ML20197C852
| ML20197C852 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 09/09/1998 |
| From: | Rom D NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Bryant R FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9809140252 | |
| Download: ML20197C852 (30) | |
Text
..
September 9, 1998 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Atlanta Regional Office gf y/g.( 9729 ATTN: Mr. Robert L. Bryant, P.E.
l 3125 Presidential Parkway, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30340-3700 RE:
DAM SAFETY INSPECTION REPORT - MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Dear Mr. Bryant:
Per your request, a copy of the most recent inspection report for the Standby Nuclear Service Water Pond Dam at the referenced site is enclosed. The report is provided for your use in preparing for the next inspection at the site which is scheduled for October 14,1998.
l Please call if I may be of further service.
l Sincerely,
[Signedby]
I Daniel S. Rom, P.E.
l Geotechnical Engineer Uranium Recovery Branch Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards l
Enclosure:
As stated l
DISTRIBUTION:
FILE CENTER PUBLIC URB r/f i
l DOCUMENT NAME: S:\\DWM\\ URB \\DSR\\MCQUIRE.LET OFC URB NAME DRom b b L
l DATE 9/9 /98 i
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY peO(y 1L3Cd7 9809140252 990909 PDR ADOCK 05000369
- a p perpf G
[e 3 9 -.
j gay s
i w
I OPERATION INSPECTION REPORT for THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
Inspection by THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Atlanta Regional Office l
Date of inspection November 15, 1994 i
Dam (name)
Standby Nuclear Service Water Pond Dam l
Location McGuire Nuclear Station Mecklenbura North Carolina i
(Facility)
(County)
(State) l NRC Licensed Project William B. McGuire Nuclear Station l
Licensee Duke Power Comoany l
Features of the Dam and Impoundment Inspected Embankment.
l spillway, reservoir, and outlet channels Inspected by Robert L.
Bryant Accompanied by Messrs. Robert Criso and Donald Hyatt (FERC-ARO);
l R. E. Shewmaker and Bob Rothman (NRC-HO): Georae Maxwell (NRC Site Resident); Mark Hunt and Bill Maynard (Duke Power Company)
Weather Clear, temperatures in the 70's (21*C) l Summarv l
This inspection revealed no conditions that might be considered an immediate threat to the safety and permanence of the project structures.
However, it was observed that the wave runup protection had not been completed during original construction.
Based on discussions with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) representatives and licensee employees, a review of available records, and observations made during the inspection, several recommendations for maintenance and inspection Were made.
Recommendations include expansion of the inspection and monitori&C program.
A complete list of recommendations is included in the text of the report.
Submitted SEP 0 61995
))/ Y Robert L.
Bryant, P.E.
i l
- Proiect Description The - McGuire Nuclear Station Standby Nuclear Service Water (SNSW) pond was constructed to provide an adequate supply of water to dissipate waste heat rejected during a reactor unit loss of cooling accident and/or unit cooldown.
The project is located approximately 17 miles (27 km) north-northwest of Charlotte, North Carolina.
The site is about 0.75 miles (1.2 km) east of the Catawba River at the Cowans Ford dam.
Overflow from the SNSW pond discharges into a wastewater pond immediately downstream of the dam. Overflow from the wastewater pond discharges into the Catawba River downstream of the Cowans Ford dam.
McGuire Nuclear Station is operated by Duke Power Company.
The SNSW pond was constructed by building a dam.across a narrow valley, creating a lake of approximately 35 acres (0.14 km )
i 2
2 at the base of a 171 acre (0.69 km ) watershed (drainage area).
The principal structures consist of a homogeneous earth fill dam (The earth fill is generally classified as silty or MH material.),
drop inlet type spillway, cooling water intake, and inflow / recharge system.
An entrance road to the nuclear plant follows the crest along the top of the dam.
A railroad is supported by a berm across the downstream face of the dam.
Table 1 lists the pertinent statistical data for the dam.
Figure 1 is a plan view of the dam and major features at the time of the inspection.
Figure 2 is a l
cross section view of the dam at its maximum height.
i I
]
~3-TABLE 1 Pertinent Data Reservoir Dra inage area............................... 171 acres ( 0. 6 9 km )
2 Estimated average annual. inflow from rainfall on drainage area I
6 3
..................................... 2 7 2 acre-f eet ( 0. 3 4 x10 m )
Estimated average annual surface evaporation
..................................... 16 5 a cre-f eet ( 0. 2 0 x10' m )
3 Normal water surf ace elevation.............. 740. 0 feet (255. 6 m)
Surface area 0 el. 740.0 ft. (255. 6 m)..... 34. 9 acres (0.14 km )
{
2 Volume 9 el. 740.0 f t.
(255. 6 m)..... 578 acre-feet (0.71x10 m) 6 3 Usable volume, between intake, el.
702.5 ft. (214.1 m), and el. 740.0 ft. (2 55. 6 m).............. 566 acre-feet (0. 7 0x10' m )
3 Maximum storm surcharge.......................
- 2. 5 feet (0. 76 m)
DAB Type........................... Homogeneous earth fill (Class 1),
designed for normal and seismic loadings.
Upstream slope Above normal pool elevation of 740 feet (255. 6 m)...... 1.5H:1V Below normal pool elevation of 740 feet (255.6 m)...... 2.5H:1V Downstream slope Above railroad berm.................................... 2.0H:1V
-Below railroad berm....................................
2.5H:1V l
NOTE: The elevation of the railroad berm varies from approxi-l mately 728 feet (222 m) near the left abutment to the natural ground elevation atop the right
- abutment, approximately 747 feet (228 m).
Crest elevation............................. 747. 0 feet (227. 7 m)
Parapet wall elevation...................... 748. 5 feet (228.1 m)
Maximum height.................................. 60 feet (18. 3 m)
Length at crest................................ 12 6 0 feet ( 3 8 4 m)
Width at crest.................................. 3 6 f eet ( 11. 0 m)
Width of downstream railroad berm................ 31 feet (9. 4 m)
Slope protection............ Riprap on upstream slope and grass on downstream slope spillway, reinforced concrete drop inlet type Drop inlet interior dimensions.... 6 feet (1.83 m) by 6.67 feet
.......................................................(2.03m)
Crest elevation............................. 7 4 0 feet ( 2 2 5. 6 m)
Outlet pipe construction.......... steel wall, 3/8 inch (9. 5 mm)
]
Outlet pipe diameter.......................... 54 inch (1. 37 m)
~
Outlet pipe length........................... 2 2 6 feet ( 68. 9 m) l l-L l'i,--.
~.--- _
. TABLE 1 Pertinent Data (Cont'd)
Ha zard Po t en t ia l............................................. Low's NATDAM N0.................................................. NC 8 3101 NOTE: All elevations are mean sea level.
t l
I I
i l
l 4
4
_a
..,a 4
L 4-A
+C*
.a.m--.m.---
4 2
h O
gg
+
lf#r il a
D l
pl
(
a
/e' e
y h!l$
R see l
f g
agn l
g g,
/
=z/
u N,
/
s
/
/
ij
/
'\\*$
(
2 11 i
as af
~
~
/
a j
n
/
=
C Entrance Road EL 748.5 (Min.)
Guard RaR l
Concrete Dralnege Ditch
- 3. El. 747.0 P.M.F. W.S. EL 746.9 1b Normal W.S. EL 740.0 1L_
El. Varles 1.5 1
Standby Nuclear Seivices Water Pond Paved Ditch R Tracks 2.5
'I I
Group t Fitt See Detall B; Duke I
1 See DetaR A; Duke Drawing No. MC-1022-7 Drawing No. MC-1022-7 Filtered Blanket Drain Original Ground Prepared Foundation H112 Top of Weathered f - - - - --- -~ ~ ~
Trench Drain 0.02 TMDC71 ~
U"90]op { Weathered Rock-El 679.0t ock E 69 3 &L77)' ~ -
MW[- --
M/(7Tyg, _
jH90 - Top of Sound Rock EL 643.0
-H113 - Top of Sound Rock EL 677.0
~ _ ' ' --
H112 - Top of Sound Rock EL 610 0 DQ- -
TRIGON ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA SCALE:
1 *= 4 0' APPROVED BY DRAWN BY MEJ DATE:
08/14/90 McGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA SECTION A-A SNSW POND DAM 2 W33-4 FIGURE 2
IP
. A.
Safety of the Proiset.
1.
- Dams, Dikes.
and Accurtenant Structures.
All l
accessible areas of the dam, abutments, and spillway were inspected by walking.
The reservoir and upstream slope were inspected by l
boat.
No conditions were observed that might be considered an immediate threat to the safety and permanence of the project structures.
l a.
Standby Nuclear Service Water Pond Dam.
The upstream slope of the dam is protected by large (approximate size 250 to 750 pound (115 to 340 kg)) dumped riprap (Photograph 1).
The riprap surface created by dumping is very irregular and makes it difficult to detect any indication of movement of the upstream slope such as sliding, sloughing, or subsidence.
As-built drawings for the upstream slope specify a 1 foot (0.3 m) thickness of crusher run filter (stone) and a 2 feet (0.6 m) thickness of 3 to 24 inch (7 to 60 cm) stone as bedding material for the riprap.
The drawings show the upper surface of the bedding material placed near the top 6:; the parapet wall.
l Field observations indicated bedding material 2 to 3 feet (0.6 to 0.9 m, below the top of the wall.
Either the material was placed at that level or some " beaching" or sloughing of the bedding j
material has occurred as the result of wave action.
The purpose of the bedding material is to provide a filter between the riprap and l
the earth dam.
Washing out of the bedding / filter material removes l
l the protection between the earth dam and the riprap and can expose i
the earth fill to the forces of erosion.
The owner should i
l
- ~ -_. -
. ccntinua to monitor this zone to detect any signs of erosion of the carth fill.
The crest and roadway along the top of the dam appeared to be in good condition, with no indication of cracking or st bsidence (Photograph 2).
The parapet wall along the top of the dam also appeared to be in generally good condition with some minor cracking (Photographs 2 and 3).
One parapet wall construction joint has opened approximately 0.75 inches (19 mm) on the downstream side.
The open joint is located near the left abutment where the parapet wall changes direction (Photographs 5 and 6).
Observations made during the inspection noted that the parapet wall ends abruptly near the right abutment and that the possibility exists for an "end run" during the probable maximum flood (PMF) with the design wave runup conditions.
Wind-driven flood waters passing around the right end of the parapet wal) could result in erosion and eventual failure of the downstream slop 2.
The downstream slope appeared to be in good condition with a well established grass cover (Photographs 7 through 11) except for some rutting in several isolated areas. These ruts were apparently made by moving equipment (Photograph 12).
No indications of sliding, sloughing or subsidence of the downstream slope were observed.
Two wet areas were observed downstream of the toe of the dam. The first was located between the toe and spillway outlet channel, just downstream of a wooded area (Photograph 15).
The other was located in a flat area to the left (south) of the toe drain outlet channel (Photographs 16 and 21).
According to the
. - - - - ~ _. - -.._ _ - -.. -.
licensee's representatives, both areas are known to remain wet for several days after a rain.
This condition can mask seepage thtt could be present. Both areas can be reworked to improve drainage.
once the drainage is improved, the areas can be inspected for indications of seepage.
The toe drain system appeared to be functioning as designed (Photographs 17 and 18).
Effluent from the drain outlet was clear and the flow volume was consistent with the historical record.
No evidence of seepage was observed along the toe of the dam.
Records reviewed prior to the inspection indicate that. a portion of the natural silty soils in the foundation became water softened during construction (foundation preparation) and had to be removed.
A review of the as-built drawings revealed that the the extent of the foundation soil removal and replacement -were not documented on the drawings.
b.
Spillway.
The spillway is a reinforced concrete L
drop inlet structure located on the upstream slope near the right l
. abutment (Photograph 13)'
Overflow passes into the structure and through a 54 inch (1.37 m) steel pipe to the downstream side of the dam.
Water flows from the outlet structure (Photograph 14) down a concrete. lined outlet channel (Photograph 15).
The spillway, outlet structure, and outlet channel appeared to be stable and in go'od condition.
The steel pipe was not inspected due to the volume of water passing through.
I c.
Abutments.
The upstream abutments are protected l
by riprap and the downstream abutments have a well established l
I i
. grass cover.
No seepage was observed during the inspection of the downstream abutments.
No indications of slope instability, such as l
l sliding, sloughing, or subsidence were observed.
d.
Reservoir.
The shoreline of the reservoir was marked by some erosion of the steeper slopes (Photograph 19).
The erosion appears to have reached a reasonable state of equilibrium, i.
e.
most of the initial erosion of the shoreline due to wave action appears to have occurred.
No accumulation of trash or debris was observed in the reservoir.
The recharge system providing make up water from Lake Norman is located in the upper right (north) shoreline of the reservoir and discharges below the normal water surface of the reservoir.
Discharge pipes are located in the concrete bulkhead shown in the center of Photograph 20.
The intake structure for the nuclear service water is located upstream of the dam in the center of the reservoir and is completely submerged.
It's location is marked by a surface buoy.
2.
Instrumentation.
Project instrumentation includes surface monuments, piezometers, and a weir.
Monuments are located along the top of the parapet wall (Photograph 4) and along the downstream side of the railroad berm (Photograph 22) to monitor horizontal and vertical movemaint.
Photograph 3 shows a survey reference point located atop the parapet wall near the right abutment.
A V-notch weir measures flow downctream of the toe drain outlet structure (Photographs 17 and 21).
Foundation piezometers are located along the downstream slope (Photograph 23).
Monuments l
l
l e
are surveyed annually.
Piezometers, foundation drain, and weir readings'are made and recorded monthly.
No anomalies or changing trends were revealed by field observations or instrumentation data reviews made during the inspection.
3.
Hazard Potential Classification.
The dam is located l
approximately 0.75 miles (1.2 km) from the Catawba River.
The only structure between the dam and the river is a wastewater pond and small dam.
Failure of the SNSW dam would release flood waters through the wastewater pond and into the Catawba River basin.
The increase in volume of flow into the Catawba River is not considered significant enough to upgrade the hazard classification.
The SNSW dam is therefore classified as a " Low" hazard dam.
No conditions were observed during this inspection that would warrant a change of classification.
4.
Consultant's Safety Inspection Report.
The most recent five-year independent consultant's inspection was made by j
Trigon Engineering Consultants, Inc. of Charlotte, North Carolina on July 17, 1990.
The report was dated August 30, 1990.
The consultants found the project to be in " good visual condition".
The report stated that "There are no obvious signs of imminent instability or serious inadequacy of any of the project works that would require immediate or emergency remediation."
and "The ma.intenance and annual inspections performed for the project appear to be adequate in terms of their effectiveness."
The report also stated that "No further study of the structural stability or hydrologic safety is warranted at this time."
l W
g p-9 y-.
g m
y
,.-n.
l 5.
Licensee's InsDection Procram.
The following table summarizes the licensee's inspection program:
l Inspection Frequency Performed By Last Inspection Visual Monthly DPC-EMG Pond Elevation Monthly DPC Piezometers Monthly DPC Seepage (toe drain)
Monthly DPC Monuments Annually DPC 11/08/94 Engineering Annually DPC 11/03/94 Engineering / Safety S-Year Consultant 08/30/90 DPC - Duke Power Company EMG - Enviromental Monitoring Group The inspection schedule appears to be appropriate for the project size and complexity.
Several recommendations concerning the scope of the inspections are included in the " Findings and Followup Actions" portion of this report.
B.
Operation and Maintenance.
The project appaared to be efficiently operated and well maintained.
The reservoir level was approximately 740.1 feet (225.6 m), or slightly above the spillway intake level.
The toe drain discharge is at elevation 691 feet (210.6 m).
Tailwater elevation (surface elevation of the wastewater pond) below the toe drain was 690 feet (210.3 m).
1.
Dams, Dikes, and Appurtmant structures. The upstream riprap appeared to be in generally good condition except that the riprap was not evenly distributed, having some high spots and some i
low spots.
There appeared to be some " beaching" effect of the I
L riprap bedding, as indicated by the fact that the bedding was 2 to
. 3 feet (0.3 to 0.6 m) below the top of the parapet wall.
The riprap appeared to be free of vegetative growth.
Downstream slopes had a well established grass cover, but had some rutting and bare areas, apparently caused by nowing equipment.
2.
Spillway Gates and 8tandby Power.
The project has no spillway gates.
The spillway is a reinforced concrete drop inlet.
The overflow passes through the inlet, through a steel pipe, and out of the dam through a reinforced concrete outlet structure into a concrete lined outlet channel.
Inspection of the channel revealed that joint material was missing from some of the construction joints. This material needs to be replaced to prevent erosion of the supporting soils and undermining of the concrete in the channel.
3.
Power Plants.
There is no hydro plant at this site.
The pond is used for standby cooling water for the nuclear power plant.
4.
Reservoir.
Areas of the reservoir observed during this inspection appear to be clean and free of debris.
Some indications of prior erosion were observed (Photograph 19).
The erosion appears to have stabilized, but should be checked as part of the annual inspections.
Operation and maintenance of the reservoir appear to be in accordance with good engineering practice.
5.
Records.
Design / construction /as-built drawings and operation records are maintained by Duke Power Company at the site.
l l
_14 Design / construction records are also maintained at the NRC-Headquarter offices in Washington, DC.
6.
Emercency Action Plan.
Since the SNSW pond dam is classified as a " Low" hazard dam, no emergency actio plan is required.
l C.
Environmental, Public Use, and Safety.
No environmental, public use, or safety problems were noted during the inspection.
The dam and reservoir are open to the public.
Signs are posted to prohibit fishing from the dam.
A boat launch area is located on the north shore of the reservoir.
Existing public safety devices appear adequate and are properly maintained. No additional actions to protect life and property were required as a result of the inspection.
D.
Findinos and Followup Actions.
The inspection team observed no conditions that might adversely affect +ke immediate safety of the project.
A meeting was held at the site on the morning of November 16, 1994 and the following observations and recommendations that FERC will make to NRC were discussed with NRC and DPC representatives:
A review of the project documents revealed that wet silts o
in the foundation were removed and replaced during construction.
The as-built drawings should be updated to indicate the extent of removal and replacement.
The dumped rip rap on the upstream slope exhibits a ragged O
surface.
We recommend rearranging the surface layer of l
the riprap to obtain a more uniform surface.
This will i
. make it easier to identify any movement of the upstream slope and will provide better protection for the bedding materials.
The parapet wall ends abruptly near the right abutment.
o Observations at the site and a review of available records failed to confirm that the PMF with the maximum wave runup would not overtop the. dam in an "end run" around the end of the wall.
The licensee should verify' that crest elevations exceed the top of the parapet wall or the parapet wall should be extended to protect the right abutment.
The construction joint in the parapet wall where the crest o
i meets the left abutment has opened approximately 0.75 inches (1.9 cm).
This crack should be monitored as part of the regular inspection program.
O Wet areas downstream of the toe should be regraded to drain.
Once surface water is removed, these areas can be inspected for seepage.
Two wet areas were noted during the inspection; one was downstream of the trees between the spillway outlet channel and toe of the dam; the other was the flat area along the left (south) side of the toe drain outlet channel.
We recommend internal inspection of the spillway's 54 inch o
l (1.37 m) outlet pipe during annual maintenance inspections.
(
o.
A survey point should be added to the spillway outlet
. structure to detect any movement due to possible piping around the pipe and/or outlet structure.
o Replace missing joint filler in the concrete lined spillway outlet channel.
O The licensee should consider raising the V-notch weir in the toe drain outlet channel by a few inches.
The weir',s current configuration places the bottom of the "V"
very near tailwater elevation, The licensee should check the ailt level in the foundation o
drain outlet well as part of the regular inspection program.
O Graphical presentation of horizontal and vertical monument movement should include original measurements.
Scales should be consistent and should be of such magnitude as to highlight anomalous readings.
The licensee should examine alternatives to current mowing O
practica to minimize disturbance (rutting) of the downstream slope.
A. linear depression was observed in the downstream slope O
running from top to bottom.
Drawings indicate a pipeline installed in a trench and backfilled. This area should be inspected on a regular basis and backfilled as necessary.
The elevation of the wastewater pond (tailwater) should be o
recorded during monthly instrumentation readings.
o Survey reference points should be periodically checked against permanent bench marks away from the dam.
I I
a s--,,m_w a
a-
.o u,-
a e
i 1
r.*
ad (1 5m
% 2O8 n
ma
'B3 gBB 9:)
g s:3
$E5$
a 2
m e=t t
x E
35 h
o 8
$E mia o
' ?,
p h-e i
o d
g
' /
/
3 e
Y u
/
/
h E
s N\\
O 5
E q
Y s
/
lN\\,
,~.=
w1 N
/z ks' x-i
- ~ _ _. _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
I -
>:;wn /
f h(d?f6 M. whdh,. 5fvY '.yNUh)
I','
k.
/ *_
(if. ';i:.Q., "h,$;;W
,..r:t;& -
+
- %,m '.y_,>,,w,;g;g; a '
' ' +
t at l
W N'
-~
9e !
v L ;p
['I,' ' J*k.I\\i y g: t ;yg i
Photograph 1 11/15/94 Upstream slope of dam as seen from left abutment.
1 1
d
~n;,
~ ~ :.m EJ " % 2'!,, y '. [jg..
j a
1 J
1 A
Photograph 2 11/15/94 Crest of dam as seen from near the right abutment.
-vw-
,,ew
,cy w--
r
- - ~ -
m._..
j j
2 19 l
j 1
i 2
..ap t
1 l
i s
4 4'.)
I g
-. t :... -
i 3
4,.
j t.
.s
.e.
+
n.
5<-
e
- g 4.5 k r.
g'
}, 4 y (
j Photograph 3 11/15/94 Survey reference point on top of parapet wall.
ii e
o l
I t
l 7
Q
,r i
?
l G,
9 r
~-
'~
~
Photograph 4 11/15/94 Monument M1A on top of parapet wall.
3 i
1 4
i i
(
t l
20-l i
l l
5 l
. 's a
r' Photograph 5 11/15/94 Joint in parapet wall at left abutment.
l*
\\
,s l
I l
s w wwpg..
n y
i i
l 4
i
+
(
'g t
~
'd j
'l I
s v.
q N
I i
1 j
j
?
l Photograph 6 11/15/94 Shift in joint of concrete ditch lining at parapet kdll.
Note standing water in bottom of ditch.
4 3
- &&hpf'W"'
=.
- -...,
- nw Photograph 7 11/15/94 Downstream slope at railroad berm as seen from right abutment.
(?b,
.se'
'O
<A.
v v-8 g emp-e 7.,, # ~
tP Photograph 8 11/15/94 Downstream slope at railroad berm as seen from left abutment.
~ ~..
- .== -_.
Photograph 9 11/15/94 Railroad
- berm, spillway outlet
- channel, and wastewater pond as seen from the top of the dam.
3,,
7
- V
+
-3.
4
.,, 3 A
w I
e k
u
(
3 j
t i
I d
Photograph 10 11/15/94 Concrete ditch and invert to culvert under railroad berm.
l
+
. 1 i
s l
~. s.
s g
I4
.,e
~.44+df) 4.m.
.,.. i' M; **g c r
.,s i
l 1
i l
Photograph 11 11/15/94 View toward left abutment from near the right abutment.
l i
l i
l 4
i s
i I
i i
i Photograph 12 11/15/94 2
j Ruts in downstream slope caused by mowing l
equipment.
4.....
)
k J
s r
,.j,.
,(
.p..
^qc.....
g i
i Photograph 13 11/15/94 i
l Spillway intake (drop inlet).
4 I
g,,- $ % %~
a.
s,- -(,,p 'y.
, 7 ;I g 4
g.. - -
,['
~.'7 g
i
'~Ah i
t I
n t f
g4 l
Photograph 14 11/15/94 Spillway outlet structure.
l l
l l
' ^ ~ = - ~ " ' '
j r.,
j o !
I6
/
N
=
i i
I l
l i
l 1
?
Photograph 15 11/15/94 Concrete lined spillway outlet channel.
s t
l 1
i l
l l
f Photograph 16 11/15/94 Toe drain outlet channel.
)
l J
}
l 1
s
~2 s
s,-
4 g - -
g s.'
- "Q'-
' h y s ;u:z.$. y
.r.,
D al a
.1 Photograph 17 11/15/94 Toe drain outlet structure, V-notch Weir, and outlet channel.
F
,,F C-I i
Photograph 18 11/15/94 Toe drain outlet structure.
ll
$I 4.
' j-e Photograph 19 11/15/94 Shoreline erosion on south (left) side of reservoir.
i 1: p s
s-Photograph 20 11/15/94 Recharge inlet located below concrete bulkhead at conter of photograph.
+ -
e i
l i
)
4 1
i 1
Photograph 21 11/15/94 Toe drain outlet channel and V-notch weir.
I i
g - -
s N
~'l l
)
'r L [
W,7' J
i
., b'c.) '
5,
, s
(
,.r.
g S-b*
I
(
b N
'? i
. wsk.
2
_._.s Photograph 22 11/15/94 Typical monument located along downstream side of railroad berm.
Ql
~
7 4'
^'
=
0 s
f
\\
Photograph 23 11/15/94 Piezometer DP6 and observation well DW6.
cc:
D2SI RIMS /RMC RLB/rlb:jb:cw filename: A:\\NRCMCGUI.095
..