minor beds of limestone and gypsum. 2.5.1.1.5.10. Pleistocene Glaciation began during Pleistocene time some 1,000,000 years ago. In general, four distinct glacial advances are recognized throughout North America during this division of geologic history. From oldest to youngest, these are known as the Nebraskan, Kansan, Illinoian, and Wisconsinan glacial stages. There is positive evidence in Michigan for only the Wisconsinan glacial advance. However, Illinoian and Kansan glacial deposits are found to the south of Michigan in Ohio and Indiana. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Michigan was overridden by at least these two earlier advances as well (Reference 19). The Wisconsinan glacial deposits blanket large portions of Michigan (Figure 2.5-2). These deposits represent a complex series of ice lobes that advanced and retreated a number of times. The ice sheets modified the Great Lakes basin and are responsible for almost all of the present-day surface topography. 2.5.1.2. Site Geology 2.5.1.2.1. Physiography The site area (Figure 2.4-3) is located on a featureless lacustrine plain (Figure 2.4-1) along the western shore of Lake Erie. The plain was formed during the high-water stages of Lake Erie. It is essentially flat lying and generally poorly drained, but it has been slightly dissected along Swan Creek, which flows into Lake Erie at the northern edge of the Fermi site. The plain slopes gently to the east. The average elevation of the lacustrine plain is about 660 ft above mean sea level, or approximately 90 ft above mean lake level. The relief within the site boundaries is approximately 9 ft. 2.5-10 REV 16 10/091

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5.1.2.2. Stratigraphy 2.5.1.2.2.1. Soil Units Local sand deposits are encountered in an old channel of Swan Creek at the north end of the site, and in the barrier beach, which forms the shoreline of Lake Erie at the site. Other sand deposits are encountered offshore. The maximum thickness of sand encountered in the lake is 25 ft. More recent surficial deposits of silt, peat, and clay are encountered in the lower, swampy areas at the site. A compact, relatively impermeable till mantles the rock throughout the site area. Occasional boulders, up to 3 ft in diameter, are encountered near the bedrock surface. The till is approximately 14 ft thick and is overlain by about 7 ft of impermeable stratified lacustrine clay. Approximately 5 ft of lacustrine peaty silts and clay had been removed from the site area at the time of the Fermi 2 foundation investigation. The surface of glacial till was exposed at an average elevation of 566 ft, which is approximately 6 ft below the water surface of adjacent Lake Erie. The till consists of nearly impermeable silty to sandy clays with varying amounts of gravel and cobbles. The thickness of the till deposit on top of bedrock within the immediate Fermi 2 plant area, as determined from the borings, ranges from a minimum of 8 ft to a maximum of 15.5 ft, and has an average thickness of approximately 14 ft. Wider variations may be present since both the upper and lower surfaces of the till are erosional surfaces. 2.5.1.2.2.2. Rock Units The bedrock strata in the site area range in age from Silurian to Precambrian as shown in Figure 2.5-11. The bedrock surface is shown in Figure 2.5-12. A total of 40 test borings were drilled at the site for Fermi 2 detailed foundation studies. The locations of these borings are shown in Figures 2.5-13 and 2.5-14. The deepest boring at the site extended 109 ft into the Unit C bed of the Salina Group. Relationships between the units encountered during the drilling program are shown in the subsurface sections, Figures 2.5-15 through 2.5-20. The description of the stratigraphic units below Unit C of the Salina Group is based on published reports. The estimated thicknesses of these deeper units are based on logs of boreholes drilled in the general area and on interpretation of structural geologic maps of the general area. Bass Islands Group - Dolomite of the Bass Islands Group forms the uppermost bedrock stratum at the site and overlies the Salina Group. In the borings at Fermi 2, the Bass Islands dolomite is a gray-brown, thinly bedded rock of dense, finely crystalline character. Black shale partings about 1/8 in. in thickness are interspersed throughout the dolomite at spacings of about 4 in. Both the dolomite bedding and the shale partings are essentially horizontal. Occasional soft gray clay seams between 1/4 in. and 8 in. in thickness occur at random in the dolomite and are usually associated with fractured zones and vugs. Two marker beds in the Bass Islands Group were penetrated by the borings and have been correlated throughout the site. The upper marker bed is an oolitic dolomite ranging from 1.8 to 3.5 ft in thickness. The lower marker bed is a soft black shale. Recovered thickness of the shale among the several 2.5-11 REV 16 10/09

FERMI 2 UFSAR borings ranges from 0.2 to 1.2 ft; however, its in-place thickness is greater than the amounts recovered. Fractures are present to a variable degree in the Bass Islands Group; joints are relatively tight and discontinuous, and usually display only very minor solution activity. The dominant trends of joints are N45°-60°W and N40°-50'E and are nearly vertical in dip (Reference 23). Where the rock is densely fractured, intervals have closely spaced joints that form fragmented zones. Fractures are oriented from 0' (horizontal) to 900 (vertical), and the thickness and depths of these zones are variable throughout the site. The fragmented zones range in thickness from a few inches to as much as 4.5 ft, and average about 1 ft. Small vugs are present throughout the Bass Islands Group. They range from barely visible to 2 in. in maximum dimension. The amount of open space created by vugs ranges from about 0 to 30 percent of the total rock mass, with an average of 5 percent to 10 percent. Numerous vugs are also present which are lined with crystals of the mineral celestite. Fractures connect some of the vuggy zones, which increases the permeability to the rock mass. The thickness of the Bass Islands Group, where fully penetrated by the borings, increases from 13.5 ft at boring 20 where part has been removed by erosion, to 101 ft at boring 201 (Figures 2.5-13 and 2.5-14). Salina Group - The Salina Group at the site is subdivided into five beds referred to as:

a. Unit G, shales and argillaceous dolomite
b. Unit E, argillaceous dolomite
c. Unit C, dolomite
d. Unit A-2, dolomite
e. Unit A-i, dolomite.

Borings at the site encountered only the lower portion of the Bass Islands Group and extended as deep as Unit C of the Salina. Beds of the Salina Group in the site area consist of alternating layers of dark gray dolomite and shale. The maximum thickness of Salina Group strata penetrated during drilling was 224 ft in boring 79. None of the borings passed through the Salina Group into lower strata. Some brecciation was noted at the Bass Islands-Salina contact. No salt beds were encountered in the vicinity of the site. Figure 2.5-21 is an isopach map of the Salina salt beds in southeastern Michigan. Salt present in Wayne County thins to the south and is absent in Monroe County. The only salt underlying the site is an insignificant quantity in the form of very small salt crystals (1/16-in. in diameter) disseminated through several feet of a dense dolomite in the Unit G, E, and C formations. The shale intervals of the Salina Group, as observed in recovered core, range from soft to hard and from 0.01 ft to 2.2 ft in thickness. Gray clay seams in the sequence are soft and occur predominantly in fractured and vuggy zones, and are responsible for the lower percentages of core recovery. The vugs are sedimentary features caused by decay of fossil matter or other depositional and consolidation features and do not indicate karst conditions at the site. Little of this material was recovered during drilling, but the maximum clay thicknesses are believed not to exceed 1 ft. 2.5-12 REV 16 10/091

FERMI 2 UFSAR Unit G - Unit G directly overlies Unit E and consists of gray, hard and soft shales, dolomitic shales, and argillaceous dolomites with occasional traces of anhydrite. Unit G was observed to be about 60 ft thick at the site. Unit E - Unit E, which directly overlies Unit C, consists of gray to brownish-gray, vuggy, shaly dolomite, dolomitic limestone, and limestone breccias. All vugs encountered in the borings were less than 2 in. in diameter. Due to the vugged zones, the unit is highly permeable and shows minor artesian ground water flow. Unit E is uniformly about 60 ft thick in the vicinity of the site. Unit C - Unit C directly overlies the A-2 dolomite unit and consists of a buff to gray, hard, thin- to medium-bedded dolomite with thin seams of shaly dolomite and anhydrite. Generally, anhydrite layers were less than 6 in. in thickness and the thickest layer encountered was a 6-ft layer in boring 209 at approximate Elevation 295 ft. The base of Unit C was not penetrated in the borings drilled for this study. Unit C is estimated to be about 140 ft thick at the site. Units A-2 and A The A-2 and A-I units are buff-white to brownish-gray, very finely to finely crystalline dolomite. Stylolites, argillaceous thin layers, and partings are present. Although the test borings at the site did not go as deep as the A units, the units are considered to be present below the site. Niagaran Group - The Niagaran Group consists of buff, gray, and light brown, fossiliferous, finely to coarsely crystalline dolomite. This group is stratigraphically equivalent to the Clinton and Guelph-Lockport Groups of southeastern Ontario, and has an estimated thickness of 425 ft near the site (Reference 24). Cataract Group - This group is a buff to gray, fossiliferous dolomite with thin layers and partings of green to gray shale. Traces of pyrite and glauconite are present. Estimated thickness near the site, based on Michigan well logs, is 100 ft. Richmond Group - The Richmond Group contains approximately 625 ft of shale and dolomite, based on Monroe County well logs. The shale is gray to green with some brick-red units throughout the section. Dolomite occurs as stringers within the shale and as gray to buff, fossiliferous beds containing red and gray shale seams. Trenton-Black River Group - The Trenton Group is generally undivided in subsurface from the underlying Black River Group. These rocks consist of gray-brown to buff, fossiliferous dolomite and dolomitic limestone with noticeable oil stains and gas shows. Estimated thickness near the site is 825 to 850 ft. Several thin layers of metabentonitic clay occur within a 1-ft zone at the bottom of the Trenton Group. These layers have been noticed in drillers' logs of Monroe County and are discussed by Hussey (Reference 25). The Trenton-Black River Group unconformably overlies the St. Croixan Series at the site due to the local absence of Lower Ordovician deposits (Reference 16). St. Croixan Series - The St. Croixan Series comprises dolomite, sandstone, and minor amounts of shale in approximately 475 ft of section. The dolomite is buff, white to gray, slightly glauconitic, finely crystalline, and occasionally shaly. The dolomite occurs in the upper section of the series and is underlain by buff, white to gray, fine- to coarse-grained sandstone. Gray shale layers occur throughout the sandstone as partings or more uncommonly as beds several feet in thickness. 2.5-13 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR Precambrian - The Precambrian basement is a metamorphic-igneous complex composed of granite and granitic gneiss (Reference 18). Estimated depth near the site to the Precambrian rock is about 3100 ft. 2.5.1.2.3. Structural Geology The borings have not disclosed faulting at the site. Differential elevations in the bedrock strata were investigated and are interpreted as a shallow synclinal fold. The axis of the fold trends approximately N60°W and passes through the Fermi 2 area, as shown in Figures 2.5-22 and 2.5-23. The strata dip toward the axis of the fold at about 40 and 1.50 to the north and south sides, respectively. The axis of the synclinal fold plunges to the northwest at about 1.50. Several marker beds were used to trace the folding and to determine the configuration and continuity of the rock structures. The primary marker bed used was the lower oolitic horizon in the Bass Islands dolomite. Other marker beds were a thin continuous shale seam within the Bass Islands Group, and the contact between the Bass Islands Group and the Salina Group. Small local folds of the shale, encountered at the site area, are quite common in southeastern Michigan and are not necessarily related to regional tectonic trends. Many have been detected through oil and gas exploration in Monroe and Wayne Counties. 2.5.1.2.3.1. Jointing The Bass Islands dolomite is highly jointed. The vertical joints range from open to closed. Some are filled with gypsum, anhydrite, or selenite. The nature of this jointing has been observed in excavations for Fermi 2 and in a quarry located less than 1 mile west of Fermi 2. This quarry has been allowed to fill with water, and excavations for Fermi 2 have been filled so that observation of these joints has been obliterated. Nevertheless, mapping of the joints has been accomplished in the excavation for the reactor/auxiliary buildings (Reference 24) and more recently in the excavation for the RHR complex. Mapping of the excavation for the reactor/auxiliary building indicated trends of N45°-60°W and N60°-50°E. The RHR complex excavation exhibits joint trends of N2l °-35°W and N54°-72°E. Quantity and degree of openness ofjointing tends to decrease with depth in all excavations encountered at the site. 2.5.1.2.3.2. Folding The regional structure at the site indicates a northwest dip of less than 0.5'. Local warpings superimposed on the regional dip are known to be present. Contour maps drawn using the base of an oolitic horizon marker bed within the Bass Islands Group indicate a shallow synclinal fold (Figures 2.5-22 and 2.5-23). The axis of the fold trends approximately N60°W and passes through the Fermi 2 area, as shown in Figures 2.5-22 and 2.5-23. The fold is asymmetrical and the strata on the northeast side dip southwest at about 4'. The strata on the southwest side dip northeast at about 1.5'. The axis of the syncline plunges northwest at about 1.5'. A small anticlinal feature superimposed on this shallow synclinal fold is indicated on Figure 2.5-23 on the basis of boring data. During the course of mapping of the 2.5-14 REV 16 10/09

FERMI 2 UFSAR excavation, this feature was also observed. It was noted that, in general, foundation surface bedding planes are higher in the east-central region of the excavation and gently dip to the south, west, and north, implying a slight doming of the bedding planes in this region of the excavation. 2.5.1.2.3.3. Faulting There are no reported faults within 25 miles of the site. All reported regional faults are tabulated in Table 2.5-2 and are shown in Figure 2.5-7. 2.5.1.2.4. Ground Water The surficial deposits at the site consist of low-permeability glacial till, lacustrine clay, and peat. Some fine sand is present along the shoreline of Lake Erie. The surficial deposits locally act as a confining layer above the Paleozoic bedrock aquifer, and a slight artesian pressure exists at the site. More detailed information on ground water conditions at the site is found in Subsections 2.4.13 and 2.5.4.6. The rate of flow of artesian ground water was noted at varying depths during the 1968 and 1969 boring operations for Fermi 2 Category I structures and is shown in Table 2.5-3. Similarly, any noticeable odor of hydrogen sulfide gas was noted. These observations are presented on the boring logs. Chemical analyses of ground water were made and the results are given in Subsection 2.5.4.6. 2.5.1.2.5. Geologic History The geologic history of the region is discussed in Subsection 2.5.1 and includes the history as represented by the geologic units from the Precambrian to the Pleistocene. At the site, the borings penetrated only the Middle and Early Silurian rocks (Niagaran and Cayugan Series) indicated on the site stratigraphic column, Figure 2.5-11. The presence of Precambrian, Cambrian, and Ordovician rocks underlying the Silurian sequence shown on the legend of the regional geologic map, Figure 2.5-4, has been proven by borings in areas adjacent to the site, and these rocks are probably present at the site. Those portions of the regional geologic history that are applicable to the site are the Precambrian, Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, and Pleistocene. 2.5.1.2.6. Hydrocarbon Production and Subsurface Gas Storage Potential Neither hydrocarbon production nor subsurface gas storage is believed to have great potential within the site vicinity. 2.5.1.2.6.1. Hydrocarbon Production Potential As mentioned in Subsection 2.5.1.2.2.2, oil stains and gas shows have been noted in the Trenton-Black River Group of Middle Ordovician age. The Trenton-Black River Group does hold distinct possibilities for future hydrocarbon production. Virtually all Ordovician hydrocarbons have come from the eight-county area which includes Monroe and surrounding counties. Of this production, the AlbionScipio Trend, which crosses Calhoun, Hillsdale, and Jackson Counties, accounts for nearly 74 2.5-15 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR percent of the productive drilled acreage and most of the cumulative Ordovician hydrocarbons (Reference 26). The eight-county area has been analyzed for hydrocarbon yield per square mile and has been thought to have been adequately drilled to assess its future potential. Ells (Reference 26) says: For the purpose of estimating the amount of undiscovered hydrocarbons in the Middle Ordovician Trenton-Black River rocks, it is assumed that the eight-county area has been completely explored, that no additional fields will be found and that the total production from this area amounted to 92,694,457 bbl. From this standpoint, although the majority of Ordovician oil is presently obtained from this eight-county area and primarily from the Albion-Scipio Trend, significant future hydrocarbon development is unlikely and the remainder of the Michigan Basin holds more promise for increased future development. 2.5.1.2.6.2. Subsurface Gas Storage Potential Subsurface storage of gas has been successfully carried out in the State of Michigan and has been largely restricted to converted gas fields. The nearest such field that has been used for subsurface storage of gas is the Northville Field in Wayne County. Other fields affiliated with subsurface gas storage are found in St. Clair and Macomb Counties at some distance from the site. Monroe, Lenawee, and Washtenaw Counties and most of Wayne County are not considered prime candidates for gas storage. Increased gas storage is far more likely in regions of converted gas fields (Reference 27). This would preclude any great potential for subsurface storage of gas in isolated anticlinal structures as may occur in the site region. 2.5.1.2.7. Engineering Geology Geologic conditions at the site are considered satisfactory for the support of the foundations of the Fermi 2 facilities. The foundations for all Category I structures are established into the Bass Islands dolomite beneath the glacial till and lacustrine deposits. Fracturing is present to a variable degree in the Bass Islands Group. It ranges from sparse to dense. In the former case, the fractures occur as singular, isolated structures of different lengths and orientations. Other intervals are characterized by closely spaced fractures that form fragmented zones. The fragmented zones range in thickness from a few inches to as much as 4.5 ft. They average about 1 ft in thickness. The thicknesses and depths of these zones are variable. Occasionally they occur at similar elevations, but the extent of lateral continuity is difficult to ascertain. Vuggy zones are present throughout the Bass Islands Group and range from barely visible - size to 2 in. in maximum dimension. The amount of open space created by vugs ranges as high as 30 percent of the total rock mass with an average of 5 percent to 10 percent. Fractures connect some of the vuggy zones, the connections thereby increasing the permeability of the rock mass. Comprehensive subsurface explorations, careful inspection of all excavations, and monitoring of foundation grouting (Subsection 2.5.4) ensure that no cavities of 2.5-16 REV 16 10/09

FERMI 2 UFSAR detrimental size underlie the plant structures. Several sinkholes are known in Whiteford, Bedford, and Ida Townships of Monroe County (about 15 to 20 miles from the site), but none are reported or have been encountered in the site area (Reference4). Nearly all occur in rocks of the Detroit River Group, which lie stratigraphically above the Bass Islands Group and are not present at the site. A study of older published reports of drillers' logs and of four modem reports, including detailed study of well logs and cuttings conducted by Eschman, indicates that no salt deposits underlie the Fermi site (Reference 1). Figure 2.5-21 indicates the thickness of salt deposits in the Salina Group in southeastern Michigan. The contours shown represent points of equal thickness. The 0 isopach line or contour, therefore, represents the outer margin of the salt beds. The Fermi site is outside the salt area. The nearest occurrence of salt is shown to be about 10 to 15 miles north of the site. There is no solution mining within 17 miles of the site and the local geology indicates that there is no likelihood of future solution-mining activity in the site area, because minable salt does not occur within 15 miles. The closest reported salt-mining operation was in Wayne County about 17 miles north-northeast of the Fermi site (Reference 28). This is the same general area of current active mining operations that was studied in detail in the D&M report of the River Rouge Generating Plant site (Reference 29). Accidental gas blowouts, associated with oil and gas exploration activity, have occurred to the north in the region (Reference 30). In blowouts, gas has been known to travel several miles along permeable horizons from the source well and cause damage in the outcrop area of the permeable stratum. However, there is no anticipated danger of gas blowouts at the site since the highest relatively permeable stratum in the area is the Salina E formation, which outcrops beyond the shoreline in Lake Erie. The results of ground water chemical analyses show that ground water at the site contains concentrations of sulfates that are potentially deleterious to portland cement, concrete, or grout. The potential for sulfates affecting cement, concrete, or grout stems from their chemical composition. When certain alumina-bearing compounds are present in the cement of a hardened concrete, its exposure to water containing sulfate ions results in the formation of ettringite, accompanied by a volumetric expansion within the fabric of the hardened paste, which can result in disruption of the gel structure. Hence, for concretes that will be exposed to sulfate containing soils or waters, low tricalcium aluminate (3 CaO.A1 2 0 3) cements are often specified (Reference 31). For this reason, Type V, modified Type II, and Canadian Standards Association (CSA) A5-1971 cement was used for grouting and for all subsurface concrete construction that would come into contact with the ground water. Since there is no known tricalcium aluminate present within the Category I crushed-rock backfill and it is not bonded like a concrete or cement grout, there would be no similar deleterious effect upon the crushed-rock backfill. Consolidation characteristics are described in Subsection 2.5.4. 2.5-17 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5.1.2.8. Test Borings Geologic borings were drilled at the Fermi 2 site in 1968, 1969, and 1972 to determine the details of the lithology, structure, and physical properties of the subsurface strata. Borings were drilled in 1970 to determine static and dynamic soil and rock properties. The borings range in depth from 12.1 to 324.7 ft below the ground surface and were drilled at the locations indicated in Figures 2.5-13 and 2.5-14. Detailed descriptions of the soil and rock encountered in the borings are presented in Figures 2.5-24 to 2.5-56. The soils were classified. The Unified Soil Classification System is described in Figure 2.5-57. Rock was cored utilizing NX and BX coring equipment and samples of the overburden soils were obtained. The field exploration program was conducted under the technical direction and supervision of D&M. Rock core from other borings drilled under the supervision of Soil and Foundations Associates was carefully examined by D&M. Five of the borings were utilized for pressure tests to obtain water leakage data as an aid in establishing criteria for dewatering and foundation grouting. The results of pressure testing are shown to the right of boring logs 201, 203, 209, 210, and RHR-3 in Figures 2.5-33, 2.5-35, 2.5-42, 2.5-43, and 2.5-50. 2.5.1.2.9. Geophysical Explorations Geophysical investigations performed at the site in 1968 consisted of a seismic refraction survey and a borehole geophysical survey. The velocity of compressional wave propagation and other dynamic properties of the natural subsurface materials were determined by these studies, and were used in evaluating the response of the materials to earthquake loading. The results of the field geophysical studies are presented in Figures 2.5-58 through 2.5-61. Micromotions were measured to indicate the pattern of vibration at the site based on ambient background vibration analyses. These measurements, given in Table 2.5-4, are of assistance in estimating any predominant natural period of vibration at the site. Poisson's ratio and other dynamic moduli for the various materials (crushed-rock fill, glacial till, Bass Islands Group) in the stratigraphic section at the site were estimated based on computed and/or empirical data for similar materials. Shear wave velocities for the upper bedrock at the site were computed using the measured compressional wave velocities from the refraction survey and estimated Poisson's ratio. The computed shear wave velocities were then confirmed by the data developed in the borehole geophysical survey. In general, relatively good agreement was obtained from these two methods of evaluating shear wave velocity. Compressional wave velocities for the deeper rock strata have been measured in the region. These data were used to compute shear wave velocities for the deeper rock strata, based on estimates of Poisson's ratio measured in similar materials. Measured and computed geophysical data for the stratigraphic section at the site are presented in Figure 2.5-58. 2.5-18 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5.1.2.9.1. Geophysical Borehole Logging Borehole geophysical measurements were made in three deep borings by the Birdwell Division of Seismograph Service Corporation. Four types of logs were run, providing the following categories of reduced data:

a. Compressional wave velocity (in situ) (Figure 2.5-58) at each 1-ft interval
b. Shear wave velocity (in situ) (Figure 2.5-58) at each 1-ft interval. (In these three borings the shear velocity was not measured directly, but was calculated from an empirical relationship between compressional velocity and bulk density)
c. Poisson's ratio (Figure 2.5-58) computed from compressional wave velocity and shear wave velocity
d. Bulk density, derived from density log (Figure 2.5-58).

Representative logs are shown graphically in Figures 2.5-59 and 2.5-60. 2.5.1.2.9.2. Seismic Refraction Survey Two seismic refraction surveys, shown in Figure 2.5-61, were conducted to evaluate the bedrock characteristics at the site during the 1968 Fermi 2 investigation. The seismic lines were located along the barrier beach at the east edge of the site, as shown in Figure 2.5-22. One line was 250 ft long and the other was 500 ft long with some overlap in coverage. The results of the seismic refraction surveys were used to obtain dynamic properties of the foundation materials. Permanent records of the compressional waves generated from this survey were obtained using an Electro- Technical Labs ER75012 Seismic Timer, a 12-trace refraction seismograph. Geophone spacing was 25 and 50 ft, respectively, for the two lines. The compressional velocities measured during these studies are presented in Figures 2.5-58 and 2.5-61. Access to additional geophysical refraction work in southeastern Michigan was provided by others. The compressional wave velocities measured in other regional surveys were slightly higher than the results obtained during this study. The other profiles were in slightly different material, higher in the geologic column. During the refraction surveys, the vibration levels within the existing Fermi 1 plant, and wave data generated in the foundation materials by the explosive charges, were monitored by a blast monitoring program. 2.5.1.2.9.3. Ambient Vibration Measurements Ambient vibration measurements were made at two locations during the 1968 Fermi 2 investigation using D&M Micromotion Equipment (Hosaka Recording System). This equipment, which measures ambient ground displacements, has a magnification of up to 150,000. The equipment is capable of recording ground displacements ranging in frequency from 1 cycle per second to 30 cycles per second. The ambient vibration records can be used to indicate predominant periods of ground motion at the site, under the test strain levels. Ambient station measurement No. 1 was obtained on 2 ft of soil covering a rock outcrop in an old quarry located in the northwest portion of the site. The second measurement was on 2.5-19 REV 16 10/091

FERMI 2 UFSAR approximately 20 ft of soil overlying rock. At the first location, the intensity of ground motion was very low with only a slight suggestion of predominant periods, indicative of hard rock. At the second observation point, the intensity of ground motion was so low that it was obscured by machinery noise. The depth of bedrock at each location and the predominant ground periods observed are indicated in Table 2.5-4. 2.5.1.2.10. Laboratory Tests During the 1968 investigations of Fermi 2, representative rock cores that were extracted from certain borings were subjected to a laboratory testing program to evaluate the physical properties of the rock encountered at the site (References 1 and 2). The depths of the rock cores that were tested and tabulated in Table 2.5-5 and in Appendix 2D represent depths from the original ground surface. In some cases the rock samples tested were from above the foundation level. Testing of rock samples from this zone was carried out in order to arrive at conservative foundation design parameters since the rock above foundation level is more weathered and less competent than the rock below. Laboratory tests included the following: a, Density tests

b. Unconfined compression tests c, Shockscope tests
d. Resonant column tests.

The density and unconfined compression tests were performed in accordance with ASTM standards. The shockscope and resonant column tests were performed according to generally accepted methods. There are no ASTM standards for these tests. Chemical analyses of ground water samples were performed during the 1969 investigation. Additional laboratory testing was performed in 1972 on soil samples and rock core obtained from borings at the Fermi 2 RHR complex (Reference 3). 2.5.1.2.10.1. Static Tests Density Tests - Density tests were performed on representative rock cores that were selected from 1968 and 1969 borings made during the investigation of Fermi 2. The results of these tests are given in Table 2.5-5. Unconfined Compression Tests - During the 1968 and 1969 Fermi 2 boring program, several representative unconfined compression tests were performed on selected rock samples to evaluate the strength and elasticity characteristics of the bedrock. The tests on the rock cores were performed by the Robert W. Hunt Company in accordance with ASTM standards. The results of the rock compression tests and associated density determinations are presented in Table 2.5-5. Later, during the 1972 foundation investigation for the RHR complex, additional unconfined compression tests were performed by the Robert W. Hunt Company. The results of these tests are given in Table 2.5-6. 2.5-20 REV 16 10/091

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5.1.2.10.2. Dynamic Tests Shockscope Tests - Several samples of the rock materials underlying the site were tested in the shockscope during the 1968 and 1969 studies. The shockscope is an instrument developed by D&M to measure the velocity of propagation of compressional waves in the material tested. The velocity of compressional wave propagation observed in the laboratory is used for correlation purposes with the field velocity measurements obtained in the geophysical refraction and borehole surveys. In the shockscope test, samples are subjected to a physical shock under a range of confining pressures, and the time necessary for the shock wave to travel the length of the samples is measured using an oscilloscope. The velocity of compressional wave propagation is then computed. Since this velocity is proportional to the dynamic modulus of elasticity of the sample, the data also are used in evaluating dynamic elastic properties. The results of the tests are presented in Table 2.5-7. Resonant Column Tests - Resonant column tests were performed on two representative samples of rock from the 1968 boring program to determine the shear modulus of rigidity of these materials. The samples are subjected to steady-state, sinusoidal, torsional forces applied to the top of the sample. The frequency of the force application is varied until the resonant frequency (the frequency associated with the maximum steady-state amplitude) is attained. The shear modulus is computed from the resonant frequency of the sample. The results of the resonant column tests are presented in Table 2.5-8. 2.5.1.2.11. Static and Dynamic Properties of Foundation Materials Static and dynamic soil and rock properties of foundation materials for Fermi 2 were determined for the reactor/auxiliary building and adjacent turbine and office service buildings and are presented in Table 2.5-9 (Reference 32). The properties were modified for the Fermi 2 RHR complex in order to be representative of the local soil and rock conditions. The properties used for design criteria for the RHR complex are presented in Table 2.5-10 (Reference 3). 2.5.2. Vibratory Ground Motion Basic Fermi 2 site vibratory ground-motion evaluations were conducted by D&M in 1968. A reaffirmation of the acceptability of this early work was provided by Weston Geophysical in 1982. The following paragraphs of this section present the data summarized from the original D&M investigation. However, any recent data of significance are identified and appropriately noted. 2.5.2.1. Geologic Conditions of the Site A complete discussion of the regional stratigraphy, structure, and geologic history is found in Subsection 2.5.1. This site is located within the Central Stable Region of North America, an area in which the geologic structure is relatively simple. The region is characterized by a system of broad, circular to oblong sedimentary basins that include the Michigan, Appalachian, and Illinois Basins. Stable regions, including the Cincinnati Arch Complex 2.5-21 REV 16 10/09

FERMI 2 UFSAR (including the Findlay, Algonquin, and Kankakee Arches), separate the basins. Numerous secondary features are superimposed on these broad structures. The site lies along the southeast edge of the Michigan Basin and northwest of the axis of the Findlay Arch. Precambrian crystalline basement rock lies about 3 100 ft below the ground surface in the vicinity of the site. The crystalline basement complex is mantled by sedimentary rocks of Paleozoic age (Subsection 2.5.1.1.2.2). The bedrock surface at the site ranges in depth from approximately 15 to 30 ft below the existing ground surface. The overburden materials consist of sands, silts, and clays of Pleistocene age. The uppermost bedrock unit at the site consists of the Bass Islands dolomite of Late Silurian age. Prior to glaciation, the Bass Islands Group was covered by deeply weathered and jointed rocks that experienced solution activity. Glacial advance and retreat scoured the younger rocks, and exposed the hard and relatively unweathered Bass Islands Group. The Bass Islands dolomite is on the order of 80 ft thick in the site area. The Salina Group underlies the Bass Islands and is about 525 ft thick near the site. This material consists of interbedded shales, limestones, and dolomites and is underlain by the Niagaran dolomite. Faults have not been identified within the basement rocks or overlying sedimentary strata at the site. The closest fault, the Bowling Green Fault, is postulated approximately 35 miles southwest of the site. The vertical displacement of this fault is thought to be several hundred feet. Other known faults in the area are more distant from the site. Most faults in the region are believed to have been dormant since late Paleozoic time, at least 200 million years ago (Subsection 2.5.1). Folding is known throughout southeastern Michigan. The most prominent secondary feature is the Howell Anticline, located in the southeastern portion of the Michigan Basin. Since the area has undergone multiple Pleistocene glaciation, it may be inferred that this region has been subjected to repeated slight bending in the last few hundred thousand years (Subsection 2.5.1). 2.5.2.2. Underlying Tectonic Structures A discussion of tectonic structures in the region surrounding the site is found in Subsection 2.5.1. The most significant structural features are listed below:

a. The Bowling Green Fault trends north-south in north-western Ohio. An inferred extension of this fault lies approximately 35 miles southwest of the site (Subsection 2.5.1.1.3.2)
b. The Howell Anticline, the most prominent fold in the region, approaches to within about 25 miles north of the site and extends approximately 80 miles to the northwest (Subsection 2.5.1.1.3. 1)
c. The Chatham Sag is a broad, gentle, northwest-trending syncline that has been mapped as far south as the north shore of Lake Erie. The axis of the syncline lies about 50 miles northeast of the site. A system of faults,"including the Electric Fault, is associated with this structure (Subsection 2.5.1.1.3.1)
d. The Keweenawan Fault System, which is characterized by vertical displacements from a few thousand feet to more than 9000 ft, lies northwest of the Michigan Basin approximately 430 miles northwest of the site. It has a 2.5-22 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR northeast trend on the Keweenawan Peninsula in Lake Superior (Subsection 2.5.1.1.3.2)

e. The Rough Creek-Kentucky River fault complex in southern Illinois and central Kentucky approaches to within about 350 miles south of the site (Subsection 2.5.1.1.3.2).

2.5.2.3. Behavior During Prior Earthquakes Although a few distant earthquakes have been felt at the site, detailed onsite studies suggest that their intensities have not been sufficient to affect local surface or subsurface materials. There is no physical evidence at the site to indicate that the area has experienced seismic activity at any time. 2.5.2.4. Engineering Properties of Materials Underlying the Site The engineering properties of unconsolidated surficial deposits and bedrock are presented in Subsections 2.5.1 and 2.5.4. Seismic wave velocities are presented in Subsections 2.5.1.2.9, 2.5.1.2.9.2, and 2.5.4.2; density values are presented in Subsections 2.5.1.2.9.1, 2.5.1.2.10, and 2.5.4.2; water contents are indicated by wet and dry density values given in Subsection 2.5.1.2.10; rock quality designation is presented below and in Subsection 2.5.4.2; and strength characteristics are given in Subsections 2.5.1.2.9.1 and 2.5.4.2. 2.5.2.5. Earthquake History 2.5.2.5.1. 1968 Evaluation The site is located in one of the most seismically stable regions in the United States. No earthquake epicenter has been located closer than about 25 miles and only seven earthquakes have been reported within 50 miles of the site since the beginning of the 19th century. None of these shocks were greater than Intensity V on the Modified Mercalli Scale.* Eleven earthquake epicenters of Intensity V to VIII have been reported within 50 to 100 miles of the site and another 24 of Intensity V to VII are located at distances between 100 and 200 miles. The closest Intensity VII shock was located at 90 miles and the closest Intensity VIII shock was located at 100 miles from the site. A list of larger earthquakes located 200 or more miles from the site is presented in Table 2.5-12. A list of earthquakes with epicenters located within a distance of about 200 miles from the site is presented in Table 2.5-13. This list presents all reported earthquakes within 50 miles of the site and significant shock (Intensity V and greater) within 200 miles of the site. The epicenters of these shocks are shown in Figure 2.5-62.

  • All intensity values in this subsection refer to the Modified Mercalli Scale. The intensity scale, which is described in Table 2.5-11, is a means of indicating the relative size of an earthquake in terms of its perceptible effect.

2.5-23 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR Although at least six shocks have been felt at the site within the past two centuries, the maximum intensity at the site has not exceeded Intensity IV. None of the recorded earthquakes caused any damage at or near the site. Since the beginning of the 19th century, twelve earthquakes of Intensity V or greater have been reported within 100 miles of the site, and only 37 earthquakes of Intensity V or greater have been reported within about 200 miles of the site. The 1776 and 1925 events have not been located precisely enough to plot on the figure. Few were of high enough intensity to cause structural damage to reasonably well-built structures. None of these shocks were greater than Intensity VIII and only six can be considered more than minor disturbances. These earthquakes occurred in 1875 (Intensity VII), 1930 (Intensity VI and VII), 1931 (Intensity VII), and two in 1937 (Intensity VII and VIII). The epicenter of the closest of these shocks was about 100 miles from the site. These six earthquakes, along with a number of smaller shocks, are concentrated in a 40-mile-long northeast-southwest-trending zone extending south of Lima, Ohio. This zone of earthquake activity is located near the juncture of the Findlay, Cincinnati, and Kankakee Arches. The earthquakes closest to the site were four Intensity III and IV shocks near Toledo, Ohio (about 30 miles distance), an 1877 Intensity V shock west of Detroit, Michigan (about 30 miles from the site), and a 1961 Intensity V shock in northern Ohio (about 55 miles south of the site). The several Intensity III and IV shocks were reported in the Toledo newspapers. These shocks were not felt at the site. The 1961 earthquake occurred near the Bowling Green Fault and/or the confluence of the Bowling Green Fault with the axis of the Findlay Arch. The 1877 Detroit shock has not been related to any specific geologic structure. Although one or more of these small shocks may have been felt in the vicinity of the site, there were no reports of disturbance near the site, and no damaging effects were experienced. It is estimated that intensities at the site due to these shocks were on the order of III or less. The other five earthquakes within 50 miles of the site were Intensity V or smaller and probably were not felt at the site. For purposes of this study, it is considered that the most significant earthquakes in the region were the 1937 Intensity VII to VIII earthquakes south of Lima, Ohio; the 1947 Intensity VI earthquake in south-central Michigan; the 1943 Intensity V earthquake in Lake Erie, about 100 miles east of the site; and the 1961 Intensity V earthquake in northern Ohio. This evaluation has been made considering such factors as epicentral intensity (with regard to both damage to structures and perceptible area), distance from the site, and geologic structure (with regard to the possible relationship of geologic structure near the earthquake epicenter to structure near the site). A discussion of each of these significant earthquakes follows. The earthquake of March 8, 1937, was the single most significant shock recorded within 200 miles of the site during the period of record. The shock occurred in an area that has experienced the most concentrated earthquake activity within the region. The area is located at the south end of the Findlay Arch near the confluence of the Cincinnati and Kankakee Arches. Residual stress fields from late Mississippian time may still be slightly active in this area and this locality is probably weaker than the surrounding region due to the confluence of structural features. Earthquakes in the region were generally located at the transition between major tectonic features, rather than within a structural block. The earthquake was felt in an area of about 150,000 square miles. The shock was reported in the 2.5-24 REV 16 10/091

FERMI 2 UFSAR Detroit newspapers and was felt near the site with about Intensity IV. The effect in Michigan was not great and no damage resulted. The earthquake of August 9, 1947, occurred at approximately 8:47 p.m. northeast of Kalamazoo, Michigan. The effects near the epicenter were minor, consisting primarily of damage to a few brick chimneys. There also were reports of loose plaster shaken from ceilingsand loose bricks shaken from a few buildings. Based on the damage reports, the epicentral intensity of this earthquake was Intensity VI. The earthquake was felt within an area almost 200 miles in radius. The shock was felt in the vicinity of the site with Intensity III or less. This shock may be related to the Tekonsha oil field structure (see Subsection 2.5.1.1.3.2). The earthquake of March 8, 1943, occurred at about 11:26 p.m. The maximum intensity of this shock was probably Intensity V and the duration of shaking was only several seconds. It was felt in a relatively large and irregular area extending from Toronto, Ontario, as far south as Zanesville, Ohio. The total perceptible area of this shock was on the order of 40,000 square miles. Its location in the middle of Lake Erie reduced the area likely to sustain damage. The damage from this earthquake was trivial, with the highest intensity (VI) reported in Cleveland, Ohio. In Detroit, houses shook and windows rattled, but there were no reports of damage or of tall-building disturbance which is usual for more distant larger shocks. The shock was felt in the vicinity of the site and was reported to be about Intensity III. This shock may be related to an extension of the Chatham Sag into the northern part of Lake Erie. The Intensity V earthquake of February 22, 1961, was the largest and most recent shock within 55 miles of the site. The epicenter of this shock has been located near the southern end of the Bowling Green Fault. Since only one seismograph recorded this shock, its specific location is somewhat tenuous. The shock was felt only in the local area and no damage resulted. The shock was not felt in the vicinity of the site. The limited perceptibility of this recent earthquake, indicating a rather low energy release, minimizes its significance in this study. 2.5.2.5.2. 1986 Reaffirmation Earthquake reassessment activities, in which new site-specific earthquakes were defined and which provided documentation of the satisfactory conclusions reached from evaluation of the preceding earthquake history, were completed in 1982. Additional seismic activity has occurred since 1968 and is summarized through July of 1986 in the following paragraphs. Six more earthquakes have occurred within 200 miles of the site. Two of these were minor disturbances located near Colechester, Ontario, with epicentral intensities of III and IV. One occurred in 1968 near Attica, Michigan, with an epicentral intensity of V. The three others were located in Ohio near Celina, Perry, and St. Mary's and had intensities of VI, VI, and V respectively. Six other earthquakes can be added to the list of earthquakes located 200 or more miles from the site. A 1975 earthquake was located near Wellston, Ohio (Intensity V), about 215 miles from the site. A major earthquake shook Sharpsburg, Kentucky (Intensity VII) in July 1980, 2.5-25 REV 16 10/091

FERMI 2 UFSAR about 300 miles from the site. A 1984 earthquake was located near Sudbury, Ontario (Intensity V), about 350 miles from the site. Two other 1984 earthquakes of Intensity V were located about 285 miles from the site near Clay City, Indiana. Finally, one 1985 earthquake near Edgebrook, Illinois, which is located about 250 miles from the site also had an intensity of V. Documentation for all these earthquakes has been provided in Tables 2.5-12 and 2.5-13 and their epicenters are shown in Figure 2.5-62. The most significant earthquakes since 1968 are the 1977 Ohio earthquake, the 1980 Kentucky earthquake, and the 1986 Perry earthquake. The June 1977 earthquake was located near Celina, Ohio, and had a Richter magnitude of 3.2. The earthquake was felt over about 550 sq km 2 of western Ohio from Celina, south to Chickasaw, west to Fort Recovery, and north to Rockford. Several instances of slight damage were reported in the area. The maximum intensity reported was a VI near Celina, Coldwater, Fort Recovery, and Rockford, Ohio. Damage ranged from sidewalk cracks to plaster cracks and hairline cracks in exterior walls. The estimated intensity at the site is a II. The shock of July 27, 1980, is the strongest earthquake to be centered in Kentucky and the strongest earthquake to be felt in this region since the southern Illinois earthquake of 1968. It was felt over an area of approximately 600,000 km 2 of the central United States and Canada. The epicenter was located near Sharpsburg, Kentucky, and the epicentral magnitude and intensity were 5.1 and VII respectively. The worst damage was at Maysville, Kentucky, approximately 50 km north of the epicenter, where 37 business structures and 269 residences suffered damage of some degree. Most of the significant damage to structures occurred in the older downtown section of the city. The damage was mostly to older brick structures probably built during the middle 1800s. Ground cracks were reported to have occurred about 12 km from the epicenter at Owingsville and Little Rock, Kentucky. Reports of the duration of ground vibration were about 15 sec of strong motions and up to several minutes for sensible vibrations. The intensity in Michigan varied from II to IV and was reported to be at II in Monroe, Michigan. The earthquake of January 1986, was located about 11 miles south of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant site and had a Richter magnitude of 4.96. The earthquake was rated as a Modified Mercalli Intensity of VI. Seventeen people were treated for minor injuries. Structural damage was confined to slightly damaged chimneys, cracks in concrete and under blockwalls, some cracked and fallen plaster, a few broken windows, and some well-water silting. The January 31, 1986, Ohio earthquake was felt at the Fermi site as a Mercalli Intensity IV event. No unusual conditions were observed. The earthquake was not strong enough to be designated an event at Fermi. However, detailed earthquake instrumentation evaluations were completed and evaluation procedures and instrumentation interpretation techniques were verified. 2.5-26 -REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5.2.6. Correlation of Epicenters With Geologic Structures The majority of the significant earthquakes in the region can be associated with well-defined geologic structural zones (Figure 2.5-62). The major geologic structures are described in Subsection 2.5.1.1.3 and are shown in Figures 2.5-6 and 2.5-7. As indicated by Tables 2.5-1 and 2.5-2, the folding and faulting in the central stable region are principally Paleozoic. Recent investigations (References 33 and 34) have indicated that the present seismic activity is not related to surface faulting. Seismic activity occurs in regions bounded by structures of Paleozoic age. The random nature of epicentral locations is the result of stress release in randomly distributed Precambrian crustal blocks (Subsection 2.5.1.1.5.2 contains a more complete discussion). Any present seismic activity occurring near a fault or fold of Paleozoic age does not indicate that the structure is active. To the north and west of the site, earthquakes are rare and appear to occur near anticlinal structures in northern Michigan. To the west of the site, earthquake activity has consisted of infrequent minor shocks that occur in the random epicentral region of southern Wisconsin and northern and central Illinois. To the south, at Anna, Ohio, recent investigations (Reference 35) conducted in the area indicate that earthquake activity is associated with complex Precambrian basement structures. Geologic conditions in this area are unique and the seismic events that occurred here cannot be considered random. However, as described in Subsection 2.5.2.9, in defining the maximum earthquake, an event similar to the Anna event was considered to be able to occur along the axis of the Findlay Arch at its closest approach to the site. These recent studies only indicate that the acceleration values used in design are more conservative than had previously been assumed. The zone of major earthquake activity closest to the site is in the vicinity of New Madrid, Missouri, more than 500 miles to the southwest. Earthquakes near New Madrid in 1811 and 1812 are considered among the largest ever to have occurred in the United States. It is reported that these shocks (possible Intensity XI) were felt in an area of 2 million square miles and changed the surficial topography in an area of about 30,000 to 50,000 square miles. The structural damage resulting from these earthquakes was small due to the lack of construction and habitation in the region. It is estimated that intensities felt in the vicinity of the Fermi site due to these shocks were probably on the order of III to IV. Their influence would be predominant only at low frequencies and is enveloped by existing design criteria. These earthquakes occurred within the extensively faulted New Madrid (Reel Foot) seismographic region (Reference 36). The geologic structure in southern Illinois and western Kentucky is not related to the geologic structure in the vicinity of the site. The Rough Creek fault complex crosses major regional structures and probably forms a boundary separating the stable continental interior to the north from the seismogenic upper Mississippi Embayment. There is no geologic evidence to relate this fault system with structure or faulting within the continental interior. Thus, .the seismically active region at the boundary and to the south should be considered dissimilar and distinct from the seismically quiet region to the north. Another area of concentrated earthquake activity is in the vicinity of Cleveland, Ohio. Since the turn of the century, five Intensity V shocks have been reported in this area. No shock larger than Intensity V has been reported and none of these earthquakes were large enough to 2.5-27 REV 16 10/091

FERMI 2 UFSAR have been felt in Michigan. These shocks have not been related to a known tectonic feature. Several small shocks in southern Michigan, northern Indiana, and in Lake Erie, similarly, cannot be positively related to known faults. The 1947 southern Michigan shock apparently is coincident with the alignment of the Tekonsha oil field and may be associated with oil field structures. Structure and faulting is inferred for the oil field. The validity of an Intensity VI shock in 1883 in southern Michigan has been questioned. Although the magnitude of this earthquake is dubious, its location may indicate a relation to oil field structures. The 1947 Intensity VI south-central Michigan shock and the 1943 Intensity V Lake Erie shock are the largest earthquakes in the region that cannot be positively related to specific tectonic features. Since the geologic structures in the region are believed to have been dormant since Paleozoic time, earthquake activity in the area may represent final crustal readjustment to Pleistocene glacial advance and retreat. Glacial rebound in the site area is nonexistent as far as is known. 2.5.2.7. Identification of Capable Faults No known capable faults occur within 200 miles of the site. Significant tectonic structures that occur within 200 miles of the site, however, are described in Subsection 2.5.2.2 and their locations are shown in Figure 2.5-7. A description of these structures is included in Subsection 2.5.1.1.3 and a summary of the major faults is given in Table 2.5-2. Information on the activity of the structures is included in Subsections 2.5.2.5 and 2.5.2.6. 2.5.2.8. Description of Capable Faults No known capable faults occur within 200 miles of the site. For a description of regional faulting, see Subsection 2.5.3. 2.5.2.9. Maximum Earthquake The effect at the site of a possible future earthquake similar to a large historical shock has been investigated. For this evaluation, the first shock considered was the March 8, 1937, Intensity VIII earthquake near Lima, Ohio. Should a shock similar to this earthquake occur in the vicinity of the confluence of the Findlay, Cincinnati, and Kankakee Arches, the attenuated ground acceleration at the site would be less than 5 percent of gravity. A review of the regional seismic history indicates that the shocks occurring near Lima, Ohio, have been localized within a very small area. The epicentral areas generally trend north-south and are quite limited in extent. An additional shock (1961) was located near the confluence of the Bowling Green Fault and the axis of the Findlay Arch. Even if a shock as large as the 1937 Lima shock were to occur at this location, or at the closest approach of the Bowling Green Fault, or the axis of the Findlay Arch to the site, the maximum expected ground acceleration would be less than 10 percent of gravity. The 1811-1812 Intensity XII New Madrid, Missouri, series of earthquakes was also studied. Should a shock as large occur as close to the site as the closest approach of the Rough Creek-Kentucky River fault complex (about 350 miles), the attenuated ground acceleration at the site would be less than 5 percent of gravity. 2.5-28 REV 16 10/091

FERMI 2 UFSAR It is also concluded that either of these occurrences would result in ground motion at the site significantly less than that selected for the safe-shutdown earthquake (SSE). Small earthquakes similar to the 1947 and 1943 shocks (Subsection 2.5.2.6) could occur in the vicinity of the site. On this basis, the effect of a shock similar to the 1947 south-central Michigan or the 1943 Lake Erie earthquake with an epicenter near the site has been considered. A conservative estimate of the maximum horizontal ground acceleration at the rock surface, due to such a shock, is less than 10 percent of gravity. Confirmatory site-specific earthquake evaluations were completed in 1982 to reaffirm the acceptability of the established Fenni 2 facility seismic design bases. This site-specific evaluation was completed assuming a Richter magnitude 4.9 to 5.9 quake with an epicenter less than 25 km from the site. This assumption is consistent with a quake at the Fermi 2 site similar to that which occurred in Anna, Ohio, in March 1937, and which would also account for a quake at the site such as the July 27, 1980, Kentucky experience in the Central Stable Region as well as the recent January 31, 1986, Perry, Ohio, event. Site-specific spectra were derived directly from representative real-time histories for the appropriate magnitude and distance, and foundation conditions similar to the Fermi site. The 84 percentile of such spectra represented the comparative evaluation level for which the facility seismic design capability was reaffirmed. 2.5.2.10. Safe-Shutdown Earthquake Category I structures at the plant are founded on rock and are designed so that they can be safely shut down in the event ground accelerations at the site exceed those that are operationally tolerable. Consequently, an evaluation has been made of the degree of ground motion that is remotely possible, considering both seismic history and geologic structure. In developing the SSE evaluation, consideration was given to the fact that there is a history of minor to moderate earthquake activity in the region that cannot be related directly to known tectonic features. Category I structures, systems, and components are designed for a safe shutdown due to horizontal zero period ground accelerations at the rock surface at foundation level, of 15 percent of gravity (0.15g). 2.5.2.11. Site-Specific Earthquake In response to a request from the Geosciences Branch, a site- specific earthquake ground response spectrum (essentially per Regulatory Guide 1.60 pegged at 0.15g horizontal) was developed, exhibiting a significantly higher ground response than the SSE ground response. Reevaluation of structures, systems, and components required for cold shutdown was presented to the NRC in the Supplementary Seismic Evaluation Report, Detroit Edison Report No. EF2-53332, Revision 1, dated July 15, 1981. Also see Subsection 3.7.1.2.1. 2.5.2.12. Operating-Basis Earthquake On the basis of the seismic history of the area, it does not appear likely that the site will be subjected to significant earthquake ground motion during the life of the plant. However, Category I structures are conservatively designed to respond, within elastic limits, and with no loss of function, to a horizontal ground acceleration on the rock surface at foundation 2.5-29 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR level of 8 percent of gravity (0.08g). Subsequent review by Weston Geophysical demonstrated that the operating-basis earthquake (OBE) peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.08g has a return period, as a minimum, of the order of 100 to 300 years. 2.5.3. Surface Faulting No faults are known within 25 miles of the site. Detailed information concerning faulting on a regional and site basis is included in Subsections 2.5.1.1.3 and 2.5.2.7. 2.5.3.1. Geologic Conditions of the Site Details of the stratigraphy, structure, and geologic history of the site are found in Subsection 2.5.1.2. 2.5.3.2. Evidence of Fault Offset No faults are known within 25 miles of the site (Subsection 2.5.1.1.3). 2.5.3.3. Identification of Capable Faults No faults are known within 25 miles of the site (Subsection 2.5.1.1.3). 2.5.3.4. Earthquakes Associated With Capable Faults No faults are known within 25 miles of the site, and no earthquakes have been reported closer than 25 miles from the site (Subsections 2.5.1.1.3 and 2.5.2.5). 2.5.3.5. Correlation of Epicenters With Capable Faults No faults or earthquake epicenters have been reported within 25 miles of the site (Subsections 2.5.1.1.3 and 2.5.2.5). 2.5.3.6. Description of Capable Faults No faults are known within 25 miles of the site (Subsection 2.5.1.1.3). 2.5.3.7. Zone Requiring Detailed Faulting Investigation There is no known geologic basis for the possible existence of faulting in the site area. Therefore a detailed faulting investigation is not warranted. 2.5.3.8. Results of Faulting Investigation A review of all available literature, conferences with geological organizations, and onsite investigations revealed that no surface or subsurface faults exist within 25 miles of the site (Subsection 2.5.1.1.3.2). 2.5-30 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5.3.9. Design Basis for Surface Faulting Surface faulting at the site is not considered for design. 2.5.4. Stability of Subsurface Materials 2.5.4.1. Geologic Features Pertinent geologic features of the site are discussed in detail in Subsection 2.5.1.2. Competent bedrock strata underlie the site and there are no major solution cavities or zones of solution weathering in the site area. However, due to the presence of zones of extensively fractured or highly vugged rock, pressure grouting was used to provide assurance that zones of this type are not horizontally continuous across the site. The foundation rock will satisfactorily support all static and dynamic loads imposed by all Category I and other heavy settlement sensitive structures. 2.5.4.2. Properties of Underlying Materials A description of the site geology is given in Subsection 2.5.1.2. Test boring data are presented in Subsection 2.5.1.2.8. Grain- size classification is presented in Subsection 2.5.1.2.8; consolidation characteristics are given in Subsection 2.5.4.5.2; water content is indicated by wet and dry densities given in Subsection 2.5.1.2.10; unit weight values are given in Subsection 2.5.1.2.9; shear moduli are presented below; damping is considered below; and Poisson's ratio values are given below and in Subsection 2.5.1.2.9. Seismic wave velocities are given below and in Subsection 2.5.1.2.8. Density values are given below. Rock quality designations are considered below and in Subsection 2.5.2.4. Strength characteristics are given below. Based on an analysis of the results of laboratory testing together with a review of published data and a comparative evaluation of the soil and rock materials at the residual heat removal (RHR) complex (Reference 3) with those determined for the reactor site (Reference 2), design parameters were developed and are presented in Tables 2.5-9 and 2.5-10. The parameters presented in Tables 2.5-9 and 2.5-10 are discussed below. A brief description of the method of determining the values is given, and the range of variation is discussed. 2.5.4.2.1. Density The densities given for the rock fill material were determined from large-scale density tests performed in a compacted test fill (Reference 2). In determining the submerged density, the rock fill material was assumed to have a specific gravity equivalent to that of dolomite. The range of variation given is considered appropriate for a controlled compacted fill of 1.5 in. and smaller crusher-run rock. The densities for the in situ glacial till and their range of variation were assessed from the moisture- density tests performed on relatively undisturbed samples. An appropriate specific gravity was used in calculating the submerged density. Bedrock density and its range of variation were determined from the results of measured densities of representative rock cores. 2.5-31 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5.4.2.2. Wave Velocities The compression and shear wave velocities presented in Table 2.5-9 for the crushed-rock fill, glacial till, and in situ rock are measured values (References 1, 2, and 3). The range of variation of wave velocities has been estimated with consideration for the inherent uncertainties in methods of measurement and variations in grain size, density, and strength of the various materials. 2.5.4.2.3. Poisson's Ratio The tabulated values of Poisson's ratio for the compacted rock fill and glacial till were computed from the shear and compression wave velocities. Where possible, the load-settlement data from plate load tests were compared to provide a further check on the values computed from the wave velocities. Values for in situ rock were estimated from the seismic investigation (Reference 1). The range of variation for Poisson's ratio was estimated with consideration for probable differences in wave velocities, grain size, density, and strength of the materials being considered. 2.5.4.2.4. Static Modulus of Elasticity The tabulated static moduli of elasticity for the rock fill and glacial till were computed from the results of load-settlement behavior recorded during plate load testing and, for the glacial till, from unconfined compression tests performed on relatively undisturbed samples (References 1, 2, and 3). Laboratory values for static modulus of elasticity were derived from unconfined compression tests. Based on certain empirical formulae (Reference 37) and literature research (References 38 and 39), combined with experience, knowledge, or rock characteristics such as Rock Quality Designation (RQD), vugs, discontinuities, and clay seams and tempered with conservatism, a factor of 0.25 was applied to the average laboratory values. This figure was then taken to be the in situ static modulus of elasticity. A range of +50 percent was utilized in presenting this value to account for the expected variability of characteristics within the Bass Islands Group. 2.5.4.2.5. Dynamic Modulus of Elasticity The dynamic moduli for the glacial till were determined from elastic analysis of the data provided by the Pulsating Load Triaxial Tests. The dynamic moduli of the compacted rock fill and the bedrock were determined by elastic analysis of the results of the field seismic studies (References 2 and 3). The range of values presented reflects the accuracy of field measurement and analysis together with the anticipated variations in grain size, density, and/or strength of the various materials. 2.5-32 REV 16 10/09

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5.4.2.6. Shear Moduli The shear moduli of the till maerials were computed from the results of Pulsating Load Triaxial Tests. For the compacted rock fill and the bedrock, the shear moduli were computed using the elastic relationship between the shear modulus, modulus of elasticity, and Poisson's ratio. The range of values reflects inherent uncertainties in methods of analysis and anticipated variations in grain size, density, and/or strength of the various materials. 2.5.4.2.7. Damping Values The tabulated values of damping are based largely on a review of available published data. The values of damping presented for the glacial till were computed from the results of Pulsating Load Triaxial testing. The damping capacity of the bedrock was developed from various dynamic tests (Reference 1). All of the tabulated damping values are expressed as a percentage of critical damping. 2.5.4.2.8. Rock Quality The quality of the rock as observed in recovered drill core was evaluated by measuring:

a. Rock quality designation
b. Fragmented zones
c. Fracture density.

The data are included on the core boring logs (Figures 2.5-33 through 2.5-55). The average RQD in the upper 15 to 20 ft of bedrock in all borings at the RHR complex was 47 percent, or the "poor" quality classification. The average core recovery throughout this depth interval was 92.4 percent, sufficiently high to yield reliable RQD values. Fragmented zones are present. They range in thickness from 6 in. to 3 ft and occur at different elevations in each boring. The lack of depth and thickness correlation between borings suggests that the fragmented zones are not continuous laterally across the site. Fracture density ranged typically from very close (less than 2 in.) to close (2 to 6 in.) in the upper 15 to 20 ft of bedrock at both the RHR complex and the reactor site. The fracture density is directly influenced by the spacing of shale partings along with the core separates during drilling operations and subsequent handling. 2.5.4.2.9. Rock Strength Corrected values for ultimate compressive strength and modulus of elasticity of bedrock, as determined by laboratory unconfined compression tests, are presented in Table 2.5-5. Elastic moduli values were computed from plots of unit axial stress versus unit axial strain derived from laboratory test results. Records of these laboratory test results are contained in Appendix 2D. Results of unconfined compression tests on rock from borings taken from the reactor site and from the RHR complex are presented in Tables 2.5-5 and 2.5-6. 2.5-33 REV 16 10/09

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5.4.3. Plot Plan A topographic map of the site showing the location of Fermi 2 facilities is given in Figure 2.4-3. The plant facilities are shown in relation to bedrock topography in Figure 2.5-12. The boring plan in relation to plant facility locations is given in Figures 2.5-13 and 2.5-14. Subsurface sections in relation to plant facilities are presented in Figures 2.5-15 through 2.5-20. Structural geology in relation to facility location is shown in Figures 2.5-22 and 2.5-23. 2.5.4.4. Soil and Rock Characteristics A table and profiles of a compressional and shear wave velocity survey are presented in Subsection 2.5.1 and in Figures 2.5-58 through 2.5-61. Graphic core boring logs are presented in Subsection 2.5.1 and in Figures 2.5-24 through 2.5-56. Compressional and shear wave velocities are presented in Subsections 2.5.1.2.9, 2.5.1.2.10, and 2.5.4.2. 2.5.4.5. Excavations and Backfill 2.5.4.5.1, Rock Excavation Early in the reactor building excavation, a test blasting program was conducted to control the excavation blasting at Fermi 2 relative to Fermi 1 (References 13, 40, 41, and 42). Ground motions were measured at varying distances from test blasts for a selected range of blast loads, and attenuation data were developed as shown in Figure 2.5-63. The blasting criteria for limiting onsite seismic disturbances were (a) particle velocity limited to 1 in./sec, and (b) particle acceleration limited to 5 percent of gravity. The blasting program was carefully supervised by qualified engineering personnel and was monitored with instruments. Subsequent to blasting operations, the exposed foundation bedrock was sluiced with high-pressure water jets and carefully examined by a qualified geologist to ensure that no excessive natural fracturing or blasting back-break existed that might be unsuitable for foundation support. All heavily fractured rock, clay seams, weathered shale, and other unsuitable materials exposed at final foundation grade were removed. Based on the limiting criteria, the production shot loads for the reactor/auxiliary building foundation excavation were as follows. Pounds per Delay Minimum Distance From Fermi 1 (ft) 25 400 40 500 50 600 65 700 80 800 100 900 150 1000 175 1100 200 1200 2.5-34 REV 16 10/09

FERMI 2 UFSAR The charge limitation for the initial blasting to excavate for the RHR complex foundation was based on the distance to Fermi 2 facilities, as follows: Distance to the Nearest 144-in.-Diameter Pounds per Delay Circulating Water Pipe (ft) 0.30 60 0.60 75 1.40 100 3.50 150 6.25 200 On the basis of blast-induced ground or structure motions measured during initial blasts (Reference 43), the charge limitation was increased as follows: Pounds per Delay Distance to the Circulating Water Pipe (ft) 1.0 60 1.0 75 1.4 100 3.5 150 6.25 200 2.5.4.5.2. Earthwork Fill materials required to raise the site to required final grade were obtained from an onsite rock quarry and supplemented by offsite quarry-supplied rock. Fill placed at the site and properly compacted was used for the support of minor structures. All Category I and other major structures are supported on competent bedrock; the walls were framed and placed on the structural base slab. Crushed rock was then compacted in layers between the walls and the blast-excavated rock face. A test section of compacted stone fill material was constructed to permit onsite plate load testing and seismic studies of the fill material (Reference 3). Plate load tests were performed on both the compacted crushed-rock fill and the in situ glacial till. The locations of the plate load tests are indicated in Figure 2.5-14. The results of the plate load tests are given in Table 2.5-14. A seismic investigation of the compacted crushed- rock test area was also performed. The results of the compression wave velocity measurements are shown in Figure 2.5-64. Information on compaction criteria, gradation criteria, methods of placing and compacting, and thickness of lifts of the crushed- rock structural backfill is found in Detroit Edison specification 3071-37, Fill Materials, Placement and Compaction (Appendix 2C), and in Building Work specification for RHR Complex 3071-142. Because of the difficulty of preparing representative samples for laboratory testing, there were no laboratory static or dynamic tests performed on samples of the crushed-stone compacted fill material. Crushed-stone compacted fill material obtained a high degree of density when placed in accordance with specifications 3071-37 and 3071-142. This dense compacted-rock fill with its select gradation was further reinforced by the interlocking mechanism of the angular, well-graded particle sizes of the rock fragments and afforded 2.5-35 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR resistance to penetration by conventional sampling methods. Field plate load and seismic tests were used as the basis for deriving the values presented in Table 2.5-9. Consolidation tests were done on relatively undisturbed samples of glacial till (Reference 3). The results of the tests are shown in Figure 2.5-65. There are no Category I buildings placed directly on crushed-rock fill. Additional testing on the in-place structural backfill after its placement in accordance with the specification for such placement was not performed. The onsite quality control program required constant inspection to ensure that the work was being performed in accordance with the referenced specification. Since the test results taken from the large compacted test fill area formed the basis for developing the specification, assurance that specification objectives throughout the site were being met was obtained by using trained personnel in a continuously monitored quality control (QC) program. Fill that did not meet the specification requirements was rejected. Construction supervision and constant QC inspection were utilized to ensure that all work was continuously performed in accordance with the specifications. During the course of safety evaluation review, the NRC requested additional information regarding backfill (drawings) for structures and components. This information was provided to the NRC with Reference 32 in June 1981; wherein it was mentioned that the following representative drawings show the backfill at the site: 6C721-2106, 6C721-2324, 6M721-2680, and 6M721-4232. 2.5.4.6. Ground Water Conditions A summary of ground water conditions appears in Subsection 2.4.13. The history of ground water conditions at the site is summarized below. The natural surficial deposits at the site consist of low- permeability glacial till, lacustrine clay, and peat. The surficial deposits locally act as a confining layer above the Paleozoic bedrock aquifer, and a slight artesian pressure exists at the site. Various parameters were investigated and their relationships to local ground water features have been noted. Pressure tests were conducted in borings 201, 203, 209, and 210 in 1969 during the comprehensive foundation investigation for the reactor/auxiliary building. Test data are shown in Table 2.5-15. The results of these tests are presented to the right of the boring logs as shown on Figures 2.5-33, 2.5-35, 2.5-42, and 2.5-43. Pressure testing was accomplished by means of inflatable packers set in the area to be tested. Water under pressure was forced into this area and the rate of take of the water at various pressures was recorded in gallons per minute. From these data, permeability of the rock was calculated by use of the following formula: CQ (2.5-1) CPH where K = permeability in feet per year 2.5-36 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR Q = flow in gallons per minute H = head of water in feet of water acting on the test section CP = a constant of 4900 for nx-sized hole and a 10-ft test section (Reference 44) Ground water observations were made by observing the rate of artesian flow at varying depths. These observations were made by drilling to a certain depth and collecting water as it flowed from the top of the boring and timing the rate of filling of a container of known volume in gallons. It was then possible to determine rate of artesian flow in gallons per minute at various levels in the boring. Further ground water observations were made after completion of the borings by inserting standpipes in the borings, allowing the water to rise to its static level, and measuring the elevation of the top of the water. Other observations were made at this time in regard to water quality. These observations ranged from simply noting the odor of H 2 S gas (shown on the boring logs) to collecting ground water samples for chemical analyses of the ground water. In 1972, foundation investigations for the RHR complex included the installation of six piezometers in borings RHR 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8. The installation of these piezometers and data gathered from them refute the 1969 water-level data in that water levels are generally much lower and artesian flow is not noted. This is due exclusively to construction dewatering. The overall result has been to reverse the ground water gradient at the plant site from toward the lake to away from the lake. During quarry operations between 1969 and 1972, a decline in ground water level occurred. Also, during this period a decline occurred because of a regional drought condition. After the spring of 1971, the quarry operation was restricted to the southern end. The northern part was diked and functioned as a ground water recharge pit, with the water level maintained full at about Elevation 570 ft. Quarry operations ceased on June 30, 1972. Water-level observations were made during and after the quarry operations in several observation wells, as shown in Figure 2.4-25. Water-level data are given in Table 2.4-7. As mentioned above, dewatering was carried out specifically for rock excavation. Conventional dewatering by pumping from sumps was employed. A grout curtain was constructed around the reactor/auxiliary building rock excavation to decrease the extent of dewatering required and to minimize the extent of depression of the surrounding ground water level. The curtain wall grout plan for the excavation of the Fermi 2 reactor/auxiliary building

  • (References 45 and 46) delineated 96 grout holes spaced at 12-ft centers and located as shown in Figure 2.5-66. A grout curtain was not used for the RHR complex excavation.

Grouting of the rock mass under the plant facilities will force that moving ground water which would have flowed through the grouted rock to be diverted around it. This diversion will increase slightly the ground water flow rate in the rock immediately outside and below the grout curtain and might increase slightly the solutioning of the carbonate rocks in that zone. In view of the low flow rate of the ground water in the bedrock aquifer (see Subsection 2.4.13.2), the minor expected increase in flow rate through diversion of ground water around the grout curtain is not expected to significantly accelerate solutioning at the site. 2.5-37 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR Water samples for laboratory analyses were obtained from stratigraphic horizons within the site area during the 1969 boring program. The elevations at which water samples were obtained are noted in the boring logs. Some water samples were obtained from artesian flows at various depths during the borings, usually after the boring had flowed for several hours. After completion of the boring, the remaining samples were obtained from borings 210 and 209 at 10-ft intervals between double-inflatable packers from artesian flow through a 3/4-in. discharge pipe. At each sample interval, the water flowed a minimum of 20 minutes before a sample was taken. Selected ground water samples were tested to determine pH, sulfate content, and chloride content. These tests were performed by Mr. Bernard Erlin, Materials and Concrete Consultant. The results of chemical analyses of ground water samples are shown in Table 2.5-16. All of the ground water tested had a relatively high sulfate content, in the range of 1168 to 1865 ppm. The depth at which ground water samples were obtained varied from the rock surface to more than 200 ft below the rock surface. No marked variation of sulfate content with depth was observed. The chloride content of the ground water, as sampled, ranged from 21 to 1164 ppm. The random and occasional high chloride contents measured were affected by boring operations where salt was used as an additive to the boring fluid. Salt was used with the boring fluid in borings 209 and 210 and in zones of close fractures; this would have affected the chloride content of ground water sampled from adjacent borings. Based on the results of measured chloride content of samples that should not have been affected by salt in the boring fluid, the natural ground water at the site appears to have a chloride content of less than 100 ppm. The hydrogen ion concentration (pH) of the ground water ranged from 7.3 to 8.1; thus, the ground water is not acidic. Although the ground water was not tested for the presence of free carbon dioxide, it can reasonably be assumed that the water has been saturated with calcium carbonate by its passage through limestone and dolomitic bedrock. 2.5.4.7. Response of Soil and Rock To Dynamic Loading Response spectra for the SSE and the OBE are presented in Figures 2.5-67 and 2.5-68 respectively. The SSE (originally designated design-basis earthquake or DBE on the project) was anchored at the zero period acceleration level previously described and configured to match the shape of existing spectra for similar site conditions. At the time the facility design bases were established, spectra from El Centro 1940, Olympia 1949, El Centro 1934, Helena 1935, and Taft 1952 were used in developing envelope spectra for design bases purposes. The OBE was similarly shaped but anchored at a zero period acceleration approximately half the SSE. In the decade since the Fermi design bases were established, more conservative assumptions have been made regarding the shape of facility site response spectra in intermediate frequency ranges. For this reason, the Fermi project developed a site-specific earthquake response spectrum, incorporating all potential conservatisms, and reevaluated those items in the facility necessary for shutdown with a loss of offsite power, to ensure the 2.5-38 REV 16 10/09

FERMI 2 UFSAR acceptability of the plant with respect to site-specific earthquake excitation. These activities reaffirmed the Fermi 2 seismic design adequacy. Soil structure interaction phenomena were evaluated at the Fermi site, and found to be negligible. Category I structures at Fermi 2 are founded in bedrock. A study completed for the Fermi 2 structures founded on rock showed that it can be safely assumed in accordance with existing studies and the unique finite element analysis undertaken for Fermi, that the Fermi 2 foundation behaves as a rigid medium, and that soil structure interaction effects are negligible. Therefore, the site earthquake response spectra developed for the bedrock represent the base excitation to be experienced by facility Category I structures. Category I buried piping and electrical ducting runs between Category I structures at the Fermi site. These buried pipes and ducts have been subjected to a rigorous dynamic analysis including the effects of interaction with the supporting foundation material. Flexibility has been provided at all building and manhole intersection points to minimize potential concrete strains. The design integrity of these buried components is proven by evaluation of anticipated earthquake wave propagation phenomena. The response spectra indicate the estimated response of a structure subjected to earthquake ground motion. The spectra are presented over a range of frequencies corresponding to the natural frequencies of the various structural elements. The spectra represent the maximum amplitude of motion in the various elements of the structure for typical degrees of damping. Response spectra are also discussed in Section 3.7. 2.5.4.8. Liquefaction Potential All Category I structures are supported within the Bass Islands dolomite, which is not susceptible to liquefaction. 2.5.4.9. Earthquake Design Basis The earthquake design basis is presented in Subsection 2.5.2. 2.5.4.10. Static Analyses The strength of the foundation rock was evaluated in the laboratory by means of unconfined compression tests (Subsection 2.5.1.2.10). Considering these values to be appropriate for rock with an RQD of 100, a reduction factor was selected based on an assessment of the measured RQD values, information on vug volume and size, fracture orientation and spacing, and presence of clay and shale seams (Subsection 2.5.1.2.2.2). On this basis, the ultimate bearing capacity of the rock mass in the plant and RHR complex is considered to be on the order of 300,000 lb/ft2. Using a factor of safety of 12, the recommended design bearing capacity is 25,000 lb/ft2 . However, no credit was taken for a possible increase in the recommended bearing capacity by rock grouting. Settlement was computed using the elastic moduli information with modifications based on experience, RQD, vugs, discontinuities, and clay seams to produce conservative deformation moduli appropriate for the in situ rock. The total settlement of the RHR complex is estimated to be on the order of 0.25 in. for an assumed applied pressure of 3000 lb/ft2 . The 2.5-39 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR total settlement of the reactor /auxiliary building is conservatively estimated to be on the order of 0.3 to 0.5 in. for an assumed applied pressure of 25,000 lb/ft2. Computed lateral pressures are presented in Table 2.5-17. In computing lateral pressures appropriate for the compacted rock fill, it was necessary to estimate the probable angle of internal friction of this material. Based on observation of the material placed in the field and on research of available published data, the angle of internal friction was assumed to be 400. All static lateral pressure data presented in Table 2.5-17 are expressed as equivalent fluid pressures. For rigid walls, the tabulated values of lateral pressures are derived for the case of earth pressure "at rest." For cantilever walls, the tabulated values are derived for the case of "active" earth pressure. Dynamic lateral pressure increments due to rock fill were determined using methods described in Reference 47. The dynamic increments of lateral pressure on the walls of the substructures due to ground water were obtained using Westergard's Theory (Reference 48), modified by Matuo and Ohara (Reference 49). These lateral pressure increments for the RHR complex and reactor/auxiliary building are provided in Figures 3.8-48 and 3.8-49, respectively. Static pressures imposed by rock on rigid or cantilever walls above the ground water level will be negligible. The lateral pressure in rock cuts below the water table will be limited to hydrostatic water pressure. 2.5.4.11. Criteria and Design Methods 2.5.4.11.1. Foundations The criteria for foundation support are based on the properties of the underlying materials (Subsection 2.5.4.2) and soil and rock characteristics (Subsection 2.5.4.4). The ultimate bearing capacity of the rock mass in the plant area is estimated to be on the order of 300,000 lb/ft2 (Subsection 2.5.4.10). Assuming a combined static and dynamic maximum loading as high as 25,000 lb/ft2, the factor of safety against further foundation failure could exceed 12. Considering the rock to be strengthened by the grouting operations, the factor of safety is considerably in excess of 12. The average foundation load data for Category I and other structures are given in Table 2.5-18. The average foundation loads are considerably less than the assumed 25,000 lb/ft2 ; therefore, the factor of safety will be larger than 12. The criteria for seismic design are presented in Subsections 2.5.2.10 and 2.5.2.11. Seismic design methods are presented in Section 3.7. 2.5.4.11.2. Cement In consideration of the high sulfate content of the natural ground water, sulfate-resistant cement was used for all cement grout and subsurface concrete that will be in contact with the ground water. Type V portland cement conforming to the requirements of ASTM Designation C 150-68 was used. In concrete work above Elevation 573.0 ft, Type II portland cement conforming to the requirements of ASTM Designation C 150-68 was used. As stated in Subsection 2.5.1.2.7, CSA A5-1971 cement was also used. 2.5-40 REV 16 10/09 I

FERMI 2 UFSAR The use of calcium chloride or other chlorides as admixtures incorporated into concrete or grout mixtures was prohibited as such admixtures reduce the resistance of the concrete or grout to sulfate attack. 2.5.4.12. Techniques To Improve Subsurface Conditions 2.5.4.12.1. Grouting - Reactor/Auxiliary Building Rock strata below the foundation levels of the Category I structures were pressure grouted. It ensured that no continuous open zones existed across the excavation in the bedrock. The complete grouting program for the reactor/auxiliary building was successfully carried out (References 50, 51, and 52). The sequence of grouting operations for the reactor/auxiliary building consisted of drilling, washing, pressure testing, and grouting each grout hole. The elevations of the bases of grout holes were selected for the reactor/auxiliary building at elevations of 483 and 499 ft, respectively. These elevations were chosen on careful study of RQD, core recovery, and fracture data, modified after visual inspection of the rock core itself. Since the in situ rock was judgedto be sufficiently sound to support the vertical loads and grouting was performed only to provide a more homogeneous rock mass beneath the structures, it was judged that grouting into the underlying Salina Group would have no effect on foundation stability. Grouting was performed in two stages, herein referred to as first and second zones, extending to depths of 6 and 50 ft below the rock surface, respectively. Initial or primary holes within each zone were spaced 30 ft on centers, and final closure was achieved by subsequently grouting all intermediate holes (secondary, tertiary, and quaternary holes). The locations of all holes are presented in Figures 2.5-69 and 2.5-70. During grouting operations, two additional grout holes were drilled (Nos. 75A and 76A). Hole 75A was drilled to replace hole 75, which was abandoned when a drill bit was lodged in the hole. Hole 76A was drilled because of the low grout take (1.5 ft3) in hole 77. The relatively low grout take in hole 76A indicated that intermediate holes were probably not necessary when low grout takes are recorded. All grout holes were drilled with percussion drilling equipment, and any anomalies in the general rate of penetration of drilling were noted. On some holes, detailed logs of rate of penetration were recorded. These records assisted in delineating the extent of rock fracturing and thus assisted the planning of grout mixes. In general, the rate of penetration of rock varied between 20 and 50 sec/ft. Very few voids were encountered; the largest was a 20-in. void observed in hole 67. All grout holes penetrated to an elevation of 515 ft, with the exception of holes 51 and 27, which extended to 518 and 526 ft, respectively. These two holes were terminated short because of drilling difficulties. Subsequent to drilling operations, holes were washed and pressure tested. On many holes, the drilling operations combined with a relatively large flow of ground water provided clean holes. Consequently, no additional washing was required. Each hole was pressure tested at a selected pressure and the steady water take was recorded. The results of pressure testing were used in determining the initial grout mixes for each particular hole. Grout mixes injected into the grout holes all contained a 2:1 ratio of cement to flyash. The ratio of water to cement plus flyash varied from 3:1 to slightly less than 1:1. For holes with 2.5-41 REV 16 10/09 I

FERMI 2UFSAR high grout takes, final grout mixes included sand, which was added to give a sand-to-cement ratio of 1:1 or 1.5:1. All holes were pressure grouted in one stage. The grouting of each hole was started with a water-to-cement plus flyash ratio of 3:1 or 2:1. If the pressure did not increase after approximately 10 ft3 of grout had been pumped, then the mix was thickened initially by decreasing the water-to-cement ratio and then further, if necessary, by adding sand to the mix. All holes were grouted to refusal. Individual grout takes for various mixes are summarized in Table 2.5-19. 3 A total of 1644 ft3 of pressure grout was injected into the grout holes. An additional 72.5 ft of grout was used to backfill the upper portion of the holes above the packer. Table 2.5-20 summarizes the grout take for each zone. Detailed descriptions of the foundation rock encountered in five exploratory borings, drilled following completion of the grouting program, are presented in Figures 2.5-71 through 2.5-75. Grout encountered in rock cores is noted in the logs of borings. Only one void of 0.3 ft was encountered in the post-grout exploratory boring in boring 216. Since boring 216 was drilled within 5 ft of a secondary grout hole and the void contained no grout, it was not an interconnected void, but an isolated feature. Upon completion, all five of the exploratory borings were tremie grouted. Subsequent to grouting operations, a complete rock subgrade inspection of the reactor/auxiliary building was carried out; the results of this inspection are summarized in Figure 2.5-76. 2.5.4.12.2. Grouting - Residual Heat Removal Complex The sequence of grouting operations (References 53 and 54) for the RHR complex consisted of drilling, washing, and grouting each grout hole. The elevation of the bases of the holes was selected at 530 ft. Grouting was performed in two zones extending to depths of 6 and 20 ft below a concrete leveling mat placed over the original rock surface at Elevation 550 ft. Initial or primary holes within each zone were spaced 30 ft on centers and final closure was achieved by subsequently grouting all intermediate holes (secondary, tertiary, and a few quaternary holes). Figures 2.5-77 through 2.5-81 show locations of all holes, as well as amounts of grout taken. Prior to drilling and grouting operations, eight exploratory holes were core drilled to depths of 20 ft, and then washed and pressure tested. The logs of these borings are shown in Figures 2.5-82 through 2.5-85. Each interval was tested at a selected pressure and the steady water take was recorded. All grout holes were drilled with percussion drilling equipment and then washed prior to grouting. Grout mixes injected into the grout holes contained a 1:1 to 1.5:1 ratio of cement to flyash. The ratio of water to cement plus flyash varied from 3:1 to approximately 1:1. The grouting of each hole was generally started with a water-to-cement plus flyash ratio of 3:1 and if the pressure did not increase after approximately 10 minutes, the mix was thickened by decreasing the water-to-cement ratio. All holes were grouted to refusal. Table B 1, Appendix 2B, summarizes the grout take for each zone. Detailed descriptions of the foundation rock encountered in eight exploratory borings drilled following completion of the grouting program are presented in Figures 2.5-86 through 2.5-89, and water-pressure test results are shown in Table B2, Appendix 2B. 2.5-42 REV 16 10/091

FERMI 2 UFSAR Subsequent to cleaning the exposed rock surface, and prior to placement of the concrete mat, a complete rock subgrade inspection was carried out. A map summarizing the results of this inspection is shown in Figure 2.5-90. In addition, photographs were taken completely covering the side walls of the excavation and are available for inspection. A detailed report on the results of the foundation treatment is found in Appendix 2B. 2.5.4.12.3. Effectiveness of Grouting Program The grouting program was intended to seal cracks in the foundation bedrock that may have been horizontally continuous. As part of the preliminary explorations and later the grouting program, observations were made during drilling with respect to water losses and dropping of drill rods. It was observed that water losses were generally not great and that there were no instances of drill rod drop. Based on these observations, no areas of major or continuous solution activity were detected. However, the core recovered did show vugs, indicating that minor solution activity was present. To ensure that no continuous horizontal zones could be present below Category I structures, pressure grouting was undertaken. The grouting program has the further benefit of enhancing the bearing capacity of the rock. The grouting program consisted of drilling primary, secondary, and, where necessary, tertiary grout holes until the requirements for discontinuing grouting were achieved. Subsequent to grouting, a number of holes were drilled to ascertain the effectiveness of the grouting program. The borings drilled after grouting generally produced the same results as the exploratory holes prior to grouting. That is, the core recovery and RQD showed no appreciable difference. Furthermore, the postgrouting borings showed very little evidence of grout in the core or drill water. The lack of grout in postgrouting borings is attributed to the nonexistence of open or continuous solutioning in the bedrock. The low grout takes during consolidation grouting and the lack of grout in postgrouting borings provide evidence of the noncontinuity of any open features. In addition, the lack of both drill rod drops and water losses in postgrouting borings further indicates that no open channels exist in the bedrock foundation. 2.5.4.12.4. Base Slab Construction The reactor/auxiliary building base slab is a 4-ft-thick reinforced-concrete slab consisting of 4000 psi concrete at 28 days with ASTM A-615 grade 60 reinforcing steel. The slab is supported by a leveling slab also constructed of 4000 psi concrete that is in turn supported by pressure-grouted competent bedrock. Shortly after placement of the base slab, radial superficial cracks appeared. A report covering the investigation and treatment of these cracks is documented in Reference 55. All possibilities that may have caused the cracking of the slab were considered. However, after a review of all of the postulated potential causes for the surface hairline cracks, and a detailed observation and mapping of the location, arrangement, depth, and thickness of the cracks themselves, it is concluded that the cracks were most probably caused by the restraint of the slab at its perimeter during temperature fluctuations and by shrinkage strains that developed during the curing of the thick and heavily reinforced concrete slab. The cracks were very thin, and most of them did not penetrate the full depth of the slab. The lack of differential vertical displacement on both sides of a crack indicated that vertical shear planes 2.5-43 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR resulting from upheaval or settlement of the underlying concrete level slab or grouted bedrock had not occurred. The radial symmetry of the cracks further supported the belief that vertical displacement, local, random, or general in orientation, did not occur. As stated on page A7 of the D&M report "Results of Rock Foundation Treatment," dated January 12, 1975 (Reference 23), "No zones of excessive fracturing or highly vugged material exist in horizontal layers across the site; localized openings in the foundation rock have been adequately treated; and the near surface fractures have been filled." Part B of the same referenced report outlines the careful attention placed on preparing the rock surface to receive the 2- to 4-ft-thick level mat and then the 4-ft-thick structural slab that later developed thin radial superficial cracks. After reviewing these data, reviewing the conclusions presented by consultants, and observing and investigating the extent and orientation of the cracking, it is concluded that the source of the cracking is not the solutioning or jointing in the bedrock. The placement of crushed-rock fill outside the subbasement walls and at an elevation higher than the slab was not related to the cracking. The schedule for fill placement was done one section at a time and generally followed the initial observation of radial cracking. 2.5.5. Slope Stability During the excavation for the reactor/auxiliary building and RHR complex, which included blasting, there were no instances of instability of the excavation slopes and therefore no need for stabilization measures. There are no excavation or natural slopes whose failure could adversely affect the safe operation of the plant. However, a shore barrier was erected at the east end of the plant bordering on Lake Erie. For a discussion of the shore barrier, see Subsections 2.4.5 and 3.4.4.5. 2.5-44 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5 GEOLOGY AND SEISMOLOGY REFERENCES

1. The Detroit Edison Company, Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, Vol. 1, Section 2 - Site, Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant Unit 2, 1969.
2. The Detroit Edison Company, Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, Amendment 2, Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant Unit 2, April 1, 1970.
3. Dames & Moore, Foundation Investigation Residual Heat Removal Complex, Enrico Fermi Unit II, Final Report for the Detroit Edison Company, 24 pages, August 28, 1972.
4. A. J. Mozola, Geology for Environmental Planning in Monroe County, Michigan, Report of Investigation 13, Michigan Geological Survey, 34 pages, 1970.
5. G. D. Ells, Architecture of the Michigan Basin, Studies of the Precambrian of the Michigan Basin, Michigan Basin Geological Society, pp. 60-68, 1969.
6. G. V. Cohee, Cambrian and Ordovician Rocks in Recent Wells in Southeastern Michigan, AAPG Bulletin, 31(2): 293-307, 1947.
7. G. V. Cohee, Cambrian and Ordovician Rocks in the Michigan Basin and Adjoining Areas, AAPG Bulletin, 32(8): 1417-1448, 1948.
8. G. V. Cohee, Geology and Oil and Gas Possibilities of Trenton and Black River Limestones of the Michigan Basin and Adjacent Areas, USGS Preliminary Chart II, Oil and Gas Inv. Ser., 1945.
9. J. H. Fisher, Early Paleozoic History of the Michigan Basin, Studies of the Precambrian of the Michigan Basin, Michigan Basin Geological Society, pp. 89-93, 1969.
10. G. D. Ells, Structures Associated with the Albion-Scipio Oil Field Trend, Michigan Geological Survey, 86 pages, 1962.
11. A. Janssens, "Stratigraphy of the Cambrian and Lower Ordovician Rocks in Ohio," Bulletin 64, Ohio Geological Survey, pp. 28-29, 1973.
12. W. J. Hinze, Department of Geosciences, Purdue University personal communication (Telecon between Dames & Moore and W. J. Hinze on January 31, 1975).
13. R. B. Newcombe, Oil and Gas Fields of Michigan, Publication 38, Geological Series 32, Michigan Geological Survey, 293 pages, 1933.
14. Michigan Geological Survey, letter on file with Dames & Moore.
15. D. McLean, Geologist, Petroleum Resources Department, Toronto, Canada, Personal Communications.
16. G. D. Ells, Geologist, Michigan Geological Survey, Lansing, Michigan, Personal Communications.
17. M. L. Sbar and L. R. Sykes, "Contemporary Compressive Stress and Seismicity in Eastern North America," GSA Bulletin, V. 84, p. 1861-1882, 1973.

2.5-45 REV 16 10/09

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5 GEOLOGY AND SEISMOLOGY REFERENCES

18. W. J. Hinze and D. W. Merritt, Basement Rocks of the Southern Peninsula of Michigan, Studies of the Precambrian of the Michigan Basin, Michigan Basin Geological Society, pp. 28-59, 1969.
19. J. A. Dorr and D. F. Eschman, Geology of Michigan, University of Michigan Press, 476 pages, 1970.
20. W. J. Hinze, Michigan Geological Survey Division, Department of Conservation, Lansing, Michigan, Personal Communications.
21. G. W. Pirtle, Michigan Structural Basin and Its Relationship to Surrounding Areas, AAPG Bulletin, 16(2): 145-152, 1932.
22. G. V. Cohee, Geologic History of the Michigan Basin, Washington Academy of Sciences Journal, Vol. 55, 1965.
23. Dames & Moore, Results of Rock Foundation Treatment, Fermi II Nuclear Power Plant, Report for the Detroit Edison Company, 8 pages, January 12, 1971.
24. R. J. Brigham, Structural Geology of Southwestern Ontario and Southeastern Michigan, Paper 71-2, The Province of Ontario Department of Mines and Northern Affairs, Petroleum Resources Section, 110 pages, 1971.
25. R. C. Hussey, The Middle and Upper Ordovician Rocks of Michigan, Publication 46, Geological Series 39, Michigan Geological Survey, 89 pages, 1952.
26. G. D. Ells, Future Oil and Gas Possibilities in Michigan Basin, AIPG MEMOIR 15, Volume 2, 1971.
27. G. D. Ells, personal communication (Telecon between Dames & Moore and G. D.

Ells on February 6, 1975).

28. C. W. Cook, The Brine and Salt Deposits of Michigan, Publication 15, Geological Series 12, Michigan Geological Survey, 188 pages, 1914.
29. Dames & Moore, Ground Stability Evaluation Phase I, River Rouge Generating Plant Site, River Rouge, Michigan, for the Detroit Edison Company, 16 pages, 1971.
30. R. E. Ives, Head, Petroleum Geology Section, Michigan Geological Survey, Lansing, Michigan, Personal Communications.
31. G. E. Troxell, et al., Composition and Properties of Concrete, McGraw-Hill, p.

48, 1968.

32. Dames & Moore, Static and Dynamic Soil and Rock Studies, Fermi II Nuclear Power Plant, Report for the Detroit Edison Company, 16 pages, February 3, 1970.
33. 0. W. Nuttli, State-of-the-Art for Assessing Earthquake Hazards in the United States, Report 1, Design Earthquake for the Central United States, Misc. Paper 5-73-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, 45 pages, 1973.

2.5-46 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5 GEOLOGY AND SEISMOLOGY REFERENCES

34. P. C. Heigold, Notes on the Earthquake of September 15, 1972 in Northern Illinois, Environmental Geology Notes, Number 59, Illinois State Geological Survey.
35. Dames & Moore, "Interpretation of Mechanism for the Anna, Ohio, Earthquakes,"

in Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station PSAR, Public Service of Indiana, Appendix 2E, Amendment 3 (January 1976), Docket Nos. 50STN546 and 50STN547.

36. R. G. Steams and D. W. Wilson, Relationship of Earthquakes and Geology in West Tennessee and Adjacent Areas, Manuscript, Tennessee Valley Authority, 1973.
37. I. W. Farmer, "Engineering Properties of Rocks," E. & F. N. Spon Ltd., pp. 30-40, 1968.
38. D. U. Deere, University of Swansea Short Course on Rock Mechanics, 148 pages, 1967.
39. K. G. Stagg and 0. C. Zienkiewicz, Rock Mechanics in Engineering Practice, John Wiley and Sons, 1968.
40. Dames & Moore, Test Blasting Program, Enrico Fermi Nuclear Power Station near Monroe, Michigan, Report for the Detroit Edison Company, 14 pages, July 2, 1969.
41. Dames & Moore, Quarry Planning, Blasting and Safety Procedures, Enrico Fermi Nuclear Power Station, Monroe, Michigan, Report for the Detroit Edison Company, 16 pages, August 29, 1969.
42. Dames & Moore, Blast-Induced Vibration Sensitivity Study, Enrico Fermi Nuclear Power Station Near Monroe, Michigan, Report for the Detroit Edison Company, 6 pages, September 29, 1969.
43. AEC from Detroit Edison, EF-2-21,955a, January 17, 1974; and Edison Research Report 69H 19-8, RHR Complex.
44. Design of Small Dams, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of Interior, p.

194, 1973.

45. Dames & Moore, Evaluation of Dewatering Requirements, Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant, Report for the Detroit Edison Company, 13 pages, December 31, 1969.
46. Dames & Moore, Technical Supervision of Grouting Operations, Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant, Monroe, Michigan, Report for the Detroit Edison Company, 4 pages, May 15, 1970.
47. H. B. Seed and R. V. Whitman, "Design of Earth-Retaining Structures for Dynamic Loads," Specialty Conferences, Cornell University, June 22-24, 1970, ASCE 1970.

2.5-47 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5 GEOLOGY AND SEISMOLOGY REFERENCES

48. H. M. Westergard, "Water Pressures on Dams During Earthquakes," Transactions ASCE, Vol. 98, 1933.
49. H. Matuo and S. Ohara, "Lateral Earth Pressure and Stability of Quay Walls During Earthquakes," Proceedings of the Second World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. I, pp. 165-182, 1960.
50. Dames & Moore, Evaluation of Rock Foundation Treatment, Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant, Report for the Detroit Edison Company, 5 pages, January 16, 1970.
51. Dames & Moore, Procedures for Technical Supervision, Curtain Wall and Structural Grouting, Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant, Report for the Detroit Edison Company, 11 pages, June 29, 1970.
52. Dames & Moore, Results of Rock Foundation Treatment, Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant, Report for the Detroit Edison Company, 14 pages, January 12, 1971.
53. Sargent and Lundy, Foundation Design of Residual Heat Removal Complex, Enrico Fermi Atomic Plant - Unit 2, Report SL-3044, 17 pages, March 12, 1973.
54. Sargent and Lundy, Pressure Rock Grouting for Residual Heat Removal Complex, Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant Unit 2, Detroit Edison Company Specification 3071-135, September 21, 1973.
55. The Detroit Edison Company, Technical Report on Reactor Building Base Slab Cracks, Report EF2-29332, 8 pages, November 6, 1974.

2.5-48 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.5-1

SUMMARY

OF MAJOR FOLDS IN REGION OF FERMI 2 Name Identificationa- Major Movement Kankakee Arch S,B,G Ordovician or Devonian to Late Mississippian Michigan Basin S,B,G Early to Late Paleozoic Appalachian Basin S,B,G Early to Late Paleozoic Valley & Ridge S,B,G Late Paleozoic Cincinnati Arch B Ordovician to Post - Pennsylvanian Findlay Arch B Cambrian to Devonian Algonquin Arch B Cambrian to Devonian Waverly Arch B Early Ordovician Howell Anticline B,G Ordovician through Mississippian Lucas Monocline B, G Ordovician through Mississippian Freedom Anticline B,G Ordovician through Mississippian Chatham Sag B Late Silurian and Post-Silurian Washtenaw Anticlinorium B Middle Ordovician through Late Mississippian Logansport Sag B Ordovician or Devonian to Late Mississippian Francisville Arch B Mississippian aS = Surface. B = Borehole. G = Geophysical. Page I of 1 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.5-2

SUMMARY

OF MAJOR FAULTS Fault Name Identificationa Displacement Last Movement Bowling Green Fault S, B, G West side down Post-Middle Ordovician to Pre-Devonian Electric Fault B South side down Post-Silurian Tekonsha Trend B, G (Fracture zone) Post-Ordovician Rough Creek- G North side down Cretaceous (Rough Creek) Kentucky River Fault S, B, G (Except Kentucky River Post-Ordovician to Pre-System Fault, south side down) Mississippian (Kentucky River) Keweenawan-Lake S, B, G South side down Keweenawan and Post - Owen Fault System Keweenawan Albion-Scipio Trend B, G (Fracture zone) Post-Middle Ordovician to Pre-Pennsylvanian Royal Center Fault B Southeast side down Post-Devonian Fortville Fault B Southeast side down Post-Devonian a S = Surface. B = Borehole. G = Geophysical. Page. I of I REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.5-3 OBSERVED WATER FLOW AND WATER LEVEL DATA Piezometric Piezometric Boring Artesian Flow Artesian Flow Surface 12-19-69 Surface 12-19-69 Boring Surface Bottom From Elevation From Bottom of (lake level at (lake level at Number Elevation Elevation 550-5 10 (gpm) Boring (gpm) Fermi 1, 573.0) Fermi 1, 572.8) 201 565.0 451.4 5 20 569.5 570.0 202 564.3 438.0 5 36 568.4 569.9 203 565.4 448.9 3 22 569.8 569.8 204 564.9 452.4 3 10 568.9 569.7 205 565.8 448.6 3 50 570.0 569.9 206 567.2 455.9 0 3 570.1 569.7 207 566.8 454.8 5 17 569.9 569.6 208 566.9 454.2 0.5 0.5 569.9 569.9 209 567.0 253.1 2 60 571.9 571.1 210 566.6 451.6 0.5 20 569.9 569.8 211 567.4 452.4 0 10 570.2 569.8 212 567.2 410.4 4 43 569.4 569.7 213 568.0 452.5 0 0 570.0 569.8 214 565.6 453.2 5 5 569.0 569.6 Page I of I REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.5-4 AMBIENT VIBRATION MEASUREMENTS Ambient Station Depth of Predominant Period of Number Bedrock (ft) Ground Motion (sec) 1 2 0.7 to 1.1 2 20 0.10 Page I of I REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.5-5 ROCK COMPRESSION TEST RESULTS FERMI 2 REACTOR/AUXILIARY BUILDING SITE Depth Below Ultimate Boring Original Compressive Modulus of Number Surface (ft) Elevation (ft) Formationa Density (lb/ft3) Strength (lb/ft2) Elasticity (lb/ft2) 20 27.0 546.7 BI 154 2.26 x 106 9.0 x 108 32A 52.0 527.6 BI 145 1.39 x 106 6.28 x 108 28 106.0 466.5 S 162 1.30 x 106 3.75 x 10' 4 58.0 514.5 BI 138 1.12 x 106 6.51 x 10' 201 50.7 514.3 BI 151 1.29 x 106 5.75 x 108 201 73.2 491.8 BI 169 1.62 x 106 5.04 x 108 202 49.2 515.1 BI 146 1.41 x 10' 3.89 x 10' 203 58.2 507.2 BI 154 1.31 X 106 3.17 x 10' 208 16.2 550.7 BI 145 0.62 x 106 3.29 x 108 210 20.6 546.0 BI 153 0.99 x 106 2.2 x 108 211 18.4 549.0 BI 170 2.70 x 106 1.8 x 10 8 211 35.1 532.3 BI 146 0.85 x 106 2.5 x 108 213 24.6 543.4 BI 149 0.82 x 106 7.2 x 108 a BI = Bass Islands Group. S = Salina Group. Page I of I REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.5-6 ROCK COMPRESSION TEST RESULTS - FERMI 2 RHR COMPLEX Boring Number Depth (ft) Formationý- Ultimate Compressive Strength (lb/ft2) RHR-2 39.1 BI 1.31 x 106 RHR-3 29.2 BI 1.18 x 106 RHR-4 31.0 BI 1.46 x 106 RHR-5 40.5 BI 1.20 x 106 RHR-6 29.2 BI 1.49 x 106 RHR-7 33.9 BI 1.06 x 106 RHR-8 36.3 BI 1.09 x 106 BI = Bass Islands Group. Page I of I REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.5-7 SHOCKSCOPE TEST RESULTS Velocity of Compressional Wave Boring Number Depth (ft) Formationa Propagation (ft/sec) 4 28.5 BI 12,500 4 36 BI 10,500 4 42 BI 10,000 4 58.5 BI 11,000 18 29 BI 14,000 18 40 BI 14,500 79 30 BI 11,500 79 97 BI 12,500 79 240 S 14,500 BI = Bass Islands Group. S = Salina Group. Page I of I REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.5-8 RESONANT COLUMN TEST RESULTS Boring Number Depth (ft) Formation- Rock Type Shear Modulus (lb/ft2) 32A 25 BI Dolomite 150 x 106 25 96 S Calcareous Shale 30 x 106 BI = Bass Islands Group. S = Salina Group. Page I of I REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.5-9 STATIC AND DYNAMIC SOIL AND ROCK PROPERTIES - REACTOR/AUXILIARY BUILDING Bass Islands Property Crushed-Rock Fill In Situ Glacial Till Bedrock Density (lb/ft3 ): Dry density 139 + 4% 125 + 4% 150+ 10% Wet density 144 + 5% 140 + 5% Submerged density 90+ 3% 80+3% 110+ 10% Wave velocities (ft/sec): Compression wave 2,500 + 15% 7,700 + 7% 13,000+ 10% Shear wave 900 + 25% 2,200 + 5% 7,600+ 15% Poisson's Ratio: Static or dynamic 0.4 + 10% 0.45 + 10% 0.24+ 10% 2 Modulus of elasticity (lb/ft ): Static 1.2 x 106 +25% 0.5 x 106 +20% 120 x 106 +50% Dynamic 4.0 x 106 +30% 1.2 x 106+ 30% 180 x 106 +50% Increase per foot of depth 0.48 x 106 +25% 0.48 x 106 + 20% 0 Shear modulus (lb/ft2): Dynamic 1.4 x 106 +30% 0.4 x 106 + 30% 72 x 106+ 50% Increase per foot of depth 0.17x 106+25% 0.17 x 106+20% 0 Damping values (percent of critical): Within earthquake levels 7% to 10% 5% to 8% 1% Page I of I REV 16 10/09 I

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.5-10 STATIC AND DYNAMIC SOIL AND ROCK PROPERTIES - RHR COMPLEX Crushed-Rock Fill Glacial Tilla Bass Islands Bedrock Density (lb/ft3) Dry density 139+4% 124 + 2% 150 + 10% Wet density 144 + 5% 139 + 2% Submerged density 90 + 3% 77 + 2% 110+ 10% Wave velocities (ft/sec) Compression wave 2500+ 15% 7700 + 7% 13000+ 10% Shear wave 900 + 25% 2200+ 15% 7600+ 15% Poisson's Ratio Static or dynamic 0.4 + 10% 0.45 + 10% 0.24+ 10% Static modulus of elasticity (lb/ft2) 1.2 x 106 +25% 4.0 x 105 + 30% 120x 106+50% Dynamic modulus of elasticity (lb/ft2) Single 1.0% 1.2 x 105 + 50% Amplitude shear 0.01% 4.0 x 106+ 30% 4x 105 +/- 50% 180 x 106-+/- 50% Strain 0.01% 13 x !0+/- +50% Static modulus of rigidity (lb/ft2) 4.0 x 10+ 30% 1.4x l05+30% 48 x 106 + 50% Dynamic modulus of rigidity (lb/ft2 ) Single 1.0% 0.7x 105+50% Amplitude shear 0.1% 1.4 x 106+ 30% 2.5 x 105 +50% 72 x 106 +50% Strain 0.01% 5 7.5 x 10 +50% Damping values (percent of critical damping) Single 1.0 19.0 Amplitude shear 0.1 7 to 10 17.0 I Strain 0.01 9.0 Modulus of subgrade reaction (lb/ft3) 1.0 x 106 +25% 6.5 x 105 + 50% a Values reported were determined specifically for in situ conditions. However, the glacial till, compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density, is expected to exhibit static and dynamic properties that fall within the ranges of variation reported in this table. Page I of I REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.5-11 MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY (DAMAGE) SCALE OF 1931 (Abridged) I. Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances (I, Rossi-Forel Scale) II. Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings. Delicately suspended objects may swing (I to II, Rossi-Forel Scale) III. Felt quite noticeably indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings, but many people do not recognize it as an earthquake. Standing motorcars may rock slightly. Vibration like passing of truck. Duration estimated (III, Rossi-Forel Scale) IV. During the day felt indoors by many, outdoors by few. At night some awakened. Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; walls make creaking sound. Sensation like heavy truck striking building. Standing motorcars rocked noticeably (IV to V, Rossi-Forel Scale) V. Felt by nearly everyone, many awakened. Some dishes, windows, etc., broken; a few instances of cracked plaster; unstable objects overturned. Disturbances of trees, poles, and other tall objects sometimes noticed. Pendulum clocks may stop (V to VI, Rossi-Forel Scale) VI. Felt by all, many frightened and run outdoors. Some heavy furniture moved; a few instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys. Damage slight (VI to VII, Rossi-Forel Scale) 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 motorcars (VII, Rossi-Forel Scale) 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. Persons driving motorcars disturbed (VII+ to LX-, Rossi-Forel Scale) 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 (IX+, Rossi-Forel Scale) 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 (X, Rossi-Forel Scale) XI. Few, if any (masonry) structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Broad fissures in ground. Underground pipelines completely out of service. Earth slumps and land slips in soft ground. Rails bent greatly XII. Damage total. Waves seen on ground surface. Lines of sight and level distorted. Objects thrown upward into the air Page I of I REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.5-12 DISTANT EARTHOUAKE EPICENTERS (200 OR MORE MILES FROM THE SITE) (1800-1986) Affected Approx. Area Distance Estimated Maximum North West (square From Site Intensity Date Time Intensity Location Latitude Longitude miles.) (miles) at Site 1811 Dec 16 0200 XII New Madrid, Missouri 36.6 89.6 2,000,000 530 III - IV 1812 Jan 23 - XII New Madrid, Missouri 36.6 89.6 2,000,000 530 Ill - IV 1812 Feb 7 - XlI New Madrid, Missouri 36.6 89.6 2,000,000 530 III - IV 1870 Oct 20 1125 IX Montreal-Quebec, 47.4 70.5 1,000,000 730 IV Canada 1886 Aug 31 2159 X Charleston, South 32.9 80.0 2,000,000 650 IV Carolina 1895 Oct 31 0508 VIII Charleston, Missouri 37.0 89.4 1,000,000 460 I11 1905 Mar 13 1030 V Menominee 45.0 87.7 Local 300 1909 Jan 22 2115 V Houghton, Michigan 47.2 88.6 Local 435 0 1909 May 26 0842 VII Beloit, Wisconsin 42.5 89.0 500,000 290 0 1909 Sep 27 0345 VII Indiana 39.0 87.7 30,000 310 0 1925 Feb 28 0919 IX St. Lawrence River 47.6 70.1 1,000,000 780 II 1926 Nov 5 0953 VIl Southeast Ohio 39.1 82.1 350 205 0 1929 Aug 12 0625 IX Attica, New York 42.9 78.3 100,000 270 11 1935 Nov I 0104 VI Timiskaming, Ontario 46.8 79.1 1,000,000 340 1944 Sep 5 0039 VIII Cornwall-Massena 44.9 74.5 175,000 480 I1 1963 Feb 27 0600 IV Grimsby, Ontario 43.2 79.5 220 0 1968 Nov 9 1203 VIII Southeast Illinois 38.5 88.0 1,000,000 350 I1 1975 Feb 16 2321 V Near Wellston, Ohio 39.0 82.4 Local 215 1980 Jul 27 1852 VIl Sharpsburg, Kentucky 37.8 83.7 260,000 300 11 1984 Jul 6 1724 V Near Sudbury, Ontario 46.5 81.2 Local 350 0 1984 Jul28 2339 V Near Clay City, 39.2 87.1 Local 285 0 Indiana 1984 Aug 29 0650 V Near Clay City, 39.4 87.2 Local 285 0 Indiana 1985 Sep 9 2206 V Near Edgebrook, 41.9 88.0 Local 250 0 Illinois Page I of I REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.5-13 EARTHQUAKE EPICENTERS WITHIN 200 MILES OF THE SITEa (1776-1986) Approx. Affected Distance Area From Estimated Maximum North West (square Site Intensity Date Time Intensity Location Latitude Longitude miles) (miles) at Site 1776 Summer 0800 VI Near Muskingum River 170 1833 Feb 4 - VI Near Kalamazoo, 42.3 85.6 125 Michigan 1857 Mar I - V Near Eastlake, Ohio 41.7 81.2 110 1872 Feb 6 0800 V Wenona, Michigan 43.5 83.5 Local 110 0 1875 Jun 18 0743 VII Urbana and Sidney, Ohio 40.2 84.0 40,000 130 1877 Aug 17 1050 V SE Michigan near Detroit 42.3 83.3 200 25 0 1882 Feb 9 1500 V Swandors and Dodkins 40.5 84.0 Local 110 0 near Anna, Ohio 1883 Feb 4 0500 VI Indiana and Michigan, felt 42.3 85.6 8,000 125 at Kalamazoo 1884 Sep 19 1414 VI Near Lima, Ohio 40.7 84.1 125,000 95 IV 1900 Apr 9 1400 VI Near Brunswick, Ohio 41.4 81.8 - 95 III 1901 May 17 0100 VI Southeast Ohio 39.3 82.5 7,000 190 0 1902 Jun 14 0700 V Near Dover, Ohio 40.3 81.4 - 150 0 1906 Apr 23 0712 V Near Ada, Ohio 40.7 83.6 - 90 I1 1906 Jun 27 1610 V Fairport, Ohio 41.4 81.6 400 95 0 1925 Mar 27 2306 V Southwestern Ohio - 170 1926 Oct 28 0240 Ill East Toledo, Ohio 41.6 83.6 Local 30 0 0500 IV Toledo, Ohio 41.6 83.6 Local 30 0 1927 Oct 29 - V Near Alliance, Ohio 40.9 81.2 - 125 1928 Sep 9 1500 V Lorain and Cleveland, 41.5 82.0 1,500 70 0 Ohio 1929 Mar 8 0406 V Bellefontaine, Ohio 40.4 84.2 5,000 130 0 1930 Sep 20 1440 VI Anna, Ohio 40.3 84.3 - 125 0 1930 Sep 30 1440 VII Anna, Ohio 40.3 84.3 - 130 1930 Nov 20 - III Near Brighton, Michigan 42.6 83.4 - 45 11 1931 Jun 10 0330 V Malinta, Ohio 41.6 84.0 - 55 1931 Sep 20 1805 VII Anna, Sidney, Houston, 40.2 84.3 40,000 130 0 Ohio 1932 Jan 22 - V Near Akron, Ohio 41.1 81.5 - 110 0 1937 Mar 2 0948 VII Anna, Sidney, Ohio 40.7 84.0 90,000 110 III Page I of 2 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.5-13 EARTHQUAKE EPICENTERS WITHIN 200 MILES OF THE SITEa (1776-1986) Approx. Affected Distance Area From Estimated Maximum North West (square Site Intensity Date Time Intensity Location Latitude Longitude miles.9 (miles) at Site 1937 Mar 3 0450 V Anna, Sidney, Ohio 40.5 84.0 Local 110 0 1937 Mar 9 2445 VIII Anna, Sidney, Ohio 40.6 84.0 150,000 100 IV 1938 Mar 13 1040 11 Detroit River 42.3 83.1 Local 25 II 1943 Mar 9 2226 V Lake Erie 42.2 80.9 40,000 120 IV 1947 Aug 9 2047 VI South-Central Michigan 42.0 85.0 50,000 90 III 1948 Jan 18 Night III Toledo, Ohio 41.6 83.6 Local 30 1952 Jun 20 0438 VI Zanesville, Ohio 39.8 82.2 10,000 170 0 1953 Jun 12 2345 IV Toledo, Ohio 41.6 83.6 Local 30 0 1955 May 26 1309 V Cleveland, Ohio 41.5 81.7 Local 85 0 1955 Jun 28 2016 V Cleveland, Ohio 41.5 81.7 Local 85 0 1956 Jan 27 1103 V West-Central Ohio 40.5 84.0 Local 110 0 1957 Jun 29 0525 V Southeast of London, 42.9 81.2 Local 120 0 Ontario 1958 May 1 1647 V Cleveland, Ohio 41.3 81.4 Local 110 0 1961 Feb 22 0344 V Findlay, Ohio 41.2 83.4 Local 55 0 1967 Apr 7 2340 V Columbus, Ohio 39.6 82.5 3,000 165 0 1968 Oct 31 V Attica, Michigan 43.0 83.0 Local 80 11 1976 Feb 2 2114 III Colechester, Ontario 42.0 82.7 Local 25 II 1977 Jun 17 1539 VI Near Celina, Ohio 40.7 84.6 200 110 11 1980 Aug 20 0934 IV Near Colechester, Ontario 41.9 83.0 Local 15 III 1986 Jan 31 1646 VI Near Perry, Ohio 41.7 81.2 110 IV 1986 Jul 12 0819 V St. Mary's Ohio 40.6 84.4 Local 115 0 Earthquakes of Intensity V or greater only are tabulated beyond a distance of 50 miles from the site. All known shocks within 50 miles of the site are indicated. Page 2 of 2 REV 16 10/09 I

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.5-14 RESULTS OF PLATE LOAD TESTS ON FILL AND TILL Average Movement of Plate For a Contact Stress of 10,000 lb/ft Material Plate Diameter (in.) Initial Load Cycle (in.) Average of Rebound Cycle (in.) Fill 12 0.035 0.006 24 0.091 0.027 30 0.097 0.040 Till 12 0.050 0.040 24 0.092 0.049 30 0.101 0.052 Page 1 of I REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.5-15 WATER PRESSURE TEST DATA Water Period of Water Calculated Boring Pressure Steady Flow Intake Permeability Number Test Section Depth (ft) (RpSn (minutes) (gprn) (ft/yr) 201 23-1/2- 33-1/2 25 20 2.5 211 33 - 43 30 20 8.0 564 43-1/2- 53-1/2 45 10 7.0 327 53 -64 75 10 6.0 169 63-1/2- 73-1/2 70 10 8.0 240 203 15 - 25 13 20 8.5 1380 21 - 31 17 20 12.4 1540 30 - 40 30 20 9.0 635 39 - 49 37 20 24.0 1370 48 - 58 55 20 10.5 404 57 - 67 55 20 6.5 250 66 - 76 55 20 5.5 210 75 - 85 55 20 23.0 884 84 - 94 55 20 22.0 845 93 - 103 55 20 22.0 845 102 - 112 65 20 19.0 616 209 36 - 46 30 20 11.5 810 43 - 53 30 20 19.0 1340 52 - 62 40 5 6.0 316 61 - 71 40 10 13.0 685 70 - 80 40 10 13.0 685 79 89 40 10 2.0 105 88 - 98 40 10 10.0 526 97 - 107 40 10 3.0 158 106 - 116 40 20 17.6 930 115 - 125 40 15 16.6 875 Page I of 2 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.5-15 WATER PRESSURE TEST DATA Water Period of Water Calculated Boring Pressure Steady Flow Intake Permeability Number Test Section Depth (ft) (p4s0 (minutes) (ftifr) 124 - 134 40 15 16.0 845 133 - 143 40 20 15.0 790 142 - 152 40 20 9.5 500 210 14 - 24 15 15 15.8 2220 23 - 33 30 20 15.5 1090 45 - 55 50 20 11.5 486 54 - 64 50 20 16.5 697 63 - 73 50 15 21.0 888 72 - 82 50 20 21.0 888 81 - 91 50 20 20.0 845 90 - 100 50 20 15.0 634 Note: Permeabilities were calculated using the method outlined in Reference 4; i.e., using the formula K = Cp (Q/H) where K = permeability in feet per year Cp = a constant dependent on hole size Q = flow in gallons per minute H = applied pressure in feet of water units Page 2 of 2 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.5-16 CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF GROUND WATER Boring Number Depth (ft) Formation' pH Chloride (Cl-, ppm) Sulfate (SO4--, pPM) 201 30.0 BI 7.65 33 1685 201 85.0 BI 7.60 34 1747 204 18.0 BI 8.00 43 1661 205 17.4 BI 8.10 45 1865 205 27.4 BI 8.00 43 1733 205 117.0 S 7.30 424 1790 207 19.8 BI 7.40 356 1776 207 20.0 BI 7.70 51 1747 208 27.2 BI 7.90 1164 1168 208 110.0 S 8.10 183 1282 209 92.0-102.0 BI-S 8.10 102 1771 209 97.0-107.0 BI-S 8.05 156 1738 209 1.02.0-112.0 S 8.00 91 1738 209 132.0-142.0 S 7.80 116 1757 209 147.0-152.0 S 8.10 122 1800 209 151+ S 8.10 115 1757 209 210+ S 7.90 162 1771 210 20.4-30.5 BI 7.60 603 1738 210 30.4-40.5 BI 7.65 547 1728 210 40.4-50.5 BI 8.00 1145 1709 210 50.4-60.5 BI 8.00 362 1742 210 60.4-70.5 BI 8.10 198 1709 210 70.4-80.5 BI 7.70 65 1752 210 80.4-90.5 BI-S 8.00 156 1699 210 90.4-100.0 S 7.50 21 1718 210 67+ BI 7.70 48 1747 a BI = Bass Islands Group. S = Salina Group. Page I of 1 REV 16 10/09 I

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.5-17 LATERAL PRESSURE VALUES-Crushed- Bass Islands Lateral Pressure (lb/ft2/ft) Rock Fill Bedrock Static-rigid wall above water 96b 0 Static-rigid wall submerged 63 Static-cantilever wall above water 0 Static-cantilever wall submerged 80b 63 c Dynamic-rigid wall above water c Dynamic-rigid wall below water a During the course of safety evaluation review, the NRC requested additional information regarding the technique for the dynamic lateral pressure computation. This information was provided to the NRC as Reference 32. b A factor of safety of 1.5 is applied to these values when the foundation walls are required to perform safety-related functions. c See Figures 3.8-48 and 3.8-49. Page I of I REV 16 10/091

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.5-18 FOUNDATION DATA Approximate Uniform Approximate Plan Foundation Applied Foundation Dimensions (ft x ft) Elevationsa (fit) Load (lb/ft2) Category I Reactor building 120 x 155 536 7500 Auxiliary building 80 x 155 536 4000 to 5000 RHR Complex 120 x 310 547 4000 to 5000 Other structures Turbine house 210 x 375 558 5000 Radwaste building 100 x 190 552 2500 a USGS datum. Page I of I REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.5-19 CURTAIN WALL GROUTING

SUMMARY

OF GROUT TAKES Hole Grout Take in Cubic Feetb Observed Horizontal Distance of Numbera Mix Ac Mix Bd Mix Ce Total Grout Travel (ft) 1 3 10 13 12 2 1.5 10.5 12 3 6 3 9 12 4 3 3 5 9 9 6 6 6 7 18 18 8 6 6 9 6 6 10 6 9 15 11 9 9 12 4.5 4.5 13 10.5 10.5 14 1.5 1.5 15 10.5 6 16.5 16 3 3 17 18 3 21 36 18 3 3 19 6 4.5 10.5 24 20 3 3 6 21 3 1.5 4.5 22 12 18 30 12 23 6 10.5 16.5 24 24 10.5 6 16.5 12 25 9 12 21 12 26 9 3 12 27 12 24 36 24 28 9 9 18 12 29 9 18 10 37 30 6 15 7.5 28.5 24 31 9 27 10 46 12 32 12 3 15 12 33 9 12 21 12 34 6 12 18 12 35 10.5 21 5 36.5 12 Page I of 3 REV 16 10/091

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.5-19 CURTAIN WALL GROUTING

SUMMARY

OF GROUT TAKES Hole Grout Take in Cubic Feetb Observed Horizontal Distance of Numbera Mix Ac Mix Bd Mix Ce Total Grout Travel (ft) 36 1.5 1.5 12 37 18 27 45 12 38 1.5 1.5 39 21 44 65 24 40 9 24 26 59 24 41 12 18 30 12 42 12 21 33 12 43 7.5 3 10.5 44 1.5 1.5 45 12 9 21 46 12 21 33 12 47 12 3 15 24 48 12 10.5 22.5 12 49 12 12 24 50 12 18 30 51 12 30 5 47 12 52 9 10.5 19.5 24 53 6 12 18 12 54 12 27 39 12 55 7.5 3 10.5 56 1.5 1.5 57 12 15 27 12 58 9 12 21 12 59 1.5 1.5 60 10.5 18 28.5 12 61 7.5 18 5 30.5 62 7.5 15 22.5 63 9 18 27 24 64 9 21 30 24 65 21 46 67 24 66 15 30 15 60 36 67 24 6 30 12 68 15 15 69 22.5 3 25.5 70 19.5 19.5 Page 2 of 3 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.5-19 CURTAIN WALL GROUTING

SUMMARY

OF GROUT TAKES Hole Grout Take in Cubic Feetb Observed Horizontal Distance of Numbera Mix Ac Mix B Mix Ce Total Grout Travel (ft) 71 1.5 1.5 12 72 15 12 10 37 12 73 18 7.5 25.5 24 74 15 9 24 12 75 Abandoned - Driller Lost Drill Bit in Hole 75A 9 12 21 24 76 12 12 76A 6 6 77 1.5 1.5 78 7.5 7.5 12 79 21 21 24 80 15 15 All grout holes were brought to refusal with a grout pressure ranging from 8 psi to 20 psi with the exception of holes 2, 3, and 68 in which there was a heavy grout return through the surface of the rock which was highly fractured above packer. b An additional 72-1/2 ft 3 of grout was used for filling inside the casing subsequent to pressure grouting. C Mix A - Water:cernent + flyash ratio of 2:1 or greater. d Mix B - Water:cement + flyash ratio of 1.5:1 or less Mix C - Water:cement + flyash ratio of 1: 1 or less plus a water:sand ratio of 1: 1. Page 3 of 3 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2.5-20

SUMMARY

OF GROUTING FIRST ZONE GROUTING (holes drilled 10 ft into rock) Holes Holes Percent Holes Sacks Cement Unit Take (sacks Drilled With Take With Take and Flyash per foot of hole) Primary 75 87 1629.00 3.17 Secondary 65 75 1066.25 2.08 Tertiary 39 29 174.00 0.21 Quaternary 7 27 109.25 0.84 Total 186 2978.00 Average 52.75 1.58 SECOND ZONE GROUTING (holes drilled approximately 50 ft into rock) Holes Holes Percent Holes Sacks Cement Unit Take (sacks Drilled With Take With Take and Flyash per foot of hole) Primary 91 99 1340.25 0.46 Secondary 89 100 652.50 0.31 Tertiary 47 98 357.75 0.18 Quaternary 9 100 106.50 0.27 Total 236 -- 2457.00 Average 99.22 0.31 Page I oflI REV 16 10/09 1

LAKE " SUPERIOR

                            -SUPERIOR              UPLAND
                                               \? PROVINCE 19 18 30' 4

I*PENNSYLVANIA

                                                                      /1' I  I 4'

SCALE IN MILES

REFERENCE:

Fermi 2 MODIFIED FROM FENNEMAN, N. 1946; PHYSICAL UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT DIVISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES IN COOPERATION WITH THE PHYSIOGRAPHIC COMMITTEE OF THE U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY. FIGURE 2.5-1 MODIFIED FROM: BASEMENT ROCK MAP OF THE CENTRAL LOWLAND PROVINCE UNITED STATES, COMPILED BY RICHARD W. BAYLEY, REGIONAL PHYSIOGRAPHIC MAP UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, AND WILLIAM MUEHLBERGER, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, 1968.

N 19I1 a-3o' LEGEND: -LAKE SEDIMENTS WISCONSIN END MORAINES SCL NoIE NO GLACIAL DEPOSITS GROUND MORAINES AND OUTWASH Fermi 2 PLAINS UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT WICE CONTACT STRATIFIED DRIFT FIGURE 2.5-2

REFERENCE:

REGIONAL SURFACE GEOLOGICAL MAP GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA 1959, GLACIAL MAP OF THE UNITED STATES EAST OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS.

19 18.30 ENRICO FERMI SITE LEGEND LACUSTRIINE CLAY W LACUSTRIINE AND DELTA CLAY LACUSTRI NE LOAM MUCK AN[ PEAT 0 MARSHES ALLUVIAL . DEPOSITS LAKE SHORELINE;

INDEFINIT E WHERE DASHED
                                                       .-. ,,. GACIL V0.

2 3 4 6 I SCA LE IN MILES Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT

REFERENCE:

Fl IGURE 2.5-3 MAZOLA, A. J., 1969, GLACIAL DEPOSITS OF MONROE COUNTY, MICHIGAN; FROM REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 13, GEOLOGY AREA SURFi kCE GEOLOGICAL MAP FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING IN MONROE COUNTY, MICHIGAN; GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES.

890 880 870 860 850 840 830 820 810 800 1 790 WAUKEC COLCT IOAR. AYo SOUTH.BNO.O'6_Oo Oo ooo 00000o

                  \              Y\\\\
 ,\\\\\\\N                           NDAA,         4 00000    000
 '\\\\\%                                0000       MARION00
,\\\\
          \ i
          *\
                        \o
                             **'0 INDIANAPO LI 000000 "IIt
0000
,,\\\\         \\               00000.               ..,

SCALE IN MILES 25DEVON IAN 50 25 0 50 100 PERMIAN. oRIovCA FORT Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT

REFERENCE:

FIGURE 2.5-4 THIS MAP WAS PREPARED FROM: A)"GEOLOGIC MAP OF NORTH AMERICA" REGIONAL BEDROCK GEOLOGICAL MAP BY THE U.S.G.S., 1965 B) "BEDROCK OF MICHIGAN" BY THE MICHIGAN STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, 1968

DETROIT RIVER GROUP FANDERDON FORMATION Ddr ILUCAS FORMATION LAMHERSTBURG FORMATION

                                                            *   -{SYLVANIA Ss Sb*      BASS ISLANDS GROUP S      SALINA GROUP CONTACTS ARE INFRARED ACTIVE QUARRIES M ABANDONED QUARRIES A REPORTED NATURAL OUTCROPS
  • REPORTED SINK HOLES 0 OIL OR GAS WELL RECORD LARGER SOLID CIRCLE DENOTES SEVERAL RECORDS IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY o0 3 4 SCALE IN MILES Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT

REFERENCE:

FIGURE 2.5-5 MAZOLA, A. J., 1969, BEDROCK GEOLOGIC MAP OF MONROE COUNTY, MICHIGAN: FROM REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 13, AREA BEDROCK GEOLOGICAL MAP GEOLOGY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING IN MONROE COUNTY, MICHIGAN; GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, 1970.

                    /ri F'r LEGEND"                        25   0   25  so   75 100 ANTICLINE OR ARCH                   SCALE IN MILES KNOWN INFERRED   ._-_

SYN*CLINE KNOWN Fermi 2 1NFERREO--... UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT MONOCLINE --- FIGURE 2.5-6

REFERENCE:

ELLS, G. D., 1969, ARCHITECTURE OF THE MICHIGAN MAJOR FOLDS MAP BASIN IN STUDIES OF THE PRECAMBRIAN OF THE MICHIGAN BASIN: MICHIGAN BASIN GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY.

Jo F-i-- TRACE OF FAULT d5 0 25 50 /S 100 _TRENO HACHURES SHOWN ON SCALE IN MILES DOWNTHROWN SIDE

REFERENCE:

BRIGHAM, R. J., 1972, STRUCTURAL GEOLOGY OF Fermi 2 SOUTHWESTERN ONTARIO AND SOUTHEASTERN UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT MICHIGAN, ONTARIO MINES AND NORTHERN AFFAIRS AFFAIRS. PETROLEUM RESOURCES SECTION PAPER 71-2. FIGURE 2.5-7 BRISTOL, H. M., AND T. C. BUSHBACH, 1971, STRUCTURAL FEATURES OF THE EASTERN MAJOR FAULTS MAP INTERIOR REGION OF THE UNITED STATES IN ILLINOIS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, ILLINOIS PETROLEUM PUB 96.

60 85** ....... iiiii M i 19"1a3 . LEGEND:

                                                                                                 ,                THRUST FAULT
  • NORMAL FAULT
                                                                                                /lit       Ti     EN ECHELON FAULT SYSTEM BURIED FAULT UNCLASSIFIED FAULT MILI
                     " °'% %* L..A......             ........                                            U INTENSELY DISTURBED, LOCALIZED UPLIFT
  • I"" - .... ......

ANTICLINAL AXIS

                                                                                                   -------        SYNCLINAL AXIS A          AXIS OF OVERTURNED ANTICLINE ELONGATE.

ANTICLINE CLOSELY COMPRESSED so " TI

I,:' STRUCTURE CONTOURS
                 *     ,      IDIAN             POLI                          Are ateL 41'*                   NOTE:

o * *s~o s... MILWUKE~ EGO 6uF

                                                                                             &,0STRUCTURE CONTOUR LINES ARE CONSTRUCTED ON THE TOPS OF DI FFERENT LITHOLOGIC UNITS IN IN DIFFERENT LOCALITIES. THE NAMES AND BOUNDARIES OF THESE CONTOURED UNITS ARE DELINEATED BY DOTTED LINES ON THE MAP.

25 0S E MI 5.0 SCALE IN MILES Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-8 REGIONAL TECTONIC MAP

        .. .. 7iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii. :**....  ...    *7,',!,},i']tiiti~t714.{     -:

4 '

                                                                                        .~l                  .

I: ........... ....... I- *:' - ' :-to X.X . . .. .- 790*/t

                                                                                                                                           . 44

[ iii::!ilii~iiii*

                                           '*o(]                           iiiiiiiiiiiii~ii~i!* °
                                                               * * \ *...............i~ii}
      ......         t...............                                                                                                       ;i
i. ......... . ...

. ......... *:: .... ..... MU KE O . -, -20 30.

      ..............                                                             I.                              /                   .

LEGEND:

                                                                                                                                                     -w--    SOUGUER GRAVITY CONTOUR AYNED
                                               ýGFRT      R-A--D-                         POTHUO-I                                                           ICONTOUR INTERVAL 10 MILLIGALS)

L'* L'A......T...* < . .- 6 a/ .% . 0_ .I * " i ... 25 S Z5 60 T5 SCALE IN MILES Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-9 REGIONAL BOUGUER GRAVITY MAP

N ON KEY: 0 INDICATES PRECAMBRIAN SAMPLE SCALE IN MILES CONTOUR INTERVAL = 100 GAMMAS as i 0 t0 40 Fermi 2

REFERENCE:

UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT MAGNETIC MAP - A) HINZE, W.J., AND MERRITT, D.W., 1969, BASEMENT ROCKS OF THE SOUTHERN PENINSULA OF FIGURE 2.5-10 MICHIGAN IN STUDIES OF THE PRECAMBRIAN OF THE MICHIGAN BASIN: MICHIGAN BASIN GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY B) THE PRECAMBRIAN WELL LOCATIONS ARE FROM THE REGIONAL MAGNETIC MAP MICHIGAN GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, 1968, MICHIGAN'S OIL AND GAS FIELDS, 1967: ANNUAL STATISTICAL

SUMMARY

NO. 8.

0 WU) 1-- STRATIGRAPHIC

0) a. 0 cc z-yWW LITHOLOGY
                 >- NOMENCLATURE                       14 "              "      _

I__II I - _ _ _ __L QUAT. Recent and Plelstoce 15-30 GokelDposits and Bass Islands Group 425 Dolomite J IG Shales and Shaly p -D

                                                      -o                       0ae           l- Dolomite So       noGrou Ii rop Rm        r             525a         Shaly Dolomite ILimestone         and Salne    7--7         -//--/           52    *C   "]Imestone1 Breccias D.L olom.$ite a n7 Sholy
                                                   /           (-                       "L2Dolomite ALmstn            and N lagaran Group                                         42           Dol mit caarcGo                                          10425e            Dolomite n

Richmond Group * '--.* 625 Shale and Dolomite z 0 0 0 Treanton - Black River - - 825-850 Dolomites and Sholes Group

                      'u,--     T1               V     .V'qAN z
                        ~    StCrolian.erie                                              Sandstones (with
                                                  ......                                  some Dolomites)

Granitic Gneiss NOTE: THICKNESS OF THE BASS ISLANDS GROUP AND PART OF THE SALINA GROUP BASED ON SITE EXPLORATORY BORINGS. OTHER THICKNESSES Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT BASED ON MICHIGAN WELL LOGS, BRIGHAM, (1972) FISHER, (1969) AND ELLS, (ORAL COMMUNICATION) FIGURE 2.5-11 SITE STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN

LOCATIONSFOR UNIT NO, 2 o NDICATES PROPOSEDBORING {201-21) UNITNO. 2 B INDICATENPROPOSEDBORINGLOCATIONSFA

                                                         / /      TESBORING 1108-1241       LOCATIONTAKEN FORUNITNO. I D BORINGLOCAT1ONSFOR UNIT 2 (1-31 )

14 IICATES PROPOSE PROPOSED 1IN0ICATES INLANDBORINGLOCATIONS FOR UNIT 21(31-70 0 INDICTEEDEEPBORING LOCATION

                                                          *INDICATES BORINGLOCATIONS FORSEISMICSOIL RESPONE TUDY
  • INDICATES BORINGLOCATIONS TOBOTTOM Of SAND
                                                    *f      STRATUM Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.6-12 BEDROCK TOPOGRAPHIC MAP - SITE DETROIT EDISON COMPANY DRAWING NO. 6MS721-40. REV. I

7i,

  ;i                                                                                                 /A       /

11 3/4/ // i A' NIC'TN1OPONlOll ORING Nlt FORUNITNO.2 1201-111 LOCATIONI WICATtRlPROPOSEDBOMING FORUNITNO.2I00-1241 LOCATIONS BORINGLOCATIONTAKENFORUNITNO.I

  • INOICATOB
  • INDICATESGPROPOS iNOICATISFPROOOMDINLANDBORING FORUNITNO.2 (1-311 LOCATIONS WORING LOCATIONSFOR UNITNO. 2431 Fermi 2 INDICATESDEW5BORING LOCATION UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT
  • INDICATENBORINGLOCATIONS STUOY BOIL IEOPONBO
                                                                   $ORRINAVIC INOLOCATIONITOBOTTOMOFSAIND STRATUM
  • INDICATESBOR FIGURE 2.5-13 BORING PLAN - SITE VICINITY DETROIT EDISON COMPANY DRAWING EMS721-40
                                                                                                                     '0             0
                                                                                                                      '0 z

w a N. ;000 N.7200 N-7,400 N.7,600 E4,600 SUBSURFACE Er .4EA-I SECTION DESIGNATION RI R-ESIDUAL HEA MOA omý E-4,800 uo I! RHR-T3 R R-6 R 1.5 Ra R-2 L op 4 4 02 203 PLATE LOAD 201 2

                                                                           ,TESTAREA 204 4     *4qi---*I-4-f--

Do 6 I~ ZQQ 5, REA vCTOR 3s 0214 206' 1207 a zo20 AUX BLDG. 201 D PLATE LOADI TEST AREAI 209 215 2 D "5,400 _C 4il 217#91 39 TURBINE BUILDING ac(

                                            -                            -=-
                                                    -213             I VICE BLDG.              E
                                                                                         ----- ----   " 5,600 E'
                                                                                                      " 5,800 0      50     100            200 SCALE IN FEET KEY:

BORINGS DRILLED FOR P.S.A.R. (1968)

  • BORINGS DRILLED FOR SUPPLEMENT TO P.S.A.R. (1969)
  1. BORINGS DRILLED FOR SOIL AND ROCK STUDIES (1M BORINGS DRILLED FOR RHR COMPLEX FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION (1972) 1 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-14 BORING PLAN - REACTOR/AUXILIARY BUILDING, RHR COMPLEX, TURBINE RADWASTE SOURCE DRAWING

REFERENCE:

BUILDING. AND SERVICE BUILDING REFERENCE 3, PLATE 2

II . 74ft L-OON S RHR REACTOR FINISH E BRADE BUILDINGS BORING NUMBER LAKE ERIE A 580 , ELTVATION SS E S "AHYHA I ,. '..A "" . . . APYRSAIMATE WATER SURFACE ELEVATION572 83

                                                                                                                     .7 50 TOLGH' G~y  OCA~yDRABHARDEI.SI LOCALLY             SUAS5FVA            WEREOBTAINEDDEB LA       N TIO A   W THINSHALESEAISA        S PSIBLE       A TYHESIA R     SAICD                 TS        I.NDICAT 4400 580-5240 SUVEDAUM                 I        NS INORATO          ON ACTUASOI 540.                           -

TH ET NSOILSTRAA TIKESO TH DETH HERC AD OTHEBORNGSAY ODTONS; BTWEEN[ ARY THE FAROMAN TESTA THOSE 3200 280 NOTES: REER T GRAT LKES ELEVTION SURFACESECTIONWERE OBTAINEDBY SECTION A - A' ,o oDA ooEAA ELVTIN REE OGEA AE NTERPOLATINGBETWEEN TEST BOR-SURVEYDAYUM. INGS, INFORMATION ON ACTUALSOIL SCALE IN FEET GROUND SURFACE ELEVATIONSARE AND ROCK CONDITIONSEXISTS ONLY CORRECT ONLYATTEST BORING ATTHE TEST BORING LOCATIONSAND LOCATIONS. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE SOIL AND THE DEPTH AND THICKNESS OF THE ROCK CONDITIONSBETWEENTHE TEST BORINGS MAY VARY FROM THOSE Fermi 2 SOILSTRATA AND THE DEPTH OF THE ROCKSTRATA INDICATEDON THE SUB- INDICATED. UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-15 SUBSURFACE SECTION A-A' FROM FIGURE 2.5-13

B B3+/- L..EVATIS 5RAD

                                                                                                          -BORING NUMBER                                   B' 553
                                                                                                                                                   $AND S   --

340 440 .5.e

  • 3400 320 300 300 200-260 SCL IN FEET SCALE IN FEET R4:

NOTES: SECTION B - B' ELEVATIONSREFERTOGREAT LAKES SURVEY DATUM. SURFACE SECTION WERE OBTAINED ETNTERPOLATING ITROA BY BETWEEN TEST SOR- Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT INGS. INFORMATION ON ACTUAL SOIL GROUND SURFACE ELEVATIONSARE AND ROCK CONDITIONS EXISTS ONLY CORRECT ONLYAT TESTBORING AT THE TEST BORING LOCATIONS AND LOCATIONS. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE SOIL AND FIGURE 2.5-16 THE DEPTH AND THICKNESS OF THE ROCK CONDITIONS BETWEENTHE TEST SOIL STRATA AND THE DEPTH OF THE BORINGS MAY VARY FROM THOSE SUBSURFACE SECTION B-B' FROM ROCK STRATA INDICATEDON THE SUB. INDICATED. FIGURE 2.5-13

C Co BORING 211 BORINGS 208 8209 BORING 206 BORING 204 BORING 201 570- GROUND SURFACE -570 I `C-_ TILL jI AUXILIARY BUILDING UNIT 2 I TILL 5, REACTORBULIG - - - ' _- TURBINE BUILDING - V -____________ -jUNIT2-550- UNIT 2 v- - - -550

                                                                                                                                          -JL
                                                                                                                                                          .Il k

530- I *== -530 tq

                                                                                                                                                                                                   .4t
                                                               ...IV__                                             V             -

510- ... _

                                                                                                                                                                                         -510 IV V

k 490- --490 VI

                                                                                                                                                                                          --470 V
                                                                                                                                                                                   +I
  -   470-                                                                                           -~          4         VIII                        a Vil VI                                      V    I                                                              VI VIIII                                                                                                                                            -450 450-SECTION C - C'                                                                              L430 430-KEY:

TILL BROWN TOGRAY SANDY SILTY CLAY F OR tRKAY DOLOMITIC SHALE. FRAC-WITH SOMECOBBLES ANDBOULDERS TORESCLONE TOVERYCLOSE. 0' TO (TILL).

                                                                                                          'WITHOCCASIONAL   FRAGMENTED
                                                   -- ]   RAYTOBROWN     MICROCRYSTALUNE UPTOTON.1,32 TO1 INCH.

ARGILLACEOUS OSLOMITE. FRAC. TURES VERYCLOSE TO MODERATELY .GS LESS IHN ZON DOLO1/1IT ATERIAL F; GRAY A..ILLACEHOS OHEHUITE. CLOSE.OW-90'. VUGSLESSTHAN'O% WITH ZONES OF 20-40%.1116TO 11ZINCH.

                                                  .I    GRAYISH   BLUE TOGRAY  WITH  BLUE NOTES:

STREAKED MICROCRYSTALLINE GOLDMITE. FRACTURES VERYCLOSE GROUND SURFACE ELEVATIONSARE TO JMITHEALED MATRIX WITH FRACTURES BLUISH VERY GRAY CLOSE CLAy CORRECT ONLYAT TEST BORING TO CLOSE. NEARHORIZONTAL WITH 0 SOME90'. VUGS6-10%WItHSOME FRAGMENTED. 0- TO90'. VUGSIN LOCATIONS. I ZONESUPTO40%.1,32 TO1/2 INCH. DOLOMITE FRAGMENTS LESSTHAN THE DEPTH AND THICKNESS OF THE 1O%. 108TO 1/2 INCH. SOIL AND ROCKSTRATA INDICATEDON -] LIGHT GRAYTOBROWN OITIC DOLOMITE. FRACTURES CLOSE TO THE GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE MODERATELY CLOSE. OG-6-'AND40' 50 0I 50I SECTIONS WERE OBTAINED BY INTER-I I __II I I TO90O. SOMEFRAGMENTED ZONES. POLATINGBETWEENTEST BORINGS. IN- VUGSUP TO10%WITH ZONESOFUPTO FORMATION ON ACTUAL SOIL AND 40o%.1/32 TO1/2 INCH. ROCKCONDITIONS EXISTS ONLYATTHE SCALE IN FEET

                                                           .UGT GRAYTOTANMICRUCRYSEAL TEST BORINGS AND ITIS POSSIBLETHAT                      LINEARGILLACEOUS    DOLOMITE.

THE SOIL AND ROCK CONDITIONS THINLY BEDDED WITSDARK GRAY BETWEEN THE TEST BORINGS MAY SHALE PA"nNGSANDLAMINAE. VARY FROM THOSE INDICATED. FRACTUBES FRAGMENTED VARY FROMZONES ANDVERYCLOSE. OF 0-. Fermi 2 "EXTRAPOLATED TO CROSS-SECTION LINE SO' TGZONES OFMODERATELY CLOSE UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT TOWIDE. -=TO20- AND30=-70'. FROM MORE THAN80 FEET VUGSLESSTHAN 10%W17H THIN ZONES OF 10TO20%.1/32 TO 1/2 INCH. FIGURE 2.5-17 CEHAS DOLOMITE. FRACTURES CLOGSE SUBSURFACE SECTION C-C' FROM TOVERYCLOSE. 0HTO90. VUGSLESS THAN I0%.1/16 TO 1-1/2 INCHES. FIGURE 2.5-14

D DI BORING 210 BORING 208 BORING 211 BORING 209p[-*-nRUND SURFACE BORING 212 TILL SI [TILL I I RADWASTE BUILDING _ __ __ UNIT 2

                                                                                                                                                                                                            -550
                                                     .             TURBINE BUILDING UNIT 2                                       I               II
                                                                                                                                                                                                            -530 "I-'I                                                                                                            IV                         II                                                    I,,,

nlI

                                                                                                                                                                                                            -510
                        ,V                                                                                                                                                V                             -J IIJ
                                                                                                                                                                                                            -490 IIII*-          _ I                                                                               IV
                                                                                                                                                                                                            -470
                                                                                                                                                                                                            -450 L VI                                      -430
                                                          /

VIII vil

                                                                                                                                                                                                            -4/0 SECTION D - D'
                                                                                                                                                                                                            -390 NOTES:                                                     .1

_E ...... . Ný

                                                                                      .11. -E    ......  . Ný Ný       -1 GROUND SURFACE ELEVATIONSARE CORRECT ONLYAT TEST BORING LOCATIONS.                                                                                 C T

7U- -1 EI. M.- T111 THE DEPTH AND THICKNESS OF THE SOILAND ROCK STRATA INDICATEDON THE GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE SECTIONS WERE OBTAINED BY INTER-50 0 50 POLATINGBETWEENTEST BORINGS. IN- a c.- FORMATION ON ACTUAL SOIL AND o. ROCKCONDITIONS EXISTSONLYATTHE A . ý TESTBORINGS AND ITIS POSSIBLE THAT DOýO'Xý'I'-= -17 1 SCALE IN FEET THE SOIL AND ROCK CONDITIONS -9

                                                                                      =A- .o."         __        ..

BETWEEN THE TEST BORINGS MAY .11. 10. 01ýp10 VARYFROM THOSE INDICATED.

            ':EXTRAPOLATED TO CR OSS SECTIONLINEFROM MORE THAN80 FEET                 'R`-T:-1"D--T'.'1'Co             E                                                     Fermi 2 EXTRAPOLATEDTO CROSS SECTION LINE FROM LESS THAN20 FEET                                                                                                       UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT
                                                                                      -   0Z.. ý.     -RA            Lo I'N.A 21;.Iý
                                                                                                   .       Tý ol 1. 1.      -ýI'll1.

FIGURE 2.5-18 SUBSURFACE SECTION D-D' FROM FIGURE 2.5-14

E RHR- 7 RHR-4 RHR-I 579- -579 Quarry Run Fill Till 554- -554 RHR Complex Bass 2 -- /oolitic dolomite marker bed

                                                                                                                  -529 Islands 5o4-
                                                                      ,      shale marker bed
                                                                                                                  -504 Group 479-                                                                                                     -479 I

454- -454 SECTION E - E' LEGEND:

  • FRAGMENTEDZONE NOTES:

ELEVATIONSREFER TO N.Y.M.T.. 1935. SURFACE ELEVATIONSARE CORRECT ONLYAT TEST BORING LOCATIONS. THE DEPTH AND THICKNESS OF THE SOIL STRATA AND THE DEPTH OF THE ROCK STRATA INDICATEDON THE SUB-SURFACE SECTIONWERE OBTAINEDBY INTERPOLATING BETWEEN TEST BOR. INGS. INFORMATION ON ACTUAL SOIL AND ROCK CONDITIONS EXISTS ONLY 25 0 25 AT THE TEST BORING LOCATIONS AND IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE SOIL AND ROCKCONDITIONS BETWEENTHE TEST SCALE IN FEET BORINGS MAY VARY FROM THOSE INDICATED. Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-19 SUBSURFACE SECTION E-E' FROM FIGURE 2.5-14 REFERENCE PLATE 6A REV 1 3/88

F F' RHR-4 RHR-5 581- -581 Quarry Run Fill Till -556 556-RHR Complex ---- 1 1% Lu Bass 53/- eoolitIc dolomite marker bed Islands 506- *,..-'shale marker bed Group 481- -'-481 Salina Group

                                                                                              -456 456-SECTION F - F' LtGENOs a    FrANaIIOTE  ZONEC NOTES:

ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.Y.M.T., 1936. SURFACE ELEVATIONS ARE CORRECT ONLY ATTEST BORING LOCATIONS. THE DEPTH AND THICKNESS OF THE SOIL STRATA AND THE DEPTH OF THE ROCK STRATA INDICATED ON THE SUB-SURFACE SECTION WERE OBTAINED BY 25 0 25 INTERPOLATING BETWEEN TEST BOR-INGS. INFORMATION ON ACTUAL SOIL AND ROCK CONDITIONS EXISTS ONLY SCALE IN FEET AT THE TEST BORING LOCATIONS AND IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE SOIL AND ROCK CONDITIONS BETWEEN THE TEST BORINGS MAY VARY FROM THOSE Fermi 2 INDICATED. UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-20 SUBSURFACE SECTION F-F' FROM FIGURE 2.5-14 REFERENCE 3 PLATE 6D

NO SCALE

                                        -----o-  ý .Les LEGEND:

ISOPACH SHOWING TOTAL THICKNESS OF SALT. ISOPACH INTERVAL 200 FEET. 0 WELL REPORTING SALT IN SALINA FORMATION A WELL WITH NO SALT IN SALINA FORMATION M DAWN GAS FIELD, SALT 0 TO OVER 300 FEET THICK 0 10 20 SCALE IN MILES Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-21

REFERENCE:

ISOPACH MAP - TOTAL THICKNESS OF SALT IN LANDES, K. K., 1945, THE SALINA AND BASS SALINA FORMATION IN SOUTHEASTERN ISLANDS ROCK IN THE MICHIGAN BASIN: MICHIGAN USGS., PRELIMINARY DM-40, OIL AND GAS INV. SER.

                                                                                                                       /  SEISMIC
                                                                                                                       /REFRFACTION LINE LEGEND:

STRUCTURAL CONTOURS ON BASE OF OOLITIC DOLOMITE MARKER MARKER BED OF THE BASS ISLANDX S GROUP COUNTOURS DRAWN FROM DIRECT OOLITIC MAR KER BED CONTROL E *,CONTOURS PROJECTED TO OOLITI C MARKER

                                                                                                                                                 ----      BED FROM OTHER RECOGNIZABLE STRATIGRAPHIC CONTACTS
                                                                   'z          *INFERRED                                                                             CONTOURS
                                                                                                                                                       . BORINGS IN WHICH OOLITIC DOLOMITE MARKER BED IS ENCOUNTERED "BORINGSINWHICH       A RECOGNIZABLE CONTACT
                                                                                            -------                                                        OR MARKER BED IS ENCOUNTERED BORINGS IN WHICH A RECOGNIZABLE STRATIGRAPHIC
                                                                                                .           ,*                                             INTERVAL IS ENCOUNTERED
                                                             !   ,                i'l                                                                      INDICATES SUBSURFACE SECTION SHOWN ON FIGURES NE        2.5-15 AND 2.5-16.

CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 10 FEET, GRID SYSTEM IS THAT USED FOR PLANT AREA BY DETROIT _,T-, - -EDISON COMPANY.

                                                               / --------------------------

SCLE IN FEET Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT F IU 1 M O

REFERENCE:

MAP PREPARED PROM DRAWING 6MS721-40 BY THEFIUE252 DETROIT EDISON COMPANY ENGINEERING DESIGNSTUURLCTORMPFSIEVCNY AND SERVICES DEPARTMENT.

G. 9 18 30 LEGEND:

                                                                   * - INDICATES SUBSURFACE SECTION
       --. STRUCTURAL CONTOURS ON THE BASE OF THE OOLITIC DOLOMITE MARKER BED OF THE BASS ISLANDS GROUP 0     50    100         200 A   BORINGS DRILLED IN 1968 (LOG NOT PRESENTED WITH REPORT)

BORINGS DRILLED IN 1..B; OOLITIC MARKER BED ENCOUNTERED SCALE IN FEET

  • BORINGS DRILLED IN 1969; OOLITIC MARKER BED ENCOUNTERED NOTE:

Fermi 2 CONTOUR INTERVAL IS TWO FEET UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT ELEVATIONS REFER TO U.S.G.S. DATUM FIGURE 2.5-23 STRUCTURAL CONTOUR MAP OF SPECIFIC SITE AREA REFERENCE 45 PLATE 1

uJ I-- wJI w Z Iul z BORING 10 BORING 16

u. 30. .SURFACE ELEVATION 571.8 SURFACE ELEVATION 570.7 JJ G.

A 0 ' SYM13OLS DESCRIPTIONS SYMBOLS DESCRIPTIONS 0 0 n BLACKFEAT GRY;; ;SD AND SILT. LO.S01 - IVA) GRAY A140 9RO1N0CLAY - (CL) ILACUSTRINEORIGIN) BGROWN AND GRAYSILTY CLAY (LACUSTRINEORIGINI - (CLI 10 .. 10.ll BROWNCLAY WITH LITTLE SANDAND GRAVEL ITILLI- ICLI GRAY CLAY WITHGRAVEL AND TRACE OF SAND ITILL) - CLI 48 GRADINGGRAYIS - BROWNMTNlH ROCKFRAGNMENItS OCCASIONALROCKFRAGMENTS Ell 20-

                           -r                                                                            20w            BAN ISLANDSGROUP
                                                                                                                    =           BUFF TO LIGHTGRAY, LOCALLYDRAB. HARD, DENSE 30*

BASEISLAND$GROUP BUFF TO LIGHTGRAY, LOCALLYDRAG. HARD. DINSE 30 -r L =

                                                                                                                    =           MASSIVETHIN TO MEDIUMBEGDEDDOLOMITEWITH A FEWSHALE BEAMSAND INCLUSIONIOF ANHYORITE BUFF OOLITICDOLOMITEFROM248- TO 26.9' MASSIVELOCALLYTHIN TO MEDIUM8IDDED DOLOMITEWITHA FEW THIN SHALESELMSAND INCLUSION=OF ANHYORITE                                               =
                                                                                                                    =
                                                                                                                    =

401U = 40 I,_ E SIAM OF DARKGRAY SOFT SHALEWITH = STREAKSOF WHITEANHYDRITEFROM 44A TO 440 = BORINGCOMPSLETO0 AT 62.0' ON 1011816/ BORINGCOMPLETEDAT 46.0 ON 111121 = 4" CASING TO 10.0' 50s-NX CASING TO 30.0' 50 = NX CASING TO 17.L 60s u Z BORING 18 UI- 3 SURFACE ELEVATION 572.5 L 0 B DESCRIPTIONS 0tISYMBOLS LAKOERIE BROWNAND GRAY CLAYEYSILT AND SILTYCLAY (LACUSTRINE 7' ORIGINI - (Iu 10 I* MOTTLEDBROWNAND GRAY. CLAYEYSILT WITHFINE GRAVBLAND SANGSES ILACJTR:INEORIGINI - (MLI GRAY FINE SANDV4TH OCCASIONAL ROCK FRAGMENTS

                                                                                                                       - ISPl 20                    GRAY BANDYSILT WITHROCKFRAGMENTS- ISM)

REFUSAL

                                                         ,5,5             BAM ISLANDSGROUP EUPFTOLIGHT FRAY, LOCALLY DRAB.HARD, GENSE.

MASSIVELOCALLYTHIN TO MEDIUM BEDDEDDOLOMITE 30 WITHA FEWTHINSHALE sEAM AND INCLUSIONE OF ANHYORITE ion" f SIAM OF DARK GRAYMODERATELYHARD TO SOFT SHALEAT 21.5 40100 sm 50 1 BORINGCOMPLETEDAT 500 OW9128168 161, NK CASING TO 25.0 60-NOTE"' ALL ELEVATIONSREFER TO NEW YORKMEAN TIDE, 1EU INDICATEESTANDARDPENETRATIONTEST. FIGURES UNDER THE BLOWCOUNTCOLUMN INDICATETHE NUMBEROF SLOWBREQUIREDTO DRIVE A SAMPLER. WITHAN OUTSIDEDIAMETER TO TWO INCHES.ONE FOOT WITHA 140 POUNDWRIGHTFALLING 30 INCHES. o INDICATESA SAMPI.INGATTEMPTWITHNo RECOVERY. Fermi 2 101% I INDICATESDEPTH.LENGTH.AND PERCENTOF CORE RUN RECOVERED. UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT ALL COREWASNX SIZE EXCEPTWEiSRE NOTED. FIGURE 2.5-24 LOGS OF BORINGS 10, 16, AND 18

REFERENCE:

FERMI 2 PSAR - FIGURE 2.5-4.1

w z M BORING 20 z BORING 22 LI. 0 ?A

             -     06                      SURFACE ELEVATION 573.7                                                  SURFACE ELEVATION 574.3
                                                                                                  -J coo      YMO CASYMBOLS                   DESCRIPTIONS                                                   S        DESCRIPTIONS nv   -            FT     -                                                      0                    LAKS ERIE LAKE BRIE 10-BROWNAND GRAYCLAYEY SILT WITH TRACEOF SAND 10 ---          rw
  • AND OCCASIONALROCK FRAGMENTSILACUSTRINE ORIGINI- ICL-MLU EROWNSILTY CLAY WITHLITTLEGANG ANO TRACEOF 281 42 5 GRAVEL ILACUSTRINOORIGIN) - ICLI GRAY FINE TO MEDIUMSAND WITH TRACE OF SILT - ISPF 71* GRAY FINE SANDAND SILT - ISM4 20 GRAY FINE TO MEDIUMSAND WITHOCCASIONAL SILT 20-POCKETSAND ROCK FRAGMENTS- (SP1 ., 2 BASSISLANDSGROUP OUFF TO LIGHTGRAY LOCALLYDRAM.HARD. DENSE LU ISoo GRAY SILTYCLAY WITH OCCASIONALPOCKETSOF SILT ITILL) -

MASSIVELOCALLYTHIN TO MEDIUMBEDDEDDOLOMITE

30. WITH FEW THINSHALE SIAMIE OF AND INCLUSION1ES ICL-MLI ANHYORITI GRADINGWITH ROCK FRAGMENTS Uj a- 50 1 SALINA GROUP SALINAGROUP FORMATION0 FORMATION0 30% GRAY HARD AND SOFT SHALES.DOLOMITICSHALES so- GRAY HARD AND SOFT SHALER, DOLOMITICSHALES. AND ARGILLANCEOUSDOLOMITEWITHOCCASIONAL 6O,' ARGILLACEOUSDOLOMITE,WITHOCCASIONALTRACE TRACEOF ANHYORITE OF ANHYORITE 7O -*- 60M 53S, 06ir 50*

40 75%' 28% SORING COMPLETEDAT 66.0' ON 9/30/6E 5w3% NX CASINGTO 36.0' 70-23,' 3O% 90680 50* BORINGCOMPLETEDAT ME 'ON /261E1 U,' NX CASINGTO 24A BORING 24 90 SURFACE ELEVATION 573.0 SYMBOLS DESCRIPTIONS LAKE ERIE 520 IS O NOTESZ 960 ALL ELEVATIONSREFER TO NEW YORK MEAN TIDE. 1352 INDICATESSTANDARDPENETRATIONTEST. FIGURES 30-s BROWNTO GRAY SANDYCLAY WITHSOMEGRAVEL ILACUSTRINEORIGINI - iCLI UNDER THE SLOWCOUNTCOLUMN INDICATETHE NUMBEROF SLOWSREQUIREDTO DRIVE A SAMPLER. GRAY FINE TO MEDIUMSAND WITHSOME SILT AND WITH AN OUTSIDEDIAMETER TO TWOINCHES.ONE GRAVEL - IS3 FOOTWITH A 140 POUND WEIGHT FALLING30 INCHES. 107 (3 INDICATESA SAMPLINGATTEMPTWITHNO RECOVERY. I INDICATESDEPTH. LENGTH.AND PERCENT OF CORE ISO, RUN RECOVERED. ALL CORE WASNX SIZE EXCEPTWHERE NOTED. 30-SALINAGROUP FORMATIONG GRAY HARD AND SOFT SHALES.DOLOMITICSHALES AND ARGILLACEOUSDOLOMITEWITHOCCASIONAL TRACEOF ANHYORITS

               'go's..

I 70 8% CONTACTGRADATIONAL FORMATION6 GRAY TO BROWNISHGRAY VUGGY HARDTO SOFT SHALY DOLOMITE.DOLOMITICLIMESTONEAND LIMESTONERRECCIAS Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT BORINGCOMPLETEOAT 743- ON t0SI2/1e 4" CASING TO 20.0' NX CASING TO 46.5-FIGURE 2.5-25 LOGS OF BORINGS 20, 22, AND 24

REFERENCE:

FERMI 2 PSAR - FIGURE 2.5-4.2

w U. BORING 26 BORING 28

a. SURFACE ELEVATION 572.8 SURFACE ELEVATION 572.5 0 m<SYMBOLS DESCRIPTIONS SYMBOLS DESCRIPTIONS LAKE ERIE LAKE ERIE 10 10 GRAYSANDYCLAY WITH WOMS GRAVEL- CLI ILACDISTRINE ORtOINI GRAYSANDY CLAYWITH OCCASIONALGRAVEL - (CLI ILACUSTRINEORIGIN) 20 GRAY MEDIUMSAND,COMPACT- (lM GRAY SANDYCLAY WITHSOME GRAVEl. AND OCCASIONAL 30 aL POCKETE Or SAND - ICLI ITILLI 77 GRADINGROCKFRAGMRNTSAND SOULDERS IALINAGROUP FORMATIONG GRAY SILTYCLAY WITH SOMESAND AND GRAVEL. VERY HARD (TILL) - (CLI GRAYVUGGY THINLY SEODO. ARGILLACEOUS.

MODERATELYHARD TO SOFT DOLOMITE FORMATIONS GRAYTO EROWNISHGRAY. VUOGY.HARD TO s0 GRAY MEDIUM TO COARSE SAND WITHSOME GRAVELANG SOFT. INTENEDOSODARGILLACEOUSDOLOMITK. ROCK FRAGMENTS.VERY COMPACT- ISPI DOLOMITICLIMEETONEAND LIMESTONEBRECCIA 50 TRACKOF SALT CRYSTALS 60 SALINAGROUP FORMATIONS BUFFTO GRAY VUGGY.HARD TO SOFT. INTERBSOOEO ARGILLACEOUSDOLOMITE.DOLOMITICLIMESTONE ORRING COMPL.ETED AT 70' ON 1011/4M AND LIMUTONE BRECCIAS 4" CASING TO S`' UPPER 20 FT. VERY SOFT. AND ARGILLACEOUS NX CASING TO 43N" GRADINGHARD TRACE OF SALT CRYSTALS 90 BORINGCOMPLETEDAT 10.0' ON 1013016 4" CASING TO 19.6 NX CASINGTO 77.5' RXCASING TO 91.0' ES CORE FROM89.' TO 107.0' 63% 110-NOTEC: ALL ELEVATION$REFER TO NEW YORKMEAN TIDE. I93S INOICATEESTANDARDPENETRATIONTEST. FIGURES

         ,   UNDER THE SLOWCOUNTCOLUMNINOICATE THE NUMBEROF SLOWSRE1UJRED TO DRIVE A SAMPLER.

WITHAN OUTSIDE DIAMETEROF TWO INCHES,ONE FOOTWITHA 140 POUNDWEIGHT FALLING 30 INCHES. C] INDICATESA SAMPLINGATTEMPTWITHNO RECOVERY. G INDICATESDEPTH.LBNGTH. AND PERCENTOP CORE RUN RECOVERED. ALL COREWAS NB SIZSEXCEPTWHERENOTED. Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-26 LOGS OF BORINGS 26 AND 28

REFERENCE:

FERMI 2 PSAR - FIGURE 2.5-4.3

BORING 30 U. SURFACE ELEVATION 573.1 co " SYMBOLS DESCRIPTIONS 0 LAKE ERIE L.AKEIRIE. 10-14 U GRAY SILTY LACUSTRINECLAYWITH TRACE FINS GRAVEI. - IC') 20 4 17 GRAY FINE to MEDIUM LANDWITHLITTLE GRAVEL AND is U TRACEOF CLAY - (0) 116 3 GRADINGVERY COACT 30 ,sr 115 GRADINGCLAYBY 1176 GRAY SANDYCLAY, VERY HARD ITILLI - (CLI GRAY CLAYEYSILT WITI4 SEAMSOF PINE TO MEDIUM SAND - IML-SMI GRAY SANDYC.LAYWITHBOULDER AND ROCK FRAGMENTS ITILLI - CLI 70 o,-r; -. Io" SALINAGROUP FORMATIONS BUFFTO GRAY VUGOY.HARDTO SOFT INTERSEOD0D ARGILLACEOUSDOLOMITE.DOLOMITIC LIMESTONE AND LIMESTONEBRECCIAS TRACEOP SALT CRYSTALS 150 NOTES: ALL ELEVATIONSREFER To NEWYORK MEAN TIOE. 1933 60% INDICATESSTANDARDPENETRATIONTEST. FIGURES UNDER THE SLOW COUNTCOLUMNINDICATE THE 64T NUMBEROF SLOWSREQUIRED TO DRIVE A SAMPLER. WITHAN OUTSIDE DIAMETEROF TWO INCHES.ONE TRACE OF SALT CRYSTALS FOOTWITH A 140 POUNDWEIGHT FALLING 30 INCHES. r3 INDICATESA SAMPLINGATTEMPTWITHNO RECOVERY. 1U3 INDICATESDEPTH, LENGTH.AND PERCENT OF CORE 910 10016 RUN RECOVERED. 120 ALL CORE WASNE SIZE EXCEPTWHERE NOTED. 100%l FORMATIONC BUFFTO GRAY THIN TO MEDIUM BEDOEDDOLOMITE WITHTHINLAYERS OF SHALY DOLOMITEAND 1300 ANHYDRITE BORINGCOMPLETEOAT 131.0' ON MR/24161 NX CASING TO 71.0 XSCASING TO 121.5' BS CORE FROM7'J0o TO 131.0' 140 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-27 LOG OF BORING 30

REFERENCE:

FERMI 2 PSAR - FIGURE 2.5-4.4

BORING 32A BORING 32A (continued) III Zl SURFACE ELEVATION 579.6 SIE3SYMBOLS DESCRIPTIONS 150-BROWN SAND. GRAVELAND CLAY- PILL oft 70% END OF FILL

                           ,ROWN CLAY WITH SOMESAND AND GRAVEL.              75 OCCASIONALTAKEROOTSAND TRACESOP PEAT       160 ICLI                                       81%

ILACUSTRINI ORIGINI SROWNIS4-GRAYCLAY WITHSOMESANDAND 170-GRAVEL - ICLI ITILLI D4Y SASSISLANDSGROUP SUFFTOLIGHTGRAY, LOCALLYDRAB.HARD DINSE, MASSIVE.LOCALLYTHIN TO MEDIUM ORAY TO BSOWNISH-GRAY, VUGGY.HARD TO 37% SOPT SNALY OGLOMITS.DOLOMITICLIME. BEDDEDDOLOMITEWITHA FEW THINSHALE STONE AND LIMESTONE REECCIAS WITH SEAMSAND INCLUSIONSOF ANHYDITS 180- ARTESIANGROUND WATER FLOW 42% 190-20M WUFPTO LIGHT GRAY HARD DOLITIC DOLO- 200-- MiTE PROME0.0 TO 53A THINSEAMSOP SLACKSHALE PROM54.0' TO EG 54%' 210- ETN+

                                                                                -00%

220 BLUISH-GRAYHARD AND SOFT DOLOMITIC SHALEPROM 76.8 TO 71.7 230-FORMATIONC BUFF TO LIGHTGRAY HARD. THIN TO MEDIUM 100% BEDDEDDOLGMITEWITHTHIN LAYERS OF SHALY COLOMITEAND ANHYDRITE 240-BORINGCOMPLETEDAT 241' ON 17113160 4" CASING TO ISW NX CASINGTO 30.6 OX CASING TO20r EX CORB PROM 161.6' TO 241.0' 250 SALINA GROUP FORMATIONG GRAY HARD AND SOFT SHALES. DOLOMITIC SHALESAND DOLOMITEWITHOCCASIONAL TRACE OF ANYDRITE NOTE6' ALL ELEVATIONSREFER TO NEWYORK MEAN TIDE. 1935 I iNDICATES STANDARDPENETRATIONTEST. FIGURES UNDERTHE SLOWCOUNT COLUMNINDICATE THE NUMBEROF SLOWSREQUIREDTO DRIVE A SAMPLER. WITH AN OUTSIDEDIAMETER OP TWO INCHES.ONE FOOTWITH A 140 POUNDWEIGHT FALLING 30 INCHES. 0 INDICATESA SAMPLINGATTEMPTWITHNO RECOVERY. I NDICATESDEPTH. LENGTH. AND PERCENT OF CORE RUN RECOVERED. ALL CORE WASNE SIZE EXCEPTWHERE NOTED. Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-28 LOG OF BORING 32A

REFERENCE:

FERMI 2 PSAR - FIGURE 2.5-4,5

w 0 BORING 52 U. URFACE ELEVATION 573.6 Lo *,CO SYMBOLS DESCRIPTIONS o =. GRADINGWITHROCK FRAGMENTSITILLI BASSISLANDSGROUP BUFF TO LIGHT GRAY, LOCALLYGRAS. HARD. DENBO,MASSIVE,LOCALLYTHIN TO MEDIUM SODDEDAND OOLOMITEWITHA FEW THINSHALE 20 SEAMSAND INCLUSION$OF ANHYDRITE BUFF FRIABLE OOLITICDOLOMITEFROM Z.7" TO 232" 30-NOTES" ALL ELEVATIONSREFER TO NEW YORK MEAN TIDE. 1935 40" 5 INDICATESSTANDARDPENETRATIONTEST. FIGURES UNDER THE SLOWCOUNTCOLUMNINDICATE THE NUMEEROF SLOWSREOUIREDTO DRIVE A SAMPLER. WITHAN OUTSIDEDIAMETEROF TWO INCHES,ONE FOOT WITH A 140 POUNDWEIGHT FALLING30 INCHES, 50s O3 INDICATESA SAMPLINGATTEMPTWITHNO RECOVERY. 1 INDICATESDEPTH. LENGTH.AND PERCENTOF CORE RUN RECOVERED. ALL COREWAS NX SIZE EXCEPTWHERE NOTED. 60 BUFF HARDOOLITIC DOLOMITEPROM 1.B' TO GRAY 6O0" SHALE FROMMIX TO6RV 70 TORINGCOMPLETEDAT 71S' ON 110100 4" CASINGTO 14,0 80g Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-29 LOG OF BORING 52

REFERENCE:

FERMI 2 PSAR - FIGURE 2.5-4.6

US U" z BORING 79 160 - U. lom BORING 79 (continued) w w SURFACE ELEVATION 572.0 170 a0 SYMBOLS DESCRIPTIONS 71%

                        -~           -

0 WATER F a BLACKPEAT - (PTI GRAY AND BROWNSILTY CLAY - (CLI (LACUBYRINIE ORIGIN) 180 ". 10 GRAY SILTY CLAY WITHOCCASIONALGRAVEL AMD

                            'I   U        ROCK FRAGMENTS- (CLI                          190               TRACEOF &ALTCPYSTALS ITILLI 20-                   BAN ISLANODGROUP BUFF TO LIGHTGRAY LOCALLYDRAB. HARD.

OENSE.MASIVE, LOCALLYTHIN TO MEDIUM 200 BEDDED OGLOMITEWITHFEW THIN SHALE SBAMVAND INCLUSIONSOF ANHYDRITS. m 30 I" SEAMOF SOFT GRAY SHALE AT 27.' BUFF TO LIGHT GRAY HARD OOLITIC DOLO- 210 *e MITE FROM 37.' TO 41.0' 40 I" SIAM OF DARK GRAY SOFTSHALEAT 414' 220 FORMATIONC BUFF TO GRAY HARD,THIN TO MEDIUM 0000ED 100% DOLOMITEWITHTHIN LAYERSOF SHALY

                         '0                                                                               OCLOMITE AND ANHYORITE 230 -

100% 80-- 4' LAYRR OFSLACKHARD SHALEAT 606 240 10. 0 100% 4" LAYVROF WHITEANHOYRIT8 AT 71.0' 250 80 -- 7411 14S r SEAMOF SOPTDARK GRAY SHALEAT 84.0 260 SIR' 90 70 ion 270 100% 10014 100Io SALINA GROUP 100% FORMATIONG GRAY HARD AND SOFT SHALES.DOLOMITIC 280 '

  • WHITEAMORPHOUSANHYDRITEFROM 200,0 SIALES. ARGILACEOUBDOLOMITEWITH TO 2S1.'

OCCASIONALTRACEOF ANHYORITE fm 1100 04% 40,% 130 30030100% 120 BIG 310 1500 320* ' 130' BORINGCOMPLETEDAT 324.7' ON 121181" RX CASINGTO 70W OXCASING TO 240' 8X CORE FROM 1213 TO 324.7' FORMATIONa GRAY TO BROWNISH-GRAY.VUaGY HARD TO SOFT SNALY OOLOMITE,DOLOMITICLIME. STONE AND LIMESTONEORECCIAS NOTES: ALL ELEVATION1REFER TO NEW YORK MEAN TIDE, 1930 INDICATESSTANDARDPENETRATIONTEST. FIGURES 1 UNDERTHE BLOWCOUNT COLUMNINDICATETHE NUMBEROF BLOWSREQUIRED TO DRIVE A SAMPLER. WITHAN OUTSIDEDIAMETERTO TO INCHES. ONG FOOT WITHA 140 POUNDWEIGHT FALLING30 INCHES. Fermi 2 (3 INOICATESA OAMPLING ATTEMPTWITHNO RECOVERY. UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT I INDICATESDEPTH. LENGTH.AND PERCENT OF CORE 100% RUN RECOVERED. ALL COREWAS NX SIZE EXCEPTWHERE NOTED. FIGURE 2.5-30 LOG OF BORING 79

REFERENCE:

FERMI 2 PSAR - FIGURE 2.5-4.7

Lu 2 BORING 81 BORING 81 (continued) CL URFACE ELEVATION 574.7 US mlE SYMBOLS OESCRIPTIONS B 150 0 BROWNAND GRAY FIRM SILTY CLAY - ICLI ILACUSTRINEORIGINI FORMATION5 42% GRAYTO BROWNISH-GRAY.VUGGYHARD TO

                               -   SUJRFACEWATERAT OX                                                     SOFT SHALYDOLOMITS.DOLOMITICLIME.

BROWNTO BROWNISH- GRAYVERY HARD SILTY STONEAND LIMESTONEBRECCIASWITH 10 1GV CLAY WITHGRAVEL - (CLI ITILL? 160- ARTESIANGROUNDWATER FLOW BAS ISLANDSGROUP BJFF TO LIGHT GRAY. LOCALLYDRAD.HARD SENS".MASSIVE.LOCALLYTHIN TO MEDIUM 20 'm BEGDEDDOLOMITEWITHA FEW THINSHALE 170 6IK TRACEOF SALT CRYSTALS SEAMS AND INCLUSIONSOF ANNYORITE 30A 180-SLACKSHALE REAMSFROM33& TO 34f0 42%, R.FF TO LIGHTGRAY HARD OOLITICDOLO-MITR FROM 37.? TO 4a.1' 40- 3V SEAMOF SOFT BLACKSHALE AT 40ff 190-24% 50- =Ml 200-I 150% 54% m 60- 210-r' LAVER OF SOFT DARKGRAY SOLIMITIC SHALEAT 62.7' 70 - 220- FORMATIONC SUFF TO LIGHT GRAYHARD, THIN TO MEDIUM BEODEDDOLOMITEWITHTHIN LAYERS OF HARD AND SOFT BLACKSHALEFROM 73.7 SHALYDOLOMITEAND ANHYDRITE TO 74.6' 96% 80- BORINGCOMPLETEDAT 223.7' ON 12117168 230 4- CASING TO 14' 90-SALINAGROUP 100- FORMATION0 GRAY HARD AND SOFTSHALES.DOLOMITIC SHALRS, AND ARGILLACEOUSDOLOMITEWITH OCCASIONALTRACEOF ANHYDRITE NOTES:

                     'IS 110-M                                                                          ALL ELEVATIONSREFER TO NEW YORK MEAN TIDE. 1935
  • INDICATESSTANDARDPENETRATIONTEST. FIGURES UNDERTHE SLOWCOUNT COLUMNINDICATETHE NUMBER am OF SLOWSREQUIRRD TO DRIVE A SAMPLER.WITH AN OUTSIDE DIAMETEROF TWOINCHES.ONE FOOTWITH A 140 POUND WEIGHTFALLING 30 INCHES.

120 "1 INDICATESA SAMPLINGATTEMPTWITHNO RECOVERY. U' r INDICATESDEPTH, LENGTH.AND PERCENTOF CORE I0GG% SUN RECOVERED. 130 0 ALL CORE WASNX SIZE EXCEPTWHERENOTEO. 140-34% 150-Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-31 LOG OF BORING 81

REFERENCE:

FERMI 2 PSAR - FIGURE 2.5-4.8

BORING 82 BORING 82 (continued) IL I-U. U, BA SURFACE ELEVATION 576.5 0

                    .4 0a 0             SYMBOLS I

DESCRIPTIONS 0 BROWNFINE TO MEDIUMSAND WITH TRACEOF SILT 15O-- AND ORGANIC MATTER- ISM

                         ,10                                                        100to TRACEOF SHILL FRAGMENTS GRAY SILTYCLAY - ICL                        160
                                                                                                =     FORMATIONC BROWNTO DARK GRAYSILT WITHTRACE OF FINE                      =          BUFF TO LIGHTGRAY HARD THIN TO MEDIUM SAND AND GRAVIL - IMUI
                                                                                                =          BEDDEDDOLOMITEWITHTHIN LAYERS OF SHALY DOLOMITEAND ANHYORITE 20                                                       170
                                                                                                =

too, BASEISLAND GROUP BUFF TO LIGHT GRAY. LOCALLYGRAS, HARD. = DENSE.MASSIVE,LOCALLYTHIN TO MEDIUM BEDDEDDOLOMITEWITH A FEW THINSHALE SEAMSAND INCLUSION$OF ANHYORITE 30 -- 180-3r LAYER OFCRYSTALLINEANHYDRITEAND

                                                                                                =

100% CALCITEAT 26.0 = 00C% = 40- 190-'wo, =

                                                                                                =
                                                                                                =

SALINAGROUP = 50 FORMATIONG t00,' = TRACE OF SALT CRYSTALS GRAY HARD AND SOFT SHALES.DOLOMITIC 200 -- = SHALES.AND ARGILLACEOUSDOLOMITEWITH OCCASIONALTRACE OF ANHYDRITE

                                                                                                =          BORINGCOMPLETEDAT 202.0' ON 12124168 NX CASING TO 54.9' soo,                                                                                    BX CASINGTO 150.W 60                                                               210            -

70 97,' 80 70% 90- NOTES, 92% - ALL ELEVATIONSREFER TO NEW YORKMEAN TIDE. 193S n INDICATESSTANDARDPENETRATIONTEST. FISURES 100- UNDOERTHE SLOWCOUNT COLUMNINDICATE THE NUMBEROF GLOWSREQUIREDTO DRIVE A SAMPLER. 1116-- FORMATION E WITH AN OUTSIDEDIAMETER TO TWO INCHES,ONE 37-1 GRAY TO BROWNISH GRAY VUGGYHARD TO FOOTWITH A 140 POUNDWEIGHT FALLING30 INCHES. SOFT SHALY DOLOMITE.DOLOMITIC LIMESTONEAND LIMESTONEBRECCIAS (3 INDICATESA SAMPLING ATTEMPTWITH NO RECOVERY. I NDICATES DEPTH.LENGTH. AND PERCENT OF CORE TRACE OF SALT CRYSTALS ISy RUN RSCOVERED. ALL CORE WASNX SIZE EXCEPTWHERE NOTED. 120 00% 113D 42% 140-150 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-32 LOG OF BORING 82

REFERENCE:

FERMI 2 PSAR - FIGURE 2.5-4.9

CORING

                ,MEASURED)

BORING 201 zrI3 SURFACE ELEVATION565.0 Lu L 0 2 LITHOLOGY 0- *777.. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . BORING 201 CONTINUED 5-70 70-10-15-T 75 00000000000000~0000*.0e 0.0 000

                                                                                                                                   .. W0000
                                                                                                                                                                           -so 75 80 20-                                                                                          I c00000000000000000000000
                                                                                                                                                                            -- 5 85 -

26-90 90 30-95 95 36-40-I 100

                                                                                                     ..T'0Oloo
                                                                                                           -'OOo000100ooNooooOoOOO0o00 100
                                                                                                                                                                        -105 105-45-2-        -    -yy
  • CLAYA
                                                                                                                                                                          -110 110
0 50-
                                                                                                                                                                         --115 55 60 65-65 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT 70-                                                              70
                                                                                       *c-l    1o L-
                                                                                                   *    - --* NT lT.

FIGURE 2.5-33 LOG OF BORING 201

REFERENCE:

DAMES & MOORE FIGURES 2.5-22.10 AND 2.5-22.11 REVISED

WATERDATA BORING 202 CONTINUED (MEASRED)

                                                                                                                                          -65 85-BORING 202 54   : 00    0                                                              -70 SURFACE ELEVATION564.3
                                                                >0                    70-LITHOLOGY                                                      -=     -     -     -0000fl0000000000000t
                                                                                                                                          -75 75-
                                                                               -5                                                         -80 80-
                                                                               -10                                                        -85 as-0000 000 0000 00000  000      000,
                                             *000,
                                                                               -15                                                        -90 T

90-

                                                                               - 20                                                       -95 95-
                                                                               -25                                                          --100
                                                                                     ]Go-
                                                                               -30 105-0                                            -110
                                                                               -35 0                                                                      1101 .IA B

I

                                                                               -40                                                        -115               00000000C0 115-
                                                                               -45                                                        -120 120-
                                                                                                                                          -    125 125-
  • tl* *LET* AT Im*Flit A= 00~0 000000000000000
                                                                               -55                                                      -     130 130-
                                                                               -60 000p000.000000000 O00000000000N.. 00 0 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-34 LOG OF BORING 202

REFERENCE:

DAMES & MOORE FIGURES 2.5-22.12 AND 2.5-22.13

BORING203 CONTINUED BORING 203 65 65 SURFACEELEVATION565.4 i70 LITHOLOGY 70 I0005 IS L0. GAO"-0 - 0ICC0OCOO.O000 Zr 60OS T. - . 00 0.6 OS600056CCOSIO"O0.I000OS0606.C 75 75 80 o .rvsO.*.dGbAoOoo 10 AA- 85 80 855 15 90 20 95 95 25

                                                                                                                                                     -- 100 AA0 ATt00100vt000   006        005 0006.6- ACOOS    100 GRAY 0661006.       *t0Stt,0MM060Ey,       -

105 105 t 35. 110 00010A,"G1 A0T 55 110 40 60000MCO 55 T,00 ,CtCCCCO0IC r115 115 45, 1-20 120 50 55 I 060 0001SAO1fa. C EI' 0T00 0001 SICTE00 60 65 55 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-35 LOG OF BORING 203

REFERENCE:

DAMES & MOORE FIGURES 2.5-22.14 AND 2.5-22.15

CORING WATERDATA

     ,MEASURED)

ITIz 0

            ~                       BORING 204                                       r~ >

SURFACE ELEVATION564.9 > I~ 3= BORING 204 CONTINUED 0 LITHOLOGY - 65 II I. -0 6-VVSVTVIVVV VVVI VVVVOCVVVS VVOVSV V.VSV.V .Vt IV. - 70 5- - 70-0o-

                                                                                                                                                                                       -    75 VVVVVUVVV.VVACVSVVIVVVVVIaVVVVsVV.~
                                                                                           -10        75-
                                                                                                              .IR.
                                                                                                                                                                                       -    80 t5-                                                                                           -15      80-Il
                                                                                                                       -                   V VVSVSV V55V - V VVVVVVVV VVVIVVVVVV V VVOVV~VI flV VVAVIV                            -    85
                                                                                           -20 20-                                                                                                    RS-4 .I      I VVVVVVVSVVVVVVIVVVVLVCVVVVVVVVVCVWJV4flVV                                                                                                                    -    90
                                                                                           -- 25 25-
                                                                                                                                                                                       -    95
                                                                                           -30 30-VVVVVIVVIVVVVVIVV.V*.VV*VVVVVV                                     -100
                                                                                           -    35 35-                                                                                                   100               TVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVIVVVVVVI.V-VVIIVVSIVVVVVVV 1

VVVOVOVVVC*VVVVOVV VVVVVVS# VVtVfl. ISVTVS 0 -105 VVVVSVVVVV.?-.VP 40-

                                                                                           -40 los-I4 1 1 V  VVVJVSV VA    VS                                                                                                                         -110
                                                                                           -    45 45-                                                                                                  110-115
                                                                                           -    50 115-50-_._L
                                                                                           -55 55-                                                                                                                                                                       0oVVV oVL  LVCATVVVIVVVVI.V VO VVVVV K lVV
                                                                                           -60 60-IT I
                                                                                           -     65 65-Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-36 LOG OF BORING 204 REFERENCEM DAMES & MOORE FIGURES 2.5-22.16 AND 2.5-22.17

CORING WATERDATA IMEASUIIED) BORING 205 z l

      =

0+ SURFACE ELEVATION565.8 005 BORING 205 CONTINUED LITHOLOGY 65 0 65-0- /A - 114 -0000 C- - - -- L.00000

                                                                                                                                                                          -     70 5 -
                                                                                         -5  70-K1
                                                                                                                                                                          -      75
                                                                                     -10     75 -

10-00000flWI0E.Y 00YW000M S040* 04It04 I.

                                                                                                                                                                          -     80 15s-                                                                                 -- 15   80s -A
                                            ,41FI............                                                            0 0300000A-4.4*.*000000
                                                                                                                                                                          -     85 20 -                                                                                 -20     85 -
                                                                                                                                                                          -     90 25 -                                                                                 -25     90-10.IOOS1t40
                                           -00010*             1110000
                                                                                     -30     95 -                                                                               95 30-
                                                                                                                                                                          -100
                                                                                     -35    105 -

35 0 000000000000F%00 I. I.l 0 1 - . 1 61111. 1 - - 40 -105 40- 105 -- 45-E To 000 0000 000

                                                                                     -- 45  110-00
                                                                                                       +/-+
                                                                                                                                                                            -- 110 I

4o Im4.0-0-000 -115

                                                                                     -50    115 --

50 -

                                                                                     -55                                                                            --         120 55-                                                                                         120-60 -

65- II -60

                                                                                     -65
                                                                                                           *1000040000,0000*0000000010W10000 40       AI~ 1 OWf           11T1
                                                                                                                            ¢000.0t00 000000I, L.mT. -. IE.I.,o 11I'llx+twm~

Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-37 LOG OF BORING 205

REFERENCE:

DAMES & MOORE FIGURES 2.5-22.18 AND 2.5-22.19

CORING WATERDATA IMEASUREDI Un--1 0 BORING 206 SURFACE ELEVATION567.2 BORING 206 LITHOLOGY 0

                                                                        -0   65-                                                                                -65 5-                                                                  -5     70-                                                                               -70 10-                                                                         75-                                                                               -75
                                                                       -10 T

15 80- -80 20m 85- -85 TVVV f.VUV-V

                                             ":%VVVV~l                  -20
                                                                       -25    g0-                                                                               -90 2L 30 -

35-40 -

                                                                       -30
                                                                       -35
                                                                       -40 95-100-105-4            11" 11.L1,1

_AAAAA, _.T T* L, A, ITýL-

                                                                                                                           ý 'r
                                                                                                                           -111111T I
                                                                                                                                                                -95
                                                                                                                                                                -100
                                                                                                                                                                -105 110-                                                                               -110 45 -                                                                 -45
                                                                                                                                                                 -115
                                                                       -50   115-50 -
                                                                       -55 55-
                                                                                        *TT",

60s-0 VCVVVVV VT 6EVV VVCVVVV 05-

                                                                       -65 I EVV*CV OVEV      A.*VV      .VTV.

AL O All . =l.-=Z w.=.- - . Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-38 LOG OF BORING 206

REFERENCE:

DAMES & MOORE FIGURES 2.5-22.20 AND 2.5-22.21

WATER DATA cUED z tA P a BORING 207 P- LU zc

               'Lu 2[     SURFACE ELEVATION 566.8 2                                                                                      a        U.1 D                                                                                             uj                                   LU 0-                                                                                   0                           0.         06 LITHOLOGY MROWM   CLAYEYTILL WITHCOB*L#$ANO OULDSRS ITILLI 5-j wU
a. U 10- -10 15- RAY GiNIDOLOEiTi. PRAOTIRES VCL.0-RI.
                                                                                                                                         -15 I

L-. IT.&AX.EOOLOMIT IRATU-.E. VERY ILOI.9-R-S 31 l12 INCHHARO OARKGRAYSHALE LAYVR,INA PSIT

20. GRAYGuSNI DOLOMITE.FRACTURESCLOSE,VERTICAL,VUOS.I09L till - IN1INCH BORINGAGAN/OOEIDAT "0A FEET NOTES:

ALL ELEVATIONSREFER TO NEWYORK MEAN TIDE, 193S

  • INOICATESSTANDARDPENETRATION TEST FIGURES UNDER THE BLOWCOUNT COLUMN INDICATE THE NUMBEROF BLOWSREDUIRED TO DRIVE A SAMPLER WITH AN OUTSIDE DIANIETEROF TWOINCHES. ONE FOOTWITH A 140 FOUNDWEIGHT FALLING 30 INCHES C) INDICATESA SAMPLINGATTEMPTWITHNO RECOVERY l0oo INDICATESDEPTH. LENGTH.AND PERCENT OF CORE LRUNRECOVERED.

ALL COREWASMX SIZEEXCEPTWHERENOTED Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-39 LOG OF BORING 207

REFERENCE:

DAMES & MOORE FIGURE 2.5-22.22

       'MASRED)                                                            WATEROATA K10                           BORING 207A z ~ii~

z SURFACE ELEVATIONS6IR8 BORING 207A CONTINUED LITHOLOGY 0 0- 0 6B,

                                                                                                                                                                -     70 5-                                                                                -5        70-CC CC SC CCC *CSSSSC
                                        .T       CCCCC*Ve CS                                                                                                             75 10-                                                                                 -10      75-
                                                                                                                                                                -    8o
                                                                                     -15       80-CCCCCCCT CSCCCCS~tCCC.SC CCCOM**

RA L, CSCCC CCCCCSCSCCWCCCC CS C CF"CCCCCSCCCSCSCCS

                                                                                                                                                               -     85
                                                                                     -20       85 20-47 LI                                                                                                                                   -       90 go-25-                                                                                -25 CCCCCSCCC Al       CCCCK -CCCC C     CCC         C      CSC       I
                                                                                                                                                               -95 30-                                                                                  -30     95
                                                                                                                                                                 -100 35-                                                                                   -35   1 C. 1CCC "ITSCC 0

CSCCCCSCCCC*CCCCCCCCCCCCSCCCSCCCCCCC o -105 40 H SC. 1CCC 1T

                                                 .C.CCCC
                                                   -CC
                                                                                      -40    105-
                                                                                                                                                               -110 45-                                                                                  -45    110-
                                                                                                                                        .   . -1        -          115
                                                                                      -50    115-502
                                                                                      -55                                                   U~e
                                                                                                                                              ,*W T~ *N*        U*WNI..-TITI CCLICCCCC
                                                                                                                                                     --SCCCC
                                                                                                                                                           . CC .. T 1 -.

[] -ACTESA ***, M** OCV~

                                                                                      -60 60-ALCCL.CCECIIICCCS VIEC1C~CC1CCC6C CCCCS4 CCCCCC.C.C         15C
                                                                                      -65 65-Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-40 LOG OF BORING 207A

REFERENCE:

DAMES & MOORE FIGURES 2.5-22.23 AND 2,5-22.24

CORING

        'MEASURED)                                                          WATERDATA A.

BORING 208 t t M BORING 208 CONTINUED 2 SURFACE ELEVATION566.9 2 o> 0 0- LITHOLOGY 0- 65 65 5-- 5 70 70 10- 10 75 75 15- ititotititoii-.-i*.t~t HTt 80 tottott0 ti tt ott.t,',i. 15 4 4 FL*(I*

                                                                                                                                            *TE*

20- 85

                                                                                        -20      15E 25-                                                                                  -25      go- tit
                                                                                                          *i      aiittitoi t 00 1to-TtttlttO~tOi~
                                                                                                                                 ~le:--t til                                               90 30-                                                                                                                                                                                 95
                                                                                        -   30 OltittOtlOOi.ti 35-                                                                                  -35     100-                                                                               -100 Mi.OtiottotOittit 40 -                                                                                 -40                                                                                        -105 ttrttootutitoittclott.iiot    to.. *ttttit 4

45 - m110

                                                                                        -45     110
                                                                                                                                                           .             1--1T    -115 50-                                                                                  -50     115-55-                                                                                   -55 flID,tottttSitoi"itotooutttOtotto.iitAE jm tot tittotoUF       OU    **ET 660                                                                                   -60
                                                                                        -65 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-41 LOG OF BORING 208

REFERENCE:

DAMES & MOORE FIGURES 2.5-22.25 AND 2.5-22.26

BORING 200 CONTINUED -70

     'CORING IMEASURED 701
                                                                                                                                              -75 75 n

BORING 209 92 0J SURFACE ELEVATION567.0 -80 ii! .--- 1 LITHOLOGY 80

                                                                                                 ='=:I.      TO I I'll0 56                                                        0   .-85 ILI              0 WIR     -   IT-1
                                                                                                                                               -- 90
                                                                                                                                              -95 soo"  00O000000R     00     000         0000 monO        ooooooOoOOOO  oooo0  0 00000000fl 00t000 000000
                                                                                                                                              -100 100-00.00    oo¶ 00000  000000
                                                                                                                                               .105 105-0000~0000.~0                                            00 00    R 1. I.. 00 00.0000                    0 , 000 00 -0000 110-                                                           -110 1  -0000 0000000.0 -  I'll0 00 115-IT*1,V0II0I0 00000000000000000000000000000.0000                  -120          000 00000  000000000000000 0        0000 000000000000000000000 00000000000000.00000 120.                      0 00 0000000 00000000        0    00000000 00000000000000000000        .00'0000 00000.000          00-00
                                                                                                                                              -125        RTo                    10-000000CORI 0000000.T.00000.00II 125-0000 000.000000000000 0000000000000     0000 00000    00000                                                                -130
                                                                                                                                              -135 135-140-2 W=i    -140 f

0000000000000000000000 000000.0* -- -145 00 0 0000

                         *atonflbO 0000 0000     0000000000-000
f. 0 oooooonooooo000000OOOOOOOOOOO.O0000.00 145
                         , O OOOoOOoOOO0 00..~.C0 0            0 00 000 00000000 000000        00000 0000000  0000
                                                                                                                                              -150 70, Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-42, SHEET 1 LOG OF BORING 209

REFERENCE:

DAMES & MOORE FIGURES 2.5-22.27 AND 2.5-22.2B

BORING 209 CONTINUED BORING 209 CONTINUED - 230 150- -- 150 230-I mn00T_0 00

                                                                                      -    155  235-                                                   -   235 155-
                                                                                      -160      240-                                                   - 240 160-
                                                                                      -- 165    245-                                                   - 245 165-170-00020020000,0 00    ,,00     *  *l   +   ~0                     -170      250-                                                   - 250 175-                                                                                  -    175  255-02 ~~ ~ ~ ~

00002000001000 0 .1 T - 255 000000020 0000000000 0 0000200m 0o000200.ram

                                                                                      -180      260-                                                   -260 180 -

C

                                                                                      -185      265-                                                   -   265 185-ommII                 TI -II -T£       - 270 190-                                                                                  -190      270-0 20002. 20  021020. 00.000000   00000~~u 0220e000200000
                                                                                                                                                         -275 195-                                                                                  -195      275-
                                                                                                                                                       - 280 200-                                                                                  -    200  280-
                                                                                                                                                                   -1000000000 000   100 ,O T0E0T0 0-1
                                                                                      -    205  285-   IIIrýMKAý= IemveIl R+*

Vý'M m

  • LT.rL - 285 205- .000 I I21 OooO o *,

12.. A000001.- 2.0 00 0 00 00

                                                                                      -     210 290-                                                   -290 210-
                                                                                      -     215 295-                                                   - 2955 215-220 -
                                                                             .200 I   -    220  300-                                                   -300 225-
                                                                             .200 I   -    225  305                                                    -   305 10001
                                                                                                                                                       -   310 230-                                                                                  -    230  310
                                                                                                                                                       -   315 315-Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-42. SHEET 2 LOG OF BORING 209

REFERENCE:

DAMES & MOORE FIGURES 2.5-22.29 AND 2.5-22.30

BORING 050 00055555(

                                                                                                                                                                         *SEES 004050 5 00 0005S050500. 000 . 5   ý 50055     BORINOG    250 I    SI                                                                                                           NE SZ.i                                                                     Is 00005000 50000000 IS055000.55           500 LIT     06 0505500- 05000 0    Is -Z550m00000    500000      55 00   0      500 IS5550T~05000555                                                                     50 5005SE W0l050 os0 0 5 0 5 5 0 0 0 050 5 555 0 5 00550 Sooso0o0000550005_0055005 55 SIS IS      00001 04       00500        5000                                                            05S    05 005505 0 I'0 50.50 5500 SEE 0000000000  01T
                                -00           0400.
                                               . 1~S 05 0 055 00050                                    _TI50550050500SO0000O~                                          IIs 0000000005         505050555005.0555000005 Io 550050000~

00..~ 00..5. IS000500040 000:0005.:O0000g,005

                                                                                                                                              ~     ..

Is0 EE05f000. t50550 00 000 IS, 00500. 55....00550...00 IS-Is0 L r~500050,=. 1'. 5000550505555005.L.-

                                                 -     IS-                  -0          Is0 30 05SE0        I055C050000 0.05                                                                                                                   STIS II-SIZ I. I..       -L::::000.05000.~500.0055550
                         -500050505 -    16T           00055.00055550000 IoOfOSE00                  000550500.5.0500050000 IS 00;     AS0.5t.5005 550000500505000.55 SE Is
                    -~

SE,0050

                       ~~ ~ ~~~~1 2~~~~~~~.

Is00005050 000 ESS, .55o~oo0040050005000050 IS.0500

                                                    .00000,I00.0050001 0005.

55 ZI: SEOS OS0 IIIIII,HE C 37

                                                        . oIEE0=  -  o0.500005I so
 ,s ISE I3S.

00

                                                                                                                       -100 00005500 AS.00
                                                                                                             ~ ~~~~~~I 0555~

05050000550000505505000I

                                                                                                                                 *5 00050 IS.05 00I.-000500005.5005 0550 005051000.550500 AII   000 FEE005 S0005051500555557

_IsIs 0-500 5 0 I 0 .0000o

                                                                                                                                                                               -OTS055               N0 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-43 LOG OF BORING 210

REFERENCE:

DAMES & MOORE FIGURES 2.5-22.31, 2.E-22.32 AND 2.5-22.33

6CORING IEASURED BORING 211 SURFACE ELEVATION567.4 BORING 211 CONTINUED

                                                                                                                             -65 LtTHOLOGY 0-
                 'Al                                             65-I---

70-I.

                                                                              -7           aV ua,,NC     o-K   a,     -Tu..

a.,

                                                                                                                             -70 5-
                                                                                                                             -75 10-
                                                                                                                             -80 15-
                                                                                                                             -85 85-20-aaaYaacbubaauna*,amaau*Vuuau,uua fu.., u                                                              -90 go-25-
                                                                                                                             -95 araFT amR. au,,,Aflur
                                                                                   ,mi+                      a-ruFmu
                                                                                -I nutauaflm v    .      -1"..  .. T 95-30-1 . I.I-
                                                                                                                             -100 100-E--F--+--i-                                                               m
                         '-aa,     s. a05Ta"                                                                                 -1I05          aa,,or              to a*w stowsnmcuomn. a *uufaum.

1- I " 1.1 40-4 I- I1 0 , ( W$aMl*T wiVK,roOYEu. 0 110- H 45-L4 1 15 115-50-60 - 65 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-44 LOG OF BORING 211

REFERENCE:

DAMES & MOORE FIGURES 2.5-22.34 AND 2.5-22.35

65- -- 5 BORING 212 CONTINUED

                                                                                                                                                      -70
                  -A."                                                                           70 -1
               ,,RED
               -T-r      C             BORING 212                          0 I-TS R 17                                                                   -75 oc IF SURFACE ELEVATION567.2                            S
                                                                                    -"o                                                                -80 0--

IF LITHOLOGY .000o0 80-85- -85 5- 5 90- -90 10- -10 95- -95 15- -15 0100 100-555sOSO 5555000000 000 .~rOs*

5. L -20 00F O0000005500tl 20- 00or 0 00000050*0070005555
                                                                                                                                                      -105
                                                                                          -25i 0055050000055-05 00000055 25-
                                                                                                                                                        -110 110-00000 0000500 00000 OS'S05             .

5 .....00....5 30- -30

                                                                                                                                                       -115 115-435                                                                       -35 000II             000.005 0000050005.lU
                                                                                                                                                      -120 120-
                                                                                    -40 40-125-                                                   -125                       I."I-LIII TI - I III II55"0I0I5I 71                                                               -45
                                                                                                                                                      -130 130-
                                                                                    -50 50-II S                                                                                                                            -135 1 35-
                                                                                     -55 55-00055           5 55' 00005000050.
                                                                                                                                                      -140 000000000 140-60-
                                                                                                                                                      -145 145-
                                                                                      -5 65-
                                                                                                                                                      -150 150-
                                                                                                                                                        -155 155-L. ---    75160 160I Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-45 LOG OF BORING 212

REFERENCE:

DAMES & MOORE FIGURES 2.5-22.36, 2.5-22.37 AND 2.5-22.38

CORING IMEASUJRED] WATERDATA BORING 213 Fl SURFACE ELEVATION668,0 c0 2 LITHOLOGY 0 0- my WIWeta aEG IAABuL A -0

                                       '~1                                                                                                          BORING 213 CONTINUED 5-              'I                                                                -- 5 65 -                                                                                            I-     65 El
                                                                                                           -10                                              -         NR EACFBAAB YTGAAAAIEARIALaT 10-70-
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 -      70
                                  -r           ,,fCF'a A*Y    el V=f. fOE~AT.. iIU- 4* FRT
                                                                                                           -15 15-                                                                                        75-aa'. a,.J*I  U R

AATERA, E. BAAL ARE c.A* 120 20-80 I 80 25 -25 Tr BlAIN m~ ~ ~~~1 BOFT OFVAWLS

                                                                    * ,1m.w*

V~V*P ay LAyER+ l-T+am a.I FyT 85- -85 30- - 30 go- 90 EAeOaBAmAAyw.at.VAG.mSawEilaBA -FATS RIBUS FEET 0 -35 ABAEBBAy eASy yRR.a FRE7 AC-35- aBSAAVAERABFAuIIFV ARLLAARVAB VOLAIVAW MACOAR. ViTGELVTRRRAWTFV 95 0 aZVI"" 95- mA SVLVSATAALAV. ALWA. TBAAATARRR GA,Rt.VAaIRA. AVE/SARTAL

                                                  .T. 1.u        .   -    U
                                                                                                           -40 407                                                                                        100-                                                                                                   100
                                                                                                           -45                                             TIGEIRAA.ISAR.TAT*FEST t/AFVEITRAEVGTAI.3.

45- Fa eEalaaWaaR a aYRMly. +ImP 106- -105

                                                                                                           -50 50-                                                                                        110                                                                                                 -110 55-                       y+ aa      + TAGV        fa
                                                                       *YM    1VAFTA TAit.
                                                                                                           -55
                                                                                                            -60 115 -           I.                       EAEIAAAABPIETRVATTIRATRET        FLORAl
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   - 115 60-120-LJ~                  - L-125
                                                                                                          -66 65-
                                                                                                                          . ELIVATl fiFi TAA TGEEE TA,1                                     Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT olWRIAVSB*AAW      reG~ nTl+FR T/RATAVCERFT  LEoBATo~IWAiEWEGTAR*

FIGURE 2.5.48 LOG OF BORING 213

REFERENCE:

DAMES & MOORE FIGURES 2.5-22.39 AND 2.5-22.40

CORING WATERDATA IMEASUREDI r BORING 214 BORING 214 CONTINUED z t" SURFACE ELEVATION565,6

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       -  66 0  60m A.T.

LITHOLOGY 0 - 70 0- -o0 70-

                                                                                                                                                           =   oIOIStt
                                                                                                                                                              ;0~50      t1,10I00tLt1.

A

                                                                                                                       -5                                                                                              -  75 15                                                                                                                75-
                                                                                                                       -10                                                                  A. A.                   -  80 10--                                                                                                                80-                    SitSi iO ttI0000.

Tl.0150 p ti

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       -  85 16 -                                                                                                                85 -
                                                                                                                       -20                                                                                             -  90 20-                                                                                                                 go-l     1. tO t1,.

ACto 1""L 11 - T u t 0 t

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       -  95 aMT       o- vo11 Tw                                                          -25      95-25-I*,--
                                                                                                                       -30                                                                        T.                   -100 100-30-
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       - 105
                                                                                                                       -35     106-Pl 00o 1o00 C.,0
                                                   .       r1-Al.v     t tO         , uPto t      i
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       - 110
                                                       .. T,-"
                                                            ..           O...lo000A0.. l
                                                                                                                         -40   110-405-
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       - 115
                                                                                                                       -45 45 -                       -   1-5       TOOoLl" A~E) It      Ot.           to         1,1   N M I1IM.                     115-
                                                                                                                       -50 50s-                                         _500TLW 'M                    M.ftoLIao.0
                                                                                                                       -   55 55 -
                                                                                                                       -60 60-
                                                                                                                       -   65 65 -

0 -111CAtll050 Fermi 2 ALL V"S WMnA-UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-47 LOG OF BORING 214

REFERENCE:

DAMES & MOORE FIGURES 2.5-22.41 AND 2.5-22.42

IIMEASUREDI I I BORING RHR-1 SURFACE ELEVATION579.1 BORING RHR-I CONTINUED

                   *3 LITHOLOGY                                                                                             -65 0O                                                                                  -0    65-.  .
                                                                                                                                                         -70
                                                                                       -5 70
                                                                                                                                                          -75
                                                                                       -10    75
                 'U       O.WA          FINsniL 0n0U.

fl*imt armttAAsc 0l1*0000 FlZOn~AasO -80

                                                                                       -15    80-So.

0*V WacreFO E asstne+ lot..oc1 cc) IX On?.nt l c*oto0Wo0010*Tl t ya mtoacoa. sm ascgo+MOOa as3 856 -as

  • 00W10lcOW.V50 OOflT.OS -20
                 .53 imowmur               cn 51-o.5 ooma alt, om         *0     u                                 ?N0,+tL OWST                  l T~ISA Ott IPS,,l SF00   t* t scE                                                                                      ViNVtIOTfiS  c~MmTOO. as+sg         toLicO*Ol Omtc,.SOe      oFmlL*Cant,1, cIO tS*iO*

e+*A Fmal C0LOTfl FiLt clmnO00) -90 90- lmcasTl T

                                                                                       -25                 oLWOa    OSAToAFFAlITltt0       Omac-y.

acopacaO+c,, cromTc*,:*tcyabm. 01. al01 06- -05

                                                                                        -30 41                                                                                                         pI aooaaoaooyc1ulT'0F      T¥aO mm litNa W.0asl                                          F  IU      IT ...               a.

ooLW SIO #l ngacYc flTLOO?

                             ,OAC0M~r   OWyYW to~imE      5Tcr     aLaSutOCLO0                         0 FSSIUFO     slAT    ASIoI      00-c asily 100-                                                          -100                 mAELy  jl=   -lrolt m         pu;am z*      ro0-F*

0 -35 105- -105

                                                                                        -40 0

110- -110

                                                                                         -46
                              ..mINoE&tt. rOW       ooasaassLAcoOIOLLNI.

snusrasao.WOsaas.. WNW0OTOL WOtOOL NflOOAOs moos acoWROME FoSS - nn.olcSOt 5000 ctLWa F5001105 0.0001NA00200 flfl

                                   ,~ 0 0 ~ ,0.massWSWAmNcn,?AyIRycLaW                                                                                      - 115 0 ~ POOP N NW?00tIN OA5SO0.005W Ral                                           Sc0005       -50 noon. yasaLOW      tm E0.0 tots coo. 0100015                   115.

m

                                                                                                                                                             -120 stdoua..tAcO.lOttt.cWooscttactWJasNEnoOt.                    -55 120-
                               .OWomccc?
                               .0w.. OW   SOcO tsco.Nco~m0n,    mamas as OW    Ito.

yWPa. mONaFNaLt WmWn. a0?,. cototacaco. FaNaloinmain

                                                                                         -60
                                                                                         -65 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-48 LOG OF BORING RHR-1

REFERENCE:

DAMES & MOORE PLATES A-1A AND A-1B

BORING RHR-2 SURFACE ELEVATION581,5 BORING RHR-2 CONTINUED LtTHOLOGY -65

                                                                            -0     65C
                                                                            -- 5   70-- .
                                                                                                                                                -75
                                                                            -10    75-                                                       -75 750 o 0 000 V . VTO   0007~e 0000 00,005 T

0000000 VL.S.00*TOISA0100 00040.3* 000. 0

80. - 80
                                                                            -15 0

85-

                                                                            -20                                                               -85 000,0000000 00Ol00rv, 0004   UTV~V¢*~                     50*00000000V00LLO 0500000000000000000000000 0000010 0000000.

000,0000.04 000EIOOToOST VOVOOT TOO 0000000*000000 00SOOVOS 0*0000 TO00100 00000000

                                                                                                                                              -90
                                                                            -25    9-s , 1    .

TOO00000OT 00000 000400EV 0400000 LOOO 000

                                                                                                                                             -95
                                                                            -30 OOLWTL          00T0000000.

5.00.0000,0 010000NOTOO 100000000 00-01000 000400 0001000 0000 40000000000000000=000000 00*000000 000000001 -100 0050000 To0000tT00OSI0000000 -36 1001-10010 0000 0000000000000500.000000000L .V000000.ETOL00IO00 000000000000000500T0L 5* 0001* 000000000000000 00000. 0000001000 0000 00000 0000.00 000001T0TOOdE000. 106- 1

                                                                            -40              4
                                                                                                                                             -110
                                                                            -45  i1o-   I   - I N 115-F 1-fT -    ::;Z;-,.           -50
                                                                            -55   120--   ,                                -1 L                     0-120 125-            -I-
                                                                          -60
                                                                                                                                             -130
                                                                           -065  130--

Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-49 LOG OF BORING RHR-2

REFERENCE:

DAMES & MOORE PLATES A-IC AND A-ID

CORING WATERDATA MEASURED) FT 1zI BORING RHR-3 2, i SURFACE ELEVATION578.4 LITHOLOGY BORING RHR-3 CONTINUED L 0- -0 -65

                                         ------                                                        65-m 5-                                                                              -5                                                                                                      -70 70-I
                                                                                              -10             m                                                                                       -75 10-                                                                                       75-q*AII IrLLI                                                                                          =X17l          To A. I-L e AA, Aa                                                                                 u 80                                                                                             -80 15-                                                                              -15
                             .0 TI

[ 85 85 20- -20 II 25-T -25 90- -90

                                        * , U*T *Y ALT AR. T*OALA I-KOV **

IT -- ART. M TO 1-EE 1.

                                                                                              -30                                                                                                     -95 30-                                                                                       95-
                                                                                                                                                                                                        *100
                                                                                              -35    100 35-C
                                                                                                                                                 =C-1111**   11 IAALY Fee ALI mRARE.B*          I 'AAR. =~e .1 TO 1.

IN 105 40- OOLT-AIR O~

                                                       .. TO
                                                          *      ,1 ee                        -40    106 -

0

                                                                                               -- 45 45-50-                                                                              -50 NOT-S L A.

W*ra". 55- -55

  • RR'COT= 1T I-*~

eC~~D* A L_*eO I 60- -60 65- -65 TON* AREA OTHOTA ARIA.BOTH OUII FATELY T-e*Z-* Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-50 LOG OF BORING RHR-3

REFERENCE:

DAMES & MOORE PLATES A-IE AND A-IF

CONING

                 ýMEASUREDI BORING RHR-4 SURFACE ELEVATION679.2                              BORING RHR-4 CONTINUED 0

LITHOLOGY -65s 0- -0 65 -

8. - 70 70-5-
a. =11' -T I., UT*v ~
                                                                       -10                                               -75 10-                                                               75-
                                                                       -15     so-15-
                                                                                                                          -     85 20-                                                           20  85-LLoSO.      CLOV tO   WUV
                                   *TOUC*AV     OYIt5VEFVVLT   OVOT T 90-                                        -    90 25-                                                      -25                                                                  T IV I    AN'  V-IOVVA IOLO TLU
                                                                      -    30  95-                                        -   95 30-
                                                                                              +m e    .l~

1+ii U -lTll+ o e

                                                                                                                          -    10 35-                                                         -35  100-
                                      ,  CF~m o      VI*      AVVIVOVVLV OttEVOV~.O     V
                                                                                                                          -    105 40-                                                      - 40    105-
                                                                      -45                                                 -110 110-20 W                                          115 50-                                                      -50o    115-
                                                                      -    55                                             -120 F

65 120-65-

                                                                      -    60 6a.
                                                                      -    65 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.54-1 LOG OF BORING RHR-4

REFERENCE:

DAMES & MOORE PLATES A-lG AND A-1 H

CORING

        'MEASURED)

BORING RHR-5 z -N BORING RHR-5 CONTINUED SURFACE ELEVATION51.S5 Z LITHOLOGY -65

                                                              -0    65-
                                                                                                                  -170
                                                              -- 5  70-
                                                               -10                                                -75 75-
                                                                                                                  -80
                                                              -15   80-0 z                                        -85
                                =*=OOES  E             TO000f FINE
                                                 - OF      1 ML-NON  -20   85-
                                                                                                                                    -   =NTFEOEOEF   N OFN NE NEOAERO 90-                                           -- 0
                                                              -26 TON.

N N. FO FIN00FFROONF-TTO 95- -95

                                                              -30                  NSTOOOEES.NN
                                                                                                   -O--TENU NEDg OAOEONNCONOOT
                                                                           -~.1Ewf.EF               ,RflETLTOAO~
                                                                            -   =      -  -5. VENEOEEONNRONJE T.1IfONNNNNOTft 100-                                           -100
                                                               -35 AAFANOCANTOENNATEN EOO R1ATELYNRN 0          -11AT010 M11
                            -OTI 106-                                           -105
                                                              -40 110-                                           -110
                                                               -45
                                                                                                                 -115
                                                               -50 115-0 120,                                         -120
                                                               -55 71117                                                -60   125-130
                                                                                                                  - 125
                                                                                                                 -130
                                                               -65 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-52 LOG OF BORING RHR-5

REFERENCE:

DAMES & MOORE PLATES A-1I AND A-1J

CORING MEASUR501 2 BORING RHR-6 i SURFACE ELEVATION578.6 LITHOLOGY

                                                                            -0     67 70 BORING RH4R-- 6CONTINUED
                                                                                                                                  -70
                                                                            -5
                                                                            -10    75-                                            -75
                  'E 50-                                             -80
                                                                            -15
                           *V 1I.-I..-EFERFFT.         nVLIT,
                                                            -  FE.-*M             85-
                                                                            -20                                                  -85
                                                                                        ,. I..lOTMn.7700000S7O00*TIr10000TIs 0

0 0 a1son,4. N i ORAt*l 5inLlt~ h070i l 0 0 90-. -90

                                                                            -25 T

0 .0 0l0 Iiu0lE04iir .0 005 0000700 *00S 00n0 00*V1 Oa -gs

                             .J.OOAO .R0E                                                   ThA, isO*YOO.*  i To 7 Tr. 00                          I-ATI R    EFER UTGFREE      REA
                                                                           -30                                                    -95 000       0 *. O   *1 ~40,~0   7                      95-RE-0   FE0RE-0.07 7R 00000071           007
                                                                                                                                                                                     ,0 I                                                       -35 100-                                            -100              ":;u4i01     0   0000    00    0005 02O 004*O~iOS
                                                                                                                                                                  -iRATE.70
                                                                                                                                                                          -00  -.01.0 R.      0 105-                                              -105                v LERER- 1.1S-1 REiFF *
                                                                           -40 4Z 0000E0          0 0507S EI00.0T01 RElLOOTSO*ISTOOSOO*AO075T.00UT0 liilTAi0
                                                                           -45  110-                                              -   110
                               -   1--REFFI         O00EFF*FFE- l
                                                                           -50  115-
                                                                                                                                  -115
                                                                           -65   120-                                             -120
                                                                          -60
                                                                          -65 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-43 LOG OF BORING RHR-6

REFERENCE:

DAMES & MOORE PLATES A-1 K AND A-1 L

CORING IMEASURED) F

                              !CR  5             BORING RHR-7 B5            SURFACE ELEVATION579.0
.!I LITHOLOGY 0- -0 65-= -66 oP.CYSCOCWKOOI1OOCC*9(0RCA.IRR0OCLCE0LUOII*Y9*K~'NC.

STYLOLIIKE COROTEK06CRCOCICCOTOL. P000906*COKOCT190910 90i9K.9TCLC*T00000TELY0L00flT.T109iRIEY1090. 5- -5 I 100101G.T 1000K09*IKLG OERICLOGO 01.08.1011099*

                                                                                                                                                                                -70 RKC19IIKK.T9ARRAP9EYKEKICCOC*ROCLCC.OTOCOCROG.

70- OKPOOI90EOOIYTO10C 0010 TOYCOS 114 10- -10 75-5ROyIS-UIOBY CLA.YRcK091(00TOCCOII - 76

                                                                                                                         =
                                                                                                                         =

15- '1I -15 80- -80 rile TCOK01OGOQAIEL 0*00 NORSRIVERY

                                                                                                                           *K.R*TCRCCCIOI1Y                OLGOKTOCLOCI.

RC.C101.1IRTOOG0RCI9LIOLORE.TC.IOORC.099C1019Y m CLOCITOOLO9E.KI.T1O*0OKIRAIKLCC0OLOIKi ORE ROIIYKEYCLCK 10CLS0.YOC0WKREOOR0UCIROO0CRY 1i01100000 UOCOLR00005Y9 004 100,IR 010 10 YKKCOO.STTLC0RCOG(60TKC900000KOOGTCL. 20- 0000190 GRAYtmil LIS 6000. OCCACoGOL -20 85- - 85 OCOCI00 *1000 IR++ 10C C+SLOWS R6oCmoRRT 0o(0K ROCK ,EA0C00105 0 1 90*TPOEeT S 010LY0K0909 ROCK -* ICC ROUF~T 90091101OCAV.ObY.10OCTYOR COSRY 1991CLOGS1001.006 S/ KilLS90i10190100090 OR9000000YCLTZ OCKRCCCCI. 25- -25 10010000901OC.YKKYECLCORCACICERYICAL PR*CTOCKR. -90 PRAO0CIKI9O COCCI SC.0 TOKIA 5901 K COOT.EKOCTOCKKEOKIOY YKRY CLOSE100L00IKOSROCEOCR OKOCYKRIICALROOCTC9990.CYLCLITOOOKOICYIOIC600II0RICOOI*L ml,*+.l~ll~nL. RRO.01101K110 0101001*1090* FURY 30- 30 -95 I POLeYrOCI toLLU PROCITOR. OCIOY.*CLoCK e000*COT 4 35- -36 -100 100-

                                                                                                                      .4.

0001y10o5010000.y, 99001000 0001 091 10i Ti RI-12 0 Q- TC 90 12 -11 L 40- 0L VERyCOG KL ETO VERY CVLO TOCLOC COO"TSH On0. EN 105- ir* i 101 990101.000 ~ 100101L N LIK6YLLO 909011111 45- --45 110- 12 12 OCOY10'K.woeGRC ONOy0CYITOSO 1 IO,R T OOROeT CLYCR TOLLE9YCL e +I*UOI ITOO 5

                                                                                                                                                                                  -- 20 i

5YCCYALC G T CC01KGOKOCIRGm *K0 GRAYIO 11IOCCL0IA 1U9%T. OCCOCyELOel910r O OCOlel l.el, 96*000 . KECRMT1 CA -40 0 KOCOT.GRYIC.vlMCRWCIo 90Y, 910RTvCRYy woLO .FO'eEOS 00011..me VEY0101101000KI LC.20 0 1 50- SeO.CIAT0 CCC~ 10ITo00 FeeTyear YOOe Toi KV.

  • 115- 04 CLONlTO MOeL~E 991009100006100000 OCLC 1.

KCGOC1e0.Yl091R0.O 10* F 001 GOIeT 00 1 E4 mo0RYLO Cee+OLS* ROvEorrL ToCIeYRROCTRIO9 EOOOC.CRY.IEOTCCMOLCKCY0LKC. 100-R-09 2(1 55- 120. +/7 00*01 5 V 00 09 9000F 60- , OROTY TT

                          *2                                                                  -So   1250 65-Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.-54 LOG OF BORING RHR-7

REFERENCE:

DAMES & MOORE PLATES A-1M AND A-1N

COMING IMEASUR801 BORING RHR-8 z ~I 2 SURFACE ELEVATION581.4 LITHOLOGY 0 *RT*IL*ILL 0 65 5 5 70- - 70 10 10 750- 76 15 -15 80 - 80 20 -20 85- 85 80*A8. 0000 o0000cone All 25 - 25 90 90 30 - 30 95, I - 95 1 - 2L Y -TeaqVTe'te A 35 - 35 100- -100

                                                                            +

OmO*SO*

                                      *tO* g    . SL    - 1 40                                                         -   40  105                      -105 T. -1 I.AT
                                                                                     -1    T.

45 -45 110 -110 lAtIM 50- -50o 115 - 115 2= 55- -56 120 -120 2 60 - - s0 125 - -125 05 - -65 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-55 LOG OF BORING RHR-8

REFERENCE:

DAMES & MOORE PLATES A-10 AND A-1P

9 Pz BORING 215 BORING 216 570 *Ull 570- ~- SURFACE ELEVATION 566 + O SURFACE ELEVATION 566 + go ca SYMBOLS DESCRIPTIONS SYMBOLS DESCRIPTIONS CRUSHED ROCKFILL CRUSHEDROCK FILL 565 - 565-BROWNSLTY CLAY WITHSOMESAND AND GRAVEL MOTTLEDBROWNAND GRAY SILTY CLAY WITH P z OMBSAND AND GRAVEL CL U. GRADE MOTTLEDBROWNAND GRAY 2 z 560 - CL 560-lizii2 3.3-.0 2 GRAY SILTY CLAY WITHSOMESAND AND GRAVEL WITHOCCASIONALCOBBLES CL

     -Iu                                                                                                                          GRAY CLAYEYSILT WITH SOMESAND AND GRAVEL wl- 555-                                   GRAYSILTY CLAY WITSH  SOE AND, GRAVEL, 555 ---                 ML     AND OCCASIONALCOBBLES 1455 0 CL         AND OCCASIONALCOBBLES                                      4M16                          BORING COMPLETEDAT 12.1 FPET REFUSALAT 12.A FEET                                                                        ON 1S-R0-E9 BONRING  COMPLETEDAT IA FPEET                                                     NO CASINGUSED GN ICS-1EUED NO CASINO USSD 550-                                                                                    550-z BORING 217 SURFACE ELEVATION 567 4 570             SYMBOLS DESCRIPTIONS CRUSHED ROCKFILL CL     GRAYSILTY CLAY WITHSOME POCKETS SAND OP FINE us 16 3651=125"n                       MOTTLEDBROWNAND GRAYWILTY CLAYWITH SOMESANDAND GRAVEL CL 566    -

GRAY CLAYEY SILT WITHSOMESAND AND GRAVEL 560 *7 ML BORINGCOMPLETEOAT 13.1 FEET ON 12-IR0-69 NO CASINGUSED 550 - NOTES. ELEVATIONSREFER TO N.Y.M.T.,1936 12.1%- 12R INDICATESFIELD MOISTURECONTENTOF 12.1PERCENTAND DRY DENSITY OF 126 POUNDS PEn CUBICFOOT. 32M . INDICATESBOIL SAiLE RECOVEREDIN A DAMES& MOORE13%1 INCH O.O.1SAMPLER. FIGURES UNDER THE BLOW COUNTCOLUMN INDICATE THB NUMBRNOP BLOW REGUIRSa TO DRIVE THE SAMPLER12 INCHESWITHA 350 POUNDWEIGHT FALLING30 INCHES Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-56 LOGS OF BORINGS 215, 216, AND 217

REFERENCE:

REFERENCE 32, PLATE A-1

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM KEY TO TEST DATA DENTS AT VESTS ATARTTFIRD.LY SITRC SEAR5AND CHANGED "IOOTANT MAJOR DIVISIONS y SOICYMBOL ;YPICAL DESCRIPTIONs CLEAN GRAVELS Gw [. - ODET.1ION OP 11 SO IA - SORIA I O SI~ E RONO

                                                                                                                                                                                                                   -ORPRESS
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           -O      RAAR OA TETN1.,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         -D AND                       *t., jR.o,                                                                                                                   -            -

TONL. IT-- OD-0005 A P0. R 14P ....-

                         ..o""',

AVELLY .AlflIAA SIZE LO.ERL-T E.LR COA:SE* SOILS GP E DIRECT SHEAR AND FRICTION TESTS ellIN

           ,.:I   o SIAVELSWRAH FINE!

A1~1 SM ________ 050.57 I*.SSROtSRRRRON,SI OPSR OAt*NIOROPR 00050 III. - .R-I UNSCONFINE0D COMPOREION TESTASR OR aC SAND CLEI. SEND SW SANDY GRADATION CHART SOILS SP '.7 PENCINTZZZ0 SDMOR NP AO . AOTR TM OPSIR

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     . OPT ARR OAR.S SM                                                                                                                                                          TESTS SITICTS T. FINE                                                                                                                                 UNCONFINED COMPRESSION SC                                                                          LIOCVOLIMIT ML                                                                                                      /

SILTI FANE I .INT... ODTA E COTROTEIAN' OP005 ORAN SO..S AND CLAYS CL IIIII, C _______________ RCSLEIINN000100 SUNS MT PANA 0 POSAEIR ATD "ROTR OL O = CL MH S. TR AXIAL. COMPRESSION TESTS SJlTS AND MH 6 OH CH CLAYS OH ý ML OL IL - TrESWTO 1

                                                                                                                                -    S
                    .1GNL.yORGANICSOILS                            PI                                                                     PLASTICITY CHART                                          SHEAR TEST          RESULTS SOIL CLASSIFICATION         CHART NOTES;
1. DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE CLASSIFICATIONS.
2. WHEN SHOWN ON THE BORING LOGS, THE FOLLOWING TERMS ARE USED TO DESCRIBE THE CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS AND THE RELATIVE COMPACTNESS OF COHESIONLESS SOILS.

SAMPLES COHESIVE SOILS COHESION LESS SOILS E GPROXIMATE SHEARING STRENGTH IN KSFI VERY SOFT LESS THAN 25 VERY LOOSE THESE ARE USUALLY SOFT 0.25 TO 0.5 LOOSE BASED ON AN EXAMINATION MEDIUM STIFF STIFF 0.N TO 1.0 1.0 TO 2.0 MEDIUM DENSE DENSE OF SOIL SAMPLES, PENETRATION RESISTANCE, Fermi 2 VERY STIFF 2.0 TO 4.0 VERY DENSE AND SOIL DENSITY DATA. UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT HARD GREATER THAN 4.0 FIGURE 2.5-57 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

REFERENCE:

REFERENCE 32, PLATE A-2

OEsCRIPrION COMPRESSIONAL. POISSON's SHEAR WAVE TOTAL wAvE VELOCITY RATIO VELOCITY UNIT WEIGHT ISYMBOL (ESTIMAMrtO) (FT /SEc) (L1$./CU. FTr (Fri ISEVj SCOM*PUTErD) 0- - 5. 5. -- I as EPOSITS logo . 45 300 1 4500 .40 2650 130 13,000 .24 7600 55O

              /00-SALINA4 GROUP a FORMATION                   6000                 .34             3100               136 SHA£LES ANO SHALT. DOLOMIYK It FORMATION 55465.?OOLO MJI?,LIMS 6TORE           000                  .30            4600               142 AND0LIMESTONESI  6560056 200-                       o  FORMATION S0OLYM?      £10LMTiI 300-Ior I                     A    FORMAIOIIN

( LIMESTONE AM4 DOLOMITE] 155600 .24 100 148 I.- 41 41 So0 4. o . . i i I... 7,00 MIDDLE. AN40EARLY SILUIJRAN SEDIMENTS I55800 .20 *o00 IPREDOMINANTLY DOLOMITE AND0LIMESTONE$5) ORDOVICIANSEDIMENTS I SN4*5., SNAI.? DOLOMITES lag 0600

                                                                                         .20 55,600 DOLOMITES) 40910614111 240]A
                   .40..... .

SANDSTONES) 15,600 .20 6500 la6 LIPNA600MM6NTLY 3/00. I *I I. S PA! CAMGRIA 19,200 .15 12,300 170 (GORANITICGNEISS6) Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-58 STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN SHOWING GEOPHYSICAL DATA

REFERENCE:

FERMI 2 PSAR - FIGURE 2.5-14

BORING 81 COUNTS/SEC. INCREASING-0 ELEVATION 5747 50 LajQ $16

  /00--                                   /00-
  • 121 TQ 221" 250 NOTE:

GEOPHYSICAL LOGS BY THE BIRDWELL DIVISION OF SEISMOGRAPHIC SERVICE CORPORATION Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-59 BOREHOLE GEOPHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS GAMMA RAY LOGS - BORINGS 32A, 79, AND 81

REFERENCE:

FERMI 2 PSAR - FIGURE 2.5-13.1

BORING 79 BORING 81 GRAMS/CC GRAMS/CC 0 50

      /00 Is 1

4J %4. I.- 150 200 FR. 218 T. D. 220 250. NOTE: GEOPHYSICAL LOGS BY THE BIROWELL DIVISION Fermi 2 OF SEISMOGRAPHIC SERVICE CORPORATION UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-60 BOREHOLE GEOPHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS DENSITY LOGS - BORINGS 79 AND 81

REFERENCE:

FERMI 2 PSAR - FIGURE 2.5-13.2

(00 j .040 41

    .oc
     *0C 0                       /00 200               300                400         500 SOUTH                                0/STANCE IN PEE?                            NORTH V1= 1000 FPS,0-3FT
  'V2 = 6500"+/- 1000 FPS, 3- 23 FT V5: 13,000 t 500 FPS, 20+ FT Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-61 SEISMIC REFRACTION SURVEY

REFERENCE:

FERMI 2 PSAR - FIGURE 2.5-5

ov-, at a 29 an 7$ 00 V IV OR LESS SCALE IN MILES Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT

REFERENCE:

FIGURE 2.5-62 MODIFIED FROM: BASEMENT ROCK MAP OF THE UNITED STATES, COMPILED BY RICHARD W. BAYLEY, EPICENTER MAP UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, AND WILLIAM MUEHLBERGER, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, 1968.

0 2 0 a a 8w c 00a a GNOOIS!gHONI A1IO3O1A 31OI.lMld Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-63 ATTENUATION CURVES

REFERENCE:

FERMI 2 PSAR - FIGURE 2.5-17 DAMES & MOORE FIGURE 2.5-22.8

                                                                                       --          VI :2500 ft/sec +/- 00 ft'sec (best value)
                                   *-20           feet EL. 577' -

COMPACTED CRUSHED ROCK FILL ýV2 :unknown but less than 2500 ft/sec PARTIALLY COMPACTED eet CRUSHED ROCK FILL

             --
  • T m i I EL. VERY STIFF TILL 364_.- WATER LEVEL -*nV3z unknown but less than 364V VERY HARD TILL 2500 ft/sec V4 1 7700 ft/sec > 13 feet down TYPICAL CROSS SECTION OF FILL
                         .V,,.J THESE VALUES ARE BASED
                                           ?;PoON                         SECOND ARRIVALS
                                                                                   / o
                      .020 +                              1 6t-rOO z      .015 +

0 1.0 U) z Ia .010+

                                                                /
                                                             /
                                                         ~~
                      .005 +

q*5~ 1,0'~O

                      .000 0                I0                20           30                 40             50 DISTANCE        IN   FEET NOTE:

ALL ELEVATIONS REFER TO NEW YORK MEAN TIDE, 1935 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-64 SEISMIC REFRACTION SURVEY OF FILL

REFERENCE:

REFERENCE 32, PLATE A-3

BORING RHR-2 AT 14.0 FEET BROWNISH-GREY MOTTLED SILTY CLAY WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (TILL) FIELD MOISTURE CONTENT: 14.8% 3 FIELD DRY DENSITY: 120 LBS. FT BORING RHR-5 AT 25.0 FEET GREY SILTY CLAY, SOME BROWN AND RED STREAKS, OCCASIONAL FINE GRAVEL (TILL) FIELD MOISTURE CONTENT: 7.6% 3 FIELD DRY DENSITY: 132 LBS. FT Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-65 CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA

REFERENCE:

REFERENCE 3, PLATE A-6

m "" ;[ U ii i S 4 4 0 _- - '- -- _,_ a - - i a! JIL r';V v ,, M, !vI-te

                                           'II 27     1 v

(I15) (2v (12)1 (3f6) I (IS) 59 (V 1Cf (W6 (071 (2E5) (46) (I.~) ( is) RA

                                                                                                                              --    4                                      B5)       59FI lJ vt          )(30)                                                                                                G~ROUT HOLE NUMB3ER                                             (33H4 f               .                I           I          I            I- _

L~t --- I / -t 4 I l.5 p.(4.5) i II i 10.5)4 43 L-TOTiL ýUBIC FEET OF

                     )(6)                                                                    PRESSURE GROUT USED                                                                                    144 19( )I0o.5)
              /7(

164

                     )(3)
                     )(21)
                                     -l--a~-----*-               *   -        I -    a  -          1-4-I-I
                                                                                                          ~1=HI-I
                                                                                                                             -         I -        I  -
                                                                                                                                                                  'FE I -!
                                                                                                                                                                           . I (2114   P45 (33)( )46 (15)4ý47
                                                                                                                                                                                         .22.5)4 )48
              '5( )(16.5) 8I
                                                                       -~~I
                                                                         -                                      ft    ACITGpt T               (24)4 p49 (30)4 0                                                                                                                                                                                  (47)H 2

12(r(4,5) (19.5)4

              /0 (I)(OS) 6~

2*I )5 (18)4 9* (6)l.I (39)4 )54

               /9    (6()       I                         :      *            -                     *
  • _ . U, .

(I0.5)4)55 70()is) (1.5)0 )56 (27)4 ,57

                                                                           '                                                                                                  *-  ROCF (21)1 5 (9)is                                                                                                                                                                      (1.5)4  )59 4      (3)                                                                                                                                                               21.5)4 )60 6/

I0 lilt i 94 *(22.5)4 o~ o 62 21 )412) (if5) (21) (7)  !) (L2) (0) (24) (5.) () (1.5) (19.5) (25.5) (15) (3i0 ( )(67) I0 (30) I JJ I ()0 79 ?V r;C751 F4 -3 7-2  ?/ M- 6-9 6-9 6-7 6-6 6-5 64 (27) (6) (21) SCAS-19 IN FEET 1080 10 20 30 40 50

                                                                                                                                   ..........       I       I KEY TO GROUT HOLES:

o CURTAIN WALL GROUT HOLES TO EL. 515+/- DRILLED FROM TOP OF GLACIAL TILL FOUNDATION GROUT HOLES TO EL. 483+/- DRILLED FROM ROCK SURFACE Fermi 2 FOUNDATI ON GROUT HOLES TO EL. 499+/- UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT DRILLED FROM ROCK SURFACE FIGURE 2.5-66 GROUT HOLE LOCATION PLAN REACTOR/AUXILIARY BUILDING

REFERENCE:

REFERENCE 46, PLATE 1

                                                          * .- --      *      .*                                                              Il LLJ '-'**'-

o a.' / A N ,</ , " /- W4, . , ',0 \" / ,, *X L,I  ;' --- "' , -- a< " cct, IR I '" \

                                              ",°                  *,*                            X
                              *   '                4    >        /       - ,'.                             4V       r.\\

I-. I

                      "<        X                      l,     \\               ,                          \ X-X
                                                                              <" "     ,    V' *,
                                          - -                       o              4)    I.

low',"*- Q-.1R 0 " ' 'd -E3 a I NI x Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REFDORT FIGURE 2.5-67, SHEET 1 RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR SAFE-SHUTDO WNN EARTHQUAKE - ROCK FOUNDATION

REFERENCE:

(HOR IZONTAL) DAMES & MOORE REPORT, REFERENCE 3 ______._o__._.._. v:.,__-.._,.-__.-_.

             -oj          .

LhJ. a-8,/

                                 * * '   ~         -   s~g~  22    a Ug@gaggZ~Om ISLAWOIIA Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-67, SHEET 2 RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR SAFE-SHUTDOWN EARTHQUAKE - ROCK FOUNDATION

REFERENCE:

(VERTICAL) DAMES & MOORE REPORT, REFERENCE 3

                                                  >/§                                                Uo LA
                                                                                               <__~'

VJ /~(

                                                                      //        /       k V 7N       'PN           ~>

Xcc;$' " * ~ ,

                 \    . o N'.e++<,.~                      .:             ~    f     ~   t N

aLu~u~N N JIO1 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-68, SHEET 1 RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR OPERATING BASIS EARTHQUAKE - ROCK FOUNDATION (HORIZONTAL)

REFERENCE:

DAMES & MOORE REPORT, REFERENCE 3

0 0 I I 0 I 00338182MeO INWMOIA Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-68, SHEET 2 RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR OPERATING-BASIS EARTHQUAKE - ROCK FOUNDATION

REFERENCE:

(VERTICAL) DAMES & MOORE REPORT, REFERENCE 3

                           /      2        3       4     5     6    7           8 9       /0    II       12 Ti~

__j 1 A,~ Aý At0__LhJ i A-ilk.40~0  ;  : ~ T0W I

                                      . -'    .A,; I. U.,

KEY:

  • PRIMARY HOLE A SECONDARY HOLE
  • TERTIARY HOLE 0 04.t~ 00fEj 0/0~A ___ QUATERNARY HOLE 0- 0 6 00 CORE HOLE (SAME VALUES INDICATED IST AND 2ND STAGE)

BATCH LEGEND: a NUMBER OF BATCHES 3:1 MIX b NUMBER OF BATCHES 1.5:1 MIX c NUMBER OF BATCHES .67:1 MIX cI NUMBER OF BATCHES .67:1+ I C.F. SAND MIX c2 NUMBER OF BATCHES .67:1+ 2 C.F. SAND MIX

                                                                      *Ilk                                    NOTES:
1. ANY OF THE ABOVE SYMBOLS (aI b, ,c -c2) FOLLOWED BY ZERO (0) INDICATES AN ATTEMPT TO GROUT WITH THE INDICATED MIX BUT RESULTED IN A "NO TAKE".

XI XA1 2. NO ATTEMPT AT GROUTING IS INDICATED BY "NO 1ST STAGE" IMMEDIATLY UNDER HOLE. __ 4------- SCALE IN FEET Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-69 FOUNDATION TREATMENT FIRST ZONE GROUTING

REFERENCE:

REACTOR/AUXILIARY BUILDING REFERENCE 23, PLATE A-1

1-

                           /          2         3               4          5          6                      8 I          9              /0            II          12 7"

I I I I I I I I .1.. I I I A A- I ~ M. u-l, U IM* T' F.- i, I p i[* Al-

                                                                                                                                .!., 4           ...r.

AI r+

                                                                                                                                                                        ,1>,1
2. __

4.~~~ ~M Vano 0* C ___I 10 Co I-o li

  • E4 4l cc , ~l KEY:
  • PRIMARY HOLE A SECONDARY HOLE 00- 00--- -. -- ++--L -- 0.0.. . . I TERTIARY HOLE GUATERNARY HOLE Q

I.,1 I.F .,,A I f$ F A "IA 1 11 .o11*l+ CORE HOLE (SAME VALUES INDICATED 1ST AND 2ND STAGE) F-" 10 0 00010 [; ..  ::E ,.:o0, "+A0 e 0 7

  • TI.A 1l BATCH LEGEND (2ND STAGE):

Ti~~ -0 7 0 0 TO -S A 00

                                                                                                                                                                                  -= NUMBER OF BATCHES 3:1 MIX b = NUMBER OF BATCHES 1.501 MIX
                                               +A3 ...                                               .I                                                           A.+'            1 NUMBER OF BATCHES 67:1 MIX 10 NUMBER OF BATCHES .67:1+ 1 C.F. SAND MIX 1          2 c2 = NUMBER OF BATCHES 67:1+ 2 C.F. SAND MIX BATCH LEGEND (3RD STAGE);

a3 NUMBER OF BATCHES 3:1 MIX b3 - NUMBER OF BATCHES 1.5:1 MIX 03 " NUMBER OF BATCHES .67:1 MIX 6- 2 0 --- -1 1 R NOTES:

1. ANY OF THE ABOVE SYMBOLS (a, b, c,0l,c2) FOLLOWED BY ZERO (0) INDICATES AN ATTEMPT TO GROUT WITH THE INDICATED MIX BUT RESULTED IN A "NO TAKE".

V.. AL- tl W. -- Is is s L -- I"l.-A 'I-,i

                                                   =l                .0             A          1                11.10 47             .. $    s         LB           L0          [          O.0                               -00'   U    01 p    --                           '---                                                          :5--,

SCALE IN FEET Io 0410 'o'  ::7I2 I 10 0010 0.010 0.010~ - Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-70 FOUNDATION ZONE TREATMENT SECOND ZONE GROUTING REACTOR/AUXILIARY BUILDING

REFERENCE:

REFERENCE 23, PLATE A-2

Lu CORING (MEASURED) BORING 215 SURFACE ELEVATION 536.0 WATER DATA I

                                 >~           us                                                                      >c Uz      U c-L6 F-z                     -I 0                                                                                  0: 3 =!

zu 2 U wc J us LIThOLOGY ~ Ojcc

                                            -    I                                                                                            0 I

GRAY TO DARNGRAY FINE GRAINED DOLOMITE.CLOSELY FRACTURED.LOOENRUSILS UPP2R 22 IN0IES SA GRAYISII-BNOWI DOLOMITE. COAR111GOWINED. OOI.IIC CLOGSTOMODERATELYCLOSE45 PRACTURESIOGLITIC MARKNRAND) 5 LIGHTGRAY PINE GRAINEDDOLOMITE.THIINREIDOE. FINELY IRECCIATEDAND CEMENTEDIN ZONES, SOMEPINE LAMINATIOINS. OCCASIONALSTYOLITE. FRAGMENTED 2 too SO 10 20- GRAY DOLOMITE.NUMEROUSVERY TiIN. IRREGULAR LAMINATIONS FRAGMENTEDWITH CLAY SSAMS AND TRAOCS OF GROUT

                      =.       1=00   54 LIGHTGRAY DOLOMITE.MAIVE WTIT NUMEROUSWILL 25-         4      IS0    Go HEALEDFRACTURES.GENERALLYBOUND                                                       15 I INCHWIDECLAY SIAM IN STEEPLYDIPPING FISSURES THIN CLAY SEAM IN STEEPLYDIPPINGFISSURES S      100    ESo                    NEAR VERTICAL FRACTURES20.A TO 21A FEET WITHMEDIUM CLOSE45e FRACTURES 20 GRAY DOLOMITEGRECCIATEDPARTICLESWILL CEMENTEDIN S      I4O   l"                A FINE GRAINED MATRIX-VERY SOUND FRACTURESWITIHISISLINEAR I-W" VUGE 30                                                                                                                              25 GRADINGTO MASSIVEDOLOMITE.,SOMEWELLHEALED 7                                   FRACTURES.OCCASIONALSTYOLITE.NUMEROUSTHIN LAMINATIONSUPPER E INCHES IsO                          GROUT FRAGMENTEDWITH THINCLAY AND SHALE E8AMO                                  30 THINCLAYEY SHALESEAM0N 112-114 VUOS AND MOCER.

ATULYCLOSE450 FRACTURES I INCH WIDECLAY SEAMIN NEAR VERTICAL FIISURE ON FRAGMENTEDWITHCLAY SESLSE 24 GRAY DOLOMTI. BREACCIATWO AND FRACTURED.PARTIALLYHEALED. II MINOR VaUGEIN ZONES- NUMEROUSCLAY 51AMU to GROUT ODEERVEDIN CLOSEFRACTIREES THROUGHOUTRUN 40 40- 10 to - THIN CLAY SEAMAT 32.0 FEET NUMiROUSE8RSAKEALONG SHALE8AM GRAY DOLOMITEWITHVERY NUMEROUSDARK. IRREGULAR I.AM-23 INATIONMAND VERY THINSHALE PARTINGE-OCCASIONAL so CLAY SEam ARTESIAN 45 45- VERY CLOSE FRACTUREZONE FLOWIN-CREASING FRAGMENTEDZONE WITHCLAY SEAMA GROUT IN IS PINS FRACTURES NUMEROUSVERY IRREGULAR STYOLITlE s0 50 GRAY DOLOMITEWITHNUMEROUSIRREGULAR ETYOI.TES OCCASIONALHEALEDFRACTUIRU-GENERALLY SOUND SOUNDDECREASINGSHALEPARTINGS AT R1 1/1' 55- 74 55 ZONE OP VERY CLOSE VERTICAL FRACTURES-GENERALLY SOUNG NEAR VERTICAL CLAY SEAM is ID 45 CLOW 4e FRACTURE$ GROUT GRAY DOLOMITE.BRE11CCIATED 6-I101 II/9-II1 VUGS AND PARTIALLY HEATED ARTESIAN FLOW 20 GALJ MIN.

                                                                                                                                          .60 65 CLOGSE  FRACTIREAS GORINGCOMPLETEDAT 64.AFPET ON S.-IS-So NOTIAL      .                                           CASINGUSEDTO A OGAINOF 54.L FEET.

SLIVATIONXG REFER TO N.YAI.T..1oE NO DRILLING MUD USED ARTESIANWATER FROM 10.0 FEET ROD - ROCKQUALITYDESIGNATION A MODIPIEDCORE RECOVERYPERCENTAGEIN WHI1CH ALL THE PIECESOF SOUNDCORE OVER 4 INCHES LONGARE COUNTEDAS RECOVERY. THE MOIFIED SUM OFCORE RECOV1RED II THEN EXPRESSEDAS A PERCENTAG2OP THE TOTAL LENGTHOP THE CORE RUN. IS - WO INOMiTE THE ESTIMATEDRATIO OF MUGGEDCORE SURFACE AREA TO TOTAL CORESURFACEARIA. BOTH OPEN AND FILLED VUEs ARE INCLUDEDIN THE VUGGEOCATEGORY. Fermi 2 FRACTRE DENSITYTERMINOLOOY VERY CLOSE-LE THAN 2 INCHESAPART UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT CLO8S-2 TO6 INCHES MODERATELYCLOSE-S TO 11 INCHES WIDE -GREATER THAN 12 INCHES FIGURE 2.5-71 LOG OF BORING 215

REFERENCE:

REFERENCE 23, PLATE A-3A

CORING (MEASUREDP WATER DATA

                               ~SURFACE
                               >            --                         ELEVATION 53G.0                        w¢                       ---

o I. BO IG 26d0 0. p w wu LIGHT ORAY OLOMITE PINS GRAINEDVIRY C~rI.OEY - - - PRACIJRSO AND LOOSEUPPER S INCHU LIGHT GRAYIEA-EROWNDOLOMITE,COARSE GRAINED lOB0 30 GOLITIO(MARKERaUDI WIT*HNUMEROU CLOS IL45 PRs0cUREU 5 GRAY DOLOMNTE PINE GRAINED WITHNUMEROUSPINE 5U-DARK AND IRREGULAR LAMINATIONS CLOSE FRACTURSDWITH SOMECLAY 2 SO 2 VERTICAL FRACTUREWITHCLAY GROUT 10 CLOSE FRACTURES ARTESIAN 10 3 9 17 GFRAGMENTED GROUT 4 005 15 CLAY SEAMIN VERTICAL FISSURE CLOSE FRACURES 1 LAMINATIONSDECREASINGAT IGA FEET 5 100 93 GRAY DOLOMITE8RECCIATED AND WILL CEMENTED. 20 IRREGULAR STYOLITU, VERYSOUND -20 IS-_2w ISI/4- wGs a loSIo 7 1o 77 CLOSE 4e FRACTURES 25 I INCHCLAY sEAM 25 CLOSE4e FRACTURES S lS 77 GRAY DOLOMITEPINS GRAINED. OCCASIONAL VERY THIN SHALE AND CLAY SANIS NUMEROUSWELLHEALED 30 PFRACTURES

                                                     # INCHZONNOF II."    1/1VVUOS                                                    -30 VERY THIN SHALESEAM a    100  as                4e*FRACTIJRES,MODERATELYCLOSE 35          -                                                                                                                  35 ERECCIATEDDOLOMITEWITH IO1 119-114-10    100  U            GRAYDOLOAMTEWITH WELLHEALEDFRACTURESAND SOME VERY THIN. IRREGULARLAMINATIONS 40                                          FRAGMENTEDVWTHNUMEROUSCLOSEVERIICAL BREAKS                                    -40 INCREASINGDARK LAMINATIONS MODERATELYCLOSE 45* FRACTURESWITHNUMEROUE 45                                          BREAKSAT SHALESIEAMS                                                               45 GRAY DOLOMITEMASSIVE.NUMEROUSHEALED FRACTURES.VERY I1S    "   33             SOUND CORE WITH LARGE QUANTITY OFGROUT 60                                       CORED VERY RAPIDLYNO RECOVERY3 INCH VOID AT                                       -50 4YA TO 473 FPET 12      57 El 55                                                                                                                        -55 BORING COMPLETED  AT 5S.3 PET                       ARTESIAN ON 9-17-70                                           WATER CASINGUSED TO A DEPTHOF 49A                          FROM 60-                                           PEST NO DRILLING MUD USED 15.0 FEET               "60 L65 NOTESI ELEVATIONSREFER TO N.Y.M.T. IOU ROD - ROCK QUALITYDESIGNATION A MODIFIED CORE RECOVERYPERCENTAGEIN WHICHALL THE PIECES OF SOUNDCORE OVER 4 INCHESLONGARE COUNTEOAs RECOVERY. THE MODIFIEDSUM OF CORE RECOVEREDIS THEN EXPREOSEDAS A PERCENTAGEOf THE TOTAL LENGTHOF THE CORE RUN.
     - VUGS INDICATESTHE ESTIMATEDRATIO OF VUGED9 CONE SURFACE AREA TO TOTALCORE SURFACE AREA. BOTHOPEN AND FILLED VUGSARE INCLUDEDIN THEVUGGED CATEGORY.

Ferm i 2 FRACTURE OENSITY TERMINOLOGY UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT VERY CLOSE-LES1 THAN 2 INCHESAPART CLOSO-! TO 5 INCHES MODERATELYCLOSE-6 TO 12 INCHES WIDE-GREATER THAN 12 INCHES FIGURE 2.5-72 LOG OF BORING 216

REFERENCE:

REFERENCE 23, PLATE A-3B

CORING (MEASURED) WATER DATA w f: ~BORING 217 L I-

                                                      >ISURFACE ELEVATION 536.0                               wLZi- aRA IRY         I.                            TW              I-*    EEI 96    ZU61                                                                                            0   c  U6.I         -U cc                                    LITHOLOGY         U                                            cc ccR              GRAY DOLOMITE,     FRAGMENTEDLOG" TaI IRcGLA                 DENRIS pATING                       IAI )           -               0 LIGHTGRAVIS4-SOWN DOLOMITE.COARSDGRAINED OARLITIA NWTH  MODERATELYCLOSS FRACTURES I      20    47                       THROUGHOUTMARKER@ED)
            *3                                     GRAY DOLOMITEDJENSELY      LAMINATEDWITH DARE.                                           -5 VERY THIN IRREGULARSHALEPARTINGS BROKENON SHALEPARTINGS LARGE FRACTUREWITHGROUVT r2       3    $1              GRAY DOLOMITE,FIN GRAINED,NUMEROUSHEALED FRACTURE.IOCCASIONALETYOLITE,AND EOME 10DARK                                  LAMINATIONSMODERATELYCLOSEFRACTURES THROUGHOUT
                                                                                                                                             -10 VERY THIN CLAY SEAAI 3 IS00 SG                       CLOSELYFRACTUREDWITH REARVERTICALBREAKS GRAY DOLOMITE,ERECCIATED     ANGULARPARTICLESWELL CEMENTEDINA FINE GRAINEDMATRIX. OCCASIONAL FRACTIJREBGENERALLYVERY SOUND                                                              15 CLOSE45    FRACTURES "a-s0 t/4-1/2" VUGS 4      I00   100 20-                                                                                                                                   20 GRAY DOLOMITEMASSIVEFINE GRAINED,OCCASIONAL S     100  I00                 STYOLITS, NUMEROUSHEALEDFRACTURESIN ZONES 25                                                                                                                                    25 VERY THIN SHALEFARTINGE,BROKEN 6      100    E0                   WELL CEMENTEDERECCIATEDDOLOMITEWITH MODERATELYCLOSE FRA*C*URE GRAY DOLOMITEMASIWVE      NUMEROUSHEALEDFRACTURES.

ISO 25 AND SOME FINE LAMINATIONSOCCASIONALCLAY 30 SRAMFRACTUREDIN ZONES 30 2 INCHCLAY SEAM SO 57 4 INCH VERY DARK CLAYEYSHALELAYER VERY THINCLAY SAM CLOSE480 FRACTURES 35 I S THINCLAY EUM 35 FRAGMENTED CLOSELY FRACTUREDWITHNUMEROUSVERTICAL to I00 Me BREAKS THIN CLAY SEAM 11 100 So GRAY DOLOMITEWITH EXTREMELYNUMEROUSFINE DARK 40- LANNATIONS 40 INCREASINGTHIN LAMINATIONSMODERATELY CLOSE 4e1 FRACTUREEWITHVERTICAL BREAKS I2 as 3S TIIN CLAY SEAM 48* FRACTURE THIN CLAY SEAM,BROKEN ARTESIAN 45 PRAGMENTED WITH CLAYSEAMS FLOW GRAY DOLOMITEMASSIVEPINEGRAINEDNUMEROUSHEALED INCREASING 13 of FRACTURESOCCASIONALCLAY SEAM I CLOS3FRACTURES 14 10E 7 OCCASIONALSTYOLITE 5O CLOSE FRACTURES -50 GRAY DOLOMITS.MODERATELY8RECCIATEDANO WELLCEMENTED IN ZONES,COMEHEALEDFRACTURIEAND VERY IRREGULAR 1E ISO T0 THIN LAMINATIONS S-ISIS 115-14VUGS ARTESIAN VERY CLOSEFRACTURESWITHGROUT S--II 10%-114" VUGE /MIN SORING COMPLETEOAT553 FEET ARTESIAN 60 60- ON#--1_7O FLOW CASINGUSED TO A OEPTMOF 483 FROM FEE? 10.0 FEET NO DRILLING MUDUSED

                                                                                                                                               -65 NOTESI ELEVATIONSREFER TO N.YJ.T.. 1938 GOD-   ROCKDUALITYDESIGNATION A MODIFIEDCORE RECOVERYPERCENTAGSIN WHICHALL THE PIECESOF SOUNDCORE OVER 4 INCHESLONG ARE COUNTEDAS RECOVERY. THE MODIFIEDSUM OF CORN RECOVEREDIS THEN EXPREISEE AR A PFRECNTAGEOF THE TOTAL LENGTHOF THE CORE RUN.

96- VUGS INDICATES THE ESTIMATEDRATIO OF NUGGEDCORE SURFACEAREA TO TOTAL CORE SURFACE AREA. BOTH OPEN AND VUGSARE INCLUDEDIN ,IILSO THE VUGOEOCATEGORY. Ferm i 2 FRACTUREDENSITYTERMINOLOGY VERYCLOSE-LESS3 THAN2 INCHES APARTUP A E UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT CLOSE-STOSINCHES MOSRATELY CLOSE-4 TO 1t INCHES WIDE -GREATER THAN 12 INCHES FIGURE 2.5-73 LOG OF BORING 217

REFERENCE:

REFERENCE 23, PLATE A-3C

CORING (MEASURED] WATER DATA w 2 z c BORING 218 SURFACE ELEVATION 536.0 21 cc UI0CC 2, Ull LU A I-~ ul LU Q. LU 0 U) LITHOLOGY

00. 1 0.6 0 CRAY DOLOMRTE PINGGRAINRO-LOCEEBROKEN RUELIE UPPER17 INCHES I 100 LIGHT BROWNDOLOMITECOARSEGRAINED.OOLITIC.

SOMEWILL HEALEDPRACTURS IMARKERBED) M1 FRAGMENTED GRAY DOLOMITE,FINE GRAINED. VERY THINDARK -5 LAMINATIONG AND SHALEPARTINGS a a WSHALE"AM. SOMEGROUT EXTIREMELY NUMEROUSTHIN LAMINATIONS 10 4e FRAETURGAND 12 " VERTICAL BREAK 10 PROMIQ`* TO 11.0 FEET GRAY OOLOMDTE.MASSVE NUMEROUSSTVOLITZBIN 4 100 73 ZONES,soNe THINLAMINATIONS CLOSELY FRACTUREDAND FRAGMKNTEDWITH 4e AND VERTICALBREAKS 15 THIN&HALEPARTINGS(BROKEN) 15 SOUND NUMEROUSSTYOLITES MODERATELYCLOSS 4e S 100 goRFRACTURES 20 -20 4e MOOERATELYCLOSEFRAC'URESE S 3 G GRAY DOLOMITE.BR9CCIATEO.WELLCEMENTED.NUMEROUS VERY THIN SHALESEAMS,OCCASIONALSTYOLITS 25GRAY DOLONMITS,MASSIVE.NUMEROUSWELLHEALEDFRACTUREE. 25 4e AND VERTICAL FRACTURESOCCASIONAL 100 S 9; ETYOLITSGENERALLYSOUND CLAYRYSHALE SIAM WITHSOMEOROUT 30 GRAYDOLOMITE,FINE GRAINED. SOMETHIN LAMINATIONS -30 NUMEROUSHEALED PRACTURUS 1 100 on HIGHLY FRAGMINTED,BRECCIATED,WILL CEMENTED -35 GRAY OOI.MITV WITHVERY THINDARK IRREGULAR LAMINATIONS OCCASIONAL ETYOLITE 40 DARK, THINLAMINATIONSINCASASINOG300-4do DIP -40 IS U 43 GRAYSHALE LAYER 45 GRAY DOLOMITSEMASSIVE.WELLHEALED FRACTURES BSM TYOLITES -45 CLOSEFRACTUREE U a BC THIN CLAY SEAM 50 MODSRATKLYCLOSEFRACTURES -60 BORINGC06WLETEDAT 54.11 FEET ARTESIAN -55 CASINGUSEDTO A DEPTH OF 41.0 WATER FROM 10.0 NO DRILLINGMUD USED 60 NOTEI* BLEVATIONSREFER TO NY.M.T. lEE3

                                                                                                                                             -- 65 RAD -   ROCKQUALITYDESIGNATION A MODIFIED CORERECOVERYPERCENTAGEIN WHICHALL THEPIECES OF SOUNDCORE OVER 4 INCHESLONGARE COUNTEDARRECOVRRY. THE MODIFIEDSUM OFCORE RECOVEREDIS THEN EXPRESSEDAR A PERCENTAGEOP THE TOTALLENGTHOF THE CORE RUN.
          -- VUGEINOICATRBTHE ESTIMATEDRATIO OF VUGGEDCORE SURFACE AREA TO TOTAL CORE SURFACE ARIA. BOTHOPEN AND FILLED VUGEARE INCLUDEDIN THE VUGOEDCATEGORY.

FRACTURE ENHISTY TERMINOLOGY VERY CLOSE-LESS THAN2 INCHESAPART CLOSE-S TO E INCHES MODERATELYCLOSE-4TO 12 INCHES WIDE-GREATERTHAN12 INCHES Fern i 2 UPDATIED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-74 LOG OF BORING 218

REFERENCE:

REFERENCE 23, PLATE A-3D1

CORING WATER DATA P (MEASURED) cc

                     .                                         BORING 219 W   E D iUl   P Q=     8         2           SURFACE ELEVATION 548.0                                         1     c SLITHOLOGY                                                                                        cc UJ 0                                                                                          0 GRAY DOLOMITE,FINEGNRAIED. MASSIVE.OCCASONAL MOYUTS I    100    34
                                   -                CLOSE40 AND VERTICAL FRACTURESTO 5                                         FRAGMENTED                                                                          5 INCREASEDVERY THINIRREGULAR LAMINATIONS 2      0                         TO 7 FEETr HEALEDFRACTURESNUMEROUS 10                                         30h-urv-t     US                                                                  10 30% 114 VUGS 2     In    71           LIGHTGRAY BROWNDOLOMITE,COARSEGRAINED, OOLITIC (MARKER8601 VERTICAL FRACTURES 15                                          RAYTO   0 GRAY DOLOMITE*OF DARK IREEGULARSHALE                                    15 PARTINGSANo THIN LAMINATIONS CLAYEYUHALKSEAM CLOEW4G AND NEAN VERTICAL FRACTURES 20                                          GROUTI- If FIRES                                                                  20 GRAY OLOELNTE,BREOCIATEDWITHNUMEROUEHEALEDAND a     10    soPARTIALLY 80                          HEALEDFRACTURES.IRREGULAR LAMINATIONS IN ZONES 25                                          CONTINUOUS   VERTICAL BREAKSPROM23  TO 300 FEET                               -   25 WITH 10)--=N 114--iCT VUQS 7     Ioo   a NUMEROUSHEALEDFRACTIJRES 30-                                                                                                                          30 BRACING MORI ERECCIATED. WELLCEMENTED6R 113-114 E     I0E                      VUGl TO 2    FEET LIGHT GRAY DOLOMITE,RELATIVELYSOPT IN ZONES.VERY 35               I     IN               IRREGULARETYOUTES.GENERALLYROUND                                                   - 35 114' CLAY SEAM 10    100    OR                 VERTIAL AND 4e FRACTURES n 11-I/I-1114VUOS ELACK CLAYEYSHALEWITH RomeGROUT
                   =1     In      0                  No-'1/4 VUGS                                                                     40 CLOSE 46' FRACTURES BROWNISH-GRAYPINE GRAJNED DOLOMITE.NUMEROUSHEALED I2toN        71              FRACTURES 10--0% l/E--L VUGS CLOSE FRACTURES                                                                   45 45                                          FRAGMENTED                                                                        4 GRKaEN I      I0    N                  11ROKENON SHALESEAM@

GRAY DOLOMITE,FINE GRAINEDWIT4 VERY THIN IRREGULAR s0 50 LAMINATIONSAND NUMEROUSSHALE PARTINGS 14 E9 30 ARTESIAN FLOW5 55 PROM30 SORINGCOMPLETEDAT NiA FEET Off9-23-70 60 CASINGUSEDTO A EM4 OFP 33. FEET NO DRILLINGMUD USED 65 NOTES, ELEVATIONSREFER TO NPYA.LT..IE3 ROD - ROCKQUALITYCUIGNATION A MODIFIEDCORE RECOVERYPERCENTAGEIN WHICHALL THE PIECESOF SOUNDCORE OVER 4 INCHESLONGARE COUNTEDASl RECOVERY. THE MODIFIEDSUM OF CORE RECOVEREDIS THEN EXPRESSEDAS A PERCENTAGEOF THE TOTAL LENGTHOF THE CORE RUN. S.- VUG. INDICATESTHE ESTIMATEDRATIOOF WOOED CORE SURFACE AREA TO TOTAL CORE SURFACEAREA. BOTHOPEN AND FILLED VUGS ARE INCLUDEDIN THE VUGOEDCATEGORY. Ferm i 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FRACTUREDENSITYTERMINOLOGY VERY CLOSE-LEE THAN2 INCHESAPART CLOSE-2 TOE INCHES MODERATELYCLOSE-S TO 12 INCHES WIDE-GREATER THAN 12INCHES FIGURE 2.5-75 LOG OF BORING 219

REFERENCE:

REFERENCE 23, PLATE A-3E

El BRECCIATED ROCK (CEMENTED) CLOSED FRACTURE

                              " OPEN FRACTURE CLAY SEAM OR CLAY FILLED FRACTURE ANDWIDTH OFCLAY
                       .... PROJECTION OF CLAY SEAM OR CLAY FILLED FRACTURE INDICATES DIRECTION OF AND ANGLE OF DIP
                            - VERTICAL FRACTURE OR CLAY SEAM DRAIN CENTER LINE I   ARTESIAN FLOW SCALE IN FEET Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-76 FOUNDATION RACK SURFACE FEATURES REACTOR/AUXILIARY BUILDING

REFERENCE:

REFERENCE 23, PLATE B-1

            /              2                  3                4         5                           6                          7                          8                         9          /0                 II                 /2           /3 2                          2 0           A                0        A           V0        A          @.           A                 .          A             P      A           V0          A              0        A                         A            V           A                             OK&

A- -A 77 T2 T3 T4 T 5 78 7 3 T8 T70 111 8 T12 13 65 714 f'5 24 #7 6 717 82 71$ AAO A

                                     ...
  • 5 ,o4 *oA P.(
                                                                       ....                    0             ..A         41A     ,1 ..           *..P16 82
                                                                                                                                                             ..AO        ..          ABIB 24
                                                                                                                                                                                                 *sA 82 S20='

0

                                   *      **          *
  • 20
  • 1 20 -.

21 T2 722 725 3 724 72T 25 72 7 728 n98 730 T31 752 755 I3. T35 735 T357 TI 8- 47 0 24.7 20.5 77.6 0 0 0 5 0 0

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        -B p21
                       *5
                      $21 5

P22 A22 123 A 721

                                                                                   *0 P24 Atto 40 S24           P25 A

923 0 P25 A 326 P27 A 527 P28 A29 P2 A

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           $29
  • 0 $3
                                        * **          *          *          *             .~~50*                    *6                                 *           *            *                                   *
  • 16.8 T4 247 2 T.3 0 T.4 T45 288 T46 T4 ,0 150 T5 206 15 3 &62 T" TB5 0 T56 0 2T7 0 73 $79 73 P31 S2al11 pA # 0 P33 A 0P,, $5A S36 *S p36 Ap'.

S37 A- p39 41 P4( C-758 U N 759 U 75$ U 767 45' 352 EEW62 763 UD 75$ U 7.53 U T85 787 U 788 U 758 U 774 0 U 77' E U 77T2 UE 773 37T4 U T73 0 U 775 024.7 729 04, . . . p71 A 54' 742 30 A 60700 14o $0 P43 0. A44 . 044 $44 42 A49 8.2 46 AA5A 0 S4. 2 S49 PAA T7, ...... -- .T7 10 -060- -o6,-U -- -U-- U------ -U9 -U---- -U - -U -U----- -T 8.2 4 0 8.A 0 41 0 -D 7 8 8 D-A7 751 P5Z o 70 D 11 P53 A 7S S54 q 554 A SIB *0 P367 I S w. 956 57 P57 A $58 pl. $89 560 P6$ 4A4 16.5 24.7 0 S631 F- T45 T.5 s~l *z 77S s62 78 P63 79T 100 P64 7.107 B6. 22 1.5 4 1G 740 7725 1616PG 7728 7727 S67 7725 T1 P6 29 8 7330 P1° 7737 59 7792I 1 PO 7135 ST

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         -E 9                                       AL0                A                    4 A                                      0           A. A 22                                              02             0          4            82                                162 F-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     -F T             '15                          37                7.34         7.2 T40           7T42    0    T742       75           7420                   T714        7147T       74 T            7249 4I     T713        Tll      0    T713 S4            I, 178     IsB' 7"

62 782 7754 P7 5 17 Poe. 77 St. 7 75 se 77

o. p90 7 2 P., SO P2 S2 13 sI 6 Cm -G 1
           /L              2T3                                 4       5                            6                           7'                        8                          9          /0                I                   /2          /

EXPLANATI10$ 8.2 PRE-GROUTING EXPLORATORYHOLES (SYMBOLS

  • 7RIMARY GROUT HOLES 0 GROUT VOLUMEIN CUBIC FEET-MIX WITH CORRESPONDTO EITHER A PRIMARY OR 7:1 (CEMENT!FLY ASH) AND 1.6:1 (WATER, SECONDARYGROUT HOLE POSITION)

A SECONDARYGROUT HOLES CEMENT PLUS FLY ASH) POSI-GROUTING EXPLORATORYHOLES

  • TERTIARY GROUT HOLES
  • MIX WITH 1:1 (CEMENT:FLY ASH) AND 1.2:1 (WATER:CEMENTPLUS FLY ASH) 2

( QUATERNARYGROUT HOLES

                                                                                     &   NO GROUT TAKEN BY ROCK                                            +/-... A       BUILDING COLUMNLINES 0     to    20   20    40 50 I    -              APPROXIMATE BUILDING AND EXCAVATION t.LNES                                                                          SCALE IN FEET
                                                                                                                                                                            -U11DING4   CENTER L INE Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-77 PRIMARY HOLES - FIRST ZONE GROUTING

REFERENCE:

(0-6 FT) RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL COMPLEX MODIFIED FROM LEE TURZILLO CONTRACTING COMPANY DRAWING NO. 2410-1, FEBRUARY 19,1974

I 2 3 .4 5 6 7 8 9 /0 u 12 /3 A' I W-P A, 2 3 3 ODA P4 A, 34

                                                                                                                *P A[

5 PG A 0 A 37 Si

                                                                                                                                                                                             .7 1

A 8 3 H0 00 1106A cit A 31 P2 S 383 P 3 1 9

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  -A 0

Ti T2 T3 3 TO T5 3 TE T7 T1.7E TOTTII TIO "I013 T14 T15 I TI? Till Ti, 01*5 0 311 8oo' A 0 B A 9 A 0 A A

                                *~~~~            AI         0                                            4l.A                                                      .11                                    A
  • A2 70 I

8 020

                                *N 03
                                          *O
  • 23 TOO 0 2310 TOpO
                                                                                            *0            *03 2
  • 8 003 no Tl TO T3237O
                                                                                                                                                                                                   *0                         30       T7
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  -8 30 no T2O2o2
                                     $           002 2

pI33 2 19.4T6 34 P14 0 T7 TB T29 no P76 T3 3 325 e .9 T4 328 TB C .3 3 0 0 20 3I0 MI 0 M 3 3

  • P~a S40 p~z p43 1S44
                                                                                     -4           -      -49    50         S25             9                        9         A                                                            0     3 C                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             -c tOE      S2I    0.

T T.O p52 00 0 TOO 00 70 TO 3 T44 30 TOO P2 G,50 030T 8 2 S 21p7 TnI P25 2 p58

                                                                                                                                                                                                            .733         P29       529  070      1. 073      .

0 3.3 03 31 TO O 34 00 00 TO 4400 TO4 0 T70 TOI 030 33T 00 03gl A 001 A 02 t 004 00 A A A. A A * *A So0 P41 T

              -.         *    -u--u TT9 A A~

02 P TTOE0

                                                 *PSTE   A0
                                                              -EE21 080 T6 0333 P            6 P33    TO0   304 0

P4 T. A5 00 T.68 .5 5 -l A OIA TTEV 03 0 T00 sA S p0 TTl AS 3 P47

                                                                                                                                                                               *547
  • SA OSE A~

T03 T30 A03e330 35 P-9 AA

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    *9 p3   T03       00   T73 A

P40 0 0 D &3 39 1.9 3 0 3.9 39 3.9 -D 030 00 T3E 03 0100 T 101 T0 A103 0.10 4 010 108 0107 0103 Tll 012 Ti0l nT10 i a,8 Vo T8o 233 T10 39 0il 3 4O 721 PE. 30 P02 00 00 *D po" S54 004 A

  • S5 0004 300 A'
                                                                                                                                                                  *oz 957 A A   3'            P5 5

O.E A 4 0 Pal38l, 010 N15 011 T Nl 010 'o 012 E0 012 12 N12 012 010 TO 102 012 013 9 018 M P., 56o P62 0 . 139 06 393 4 A

                                                                                                                                                                                                        *33S4            0P                                       -if
                    $7 A,
  • A APAPOT P0 P78 4

3 I 80 A

                                                                                                                                             ~10       4t                      P A            pA P0 F.                                 *  *U         *                        *            *
  • 30u 40f * *
  • U
  • fU U 94VT3 *0T-0 Tl.T37  ! 01139 0140 10 42 111 T.43501 0144 3035 0 140 . 013? 10 0 T5 ID 0 T
        *a               A O

s AO Pil *4 3 5. Ale . A

  • A
  • A
  • AA 034 N.

0100 0130 *8 013 00 08 fl 019 PeTIES 50 14 00 10 ., 03 13 0 017 G. 71

          /                  2              3                4          5                              6                                                        a                            9           /0                  HI              /2              /3
  • PRIMARY GROUT HOLES 3.9 PRE-GROUTING EXPLORATORYHOLES (SYMBOLS 0ROUT VOLUMEIN CUBIC FEET-MIX WITH OEl CORRESPONDTO EITHER A PRIMARY OR 1.5!1 (CEMENT:FLY ASH) AND 2:1 (WATER: SECONDARYGROUTHOLE POSITION)

A SECONDARY GROUT HOLES CEMENT PLUs FLY ASH)

  • TERTIARY GROUT HOLES
  • MIX WITH 1:1 (CEMENT:FLY ASH) AND
                                                                                                                                                                              ,       POST-GROUTINGEXPLORATORYHOLES OUATERNARY U                GROUT HOLES 1.2:1 (WATER:CEMENT PLUS FLY ASH)                                   2 MIX WITH I1: (CEMENT:FLY  0         ASH) AND                                 AA       BUILDING COLUMNLINES                                                               0     10    20   30     40 30 I!I (WATER:0CEMENT LUS FLY ASH)

F - APPROXIMATE BUILDING 1 NO GROUTTAKEN BY ROCK AND ERCAVAT10N LINES SCALE IN FEET BUILDING CENTER LINE Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-78 PRIMARY HOLES - SECOND ZONE GROUTING

REFERENCE:

(6-20 FT) RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL COMPLEX MODIFIED FROM LEE TURZILLO CONTRACTING COMPANY DRAWING NO. 2410-1. FEBRUARY 19.1974

          /              2                  3                 4              5                                 6                            7                          8                           9           /0                   II                 /2              /3 4                                                                                   4 I&# 4       0                                         A                           A9r                                                            I              AD                                     .                fo
  • PI $7 38 08 P. $9 plo A A 5 A I2 5 ' A T T T TI' TI2 T13 3, T151C, TI6 ,578 TI T 18 21 TIB MI 0 P 3H P22 323 p3 S13 TO 3 3 0 33 T0 5393 3Ap P14 5 1 r Il T0 0 1217 1 72 920
  • A A
  • eoA s M. A
  • A A
  • MA
  • 8- -8
                      $21         22           332         p23             S21
                                                                           $23           P24             -24           p225         39s          P6            26        P27          527          p28          32e          P.g           529           P30   10       $
       .. 33$           T$0 *I44    T41          T42   47.2    T43            344   21.7     T45             346     0   343             8    0    3           33    0     TS          T52    144    T53          3T4           T35           T96    3      T.T
     $3'                                                      ,                                                                                                                      4             A                                                     3jA C.
  • P333 U U M2 m enl P4
                                                                                  .        34
                                                                                                                 *            *                   $32
  • P
                                                                                                                                                                  *m     .7           p U             U      33 p38 U               U     .39 U,~ -0 U             P40
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            -c T33 1     T5$

0 TGO

                                              *20 A

T61 0I T62 7 3262 T3 T64 32 36 T 6 A 3633

                                                                                                                                                  **I 8

1 30 T0 T7 I T172 33T3 T 44 - 0 10 T36 34 $41P4,P4 P42 $42 p43 0' 144 M4G 94 20 34 0 948 P44 404$43 p30

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       *35
           -.               U         -              U      e-              e     U           -                -                                                   -                                 .                  .                         -.      o -U-D-           T7            378   _     T9 0.0   y        3          o                                 UP844       38                                                                                      3      0                               0               -D
              $9     Psl          52 A'         S P52 A0 953 033        P5,,

5 A $5 A a 955 $556 P" 3$? p5, $92 P58 $3 P5g 360 P60 TII Tm8 Tm - 3,0T~7 1.2 ,0 T*

  • 1..*1 3.6 3 93 B3 3$

T346 T3100 3102*36 3103 T1044 T1103 6 .3 T106 144 T61 3107 T25L 4 30% TT12. 310$ ,o 2 T3110 T.20 T6I TI21 T3112 T94 3TI1 TI33 14 E $' *P A *eA A *0 A&

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            .E 311$           3316        3117          311$         T119           -10           3'121 iF-                                                                                                             T312        34 129     3   12    *~    T129        3126         3127       3128          332$        3T30            3121          TWO           3133 A      *7                        0           A               0               AR 4                                                      As                  A           -*           A           t             A M T

713 0 T T16 o

  • I T3 -rg -35 T133 T140 *o 3141 3142 30 143 3144
  • 0 T189 3T.60 3o 147 3148480 3 14. 3130 j 151 T152 6 Se "1 58 AAA 2 Is. AS8 2a .I
                                                                                                                                    $8S8
  • A p"

8 ~ 0 A 98aP3s

  • P.0 6

392 GJ 3194I 3195 3196 3157 3132 3139 3180 MI U 11U0U 3166 67 117 316* U 3186 320 13 6G

                 /       2                j                   4            5                                  6                            7                          8                           9            /0                                     1/2            /3 EXPLANATION
  • TRIMARY GROUT HOLES 72 PRE-GROUTING EXPLORATORYHOLES (SYMBOLS GROUT VOLUMEIN CUBIC FEET-MIX WITH CORRESPOND TO EITHER A PRIMARY OR T:I (CEMENT:FLy HYH) EAND3. (WATER: SECONDARYGROUT HOLE POSITION)

A SECONDARY GROUTHOLES CEMENT PLUS FLY ASH)

  • 7.2 P*S7-GROUTING EXPLORATORYHOLES
  • TERTIARY GROUT HOLES A MIX WITH 1.,5:1 (CEHENT:FLY ASH) AND I .8: 1 (WATER:CEMENT PLUS FLY ASH)

QUATERNARYGROUT HOLES *72 2 0 10 20 30 40 50 A MIX WITH 1:1 (CEHENT:FLY ASH) AND A BUILDING COLUMN LINES 1.2: I (WATER:CEMENTPLUS FLY ASH) 0 - UAPPROXIHATEBUILDING

                                                                                                                                                                                               -0 EXCAVATIONIINES                                                                             SCALE IN FEET A& NO       GROUT TAKENRH ROCK BUIIDING CENTER LINE Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-79 SECONDARY HOLES - FIRST ZONE GROUTING

REFERENCE:

(0-6 FT) RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL COMPLEX MODIFIED FROM LEE TURZILLO CONTRACTING COMPANY DRAWING NO. 2410-1, FEBRUARY 19.1974

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         /               2                   3               4          5                           6                           7                          8                             9            /0                                     1/2           13
         *P1 A1SA6.A 91              82             $2       P3    3
                                                                                       *A4S An P4          44                      P 95            P6         $6
                                                                                                                                                                  *d Pr AA.          *wO,                                    AT
  • O0 Sr PS $8 P9 S9 21$ sic A -A I n. T2 3.5 33 T4 TN5 ,0 18 9 TI3 0 T..
                                                                                                                                                .          ..       0       T15                 0                       0      81            Il8          ri A, ,o                            A             *S1                             A
  • A A
  • A A A
                 *u      $12
  • s* *nn pI U 229:

e U 1 U i P14 U $15 U U $17

  • Pr pP2
  • sIs Pin s01 9 $20 a

no2 .3 T21 822 0 23 T24 35 T2 T26$ .5 n TT 128 It9 T30 331 T32 rI 85 T4 rI T3 36. T37 mP 8 P2 23 P2 322 35 0L 0 0a 20 02 0 -8 P2- $21 5 PV2 $2 3 $23 4 $2 SU P27r p 9 2. P30 0 TB, T40 6.9 T41 T42 0 T43 T44 0 T45 T4. B9 T47 T29 0 T49 TOO 0 T51 T52 0 T53 T84 2.0 5 86$ T56 631 p38 P2 p63 p31 P36 a38 P38 0. P3 3490 40 C -c 0 T0 6 GE0 0 N A E

  • ETO 0 E Tl 0 T2 E E 0 T3 s P4 41 P42 P43 693 4 a 50 $46 P47 S45 sS S4. P I 0 TT. Ta 0 D T4 I 0 TIT TOO 0 TeG T.0 0 T0. 092
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      -D A

s$I pei A 652 P52 AL A@* 033 P83 A 654 A

                                                                                                                 $85 S

p55 A

                                                                                                                                         $86 S

p. A

                                                                                                                                                                  $38 PG7 A
                                                                                                                                                                                              $S8 P88 A

959 P89 A 960 M N

  • 0 TN9 N E 0 E 0W in i ...En ... 0 .. ... 0 .. s2.. .. 0 ... 0l4 9N 6 8980 TI. 199 T100 0 T1 0 T8021 T2103 T104 0 1106 10$ 2 0 8129W42 12:0 8l T112 0 8213 1 4 .E Pei
  • a
                      $1 L
  • re a6
  • P63 A

S63 PG4 A$44 K.3 $68 As 6 A A9 6

                                                                                                                                                                  *6 AE           pp.8         96                         $4                         $A8 E                                                                                                                                 1
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      -E T115     I      TI6           T17          3116      T11 0       120     ,     121         T122      T112$        124        T2          812$

T2 T2 8228 T 29.1 12 T1130 5 1 62 . T33 F A.. .. T139 .,. 123 $ T136 pl AL 0 T13 T138 A p

                                                                                       *l 821T410     84         T842 TO 131 A

5697SSS9 T1244 4t 148 A 1 T24

14. 14 oH 814$ Tit0 op J.,

T151$ T152 A -F U Pa: $8'

                                                      $4 sP 2      P63
                                                                           $0 P54          S84 Po Ag 5

A

                                                                                                                                                    $a6 p.

A 667 pe A

                                                                                                                                                                                                           $88 ee P1              8, 9

AA T183 T854 T835 126 T158 I 7259 1180 1123 1.44 1185 8266 11:8 TIiS TM III.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      -G
                    /       2                   3                4         5                            6                          fr                          8                              9            /0               //                   /2            /3 EXPLANATION 3.5                                                                                        PREEGROUTING EXPLORATORYHOLES (SYMBOLS
  • PRIMARY GROUT HOLES GROUTVOLUMEIN CUBIC FEET-MIX WITH 1:1 (CEMENTYFLYASH) AND 1.2:1 (WATER: 4'. CORRESPONDTO EITHER A PRIMAURYOR A SECONDARY GROlIT HOLES CEHENT PLUS FLY ASH) SECONDARYGROUT HOLE POSITION)
  • TERTIARY GROUT HOLES A MIX WITH 1:1 (CEMENT:FLY ASH) AND POST-GROUTING EXPLORATORYHOLES 0 I0 20 30 40 50 1:1 (WATER:CEMENT PLUS FLY ASH)

OUATERNARYGROUT HOLES Q 0 AL NO GNOUTTOKENRY ROCK ... I.... A BUILDING COLUMNLINES SCALE IN FEET i- APPROXIMATE BUILDING ROT EXCAVATION I NES BUIIOING CENTER LINE Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-60 SECONDARY HOLES - SECOND ZONE GROUTING

REFERENCE:

(6-20 FT) RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL COMPLEX MODIFIED FROM LEE TURZILLO CONTRACTING COMPANY DRAWING NO. 2410-1, FEBRUARY 19, 1974

T

        /             2                 3             4            5                            6                           7                          .8                             9           /0               II                  /2          /3
                              *k          A         *P           A          *P              A                       ALe     p           0 A

0 0 AL 0 0 p0 00 AL 0 0 0 A& S 0

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         *PsO   0      .
     '      69     11       0   P2    0       3.5           0      3      o          0     64      0o           0 A                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        -A
  • 5 E U UN U U0 U U0 U U .0 4 E U U T2 T3 T4 5 T.0 7 TT 76 T6 TI TI1 T72 Til T4 T T1? TC TI k , 0 3.5
                                             ,jA.

0 35O 3 0 A 0 .0 o p0 A .oA A

                                                                                                                                                                                .oA920,                                            .0           0 P

no n2m T22 7ý- 4

  • 725 T26 727 T26 729
                                                                                                                         .T9                       T3-31        752            733          734                     736           737 8-                                                              AL            *A                      e            A                        A
  • A
  • A, S A * -8 P21 k.

57 0 P22 A2 P23 523 P2 S24 P2 S29 2 56 P7 27P26 326 P2 529 S oO 0 0 104 6.5 0 0*0 0 E P26 0 0 P2o 0 0 0 0 0 o P Tg 0 T4I 740 341 722 743 744 795 T T46 47 T746 746 750 751 72 T55 74 755 TI4 T757 A

  • A 6
                                          *
  • ASA 0 A *A ~ A
  • A
  • A
  • 9 13.8 §t13.8 ioo~ 0 0 .4 0 0 P5 o 03 0 0 3 S 4 C. -c 0

736 T11 T 0 760 T61 0 461 N.5 762 062 O 763 744 N 769 E 366 367 Te46 764 770 P T71 0 372 0 37 0 73T4 0 379 0 774 Pil *A .o *4 .o AL'. 54 AQo . 0 %VýA02107pl2

                                                      *44 R,3 14A L 10 1            . .o 0             0      A  *,.0  A4     .
  • FAP96.0 *o A *,P4 ., *., I*

0 A *

                                                                                                                                                                                      "       0   346 *0 0

P9

  • 0 A

326 0 1 00 AL 0 0- 0 T. -D 5; S. 0 Pi pi 0 52 S5 173 0 P2 P5 0 534A 55 (p2 V

                                                                *A P3   6.9    A4 0

0 P4 0 A 333 SG 0 P30 p A o0 PS SSA900 A, S? 7 o 0 PT 0 0 PA. 58 P8 0 0 A 0S9

                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ~          0 0

36 SO 0 0p n 766 797 766 769 71.00 710I 1 3102 3103 7104 7105 7106 3103 7106 T109 7114 Till 7112 7113 014 a

  • AL 0 A 01 A, I A
  • AA IT T7 no 17, 0 0 332 0 P63 T8 0 S3 0 PG 0 0o0 PAS 0 6 _5. A " o!Foo 1 P 3556 o 0 0 9 3 .5 PT0O 357 T15 716 77l 76I 741 7720 72 722 7T~ 12 4 7I 125 7126 3127 7126 7329 730. 79 762 T7133 y

0 63. P7 635 0 0P30 A 5 y . f" A 0 SA 0 -pl, A 24 'qA 0Pit & 0pw 0 0 100N 00Ea E69 0 0 0 0 "F F-734 T135 T136 7137 ý 136 736 7147 3141 7142 7143 7144 033s 346 7147 7146 746 7150 6.1'- T152 p8a32l 0 s 0 0S 0. IC87 66 SO. 0 P4 0 0 1 0 75&40S.3 P4 36S4 0 Pe 150 960 0 a,0 Pe0 0 pg 0 .. n 73- 3155 3156 717T54 763 Til 714 165 7166 7167 76N 769 3974 7131

       /              2                3              4          5                             6                           7                            I                             9          /0                                    1/2         13 EXPLANATION 6.9     6.9     6.9
  • PRIMARY GROUTHOLES *ORoS*N GROUT VOLLUMEIN CUBIC FEET-MIX WITH PRE-GROUTING EXPLORATORYMOLES (SYMBOLS I:I (CEMENT:FLY ASH) A0D 1.2:1 (WATER: -*o. CORRESPONDTO EITHER A PRIMARY OR A SECONDARYGROUTHOLES CEMENT PLUS FLY ASH) SECONDARYGROUT HOLE POSITION)
  • TERTIARY GROUTHOLES
  • 6.9
  • MIX WITH 1.5:1 (CEMENT:FLYASH) AN0
  • P050-000 INC EXPLORATORYHOLES 1.5:1 (WATER:CEMENTPLUS FLY ASH)

QUATERNARYGROUTHOLES 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 E NO CR000 TAKER BY ROCK . A BUILDING COLUMN LINES [ -- APPROXIMATE BUILDING SCALE IN FEET AND EXCAVATION lINES BUIDI0N00 CENTER LINE Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-81 TERTIARY AND OUATERNARY HOLES SINGLE ZONE GROUTING (0-20 FT)

REFERENCE:

(CONTOURS ON TERTIARY GROUTING ONLY) MODIF 0ED FROM LEE TURZILLO CONTRACTING COMPANY RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL COMPLEX DRAWING NO. 2410-1, FEBRUARY 19, 1974

uJ SI LLI. [0

                           !Lu                                       BORING P-15 I-                                              SURFACE ELEVATION 550.0 a_         UJ SYMBOLS u,                                            DESCRIPTIONS 0-                              C~     1.-       1.

5- bi DOLOMITE: LIGHT GRAY TO GRAY: FINE-GRAINEO: FREQUENT GRAY LAMINATIONS: SOMEMOTTLING;HORIZONTALSHALE PARTINGS 4 INCHESTO I FOOT APART. OCCASIONALVERTICAL CLOSEDFRACTURES IRREGULAR 710 FRACTUREAT 4.0 FEET GRADESMOTTLED.FOSSLIFEROUS WITHPINPOINT POROSITY GRADESWITHPINPOINT TO 3W4- INCH VUOS AND 5% POROSITY Se 1IIS - INCHSHALE-LINED FRACTURE 10- 1- I HORIZONTAL.WAVY. UIS- INCH SHALEPARTINGS. 2 TO E INCHESAPART FROM5.0 TO 100 FEET B00 TO 70- FRACTUREAT 10.5 FEET TIES PINPOINT TO 3/4 - INCH VUDS WITH5% TO 10%POROSITY FROM I0S TO 12. FEET 30 FRACTURE 15- IRREGULAR B0e FRACTURE VUGGYWITHE% POROSITY FROM IS3 TO 16.2 FEET SUBHORIZONTALFRACTURESAT 6.O AND 10.4 FEET 071 CONGLOMERATICFROM1d.0 TO 183 FEET IRREGULAR 60* FRACTUREAT 18.0 FEET 20-* HAIRLINE 60° FRACTUREAT 102 FEET GOLITICDOLOMITE: LIGHTGRAY: MEDIUM-GRAINED. BORINGCOMPLETEDAT 20.0 FEET ON 3-20-74. JI -0 BORING P-19 U. SI SURFACE ELEVATION 550.0 SYMBOLS DESCRIPTIONS 00 CONCRETE DOLOMITE: LIGHTBROWNISH-GRAYTO SRAY:FINE-GRAINED. 5 - 02% = 3=0NAL DARE GRAY LAMINATIONSAND STYLOLITES. 2 NEAR-VERTICAL. CLOSEDFRACTURES

                                      =              30' FRACTURE
                                      =              GRADESWITHSOMEMOTTLINGTO 10.0 FEET
                                      =              fIll-INCH HORIZONTALSHALEPARTINGS AT 3. FEET
                                      =              FEEREENT 400 TO VERTICAL,CLOSEDFRACTURESFROM 3.5 TO 0.0 FEET MIS   =              PINPOINTTO 1/4-INCH VOIDSIN FOSSILIFEROUSZONE 10                            =              WITH5%POROSITY FROM0.3 TO 8.7 FEET
                                      =              HORIZONTALSHALE PARTING m     =              GRADESFOSSILIFEROUSAND VUOGYWITH PINPOINT TO 112-INCHVOIDS WITHE%TO 10%POROSITY
                                      =              FREQUENTCLOSED. IRREGULAR400 T0 NEAR-VERTICAL
                                      =              FRACTURE 15                            =              GRADESWITH WAVYGRAY LAMINATIONS S4%   5415  =              III16.INCH SHALEPARTING AT 15.7 FEET
                                      =
                                      =
                                      =              000 TO VERTICAL FRACTURES WITHSOME   CRYSTAL 20'-                                         FILLINGS FROM 18.5 TO 20. FEET BORIND COMPLETEDAT 20.0 FEET ON 3.22-74.

Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-82

REFERENCE:

LOG OF BORINGS P-15 AND P-19 DAMES & MOORE REPORT - RESULTS OF ROCK FOUNDATION TREATMENT, RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL COMPLEX, FERMI 2, JUNE 1974

BORING P-37 0- 01c SURFACE ELEVATION 550.0 SYMBOLS DESCRIPTIONS CONCRETE DOLOMITE: LIGHT GRAY AND BROWNISH-GRAY;FINE-GRAINED; OCCASIONALGRAY LAMINATIONS:SOMESTYLOLITES:TRACE 5* OFPINPOINT TO SIR-INCHVUGS. Nfi HORIZONTAL:SHALE PARTINGS. EVERY 4 INCHESTO is. I FOOTAPART FREQUENT.CLOSED FRACTURES.NEAR-VERTICAL GRAOESWITHSOME VUoS WITH LEESTHAN s% POROSITY NEAR-VERTICAL FRACTUREFROM U.STO HA PEET GRADESWITH HORIZONTALTO 450 SHALE PARTINGSEVERY 4 TOG INCHES APART. SOMEFRACTURES.AND VUGGY IN PART 10 73" M GRADESWITHIRREGULAR LAMINATIONSAND HAIRLINE FRACTURES VUGGYWITHR%TO 10 POROSITY S1% BORINGCOMPLETEDAT 1I.3 FEET ON 3-21-74. 20-- w BORING P-77

a. SURFACE ELEVATIONW 547.0 SYMBOLS DESCRIPTIONS.

0- DOLOMITE:LIGHTGRAV: PINE-GRAINED IRREGULAR 30 . 50° AND 80 FRACTURES PINPOINT TO 1/2-INCH SLIT-LIKE VOIDSWITH5% 0% TO I0N POROSITYTO 4A PERT GRADESWITHDARKGRAY MOTTLINGAND PINPOINT 5 -1 i TO I/S-INCH VOIDS.WITHSN TO 10 POROSITY 80 FRACTURE AT 5.2 FEET TON GRADES. BROWNISH.GRAY,POCSILIFEROUS, PINPOINT lo--=- 315N TO liz-INCH VOIDSWITH 10%TO 20% POROSITY AND 50 TO VERTICAL FRACTURESTO I11. FEET GRADESWITH OCCASIONAL60° TO VERTICAL. HAIRLINE FRACTURESAND WAVY GRAY LAMINATIONSTO 16.R PERT

I/-INCH TO 112-INCH VOIDS WITH 10%POROSITY FROM IR.8 TO 17.SFEET 15- 100% ES. 20° 1/S-INCH CLAY-LINED FRACTURE AT 17.0 FEET PINPOINT TO 1I/-INCH VOIDSWITH 10%POROSITY PROM 18.0 TO 19.0 FEET GOLITICDOLOMITE:LIGHT GRAY: MEDIUMGRAINED;2-INCH SLACKCLAYEY SHALE LAYER AT TOP.

GORINGCOMPLETEDAT 20.0 FEETON 3-29-74. 20 - Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-83

REFERENCE:

LOG OF BORINGS P-37 AND P-77 DAMES & MOORE REPORT - RESULTS OF ROCK FOUNDATION TREATMENT, RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL COMPLEX, FERMI 2, JUNE 1974

a BORING S-21 MU UA MA MA a SURFACE ELEVATION 550.0 tU 0 0 U MA a SYMBOLS DESCRIPTIONS 0-CONCRETE DOLoMITEILIGHT aRAYt fiWE-GRAwNED;PINPOINT TO Ill-INCH VUGSWITH LASSTHANSN POROSITY MA WA FREQUENT.IRREGULAR45 TO VERTICAL FRACTURES 5- HORIZONTALSHALEPARTING AT6LEFEET 0AAOa5 TO DARKGRAY AND FOUILiFSROUSWITH OCCMAJONAL SHALE PARTING NPR-VERTICAL IRREGULARFRACTUREAT 6.PFRST N FRACTUREAT 7.0 PEST PINPOINTTO 1/4-INCH VUGSWiTH STE POROSITYPROM WA "Lo TO IIA FEST 8ROKIN AND VUGGY I , GRADEAWITHIRREGULANLAMINATIONS 6e TO 7T IRROEGULAR FRACTURE FRPOM 1N4 TO 17.0 FEET VERTICAL Il/S X I IrW VUGOSFRPM 17.4 TO 17.7 FEET 15 WITH 10%POROSITY 1/2-INCH SLACK CLAYEYSHALE LAYER AT IN.0 FEST IQW% AM% OOLITIC OLOM.AIITEI LIGHTGRAYi FINE TO MSDIUM-GRAINED. BORINGCOMPLETEDAT 20A FEET ON 3-2n-74. 20 BORING S-44 LUJ u F-SURFACE ELEVATION 650.0 Ul LU O: 0._ > SYMBOLS DESCRIPTIONS 0- 1 radcA.F.

                                        =
                                        --        OOLOMITR;LIGHT GRAYTO EROWNIS--GRAY, FINE-GRAINED; OCCASIONALSHALEPARTINGS: FPOILIFEROU6. PINPOINT o __n5 _                      =-r         TO 114-INCHVU01 WITH 6S POROSITY 51a   48%           "-=             IRREGULAR 50E FRACTURE NUMIIROUSIRREGULARNEAR-VERTICAL FRACTURESAND
                                       --=              PINPOINT TO I/S-I*CH VUGS FROM4. TO US PEST
                                       --r
                                        =
                                        --              IRREGULAR 44" TO 70° FRACTURES 1                               =-r              I 1/2-INCH. IRREGULARVUG an               "-=                IRREGULAR70 TO VERTICAL VUGGYFRACTURES
                                        =
                                      "-r 153                             =-r              IRREGULARVUGGY FRACTUREFROM INA TO 1.8 FEET
                                        -=r
                                        =-r              LOWER2 INCHES, OOLITICDOLOMITE on                             BORINGCOMPLETEDAT 20,0 PENTON 3-21-74.

20-Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-84

REFERENCE:

DAMES & MOORE REPORT - RESULTS OF ROCK LOG OF BORINGS S-21 AND S-44 FOUNDATION TREATMENT, RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL COMPLEX, FERMI 2, JUNE 1974

L.J L6 I- BORING S-75

0. SURFACE ELEVATION 550.0 Lu aa SYMBOLS DESCRIPTIONS 0-0* ________ SI CORONETS CONCRETE DOLOMITE. LIGHT SRODWIII4H-GRAY? FINE-GRAINED; 75% OCCASIONAL HORIZONTAL LAMINATIONS AND DOMEDARK GRAY MOTTLING,SOMEFOSSILS.

SUsHORIZONArALIII-INCH BLACK SHALEPARTING GRAIES WITHPINPOINTTO 114-INCHVOIDS. 6SI 0 TO 10%POROSITY.To 11.0 PEE? VERTICALHAIRLINE FRACTURE GRADES TO GRAYISH-RROPINWITH II-INCH BLACK 10- $HALE PARNTINGS APPROXIMATELY EVERY 6 INCHES IZ-INCH OmN 70O FRACTUREAT 11.0 FEET GRADESWITHPINPOINT TO 1-I*CH SLIT-LIKEVOIDS WIJI SS TO 1IRKPOROSIT TO I4.0 PEE?

rGRACTURSWITH 8LICRNSIDEOD BLACKSHALECOATING 3& IRREGUILARPRACTURE GRADESWITH WAVYLAMINATIONSAND SOMEPINPOINT 15* 89 TO l,4-INCH VOIDS WITHLIUS THAN BKPOROSITY:

TRACEOP 60 TO 701 HAIRLINE FRACTURES BORINGCOMIPLOTrDAT 20.0 PET ON 3-27-74 L... LU BORING S-83 L.p I- Lu SURFACE ELEVATION 550.0 0. LU 0 SYMBOLS DESCRIPTIONS _.v CONCRETE CONC:RETE COW DOLOMITEI LI T-GRAYV FINE-QRAINSD; OCCASIONALCLOSEO HAIRLINE WPFRAC"UREI PINPINT TO id4-INCH VOIDSWITH 101 POROSITY FROM 39M 5011 3.0TO 4A PEST 5* 42K GRADERLIGHTEROWNISH-GRAY.SOME FOSSILS.

                   $41%                                 OCCASIONAL40' TO 10 CLOSEO FRAC11JRES, HORIZONTALI/IS-INCH SLACK SHALEPARTINGS FROM 4-iNCH TO I-INCH APART: SOMEPINPOINT TO 114- INCH VOIDS WITH LIDS THANB%POROSITY 10      1 IjO    60%

GRADEDTO LIGHT GRAY OCCASIONALI 12-INCH SLIT-LIKEVOIDS WITH 15% POROSITY FROM 16.0 TO 19.5 FEOT 47% TRACE OF 30P TO VERTICALCLOSED FRACTURESFROM 16.0 TO 50.0 PEET 15 PINPOINT TO 114-INCH VOIDS WITH5% TO 10% L POROSITY FROM 18.0 TO 20.0 FEET BORINGCOMPLETEDAT 20A0PEST ON 3-28-74. Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-85

REFERENCE:

DAMES & MOORE REPORT - RESULTS OF ROCK LOG OF BORINGS S-75 AND S-83 FOUNDATION TREATMENT, RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL COMPLEX, FERMI 2, JUNE 1974

P BORING Q-1 U, a. w SURFACE ELEVATION 550.0 0 DESCRIPTIONS SYMBOLS CONCRETE CONRETE S. DOLSE LIGHTGRAY, VERY PINE-GRAINED1 SOMEMOTTLING: 91% - I L PINPOINTTO 112-IW-HVUGOWITH5%POROSITY. 71A NEAR VERTICAL TO 7e. IRREGULAR FRACTURE HORIZONTAL.IILE-INCHSHALE PARTING THREE. CLOSED. IRREGULARE0' FRACTURES GRADESEROWNISE--GRAY AND FSILIFEROUS UIEHORIZONTAL.I110-INCHSHALEPARTING 71% OC INAL SUBJHORIZONTAL FRACTURES IG-PINPOINT TO 2-INCH VUGSWITNH 10 POROSITYFROM 1050 TO 11.2 FEET IRREGULAR. 30. 1Il1-INCH SHALE PARTING O ONALSUBHORIZOHTALTO 60a FRACTURES GRADESUGHT EROWNIEH"-RAY PREOUIENTSTYLOLITES ws, NEAR-VERTICAL. OCCASIONAL.IRREGULAR, CLOSEDTO I11--INCH FRACTURES K GRADESWITjHmE SEDIMENTARY8RECCIA IRREGULAR3SFRACTR 15 -r- VERTICAL FRACTURE PINPOINT TO 114--INCHVUGEWITH 10%FOROSITY PROM IES TO T8 I. FEET m8 NOTE, BLACKWATER RETURNAT I9.V FEET- PROBASLE SHALELAYER. 20W BORINGCOWLETED AT 20.0 FEET ON 4-24-74. tU IL BORING 0-2 06 SURFACE ELEVATION 550.0 0. LIM SYMBOLS DESCRIPTIONS 0- CONCRETE CONCRETE g LIGHT GRAY: VERY FINE-GRAINED;NUMEROUS A FRACTREES R VUGGV. IRREGULARLYFRACTURED PINPOINT TO I-INCH VUGS WITH5% TO 10%POROSITY FROM 4.0 TO E.0 FRET 5- TWO,HORIZONTAL, Ills-INCH, BLACKSHALE PARTINGS 54% GRADESGRAYISH-EROWNAND FOISILIFEROUS GRADESWITH FREQUENTNEAR-VERTICAL FRACTURES _30% VERTICAL.CRYSTAL.LINESFRACTURE 10 GRADESLIGHT BROWNISH-GRAYWITHWAVY STYLOLITESAND SOMESEDIMENTARYBRECCIA IRREGULAR 705 FRACTURE 7410 SUBHORIZDNTALFRACTURE I/8-INCH TO 1/4-INCH VUOSWITH RI POROSITY FROM Is-- 1,.L TO 17.6 FEJT IRREGULAR 60 FRACTURE OCCASIONAL.IRREGULAR,NEAR-VERTICAL FRACTURES 92 SHALEPARTINGS gORING COMPLETEDAT 19.J FEET ON 4-24-74. 20 - Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-86

REFERENCE:

DAMES & MOORE REPORT - RESULTS OF ROCK LOG OF BORINGS Q-1 AND Q-2 FOUNDATION TREATMENT, RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL COMPLEX, FERMI 2, JUNE 1974

p I.- BORING 0-3 MI i- 0 SURFACE ELEVATION 550.0 A. MA 0c 0 Ul (C SYMBOLS DESCRIPTIONS CONCRETE 55kM LIGHT IRAY; VERY FINE-,GRAINEDIOCCASIONAL 3ft 1 TlOk IRREGULARLYFRACTUREDI5%TO 10%VUGGY POROSITY. IR EaULAR 7* FRACTURES FRACTURES 75% 15% 1 GRADESMOTTLEDWITHSEDIMENTARYORECCIA GRADES UROW ISH*-RAY AND FOCWLIFEROCAS DARKGRAY 2-INCH HORIZONTALCLAY LAYER 100% 1 114% SEVERAL70 uTO VERTICAL FRACTURES TWO.SUSHORIZONTAL.SLACKSHALE PARTINGS ImI-INCO TO :-INCH VUG WITH5% TO 1in POROSITY 10- FROM5L5TO 5t0 FEET NFEAR-VERTICAL. CLOUEDTO Ill-INCH FRACTURE IltS-INCH. ELAK SHALE PARTING 100% IRREGULAR. FRACTORE GRADE[WITHWAVY ETYLOUTEE FOUR,IRREGULAR.SULJHORIZORTAL FRACTURES IRREGULAR.VERTICALTO NEAR-VERTIaAL FRACTURES 1153 100% 32% TWO--INCHSHALE LAYER OCLITIODOLOMITE, LIGHTBROWNISH-GRAY;MEDIUM-GRAINED. 20 BORINGCONPL.ETZO AT 20.0 FEET ON 4-2--74. uM MA BORING Q-4 U. c0 SURFACE ELEVATION 560.0 0 a Ul SYMBOLS DESCRIPTIONS (C 0-CONCRETE usfl 1 l1 DOLOMITEI LIGHTBROWNISH-GRAY:VERY FINE-GRAINED; NEAR-VERTICAL TO 70. IRREGULARFRACTURES;OCCASIONAL STYLOLITES. 5 PINPOINTTO 114-INCH VUG3WITH0% POROSITY FROM6R0 TO0.S FEET 100% FRECUENT.IRREGULAR,30P TO 700 FRACTURES GRADE: MOTTLEDGRAY PINPOINTTO I/l-INCH VUGSWITH 10 POROSITYFROM 7A0TO 7.9 FEET IRREGULARVERTICAL FRACTURE 10- SRI GRADES BROWNISH-GRAY III.-INCH HORIZONTALBLACKSHALE PARTING LC SHALE PARTING SI FRACTURE 1_1-INCHTO 2-INCH VUGS WITH SOMECLAY FILLINGSAND 2M5POROSITY PROM11.8 TO 12., FEET NUMEROUS.IRREGULAR.NEAR-VERTICAL,CLOSED TO 114-INCH FRACTURES 15- SiN 77% 6ON OCCASIONAL 400 TO S#0 FRACTURES 20* FINPoINT TO ff4--INC VuGs WITHSN POROSITYFROM IElE TO 19.5 FEET BORINGCOMLETED AT 20.0 FEET ON 4-21-74 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-87

REFERENCE:

DAMES & MOORE REPORT - RESULTS OF ROCK LOG OF BORINGS Q-3 AND Q-4 FOUNDATION TREATMENT, RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL COMPLEX, FERMI 2, JUNE 1974

I P UI tU uJ

                    -a-                                      BORING Q-5 LAI ac                 SURFACE ELEVATION 550.0 w
0. 0u OESCRIPTIONS SYMBOLS o

CONCRETE E*k~flOiT LIGHTGRAY: VERY PIN"-ORAINED. HORIZONTAL 5 ERIE F BLACKSTYLO.IT12 EVERY 2 INCHESTO 6 INCHESAPART. TWO"II-INCH. HORIZONTAL.BLACKSHALEPARTINGS SUEHORIZONTALFRACTURE

                                                       ,HALE PARTING TWO. a°PFRATIUREE PINPOINT TO 12-INC.H VUGS WITHEl TO 15R POROSITY PROM7.3 TO *A PEST GRADESWITHSOME GRAYMOTTLINGAND SEDIMENTARY
        -10                                           BREOCIA I                          GRADEEBROWNISH-GRAYWITHNRAR-VRRTICAL FRACTURES WITH BLACKSHALE LININGS to
14 -INCH VUGS WITH 10%POROSITYPROM ICA 12.0FEET PINPOINT TO Ill-INCH VUGSWITHS% POROSITY FROM 12.0 TO 14.3 FEET 15__ SEE IRREGULAR.I116-INCH 30P BLACKSHALE PARTING OCCASIONAL.WAVYGRAY LAMINATIONSAND HAIRLINE FRACTURES SUSINORIZONTAL FRACTURE BORINGCOMPLETEDAT 20.0 FEET ON 4-2--74.

20 LU LU BORING 01-6 Euý cc SURFACE ELEVATION 550.0 8; OESCRIPTIONS 10 LL CONCRETE DOLOMITE. LIGHT SROWNISH-GRAY:VERY FINE-GRAINED; R4A *r'Z-NAL DARK GRAY LAMINATIONSAND STILOLITSS. 8 FRACTURE SEVERAL. NEAR-VERTICAL FRACTURES SWf ED, FRACTURE SUBHORIZONTAL.IIBs.INCH, BLACKSHALE PARTING

7. CRAOESWITH DARK GRAYMOTTLING ASK 20. FRACTURE SUSHORIZONTALPARTING GRADESDARKGRAYISH-BROWNWITH SOMEVUGS SLACK SHALEPARTINGS EVERY4 TO B INCHESAPART NOTES 10.0 FEET - SOWMWATER FLOW. APPROXIMATELY 2 OALLONSIIINUTE.

Be FRACTURE NEAR--VERTICAL.IRREGULAR. Ilia-INCH. CRYSTAL-LINED FRACTURE 16 WIt GRADESWATHIRREGULARGRAY LAMINATIONSAND ETYLOLITES

                              $I%                    PINPOINT TO 114-INCH VUGSWITH SF.POROSITY RORINGCOMPkETEDAT 20.0 FEET ON 4-26-74.

20 1 [1 Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-88

REFERENCE:

DAMES & MOORE REPORT - RESULTS OF ROCK LOG OF BORINGS Q-5 AND a-6 FOUNDATION TREATMENT, RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL COMPLEX, FERMI 2, JUNE 1974

a BORING Q-7 IL SURFACE ELEVATION 550.0 a. LU DESCRIPTIONS SYMBOLS 0 - IIn cONCRETE NOTEl, WATER FLOW FROM HOLEAPPROXIMATELY 0* 3 GALLONSIMINUl1r 40N AiT2M LIGHT GRAYI VERY FINIIE-RAINED. NEAR-VERTICAL. HAIRLINETO 1116-INCH OSVERAL 5 - 4Eu FRACTURES NOTE, SLIGHT WATER FLOW. GRADOEWITHDARK GRAY MOTTLINGAND IRREGULAR VERTICAL FRACTURES 0 7EM 0 GRADESBROWNISH-GRAY, FOSENLIFEROUW WITH SONS 106- SHALEPARTINGS AND VERTlCAL FRACTURES Pl POINTTO Il4,INCH VUGEWITH6% POROSITY 40 JTO NEAR--VERTIGALFRACTIRE 8 NOTII 13.0 FRET - PROBABLEGROUT IN WATER RETURN. HORIZONTALFRACTURE GRADESWITHWAVY GRAYLAMINATIONRS IRREGULAR 4.. FRACTURE NEAR-VERTIOAL, CLOSEDTO 1I11-INCH FRACTURE 16 PINPOINT TO Il4-INCH VUGSWITH5E TO 10% POROSITY. FROM19.0 TO 20.0 FEET BORINGCOMPLETEo AT 20.0 FEET ON4-2n-74. 20:-

                       -I-I-.

udj BORING Q-8 I.P g-. 9.* SURFACE ELEVATION 550.0 0..

00. DESCRIPTIONS SYMBOLS 0-2LIT LIGHTGRAY; VERY FINE-GRAINED: OCCASIONAL GRA*,*I"LOLTESI NEAR-VERTICAL HAIRLINE TO 1/16-5- INCH FRACTIURTU.

IRREGULAR 300 TO 6 FRACTURES I/I-INCH VUG*WITH NMTO 105 POROSITY FROM3.2 TO 4.7 FEET s0 OCCASIONAL PRAIJTURES 73% GRADESWITHGRAY MOTTLING GRADESRROWNISH-GRAYWITHOCCASIONALBLACK SHALE PARTINGS 10- SUBHORIZONTALFRACTURE O FRACT1JRE SEVERAL350 TO 40E FRATUIRES I/I--INCH TO 1 1Il-INCH YUGSWITH 1% POROSITY FROM 124/ TO 134 FEET on S 0 FRACTURE

                                                      ;IRREGULAR       FRACTURE 15                                                   OU I 00. CLOSED TO IEIS-INCH FRACTURE HIGHLY FRACTURED TRACE OF FINE CONGLOMERATE I

IRREGULARLY FRACTURE. 90, SE' BORINGCOMPLETEDAT 20.0 FEET ON 4-29-74. 150K 70K 20-Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-89

REFERENCE:

DAMES & MOORE REPORT - RESULTS OF ROCK LOG OF BORINGS Q-7 AND Q-8 FOUNDATION TREATMENT, RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL COMPLEX, FERMI 2, JUNE1974

I A 10 0 10 20 SCALE IN FEET Fermi 2 UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-90 FOUNDATION ROCK SURFACE FEATURES RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL COMPLEX

FERMI 2 UFSAR APPENDIX 2A ANNUAL AVERAGE X/Q VALUES (UNDECAYED AND UNDEPLETED) (DEPLETED AND DECAYED) AND RELATIVE DEPOSITION D/Q VALUES FOR THE CONTAINMENT BUILDING RADWASTE BUILDING TURBINE BUILDING BY DISTANCE AND SECTOR

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A- 1 ANNUAL AVERAGE X/Q VALUES FOR THE CONTAINMENT BUILDING (UNDECAYED AND UNDEPLETED) Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.4 NNE 1.3 1E-06 4.16E-07 2.68E-07 2.03E-07 1.37E-07 NE 1.06E-06 3.50E-07 2.28E-07 1.75E-07 1.2 1E-07 ENE 1.02E-06 3.49E-07 2.30E-07 1.78E-07 1.24E-07 E 7.40E-07 2.54E-07 1.77E-07 1.39E-07 9.88E-08 ESE 7.18E-07 2.45E-07 1.67E-07 1.30E-07 9.13E-08 SE 6.75E-07 2.28E-07 1.54E-07 1.19E-07 8.29E-08 SSE 5.11E-07 1.67E-07 1.14E-07 8.80E-08 6.19E-08 S 4.86E-07 1.52E-07 1.02E-07 7.88E-08 5.45E-08 SSW 3.76E-07 1.27E-07 8.70E-08 6.78E-08 4.78E-08 SW 3.96E-07 1.48E-07 1.05E-07 8.24E-08 5.78E-08 WSW 5.4 1E-07 1.98E-07 1.35E-07 1.05E-07 7.25E-08 W 4.76E-07 1.64E-07 1.08E-07 8.17E-08 5.49E-08 WNW 6.68E-07 2.15E-07 1.39E-07 1.04E-07 6.97E-08 NW 7.03E-07 2.25E-07 1.51E-07 1.17E-07 8.12E-08 NNW 7.47E-07 2.3 1E-07 1.52E-07 1.16E-07 8.OOE-08 N 7.84E-07 2.52E-07 1.66E-07 1.28E-07 8.86E-06 Source: Containment Building 2A-1I REV 16 10/09 I

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A- 1 ANNUAL AVERAGE X/Q VALUES FOR THE CONTAINMENT BUILDING (UNDECAYED AND UNDEPLETED) Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 3.2 4.0 4.8 5.6 6.4 NNE 1.04E-07 8.27E-08 6.84E-08 5.80E-08 5.01E-08 NE 9.30E-08 7.5 1E-08 6.26E-08 5.34E-08 4.63E-03 ENE 9.53E-08 7.69E-08 6.41 E-08 5.47E-08 4.75E-08 E 7.65E-08 6.20E-08 5.18E-08 4.43E-08 3.85E-08 ESE 7.08E-08 5.76E-08 4.84E-08 4.15E-08 3.63E-08 SE 6.38E-08 5.16E-08 4.32E-08 3.69E-08 3.22E-08 SSE 4.8 1E-08 3.92E-08 3.30E-08 2.84E-08 2.49E-08 S 4.20E-08 3.42E-08 2.87E-08 2.47E-08 2.16E-08 SSW 3.70E-08 3.0 1E-08 2.52E-08 2.16E-08 1.88E-08 SW 4.40E-08 3.50E-08 2.88E-08 2.43E-08 2.09E-08 WSW 5.47E-08 4.34E-08 3.56E-08 3.OOE-08 2.57E-08 W 4.09E-08 3.23E-08 2.64E-08 2.22E-08 1.91E-08 WNW 5.20E-08 4.12E-08 3.38E-08 2.85E-08 2.45E-08 NW 6.20E-08 4.96E-08 4.1OE-08 3.47E-08 2.99E-08 NNW 6.11E-08 4.92E-08 4.1OE-08 3.49E-08 3.03E-08 N 6.78E-08 5.45E-08 4.53E-08 3.86E-08 3.34E-08 Source: Containment Building 2A-2 REV 16 10/09 I

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-1 ANNUAL AVERAGE X/Q VALUES FOR THE CONTAINMENT BUILDING (UNDECAYED AND UNDEPLETED) Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 7.2 8.0 8.8 9.6 10.4 NNE 4.39E-08 3.90E-08 3.49E-08 3.16E-08 2.88E-08 NE 4.08E-08 3.63E-08 3.27E-08 2.96E-08 2.70E-08 ENE 4.18E-08 3.72E-08 3.35E-08 3.04E-08 2.77E-08 E 3.40E-08 3.03E-08 2.73E-08 2.48E-08 2.26E-08 ESE 3.2 1E-08 2.87E-08 2.60E-08 2.37E-08 2.17E-08 SE 2.85E-08 2.55E-08 2.30E-08 2.09E-08 1.92E-08 SSE 2.2 1E-08 1.98E-08 1.80E-08 1.64E-08 1.51E-08 S 1.92E-08 1.72E-08 1.56E-08 1.42E-08 1.31E-08 SSW 1.66E-08 1.49E-08 1.34E-08 1.22E-08 1.12E-08 SW 1.82E-08 1.61E-08 1.43E-08 1.29E-08 1.17E-08 WSW 2.24E-08 1.97E-08 1.76E-08 1.58E-08 1.43E-08 W 1.66E-08 1.47E-08 1.3 1E-08 1.1 8E-08 1.07E-08 WNW 2.14E-08 1.90E-08 1.70E-08 1.53E-08 1.39E-08 NW 2.62E-08 2.32E-08 2.07E-08 1.87E-08 1.70E-08 NNW 2.66E-08 2.37E-08 2.13E-08 1.93E-08 1.77E-08 N 2.94E-08 2.6 1E-08 2.34E-08 2.12E-08 1.93E-08 Source: Containment Building 2A-3 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-1 ANNUAL AVERAGE X/Q VALUES FOR THE CONTAINMENT BUILDING (UNDECAYED AND UNDEPLETED) Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 11.2 12.0 12.8 13.6 14.4 NNE 2.63E-08 2.43E-08 2.25E-08 2.09E-08 1.95E-08 NE 2.48E-08 2.29E-08 2.12E-08 1.97E-08 1.84E-08 ENE 2.54E-08 2.35E-08 2.18E-08 2.03E-08 1.90E-08 E 2.08E-08 1.92E-08 1.79E-08 1.66E-08 1.56E-08 ESE 2.OOE-08 1.86E-08 1.73E-08 1.62E-08 1.52E-08 SE 1.77E-08 1.64E-08 1.52E-08 1.42E-08 1.34E-08 SSE 1.39E-08 1.29E-08 1.20E-08 1.13E-08 1.06E-08 S 1.2 1E-08 1.12E-08 1.05E-08 9.8 1E-09 9.23E-09 SSW 1.03E-08 9.52E-09 8.86E-09 8.27E-09 7.75E-09 SW 1.06E-08 9.77E-09 9.0 1E-09 8.34E-09 7.76E-09 WSW 1.30E-08 1.19E-08 1.1OE-08 1.02E-08 9.44E-09 W 9.74E-09 8.94E-09 8.25E-09 7.65E-09 7.12E-09 WNW 1.27E-08 1.17E-08 1.08E-08 1.0 1E-08 9.37E-09 NW 1.55E-08 1.43E-08 1.32E-08 1.22E-08 1.14E-08 NNW 1.62E-08 1.50E-08 1.39E-08 1.29E-08 1.2 1E-08 N 1.77E-08 1.63E-08 1.51E-08 1.4 1E-08 1.31E-08 Source: Containment Building 2A-4 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A- 1 ANNUAL AVERAGE X/Q VALUES FOR THE CONTAINMENT BUILDING (UNDECAYED AND UNDEPLETED) Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 15.2 16.0 24.0 32.0 40.0 NNE 1.82E-08 1.71E-08 1.03E-08 7.13E-09 5.33E-09 NE 1.73E-08 1.62E-08 9.85E-09 6.84E-09 5.13E-09 ENE 1.78E-08 1.67E-08 1.02E-08 7.14E-09 5.37E-09 E 1.46E-08 1.38E-08 8.46E-09 5.93E-09 4.48E-09 ESE 1.43E-08 1.35E-08 8.50E-09 6.09E-09 4.67E-09 SE 1.26E-08 1.19E-08 7.46E-09 5.32E-09 4.07E-09 SSE 1.00E-08 9.45E-09 6.03E-09 4.34E-09 3.35E-09 S 8.70E-09 8.23E-09 5.26E-09 3.79E-09 2.93E-09 SSW 7.28E-09 6.86E-09 4.27E-09 3.02E-09 2.30E-09 SW 7.24E-09 6.78E-09 4.OOE-09 2.74E-09 2.03E-09 WSW 8.80E-09 8.23E-09 4.3 1E-09 3.25E-09 2.39E-09 W 6.65E-09 6.23E-09 3.69E-09 2.53E-09 1.88E-09 WNW 8.77E-09 8.23E-09 4.95E-09 3.43E-09 2.57E-09 NW 1.06E-08 9.98E-09 5.96E-09 4.1OE-09 3.06E-09 NNW 1.13E-08 1.07E-08 6.53E-09 4.57E-09 3.44E-09 N 1.23E-08 1.15E-08 6.98E-09 4.84E-09 3.62E-09 Source: Containment Building 2A-5 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A- 1 ANNUAL AVERAGE X/Q VALUES FOR THE CONT AINMENT BUILDING (UNDECAYED AND UNDEPLETED) Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 48.0 56.0 64.0 72.0 80.0 NNE 4.19E-09 3.42E-09 2.86E-09 2.44E-09 2.11E-09 NE 4.04E-09 3.30E-09 2.76E-09 2.36E-09 2.05E-09 ENE 4.24E-09 3.47E-09 2.9 1E-09 2.49E-09 2.16E-09 E 3.55E-09 2.9 1E-09 2.45E-09 2.1OE-09 1.82E-09 ESE 3.75E-09 3.11 E-09 2.64E-09 2.27E-09 1.99E-09 SE 3.26E-09 2.70E-09 2.28E-09 1.97E-09 1.72E-09 SSE 2.70E-09 2.24E-09 1.90E-09 1.65E-09 1.44E-09 S 2.36E-09 1.96E-09 1.66E-09 1.44E-09 1.26E-09 SSW 1.83E-09 1.5 1E-09 1.27E-09 1.09E-09 9.53E-10 SW 1.59E-09 1.29E-09 1.07E-09 9.13E-10 7.90E- 10 WSW 1.86E-09 1.50E-09 1.24E-09 1.05E-09 9.06E-10 W 1.47E-09 1.19E-09 9.92E-10 8.44E- 10 7.29E- 10 WNW 2.02E-09 1.65E-09 1.38E-09 1.18E-09 1.03E-09 NW 2.40E-09 1.95E-09 1.63E-09 1.39E-09 1.20E-09 NNW 2.73E-09 2.23E-09 1.87E-09 1.60E-09 1.40E-09 N 2.85E-09 2.33E-09 1.95E-09 1.66E-09 1.44E-09 Source: Containment Building 2A-6 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-2 ANNUAL AVERAGE X/Q VALUES FOR THE RADWASTE BUILDING (UNDECAYED AND UNDEPLETED) Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.4 NNE 3.04E-06 1.05E-06 6.17E-07 4.40E-07 2.73E-07 NE 2.45E-06 8.69E-07 5.2 1E-07 3.76E-07 2.38E-07 ENE 2.4 1E-06 8.70E-07 5.2 1E-07 3.76E-07 2.38E-07 E 1.70E-06 6.2 1E-07 3.94E-07 2.89E-07 1.36E-07 ESE 1.73E-06 6.12E-07 3.82E-07 2.79E-07 1.80E-07 SE 1.55E-06 5.45E-07 3.39E-07 2.47E-07 1.58E-07 SSE 1.22E-06 4.15E-07 2.6 1E-07 1.9 1E-07 1.24E-07 S 1.1OE-06 3.7 1E-07 2.33E-07 1.69E-07 1.09E-07 SSW 8.68E-07 3.13E-07 1.94E-07 1.42E-07 9.1 OE-08 SW 8.93E-07 3.5 1E-07 2.20E-07 1.60E-07 1.01E-07 WSW 1.12E-06 4.24E-07 2.65E-07 1.92E-07 1.2 1E-07 W 1.06E-06 3.72E-07 2.25E-07 1.60E-07 9.87E-08 WNW 1.58E-06 5.26E-07 3.18E-07 2.26E-07 1.40E-07 NW 1.50E-06 5.19E-07 3.30E-07 2.39E-07 1.52E-07 NNW 1.68E-06 5.63E-07 3.49E-07 2.5 1E-07 1.59E-07 N 1.63E-06 5.73E-07 3.58E-07 2.60E-07 1.65E-07 Source: Radwaste Building 2A-7 REV 16 10/09

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-2 ANNUAL AVERAGE X/Q VALUES FOR THE RADWASTE BUILDING (UNDECAYED AND UNDEPLETED) Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 3.2 4.0 4.8 5.6 6.4 NNE 1.93E-07 1.47E-07 1.17E-07 9.62E-08 8.12E-08 NE 1.70E-07 1.3 1E-07 1.05E-07 8.68E-08 7.35E-08 ENE 1.70E-07 1.3 1E-07 1.05E-07 8.72E-08 7.41E-08 E 1.34E-07 1.04E-07 8.38E-08 6.97E-08 5.94E-08 ESE 1.30E-07 1.01E-07 8.2 1E-08 6.86E-08 5.87E-08 SE 1.14E-07 8.86E-08 7.18E-08 5.99E-08 5.12E-08 SSE 9.02E-08 7.02E-08 5.7 1E-08 4.79E-08 4.11E-08 S 7.93E-08 6.17E-08 5.02E-08 4.2 1E-08 3.61E-08 SSW 6.59E-08 5.11E-08 4.13E-08 3.45E-08 2.94E-08 SW 7.12E-08 5.41E-08 4.30E-08 3.53E-08 2.97E-08 WSW 8.55E-08 6.49E-08 5.16E-08 4.24E-08 3.56E-08 W 6.93E-08 5.25E-08 4.16E-08 3.42E-08 2.87E-08 WNW 9.90E-08 7.50E-08 5.96E-08 4.90E-08 4.13E-08 NW 1.08E-07 8.25E-08 6.58E-08 5.42E-08 4.57E-08 NNW 1.14E-07 8.78E-08 7.06E-08 5.85E-08 4.96E-08 N 1.18E-07 9.05E-08 7.26E-08 6.01E-08 5.09E-08 Source: Radwaste Building 2A-8 REV 16 10/09 I

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-2 ANNUAL AVERAGE X/Q VALUES FOR THE RADWASTE BUILDING (UNDECAYED AND UNDEPLETED) Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 7.2 8.0 8.8 9.6 10.4 NNE 6.99E-08 6. 1OE-08 5.39E-08 4.82E-08 4.34E-08 NE 6.35E-08 5.56E-08 4.93E-08 4.4 1E-08 3.98E-08 ENE 6.41E-08 5.62E-08 4.99E-08 4.47E-08 4.04E-08 E 5.15E-08 4.53E-08 4.03E-03 3.62E-08 3.27E-08 ESE 5.11E-08 4.5 1E-08 4.03E-08 3.63E-08 3.30E-08 SE 4.46E-08 3.93E-08 3.5 1E-08 3.16E-08 2.87E-08 SSE 3.58E-08 3.17E-08 2.84E-08 2.56E-08 2.33E-08 S 3.15E-08 2.79E-08 2.50E-08 2.26E-08 2.05E-08 SSW 2.56E-08 2.25E-08 2.01E-08 1.81E-08 1.64E-08 SW 2.55E-08 2.22E-08 1.96E-08 1.74E-08 1.57E-08 WSW 3.05E-08 2.66E-08 2.34E-08 2.08E-08 1.87E-08 W 2.46E-08 2.15E-08 1.89E-08 1.69E-08 1.52E-08 WNW 3.54E-08 3.09E-08 2.73E-08 2.43E-08 2.19E-08 NW 3.93E-08 3.43E-08 3.03E-08 2.70E-08 2.43E-08 NNW 4.29E-08 3.76E-08 3.34E-08 2.99E-08 2.70E-08 N 4.39E-08 3.85E-08 3.4 1E-08 3.05E-08 2.75E-08 Source: Radwaste Building 2A-9 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-2 ANNUAL AVERAGE X/Q VALUES FOR THE RADWASTE BUILDING (UNDECAYED AND UNDEPLETED) Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 11.2 12.0 12.8 13.6 14.4 NNE 3.94E-08 3.59E-08 3.30E-08 3.05E-08 2.82E-08 NE 3.62E-08 3.3 1E-08 3.04E-08 2.8 1E-08 2.6 1E-08 ENE 3.68E-08 3.37E-08 3.11E-08 2.87E-08 2.67E-08 E 2.99E-08 2.74E-08 2.53E-08 2.34E-08 2.18E-08 ESE 3.02E-08 2.78E-08 2.57E-08 2.39E-08 2.23E-08 SE 2.63E-08 2.42E-08 2.24E-08 2.08E-08 1.94E-08 SSE 2.14E-08 1.97E-08 1.83E-08 1.70E-08 1.59E-08 S 1.88E-08 1.74E-08 1.61E-08 1.50E-08 1.40E-08 SSW 1.50E-08 1.38E-08 1.27E-08 1.18E-08 1.1OE-08 SW 1.42E-08 1.29E-08 1.19E-08 1.09E-08 1.01E-08 WSW 1.69E-08 1.54E-08 1.41E-08 1.30E-08 1.20E-08 W 1.37E-08 1.25E-08 1.1 5E-08 1.06E-08 9.80E-09 WNW 1.98E-08 1.81E-08 1.66E-08 1.53E-08 1.42E-08 NW 2.2 1E-08 2.01E-08 1.85E-08 1.71 E-08 1.58E-08 NNW 2.46E-08 2.25E-08 2.07E-08 1.92E-08 1.78E-08 N 2.50E-08 2.29E-08 2.11E-08 1.95E-08 1.81E-08 Source: Radwaste Building 2A-10 REV 16 10/09 I

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-2 ANNUAL AVERAGE X/Q VALUES FOR THE RADWASTE BUILDING (UNDECAYED AND UNDEPLETED) Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 15.2 16.0 24.0 32.0 40.0 NNE 2.63E-08 2.46E-08 1.42E-08 9.63E-09 7.09E-09 NE 2.43E-08 2.28E-08 1.33E-08 9.03E-09 6.67E-09 ENE 2.49E-08 2.33E-08 1.37E-08 9.38E-09 6.95E-09 E 2.03E-08 1.90E-08 1.13E-08 7.75E-09 5.76E-09 ESE 2.09E-08 1.96E-08 1.20E-08 8.35E-09 6.29E-09 SE 1.82E-08 1.71E-08 1.03E-08 7.20E-09 5.4 1E-09 SSE 1.49E-08 1.40E-08 8.59E-09 6.02E-09 4.55E-09 S 1.3 1E-08 1.23E-08 7.56E-09 5.30E-09 4.OOE-09 SSW 1.03E-08 9.64E-09 5.79E-09 4.OOE-09 2.99E-09 SW 9.42E-09 8.79E-09 5.06E-09 3.41 E-09 2.50E-09 WSW 1.1 IE-08 1.04E-08 5.90E-09 3.94E-09 2.87E-09 W 9.11E-09 8.50E-09 4.88E-09 3.28E-09 2.40E-09 WNW 1.32E-08 1.24E-08 7.16E-09 4.84E-09 3.57E-09 NW 1.47E-08 1.37E-08 7.95E-09 5.37E-09 3.95E-09 NNW 1.66E-08 1.56E-08 9.15E-09 6.24E-09 4.63E-09 N 1.68E-08 1.57E-08 9.20E-09 6.25E-09 4.62E-09 Source: Radwaste Building 2A-11I REV 16 10/09 I

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-2 ANNUAL AVERAGE X/Q VALUES FOR THE RADWASTE BUILDING (UNDECAYED AND UNDEPLETED) Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 48.0 56.0 64.0 72.0 80.0 NNE 5.5 1E-09 4.45E-09 3.70E-09 3.14E-09 2.7 1E-09 NE 5.19E-09 4.20E-09 3.49E-09 2.97E-09 2.56E-09 ENE 5.43E-09 4.40E-09 3.66E-09 3.11E-09 2.69E-09 E 4.5 1E-09 3.66E-09 3.06E-09 2.60E-09 2.25E-09 ESE 4.97E-09 4.07E-09 3.42E-09 2.92E-09 2.54E-09 SE 4.27E-09 3.49E-09 2.92E-09 2.50E-09 2.17E-09 SSE 3.6 1E-09 2.96E-09 2.48E-09 2.13E-09 1.85E-09 S 3.17E-09 2.59E-09 2.18E-09 1.86E-09 1.62E-09 SSW 2.35E-09 1.92E-09 1.60E-09 1.37E-09 1.19E-09 SW 1.94E-09 1.57E-09 1.30E-09 1.1OE-09 9.48E-10 WSW 2.2 1E-09 1.77E-09 1.46E-09 1.24E-09 1.06E-09 W 1.86E-09 1.50E-09 1.24E-09 1.05E-09 9.04E-10 WNW 2.77E-09 2.24E-09 1.86E-09 1.58E-09 1.36E-09 NW 3.07E-09 2.48E-09 2.05E-09 1.74E-09 1.50E-09 NNW 3.6 1E-09 2.93E-09 2.44E-09 2.07E-09 1.79E-09 N 3.60E-09 2.9 1E-09 2.42E-09 2.06E-09 1.78E-09 Source: Radwaste Building 2A-12 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-3 ANNUAL AVERAGE X/Q VALUES FOR THE TURBINE BUILDING (UNDECAYED AND UNDEPLETED) Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.4 NNE 6. 1OE-06 2.05E-06 1.07E-06 7.30E-07 4.25E-07 NE 5.27E-06 1.80E-06 9.37E-07 6.39E-07 3.75E-07 ENE 5.75E-06 1.97E-06 1.02E-06 6.91 E-07 4.05E-07 E 4.8 1E-06 1.61E-06 8.43E-07 5.73E-07 3.37E-07 ESE 4.36E-06 1.43E-06 7.56E-07 5.15E-07 3.07E-07 SE 4.32E-06 1.40E-06 7.39E-07 5.02E-07 2.96E-07 SSE 3.16E-06 1.01E-06 5.38E-07 3.67E-07 2.19E-07 S 3.33E-06 1.04E-06 5.63E-07 3.84E-07 2.29E-07 SSW 2.38E-06 7.8 1E-07 4.13E-07 2.82E-07 1.67E-07 SW 2.33E-06 8.12E-07 4.08E-07 2.74E-07 1.57E-07 WSW 2.88E-06 9.90E-07 4.98E-07 3.34E-07 1.92E-07 W 2.26E-06 7.42E-07 3.84E-07 2.59E-07 1.50E-07 WNW 3.27E-06 1.05E-06 5.5 1E-07 3.72E-07 2.17E-07 NW 3.94E-06 1.28E-06 6.62E-07 4.47E-07 2.60E-07 NNW 4.17E-06 1.35E-06 7.1OE-07 4.8 1E-07 2.83E-07 N 3.97E-06 1.33E-06 6.92E-07 4.7 1E-07 2.75E-07 Source: Turbine Building 2A-13 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-3 ANNUAL AVERAGE X/Q VALUES FOR THE TURBINE BUILDING (UNDECAYED AND UNDEPLETED) Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 3.2 4.0 4.8 5.6 6.4 NNE 2.89E-07 2.14E-07 1.67E-07 1.36E-07 1.13E-07 NE 2.57E-07 1.91E-07 1.50E-07 1.22E-07 1.02E-07 ENE 2.76E-07 2.05E-07 1.6 1E-07 1.31E-07 1.09E-07 E 2.3 1E-07 1.72E-07 1.35E-07 1.1OE-07 9.18E-08 ESE 2.12E-07 1.59E-07 1.26E-07 1.03E-07 8.69E-08 SE 2.04E-07 1.52E-07 1.20E-07 9.82E-08 8.24E-08 SSE 1.52E-07 1.15E-07 9.07E-08 7.45E-08 6.28E-08 S 1.58E-07 1.18E-07 9.34E-08 7.64E-08 6.42E-08 SSW 1.15E-07 8.60E-08 6.77E-08 5.53E-08 4.64E-08 SW 1.05E-07 7.74E-08 6.01 E-08 4.85E-08 4.03E-08 WSW 1.29E-07 9.49E-08 7.37E-08 5.95E-08 4.94E-08 W 1.02E-07 7.5 1E-08 5.86E-08 4.75E-08 3.95E-08 WNW 1.47E-07 1.09E-07 8.53E-08 6.9 1E-08 5.76E-08 NW 1.77E-07 1.31 E-07 1.02E-07 8.29E-08 6.90E-08 NNW 1.93E-07 1.44E-07 1.13E-07 9.16E-08 7.65E-08 N 1.87E-07 1.39E-07 1.09E-07 8.82E-08 7.36E-08 Source: Turbine Building 2A-14 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-3 ANNUAL AVERAGE X/Q VALUES FOR THE TURBINE BUILDING (UNDECAYED AND UNDEPLETED) Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 7.2 8.0 8.8 9.6 10.4 NNE 9.62E-08 8.32E-08 7.30E-08 6.48E-08 5.80E-08 NE 8.70E-08 7.54E-08 6.63E-08 5.90E-08 5.29E-08 ENE 9.33E-08 8.1OE-08 7.12E-08 6.33E-08 5.68E-08 E 7.85E-08 6.8 1E-08 5.99E-08 5.33E-08 4.79E-08 ESE 7.46E-08 6.5 1E-08 5.75E-08 5.14E-08 4.63E-08 SE 7.06E-08 6.14E-08 5.42E-08 4.83E-08 4.35E-08 SSE 5.40E-08 4.72E-08 4.17E-08 3.73E-08 3.36E-08 S 5.50E-08 4.79E-08 4.23E-08 3.77E-08 3.39E-08 SSW 3.97E-08 3.46E-08 3.05E-08 2.7 1E-08 2.44E-08 SW 3.42E-08 2.95E-08 2.58E-08 2.29E-08 2.05E-08 WSW 4.19E-08 3.6 1E-08 3.16E-08 2.80E-08 2.50E-08 W 3.36E-08 2.9 1E-08 2.55E-08 2.26E-08 2.02E-08 WNW 4.90E-08 4.24E-08 3.72E-08 3.30E-08 2.95E-08 NW 5.87E-08 5.07E-08 4.45E-08 3.94E-08 3.53E-08 NNW 6.53E-08 5.66E-08 4.97E-08 4.42E-08 3.96E-08 N 6.27E-08 5.43E-08 4.77E-08 4.24E-08 3.80E-08 Source: Turbine Building 2A-15 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-3 ANNUAL AVERAGE X/Q VALUES FOR THE TURBINE BUILDING (UNDECAYED AND UNDEPLETED) Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 11.2 12.0 12.8 13.6 14.4 NNE 5.24E-08 4.76E-08 4.35E-08 4.OOE-08 3.70E-08 NE 4.78E-08 4.35E-08 3.99E-08 3.67E-08 3.39E-08 ENE 5.13E-08 4.68E-08 4.28E-08 3.94E-08 3.65E-08 E 4.33E-08 3.95E-08 3.62E-08 3.33E-08 3.08E-08 ESE 4.20E-08 3.84E-08 3.53E-08 3.26E-08 3.03E-08 SE 3.94E-08 3.60E-08 3.30E-08 3.05E-08 2.83E-08 SSE 3.06E-08 2.80E-08 2.57E-08 2.38E-08 2.2 1E-08 S 3.08E-08 2.8 1E-08 2.58E-08 2.38E-08 2.21E-08 SSW 2.2 1E-08 2.02E-08 1.85E-08 1.71 E-08 1.58E-08 SW 1.84E-08 1.67E-08 1.53E-08 1.40E-08 1.30E-08 WSW 2.25E-08 2.04E-08 1.86E-08 1.71E-08 1.57E-08 W 1.82E-08 1.65E-08 1.51E-08 1.39E-08 1.28E-08 WNW 2.67E-08 2.42E-08 2.22E-08 2.04E-08 1.88E-08 NW 3.18E-08 2.89E-08 2.64E-08 2.43E-08 2.24E-08 NNW 3.58E-08 3.26E-08 2.98E-08 2.75E-08 2.54E-08 N 3.43E-08 3.12E-08 2.85E-08 2.63E-08 2.43E-08 Source: Turbine Building 2A-16 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-3 ANNUAL AVERAGE X/Q VALUES FOR THE TURBINE BUILDING (UNDECAYED AND UNDEPLETED) Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 15.2 16.0 24.0 32.0 40.0 NNE 3.43E-08 3.19E-08 1.31E-08 1.2 1E-08 8.86E-09 NE 3.15E-08 2.94E-08 1.68E-08 1.13E-08 8.27E-09 ENE 3.39E-08 3.16E-08 1.81E-08 1.22E-08 8.94E-09 E 2.87E-08 2.67E-08 1.54E-08 1.04E-08 7.6 1E-09 ESE 2.82E-08 2.64E-08 1.55E-08 1.06E-08 7.90E-09 SE 2.63E-08 2.46E-08 1.43E-08 9.74E-09 7.2 1E-09 SSE 2.06E-08 1.93E-08 1.14E-08 7.8 1E-09 5.81E-09 S 2.06E-08 1.92E-08 1.12E-08 7.63E-09 5.65E-09 SSW 1.47E-08 1.37E-08 7.96E-09 5.39E-09 3.97E-09 SW 1.20E-08 1.12E-08 6.3 1E-09 4.2 1E-09 3.07E-09 WSW 1.46E-08 1.35E-08 7.58E-09 5.0 1E-09 3.63E-09 W 1.19E-08 1.11E-08 6.24E-09 4.15E-09 3.02E-09 WNW 1.75E-08 1.63E-08 9.23E-09 6.16E-09 4.50E-09 NW 2.08E-08 1.93E-08 1.09E-08 7.27E-09 5.30E-09 NNW 2.36E-08 2.20E-08 1.26E-08 8.42E-09 6.17E-09 N 2.25E-08 2.1OE-08 1.20E-08 8.02E-09 5.87E-09 Source: Turbine Building 2A-17 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-3 ANNUAL AVERAGE X/Q VALUES FOR THE TURBINE BUILDING (UNDECAYED AND UNDEPLETED) Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 48.0 56.0 64.0 72.0 80.0 NNE 6.85E-09 5.5 1E-09 4.56E-09 3.86E-09 3.32E-09 NE 6.40E-09 5.16E-09 4.28E-09 3.62E-09 3.12E-09 ENE 6.93E-09 5.59E-09 4.63E-09 3.93E-09 3.39E-09 E 5.9 1E-09 4.77E-09 3.96E-09 3.35E-09 2.89E-09 ESE 6.19E-09 5.03E-09 4.20E-09 3.58E-09 3. 1OE-09 SE 5.63E-09 4.56E-09 3.80E-09 3.23E-09 2.79E-09 SSE 4.56E-09 3.7 1E-09 3.1OE-09 2.64E-09 2.29E-09 S 4.41 E-09 3.58E-09 2.98E-09 2.53E-09 2.19E-09 SSW 3.09E-09 2.50E-09 2.08E-09 1.77E-09 1.53E-09 SW 2.37E-09 1.90E-09 1.57E-09 1.33E-09 1.14E-09 WSW 2.78E-09 2.23E-09 1.83E-09 1.54E-09 1.32E-09 W 2.33E-09 1.87E-09 1.54E-09 1.30E-09 1.12E-09 WNW 3.48E-09 2.80E-09 2.32E-09 1.96E-09 1.69E-09 NW 4.08E-09 3.28E-09 2.7 1E-09 2.29E-09 1.97E-09 NNW 4.78E-09 3.85E-09 3.19E-09 2.70E-09 2.33E-09 N 4.55E-09 3.66E-09 3.03E-09 2.57E-09 2.2 1E-09 Source: Turbine Building 2A-18 REV 16 10/09 I

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-4 ANNUAL AVERAGE X/Q VALUES FOR THE CONTAINMENT BUILDING (DECAYED AND DEPLETED) Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.4 NNE 1.23E-06 3.81E-07 2.45E-07 1.84E-07 1.24E-07 NE 9.96E-07 3.20E-07 2.08E-07 1.59E-07 1.1OE-07 ENE 9.65E-07 3.20E-07 2.11E-07 1.63E-07 1.13E-07 E 6.98E-07 2.33E-07 1.63E-07 1.28E-07 9.06E-08 ESE 6.76E-07 2.25E-07 1.53E-07 1.19E-07 8.34E-08 SE 6.37E-07 2. 1OE-07 1.42E-07 1.09E-07 7.57E-08 SSE 4.8 1E-07 1.54E-07 1.05E-07 8.07E-08 5.64E-08 S 4.58E-07 1.39E-07 9.34E-08 7.15E-08 4.94E-08 SSW 3.55E-07 1.17E-07 8.01E-08 6.23E-08 4.37E-08 SW 3.75E-07 1.37E-07 9.74E-08 7.64E-08 5.33E-08 WSW 5.12E-07 1.83E-07 1.26E-07 9.70E-08 6.66E-08 W 4.50E-07 1.52E-07 9.99E-08 7.50E-08 4.99E-08 WNW 6.3 1E-07 1.98E-07 1.28E-07 9.5 1E-08 6.28E-08 NW 6.67E-07 2.08E-07 1.39E-07 1.07E-07 7.43E-08 NNW 7.06E-07 2.12E-07 1.39E-07 1.06E-07 7.26E-08 N 7.42E-07 2.32E-07 1.53E-07 1.17E-07 8.07E-08 Source: Containment Building 2A-19 REV 16 10/09 I

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-4 ANNUAL AVERAGE X/Q VALUES FOR THE CONTAINMENT BUILDING (DECAYED AND DEPLETED) Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 3.2 4.0 4.8 5.6 6.4 NNE 9.27E-08 7.36E-08 6.06E-08 5.13E-08 4.42E-08 NE 8.40E-08 6.76E-08 5.62E-08 4.79E-08 4.15E-08 ENE 8.65E-08 6.96E-08 5.79E-08 4.93E-08 4.27E-08 E 6.98E-08 5.64E-08 4.7 1E-08 4.02E-08 3.49E-08 ESE 6.44E-08 5.23E-08 4.38E-08 3.75E-08 3.27E-08 SE 5.79E-08 4.67E-08 3.89E-08 3.33E-08 2.89E-08 SSE 4.37E-08 3.55E-08 2.99E-08 2.57E-08 2.24E-08 S 3.79E-08 3.07E-08 2.58E-08 2.2 1E-08 1.93E-08 SSW 3.37E-08 2.73E-08 2.28E-08 1.95E-08 1.70E-08 SW 4.03E-08 3.20E-08 2.62E-08 2.20E-08 1.88E-08 WSW 4.99E-08 3.94E-08 3.22E-08 2.70E-08 2.30E-08 W 3.69E-08 2.89E-08 2.36E-08 1.97E-08 1.68E-08 WNW 4.64E-08 3.65E-08 2.99E-08 2.5 1E-08 2.15E-08 NW 5.63E-08 4.49E-08 3.70E-08 3.12E-08 2.68E-08 NNW 5.52E-08 4.42E-08 3.67E-08 3.12E-08 2.70E-08 N 6.14E-08 4.92E-08 4.08E-08 3.46E-08 2.99E-08 Source: Containment Building 2A-20 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-4 ANNUAL AVERAGE X/Q VALUES FOR THE CONTAINMENT BUILDING (DECAYED AND DEPLETED) Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 7.2 8.0 8.8 9.6 10.4 NNE 3.87E-08 3.42E-08 3.06E-08 2.76E-08 2.5 1E-08 NE 3.65E-08 3.25E-08 2.9 1E-08 2.64E-08 2.40E-08 ENE 3.75E-08 3.34E-08 3.OOE-08 2.72E-08 2.48E-08 E 3.07E-08 2.73E-08 2.46E-08 2.23E-08 2.03E-08 ESE 2.89E-08 2.59E-08 2.34E-08 2.13E-08 1.95E-08 SE 2.55E-08 2.28E-08 2.06E-08 1.87E-08 1.7 1E-08 SSE 1.99E-08 1.78E-08 1.61E-08 1.47E-08 1.35E-08 S 1.71E-08 1.53E-08 1.39E-08 1.26E-08 1.16E-08 SSW 1.50E-08 1.34E-08 1.2 1E-08 1.1OE-08 1.00E-08 SW 1.64E-08 1.44E-08 1.28E-08 1.15E-08 1.04E-08 WSW 2.OOE-08 1.76E-08 1.56E-08 1.40E-08 1.26E-08 W 1.46E-08 1.29E-08 1.14E-08 1.03E-08 9.28E-09 WNW 1.87E-08 1.65E-08 1.47E-08 1.32E-08 1.20E-08 NW 2.33E-08 2.06E-08 1.83E-08 1.65E-08 1.49E-08 NNW 2.37E-08 2.11E-08 1.89E-08 1.71E-08 1.56E-08 N 2.62E-08 2.33E-08 2.08E-08 1.88E-08 1.71E-08 Source: Containment Building 2A-21 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-4 ANNUAL AVERAGE X/Q VALUES FOR THE CONTAINMENT BUILDING (DECAYED AND DEPLETED) Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 11.2 12.0 12.8 13.6 14.4 NNE 2.29E-08 2.11E-08 1.95E-08 1.81E-08 1.68E-08 NE 2.20E-08 2.03E-08 1.87E-08 1.74E-08 1.62E-08 ENE 2.27E-08 2.09E-08 1.94E-08 1.80E-08 1.68E-08 E 1.87E-08 1.72E-08 1.60E-08 1.49E-08 1.39E-08 ESE 1.79E-08 1.66E-08 1.54E-08 1.44E-08 1.35E-08 SE 1.57E-08 1.46E-08 1.35E-08 1.26E-08 1.18E-08 SSE 1.24E-08 1.15E-08 1.08E-08 1.0 1E-08 9.44E-09 S 1.07E-08 9.94E-09 9.26E-09 8.67E-09 8.14E-09 SSW 9.20E-09 8.50E-09 7.89E-09 7.36E-09 6.88E-09 SW 9.45E-09 8.64E-09 7.95E-09 7.34E-09 6.8 1E-09 WSW 1.15E-08 1.05E-08 9.6 1E-09 8.87E-09 8.22E-09 W 8.44E-09 7.72E-09 7. 1OE-09 6.56E-09 6.09E-09 WNW 1.09E-08 1.00E-08 9.24E-09 8.55E-09 7.95E-09 NW 1.36E-08 1.25E-08 1.15E-08 1.06E-08 9.87E-09 NNW 1.43E-08 1.32E-08 1.22E-08 1.13E-08 1.06E-08 N 1.57E-08 1.44E-08 1.33E-08 1.24E-08 1.15E-08 Source: Containment Building 2A-22 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-4 ANNUAL AVERAGE X/Q VALUES FOR THE CONTAINMENT BUILDING (DECAYED AND DEPLETED) Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 15.2 16.0 24.0 32.0 40.0 NNE 1.57E-08 1.47E-08 8.73E-09 5.96E-09 4.41 E-09 NE 1.52E-08 1.43E-08 8.55E-09 5.88E-09 4.37E-09 ENE 1.58E-08 1.48E-08 8.95E-09 6.19E-09 4.63E-09 E 1.30E-08 1.22E-08 7.44E-09 5.17E-09 3.88E-09 ESE 1.27E-08 1.20E-08 7.50E-09 5.33E-09 4.07E-09 SE 1.11E-08 1.05E-08 6.53E-09 4.62E-09 3.52E-09 SSE 8.89E-09 8.40E-09 5.32E-09 3.8 1E-09 2.93E-09 S 7.67E-09 7.25E-09 4.60E-09 3.30E-09 2.53E-09 SSW 6.46E-09 6.09E-09 3.75E-09 2.63E-09 1.99E-09 SW 6.34E-09 5.92E-09 3.43E-09 2.3 1E-09 1.70E-09 WSW 7.64E-09 7.13E-09 4.08E-09 2.72E-09 1.97E-09 W 5.67E-09 5.30E-09 3.08E-09 2.07E-09 1.52E-09 WNW 7.42E-09 6.95E-09 4. 1OE-09 2.80E-09 2.07E-09 NW 9.2 1E-09 8.61E-09 5.04E-09 3.42E-09 2.52E-09 NNW 9.89E-09 9.29E-09 5.6 1E-09 3.88E-09 2.90E-09 N 1.08E-08 1.0 1E-08 6.01 E-09 4.12E-09 3.06E-09 Source: Containment Building 2A-23 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-4 ANNUAL AVERAGE X/Q VALUES FOR THE CONTAINMENT BUILDING (DECAYED AND DEPLETED) Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 48.0 56.0 64.0 72.0 80.0 NNE 3.44E-09 2.77E-09 2.29E-09 1.93E-09 1.66E-09 NE 3.42E-09 2.76E-09 2.29E-09 1.93E-09 1.66E-09 ENE 3.63E-09 2.94E-09 2.44E-09 2.07E-09 1.79E-09 E 3.06E-09 2.48E-09 2.07E-09 1.76E-09 1.52E-09 ESE 3.26E-09 2.68E-09 2.25E-09 1.93E-09 1.67E-09 SE 2.8 1E-09 2.30E-09 1.93E-09 1.65E-09 1.43E-09 SSE 2.35E-09 1.93E-09 1.63E-09 1.40E-09 1.22E-09 S 2.03E-09 1.67E-09 1.4 1E-09 1.2 1E-09 1.05E-09 SSW 1.57E-09 1.28E-09 1.07E-09 9.14E-10 7.91E-10 SW 1.31E-09 1.05E-09 8.67E-10 7.30E-10 6.25E-10 WSW 1.5 1E-09 1.20E-09 9.85E-10 8.24E-10 7.02E-10 W 1.18E-09 9.41E-10 7.74E-10 6.50E-10 5.56E-10 WNW 1.62E-09 1.30E-09 1.08E-09 9.10E-10 7.82E-10 NW 1.96E-09 1.57E-09 1.30E-09 1.1OE-09 9.39E-10 NNW 2.28E-09 1.85E-09 1.54E-09 1.30E-09 1.12E-09 N 2.39E-09 1.93E-09 1.59E-09 1.35E-09 1.16E-09 Source: Containment Building 2A-24 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-5 ANNUAL AVERAGE X/Q VALUES FOR THE RADWASTE BUILDING (DECAYED AND DEPLETED) Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.4 NNE 2.86E-06 9.58E-07 5.59E-07 3.94E-07 2.40E-07 NE 2.30E-06 7.94E-07 4.74E-07 3.39E-07 2.11E-07 ENE 2.26E06 7.95E-07 4.75E-07 3.40E-07 2.12E-07 E 1.60E-06 5.70E-07 3.6 1E-07 2.63E-07 1.67E-07 ESE 1.63E-06 5.6 1E-07 3.49E-07 2.53E-07 1.61E-07 SE 1.46E-06 5.0 1E-07 3.11E-07 2.24E-07 1.4 1E-07 SSE 1.15E-06 3.80E-07 2.39E-07 1.73E-07 1.11E-07 S 1.04E-06 3.39E-07 2.12E-07 1.53E-07 9.7 1E-08 SSW 8.17E-07 2.87E-07 1.78E-07 1.29E-07 8.15E-08 SW 8.42E-07 3.23E-07 2.03E-07 1.46E-07 9.06E-08 WSW 1.05E-06 3.9 1E-07 2.44E-07 1.76E-07 1.09E-07 W 1.00E-06 3.42E-07 2.06E-07 1.45E-07 8.77E-08 WNW 1.49E-06 4.83E-07 2.89E-07 2.03E-07 1.24E-07 NW 1.41E-06 4.78E-07 3.03E-07 2.18E-07 1.36E-07 NNW 1.58E-06 5.17E-07 3.18E-07 2.27E-07 1.42E-07 N 1.54E-06 5.27E-07 3.27E-07 2.36E-07 1.47E-07 Source: Radwaste Building 2A-25 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-5 ANNUAL AVERAGE X/Q VALUES FOR THE RADWASTE BUILDING (DECAYED AND DEPLETED) Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 3.2 4.0 4.8 5.6 6.4 NNE 1.67E-07 1.25E-07 9.90E-08 8.08E-08 6.77E-08 NE 1.49E-07 1.13E-07 9.04E-08 7.43E-08 6.27E-08 ENE 1.50E-07 1.14E-07 9.12E-08 7.52E-08 6.35E-08 E 1.19E-07 9.16E-08 7.35E-08 6.09E-08 5.17E-08 ESE 1.16E-07 8.91E-08 7.18E-08 5.97E-08 5.09E-08 SE 1.01E-07 7.78E-08 6.27E-08 5.21E-08 4.43E-08 SSE 7.98E-08 6.18E-08 5.OOE-08 4.17E-08 3.56E-08 S 6.98E-08 5.39E-08 4.36E-08 3.63E-08 3.1OE-08 SSW 5.84E-08 4.49E-08 3.61E-08 3.OOE-08 2.55E-08 SW 6.34E-08 4.77E-08 3.76E-08 3.07E-08 2.56E-08 WSW 7.61E-08 5.73E-08 4.52E-08 3.69E-08 3.08E-08 W 6.07E-08 4.54E-08 3.57E-08 2.90E-08 2.43E-08 WNW 8.57E-08 6.41E-08 5.04E-08 4.1OE-08 3.42E-08

   .NW          9.56E-08    7.22E-08      5.71E-08      4.66E-08   3.91E-08 NNW           1.00E-07    7.62E-08      6.07E-08      5.OOE-08   4.22E-08 N          1.04E-07    7.93E-08      6.31E-08      5.19E-08   4.38E-08 Source: Radwaste Building 2A-26                      REV 16 10/09 I

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-5 ANNUAL AVERAGE X/Q VALUES FOR THE RADWASTE BUILDING (DECAYED AND DEPLETED) Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 7.2 8.0 8.8 9.6 10.4 NNE 5.79E-08 5.03E-08 4.42E-08 3.93E-08 3.52E-08 NE 5.38E-08 4.69E-08 4.14E-08 3.70E-08 3.32E-08 ENE 5.47E-08 4.78E-08 4.23E-08 3.78E-08 3.41E-08 E 4.46E-08 3.91E-08 3.47E-08 3.11E-08 2.80E-08 ESE 4.41E-08 3.88E-08 3.46E-08 3.11E-08 2.82E-08 SE 3.84E-08 3.38E-08 3.01E-08 2.7 1E-08 2.45E-08 SSE 3.1OE-08 2.73E-08 2.44E-08 2.20E-08 2.OOE-08 S 2.70E-08 2.38E-08 2.13E-08 1.92E-08 1.74E-08 SSW 2.2 1E-08 1.94E-08 1.73E-08 1.55E-08 1.40E-08 SW 2.19E-08 1.90E-08 1.67E-08 1.48E-08 1.32E-08 WSW 2.63E-08 2.28E-08 2.OOE-08 1.77E-08 1.58E-08 W 2.07E-08 1.79E-08 1.57E-08 1.39E-08 1.25E-08 WNW 2.92E-08 2.53E-08 2.22E-08 1.97E-08 1.76E-08 NW 3.34E-08 2.90E-08 2.55E-08 2.26E-08 2.03E-08 NNW 3.62E-08 3.16E-08 2.80E-08 2.50E-08 2.24E-08 N 3.76E-08 3.28E-08 2.89E-08 2.58E-08 2.32E-08 Source: Radwaste Building 2A-27 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-5 ANNUAL AVERAGE X/Q VALUES FOR THE RADWASTE BUILDING (DECAYED AND DEPLETED) Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 11.2 12.0 12.8 13.6 14.4 NNE 3.18E-08 2.88E-08 2.63E-08 2.42E-08 2.23E-08 NE 3.OOE-08 2.74E-08 2.50E-08 2.30E-08 2.13E-08 ENE 3.09E-08 2.82E-08 2.58E-08 2.38E-08 2.20E-08 E 2.55E-08 2.33E-08 2.14E-08 1.97E-08 1.83E-08 ESE 2.57E-08 2.36E-08 2.18E-08 2.02E-08 1.88E-08 SE 2.24E-08 2.05E-08 1.89E-08 1.75E-08 1.63E-08 SSE 1.83E-08 1.68E-08 1.55E-08 1.44E-08 1.34E-08 S 1.59E-08 1.46E-08 1.35E-08 1.25E-08 1.17E-08 SSW 1.27E-08 1.17E-08 1.07E-08 9.94E-09 9.23E-09 SW 1.19E-08 1.08E-08 9.87E-09 9.06E-09 8.36E-09 WSW 1.42E-08 1.29E-08 1.18E-08 1.08E-08 9.92E-09 W 1.12E-08 1.02E-08 9.28E-09 8.5 1E-09 7.84E-09 WNW 1.58E-08 1.44E-08 1.3 1E-08 1.20E-08 1.11E-08 NW 1.83E-08 1.66E-08 1.51E-08 1.39E-08 1.28E-08 NNW 2.03E-08 1.85E-08 1.70E-08 1.56E-08 1.44E-08 N 2.1OE-08 1.91E-08 1.75E-08 1.61E-08 1.49E-08 Source: Radwaste Building 2A-28 REV 16 10/09 I

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-5 ANNUAL AVERAGE X/Q VALUES FOR THE RADWASTE BUILDING (DECAYED AND DEPLETED) Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 15.2 16.0 24.0 32.0 40.0 NNE 2.06E-08 1.92E-08 1.07E-08 6.99E-09 5.OOE-09 NE 1.98E-08 1.84E-08 1.04E-08 6.87E-09 4.95E-09 ENE 2.05E-08 1.91E-08 1.09E-08 7.27E-09 5.28E-09 E 1.70E-08 1.59E-08 9.19E-09 6.16E-09 4.50E-09 ESE 1.76E-08 1.65E-08 9.80E-09 6.7 1E-09 4.98E-09 SE 1.52E-08 1.43E-08 8.44E-09 5.76E-09 4.25E-09 SSE 1.25E-08 1.18E-08 7.07E-09 4.86E-09 3.62E-09 S 1.09E-08 1.02E-08 6.13E-09 4.20E-09 3.12E-09 SSW 8.6 1E-09 8.06E-09 4.72E-09 3.19E-09 2.35E-09 SW 7.74E-09 7.19E-09 4.01E-09 2.63E-09 1.89E-09 WSW 9.17E-09 8.5 1E-09 4.67E-09 3.03E-09 2.15E-09 W 7.26E-09 6.74E-09 3.73E-09 2.42E-09 1.73E-09 WNW 1.03E-08 9.53E-09 5.29E-09 3.45E-09 2.47E-09 NW 1.19E-08 1.1OE-08 6.15E-09 4.02E-09 2.88E-09 NNW 1.34E-08 1.25E-08 7.1OE-09 4.7 1E-09 3.40E-09 N 1.38E-08 1.29E-08 7.27E-09 4.8 1E-09 3.47E-09 Source: Radwaste Building 2A-29 REV 16 10/09 I

FERMI 2UFSAR TABLE 2A-5 ANNUAL AVERAGE X/Q VALUES FOR THE RADWASTE BUILDING (DECAYED AND DEPLETED) Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 48.0 56.0 64.0 72.0 80.0 NNE 3.80E-09 2.99E-09 2.42E-09 2.0 1E-09 1.70E-09 NE 3.78E-09 2.99E-09 2.43E-09 2.03E-09 1.72E-09 ENE 4.05E-09 3.22E-09 2.63E-09 2.19E-09 1.86E-09 E 3.46E-09 2.76E-09 2.26E-09 1.89E-09 1.61E-09 ESE 3.89E-09 3.13E-09 2.58E-09 2.17E-09 1.86E-09 SE 3.3 1E-09 2.66E-09 2.19E-09 1.84E-09 1.58E-09 SSE 2.83E-09 2.28E-09 1.88E-09 1.59E-09 1:36E-09 S 2.43E-09 1.96E-09 1.61E-09 1.36E-09 1.16E-09 SSW 1.82E-09 1.46E-09 1.20E-09 1.00E-09 8.58E-10 SW 1.44E-09 1.14E-09 9.24E-10 7.68E-10 6.51E-10 WSW 1.63E-09 1.28E-09 1.03E-09 8.54E-10 7.21E-10 W 1.3 1E-09 1.03E-09 8.33E-10 6.90E-10 5.82E-10 WNW 1.87E-09 1.47E-09 1.19E-09 9.89E-10 8.36E-10 NW 2.19E-09 1.73E-09 1.40E-09 1.16E-09 9.84E-10 NNW 2.6 1E-09 2.06E-09 1.68E-09 1.40E-09 1.19E-09 N 2.65E-09 2. 1OE-09 1.71E-09 1.43E-09 1.2 1E-09 Source: Radwaste Building 2A-30 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-6 ANNUAL AVERAGE X/Q VALUES FOR THE TURBINE BUILDING (DECAYED AND DEPLETED) Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.4 NNE 5.74E-06 1.87E-06 9.56E-07 6.39E-07 3.6 1E-07 NE 4.95E-06 1.64E-06 8.35E-07 5.60E-07 3.19E-07 ENE 5.40E-06 1.79E-06 9.06E-07 6.05E-07 3.44E-07 E 4.52E-06 1.47E-06 7.5 1E-07 5.02E-07 2.87E-07 ESE 4. 1OE-06 1.30E-06 6.74E-07 4.52E-07 2.62E-07 SE 4.06E-06 1.27E-06 6.59E-07 4.40E-07 2.52E-07 SSE 2.97E-06 9.19E-07 4.80E-07 3.22E-07 1.87E-07 S 3.13E-06 9.46E-07 5.02E-07 3.36E-07 1.94E-07 SSW 2.23E-06 7.11E-07 3.69E-07 2.47E-07 1.42E-07 SW 2.19E0-6 7.38E-07 3.64E-07 2.40E-07 1.34E-07 WSW 2.7 1E-06 9.01E-07 4.44E-07 2.93E-07 1.63E-07 W 2.12E-06 6.76E-07 3.43E-07 2.27E-07 1.28E-07 WNW 3.07E-06 9.56E-07 4.91 E-07 3.26E-07 1.84E-07 NW 3.70E-06 1.17E-06 5.90E-07 3.92E-07 2.2 1E-07 NNW 3.92E-06 1.23E-06 6.32E-07 4.2 1E-07 2.40E-07 N 3.73E-06 1.21E-06 6.17E-07 4.13E-07 2.34E-07 Source: Turbine Building 2A-31 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-6 ANNUAL AVERAGE X/Q VALUES FOR THE TURBINE BUILDING (DECAYED AND DEPLETED) Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 3.2 4.0 4.8 5.6 6.4 NNE 2.39E-07 1.73E-07 1.33E-07 1.06E-07 8.72E-08 NE 2.13E-07 1.55E-07 1.20E-07 9.64E-08 7.97E-08 ENE 2.29E-07 1.67E-07 1.29E-07 1.03E-07 8.53E-08 E 1.91E-07 1.40E-07 1.08E-07 8.69E-08 7.20E-08 ESE 1.77E-07 1.3 1E-07 1.02E-07 8.25E-08 6.88E-08 SE 1.69E-07 1.24E-07 9.63E-08 7.77E-08 6.45E-08 SSE 1.27E-07 9.37E-08 7.33E-08 5.95E-08 4.96E-08 S 1.31E-07 9.60E-08 7.45E-08 6.0 IE-08 4.99E-08 SSW 9.56E-08 7.01E-08 5.44E-08 4.39E-08 3.65E-08 SW 8.76E-08 6.3 1E-08 4.83E-08 3.85E-08 3.16E-08 WSW 1.07E-07 7.74E-08 5.93E-08 4.72E-08 3.88E-08 W 8.45E-08 6.12E-08 4.70E-08 3.75E-08 3.09E-08 WNW 1.22E-07 8.82E-08 6.77E-08 5.4 1E-08 4.45E-08 NW 1.47E-07 1.06E-07 8.16E-08 6.52E-08 5.36E-08 NNW 1.60E-07 1.16E-07 8.96E-08 7.18E-08 5.93E-08 N 1.55E-07 1.13E-07 8.70E-08 6.97E-08 5.74E-08 Source: Turbine Building 2A-32 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-6 ANNUAL AVERAGE X/Q VALUES FOR THE TURBINE BUILDING (DECAYED AND DEPLETED) Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 7.2 8.0 8.8 9.6 10.4 NNE 7.33E-08 6.28E-08 5.46E-08 4.80E-08 4.26E-08 NE 6.73E-08 5.79E-08 5.05E-08 4.45E-08 3.96E-08 ENE 7.2 1E-08 6.20E-08 5.40E-08 4.77E-08 4.24E-08 E 6.09E-08 5.24E-08 4.58E-08 4.04E-08 3.60E-08 ESE 5.85E-08 5.07E-08 4.45E-08 3.95E-08 3.54E-08 SE 5.48E-08 4.73E-08 4.14E-08 3.67E-08 3.27E-08 SSE 4.23E-08 3.67E-08 3.23E-08 2.87E-08 2.57E-08 S 4.23E-08 3.65E-08 3.20E-08 2.83E-08 2.53E-08 SSW 3.09E-08 2.67E-08 2.33E-08 2.06E-08 1.84E-08 SW 2.65E-08 2.27E-08 1.97E-08 1.73E-08 1.54E-08 WSW 3.25E-08 2.78E-08 2.4 1E-08 2.12E-08 1.88E-08 W 2.60E-08 2.22E-08 1.93E-08 1.70E-08 1.51E-08 WNW 3.74E-08 3.20E-08 2.78E-08 2.44E-08 2.17E-08 NW 4.5 1E-08 3.86E-08 3.35E-08 2.94E-08 2.6 1E-08 NNW 5.OOE-08 4.29E-08 3.74E-08 3.29E-08 2.93E-08 N 4.84E-08 4.16E-08 3.62E-08 3.19E-08 2.83E-08 Source: Turbine Building 2A-33 REV 16 10/09 I

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-6 ANNUAL AVERAGE X/Q VALUES FOR THE TURBINE BUILDING (DECAYED AND DEPLETED) Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 11.2 12.0 12.8 13.6 14.4 NNE 3.80E-08 3.43E-08 3.1OE-08 2.83E-08 2.59E-08 NE 3.55E-08 3.2 1E-08 2.91 E-08 2.66E-08 2.45E-08 ENE 3.8 1E-08 3.44E-08 3.12E-08 2.86E-08 2.62E-08 E 3.23E-08 2.92E-08 2.66E-08 2.43E-08 2.24E-08 ESE 3.19E-08 2.90E-08 2.65E-08 2.43E-08 2.25E-08 SE 2.94E-08 2.67E-08 2.43E-08 2.23E-08 2.06E-08 SSE 2.32E-08 2.11E-08 1.93E-08 1.77E-08 1.64E-08 S 2.27E-08 2.06E-08 1.88E-08 1.72E-08 1.58E-08 SSW 1.66E-08 1.50E-08 1.37E-08 1.25E-08 1.15E-08 SW 1.37E-08 1.24E-08 1.12E-08 1.02E-08 9.36E-09 WSW 1.68E-08 1.51E-08 1.36E-08 1.24E-08 1.14E-08 W 1.35E-08 1.21E-08 1.10E-08 1.OOE-08 9.18E-09 WNW 1.94E-08 1.74E-08 1.58E-08 1.44E-08 1.32E-08 NW 2.33E-08 2.09E-08 1.90E-08 1.73E-08 1.58E-08 NNW 2.62E-08 2.36E-08 2.14E-08 1.96E-08 1.79E-08 N 2.53E-08 2.29E-08 2.08E-08 1.89E-08 1.74E-08 Source: Turbine Building 2A-34 REV 16 10/09 I

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-6 ANNUAL AVERAGE X/Q VALUES FOR THE TURBINE BUILDING (DECAYED AND DEPLETED) Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 15.2 16.0 24.0 32.0 40.0 NNE 2.39E-08 2.2 1E-08 1.18E-08 7.47E-09 5.23E-09 NE 2.26E-08 2.09E-08 1.13E-08 7.28E-09 5.15E-09 ENE 2.42E-08 2.24E-08 1.22E-08 7.86E-09 5.57E-09 E 2.07E-08 1.92E-08 1.05E-08 6.78E-09 4.82E-09 ESE 2.08E-08 1.94E-08 1.09E-08 7.26E-09 5.27E-09 SE 1.90E-08 1.77E-08 9.83E-09 6.45E-09 4.63E-09 SSE 1.52E-08 1.41E-08 8.03E-09 5.34E-09 3.88E-09 S 1.47E-08 1.36E-08 7.55E-09 4.93E-09 3.53E-09 SSW 1.06E-08 9.89E-09 5.46E-09 3.56E-09 2.54E-09 SW 8.62E-09 7.97E-09 4.27E-09 2.73E-09 1.92E-09 WSW 1.05E-08 9.65E-09 5. 1OE-09 3.22E-09 2.24E-09 W 8.45E-09 7.8 1E-09 4.15E-09 2.63E-09 1.84E-09 WNW 1.2 1E-08 1.12E-08 5.96E-09 3.77E-09 2.64E-09 NW 1.46E-08 1.34E-08 7.12E-09 4.50E-09 3.14E-09 NNW- 1.65E-08 1.53E-08 8.23E-09 5.26E-09 3.70E-09 N 1.60E-08 1.48E-08 8.OOE-09 5.12E-09 3.6 1E-09 Source: Turbine Building 2A-35 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-6 ANNUAL AVERAGE X/Q VALUES FOR THE TURBINE BUILDING (DECAYED AND DEPLETED) Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 48.0 56.0 64.0 72.0 80.0 NNE 3.90E-09 3.03E-09 2.42E-09 1.98E-09 1.65E-09 NE 3.87E-09 3.02E-09 2.42E-09 2.OOE-09 1.67E-09 ENE 4.20E-09 3.28E-09 2.64E-09 2.17E-09 1.83E-09 E 3.64E-09 2.85E-09 2.30E-09 1.90E-09 1.60E-09 ESE 4.04E-09 3.2 1E-09 2.62E-09 2.18E-09 1.85E-09 SE 3.53E-09 2.78E-09 2.26E-09 1.87E-09 1.58E-09 SSE 2.98E-09 2.36E-09 1.93E-09 1.61E-09 1.37E-09 S 2.69E-09 2.11E-09 1.71E-09 1.42E-09 1.20E-09 SSW 1.93E-09 1.52E-09 1.23E-09 1.02E-09 8.57E-10 SW 1.44E-09 1.13E-09 9.03E-10 7.44E- 10 6.24E-10 WSW 1.67E-09 1.29E-09 1.03E-09 8.38E-10 6.99E-10 W 1.37E-09 1.06E-09 8.46E-10 6.92E-10 5.78E-10 WNW 1.97E-09 1.52E-09 1.22E-09 9.96E- 10 8.31E-10 NW 2.33E-09 1.80E-09 1.44E-09 1.17E-09 9.79E-10 NNW 2.77E-09 2.15E-09 1.72E-09 1.4 1E-09 1.1 8E-09 N 2.7 1E-09 2.11E-09 1.70E-09 1.39E-09 1.17E-09 Source: Turbine Building 2A-36 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-7 ANNUAL AVERAGE D/Q VALUES FOR THE CONTAINMENT BUILDING Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.4 NNE 1.40E-08 5.7 1E-09 3.26E-09 2.11E-09 1.15E-09 NE 1.27E-08 5.11E-09 2.90E-09 1.87E-09 1.02E-09 ENE 1.20E-08 4.94E-09 2.89E-09 1.89E-09 1.05E-09 E 7.55E-09 3.32E-09 2.06E-09 1.40E-09 8.13E-10 ESE 7.96E-09 3.36E-09 2.03E-09 1.37E-09 7.84E-10 SE 7.06E-09 3.15E-09 1.95E-09 1.32E-09 7.64E- 10 SSE 5.05E-09 2.2 1E-09 1.35E-09 9.07E- 10 5.21E-10 S 3.93E-09 1.73E-09 1.04E-09 7.OOE-10 4.01E-10 SSW 3.63E-09 1.57E-09 9.66E-10 6.56E-10 3.80E-10 SW 5.56E-09 2.57E-09 1.61E-09 1.1OE-09 6.38E-10 WSW 7.55E-09 3.48E-09 2.18E-09 1.48E-09 8.61E-10 W 6.09E-09 2.77E-09 1.68E-09 1.13E-09 6.40E-10 WNW 7.64E-09 3.36E-09 1.99E-09 1.32E-09 7.38E-10 NW 7.50E-09 3.60E-09 2.2 1E-09 1.48E-09 8.51E-10 NNW 6.84E-09 3.04E-09 1.78E-09 1.1 7E-09 6.52E-10 N 8.96E-09 4.02E-09 2.36E-09 1.54E-09 8.51E-10 Source: Containment Building 2A-3 7 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-7 ANNUAL AVERAGE D/Q VALUES FOR THE CONTAINMENT BUILDING Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 3.2 4.0 4.8 5.6 6.4 NNE 7.39E-10 5.26E-10 3.99E-10 3.07E-10 2.43E-10 NE 6.53E-10 4.65E-10 3.53E-10 2.72E-10 2.15E-10 ENE 6.83E-10 4.90E-10 3.75E-10 2.89E-10 2.28E-10 E 5.38E-10 3.92E-10 3.03E-10 2.34E-10 1.85E-10 ESE 5.16E-10 3.75E-10 2.90E-10 2.24E-10 1.77E-10 SE 5.04E- 10 3.67E-10 2.84E-10 2.19E-10 1.73E-10 SSE 3.44E- 10 2.50E-10 1.94E-10 1.50E-10 1.18E-10 S 2.64E-10 1.92E-10 1.48E-10 1.15E-10 9.07E- 11 SSW 2.51E-10 1.83E-10 1.41E-10 1.09E-10 8.62E-1 1 SW 4.23E-10 3.09E-10 2.40E-10 1.85E-10 1.46E-10 WSW 5.68E-10 4.13E-10 3.20E-10 2.47E-10 1.95E-10 W 4.18E-10 3.02E-10 2.32E-10 1.79E-10 1.42E- 10 WNW 4.80E-10 3.46E-10 2.65E-10 2.05E-10 1.62E-10 NW 5.58E-10 4.04E- 10 3.11 E-10 2.41E-10 1.91E-10 NNW 4.22E-10 3.02E-10 2.31E-10 1.78E-10 1.41E-10 N 5.50E-10 3.93E-10 3.OOE-10 2.31E-10 1.83E-10 Source: Containment Building 2A-38 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-7 ANNUAL AVERAGE D/Q VALUES FOR THE CONTAINMENT BUILDING Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 7.2 8.0 8.8 9.6 10.4 NNE 1.97E-10 1.64E-10 1.39E-10 1.19E- 10 1.04E- 10 NE 1.75E-10 1.45E-10 1.23E-10 1.05E-10 9.16E-11 ENE 1.85E-10 1.54E-10 1.30E-10 1.1 IE-10 9.67E- 11 E 1.50E-10 1.24E-10 1.05E-10 9.OOE- 11 7.83E- 11 ESE 1.43E-10 1.19E-10 1.00E-10 8.60E- 11 7.48E- 1I SE 1.41E-10 1.17E -10 9.85E-1 1 8.45E- I1 7.36E-1 1 SSE 9.57E-1 1 7.94E- 1I 6.70E-1 1 5.74E-1 1 5.OOE-I 1 S 7.37E- 1I 6.12E-1 1 5.17E- 11 4.44E- 1I 3.87E- 11 SSW 6.99E- 1I 5.80E-1 1 4.90E-1 1 4.20E- 11 3.65E-1 1 SW 1.19E-10 9.87E- I1 8.34E- 1I 7.15E-11 6.23E-1 1 WSW 1.58E-10 1.31E-10 1.11E-10 9.52E- 11 8.29E- 1I W 1.15E-10 9.57E-1 1 8.09E-1 1 6.95E-1 1 6.06E- 1I WNW 1.32E-10 1.09E-10 9.25E-1 1 7.94E- 11 6.92E- 1I NW 1.56E-10 1.30E-10 1.10E-10 9.43E- I1 8.24E- 1I NNW 1.15E-10 9.58E-1 1 8.11E-11 6.97E- 1I 6.09E- 1I N 1.49E-10 1.24E-10 1.05E-10 9.04E- 11 7.89E-1 1 Source: Containment Building 2A-39 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-7 ANNUAL AVERAGE D/Q VALUES FOR THE CONTAINMENT BUILDING Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 11.2 12.0 12.8 13.6 14.4 NNE 9.14E-I I 8.14E-1 1 7.30E- I 1 6.59E-1 1 5.99E-1 1 NE 8.08E- I1 7.20E- 11 6.46E- 1I 5.83E- 11 5.30E-1 1 ENE 8.53E- 11 7.59E-1 1 6.80E-1 1 6.14E-II 5.57E-1 1 E 6.91E-11 6.14E-1 1 5.50E- 11 4.97E- 1I 4.5 1E-I1 ESE 6.59E- I 1 5.86E-1 1 5.25E-1 1 4.74E- 1I 4.30E-1 1 SE 6.49E- 1I 5.77E-1 1 5.18E-II 4.67E- 1I 4.24E- 1I SSE 4.41E-1 1 3.92E- 11 3.52E- 11 3.17E-11 2.88E-1 1 S 3.42E- 1I 3.04E- I1 2.73E- 11 2.47E- 11 2.25E-11 SSW 3.22E- 1I 2.86E- 11 2.57E- 11 2.3 1E-11 2.1OE-11 SW 5.50E- 11 4.90E- 1I 4.40E- 1I 3.98E- 1I 3.61E- 11 WSW 7.32E- II 6.51E-1I 5.84E- 11 5.28E- 1I 4.79E- 11 W 5.35E-11 4.77E- 11 4.28E-1 I 3.87-E11 3.52E-1 1 WNW 6.12E-11 5.46E- 1I 4.90E- 11 4.43E-1 1 4.03E- 1I NW 7.30E- 11 6.52E- 11 5.87E-1 1 5.3 1E-I1 4.84E-11 NNW 5.39E- 11 4.8 1E-I1 4.33E- 11 3.92E-1 1 3.57E- 11 N 6.99E-1 1 6.25E- 11 5.62E- 11 5.09E- 11 4.64E- 1I Source: Containment Building 2A-40 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-7 ANNUAL AVERAGE D/Q VALUES FOR THE CONTAINMENT BUILDING Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 15.2 16.0 24.0 32.0 40.0 NNE 5.47E- 1I 5.02E- I 1 2.55E-1 1 1.59E-1 1 1.11 E- 11 NE 4.84E-1 1 4.44E- 1I 2.26E- 11 1.40E- 11 9.74E-12 ENE 5.09E- 11 4.66E-1 1 2.36E-1 1 1.46E- 1I 1.01E-1l E 4.11E-11 3.77E-1 1 1.90E-1 1 1.18E-11 8.15E-12 ESE 3.92E-1 1 3.59E-1 1 1.81E-11 1.12E-11 7.7 1E-12 SE 3.88E-1 1 3.55E-1 1 1.80E-11 1.12E-11 7.76E-12 SSE 2.63E-1 1 2.41E-1 1 1.22E- 11 7.56E-12 5.24E-12 S 2.05E- 1I 1.88E- 1I 9.62E-12 6.OOE-12 4.18E-12 SSW 1.92E- 11 1.76E- 11 8.85E-12 5.47E-12 3.78E-12 SW 3.30E- 11 3.03E- 11 1.55E-11 9.65E-12 6.71 E- 12 WSW 4.38E-1 1 4.02E- 1I 2.04E- 1I 1.27E-11 8.83E-12 W 3.22E- 1I 2.96E- 11 1.52E-11 9.49E-12 6.62E-12 WNW 3.69E- 11 3.39E-1 1 1.74E-11 1.09E- 1I 7.60E-12 NW 4.43E-1 1 4.08E-1 1 2.12E-11 1.34E- 11 9.42E-12 NNW 3.27E-1 1 3.OOE- 1I 1.56E-1 1 9.8 1E-12 6.90E- 12 N 4.25E-1 1 3.91E-1 1 2.03E- 1I 1.28E-11 9.02E-12 Source: Containment Building 2A-41 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-7 ANNUAL AVERAGE D/Q VALUES FOR THE CONTAINMENT BUILDING Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 48.0 56.0 64.0 72.0 80.0 NNE 8.32E-12 6.52E-12 5.28E-12 4.40E-12 3.76E-12 NE 7.30E-12 5.70E-12 4.61 E- 12 3.83E-12 3.27E-12 ENE 7.56E-12 5.89E-12 4.75E-12 3.94E-12 3.35E-12 E 6.07E-12 4.7 1E-12 3.78E-12 3.13E-12 2.64E-12 ESE 5.73E-12 4.44E- 12 3.57E-12 2.95E-12 2.49E-12 SE 5.78E-12 4.49E-12 3.6 1E-12 2.98E-12 2.52E-12 SSE 3.90E-12 3.03E-12 2.44E- 12 2.01E-12 1.70E-12 S 3.13E-12 2.45E-12 1.98E-12 1.64E-12 1.40E-12 SSW 2.32E-12 2.19E-12 1.76E-12 1.46E-12 1.24E- 12 SW 5.01E-12 3.90E-12 3.13E-12 2.59E-12 2.19E- 12 WSW 6.58E-12 5.10E-12 4.09E-12 3.37E-12 2.84E-12 W 4.96E-12 3.86E-12 3.1 OE- 12 2.56E-12 2.17E-12 WNW 5.71 E- 12 4.46E- 12 3.60E-12 2.99E-12 2.54E-12 NW 7.10E-12 5.55E-12 4.49E-12 3.72E-12 3.16E-12 NNW 5.22E-12 4.1OE-12 3.32E-12 2.77E-12 2.37E-12 N 6.8 1E-12 5.34E-12 4.32E-12 3.59E-12 3.05E-12 Source: Containment Building 2A-42 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-8 ANNUAL AVERAGE D/Q VALUES FOR THE RADWASTE BUILDING Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.4 NNE 3.01E-08 1.11E-08 5.93E-09 3.67E-09 1.88E-09 NE 2.56E-08 9.38E-09 5.0 1E-09 3.1OE-09 1.59E-09 ENE 2.52E-08 9.33E-09 5.03E-09 3.13E-09 1.62E-09 E 1.57E-08 6.16E-09 3.46E-09 2.19E-09 1.16E-09 ESE 1.62E-08 6.15E-09 3.40E-09 2.14E-09 1.12E-09 SE 1.45E-08 5.68E-09 3.18E-09 2.0 1E-09 1.06E-09 SSE 1.07E-08 4.06E-09 2.25E-09 1.42E-09 7.44E- 10 S 8.28E-09 3.23E-09 1.80E-09 1.14E-09 6.OOE-10 SSW 8.03E-09 3.09E-09 1.72E-09 1.08E-09 5.68E-10 SW 1.1OE-08 4.50E-09 2.57E-09 1.64E-09 8.74E-10 WSW 1.39E-08 5.7 1E-09 3.25E-09 2.07E-09 1.1OE-09 W 1.19E-08 4.69E-09 2.60E-09 1.63E-09 8.54E-10 WNW 1.52E-08 5.94E-09 3.26E-09 2.05E-09 1.07E-09 NW 1.45E-08 6.07E-09 3.45E-09 2.18E-09 1.16E-09 NNW 1.41E-08 5.56E-09 3.06E-09 1.92E-09 9.98E-10 N 1.7 1E-08 6.73E-09 3.69E-09 2.3 1E-09 1.20E-09 Source: Radwaste Building 2A-43 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-8 ANNUAL AVERAGE D/Q VALUES FOR THE RADWASTE BUILDING Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 3.2 4.0 4.8 5.6 6.4 NNE 1.17E-09 8.15E-10 6.06E-10 4.64E-10 3.66E-10 NE 9.96E- 10 6.92E-10 5.14E-10 3.94E-10 3.1 IE-10 ENE 1.01E-09 7.06E-10 5.26E-10 4.02E-10 3.17E-10 E 7.34E-10 5.16E-10 3.88E-10 2.97E-10 2.34E-10 ESE 7.10E-10 4.98E-10 3.73E-10 2.85E-10 2.25E-10 SE 6.72E-10 4.72E-10 3.54E-10 2.72E-10 2.14E-10 SSE 4.70E-10 3.30E-10 2.47E-10 1.89E-10 1.49E-10 S 3.80E-10 2.67E-10 2.01E-10 1.54E-10 1.21E-10 SSW 3.59E-10 2.52E-10 1.89E-10 1.44E- 10 1.14E-10 SW 5.57E-10 3.93E-10 2.96E-10 2.27E-10 1.79E-10 WSW 6.98E-10 4.92E-10 3.70E-10 2.84E-10 2.23E-10 W 5.39E-10 3.78E-10 2.83E-10 2.17E-10 1.71E-10 WNW 6.73E-10 4.72E-10 3.53E-10 2.71E-10 2.13E-10 NW 7.37E-10 5.20E-10 3.92E-10 3.01E-10 2.37E-10 NNW 6.30E-10 4.41E-10 3.30E-10 2.53E-10 2.OOE-10 N 7.56E-10 5.29E-10 3.96E-10 3.03E-10 2.39E-10 Source: Radwaste Building 2A-44 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-8 ANNUAL AVERAGE D/Q VALUES FOR THE RADWASTE BUILDING Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 7.2 8.0 8.8 9.6 10.4 NNE 2.97E-10 2.46E-10 2.08E-10 1.78E-10 1.55E-10 NE 2.52E-10 2.09E-10 1.77E-10 1.51E-10 1.32E-10 ENE 2.57E-10 2.13E-10 1.80E-10 1.54E-10 1.34E-10 E 1.89E-10 1.57E-10 1.32E-10 1.13E-10 9.82E-1 1 ESE 1.82E-10 1.51E-10 1.27E-10 1.09E-10 9.47E- 1I SE 1.73E-10 1.44E-10 1.21E-10 1.04E-10 9.02E-1 1 SSE 1.21E-10 1.00E-10 8.43E-1 1 7.22E- 1I 6.27E-1 1 S 9.81E-1 1 8.13E-11 6.86E-1 1 5.87E-1 1 5.10E-1 1 SSW 9.22E- 11 7.64E- I1 6.44E- 1I 5.52E-1 1 4.79E- I1 SW 1.45E-10 1.20E-10 1.01E-10 8.66E-1 1 7.52E-1 1 WSW 1.81E-10 1.50E-10 1.26E-10 1.08E-10 9.40E- 1I W 1.39E-10 1.15E-10 9.71E-1 1 8.32E- II 7.24E- II WNW 1.73E-10 1.44E- 10 1.21E-10 1.04E- 10 9.04E-1 1 NW 1.92E-10 1.59E-10 1.35E-10 1.15E-10 1.00E-10 NNW 1.62E-10 1.34E-10 1.13E-10 9.72E-1 1 8.46E- 1I N 1.94E-10 1.61E-10 1.36E-10 1.17E- 10 1.02E-10 Source: Radwaste Building 2A-45 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-8 ANNUAL AVERAGE D/Q VALUES FOR THE RADWASTE BUILDING Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 11.2 12.0 12.8 13.6 14.4 NNE 1.37E-10 1.21E-10 1.09E-10 9.78E- 11 8.87E- 11 NE 1.16E-10 1.03E-10 9.20E- 11 8.29E-1 1 7.5 lE-I1 ENE 1.18E-10 1.05E-10 9.36E-1 1 8.43E-1 1 7.64E-1 1 E 8.64E- 1I 7.67E- 1I 6.86E-1 1 6.18E-11 5.60E- 11 ESE 8.33E-1 1 7.39E-1 1 6.61E-11 5.95E-1 1 5.39E-1 1 SE 7.94E- 1I 7.05E- 1I 6.3 1E-I1 5.68E-1 1 5.15E- 11 SSE 5.52E- I1 4.90E- I1 4.38E-1 1 3.94E-11 3.57E- 11 S 4.49E- 1I 3.99E- 1I 3.57E-1 1 3.21E-11 2.9 1E- 11 SSW 4.22E- 1I 3.74E-1 1 3.35E- 11 3.0IE-1 1 2.73E- 11 SW 6.62E- 1I 5.88E-1 1 5.26E- 1I 4.74E-1 1 4.30E- 11 WSW 8.28E- 11 7.36E-1 1 6.59E-1 1 5.94E-1 1 5.39E-1 1 W 6.38E-1 1 5.67E- 1I 5.08E- 1I 4.58E-1 1 4.16E-1 1 WNW 7.96E- 1I 7.08E- 1I 6.34E-1 1 5.72E-1 1 5.19E-1 1 NW 8.85E-1 1 7.88E-1 1 7.07E- 1I 6.38E- I1 5.80E-1 1 NNW 7.46E- 1I 6.64E- 1I 5.95E-1 1 5.37E-1 1 4.87E-1 1 N 8.96E- 1I 7.98E- 1I 7.15E-11 6.46E- 1I 5.86E-1 1 Source: Radwaste Building 2A-46 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-8 ANNUAL AVERAGE D/Q VALUES FOR THE RADWASTE BUILDING Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 15.2 16.0 24.0 32.0 40.0 NNE 8.08E-1 1 7.40E- 1I 3.70E- I 1 2.28E-1 1 1.58E- 1I NE 6.84E-1 1 6.27E-1 1 3.13E- II 1.92E-1 1 1.33E-11 ENE 6.96E-1 1 6.37E-1 1 3.17E-ll 1.95E- 11 1.35E-11 E 5.10E-11 4.67E- 1I 2.33E-1 1 1.43E- I1 9.98E-12 ESE 4.91E-1I 4.49E- 11 2.23E-1 1 1.37E-11 9.48E-12 SE 4.69E-1.1 4.30E-1 1 2.15E-1 1 1.33E-11 9.22E-12 SSE 3.25E-1 1 2.98E- 11 1.48E- 1I 9.08E-12 6.30E- 12 S 2.66E- 1I 2.43E- 11 1.22E- 11 7.52E-12 5.26E-12 SSW 2.49E- 1I 2.28E-1 1 1.14E-11 6.98E-12 4.85E-12 SW 3.92E-1 1 3.59E- 11 1.80E- II 1.11 E- 11 7.70E-12 WSW 4.91E-1I 4.50E-1 1 2.26E- 1I 1.40E- 1I 9.70E-12 W 3.79E-1 1 3.47E- 1I 1.75E-1 1 1.08E- 1I 7.52E-12 WNW 4.73E-1 1 4.34E- I1 2.19E-11 1.35E-1 1 9.41 E- 12 NW 5.29E-1 1 4.86E-1 1 2.47E- 1I 1.55E-1 1 1.08E- 1I NNW 4.45E- 1I 4.08E- 1I 2.07E- 1I 1.29E- 1I 9.04E-12 N 5.35E-Il 4.91E-11 2.49E- 1I 1.55E-1 1 1.09E- 1I Source: Radwaste Building 2A-47 REV 16 10/09 I

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-8 ANNUAL AVERAGE D/Q VALUES FOR THE RADWASTE BUILDING Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 48.0 56.0 64.0 72.0 80.0 NNE 1.19E-11 9.36E-12 7.59E-12 6.36E-12 5.46E-12 NE 1.01E-1 1 7.94E-12 6.47E- 12 5.44E- 12 4.70E-12 ENE 1.02E- 11 8.08E-12 6.60E-12 5.57E-12 4.82E-12 E 7.61E-12 6.05E-12 4.97E-12 4.21E-12 3.67E-12 ESE 7.20E-12 5.70E-12 4.67E-12 3.95E-12 3.43E-12 SE 7.01E-12 5.56E-12 4.55E-12 3.85E-12 3.34E-12 SSE 4.80E-12 3.81E-12 3.13E-12 2.66E-12 2.32E-12 S 4.06E-12 3.26E-12 2.70E-12 2.3 1E-12 2.03E-12 SSW 3.69E-12 2.92E-12 2.39E-12 2.02E-12 1.76E-12 SW 5.78E-12 4.52E-12 3.65E-12 3.04E- 12 2.59E-12 WSW 7.27E-12 5.68E-12 4.58E-12 3.81E-12 3.25E-12 W 5.64E-12 4.40E- 12 3.55E-12 2.95E-12 2.51E-12 WNW 7.07E-12 5.54E-12 4.47E-12 3.73E-12 3.18E-12 NW 8.24E-12 6.51E-12 5.30E-12 4.45E-12 3.83E-12 NNW 6.91E-12 5.49E-12 4.50E-12 3.8 1E-12 3.30E-12 N 8.30E-12 6.57E-12 5.37E-12 4.52E-12 3.9 1E-12 Source: Radwaste Building 2A-48 REV 16 10/09 I

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-9 ANNUAL AVERAGE D/Q VALUES FOR THE TURBINE BUILDING Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.4 NNE 5.08E-08 1.75E-08 9.OOE-09 5.49E-09 2.75E-09 NE 4.36E-08 1.50E-08 7.70E-09 4.70E-09 2.36E-09 ENE 4.55E-08 1.57E-08 8.05E-09 4.9 IE-09 2.46E-09 E 3.40E-08 1.18E-08 6.05E-09 3.70E-09 1.86E-09 ESE 3.OOE-08 1.03E-08 5.33E-09 3.26E-09 1.64E-09 SE 2.92E-08 1.0 1E-08 5.22E-09 3.19E-09 1.61E-09 SSE 2.04E-08 7.02E-09 3.6 1E-09 2.2 1E-09 1.11E-09 S 1.88E-08 6.49E-09 3.34E-09 2.04E-09 1.03E-09 SSW 1.59E-08 5.50E-09 2.84E-09 1.74E-09 8.77E-10 SW 2.19E-08 7.56E-09 3.90E-09 2.38E-09 1.20E-09 WSW 2.70E-08 9.39E-09 4.84E-09 2.96E-09 1.49E-09 W 1.99E-08 6.95E-09 3.60E-09 2.2 1E-09 1.12E-09 WNW 2.69E-08 9.3 1E-09 4.80E-09 2.93E-09 1.48E-09 NW 3.08E-08 1.08E-08 5.58E-09 3.42E-09 1.73E-09 NNW 2.92E-08 1.0 1E-08 5.23E-09 3.19E-09 1.61E-09 N 3.3 1E-08 1.15E-08 5.93E-09 3.63E-09 1.83E-09 Source: Turbine Building 2A-49 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-9 ANNUAL AVERAGE D/Q VALUES FOR THE TURBINE BUILDING Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 3.2 4.0 4.8 5.6 6.4 NNE 1.70E-09 1.16E-09 8.57E-10 6.55E-10 5.18E-10 NE 1.45E-09 9.99E-10 7.36E-10 5.62E-10 4.44E- 10 ENE 1.52E-09 1.04E-09 7.68E-10 5.87E-10 4.64E-10 E 1.15E-09 7.89E-10 5.82E-10 4.45E-10 3.51E-10 ESE 1.02E-09 7.01E-10 5.17E-10 3.96E-10 3.13E-10 SE 9.96E-10 6.86E-10 5.06E-10 3.88E-10 3.06E-10 SSE 6.87E-10 4.73E-10 3.49E-10 2.67E-10 2.11E-10 S 6.36E-10 4.38E-10 3.23E-10 2.47E-10 1.96E-10 SSW 5.42E-10 3.74E-10 2.76E-10 2.1 IE-10 1.67E-10 SW 7.43E-10 5.12E-10 3.78E-10 2.89E-10 2.28E-10 WSW 9.20E- 10 6.33E-10 4.66E-10 3.57E-10 2.52E-10 W 6.90E-10 4.75E-10 3.51E-10 2.69E-10 2.12E-10 WNW 9.12E-10 6.28E-10 4.63E-10 3.54E-10 2.80E-10 NW 1.07E-09 7.39E-10 5.46E-10 4.18E-10 3.30E-10 NNW 9.90E-10 6.81E-10 5.02E-10 3.84E-10 3.03E-10 N 1.13 E-09 7.77E-10 5.73E-10 4.38E-10 3.47E-10 Source: Turbine Building 2A-50 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-9 ANNUAL AVERAGE D/Q VALUES FOR THE TURBINE BUILDING Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 7.2 8.0 8.8 9.6 10.4 NNE 4.21E-10 3.49E-10 2.95E-10 2.53E-10 2.20E-10 NE 3.61E-10 3.OOE-10 2.53E-10 2.17E-10 1.89E-10 ENE 3.77E-10 3.13E-10 2.65E-10 2.27E-10 1.97E-10 E 2.86E-10 2.37E-10 2.OOE-10 1.72E-10 1.49E-10 ESE 2.54E-10 2.11 E-10 1.78E-10 1.53E-10 1.33E-10 SE 2.49E-10 2.07E-10 1.75E-10 1.50E-10 1.30E-10 SSE 1.71E-10 1.42E-10 1.20E-10 1.03E-10 8.98E- 1I S 1.59E-10 1.32E-10 1.12E-10 9.57E-1 1 8.32E- I1 SSW 1.35E-10 1.12E-10 9.50E-1 1 8.15E-11 7.09E-1 1 SW 1.86E-10 1.54E-10 1.30E-10 1.12E-10 9.72E- 1I WSW 2.29E-10 1.90E-10 1.61E-10 1.38E-10 1.20E-10 W 1.73E-10 1.43E-10 1.21E-10 1.04E- 10 9.06E- 1I WNW 2.28E-10 1.89E-10 1.60E-10 1.37E-10 1.19E-10 NW 2.69E-10 2.23E-10 1.89E-10 1.62E-10 1.41E-10 NNW 2.47E-10 2.05E-10 1.73E-10 1.48E-10 1.29E-10 N 2.82E-10 2.34E-10 1.98E-10 1.70E-10 1.48E-10 Source: Turbine Building 2A-51 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-9 ANNUAL AVERAGE D/Q VALUES FOR THE TURBINE BUILDING Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 11.2 12.0 12.8 13.6 14.4 NNE 1.94E-10 1.72E-10 1.54E-10 1.38E-10 1.25E-10 NE 1.66E-10 1.47E-10 1.32E-10 1.19E-10 1.07E-10 ENE 1.73E-10 1.54E-10 1.38E-10 1.24E-10 1.12E-10 E 1.31E-10 1.17E-10 1.04E-10 9.39E-11 8.5 1E-1I ESE 1.17E-10 1.04E-10 9.29E- 11 8.36E-1 1 7.57E-1 1 SE 1.15E-10 1.02E-10 9.11E-11 8.20E- 1I 7.43E- 11 SSE 7.90E- 1I 7.01E-1 1 6.27E- 1I 5.64E- 1I 5.11 E- 11 S 7.32E-1 1 6.50E- I1 5.81E-11 5.23E-1 1 4.74E- 1I SSW 6.23E-11 5.53E-1 1 4.95E- 1I 4.45E- 11 4.04E- 1I SW 8.55E-1 1 7.59E- 11 6.79E- 11 6.11E-11 5.54E-1 1 WSW 1.06E-10 9.38E-1 1 8.39E-1 1 7.56E-1 1 6.85E-1 1 W 7.97E- I1 7.08E- 11 6.34E-1 1 5.71E-11 5.18E-11 WNW 1.05E-10 9.3 1E-I1 8.33E-1 1 7.50E-1 1 6.80E-1 1 NW 1.24E-10 1.10E-10 9.85E-1 1 8.87E-1 1 8.04E- 11 NNW 1.14E-10 1.01E-10 9.02E- 1I 8.12E-1 1 7.36E-1 1 N 1.30E-10 1.15E-10 1.03E-10 9.29E- 1I 8.42E-1 1 Source: Turbine Building 2A-52 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-9 ANNUAL AVERAGE D/Q VALUES FOR THE TURBINE BUILDING Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 15.2 16.0 24.0 32.0 40.0 NNE 1.14E-10 1.04E-10 5.16E-1 1 3.12E- 11 2.12E-1 1 NE 9.79E- 11 8.96E-1 1 4.42E- 1I 2.67E- I 1 1.81E-II ENE 1.02E-10 9.35E-11 4.61E-1i1 2.79E- 1I 1.89E- 1I E 7.75E- 11 7.09E- 1I 3.50E- 11 2.12E-1 1 1.44E- 11 ESE 6.90E- 1I 6.31E-11 3.12E-1 1 1.89E-1 1 1.28E-1 1 SE 6.77E- 11 6.20E- 1I 3.07E-11 1.86E-I 1 1.26E-1 1 SSE 4.65E-1 1 4.26E- 11 2.10E-11 1.27E- 1I 8.64E-12 S 4.32E-l 1 3.95E-11 1.95E- I1 1.18E- 11 8.03E-12 SSW 3.68E- 1I 3.36E-1 1 1.66E- 1I 1.O1E-1 1 6.84E-12 SW 5.04E- 1I 4.61E-1 1 2.28E- 1I 1.38E-1 1 9.37E-12 WSW 6.24E-1 1 5.71E-11 2.83E- 11 1.72E-11 1.17E- 11 W 4.72E-1 1 4.32E-1 1 2.15E-Il 1.3 iE-i1 8.89E-12 WNW 6.19E-1 1 5.67E- II 2.81E-1 1 1.70E- 11 1.15E-I 1 NW 7.33E-1 1 6.71E- 11 3.33E-1 1 2.03E- 1I 1.38E- 1I NNW 6.70E-1 I 6.13E-1 1 3.04E- 1I 1.84E-11 1.25E-Il N 7.67E-1 1 7.02E- 1I 3.48E- 1I 2.11E-11 1.43E- 11 Source: Turbine Building 2A-53 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE 2A-9 ANNUAL AVERAGE D/Q VALUES FOR THE TURBINE BUILDING Downwind Distance (KM) Sector 48.0 56.0 64.0 72.0 80.0 NNE 1.54E-1 1 1.17E-1 1 9.22E-12 7.47E-12 6.19E-12 NE 1.32E-11 1.01E-1 1 7.93E-12 6.44E- 12 5.36E-12 ENE 1.38E-1 1 1.05E- 1I 8.29E-12 6.74E- 12 5.61E-12 E 1.05E- 11 8.03E-12 6.35E-12 5.17 E-12 4.31E-12 ESE 9.38E-12 7.17E-12 5.68E-12 4.64E-12 3.89E-12 SE 9.24E-12 7.06E-12 5.58E-12 4.55E-12 3.80E-12 SSE 6.33E-12 4.85E-12 3.84E-12 3.14E-12 2.64E-12 S 5.88E-12 4.49E-12 3.56E-12 2.90E-12 2.43E-12 SSW 5.OOE-12 3.8 1E-12 3.01E-12 2.45 E-12 2.04E- 12 SW 6.83E-12 5.19E-12 4.09E-12 3.32E-12 2.75E-12 WSW 8.53E-12 6.49E-12 5.12E-12 4.15 E-12 3.45E-12 W 6.50E-12 4.95E-12 3.91 E- 12 3.17E-12 2.63E-12 WNW 8.40E-12 6.39E-12 5.03E-12 4.08E-12 3.38E-12 NW 1.01E-1I 7.67E-12 6.05E-12 4.92E-12 4.08E-12 NNW 9.13E-12 6.95E-12 5.48E-12 4.45 E-12 3.70E-12 N 1.05E- 1I 7.99E-12 6.30E-12 5.11 E- 12 4.25E-12 Source: Turbine Building 2A-54 REV 16 10/09 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR APPENDIX 2B Rock Foundation Treatment Residual Heat Removal Complex Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant for Detroit Edison Company

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .. . .... . . . . . . . ... . . . 1 Part A, Foundation Rock Surface Preparation and Clean-up . . . . . . . a 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 a 0 0 . 0 . Part B, Foundation Rock Grouting . . . . . . . . . . .. . LIST OF TABLES Table Bl Summary of Grouting Table B2 Water Pressure Testing LIST OF PLATES Plate Al Foundation Rock Surface Features ..... Pocket Plate Bi Foundation Treatment, Primary Holes - First Zone Grouting (0-6 feet) Plate B2 Foundation Treatment, Primary Holes - Second Zone Grouting (6-20 feet) Plate B3 Foundation Treatment, Secondary Holes - First Zone Grouting (0-6 feet) Plate B4 Foundation Treatment, Secondary Holes - Second Zone Grouting (6-20 feet) Plate B5 Foundation Treatment, Tertiary and Quaternary Holes - Single Zone Grouting (0-20 feet) Plate B6 Log of Borings, Borings P-15 and P-19 Plate B7 U a P-37 and P-77 Plate B8 u S-21 and S-44 Plate B9 S-75 and S-83 Plate BE0 Log of Borings, Borings Q-1 and Q-2 Plate Bll S , , " Q-3 and Q-4 2B-i

FERMI 2 UFSAR

  • U U Plate B12 U Q-5 and Q-6 U

Plate B13

  • U Q-.7 and Q-8 2B-ii

FERMI 2 UFSAR REPORT ROCK FOUNDATION TREATMENT RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL COMPLEX FERMI II NUCLEAR POWER PLANT FOR THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANY INTRODUCTION This report describes the rock foundation treatment program for the Residual Heat Removal Complex at the Fermi II Nuclear Power Plant located near Monroe, Michigan. The primary purpose of the rock foundation treatment program was to explore for solution cavities or features and if found grout them in order to minimize the potential for ground motion amplification in the event of an earthquake. The foundation treatment consisted of two separate operations: rock surface preparation and clean-up (Part A) and rock grouting (Part B). Detailed descriptions of both operations are presented herein.*

  • Note: all references listed separately at end of report.

2B-1

FERMI 2 UFSAR PART A FOUNDATION ROCK SURFACE PREPARATION AND CLEAN-UP 2B-2

FERMI 2 UFSAR Foundation Rock Surface Preparation and Clean-up General Upon the completion of the RER complex excavation and prior to the placement of a concrete leveling mat for the grout-ing program, preparation and clean-up of the foundation rock sur-face was performed as recommended (Reference 1). All loose debris, loosely-chinked rock fragments, mud films and most clay was removed by high pressure jetting and by mechanical and hand equipment. The supervision and inspection of this program was carried out by Dames & Moore between February 19, 1974 and April 1, 1974. Scope The scope of our services during this phase of the foundation rock treatment was as follows: 1 - To supervise and inspect the clean-up of the foundation rock surface prior to placement of the concrete leveling mat; 2 - To prepare a geologic map of the rock surface features; 3 - To assist the AEC representative during his inspection of a cleaned portion of the founda-tion rock surface; 4 - To work closely on a daily basis with personnel of Ralph M. Parsons Company, the general contractor in order to coordinate the clean-up and leveling mat placement and to report progress to repre-sentatives of the Detroit Edison Company. 2B-3

FERMI 2 UFSAR General Surface Geology Lithology - The foundation rock surface consists of light brownish-gray, very fine-grained dolomite, a few areas of which are roughly textured and covered by black, paper-thin shale. Much of the foundation rock surface is irregular, generally containing 2- to 4-foot diameter and 1/2- to 1- foot high mounds of medium to thin-bedded dolomite. These mounds or dome-like features are characterized by: (1) a wavy onionskin structure; (2) healed, massive brecciation due to primary sedi-mentary processes; and (3) vugs which vary from 1 inch to 1 foot in maximum dimension and contain celestite crystals. The northwest corner of the foundation is an exception to the general rock surface because there, the rock is evenly bedded and contains no mounds of brecciated dolomite. The mounds are of sedimentary origin and were probably formed by the accumulation of layers of algae and lime mud in the original environment of deposition. In several places along the rock walls of the foundation, vertical zones of massive sedi-mentary breccia occur which are several feet wide and taper to a flattened top at bedding planes. These flattened tops are the result of truncation by primary erosional processes. One of these zones near column line intersection AS is flanked and overlain by unbrecciated, layered, dolomite dipping downward from both sides. Below the brecciated zone the general dip of the strata appears to be uninterrupted, thus indicating a non-tectonic origin. The zone is well-cemented and exhibits no more fracturing than is 2B-4

FERMI 2 UFSAR evident throughout other parts of the excavation. Because of the similarity of the mounds observed both on the foundation floor and on the walls they are considered the same type of feature and sedimentary in origin. Gray clay seams ranging from 1/8 inch to 2 inches in thickness fill some joints and some bedding plane fractures. This clay appears to be of the same physical character as that of the overlying glacial till. The fillings, therefore, are probably derived from the till. Areas of sedimentary breccia and clay fillings are shown on Plate Al, and detailed descriptions of the subsurface dolomite to a depth of 20 feet below the excavation surface are given on Plates B6 through B13. Structure - Bedding plane attitudes vary from point to point in the foundation and in general seem to reflect the pre-sence of the above mentioned breccia mounds. Despite local varia-tions there is an apparent structural dip of a few degrees in a northerly direction. This compares favorably with the regional dip of a few degrees northwest towards the center of the Michigan Basin. Fractures - The majority of the fractures in the founda-tion rock are tight, although some are filled with soft gray clay as described above. No displacements, tectonic breccias, or slickensided surfaces, other than slickensides associated with stylolites, were noted. Most of the fractures are naturally occurring joints and can be grouped into three aprpproximately orthogonal sets. The dominant or major joint set trends from N21 0 -38°W and dips from 2B-5

FERMI 2 UFSAR 60o08-0 to the southwest. Generally these joints vary in length from 5 to 30 feet but some are as much as 65 feet long. Spacing between joints is from 2 to 10 feet. A bend of approximately 150 to the west of the major joint set occurs along a southwest-northeast zone from column line intersection A7 to the area of intersection Ell. Since (1) many joints of the major set are continuous across this zone; and (2) no displacements or slickensides were noted along joints either parallel or transverse to the bend, therefore the bend only reflects a local variation in the orientation of the major joint set. A minor set of joints trends from N54 0 -72 0E and dips from 300-600 to the northwest. Generally, these joints vary in length from 2 to 10 feet but some are as much as 30 feet long. Spacing between these joints is from 1 to 5 feet. In general, joints of the minor set are more irregular than those of the major set and certain ones terminate against major joints. Bedding plane joints, which undulate but are essentially horizontal, are spaced from 6 inches to 2 feet apart. As seen in the rock walls of the sides of the foundation and in the sumps, these joints are generally tight but occassionally exhibit some minor openings which are often clay-filled as described above. Also present are numerous relatively short, irregular fractures. Many of these, especially those radiating from the diamond-cored shot holes, can be attributed to the blasting pro-gram. 2B-6

FERMI 2 UFSAR Procedures A recommended procedure for rock surface preparation is described in Reference 1. Following the initial program of blasting and mucking for the RER Complex excavation, the rock surface was cleared of clay, rock fragments, and loosely-chinked rock by rubber-tired backhoes. At this point a veneer of gravel-to cobble-sized rock and clay remained. A high-pressure water hose, attached to a

  • backhoe and moved laterally was then used for washing. This was subsequently followed by picks, shovels, brooms, hand-held water hoses and air-jet equipment for dental cleaning. Later, a three-man team working with a high-pressure water hose having a flat-tened nozzle was found to be very effective for the total removal of remaining surface debris. A ten-foot diameter area of thinly layered dolomite in the northwest section of the foundation was found to have open bedding plane fractures. A backhoe-mounted pneumatic hammer and picks were used to remove this section of rock which extended to a depth of 6 inches.

Following completion of the cleaning operation in a given area the rock surface was inspected and all features mapped. All open or closed fractures, joints, clay seams, and other structures or rock types were noted. These mapped features are shown on Plate Al, Foundation Rock Surface Features. The foundation rock walls were inspected but not mapped. Photographs of the walls were taken instead by the Detroit Edison Company, and these are available for examination. 2B-7

FERMI 2 UFSAR Conclusions Based on our technical supervision and inspection of the rock surface preparation and clean-up, it is our opinion that the work has been carried out in accordance with project plans and specifications. During an AEC inspection of a cleaned portion of the excavation, it was determined that the clean-up had been done satisfactorily and that no detrimental structural features existed on the foundation surface. The surface was also free of any loose rock, mud films or clay which might prevent an effective bond with the concrete leveling mat, which was subsequently placed over the rock surface. 2B-8

FERMI 2 UFSAR PART B FOUNDATION ROCK GROUTING 2B-9

FERMI 2 UFSAR Foundation Rock Grouting General Specifications and criteria for the foundation grouting program were prepared by Sargent & Lundy Engineers for the Resid-ual Beat Removal Complex (Reference 3). Any modifications to the grouting procedure were effected by the Detroit Edison Company after consultation with representatives of Sargent and Lundy. Data on water pressure tests, drilling, grout takes, sand-cement-water ratios and grout pressures were recorded on a daily basis by the Lee Turzillo Contracting Company and regularly distributed to representatives of the Ralph M. Parson Company. The complete grouting program was observed by Dames & Moore between March 20, 1974, and May 1, 1974. Where pertinent, recommendations on the program were made by Dames & Moore to representatives of The Detroit Edison Company. Purpose The primary purpose of the rock foundation grouting program was to minimize the potential for ground motion amplifi-cation in the event of an earthquake through consolidation by grouting of any solution features in the foundation. Scope The scope of our services during this phase of the rock foundation treatment was as follows: 1 - To supervise the location and logging of eight exploratory test holes which were core drilled 2B-10

FERMI 2 UFSAR prior to grouting operations; 2 - To observe the water pressure testing of the eight preliminary test holes; 3 - To observe grouting operations performed by the Lee Turzillo Contracting Company which included drilling, washing and grouting primary, secondary, tertiary and quaternary sets of holes; 4 - To supervise the location and logging of eight exploratory test holes which were core drilled following the grouting operations; 5 - To observe water pressure testing and grouting of the eight final test holes; 6 - To discuss on a daily basis progress of the foundation treatment program with representa-tives of the Ralph M. Parsons Company and The Detroit Edison Company. Procedures In order to evaluate conditions which might be encount-ered during the grouting operations, eight exploratory holes were core drilled, logged and water pressure tested prior to the commencement of grouting. The pressure testing was performed by setting an air inflatable packer 5 feet from the bottom of a hole, pressure testing that interval, and then moving the packer up the hole 5 feet at a time. The test intervals, therefore, 2B-11

FERMI 2 UFSAR ranged from 5 feet to 20 feet for the four tests in each explor-atory hole. This method was the standard procedure used for all pressure testing in the exploratory holes although the original specifications called for the testing of discrete 5-foot intervals. When more than 80 percent of the grouting program had been I completed, eight additional exploratory core holes were begun in order to compare final rock conditions with conditions before grouting. These final eight test holes were logged and pressure tested in the manner of the preliminary holes and the last of these holes were drilled following the end of the grouting opera-tions. Flow rates from the water pressure tests performed on the 16 exploratory holes are presented in Table B2. The positions of all the exploratory holes are shown on Plates B1 through B5. The sequence of grouting operations consisted of drill-ing, washing and grouting each grout hole. The elevation of the bases of the grout holes was selected (Reference 3) for the RHR Complex at 530 feet. A concrete leveling mat or slab at elevation 550 feet was placed over the excavated, cleaned rock surface. The leveling mat varied in thickness from approximately 6 inches to 2 feet due to the irregularity of the excavated rock surface. Grouting of primary and secondary holes was performed in two zones, hereafter referred to as first and second zones, extending to depths of 6 and 20 feet, respectively. Tertiary holes as well as the few quarternary holes were grouted in single stages to eleva-tions 530 feet and 540 feet respectively. Primary holes were spaced 30 feet on centers and final closure was achieved by 2B-12

FERMI 2 UFSAR subsequently grouting necessary intermediate holes (secondary, tertiary, and some quarternary holes). The locations of all holes are presented in Plates B-1 through B-5, Foundation Treatment. The volume of grout injected into each hole during each sequence of grouting is shown on those plates. The grout takes shown on plates B-1 and B-2 would only be for primary holes, the grout takes shown on plates B-3 and B-4 would only show those for secondary holes and plate B-5 only shows grout takes correspond-ing to tertiary and quarternary holes. A detailed description of the grouting procedure is presented below. Prior to grouting, 2 1/2 foot long, 4-inch diameter casings were drilled and cemented into the concrete leveling mat and rock to a depth of 2 feet leaving approximately 6 inches of stick-up. This step tended to reduce surface leakage around the pipes during subsequent grouting. Primary grout holes of the first zone were drilled on approximately 30-foot centers, 6 feet into concrete and rock, to elevation 544. Crawler mounted per-cussion drills were used to drill the 3-inch diameter grout holes. All holes were washed thoroughly with air and water prior to grouting. Grouting of each hole in the first zone (Plate B3) was done as a single stage with a 1.6:1 water/cement plus fly ash ratio under pressure from 5 to 12 psi. A few primary holes were grouted with a water/cement plus fly ash ratio of 1.2:1. In areas of high take, grout frequently flowed from the nearby holes, in which case the initial hole was temporarily sealed and the flowing holes injected to refusal. 2B-13

FERMI 2 UFSAR Second zone grouting (Plate B2) was begun by extending the primary holes to a depth of 20 feet to elevation 530 feet. All holes were grouted to their full depth as a single stage with the mechanical packer set at the top of the hole and pressure held between 20 and 50 psi. A mix of 2:1 water/cement plus fly ash was generally used, although in the north and south sump areas the ratio was thickened to 1.2:1 or 1:1 water/cement plus fly ash. Each secondary hole was located at the geometric center of four primary holes. Grouting of the secondary holes in the first zone (Plate B3) was done in the same manner as were the primary holes. Initially the mix was 3:1 water/cement plus fly ash, but when holes began taking grout the ratio was thickened to 1.8:1 and in a few cases to 1.2:1. Grouting of the second zone (Plate B4) was continued by extending the first zone secondary holes to a depth of 20 feet to elevation 530 feet. Grout mixes for the second zone, secondary holes were 1.2:1 water/cement plus fly ash, except in one case when a 1:1 ration was used. Tertiary grout holes are at the center of the 15-foot square formed by two primary and two. secbndary holes. These holes were drilled 20 feet deep to an elevation of 530 feet and grouted as a single zone (Plate B5) rather than using the two-zone pro-cedure as was done with the primary and secondary holes. The reason for this was the general very low take in grouting the second zone - secondary holes. A ratio of 1.2:1 water/cement plus fly ash was generally used. In the only area where grout takes were significant, five quarternary holes, each located in the center of the diamond formed by a primary, secondary, and two 2B-14

FERMI 2 UFSAR tertiary holes, were drilled and grouted to a depth of 10 feet. A 20-foot deep core hole completed this quarternary array and was grouted at the same time. All grout holes were grouted to refusal. In holes in which grout interconnections occurred, packers were set and maintained until back pressure reduced to zero. Some grout leaks occurred in the north and south sumps, especially during the first zone primary grouting, and where significant these were dry packed by hand with cement. Subsequent first zone grouting indicated these areas were sealed. As noted above in grouting the first and second zones, injection gage pressures ranged from 5 to 12 psi and from 20 to 50 psi, respectively. These pressures were changes made to the original specifications and were felt necessary by the contractor in order to properly move the grout and to counter any artesian pressures, which were indicated in-some cases by slight water flows from a number of the open holes. The ground water surface in the general area of the plant is approximately 575 feet and is, therefore, 25 feet above the RER foundation rock surface or 45 feet above the bases of the grout holes. Local artesian condi-tions may have existed despite the dewatering program. In a few instances pressure build-ups may have been indicated by water flows from previously grouted holes. These holes were each re-grouted. To determine if heaving of the concrete leveling mat was occurring due to grout being forced between the concrete leveling mat and the rock, elevations on the concrete surface were checked by transit from time to time. No changes in elevations 2B-15

FERMI 2 UFSAR were observed. It was also noted in all eight final core-drilled exploratory holes that the concrete mat was tightly-bonded to the rock surface. Table Bl summarizes the volume of grout injected into the foundation for the RHR Complex. There is a general decrease in unit take, both from first to second zone grouting and from primary to secondary to tertiary holes within these zones. The unit take of the secondary holes in the first zone is 94 percent of the take of the primary holes in that zone, and by comparison the secondary holes of the second zone showed a unit take which was 18 percent of that of the primary holes in that zone. The unit take and the tertiary holes is consistent with a decrease in grout take and seems to confirm the single zone grouting which was used at this point. Visual inspection of the leveling mat following comple-tion of the grouting program confirmed that virtually all water flow had been eliminated, including all artesian flow from each of three preliminary borings which predated the RHR excavation in the vicinity of holes S43, P6, and P48. Conclusions Exploration drilling both prior to and after grouting along with careful observation of the drilling of the grout holes and amount of grout take prove there are no continuous open solution features in the foundation of the RHR Complex. 2B-16

FERMI 2 UFSAR

References:

(1) Dames & Moore letter, "Recommended Procedure for Foundation Pre-paration, Residual Beat Removel (RER) Complex, Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant - Unit 2", dated February 1i, 1974. (2) Dames & Moore "Report, Results of Rock Foundation Treatment, Fermi II Nuclear Power Plant, for The Detroit Edison Company", dated January 12, 1971. (3) Sargent & Lundy "Specification 3071-135, Pressure Rock Grouting for Residual Beat Removal Complex, Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant - Unit 2, The Detroit Edison Company", dated September 21, 1973. 2B-17

FERMI 2 UFSAR Table El

SUMMARY

OF GROUTING Unit Take (Total Holes-Volume Cubic Feet Holes Number Holes  % Holes of Grout of Grout Drilled of Holes With Take With Take (cubic ft) per ft. of hole) First Zone Grouting (Holes drilled 6 feet deep to elevation 544 feet) Primary 78* 40 51% 707.4 1.51 Secondary 78* 45 58% 663.2 1.42 Second Zone Groutins (Holes drilled 20 feet deep to elevation 530 feet

                        -  except for north and south sumps)

Primary 90 58 64% 636.7 .51 Secondary 90. 22 24% 115.8 .09 Single Zone Grouting (Holes drilled 20 feet deep to elevation 530 feet) Tertiary 171 29 17% 189.3 .06 (Holes drilled 10 feet deep to elevation 540 feet

                        - except for Ql--20 feet deep)

Quaternary 6 4 67% 29.3 .49 Exploratory Test Holes (Holes drilled2 feetdeep to elevation 530 feet) Pre-grouting 8 7 88% 93.4 .58 Post-grouting 8 7 88% 42.7 .27

  • Does not include area of sumps.

2B-18

FERMI 2 UFSAR TABLE B2 WATER PRESSURE TESTING (Flow Rates in Gallons/Minute) Intervals Tested (Elevations in Feet) Test Hole (1) (2) (3) (4) Number 530-535 530-540 530-545 530-550 Pre-Grouting Exploratory Holes S44 .02 .41 .90 1.30 3 S21 .09 .92 .79 1.94 P15 .02 .17 .54 1.97 S75 .03 .00 1.22* 1.78* P19 .00 .04 .22 .23 P37 .02 .08 1.01 2.08 3 S83 .22 .22 .62 .90 9 P77 .00 .03 .69 1.54 2 Post-Grouting Exploratory Holes Q1 .00 .05 1.00** .10 02 .70-* Q3 .10 .70 .50 .10 Q4 .20 .70 .70 .00 5 Q5 .00 .40 .60 .00 4 Q6 .00 .00 .00 Q7 .00 .81 .01 .78 Q8 .00 1.36 .83 .24 Note:

1. Each interval tested at constant pressure of 10 psi for 10 minutes unless otherwise noted by asterisk for a different pressure

.or number in upper right hand corner of block for different time.

2. See Plates B1 - B5 for hole locations.
  • 5 psi
**    0 psi 2B-19

4s 14-F 10 0 10 20 SCALE IN FEET FOUNDATION ROCK SURFACE FEATURES RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL COMPLEX PLATE A-1

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 /0 II /2 /3 A- V P1 A3I I 162 V 2 A,

  • P3 A33 V.

P4 A' 34 of2 P3 AID* A, 'oV 33 74 3 P7 A= 57 P2

                                                                                                                                                                                          *ND.        A.

3

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  *o', A P.          34
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    *'    P15        31 "A

TI T2 T3 T4 T5 0 T 7 T 3 0 88 T3 710 11 312 T13 714 T15 2 74 6 7 T1 .2 T1u "19 0 0 0 0 &0 Di 820 13Ur8 31 a ir Pi2 1 0 Pq1 814 PJ4 31 5 ik 31 piT Sf9 pl. s3. P g P220 U 20 .a20.-1 no T 22 2T3 T24 T25 T26 T7 T27 Ta2 2 TO 732 733 T34 T55 76 'i 24.7 20.5 776 0& 0 0 5 0 0 8- 247 P21 A 521 io p22 A 322 723 A 523 P24

                                                                                      . 4 Aoe 3S24 4       p25    3     25 A2 P27 A

527 P26 A $2. p AL 52 3 O3 AL 165 T3 T70 T41 247 T02 T43 0 T44 T45 46 T47 a 749 O T50 TI 2+6 111 I'll T.4 T73 3B 0 340 TO7 0 26 330 A 0 A 20 8 0 ON 5 04 0A 133 534 s p 34 P3 sP6 P 07 36 P33 S39 340 no C- m

  • mD E) m 0 0 0 mm 0 m m
                                                                                                                                                                                          ""a 5

Po 0 .C 69 4 .6 TO 8T.2 . 0T T. 7Q. TT65 0 4 412 67 2 T68 0 T 247 T60

  • A
  • Ao 6* 700 "-- A AI" A
                                                                                                                                                                             .              .         A..         0.          A
  • P S41 P 0 30 ,o 7 .4"50 4 1 " .43 .l 326 . 347,7 me 34. p49 343 Pao T77 70 773 mo T60 ogo .D PLANTN0970 D- 83 T42 "I o 743 33 8.
               *3 2

A 1 332 A S510 053

                                                                 'o0i P33          I33.ps
                                                                                                                 .tA                                          A
                                                                                                                                                              $7 4o P57          336                     33 834         P36         360        PRO Ef-A          0                    0 m             A
  • 247 0 m.6 0 a A m P3 384 a 363 p9 6 6 . P6. 4 F- O T3 TI9 7240 73, 742 7 43 7 7 7146 7147 10 Ti4 l 3110 l

T46 T13 1 `011 U 7

                                                                                                                                 *4        f        0                        16                                         76 T,576T3 a           A_              p   70            -s    12     -       A        10        T142         T143   82    T44   A     6 T46.276*      763   A      7.16
  • A3 741 7170 710 71 Tl 6- G I 2 3. 4 5 6 7 8 9 /0 II /2, 13 0 10 20 30 40 50 FEET EXPLANATION
  • IMARy GROUT HOLES 8.2 PRE-GROUTING EXPLORATORYHOLES (SYMBOLS
  • GROUT VOLUME IN CUBIC FEET-MIX WITH 1:1 (CEMENT:FLY ASH) AND 1.6:1 (WATER: CORRESPOND TO EITHER A PRIMARY OR A SECONDARYGROUT HOLES CEMENT PLUS FLY ASH)

SECONDARYGROUT HOLE POSITION)

  • TERTIARY GROUT HOLES - MIX WITH 101 (CEMENT:FLY ASH) AND POST-GROUTING EXPLORATORYHOLES 1.2:1 (WATER:CEMENT PLUS FLY ASH)

QUATERNARYGROUTHOLES NO GROUT TAKEN BY ROCK -- A-. A BUILDING COLUMN LINES [- APPROXIMATE BUILDING AND EXCAVATION I NES RUIIDING CENTER LINE PRIMARY HOLES -

REFERENCE:

MODIFIED FROM LEE TURZILLO CONTRACTING CO. FIRST ZONE GROUTING (0-6 FEET) DRAWING NUMBER 2410-1 FEBRUARY 19, 1974 PLATE B-I

         /              2                 3                 4             5                          6                             7                        8                            9           /0                   /1                /2           /3 A.

S I P2 S2 13 53 94 34 95 36s 5 P7 Pe 9 2d PIO s m 0 0 m m 0 5 0 0 0 0 m m 0 0 0 0 TI 0 T2 T3 3.9 T O 3T 3.9 TO T7 11.7 TB A TO 0 TI # Tit 0"A T12 713 8IIES'3 T 14 TI5 A TI. TI? 3 3 Ti A0 T1 . l A0 0 A 5 31I1SIT 913A I PIT at@ 91$ 61. 2 700 T21 322 323 024 T25 T2O 123 32$ T29 T30 TI331 332 T33 7`34 T35 736 Ti33 Af

                  -0                                     7.8
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              -8 8-                                                                                 194                        9                          9                    39                        323.3 Pl          S10          P22          322          P23           S23          P24         324     0     p25         323           p26      326            p27          S27         P2.         $26              p23         S29        0o m0.203                          A m                      A                        0A                          A                           A      DO T13           340 14            1         T-4          T43           T44          T453         T346         T4    &      T40        T4.9       330                           52 39                     0             T        1 0                 T53  339
                                                                                                                                                                                                        .                          13197155   4T    TO5 15 331         P3, A9     .

0 O031ie P32 A 0 P33 AL S34 p Sea ASIAI P3 I S. 9P37 338 4Pa S33 540 P40 C 335 754 n60 61. 041 T52 026 763 304 TO3 TOG T67 TGS Too 730 331 332 773 714 775 T16

      &99                      &9&9                                                  0                                                                         3A                                                                              0 AI           0            A 342 S             P
  • A54 M A 1. 0. Al me ss 94$

N~2 55 E eme p - p41 41 p4 " I , "

        --          -       *- --                                    .       . *--.. .          .       *    -. -. ---          .       .          ..           . .          . .         . .         .       .        . .          . ..-.          *-    ..-                   I,,

T7 *33 TTO T7 3.5. e 1 .,OB 8 11.6 TM3.9 OTO36 1 69 3.9 TO T1&9T9

                                                                                                                                                                                                      .            2              3O L9                      0MT9 A51 F51 A5 P52 253     95POO 5*4         '?

433 A 33 AA A Sal P97 A P58

                                                                                                                                                                                                                     *A S5 p         ,A 0
17. 5 TO?

7 7 0 T41 35 it 7100 0I 7o023 7IZ 103 31 T04 3I0 53 T.06 7103 3 109 3IS 109 710 3111 Til 4 7 112 TM7.13 3r14 i 0 '?0 233 310 A 3 AS2 0 416 P 5l P62 542

  • A F Sel A I A
  • Pro 3116 go = T1 0 ill 1 T715 0 T720 T321 15.5 T712 .135 T124 T125 0 T126 T127 3. T0 73
                                                                                                                                                                                                `269    3.3   T130         T13. 69.9    T312        T133, &5 A7          Sy                        P7            Ao                        Ao p~                                               .,0    M4              Af*~                      A            R.             A            Ft          A .F1 F-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            'F 03i7               T     0    TIM          117    gO    Till          T3       9   T740          141         34 TI.2         T143 1164  T144        "45      0   T346           T147  o    T14             3 T3149go     T7S          T7151 0     T713 pSl                      4?           1U            0 o

Po A *04 1l A S0 i At Ae

  • A A Sa 0 A 0 A. .o A 9

m0 0g 352 ao 35 545 6 556a Pl ms 50 Psa 655OT TIM T1505 T154 T.53 I T159 700 1527.5 36 T,6 TI T4 TIT Til 6G 7I

                       /                 34                              5                          Ii                                                                                   -9          /0                                      2 1I           13 0        10      20       30     40     50   FEET EXPLANATION PRIMARY GROUT HOLES                                                              GROUT VOLUME IN CUBIC FEET-MIX WITH                                                   PRE-GROUTING EXPLORATORY HOLES (SYMDOLS 1.5:1 (CEMENT:FLY ASH) AND 201 (WATER:                                                CORRESPONDTO EITHER A PRIMARY OR SECONDARYGROUT HOLE POSITION).

A SECONDARYGROUT HOLES CEMENT PLUS FLY ASH) TERTIARY GROUT HOLES RX WITH I:1 (CEMENT:FLY ASH) AND MI

  • POST-GROUTING EXPLORATORYHOLES T1.2A1 (WATERCEMENT PLUS FLY ASH)
  • OUATERNARYGROUT HOLES 6 539 ,2
  • MIX WITH 1:1 (CEMENT:FLY ASH) AND A] BUILDING COLUMN LINES
1 (NATER:CEMET 'LUS FLY ASH)

[ - APPROXIMATE BUILDING PRIMARY HOLES - NO GROUT TAKEN BY ROCK ANO EXCAVATION 6lINES SECOND ZONE GROUTING (6-20 FEET)

REFERENCE:

MODIFIED FROM LEE TU.RZILLO CONTRACTING CO. RUIIDING CENTER LINE DRAWING NUMBER 2410-1 FEBRUARY 19, 1974 PLATE B-2

       /           2                    3                   4            5                              6                              7                                8                               9             /0                   /                   4/2            /3
    *44          AAN44                                      2   T         A                        A.                                                      AP              0              A k         0                      o, 1                        P2           32             P3           P              4            S4             P                         I   0           3              PT              IT           Pe
  • O P. SO P10 S44 A

ml * .

                   *414 4141
                           '1 Ai    'O IS     *P5 1 5     T T      A 77      100*1420TT B

TO 4 AS 29 6 TT

                                                                                             '      *I     TO OR 3         A TO 1

19 2 Al TIO* l TiI 11 0 *4 TIO rIil TO T4 A 31 Tm 1 15 T51 * -Tj O 21 _&7 5?SAit T* .7 TTi *T 2, ' 1

  • A 3444 2 T 1 T A m Eo** 000 A i4Ai
                                                                                                                                               #                           I                                0                    0                   pTo            323 P6           S=7                           P       S       lPO       20s$e     4.O                  Ap S             P0 H.          pl of1 s1                                           23        s*              Z             24Pi TO       P2 si
                                                                                                                              'I 2

X6 7204 2 TO2 T24 T5 30 0T TO T no no 0 TOO T33 3 TOO 6TO 5*.

  • 1. *0 *1o 0 . 8 A ~0 x*0 w It1 0 T7O a T4 3 TOO TO5 IO TO TO ' TO TO T 32 TTO O T4 TO34. T4S T TOO 9t TO3A C.

D k ft M ft a)

  • A 0 a
  • AI

_c T 08029 T51 TO0 144 It , 31.7 474 83 I 1 0.8IO Oi T2 0 44._ 20 10

                                                                                                                                                  *o        04       30    P40                                                                     3.04 3

P44 1 P44 203 1!o P4P3 Py *1 A *234 T530 15T

                     -ITT. -Z330n
                   *A*~o.         -l* - ---             -H--*-                     -        -* --           1.-       -        --          ---- P*-         34 5ýG      2     -- -I9 P7               47 U  T9-Ime o -I.-       34       T92#0P9
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   !m       It       49  -*Ti1tP500 T-   * -3                      I 0,J 333                                     TOOyF             ,0                                                  F        3             EM                                                         M                                          M 33                        aT                                              00O 0                             40                             8.3    T7                o                         TO                                                      To4*0                    -D A

00453

            '10               A            S              Ae    0311 6

III 533 AH4 335j A A PH 03 POT 4 0 A 388 PH0 A SI9

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    *A P09 A

00 3 TOO TO7 TOO TOO T400 TOI T0 36 T13 TI04, 6 05 TIO240144 TIOT TIO% 4 T109 I0 3110 TIll TOO2 T13 7214 E 64.po00 P P0330A

  • A
  • PNO 1 A 362 30l nI e A 96-9 P0T A

03I p P a 40 9N 3S X W-- P9 030

                                               ....Ti
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   -E T1      T     ino          3113           T1O          TII         T,20            O1l T0             IN     7,     T1O3          l              Til           T320;         3420            TO       0      02           TI"w         Till           T.2           TI1
   $7           9l            A             1                         f
                                                                      '73          A       No s~sA                               pr                        ftP            A7              *3A                           plB A                      AP                            p?,**
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    .F F-T.4     0    1I.           Till   0       T4ll P83 T31    5B
                                                                         . Tll
                                                                                    .4 40 *0 A

A20 405 041 T142 00 313 T

                                                                                                                                                          *o T,4-          T.Sq TOA    0 0     T147 -       740         4 I
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      *TO.T P    TI TIS$0g 6-                                   T355           TSO          TL5                        ITl                                       3402            2460         T104           T1ie            TIS                          T4                           I Ti9
      /            2                   3                    4          5                               6                              fr                               8                               9              /0                  II                  /2             /3 0        10       20        30        40       50    FEET EXPLANATION 72                                                                                                      PRE-GROUTING EXPLORATORYHOLES (SYMBOLS
  • PRIMARY GROUT HOLES A GROUT VOLUME IN CUBIC FEET-MIX WITH CORRESPOND TO EITHER A PRIMARY OR 2:1 (CEMENTtFLY ASH) AND 301 (WATER, SECONOARY GROUT HOLE POSITION)

A SECONDARYGR0UT HOLES CEMENT PLUS FLY ASH) 47.2 POST-GROUTINGEXPLORATORY HOLES

  • TERTIARY GROUT HOLES A MIX WITH 1.,:1 (CEMENTiLY ASH) AND 1.I (WATEI:CEHENT PLUS ELY ASH)

Q QUATERNARY(P41JT H11 ES 2 A IX WITH 1.1 (CEHENT:ELY ASH) AND A] BUILDING COLUHN LINES 0A 1.2:1 (WATER:CEHENT PLUS FLY ASH) H -- APPROXIMATE BNUIIING A NO GROUT TOKEN NY NOCK 0N.4EXCAVATION IINES SECONDARY HOLES -

                                                                                                                                                                                . .            BUI1DINU CENTER LINE FIRST ZONE GROUTING (0-6 FEET)

REFERENCE:

MODIFIED FROM LEE TURZILLO CONTRACTING CO. DRAWING NUMBER 2410-1 FEBRUARY 19, 1974 PLATE B-3

       /           2                 3                4           5                            6                          7                         8                           9           /0                II               /2            /3 PI
  • SA P2 A
                                         $24 A
  • A 5314 0S PS AJ 55 P Ao 56 0

o AD A" 6 SI Aoo 5ItP S.0 p S A .A 10* 0* m05o *. 0 o l * -m 0* m a 1367 .3 72, ~ 72 0 T3 T4 4 76 T25 nT 5 T27 0 TS T0 TI . 7312 TES 2 1 T530 71 T0~ q 71$ t09 A A~ 0 A 0 A AL A A

  • A A A $2 A
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  -B 8

70 $2 M0 G4 135  !~m P26 0 m 1 SI,

                                                                                                                                                          !0 0    pSs m26            Mm    p25 0            0      s9 7 36        740     6.0741 9Ak 9              742    0    745 0

744 0 A@ T45 745 A S,9 T47 T48 A 0 T46

                                                                                                                                         *tA 750    0  T51          752 A

0 T53 T5 A 2,0 T55

  • Too
  • 7TO 23ý4 5~ S I535a 36 P 533 3 40
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  $IS8        P4 A
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  -C 3,.

C

                                                                                                                                                                                                                 " "T 756         75 T            760          75To 061    T42         608         764          765 TO           T66        757To      766          76         TO0 77           T71          T2          T3             T4          l          1?

3313, A8 SP 4 01 0 0 It740 77 07 77 8 l4 P27 527S~l P2 6 329 P25?525

  • P1 a, P42 542 P4 S4 Q1 $4 a4 N? P0 548 345"p P50 sa P I,T OR D 3.5 T7 o 81 T2 0T4 763 76? 0 l O 0 767 766 76 76 T.0 754 762 0 6 75lT4 7T55
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  -D A

5,5 PS 50 0 A P52 AG 853 053 P5* 5 4$ S6 A*4A A 0 po, 5 50 4p

                                                                                                                                                                     ,          ,                        5...

0, 75 766 7100 7 7102 0 710$ T104 0 710$ 7106 0 7107 7106 0 7106 710 42 Till 7112 0 M3 T114 4A P SI 5 6 562 3

  • A A I p A 0 A A
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  -E 34         ,                      $64                       565         M me   s    3        6                7     ....                           t5           566          P7O         57 A                      75 A0    717 776 9      716 A      715       77    0 A012
                                                                                                             -f 0I 0 715 ptA~   76     0  72           7      06 A             q  71 A3 .72   T131      7162 MA            5 ,3.

F -F T3 5 1~.11 0 T I. 7106 Tl 7Tr 140 714 7A 142 7143 T144 0 3T45 7T66 7147 7146 0 7145 715$ 715 71 T52 0 Psi $1 po 10 562 A 2A0 P.3 M4 564 P 55 A pee Ait. set *5 0 TIM 715$ 716 7A0 7156 7160 IF., 712 76'14 76 166 715 7IN6S 7166 M73 TI717 6 T157

      /            2                 3                4         5                            6                                                                                  9            /0               II              /2             /3 0     I  I0     20      30 EMELI 40 I

50 FEET EXPLANATION

  • 7RIAR0 GROUT HOLES A GROUT VOLUMEIN CUBIC FEET-MIX WITH PRE-GROUT ING PCORRESPON T EXPLORATORY HOLES OR EITHER A PRIMARY (SYMBOLS 1:1 (CEMENTFLY ASH) AND 1.2:1 (WATER:

A SECONDARYGROUT HOLES ASH) SECONDARYGROUT HOLE POSITION)

                                                                               '.s  CEMENT PLUS FLY
  • TERTIARY GROUT HOLES A WITH 1:1 (CEMENT:FLY ASH) AND 0IX POST-GROUTING EXPLORATORYHOLES I:1 (WATER:CEMENT PLUS FLY ASH)
 @ SUATERIARY GROUT HOLES A    NO GROUTTAKEN BY ROCK                                         1._     A       BUILDING        COLUMNLINES F -            APPROXIHATE BUILDING 4NO EXCAVATION tI NES
                                                                                                                                                                  - UI-O IN01CENTER LINE                                                              SECONDARY HOLES -

REFERENCE:

MODIFIED FROM LEE TURZILLO CONTRACTING CO. SECOND ZONE GROUTING (6-20 FEET) DRAWING NUMBER 2410-1 FEBRUARY 19, 1974 PLATE B-4

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 /0 II /2 /3 I A 0 A A 0 A IA A A

3. P. 0 so 0 P. 0 $9 0 Pro 0 Sic 0 .' 0 0 *53 0 $ 0 P4 0 65 p I's 0 so 0 P7 0 s5 0
                   ,    010O
  • 0O SO
                                                                             '      0'0O                 0     m'         m1                                                        a4            m         N       4                 E           M          0 A

TI

                        ..D , . TO      T o .              .

00 To T7 o A 1, To 1 TO Il34 0 13 TIO TII TIl A T13 714 A-a Til o D AA D TT

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        *!            T,          T DS TI.

3l5 0 014 0 P14 0 A1 0 0 6i OP 0 o~ 01 o i 010o 0 5 0 0 0 000 0 no To, T2O T23 T24 T25 TU. T. TOO i" TOO no T TOO TO3 1TM TOO T3 T 8- *

  • AAl
  • 9
  • A
  • o0 A S A P20 A sOS P02 A 0

S06 o T o A S7 o P0e o A,. 02. A, 0o09 Po9 0 o 0 4104. 6.90 0 0 324 o0 " 0 0 0 O 024 0 0 TOO 740 T.1 040 T4 044 T40 040 T41? T4O T14 TOO T51 T5O TOO TOO TOO TO6 a TO? A.4 . 0 A. A3g A 0 000 040 S+

  • 69 13.8 1348 13.8 1 0 C,~ C,4 000 tpt30 o o t 0 1, D C m~~ ~ ~ D0( 0 0 TOO 0T0 T00 To. 0"I T62 000 TOO 004 TO4 Too TOO TOO TOO 10 T TI 01 TTO TO4 TOO T""

0 0 6 0 OT p 0 A0 c,~~S A A 0 I,

           -                     -                                                                             *_1                                -M-            -M-            -*       -              -M-           -0            -U     - -M            -M--

T01 TOO 115 TOO a00 ( 1 T12 00 TO84 11 T8 T TOO TO O T91 TOO TO T T.OO D P4 0 04 001 P00 ' 03O

                                          ,*     5        O A.       'I      O0S9 A        O      4     0     "     O    '

94004 I ' AA p. S80 04 p49 04 P00 '

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     *0l" 0            0                                0o                            9           0            o                         0           o     "     o6                        0      D,              0    o              0       0 TOO          TOT               T00            009         1100            TIOI          TIOO         T103       T104           T105        TIOO         T1O7             TI08          T109       TrIO       Till          TI12   I    0 li        0 no A               0                   go                                   Al            A 34           "          A6            S           A6 040      06   9 O         0            30   o                 06            0s                 O PR  3 5A Pill        00 P5
                  -5, o,.217        o     3000
                                                    ,     0
                                                               $5 po 5,* $5 000       C1              0   4 0A355 0           00 5-o o

Pla 000 P8 o5"ee T110 TOO0 TIT TIMt T119 000 T101 0 TI TIZO Ti00 T1ZO 0107 TOO 7109 T100 T101 T021 0113 A A A P P is F-0 35l 0 .2 3.5 0l1 0 365 335 1 30 0 6.9 0 C 0134 0130 T.- T-0 Ts. 0100 0140 01ll T140 T143 0144 040 0144 0 T1140 T149 T150 6101 010s 0 Psil 0001 A o0 y 3.50002 A

                                                         &5    P03     0 0

0I 0 0 A 0 o 0 l 0 .. C r 0 010~00 AI

                                                                                                                                                                                           ..       o   p. o   A8 38     0     pg      0 A

39C 0 0I0 000 00 010 1 19 010 00 1 01 10 00 0 TIO 014 In 010 010 TO T Tg TMT5Tes 117T5 q. TG I2 is T6 T6 o , I IO Tes Tr II

               /     2,                      3                   4          5                                6                            7                           8                                 9         /0                         II       /2           13 0      10         20       30     40       50   FEET EXPLANATION 6.9      69     6"9
  • TRIMARY GROUTHOLES on (1)O -- GROU7oVOLUMEIN CUBIC FEET-MIX WITH PRE-GROUTING EXPLORATORYHOLES (SYMBOLS 1:1 ( EMENT:FLY ASH) AND 1.201 (WATER: " CORRESPONDTO EITHER A PRIMARY OR SECONDARYGROUT-HOLE POSITION)

A SECONDARY GROUT HOLES CEMENT PLUS FLY ASH) 0 6.9

  • TERTIARY GROUT HOLES HIX WITH I.5,: (CEMENT:FLY ASH) AND M POST-GROUTING EXPLORATORYHOLES 1.5:1 (WATER:CEMENTPLUS FLY ASH)

(E QUATERNARYGROUTHOLES 0 NO0GROUT TOKEN BY ROCK l A ý BUILDING COLUMNLINES

                                                                                                                                                                               -             APPROXIMATE BUILDING AND EXCAVATION lINES BUI0DIN0 CENTER LINE                                                TERTIARY AND QUATERNARY HOLES -

REFERENCE:

MODIFIED FROM LEE TURZILLO CONTRACTING CO. SINGLE ZONE GROUTING (0-20 FEET) DRAWING NUMBER 2410-1 FEBRUARY 19. 1974 PLATE B-S

a BORING P-15 60 MOl a SURFACE ELEVATION 550.0 00 0 Qi SYMBOLS DESCRIPTIONS 60 II. _-Z-- .1. OcLOMtr9 LIGHYGRAY rOGRAy. FINE-GRAINED FREGuENr GRAY LAMINATrIONS. SOMEMOTTLING.HORIZONTALSHALE PARTINGS4 INCHES TOI FOOT APART OCCASlONALVERTICAL CLOSEDFRACTURES IRREGULAR 70PFRACTURE AT 46 PEET RAN GRADESMOTTLED.FOSSILI FEROUlSWITHPINPOINT POROSITY GRADESWITHPINPOINT TO 314 - INCH VUGS AND S POROSITY

                                                   ..     ".16 - INCHSHALE-LINED)FRACTURE 10           + -                          HORIZONTAL.WAVY. I'S - INCH SHALE PARTINGS
                                                    , TO 6 INCHESAPART PROR 0 TO IO0 FEET 604 TO 70- FRACTUREAT 10.5 FEET 76%                PINPOINT TO 314 - INCH VUGS WITH51 TO 10. POROSIET FROM I0S TO 12.5 FEET 30* FRACTURE 15-I.                                    IRREGULAR 600 FRACTURE VUGGYWITHS, POROSITY FROM ISO TO i6.7FEET SURHORIZONTALFRACTURESAT 160 AND 16 . FEET 979L                    CONGLOMERATICFROM 16E 1TOIRS FEET IRREGULAR 60" FRACTUREAr ISO FEET HAIRLINE 600 FRACTUREAT 19.2 FEET OOLITICCOLOMITE        LIGHTGRAY MEOIUM-GRAINES 20           L-                       RORINGCOMPLETED      AT 20.0 FEET ON 3-20-14
                          -5 P

60 LIZ BORING P-19 II. SURFACE ELEVATION 550.0 SYMBOLS DESCRIPTIONS CONCRETE 5-OOLOMITE LIGHTBROWNISH.GRAYTO GRAYFINE -GRAINED OVMONAtI OARE GRAY LAMINATIONSAND STYLOLITES Z NEAR-VERTICAL. CLOSED FRACTURES 12% 300 FRACTURE GRADESWITHSOMEMOTTLINGTO 100 FEET 116-INCH HORIZONTALSHALE PARTINGS AT 35 FEET FREQUENT460 TO VERTICAL.CLOSED FRACTURESFROM 3.5 TOG0 FEET 10 645 RINPOINTTO 1"4-INCHVOIDSIN FOSSILIFEROUSZONE WITHSo POROSITY FROM8 3 TORT FEET HORIZONTALSHALEPARTING 06% m3 GRADESEOSSILIFEROUS AND VUGOYWITHPINPOINT TO t12-INCH VOIDSWITH5% TO ION POROSITY FREGUENTCLOSED IRREGULAR 0 TO NEAR-VERTICAL 40 FRACTURE WITHWAVYGRAY LAMINATIONS I GRA{DES 15 II16-INCH SHALEPARTING AT 1J 7 FEET 64% 600 TO VERTICAL FRACTURESWITH SOMECRYSTAL FILLINGS FROM I1S TO 200 FEET BORINGCOMPLETEDAT 200 FEET ON 3-.2-70

REFERENCE:

DAMES & MOORE REPORT RESULTS OF ROCK FOUNDATION TREATMENT, RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL COMPLEX, ENRICO FERMI ATOMIC POWER PLANT UNIT 2, JUNE 1974 LOG OF BORINGS PLATE B-6

P a BORING P-37 IA. w I- 33 SURFACE ELEVATION 650.0 0 U 0* ISA DESCRIPTIONS SYMBOLS CONCRETE DOLOMITei LIGHTGRAY ANDEROWNISH-GRAV: PINE-GRAINED. OCCASIONALGRAY LAMINATIONS& SOMESTYLOLITES:TRACE 5 - i 51 OF PINPOINT TO IS-INCH VU3S. HORIZONTAL;SHALE PARTINGS. EVERY 4 INCHES TO I POOr APART PREGUENT. CLOSED FRACTURES.NEAR-VERTICAL GRA1ES WITHSOMEVUIS WITH LESS THANS', POROSITY NEAR-VERTICAL FRACTURE FROM3.6 TO 9R FEET GRADES WITHHORIZONTALTO 450 SHALEPARTINGS EVERY 4 TO 6 INCHESAPART. SOME FRACTURES.AND VUGGY IN PART 10-7311 4311 GRADESWITH IRREGULAR LAMINATIONSAND HAIRLINE FRACTURES 15 VUQGYWITH5% TO 10% POROSITY RIA 4511 BORINGCOMPLETED AT 19.5 FEET ON 3-21-74. 20 LAS IfI BORING P-77 w LIJ

     ,I-Iz a-LuIc                      SURFACE ELIVATIONIN 547.0 SYMBOLS               DESCRIPTIONS 0-        Lu DOLOMITE:LIGHT GRAY: FINE-GRAINED IRREGULAR 30. 60j. AND R0. FRACTURES PINPOINT TO I/S2INCH SLIT-LIKEVOIDS WITH5%

69 63%1 TO 0511POROS*'Y TO 4.5 FEly GRADESWITH DARK-GRAYMOTTLINGAND PINPOINT TO I/H-INCH VOIDSWITH S% TO 10%POROSITY 72% 60*FRACTURE AT 6.2 FEET 5611 10---=- GRADES.BROWNISH-GRAY.FOSSILIFEROUS. PINPOINT TO 1/2-INCH VOIDS WITH 10%TO 2SE POROSITY AND So TO VERTICAL PRACTTtRES TO 11.5 FEET 36% GRADESWITH OCCASIONAL60 TO VERTICAL.HAIRLINE FRACTURESAND WAVYGRAY LAMINATIONSTO 16.5 FEET 1/6-INCH TO lI/-INCH VOIDS WITH 1% POROSITY FROM I6.6 TO 17.6 pREy 15- 100% 20" It/-INCH CLAY-LINEO FRACTUREAT 17.6 FEET PINPOINT TO 1/4-INCH VOIDSWITH 10%POROSITY FROM 16.0 TO 16.0 FEEl OGLITIC DOLOMiTE:LIGHTGRAY: MEDIUMGRAINED;2-INCH BLACKCLAYEYSHALE LAYER AT TOP. BORINGCOMPLETEDAT 20.0 FEET ON 3-n-74. 20 -1

REFERENCE:

DAMES & MOORE REPORT. RESULTS OF ROCK FOUNDATION TREATMENT. RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL COMPLEX, ENRICO FERMI ATOMIC POWER PLANT UNIT 2, JUNE 1974 LOG OF BORINGS PLATE B-7

i: BORING S-21 LU L II. m J - SURFACE ELEVATION 550.0 cc SYMBOLS DESCRIPTIONS CONICRETE DOLOMITE; LIGHOTGRAY: PINE-GRAINSIXPINPOINTT0 114-INCT VG VUGS

                                                                             ,ITH       T       POROSITY WITHAN so    51                                PREGUINT. IRREGULAR  ,io     TO VERTICALFRACTURES 5                                      HORIZONTAL SHALEPARTINGAT 84 PEEST GRADESTO OARK VOISILIPRAOU CRAY AND                  WITH OCCASIONAL HALEL      PARTING AIA T S.05PEET 7 .0 PEETFRACTUR IRREGULAR 80pR;ACT[T70at PINPOINTTO 114-INtCHVUGSWITH 5%POROSITYFROM 10         100% Sm                                 10or,0TIIADF91T GRADESWITH IRREGULARLAMINATIONS Be0 TO 740 IRREGULARFRACTUREFROM 16.4 TO 17.0 PEET VERTICAL Il"   X I litr VUGS FROM 17.4 TO 17.7 FEET 15                                               WI-,THI1  POROSITY l2-INCH BLACKCLAYEYSHALE LAYER AT 19.0 PEET ion   1                            OOLITICOLOMITE LIGHTGRAY:PING TO MEDIUM-GRAINED.

2ORING COMIPLUTED AT 20.0 FPET ON 3-20-74. 20 - BORING S-44 LU

               -.-                                                SURFACE ELEVATION 650.0 z      >

W wJ 0 N TISYMBOLS DESCRIPTIONS DOLOMITE;LIGHT GRAY TO SROWNISH-4RAY; FINE-GRAINED; OCCASIONALSHALE PARTINGS FOSSSLIPEROUSJPINPOINT TO 114-INCH VUGj WITH5% POROSITY 5 - 41' a IRREGULAR 00 PRACTURE NUMEROUSIRREGULAR NEAR-VERTICAL FRACTURESAND PINPOINT TO fI--INCH VUGS FROM 4.2 TO S. PEET " IRREGULAR 46* TO 70' FRACTURES 10 I IO2-INCH, IRREGULARVUG Sm 3IRREGULAR 701 To VERTICAL VUGGYFRACTURES 15IRREGULAR VUGGY FRACTUREFROM IA TO 190AFEET LOWER 2 INCHES.OOLITICDOLOMITE 20 ORINO COMPLETED AT 20.0 FEET ON 3-21-74.

REFERENCE:

DAMES & MOORE REPORT, RESULTS OF ROCK FOUNDATION TREATMENT RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL COMPLEX, ENRICO FERMI ATOMIC POWER PLANT UNIT 2, JUNE 1974 LOG OF BORINGS PLATE B-8

LUI a LL. LU BORING S-75 P. SURFACE ELEVATION 550.0 0 06 UJI DESCRIPTIONS SYMBOLS

                                    -          I CONCRETE SLU DOLOMITE: LIGHT BROWNIOS-CRAY:FINE-GRAINED:

SOY. OCCASIONALHORIZONTALLAMINATIONSAND SOMEDARNK GRAY MOTTLING:SOME FOSSILS. SEIJHONIZONTALI1IH-INCH BLACKSHALEPARTING GRADESWITHPINPOINT TO 114-INCH VOIDS. S% 0 TO 1016POROSITY. TO 11.0 FEET VERTICAL HAIRLINE MRACTURE 10- - - L, 001 1 _",-I ONADES TO GRAYISH-BROWNWITH 111l-INCH BLACK SHALEPARTINGSA0PROXIMATELYEVERY A INCHES iIZICHOIOEN 7TOFRACTURE AT 11.0 FEET DEADESWITH PINPOINT TO I-INCH SLIT.LIKE VOIDS WITH6% TO 16%POROVTY TO 14.0 FEET He FRACTU RE WITHSLICKENSIDEDBLACK SHALE COATING 39P IRREGULAR FRACTURE DRADES WITHWAVYLAMINATIONSAND SOME PINPOINT TO 1i4-INCH VOIDS WITHLESS THANB%POROSITY: 15i 1m BI% TRACEOF Be TO 701 HAIRLINE FRACTURES 20- BORINGCOMPLETED AT 20.0 FEET ON 3-27-74 ILI a BORING S-83 LUJ IG. i- a 0 SURFACE ELEVATION 560.0 US LU SYMBOLS DESCRIPTIONS CONCEITS 60% 0 OHOLTEI LI GPT-GRAY: FINE-ORAINED; OCCASIONAL CLOSED HAIRLINE 'IPFRACTURES. PINPOINT TO li4-INCH VOIDSWITH 10KPOROSITY FROM mY 50%. 3.0 TO 4.3 FENT GRADESLIGHT 8NOWNISH-GRAY. 0 SOMEFOSSILS. 5Y% OCCASIONAL 40PTO 6N CLOSED PRACTURES. HORIZONTALlI/I-INCH BLACKSHALEPARTINGS FROM sox 4-INCH TO H-INCH APART, SOMEPINPOINT TO 14- INCH 10 IN00. VOIDS WITH LESSTHANST. POROSITY 4Y. GRADESTO LIGHTGRAY OCCASIONALI li-INCH SLIT-LIKE VOIDS WITH IY% POROSITYPROE 16.0 TO l5.6 FEET 54% TRACE Of 30' TO VERTICALCLOSED FRACTURESFROM 15 IB.0 TO 20.0 FEET PINPOINT TO 1/4-INCH VOIDS WITH5% TO 10% POROSITYFROM 14.0 TO 20.0 FEET lOST. WIT 201 s--.--.. SORING COMPLETEDAT 20A.FEETON 3-20-74.

REFERENCE:

DAMES & MOORE REPORT RESULTS OF ROCK FOUNDATION TREATMENT LOG OF BORINGS RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL COMPLEX, ENRICO FERMI ATOMIC POWER PLANT UNIT 2, JUNE 1974 PLATE B-9

I-z "BORING Q-1 0 0UJ SURFACE ELEVATION 550.0 0 u IS SYMBOLS DESCRIPTIONS 0 CONCRETE

                                                  -'          I;ILIGHT GRAY; VERY FINE-GRAIN90; SOMEMOTTLING:

OWALPINPOINT TO 722-INCH VUGS WITHS% POROSITY. NEAR VERTICAL TO ld. IRREGULAR FRACTURE 5x HORIZONTAL.,1/I-INCH SHALEPARTING THREE.CLOSED. IRREGULAR60 FRACTURES GRADES aROWNISH-GRAYAND FOSSILIFERGUS SUSHORIZONTAL.1116-INCHSHALE PARTING OCCASIONALSUBHORIZONTALFRACTURES PINPOINT TO 2-INCH VUGS WITH 10%POROSITY FROM IO TO 11.2 FEET 10 10 IRREGULAR. 35. I/12-INCH SHALE PARTING OCCASIONALSUBHORIZONTALTO 60. FRACTURES GRADES LIDHTBROWN(SH-GRAy PFREOUENT STYLOLITES NEAR-VERTICAL. OCCASIONAL.IRREGULAR.CLOSED TO

                                                          ",,-.INCH PRACTURES GRADESWITHSOME SEDIMENTARYBRECCIA 15                                             IRREGULAR30o FRACTURE VERTICAL FRAACTURE 841       .                     PINPOINT TO 114-INCH VU0S WITH10 POROSITYFROM 16.0 TO iR.s PEET NOTE: SLACKWATER RETURNAT 19.5 FEET - PROBABLE SHALELAYER.

20- -[ SORINGCOMPLETEDAT 25.5 FEET ON 4-24-74. w UJj BORING Q-2 O SURFACE ELEVATION 550.0 UJ O SYMBOLS DESCRIPTIONS CONCRETE Z6% 0 DOMSi LIGHT GRAY: VERY FINE-GRAINED; NUMEROUS

                                                     --   IUAR       FRACTURES:VUGOY.

IRREGULARLYFRACTURED PINPOINT TO I-INCH VUOS WITH5% TO 10%POROSITY 5FROM 4.0 TO 0.0 FEET 100 4% TWO.HORIZONTAL. IllS-INCH. SLACK SHALEPARTINGS GRADESGRAYISH-BROWNAND FOSSILIFEROUS GRADESWITH FREQUENT NEAR-VERTICAL FRACTURES VERTICAL.CRYSTAL.LINESFRACTURE 10 - 37% 30, GRADES LIGHTBROWNISH-GRAYWITH WAVYSTYLOLITESAND SOMESEDIMENTARYBRECCIA IRREGULAR 700 FRACTURE 74% 7IN SUSHORIZONTALFRACTURE 15 lIS-INCH TO 114-INCH VUGS WITHS%POROSITY FROM 11.ETO 17.APR5T IfRREGULARGS FRACTURE 92% OCCASIONAL.IRREGULAR. NEAR-VERTICAL FRACTURES SHALE PARTINGS 20 BORINGCOMPLETEDAT 19.3 FEET ON 4-24-74. REFERENCE. DAMES & MOORE REPORT, RESULTS OF ROCK FOUNDATION TREATMENT RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL COMPLEX. ENRICO FERMI ATOMIC POWER PLANT UNIT 2, JUNE 1974 LOG OF BORINGS PLATE B-10

LU LU U6. LU BORING 0-3 LU C I-- a SURFACE ELEVATION 650.0

                  )
0. SYMBOLS DESCRIPTIONS CONCRETE DOLOMIT9 LIGHT GRAY: VERY FINE-GRAINSO: OCCASIONAL STYLOLITREa: IREGULARLY PRACTURJED:% TO 10%VUQGY POROSITY.

5 - IR GULAR FRACTURES 701 PRACTURIS

                  'RI' III' GRADES MOTTLEDWINTH      SEDIMINTARY BRECCIA GRADE BRWNIS-GRAY AND FOUEILIPIROUS OARKORAY 0-INCH HORIZONTALCLAY LAIER 150%   72%                          SEVERAL70 TOVERTICALFRACTURES TWO. SUEHORIOOTAL.,    BLACKSHALEPARTINGS 1/R-INCH TO 2-INCH VUGSWITH6% TO 15%POROSITY 10-                                         FROM 0.8 To Il    FEET NEAR-VERTICAL. CLOSEDTO 111-INCH FRACTURE 1/t..INCH. SLAE SHALEPARTING 150%                                IRREGULAR.SO PRACTURI GRADESWITH WAVY STYLOLITES FOUR.IRREGULAR. SUBNORIZONTALFRACTURSS IRREGULAR. VERTICAL TO NEAR-VERTICAL FRACTURE$

15-155% '3% TWOINCH SHALELAYER OGLITIC O0LOMIT: LIGHTBROWNISH-GRAY:MEDIUM-GRAINEO. 20 BORINGCOMPLETID At 20.0 FEET ON 4-2A-74. LU LU LU BORING Q-4 U. U* SURFACE ELEVATION 550.0 LU LU a DESCRIPTIONS SYMBOLS 0- 1~l CONCRETE 92.Ml: LIGHT BROWNISH-GRAY:VERY FINe-GRAINEG; NEAR-VERTICAL TO 70 tIRREGULARFRACTURVR:OCCASIONAL STYLOLIT1E. 5- PINPOINTTO 114-INCH VUGS WITH5% POROSITY FROM0.0 100% 10 .SAFEET FREQUENT,IRREGULAR. 30R TO 706 FRACTURES GRADESMOTTLEDGRAY PINPOINT TO 1I1-INCH VUGS WITH 10%POROSITY FROM 1.0 TO 7.0 FEET IRREGULAR VERTICAL FRACTURE 10- 50% GRADES BROWNISH-GRAY 1/iR-.NCH HORIZONTALBLACK SHALEPARTING 8L CK SHALEPARTING 30 FRACTURN IE8-INCH TO 2-INCH VUOS WITHSOSECLAY FILLINGSAND M0%POROSITYPROM 11. TO 12A0FEET NUMEROUS.IRREGULAR,NRAR.VERTICAL.CLOSED TO 11% 114-INCH FRACTURES 15- 51% 77* 0 OCCASIONAL40' TO E

  • FRACTURES PINPOINT TO 114-INCH VUGEWITH5%POROSITYFROM 20- ,@A)TO 18.5 FEET BORINGCOMPLETEDAT 20A0FEET ON 4-2*-74

REFERENCE:

DAMES & MOORE REPORT RESULTS OF ROCK FOUNDATION TREATMENT, LOG OF BORINGS RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL COMPLEX UNIT 2, JUNE 1974 PLATE B-11

UJI UU1 BORING Q-5 IIM SURFACE ELEVATION 550.0 S> I0, wU SYMBOLS DESCRIPTIONS L.

                                                         *CONCRETE DOLOMITE, LIGHT GRAYI VERY FINR*ORAINED: HORIZONTAL BLACKSTYLOLITEEEVERY I INCHES TOE INCHES    APART.

TWO llEM-INCH.HORIZONTAL.BLACKSHALE PARTINGS SURHORIZONTALFRACTURE SHALEPARTING TWO. 80° FRACTURES PINPOINTTO l/E-INCH VUGS WITH5% TO I!%. POROSITY PROM7.3 TO Si3 PEST GRACES MTH SOMEGRAY MOTTLINGAND SCOIMINTARY 10 IRECCIA GRAOES ER$MISH-GRAY WITH NEAR-VERTICALFRACTURES WITH BLACKSHALE LININGS 1I4 -INCH VUGSWITH10%POROSITYFROM 10., TO 1-.0 FEET PINPOINT TO 1/2-INCH VUGSWITH E%POROSITYFROM 15 U MS 12.0 TO 14.1 FPET IRREGULAR.111-INCH. 30P ELACK SHALE PARTING OCCASIONAL.WAVYGRAY LAMINATIONSAND HAIRLINE PRACTURES SUSHORIZONTALFRACTURE 20 lotRING COMPLETEDAT 20.0 FEET ON 4-25-74.

             -               *U                                           BORING Q-6 wSURFACE
                                >                                                 ELEVATION 550.0 cc                 SYMBOLS                  DESCRIPTIONS 0.*           *-            -..

CONCRETE I OOLOMIT11 LIGHT BROWNISH-GRAYV:VERY PINE-GRAINED: M5 IONAL OARK GRAY LAMINATIONSAND STYLOLITES. 5 - - 00 FRACTURE SEVERAL, NEAR-VERTICAL FRACTUREE W' FRACTURE 100 a

  • SURHORIZONTAL.IllS-INCH, BLACKSHALEPARTING GRADES WITHDARK GRAY MOTTLING RI% 63E 205 FRACTURE SUBHORIZONTAL PARTING 10 - GRADESDARK GRAYISH-EROWNWITHSOMEYUGS SLACK SHALE PARTINGSEVERY 4 TO 6 INCHESAPART gym, l16% NOTE: 10.0 PEST- SOMEWATER FLOW.APPROXIMATELY 2 GALLONS/MINUTE.

Be FRACTURE NEAR-VERTICAL, IRREGULAR.1IIS-INCH. CRYSTAL. LINEDFRACTURE 15 m GRADESWITHIRREGULAR GRAY LAMINATIONSAND STYLOLITES 0111 9 PINPOINT TO 1/4-INCH VUGSWITHE%POROSITY 2- BORINGCOMPLETEDAT 2O0 FEET ON 4-2R-74. 20- ---

REFERENCE:

DAMES & MOORE REPORT RESULTS OF ROCK FOUNDATION TREATMENT, RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL COMPLEX, UNIT 2, JUNE 1974 LOG OF BORINGS PLATE B-12

LU Ul LU BORING Q-7 zI-- Il a 0. 0 SURFACE ELEVATION 660.0 oU oC Us DESCRIPTIONS SYMBOLS CONCRET"E 0- CNOT: WATER FLOWFROM HOLE APPROXIMATELY 3 GALLONEMIHUMU

                                      ,0~

48% fn t LIGHTGRAY: VERY FINE-GRAINEO. 46% VIRAL NEAR-VERTICAL. HAIRLINE TO 11Il-INCH FRACTIJRES NOTE, SLIGHT.WATER FLOW. 0 GRADE, WITHDARK GRAY MOTTLINGAND IRREGULAR VERTICAL FRACTURES GRAMES EROWNISH-GRAY,FOISILIFEROW* WITH SOME SHALEPARTINGSAND VERTICAL FRACTIJRES 9 ErI NT TO A/4.-INCHVUGEWITHIN POROSITY _73% To NEAR-VERTICAL FRACTUHRE NOTE. 13.0 FEET - PROBAELE GROUT IN WATER RETURN. HORIZONTALFRACTURE GRADESWITH WAVYGRAY LAMINATIONS IRREGULAR45. FRACTURE 1s NEAR-VERTICAL. CLOSEDTO tIIS-INCH FRACTURE PINPOINT TO 114-INCH VUGSWITH6% TO 10N 100% oRn POROSITY.FROM 10.0 TO 20.0 FEET BORINGCOMPLETEDAT 20.0 FEET ON 4.-22-74. LUJ BORING Q-8 GI. SURFACE ELEVATION 550.0

       'U Q

SYMBOLS DESCRIPTIONS a 93% Q9_42VIL LIGHT GRAY: VERY FINE-GRAINED; OCCASIONAL GRAY.%TYLOLITES NEAR-VERTICAL HAIRLINE TO I/IS-5- INCH FRACTURES. IRREGULAR 30° TO 80°FRACTURES 112-INCHVUGS WITH 5% TO 10%POROSITY FROM 3.2 TO 4.7 FEET OCCASIONALE80FRACTURES 91% 3%1 GRADESWITHGRAY MOTTLING GRADESEROWNISH-GRAYWITH OCCASIONALBLACK 10- SHALE PARTINGS SEORIZONTAL FRACTURE FRACTURE SEVERAL30 TO 4S FRACTURES I1/IE-INCH TO I 1I/-INCH VUGSWITH15% POROSITY 91% P b%12.6 TO 138 PEST R0 FRACTURE 15- IRREGULAR R00FRACTURE Bel. CLOSEDTO I/ISE-INCH FRACTURE HIGHLY FRACTURED TRACE OF FINE CONGLOMERATE IRREGULARLY FRACTURED BORINGCOMPLTEDOAT 20.0 FEET ON 4-20-74. 20-

REFERENCE:

DAMES & MOORE REPORT RESULTS OF ROCK FOUNDATION TREATMENT RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL COMPLEX, UNIT 2 JUNE 1974. LOG OF BORINGS PLATE B-13

Specification 3071-37 Issued: 11-27-70 A30-00-0-000SA-007 APPENDIX 2C THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANY SPECIFICATION FILL MATERIALS,PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant 6400 Dixie Highway Stony Creek, Monroe County, Michigan.

THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANY SPECIFICATION 3071-37 SPECIFICATION PREPARED BY ENGINEERING DESIGN & SERVICES DEPARTMENT Issued: 11-27-70 RLL MATERIALSPLACEVIENTAND COMPACTION Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant 6400 Dixie Highway Stony Creek, Monroe County, Michigan. PART 1 : GENERAL 1-01 GENERAL CONDITIONS

a. All work underthiscontract shall be govemed by "The General Conditionsof the Contract", Edison Specification 3071, thisspecification and the applicable drawingsand billsof material.
b. The Contractor, including hissuppliersand sub-contractors, shall conform to Edison Specification 3071-8B, "Field Contractor Quality Assurance Requirementsfor Construction, Installation and Erection of Quality Levels 1 and 2 Structuresand Equipment. Quality Levels1 and 2 will apply to this work asdefined on the drawingsand billsof material.
c. The term, Engineer, used herein shall mean the Architectural-Civil Design Division of Edison'sEngineering Design and ServicesDepartment or itsauthorized representative.

1-02 SC O PE

a. Furnish all labor, supervision, and equipment necessary to perform the filling, compaction, and grading asdescribed herein and asshown on the drawings.
b. Fill materialsshall be from sourcesdesignated and approved by the Engineer.

2C-2

Specification 3071-37 Issued: 11-27-70 Page Two. PART 2 PRODUCT 2-01 GENBRAL

a. All fill materialsshall be maintained free of foreign mattersuch asvegetation, organic matter, rubbish, metal scrap, and ice.

2-02 QUARRY RUN ROCKRLL

a. Matenalshall be shattered rockobtained by blasting orripping in rock cuts.

Shattered rock shall be reasonably well graded with a maximum size not to exceed 1/2 cubic yard.

b. No specific moisture content at time of placing isrequired.
c. Shattered rockShall be deposited on the fill and pushed overthe end of the fill by meansof bulldozersor other equipment into approximately horizontal layersnot exceeding 3 feet in thickness. The final surface of the Quarry Rn Rock Fill shall be so choked with small rockfragmentsand finesthat there will be no infiltration of any soil which may subsequently be placed on thissurface. Where insufficient rock finesare available to properly choke the surface, sand orfine gravel and sand shall be used.

2-03 CRUSHERRUN ROCKFILL-6 INCH AND UNDER

a. Material shall be that obtained by crushing Quarry Rn Rock (see 2-02 a) and shall be graded asfollows:

Sleve Size -U.S Standard Percent Passing. 6 inch 95 3 inch 30-75 Lossby washing 0-10 percent. 2C-3

Specification 3071-37 Issued: 11-27-70 Page Three. 2-03 CRUSHER RUN ROCK RLL-6 INCH AND UNDERCont'd

b. No specific moisture content at time of placing isrequired.
c. TYPEA: Material shall be spread in approximately horizontal layersnot exceeding 15 inchesin thicknessand compacted by 2 passesof a vibratory type compactor.
          "YPEB: Material shall be spread in approximately horizontal layersnot exceeding 15 inchesin thicknessand compacted by one passof the treads of a crawlertype tractorweighing 40,000 poundsor more.

2-04 CRUSt-IER RUN ROCK FILL- 1/ INCH AND UNDER

a. Material shall be that obtained by crushing Quarry %In Rock (see 2-02 a) and shall be graded asfollows:

Seve Sze - U.& Standard Percent Passing. 2 inch 100 1/2 inch 95-100 M2 inch 25-50 No. 10 6-18 No. 200 3-10

b. The moisture content at time of placing shall be not greaterthan 12 percent.
c. [YPEA: Material shall be spread in approximately horizontal layersnot exceeding 12 inchesin thicknessand compacted by a minimum of six passesof a vibratory type compactorto not lessthan 95 percent of the maximum unit weight.
          -YPEB: Material shall be spread in approximately horizontal layers not exceeding 12 inchesin thicknessand compacted by one passof the treads of a crawlertype tractorweighing 40,000 poundsormore.

2C-4

Specification 3071-37 Issued: 11-27-70 Page Four. 2-05 SELECTGRANULARRLL

a. Matenialshall be graded asfollows Seve Sze -U.S. Standard. Percent Passing.

2/ inch 100 1 inch 60-100 No. 100 0-30 Lossby washing 0-7 percent.

b. lThe moisture content at time of placing shall not vary more than +/- 2%of optimum.
c. Material shall be spread in approximately horizontal layersnot exceeding 15 inchesin thicknessand compacted to not lessthan 95 percent of the maximum unit weight.

2-06 MISCELLANEOUSGRANULARRLL

a. Material shall be graded asfollows:

Seve Sze -U.S. Standard Percent Passing. 3 inch 100 Lossby washing 0-15 percent.

b. The moisture content at time of placing shall not vary more than +/- 1%of optimum.
c. Materialshall be spread in approximately horizontal layersnot exceeding 15 inchesin thicknessand compacted to not lessthan 95 percent of the maximum unit weight.

2-07 QUARRY SCREENING S RLL

a. Material shall be screeningsobtained from the crusher operation at the France Stone Quarry, Monroe, Michigan and shall be graded asfollows:

Seve Sze -U.S Standard Percent Passing. No. 4. 90-100 No. 10. 50-65 No. 40. 25-40 No. 200 20 maximum. 2C-5

Specification 3071-37 Issued: 11-27-70 Page Five. 2-07 QUARRY SCREENINGS FLL Cont'd

b. 'The moisture content at time of placing shall not vary more than +/- 2%of optimum.
c. 1YPEA: Material shall be spread in approximately horizontal layersnot exceeding 9 inchesin thicknessand compacted to not lessthan 100 percent of the maximum unit weight.
           -YPEB: Material shall be spread in approximately horizontal layersnot exceeding 9 inchesin thicknessand compacted to not lessthan 95 percent of the maximum unit weight.

2-08 SELECTCLAY RLL

a. Material shall be the sandy silty clay (till) obtained from site excavation below approximate elevation 565.
b. The moisture content at time of placing shall be no greaterthan optimum nor lessthan 2% below optimum.
c. IYPEA: Material shall be spread in approximately horizontal layersnot exceeding 9 inchesin thicknessand compacted to not lessthan 100 percent of the maximum unit weight.

lYPEB: Material shall be spread in approximately horizontal layersnot exceeding 9 inchesin thicknessand compacted to not lessthan 95 percent of the maximuum unit weight. 2-09 M ISCELLANEO US CLAY FILL

a. Material shall be clay from on or off-site sourcesnot meeting Select Clay Fill description.
b. The moisture content at time of placing shall not vary more than +/- 2% of optimum.
c. Materialshall be spread in approximately horizontal layersnot exceeding 9 inchesin thicknessand compacted to not lessthan 95 percent of the maximum unit weight.

2C-6

Specification 3071-37 Issued: 11-27-70 Page Sx. PART 3 : EXECLUT1ON 3-01 FOUNDAI1ON REQUIRFMENTS

a. The foundation material on which the fill isto be placed shall be asspecified on the drawingsand itssuita bility shall be approved by the Engineer pnorto placing fill.
b. The surface of the sandy silty clay till (below approximate elevation 565 in the main building area) on which fill isto be placed shall be graded asrequired to provide fordrainage and eliminate ponding.

3-02 LAYER'IHICKNESS

a. Thicknessof layersin excessof that specified will be permitted only after satisfactory demonstration by the Contractorthat the required density can be obtained. Wheneverthe required density isnot obtained aftersuch permission isgranted, the thicknessof the layersshall be reduced upon instructionsof the Engineer.
b. The thicknessof the first layerof materialsotherthan clay to be constructed on poorly drained soil may be increased to a maximum of 24 inchesupon approval by the Engineer.

3-03 COMPACrON

a. One passofthe treadsof a crawlertype tractorisdefined asthe required numberof successive tractortripswhich, by meansof sufficient overlap, will insure complete coverage of an entire layerby the tractortreads.
b. One passofa vibratory compactorisdefined asthe required numberof successive tractor tnpswhich, by meansof sufficient overlap, will insure complete coverage of an entire layerby the compacting device.
c. A vibratory compactorisdefined asone of the following:

Plate type vibratory compactor, tractor mounted, asmanufactured by Intemational Vibrator or Jackson Vibrators, Inc. Drum type vibratory compactor, tractordrawn, such asHysterC200B, Vibro-PlusCH33, orequal asapproved by the Engineer. 2C-7

                                                          'Specification 3071-37 Issued: 11-27-70 Page Seven.

3-03 COMPACTION Cont'd

d. In areasinaccessable to large equipment, obtain required compaction with mechanical vibratorsfor granularfill, and with mechanical rammers for cohesive fill.

3-04 COLD WEATHER RESTRICC11ONS

a. Frozen materialshall not be placed in the fill. All ice and snow shall be removed from the surface of the foundation material before fill isplaced thereon. In addition where the fill isto support a structure, all ground containing frost within limitsof 1 on 1 slopesspreading outward in all directionsfrom the bottom of structure footingsshall be removed. In other areasground containing more than 4 inchesof frost shall be removed.

Ground containing lessthan 4 inchesof frost and not used forfillwhich will support structure footingsneed not be removed.

b. The placing of materialsdescribed in sections2-07, 2-08 and 2-09 shall be limited to the period between May 1 and November 1 unless otherwise approved by the Engineer.

3-05 DRAINAGE

a. The surface of the fill shall be maintained with sufficient slope to provide for runoff of surface waterfrom every point.
b. The working surface of fill described in Sections2-07, 2-08 and 2-09 shall regularly be sealed with a smooth-wheel static rollerat the close of each working day and shall be sealed during the day when practicable priorto rainfall.
c. Filling shall be conducted so that no obstruction to drainage from other sectionsof the fill area iscreated at any time. Sumps, if any, will be continuously maintained in effective operating condition.
d. The Contractorshall protect compacted fill and foundation material in excavated areasfrom becoming rutted ordistorted. All rutting ordistortion caused by the Contractor'soperation shall be corrected by the Contractor at hisexpense before any succeeding layersare placed.

Specification 3071-37 Issued: 11-27-70 Page Eight. 3-06 FILLAGAINSTSTRUCUIRES

a. Fillshall not be placed against any portion ofa structure untilthe required surface finishing and waterproofing of such portionshave been completed.

Waterproofing materialsshall be protected asrequired to prevent damage which might occur from fill operations. 2C-8

b. Fill which willcause a horizontal loading on an unshored portion of a structure shall not be placed until the concrete hasattained at least 70 percent of its design strength.
c. Fill around isolated structuressuch aspiersshall be placed on opposite sides at the same time to equalize horizontal loadings.

3-07 MAXIMUM UNITWBGHT

a. Maximum unit weight when used asa measure of compaction ordensity of cohesive soilshaving a lossby washing greaterthan 10 percent, shall be understood to mean the maximum weight per cubic foot asdetermined using the One-Point T-99 Test orthe AASHO T-99 Test asdescrbed in the MDSH Density Control Handbook, August,1969.
b. The One-Point Michigan Cone Test orthe Michigan Cone Test asdescrbed in the MDSH Density Control Handbook, August, 1969, modified asfollowsý will be used fordetermining the maximum unit weight forgranularmaterals having a lossby washing of 10 percent or less:

Forgranularsoilshaving a unit weight of 120 poundspercubic foot orless, the unit weight will be determined at any moisture content between 6 percent and a point short of saturation. Forgranularsoilshaving a unit weight over 120 poundspercubic foot, the unit weight will be determined at the moisture content, between 6 percent and a point short of saturation, which will give the maximum weight.

c. In-place density of materialsshall be obtained using a volumeterwhich measuresthe volume of a hole by meansof a rubberballoon and water under air pressure.

2C-9

Specification 3071-37 Issued: 11-27-70 Page Nine. PART 4 SPEClFICA'ONSAND STANDARDS 4-01 EDISON SPECIRCA11ONS

a. 3071, The General Conditionsof the Contract.
b. 30711-8B, Field ContractorQuality Assurance Requirementsfor Construction, Installation and Erection of Quality Levels 1 and 2 Structuresand Equipment.

4-02 MICHIGAN DEPARIM ENTO F STA-1E HIGHWAYS

a. MDSH Density Control Handbook, August,1969.

2C-10

FERMI 2 UFSAR APPENDIX 2D Records of Laboratory Test Results on Rock Core Samples

FERMI 2 UFSAR MNH FANUMo WHKaqm. LOG5AMU Prh-1J8NCH Sr. US zaonmi W. ZKOT COMPA2T Z~z"ztzza Ouaoaoo 1. I*iwcla December 27, 1968 mm 1187-2 WOW., 3584 g ,3-13686" Pen I Tests On Stone Corts Jobt No. 7605-002-16 Dames and Moore 309 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, Illinois 60606 Acteution: Mr. D. G. StaUs Gentlemen: le report test results on four (4) stone cores obtained by our representative at your office on December 17, 1968 marked as shown in the iollowing tabulations: The sample cores were prepared for test by us. Test core size: Diameter 2.00 inches Lolgth 4.00 inches Sample Core Desisnation Compressive Strength Modulus of Elasticity Weight Maximum Per At 50% of Maximum Per Cubic Br ing Depth Load Square inch Load, Lbs. Per Foot Number Feet Classification Lbs. Lbs. Square Inch Lbs. 20 27 Dolomite 49,200 15,661 13,346,000 154.02 32A 52 Oolite 30,400 9,677 4,359,000 145.29 28 106 Argillaceous Dolomite 28,400 9,040 2,601,000 162.12 4 5 Dolomite 24,500 7,799 137.80 Specific Gravity: Samele Core Designation Boring No. 20 32A 28 4 Depth, Ft. 27 52 106 58 Classification Dolomite Oolite Argillaceous Dolomnite Dolomite Specific Gravity:- 2.47 2.33 2.60 2.21 Respectfully submitteed, RO /W.HUNT COMPANY GEH: rek-4 Cement and Concrete Departmenc 2D- 1

FERMI 2 UFSAR ROBERT W. HUNT COMPANY, ENGINEERS Chicago 7, Illinois March 31, 1972 File No. 1187-2 Report 853 Order 13-C-6283 Page 1 Unconfined Compression Tests Purchase Order No. PA 205 Job Number: 7605-020 Dames and Moore 1550 Northwest Highway Park Ridg, Illinois 60068 Gentlemen: We report results on unconfined compression test performed on Rock Core sam-ples picked up by our representative on March 28, 1972 at your office. Compressive Strength Boring Identification Lbs. Per Square Inch RUR-8 36.3'-37.0' 7536 RHR-3 29.2'-29.8' 8188 R-5 40.5'-41.6' 8333 RHR-7 33.9'-34.6' 7388 RHR-6 29.2'-29.8' 10,362 R*R-4 30.9'-31.5' 9928 RHR-2 39.1'-39.6' 9130 Respectfully submitted, ROBERT W. HUNT COMPANY G.E. Matoush, Manager GPX:rek- 4 Cement and Concrete Department (exact copy - not original) 2D-2

ROBERT W. HUNT COMPANY, Engineers FERMI 2 UFSADAMES AND MOORE Job: 7605-002-16 *. Dolomite Page No. 2 File No . 1187 ............

                                     ...........       .......              p.sj.

i*ecemuer L#, im)o ............

                                                                                                                                        ........                .......... R ep ort 31W 16,661                      --    27     feet                                 ...............
                        !.ram     *                   --                 Depth                                                                                                                         mile No. 2
       .ffow o-i.

r _*/rumr 0- 1 1ow BoriNg -- 20 stnmgth

                                                       .......                              Encember .27, Imm                                  P P, Corl Mlrking:
    ++H+ýH                                               .................                        I mmm Core Morking:  CompreoviceBoring - 20                               Depth - 27 fee                                                   Dolom Ultimate Ulthns Comprearvice strength - 15,661 psj.                                                                                           ................... .. .....                                      ..... ...

I .. ..

                                                                                                                                                                                         ..1
                                                                                                                                                                                           ... .LL. . . ...
                                                                                                                                                                      .. j...
                                                                                                                                                                                   .I  .I
                                                                                                        ..  ... 1..
                                                                                                                    .1..... ................. ................                       . .
   .........   ..  .. ..  ...                                               . ... I . ..  .   ..    ... ..  ...          .. .      . ..     .. .. ..I  ..  ...    ..  ..   ..  ...   . ..  ...  .................
                .-I..
             - ..   ýýý..
                        ý....
                           ý                                                ................
                                                                                                                                        .. II ..
                                             ..............................                                                                     .....  ......I.................
                                                                                                                                                  ....... .......I....... ...                   ................

i s, ........ ...........

                                                                                                                            ....   .......11
                                                                                                                                  ..                                                ...............            I
                                                                                                                    -... .1I..  ......
                                                                                                                                      ....i l....

10,000 19 6m 1 1 1 1 1

                                                                                                  .. .. .. . ... ..                                                 . . I . I . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .

zI- . II I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . I. . . . . . . . I. II II I II II I Iý .

                                                                                         .........      .......                        . ......        .....      . .. ...     ....... ......I c                             .......                                                    ... L.....    ....
                                                                                                             ..........            ..-..11
                                                                                                                                                     I'll-                   .....      ...

fm ... .... .. ..... . ...

                                                                             ... ....... L.   .............
                                                                                                                                                                        ...I....       ..---

WI I ...... ...... - --

                                                                                                                                                                                     . ... . .. .. .. .I I I T . . .. ...

I. ý II ý. .. . .. .. .. .. .. I T II 3...... IIT

                                                                                             . ..                                                             .      . . .. . .. .. .. .. I I IT       .. .. . .. .. ..          . .. . .. ..

pr-- 2TRAIN 3in/in) 2D- 3

ROBERT W. HUNT COMPANY, Engineers FERMI 2 UFSAR DAMES AND MOORE JOB: 7605-002-16 qo. 118.. . .... Re"o File A o . 1 18 7-2. S3684 Order No. B-13686 December 27,1968 Page r corel Marked: Boring - 32A Depth - 52 feet Oolite wengm-11.07.1 pjj. ...... ............

                            .......... I . . ...............................                                                                                                                        ..I..
                                                                                                                       ......I ....
                                                                                                                                                                        ....   ..I..
                                                                                                                                                                                          ...... ..I      ...
                                     ...   ..  ..  .. . ... ...  . .. ... .. ..  .......    .. ..  ..I   ..
                                        .I ýI .....................................I .....................    .. I ..  ..  ..   ..                                                           ..  ...    ...   ...
            ...... ....    .1...1..
                                  ..1.
                      . .....................              I................           I.....       .11.....
                                                                                               -.....              1........          I..... I..
                                                                         .... .............I ...         1  1 . 1....
                                                                                                                                                        ............11.....
                                                                                                                                                                                                        ..... 1....1..  ....
1. ....
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ......I ..

I

                                                                                            ............                                                .  ý
                                                                                                                                                        .........            ... I
                                                                                                                                                                                   ..II
                                                                                                                                                                                          ...   ..  ..  .. 1.
                                                                                                                                                                                                            ... 1
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   ..1.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ..  .. I 44 I
                                                                                                .... w ..........                                                         ........
                                                                                                .. .. . .. .. . I .         I. . .       L                              . .. . ..    .. .     .. .. .. .. .
                                                                                                                                                                      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. . . . . . . . . . . . . I
                                                                                 .w . .. .. .. . .. .. . .. ... . ..            ..  ..   . . . w. I. . .          I.  .      I.  ý .. .. ..
                                                                                 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..      ..   ..  ..   . . . . . K. . . . . . .     . .. ..    .. .. .. . .. .. .. ..       . .
                                                                                   . .. . .. . .. .. .. .. ... . .. .. .. . .. .. ..                               . I I. . .   . .. .. .

I I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II II . . . . . . . .. .. . .. .. .. I. . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. . . . I . I I. . I . . . . . . . . . . . . I

                                                                                   . .. .       I . I . . . . K. . . . . . . . . . . . .                                                . .. .. . .. .         . .. . .. ... .

I. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .I I .. W. I I. T .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . cc ..

                                                                                 . Iý I . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I-

   - 7                                                             ....... .................                                                               .............                                    . ..... .I I. . . . . . . . . . .    ..   . II I. .      w .ý .. ..      ..   . . . . . II                                      .. .. .. .
                                                                                                                           . .. .. . I               .. .. ..      ..   . .

5'0w . . . . ... . .. .. .. . .. ..

                                                                                                                                                        . . ... .. . .. .. . .. .. .. I
                                                                                                                           . .. .. .                    . .. .. .. . . .. .. .. . .I .. . .. ... I I
                                                                                                                                                     .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. I w .. . .. ..          . . .. .. .. . ..
                                           ..........                                                                            .. . ...        . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . I . . I . . I a . I . I .. . .. .
                                                                                                                              .. ..                        . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. .
                                                                                                                                                                                                 . . .. .. .. . ... .. .          I
                                                                                                                                                   .I . .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. . ... . .. .
                                                                                   -- - -- - -- -- -- -                                                                                      . .. .. .I N!                                  ini ni~~mu~tu                                       2D-4                   STRAIN (in/in)

GO II 1 -P

FERMI 2 UFSIMES AND MOORE Job: 7606-002-16 QflRER T W. HUNT COMPANY, Engineer ROSER . . .. ... . . . . .. . . . . . .. Report 3584 [F

     -IlIoN
         .        1187-2                                                                                                                                                                    ........

f Order N Or mber

                                                                                                                                 . ....... 27, .... 1968...
                                                                                                                                                                .............            I Page No. 4 camn      rked: Boring - 28                                              Depth - 106. feet                                                          ArgillaceousDolornite Ukim ft-Compresdve-Strangth - 9,040 P.S.I.                                                                             ..
                                              .....                                                                           ........I .............   ...............
             .. . .. .. ..                                                                                                       ..  . ...   .  ..  ..  . . . . . . . . I . ..                       . .. ..  .. .. . ...     . II
             .. . .. .. ..                                                       .. .    ... .. ..         . ..   ..   ..   ..   ..  . . L.  .  ..  ..  . . . . . . . . . ..                         . .. ..  .. .. . ...     . .
                      .. ..                                                      . ..    ... .. ..         . ..   ..   ..   ..   ..  . ...   .  ..  ..  .. .. . .                                         3.      LL . . .      I
                                                                               . .. .    .. ... ..         . 9.   ..   ..   ..   ..  . LL.   .  ..  ..  .. .. . ..                                   . .. ..  . . . . . II.   . I
                                                         ... . .. .. .. .. . ..          .. .. ...         . ..   ..   ..   ..   ..  . ...   .  ..  ..  .I . II                                  . .. ..  .. .. . ...     . .
                                                                                                               . .. ..        . . .. ...     .   .  ..  .. .I .                                      . .. .. .. .
                                                             . . ...   .  .. ..  ..    .. ..     .. I. . ..   ..                                                                                  . . .. .. .
                                                      .. ..    . ...   .  .L ..  ..    . ..      ..     .. . ..   .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .                                . ...

I I T 11 1

                        .. .                                     ..... . ..  ..             ..   ..     .. .. .. .     ..   .. .. I .. .. ..                                       . . . . . . . . . ýI I . . .

10,000 cc z .. . ... . ... . .. . .. . w zu . . . . . . . .... I0I-I I Iý . . , , . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

                                                  . I. . . . . . . . . . . .   . ...    ..   ..      .. .  . ... .       .. ..    .
                                                                   .. .. .     .. .. .. ..           . L.  .. ... .      ..

L I II I .. .. . .. ... . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . ... .. .. . .. . . .. .

                                                  -_I
                                                    --1 tf t! I I I                            .     .. .  .. ... .      . ... .. . .. .
                                                                 ..  . ...   . . . . . I. . I . . . . . . . . . . .                                                                        . .. .
                                                                 ..  . ...   .. . .. .. . I I .. .. .. .. .

4.000 . . .. .. .. ..

                                                                             .. .L ..
                                                                                                     .I ..
                                                                                                                           . . . I. L . . . . . .
                                               ..  .  .  .. ..   .. ..   ..  .. .. ..        ..      ... . I. . .  ..    .. . .. .. . .. .. .. ..                                . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
                                               .. ..  .  .. ..   .. .. I.  .. . .. ..      ..      .. ..   .. ..   ..    . I I. . I. . I I - . I--                               . ..       . .     ý. . II
                                               .. ..  .  .. ..   ... .   ..        .. ..     ..      .. ..   .. ..   ..    . . . . . . . I ý .. -                                  . .. .. ..
                                               .. ..  .  .. ..   ... .   ..  .. . .                          I. . .  ..    .. .. .. .. .. .

3,000 -- - 40 (a C4i 4+ý *T

                                                                                                                               .STRAIN (In/in) 2D-5

Dames & Moore CERT. NO. 701-1 1414 Dexter Ave. No. January 6, 1970 Seattle, 98109 Boring No. Saaple Dia eter Height Krea Weight Unit Wt.3 Gross P.S.'. PSF Elev. Sq./In. Lb. ft. Load 201 514.8/ 2.050 4.269 3.301 1.231 151.0 29,700 9,000 1.29 x 106

             -513.9 201        492.0/     2.050   4.324  3.301   1.400   169.5   37,400 11,300    1.62 x 106
             -491.6 202        515.3/     2.040   4.282  3.269   1.185    146.3  32,000  9,800    1.41 x 106
             -514.8 2.051   4.265  3.304   1.257    154.2  30,000  9,100    1.31 x 106 "n

203 507.5/ M

             -506.9 M1 2.050   4.315  3.301   1.205    146.2  19,400  5,900    0.85 x 106  "ni 211        532.9/
             -531.8 213        543.8/     2.050   4.312  3.301   1.230    149.3  18,700  5,700    0.82 x 106
             -543.1 0.62 x 106 208        551.0/     2.050   4.343  3.301   1.203    145.0  14,200  4,300
             -550.4 6

210 546.5/ 1.862 4.256 2.723 1.028 153.3 22,700 6,900 0.99 x 10

             -545.5 211        549.2/     2.050   4.272  3.301   1.392    170.6  62,200 18,800    2.70 x 106
             -548.7

'Ii 2 I.)

Go N C14 LL

In m

DAMES & MOORE CERT. No. 70-1-1i JAN. 6. im6 ilBRING W 203 EL: 508.9 - 607.5 STRESS - 9,100 P.38 STRAIN - 0.O20 IN. 1 1 1 1 1 1 C.C m 111 sow.-N LNHS - If If T

                               -STRAIN      -INCHES   --              -   t  -1

In m c NIT

DAMESIII OOREI II fil STRAINl~l

      -                 NHS        -1

It 11 II 11 1 1 1~~~I IL_-.I I -  !!L IJ DAMES & MOORE -.. CERT. NO. 70-1-1 JAN. 6, 1970 BORING 211 - --- - - EL: 548.7-6*06.0 ------- l TRlE] - 18,800 PII. STRAIN - 0.017 IN. " I...... I I-I

t. i. li]
                                   ..       I II                                                             .. .                                  II I I                                                                  . . .                I I I          . . . .

12,000- TM IN i i i . . . i i i l i i IiI.I I. MM .i I I I It l t.. "'1 i ll . Ii iiI I I It i l 8*--.000-- 1.31 x106 psi I 7v1

                                                                                          -1 1-                                 , ,           J. J-J
                                                                                                         -            4  -- -            - --        -. ---

STRAIN - INCHES --

'1 m £ hi C ii a

DAMES & MOORE CERT. NO. 70-1-1 JAN. 6, 1970 BORING 213 EL: 543.1 - 543 STRESS - 6700 P.S.I, STRAIN - 0.017 IN.

                    "11 Ni I

Ph0}}