ML18047A708
| ML18047A708 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/20/1982 |
| From: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Vandewalle D CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| References | |
| TASK-02-04.F, TASK-2-4.F, TASK-RR LSO5-82-07-049, LSO5-82-7-49, NUDOCS 8207270058 | |
| Download: ML18047A708 (21) | |
Text
Docket No. 50-255 LS05-82-07-049 Mr. David J. VandeWalle Nuclear Licensing Administrator Consumers Power Company 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201
Dear Mr. VandeWalle:
July 20, 1982
SUBJECT:
SEP SAFETY TOPIC II-4.F, SETTLEMENT OF FOUNDATIONS AND BURIED EQUIPMENT - BIG ROCK PLANT NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION Enclosed is a copy of our evaluation for Systematic Evaluation Program Safety Topic II-4.F, Settlement of Foundations and Buried Equipment.
This assessment compares your site condition, as described in the docket and references with the criteria currently used by the staff for licensing new facilities. Please inform us if your site condition differs from the licensing basis assumed in our assessment.
Our review of this topic is complete and this evaluation will be a basic input to the integrated safety assessment for your facility unless you;' dentify changes needed to reflect the existing site condition at your facility. This topic assessment may be revised in the future if NRC criteria relating to this topic are modified before the integrated assessment is completed.
Enclosure:
As stated CC'- _w I enclosure:
See next page Sincerely, Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch @S Division of Licensing 8207270058 820720 PDR ADOCK 05000255
~P
(,..
p PDR
\\\\)~ \\>ftl OFFICE ***.** ~.~.:.~~ *****
..~~*****..... ~~:.~1!;*....... ~.................... ~~~'.~?..=.~...... ~~'.~?..=.~~.....
SURNAME...... ~g.i:.~..... :.~............... '?.~~*****..... ~~~.. ~~......... ~~~;/.~~~...... ~~~~<:..... P.~~¥,~~ht~~~....... ~.. 7~nf'H!...
DATE *
- ?/.(.2;,/..~.?........... ?.fl'lt.?.?........... ?/41.?.?.............?.!.\\bl.~.~.........7.f../.~.f.'9.'J-........... ZJl..'1./.8.2............ 7./.. ))/.82.....
NRCFORM318{10-80)NRCM0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY USGP0;1981-335-960
Mr. David J. VandeWalle cc Mr. Paul A. Perry, Secretary Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Judd L. Bacon, Esquire Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue
-Jackson, Michigan 49201 Joseph Gallo, Esquire Isham, Lincoln & Be~le 1120 Connecticut Avenue Room 325 Washington, D. C.
20036 Peter W. Steketee, Esquire 505 Peoples Building Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503 Alan S. Rosentha*l, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Mr. John O'Neill, II Route 2, Box 44 Maple City, Michigan 49664 M~.-Jim E. Mills Route.£, Box 108C Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 Chairman.
County Board of Supervisors Charlevoix County Charlevoi~, Michigan 49720
- - Cfffice *of the Governor (2)
Room l - Capitol Building Lansing, Michigan 48913 Herbert Semmel Counsel for Christa Maria, et al.
Urban Law Institute Antioch School of Law 2633 16th Street, NW Washington, D. C.
20460 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Activitfes Branch RegiOn V Office ATTN:
Regional Radiation Representative 230 South Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 6060~
Peter B. Bloch, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
~-
s~ Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Mr. Frederick J. Shon Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555
~ig Rost--Point Nuclear Power Plant ATTN:
f4c....C. J. Hartman
~
Plant Superintendent Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 Christa-Maria Route 2, Box lOBC Char1evoix, Michigan -49720 William J. Scanlon, Esquire 2034 Pauline Boulevard Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103 Resident Inspector Big Rock Point Plant c/o U.S. NRC RR #3, Box 600 Charlevoix; Michigan 49720 Hurst & Hanson 311 1/2 E. Mitchell Petoskey, Michigan 49 770
L Mr. David J. Vandewalle cc Dr. John H. Buck Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Ms. JoAnn Bier 204 Clinton Street Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 Thomas S. Moore Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissiun Washington, D. C.
20555 James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III 799 Roose~elt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137
~-
Systematic Evaluation Program Topic Assessment Topic:
II-4.F - Settlement of Structures and -Buried Equipment Plant Name:
Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant Docket Number:
50-155 Prepared by:
B. Jagannath, Geotechnical Engineer, GES, HGEB, DE, NRR I.
INTRODUCTION This topic pertains to the Geotechnical Engineering Review of subsurface materials and foundations to assess the static and seismically induced settlement of critical structures and buried equipment.
The scope of the review embraces the following subjects which are evaluated using data developed by the licensee and information available from all sources:
- 1. Site description and geology;
- 2.
Engineering properties of subsurface materials;
- 3.
Results of field and laboratory tests;
- 4.
Excavation, backfill, and earthwork; I.
- 5.
Groundwater conditions and piezometric pressures;
- 6.
Liquefaction potential of subsurface soils;
- 7.
Static and seismically induced settlements;
- 8. Results of confirmatory tests and performance monitoring.
II.
REVIEW CRITERIA The applicable rules and basic acceptance criteria pertinent to the review of this topk are:
- - -------------~
- 1.
10 CFR part 50, Appendix A a.* General Design Criterion l - "Quality Standards ahd Records."
Thi~ criterion requires-that structure~~ systems, and components important to safety shall be designed,- fabricated, erected, and tested to quality standards comnensurate with the importance of the safety functions to be perfonned. It also requires that appropriate records of the desJgn, fabrication, erection, and testing of structures-, systems, and components important *to safety shall be maintained by or under the-control of the-nuclear power plant licensee throughout the life of the plant.
- b. :-General Design Crit-eriirn- -e - "Design Bg_ses for Protection Against Natural Phenomena." This*criterion requires that safety-related portions of the system shall *be designed to.withstand the effects r
of earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, tsunami, and seiches with out lass of capability to perfol".m their safety functions*.
- 2.
10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A; "Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for.
Nuclear Power Plants" - These criteria describe the* nature of the in~estigations required to obtain-the geologic and seismic data necessary to detennine site suitability and identify geologic and seis~ic factors required to be taken into account in*the siting and design of nuclear power plants.
2.
- e.
- 3. Regulatory Guides - The following R~gulatory Guides provide infonnation, recommendations, and guidance and, in.general, descri-be a basis
~
acceptable to the staff that may be used to implement the requirements of the above described criteria.
- a.
Regulatory Guide l.132, "S1te Investigations for Foundations of Nuclear Power Plants." This guide describes programs of site investigations related to geotechnica*l engineering aspects that would nonnally meet the needs for evaluating the *safety of the site.from the standpoint of the performance of foundation and e~rthworks under anticipated loading conditions including earthquakes
- in complying with 10 CFR, *Part 100, and 10 CFR, Part 100, *
=Appendix A.
It provides* general guidance and recommendations for developing.. site-specific investigation programs as well as specific guidance for conducting subsurface investigati-0ns~ the spacing and
_depth of borings, and s~mpling.
I
- b.
Regulatory Guide 1.138, "Laboratory Investig~tion of. Soils for Engineering Analysis a*nd Design of Nuclear Power*Plants.
11 This guide describes laboratory investigations and testing practices acceptable for determining soil and rock properties and characteristics needed for engineering analysis and design for foundations and earthwork for nuclear power plants in complying with 10 CFR, Part 100, and 10 CFR, Part 100, Appendix A.
3
- ~
I I..,
I
-e III.
RELATED SAFETY TOPICS AND INTERFACES
~ Geotechnical engineering aspects of slope stability are reviewed under Topic II-4.D. Other interface topics include II-4.E, 11Dam Integrity; 11 II-3.C, 11Safety-Related Water Supply (Ultimate Heat Sink) 11 ; II-3.B, 11Flooding Potential and Protective Requirements" IIl-6, 11Seismic Design Considerations; 11 XVI, 11Technical Specifications; 11 III-3.C, "In-Service Inspection of Water Control Structures; 11 I Il-3.A, 11Effects of High Water Level on Structures; 11 and IX-3, 11Station Service and Cooling Water Systems."
IV.
REVIEW GUIDELINES In general, the review process is conducted in accordance with the procedures described in NUREG-0800 Standard Review Plan Section 2.5.4.
The geotechnical engineering aspects of the design and as~constructed conditions of structures are reviewed and compared to current criteria, and the safety significance of any differences is evaluated.
V.
TOPIC EVALUATION
- l. General Description and Eval~ation Items The Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant (BRP) is located on the eastern shore of Lake Michigan, approximately 4 miles northeast of Charlevoix, I
The plant grade is at__J1\\£imum elevi!_~_ion 59_2._5.ft (USGSaatum)/ and the water level of the Lake Michigan varies between elevations 576.0 ft to 584.0 ft.
The topography at the site varies from level to gently 4
sloping towards the lake. Figure 1 shows the general layout of the plant.
In addition to the structures shown in Fi~ute 1, Offshore Intake Structure and Offshore Intake Pipe Line are also part of the plant. These supply the cooling water for the operation and also safe shutdown of the plant. The Offshore Intake Structure is a submerged trestle structure located approximately 1200 ft offshore in Lake Michigan where the depth of water is approximately 30 ft. The Offshore Intake Pipe Line connects the Intake Structure to the Screen well-Pumphouse/Diesel Generator/Discharge Structure.
Seismic safety margin evaluation of the BRP by D'Appolonia (Reference 1) presents detailed description and functions of these safety related structures, systems and components.
The foundations of the safety-related structures, systems and components that were considered in our settlement evaluations are:
- Reactor Building
- Turbine Building
- Screenwell-Pumphouse/Diesel Generator/Discharge Structure
- Fuel Cask Loadjng Dock/Core Spray Equipment Room
- Intake Structure (offshore)
- Intake Pipe Line (offshore)
- Buried Fire Main Piping System and Electrical Cables 5
.. e
- 2.
Foundation Data
~ 2.1. Source of Information Geotechnical data available for this site are:
- 1.
"Soil Report 11
, Big Rock Point Plant, Charlevoix, Michigan by Soil Testing Service, Inc., March 7, 1960.
{Reference 2).
- 2.
11Big Rock Nuclear Power Plant, Hydrological Survey 11
, Report by Great Lake Research Division, Institute of Science and Technology, University of Michigan for Consumer Power Company, November 1961.
(Reference 3)
- 3.
11Geophysical Cross-Hole Survey, 11 Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant, Charlevoix, Michigan, January 1979, by D'Appolonia, Consulting Engineers, (Reference 4).
The first set of data, Soils Report (1960), presents the geotechnical investigation and analyses performed in connectio~ with the construction I
of the power plant. The investigation consisted of drilling seven borings and performing laboratory tests on soil samples recovered from the borings.
The second set of data presents a description of the lake bottom as observed by divers during hydrological survey.
The third set of data, Geophysical Cross-,.Hole Survey Report (1979), presents the geophysical investigations performed to establish the dynamic I
properties of the materials at the site. This investigation consisted of 6
l I
(
(
drilling three borings and perfonning cross-hole tests to determine tee compressional and shear wave velocities of the soil and rock at the site.
The report presents details of the test and measured values of shear and compressional wave v~locities as a function of depth.
In addition, data gathered during the site visit were also used in the evaluation (References 5, 6 and 7).
2.2 Subsurface Conditions Pl ant Site The plant site (ground surface at average elevatlon :sgo.o ft) has:
approximately 40 ft thick soil overburden overlying limestone bedrock; the overburden is composed of:
- 7 to 10 ft thick, medium dense to dense, fine to coarse sand with some gravel and limestone chips, and varying amount of silt. This is a glacial outwash deposit. Standard penetration test (ASTM 01586) blow count ranged from 8 to 33.
The ground wat~r table is controlled by the adjoining lake level and is at an approximate depth of 8 ft below ground surface.
- 30 to 35 ft thick, fine to coarse sand with some clay, trace of silt and gravel. This is a very stiff cohesive glacial t:tll.
The standard penetration test blow count ranged from 19 to 162.
Sand lenses were occasionally encountered in this stratum, 7
T I: I
- 1.
J I
l
- The bedrock is limestone.
The upper 15 to 17 ft of this is highly fractured and weathered fossiliferous limestone with seams of clay.
The core recovery in this zone ranged from 0 to 90 percent and the RQD -(Rock Quality Designation) ratio ranged from O to 26.
This highly fractured limestone zone is underlain by approximately 75 ft thick limestone with occasional seams of clay.
The core recovery in this zone ranged from 40 to 100 percent and the RQD ratio ranged from 0 to 84.
This limestone is underlain by approximately 50 ft thick, highly fractured limestone with vugs.
The core recovery in this zone ranged from 10 to 100 percent and RQD. ratio was 0.
The fractured vuggy zone is underlain by slightly broken to massive limestone.
The core recovery in this zone ranged from 52 to 100-percent and the RQD ratio ranged from 55 to 90.
The deepest boring at the site (201 ft deep) was terminated in this stratum.
Offshore Intake Structure and 'Offshore Intake Pipe Line
(
c The surficial material on the lake bed qlong the intake Pipe consists of an initial stretch of beach zone followed by boulder-pavement zone and till-cobble zone.
Offshore intake structure is located in the till-cobble zone.
The intake pipe line runs from the offshore intake structure to the screen well-pumphouse/Diesel Generator/Discharge Structure.
Figure 2 presents contours and approximate boun~ary of the lake bottom material found offshore of the BRP site.
8
- e The beach zone, approximately 250 ft wide, consists of cobbles, pebbles and sand, and is continuously subjected to agitation by wave action.
This includes zone of water depth shallower than 5 ft.
The boulder pavement zone, approximately 500 ft wide, is a spread out area of cobbles and small boulders set closely together on the bottom.
Wave erosion has removed the clay and sand content of the glacial till (upper 2 ft zone) leaving the pebbles, cobbles and boulders to form the lake bottom, termed "boulder Pavement Zone." This boulder pavement is approximately 2 ft thick and is underlain by glacial till.
In the till-cobble zone, the surficial boulder pavement zone mentioned above is not present and the till is exposed at the lake bottom.
2.3 Soil Properties In addition to the standard penetration test blow-:counts, the test.data available are:
I
- l. insitu moisture content (6 to 10 percent) of till.
- 2.
unconsolidated undrained triaxial shear test on till samples recovered from split-spoon sampler (ASTM 01586}.indicated an undrained shear strength of 3 TSP cohesion and 30 degrees angle of internal friction.
It is concluded that this till is very stiff and highly overconsolidated.
9 I
- e
- 3.
Settlement of Structures 3.1. Plant Site Structures All the seismic Category I buildings within the plant site are founded on glacial till stratum which is present at the plant site at a nominal
. depth of 8 ft. Based on the available data (presented in section 2.3, above) it is concluded that the glacial till is very stiff (cohesion 3 TSF) and heavily overconsolidated.
The maximum settlement due to the load from the structures was estimated by the applicant during the design stage to be minimal (less than 0.5 inch) and would take place within a short period after load application.
The licensee had not initiated any settlement monitoring program and has. no records of any settlement monitoring.
The plant has been in operation for nearly 20 years and there is no evidence of any excessive
,----*1_
settlement. A few minor cracks were noticed during the site\\vi s iI.=....----=---:~-'
(Reference 10), but these minor cracks are judged to be of no significance to the safety-related structures.
As the structures have been in place for nearly 20 years, the potential for future settlement is negligible.
3.2 Offshore Intake Structure The offshore intake structure is located approximately 1200 feet offshore where the depth of the water is approximately 30 ft. The bottom of the intake structure is approximately 12 ft below the lake bottom (till). A two-foot thick sand bedding was provided and the excavation 10
- e was backfilled with the excavated soil (till) except the upper two feet was backfilled with boulder and cobble.
The intake structure is a light structure and is founded on till stratum. There is no data available on either the estimated or measured settlement of this structure.
Underwater inspection by the diver did not reveal any signs of tilt due to excessive differential settlement (Reference 11).
Based on the information available (References 8.9) it is concluded that the past and future settlement of this structure is minimal with no significance to the safe operation of this safety-related structure.
3.3 Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement The postulated safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) ground acceleration for the BRP is 0.12g.
The glacial till, material beneath the mat foundation is a very stiff (approximately 20 percent clay content) material which is not susceptible to liquefaction. The granular material (8 ft thick) occurring above the till is in a dense staite.
The water table I
is in the vicinity of the top of the till stratum.. so this granular material is not susceptible to liquefaction because it is not saturated. Seismic induced settlement of the till or dense granular material would be negligible.
The intake structure is founded in the till material which is not susceptible to liquefaction.
The 2-ft thick sand bedding under the intake structure might liquefy and the consequences w9uld be seismically induced settlement of negligible magnitude wit~ no significance to its safe operation.
11
- e
- 4.
Settlement of Buried Equipment 4.1 Buried Fire Main Piping System (BFMPS) and Electrical Cables Fire main piping system and electrical cables within the plant site are buried at a minimum depth of 6 feet below ground surface.
The construction details and specifications for these are not available.
In the absence of knowledge on the backfill material assuming that the insitu granular material from the excavation was used for backfill, it is judged that this material is amenable to compaction and a modest compactive effort would result in a dense material estimated to be in the 70 percent relative density range. It is the staff's opinion that, in the plant area, there would be no settlement related loss of support for seismic Category I piping and electrical cables founded on and in this material under static conditions.
4.2 Offshore Intake Pipe Line The Intake Pipe runs from offshore intake structure to the Screenwell-pumphouse/diesel generator/discharge building. Ihis is a 60-inch inside diameter and 6-inch thick wall reinforced concrete pipe buried in the lake bottom to a total length of 1450 ft, in 16.5 ft sections connected with gasketed joints. The pipe is laid in till material (excavation 12 to 16 feet below bottom of lake bed) on 18-in. thick sand bed.
The excavation is backfilled with sand up to l ft above the pipe and with gravel and cobble of 6 in. size up to the lake bottom.
The sand was placed under water by a tremie. There was no compaction 12
.\\
control in the specifications (References 6 and 7). The sand (amenable to compaction) has been subjected to some compaction effort when gravel and cobble stones were dumped on top of the sand.
It is the staff 1s opinion that this material i.s in the 50 to 60 percent relative density range.
The staff is also of the opinion that there would be no settlement related loss of support for this pipe (founded on a 18-inch thick bedding over glacial ttll) under static cond it i ans.
4.3 Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement The materials beneath and surrounding the buried Fire Main Piping Systems and Electrical Cables are not susceptible to liquefaction (see Section 3.3 above).
Also, the seismic (SSE) induced settlement of the till or dense granular material would be negligible.
The till beneath the buried offshore intake pipe is not susceptible to liquefaction.
The sand bedding under the intake pipe might liquefy. If it did, the pipe would not be affected because:
(a) the pore water would escape to the overlying gravel fill.
(b) a very slight settlement (a few hundredths of an inch) would occur, Hence liquefaction is not a safety problem and also the seismic (SSE) induced settlement would be negligible.
13 1
~--- -------------------------------------------------
- e VI.
CONCLUSIONS Based on review of the licensee's SAR and information obtained during the site visit, the staff concurs with the licensee's conclusions that
- 1.
All the seismic Category I structures are founded on competent till material and do mot possess any potential for future settlement as the settlement -Wa?~j essentially complete soon after construction.
Any future seismic induced settlement should be minimal and will not pose a safety problem.
- 2.
The material beneath and around the seismic Category. l structures are not likely to liquefy under postulated SSE with a ground acceleration of 0.12g.
The sand bedding under the offshore structures may liquefyand this would result in a seismic induced settlement of negligible magnitude.
This would not be a safety concern.
- 3.
Settlement of seismic Category I foundations and buried equipment is not a safety problem at the Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant.
14
- e VII.
REFERENCES (Available.at NRC Docket Room, Docket No. 50-155)
- 1. Seismic Safety Margin Evaluation, Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant, Charlevoix, Michigan - Volumes l thru X; by D'Appolonia Consulting Engineers, for Consumers Power Company, August 1981.
- 2.
"Soil Report", Big Rock Point Plant, Charlevoix, Michigan,.:by Soil Testing Service, Inc., March 7, 1960.
- 3.
11Big Rock Nuclear Power Plant, Hydrological Survey 11
, Report by Great Lake Research Division, Institute of Science and Technology, University of Michigan for Consumers Power Company, November 1961.
- 4.
"Geophysical Cross-Hole Survey," Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant, Charlevoix, Michigan, January 1979, by D*Appolonia, Consulting Engineers, for Consumers Power Company.
- 5.
Memo to A. L. Bethel from W. E. French (no date), subject: Preliminary Geological Survey of Big Rock Point - copy from the licensee's microfilm file at the plant office, obtained by NRC staff during site visit on May 20, 1982.
- 6.
Specifications for Inlet Crib, Intake Line and Excavation for Discharge Canal, Big Rock Point Plant, prepared by Bechtel Corporation for Consumers Power Company, February 28, 1961 - copy from Licensee's microfilm file at the plant office, obtained by NRC staff during site visit on May 20, 1982.
- 7.
List of Drawings (provided by the Licensee) used in this. evaluation:
- Big Rock Point Plant - Site plan, Dwg. No. C-3
- Big Rock Point Plant - Site Soil Boring Data, - Dwg No. G-16408-A
- Big Rock Point Plant - Plot Plan, General Arr.angement - Dwg No. C-4
- Big Rock Point Plant - Site Plan, Clearing, Rough Grading and Excavation - Dwg C-5
- Big Rock Point Plant - Turbine Building, Excavation Requirements -
Dwg No. C-6.
- Big Rock Point Plant - Plot Plan, Finish Grading & Pavin~ ~ Dwg No. C-7
- Big Rock Point.-Plant **Offshore*Intake Line, Plan & Profile - Dwg No. C-32
- Big Rock Point Pl~nt - Screen Well, Pumphouse & Discharge Structures, Substructure Plan - C-35
- Big Rock Point Plant - Screen Well, Pump House & Discharge Structures, Sections and Details - Dwg No. C-36.
15
- 8. Letter from R. Vincent of Consumers Power Company to p. Crutchfield of NRC, dated October 19, 1981,
Subject:
Big Rock Point - SEP Topic II-4.F, Settlement of Foundations and Buried Equipment.
- 9.
Letter from R. Vincent of Consumers Power Company to D. Crutchfield of NRC, dated April 30, 1982,
Subject:
Systematic Evaluation Program - Request for Additional Infonnation for Topics II-4.D and II-4.F.
- 10.
Memo from B. Jagannath of NRC to G. Lear of NRC, dated June 21, 1982,
Subject:
Site Visit to Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant on May 20, 1982.
- 11.
Letter from R. Vincent of Consumers Power Company to D. Crutchfield of NRC dated December 21, 1981,
Subject:
Big Rock Point - SEP Topic III-3.C, lnservice Inspection of Water Control Structures.
16 t.
' I l <.
I' I !
I Fl/£L C4SK---
L04/JIN(1 LXJCI:'
iLIOUIO RAO!OACTlVE iYt'ASlE YA(JLI "LAKE
~lllGAA;.*
.SCR££N JYElL
.,f PUMP llOUSE
/.
SOLID WASTE STORAGE U1U.LTS FIGURE l SITE PLAN I *
(
-. -~
. EMERG£NCY CENERAn:K:' ROOM DISCl-IARG£ STR!ICTUR£ BELOW*
OFF/CE JNFORMATlON BLDG-
- I
~KING.
~*.
SEcuzifT~-.
H APPROXIMATE SCALE I"'= 130' 130 1
0 130° I
Mri~
- l 1
I 1
l BIG ROCK POINT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
)
\\.
,'1,,..
- \\
.).
- ~~**
.. I
~o'.
.* *~*
. : *..* J...
J;' ;{. ~J~::.. '.:*.
- ~*
~..
I*,*
~..
-*--,.,...*--~~~'"*-ol.U.tr'.... ;~~~..::-L:.:.. ~.*.*---*......... :'"'
~ !
~. ;.. '*
~** *,.
',~'*
f_..._..._..Ao_"-_,_,~0 FEET.
ffd-uRe *z.
PRELIMINARY GEOl.OGIO MAP ora ftOCX PCtlilT IJIEA
- UOlOO'I' DY Wli.LIAU fRE.fl~lf
~~
~ :
I',.*
~.r-LU..t...
~*~I,...
.'t:*
° \\.
I I
I
~
...~
1 I
,' :.~ 0
- /.;
- t I
,I
- ot I. "
'.\\
~ :..
.r-
'I,,**
...... ~.
Source:
, by Great Lake November 1981.
"Big Rock Nuclear Power Plant, Hydrologic Survey" Research Division, I
(.
/