Text

Forwards Responses Re Shore Barrier Per NRC 841213 Request. Photographs of Shore Barrier During Const Submitted on 841222
	ML20113E228
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	01/16/1985
From:	Jens W; DETROIT EDISON CO.
To:	Youngblood B; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
	EF2-72040, NUDOCS 8501230362
	Download: ML20113E228 (75)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:r-Wayne H. Jens Yes Prssklent Nuclear Operations January 16, 1985 I U* WbMN0 Edison =Nonn an,.n.an.., =r" -- Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention: Mr. B. J. Youngblood, Chief Licensing Branch No. 1 Division of Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Youngblood:

Reference:

Fermi 2 NRC Docket No. 50-341

Subject:

Shore Barrier - Supplemental Information At a meeting with your staff on December 13, 1984, it was agreed that additional information would be submitted relevant to the shore barrier at Fermi 2. The specific NRC requests and Edison responses are provided in the enclosure to this letter. (The photographs of the shore barrier during construction were previously transmitted to Mr., Staley on December 22, 1984.) Please direct any questions to Mr. O. K. Earle at (313) 586-4211. Sincerely cc Mr. P. M. Byron Mr. M. D. Lynch Mr. G. B. Staley (NRR-EHEB)* Mr. R. A. Jachowski (NRR-EHEB)* Mr. J. F. Norton (RIII)* U. S. NRC, Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555

With Attachments Ni 0

A PDR f l NA

s Mr. B.-J. Youngblood January-16,.1985 EF2-72040 Page 2 q bec: Approval Control

F.

E. Agosti* l L. P. Bregni l; R. A. Bryer* W. F. Colbert O. K. Earle* W. J. Fahrner W. R. Holland ~ W. H. Jens R. S. Lenart* P. A. Marquardt T. D.'Phillips M. S. Rager* W. M. Street

G. M. Trahey-A. E. Wegele*

O. K. Earle (Bethesda Office)* Secretary's Office (2412 WCB) 'NRR Chron File *

With enclosure and attachments i

^ s W f J A \\ 4 e t- "Lwm n sw, y.. ,r y"- ,my e ,c,4 .,-,g ..m,,,- -ny-e-ye,7yy 7,, 3,-

r Enclosure to EF2-72040 SHORE BARRIER: NRC REQUEST / EDISON RESPONSES 1) NRC: Submit the filter analysis with emphasis on the crushed rock layer placed on the clay accounting for the physical properties of the clay layer. Edison: A filter analysis has been performed by Dames and Moore per the NRC request. provides both the design calculation (Dames and Moore File No. 7605-051-07) that reflects this analysis, and correspondence referenced in the calculation. A filter analysis-was'not performed pre-viously'since the original design included a filter cloth between the crushed rock layer and_the. underlying materials. The original intent of the filter cloth was to assure that fine sand didn't filter through the: sheet piles and crushed rock. (That is, the original intent of the shore barrier was not to retard flow of ground water.) The filter fabric was subsequently eliminated since the specifications for the barrier required the removal of the soft peat-and the overlying sandy material. The excavation was to be backfilled with crushed rock. Since the site fill consisted of crushed rock, a filter layer / cloth was not required. At the time that the clay fill seal was t incorporated into the design, dispersion l tests were performed on three samples of the clay fill. (See correspondence provided in.) These results indicated that-the clay was not dispersive. As a result, it l was' concluded that a filter cloth was not required between the clay fill and the crushed rock. l 2) NRC: Provide a justification for using the clay L layer. Edison: The clay seal was added to the shore barrier design to increase the travel time for the flow of water from the'radwaste building to Lake Erie. FSAR Sections 2.4.13.3 and l ~15B.7.3 describe the results of a postulated t

rupture of the tanks storing. liquid radwaste in the radwaste building. The liquid radwaste can leak out of the radwaste building and enter the ground water. The diluted liquid radwaste will flow through the aquifer toward Lake Erie. The clay seal in the shore barrier.will increase the flow distance from the radwaste building to the lake. The flow will be interrupted by the clay seal and forced to travel beyond the north end of the shore barrier before entering the lake. 3) NRC: Provide a shore barrier profile via a new survey, which reflects a 4-point cross-section for (approximately) each 100-feet of barrier. Edison: Attachments 2 and 3 provide the sheet pile and shore barrier survey results, respective-ly. shows the sheet pile to be in very straight alignment-with no evidence of sheet pile movement. The survey points reflect both the: points previously used by Edison in surveys (as identified on Edison drawing 6C721-0043), and the additional- ^ points identified to an NRR reviewer during a recent site visit. The survey points, identified in-Attachments 2 and 3 will be used for the surveys conducted in accordance with Technical Specification 3/4.7.3. 4) NRC: Provide an FSAR change which documents the existence and acceptability of the deviations .from the original' design in the.as-construct- .ed shore barrier.. Edison:: Attachment'4 provides a proposed FSAR change, which. addresses this request via revision of-Section 2.4.5.7 and Figure.2.4-22.- This 4 change will be 1ncorporated'into a ~ forthcoming amendment. Filter Analysis l Attached is: 1) Dames and Moore Calculation File No. 7605-051-07 2) Sargent & Lundy Letter, SLS-2668, dated November 5, 1984 3) Dames and Moore Letter to Detroit Edison, " Review of Test Results for Three Onsite Clay Samples - Proposed Shore Barrier", File 7605-045-88, dated July 16, 1980 4) Detroit Edison memorandum, " Shore Barrier Clay", F2580-1864, dated September 22, 1980 5) Detroit Edison letter to Dames and Moore, " Shore Barrier Clay", F2S80-1320, dated June 30, 1980 6) Dames and Moore letter to Detroit Edison, "Dispersive Test Results for Three Onsite Clay Samples Proposed Shore Barrier", File 7605-045-88, dated August 22, 1980 7) Telecon between Dames and Moore and Detroit Edison, File 7605-051-07, dated December 19, 1984 l l l l l ~._

~ SUBJECT OE7NO!7~ SU /SC N ~ f"MM / 5_ _ _ _ _ _ _ e .S}/c am-BARRIG2 - P'!c M SHEET / or k hVA1 AlAK V ..(.- /- G-tfaJND W6 TEA L GV GLS /ULArt D OA+5~ $@.) 88 RWhfr2m ~ A. r /> e7>v e n i y Pr A8our 70 8 77;- TV Bei.ow. M K&~ 4 eitsz. C Re,= n~- s). Th,te nM, 17hw ' I.S. N CP/* A... f/6.Nt F=t L / fit /7' C> A AD16A!7". I'6 IvA AW.$ Tift /SA AAIE)c, Ve9c c~. Se67'AGC. MLd.w Shou t O yy ' 6 G' ' A/6Tr.L/c-A 6t.e. t'N. oud 'of/A//6sti, 77/ s ~ /~it r f c ,.........,.......' D r. Bis G6 As/7e7), ~ ~ ~. $ $ ~:' ?.Cttt n=>E/A../=6A.. ' _.S B C P'.A S T csv: .... 4.......... .. _~.:. l 2 css 4 cc ~.6 est)A 6-f ~ b,tN,.JG2'4tL4EG-40 c7D,.rHr. oNo.p* ~ .. FicTEx..:... CAs TDe/D N -.. A /PLtCA 6LE.. I S.. Dh4 7 ' Fct .. 5 .......: Rot t 'S us pe~-. ~. beo rec rioN 2 fff. :D7~.- 2); A ..$gy. 9 ..j..__. _ c ornes eg./ g p,,,ex..g.g.. .. -... -p .. i.s. ..ps . ~. _ - _ -... ......._.. ~T -.....c^/. ~~A CLc&D ANce-~-~WITH '.~l=Q GA 776N S ~'J =J. W.3-3 ~ dJ. ~T~ .....~. :. ' ~ C. :.

2. fA 6-c5 :X.THRou64r. nft.S :: :c>ei rS7C 16 N. 't$ SA-n S Ftef) ~

j -...FsL:Ati- ~:90 AlleNS ~T o F..~'7NS ~.*~~/3Atti SA rXc erP/~. ~:.L. ~: ' CL4y /CK VS /fc~9. loc K n . ~}l owe 2,SK,.3/NcC ~nhe.~.~.:c Ley.2/~/! t. ': cc ws tS 7.S.--- ~

~ ~~

~~~

/H CDI U/n "* PL A S77& t Ty*)0... TANO. 7'/fe'~~X t.Ay :~

//G O/D f ..'~~.~.~.T.[^~ ~ '0k

J. t /M i 7~... C L G S t~ ' Yb 36 L LA-y

/.S ~.... - ~ .. A E'y $ 7&N 7~. To .i='~2& S/e.U.. ) ASE7) :/A/. Dip A;e5/sd ~

T&*>T'.S C fef. X 't) [A :F C T&7C

in ' Af* 7~

A82Q 01/9 * * .-. L.-.... V C C P. 11T ~ I ).. .. _ ~ "..... '. ' ~~ - :

n A s e'D. 'o d c 2.) A 80 </E.7n/c ".c a s-y
CodDs T7CO 7 war

^ * '3 (.. coutA 4 EAD 70 : soinc .c go Sten or. 7Hc c L4) N.

s5 7n-s*

v G2 o c ry.. n i~ .tp Ascal 17/ S WArEX Fcow.s "g % ~~' ~ TilAO ts &-M. 77/e

ri nix. C.cA &5Itt'D ~ StpMr),. A S.. cesa ry-r

. -.g ' k "* h y

Wa vr ~ ~ A c.nor). 2'N '. o v't : ~ of tNie w, Z r * /.s A til-t.9 UNLn tet.y - 77f-4r*.DfE:M/2K Va 0 '- ' Ty

.Q

~ t ' ~ ~.:3 y . 4/ h?-e-C K us/f n 40cK. w is-s. : Pe n ett S ci e t+. ~~ f Ai A c An TLD 63 To Aesti < 7~ /N ' f x d St& W. of~ 7N-er c ~' 'O ^l-l - F A 0 til 77h=~~ A 46.veG".t r - tAy - f)e ccx;eevoc.p 77/A r 48 -T T~ l.S A4 GHc y. VNcI Kety WAT D AM A t-s-o A=- r#6 Qo sac & r) AAAtthC H st t- ct e c. u t AS 19 C n 5er< vs u C Egg of ERO SicN of nw it.A-y Fo L t-..TF / N,Y 568 EKc ssosi occuts ,.'rT SHor D f)F S Lo u AND o B s' p e-TE L r2=D plt &~A SILy/POS ARM e G-R.11Ou&t, 4ND &AN 'nif on - G.a in t-h)cm rdinc. ( l .m - m =. u..... i L

- FILE N8NdN --OFCo --- " ------ -

-[-

'. L Sug3ggypn,j(,g $p(.pq i ggy,,'f_ _ Q,, f jgsf .} j. :..... _N.. ' 8 _ j.. _. '..... _.. _. [hg.. /,a c hf, ef, ..._.. SHEET 1 0F b ._.__...___....l__ t i i I i i-

l '

j_.[i' _ i i l 1 , !, i l' I I i ii!. i t i I I 5 H 5 ? & j ~Ll/ w ~beeirt. i i t i;ii i i...f- :-~~i ~~ -~~ _t f'ii 1 ! i ' I ! I i.;e ! ; t t i- : i e i ! i I i i i i l i! I i i I '- ' arc /l-'6/I,6/[/; i T/s)Q ; i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b *o I ! 'l ~ M M th~ c;[~~~d/[/TTi i -!--~i i i l i ii. i = i i ; i i ' -~ ~ N

i I l t I i ! I I 6 iI I

,1 l l ,1 i 1 I i i i -[ T a) Clani (.vec. ten 3 on). E V)T s _Lj_[ ,;,ii

1 i

I i i i l 7i .I I I ! I I [Gtohd; 4 . d.'#wd l l l i j E' -4. E I l {u - I . J,_ i I I I_,_,_, i. I

o' l,

I IA)

b..rJ Ji T- /O ' l 4T., I I

1if bl Il l ! 'l i 1 i 'E i l AA '~rict D zi q ba s: l l l 5 ~ -j-ih- > i

===- 1 I-l l i ! i i I ~ k! 1i$$ et i o A.1 (K.~.f^173, i ~ 1 1 1 _I l ' i ll i TW l l l l . i I Esll'.- f L L.- =- I i ! II i v'r r 9', I I I l

Ii d /h.

2'-- vc e-IE.74, / P. rey 2,"/ t i l l 1 I l ! it IDi-1 IL.L i iil I l = i I I i 1 Ii l l l l l 1 1 I l ~ l ! I I I ; ( i i i i i ii

I i

li Ii i i i i i i Id ver4fc., I l L. I G O l,

4 l: f. ! i 1I I i i' i

) i l i I I I I i i l~ l l l l

i i i

F&l bri c.n frc'g) i $6ee ' Ao-l .t a: fx f'A Q ~.~.@. {~ i i i i

t

,t i-i i i ! i l i, i l l 1 l' I. - i i 8 i i i i l i I i i 1 l l l l 1 ' - {l i 4 i i l -1 8 )l Y ' 35 Wh.c.. ~C7[.h7Fa.' ( M ' ht ~~4 ~

-k &

= s. i i l t ! I I I l i ! I i i I I i lI t I 'l l -l I, I !l ! l i I _L_$ t J l I I I l j /)j i ff//cr !/dg,.f' It. p_. + ' lj !% 7 .2 i i= ~ i I ! i l I! I j l 1 [l I ! l!

I LB.)))dhh_/,.).n.JulI b L25t i

'- 3 ' l i i i i i i i i i l i i i i - i i ig . i -.l.- . k E 8 .: Nb Ct. R e / G y L.. h. !10 k.... k.....e ~ o.:! C# Ct rMJ Qe . brnl rec 4....cfq u . tn f n m - epp li%. y g Mt

5 8

...,-.birs H., /Ag.cd/...d $ S '. lD -... y 0 1.* m 4f 4T-S V) ( ..l[.....hr.r,.'/-( k s-Jil.W N : 70 m _ Ts4b. f ps ) . M...Afihlk Ak. $ ?! ?- Dames & Moore Ms.3 estem T ro sN U.S. A.

} . _ [.. _ _ __ -. 7'..! -_ -- -- ; -.!- --{ y y-f l/r-f--/,A( 3d // # /'- SHEET 1 0F./d.- - SUBJECT %,;ro t w o -l/N a %< ' W & --... t ~ L C.-.L ! - [-- --- r 2 - Io--~ ~ :~-~ --1-- -- - -, i ;- 1 I .___. :.u.... - {

y
I

_3 --- q -- e i

i l t

! : i i i ! ! ! i li: 1 i' . i l i 8' b T/v4.. h.' CarJW]lc5 ~- n o _. ,,,. _ *,,_ _ f o ...... f -- l ---7"----- i l . I i 1 i I I i. a {)/r qs.or-jjgiir.l=, 1/~7f'j g-: /, % /,,, i j l l l i ! I i i i i a1 i 4 i

. I

! I i i . _a 4 . l l i l j l l l l i i I-- - - =. >= j i ! A/gs l i d--- -- ,)4 1 L/ I l-I l l : ? l -g"- l ! po r :E7 ! i i il l t I ' ! i I I T ~ _..._ 9 j i i i j l l I i1 1 I ll I l! e . t s ,, I., I I l l 't t,

i j l

i T-$ = a l l j c) d-N ij,_Y

m<.

I i j I i Il ~i I i i l i i il , i I i i Il [. i:j,! t I jii 7FM I /db)' = L1 Al i'! iI i i

} i l l l

l I I i i lI 1 3 i i l i ; 97 l (fo i I ' I l-i-' &. T. 1... /J-Ccar.rer pe f,yf 330 1 ! 1 1 i 1 i j i l l l l i _ 1 I l' 6E! l l l i ; i j i i i l l l l 1 ; l l l l 1 i. .l l t I - l l 1' l l l - ( - ' --- .e. il l j : ! j i i i I .i i i 9 t l i ; ; i i

: 1 i !

i j i ; i i

i i i I l-l I

I I i: i i ! - l l l 1 ! I s .t i 4 l l - -- f ~ ~ ~. l.. i' ; i. i ! i l l l l l I l i - - - b -- g j 6 a i l l + i. l l { t (. l.. _. - r

g

. a g 1 e 3 i l i i I i! l l ' l I M ~[- 4 ~ i i 1 l l l l 6 I l l l l I I l ! l T-v_

i l

i.i i i i i l l l l I ! + } g = - _ - ---j 1 ~ i l I ; l! l 8 g , - - ~ " ~ " - Q i : l r ___u. _L_. o.j t

i

-" i [ ~ i - i i i l i ! i ! 1 ; l_.l...,__.._..__.p--- - --. m L-. ~ O q ,,_,, j,,_ u> W 0. >I O g y y Dames & Moore ML2 pensee T ED sw U.S a. t

,..; R .j __._.._.!__,-___ Q _.._ L... - -- SUBJECT fee e MW< A/MIt MA's N/b ' I -- -l _.1.Lf__'. - -._f..C h a rt..l--v'd L L-S e <r'/ et'. L-SHEET h OF 1 i. I i i i i i I ~L ! i l 3 Ck_! i ! i, i i ! : i l 1

I!

. i _j ~\\ ~ i~ t i DETC2MNC lP .tt t E, i I~i'[ii I lT \\ ' 1~i ~ ! I i ; : i [i : l> i i i . ' I I _.d'...._bN.1._l-(',f.c.C_-lNiet.,rt' i L _1 w. _ j_ i. 36 ^ .I_ . i _.l i _...... - _.. '.. _, i I no la _.. _ _7.J e, l _.. = " i. - ~. j ll i j ; ! i ; i ! l 1 i i t i ' i . 53 '0-i i I, i i 'bjg e 7D me i i i i i i : I i i. _ _i l l l 'jK W /2-o fnh l l l l ! l l ! I I I i i i-l l l ; ,I i

. I i

l l I t i I t i s. i i I 6N; OD; hm. i ~i i h b : I ! I I ~ ! l .,,, T ~ ~;I I l l l .i l l I I I .I I l i I i t i i E '. I l l-l Me l.fi u = 204[-*- i !.l l /o - 15 / lJe u; s'30 l i i}1 o 1 l.' = I E$$ i l l l l l l

.! l II l l

anumtl(ii= [5Qcf. l 1 1 f f i i .ij i II I l l l l l 1 I i 7TP ) de Po# /ukI ! i l I

1

! i ii l l l /6f_k_ I l, = Zo 'i I ; I .I l l I. I!l! H i !I her (3 77<'l) z t i ; I t ?.cs 6, - 24" bef I I l i ii I I l l l l l 1i I! I I l l t la I i l J I i ! i i c "( i ^i'_' i i i ar2 + eco i I ! I i ii - d.'l,1,- Q,y ;, g, c. p3 pg ' ' - ~] ~ ~ ~- ~" } j, ! j

((f ;a i?,- }i d.; }} l: -

f 6 i i i i i i i i iii.! i.: i i i I i .I i l l l 1 i i i i : I- ' h_ E p,. d d. i i I !'- i i i i I l i i ! i ! l l l I! l ; ' i .0,, = :r75 m,7 i I ' 1 ii: j i ..,_g j eg = 530, A I i i I i.I i t i i! ie e i ! i i

i i i i i i i l

i I i i i. ' j-i 74 i i i i n% d __).._i4., _~J/ sic

j i i

j i i j i i i c i' Q,j i

i i i i iit i1 i

i'i t to* [ /w p',,,, rgo '. ; i ~" i ~E d ~ ~$,ga '~ ~ ~ ~ ~I i ' ro y, Au : 704 IGua # ~~ i i !I ~ I ~~ ~" ~ ~ ~ i : . u ' )e.T.~ M._.. i.e._. Za. c.d._*_.... _ _ _. _ _ _ _ Q/ i hi o I 3 N $g 2< sco n

68

% 2... V s 7t * /s r _ -.=._0,9.0.=J0s 8- ).ba., = ['t8 MN '~ Q.Q. ",y, ' I.o 5 ' = A. b', .D., b10 ~ t;,;,. ( 2 f,us, ya 7 4 /67 :::_' /.y2' ~ /7, / j Ju"

E6 7 a h*-

2 Dames & Moore .c.. , o.....

_J1- ._L.__.----._.4 ~......:-._----f---+--+--*'-*--"*----- OMd -MM Mip d@+ ------ FILE I Ehrio *Fm"; Aloie M Had'I - ._l_i. ;.. -..- .L. i 0._......'. -._.- - -.. su Ba e c r .Shm L.o h e Eun r sneer T or 6 _.. F_ , -i.,-l 2- ---i- ; "j 7 i c Ij- ; I --t - u. ! ! i I i I i, I I i i i i - !C) Crn1cR([ l I i i ! i i I _. -[-.-. _ { 1_h---,--- . __ lg O.N. __]

_2_t -

n _.._..__. 15- *---

W- - -

r-qO ,e F l -j;' -[.i - U "O #1#1, t l 1 R . l g i L._ l f I I. l _.\\ l I I _ f.. "i . l l l l t I i i. i i ! l l I i L i I I {_! _,l iI I i l 1. i [~I-[ :n" a"T i { l l l l l 1 I i ! I I l l II I I i ! I ' I i j i i i i i i i i i i i i i i'i i ' ' I i ! i ; i l i y Aat c. i i 1 1I i iii !I iJ l I ! n'b \\ 8 -b" ~ I a L: g:;~:; ' i CMA?di Lit i i I /zd I I I I I no I I',i!- I I i l i l 8 f et I ! I 13 IN I i i i -..i l Afl Wh c. I i W6 l lD I I I I I J i ! i iiii i i i I i iI i i i I '. !I i j j ' I I i l i i .l I I !I I I !I I I i i i

l l t

,i i i i 1 -1 II i ! l ! ,i -[ [ t i l l t l l 1 l l l l ! l l I I I I'! -1, -f l i :

I I! i '

! j i ; i ! i i I I l ! i'I il i i ; i i ! I i i : I i I i : i i ! i i ! l i ! I i 1 ~[ i i 1 8 I 1 i_. i I i i i h l I :--' " ~~ ~ g 9 l u l l i I ! i !l i ! i I 8 I I I l ' 1 i ~ i i i. 4 I 1 8 y. ! l ' ! 'i i i i oj I g,-' I I i f %' 'h I i I f c ll ' a a ( = >8 ._q.____.._._..._...____. p > I O .. _. g3 y y ( .--S_e. Dames & Moore l. m., . n o.- u.....

._!._ g,t I,_ ' '.p._ _.._..SUBIECT FIN f6*I Ah - M flu U.E - ~ 1 _ L ;__..'_... y. 1..'..E w /pe,tafu o{ Shsn/.4e &<r,r/13HEET d 0 F _b._ 5,. I i I : ' I ia

i i

L, ' -, . i._ _iiI i i i ! LI l l l l l I i ': , j._ _. i g i ....J, S te e. h w > _ t ! i e b _ ._ _.._[h r e !.. _. b.. _ __ f...._ W..._ .. _. ls_ k.(, i1 1 0 _Ar > c.ti ,0 .. %w.-- -...l.', i Y Nl t'n A rtiy_ e)v "'e o

j i

' i 5 i ! i w i ~~ E ? ~~~~'~~\\ 18 '.1 EGk l TeTiC~ Mrm;c I P,w, 9(M.~(Gf52.! l i .~~~~?~~~~~~~~~^~' kl }i_g/. bigf '- Tip_ C 2 & )2 ' ' l ~ t l ITinyiJJf3 y I ji T II I I

I

_i i I 1 I "S h d l& g et 1)aj$ i I i ! i i iiI

m. w i

e i_.g.;_i I l-I I i I l 'o o i l ,I l E'1 1 JI (cmbm/ect A.7dnai lI i ! l : i I I i l li i i i i. i t I !!i i i l i i '

aT i ![~~.!:

J) Jhe',o h c<n# IL W L,h Ah/ Nd C4ty;.! l i i li I lE 's.j ' t i ~ 7 cf k<,! 52Pt'k2 II l I 'l ' I ! 1 _I/, I i ! t $t No I af,;63; !I I i I I i\\. I i ! ! J l h 4,, i 1/f i i i I L I i l 1 l 8 I I i i .I 1. .1 l l l l. I III 1 I /2} %u ad ,obic le% Mrd nd (, Pto i l i P ',6 Aojf b ri-sysdB I 'Tg i 1 I ! I t 4 I i ! -.I ..I I l .I III i i i i i

3. ')

Jek.# lhm IJer & /r/ I be i 20, IfB6 i l-1 I 1 i : i i l Iil P2 R D '/j2_O l i l II I Iii! I Ii i I ! i ii ! ! I i 1ei lii' I il i iI I ; ! -@ 1 da m y __c d 'H u it i L Y r k hY~i~hy1f 2}, lho i l I ! i f Drg:.csf ' n'p ' 6'1H[4615-68 i ;*I j l l i l l l 1 ! ! t

l i

l i l ;<! Ei k JG' N.N O e"'- '- k f '2 i I II i l i i I ~i i. i .I i i I i .l,,d, l..f/ ,e i re / [_.[r/ e (f_f i I i l I I i I 1 l.I i l _. 3 4 t0 IA v/ccible.1 JMo, I4F2. I h I ' ! l i ' t , ___e a i l j iiI i l l 13 l 1ll ! ! l i i ! ; W ! _l$ $ . T. .' i 2:), Wh.O W.Aj ,L*gGAndSjer_w$_!Fity N[h, ___ _ tu!t, t + ky wn? y! r7s - 87. ql N I t ! I i ? b l b II I e ~ ~~D N,, ~ ~ ~ ' ~ { [ g i ! ' h l ' l l 't 1 I ! I l i l Q 3 I ~ ~ _: ~ ~ - - O . 4 -.- - - 9 _ _ _.. .s. W i r U > eat L >I o auu = _.. _ _ Dames & Moore u .. m,.......

_ 1 6 o f - 3 f f . 3.,.

.... '. se e v ru r,.,k 9

1.rar m . mtrusa.1 g .. < 1e nu - , ~,. ~...,:. ;,:. y N,,.. v v.,@-(.! -l. M i

I j

. i:, ? c.4 ,,.c..~.. ...N !;;N1 ' '.'lj,..Q:!. ! l 40 60 100 200/;'.:,.' ((. $, '.;,. y.. -4 '." .r 3.r $ U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE ~,' 3 IN.1.5 IN. 3/4 IN. 3/8 IR4 10 20 too .l 1 i i i I I i i i i 1 1 i i i 1 1 i i F Men.c l i i ( Vi i I I y ( /A I _ifw,u l I i a_ y . q s s u / \\ f g l W , a I / )2 I l 8 / I i l gg I W h I l 3 l E ** V B i l l a: 1 U I M4nm i zace i 9 E" ] H - Mll I i l l i c i m y! i i i i 4o l t h M I I l 5* iP. El i I E I ib M i i 3 l j lt', I />. W l I l l i %s iW i l l l l 1 El M l l I i IC iI I l l l t l l l I l 1 a 1000 80 0 10 l.0 0.1 O. OI O.0 01 ,.>cd, GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS,.< ~~,' 'O '- I' GRAVEL SAND ....:.S OR RAY l C088LES-C0 ARSE I FINE COARSEl ME010M l FINE l DEPTH CLASSIFICATION NATWC LL PL PI l 5 s l u s g l \\ l " G ;,_ Fi L T 0ure .i GRADATION CURVE s m

frs.! /410 U 7 CARGENT ..NDY g ENGINEERS 95 E AST MONROE STREET QS, y, ppC # Ft*C C H IC A G O. B L LI N O I S 6 0 6 0'3 13828 269*2000 TWX 910 2 21 2 0 0 7 f Q" jgg4 R. A. Spy r November 5, 1984 Project No. 5285-02 NOV 0 4 SLS No. 2668 File No. 1.15 The Detroit Edison Company Enrico Formi Atomic Power Plant - Unit 2 Evaluation of As-Duilt Shore Barrier The Detroit Edison Company Approval Control 136 EF2-NCC 6400 North Dixie Highway Newport, Michigan 481G6 Attention: Mr. P. V. DeBaehe Roon No. 315 ECT

Dear Mr. DeDaeke:

Please refer to your letter EF2-72,424 Supplement A, dated October 13, 1904, regarding the evaluation of the as-built shore barrier. Ec have completed our revicw of as-built condition of the shore barrier and, it is our opiaion that the deviations from the design in the elevations will have insignificant effect on its functional capability as designed. Enclosed are four copies of the Evaluation of As-Built Shore Barrier (Attachment "A"), dated November 5, 1984 for your use. This completes the Sargent & Lundy Action Itcm PAL No. 50 1866. Yours very truly, M. TATOSIAN MT:lec M. Tatosian In Duplicate Senior Structural Enclosures Project Engineer Copics: M. G. Sigetich (1/0) O. Pt Gupta (1/1) R. A. Bryor (1/1) V. S. S. Annambhotla 41/1) A. Colandrea (1/0) L. L. Holish (1/1) K. T. Kostal (1/1) n !b 3b6!i (1/l) F. P. Tsai (1/0) U lf R. A. Witt (1/1) n

r

.m-- ^

Attachment "A" ~" November 5, 1984 Project No. 5285-02 Page 1 of 13 SLS No. 2668 THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANY ENRICO FERMI - UNIT 2 EVALUATION OF AS-BUILT SHORE BARRIER 10 INTRODUCTION The shore barrier at the Fermi 2 site was reported to be designed and constructed to preserve the integrity of the plant site fill placed to Elevation 583'-0". It consists of a 1000' long rubble mound type shore protection along the Lake Erie shoreline on the east side of the pla'nt area. Detroit Edison Company's (DECO) data on the as-built conditions of the shore barrier indicated deviations in'the elevation of capstone from the design values by more than +12" tolerance allowed in the construction specifications. The as-built data was reviewed and the shore barrier inspected by Mr. R. M. Noble of R.. M. Noble & Associates, consultant to the shore barrier designer Dames & Moore, on July 10, 1984. Based on this review, Mr. Noble concluded that the "overall configuration and elevations are sufficient to preserve the plant site fill's integrity and to withstand and interrupt the design waves generated by the PMME." The Detroit Edison Company (DECO) requested Sargent & Lundy ( S& L), in their authorization letter dated October 19, 1984, to perform an independent evaluation of the ability of the as-built shore barrier to perform its intended design function. The independent evaluation included the following activities: 1. Review Project Specification 3071-176. 2. Keview FSAR Sections 2.4 and.3.4. l 3., Review Design Drawings 6C721-40 and 6C721-43. 4. Review Nonconformance Report 84-1081 and Deviation Disposi-tion Request C12154. 5. Examine existing shore barrier. l 6. Prepare a written evaluation report on the evaluation. ., ~... _,. - - - -

'Attachmant "A" November 5, 1984 Project No. 5285-02 Page 2 of 13 SLS No. 2668 4 This report documents S&L's independent evaluation of the ability of the shore barrier to perform its intended design function (Item 6) following the completion of Items 1 through 5 above. 2.0 FIELD EXAMINATION i A field examination of the shore barrier was performed by S&L's Messrs. L. Holish (Head, Geotechnical Division) and V. S. S. Annambhotla.(Head, Water Resources & Site Development Division) on October 25, 1984. DECO's Messrs. R. A. Bryer i and R. Buck were also present during the inspection. The following are the observations made by S&L during the inspection of the shore barrier: 1. The tops of the capstones near Station E-5960 were lower i than the plant grade elevation of 583'-0" at several i locations in the southern 300' and the northern 100' 3 of the shore barrier. However, the elevation of the i capstone at all locations rose across the barrier crest to the plant grade elevation of 583'-0" or higher at i Station E-5925 (along the land side edge of the crest). 2. The placement of the stone appears to be in very good condition and in accordance with the specifications. i The individual stones appear to be interlocked well with no potential for significant movement due to wave action against the shore barrier. 3. The capstone layer seemed to be of the specified thickness i, of 4'-0" on the crest transitioning to the 7'-6" thickness on the lakeside slope over most of the length of the shore barrier except in-the vicinity of Sta. 77+00, where l locally it appeared to be thinner than the design thickness. ~4.0 Additional observations (regarding the quantity of stone) are noted in Section 3.1.3 of this report. 3.0 EVALUATION OF SHORE BARRIER CAPABILITY 3.1-Geotechnical Considerations 3.1.1 Preliminary Design Considerations and Selection of Final Concepts Four. principal aspects of the geotechnical design have been reviewed, they are (1) foundation preparation, (2) selection and placement of clay fill, (3) selection and placement of stone A and B, and (4) selection and placement of capstone. Foundation preparation as defined in the original Specification 3071-176 and assumed to represent the designer's minimum criteria, required the foundation to consist of medium to stiff a

Attachment "A" November 5, 1984 Project No. 5285-02 Page 3 of 13 SLS No. 2668 clay with standard penetration resistance of 6 blows per foot. Revision A of Specification 3071-176 increased the foundation acceptance criteria to a minimum uncon-fined compressive strength of 2500 psf as defined by ASTM Standard D2166. Areas of the foundation which required excavations deeper than shown on design drawings were to be backfilled and compacted to 95% of the maximum unit weight as determined by ASTM 1557. The second revision dated October 1980 and labeled Revision B reduces the foundation unconfined compressive strength to 1500 psf from 2500 psf and defines acceptable bearing material below the sloping clay seal, west of the gridline E5925, ss granular fill with a minimum bearing capacity of 1500 psf as determined by ASTM Standard D1194. In addition, the foundation preparation specification requirements were relaxed by changing 4 the reference compaction density test to ASTM D698, in areas where unsuitable material excavations were required. The comparison of specification requirements indicate that the original specification of 6 blows per foot as measured by the standard penetration test is generally comparable to an unconfined compressive strength of 1500 psf. The use of either the AASHTO T99 or ASTM i D698 reference compaction test density for the areas which were excavated and backfilled because of their unsuitable strength will also provide comparable strength when tested. Based upon the specification requirements, i the strength of the compacted soils are approximately 15 to 25% stronger than the insitu approved bearing I' surfaces. i Selection and placement of clay fill has been described I Partially above when highlighting the specification changes for the replacement of unsuitable foundation materials. Changes in the percentage of clay content 4 and definition of plasticity index were added in Revision i A. Subsequent changes in Revision B of Specification 3071-175 increased further the clay content higher and also added requirements for the definition of non-despersive clay soils. In summary, the specifica-tions became more strigent during the revision process ( when defining the clay material characteristics, thereby, ~ assuring more impermeability. The FSAR defines the purpose of the clay seal to reduce offsite seepage, therefore, increased clay content and non-dispersiveness p would achieve the objective. i

f I I, November 5, 1984 Project No. 5285-02 Page 4 of 13 SLS No. 2668 t 1 Selection and placement of stone A & B remained unchanged during the revision process requiring all stone to i be angular quarried material or equivalent, that is L sound, durable, hard, free fr'om laminations, free from weak cleavages and free from undesireable weathering. Placement changes occurred for the crush stone bedding layer of stone A & B by decreasing the compactive I effort from two passes with a vibratory compactor to two passes with an unspecified bulldozer. One additional change allows the use of bulk specific I gravity to replace the unmodified terminology of specific gravity. The final design concept of the rock placement for stone layer A & B has not differed from the original l design considerations although changes in the compactive { effort for the small crushed stone layer were allowed. 1 Selection and placement of capstone did not change except for the pre-approval of material sources during the specification revision process. i 3.1.2 Specification and Drawings l Revision B of Specification 3071-176 adequately describes ~ the material characteristic requirements and provides j the necessary guidance for construction procedure. J The* specification also minimizes many uncertainties with respect to performance of the rock within the structure with a good characteristic epecification. Only the section requiring foundation acceptance by unconfined compressive strength testing may cause uncertainty because of the difficulty with which good samples must be obtained. Generally, because of potential sample disturbance, this technique will give conservative results. Review of design calculations provides reliable infor-mation, however, this task was not a part'of the scope of work. It should be noted, however, that knowledge of the designer's assumptions, loading combinations, and anticipated stress levels may provide insight for understanding the complexity of the shore barrier and its vulnerabilities. This geotechnical evaluation is geared to the actual behavior of the structure, not just its conformance to code requirements and standard practices at the time of design / construction. 1 v- ,r w-y- ,-,--.--w,-w~ ,n,,,,,,%.vy,4,y-.,,,, --,-.,--,-.y,-w~,.,~-wg-,,,, *.re +w--

- - - ---w%er-i-y Wew

+**r""**e W

1. N-~'8

'"N'

T - - "'

'Attachmsnt "A" November 5, 1984 Project No. 5285-02 Page 5 of 13 SLS No. 2668 3.1.3 Construction Log and Quality control Reports on Foundation Clay, Clay Fill, Stone A & B and Capstone Foundation elevations for the acceptable insitu clay were compared with data collected from the boring ~ log H, I, J, K, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 49, 54 prepared by soil and Foundation Associates. From this comparison it may be concluded that portions of the foundation under the clay fill seal may have unsuitable material insitu. This conclusion is supported by the following: (1) The firm brown clay (standard penetration resistance greater than 6 blows per foot) occurs below Eleva-tion 564.0+. (2) The lowest elevation recorded on Exhibit "9.513.4 Excavation and As-Built Data" record for the base of the clay fill seal is 566.7. (3) Compaction test results for the clay fill as recorded on Exhibit 9.513.3 " Method of Test Troxler" begin at the lowest elevation of 566.7. (4) When considering the limiting strain criteria of 6 to 8 percent for movement of cap stone, the specification strength of 1500 psf was not attained for several test specimens during the unconfined compression strength testing of the fo~undation clay. (5) Elevation 567.0 conforms to the grade requirements of Drawing 6C721-40. I The reports of laboratories have been examined to i assure that the results and descriptions provided are explicit on the tests performed, results obtained and'the interpretation made with regard to the signifi-l cance of the finds on the performance of the material. I It was found to extent that the recorded data could be checked, and unless other unreported data is available, soft clay defined as unsuitable by Specification 3071-176, Section 3.2.6, exists under the clay fill seal. The clay fill data consisting of in-place density tests, gradations, Atterberg limit testing and proctor moisture density were examined for compliance with the specification requirements. Although individual failing test results were found in each case, retests or corections by changing the source of the clay borrow were reported to have been made. At this time, a detailed check of the selection of reference ASTM i proctor tests could not be made, however, it was noted that several different laboratory proctor reference

- - - ~ - Attachmsnt "A' i Project No. 5285-02 Page 6 of 13 SLS No. 2668 test dry densities and moisture contents were used i to determine the percent compaction of the clay fill. It may be concluded from the data reported; relating the identification, placement and compaction, the i the clay fill seal is constructed and is in technical compliance with the project specifications. This i conclusion precludes the fact permission was granted to place compacted fill beyond the specification cutoff date of November 1, 1980, as stated in Section 3.06. The confirmation of stone quality for both stone A & B i and the capstone was made by visual examination during the October 25, 1904, site visit. The armor or capstone was observed to be comprised of three related yet distinct rock types of the lower Devonian or upper Silurian age. Characteristically the stone is classified - as dolomitic with the following more descriptive identi-I fiers: (1) light gray fine to coarse grained dolomitic crystalline limestone with chert nodule inclusions within vuggy laminations, (2) light to dark gray dense to fine grained dolostone which is arenaceous and oolitic, and (3) dolomitic ciaystone which is buff to brownish i gray in color, weakly indurated, fine grained, and readily identified by the multishaded brown i laminations and characteristic conchoidally fracture pattern. l The capstone appeared to be placed and interlocked lg l as close as practicable in general conformance to a/44' i the project specifications. The capstone was noL -M [* placed to the lines and -grades specified Lil2) inches) in Section 3.4.5.1 of Specification 3071-176. No l observeable signs of deterioration'were observed inclu-l ding weathering, separation along joints or laminations and appeared free from weak cleavages. Several zones of infilling were observed both from natural shore deposition and from intentional filling of voids within the placed capstone for security purposes. During the site visit, both the layers of capstone appeared to fit the description of acceptable stone for shore barrier use, and is judged to be of the proper size category. 3.1.4 Construction Photos construction photos were examined during the site visit. The photos chronologically portrayed the construc-tion. process including the techniques of compaction L --.----.-.----c.

Attachmsnt 'A" Project No. 5285-02 Page 7 of 13 SLS No. 2668 and placement of the crushed rock, layers A & B, and cap rock. The photographs assisted in analyzing the quantitative testing data and. drawing conclusions concerning the overall construction procedures used for the shore barrier. 3.1.5 Maintenance Records / Survey Data The records of survey for the as-built elevations of the top of the capstone were examined for each of the stations starting at gradeline N6800 or point i 6E and W. It is understood that all survey measurements are made using electronic distance measuring instruments l and corrections have been applied for temperature, humidity and atmospheric conditions. All benchmarks are founded on structures embedded within the bedrock surface with the measuring reference points' anchored into the capstone using center notched self-tapping bolts. i The survey data confirms that no movement has occurred and that all elevation changes recorded are within the accuracy of the measuring system. 3.1.6 Conclusions It may be concluded from accumulation and compilation i of both quantitative and qualitative construction records.that the shore barrier is geotechnically stable. i In analyzing the data and drawing conclusions for evaluation purposes, it was necessary to consider all data including items such as early borings made prior to construction. The apparent disagreement between the boring and construction data concerning the location and elevation of " unsuitable material" gave concern to the adequacy of the foundation preparation. l Proper foundation preparation was of special importance i because the soil materials were described on the boring i. logs to contain loose sand, soft clay and/or fibrous clay _ peat directly below the seal fill. t Subsequent field testing including the insitu plate bearing test and testing of samples for unconfined compressive strength provided some assurance of the foundation adequacy. It should be noted, however, the test results are of limited value because: 1. The plate bearing test, ASTM D1194, was performed using an uncalibrated jack, and i 2. The unconfined compressive strength tests, ASTM D2166, were conducted on disturbed and most likely i remolded clay samples. i e ~m. w -rw--re---wwem-- m-*-+--ee--~w-ww ,--mm<irrw-mw,- ,,-wre-+w,w m uv - m v v e we w w w s,=---r 1,-mm--v,+w m ree y 7 -- -.ew=+ ~= ev

Attachment "A" Project No. 5285-02 Page 8 of 13 SLS No. 2668 l However, in both cases the results of the testing were sufficiently large to eliminate the possibility of the results changing the method of construction. Other changes to material properties and construction procedures which occured during revision process of the specification preparation were assumed to have been evaluated and approved by the designer. Finally, the rock material used for the shore barrier consists of hard massive dolomitic material. 'The capstone as observed shows no evidence of transport or loosening and was completely absent of rock alteration or physical / chemical decomposition of the rock. Areas i of infilling, a process of deposition by which sediment falls or is washed into depressions, cracks or holes, is taking place along the southern reaches of the barrier. The infilling has not altered the geotechnical performance of the structure. 4 3.2 Hydraulic and Structural Considerations 3.2.1 Structure and Function of Shore Barrier The shore barrier consists of a rubble mound type l of protection against wave action on the lake side slope of the plant site fill for a shore length of 1000', east of and 800' distant from the safety-related structures. Capstone consisting of 3.3 to 5.0 ton i rough quarried stone forms the armor units to. resist wave action. The capstone layer is 7'-6" thick consisting of two stone layers on the 2:1 slope and 4'-0" thick consisting of one stone layer on the horizontal crest. Secondary stone and filter layers underlie the capstone armor layers. The function of the shore barrier structure is to preserve the integrity of the site fill to Elevation 583'-0" by protecting the shore line at the east edge of the fill from erosion due to wave attack from the Lake Erie. Protection against potential erosion by wave action is afforded essentially by the armor layer, of capstone. The underlayers below the capstone act as a filter 7 to protect the fill material from being washed out through the voids of the capstone with the receding waves.. j 1 4 .e- ,,,n, .,.-....--~--,----,,--n n.,,n-,.--.-,... ---,,w4-,. ,.,,-__n,n, ,,n-,,.n,.,

.h. - Attachment "A" Project No. 5285-02 Page 9 of 13 SLS No. 2668 3.2.2 Evaluation of "As-Built" Data 4 Data on the as-built elevations at key points in the cross-section of the shore barrier at various locations 4 along its length were made available by DECO for review. A summary of the data for selected points in the upper part of the barrier relevant to the current evaluation is presented in Table 1. A summary of the thickness of the different slope layers in the barrier crest, derived from the data in Table 1, is presented in Table 2. Documentation of the as-built elevation data and the information in Tables 1 & 2 were reviewed in conjunction with the field inspection of the barrier structure. The following observations are made based on the review. (a) The elevation of the lake side edge of'the crest of the barrier was within the specified tolerance & M Q12) inches along most of its length except , 6 for the southern 200' and the northern 100' lengths of the barrier. The mean of the deviations of the as-built elevations from the design value is -9". The edge of the barrier crest toward the fence, however, is'at or higher than the design elevation of 583'-0" except locally in the vicinity of the south end of the barrier (Sta. 68+00) where the barrier meets the natural grade. Hence the crest is considered to be at the design elevation for all practical purposes. Even at the locations where the lake side edge has the maximum deviation (-1. 9 ' at Sta. 69+00 and 78+00), the average slope at the crest over its 30' width is only about 64, which is practically horizontal. (b) Although the elevation of lake side edge of the as-built crest was lower in several locations, the thickness of the capstone layer is seen-to be close to the design value of 4'-0" on most parts of the crest, as may be seen in Table 2, except in the northern 100' segment of the barrier. i j. i

Attachment "A" Project No. 5285-02 urs.o 2W ' November 5, _1984 ~ THE DETROIT EDISON COWANY ENRIG) FERMI - UNIT 2 TABLE 1 - AS-BUILT ELEVATIONS AT SELECTED POINTS IN SHORE BARRIER CROSS SECTION AS-BUIT ELEVATION /(DEVIATION IN FEET FROM DESIGN ELEV.) AT STATION P oi nt I n*** Design X-Section Elev. 68+00 69+00 70+00 71+00 72+00 73+00 74+00 75400 76400 77+00 78400 9 573.0 572.8 572.6 572.6 572.7 573.0 572.7 573.0 573.5~ 573.2 571.5 Data (-0.2) (-0.4) (-0.4) (-0.3) (0) (-0.3) (0) (+0.5) (+0.2) (-1.5) Not avail. 10 573.0 573.0 573.0 573.0 573.2 573.0 573.3 573.4 573.8 573.6 572.3 Data (0) (0) (0) (+0.2) (0) (+0.3) (+0.4) (+0.8) (+0.6) (-0.7) Not avail. 12 574.0 573.7 573.6 573.6 573.6 573.7 573.6 573.8 574.3 574.2 573.9 573.8 (-0.3) (-0.4) (-0.4) (-0.4) (-0.3) (-0.4) (-0.2) (+0.3) (+0.2) (-0.1) (-0.2) 13 574.0 573.7 573.6 573.6 -573.6 573.7 573.6 573.8 574.3 574.2 573.9 573.8 (-0.3) (-0.4)- (-0.4) (-0.4) (-0.3) (-0.4) (-0.2) (+0.3) (+0.2) (-0.1) (-0.2) 18 575.5 574.6* 574.4 574.5 574. 8 574.5 574.6 574.7 574.7 574.8 571.47 573.8** (-0. 9) (-1.1) (-1.0) (-0. 7) (-1.0) (-0.9) (-0.8) (-0.8) (-0. 7) (-4.1 (-1.7b 19 575.5 575.8* 574.8 574.9 574. 8 574.6 574.9 575.0 575.2 575.6 575.2 574.7** ~ (+0.3) (-0.7) (-0.6) (-0.7) (-0. 9) (-0.6) (-0.5) (-0.3) (+0.1) (-0.3) (-0.8) 23 579.0 578.0 577.6 577.5 578.2 578.6 578.6 578.8 579.5 578.5 580.2 579.3 (-1.0) (-1.4) (-1.5) (-0.8) (-0.4) (-0.4) (-0.2) (+0.5) (-0.5) (+1.2) (+0.3) 24 579.0 579.6 578.6 579.4 579.6 579.4 579.3 580.1 580.5 578.5 580.7 580.2 (+0.6) (-0.4) (40.4) (+0.6) (+0.4) (+0.3) ( +1.1 ) ( +1.5) (-0.5) (+1.7) (+1.2) 25 583.0 582.2 583.9 583.7 583.7 583.6 583.3 583.7 564.9 584.7 584.9 584.0 (-0. 8) ( +0. 9) (+0.7) (40.7) (+0.6) (+0.3) (+0.7) (+1.9) (+1.7) (+1.9) (+1.0) 29 583.00 581.6 581.1 581.7 582.3 582.7 582.7 583.4 583.3 583.3 581.6 581.1 (-1.4) (-1.9) (-1.3) (-0. 7) (-0.3) (-0.3) (+0.4) (+0.3) (+0.3) (-1.4) (-1.9)

0bservations at Sta. 68+15

? Appears to be erroneous data.

- 0bservations at Sta. 77+75
  - See page 12 of 13 for locations of points.

. Attachment "A" . Project No. 5285-02 Page 11 of 13 SLS No. 2668 November 5,1984 THE DETROIT EDISON 00MPANY ENRIOD FERMI - UNIT 2 THICKNESS IN FEET /(DEVIATION FROM DESIGN VALUE) Dnip Layer Value 68+00 69+00 70+00 71+00 72+00 73+00 74400 75+00 76400 77400 78400

1. Cap Stone Toward Fence 4.0 2.6 5.3 4.3 4.1 4.2 4.0 3.6 4.4 6.2 4.2 4.2 (EL at ?S-EL at 24)

(-1.4) ( +1.3) (+0.3) ( +0.1 ) ( +0. 2) (0) (-0.4) (+0.4) (+2.2) ( +0.2) (+0.2) Toward Lake 4.0 3.6 3.5 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.6 3.8 4.8 1.4 1.8' (EL. at 29-El at 23) (-0.4) (-0.5) (+0.2) ( +0.1 ) ( +0.1 ) (+0.1) (+0.6) (-0.2) (+0.8) (-2.6) (-2.2)

2. "A" Stone Toward Fence 3.5 3.8 3.8 4.5 4.8.

4.8 4.4 5.1 5.3 2.9 5.5 5.5 (EL at 24-EL at 19) ( +0. 3) ( +0. 3) (+1.0) (+1.3) (+1.3) ( +0. 9) ( +1.6) ( +1.8) (-0.6) (+2.0) (+2.0) Toward Lake 3.5 3.4 3.2 3.0 3.4 4.0 4.0 4.1 4.8 3.7 8.87 5.5 (EL at 23-EL at 18) (-0.1) (-0.3) (-0.5) (-0.1) (+0.5) ( +0. 5). ( +0. 6) ( +1.3) (+0.2) ( +5.3) (+2.0)

3. B" Stone Toward Fence 1.5 2.1 1.2 1,3 1.2 0.9 1.3 1.2 0.9 1.4 1.3 0.9 (EL at 19-EL at 13

( +0. 6) (-0.3) (-0.2) (-0.3) (-0.6) (-0.2) (-0.3) (-0.6) (-0.1) (-0.2) (-0.6) Toward Lake 1.5 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.2 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.4 0.6 ? O (EL at 18-EL at 12) (-0.6) (-0.7) (-0.6) (-0.3) (-0.7).(-0.5) (-0.6) (-1.1) (-0.9) (-1.5)

4. Crushed Stone I

Toward Fence 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 1.6 Data (EL at 13 EL at 10) (-0.3) (-0.4) (-0.4) (-0.6) (-0.3) (-0.7) (-0.6) (-0.5) (-0.4) (+0.6) Not avail. Toward Lake 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.8 1.0 2.4 Data j (EL at 12-EL at 9) (-0.1) (0) (0) (-0.1) (-0.3) (-0.1) (-0.2) (-0.2) (0) (+1.4) Not avail. 1 ? Source data appears to be erroneous. \\

s s Attachment "A" Project No. 5285-02 Page 12 of 13 SLS No. 2668 'THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANY ENRICO FERMI - UNIT 2 SHOR BARRIER PROFILE ~ 'en S h 8 h o b"l! h b! E E, 6 W S W-W. luf hij W W a w "'i l l l w l l I l l l l [*' l .g 4 I OF 5HEET j

- E1..S8$-O" f

l t) v y' ' '^' 'v u I SToOET i i i f XI W i io, .g @g.s2.e-N^~"f'j\\'s Q b yu v SHORE BARRIER h oFnLE e e asng ;, s 2o'*o oN CR05HFb stoa)E e

J. AttEchmsnt "A" Projsct No. 5285-02 Page 13 of 13 SLS'No. 2668 (c) Since the crest of the barrier over most of its width along the whole length of the structure is at or higher than the design elevation and the capstone layer is close to its design. thickness for most of the barrier length, the performance of the barrier in serving its purpose of preserving the integrity of the site fill to Elevation 583'-0" will not be diminished by the lower elevations of the lake side edge of the crest at some locations. In the postulated extreme condition of the Probable Maximum Meteorological Event (PMME), some localized damage to the structure of the barrier in the areas where the capstone layer thickness is appre-ciably less than the design thickness and consequent localized erosion of the soil fill behind the structure may occur. However, it will'be local and be limited to the proximity o,f the barrier and will not adversely affect the integrity of the fill to Elevation 583'-0" in general.

4.0 CONCLUSION

Based on a review of the as-built construction records, a field inspection of the shore barrier structure, evaluation of all the information compiled from the data review and field inspection, and our professional judgment, it is our opinion that the deviations from the design in the elevations of the capstone in the as-built shore barrier structure will have insignificant effect on its functional capability as designed to preserve the integrity of the site fill to Eleva-tion 583'-0". Prepared V. S. S. Annambhotla ) Prepared L. L. Holish Reviewed 7 'cM, M. Tatosian . ~ _.. - ry

m_ e ' s.g. a-t he *.'Ett? t ":: J: ?.P, {, "y e ;;,, 7;;~;o * ' ' ^ '

' " ' 'l1.

........t.. - -~ a Ot"WO ES I M OOIT E c..s. -- ~'- g e n. e e. a SulTE 1000 1000 GLENDON AVENUE

LOS ANGELES.C ALIFORNI A 90024
1293) 879-970 0 CAOLE: DAMEMOREO TWX: 910 342-7591 July 16, 1980 The Detroit Edison Company 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 Attention:

Mr. Robert A. Bryer Review of Test Reports For Three Onsite Clay Samples Proposed Shore Barrier Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant Unit 2 For The Detroit Edison Company As requested by Mr. Robert Bryer of Detroit Edison, we have reviewed the test reports on the three. samples of onsite clay. r From the test results, it appears that Samples 1 and 3 do I. not satisfy the specified minimum plasticity index for clay seal material. The original specifications called for a ' plasticity index greater than 15 percent. In our report dated June 19, 1980 we suggested increasing the index to 20 percent. Samples 1 and 3 have plasticity indices of 10 and 13 percent, respectively. In a July 15, 1980 phone conversation with Mr. Wallace Street, we agreed that the 20 percent index was slightly arbitrary and that a plasticity index of 15 percent would be acceptable if other criteria are satisfied (i.e.): 1) Fifty percent of the material passes through a No. 200 sieve 2) Tests show that the clay is non-dispersive. Our comments on the clay moisture content (Section 3.4.1.1), and the basis for them were also discussed and concluded that they should be instigated as we suggested. 1 ( /Vd T6 ' D as c:L 4 Y Af 4 7as 4 4 L he r 'IS O '* S % ' ~ CU /1540 t.1$$0 < /ff'.y ff T&4 c.tM U 'E ?*4 l '> UMt L f $d /bQ A-<

DAF"CG S M oor2E The. Detroit Edison Company July 16, 1980 Page 2 If you have any further questions regarding these matters, please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, DAMES & MOORE Ronald M. Noble Associate RMN:KLB:bcs e i r 1 e .--..,,n ,,._,...w ,.-e . -,,,,...,.., - + ,,..,.",-,.e., --..g --.4,- - -.y

DEdroit gIvvi I ----m enn i----,--c,r,.u--, .,.m. Enrico Fenni Unit 2 Project September 22, 1980 F2S80-1864 To: K. Sommers Contract Administrator From: R. A. Bryer /ff[/I7 Prfncipal Resident Engineer

Subject:

Shore Barrier Clay Project Quality Assurance has performed Atterberg Limit tests on three on site stock piles of clay and one off site source identified by Holloway. The tests show that the three on site stock piles do not satisfy the liquid limit and plasticity index requirements of specification 3071-176. The on site clay stock piles are therefore unacceptable for the clay seal in the shore barrier. The Holloway off site clay source did satisfy the specification requirements and is acceptable. Please notify Holloway that they must furnish clay for the clay seal part of the shore barrier from an approved off site source. If Holloway plans to use more than one off site clay source, the sources must be identified and tested by Project Quality Assurance prior to use. R. A. Bryer/ psf CC: C. R. Bacon me. Cased (Project Q.A.) S. H. Noetzel D. Spiers W. Street H. Wilson ARMS File: 11.1

Deholt . Edison =000Second Avenue =- aume 30, 1980 2 F2S80-1320 Mr. Ronald Noble Dames & Moore Suite 1000 1110 Glendon Avenue Los Angeles, California

Reference:

Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant

Subject:

Shore Barrier Clay

Dear Mr. Noble:

Enclosed for your information are the following test reports for 3 samples of on site clay: 1. Gradation 2. Standard Proctor ASTM D698 3. Modified Proctor ASTM D1557 4. Liquid Limit 5. Plastic Limit 6. Plasticity Index Please comment on the use of this clay for the shore barrier clay seal. Very Truly Yours, $f49 lQ,j C. R. Bacon Assistant Director Field Engineering Written by: R. A. Bryer 1. l CC: S. Noetzel l D. Spiers (w/ enclosure) W. Street (w/ enclosure) i.: ARMS 1 l File: 11.1

l ggg Arrsemeave F2s 80 -/22c u Ed.ison CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT INSPECTION SECTION Date: June 19,1980 To: R. Bryer From: M. Sage

Subject:

Laboratory Analysis of On-site Clay Material'at Enrico Fermi II Enclosed please find copies of test results for gradation, moisture / density relationship, and Atterberg Limits. Samples were obtained from areas designated in enclosed sketch by you. If you have any questions feel free to call me. L Encl. MS/ sam

ENRICO FERMI II SHORE BARRIER Test Results: Sample Number: 1 2 3

== Description:== Dark brown clay Dark brown clay Dark brown clay w/some pebble. w/some pebble. w/some pebble Sample Location: Clay pile "c"- Clay pile "a"- Clay pile "b"- large pile east small pile east small pile east of quarry and of quarry and of quarry and south of road. north of road. south of road. I) Cradation: amountless 70.5 88.0 72.1 than 200-II) Moisture / density relationship: ( dsTM O UY a) 1.^.S"To T 00 (Std.) max density 122.6 111.1 118.1 opt. moisture 11.9 17.2 13.3 M TM ' D /*~* ' ~ b) AAS:TO T-180 (Mod.) max. density 131.2 121.6 128.8 opt. moisture-9.0 12.6 9.7 III) a) Liquid Limit 24.8 45.5 29.6 ,pv 5 SS S b) Plastic Limit 15.2 19.4 16.5 c) Plasticity Index 9.6 26.1 13.1 A c. e G.Z6

4 $AAy 6,4 w M fi2&'f R2Att 2 6,4wsla / - 6xy 8cg C' /siede k; Es,r f Als astf AxO Soara eF /b.4 i) ',4 ' 6 m cc l$sa E,b, z g djeg4r:19 6AMr4i 2, d's,4y I$ter po<t:ca oe bO Ca.co w % to u e f%~ a Qua ) 6&MPtf .5 6m Ace b S,a.<4cc 2ce E nur / D e rz<z,. saa-ra oe ikp C sssipees 2s~ arn to-9-3c Smr G t+4s c. 72,7 L+(3 4 -to-yo k12Rr?Af 7 74 ; Foccoai<v6-

E~ art *s t.

su<o sut, r la $ darca if <w pak S T,4 ~ 0 ail D 04cGit Ps vri2 x m s-cP,, sta Afurai 1A% n <, Y. /4a86D Sk7sR-Pavn2nms' ofnMax /4 arum ( 4x 'ps-,try

4 Li1.j. 1 p9,\\o ctoi p &, <- ei.,a t yD ?'g(k)( piiuvo s a k i"- 1s' ' -rs < efSA z. p u- /s s','{faoF S/op. W ~ ~ - q t {. 0lAll'YL ClA \\,'$, 4 (6 N ( w J .dil& (k 9'* C/p fu.<s?___N,yi& J//t- .. p( n.9 4e. f..<.t N'."! * -... r. Y.'h ( p.. n q%., .\\% l'* =.o r. y_ l \\ \\ poo afg'3H'*- ,or. rr ' 't i \\ \\, \\ I i l l ,,7 s tor' \\ o ,.s "j" g.,, /, im st r, '/* = - ius ;; a 'i ',i%'I i, \\ 9' s' g i;' y ton es; pi tJ $5,,1',, {s o , g \\ I

Data: June, 1980 Gradation Retsort II Job Location: Enrico Frrmi Source of Accrecate: On-site materini Il SPECIFICATIONS M f/f COARSE AGGREGATE FINE AGGREGATE Class TT Fille M.D.S.H. 9.02.05 Fill: M.D.S.H. 8.02.04 l Concrete: M.D.S.H. 8.02.03 2MS Masonrv: M.D.S.H. 9.02.06 ?MS ennernen. M n S.H. R.02.06 . Road Base: M.D.S.H. 8.02.04 L ,Othar. Other:

Spec, Spec.

Sieve Weicht % Ret. % Pass. % Pass. Weicht % Ret. % Pass % I? 4 e = ik" 1" 3 /4" 1/2" 50 ?0 & /R"

4 ID. ?

$.O 9'/. 0 () I

6

/8. 2. 5/ 94.Cj

16 2'/. 9

'29 ff /

30 39.3

//, C af. C w

50 63.9,

/[ / 01/ f T-

100

'7 5 6 2/.3 '78/7

200

/0/ fo

28. G

'7/ 'l Pan /OY 'l $9. 5 70 5 Wash 366,k 1' Total Fineness Specific ~ Spscific / Pineness' -- t l ',7 Modulus Gravity L Gravity Modulus Unit Weight Intended use shore barrier Remarks: D.E.C. Insoector --- r : L. : : \\ W A A

s SOIL COMPACTION TEST GRAPH T-9 [ T(.//f[d $NCO6 bM [ /[k Results Maximum Density FEem t .11. 5Amru 'ai ,22 c Type of Soil Optimum Moisture D u k If u. h e w c?,. frLL/c 11 9 e / 1 1 ? 1 i i 9 i i i I I ! t i I i l I l I 3 f !S ! 1 6 3 I e 1 I I i ' r I Ii 8 i i i I i i ' + i 1 6

! I I

it

t i

' r !

i I

+ i e t i i ' i i I ! l !

1 l-i.

s t e 6 ? e e 6 i g K 4 j i ![ , 4 l l j f /t I i tX ' f i 1 i i l i l ' t 8 isr-e i i ! i3, a. i. 4 ! i I! t i t t M. 4

1 t

t i

i
8 e lf I

o I v, . i

n. i i i

i 4 .. i i ' l'! I I o I I I i I' 'YI o \\! ei i tw i /. P i il ili i ? i I"\\ i

4 i

/ 1 y i ! i\\ i t t i * '. i

i f

,Q i .f. i a i i e i i > g l]p g i i F i e i e y A I t i. I I. I t p I t t t a e l i I i i f. / g) t ! ! ! 4 i ff' rg r f al l t >6 i e i I. i e i i g . e , e i i !i 6 i ii i i l I! e i g llg00 o i 1 J I i 6 I i Q4 i i i I i l I i I 1 I i me i ' t

i i

4J 1 4 8 1 t I g[ l t . 1 l [p I 6 i e i i t i l I i e e i 4 I e i 4. i e i e i, .,4g i g llG.0 l i i ? 4) I i r .s 3 I l I C l i p 1 1 i. t i $5 r i l l l ! La C lld,3 I 3 I i i i i i i I o i it i l l t I t i i, i i i e i 80 lC.0 12 l.) l'/ C /G,0 oV2 Moisture Content, (Per Cent of Dry Weight) Tested by Plotted by Checked by s 2-

o I Dato SOIL COMPACTION TEST GRAPH f ;g/) l(y OOM-h& 9/02f M212I(k Results s {c p p, g ggeg y/ f } Maximum Density 13I.D \\ Type of soil Optimum Molsture hek Secum Clct 3 d s w c XLhle cf.9 t i I l 8 i, i, . i i i 3 ? i 9 . l i 1 I t I 1 i i t I ,l i i i i i i i i e i 6 i 6 6 i 8 g 132,0 W i 0 i i 1 i i O s.~ D ' d ' 'y f i e o 'N i I t i i A .c4 /! \\ I I I 4 It 1 i ,Q Vi 6 1 e i i i. g a o 130,0 8 6 i f

1 i i

t / \\1 i i k / \\ i I Q. l \\ 2 g 1 i i / 93 / t \\ l i ii C i i \\l i I 3 i r p < n Olh,0 1 i r i I (' i i i 4 /* i \\1 1* i i / w f I , 6 i 8 /D %?d i i [' k . i .w e t y ? I I 6 I di Qi t I l t i ! II .pt F' i ' 6 'f-C 1 i i1 a i %f ,h

f

-l II l t I I t f 1 a , s e i ,3 e .,4 ..c i i i c l 8 f Q \\ t I. e i h t i t W i o n c y,p I i i l i i i i i I l i i i d.O 80 lO'O ~ 12 0 14.0 t Moisture Content, (Per Cent of Dry Weicht) Tested by Plotted by Checked by ~ - - - - - - - 7m

.w.. +- 04f1 ATTERBERG LIMITS DETES.HINATION f 3 - gg. g g (scavatiOn muuSER sasPgf m.uS(4 tage(cg Ml b b Ib I g LiCui9 Liutt, a. / 2 3 ecie musst. 3I A30N6 2-O 7 as t sei;ut t a

4. ettdar CF ett soit,taat l31.20 145.45 13 7.'l7 C. stiGnt or otY Soll e tant l29. E2 141.07.

I2Y. W

c. etioni or satta, e. (A. s.)

1 96 3.43 2 9B o, etici t or tant 17 I. 0 0 l3 0. ?,4 l'2.4.9 l E. etioni or ont s o l L. e.,( s..o.) Q, 2 1. l l. '"/ $ q.66 satta couttur,. f.7, sooy g,l, g 7q,g ,g euzett c' etces '2.6 I IG l '1 1 I 'e 'e ('e 'e' =u zy,s g 5,.7 g3 .i y 3). 0 - x i I x t 3 3C.0 -- , i i' \\-. '.. ~ x + 5 Ai., . i i ex,. t i x. . i 6 - i D A40 - i I ix. i i Jo j a i .\\ i i '26.0 i! . i t 6 A i 6 4 8* v - .x,, i i i i i x, [. - = h,o i N., i g i, s ,x.,. i i i .x. .x i 2$o.O - i p s i N i. . i i .\\ : i i I .i.

X 1

I ',I'. 25 0 - i i s. a .ii . i i\\. _t g 6 +i. ' \\e i i s s 7 s s 10 15 to 25 30 40 50 l Ned*ER Cr eLCwS "," N*' ' Ptas?t: rvet

e o

,u,.u.,c. I i i 2 a i rseg nu et. j 25 1 2.'2-13 I

2. I

r. stis.t c,.ct soit. raat i 130.s7 I l'f 0 4'l 13 f.'70 I

135 63 c. ticar c= o Y sort + tant i ) 3 G. GB i 130.'f 3 I 130 11 i 134.15

n. sticar on =atta... fr..c.)

1. 9 9 t 2 01 I

J.53 I l*'l6

12. 3. ~7 5

. etisat :n tant 1 2.'t. ci i i

12. 5. l ~1 1

120.05'

4. etient or o=f soit..,(c..r.) i l l,7 ?

13.26 i O. I 2. IO,4 0 e.t t ec.t t,7,..<; -.,on 3,, ,s,2 ,s,, ,(, z esistic tivit, i,(Average e) { I l.5."2. I i . (.. o a l I(cF%iCl4% (384R8tWFt) (CWPuItI S T ($8fR8IWP8) RetNtE It (88$R88WF8) l

Date: / vve' /9 b j Gradation Renort i Job Location: [MMM# 7 ~ C/ YL.~. ~' i Source of Accrecate: SPECIFICATTONS [Agg/J:~ g[ FINE AGGREGATE COARSE AGGREGATE class II Fill: M.D S.H. 9.02.05 Fill: M.D.S.H. 8.02.04 2MS Manonrv: M.D.S.H. 9.02.06 J6ncrete M.D.S.H. 8.02.03 ?ws enne rato. M_D_S_H. A_02_06 Road Base: M.D.S.H. 8.02.04 i Other. L Other: Spec. Spec. Sieve Weicht % Ret. % Pass. % Pass. Weicht % Ret. % Pass % pman ik" 1" 3/4" 1/2" 1/R" e na 43 /. o 99 0

(-

e

?.7

f. 8 98 2 i

16

/2.O J? 7

97. /

l = l

30

/7. / 4/ 95.9

so M.2 6~B 94 2
100 359 8&

9/.'l

200 41.2

//. & 8 8 9' Pan 49,6 lS 0 SS* O l Wash Total U8 Fineness Specific pineness Specific I [&b Modulus Gravity Modulus l'l ' Gravity Unit Weight Remarks: D.E.c. Insnector Ref. 1973 M.D.S.H. -.,-.-------,,----,__,.,-_..m-m-_m--__,3 -,----we-,--.vweewe-me-w--w w w-.- . w w - er w,e-se y w weme-*'NN, -T~^^

F

b SOIL COMPACTION TEST GRAPH % ff

/ 3 - qd g- [0 Results ProjectSAJL/dC FG&f/ f Maximum Density YOSS bA$b/Sb jf l Type of Soi1bedK BM*WAJ CfAv' *//fdd/f Optimum Moisture t4f /// G "4 " FAIT dr 44(444 / A UHb N bdMA L fouh / lb d NhC7Wof /foAb CHAT' , i r i 6 ? ' t t l i I f I t ! O I 6 t i 6 I I e i i i t i I 6 i i

i I

I t i 6 i ' i

i i I

t i i i I e e I i I I i ? . f f ! i, i i

i 6.

i i 1 ( i I ! I. ( i i i f f I i i I 6 I i t i 6 6 ! 4 i 6 4 . I i, ! I t# - . 3 i f f i Wi N i ' i *. t I I t

1

/ L 6 6 i f I f . / I I ! %; vi i I !. f i f I 4 1 A 4) / ' i 11 i 6 i i i e i i I i i + 4 e i i t O } '/ I I I t a 6.\\ i f 4 4 .. i, i 4 e i gi 8 Q f6 r i e W j \\ 4 ? I f I '/ I t I a. t h! t t 6 I i i t/ > I i e i i

i i

+ e t iU O t i 6 Ii i ! 4 t 6) t t i i e.. i r .,4 f f i . if, ' 6 i i t. i 6 I i i ) L. i 4 ,Q 6 q i n. i 1 i ! t i g ii e /s ' n i i r s y i 8 6 I W 1 I t I i 6 iY t i e ! 6

i l 1

1 i l e /! I t I + k e i _/ I d i i i i i t

8 i i i I 6 1

1 I e 41 6 iI+ I t-Q if e i . 1 i e t 6h I i t a 'O I I i.. c I. 6 i i1 e i Ii. e I i - I 4 i V i t i r 's g j i i / i ' i I O /

f. A t 6 I

e i ! i e 3 6 i t i t Q4 I i i t r i

6 i 6 i

Ji I w fi i t a i I ' i I i i . t i i rI e t i I i i i i J 8 t 4J I ' i t t t ! t 3 3 f J0 t JI II i ' I i i i I iEt 6 i 6 6 i !. ai i e f w iy6 t i g [ i r') 4 i tI i i e i

/00 1

6 i t t ie t i i 6

a

/ 8

i a 4J l 4 i

i i I e i. 6 i. W .4 i r i ! i t i 6 i i

3 J

3 i T i ! t e e C !t i i t e I 6 i e i Q i i e I 6 i ! i 6 i

1 1,

i e ! !, i >q 8 1 ei y l l i i g3 /0'l I i t I t i t I i i i I

r t

t i i !, I I I I. I. I t i i i / 5 zo /L /y' /(, Moisture Content, (Per Cent of Dry Weight) Checked by Plotted by Tested by

K 7 /8C / J. /ue> 6' / 9 [d / Date T soil COMPACTION TEST GRAPH Results Efe og F&6N/ 24 Maximum Density Project [//gsgg gg1gggg lLh Udnu e of %vas,:n - Optimum Moisture ype of Soil DMK 2 % " e,4t7 ,p q g g,g y p,,,g) ( *L., Q T C tA/ tv// 4 NMw :r &sb %g, agn,a n,fp,,, g w i 8 ' 1 . f I ? '. 3 I

f I 1 I l 1 I I

I I I i $ I l I i I i lt ! ! ! I i t f i i

f ? f i 9

i i 1 ~I I ! i i t i I t t I t i ) it I i 1 4 et i 9 1 9 e i I \\ l l [f f I t I '

t t

{ f a ! s 1 i ! I t I

iI l I I

9 / e I & I *

i

{ t i i 6 4 I i 6 I t

I i i 8

! i t i 4 e r ) 4 I t t t ! I1 ! t I / / f I 8 l I ' t i i ?

4 f

f f f 1 I l t l _} t 1 I I I i ). l } Q t I t f I ! 8 i 9 6 6 1 1 1 1 i e i I

l 4

t ii* 6 ) i I ii ! l ! f i

3 I l 6 )

i I f I e e 6 ( t { g } 4 ) e i 4 6 ) e g I i 4 'i l 9 i i i1 4 t i ! t _fg i67 l iQ q t { A6 t f I e i i. 4 e i t j 6 l l >x ( l, I I l 3 6 ) ( { 6 e 3 i i,..... k_ i i l ? m I f f f f 8 1 11' f f f 1 f .., i ..f. I, '. l i e i e 6

i i. i I I i l I t I) l 4 I i t

.T-O I ' i i 8 h l l l I I 1 I t

J

' ' ' i ' i r wr1 i i i i i i I ' I

6 t '

I i + iX i n

- t il i I i

e 6 6 l #_ l I ( f l I 8 t t * + i + i tN

ug 1 - ' ' I i i i i, i i e..

.L) 1 < ieU i i i i ' i i i L^ Ui I+ t i i / i i 4_~ t 6 i i i t i t ! i ' t t I i i t t 11 ae 1 6 !t O 4 1 6 i i t i i l w*i*'- o i + ' i 'e ! 6 #- 1 i ! i .+ ! t i t i i ' I t I + i l! ' '

1 i 6

\\ i 6 6 i 8 + e I i r i

i i b'-':

I i - V e 6 i I 8 6 I tt kI iI P l

f. I, 6

l l I l l I f I t '

i c

,s I ! I I t e. I. f, f i i '1 I ! I [0 i ' I lI = i l* t .c4

i i

i i I f. h. I 4 i e s i i, 6 t W l 5 6 <f, i f f I ' I i e f i e I 1

?

4.. 6 e t i t i f i i i f I I8 i i i e t l i) ! e t i t t .

t I

/ i i 3 4a f f I ' t 1' I r I ! I I t I 4 i Q i t l 6 6 Ii f1 i ' i ' ! I l 4 f a f f r e e e , 3 4: e ! l / i i 1 t ! i e t i 'l i 6 6 i i I i t ! 6 i 10 i k AK l I I I il I l l l f R

I t

3 t I t C)

i 4 ! ##.

6 t J If + < ! ! l l t Q, i ! I W6 ! t i i ; rei t i eii. 5,. I I I I I 'fi ! 0 ) . t i i t > 7,ii i i i i t, i e e i . i i i ;, 4 ee i 1... . i 4.ge , i i,i 6 i e J I *. .t .. 1 i i 6 .a vi.i.i a 6 i t .,, 6 , i _,, i i i +,,. i s is i6 i a t ' t t f J I i i t I t iei it i ! c I e ei r 1 ) i I t i. I i i g l . '., 4 6 i i. 9 i i 'r F, i f ), i l I , I l l } l ' i i Ie i e i i , t o i t It. / 1 6 6 1 !I r + i i i G4 i ( 6 e i e 6 t i 1, .I I. 1 i ! el f. t w i I t I I i i e , i r i t ? i m i l J t i i ; i i 6 ,, p { e i [ { J l tg-i et f 1 r i 1 t e i t i. a, i. 1, i, i, i, 6,. 6 M i. I g i i I t i i.

i, i.

,e __t I I f 8 i l I I e . i, 8 ) i i l.. .I e Q') i i 3 I t 8 e i. + i

i. 1 4

.. i i, i, II I 1 i i i i i t .,4 1 e i , i i i i i i 1 e i ,f i i i ,. 1 r i. g i + i, i e4 i 6 i > i +, I f i 1 i i i i ,,i - 1 1 i se t l I t I i i 8 ( , i i i i i t C . I

I f 4 l

I t i e ) i f 8 e i l i i i i II ! i 4 i t 4 l,, -u t t y i !. i i i t 6 i i I 6 i i. t l i i i t 6 1 1. 6 i i i i l i t f ? i e e i ),

6 i I !

I I 6 4 l ( e r 1 i s, 5 i 6., t I i r i k r i h I ! l 4 I j e a, i Q l. b i ( e i f I t 6 J i i g.% b r i i l t f I i l l i ! I I e I 4 I i t t i t I i ) t T 6 e 6 ) i t i i i I i t i i i i e r ( r ) ) i .I 1! l I ) I i i ! 6 I e i ii. .j Ie i ! I J . t r i l 3 ( t J f J // /Z /J /V' i 6 ! t It i. t i i s I i a i t Ie /0 (Per Cent of Dry Weight) Moisture Content, Checked by Plotted by Tested by i I i

34Tt ATTERBERG LIMITS DETERMINATION ) 3 -Jgy _ g y n i.d t G r tsCav&TICm aume(4 saufst u;utta 2 (suksa_)y E M Ko FE Usl Jr SHoRL BAReER ticuin tivir. a. Iceeuste / I JL } J

/

h s- /l rsst muusta 4 2- /3 at 2r \\\\ 2 'l /

s. atsdnt or ett sos: e snat

/37 G. O *7 /2 7. 2 '/ /30.N-132 sy \\/35.s"4'

s. stecnr or 087 so8L e raer

/3 3. 2c f 2 5'. Z ag j /z f. </ f / 5o.7'/ .\\21./ Y i C. enecnt av ens t e, n. ca..s. ) s

2. 8 /

2. //

l

2. o 7 Z.90 W8

c. zerant or snet

/2c.17 szo. or 1 /23.7r /2 </. 9/ 12R 7/

t. at esnr or on s sos t.o.cs..o.)

g.c q S.18

/. 7t/

f.83 N. h .artsco=rc=r,e.(hsee) Jy,7 g,7 z/3,7 g7 g, nureta cc etces S*2 1 39 t 30 /2 V or \\ l If 5'. s 19,'l s ' c e'..') 2 4. l e' x i i x (6 .i x. 6 i i .a i 6 i i rx, x, i x o q8 ,x 3 x. i x w e x g ex t t 8. 'N i Ix : er e. i .x i .g 'l;l i 1x i xi i , i m 6 .m i i x. 'l3 .x i x i i .x x i ..I x I e e f e I 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 to 25 30 40 50 4L'*?!9 Cr 9tCws e Ptssit:.iwir a e

- m 8L tyg EU%ste l

f l I .20

*.:
r t '

tant numete l

Z

\\ Z/ /3 l 2r l

r. scisnt er ett soit + tant i

/sc.29 i /37 1/ q /22 o3 { /z y. / / l

c. cricar ce oer soit. tant I

/ J 4. 'f o } / 3 3 '/ 9 /I' 7' I /27.VC l

z. scisar or natta,e, (r..o.)

l /.80 i /.92 , S.*. l .79

e. erscnt Or fast i

/.'. f, / 7 } /J f, 7f 1 //c.C $" l /JV.9/ J. etlGn109 ont solL, e,(G. l.) \\

f. 32 l

f '] f l

f. f (,

J. if f ~ eatta c:=ttist,..( r 100) /f,J ff.7 j p, y f f, 7. '1 - 'a. l i i l PLASTIC Lluit, e,(Averste e) l.

(-

.l f f. y l i etmaans I sm'IC s am ($s sn o t ere) Con 9Utt; 91 (Sat"sture) CntCRtG 91 (3ssnature)

/U'/b ! ' ! b) Y Date! Gradation Renort NON/ Job Locationr Source of Accrecate: N SPECIFICATIONS J FINE AGGREGATE COARSE AGGREGATE Clama TT Fille M.D.S.H. 8_02.05 Fill: M.D.S.H. 8.02.04 214S Manonrvt M.D.S.H. 9.02.06 Concreter M.D.S.H. 8.02.03 Mg cancv.e., w_n_g g_ m_02 og Road Base: M.D.S.H. 8.02.04 Othave Othere Spec. Spec. Sieve Weicht % Ret. % Pass. % Pass. Weicht % Ret. 'I Pass % Pahm ik" 1" O /00 3 /4" $? O* S ??*A 1/2" isa. 9'. o /. 6 74.4 na / 7. 8

3. /

Pa. 9 0

1. e 33.2 E. &

94 2

16 46,9

8. 2 9/,[s'

30 (pf.6

/O. ? 89/

50 Bf f

/47 8.r. 7 4100 //76 208 77 2

200 /60.S 2 7, T 7,2, /

Pan /d8.d Wash D 8.5 ll:l Total - 'l Y. l ' Fineness Specific Pinene'i 1 Spec 3.ffe s Modulus "b* Gravity ' [4Y Modulus Gravity Unit Weight Remarks M J. K44/5 b.E.C. Insoector J A d da'k! " Y E. Ref. 1973 M.D.S.H. -] -]

N

3 SOIL COMPACTION TEST GRAPH T-99 jws-f 4 /9s ;

6 P [-R M $ ll $ho et-bh R C l&C. gegutts Maximum Density CLAY PILt b, $ Mkll filC CALT br-ODA D 1 bbJT& g %kD, s //8 / /'-w Type of Soil Optimum Moisture bbbb. g y oj O AC X._ 15thWAJ c_L A.; W/ eme: 8 ? f f 1 i t t i I a e t t e f! , i e i i f i i i i i I i i IiI i I i ! I t 8 3 e i i t i 1, I . 1 i ! i e i i i i i + r i t I i ' 6 .! ! 6 I i 1 e f I ! i i it I iiI i t .. t i i e i 3 f i i i i. i i i i 6 , t e i I i i, Iiil i i ' i t, e ; < t i1 l I 6 i i I i i 4. ] i i i i 4 e i i t i I 8 1 1 9 1 e e ! i i ! i t t I < i e i 1. i e i 6 . i.i i v% ~ 4J i e i i i ! i ! i e i 6 i ! I O +. ! 1 i i i, 8 I i i + t i C ,, e i ! 6 e !t I t i I i l 44 I i f t i. i i i i e t i 6 e i i . I i I 6 I i i 4 i i e i e i4 e i. 0 i e i i i t a i. e a + 5 i i t t i we 6 e i t I i i i i i e i i i 1 I i ! i i i i i ! i i i i J3 i .4 t i 1 6 i e i e i, i. p j i. i i. e i U i i

t i i

t i I t 6 i i i i i i i 6 i* i e e i i + i i i I i I I .6 6 6 4 1 i i ( ) e i. 6 i ' i L4 4 I t i e t i l i II ' e 6 + + i. i i? i I t t [ i t # f i " "i 'l# i i 4.

'.%mN.A.

i I, i 1 a I 1 i i i e i i

i !

i# I I e i I I e U) I t 'O i i i I ffi 3 6 i i e i

t

! 1 Ni i ! 8 ! i C fa! I t It 4 i 6, i I Ii i 1 8 th;I I i . r i ii.N i i j p Nef i 6 r! I t i ! ... i r i e. 2 't ' i - i i i i i 1 i i ! i C I i i i l i 's e Q.e ( l i f i/ t t 3 ? i i e i!Ni. 1 i i i /: 1 I i iN_a e w 3 1 i I It t i ./ iI t 5 i i i i i 1 e iI i i N_. i i iI-t t i e i 1 , e ! l. st-i i N 4Jg I i i / ! l ! I i i i i t i e

r r 1 3 i ' N a

i f l I / i i t i ! iii + i Ii i I I i t i I i l i ' I g fj*f .I 6 I i I e i e 4 w4 I i i I i,., , i,, r i e s I I

i e I I i i i i Ie + 3 I i t t

3 i e i i i I i i i i 1 5 i l I a i t ! i e > 1 ! + i i i F. 4) i 4 i e I !! I i l 1 i I i i i i i l w4 i i t i i ei i i i i I. i l i i C i i i i i l3 i I I i l Ii 1 1 i t 3 ) 6 l 8 e i i i e i i i e i I. i i a i >q k i e i ! i 1.i' i I i i, + i ' i A //J i i I I I i t It i i I I i I t i I I i I i < i. i ) i i i ! I.

i I

. t i i I i 1 I i !i i ! i i i li ! ' i I i i I. e . i 4 i ii) I i ll l$ h /l/ ff l* 4 Moisture Content, (Per Cent of Dry Weicht) Tested by Plotted by Checked by M l h A b E:- W \\ A4!t-

\\

3 SOIL COMPACTION TEST GRAPH JC./g O

-/d cFO Pro)ect$hb)l36' 7)hCW/6 - gKni.Z.L._ Results AMY Maximum DensLty CMY Pdf '8 " ;541A/4 7kd4.44.C7 Of Rt/ soors or xce> ,pg g Type of Soil Optimum Moisture DAA$ EEnd db4y f SonWNACCAf 9,7 % 4 i g 4 i it,iit i i,i.,,,,i i i i,it, I I 6 6 14 i til j iii6 4 6 l ! ! I I r i 6 i,4 .,'I I I i i i i'dt i

3 : s t i t I

I i I it i

e i i 7' I i i # I i 4 N ! i 1 i i f<l t I r I 6 a I i*i

4 t

e i f, i i N t i a r i ! i ! 5 iiI 6 i .! e !/ Xi a 4 t i I i i ! 6 I . f i i iN i ; t i i ?

! i

/

.N6 i,

't ' i t i l I ? I / t t i i i i 1 i. Niii i a i t i i f a t i / 1 1, 6 I i i i i% i i i ( i i / i i i 1 A, i i i *

i i i !, !

i, , i ' 4 \\! . - I l8 i - ? I ! ff e M i I i ' i ' : ' i i 'N i i ' ' i -

I

^ o i I ' i I l't ! e t t I

t I

i o t I 44 t / I i { t .. 9 6 1 Y i ' +, t i I i i J i l' i e I ' ? i t I ' ' ! y 1 !N I w I l\\i4,,6 II eis t f I i J t i. \\- t p ia I-. i i I ! I t t g ff '\\ t t ' i +

f 8

i y .t i i l i i i 4 1 J l i l i i k i I i I i I i t. i m. .J. f i 1

I i*.

i I 'O I i 6 I ii t e i i e ii' i li I i'* ea Ii i i e t i i f f i I i

g

/ fI I i i a i I i ! ! i ' s t p. f i I I 4 e i i i i i i i t i i i I i ! JJ i I l

l 8 -

A l I I i l l . i i i i t, i i Ja t I i t i i e t i Cp i l ll I ,4 y //,[ l i i i i i i i 8 s. r i i. i.i 4.) t i i ,a i c \\ p I i i .I' $ jQ O 1 I ! i I i i t l l i i ?$ hl ?$ l05 N'S /${ l~5 Moisture Content, (Per Cent of Dry Weicht) I Checked by Plotted by Tested by 3, l1. J N i e s d r r JA.4Sw"ur

o bi t g _. ATTERBERG LIMITS DETERMINATION j3.g.g .b - EsCavateOm muu6te $auPLf agut(4

3 Gue )

PaGJEC s Rf1M SNO R6 8AR.E. ice LICUIS Loulf. a. f b eus stuut te i A B C f ast.uu.en

a. f"Elda t or erf Scit e fast l'7. ~16 7.6.05 N.~5 G

?.r.19 26.29

5. EtlGnf op ott Soll e fa.t Ir. 13 e

C. eticar or.arte, e. (4..s.)t ), (p3

f. @ G I

l. Cl *'1 ) l

o. eticar or tant 20,o 6 Lo.18 2,o,41

c. ctic, or o., soit...t,..o.2, e,io s.oi s.Cie CATER CouttmT. es(

a roo) 2G.7 30.9 32,9 e l M I 7 7.- l Ih l l tuYS t t o' ? LC e $

' Y

B.6 IG,C l 3. I s .s. 4 i.

x. s 33.o-6 i

x, i i s .x n.o i N-x. .s i N-e, i R dl.Q - N. N. x ,x 30.0-i i x 6 s. o i i

's

( f g g.o _ ,.x. 6 6 . 6 .A. g i i .x . i i x i %.0-A i .iii N i x' { I 2*l.0 - i W N _y i i .x r 6.. i e e x .i 8 8 7 8 9 to 15

o 25 30 to 50 If.e.0 -

quwste Cr at:.,5 4&Tutat Ptasitt. twit "o l l l 2. 3 l h i l rant w =ste l f/ I gf 13 21 L 21,'3 NUutre /2 $~ 3; } /10,47 l 0 ett$nt C* ett solL

tant l jf t,jf l

/jO 8(o I l G. ettGaf C' os? Sott + fast i /27'[9 l ' /3 0 0 5'" / t d/. f" G /J 9,9 0 l O,7c i O,7l n. tsons or eafte,e, (r..c.s l 0, G z,' l o. gj i /23.76~ l /IV.9/ t /g o. o r" i / 2 r. / /

i. erient or fint 4/./ f

4. sticnt or out soil, e,(c..r.) i

3. 7e/

I

r. /V Y.f/

j soo> jg, 4 ig. g /4.fa

74. 7

.arenCo.str,..cke i n t ...:: - l /[,. h~ l stani t C Llus t, i s ( Arere de el i atsaans s*n(Cato 37 ($ssesture) (CuPyf t; O f ($sineture) I f(CPalClam (3agnature) f a

- 3. yJ. t1 - t j ru.. 07605-045-88 pammsaswoons Detroit Edison ( LOS ANGELES X.Ref DISTRIBtTTION: LA/MS: R33, LAD, ggg KLB LA: RMd SF: H. Chan ~ August 22., 1980 The Detroit Edison Company ,L 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 Attention: Mr. Robert A. Bryer t i k' Gentlemen: .i .Dispersive Test Results For i Three Onsite Clay Samples Proposed Shore Barrier Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant Unit 2 (' For the Detroit Edison Company As requested by Mr. Robert A. Brye'r of Detroit Edison, we are pleased to transmit the SCS (Soil Conservation Services) dispersion test a6d pinhole test results wnich we performed on the three samples sent to our San Francisco laboratory by Detroit Edison. These tests were performed in accordance with the procedures described in the following

two publications:

(' *. " Pinhole Test for Identifying Dispersive Soils" by Sherard, Dunnigan, Decker, and Steele, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineer.ing Division, ASCE, Vol. 102, No. GT1, Proc. Paper 11846, January 1976. i "Ident'ification and Nature of Dispersive Soils" by Sherard, Dunnigan, and Decker, Journal of the Geotech-nical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 102, No. GT4, Proc. P, aper 12052, April 1976. In accordance with these ' two publications and per the extensive discussions in the ASTM Special Technical Publica-tion (STP) 623, "Dispersive Clays, Related Piping and Erosion in Geotechnical Projects," clay soils having a SCS dispersion of less than 40 percent and/or pinhole test classification of .k NDl, are considered nondispersive. However, experience has e ~ w r a

V The Detroit Edison Company August 22, 1980 Page 2 shown that the results of these tests are influenced by the quality of test water, and the natural water content, plasticity, and physio-chemical composition of the soils. a A suminary of the test results for the three clay samples is as follows: Sample No. 1 2 3 Soil Classification CL CL CL-CH II SCS Dispersion Ratio 23% .33% 18% (A/B x 100) I I ND1 ND1 ND1 Pinhole Test Classification I SCS (Soil Conservation Service) Dispersion Ratio: A/B x 100 = 4 where A = Percent finer than 0.005 mm of test without mechanical agitation and without chemical C. dispersant. B = Percent finer than 0.005 mm of regular hy-drometer test. (2)The discharged water at 40-inch- (1,020 mm) head is completely clear. ND1 means nondispersive. The test results show that the SCS dispersion ranged from 18 to 33 percent and the pinhole test results were all ('. classified as NDl. Based on these limited but consistent results, it is our conclusion that the three onsite clay samples are nondispersive. Enclosed with this letter is a copy of the test data. We thank you for the opportunity of providing this se-vice to you. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, DAMES & M RE o _, t, Ronald M. Noble Associate RMN:KLB:jh Enclosure e

e >_w. t_h.tC U., t_'A: Y 51 S VerA ..i. ret 9E7G 'T C / M ;_No.__ k t-f.-C Il d Incation y.yo O f oc hvst r 1. { 6cuu u m >r ct: TeeT 8sscets '~ o h ets-Ao. t 2 s. dod d q clig ct ct ct.- ce C 4 6cthsms d i & '(4x<=) 3% ssyo. tsy. I ~ w chafse&n. Mb L Mk L. . tb L. to dCC [Jiii As%tx br.o.) i).sy,+ Ecb: C A - x i.. - %. s WhJt. b, h ktM4eNA##8Ehe f kJok' W =A wuld suk c4 wMLun Chtc41 cles-Q por W 6 fev'ceJ S-u. A o. ao sm-g 19 & b % L LC g L C.O N ets.e4.g cdA # 4o-W.6,ou -~-) M a q(AA d--c. AJD 1. % M a' w-w------ -m v--- min

_m e 4 e e O e a 1H0t3m A8 835Uv03 IN33 W3d o. o. 8_a o, o. o. o o o_ o o ( ~ ~ O ,d w g Y o 8 \\ / g f x a o v ~ b _x p L.' v .<s / - T M /r J W 2 b [ \\ U 5 o s \\ d E P /- 4 N $. g*. k, ./ f 5 J I U / N -f .J / M g j g _i___ g 1 w b ( 8 O" ~~ w z C F ":. _/. g D2 w W f a g C,, ../ eg g _a a & <p. o i _a o e Q w i

s z

2 h b-C 2 b >g r 2 w, ,w _.. _ _.,_.. _ . g g._B m

o o r o

( y ou w V o_gg gg = 9 ~ g g a g_ = NL a E i E M= o .v s c 9t $E Zu 2 1 3 e-w Ac. a' x ( '4 c &u O E, a w_s C e. @ v3 3 "l' g no G = w a i Q)

== ld o w g U Y 8 2_ w i D A g 2 g hk { 0 m o L. 5" 4 (U O j o 9 PQ u I N ( C. g d' .o .o o_ o 5 ~ .o g o o o o 2 o ~ y Awol 3m A8 W3NU AN33 W3d hamnes e aseeses s.. -~ _,,,. _ _ _ _, _,., _,.,.., ,m,_ ____,.,,,,_..,,,__,,,n.,__n,.-_

] ,M(vok1% , g e, m8 5 n r gcxh a \\ ?.= 5

gm o*,,*

.m 'manI b , $s

Ng~

y!._ *, wu N.R h g b YJ ny n3P,3a !,,g' Er EaN oa n g %c ug{g 5 [a" 3g3 r "._ : ~ " gw , * ; a" S g [e aO j t4W% 4fJg.a 8 , 0 225 CB 'I P$l w ( .Xr. n ES o3 " " a p M"* o T 3,8# fa MI

_a y

m yai f o l o m. t e e t tm yl e hu lb l r y k gi ei pa e v r id rs me n a a l e ai ol o e s D SM BV CC N F H M ( 8 5 \\ \\ Mx) & Egn nY S $ \\ R \\ } \\ .A l \\ 5 \\ 3a $s n j k \\ Ng l k k 3 Es l .4 EA M R \\ k = m ke, ( ( \\ E3 \\ s .4 E= \\ \\ s A. Ma Dm e Aa S \\ Rg .V b k s 2,m7 d s in %:c 3 43, ~ e 0 4 N {= a !. a + r n79 sf,w ( s !;E 3 3 oy o7R ? ,q <- ieQa

.D ';',0,u,io q,AsTic soRiwo aErm .ELEv. sauPLE SvunOL SOIL CLAS$1FICATION MEy T u1T cl ~2%ua. r 9xfy clas9-2 i j U.S. STAND ARD SIEVE SIZE ,[ gh, yfp. 3 3 ff 3 3i 4 in.

o. 4 wo.io wo.ro ao ao ioo too 5

j '00 iNJ I i i I i 3 g ~ l C)lc l ^ _i AL hoA/ l i h I ~ go 90 I f N 4 1 e e e i q lN / >3 j j 8 I a I I 5 20 so e <A h I e a e I a g i s 3o 5 i i d i e l I i h k i D '* I I I i I \\ 40 > i \\ J l i j 1 1 I i I I } \\ [ So M l i j l l i \\* 5 s C I e e e i I I I T N u 60 3 8 I I l h \\ \\ i I ,i [ \\ 70 " s j m u a g I ( = 3o .I e i I w w I e w I I /> w , e. 1 I I I

,,p/

I g a I I / A s 90 n l i 4 l 3 i i N/o ('4 (. @ A/ %[ i f k I N a e l l l i i h l e 90 I l 1 i l . 00 1000 80 0 80 IO O.I O.Os O.00 GRA!N SIZE IN MILLluETERS I 83 GR AVEt. SAND SILT OR CLAY O COARSE l FIN E COARSE [ MEDIUM l FINE GRAIN-SIZE DISTRIBUTION ss_m 1 m ,......l., . e., m.,,,,c. 1,.. s v s - 1 1

\\ w*s'Os , 2" E 3" aRe { pe ,ao ejkP '( ej" 8 nk j ", ~ 3g $[1N 1 wTn 2" * t .,. g - m aE 2" $ g e " 3 E" 6 k ~ ; o" ? e j, n s - tO{O ' y Fz *

g ' 0=

.i#'bkAg4S % JggNN B4 i g"C g* n.3 8 m ~

p m.E o

T 2 n. . '5 @g y To " 32 n* 1 2 o l o t e N e t 5 tm yl e N*== y hu lb l r k gi ei pa v w a d rs me r i a l e ai ol i e e 3-s D SM BV CC c n F H g Y* N 3 \\ \\ \\ u2# p \\ x s* ?, 4 o s S i n w** D l R t .4 T 3-M* b A \\ t q $w \\ \\

A k

e 5 \\ w4 5 V R \\ r, Ad M \\ 4> 4 \\ \\ \\ 5 7 A g s x'\\ y

V.

k ( .g .k z3 n w' N h \\ \\ \\ ~ ~$ h s S \\ ~ ~$ b b S >4 ss aI ( 4,4 ~$ h ( S 5 sOg gs $ E*NQ l i Om* SaW i, h od y $i. Ar En. ~ l'

~f6or--e4r-eg 3

n. ~,

Dcrnorr-sprsay '['ou,iD Q,AS,T' SORimG DEPTH ELEY. SAM PLE SYMSOL $0ll CLASSIFICATION NEY gw gT cL-CH ~Mswt. shy.::rudy' clay 3 ~ gy ,gg U.S. STAND ARD SIEVE SIZE 3 3 IN. 4 IN. neo.4 20.80 NO.20 40 60 80 0 200 M E I !'j i i i j [ i 5 ( l M/CM60 V n to y l I i 1 SO I i i l' i i i X I 20 4 'K ( s I g j g I 1 0 a t 0 i E 70 l l 30 E I I \\ \\ U 2 R I e l 3 w l i i i r i g I \\ \\ 3 I 40 > 60 I I ) \\ V I 8 l 8 \\ \\ a" 50 50 i I l l i ' Wo m6ea \\ s \\ 8 g i i i i i l .i l i i i i t s I I i 1 e a s 3 I } N w o e 8 a i e 70 " 30 g 3 8 8 w I e i I g I q 3 3 j g i e a. 20 t = a a = l 80 i i l i i i i 3 g g i s 1 / ' I 8 e n g ,g s' h k I 5l a g 'g i I 8 I O 80 0 l 3000 80 0 10 LO 0.1 0.0 6.0 01 GRAIN SIZE IN WILLMETERS g V ' COSSLES SILT OR CLAY COAASE [ FIN r. COARSE [ MEDIUM [ FINE l l j 3%g GRAIN-SIZE DISTRIBUTION p ( . UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION. SYSTEM)

j - { j. ,i-g 1l i? m?n m E zo m g ] l: dm#8'4 ,,h % iNl D g ogE y .a mO ; uMm h o-, ,oS ' h ~ NhN "vg=.G= 3 ige eEn-t ( ,m $ S * *,ermt c y q n".8 M ,.a $ *, ';; w g3) =D J4fa j ftr .Q N -o; 9",m3 1 = m 2. *;" Tm k &n. " = r <" y ggD $b>a.~$ S*haO 5;o,~ 9g g ',ig. t ( b > nd. i!h.. - 3 y ' Sm. )4 (j n $ OG 9~S

e p

o + i,. e T Og z mE y ym JmB E P o I

.s gm o

l l o t e e r s. et tf t m yl e e y h ul bl rl r k gi ei pa pa e v r ld rs me me n w a a ) e ai ol ol o e e 3 D SM DV CC CC N F H 0' @P \\ M) 4 g4 y A g0 \\ ( p 6' 1 $ g" \\ (

n 5

eD \\ 5

I 3

vN %g \\ \\ 1 &%w v pe $ re ( \\. &p~ b k ~k M \\ 5

m.

Wm 4 k.' x k k Ww Ji= g $ \\ 4 o@D ~ W, b $ \\ ~ U" 3 ~ g \\ \\ wD %e g. e l m =. \\

c4 h

4 N a* R g' k ^ I ( ~ u b 1 ( D

t 22D E+l i

( ~D q h E oEggg n sg3i E.. 1E 3 Oe-g ] ( p h ?%. Nh *O e" ;m%4~* %p9 ~9 4 ,- {M P . Y T& = 3 .gh = s t I ,!li

RECORD OF TELEPHONE C O N V E R S ATIO N DATE / ~2 'OY '780I~ 6 T/ - 67 JOB NO.: ( RECORDED BY: INbh4 OWNER / CLIENT: "l' - k'6M 86 CK-867-C# TALKED WITH: OF NATURE OF CALL: INCOMING O OUTGOING O ~ ~ 'OUTE TO: -- INFORMATION ACTION R 7%d MGL A MAIN SUBJECT OF CALL: ITEMS DISCUSSED: .( I)leKW""*4"*l44-WW Wnt- ' ' ^ ' "4 nu. y .vo. 3_ up. 2. .s/o,I MAnm/ : I"${eni t *< w o e W-)$$ae VN 'a sa., ru ekgae _ Okre' of f nutt disusex A W'# Oaxiex, % 'm.x l'1 ~2 'l $ 7 3, y 2_ 57 i. 99 3~7&,4 $~ S 7S', y'/ S 72, dB ( 7 ~E Y f 7 3.7 7 S7f.9 / T 74. 6 V 577.06 S&1e52-G ~EY F71.E V F75,22 F77,02. $'7fo23 SSS. 2 Y b ~84 T73.4 f

w. r.

$'??,92 5 74,66 S48, 7l .2DSire nn. L. is exw co-sire a m es. D L a v, s x im, r-s - nha r mes rs s.c) fos-c A ?. .wo e. S u g. s og u. 4 n a s.L /f.1 g wv> n,1 ly n.s.. st,, r ' s / ( AI L / .p /m. a Moore iir.,ii w 3, e

o WAMENT MONI'IORING ON SIEET PILING /

y /2-18*84 th0VEMEWT M N110tIWC OW M g ate.r: shEGr PsLIWC FoA..sNoatt } P.SMoti amira.. ree-i rr eg. 3f gg'!, ( nece mauns u .sar ir,,uoro a, s u_ h Y see m smr y ( _ z.o N f g6 1 ee ~/1.Y g _r: .,,,,== = = 0 ~ O N 74 0* t 3. (l z..< ' C) O n y M ytol! s' y E 1

- ,,). 4 ssssa - n E % d t* ~ Q) ~ $969 2 E y, ,,bs, ea 4h'3 4 n% n6ss - .D en $ 2 M u <5 8 t E wg e a Q se u 3I,q!f ?d 'a saw Rgl3Q hQ i ~ 00013 \\

s..r i -

5 ~k O n oessi - +> k d s O 0 k l y( s?6ss - AR t, y g o,4s r - \\ u ~ ~ S3bC) k M l l sv.., - lE l a,,- O ea d5 ,Mil sm, - t l t -! f gIa 1 g fl 5 8 O k % n; l l -w. tp U$ v. ~ }o c. bgd E Agh DCd Dw ag 8*l" ...n 9 O f % ses s a ~ k +1 eessi Ya; ~f >b CLb53 ~ 3 %5 e .N ( 596FF ~ 4 5 Q o,6 s i - 'og k h N ,f ssses. 4 i O 5 i e l ~ 89693 ( 0 l sesso t 6 ~ l 4dd h"ii s n6s s - - \\' y1 [ta N ?,ii s e a.a a "N M - -+-. ,.,w---~.,----.-,,.,w- ,.-..w,,--,--- -,m,-,w=- ew.-., _ _. _ _,, ~.. - - - - - - = ~.. -, - -, - - - -.. - - - - - N 6 ja lo od u a e.-' q w-s"jj 3a4 gy ooon 30 1 - s.,,.- ~k 9 s sn, gy N 09653 sL 61T ~ s e 9 V@h N Q s,s s, - ,w + fl $;-j+. f ~ unsJ n o T. E kk e s. l stes 3 - - k{ o ~ d SCbED 4 si dii Eh'D n ss a -- 1 hk n $g[E N uk 5 88$ 4 *G E ws

m

-ev- -wr--gee m-- g-eme-w-w- w---1,-ewH-w e--er Br--ee-w- e,w- ,er t-e-- ?*T'*T'P-w'--- rN*- ?-'F-T--mw*-*--4f-- tO' +--ewyw'*-T-FT---v*e-w?'t* VD$y-fid' 4^--"'--W"- O e I j.i W$$ !:s se s 4d )jf aec ~ 0009J bll 566F3 W D k ~q Q SudEE ~ 09653 8 4' \\ 4 s - s,.,,- 8 ') 9 096E f ' 3 k Issep g O Q ~ Kv642 E z 4,t h h .v1 qq }g% sv6s s -- [ N,,lt e 850 4 *3 # ws + - - - .---.----.e., ~ m.. .e--,, -=e- +--w-w--w ---e--ww--=v-ew.---w-ev--. - =, e---v,-- - - me,--w--ev-=,ewm -m------,---e--- a _aga U$%=a ip }o $1d a4 me a had v 84 4 oo o,, 8*I ...n s O h suiss orssi CL b7 3 Q j }" t s ,.( 5965g k ~ A, f4.,,) (

- Trr -

s ~ 93672 Q t GC Ik D

i l2 y3

....s u si4 l n} r:6ss - g ,D Ai 2 !i ta t.a a % ni a a 2 a -u a e O A~ ae a 4 { o C4 S aa o: %o$ Rkl' 3 u e v 84G ~ ecoss $'yl. \\ sssva y s 9 a +i N 09651 ~ affy %-s CL 69 3 _ 's O s+ 1 b x ~ . s +> %a% osssi ~ y e a s ~ 936B3 k j 4, 5tb E R e ~ M 4 b"3 4 4 .Tb5 3 g ~ .D ssqk 11D 'D. 4.a E %M --e-mm- 1 P P ..oo 9 Y st sew g1 hej e e.1 v ~ 90092 N I k O s s,,- k 4 +, $ CL6s3-e 2 ....c. e v *s N 1 \\ _ +3% 4 g%)1, '721, g ) ovess - w ~ 9 o oce St6s 2 l@ Q d q l ks% 5:w "\\ n. s > -- } c '*n l n ll 'S *d ws i f ~~ ^ ---.r.. e ? U8..* 42 Q* )9 f4 4 h$ f gn p* y s l' g 4 u ,k f s &.3 N T sus, - Q .w ~ 09653 ?b,

o

( ss a ry - e cc s,% ~ 896e 3 - - $ed a j k e k f%

scar, y

a i ks43 1 Y e n.s, -

a{y

? l 9 E 4 9* 4 i 6 ws ew -v e we w a -4 -w --:w--wwmmN-wut-g-w--r-enr2-geW-eyeye .wy*e agemy-m-w- .--erP-D - mp ewew--rs'=-w--De =v'm->myeven-T'm--

T-W_*'r-'e*-=--'**N-7we-'-q=-

%g k. di$ !!,3) eec ~ 000s2 $$ h ~ ~ 566Y2 N I k, 5... ~ 09653 ~ CL 67 g 0 .Dr. 9 h %g%% k g s i . 59653 k 4 53 d9 ggb y5 !/ \\ ,j,

- - rs ~

S +.e ~ I SWh$ $ E 'g I ci

sess, ea 45 a

g"y 4 sm, - .p Ig E 4 u sie 4 aa # ws ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - - - -,, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ n O C a.. I*.h b& 9o 9 k& EE 9 YlE lj ';5 $3 e,c

= =

$$ h Y k, O ~ 4 +* 4; 0 km b . sus, - 2 k 'g<4f* 14 y-0%51 g 4

.

.$. f s

Q g 5 t A ,kb sne, - i E la O ea $3 %'l sur, - 6 ? 4 3 k u 4.a ws PROPOSED FSAR REVISION l t { l l l t 1 I L

_ _ _,Z_ _ _ _,,, _ { { ~ " 96AF[1. EF-2-FSAR The shore barrier, including the ends, consists of a rubble-mound structure using an armor cover of stone. A toe elevation of g 572.0 feet, a crest elevation of 583.0 feet, and a lakeward-side .. I 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 feet, allow-ing for 3 feet of scour. Hudson's stability equation was used for determining the weights of armor units (Reference 21). Stability coefficients (Kp) 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 coef-ficient was used. An armor cover was calculated using rough angular stone (density, 165 lb/ft3) placed on a 2:1 slope. Using a design toe elevation of 569.0 feet, the maximum significant breaking wave height (Fig-ure 2.4-14) is found to be 12.2 feet during the probable maximum storm event. The possibility of some stone displacement (6 to 8 percent) was allowed for, with any displaced stones being replaced after the storm passed. A stability coefficient of 5.0 was used 4 for two layers of stone placed randomly. This results in an armor layer 7.5 feet thick using 3.3-to 5-ton stone,@as shown in i Figure 2.4-22. The Mnimum-requir4I@ secondary layer -61Ma n 3.5 feet thick with 600- to 1000-pound stone, while the filter h'layWsl.5 feet thick, consisting of'30- to 50-pound stone. ~~ l Below the filter layer is 1 foot of crushed rock (20 pounds and - I under). ) i Where the plant grade elevation slopes from 580.0 to 583.0 feet, to the north of the Fermi 2 location, the slope is protected against the possibility of breaking 5.4-foot waves during the s maximum stillwater level. Protection of the slope is achieved 4 by lining it with suitable rock. . During the course of safety evaluation review, the NRC requested additional information regarding soil data and slope stability 52 analysis of the shore barrier. This information was provided to the NRC in Detroit Edison letters EF2-53866 (June 23, 1981), l l EF2-53920 (July 1, 1981), and EF2-53951 (July 13, 1981). INf4&T jy. 2.4.6 Probable Maximum Tsunami Flooding The Fermi site is located in an area of the United States desig-I nated as having potentially minor seismic activity. Any tsunami activity in Lake Erie could only be generated by local seismic I 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 sim-ilar phenomenon observed has 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. } t 2.4-26 Amendment 52 - December 1983 .-----4.m.- - - - -. ..-,-,,-,,r .------.,.-..--,.-,,.--rwv., ,,-,,,.m.--w-w- ---,,-w., ,v.,-, .--,,,-,-,,,,w-,-w,--y..e.,-----,,--+.w--,.-.-,--er---

N 4lf(A.{ & Of" h J' g k E S ![ =t s rr i e E-A *g !d ]! g[! sb i !E l ,$1ll !!!il 4 n j !I IQl ill e1 I fili I li ' I'l l! !j! <iN P ~ Z. _.

! _. r '!plil.j ;l i g-F.1 i,.p m -.y

%,p! i !!,1 ;,!g l l,!,?p M a W fi l i'i - hil "/ i l [I!t ! ! ! j 1.a m cxkl ,} s 1 ~ 8AI k. -k, d i !;-- f J,dl r

7:

r. r, 7:_ 5 _g. ..p,;.r. .m y y mp g ,4 _.i e., .s .,,, 4 3j

}

fr . v,- t,-g -r 4 v -)$ my 7 -. o )~ ' - ~ '

~n I'

k j l

? /. ~

k G F

t -n{/thi - 4 g' 4 1- ,i i i t 3 !!!! )! [, 1' '. dr -- h. 3. __;,. l D - t q_s_.9l;O / g 7\\ j ..-,d--.=---- '- y_y^--5-$s _1-f," .cCJ i y -+---a.= , a. -,,.g j j pl j -====-i f ii t, I iiit i [ l ..I l/ l l l l I I

FCd-I'

^^' 9 Ja a a /'a s 24.s,7) idG6RT

( AT e<VP of 1lf d IN Gf 4 C fs.arJ of-rpfg u ng @ -14!9 S plo g G. 15 A 812stot R6VAAl/O 90 ^14-Vhe.DATwMS sG7wf4A l0 h S-S o IL.f ' m es ' AS - P(S/ 4ACW ~ CON FIC*URAmod. TH6 VA A> A-f v?M HA /C SLfA p w M <dT&2 JN A S - 150 l t.( C 0Nfl 4UltAY FIQ. g 4 -2.'Z.. AA G V A G A Tt0 M OF TH G. 11A S lbG4d CON W cff3 'fo 90 C'4sAA4/ f 'fMA [ -fy t. AS-81IIL"f V GodhfarthrrorJ ot fis C-StfoAL. S&MI Et2. Is /% c c 4 f r b l% L L A!UO TMAf IT Mi.d'{S /TS INT 0 /VDsp 5(sCVic 4. Sdul/R6/L14N[f.( RE F, S A Rse*N T4 J.u.< Oy A c rYc.z. 6 t-S 244S' UAt c o lSlY9 D A sti C 7 //baild A CTvt, z, 9t30 0 l Q4-7 g tj,,,j i vos on /t-rTEoL Efl - 72 oyo O.s 7. u '/ssjy.g $}}

ML20113E228

Contents

Text

Dear Mr. Youngblood:

Reference:

Subject:

Dear Mr. DeDaeke:

4.0 CONCLUSION

Subject:

Reference:

Subject:

Dear Mr. Noble:

Subject:

= =

Navigation menu

ML20113E228

Text

Dear Mr. Youngblood:

Reference:

Subject:

Dear Mr. DeDaeke:

4.0 CONCLUSION

Subject:

Reference:

Subject:

Dear Mr. Noble:

Subject:

= =

Navigation menu

Search